ML17349A969

Enclosuasp Efficiency Review Memo Final

ML17349A969
Person / Time
Issue date:	02/21/2018
From:	Robert Elliott, John Nakoski NRC/NRR/DIRS/IOEB, NRC/RES/DRA/PRAB
To:	Hackett E, Brian Mcdermott Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML17349A967	List: ML17349A968 ML17349A969 ML17349A970 ML17349A971
References
Download: ML17349A969 (14)

Text

.

ASP and OpE Programs Briefing for NRR and RES Management on Recommendations for Program Efficiencies and

Enhanced Interactions John A. Nakoski, Chief Rob Elliott, Chief Probabilistic Risk Assessment Branch Operating Experience Branch Division of Risk Analysis Division of Inspection and Regional Support Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (301-415-2480, john.Nakoski@nrc.gov) (301-415-8585, Robert.Elliott@nrc.gov)

Key Contributors: Harold Chernoff, NRR Kevin Coyne, RES Rebecca Sigmon, NRR Eric Thomas, NRR 2

Outline of Presentation

Background

Deputy Office Director Recommendations Areas of Specific Review Recommendations Resource Impacts Organizational Options Key Messages Path Forward 2

Background

Follow-on to Previous NRR Review Team effort to assess ASP Program Deputy Office Director of NRR and RES requested to evaluate recommendations further and report back to RISC with recommendations for next steps Deputy Office Directors concluded ASP Program adds value Additional effort is needed to improve ASP Program effectiveness, efficiency, and timeliness Responsible NRR and RES Branch Chiefs directed to assess program to improve efficiency and use of ASP Program results 3

Deputy Office Director Recommendations Identify Resource Efficiencies Through Process or Threshold Changes; Identify How to Use ASP Results in Other NRC Processes; and Ensure the Timeliness of ASP Analyses to Meet the Needs of the Associated Customer Processes.

4

Areas of Specific Review ASP Screening Criteria Process Efficiencies ASP Program Inputs to Other Programs Continued Focus on the Most Safety Significant Issues Resource Impacts Organizational Options for ASP Program Functions Timeline to Implement Recommendations 5

Recommendations (1 of 3)

1. ASP Screening Criteria

a. Evaluate and update ASP screening criteria

b. Use a smaller team of experienced ASP risk analysts

c. Conduct proficiency training for ASP risk analysts and support training of other risk analyst in event and condition analysis

d. Update RES Office Instruction (OI TEC-005) 6

Recommendations (2 of 3)

2. Process Efficiencies

a. Maintain the existing process for ASP Program consideration of SDP results.

b. Maintain ASP Program timeliness goals

c. Ensure ASP Program analysts routinely participate in OpE Clearinghouse meetings

d. Increase ASP Program outreach efforts through appropriate OpE Clearinghouse communication activities 7

Recommendations (3 of 3)

3. ASP Program Inputs to Other NRC Programs

a. No additional recommendations

4. Continued Focus on the Most Safety Significant Issues

a. No additional recommendations 8

Resource Impacts Short Term Longer Term Recommendation Activity FTE Impact FTE impacts (FY2018 only) (FY2019 and beyond) 1.a Evaluate ASP screening process 0.1 FTE n/a 1.b Redistribute ASP workload to smaller ~0 FTE -0.1 FTE cadre of experienced analysts 1.c Enhance ASP analyst training ~0 FTE 0.1 FTE 1.d Update RES OI TEC-005 < 0.1 FTE -0.2 FTE 2.a Continue leveraging SDP results in ASP n/a 0 FTE Program 2.b Ensure ASP Program provides timely n/a 0 FTE results 2.c Participate in OpE Clearinghouse 0.1 FTE 0.1 FTE 2.d Increase outreach efforts n/a 0.1 FTE Net Resource Impact < 0.3 FTE 0 FTE 9

Organizational Options ASP Program should remain in RES Short term organizational disruptions associated with moving Program would not be offset by efficiency gains The current matrixed approach to inter-Office collaboration does not create significant inefficiencies or barriers Relocation of ASP staff would reduce efficiency of other active RES programs (SPAR, SAPHIRE, OpE data collection)

Reorganization of staff would result in short term inefficiencies and staff disruption Implementation of the recommendations better integrates ASP into broader NRC OpE community Reduces the potential for organizational inefficiencies by leveraging OpE Clearinghouse activities Improved outreach effort make ASP Program products more impactful The ASP Program remains independent of licensing and oversight functions 10

Key Messages Identify Resource Efficiencies Through Process or Threshold Changes Screening Criteria can be improved to reduce resources used to analyze events under the ASP Program Process Efficiencies can be achieved to support use of ASP Program results in other NRC processes without increased resources Identify How to Use ASP Results in Other NRC Processes ASP Program and SDP Program already well integrated ASP Program and OpE COE can mutually benefit through enhanced interactions Ensure the Timeliness of ASP Analyses to Meet the Needs of the Associated Customer Processes ASP Program timeliness has been improved to support Agency Action Review Meeting ASP Program risk analysts participation in OpE Clearinghouse meetings supports timely use of risk information in assessing operating experience information 11

Path Forward Recommendation Activity Timeframe for Implementation 1.a Evaluate ASP screening process 6 months from approval 1.b Redistribute ASP workload to smaller Immediately cadre of experienced analysts 1.c Enhance ASP analyst training Immediately 1.d Update RES OI TEC-005 6 months from completion of recommendation 1.a 2.a Continue leveraging SDP results in No change in current practices ASP Program 2.b Ensure ASP Program provides timely AARM timeliness already being results implemented 2.c Participate in OpE Clearinghouse Within 2 weeks of approval 2.d Increase outreach efforts Within 2 weeks of approval 12

Questions?

13