ML20214A744

Summary of ACRS Regional & IE Programs Subcommittee 870312 Meeting in Washington,Dc Re Activities Under Preview of IE Headquarters Ofc.Viewgraphs Encl

ML20214A744
Person / Time
Issue date:	04/08/1987
From:	Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
To:	Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
References
ACRS-2493, NUDOCS 8705190572
Download: ML20214A744 (25)

Text

.

TI'

~

06RS- M 99 i por 5//67 pn gi DATE ISSUED: 4/8/87 ACPS REGIONAL AND I&E PROGRAMS

1. /77 SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING MARCH 12, 1987 WASHINGTON, DC Purpose The purpcse of the meeting is to continue review of the activities under the preview of the I&E Headquarters O'ffice.

Artendees ACRS NRC I&E C. Michelson (Acting Chairman) J. Partlow G. Reed, Merr.i'er B. Grimes C. Wylie, Member H. Miller P. Boehnert, Staff .

K. Raglin B. Beach E. Jordan Meeting Highlights, Agreements and Recuests

1. C. Michelson noted the pending Agency reorganization with the subsequent abolishment of the I&E Office.

1

2. J. Partlow introduced the I&E presentors. He said I&E would focus on the current functions of I&E and where th'ese functions would reside in the new Organization. NRR and AE0D would pick up the lion's share of responsibilities with NMSS taking the remainder.

Key changes include:

• Enforcement moves as an entire Office under J. Taylor in the Office of the EDO.

The I&E Division of Emergency Preparedness and Engineering Response - Emergency Preparedness and Operations will go to NRR. The Division of Operational Assessment will go to AE0D 8705190572 87040s A" 3 PDR Cectified Ey -

Regional and I&E Minutes March 12, 1987

• The Division of QA goes to the Division of Licensee Perfor-mance and Quality Evaluation in NRR.

The Vendor Program Branch will also move to NRR.

The Division of Inspection Programs will be split between NMSS and NPR.

The IIT Program will be lodged under AE0D.

Inspection Policy and related Administration will be moved to a new Staff function in NRR.

G. Reed asked if the reorganization will impair the inspector /

utility communication channels. J. Partlow noted that efforts are underway, primarily through a series of workshops, to improve NRC/ Licensee communications.

3. B. Beach discussed the I&E Enforcement Program. He noted the purpose (Figure I) and the current organization (Figures 2 and 3).

Mr. J. Lieberman will assume authority for enforcement under the new reorganization.

Figures 4 and 5 show the enforcement history for the 1984-86.

Beach noted that the enforcement action rate has " doubled in 1987. In response to Mr. Michelson, Mr. Beach said the increase in enforcement actions is not seen in any one area. In response to Mr. Reed, I&E said there has been a significant increase in the number of security-related violations seen. Mr. Reed opined that he is skeptical that the security violations are genuine in safety significance (i.e., the security forces may be " building empries").

Regional and I&E Minutes March 12, 1987 In response to Mr. Michelson, Mr. Beach said the highest Severity Level infraction ever assessed for a management breakdown was a S.L.II (I is the highest).

Reviewing the history of the enforcement Program, Mr. Beach dis-cussed the review of enforcement conducted by the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee appointed by the Commission (Figure 6). The Committee recommended a major change in the Material False Statement policy and a number of minor changes in other areas.

Mr. Beach said enforcement actions will be issued in a more timely manner vis-a-vis the Advisory Committee's recommendation. Mr. Reed cautioned that I&E should assure accuracy is maintained when the process is accelerated. I&E indicated that this will be the case.

I&E outlined a proposed Rule to redefine the definition of material false statements (MFS). Figure 7 outlines the three key provisions of the new Rule. In response to Mr. Reed, Mr. Lieberman said the new Rule will get away from labelling any questionable statement a MFS, regardless of the intent of the person / organization making the statement. MFSs will cover, however, both oral and written state-ments.

In response to Mr. Michelson, I&E said the current Commission practice is to reserve the label "MFS" for actions deemed willful.

The proposed Rule is currently out for public commutt. In response to Mr. Reed, Mr. Lieberman said I&E has rarely labelled oral statements MFS's, given the inherent problems involved with these situations.

l The Commission has approved a policy statement in the area of harassment,intimidationanddiscrimination(Figure 8). Included l

• Regional and !&E Minutes March 12, 1987 as " protected activities" under this policy is the raising of potential safety concerns to management.

I&E believes the enforcement program is effective in encouraging compliance and improving public health and safety.

In response to Mr. Michelson, I&E said the public coment on the MFS Rule will close on April 10, 1987. Mr. Liebennan indicated that Subcommittee review in the June 1987 time frame would seem appropriate (timely).

4 B. Grimes provided overview comments on the Division of QA. He noted a study conducted by NRC, at the behest of Congress, to determine why QA problems are being seen. The study concluded that the main problem resulted from a lack of attention by the appropriate Licensee management, usually because of a lack of attention to detail.

H. Miller referred to the above QA Report (NUREG-1055). He noted again the conclusion that line management was primarily to blame for the problems seen. He said the I AE quality assurance Program l

. 1 Implementation Plan has been revised to address the problems seen. )

Mr. Michelson noted his concern that QA problems that were fester-ing for years suddenly are " discovered" as real problems almost overnight. Mr. Reed said he believes an FAA-type designated representative system would help here. Mr. Miller said the I&E investigatt n noted the same concern as Mr. Michelson expressed.

He said the Agency is in a learning mode as noted below and shares the conceri as well.

l l

l

Regional and I&E Minutes March 12,1987 l

[ Mr. Reed noted there was a proposal to issue a policy statement

} that said, in effect, the QC Group could report to a line orga-

nization (instead of being "out on its own" and reporting directly

] toupperlevelmanagement.) He asked if this had been done. Mr.

! Grimes said no formal statement was issued by the Agency, rather I&E understands this word has "gotten around." Mr. Michelson

! questioned whether this was the best way to assure the information is disseminated.

I&E has taken a number of initiatives to address the issues /

{ concerns surrounding the QA issue. These initiatives include:

)

, Improvedinspectionmethods(productoriented,diagnosticteam I

inspectionssuchasSSFI,SSOMI,IDI, CAT,etc.).

J

,

• Performance indicator programs.

i

• NRC senior management Meetings, J

• Greateruseofenforcementtools(50.55(f) letters, orders /

confirmatory orders, civil penalties)..

f i

i

• Expanded resident inspector program.

2

• Reorientation of NRC "0A" inspections from programmatic to performance or effectiveness reviews.

l

• Readiness reviews to recognize broader initiative and to focus j more effectively on OA, j

I

• QA plan being updated to assure effectiveness at operating

) plants (3/87).

i I

I I

l

Regional and I&E Minutes March 12, 1987 I&E has issued a Temporary Instruction (TI) Amendment to the Inspection Manual that specifies how the Regional Offices can assess the effectiveness of licensees' quality verification orga-nizations. These inspections are designed to focus on the actual performance and effectiveness of the QA organizations instead of relying on " paper," as has been the case in the past. In response to Mr. Reed, Mr. Miller indicated that the thrust of this in-spection effort is to assure that QA organizations are strengthened as needed. This inspection process has just begun. The plan is to do at least one of these inspections in each Reg' ion this year.

I&E noted the completion of a Pilot Readiness Review Program at the Vogtle plant that assured the plant is properly constructed and ready to operate (Figure 9). Mr. Miller said both NRC and Georgia Power felt the program was a success. It is resource intensive (money and manpower) however, and voluntary cooperation by the Licensee is essential, Mr. Michelson asked if preoperational testing is looked at for a sign of the plant's overall 0A status. He said many equipme c errors found during operation should have been identified c'. ring pre-op testing. He urged I&E to look into improving thes pre-op programs. Mr. Partlow said the Agency's Long Range Plar focuses on this Item as well.

5. ThedetailsoftheI&ETechnicalTrainingCenter(TC)were reviewed. I&E is in the process of acquiring con' col room plant simulators as training aids. Mr. Michelson, not ng his experience with the TTC, praised the effort as first rate l

K. Raglin reviewed the mission, organizatior budget, etc., for the l TTC. The principal users of the TTC are tP a I&E Inspectors. In l

response to Mr. Reed, Mr. Raglin said the current corps of trainees l l

l

Regional and I&E Minutes -

7- March 12, 1987 have less operating experience than trainees of the past. The

, current TTC budget is a $2.5M/ year. Mr. Reed suggested that I&E perform an evaluation of the trainers to determine the value of I

natural aptitude testing.

Details of the curriculum were noted (Figure 10). The annual training input is 4 1600 student-weeks. Mr. Michelson asked if there are any courses in fire protection. I&E replied in the negative. Mr. Michelson requested a copy of the I&E manual on fire protection and the latest offering of technical training courses.

i I&E committed to providing this material.

i Mr. Grimes noted that many of.;the courses (e.g., safeguards, NDE, etc.) are contracted out. In response to Mr. Michelson, Mr. Raglin said there is not, at present,.any instruction on severe accident l phenomena.

Mr. Grimes suggested that any ACRS Members who wished to take the Technical Manager's Course are encouraged to do so.

I&E discussed the technical training aids av,ailable (Figure 11).

i This includes a BWR simulator (on-site) and a W SNUPPS simulator has recently been acquired. Scale models for a GE, CE and B&W plant types are also available.

Mr. Michelson suggested that plant E0Ps could be exercised on the simulator. I&E agreed this could be done. The W simulator should be operational by July 1987.

6. E. Jordan and R. Singh reviewed the status of the performance

! indicator (PI) program. Mr. Jordan reviewed the history of the PI effort dating all the way back to "Z-scores". The Commission directed I&E to develop a set of PI's in early 1986. In approving the PI Program, the Commission cautioned that PIs will not be used

, to rank plants and should be one of many ingredients in regulatory

. - - - . - - - - . - ,, - - _ - - , - - - - -, .m - - - . -- _ , - . - _

Regional and I&E Minutes March 12, 1987 decision-making. They also said I&E should not use more than 10 PI's w/o again consulting the Commission. Mr. Reed expressed j concern with the PI process, as he believes that PIs will be misused.

i In response to Mr. Michelson, Mr. Jordan said the two PI Reports completed to date are not yet available for public discussion.

They will be provided to the ACRS and the public in the near future.

Figure 12 lists the selection criteria for the PIs. A set of six PIs were selected for the current program (Figure 13). These six are:

• Autocatic Scrams While Critical Safety System Actuations

• Significant Events

• Safety System Failures

• Forced Outage Rate ,

4

• Equipment Forced Outage per 1000 Critical Hours I&E has coordinated with the Industry on the PI effort (Figure 14).

J Presently, I&E is not receiving the INP0 PI data but the Agency is negotiating this point with INP0.

t Figure 15 shows a sample of the data plots used for PI's. The individual PIs for each plant are compared against the industry mean for each PI. This should indicate a particular plant may be evidencing a potential problem (s), particularly if the recent SALPs are trending low.

i Mr. Michelson questioned whether these PIs would have spotted the

! problems at, say, TVA. He thought their problems wouldn't have

Regional and I&E Minutes March 12, 1987 been captured via PI's. I&E said they looked at some TVA data vis-a-vis PIs and they did, indeed, show problems were evident.

The future schedule for the PI program (Figure 16), shows that reports will be provided every quarter (February, May, August, November) and that in December 1987 a-report evaluating the Program will be provided the Commission.

Mr. Reed expressed support for the Program but was concerned how the State PUCs will make use of PI data.

Mr. Jordan said the PI reports will be publically available N 2 months after the close of a given quarterly reporting period.

7. Mr. Michelson suggested that the ACRS hear a presentation on the PI l program at the April Meeting. He suggested that any presentation on the MSF nulemaking be postponed until the Subcommittee reviewed the Rulemaking after the close of the public comments period. A

, brief (10 minutes) presentation on the QA Program, specifically how it will be handled under the new organization, was requested by Mr.

Kylie. Also, the Subconmittee requested a presentation on just where the functions of I&E will reside in th'e new organization.

8. The meeting was adjourned at 12:25 p.m.

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, DC 20001,(202)347-3700.

PURPOSE OF ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM PROMOTE AND PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY

._BY ENSURING COMPLIANCE WITH REGl1LATIONS AND LICENSES OBTAINING PROMPT CORRECTION OF VIOLATIONS DETERRING FUTURE VIOLATIONS ENCOURAGING IMPROVEMENT OF LICENSEES AND INDUSTRY f

a i

4 4 ,e I

4

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE FOR TAKING ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS IE HEADOUARTERS DIRECTcR, OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT (IE)

RESPONSIBLE FOR ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM. INCLUDES AUTHORITY T0:

1) ESTABLISH ENFORCEMENT POLICY

2) ISSUE PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY ACTIONS

3) ISSUE ORDERS TO SUSPEND, MUDIFY OR REVOKE LICENSES OR IMPCSE CIVIL PENiLTIES.

4

4) PROVIDE GUIDA;CE TO THE REGIONS ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE POLICY.

- DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT STAFF, IE, MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS TO HIM REGARDING DEVELOPMENT OF POLICY, PROPOSED ENFURCEMENT ACTIONS, POLICY GUIDANCE.

(1) HE HAS A STAFF OF SEVEN TECHNICAL REVIEWERS THAT REVIEW ALL ESCALATED ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS.

(2)

~

0FFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL PROVIDES ADVICE ON THE' LEGALITY OF PROPOSED ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS. -

N

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE - PAGE 2 REGIONS

1) INITIATE ROUTINE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS

2) PREPARE DRAFT ESCALATED ACTIONS AND SEND TO IE FOR REVIFW AND CONCURRENCE 31 REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR MAY SIGN PROPOSED civil PENALTY ACTIONS IN THOSE INSTANCES WHICH THE DIRECTOR, IE, DEEMS APPROPRIATE AND AFTER HIS CONC'JRRENCE.

OTHER OFFICES OGC AND NRR OR NMSS, AS APPROPRIATE, REVIEW PROPOSED ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS RECEIVED FROM REGIONS, NRR AND NMSS MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS T0 IE,0GC CONCURRENCE IS REQUIRED.

e

ENFORCEMENT CASES RECEIVING IE REVIEW 1984 1985 1986 REACTORS 79 67 128 NON REACTGRS 58 71 73 TOTAL 137 138 201 9

/ku b

EhFORCEMENT ACTIONS 1984 1985 1986 CIVIL PENALTIES 74 66 86 SL III 140 CP 30 35 49 ORDERS 13 9 13 OTHER 20 28 53 TOTAL 137 138 201

l

) ENFORCEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE THE COMMITTEE WAS ASKED TO ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS

1. IS THE CURRENT ENFORCEMENT POLICY IMPROVING COMPLIANCE WITH THE tsRC REQUIREMENTS BY: A) OBTAINING PROMPT AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS; (B) DETERRING FUTURE VIOLATIONS; AND

. (C) ENCOURAGING DEVELOPMENT OR IMPROVEMENT OF A LICENSEE'S OWN PROGRAMS FOR DETECTION OF INCIPIENT PROBLEMS?

2. DOES THE CURRENT ENFORCEMENT POLICY AS WRITTEN OR IMPLEMENTED HAVE ANY NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON SACETY?

3. ARE THERE ALTERNATIVE Ori MORE EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OPTIONS AVAILASLE TO THE COMMISSION TO IMPROVE COMPLIANCE WITH ITS REQUIREMENTS?

COMMITTEE CONCLUSIONS:

l "THE POLICY'S IMPACT HAS BEEN MODEST IN MAGNITUDE AND l PSYCHOLOGICAL IN NATURE...THE INTENT OF THE POLICY CONFORMS REASONABLY WELL TO MOST OF THE COMMITTEE'S CRITERIA." )

l CUMMITTEE'S RECOMMEhDATIONS INCLUDED MAJOR CHANGES IN THE AREA

~

0F MATERIAL FALSE STATEMENTS AND MINOR CHANGES IN OTHER AREAS.

l i

hk' $

HARASSMENT, INTIMIDATION, AND DISCRIMINATION MAJOR POINTS OF NRC POLICY

1. "Pn0TECTED ACTIVITIES" INCLUDE HAISING POTENTIAL SAFETY CONCERNS TO MANAGEMENT - NEED NOT RAISE CONCERN WITH NRC 2.- hkC NORMALLY AWAITS COMPLETION OF DOL PROCEEDING, UNLESS POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUE COL DOES NOT ACT CASE IS SETTLED

3. LICEiiSEES RESPONSIBLE FOR DISCRIMINATORY ACTIONS OF THEIR CONTRACTORS

4. ENFORCEMENT POLICY PROVIDES EXAMPLES ILLUSTRATING H&I AND DISCRIMINATION VIOLATIONS.

l

" l

// 9 l

MATERIAL FALSE STATENENTS (CONTINUED) a PROPOSED A PROPOSED RULE IS BEING PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER THIS WEEK WHICH ESTABLISHES A REGULATION THAT REQUIRES LICENSEES TO FROVIDE ThE COMMISSION WITH INFORMATION THAT l

IS " COMPLETE ANC ACCURATE IN ALL MATERIAL RESPECTS" MAINTAIN ACCURATE RECORDS i

1

) -

DISCLOSE INFORMATION IDENTIFIED BY LICENSEES AS "HAVinG FOR THE REGULATED ACTIVITY A SIGNIFICANT IMPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY OR COMMON DEFENSE AND SECURITY" FAILURE TO DO ANY OF THE ABOVE WILL RESULT IN A CITATION FOR A VIOLATION OF THE REGULATION, SEVERITY LEVEL I TO V i

THE TERM " MATERIAL FALSE STATEMENT" WILL NOT BE USED EXCEPT FOR " EGREGIOUS" SITUATIONS WHERE THERE IS Ah ELEMENT OF INTENT: USE OF THE TERM WILL BE DETERMINED ON A CASE-BY.-CASE BASIS l

-l 1

l

- _ hOL

V0GTLE PILOT PEADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM EFFECTIVE REGl!LATORY REVIEW STRilCTURE PROJECT WORK ACTIVITIES DIVIDED INTO MANAGEABLE REVIEW MODULES PROVIDED FOR INCREMENTAL REVIEW AND ACCEPTANCE OF WORK ON A MODULAR BASIS AS WORK PROGRESSES, FIRST BY GPC, THEN NRC SIGNIFICANT LICENSEE SENIOR MANAGEMENT INVOLVEMENT THROUGHOUT PILOT PROGRAM

!1CENSEE REVIEW TEAM INDEPENDENT OF V0GTLE PROJECT INDEPENDENT NRC REVIEW, INSPECTIONS AND ACCEPTANCE OF WORK ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH EACil GPC MODllLE PILOT PROGRAM DEM0tlSTRATED USEFitLNESS OF CONCEPT:

ADDED PREDICTABILITY AND STABILITY IN THE LICENSING PROCESS EARLY NRC/GPC RESOLUTION OF DIFFERENCES IN INTERPRETATION OF REGilLATORY REQUIREMENTS CATAlfZED EARLY IDENTIFICATION AND RESOLUTION OF PROBLEMS PPOVIDED SIGNIFICANT ADDITIONAL ASSURANCE TilAT SAFETY STANDARDS ARE MFT PROGRAM WAS PESOURCE INTEllSIVE AND LICEllSEE VOLUNTARY COMMITMENT WAS ESSENTI AL.

x L

?c3 .

v

l TTC Curriculum l

l

• Based on Agency Needs

!

• Spectrum of Courses

• Generic Courses

!

• Reactor Technology Courses

• Reactor Engineering Support Courses

! Safeguards Courses

!

• Health Ph> sics Courses

!

• Typically About 1600 Student-Weeks Annually j Reactor Technology Training j Reactor Vendor Coverage

• Types of Courses

• Course Series ,

• Courses

,

• Typical Topics

• Stand- Alone Courses I

• Classroom Training

• Simulator Training

• Specialized Technical Training  :

• Use of Contracts

• Examples i l

• Future TTC Emphasis 4 0f 6 l

lf M IO]

P. -

j Use of Training Aids i

i i

• Reactor Simulators BWR Simulator PWR SNI.'PPS Simulator (W)

• Advantages

• Reactor Plant Models

• BWR Engineering Model

• PWR Engineering Model (CE)

!

• PWR NSSS Model (B&W)

• Hardware Training Aids

• BWR Dummy Fuel Assembly BWR CRDM .

l

• BWR Jet Pump Assembly l

• BWR HCU PWR Dummy Fuel Assembly (W)

.

• Surplus Material

! Cancelled TV A Projects Other Sources

• High Technology Aids

, 6 0f 6i l

l Aa ll

I l

SELECTION OF Pls

• i CRITERIA (IDEAL ATTRIBUTES OF Pls): i Pls RELATED TO NUCLEAR SAFETY / REGULATORY PERFOR DATA AVAILABLE TO NRC READILY AND TIMELY DATA NOT SUSCEPTIBLE TO MANIPULATION DATA COMPARABLE BETNEEN UTILITIES Pls WORTHY G0AL FOR UTILITY '

Pls REFLECT A RANGE OF PERFORMANCE

.: . :. : E .N . , i , u: :.-CH OTHER Pls LEADING OR PREDICTIVE OF FUTURE PERFORMANCE SET OF Pls BROAD EN0 UGH TO CORRELATE WITH SALP 4

1 SET OF Pls FOR THE CURRENT PROGRAM

1. AUTOMATIC SCRAMS WHILE CRITICAL:

THIS IS IDENTICAL TO THE INDICATOR, UNPLANNED AUTOMATIC SCRAMS WHILE CRITICAL, USED BY INPO. IN ADDITION, THE NUMBER OF AUTOMATIC SCRAMS FROM ABOVE 15% POWER PER 1000 CRITICAL HOURS AND THE NUMBER MATIC SCRAMS WHILE CRITICAL BELOW 15% POWER WILL BE MONITORED.

2. SAFETY SYSTEM ACTUATIONS:

THIS IS IDENTICAL TO THE INDICATOR, UNPLANNED SAFETY SYSTEM ACTUATIONS, USED BY INPO AND INCLUDES ACTUATIONS OF ECCS (ACTUAL AND INADV AND EMERGENCY AC POWER SYSTEM (ACTUAL).

3. SIGNIFICANT EVENTS:

THESE EVENTS ARE IDENTIFIED BY THE DETAILED SCREENING 0F OPERA EXPERIENCE BY NRR AND IE, AND INCLUDE DEGRADATION OF IMPORTANT SAFETY EQUIPMENT, UNEXPECTED PLANT RESPONSE TO A TRANSIENT OR A MAJOR TRANSIE DISCOVERY OF A MAJOR CONDITION NOT CONSIDERED IN THE PLANT SAFE ANALYSIS, OR DEGRADATION OF FUEL INTEGRITY, PRIMARY COOLANT PRESSURE BOUNDARY, OR IMPORTANT ASSOCI ATED STRUCTURES.

4. SAFETY SYSTEM FAILURES:

TW:' ~INCLUDES

_ '. j . ~ ~~:CJ' EVENT.,OR CONDITION T.uAT ALONE COULD PREVENT

~"~ SY S ~ Ef'S ,

Ft. esait . . _: :.;-: ; h:L_

' E. Eo;Ei,j n ,o~v?fTLE i rzD r a 0:sHIS ihDICAT0r., TWENT'

5. FORCED OUTAGE RATE:

THIS THE INDICATOR'S NRC DEFINITION IS IDENTICAL TO THE ONE USED GREY BOOK (NUREG-0020), BY INP AND IS THE NUMBER OF FORCED OUTAGE HOURS DIVIDED BY THE SUM 0F FORCED OUTAGE HOURS AND SERVIC 6.

EQUIPMENT FORCED OUTAGES PER 1000 CRITICAL HOURS:

THIS IS THE EQUIPMENT INVERSE OF THE MEAN TIME BETWEEN FORCED OUTAGES FAILURES.

THE MEAN TIME IS EQUAL TO THE NUMBER OF HOURS THE REACTOR IS CRITICAL IN A PERIOD DIVIDED BY THE NUMBER OF FORC CAUSED BY EQUIPMENT FAILURES IN THAT PERIOD.

7

/d e 4 .

COORDINATION WITH INDUSTRY JUNE 11, 1986: AIF/INP0/ UTILITY REPRESENTATIVES AUGUST 15, 1986: INP0 MEETING SEPTEMBER 15-16, 1986: ANS EXECUTIVE SEMINAR SEPTEMEER 15, 1986: AIF/INP0/ UTILITY REPRESENTATIVES INDUSTRY COMMENTS CONSTRUCTIVE MAINTENANCE BACKLOG REMOVED BASED ON INDUSTRY COMMENTS gg'] CONTINUE COORDINATION WITH INDUSTRY AS PROGRAM PLAN TO SHARE DATA AND IDEAS WITH INP0 9

l

PLANT A : Trends Performance Indicators Deel'ned i=Preved

1. sere m s e) r.tei (2 Qtr. Avg. end 88-4) .o r7A b)>154/1000 crit. Hre. (2 Qtr. Avg. end 8 8-4)-'N/N///N/N/ - 4. 8 e) < ISE Power (2 Qtr. Avg. end 88-4) *.4 E

2. Sef ety System Actuellene (2 Qtr. Avg.end 88-4)- .3

3. Signitte ent Ev ente (2 Qtr. A vg. end 8 8-4) - 1.4

4. Sof ety System retlures (2 Qtr. Avg. end 88-4)- .0 S. rereed Oulege liete (2 Otr. Avg. end 88-4)- -4J

6. Equipment rereed Outeges/n 000 Crit. Nee. - - 3,3 (2 Qtr. A vg. end 8 8-4) /

-2.S '2 -l'.S - t -d.5 0 0lS i 1.'S i 2.5 Devi flone from Prevleus 4 Otr. Plent eens wesoured in stendere oevlettene

. . . . . - ., , n..;.*...r... m 4 e g i, s , g g ,;

t. :v e e. e; 'e tei (. C r., a a. e r.e a s-4) ;j ,_ /':/ 7,;,M -4.g b) > I S % /t 0 0 0 Crit. Hr e. (4 C'r. A v g. e n d 8 8-4) -fM/N/N///// - 3.8 ,

e) < 15 % Pov e r (4 Ctr. Avg. end 88-4) /NNN/NNN =0.8  ;

2. Sof ety System Actuations (4 Qtr. Avg. end 88-4)- -g.g

3. Signitte ent Ev ents (4 Ctr. A vg. end 8 8-4) - -1.4

4. Sof ety System retlutes (4 Cfr. Avg. end 88-4)- .9 )

S. rerted Cute ge flote (4 Qtr. A vg. end 8 8-4) - -1.4

6. Equipment Fereed Outogos/1000 Crit. Hre. - - 3.2 l (4 Qlr. A vg. end 8 8-4) /  !

-2.S 't -l'.S -l -d.S 0 0'S i . 1.'S i 2.5 l evlellene from Older Plent Ween weeeured in Stenderd Devlettene l

l 1

._ ~

~ ~

4 IM. /s

\

i V.:.-

MILESTONES FEBRUARY 1987 -

PROVIDE FIRST QUARTERLY REPORT BASED ON PI DATA THROUGH DECEMBER 1986 MAY 1987 -

PROVIDE SECOND REPORT BASED ON DATA THROUGH MARCH 1987 AUGUST 1987 -

PROVIDE THIRD REPORT BASED ON DATA THROUGH JUNE 1987 h0VEMBER 1987 -

PROVIDE FOURTH REPORT BASED ON DATA THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1987 DECEMBER 1987 -

REFINE PROGRAM BASED ON EXPERIENCE GAINED AND RESULTS OF CONTIN'JED DEVELOPMENT CO: .551Ch PAPER l

13 l ff/di/)