ML20205F280

Reports Status of PRA Implementation Plan for Period of 980701-1231

ML20205F280
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/18/1999
From:	Travers W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:
References
SECY-99-082, SECY-99-082-01, SECY-99-082-R, SECY-99-82, SECY-99-82-1, SECY-99-82-R, NUDOCS 9904060166
Download: ML20205F280 (32)

Text

2c .....................

l '

ret. EASED TO THE PDR J'*a "%~\ .

r

.f $ ykh w:

% 4* ..* / 4..................i~

dato initidt I

POLICY ISSUE March 18.1999 (InfOrmatiOn) SECY-99-082 FOR: The Commissioners FROM: William D. Travers Executive Director for Operations SUBJECI: QUARTERLY STATUS REPORT ON THE PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN PURPOSE:

To report the status of the Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) Implemen'.ation Plan (PIP) for the period July 1 to December 31,1998.

BACKGROUND:

In a memorandum dated January 3,1996, from the Executive Director for Operations to Chairman Jackson, the staff committed to submitting quarterly reports on the status of its development of risk-informed standards and guidance. Previous progress reports were sent to the Commission quarterly beginning on March 26,1996, with most recent update provided as SECY-98-186, dated July 31,1998. Because of the need to meet high priority staff commitments to actions identified in the Chairman's tasking memorandum, the present PIP report covers a six-month period from July 1 to December 31,1998.

DISCUSSION:

The principal staff accomplishments in executing the various elements of the PIP are  !

summarized below. Detailed scheduling information, including changes with explanatory notes, ff is included as Attachment 1. 7 CONTACT:

Ashok Thadani, Director, RES 415-6641 gg _

9904060166 990318 ,

R ~

08 PDR  !  ! ' ' '

, c & f Om m 3

i F

.The Commissioners 2 it should be noted that the format of this plan is based on the organizational structure in effect

' . as of December 31,1998, and does not reflect the assimilation of AEOD into other parts of the .

' l NRC.

Section 1: Reactor Reaulation l' I

i A number of milestones have been reached since the PRA Implementation Plan was last '

updated, and they are discussed below individually. In addition, a number of other items were i completed which are described in the staff's response to the Chairman's tasking memorandum  !

dated August 7,1998. Perhaps the most significant of these items was submission of a paper j

(SECY-98-300) to the Commission that describes high-level options and a two-phased )

i l implementation strategy for modifying regulations in 10 CFR Part 50 to make them risk-I

- informed and delineates associated policy issues. The staff is currently awaiting Commission l- guidance with respect to these options. After the Commission establishes requirements for the

staff, the staff will prepare a plan for satisfying the Commission's requirements and incorporate the plan into the PRA Implementation Plan.

1.1 Standard Review Plans for Risk-Informed Regulation

! As noted in the staff requirements memorandum (SRM) for SECY-98-067, the Commission approved issuance of the final version of the application-specific regulatory guides (RGs) and l

standard review plans (SRPs). The final version of the risk-informed guidance documents for i

inservice Testing (RI IST), Technical Specifications (RI-TS) and Graded Quality Assurance (RI-GOA) were published in September 1998 (reference 83 FRN 48771, September 11,1998).

l The final draft for trial use versions of the risk-informed guidance documents for Inservice 1 inspection (RI-ISI) were published in October 1998 (reference 63 FRN 57331). These guidance l documents are now available for industry utilization in support of risk-informed licensing actions.

l ,

i '

' 1.2 Pilot Applications for Risk-informed Regulatory initiatives The staff issued the safety evaluation report (SER) on the Comanche Peak RI-IST program on August 14,1998. The SER is consistent with the RI-IST guidance published in RG 1.175 and SRP Section 3.9.7. Publication of this SER marks the completion of the staff's pilot activities in support of Rl-IST programs.

By letter dated December 17,1998, Arizona Public Service Company (APS), the licensee for the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS), withdrew as a pilot plant for risk-informed IST. APS withdrew based on minirnal potential safety and cost benefits of a RI-IST program as compared to other risk-informed applications. APS believes that a risk-informed IST program, as described iri 9egulatory Guide 1.175, would have little safety or cost benefit at PVNGS.

On the other band, other licensees (i.e., South Texas Project (STP) and San Onofre (SONGS))

have recently submitted RI-IST applications. The STP application is limited in scope, and is intended to provide flexibility in testir,g schedules for twenty-four check valves. The SONGS application is a full scope application and the licensee states that the program will be beneficial in outage management.

t

)

l 1

The Commissioners 3 The staff has completed reviews and issued safety evaluations for RI-ISI program change l requests for the following pilot plants:

• Surry, Units 1&2;

• Vermont Yankee;

• Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 (ANO-2).

A request from ANO-1 is currently under review and scheduled to be completed by the end of July 1953.

Browns Ferry Unit 2 recently submitted an application which would combine the intergranular stress corrosion cracking augmented program inspections with the ASME Section XI inspection. ,

The staff is working with industry to determine how, and if, the augmented programs can be l included within the risk-informed program.

A stai. lardized RI-ISI submittal format is being developed with input from industry and NEl.

. The standard format will minimize requests for additional informatio'1 (RAls) and expedite the review and approval of future submittals.

The staff approved the Westinghouse Owner's Group (WOG) RI-ISI topical report on l December 14,1998. The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) topical review was delayed until EPRI submitted responses to a June 12,1997, RAI in November 1998. The SER on the '

EPRI topical report is on schedule for completion in September 1999.

The staff has completed reviews and issued safety evaluations for the following RI-TS pilot and non-pilot license amendment requests:

• North Anna, Units 1&2 Emergency. Diesel Generator (EDG) Allowed Outage Time (AOT);

• Oyster Creek proposal on EDG online testing;

• San Onofre Units 2&3 EDG AOT extension request;

• Combustion Engineering Owners Group (CEOG) safety injection tank AOT extonsion request;

• Comanche Peak Charging pump AOT extension request.

Completion of the San Onofre and CEOG reviews marks the end of risk-informed technical specification pilot activities.

The Risk-Informed Licensing Panel held a public meeting on Wednesday, February 18,1999, to hear industry's proposal on attematives to adding the configuration risk management -

- program (CRMP) to the technical specificahns (TS). The industry representatives proposed

,~

numerous attematives to placing the CRV A the TS. The panel discussed these alternatives and decided that a concise interim guidase document (until the maintenance rule is finalized) should be developed for CRM.P placement which considers a spectrum of altematives ranging from the TS administrative controls to some form of licensee commitment; The staff is currently drafting the interim guidance.

4

1 l

~

The Commissioners 4 l

On September 28,1998, the staff completed its review and issued its safety evaluation report regarding the ANO, Units 1&2, request for relief from the staff position in NUREG-0737 on timing of initiation of hydrogen monitoring. This request had been made as a part of " Task Zero" of the Risk-informed, Performance-Based Pilot Program ("Whole Plant Study") proposed by NEl. Relating to another facet of the Whole Plant Study, the staff is continuing its review of the San Onofre request to remove hydrogen recombiners from the scope of the regulations.

, The staff expects to complete this review by the end of July 1999.

Approval had been granted on November 6,1997, for South Texas to implement their graded quality assurance (QA) program. By let'er dated October 14,1998, the licensee informed the staff of some impediments to fullimplementation of their risk-informed approach. These impediments, and strategies for dealing with them, are discussec. in Attachment 1 to SECY 300. In submitting SECY-98-300, the staff seeks, among other things, Commission approval to i work further with South Texas in a pilot mode to resolve these impediments.

1.3 Inspections The staff completed the last operating plant Maintenance Rule baseline inspection in the first week of July 1998. A total of 71 Maintenance Rule Baseline Inspections (68 operating plant sites and 3 decommissioning status plant sites) were completed since the Maintenance Rule went into effect on July 10,1996. This included inspections of licensee methods for using PRA in Maintenance Rule programs and inspection of safety assessments performed by licensees when taking equip, ment out of service for maintenance in accordance with 10 CFR 50.65(a)(3).

~

Previous efforts to improve inspection program guidance (reported in the last PRA Implementation Plan update) have been superceded by a new initiative which began in the fall of 1998. This initiative will make the inspection program more risk-informed in a manner similar to the recent improvements to the licensee performance assessment and enforcement processes. The previously identified task to evaluate methods for presenting risk analysis

~ results in a form most useful to inspectors is subsumed by this current initiative. Detailed implementation plans and schedules for this initiative were separately reported to the Commission as a transition plan in SECY-99-007. When an SRM is received on this plan, it will be incorpornied into the PIP.

A new subtask has been added to review the final IPEEE insights report for insights that should be incorporated into inspection program guidance. This task will be completed six months after completion of the final IPEEE :nsights report which is due in July 2000. The commitment to perform this task is part of the plan for closure of Generic Issue 178, " Effects of Hurricane Andrew on Turkey Point."

The staff met with the Committee to Review Generic Requiremen's (CRGR) on December 8, 1998, to discuss the proposed inspection procedure (IP) for risk-informed graded quality assurance programs. The CRGR identified several concems with the IP, and ultimately concluded that the proposed IP should not be issued. The staff is considering the CRGR comments and will develop an approach to address the CRGR concems.

O

~

The Commissioners 5 1.10 IPE Follow-up Activities

' Work on IPE follow-up activities has been deferred pending receipt of the Commission's SRM regarding SECY-98-300, which proposes options for risk-informed revisions to 10 CFR Part 50.

If the Commission accepts the staff's recommended course of action and directs the staff to proceed with rulemaking, the staff believes the goals and objectives of IPE follow-up activities could be achieved within the context of the revised regulations for those licensees who choose

_ the risk-informed attemative. IPE followup could then be limited to plants not following the " risk-informed" Part 50 attemative. If the Commission decides to make no change to Part 50, the staff will revisit its plan for IPE follow-up activities in light of other risk-informed activities identified in the response (COMSECY 98-024) to the Chairman's tasking memorandum and  ;

establish new schedules for IPE follow-up activities.- l

~

Section 2: Reactor Safety Research 2.1 Regulatory Guides The proposed final versions of the regulatory documents for risk-informed IST (RG 1.175 and SRP Section 3.9.7), risk-informed TS (RG 1.177 and ERP Section 16.1), and risk-informed GOA (RG 1.176) were approved by the Commission for issuance June 29,1998 and published l in final form. The guidance documents for risk-informed ISI, RG 1.178 (formerly DG-1063) and 7

SRP 3.9.8, were also published for trial use.

2.4 Methods Development and Demonstration Work on developing improved fire risk assessment methods, tools, and data was initiated in early June 1998. The areas for improvement were identified by the staff in late 1997 and include, for example, modeling of initiating event frequency and models of fire growth and propagation and methods for analyzing human reliability. In October 1998, the staff forwarded SECY-98-230 to the Commission. This paper, prepared in response to the SRM for SECY  ;

058, summarized the findings of NRC's past fire protection research efforts and highlighted a '

number of areas where fire risk improvements are needed. The current status of the fire risk assessment research program was reviewed in a briefing of the ACRS Subcommittee on Fire Protection on January 21,1999. It was noted that an early product of the research program (including an analysis of heat loss factors) has been useful in supporting the completion of IPEEE reviews.

2.5 IPE and IPEEE Reviews An SER was issued on the IPE for Brown's Ferry 3 (in May 1998) which concluded that the IPE did not meet the intent of Generic Letter 88-20. The licensee has subsequently provided additional information and RES is preparing a revised SER. This SER will be the last to be issued for the IPE program.

The staff completed its review of an additional seven IPEEE submittals (bringing the total to 10)

< and issued the SERs for these plants.- The staff concluded that all these submittals met the

' intent of Supplement 4 to GL 88-20. In addition, the staff completed preliminary reviews of the last five of the 75 IPEEE submittals .

The Commissione.s 6

The target schedule for completing the reviews of all IPEEE submittals has been changed from

[ December 1999 to April 2000. Correspondingly, changes were made to the target schedules for issuing the draft and final IPEEE insights reports. A number of factors contributed to i revising the IPEEE review schedule. Among these were that (1) there was a delay in receiving ,

responses from industry on generic fire requests for additional information (RAls), (2) many )

licensees requested additional time to respond to plam specifb RAls, and (3) staff resources were needed to complete other high priority NRC work.

[ 2.8 Standards Development

. i

ASME's project team, which includes an RES member and was supported by other RES and l

' l NRR staff and contractors, completed a draft " Standard for Probabilistic Risk /ssessment for Nuclear Power Plant Applications." ASME issued this draft for public comment in January l 1999. ASME will hold a public workshop on March 16,1999. This standard (Phase 1) covers  ;

' I PRA Level 1 and a limited Level 2 PRA r.iay-is, the latter permitting calculation of a large, 4 early release frequency (LERF) for inte nal events, excluding internal fires, initiation of work on 4

Phase 2 of the standard has not ya i>een scheduled by the ASME. Phase 2 would cover intemal fires, extemal events and low power and shutdown conditions. The ANS has expressed to the ASV.E their interest in providing the lead for Phase 2. The staff intends to support such standards development work, whether led by ASME or ANS, presuming timely initiation of the work.

2.12 Review of Agency Programs and Processes As noted above, the RES and NRR staff have provided a paper to the Commission (SECY 300) that describes options and an implementation strategy for modifying 10 CFR 50 to make it more risk-informed. When the staff receives Commission guidance on these options, more l detailed plans will be developed and incorporated into the PIP.

The PRA Steering Committee met on 5 occasions between July 1,1998 and December 31,  !

1998. Guidance to the staff was provided on items such as the following.  :

1

~(.

e The charters of the PRA Steering Committee and the Risk-informed Licensing Panet e The study undertaken by the Center for Strategic and Intemational Studies (CSIS) on risk informe! regulation i- e Approaches for risk-iniormed 10 CFR 50 (subsequently described in SECY-98-300) and e A framevuork for risk-informing NMSS activities in addition, the Steering Committee met with the NEl's PRA Steering Committee on November 16,1998. This meeting included discussions on:

o Charters of the two steering committees i e On-going risk-informed pilot programs 4

e Potential new pilot activities and l e Risk-informed 10 CFR 50.

A r

j; , '

i i

The Commissioners 7 ,

i RES also completed a report on Options forIncorporating Risk Insights into the 10 CFR 50.59

Process. Recommendations regarding these options will be provided as part of the process of i modifying 10 CFR 50 to be risk-informed. {

i . .

Section 3: Analysis of Ooeratina Exoerience and Trainino i

i 3.1 Risk-Based Trends and Patterns Analysis 5 Administrative Letter 98-04 was issued in July 1998 announcing the availability of the cause failure database (CCF) database. The database was sent to all nuclear utilities for their use.

To date about 35 utilities have installed and activated the software. The supporting technical l

1 reports were published in July 1998 as NUREG/CR-6268 and distributed. The CCF database was used to estimate CCF parameters contained in NUREG/CR-5497, which was puWhed in 4

October 1998. NUREG/CR-5485, Guidelines on Modeling Common-Cause Failures in  ;

Probabilistic Risk Assessment, was published in November 1998. l The auxiliary feedwater system study, Reliability Study

Auxiliary Feedwater System,1987-

1995, NUREG/CR-5500, Volume 1, was issued and distributed in July 1998. The major j findings of this study were summarized in the previous PIP update (SECY-98-186). The l

General Ekctric reactor protection system study draft report was completed and sent out for i review. Comments have been received from NRC offices and from the extemal peer reviews l by industry.

The initiating event study was completed and will be published as NUREG/CR-5750. The

! transmittal letter providing pertinent findings was sent out in January 1999, and the final report l will be printed in February 1999. This is the first major analysis and update of initiating event frequency estimates since 1985. Also, this report is the first significant effort to update LOCA l

i pipe break frequencies since 1975 when WASH-1400, Reactor Safety Study, was issued.

j Major findings of the study include the following: (1) combined initiating events frequencies for all initiators are lower than the frequencies used in NUREG-1150, Severe Accident Risks: An l

Assessment for Five U.S. Nuclear Power Plants, and IPEs by a factor of five and four, l j

} respectively; (2) the least risk-significant transients constitute 77% of all initiating events while '

! events that pose a more severe challenge to the plant's mitigation systems constitute the l

remaining 23%; (3) the overall initiating event frequency decreased by a ft wr of two to three l

during the nine-year span; (4) most risk-significant (with respect to core dainage frequency) l initiators frequencies (such as total loss of feedwater flow, loss of instrument or control air, Inadvertent closure of all main steam isolation valves, and totalloss of condenser heat sink for BWRs) decreased at a faster rate than the overall initiating event frequency; and (5) loss-of-coolant accident frequencies are lower than those used in NUREG-1150 and industry-wide

! IPEs.

(

The NRC hosted the seventh meeting of the Intemational Common Cause Data Exchange (ICDE) Project in September 1998. The ICDE Project operates under the auspices of

OECD/NEA and includes representatives from Sweden, Finland, Germany, France, 4

Gwitzerland, Great Britain, Spain, and the United States. The group has defined guidelines to 3 facilitate CCF information exchange among the participating countries. The first exchange of information involved pump CCF events. The pump report was finalized and forwarded to NEA l-i for publication.

I

l 4

The Commissioners 8 3.2 Accident Sequence Precursor (ASP) Program All final analyses of the 1997 precursors have been completed. There were only five 4

precursors for 1997, all with CCDP values less than 10 . The 1997 data are consistent with the previously noted trends of a decreasing rate of occurrence of ASP events and a decreasing

' trend in the annual ASP Index. The final report was issued in December 1998 as NUREG/CR-l 4674, Volume 26. The annual report to the Commission on the status of the ASP Program was

! issued as SECY-98-298 in December 1998. Preliminary analysis of the 1998 events continues.

3.4 Risk-Based Performance Indicators l

- In response to the Chairman's tasking memorandum, a draft program plan for the development i of rick-based performance indicators was developed. AEOD participated in the preparation and condu::t of the Performance Assessment Workshop held September 28 through Qtober 1, 1998. The risk-based performance indicators will be consistent with the pri,'ciples developed during the workshop. The contract to help develop and implement the risk-based Pls was placed in November 1998.

3.5 Operating Experience Data l

The contract to develop the Reliability and Availability Data System (RADS) was placed in July 1998 after approval was obtained from the Information Technology Business Council.

The RADS Coordination Group met in September to review the preliminary design document. l A prototype of the system was reviewed in January 1999.

l The Office of the Chief information Officer (OClO) provided access to the new EPIX cystem i main'.ained by INPO. Selected NRC staff members have successfully accessed EPIX and l l

tested the interface system. OClO plans to have a permanent interface in place by the end of next quarter. Following evaluation of the EPIX system, AEOD intends to incorporate EPIX data j into the NRC Reliability and Availability Data System (RADS). EPIX is expected to be one of the major data sources supporting the development of the risk-based performance indicators that was discussed earlier.

AEOD attended the second meeting of the Ad Hoc EPIX Users Group at INPO on December 8, 1998, and gave a presentation on RADS to the group. INPO provided NRC a sample of the EPIX data that will be submiMed under the voluntary approach to providing reliability data. The first complete set of EPIX data will be sent to NRC in March 1999. This represents a two quarter slip in providing the reliability data to NRC that the utilities were due to provide INPO in July 1998. Fcilowing evaluation of the EPIX system, AEOD intends to incorporate EPIX data 4 into the NRC Reliability and Availability Data System (RADS). EPIX is expected to be one of the major data sources supporting the development of the risk-based performance indicators that was discussed. ,

AEOD started rulemaking to revise the event reporting rules (10 CFR 50.72 and 10 CFR 50.73) to better align the reporting requirements with the NRC's current reporting needs, including a

! better focus on reporting safety- or risk significant events. An advance notice of proposed rulemaking was published on July 23,1998, a public meeting was held on August 21,1998, and a public workshop was held on September 1,1998. Public comments were received by

i i

The Commissioners 9 1

i September 21,1998. An additional public meeting (table-top exercise) was held on November

' 13,1998, to test key aspects of the rules and guidance for clarity and consistency by discussing J how reportability decisions could be made for example events. The rulemaking plan schedule was extended five weeks to accommodate the industry's request for this additional meeting.

i

! 3.6 Staff Training The 2-week PRA Technology and Regulatory Perspectives course (P-111) was offered four i times during 1998. A total of 85 resident inspectors attended the course; all but three sites. I j were represented. The course will continue to be presented each quarter to meet anticipated  !

! needs. To date, all presentations have been at the Technical Training Center. During FY 1999, courses are scheduled at Region I, Region ll and Region 111.

) The 4-day PRA Basics for Regulatory Applications course (P-105) was offered 9 times during '

1998. A total of 181 staff members attended the training. Nine more presentations are planned i for FY 1999 to meet the staff's needs. I i

4 The 3-day PRA for Technical Managers course (P-107) was offered 7 times during 1998. A  !

l l

, total of 147 managers attended the training. The staff's goal of having two-thirds of the

! agency's technical managers complete it by the end of FY 1998 was met. Four additional presentations are planned for FY 1999.

i More staff received PRA training during FY 1998 than any previous year. A total of 507 staff attended training. The PRA curriculum continues to be updated as the agency gains ~

- experience with respect to risk-informed regulation.

l- - Procurement actions were completed for acquiring risk-monitor software. The NRC now has a l

site license for use of SCIENTECH'S Safety Monitor. Technical training staff in HR are working j to integrate the Safety Monitor into the reactor technology and PRA technology curricula to

!' improve staff understanding of configuration management, the importance of plant operations i to the risk profile of the plants, and the use of the tool to gain insights regarding the industry's i use of risk-informed applications. The Safety Monitor will be used to demonstrate the capabilities and limits of this and similar tools as they are being used by the industry.

Section 6: Enforcement i

The Office of Enforcement (OE) has worked with NRR in the development of additional i guidance for the utilization of risk insights in the enforcement process. These interactions have

included joint efforts with the Inspection Program Branch of NRR to assure that risk-informed

enforcement activities elign with the changes to the reactor oversight process currently

! underway. In addition to working with NRR, OE has held several public meetings with i stakeholders in order to gather input on how risk should be ..:corpo ated into the Enforcement

Policy.

The response to the Chairman's tasking me'norandum provides ' 'E'a current schedule for i development of risk-informed changes to the Enforcement Policy. These changes are i' anticipated to be presented to the Commission in March 1999. Following receipt of an SRM, this item will be included in the PIP.

l l

i-

The Commissioners 10 COORDINATION The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal objections.

)),k - fFe- -

William D. Travers Executive Director for Operations i

Attachment:

As stated i l

i l

DISTRIBUTION:

Commissioners OGC OCAA OIG OPA OCA ACKS CIO i CFO 1

EDO REGIONS l i SECY 4

i 1

i I

ATTACHMENT 1' PRA IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ACTIVITY TABLE (March 1999) 1.0 REACTOR REGULATION Regulatory Activity Objectives Methods Target Lead Status (this Schedule Office (s) quarter) 1.1 STANDARD REVIEW Develop standard review

• Evaluate available industry NRR PLANS FOR RISK- plans (SRPs) to be used in guidance- /RES INFORMED REGULATION risk-informed regulatory decisionmaking.

• Develop broad- SRP ers and a of c ors tMrres to industry initiatives

• The SRPs will be consistent a de the ustry

• Transmit draft SRPs to the Commission for approval to issue for public comment General 4/97 C8 IST 4/97 C iSI 8/97 C TS 4/97 C

• Transmit final SRPs to the Commission fo o . ' val:

General 1/98 C IST 3/98 C ISI 12/99 (Note 1.1)

TS 3/98 C Update and revise SRPs:

General 6/99 IST 41/ 9 9 GQA 8/99 TS 8,99 ISI 12/00

' See Abbreviations Table at the end of this report 2

C = Task previously completed

.. .~_ .. . . -~ .

. l Regulatory Activity Objectives Methods TarDat Lead Status (this '

Schedule Office (s) quarter) 1.2 PILOT APPLICATIONS Evaluate the PRA

• Interfacewithindustry NRR/RES FOR RISK-tNFORMED methodology and develop groups REGULATORY statt positions on emerging, INITIATIVES risk-intormed initiatives.

• Evaluate ate including those associated documentation .g.,10 with: CFR, SRP, RG , inspection procedures andindustry

1. Motor-operated valves toidentify elements 1,' 2/96 C codes)to critical achieving the intent

2. IST requirements of existing requirements 2a. Comanche Peak 2a. 8/98 Completed 2b. Palo Verde

• Evaluate industry proposals 2b. (Note 12a) withdrawn

3. ISt raquirernents

• Evaluateindustrypilot- -

program implementation 3. 7/99 Changed (Note 1.2b)

4.

• As appropriate, complete 4. 1/98 C Graded assurancequality (GQA .) Dilot reviews and issue staff hndings on regulatory requests

5. Maintenance Rule 5. 9/95 C

6. Technical specifications 6a. 5/97 C 6a. Commission approval

. t amendments 6b.1098 Completed

7. Other applications to be identifica later (e.g.,

applications related to diesel generator start times and hydrogen control) 7a. ANO requestfor 7a. 9/98 C relief from the staff gition in NUREG-0737 on tNo ask 1 Zero"of the Risk- '

Informed. Performance-Based Reaulation Pilot Proaram (%fhole Plant Study *) proposed by NEl.

7b. San Onofre request to 7b. 7/99 New remove hydrogen recombiners l

{

1 J

2 i

i

. . ~ ~ . . - . - - . - - ~ - . . . - . . . . - - - ~ . . . . . - - - . - - - - - - . - . . . - . .

I Regulatory Activity Objectives Methods Target Lead Status (tNs Schedule Othce(s) quarter) 1.3 INSPECTIONS Provide guidance on the usJ

• Detelop IMC 9900 technical 6/97 C NRR

~

I bon from indiEual kRAs the or

'a***a pa*-a  :

g rei g ? g 3 3 .aad

• Revise IMC 2515 Appendix 7/97 C C on the use of PRAs in the i power reactorinspection program

• Propose guidance optior.s 10/97 C f uros maintenance b

• Review core IPs and 10/97 C g guidata

• Complete revision to 6/98 C N 70$

• lasue final GQA IP deferred 3a)

Provide PRA traming for

• Develop, Test & implement 12/99 Changed inspectors and senior reactor programs for ali (Note 1.3b) analysts (SRAs). risk into g g are n, d in ,

in Lic.en,see Asse s noniand P Enforcement

• ReviewIPEEEinsights 12/00 NRR New report stui extract guidance (Note 1.3c)

]-

for inspectors

)

2

• Identify functions 7/96 C NRR i that s utlHze PRA A ODMD for thee

' dn J = .uit and refinement 4

of PRKtrainingfor inspectors coneohdated and 10/97 C NRR/AEOD 2-3 week for regulatory applications training course 1

• Conduct training for 8/96 C NRR l

Maintenance Rule baseline inspectons

• Conduct training courses Ongoing AEOD according to SRA training programs 4

• Develop rotational Ongoing NP.R/RES assignments for SRAs to 4

gain working PRA (

i exponence

)

i

)

i i t a

3 f

, ~. -

Regulatory Activity Objectives Methods Target Lead Status (this Schedule Office (s) quarter)

Continue to provide expertise

• Monitor the use of risk in Ongoing NRR in risk assessment to support inspection reports regional inspection acth. ties and to communicate

• Develop new methodologies Ongoing inspection am guidance and communicate ande its to uses of risk im tion. Ins' to regional offices

• Updateinspection Ongoing procedures as needed

• Assi egenal offices as Ongoing

• Conduct Maintenance Rule 7/98C baseline inspections 1.4 OPERATOR LICENSING Monitor from human

• Revise the Knowledge and 8/95 C NRR reliablerty (HRAs) of ,welities Catalogs (NUREGs-PRAs (includi IPEs and 1122 and 1123) to individual examinations, irmorporate operating extemal events (IPEEEs) exponence and risk snsights

• Revise the Examiner 3/97 C enhancements forinclusion in Standards (NUREG-1021),

revisions to guidance as needed to reflect PRA

(' and ten 1.5 EVENT ASSESSMENT Continue to conduct

• Continue to evaluate 50,72 Ongoing NRR quangtative event events using accident assessments of reactor sequence precursor (ASP) events while at power and modeis corumtions Assess the desirability and

• Denne the current use of risk TBD f

of conducting methods and we risk assessments in current event on nordpower reactor events. assessments u ,N risk.

• Develop recommendations on the feasibility and un risk

- is 1.6 USE OF PRA IN Audit the of NRR/RES Now tracked licensee IPEs and as part of tem RESOLUTION OF 1.10 GENERIC SAFETY . IPEEEs to -

ISSUES of based on IPE and IPEEE programs.

1.7 REGULATORY Assess the effectiveness of RES/NRR  !!is tracked EFFECTIVENESS major safety issue resolubon now as item EVALUATION efforts for reducin0 risk to 2.11 public health and safety.

4 l

, _ . __ . . . . . _ . _ . _ _ . . . . . _ __ . ~ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ . . . _ _ _ . _ .m._ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ - _ . . _ .

i Regulatory Actney Objectives Methods Target Lead Status (this Schedule Office (s) quarter) 1.8 ADVANCED FIEACTOR Continue staff reviews of

• Continue to apply current 9/98 NRR Completed .

REVIEWS PRAs for desigrH:ertiflcation staff reviewprocess (Note 1.8a) applications.  ?

of P th t s and 8b) certification reviews of concurrence evolutionary reactors (ABWR and System 80+).

• Finalize SRP Dropped Changed (Note 1.8b)

• Reevaluate risk-based 12/96 C NRRfRES

~

Develop independent tectncal analyses and criteria aspects of the technical fr evaluatingindustry bases for EP (NUREG-0396) '

inibatives ano petitions usino insights from NUREG-regarding simplification of 1150, the new source term emergency preparedness information trorn NUREG-(EP) regula6ons. 1465, and available plant design and PRA information for the passive and evolutionary reactor designs 10 CFR Part 52 and

• Develop draft guidance and Dropped NRR Changed de uidance on the use rule (Note 1.8 of PRAs certification

• Solicit public comment Dropped in SECY 7). Changed

• Finalize staff guidance and Dropped (Note 1.8) rule 9.9 ACCIDENT Develop generic and plant-

-specific A/M TBD NRR/RES Changed ,

MANAGEMENT- snecific nok insights to formation for (Note 1.9) l t' staff auans of uti ed plants to serve as a 1

) basis for __ 1 programs at .

completeness of ullity A/M  :

program elements e.g.,

severe-accident neng) l 1

l 1

I I

l 5

a., _. . . . _ _ . ._ -- - - - - -

1

. s ule s) rt 1.10 P -uP E poede

• Evaluate 5/99 REs proposed as basis for f u othe i (e.g., deferred NRR se ed . Not 0) i EAeUMO""

r N ot P identify

• Recommendations to 9) 1 2li#ne"2%%et"d g P=0in2*an"P p entialinues. tehN '

• Assess r risk N 0) deferred NRR/RES (Not .10)

im

• Determine in accordance 0) or i E3*d" aem

=,w' ~ - NRR 5/98 C

! . Wuseforinformation,

- efte ive N fo Trp uses PEEE of1(ine M 0) g for Section 1 Notes 1.1 c -- The proposed versions of the draft RG and SRP for ISI were issued for use in September 1998. '

The final versions will be completed by December 1999 after the staff completes its safety evaluation of the EPRI methodology la September 1999.

1.2a The' staff issued the safety evaluation report (SER) on the Comanche Peak risk-Informed inservice testing program on August 14,1998. This is a chance from the previous date of July 1998. The SER was issued two weeks after the target schedule to alIow for incorporation of additional details.

1.2b The three RI-ISI pilot applications have been completed on schedule since the last PRA Implementation Plan report. The staff granted the licensee's request that ANO-1 be a pilot for the application of the EPRI method for class 1 PWR pipin correspond to the scheduled ncompleko. of the (now) fourth The pilotdate(i.e., was ANO-1). changed from December 1.3a The staff is presently considering comments from the CRGR and is developing a revised approach to provide GQA inspection guidance.

-1.3b Previous activities supporting development of risk-informed inspection program guidance reported in the last PRA implementation Plan update have been superceded by the most recent initiative which began in the fall of 1998. This initiative will result in a re-u nition of the inspection program. The 6

previous identified task to evaluate methods for presenting risk analysis results in a form most useful to in rs is subsumed by this current initiative. Detailed implementation plans and schedules for this i itiatWe were separately reported to the Commission as a i ransition Plan in SECY-99-007.

1.3c This task will be completed six months after completion of the final IPEEE insights report which is due in July 2000.

1.8 ' in the SRM for SECY-94-182, the Commission instructed the staff to develop a rule that would require COL applicants and holders to maintain, update, and use a PRA for the life of the facility, In the last

~

few Rulemaking Activity Plan updates sent to the Commission, the staff stated this rulemaki,ng activity is on hold. Since the staff does not now see any significant interest a U.S. utility in reo"9 sting a COL for an evolutionary LWR design, we are giving this task a low priori . The priority for t' . task will be revised if a COL becomes likely. This activity will be tracked in th Rulemaking Activid Plan and will be dropped from the PRA Implementation Plan.-

1.8a FSER of final ALWR review issued 9/98 (NUREG-1512) 1.8b No additional design certification submittals are presently anticipated. The need for an SRP will be reassessed if such submittals become likely.

1.9 The staff is reconsidering the necessity of audits and exploring ways to achieve the goals and objectives of the audits within the context of the evolving risk-informed inspection program.

1.10 Work on IPE follow-up activities has been deferred pending receipt of the Commission's staff requirements memorandum regarding SECY-98-300, which proposes options for risk-Informed revisions to 10 CFR Part 50. If the Commission accepts the staff's recommended course of action and the staff believes many of the goals and objectives of IPE directs follow-up the staff to could activities proceed with rulemaking,the be achieved within context of the reculations after they have been made more risk-informed. The staff is currentl be complementary with the Part informed 50 risk y developing approach a more that is currently limited IPE follow-under Commission consideration.

~

7

-. .- _ - , . - . . . . - - - . - - ~ ~ . ~ _ . _ - . _ . . . . - . - . - - - - _ . . . . . - . _ ~ _ . . - - - - . _ - . - - - - - - - . . .

d-1 1

e 2.0 REACTOR SAFETY RESEARCH Regulatory ActMty Objectives Methods Target Lead Status (tNs Schedule OfRce(s) quarter)

RGs to Transmit draft PRA RGs to the RES/NRR 2.1 REGULATORY GUIDES Commission for approval to issue for a basis for industry to use in ' putdic comment:

risk-informed General C regulation. IST C ISI C GQA C TS C Transmit final PRA RGs to the I 1/98 C lST 3/98 C ISI 12/99 Note 1.1 GOA 3/98 C TS 3/98 C Update and revise PRA RGs: New General 6/99 IST 8/99

! GQA 8/99 TS 8/99 -

ISI 12/00 l

Provide technical

• Continue to provide ad hoc technical Continuing RES  ;

2.2 TECHNICAL SUPPORT s NRC staff support to agency PRA users l assessment in risk-Expand the use of PRA models Continuing ,

actMeeYs avelletne'mYto incTi[nernal, techrdcol reviews, low power and shutdown events; issue risk renne the locos needed to use these assessments and models; and continue maintenance statistical analyses, and user support for SAPHIRE and and MACCS computer codes risk agency efforts in reactor Continuing ]

assessment irrpovee in former Soviet i

countrits Load plant-s socific PRAs in Ongoing (Note 2.2)

SAP M Etc various risk-Infom, d activities, e.g.,

pilot ons, of j lasust, and Maintenance une inspectes.

Subsumed by 2.3 SUPPORT FOR NRR Section 1.8, STANDARD REACTOR

• Advanced PRA REVIEW Reactor Reviews

• I 6

i

- . ~ . . - . - . . - - . . . . - .- .- . . . - . - . _ _ . _ - - . ~ ~ - . _ . . . - . .

4 Regulatory ActMty Objectives Methods Target Lead Status (this Schedule Office (s) quarter)

O ENT AND e, tratkm of for 4a)

DEMONSTRATION maintain, and ensure encorporatog aging effects into PRAs.

and demonstrate 9/98 C and using errors of i PRAs and related techniques for

• Conduct application of ATHENA for 7/99 New (note 2.4b) exist reactor fire risk assessment meinods and data 9,99 for likelihood of fire +xtuced circuit failures

• Identify and prioritize key areas to 9/98 Completed improve f6re risk analysis

• Develop and demonstrate methods for 9/00 (Note 2.4c) assesemg reliability /rlsk of digital systems 2.5 IPE ANDIPEEE Evaluate IPEAPEEE

• Complete the reviews of the three RES  ;

REVIEWS submittals to obta6n outstandi E submittals  ;

reasonable - S 6/98 C (Note 2.5e) -

assurance that the River 6/98 C licensees have S R for Browns Ferry 3 6/98 C

• Revised SER for Browns Ferry 3 3/99 to ,

• Contmue regionalIPE presentations 12/97 C vulneratstles; and document

• lasue IPE inseghts report for public 10/96 C l comment.

• res IPE/IP Es.

• lesue finalIPE insights report 12/97 0 i

• lasue preliminaryIPEEEinsights 1/96 C l

1. 6/98 C

• Initiate review of eight addisonal IPEEE submittels 6/96 C I

• Complete contractor evaluations of j twelve IPEEE submittals.

• Complete reviews of IPEEE 4/00 Changed submittals (Note 2.5b)

• losa draft IPEEE insights report for 7/00 Changed comment (note 2.5b)

• lesue finaliPEEE insights report 1/01 9

l

l' )

l Regulatory Activity Objectives Methods Target Lead Status (this Schedule Offt0e(s) quarter) 2.6 GENERIC SAFETY Conduct generic

• Continue to ortorit!ze and resolve Continuing RES ISSUES PROGRAM safety issue generic safely issues l uding priorttization. l resolution, and (

documentation, for issues rela to currently ng ,

reactors, or I advanced reactors for t I revision associated regulatory and standards instruments.  !

l 2.7 NEl INITIATIVE TO Review NElinitiative

• Agree on ground rules for study TBD RES/NRR Note 2.7 CONDUCT % HOLE to conduct three pilot 1 PLANT

• RISK STUDY Wole plant" risk-

• Complete study TBD I informed studies of requirements vs. risk and cost. )

2.8 PRA STANDARDS Work with industry to

• IrJtiate Phase 1 activity 9/97 C RES DEVELOPMENT develop national consensus standard lasue initial ASME draft standard 7/98 C Note 2.8 for PRA scope and l quality.

lasue draft standard for select 1/99 C public comment Finalize Phase 1 standard 12/99 Initiate Phase 2 effort TBD

• Collect and review existing LP&S risk 6/99 RES Chanced j 2.9 LOW POWER AND Collect studies of SHUTDOWN LP&S risk as a information (domestic ano foreign) Note 2.9 '

BENCHMARK RISK t es.e* tor STUDY assessing the need

• Initiate addrbonal work 6/99 for further staff activities.

Assess need to Initiate discussion with ACRS 2/98 C RES 110 SAFETY GOAL I REVISION revise Commission's I Saf Goal to make

• Make recommendation to 4/98 C l

core age Commissio.1 l ben $1 goal

• Provide information paper 4/99 Note 2.10 and make other changes Provide final recommendations 7/99 Assess the Develop process / guidance for Ongoing RES/NRR 2.11 REGULATORY EFFECTIVENESS effectiveness of assessang regulatory effectiveness EVALUATION ma}or safety issue resolution efforts for Apply method to assess reduction Ongoing reducing risk to in nsk public health and

• safety. Evaluate resulting effectiveness of TBD station blackout and ATWS rules and Unresolved Safety issue A-45 Propose modifications to resolution TBD approaches, as needed I

Identify otherissues for Ongoing assessmentif appropriate i

l 1- 10

,- . - . - . . . . - . - - . . . . - . ~ . _ . _ . - - _ . - - - - .-.-.-.. . .~ -. .-

+

1 Regulatory Actwity objectives Methods gg S tusgis

'"'" S o "#ad

'"2 "P fain %^#o" Y it!sTd Biatm'%"e"dir## "Jo;"a'  :

PROCESSES 300) ggprocess to l grtunities g tions on Part TBD Note 2.9 more nokinformed

• completed Ig for tgi 12/98 process PRA steering committee ongoing Section 2 Notes 2.2 The Office of Nuclear Regulatory _Research has an ongoing effort of developing plant-specific input decks (i.e., loading into SAPHIRE plant-specific PRAs) which are used to explore "what if" questions and to assess issues of a plant-specific or generic nature. For example, SAPHIRE models were used in the development of guidance for nsk-informed IST, ISI, GOA, and TS, the ranking and resolution of generic issues, and in Maintenance Rule inspections.

2.4(a) Draft report issued for comment November 1998 l 2.4b Key areas identified in SECY-98-230, prioritization discussed with ACRS Fire Protection Subcommittee i January 22,1999  ; ,

2.4c Methods developed in this area has been deferred until FY2000 because of budget constraints in -

FY1999  !

\

~

2.5(a) staff review of Browns Ferry 3 IPE submittal indicated it did not meet the intent of GL-88-20; licensee gponses to RAls provided additional information and RES is preparing a revised SER.

2.5(b)The target schedule for completing the reviews of all IPEEE submittals has been changed from December 1999 to April 2000. Correspondingly, changes were made to the target schedules for issuing the draft and finalIPEEE insights re rts. A number of factors contributed to revising the IPEEE review schedule. Among these were that ) there was a delay in receiving responses from industry on generic fire requests for additionalinformat n (RAls), (2) many licensees requested additional time to respond '

to plant specific RAls and (3) staff resources were needed to complete other high priority NRC work.

2.7 The staff has subsumed its interactions with the NEl on the "whole plant study" into the recommended approach to risk-inform 10CFR 50 as discussed in SECY-98-300.

2.8 Draft standard provided for comment: to select public in November 1998 and to general public in January 1999; ASME anticipates publication of final standard 12/99 at the latest. The standard will set i forth the criteria and methods for developing and applying PRA methodology to commercial nuclear power maintenance.plantsThe and appliesis to standard PRAs limited to aused Levelto supporti.e.,

1 analysis design, p(rocurement, core damage f construction opera analysis sufficient to evaluate the LERF for intemal events at full power, excludin intemal fires. The '

. standard defines requirements in five areas: (1) Technical requirements for deve a PRA that estimates a realistic CDF and LERF, (2) documentation r,equirements for providing traceability of the configuration control requirements for updating and maintaining the PRA so that it

' analysis, represents(3)he t as-built and as-operated plant, (4) peer review re uirements for verifying that the ab requirements were properly interpreted and implemented and application process requirements for 4

determining if the technical requirements are necessary and icient for the application. ASME has 2 not initiated Phase 2 activity (internal fires, external events and low power and shutdown operations).

I

11 3 9

1 1

2.9 Work delayed due to higher priority work as described in the staff's response to the Chairman's Tasking Memorandum (CTM).

2.10 Work delayed due to higher priority work described in the CTM and the RES Self-Assessment Program.

I l

l l

l J

i l

l l

j l

12

s j

3.0 ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF OPERATING EXPERIENCE, AND TRAINING l

l 5

Regulatory Activity Objectives Methods Target Lead Status (this Schedule Office quarter) 3.1 RISK-BASED TRENDS Use res.ctor operating

• Trond performance of risk- 3/00 AEOD Changed AND PATTERNG experience data to assess the important w@ 66ts (Note 3.1) j ANALYSIS trends and pattoms in equipment, systems, initiating

• Trend performance of r'9k- 5/00 Changed

events, human performance, important systems (Note 3.1) and important accident sequence.

• Trend frequency of risk- 7/98 Completed important initiating events

• Trend human performance TBD for reliability characteristics Evaluate the effectiveness of

• Trend reactor operating As needed licensee actions taken to experience associated with resolve nak-significant safety specific safety issues and issues. assess nsk imphcations as a measure of safety performance Develop trending methods and

• Develop standard trending special databases for use in and statistical analysis C AEOD trending activities and for procedures for identified PRA applications in other NRC areas for reliability and of5ces. statistical applicabons and da ahm eric,dic common-cause fahre) for tes) use in trendi analyses and PRA st es 3.2 ACCIDENT Identify and rank risk

• Screen and analyze LERs, Ongoing AEOD SEQUENCE significance of operational ' AITs,llTs and events PRECURSOR (ASP) events. identified from other PROGRAM sources to obtain ASP events

• Perform licensee and NRC Annual AEOD Note 3.2 N ath 'ng

• Complete quality C RES assurance of Revision 2 of the simplified plant-specific models

• Complete feasibility study C RES for low-power and shutdown models ]

• Completeinitial C RES containment performance I and consequence models. l

• Com to initial 5/99 RES I

ent of the LERF models

• Complete Revision 3 of the 6/01 RES I Level 1 cimphfied plant- l specific models j

• Complete LERF prototype 9/00 AEOD New I review and checkout Process

• Complete extemal event TBD RES models for fire and earthquake pl low- rand TBD RES t

l 13

- ~ _ . . - ~ . . . . - -. . _ . . _ . . - . . - . . _ . -- - . - . . . . . . -. - - . - . . - _ . .

Regulatory Activity Objectives Methods Target Lead Status (this Schedule Office quarter)

Provide supplemental

• Share ASP analyses and Annual AEOD information on plant-specific insights with other NRC report performance offices and regions 3.3 INDUSTRY RISK Provide a measure of industry

• Develop prooram plan to C AEOD TRENDS risk that is as complete as integrate NMR, RES, and ^

possible to determine whether AEOD activities using nsk is increasing, decreasing, design and operating imT""'"'

imW a*2"a,0*

how iiis enang,ng toe $

specific models and t-insights from IPEs.

de a'rM risk-i design and data in an rated framework to ly evaluate 3.4 RISK-BASED Establish a ehensive set

• Identify new or improved C AEOD PERFORMANCE of and risk-based Pts which use INDICATORS ormance and system measures are more r models and related to risk and human tional d- "'""

and conica@,*,ia,f" a'eihods m

• Develop test and issue for 9/00 puble'c comment candidate Pis/ performance measures

• Implement risk-based Pls witn Commission approval 1/01 14

.s 4 ,. - - -

. ~ . . _ .. .. _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ . . _ _ _ .

o Regulatory Activity Objectives Methods Target Lead Status (this Schedule Office quarter) 3.5 OPERATING Compile operating experience

• Manage and maintain Ongoing AEOD EXPERIENCE DATA information in database SCSS and the Pl data systems suitable for uant.ative

^

base, provide oversight reliability and risk and access to ications, informa NPRDS/ EPIX, obtain d be scrutable to the INPO's SSPl, compile IPE source at the event level to the failure data, collect plant-extent practical and be specific rsliability and sufficient for estimating availability data reliability and availability parameters for NRC

• Develop, manage, and Ongoing applications. maintain agency databases for reliabehty/ availability data (equipment performance, initiating events, CCF, ASP, and human 1 performance data) 6/98 C

!

• Determine need to revise LER rule to eliminate unnecessary and less safety-significant reporting 6/98 C

• Determine need to revise reporting rules and to bettercapture ASP,CCF,

)

and human performance events 2/00 Changed

• Publish revised LER rule (note 3.5) j 4/00 New

• Develop database to collect reliability (andavailabilitydata RADS) 3.6 STAFF TRAINING Present PRA curriculum as

• Continue current contracts Ongoing AEOO to esent courses as

{p scheduled for FY

• Maintain current reactor Ongoing i inc $s ghts arb applications

• mgcourses via Ongoing

• Review current PRA C l course material to ensure >

'. consistency with

1. Appendix C l I

15 l l

. . ..~. ~ . _ . _ . . _ . - . . _ _ - - - - _ _ _ . . _ . . ~ . _ _ - . . . _ . . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _

J i

A 1

\ Regulatory Activity Objectives Methods Target Lead Status (thus Schedule Office quarter) i and present

• Prepare course material C RES/AEOD

'x C training courses. based on Appendix C

• Present courses on C Appendix C Determine staff requirernents

• ReviewJTAs performed to C AEOD

' for traini ,inciuding date by thud

• Perform C J staff. JTAs for sta (JTA P6 lot Program)

• Evaluate staff C J' r rerr, ente as iden i Plan t Training Needs S (Phase 2) and them into the requirements ansa s

• Analyze the results of the C i JTA Pilot P ram and j determine roments for l l

additional JT j i

• faas't4f'as'",a"d po e l

• Solicit a review of the C l

4 nnaiiz.ine requir nis C

! Revise current PRA curriculum Ongoing AEOD

• go new courses to fuYifl staff -

a

• Revise current PRA courses to meet identified Ongoing

' needs

• Revise current and new 9/97 C i PRA course to include RG and sRP information l

• Revise current reactor Ongoing technology courses as PRA

. and .Acaiions

> Present revised PRAtraining

• Establish contracts for Ongomg AEOD curriculum. presentation of new PRA

}

curnculum

• Present revised reactor Ongoing j technology courses courses based on Ongoing e

l Section 3 Notes i

j. 3.1 Date changed due to budget priorities and staffing restrictions

! 3.2 Funding and staffing currently planned for FY 00 and beyond will not support the continuation of the annual ASP f.

! program analysis as done currently. This will result e5tr&r in a delay in completion of event analyses, a limitation in ,- .

! the number of analyses that can be done, or both. ~ , " ' '

! 5 Date changed to accommodate industry's request for an additional public meeting (table top exercise) early in the 7/ '

process of drafting the rules and guidehnes i

i 1

- 16 ,

t l 1

[

, ...~. .-. _ . ... _ _ ~ . . . . - . - - . - . . ~ . . - . . . - . - . . _ . - - . . . . - . . - - . - - . . . - . - - - - . - - . ~ .

3 I

4.0 NUCLEAR MATERIALS AND LOW-LEVEL WASTE SAFETY AND SAFEGUARDS REGULATION Regulatory Activity Objec6ves Methods Target Leac Status (this Schedule Office (c) E quarter)

~

E 4.1 VALIDATE RISK Validate risk s

• Hold a workshop 8/94 C NMSS ANALYSIS to consistibof METHODOLOGY sasse c Tss'~'--y roiative le of PRAun RAexpertsin to examine DEVELOPED TO most luely con existing work and to make i ASSESS MOST misadmitustration for the recommendations for

, LIKELY FAILURE gamma stereotactic device further methodological MODES AND HUMAN ggamma knife). development PERFORMANCE IN THE USE OF

• Examine the use of Monte 9/95 C INDUSTRIAL AND Carlo simulation and its MEDICAL RADIATION application to relative risk '

DEVICES profiling

• Examine the use of expert 9/95 C judgement in developing error rates and consequence measures l

Continue the development of the

• Develop functumally based TBD RES/

relative risk methodology, with generic event trees NMSS the addition of event tree modeling of the brachytherapy remote after loader.

Extend the of the

• Develop generic risk TBD RES/ i its further approaches NMSS into additional l dances, including teietherapy l and the high dose rate l

4.2 CONTINUE USE OF decision crtteria to

• Conduct enhanced 8/94 C RES/NMSS sh radioiogical shed maidng tEth RADIATION determmistic and risk-based criteria for W7C RELEASES AND engineering judgment. decommissioning nuclear DOSES ASSOCIATED sites; technical s 4for WITH LOW-LEVEL rulemaking,inct RADIOACTIVE WASTE comprehensive risk AND RESIDUAL assessmentof residual ACTIVITY. contamination

• Develop guidance for 3/98 C for license termination

• Work with DOE and EPA Ongoing to the extent practicable to develop common N'for eEMng' risks and attemative remediation ha Develop a branch technical

• Solicit public comments 5/97 C NMSS/RES i 4.3 DEVELOP GUIDANCE 1 FOR THE REVIEW OF on conducting a '

RISK ASSOCIATED ormance assessment of an TBD, WITH WASTE W disposal facierty..

• Publish final Branch Technical Position dependent REPOSITORIES. on resources 17

l Regulatory Activity Objectives Methods Target Lead Status (this Schedule Office (s) quarter)

. 4.4 ASSESS RISK Develop and demonstrate a risk

• Develop and demonstrate 9/98 RES Completed ASSESSMENT OF assessment forindustrial methods for determining MATERIAL USES. gauges containing cesium 137 the risk associated with industrial gauges and othercobalt-60 related tec usgques.

PRA and c n ng cesium 137 and The assestment should allow 4/99 Changed

• lssue final report as a for modification based on (Note 4.4a) changes in regulatory NUREG requirements.

Use al data as much as Develop and demonstrate risk

• Through working group 2/99 NMSS Changed assessment methods for with contractor ass 6 stance, (Note o.4b) application to medical and identify and document a

' technical basis for a risk-industrial licensee activities.

informed approach to the regulation of nuclear -

byproduct material, and develop plans for a graded approach to nuclear byproduct material in tion d

i 4.5 USE OF PRA IN Develop a framework for

• Provide plan for 6/98 C NMSS LEA TERIALS ma er$ . to the one or egulation

• Complete scoping effort 3/99

! appropriate.

• complete framework TBD a

Section 4 Notes 4.4(a) NMSS completed review of the draft NUREG in January 1999; Final scheduled for publication in April 1999

! 4.4(b) Schedule for SECY paper extended to allow for coordination with SECY being prepared as part of i Regulatory Activity 4.5.

4.5 Schedule for this SECY extended because of unanticipated technical difficulties and a short term

, need to divert resources to higher priority efforts 18 I i

i

l 1

J 5.0 HIGK-LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE REGULATION -

e l Regulatory Activity Objectives Methods Target Lead Status (this

, Schedule Office (s) quar %r) 5.1 REGULATION OF HIGH- Develop guidance for the NRC

• Assist the staff in pre- Ongoing NMSS L 8EVEL WASTE and ChWRA staffs in the use of licensing activities and in

- - b- ) license application reviews Eeva.. .eetheassessment luate safety of programs.

• Develop a technical assessment capabilityin total- and subs PA for use in and pre-licensing

• Combine specialited ' ,

technical disc 6plines (earth  !

sc6ences and neering) ' I with those of s em modelers_to improve {

n- my i identify significant events,

• Perform sensitivity studies Ongoing NMSS processes, and parameters of k technicalleisues -

a total system us iterative PA (IPA) l l

Ues PA and PSA methods

• Assist the staff in Ongoing NMSS Note 5.1(a) results, and insights to evaluate and refining to the structure in the H regulations ory Yucca . that to PA  ;

A i developmentof aYucca I Mountain regulation

• %n lPAanalysesto:h*

l i Continue PA actMties during

• Provide guidance to the Ongoing NMSS Note 5.1(b)  !

interactions Wth DOE durtreg DOE on site the pre-heens6ng phase of characterization

' nd Ming

~

eribb, ar7r' d a DOEs a nl?s.a*#c'a'M*"'"'Y ,

i

• go results of NRC's Viabil Es (VA) dt,,e - ues Demonstrate methods for PRA

• Prepare user needs letter 4/97 C RES/NMSS Note t: 4  !

5.2 PRA APPLICATIONTO '

SPENT FUEL STORAGE of spent fuel storage facihties. to RES FACILITIES  ;

• ConductISA of dry cask 6/99 storage system l

l 19

.-. _ =- - . - - . - . . . ._ . . - . . .= .. , .

Regulatory Activity Objectives Methods $ s .is Tge 5.3 CONTINUAL UsE OF Use PRA methods, results and

• Update the database on 6/01 NMss PPO rNng the of bYoacts e a rials for O IVE fadioactive matert . future applications TRANSPORTATION

• Revalidate the results of 12/99 NUREG-0170 for spent fuel shipment risk estimates Section 5 Notes 5.1(a) SECY-98-225 forwarded a draft proposed 10CFR63 for Commission approval in 9/98 5.1(b) DOE provided the viability assessment for NRC review in 12/98; staff will report its findings to the Commission in a 3/99 SECY.

5.2 Because of resource constraints the staff has completed an ISA for a particular dry cask storage system in lieu of the broader proj,ect that was originally planned. The report is undergoing peer review and will be published in 6/99.

20

, - . _ . _ . . ___ .. . . . _ ~. . . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _

i 4

l 6.0 REACTOR ENFORCEMENT

! Regulatory Activity Objectives Methods Target Lead Status (this Schedule Office (s) quarter) i l

1 l l l 6.1 CONSIDERATION OF Ensure the consistent

• Prepare an enforcement 6/ 97 C OE 1 RISK IN THE Application of the Enforcement cuicance memorandum '

ENFORCEMENT Policy in the Area of Risk (EGM) l PROCESS Informed Enforcgment Actions. 4

• Update the Enforcement 8/98 C OE I Manual to reflect the utdance developed in the GM 6.2 RISK INSIGHTS Ensure risk informed decisions

• Include regional eenior a Ongoing OE ,

DURING WEEKLY are made in developing reactor analyst evaluation ENPORCEMENT enforcement actions. on paneled enforcement PANELS cases when warranted 6.3 CHANGE THE Provide the staff with more

• Interface with NRR (SPSB) Spring 99 OE ENFORCEMENT useful guidance for determining to consider additional POLICY the Severity Level of Violations. examples for the poley SUPPLEMENTS supplements TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL EXAMPLES OF HOW FilSK SHOULD .

INFLUENCE i SEVERITY LEVEL i

I 21

s 9

ABBREVIATIONS ABWR advanced boiling-water reactor

~AEOD' Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data ACRS ' Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards -

AFW auxiliary feedwater -

AIT augmented inspection team ANO Arkansas Nuclear One AOT allowed outage time A/M accident management APS Arizona Public Service ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASP accident sequence precursor ATWS anticipated transient without scram BF3 Browns Ferry Unit 3 C completed COL combined construction and operating license CCF common-cause failures CFR Code of FederalRegulations CRGR Committee to Review Generic Requirements CY~ calendar year CNWRA Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Activities DOE Departmentof Energy EDG emergency diesel generator EGM Enforcement Guidance Memorandum EP - emergency preparedrwss EPA Environmental Protection Agency

. EPIX Equipment Performance r.d information Exchange FY fiscalyear HLW high-levelwaste HRA human reliability analysis .

GSI generic safetyissue GOA graded quality assurance JTA job task analysis IE initiating event IMC inspection manualchapter INPO Institute of Nuclear Power Operations IP inspection procedure IPA . iterative performance assessment IPE individual plant examination IPEEE individual plant examination, extemal events llT incidentinspection team IST ' inservice testing ISI inservice inspection LAN , local area network LER licensee event report LOSP loss of offsite power LLW low-level waste LP&S low power and shutdown r MACCS MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System MR Maintenance Rule NEl Nuclear Energy Institute 22

_ _._..____ _- -~-- - _ _ _ - -

2 NOED notice of enforcement discretion NPRDS nuclear plant reliability data system NRR - Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 1 2NMSS Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards  ;

. OClO Office of the Chief information Officer i OE Office of Enforcement- c OGC Office of the General Counsel i

'PA performance assessment 2 Pl- performance indicator  !

PIP PRA implementation Plan PIPB Inspection Program Branch, NRR

PM project manager

.PRA probabilistic risk assessment RAI request for additionalinformation RCP  :

' reactor coolant pump - .

t RES. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research RG- regulatory guide SAMG- severe-accident management guidance SAPHIRE Systems Analysis Programs for Hands -on Integrated Reliability Evaluations SBO station blackout SECY Office of Secretary of the Commission  ;

. SER safety evaluation report  !

SGTR steam generator tuber rupture SONGS ' San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station

! .SPSB Probabilistic Safety Assessment Branch SCSS sequence coding and search system j SRP. standard review plan i

, SRA- senior reactor analysts  ;

SRM staff requirements memorandum l SSPI- Safety System Performance Indicator i TBD to be determined t

TTD TechnicalTraining Division ,

i TS- technical specifications -

TU Texas Utilities - [

1 FY Fiscal Year 4 VA viability assessment  !

l  !

i i i I

i i

23 4

. _ . . .