COMMISSION BRIEFING SLIDES/EXHIBITS

BRIEFING ON RESULTS OF THE

AGENCY ACTION REVIEW MEETING

MAY 4, 2004
,j' - . BRIEFIN

tSP REGo

Luis Reyes

James Dyer

Jack Strosnider

Stuart Richards
Elements of the Agency Action Review Meeting

* NRC Management Directive 8.14

* Review of agency actions:

* Industry trends (SECY-04-0052)

* ROP selfwassessment (SECY-04-0053)

Significant nuclear material issues and

Licensee Trends (SECY-02=0216)

* Individual plants per action matrix

2

t W
.i k *' 

Reactor Ind ustry Trends

Program

Identifies --trends., in safety performance

* Communicates performance to

stakeholders

' Provides 'feedback to 'ROP

*Supports N'RC' performance goals

3
FY 2003 Results

* No statistically significant adverse

industry trends in safety performance

* Three "Early Warning" prediction limits

were exceeded

* Auto Scrams

Safety System Actuations

Equipment Forced Outage Rate

4
. *

FY 2003 Results (cont)

* Accident sequence precursor. data..-

relatively flat since 1994

* Insufficient data on ROP indicators for

long term..trending--.

5
Industry Trends Program

Development

* Risk-informed indicators

* Indicators for ROP cornerstones

* Initiating Event Performance Indicator

(BRIIE)

* Operating Experience

6
ROP Self-Assessment

* NRC Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 0307

* Diverse inputs for, self-assessment

. Self-Assessment Metrics -

*.ROP Internal Feedback Process

Independent-Evaluations.

* Comments from External Survey

* Feedback at Meetings and Conferences

Direction-from.-the Commission

7
Overall Results

• Effective in monitoring plant activities

and focusing resources

* Successfully supported agency goals

* ROP improved based on feedback and

lessons learned

* Most metrics were met

* Continued focus on stakeholder

involvement

* Range of views on ROP is mixed

8
Performance Indicator (PH)

rog ram

* Significant"activitiesre'sults

-MSPIS activities discussed separately

>Complicated Scrams P'

* 12/18-' Pls green for all plants in CY2003

*'All-self-assessment metrics met but one

* Challenges. and, planned actions

*Assessment of -P, Program

* Individual Pi improvements

9
Inspection Program

Significant activities/results

* Baseline Inspection Program completed

* Implemented several Davis-Besse

Lessons Learned Task Force (DBLLTF) actions

* Evaluated all inspection procedures

* Revised several procedures

* All self-assessment metrics met

* Challenges and planned actions

* Additional DBLLTF actions

Engineering design inspections

10
Significance Determination

Process (SDP)

* SignifiCant activitieslresults --SDP-improvement1 plan progress

* Phase 2 notebooks ,

.Continued development of SDPs

* Two self-assessment-metrics not met, but

accuracy and timeliness improved

* Challenges and planned actions

Develop prewsolved Phase 2 SDP tables

> Finalize additional SDPs

11
Assessment Program

* Significant activities/results

* Enhanced IMC 0350 guidance

* Evaluated action matrix thresholds

* Flexibility for public meetings

* All self-assessment metrics met

* Challenges and planned actions

* Monitor recent IMC changes

* Substantive cross-cutting issues

12
Self-Assessment Process

and Independent

Evaluations

* Continued improvements to IMC 0307 1 ~ ~ * ~ ~~ . ~~~ , .7 . v .. . . .. * 3of 19' overall program metrics not met

* Indepen'dent'evaluations

* 0MB PART gave "effective"' rating

*OIG audits--'.-.

* DBLLTF action items

13
Resources I Resident

Demograph ics

* Resource expenditure trends

* CY 2003 resource challenges

* Demographic trends

* High turnover due to promotions and

transfers

. Few inspectors leaving the NRC

14
MSPI Program

A ,ts a fundamental

cha_ nge'"- ' n,' hw minsp NRC ts a

assesses licensee. performances

* Present appro ach - prompt a:ispectos liesessenpromne

inspection/assessment of each failure

MSPI pilot approach - react if 3 year

trend exceeds threshold

15
MSPI Program (cont

* Activities Going Forward

* Working with internal stakeholders

* Consolidate staff concerns with aspiloted MSPI

* Consider modified MSPI and other

possible solutions to achieving the

intended goal

16
Material Licensee Trends

Purpose and. Ro I(SECY=02-

.FY 2003 Resu.ts

17
Program Purpose and Role

* Systematically review available

information and identify candidate

material licensees for AARM discussion

* Systematically review available

information and identify significant

issues and performance trends

* Confirm adequacy of programs and

actions being taken

18
FY 2003 Results

* One plant identified and discussed at the

AARM

No discernable adverse trends in safety

performance identified

* Abnormal occurrence data

Strategic plan performance goals and

measures data-

* Escalated enforcement data

Screening criteria -for AARM

* NMED data

19
Ape REG(1 -

0

1- 0

** .

PLANT DISCUSSION

BRIEFING*

Luis Reyes

James Dyer Hubert Miller

James Caidwell

Bruce Mallett
Assessment Process under

the ROP

. End-.of-cycle meetings - all plants

.EOCsummary meeting - specific plants

based on ROP action matrix column

. Annual assessment letters = all plants

.* Annualpublic meetings - all plants

* Agency Action Review Meeting - specific

plants based on ROP action matrix

column

2
Plant DiscussionCooper

* Background

* Inspection activities

* Current status

* Public interface

* Next steps

3
Cooper CAL Assessment

* Emergency-.Preparedness

* Human, Performance

*wMaterial Condition/Equipment Reliability

* Plant.Modification/Configuration Control

* Corrective Action Program

* Engineering Programs

4
Plant Discussion - Point Beach

* Background

* Inspection activities

* Current status

* Public interface

* Next steps

5
41

Davis-Besse Informational

Update

. Basis fo res decision

* Codnfirmatoryorder issued with restart

-approval,;^ ,

* Co'm'mitments in Cycle 14 Operational

Improvem'ent- Plan and Restart Report

- Licensee performance during startup

activities

* Inspection and oversight during calendar

year 2004. .

6
Material Licensee

Discussion- Honeywell

* Background plant information

* December 22, 2003 event

* UF6 release

* Licensee response

NRC post-event actions

* Prior licensee performance

* Future NRC actions

7
*** *

BACKUP SLIDES,
Industry Trends

Automatic Scrams While Critical

3-

El Industry Average

Action Threshold (0.738)

-- __ Early Warning Thresh. (0.680)

........ .Baseline Period Industry Avera

i] Projected Industry Average

-- ,.

E

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Fiscal Year

2
Industry Trends

FY2003 Grid/Connection to Grid SCRAMS

Cause of Scram Number

Switchyard Equipment 7

Grid Disturbances 16

(non 8/14 Blackout) 7

(8I14 Blackout) 9

Total:. 23

3
Industry Trends (cont)

Safety System Actuations

2

1.5

I1D I

C

4-

0.5

0

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Fiscal Year

4
e.

Industry Trends (cont)

Equipment Forced Outages1 000 Commercial Critical Hours

06 -

. .Industry Average

Action Threshold (0.166)

Early Warning Thresh. (0.157)

.. ........ Base Period Industry Average (0.131)

IM 04 ,^:^-i.

02 - L. i. '.'. .. X: .

E0.

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Fiscal Year.- --- - -

5
ROP Process

Present Approach

Component

failure

After end of

quarter,

data entered

into CDE

computer

system

[M SPI Approach Action Matrix Adjust Inp1tInspection ( as piloted) Focus

|Ys

MSPI automatically MSPI reported to

calculated by INPO MNR I repared to < rosd

computer based on 3 NRt oprdt hreshold crse

years of performance threshold

No

6 No Action
/

109

RI AND SRI ACTIVITY DURING .. . .... .

.. ... .Ar 1 %. . -.

.. .. .. .1 I. I

I ....- I

Activity.' - Total

RI positions filled - 27

SRI positions'filled 20*

SRI'promotions to GG-15 7

SRI lateral reassignments 6

SRI retirement 1

*Number of positions filled does not necessarily equal the number

of positions vacated during a given period due to time'involved in

the recruitment process

7
EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR AARM CONSIDERATION

(Table 1 of SECY-02-0216)

Performance by Individual NRC Licensees and Groups of Ucensees and Selected Agreement State LicenseesEvaluation Criteria

Criteria for identifying candidate licensees for | Criteria NMSS will use in evaluating whether

AARM consideration candidate licensees will be forwarded for

discussion at the AARM.

Licensee has an event that results in the failure These licensees will typically be discussed at

to meet a Safety Measure (e.g., a death, release the AARM unless the matters have already been

with a significant impact on the environment, adequately addressed and discussed before the

etc.). AARM.

Licensee has an event that results in an These licensees will only be discussed at the

Abnormal Occurrence, or an event that qualifies AARM if Agency actions beyond the normal

for a Severity Level I or 11 violation, or multiple inspection and enforcement processes are

events that meet the criteria of the agency necessary, and other Offices will be required to

Strategic Plan Performance Measures (e.g., support these actions, or other Offices would

reportable loss of material, breakdown of benefit from an awareness of the issues and

physical protection, etc.), and technical staff circumstances associated with licensee

believes that there are unique or unusual performance.

aspects of the cases that are not adequately or

appropriately handled within the normal

inspection and enforcement processes.

Licensees that have significant breakdowns in These licensees will only be discussed at the

their licensed programs, where the breakdowns AARM if Agency actions beyond the normal

involve more than one compliance item (e.g., a inspection and enforcement processes are

dose monitoring breakdown and also wide- necessary, and other Offices will be required to

spread failure to implement and maintain support these actions, or other Offices would

required procedures) and technical staff believe benefit from an awareness of the issues and

that there are unique or unusual aspects of the circumstances associated with licensee

cases that are not adequately or appropriately performance.

handled within the normal inspection and

enforcement processes.

8

4.