ML20297A253: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
Review Objectives | Review Objectives | ||
* Information and data considered: | * Information and data considered: | ||
- CCI program objective, history, and guidance | |||
- CCI program and plant assessment data, including all aspects assigned since 2006 | |||
- Principles of Good Regulation | |||
* Main components of data review: | * Main components of data review: | ||
- Did the program identify plants that actually had concerns in cross-cutting areas? | |||
- Were plants that exhibited performance concerns identified by the program and should they have been? | |||
- Is there a relationship between program insights and performance? | |||
Review Conclusions | Review Conclusions | ||
* Changes made in 2015 resulted in a program that appears to be less responsive to cross-cutting behavior indicators | * Changes made in 2015 resulted in a program that appears to be less responsive to cross-cutting behavior indicators | ||
* Introduced concerns about whether the program would proactively identify cross-cutting concerns consistent with the program objective | * Introduced concerns about whether the program would proactively identify cross-cutting concerns consistent with the program objective | ||
* Review of seven Column 4 and recent outlier plants found the current program would not have opened a CCI in any case prior to performance decline | * Review of seven Column 4 and recent outlier plants found the current program would not have opened a CCI in any case prior to performance decline | ||
* There is a predictive relationship between increasing numbers of cross-cutting aspects and future movement in the Action Matrix or future occurrence of precursor events | * There is a predictive relationship between increasing numbers of cross-cutting aspects and future movement in the Action Matrix or future occurrence of precursor events Changes made in 2015 resulted in a program that while still providing some encouragement to monitor cross cutting aspects, may be less responsive to cross-cutting behavior indicators, may provide only limited communication about cross-cutting themes, and introduced concerns about whether the program would proactively identify cross-cutting concerns consistent with the program objective. | ||
Review Recommendations | Review Recommendations | ||
* Final report available in ADAMS Package ML20239A806 Monitoring for CCIs | * Final report available in ADAMS Package ML20239A806 Monitoring for CCIs Identification of a CCI Follow-up of a CCI Simplify the assignment and trending of cross-cutting aspects via one of two options: | ||
More detailed discussion in | Use nine safety culture traits (preferred) | ||
Use three cross-cutting areas Eliminate the three assessment period waiting time More detailed discussion in assessment letters Pre-establish follow-up guidance and objectives in baseline IP Timing of follow-up based on licensee readiness Leverage planned 9500x if available Cannot close CCI based solely on reduction in findings | |||
Leverage planned 9500x if | |||
Questions}} | Questions}} | ||
Latest revision as of 14:55, 29 November 2024
| ML20297A253 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/28/2020 |
| From: | Garman D NRC/NRR/DRO/IRAB |
| To: | |
| Alex Garmoe, NRR/DRO/IRAB, 415-3814 | |
| References | |
| Download: ML20297A253 (6) | |
Text
Cross-Cutting Issues Program Effectiveness Review October 28, 2020 ROP Public Meeting Alex Garmoe Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Division of Reactor Oversight 1
=
Background===
- Several of the 99 ROP Enhancement recommendations suggested reviewing, revising, or eliminating the CCI program
- CCI program was due for an effectiveness review of significant program changes implemented in 2015
- An effectiveness review could address both the ROP self-assessment and the ROP Enhancement recommendations
Review Objectives
- Information and data considered:
- CCI program objective, history, and guidance
- CCI program and plant assessment data, including all aspects assigned since 2006
- Principles of Good Regulation
- Main components of data review:
- Did the program identify plants that actually had concerns in cross-cutting areas?
- Were plants that exhibited performance concerns identified by the program and should they have been?
- Is there a relationship between program insights and performance?
Review Conclusions
- Changes made in 2015 resulted in a program that appears to be less responsive to cross-cutting behavior indicators
- Introduced concerns about whether the program would proactively identify cross-cutting concerns consistent with the program objective
- Review of seven Column 4 and recent outlier plants found the current program would not have opened a CCI in any case prior to performance decline
- There is a predictive relationship between increasing numbers of cross-cutting aspects and future movement in the Action Matrix or future occurrence of precursor events Changes made in 2015 resulted in a program that while still providing some encouragement to monitor cross cutting aspects, may be less responsive to cross-cutting behavior indicators, may provide only limited communication about cross-cutting themes, and introduced concerns about whether the program would proactively identify cross-cutting concerns consistent with the program objective.
Review Recommendations
- Final report available in ADAMS Package ML20239A806 Monitoring for CCIs Identification of a CCI Follow-up of a CCI Simplify the assignment and trending of cross-cutting aspects via one of two options:
Use nine safety culture traits (preferred)
Use three cross-cutting areas Eliminate the three assessment period waiting time More detailed discussion in assessment letters Pre-establish follow-up guidance and objectives in baseline IP Timing of follow-up based on licensee readiness Leverage planned 9500x if available Cannot close CCI based solely on reduction in findings
Questions