ML19296D502
| ML19296D502 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/20/1980 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8003040694 | |
| Download: ML19296D502 (70) | |
Text
!
.f ""Uq,**.
+#
s
,~
&me UNITED STATES N UCLE AR R EG UL ATO RY COMMISSION in the matter of:
CONTINUATION OF BRIEFING ON ACTION PLAN Plaee:
Washington, D.C.
Date:
February 20, 1980 Pages:
1 - 70 INTERNATICNAL VERBAT1M REPCa4 ms. INC.
499 SCtJTH CA?!TCL STREET. S. W. SUITE 107 WASHINGTCN, C. C. 33002 322 434-35M 4W
=
o _ __
i ncz.sc.
4
/%
I l
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO:01ISSION j
______________________________x i
I l
A In the Matter of:
l CONTINUATION OF A BRIEFING e
~.
\\
ON ACTION PLAN l-3
X
/
3 Commissioners' Conference Room i
1717 H Street, N.W.
10 Washington, D.C.
11 February 20, 1980 Ia l
t 13 i
l 14 L!
The Commission met, pursuant to notice, for i
i4 presentation of the above-entitled matter, at 10:05 a.m.,
I John F. Ahearne, Chairman of the Commission, presiding.
- g i
BEFOPI:
- 9 JOHN F.
AHEANRE, Chairm of the Commission 0
VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner 4
RICHARD T.
KENNEDY, Commissioner 1
PETER A.
3RADFORD, Commissioner JOSEPH HENDRIE, Commissioner u
l v
- .t l
-e
.ee.
4
'~wa-~-
= =. <
.~e...
...w q
y
'4 e.
48 M QMTCll. 279G*. L 4 5JfTE '27 f
.-- m 2 :.==
seg seg ]~
1 I
n q+
pacz so.
IN 54 i
_P _R _O _C _E _E _D _I _N _G _S Pace 1 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
The next item--when I got sick l
t last week, Commissioner Gilinsky promised me that he would
)
i 4
complete the Action Plan and it was at that condition that I j
1 3
got well, but nevertheless, we are apparently not quite through 3
it.
i COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It is been said that the 7
discussion of the Action Plan was one of those items, which g
9 if you miss a meeting, when you come to the next one you will 10 i
be fully up to speed.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You cannot tell.
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Roger, I realize that such l
- 7 l
vovulvity is not really the appropr.'. ate way to--
g 14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
P]ger always tells us that I
he thinks of these things at midnight; he is reminded of these things at midnight.
He is always working on one or another c.lan.
g.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Speaking of vovulvity--
,8 6
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
In the absence of the gentleman who is, at least, leading us through this, Dr. Hendrie; per-haps, Roger, you can recall where you all ended up.
MR. MATTSON:
As I recall, we had made it through i
Section, Roman II, Capital B.
l 22
{
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Which is where you left.
l 24 MR. MATTSON:
Which means--
l
-e r
i - w.,vc m n w I %
j..._.
..un. cu.m. stmr.
.un
.- s. :.
x.=
i 2
a.
c.
noz sc.
3
\\
l CRAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Reliability Engineering and Risk Assessment.
2 MR. MATTSON:
Reliability Engineering and Risk A.
Assessment.
Would you like me to lead you through it?
e CHAIRNLN AHEARNE:
Yes, please.
3 MR. MATTSON:
All right.
7.
We have stolen the march on -your pad--
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I am.not sure what that means.
3 MR. MATTSON:
Let me finish.what I was going to 9
say and then we can reconsider and--
10 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I have an announcement.
77 My age in general deteriation of condition and the weight of this manuscript are going to converge.
If we do not complete this in another four days and seven hours, I will be unable to carry it into the room.
i Yes, Roger, I am sorry.
T o, MR. MATTSON:
They ask that I try to_ lead the dis-cussion through this and I most graciously let it advert to your control, sir.
I like to mention at the start that ac. ting 19 on your lead in the last two meetings in creation of.this 20 category D, there are items that are either so far out in ti the future, it is hard to plan and schedule resources today, I
and they ought to be handled in the course of the agency's l
22 normal budget process or they are just condanshuly s,
24 i
or incidentally TMI related.
They were already ongoing and i
m% vo.un.
_ o.c.
A,.
om. - remr... = =
p.,.
we s. :..==
3
- t c-m,,
i
.~
I are already in the existing budget and for that reason along 2
Category D.
As we have crept ahead of you in our work in i
getting Rogovin incorporated into Draft 3, we have identified A
some category D items of our own.
You should not be surprised 3
if you see Draft 3 has some in areas you have already covered 3
that we think, in polishing the final product, should have f
been put in D and were not.
We are also a slight bit ahead i
g of you in our review of the document, so as you come to some items, we will suggest that they be D:as reviewed or not.
9 With that introduction I think we are ready to g
forge ahead with Chapter 2; and I--allows to how Joe is doing such a good job, he ought to continue.
We decided that we were at 2C.
l a.
I COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
This is that Nuclear 1.L Regulatory place, is it not?
Have I got the right papers?
i i
This is not the ASME?
All right.
~
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It is just that the papers are similar.
!3 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I will leap to Roman II, Roger, if you make a best effort to sneak quality assurance into D catagory.
Siting Policy--
O COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let us see, that was going O
to get re-written or what was happening with quality
- 4 I
assurance?
That was going to get re-written and focused--
l 2
i L
- - ~ = -.
u.
me 2:nme f AF?Cl. T!W127. L e. AFT 1 ~67 f
.=
au 4
e e
naz sc.
1 i
MR. MATTSON:
That is done already.
2 What we did was--
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Do not explain it.
4 MR. MATTSON:
Well, it was what we agreed to at 3
the last meeting.
We took the first item and made it a l
3 separate item--
i 7
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Just say you did and let us keep moving.
Never go back.
They will stop you if they, 3
want to raise certain questions.
9 Now, let us see.
Here we go on siting a.id design.
10 MR. MATTSON:
We did siting last time and we did 3;
2B last time.
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
We are up at 2C-1, right?
MR. MATTSON:
Oh.
Might pause for a moment on Item 8 under 23 that was were we ended the discussion and the question was whether this rulemaking approach or the degraded core cooling was going to work or not and do the things that we wanted it to do.
We have some discussions with OGC since that meeting--
19 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Oh, yes, I remember that.
20 MR. MATTSON:
Yes.
Il COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Tell me the outcome.
22 MR. MATTSON:
And what we are going to do is follow '
22 the following kind of course and see how it writes up and j
IA see how people react to it.
It would call in this Item 8 2
I (PrTTPUEAPCDeek V CDSAPh8 h m n ! feC n m.c - a. n m.s...
urro n r' " _
.- 2 :.
5 0-nacz so.
I rulemaking where the formulation of an interim rule with interim acceptance criteria for publication by the Commission--
l
{
7 issuance by the Commission treating such matters that as 4
hydrogen control the inerting paper that is on its way down 3
to you and the context of the NTOL requirements, probably recommending that some of the short-term degraded core-cooling 3
things already decided and directed for licensees be incor-7
- -porated in the rule.
Such things as leak detection and a 3
leakage control and systems outside containment that can 9
communicate with the primary system, that was a short-term license le.rned; shielding of the same systems, also a short-term license learned; training for degraded core accidents
,i which is one of the NTOL approved requirements now being implemented on all plants, now being prepared for issuance for all plants; and several other things of that character.- -
13 The high point vents for degraded core cooling producing a lot of hydrogen and a primary system, another:short-term lesson learned.
When you step back from, we-have:taken 18 a number of actions of the interim sort that should be placed 19 in this interim rule, if it is an interim rule addressing 20 degraded core cooling.
Then giving you an opportunity to 21 consider what other things ought to be put in that interim 22 list, if any, and give the Staff a chance to develop a basis i,
for why other than need not be considered.
Said another way, !
~
24 why it is safe to proceed with operation and licensing while if 8
i tarromaro.aa., Vuesariu 4-.
le
!~
- - ~... -
.= - m a.:. m==
6
=
c'
..cz se, I
the rulemaking is ongoing, given that the interim things have 2
been accomplished through the rule.
Anyhow, that is the new 2
tact that Item 8 in on.
I think the legal staff is in i
4 agreement with that tact--
l 3
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Now, would your approach
~
~ 3 be that we could smuggle that under 2204 or would~you want'
~~~
7-
'to-issue an order and then--
~'
~
~~
~~
t 1
3 CHAIRMAN AEEARNE:
Please.
9 MR. BICKWIT:
We are fine with that'.
10 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Okay.
All right.
Let us'see<
l MR. MATTSON:
That brings us to 2C.
~
~~~
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Yes.
That Number 9 at the 12 end of 2B needs to be done on a group basis, you do not want l a.
conceptual designs from everybody, but you would like one for~
- j
~
this kind of system and one for that kind of system.
I I
1.,.
MR. MATTSON:
Yes, and there is even some kind of
~
question as to whether it is proper or legal to'do it~the way it is written in 9 now.
We will consider making that a very strong request during the course of the rulemaking in Item No. 8 of those groups of reactor designs--
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Well, under the--as we go on it is noted that that may involve EPRI or some similar body and that sounds more like the way to get to it than
- 2 j
perhaps in licensees.
+
24 Okay, C.
l 3
}- -
rmom vm n at-wres. 9.c
- -,r.or. s o. =m =
~
e':
34w L
- me
7 l
a o.
- 4GZ NC.
- J; I-CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Is the Crystal River study going 2
to be completed in March?
I MR. MATTSON:
I am afraid that I do not know the l
I 4
current statis.
I i
l e
MR. SCROGGINS:
It is on the edge.
3 CF: AIRMAN AHEARNE:
On the edge means if it does not.
7 make it in March, it will in April?
MR. SCROGGINS:
They are running a little bit.
y behind.
9 CHAIRMAN AHEARh?:
Have the other six plants been jo i
chosen?
- )
MR. SCROGGINS:
The other six plants study will i.s begin shortly.
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Those plants have been chosen?
g L, ; -
MR. SCROGGINS:
I believe they have but I_
3,.
am not sure.
l I4 l
1,,
MR. MATTSON:
I believe we do not have the people here to answer the question, I am afraid.
The last time I-set in on a meeting with these people and NRR and Research people were discussing it, there was still some open issues and that has been several weeks ago.
- 1 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Do you know whether sort C
of the question of calibration of Crystal River against the l
23 l
previous major effort has been accomolished?
I lA MR. SCROGGINS:
No.
==
f,,,
!rmm.arionaa. versams biw ie 3:un. m senrr. s... surtz 4 1 ami. 2 :. ma
u O'
d
- - ~ -
nacz sc.
8 r
~
- I MR. CASE:
Perhaps with Research but not with'NRR.
2 COMMISSICNER HENDRIE:
Eet us see.
The comment--
we have IREP and there is an IREPian Aux Feed System Activity l
and do I remember some more of this kind of thing back down 4
in here?
e f.
MR. MATTSON:
Well, the Aux. Feed Water evaluation'
- y 7
is down in 2E, it is not under this systems engineering i
p
-section.
~
-~
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Yes.
Is the Aux Feed stuff 9
done?
g l
MR. MATTSON:
For the Westinghoure and-Combustion Engineering Plants it has reached a stage where the analysis has been done, the changes required have been issued to l a.
licensees, licensees are now returning with proposed modi.
fications to accomplish those changes, they are under review by the Staff--
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
So, it does not make a
~
-great deal of sense at this point to consolidate -it into the IREP?
19 MR. MATTSON:
No.
20 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
In fact, it stands as an 21 essentially completed study.
The Aux Feed Systems are import-O ant enough to have merited the separate look.
l j
MR. MATTSON:
Yes.
The B&W plants are not quite l'
- L l
as far along.
If you recall, we asked them to do the IREPian '
=.
i j
l tnrum m vuemm=.: w.
!=
W-me s:UTDe C477t:4. STNCIT. t e. su,ft !87 H
e r _i m 1 a Janu
9 a
c nor sc.
1
. analysis themselves.
We are reviewing that analysis; we will 2
develop the requirements for long-term modifications of their Aux Feed Water System and then issue those requirements 4
i shortly.
And then each new OL gets reviewed in light of 3
the kinds of generic requirements flowing from the Aux Feed 1
1
_:6
.. Water Reliability Studies done on comparable designs for-i 7>
._ operating reactors.
That is tne Bulletins and Orders generic-3 revies matters that you approve as part of the NTOL list.
-9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let.:me ask you, what is.the--
g let me put it this way.
How does this analysis, one called for in this section compared with the full-blown Rasmussen analysis?
12 MR. MATTSON:
Let us see.
I think that you had g
r a briefing on what IREP was.
,d i
t COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
This is a lighter. and - -
g appreciably lighter cut.
MR. MATTSON:
Some things that they do not do:
for example, is they do not do a consequence evaluation.
i It is a probablistic calculation, but it is not as accurate a probablistic calculation.
They do more--they put more
-[
emphasis on event trees than they do with fault trees and probabilities.
They also do not treat as many event 2":
sequences, that is they use experience of preceding analyses 22 to dismiss low-risk contributor event sequences that deal with!
4 more important events.
f
=
I
,I,
i,,
wo
- m. u. _ i <.
me scatTW CAMfts, f75PGT. L e. SurTE '97 h
co a.:.==
i i
10 0
ncz.Nc.
I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Remind me again of which the 2.
event trees go and which way the fault trees go.
2 MR. MATTSON:
The event tree is a--
4 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
The event trees are left to 3
_. right; fault trees are up to bottom or bottom to top.
r6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
This is like: fiscal _
_ 7
. monetary policy act, ar I can remember-; which.is which.
+
i 1
g -
j Which or'
. with the cause~and go-to the--
t consequences and the others work backwards, from event?_
9 MR. MATTSON:
Event sequence starts.with the cause
- g and goes to the consequence.
i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
From a single cause?
,.u i
MR. MATTSON:
Yes, with an initiating event.
l a.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Okay.
And, but presumably, the consequences would be more or less comparab!c-
' guess...-)
l
~
t that would not be, because you are dealing with. populations-and so on.
l o
MR. MATTSON:
Understand why this is called inter graded reliability evaluation program.
It is not an 19 l - intergraded risk assessment program for all reactors.
It-20 is an attempt to provide an overlay to things like the single failure criterion and our deterministic regulations to 22 find out liars, that is designed errors that are significant
- 2 contributors to unreliability of safety equipment, or things 24 not previously called safety equipment that we now appreciate.
i l
i INTUMeaf1CptAL VODSATthe @EPO. tut 1 ! MC.
- .m. e-a. rmcrr. s e. ww.,
eashesoGTDs.1 *. 23saa
a a
=_a pnaz so.
11 e
T and have a greater effect on safety.
l i
I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Would they work from I
some basic calculation and look at the departures from the A
design used to which that basic calculation applied or is 5
this going to be done in each plant?
.__ t 4
MR. MATTSON:
They take each unique design, each_ _ _..
_ 7 unique plant, and they DeNovo look at the response of that'
. _ - - :r
-2 3
plant to unpartant a. vent initiators whose importance was i
~
9 derived from other studies from other' plants.
So it is not to DeNovo in a sense the same thing of importance.
11 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You mean w$El'd you be d'oing
~
i; one basic calculation for a certain generation of plants and is i
then looking to see what you add and subtract from that to g4 the individual plants?
Or are you actually--
'^~
MR. MATTSON:
There may be some plant by plant...
l...
_5.
- 3
^
efficiency of that sort that you could cruise down'the roa'd id someplace, but not now.
We have not done enough to be able g,
~
~
to'do that.
73 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
And further, it depends--
g MR. MATTSON:
Some of the scaling down from tens 0
4 of thousands of events sequences to however many hundreds of events sequences there are going to do on Crystal River.
i l
There is a function of what they learned applying the technique to other pressurized water reactors or even to boiling water
,4 i
reactors.
That base of experience tells you how to identify i
i IwfUponaecreak VUrsaffne O-i m inc es E3WTN M iTWGT. L e. sufTt '87
{
eam.es= Git:M.1
- Juan
I
=
=
12 pacz sc.
--2!
i I
l the important contributors to risk.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
How will we enumerate these?
MR. MATTSON:
I do not know what you mean by i
enumerated?
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
In other words, where will they go to get the basic list of initiating events or will
_I 4,
7
_they develop that themselves?
.l..
l l
g MR. MATTSON:
They will develop that themselves..
9 They have called out some important initiating events _in 10 coder to scale down the program to accomplish the reliability assessment that is deemed to be so important.
For example,.
1 they have taken eart'-"uakes out.
Eart,hquakes is an initiating 4
77 _
event or not in IREP.
Now, you recall, that the reactor safety study treatment of earthquakes has been roundly g
_ criticized and you have a program in research outside of
,4 the reliability of probablistic assessment staff.to come.to
.[
t grips with a better definition of the risk from beyond design i
basis earthquakes.
That is not cart of IREP.
Goina on in parallel, part of the normal program, does not have anything to do with Three Mile Island.
IREP is a specially taylored
,0 extention of the reactor safety study, specially taylored
,1 4
in a sense that it addresses system reliability as an over-lay to things like single failure criterien and deterministic 22 der,ign requirements that have been used pursuant to the
- A I
L regulations and designing and improving the systems already j
~
i I
imu nm vo n= w_ x l,,
me Scune CAM?ce. 374.tx7, L e. sum '97 x-r - --
13
=
c
_q, u ncz sc.
i I
in operation.
2 i
~
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Now who would perform the 2
analysis, is it the licensee or--
1 MR. MATTSON:
No.
In IREP, in the program that
-3 is specified in the Action Plan, the Staff will do the first
~
~
~~ ~ ~
2 C~
- :31-waive; Crystal River and a half a dozen more plant's--~
~
1-7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I see, I thought-it was - ";
gJ
- ~ - the other way around.
-~
-~
~
~
~ ; -
9 MR. MATTSON:
I think it calls for 12 plants a together to be done by the NRC Staff and its contractors.
~
ja
~
~
~
~
--Then roughly a year and a half from now--
~
'l i
~
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Mostly Sandea.
MR. MATTSON:
Sandea.
Then a year and a half from f
a J
now we step back and look at what has.been done with the 12-
- j
=>+1r~~
- -IREP studies, we look at what has been done with the other-
~
g
~
~.
systems interactions studies that are. spoken to in-this- -
g
~
~
].,
study, and we make a decision whether-to continue'having the'l
~
~ Staff do the calculation for the operating plants'or whether
~
18 it -is then possible to derive generic acceptable guidance for-2~
-all licensees to do their own IREP evaluation.
~
~
- - ~
10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Would not a major benefit of this orogram come from the licensee's involvement in the C
~
analysis?
I would think the licensee. walking through all of I
23 these sequences--
j 24 t
MR. MATTSON:
Calculecions are being done by the i
23 i
..m,
% vo rm w.,,,
i c i
.oum cumm. srurr. s.. sum er
?
1 r
r-- s, :. sama
s w
a 14
-c; nacz so.
l i
i Staff, methodology is being developed by the Staff, but the 2._'
. input on system response and event scenarios for the particulaz design will be requested from the licensees.
There is that 1
element is our program.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Then, I would think,.that J ;; _. you would want the licensee involved in the work.; I suppose-,
_ _ _ _. 7 - _ ! _ that goes against the separation of the regulators and the.;,.
3 regulatees, but it depends what the purpose of it-is--
_ 9 _'
MR. MATTSON:
That is not the reason for not g.
.. involving them.
There is a reason, but that is_not it.
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Could I, though,- perh_aps. bring
- )
f the discussion of IREP somewhat to close, because that is an 2
i ongoing program that if we want to we_can get back to and i
- 3 modi,fy IREP.
But, as far as Roger's Action Plan, just mentioning it, is a piece of it.
g, MR. MATTSON:
Yes.
What we did in our Action Plan __.
is coordinate IREP with Systems Interaction with Reliability Engineering to come to grips with an overall system
. 73
., engineering package that we felt was a reasonable. for_ the.
agency to undertake in the next year or two in response to the very severe critcism that were we not doing a goed job
,1 assistance engineering.
COM'GSSIONER GILINSKY:
I do not mind passing onto O
something else, but the extent that this is part of this 24 package--
~
l iwTues.aficmasa. Vtyrmartas 76-->
'M
. rm,
se SCE,fte C.AMTCE. STWEIT. S. e.
Suf7E W
.h.,
er JG% & L mm
15
..-r 4
nacz so.
- . 1; -
l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
My point is that the IREP program l
is-a progran that we have underway for awhile and Roger is proposing that approach.
4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, again what is its
__ y l
relationship to this package.
I mean is one approving the_..
--6 Airection of the program--
- ___-,f-CHAIRMAN AHEARNE
The IREP program has already:._
y _, __been approved by the Commisssion.
._7 7_
MR. MATTSON:
Yes, but in the context of the Action.-'
- 10
. Plan this Steering Group and its predecessors Steering Group i
-11. -,
have put together Draft 1 of the plan and had a significant-g effect on how the program has been taylored over-the next g.
year or two to fit together with Systems Interaction and other j
_ reliability assessment approaches to give this overall _
3, l
Systems Engineering package.
g j
It has also been a consideration in deciding how i
_ ptuch _this stuf f you place on indiv Mual licensees-while you
~-
18-are trying to get them to accomplish a number of:.other things in this plan; they are very much related,.it would be
- g --
-a mistake to take IREp out of the Action Plan.
. )
COMMISSIONER CILINSKY:
Well, I think to the extent Il that it is in the plan to say yes or no.
I think we have got C
5 l
to spend seme more time on it.
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, what are your concerns of 24 IREP?
3 b.3..-
lwrtmico m. ve ema Rooerva f ac.
4e 90WfW CAMPCE. STREIT. S. e.
SufTt '87
.4 easpenGTCes. 3, C, silla
O s 4GZ
.NC.
I4 w
- w..
i l
I_
~
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, whether we are doing.the 3-right thing.
l 2
MR. MATTSON:
Paul, it is a C Item and it says that 1
the--all you do when you approve this plan is say you the I
i
.e Commisssion war. : to see a paper on IREP so you can understand 3
the alternatives and understand the pros and ; cons ;and approve - !-
l the program for its implementation.
- .-:~__.
37
__3 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, but.--
- +-
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
That.part is fine.
!O -
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Do not let me--but, Roger,-part ii of IREP, certainly to the extent that the Crystal River review _ _
is an IREP review.
That is almost comoleted.and that is some-12 thing that was approved--
~ 13 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
And the other_six.are a. good.
_ _. 14 1
I way to go.
- z I.!
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
So I do not want you to leave; I4 us with an impression that we want Crystal River's review to I
T7 7
. stop immediately, because we have not approved it; we_have.4 18 MR. MATTSON:
I understand that.
19 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
My understanding;is that.we- -
20 I thought we had approved as well the next step which was the; 21 next six plants.
l MR. MATTSON:
Well, what is it that--
i.
i COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Somehow I thought we had.two, j.
- t but--
i l
l
. - +. -
'NftPMaf9Cetae. '/IPEAPM 4,,,,. n I hs".
kt.-
aus es 2:stTw C.uus*t:n. ff9EI*. L e. mJrTT '77 4
sampoetITON. & L.mut
c 17 l
-_~
s q,g n-~
I_
MR. MATTSON:
But, if we did, there is nothingito:_.
l I
talk about.
What is it that we are dealing with here?
And if ;
i it is a matter of getting a plan that requires that, I think i
A that if fine.
But, to the extent that we are goi, further--
l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Then I was under.the-impression.
e-l
_, _._ :p that the--
_ t t
7 MR. MATTSON:
This goes no further-than;what you.have g
j already approved.
.. _ MRi..CASEu.ll.
Let me try to help Roger.___:.
p
_ _ ___ - -10 I_think it is more the intergration of the already approved 7 REP. program with the Systems Interaction and.the;other ___.._
i
_ programs that fit with this that is covered in the : action..
It takes as a given IREP approved and then we bid.into the la, related subject matter.
~W CHAIM1AN AHEARNE:
But, your impressions have been t.!
f6 ~
~~;that IREP was approved.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, are we just taking.
J ao
. credit here for things that are already done? ---
1 IS MR. MATTSON:
Well, by the time the Action Plan 19
..gets_ approved, it will already be done.
When the Action Plan 20 was. originally drafted, it was not even underway.
21 CCMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I would like to pursue the i
4.e subject of--
~
I I
~
~~
i MR. MATTSON:
Well, I am sorry.
There is a mistake l_
3 in Table 1, which I was referring to.
It does not fall this
- 5 i
4 i
f arvtsspeaf*Coud. VtPsaftu %FJ4fCP1 14 l
es sat /Tw C.ApftA ff9M27. L e. BJfft 'O 4
=.. - -
18 i
nacz sc.
[-.
1:
,_. item in the Action Plan, an item that has to come before you 7,
with the paper, although Table 1 indicates that.
t i
{
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Sut, that is correct?
l MR. MATTSON:
It is already approved according to the.
1 I
p
, plan.
MR. SCROGGINS:
Except of the involvement of..the 4
7
_.12 plants.
n MR. MATTSON:
Oh, is that wh.at is meant by the C in 3
.. Table 1.
Well, that is a year and a half from now.
MR. SCROGGINS:
Yes, that probably should be an A-.~~.l~
~
~~
~~ 'to l
as far as the ongoing program.
I think the re_ason that a in there was the fact that this open question;of-some,-
.C got
~
13
_.l degree as to does the Staff complete the full _ operating i
reactor cicle or is there some shift-over from_the licensees; 14 i
. hich
. this_is what the C meant.
There is this open question w
is not settled.
~_
id COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
And we are going to deal 17 with that a year and a half from now, you say?-
18 MR. MATTSON:
Yes.
You will not be able to deal with 19
_ _ until;you have accumulated the experience and-having done;
- 0 these analyses and work with licensees to performance of those.
- 1 analyses.
i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
My gut feeling is that the i
~~
l licensees are to be deeply involved in this and I think there
~
l m
_would be a lot of benefit, assumingthisisallausefulthingl
~s o be doing, then I think they ought to be involved in this.
l
~J
.d ~.
-% vo
- m. e
--rt-i x e
f me 234ft. "M ffTrG7. S. 8. Inefft '87
.j er-
.w & a mums
O
- *c2 NC.
19
"~~
~'
~~'I' COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I think there is a lot to'be gained in the interaction and in terms of the licensee's I
l I
safety engineering staff--
i I
Walking through these variouslI A
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
e sequences.
I think this is just the way we have asked them to
-~
- 7
- walk through the procedures, I think it would be very I
~
7 important--
~~=
~~
1
" ' '"j-CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
The impression I had that the - '- - -
Florida Power and Light felt that they were heavily involved,1~
y
~
,c -
perhaps even a little bit too much.
i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Probably by way of ' supplying -
,i s
~
a Commission, but that is not quite the same thing -that we 1
- !}. -
are talking about here.
73 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Well, but in the course of 14
~
~
~~-
~
supplying that information, if they paid attention to what: ~
~
l' they were supplying, the Florida Power and Light'Pecple-had
!4 to stop and look at the drawings and maybe go look at the : -
!7 plant and recognize, by George, there were some interesting ia
~ essential auxilliary system dependencies that were coupling 19
~what, otherwise seemed to be redundant safety Trains together
~'
.20 back there, and that is a very useful elimination.
Well worth whatever time that thav had to scend on it.
1 l
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
My feeling is somehow that-l
~~
if they are simply presented at the end of an analysis, they i 2
are less likely to make use of it and sit down and read l
e through it than if they had been walking through it along the i
~
'arfUnearicnaa. VcesaTies 4,,,, n ' pas.
me 23,fte c.pm2. fTws*. L e. su,ft **7
-*, e *
- C -. _A 3, *.sma
20
=
sacz sc.
u
_1.
t way.
I,_
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
They are likely to get.a condition common to Commissioners which is a traumatic seizure 4
of the machinery in the head.
i e
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Which is directly proportional-l-
i to the weight in the material.
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Will you straighten.the
/
3_
._IREP A, B,
and Cs, I think that we are okayed well up the;;line.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Okay.
_f; COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
But the integration with
- g Systems Interaction and reliability engineering in some -
..L-77
. reasonable way--
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Now you list Systems. Interaction l
II as A17 of the unresolved safety issues.
Is it identical?
ta MR. MATTSON:
It goes beyond the cur _ rent write-up of._I...
Systems Interaction and adds a couple,'let me. call them.
id
_". pilot projects" which are not included in the A1.7..
i7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Indian Point and Diablo Canyon?
i8 MR. MATTSON:
Yes.
Indian Point bei_ng a compromise 19 wa worked out with the ACRS.
Basically, the discussion there.
- 0 went what was done on A17 on Sandea and the quantitative approach of the Systems Interaction studies.
They liked, but l
they thought that if we put all our eggs in that basked, we I
II might ignore another approach to Systems Interaction, a more j
I*
qualitative scproach.
Said approach having been_ outlined by i
the Cc=mittee in its letter on Indian-Point and they thought i
f wrwmn. =-
x
._{.,
- un. cu m. smrr. s...
=,r m
.=
as-s -==
l 0
nez.sc.
21 f
l I
just as we were conducting a few IREP plant evaluations in the
- I course of a year and a half or so, we'ought to conduct a few, i
l not just one, Systems Interaction type studies and then, since l
A all of them to one extent or another involve event trees and l
f
~1 - rel-iability assessments.
One taking more its focus on~
e
~
)
6 risk contributor and the other taking:its focus on non-safsty 2[ ~ ' i systems interacting with safety systems.
Then we pause for l~
1
!a-yearandahalforsoandaskourselvesdobhneedto' 3
continue to use all of these approaches or was the exp5biehch 9
~~
at that =oint sufficient to tell us which was the pref 6rred~
10 approach and then to proceed along that path'. ~ Preferred-
~
11 approach both at terms of methodology. and in' tebms 6f who..
i3 does the studies, us or the licensees?
~
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
And so it--now is the ACRS 14 approach the failure mode effects of. analysis approach?'
11
~
MR. MATTSON:
I think it is wrong to call it a ~~ ~
~~
id It comes l~~
pure failure modes and effects of analysis approaEh.
~
17
~
from that, but more generally, I call it a qualitative ~Systbms IS
~
Interaction study,, the Indian Point letter.
~
19 1
~
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
How do you see the rel'ationship~~
.=
~
l0 -
- of that analysis and the Diablo License Report, any 21 relationship?
em I
t I
24 l
af %,
INTUrimaPCPame, VUrsatans *b,,
!mC f
d as 53WTW 4W'TC6 STME2?. L e. su,TT :D e_=
m
i
=
ssa sc.
- Cp w 2/20/80 Tape 2:
I MR. MATTSON:
I'm not sure I understand'ths l-O question.
Let me try.
l l
2 We said in the course of our review at Diablo Canyon A
that, and in the couurse of our discussions with the Committee, I i
.3 the ACRS, on Three Mile Island -- that.in view'of the broad i
J.
__ a
. questions about the ef fect of multiple f ailures -in 'ndn'- safdty-p 7
- grade equipment, on safety equipment, 'and the high seismicity of
- 3 3 ;
the Diablo Canyon site, that it may be: necessary 'to t'ike ~special
~
~
9
-steps on all high-seismic sites, high-seismicity sites,~ ~ dd ~
s
-~
g
-steps being unclear at this point, pending further study, so'we 11
_ _would take a look at Diablo Canyon and our failure modes and -
.l '.
j.
1;4-effects approach to multiple failures on the non-safety side.~ ' il MR. CASE:
Caused by seismic events.
MR. MATTSON:
Caused by a seismic event,
- -ye s.
And we just chose the SSE as the. decent sol'ution.1
- -- =
I
~
.13 (Pause.)
14 I
i CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Anybody any?ccmments on
-reliability engineering?
~
~
- a (Pause.).
- ~ " - -
~1--
19 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Just that these things do 20 require coordination; staff's aw'are of that, and I trust th'ey ' ll
~
Il do it.
O l
(Pause.)
{
U l
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
In the next section, we get toi, 24 testing of relief and safety valves, some research.
The only
- 1 i
I hh Vt3*EAPtie O I ht" v,
n as st2,19e " w=Tt:ln. ffTttf. L e.
RJ871 '87
<= lt -
.= - -
23 i na n l
i
~
c..
thing that's not approved is, previously approved is autoclosing I
lock valve.
I ccmplained about tha t the other day.
j i
MR. MATTSON:
We removed that from the plans, 1'
A at least as a discreet item.
I CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
The 4 ?
0 MR. MATTSON:
Yes, item 4.
You recall we- -
[
. removed it from the NTOL list also and' incorporated ~it-in ~ the 3
- Bulletins and Orders generic review matters.
That's~a question I"1
-7.!
- the steering group hasn't quite resolved itself"yet, and we"nedd
~!0 to talk to NRR.
The question is something like the'following:
- - _ Li -
There are a number of specific requirements in~the-t:
Bulletins and Orders final reports, not all of which have been
~
~
i l
r3 approved and issued as requirements to licensees.
What is the j
- 4 process by which NRR proposes to obtain approval of those l
_'- :te Bulletins and Orders reccmmendations: ;will it be a RACHED'
~
f i
I l
y ccmmittee review like the Lessons Learned recommendations?
Or j
- will it involve just a decision by the. office director?
~
o The reason it's important, I think, to-Dr:-Hendrie-is-
,8 i
because it, that l'ist still does include the autoclosing block valve.
And you've expressed the sentiment tha t it ought not to include that, and --
Il l
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Ed is rising, I think, to C
1 answer you.
MR. CASE:
The, th e, the issues are l
before the ACRS, and we expect their advice and Harold's --
l I
t e r m voram=: -,
x es sca,79e C,pr?t:2. frWEI?. L 8 EffT '87 Jws L L 3M
c 4,.
' ~
~
nsGE M C.
- 7 -
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Tne Bulletins and Orders, you mean?
e*
MR. CASE:
Yes, on the Bulletins and Orders reccmmendations.
e And after getting that advice, Harold's intent was to h-
~~ l 6_
(Pause.)
7-i' CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
And at that' time that 'will be included in --
1
- =
~
~
__,_ 9 MR. CASE:
How does a separ' ate'-issue we b
l 10 talked about last night, Roger, whether you ought to break down l
_that task action plan into several smaller bits.
u
=
i:
MR. MATTSON:
YesJ rather'than do it like -
g3 we've done it under Rcman II-K; we'll switch over to page 10:.
l
- g When I said we struck II-D-4.,
what I mean is it's l
l g
already covered in II-K, number 3.
Now, II-K, number 3, is literally a long list of-to, things f; each class of, or each type-of reactor design.
Ed' says those things are before the ACRS.for review, and Earold =-
_ will bring them down to you before he approves them. -
~~ ~
~
20 The question we had last night was whether we-ought toh ~
break them out and prioritize them and schedule them all as 21 individual line items in draft 3, so that when we make decisiens t 2:
I on those items we make them in the context of the plan, rather i
than separate f rcm the plan.
l 4
There are a number of high-resource items in that list, w
e ca.% vo n= :,.
- -c
~ " - '
as 3:stne curP:ln. M. L e. E,TT :47
- I"'~
ez 5% 1 a musa
,, m l
25 I
~
[
some of which are clearly more important than others and some of which may not be as important as some things that are in the plan but won't get done if we decide to do the Bulletins and L
Orders thing carte blanc.
2 (Pause.)
{
i MR. SCROGGINS:
We have met with the task _.
7_
~l~'~.~
manager en II-D.
Roger didn't happen to be there.
We have g
..pending the actually sort of set it on the table, II-D-4, 4
decision that Roger has indicated here.
10 MR. MATTSON:
Yes.
t 1-MR. SCROGGINS:
As to how we're going to handle the items under II-K.
IO But it would be -- if we pull it out, there might be I
a-unique item here on autoclose block valve.
If we keep it all M-I: -
il over II-K, then this item would probably drop out of section Id II-D.
!7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Bill; do you flave any comment a
on that?
~
~
~~
19 -
MR. DIRCKS:
Like'watening a tennis match.
- g-(Laugh ter. )
' ~
Il CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I guess the question is, 7
should we see explicitly items like large resources and location?
And the answer cbvicusly is "yes. "
I 3
MR. MATTSON:
And that's how it appears to I
us, too.
i t
l 6 h '/tNEATTesSur-ei I ME'-
m l
. --.s..-
,m-
.= --
a c
ncz sc.
i I
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes.
I (Pause.)
j f
l MR. MATTSON:
Well, that, that makes an interesting point:
whether we're going to go back through this ;4 again when we get to draft 3 i
6 (Laugh ter. )
-- i--
l 7
-- because that 's the -first.'
3 i
-time you're going, that's when you're first going to see.all -
?
those items broken out.
10 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I think having the flu's sort l T1
- _ of affected your sense of humor, John.
Seems to have keyed it i;
up, made it --
tg CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
You :go through it two or threel times.
- g COMMISSIONER HENDRIE
I kind of hoped we-would.
g MR. MATTSON:
If you're going to want to g
I improve every line item in, in, in the Bulletins and Orders 7
things in the context of the action plan --
CHAIRMAN'AHEARNE:
Well, to a large extent, those items ought to be able to be handled by Harold and Bill.
- o But if there are some issues that are necessary to --
- 1 MR. MATTSON:
Maybe the thing for you to do,j the thing for you to do is to tell Harold in the course of his
~:
7 l
bringing them up as an isolated item, which if any of thhose l-things bear special sc~utiny because of -he priority they will I
e m <-= r_.
-~
as 3:3JThe N N.& e. sJ,TT 'ff
- " * * > ~ ~
= = m x :. :mmn
O 27 l nez sc.
be afforded in draf t 3 of the plan, either very low or very high t and are therefore questionable for moving ahead with.
CHAIRMAN AHr,;ARNE:
Well, as far as the resource i
1 and application side of it goes, most of that -- Bill ought to i
~
be able to handle it.
~'
j (Pause.)
~~
~
~
~~7'
~~
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Read ?
GO!
~
'l Y
kr
~
- ~
g
~
- ~
~'
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: What happens to Atlas?
i 2
~
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Atlas, the --
b i
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
What?
~ ~
MR. MATTSON:
Atlas is an unresolved safety
- . =-
I 12 issue that, under current operating pl$n, has the resources IO assigned to it sufficient to acccmplish it on the schedule --
~
IA CO!14ISSIONER GILINSKY: You say something aboct it in the front here; you say "in later versions it may be in'clucieNf"
~I!
-id
~ '
or something like that?
I
~
- I7 MR. MATTSON:
That's cn the, I guess on the
~
ta question of relief and safety valve testing.
~
~
~
- 19 That -has to do with the,' '
MR. CASE:
~
3
-whether or not --
-~
~
~
~
1
~~
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
May be considered in the laterl' 3
phases of the test program.
l 7
MR. CASE:
Indications are that, yes, d
there will be some Atlas-type conditions and discussions.
I i
understand -- as to how those might be resolved.
~
l OW&
OY nur P g%9A as gl:sttme M 37W Q '. L s.
suf?T '87
- C
- ^
TA L
?,,,
- ain
28 i
..cz yc,
-. a I
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Is this, is Atlas heading j
l toward some resolution?
MR. CASE:
Yes.
t (Pause.)
I i
e (Laughter.)
0 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: It must be the record generic I 7
[
item --
_~...._:__
3 MR. MATTSON:
No, I think Waterhammer.is _ _
?
the --
[.
10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Waterhammer?
l._
it (Pause.)
ga COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, seriously, is this i
- 73 something which we're headed toward some conclusion on_?
- g COMMISSIONER HENDRIE
I've, solved it at least twice.
_g, myself the past 10 years.
(Laughter.)
,4 j
MR. MATTSON:
Me,.tco.
Le CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
18 That, is one of.the items _tha t *--
MR. MATTSON:
On what sort of schedule?._
- t9 _
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
The, unresolved-safety-issue _
people have been working on.
l 21
~
l MR. CASE:
I think within the next several months we'll have a proposition be: ore you ror your approval.
24 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
We have got a sort of.interint ;
n
==
l lstTtypenf9h itREATTed *ar -= s n
!peC a
. x,r sn.e.s.. wrn e
- k=
w "._
---e&*
M
c
~ --
i i
i
_ action.
One of the key things is to, is to deal with th'e BWR - 'I I
I side of that situation.
And there's --
r MR. CASE:
There'ssomeactionbeforeyouf I
cn those.
e
-- some acdon before -t.5e COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
f
.s-
.-[;.-
- Ccmmission on that, which I recommend to you.
l 7
(Pause.)
- 2 #~ - ~
~~2 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Can I leap ahead then?
~
E2 i
Please.
l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
10 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Charging into aux feed
~~
11 i
systems and going to 3, which is the first of the B category
!2 items, all that does is update the stahdard review plans and l
.11 issue a regulatory guide to reflect what we thought-we cught to
. ta _. i
.d.o about the aux-feed system -- seems pretty straight f orward. -
te MR. CASE:
(Inaudible.')
L - -
3-
.l t4 COMMISSIONER.HENDRIE:
Gocd;.
7 E-2, emergency core ecoling systems.
I had some
~~
- g difficulty _ in sorting out precisely why this frequency of -l ~
~
. challenge task stood separate from things like the IREP and so 17
.g..-.
on; and --
- ~.-
MR. MATTSON:
We've had a similar difficulty
,1 s
Maybe it would help to, to state how we think we've straightened this task out.
It was, it needed scme attention which we gave to it --
4 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Hcw abcur quashing?
{OM N DU re s M N
f as staffie c.wr"tA sisrtr7, t e. sJrft"tf
== e
.=
_u-
3.c:g 3c, 30 MR. MATTSON:
Well --
I I
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Did you say- " quashing"?
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Yes-
.L MR. MATTSON:
Let me ask Warren Minners to I
e summari::e how we 've, we ' ve, we 've rewritten this thing.
Can you! -
I 4
can you do it off the top of your head?
Or do youi want me to -
r try it?
-.1-MR. MINNERS:
No, you try it.
,3j-7 (Laughter.)
~
- IO.
I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Let ine understand it: -
l-
.ii Your point, Joe, is that this duplicat'es~ work'which 12 would be done elsewhere?
Or that it shouldn 't be done?
~
I3 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
It, ;it sounds-like it 's-coming
.g_
once more to the question of, Are there some outlyers here that-
- 3 lead us into a need for emergency core-cooling systems at a 1~
!d higher rate than we would have expected; at least in part,imaybe :
~
7j entirely, you 're doing that over here with IREP and scre other thing s, and --
c._t:
~
1
~!
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Except IREP is-for' a f'ew
=~
'[
79 reactors at this point, and --
,0 CCMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Well, but it's expanding an'd,
,I _.
and --
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: It's going to move pretty slowly, I suspect --
l
- .L COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Yes, but one of the - I yes!-
t INTtyrenafH:enaa. '/cusaftes 4.,,, m ! sec Pa 3
as SOWThe CAdwTt3. fTurIX7. L e, adf71 '37 ej C
.-r a s. :
- l 31 i
=
=
3-nacz we.
n but one of the reasons it moves slowly is a resource prcblem, l
l not only in our staff and our contractors but also in terms of - l the available, knowledgeable type people power out on the industry side and their engineers and contractors; and calling t
this damn thing by a dif ferent name and having it-over under-l 6
ECCS systems isn' t going to create any' more human. resource tor doi -
I the job out there -- and would, in fact, may, may-confuse the r
issue a little bit.
I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, the question is,-How
- IO important is iv.?
- - t y:
j MR. MATTSON:
Despite the f act that-it 's an r;
priority 1, you have to look at two priority-one-things' side-by
.t3
-side:
one being IREP and one being this ECCS study.
_;g Let me, suffice it to say, that this~ ECCS study is 73 -
much like the aux feedwater study done.: last summe r. - But-do the-
.g_.
same kind of thing to ECCS.
=
- : g, And I think --
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
For all the-plants.
,a i
.19 _ ;
MR*.
MATTSON:
And.J think Dr. Hendrie may bd _
l right:
that you can't afford to do all of these studie~s
' l
'O simultaneously.
And so you'll have to stage some of them.
And I think this is one that the steering group is on l 1
the border of delaying in time, because IREP may get you-this i
kind of information better, faster, than if you tried to do IREN l
-sinultaneously with this kind of study.
i
~
me
!s,fouum:sua. Vesumme O- -.a c 7~~
em 23tf98 CAFTCI. IT1stI7. E e. mfft 'O 9
- 2 ~
aw-s -==
32 l
3 o
,m.g
~==
l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, except you're starting off with six reactors; and in a year a half, you'll go to --
what?
12 more or --
.t.
MR. MATTSON:
No, we're starting off with 12 {
l
.eactors in the first year or so.
l
- b 1 _.-
-t
=... -
MR. SCROGGINS:
I thought it wa s si c.
~~;
-='1 MR. MATTSON:
Six for this fiscal year, six-3 3-
=
plant study.
But then what the intent is af ter the six-plant---
~
study is to then address all existing operating reactors.
- Noh, to that won ' t be --
- 11 -
MR. MATTSON:
I know what the plan says,
'~~
II - i
^
because I just read it.
But if I recall the meeting between NRR IU-and Research, they take six months apiece; and the plan is to 14 - '
' walk through 12 of them
~
~~'
15-m-.
't+-
=-
3 1 ;-
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Yes,,but the thing is going to 14 take longer than anybody expects.
Just like f.he systematic 17 evaluation program took much longer thin anybody expected.
. t
~
13 These grand tasks, I think it's a terribly impcrtant 'hing to do 1
- 9 though they tend to involve more and more systems, and --
- 0
-~
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
A lot harder once you -- ~ '
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
,1
-- and it turns out to be harder than you thought, and so on.
And all of which we I
i understand in launching it.
i i
i l
MR. MATTSON:
Yes, but you've -- but there's' l
another reason why ECCS can be considered for,'for delay, i
(pocpua. '/typeafias #tPCsWPUts.
!**C.
wm:n. m,sr. s... sures <2
.: x -- a. :. ma
3.i
'- 4I sacz we.
g relative to what was done with aux f eedwater systems.
,The
[
difficulty with aux feedwater is, you had started in the beginning with these reactors, not calling aux feedwater a i
A i
i safety system.
And then about 1975 it became a safety system.
I e
i But the, but the requirement, the saf ety-system 3
requirements didn ' t < et backfit.
And so, in light of Three Milet_,
~
I Island, we did a very high-priority reliability assessment of
- 2...
s '..
3 all aux feedwater systems.
And we found that there was a need
.2
?
to make some changes.
Those changes are well under way. - -
=-
=... - -
f 10 In the case of ECCS, it's been a safety system since 11 the beginning.
And ECCS systems were backfit in the early '70s I
t; with safety-system status; so their overall reliability is going 1 13 to be higher than what was found with the aux feedwater systems.
14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Roger, I once again find
=_
7 myself in the anomolous position of defending your plan against 7
i i
J
- ' ::; _ : : t:::
l your criticism.
- l 73
).,-
(Laughter.)
.o COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: All I'm trying to say is, I J
9 _
don't know which is more important and what the right priorities!
_ 19 here are.
But I just want to be sure that we're clear on what the choices are.
11 And the choice is between doing a narrower study on
~,,,
allthereactorsortostartdoinglargerstudiesinitiallyena!
g
.s small number of reactors and expanding that to cover all
- A _
~ '
reactors.
And as long as we understand that those are the
- ?.
i Y 8887e l 6 f' h */ N PM *sr
-e p f
as EllR,7W CMrTCE. f7REI?. L 8 SWrT't '87 j
. 2 m s :. m.
34 c
~
sacz we.
- 1-choices, we can think about them.
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
The resource that you 're h
i
.~
concerned with impacting, Roger, is the licensee resource? or our i
i resource?
I e
I MR. MATTSON:
B o th.
1 I
1-CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Because at Teast there 's a-i
~
I:*cr subset on the licensee resource that you can task, that is th e ~ ~
~
- n-21 -
- non-IREP plants, that wouldn't have th*em.
-~~
~~
~~
=" "
- 9. -
(Pause.)
10 :
MR. MATTSON:
Well, our judgment is tha't
=-
- ti -
= this can be deferred a year, given that IREP is going on;- and p -
there are, there 's a saf ety justification for delaying i't a'
~
i l'
~
73 -
year.
Compared to the date that's in here, Steering-Group ~ had 74 decided last week to defer it to ' 8 2. -
f-CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Instfead of,~ instead of askihg 1 -
7g -
l
'd them in February of this year, you would ask in February of nextj
~
~
i i
year.
~
~~
~~~
st I'
MR. MATTSON:
Welk, if you look in t51e- '#-j'
,8 s
~-
-'- ~ licensee secticn, ~rather than the NRC : action 'section, the 2
i deadline for licensee completion of i3s work is 1/1~/81.
We l')
changed that to 1/1/82.
Yes, it said down at the bottom of page II-E-2-1, implement changes by January 1,
'81; we changed that to
~ _'
January 1,
'82.
- 4 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I guess I still am scratching,
i
!61"4lMd4. 7NPt.8 4
l
.e zum c.wm:n. sfezz. t e. surru er
. = m :. -
4 c
pgg 4 73 i
'~
t my head over what we mean "to determine and decrease the
' -j frequency of ECCS challenges" and then ask the licensee - to-do -an f e
I experience, he will develop an experience analysis and conclu-l 1
sions en ECCS operations.
Are we going to reduce the --
t t
t COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Well', we ' re going to do this -
~
_ 3 [3 -
._.with one man --
~-
_33
- I MR. MATTSON:
The question ~is-not thei -i'l=
3 question of its reliability to perform:its loss ~of?ccolant:=
7 action function.
It's, the question is whether the ECCST I-
, IG -
_ reliability is suf ficient for the reliance placed upon the' ECCS '
~~
- 10 for responding to much higher-frequency eventsc. than: loss of :-. -
12 c_colant accidents.
- 3 _
For example, use of the ECCS; high-pressure:ECCS, in'a-B&W reactor for responding to anticipated operational occurrences, g4 l
_7y.
cne-in-a-year events, given that those r have a f requency 'of Zone-c-
, 97
,rer_ year, given a reliability of ECCS somewhere'in-the ' range
~
~
l
-2
-3 i
10
-10
-- unreliability, I'm sorry..-- that reliability having, I,,
_ 7g-been picked for loss of coolant accident performance -- is that E-~
-1 reliability adequate for a 10 dependence?
- :: 2 - -
~
19 _
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I just don't see:why=that ~- -
,0 doesn't fall cut of IREP, if it's bad as a --
11 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Joe, it may, it may well fall r
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
And it doesn't fall cut, why, then I don ' t see --
I 22 t
CHAIR N AHEARNE:
But then you get back to-Vic'si
.m,,,
i m vo
- m. % x
.b-
. i... um =
- e-ea-- N 1 *. 7Just
nac::: w e.
36
~,
~
I question that it may well fall out of IREP, but it-would. f all-i
_out of IREP for those at least initially to those. classes gf.
e*
plants that are being looked at in IREP.
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
True.
3 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Which is a much smaller,.on.
4 the time phasing a much smaller set than all the plants, which
[.
(
. as the point that Vic was raising.
~
w 3_ _
MR. MATTSON:
But I --
, _. i s _ _ :
_n 9
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I don't think; you ' re. going to; t
_to get the job done either under IREP or under this,; in_ yiew ofs the, -
t.t resource problems, until about the time you could; hope to get -
t; through IREP.
t-COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: But this --
14..
i COMMISSIONER HENDRIZ:
That,is, I.think.if.you;c. huck j
_ Iy this thing on, do you think they 're people ou.t ;there -to do it?.
g MR. MATTSON:
We,.we, we keep --
MR. MINNERS:
This, this.is a.,
basically;thet,_
6 applicant can do this, studies --
..a.,,
_:3 COMMISS'IONER HENDRIE:
The applicant.-- it's the:
9 t
manpower pool out there among utility engineers, their engineer
~:
ing firms and their consultants that I'm talking about.
MR. MINNERS:
But the IREP program is O
~-
)
essentially going to be done by the staff.
So it's two-t' i
different manpower pools to begin with.
And I agree-that they 'ie 24 both limited.
I just wanted to point l
< 't that that's, to 1
f 1
I 6 P M 'I N UM
'N v rw a n j
.m. w.m.
-n *
., m
e 37
,a g I
T-
- address Commissioner Gilinskys question of getting the applicants
~
i l.
= more involved with reliability studies.
This is one program that
=
4 does that; it does get the licensee looking at the reliability I
A i
of --
t (Pause.)
~ ~~
6
^
1~
c COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Well, I'd rather have Yifn i~
~
look at it on the, on an IREP sort of basis than just~the'~ECCS'.
- -~
I MR. MINNERS:
Well', I think there 's scme
~ - ~
r I
thought that we 'd like to ease people into it.
And take~small' r -
~ IO
-l bites.
And we'll get everybody eased into it 'and on the 'same ~~!'
.It track.
If you give people too big a' chunk, ae're going to be t2 arguing about how to do it, rather than getting people to do 'it.
(Pause.)
14 tg ; -
I'-
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Does'anybod[ knob ihether
~
i.
td COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
All right, if you think you-P --
1 1'
=
2 77 J can--integrate it in a reasonable way. But --
~
tg MR. DIRCKS:
You', you might wh.31t to",' you might want to set 'this one aside and get Bennaro or somebody to' g
_m.
_,0
- look --: -
~
~2'*~
~
3 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Does anybody know ahether the
,1 Operation Data office is going to be requesting this information'?
I mean, your subset of your,_your task --
I MR. MAT"'S ON :
Whetherthey'llberequesting!
,A licensees to tell them --
i
==
~
l larTtprped F'4llpea4. VUPEAMM " ar, i w-=.
I 8mC.
me statfbe cupr?tl3. ffprs:r*. L e. SuffT :sf
- j C eZ Tm 2. *.IREE
38 p-ncz we.
~'
i l
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Conditions cause frecuency
- I i
6 results, et cetera, for the ECCS actuation.
It sounds like the.-
e i
kind of information --
f 1
i MR. MATTSON:
Sure would be of interest to i
I e
them.
I don't know whether they have any interest in this I
i
._/__
. particular item or not, whether they were planning to talie-an'y' - -t -
End Tape 2 7 action.
End-rep "
- ~
~
3_
_ l _ _
?.
10
.. _ i,-
11 g
1-
.I 4
1.L l
g.
s...
r
- h..: -0_ s 1
O m
e m
6e 19 u : : - -
,0 OM e
~
i v
3
==
1 r e venu,y m tm r te W~ '
m,.-
f es 23JTW C.AF'M:3.57waz7. & s. sJt?"E 's?
- A sc 2
2
_,ma
39 l
irs e
=
saca: sc=
20 'feb'80 iv-54 t
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Dick, do you have any?
I i-COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
No, except to-note that the.
I t
manpower resources that we are talking about here are.one man-i t
year or one and a half man-years, roughly, in the NRC; if j
i
..one man-year per plant, that's the question; can they develop l
_a
. _.one more man-year per plant?
r:-
7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I_s it_one per plant-or one man-year?
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
One man-year per plant.
For 3
the NRC, it's one and a half man-years total, roughly.
But, for the licensee, it's'one man-year per plant.
I think the point that you made, John, this scunds like the kind of information that would natural:ly flow out of the analysis.
I guess it would be useful,to sort ;f check that i
13 out, or will we suddenly find out we a,re running of f in two 14 directions doing the same thing?
I t.!
l
~
MR. DIRCKS:
I think it's the Bernero question and this Michelson issue; and you might want to red circle this 17 one and --
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Okay.
Why don't we do that.
I 19 Would you check that out?
- a
~
l MR. DIRCKS:
Yes.
- 1 l
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
The gesearch part of this is
~.
i
~
okay.
The uncertainties performance crediction has to do with l small break LOCA alanysises, making sure that the modeling is,
- L the uncertainties in the modeling are recognized in the overall
-e results.
No?
~.
! 6 % 'l DEGA 7T118 I
'4 ve. va se g1 me SOL,rbe CAMftl3.,TTEIT.1 e. aJfft 'e7
g jrs gjrs sag 2 N C.
2 i
I
.o MR. MATTSON:
Well, I hate to keep delaying this'.
~-
]~
We have a little dif ficulty with Item 3 and it 's not clear ' -- -
F-
-I I
to me that it's interpretable in its present language.
i A
What this is is, in the course of doing small break l
l 3
LOCA. analysis, realistic small break analysis, the Staff found l
i 6
that there were uncertainties, rather small uncertaihties~ih-2 f-7..
the input parameters or the characteristics of small breaks ~
..that: could cause rather large changes in the calculated results. t-r-
3 - :.
_ 9.: -
Sais uncertainties in the view of the Technical Staff that did
- g those1 calculations being larger than they thought were compre-
..g.
hended and understood in the course of the development of ' -
I;.
. Appendix K, 10 CFR Part 50.
Appendix K, you recall, sets.a 2200 degree ~1Luit for
.all Loss of Coolant Accidents, where all means the range of is breaks considered pursuant to S0.46.
That rangd-dxtends ~from
' b L!
r.:
_the.small end which is the break just larger than the make-up t4
~
_. capability of the normal system to the, large End, which is
'f
~
17 the instantaneous double-ended severance in this clan.-~
'a In light of this new understanding of the unce'rtain -
19 ties for small breaks, the Staff says the Commission -- -thd i
- o P
Staff first then the Commission should consider whether there i
21 is a need to either change the 220 degree limit or otherwise 2
~
-address the provision of margin as a function of break sl:e;
{
~
___tdurt is, small breaks being of higher " probability may need to I
- 4 chave greater margin in their assurance of ECCS-performance to
' 6h N DM-ar-ea we N es 32, Tie f.aprTCR. JT1RWZ?. & 4 SufM 'O
- 'C~
a+., - --
3 Jrs 41 I'
jrs sa:.;
,a m l
1 I
~
j
- -. _- _
- - prevent core damage.
That's what this Item is.
It isn't an f
I
_ Item to do research and remove these uncertainties; it's an Item to say, how should those uncertainties be accounted for l
i 1
in our Regulatory requirements; I
i And, in light of that understanding, the Steering j
i
, Group, well, that's all very well and good, but we have an 1
i z.__
7_.,
- _ Appendix K rule and we have gone throu'gh the ~ safety quest' ion -- I 3:.
._ on small breaks in the course of the Bulletins -and Orders
-i 9
-work.
.And, in light of the other things we see in the ~ Action
- g i
Plan, this one doesn't carry the weight we would have original-y;
- - ly attached to it based on that earlier understanding.
In any event, we said we would make it a Category C:
~
_and bring it back as a Commission paper to develop this 13 question more fully than we are able to do on the time-scale of
- the Action Plan.
I think what you wil.1 probably want~to do -
T3 t4 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Sounds to mdJ1ike the normal j
_ -. sort o f, you know, qv.ality assurance and up-grading-passed back T7
~
across the great traditions of the review that :you-expect :to
-j 13 I
_get_done in the normal course of events.
~
' ~
19 MR. MATTSON:
I think, probably, is-is battdr i
-==
=
20 handled, Dr. Hendrie, in the sense of a year-or wo ago,-some-Il time pre-TMI, the Commission approved a program for a short l
~.
term revision of Appendix K and then some loag -term revision on !
i Appendix K.
21 It seems to me that this is where this subject belongs.
2?
m% vo
- m. e m,_
a.c.
m.-
l as 23,Tle Cu'?CI. frwaf. L e. zJrft 'M e-: n --
.=
se, m = =.
, J rs : Jrs 4
w sc 42 eu.-
~:.
S I_.
CCMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Just so.
1 It seems to me --
MR. MATTSON:
It has no more compelling urgency
~
than the other things being treated in that provision.
1 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
It seems to me a D Category J
., sort.of Item.
~
r 7,_
- 4..
CCMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let's see, why-is that now?~~
- 7... _I:wouldthinkthatsmallbreakswouldbeprettycloselyrelated-l 3
. to the experience of Three Mile Island'.
I mean,'why-hav6"
{.
l 7
_ 9, 7 ;
anything in this Action Plan?
Everything in some sense is part
, _7g.
of the. Agency's on-going work; I mean, why have an Action Plan?'
6
.g MR. MINNERS:
Well, this particular-action doesn't-address itself to changes in the systems; it addresses itsel to la,
, analyzing whether you meet the 220 degree limit with certain i
.,g_
.,..m.argins.
So, there is no approvement in safety,' here.
Maybe -
I I
if approvement in your assurance of safey, bu6 there would be
~
Jus change.
Whatever is there, is there and the intent of id
_ this is to analyze where you are.
There is a possibility tha't
, 18,
..:yo_u. calculated large. uncertainties, you might have -to make'- -
~
19
- ~.
.L some system changes.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, aren't we more concerned
'~
20 after..Three Mile Island about just where we are -in relation ~to -
Il small breaks?
i M
MR. MINNERS:
I think one of the lessons that I have l
~
learned from Three Mile Island is you are less interested as i
- 4 to. what the calculated temperature of the fuel might be, even
- 3 m ea u a.o r.
_ _, c.
l
~~
. = - - -
c' nacz sc.
43 i
5 I
_ just the pure fact of whether you get water on the corew
-II
~
l think we have had over-emphasis on the big LOCA and LOCA I
analysises of calculating exactly what the temperatures might i
A be rather than looking at the systems and saying, am I going to !
t 3
get water on the core?
l
.3 Thisisalsoarecommendationfromf?
==
MR. MATTSON:
Yes.
i 7
Rogovin, very specific in this area.
The proposal is not to 1-n
.a 3
change the 220 degree limit to some lower number 1~for small: breaks.
The proposal is to say, maybe there's a need for an additional
.9
-t g
j _ requirement that says for breaks of the following size, fill'in-i
, _ a blank subject to further study, but for breaks of some size -
{
range, thou shall not uncover the core.
- j 1
That's not the way Appendix K is written now and that l l
may be a better way to come at small break limitation, rather
_than some precise, numerical criterion.that would be subject of d
- 1. -
1,. _- -
id.
_ endless debate, given this sensitivity to small uncertainties -J-in these calculations.
=
=
12 5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let's see.
Me2now think
^
TS f
that the core would get uncovered under thos'conditi~on, under 11 certain conditions --
20 MR. MATTSON:
The core' uncovers fer some break size -
.j which is a function of the design of the plant. Toreveryplantf,
~
there is a break size for which the core uncovers, yes.
l C
~~
CCMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But, the core reamins cooled?
1-24 MR. MATTSON:
Yes.
It meets Appendix K.
==
0 l
& WTN VP 1WA l
me a:uess*.wev9:n,sfurtry. t e. marrt 17 "C~
,3rs jrs
- *G "C-6 i
- I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It meets Appendix K.
~
l
.I. _
Well, is the proolem with this thing is misdirected?
MR. MATTSON:
Ihe question is whether you come -- let j A
me try to state this another way.
In the days of Appendix K, l
3 there was, there were attempts at measuring the margin between l
._. expected performance and Appendix K performance, conservative - !
_ q..__.
, _ y performance.
" ~
,_ _3-_
CCMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
We are still in-the phase of'-
~
~
_.+-:. ;9 _
._ Appendix K.
2
~
_ )g...
MR. MATTSON:
When it was developed, yes.
On th'e g__ ; -record of the hearing, there is information that speaks to-that margin.
The margin for large breaks for a PWR was in the range of 1000 degree Fahrenheit; in that ERIS technology you could do u
_i realistic calculations of a large break LOCA, calculate a peak-
.y
_ CLAD.. temperature of 1200 degrees; that may be 1500' ' degrees-in-17 r
j
._today's technology, but that's still several hundred degrees
- 1 I
below 2200 degrees.
That was acceptable in the ~ judgment-of the-I 17
_ Agency when Appendix K was approved.
2-2-
~
la It was generally presumed that the margin for smaller-19 breaks was equal to or larger then the margin for big breaks.
i 7
- g And, given scme sense of probabilities, that is small breaks __ i 11 were more probabl than large breaks, there is scme implicit-j
~
4 judgment in that rulemaking of overall adequacy.
-j
~.
i Now, come Three Mile Island and much better, more re-
- 4 fined, more sophisticated calculations of small breaks, actua-ll?
DU Ve 1 M ao 3:lWes Capft1773rGP. L e. SJfft 'Of
.= --
=
4::
s&CE NC.
J5 f
e.
t l
k there was some before Three Mile Island headed in this direction,2 I
. _but many more since Three Mile Island.
The people doing-those-r I
calculations say, the margin to 2200 degrees may not be as large i 1
. for some small breaks as it is for large breaks, because of l
i J
I the peculiar transition from the high pressure cooling mode-t
. 6 --
- to the low pressure cooling mode.
It 's the same thing as - the =- ',
7 pumps on/ pumps off question.
There is a cross-ovei~ region and
.3 the;analysises are sensitive to small changes.
2
'~
9 Now, shoudl Appendix K be reconsidered in-the light of(
to changes in our understanding of margin; that's essentially
~~
.the_ reason that this Commission concluded, almost two years ago, to approve the short term and the-long term program-for-
~
g revisingAppendixKbecauseofimprovementsinourunderstanding!
.a.. _ ;. - of the margin:
some good news, some bad news, basically a-i
.U
. 3: judgment that they traded off with one.another 'but needed-to ^
i l--
_ go through them systematically and decide what changes,' if - ~
b
-- any, were warranted in Appendix K.
This seem-to me-to ba a good
. 17 place to put the consideration of this particular point.
-- '~'-
7 18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But, why detach something-
~
~
19 which_, at least in my veiws, is closer related to our' experience j --
2 20 6
at Three Mile Island from this plan.
You may do it' differently 11 than you --
l l
MR. MATTSON:
Secause the plan has -- it really l
~~
doesn't detach it from the plan.
It puts it in Decision 3roup 24 i
D,. if that's what we decide to do, and says, we will' pick'it up-m m vo.m.v _ ic
.-4 n - n. m.s.. m m a m-e"-
_ i m & 4 DM
b
, w naz sc.
46 i
- s a.
in the course of our normal business, our normal business: already:
l 4
i
_ including that rulemaking.
The reason you do-something like J
l that isbecausetheverysamepeoplewhowouldbeworryingaboutl 1
this margin requirement are the same people who would be doing i
3 the realistic analysis of small breaks in other complex trans-l-
i i.ents for revising the emergency procedures and emergency pro-:- f '
r
- -l,.
2 i
1
~_: c - :7 -
.cedure guidelines for operating reactors.
r-1- =
1-I 3
Again, where is the best place to put
=
_9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well; look, the important
- o
._ thing is whether these things get done.or not; not whether i
-it's in this plan or another plan.
But, I am left a little- -
mystified about just what this document is about. -
la, MR. DIRCKS:
I think we you are saying,-though,:'is there's a vehicle that's sort of leaving the~ station, which is~~
.;.Ahis Appendix K revision, that 1coks like a pretty good-plac" r~~
i in which to place this Item.
It 's on-going and 1it '-s-moving out.} -
io
. L, MR. MATTSON:
Well, it's wrong to imply th'at itJs'
=:
_. !8
_ -moving out.
It's something that won't attract:very-high priority--
_in-our operating plan in the face of the revisions necessary Ed 19 1 approve this plan --
n :-
+
20 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Could you try again,-then on-e Il Victor's main point, is why do you feel this is of a lcwer 2:
2 priority?
The description that you are giving as to the pro-l m,
-posed _ action puts it into an Item, which as you have~just de-
}
4
__ scribed, is as a way resources will ge allocatedr we will get i
i i-oimne v
m.:
x
. min. cu =. nnrr. s... wrr a
.=
.=
aw-s e==
Ja a
- 47 j
,, g l
t I
them f arther downstream; which means that you have :to conclude -
I
- 3
- that it's a lower priority than some of the other Items.
f-
. Correct?
l I
A Could you try to explain why you believe it is of a l
3
. lower priority?
1 -
MR. MATTSON:
Well, I think what Three -Mile - Island --
b
. _ 4 r :.
- + :
i i
has taught us is that it is very importiant in call cdue. dispatch t-7 3- -
to get the most realistic description of the reactor transients t and accidents, especially complex transients things involving.
_9
- g more than one mistake or one failure, into the training pro-i grams and into the emergency procedures for operating -plants; that's where the short term lessons learned and the. Bulletins and Orders requirements put the emphasis for at least another l,a year before all of those recuirements are met During that 13
. year, I wouldn't do these kinds of analysises; cl.would. wait ci
=
~
until those very realistic analysises and co-developments sto :-
!4 r
I
- support those analysises are complete.
17 Having done that, then you are in a much better -
ia position to take the time and add.ress this subject and -you.also 19 have some code improvements that will give youra better.handl'e -
20 on margin, which is the central issue.
I think you can afford -
21 to wait a year or two years to even undertake this particular document.
-S-i CHAIRMAN AHEA'RNE:
Any other comments?-
- 1 MR. MATTSON:
It may seem that you are -talking about m m voar,.=
_ :e
-,~
age 2:stfhe CMtt. ST5rtI?. L e. SlJf?T 'TF
- 5 C-
.=
= ;a
=
d i
nez.we.
. w.
10 i
1
.very small resources in terms of one, two, three man-years,
- --j
. - __, 2
.but they are resources that are limited in the capability:to- ' -F
=
handle this kind of task.
}
A CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Any other questions on that?
Vic?
3 Joe, you tried to get to the decay. heat removal?
.=0 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Plung;ing forward.
E-3, therd-y, is. some excersises on shutdown heat removal systems :which seem.z
_ --dine as a 3 Category and then a Reg guide to ~.get :some -of the e L _
2
=
9 useful things down in HRH systems.
2.-
2- : ;
'1; 25;+
=
MR. MATTSON:
We would propose that :Itemr3 and :4 - are 2 -
bot _D Cateogries, because of their timing -- - - ; -
17- : - ~:
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I wonder if you zwould :beclook-
~
t: -
ing into the reliability of DC power systems.which. -- -
13 MR. MATTSON:
14 That's an unresoved safety -issue that's -
i not. covered in this plan.
. j 7,
r -
i::
l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I see, so that'.s -handled
= 1. - -
l I
separately.
~ =- =-
J'-
17
~
MR. DIRCKS:
Item 3 I thought was already approved;
~
13 Did you say 3 and 4?
wasn't it?
1 1
19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let 's see; rif -it s an' u'nre
~ l :-
i 20 1
~
solved safety issue it is not eligible for being included here?
- 1 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Well, that's not quite right because some of them are here.
l MR. MATTSON:
Yes, systems interaction is here - and i
k r
here because it relates very directly'to Three Mile Island, ATWS.l 1
~.f
,_w um =- - x A,.
me e c wm:n.1TWEI*. L e. SJfT't 'f7 MC' ez
_iwm a k um
3rs,Jrs 49 i
11 I
1
- doesn't; DC power system, there was no particular information--
I 2!
..from-Three Mile Island to say we were doing DC power systems -
I r
wrong or the DC power systems performed inadequately at Three j
t 1
Mile Island, but I'm not sure of the connection.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, you see to be more con- {
i j.
r 4_
.- cerned - about reliability of decay heat: removal than the-DC power 7-l
~~
7_
systems-related --
'2
~"2=
~ -~
'~
l
~
- 3 -
MR. MATTSON:
Three Mile Island said that' reliability-
~
~
2 9
fo decay heat removal was seriously in: questioh; the' rea' son,2 '
~
_;o -
it's never been used at Three Mile Is1.and.
~
CT-1 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
It hadn't been focused on'before. -
1-MR. MATTSON:
No, it's not an unresolved safety-
.i.
la.
- issue; it hadn't been understood in that light at all.
t-CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Remember, the fundamental theme-
- -- ~
l.
of this document was, what programs, a.ctions, et cetera, are-
'i-IJ w
p__
_. e. -- should we be turning to as a result of what we have~ -- -
j' learned by Three Mile Island.
~ ~ ---
And, the DC power unresolved safety issue was"ther'e' -
18 before.
It's lack of it here doesn't mean that it i~sn't a I--
~
~
19
.high priority unresolved issue.
~~ -
2'--
2-20
^
MR. MATTSON:
We reall'y have gone through'two phases.I
~
II We went through a first phase where we said, if it l
isn't directly connected, it doesn't belong in this document 2:
i
.and so it got pulled out.
- s Then we had a document where people said, there -is -
i (MTE'RU44% '/1799df*te h 188C N"* ~
aus 1chtT9e CW'TCI. FFWG?. E e. Arrft 37
- C *
- _. _. m 7 *. Jluust
s-0 I
- C2 N C-12
_y_
still some hobby-horses in here, things that have been around -
=-
_7-I since before Three Mile Island.
That 's true, -but :they have, I
at least an indirect and in some cases a direct relationship i
to Three Mile Island.
I t
So, now we are in a second phase, this sort of grey-
.i. -
intermediate area:
is it in the plan or isn ':t--i'n= :the' ~ plan ~.= - Me -
7 have invented this Category D in the c~ourse df the -last-three--
-3
_. mee.t_ings which seems to be a convenient middle location between-
~ - -
9
_ the high priority stuf f pulling direct-ly from Thre': Mile Island ~
e 10 and the other stuff that's been around within the program-is e-yp on-going work or is planned for being addressed somewhere-out -
~
in the future and fits not conveniently in either of tLose - ~~
u two places.
I-14 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
One wouldn' t expect to see: al-l -the, --
~
g
,_ unresolved safety issues that are in t. hat set ~ of high'- pri~ority3'
~if I
l one with schedules, et cetera, in this plan.
Their lack-of-F-
14 I
being here doesn't mean that they aren't still=~ being worked' on -
17 and don't have the same priority.
17 :
__18 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Upward and onward?
19 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
At least onward.' 7
-~
20 COMMISSIONER HENDRIZ:
E-4 -- most of it's approved.--
There is a request for an integrity to see whether they can-
- l f
develop some criteria for a low pressure short duration test.
22 I'd be surprised.
Not without plugging: things - -not-
- s without plugging the plant up for a couple of weeks, I'll bet-m m vo
.e - - x b.-
]
., -,n,a. s..
-e-
,=
m-
a 7rs o 1rs
- sac 2
'4C.
51 i
6 e.
i you._-
~
i 7*
^
MR. MATTSON:
We have revised this to say we ought 3'
I l
to consider some alternatives.
We weren't going to get less-I 1
enthusiastic; we were going to get a little more enthusiastic.
f I
y_
There ne people who suggest that you can do continuous; low ~
h i
I j; -
pressure testing with containment integrity. --
= - ~ - - - - ' - =-
i-I 7-COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
It would be interesting'to p
T~=
i 3,
_ look-- at.
That was one of the good things about the' Surrey plahM 2
9
_the,sub-atmospheric containment.
So, when the' safety study-Z
-went through and looked at what is the: chance =that the contiin -
10 F
ment has inadvertently had a line left open and; %oy, it's pretth-low; can't hold vacuum.
2 ~' - ~ ~ - -
i.
la COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Good-choice.
i COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Good choice, right.
~- ~
~ -
- : L,.
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Choice of. plants 't o *dxamine? i2i~
i COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
The next B Item we hit is--
~
I E
id -
l 2-F.
- -.7-COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, let's"see; Yod are-2' '
=-
18 passing by the whole containment area?
l' 19 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Well,mostofitisACategory{
20
. stuff and has been -- the dedicated penetrations were short- -
Il term lessons learned, the isolation valves ---
O 2
l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, what about the question !'
of inerting containments?
- A MR. MATTSON:
That's in 2-3 where we talked about it
%% vu r,. :__.
- c.
A -.
m e C,prTQ. frsrtIT L e. sufrE 87
- C m
m-
j rs. jrs 52 f
,a a
14 j
I last time.
All the degraded core things, whether they apply to i
i
-containment or decay heat removal or vents or training or what -i i
I ever, are all pulled together in Roman'II-3.
~'
1 So, the question of inerting is II-B,7 - - contain--
l ment inerting back on Page 6.
[
\\
6 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
By the way, alth6 ugh it ' ~s-an - - Er
-.7=-
- A Item, I trust in bucking-up the containment isolation! pro- = ~
- ~
E
~~
3--
visions,- this had to do with actuation:, multiple cingle ~ actuation ~.
l
~
ri
~
- - 9: -
r~-
MR. MATTSON:
Yes, there was"a shor't-te'm le'ssohF1=~ -
110 -
learned.
'+'-
I'r-7' t
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
There was, was'th~ere not, some---
=~
- 7 where in there licensees were to take
- a good -l~ook and see-what kind of essential services they might:need inside the contain-
,.u ment:
I've been worrying off and on about these systems where q,
-- 2:
=. '
_ once you hit containment isolation, everything slams classi-pt
~ -
I
..on :the basis that the only thing that.could have happen'ed'-was -~ lU Id I
a large LOCA and everything's cut off---
- c-MR. MATTSON
That also was.a short term lessons 2
I4 learned; that's also included in Item.2.
? "" ~-
19 2
~
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Then, you have to go around!':
20 l'~
- and-dicker in the cabnets in order to be able-to sslectively 21 open some ccmponent colling water or whatever you-might need
=
I to keep --
l
~_.
l MR. RATTSON:
They were all required to-go-back.and-~!
- 1
. reconsider their isolation logic.
~~
~
r.,en ne vo,.w
_ _ i c
- M Chd8'TTE ff5 PET 7 L ggf?g g7
3 r s.
3rs
_:e-saca: se. 5 3 l'5 1
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Next, B Item _is a: Reg guide - :
}
- 3._. - -
- MR. MATTSON:
Let me pause on E.
We have.added to' 1[
i there, both of them coming from Rogovin.
One-having.to do with l 1--
in cito (?) valve testing under accident conditions.
That's a subject that has been around in the course of -the pump. valve :
[
I
. _ -F. : _ : - standards cevelopment effort for three:or four years; and :.we
- ~ 1 ~ '
_.7
.. arer going to call that an on-going program, Category D. :r a -
_f 1
- - Another one having to do with the sensitivityrof the at
.3 9._-
-_ launch through steam generator; that really is already approved; 10 on-going work, Three Mile Island related and we:will call it t
an. A. _ Thats the show cause that went to plants under con-::; _ :LT L.
_ struction as to why they shouldn't make modifications. -.
__:+
t The Rogovin recommendation was to consider applying- :'=
77 i'
_sthat to operating plants, if I recall.
.14 I
i 1
MR. MINNERS:
I don' t think that was a.Rogovin.recommar-
_ _ IJ
.mendation.
- dr -
16 i
MR. MATTSON:
Somebody has got that recommendation :up.
1,,
uAnyhow, that is a consideration.
I think it came from the
~~-
18 Bulletins and Orders Task Force.
c' 19 1
11
~
In any event, the question of whether to apply'-4'
~
20 to operating reactors we will have to deal with before we Il bring forward Draft 3.
If it's our judgment that it should be !
l a question resolved on operating reactors, it would be a B or a C in the plan.
And, if it's our judgment it need not be or 4
even considered by you, then we would dismiss it at our level; J
t
' art 13tenaf'hcreme. '/Ursaffee S Inc m *e ami-me e Ca#rTCR. STEPEI?. L e. M 'G7 me c '
.=
au. z - -.
a Jr3 : Jrs 54
.v :
mm 16 I
that's why I mention it here.
If you have any particular se_n_s - - l_.
q 2
itivity to that question, we need to hear from you.
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
My concern was the ones under con-l l
1 struction.
j i
MR. MATTSON:
Yes.
It is our understanding that
_ j j
l 3
that's where it was limited before.
Th. er e s e ems _ to. be a. re _ _. _.__ J.
,.. _.p.
_7.., '. sidual question of operating plants whether it.was_ __ sufficiently._.
g__ _ _. addressed by Bulletins and Orders or not, we would like_.to_take._
J..'
a_look at it and decide.
OMSSIOER HEERE:
Mat sens Q h p maner, Q de
-10 way,.is a little narrowly phrased, I've come to believe.. - _
_.11 -,
MR. MATTSON:
Yes, that's a good point.7_
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
But, that's all right.
We can talk about that as we --
9
~_y
_ Once more into the breach -- 2F,3.
There is a: goo.d old Reg guide there and there's a B level job.to clean it up.
14 I've just taken the view that these up-gradings are-el g
__ Regulatory guides will come along as appropriate _when we.kngw_
what we need to do.
_s __.
19 CHAIREVi AHEARNE:
I guess the concern with that p
g particular Regulatory guide is not so much that we now have.
. l 21 I
it out for public comment, et cetera, but will we actually end !
up being able to enforce it's implication?
{
MR. MATTSON:
That question ~ keeps coming back over and 24 We have been directing it towards NRR from what I've over.
2
%% v w
- - x me sl3stie C urTes. sfe q *. E e. RJ1TE *e7 e',,
e_
27 % & L.:mmut
irs. jrs
~~
55 l
u:
,a.%
17 i
I~
-heard and they are now starting to ask it of me.-
- ~ - -
I don't know; have we a good; coordinated Staff plan lc I
i on how we are going to respond to the Commission's questions l
1 on enforceability of some of these new~ requirements?
The i
~ Steering Group hasn't got much of a plan; do the rest of you?
l
-~
i l_.
- ~
MR. BICKWIT:
We have been in contact with the Staff l:
2:.._
7
--cIl-2 on it.
-E=_
- -__1-
~
I_
NRR and the la'yers are going to work MR. MATTSON:
w 9
that question?
. _.:. :~
_ 10 MR. BICKWIT:
That's right; we are working.
..{.
I I' ' ' '
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Do you have some kind of aS estimate
~
II of when you might give us a position o'n this?
~
I f3 MR. BICKWIT:
I would guess shortly; we've sent to
[4 you, very briefly, our general concept, our general attitude
~.. ~.
t,g toward the problem.
If we get agreement at the Staff level on l
T=:
_. = _
o-r4 the question, it will be up to you very shortly.
4-I-
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
All right.
gg COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Nothing in G; nothing in H.
l l
MR. MATTSON:
Well, H will have to be modified to
- 9 put in the special assessment group that's been ordained within 0
- z_ -
the last couple days.
1 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That's probably an appropriate f
action.
l
,,r
.i COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Which is this special assess-24 ment 2
l I,
. m n.ro v a m.
_ _ t e n - n. a... - n a
.=
.m., =.
g Jrs. Jrs
- *c:E: Nc. 5 6 I
=a ::
18 t
MR. DIRCKS:
This is the group that was assembled f
9.i and we will have a report to the Commission by week from Friday,
I on what's going on at'Three Mile Island; right way, right l
A pace, right things being done.
1.
'd.i COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Yes.
i CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I'm not sure whether you want -tct:
l-
_5 7
actually put in the Action Plan, because it should be completed g.
_ by the time the next --
9 MR. MATTSON:
I don't know; that's.one of the re-sources that I feel strongly about and.I would like to put;it.
10 in there.
U.
=.;.
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I see.
1:3
(
MR. MATTSON:
Well, the point to having it in here at all, was some very strong statements by Kemeny Commi_ssion Commissioners about, 43 _
pay attention to. Three Mile.Isl.an.d... I l-
-9
- the things (i think the special assessment group is another.one of -
that ought to be in this Agency's list. of how it paid special.
i W
attention to Three Mile Island.
MR. DIRCKS:
For historical assessments.
MR. MATTSON:
Yes, for historical importance if 20 nothing else.
- 1 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Well, I'm looking to the 02 special assessment group for, how do we stop mucking arcund l
and get the fissions products out of the containmenr.
I don't i 24 know whether that's what Kemeny and his friends had in mind or i
U Ve3 N f
me stasThe Cw'*t:n. 571stIT. L e. mJfft '97
- [ C
- a Jrs. Jrs
-1 ucz.sc. 5 7 19 I
not.
.l
+.__e
. you will j _
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I don't think that's what get frcm the,special assessment group.
j L
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I hope that's what the special I
assessment group has in mind.
Some of them do; I think. that 's i
_.6 no_t_ what all of them have in mind.
7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Maybe the, transcript was mislead.-
t l
ing.
3 CCMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
2-J.
_9 I must say I admire the _
10-
-l - vig r with which the friends and family of the vender.inspectionj_
_l program were able to assert it as a priority Item in every g
program of the Agency.
I expect to discover it's a Commission-n g
u level office at any moment.
I admire it; but damn it, it's 11 not -- is there a Class Q somewhere appropriately below D?
gg MR. SCROGGINS:
. _ 73 _ _
I think that was called hobby _ horse.
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
And, I suggest --
34 -
-c CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, except we have a.. vender in-spection program.
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Yes,'we do; but, we are not 19 going to jack it up and declare that because it's Three Mile 7 _
Island, why, we are going to expand the Staff, expand the
- 1 Regulatory controls to the residents at all the God damn venders.
~
I CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I see.
Well, it's listed as a C, j
~
which means that there should be a pa5er coming in to prcpose 24 it.
N l
me sen,n. e.wmm. stem. s. wrrt tr m._
- -a nc
- g.sc. 5 g
.i
_.u_
r--
^
I MR. MATTSON:
I think there are three legitimate
+
... _ - t alternatives here --
i 1
5 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
They also neglected to list i
l 1
in the Table -- in the Summary Table one of the titles.
f
- r _.
c ' _. -
MR. MATTSON:
We did?
- ' -' ~~
5 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
It seems to me, I found four-
-l
- _ : ; : - -.7.
j.- parts.-in the fat book and only three in the Summary Table; ---
I it gave me twice as many things to write, no way, after.
If t
- - -c. 29
- I =::that's any sort of a hint --
~ ~ -
~
~
10:._:- _. -.
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes.
Wel;l, we could-make this?
1 I
i
.g Category B, or we could eliminate all of this-from--the-Action-
-Plan or we could leave it in the way it is as C's-and bring - -
~
~'
)
I them back to you.
i
.la e
MR. DIRCKS:
Well, you cover it every year-in-your i
.=- : _.
-7
. -budget review.
' n
~
s.r-COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I don' t know how John's'- going:
~I:
f4
. to: find-it as Chairman, but I used to cover it several times. -
c I,
a year as part of my budget review.
= -
MR. DIF.CKS:
It will undoubtedly be coming up-again- ~
' ' ~ ~
19 as part of the budget reveiw.
~
20 MR. MATTSCN:
Was there anything specific, my memory.'-
Il I
.is failing me, from Kemeny and Rogovin; I turned to the refer -
ences and I find, none, from any of the investigations of l'
i Three-Mile Island.
b
~
- 4 MR. O'REILLY:
This would be an internal ID report i
==
?N ym i M '&
e.
l
_ m an.s.. = = -
m g
.=..
=
ra
- d nez sc, 5 9 l
- u
'21 '
._ and it was very heavily focused on this type of a problem. -There e
I was, I recall, something in Kemeny.
1
\\
MR. MATTSON:
So, the Plan is in error when it says, i
1 l
none.
t 1
MR. O'REILLY:
No, the references indicate Kemeny.
i 4_
MR. MATTSON:
They do?
2-J1-3?
- :- : r 7:. r.
MR. CORNELL:
There was some' thing in Rogovin-on that - -l
-~
3 1: 1.also?-
M
~E
- --==
~
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
On vender i~nspecti~on? -
I :
- ~~ 10' MR. CORNELL:
Not on the inspection; on Regulatory =
.g :
, - control.
~ ': -
-tf MR. MATTSON:
Over present non-licensees.
Th at ' s-Item 3.
i la.
- 3 -
CHAIBMAN AHEARNE:
My Draft has no references listed.-
l MR. CORNELL:
On con:truction inspection; you are
,y g
I
- - thinking o f 2-J2.
I?---
1:(T
,d i
1,,,, r MR. MATTSON:
Kevin reminds..ns that: Item No. 3 ",7 the--- "
question of increased Regulatory control over: non-licensed-
~
suppliers was the subject that was add _ressed in Rogovan;-
~~
19 that's right.
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes, I would guess that it is my
- 1 position that I'd like to see a paper on it. -
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
It was rather different than l
putting rank and file and resident inspector out there to sit
- 4 i
and watch them make valves.
2--
j Ph N MM "ae e i m !4 l
um. c.wmm. erwur. t.. wr er
= n-
.= --
- r 3 rs :
Jrs a w;
-~ ~~~
=acz se. 60
'22
- - " ~
~
MR. MATTSON:
Well, why don't we keep-Item 3'as a
- i, e
C and make Items 1, 2,
and 4 -- no, 1 and 2, D's; and 4 we will-l bring into 3 and make it all one.
3 and 4 will combine to make t 1
it a C.
3 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I'd make all of this stuff I
4 D, this is regular work of the Agency and we have been wackinf f t
___._[
7-7-
this: vender-thing up, down, and sidewise.
Considering that-I've'-
3 gone to the mat and fought OMB bloody to save=the damn thing l';-
=91 7 a year and a half or two years ago, why, I think I have earnedi
=
-by: entitlement to say it's got no place here.
2
":n- -
to -
11 i
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I would agree. ~
i
~~-
- ~ =
MR. BICKWIT:
We have looked'at a small aspect of the-1
- 3 problem; maybe you want to have expanded order authority so 9
that:you can reach venders on occasion; an occasion such as the i
_L
~
]-
Three Mile Island accident.
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That's di.fferent that-h1 vende -
r
-1
- inspection.
-C MR. BICKWIT:
Yes, but as part of the*6cntroli of~2'-
' 1
~:
18
- c-in creased Regulatory control --
7 2
1 19 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
But.that, agiin'is quite a 20
.different matter then --
Il CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I think,the vote here was to com-l-
- bine 3 and 4 and make them all D's.
I-O I
l MR. MATTSON:
That's what I heard; good.
l-
- 2 MR. DIRCKS:
I don't see where 3 and 4 have to come --
i 5-mm vo,or.. =~.
1,.c.
e s:hrne cuw?O. Krpa?, 3, e. sJfTt*t7 "f~
e -__^
%L* m
3rs.
3rs 61 i
nea: sc.
- 23 '
s 1
- J one is the 3, do we take authority over non-licensed venders, s,
~
i i
and_4 is tied very much into the vender inspection program, like; I -
putting resident inspectors out.
But, we can handle that.
j i
CEAIRMAN AHEARNE:
All right.
Construction inspec-l 3 -
tion program.
f.
i
.5 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
They are all.A's: _. bought.__
3, :
I J-3; management for design and construction,.sorga.giza-l
_ c. c lh s _.
_2.
l
-. tion and staffing:
I must say --
.( _
5; 4 7
._.9-CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That did come out of one of:the_. _.
r i
Commission's reviews; didn't it?
to COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Well, it either did direc_.tly _
.or it's a not unreasonable extrapolation of the management
- -3--
g 3
J
- f. -
- during operation.
- 7..
_ CEAIRMAN AHEARNE:
No, that was an explicit request
_ _ : 7,..
i
. _ _ +...
_ _ h-from them to do that.
_,4 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
And, I guess --
i CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I'd stick with the:C.
MR. MATTSON:
You might note that insof ar as
.c.o. n-:
struction permits are concerned, what this Action; Plan _migr' 19 portend for construction permits; this is one o f two Items,; ; _- -
.20 __
that has been our judgment as we' thought about.that question
- 1 I
through_ the last few months, that you would have to get:seme-
[_
~
thing specific from a CP applicant before you could proceed to.l
~.
e grant the CP.
-- j 04
.. So, this particular Item and the one on siting-tumm m vomem=w - me m.
me WL,Me C.wrM"R. FrWEI?. L e. SJf?"E '27 in a+.=_-__
- -g
- s
- 7.._ ~~.
ncz.ye, 6 2 24 m
= criteria.
Otherwise, the rest of them look like they are all - k-t-
2 l
i
. satisfactory for being addressed at the OL application --
i i
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
What kind of shape are you going l
to be in to develop these criteria by September 1,
'80, and A
i have the Draft criteria in hand well enough before that so that at a time when you might otherwise want to start chewing : _,_
3
-_7._.
some construction permits so that we have a basis for doing it.-:
g MR. O'REILLY:
They have to be delay _ed, at_least._.--
9.
-probably at least a year, I would think.
1...
10 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
But, if you want _to move in. -
_ this direction, taking into account what Roger said, what..i.t:_
.- also means is that you have to have some sort-of.-interim review a
basis to deal with construction permit procee. dings and near,
. --you know, the ones that have been recently grantly; unless..you have got some kind of grandfathering scheme i.n mind._-
U
_g._
MR. O'REILLY:
I would think that you would follow _the T6 pattern that developed for the operating reactors -- go..oute. _-
17
._ and_look some more, work on the criteria, and come up with the
_3 ta management and organization for this cause.
19 A lot like the situation we have developed for 20 operating reactors --
11 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I would keep it as a C, Joe.
l i
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Yes.
I MR. MATTSON:
I stated that this is the one as the l
i 24 requirement for the CP's.
Dr. Hendrie, I errored in saying that.
i I
'arTUtpaanoe44. 'tspeaves Og7.:stfUts. 'mc f
me 1CatDe C.&,9?ta. ET5FEIT. L e. SJgyg *gp se v'2.
m J ~ a,
~
%g
.a 63 1
25 I
this is the one required.
The one that is required is up in I
Chapter 1.
7 CCMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I was hoping to get through f
the rest of 2.
f i
1 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Okay, we can get to the end of 2.
i f
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
We've:got a J-4----
l 7 -
MR. CASE:
I'm a little bit Worried =about-a C-on1thisJ -
3
~
g
.one.
2 -,- -
9 MR. MATTSON:
Well, I think I misspoke.
That's what to I'm trying to figure out, because I read it now and this is --
i all stuff that ISE i.s going to do; this is construction, in-
- 7.-
-;spection programs.
= ^
Where is the Item on construction management for the licensees?
14
-. 13- -
CHAIR N AHEARNE:
That is.
There are -c.:iteria - for
. the. licensees --
~ - - - ---
to MR. DIRCKS:
2-J1.
- ~
I 17
~
MR. MATTSON:
Got it.
I'm with you.
=
13 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
The licensee has~to: submit a l--
19 description of the organization, training, and staffing. -
.-l-20 I
MR. CASE:
I don't thi'nk C is appropriate.
l
- 1 CHAIR N AHEARNE:
I think -- no, at least let me I
see if I can explain my understanding of C.
j r
i C doesn't mean a time phasing; C means that there has, 22 to_be something more explicit to come to the Commission ~for us :
.neos % vaneartu %, m.
x o= -.
f meicWTM CAMTO.fTetIT. & e. SurFE'T?
d C~
E" a
a-macz NC. 64
-s
-~
~ - _... _
26
_, - _ I_ _
_ to approve of.
'r-2 The time phasing they have got here is they say, NRR
_ will develop the criteria by September 1, and will issue i
l.
I 1
notification by October 1, of this year.
You guys have the time pacing; when you are ready to develop the criteria..
j.
I But, C means that we have to. see something separat_e3_ [f
_3__
to_ approve it.
- ~ ~
.7. - _
MR. CASE:
Let me come back to Jim's. point where he 3
j. _ feels that it might take longer and you ought to do some.ad_ hoc _.,
9 jo _
MR. MATTSON:
Ed, just.a second.
J[m_and;Iwere confused.
.g..;
I was reading 2-J2 and that's what _h_e wa_s: speaking._
to, was the chance in the way I&E inspects p_lants_under_ con-12
.s_/
struction.
We meant to be talking about J3, which is the_
~
iT -
I i
management by the licensee.
Clearly this says September 1,
'80 14
_]
for. criteria.
If this one is right, then one must be th. inking
- 1. g of not issuing CP's until September 1 of ' 8 0.-
I _t_hink;that_is id i
wrong.
I th.i ' we have had in mind that these criteria -and;;-
jl 17 this decision could be made quicker than that and the Septembe_r t -
fa i
1 could be speeded up.
t 19 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
My point is that:NRR_.is._the pacing,._
l item on that, but that C does means that they have to come ba{k l
'l l
to us with something explici" MR. CASE:
I'm suggesting approaching that as you did.
i the criteria for management in operati~ons; you did the first.
s-I*
few plants with an ad hoc team approach and used that-in develop 2
>=o wa.u n r _ _ u.e.
b l
.=,n. e.u-m. sr av. s.
mars n
-e
= _,
- -g m ye, 6 5
-a -
27 l
I ing the criteria.
2 MR. O'REILLY:
That's why I compared it to NTOL (?).
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Well, certainly if other things A
work out so the re-Staff resources available, I would certainly' J
hate to see construction permits hung because~we hadn~'t gotten
... 3 5-around to enunciating this set of criter:.on.
i 1
7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes, but sven if~you go~to a' I
'3 -
-team approach, you have got to have first the team, and ~ sechihh
~
-'9 -,
.you-need resources.
You've also got to have some s...et of-
- ~ ~
~ instructions for the team that they are relatively clear on
- 10 ~
~
~
= what they are looking for.
~
~~~~
~
~
~
And if NRR can propose that,.I donsee-any~ reason
(-
t l s
\\
why we couldn't go that route.
- But, I.'m saying tha~t I think la.
i we need something from NRR saying, here is how we propose to
_ _,i~ ' ~
'= _. meet his requirement.
~'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '
~~
13
~
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
What you are lookin~g~fFr here ~
~~
~
- is you want to look and see if this ut,ility th~at now propiises '
~
~
17
~
to-bui-id a great big thing has got itself staff ~ed 'ahd-Frgahihedl ~ '
18 so that you believe that they have a reasonable chance o~f~
~
19--
~
keeping track of it.
20
~
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Right.
~
'I 21 l
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Now, may I be so bold as to f
suggest that while I have the greatest admiration and respect i
~
t, for out own Staff, the NRC Staff is not necessarily the sole
- L repositerry of that expertise in the world and' there just might larrtFumafiCrame. '/tF'saffee h Isc me -
me 33JTte QFPt2. 373PE2* 3. e. sufft "at m u-ez _
1 a m
3rs 3:3 y{
w ye, 6 6 I
29
'I be some whopping construction firms out there and consulting j
engineering in the construction business firms that you could I
go and put a contract with and they would suggest to you some l
l 1
guidelines for this sort of stuff.
I might be pretty good.
I i
f l
I would think, as a matter of fact, that it ain't 6
all that hard, it seems to me.
I'll bet you 'a'~ cookie that-.--[:
4l :
- 7
- two or three or us could sit down and come up pretty clos ~e'?in '
.g:
- :an :af ternoon.
12:r- :-
--9 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
You might: be able' to examine some-
...- 10 i -- cas histories to show, now, here is what is inadequater' --
I COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
The best laidiplans, you know..
When you look at these things in the beginningr you ~~
- -^
(
17 m
have to assume that if they have got a. quality assurance shop 1
i
. and -it is this big and it looks like it has the right dimen-
,s n
sions that it will go ahead and do the. things.mlou-have' to~ r +.,'
1.5
-keepslooking as you go along, but you can't define in e~nornious-.jI?
14 i
-. detail all of these things and I think it would.be imorocer to i=
17
~
~
l I
try to.
18 MR. DIRCKS:
You want something from NRR, then.
r' 19 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Or from you.
r-MR. DIRCKS:
They are working on something -- when.
Il you need maybe something like a near term construction permit,
=
f if they can't get the whole thing out.
2 v:
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
However it strikes you out L
24
- :there.
But, I would think it is as Action Plan ~ sort o f -Item that '
EU V.ru a N N
l
,<-m: 1r. rr; s.. =rri =
y-
=
s-s-
0/
- *M N C-
~a O
~
~ ~ ' ~
'30-i i
-rather than bumping it off to a good deed.
And, if, you want to-l 2 -
leav it as a C, so we see it again or some other._ configuration. :-
i that seems more reasonable to you, why, I would just say do it. f e
1 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I think what I heard is that you 5.
are willing to consider some interim approaches, but you would -
l L-
_4 -
like to see somebody get on with some criteria.
7.-,
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That's right.
g-3 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
And, you suggest _,that-one_ way of
-- developing criteria and NRR will make sure of it.
..7_
.;g COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Let me leap to; J -4r
_I_ want to-complete this Section before the bell strikes noon.
r Deficiency reporting requirements pops up over here
.C.
g.
to what extent are these deficiency reports dif ferent. from T ER's,,.
i 3,..
- other. kinds of reports?
To what extent do they need.to-be?
-.There are other tasks in here some place or other,which say,___
.fix;-up the LER system and all kinds of things.like_that.
33
)
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Okay.
These are; con _struction and..
s, non-licensee.
_7 la MR. MINNERS:
Part 21.
19 I
MR. DIRCKS:
I was talking to Michelson this morning 20
_.and he would like to take a look at this whole area of LER's 21 and how useful they are and how to make them more useful.
MR. MATTSON:
That's covered in another area of the-
{',
Plan; now, this is different.
w I
1
- L MR. DIRCKS:
Well, he was ta'lking about construction,_
".5
- too, in ne % v enan= : _.
x me 33ltfte C.AN iTWET/, & e sJfft 27 g - _T ca n 1 *.1mut
68 jrs jrs ncz sc.
31 I.,
MR. MATTSON:
Oh, he was?
Okay.
l.
i CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
What does he have in mind?
l-
=.
i MR. MINNERS:
There is a proposal; I don't:believe i
it's up to the Commission yet in regard to reviewing the entire l A
3 reporting scheme for reactors under construct 2cn. _It has suf-r fered, I think, seriously in the past. : The I&E approach -. i-
-(
3 t
would be to come up with some interim fix which would expand --
b i
I
. and provide additional information on deficiency and on: ope ~ - -
k-r 3..,
l ational types of events that occur during testing,:which were--.
~
_9
.j not-covered in our current reporting scheme.
~.- - -
~
10 So, we want to come up with some interim-approach:
~1-11 l
-that.will fill in the -- plug up the obvious holes and hopefullq,
.J
- ,. '!2 we could come up with some intergrated. approach tontie in with-13
.the LER system for one reporting scheme before the NRC..
14 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
And how about Part521 stuff?:.=- _ =i'-
3:
L!
l MR. MINNERS:
Well, the problem is that.Part:211has'.5 p Id
.I
_ _ been looked at in many ways as a sepa(ate type of system.-
L 17 would like to refocus that into, in effect, the:overall: reporting l
18 I
syndrome.
It's treated differently in the operational staffs 19
]
~
right_now.
It comes in differently, it's handled differentlyi li 20 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, the way this book reads is
- 1 that I&E is going to issue a bulletin in March and' initiate l
~.
the rule changes in March; but, you said you were sending a paper t
up.
i I
I#
MR. MINNERS:
It matches exactly what we did on the7 y
EU We E N j
. =.,,,, - ~....
2 ns-s mm
=
rs 23rs o9 a
is,-
ancz ye,
'32 I
operating reactors that we proposed -- well, actually, we did e
i propose a bulletin originally; it was changed in the Staff-reviews to come up with an interim rule.
That was -- I think l
its effective right now: that Commission already approved of i
5 th ag,.
~
- 5 As you well know, the same balletin-~ approach was pro ~ :-
7, posed and I believe that's going to be turned around to som'e;
~
22
~ -
~2 S~-
~ interim ruling.
L=
Cli
- +- - ~9 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Okay, so you are,2 right now,- in j
7
- 10 the progress of coming up with something in a month or so.
6
~
- 11
~
MR. MINNERS:
It's already drafted; yes, sir.
It'~s
~
+
g7 under consideration right now.
~~ ~
~
i~
!}=
I would propose we just-leave this l-73 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
i-
+
~
gj as a C because the process is so far along that-we are going-
- g -
,1 to see Lt.
It seems to me to be the logical thing to doNI Id COMMISSIONER EENDRIE:
- Finally, 2-K.
~
~ '
i J-
~
-E COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, this 'is' the-thing we--
~'
~1
~
--talked ~about earlier and said that we would prefer to- ~make it - I "
r 18
~
much more specific than it is now.
We dashed"it isto Darft'2
~
27
~
19
~
~~ at the last minute as it became more and more obviou's to us '2~1
~ ~ ~
~
20 that there were a number of things in Bulletins and Orderi 11
-aus follcw-on work that weren' t in the Action Plan.
We-had to I:
r have a place to keep the bookkeeping straight and'we put"it in-l here in general language and we now think that we ought to u
get specific in follow-on for priorities and resources and sub- ~
~
2
---=
=
l 4.
_m-
.=
2e.
a 7 rs 1rs 70 i
- act.. _ _ _ _
pacz Nc.
'33' stance in the case of he auto block valve; one by one. iThat's 3
' - i about 20 Items, I guess; in varies somewhat depending on-the.-
i reactor type.
I 4
i COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
So, you will sorting those e
out 2.nto --
l 4-
- MR. MATTSON:
You will see them in Draft 3.
There-
=!-
d.-
.will-be a number of A's, that is actions alreadyi taken; - and.
+-
.4.
3 l
then there will be decisions pending, which Ed said earlier 9..
-will.be brought to you in a paper by Denton, so we will :dake - -- [r
. l - those s C.
6 11-l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That's also the thing that':the'~
i:
ACRS is working on.
~~
s.'
.;3 -
MR. MATTSON:
And the ACRS is now looking at.
.~
- 2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE
Is that it?
.jy -
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I was. going to say,-if you 5 would like to go to lunch while I do Sections 3 and 4 - -- -.
3 i
.,c CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I think we will have to come.back' ' ~
ss on 3,.unfortunately.
All right, thank you.
(Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at ll:50. a;m;)
1
[
j:
II
'I 24 a_:
- l Was"W 1 mir%En O
me 33JTM CAFfa.ffWCr?. S.w. mJf71 '97
- T2
_.h2*
.1mmt