ML20012G552
| ML20012G552 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/22/1993 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20012G551 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9303090100 | |
| Download: ML20012G552 (84) | |
Text
-.. __
j r
i I
i
SUMMARY
REPORT i
OPERABILITY / DEGRADED EQUIPMENT CONFERENCE
?
COSPONSORED BY NRC REGION III AND i
i
. MIDWEST ENGINEERING MANAGERS FORUM RAMADA O' HARE HOTEL, ROSEMONT, ILLINOIS.
i JANUARY 21-22, 1993' i
i h
I l-i l
l 9303090100 930302 PDR MISC 9303090095 PDR l
OFERABILITY/ DEGRADED EQUIPMENT CONFERENCE 1.0 OBJECTIVES The objectives of the Operability / Degraded Equipment Conference were: to provide a forum for industry perseinel to discuss and have a better understanding of Generic Let'.er 91-18; to provide each participant the opportunity to ask questions and give their perspective on the process and impacc or Ttking ope sbility determinations; and to identify where clu 'ficatio-is needed or important issues are not addressed to impr. w dec.aded equipment and operability determinations to improve cafe operation of nuclear facilities.
2.0 GENERAL OVERVIEW l
An Operability / Degraded Equipment Conference was conducted on January 21-22, 1993 in Rosemont, Illinois. is the conference agenda, and Attachment 2 is a list of persons who attended the conference.
The conference began with a Call to Order by Mr. Hubert Miller, Region III Deputy Regional Administrator, and Mr. Sushil Jain, Chairman of the Midwest Nuclear Engineering Managers Forum.
They provided background and stated the objectives of the conference, see Attachment 3.
Mr. A.
Bert Davis, Region III Regional Administrator, and Mr. Murray Edelman, Executive Vice President, Centerior Energy, i
addressed the conference participants.
They expressed gratitude to the participants for their strong turnout and support, and discussed meeting common NRC and utility goals, particularly in the area of operability determinations, see Attachment 4.
1 Mr. John Hannon, Project Director NRR, gave an overview of Generic Letter 91-18.
He discussed NRC's current approach to issues about operability determinations, see Attachment 5.
A seven member panel was formed with members from the industry and NRC.
The panel members included Messrs. Miller and Jain, Mr. Warren Hall of NUMARC, Mr. T. K Schuster of Commonwealth Edison Company, and Messrs. Edward Greenman, Brian Grimes, and Jack Roe of NRC.
They discussed matters framing the principle issues about implementation of Generic Letter 91-18, see.
The keynote speakers and panel members provided an excellent starting point for promoting open discussion during the conference.
The participants were separated into three breakout sessions that were each subdivided into seven groups of approximately ten persons.
All sessions discussed making operability determinations with emphasis on scope, timeliness, timing, documentation, and corrective actions.
Each session was lead by four facilitators, two each from the industry and NRC.
l Operability / Degraded Equipment 2
Conference The conference continued throughout the morning of January 22, 1993.
The breakout sessions completed their discussions and summarized the most significant issues and recommendations.
In the afternoon, the facilitators consolidated all the issues and presented their findings, conclusions, and recommendations to the panel for extensive discussion, see Attachment 7.
A final wrap-up and closing remarks were made by Messrs. Miller and Jain.
The conference adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
3.0
SUMMARY
OF BREAKOUT GROUP PRESENTATIONS This is a cryptic summary of the points that were made to the panel members by the three breakout groups.
The NRC will consider these points when reviewing GL 91-18 for possible modifications.
Breakout Session 1 A.
Clarify GL 91-18 in the following areas:
24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> guidance on making operability call.
Conflict between GL 89-04, ASME XI, and GL 91-18.
Expectation on documentation of an operability call.
Limit that SSC's GL 91-18 applies to.
Guidance on application of engineering judgement (NUREG 1022).
Improve definitions of reasonable assurance and current licensing basis.
Include concept of back-up operability call.
B.
Develop an operability standard for motor operated valves, and inform industry of applicability of interin operability criteria for piping.
C.
Include an " operability impact" section in each new generic letter.
D.
State under what condition would NRC consider LCO abeyance.
Breakout Session 2 A.
Clarification of GL 91-18 is needed for:
Design basis discrepancies related to operability.
Use of new analysis techniques vs. original design l
basis.
l Clear definition of current licensing basis and design basis.
Whether new analysis techniques can be used for operability calls without prior NRC approval.
a l
1 I
Operability / Degraded Equipment 3
Conference j
l i
Concept of initial judgement, near term supporting documentation, and longer term detailed resolution.
l Consolidation of GL 91-18 sections 5.4/5.5, 6.1 for i
j consistency.
1 Use of 50.59.
i l
B.
Eliminate 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> guideline and base timeliness on significance.
C.
GL 91-18 should recognize staged approach (different phases
- initial /back up) to operability call and utilize a process time line or graph similar to Mr. Miller's presentation.
j D.
Reevaluate cascading technical specification concept particularly for specific situations such as emergency i
diesel generator inoperable but normal power available.
E.
Clarify Surveillance / Maintenance section for specific f
situations such as entire system capable except for manual / auto switch on a valve (stroke testing).
Breakout Session 3 l
A.
Clarification of GL 91-18 is needed for:
i Cascading LCOs and the basis for support systems.
Systems requiring mode change to adequately test after maintenance.
Need for devoting resources to retroactive operability issues.
Very low probability, hypothetical events that may t
impact plant design basis.
Decision making (and resultant NRC notification) on timeliness.
[
Better definition of support systems that cause cascading.
Situations where PRA application may be best approach.
Potential operability issue timeliness.
Use of design / licensing basis in operability calls.
i B.
NRC wants prompt, accurate, complete information on developing operability issues.
There needs to be a j
realization that some issues, particularly those involving qualification or design basis, may take considerable time to i
develop accurate and complete information to support final operability determinations.
Withstanding this, interin operability determinations must be made promptly upon discovery of degraded and nonconforming conditions with the best information available.
C.
Role expectations for both utility and NRC should be addressed, l
+w-w y
4 m-y vmnr s._.
w.
-a.,,---,w,-
Operability / Degraded Equipment 4
Conference i
i a
1 j
4.0
SUMMARY
The most prevalent issue was the overall subject of timeliness.
j All of the breakout session groups identified one or more aspects l
l of timeliness during their discussions.
Additional areas of I
common concern were the extent of documentation needed to support an operability call, and the effect of cascading technical j
specifications.
I
5.0 CONCLUSION
The conference achieved the stated objectives.
The conference promoted and stimulated open discussion between the NRC and industry, which was evident by the good participation from all participants who identified several areas that need improvement in making operability calls.
The results from this conference, when considered with those from past and future conferences, will provide valuable insight to potential revisions to GL 91-18.
l 4
I
au w.u.4a. um
.4; r_
awi 4.w..,-..g 4m.,r..
- =
r.
a.s u a m m s,4 s_-:A.
- - -e...s.m__.,
. _..,=.mac-w.
a.
am#.,
.m..
sem
..-.rw.4,..a aa
..6.m..w..u....
m.4 e
1 f
f l
I i
P b
f b
t I
I I
4 I
4 l
t l
I i
I
+
ATTACHMENT 1 t,
t t
6 e
W L
f I
l l
k i
i T
9 r
1 r
l b
i
. n-.-..
,..c...,..,,---,
OPERABILITYlDEGRADED EQUIPMENT CONFERENCE
&_GENDA Thursday - January 21,1993 12:00 - 1:00 Registration 1:00 - 1:10 Call to Order H. J. Miller /S. C. Jain
-- Conference Purpose Grand Ballroom - West B & C j
1:10 - 1:25 Introductory Remarks A. Bert Davis Administrator - Region 111 - NRC i
1:25 - 1:40 Introductory Remarks M. R. Edelman Executive VP Centenor Energy 1:40 - 2:20 NRR Presentation on John Hannon i
Generic Letter 91-18 Project Director - NRR - NRC 2:20 - 2:40 Break 2:40 - 4:15 Panel Discussion i
Panel Members I
H. J. Miller - NRC J. W. Roe - NRC E. G. Greenman - NRC S. C. Jain - TE f
W. J. Hall - NUMARC
- T. K. Schuster - CECO B. K. Grimes - NRC This session is to frame the panciple issues regarding Generic Letter 91-18 l
implementation. The discussion will include examples illustrating recent experience with Generic Letter 91-18.
4:15 -
Explain Breakout Sessions K. R. Cotton - NRR 4:30 -
Adjournment S. C. Jain/H. J. Miller Friday - January 22,1993 7:45 - 9:30 Breakout Sessions - Session #1 - Grand Ballroom East A Session #2 - Conference Room D-11 Session #3 - Conference Room D-12 9:30 - 9:45 Break 9:45 - 11:15 Breakout Sessions Continue 11:15 - 1:00 Lunch Ovorking lunch for facilitators to coordinate main po:nts trem breakout sessions.)
[
1:00 - 2:30 Panel Discussion on Breakout Session Points (Facilitators will present major points from breakouts. Panel will respond to issues and questions as they are presented.)
2:30 - 2:45 Break 2:45 - 3:30 Panel Discussion Continues 3:30 - 4:00 Closing Remarks S. C. Jain/H. J. Miller i
i
[
a
.t..w-
-.a-4-
u.
m
.e a
2 y_
d t
d I
4 I
i 4
a f
a I
l f
1
+
i, i
}
F
?
ATTACID'.ENT 2 c
, g i
t
- f
- I f
7 4
I
)
l f
i t
l h
I r
a 1
B i
i e
1 5
s i
i I
J i
t
- i 5._.
- e
.m
.,m,__,
_,.m.,,
m.....,,
I OPERASILITY/ DEGRADED EQUIPMENT CONFERENCE t
ATTENDEES LIST t
Mr. Mark Ackerman Mr. Curt Angst adt l
Licensing Liason Sr. Project Engineer l
American Electric Power Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.
{
D.C. Cook Nuclear Plant Perry Nuclear Power Plant l
One Riverside Plaza 10 Center Road - E110 Columbus, 011 43215 N. Perry, OH 44081 (614) 223-2036 (216) 259-3737 ext. 5505 (614) 223-2004 (FAX)
(216) 259-2010 (FAX)
Co-Facilitator Group 3 Co-Facilitator Group 2
{
i lir. Brad Adams Mr. Joe Bauer j
Regulatory Assurance Engineer Regulatory Assurance Engineer
(
Commonwealth Edison Company Commonwealth Edison Company l
Commonwealth Edison Corporate Office Commonwealth Edison Corporate Office i
1400 OPUS Place 1400 OPUS Place Executive Towers West III Executive Toe'ers West III Downers Grove, IL 60515 Downers Grove, IL 60515 7
(708) 663-7600 (708) 663-6611 l
Group 1 Co-Facilitator Group 2 i
Mr. Bob Adams Mr. Gordon Beale Plant Support Engineer OPEX Administrator Commonwealth Edison Company Commonwealth Edison Company Zion Nuclear Power Station Zion Nuclear Power Station I
101 Shiloh Blvd.
101 Shiloh Blvd.
Zion, IL 60099 2 ion, IL 60099 l
(708) 746-2084 (708) 746-2084 j
Group 2 Group 1
}
t
- Hr. Robert Ale' _ le r Ms. Kerry L. Beaman Technical Engineer Senior Shift Technical Advisor l
Consumers Power Company Visconsin Public' Service Corporation Big Rock Point Plant Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant 10269 US-31 North North 490 Highway 42 Cha rlevoix, 11I 49720 Kewaunee, WI 54216-9510 (616)547-6537 (ext. 138 or 244)
(414) 388-2560 ext. 2656 l
(616) 567-8128 (FAX)
(414) 388-0819 (FAX) l Group 1 Group 1 Mr. Robert C. Allen Mr. Jim Becka j -
Supervisor - Shift Operatiens Manager Reg. Serv irginia Power Visconsin Electric Power Company Surry Power Station Point Beach Nuclear Plant P.O. Box 315 6610 Nuclear Road Surry. VA 23883 Two Rivers, VI 54241 (804) 365-2205 (414) 755-2321 ext. 500 (804) 365-2189 (FAX)
(414) 755-2321 ext. 233 (FAX)
Group 2 Group 1 i
- DID NOT ATTEND DVN B/5115.
~ _.
[
OPERABILITY /DEGIIADED EQUIPMENT CONFERENCE ATTENDEES LIST I
a Mr. Don Behnke Mr. Mark B. Be: illa Senior Engineer Superintendent - Plant Operations Pacific Gas and Electric Company Toledo Edison Diable Canyon Davis-Besse NPS a
P.O. Box 56 5501 H. State Route 2 Avila Beach, CA 93424 Oak liaroor OH L3449 f
(805) 545-4840 (419) 249-2408 l
(805) 545-3368 (FAX)
(419) 249-2338 (FAX) f Group 2 l
Mr. John Bjorseth
- Mr. Bernie Benson Assistant Operations Supervisor j
Shif t Supervisor Iowa Electric-Consumers Power Company Duane Arnold Energy Center i
Palisades Nuclear Plant P.O. Box 351 27780 Blue St ar Memorial Highway Cedar Rapids, IA 52406 Covert. MI 49043 (319) 851-7472 j
(616) 764-8913 ext. 0225 Group 1
]
(616) 764-8196 (FAX)
{
Mr John Blosser j
Mr. Sigval Berg Manager - Ops Support
.{
4 Site Vice President Unicn Electric Cempany l
[
Commonwealth Edison Company Callaway Plant Braidwood Nuclear Power Station P.O. Box 620
{
)
Rural Route No. 1. P.O. Box 84 Fulton, MO 65251 Braceville, IL 60407 (314) 676-8190 (815) 458-2801 (314) 676-4484 (FAX) j Group 1 Group 3 I
i Mr. Paul Bessette Mr. Doug Bees Regulatory Communications Supervisor Senior Performance Engineer Iowa Electric American Electric Power j
Duane Arnold Energy Center Indiana Michigan Power i
P.O. Eex 351 D. C. Cook Nuclear Plant Cedar Rapids, IA 52406 One Cook Place l
j (319) B51-7307 Bridgman,.MI 40'06 (319) S51-7364 (FAX)
-(616) 465-5901 ext. 1866 i
Group 3 i
- Mr. Michael Bourassa
- Mr. Steve Bethay Senior Licensing Analyst Manager - Licensing Consumers Power Company Southern Nuclear Operating Company Big Rock Point Plant.
Corporate Offices 10269 US-31 North P.O. Box 1295 Charlevoix, MI-e9720 Birmingham AL 35201
.(616) 547-6537 (ext. 138 or 244)
~
(205) 877-7392 (616)'547-8128 (FAX)
(205) 870-6361 (FAX)
--*DID 130T ATTEND DVN B/5115.
OPERABILITY / DEGRADED EQUIPMENT CONFERENCE ATTE!1 DEES LIST
!!r. Jeff Branum
- !!r. Bruce Burgess Project Engineer Section Chief Southern Nuclear Operat ing Co.
NRC - Region III Itatch Division of Reactor Safety P. O.
Box 1295 799 Roosevelt Road - Bldg. 4 Birmingham, AL 35203 Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 (205) 877-7412 (708) 790-5500 (205) 870-6361 (FAX)
- Mrs. Sonia Burgess Ms. Kathleen Brennan Team Leader Design Administration Supervisor NRC - Region III Commonwealth Edison Company Division of Reactor Safety Commonwealth Edison Corporate Office 799 Roosevelt Road - Bldg. 4 1400 OPUS Place Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Executive Towers West III (708) 790-5500 Downers Grove, IL 60515 Group 2 (708) 663-7600 Group 2 Mr. Al Chaffee Branch Chief
- Mr. Steven J. Brewer NRC-NRR Group Manager Division of Reactor Support American Electrical Power Service Corp 11555 Rockville Pike - Stop 11A1 D.C. Cook Nuclear Plant Rockville, MD 20852 One Riverside Plaza (301) 492-7000 Columl>us. OH 43215 Co - Facilitator Group 2 (614)223-2020 (614)223-2004 (FAX)
Mr. Dave Chrzanowski Byron Licensing Administrator Mr. Don Brindle Commonwealth Edison Company Regulatory Assurance Supervisor Commonwealth Edison Corporate Office 3
Commonwealth Edison Company 1400 OPUS Place Byron Nuclear Power Station Executive Towers West III 4450 H. German Church Road Downers Grove, IL 60535
{
Byron, IL 61010 (708) 663-7600 (815) 234-5441 Co-Facilitator Group 1
{
Group I f
Mr. Willie Clark Ms. Karla Bristow Director - Plant Maintenance Intern Illinois Power l
NRC - Region III Clinton Power Station Division of Reactor Safety P.O. Box 678 799 Roosevelt Road - Bldg. 4 Clinton, IL 61727 Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 (217) 935-8881 (708) 790-5500 Group 2 Group 1 Mr. John W. Contoni Mr. Tom Burdick Supervisor, Plant Systems, Tech. Engrg.
Section Chief Detroit Edison Company NRC - Region III Fermi Nuclear Power Plant Division of Reactor Safety 6400 N. Dixie Highway 799 Roosevelt Road - Bldg. 4 Newport, MI 48164 Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 (313) 586-1612 (708) 790-5500 (313) 586-1615 (FAX)
Group 2 Group 1
- DID NOT ATTEND DVN B/5115 '
OPERABILITY / DEGRADED EQUIP!1ENT CONFERENCE ATTENDEES LIST 11r. Douglas Cooper
!!r. Lee DuBois Operations !!anager System Engineer Commonwealt h Edison Company Commonwealth Edison Company Braidwood Nuclear Power Station Zion Nuclear Power Station Rural Route No. I, P.O. Box 84 101 Shiloh Blvd.
Braceville. IL 60407 Zion. IL 60099 (815) 458-2801 (708) 746-2084 ext. 2316 Group 2 Mr. Stevie DuPont ris. Earen Cotton Senior Resident Inspector Reactor Engineer NRC - Region III HRC-tiRR Division of Reactor Projects Division of Reactor Support 799 Roosevelt Road - Bldg. 4 31555 Rockville Pike - Stop 11E22 Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Rockville, MD 20852 (708) 790-5500 (301) 492-7000 Group 3 Group 1 Mr. Jim Dyer fir. A.
Bert Davis Project Director Regional Administrator NRC-NRR NRC - Region III Division of Reactor Projects 799 Roosevelt Road - Bldg. 4 11555 Rockville Pike - Stop 13D1 Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Rockville MD 20852 (702) 790-5500 (301) 492-7000 Co-Facilitator Group 3
!!r. Bill Dean Project Manager Mr. Murray R. Edelman NRC-11RR Executive Vice President i
Division of Reactor Projects Centerior Energy q
11555 Rockville Pike - Stop 10D22 6200 Oaktree Blvd.
Rockville. MD 20852 Independence, OH 44131 (301) 492-7000 (216) 447-3107 Greup 1 (216) 447-3123 (FAX) fir. Robert DeFayette Mr. Steven Engelke Director, Enforcement Staff Supt - Elec. & Inst. Engineering US HRC Northern States Power Company Region III Monticello Nuclear Plant 799 Roosevelt Road 2807 W. Highway 75 Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Monticello, Fui 55362 (702) 790-5548 (612) 295-1329 (612) 295-1017 (FAX) 11s.11ary Beth Depuydt Group 1 LaSalle Licensing Administrator Commonwealth Edison Company _
Hr. Zelig Falevits Commonwealth Edison Corporate Office Inspector 1400 OPUS Place NRC - Region III Executive Towers. West III Division of Reactor Safety
{
Downers Grove, IL 60515 799 Roosevelt Road - Bldg. 4 (708) 663-7600 Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Group 1 (708) 790-5500 Group 3
- DID NOT ATTEND DVII B/5115 !
1 1
OPERAEILITT/ DEGRADED EQUIPMENT CONFERENCE ATTENDEES LIST Mr. Brad S.
Fertell
- Mr. Ron Gardner Licensing Engineer Section Chief Cleveland Electric illuminating Co NRC - Region III Perry Nuclear Power Plant Division of Reactor Safety 10 Center Road 799 Roosevelt Road - Bldg. 4 H. Perry, OH 44081 Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 (216) 259-3737 ext. 5703 (708) 790-5500 i
(216) 259-2010 (FAX)
)
Group 1 Mr. Paul K. Garrett Reg. Assurance Engineer
{
+ Mr. Paul Fessler Cleveland Electric 111uminating Co.
l Director. Nuclear Training Dresden Nuclear Power Station
{
Detroit Edison Company Rural Route No. 1 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant Morris. IL 60450 l
{
6400 North Dixie Highway (815) 942-2920 ext. 2713 Newport, MI 48166 (313) 586-4011 Mr. Jim Gavula l
Project Engineer Mr. Dennis J. Fitzgibbon NRC - Fegion III l
Shif t Supervisor - Operations Division of Reactor Projects j
Consumers Pcwer Company 799 Roosevelt Road - Bldg. 4 Palisades Nuclear Plant Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 i
27780 Blue Star Memorial Highway (708) 790-5500 l
Covert, MI 49043 Group 3 (616).764-8913 ext 0438 (616) 764-8131 (FAX)
Mr. Paul J. Gire Group 2 Supervisor - Engineer j
Consumers Power Company i
+ Mr. Rich Flessner Palisades Nuclear Plant Executive Asst. V.P.
27780 Blue Star Memorial Highway Site V.P. Braidwood Cove r t., MI 49043 I
Consumers Power Company (616) 764-8913 ext. 0790 i
Rural Route Number 1.
P.O.
Box R4 (616) 764-8258 (FAX) i Braceville. IL 60407 Group 2 f
(815) 458-2E01 Mr. Tony Gody, Jr.
Mr. Bill Ferney Project Manager Deputy Division Director NRC-NRR NRC - Region III Division of Reactor Projects j
Division of Reactor Projects 11555 Rockville Pike - Stop 13EIl 1
799 Roosevelt Road - Bldg. 4 Rockville, MD 20852 Glen Ellyn. IL 60131 (301)492-7000
]
(708) 790-5500 Group 1 Co-Facilitator Group 3 Mr. Carl Gray Ms. Christine Gainty Duty Shift Superintendent Inspector Wisconsin Electric Power Company NEC - Region III Point Beach Nuclear Plant Division of Reactor Safety 6610 Nuclear Road 799 Roosevelt Road - Bldg. 4 Two Rivers, WI 54241 Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 (414) 755-2321 (708) 790-5500 (414) 755-2321 ext. 233 (FAX)
Group 2 Group 2
- DID NOT ATTEND DVN B/5115 3 I
l OPERABILITY / DEGRADED EQUIPMENT CONFERENCE ATTENDEES LIST Mr. John R. Green Mr. Allan Haeger l
Supervisor, 1&C Engineering Regulatory Assurance Supervisor Detroit Edison Company Commonwealth Edison Company
?
Fermi Nuclear Power Plant Braidwood Nuclear Power Station 6400 North Dixie Highway Rural Route No. 1 P.O. Box B4
)
]
Newport, MI 48166 Braceville, IL 60407 l
(313) 586-1751 (815) 458-2801 Group 2 Group 2 i
Mr. Ed Greenman Mr. Donald L. Haiman Division Director Manager - Eng. Assurance / Services NRC - Region III Toledo Edison Division of Reactor Projects Davis-Besse NPS 799 Roosevelt Road - Bldg. 4 5501 N. State Route 2 Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Oak Harbor, OH 43449 (708) 790-5500 (419) 249-2439 (419) 249-2342 (FAX) j Mr. Bob Greger d
Branch Chief Mr. Warren J. Hall NRC - Region III Manager Division of Reactor Projects Nuclear Management and Resources Council 799 Roosevelt Road - Bldg. 4 1776 Eye Street, NW, Suite 300 l
Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Washington, DC 20006 i
(708) 790-5500 (202) 872-1280 Group 1 (202) 785-1898 (FAX)
Group 2 Mr. Larry Grime
{
Management Consultant Mr. Steve Hammer j
4 AVCA Corporation Supt - Turbine System Engineering 3855 Monroe Street Northern States Power Company Sylvania. OH 43560 Monticello Nuclear Plant (419) 885-2822 2807 W. Highway 75 (419) 885-8445 (FAX)
Monticel'o, MN 55362 Group 2 (612) 295-1300 (612) 295-1017 (FAX)
Mr. Brian Grimes Group 3 l
Director NRC-URR
- Mr. Thomas Hammerich Division of Reactor Support Assistant Tech Staff Supervisor i
11555 Rockville Pike - Stop 11E22 Commonwealth Edison Company Rockville, FU) 20852 LaSalle County Nuclear Power Sta-ion (301) 492-7000 Rural Route No.
1, P 0. Box 220 I
Marseilles. IL 61341 Mr. Chris Grimes (815) 357-6761 Branch Chief NRC-NRR Mr. John Hannon Division of Reactor Support Project Director 11555 Rockville Pike - Stop 11E4 NRC-NRR Rockville, MD 20852 Division of Reactor Projects (301) 492-7000 11555 Rockville Pike - Stop 13E21 Group 3 Rockville, MD 20852 (301) 492-7000 Co-Facilitator Group 2 I
1
- DI.T NOT ATTEND DVN B/5115 -
]
OPERABILITY / DEGRADED EQUIPMENT CONFERENCE ATTENDEES LIST
- tir Jack Hanson Mr. Richard Hoefeling Operations Superintendent Office of General Council Consumers Powcr Company NRC Palisades Nuclear Plant 11555 Rockville Pike - Stop 15B18 27780 Blue Star Memorial Highway Rockville, MD 20852 Covert, MI 49043 (301) 504-1690
[
(616) 764-8913 ext. 0221 Group 2 (616) 764-8131 (FAX)
{
- Mr. Donald R. Hoffman Mr. Vaughn R. Harris President I
Field Operations Manager Excel Services Corporation
{
Halliburton NUS 11921 Rockville Pike, Suite 210 l
1411 OPUS Place. Suite 103 Rockville, MD 20852 j
Downers Grove, IL 60515 (301) 984-4400 i
(708) 769-1110 (301) 984-7600 (FAX)
(708) 769-1115 (FAX)
Mr. John Holsttom Mr. Bob Hasse Tech. Specialist Section Chief ABB 1mpell NRC - Region III 1333 Butterfield Road, Suite 550 Division of Reactor Projects Downers Grove, IL 60515 799 Roosevelt Road - Bldg. 4 (708) 512-8688
{
Glen Ellyn. IL 60137 (708) 512-8989 (FAX) 1 (708) 790-5500 Greup 3 Mr. Brad Hopkins
]
Principal Engineer
- Mr. Henry Hegrat Iowa Electric Supervisor Compliance Duane Arnold Energy Center Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.
P.O. Box 351 Perry Nuclear Power Plant Cedar Rapids. IA 52406 2
10 Center Road (319) 851-7846 N. Perry, CH 44081 Group 1 (216) 259-3737 ext 5185 (216) 259-2010 (FAX)
Mr. Chris Hoxie Reactor Engineer Mr. Chris T. Hillman NRC-NRR t
Staff Licensing Engineer Division of Reactor Support Consumers Power Company 11555 Rockville Pike - Stop 11E22 Palisades Nuclear Plant Rockville, MD. 20852 27780 Blue Star Memorial Highway (301) 492-7000 Covert. MI 49043 Group 3 (616) 764-8913 ext. 0974 (616) 764-8196 (FAX)
Mr. Tony Hsia Group 3 Project Manager NRC-NRR Mr. Dave Hills Division of Reactor Projects Senior Resident 11555 Rockville Pike - Stop 13D1 NRC - Region III Rockville, MD 20852 Division of Reactor Projects (301) 492-7000 799 Roosevelt Road - Bldg. 4
_ Group 3 Glen Ellyn. IL 60137 (708) 790-5500 Group 1
- DID !!OT ATTEND DVD B/5115 !
J
OPERALILITY/ DEGRADED EQUIPMENT CO!1FERENCL ATTENDEES LIST J
Mr. 11a t k Huting Mr.
S. C. Jain l
QC Supervisor Director, Davis-Besse Engineering Iowa Electric Toledo Edison j
Duane Arnold Energy Center Davis-Besse NPS l
P.O.
Box 351 5501 N. State Route 2 l
Cedar Rapids, IA 32406 Oak Harbor OH 43449 j
(319) 851-7330 (419) 249-2356 l
Group 2 (419) 249-2416 (FAX) l Mr. Frank Jablonski
- Mr. John Johnson Section Chief PCAQRB Chairman NRC - Region III Toledo Edison Division of Reactor Safety Davis-Besse NPS f
799 Roosevelt Road - Bldg. 4 5501 N. State Route 2 i
Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Oak Harbor, OH 43449 (708) 790-5500 (419) 321-8345 t
i Group 2 (419) 249-2340 (FAX) 11s. Marcia Jackson Mr. Peter S. Jordan Generic Licensing Administrator Executive Consultant Commonwealth Edison Company Halliburton NUS Corporation Commonwealth Edison Corporate Office 2650 McCormick Drive, Suite 300 t
1400 OPUS Place Clearwater, FL 34619-1000 j
Executive Towers West III (813) 796-2264 Downers Grove, IL 60515 (813) 796-2268 (FAX) l (708) 663-1600 I
Group 2 11r. Mike Jordan Section Chief
- lir. John Jacobson NRC - Region III Section Chief Division of Reactor Safety URC - Region III 799 Roosevelt Road - Bldg. 4
[
Division of Reactor Safety Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
{
799 Roosevelt Road - Bldg. 4 (708) 790-5500 Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Group 3
(
(708) 790-5500 Mr. Reith Jury I
!!r. John Jaeckle Senior Resident Inspector Nuclear Engineer NRC - Region III Wisconsin Electric Division of Reactor Projects Point Eeach Nuclear Plant 799 Roosevelt Road - Bldg. 4 231 W. Michigan Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 1111waukee, VI 53213 (708) 790-5500 (414) 221-3531 Group 2 (414) 221-2010 (FAX)
Group 1
- Mr. John Kelly Mechanical Group Lead ABB 1mpell 1333 Butterfield Road-, Suite 550 Downers Grove, IL 60515-(708)'512-8688 (708) 512-8989 (FAX) 3 1
- DID NOT ATTEND DVN B/3115 -
t OPERABILITY / DEGRADED EQUIPMENT CONFERENCE ATTENDEES LIST l
t Mr. Bob Kerestes
- Mr. Dennis A. Kruer
[
Ditector - Safety & Analysis QA Engineer Manager 1111nois Power American Electric Power Service Corp Clinton Power Station D.C. Cook Huclear Plant
}
P.O.
Box 678 One Riverside Plaza Clinton, IL 61727 Columbus, OH 43215
{
(217) 935-8881 (614)-223-3450 i
Group 3 (614)-223-3446 (FAX) l Mr. Mohammad Khan Mr. Jim Kruger Supervisor Equipment Qualification Tech. Specialist 1
Clinton Power 1333 Butterfield Road, Suite 550 P.O. Box 678 Downers Grove, IL 60515 Clinton, IL 61727 (708) 512-8688 (217) 935-8881 (708) 512-8989 (FAX)
Group 3 Mr. Joe Langan M.
Dana E. Korneman Lead Licensing Engineer Director - Systems & Reliability Commonwealth Edison Company Illinois Power Byron Nuclear Power Station Clinton Power Station 4450 N. German Church Road P.O. Box 678 Byron, IL 61010 i
Clinton, IL 61727 (815) 234-5441 l
(217) 935-8881 Group 2 Group 1 f
Mr. Randy Langley j
Mr. Bill Kouba Director - Design Engineering l
Unit 2 Operating Engineer Illinois Power l
Commonwealth Edison Company Clinton Power Station j
Byron Nuclear Power Station P.O. Box 678 j
4450 N. German Church Road Clinton, IL 61727 i
Byron. IL 61010 (217) 935-8881 l
(815) 234-5441 Group 2 Group 3 Mr. Roger Lanksbury Mr. Tom Kriz Section Chief BWR System Engineer NRC - Region III Conunonwealth Edison Company Division of Reactor Projects Commonwealth Edison Corp. Office 799 Roosevelt Road - Bldg. 4 1400 OPUS Place, Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Executive Towers West III (708) 790-5500 Downers Grove, IL 60515 Group 1 Mr. Mayne Kropp Mr. Dennis Leggett Senior Resident Inspector Assistant Superintendent of Operations NRC - Region ill Commonwealth Edison Company Division of Reactor Projects LaSalle County Nuclear Power Station 799 Roosevelt Road - Bldg. 4 Rural Route No. 1. P.O. Box 220 Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Marseilles, IL 61341.
1 (708) 790-5500 (815) 357-6761 Group 2 Group 1
- DID NOT ATTEND DVN B/5115 -
t OPERABILITY / DEGRADED EQUIPl!EllT CONFERE!1CE ATTENDEES LIST
- Itt. liik e Leisure Mr. Jim Luehman l
Senior Engineer - Licensing Office of Enforcement Toledo Edison NRC Davis-Besse NPS 11555 Rockville Pike - Stop 7H5 c
5501 11 State Route 2 Rockville, MD 20852 Oak Ilarbor, OH 43449 (301) 504-3280 (419) 321-7168 Group 3 (419) 249-2302 (FAX)
Mr. Dan Lyons I
- lit. Frank Lentine Nuclear Safety Engineer PRA L Reliability Engineering Supervisor Illinois Dept. of Nuclear Safety Commonwealth Edison Company 800 E. Roosevelt C200 t
Commonwealth Edison Corporate Of fice Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 1400 OPUS Place (708) 790-5320 Execut ive Towers West III (708) 790-5327 (FAX)
Downers Grove. IL 60515 (708) 663-7600 Mr. Tom Malanowski Project Engineer - Licensing tir. Jack Leveille Wisconsin Electric Power Company Licensing Engineer Point Beach Nuclear Plant Northern States Power Company 231 W.
Michigan St.,
Rm P377 Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant Milwaukee, WI 53201 1717 Wakonade Drive East (414) 221-3950 Welch MN 35089 (414) 221-2010 (FAX)
(612) 388-1121 ext. 4662 Group 2 (612) 330-5743 (FAX)
Group 3 Mr. Tad Marsh Project Director Mr. John Lipa NRC-NRR Senior Engineer Division of Reactor Projects ABB Impell 11555 Rockville Pike - Stop 13D18 1333 Eutterfield Road Suite 550 Rockville, MD 20852 l
Downers Grove. IL 60515 (301) 492-7000 3
(708) 512-8981 Co-Facilitator Group 1 (798) 5 2-8989 (FAX)
~
Mr. Tom Martin Mr. Ronnie Lo Division Director Section Leader NRC - Region III NRC-13RR Division of Reactor Safety Division of Reactor Support 799 Roosevelt Road - Bldg. 4 11555 Rockville Pike - Stop 14B20 Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Rockville. MD 20852 (708) 790-5500 (301) 492-7000 Co-Facilitator Group 1 Group 2 Mr Rob McCaleb 11e. Pi c ricia Lougheed Performance Specialist Project Engineer Consumers Power Company HRC Region III Palisades Nuclear Plant Division of Reactor Projects 27780 Blue Star Memorial Highway 799 Roosevelt Road - Bldg. 4 Covert, MI 49043 Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 (616) 764-8913 ext. 0624 (708) 790-5500 (616) 764-8196 (FAX)
Group 1 Group 2
- DID NOT ATTEND DVN B/5115..-a
~..
OPERAEILITYlDEGRADED EQUIPMENT CONFERENCE l
ATTENDEES LIST I
f l
!!r. John McGraw tir. Hubert J. !! iller
)
Supt Engineering - Systems Engineering Deputy Regional Administrator j
Union Electric Company NRC - Region III Callaway Plant 799 Roosevelt Road - Bldg. 4 l
P.O.
Box 620 Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 j
Ful t on. 110 65251 (708) 790-5500 j
(314) 676-8153 (314) 676-4484 (FAX)
Mr. William E. Miller, Jr.
Group 3 Superintendent - Technical Engineering
[
Detroit Edison Company 11r. Brian licLean Fermi Nuclear Power Plant l
Engr - Reg. Services 6400 North Dixie Highway Wisconsin Electric Power Company Newport. MI 48166 Point Beach Nuclear Plant (313) 586-16'S 6610 Nuclear Rd.
Group 3 i
Two Rivers. VI 54241 (414) 755-2321 ext. 101 Mr. Alex Misak (414) 755-2321 ext. 233 (FAX)
Regulatory Assurance Supervisor Group 3 Commonwealth Edison Company l
Quad Cities Nuclnar Power Station Mr. John F. McNamara 22710 206th Avenue North Manager - Mech / Stress Analysis Engrg Cordova, IL 12242 l
Wisconsin Electric Power Company (309) 654-2241 j
Point Beach Nuclear Plant Group 1 231 W.
tiichigan tiilwaukee, WI 53213
!!r. Chuck Moerke (414) 221-3952 Engineering & Construction Supervisor (414) 221-2010 (FAX)
Commonwealth Edison Company l
Group 3 Quad Cities Nuclear Fower Station 22710 206th Avenue North Mr. Dave D. Mielke Cordova, IL 12242 I
Plant Operations Supervisor (309) 654-2241 Wisconsin Public Service Corporation Group 3 Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant l
North 490 Highway 42 tir. Robert A. Newkirk Eewaunee. WI 54216-9510 General Director. -Eegulatory Af f airs (414) 388-2560 ext. 2268 Detroit Edison Company (414) 388-0819 (FAX)
Fermi Nuclear Power Plant Group 3 6400 North Dixie Highway Newport. MI 48166 Ms. Suzanne Mika (313)'586-4056 LER/DVR Coordinator Group 2 Commonwealth Edison Company Zion Nuclear Power Station Mr. Mike O'Connell 101 Shiloh Blvd.
Vice President Zion. IL 60099 Technicon (708) 746-2084 1441 Branding Lane, Suite 245 Group 2 Downers Grove, IL 60515 (708) 971-2700 (708) 971-2791 (FAX)
- DID NOT ATT6ND DVN B/5115 - -. - - -
}
OF',RABILITY/ DEGRADED EQUIPMENT CONFERENCE ATTENDEES LIST l'
tit. Lenny 01shan Mr.
R. C. Prasad j
Project tianager Staff Engineer NRC-NRR Toledo Edison Division of Reactor Projects Davis-Besse NPS 1
]
11555 Rockville Pike - Stop 13D1 5501 H. State Route 2 Rockville, MD 20852 Oak Harbor, OH 43449 j
4 (301) 492-7000 (419) 249-2438 q
Group 2 Co-Facilitator Group 1 i
- Mr. Kevin Passmore Mr. Jim Purrazzo l
Station Support Engineering Supervisor Senior EnEineer i
Commonwealth Edison Company Commonwealth Edison Company Byron Nuclear Power Station Duesden Nuclear Power Station 4450 N. German Church Road 22329 N. 30th Road Byron, IL 61010 Marseilles, IL 61431 (815) 234-5441 (815) 795-3250 Mr. Richard Phares
- Mr. John Puzauskas Director - Licensing Project Manager - GL 89-10 l
Illinois Power Illinois Power Company l
Clinton Power Statior Clinton Power Station P.O.
Box 678 P.O. Box 678 Clinton, IL 61727 Clinton, IL 61727 (217) 935-8881 ext. 3405 (217) 935-8881 ext. 3094 (217) 935-8294 (FAX)
(217) 935-6014 (FAX) q Co-Facilitator Group 1 Mr. Joseph H.
Plena General Manager / Nuclear Oversigh:
Superintendent - Operations Commonwealth Edison Cempany Detroit Edison Company 1411 OPUS Place Fermi Nuclear Power Plant Downers Grove, IL 60515 6400 North Dixie Highway (708) 663-7676 Newport, MI 48166 (313) 586-5202 Mr. Steve Ray i
(313) 586-4714 (FAX)
Senior Resident Inspector l
Group 2 NRC - Region III l
Division of Reactor Frojects Mr. Harold D. Portions, Jr.
799 Roosevelt Road - Eldg. 4 3
Licensing Coordinator Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Commonwealth Edison Company (708) 790-5500 Braidwood Nuclear Power Station Group 2 l
Rural Route No. 1. Box 84 j
Braceville, IL 60407 Mr. Mark Reddemann (815) 458-2801 ext. 2511 General Superintenden.
(815) 458 'F03 (FAX)
Northern States Power Company Prairie Island Nuclear 1717 Wakonade Drive l
Welch, MN 55089 (612) 998-4433 (612) 330-7603 (FAX)
Group 2 1
i
- DID NOT ATTEND DVN B/5115,
OPERABILITY / DEGRADED EQUIPMENT CONFERENCE l
ATTENDEES LIST
[
fit. John Renwick
!!r. David G.
Roe
}
!!echanical/St r uct ural Design Supervisor Production QA Surveillance Coordinator i
Cununonwealt h Edison Company Detroit Edison Company Commonwealth Edison Corporate Office Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 1400 OPUS Flace 6400 North Dixie liighway Executive Towers West III Newport, MI 48166 Downers Grove. IL 60515 (313) 586-5226 (708) 563-7600 Group I tir.,eorge Replogie Mr. Jack Roe Inspector Director NRC - Region III NRC-NRR Division of Reactor Safety Division of Reactor Projects t
799 Roosevelt Road - Bldg. 4 11555 Rockville Pike - Stop 13E4 Glen Ellyn. IL 60137 Rockville, MD 20852 (708) 790-5500 (301) 492-7000 Group 1 Mr. Paul J. Roney ttr. 11a r k Ring Mechanical Design Engineer Enginee.ing Branch Chief Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.
HRC - negion III Perry Nuclear Power Plant Divisien of Reactor Safety 10 Center Road - E270 j
799 Roosevelt Road - Bldg. 4 N. Perry, OH 44081 i
Glen Ellyn. IL 60137 (216) 259-3737 ext. 5281 (708) 790-5500 (216) 259-2010 (FAX)
Co-Facilitator Group 2 Group 3 11r. William L. Robert s Mr. Bob Rybak Staff Licensing Engineer Engineering and Construction Supervisor Consumers Power Company Commonwealth Edison Company y'
Palisades Nuclear Plant Commonwealth Edison Corporate Office 27780 Blue Star Memorial liighway 1400 OPUS Place Covert. MI 49043 Executive Towers West III (616) 764-8913 ext. 0976 Downers Grove, IL 60515 (616) 764-8196 (FAX)
(708) 663 7600 Group 2 Group 1 tir. David Robert s Mr. Stephen E.
Sampson Supervisor - Station Nuclear Safety Shif t Supervisor Virginia Power
' Union Electric Company North Anna Power Plant Callaway Plant.
P. O. P.x 4 02 P.O. Bor 620 11ineral. VA 23117 Fulton, MO 65251 '
(703) 894-2835 (314) 676-8671 (703) 894-2830 (FAX)
(314) 676-8562 (FAX)
Group 2 Mr. Don Robinson IPE Program Engineer Commonwealth Edison Company Byron Nuclear Power Station 4450 N. German Church Road Byron. IL 61010 (815) 234-5441 ext. 2843
-*DID NOT ATTEND DVN B/5115 OFEPABILITY/DEGPADED EQUIP 11ENT CONFERENCE ATTENDEES LIST 11r. David W.
Sauer
!!r. Brian Shaler i
Safety System Engineering Supervisor Senior Engineer f
Wisconsin Public Service Corporation Consumers Power Company i
Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant Palisades Nuclear Plant North 490, Highway 42 27780 Blue Star Memorial Highway l
Kewaunee, WI 54216-9510 Covert, MI 49043 (414) 388-2560 ext. 2484 (616) 764-8913 ext. 0907 (414) 388-0819 (FAX)
(616) 764-8196 (FAX)
Group 2 Group 1 lir. John Schrage
- Mr. Steve Shields Quad Cities Licensing Administrator Regulatory Assurance Engineer Commonwealth Edison Company Commonwealth Edison Company i
Commonwealth Edison Corporate Office Dresden Nuclear Power Station 1400 OPUS Place Rural Route No. 1 i
Executive Towers West III Morris, IL 60450 Downers Grove, IL 60515 (815) 942-2920 (708) 663-7600 Co-Facilitator Group 3
- Mr. Rick Shields l
Technical Staff Supervisor j
lir. Terry Schuster Commonwealth Edison Company j
Nuclear Licensing Supervisor LaSalle County Nuclear Power Sta-len l
Commonwealth Edison Company Rural Route No. 1 P.O.
Box 220 1
Commonwealth Edison Corporate Office Marseilles, IL 61341 l
1400 OPUS Place (815) 357-6761 j
Executive Towers West III l
Downers Grove, IL 60515 Mr. John Silady (708) 663-7600 Nuclear Fuel Services Supervisor Group 3 Commonwealth Edison Ccmpany Commonwealth Edisen Cerporate Of fire 0
Mr. Wayne Shafer 1400 OPUS Place Branch Chief Executive Towers West III HRC - Region III Downers Grove, IL 60515 Division of Reactor Projects (708) 663-7600 799 Roosevelt Road - Eldg. 4 Group 2 Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 (708) 790-5500 Mr. Tony Silakoski Group 3 Manager, Independent Safety Engi eer Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.
Mr. Dave Shafer
'erry Nuclear Power Plant Supv Engr - Licensing Engineering Center Road - E140 Union Electric Company 4.
Perry, OH 44081 Callaway Plant (216) 259-3737 ext. 5155 P.O. Box 149 (216) 259-2010 (FAX)
St. Louis, MO 63166 Group 2 (314) 554-3104 (314) 554-3558 (FAX)
Group 1
- DID NOT ATTEND DVH B/5115 OPERABILITY / DEGRADED EQUIPMENT CONFERENCE ATTENDEES LIST l
s i
l tir. Thomas Silho
- lir. Jim Smith
}
Licensing Engineer Inspector Northeast Utilities NRC - Region III 11111 s t one 1, 2& 3 & Conn. Yankee Division of Reactor Safety l
j 107 Selden Street 799 Roosevelt Road - Bldg. 4 Berlin, CT 06037 Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 j
(203) 665-5241 (708) 790-5500 l
(203) 665-5896 (FAX)
?
Group 1 Mr. Bob Sochia Shift Supervisor
{
Mr. Terry Simpkin Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.
j
]
Braidwood Licensing Administrator Perry Nuclear Power Plant j
Commonwealth Edison Company 10 Center Road - CC300 Commonwealth Edison Corporate Office N. Perry, OH 44081 j
i 1400 OPUS Place (216) 259-3737 ext. 5647 i
I
)
Executive Towers West III (216) 259-2189 (FAX)
~
i Downers Grove. IL 60515 Group 1 i
(708) 663-7600 i
Group 2 Mr. Vincent J.
Sodd, Jr.
Manager - Independent Safety Engrg Mr. Daniel Skoza Toledo Edison Site Engineering Supervisor Davis-Besse NPS Commonwealth Edison Company 5501 N.
State Route 2 i
Braidwood Nucle-ar Power Station Oak Harbor, OH 43449 Rural Route No. 1, P.O. Box 84 (419) 321-7172
[
Braceville, IL 60407 (419) 321-7228 (FAX) l (815) 458-2801 d
Group 3 fir. Dale Spencer l
Assistant Technical Staff Supervisor Mr. Eric R. Smith Commonwealth Edison Company i
Licensing Engineer LaSalle County Nuclear Power Station Halliburton NUS Corporation Rural Route No.
1, P.O. Box 220 2650 McCormick Drive Marseilles, IL 61341 i
Clea rwater, FL 34619 (815) 357-6761 i
(813)796-2264 Group 2 Group 1 a
- Mr. David J.
Stephenson Mr. Gary Smith Engineer - ISE Assistant Superintendent Operatiens Toledo Edison Commonwealth Edison Company Davis-Besse NPS Dresden Nuclear Power Station 5501 N. State Route 2 Rural Route No. 1 Oak Harbor, OH 43449 1
11o rris. IL 60450 (419) 321-7267 (815) 942-2920 (419) 321-7228 (FAX)
Group 1 Mr. Mike Strait
- lir. Peter Smith Technical Staff Supervisor Senior Engineer - Licensing Commonwealth Edison Company Toledo Edison Dresden Nuclear Power Station 4
Davis-Besse NPS Rural Route No. 1 5501 H. State Route 2 Morris, IL 60450 Oak Harbor, OH 43449 (815) 942-2920
)
(419) 321-7744 Group 3 (419) 249-2302 (FAX)
- DID NOT ATTEND I
i DVN B/5115 l
OPERABILITY / DEGRADED EC"IrllENT CONFEEENCE ATTENDEES IST 11 r. John T.
Swientoniewski Mr. Steve B. Tipps Supervisor - Station Nuclear Safety Manager - Nuclear Safety & Compliance Virginia Power Georgia Power Company Surty Power Station E.
- 1. Hatch P.O.
Box 315 P.O. Box 439 Surry, VA 23883 Baxley, GA 31513 (804) 365-2041 (912) 537-9444 ext. 2378 (804) 365-2724 (FAX)
(912) 537-9444 ext. 2812 (FAX)
Group 3 Group 2 Mr. Gerald Swihart Mr. Nelson Tonet Regulatory Assurance Engineer Manager Nuclear Safety Commonwealth Edison Company Duquesne Light Company LaSalle County Nuclear Power Station Beaver Valley Rural Route 110. 1 P.O. Box 220 P.O. Box 4 11a r s e ill e s. IL 61341 Shippingport, PA 15077 (815) 357-6761 (412) 393-5210 Group 1 (412) 643-4671 (FAX)
Group 3 Mr. Thomas K. Tamlyn Operations Superintendent Mr. Tom Tongue Commonwealth Edison Company Project Engineer 1400 OPUS Place NRC - Region III Downers Grove, IL 60515 Division of Reactor Projects (708) 663-7287 799 Roosevelt Road - Eldg. 4 (708) 663-2999 (FAX)
Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Group 3 (708) 790-5500 Group 1 Mr. Darrell Taylor Regulatory Assurance Supervisor Mr. Michael S. Tucker i
Commonwealth Edison Company Senior Engineer Commonwealth Edison Corporate Office Commonwealth Edison Company 1400 OPUS Place Dresden/ Quad Cities Executive Towers West III 1400 OPUS Place Downers Grove, IL 60515 Downers Grove, IL 60031 (708) 663 7600 (708) 663-7648 Group 3 (708) 663-7181 (FAX)
Mr. John A.
Tibai Mr. Daniel Ugorcak Supervisor, Compliance & Special Projects Control Systems Supervisor Detroit Edison Company Bechtel Corporation Fermi Nuclear Power Plant 1240 E. Diehl Road 6400 llorth Dixie Highway Naperville, IL 60563 Newport, MI 48166 (708) 955-2435 (313) 586 4289 (708) 955-2414 (FAX)
Group 3 Mr. Nick Valos Operating Engineer Commonwealth Edison Company Zion Nuclear Power Station 101 Shiloh Blvd.
Zion. IL 60099 (708) 746-2084 Group 3
- DID NOT ATTEND DV!l B/5115 )
OPERABILITY / DEGRADED EQUIP 11ENT CONFERENCE ATTENDEES LIST
- 11r. George Vanderheyden 11r. Michael D. Wadley Technical Staff Supervisor GWneral Superintendent Plant Operations commonwealth Edison Company Northern States Power Company Braidwood Nuclear Power Station Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant i
Rural Route No. 1 P.O. Box 84 1717 Wakonade Drive East Bracev111e, IL 60407 Welch, MN. 35089 (815) 458-2801 (612) 998-4564 I
(612) 998-4688 (FAX)
I
- !!r. Brian Viehl Group 1 Engineering and Construction Supervisor l
Commonwealth Edison company Mr. George Wagner l
Dresden Nuclear Power Station Electrical /I&C Supervisor Rural Route No. 1 Commonwealth Edison Company tiorris, IL 60450 Commonwealth Edison Corporate Office (815) 942-2920 1400 OPUS Place.
Executive Towers Vest III' 11r. Robert A. Vincent Downers Grove, IL 60515 I
Plant Safety Engineering Administrator (708) 663-7600 Consumers Power Company Group 1 l
t Palisades Nuclear Plant 27780 Blue Star Memorial Highway Mr. Russ Wallauer Covert, MI 49043 Division Manager (616) 764-8913 ext. 0584 Cygna Energy Services (616) 764-8196 (FAX) 1400 OPUS Place Suite 810 Group 1 Downers Grove..IL 60515 (708) 241-5300
!!r Harold Vinyard (708) 241-5302 (FAX) i Nuclear Systems Group Leader Commonwealth Edison Company M r.. Bob Walsh-LaSalle County Nuclear Power Station Technical Staff Supervisor Rural Route No. 1 P O. Box 220 Commonwealth Edison Company Marseilles, IL 61341 Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station (815) 357-6761 22710 206th Avenue North Group 3 Cordova, IL 12242 (309) 654-22*i1 11r. Richard it. Vonk Group 2 Operations Production Supervisor
[
American Electric Power Service Corp
- Mr. John Walker i
D.C. Cook Nuclear Plant General Director - Nuclear Engineering
)
One Cook Place
. Detroit Edison Company-Bridgman, MI 49106 Fermi Nuclear Power Plant J
(616) 466-2536 6400 North Dixie Highway
)
(616) 466-2541 (FAX)
Newport, MI 48166 Group 1 (313) 586-1905
)
(313) 586-4911 (FAX)
- DID NOT ATTEND.
DVN B/5115 1
OPERABILITY /DEGFADED EQUIPMENT CONFERENCE l
ATTENDEES LIST Ms Anne Ward Mr. Peter J. Wilyk l
Supetintendent - Reactor Sys Engineering Senior Engineer Notthern States Power Company Commonwealth Edison Company Mont icello Nuclear Plant 1400 OPUS Place - Suite 400-2807 W.
Highway 75 Downers Grove, IL 60515 Monticello, MN 55362 (708) 663-7264 (612) 295-1256 (612) 295-1017 (FAX)
Mr. Bob Winter Group 2 Inspector l
NRC - Region III Mr. Thomas J. Webb Division of Reactor Safety l
Plant Licensing Supervisor 799 Roosevelt Road - Bldg. 4 Wisconsin Public Service Corporation Glen Ellyn. IL 60137 Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant (708) 790-5500 l
North 490, Highway 42 Group 3 Kewaunee, WI 54216-9510 (414) 388-2560 ext. 2537 Mr. Kenneth R Wise (414) 388-0819 (FAX)
Manager, Plant Support Engineering Group 2 Washington Public Power Supply System P.O. Box 968 Mr. Daniel Wegener Richland. WA 99352 Superintendent - Nuclear Engineering (509) 377-4510 Northern States Power Company (309) 377-4175 (FAX)
Monticello Nuclear Plant Group 3 l
2807 W. Highway 75 l
Monticello, tm 55362
- Mr. Greg Withrow (612) 295-1267 Fngineering Superintendent l
(612) 295-1017 (FAX)
Consumers Power Company Group 2 Big Rock Point Plant i
10269 US-31 North Mr. Greg Whittier Charlevoix, MI 49720 j
Systems Engineer (616) 547-8176 Iowa Electric (616) 547-8128 (FAX) 4 Duane Arnold Energy Center P.O. Box 351 Mr. Warren Witt Cedar Rapids, IA 52406 Supervising Engineer j
(319) 851-7496 Union Electric Company Group 3 Callaway Plant P.O. Box 620 Mr. Joel S. Wiebe Fulton, MO 65251 Superintendent, Safety and Assessment (314) 676-8763 American Electric Power Service Corp (314) 676-4484 (FAX)
D.C. Cook Nuclear Plant Group 2 One Cook Place Bridgman, MI 49106 Mr. Kenneth R. Worthington (616) 466-2510 Senior QA Auditor (616) 466-2905 (FAX)
American Electric Power Service Corp j
Group 2 D.C. Cook Nuclear Plant One Cook Place Bridgman, MI 49106 (616) 465-5901 ext. 2024 (616) 466-2712 (FAX)
Group 3
- DID NOT ATTEND DVN B/5115 -.
r i
OPERABILITY / DEGRADED EQUIPMENT CONFERENCE ATTENDEES LIST 11r. Dale Wuokko j
Suparvisor - Regulatory Affairs Toledo Edison Davis-Eesse NPS 5501 N. State Route 2 i
Oak Harbor, O!! 43449 f
(419) 249-2357 (419) 249-2302 (FAX)
I M. Pat D. Yocum Director - Plant Operations j
1111nois Power i
Clinton Power Station P.O. Box 678 Clinton, IL 61727 (217) 935-8881 I
Group 1 I
!!r. Stewart Yuen j
Thermal Group Leader Conmionwealth Edison ~ Company Zion Nuclear Power Station 101 Shiloh Blvd.
Zion. IL 60099 f
(708) 746-20B4 (708) 746-2084 ext. 260 (FAX) fir. A11 K. Zark.esh r
Supervisor - Nuc. Safety Analysis f
Toledo Edison Davis-Besse NPS 5501 N. State Route 2 I
Oak Harbor, OH 43449 (419) 249-2474 3
Mr. Richard J.
Zuffa Resident Inspector Commonwealth Edison Company Illinois Dept. of Nuclear Safety Dresden Nuclear Power Station 1035 Outer Park Drive Springfield, IL 62704 (815) 942-2920 ext. 2981 l
- DID NOT ATTEND' DVN B/5115 !
-,p-
-.e--,,
r v
L i
d
.i 4
r t
s
(
t I
r b
i
-l 1
J r
i T
ATTACHMENT 3 1
i i
t e
a 4
1 I
i 1
I s
e A
- W' M
~
%-"*t 4
- T e
W syy q
,+m e
-g w.,
y
CALL TO ORDER H. J. Miller Page 1 i
CALL TO ORDER H. J. MILLER 1
Good afternoon.
I am Hub Miller, Deputy Regional Administrator in Region III.
On behalf of the Region and the Midwest Nuclear Engineering Managers Forum, which is cosponsoring this conference, I would like to welcome you.
This is an open conference focusing on the important process of making I
operability determinations when degraded or non-conforming conditions are identified at operating nuclear power plants.
Sushil Jain, Director of Engineering at Davis Besse and current Energineering Managers Forum Chairman, will cochair this conference with me.
In a moment, he will review the agenda, specific approaches we plan to take in the conference and introduce our first speakers.
At this point, I would thank the Forum, 3ushil, his staff at Toledo Edison for their efforts.
Beyond this conference, I have observed the Manager's Forum to be doing many fine things to foster and improve effectiveness of engineering organizations in supporting plant operations.
A proactive group, I commend them for all their efforts.
l l
Effective communications between the regulator and licensees are always important to assure our mutual safety obligations are met.
i There is no set of issues that I can think of that demands effective communications more than those relating to operability of equipment in degraded or potentially degraded condition.
The stakes are high.
Valid operability issues are by definition potentially significant from a safety perspective.
The importance of dealing promptly with potential degraded conditions at an operating plant is obvicus.
Questions are frequently posed regarding continued plant operation.
We are concerned about avoiding transients and safety challenges that are involved in manuevering a large unit through shutdown operations where this is not necessary.
The issues involved are often highly complex.
Problems can and often do present themselves in the off hours.
Finally, we are often dealing with issues under the time pressures imposed by technical specifications.
With these stakes, and under these conditions, having a very good understanding of what's expected is vital.
i NRC has issued guidance to its inspectors on this topic in the form of Generic Letter 91-18.
Given the complexity of a commercial nuclear power plant operations, however, there is simply no way to detail in written guidance how each operability case should be handled, or to anticipate the innumerable different situations that can arise.
Therefore, the guidance is largely in the form of general principles that should be applied on a case by case basis.
Hopefully, these principles and their l
l l
!.L h ?xD13 E
J. t!1er f
Pne 2 bases will be explained in the presentations made by NRC in this conference.
Having been involved in numerous cases over the past several years, I can speak from experience about the difficulties that arise when these principles are not understood, or, as is sometimes the case, there are semantics problems.
The general nature of the principles which have been established unavoidably leads to, or presents, ambiguities that become clear only with discussion of specific cases.
Even within the NRC, in our training sessions, we consistently find that effective communication of what is expected comes only through detailed and vigorous discussion of specifics and examples.
So this conference importantly provides not just a forum for NRC to make presentations and talk about concerns we have.
We are here to thoroughly discuss the operability topic.
The purpose is to have NRC hear and respond to questions and perspectives licensees and others may have.
Our hope is that, by ventilating this issue, all partipants will have a better understanding and grasp of the principles NRC considers to be vital to safety when making important operability decisions.
Important too is that NRC understand the ramifications of the guidance we issue and the manner in which it is being implemented.
As I mentioned earlier, we are involved in many an operability call; but we recognize that more often than not we are not involved.
The daily routine at operating facilities is dispositioning numerous hardware and other problems, big and small, that potentially challenge equipment operability.
My collegues and I are eager to hear from those of you who are involved in this daily process: operators, engineers, licensing specialists, and licensee managers.
What does NRC operability guidance mean to you?
What effect does it have on plant safety and operations?
Is any aspect of it, or our implementation of it, counterproductive to safety?
Is it clear?
Is greater detail needed or appropriate?....and so on.
This conference is one in a series of such conferences being held j
in each of the Regions.
Upon completion, NRR will be reviewing i
results of all of the meetings to determine what modifications and clarifications may be appropriate.
So in addition to the l
immediate benefit of improved understanding that we will take away from this day and a half, this meeting can have significant impact on documented agency positions.
Finally, let ne observe that frequently, we find ourselves discussing operability issues with licensees in far more difficult and contentious settings than this one, that is, for example, in enforcement conferences where circumstances are far more formal and the process far more rigid than it will be in this conference.
We have the opportunity here for free and open exchange.
I am pleased that we have such a strong turnout by licensees, other industry related groups, states, and members of
CALL TO ORDER H. J. Miller Page 3 the public.
We have done our best to support this conference with attendence by NRC staff holding a variety of positions in I
the Region and NRR.
So I believe the mix is good.
If we approach our discussions with a spirit of openness and candor, I am certain we will have a highly profitable meeting.
l In the long run, our communications under pressure and trying circumstances will benefit from our discussions here.
l 1
9 i
f f
i I
l l
l 1
I
-~
At t achment 3 S. C. Jain Suclear Engineering Managers Forum Call to Order Do not expect radical or quick solutions to operability issues during this conference.
Intent is to provide frank, open, and candid feedback on application of GL 91-18 guidance so as to help the NRC modify the guidanct to us, the utility industry, i.e., to help us make better operability evaluations.
I sincerely request that you provide such open feedback to the NRC to help them in their pursuit for improving this guidance.
GL 91-18 was a good effort by the NRC to provide some guidance; now that we have had some experience using it, we can stand to improve upon it.
I am sure the NRC is looking for this experience and feedback to improve this guidance.
I l
l 1
i i
I i
d i
5
.t f
ATTACHMENT 4 S
I p
t I
r j
l l
l
I i
l SPEAKER OUTLISE M.
R.
Edelman j
Page 1 liighlights From Mr. Edelman's Introductory Remarks i
l 1.
Welcome and Thanks for NRC and Utilities working together to put this workshop together l
l 2.
Common goal of the Utility and the NRC - Achieve Safe and reliable plant operation NRC mandate - Protection of public health and safety 1
l l
- Utility goal l
Provide economical and reliable source of power while Protecting public health and safety Protecting environment protecting shareholders investment and providing a reasonable rate of return 3.
Utility and NRC goals can be best achieved with a good operating plant.
- Best plants have high availability and capacity factors, few violations and low O&M costs.
- What NRC expects of Utility o
Effective management team t
o Well trained and experienced staff with thorough understanding of plant design, design basis, design constnints, applicable codes and standards, equipment l
capabilities, etc.
o Well maintained plant J
Good maintenance program (including preventive and predictive) 1 Equipment trending and status program Effective root cause evaluations Effective training program o
Effective and open communication among utility staff (especially between operations and engineering staff) and with the NRC t r. e.
- 99?
l
)
SPEAKER OUTLINE J
M. R. Edelman Page 2 4
1
- What utilities expect of NRC i
4 i
o Open commumcanons o
Willingness to listen to utility point of view o
Well trained and expedenced NRC staff o
Consistent application of NRC guidance i
o Maintain a global perspective j
o Continue study of incorporating dsk based regulations and evaluation of J
regulations marginal to safety 4
Keep regulatory requirements current with industry experience and developments o
l 4.
Generic Letter 91-18 is a good stan
- Compiles many operability issues in a single guidance document
- Effort to unify NRC and industry approach
- Accepts reasonable assurance and engineering judgement j
- Separates qualification concerns and opembility concerns 5.
Additional clarifications may be needed on several issues that this workshop will address.
- Timeliness of operability evaluations
- Timeliness of initiating communications to NRC and at what level
- Scope of Operability determinations l
- Support system operability MOV operability 6.
Closing remarks wishing a successful workshop leading to mutually agmeable positions on critical issues l
l l
1 I
I l
i I
I i
i l
A i
4 b
r l
P h
1 I
I I
i f
b I
h J
t B
E
?
l ATTACHMENT 5 I
t i
l 6
n I
i l
i l
1 l
-w-v w-Pe1-w a-w-ee v
y-m--
i I
l i
j OPERABILITY / DEGRADED EQUIPMENT i
CONFERENCE i
e NRR PRESENTATION ON GENERIC LETTER 91-18
{
JANUARY 21,1993 i
BY JOHN HANNON, PROJECT DIRECTOR NRR-NRC l
j
NINE PRINCIPLES FOR DEALING WITH OPERABILITY QUESTIONS:
- 1. FOCUS ON SAFETY
- 2. DEAL WITH OPERABILITY AND RESTORATION OF QUALIFICATION SEPARATELY
- 3. OPERABILITY - THE CAPABILITY TO PERFORM SPECIFIED FUNCTION (S)
- 4. QUALIFICATION - CONFORMING TO ALL ASPECTS OF CURRENT LICENSING BASIS
- y g g 2sp
- 5. DETERMINING OPERABILITY AND PLANT SAFETY
~f; IS A CONTINUOUS DECISION-MAKING PROCESS e [i i
I,i
- 6. TIMELINESS OF OPERABILITY DETERMINATIONS SHOULD BE COMMENSURATE WITH THE SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ISSUE.
OTSD/OPER/7
n NINE PRINCIPLES FOR DEALING WITH OPERABILITY QUESTIONS.(CONT'D) : -
- 7. TIMELINESS OF CORRECTIVE ACTION (i.E.,10 CFR PART 50, APPENDIX B, CRITERION XVI REQUIREMENT FOR " PROMPT" CORRECTIVE ACTION)
SHOULD BE COMMENSURATE WITH THE SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CORREC-TIVE ACTION
- 8. JCOS ARE THE LICENSEE'S TECHNICAL BASIS FOR OPERATING IN AN OTHERWISE PROHI-BITED MANNER
[ $ )'.
,, i ;
- 9. LICENSE AMENDMENTS ARE NRC'S AFFIRMA-TIVE RESPONSE TO LICENSEE'S REQUEST TO OPERATE IN PROHIBITED MANNER 4
OTSO/OPEFyB
_ _~
- k COMPUTER MODELING APPUED PRA REFfNED CALCULATCNS TESTS
- 8 0
d' ANALYSIS OF FUNCTIONAL Q
CAPADitJTY DES!GN CONSERVATISM E
ANALYSIS f
OPERATONAL EXPERIENCE i
2EE y{g ENGINEERING JUDGEMENT i
mES f' e 3
GUT FEEL
$E C
M INCREASED TIME J
s
h
+
/
l 6
L s
M 0 s Ri &M
$M 7 vea 03 4
W m
S h
a we g
,/
!/l
/
/l
!l 4
a M
s m
u
~
A4.,
g h
h h,
m 4
S 3
o M_.
2 i
4 Y
1,-
4 u
t m
g Q
/
(
4 a
s n
N p
m h.
g
=.
A
=
t L
e h
E 1
6 O
E m
A.
2 h
A.
m.
h 4
m.
h 6
/
L h
4 d
h m
M h.
e e
m
- a 5
5 e.
e M
E M
A 6
h.
x
%s g
g g
'N Q
4 i
m r
E s
A i
%q i
E W
y9 u
e r
4 E
L.
u A
o h
m.
o E.
c
+
d.
9 o.
g u.
h r
b g
D 4
i g
E
- 7 a
g E
e p
4 s
N 5
m IN t
t E
0 h
n.
a k
a m
L.
h S
, / /
u e
e.
m m
a l
'j'i'j,l
/jI l,
,l
1
$[EAER bJTLU;E hl 'a 1annon li 5
l E i l
A t
2 We
'4 Q
Y i
P.
\\
<(
i Z
1 I
8 E
1,,
3 9
9-w H
W O
J g
l i
lhr a
W I
O.
O s
e s
e a
9
$"g a
t e
!"8 5
h.
$5 W
E t-e E
b b
8 g
R a
i 5
9 i
k
=
eggom
a m.
a,rm.
s,,
m--
-w--mm.a
--.4,x-s-
.s.
ww._ss a.
m-a..ma w
w w
a amae
--a
-aw
,,u e.,,e
,w sn,aa SPEAKER OUTLINE Jolin I annon r
- ]
l l
I 1
0 z.m v-I j
1*"
g E
c mE s
~
4 m O LLI 8
l 2 %
y 0
Q O
p e
c 3 U rt tu a
m k
m v/, ~.. fa e
@J-c c
~3 -
c g
o LLI n c
-s o o
to C
C0 't F._
d9%
en.
--1 3
T) b l
G. E 8
E P
8
-W t
F
[
CC O
l O
g Z
LLI l
i a
~
\\
s l
~
~
N W
J
~a--a
.1-w mam-an,5 0,
~~s
~aa+6-c.
.,_.i-,
--,,- - m
&A-,-.
a
,ee
,L.-.
s-,
a A4 a---ma s
l-i 1
1 i
i!
k i
f I
.- l I
3 ATTACHMENT 6 I
i i
l i
1
)
i f
f e
p
- )
,.y--
,g.,,
, -. - -, -_. - -,,.,,,,u,,
w-.
,e-,
,,,,,,,-,_n,,.,m+,,,..s,..w..,_,,,,.,,n,we,m_-
a.,mo
OUTLINE OF PANEL PRESENTAT]C'.
H. J. MILLER PAGE 1 OUTLINE OF PANEL PRESENTATION H.
J.
MILLER General theme:
discuss Regional perspectives on engineering oriented operability issues highlight some commonly observed problems Some general points:
NRC recognizes that many items are dealt with daily in operating plant....most are straightforward and we are not involved we are most often involved with the difficult,
- complex, significant items i
by and large, licensees have done well improvement over the past several years.
e.g.,
established specific procedures on operability training identification of issues need to be alert to issues that raise question about l
operability sometimes subtle special design basis reviews -- few such reviews-have not found potentially significant issues performing modifications where consulting the design and licensing basis (included detailed i
m review of cales) is necessary troubleshooting equipment problems keep eyes open for errors in past work prudence of rechecking areas outside but related to problems identified -- especially when margins have been j
reduced i
balance needed -- must act expeditiously but recognize i
can't be on a " hair trigger"...taking precipitous action for small items addressing potential issues promptly and competently need to involve risht people technical management concentrated focus on problems until ultimately j
resolved...
op.
determination is continuous process I
continuously increasing information is obtained while continuous, several discrete points in process are important immediate determination -- if plant continues to operate, de-facto decision is being made backup deternination long term analysis and corrective action
OUTLINE Of ~ ;E! ~ Uf.S C;~ ' :~1 O 11. J. MILLH PAGE 2 NRC perspectives on enforcement self-identified issues corrective actions -- dealing with issues af ter found is key i
h Other points and common problems:
lack of rigor and completeness in operability determinations overly simplistic evaluations -- general, " gut feeling" of an engineer vice competent engineering judgement one-sided evaluations -- identification of all the positive reasons to support operability determination and continued 1
plant operation without considering potential negative factors /arguements lack of timeliness in identification of degraded conditions /non-conformances that challenge operability in making operability determinations once problem l
identified j
in taking corrective action lack of documentation Some root causes lack of training and sensitivity of entire engineering staff to operability issue I
failure to transmit expectations to contractors / consultants production pr.essures inadequate staffing inexperienced staff failure to involve management l
Enforcement i
broad perspective licensee finding own problems, especially in detailed design oriented reviews is very positive important to take timely corrective actions with findines
-- only situation where we have taken escalated enf.
action on findings coming from licensee reviews
unasty ristt rasser:14:103 Page 3 ENGINEERING RELATED OPERABILITY DETERMINATIONS -
REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE OVERVIEW OF PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT SOME PROBLEMS PERSIST IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES ADDRESSING OPERABILITY ISSUES s
PROMPTLY/ COMPETENTLY CONTINUOUS PROCESS PROMPT AND BACKUP DETERMLNATIONS i
OL'TLINE OF PANEL PRESENTA~10:
H..'. Mille-Page 4 REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE SOME COMMON PROBLEMS SUPERFICIAL EVALUATIONS / LACK OF RIGOR - " GUT FEELING" DOES NOT PASS FOR ENGINE.ifRING JUDGEMENT UNTIMELY ACTION LACK OF DOCUMENTATION ROOT CAUSES LACK OF TRAINING / SENSITIVITY OF ENGINEERING STAFF AND CONTRACTORS EXCESSIVE PRODUCTION PRESSURES INADEQUATE STAFFING INEXPERIENCED STAFF FAILURE TO INVOLVE MANAGEMENT ENFORCEMENT
aj gm
@ l aGCCe
=
u' {r" yW v S
~N O
N O
I TA I
l S
t, l
AS V T, N
I EI O
C U
t I
DS l
4ET E. E C
I E
t ITA I
\\I I
A AE T
GV D
E I
)
I TCE E
Tt Y
t i l
l MtOlO i
T C
t I
l E E T
SK I
ll A L
LOT iD N N I
I TA N
B.
N E
O O
Ot F C I
i T
C O N l'
A N
A l
A I
N TN i
t KI I'
l l
O E
R U
MtM MI V
E. S O T S
l I.
A A
'I t
i l
N I
E T
l' G E, I
1' E M
Ni D
I l
P l
I Al l
S A
E I
N N TT E
O I
E C O N
S D
I 1, A K
1 E
t I
~
Y J Ft
~
l OE E
F C E V M O O N C
I E
TSl l
LD I
EIF V N E O 1
C l
l1
OUTLINE OF PAEL PRESEN!;. TION H. J. Miller i
Page 6 DEGRADED OR NON CONFORMING CONDITION EXISTS MAKE PROMPT OPERABILITY CALL
.A l!!Qi MYI MCX!!P i
i ASSlTPMCE Of w., OPEPalliff OPEPELE OPEPalllf?
CALL L
I NO ES OR REQ U ES T RELIEF FOLLOW
[g0iMY Wla 0F COTLIfdCEl TECHNICAL SPECIFICAITON I
1r l
ADDRESS NON CONFORMING CONDITION 07-511TCH
.m
0::TI.1NE OF PA:;EL PREsi:.rATIu::
E. G. G reenman Page 1 OUTLINE OF PANEL PRESENTATION i
E. G. GREENMAN General Theme:
o discuss Region III perspective on operations oriented operability issues, safety significance timeliness scope (some issues may require ongoing review) o highlight some commonly observed problems:
o use of JCOs o
" indeterminate" state of operability o
T. S. " Operability" vs ASME Code XI " Operative" o
Support System Operability General Points o
Timely call by licensee o
Get to the SRI and Region quickly o
Utilization of PRA o
How enforcement relates
'f Root Causes for Problems o
lack of training o
lack of understanding o
Untimely i
c incomplete evaluations Other Points j
l
i OUTLINE OF PANEI, PRESENTATION - S. C. JAIN Concerns Raised at 'Jtilities on Operability Issues Have Increased Significantly Over the Last Few Years Mainly Resulting From
- Increased Knowledge and Scrutiny on Part of Plant's Staff (e.g., Assigned System Engineers)
- Design Basis Reconstitution Programs
- Self - Initiated Safety System Functional Reviews 1
- Procurement / Commercial Dedication Issues na
.m 2
~m y
E8 P
a e
- To Ensure a Thorough Response To Operability Issues, Utility Must Have Good Understanding Of the Design Basis, Licensing Basis and NRC Expectations
- First and Foremost is Preservation of Safety
- NRC Guidance Provided in GL 91-18 is Generally Adequate, But May Need Clarification
-n o H
"p:i E
i s
A s
Ci G
i N
l E
i 1
a m
Jh-h L._3 m
h
,a
- 'm a
a1L a
a.
_a
~
General Issues of Interest to Utilities Relating to Operability Timeliness Use of PRA Qualification vs Operability Support System Operability Design Basis Vs Current Licensing Basis ASME Requirements vs Operability Operability Of Equipment Not Covered By Plant l
Technical Specifications Operability vs Reportability. When Does 30 Day ng Clock Start for the LER 108 l
Content Of JCO l?
Interaction with NRC 2
l C
l 5
i EI 5
a i
- Midwest Nuclear Engineering Managers Forum
- Objectives
- Subcommittees
- NUMARC Interface
- Operability Subcommittee
- Formed in May 1992 yg IP@
- Representation from 10 Region III Utilities N
2 P
- e 0
0 h
- Position Papers Under Development
- Design Basis vs Current Licensing Basis
- Operability vs ASME code Section XI Operative Criteria
- Support System Operability
- Qualification vs Operability na S Pd n
y 78 5
P A
y s
C 8
Concerns
- MOV Operability Issues
- Consistency in NRC Application of Guidance
- Communications with NRC
'*1 tn O O
-LE E s; E
- 3 5
?!
MOV Operability Issues
- Previous Calculations and Settings Were Based on IE Bulletin 85-03 Guidance
- GL 89-10 and its Supplements Imposed New Requirements
- Use of Conservative Assumptions in New Calculations May Suggest that the MOV May Not Function
- Widely Varying Utility Positions on Valve Operability ya in Light ofIEB 85-03 vice GL 89-10 Requirements are 1[j Apparent h
L i
l
- Additional Clarification is Necessary
,i 5.
l
Consistency in NRC Application of Guidance is an Important Industry. Concern k
- TSI Thermo - Lag Fire Barrier Concerns
- Non - Conforming Condition i
t
- Qualification vs Operability Principle Applies i
l
- Based on Actual Fire Loadings Fire watches are Not Required ng umn l
"L5 l
- NRC Position Appears to be Inconsistent with GL h
91-18 Guidance ir M
5 s
l z
- Communications with NRC
- Timeliness of Communications
- Issue Identification
- Issue Evaluation
- Reasonable vs Absolute Assurance of Functionality
- Issuance of Non - Conformance Condition Repor* yq
- Concerns Associated with Early Communicationt Late Communications W
m G
E!
5:
i O'CILINE OF PANEL PRESENTATION k'ARREN HALL Pare 1 PANEL PRESENTATION OUTLINE i
i Industry view of GL 91-18 Inspection Guidance 1.
Positive Aspects i
General agreement with basic philosophical discussion Good starting point to establish written guidance to inspectors i
Provides emphasis on licensee responsibility for operability determination I
Provides a basis for separation of operability from qualification Provides a tacit acknowledgement that operability may be assumed in certain cases 2.
Concerns Cascading Tech Specs Additional clarification and explanation for certain areas of the guidance _._.-
Timeliness Current Licensing Basis and Design Basis t
Timing of operability determination Clarification of the use of some words and definitions l
OUTL1!:E OF PANEL PRESE :TATIO::
JACK ROE PAGE 1 NRC TEMPORARY WAIVERS OF COMPLIANCE CURRENT POLICY FEBRUARY 22, 1990 MEMO FROM TOM MURLEY TO REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORS TWOC IS NRC'S STATED INTENT NOT TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE IN CERTAIN LIMrHD CIRCUMSTANCES PROCESS l
TWO TYPES - REGIONAL OR NRR TWOC, BOTH CONCUR REGIONAL:
NON-RECURRING, AMENDMENT NOT NEEDED, LESS THAN 7 DAYS NRR:
AMENDMENT NEEDED, TWOC GRANTED UNTIL EMERGENCY OR EXIGENT CHANGE CAN BE PROCESSED LICENSEE'S REQUEST CAN BE VERBAL, FOLLOWED PROMPTLY BY DOCUMENTATION MUST BE APPROVED BY PORC MUST ADDRESS:
1)
REQUIREMENTS FROM WHICH RELIEF IS SOUGHT 2)
CIRCUMSTANCES, WHY SITUATION COULDN'T BE AVOIDED 3)
COMPENSATORY ACTIONS 4)
SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE AND POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES 5)
JUSTIFICATION FOR DURATION 6)
BASIS FOR NO SIG HAZARDS DETERMINATION (NRR TWOC) 7)
NO IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (NRR TWOC)
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS EXPIRATION OF LC0 ACTION TIME DURING DISCUSSION WITH NRC - ADDRESS UP FRONT REQUEST DENIED, OR GRANTED TWCC TERMINATED - CLOCK IS DETERMINED FROM ORIGINAL ENTRY INTO LC0 ENFORCEMENT ACTION CONSIDERED, AS APPROPRIATE j
EXISTING POLICY BEING REVISED PER SECY-92-346 i
OUTLINE OF PANEL PRESENTATION BRIAN GRIMES Page 1 1
l OPERABILITY: AN NRC PERSPECTIVE i
PURPOSE l
History Need Importance i
l i
GL 91-18...OUR VIEW 4
Use As A Tool communication level playing field win-win Functioning Now GL 91-18... FUTURE USE (IMPROVED STS) i i
WORKSHOP EXPECTATIONS Gather Information On Problem Areas i
Suggestions For improvement Gather Feedback Aid in improving 91-18 Set The Stage For A Better NRC/ Industry interface i
OUTL1!;E OF PA' EL PRESENTATIO?;
B.
K. Grimes Pane 2 REGION 111 OPERABILITY CONFERENCE l
January 21 - 22, 1993 Panel Opening Remarks by Brian Grimes 4
Introduction Each NRC panel member comes from a different perspective - engineering, f
operations, licensing Audience also represents these perspectives which should lead to a good interchange of views during the conference History and Importance Various generic communications on operability have been issued going back at least to 1980.
Questions continued to be raised by Regions and industry - in particular Illinois Power questions on " cascading."
Also concerns about consistency of NRC interpretations.
Guidance was therefore developed for NRC inspectors and shared with the industry (GL 91-18).
-The subject of operability is fundamental to how we assure that redundant components are normally available to cope with accidents and transients and to how we assure that operation without.any protection against accidents or transients does not continue.
Remarks on GL 91-18 NRC views the inspection guidance in GL 91-18 as a tool for use in the operability process, not as a recipe for particular operability decision.
Properly used, GL 91-18 can enhance communication of NRC expectations to industry, contribute to consistency (providing a level playing field).
Mutual understanding of GL 91-18 should be of benefit both to industry and NRC.
Our view of the operability process is that it is functioning fairly well now.
Three tough areas:
determination of operability timeliness supported system operability (cascading)
OUTLINE OF PANEL PRESENTAT105
- n. n. crimes Page 3 ka:1 =. cation of Ooerability ir Improved T.S.
A different approac's to supported system operability has been developed.
Requires development of a safety function determination process.
Needs to be worked through on a lead plant being converted u in improved T.S.
When experience gained, can consider whether this approach is useful for operating plants.
Conference Expectations Better understanding of each others problems and solutions NRC wants to gather information on the problem areas with suggestions for improvement We plan to revise the inspection guidance and GL 91-18 after the workshops Aside from GL 91-18 changes, this type of conference helps set the stage for a better NRC/ industry interface l
l
Rill 1/21/93 OPERABILITY CONFERENCE OUTLINE OF PANEL PRESENTATION T.K. Schuster l
General Brief discussion of general CECO / utility impression of GL91-18 Specific identification and discussion of concerns regarding GL91-18 implementation CLB vs. DB What is the difference?
Use of UFSAR as a checkfist Apples and oranges scenarios Combining of Design Bases for different components / systems
- Use of original Design Requirements vs. today's Design Requirements Use of the word " Inoperable" What constitutes a " Timely response" Engineering judgment
- 24. hour criteria i
1 I
nn nicavs4
SPEAKER UUTLIM:
T. K.
SCHUSTER P!/,E 1
_Generallmpressign 0LGLS1-16 CECO has reviewed the two inspection Manual Sections in great detail and I would like to begin by offering a general impression. I must applaud the final product being as the most comprehensive and complete compilation of DNCC and operability issues to date. I am personally appreciative that NRC guidance previously provided in various internal memoranda on various issues regarding operability have been brought together into one common document, and the f act the document was made readily available to each licensee.
The DNCC and Operability processes give the licensee "The Operating Room" needed to continue plant operation in the presence of DNGC, without the NRC being a necessary part of the decision making process. The licensee can assess the impact of small changes in the design of a plant, relative to the recorded Current Licensing Basis, provided the change ooesn't constitute an URSO or require a Technical Specification Amendment.
Current Licensing B_ asis _vs Body of Information to which one assesses Operability implementation of the Generic Letter Guidance and the related interactions between CECO and the NRC has caused us to re-review the guidance to understand why we have not come to quick agreement or experienced differences of opinion regarding some past operability assessments.
The first issue is that of the difficulty of reaching agreement on *What deviations from the Current Licensing Basis are allowable for an operability assessment and whether the deviation or analysis changes made to accomodate the deviation are considered an unreviewed safety question.
I believe the problem relates to the following, regarding the guidance provided in
{
the generic letter inspection manual sections. First, though definitions are provided for.
CLB and Design Basis by reference or example, no true distinction is made between general CLB information and Design Bases information. Second, no attempt is made to define what information within the Design Basis information for a system is that which would be considered unchangeable without prior NRC approval. This would be equivalent to defining the threshold for what is and what is not 50.59-able licensing i
i information, while providing a definition of what licensing information is that, to which operability is assessed. For purposes of this discussion, allow me to define what these types of Design Basis information are. This information is of 3 types - a qualitative description of the systems'specified safety function such as
- deliver adequate SI flow to keep the core covered" for a Safety 1njection pump; qualitative restraints or conditions under which the safety funct, ion is to be performed, (ex. LOOP, LOCA, single failure); and finally, numerical " Acceptance Limits" set for critical parameters. Any or all of these types of non-50.59-able Design Basis information may apply to a specific operability concern. To determine which apply to a given concern a disciplined approach must be taken.
As a matter of process, to make the distinction between allowable changes and non allowable changes, we can rely to a large estent on guidance provided in NSAC-125," Guidelines for 10 CFR 50.59 Safety Evcluations", since past concerns have predominantly been centered around an issue posed by the 3rd question of a l
50.59 Safety Evaluation: "Is the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification reduced'?"
ZNLD/2473-2 i
SPEAKER OUTLINE.
T. K. SCHUSTER PAGE 2 The guidance provided in NSAC-125 attempts to explain the difference between design J
margin and " Margin of Safety", where design margin would be excess margin available for the licensee to perform an operability assessment, and where the " Margin of Safety" i
is that margin unavailable to the licensee, and if used without prior NRC ar9rovt.1 would constitute an URSO. Similarly, the document attempts to make a distinctic,o between l
the inputs and assumptions of a calculation and the results of a calculation. The inputs l
and assumptions are generally not used as the basis for acceptability of a s aecific l
design. The fact that the calculation results are less than specific numerica l
" Acceptance Limits" indicates acceptability of the change. As an example of this rather esoteric preceding discussion, consider containment pressure, a parameter which q
r would have an " Acceptance Limit" equivalent to the Design pressure of 50 psig and a 3
4 failure point of 120 psig. Let us go on further to say that the original peak calculated pressure was 40 psig. Assume some DNCC was discovered which caused us to i
I consider changing some physical assumption made in the original analysis. Could changes be made to ESF system flowrates, heat exchanger heat transfer rates or the j
temperature of cooling water systems which are not specified in Tech Specs, though noted in the UFSAR,if degradation in any of these calculation assumptions results in slightly higher calculated containment pressure than previously calculated? For this 1
J example, a result of 45 psig. Per NSAC-125, the answer would be yes, the change is acceptable since the new calculated pressure remains below the 50 psig design pressure known as the
- Acceptance Limit". Though the design margin has decreased, l
the " Margin of Safety" between the design pressure of containment and the point of 1
failure of containment has not.
For operability assessments of a complex nature, to identify the three types of information within the design bases which clearly define the specified safety function, 2
along with providing information which would identify the other non-50.59-able issues -
i the following approach must be taken. The Licensee must begin by working backwards in time through the CLB information. All of it, including the UFSAR, applicable SERs &
SRP sections, and most recent Tech Spec amendment SERs relating to the equipment
)
l in question must be reviewed, unless some other recent effort on the subject is available. Integration of these sources allows the licensee to determine, to the best extent possible, the basis for NRC acceptance of the specific system's design.
(
The UFSAR should not be used alone as a checklist for what is and is not an URSO. It contains both descriptive entries and numerical values representing inputs and l
assumptions beyond those which the NRC could have reasonably used as the basis for accepting the design feature which satisfies a safety function. Unfortunately, a mechanism which clearly ear marks the basis for acceptability of a design feature did not in the past, nor in the present, exist.
i h
1 ZNLD/2473-3 i
SPEAKER bUill:
l T. n. scnus m PAGE 3 epples_an10 ranges _scerlario3 We, meaning both the NRC and the industry, have to be careful performing operability assessments to avoid creating hybrid scenarios for equipment not within the i
original design basis of a system. There are two ways in which this can happen. One 4
way is to simply cross two current design basis assumption scenarios of different systems and create a single new compound design basis scenario for one of the systems. The system will likely fail to function under this new scenario, the credibility of which is suspect. The second method of creating new hybrid scenarios is by adopting design requirements of today's regulatory standards versus using the design requirements appropriate to the last NRC Requirement / Licensee Commitment for the respective SSC. Though it is certainly acceptable, it needs to be thoroughly reviewed prior to committing to such a change.
Use of the word '100perable" The word " Inoperable" was meant to be used in the context of describing the incapability of a component to carry out its specified safety function, provided the system, structure or component is one named or described within a Technical Specification. It was not meant to describe the condition of a single support piece of equipment not within Technical Specifications. Use of a similar but different word such as non-functional would be more appropriate. My concern here is that misuse of the i
word for cases where a non-Tech Spec piece of equipment was incapable of performing its design function, and some personnel were describing it as inoperable prior to an operability evaluation being completed, can cause real-time communication errors and post-event review misperceptions about what was known and when, and ultimately possible inappropriate enforcement action. The word appeared to be improperly used several times in the Generic Letter. In light of the cascading guidance given in one section of the Generic Letter which implies immediate cascading of an-inoperable support system to a supported system within Tech Specs, it would appear inconsistent to tolerate such use.
Wha _Lconsi! Meta " Time _ly" respomtel i
Relative to threshold and timeliness issues frequently raised, I would like to offer two brief comments. I believe that CECO fully concurs with the concept that once an
'1 issue has been raised to the level of an Operability Concern, engineering judgment should be used within hours to assess operability of an SSC. However, we should all l
recognize that literally hundreds of DNCC are identified, evaluated, and dispositioned l
each year for each Station. Therefore, to be able to plan and prioritize routine work properly and maintain the prc >er safety focus for our activities and resources, both a i
process for dispositioning anc the training of personnelinvolved must be relied upon to recognize a true potential operability concern vs. routine DNCCs discovered every day.
i The GL gives a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> timeframe as an appropriate timeframe to determine the
{
operability of a SSC, but also states that the timeframe should be commensurate with the safety significance of the issue. A timeframe of twenty-four hours may be appropriate if the nature of the degradation is within the normal capabilities of the site staff to disposition.
ZNLD/2473-4
SPEAKER OUTLINE T. K. SCHUSTER PACE 4 More complex situations may require detailed analyses to resolve the condition.
These situations can, and often do, require days, weeks or even months of effort to complete. In the interim, engineering judgment or an interim operability assessment can provide adequate protection assuming it is performed properly with the best available information.
The point here is that, regardless of the timeframe involved, issues must be 1
promptly identified, initial judgments made, and a reasonable resolution schedule developed. Strict adherance to a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> rule would be inappropriate.
Goling_Statemmli As I stated in the beginning, GL 91-18 provides the most comprehensive guidelines to date.There are aspects, however, where philosophical differences exist which will cause needed discussion when issues arise.
I personally expect in have a larger number of discussions with both Regional and NRR personnel regarding implementation of this letter for the mature CECO plants such as Zion, Quad Cities and Dresden Stations. This should not be interpreted as a performance issue but is rather a result of reconciling the guidance, written from a more contemporary viewpoint of both the design and specifications with which a plant operates, as compared to the design and specifications of these mature plants. The ongoing efforts to upgrade Technical Spect~ations currently under-way at the mature plants will eliminate some of the potential causes for discussion.
j in addition, once discussions begin for issues at the mature plants, the task of comming to agreement on the design bases for a specific licensing issue will be longer and more arduous simply because of the larger body of CLB information present for a mature plant. DBR programs and development of licensing basis computer data bases will improve the speed with which we can retrieve the CLB information pertinent to a specific issue.
Thank You.
l i
ZNLD/2473-5
f 4
i L
n a
4 t
b t
.i e
i, e
4 4
i l
l E
i
?
ATTACHMENT 7 5
)
t f
)
i l
l i
b j
P t
i r
1 l
1 i
1 l
1
OPERABILITY / DEGRADED EQUIPMENT CONFERENCE BREAK 0UT PRESENTATION TO PANEL GROUP 1 BREAK 0UT GROUP ONE FACILITATORS Tom Martin - NRC. Tad Marsh. NRR-NRC. Richard Phares - Illinois Power. Dave Chrzanowski - Commonwealth Edison. K. C. Prasad - Toledo Edison.
A.
Timeliness 1.
Include more guidance - chart from Hub Miller's presentation and concept of backup call (see Attachment 6,
Outline of Panel Presentation, H. J. Miller, page 5).
2.
Clarification of 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> guidance - is it hard and fast? (Examples) 3.
Conflicting guidance between GL 89-04, ASME Section XI, GL 91-18, T/S bases on time available.
4.
Time for detailed / follow-up analyses should be a function of CONFIDENCE of initial call.
5.
Recommendation:
Process Timeline Question Concern Info & Analysis x Raised x
x x Final Operability Info Initial Determination Gathering Operability Stage Determination NRC (SRI /RI)
Notification a.
Multi-step process /maybe concurrent b.
Eliminate 24 hr/ safety (PRA) to guide timeliness c.
Question phase
" Operable" unless information to contrary d.
Consolidate GL 91-18 5.4, 5.5, 6.1 - consistent B.
Documentation 1.
Expectation on documentation of 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> call.
2.
Is a note in SS log sufficient?
3.
What's the THRESH 0LD for documenting operability calls?
I
OPERABILITY / DEGRADED EQUIPMENT CONFERENCE BREAK 0UT PRESENTATION TO PANEL GROUP 1 C.
Communication i
1.
Keeping SRI informed - depends onpreference of SRI /RI.
i 2.
Generally, communication doesn't need to be addressed in the generic letter.
3.
Under what conditions will the NRC review the operability determinations? Who?
(R3/NRR).
4.
Some inconsistency between inspectors - need consistency.
D.
Other Issues 1.
SSC defined by GL 91-18 is very broad.
Should be limited to SSC with actual safety functions.
2.
More guidance is needed on engineering judgment for example, NUREG 1022, Rev. 1.
E.
Operability Standards l
1.
Develop an operability standard for MOVs.
l 2.
Make known that the NRC accepts interim operability criteria (I.O.C.) for piping on a case-by-case basis.
i 3.
Include " Operability Impact" Section in each new generic letter.
4.
Under what conditions would the NRC entertain LC0 abeyance? Who?
How? What's expected?
5.
Issue a.
What are the characteristics used to determine timeliness of operability judgment.
6.
Comments a.
PRA b.
A0T c.
Plant Mode d.
Plant Configuration e.
Design Margins
OPERABILITY / DEGRADED EQUIPMENT CONFERENCE BREAK 0UT PRESENTATION TO PANEL GROUP 1 7.
Recommendations a.
Expand discussion in 91-18 to include guidance for consideration of these items.
F.
Structr'ral Intearity 1.
Pipe support 0/S T.S. System Boundary (same subsystem) 2.
72 hr. LC0 vs 24 hr. NRC 91-18 3.
Resident response of (reaction / acknowledge) - Table 4 G.
Definition 1.
Functional vs Operable 2.
Available but not operable 3.
Reasonable Assurance (i.e., GL 91-18 page 16)
[ Timeliness]
4.
What is " Current Licensing basis?"
[ scope]
5.
LC0 Abeyance H.
Concera: Timeliness Guidance in Generic letter 1.
24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> okay for preliminary operability determination 2.
Need more guidance for detailed analysis timeliness 3.
Suggest graph with appropriate words added to generic letter I.
Additional Comments 1.
More guidance may be needed on non-Tech Spec equipment which affects TS equipment - does TS LCO always need to be entered.
(Group split on whether this is a problem) 2.
Group feels a good operability procedure is needed for each plant.
3.
GL 91-18 endorses " cascading" in making operability calls.
- This, however, conflicts with many (custom) T/S should the GL promote a
" policy".
3
OPERABILITY / DEGRADED EQUIPMENT CONFERENCE BREAK 0UT PRESENTATION TO PANEL GROUP 1 I.
Additional Comments (Continued) 4.
GL 91-18 should better define the types of operability calls and timeliness.
a.
Initial (hrs?)
b.
Backup (days) c.
Detailed (weeks)
There is inconsistency in GL 91-18 currently 5.
How much confidence is needed to terminate an operability analysis?
6.
GL should address when time clock STARTS - utility needs time to make appropriate review to determine that a problem exists.
7.
Need for an operability standard in major areas e.g. MOVs, piping support, deficiencies.
8.
What documentation is necessary for initial operability calls?
9.
Not clear how to utilize GL 91-18 for situations where real question is if the licensing basis is adequate to guarantee operability for a SSC.
10.
NRC needs to determine who (regional office /RI vs NRR) is responsible for making evaluation of the licensee's detailed operability call.
J.
Current License Basis 1.
Too broad in 91-18 2.
Should really only tie operability to specific safety requirements of 10CFR50.2 Design Basis.
K.
Cascadina 1.
Use on plants whose Tech Specs were not designed for it, i
j 2.
If the NRC has an issue with particular Tech Spec -- change it, don't block reinterpret history.
3.
IPE/PRA analysis should identify inappropriate Tech Specs or T.S.
A0T's.
4.
The "24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />" criteria if its only a general guideline, say so.
l 4
i
OPERABILITY / DEGRADED EQUIPMENT CONFERENCE BREAK 0UT PRESENTATION TO PANEL GROUP 1 K.
Cascadina (Continued) 5.
More guidance on engineering judgment reference NUREG 1022 (Rev 1)
Draft Sect. 2.1.
6.
SSC as defined by 91-18 should only be those in the FSAR with actual safety functions.
L.
Discussion Items Not Related to Example but Bear on 91-18 1.
24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> operability call guidance not seen as a " problem" until this conference by our group.
2.
Use of normal plant systems currently cannot be used to support safety system functions to avoid changes to operating modes.
Example: High Energy Line Break - HPCI Room M.
Nonconformina Condition 1.
HPCI room heat up calculation did not account for a normal access door from the reactor building to the HPCI room. Since the reactor building is a "non-harsh EQ environment," the concern over safety related equipment adjacent to the HPCI Room surfaced.
N.
Licensee Processina of This Issue 1.
Open a.
24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> operability call requirement b.
30 days to confirm operability call 2.
Scope a.
Initially, investigation focused on equipment needed to isolate the steam flow from the break, b.
Scope was expanded to address safe shutdown of the plant.
O.
Timeliness Issues 1.
Initial scope was not broad enough, necessitating an expansion of the week.
2.
Discussion of when to involve SRI in operability determinations is based on familiarity with the SRI background and reactions.
t a
OPERABILITY / DEGRADED EQU1Pl4E!1T CONFERENCE i
BREAROUT PRESENTAT1011 TO PANEL
{
GROUP 2
[
I 1
BREAROUT GROUP TWO FACILITATORS l
l i
John Hannon - NRR-NRC,11 ark Ring - NRC, Al Chaf fee - NRR-NRC.
Curt Angstadt -
{
Cleveland Electric 111uminating, Joe Bauer - Commonwealth Edison.
i A.
Design Basis Discrepancies As They Relate to Operability l
3.
Discussion l
t i
a.
Clear Definition of CLB vs DB l
a.1 What margins can be reduced during operability evaluation and yet remain " operable?"
i b.
Use of new analysis techniques in design basis reconstitution.
l b.1 Can operability be based on ' original design basis vs new i
technique results? Do new techniques have to be used7 l
c.
Can state-of-art codes / met hods be used for operability calls without prior NRC approval?
1 col Review regulation for consistency.
d.
Am I allowed to use an analysis methodology not licensed on my
(
plant but licensed on other plants to make an operability
[
determination.
I 2.
Clarification is needed for:
a.
Operability call for mature plant design basis recenciliatien based on new technology or current licensing basis.
b.
Recemmendation:
b.1 Clearly state that Operability determinations are to be based on the current licensing basis, not current technology.
3.
Clarification is required for:
a.
Concept of initial judgment. near term documentation to support it, and longer t erm detailed resolution of operability concern.
(Timeliness and documentation expected).
b.
Recommendation:
b.1 Capture the. philosophy of the graph presented (see. H. J. liiller Outline of Panel Presentation.
page 5).
DVN A/5007 1
i 1
.-._,.,_.._._._.__._.__,.__..__..___..,_______,__.._,.._.i
..~
OFERABILITY/ DEGRADED EQtlIP11E!JI C0!JFEREf4CE j
BREAKOUT PRESEf3 TAT 10!J TO PA!JEL d
GROUP 2 1
4 6
j B.
Problems / Concerns (Timeliness and Rigor of Evalution) l 1
.I 1.
GL 91-18 doesn't recognize different phases of the process.
a I
2.
GL 91-18 24 hr. guideline may cause greater safety problem than the original concern.
(! Jot enough time to do things safely and l
effectively.)
3.
IJo t clear about relationship between prompt and backup operability i
calls.
4 4.
- 24 hrs" is not serving a useful purpose as long as timeliness reflects safety.
It could be an att.ificial constrain on good l
engineering.
5.
Timeliness 6.1 (5.4/5.5)
-l Clarification of initial expectations.
a.
i a.1 W/I 24 hrs.
a.2 Bases i
a.3 Centent I
a.4 Centinuing issues
- a.5 FRA use to assess safety significant/ schedule extension (3.5) 6.
Section 6.1 (Page B) needs to be clarified / expanded a.
It is unlikely that anything more than engineering judgment can i
be applied in the first 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.
b.
The 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> requirement has resulted in more confusien and interpretatien problens than it resolved. Timeliness should be based en significance, i
7.
Recommendations:
i
- Provide further definition on difference between preliminary a.
and backup operability. determination, recognizing'the level of rigor involved.
b.
- Remove the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> - replace by timeliness proportienal to safety significance depending on case-by-case.
c.
Rec + Consolidation of Sections 5.4/5.5, 6.1 to ensure consistency and address content issues above.
DV!! A/5007' 2
_ ~.., _,... _ _, _... _. _.
s i
1
)
OPERABILITY / DEGRADED EQUIPliENT CONFERENCE j
BREAEOUT PRESENTATION TO PANEL
}
GROUP 2 l
4j i
C.
Evolution of Operability Call 1
- l 1.
When operability is " indeterminate." virtually 100% will say it is l
" operable."
j 2.
GL does not recognize t hat there is a period of time and evaluation j
i that occurs before an issue is elevated to being an operability 4
question, or that a degraded condition is apparent.
a.
Inconsistency between LCOs on Support / Supported systems which could result in actions not in the best interest of safety-(e.g., unwarranted shutdown).
4 b.
Do you have t o Cascade t o any ot her TS if normal power. is
)
available and a diesel is declared inoperable?
c.
Do you have to enter the LCO for equipment during surveillance 4
testing if system s not clearly incapable of performing its j
i function (Example:
Stroke testing a valve).
c.1 LCO entry on surveillance test when sys/ccmponent nel f
clearly unable to perferm.
l Example: Place switch in manual for test.
Everything else totally operable.
3.
- Adopt the cascading TS LCO of improved STS as line-item improvement l
1 for current TS.
Process Timeline Question Final
)
Raised Concern Oper. Eet.
x x
x x
Info TInitial Info Gathering Oper.
Gathering Indet.
Determ.
and Analysis Stage" SRI /RI - Notification - incl. timetable oper.'det.
l Dvn A/5007 3
.. ~... - - _. - _. -.
.. ~ _.
- - _ -.. ~....
i r
i OPERABILITY / DEGRADED EQliIPMEt1T C0!!FERE!!CE f
BPEAKOUT PRESE!!TATIO11 TO PA!1EL t
GROLIP 2 l
i C.
Evolution of Operability call (Continued) r 4.
Recommended Changes
[
i a.
Recognize different phases.
b.
Recognize two separate operabilit.y calls (sometimes maybe l
concurrent).
l c.
Eliminate 24 hr. guideline - leave A.O.T.
from T.S.
for initial call as guideline.
1
)
d.
Recognize that during the initial concern definition phase that l
the S.S.C.
is operable.
l y
d.1 No informat ion to the contrary a
d.'2 Industry exp. +usually operable.
4 l
i i
I 13.
Other Issues Discussed I
1.
91-18 Guidance on use of 50.59 i
2.
91-18 guidance on Documentation Requirements 3.
91-18 guidance on EQ issues (Section 6.10) 7 l
)
Conclusion - Generally okay no specific recommendation (EQ section could probably be improved for clarity).
k 1
i 1
1 i
i 1
i 1'
t
)
i ii
!t 1
DV!1 A/5007 4
i t
i 1
l 5
OPERABILITY /DEGFADED EQUIPMENT CONFERENCE BREAEOUT ??ISENTATION TO PANEL GROUP 3 BREAROUT GROUP T!!REE FACILITATORS Bill Forney - NRC, Jim Dyer - NRC, Mark Ackerman - American Electric Fower, l
John Schrage - Commonwealth Edison j
l l
A.
Major Areas t
1.
Timeliness on potential eperability issues identified by support l
organizations (engineering / design concerns).
{
2.
Declaration of inoperabi'ity - time of event vs time of discovery 3.
Placing the plant in a - safe" condition does-not necessarily translate to plant shutdewn.
l 4.
LCOs for equipment not cevered by the TSs.
operability requirements l
not specified.
(Relates to using design / licensing basis in j
operability calls.)
l
[
5.
Cascading TS issue not understood - support systems not always well defined.
B.
Timeliness NRC vants residents informed early but utilities are pressured to have all answers at that time.
We need space.
1.
Conment l
L 1
a.
Some residents want all answers now.
j i
2.
Recommendation
)
i a.
NRC/ utility should have an understanding as to how much time the utility has to address issue.
This is on an' item by item basis.
3.
Recommendation Communication between utility and NRC is vital to resolving a.
" gray
- issue.
b.
Reasonable assurance of operability gut check (from the right gut).
"I'm fairly certain it's OK" = It's OK.
Formalize in a timely manner or it's inoperable.
DVN A/5008a 1
i l
I i
OPERABILITY / DEGRADED EQUIPMENT CONFERENCE l
BREAKOUT PRESENTATION TO PANEL f
i GROUP 3 1
i
- )
l l
C.
Cascading LCO's i
8 1.
Cascading or not:
Basis for support, systems in definition of 4
operability is unclear.
l a.
Is it - Those not in their own T.S.
or those not in T.S.
and l
those in T.S.?
l 2.
Resolution l
a.
Make it clear which is correct.
l I
1 r
3.
Cascading technical specifications ate not well understood and 2
support systems are not well defined.
}
Inconsistent application of cascading technical specifications l
a.
is the result.
4.
Recommendations l
]
a.
Rethink issue and provide clear guidance to be used consistently.
1 l
b.
Possible option to apply support system LCO for systems in tech j
specs, and use LCO approach for support systems without tech spec LCOs.
f I
c.
Consider diesel generator inoperability dif ferent from other support systems. (TS 3.0.5) i D.
Post Maintenance Testing 1.
Should the GL address how to handle operability declarations for systems which have had raintenance performed on them, that also require a higher temperature /pressuce (Mode Change) in order to adequately test the system?
a.
Will regulatory guide on maintenance rule address:
2.
F.ecommendations j
Address in either GL or in. maintenance rule regulatory guide.
a.
DVN'A/500Ba 2
/
-.r-
--r, a
w,
,,p_,
.-,,,,,r, y,,
-e.z.w.,
s w,
,.,aw..._
e
.......yw..--
...m.,-,.,-w.,
a
\\
OPERABILITY / DEGRADED EQUIPMENT CONFERENCE i
EREAROUT PRESENTATION TO PAUEL GROUP 3 1
1 e
i E.
Retroactive Operability Issues l
1.
When should you devote resources to resolve these issues.
i l
There may be minimal benefit for resources / money spent.
l a.
t 2.
Recommendation i
a.
Bring the issue before the main committee for discussion.
f
(
b.
Report as required, but don't do any further analysis.
F.
FRA Usage l
1.
Hypothetical very low probability events that impact the design l
basis - results in plant shutdown.
{
a.
Example - Calvert Cliffs shutdown 2.
Recommendation a.
Perform a relative risk analysis using PRA data.
If shutdown risk > hypothetical event then plant should remain on line.
i G.
NRC Involvement 1.
Comments a
a.
NRC wants early notification on degraded system decisions, but j
uti.ities feel pressured to have all the ansvers.
a.1 HRC should not be put in the position of directing the operability decisions.
b.
Not acceptable for utility to consider an operability decisien for a week and then notify NRC Friday night to ask for relief.
2.
Recommendations a.
Clarify the role expectations for both utility /NRC.
l b.
Utilities must recognize there is no " indeterminate" operability classification.
l l
.DVN A/5008a 3
.~.
,..--..w-.
[
OPERABILITY / DEGRADED EQUIPMENT CONFERENCE f
BREAKOUT PRESE'JTATION TO PANEL I
GROUP 3 L
l H.
Specific Example
)
l' f,
f Main Control i
Room (MCR)
[
<=====
Vent added to re-l Cable Spread Room lieve pressure in l
Cable Spread Room i
while maintaining 0.1 psid positive (w/wo vent.
Vent was not designed seismic)
+
1.
Comments P
1 a.
Testing of cordox in cable spreading room revealed leakage into l
MCR.
Habitability issue.
i I
b.
Vent - acided. 0.1 psid criteria (tech spec) met w/wo vent.
l 1
I c.
Subsequent testing revealed 0.1 psid no longer achievable w/ vent l
open (0.08).
l I
{
c.1 Did not enter LCO c.2 20 days to determine seismic is a problem c.3 3 days later - communicate 6 2.
Lessons Learned i
a.
Resolution a.1 Notify resident sooner a.2 Qualification issues can take time a.3 Take immediate action / enter LCO b.
Question b.1 Page 1 - Why is (viii)
- Any SSC's described'in the FSAR*
included?
(Why wasn't 1 - vil sufficient-to define scope of GL 91-187)
DVN A/5008a 4
_