ML20137N018

Advises That Listed Issues Need to Be Addressed Re Facility 850609 Event

ML20137N018
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	08/16/1985
From:	Asselstine J NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Bernthal, Palladino, Roberts NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20137N022	List: ML20137N018 ML20138P887
References
COMJA-85-11, NUDOCS 8509160154
Download: ML20137N018 (4)

Text

-

mee

*g UNITED STATES

. f, ,, NUCLEAR RE' ULATCRY COMMISSION 3 I ~

CASHINGTON, C.C. 20566 ,

e- .. .un.,_ _.. 9 c, L< : . . .

OFFICE OF THE '

COMMISSIONER August 16, 1985 COMJA-85-ll MEMORANDUM FOR: Chainnan Palladino Comissioner Roberts Comissioner Bernthal Comissioner Zech ,

FROM: James X. Asselstine - '

SUBJECT:

FURTHER NRC ACTION ON DAVIS BESSE After reviewing the NRC Davis Besse Team's July 22, 1985 report, it appears to ne that there are several issues related to the June 9 Davis Besse event that have not yet been addressed but that must be considered. These are:

1. What actions are needed before the plant will be allowed to restart, and hew will we verify that these actions have been completed successfully?

2. What longer-term actions are needed to bring the Davis Besse plant up to an acceptable level of operations and maintenance perfomance, and how will we verify that an effective inprovement program is in place and that adequate progress is being made?

3. Were there problems in the licensee's and NRC staff's reviews of the adequacy ard reliability of the Davis Besse auxiliary feedwater system from 1979 to the present, or even before that period? If so, what were the root causes of these problems (such as the failure to recognize the reliability groblems of the AFW system or to do anything r'eaningful to correct then,, and are there generic implications for our regulatory program? In particular, what does this experience tell us about NRC backfitting practices, the use of cost-benefit analyses, and the accuracy of probabilistic evaluations of the reliability of plant safety systems?

A. Were there problems in the NRC staff's inspection and enforcement program for Davis Besse? Did we fully understand the seriousness of the operational prchlems at that plant? If so, why oid we allow the situation to get so bad? Did we make full use of all available enforcement options, and are existing enforcement tools adequate? If not, is there some weakness in our inspection program? Are we looking at the right espects of

' plant operation?

~

F YS4%@5g g-l

5. What does this most recer.t experience, particularly when coupled with prior operating events, tell us about the adecuacy of the B&W plant design?, Does this experience indicate the need to consider modifications or improvements in the B&W design to reduce its vulnerability to serious accidents? ,,

As I understand Mr. Dircks' August 6 memorandum, all remaining issues concerning the June 6 event are to be herdled by appropriate NRC staff offices. Some of the issues I have listed above have been identified in the assignment of work to the staff offices (items 1 and 2 are examples).

Others on my list have not been specifically identified by the staff. I believe that the Comission should decide how these issues could be considered and who should handle then.

I propose that the NRC staff be given the responsibility for preparing a plan for addressing itens 1 and 2 above. This plan should be submitted tc the Comission for review and approval. Further, I propose that the s staff report to the Comission on licensee compliance with the plan and that the Comission make the final decision on when to allow restart of the plant.

As for items 3, 4 and 5, I do not believe that these issues should be handled by the NRC staff. Each of these issues involves directly the adequacy of past staff perfomance. For the same reasons that fir. Dircks* -

established an independent team to review the various failures and root cruses of the June 9 event, the Conmission should insist upon an independent review of these broader issues going to the staff's performance and the performance of our overall regulatory process. In fact, I believe that the argLnents for an independent review are far more compelling in the case of items 3, 4 and 5 above than for the details of what components

' ailed and what personnel errors were made on June 9. I therefore protese thrt the Comission ask Tony Cotter to select three members of the

'icensing Board Panel to serve as a review team to address items 3, 4 and 5 above. I sugcest a lawyer, and two technical members with hardware design ard operational knowledge. I would give this team the authority to detail se'ected NRC staff members as needed and to use people from outside the agency as needed. I would ask them to provide a report to the Comission within a reasonable time period--perhaps 60 to 90 days. This, approach .

would both satisfy the need for an independent evaluation of key issues arisine from the June 9 event and give us the opportunity to test out certain aspects of Tony Cotter's proposal for an internal NTSB-type review l orgarization.

I request that SECY track responses to this memorandw. I cc: SECY OGC OPE EDO l l

l

t i

~

• ~

NOTATION VOTE RESPONSE SHEET _

T0: SAMUE J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION FROM: COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE

SUBJECT:

SECY-85-208 - INCIDENT INVESTIGATION PROGRAM ,

APPROVED DISAPPROVED ABSTAIN NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION

~

COMP.ENTS:

s... .

This apprcach is not an adequate response to the need identified by the Brookhaven report and by the ACRS. However, I approve of the alternative concept described in COMFB-85-8.

.~

v e

YES NO 3 /g /  ;

Entered on "AS" fE- 3--<-c./ Sv

/ / / / 5}fjNAjyRL

/ ., ./

• / ~ 7.<(- f 8 DAlt SECRETARIAT NOTE: PLEASE ALSO RESPOND TO AND/06 COMMENT ON OGC/0PE MEMORANDUM IF ONE HAS BEEN ISSUED ON TH1S PAPER.

NRC-SECY FORM DEC. 80 -

t

( / #o, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

! o

{- $ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20555

% ,,, g ** October 29, 1985 OF FICE OF THE COMMISSIONER 1

MEMORANDUM FOR: Tom Combs FROM: Spiros Droggiti

SUBJECT:

RELEASE OF DOCUMENTS Commissioner Asselstine requests that the attached documents be placed in the Public Document Room.

Attachments:

-As stated t-cc: Walt Magee Maria Lopez-Otin Ken Cohen John Montgomery OGC OPE EDO OCA

' h a

.%, - . . - , ~ -