ML20148T289
| ML20148T289 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/29/1988 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ACRS-T-1640, NUDOCS 8802030266 | |
| Download: ML20148T289 (121) | |
Text
.
oy, O i
\\,
0, O
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
..............................................................................=..
IN THE MATTER OP:
DOCKET NO:
GENERIC ITEMS MEETING O
LOCATION: WASHINGTON DC PAGES: 1 - 105 JANUARY 29, 1988 DATE:
el
=...................=........................
.................................==
- 6; k$
h {3 't.9 3 N k h f,h h
, I h' $ t i[u y a ip
- 9 *1 p. M..v 4
y d vica.
(v u,.' e 2
N v
b1
- y ' ;
)0 Sul!luilL"/0if0lil A00 bob @
Heritage Reporting Corporation Official Reporters I:20 L Street. N.W.
O o.c :aoas (2021 628 6 G802030266 880129 PDR ACRS T-1640 PDR E
=
n e
e l
_A-tn N
1 PUBLIC NOTICE BY THE 2
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR-REGULATORY COMMISSION'S 3
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 4
5 6
7 The contents of this stenographic transcript of the 8
proceedings of the United States Nuclear Regulatory 9
Commission's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS),
10 as reported herein, is an uncorrected record of the discuss' ions 11 recorded at the meeting held on the above date.
12 No member of the ACRS Staff and no participant at 13 this nesting accepts any responsibility for errors or 14 inaccuracies of statement or data contained in this transcript.
15 b
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
- 14 j
25 2
()
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
.y 1
1 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 3
-)
4 In the Matter of:
)
)
5 MEETING 0F THE SUBCOMMITTEE
.)'
ON THE GENERIC ISSUES
)
6
)
7 Friday,-
January 29, 1988 8
Room 1046 9
1717 H Street, N.W.'
Washington, D.C.
20555 j
10 The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, j
11 pursuant to notice, at 1:00 p.m.
4 12 BEFORE:
DR. CHESTER P.
SIESS
(?g 13 Professor Emeritus of Civil Engineering.
\\;)
University of Illinois 14 Urbana, Illinois 15 ACRS tjEMBERS PRESENT:
16 DR. FORREST J.
REMICK i
Associate Vice President for Research 17 and Professor of Nuclear Engineering The Pennsylvania State University 18 University Park, Pennsylvania 19 MR. CHARLES J.
WYLIE i
Retired Chief Engineer 20 Electrical Division Duke Power Company 21 Charlotte, North Carolina i
t 22 23 1
24 i
i 3
25 4
^
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)-628-4888
' ^
2 O
'1 MR. CARLYLE MICHELSON' Retired Principal Nuclear Engineer 2
Tennessee Valley Authority
^
Knoxville, Tennessee 3
and Retired Director, Office for Analysis and Evaluaton of Operational Data 4
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.,
5 MR. JESSE C.
EDERSOLE.
6 Retired Head Nuclear Engineer Division of Engineering Design 7
Tennessee Valley Authority Knoxville, Tennessee 8
MR. DAVID A. WARD 9
Research Manager on Special Assignment E.I.
du Pont-de Nemours & Company 10 Savannah River Laboratory Aitken, South Carolina 11 ACRS COGNIZANT STAFF MEMBER:
12 Sam Duraiswamy NRC STAFF PRE.SENTERS:
14 Themis Speis 15 Newton Anderson Robert Baer 16 17 18 i
19 l
20 21 22 23 24 r
25 O
i HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)-628-4888 L
.3 i.
I-l' 1
.I 'N__.D
.E. X__
2 Items Discussed Pan l'
3 Procedures being used by the staff in defining / modifying the scope 4
of generic. issues and USIs 4
1.
5 i.
j-6 7
i-8
-l l
9 10 i
)
11 i
j 12 1
i i
4
)
l 16 17
)
18 19 20 i
21 i.
22 23
,4 i
2s I
l l
l HERITAGE REPOATING CORPORATIO!! -- (2021628-4888 l
1
s 4
1 P_ R O C_'E'E D I N G-S_.
()
2 CHAIRMAN'SIESS:
The meeting will come to order.
3-This is a meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Generic Items.
4 I am Chester Siess,-Subcommittee Chairman., 'Other-5 members present are Jesse Ebersole, Dade'Moeller, David-Ward, 6
Charlie Wyle,.and Carl Michelson will be back in a few 7
minutes.
8 The purpose of the meeting is to talk with the NRC 9
staff about the procedures that are used to define and modify l
l 10 the scope of generic issues and unresolved safety issues, 11 USIs.
Forrest Remick just came in.
12 Sam Duraiswamy on my right is the cognizant ACRS i
g ()
13 staff member for the meeting.
The rules for participating 14 have been announced as part of the notice of the meeting 15 published in the Federal Register.
A transcript is being i
l l
l 16 kept, as you may have noted, and it will be available as I
17 stated in the Federal Register, and I will ask each speaker i
18 not at this table to first identify himself or herself, use i
l 19 the microphone when they speak.
I 20 We have received neither written comments nor l
21 requests for time to make oral statements from members of the l
22 public.
23 We have an agenda that poses some questions to the 24 staff, and the meeting will be essentially in two parts today.
25 I think we can be through with the staff in a couple of hours, l
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
5 1
'and if we have time left, we will' talk to, talk some about f( f 2
what kind of report we should make on this review of_ generic 3
issues and USIs-to the Commission, so that will be-the second-4 part of that, which is not on the agenda.
We will dismiss the 5
reporter and have some discussion about what we might do about 6
a report.
7 We have had, Sam has got a status report here, and 8
he also has--that will be more usefulifor the'latter part of 9
the meeting, and he will pass it out.
He has got a status 10 report prepared for the February meeting, and that reviews the 11 history of this Subcommittee's meetings with the staff over 12 the past few months, and the background for our_ review of
{}
13 generic issues, and we can use this as a basis for discussing 14 what we do next.
15 This--I guess we more or less thought we were i
16 through with our review of the process of identifying, l
17 prioritizing, resolving and implementing and so forth generic 18 issues, but something came up at the last Full Committee 19 meeting that brought out some concerns about the scope of the 20 issues, and how the scope is determined and how modifications 21 are made to it.
Specifically the last month's meeting we were 22 dealing with--what is it called, Sam?
23 MR. DURAISWAMY:
A-47.
24 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Safety implication of control 25 systems, and it was pointed out that the resolution dealt with HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
6 1
only a portion'of the issue and that somewhere in the process
_( )
2 from the time _it was originally defined until'it_was resol'ved, 3
the scope had been reduced, and because the scope had been 4
changed, the issue was defined as resolved when we didn't 5
think it had been.
6 Now the NUREG-1217, it was pretty clearly stated 7
that the scope had been changed, _and near the back of that 8
NUREG there was a very interesting statement by the staff' 9
that--I'm not sure I can find it--pointing out the problem of 10 defining scope.
Make it too large, you don't know what to do 11 about it.
If you make it too small--it is in five-one, the 12 conclusions.
Okay.
I thought it was a pretty clear-cut
[}
13 statement.
14 MR. DURAISWAMY:
Status report.
15 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Sam says he has in the status 16 report that statement.
17 One thing that concerned us was, it looked like the 18 scope of A-47 was modified as part of the resolution, which 19 didn't quite seem to be right.
You get a certain point, say I i
20 have resolved this, so I will now redefine the scope and say I 21 have resolved the issue.
That may be a caricature of what it 22 was, but that's essentially what it looks like.
I 23 How this is I suspect only the tip of the iceberg.
24 The more we look at USIs, the more we have problems with 25 scope.
A-17. called systems interactions, is obvious, an HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 I
7
~
l' obvious one.
The staff has pointed out a couple of times-()
2 orally that gee, systems interaction ~is everything and in fact 3
A-47 is a systems interaction.
Would you guys be more 4
comfortable coming up to the table?
5 A-47 is one of a subset of A-17, and there must be a.
i 6
lot of other subsets of A-17, and maybe that's the way to go 7
about systems interaction.
Don't ~try to solve the global 8
problem of systems interaction, but to take out this 9
interaction and work on it, this one and work on it, divide 10 the problem up or subdivide the problem, but as we look at the i
11 thing, it looks like some of-the generic issues and some of 12 the USIs that are complex are a conglomeration, a number of 1
{~}
things have come up like this and been lumped together, and 13 14 yesterday we had a meeting on DHR, decay heat removal, and 15 somebody pointed out that that's practically the severe 16 accident problem.
17 MR. SPEIS:
Eight percent.
18 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
You see, and yet it is listed as 19 one USI, and a significant contributor to core damage 20 probability in the DHR area is Station Blackout.
Station 21 Blackout is another USI, and if you solve DHR, resolve DHR j
22 before you resolve Station Blackout, you go one way, and if i
23 you do it the other way, you do it something else, and-the way t
24 the USIs have developed bottom up, we have ended up with this 25 thing up here, and now when you try to resolve them top down, i
}
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 b
8 1
it'doesn't make a whole~ lotLof sense, fs(,)
2 Now the process of identifying these things is_very 3
formal.
It is the bottom up process, and we don't quite know 4
what to do with it.
We have asked you to address here rather 5
specifically this question of scope.
I was told that at'one 6
time if you changed'the scope there was a' fairly formal 7
process.
8 Now what the Committee agreed on last month.about 9
A-47 was that we thought what you have resolved was fine.
It 10 just wasn't the whole problem.
Part of the problem you had 4
11 resolved.
You had come up with a good solution, and we didn't 12 have any objection to going out for public comment on that, 13 but we didn't want to sign off on A-47 because the scope had i
{}
14 been reduced and we wouldn't find out where the rest of it had-15 ended up.
That is the statement, some of this should be at 16 about 7 and some should be here and some should be there, but a
1 17 is there a formal process for transferring the residual to-18 somewhere else?
And this is the specific instance that 19 brought it up.
20 Just as a personal comment, it seems to me that if 21 we could set up our safety assurance questions as we heard 22 this morning like this, now we can carve out individual 23 questions out of that total and work on them at managable 24 levels, but do it in such away that we always know what we O
o 25 have solved and what we haven't solved.
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
\\
4 9
i.
l'
-Now we have got clumps over here.and clumps over i
t b ()
2 there and we move them, moving them back and_forth, so is 3
.there a better way of handling these things so that they can 4
be managable resolutions in some-logical fashion?-- I hate-to 5
use the word integrated bit I guess it is integrated.
We' talk 6
about integrating the implementation.
You know,'instead of a 7-serial implementation of these things where you fix this and 8
then next year you fix that, a serial. integrated 9
implementation, why couldn't there be a more integrated i
10 resolution?
1
}
11 The process is a long one.
Maybe'some:of the i
12 integration occurs at the resolution, at the implementation i
[}
level even though it wasn't done in the resolution process, 13 14 but you know, if it is five years between the tuo stages, it
{
15 is not going to go, so with that start, explicit questions we i
16 have are listed here, but first, additional comments?
s 17 MR. EBERSOLE:
I would like to just jump ahead a I
18 little bit.
I would like to make a 4:50 plane.
I have some 19 particular interest in A-47.
I would like to just make a few i
20 introductory remarks about how I look at that problem.
i i
21 I am going back into some dark history, and I am i
22 going to take up just the-implicationsoof control systems l
23 which is truly a subset of the system interactions.
24 I am going to talk about control systems now as they O-a 25 affect critical safety operations, and I hope-I haven't retold J
. )
i HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 J
a
'10 4
1-these yarns too often to too many b' fore.
e
()
2 Some 44 years ago,'I.had to'do with the old B-29 3
airplanes, and I saw and witnessed a fascinating evolution of l
4 the events whereupon an airplane crashed not as a cause of.a 5
failure of air dynamics or power or anything like that, but'it 6
was failure of a control system, and it was a system 7
interactive process.
I guess I cut my teeth on this business 8
at that time.
It amounted to the fact that the engine 9
vibrated the ship so much they had to put the voltage 10 regulators on the tail which are insulated with rubber lard 11 mounts.
They made the mistake in one, if not many of the old 12 plants, to assemble all six voltage reguletors on a column,
[}
13 aluminum table, which was then isolated from the ship frame 14 with rubber lard mounts.
The ground reference was secured by 15 pigtail, fastened by three Phillip head screws at each end.
16 All it took for the terminal events to happen was i
i 17 one screw to come out and the loss of reference voltage to 18 occur whereupon the voltage in the plant rose to 70 or 80 i
19 instead of 28 and a half and burned out everything that was 20 going which turned out to be the propulsive power, the flaps, i
21 the gear, the whole works, so the plant collapsed.
22 That was a control system interaction.
It was in 23 physical aspect to it.
That sort of keyed me into this single l
l 24 point failure as well to the control system aspects of 25 failure.
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
~
11 i
4 1
That was 44 years ago.
About~35 years ago, I
)
2 happened to be involved in some electrical work and I_think it 3
was me, I can't remember, I was told to fix some switch.
I am 4
not sure it was me, to control-the water level in a domestic 5
water tank.
So I did, with what I thought was a consistent 6
view of the importance of that water level, which was if the 7
water level' fell, the toilets wouldn't flush, you couldn't 8
drink from the upper floors. ~ Unbeknownst to me, a gentleman 9
named Bolio had permitted the use of a domestic water system 10 to open and close about 20-foot piston-driven needle valves 11 that controlled main condenser water flows.
This was a water 12 flow from ten units.
[}
One day some years later domestic water tank float 13 14 switch, true to the S40.00 cost, betrayed the domestic water i
15 level and the cascade shut down all ten units, threatened the 16 entire grid.
i 17 In later years, at the Browns Ferry nuclear plant we 1
18 noticed the aspect of extending the coincident circuitry, d
19 redundant, coincident circuitry, to protect against spurious 20 plant trips terminated the position valve and we needed the 5
l 21 power.
There were many switches out in the turbine generator 22 complex, drains, et cetera, vibration instruments, all of 23 which had no, not even a trace of conversation of coincident J
l 24 circuitry, and the failure, spurious failure of a single one i
25 of them would lead the plant into a nasty loss of its i
I l
1 HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 b
-12 1
primarily heat sink which was the condenser, as well as loss 1
)
2 of steam flow to its main feedwater pumps.
This was a 3
challenge to the safety system rather than direct system.
It 4
is,-indirectly affects challenge frequency.
5 In the particular case of the Westinghouse plant, 6
you will note that it always requires that you jump up and run 7
the aux feedwater pumps, and you may--in fact, if you lose i
8 condenser vacuum, you have lost your normal heat sink, so you 9
can find out in the turbine plant many single point sources of
'10 challenges to safety systems, 11 I am going to go out in the turbine piant, just pick 12 up a couple which I think should be obvious to spread this 13 matter of A-47 broader than it has been spread, I will take,
{}
14 just to go out to the perimeter.
I will take the matter of 15 the main generator excitation and speed control.
Those are i
16 control systems.
Every time the turbine dumps its main load, a
i 17 and in the newer plants, attempts to seize and hold house 18 load, there are two things that have some substantial 19 potential I think, and I don't think they have been 20 investigated.
One of them is it may not hold voltage 21 regulation.
I don't know of any process now that will limit i
22 excessive voltage from what is analogous to-the wire problem, 23 and remember you are now-coupled to critical station loads l
24 which ultimately hope to see the diesel if the generator would 25 fall out as it properly should.
i f
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
13 I
1 The other one is the ancient business of where we
()
2 had to consider the rupture of the turbine, last stage blades 3
particularly, throws big pieces around the plant and crashing 4
into critical apparatus.
That was put to bed sometime ago by 5
cooperation with I think mostly Westinghouse, who convinced.
6 the NRC that by appropriate testing, quality control on the 7
turbines, they could pretty well form a structure having 3
massive chunks of metal thrown into critical apparatus at 180
)
9 percent of rotor speed.
I have never been satisfied with that 10 decision, and I don't think the Japanese permit it today.
t 11 If now, though, you look back at that problem, and 12 realize that in the carrying of house loads we not only have
[}
13 this voltage I mentioned earlier, if we run away while still 14 connected to the station grid, we have essentially unloaded 15 the turbine, and so it is running away with part throttle or 16 more than that, and 5 to 10 percent load it will carry with it l
17 all of the AC connected parallel equipment that goes along i
18 with it and tear such equipment up before it can ever slow 19 down and be picked up by the diesels.
(
1 20 I only mention these things to say to me the A-47 l
21 scope means that you should go out not just at the back end by l
i 22 looking at reactive parameters directly, like level.
You i
i i
23 should go out and look at the service systems, and if you can 4
24 find it practical to go around and list ever control system f
I 25 there is, and erace it if it doesn't have some potential for HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (232)628-4888
14 1
af f ecting a parameterithat: can ultimately lead by cascade to
-()
2 the parameters of interest here and the primarily system, but 3
you have to go out and look at the whole field, not just pick 4
as you do a large LOCA which I think is characteristic of.the
~
5 way we do business, pick the few that look wonderful and 6
interesting and promising--I think you have got to go back and 7
just methodically pick them all up, I don't see that's too 8
broad scope to entertain.
9 That's all.
10 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Thank you, Jesse.
Before going on 11 to the ner.t one, let me say something to'the staff.
12 In the NUREG, Section 22, there was a very clear 13 statement of limitations of the study, and I was going to ask
{}
14 you to tell us where those things that were eliminated by 15 those eliminations are being attacked, and then what' controls 16 you have within the staff for seeing that things that were 17 removed from beyond scope by limitation are appropriately 18 addressed somewhere else.
19 In addition to those limitations, which narrow the 20 icope, I think Jesse has given you a class of interactions 21 that may not have been consciously eliminated by those 22 limitations, and they want to address those that is even 23 within the scope you define for yourself.
There are some you 24 may want to--control system interactions concern.
I don't 25 know whether Carl has any more.
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
l 15 1
MR. MICHELSON:
No, I don't have any additional
().
2 comments.
I would like to hear what the staff has to day.
3 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Dave?
4 DR. MOELLER:
No.
5 MR. WARD:
Just briefly.
I guess I would like to l
6 see a philosophy or strategy for dealing.with USIs and GIAs 7
developed by the staff that would be something along the 8
following lines -- where each, each issue would be rather 9
fairly narrowly and quite explicitly defined, and that would 10 have to recognize that there may not be good integration 11 between that narrowly-defined issue and adjacent, what I call 12 adjacent issues.
{}
13 Also recognize that there might, for some time would 14 be gaps because of the narrow definition.
It seems to me 15 where the integration might come in, I recognize being
(
16 ongoing, because inevitably new issues are going to be 17 introduced, but I would like to see the licensees have an 18 opportunity--through an explicit staff program providing for 19 this process, the licensees would have an opportunity to 20 integrate their responses to generic issue requirements, and I 21 think what that would mean is--I am not sure I am using the 22 term of resolution and implementation correctly or as the 23 staff uses it, but I see resolution of an issue, that is when 24 the staff is finished its work and laid out new requirements 25 or whatever for the licensees to follow.
Implementation is HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 L_
7, y..
7-d '.
t 1,6.
/
t
.' i i
- ~
1
-when the licensee gets something done in the plant,.but'it
,,g) 2 seems to me if~the staff would lay out' ins, resolutions. and 9j 3
then permit some significant period of'tCme for. compliance
- p. -
4 with those impleraentation, those resolutio'nd 49^that licensees 5
could gather up two or more. groups of generic issue-y 6
resolutions, and provide integrated solutions to-those, it S
7 seems to me that concern--well, and I^think another feature 4s 6
the staff'would have to have a policy, informal policy for.
9 permitting time for such implementation of programming.
10 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Would ISAP 2 do that?
11 MR. WARD:
It seems to me--I haven't really read 12 this.
13 CHAIRtfAN SIESS:
I have 14 MR. WARD:
I hope it does.
15 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Allows for integrated solutions.
I 16 am not sure to what extent in allows for time, but the whole 17 process takes time.
18 MR. MICHELSON:
What is ISAP 2?
19 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
You haven't seen it-yet?
20 MR. WARD:
We just got it.
21 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Generic letter, somewhat different 22 from anything we have seen.
23 MR. MICHELSON:
Different than IEA?
IPE, different i
gg 24 than that?
()
25 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
No.
It has nothing to do with IPE.
HERITAGB. REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202-)628-4888 w-
35 m
ib ;i:V 2,'
'17 O[.
i[M
~1 A t' least it has something toido with it.
7
' (-e
(,).
2 MR. WARD:
I think I--just one other brief point.
I e
3
.think furthermore in the staff's policy, and maybe ~ this is it,
,s e?e
?.
4 I would like to see the staff, you know, explicitly say under v.
5 this policy they will-' credit, credit risk arguments, 6
probabalistic arguments.
y 4
'7 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
That again is part of ISAP.
PRA p
8 plays a significant role.
Incidentally, when you' talked'about 9
the clearly-defined scopes, and there might be gaps, I think 10 it is important that there be some kind of a structure so we t
/
11 know where the gaps are.
I' don't mind having gaps if I know
- y 12 they are there and somebody can at-least assess the possible 13 significance and see some day they get worked on if they.are 14 important.
15 Charlie?
16 MR. WYLIE:
Nothing.
17 DR. REMICK:
No comment.
y 18 DR. MOELLER:
Chet, I guess when you went passed me, I1 -
19 I--
20 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
We will come back to you.
21 DR. MOELLER:
I subsequently looked at my notes, and l
l 22 I really couldn't understand, I'm not sure I fully understood l
23 the Subcommittee's quote, complaint, unquote on, or 24 Committee's complaint, unquote.
I looked at the scope of--the l
s
,/25 examples given in NUREG 1217 and I thought some appeared to be t
j da.'
- v. -
}
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION --- (202)628-4888 L d!c L: ~
l
18 1
narrowed and_some appeared to be broadened.
().
2 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Yes, but'if you look back at.the 3
original scope of A-47, which they have ended'up with,_it is 4
much narrower.
5 DR. MOELLER:
Yes.
6 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Than they started out with, and one 7
of our concerns is how do you, what is the process for l
8 changing the scope?
And vhen it says this might be better-
)
9 addressed under A-17, what is the process to see that it gets 10 properly added into A-17 which is where you put everything 11-now, but I think you unders*.and our concern.
f I
12 MR. SPEIS:
Well, I thought in the beginning--
(}
13 MR. MICHELSON:
You have heard too much already!
14 MR. MINNERS:
We are going to put everything_in 15 A-17.
That's the answer!
16 MR. MICHELSON:
Residuals is the problem.
17 MR. SPEIS:
I am ready to start.
18 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
I wonder if you had any questions 19 to ask us before you started?
l l
20 MR. SPEIS:
Well, I guess I have some vugraphs up l
l l
21 there and and I will start up there and then Newt here.will go 22 through some specific examples.
1 l
23 I heard the things that you gentlemen said going fg 24 around in circles, and we have been saying somewhat the same
(_)
(
25 things.
Our mind has been saying the same thing.
Some of l
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4886
'19
'1.
fthem say integrate, coordinate, you know, all these beautiful
)
2 things that you hea'r in Washington, you know, and.there are 3
merits to all these things.
4 On the other side, some other people.say, you know, a
5 let's make sure that we can pinpoint some areas that we can.
6 indeed see improvements where we can put our hands _around it-u 7
like Station Blackout.
Even though I am in total' agreement 8
with-the reliability of power source on site, off site, are an-9 integral part of decay heat: removal, and so'is.the diesel 10 generator reliability issue, B-56,-and so the issue of reactor 11 coolant pump seal integrity, same parcel, part--sometimes I 12 cannot; say those good phrases tb at you people have been
/
13 brought up with, you know.
14 MR. EBERSOLE:
Don't you get a feeling there is too 15 many things laced together?
16 MR. SPEIS:
But we have b,een extremely conscious of I
17 that the last few years and tried to you know, see the l
18 relationship, how they fit together, and project not only the 19 interrelationship but implementation.
l 20 Right now,,you know, at least my staff and myself 21 and many other people feel confident that you will have 22 intecrcted A-45, and A-44, and B-56, and B-23.
I am referring 23 to the decay heat removal and Station Blackout, and reactor 24 coolant pump seal and diesel generator.
25 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
May have done more'than we know I
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
20 1
about.
We haven't been looking at the whole picture, either,
-( )
2 you know.
We have been.taking..them one by one when you bring
~
3 them in.
4 MR. SPEIS:
On the other hand,.if you make 5
everything one issue, you know, like systems interaction
,?
6 includes everything, it is difficult to--I am just kind of 7
rumbling through.
I will try to give you.more coherent 8
p.*:esentation.
One of the difficulties we had with the systems 9
interaction, provide to you the detailed chronology, was that 10 it was an unbounded scope and it was in the eyes of the 11 beholder, you know.
12 One time before we changed the scope, it was
'83, I
{}
13 brought in my office about ten people and I'gave them a scope 14 and I told them come back two hours later and tell me what 15 mix, and I got ten different answers, and I think we discussedL 16 that with you.
I recall the issue of systems interaction 17 being an emotional one and one of the staff persons, you know, 18 raised different professional opinion.
We went to the 19 Commission.
We came to you people, and I am not:.so sure you 20 wrote a letter, presented, but we went around in circles on 21 that for about a year or so.
So it is, we have to keep 22 constantly struggling to find the perfect role, you know.
23 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
You know, systems inter [6tionHis 24 easy to say, but hard to define.
Take a narrow portion of it 25 like control systems, and even;that was a problem obviously.
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
21 1
MR. S9EIS:
That was a problem.
That's right.
()
2 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
But the part of it you a'ttacked, 3
you came up with a. good solution to it.
It looked like'one.
4 that wouldn't be too much affected by the things that-might be-5 done.
6 MR. SPEIS:
That's one' issue that we have some maybe-7 slight disagreement with you because I don't think we changed 8
the scope of that one, but we can have your views and we ca'1 9s go and give you some details.
10 CHAIRMAN SIETS:
All we can do is what we read.
11 MR. SPEIS:
Yes.
Now on that one, many times on 12 some of these issues we go through the proctis and all of a 13 sudden, you know, we lay on the table the elements of the 14 resolution, and a lot of, many people don't like'that, you 15 know.
The resolution doesn't involve this'particular' concern 16 or this particular prejudices.or like or whatever it is, you 17 know, and we have criteria.
We have cost / benefit.
We have 18 all kinds of things that we have to consider in going through l
19 the process, and many times we will, these things drop out.
20 Another time other things are added to the menu, and sometimes 21 the impression is given to many people that gee, you know, 22 those guys didn't come up with the requirement in this 23 particular area and the scope was changed. and well, again, 24 7-that would be argued, but--
\\/
25 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Excuse me.
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
22 l
'l MR. SPEIS:
Yes, sir.
/~N l
(,)
2 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Let me quote, perform systematic 3
review of control system failures, it became quickly evident 4
that. scope of the review had to be confined.
Confined means 5
different than changed.
6 MR. BAER:
We don't know what you are reading from.
~
7 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
NUREG 1217, evaluation of safety 8
implications.
9 MR. BAER:
Fine.
10 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
That's the first we knew this scope 11 had b'een confined and I think we have, may have misled you, 12 maybe even mislead ourselves.
That is a very poor choice of
(~T 13 words because I think that we did do a fairly. global study.
V 14 We did a lot of scenario development.
We did, and we did 15 itemize when we began this study all the control systems that 16 we felt had any potential for affecting the, what we consider 17 to be the events of concern.
18 MR. EBERSOLE:
It goes to main generator voltage 19 frequency and I can't tell you whether those systems were on 20 this list or not.
21 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
If you did those things--I am 22 getting into procedures, but if that's what you want to argue, 23 I would expect to find in this document all of the things you 24 did and that you eliminated and why you eliminated them, and ssl 25 if you went to the main generator voltage, I expect to find a HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 l
23 1
statement in here that you went and looked at that, and-ry (j.
2 decided that it wasn't a problem, such'and such a= reason.
And 3
I don't find that,.the disposition of all the items within'the 4
scope, except you know, in here.
5 MR. ANDERSON:.You are. correct.
They.are'not in 6
that NUREG.
That NUREG is a summary.
I.am going to' answer 7
that.
Okay.
I can tell you exactly where it is.
It is'in
~
8 about 15 different NUREGs CRs that were developed by the 9
contractors.
It is such a mass of information and we didn't 10 want to send you a 15 or 20 volume epistle that told you 11 everything little thing that we looked at.
12 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
No, but in a short paragraph say 13 that this was resolved in such and such a thing.
Are those 14 listed as references in here?
15 MR. ANDERSON:
Yes.
16 MR. SPEIS:
That still doesn't mean we addressed 17 every question that Jesse mentioned.
18 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
That's two separate things.
19 MR. ANDERSON:
Maybe I am getting more insight into 20 your problem.
See, I guess we assumed that by osmosis you 21 would understand everything that is in all the contractor 22 reports, and I admit this is cryptic and a lot of the 23 information isn't presented there and it is a summary.
24 There were four different plants done and they were 25 done by two different contractors and there is a great many HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -.(202)628-4888
24 1
reports, a stack this high of NUREG reports, presents all the
()x 2
detailed information.
3 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
You didn't write *.his for us I 4
guess, but what.we need to know is why we should say to the 5
Commission-that we agree with the staff that.USI-47 is 6
resolved.
7 MR. ANDERSON:
I understand.
8 MR. BAER:
May I comment on a somewhat different 9
approach that I have discussed with Jesse a little bit on the 10 phone and do hope to pursue?
11 We took an approach, as Newt indicated, where we 12 looked at primarily system parameters of importance and then
/"N 13 went back and looked at those control systems that we could V
14 see would have any effect on them.
15 Now Jesse, and Carl in particular, would very much 16 want us to have approached the problem a different way, look 17 at individual control systems and see what.they could affect.
18 I think the only way--we feel we have bcanded if not 19 all, almost all, of the concerns raised, but I think the only 20 way we can ever come to that conclusion consistently is for 21 the Committee, members of the Committee, Subcommittee, to sit 22 down, define three, four, a half a dozen of the scenarios in 23 enough detail that we understand them, and we would then try.
gm 24 and show how what we did bounded them.
O 25 Now we would have to go back in many cases to our HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
25 1
contractors, you-know, and especially can't do-it off the top (q
2 of our heads, especially when some of this is_done.four or j
3 five years ago.
4 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Have.you read the transcript.of the 5
last Subcommittee meeting at which Mr. Michelson I think 6
listed a half a dozen scenarios that you-hadn't covered?
7 MR. bAER:
Jesse and I have talked about a couple on 8
the phone and then we have tried to get back to Jesse on 9
understanding the details because we go to our electrical 10 people on these exciter ones and they start kicking off eight 11 or ten systems or components that would protect against it, 12 and if we are dealing with seven or eight failures, you know, 13 I know it is not going to pass any sort of cost / benefit g-~/)
u.
14 analysis, but there is something.
It is obvious Jesse is a 15 very intelligent man.
There is something in that, in there 16 that we are not understanding.
That's --
17 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Put down somewhere that is why you 18 eliminated that.
19 MR. EBERSOLE:
You haven't told me what protection 20 to overvoltage, excess frequency.
21 MR. BAER:
We have been told the generators have 22 beside the turbine speed.
23 MR. EBERSOLE:
But it ended up we have no problem 24 with these two matters.
,s V
25 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
It reads external events such as HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
26 1
earthquake event, flooding, fire and sabotage,.have not been
()
2 considered in this study.
3 Now how am I' supposed to interpret that?
Have not 4
been considered in this study.
And'this study now is the 5
resolution of A-47, not.the-resolution of steam generator-6 overfill or vessel overcooling.
7 MR. ANDERSON:
I understand.
8 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Fe may be talking language, but 9
that is really the only way we_ communicate.
10 MR. ANDERSON:
I think it is the, more of a-11 communication problem, and I don't think that it should say 12 that they weren't considering it.
What wa are intending to
{}
13 say is we don't consider that, we didn't consider it any 14 further, after we looked at it, and determined that it was 15 being handled someplace else or that we had decided that it 16 wasn't, wasn't in any paycff in it.
17 Now I don't believe that sabotage, for instance, was-18 ever defined in the scope of A-47.
We had never agreed that 19 we were going to work that.
20 With regard to external events, we have I think a 21 rational reason for not, not considering that in A-47.
We may 22 not have articulated it very well, but there is, certainly 23 wasn't any intent to just--
24 MR. MICHELSON:
Are you going to tell us what that 25 reason is for external events in general?
What is the reason HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION ---(202)628-4888
. =.
'.2 7 1
why you don't?
()
2 HR. ANDERSON:
Well, there is a--
3 MR. MICHELSON:
It wasn't articulated.
You are 4
quite right.
5 MR. EBERSOLE:
Let-me.ask are we talking about A-47 6
or'are we talking about--
7 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Right now we are talking A-47, 8
MR. EBERSOLE:
A-47 I tried to avoid --
9 MR. MICHELSON:
We are trying to go through the 10 logic now.
11 MR. EBERSOLE:
Has the flavor of A-47--I was trying 12 to just stick to on any good day some damn control system went 13 crazy and pressure rose up.
14 MR. MICHELSON:
We are trying to ratchet through the 15 problem to understand.
16 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
We are tying to do two things.
We 17 have a concern in the Committee about what to do with the t'
18 resolution.
Tell the Commission about resolution of A-47, and 19 we are trying to address the procedural thing, you know, and I 20 hate to use the term. paper trail, but you know where this was 21 handled and that was handled, but if you operate then on the 22 QA system like a licensee, you'have been, you would have been 23 dead.
24 MR. ANDERSON:
We would have had a lot of paper; O
25 might not have done anything.
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
28 i
.1 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
'Is it in your memory-or is it O
(,j 2
somewhere on paper?
If somebody raises-this. issue again three 3
years from now,.how do we decide'that you properly eliminated a,
4 earthquakes?
o 5
MR. MICHELSON:
Let's use fire specifically since i
6 you indicated a reason in here why you didn't' include fire, j
7 MR. ANDERSON:
There are several categories of that 8
information.
A lot of-it may never come to light again.
It-9 is buried in contractor's reports.
Unless somebody wants.to 10 dig through them, it is not really going to come-light.
Now 11 with regard to some of them, we made.the judgment that they-12 were, either didn't bear further looking at or they were being
(}
13 handled in other programs, or--
14 MR. MICHELSON:
That's the problem.
You said, for 15 instance, fire was handled under Appendix R; fire in 16 non-safety areas whereas was not handled under Appendix R, so 17 I don't know what a fire in a non-safety area will do in terms 18 of control systems interacting with safety systems because you 19 haven't looked at it and you did not look at it under Appendix 20 R.
You did not specifically look at that.
21 MR. EBERSOLE:
Let me help out.
22 MR. SPEIS:
I want to answer one at a time.
On the 23 other hand, you know, you just, the way you are describing the 24 problem, going about ten years all together, but in A-47, 25 areas that are not familiar, we looked at many scenarios in HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
~-___,_... _ _
29 1
the mechanistic sense to see, you know, what type of bounds or
'( )
2 numbers we could get as far as their implication on the safety.
- 3 systems, and again it was.our judgment, you.know, coming-4 off--the individual scenarios were faulted into that, those 5
bounds calculations.
6 MR. MICHELSON:
Keep in mind your scenario approach 7
essentially works with one failure at a time.
Fire is a 8
common mode' failure cause, and it results in a number of
~
9 things happening to safety' systems or non-safety systems.
You 10 looked at it oh, reasonably closely for Appendix R in the 11 safety system area.
You didn't look at it at all in the 12 non-safety system area, including such things as the air 13 compressors and things and so forth.
In the non-safety area, 14 you just didn't look at it.
15 MR. ANDERSON:
With regard to common mode failure 16 problem, we did assume multiple failures and selected multiple 17 failures and we looked at them from two standpoints--which 18 ones were the most likely from common cause effect and which 19 ones in A-47 4
20 MR. MICHELSON:
You said you looked at some.
You 21 didn't tell me how many.
j 22 MR. ANDERSON:
I'm sorry.
.Then that was cryptic.
23 Well, that's true, we did, but we looked at them-inta very 24 systematic way and the objective was to, was to bound the O
25 common cause failures both from the standpoint of what would j
i i
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
30 1
be the most serious in terms of plant safety and what was_the i~
(_)
2 most likely with regard to equipment locations and types.
3 MR. MICHELSON:
I think, although you will have to-4 correct me because I am probably wrong, I think you looked a't 5
such thing as loss of power supply emi how many things that 6
got.
You didn't look at it in terms of a fire in a given area 7
and how many things that might have gotten which'might have 8
been, included both power and air and a number of other 9
devices, not alone relating to feedwater, but perhaps relating 10 to building ventilation or air-conditioning, or a number of 11 other factors.
12 This is, I would like to see those studies if you
(~')
13 have done them, so I think what we are saying is have you
(/
14 really included the external events?
And I think the answer 15 is no, you explicitly excluded them.
And you gave some 16 reasons which I think were less than acceptable such as 17 Appendix R is good enough.
Appendix R isn't good enough for 18 the non-safety areas.
It wasn't even included.
i 19 MR. ANDERSON:
Appendix R works part of the problem.
20 I will accept that.
I don't think that we did put probably 21 enough information with regard to what our contractors did in 22 those areas.
l 23 MR. MICHELSON:
At least your justification 1.'
not j
f-24 very solid for excluding external events.
(_g/
25 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
As I said, your objective, once you 1
i HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
31' i
saw this thing, presumably is to convince us that you. solved (J-2 this so we can.tell the Commission we think it is solved.
3 That is.what they have asked us to do.
Now when you--
4 MR. SPEIS: -That is part of it.
Also along the way 5
here you are using the approach and --
6 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
That's not required.
That you get.
7 as an extra.
8 MR. SPEIS:
I see.
9 MR. BAER:
Free!
10 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
You have been working on it for ten 11 years and you have gone through a lot, and reached some 12 conclusions, and we have our Subcommittee meeting and it seems 13 to me that you are not going to take the Subcommittee through
('}
'v 14 every one of those contracts, but as the members question you 15 what did you do about this and what did you do about that, to 16 select a couple of instances of that to affirm to the 17 contractor I take it and convince them that you did look at 18 it, you know, and convince us, the Subcommittee, that you have 19 done the whole thing, and then it is a big help--we don't see 20 something where it says we do recommend this to take care of 21 steam generator overfill, this to take care of reactor vessel 22 overcooling, and that's the resolution of A-47.
23 MR. ANDERSON:
There was so much material to present 24 that we had a couple of choices.
I suspect we could have O
25 taken a couple of examples, walked through and shown the logic HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)G28-4888
.a 32' r.
1 and-how we got-there and the procedures we went through, but I) 2 we chose to take the'other approach, which may have been.a 3
mistake, which was-to try to walk you-through the process we 4
.used to show completeness, and didn't really hit on a number 5
of individual areas..
'6 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
I wasn't there.
I don't know what 7
happened.
8 MR. MICHFLSON:
I will be'.very surprised-if your 9
contractor walked through fire potential in non-safety areas, 10 and its effects on control systems that can interact with 11 safety systems.
I would be extremely surprised if.you did it.
12 Correct me if I--I am just telling it the way I read it.
13 MR. ANDERSON:
I can't speak in how'much detail it
(}
14 was done, but I do know it was in consideration.
It may have 15 been put to bed or--I am just not sure exactly how that, how 16 that was done.
17 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
There has been'a lack of 18 communication because according to what I read, you went 19 before CRGR and said that the ACRS wanted to increase the 20 scope of A-47, and you didn't want to.
21 MR. BAER:
No.
Since Newt and I made the 22 presentation, what we said was we had told the ACRS that we 23 had covered the full scope, but based on my conversations with 1
24 Jesse Ebersole--and we did feel we covered the full scope.
I (E) 25 did say that and we said that to-ACRS, but based on the i
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
33 1
conversations I have had with Jesse subsequent, he called me
/~\\
(_)
2 subsequent to the ACRS Full Committee meeting, that the 3
specific requirement.s that we wanted to impose, the Committee 4
didn't have a problem of that.
5 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
You were misquoted in the CRGR 6
minutes?
7 MR. ANDERSON:
We haven't seen them.
8 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
We have, see them for some reason 9
when you don't I guess, but they said that, they quoted _you 10 saying +.he ACRS wanted to increase the scope and you'were 11 going to stick to your scope.
12 MR. ANDERSON:
I don't remember that.
{}
13 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
If the ACRS does want to increase 14 the scope, maybe the ACRS thought that you had decreased _the 15 scope.
See, there is a lack of communication, but you can see 16 the problem.
17 MR. EBERSOLE:
Let me try to simplify.
18 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
If you can simplify this, go ahead!
19 MR. EBERSOLE:
I hate to ask anything, anybody to do d
20 anything I don't think I could do myself, alchough I do it all l
21 the time, but in this particular matter, I want to, I tried to i
22 write something in the--I thought I would go at this.
You can 23 go look for yourselves, but it took up the direct connective, 24 and space connected flow of influence as I call it, but let me
%)
25 go down to the control systems.
There are in these plants a HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- ~(202)628-4888
34 1
whole bunch of parameters which have to do efith safety.
I
()
2 think I could list them.
And in general, there are 3
certainly--
4 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
I have got to figure'out where'we 5
are going first.
6 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
I don't want to go into the--
7 MR. EBERSOLE:
Go into control systems; this-is a 8
broad, general topic.
d 1
9 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
I know.
We are not trying to solve l
10 the topic.
We are talking about--
l 11 MR. MICHELSON:
Procedure.
12 MR. EBERSOLE:
It is procedure.
This is procedure.
/~T 13 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
It is not procedure.
V 14 MR. EBERSOLE:
How do you go at.this?
15 CHAIRMAN SIESS: _ Don't want to know how they go at 16 solving A-47.
17 MR. EBERSOLE:
I am going to tell them.
18 DR. SIESS:
This is not the time to do.it.
We have 19 to have a Subcommittee meeting on A-47 to clear this up.
20 MR. MICHELSON:
Let me ask a procedure question.
21 MR. EBERSOLE:
It is just not so wicked I think I am 22 trying to say.
23 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
What it is going to take--one 24 issue, of course, is what does it take to convince the ACRS A
25 that A-47 is resolved?
And I would like to decide today, find HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
35-1 out today what it is going to take and then the appropriate
( )'
2 Subcommittee, which is not this.one as I recall--which one was
~
3 it?
4 MR. MICHELSON:
Jesse's.
5 MR. EBERSOLE:
Instrumentation control.
6 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Find out today what is necessary to-7 resolve this and you have a meeting on it.
The next step is 8
to find out what we can do to avoid these kinds of things 1.n 9
the future.
10 MR. EBERSOLE:
This is procedures, how they are 11 going to go in and pick the residuals.
12 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
No.
What it takes to convince the 13 ACRS that they have solved, resolved A-47, or if we do not 14 think they have resolved A-47, what it takes to convince them 15 that they have not resolved A-47.
16 MR. EBERSOLE:
I was right on track with what you 17 were going to say and you interrupted me.
18 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
I don't want to do it now, Jesse.
19 I want to know what it takes.
Do you have a Subcommittee 20 meeting?
21 MR. EBERSOLE:
Sure.
Yes.
We can do that.
22 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Can you learn from that 23 Subcommittee meeting how to do it?
24 MR. EBERSOLE:
Why go away trom here without at j
25 least some kind of idea of what I expect?
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
.36-1 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Go ahead.and.try it.
()
2 MR. EBERSOLE:
Just where I was when I started when 3
I got interrupted.
4 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
They will~come back'and say'we have 5
done all that.
6 MR. EBERSOLE:
I don't.think they will.
7 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Have you read the twelve volumes?
8 MR. EBERSOLE:
No.
9 CHAIRHAN SIESS:
They say a lot of things.
10 MR.- EBERSOLE:
Maybe I should defer this until I get 11 an abstract of what they have done.
12 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
That's what I think is the problem.
13 They say they have done a lot of these things.
14 MR. EBERSOLE:
It may well be, Chet.
15 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
They just haven't told us about 16 them or told you about them.
17 MR. ANDERSON:
We did look through scenario 18 development, and looked at all the, what was considered by 19 other contractors to be credible scenarios, and I can't
.i 20 guarantee that we included the scenarios you are talking l
21 about.
22 MR. EBERSOLE:
It was just samples.
23 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
So_but now this is a generic type 24 of issue.
25 MR. EBERSOLE:
Let me make a general observation.
i
.l HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 l
37 1
You didn't include parameters which indirectly--these are
()
2 parameters of service systems I will say, which indirectly 3
cascade to event effects on the systems that you did look at.
4 MR. ANDERSON:
The procedures used call for going 5
clear back to the support systems and the support systems for 6
the support systems.
When you come, came to a situation where 7
it took multiple independen* failures, then we scrapped that 8
scenario.
9 MR. EBERSOLE:
I would agree with you.
10 MR. MICHELSON:
Could I ask a procedural question?
11 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Yes.
12 MR. MICHELSON:
When we read the scopes, oftentimes
T 13 (J
they make no mention say of external events.
They don't, 14 remain silent.
This scope I think remains silent on this.
15 Now the procedural question in my mind is when you 16 remain silent on things like earthquake, fire, and so forth, 17 knowing that they are part of the GDC, of course, or-they are 18 covered by the GDC, is it automatically to be inferred that i
19 they are really a part of your scope, or do they have to be 20 explicitly stated?
21 MR. ANDERSON:
No.
The way--
22 MR. MICHELLON:
That would be an interesting --
23 HR. ANDERSON:
We have an obligation to prepare a 24 task action plan that sometimes are not as specific as they m
25 could be, but it tells what part of-the problem or what the HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 L
~
38 1
problem is that we are going-to work'on, ontlines the tasks
()
2 and what our approach will be to it.
3 It doesn't.say all the things.that we are not. going' 4
to do.
And new that goes through extensive peer review and in 5
the case of USIs, it is reviewed by the ACRS,.and then we 6
have, we have an obligation to work to that task ~ action plan 7
unless we formally make a change to'it.
8 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
How do you form --
9 MR. MICHELSON:
I am trying to pursue my question.
10 I didn't get an answer.
In pursuing that question further 11 then, I guess you are saying that external events were not to-12 be included in A-47?
{}
13 MR. ANDERSON:
They weren't explicitly called out in 14 the task action plan.
15 MR. MICHELSON:
They were explicitly excluded in the 16 wording of your final NUREG?
They will not be considered in 17 this study.
18 MR. ANDERSON:
That is correct.
19 MR. MICHELSON:
So I can't take issue with you not 20 covering the scope because we never included it.
I guess we 21 should have read these scopes years ago a little differently 22 and realized that it is not explicitly included, it is 23 excluded.
24 MR. ANDERSON:
Well, it is not always possible to, 25 it is not always possible to be that explicit, you know, and l
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 l
39 1
it was, we certainly don't want to throw something out if it
()
2 that appears to be significant-for this work that we are 3
doing.
4 MR. MICHELSON:
I guess wha't we now have to do if we 5
think that external events should have been included, we'have 6
to create a new generic issue that says we rework the old 7
generic issue with external events?. Is that the procedure?
8 And if it is decided that it is important that that be a part 9
of it, we have got two choices, really only one, and that's 10 work as a separate issue or someplace else, because if we 11 really find the work, the scope of A-47, for instance, at this 12 time, you know, we are going back and starting over and we 13 will come back in two or three more years.
(~)%
u 14 In that respect, of course, you, we realize that you 15 hadn't included it.
I thought intuitively that it was 16 included.
I thought external events were a part of the 17 problem.
That's oftentimes the major source of the problem on 18 control system interaction, or safety system action, and I, I
19 didn't--and I bet you if I read A-17 there is no mantion of 20 external events there, either.
21 MR. ANDERSON:
Yes, there is.
22 MR. SPEIS:
It is not included.
23 MR. ANDERSON:
Yes, it is included in A-17.
24 MR. MICHELSON:
I just didn't think that, I am just 3
25 understanding today how you are reall-; doing the business.
I HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 1
_a
40 1
would have to go back and look at otner scopes the same way.
7-)
(,j 2
CHAIRMAN SIESS:
When.you'say look'at the scopes,.
~
3 what are you looking at?
4 MR. MICHELSON:
The'old aqua book.
5 MR. BAER:.There was a NUREG witn all the scopes 6
published.
7 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
The thing you want to look at is 8
the task action plan.
9 MR. MICHELSON:
I am just trying to understand the 10 process and know what happened.
11 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Don't trust that.
12 MR. MICHELSON:
I realize that, Chet.
But is, are
{}
13 er.ternal events a part of A-17 specifically?
14 MR. ANDERSON:
Not all of it.
15 MR. SPEIS:
Some parts.
16 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Seismic is or seismic interaction.
17 MR. MICHELSON:
Do you know from reading or do you 18 have to know from your head?
19 MR. ANDERSON:
Both.
20 MR. MICHELSON:
What does the charter say?
21 MR. SPEIS:
It is -interesting -that you bring up A-17 22 because that is the one that it took us a year to redefine 23 based on unbounded thinking, and we came to you twice and in 24 fact you people requested personally that Dirk since he is C4 25 bigger present it.
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
41 1
MR. MICHELSON:
-We' haven't heard on'A-17.
()
2 MR. SPEIS:
Vick'Stello to define the new scope; 3
every time we made a presentation with this specific vugraph 4
it said what it includes, what it doesn't.
You can go back to~
5 all the ACRS meetings--I think Jesse remembers this', and some 6
of you liked it, seine of you. didn' t like it, but you never 7
told us explicitly, you know, because here we tried to tell 8
you it includes these things, it doesn't include some other-9 things, and that--
10 MR. ANDERSON:
We were trying to get everybody to 11 understand.
12 MR. SPEIS:
It is in your package.
C_)')
13 MR. ANDERSON:
But part--seismic systems interaction 14 is under A-17, but the seismic design and the adequacy of 15 seismic designs per se is not.
16 MR. MICHELSON:
I am'just trying to learn what--now 17 that I have learned, I have fallen into one pitfall and that 18 is don't assume you are meeting the GDC for examinations 19 because you may not be in the process of the examination.
20 MR. MINNERS:
GDC generic issues have almost nothing 21 to do with each other.
22 MR. MICHELSON:
I realize that, but I have just, 23 what do you, you know, what do you intuitively assume that f-24 they do?
You don't want to write a ten-page report.
V 25 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
You should read the task action HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
42' z
r 1
plan.
That's the lesson we are getting.
Don't. assume you (j
2
-know from a title what is being done.
We are supposed to look 3
at task action plans I think'way'back, and one of the! concerns 4
today is that some people thought that the scope as approved 5
at one time ~had been changed.
Now I think you will admit that-6 this document doesn't really make a strong attempt ~ to convince 7
us that everything was done and the things that were 8
eliminated were eliminated for gooo reason, not because you 9
changed the scope.
10 Now one of the problems in this business is when you 11 get into a scenario-related approach as you.have mentioned, 12 you have got sitting on my right over here the way I am
/'N 13 facing, two guys that are geniuses at developing scenarios, U
14 and they are credible scenarios.
They may in scme cases be 15 extremely low probability-scenarios that you can eliminate, 16 but that's the object of the game, and there has got to be 17 some way you can that advantage of those abilities before we 18 get down to the bottom line.
19 MR. MICHELSON:
Well, I think we understand what the 20 scope is, of course, and I didn't, I didn't know that you 21 didn't include external events from looking at things like 22 control system interaction.
My gosh, you know, that's, 23 interaction is usually the most severe in an, external event.
24 Internal events have been well thought through, failure modes 25 effect analyses and so forth.
I have never raised the issue HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
43 1
what you are doing internally.
I have raised the issue
<s(,)
2 whether you are doing it on external. events, and this is the 3
first time you have told me, you know, it was never intended 4
to be in the scope to begin with.
I didn't realize that.
5 MR. ANDERSON:
I went back through the task action 6
plans for A-47.
The various publications in the task action 7
plan, it was initial,1y developed in 1977, and it was the first 8
report to Congress on USIs, and in January
'78, and there have 9
been several updates.
Most of these, I won't call them 10 changes or update, most of the reasons, t$ae we update one.
11 unless there is some technical reason to change the scope, 12 which never gas been here, it is just to change resource 13 requirements, and schedules, and you know, just administrative 14 things.
The task action plan reads almost identically today 4
15 as it did when it was first developed in 1977.
And that--
16 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
The original one said something 17 about all other interactions.
18 MR. MICHELSON:
No.
19 MR. SPEIS:
A-17; yes.
We changed that.
20 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Forty-seven I am talking about.
21 MR. ANDERSON:
All the task action plans were 22 published in NUREG 0649.
23 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
All other control system failures 24 that have safety implications--item 3 in the technical 25 assistance contract, and I haven't got the task action plan, HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 b
1 44,-
1 but you contracted with somebody.to evaluar-the proposed" l
(*)
1 system facility leading to steam generator reactor overfill
(
3 leading to reactor overcooling.
All other control system.
,q i
4 failures would have safety implicatiensi andthentheeqfect
./
~~
5 of loss'of power.
r 6
Now that all other may not have beeg employed,~ but 7
it is part of the contract.
8 MR. ANDERSON:
It was part of the contraccor'~s;,
9 scope.
We asked them for the world.
10 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Somebody would like to see-what all 11 others were and how were they disposed of.
12 MR. ANDERSON:
That is in the scope.
~'N 13 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
You see, Mr. Ward said earlier that (J
14 he thinks tnat each of the issues ought to have a clearly 15 defined scope.
I don't think you said narrowly.- did you, 16 Dave?
17 MR. WARD:
Yes.
18 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Narrow, if you did that, the things 19 you came up with as the fixes here in A-47 would be one 20 sub-item and that would be a scope and that would be the 21 resolution.
Something else that was disposed of in contract 22 would be a sub-item and it was disposed of ty finding it no 23 never mind, and so forth, but by lumping the whole thing 24 together, the problem of communication of the resolution of 25 what you did becomes difficult.
HER!TAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 j
.J
~45~
g
..,m
.1 MR. SPEIS:
We are all smarter.
You know, this'is,
+
n( )
~
2 we put those things down seven years ago, ten years:ago.-
3-MR. MICHELSON:
What do we do with the residual, the 4
things we have learned'since then that we should have done?
5 Are they a new issue, external _ events?
6 MR. SPEIS:
We have a process in place.
It is
, c 7
called--every issue that has been identified by Research or 8
LERs or by personal experience or people'like-you;on the 9
Committee, or by foreign experience, we have a branch in NRC 10 now who takes all these issues, and with the help of the 11 people who identify those issues, try to define them, and see 12 maybe they were handled before because once you come up with
("T 13 the definition, you know, it clears the way for us to tell us wJ 14 if something was done previously or whatever, and then once we 15 do that, then we go through the system.
We try to prioritize 16 it.
We prioritize it, and in fact the interaction that takes 17 place between us and you pecple, you review every single issue 18 that goes through our priortization scheme basically.
19 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Yes, but that is priortization 20 stage.
I don't know that we have given it much attention.
If 21 we did, I don't know whether we get through it, you know.
We 22 would have to be meeting with you guys.
23 MR. SPEIS:
Let me proceed right now because I am on i
24 the, one of the vuoraphs discusses the process we go through fs
(_/
a 25 on generic issues.
The process that we go through regarding HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
46 f
1 the generic issues and USIs, it is a bit-different.
You guys n
(_j 2
get involved with every step of the way on USIs.
We do send 3
you the task action plan in USIs, but not on ge:
.ic issues, 4
okay?
The only interaction that you people have with us on 5
generic issues is you review every issue that is prioritized.
6 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Why are we making that distinctior./'
7 MR. SPEIS:
I guess--this is why I brought you here I
8 Do you know the history of that?
9 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
While we are on the subject, memo 10 from Bechtel to a number of people, including Fraley, December 11 3rd, 1987, Research Office letter No.
1, procedure for l
12 identification, prioritization and tracking.
13 MR. SPEIS:
We have revised that procedure.
(}
14 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
We are not on it.
15 MR. SPEIS:
You are not on distribution?
16 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
We are not on the list of steps.
17 MR. SPEIS:
Oh.
18 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
And Sam and I looked back at the 19 MOU.
20 MR SPEIS:
You are, okay.
That must be --
21 MR. MINNERS:
You shouldn't be on the list of steps 22 because--
23 MR. SPEIS:
We send them every issue we prioritize.
24 MR. MINNERS:
We send everybody every issue we 25 prioritize.
Your view, your review--
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (2G2)628-4888
i j
47 1
1 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
We give you a comment.
1
~3
(_)
2 MR. MINNERS'.
After the issue is prioritized; you 3
shouldn't be on the process.
The last step in the process is 4
prioritize the issue and send it out to everybody, including 5
the ACRS.
6 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
This starts with information 7.
requested from division, ends in Federal Register notice of 8
the SRP.
Somewhere we ought to be on that li l t.
9 MR. SPEIS:
You should have been here.
Let me 10 stress again, I don't think there is any issue that with we 11 prioritized in the last seven years that we haven't sent to 12 you.
13 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
And you have, you also now have us 14 on the list for the resolution of generic issues.
15 MR. SPEIS:
We send you six copies every quarter, 16 send them the GMICS --
17 MR. DURAISWAMY:
I have got copies of those.
18 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
MOU was ACRS participation in the 19 development of HRC rules, policy matters, and safety-related 20 guidance and rules and policy, were clear copies.
That's one 21 category, and the other category was called safety-related 22 guidance.
For example, regulatory guides extended the review 23 plans, including branch technical positions.
24 How we really think that USIs and GIs ought to be 25 included in that category of safety-related guidance, more RSRITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 I
48 1
important than reg guides and less important than rules,~but-()
2 at the time this MOU was entered-into in85, we weren't doing 3
anything formally on either one of them.
4 MR. SPEIS:
On generic issues, we normally look upon 5
you to tell us.which ones:you want to get involved, but at the 6
same time, we knew that many times because of our knowledge of 7
your interest, we come to you on important issues,.high 8
priority, all ofLthem. lon USIs, we come, but on generic 9
issues, we look upon you and also we take the initiative on 10 some of them, but it is not a, all of them, period.
11 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
The MOU which was developed at that 12 time particularly for rules and things, was a two-pronged 13 thing.
The staff was supposed to notify us when they were 14 getting involved in a proposed safety-related matter, but more 15 important, we were to tell the staff when we wanted to be in 16 the process so that you could factor that two, three months 17 into your schedule, and if you look'at this sometime--
18 MR. SPEIS:
It is consistent with what I just said.
19 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
I think it might be extended to--
20 MR, SPEIS:
Let me understand what you are saying.
21 You are suggesting we change these and you want to be involved 22 with every generic issue from now on the same way that you are 23 involved on every USI?
Is that what you are telling me?
24 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
We would like to have it included 25 under the Memorandum of Understanding, which means you tell us HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
,c,.
49 1
what you are doing and we will-tell you whether we-want to be
)
2 involved, so you will know whether--we will make a commitment 3
as early as we can whether we want to be-involved, and if we 4
do want to be involved, then you put us on the list.
5 MR. SPEIS:
Last time we talked about that, I 6
thought we decided.maybe we have to formalize it Int sending 7
you the GMICS every three months, where the milestones are 8
listed, and the time for resolution, we thought you would take 9
the initiative placed on this to tell us, s
10 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
That's enough information, but that 11 if we want to be involved we trill tell you.
12 MR. SPEIS:
That's fine.
That's the way you told us 13 before, but if you want to change it--
14 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
I do think so.
GMICS is 15 notification.
16 MR. MICHELSON:
There needs to be a little more 17 information sometimes before one can decide whether they want 18 to get involved or not.
19 MR. SPEIS:
GMICS has a summary of this.
It is very 20 brief.
You have to ask for it.
You have to get the real task 21 action plan, the generic issue itself, to look into more 22 details.
23 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Can we get those?
24 MR. SPEIS:
We will be very happy to send them to 25 you.
HERITAGE REPORTING Ci PORATION -- (202)628-4888
50 1
CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Anybody wants to spot something in
- ()
2 GHICS and ask for it, Sam will have it.
3 MR. DURAISWAMY:
What we said last meeting, we would 4
like to get the resolution-package for all generic ~ issues.
5 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
That's resolution.
6 MR. DURAISWAMY:
The prioritization, automatically 7
get those things, but we told them we would like to get the 8
resolution for all-the generic issues.
9 MR. SPEIS:
Before we send them to GRCR or when?
10 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
That's the easiest time.
That's 11 when you have got a package.
12 MR. MINNERS:
I don't--Let me get a clarification.
13 Okay.
My understanding is that if there is a new requirement.
14 or guidance being proposed, we come to ACRS with it.
But--
15 MR. SPEIS:
We insist we come to you at that time 16 on that issue.
I 17 MR. MINNERS:
But if we are resolving an issue in 1
18 which we say no additional actions are required, we don't come 19 to the ACRS before we resolve it, but once again, you get a 20 copy of that, and if you don't like our no action, I mean--
21 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
That's resolution, i
22 MR. MINNERS:
You get it after we resolve it, not J
23 before.
24 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
We just said we would like to see i
25 the resolutions of all the issues, HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 i
511 1
MR. MINNERS:
After resolution or before resolution?
(I 2
CHAIRMAN SIESS:
About the time they to go-CRGR; 3
that's resolution as far as you are concerned.
4 MR. MINNERS:
These don't go to CRGR.
5 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
After resolution; we would just 6
like to have a chance to comment on the resolution.
7 MR. MICHELSON:
Possible to get something fixed if 8
there is a real flaw in it; don't cast it in concrete before 9
you send it to us because then there is, it is a problerh.
10 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Those don't get out that far, most 11 of them, for action to be required.
No.
I forget what the 12 instance was, but it turned out there were a couple we didn't
{}
13 know about and somebody wasn't too happy about one of them I 14 think.
We realized that we weren't seeing resolution of 15 generic issues.
We were seeing resolution of USIs and there 16 is not that much difference between the USI and a' generic 17 issue, the ones that get resolved, right?
18 MR. SPEIS:
Yes.
19 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Very uneven; just because it had a 20 name that was different.
We didn't think that was right.
21 MR. MINNERS:
Generic issues are better.
22 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Well, I think they are.
But you 23 know, I look at this batch of things up there, that one is 24 aglomerated over the A-17 and A-47 wasn't all that clear-cut 25 and then there is something else, and maybe it is too late to HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 u
52 1
do anything about it, but there ought to be some better way of O
sj 2
defining these things and attacking them and, you know, if 3
A-47 had been clearly-divided up, whatever this box looked 4
like, all the pieces were in there, and one by one they could 5
be addressed, this turns out to be not important, this 6
requires this and so forth, when-you got through,.you know, 7
you had done everything, or even if you take this one out and 8
put it over in this box, gee, I will put this one over here in 9
A-17, put this one over in seismic or something.
10 MR. SPEIS:
We are doing more of that now, okay.
11 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
It ends up being a lot--I don't 12 care whether they are numbered.
Maybe they can be A, B and C 13 or comething, but you really need to resolve these things.
14 Did you, if you had twelve contractorcontract reports, each 15 one of those was a separate type' of thing, right?
16 MR. SPEIS:
They were different plants, different 17 architect-engineers.
18 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
But again, there were packages 19 taken out, and just because it got touched as one big issue is l
20 no reason it has to be resolved as one big issue.
21 MR. EBERSOLE:
I can't help but--I am thinking of 22 the simplicity of the GDUPPS system in the absence of all this 23 funny stuff in it.
24 MR. MICHELSON:
It only works on boiling water O
25 reactors.
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
+
53 1 -'
MR. MINNERS:
I think:you are-talking about-the 2
general subject of integrating generic issues, okay?
{}
3 MR. WYLIE:
'It works on paper too, Jesse ~.
4 MR. MINNERS:
I-think that's what_we tried to do in 5
our division is to lay that responsibility on the_ generic 6
issue task manager.
It is his job to be sure that his issue 7
is integrated with every other issue'that might be remotely 8
related to it.
9 MR. BAER:
Or the interrelationship is-known as 10 opposed to closing while, opposed to combining them of them.
11 I don't know what you mean by integration.
Sometimes 12 integration means combine them, and that's one of the problems 13 with A-17 and A-47, that everybody had their own concept of 14 what interaction is.
15 MR. MINNERS:
I think it ought to be the 16 responsibility of those two task m..nagers to decide who is 17 going to do what in the two issues.
18 MR. BAER:
Yes.
i 19 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
If you solve an issue piece by 20 piece, I don't know where, why it is necessary to put it all l
I 21 back together in one big lump at the end.
?
22 MR. MINNERS:
It isn't, but somehow somebody has to 23 decide somebody else is working on the problem somewhere else.
f 24 MR. MICHELSON:
Let me point out other procedural Q'
25 problem that I have related to this discussion, and that is HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
54 1
that there have been some issues in the_past that have been-
'T 2
resolved outside of the USI, GI issue spectrum.
A good-('J 3
example is pipe break outside of containment.
It was handled 4
with letters that were written'by the agency back in 1973, GE 5
and so on, another letter by--and those, those two, those two-6 letters set up a requirement on the part of the licensee to-do-7 certain kind of studies, so forth, and then when those studies 8
came, that they were packaged up and they came into the agency.
9 and were reviewed and accepted, and whatever, and they became 10 the basis then for saying that pipe breaks outside of 11 containment are not a problem, and in the spectrum of 1975, 12
'76, that wasn't a bad answer for what we knew then, but that 13 finished the issue.
14 Now when we come up with new studies and so forth, 15 they say pipe breaks already have been covered.
By the study 16 we have covered the pipe break problem.
That's how you 17 eliminate the flooding question, for instance, in the in A-47.
18 You say that was taken care of way back, and your fire 19 protection is the same problem.
It came up through an 20 amendment, an Appendix R requirement and that sort of thing, 21 and now I think some of these issue resolutions have to be 22 integrated with not other issues, but integrated with certain 23 regulatory requirements that have been prescribed.
I 24 Specifically pipe break, fire, is two good examples of the 25 kind of problem I have.
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 i
55 1
MR. ANDERSON:
I don't believe that we really take 2
those issues totally out of our scope, forget about them, just
{
3 on that basis, but we certainly look to see what has
- 4 previously been done, but--in licensing reviews and previous 5
programs, but we go further and don't go as far;as.you would 6
like.
What did they accomplish?
What'was their scope and 7
what did they do?
Is there any residual?
Is there still.a 8
problem that we should include?
9 MR. MICHELSON:
I would have expected to read in 10 this report by your contractor a discussion of the residual 11 left from the old pipe break studies that in essence did not 12 then take care of the flooding problem, but I learned today 13 that unfortunately flooding wasn't even a consideration.
It O
14 was specifically excluded.
And so I, most of my, I would say 15 almost--
16 MR. MINNERS:
I think you are asking for too much.
17 I don't know if there is a statement or not in the report that 18 says flooding was taken care of by issue whatever it was.
19 HR. MICHELSON:
It didn't even tell me how flooding 20 was taken care of.
It just said flooding is excluded.
21 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Let me ask something here.
They were developed for the i
23 Congress.
Congress monitored them for a while.
I 24 MR. ANDERSON:
We still have that obligation.
O l
25 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
I don't think they pay it much' i
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 i
j
56-1 attention.
(.
2 MR.-SPEIS:
They pay attention.
3 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
So USIs are very special, and the l
4 resolution of a USI is a formal statement essentially to the 5
Congress.
It is the same--same is not true of a generic 6
issue.
7 MR. ANDERSON:
That is' correct.
8 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
So you are sort of under pressure 9
to clean up a defined, numbered USI.
10 MR.-MINNERS:
I don't agree with your statement i
11 there is that much difference.
The annual report which is now-t 12 the mechanism we use to notify the Congress of resolution of 13 USIs, rather than an individual set of reports like we used 14 to, now also contains the resolution of all the generic 15 issues.
16 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Let me get on and I will give you 17 why I am asking it.
18 What would be your problem if this document, the 19 NUREG on the USI-47, simply said we have resolved this part of 20 it, this part of it, this part of it, and this part of it, and 21 the remaining parts are unresolved?
Now does this give you--
l 22 can you publish a document with a partial resolution?
23 MR. MINNERS:
We are going to do that in A-44.
That 24 is called truth in advertising, and I think we were fairly 25 criticized.
We drew up the paper.
We said here is A-44, and l
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 N:
i
57.
r 1
what it implied for other' people is that-it reselved the whole 2
issue, okay?
But it was pointed out th'at we.still had B-5,6,
(}
3 still had A-30, which is batteries.
We still had 23, which 4
was pump seals, and in fact we even still had severe 5
accidents, okay, so the Commission paper now makes that 6
statement that here are some other things which are related.to a
7 A-47, which are going to be carried on in the future.
And.I 8
agree for good bookkeeping and truth in advertising we should 9
try to do that, and we are not always as good at it as maybe 10 we ought to be.
11 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Nobody is going to be, but --
12 MR. ANDERSON:
I have a little different perspective 13 on it.
If we have a, if we have an approved task action plan 1
14 which is our license to pursue this task, then when we come up 15 with a resolution, we should address everything that we H
16 guaranteed we would do in that task action plan.
17 Now in a lot of cases we go afield from it, bu't if j
18 there is any reason to change our approach in.any way or pick 19 up any other issue not in the task action plan, what we are 20 supposed to do is to get an approved revision of that task 21 action plan.
Then we are working a little different problem, 22 but when we come to the, come down to you with a resolution, 23 maybe we haven't been as rigorous as we should in addressing 24 specifically the tasks we guaranteed were in that, within that 4
i 25 issue, but--and a lot of types that we work we do work HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)623-4888
5 81 1
. peripheral issues, we get beyond it, but that's where we get
(}
2 in trouble.
I think we say well, we didn't cover this or we 3
have excluded it.
Sure, we included--it is not in the task 4
action plan, but--
5 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
I think on A-47, there is a couple 6
of problems of' communication.
I'm not sure that we knew 7
completely what was in the task action plan, and as we read 8
this thing, it looked'like.that the scope was narrowed as a 9
part of the resolution, and it may turn out that is not true.
10 It is just that you didn't make the case for those limitations 11 you have got, and that you could still convince us that the 12 task action plan except for some of the scenarios that Jesse 13 and Carl might think up, in which case I don't know what you O
1 i
14 do--
I 15 MR. SPEIS:
We take care of those.
16 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
We address those.
17 MR. SPEIS:
Try to see what the--prioriti7e them.
18 MR. EBERSOLE:
We are not supposed to invent those l
19 things.
We are supposed to confirm them.
20 CHAIRMAN SIE9S:
And be more generic, but --
4 21 MR. BAER:
To get a little bit out of abstract and 22 maybe to try and keep it on one that I don't think is 23 emotional, but--
24 MR. EBERSOLE:
Who is emotional?
25 MR. BAER:
As emotionally maybe, try and describe 1
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
59 1
what what we did on A-47, and let me take
(}
2 something--overpressurization.
3 Our contractor attempted, can't guarantee anyone a 4
hundred percent perfect, attempted to look at all the systems 5
that could cause an overpressurization.
Then they said how 6
could these fail due to control system failure?
Now they 7
didn't look at all the perhaps common mode things, but looked 8
at if on a boiler, reactor coolant pump speed-up could give 9
you a reactivity transient, overpressure, they said we will 10 assume is goes to full flow, if that wasn't a problem, we 11 didn't go back and say let me count the ways that this pump 12 could go to full flow in the control system failure, so we 13 tried to systematically bound the problems.
14 Now if we came up with no requirement, now maybe we 15 didn't report that too well, but if we came up with no 16 requirement, or with no requirement that we could justify in 17 the cost / benefit analysis, we don't think we reduced the 18 scope.
We think we resolved the A-47 in that sense.
19 MR. EBERSOLE:
The fire and earthquake and 20 everything?
21 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
What you said brings up a very 22 interesting point.
I don't know whether it is top down or 23 bottom up, but would we be better off if we defined the l
24 generic issue as overpressure and worked back to that, whether O
25 system interaction, common cause, protection system or l
r HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATIOt! -- (202)628-4888
60 1
whatever?
2 MR. BAER:
Retrospective, I can't argue with that.
3 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
The consequence we are trying to 4
avoid and working back; now the trouble with that is that the 5
ultimate consequence is core damage, and that takes in 6
everything, you know.
Could have one issue.
7 MR. EBERSOLE:
Chet, you worked into what I was 8
trying to say 30 minutes ago.
Every system has some parameter 9
of interest.
It has got the source of it.
It has got control 10 device that you expand with.
It has got some limited 11 function.
I am talking about any of them. 'You just talked 12 about one, pressure capability of the feed pump and its 13 ultimate speed with the valves closed.
You say it has all O
14 been solved.
Just a few months ago there was the case of the 15 header being overpressurede diaphragm controller, 16 MR. BAER:
I said reactor coo 3 ant pump as example of 17 overpressurization.
18 MR. EBERSOLE:
You opened up a class.
19 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
If we start with the consequence, 20 you get core damage, go up the tree, there are various things 21 that could lead to that.
You keep going up the tree there, 22 you are not going to end up in that tree.
One might be 23 systems interaction.
One of them might be control systems or l
24 whatever, but I guess if you start at one level or two levels O
25 above and work up, rather than have it, this thing working HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 b
}
61 1
down, I don't know.
2 MR. MINNERS:
We have done it both ways.
In the old
{
3 days of the GDC, basically your way of looking at the systems 4
and certain design requirements on the system, so they fix it 5
- and then we switched around and looked at the other value and 6
looked at the PRA way, which is looking at parameters, 7
pressure, temperature, and then looking.down, see how that 8
affected components, so I think you have to do it both. ways.
9 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
I have got a feeling you.are coming 10 top down.
One path is down through the system interaction, 11 another path is down Station Blackout, and somewhere you are 12 combining the paths and going, one contractor starting here 13 and ending up there because they are meeting in the middle O
14 there and going over the same ground.
l 15 MR. BAER:
I think there is problems either way.
16 When we define the scope narrowly, then there is the problem j
17 of integration, and the interrelationship.
If you define it i
18 too broadly, reactor safety or core not melting, then no one 19 can ever get their arms around the problem, and I don't know 20 where you cut it.
21 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Define it broader, then subdivide 22 it into managable packages.
As an example, maybe not a good 23 example, the protection system is a subdivision of system 24 interaction.
It also has subdivisions, and but to the extent 25 you think you have pretty well solved that aspect of system j
b i
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 j
62.
l' interaction, protection systems and the rest of it; a-17 is
( }-
2 never going to go away.
3 MR. ANDERSON:
Systems interactica as a subject or 4
topic will never go away, that's _true.
5 MR. SPEIS:
Requires frontal attack'where you 6
address everything.
-7 MR. hiNNERS:
Like water-hammer is not going away, 8
- either, 9
MR. EBERSOLE:
Chet, may_I ask,-I.would ask for 10
?onsideration of the very, of the basic model, that you all i
-11 will well remember when the reactor business started, you 12 found level trips could be overrun by fast periods, so you put 13 in the rate trips or whatever to cope with them.
I remember O
14 this happened in the GDGR where the operator could change the j
15 range of the level trip where when he saw he was on a fast 16 period, thus he could avoid a trip.
He wauld avoid a real J
17 hazard.
His trip would be bypassed.
Now I only recently 18 learned, and I hope you will say it is generally covered, the 19 operator can't go in, shunt out the level trips on our 20 reactors and permit a fast period to overrun,.in essence just
'I i
21 completely short out the level trips as it goes through and i
22 you don't get a level trip.
23 I recently heard one way that is done, perhaps you l
24 can tell me it is common, is when you shift from one range to 25 another, you have an underpoured trip.
You are not at HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 l
.-! r 63 4
1 appropriate level at that time, reactor trip.on underpower 2
because it is disproportionate'to the new level trip ring you 3
are in.
4 Am I correct?
Is that done all the time?
5 MR. MINNERS:
I don't know.
6 MR. EBERSOLE:
You have got to tell me-you do'that~.
7 You always pick up these control system defects on safety-8 systems.
'{
9 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
These guys over here haven't been 10 talking.
They have been listening.
Will somebody that is i
11 sitting over there tell me where they think we r s?
12 DR. REMICK:
I think we are all right.
At 4:30 it 13 says Subcommittee remarks.
O 14 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
It has been 4:30 for the-last half 15 hour1.736111e-4 days <br />0.00417 hours <br />2.480159e-5 weeks <br />5.7075e-6 months <br />, so that doesn't help very much.
16 MR. WARD:
We haven't started yet!
17 MR. SPEIS:
I think we covered most of it.
18 MR. EBERSOLE:
The order is not necessarily 19 paramount!
20 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
I want somebody to make a formal 21 presentation which they may or may not think is still 22 necessary, but let's stop at this point and ask Mr. Speis if 23 he has got anything in his presentation that he would like to 24 go through at this time.
25 MR. SPEIS:
I think we talked about the process of HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
64 1
USIs and'GSIs how.we prepare the information and who' reviews
(}
2 it and so on and so'forth.
As we already said, you 3
participate more formally with USIs than GSIs, and make some 4
changes to the GSI.
Again, our perception is that we don't 5
.think we changed the scope of A-47.
We talked about it.
6 Again, there is some misunderstanding, some 7
different views on it.
On A-17, we did change the scope, and 8
we came down to you, and we told you, you know, what it is and 9
what it isn't, and you never told us whether you.liked it or 10 not.
That's past history.
11 Is there anything else that is worthwhile, you know, 12 pursuing farther here on this presentation?
13 MR. ANDERSON:
I don't, I don't think so.
The 14 points that we wanted to make, we were going to walk you 15 through the procedures and the task action plans when they 16 were changed.
I don't know that is so necessary.
I think the i
17 real point is, is that we see the scope of the issue as a, 18 being what it is defined in the task action plan, and maybe we 19 don't put enough emphasis on that.
20 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Let's assume there is an issue that 21 we are quite interested in and that we have looked at the task 22 action plan, and you make the change in it.
You have got 23 procedures now.
We see that change?
24 MR. SPEIS:
O 25 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Only on USIs?
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 L
p;y 65,
1-MR. SPEIS:
Yes, that's right, v
2 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
I'just have difficulty making-any
{
3 distinction between USIs and GIs now.
They seem to be equally ~
4 important in my mind, and we were told that you work it on 5
high priority GIs at about the same rate as USIs, and the 6
mediums are getting attention, so I think it is'anLartificial I
7 distinction.
j i
8 Do you see any real safety significance difference 9
between the USIs?
10 HR. SPEIS:
Personally, I don't.
11 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
There are some criteria I know, and 12 I have forgotten what they are.
13 MR. SPEIS:
We know so much more now, that if we had O
14 to go back and look at the 15 or so issues that were USIs and a
15 try to apply the present criteria to them, maybe 70 percent of I
16 them wouldn't be USIs.
They might still remain high priority g
17 GSIs.
I don't see any distinction.
18 MR. ANDERSON:
Not from a safety standpoint.
5 19 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
How many USIs are still i
i a
20 outstanding?
21 MR. SPEIS:
There aren't too many left.
I think 22 there are about three or four that we haven't come to you, but 23 the rest of them are along the way somehow; A-45.
)
24 MR. ANDERSON:
Six or seven I think.
i 1
25 MR. SPEIS:
And four, there is no more than three HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
1
'q 66 i
j 1
that haven't come to you.
All'the' rent--of them are in the 2
system somewhere.
3 T CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Short-term program that took ten 4
years to resolve.
5 MR. MICHELSON:
Are we informed when they make-6 changes?
7 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
That's what I just asked them.
8 MR. SPEIS:
Yes.
9 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
You said on USIs.
10 MR. MICHELSOM:
Wouldn't be any big deal.
11 MR. SPEIS:
It is up to you.
'f 12 MR. MICHELSON:
This book of scopes anywhere.
13 HR. SPEIS:
No problem.
~
14 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Generic issue, generic issues, then 15 they are USIs.
16 MR. MICHELSON:
Sam files it in his book when he 17 gets the changes.
18 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
I am not sure we are going to be 19 following all of those in quite as much detail, but I do think 20 that some we want to pick out, so I think if we just treat 21 GSIs and USIs the same, which is sent to us--
22 MR. SPEIS:
That's fine, but you will decide which 23 ones you want to pursue farther.
You let us know, i
24 MR. MICHELSpH:
No.
I think we want to see all the 25 chenges, I mean the changes to all the issues, and we decide
(
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
~
-~
-n-
~
~
-,-,p
>v+,,,
,,-,p,+-y----
m-,~,,,n-e-.
-v~
+
67 1
at_the end.what we.want to.look at.
(f
'2 MR. SPBIS:
That fis exactly--you decide, yes. 1By 3
some previously established law, you have to participate 4
whether you like it or not.
5 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
SamLis reminding me of something 6
now in the earlier minutes, that we are concerned about. things 7
you decide not to do anything about as much as we are the 8
things that you do intend to'do something about', and.if you 9
decided to no, never mind, and nothing is required, then that 10 is, it is just as important a decision as that you are-going 11 to backfit something on different plans.
12 MR. SPEIS:
Again, the perfect place where all these 13 things are summarized every quarter, again you really spend l
14 the time to go through it and decide I want to pursue some of 15 this further because of whatever is written there, then you 16 know, let us know, and we will start interaction.
17 MR. MICHELSON:
It is up to us; if you will send us 4
18 the information and let us decide.
19 MR. SPEIS:
We send you the --
20 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
That was May 27; the staff submit 21 all the information associated with generic issues from ACRS 22 irrespective of staff's position whether to pursue or not, and 23 we will decide which ones you want to review.
Just dump it, i
24 you know, and we will see that somebody looks at it, talks to O
25 the Subcommittee, and decide whether it is something they want i
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 t
68-
-1 to follow and we decide no, you know, no issue, then because 2
some of those generic issues were ours.
You remember?.'We
(}
3 combined our list with yours, and we sort of expected that we 4
would'be able to-follow.
5 MR. SPEIS:
In fact, we are going through a very 6
detailed process to scrutinize every generic issue in books 7
and see whether all of them are indeed truly generic-issues or 8
some c2 them are resources as far as some of them deal with a I
9 look at future control system or certain system or something 10 like that.
It is not really something now, and--
l 11 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Those ought to have a different 12 category.
{
13 MR. SPEIS:
Somehow some of them are called generic 14 issues right now.
15 MR. EBERSOLE:
What is the active status of the air 16 system?
17 MR. SPEIS:
We are working very hard on that one.
i 18 MR. EBERSOLE:
I feel like that's the next one on 19 the horizon in trouble.
20 MR. SPEIS:
As far as the ACRS?
21 MR. EBERSOLE:
As far as having a TMI 2.
j i
22 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
I don't think the ACRS is going to 23 end up looking at GSIs at the same level that they look at 24 USIs.
Might bo some of them in there that are just important.
25 HR. SPEIS:
In fact, it is a fact already, or a fact l
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 i
~
69 1
the diplomats call it, there are two or three that are-j{ j 2
important and you are looking at--
-3 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
.Yes, there are.
4 MR. SPEIS:
Like the reactor coolant pump seal as an 5
example.
6 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
I think that the staff has been 7
probably close to 99 percent effective in calling our 8
attention to those things they thought we ought to know about, 9
and I don't think that things are going to change a whole lot 10 when we get more paper to look at.
I think you have sensed 11 pretty well those things that you think we ought to look at 12 and maybe you wanted help.
I don't know, but--
13 MR. SPEIS:
If we don't bring it to your attention, O
14 you will tell us after we did something wrong.
It is both 1
15 really.
We try to, you know --
16 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
We would rather get it-we don't 17 like surprises.
18 MR. SPEIS:
We are sensitive.
We will work with 19 you.
I 20 HR. EBERSOLE:
Tell me, is the old GE design of 21 reactivity control we are using now, is it put to rest and we 22 will go on as long as the GE plants live or will it ever be 23 improved?
]
24 MR. MINNERS:
Weren't you the one who was telling me 25 they changed design?
l HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202?S28-4888 l
70 1
l 1
MR. EBERSOLE:
In-the new ones.
}
2
.MR. MINNERS:
Backfit something?
3-MR. EBERSOLE:
Yes.
4 MR. MINNERS:
We don't have any isrues to backfit 5
it, no.
6 MR. EBERSOLE:
Just as GE refused to do for many 7
years; they wouldn't improve it.
J 8
MR. SPEIS:
Bring us a good issue.
We will 9
prioritize it.
10 HR. EBERSOLE:
I can't get it off, I can't even get 4
11 off my mind the fact that's a lousy system that we have today.
12 MR. SPEIS:
I guess the other thing we had here was 13 this--
14 MR. ANDERSON:
I ti. ink we covered most of the 15 material.
The last slide or next to the last slide, we were 16 going to tell you about our handy dandy program where we get 17 all the pieces that are under the shells that we turn over 1
18 down here.
19 MR. SPEIS:
Put the slide up.
20 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Let's do something'that way.
21 MR. ANDERSON:
We have got to normalize this
)
22 procedure somewhere!
23 MR. SPEIS:
You asked for me to come here U
24 personally.
I don't know why.
You have such competent people O
25 here on the staff.
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 L
-71 1
(A discussion was held off the record.)
o
(}
2 HR. ANDERSON:
Okay.
3 (Slide) i 4
MR. ANDERSON:
I think I can talk loud enough that_I 5
don't need that thing.
You will accuse me of yelling if I use t
6 it.
7 CHAIRMA?! SIESS:
Put it on.
I'm hard of hearing.
8 MR. ANDERSON:
Okay.
The, over the last couple of 9
years, as we come down here with some of these complex 10 programs, systems interaction, A-47 and A-46, we have had a 11 lot of discussions about what was in the scope and what wasn't 12 in the scope.
There are a lot of specific items and a few 13 general subject areas that we steadfastly maintained were not D
14 within the scope of the, of that issue, so we had agreed that 15 we would, somehow we are going to take care of these safety 16 concerns.
17 Now it was not practical to include them in an issue 18 that we had almost completed.
We thought that they ought to r
19 be addressed some way, so we did initiate a program, we have a j
\\
/
20 contract at Oak Ridge Laboratory to to do this.
We callsd 21 that program multiple system responses.
Now that is not a j
22 very descriptive title.
23 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
I have heard it but I never knew 24 what it meant.
You are going to explain it to met 25 MR. ANDERSON:
I am going to explain it.
What that HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 L
~
72 4
1 means is that if you don't. cry to read it literally, it is a
~
2 collection of all the safety concerns that are peripheral to 3
the issues that we have worked that are not in our scope but 4
.are still safety concerns in that area, so our attempt, our 5
objective ~on this program is to take all'of'these concerns,-
6 and we went through a LER certificate, looked.at~ fire.
7 protection, the environmental qualification rule the staff's e
8 concerns, even some of the AEOD reports.
A good portion of it.
9 is ACRS concerns that have'been stated'when we~got into the 10 scope questions.
Then we are goi.ig to develop somt programs 11 or develop some issues, really define the issues, to the best-f 12 that we can, and then once we have these programs defined or 13 these issues defined, then we are going to send them through O,
14 the priorcization process.
15 MR. EBERSOLE:
Ask you a question--it somehow
~
1 16 characterizes the industry that you don't.have up-there vender 17 concerns, A-E concerns, and utility concerns.
I think that's l
18 a sad state of affairs.
I 19 MR. ANDERSON:
We left--there is no intention to L
l 21 leave that out.
As c matter of fact, there should be another 21 bullet here other concerns.
22 MR. EBERSOLE:
Whatever.
23 MR. ANDERSON:
There is no intention to limit it.to 24 these.
These are some of the principal places where we looked
'~
,T\\Y 25 to get these concerns, and if they are not handled by current HER; RAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
73 1
generic issues, then there is some, some sticed concerns that
'( J 2
other peopit have or sometbt.g we have been able to glean, and 3
we have put them in here.
4 MR. EBERSOLE: ' Don't you get really good flow of 5
othe?/ concerns, or do you not?
I don't know; not much.
-6 MR. MINNERS:
There is a legal process. Jesse.
If 7
the venders have concern, they have got to report it under 8
Part 21.
9 MR. EBERSOLE:
So it is still there.
10 MR. MINNERS:
It comes under LERs.
11 MR. BAER:
Well, these are things that are, that 12 should be to some degree either beyond existing requirements 13 or raised concerns that existing requirements are fully sr 14 implemented.
You know most Part 21s, for example, says hey, I 15 discovered I built these valves witi. the wrong key material 16 and the limit torque operator.
That is not a generic issue.
17 MR. ANDERSON:
I don't mean to imply in every 18 instance that at plant is going to end up being defined as an 19 issue.
20 MR. SPEIS:
Could you give an example?
i 21 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
You are going to come up here with i
22 a list of narrowly defined issues?
23 MR. ANDERSON:
They may or may not be that narrow, 24 which defined, there is one of them, for instance, that wes i
O 25 brought up by the ACRS and it is a problem.
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION'-- (202)628-4888
- 74 1
CHAIRMAN SIESS:
It will never be narrowly' defined..
2 MR. ANDERSON:
I didn't bring that one up for.that 3
reason, but.it is a concern that Mr. Michelson brought up_of 4
seismic-induced fires.
Now we Lare' nct 'taking care of_. it in'
~
5 A-46, much to his consternation, not caking care offit any 6
place else, so one of the-issues that we are. going tofattempt 7
to-define'and determine the safet'y significance of_is a topic 8
called seismically-induced fires.
9 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
That seems narrow.
10 MR. ANDERSON:
It is a very difficult issue to 11 approach.
12 MR. WARD:
Does that include seismically-induced 13 false alarms?
O
\\~/
14 MR. MICHELSON:
That's an'other issue.
I think this 15 one is more narrow.
This is where you actually have a fire 16 resulting.
We have read earthquake history and there are 17 fires associated with earthquakes.
18 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
That's what burned out San ~
l 19 Francisco.
20 MR. ANDERSON:
So--
21 MR. MICHELSON:
That's what he is going to look at.
22 MR. ANDERSON:
We are going tu attempt to define 23 issues out of this collection of concerns that various pe?ple 24 have had, and then go through the priort'ization process with O'
25 them.
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
=
75
+
1 MR. SPEIS:
This-is really still part of the 2
process, _except people raise the issres and we'want to make
)
3 sure that they indeed have, they_are worthwhile pursuing, 4
okay.
5 MR. MICHELSON:
Just don't want them to fall in the 6
cracks.
7 MR. SPEIS:
This is no different than the process we 8
have.
9 CHAIRMAN SIE3S:
My point was I hope you don't try 10 to conglomerate too much in here.
11 MR. ANDERSON:
No.
We are attempting to define them 12 maybe not really narrowly, but at least in a workable manner.
13 We want some workable entities.
We don't want any more
.O 14 systems interactions.
15 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Now, let me--this.is a deviation, 16 but you can't do much about subdividing ~the USIs.
17 MR. ANDERSON:
That is correct.
18 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Have you got any generic issues 19 that are defined too broadly that you could subdivide or that 20 you have subdivided in your evolution process or are-21 subdividing or do you think they are generally more narrowly 22 defined?
23 MR. SPEIS:
The one mentioned earlier, the issue 24 like electrical reliability consist of a number of, issues, and n
25 we are resolving the larger issue and_there are some elements
~
HERITAGE REPORTING. CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
76' 1
which are very important to the A-44 which will be,'will.be
{
2 done separately, you know, how do you assure that you have a 3
good program, for example, to' ensure diesel generator.
4 reliability?
Separate issue which is part and parcel of the-5 bigger history of the bigger issue'.
6 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
'It is a generic' issue.
But have 7
you got any generic issues that are very broad?
8 MR. SPEIS:
Well, I think most of them are the ones 9
we have been talking about; the ones that we have in tho' book 10 right now, no.
11 MR. ANDERSON:
I can't'think of any.
12 MR. SPEIS:
In fact, I think they are very narrow,-
13 mort of the remaining issues, if I can have the list with me.
14 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Are they finding the gaps that Mr.
15 Ward mentioned on narrowly-defined issues?
16 MR. MINNERS:
We have an issue on 2C something, on s
17 reliability programs.
That's kind of a vague--I don't know if I
18 it is broad, you know.
19 MR. BAER:
The problem isn't breadth.
It is 20 vagueness I think, or a common understanding, you know.
Part 21 of what we discussed-today, there is sometimes a lack of a 22 common understanding of what the issue involves, you know.
23 Example of A-17 and ten different opinions meeting the same 24 scope much.
O 25 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
It seems to me if.you have HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- -(202)628-4888 0 e
77 1
narrowly-defined issues that !!r. Ward mentioned, sometimes you i
2 can get gaps between them, and I have seen a tendency
(}
3 sometimes in the past well, I will fill the gap by combining 4
two issues which will encompass the gap.
Alternative is to 5
make the gap another issue.
6
!!R. ANDERSON:
Well, this is an attempt to fill the i
7 gap between the broad issues really because we have got fire 1
8 protection, environmental qualification, systems interaction, 9
a control systems, and.there is concerns that have been stated 10 that there are issues which are not within the scope, weren't 1
11 handled by these, and this is an attempt to pick those up.
12 Now we are not, we are not looking, just going out l
13 and looking for issues other than just a, just a quick look.
14 What we are really doing is looking at concerns that have been 15 raised, come up in, you know, in the various programs, and in 16 our discussions with you and with other people.
There still 17 may be things fall through the cracks.
I don't know.
18 DR. SIESS:
If you peel something off from a broad 19 USI, would it have to be a USI or'could you reclassify it as a 20 generic issue?
Or would Congress get on you?
21 MR. SPEIS:
If we think it could be more effectively 22 done separately, I guess we can classify those as a generic 23 issue.
I think--didn't we have a part of A-17 that will go 24 into this program here?
O
\\#
25 SR. ANDERSON:
Something that is peripheral to A-17, HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
~
78 1
yes, but not really within its scope, but I believe that we 2.
could, we could probably do that, but what it would entail I-3 think is revising the task action plan to specifically delete 4
part of it.
You know, and if we get a reapproval of the task 5
action plan, I think that would be valid.
But I. don't think 6
that we could arbitrarily do it.
7 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
No, but --
8 MR. SPEIS:
I want to say something else, that in 9
the past, you know, eveLy question that came up, you know,
)
10 people dumped them into the generic issue, and that's part of j
11 this process that we are going through.
We find out some I
12 issues are compliance issues.
Otronger or smarter to say to 13 those guys we know what--you have to do something, you know,
(',
14 you haven't been complying.
15 Let me give you an example.
After the Davis-Besse 16 event, we found that the operator was hesitant in initiating 17 feed and bleed, okay, and the criteria were there, and for 18 some reason, I don't know what, I don't recall, you know, it 19 found its way into the generic issue, but it is really a 20 con.pliance issue.
Criteria were there.
21 MR. EBERSOLE:
Was he supposed to have done that and 22 he didn't?
23 MR. SPEIS:
Yes.
'In fact, they have procedures I 24 guess after that they told us.
r~$
/
25 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Human factors issue.
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888-
79 1
MR. SPEIS:
It is still an issue.
Whether human
(}
2 factors improvement or train the operator, or you, you, you 3
know, psyche him up to make sure that he initiates these, not 4
being afraid to do it because he is going to flood the--yes, 5
but in essence, you know, since there was a' procedure there 6
and-they were supposed to follow it, it is a-compliance issue.
7 MR. EBERSOLE:
I think ths is significant.
It came 8
up in the thermohydraulic meeting.
9 MR. SPEIS:
That is not a generic issue.
10 MR. EBERSOLE:
Generic issue, before you take a risk 11 maneuver, you ought to have adequate body of information to 12 take it, like release of radiation is the classic one.
13 MR. SPEIS:
That's right.
14 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
You raised a question.
The i
15 Commission, you talked to the Commission, you had a briefing a 16 while back.
They were concerned about the rate at which
~
17 things were being resolved, and did they express any concern i
18 about the rate at which things, issues were being identified?
19 What is your efficiency rating on the issues that are
)
-20 identified?
How many end up being issues that get high 21 medium?
22 MR. MINNERS:
We used to have slides.
Have you got 23 those with you?
24 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
I think you gave them to us.
("\\
\\~/
25 MR. MINNERS:
All I can remember is 73 percent of j
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION --- (202)628-4888
80
~
1 the issues we. touched we resolved.
(-
2 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
The trouble is once an. issue is 3
identified, you have'to carry it through to priortization 4
period.
If you do initial screening and put it to one side, 5
eventually you have to go through the prioritization, and that 6
involves a cost / benefit, a regulatory analysis, and simply the~
7 identification of issues takes a certain' load.off you, and I 8
don't know any way to eliminate them.
The process is an open-9 process.
10 MR. WARD:
Is that what you are doing here?
We 11 haven't given you a chance, Newt.
I haven't figured out what 12 this program is yet.
Is this place'the Part 3 issues before 13 you identify?
g-)
U/
14 MR. ANDERSON:
This is independent of that process.
15 MR. SPEIS:
This is it, is part of the definition, 16 identification here, okay.
17 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
They tried to identify new issues.
18 MR. SPEIS:.Want to make sure.
We say we have 19 resolved A-47.
All of a sudden you have bright guys on the i
20 committee that raise some issues that either they thought we 21 left it out of this scope or they just came up at that time.
22 We will take that and see if that is legitimate, you know, 23 scrutinize, define and prioritize it, and that's what he is 24 talking about.
O 25 MR. EBERSOLE:
I would like to ask you, I am going.
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION'-- (202)628-4888-
.m
81' 1
to lift a rock'.okay.
Twenty-five years back--those are spot
(~'%
2 issues Diablo Canyon.
If they have big earthquakes, the
-V 3
turbines always unload and then always be tripped, must work 4
with the turbine over-speed trip mechanism fail to function.
5 Because of the, because of the upset, was that picked up and 6
cleared as a generic or just a spot matter, they have poor 7
orientation?
8 MR. ANDERSON:
I am not familiar with that.
I' don't 9
know.
10 MR. MINNERS:
Seismic trip was looked at.
11 MR. EBERSOLE:
And it would clear?
12 MR. MINNERS:
And nobody liked it, but we looked at 13 it twice.
7-U 14 MR. WARD:
I still don't understand what this 15 progress is.
16 MR. ANDERSON:
Let me answer your question.
17 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
He is looking for gaps.
18 MR. ANDERSON:
The normal procedure for 19 identification of generic issues says that anyone can initiate 20 one.
They can bring up an issue.
They can, there is a j
21 procedure for where they send it and how it gets processed.
22 We just ask that they provide enough definition so that it can j
1 23 be properly prioritized.
That system is in place and it it is 24 the works.
O 25 Now--but we foresaw that there was a gap in that HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 u_
82-1-
process and that gap being-that as we talked to you and other 2
people about the resolution of certain issues,_there is some j'}
3 confusion or difference of opinion with regard to what we did 4
and what we should have done.
There are a lot of concerns 5
that are brought up'that we say no, we didn't work that part 6
of it.
So what are you going to do about it?
7 Well, we didn't have any really process to do it, so 8
what we agreed to do was to initiate a program where we would 9
look at all the major programs that we had, in the resolution 10 stages right now, not only unrated safety issues, 11 environmental qualification rule, other things, and to 12 determine whether some of the concerns that we had heard about 13 could be defined as separate issues and prioritized.
So this O
14 process is one of going through all of the other issues we 15 have sent down, talked to all of the task managers, talked to 16 the appropriate people who run the research programs, and then 17 we have looked at what the boundaries of these issues are and 18 what they cover and what they don't cover.
19 The areas that they don't cover, if there is some 20 concern or some potential safety significance, we intend to 21 define that as a separate issue, and define it as well so that 22 it could be prioritized and then we will put it in the other 23 system, so basically what it is is a mechanism to try to, a 24 catchall of these outside of scope type. issues, and other, and O-25 other concerns that have been raised.
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -
.(202)628-4888
.~.
83 1
Rather than sitting back and waiting for an 2
individual to come up and say hey, I have got a safety 3
problem, and here it is, we are taking the initiative to try 4
to get all of these concerns into the ystem.
5 MR. WARD:
And these concerns, you have~got an 6
active program to identify them?
7 MR. ANDERSON:
Yes.
8 MR. WARD:
It is primarily to look at concerns that 9
may have been left over when you put the boxes around USIs or 10 GIs before?
11 MR. ANDERSON:
Yes.
12 MR. EBERSOLE:
Warrei.--
13 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Or ACRS type boundaries.
O 14 MR. EBERSOLE:
Illustrating the va'.ue of that 15 program system, there is a' record so when a question comes up, 16 he instantly says it has been fixed, he can run off and say it 17 has been fixed.
18 MR. ANDERSON:
No.
19 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Fixing comes down years down-the 20 line.
21 MR. ANDERSON:
That's one of the benefits of it.
22 That is certainly not the intent.
23 MR. EBERSOLE:
It sure is a valuable thing to know.
24 MR. ANDERSON:
When you raise those questions, say 25 we are taking care of that, it is very valuable for us, but HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888.
i
{
-84 1
seriously, I think it is a mechanism that can catch a lot of
/~T 2
these, the questions that the ACRS raises, that.we are not H
()
3 going to lie to you, say our program handles that, but--and we-4 don't want to forget it because it may have some potentially.
o 5
safety significant issue, so this is the mechanism that'we can 6
get it into the system.
7 DR. SIESS:
There is nothing in the rules that'says d
8 you can't identify it.
9 HR. ANDERSON:
That's'right.
10 MR. EBERSOLE:
He certified there is no risk in that
]
11 area.
12 MR. MINNERS:
I said it has been looked at.
13 MR. EBERSOLE:
Wait a minute.
You are hedging.
14 MR. MINNERS:
No.
On that particular_ issue, it is a 15 good illustration.
You just can't accept that.
You have, you 16 can go back to the record and look and see if it is done.
17 That may not satisfy you.
Okay.
I can at least tell you that 18 the staff has decided we looked at it and we thought we did a 19 good enough job, not who have to do a good job.
20 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
It was looked at from the point of 21 view of anticipatory trip that might have come benefits in 22 preventing LOCA or something else.
23 MR. EBERSOLE:
I am talking about a turbine run-away 24 to knock the house down.
O 25 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Don't remember anybody ever talking HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 t.
85-1 about turbin run-away.
2 MR. EBERSOLE:
It hasn't been looked at.
3 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Anticipatory reactor trip due to l
4 seismic' trip was reactor trip. ' Jesse is talking about a 5
turbine that doesn't trip.
6 MR.-EBERSOLE:
And it is laterally located to all 7
the critical equipment and it was waved off by'the staff.
8 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Since we designed the plant already 9
assuming a turbine run-away --
10 MR. EBERSOLE:
No, no.
No more; maybe Diablo is.
11 I'm not sure.
12 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Diablo isn't because thef didn't 13 have room.
That is San Onofre doesn't have room to turn the 14 turbine.
15 MR. MINNERS:
The point I am trying to make, Dr.
16 Seiss, is that I gave him my answer, okay, which I think may 17 answer his question, but I don't really understand his 18 que s ticin.
There has got to be obligation that people who 19 raised these questions go back and look at the documentation.
20 That's what I mean.
21 MR. EBERSOLE:
It is the simplest question in the 22 world.
23 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
It is to you, Jesse, but our own 24 rules within the ACRS is that if it is ACRS proposed generic 25 issues, it has to be defined in the same terms you have.
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
~
86' 1
MR. EBERSOLE:
For God sake, I propose we fix'this.
( }.
2 MR. SPEIS:
You said out of the ones--
3 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Survival rate of--
4 MR. SPEIS:
We have 52 issues to be prioritized, but 5
we just have gone through a screening process because I think 6
one of the things we will.do'even though it takes some time, 7
you know, we go through a screening process, we will find 8
someone--out of the screening process from the 52, we'came up 9
with one high, 11 medium.
The rest are--
10 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Okay.
Let me ask you something 11 else.
Are you through?
I 12 MR. ANDERSON:
I was just going to make two more 13 points.
I guess I am through.
~
14 MR. MINNERS:
Can I put a caveat?
Is.that--
15 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Let Walt finish up and then we will 16 come back over here.
17 MR. ANDERSON:
One of the documents that we went 18 through to try to find these issues is the ACRS' transcript,
~
19 so, so now that's a tough one to decide whether you are really 1
20 serious about some of the problems or not, but we do look at 21 all of them.
22 DR. REMICK:
Who is going to look tl ough today's 23 transcript?
24 MR. ANDERSON:
That's a different issue.
The only O
25 other thing I was going to say is we have, now have a draft of i
1 HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
)
87.
1 their report under review, and we are going to be ready to f~T 2
talk to you about it very shortly.
A/
3 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
We have five categories of 4
issues--the USI, high, low, medium,'and dropped.
5 MR. SPEIS:
You mean GSI.
You meant GSI.
6 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
USI, high, low, medium and dropped 7
GSIs; from what I think you have told us, USIs and high GSIs 8
are getting about the same attention, and I;6diums are moving 9
into that category, and lowest and drops aren't getting any 10 attention.
11 We have also been told that even. drop means that it 12 doesn't disappear from the face of the earth.
It would still 13 be around to be looked at for new designs.
For example, EPRI 14 included drops in their list and so forth.
15 MR. SPEIS:
They were asked to look at whether or 16 not it means something to their design.
17 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
In effect, you have only go',
two 18 categories.
You do them or you don't do them.
19 MR. SPEIS:
Yes.
20 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Is there any point in having all of 21 this five-level hierarchy when they end up in two groups?
22 MR. WARD:
Sure--in case the budget gets cut.
23 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Well, I guess, okay, you have got a 24 point, but--
0 25 MR. SPEIS:
We want to hhve, you know, want to leave HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 t-
88
'1 a record behind.
I think --
2 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
But is the priortization. process e' }
3 worthwhile?
4 MR..SPEIS:
We'think it is very worthwhile.
5 CHAIRMAN SIESS:.Could you accomplish the sameLthing
~
6 by extending your screening a little bit farther?
7 MR. MINNERS:
We have the prioritization process.
8 MR, SPEIS:
We have the prioritization process which 9
as you know is a bipolar--is that the right word?
It includes 10 the risk perspective and also it includes the deterministic 11 perspective, and the--
12 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
The reason-I am asking is the 13 Commission expressed concern over the rate at which these 14 things were being done.
15 MR. MINNERS:
That's a good illustration of what he 16 just talked about is that I think 12 out of 57--the reason he j
17 could tell you that is because the technical analysis of those 18 issues is complete, okay?
But you and I think of a 19 prioritization is all done.
The write-up is all done.
What 20 isn't done on'those issues is pushing the paper through the 1
21 review approval process.
The prioritization process, a lot of l
22 time is the review and approval process.
23 MR. SPEIS:
When an issue in our system is. dropped, 24 nobody does something, it is kind of residual for a few weeks.
25 DR. SIESS:
What I was getting at is that once an HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 L
89 1
issue is identified, and there is no limit on identification,
{}
2 that's completely uncontrolled, anybody can walk in'with an 3
unidentified issue if he wants to spend a. half hour writing it 4
down.
Now it must go through the prioritization process.
-You 5-have got no control ever your load.
6 MR. MINNERS:
Legal control, but I-think there is, 7
there has been a control over it.
As I say, I think it is 12 8
out of 50 with this snapshot.
9 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Had to go through the l
10 prioritization process to get it down to 12, 11 MR. MINNERS:
They are finding that the number-of-12 issues that eventually get the, dropped is going down,-that 13 the staff and the people who identify issues.are looking and V
14 say wait a minute, I have got to write this down.
Maybe this 15 doesn't sound so smart after I write it down, so there is 16 fewer and fewer of the less significant issues being 17 submitted, so there is some control.
j 18 The process used to say you had to go through the 19 branch chief at least to get somel kind of blessing.
There was 20 attempt to put a mild amount of control, but you don't want to 21 put too much control.
The whole idea is a safety paper.
22 MR. SPEIS:
We have to be very careful.
23 DR. SIESS:
You have no control.
I am not 24 complaining about it.
O 25 MR. SPEIS:
We want to have some type of control.
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
90 1
We want to force the guy with the issue to write it down, to 2
tell us something about the relationship, why he' thinks it.is
{}
3 important or not important, okay?
4 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
What correlation is there between 5
your pre-screening and your prioritization?
How many things 6
do you screen low that end up in the high-and vice-versa?
7 MR. BAER:
The ones'that I looked at--
8 MR. MINNERS:
Let's take issue'43.
9 MR.'SPEIS:
It is biased and very conservative way, 10 and if we go into the other direction, downward again--
11 CHAIRMAN.SIESS:
You will have some screened them 12 out as possibly important but dropped out.
13 MR. SPEIS:
Exactly.
We are biased to start with.
14 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
You couldn't substitute the 15 screening process for the prioritization.
That would increase i
16 your resolution load.
You would have to be conservative.
17 MR. SPEIS:
Some other things that-we are doing, I 18 guess when we briefed the Commission we did tell them we sent 19 them a letter formalizing some of the other things we are 20 doing.
I want to make sure if you people haven't got gotten 21 the letter you get it.
d 22 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Is that the letter I' read from, 23 that I showed you?
They have all got it.
Research Office 24 letter?
OO 25 MR. SPEIS:
No, no.
Specifically with the issues, HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888-
91 1~
you know, steps that'we are doing to improve the process, you 2
know.
3 MR. MICHELSON:
We need to see-that.
4-MR. SPEIS:
We will send you a copy.
One of the 5
things that we are having,,which is really--that.is the 6
concurrence, is the period.you process, you know, between--
7 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
That's not in this letter?
This 8
letter does talk about a response---
9 MR. SPEIS:
It' talks about the process, but there we 10 talk about some real steps.
11 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Okay.
12 MR. MICHELSON:
Do_you have a copy'of that letter 13 with you?
Maybe we can just get a copy?
14 MR. SPEIS:
Let's see.
15 MR. MICHELSON:
Is it a big document or is it just a l
16 short letter?
17 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Not something short.
If it is a 18 short letter, it has got an attachment.
That's realism!
19 MR. MICHELSON:
Chet, I think sometime, sometime I 20 think before we have to leave this afternoon, we should go 21 once around the table get final comments from the 22 Subcommittee.
23 MR. SPEIS:
This is 90 percent of it right here.
24 You can have this.
I will make a copy.
O 25 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
We will get'it out.
You can give HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
. -. ~, - -. - - ~.. _ - -
. _.. _ _ _. ~. _ _, ~ - _... -.... _., -. _.. _. _.. -., _.,... ~. - _,
92 1
it to Carl to look at.
{}
2 MR. MICHELSON:
I don't have to see it.now, but I 3
would like a copy.
4 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
How do you feel about the part of 5
the discussion that deals with the overall process now?- We 6
talked about one aspect is our review process of generic 7
issues and they are going to get us on the same level there as 8
the other things, and we will have to make a selection of what 9
we want to look at, which is a straightforward matter for us 10 and I think for them.
11 Does anybody nave any feelings or comments about the 12 scoping issue?
13 DR. REMICK:
I think in the future we have to look 14 carefully at scope, more carefully than perhaps we have in the 1
15 past based on our knowledge now.
i 16 MR. MICHELSON:
Yep, sure do.
17 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
The thing is the USIs, haven't been 18 a new USI in how long now?
19 MR. ANDERSON:
Since--
)
20 MR. SPEIS:
Four years.
21 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
So--
22 MR. SPEIS:
Maybe even 'onger, 23 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Mainly on generic issues.-
24 MR. SPEIS:
No; '81 was the last issue.
That was 25 A-49, PTS.
Last time we went to the mission Commission was in 4
I HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 l
1 93 N
t 1
1983 on reactor coolant pumps.
They told us no--high priority r'
2 generator issue.
3 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
I believe it was said that the 4
scopes are somewhat narrower on-the generic issues.
You might 5
want to get some of those and look at them and see if we agree 6
that narrow is narrow, whether they are likely to give us a 7
problem.
That is easy enough to_do.
8 MR. WARD:
Why don't we as a committee pay attention 9
to that as they come through for prioritization?
10 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
We'will for future ones.
The ones 11 we have already got in, anybody wants to take a look at those, 12 just let Sam know.
He will collect them up, send you the 13 package.
That is about 30 issues now?
14 MR. BAER:
No.
15 MR. MINNERS:
Being worked?
16 MR. SPEIS:
No.
17 MR. MINNERS:
That are being worked?
18 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Yes.
19 MR. SPEIS:
No, no.
There are still nine USIs.
20 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Yes.
21 MR. SPEIS:
As I say, only two of them or three 22 that, the rest of them are maybe 90 percent, 95.
There are 23 about four generic issues high, and there are about 15 medium.
24 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
I just tried to visualize this.one.
~/
25 We have got the scope statement task item plans for all of HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888-
94 1
those?
Il 2
MR. MINNERS:
I doubt it.
kJ 3
CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Are.you going to get.them to us?
4 MR. SPEIS:
Most of them; some of them are in NRR.
5 When we split up, some of them were almost close to resolution 6
and they stayed behind.
I cannot speak for them.
We will'try 7
to get you all of them.
8 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
-Okay.
And then Sam will have those 9
and people can tell him what they want to look at.
10 Any other thing we want to look at there?
Now A-47, 11 I think that can only be handled by subcommittee meeting or 12 alternatively Jesse can sit down with the staff sometime and 13 look at some of these reports, and we can discuss residual 14 concerns with Carl.
15 MR. MICHELSON:
I would like to make a little 16 statement on the A-47.
17 MR. WYLIE:
I think you have to have a subcommittee 18 meeting on that.
19 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
The thing is I think there is more, 20 well, it is up to the chairman of the subcommittee how he 21 wants to do that.
You are obviously not going to get through 22 twelve contractor reports in one subcommittee meeting.
23 MR. WYLIE:
Let me ask about that a minute.
You say 24 the investigation into the control systems were under that
)
25 category of all other control systems done by the contractors.
i t
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
)
-j
95-1 Is that one:of the NUREGs or something that is
(" -
2 listed in the 1217 or--
3 MR. ANDERSON:
It is listed as a reference.
4 MR. WYLIE:
I didn't see it.
Unless it is--
5 HR. BAER:
I think we had in the package, a separate i
l 6
enclosure, if my memory serves me.
7.
MR. WYLIE:
There is a reference.
I think they 8
basically, unless it is, I just missed it.
It says controls 9
for different plants or something we looked at.
Is that it?
10 MR. BAER:
I don't have the entire package that we 11 sent down to you, but I thought.a separate enclosure, if my 12 memory is correct, there was a separate enclosure that listed 13 a whole series.
14 MR. WYLIE:
There is a whole bunch of NUREGs listed.
15 MR. MICHELSON:
Separate from the document I assume 16 he meant.
17 MR. WYLIE:
In the document there is a whole bunch 18 of them.
19 MR. MICHELSON:
In the document there was a number 20 of references.
1 21 MR. BAER:
1 guess I am thinking of different 22 package.
In Section 6 it looks like those are the references.
23 MR. MICHELSON:
Which ones of those do we look at?
24 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
All of them.
O 25 MR. WYLIE:
Well, there may be a problem with HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 L_
96 1
semantics here because the scenario Jesse talks about are 2
protective features on turbine generators such as the, it is
{}
3 the governor, it is the over-speed, the electric over-speed 4
prutector.
It is the mechanical over-speed protector.
5 HMR. EBERSOLE:
It is the voltage control.
6 MR. WYLIE:
The voltage regulator, the voltage 7
limitor, all of those things would have to fail to do the 8
things he is talking about.
I don't think you looked at that.
9 MR. ANDERSON:
I don't think--we probably didn't.
10 MR. WARD:
If all those things have to fail, why-is 11 Jesse concerned?
12 MR. EBERSOLE:
Why did you say all of them when I 13 can tell you if the voltage regulator fails, that's the only 14 one.
15 MR. WYLIE:
That is not quite correct.
In the 16 voltage regulator you hsve got a vcitage regulator that 17 regulates voltage within a certain range.
18 MR. EBERSOLE:
Yep, and that--
19 MR. WYLIE:
You have got voltage limitor on top of 20 that.
That's two.
21 MR. EBERSOLE:
And may be the trip set and you 22 eliminate them; what about the over-speed?
23 MR. WYLIE:
Same thing; you have got, on over-speed 24 you have got a governor that holds.
O 25 MR. EBERSOLE:
Backed-up protector.
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
97 1
MR. WYLIE:
Governor that holds you within one or
(~}
2 two percent, and then you have got an electric trip that's 3
above that a percent, and then you have got a mechanical trip 4
on top of that.
5 MR. EBERSOLE:
Right.
6 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
None of those are seismically.
)
7 qualified.
8 MR. WYLIE:
That's right.
9 MR. EBERSOLE:
And also there is elaborate--
10 MR. WYLIE:
Utility has a hundred million dollar 11 turbine generator.
12 MR. EBERSOLE:
It is more than that, Charlie.
On 13 the low probability--remember, Charlie, the NRC accepted the 14 thesis of 180 percent turbine failure in the context of 15 turbine missiles and then Westinghouse conned them into 16 bypassing that by inspections and so forth.
17 MR. WYLIE:
You understand--
18 MR. EBERSOLE:
Wait a minute.
That put aside the 19 impact of missiles.
It didn't put aside--
20 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
I'm sorry, Jesse, it did not.
The 21 missile problem involved several probabilities.
One was the 22 over-speed probability.
One was missile.
Then it had to hit 23 the containment, then it had to go through the containment.
24 MR. EPERSOLE:
Hundred 80 percent fraction of those O
25 is gone.
The present designs--
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
i 98 1
1 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
But the-thing is they had so many
('}
2' conservatisms in the other parts of it.
3 MR. EBERSOLE:
I understand that's why they did it, 4
but now when you pick up-over-speed, where they s till 5
connected, generator, even if the voltage regulator worked 6
perfectly, the utility carries away the equipment'still 7
connected to the turbine, unless you can tell me otherwise.
8 CHAIRHAN SIESS: -The staff, all the staff did on 9
turbine missiles was they said.instead of looking at_all those 10 probabilities of the mir.sile forming and going through the -
.1 roof, going through the containment, hitting something, we 1
12 would rather deal with the probability that'it won't happen.
13 They can do one and it still wouldn't do anything.
b
~J 14 MR. EBERSOLE:
I just extended the damage potential.
15 MR. WYLIE:
Yes, but to do that your over-frequency 16 of protective relay has got to fail.
17 MR. EBERSOLE:
Yes, but I think you' told me that you j
18 weren't sure over-frequency relays were in?'
19 MR. WYLIE:
Well, I don't know what other people are 20 doing.
I know what Duke does.
21 MR. EBERSOLE:
I did learn there is no regulatory 22 requirement for it.
23 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Charlie is suggesting the i
24 subcommittee meeting, and T think-that would be a more O
25 appropriate time for you guys to debate it with the staff.
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)620-4888 j
L
99 1
MR. EBERSOLE:
Let me put it to the staff as to
,/~T 2
this--when do you want to see.us again?
O 3
CHAIRMAN.SIESS:
When do you want to see them?
4 MR. EBERSOLE:
I will give them that privilege if 5
they will mai:e la within about a month and a half.
6 MR. BAER:
How about giving us a proposed agenda?
I 7
guess we have tried to get back to you on these issues.
One 8
of the things that I think might be fruitful, on the 9
references I guess it would take us a little~ bit of time, but 10 we could try and summarize those references that we think are 11 pertinent if that's what you want.
12 MR. EBERSOLE:
Basically just a road nap, where have 13 you been and what did you do?
O 14 MR. SPEIS:
He wants more detail of what we did.
15 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Gentlemen, the object of a 16 subcommittee meeting is to provide the subcommittee with 17 enough information that they can tell the Full Committee that 18 they can tell the Commission that we think USI-47 has been 19 resclved, or tell them that we don't think it has been 20 resolved.
21 MR. SPEIS:
At least you can say part of the scope 22 has been resolved.
We think some residual part needs 23 additional look.
24 MR. MICHELSON:
Let me give you a key question.
You 25 can put it on your agenda then--the question of external HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
.. r v
100 1
events.
I think today you gave us a very wishy-washy ggg 2
uncertain picture as to how you handle external events.
At 3
the subcommittee meeting you will come back with a very solid 4
story, either you did or you didn't or here, here, here is 5
what you did do, here in what you didn't do.
Today we didn't 6
get that picture.
I didn't get it t: least.
Maybe I uissed 7
it.
8 MR. ANDERSON:
What I would propose that we do is 9
look at each item in the scope and try to explain to you.
10 MR. MICHELSON:
Is it in the scope or not, out of 11 the scope, first of all?
I don't think you told me one way or 12 the other for sure.
The report said it is out of the scope, 13 but then you said oh, well, it was really it, it.
We really 14 looked at this and this.
15 Come back with the story.
Is it in the scope or 16 not?
If it is not in the scope, fine.
And we will, that will l
17 be one of the potential complaints that we might make to the l
18 Commission.
We don't know for sure.
19 MR. ANDERSON:
You nave to understand the scope.
20 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
And wt re the various items were 21 addressed and if possible how, ar.d what you are going to do e
22 about the ones that aren't, dispose of t"t_m in some v
.. g ;
23 satisfactory way.
J ND D*;g5 24 MR. SPEIS:
The ones t h e. *, you have a concern.
<Q+.c
,9'/
t*.
25 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
The ones in the scope and what is l
HERITAGE REPORTING C0000R 110N -- (202)628-4888
~ - -
101 1
done if they are in it,-if'you can't convince them they were
(^h 2
done.
Now you succeed in all ot that, you still have the b._/
+
3 residual scenarios' Jesse and Carl can think of.
They may end 4
up somewhere else.
I-dott know.
5
'MR. MICHELSON:
I never raised. issues.except on 6
external events.
I am not going to get into the internal.
.I-7 am go5ng to assume they did that'all right..That's as far as 8
I go.
9 CHAIRMAN'SIESS:
The object of the game is.to give 10 us enough information --
11 MR. SPEIS:
That's fair.
12 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Or enough confidence.
13 MR. hICHELSON:
The key thrust is going to O
14 ultir.ately be if we are not handling external 3 vents, 15 particularly in this example, what is the agency d'_-ing about 16 it?
We know they are being handled poorly in PRAs, if at all.
17 And I think it opens up a whole, yes, a generie issue of how 18 the agency is considering exterr.a1 events, clearly required by 19 the GDC.
20 Mk. SPEIS:
I have a question.
Are you talking 21 about the design basis earthquakes?
22 MR. MICHELSON:
Talking about external events, you 23 know, fire, flood.
24 MR. SPEIS:
Are you talking about design basis or i
25 beyond design basis?
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (2021628-4888 b-n
102 1
MR. MICHELSON:
Design basis only; design basis, i
2 fires, the whole bit.
And. pipe break, and don't forget some 3
of these like pipe break were handled by very old-study..
.I 4
would like to know how that was considered when you did 5
control system interaction.
Fire'is the same way.
6 MR. BAER:
~Jhat you are really-dealing with,-Carl--I 3
~
7 think is'the degree we looked at common node failures, because 5
in most cases, when we look at control system failures, they 9
were non-mechanistic.
Tried to explain before,.so I~think f
10 what you are really saying is to what degree did we look at 11 common, multiple common, multiple control system failures from 12 a common source?
13 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Just a minute.
Before you go on to O
14 that, I thought you or Jesse had raised a question that it 15 wasn't simply that they failed but how they failed.
16 MR. MICHELSON:
Ccamon mode gets that.
17 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
The common mode gets that?
l 18 MR. MICHELSON:
It is multiple co3 mon mode 4
19 happenings that you want to get at.
10 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
I thought somebody raised questions 21 about partial failures.
22 MR. liICHELSON:
Just to make sure you ur.derstand, 23 what things have multiple things happen, from a common cause?
7 24 It may be the same tiro.
25 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Jesse has concerns about-partial HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4860
,y 103' j
.l 1
1 failures.
(}
2 MR. EBERSOLE:
Visualize it like~.this.
3 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Spurious.
4 MR. EBERSOLE:
You have to look at control system in 5
the, the reverse, the,right and the ldft.and up and down 4
o 6.
directions and then in the oscillatory mode which is-somewhere 7
in all of those.
8 MR. ~ BAER:
I am back to what.I said before, that 9
maybe we have to talk some more about scenarios so'that wo 10 understand them well enough to try and show that what we did
~
11 was bounding them because if we said this wcs the,.for P
12 example, the part about BWR pumps, if this was the worst 13 highsut speed it could get to, we didn't try to investigate 14 all or pe.rtial ways or all the ways it could get there or 15 anything partial.
16 MR. EBERSOLE:
That's all right.
17 MR. MICHELSON:
Then at the same time you have to i
18 look at what else is happening while the pump is 19 over-speeding, if there is some common cause back,somewhere 20 leading to this, and tha', s where I think your study pretty 21 well falls down.
22 CrAIRMAN SIESS:
When he says multiple common mode, 4
23 he doesn't u. ear two identical pumps go out, if this pump goes i
24 cu. and that valve goes out ever there that--
O 25 MR. MICHELSON:
From a common cause.
l HERITACE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
~.
.t 104 1
MR. EBEP, SOLE:
.Give you an interesting-varsion"of 2
it, Carl, it was at a laboratory--
3 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Safe it for the subcommittee
.4 meeting.
It is getting lat'e and I want to let these guys go 5
home and talk about what to report.to the' Commission.
6 MR. EBERSOLE:
Okay.
7 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Otherwise you are not going to have 8
anything to do with the subcommittee meeting.
Now we will.
9 propose through some process that the Memorandum of 10 Understanding be revised or' interpreted to include USIs.or GIs 11 as regulatory actions.
12 MR. SPEIS:
Except on GIs you will take the 13 initiative, provide you with the information.
O 14 CHAIRMAN SIESS:
Memorandum of Understanding that 15 you notify us, that you work on it by whatever process, and we 16 have the obligation to tell you whether or not we want to look 17 at it and when.
That was the important part of it.
Pinned us 18 down and say yes, we want to look at it, be in there, we want 19 two months at a certain time to look at it.
20 MR. SPEIS:
The ones that you--
21 MR. DURAISWAMY:
It doesn't say that.
22 MR. SPEIS:
This is the kind t-f vugraph--
23 MR. WARD:
Do you want a record of this?
I think 24 she is having a hard time.
25 MR. WARD:
Stop the record.
r HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
r-....-.---...
. -. -.... -. -.. - ~. -...
i.
k 1
105-6
?
i.
b 1
CHAIRMAN SIESS:
We can go off the; record.
I l
2 (Whereupon. at 3:20 p.m.,
the recorded. portion of 3
the meeting was cc,ncluded. )
f l'
4 j
l k
j 5
)
a 6
4, 4
[
7
(
E 8
[
I 9
i I
i 10 j
11 l
o I
1 12 i
l 13 i
G i
14 l
i 15 t
4 16 i
i i
17 i
i t
18 l
19 4
I 20 i
21 i
22 l
1 23 l
I 24 i
G 25 i
f I
l l
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 2
i O
a cocx== suasta=
~.
~'
4 CASE TITLE:
ACRS--Subcommittee on the Generic Issues 5
HEARING DATE:
January 29, 1988 8
LOCATION:
Washit.gton, D.C.
l 7
l 4
I hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence 8
are contained fully and accurately on the tapes and notes l
9 i
reported by me at the hearing in the above case before the i
10 l
I 11 12 13 M
Date:
January 29, 1988 14 i
l 15 l
(xdkJ S-g7 Official Reporter
/
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION 18 1220 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 ig 1
20 21 22
- )
2:7 23 24 l
O V
,,.5 HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION i
(202)628-4888
'l 1
'!'TPOPilCTION AND SUMMAPY o
USI 8 GI PP.0CEDL'RES FPOM STAPT TO FIPISH c
TAP PPOCEDilPES c
USI A-17 CPRONOLOGY o
USI A-17 TASK ACCOMPLISHMENT o
USI A-47 CHRONOLOGY o
USI A-47 TASK ACCOMPLISHMENT e
THE MULTIPLE SYSTEM RESPONSE PROGRAM - ADDPESSING THE SCOPE QUESTIONS O
O O
l!SI s START TO FINISH o
IDENTIFICATION OF PROPOSED USir o
SCPEENIUG OF PIGH PRIOPITY GIs o
SCPEENING OF OTHEP SAFETY CONCEPFS o
PPEPAPE COMMISSION PAPER PP0 POSING SELECTED ISSUES AS USIs o
DISCUSS WITH ACPS o
ACRS PECOMMENDATION TO COMfPSSION o
COMMISSION DESIGFATES ISSUE AS USI o
TASK ACTION PLAN DEVELOPEP o
PEVIEW 0F TAP o
STAFF o
ACPS o
TECHPICAL RESOLUTION OF ISSUE o
TAP PEVISED ANNUALLY e
PEVIEWERS o
SCHEDULES e
RESOURCES o
TECHNICAL CONTENT o
DTSCUSSIONS WITH ACPS PERIODICALLY o
PP0GRESS PEPORTED TO C0FGRESS AND COMMISION ANNUALLY (NPC ANNUAL REPORT)
O O
O
USIs STAPT TO FINISH (CPUT) o PEVIEW OF PPOPOSED RESOLUT10f.'
o STAFF o
CRGR e
ACPS o
ISSUE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT o
COMMISSION PAPER o
LETTERS TO CONGRESS o
FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE c
PREPARE FINAL RESOLUTION o
REVIEW F!t'AL RESOLUTION e
STAFF o
CRGR o
ACPS o
ISSUE FINAL RESOLUTION o
COMMISSION PAPER o
LETTERS TO C0t'GRESS o
FEPERAL REGISTER NOTICE o
IMPLEFEf!TATION o
VERIFICATION O
O O
G.I.s START TO FIPISH o
IDENTIFICATION OF SAFETY C0FCEPF o
DEFINITION BY INITIATOR o
PRIORITIZATIOM BY RES o
PEER REVIEW OF PRIORITIZATION o
ACPS REVIEW 0F PRIORITIZATION o
DEVELOPMENT AND STAFF APPROVAL OF TAP o
COMPLETE PROPOSEP TECHNICAL RESOLUTION o
REVIEW PROPOSED TECHNICAL PESOLUTION o
STAFF o
CPGP o
ACPS o
PUBLIC o
DEVELOPMENT OF FIFAL RESOLUTION o
IMPLEMENTATION o
VERIFICATION O
O O
TAP PROCEDilPES o
DURIFG PP0GPAM DEVELOPMENT GT USI o
DEVELOP PRELIf1It'APY TAP X
X o
STAFF PEVIEW X
X o
ACRS REVIFW X
o ISS!!E APPROVED TAP X
X o
DURING TECHNICAL PESOLUTIOP o
AFNilAL REVISION o
TECl!PICAL REVIEW X
o RESOURCE PEVIEW X
o SCHEDULE REVIEW X
o SPECIAL REVISION DUE TO PROGRAM CilANGE X
X o
IN GIMCs REPOPT X
X o
DURING REVIEW AFD APPPOVAL PROCESS X
X o
TAP F0T REVISED X
X o
SCliEDULES PEPORTED IF GIMCs X
X O
O O
--- J
!!SI A-]7 CHPONOLOGY 1974 ACRS RAISED CONCERN IN CONTEXT OF STANDARD PLANTS 1978 DESIGNATED AS USI 1978 - 1983 PROGRAM EXPANDED, DIFFICULTY WITH DEFINITION AND SCOPE
]983 ACPS EXPRESSED CONCEPT! WITH TAP AND LACK OF PROGRESS (LETTER Jt!LY 14, 1983) 1983 MAJ0P PEVISION OF TAP MET WITH ACPS 1984 TAP APPPOVED BY DIRECTOR NRP PUBLISHED IN FUPEG 0649 PRELIPINARY TECHFICAL FINDING PRESENTED TO ACRS 1985 DPAFT PESOLUTION PRESENTED TO ACPS 1986 REVISED DRAFT RESOLI! TION PPESENTED TO ACPS AND CRGR
)
ACRS LETTER CRITICAL OF A-17 (MAY 13, 1986)
STAFF PESPONDED 1987 REVISED PROPOSED PESOLUTION PRESENTED TO CRGR AND ACRS e
o e
l
l!SI A.17 TASK ACCOMPLISHMENT TASK ACTION PLAN v!0RK ACCOMPLISHED TASKS 2.
SEAPCH FOR COMMON CAllSE FVENTS SAME AS TAP 2.
TRENDS AND PATTERNS OF CC EVFi!TS SAME AS TAP 3.
INDI AN POIt!T 3 METHODS COMPAPISON SAFE AS TAP 4.
SCREEN F0P FAFETY SIGNIFICANCE SAME AS TAP 5.
REVIEW OF SEARCH fiETHODS SAFE AS TAP 6.
EVAltlATI0t' 0F SEAPCH METHODS SAFE AS TAP 7.
TECHNICAL RESOLUTION SAME AS TAP O
O O
I IISI A-47 CHRONOLOGY o
MAY 198]
DISCUSSION OF PRELIMINARY TAP ACPS LETTER ON PRELIMINARY TAP (MAY ]2, ]981) o DRAFT TAP SENT TO ACRS JULY ]98? -
STATUS PEPORT (D. BASDEKAS) o OCT ]98?
TAP APPROVED BY DIRECTOR NPR AND SENT TO ACRS o
DEC 1982 STATUS REPORT TO ACRS o
JAN 1983 TAP REVISED (N0 CHANGE IN TASK DESCRIPTIONS) o FARCH 3984 -
TAP PEVISED (N0 CHANGE IN TASK DESCRIPTIONS) o JUNE 1984 -
STATilS REPORT o
SEPT 1984 -
TAP PUBLISHED IN NUREG 0649 o
NOV 3984 STATUS PEPORT (OVERVIEW 0F S.G. OVEPFILL PROGRAM) o OCT 3987 STATUS PEPORT O
O O
O USI A-47 TASK ACC0FPLISilMENT TASK NO.
EFFORT DESCRIBED IN NUREG-0649, REV 1 WORK ACCOMPLISHED
(MARCH 1984) 1 IPEt'TIFY CONTPOL SYSTEMS Wil0SE FAli.URE SAME AS TAP CAN LEAD TO SIGNIFICAPT PRIMARY SYSTEM TRANSIEPTS (1)
IPEPTIFY CANDIDATE SYSTEMS USING SAME AS TAP TOOLS SUCH AS FEMA, llSE F0F-MECl4ANISTIC "WORST-CASE" FAILURES.
SAME AS TAP
(?)
PEVIEW LERs, IE BULLETINS, ETC.
SAME AS TAP 2
PEVELOP AND CONDUCT COMPUTER STMULATION SAME AS TAP STUDIES (1)
WESTINGH0llSE PLANT H.B. ROFINSON WAS USED AS A TYPICAL WEST.
PLANT (2)
G.E. PLANT BROWNS FERRY WAS USED AS TYPICAL llI lll lll
TASK P0.
EFF0PT DESCRIBED IN NUREG-0649, REV 1 WORK ACCOMPLISHED
--------(MARCH 1984)-----------------------------------
(3)
CALVERT CLIFFS (TYPICAL CE PLANT)
SAME AS TAP (4)
B&W PLANT OCONEE WAS USED AS TYPICAL E8F PLANT 3
IDEPTIFY FAILURE MODES OF SIGNIFICANT SAME AS TAP CONTROL SYSTEMS.
4 EVALUATE EFFECTS OF LOSS OF POWER SilPPLY SAME AS TAP TO CONTROL SYSTEMS.
())
C00PDINATE WITH USI A-44
(?)
CONSIDER LICEFSEE'S RESP 0FSES PASED ON REVIEW 0F 4 TO IEB 79-27.
PLANTS ASSUMED EXISTING REQUIREMENTS IMPLEMENTED OF ALL PLANTS (BEING COH-FIRMED FOR BtW PLANTS BY BWOG EFFORTS)
(3)
IDENT!FY CONTROL SYSTEMS HAVING SAME AS TAP A SIGNIFICANT SAFETY I" ACT DUE gg TO POWER SUPPLY FAILURE.
O TASK NO.
EFFORT DESCRIBED IN NilREG-0649, REV 1 WORK ACCOMPLISPED
(MARCH 1984)---------------------------------
(4)
DEVELOP CRITEPIA TO IMPPOVE CONCLUDED NOT TO DE PFLIABILITY OF CONTROL SYSTEFF NECESSARY
(!F NECESSARY).
5 DETERMINE THE NEED FOR CONTROL OP ONLY LIMITED IPPROVEMENTS PPOTECTION SYSTEMS.
JUSTIFIED BY COST /PENEFIT 6
PROVIDE CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION CONCLUDED NOT TO BE OF CONTROL SYSTEMS (IF NECESSARY)
PECESSAPY 7
IDENTIFY CONTPOL SYSTEMS THAT COULD LEAD OVERFILL OR OVERCOMING TRANSIENTS.
(!)
OVERFILL EVENTS SAME AS TAP + OVERPRES-(2)
PEACTOR OVERC00 LING EVENTS SURE, OVERHEAT 8 REAC-TIVITY TRANSIENTS (3)
IDENTIFY LESSONS LEARNED FROM PAST CONTROL SYSTEM FAILURFS O
O O
MULTIPLE SYSTEM RESPONSE PP0 GRAM o
PPOCPAM DEVELOPED TO CONSIDER SAFETY COPi~7NS RAISED THAT ARE NOT EXPLICITLY COVEPED IP EXISTIFG PPOGRAPS o
ISSUES BE!NG CONSIDERED C0FF FPOM o
ACRS CONCERNS o
1.ERs o
AEOD REPOPTS o
STAFF C0FCERNS o
SPECIFICALLY PEVIEVED SCOPE OF A li7, A-]7, A-46, FIRE PROTECTION, ENV. QUAL.
o DPAFT CONTAINING PRELIMINAPY ISSUE DEFINIT 10f7 UNDER STAFF PEVIEW o
WILL PECUEST ACRS PEVIEW
)
O O
O
- r
/
w p p E tj z f
G-o o
an wo2F e e-ag
-85E 3$,oRano-u w w ~ m. u.
m w-u cc.
- ~1 m
1 en f
wu-I c== C" co MEM
- .i 5 =f
- a= C e
.g
.m 5 E g. U y
=
~
Gd ogday
-r o Enm na ES2o
~ =
- m
$__ o 9 wdAos s
u" N
N@
r s gruta EW-a u
m-~
u mo m
a-m a. -
o om n
o
.=
=
O
~Be a m
W5d Iw S u 6*
o
-( M" Z
2 a
E ooo B vm o
wng"e m.o:
s o nn" Sn5"t m=
a awe 8
- v84 egb m
mm
- c. m. m u
a :e
.0 e
5 "z
'.,._E
--w.
ow
=3 s s o
u uy e
a.1 a~
W to O g5:e
=
=ana e O
=-
- a m,., e *
.. a, o.-i n c.-w - c 3 -
cc
- o
..o z_-
~ua Q
M W
m
=
=
ops.
=
o no s
m.4 o n s. C.< -5 c
s-O n.
2 -
- a m,,, V N M u a Ub Eb D
FwU ".au.
an M
.c y u.
s y~"
o l
l l
e Z
Z
'A
- )
'SBNU$WS
$l m
)
i'FlE,SG
- -s T m :4 m t<
J W
O G
E