ML20151U889
| ML20151U889 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/11/1988 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8808190290 | |
| Download: ML20151U889 (99) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
Title:
BRIEFING ON STATUS, RESULTS, AND IMPLEMENTATION OF B&W REASSESSMENT LOCatlOD:
ROCKVkLLE, MARYLAND j
4 Date:
AucUST 11, 1988 Pages:
1-64 1
l I
i l
Ann Riley & Associates l
Court Reporters
]
1625 i Street, N.W., Suite 921 Washington, D.C. 20006 l
(202) 293 3950 go}
I
\\
l esos19o290 8e0011 Y
1 UR P $. 7 PNV
0!SCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on August 11, 1988 in the Commission's office at One White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.
As provided oy 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or. informal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of. opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determination oc beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of, or addressed to, any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
1 i
1 UNITED STATCS OF AMERICA l
l 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
{
4 BRICPING ON STATUS, RLSULTS, AND IMPLCMENTATION OP B&W REASSESSMENT 5
}
6 I
PUBLIC MCETING 1
7 l
l i
8 i
4 i
j 9
Nuclear Reoulatory Commi.;sion t
10 One White Plint North i
Rockville, :taryland 11 Thursday. Aaaust i1, 2988 12 l
13 j
f j
The Commission met in open session, pursuant to 14 j notice, at 10:00 a.m.,
the linnorable LANDO W.
ZECH, Chairman I
13 i l
{
of the Commission, presiding.
l 16 l
17 CO?OSISSIONCRS PRESENT:
l 1
l 18 LIsNDO W.
ZECil, Chairman of the Commission I
i
- l l
l 19 i TiiOMAS M.
ROBERTS, Member of the Commission
\\
l l
i j
20 K E NNETil M.
C AllR, 21eribe r of the Commission I
l i
I l
21 l
KENNET!! C.
ROGERS, Ilember of the Commission 4
l s
22 t
.i 23 l
24 i
25 i
i i
2 1
STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT TiiE COM?'11SSION TABLE:
2 l
i l
\\
3 i S.
Cl! ILK i
l I
4 W.
PARLER i
i i
l 5
R.
WILSON
{
l 6
B.
SIMPSON I
7 !
J. TAYLOR l
1 8
D.
CRUTCilFIELD l
9 F.
11IRAGLI A 10 j J.
CALVO j
i 11 i
R.
JONES 1.
I 12 i
13 14 4
i 15 ij O
i I
16 ll 1
}
h 17 !i i
l 18 l
)
l 19 l i
I 20 !!
l i
)
21 0
l 22 i 23 i
i s
24 i
25 i
I t
u 1
p PROCEEDINGS 2
(10:00 a.m.)
i t
3 CHAIRMAN ZECil' Good morning, ladies and il 1
4 gentlemen.
Todcy we will hear from the Babcock and Wilcock
{
l 5
owners group representatives and the NRC staff concerning l
l 6
the status and results of the safety and performance i
l 7
improvement program conducted by the Babcock and Wilcock I
i I
8 owners group.
l l
9 In addition, the Co.Tmission has requested an I
d i
10.
updated status of the implementation of recommendations that j i
a (h
l 11 resulted from this reassessment by the Babecek and Wilcock 4
j 12 j
plant licensees.
I understand copies of the slides are i
)
13 1 available at the entrance to the room.
i 14 l Do any of my fellow Commissioners have any opening 1
j 15
]
comments before we begin?
!{
r 16 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
No, i
J j
17 Y
CHAIRMAN ZEC11:
If not, I would like to welcome l
1 i
18 the representatives of the owners group who are with us i
c 19 h today.
Mr. Wilson, you may proceed with your presentation, j
I l
MR. WILSON:
Good morning.
My name is Dick Wilson.!
l X)
I i
j 21 l
I am the Technical Vice President of GTU Nuclear Corporation l
M and Vice Chairman of the Executive Committee of the B&W i
23 owners group.
On my left is Mr. Bert Simpson who is Director i
l 24 of Nuclear Operations, ?,ngineering and Projects for Florida 25 Power Corporation and past Chairman of the B&W owners grouo l
i i
i 1
l.
1 Steering Committee.
2 l We are here today to bring you up-to-date on the j
3 current status of the owners group safety, perfonnance and t
l improvement program, which we use the acronym SPIP, which 4
l 5
has been under active owners group management for some two l
i 6
and a half years ncw.
4 1
7 By way of introduction, I would like to briefly 1
8 l
review the program, the prior meetings we have had with you.
4 l
l 9
Could I have the slide, please?
That'a slide I
f three.
i 10 1
1 i
)
11
[
(Slide.)
4 e
J 12 1 This first view graph shows the three principal i
f 13 phases of the program.
At the prior Commission briefing on t
i i
j 14 g
November 6th, 1986, we reviewed the basis for the program I
15 y
and the breadth of activities encompassed.
At that meeting, a
i h
f l
16 h
we find out program objective of reducino trips and complex I
h
'l 17
}
transients and increasing our plant's level of safety by I
l t
h 18 h
implementing recommendations yet to come.
-1 J
g i
19 9
The program we described included substantial i
e 1
33 i involvement by outside third parties, intensive interaction j
21 with the NRC staff, comparative performance assessments I
i 22 i
relative to other types of PWR units, and a wide-ranging j
23 look into operations, maintenance and design issues.
Shown 24 on the view graph, the second phase was the integration of
]
M that in f o rma tion, the development of insights and j
i i
l
5 f
- f3 conclusions from the data, and assessments as to what should i
I 2
be done.
We have reviewed the conclusions of the program I
3 with you previously on August 5th of 1987.
4 Today we are well beyond the second phase and into 5
the implementation phasa.
Since we have previously reviewed 6
the program scope and conclusions, we come today to i
7 principally talk to you about where we are in the I
8 implementation.
Effective implementation is where the i
9 benefit will be achieved.
Our own Executive Committee, the l
I u) independent advisory board which was part of the SPIP programi i
1 11 the MRC staff, ACRS, and you, yourselves, have all 12 recognized that implementation is critical to success and 13 maybe the most difficult to achieve.
l t
i 14 With that very brief introduction, unless you have I 15 some in troductory questions, Mr. Bert Simpson will review 16 with y,u in some detail where we, as owners, stand on 17 implementation.
Following his discussions, I will have a 18 few concluding remarks.
19 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you very much.
Mr. Simpson,.
I 20 you may proceed.
I 21 MR. SIMPSON:
Okay.
As Mr. Wilson indicated, what 22 I am going to try to cover today is to focus mostly on the 23 I implementation process that we have developed to ensure 24 proper and timely implementation of the SPIp recommendations.
25 I will also cover not only the process but the present L~~
h f
[
r 6
i status that we have in terms of the implementation of the 2
recommendations and also our status of our efforts towards 3
achieving the goals that we set out when we started the SPIP 4
program.
5 Could I have my first slide, please?
i 6
(Slide.)
l 7
The implementing the recommendation is the most 8
critical thing, we think, for the success of the program.
9 We think the SPIP program has been very effective in 10 idantifying solutions to many of the problems but if we i
11 l
den't implement them, then the whole effort has been wasted. !
l 12 The implementation is being formally monitored by 12 the executives and the Steering Committee for both quality l
l 14 and timeliness.
We have embarked on a couple of key issues i
15 here and I am going to talk briefly about both of these.
l The implementation of quality we'will be monitoring from a 16 l
17 programatic and a technical standpoint.
In my later slides, l l
18 I will discuss each of those -- the programatic program and 19 also the technical program that we have embarked on.
i 4
2.
Proper implementation will require consideration i
21 of the plant unique configuration, resources and the l
22 operating schedules, the various schedules and overlaps of 23 when these things will be installed.
Also, the plant design 21 is very crucial and some of the recommendations may or may M
not apply.
i
1 The recommendation tracking system report is a 2
management tool It provides the status, the plan and the l
3 schedule for dispositioning of all the recommendations.
I 4
will briefly discuss that program, what it looks like, how 5
we are using it and how we are providing the iriformation to 6
the staff.
l 7
The effectiveness is monitored by comparison of 8
Performance against defined goals.
When we started the SPIP 9
program, we defined two clear goals that we have been using to to try to assess whether or not the program and recommendation 11 implementation is really benefiting the B&W owners group.
I 12 will talk a little bit today about that also.
13 Could I have my next slide, please?
14 (Slide.)
15 The first thing I would like to address is the i
16 programatic evaluation of the SPIP implementation program.
17 The objective of this effort was when we first started we i
18 wanted to make sure ': hat everyone had a consistent 19 understanding of the recommendations, that we had a very l
i m !
controlled process within each utility to consistently 1
21 evaluate the recommendations, to ensure we had proper 22 management attention to these recommendations, that the 23 resources and priorit'ies were being applied, that adequate 24 documentation on disposition, evaluation and closure of 25 these recommendations was being attained, and that the
8 1
operations and maintenance and technical people were being 2
involved in the review and implementation of these 3
recommendations.
4 The way we did that was the e::ecutives decided to 5
conduct a team inspection, if you would, comprised of the 6
various utility personnel and B&W people, and we had basicall 7
eight people comprised of the utility people and members of l
8 B&W.
& developed an evaluation plan, if you would, some 9
guidelines.
We conducted those at each of the operating 10 plants, all the six utilities, and we issued a report.
11 Crucial to that was the executives decided that a member of 12 the Executive Committee would attend and participate at each,
13 of the program audits, and that was accomplished.
We found J
14 that every effective in communicating to the various utility,
I l
personnel who may or may not have been involved in the actuall 15 16 SPIP effort the importance that the execs were placing on 17 this program.
18 We spent about one man-year of a team effort on 19 that.
We had about 140 people involved when you count the l
20 l utility people who also interacted with the team.
A summary I 21 2 port was submi'.ted to the executives and also to the NRC 1
22 staff.
~
23 Could I have my next slide, please?
24 (Slide.)
25 The programatic evaluation team conclusions, the
9 i
principal conclusion was that all the utilities had adequate l 2
programs for the SPIP recommendation dispositioning at the 3
time of the evaluation.
However, in all cases some 4
improvements were needed to create a fully e f fective program.
5 What we found was some people had different parts of the 6
program in better shape than others.
What we were able to 7
do was take the good parts of a lot of peoples programs and a
by sharing those through this process with everyone, 9
everyones program improved.
10 So, I know specifically at Crystal River we were 11 able to learn things that other people were doing that was 12 a good idea that we have since implemented.
'I think as a i
13 result all of the programs are better now.
That is basically 14 i
the cross-fertilization to the team members of the respective; i
15 l companies.
We were continually to evolve into making 16 additional improvements throughout the evaluation period.
17 Even today, we are finding new things that we can do to 18 improve the program.
l 2
19 Can I have my next slide, please?
20 (Slide.)
l l
As I mentioned earlier, the involvement of the l
21 l
22 Executive Committee representative I think contributed I
23 greatly to the evaluation quality and the emphasis and the 24 visibility of the program and the goals.
We believe because 25 we did this offort that we will have an improvement in the
10 1
quality of the disposition.
We will have consistent l
2 reporting.
We wanted to make sure that people were having consistent d'efinitions.
And, the documentation will be 3
4 improved which will increase the progress and dispositioning 5
of results.
I think we are tarting to see that now that i
6 we are into the actual implementation phase.
We are not 7
arguing over terms or miscommunications.
l 8
We conducted that in the period between -- I meant 9
to mention that earlier -- we conducted that during the 10 period of December of '87 through March of
'88.
So, that j
i 11 program is finished.
12 The next piece that the Executive Committee was 13 concerned about was the quality of the implementation; how i
14 were we going to assure ourselves that each utility was 15 interpreting the requirements correctly, understood the 16 real intent of the recommendation, and were following it all 17 the way through from the design, if it was a modification,
{
'8 or if it was a procedural change, that we were really getting 19 a consistent quality.
M What we decided to do in that particular area is 21 do technical evaluations.
We started these in February of t
22 this year.
We just completed the first round of technical 23 evaluations last week.
So, we have done all of the six 24 utilities for at least a few of the recommendations.
We 25 basically had a four-man team, again comprised of utility
f 11 i
people.
Each utility would put on a representative to l
Participate in the various audits except when they did 2
3 their own.
4 We picked five recommendations.
We took some of I
5 the top five most important recommendations including the i
6 known safe state recommendation and the ICS for the initial j
7 evaluation.
Like I mentioned, we have completed all of the j
8 first phase.
We developed a detailed evaluation plan and 9
checklist.
That is comprised of this book right here.
What 10 we did was we basically went through for each of the l
11 evaluations -- I mean the recommendations that we picked, 12 the five -- and if it was a design one, we went through in 13 a really detailed methodology what the team should be lookingl 1
i 14 for to assess what is a good quality.
So, when the teams 15 went
- because there were different people -- from place to 16 place, we had a consistent checklist and a consistent 17 evaluation process.
We found that to be very useful.
We 18 found also, by just doing that, we gave better insight to 19 the utilities as to what issues they should consider also, i
M j COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
llow long.did each of those i
l 21 i
visits take?
22 MR. SIMPSON:
Approximately a week.
I mean j' was 23 a couple of days preparation, three days at the plant 24 sometimes in the home office and the site.
We actual / went i
M to the site facilities and talked to the operations people i
a
12 l
1 and walked through the different parts of it.
Then we had f
2 to write the report up.
So, typically it took about a week. ;
3 The Steering Committee plans to review the results 4
now that we have finished them all at our September meeting 5
which is about a month away.
We are going to review the 6
results of the first round of technical evaluations to 7
determine if there are any additional actions that we need 8
to take.
We are also right now evaluating nine additional 9
key recommendations that we want to plan and schedule to s
10 do further technical audits, if you would, throughout the l
11 process.
Right now we are looking at the nine and we are 12 trying to determine based on the utilities schedules when 13 they will be finished with implementation so that ue can 14 get a handle on when to conduct this next nine.
So, our l
15 l
intent, as we go through these, is to continue this process.
16 We think it will be very beneficial, i
17 Could I have my next slide, please?
4 i
18 (slide )
19 In terms of results of the technical evaluations l
in general, the quality of implementation for the five M
l 21 recommendations audited were adequate.
The team has made 22 some recommendations to specific plants where improvements 23 could be needed.
Those were both in the design and in the 24 procedural areas.
We also are finding good practices, things 25 that peoole are doing that we think need to be shared with 1
i I
i
13 the other utilities, and we are in fact communicating those i
2 things to the other utilities.
As we review these reports 3
in September, that is going to be one of the fallout things that we will do.
We think, again, that is the way to 4
I 5
improve on the implementation process.
6 Before I move into the actual status of where we j
i 7
stand on the recommendations, I would like to talk briefly l
l 8
about the trapking system and process that we have developed ;
9 l
due to the large number of recommendations that did come out i
10 l of this program.
What we have put together is a i
11 recommendation tracking system report.
That is thisdocument!
12 right here.
It contains each of the 226 recommandations that:
13 are currently valid recommendations from the SPIP program.
14 Basically in this report it has a brief description of the 15,
. recommendation, the benefit or why you would have to do it,
.I 16 the background on trips that it has caused, and it also 17 defines the source documents or, in other words, additional l
t 18 technical documents that you need to go to to refer to to t
19 get the total meaning of the recommendation, and at the I
l
\\
20 j bottom it has a brief summary status of each of the l
i 21 utilities and where they stand on implementation.
l l
22 We update this book every quarter.
Earlier in i
23 the stages we were doing on a monthly and now it has got to 24 the point where quarterly makes sense.
The Steering 25 Committee meets every two months.
We review this as a l
14 I
1 standard agenda item to determine how the progress is doing 2
and what problem arcas anybody has come up with and to make i
3 sure all the utilities are in fact moving at about the same 4
pace.
5 The Executive Committee meets three times a year 6
and they also have this on their agenda.
In fact they are 7
going to be meeting in September and it is on their agenda j
8 to review the next status.
9 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
The Executive Committee of the I
10 owners group.
11 MR. SIMPSON:
- Yes, h'e also provide this document i
12 on a quarterly basis to the NRC staf f.
13 MR. CHILK:
You are tracking 426 or 226?
14 MR. SIMPSON:
226, yes.
Basically what we are l
trying to do is to make sure because of the large volume of 15 r
16 information that we are consistently communicating both l
17 internally and to the staff and that we are all making l
l 18 progress.
l 19 May I have my next slide, please?
l M I (Slide.)
l 1
1 21 l
Before I get into actually discussing the results l
22 on this slide, what I would like to do is to refresh your 1
23 memory.
I believe they were discussed at the last 24 Commission meeting last year.
What we have come up with is 25 four categories or phases, if you would, how the evaluations w,
w---
y w-m ---- aw w,
--a
- gw n sm-- mwe,--
a nw,
--,,_,,,w-w-_-.-.
_e m,
- w
~m-
~ ~ - '
P 15 I
are being addressed.
The first phase is evaluating for 5
2 applicability.
The intent of that phase is to review each i
3 of the 226 recommendations to determine if it applies to 4
your power plant.
In some cases, due to design differences, 5
it may not as a generic recommendation apply to all the I
6 pl an ts.
l 7
Once you have accomplished that and you determine I,
g that it does apply to your plant, then you move to the next 9
phase which is evaluating for implementation.
That is what to you could call an engineering study phase where you are i
11 actually progressing through a design phase to determine 12 what type of alternative solution would you specifically 13 implement at your plant.
If it was a procedural type l
14 recommendation, a software recommendation, you would be l
reviewing which procedures have to be changed, what is the 15 is extent of the change, what resouces do I need and what is j
l 17 the schedule.
18 Once you complete that phase, then you move into 19 the implementation phase.
That is where you have already l
i l
m {
selected your design alternative, you have scheduled your 21 resources, and.you are actually into the actual implementatio}n 22 of the design or into implementation in the field of the 23 modification or in fact you are actually implementing the 24 procedural changes or training, whichever it could be.
25 Once you complete that phase, then you move into
I what we have determined closed.
You know, the issue is 2
fully implemented.
What we have attempted to depict on 3
this particular view graph is we have taken the 226 4
recommendations, multiplied it by the six utilities, and 5
you basically get 1,331 recommendations.
Once that number 6
is totally closed, that means all the recommendations have j
7 been dispositioned at all the plants.
l t
8 What we have attempted to show here in terms of I
9 progress, if you come to the first bar chart, that's where j
i 10 we were in January of 1988.
At that time, we had 540 l
l 11 recommendations in the closed category and the various 12 breakdowns in the other sub-categories or phases.
The 13 intent here is to move all of t.he recommendations into the l
14 implementing phase and then we will have schedules for 15 everything and will ultimately get everything in the closed j
category.
16 I
t 17 The middle bar graph reflects the latest i
18 information in the recommendation tracking system that was l
t i
19 provided to the staff in July.
That reflects our data I
20 through June.
Basically 58 percent of the 226 21 recommendations have been implemented collectively at all of ;
I 22 the power plants.
We have 210 in the implementing phase.
23 In other words, they are identified, they have schedules, and 24 there is a decision on what has to be accomplished and it is 25 being implemented.
PP 17 i
There are 304 in the evaluating for implementation i
2 in that they have been determined to be applicable but they 3
haven't figured out the actual plant's speci.fic 4
implementation for things that have to be accomplished.
5 That is under way but they have a defined schedule for that l,
6 phase.
j 7
Lastly, there are 45 recommendations still in the I
i 8
evaluating for applicability.
In other words, do they apply 9
to our power plants or not?
l 10 What the last two columns show is a projected 11 where we will be in the next two quarters.
The way we i
12 conducted this process is whichever phase you 'are in, you 1
13 have to also identify to the Steering Committee what is your '
)
14 expected completion date of that phase.
So, then we know i
l what is expected.
At the end of September, we are going to 15 l
16 look at this is what we expected to achieve and did we I
17 achieve it, and if not, why not, and hopefully we are even I
18 going to do better.
But the intent here is to give some 19 projection of where we are going and then we can see whether m
we are making progress or not.
21 If we complete the way we are projected right now, 22 by the end of this year 67 percent is projected to be closed 23 at each of the plants, 332 will be in the implemention phase, a4 only 97 will be in the still evaluation for implementation M
phase, and seven will be in the EA phase.
At that point, we
18 i
are pretty close to either having everything closed or i
l 2
things scheduled.
So, we will be able to talk about end 3
schedules for most of the items with the exception of about 1
104.
We continue to evaluate this process and provide this 4
5 on a quarterly basis to the NRC.
l 6
COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Excuse me.
7 MR. SIMPSON:
Yes.
8 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Before you do that, I would g
like to just ask a couple of questions --
l 10 MR. SIMPSON:
Sure.
just so I will understand 11 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
12 a little better.
The program actually began in January.
I 13 mean is that essentially when the program began?
14 MR. SIMPSON:
No, we just went bac:. to that period 15 j of time on this particular view graph.
i 16 MR. WILSON:
Beginning about in January of '86 17 roughly.
t 18 MR. SIMPSON:
Well, I think he is talking about 19 the tracking system.
Is that what your question is?
20 COMMISSIONER ROGERS :
Well, I am just trying to 21 understand these numbers.
22 MR. SIMPSO:::
Yes.
23 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
For example, the number at 24 the top of the column, the 1,218 on the first column.
25 MR. SIMPSON:
Right.
-,--,n,,-,-
--,,~,,ww,,,-,
,w_--
.n,--
~ ~ <
l 1
COBD1ISSIONER ROGERS :
I take it this relates to i
{
2 the 226 recommenda tion s times the number of plants that they 3
applied to; is that correct?
4 MR. SIMPSON:
No.
Let me -- I didn't clarify one 5
thing.
We started the tracking system before all the 6
programs were finished and all the recommendations were not l
7 identified since we started the tracking system.
At one l
8 time, I think about a year ago, if you remembe r, I think the !
9 number was less than 100 or about 150 recommendations.
As 10 programs finished, we have now stabilized pretty close l
11 around 226.
There is a potential seven additional 12 recommendations that we think on some fina: 1 zing work that 13 we are doing that may come into the program.
14 CO!D1ISSIONER ROGERS:
Of this number then in the 15 third column, the 1,331 --
s 16 MR. SIMPSON:
Yes.
17 CObB1ISSIONER ROGERS:
that represents the 526 18 times the number --
19 MR. SIMPSON:
226 20 COBB1ISSIONER ROGERS:
Excuse me.
Yes, 226 times 21 the number of plants that you have.
l l
22 MR. SIMPSON:
Right.
23 CObD1ISSIONER ROGERS :
And, that 's how that grew.
24 MR. SIMPSON:
Right.
25 CO!D1ISSIONER ROGERS:
Because there were some
. _ _. ~ _ _.,
20 additions there; is that it?
1 MR. SIMPSON:
Right.
2 3
COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
And, you started out on this 4
with 540 in the first column because some of these recommendations didn't apply to all plants.
5 6
MR. SIMpSON:
Right.
I think one of the things 7
that I think is significant here, once you get through the 8
evaluation for applicability phase you have made that 9
determination whether it applies or not.
I can give you i
to some examples, like on Crystal River.
We have closed-11 operable.
They did apply 87 recommendations.
We also have 12 closed-not applicable, 28, and we rejected one item out of
'. 3 the 226.
But I have completed all of my evaluation for
.l 14 applicability evaluations for the 226.
So, I do not
- 5 anticipate any more going to closed-NA.
16 So, that tells me out of the 226, all but 29 will 17 be implemented at Crystal River.
That represents about 13 18 percent.
And, if you look at the other plants, they are i
19 somewhere in that 13 to 20 percent range depending on design 20 !
differences.
So, once we move everyone out of the EA phase, I
21 l
then it is a matter of they do apply, wnat is your schedules? !
l 22 l When are you getting them done?
23 I know that has been a little bit of a point of 24 confusion as to how that is being done 25 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Okay.
Thank you.
5
21 3
MR. SIMPSON:
The next slide --
2 (Slide.)
3 is very similar.
I won' t go into as much 4
detail.
The only thing this particular view graph focuses i
5 on is the key recommendations.
If you recall, we broke the j
6 226 into key recommendations and we are trying to focus the l
7 progress on those as well.
Again, we have 56 of the key 8
recommendations closed and we anticipate 69 percent 9
completed by the end of the year.
10 Could I have my next slide, please?
11 (Slide.)
l 12 What I would like to do now is briefly discuss l
13 our process of evaluating our progress towards reaching our I
14 I,
goals that we set when we started this program back in 15 d January of 1986.
A major objective of the SPIP program was i
a, 16 [
to improve safety, reduce the number of trips and complex 17 tranFients on the B&W plants, and ensure acceptable plant 18 response during those trips and transients which do occar.
I I
19 To measure that, we establish two goals.
The first I
20 l goal was by the end of 1990 the average per plant trip l
\\
21 i
frequency will be less than two per year.
The goal you will l
22 see, as we have established it right now, is 1.4.
The second 23 goal :neasured tt]e complexity of the trips.
By the end of 24 the year 1990, the number of complex transients,as classified 25 by the measurable pararieters as the Category C events, will
- 22 be reduced to.1 per plant per year based on a moving three-3 2
year average.
The three-year average tends to take a little 3
longer to see the results.
The next two slides do give you an update of the j
4 l
5 progress we have made.
l 1
i 6
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Before you go on to that, what l
i 7
about plant trips?
Plant trips, how do you define that?
j i
8 MR. SIMPSON:
Trips at power --
9 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Yes.
10 MR. SIMPSON:
We are using the same criteria as j
11 the IMPO guidelines.
12 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
But an operator that manually 13 trips the plant because of some concern, is that included 14 in your number or not?
1 MR. SIMPSON:
Let me think if I remember that.
I 15 i, lI believe we were including manual tr'ips; is that not correct?
16 17 MR. WILSON:
Yes.
l 18 MP. O'CONNOR:
The only ones that would not count l
19 are --
t
- 3) i CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Would you step to the microphone, t
21 please, and identify yourself for the reporter.
l l
22 MR. O'CONNOR:
My name is Bill O'Connor.
I am 23 Vice Chairman of the Steering Committee for the B&W owners 24 group.
In answer to your question, Commissioner Zech, the 25 only trips that would not be counted would be a planned i
E
23 I
reactor trip such as the one Rancho Seco did as part of 2
their re-start program.
An actual planned trip would not 3
count.
A manual operator trip as a result of some plant 4
_ transient where he took the action to trip, that would count 5
in our trip frequency.
l l
6 CHAIRMAN ZECII:
Well, I guess the point of my j
7 question is we do not want to discourage the operators from j
l 8
tripping the plant if he thinks he should, just in order to l
9 make a number here.
i 10 MR: O'CONNOR:
We are not discouraging the 11 operators from tripping the plant at any time that they feel i
12 it is necessary.
13 CHAIRMAN ZECll:
Well, I hope so.
Do they understand 14 that?
Il 15 MR. O'CONNOR:
They certainly do.
16 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Because if it looks like to the i
17 operator in his judgment the plant should be tripped, he I
18 ought to trip it.
That's a positive safety action, not a i
19 negative one, in my judgment.
- 3) ;
c1R. O'CONNOR:
It certainly is.
l f
21 l
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Thank you, i
22 (Slide.)
M MR. SIMPSON:
The next slide shows the results of 24 the trip unplanned automatic scrams while critical to the M
B&W plants as well as the industry average.
The SPIP effort e
24 I
started in January of 1986 and we have shown the data.
In 2
1987, the B&W owners group trip average was 2.1.
What we 3
did in 1988, we have taken the information that we have 4
through July and we have projected it out based on that l
5 level of performance continuing the rest of the year.
If I
6 it does, then we will achieve a trip frequency on the B&W 7
plants of.86.
As I mentioned earlier, our goal is 1.4.
8 So, it appears, if the performance continues, that we will 9
be achieving that goal sooner than we anticipated.
Right 10 now, the moving 12-month average, from July to July, is 1.2 j
11 on the B&W plants.
12 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
But here you are calling this 13 unplanned automatic scrams while critical.
Now, my question 14 again is does an operator-initiated manual scram count in 15 this number or not?
It looks like it doesn't to me, if it 4
16 is unplanned automatic scrams, but you still count manual l'T scrams; is that correct?
I guess it is.
That's what you 18 are telling me.
19 MR. SIMPSON:
(Nodding head up and down.)
M CHAIRMAN ZECH:
You are nodding yes.
I l
21 MR. SIMPSON:
Yes.
i i
22 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Again, I want to emphasize then 23 if you are counting those scrams, I hope'those operators are 24 not going to be precluded or discouraged from scrambling a 25 plan in order to make these goal numbers.
That is important.
25 3
I hope you emphasize that to your operators.
g MR. SIMPSON:
Yes, we will do that.
3 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
4 COMMISSIONER CARR:
And, if a plant is not on the 5
line, is he out of the average?
6 MR. SIMPSON:
Well, this particular slide is not l
7 based on the per 1,000 hour0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> criteria.
We looked at that 8
also using the scram rate data per 1,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> critical.
9 Right now at the end of
'87, the B&W plants were at.33 per 10 1,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> which is the lowest of all the nuclear stations.
11 CliAIRMAN ZECll:
All right.
Let's proceed.
12 MR. SIMPSON:
The next slide --
13 (Slide.)
l 14
-- indicates our goal toward achieving a trip d
15 l frequency in Category C transients.
Again, this is a three-16 year moving average.
We are projecting that if there are 17 no additional Category C events throughout the rest of this l
18 year, we will reach our goal of
.1 by the fall -- October or '
19 November of this year -- and continue to strive towards 20 driving this approaching zero because that is obviously the 21 objective of the entire SPIP program, not to have category C !
22 transients.
We are making progresc I think.
The program 23 is helping that.
24 The next two slides, I would just like to briefly 25 summarize the assessments by others.
If you recall, we had
26 independent advisory board who participated throughout 1
an l
i 2
the program.
Some of the conclusions that they reached was 1
3 that defined action should reduce the tran'sient frequency 4
and improve safety.
I think the data that we are starting 5
to see is indicating that that is the case.
6 They indicated also that the ICS and NNI and 7
feedwater reliability deserve special attention.
In fact, f
8 106 out of the 226 recommendations, for 47 percent, do 9
actually apply to those two systems.
That includes I
10 emergency feedwater and main feedwater.
And, management l
l 11 attention to the implementation quality is very important 12 and I think I have tried to explain that today, that we
)
13 agree with that and the Executive Committee and the utilities!
14 are focusing quite a bit of atte.ntion in that area.
J i
i 15 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Excuse me.
Again, before we 16 leave that, you said that 106 out of 226 applied to two areas, 17 How much of that is ICS/NNI?
l l
18 MR. SIMPSON:
The ICS/NNI are 52 recommendations.
19 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Okay.
20 l MR. SIMPSON:
The next slide, the assessment by 21 the NRC.
22 (Slide.)
i 23 Basically the NRC is in general agreement with the 24 scope and overall results of our program The NRC stated 25 that the SPIP recommendations totalling over 200 are
s s
27 1
appropriate and we agree with that.
Of these, they have I
2 comments on eight and guidance on 33.
We are presently 3
reviewing their comments.
In some cases, we have actually 4
changed or implemented things differently to indorporate 5
their comments.
We will continue to review those at our 6
upcoming meeting in September.
7 With regards to the ACRS, we have had several f
i 8
meetings with them also on this particular program.
They 3
have indicated that they agree with the staff findings on l
l 10 SPIP.
They also agree there are no additional regulatory 1
11 requirements but they also agreed t-) urge prompt 12 implementation of the recommendations.
Again, I think we l
13 agree that that is a fundamental part of oar program.
i 14 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
There are a couple recommendations 15 I believe that the ACRS made.
One of them was regarding the j t
16 loss of non-class -- one, the instrumentation control power l
17 system that the staff recommended.
I wasn't certain whether I 18 the owners group had considered this recommendation of the 19 ACRS.
Have you?
I M
MR. SIMDSON:
Was that on the -- I'm not quite 21 clear on that.
22 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
The integrated control system.
23 MR. S IMPSON,:
Oh, the ICS loss of power.
24 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Yes, and the staff had made a 25 recommendation regarding that system.
My question really is 4
s 28 i
has the owners group looked at that ACRS reccmmendation
\\
2 supporting the staf f recommendation and what are you doing 3
about it?
4 MR. SIMPSON:
In the area -- I think if you are 5
talking about loss of power tc the ICS -- I think that was 6
the question.
(
7 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Yes.
j i
8 MR. SIMPSON:
What we are doing in that regard is 9
a number of the recommendations are aimed at improving the j
i 10 reliability in that regard and we are also implementing what j 11 we call some of the recommendations the known safe state 12 process which, in event there is a loss of power, the plant f,
i 13 goes.to a pre-determined known state that has been evaluated !
14 as an acceptable plant response.
The advance control 15 system effort that we have underway is actually a follow 16 onto this SPIP effort and is intended as a long-term i
17 solution to those types of issues.
18 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Yes, but I guess my question is 19 are you reconsidering the staf f recommendation and the ACRS N
support of that recommendation regarding the loss of power 21 to that system?
Are you doing that or have you just rejected 22 it?
23 MR. SIMPSON:
Well, I don't think we rejected.
I 24 guess we felt like we had addressed it I guess.
M CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Will you take another look at that?
e
29 MR. SIMPSON:
Yes.
[
i CHAIRMAN ZECH:
I appreciate it.
Also, the ACRS 2
recommended that the B&W owners group valve task force 3
i results indicated a need to test the valves against the full 4
5 spectrum of transit and accident conditions.
I 6
MR. SIMPSON:
Yes.
i 7
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
What has the owners group done l
8 regarding that recommendation?
t 9
MR. SIMPSON:
At our last meeting in July, we to instructed the valve task force to complete their present l
11 scope which is going to be finished this month, and we have 12 expanded their scope to include I think motor-operated j
13 valves and check-valves and to evaluate them against the 14 spectrum of brakes.
15 CHAIRMAN ZECH :
So, you are addressing that 16 recommendation, i
17 MR. SIMPSON:
Yes, we are.
18 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Thank you very much.
l You may prodeed.
19 I
M MR. SIMPSON:
Right now, I guess I would like to 21 turn it back over to Mr. Wilson.
He has a few concluding 22 remarks.
23 MR. WILSON:
I would simply like to conclude with 24 a few summary observations.
First, some comments and some 25 insights from the program which we have had underway for two
30 4
i and a half years and then, secondly, some program specifics 2
which we think are important.
3 (Slide.)
4 This first view graph summarizas some of the 5
program elements that we believe are important. First, the 6
majority of the recommendations in critical areas are 1
{
7 focused on balance of plant, rather than on what is 1
8 classically thought of as a safety-related or a nuclear
{
9 steam supply part of the plant.
This is not a new insight.
10 It has clearly been recognized by the industry.
I think, t
11 by yourselves, that this program clearly confirms what wo 12 all felt tc be true and that is the degree of importance of f
I 13 balance of plant.
Some 1,995 or 95 percent plus of the
\\
l I
14 recommendations deal with that area of the plant.
11 15 Second, the consistent history of accumulating 16 and assessing plant performance and plant transient data in 17 the long-term is extremely valuable.
The approximate eight 18 years worth of detailed data on over some 250 B&W plant trips I
19 and transients since 1980 was invaluable.
It provided the i
N l basic technical insights needed for the program and was I
i 21 crucicl to all phases of the program.
The owners group
{
22 intends to continue collecting such data on our plants and 23 such a practice we believe would be beneficial to all the 24 various operating nuclear stations.
25 Third, the SPIP program confirms the value of a
31 I
dedicated group effort on common concerns.
The interaction 2
of the various utilities clearly provided both depth and 3
breadth to the work.
It yielded insights which would not 4
have come from any one utility and, in the end, will enhance 5
the ability of each operator to implement the lessons that I
6 have been learned.
j 7
The SPIP program value has been strongly enhanced l
8 by all of the many inputs including those of the NRC staff 9
and others external to the owners group.
While we, as t
10 owners, do not always agree with third parties, the discourse I
11 does cause everyone to questior, to reassess, and ultimately 12 the higher level of assurance in the quality of the d
13 product.
14 Last, we believe as a group that the program value i
15 is increased by strong utility executive involvement and 16 that executive involvement is critical to assure meaningful 17 implementation within each utility.
The overall SPIP program 18 goals have been totally consistent with the basic individual 19 utility mission.
Z) i The last chart, please.
21 (Slidec) 22 Some specifics we would like to leave with you --
23 we have spent significan't resources and will continue to 24 expend resources on the program.
By the end of 1988, the j
i 25 owners will have invested some approximate $3,000,000 in i
32 I
program development and, in addition, will have collectively 2
Spent some additional approximate $20,000,000 to $25,000,000 3
in individual support for the program and implementation of 4
program recommendations.
In the future, we will s' cm many 5
millions of dollars more.
6 We believe the scope of the program assessment was 7
proper and in focus.
It developed some approximate 226 l
I i
8 safety and performance and improvement rccommendations.
l 9
These recomme"dations span virtually every facet of utility j
i 10 activity includ.ng operations, maintenance, plant design, i
i i
11 design modifications, training and humar performance.
Each i
i 12 individual utility and the owners group as a whole has 13 instituted tracking systems to ensure the formal and timely 14 disposition of all recommendations.
Each utility has an l
internal process for management review to help ensure t
15 16 quality.
17 Tl e owners group itself provides the visibility to !
1
{
each of us as to how well and at what rate all of the others 18 19 are moving.
We believe that implementation of recommendations N l to date has already resulted in individual benefits.
We l
1 i
21 I
expect implementation to continue for several years.
While 22 individual utilities have not all endorsed or se.- a date 23 for implementation of an advanced control ' system, that. action 24 which is expected to be probably the last task will be at i
25 least several years away.
Our preliminary conclusion at
6 33 GpUN is that advanced ICS implementation could not take g
P ace before 1994 at the earliest.
l 2
3 During this entire implementation phase, utility 4
management has audited and monitored perf 'mance and I want 5
to assure you that the owners group and the individual 6
owners will continue that auditing and monitcring to 7
completion of the program.
As part of our monitoring, 8
individual plant schedule information is made available to 9
the NRC staff and,the staff has indicated they will followup to both individually and collectively with the owners group.
11 Finally, I would like to emphasize and re-emphasize!
12 staff interaction during the program has been po'sitive and I
13 helpful.
Much of the insights provided by the staff have l
I 14 been useful and in many areas are complimentary to the work i
15 performed by the owners group.
The long-term success of the i
16 program will be in part due to these activities of the staff.
17 The owners group commitment to the program has l
18 been a strong one.
It will continue to be strong until final 19 implementation is complete.
I 20 !
I would like to thank you for making your time 21 available to allow us to tell you about this program.
If we 22 can answer any general questions or specific questions, we 23 will be happy tc do so.
j 24 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Thank you very much.
25 Any questions from my follow Commissioners.
Commissioner j
i
34 1
Roberts.
)
2 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
No.
3 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Commissioner Carri 4
COMMISSIONER CAhM:
No.
5 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Commissioner Rogers.
6 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Yes, I would just like to j
i 7
hear a little bit about a couple of things.
What is the l
8 status of the human factors recommendations that staff l
9 suggested?
Apparently they didn't make it into the final l
to round.
Could you say something about that?
i ly'c have reviewed the staff's 11 MR. SIMPSON:
12 recommendations on human factors.
We went back and assessed 13 whether or not we felt it would be prudent or beneficial to i
14 how back over all the old TAP reports which is one of their 15 suggestions.
We didn't fec. like that would be a beneficial i 16 thing to do.
We felt that the program, although it didn't l
17 focus c1carly as a specific mission on human factors, did I
l 18 include human factors at different points where we thought i
1 19 it was appropriate.
20 We indicated that position back to the staff and 3
21 I believe they also now agree with that.
22 In the area of using human factors experts 23 throughout the process, while we didn't do t't-as a 24 consistent basis throughout the actual prog:
there were 25 I individual cases where human factors activities -- in some
35 o
I cases they were outside of the SPIP program, like in the 2
control room efforts -- but they were considered when we did 3
some of our reviews.
4 We do agree though that the followup work, the 5
work that we are doing right now in the implementation of 6
some of the changes to our existing ICS, definitely warrants l 7
the use of standard human factors.
Some of the good 8
practices that have come out of our technical reviews, 9
basically say where people have used I guess you want to l
10 call them expert human factors individuals in the design of l
11 their automatic signal selection process, we think those 12 types of things are beneficial to the future and things I,
13 that we are going to do in our control systems.
Our advancedj i
14 control system will have very strong human factors interface i
15 in it.
So, that is the position I guess where we are at 16 with the staff.
17 MR. WILSON:
Maybe I can add a quick word to that, f i
18 All utilities implement things in slightly different ways.
19 In the case of GPU, we do have human factors engineers on l
the staff.
All procedural changes, all modifications in the i N
21 plant go through the human factors review as a normal course 22 of implementation.
23 COf1MISSIONER ROGERS:
On this advanced 24 instrumentation system, you say that 1994 is the earliest 25 date at which that would be implemented.
4 h
36 1
MR. WILSON:
At GPUN. I cannot speak for the other l 2
owners.
I think if you examine the phases of that program, 3
one, that instrumentation system is expected to use advanced 4
digital technology, self-checking circuits, automatic 5
rejection of false input signals, advanced techniques for i
6 allowing the operator to understand failure and fault modes j
7 in the system and so forth.
8 The program really calls for a specification 9
phase in terms of specifying the system.
That is unde rway 10 now and will be completed I think sometime in early '89.
11 Then there is the potential -- not the potential -- but the 12 next phase is the development, procurement of development 13 hardware.
There will be then a test phase of that 14 development hardware.
At least in our case, we would like 15 to go so far as even seeing if we can't hook that up to a 16 plant simulator.
17 Since this system is so integral with the plant,
!A I would anticipate that out of that test phase there are 19 going to be changes, modifications, a desire to improve it i
20 and correct problems that surface in it.
Then there is the 21 final specification procurement of hardware.
In addition t
22 to that, then each utility has to uniquely design the 23 installation into their plant and then schedule that 24 implementation at a major refueling outage.
Since refueling 25 outages vary quite widely, some plants are on two-year 4
37 I
refueling cycles, but our view for TMI, we just could not l
2 put it in before then at the very earliest.
3 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Can you represent to us the 4
schedule of the other owners plans?
5 MR. SIMPSON:
I don't think we can say for sure 6
right now I guess until we get through-the SPEC developments 7
so that we have a clear understanding of the total scope of l
l 8
the effort and what they are doing which will be done in '89.i 9
I think we will be in a better position then to plan out the ;
I 10 remaining phases.
But I would imagine it is going to be in i
11 that window of a '93/'94 timeframe.
It's hard to say.
12 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
The HANCE system that is not fully 13 tested yet; is that what you are talking about?
14 MR. WILSON:
It isn't even designed yet.
15 MR. SIMPSON:
Basically what this is, we are tryingi i
16 to use the lessons learned that we found in our particular 17 program.
We have looked at the foreign' control systems that l 18 are out there.
We are doing the detail human factors.
We 19 have been talking with members from NASA and EPRI and other m
things who do a lot of digital control work obviously.
In
}
21 the space program we are going to have improved control i
l l
22 techniques, increased reliability.
Basically it will be 23 fault-tolerant and, fault-resistance and will be single 24 failure proof.
It will also do the predict failures, detect 25 failures, the on-line self-checking, if you would.
- And,
e 3$
c I
like Mr. Wilson implied, this is the "brain" of the plan.
2 One of the key pieces of this effort too is the installation.
3 It needs to be well thought out and planned.
4 Being at one of the utilities that installed an 5
emergency feedwater instrument control system, we learned l
6 a lot from that exercise in starting that system up.
I l
7 think what we did learn was you really on a control system I
i 8
need to really have it well planned out and check it out on i
9 a simulator.
It makes everything work out and the training j
l 10 of operators.
So, it is not something that we just want to 11 rush into.
That is why we have really focused on the interimi 12 fixes to the existing ICS to try to make it as fault-tolerant i
13 as possible.
j l
14 The couple critical things area is to improve the l
15 reliability of power supplies and also the automatic signal 16 selection which will -- one of the key things in the ICS 37 failure is not the ICS system itself but it has been getting ;
l IS bad data to the system.
So, by putting in the automatic gg signal selection, which I think all of the utilities are l
\\
\\
g doing that, will reduce that problem to a low probability 21 event such that we wi.ll improve the interim reliability of j
i 22 the system because we realize, the timing of this, we need g3 to not just accept what we have right now.
24 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Well, I guess I was just a 25 little concerned about those 52 recommendations, ICS
39 i
recommendations, as to whether they are or what the status 2
of their attack is and whether they are being postponed in 3
some way to be dealt with by this advanced --
4 MR. SIMPSON:
Those 52 are almost -- the things 5
that I just talked about are dealing with those types of l
6 issues and we really see those as the things that we need f
I 7
to implement on the existing hardware.
1 i
g MR. WILSON:
I think one or two of those 52 relate j g
to the advanced system and the rest are basically fixes and i
i u) changes 11 MR. SIMPSON:
Right.
12 MR. WILSON:
to the current planned systems.
+ - -
13 MR. SIMPSON:
Right.
l 14 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
What is your projected 15 schedule for completion of the overall program?
u3 MR. SIMPSON:
One of the slides that I showed you 17 earlier, once all of the recommendations are in the i
18 implementation phase, we will then be able to answer that 19 question.
Until that time, it is hard for me to say.
I m
would say by the end of this year we are going to know 21 pretty close with the exception I think there was about 15 i
22 recommendations per plant, fou know, the 97 you had divided i n
by six.
It is actually only about 15 recommendations per 24 plant would not have a schedule for implementation.
2 So, by the end of the year, we should have a pretty 4
e
40 1
good idea that it is, you know, 91 or 89 or whatever the l
2 various states are You know, total closure.
3 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Could you say something 4
about the problems of severe degradation of the steam 5
generator tubes situation?
There is a greater concern here 6
with the generators.
How do you plan to address that 7
problem in the future?
Is that part of this overall program l i
8 or is it --
)
9 MR. WILSON:
The steam generator issues I think l
?
10 you are referring to are pretty much outside of the SPIP l
l l
11 program.
There are two really classes of issues with the 12 steam generators.
One is issues of various types of tube 13 degradation.
Secondly there is th9 issue of pressure drop i
(
14 buildup on the secondary side which is a performance issue a
15 l in terms of the stearn generator not being able to pass the I
l l
<j 16 l design rate feed flow.
If you are referring to the latter --l 1
17 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
No, I am thinking of the l
1 l
18 erosion / corrosion problem.
i i
1 4
19 MR. WILSON:
Then on the first set, there are a j
l 20 number of mechanisms that operate in the steam generator l
l I
l 21 that have caused two problems in the past.
Some have been l-l 22 on the primary side.
A classic example is TMI where there 23 was extensive cracking on the primary side, inner grain.or 24 stress corrosion cracking, due to the introduction of active 25 sulphur species into the coolant while the plant was shutdown l
1
41 0
0 0
1 in 1980 or 1981.
2 That mode of attack on the tubes has really been 3
arrested.
We have three inspections of the generators since 4
the plant went back into service in
'85.
It is arrested.
5 It has stopped.
The primary system is c1>aned and that 6
issue is behind us, although we did end up plugging u 7
significant number of tubes.
8 other plants, all plants,.have suffered various I
9 modes of erosion.,Some attack on secondary sites at tubus, 10 particularly what is called the lane of the steam generator. !
11 Some of that is thought to be water carried up that lano 12 where you don' t get the same amount of heat transf' er.
That 13 is continuing at some slow rate.
People have moved to 14 protect against that.
For example, by sleeving of those 5
15 tubes which puts in a barrier on the inside of the sleeve 16 such that it allows the tube degradation to proceed, yet not r
17 impact leakage or steam generator performance.
l 18 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
But that is not being 19 attacked in a programatic way across the board.
K)
MR. SIMPSON:
No, not by this program.
21 MR. WILSON:
Not by this program but it is tracked i
22 very carefully by the owners group and common parts of that 23 are being looked at collectively, yes, as a group, i
24 MR. SIMPSON:
One of the committees of our owners i
25 group is a Steam Generator Committee who is evaluating all 4
l 1
42 1
different types of issues regarding our once-through steam j
2 generators.
3 COMMISEIONER ROGERS:
And, I wonder if you could 4
say something about where things stand with emergency 5
operating procedures as part of a severe accident management 6
program for incoming plants?
7 MR. SIMPSUN:
We are doing -- as part of the SPIP i.
8 ef fort -- we did have a followup e.f fort.
We have an EOP 9
review. One of the ongoing efforts from our SPIP review was 1
10 we have an Operator Support Committee and they are in the i
11 process of doing the review of the amorgency operat ng 12 procedures.
That review is still ongoing and it is going t o ;
I 13 be completed August of next year.
That is the only effort, i
14 other than the initial reviews that were done during the SPIPi 15 effort.
16 I know each of the utilities are in the process of {
17 going through various discussions with the staff on an l
l 18 individual basis on the EOP's.
19 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
But that particular review M
is still in the works.
l 1
21 MR. SIMPSON:
Yes, yes, right.
We intend -- we 22 have a schedule to close that in August of '89 and provide 23 that information to the staff.
24 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
And, I guess just one other M
point.
I think you may actually have touched on it in your t
43 e
1 carlier presentation but I just wanted to check.
That is l
2 that the SPIP goals for the B&WOG, *he operating goals, are i
3 they consistent with the IMPO goals?
4 MR. SIMPSON:
Yes.
5 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Are they the same?
I i
6 MR. SIMPSON:
Actually the trip goal probably is j
7 more aggressive even than what --
l 8
COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
It sounded to me like it was.
9 MR. SIMPSON:
I think when we added them all up, itf i
10 was slightly less when we took all the plants IMPO godls, andl 11 we have since reduced that and the execs are asking us to 12 reevaluate them again now that we are going to achieve' them t
13 before 1990.
l 14 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Okay.
Thank you.
t 15 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
It is my understanding that the 16 B&W owners group acted promptly on the schedule to implement 17 most of the recommendations and you have told us the progress!
i 1
18 you are making.
However, there has been -- your various 19 utilities are operating to my understanding a little bit 20 differently.
Some are accomplishing them a li. tt le faster 21 than others.
22 Do you believe that there is a real commitment on Z3 the part of the various utilities to accomplish these 24 recommendations at a reasonable and aggressive pace?
25 MR. WILSON:
I really believe that is true.
The I
=
)
o s
44 1
Executive Committee reviews the status of each utility.
We 2
meet roughly three times a year at least.
There is a lot of 3
dialogue at that time.
From my conversations with people, 4'
I know that resources are being made available to do it.
5 There is a lot of peer pressure at those meetings.
6 I think if you look at the statistics for 7
individual utilities, and I will make the exception of TVA 8
because it is not an operating plant and I'm not quite sure 9
what is going to happen there in the long-term, I think you 10 will find that most of the six other operating plant 11 utilities are roughly comparable within ten percentage points 12 or something of the rate of completion, and you recognize 13 also that the rate of completion depends upon each schedule 14 of the plants.
15 j For example, TMI went down for refueling in June i
16 l
of this year.
It is coming back hopefully in five or six 17 days.
But we will have implemented 30 modifications and 18 changes in the plant during this refueling outage.
They are j i
I i
19 not reflected in the statistics for June that you saw.
So, there are step changes.
It isn't just a smooth transition.
I N i i
21 CHAIRMAN ZECll:
Mr. Wilson and Mr. Simpson, we 22 thank you very much for your presentation.
We encourage you D
to continue your leadership role on the Babcock and Wilcock i
24 owners group organization and encourage your colleagues to 25 continue the efforts that they have obviously made to date, j
4
4 c
45 1
We thank ycu very much.
J 2
MR. WILSON:
Thank you.
3 MR. SIMPSON:
Thank you.
4 CHAIRMAN ZECll:
We will ask for the staff to come 5
forward if they would.
6 (Brief pause.)
l I
7 Mr. Taylor, you may proceed.
8 MR. TAYLOR:
Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
With me 9
are members of the NRR staff to present the staff's overview i
i 10 of the B&W owners group work.
On my right, Frank Miraglia j
11 and Bob Jones; on my left, Denny Crutchfield and Jose Calvo.
12 The staff's overview and review will be presented by Denny 13 Crutchfield.
14 MR. CRUTCHFIELD:
Good morning.
l 15 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Good morning.
Please proceed.
16 l MR. CRUTCHFIELD:
Thank you.
Could I have the l
l second slide, please?
17 l
18 (Slide.)
l 19 Briefly, the agenda is going to discuss some of I
i
- 3) !
the background, our findings, recommendations, the status.of ^
i 21 recommendations and the plans we have relative to the 5
22 implementation activities.
23 Could I have the third slide, please?
24 (Slide.)
25 The background has been briefly discussed before
46 '
4 I
by Mr. Simpson and Mr. Wilson.
I won't go through it.
2 Suffice it to say, we began this program in January of
'd6.
i 3
The program has expanded and contracted to some extent based 4
on our findings from that program.
We have issued safety 5
evaluations and supplements to the safety evaluation report.
6 The staff's view is I think we are just about completed with 7
the program.
I 8
Could I have the fourth slide, please, where wo 1
9 go ts the staff's findings?
10 (Slide.)
11 In general, I think the sensitivity of the B&W i
12 plants, our views are that generally we agree with the B&W l
i 13 owners group findings.
They are somewhat more sensitive to i
l 14 feedwater upsets than comparable other PWR's.
There is a j
15 greater reliance placed on the emergency feedwater system.
16 The operator burden is not necessarily a whole lot l 17 greater for reactor trips that are normal reactor trips or j
18 transients.
For those where there are ICS or NNI upsets, l
19 there is a greater burden on the operator, l
l The once-through steam generator question was N
21 examined and, although they do have a smaller inventory,
\\
22 when feedwater and emergency feedwater are properly controlled, 23 the post-trip response is.not that much different and found 24 to be acceptable.
25 Could I have the next slide, please'
4 47 o
1 (Slide.)
I 2
Relative to risk assessment are sensitivity studies; 3
and other evaluations that found that the B&W plants do not 4
possess or pose a core damage risk that is measurably greater 5
than other PWR's.
As I indicated earlier, they are a little 6
more sensitive to feedwater upsets.
In our sensitivity 7
studies and things like that, it is very difficult to model l
l 8
some of these situations where you have more than one j
9 failure, multiple failure situations.
So, they do not pose i
10 a greater risk t'o the public health and safety as far as the !
I 11 staff is concerned.
i 12 Could I have the next slide, please?
l 1
13 (Slide.)
l 4
i 14 Recommendations have been discussed with you, the 15 i tracking system that is in place.
In general, I think the 16 staff is satisfied with the progress that the recommendations; 17 are being implemented.
There has been a great deal of i
18 progress made in the applicability evaluation where the 19 utilities have decided which ones are applicable.
They are l'
i N l making very good progress also in the engineering design of i
21 which.ones ought to be there and how they ought to look and 22 the schedules, et cetera.
23 The next slide, please.
24 (Slide.)
25 We have seen major improvements in the ICS/NNI.
t 4
I 48 t
There are a number of recommendations out there as 2
Commissioner Rogers has identified that are being 3
implemented on the plants.
We think they will make 4
substantial improvements in the performance of the 5
facilities.
6 We are looking forward to their advance design 7
with eagerness and anxious to get our hands on the design j
g to make sure we think there are indeed improvements there.
9 The schedules that Mr. Wilson has indicated probably aren't I
to unreasonable, j
i 11 Our focus was greatly on the balance of plant 12 systems and we think there have been changes and i
13 improvements in other areas -- the feedwater system, the j
i 14 instrument air system, et cetera.
We think those i
15 improvements will benefit the plant and reduce the i
i 16 likelihood of complex transients in the future.
l t
17 The items and the numbers that the owners group 1
I i
18 and the goals that they have set of reduction in scrams and j
19 Category C transients, the staff does not endorse those
'l i
M numbers.
We haven't really commented on them, whether we l
I 21 agree with them or not agree with.
We are concerned also i
4 l
22 that we don't want to discourage anybody fro.h tripping the 23 plant when it is necessary to do so.
i 24 There are some issues that required further staff 25 attention, as identified in our SER's and SER supplement.
o 49 0
1 The human factors area was one of them.
Very early, we 1
2 asked them to consider using human factors professionals 3
in the process.
They were somewhat reluctant to do that.
4 We looked at the overall program that was going on, the 5
changes that were made, the evaluations and the operator 6
burden question, the interviews that were taking place with 7
maintenance and operators and things like that.
We felt i
8 reasonably comfortable with the program.
9 Our view is that had human factors professionals j
l l
l 10 been applied to the process, there may have been some 11 additional recommendations that would have come out.
We l
12 don't foresce that those recommendations would have had a 13 significant change in the process and the progress that we i
i i
l 14 have made.
They have indicated that in future activities W
15 they will apply human factors resources, t
is The staff feels that with the other programs that 17 we have ongoing, the DCRDR reviews, SPDS procedure reviews, I
l I
l 18 that we have made improvements in the operator error and 19 identification of operator burden concerns.
So, overall, 20 the staff feels that the operator in the human factor area 21 has been adequately addressed.
l 22 CHAI BUW Z ECH :
Well. my understanding is that 23 your statement aboat the human factors personnel not being l,
24 used perhaps as much as they might have been but will be in l
25 the future is correct is my understanding of the situation.
l l
4 50 I
But also my understanding is that although human factors 2
personnel weren't used necessarily, that there was input 3
from the operators themselves.
4 MR. CRUTCliFIELD :
Yes, sir.
5 CHAIRMAN ZECil:
Is that right?
I f
6 MR. CRUTCHFIELD :
Yes, sir.
l 7
CHAIRMAN ZbCil:
Because they can also make a 8
contribution in the area of human factors.
But are you l
l 9
confident that the operators themselves had a significant 10 input to this program?
11 MR. CRUTCHFIELD:
As one of the early parts of 12 their program, they went out and did operator interviews of i
13 licensed operators, senior operators, shift supervisors.
14 CHAIRMAN ZECll:
Good.
15 MR. CRUTCllFIELD :
So, we feel tha t the operators 16 had an activity input into the program.
i 17 CIIAIRMAN ZECH:
Good.
Thank you.
l l
18 MR. CRUTCliFIELD :
Could I have the ninth slide, j
19 please?
f i
20 COMMISSIONER ROGERG:
Excuse me.
Just before you 21 leave that, are there any identifiable aspects that you can 22 trace back to operator recommendations?
I mean it is one i
23 thing to consult with them and ask them what they think.
24 It's another thing to do something on the basis of what they 25 recommend.
Those aren't necessarily the sane.
Can one trace O
9
o 51
~
1 in the recommendations anyth.ing that is attributable to 2
operator comments and expressions of opinion?
3 MR. JONES:
There was a recommendation in the 4
tracking system dealing with delays, for example, ih the 5
saturation r argin or substantive margin meter which were 6
identified by the operators at one of the plants.
There 7
were also some concerns about isolation of RCP seal services j l
8 which require additional operator actions following most 9
actuations.
Those were examples of some of the 10 recommendations which came out of the operator or the j
11 operator burden tasks.
12 MR. CALVO:
There was one more.
The tuning of the i
13 ICS was kind of sluggish.
The operator was perturbed there l
14 l
Was not enough attention given to the tuning of the ICS.
So,.
15 that was another operator recommendation for that.
16 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Where do the implementation 17 of those particular recommendations stand in the general 18 scheme of where things are being done or how they are being i
19 done?
f MR. CALVO:
I believe that -- I know.the place 3) j 21 but I am not quite familiar with it.
The recommendations 22 on the tracking system, I cannot say whether they have been i
23 implemented in all the plants or not.
Maybe the owners 24 group would be in a better position to tell us that.
We 25 will know next month.
We are going to do some plant audits e
4
1 52 1
and we are going to detennine how this recommendation has 2
2 been implemented in each of the plants.
3 COMMISSIONER ROuERS:
It will be rather interesting 4
to see just how much attention those particular ones that 5
are attributable to the operators are actually getting in l
l 6
the final implementation.
7 MR. CALVO:
Right.
Okay.
8 MR. CRUTCl!PIELD:
We will be sure that that is a l
9 part of the audit, to specifically look at therecommendationh j
10 that they made, t
11 CHAIR 11AN ZECII:
Let's proceed.
12 MR. CRUTCHTIELD:
Could I have the ninth slide, 13 please?
14 (Slide.)
15 l The instrumentation and control review, as you recall the last time we briefed you, was going to take a 16 o
17 little longer.
We finished that up in the early part of 18 this year and there were a couple of issues that came out l
l 19 of there.
One of t, hen was the question of IdE Bulletin i
X) l 79-27.
Chairman Zech, I believe you asked that question.
i 21 The owners group indicated to us that it was the l
22 very plant's specific implementation question and they 23 decided and recommended that they not do it as part of the i
24 owners group program.
Our intent is when we go out and do i
25 these plant specific audits to specifically look at the l
53 O
O 1
implementation of 79-27.
So, we will capture it there on 2
an individual plant basis rather than generically.
3 We have provided a nunber of other comments to 4
the owners group and suggestions and the owners group is 5
also considering those recommendations to improve their l
l i
6 process.
I don't think they are of such magnitude that we 7
need to require them.
They have been relatively i
i 1
8 cooperative with us.so far.
9 CHAIP'!AN ZECH: And, on the loss of power situation,i 10 as you well know, the ACRS agreed with your suggestion on 11 that.
12 MR. CRUTCHFIELD:
Yes, sir.
13 CHAIRMAN ZECH: And, I think it is important that 14 you follow through on that and the owners group follow 15 through on that too, as they have committed to do I believe i
i 16 here this morning.
17 MR. CRUTCHPIELD:
Yes, sir.
I I
18 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Let's proceed.
{
19 MR. CRUTCHPIELD:
Slide ten, please.
20 (Slide.)
21 Overall, the staff has concluded that with proper 22 implementation of the recommendations, we should see a 23 reduction in reactor, trips and a reduction in complex 24 transients that previously had occurred in B&W plants.
It 25 should also increase the safety at B&W plants.
With the l
54 t
changes that have been made, especially in the feedwater 2
and emergency feedwater area, we should reduce the risk 3
component in that activity and they should overall be 4
comparable to other PWR's.
5 Our intent is to get out there through '39 and j
6 into '90 to implement individually each of those plants.
i 7
Several of the plants have had partial implementation
.i 8
evaluations by the staff as part of the restart efforts for l
9 Rancho Seco and Davis Besse.
10 Could I have the next slide, please?
11 (Slide.)
12 The status of implementation has been discussed la previously with you.
I would only indicate on this slide 14 that there are percentages indicated rather than absolute r
is !
values.
The evaluation category, which is the far right t
16 column, includes the two categories of evaluation for i
i 17 applicability as well as do any actual engineering design, 18 et cetera, before implementation.
19 May I have the twelfth slide, please?
l 20 (Slide.)
l 21 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Are you satisfied with the progress:
22 of implementation?
23 MR. CRUTCHFIELD:
Yes.
There for awhile it wasn't 24 going as fast as we thought it should.
I believe over the 25 past six months or so the owners group has applied more
55
?
i 1
resources and are completing more evaluations and f actoring 2
into the implementation columns.
l 3
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Thank you.
4 MR. CRUTCliFIELD:
As I indicated, we will be doing 5
audits to verify the implementation.
The staff will follow 6
the overall progress after these individual audits via the 7
project managers.
The items that will be in this program i
8 will be tracked.
So, the staff is generally satisfied v.ith l
I 9
the implementation phase that is going on.
{
thinkifIhadtolookatthebottom{
10 In general, I i
i
?
11 line, we feel that the program has satisfied Mr. Stello's 12 letter of January of 1986.
We have reassessed the overall 13 design basis of the B&W facilities.
We feel there have been 14 improvements that have been made by the recommendations that 15 have already been implemented and that further improvements 16 in their performance will occur as those recommendations are i i
17 completed.
Thank you.
i 18 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you very much.
Any comments f 6
i f
19 or questions of my fellow Commissioners.
Commissioner I
1 20 !
Roberts.
I l
21 l
COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
No.
l 22 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Commissioner Carr.
l 23 COMMISSIONER CARR I would just comment that from 24 my short experience here, it looks to me like this program 26 has proceeded faster than most programs.
You have both dono I
a 1
l I
i 56 I
a good job in this.
Obviously you have spent a lot of time 2
and effort on it.
3 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Commissioner Rogers.
4 COMMISSIONER ROGERS; Yes, a couple of things.
I 5
don't have even the time with the Commission that Commissione t:
6 Carr does but it does look like it is moving along well, and 7
that is very encouraging.
l i
8 Just a couple of points.
I want to come back to 9
this advanced ICS system that is out there.
There are two i
10 concerns that I have.
One is whether -- well, in the first l
11 place, I take it that this really is to be a quite 12 sophisticated system.
13 MR. TAYLOR:
Yes.
f COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
And, that is a great 14 15 dif ference f rom what commonly exists in control rooms today.
16 Most of the control systems are really still pretty i
i 17 primitive in my view.
That isn't to mean that they aren't 18 effective but their design is really very old-fashioned.
19 We are talking here to something that sounds to me like a l
l M
very sophiaticated system.
I have a couple of questions l
21 l
about that.
t i
22 f One is whether anyone is viewing it as an M
opportunity for stanoardization?
We are moving here into 24 something that is quite different from what exists in i
25 current plants for the most part.
I would really be very 4.
+
y.
57 1
concerned about winding up with a half a dozen or so t
2 totally dif ferent very sophisticated and comple>: control 3
systems that are all developed independently of each other 4
in some sense.
I don't know that that's the case but I just 5
would be very worried about it if that is the approach that i
6 is going to be taken, i
7 MR. MIRAGLIA:
May I make a comment on that and l
l 8
then the staff can amplify it.
When the Rancho Seco event occurredandresponse,tothatRanchoSecoeventoccurred,ourl 9
10 concern was with the owners of the B&W plant tocalltheninf 11 and say how would your plant respond in those circumstances?
12 There are at least two different vintages of ICS systems in 13 the B&W plants and there are certain plant specific l
I 14 differences that I think from en overall control philosophy F
15 and design point of' view you might be able to standardice.
i 16 lioweve r, I think the application of that in each of the i
17 plants would necessarily have dif ferences because of specifici l
18 design differences regarding MSIV's and --
19 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Yes, there will be an i
0 interface between --
l 20 p
i 21 MR. MIRAGLIA:
Yes.
i 22 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
-- the system and the plant.
l Z1 MR. MIRAGLIA:
Yes.
l 24 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
And, that may have to be 25 tailored for each situation.
l
58 g
MR. MIRAGLIA:
The sense that I had fron the i
2 owners group presentation is that it is going to be a 3
coordinated plan by the owners group with respect to 4
agreeing on the specifications and the procurement kind of 5
thing but I think there will be individual differences in i
6 the application of that next design and the facility.
j
~
7 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
As it has to connect into 8
the different plants, I am sure that is a problem, but I l
9 would see it as an opportunity to look at the possibility to for more commonality in design across a class of plants now. l 11 I urge you to consider that as a desirable feature.
12 The other thing is whether we really ourselves 13 have the kind of technical capability for really evaluating 14 this kind of a new sophisticated control system.
It is 15 different f rom what wo have had to deal with in the past.
I le 4 am not making judgment on that but I would suggest that we 17 look very carefully to see that by the time six years out t
18 when this thing comes on that we will have had aboard the l
t 19 right kind of people to look in the right way at the j
j 1
\\
20 l sophisticated complexities of what looks to me like a very l
21 interesting and exciting system but one that is quite
}
22 different from anything that we have done before.
I really i
i 23 think that it requires a new look and seme new capabilities 24 to analyre its potential for problems, new problems, as well i
25 as solving old ones.
l
e l
59 o
l t
MR. MIRAGLIA: *I think that is a very fair consent,;
2 Commissioner Rogers, and I think the staff, particularly the j 3
staff in that technical discipline, has gotten a flavor of 4
some of these advance concepts and, in talking about* advance 5
reacter designs, have noted that this is going to be a large l
6 step forward into technology and that we need to make sure 7
that we have the tools available to evaluate such a thing.
i 8
So, the staff is aware of that and sensitive to that concern.l 9
It is a valid one.
10 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
The ACRS letter of June 7th j
l 11 that has been referred to several times here during the l
3 r
i
(
12 ;>)
course of this mooting points out that one should be car'eful i
l r
l 13 not to draw any new conclusions from this work concerning l
i.
l 14 the overall safety cr response of B&W plants in accident l
15 situations.
At the beginning of your presentation you made i
16 a statement that IlhW plants do not possess a core damage 17 risk greater than other PWR's, f
l 18 Does that represent a new statement with respect to l
19 this?
Does that fall under this category of a new conclusion
)
1 20 h or not?
i I
i i
l 21 I
MR. CRUTCHPIELD:
I think if you preface the I
l i
f 4
22 l ctatement that you read from the ACRS letter, there was I
l l
23 discussion about not looking at design basis accidents such 24 as small and large break l
25 CORMISSIONER ROGERS:
Rig ht.
l i
1 l
1
\\
60 1
MR. CRUTCitrIt'LD:
As part of the original offorts i
2 carly in
'86, we looked at some of the Chapter 15 transients >
3 and accidents.
We compared them with the Category C events 4
- that we were seeing and evaluating as well as thc complex Category D's.
When we looked at those, we fcit they didn't 6
change our previous findings with the utilization of
.' aM Chapter 15 accidents and, l 7
techniques that we had to l
tisfactory and we
{
8 therefore, we felt that 9
wouldn't dealve into then.
.y m'~e depth as a continuing i
i 10 part of the program, j
11 So, our ascessment was with what we had looked at 12 before, the techniquea that we had in place to do the Chapter, i
13 15 local analysis, et cetera, we didn't see a need to expand i
14 4
the SPIP program beyond where we were heading.
15 l'
COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
We don't have, do we, PRA's l
16 i on these plants?
17 MR. C R UTCill'I EI.D :
There are PRA's I be1leve on a11 18 but one, i
i i
19 {
MR. CAINO:
I believe M 1 except Rancho Seco and 4
i 1
M the j
other ones are sponsored by the NRC also, the NRC and I
l
~
21 the utility.
i i
22 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
We do have t.icm --
I 23 i
MR. C AINO :
That is correct, j
24 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
-- for all except Rancho i
25
- Seco,
\\
l
61 o
MR. CALVO:
Ranche Seco, i
i 2 l MR. MI.RAGL I A :
They are difforent vintages, 3
different ages.
Some were in the IREP program which goes 4
back several year..
Some have been upgraded and some 5
haven't.
14u t there was PRA information available to the l
6 staff.
COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
But there no B&W plant 8
in new reg 11-50.
9 MR. MIRAGLIA:
That is corre.t.
There is one i
10 planned in the future but I am not quite sure exactly what
{
l 11 the timinq of that is.
11--50 did not leob at a Bhw plant 12 but there is one on the horizon on that and I coulin't te11 13 you the schedule for that.
14 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Thank you.
15 l CilAIRMAN Z ECil :
I just have one question regarding 16 unresolved safety issue A-47, safety implications of control 17 I systems in light water coactor plants.
" understand that tho' 18 B&W planta are being treated separately.
Could you tell toe
[
19 !
how this is beinq coordinated with the owners group?
f l,
20 l
MR. MIRAGLIA:
I think the concern there is that l
21 A-4 / did deal with electrical systems interactions and since !
22 there was a considerable numbe c of things that the staff was 23 looking at in the SPID program, we coordinated the resolution 24 of A-45 with the staff's evaluation --
25 C!! AIRMAN ZECil:
A-47.
q
62 l
1 MR. MIRACT.IA:
A-47, to ensure there was 2
consistency within the context of the' process.
3 C IIA I R M A N Z E C II:
So, in a sense they were 4
accomplishing the same results.
5 MR. NIRAGLIA:
To make sure that we we re heading 6
to the same objectives and we weren't finding things in the 7
context of this pro ram that might have impacted or fed into i
i 8
the conclusions the staff was goinq to make relative to 9
recommendations on A-47.
10 CilAIRf1A?J ZECll:
ail right.
}
So, it was a coordina tal e f fort 12 between the reassessment review staff and the research staff 13 that was following through on the rc solution of A-47.
14 CilAIRMAt; 7,ECg :
Al1 richt.
Thank you ve ry n:nch.
0 15 Before we conclude, I would like to ask Mr. Wilson or Mr.
16 Simpsio i; they have any comments, specifically perhaps on 17 the standardized advance control system?
Would you like to i
i 18 make a comment on that or anything else before we conclude?
j 19 [
MR. WILSON:
I would like to make a comment on two 20 thinqs.
On the advance control system, the direction from i
l the executive grot.c i.s make it common unless there are 21 22 planied specific ai f ferences.
Just don't a ll ow it.
We 23 haven't gone f ar enough to };now whether that is true or not 24 but, clearly, through the specification, design and 25 development phase, it will be a common approach.
63 i
The second thing I would add to the discussion on 2
PRA's, three plants ha/e modern PRA's in place.
The inurth P ant is completing theirs in the next month or so.
One l
3 P ant has an earlier version PRA.
The sixth plant is l
4 5
evaluating whether to start one.
6 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Those three ihat you have i
7 referred to that have the modern PRA's, have they been 8
submitted to the NRC?
9 MR. WILSON:
I believe the NRC has them all but 1 10 cannot confirm that.
I know they have TMI's.
Crystal River 11 they have.
The Duke PRA, I think they have that too.
So, 12 they have them.
13 COMMISSIONER R
'S :
Thank you.
firstl I
l0 Cil AI RMAN Z EH -
hank you very much.
Let me, 14 15 l of al1, thank Mr. Wilson and Mr. Simpson for being with us 16 today and for their offorts an the leadership of the owners i
17 group organization and for ( thers who are participating with
,1 18 them.
It certainly does appear that the Bsw safety and l
19 performance improvement program is making progress and I t
i 20 think we are all encouraged to care about the commitment to l
21 continued progress.
22 I would encou rage the B&W owners g roup to continue 23 their coordination efforts and their meetings with not only 24 the staff but also the ACRS as you continue your progress 25 and your attempts to resolve any recommendations that may s
64 t
come forward from the staff and the AC11S.
2 I would also like to thank the staft for not only 3
your brief4 9q nere this morning but your continued oversight 4
and involvement in this important program.
It certainly 5
does appear that we are making progress.
I would encourage l
6 the staff too to keep involved with not only the owners 7
group but with the ACRS to make sure that we are conducting 8
a coorc'.inated ef fort in order to follow through on the many l
9 recommendations that have been made for the 3f.W plants.
I 10 So, with that, unless my colleayues have any 11 final comments --
12 (No response.)
13
-- we will stand adjourned.,Thank you very much.
14 (Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m.,
the Commission meeting 15 was adjourned.)
16 17 i
l 18 19 20 l
21 i
{
I 22 l
1 23 24 25
~
o CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER This is to certify that the attached events of a meeting of the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:
NRC Staff Review of the BINOG Plant' Reassessment Program TITLE OF MEETING:
Public Meetiag PLACE OP MEETING:
Washington, D.C.
]
DATE OF MEETING:
August 11 1988 were transcribed by me.
I furcher certify that said 1
transcription is accurate an J complete, to the best l.
of my ability, and that the transcript la a true and 1
accurate record of the foregoing events.
1 1
t f,
.. l r.
. l.
t JOHN TROWBRIDGE, CVR 1
l-l Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
We y e,--ny q
e-
.w
.= -,
ww y-w r
O 1
s NRC STAFF REVIEW OF THE B&WOGPLANTREASSESSMINTPROGRAM PRESENTED BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON AUGUST 11, 1988
~
2 i
l AGENDA PROGRAM BACKGROUND STAFF FINDINGS B8WOG RECOMMENDATIONS MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS ISSUES FOR FURTHER ATTENTION OTHER ISSUES OVERALL STAFF ASSESSMENT IMPLEMENTATION STATUS FOR EACH PLANT.
AUDITS TO VERIFY IMPLEMENTATION l
4 eer +
,w, ry pr v
w
~
- =v*
y-
-t**
r
+-=rtuev yrv ve e-
--*re
+,
vv-wy-erv-7+
vd=-sr'-
v w
- ' * = - * - -
w
-+*
A 3
BACKGROUND PROGRAM INITIATED AS A RESUL7 0F STAFF CONCERNS WITH.B&W PLANT OPERATING HISTORY - B&WOG ASSUMED RESPONSIBILITY PROGRAM BROADER / GREATER DEPTH THAN INTENDED OPERATING EXPERIENCE FORMED A MAJOR BASIS FOR THE B&WOG PROGRAM
' EMPHASIS PLACED ON BALANCE OF PLANT SYSTEMS STAFF REVIEWED AND EVALUATED B&WOG PROGRAM -
ISSUED SER AND SUPPLEMENT PERFORMED INDEPENDENT WORK IN CERTAIN AREAS RISK EVALUATION (BROOKHAVEN)
HUMAN FACTORS (SAI)
LIMITED THERMAL HYDR. ANALYSIS (INEL)
LIMITED OPERATING EXPERIENCE REVIEW O
,m-
--y w-
,,v,
-e
4 STAFF FINDINGS SENSITIVITY OF B&W PLANTS - STAFF GENERALLY AGREED WITH B&WOG FINDINGS CONF!RMED MORE SENSITIVE TO FEEDWATER UPSETS PLACE GREATER RELIANCE ON EFW OPERATOR BURDEN:
NOT GREATER FOR NORMAL REACTOR TRIP GREATER FOLLOWING ICS/NNI FAILURES ALTHOUGH OTSG HAVE SMALL WATER INVENTORY IF SYSTEMS THAT INTERACT WITH OTSG
~
CONTROLLED (E.G.,
ICS/NNI AND EFW)
POST-TRIP RESPONSE WILL BE ACCEPTABLE l
L 4
5 l
STAFF FINDINGS (CONT.)
RISK ASSESSMENT B&W PLANTS DO NOT POSSESS A CORE DAMAGE RISK GREATER THAN OTHER PWRs COMPLEX TRANSIENTS CONSTITUTE A SMALL CONTRIBUTION TO CORE DAMAGE FREQUENCY AT B8W PLANTS, HOWEVER, IMPLEMENTATION OF THE B&WOG PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS WILL REDUCE THAT RISK 6
4 g
yy --,-
,.g
--r,
- 4w_,
y, g
e
,--,~,.--p4-,-r-w
-.,n
-e e-,n m-g--
e,m,,
-,, -, r wnv--
-,v, p-,,e-xr-n g--4-w ee-w4g---y
6 B&WOG RECOMMENDATIONS 226 0F APPROXIMATELY 235 RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED 1.N PROGRAM FOR UTILITY IMPLEMEN-TATION APPROVED TO DATE BY B8WOG B8WOG PP0 GRAM IDENTIFIED 75 KEY RECOMMENDATIONS STAFF EVALUATED BEWOG RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL PROCESS AT B&W IN 0CT, 1987 AND FOUND IT ACCEPTABLE O
a
7 MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVED RESPONSE TO CONTROL SYSTEM FAILURES (ICS/NNI)-
IMPROVED RELIABILITY TO BALANCE OF PLANT SYSTEMS AND COMPONENTS MAIN FEEDWATER SYSTEM EMERGENCY FEEDWATER SYSTEM SECONDARY SIDE PRESSURE CONTROL INSTRUMENT AIR SYSTEM MOTOR-OPERATED VALVE PERFORMANCE
6
- 8 ISSUES FOR FURTHER ATTENTION HUMAN FACTORS (HF)
STAFF DETERMINED THAT B8WOG RECOMMENDATIONS WILL REDUCE OPERATOR BURDEN / ENHANCE OPERATOR PERFORMANCE B8WOG EVALVATIONS LIMITED BECAUSE HF PROFESSIONAL NOT UTILIZED IN THE REVIEW OTHER ONGOING HF PROGRAMS (E.G. DCRDR & E0P REVIEWS) HAVE RESULTED IN SUBSTANTIAL HF IMPROVEMENTS, FURTHER HF REVIEW 0F THE B&WOG PROGRAM NOT LIKELY TO RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENTS HF IMPLICATIONS-WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THE STAFF AS PART OF ITS CONTINUED ASSESSMENT OF OPERATING EVENTS AT B&W PLANTS l
a i
r e,
9,
r t
r w
g JSSUES FOR FURTHER ATTENTION (CONT.)
INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL
~
B&WOG DID NOT ADDRESS IEB 79-27 "LOSS OF NON-CLASS 1E INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL POWER SYSTEM BUS DURING OPERATION" AS PART OF THE ICS/NNI REVIEW STAFF-WILL VERIFY THE ADECUACY OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF IEB 79-27 AS PART OF PLANT SPECIFIC AUDITS OTHER ISSUES THE STAFF PROVIDED COMMENTS ON THE i
B&WOG PROGRAM IN THE SER's AND ENCOURAGED THE B8WOG TO FACTOR THEM INTO ITS ONG0ING FROGRAMS i
e
/
e
10 i
OVERALL STAFF ASSESSMENT PROPER IMPLEMENTATION OF BaWOG RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE B8W UTILITIES SHOULD:
ACHIEVE A REDUCTION IN REACTOR TRIP FREQUENCY AND TRANSIENT COMPLEXITY, RESULT IN AN INCREASE IN THE LEVEL OF SAFETY AT B&W PLANTS WHICH IS COMPARABLE TO OTHER PWR's, STAFF WILL VERIFY PROPER IMPLEMENTATION THROUGH PLANT SPECIFIC AUDITS 4
1
11 STATUS OF' APPROVED RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EACH PLANT
(% FOR EACH UTILITY AS OF JUNE 1988)
CLOSED
- IMPLEMT, EVAL.
ARKANSAS 1 56 12 32 CRYSTAL RIVER 52 16 32 Davis BESSE 49 12 39 OcoNEE l-3 62 17 21 RANCHO SECO 65 19 16 TMI-1 64 20 16
-t 4
..2.
12 4
AUDITS TO VERIFY IMPLEMENTATION STAFF AUDITED IMPLEMENTATION OF B8WOG RECOMMENDATIONS AT RANCHO SECO AND DAVIS BESSE PRIOR TO RESTART STAFF WILL CONTINUE TO VERIFY IMPLEMEN-TATION OF B8WOG RECOMMENDATIONS THROUGH PLANT SPECIFIC AUDITS TO BE PERFORMED AT B8W OPERATING PLANTS STAFF WILL FOLLOW PROGRESS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS BY UTILITIES THROUGH B&WOG TRACKING SYSTEM AND PROJECT MANAGER 0
4 1
D w -,, -. -,,
,,y 3,.
.r-y-
e
1 B&W OWNERS GROUP SAFETY AND PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PRESENTATION TO NRC COMMISSIONERS AUGUST 11, 1988 ARKANSAS POWER &
LIGHT COMPANY DUKE POWER COMPANY FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY TOLED0 EDIS0N COMPANY BABC0CK & WILC0X COMPANY i
.._m.,
..r.,.___,_,,,
.__,,,w, _...,_,,,_._.,,.y, y
2 PRESENTATION OUTLINE INTRODUCTION R.F. WILSON /GPUN RECOMMENDATION IMPLEMENTATION E.C. SIMPSON/FPC PROGRESS TOWARD SPIP G0ALS E.C. SIMPSON ASSESSMENTS BY OTHERS E.C. SIMPSON CONCLUDING REMARKS R.F. WILSON 4
<l
~.. -. -.
1 SPIP PROGRAM PROCESS l.information Gathering
- 11. Integration
, Ill. Implementation l
~
l DATA
\\
8
'x l
l
\\
l EXISTING e
OTHFR e
B& WOO I
DATA l
PROJECTS \\
l s
l l
.g u8Y OF i
e b
- N Y I
IN TEOR AT E' IM 3fNT CONCFRNS CONCE NS CON PROJCOT EAS
- J l
d 8
D RANT DAT 8AND l
TATgN i
qO
/
e PERFORM RESULTS e
y I
EXISTING PROJECTS TO STEERING l
EXECUTivC/
l UTILITY &
COMMITTFE B& WOO S TFERNO AUDIT 8 COMMITTFE
/
INDUSTRY r
i PROJECTS l
REVEWS POEPDOENT REVEW OF i
SEN8ITIVITY l
l t
e MONITOR. REPORT l
--- -- h 8TA103OF g
l IMPLEMENTATION l
l l
l REPORT s
s GCALS F ACHIEVEMENT t---
l l
- C "3 l
j, mc mirrirr nez mc mitrire, a n na l
l i
4 SPIP RECOMMENDATION IMPLEMENTATION o
IMPLEMENTING RECOMMENDATIONS - CRITICAL FOR SUCCESS e
IMPLEMENTATION IS BEING FORMALLY MONITORED BY B&WOG EXECUTIVES AND THE STEERING COMMITTEE FOR BOTH QUALITY AND TIMELINESS:
IMPLEMENTATION QUALITY WILL BE MONITORED FROM A PROGRAMMATIC AND TECHNICAL STANDPOINT PROPER IMPLEMENTATION WILL REQUIRE CONSIDER-ATION OF PLANT UNIQUE CONFIGURATION, RESOUR-4 CES, AND OPERATING SCHEDULE RECOMMENDATION TRACKING SYSTEM REPORT IS MANAGEMENT TOOL; PROVIDES STATUS, PLAN, AND SCHEDULE FOR DISPOSITIONING 0F ALL RECOMMEN-DATIONS e
EFFECTIVENESS IS MONITORED BY COMPARIS0N OF PERFORMANCE AGAINST DEFINED G0ALS
5 PROGRAMMATIC EVALUATION OF SPIP RECOMMENDATION IMPLEMENTATION e
EXECUTIVES CONVENED EVALUATION TEAMS TO CONDUCT EVALUATIONS AT EACH UTILITY TEAM TYPICALLY CONSISTED.0F EIGHT INDIVIDU-ALS EVALUATION PLAN DEVELOPED EVALUATIONS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED AT ALL UTIL-ITIES REPORT ISSUED TO EACH UTILITY e
EXECUTIVE INVOLVEMENT IN EACH EVALUATION e
ONE MANYEAR OF TEAM EFFORT e
ONE HUNDRED FORTY 0WNERS GROUP PERSONNEL WERE INVOLVED e
SUMMARY
REPORT ENDORSED BY B&WOG EXECUTIVES AND PROVIDED TO NRC
- -v,-----
w-
-4 y..y-w,_ _,___-. _,
,,-.m,-_.,y._.._,
y.-_,_.,_,,_-y_-.m
_7,.,_,,,., _,g._.
y,
, _.,.._,_y.
~
6A PROGRAMMATIC EVALUATI0i1 TEAM C0t1CLUSIONS THE EVALUATION TEAM REACHED THE PRIllCIPAL C0t1CLUSI0t1 THAT ALL UTILITIES HAD ADEQUATE PROGRAMS FOR SPIP RECOMMEt1DATION DISPOSITIONING AT THE TIME OF THE EVALUATION.
HOWEVER, IN ALL CASES, SOME IMPROVE-MENTS WERE NEEDED TO CREATE A FULLY EFFECTIVE PRO ~
GRAM.
THE F0LLOWIl1G ADDITI0t1AL CONCLUSIONS WERE REACHED BY THE EVALUATION TEAM:
e EXCELLENT "CROSS-FERTILIZATION" OCCURRED THROUGH THE TEAM MEMBERS TO THEIR RESPECTIVE COMPANIES.
UTILITY PROGRAM FEATURES WERE CONTIi10 ALLY BEING IMPROVED THROUGHOUT THE EVALUATI0i1 PERIOD AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE EVALUATION PROGRAM.
i e
4
_y..
,,r.__
.y._-.-----.c
.y
68 PROGRAMMATIC EVALUATI0t1 TEAM CONCLUSIONS (CONTIt1UED) e THE INVOLVEMENT OF EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE REPRESEN-TATIVES CONTRIBUTED GREATLY TO THE EVALUATI0t1 QUALITY, THE EMPHASIS ON THE IMPORTANCE OF SPIP RECOMMENDATI0t1 DISP 0SITI0i1ING, AllD THE INCREASED VISIBILITY OF THE SPIP AND ITS G0ALS.
e FUTURE IMPR0VEMEllTS IN THE QUALITY OF DISPOSI-TI0i1Il1G, REPORTING, AllD DOCUMENTATION, Al1D IN-CREASED PROGRESS Ill DISPOSITIONING ARE EXPECTED AS A RESULT OF ACTIOl1S TAKEi1 BY THE UTILITIES.
l 0
6
7 TECHNICAL EVAL ATION OF SPIP RECOMMENDATION IMPLEMENTATIOJJ e
TECHNICAL EVALUATIONS STARTED AND CONTINUE FOUR-MAN TEAM FORMED TO CONDUCT EVALUATIONS FIVE RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDING ICS (KNOWN SAFE STATE) SELECTED FOR INITIAL EVALUATION INITIAL EVALUATIONS COMPLETED AT ALL OPERAT-ING PLANTS e
DETAILED EVALUATION PLANS AND CHECKLISTS USED e
STEERING COMMITTEE WILL REVIEW RESULTS e
TECHNICAL EVALUATIONS OF ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDA-TIONS WILL CONTINUE e
,---y-.
,---,,_._,,..,_%. -.,,..,,. -,,,,, _ ~.. _,,-... _.., _,........ -, -,.-, + -.
..,-,,c...,,
,,,,,,+
8 RESULTS OF TECHNICAL EVAlijATIONS e
IN GENERAL, THE QUALITY OF IMPLEMENTATION FOR THE FIVE RECOMMENDATIONS AUDITED WERE ADEQUATE.
e THE TEAM MADE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS TO SPECIFIC PLANTS WHERE IMPROVEMENTS WERE NEEDED.
e THE TEAM C011 PILED GOOD PRACTICES OBSERVED AT EACH PLANT AND CONVEYED THESE T0 fHE OTHER PLANTS FOR APPLICABILITY.
6 e
I t
9 i
=
b a
p*
f e g ew H &
b h'
l'Nf $
p.
p Y
- )
'.,m'-
I
,'f,.
y (
s*
e b
W m.
p.
}
.,u.
4 m
m-
]
El'I Q.
3l!
u.
~
(D Z
~
n.,.
m_.
h./
i.
h, el a,
Ij.
I
},
a'
-# '.k' - -,
n p. /
u
.e.
a-
? s N.
Q E tt j ]'
p'
/
C-
. g
. =. -
J De e':
=
4 J
u
c we
- N,
~
0
-e
+
%tO '
h t
M e
u D.
g h
j N
g g
'.W W~ W C
CC a E.
l c
H. O o
WW 93 x
_.
4 O-
-_~'-
W u f---
*
e
- " ~
' i. -
[
3 ' i.
li
. -.g.,, M, *
- 4,y, ',
p J.
l <:1 je,.- e' l,. <.w c
., p 3
3 g
.i u-2,-
w 9
C L.)
2_ >.
-)
.'..e 9'-*a C
Y
._ Is 1
1
-Y-h, h
W l
s v
'.T.
t 4
1.88 l
,,3 g
i I h I
- 6 Ya l
~, ' '
l ;
l,, 4='r.',*
[
.= j M
eW.,
,M,
.=
l s
LJ M
(,,9 7
c=
- c.,.
c,,
e_
- c.,
c_.
e 7'
[
T 1
[
~
= 8 g i.< 7. 3..-.
i -, I,,: iJ.4,e.4, dr ;
- 1WL. _
. e I,..,
w A y 4... ' 6.s s
'"*'.4-8 4ee.
g 4 +
4 a
,s l
e 1
v 10 o
LJ CO m
uw
//>Xl.
co cu cu u ca er H
~7 ?
_ry
/,.,/, ' - 7'
/ f'w'. y z
a
_/ / / /.
w
/
o x
a c
w ct 4
m o-9 e
z H
e a
>,,, /,/ / - ~.w, c=
2 u.
C'
/
cs
, / c'Nd' W
L,J N I
Cs
/
Ol/ i -
Q
> /,,
/
,,1,\\,
y cu Q_
a
-w a
=
s m
.7 x
A
=
,/-
_.J W (/
C CW5 F b, at ~==
o-
=
i_
u-8 2
x 1
,,..,jojv J-
)ri ';/
2
- 5 e
- o'
,f O
L'
,'; f2J' ':,'i/A',Xi s no 2:
cu oo u_ -
Hyw=,
- o.,
--~
c.
=
=~ t.1 z-
-u m
ow c.=. 1 1 O ", ( )
m
_.J h="' y>
CI C-J
//' '//} / ',
A - --* O
' u~
y-n
,s o
'. /. '
p j / / !%,
p
, l
,/ -.
c, <N 'f, r, f' t,.
F--
_ cu Cs
,/ - es
, A s
m U '
g a
./ / / /,. s' !. \\.i r.,
s./ %\\
r } (g--
r-cr.
LJ c5 ^
_.J L-1 e =J F1 z-2 la
- E. i, i
u, W
, "h i
5' w
r_
Z s LJ c 0:
g
, 4. -.'. W{.
,d e l ]i
^
xc cr
- na ;
x i
a, y
>=
+
,n
.,m /,y < &., M.. ', p-
. =,
a w-u
~_
p y;
c:
e oc i
O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O C
.o c
ry c.
so M
O N,
y
- co o cv p g M
Q 7
r?
e7 M
M M
M (V
OJ OJ e-4 ed ed SN01100N3WWO338 JO 'ON 310935990
11 B&W OWNERS GROUP SAFETY AND PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM OBJECTIVE IMPROVE SAFETY, REDUCE THE NUMBER OF TRIPS AND COM-PLEX TRANSIENTS ON B&W OWNERS GROUP PLANTS, AND ENSURE ACCEPTABLE PLANT RESPONSE DURING THOSE TRIPS AND TRANSIENTS WHICH D0 OCCUR.
G0ALS 1.
BY THE END OF 1990 THE AVERAGE PER PLANT TRIP FREQUENCY WILL BE LESS THAN TWO PER YEAR.
2.
BY THE END OF 1990 THE NUMBER OF COMPLEX TRAN-SIENTS AS CLASSIFIED BY MEASURABLE PARAMETERS (CATEGORY "C") WILL BE REDUCED TO 0.1 PER PLANT PER YEAR BASED ON A MOVING THREE YEAR AVERAGE.
.. =.
12 i
l 1
2:
m=
N'x' sib,'ss\\ )b 3 t.
s
)
E.
b h *$
I
=559
~
bb -
-E s\\,
==
==
{
Y i
h s=
gE,s=
g,'emm\\w c m-r_
As sNxxxx N1
~
*)
=
\\
.9 s
"W5'8SS'RM&x'N'88W T
e-e - r.e. -.
4 e&
i e=
\\
N m
NE h
5 s ']
- u.s j~
T SSL&4'hh'NNM'A'N'MW-
- e 3
-f,.,. se N -
A'S ie
_=
s N
W 8'@'4'h'O%'ShMNN'48h'N'NN'M'l5
=
O O
9 O
Oad H
O
[
dJd nub b I
1 i
i 1
4 l
l 1
._._m
e 13 6
Ek I
O g
E
--T"
{'T gh I
l l
Sl E[
ei
~l t
,_ I C
i T G_
v i
67 w-i k
ol b
I bN 2i I h?
Q
- I e-og L
o g
Z c&
U
.O I
- q al "m w E
"O a
Z9 3
C2 i
L CA ;
l
- - 3 1
-R
-a UO I
?
Z l
a s>
I L
g
=w U3
'=3 C"
l s
l C
-7 C.O 2 tJ C l
l W
k-I b
>=
L9 C r I
3._
gm e
u w
w g
0 l
L, I
h C5 I
r i
- q s=
3
= _.
b "M i
z=
i uC l
L Q"
I
.e C
I LJ g-t C
L_
1
~
y a
w
- m K
l w'~2 g
-7 g
I g
1 hm I
i m
i
.O 1
l "
r-I' h
L F2 o
b c
'T N
o b
b v
N O
b 4
- ? 7 1
M.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
m.
M.
..4 M.
o.
o.
o.
O o
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o
I (ed3A/1Neld/SdIM1) ADN300hJ i
2 i
1 e
w.--
r
-Tw c-~
.---w y-
e o
14 ASSESSMENTS BY 0THERS
SUMMARY
HIGHLIGHTS INDEPENDENT ADVISORY BOARD i
e DEFINED ACTIONS SHOULD REDUCE TRANSIENT FRE-QUENCY AND IMPROVE SAFETY e
ICS/NNI AND FEEDWATER RELIABILITY DESERVE SPECIAL ATTENTION e
MANAGEMENT ATTENTION TO IMPLEMENTATION QUALITY IS IMPORTANT 4
d i
O e
't
--y
,.,,-w-
.,-,.y____w.,,,
15 ASSESSMENT 5 BY OTHERS
SUMMARY
HIGHLIGHTS HRC e
NRC IN GENERAL AGREEMENT WITH SCOPE AND OVERALL RESULTS e
NRC STATED THAT THE SPIP RECOMMENDATIONS TOTAL-ING OVER 200 ARE APPROPRIATE; 0F THESE THEY HAD COMMENTS ON 8 AND PROVIDED GUIDANCE OH 33 OTHERS ACRS e
AGREED WITH STAFF FINDINGS ON SPIP e
NO ADDITIONAL REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS e
URGED PROMPT IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS e
---,---,,---...n,---
o 16 OVERALL SPIP VALUE e
FOCUSED GREATER ATTEt1TI0t1 Oil B0P l
e REIllFORCED VALUE OF A QUALITY PLAT 1T EXPERIEllCE (TAP) DATA BASE FOR PROBLEM ASSESSMEllT AllD 1
ASSISTAt1CE Ill DEFIllIllG CORRECTIVE ACTI0tlS.
e FURTHER CONFIRMED VALUE OF A DEDICATED GROUP EFFORT Ott COMMON CONCERilS o
PROGRAM VALUE HAS BEEll Et1HA'1CED BY DIVERSE IllPUT EXTERilAL TO B&WOG j
e PROGRAM VALUE It1 CREASED BY STR0t1G UTILITV EXECU-TIVE IllV0LVEMEllT - CRITICAL TO IMPLEMENTATI0tl e
SAFETY AtID PERFORMAllCE HAVE ALREADY BEEN IMPROVED AND WILL C0tlTINUE TO BE IMPROVED e
OVERALL PROGRAM AtlD ITS G0ALS C0t1SISTEt1T WT.TH BASIC UTILITY MISSI0tl
17A CLOSING COMMENTS e
SAFETY AND PERFORMANCE HAVE BEEN AND WILL CON-TINUE TO BE IMPROVED AT B&WOG PLANTS S'IGNIFICANT RESOURCES HAVE BEEN AND WILL CON-e TINUE TO BE DEV0TED TO REASSESSMENT AND IMPLE-MENTATION e
ASSESSMENT SCOPE WAS PROPER e
DEVELOPED 226 SAFETY AND PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS UTILITIES DEVELOPED SYSTEM TO ENSURE FORMAL AND e
TIMELY DISPOSITION 0F ALL RECOMMENDATIONS e
IMPLEMENTATION OF SOME RECOMMENDATIONS HAS ALREADY RESULTED IN BENEFIT (TRIP AVOIDANCE) o 9
e w --" ~ = * ' * ' * ' ~ "'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '
F 17B
-CLOSING COMMENTS (CONTINUED) e IMPLEMENTATION WILL G0 ON FOR SEVERAL YEARS e
UTILITY MANAGEMENT WILL MONITOR FUTURE PERFOR-MANCE TO ENSURE IMPROVEMENT IS ATTAINED e
NRC STAFF INTERACTIONS HAVE BEEN HELPFUL e
NRC CAtt READILY MONITOR INDIVIDUAL PLAllT PRO-GRESS e
B&WOG COMMITMENT TO SPIP WILL CONTINUE TO BE STRONG J
l
, ~,, - -..,,, -.,,
---n.
MWdWNdWAWd%%%%%%W6%%% dWddffWdffWdfffffggpfiggyg,
(
TPRISMITTAL TO:
Document Control Desk, 016 Phillips Il j
ADVANCED COPY TO:
The Public Document Room
.f// 4 /fI DATE:
3 e
j FROM:
SECY Correspondence & Records Branch E:
2 Attached are copies of a Comission meeting transcript and related meeting
[
document (s). They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List and
=
placement in the Public Document Room.
No other distribution is requested or EI required.
Meeting
Title:
A
$ d_%f 8 $-b
/# A$ 4 kr+
l:
f/// / Pf' Ooen N Closed Meeting Date:
Item Description *:
Copies 1
Advanced DCS f:!
'8 to PDR g
i l!
- 1. TRANSCRIPT 1
1 ki W/4 & L)
\\
In!
V' 1:
3!
2.
G 1
'3?'
4.
J k
2 :
s.
3 -
E 3
- j i 6.
2:
3:
S:!
3
- POR is advanced one copy of each document, two of each SECY paper, 3 :
C&R Branch files the original transcript, with attachments, without SECY L
jj papers.
a s I
2 i
5-
.m 5
l l
l l
l lI I l l I l l lh fjflff fhfjfjMhh
__