ML20154G641
| ML20154G641 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/12/1988 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8805250017 | |
| Download: ML20154G641 (107) | |
Text
_ .. . _. . _ - _ . _. ____ _____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
)- ,
l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
Title:
BRIEFING ON STATUS OF UNRESOLVED SAFETY / GENERIC ISSUES Location: ONE WHITE FLINT NORTH, ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND Date: THURSDAY, MAY 12, 1988
(
Pages: 1-52 i
i 1
I
\
Ann Riley & Associates Court Reporters 1625 i Street, N.W., Suite 921
(_. Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 8805250017 880512
- k. 7 PDR
1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 ***
4 BRIEFING ON 5 STATUS OF UNRESOLVED SAFETY / GENERIC ISSUES 6 ***
7 PUBLIC MEETING
- 8 ***
9 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 10 One White Flint North 11 Rockville, Maryland 12 13 Thursday, May 12, 1988 14 15 The Commission met in open session, pursuant to 16 notice, at 10:00 a.m., the Honorable LANDO W. ZECH, Chairman of 17 the Commission, presiding.
18 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
.- O 19 LANDO W. ZECH, Chairman of the Commission
. 20 THOMAS M. ROBERTS, Member of the Commission 21 FREDERICK M. BERNTHAL, Member of the Commission 22 KENNETH ROGERS, Member of the Commission 23 l
24 !
1 25
2 1 STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT THE COMMISSION TABLE:
f 2 S. CHILK 3 V. STELLO 4 T. SPEIS
.5 W. SCHWINK 6 W. PARLER 7 F. GILLESPIE 8 W. MINERS 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 l- 20 21 22 23 24 25 P
, , - - . . . - . . - . ,,, .,,, , .., _,,,..-, .,,_ .,,.--,. .,- -...,,,_,,,,-,_ ..-,_.n,---,,,,-- - - v
l i
3 !
1 SPEAKER FROM THE AUDIENCE:
/
2 R. BEAR )
1 3 l 4
l 5 l 6
7 i
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 j 18 l 19
. 20 !
i 21 I
22 I
23 t
24 25
4 1 PROCEEDINGS l 1
2 (10:00 a.m.]
3 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. ,
i 4 Mr. Carr will not be with us this morning. He is on 5 travel. Commissioner Bernthal will be with us shortly.
6 Today the Commission will be briefed by the NRC's 7 Office of Research and Nuclear Reactor Regulation on the Status
. 8 of the Generic Safety Issue Program. This meeting is a follow-9 up to the last briefing of October 21, 1987. The Generic 10 Safety Issues are concerns that are applicable to all or 11 several, at least, or a class, perhaps, of reactors or 12 facilities.
13 Safety concerns are brought to the Commission from 14 various sources, both internal and external to the Agency, but 15 all are assessed and prioritized and should be resolved on some 16 reasonable schedule.
17 During the last commission briefing the Staff 18 proposed several improvements in the process to assess, l 19 prioritize and provide increased management attention to the
. 20 resolution of these generic safety issues. The Commission is 21 interested in the Staff's assessment of how those proposed 22 improvements in the process are working.
23 I would note that the Commission is not only 24 interested in a timely resolution of these important issues but 25 also in ensuring that these issues are resolved as completely l
5 1 as reasonably possible. It is my understanding that there are 2 nine unresolved safety issues yet to the finalized, and the l
3 Commission is interested in a status report on each of these 4 issues.
5 This is an information briefing today and not vote is 6 expected. I understand that slides are available at the 7 entrance of the room.
- 8 Do any of my fellow commissioners have opening 9 comments they would like to make? Commissioner Rogers?
10 COMMISSIOUER ROGERS: Just one, that I hope during 11 the course of the presentation that there might be some 12 reference to the April 12th memorandum of the ACRS on the 13 effectiveness of programs related to generic and unresolved 14 safety issues, their comments, just to connect your activities 15 with those, where you agree or disagree or are making progress 16 or not making progress. l 17 I think there is a point of view that is expressed in 18 that letter that is one that is important from a policy point 19 of view, and I would like to understand in the course of your
. 20 presentation how you see that with respect to the combinations 21 of issues. I know you will talk about that, but if you could i
22 be fairly explicit in reference to that document as you j 23 proceed.
24 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right.
25 Mr. Stello, you may proceed, please.
6 1 MR. STELLO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
2 Let me introduce the people at the table. Starting 3 to my far right, Warren Miners, and right next to him on my 4 right, Dr. Speis, who I will turn the briefing over to in a 5 moment, and part of the briefing will be given by Mr. Mike 6 Gillespie on my immediate left, and all the way at the end of 7 the table is Walt Schwink, who has been involved in the
- 8 process.
9 Two points I think I want to make at the outset. At 10 the last briefing we had of the Commission we pretty much 11 confined ourselves to the process and how we handle the generic 12 issues. Today we will try to focus and we will address 13 specifically the ACRS letter and comments and talk about the 14 progress that we are making. Sometimes this looks like such 15 big program because we have been talking about some big 16 numbers, but we also have made rather substantial progress and 17 have implemented some systems now to rather carefully track the 18 implementation of those generic issues on every plant in terms 19 of their status as to whether they have been implemented,
. 20 whether commitment has been made by the licensee, whether the 21 actual modifications have been made in the plant, and finally, 22 whether we needed to verify, and if so, have we done so.
23 So we have made substantial progress in this whole 24 area, and what we would like to do is to give you a feeling for 25 the kind of progress we have made.
7
. 1 With that, let me turn to Dr. Spels to begin the 2 presentation. One last thing is, while the number of slides 3 look substantial for the briefing, it is not because we really
~
4 have that many slides. It is the new system that we have 5 limits the ability of how much text you can really put on a 6 page. We will be rather crisp in our briefing.
7 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you very much.
. 8 Dr. Speis, you may begin.
9 MR. SPEIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr.
10 Commissioners. As Mr. Stello said, I will focus the briefing 11 on the progress made in a number of areas since the last 12 briefing to you, give you a brief status of the nine USIs, as 13 you, Mr. Chairman, requested, and I will say something about 14 three issues specifically dealing with a number of important of 15 technical areas, one of them the decay heat removal issue and 16 how we will be proposing to you to fold it into the individual 17 plant examination process because it is a natural, and I will 18 discuss the reasons for it.
19 I will bring you up to date on a another issue which l
, 20 we talked to you about last time. It is a high priority issue 21 dealing with the potential loss of residual heat removal
)
22 capability in some PWRs, and also I will give you the history 23 of another issue, how the process was initiated from AEOD, how 24 the analysis was done by them and how it was carried through 25 all the way to the resolution so you can see how the process
8 1 unfolds from the moment an issue is identified to the moment 2 that it is resolved.
3 (Slide.)
4 So the first Vugraph briefly summarizes the history 5 and status of the issues. Again, this is a short repeat from 6 the last briefing. Most of the issues on that first page, as O
7 you see, came from the TMI accident, NUREG 0660 and 0737, and
. 8 some other issues, for a total of 511.
9 (Slide.]
10 Page 2 shows additional issues that have been 11 identified the last seven years, and that brings us to the 12 total number of issues of 743 that we have handled since this 13 program was initiated. By the way, this was two more than at 14 our last briefing October 21, 1987.
15 (Slide.]
16 On page 3 it shows the progress that we have made on 17 these generic issues. You see that we have resolved at this 1
18 point in time 628 of them. At the last briefing it was 610. I
~
19 will give you a more detailed breakdown.
20 (Slide.)
i 21 At the next page, on page 4, it discusses the issues j 22 to still be resolved. At our last briefing that number was l l
23 121; at the present briefing that number is 105. We have taken 24 care of or resolved 16 issues. The only point I want to make j 25 on this is you see a number there, 47, to be prioritized. We
9 1 also have performed an initial screening of that number, and f,
2 our judgment at this point in time is that only one of those 3 issues will turn out to be high priority.
4 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Before you go off that slide, as I 5 recall, there was a GAO report that referred to the Surry pipe 6 rupture event. Are there any generic safety issues in this 7 prioritization that you are reviewing in conjunction with the
. 8 Surry pipe rupture event?
9 MR. SPEIS: That is an issue that is receiving 10 immediate attention. It went through our system and is an 11 issue that --
12 CHAIRMAN ZECH: But is it in this program? It is 13 part of this program?
14 MR. SPEIS: Yes, it is part of this program, yes. I 15 think if you recall, Mr. Chairman, I said last time that many 16 times things happen in reactors and we don't wait for those 17 issues to be resolved before we do anything, and that is a 18 specific issue where we issued bulletins and instructions and 19 so on, but then residual concerns take a longer time. The 20 residual part of that issue is in this program here.
l i
21 CHAIRMAN ZECH: But are there any generic issues that 22 are part of this program as a result of the Surry incident?
23 There are, you are saying?
24 MR. SPEIS: Yes.
25 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Fine. Good. Thank you.
1
10 1 [ Slide.)
2 MR. SPEIS: On page 5 it shows the summary that we 3 have 733 issues. We have handled that many so far. We have 4 completed or resolved 86 porcent, and only 14 percent are 5 remaining. And again, one of the big points is that a large 6 number of them, maybe close to 50 percent, are of no 7 importance, no safety importance, but they just happen to still
. 8 be in our system.
9 [ Slide.)
10 I would like to go through the status of each USI 11 because even though at our last briefing we had nine USIs and ,
12 we still have nine USIs on the books, we have made substantial 13 progress.
14 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Excuse me. In that statement when 15 you said some are of no safety importance, what does that mean?
16 MR. SPEIS: If you look on page 4 of the briefing, 17 there is an issue there "to be prioritized."
la CHAIRMAN ZECH: Right.
19 MR. SPEIS: There is a number "47" under 5/12/88. We
. 20 have gone through a screening of those issues and we found only 21 one of them to be high priority, to merit serious attention.
22 The other ones are of low priority and we are trying to close 23 the books on them, basically.
24 CHAIRMAN ZECH: I see. But those that are of low 25 priority, do we just leave those on the books?
l 11 7
1 MR. SPEIS: We don't work on them. They don't merit 2 any attention. But we leave them on the books because somebody 3 might raise the same issue next year and we want to have the 4 documentation of what was done, and also some additional 5 information might show up next year that will make us revisit 6 that issue, and for that purpose we have them there.
7 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Could you give an example of o 8 something of that category? Do you have something in mind that 9 would fit into that to just give us a feeling, just calibrate 10 your --
11 MR. SPEIS: Well, a specific example is the 12 importance of air systems. We initially had prioritized medium, 13 but additional information that was provided by AEOD made us 14 take another look and it turned high, and in fact, it elevated 15 to the high priority, as an example.
16 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: How about the other way?
17 MR. SPEIS: The other way. Nothing comes to mind.
18 We can provide many examples, but right now, I am blind right 19 now focusing on this presentation. Maybe in the next ten
. 20 minutes we will be able to give you many examples.
21 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: All right.
22 CHAIRMAN ZECH: That is fine. Proceed, please.
23 MR. SPEIS: On page 6 I would like to give you a 24 detailed status of each USI. As I said, Mr. Chairman, at the 25 last briefing we had nine USIs on the books, and unfortunately,
12 1 we still have nine USIs on the books even though we have made 2 substantial progress. Some of these issues are extremely 3 complicated and difficult, and taking them to their ultimate 4 point, it takes substantial effort, but let me go through each 5 one of them and you will see what I mean what telling you that 6 even though the number is the same, we still have made c
7 progress.
. 8 (Slide.]
9 On page 7, the USI dealing with steam generator tube 10 integrity. We have completed the final resolution and it is my 11 understanding from Frank that this will be coming to you by the 12 end of May. Right, Frank?
13 MR. GILLESPIE: This may be a good example to 14 demonstrate the quirk in the resolution process that often you 15 don't see. There were bulletins, there were NUREG reports, and <
16 action was taken and licensees have done things, and the actual 17 resolution piece of paper is the only thing left to do, and 18 that we will have up here by the end of May. Right now it is 19 over to OGC for concurrence, and it is technically resolved.
20 There is nothing additional to be done. Because of the 21 immediacy of the problem, it has already been done.
22 CHAIRMAN ZECH: This is on which USI?
23 MR. GILLESPIE: A-3, 4 and 5.
24 MR. SPEIS: On page 7.
25 MR. GILLESPIE: They are all to do with steam
13 1 generator integrity.
2 CHAIRMAN ZECH: On steam generator tube integrity.
3 MR. SPEIS: Yes.
4 MR. GILLESPIE: And it also includes B-56 under the 5 GSI area. So this is one where we will get four in one-6 closecut.
7 CHAIRMAN ZECH: So you are right near the end of
. 8 closecut, you say, on this one?
9 MR. GILLESPIE: Yes. And this also reflects one of 10 the ACRS comments of grouping like things together and dealing 11 with them as one group, and this was done in this case. It's a 12 good example of that.
13 CHAIRMAN ZECH: It is a good example.
14 (Slide.)
15 MR. SPEIS: On page 8, the next issue to bring you up l
16 to date on is the issue on systems interactions. We are ;
17 consistent with the five-year plan. This issue has been 18 technically resolved. We have gone through the CRGR and we 19 will be issuing the Federal Register notice in July 1988.
20 [ Slide.)
21 The next one, A-40, seismic design criteria, 22 basically deals with future plants, and it only addresses 23 issues relating to four existing plants, some tanks. This l
24 issue also has been completely reviewed by the CRGR, by the j 25 officers, and in fact, the Commission paper was signed by the l
l
34 1 EDO to the Commission for public comments on 5/9/88.
2 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: This is SECY 88-123? Yes.
3 (Slide.)
4 MR. SPEIS: On page 10, USI A-44, I have here in my 5 notes that the final rule to the Commission is awaiting 6 approval. I understand it is almost there now, so that is 7 another.
0 8 MR. PARLER: The Commission has voted on that, Mr.
9 Chairman. The paper, I think, is going to be affirmed today.
10 The votes will be affirmed this afternoon.
11 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Yes, I think that is correct.
12 Just a quick question on that one. There are two, I
- 13 believe you might term, closely-related generic issues, safety 14 issues on station blackout. One is the reactor coolant pump 15 seal issue and the other is the diesel generator reliability 16 issue. Are these issues being looked at to the point where 17 they might be resolved so that the licensees as they review the 18 station blackout procedure would have these matters to consider
~
19 at the point where it would be meaningful to their station
, 20 blackout determination?
21 MR. SPEIS: Yes. Those two issues, Mr. Chairman, are 22 integrated with the station blackout issue, and when the 23 blackout goes out, they will know exactly what to do with the 24 other issue.
25 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Is there a schedule for resolving
15 1 those two issues?
2 MR. SPEIS: Yes.
3 CHAIRMAN ZECH: What does that schedule look like?
4 Do you know?
5 MR. BEAR: My name is Robert Bear and I am Chief of 6 the Engineering Issues Branch. Generic Issue 23 is in my 7 branch, and that is scheduled for resolution September or
. 8 October. I don't have the date right in front of me.
9 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Of this year?
10 . !R . BEAR: Of this year. Yes, sir.
11 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you very much. That is both 12 issues?
13 MR. BEAR: That is the seal problem.
14 CHAIRMAN ZECH: The seal problem. How about the 15 diesel generator problem?
16 MR. MINERS: I don't know the exact date but I think 17 it is about the same time.
18 CHAIRMAN ZECH: This fall.
19 MR. MINERS: Yes.
. 20 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right.
21 MR. GILLESPIE: B-56 and diesel generators will be a l 22 guidance document, probably a draft Reg Guide in support of the 23 rule, and I think that is explained in the SECY also.
24 MR. STELLO: Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons, you 25 recall when we had the Commission meeting on station blackout, l
16 1 to suggest the preference was to add additional capability for 2 providing electrical power on the site is because that allows 3 the kind of integration to solve those problems as part of the 4 station blackout solution in a very direct way. I understand 5 that the Commission, from what I have seen, that they will i 6 endorse stating that preference in the statement of 7 considerations or somewhere in the rule, and we hope that the
. 8 industry will see the opportunity to deal with the station l
1 9 blackout issue in such a way to integrate solutions to some of j l
10 these other issues that have been pending as well. '
1 11 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Thank you very much. !
l 12 l You may proceed.
13 (Slide.]
l 14 MR. SPEIS: The next issue, USI A-45, the issue l I
15 dealing with decay heat removal requirements, is one issue 16 where we have completed the technical work. We will be l 17 recommending to you that it become part of the individual plant l l
18 examination, and I will be say some more later on in the 19 briefing.
, 20 (Slide.]
21 on page 12, the issue dealing with the safety 22 implications of control systems. We have completed the 23 technical work. It has gone through CRGR review, and also on 24 this issue we will be issuing a Federal Register notice for 25 public participation and the industry's participation at the
17 1 end of May 1988, this year.
2 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Could you talk a little bit about --
3 this is the one, I think, the ACRS letter of April 12, 1988 4 raised the concern about the scope of the unresolved and 5 generic safety issues and indicated that they thought they were 6 truncated. Can you comment on that?
7 MR. SPEIS: Yes. I can say that we don't completely
. 8 agree with the ACRS that we changed the original scope, but we 1
9 feel that the ACRS during the review, especially the last year, 10 have raised some legitimate questions. We will be sending them 11 a letter and we will be talking to them to understand the 12 questions more, and what we will be proposing, if out of those t
13 questions and out of those concerns we see something that ;
14 merits further consideration, then we will take that ensemble !
15 of concerns and define them into a new issue and prioritize it, 16 put it 'chrough our system and then go this way.
i 17 The ACRS, by the way, agrees that we don't have to i 18 delay the resolution of A-47 the way we are approaching it to l l
19 incorporate their additional concerns.
. 20 CHAIRMAN ZECH: You have discussed the situation with l
21 the ACRS? '
22 MR. SPEIS: Yes, we have discussed it, and in fact, 1
23 we are sending you a letter, Mr. Chairman, from Mr. Stello l I
24 telling you basically what I just said. l 25 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you.
t
18 1 (Slide.]
2 MR. SPEIS: On the next issue, the issue dealing with 3 hydrogen control measures and effects of hydrogen burns, this 4 issue really is a matter of documentation. Here is an issue 5 where not only have we resolved it but it has been implemented.
6 This issue deals with the control of hydrogen in a degraded 7 core situation for the ice condensers in the MARK-3
- 8 containments. That work has been done, so closing the books on 9 this issue is what we define as the resolution. The report 10 documenting the final resolution will be in July 1988.
11 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Will this, though -- if I understand i 12 the issue correctly -- will this resolution close out the 13 issues for other containment types?
14 MR. SPEIS: No. The whole severe accident issue will 15 be coming to you in the next few months after the Master Plan, l
l 16 and the hydrogen issue is a part of the total severe accident 17 issue.
18 CHAIRMAN ZECH: But this issue, as I understand it, 19 just applies to certain specific containment types.
1
. 20 MR. SPEIS: Applies to ice condcnsers in the MARK- 1 21 3's, and it will close the issue for just those.
22 CHAIRMAN ZECH: How about the other containments, 1 23 though?
24 MR. SPEIS: Well, the MARK-l's and MARK-2's, they are 25 inertad. That's okay. So we are still dealing with the large,
19 1 dry containment, which we will be making recommendations to you 2 this coming year. !
3 CHAIRMAN ZECH: I see. All right.
4 MR. STELLO: That will be identified in the paper 5 that we are coming forward with on integration of severe 6 accident --
7 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Fine. And refer to the other
, 8 containments so that we will know we are covering them all.
9 MR. SPEIS: Yes. Let me summarize, Mr. Chairman. l l
10 On these nine USI's, by the end of June there will 11 only remain four of them, okay? ;
i 12 CHAIRMAN ZECH: The end of June, next month.
13 MR. SPEIS: By the end of June of this year, yes.
14 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Right. ,
15 MR. SPEIS: The systems interaction, the seismic 16 criteria, decay heat removal and safety implications for l 17 control nystems. The technical work has been completed on all 18 four of them. Of these four, three of them have received
~
19 complete CRGR review, and we will be noticing that, the process 20 that we have gone through in the Federal Register notice, and 21 only the decay heat removal, on which I will say more, will ;
i 22 remain, and that is the one that we plan to recommend to you i
23 that will be part of the individual plant examination.
24 CHAIRMAN ZECH: It sounds like we are making real 25 progress.
i l
20-1 MR. SPEIS: Except sometimes the numbers don't show 2 it.
4 S CHAIRMAN ZECH: I understand.
4 (Slide.]
5 MR. SPEIS: Let me say something about this decay 6 heat removal issue, A-45. As I said, we have concluded that 7 the best way to resolve this issue is through integration with
. 8 the individual plant examination program. Now, the basis of 9 our conclusions and recommendations will be discussed in detail 10 and will be documented in the individual plant examination 11 package which will be presented to the Commission in the next 12 month or so. on page 15 it basically says those words in 13 writing.
14 The analysis that has been done on the decay heat 15 removal system where we have examined in detail the decay heat 16 removal system on six plants shows that failures or 17 vulnerabilities are very plant specific and would require an 18 individual plant examination period even if we didn't have this ;
c 19 program. This is particularly apparent at the support system ,
I 20 level, that is electric power, service water and component 21 cooling water.
22 (Slide.)
23 I think on page 16 I have said that already, that we 24 want to subsume it into the IPE.
l 25 (Slide.)
21 1 On page 17 --
l
} 2 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Before you go to that, on page 16 1
3 when you are talking about the A-45 and the IPE program, do you 4 intend to send a paper to the Commission that will explain the 5 rationale for your recommendation for closing out A-45 and 6 referring to the IPE program?
7 MR. SPEIS: In great detail, yes, Mr. Chairman.
. 8 CHAIRMAN ZECH: When can we expect that?
9 MR. SPEIS: I don't want to say something that my 10 boss wouldn't agree, but it is our plan to present the Master 11 Plan to you --
12 CHAIRMAN ZECH: He is going to hear it from you right 13 now.
14 MR. SPEIS: Yes.
15 [ Laughter.)
16 MR. SPEIS: The Master Plan will be coming to you the 17 fir st week of June. We have a precise date, right?
18 MR. STELLO: The 25th of May.
~
19 MR. SPEIS: No, no.
20 CFAIRMAN ZECH: That is quite precise.
21 MR. STELLO: The 25th of May.
22 MR. SPEIS: Yes, he is right.
22 [ Laughter.)
24 MR. SPEIS: And probably about six weekn later we 25 will be getting you the IPE letter and the ensemble of
22 1 packages, all the attachments, which will include this issue.
2 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right.
3 MR. SPEIS: We are proceeding on this issue also to
~
4 the parallel CRGR review, and the pacP. age is ready to go to 5 CRGR review. We want to make sure that --
6 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Fine. Thank you.
7 MR. SPEIS: Again, this is the only issue that, as I
. 8 said, everything else except this issue has been totally 9 completed.
10 On page 17, I have gone through it.
11 [ Slide.)
12 MR. SPEIS: On page 18 I would like to talk about 13 this issue because it was brought up by Mr. Stello at the last 14 briefing. Some of you asked him which is one of the important 15 issues that is a high priority generic issue that is still in 16 the books, not USI, high priority generic issue, and Mr. Stello 17 brought forth the loss of RHR capability in PWRs.
18 [ Slide.)
~
19 We have been focusing on this issue very intensively 20 the past year, especially the last month, and we have been able 21 to come up with a draft resolution. This issue, by the way, 22 deals with mid-loop maintenance operations, which could allow 23 air to be drawn into the RHR pump suction lines and possibly 24 disable the pumps, and also there is a potential for closure of ,
25 the RHR suction isolation valve, which will again disable the
23 1 pumps.
2 (Slide.]
3 our preliminary findings discussed on page 20 show 4 that improvements can be made in a number of areas: for ;
5 example, better instrumentation for liquid level and flow in 6 the primary system during mid-loop operation; better procedures 7 for mid-loop operation -- I'm on page 21 --
. . 8 (Slide.)
9 -- requirement for rapid closure of the containment 10 during mid-loop operation, and possibly remove the requirement 11 for autoclosure interlock.
12 (Slide.)
l 13 It is our intent to complete the resolution of this 1 14 issue this fiscal year, and we will be working with NRR to put i
j 15 our resources together to resolve this issue so there will be 16 nothing remaining after we go out with the final resolution of 17 this issue.
18 (Slide.)
19 On page 23 I have briefly tried to capture the
. 20 process that has gone through from the time Issue 93 was
) 21 identified to the time it was resolved. This issue is titled i
22 "Steam Binding of Aux Feedwater Pumps." Basically this issue 23 concerns the potential disabling of auxiliary feedwater pumps l
l 24 by steam binding, which is caused by back leakaye from the l
J 25 feedwater pumps, hot water from the feedwater pumps.
24 1 When it was identified by the AEOD, that was back in 2 December of 1984. It was prioritized high a few months later 3 of the same year. We issued an interim -- it was resolved in 4 an interim way via a bulletin a year later in 1985. At the l 5 beginning of this year we issued a generic letter and basically 6 reinforcing the actions of the bulletin, which means that even 7 though we took immediate action of sorts, the detailed work
. 8 that we did since that time told us that the things that we did 9 four years ago were the right things and to keep doing those 10 things.
11 So this kind of shows the process from the time AEOD 12 started looking at the data, the information, the detailed 13 technical analyses. You see here that implementation and ,
14 verification still has to be determined on this specific issue,
) 15 The imposition took place, again, in February of 1988.
j 16 (Slide.] l 17 I would like to spend a few minutes now bringing you 18 up to date on some of the things that we have been doing to 19 keep moving on this process. If you recall, Mr. Chairman, last I
20 time when we talked to you about the process, we talked about 21 the separate steps: the identification of the issues, the 22 prioritization, the resolution, the imposition, the 7
23 verification, the inspection. We told you that it was no 24 panacea with a pen to resolve the issues.
25 You just have to attack all the separate steps in the 1
25 1 most efficient and aggressive way, and there was no one person 2 solving the whole issue, and we looked at the issues separately 3 and we came up with what things could be done in each step of 4 the process to effect' improvements in the process, in the 5 scheduling without losing the essence of the technical 6 resolution, which is very crucial, as you said in your 7 introduction.
. 8 (Slide.)
9 One of the things recommended is it is very important 10 that when an issue is identified, the issue is defined as 11 succinctly as possible, look for duplication at the time, and 12 also attempt to make an estimate of the safety significance of 13 that issue.
14 (Slide.)
15 We have issued a letter that tries to codify that and 16 provide as much guidance to the staff as possible. That is on 17 page 26.
18 (Slide.)
19 On page 27 we set to you the time that we will be 20 making a more thorough review of the concerns emanating from 21 future major events to make sure that we don't just lump all 22 kinds of issues just for the futu.Te but try to do as much as 23 possible at that time. If you recall from some of the events, i
24 for example, Davis-Besse, we identified 30 issues, and when i 25 later on we found the time to scrutinize them very carefully,
26 7
1 we found out that there were not 30, there were much less than 2 that.
3 So again in the future when we have an event like 4 Davis-Besse, we are not going to just saturate the system with 5 issues, we are going to scrutinize them at that time and keep 6 the important ones.
~
7 On page 28, in order to speed up prioritization,
, 8 again that's the initial part.
9 (Slide.]
10 It says after the identification follows the 11 prioritization. I said earlier that we don't wait. We'd like 12 to go through a screening process as soon as possible to make 13 sure that we identify any important issues. Now what we'd like 14 to do is follow that screening process while the iron is hot, 15 as they say, and meet with the right people who have identified 16 the issue, the people who have prioritized, to see if we can i
17 use that screening process to close as many issues as possible, 18 again without losing the essence and the importance of the 19 safety issues.
20 That is discussed on page 29.
21 [ Slide.]
22 Again, this is part of our approach that is discussed 23 on page 30 between us and NRR and again this is discussed in 24 the Memorandum of Understanding between our two offices. !
25 I guess I am racing as much as possible. The
27 1 extremely large number of viewgraphs has given me some 2 difficulty.
3 CHAIRMAN ZECH: You are doing very well.
4 MR. SPEIS: I'll maybe use another system next time.
5 CHAIRMAN ZECH: You're doing fine.
6 MR. SPEIS: We promised that we'll look carefully at 7 our resources to assign priorities. We have done that and that ,
8 is in place right now.
9 On page 32, in addition to the procedures to define 10 the prioritization, we have put together procedures to put 11 these things into effect in the area of resolution. Here is an 12 area again that some of these complex issues, where many people 13 in many organizations are involved and as we told you last 14 time, management involved at that stage of the process is very 15 crucial.
16 (Slide.)
17 On page 43 we have issued again the letter on 18 prioritization identification and we have issued a draft letter 19 on resolution that's going to be finalized in the next few 20 weeks. In addition, now we put out a quarterly status report 21 to the EDOs, so when some of the issues are delayed we want to 22 make sure that EDO is aware of it and he can, you know, I guess 23 use his weight to do the appropriate things.
24 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: What's the acronym GIMES?
2:5 MR. STELLO: Generic Issue Management Control System.
28 1 MR. SPEIS: On page 44, we discussed the simultaneous !
i 2 review involving the ACRS and the concurrence from the 3 different offices. On page 45 again there are some issues that i
!' 4 are very complex and we are still encountering some delays, but 5 again you see how much effort and how much you sustain.that 6 effort to do as much as possible within the constraints of all 7 the schedules that exist in our work, i . 8 (Slide.) !
i 4
9 The next one discusses the effort where we will try ;
i 10 to see how many of these issues can be combined and we have 11 done that on a number of issues involving electrical systems 12 and mechanical systems.
13 The big issue that we'll be recommending that it be l
)
j 14 combined with the IP is Issue A-45 which -- we talked about it i 15 already. s j 16 That brings us to page 38. It is always nice to )
l j 17 keep, effective and efficient to keep the same project manager )
l 18 so attempt to do it as much as possible but we.cannot always i
I ~ 19 win there.
l 20 On page 39, we'll include NRR, we'll include SIMS, so 21 maybe this is the point that Frank, you want to take over?
j 22 Right? Well, let me go a few more.
23 SIMS is the -- maybe Mr. Stello can talk about it.
j 24 MR. GILLESPIE: I am going to cover some Safety 25 Issues Management System and it is the process by which we're i
29 1 using it as our official tracking system and kind of our action
/
2 system. We are going in to make sure these things are getting 3 implemented imposed and verified and we're making decisions on 4 which ones should be and it is being used by the PM's in NRR as 5 what we are considering our official record as to when things 6 are done or not done.
7 MR. SPEIS: This is so-called cradle to grave system
. 8 that includes everything from the moment an issue is 9 identified, resolved, prioritized and implemented and inspected 10 and verified and so on and so forth.
11 The implementation information will be included in 12 SIMS on page 41.
13 (Commissioner Bernthal joins the meeting.]
14 MR. SPEIS: One of the things I am not so sure we 15 were doing as good a job as we should have been doing in the 16 past was to make the requiremento as clear as possible when we 17 resolve an issue and send out the information to the utilities, 18 what they have to do. We will be working much more closely 19 with NRR to ensure the issue resolution and position packages 20 are as clear as possible on what exactly is required and 21 includes appropriate schedule and resource information.
22 On page 42, the other thing we are looking at in 23 addition to looking at the combining issues at the resolution 24 of process, we will be looking at whether we can combine issues 25 at the implementation process and if combining the
, - , ,. e ., , - - . -n - . - - , , ,, - y , -.-.e-n -n, -. - - -
30 1 implementation is beneficial, then we will do this.
2 Efforts are being made by both us and NRR to meet the 3 intent of this improvement.
4 I would like to say something -- I am on page 44 --
5 about the ACRS letter that Commissioner Rogers wrote up.
6 I think the ACRS letter was complimentary for our a .
7 efforts, at least in some areas more than in others. I think
. 8 we have found it very useful. We went through the history of 9 the process. We gave them a number of examples of how we go 10 through the process from the moment an issue is identified to 11 the time it is resolved. When I look at it very carefully, 12 they think that they agree with us that as far as i 13 identifiedtjon ic concerned, they do not have any difficulties.
14 Likewise, prioritizaion, resolution. They seem to 15 begin to get some difficulties when we get to the imposition 16 and implementation and verifica*. ion and especially on the scope 17 of the issues. Somehow they think that maybe we are not 18 keeping our oath when initially we define the issue and bound 19 it. They have the impression that at least on some issues we
, 20 change the scope. We have discussed this in detail with them 21 and the example that Mr. Chairman brought up, the A-47, it is 22 our feeling, and we are trying to be as honest as we can with 23 each other, that they raised some legitimate issues, but later i
24 on -- okay, it wasn't during the identification of the issues 25 that those issues came up.
31
, 1 So some of those things come up -- I guess when you 2 have an issue on the books for two or three years, many 3 technical people are looking at it and scrutinizing it and it 4 is almost natural that some additional questions will be 5 raised.
6 But we have a system in place. When additional 7 issues are raised, additional concerns, if we can put our hands
. 8 around them, then we can put them through our system, 9 prioritize them and handle them properly.
10 But if safety improvements have been identified in an 11 issue, we should proceed forward. We shouldn't wait for the 12 additional concerns to be discussed for the next four or five 13 years until some perfection. The world is not perfect.
14 CHAIRMAN ZECH: As I recall, that ACRS letter did say 15 that they found the process to be -- I think they said 16 generally effective. They did talk about the scope and they 17 raised an important issue. Really as I understand it, it talks 18 about a balance and it is a balance between thoroughly and 19 conpletely resolving the issues and resolving them in a timely a
, 20 manner.
21 Now that is a very important question. I think it is 22 properly raised. I am sure that the CRGR and those responsible 23 staff people involved in solving these issues do weight that 24 and do try to balance that, but it is a very important question 25 to keep before you all the time and perhaps it might be worth
32 1 hearing your views on, briefly, as to how you do balance 2 closing the issues out in a reasonably timely manner as opposed 3 to being reasonably confident that you have really resolved the 4 issue. Some of them are complex. We know that. That is why 5 they take so long, but I think the ACRS raised a legitimate 6 question. Could you comment?
O 7 MR. SPEIS: Well, we value the ACRS's advice and we
, 8 interact with them very extensively and I think very 9 ef fectively on most or' the issues. We see things that either 10 comes once in a while or like on this Issue A-47, that 11 additional questions and concerns were raised during the 12 process and most of them were raised really the last six 13 months, when we almost were there, and I think some of them are 14 valid and we're going to scrutinize them and work with them 15 some more to make sure that these additional concerns merit 16 further consideration.
17 But you know there are individua) members, both on l i
18 the staff of the ACRs -- they have their own pet projects and 19 and ideas. Some of them are good but somebody has to make a I 20 decision, has to weigh the priorities and go through a risk .
l 21 perspective, go through a deterministic perspective and we do 22 the best job we can. l 23 CHAIRMAN ZECH: It is a judgment call, of course, but 24 I think it is trying to balance being thorough and analytically 25 careful and look at all the analysis possible and then of l l
1
33 1 course you can get paralysis through analysis if you just keep 2 doing it forever. We all know that but the legitimate 3 question, I really think, is somewhere along the line you have ;
4 to make a decision but you don't want to make a decision 5 without being at least confident. At least you have a number 6 of professionals who believe that you have gone far enough, but 7 somewhere you do have to make a decision.
. 8 I think it is just going through that middle exercise 9 of thoughtfulness that says how far do we go? Have we gone 10 about as far as we can? Are we reasonably confident the 11 decision we will make is a proper one and within our regulatory i
) 12 responsibilities, so it is a judgement call.
13 But I think it is important for those of you involved 14 in making the final recommendations that do weigh that balance r 15 of timeliness versus confidence of your recommendations.
16 MR. STELLO: Mr. Chairman, I think there is going to 17 be a very, very good example of just how we have done that with 18 the paper we are now preparing on the integration of the severe 19 accident issue.
20 Clearly, if we wait until we have every question j
! 21 answered before we do anything, it will be in fact be many, 22 many years, so those very judgments you are talking about, how 1
23 to go about it, we have made them. We will be presenting them 24 to the Commission for your review and with a suggestion that it
]
l 25 is time to move on but with the understanding of those issues I
34 1 which we clearly don't yet have enough to move with.
2 So, you will have an excellent example of just how 3 we, in fact, have done that and made sure that we have looked 4 at it as broadly as it needs to be.
5 But, yet, at the same time, recognizing where we 6 really are, decisions have to be made. We're suggesting it's 7 time to make them and move on and I think that that will be, 8 perhaps, the clearest example of just how we, in fact, are 9 doing precisely what I think the ACRS.
10 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Good. I think the Commission, once 11 the field, the confidence that you have, that you have 12 confidence yourself in the decision, that you have resolved it 13 to the extent that you can be satisfied.
14 On the other hand, we all know that some of these 15 things, you don't get every tiny bit resolved, but sometimes 16 it's important, in my judgment, to make a safety decision 17 rather than to not make one and go and go on and go on, because 1
18 you could be doing something to improve safety that you are l l
confident in, even though you may not have solved the complete 19
)
l 20 problem.
21 So, that's the confidence I think the Commission 22 needs to get from the staff when you present us some of these I 23 very complex issues.
l l
24 A balance between your confidence of resolution and '
25 timeliness. And it is a judgment call, but this is what I l 4
35 1 think we'll be expecting to hear from you.
2 MR. STELLO: I think the Commission will deem to hear 3 from insight in that issue when they look at it, that very 4 question.
5 And I'll make a point of emphasizing that when we go 6 through that paper.
7 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you. Fine. Let's proceed,
. 8 please.
9 MR. SPEIS: Mr. Gillespie will complete the remaining 10 part of the presentation. He will discuss the imposition of 11 the issues.
12 MR. GILLESPIE: Let me just back up to one of the 13 things covered on steam binding of auxillary feed water pumps, 14 which was GSI-93, 15 In fact, the generic letter was sent out and it 16 effected 73 plants. It was sent out in February. We've gotten I
17 two responses back where imposition is now complete.
l 18 So, the process is working, I think, in a matter of 19 months, at least on that issue. We're getting responses back 20 and it's getting worse.
21 Let me focus as I go through. I've tried to focus on 22 the improvements we've made in imposition implementation of the 23 licensee and verification.
24 The system we use to keep track of it is SIMS.
25 (Slide.)
36
, 1 MR. GILLESPIE: SIMS gives a number of standard 2 reports. It's used in our office to keep track of when things ;
3 are closed out, when they aren't closed out.
4 They keep track of lots of statistics. The kind ~of 5 statistics you get out of it are on the first slido. This .
6 gives you a feel for your sheer numbers, when you have generic -
7 issue and you multiply it by 100 plants.
. 8 Suddenly, you start getting into lots and lots of 9 issues. Improvements we've made -- if I could have the next 10 slide.
11 (Slide.)
12 MR. GILLESPIE: --
in the imposition area, we now 13 have in the projects group, a project manager assigned to each 14 generic issue.
15 When it's to be imposed, and this goes beyond generic 16 issues, but any multi-plant action. For the future, we've made 17 some other improvements.
18 As something gets imposed at this time, we now have 19 in if it's by generic letter, if it's by bulletin, and in cases 20 by rule.
21 We're now writing in as standard procedure for the 22 licensee to tell us when he's done. That was not a requirement 23 in the past and it's a simple requirement and it helps when you 24 impose it up front with the next step, which is implementation, 25 knowing when it's implemented.
37 1 This is a big effort. The database has now been 2 loaded and we're working with the data. And this goes right up 3 to the senior management in NRR being involved, working with 4 the data when it's closed out.
5 (Slide.)
6 MR. GILLESPIE: On implementation, I talked of an 7 improvement we just made in implementation for future actions.
. 8 We do have a problem with implementation on past 9 actions, which meant going to the plants, calling them up and I
10 saying, have you done what we asked you to do.
11 It highlighted some of the problems in the past. We 12 hope we've now corrected on implementation. It's a lack of 13 definition.
14 In many cases, a plant would come back and say, well, 15 we're not sure if we did it or not because we're not sure what 16 you asked us to do.
17 And there was lots of digging. The utilities 4
l 18 contributed a lot of information to this. In the current I
19 packages that go out, and in the crossover between imposition 20 and implementation, we now require internally in the office for 21 a package to go forward.
22 Not only that it be detailed and what is imposing on i
the licensee, but if the imposition is going to require a J
- 23 24 generic letter, a bulletin, or rule change, that that action 1
{
25 also be completed at the time. I l
l 1
38 1 In addition, how will we inspect it. We make the 2 decision on whether it's important enough to need to be 3 verified at that time.
4 If it's important enough to need to be verified at 5 that time, we want the temporary instruction that tell us our 6 instructors what they need to do to verify and complete it at 7 the same time.
. 8 one of the catches in this is if we feel, if we have 9 enough information to tell an inspector to go out and look at 10 what's being done, that's kind of a QA on, are we telling the 11 licensee what to do in enough detail.
12 So, we've impreved the process and made it far more 13 complete to try to deal with both the level of detail and now 14 the implementation flows over into verification.
15 I talked about the licensee certification. These i
16 three things tend to flow together because it's a complete ;
i 17 package.
18 (slide.)
19 MR. GILLESP12: On verification, I think, we're not 20 verifying everything. Clearly, you can just see from the sheer 21 numbers, 14,000 TMI items. We are doing those.
22 CHAIRMAN ZECH: But you are getting, you said, I 23 believe, a report from the licensee that he has completed.
24 MR. GILLESPIE: We are now getting a report from the 25 licensee that he has completed it, exactly. j l
i
39 1 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Well, does that -- 1 2 MR. GILLESPIE: Now --
3 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Where does that show up? What kind 4 of a slide or --
5 MR. GILLESPIE: That shows up in implementation. We 6 now know when it's been, in fact, implemented at a licensee.
7 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Is that what implementation means, 8 that the --
9 MR. GILLESPIE: Implementation is the utility has, in 10 fact, implemented the change.
11 CHAIRMAN ZECH: He says it's completed.
i 12 MR. GILLESPIE: He says it's completed.
13 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Action completed.
14 MR. GILLESPIE: Hardware is done, procedures changed, 15 training is complete. We've done everything asked and it's now 16 in working order, 17 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. I see. And then the 18 verification means to --
19 MR. GILLESPIE: Our inspector has gone out and looked 20 at it and eyeballed it and said, it, indeed, is in place.
21 CHAIRMAN ZECH: And the difference between that and 22 implementation is that that has not necessarily been inspected 23 by our people. Is that correct?
24 MR. GILLESPIE: Yes.
25 MR. STELLO: We don't try to do 100 percent i
40 i 1 inspection -- l 2 CHAIRMAN ZECH: I see.
3 MR. STELLO: -- of everything.
~
4 CHAIRMAN ZECH: I understand.
5 MR. STELLO: And we pick and choose those things to 6 inspect and verify.
7 CHAIRMAN ZECH: I understand. ,
l
. 8 MR. GILLESPIE: Now, for the past, mortgage I'll call 9 it, we have gone through this system. This was loaded -- the 10 information, it was loaded in November. Between November and 11 about January, all of the high category items were reviewed and 12 14 were selected as needing specific verification.
13 Temporary instructions are being worked and 14 inspectors are now verifying those. of the mediums and lows, i
15 there was a group of four which were looked at and said, these i
16 need attention.
17 And the attention on those specific four were in our j 18 normal routine inspection program, it'll say pick a random 19 sample. We've un-randomed the sample and said, look at these !
20 specific items.
21 So, we're picking those four. All the rest were 22 deliberately looked at and a conscious decision was made that :
1 23 our current inspection program covers the process of systems of l 24 which they're part of and there was no need to use extra 25 resources to do it.
I l
41-u i +
! 1 That really covers imposition implementation and j
(
2 verification. .
1
+
3 MR. STELLO: That completes the presentation. And i 4 with Commissioner Rogers' permission, we'll give you that list.
- 5 We don't have anyone here with us, but we'll send you the list. !
i ,
a 6 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Send it to all of us, if you would.
7 MR. STELLO: Oh, yes. l 8 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right.
] 9 MR. MINERS: I think the list is available. We can 10 send it to you. You know, 933 has a table in it which lists 11 all the issues. ,
12 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Well, give us the information --
13 MR. STELLO: Well get it to the Commission 14 specifically.
15 CHAIRMAN ZECH: So that we know what the answer is. l I 16 All right. Thank you very much. Any questions from my fellow i I I 17 Commissioners? Commissioner Roberts? '
18 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: No.
Commissioner Bernthal?
19 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
i j 20 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Well, I apologize that I 4
, l 21 missed a good deal of the presentation and I don't have a long l l l 22 list of things to ask here, especially if I'm repeating thing l
)
a 23 in the one er two comments, please let me know.
24 One thing that I was interested in is the status of 1
! 25 this generic letter that we've been waiting for now for one
]
I i !
' \
b--. . . - - . . . _ _ .- ----- ,_ ,_ - . _ . - - , , - , - - _ - , , - .- --- ,. .,
42
- 1 year and five months, I believe, or something like that, that 2 will get us launched into the individual plant examination i
3 program. !
4 Where is -- I realize that's somewhat related, not so l 1
i 5 directly related to the presentation that --
1 6 MR. STELLO: We will be giving the Commission a paper 7 on integration of all the severe accident issues, the 25th of
, 8 May and hopefully we'll have a briefing on that. !
i 9 The letter you're referring to, the IPE letter, has 10 been through the staff. The CRGR review is completed. The i
11 ACRS review has been finished. And in about another month, 12 that letter will be before the Commission.
13 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: So, as far as you can see at I l J
14 this point, there are no other major snags and that you're I i
15 essentially finished it.
16 MR. STELLO: We're essentially finished now.
i 17 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Well, in the general vein of
- 18 the Chairman's earlier comments, I, too, often worry that we 19 try to move forward with grand designs too often. ;
i i l 20 Every now and then I think it even gives staff a l i,
1 a 21 certain sense of satisfaction rather than maybe while you're i 22 having trouble with some of the biggest of generic safety l 23 issues that are unresolved, maybe pick off an easier one or i
j 24 two, so they can actually finish something once in a while.
25 Let's just make sure we aren't trying to solve
43 1 everything all at once and, therefore, moving so slowly on all i
t 2 fronts that we never reach a goal on any front.
3 That's a theme that I've sounded before I agree with 4 the Chairman's comments'on that. Other than that, I guess the 5 only comment I would have is that I understand, from a paper 6 now before the Commission, that you are attempting, Vic, to 7 make some -- take some special initiatives through THEMIS and
, 8 within research.
9 And, as I understand it, in improving communications 10 between research and NRR. And, THEMIS, or course, with your 11 previous experience and your life at NRR, you understand that 12 problem very well.
1 13 And I would hope that those communications would be 14 enhanced by the steps that you're taking and that the i l
15 responsibility for resolving these issues is squarely placed 16 and that we can move forward quickly now and effectively on 1
j 17 that, within the research program.
18 MR. SPEIS: Mr. Murley and Mr. Sneizak have made a 19 commitment to work with us, t
j ,
20 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Good. That's the way it's I 21 got to work. This was all supposed to make the communications 22 better, remember, when you moved over to research, and let's 23 make sure it does.
3 24 That's really all I have to say, Mr. Chairman.
- 25 CHAIRMAN ZECH
- All right. Thank you very much.
I
'f
43 1 everything all at once and, therefore, moving so slowly on all l 2 fronts that we never reach a goal on any front.
3 That's a theme that I've sounded before I agree with ,
~
4 the Chairman's comments on that. Other than that, I guess the 5 only comment I would have is that I understand, from a paper 6 now before the Commission, that you are attempting, Vic, to 7 make some -- take some special initiatives through THEMIS and
. 8 within research. ,
9 And, as I understand it, in improving communications ,
10 between research and NRR. And, THEMIS, or course, with your 11 previous experience and your life at NRR, you understand that ,
i 12 problem very well.
I 13 And I would hope that those communications would be l 14 enhanced by the steps that you're taking and that the 15 responsibility for resolving these issues is squarely placed 16 and that we can move forward quickly now and effectively on 17 that, within the research program.
18 MR. SPEIS: Mr. Murley and Mr. Sneizak have made a 19 commitment to work with us.
. 20 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Good. That's the way it's 21 got to work. This was all supposed to make the communications 22 better, remember, when you moved over to research, and let's 23 make sure it does.
24 That's really all I have to say, Mr. Chairman. I i
25 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Thank you very much.
l i
I i 44 -
!' f j, 1 Commissioner. Rogers? ;
j- 1 l 2 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Yeah. I-wonder if you can say !
3 something about the issue that was brought up in the ACRS, a l
j 4 letter, about to what extent safety has actually and measurably ,
1 t i 5 been increased by resolving some of these issues.
6 There seems to be some disagreement on the part of 1 !
l*
i 7 Duke Power as to whether certain things actually increased,
{
i 8 safety, or not. :
i !
9 And it would seem that some systematic way of trying !
4 4 t
10 to take a retrospective view of the actual safety improvement l'
}j j 11 in by some reasonable measure of having resolved these issues 12 might give some guidance in helping to, in the future, define !
13 generic issues as yoa want to do.
l 14 That you want to pin them down as precisely as !
! 15 possible before you get into trying to resolve them, and some
} 16 kind of guidance has to -- any kind of guidance will be helpful j i !
l 17 in doing that.
l l
18 I would think taking a retrospective look at actual j I
)
- 19 measures of safety improvements by resolving a whole class of I i
I 20 generic issues might be useful in helping to cut down the mis- )
1
- 21 directed effort that starts out this process sometimes and can !
I j 22 tighter, it up, perhaps, which you're hoping to do.
] 23 MR. STELLO: That's a very good question and one that
{ 24 we have started to really ask ourselves in the past several 25 years, to make sure that we do not impose requirements for a
1 i
J
45 1 which we are not persuaded that those requirements will, in 2 fact, reduce a safety improvement or a significant safety 3 improvement.
4 Let me give you one n ample to illustrate the point.
5 We were struggling about the issue of adding additional valves 6 in a pressurizer.
7 When we started to look at, to the best techniques we
- 8 have today, was that safety improvement or safety benefit. And 9 it depended on the assumptions that one makes because when you 10 add relief valves, you obviously introduce additional 11 mechanisms for failures.
12 And what are the failure rates of the pieces of 13 equipment, if they are what you have today, and if you add 14 them, you'd make the plants less safe, or if you could get the 15 safety improvements better, that is a reliability of valves 16 improved.
17 Then if you added them, you might be able to argue 18 the benefit. Some of these show up as being fairly marginal.
19 And in some cases, one can suggest that some of the things that
. 20 we havo maybe even went the other way, and that is detracted 21 from safety.
22 So, if you look at a lot of the things that we've 23 done in the past, over the many years where we haven't had the 24 kinds of analysis techniques available as we have today, I'm 25 sure you probably could make some of the arguments that some of
, 46 <
1 those really didn't substantially improve safety and maybe even i j 2 detracted from it. !
! 3 But I think today, the system that we use, the way we 1
4 go about analyzing, we feel pretty confident that not only can 5 we make the argument that we are improving safety, but tell you 6 why and give you some indication, at least some basis for 7 making aven, in some cases, a quantitative assessment of how much.
8 l 9 So, I think we've made a lot progress in that area 10 and we are mindful of that. That's not an easy issue to deal 11 with and we work very hard at it now. ,
12 And I think what you had in the ACRS letters, Duke i
j 13 Power Company making the observation that, you know, in their l J
14 judgment they saw a nunber of things where clearly safety's 15 improved and we concur.
16 They have some where they say it was marginal ca.d l l
17 that's their judgment and I suspect that we could debate the l I
l 18 issue. l l
1 19 But the point they were making is a valid or.e and I i
20 concur in it, and I think we're very conscious of it, and I l l 21 don't think that's a problem anymore.
1 22 In the past, I think it was probably a fair comment, a
j 23 not today.
1 24 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: But, just along these lines, I l
a 1
4 25 would hope that somehow that we have some documentation that l l
l 1
47 1 can be referred to in the future so that we don't ever go back 2 to some of these issues that really we have learned.
3 And we're talking about another 20 years or more of 4 activity on some of these plants. There will be a new cast of 5 characters that are both at the plants and at the Commission.
6 And somehow these issues can easily arise again. I'm 7 sure you've seen that already in your history of suggestions 8 that there be a new look at something that probably had been 9 looked at very thoroughly in the past.
10 And there might not be anyone around today who did 11 it, and so, some easy reference and codification of this kind 12 of thing would be very useful in the future.
13 MR. STELLO: That's precisely the reason for the 14 comment Dr. Speis made earlier. Where we have these low 15 priority issues, we keep a document, we close them out, we have 16 that documentation fur that very reason.
17 So, if it comes up again, we know what the basis was, 18 the judgment made before. If there's new information clearly, 19 then there might be a basis to open it.
20 But if there's not, then we already have the 21 documentation to preclude us from having to do that.
22 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Does the SIMS system help in this 23 regard?
24 MR. STELLO: The SIMS really are for those things 25 that you are, in fact, going to implement on plants. You start
48 1 with the generic issue being identified, and if it goes and it 2 gets closed out because there's nothing actioned, there will be 3 a document showing it.
4 But then it carries it all the way through, on every 5 plant, which plant needed that action, did they, in fact --
6 CHAIRMAN ZECH: But it shows you've done something.
7 It's a record, is it not?
8 MR. STELLO: Yes.
9 CHAIRMAN ZECH: And it will be a permanent record?
10 MR. STELLO: Permanent record for all issues.
11 CHAIRMAN ZECH: So, if something new comes up in the 12 future, or somebody thinks it's new, you can tap into that 13 system and question --
14 MR. STELLO: Absolutely.
15 CHAIRMAN ZECH: -- and get all the references.
16 MR. STELLO: That's another reason for needing that 17 system.
18 CHAIRMAN ZECH: So, it is useful, then, in this 19 regard?
20 MR. STELLO: Oh, yes.
21 MR. MINERS: But SIMS does not have the low priority 22 issues that we've thrown out on it. SIMS only has the high P3 priority issues that are being --
24 CHAIRMAN ZECH: How do we keep track of the low 25 priority issues?
49 1 MR. SPEIS: We have a document known as 0933 which 2 updated. In fact, we have written a Commission paper to draw 3 it to your attention, maybe before your term, Mr. Chairman.
4 CHAIRMAN ZECH: That can accommodate Commissioner 5 Rogers' concerns?
6 MR. SPEIS: Yes. And that has been updated every six 7 months.
8 MR. MINERS: That's the table I was speaking of that 9 we're going to send to you. It will come directly out of that 10 --
11 CHAIRMAN ZECH: So, we're not reinventing the wheel?
12 MR. SPEIS: No, sir.
13 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Thank you. That's fine.
14 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Any other questions?
15 (No response.]
16 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Well, let me just say that I 17 appreciate the excellent briefing. It seems to me, from what 18 we've heard, that although we all know that this is a very high l
19 priority program of interest to the. Commission as well as the 20 staff, solving these generic and safety issues, it does seem to 21 me like we are making progress.
22 I think the numbers that you've given, of course, I l
23 would say that it's something that we should continue to work 1
24 on. )1 1
25 But I do think the organization, the new l i
i
50 1 organization, perhape has ceen helpful because of Dr. Speis'
/
2 background.
3 And I think Mr. Sneizak and others who are involved 4 in this program and in research and NRR cooperations going on, 5 it does seem to me, perhaps, that we are making, perhaps, more 6 progress than we have been in the past.
7 Mr. Stello, could you comment on that? Do you feel 8 that we are perhaps focusing on this program more and do you 9 feel a little bit more confident that these important safety 10 issues are getting perhapr more focused at.ention than they 11 were?
12 And is the reorganization helpful as far as you're 13 concerned":
14 MR. STELLO: The short answer to both is yes. The 15 new organization, not just Dr. Spels, Warren and others who 16 worked at NRR, and know the NRR system and licensing process t
17 and has a sensitivity to it, now in research.
18 Also the people that are back in NRR and the kinds of 19 contacts and the communication. And, you know, the willingness 20 to get on with it is clearly evident now in the new 21 organization and true spirit of getting these issues resolved 22 as crisply and quickly and efficiently as we can.
23 I think everyone is committed to it, you see the 24 evidence, it's there. So, I don't really have any more 25 reservation, but I might add that the progress that we talked
51 7-1 to you about is real today.
2 We have made substantial progress in moving these 3 issues forward and in the next couple of months, the remaining 4 USI's, we're going to be fairly close to finished.
5 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Well, I think it is encouraging and I 6 think that the staff is to be commended for the efforts they're 7 making.
. 8 Again, I do think, though, we need to focus on a 9 balance between getting the best resolution we possibly can and 10 trying to make it timely, too.
11 And, so, I know you're doing that. I would also 12 strongly recommend that you continue a close relationship with 13 the ACRS as you have ?aeen doing, and I think that that is 14 really very important and appropriate to solving these issues.
15 They can be very helpful with their expdrience and 16 background in assisting the Commission in resolving these 17 safety and generic issues.
18 I think that the briefing has been very useful and I
~
19 think that the staff is making progress. Again, there's always
. 20 room for more progress and I would suggest r. hat you continue to 21 give it the priority and the direction and the cooperation, the 22 coordination that is obviously being exercised.
23 So, thank you for an excellent briefing this morning, 24 and if no other comments, we stand adjourned.
25 (Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m., the briefing was
.- . .. . - . - _ = - - - - - .
52 1 concluded.]
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 1
9 1
10 11 l i
12 1
l 13 14 l I
15 l l
16 17 18 l
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER This is to certify that the attached events of a meeting of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:
TITLE OF MEETING: Briefing on Status of Unresolved Safet/ Generic Issues PLACE OF MEETING: Washington, D.C.
DATE OF MEETING: Thursday, May 12, 1988 were transcribed by me. I further certify that said transcription is accurate and complete, to the best of my ability, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing events.
f A - 1, d
Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
W e
- O COMMISSION BPIEFING ON THE STATUS OF THE GENERIC ISSUES PROGRAM T. P SPEls RES, X23710 MAY 12, 1988 i
l 1
l J
CONTEtRS IDENTIFICATION, PRIORITIZATION, RESOLUTION (RES)
PAGE 6 HISTORY AND STATUS OF ISSUES:
- RECAP .......................................l.......... 1
- PROGRESS SINCE 10/21/87 BRIEFINC ....................... 3
- STAW S OF USIS ......................................... 6 0 SELECTED ISSUES:
- USl A-45 ............................................... 14
- GSI 99 ................................................, 18
- GSI 93 ................................................. 23 0 IMRROVEMEtHS:
- PROGRESS SINCE 10/21/87 BRIEFING ....................... 24 ,.
- OTHER ACTIVITIES ....................................... 44 ,
IPOSITION, IMPLEMEffTATION, VERIFICATION (NRR) 0 I MPOS I T I ON STAW S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 0 INLEMENTATION STATUS ....................................... 47 0 VERIFICATION STATUS ........................................ 49 I
, - - - - - , , , , . - , ., . . . - . , - , ,e,-- ,,,,,,,-,,,r, a-- ,. ,v.,-, .- - - -,, ---
4 HISTORY AND STATUS OF ISSUES - RECAP 4 PROGRAM STARTED IN 1981 WITH 511 ISSUES IDEllTIFIED TO BE PRIORITIZED:
TMI ITEMS (NUREG 0660 i 8 0737) -
369 NUREGS 0371 8 0471 -
1 12 511.
i l
d i
d I
f
_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ . - - - - _ _ _ - - _ _ - _ _ - _ ___-________l
8 ADDITIONAL 222 ISSUES (INCLUDING HUMA!4 FACTORS ISSUES) 1DENTIFIED IN THE PAST 7 YEARS 9 TOTAL ISSUES IDENTIFIED AS OF '
3/31/88 = 733 '
(
1 l
l 1
2 '
e
. PROGRESS SINCE 10/21/87 BRIEFING ISSUES RESOLVED 10/21/87 5/12/88 PRIORITIZED LOW 25 24 A PRIORITIZED DROP 62 66 A INTEGRATED W/OTHER ,
ISSUES 119 121 a RESOLUTION DEFINED IN NUREG-0737 88 88 RESOLVED 275 285 o NON-SAFETY (LI, Rl, 41 44 6 S E)
SUB-TOTAL: 610 628 O
i 3
m 9
I ISSUES STILL TO BE RESOLVED 10/21/87 5/12/88 '
USIS 9 9 HIGH 32 28 o MEDIUM 16 12 4 ,-
NEARLY RESOLVED 12 11 A TO BE PRIORITIZED 52 45 A SUB-TOTAL: 121 105
?
l I
l O
O l
4
7
SUMMARY
10/21/87 5/12/88 RESOLVED 610 (83%) 628 (86%) '
TO BE RESOLVED 121 (17%) 1M (14%)
TOTAL: M M j i
t l
1 l
i 5
l
STATUS OF USIs A-3, 4, 5 A-17 A-40 ,
A-44 A-45 A-47 A-48 l
6 I
i
USIS A-3, 4, 5: STEAM GENERATOR IUBE INTEGRITY 5-YR. PLAtt RESOLUTION DATE: 02/88 CURRENT RESOLUTION DATE: 06/88 ST A Ti>S : FINAL RESOLUTION TO [
COMM. 05/88 O
l l
7
USI A-17: SYSTEMS INTERACT!0lis 5-YR. PLAN RESOLUTION DATE: 09/89 CURRENT RESOLUTION DATE: 09/89 STATUS: RESOLUTION PACKAGE TO CRGR 05/88 ,
FRN 07/88 l
l l
0 l
e l l
t 4
USl A-40: SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA 5-YR. PLAN RESOLUTION DATE: 06/89 ;
CURRENT RESOLUTION DATE: 06/89 STATUS: CRGR REVIEW .- t COMPLETED 03/88 ' '
06/88 FRN To BE ISSUED J
b e a
i i
- l 3
9 i
l
USl .1-44: STATION BLACK 0UT 5-YR, PLAT 1 RESOLUTION DATE: 05/88 CURRENT RESOLUTION DATE: 05/88 STATUS: FINAL RULE TO COMM. :
IN 1/88 - AWAITING APPROVAL -
l l
l l
l O
10
1 USI A-45: DECAY HEAT REMOVAL REQUIREMENTS 5-YR, PLAN RESOLUTION DATE 04/90 CURRENT RESOLUTION DATE: 04/90 ;
STATUS: RESOLUTION TO BE PART OF l IPE. DRAFT RESOLUTION ,
4 TO CRGR 07/88 1
1 i
l 1
l r
lh a
I 4
a 1
4 II l
---,-._..__m.,,_.
W 00' A-47: SAFETY IMPLICATIONS OF CONTROL SYSTEMS 5-YR. PLAtt RESOLUTION DATE: 04/89 CURRENT RESOLUTION DATE: 04/89 ,
/
STATUS: CRGR REVIEW 0F DRAFT RESOLUT10f1 COMPLETED 12/87, j FRN 05/88 i
i e
l 1
i 12 i i
u
4s USl A-48: HYDROGEN CONTROL MEASURES AND EFFECTS OF HYRD0 Gell BURNS 5-YR. PLAN RESOLUTION DATE: 06/88 CURRENT RESOLUTION DATE: 06/88 STATUS:
SUMMARY
REPORT DOCU-MENTING FlflAL RESOLUTION TO BE ISSUED Ift 6/88 4
13
USI A-45, "DECAY HEAT REMOVAL (DHR) REQUIREMENTS" 4
e O
l I
i 14 l
'l
- r 9 AllALYSES HAVE SHOWN THAT DHR FUNCTION FAILURES ARE SUFFICIENTLY PLANT-SPECIFIC AND WOULD REQUIRE IPE, PARTICULARLY APPARENT AT THE SUPPORT SYSTEM LEVEL (E.G., ELECTRIC POWER, SERVICE WATER, & COMPONENT COOLING WATER)
I I
1 4
e i
e i
I i
I5 ,
l
..s.-,-._,,.-,-,.-.--..-,.,~_,,.-.-.....-----,....-
A L
4 8 PROPOSED STAFF RESOLUTION OF A 15 4 IS TO SUBSUME ISSUE IflTo IPES.
8 THE PROPOSED GL STATES THAT THE IPE SHOULD IDENTIFY THE VULNERABLE ASPECTS OF DHR FUNCTION.
4 J
J e
9
?
f
)
1 3
16
0 THE PROPOSED GL PROVIDES INSIGHTS GAINED FROM 6 LIMITED-SCOPE PRAS WHICH ADDRESS THE DHR FUtiCTION PERFORMED BY NRC UNDER THE A l45 ,
PROGRAM. ,
l l
O l7
I l
e GSI-99, ut,JSS OF RHR CAPABillTY Jn pygger 9
e 9
IS
i i
3 e
I i
0 ISSUE FOCUSES ON TWO MODES OF COMMON j CAUSE FAILURE OF RHR COOLING: !
- 1. MID-LOOP MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS ;
ALLOWING AIR TO BE DRAWN INTO ,. l THE RHR PUMP SUCTION LINES, '
- 2. SPURIOUS CLOSURE OF THE RHR <
1 SUCTION / ISOLATION VALVES, ,
ACTUATED BY AUT0 CLOSURE INTERLOCKS. l i
1 i l
l 4
l l
1 j !
l t 2 1 I !
19
ma i
I l
t i !
i J
j P 8 PRELIMINARY FINDINGS SHOW IMPROVEMENTS CAN BE MADE IN THE FOLLOWING AREAS:
- 1. BETTER INSTRUM6NTATION FOR ,
j LIQUID LEVEL AND FLOW IN THE 1 PRIMARY SYSTEM DURING MID-LOOP i l OPERATION. i a
4 a ,
I t
4 r i
I a
l l
! 20 !
y ~,.--g- g-- -
-~~-r- m -mm . . - , - -e,yn.,.nw - m ny we n~v e ,, , ,,,.,,,+yw- ..,-,,-me-w,,,,,r- -- - - -w e,--.e.-w -e.n..w--mp- vr-.,we--e a g 4. ,,. v e. - w e r, me- o
t t
s I
i .
l*
- 2. BETTER PROCEDURES FOR MID-LOOP 4
OPERATION. .j l ,
- 3. REQUIREMENT FOR RAPID CLOSURE OF t
THE CONTAINMEl4T-DURING MID-LOOP ,.
OPERATION. !
- 4. REMOVE REQUIREMENT FOR :
l AUTOCLOSURE !!1TERLOCK. :
i L
l k i
1
- i
- j. '
1 d
s l
I 2I i
G GSI-99 IS SCHEDULED FOR RESOLUTION DURil4G FY88 AND RES 1S cVRREf4TLY ASSISTING NRR IN A BULLETIN WHICH WOULD RESOLVE THE ISSUE, 4
4
~ j 1
l l
22 l
c GSI 93 TITLE: STEAM BINDING OF AFW PUMPS IDENTIFIED: 07/84 (BY AE0D)
PRIORITIZED: 10/84 (HIGH). ,.
RESOLVED: INTERIM ACTION ISSUED VIA IEB 85-01 IN 10/85.
GL-88-03 ISSUED 2/88 ,
, REINFORCING ACTIONS
, REQUIRLD BY IEB 85-01 ;
! IMPOSED: 02/88 (GL 88-03 TO PWRs) ,
IMPLEMENTED: TBD VERIFIED: IBD :
, l I
e l
I. ,
I i l 2
l 23
- - . _ , , , , _ . , - , . _ . _ _ - , _ _ _ __..- _ ... . , _ ,.~., ,___ , , __..,_ ,, _ ,_. ._ _ ._ ____,, ,,.. . _ , ,,_ ,._ _ _ ,.__... ,,
PROGRESS ON POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS RECOMMENDED ON 10/21/87 l
O l
i 24 ;
i
l
~
4 INDIVIDUALS AND/OR OFFICES IDENTIFYING ISSUES WILL BE REQUESTED TO PROVIDE BETTER DEFINITION OF PROPOSED ISSUES BY CHECKING FOR DUPLICATION WITH .
,. PREVIOUSLY-IDEllTIFIED ISSUES, PROVIDING A CLEAR DESCRIPT10tl 0F THE ,
PROPOSED ISSUE, AND MAKil4G AN ESTIMATE .
0F THE SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS ISSUE.
i '
, l a
l a
1 I
1 4 *
- 1 1
i 1
4 25
,. . . . ----r-v-r - , --w- y-,, . - - ,-_
4 STATUS RES OL #1 ISSUED Ir1 12/87 l
26 1 i
t l
t I ,
t.
l 8 THE STAFF WILL MAKE A MORE THOROUGH REVIEW 07 CONCERiis EMANAT!ilG FROM l FUTURE MAJOR EVEtiTS TO REDUCE THE 1 NUMBER OF PROPOSED ISSUES IDENTIFIED !
il a FOR PR10RITIZATIOfl. /
STATUS :
l l.
NOW PART OF STAFF APPROACH. SUPPORTED BY l i
i 4
ACRS LETTER TO CHAIRMAN IN 4/88. i l I 1
- l l
4 i
i i
i 1
- i
! 27
+
i r
I l
i I
l
- i t 1
1 4 TO SPEED UP PRIORITIZATION, RES WILL UTILIZE, WHERE PRACTICAL, A MEETING AMONG COGNIZANT STAFF PERSONNEL FOR PEER REVIEW IN PLACE OF THE EXISTING i
! MORE "RIGID" PEER REVIEW PROCESS. /
. l RES AND NRR ARE FORMULATING A MOU t WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, WILL I
RECulRE A QUICK TURN-AROUND (3 WEEKS) f ON PRIORITIZATION PACKAGES SENT FOR !
I PEER REVIEW. !
1 e
e l
)
I i
)
i 4
- 28 a
Il i
1 l
i 1 i l
t i
a
)' RES WILL UTILIZE THE EXISTitlG PRELIMitlARY ,
, SCREElilNG STEP If4 THE PRIORITIZATION '
PROCESS TO RESOLVE LOW AND DROP ISSUES:
4 THE ISSUES WILL BE DISPOSED OF USING A ,.
i '
STREAMLINED PROCESS WITH THE PARTICIPATION OF THE ORIGINATOR OF THE l ISSUE.
l' s
i i
4 i -
8 I
i +
l l
1 I
i I
i i
i
STATUS NOW PART OF STAFF APPROACH. MOV BETWEEN RES & NRR TO BE ISSUED.
e 30
3 0 RES WILL ASSIGN THE EQUIVALENT OF ONE MORE FTE TO THE PRIORITIZATION EFFORT TO HELP REDUCE THE BACKLOG.
STATUS $
CONTRACTOR ASSISTANCE (1 FTE E0V! VALENT)
IN PLACE.
e 31
i i
. i 1
4 RES AND NRR WILL ISSUE OFFICE PROCE- <
DURES DEFINING THE GSI RESOLUT10tl PROCESS INCLUDING GUIDELINES FOR EARLY RESOLUTION, UPPER-LEVEL MANAGEMENT l
! APPROVAL OF SCHEDULE SLIPPAGES, AND '
1 BETTER lt4TEROFFICE COORDINATION. A
) QUARTERLY STATUS
SUMMARY
OF GSI i RESOLUTION PROGRESS WILL BE PROVIDED l 1
l l
a j i
)
1- !
I
'e 1
i i
! 32 i !
- _ __ _- _ ___ A
TO THE EDO HIGHLIGHTING ACCOMPLISHMENTS PROBLEMS AND PROPOSED RESOLUT10f;.
STATUS
- RES OL #3 (DRAFT) ISSUED 1/88
- OVARTERLY STATUS REPORT (GIMCS) NOW GOES TO EDO i
l I
l l
33 i 1
I l
I i 1 .
4 !
I i
i b e i
1 i
, 8 GSI RESOLUTION PACKAGES WILL BE SIMULTANEOUSLY SENT TO OTHER OFFICES I AND THE ACRS FOR REVIEW, C0hCURREl4CE, l
,i AllD/OR APPROVAL. TIMELY REVIEW BY ,.
!i j THESE PARTIES WILL BE SOUGHT WITH <
PROBLEMS RAISED TO HIGHEP. :
MANAGEMENT, INCLUDING THE EDO, f
d l l
1 I
) i' J
l-1 j
I i
i 1
- l l
$ l 1
- 34 a
t
STATUS DUE TO THE COMPLEXITY OF THE ISSUES, DELAYS ARE STILL BEING ENCOUNTERED WITH GAINING CONSENSUS ON RESOLUTION PACKAGES.
0 6
4 4
t 35
l i
e i
l ,
4 i
, 9 RES,IN CONJUNCTION WITH NRR, WILL 1 -
1 EXPLORE WHETHER OR NOT SOME EXISTING !
j UNRESOLVED ISSUES CAN BE COMBINED AND RESOLVED AS A PACKAGE AND ALSO VIA THE i
, 3 5
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL PLANT .-
I EXAMINATION PORTION OF THE SEVERE l
ACCIDENT POLICY. IF COMBINING ISSUES !
HAS THE POTENTIAL TO ACCELERATE THEIR RESOLUTION, THIS WILL BE DONE. ;
t I
! i i
l i i !
~
l 4
i 4
l 4
36
STATUS FIRST CASE: USI A-45. STAFF PROPOSES TO MAKE RESOLUTION PART OF IPE, 0
l l' s l
l l
37 I 1
i l
8 RES AtJD NRR WILL MAINTAIN CURRENT ISSUE TASK MANAGERS ON THEIR ISSUES WHEREVER POSSIBLE AND WILL Ef4SURE A BACKUP TASK MANAGER IS AVAILABLE.
a S,TATUS No CHANGES TO TASK MANGERS HAVE BEEN MADE, l
l l
l l
l 1
38
1 i
s i
- t l !
3 i t 8 NRR WILL INCLUDE IN SIMS UP-TO-DATE I
, i i, INFORMATION ON THE STATUS OF GSI i
~
j IMPLEMt.NTATION BY 11/01/87. A l
QUARTERLY STATUS
SUMMARY
OF GSI i 1 .- r
- IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS WILL BE '
PROVIDED TO THE EDO HIGHLIGHTING [
PROBLEM AREAS AND PROPOSED RESOLUTION.
i l
l t
! l L
l i
9 i
i i
I e
j 39
0 l
STATUS IMPLEMENTATION INFORMATION INCLUDED IN SIMS.
4 J
40
? -
9 NRR AND RES WILL WORK MORE CLOSELY TOGETHER TO ENSURE THE ISSUE RESOLUTION AND IMPOSITION PACKAGES ARE CLEAR AS TO WHAT IS REQUIRED AND .
INCLUDE APPROPRIATE SCHEDULAR AllD RESOURCE INFORMATION.
1 j
\
41 1
1 1
1 l
i I
l l tIRR AND RES WILL EXPLORE WHETHER OR fl0T IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO COMBINE THE IMPLEMEf4 TAT 10N OF VARIOUS GENERIC ISSUE RESOLUTION PACKAGES. IF COMBINING THEIR IMPLEMENTATION IS BENEFICIAL, THEN THIS WILL BE DONE.
i I
O i
I 42 1
l d
STATUS EFFORTS ARE BEING MADE BY NRR AND RES To MEET THE INTENT OF THIS IMPROVEMENT. .-
f*
l l
l 43
OTHER ACTIVITIES S STAFF IMPROVEMENTS PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION IN 10/87 WERE SUPPORTED BY '
ACRS LETTER TO THE COMMISSION IN l4/88. '
O l
I I
44 l
I
NRC IMPOSITION OF G1 RESOLUTION G1 TYPE ACTIONS % COMPLETE TM! 14,206 89 HIGH 1578 92 >
MED 1262 99 LOW 764 99 OTHER 2764 75
, TOTAL 20,574 4
45
t 8 IMPROVEMENTS TO FACILITATE PLANT IMPOSITION:
IMPOSITION PLANNING / REVIEW ONLY WHEN WARRANTED (FY88) -
SIMS TRACKilJG/ SENIOR MANAGEMEf:T REVIEW o !
I I
f 46
LICENSEE IMPLEMENTATION OF G1 RESOLUTION Gl TYPE ACTIONS % COMPLETE TMI 14,206 85 '
HIGH 1578 84 MED 1262 95 LOW 764 95 OTHER 2764 67 TOTAL 20,574 i
f te O
I l
l 47 a i
t M
^
$ IMPROVEMENTS TO FACILITATE PLANT IMPLEMENTATION:
- NRC REVIEW ONLY WHEN WARRANTED (FY88)
- LICENSEE CERTIFICATION OF ,I IMPLEMENTATION (FY88)
- SIMS TRACKING J
e
v VERIFICATION OF G1 RESOLUTIOil PLANT IMPLEMENTATION G1 TYPE ACTIONS % COMPLETE TM1 14,206 80 ,
HIGH 1570 31 MED 1262 33 LOW 764 35 OTHER 2764 21 TOTAL 20,574 l
1 l
l l
i 49
l 4
0 IMPROVEMENTS TO FACILITATE VERIFICATION:
- DECISION ON WHETHER OR fl0T AND WHAT TO INSPECT (FY88)
- DECISION ON Il/ ROUTINE INSPECT 10t!
(FY88)
- SIMS TRACKING e 1 50
\ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
NOME %%%%WhS%%%%W6WIhf si%%%%%%lttffW;'sff gggffiggg,4.ftgi i TPMISMITTAL TO: Document Control Desk, 016 Phillips il j ADVANCE 0 COPY TO: The Public Document Roem
! DATE: I//3
/k[
SECY Correspondence & Records Branch
! FROM:
E Attached are copies of a Connissicn meating transcript and related meeting i 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 E.
- required.
- Meeting
Title:
N W M u_^ b b o# e7 dnA>A'N o b
,()< .A _
aa^t'u b2 uJ Q M::eting Date:
] A/f 7 Open )( Closed i '
Item Oescription*: Copies h Advanced DCS C *8 Copy fj to POR
'g ii y e
k 1. TRANSCRIPT 1 1 bI LUf4vav-% a fg) $
$I y
i 1 ::
l 2.
- 3. __
- s:: $
4 &
G a
- s. g 6.
- POR is advanced one copy of each document, two of each SECY paper. A C&R Branch files the original transcript, with attachments, witheut SECY 3 papers, c
IMhhhhNhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh8IhhhhhNihhMlhhhhhhhh9I@ @ h