ML20236L585

Transcript of 871104 Briefing on Isap in Washington,Dc. Pp 1-32.Related Documentation Encl

ML20236L585
Person / Time
Issue date:	11/04/1987
From:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:
References
REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8711100435
Download: ML20236L585 (45)

Text

f' i

t-

~

g

,e

,' an*

i 3

R G i\\ A

,LUNITED :STATESDOF AMERICA

~

~

' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o.

c, ~,. F :,- (.,;-

3. g.- ; s

,.. '... ~..,, 4:1.

,y e

Title.

Briefing on Integrated Safety Assessment Program (ISAP)

Location:

Washington, D. C.

~

Date:

Wednesday, November 4, 1987 t

l'-

32 Pages:

i I

Ann Riley 8e Associates Court Reporters 1825 i Street, N.W., Suite 921 Washington, D.C. 20006

y.,

l(202),293-3950 8'711100435 071104 PDR 10CVR PT9.7 PDR 1.

. _i __.

s

i4 '

j i

a 1

4 l

.r.

1 D I SCLA I MER i

i 1

2 I

1 3

R 4

i 1

.5 i

1

n.

.v 6

This.is an unofficial transcript;of a meeting of.the j

.)

7.

United States Nuclear Regulatory. Commission held on l

l 11/04/87.

In the Commission's office at 1717'H Street, 3

i 9

'N.W.,

Washington ~,

D.C.

.The meeting was_open to public 10 attendance and observation.

This transcript ~has not been 11 reviewe,d, c or r ec t'ed,

or edited, and it may contain f

0 o

(

12 inaccuracies, i

13 The transcript i s' intended solely _for general' 1

14 Informational purposes.

As provided by 10 CFR'9.103, it is 15 not part of the formal or informal record of decision of.the 1

16 matters discussed.

' Express i ons of opinion.in'this transcript 17 do not necessarily reffect* final determination or beliefs'.

No.

18 pleading.or other paper may be filed with the Commission in' 19 any proceeding as the result,of or addressed to any statement 20 or argument contained herein, except an'the Commission may l

l 21 authorize.

ce 23 is.s 24 25 4

-__ - _ a._ ---_ - m

s. >

_ _,,j y..

(,;

eu i,

-l j

}{

?

i~'[

.1 3;

3

.1

.s

,ti A,j; t.614 J.M ;,.1:.

3.,"..,,.. "4 aMYg? UNITED: STATES'OFJAMERICAL

<1

(>.

c

!r, p '

.1 4

2' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'l 4

-a.

3.

4, BRIEFING ON INTEGRATED' SAFETY 5

-l ASSESSMENT PROGRAM'[ISAP].

j

-i

. 6.

7 PUBLIC MEETINGL R

,,4 8

- i 1

9 Nuclear. Regulatory Commission i

10 Room 1130-1 1

11 1717 H Street,' Northwest.

+

12.

Washington, D.C.

i 13

, i I

14 Wednesday, November 4, 1987' R

15

[

'l 16 The Commission met.in open session,~ pursuant to y

m 17 notice, at 2 : 35 p.m., the Honorable LANDO W.

ZECH, : Chairman Jof '

i 18 the Commission,' presiding.

3

.i 19 f

20 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:.

i a

21 LANDO'W.'ZECH,. Chairman - of the Commistsion :

22 THOMAS M. ROBERTS, Member ~of the. Commission

.c i

.t9 23 KENNETH CARRY Member of the Commission:

w 4

24

.c.

25-1 a

f 4

2_. _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _. - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - -

Pj7 n.

.r Ie'.'

1-

3 i ; j.,,.

W

't,~

't

,.3'.

,,t.

. E-.

i

';'4i i-t

ll

,_d

. g -

'i.

i i

i

+

.2:

.i'.'

,? 7.q:,jA, 1 +f e iSTAFFlAND: PRESENTERS!SEATEDLATf;THE?COMMISSIONiTABLE:

[6

.l 3

S.

CHILK.

4

.M.~

MALSCH -

, ;l

.s

'5-

. V.

STELLO

6-

.Fe MIRAGLIA' i

4 4

,1 i

e 7:

. T... MURLEY '

q

'S M.

BOYLE 9

ha 10 11 1

..q 12 k

e 13 r

l 14 i

6 '

-15 l

Li l

16 17 t

18 t

19 20 l,

21 22-

.23 L

j l

'24 j

i.,,..

-1 s

L._,:je

'^

' 2 5'-

5 '

,.)

l^

.,s'~l 4

-4'--

m

'i. c 8I 1-

. ^ *J

.L---_ _ __ -

a - --

J 3

l

.c -

1 PyR O.C.E E D I N G S

?",

p 2

CHAIRMAN ZECH:

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

3 Commissioner Eernthal and Commissioner Rogers will not be with l

1 4

us this afternoon.

J

)

1 5

The purpose of the meeting this afternoon is for the j

i 6

NRC staff to brief'the Commission concerning the status and j

7 '~

results of the' Integrated Safety Assessment Pilot Program or 8

ISAP.

We expect the staff to present us with their rationale 9

and their recommendations concerning the ISAP program.

-f 10 I expect this meeting will assist the Commission in i

11 further understanding the staff's recommendation and the 12 staff's position regarding their experience with the ISAP.

I 13 hope the staff presentation can give views on how a program of ~

{

14 the scop'e of ISAP would enhance safety or improve the Sevore 15 Accident Policy Implementation Program, without delaying the 4

l 16 program or otherwise placing an unnecessary resource burden on 17 the Agency.

18 After reviewing the staff paper on this subject, 19 SECY-87-219, I am considering.whether the Commission should 20 perhaps withhold approval of the proposal to extend the ISAP 21 concept to all licensees, pending our review of your detailed 22 proposal concerning the individual plant examination, IPE, 23 generic letter, which I understand is coming to us sometime 24 after the first of the year.

25 Perhaps, Mr. Stello, you can discuss that t

4 s

4 p$

4

..j p j a [ % j'a y. c o n s i.d e r a t i o n.: ;;ji(;{,

j.. y,,,

,, n

s. i q q"

q(J A

.t

.t-2 I understand' copies of the staff paper, SECY-87-219',

d 61 3

and the slides to be used during today's presentation are M

J 4'

available in the back of the room.

d 5

Do any of my fellow Commissioners have'any opening

))

f 6

comments?

7

-(No response.')

J 8

CHAIRMAN ZECH:

Mr. Stello, you may proceed.

,f

-Thank you, Mr.;Cha'rman.;,-I have with me 9

MR. STELLO:

i

. n.,..

h 10-Dr. Murley.on.my'right; Frank Miragliaiandl Mike Boyle.-

I.willl 11 turn to Dr;-Murley in a moment'to get the-. briefing started, but a

12 I think a few preliminary observations might=be appropriate.

l i

13 I think ther.e is a general conse'nsus that the ISAP s

u a

14 philosophy concept and approach is-a good approach:in reviewing

[

15 facilities, but it is piece meal'.

We have that program and-a.

,.1 i

16 variety of other. activities that are still hanging'out.

One 17 therefore ought to ask the very question you have a~sked in your 18, opening remarks of how-does and how should this fit together g

with dealing.with severe accident issuestfor individual; plant.

19 20 evaluations which will be c.oming to-the Commission in the form 21

~ of a generic letter.

22 Those in our. view are the right questions to.ask.

As 23 youwillhearattheendofthebriefingthat;dr.~MurleYwill l

l-24 start with a general synopsis / why?we thinkethat is a preferred

~ _ way to go rather than have piece meal.- Of course, we;are not; i;

a o

5' 4

1,-m; prepared.;to. recommend any,of;this ought;to'be mandatory.

We

'2 x' 2

think there is a sufficient incentive in the ISAP in i

3 combination with the individual plant evaluations which'may'be 4

attractive.enough for a number of utilities to'want to go that I

5 way.

6 Dr. Murley will start with giving you a philosophical 7

overview of why this ought to fit together and then we will'get 8

into the b'riefing.and the background of what we have come.out" 9

of ISAP with andfthen go into more detail,of what'We mean by-10 the recommendation I have just summarized.

11 Tom?

i

, 12 MR. MURLEY:

Thank you.

You will recall, Mr.

13 Chairman, last July, I came dcwn with ResearchLand we. presented i

14 to the commissioners a broad outline of a c'omprehencive

.l 15 approach to dealing with severe accident issues.

That plan 16 involved three areas.

Improved operations; individual plant 17 examinations to look for outliers in the design and containment 18 improvements..

19 The Commission' agreed with'that comprehensive-20 approach and we are now in the process of pulling.toge'ther with 21 Research all of the activities in.the Agency that bear on-22 severe accidents.

23 A few weeks ago, we briefed the Commission on improved tech specs, which fits into improved operations as-one 24 y_)

25 element.

I have asked the staff to prepare a-paper on accident 1

tJ-

=_-__

6' 1

1

f ei f.g./l1. -,vaanagement

procedures,,which we are; aiming.for' January on-that.

f(PSJ l

2 We have'a paper working on the.IPE. generic letter with' i:

=

z q

3 Research. -As you mentioned;.that should be coming incan:few

~

~

o 4

months.

We-have a paper on Mark ILeontainment resolution,.,

ll 5

which should.come in before that, within a couple of. months.

j 1

6.

We are working'on a proposed' rule'on how we consider severe 1

q

7 accidents'in future LWR' standard designs.

ll 8

.Thero are a number'of-othertissues relatingftol severe-4 accidents and although we don't have this.comprehens'ive. plan 9

10 written,.I want you.to know that we do'have the. program in' 1

,1 11 mind.

What we are telling.you today fits into.that.,

b 12 In today's' briefing, Frank Miraglia is goi'ng to talk,

(

13 about the ISAP :and although I don't - want to steal his' thunder, j

l

-IwillmentionthatweareplanningtointegrateISAPjintothe 14 r

1 15 Severe Accident Program by offering :it -

all' licensees as an 16 option in doing individual plant examinations.

3 I

17 With thoss broad. remarks," Frank Miraglia is goingI

~

to 1

t 18 discuss the pilot program.

19 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

Thank you very much.. You may 1

1 20 proceed.

q.

21

'MR. MIRAGLIA:

May,I have'the second slide, please.

22

[ SLIDE.]

g L

L 23 MR. MIRAGLIA:

Briefly, what'I amiprepared totoutline H

24

'to the commission today is a'listle bit of background about the

(_f-25

.i pilot program, the implementation and status of that' program,

.i j

I i

{

I 3.j,,;.11$

7some.ofc the; more. significant:;firidings: fromfthat program and t;

3ced q;.

j

~'

' ' ~ '

2 what.our conclusions:were'and then discuss ~the recommendations 3-

'for future use.of an ISAP type. process.

4

.(SLIDE. ]

5-MR. MIRAGLIA:

TheLCommission will recall that the 6

ISAP concept grew out'of.the staff's previoustworkfin.the.

7

' systematic evaluation pro' gram,:which'dealtfwith some of the old ~ ".

'8 plants and review of the old' plants against durrent criteria.

.9 The major elements of'the SEP'that were. formed:and:

-l 1

10 put-into ISAP was the' concept.of integrated assessment ~ftoLlook.

,j a

L 11 at all the requirements in an integrated kind of way and reach-12 judgments.

'l 13 There were two other' tools used'inLthat process.

One 14 was a plant specific PRA as'a' tool to ev'aluating those 15 requirements and the second piece was a. compilation.of 16 operating experience :for that plant.: What.did the : operating 1

17 experience for that. plant show'as; things and. areas that could-18 be improved and should be looked at.

19 The process includes the preparation of an integrated 20 safety assessment report and it results inianiintegr'ted a

21 schedule.

22 (SLIDE.]

4 23 MR..MIRAGLIA:- It chows this in atmore' pictorial 24 sense.

On the lefthand side,.it' indicates what is considered s,.;j 25 to be:within the' scope of an-' integrated-safety assessment 4

h

' p-g

~

i.

4.

8-s fiQl M ;;fy rogram.:

q

. (%

~

.;It0 includes-the ; existing. requirements,.. new p

2

. requirements-that may be on'the-horizon'.and then even pending 3

resolution of' generic'and unresolved safety. issues.

Couple 4'

.that.with the insights that'you had=from previous PRAs/and'<

. ~

5 operating experience, thatris-all input'that looks'at and.isE

'6 examined'in an' integrated way using the probabilistic' risk

~

7.

assessment.

l 8

As I said, the product.that one!gets--is a. decision:on.

-9 all the requirements that were.pending;for;a facility.

.'It

\\

10 certainly.has,resulted in. improved safety..We will'show some-1 11 specific' details within the context of the pilot program..

It-12 will eliminate the~ backlog of.pending requirements..on a 13 facility.

It results in a better understandingLof the plant.by.

14 the staff arid more importantly bp the utility.

.It provides an 15 integrated schedule by which requirements willlbe resolved and it provides a framework for future decisions,.ifinew:

16 17 requirements and new issues come'up/ it provides;some. framework-1 18 to go back and look at and say how should this be prioritized

~

19 in view.of all the other issues.we have looked atiin'this.

20

. facility.

1

21/

(SLIDE.)

22 MR. MIRAGLIA:- The pilot' program was offered 5in a-23

~ voluntary sense. - It consisted.of two plants'.- Northeast l l

Utilities stepped. forward'and. volunteered to be the part'icipant 24' 1

25 with two-of its facilities, Millstone Unit Ifand Haddam NecN.

~

4 mm___'__

_. _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.__i_____.-

.O_

9 l' &'h.K1l$3p/Both?of thoseifacilities;hadjpreviously;beenl participants'Lin

h 2

the' safety systematic evaluation program, the:: forerunner to-

~

3 ISAP.

4

- We implemented the' program,within the operation With 5

the use of resources here in Headquarters..'We used resident' F

l o.

6:

> inspectors and also contractualiassistance. -As Ifsaid,,the:

~

I

'7

' product is.a draft $ntegrated safety; assessment report which/is L

8 reviewed by peer groups within~the'NRR'and;NRC.

We also'ha e; j

9 consultant help to examine these reports and they are. discussed-10 individually with the4ACRS..

Thedraftintegratedsafetyreporksfor.'bothh y

11 d

a 12 Millstone and Haddam Neck have been. issued.. The final reports.

13 are due this month.

We have had discussions.with ACRS;and.

14 those discussions will continue.-

i

-1 15 (SLIDE.]

i

\\

16 MR. MIRAGLIA:

This slide' depicts ~ a number ~ of -

]

17 findings as, examples of what came out in the context of the 4

I 18 pilot program.- With respect to. Millstone andLthe conduct of 19 the PRA, they'did-identify a ma-}or contributor to core' melt 20 frequency that was related to their..longLterm decay. heat-a

'21 removal systems'.

'As a result'of that identification, they'did 22.

a short term fix that.promptly improved'that ' situation and'they-23 have a longer: term program':in placefto, address that'.-

Here wasi

-24 a vulnerability that was.id'ntified in the' context of.the-e h

D 25 process, it was promptly fixediand a) longer term, morel i

1

[.

a:.

I 10 l

l

.:1 f.?.

. permanentosolution to that is also.being considered.

2 The second item is degraded grid voltage protection 1

3 was a requirement that was pending for this facility and was l

4 considered in the integrated way.

At this point in time in the 5

ISAP, the utility had proposed a way and a-mechanicm of 6

addressing that issue.

When they put it into the integrated 7

assessment process, they found that the proposed fix may not 8

have been exactly what it should have been.

It may have had 9

decreased safety in certain areas and a different fix was 10 proposed and resulted from the integrated look.

11 It is an example of one of the benefits that comes 12 from looking at requirements in an integrated sense.

l 13 Similarly at Haddam Neck, there was also an issue, 14 loss of the motor control center, an issue that was identified 15 and resulted in some prompt changes in equipment and procedures l

16 at the facility to address the concern identified.

In 17 addition, there was an utility betterment, which is also 18 considered within the context of the program at Haddam Neck, a 19 new design for their nitrogen supply for the DWST.

It was 20 shown to have some vulnerabilities.

It also gave them some ins [ghts, some betterments, that they were considering.

21 22 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

Before you finish on the pilot 23 program, it seems to me if I recall, it has taken about two and 24 a half years to complete the pilot program; is that right?

.j 25 MR. MIRAGLIA:

I think from the time of original

q L

d 3

11-C i

etc. 7:.,AlW. r. approval. pitimay ;, appear. moi We didn t'reallyf.getithe1 program p '.

'2 started until Octo'ber of 1985., We didn't' really. start the-

.3 program until October-or November of'1985.

j.

l 4-CHAIRMAN ZECH:- 1Two' years ago.. Could you estimate h

y a, 5

the cost in FTE,: man years,.'for this Agency, and;also the l:

4

'6 licensee cost's?.

Do'you.know.anythinabout that?

g i

MR.- MIRAGLIA:!IFor the..' Agency, the: project 7

8 directorate or the group that handisd it-forjthis.two year?

9 period was.a total.of'10: individuals.

That includes overhead, U

10

.and everything.

On the-order of contractual,. tech assi't'ance j

s L

11

.over the two years, about $1 million.-

I 12 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

Ten FTE and $1 million as far aarthe 13 Agency is concerned..

j.

14 MR. MIRAGLIA:

For the pilot program.

15 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

Do you have any idea that the' r

16-licensee costs might.have.been?

1 17-MR. MIRAGLIA:

I think we can provide that.

18' CHAIRMAN.ZECH:' Our costs'are the ones I.wasireally; 19 concerned about.

I just wantedcto know if.you knew the others, l

20 too.

i l

l

I think within the pilot program,_ when..

h.. !

21 MR. MIRAGLIA:

22 we first discussed the pilot, there'were some estimates.of'what-l

. 23 the potential cos't was.

24 CHAIRMAN.ZECH:

Ten FTE to me seems a.little'high.

' h)s I.25 It'seems to me to be man power heavy-for on's utility.

i 4

p xg,g;$j

". f,j

$q w. -

n.:

p 7 _

1 1

s s

1 s

y Pi. k ild [

12-l 4 7 4 e a

..x-c.

. m-

,..,. w,s$M.%v, ",.. M.,'.>.MRW MIRAGLIAp.v.Tha, t F,Wa,s.c.10,iFTEi total, - overhead L and J R

2 e.@g.,

s.

1

/

\\ :q

)

l - ). '

'2 everything. JIt-is'probably on,thE osder of.7'as a better.

.%c.

-j w

y 3l number.

U h < ]-

q n

4 MR; MURI2Y:- Profassidndis.-

ni Y-

• 5 f,--

-1 m<

.g L

5 CHAIRMAN ZECH:: Ten-FTE' counts everybody.

0

~

c; y,

3

>.6

.MR.L:MIRAGLIA:

Yes. LIn' addition {todoing.thepilot;[jf L

...; ' lt.

7-program and handling $the int'egrated safety assessment for both p ad 1

8 HaddamLNeck and Millstone, they also;had;the? responsibility (for' N.

l

./'.

the two project managersj[they,are: included in N..ha,t and the ' day /

~

y.

9

'1

. 3' I

to day: maintenance of all tihe other normal.' license arj,

I j

. +

10 endmental si y.

i s.

h-11-and activities associated.with.thosectwo proj' acts were(.alsi

$q gtg ey j,, f[

\\

12-within the context of that.

A f "N f 1

+

,3 1

13 MR. STELLO:

That. turns out to be' aboutpth3;'ael an,d.a '

H p4' a

14 half professional FTEs per plant.

What is our. average p'ph' s

'\\-

15 plant, per year,'for a routine plant?

Project manager plus.

p v.

,s

/ q '/ g r

.j fj 16 what?

g t

4 4 i9 17 CHAIRMAN!ZECH:- It sotinc1s to' me ite:in moreLthan:what ~

a

. - a.

1- :i r; L e

you do directly,.it is more'than whate.you do,for theLaverage.

. II:.

y 18 3Av 1 1

). '

g' i'r f c!-

19 utility.

aj i}.

d g.-

..gy y X

20 MR..STELLO:' I think the'answlarai's y'es.'. - I-was trying V-v 3

,8

- $(

'21 to get how much more.. XThreeLand a half FTEs #for/ each plant.A j

.f

,7 1 y 22 We haveL at least a project manager ancI some : additional d ? ' # ""l 1

gh s-

.y 23 technical support.

If I!were to guess, one.ior ona-andia-half /

i y >;f, 13-f,.

c+

. rr

~Q

.,f 'y 24 FTE, - the three and a half,'the difference between4thtE s.

if d

q

+

25 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

You think[it 1sirephesented fl wsl a, p>

w r

k]~

[,y'y)

_m 1

o ng s

to 1

y

'f l

s a

~

ti

~-,

Y.

t

,. w c.

13 c

'; j f j.#2cj;1;.dFn. extended;the%rogram'of.'whathyouipo'uldneedforcoverihglotherL

,,{

i

'Q v.

2 plants?

^-

c; 3-MR.. ShELLO:' ~ Not the.way we areitalking.about,'it.

WeL

]y

4'

.I, ca.

4.

are proposing,something that'goes beyond:ISAP'for'theyfuture.

f q]

a

'Se-COMMISSIONER CARR: ' These two plants 1have-afhead.

, s 16:

) start on.what you.wo'uld havetto doLwith.somebody'else.. You:

j A

havealready'beenworkingwiththem'in$ho/SEP.

.7 c

w c

,,,/

8

.MR. MIRAGLIA:;cToLa:certain degree,Hthatlisstrue.n j

-4)

Thereis.a' larger. number.of1 issues.: ForLexample, Haddam Neck--

l 9

m did not have a PRA'and:they?did have to;do the PRA. 'Welhad.u nct$ 0,l

. c) 11 examined?a"PRA for Haddam Neck.in the SEP.. -In: fact,'we'didn't!

'[

l-12' even have a' plant specific PRA)done'by'the utility for;.

13 Y. Millstone.

We 'did have an.IRAP PRA' which !was a'st ff effort. '

I r,14 CHAiRMAY sECH:

All right.-

I\\

e i.

+

1 a

b i- (

15 MR. STELLO:

I think the plants that'alreadyshave-a1 t

1

PRA thEt might'want to do this,ialready have the.PRA'on record,.

16 17

.the amount of effort it would take for the ISEP part wouldtbe:

18 significantly'iesa.-

l

.{

1 g-19 CHAIRMAN ZECHf - Let's proceed.

9 P

(

s (SLIDE.]

- 1

-)

20

.i l

.) 21

.MR. MIRAGLIA: 'These are' basically broad (findings:

g

y y.

g.f t ; ;h l2i '

from.the conduct.of the pilot ~ program.

Bo.hLthe PRA andTthe-

\\<r}.

u.

e 3

' ' 2,3 operating expediknce reviews are usefulL too'is.'in loohcing at andJ i:n identifying areas 'of. risk "and can be used.:in a - way to y.

-24 l: hn 7

25 appropriately conduct the integrated ~ assessment.

BothLthe' 4

6

.f.'

Y.'l. J v-9

'g

'i' I

g-

=

5 %,.

fy

~

,y 1

14l e

+

1 7 49.

h

' e

.IJ c,

p y 0 n's ly.. g; l ktaf f d and' : licensee' h, ave., a^ybetter? understanding-of:the~ plant.and?

q 3

w-2

~

(

y

)-

its characteristicsibase'd upon;such a' review..

R y

3 3

I'think theLintegrated' assessment has identified s

4 areas where requirements have been generatied as Lsepardta review).

b)p 3

In the integrated assedsment, waLfound commonielements:

5~

l areas.

't O

K 9

o e

and came up.withian7 integrated: solution;(that perhapsL resulted

]

',.. 4 6-

'7'

'n.a,bett'r solution..Also that integration does provide-the-i.

e 8:

basis for eliminating.perhapsl1ovstysafety significant" actions 6

,3 1

9 COMMISSIONERROBdNIS:-

Canh ouLgive;a specific' y

,Y exangle '1,.of that?.

.h j ~.

'I ' Wg 10

,+

q 4

,.p-o.

>p L1

' MR. MIRAGLIA:. One, I think; and1Mikeiperhaps can add

~

y 12 more, in the M111 stone case /6 here?had b an-a) concorri about'.the t

.+

H cooling of the pumpa"in thA LintNke'stiucture fod Mill.stione I.

13

,.u y

14 There was V program for/ upgrading that. kind of.sy.Ntem...U n the

..<. o.

- sa,

sf..

I i

context cf(doing ths' PRA s and int 4 grated ('assessmedtj !it turned 15 t

e' 16 out that the analysis sh, owed PavenL in worse;jcase scen'arios,

[

. temperatures #woul'dn't have:gotten to a p nkoi'concernand:

17 f

e 18 therefore that. issue,wa,,so.rt,of resolved"in aEdiffardnt kind 4 s

//

,I,.

W'

'~

1

[potwayanddidn'tresultinbahy[addihional'hardwarefixesor J

19 L

t 20 efforts.

There may be dome;others but that is an example..

y J'

5

,4 21 h

-COMMISSIONER CARR: ;Is,that:what;you: meant when;you

'Q 22 said it eliminates the backlog?

[' i Y

3 The backlog !i[s. a. term of art we; u's e,

j-23 MR, MIRAGLIA:

1 24 There ^1s an.'inve' tory.. Everyfoperating. plant 'has a basic n

r L

~ 2 5, inventory of pending actions on the4 facility,thatzwe review in-y j

i 4

u a

y n

t 4}m.

, l1 f/I h

t

'N 1

3 ?

g

.(

g..

c' m.

+

as s=

1 15 s

h.f0jfyy0.dajseparatekindof;way.3 (Inithelintiegratled safetyr assessments.

i g

,o i"

2>

program, all of those things were put ori the ' tablenand looked q

'3, Lat in an integrated way.

They were resolvediand there'in a-E

.pathEfor: resolution for all:those..ismyes that are scheduled-and{'

,4 5~

agreed upon.and therefore,;thosefissues are resolved and.the

'6;. 'hbacklog Lis significantly reduced; 7j

<\\

.7' f' ' COMMISSIONER.CARR:' Whose backlog?.- What the plant.

1 8

has to dolor what we.have to do?

)

9'

'MR. MI.RAGLIA Ityis both.

The backlog is generated.

j q

l 10 by requirements that we impose;and ask. licensees to make-11

. changes.

Also things theylwant to do..

.q

.12 COMMISSIONER CARR:

We didn't fix them, we just; 13 dropped-them out?

I. don't understand how you eliminate this 14

' backlog without doing-some work.

15

'F3t. MIRAGLIA,

4 The integrated assessment provides;you 1

1 with the basis;for either saying.these areuthe important things 16 y

17 to be resolved and on whatischedule, and these thingsidre'not 18 worth considering.

19 COMMISSIONER CARR:

Dropping them out?

20 MR. MIRAGLIA:

Yes.

It has both elements to it..

s 21 MR. STELLO:

Also' identifying what'it is now to 22-resolve the safety issue in the commitment.to installithat 23

, equipment and a schedule for' installation.

24-

-COMMISSIONER.CARR:. That.doesn't reduceithe. backlog.

(LyL 25-MR..STELLO:. It is.an action we have1 completed.

We -

1 I

y qt..

)

r r

R

4 16 t-1v:,g'phave aischedule.for?the.-implementation of;that. issue and'now' I

y 2

the issue is' resolved in terms'of the. licensee having.committedi 1

3 to take.the' action.

4-20R. MIRAGLIA:'

It is still~ work to: do.'.

5

. COMMISSIONER'CARR:, In terms of something,_'it is:

6.

resolved, but I-don't call:it resolved until it is finished.

7 MR. STELLO: - We use; backlog to sayEsomething theLNRC 8

had-to do.

Our. backlog.

We haven't decided what to do.

We 9

reach a decision and: action is taken.

'10 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

It'jsfmy understanding that during:

11 the course of the ISAP,-the licensee can request.deferraliof' 12 certain items and perhaps only new requirements'that' relate.to-1 immediate risk to;public'healthLand safetyfwouldibe 13 i

14 implemented.

Is that right?

15 MR..MIRAGLIA:

That'is an' element of the. program.

b 16 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

What concerns me'.is,fis thatewhat we.

17 want to do?

Does that perhaps give cause for even abuse.of the l

18 program by delaying things that'perhaps should be taken on?

1 19 MR. MIRAGLIA:

That program.has. sort of a check and 20 balance in that proposal for. deferral is made by:the' utility 21 and reviewed by the staff and'there is a conscious judgment.

j 22 that is the right thing to do, so-it isn't abused.

23 CHAIRMAN ZECH:.That is:a"very.important:partLof the' 24 program.

r-

.hs) 25 MR. MIRAGLIA:. That is.an element:o'f the-program.

M o

__n--

-n.-A.---_-_n E_--

x, s'

.5' 5

3

~

17, v

.. :: 3 t

i

, 7,g.)1.g 4 t; M,7

,..} CHAIRMAN [ZECH: 1Do.you;haveLany guidelines, j

gj7g1,. -

n xl, 2

thresholds, limits, that you.use for. making those judgments?

U n

3-

. MR. MIRAGLIA:' Specific kind of. criteria, I-don't I

14-think we have that.

There have been instances where those-j 5

judgmentsLhave been made.:

In two of-the issues identified' - by;

6. -

(the PRA, tJun utilities.said, I want to fix that and I want :to -

7 ^

fix it now and here11s-what I am doing.

8 MR.'STELLO:

Recognize this goes-both' ways. LThere:is l

9 an issue that'comes'up'after you now have.the understanding of:

10 the safety significance, the resolution is significantly a

11 accelerated.- That is you take some ' issues' which :may -not: have 12 been worked on for a couple of years, and have a new 13 understanding of the safety of that issue,.you(get.it.

14 completed.

On the other hand, using safety as a criteria, 15 there are clearly issues which now as you understand 1the' plant better because of the PRA,.they~are far. lass safety,significant' 16 17 and therefore have a basis to defer doing:that issue because.

18 there are clearly higher priority issues; for safety 5that have 19 to be done earlier.

20 The ability, because o'f.all-this:information,'to make 21 those reasoned. judgments as to which issues ought to,getidone' 22 because the safety benefit.is far greater, sooner and which ones can be defer' red because clearly there isLa lesser safety 23 24 benefit and there might be particular things as Frank has rm 25 described where.the utility plans to make.ano6her moiiificatjen

18

,.l : ~. ;if '.:,.whichiwould make it i far more sensible.' to integrate the like Q

modification-we had imposed with what haswas planning and get a 2'

3 more' effective fix.

4

.It is that kind of process that goes on in'the 5

. integrated schedule that sets the time table for getting these

'6 things done.

7 CHAIRMAN'ZECH:

I understand that.

Those-are 8-important features of the program.

I.think itiis clear, at I

9 least to me, that in. order to_get the program started, you.have 10 to have a PRA, a rather lengthy planningJanalysis process, at 11 which time you don't do a lot of things. :You are using that 12 time to do important analysis and.so;forth.- When you get-that 13 in place, I guess what you are' telling meLis then you have a 14 better'way of deciding a logical sequence of; accomplishment'of 15 certain things that look like they should be accomplished.-

Is 16 that correct?

17 MR. MIRAGLIA:

That is right.

t 18 MR. STELLO:

Even the process;of getting itJin' place identifies important safety issues which can be-fixed lquickly.

19 20'

. CHAIRMAN ZECH:

You pointed'out a couple of those.

i 21 MR. MIRAGLIA:

That no.one was aware of until we did a

,22 the process..

23 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

It seems to me-what.you are trading; 24 off in a sense is some of the requirementsithat'might be.

I ;)

25 accomplished during this rather lengthy. period 'of PIUL 9

1

+

'?

+

~

j c

e S.

.. ~

19 w;gT9b,k,<..j!j3 assessment.: ;You:.,are. turningfupj perhaps.importantitnings ' there

~..

a=

2

$.thatshouldgetdone.andwill[get-.'done. LYou areinot doingla-3 '.

lot of other-things.that may.have a' lesser. priority.that you 4

will do eventually but you are:.using atfairlyLsignificant time, 5-

.it seems to me, to lay out thisLprogram andlto geti~it started.-

i 6-

.The two: year program taken here."seems to me,a rrther lengtihy' period, ' unless ;you can ljustify it,' like I. think.you are 7

li

. i 8

trying to. tell' me.you, do, by. the fact tihat after; that time,9 you 9

will have a sequence of accomplishments thatiprobably makes

]

10-sense and contributes to safe operations.-

11 Is that essentially what we are trying.to.do?.

l 12 MR. MIRAGLIA:

That is' exactly right..

The., process t

13 decides what the issues are'and up front, what'are the 14 requirements that are going to be.1 oked at'here.. Judgment'is q

a 15 made, can we defer, should we; defer, that.is made,in a 16 conscious way, and once you start /the process', y~u say yes, o

I1 17 am going to freeze implementation of. requirements untill 18 completion of the integrated assessment.

That integrated l

y 19 assessment then tells you what the. disposition-is of all those 20 items in terms of what the resolution'is, their prioritization 21 and the scheduling.

22 COMMISSIONER CARR:

The real' question is when does=

23 the freeze start,-when you start the: integrated assessment'or-24 does he. keep working during those two years on,the things he 25 already knows about?

1 1

i

g

.3 20'

.j

,i p, (ls.. J ' M'idM s s MR 6 BOYLE: ' sat the>beginning;ofJthe program,Jthe

.... /:@

4 a-

/-

J

^' '

2 staff and licensee sat down, tookia' look' at everything ;that was

.n

'3

~ on the' table-for the plant, both:our work and things they u

4 initiated.

We did a screeningLreview.of'those. things'weL d

f._.

, q

.]

. s.

5 thought should go into~ISAP:and we came'.up-with the. technical:

)

6-.

= justification of-why'theyLcouldLbe' deferred. ~Thos'e'thinhs'

'l 7-which did not'ne'ed the screening review'were worked on-'over-8 those.two-years.-.The' licensee.always had'something to do.

~:

9 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

While we are. talking about;this,'I 10 understand-the Northeast. Utilities is:th's'only licensee to 11 volunteer for the program'.-

If the program has' the. meriti:that 12 certain'ly some have expressed;it has,-why isn't there mo're 13 interest in the program?.Did you try to get others.to'.

1 o.

14 volunteer?

15 MR.'MIRAGLIA:

Yes, we did.'

I think'there was 16 probably a standing back, can ws'really make it work and can

(

17 the process really work.

I think:thespilot program 18 demonstrated yes,'indeed, it works. 'I;think Northeast has 19 expressed its view to the. Commission on a. number;of' occasion's 20 as to what they'saw as the value of the program and would like e

21 to continue'a similar type process for their other facilities.

22 CHAIRMAN ZECH: ' I think'-that is right.

Can you anticipate, would there be others who would volunteer if you 23 24 made-it. voluntary?

Would there be others who.would take you up

k...9 25 on it?- Would it be a significant number or just a'few?-

5 6

+

f

.x-..

_.___-.__L_J-

21

1, a.

MR.; MIRAGLIA:.My view'is.there'is probably some O

2 utilities out there that would see the value and avail 3

themselves of that option.

To give you concrete numbers, we 4

would just be guessing.

5 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

Would'our staff he able to support a 6

large number of volunteers with what looks to me at least like.

7 a somewhat greater resource commitment on the Agency's part?

8 MR. MIRAGLIA:

Those are questions that I think the 9

staff in currently contemplating as to how should it be 10 integrated and how would we implement such a program and what 11 are the resource requirements, what kinds of schedules we are 12 talking about.

I don't think we are to that point.,

13 MR. KURLEY:

We support this And we are trying to put 14 some sweeteners in it by offering to resolve a number of issues 15 that we normally would do serially, like unresolved safety, 16 generic issues, things like that, into this as part of the 17 individual plant examination.

Those plants that currently have 18 PRAs, we are going to try to make it very attractive for them 19 to choose this option.

There.may be something like 30 plants.

20 We don't know.

We will have the staff resources -- we will 21 find the staff resources and the contractor resources to 22 support that review.

23 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

We have heard of the program for some 24 time.

We have heard the merits of the program, It does seem

/

\\~/

25 like Tt has merit to me.

I am a litetle surprised others

22 11.. haven't been. attracted'by..it.

It does_look like it does have (TN i

L' 2

some expense as far ac people and dollars.

I guess what 3

troubles me is that it seems like a pretty good program -- I-4 know Northeast Utilities has given.it a good effort and so has 5

the staff -- I guess what I really question is my experience 6

with pilot programs.

Usually'you design them to succeed.

It 7

is very hard to kill them, if they don't really show to be very 8

poor.

If they are just mediocre, you are inclined to go along 9

with it and sometimes that is a bad decision.

10 I would hope the pilot program will be looked at very 11 carefully and critically to make sure it does indeed have 12 value, there would be others who would see the value, that we could su'pport it if it was accepted more widely.

Just because 13 14 it is a pilot program, that is not reason in itself that we l

t 15 should go with it, if we really don't think it has value.

i 16 Having said that, I've heard several different j

17 presentations by the staff and the utility, too, that would 18 indicate the program has considerable perit.

Again, I guess I t

19 am being a little skeptical because if we commit ourselves to 20 support the program, it does look like it is going to take a

\\

21 few more resources.

That doesn't mean it is not the right i

22 thing to do at all.

It just seems to me we should be careful 23 about going ahead with a pilot program that I don't see has 1j 24 been extremely widely received by other utilities.

perhaps it f ()

25 will be.

23 gl. -

m.'.,7 4. HIRAGLIA:.With respect to the pilot program, it 2

was only fer two plants.

In the context of why we are here-3 today, sir, it is to try to tell you that pilot program had 4

some ob$ectives.

We felt those objectives have been met and we 5

are trying to describe to you the benefits that we see were 6

derived from the conduct of those pilot programs for those two 7

facilitios and what we are here to propose is consideration to 8

extend that option to other facilities.

9 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

Let me just say that I am trying to 10 keep an open mind to this whole program and I know my 11 colleagues are, too.

We want to be realistic.

We really need 12 to know the pro 8s and con's and the resources involved.and the 13 benefits from it.

I think that is what we are talking about.

14 As I say, I just want to keep an open mind.

Just because we 15 staited a pilot program, it doesn't mean we have to keep it 16 going; If it inn't really of considerable value or at.least of 17 some value, we might just say -- I recognize you.are making it 18 voluntary.

That probably makes sense at this stage.

It will 19 be interesting to see if we do that, how many takers we get.

20 If it is really valuable, maybe we ought to *equ.4re 21 it.

I guess you are not ready to make that determination.

I 22 can understand that.

23 MR. STELLO:

~Being that th.is program requires a PRA, 24 the industry, I don't believe, is available to accommodate

./

25 every plant in the country doing a PRh.

If you even consider

24

. ;; lj,

,.the possibilitytof-making _it mandatory.sven if.we felt that

,em-2 benefit was there, to get that done woald take quite a bit of 3

time.

It would detract from the individual plant examination 4

program.

Our proposal is to blend the mix, allow that as an 5

option.

The safety benefit clearly seems to be there from a 6

regulatory point.of view.

We see the safety benefit is 7

'significant enough,to warrant doing it.

8 We believe that if the licensees take a look at it, 9

they will see it would be a benafit to them to have.this

)

10 systematic integrated way in which to'get all these issues en 11 the table and dealt with.

We won't know until we have done it.

12 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

Let's proceed.

13

[ SLIDE,]

14 MR-MIRAGLIA:

That gets to what'the staff 16 recommendation is relative to how could we veld the ISAP 16 process to the ongoing severe acaldent programs.

The proposal is the performance of an ISAP would be option, at the utility's 17 i

18 option to take that' choice.

19 We feel the benefits of ISAP should be offered to all 20 licensees.

We think it is a cost effective way to combine this 21 process with the severe accident policy implementation, since 22 there are PRA options in that policy ctatement that can fulfill 23 the nendo of both programs, ISAP and the severe accident 24 program.

(_)

25 The results of this combined program should be used 9

1

-- r y,

g 7

9:

4

.,n

, 9.. j ;(

25

o

!g.

1 l 5

]j[.hp:.~1bdtojidentifyn{icensing..actionsandvulnerab b

I f

i-gn

['-

f

~

'2 those'such that.they could';be resolvedeinfa meaningful kind of' P

'l

[

)&

w

'l

. way.

1

'O 4

~ [ SLIDE.)

9 5'

MR..MIRAGLIA:

The'way we would propose toJdo this

.e a

6:

' would beI

~

\\

~

to' extend and offer theLISAP as an option'i'n~the 7

. ' context of the individual plant examination.lett'ar.that'is:

0 q

8 being drafted right'now, and which will be beforeithe 9

Commission towards the and'of.the year.

i 10 Clearly, the benefits of'ISAP are directly;

- 11 proportional ~.to the~ level of risk. analysis' detail...

In order toL 12.

gain-the ability to'do.the: integrated, assessment of a large-1 13 number of issues, you.need a plant specificfPRA.

I 14 We, feel the characteristics'of such a. program would' 15 result in.prioritization of.the~important. issues, would include 16-all the regulatory issues that'are on the platter andL resultIin an integrated schedule which is.another' policy consideration.

17 that the Commission has encouraged,' an: integrated scheduldng-18 19 approach.

This process, an' outcome of'that, would'be.an 20 integrated schedule.

21 i, SLIDE. ]

22

.MR. MIRAGLIA:

To summarize the benefits of the-23 options,: we' think the PRA and the integrated 1 assessment.would

- 24 givela better understanding of plant, capabilities to the' I

m..

h. - 25

.. utility.

It could be used in its plant. design and!

9

.ii e

n I

_- a

__m

___..m__m

J 1

26

1..

. modifications,ftraining, as well as.looking7and examining the

('i 2

licenuing'activit'ies.

It has the potential of identifying 3

plant specific vulnerabilities.

It gives us a basis to 4

communicate on safety significant issues between us and the 5

utilities.

It has a documented basis and method for 6

establishing the priorities of-the important issues and 7

provides a framework for making decisions in the future.

8 The summary is we are asking the Commission to 9

approve the plan to offer the benefits of the ISAP approach to 10 all licensees as an element of the implementation program for 11 severe accident policies.

12 That concludes the prepared remarks we have.

13 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

All right.

14 MR. STELLO:

Our proposal would be to make that 15 decision at the time we send the generic letter down.

Our plan 16 is to include that as an option unless the Commission concludes 1.7 we ought not do it.

18 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

You plan to send that as a package?

19 MR. STELLO:

Yes.

20 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

I think that is important and it 21 makes sense to do it that way.

Certainly they are very 22 related.

23 Questi'ons?

Commissioner Carr?

24 COMMISSIONER CARA:

I guess I am somewhat concerned

j 25

.about timeframes, and the evolution of this program.

In 1977,

1 4

-27

3 1' 3, *..we. started [th, S EP,..,1980,1.;that generated intoi ISAP.

In 7

(<>\\

(

2~

1984, we decided to ; rial four plants'.

In 1985, we.made that 3

two plants.

I don't P'.ov what-generated that chango. *It is-1 4

now 1987 and we are still playing.with the.same. kind-of thing, l

i 5

looking.at the plants and deciding what to do with them.

I

~

-6 don't know that.two years from now you are not going to.be back 7'

with another modification to this one.

8 Is that the way it is supposed to work or is it 9

supposed to evolve as we go.along?

Did I misread the whole 10 program?

11 MR. MIRAGLIA:

The ISAP grew out of.the SEP program.

i 12 That is true.

The SEP program-had a different basis and a 13 different genesis.

The ISAP was a concept and one of the

(

14

• things we have learned in doinguthe SEP was the value of an 15 integrated assassment.

16 COMMISSIONER CARR:

That was in11980 or 1977.-

17 MR. MIRAGLIA:

There is 'a long history to the.SEP.

18 In 1980, we started with the 10 SEP evaluations.

The ISAP 19 concept and approach was first presented to'the Commission in 20 1984.

It was approved in early 1985 but we.didn't.actually 21 start implementing the program until this time of 1985. ~The 22 program of going four to two was because of budget 1 concerns or 23 constraints at that time.

24 The concept grew out of SEP but we sawEa useful tool-25 in the' integrated assessment approach.that would have ai ~value 4

-___________-__-__._-_..b._____-_m__-__

..._-_m.I.__

m

S.

-v.

28 eg;z. dligd,.al.onglthe.line,s; that!we.;are still:talkingitoday.c [Weifeel? the!

s q

'[

2 pilot program demonstrated.those b'nefits to[theseLt'oiplants.-

e w

1 d

3 COMMISSIONER CARR:, Those benefits became apparent j

~

4-some six or seven years ago..Here we are, that is siy' problem.!

'5-MR. MURLEY:

I.'m.not'so sure the' benefits were all-6 that apparent until..we..had done'-- I mustLsay'I.approachedlthi.

s --

1

7. '

ait'little skeptically.myself'because theHlast tiding weineadLisi j

8 another program that doesn't-pay off;much.;)I:became convinced, 9

looking into~it, thatwe'came out'with safer plants.because;of' 10 what we did.

I think.the rea' son,you.saw utility-reluctance"is

~

11 traditionally, when they enter.into:a'new program with NRC, fit 12 winds up just adding' new requirements: to their platter :and not 13 taking-anything of'.

f 14 I can't speak.for the utility.. :The sense of things 15 is they found this to be useful because-.it did take someUlower.

16 priority safety things off their plate. 'They racognized; they 17 wind up with a,. safer plant.

18 Where we are today is we now have this experience:

19 under our belts, both us and.one utility.

We.would like to 20 extend it to.other plants. 'That is as1s'imple as we.can-make-21 it.

22 MR. STELLO:

What difference does it make?. We:are, 23 already in a~new program for severe accidents.. We are 24 suggesting you can now get the bendfit of ISAP'and do the.

25 severe accident altogether.

We.are. going to do that.

.I can'te g

7

+

y,

,+

+

v.

z>

1 i,.

,y 29.

1

&liW d.kilf M say;wi.th',certaintys,;there(won't'be(any! delay Ru'gettingfsevere-ps

'~

~

u.

a p,;j N

2)

- accident stuff Jdonelbecause' yon :are clearly-going ts LdodoreI I,

y

,a x,

23

work.

It:will~probably'take longer,.butLweiara' thera.. Wa1 v:.

u 4

already have that other program..It.is the' severe accident;

3 n

'5

, program.

We are in the process'ofl implementing;that one now.-

'6

. It ' appears atin leastithat' this 'ir a more offactive and 'officient.

7

'wa'y to.do it.L It.has-a bigger safety benefit of going this 8

way.-

It seems reasonable'to suggest'we ought to go'that;way.

9 Maybe what we need to:do is perhaps send a simple-l-

10 letter.to industry indicating:we think it'would be' wise'to 11 offer this~ option and. find out if'in factianybody in~the 12 industry is. interested.

Clearly, if no one is interested,4we j

13 ought not do:it.

14 COMMISSIONER CARR:- ft would give me: a much warmer 15 feeling if I saw a' schedule of.who.was,goingLto play ball and 16 what years we were going to play ~in and when the' game was. going 17 to be over.

18 MR. STELLO:- Why don't we see-if we can t"get an-i l

19 answer to your question.

20 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

Maybe you could make-'some inquiries 21 anyway and get.some kind of an answer to it.

I think we would 22 feel better about it.

I would, if I knew there.was interest in:

23 this program outside of Northeast Utilities.

I think from what

~24 you tell us there perhaps.should be.

L25 MR.. ' STELLO.:

I know that at' lea't.one or two ofLthe-s I

I I

1

1-a;*

303 j.@@d (:li.94 ? utflitiesi rahaveb.: talked. to :had;been -interested.1 J At the. time we :

MfIN.i ' ^.

i

'i 2'

went'into this: program.,-wa'indicatedLwe would only'have enough s

3

, resources'to do two.

4 MR. MIRAGLIA:

We had talked with two toithree..

4

,' S Commonwealth was one.-

6-MR. ' STELLO: - !Let'us'try to' find some,way.so that.when' 7

we'come back'to the: Commission, we can,giv'elyou'an answer.c II'm?

q 8

'not sure how'I would react.

IftheLLndustrysayskthis,isa'b'ad.

s

?

o idea,'does that mean it is a good. thing.to do~or the otheriway 9

1 10 round.

't a

- 11 CHAIRMAN ZECHt It would ba; interesting,to knowashat;:o 12

. kind of rea.ction there is.

3 4

i 1

.I 13

'MR.'STELLO:

If we makenit'a voluntary prog' ram,jif N

1 14 al'1 of them say forget it Lor you senseithere is nofinterestL at:

15 all, it doesn't makeisense to. proceed.-

I' agree with that'.

16 CHAIRMAN ZECH: 'On the other' hand,~if'it is a program-17 that has considerable merit and-you reallyjdecide., the, staff,.

18 that it does, I think.we ought to think-aboutlit a little

.j j

19 differently.

You haven't convinced.me yet11t'does.

I thinkfit' Li 3

20 has some merit.

If you.think it han'a. lot of merit, if you can 21 show where it really does hit.the highlights of safety measures 22 that we want addressed, perhaps'it?ha's.a-lot.of merit..

IJdo think some kind of a feel-for how some of the' utilities might.

l

- 23

~

. involve'themselves or' feel aboutlthe program woul'd at least;bei 24

/ - 25 useful.

It may not.be'all important but useful.:-

H 1

4

____.__m_.

[

18 i

i.ic s.

~

31 c,.

'f'qJQpk1'.ny..;'efiy.ng.hcvAnythiir.g]'else;JCommiss1oner{.carr?.

~

N.

2 COMMISSIONER.OARR:. - No.-

d 3

H

.C AIRMAN ZECH:

Commissioner Roberts?

a 4

COMMISSIONER' ROBERTS:i No..

1 5

CHAIRMAN ~ZECH:

We have certainly.had.a' chance to; 6J

. hear your thoughts >on'it.

One thing that at least I feel-wa-7

.ought to tell the staff and Northeast Utilities, at least from 8

my standpoint, I-appreciate the effortLthatLhas gone'intolthis, 9

program.- I think you can be'proud ofLwhat you are'doing, both 10 the staff and Northeast Utilities.

11 It is an innovative program'in my judgment.

It-is 12 certainly one that could impact on good planning and goodL 1

l 13 integration of plant attention to safety features.

I am really 14 trying to keep an~open nind to the whole program.

~

15 I can see where it could.haveLa great" deal of merit

)

16 in devotingLattention.to the severe accident / program;and=to 17 scheduling the execution'of-certain' safety. features,.over the 18 operating schedule of the plant.

'It involves the.Pfas which I 19 think is certainly a. logical way to look at priorities 1of 1

20 safety matters.

Perhaps it will. help us toimake better i

21 decisions.

22 Again, I am trying to keep an'open mind. ;I like a:

23 lot of the features of the program.

I guess what concerns me a l

24 little-bit'is we don't seem-to have had a lot of interest' 2: 25 outside.of Northeast Utilities.

Maybe'there.is,a good reason:

W

j 1,.

1 33

• :Q W; W.'foEthatn I? don't know.c;That/does. merit?looking!into.

J

. c; c

.\\

' x 2

I think what you have told us today and especially 3

your intention, Mr. Stello, of presenting 1this to us in an.

.I 4

integrated. fashion with the generic. letter.comingLin the next.

5 few months will perhaps summarize and bring:the ISAP together i

6

.with your other programs and allow'us.to'take a-look at the f

7-whoie package.

I think that.will be helpful..

8 I look forward'to receiving that.

In the meantime~'I 9

think again I would like'to commend the staff and: Northeast 10 Utilities for.what they have done in this very' innovative I

11 program that perhaps does have great merit.- I think we.need to a

12 study it a little more.

I do and I'think my colleagues feel j

13 the same way, before we make any decisions.orf cit..

14 Your deliberations in the next few months will be f

15 very important to us and. recommendations coming sometime after 16 the first of the year will also be veryfimportant to us.

17 Are there any other-comments'fromLmy fellow t

18

' Commissioners?.

19 (No response..).

20 CHAIRMAN'ZECH:

If not, we stand adjourned.

Thank.

21 you very much.

22

[Whereupon, at.3:25 p.'m., the meeting was adjourno'd.)

23 24

.,.(f 25 4

+

4 0

0

.(:.

1

k. iy ;:;\\q 9;c ' at?:$ f ::@)f;[f tNiiWY ' ^;, ? l'?%

~

7*

'2

' s 'E '

REPORTER'S~ CERTIFICATE 3

4 This is to certify that the attached events of a' 5

meeting of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:

,6

)

7 TITLE OF MEETING:

B riefi ngJon^cIntegra ted' Safety L As ses smen t Program _(ISAP) 8 PLACE OF MEETING:

Washington, D.C.

,9 DATE OF MEETING:

- I 10

- l

^

11 were held as herein appears,,and that thisois the original' l

12 transcript thereof for the file of the Commission.taken.

13 stenographically by me,,thereafter reduced:to typewriting by 14 se or under the-direction of the court reporting company,~and

15 that.the transcript is~a true and-accurate record of the 16 foregoing events.

17 18

_ A.:. cad _______2__.t

'_a_

Marilynn Nations J

20 21 a

22

. Ann Riley & Associates,-Ltd.

)

~23 24 O

cd.

m______.__.m_m i

~

~

6 M

AR GO R

P T

S N

N R

O E

E 7

M

)

N 8

I T

S 9

O 9

A S

1 I

1 T

E 2

S N

S S

E S

7 I

i f

S A

8 M

E M

R R

Y Y

O E

P T

C C

B E

E M

F F

S E

E F

A

(-

H V

A S

T O

T N

S D

0 E

T TAR GETN I

~

~

S UT P

A A

T S

S I

E D

E N

N S

R I

A N

U L

O T

T N

I U

U O

S F

O I

U T

L R

N A

C O

O T

N F

I N

S O

T E

G C

S A

M N

N T

E I

M O

N L

D A

I E

P N

R T

S D

M I

G A

E N

I F

O D

R U

R N

P O

M E

P E

R A

L M

G R

P T

M K

G M

O O

C O

A L

C A

R X

I E

B P

E P

R e

M

=

gV

E E

S T

N E

N E

C E j YC N

MM R I E

E A O L I

T R T'

R A G A D E

TO L N P

S R U A X

T P

GL E

P Y E S E C T R N -

G M

C I O

OS N

A N LL G I E I

R OO I F

N TV T

G C P P O

I C I A

O D A T R

~

R P P P T

N A

E P

A A A N

E G I P

S S S E

P N T O

T I I I M

-. I I

N S

S N T

E S

D N I

~

N M

E E E A

A S

)

)

)

S N C T R

L R

S 4 4 5 S

R I N P

P A

E 8 88 A

A LE F

t S

S

// /

E J, M C

l A

35 6 D

L E

I O

i 2 1 0 P

E

-. S V F

E i

Y

/ / /

A T

S TO I

N U

T S

3 1 5 S

A N N R C

O S

E T

0 1 0 I

R O E P E

I S

F N

(

(

(

G S MM P

T I

A E

F E

S E I S

A S

M 3 2 0 O

T E R

-z L

D U

31 6 N

LI T T

I N

D C

1 1 1 S

I

- U N N

P A

E O T P QA A

T D

4 4 5 N

M E

E't L. M O

E A

8 8

E R

S R P P

C R

l A

R D

R M

O G

N YF Y E

F P

E U

C C

L R

E T

O E 9 E E

E R

N R

S 4 S P

P I

G R

K O

C J

A A

B M

,,, y l '.' )$

,').

a

,a

. 'f

+r

.,['.4.p

• ~

I,I.I

,4 G,

s lllI58 g g.

IlllN 1

A k E

E E

E v

lii a

B n

5 l

9 i

~

J L A

B Eg

=

E

=

v

>=

=

ll.

l'l il k.i 4

i l

Islil; l ll

~li l

I 8

8 si il

4 l[ $,6f(

s 7

t. i !

a h', j x

I 7

}

h

~

78

/

4 R

/

=

O 1

F 1

D S

M E

R A

D M'

C D

E R -

A D~

U OL A

S R F A D

H SE RU N

I B ET A

D

. M PC N~

EE A

P A

BV SR U

O WT O

1 Y ON m

EN R

L T

I O G

TE N

VC I V SI E

W NI E -

R H E

U T LK T

I

- C U C LI V

EE DE A W E

N P EN C

R O S H

I E TE CM NT R

SR SA H A E

L D

C R E

LT DD M

EO P

I S EA A

TT MU TH R

C :

'Y G

A G

D E E B

R U R D O

N R C OA GN R

A I N D

F EA

~

P DA E

D T

T T

W DN N1 T

NTS E

EA I

O.

1 E CI I

U T

L MES V

S L D I T

EJ S E

SI N N I

P I

GOA R

I R A U N

A R P

P UK N PL S

SA SE A

C A

. A R

R R N S

EE N

MPC A

A N A O

~

I NN O

A I S

SI ST MSN S

O -

I I

I I S T

TM T

A I H

- K L

N S A A

R C

T TC LL A

LD T

GYE F

FE A I P

LD N

OBT A

A N NM I

I A E

R R

R I

C MH M

P D

S D

F I

E U

T L

T R

P A

A M

T P

I S

~

I e

NO I

T L

C A Y E

V C T

O N O

F ME R

E 0

E U P

F R Q A

N

.E E

S G

TR G

I A F A

T S

E T

N E

H T L

E D

L O Y V

YE VC E

W A M N

R E

C D E P

N E E I

U S

D R R Q D

D G

O G E L

E N

MC R

U S T I

R D F O

O S D

E O E

C P W N

T T D T O D A U 5

R I

F G R R 0 P R N O G K C

O E

O T E C C

F F L

L U D A M

0 P

B L

YE

- T M

E I

F B R

A TR O

E TK X

A T N

T I N E

U N N O N

LA Q O G I E

I L M

D S A A

E C I

T C

BB A

R A R E T L

R N G

O D S O

E E O

N J R

N G R

I A

N D T

L O P

A M I

E N

U R T

S O

VT T

N S S A C

I O

I I E E E N L

A I R R

R I

1 MY TC O

U R P

T I

N T

LO T

O I L

O N I F I

P TL MW A

I I

BM O

F Y A

N I

S U

E B A E K

F D

~

L I

R A R T C

0 T EP E

U P E S E

- U LP N

L A N Y N

S H G U O

C L S S S N S I

T A

U M

O I

S

' F V

A L

S L

D L

D I

A M

H s

^

~

9

'ha5;)gM Y' j;

1 n.

e fR _D

'g

~

S-T

=

~

U

~

gCa v

q 3

pM;j.3W.Ww\\ _ 's_ t $ 5 y?lr." 1;yl i.

~ -

.#i '

t

.m h

'9 cf 3[:

V.

s 1

7

/

i

_7 y

8

+

. 5

/

CsE

.A 4

%x

' x~

(: /

s H

D n

3 EF

~

WTO D'

R l

N O

~'5 EA :

.g N

a F

I RN

'A OF

~

VGO 0

. A EEI E ' S T

t SE D.

RTT c

,.L F E

~

1 aA A H

.H N

.ENA BFC

)

. g ET

_TA I N A

R

~

T_ATU c'3 S S O R

I S

A N WS.

T -

I 5 EM ng A.N R G

I

. C RLI S

N Y

EI AG L

.D E I

FL E T PNE D

I O S S' E. I E. A[

3-N TO -

NI S SR E

D_E T NT E R

.O l

. _ yh I

I F

E -

C E D D F1

~ VEA ORNI

.=

D A

.I T

EE OS M Y

LC I S S FPS

.P.E T

.'_%~

.m-I l

T S

(A OI 4{J2 n.s.

E S A ER u CS I

F W

H A TOA S_I E A

ED TH N R B

~

...L.L E_

S I E C

E P O

T EU NT

,AS

',U.HET

__ V~

VS D

D I

N

,D N

R AN S D O-

.E_T D,7

~-

=

.A E

A

) TEI

.H.

N g

, m C

EB F L 1 NDT C Hd SOkT%

I C

F P

(

E I C T

=

F NN A -

MVA.

I EA TF SEO :

fO,O L '

NBD nN N

I C SO A LR T-

- A G

R T

HEPN-nI RO I

ED N EG A;

.T.F

_a-S PNE H. N TN) C A.

K S XA M TI N O 2 I.

.T

.k T.

-./. w F

E - S D

E.M

(

F.

~. N S 0 N.

ECNG3YE.BkR;;;

Qz O

KS H N MM

.I.

. M. S

~ EI W E-GSE TA S ODN M

S NI S OT S.

A E.

E I RS B S A I7

.L L

T A

R'S S 0.

S

. PERU ~X-EI P

AT DEE SNS M

.D A CR ;

n I.L R Q M

RND EDI AUNY-A EA E D N T

.O 0 T.

BU E X

PCT I UI D FI E E

OI A V

L E

T F

_E.T m

FR ORI T.

,UA

. TCEE.

DI G REB N S L S.

A I GR.

~

NNE P

A R AO

.R D A U-I A GT GES,O

.G E N T.

. 2 P

W I

I N P

t.

A ER E E. R U.

ASI A BC TARL TPAF r

S S

N N

1. i

~

P I

I.

I c

~-

y a

a.y w;

2

~

'e

.g 3_v~G'};7gyv j

~

~

_7" f

% m)'

q%wx;

..s 2

~

q y-

^

k i

.qY

,.5 gI A

~

jy -

l n

q' p {:[

l

~

- _x-

_y

Q

+ Y A-L

- C L-p

~

A I

. L T

f O

O P

m T

D N

E E

L D

D E S M

N I

R W -

A D

E C

E E S R

L T

C V

M G

U I

X A

E VA O

O' E

S ER R

C E

R G -

P.

E R

Y O

D' B

E iE R TE N'

V J C P N Z A S

E I D

E D N "

.E-L S

E5 H ; D TS L O epC P

0 R

T I I N U I

A 0

H I R R O D

~-

S T

U E l

E E

B-C O

.,N~.

I S

I I

i Q P A I TH

~

W XF R C C E

B' R EO

.E P A S

~nk R

C E

_ i ;L R

(O U

A N

S GS E D G D T

O I

NAD VN N E x

U R

B E

EA T

I I

F P

M I TE S

. S A P

O TA N

/ YN R R

A,-

C A R PF E G

~-

N E L' A I f~

O C,E g

L F

P 0

I P L S T, I T N

S A

1 F

- EAN

=

A T

M0I I N I

g.

O I

S ~

XD D D DS-3-

T F

A T N

A O I

I E N O EI N P A

0 Y

T '

T I

O

- L D

A E N YD BTSE N

S WC A CE M

EV k

E T

N L

N O DI E I

M I

EI P L G C ETD M

F VS O I

'SI?

O I

C P S F

LO C

=

I

. E O

,t TN T.

I

~

E E

C O TTD

EB'

.R-EI A N -

S BA D B

s x

F T ME E T.

R E m;=

x,,

D F A E D B L DE S E S E T T I U LN U TE

- N S CN S U L A E TE Y C A E O U E r

R S SM S A C R W V B 4

TN OE a9 s

=

S E C L N C P

O I TM ML S I

?=

E O

~

, D M

,y-

~

i

^

k g

m c

mn l

~

y!

s.

JM c-d 7-s g

s

&'T~;j3.9Q$

k f6; f z.Q. 3

&.E :.W

,J

't 3

~

,~

~~

- l

~

.x.

-m

~

~

s"

^

L R

\\_

m E

~

I

'L V

. E

_7 =

G E

H L

T E

P 0

. F E.

aG m

E

- t N.

T

. 0 C I

n t

i I

E:~-

N

,L tf.

i J

L A

U sg-BE C

N l

O S C D

I A

R N

I F.

.E m

SU P

D O

E SC N -

H

~

..A I

E I

A C

T L B T

.R L

O E G S.

N A

I R

.P U

P S I.

C~

m a

E N R 0

D ~

R

.;S

.M S

2 D

O C P

E E S I

3 fs 2

I I

S O

G H E OE Y C

T E R

A C U F U T A

m C

P D P

R S~S S E N

A O

U S SS F Y

E Y

O D

I I

A D

E E B L

C E

S

,I S

~

R B

T N

T L ~A F

E E

L CL E A L BO N.

G V

D L EI R A O

A E

L R A D G

5~N ~

R I

5 U W I T L E E A V T.

U

/

O DE U T D C.

O P

W N DO N U E T A C

u 2-A O

E W

I L V AP N

S P

I PS C R N M

.E e

I A T A' I.~S D N EvI I-

- D S M. I _.

S - T N

S P-G.

'P Y F

I A

~I W.

L

=

I Db+

O

.U O

AL F L

I, L F P SA E N

U U. E L O

s.

S OA iN N O

,W e

C S

A E I

O O 2

I E}-

F B

T W W.

N -

T C

K A

OM iI S

N -

S :

Z -

I A I

A SI I

TR R

M-f R T'

PG RE-f-

E I

OO FF R

.t R

s T

O C

F EO O

s' PP A

R i

N I

A n

R E

5 R

S A

P B

P I

H C

i~-

Lr, ~ =

2' -

W

~

m~ fn 2) 3 3

5...

J W+

3.

V

_E

[ e..

~

i o,L f'

l(

s~

7 I

~

- D R E T

E S N -

D U E S N

. S R E U E E W

R C R Y O U R O

- B I

R T

T L C U F E N I

I P

T A V S

R N G S D E

E O O N E E TC I

E T

E I

I R E I

B S C T

S R D G

N TA I

N P E A E E L -

L E

S N R E TU G I

C E A A U D OS N B

I U B ~

M T U N

M E I

A L

S T

U L O

O R S R

S S N R F C I

R N

E D

I E E O E

T P D E N

N U M F E R P

N C L

A

.E S E T P O

D A I U

T S V S A L

L V

C A

M Y O

I I

P U S R

U '

R S I

A A

O E D C

N L E P A T M J

S W I N I

A T M B S S

TA F

N V A I

E S R I

TI I

E E N E

E E E

N LG C

E Y L O L D I

H E I N E

W O M T B T U R T

MB I

P T

T I

E A

- D 0 S A N S

E L F T D E l

F S R I B

D E A C N H Y O

E A A T

O S

I A C R S C R N

N H O '

D

- S O S

S T

A O

T T N E S T

T A T L

I E

O R D D A I

N P

T M M

-. P A E M F

D A N A

S T O T R E

E L G F

C D

I C E L A I

N TP O

I E N A D K R F I

E A

S N

T A P I

R G N B

R FE N

U N H M V O E O G O D O

M E C

- R N

I O W T C E

M M E I

T G T T

O U M P

~l N N N A

C C

~

I I A C

O -

D L I

S D

4

'D N P F

E N A I

V L

A T N T

O A

b I N

R M

A E

P R

R D

M O

P I

I F

~

r

~

1 TRAt!SMITTAL TO:

Document Control'0esk, 016 Phillips

t j

ADVANCED COPY TO:

The Public Document Room

// /d /f 7 k

DATE:

[

FROM:

SECY Correspondence & Records Branch j

m hi I

?

Attached are copies of a Commission meeting t'ranscript and related meeting R

I i

document (s). They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List and I

i placement in the Public Document Room. No other distribution is requested or

$1 A

A required.

2 Meeting Titlei M %_

MM-

\\

i O fkl-Q&AN)

Meeting Date:

///4/f 7 Open N Closed

\\

N l

5 2

k Item Description *:

Copies Advanced DCS i

E

'8 I

to POR Copy

{

i

=

i g

1. TRANSCRIPT 1

1 l

s GJ/w l

6

^

g

/

y l

/

L 2.,0s w - [7-J/9 1

0 2

3.

h'

E a

=w li; g

4-I[

a s.

6.

• PDR is advanced one copy of each document, two of each SECY paper.

l C&R Branch files the original transcript, with attachments, without SECY

~g

=

i papers.

meme wwwawwwwwwewm ermanam erent u_ _ _ - _

_ _ _ _ _.