ML20239A069
| ML20239A069 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/10/1987 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8709170059 | |
| Download: ML20239A069 (47) | |
Text
OTGINA_
O UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Discussion of Integration of AE00 Reparts Into the Regu-latory Process Location: Washington, D. C.
Date:
Thursday, September 10, 1987
(
Pages:
1 - 43 1
l k
Ann Riley & Associates Court Reporters 1625 i Street, N.W., Suite 921
(~
Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 g9170 870910 PT9.7 PDR-,
WV "
,G e
,) -
y 9
i r;9 y
?
l 3,
7 i
y l
f 1
iD I SCLA I MER i'
y'
/
2
~
j 3
s y
7, l
4 3
5 t
6 "lp i s is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the d
't 7
Unated States Nuclear Regulatory Commission hft6d on st' i
9/10/87 l,
in the Cor.vm i ss i on 's of f i ce at 1717 H Stre,et, S
9 N. (J., (Jash i ng t on,- D. C.
The meeting was open to pubIle o
r 10 attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been n
,s 11 revlewed, corrected, or ed I t acti anh It may contain v.
(
12 inaccuracies.
g iS The transcript is intended solely.for general 14 information 1 purposes, Ax propided by 10 CER 9.10S,'it is
,/
./
l 15 not part of the forma 1 or1 informai record of decision of the 16 matters discussed.
Expressions of epinion in this transcripE 17 do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs' No 18 pleading or other paper may be fiIed with the Commission in 19 any proceeding as the resuit of or addressed to any statement i.-
20 or argument contained herein..except as'the Commission may l
21 authorfre.
22 2S i
i 24 i
i I
25 l
s 1
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA-2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 DISCUSSION OF INTEGRATION OF AEOD REPORTS 5
INTO THE REGULATORY PROCESS 6
7 FUBLIC MEETING 8
9 10
' Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11 Room 1130 12 1717 H Street, Northwest 13
-(,.
Washington, D.C.
I 14 15 Thursday, September 10, 1987 16 17 The Commission met in open session, pursuant to j
18 notice, at 2:00 p.m.,
the Honorable LANDO W. ZECH, Chairman of l
.)
l 19 the Commission, presiding.
20 I
21 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
22 LANDO W.-ZECH, Chairman of the Commission 23 KENNETH CARR, Member of the Commission 14 KENNETH C. ROGERS, Member of the Commission 25 1
]
I 2
'l STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT THE COMMISSION' TABLE:
.3 2
3 J. HOYLE 4
W.
PARLER I
l 5
J. TAYLOR l
6-E. JORDAN 1
i 7
I J. ROSENTHAL i
(
8 a
T. NOVAK 9
E. ROSSI
)
10 11 AUDIENCE SPEAKERS:
12
}
,1 l
13 G.
SJOBLOM l
14 l
W. MINNERS
)
15 16 17 18 1
'l i
19 i
20 21 i
1 22 23 24 25 l
l l
1
i 3
1 PROCEEDINGS m,
[2:00 p.m.]
3 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
4 Mr. Bernthal will be arriving shortly.
Mr. Roberts is l
5 traveling and will not be with us today.
6 Today's meeting is for a informational briefing by l
7 the NRC Office of Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data, i
8 that we refer to as AEOD.
Today we will hear about the 9
activities of AEOD and how the results of their studies are 10 integrated into the regulatory process.
11 Representatives of the Office of Nuclear Reactor 12 Regulation are also here with us today and are prepared to 13 answer questions that we may have on this subject.
14 I understand copies of the slides are available in i
15 the back of the room.
J 16 Do any of my fellow Commissioners have any opening 17 comments to make?
18 (No response.)
19 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
If not, Mr. Taylor, you may proceed.
20 MR. TAYLOR:
Good afternoon, sir.
I'd like to first 21 introduce those at the table.
On my far left is Mr. Rosenthal, 22 then Mr. Jordan, Mr. Tom Novak and Mr. Ernie Rossi.
The first 23 three gentlemen are from AEOD.
Mr. Rossi is representing NRR 24 this afternoon.
25 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you.
1
~41 1
MR; TAYLOR:
As the Commission understands, AEOD's
~
j
.m
)
2 basic mission is to identify important concerns and issues I
3 arising from review of operating experiences.
Numbers of AEOD 4
recommendations enter.the regulatory process by virtue of j
5 bulletins, notices and-generic letters to licensees, and you.
6 will hear more about that.
7 Other issues form the basis for new generic issues or in modification or incorporation of these' items into already 8
i 9
existing generic issues.
10 I'd like to point _out to the Commission that a 11 briefing is scheduled specifically on handling of generic 12 issues in mid-October.
We won't spend much time on that today 13 other than to note that is a repository frequently of actions 14 arising fi'om AEOD work.
15 I'd like to mention to the' Commission that the new 16 organization has tied AEOD and NRR very closely and other 17 offices as necessary in the daily review of operating events.
18 My people participate every day'with these offices in the 19 review of the morning _ situations, the events that have happened 20 in the preceding 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of importance.
I think this working i
21 together has helped the staff to tie together for operating 22 reactors, and more importantly, it has allowed _early spotting 23 of generic type questions by the' joint efforts of _ the offices.
24 That has been an improvement we can see in this recent 25 reorganization.where some of these. functions were distributed-i I
l 5
l 1
among the three offices, I&E, the old I&E, AEOD and NRR.
That I
f~h 2
is a step up in the reorganization.
j 3
In today's presentation, I will ask Mr. Jordan to 4
begin.
l 5
MR. JORDAN:
Could I have the first background slide, 6
please.
l 7
I would want to indicate the office was formed 8
following the Three Mile Island event as one of the lessons 1
9 learned, to provide an independent review of operating events, 10 operating experience, and to feed that experience back.
I 11 The functions that were added in the April 12 reorganization compliment that original purpose and the 13 original functions are maintained together in the Division of 14 Safety Programs.
Tom Novak is the Director of the Division of 15 Safety Programs.
Jack Rosenthal is the Chief of the Reactor 16 operations Analysis Branch.
Those functions with some 17 different managers in place have remained in the organization.
18 The daily activities of the other parts of AEOD are i
19 somewhat segregated from those longer term analyses.
20 The data that is evaluated in order to make those l
l 21 determinations to do the analyses consist of reactor events 22 data predominately.
In 1980, when the office was formed, there 1
23 was some 410 years of reactor operating experience in the U.S.
24 There now are almost 1,100 reactor years of experience and 25 there are events accumulating in the data files on the order of
i 4
i 6
11' 3,000 a year..
f'g 2
The reporting requirements changed'in 1984 that
~
3 improved the quality of these operating event reports, provided 4
a narrative-from which the Agency and its contractors extracts 5
data that we can screen readily.
l 6
In addition to the U.S.' experience, wa do get foreign 7
reactor events experience.
There are about 50 events'a year j
8 that are-transmitted to us'through IAEA.
There are a total of 9
about 350 events in that file.
Those are screened events as i
10 opposed to relatively low significance events.
The.NRC in turn 11 inputs events into that.same file of about an equal number to 12 the numbers the foreign governments are providing.
i.i s
13 We also review non-reactor events.
There are some 14 200 records a year frca non-reactor licensees and:about 400' 15 records a year from medical misadministration.
They'are in a t
16 1
database that has recently been developed.- We are reviewing 17 those constantly.
1 18 Certainly, the challenge that we have is to use this experience wisely in order to maintain and improve safety.
19 20 There are other sources of data that we utilize.-
We review the l
i 21 INPO reports, selected NRC inspection reports, the NPRDS' file, i
~22 conduct discussions with NRC staff members, and then we also do 23 direct collection of data on-site for certain case studies.
J I
24 In addition to the review of records, it is necessary.
.i 25 for the reviewers in some cases to go to the. sites to collect
7 1-information.
.,s i
I 2
Could I have the next slide,-please.
1 3
Our focus is to independently analyze this operating
]
4 experience and'then' provide that'feedbackLto the NRC, industry 5
and the public.
AEOD self initiates';and in many cases we l
6 respond to recommendations from other offices inLthe regions.
7 I.think our role is to provide a' conscience for the review of 8
operational data to ensure thoroughness andLto provide a 9
persistent follow up of recommendations that'we make from these l
10 case studies.
1' 11 Our influence on safety'is by informing the industry 12 through direct communications.
AEOD reports are provided to m
13 owner groups, INPO, EPRI, and to the Public Document Roon.
14 FindingsLare disseminated through information. notices, 15 bulletins and the:bi-monthly power reactor events.
-An example 16 would be the reports on motor operated va'lves, air systems and.
17 inverters.
18 Finally, we have an. influence on safety by affecting 19 the regulatory process.
20 I have asked Jack Rosenthal, who is the Branch Chief 21 for Reactor Operations Analysis, to describe the types of 22 reviews AEOD performs and discuss some examples of recent 23 studies, with the emphasis on,the manner of resolution of those 24 recommendations, i
25 Jack?
ll 8
1 4
1 MR. ROSENTHAL:
Thank you.
2 I'd like-to quickly go ovver some representative 3'
events and then spend.some time on the MOV case study, which 4
will show you the process.
5 Studies prompt notices, bulletins, generic 6
communications.
An' example is a special study performed inL 7
1986 which led to a bulletin, 86-03, Potential Failure of 8
Multiple ECCS Pumps Due to Single ~ Failure of Air Operated 9
Valves In Minimum Flow Recirculation Line.
10 That was spurred on by a.1984 LER from Brunswick, at j
an inspection report by an inspector'at Peach Bottom.
I 11
.There l
12 was relatively little data on events such as this.
13 AEOD did a study in 1985.. Based on that study,.
j i
(
ultimately a bulletin went out, 86-01, which addressed the l
14 15 issue of closing. mini-circ lines and in boilers, we looked back i
16 and found more events involving-PWRs.
We wrote a special 3
17 study, 603, and then 86-03 came out of that.
l 18 We had done a fair amount of work and produced a case i
19 study, C503, on. losses of RHR with the plants in modes four,
- 20 five, six.
Subsequent to that study, there were three more 21 events.
Based on those events and specifically one at Diablo 22 Canyon, we pushed very strongly at that point for a generic I
23 communication with the industry on the problem.
A 50.54 (f) 24 letter was. written by NRR.
. / 25 My last example is a result of an engineering
4 9
1 evaluation on the inadequate or inadvertent blocking of valves.
2 That resulted in an informatic4 notice issued in 1987, 87-38.
3 That study started with the review of foreign experience and 4
found one event at a foreign reactor.
A search of the sequence 5
coding system found nine other similar events in domestic 6
experience.
A small number of data points, but significant in 7
terms of safety.
We ultimately wrote an engineering evaluation 3
in the IN.
9 The studies also provides the basis for new 10 initiatives.
For example, Generic Issue 93, Steam Binding for 11 Auxiliary Feedwater Pumps, is based on a 1984 case study, in 12 which the safety concern there is that check valves and air 13 operated valves or motor operated valves in the auxiliary l
14 feedwater system would leak, permitting the pump housing to 15 heat prior to its demand signal and then steam bind on a demand i
16 signal.
17 An IN was issued in 1984 based on that case study.
18 There were 22 events studied.
A bulletin was issued in 1985 19 based on that and final resolution is part of GI 93.
20 Sometimes we find good news, too.
I'll give the 21 example, it was a morning call.
There had been an inadvertent 22 turbine trip due to a turbine runback feature at a PWR, where 23 we asked, is the system causing more problems than it is worth.
24 A quick search of the data showed us that no, the turbine 25 runback seemed to be working when it was supposed to, not
- 4 10-4.
1-causing an inordinate number of inadvertent trips and it.was
~
3 2
doing its function, don't worry about it.
3 Let me go on to slide five.
4 Case study reports,-typically man year type efforts 5
that result in recommendations formaction: issued by the office, 6
by AEOD for action by other offices and industry, are peer 7
reviewed by other NRC: offices and industry-prior to final issue 8
and then they are provided to the EDO.and to.the Commission.
9 The resolution of those recommendations is formally 10 tracked and they appear in the annual AEOD' report.
I will be 11 giving an example.
12 We do other kinds of work labeled-engineering 13 evaluations, trends and patterns and special studies. 'These 14 all fall under a general umbrella of operating experience 15 reports or operating experience feedback reports.
These are 16 events or studies in which we conclude.that formal regulatory 17 action and follow up isn't needed.
A concern exists and 18 communication to industry, perhaps in the form of an IN, would 19 be adequate.
20 We do technical reports and they are usually quick 21 studies, such as the one I described a minute ago, whereLyou 22 often conclude there isn't a problem.
All these reports are 23 distributed to the other offices within'the NRC, the regional.
24 offices and industry.
25 We spend a fair amount of. effort on communication, by m_.__
m.-_--
_-.____m.
_.-___m.
4 11 1
the annual report, we issue bi-monthly. reports, what we are 2
working on.
Those bi-monthlies go to NRR, Research, the 3
regions, INPO, NSAC, NMSS, to tell people what we are working 4
on and try to ascertain what else is going on and to coordinate 5
activities.
6 We have a formal recommendation tracking system which 7
we update every six months.
8 We spend a lot of effort to ensure that problems wo 9
are working on are not duplicative of problems that Research is 10 already working on and telling people what we are doing.
11 Next slide, please.
12 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Before you go to that one, talking 13 about your engineering evaluation suggestions, could you tell 14 me, in AEOD, how the suggestion was handled concerning the AEOD 15 evaluation report concerning the pipe erosion / corrosion 16 phenomena that caused a pipe rupture at the surry event last 4
17 year?
18 Could you describe to me how the suggestions in that 19 report, for example, were handled by the staff?
20 MR. JORDAN:
Tom, do you want to answer that one?
21 MR. NOVAK:
Mr. Chairman, the fact that they are a 22 suggestion, we in effect made a safety review.
Our best 23 judgment was that the material that we learned from that 24 particular report did not measure up to making a formal 25 recommendation to any office for action.
As such, it was
.s 12 1:
considered to be at a level less than that which would require m,
2 specific regulatory action.by any office or utility.
3
-We thought the information was useful.
In'that 4
manner, it is provided as a suggestion.
.We really don't have a 5
formal follow up to any of our suggestions.
On occasion, 6'
resident inspectors, however, will see if in fact utilities and 7
sites have --
8 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
You follow up for recommendations?
9 MR. NOVAK:
For recommendations, yes.
Suggestions 10-are not at that level.
11 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
You must make a decision that the 12 suggestions are not necessarily worthy of follow up' action if 13 you don't follow them up.
That is a pretty important decision 14 to make, it seems to me.
How is that decision made?
15 MR. TAYLOR:
Mr. Chairman, in that particular. case,-
16 of course, that event received widespread notice, it was well 17 covered, too, by the industry's own information systems out of 18 INPO.
There is the continuing studies that are going on in NRR-by Ernie to eval'uate the effects with the industry.
Numbers of-19 20 plants then began their own testing in areas'of' turbulent or 21 mixed flow to try to establish if pipe wall ~ thinning is taking 22 place.
There has been a' major effort by the industry itself to 23 do that.
24 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
I remember. visiting a plant not too-25 long after that event.
While I was going through th'a plant,
~
13 1
they stopped me at a piping installation similar to surry and n
2 explained to me with some graphs and the briefing they put 3
together exactly what they had done and what they intended to 4
do.
The word got out.
You are right.
5 My real concern is I understand that you follow 6
recommendations rather formally, but you don't with 7
suggestions.
My point is, the decision to make it a suggestion 8
rather than a recommendation is very important.
Sometimes, I
{
9 am just asking the staff how that decision is made and is it 10 reviewed carefully.
It looks to me like suggestions need not l
i 11 be necessarily followed through on, but recommendations are.
12 In an incident like this which would seem to me to be
)
13 rather significant, it would seem perhaps you may have wanted l
14 to make that a recommendation.
You obviously made it a
)
l 15 suggestion.
My question is, how did that decision come about?
l 16 MR. ROSENTHAL:
I read or re-read the report over the 17 weekend, pondered it.
The report discusses equipment failure, 18 pipe thinning, due to erosion.
The report concludes that there 19 wasn't a pressing plant safety related problem.
That is within 20 the perspective of the data that was available at the time.
21 The report, in three places, clearly says that although it 1
22 didn't appear to be a safety problem, there was a hazard, a 23 potential hazard to industrial workers.
It is clearly in that l
24 report.
1 25 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
By a " safety hazard," do you mean a
14 1
nuclear safety hazard?
.m 2
MR. ROSENTHAL:
Right, in terms of endangering the 3
plant.
q J
4 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Radiological safety hazard.
There 5
was a hazard there.
6 MR. TAYLOR:
Yes, an industrial. safety hazard.
7 MR. ROSENTHAL:
It draws that distinction..
32HL 8
report identifies any number of small leaks, usually in two 9
phase fluid systems.
Within the information that was available 10 at the time, I think we didn't understand or we didn't piece j
~
11 together the potential hazard.
One can always go back and i
12 wring your hands over the studies.
I think we do from time to 13 time.
It wasn't clear, at least in that report,.that a
{
14 regulatory action was necessary.
That is within the context of 15 the year, the data available at the time, what you then know.
16 You can always change your mind if more data comes in.
You 17 should re-review based on new data, what is going on.
It just 18 wasn't clear in 1984 that action should be taken.
19 I will say that the report was disseminated
-l 20 throughout the NRC and industry.
Nobody kept it hidden..
It 21 went out for information.
22 MR. JORDAN:
I think I would like to add to that, it is a difficult decision, Mr. Chairman, to determine whether the 23 24 particular issue we found is one that needs to have a 25 recommendation and strong follow up or convey it to the right
15 1
parties.
We are taking some measures now to try to direct it 2
more strongly to the right parties when it is a suggestion, to 3
get the maximum effect out of it.
We still, I believe, have to I
4 use the resources carefully in causing licensees to respond to 5
what we feel are lower level safety issues.
6 There is a very conscious and deliberate effort to 7
identify whether it is an information issue or an issue that l
8 needs an actual regulatory fix.
9 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Fine.
I fully appreciate the fact I
10 that it was not a nuclear safety hazard.
It was part of the l
11 balance of plant that we treat a little differently, but that 12 is a different subject.
We could have another meeting on that 1
13 some day and talk about that more.
We are all interested in a 14 discussion of that nature.
15 l
on the other hand, it does seem to me that the 16 decision you make is an extremely important one, even though it 17 is in a non-radiological safety part of the plant, but I guess 18 we won't elaborate on this, but where do we stand on the Surry 19 event right now?
What actions are going on to review that 20 process?
Have we finished our review?
Are we taking any 21 steps?
Is industry doing anything?
22 MR. NOVAK:
Industry is doing things.
Certainly a 23 number of follow up inspections are occurring.
It started 24 first with plants which thought they had a similar l
25 configuration.
That would be the first priority, the Beaver l
16 lL Valley Station, for example, which in many ways looks similar i
.2 to the Surry Station.
The Turkey Point Station..
I 3
The immediate reaction by. industry and certainly 4
those-who moved quickly were those who had perhaps the same 5
architect engineer who. designed that portion of the_ plant.
6 They would go back and they did inspections to see if they had I
7 enough wall thickness to ensure the integrity of the pipe was l
8' what it was.
They did find some areas below minimum wall.and U
9 repairs had-to be done.
10 I think the Trojan plant was the next situation.' It 11 was.found where we would not.have expected that kind of l
i 12 behavior, further downstream in the straight length of pipe.
13 Perhaps Ernie can comment.
~
i 14 MR. ROSSI:
We issued a bulletin on the.Surry event, 15 asking industry to take appropriate actions to look at-pipe 16 thinning as a result of Surry.
After the bulletin was issued, 17 we did find some thinning at Trojan that was. basically in la straight sections of pipe where we wouldn't have expected it 19 prior to issuing the bulletin.
20 In the case of the Trojan event, we went out with an i
21 information notice to inform industry of that.
i 22 The bulletin, and I don't remember all the details, 23 but I believe our intent with the bulletin is to look at -- the 2 44 bulletin, of course, requires a reply back to us telling us 25 what each utility is doin'g.
I believe they have industry-wide
17 1
programs underway, that we would hope each utility can use
)
m 2
those programs.
3 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Did each utility reply back?
4 MR. ROSSI:
I don't know the status.
I would imagine 3
5 we haven't gotten the replies back, because the bulletin was 1
6 issued --
7 MR. TAYLOR:
I think that information is available if l
it went out as a bulletin, we don't have it today, but we can 8
9 have that checked.
l 10 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Somebody follows through on that.
11 The AEOD's involvement in this, I trust somebody tracks that, I
i i
12 has a system for tracking those kinds of responses.
1 13 MR. ROSSI:
After it goes into a bulletin, then it 1
14 gets tracked.
It will be tracked in the SIMS program.
15 MR. JORDAN:
Maybe if I responded as to how that is 16 done.
There was an instruction for the regional inspectors 3
17 prepared and sent out so the inspectors follow up promptly on 18 the licensee's actions.
The licensee provides responses.
19 Those are collected and then reviewed as a group to assure they i
20 are in fact responsive, both individually and collectively.
21 There is follow up on the licensee's inspections.
l 22 What they were providing us was their plans for inspections.
i i
23 These are re-fueling outage type examinations.
In some cases it may be two re-fueling outages before they actually do I
24 25 inspections.
1 I
I l
18 We were also-seeking reports on any_ findings they had i
e 2
that would be relevant to this particular problem.
3 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
As I recall', the;last time we talked 4
abcut this, you were going out'getting commitments from plants 5
and they all committed to make an inspection or do something,
'6 except one or'two.
I guess that one or two --
7 MR. ROSENTHAL:- They came through, sir.-
8 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
They did make commitments.
All of 9
them did commit to make inspections and to look into this 10 matter.
11 That's enough on this.one.
I think we can move 12 along.
My only point here is-that it is a big decision'when 13 you make a recommendation or a suggestion.
I hope that is 14 reviewed at a very senior level'in our organization.-
We are 15 saying that recommendations we will follow through on and 16 suggestions, we will not.
I.would'just say let's be cautious i
17 about that.
I think we should err on the side of following 18 through on matters that we have any. doubt as to whether we 19 should follow through or not, and make a conservative call in 20 that regard.
21 Having said that, let's move along.
22 MR. ROSENTHAL:
Slide.six, please.
23 In the earlier examples I gave you, relatively little 24 data spurred effort because of a perceived safety significance.
25 It is illustrative of the need to have skilled engineers-
I 19
+
1.
reading'LERs, inspection reports and other information and q
t'~h l
/
'2 drawing inferences and asking the question "What now?" and 1
3 "What if?"
4 The MOV case study is somewhat different.
A00 had 5
done work in the area of MOVs for several years.
Following the
{
6 Davis Besse 1985 event, another case study of MOV performance 1
7 was done.
The process, I think, is illustrative of how case 8
studies are done.
l 9
An LER search found over 500 events involving MOV l
10 actuators.
They,went to NPRDS.
In the 1984, 1985 time frame 11 there were about 500 reports involving valve actuators, so you 12 rapidly become convinced from the sheer bulk of the data that 13 you have a problem.
14 Plant visits were done.
Davis Besse was visited in 15 1985 and several other plants were visited where signature 16 tracing techniques were being performed in order to better 17 understand the problem.
18 Dr. Brown, Earl Brown did this study.
It was about a 19 man year effort.
He is o and M-8, the operations and I
20 maintenance work and has a lot of strong industry contacts, so 1
21 he is knowledgeable of what was going on in the field.
We even 22 sent him to a training course on Mova and he got hands-on 23 experience with signature tracing techniques at least to ensure 24 that we really understood the issue.
25 Having done searches, having collected the data,
20 1
having catalogued the data, having tried to coalesce the
(~%
2 findings into a succinct group, one ultimately develops 3
findings, conclusions and recommendations which I will get to 4
in a minute.
5 The preliminary report was sent out for peer review.
6 It went to INPO, to NSAC, to all other NRC offices, it went to 7
Davis Besse, it went to MOVATS to ensure that the technical 8
quality of the report could bear up under scrutiny.
We got 9
very favorable feedback from that report.
l 10 The final report was issued on December 5, 1986, and 11 on December 10th, the EDO sent the report to NUMARC in this 12 time frame.
l l
13 Slide 7, please.
I 14 So, what did we recommend?
There is a hardware 15 aspect to the recommendations and there is a people aspect to 16 the recommendations.
What was recognized was that you needed 17 trained, skilled technicians to do the work; that they had to 18 understand the systems they were dealing with; that there had 19 to be a root cause problem when something was wrong, that you 20 simply couldn't go out there when it didn't need a stroke time 21 and readjust the system, you had to understand why it was 22 failing.
23 That you couldn't leave the problems to the 24 technicians themselves; you had to bring in the engineering 25 organization to understand the failures of that system.
That
_________--_u
.o 21 1-is the people side.
7-2 The hardware side.
It seems to us that firm 3
procedures have to be developed for setting the torque switches 4
on the actuators, that one really ought to use signature 5
tracing techniques as an assist to the maintenance crew.
These 6
techniques now exist.
They are available by several vendors.
7 Good technological advancement.
We ought to take advantage of 8
it.
9 1
We should pay attention to bypass torque switch
{
l 10 settings, we should pay attention to current protection devices i
11 on the MOVs and a number of hardware things.
A 12 The big thrust of this is that if you want to see l
i 13 long-term improvement in that MOV -- and you need it -- then 14 you have to have skilled, knowledgeable people working on the i
i 15 problems.
There isn't any magic, golden widget that is going
{
i 16 to make everything okay.
17 Based on that work, and I think correctly so, the EDo 18 sent the report to NUMARC for action.
I think the nature of 19 the remedial action that is necessary is best handled by 20 industry in this case.
21 I should say that there is a bulletin, IEB 85-03, a
22 1985 bulletin with a two-year clock running on it, which 23 required that licensees look at Movs in high pressure systems, j
24 the most risk-important of the MOVs, and we are starting to get 25 back information now from licensees on what they found.
It is l
6 22 1
a longer-term effort but it is going to result in ultimate I^h j
I 2
fixes.
1 3
We met with NUMARC on September 1st in an open public 4
meeting to find out what was going on, and there are several I
5 initiatives under way.
EPRI is working on it, EPRI's 6
maintenance arm is working on it, INPO is addressing problems, 7
this ANS committee is addressing problems, and NUMARC is just 8
about to come out with information to licensees urging remedial 9
action.
That is where that stands.
l 10 COMMISSIONER CARR:
I have a little problem with your I
11 emphasis on safety-related MOVs.
It seems strange to emphasize 12 to the utility that he ought to treat some MOVs differently 13 than he treats others.
If he has prob 2 ems with MOVs, he ought 14 to treat them all the same.
15 MR. ROSENTHAL:
Industry programs spans all MOVs.
16 MR. TAYLOR:
I think we agree with that, sir.
What 17 we did back in 1985, we knew there were literally hundreds, I 1
18 guess, of these valves in the plant, and we made a very careful
- l 19 decision based upon the Davis Besse experience that we would 20 issue a bulletin, and that is the bulletin Jack referred to, 21 and said these values -- BWRs and PWRs and so on -- these 22 selected valves must be checked and tested.
That response is 23 all comi.tg in.
Then the studies continued.
i i
24 And of course, what this showed a lot of the industry i
i o
ems with MOVs.
You may have i
,e 23 1
seen on some of your plant tours some of the work that_is going-i l3-1 2
on on'MOVs.
I know I have seen it has kind of spawned a new industry on motor-operated valve signature tracing and keeping 3
4 track of the torque and switch settings on the valves.
'5 15o this is an example where we took a bulletin 6
action, mandatory regulatory action in a narrow sense, and took i
7 the broader view of saying NRC to keep track of this whole i
thing, we get NUMARC to take the broad approach at the plants.
8 9
I must say that many of the plants have instituted these 10 programs.
i 11 1
So we took care of the immediate safety effect of.the 12 Davis Besse casualty and then.said, wait a minute, just because 13 you look at those valves, you better go further,.and that's 1
14 where we are.
Does that summarize it?
I 15 MR. ROSENTHAL:
Yes.
i 16 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
- Proceed, 17 MR. ROSENTHAL:
I think that is representative of the 18 case study.
We do somewhere between three to five case 19 studies.
20 Let's see Slide 8,'please, where wa-stand today.
21 There have been 33 case studies. 'There are 270 22 engineering evaluation reports, such as the one on the erosion 23 problems that you called attention to earlier today.
There are i
24 about 100 technical review reports.
Each study has three to 25 five recommendations, sometimes with subparts.-
By our account,
24 1
there are 93 recommendations out there.
There are 27 which we
'I 2
would consider satisfactorily resolved, and there are 66 3
ongoing actions.
Of those 66, there are 44 recommendations 4
that we have that are now in USIs or GIs, and I tried to cross-5 plot where they were.
6 There are four USIs that we touch, A-17 and A-47, i
7 system interaction, control system interaction, A-44, station 8
blackout, which the agencies are coming to grips with now, and 9
A-45, which is decay heat removal.
Big ticket items.
It is 10 not surprising that our recommendations would touch on those 11 issues.
Then there are a dozen generic issues that fold into 12 our recommendations.
13 I don't want to get caught up in the numbers gave.
q 14 What we do is review each one: where is it, how is it ranked in 15 importance, in prioritization process; is it being resolved on I
16 its merits at a re'asonable time frame?
To just look at each 17 one, one by one, is to me more satisfactory than some overall 18 number count.
19 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
When you identify a safety ~
20 significant recommendation, when and how in the process does 21 AEOD identify that recommendation to the responsible office for 22 action?
How do you interface with.he other offices?
23 MR. JORDAN:
Assuming there is not an urgent time 24 bind on a particular issue, the case study would be issued in 25 draft for peer review.
The facts would have been coordinated i
b
c.
j 25 with the appropriate offices and we would then get back 1
1 7
2
_f comments on the factual side of the report.
Then the final 3
report would be issued and a letter would be drafted from the director of AEOD to the appropriate prcgram offices, to NRR or 4
5 Research, or NMSS if it were a non-reactor licensee, regarding 6
the recommendations.
i
(
7 So this would highlight the recommendations, ask for 8
a response from the program office, and the NRC manual chapter 9
0515 identifies a target of 45 days for those responses.
So it 10 is formally. communicated to the program office, they review it 11 and come back with an answer.
If there is a disagreement, then f
12 we sit down at the table and try to understand it.
If there is 13 an impasse, then the impasse would be communicated to the EDO, 14 who would then be the tie breaker.
15 So there is a systematic process for handling this.
16 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Who assigns the priority to these 17 recommendations?
i 18 MR. JORDAN:
The prioritization process is now in 19 Research for unresolved issues.
It is a formalized process.
20 In our attempt to upgrade our activities, we are going to 21 provide a draft prioritization to the office along with the 22 recommendation, but the act of prioritization is the 23 responsibility of the Office of Research, normally.
24 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
But is AEOD involved in that?
Are t
25 you consulted?
In other words, you come up with the
-j i
26 i
1
. operational analyses.
You may have something to offer in:this 2
regard, it would seem to me.
3 MR. ROSENTHAL:
There are two ways. One, within the 1
4 formal prioritization process, now and in the past, the office-
~
t 5
responsible for the prioritization would do that work and then 6
send their product out fo review by the other program offices 7
and back.to the initiator.
That is always going on.
And the I
initiator had the opportunity to say, okay,,yes,'I agree with 8
9 you, or I don't agree with you, and if not, why?.So that is lo always going on.
11 There have been times when AEOD has written k 12 recommendation and it is.gone over and has received a low 13 priority, and we review it and say,' gee, that's right and we 1
14 should accept that and drop those.
There have been other times 15 when something went over and had a low priority and we argued 16 and won and things were either changed to high priority for 17 cause -- you have to have reasons -- or there was an agreement 18-to reprioritize.
' 1 19 We have an air system study that is now issued in 20 1987 that we did which is now in the prioritization process.
21 There was earlier work that said, hey, this isn't very' j
22 important.
We went back and did our homework and --
i i
23 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
I hope they are not saying that on i
24 the air systems study.
I thought that.was an excellent piece 25 of work and I hope it is getting careful attention by the i
l 27 1
appropriate office.
2 MR. ROSENTHAL:
I think it is, but we came back with 3
that study --
4 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Mr. Taylor, can you answer that 5
question for me?
6 MR. TAYLOR:
I agree that it is an excellent product.
l 7
It is over with the program office.
I have always had a bent 8
for air systems in the plants because that is one of the first 1
9 things I go to look at, and it is surprising the condition of 10 the air system sometimes and what is their backup.
That is the 11 other key question.
12 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
I agree with you, and I understand 13 you have that keen interest.
That is why I thought sure you l
14 might be tracking that one yourself.
15 MR. TAYLOR:
Ernie, would you like to comment?
16 MR. ROSSI:
I believe we have already issued an 17 information notice covering what was in the AEOD study.
An 18 information notice is a fairly concise summary of the problem 19 and makes the industry aware of the problem, and it also 20 expresses our concern, to a certain extent, that they look at i
21 that problem.
Then we also have other actions under way to 22 look at emergency procedures and training associated with 23 handling air systems problems.
24 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Fine.
25 All right.
Please proceed.
l l
- c 4
28
-1 MR.'ROSENTHAL:
The last point'I' wanted to make is G
( ]) -
2 there are 12 ongoing actions in NRR.
They are relatively 3'
recent actions based on late 1986 and 1987 Work that we have 4
done, in,which in all cases they have taken some action.
.5 MR. ROSSI:- Three of those, as a matter of fact, are 6
on the air' systems.--
J l
7
_ CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Good.
j-
)
8 MR. JORDAN:
Could I have-the last slide, please.;
l3
\\
9 I wanted to run'through the,act,tvities'we havei
' I j
.;A ya '..[
ongoing'in.ordertotrytoenha$ceint'agrationofourjfjh[d'ings 10 j
t I
11 into the regulatory process.
It is both at the ffont'end and 12 the output end.
Our daily involvement in the review of' 13 operating events,.as Mr. Taylor indicqted, was'en6Anced by the i
14 reorganization.
The' operation denter, organization $l, connectiori and the daily interface with NRR on the' events,_
15 l.
16 reduens the time between trigger events and actuallyesta ing.
17 studies, initiating studies, without adversely affecting those y {
l ItprovidesuswgN."apromptunderstanding 18 systematic reviews.
19 and continuing understanding of SET responses for.which we don'tneedtotakeanyfurtheractichs.
1 20
}
i
(.
21 tf We want to continue broad dissemination of the A
4 4 s
i products of the AEOD review's and we are also instituting 22 n
j 23 targeted trepmnission of that datas An example would be the y
i.
24 new plant study that we briefed the Commission ' on.. We have.now t
25 transmitted directly to the new plants, with a. letter of i
1 1
i/
- t-t p'j a
o
',k 5-~
8
[1 A j-
' \\,,
{#
,f:
1 =
+
2.
-l 29 1
transmittal, bringing it to their attention directly, so they 2
are targeted in that material, not just broadcast.
\\
3 When we do a review or a study and we advise an 4
office that
.1 information bulletin or notice should be sent, 5
we. provide a draft of that particular document, because the i
6 reviewer is intimately familiar with the issue, he can most l
l 7
rapidly develop a draft to provide to the office for use..
8 We are improving the follow up of recommendations by 9
the close communication with the reviewer and the assigned 10 staff.
That person to person communication is very important.
11 There is also the data review that occurs.
This is the SIMS, 12 safety information management system, that provides for the I
13 Agency an accounting of issues that are identified and their 14 state of resolution.
15 We have a continuing study of related events. For 16 instance, some of the examples Jack Rosenthal mentioned.
It 17 took two or three bites at the apple in order to really find 18 what the real problem was.
We have an understanding there is a
- l 19 problem, we may come up with some suggestions, but we maintain 20 a watchfulness about issues until there is a sufficient basis 21 to take a recommendation.
We don't give up on the first 22 instance.
23 There is a close coordination with other offices in i
24 developing factual information and to take into account the 25 ongoing activities.
As I said, the reorganization has made
30 1
that processing of information more natural by the people who
-s s' 2
have been transferred from office to office and by the l
3 organizations themselves.
4 I think it is important to point out that the 5
recommendations are not coordinated with the other offices 6
while they are being developed, in order to maintain the AEOD 7
independent-EDO has recently reaffirmed during our quarterly 8
review that recommendation portion of the report shall not be 9
coordinated.
10 I
The office provides risk analyses with the issues j
11 insofar as it is practical, so we have a quantitative as well 12 as qualitative risk understanding.
13 Finally, the case studies themselves that contain 14 recommendations contain a draft prioritization, to help speed
}
15 up the process.
We define that as a product of research.
16 The final summary statement that I would make, the 17 office does have provisions to follow up recommendations.
We 18 feel we do vigorously pursue them and get cooperation from the 19 other Program offices.
We feel that the program does now 20 maintain an appropriate independence and yet provides for 21 coordination where it is imp 7rta.it.
22 We are presently catisfied with the Program offices' 23 responses to our specific recommendations.
24 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Thank you very much.
25 Questions from my fellow Commissioners?
Commissioner Carr?
i I
1
31 1
COMMISSIONER CARR:
I only have one comment.
I think it is a very important operation you are doing.
The experience 2
3 we have today, most of the mistakes have been made at least 4
once.
5 MR. JORDAN:
That's correct.
6 COMMISSIONER CARR:
You will find very few new 7
problems.
You will find that they haven't been reported or 8
analyze.d right.
It is very important that the experience you 9
guys dig out is disseminated to the people who are about to 10 make the mistake and keep them from it.
That's how you earn i
11 your money.
I would encourage you to keep digging.
12 MR. JORDAN:
Very good, sir.
13 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Commissioner Rogers?
14 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Just on that question you j
15 raised, Mr. Chairman, on the recommendations and suggestions.
16 It seems to me that suggestions have a value in terms of 17 acquisition of information.
Even though you make a suggestion 18 and it isn't required that somebody follow it, the fact that 19 somebody may follow it and then what their experience is as a 20 result of that is very useful information.
21 While a suggestion may have a very different status with respect to requiring someone to follow it, it is still 22 23 again part of the information collection that can be very 24 useful.
I would imagine that you do not make a suggestion --
25 you make a suggestion rather than a recommendation because you
32 1
have some reservations perhaps about it, and you are not really O,
,1 2
sure it is generally applicable or entirely covers the 3
situation or whatever.
I don't know what the basis is.
You 4
have some reason to not go the full recommendation route, it 5
still maybe a good idea.
If someone follows it, you would like 6
to know what the results are.
7 I wonder if there isn't just an informal way of 8
pursuing that, even though you don't formally require following 9
a suggestion.
10 MR. TAYICR:
1 our people are inspectors and our 11 residents get all this.
Those are our eyes and ears on the 12 front line.
Very frequently, they in their inspection process 13 will follow up.
It is important to them where a lesson is 14 l
learned about operation of a particular system and they get the l
15 idea that may be applicable at their plant, even if it is in 16 the suggestion form, that is made for them to follow.
17 The utilities do get this stuff and there is usually 18 a reaction.
Frankly, having put out this type of information, it is our anticipation that people will review it, 19 do their i
20 besu, whether it is a recommendation or not, to take that 1
21 information from this Agency and to carry.it out.
22 If there is a significant event, and we find they 23 have ignored the advice and counsel, I think that is a matter 24 we would take into account when we decide what to do at that 25 point.
That's a fact.
We frequently will look at what they 1
l l
33 1
have done in some of these areas, even with information
,O notices, when there are problems, what did you do is the 2
3 frequent question, you have an information notice about that 4
particular subject, you have had an information notice about 5
air systems, back-up air systems, and very frequently that will 6
form a pattern for further action.
7 It doesn't fall into some abyss.
I think most of the 8
reactor licensees are at least fairly attentive to this 9
process, that is not a demand, like a bulletin or issue of a 10 regulation.
11 MR. NOVAK:
I think also when we begin a study, we 12 really don't put it in any particular bin.
You start out the 13
)
work and you go through it, and at some point in time you think 14 you have learned what you can learn from that effort.
Then you 15 make an evaluation, a safety evaluation.
As you can see, the l
16 ratio of case studies and engineering evaluations is on the 1
17 order of ten to one.
18 In a way, the engineering evaluations recognizes what 19 we have learned and we try to pass on that information.
We do 20 that via a suggestion.
What we have to do, and we are doing 21 that now, is we are pinpointing the targets for those 22 suggestions.
We direct them to a specific, perhaps region, or 23 specific set of utilities, to try to encourage them in that 24 manner, to read carefully what we are suggesting.
Of course, 25 the resident inspectors follow through to see.in effect how are
~
34 1
utilities responding to these suggestions.
2 It is in that manner that we are trying to get the 3
greatest coverage of that information.
4 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Just one other point.
You made 5
an excellent point that in the MOVs, it is important there be a 6
fairly sophisticated understanding of that system.
I take it 7
maintenance and regular attention to those should not simply be 8
left in the hands of a rather low level technician.
That 9
general observation applies to a number of systems in plants.
10 It would be a good idea to try to keep track of wherever you 11
~
really feel that more sophisticated lovel of understanding is 12 appropriate and perhaps not being applied generally by the 13 operating plants and then to see where that leads to the 14 necessity for additional training.
15 MR. JORDAN:
I would like to make one quick point.
16 Perhaps we didn't give INpo sufficient crediu in this process.
17 INPO has a separate and parallel effort.
They are reviewing 18 operating experience and communicating through their 19 engineering reviews and operating events reports to industry.
20 We do coordinate periodically with them on the studies we are 21 doing and the studies they are doing.
There is some synergism 22 there.
23 When we both have started on a particular issue, 24 there is feedback through our process.
We find when INPO issues an SOER or NRC issues an information notice, 25 often in a
o 35 1
few months there is a flurry of reports from utilities that 1
2 suddenly recognize something they hadn't previously, that 3
reinforces that particular issue.
4 There is a synergism there that I didn't bring out.
S MR. TAYLOR:
In fact, the bulletin on steam binding 6
of auxiliary feedwater pumps started out as an INPO SOER.
Then 7
we tracked through that with INPO's knowledge and there were a 8
few cases in which appropriate action hadn't been taken and we d
9 covered that by bulletin action.
In general, people paid f
10 attention to that because that is an emergency demand, when you 11 need those pumps, you need them now.
It was a simple technical 12 problem, back leakage, feedwater back flashing into the 13 turbine.
Usually they are Terry Turbines.
14 When people didn't incorporate into their procedures 15 to check for this, it took some tima.
Those few remaining that 16 hadn't done it, we covered by bulletin.
17 Is that correct?
18 MR. JORDAN:
Yes.
19 MR. TAYLOR:
It works together, so to speak.
20 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
It might be helpful for the staff to 21 put together a paper for the Commission that would address the 22 subject of recommendations and suggestions.
You can add j
23 anything else to that you would like to.
I think that would be 24 helpful, to show us how you make that determination.
25 I would like to ask NRR to respond very briefly.
How
O g
36 1
do you handle the recommendations ~you get from AEOD and how do 2
you prioritize them?
Can you respond to that briefly?
3 MR. ROSSI:
Sure.
The Division of Operational Events f
4 Assessment within NRR is responsible for coordinating all the j
5 responses to the AEOD recommendations.
Within our division we 6
have one branch, which is the Generic Communications Branch, 7
that does that work. AEOD recommendations, of course, would get 8
looked at first of all to see whether they warrant information 9
notices or bulletins, and that judgment is made by the safety 10 priority that we would put with the recommendations.
i 11 l
In the case of a high safety significance item that 12 AEOD would turn up, generally that would be brought to our
)
13 attention well in advance of the recommendation in writing.
If 14 it warranted a bulletin, if sie got the formalized review and 15 cost benefit analyses to justify a bulletin, we would go with a 16 bulletin.
17 I
Information notices, we would judge them 18 qualitatively as to the importance of informing the industry of 19 the problem in addition to other ways of information that they 20 might get.
21 Other things that we would do are perhaps generic 22 letters or changes to the Standard Review Plan, temporary 23 instructions.
In all of those, again, we would have I
24 qualitative judgments on the safety priority and risk of what 25 ought to be done.
I j
37 I
1 The last thing, of course, that happens with the
~ ~.
2 recommendations is that they go as generic issues, and because 3
of the nature of the AEOD studies, a large number of them do 4
end up as possible generic issues.
Generic issues now are 5
primarily the rras ;nsibility of Rosearch, and we work closely e
6 with them, but they have a very systematic and quantitative way 7
of prioritizing any of the recommendations that fall into that 8
generic issue category.
It is very systematic and 9
quantitative, and of course, the priority that falls out of 10 that determines how they get worked on.
11 So that is basically what we do.
l i
12 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Do the other two major 13
- offices, i
k NMSS and Research, have similar programs to NRRs for 1
14 handling AEOD recommendations?
i 15 MR. TAYLOR:
We have representatives of those offices 1
16 here.
17 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Tine.
18 MR. TAYLOR:
Warren Minners, I believe you are here, 19 and Glen Sjoblom.
You may want to mention --
20 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Please step up and identify yourself 21 for the reporter, please.
22 MR. MINNERS:
Warren Minners for the Office of 23 Research.
Yes.
As Ernie said, we have a very formalized 24 program for AEOD recommendations. It is the prioritization 25 program. I would discuss in detail --
l 1
38 1
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
No, I just want.to make sure you have 1
^
-1
~
2 a program in place.
i 3
MR. MINNERS:
Yes, there is a program in place.
4 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
How about NMSS?
5 MR. SJOBlOM:
I am Glen Sjoblom from the Division of 6
Industrial and Nuclear Medical Safety.
We also have i
7 arrangements that are the same,' basically, as the other 1
8 offices.
I might point out that we ask for special studies 9
from AEOD when and incident occurs that appears particularly I
10 significant, such as the mis-administration up in New York 11 recently. Although it was an agreement state, we asked AEOD to i
12 study that.
i 13 s
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Very good.
14 MR. SJOBLOM:
We have monthly meetings where we review all the incidents in our area, and we invite AEOD to be I
15
{
l 16 present at those, and that is done at the office director l
17 level.
1 We also have an annual meeting with AEOD to review 18 their annual reports, their non-reactor' events reports that 19 they make every year, plus a number of other things.
4 20 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you very much.
21 The last question, then, I guess, Mr. Taylor, and 22 perhaps you can answer this for me, is do you know if the EDO's 23 office has any system to assure that AEOD's recommendations are 24 across the board being responded to?
25 MR. TAYLOR:
We do get their report, and I believe
m........
1 1
4 39 i
1
.there were a couple that_you weren't quite satisfied with that
,m 2
you then, by virtue of our overview, took action to get the-3 right resolution with-the offices.-
You got the backing.
Isn't 4
that right?
5 MR. ROSENTHAL:
That's so.
6 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Good.
7 MR. TAYLOR:
So they do put out'-- I have-one in 8
front of me, a rather thick report on the subject.
9 CHAIRMAN ZECH:' AEOD has no qualms seeking the i
10 support of the EDO if it looks like some of your-1 11 recommendations are net being properly handled as far as you 12 are concerned.
13 MR. TAYLOR:
Not at all.
)
14 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Is that correct?
i
'i 15 MR. JORDAN:
Yes, sir.
16 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
That is important, I think, very l
17 important.
18 Unless my fellow commissioners have any closing 19 remarks, let me-just thank you all for a very fine presentation 20 on a very, very important subject.
I think all of us are 21 keenly aware of the great value of the AEOD organization-to the 22 whole nuclear regulatory process.
You are looking at' 23 operational matters that, as.Mr. Carr points out, show 24 mistakes, perhaps, show things that have happened and we should 25 learn from them.
40 j
1 Certainly it is important that some of the things q
2-that we are still learning, even some of the events that turn 3
up that indicate perhaps for the same time this situation i
4 occurred.
There are still things to learn in this activity of J
5 ours.
It is still a very demanding technology.
6 You have a very great responsibility in the office of 7
Analysis and Evaluation to serve the rest of the agency, and'I B
am sure that the other offices recognize your contribution.
It is awfully important that those three major offices do have a 9
10 program in place and follow through on your actions.
What you 11 are telling me here today is that you do have that kind of an 12 organization, and the DDo is busy, and his small group of 13 7 ^$
people that tries to follow the whole program is aware of what i
14 is going on, can help with prioritization if necessary and can 15 ensure that the important things the Office of AEOD comes up 16 with are followed through.
17 You have indeed made some significant contributions 18 recently, in my judgment.
That air studies was a very 19 important one, and others I have noted recently, too.
So your 20 opportunity to contribute to nuclear safety is a direct and 21 important one, and I know the Commission, I know I can speak 22 for all of them when I say that your responsibility is very 23 grave and we are keenly aware of the fact that you can help the 24 staff and you can help the Commission, you can help the agency.
25 You can help our country.
i 1
41 1
So I think that this -briefing today shows tte wide p
2 range of responsibilities that you have under your cognizance 3.
and I appreciate what you are doing for us.
Please know that 4
the commission deems what you are doing as extremely important,
]
I 5
and I think that as far as I am concerned, another session like j
6 this sometime not in the next month or so but sometime within i
7 the next six months, it seems to me, we-ought to hear from you 8
in a formal presentation like this to perhaps next time 9
summarize some of the key things you are looking.into, and 10 perhaps you can give us more-of a priority of'some of the 11 specific areas that you come up with, how the air study is 12 doing and things like that, and maybe the other offices could g'
13 respond, even.
(
14 But I am envisioning a meeting sometime not too far 15 away where you could come up with the things that are 16 important. The EDO could show us how he is following them and l
17 how the whole staff is responding, and we should probably hear 18 how the regional people are responding as well as the utilities 19 themselves.
So some kind of a summary like that next time 20 might be very appropriate.
21 MR. TAYLOR:
Yes, sir, selected issues that are 22 important.
23 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Right, the highest priority ones as 24 you see fit.
I think it would be very useful.
s 25 Are there any other comments?
4 4 42 1
COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
Just one.
As'you were talking O
it occurred to me that I wanted to just understand whether you 2
3 are thinking and what you are doing about.the storage of the 4
kind s information that you are collecting for the future.
5 Right now it has immediate applicability and so on and so 6
forth, but we all find that as years go on, we do tend to-7 reinvent the wheel and do tend to rediscover what already was 8
known a decade ago because it is sometimes hard to find that 9
and get our hands on it.
10 Just this morning I was over to the NMSS facility and 11 saw their really superb data storage system, which is_very 12 powerful and has enormous applicability to a number of 13 situations, and I just wondered to what extent you are using or 14 are planning to use that kind of system or something like it in 15 storing the kind of experiential data that you are collecting 16 and your reports in such a way that they can be accessed i
17 sometime in the future.
i
)
18 MR. JORDAN:
We are doing two things, I guess. One is 1
l 19 agency-wide.
There is a program called SINET, and somebody has 20 got to make the acronym up for me.
21 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Safety Information Network.
Thank 22 you.
23 MR. JORDAN:
We are participating with events and 24 plant data as the prototype, and actively so, so that is a 25 place where the material that is collected on events will be l
3
.o
... 4' 43 available agency-wide and in a more user-friendly fashion.
1
/
t -
I 2
In addition to that, we are looking at indexes and 3
cross indexes of previous AEOD publications much as we have 4
done with information notice" and bulletins because, as you 5
say, a residue grows and is useful if you can pour through it.
6 So we are working both of those avenues,' expecting.to 7
have then a way of making it available not only for our own 8
staff but for the agency and the public.
q 9
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you very much.-
10 Any other comments?
11
[No response.)
12 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you very much for an excellent
~.
13 presentation.
)
14 We stand adjourned.
15
[Whereupon, at 3:11 p.m. the meeting was concluded.]
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 s_.
4 o
~
-1 2
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:
Discussion of I'ntegratton of AE00 Reports Into the Regulatory Process' 8
PIACE OF MEETING:
Washington, D.C.
9 DATE OF MEETING: Thursday, September 10, 1987 10 e.-
11-were held as herein appears, and that this is the original-12 transcript thersor o r the file of the Commission taken f.
13 stenographically by me, tusreafter reduced to typewriting by 14 me or under the direction of th' court reporting company, and 15 that the transcript is a txue and,rccurate record of the 16 foregoing events.
17
]{ Ls_.-<-
~~~~~~~~Y y~n~n~74~aTi o n s Mar 19 20 21 22 Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
33 1
24 25 5
_________l---"
l~~
Document Control Desk, 016 Phillips TRAt!SM1TTAL T0:
f ADVANCED COPY TO:
The Public Document Room 9/////7 DATE:
/
E 5
FROM:
SECY Correspondence & Records Branch E;
Attached are copies of a Comnission meeting transcript and related meeting 5l document (s). They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List and h
E' placement in the Public Document Room. No other distribution is requested or
)
s required.
Meeting
Title:
(O N
@ /f#3 d AW i
JLe #f ALJAfh>
l f[/o[f ~/
N Closed pen Meeting Date:
i Item Description *:
Copies Advanced DCS T4 g
to PDR Copy g
1 g
i::
- 1. TRANSCRIPT 1
1 J
f l
E i::
k 2.
s.k 3'
n
(
4.
}
R s.
S 6.
2
- PDR is advanced one copy of each document, two of each SECY paper.
3 C&R Branch files the original transcript, with attachments, withcut SECY g
papers.
i menwmammenmwmemnananm4%wwwe4
- - - _ - - - - - - - --- -_--- -- -- _--