ML20246B212

Transcript of Commission 890602 Briefing in Rockville,Md Re Status of Tech Spec Improvement Program.Pp 1-34

ML20246B212
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/02/1989
From:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:
References
REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8907070239
Download: ML20246B212 (38)

Text

y

" MEWW60V6 Add *nwgwn%wdwnwgw;p;!;nwgg;pggggwggyggggggg k

TP.AH5MITTAl. TO:

t[

Occument Control Desk, 015 Phillips

.g.

j ADVANCED COPY TO:

The Public Document Room 7/8[87 DATE:

5.

j FROM:

SECY Correspondence & Records Branch E

Attached are copies of a Comission meeting transcript and related meeting i;

document (s). They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession t.ist and 2.

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

required.

=if Meeting

Title:

Shalms. on bbriuo d juk a.L nw

r

'8 I

to PDR Copy g

o

~

g

1. TRANSCRIPT 1

1 l

>l

l 2.

I l;

I) 3-

=5 l

15.

j 4.

}

!4 h

5.

6:

!l

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

C&R Branch files the original transcript, with attachments, without SECY Mo2 Ej papers.

8907070239 890602 PDR _10CFR n-

~

s*

r I-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS SION

Title:

BRIEFING ON STATUS OF TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM LOCatiOD:

ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND ha[6l JUNE 2, 1989 Pages:

34 PAGES NEALR.GROSSANDCO.,INC.

COURT REPORTERS /ND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 Rhode Island Ave.nue, Northwest l

Washington, D.C.

20005

/

(202) 234-4433 I

l I

.6

==

b DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on June 2, 1989, in the Commission's office at One White Flint

• North, Rockville, Maryland.

The meeting 'wa s open to public attendance and observation.

This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected or edited, and it may contain ir. accuracies.

The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.

As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.

Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs.

No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any' proceeding as the result of, or adjressed to, any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.

I 1

e HEAL R. GROSS l

court REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBER 5 1323 RHoDE ($ LAND AVINUE. H.W.

(202) 23 4 433 W ASHINGYoN. D.C.

20005 (202) 232-6600

4

(.

-4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA j

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION COMMISSION BRIEFING ON THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PUBLIC MEETING Nuclear Regulatory Commission One. White Flint North Rockville, Maryland Friday, June 2, 1989 The Commission met in open session, pursuant to notice, at 9:00 a.m.,

Lando W.

Zech, Jr.,

Chairman,

. presiding.

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:

LANDO W.

ZECH, JR.,

Chairman of the Commission THOMAS M. ROBERTS, Commissioner KENNETH C. ROGERS, Commissioner KENNETH M. CARR, Commissioner JAMES R. CURTISS, Commissioner NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANDTRANSCR$ERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 2M WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 232 4 600

1.Fii; s m,

.q.

i' 2

,yn

..T1=

-STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT THE COMMISSION TABLE:

1

~

SAMUEL J.

CHILK, Secretary 4

. WILLIAM C.

PARLER,' General Counsel CHARLES E. ROSS-THOMAS MURLEY l

JAMES.. TAYLOR i

MARK REINHART j

DAVID C.

FISCHER

1. :

L l

l NEAL R. GROSS j

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR!BERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234.4433 WASHfNGTON,DC 20005 (202) 232-6600

a..

3.

s-4,.

l' P-R-0-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 1.

l 2

9:50 a.m.

1 3

CHAIRMAN ZECH:

Good morning, ladies and l

l.

4 gentlemen.

l 5

We apologize for the delay.

In fact, our 6

utilities around here may be telling us something, I'm 7

not sure.

8 This morning the Commission will be briefed 9

.by representatives of the NRC Offic'e of Nuclear 10 Reactor Regulation concerning the status of' the 11 Technical Specifications Improvement Program.

The 12 Commission was last briefed on this subject on January 13 6,

1989 and we've recently received an excellent 14 status report on this subject dated May the 30th, 15 1989.

16 After the meeting in January, the Commission 17 requested the staff to provide this additional 18 briefing specifically to address implementation and 19 results of the Technical Specification Improvement 20 Program, including the status of the proposed final 21 policy statement on Technical Specification 22 Improvements and the adequacy of the criteria 23 developed by the staff and published in the interim 24 policy statement on Technical Specification 25 Improvements.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON. O C 20005 (202)232-6600 i

r w<

4'

.~,

1 This meeting is an. inf ormation meeting

'2 today.

I understand that copies of the slides are 1

3 available at the entrance to the room.

4 Do any of my fellow Commissioners have any 5

-comments.to make before we begin?

If not, Mr

Taylor, 6'

you may proceed.

7 MR. TAYLOR: ' Good morning, sir.

1

.8 The staff, in briefing you on this, would l

9 emphasize that the process and what is going on, and 10 the overall goal, is to improve operational safety 11 which, of course, is one of our major goals on your 12 part and the staff for operating reactors.

And so the 13 work that has been going on to resolve the 14 complexities and some of the issues and testing and so 15 forth is all geared to keep in mind that behind it is 16 to improve operational safety.

17 And with that introduction, I'll ask Dr..

18 Murley to commence the briefing.

19 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

Thank you very much.

20 Dr. Murley, you may proceed.

21 DR. MURLEY:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

22 When we were here in January briefing the 23 Commission, I sensed some concerns on the part of the 24 Commission; three in particular that I want to address 25 up front.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. O C 20005 (202) 232 4 600 b

i 5-o.

i 1

s 1

First was kind of the slow pace of events.

I 2

.In fact,-this is'a long program.

It's going to take 1

3 still another four to five years ' bef ore all of the 4

TECH SPECS for all the plans are updated.

We are 5

basically on schedule.

The pace of activities has j

6 recently picked up and Mark Reinhart will talk in 7

detail about the details of those activities.

But'I 4

8 want to make a point that we are not sitting and 9

waiting for the final standard TECH SPECS.

There are 10 many improvements that we're making.all along now in l

11 the current TECH SPECS that we have.

12 We've issued five generic letters approving 13

-line-item improvements.

For example, allowing 14 utilities to take the organization charts out of their 15 TECH SPECS.

That is now a line-item improvement that i

16 they come in and do right now.

17 We've also issued eight topical reports, 18 which allow certain improvements in TECH SPEC's j

I 19 surveillance testing intervals and that sort of thing.

20 And as of April of this year, we had had 123 requests 21 for improvements of those types, and we've issued 66 22 approvals and 57 were still under review, most likely 23 will be approved.

So we are moving ahead on 24 improvements, not waiting for the standard TECH SPECS l

25 package.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W i

(202) 234 4 33 WASHINGTON. O C 20006 (202) 232-6600 I

l 4

\\

l

?.

r 6

W E* '

1 A second concern that the Commission had, I 2

'believe, was the backlog of TECA SPEC amendments that

.3-is in our action file.

And that is a concern, and we j.

4 have taken some significant management actions in the l

l 5

last five months to improve that, one of which was a l

6.

task force that I put in place starting in March.

So l

l-7 for the last three months, March, April and May,.this 8

task force has been looking at ways to improve the 9

backlog.

And I can report today that we've made 10 significant progress.

11 Of the 285 TECH SPECS amendments that were 12 over two years old, some of these go back to the early 13 1970s and very, very old, we've taken action on 249 of 14 those, which is 87 percent.

There are 36 remaining 15 and we believe that of those 36, 21 will be completed 16 this month.

So there will be about 15 of the 285 17 original TECH SPEC amendments over two years old, 18 there will be 15 only, we call them the "hard core 19 tough ones," that will remain probably for yet a 20 couple more months to complete.

So I think we have 21 made progress on cleaning up the backlog and we have a 22 paper coming to the Commission that's going to explain 23 how we'll keep it cleaned up.

24 COMMISSIONER CARR:

Of those 249, how many 25 were actually completed and how many of them were sent NEAL R. GROSS

- 0VRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS v

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C 20005 (202) 232 6600

G 7

s.

, n. -

.,1

. 1..

back for. other 'information or returnad to the issuer 4

2~

or.something?

3' DR.

MURLEY:

Yes, I don ' t have'a firm 4

estimate, but the staff tells me they think about 75

'5 percent we a c t e d -- o n positively.

And the others we 6

either sent back or: we needed more information on 7

those.

8 COMMISSIONER CARR:

Okay.

9 DR. MURLEY:

The Commission also had asked 10 on.how were.we going to respond to all these 4

11-applications when they do come in?

And I don't have

- 12 the organization.yet in place for that, but the plans

. 13 are that we'll have a separate branch, that is I

14 probably the current branch that we have but it'll be l

15 beefed up to act on the standard TECH SPECS when they 16 come in so that we can ac t expeditiously when they 17 come in.

18 Finally, there was a question on the part of 19 the Commission, I thought, about working closely with 20 industry.

We are, in fact, working, I feel, very 21 well, very cicsely with industry.

The staff tells me 22 they interact almost weekly by phone and probably i

23 monthly meetings with NUMARC and the owners groups on 24 the standard TECH SPECS.

In addition, I neet with the 25 NUMARC executive group probably once every few months NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANDTRANSCRit3ERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

l (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 232M

~,

8

*/

1 to make sure that this program stays on track.

I 2

recently', I would say within the last month, met with.

3 the group again and Murray Adleman chairs it for 4

NUMARC.

And they seemed to be pleased that things are 5

generally on track.

So we intend to keep it that way.

6 So with those introduction remarks, then 7

I'll turn it over to Mark Reinhart.

8 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

Before we do that, Dr.

9 Murley, let me just say from my personal prospective I 10 reallj appreciate the leadership you've show in this

]

11 program because I do think your personal involvement 12 is the reason we really are making progress now.

And 13 I know it's taken some of your time, as well as your 14 people, but I really do believe that your personal 15 involvement and your willingness to tackle this 16 problem, and it is a big problem and it has been for 17 some time, frankly has been a big part, anyway, of why 18 we're starting to make real progress.

And I 19 appreciate that effort.

20 DR. MURLEY:

And we're committed to wrestle 21 this down until we've got it fixed for once and for 22 all.

23 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

Well, I appreciate that.

24 And again, I appreciate your own involvement in it 25 because I

know that you have

many, many NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANv TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234 4 33 WASHINGTON D C 20005 (202) 232-6&B I

9 l

l 1

responsibilities and this in only ona othar ono.

But l

2 we are making progress and I appreciate your efforts i

3 in that regard.

l 4

All right, Mr. Reinhart, you may continue.

5-

-- Proceed.

i 6

MR.

REINHART:

Could we have slide 2,

7 please?

(Slide 2.)

8 The Technical Specifications Improvement 9

Program with the goal of improving operational safety 10 is implementing the Commission's interim policy 11 statement of February 1987 by using three aspects:

12 development of new standard technical specifications, 13 a parallel program for line-item improvements and 14 other supporting activities.

We feel we're making 15 significant progress in each of those areas.

16 On the next slide we see the status of the 17 development of the new standard technical 18 specifications.

If we could have 3, please?

(Slide).

19 Based on the staff's report, commonly called 20 the Split Report, which gave the staff's conclusions 21 on which limiting conditions for operation of the 22 current standard technical specifications would be 23 included in the new standard technical specifications, l

24 and which of those requirements may be relocated to 25 licensee control documents.

Based on that report, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 232-M40

10 e

1 industry proposed to offer the staff new STS by Merch 2

of 1989.

While industry was working on those proposed i

3 new S T S,. the staff o n eloped a process and an 4

ambitious schedule which woul/ review and issue an SER 5

on-each of-those documents ten months following a 6

submittal.

And our slide shows the dates that we 7

received the submittal from each of the owners groups, 8

the most recent -- the main bulk of the submittal came 9

in last night.

And based on those submittals, our 10 SERs are scheduled for February through April, 1990.

11 The first step of the staff's process is to 12 perform an acceptance review where we look at the 13 submittal and determine if we have enough information 14 to start that review.

We've completed that review for 15 the Westinghouse submittal and are almost through the 16 B&W and the General Electric or BWR submittals.

17 Based on the Westinghouse acceptance review, 18 we accepted the document, however there were a number 19 of proposed changes that went beyond what we 20 anticipated and within complete justification, we felt j

21 that we had to look into that a little bit before we 22 could absolutely determine the impact on our schedule.

l 23 We believe at this point, with Westinghouse's 24 response, we've been able to or will be able to absorb j

25 that and still meet our February 1990 SER date.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON. D.C 20005 (202) 232-6600 I

\\

1 11 1

The Combustion Engineering owners group

~~

2 submittal will go into-an acceptance review starting 3

next week.

4 If we could see the next. slide, (Side),

5 the9r. new STS will be implemented by plant specific 6

conversions.

I want to point out that we have five 7

lead sites providing conversions and their submittals 8

are due in September and October 1989, which is before, 9

he nen STS are approved.

What we hope to do is take

'O the new STS and look at that implemented on an actual i

plant to try and learn between the theoretical and the 12

applied, if you will, so that-we can feed back 13 anything that we learn into the new STS development.

14 The license amendments for those submittals 15 are due nine months following their submittal.

And 16 we're looking at a June / July time frame of 1990.

The 17 five lead conversions: the sites for Westinghouse are 18 North Anna 1 and 2; General Electric is Hatch 2 and 19 Grand Gulf 1; Babock and Wilcox is Crystal River 3, 20 and Combustion Engineering is San Onofre 2 and 3.

21 Westinghouse North Anna plant is planning in coming in to talk to the staff the week after next 22 l

23 regarding their lead plant submittal.

So even that's 24 going on as the development of the new STS progresses.

25 COMMISSIONER CARR:

Why did you pick two NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W WASHINGTON, D C 20005 (202) 232 4 600 (202) 23W33

12 1

aiton for the GE?

l 2

MR. ROINHART:

The Hatch plant is a BWR-4 3

design and the Grand Gulf is a BWR-6 and GE felt that 4

the differences in those two designs were significant 5

enough that they wanted to test out th'ir new STS on 6

two sites.

7 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:

Do you have a feel 8

yet whether the substance of the changes will involve 9

significant hazards considerations?

10 MR. REINHART:

Do I have a feel for what?

11 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:

If the subject of the 12 amendment, in incorporating the technical i

13 specification changes, would involve significant 14 hazards consideration?

15 MR.

REINHART:

I think our feeling now, 16 Commissioner, is that it would not involve a 17 significant hazards consideration.

18 Following the lead plants, we anticipate at 19 this time 70 to 80 additional conversions between 1990 20 and 1995.

To efficiently use our resources to review 21 those submittals, the staff is working on a 22 certification process by which the licensee would

/

23 certify that he's adopted the new STS to the extent 24 practicable and then he certifies that he's identified 25 and justified all deviations from those new STS.

The NEAL R. GROSS l

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 13?3 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 232M 1

13 l :..

11 staff's,0ffort would involve an audit of the sample to-i.

2 verify that, in fact, he did adopt a new STS and then l

3' a technical review of all of the deviations and all of 4

the justifications.

'5' We anticipate a six to nine month review of 6

.those follow on conversions and the time difference is 7

going to depand en the extent to which they adopt a 8

new STS or take deviations.

The more deviations, the 9

longer it will be to review.

10 Go to the next slide, please, 5.

(Slide).

11 The specific request the Commission made in the staff 12 requirements memo on the final policy statement, the-13 first was the staff's intent to submit the final la policy statement.

We're scheduled to submit that on 15 September 1, 1989 and our intent is to meet that date.

16 However, we are learning and are continuing to learn 1*/

during the review process, and from what we learn we 18 may find some reasons that we could come in and ask 19 for an extension for that time.

20 As far as the acceptability of the criteria 21 based on what we're learning, the acceptability is 22 still under revien.

During the Split Report we 23 identified several issues that needed clarification on 24 the proper implementation and application of the 25 criteria, and they are included in that Split Report.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 hMODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W j

(202)234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 232 4 600 1

14 j

1 Our intent in to fcctor thoco into the final policy 2

statement.

i 3

If we could identify one primary issue, it 4

would be a need to clarify the criteria's need to 5

capture active-design features in operating l

6 restrictions that keep the plant within its design 7

basis.

We're talking about things like the pressure 8

temperature limits for brittle fracture 9

considerations, we're looking at things like the high 10 pressure / low pressure interfaces between the primary 11 and secondary decay heat removal system that would be 12 actuated or allowed a permissive on pressure changes.

13 Those particular items weren't clearly captured by the 14 criteria and we feel we need to clarify that somehow.

15 As I said, we are 1, earning as we are working 16 with industry's proposal on the new STS.

For example, 17 we have two of the three submittals at least have 18 taken some deviations from the Split Peport as the 19 staff issued it, and we'd like to take a look at their 20 reasonings to see what motivated that action and we 21 hope that we can learn from that.

22 Our priority over the next several months, 23 we feel, has to be on the review of the new STS.

24 If we could go to the next slide, (Slide),

25 we go to the second of three aspects of the TECH SPEC NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS i

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, O C 20005 (202) 232-6600 1

_.____________._________d

n 15 g

1 improvement prcgram.

The first wa discussed ucs I

I 2

development of'the new STS.

The second is the program 6

3 for line-item improvements.

As it was mentioned, we 4

have approved five generic letters, eight topical 5

reports.

These are currently available for licensees 6

to implement if they submit an amendment request.

We 7

expect to factor these and others that are under 8

development now into the new STS that would eliminate 9

any need for licensees to specifically adopt these 10 amendments if they adopt a new STS.

11 Our next slide talks about our other 12 supporting activities.

That's slide 7.

(Slide)..The 13 first of those is a guidance document for 10 CFR 50.59 16 which governs licensee safety evaluations for changes, 15 tests or experiments they make to their facility.

16 Industry proposed a guidance document, the staff 17 commented on their second draft, returned comments to 1

18 industry in May of 1989.

We expect to see industry 19 issue their document called NSAC 125 this month.

And 20 the staff expects to participate in some workshops 21 with the industry on that document this month also.

9 22 Our activity on reduced testing, the staff 23 has completed the second draft of that report.

We 24 expect to go to CRGR with that report this summer and 25 we'll implement that in two ways.

Overall, we expect NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON.DC 2000$

(202) 232-6600 1

16

=.. w 1

-to take all those. recommendations on reduced testing 2

and put them into the new - STS during the review c

3 period.

.We also were looking for a'few of the more

.4 safety significant aspects ' and initiate two, three, 5

four, whatever it comes out to, generic letters to get 6

those aspects available to licensees as soon as 7

possible.

8 The final aspect of our supporting 9

activities is the risk based technical specification,

.10 which is more of a future development but currently 11 there is a working group that's been established and 12-it plans towards developing a prototype of a

13 configuration and management system at an actual plant r

14 site and use that plant's current PRA in developing 15 this program.

16 Slide 8, please.

(Slide).

17.

CHAIRMAN ZECH:

Before you go to that one.

18 MR. REINHART:

Sure.

19 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

On reduced testing, is that q

20 going to encompass diesel generators and reduced j

1 21 testing of diesel generators?

22 MR. REINHART:

Yes, sir.

What we've done i

I 23

there, I might put up either backup slide B-2, it 24 gives a few aspects of that.

Could I have backup 25 slide B-2, please.

(Slide).

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RMODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005 (202) 232 4 600

17 l

l 1

Ws otort with the chronology of wharo wa cro

^*

• 2 in the development.

But implementation, we mentioned j

l 3

that the changes are to be factored into the new STS 4

and the more significant ones, as generic letters, one 5

-of the generic letters we already have in progress l

L 6

addresses what we've learned from the diesel generator 7

activity.

And between that generic letter and 8

revision three to Reg. Guide 1.9 which research is 9

currently working on, we believe that all cf the 10 benefits that we derive from that report will be 11 included in those two documents.

So we have an 12 aggressive effort in addition to that report working 13 on the diesel generator aspects.

14 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

Thank you very much.

15 COMMISSIONER CARR:

What time frame do you 16 have on that revision to the Reg. Guide and generic 17 letter on diesel?

18 MR.

REINHART:

The generic letter, we're fall time frame.

The Rev 3 to Reg.

19 looking for a 20 Guide 1.9 we believe was probably looking towards 21 summer to late summer.

22 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

All right, let's proceed.

23 MR. REINHART:

If we could go back to slide 24 8,

please.

(Slide).

We feel that the Technical 25 Specification Improvement Program is moving in the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIEtERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C 23005 (202) 232-6600 l

l

4 4 i

l-18 l

1 right dircetion to improva oparationni Defety and will 2

result in more reliable and efficient plant l

3 operations.

We' feel that we've made and will 4

continue to make significant progress in each of these 5

three are:s; development of the new STS, the parallel 6

program for line-item improvements which will 7

continue, and in bringing our supporting activities to 8

completion.

9 That concludes the presentation.

10 CHAIRMAN '4ECH:

All right.

Thank you very l

l l

11 much.

12 DR. MURLEY:

I have one point that I might 13 add, Mr. Chairman. I probably should have mentioned it 14 earlier.

But it has to do with resources.

And the 15 Commission is, I think, properly concerned that we be 16 organized as efficiently as we can be.

We have some i

17 experience in recent conversion to TECH SPECS.

We 18 reviewed the Turkey Point 3 and 4 conversion to 19 current standard TECH SPECS.

And that required two 20 calender years and one and a half staff years to do 21 that review and conversion.

Now, if you multiple that 22 by the 70 to 80 conversions that we expect in 1990 to I

23

1995, you see we're talking a large number of j

24 resources.

So we do expect to organize ourselves to 25 be more efficient.

But, nonetheless, I think it's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER $ ANDTRANSCR$[R$

• 323 RHOQ[ l$ LAND AV[NUE. N W f202)2 % 4 33 WASHINGTON D C PKE

(?M 232-6000 l

g...

19 1

still going to require additional resourcos and the 2

budget ' -- the EDO budget that has been sent to you 3'

does include our estimated --

4 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:

You mean it does?

5 DR. MURLEY:

It does, yes, for fiscal

'91.

6 I just wanted to mention that.

7 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

All right.

Thank you very 8

much.

Does that conclude the staff briefing, Mr.

9 Taylor?

{

10 MR.

TAYLOR:

That concludes the staff's 11 presentation.

12 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

All right.

Questions from 13 my! fellow Commissioners?

Commissioner Roberts?

14 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:

I don't have any 15 question, but a comment.

I think this is a very 16 important program.

Unfortunately, it's not glionorous, 17 it's not high profile, it's not solving an immediate 18 problem that's gotten everybody's attention., but I 19 think it is terribly important.

And I hope that you 20 will continue to provide good people to work on it, 21 which you're doing now, and continue to provide the 22 resources to get the job done.

This is slow, long, 23 hard work but it's terribly important.

And again, it 24 is not a glamorous job, per se, but it is terribly 25 important.

That's all I have.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR$tR$

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 734 4433 WASHINGTON. D C 23005 (202) 232MT

20 1

DR. MURLEY:

Wa hnva very good pnoplo --

l' 2

COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:

I think you do, but 3

don't let the next crisis snatch these people away to I

4 put out the little brush fire.

And that's going to 5

happen, as you well know.

I mean, there are going to 6

be brush fires.

7 DR.

MURLEY:

I've resisted that and I 8

understand your point exactly.

9 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:

Okay.

That's all I 10 have.

l 11 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

Thank you.

Commissioner 12 Carr?

13 COMMISSIONER CARR:

Well, I'm encouraged by 14 what appears to be significant progress and I 15 compliment you on that.

I'm a little -- I still don't 16 have a feel for how many technical specs have actually 17 been changed, say, in the last six months.

When the 18 backlog comes down, does that mean you've actually 19 changed some technical specs?

20 DR. MURLEY:

Yes.

I don't have the latest 21 statistics.

As I said, of the 249 of the over two 22 year old TECH SPECS that we've acted on, staff tells 23 me about 75 percent of those.

So that would be about 24 200 actually involved changes of those.

25 COMMISSIONER CARR:

Okay.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 2344 433 WASHINGTON.O C 20005 (202) 232-6600 1

l

j..

33

?,- g m..

1 DR. ' MURLEY:

Now, in addition, ons has to 2

add the normal routine TECH SPECS that come.in and are 3

acted on within a matter of a few months.

But we're 4

putting them out.

5 COMMISSIONER CARR:

Yes.

I guess I'm 6

feeling around for some kind of a score sheet where I

)

1 7

can measure-progress, but I'm not sure I want to make 8

it meet it based just I don't want you to stop I

9 doing work to make a score sheet, but I'd feel 10 comfortable if I knew how far you've come and how far l

11 you've got to go, you know.

And other than that, I 12 think, I certainly agree with Commissioner Roberts, 13 it's one of my favorite programs.

Progress is what 14 I'm looking for.

15 I'm with the Chairman.

For three years I've 16 been hearing about we're over testing the diesels.

So 17 it seems like it'd be simple to just say, "Well, quit 18 testing them so much."

19 MR. ROSS:

But let me add something here.

20 COMMISSIONER CARR:

We've got another year 21 to go to say that, you know.

22 MR. ROSS:

Let me add something to what Dr.

23 Murley said about TECH SPEC amendments.

NRR receives l

24 an excess of 1,000 technical specification amendment 1

1 25 requests each yar and we complete approximately that

~

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOCE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20006 (202) 232-6600

E,,

22 1,

1 onmo number of amandmant requests each year.

So thare 2

are a 1,000 coming in each year and we complete about 1

3 a 1,000 each year.

4 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

Commissioner Rogers?

5 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:

I just wanted to get a 6

little more information on the relocation of cycle 7

specific parameter limits.

Can you teli me a little 8

bit more about what that entails and how it relates to 9

the need to capture active design features?

l 10 MR. REINHART:

Yes, sir.

The cycle specific 11 parameters really focuses on what has come to be 12 called a core operating limits report.

And those are 13 things like parameters that will change each refueling 14

-- they're primarily nuclear.

There are some others 15 that aren't necessarily nuclear, but they're related 16 and those type of things are what are going into this 17 core operating limits report.

18 There's a couple of plants outside of this 19 program, Oconee was the lead plant, has submitted a 20 core operating limits report, has it approved, 21 they're, in fact, the lead plant on that activity.

22 The new STS is building that in.

We had a 23 meeting just about two weeks ago with industry to 24 discuss in detail what types of items could go in and 25 what would stay out.

Now that really is separate from NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR;BERS 13_3 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 232 4 600 tI

l(.

23 l-a,

1 your question on tha nosd to capture active design 4 *-

2 features.

Those aren't limits that change cycle-to-3.

cycle, but things.like if you look at the pressure 4

temperature curve.

.The way the industry first looked 5

at that they go, " Wow,-that's not an initial condition l

6 to a design basis accident."

We said, "Well, wait a 7

minute, that's to keep you from getting outside of the f

i 8

bounds so you won't have an accident in unanalyzed l

l' j

9 conditions."

So there's really two different issues.

l 10 there.

J 11 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:

Yes, I understand now 12 what the difference is.

I just couldn't tell from 13 what happened before.

14 Could you say a little bit more about the 15 risk based technical specs working group?

Whose l

16 involved, what's the schedule for it and what it's 17 really supposed to accomplish?

18 MR. REINHART:

I have a backup, slide for i

l 19 that.

It's B-3, if we could look at that, please 20 (Slide).

Could we have backup slide B-3, please.

21 Okay, there it is.

22 The risk based technical specifications w.*-'

23 has a goal to develop a real time risk based 24 configuration management system that looks at a plant 25 and based on equipment that's out of service right now NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER 3 AND TRANSCR!BERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON.DC 20005 (202) 232-6600

1 24 4

y, ' s,'

l' what 'is the risk of doing a test or taking another 2

piece of equipment out of service?

I' 3

COMMISSIONER ROGERS:

Yes.

Good.

l

~4 MR.

REINHART:

Ed Butcher, who is here 5

today, has -established a working group to start some 1

6 work on this.

The working group includes the Nuclear 7

Regulatory Commission, Science Applications 8

International Corporation, three utilities have 9

volunteered:

Southern California Edison Company, 10 Philadelphia Electric Company, Pacific Gas and 11 Electric Company.

And that group plans to,

first, 12 resolve technical and institutional issues that are 13 needed to get such a program in place, look at the 14 costs involved and then to provide some guidance on 15 practical issues, the software.

How do we develop the 16 software that's being developed today?

What kind of 17' hardware is involved?

How can we have it interactive 18 that we can get real time results?

And they're really 19 looking at having this prototype demonstration at an 20 operating reactor that can put that into effect while 21 the current TECH SPECS are still there, but still get 22 a feel for what benefits will be derived, f

l 23 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:

That strikes me'as a 24 very important program.

25 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:

Excuse me.

Can we NEAL R. GROSS 1

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON. O C. 23005 (202) 232-6600 n

- - -. _. -. _ _ - -. _. -.. - - _ _. -. - _ - ~

i

.4 e

25 s,'

1 1

see the slide again?

(Slide).

How does Science 2

Applications International Corporation function?

Are 3

they a consultant to the NRC?

4 MR..REINHART:

I believe so. Maybe Ed could 5

address that for us.

Ed?

6 COMMISSIONER CARR:

Imagine they developed 7

the software.

8 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

Would you step to the 9

microphone-and identify yourself to the reporter, 10 please?

11 MR. BUTCHER:

My name is Ed Butcher.

I was 12 the former chief of the technical specifications 13 branch and was involved with initiating this program.

14 Science Applications International, I guess 15 it is now, is the primary contractor and consultant to 16 the NRC in this program.

This specific system is 17 somewhat patterned after some systems which were 18 developed, I guess, in the last couple of years in 19 Europe but we, as a part of this program, went to 20 Great Britain and observed their ESSH, essential 21 system status monitor program in operation there.

It 22 was a very impressive system.

23 It's principle value is that it gives you a 24 real time estimate of the actual risk of the 25 configuration that you happen to be in.

It's not NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 2M WASHINGTON, D C 20005 (202)2324 600

. c.

26

,, %.,e -

4 '+

1 besod upon s o m e' theoretical projections of failure 2

rates a n d.' o f recurrence intervals f or accident'

.3 sequences.

It's based upon the.real configuration of 4

the plant.

5 Such a system is also under development for

'6 the new generation of reactors that are planned ' by -

l 1

7' Rumania right now.

Science Application in conjunction 8

with funding through, I think it's the International l

9 Atomic' Energy Agency is developing such a system'to 10 function as the technical specifications' for that 11 future generation of nuclear reactors as opposed to the determin'stic system that we have now.

i 12 13 It is a very powerful system.

I've seen it 14 in operation, personally.

Southern California Edison 15 has an ad hoc version of this sort of an approach in 16 place right now where they actually review the 17 operating configurations that existed, say, over the 18 last three months and they go back and take that data 19 and rerun their PRA based upon actual configurations 20 as opposed to theoretical assumed entries into 21 different allowed outage times.

And they find the 22 peaks: and valleys in risk that result from that and 23 then they go back and review operations, operating 24 procedures so that they outlaw those configurations in 25 the future.

When you do that, what you find is there NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 232 6600

27 1

is a steady dselina in rink from oparation.

This is 2

one of those strange and unusual opportunities to have 3

.your cake and eat it, so to speak, at the same time.

4 You can improve the availability, the reliability of 5

the facility and at the same time reduce risk and you 6

can show through rigorous evaluation that that has 7

actually occurred.

8 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:

I would think the 9

utilities would be terribly interested in this?

10 MR. BUTCHER:

Yes, sir, they are.

We've had 11 a great deal of interest and they've been willing to 12 come forward and volunteer to participate in this 13 program.

We hope'to be able to develop a pilot for it 14 and actually demonstrate it in parallel with the 15 existing technical specifications, as Mark Reinhart 16 has indicated.

And we think we can show that it will, 17 in fact, improve safety over the current deterministic 18 system of technical specifications.

It's only in the 19 last five -- I'd say five,.seven, eight years that the 20 technology of risk analysis and the hardware and the 21 software have developed to the point where this is now 22-a practical alternative.

23 COMMISSIONER CARR:

But the improvement in 24 safety comes from alerting you to possible things that 25 could happen when you have a piece of equipment out NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBER $

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 2MV.

WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 232-6600 l

t j

v, 4

I f';

28 r

s:

,,(

1.-

.but rightinow.you can't take cil the tima to analyzo

]

2' it?

3

.MR.

' BUTCHER:

Exactly.

I can-give you a l

4 very graphic example.

One of the first things it will 1

5 show you is that - you ought not be doing routine l

li 6

maintenance on the main feed' water system at the same 7-time you're.doing it on auxiliary feed water system.

f 1

8 That's almost common sense, but as a practical matter l

9 there's nothing in the current deterministic specs j

k 10 that-deal with things like that.

It would also tell 1

11 you' don't do: diesel testing or maintenance at the same 12 time that you're doing routine balance of plant 13 testing in the switch yard.

It would eliminate those 14 kinds of scenarios that actually represent precursors 15 to severe accidents.

There are major implications in j

16 that area for programs and systems like this.

17

' CHAIRMAN ZECH:

Thank you very much.

18 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:

Is this an expensive i

19 operation to work out?

Presumably, it's quite plant d

20 specific so that each plant has to go through an 21 analysis.

Is there anything else that we're doing and 1

22 requiring in, say, the IPEs that could make for an i

23 economy of scale effort here so that the benefits of 24 this could also be derived partly as a result of other 25 work that has to be done as part of an IPE?

I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234 4 33 WASHINGTON. D C M (202) 232-6600

^

29 j

. 4.g e t * -

l

.1 DR. MURLEY:

We haven ' t totally' thought it 2

out, so I'll just have to give you my top-of-the-head 3

answer.

In order to implement this, it requires a PRA 4

type of analysis.

At least you have to know the 5

systems and have a model for your plant.

It could 1

j l

6 very well be that the type of analysis that is being

.7 gone through for the IPE, most of which will be a PRA,

]

8 could form the basis for these kinds of risk based 9

TECH SPECS in the future.

We haven't taken that step 10 yet because I think we're doing it kind of exactly the 11 right way.

Try it out on a couple of plants with a 12 few volunteers, see how it work and then as it works--

13 I think this has two big applications.

One is for 14 future designs.

I think we can move to it relatively 15 quickly while their still preparing their TECH SPECS.

16 And then as other plants develop PRAs, we might look 17 to this to be the next phase, I would say maybe five 18 to ten years from now.

19 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:

It's just that it has 20 such an immediate application right now.

21 MR.

TAYLOR:

We all know about the air 22 system and air system problems and the problems with 23 compressors and backup air systems.

And that's a 24 perfectly good example of where this type of thing may 25 begin to tell you the unexpected failure in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 232M

30 j

..w v,.

. 1 comprocsors that you're on your May to more risks then E

2 you need and that's a complex systemin many plants.

3 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:

Well, it's a real aid

~

4 to operators, I would think, in avoiding any 5

difficulties.

And it brings the whole plant together 6

as

a. unit, in a sense.

And it seems to me it's got 7

all the good features that you really want.

8-MR. TAYLOR:

And it will provido'us with a

'9 more rational basis for 2imiting condition of 10 operation outage times.

Those times are usually just 11 set by judgment, engineering judgment, many of which 12 go back ten to 20 years, probably.

But this 13 methodology will allow us to have a rational basis for 14 these times.

15 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:

Well, just as 16 Commissioner Roberts has praised the general program, 17 which I also think is very important, it seems to me 18 this is also extremely important.

We didn't hear 19 enough about it, I think.

I think during your 20 presentation I know you have a lot of other things to 21 talk about, but I would want you to really keep 22 pushing on that and to think of ways in which we can 23 help to coordinate efforts so that there isn't a 24 requirad duplication of effort to put this in in 25 addition to an IPE; that somehow linking those two NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202)232-(400 (202) 234 4433

._m_____m_____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _.

.__m

. 31 l

7-f,..

3 +,

1 toga'har through our actions would make en' awful lot f-2 of sense.

o

' I might suggest that there be a MR. TAYLOR:

3

'd Commission briefing sometime in the future when this 5

' working group gets a little' more work. done as to 6

progress.

And maybe we can arrange that at the 7

appropriate time.

It would be months before- -

i.

8 specifically on this topic when it's-sufficiently 9

developed.

'10 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:

Well, I heard about this British system when I was in England a few weeks 11 12 ago and I was very impressed with it.

And it seemed to me that it's something worth pursuing.

13 14 Thank you.

15 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

All right.

Thank you very 16 much.

Commissioner Curtiss?

17 18 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:

I don't have any 19 questions.

20 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

All right.

Well, let me 21 thank all of you for a very informative discussion 22 this norning.

I think that you can see the interest 23 the Commission has on this subject, not only by having 24 the meeting here, of course, follow on to the meeting 25 we had in January, but also the questions and the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 (202) 232-6600 (202) 234g

_ _. U

Y-

_,.] *

'l comm2nto you've haard frcm the Commissioners to show.

2 our real interest in this program.

And so we do 3

commend the staff for your efforts and we are 4

encouraged, I think, by the results we've seen today.

5 I think another Commission briefing here in 6

the future, perhaps, focusing on some of the risk 7

based issues and how they are applicable to the 8

recommendations to the utilities as regards, for 9

example, the specific testing that you pointed out and 10 how we look at that in a more integrated sort of way 11 rather than specific testing of systems.

Those are 12 very, very important matters, I think, and as we all 13

know, could bear directly on the operation of the 14 plant, safety and reliability both.

15 So I think as you described today, too, 16 obviously significant additional work remains to be 17 accomplished before all the safety benefits from this 18 program can be realized at the plants, but I do think 19 another briefing of the Commission in the future would 20 be certainly appropriate.

But I commend you for the 21 continuing effort you've made and the hard work you've 22 put into improving technical specifications.

And it's 23 so clear that the obvious safety and reliability 24 benefits can result from this program, that it is 25 worth all the effort that is going into it.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202)232 4000 (202) 234 4433

c:

-33

, 9. ' '

f, 1

And'I command the' utilities, also,i who have 2

volunteered to be part of this program.

To me it's l

l 3

. clearly. in their best interest and not only. theirs, 1

4 but all the other utilities, too, can benefit from the L

5

- results of this very fine effort.

l 6

I'd also encourage you to continue working 7

with the industry towards the adoption of the uniform 1

8 standard for performance of safety evaluations under l

9 our requirements in 10~CFR 50.59.

That's also a very L

l 10 important effort, I think, and I would encourage you to continue your efforts in that regard, too.

12 Let me just conclude by saying, again, how 13 much we appreciate, Mr. Taylor, your and Mr. Ste11o's 14 leadership with Dr. Murley in this regard because this 15 is a very important program.

And as others have 1

16 pointed out, it may not have some of the great 17 interest of some of the other specific issues we get 18 involved with, but it certainly directly impacts on 19 safety of operations, reliability of operations, 20 efficiency of operations.

And I think that, again, 21 this is why the Commission is so interested in making 22 some progress in the technical specification program, 23 not only per se, but as it relates and as it 24 integrates to the entire operation of the power 25 plants.

So,

again, I'm pleased at the efforts the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 234-4433 WA$HINGTON. O C. 20005 (202) 232 6 l

p,

34 fi~

. g 4,,

LOM 1

staff han muds in this regard and I want you to ensure 2

yourself of the. continuing Commission interest and 3

involvement in this particular area.

4 Are there any other final comments from my.

i' 5

colleagues?

If-not, thank you very much for an 6

excellent presentation and excellent work.

l 7

We stand adjourned.

8 (Whereupon, the briefing was concluded et 9

10:33 a.m.)

10 11 12 13 14 15 16

'17

)

18 I

I 19 20 21 1

22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C M (202) 232-6600 l

r l

7

'[;,h,,.-

vde CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER This is'to certify that the attached events of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:

TITLE OF MEETING: Briefing on Status of Technical Specifications Improvement Program PLACE OF MEETING: Rockville, Ma'yland r

DATE OF MEETING:

June 2, 1989 were transcribed by me. I further certify that said transcription is accurate and complete, to the best of my ability, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing events.

LL h

A, o

o

(

Repor'ter's name:

Trevor Goodchild HEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR18ER$

1333 RHODE ISLAWO AVfHUE. H.W.

(202) 234 4 433 WASHeMCTON, D.C.

20c05 (202) 232-6600

. - _ _