|
|
| Line 16: |
Line 16: |
|
| |
|
| =Text= | | =Text= |
| {{#Wiki_filter:- | | {{#Wiki_filter:}} |
| ORIGIs y fCWffg57a o UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO:
| |
| ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS SUBCOMMITTEE ON GENERIC ITEMS
| |
| () . .
| |
| - - LOCATION: WASHINGTON, D. C. PAGES: 1 - 310 DATE: WEDNESDAY, MAY 27, 1987
| |
| .cc %
| |
| i j tu.Oly, c$ o ~$
| |
| De M d E S $ 6 a s a,ca -
| |
| ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 0 OfficialReporters 444 North CapitolStreet 60 7 870527 (22)37 NATIONWIDE COVERACE w 3
| |
| | |
| PUBLIC NOTICE BY THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONERS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS WEDNESDAY, MAY 27, 1987 The contents of this stenographic transcript of the proceedings of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), as reported herein, is an uncorrected record of the discussions recorded at the meeting held on the above date.
| |
| No member of-the ACRS Staff and no participant at this meeting accepts any responsibility for errors or inaccuracies of statement or data contained in'this transcript.
| |
| a 4
| |
| +-
| |
| 1 O
| |
| | |
| F s
| |
| y',
| |
| 1-
| |
| .CR31096.0 / .
| |
| 'DAV/sjg' 1 UNITED' STATES OF AMERICA- ,
| |
| 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 3.
| |
| SUBCOMMITTEE ON GENERIC ITEMS
| |
| '4 5
| |
| Nuclear Regulatory Commission 6 . Room 1046' 1717 H Street, N.W.
| |
| 7 Washington, D. C.
| |
| 8 Wednesday, May 27, 1987 9
| |
| The subcommittee meeting convened at 8:30 a.m..
| |
| 10 g ACRS MEMBERS PRESENT:
| |
| 12 -DRA CHESTER P. SIESS, Presiding 13 DR. DADE W. MOELLER 14 DR. FORREST J. REMICK MR. J C. EBERSOLE 15 MR. CARLYLE MICHELSON 16 DR. CHARLES J. WYLIE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
| |
| ?n 25 ,
| |
| ry ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage - 800-336-6646 .-
| |
| , . x-.
| |
| | |
| f 0960 01 01 2 g'{Nbw 1 PROCEEDINGS
| |
| (/ l 2 DR. SIESS: The meeting will come to order.
| |
| 3 This is a meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on 4 Generic Items.
| |
| 5 I am Chet Siess, Subcommittee Chairman. The 6 other members in attendance today, reading from left to 7 right: Ebersole, Moeller, Remick, Wylie. And Michelson is 8 in the building, and I'm sure will be in eventually.
| |
| 9 The purpose of the meeting'is to discuss the 10 Staff's process involved in identifying, prioritizing, 11 resolving and implementing generic issues and unresolved 12 safety issues to determine the effectiveness of this
| |
| {} 13 process.
| |
| 14 We will also devote some time to the SIMS, the 15 Safety Issues Management System.
| |
| 16 Sam Duraiswamy is the cognizant Staff engineer 17 for the meeting. He is seated on my right. The rules for 18 participation in the meeting were announced as part of the 19 Federal Register Notice. A transcript is being kept and 20 will be made available, as stated in the Federal Register 21 Notice.
| |
| 22 I don't need to remind you that each speaker 23 should first identify himself or herself and use the 24 microphone, so that they can be readily heard and so that 25 the transcript will show who was speaking.
| |
| ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
| |
| | |
| 7_
| |
| 0960 01 01 3 1 We have received no written comments or requests G,r*3Vbw 2 to make oral statements from members of the public.
| |
| 3 Gentlemen, the issue we are addressing originated 4 in a letter from the Chairman of the Commission.
| |
| 5 First, let me say that you have all gotten a 6 package of stuff from Sam. You've got a status report on 7 the top of it, and as usual, it is an excelle'nt status 8 report. It tells you exactly what we're trying to do and 9 how we got there.
| |
| 10 You will recall in the letter from Chairman Zech 11 to Chairman Ward last September listing areas of which the 12 Commission asked us to concentrate during the next year, one
| |
| (~ 13 of those was to advise the Commission in the effectiveness V) 14 and correctness of direction.
| |
| 15 I'm sorry. I'm reading the wrong one.
| |
| 16 Advise the Commission on the effectiveness of 17 programs which address generic and unresolved safety issues.
| |
| ~
| |
| 18 I wasn't quite sure what he meant. So at a 19 meeting we had with the Commissioners in December, this was 20 on the agenda, and I summarized briefly that we have been 21 looking at USIs and some of the generic issue 22 prioritization, and in effect, asking what the Commissioners 23 wanted from us, what they meant by effectiveness. I said if 24 effectiveness means how efficiently the Staff has been 25 working on this or how effectively they've been working on
| |
| [}
| |
| i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage m)-3364M6
| |
| | |
| F 0960 01 01 4 AVbw 1 it, that's one measure of effectiveness.
| |
| 2 Another measure of effectiveness would be the 3 extent to which the resolution of generic issues has 4 increased safety.
| |
| 5 And I was sort of hoping they would pick one or 6 the other and tell us that's what they meant. Instead, 7 after a fair amount of discussion, which digressed from that 8 issue, Zech came back and said, what I said in mind on 9 effectiveness is both subjects that you bring up. I am 10 asking the ACRS to see whether you felt that the generic and 11 unresolved safety issues were making progress. And I had 12 given them some statistics on that earlier in the meeting. l
| |
| (~^ 13 So he says, you have given me that assessment.
| |
| 14 The second part, though, I think, also I had in 15 mind was, are they increasing safety? Are we making a 16 contribution to increased safety?
| |
| 17 So essentially, he left it both. He also 18 mentioned or asked whether we had a briefing on the Safety 19 Issues Management System, the SIMS program.
| |
| 20 Pollowing that meeting, we got some information 21 on SIMS, and I think it was sent out to everybody and all 22 the ACRS, wasn't it?
| |
| 23 Now, as a first stop in this thing, we had an 24 informal meeting, not a subcommittee mooting. I and Sam met 25 with four people from the Staff, most of whom are here, I
| |
| ~
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(0-33 M M 6
| |
| | |
| 0960 01 01 5 AVbw 1 think, in February, to sort of review this thing and see 2 where we were going or where we might go.
| |
| 3 I asked about the process. Sam has just 4 distributed some minutes from that meeting, and I'm not 5 going to repeat, but some of the questions we asked were, 6 how do we decide which issues need to be prioritized, how 7 long does it take to resolve a generic issue. And they said 8 they don't keep track of that.
| |
| 9 I had a few questions about how they implemented 10 generic issue resolutions, plant by plant. That is pretty 11 much up to the project manager to negotiate with the 12 utility.
| |
| 13 Then I raised three questions that we tried to
| |
| ( }}
| |
| 14 answer in susequent meeting. One is, are all the important 15 generic issues prioritized fast enough? This was a point 16 Carl Michelson had raised about issues that were not yet 17 prioritized, but there are some in there that were really 18 important, and how do you set priorities before you set i 19 priorities? In a formal system, that might be difficult, 20 but common sense ought to tell you that some things are more 21 important than others.
| |
| 22 Are all the high priority issues resolved fast 23 enough, and how long does it take to implement the resolved 24 issues?
| |
| /~'; 25 Now what Sam and I have said up, we hope to do ACE. FEDERAL REroRTERS, INC, 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-33MM6 J
| |
| | |
| r 0960 01 01 6 AVbw 1 within a two-meeting framework. First, to look at the 2 process. That is what this meeting is intended to do.
| |
| 3 As is obvious, I think, the process involves four 4 steps. Generating generic issues or identifying generic 5 issues, assigning priorities tc them, developing a 6 resolution and then implementing them as required on 7 operating plants or plants under construction or what have 8 you.
| |
| 9 The first three steps -- the first step, the 10 identification. Everybody is involved -- NRR, ACRS, 11 Research, presumably.
| |
| ,_s 12 The second two steps, priorities and resolutions,
| |
| )
| |
| 13 are now a function of one or more branches of Research and 14 implementation is a function of NRR. So we have a process 15 that is fragmented, probably by necessity. But in order to 16 look at it, we are going to have to talk to quite a few 17 people. We made an attempt to find one person on the Staff 18 to tell us everything we wanted to know about generic 19 issues. And that person doesn't exist.
| |
| 20 So what we've proposed then is that this meeting 21 review essentially an overview of the whole pictures as best 22 we can get it from one person. Look at the prioritization, 23 resolution and implementation and then look at the safety 24 issue management system, which the Commission asked us to
| |
| ( \
| |
| 25 look at and which is helpful.
| |
| ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage m)-33MM6
| |
| | |
| 0960 01 01 7 DAVbw 1 Then once we understood the process, we would k 2 take some time at the end of the day to try and decide what 3 is the next step.
| |
| 4 I thought the next step might be looking at 5 particular issues and following it through the process that 6 would look at the efficiency of the process, how fast they
| |
| , 7- get through.
| |
| 8 And of course, some of them take years, like 9 ATWS. Some may be a lot faster.
| |
| 10 If there is anything that gets low, that's 11 prioritized, it's dispond of rather quickly.
| |
| 12 The other thing we want to look at is the 13 implementation, because until they're implomonted, 14 obviously, there's no improvement in safety. Implementation 15 is handled by NRR. We've boon told by the project manager, 16 one thought I had was at that stage, we might want to get 17 some representative plants in -- we can't have too many, 18 because we haven't got the time -- and let them tell us how 19 they work implementation programs, not only involving 20 generic issues, but plant-specific issues and utility-21 originated issues.
| |
| 22 That may sound like ISAP or whatever, but one 23 concern I think some of us have is that multiple generic 24 issues, handled one by one, may not be effectively handled, )
| |
| 25 as compared to looking at an integrated solution. Sometimes Acn FEDERAL REPonTuns, INC.
| |
| 202 347 3700 Nationwide Cmcrage 80rk33MM6
| |
| | |
| ~ 0960 Ol~01 8 DAVbw 1 one fix takes care of another one, and we would all be (D
| |
| %> 2 better off, if it were done that way.
| |
| 3 That's all of the implementation. But that's the 4 important thing.
| |
| 5 Now I have some concern, personally, about what 6 we're doing in looking at the process.
| |
| 7 It seems to me that is something that might well 8 be done by the Internal Audit of the Commission. I'm not 9 sure it's really our job to tell the Commission how 10 efficiently their people are working, although we may have 11 some opinions.
| |
| 12 In fact, GAO did an audit in 1984 that I thought 13 was pretty good. It says, you haven't got a tracking O 14 system. So immediately they put in SIMS, which I think is a 15 good system. Whether SIMS has made anything any different, 16 I don't know. You can tell where things are. I'm not sure 17 they're going any faster or any slower because of it.
| |
| , 18 Now Jesse has asked earlier about plant-specific 19 items. Now that is not part of our charge. There are 20 thousands of plant-specific items out there. But SIMS does 21 track plant-specific items as well as generic items.
| |
| 22 Presumably, a project manager can follow all of the items 23 that are outstanding for a given plant, and how those are 24 integrated, I don't know.
| |
| 25 Jesse?
| |
| O 1
| |
| /\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| i 0960 01 01 9 DAVbw 1 MR. EBERSOLE: I was going to say, the. process c -
| |
| l.
| |
| i 2 that we are working with is conducivo to fragmented 3 patchwork.
| |
| 4 DR. SIESS: That is exactly what I am 5 considering. That is at the implementation end. A lot of 6 this meeting is going to be devoted to the process of 7 getting there.
| |
| 8 I think if we find problems in the system, we 9 ought to know where they arise. So we set this thing up~to 10 look at the pecess. I am not too comfortable with that, 11 because I would rather see somebody else looking at'the 12 process. The auditor, for example. But if we are going to ,
| |
| 13 go through to the next stop of implomontation, I don't think O 14 we can wait for somebody olso to look at the process. 'I 15 don't think there's a whole lot wrong with the process up to 16 the point of implementation.- We have looked at it to some 17 extent. I don't know that there's anything wrong with the 18 implomontation. No don't know. i-19 MR. MICilELSON: I have a comment on the process 20 before implomontation. Over the last year or so, I
| |
| l 21 particularly, I'm finding that when an issue is reaching the 22 resolution stage, certain-parts of the issue'seem to be 23 quito straightforward and managoable. Those are the parts 24 that are implomonted. The rest of the issue, they say, 25 well, I'm; going to mako a now issue out of it, since I don't l ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347 3700 . Nationwide Coverage 8m33(>6646
| |
| | |
| 2 0960 01 01 10 t
| |
| DAVbw 1 know how to solve it now.- I want to get this part of the
| |
| ; 2' package out of the way.
| |
| 3 So you start breaking up the issues toward the !
| |
| j 4 end in two piles. One you can solve and one it's going to i
| |
| 1 5 take a while.
| |
| 6 And I really question that process, but I'see it .
| |
| 7 quit often in the last year and a half or so.
| |
| 8 DR. SIESS: The argument for that is, you do what ,
| |
| 9 you can.
| |
| I i
| |
| j 10 MR. MICHELSON: True. But it begins to become 11 funny though when people say, oh, that issue has been j 12 resolved, but no, only a part of that issue was resolved.
| |
| 1 13 But they get a mindset that, because it is resolved, it has
| |
| (:) 14 gone away, and it really didn't go away. Just part of it l
| |
| , 15 went away.
| |
| 16 DR. SIESS: I think we have a problem in thinking '
| |
| i.
| |
| 17 in terms of those little items that appear on little pieces c 18 of paper called issues. ,
| |
| 4 l 19 Those things aren't making plants any safer.
| |
| ) 20 What is making plants safer is what is being done to plants i
| |
| . 21 and procedures are something else.
| |
| i 22 MR. MICHELSON: I think what is happening, j 23 though, in the process of looking at these generic issues i
| |
| l 24 and discussing them, we're beginning to understand the 25 issue, perhaps, which wasn't the case at the time the issue t
| |
| ;. Ace FEDERAL REponTuns, INC. ,
| |
| j 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 M46 i
| |
| | |
| 0960 01 01 11 DAVbw I was first initiated, and having understood the issue, now we f}
| |
| C' 2 realize that it is maybe a bigger issue, instead of trying 3 to divided it up, I guess, into manageable pieces.
| |
| 4 DR. SIESS: I think what you are talking about 5 has a number of problems attached to it. One is that the 6 fractional implementation may not lead to the best solution.
| |
| 7 MR. MICHELSON: This is a difficulty, yes.
| |
| 8 DR. SIESS: And the whole tracking process, the 9 accountability process, in which somebody keeps saying, what 10 progress are you making on generic issues, sort of loads you 11 to divido up into little packages, so that you can say, yes, 12 this one is resolved. Somebody is looking at numbers.
| |
| 13 I'll admit, it is easier to look at numbers.
| |
| O 14 There are lots of pieces of paper out here with lists of how 15 many we did last year and how many now ones and all of that 16 stuff. Thoco lists aren't making anything any safer.
| |
| 17 I really think it is more important for us to see 18 what's being dono in implementation, almost plant by plant, 19 a caso history type of thing and look at particular plants 20 and look at what the history was of implementation, how it 21 was integrated with other fixes, because those things are 22 separato. You are right, Carl, there is a tendoney to do 23 that, but tendoney for us to soo would be whether the system 24 pushes in that direction.
| |
| 25 MR. MICHELSON: I just laid it on the table to be 1
| |
| ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6
| |
| | |
| _ . . _ . . _ ._ - . _. . _ _ _ , _ _ _ _4
| |
| *~
| |
| LO960 01-01 12 DAVbw 1 sure we can process it in the discussion.
| |
| 4 -
| |
| 2 DR. SIESS: We used to.say, when we had our own 3 list of generic issues, make it a generi~c issue, and it will 4 .never get done.
| |
| l 5 There is a pressure to get.something done.
| |
| 4 6 So.....
| |
| 7 MR. MICHELSON:. I had two comments in the t
| |
| [ 8' implementation area. One you already touched on. We are 9 beginning to see several issues being almost the same issue.
| |
| ]
| |
| 1 10 in a little different context and the integration of these '
| |
| }- 11 resolutions are to be done more carefully perhaps. We are
| |
| { 12 trying to get them one at a time, out of the way, when yet 13 they interplay with each other. System interactions. '
| |
| (:) 14 interplay with control systems. :
| |
| 15 DR. SIESS: Decay heat removal and station i !
| |
| 16 blackout.
| |
| 17 MR. MICHELSON: There's quite,an interplay, 18 because we are narrowing down to a- set that is dif ficult to
| |
| ) 19 handle. I just want to lay it on the table. ;
| |
| 20 The other thing is, I am a little concerned about 1 21 the fact that for new plants, we are using a cut-off time ,
| |
| l 22 like July or June of last year. Issues after that point l 23 don't count in thesame way that they have to address the
| |
| ,l 24 issues prior to last June.
| |
| i 1 25 I am.a'little concerned on that. aspect of i
| |
| ) /\CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| * 202-347 3700 Naticawide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| , - , , , - . . _ ,,_-._,,o_., - , . _ , . _ , . _ . . . - . , _ . . . _ . . _ . .,. , , _ . - . . , , , . , . - . . . - . , , - - . , , . , , , , , , - -- _ - , . .
| |
| | |
| 0960 01 01- 13 DAVbw 1 implementation. I think that, as new plants are developed n
| |
| ! )
| |
| '' 2 and designs are developed, that we have to continue t7 3 recognize the resolutions of new issues until such time as 4 there is a reasonable cut-off. I think it is unreasonable E to talk about last July for plants being really seriously 6 designed several years from now. Yet that is what we are 7 doing on the EPRI work. That is what we are proposing to do 8 on other advanced designs.
| |
| 9 DR. SIESS: I am sure that comes under resolution 10 and implementation, because I think resolution involves 11 setting the scope.
| |
| 12 MR. MICHELSON: Really, what my comment is 13 directed towards is this problem of partial implementation.
| |
| O
| |
| \J 14 We had an issue prior to last July that is supposed to be 15 addressed for advanced plants. Last July, perhaps wo 16 resolved part of the issue and called the issue resolved and 17 created a now issue with the residual that we didn't resolve 18 last year.
| |
| 19 That residual isn't covered, and I think it ought 20 to be, just like the original issue.
| |
| 21 MR. MINNERS: Are you saying partially resolved 22 or partially implemented?
| |
| 23 DR. SIESS: Partially implemented. I think the 24 best way to look at that would be by taking a particular 25 issue, looking at it. We've got tentative lists of issues (n_)
| |
| ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
| |
| | |
| 0960 02 02 14 DAVbw 1 that we can choose from and may have some other ideas to
| |
| (')
| |
| A' 2 look at at the next meeting.
| |
| 3 MR. MICHELSON: This is an example for advanced 4 reactors. There are these considerations as opposed to 5 present reactors.
| |
| 6 I just want to lay it on the table.
| |
| 7 DR. SIESS: That is something we will hear about 8 during this meeting too, but again, it seems to me that 9 somewhere we've got to look at selected issues. We 10 obviously can't look at all of them. Let's face it, USI's.
| |
| 11 We've looked at every USI. This committee-has been 12 reviewing overy USI and following every USI and has approved 13 the resolution of every USI except one, I believe, Sam O' 14 picked out. And that was spent fuel pools, for some reason.
| |
| 15 We haven't been doing that for generic issues.
| |
| 16 All we've been doing on generic issues is looking at the 17 priorities, which is important, because if it ends up lower, 18 it probably doesn't get done. But after that, we haven't 19 looked at them. Many of them don't come back to us to look 20 at, and I'm not sure we're over going to have time to look 21 at all the generic issues, but I think we're going to have 22 to look at particular issues to get the specifics of what 23 you're bringing up now, both in terms of a resolution which 24 would indicate the schedule and what it is applicable to and 25 the implementation when that issue gets dumped out there on
| |
| ('T V
| |
| Ace-FeonRXL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364M6
| |
| | |
| 1 l
| |
| -0960 02 02- 15 i
| |
| DAVbw I the plant that's got 30 others. l 1
| |
| 2 MR. MICHELSON: Systems interaction is a good one 3 to look at as an example, where they are breaking it into 4 pieces, some of.which are manageable and are, therefore, 5 called the resolution and some which are recognized as being 6 more than they can handle today. So they say, well, let's 7 create a new issue out of it.
| |
| l 8 As a result, system interaction for new plants 9 doesn' t get handled properly, because they are using the l
| |
| 10 resolution of the part that they know about now and not the 11 rest of it.
| |
| l 1
| |
| l 12 DR. SIESS: I am not quite sure what the problem 13 is there. Would you prefer that they don't consider it l 14 resolved until the whole thing is resolved?
| |
| 15 MR. MICHELSON: In that particular case, yes.
| |
| ( 16 MR. WYLIE: I think the reason to do that is the i
| |
| 17 criticism they get on audits, that you are not making any l l 18 progress until you resolve them. So there's a pressure to 19 resolve them.
| |
| l 20 MR. MICHELSON: Sure.
| |
| 21 MR. WYLIE: So they get out what they can.
| |
| l 22 DR. SIESS: From a technical point of view, an 23 engineering point of view, we would be better off. defining 24 an issue broad enough at the beginning, so that its 25 resolution will do some good and sticking with it until it's l
| |
| AcnJPEDERAL REPonTEns, INC.
| |
| 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage H00 3346646
| |
| | |
| 0960 02 02 16 DAVbw 1 resolved completely, or if we find something being spun off O
| |
| x/ 2 of it, we take that, resolve it and implement it.
| |
| 3 MR. MICHELSON: That is'the part I think we want 4 to talk about.
| |
| 5 MR. WYLIE: This point Carl brought up about 6 integrating a number of issues takes time. If you take the 7 time to do that, then you don't show progress or you are 8 going to be criticized by the audit people.
| |
| 9 DR. SIESS: That is why I think our emphasis
| |
| , 10 should be on what's being done in the plants to improve 11 safety, and then through this other part to see -- you know, 12 I think we can't ignore the process. I don't see any way we 13 can start in on this problem without looking at the process O 14 of who is doing what.
| |
| 15 I think the result is influenced by the process, 16 but I would hope that our only criticisms of the process 17 relate to how it affects the results and not how it affects 18 congressional oversight.
| |
| 19 MR. MICHELSON: That is the very point we need to 20 get into. If there some mechanism of implementing a partial 21 resolution without saying the issue is resolved. Right now f
| |
| 22 they say the issue is resolved, even though it is only 23 partially resolved and the rest of it is spun off as a new 24 issue.
| |
| 25 It makes a big difference on advanced reactors, ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| 0960 02-02 17
| |
| 'DAVbw I where they are using last year's data as the cut-off point 2 for resolution of issues. It makes a bit difference.
| |
| f 3 HD)R. SIESS: You are saying the difference is that i
| |
| 4 some future reactor may or may not be subject to that 5 resolution.
| |
| 6 MR. MICHELSON: For instance.
| |
| .7 DR. SIESS: Let's see. Staff might be thinking i-8 of some examples on that with you.
| |
| 4 l ,
| |
| 9 MR. MICHELSON: Systems interaction is a prime i
| |
| 2 10 example.
| |
| f 11 DR. SIESS: And we can take it up. That is a i
| |
| 12 good point.
| |
| i 13 Other comments? Dade?
| |
| ( 14 DR. MOELLER: I had one or two and, of course, 15 many during the discussion, but the GAO report says "Only '
| |
| 16 the Commission can designate USI."
| |
| ]
| |
| 17 I don't know by " Commission," whether they mean l
| |
| 18 the Commissioners --
| |
| 19 MR. MINNERS: They mean the Commissioners.
| |
| 20 DR. MOELLER: If they meant the Commissioners, 21 which is true, why didn't the list of people who can j 22 identify USIs include the Commissioners. It doesn't.
| |
| j 23 DR. SIESS: Where was the list?
| |
| f 24 DR. MOELLER: It is in several things that we
| |
| ]
| |
| j(
| |
| i 25 were given. In Sam's summary, it tells who can identify 1
| |
| I ace FEDERAL ReponTens, INC.
| |
| 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-334MA6 i
| |
| . _ . . . - . . . - - . _ , - _ , - - - _ - - . _ . . - - ,_ . , -_. _ _ -- --. _ . . - _. _ -. _ - . - . ~ , , _ . , _ , _ . _
| |
| | |
| 0960 02 02 18 DAVbw 1 USIs.
| |
| 2 DR. SIESS: I think we were concentrating on 3 generic issues there, not USIs.
| |
| 4 4 DR. MOELLER: Okay. Maybe that was it.
| |
| 5 DR. SIESS: I don't intend to spend much time on 6 USI's. We've reviewed every USI from one end to-the other.
| |
| 7 DR. MOELLER: Can the commissioners identify 8 generic issuos?
| |
| 9 DR. SIESS: I am sure they can. I doubt if they 10 over have. Anybody can identify them.
| |
| 11 DR. MOELLER: Let me give an example.
| |
| 12 Earthquakes and emergency planning. I don't know who it 13 was, but I recall reading the Commissioner's statement, O 14 where they said that for Diablo Canyon, carthquakes --
| |
| 15 DR. SIESS: Well, that was a policy statomont.
| |
| ! 16 DR. MOELLER: It was a policy statement. They 17 said it will be treated generically. We will not treat 18 carthquakes and emergency planning on a plant-by-plant 19 basis. Okay. So that is one "for instance."
| |
| 20 The other thing, in terms of identification, and 21 we're talking today about the process, they, of course, have 22 identified control room habitability. But I wonder thoro, 23 we have the AEOD report on the tromondous impact of high 24 temperatures on circuit boards. Woll, is that a subpart of 25 control room habitability, or is it not a genoric issue yet?
| |
| N/
| |
| Ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347 37(X) Nationwide Coverage MX)-3E MA4
| |
| | |
| __ ._ ._ _ . __._ . - . _ . _ . - _ . ~ _ _ _ ~ _ . . . ._,
| |
| , 0960 02 02 19 DAVbw 1 Yet another one, like AEOD came out with what I l' 2 thought was an excellent report on air systems. _W ell, I 3 don't find air systems in any of these lists, and I am
| |
| ~
| |
| 4 curious as to how long it takes for it to~make it.
| |
| 5 DR. SIESS: I think the question there is, does 6 AEOD have to say we want this to be a generic issue, or does 7 somebody pick up on that report? '
| |
| 1 8 DR. MOELLER: Right.
| |
| -9 MR. MICHELSON: -Is there an actual process in l 10 which almost any individual can go through a declaration of 1
| |
| i 11 a potential generic issue?
| |
| j 12 DR. SIESS: Let's see. Was that office letter j
| |
| 13 just on the USIs? The offico letter is on generic issues.
| |
| 14 Well, we will cover that when the timo comes.
| |
| 15 DR. MOELLER: One last,.just general item. The l
| |
| 16 GAO report, of course, recommended that Congress modify the 17 Energy Reorganization Act of '74. I wonder. Did Congress
| |
| , 18 change it at all?
| |
| 19 DR. SIESS: No.
| |
| 1 20 VOICE: It was modified in 1977. Paragraph
| |
| ; 21 210(c) defines unrosolved safety issues.
| |
| 22 DR. MOELLER: So they did. Thank you.
| |
| 23 DR. SIESS: Thoro is an annual report to Congress 24 on USIs.
| |
| , 25 VOICE: That was required by the Division.
| |
| ACE. FEDERAL REvoRTERs, INC.
| |
| 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3y>uw,
| |
| | |
| - - - . - . . _ ~ . . -. .. . .. . . - . . . _. .- ..
| |
| 1 0960 02 02 20
| |
| , DAVbw 1 DR. MOELLER: Then that was a responso. Thank i; [U l ,
| |
| 2 you.
| |
| 2 3 DR. SIESS: I assume that Zech meant USI's, as t'
| |
| 4 well as generic issues, but I thought, you know, we've never l 5 had any problems with USI identification, and we certainly .
| |
| 6 followed those very closely.
| |
| 7 Now whether the lovel is adequate is something
| |
| ]
| |
| l- 8 olse.
| |
| j 9 Anything else, Dade?
| |
| i
| |
| { 10 DR. MOELLER: No.
| |
| 11 As I say, I have a host .
| |
| * questions, like 10 CFR
| |
| ; 12 20. I would like to hear how that becomes an issue.
| |
| l 13 DR. SIESS: Is it an issue?
| |
| )
| |
| !. 14 DR. MOELLER: Yes. Well, maybe it says "to be i
| |
| } 15 datormined" or something.
| |
| t l 16 DR. SIESS: Forrest?
| |
| 17 DR. REMICK: Chet, I agroo. I don't think we i
| |
| 4 18 should delvo heavily into the process with a couple i
| |
| i 19 oxceptions. I think there is a question of how long does it
| |
| ; 20 take priorities to be set on generic issues. That might be
| |
| ; 21 something that we should look at, and the question that Carl l
| |
| { 22 raises about fragmenting, I'think, is one that perhaps wo J
| |
| l 23 should hear more about. I don't necessarily agree with ,
| |
| , i 1 24 Carl's concern, but-maybe if I saw a few specific casos, I ,
| |
| 25 would be concerned about that.
| |
| : (:)
| |
| Ace FEDERAL REPonTens, INC.
| |
| , 202 347 37(0 Nationwide Coverage lux).336-6646
| |
| | |
| 0960 02 02 21 DAVbw 1 DR. SIESS: Whether the bookkooping affects
| |
| (~')N
| |
| \- 2 safety?
| |
| 3 DR. REMICK: Right. And then your statement that 4 only what you do to the plant improves safety, I would just 5 like to interject that sometimes what you don't do to the 6 plant is important for safety too.
| |
| 7 DR. SIESS: Charlio?
| |
| 8 MR. WYLIE: No.
| |
| 9 MR. EBERSOLE : Dade, I cortainly would think 10 habitability would includo environmental adequacy of 11 oquipment. I thought habitability was rostricted to just 12 personnel.
| |
| 13 DR. SIESS: That is a question of fact, Josso.
| |
| /~%
| |
| O 1
| |
| 14 We can ask it.
| |
| 15 DR. MOELLER: And it is liko'what Carl says:
| |
| 16 let's integrato it.
| |
| 17 DR. SIESS: Well, do you want to integrato it and 18 delay it, or do you want to do the one you know how to do?
| |
| 19 MR. MICHELSON: Let's at least understand what wo 20 are dealing with, what the process is.
| |
| 21 DR. SIESS: I think Carl's question has two 22 points. I think the question of splitting an issuo and 23 doing now what noods to bo dono now, can be dono now, thoro 24 is nothing wrong with it. But his concern is how it is a 25 applied to other designs. Somotimos doing what is logical Acn FnDERA1. REPonTnas, INC.
| |
| 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage Mn3 M-(M6
| |
| | |
| l 0960 02 02 22 DAVbw 1 onds up with an illogical result for some futuro plants. I (O
| |
| V'
| |
| ! 2 think wo nood to understand that.
| |
| 3 Okay, then. I think wo will procood with the 1
| |
| l 4 agenda.
| |
| l l 5 Warren Minners has offered to provido an overview 6 of the process all the way through; right?
| |
| i 7 MR. MINNERS: No.
| |
| 8 (Laughter.)
| |
| 9 DR. SIESS: It says here "Implomontation.",
| |
| 10 MR. MINNERS: We still havo not found the ono l
| |
| 11 person who can answer all your questions on generic issuos.
| |
| 12 Wo are going to have three or four peoplo here to try to 13 answor all thoso questions.
| |
| O 14 (Slido.)
| |
| 15 I am Warron Minnors, Deputy Director of Research.
| |
| 16 Thomis Spois can't be here today. I am taking over for him 17 to givo an overview on the generic issuo process. Then wo 18 will go on to some of the people who will discuss differont l
| |
| l 19 parts as outlined in the agonda.
| |
| 20 I do want to thank you for the attention that you 21 have paid to gonoric issuos. I think gonoric issues woro l
| |
| l 22 noglected in the past and nobody asked any questions.
| |
| I I
| |
| 23 Poople said, well, people aren't interestod in this, so why l 1
| |
| 24 ato wo working very hard on it? I think that produced an 25 attitudo, and I think you should be asking questions. l O
| |
| l l l l Ace Fitutinat. Rrivonnins, INC, 202 447 3700 Nationwide Cmerage R00-34(M6
| |
| | |
| 0960 02 02 23 DAVbw 1 Our purpose here today is to try to identify the
| |
| (/) 2 problem areas, hopefully, without too much ombarrassment, 3 but the purposo of this is to try to got a bottor program, 4 and you can't got a botter program unlosa you understand the 5 problems.
| |
| 6 So we are going to try to identify the problems.
| |
| 7 I don't want to point fingers at anybody, but wo do want to 8 try to soo if we can find solutions for the problems.
| |
| 9 Dr. Sioss talked about the process and his little 10 bit of trepidation in going and looking at some of the 11 administrativo details.
| |
| 12 If I may make a mild criticism of the ACRS, I 13 think probably because of your backgrounds, you tend to
| |
| ( 14 focus on the technical issuos, but my experience of the ''~~
| |
| 15 Commission has boon that the process is very important, and 16 if you don't follow the procons, you are not going to got 17 good technical resolutions. That happoned with a lot of our 18 technical stuf f in the past. Wo didn't have a good procoon, 19 and I think because of the bad processos, wo got bad 20 technical work dono.
| |
| 21 Most of the attontion that this committoo and the 22 ACRS has given has boon to the resolution process. I would 23 urgo you also, and onco again, this is a recommendation or 24 suggestion you might want tu look more carefully at the 25 implomontation process. If wo had problems in that aroa, Acii-Friniinni. Riipoitriins, INC.
| |
| 202 347 37tN) Nationwide Coverage MW)-)l6 (M6
| |
| | |
| 0960 02 02 24 DAVbw 1 recognize the problems. It is a difficult area. It is not
| |
| [~\
| |
| \/ 2 easy to solvo, but I think attention at an area will got 3 better performance in that area.
| |
| 4 (Slido.)
| |
| 5 Now I just want to givo a quick overview horo, 6 and this is a little rominder of the generic issues program.
| |
| 7 It is brokon down into functions. The functions are usually 8 assigned dif foront organizations. The idontification 9 function is primarily vosted in ABOD. They've got a wholo 10 offico to identify issuos.
| |
| 11 Now if other people find issues, NRR may find an 12 issuo during the review process or during tho inspection of 13 reactors and review of oporating reactors. Research may O 14 find problems. So overybody participatos in the 15 identification process.
| |
| 16 Now the prioritization --
| |
| 17 DR. SIESS: Warron, as I recall, somothing like 18 the Davis-Dosso incident gonorated about 30 GIs.
| |
| 19 MR. MINNERS: Correct.
| |
| 20 DR. SIESS: Which one would you attributo that i
| |
| 21 to? NRR? AEOD7 22 MR. MINNERS: Woll, that was ABOD, because it was 23 an inspection toam that wont down thoro under AE00's ,
| |
| 24 direction. Wo had support from tho other officos. 1 1
| |
| 25 DR. SIESS: They came out with a roport. Did l Act:.FitniinAi. Riti>onTiins, INC.
| |
| 202 347 37m Nationwk!c Cmerage m)MMM
| |
| | |
| 0960 02 02 25 DAVbw I that report include a list of what they thought ought to be b) N' 2 generic issuos? '
| |
| 3 MR. MINNERS: No. The report was limited to fact i 4 finding. Jack lioltomos wont through that report, and fronm 5 the findings identified a bunch of genoric issues, which 6 woro then put into the prioritization process.
| |
| 7 So I think that is an examplo of where AEOD --
| |
| 8 well, we are an intograted organization. We all work 9 together, so you can't just identify ono person.
| |
| ; 10 DR. REMICK: You said that without a smilo.
| |
| i 11 (Laughtor.)
| |
| 12 MR. MINNERS: Prioritization was the DSRO, which 13 was in NRR. All of DSRO has boon transferrod up to Research CE) 14 now. Ron Emrit will talk lator about the prioritization
| |
| : 15 process. The prioritization process for resolution of 16 issuos. It has also boon transferrod totally to rosearch.
| |
| 17 Thore are two branchos, two different divisions of research, j 18 sort of the same branch as before. Engincoring issues and
| |
| { 19 systems issues. ;
| |
| 4 20 After resolution is dono, and wo docido to do 21 somothing, it g000 back to NRR. This is really the samo 22 thing as tho old organization. It wont from DSRO, a gonoric
| |
| ! 23 issuos function, to the NRR licensing function. Tho namo 24 thing has happonod now, joining rosaarch to the NRR l i
| |
| 25 Liconsing function by imposition. Wo want to got the terms
| |
| /~T
| |
| ,V 1
| |
| Ace FrintinAi. RitronTiins, INC, 202.m noo Nationwide onerage m3 m /Mt.
| |
| | |
| 0960 02 02 26 DAVbw- 1 well set here. Imposition means the process in which you
| |
| ; O j V 2 send out a requirement in some form, a generic letter, a reg 1
| |
| 3 guido or whatever, and got the licensoo to agroo to doing 4 something. And he sends back some picco of paper which says 5 what he is going to do and when he is going to do it.
| |
| 6 When that is all approved, that is usually 7 considered to be the end of the imposition process.
| |
| 8 Nothing has happened on the plant yet, usually.
| |
| l 9 Implomontation is the thing whero safety gets approved.
| |
| 10 That is when the licensoo actually goes in, changes 11 equipment, changes procedures, hires people, trains peoplo 12 and does whatever the rsolution is. -
| |
| 13 That is really the licensoo's function, and we O 14 may participato in that.
| |
| 15 16
| |
| ; 17 ,
| |
| 18
| |
| ~
| |
| 19 20 21 l
| |
| 22 23 24 25 I O l 1
| |
| Ace FnDERAL ReponTens, INC. l 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage Mxk334 M46
| |
| | |
| \
| |
| 0960 03 03 27 DAVbur 1 The last item is verification, which isfreally 2 our inspection function. We go out and soo that the 3 implementation is done correctly. Once again, that is'IE, 4 NRR, and the regions.
| |
| 5 MR. MICHELSON: Under the new organization, is 6 NRR still involved in the verification process?
| |
| 7 MR. MINNERS: Yes. NRR now has the IE function
| |
| , 8 as part of it, so, yes, it is a part of it.
| |
| 9 DR. SIESS: That would have been I&E under the 10 old ono?
| |
| 11 MR. MINNERS: Yes. But the project managers also l 12 participato in verification, too.
| |
| 13 MR. EBERSOLE: Warren, in this string of O 14 participants, where is the act of doing the risk-cost-15 bonofit calculation, which usually is the death knoll of all 16 of them?
| |
| 17 MR. MINNEFS In prioritization we do one to got 18 an allocation of resourcos, okay. Then wo do it again at 19 the resolution process, okay. Before wo got an approval wo 20 are required to produce a regulatory analysis which is 21 basically a risk-cost analysis, and also down at the 22 imposition thing wo also do another risk and cost analysis 23 to soo what order they are going to be imposed or 24 implomonted.
| |
| 25 MR. EBERSOLE: This is the analysis which, if I ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, 2024 47 3700 Nationwide CoseraFe 800-336 6646
| |
| | |
| 0960 03 03 28 1 1
| |
| DAVbur 1 can take an example, says if you put this bolt in it will
| |
| (~') '
| |
| k/ 2 reduce the ghost at one mile to thus and such. You know, 3 these abstract conclusions.
| |
| 4 MR. MINNERS: You would like the Op Ed article in t
| |
| 5 the Post yesterday or the day before from the Consumer 6 Protection process.
| |
| 7 MR. EBERSOLE: I cut it out.
| |
| 8 MR. MINNERS: I don't agree with you. I think 9 you can misuso regulatory analysis, but I think you should 10 crank through the numbers and then take them with the 11 appropriate grain of salt, potassium, or whatever.
| |
| 12 (Laughter.)
| |
| 13 MR. EBERSOLE : Where is the grain of salt, 14 however? I can't find that.
| |
| 15 DR. SIESS: The word is " judgment," but that is a l
| |
| 16 rare thing those days.
| |
| 17 MR. EBERSOLE: The judgment input is not 18 identified anywhere.
| |
| 19 DR. SIESS: Thoro is no place for it.
| |
| 20 MR. MINNERS: I don't think that is truo, Josso.
| |
| 21 I think our analysos aro getting botter. I think you will 22 find sections in the regulatory analysis now where 1
| |
| 23 qualitativo factors are discussed.
| |
| 24 DR. SIESS: Warron, the decision as to which 25 plants do what is a part of the resolution, am I correct?
| |
| OV ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| /
| |
| 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage Mn336(M6
| |
| | |
| 0960 03 03 29 DAVbur 1 MR. MINNERS: Yes, n
| |
| 2 DR. SIESS: Then NRR picks it up from there with 3 the imposition?
| |
| 4 MR. MINNERS: Yes, sir.
| |
| S The resolution, right, should say who should do 6 what, when. That is part of the resolution process.
| |
| 7 DR. REMICK: Warren, the resolution is extremely 8 important.
| |
| 9 Does NRR get any input when you are coming to 10 resolution, and how about licensees?
| |
| 11 I am thinking sometimes there are several 12 alternatives and sometimes the people who are close to the 13 plants can suggest very practical solutions rather than wnat
| |
| ~'
| |
| 14 one might get from groups that aren't familiar on a day-to-15 day basis with the plants.
| |
| 16 How do you ha.dle that?
| |
| 17 MR. MINNERS: I will give you a brief answer. We 18 go out for public comment. We talk with industry, and we 19 get a peer review by everybody and their uncle.
| |
| 20 I have a talk next, after Ron, about the 21 resolution process, which I will show you where that comes 22 in.
| |
| 23 (Slide.)
| |
| 24 We spend a lot of time on that. I will go 25 quickly down here without too much'more.
| |
| ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336- % :6
| |
| | |
| 0960 03 03 30
| |
| -DAVbur 1 We have an NRR office letter that told you what
| |
| ' 2 to do with identified issues, and we are going to rewrite 1 .
| |
| 3 that in Research, and I think it is going to be more --
| |
| 4 well, identification, everybody participatos in that. The 5 prioritization process is really a categorization process.
| |
| 6 First of all, we get rid of the nonsafety issues, 7 environmental issues, take care of EPA, licensing issues, 8 and things which are programmatic. Should we have one or 9 two inspectors or no inspectors at a plant? Should we do 10 WASH-1400 studies to assess the risk? That kind of subject.
| |
| 11 These things down here are high, medium.- This is 12 the purpose of the whole exercise, is to identify these 13 issues. These would become the active issues that we are 7_)s
| |
| (_ 14 going to work on.
| |
| 15 Nearly resolved.is a class of issues to 16 accommodate the fact that when an issue is identified, 17 sometimes people have already_ worked on it and it is almost 18 done. So rather than going through a prioritization step, 19 we just label it "nearly resolved" and let it finish up.
| |
| 20 Then we come up with low, drop, which are 21 obvious. They are insignificant _ safety issues.
| |
| 22 DR. SIESS: Excuse me. Do you still maintain the 23 low, drop? Although you treat them the same, is there some 24 hope that you might someday have enough resources to simply 25 just do --
| |
| i 4
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| 0960 03 03 31
| |
| ,DpVbur 1 MR. MINNERS: Oh, I guess we just haven't changed 2 the paperwork.
| |
| 3 Subsumed means that when somebody identifies an 4 issue we look at it and say, hey, that is the same thing as 5 is already being done. It is identical to another issue or 6 it is part of another issue.
| |
| 7 Some issues where people identify them, we say, 8 hey, that issue was already resolved back at some date. We 9 already did this issue. This is what we did, and it is 10 exactly the same thing that you say we ought to do. So that 11 issue is resolved.
| |
| 12 So I point out to you that low, drop, subsumed,
| |
| ,_ 13 and resolved is also another means of resolving issues. So V 14 the prioritization process resolves issues. Because if I 15 come through and say it is a low or a drop, that is a 16 resolution.
| |
| 17 MR. EBERSOLE: Haven't I seen the term " resolved" 18 really mean it simply had been parked indefinitely?
| |
| 19 MR. MINNERS: Parked indefinitely? No.
| |
| 20 MR. EBERSOLE: I think I have seen " resolved" in 21 the context of it is suspended somewhere. Certainly it 22 hasn't been implemented.
| |
| 23 MR. MINNERS: Okay, that is a problem. We have a 24 lot of resolved issues that have not been implemented.
| |
| 25 Yes.
| |
| "s (O
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364M6
| |
| | |
| 0960 03 03 32 DAVbur 1 DR. SIESS: But you have a lot of resolved issues
| |
| / \
| |
| (J 2 that you did not think needed-to be implemented. You can 3 resolve an issue --
| |
| 4 MR. EBERSOLE: By not implementing it, of course.
| |
| 5 MR. MINNERS: We have come to the conclusion, 6 well, it is not worthwhile doing anything. That is a 7 resolution, but I wouldn't call that parking it. That is 8 really saying it is a low or a drop safety significance or.
| |
| 9 something like that.
| |
| 10 DR. SIESS: Now, Warren, what you are calling and 11 I would call prioritization really involves two steps or two 12 different things. One is screening. The other is 13 prioritizing what is left.
| |
| '/ 14 In effect, the ones you put down on the bottom, 15 that is zero priority.
| |
| 16 MR. MINNERS: Yes, it is. Ron is going to talk
| |
| ^
| |
| 17 about this more.
| |
| 18 We look at issues as they come in and see if 19 there is any immediate action necessary or any intermediate 20 resolution that might be possible.
| |
| 21 DR. SIESS: It is not just how important. The 22 first question is, is it important? Is it an issue?
| |
| 23 MR. MINNERS: That is right. We look at those, 24 and we have a backlog of prioritized issues, and I think you 25 will see most of the backlog consists of issues which are ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| i 0960.03 03 33 DAVbur 1 probably low or drop priority. . We have probably looked at
| |
| () 2 them. I will do other things which I think are higher 4
| |
| 3 priority issues first.
| |
| 4 So there is'some screening preprioritization.
| |
| 5 DR. SIESS: Now,-you have got a list of 70. issues 6 and have 50 or 60 that haven't been prioritized yet.
| |
| 7 Is that list in any' order?
| |
| 8 MR. MINNERS: Yes. Ron'will show you that.
| |
| 9 DR. SIESS: So if somebody takes a look.and says
| |
| . 10 push this at the top, this one doesn' t look important, 11 before you go through all of that PRA stuf f judgment is 12 applied? e 13 MR. MINNERS: That is right. We just don't-()
| |
| ,~
| |
| 14 blindly take them as they come in. After you get 15 prioritized, the issues that are resolved -- low, drop, 16 subsumed, resolved are documented in 0933, which is'an i 17 important part of the process because that keeps track of 18 what you did so you don't have to do it again. I think 0933 J
| |
| 19 is a very important document- that has to be kept up to date.
| |
| 20 It is a living document. It is a loose-leaf book. It keeps 21 getting changed, and it ought to be.
| |
| 22 The other issues that have a high, medium 23 priority or near resolved, regulatory impact issues, they 24 are concerned with safety but they are-D-ratchets, okay, and 25 licensing issues. These are the active issues that are 5
| |
| ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646'
| |
| | |
| 0960 03 03 34 DAVbur 1 being resolved.
| |
| (
| |
| '/ 2 After they get resolved, okay, they will go back 3 in 0933 to document the fact that they were resolved. So 4 when you pick up 0933 you will be able to figure out when an 5 issue is resolved. Then you go on to the imposition steps.
| |
| 6 (Slide.)
| |
| 7 MR. MICHELSON: Before you go to that, would this 8 be a good place to explain how you handle partial 9 resolutions?
| |
| 10 MR. MINNERS: Partial implementations or partial 11 resolutions?
| |
| 12 MR. MICHELSON: Even partial resolution -- you
| |
| . 13 decide part of the issue can be resolved and the other part 14 can't. I think systems interactions ought to get to that 15 point.
| |
| 16 DR. SIESS: Carl, this is just the overview.
| |
| 17 MR. MICHELSON: It is an overview question. If 18 you have a partially resolved issue, how do you handle it?
| |
| 19 MR. MINNERS: We do the best we can, Carl.
| |
| 20 MR. MICHELSON: You always do that, of course.
| |
| 21 MR. MINNERS: No, not always.
| |
| 22 (Laughter.)
| |
| 23 MR.~MICHELSON: I will give you any benefit of 24 the doubt.
| |
| 25 What is the process, though?
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80fb336-6M6
| |
| | |
| 0960 03 03 35 DAVbur 1 MR. MINNERS: You get your licks in. If we come
| |
| (-) 2 in with an issue which we split up and say Part A is 3 resolved and Part B is Issue 1021, you can complain.
| |
| 4 MR. MICHELSON: At the time of resolution are you 5 required to identify a new generic issue to take care of the 6 part of the package that is no longer in it? Is that part i
| |
| ~
| |
| 7 of the process?
| |
| 8 MR. MINNERS: We try not to play a shell game.
| |
| 9 We try to keep these issues identified so that we don't lose 10 them or any part of them.
| |
| 11 Issue 101 was a case. Two-thirds of it the 12 industry said, okay, we will go along with you, but we don' t 13 think we need the other third. So we said fine. We took 14 the other third, and we made a new issue out of it, 101.
| |
| 15 DR. SIESS: What was 10l?
| |
| 16 MR. MINNERS: BWR water level when the line 17 breaks and you get a single failure. You can get a false 18 reading.
| |
| 19 That was a pragmatic solution to the problem. I 20 think that is the correct way to go because we would have 21 gotten nothing. We would have nothing in the plan..
| |
| 22 So there is a case, Carl, in which I think you 23 have to be careful of differentiating between technical 24 perfection and the process.
| |
| 25 MR. MICHELSON: I am just trying to understand ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide coserage 800 336-6646
| |
| | |
| 0960 03 03- 36' -j u
| |
| DAVbur 1 .the process, of course.- l l
| |
| ; ; .: :2 MR. MINNERS: _It is a pragmatic process.
| |
| 3 MR. MICHELSON: Having' identified an issue alrea'dy and having gone th' rough this entire process and
| |
| ~
| |
| 4 5 having arrived at a resolution for a portion of it, I 6 believe you are' obligated to identify the other portion 7- immediately as a part of the resolution as being a new 8 issue, define it, give it a number, and so forth.
| |
| 9 Is that what you intend to do?
| |
| i 10 MR. MINNERS: That is what we intend to do, and I 11 gave you one example in which we did that.
| |
| 12 MR. MICHELSON: At the time of the resolution I I
| |
| 13 wouldn't expect people to say, well,fwe will consider:-that t O 14 or something, but rather I would expect it to be already 'l 15 assigned a number and whatever as part of the resolution. ,
| |
| 16 MR. MINNERS: One of the reasons for having this 4
| |
| 17 prioritization group separate, they'also1 maintain the l 18 tracking system, and that- is to keep ~ people honest. - They 19 look at it and say,-hey,. wait a minute, you didn't resolve I' 20 the whole issue, and that.is okay. But the part you didn't s
| |
| 21 resolve, now you have got to: identify again as a_new issue.
| |
| , 22 MR. MICHELSON: I would likeLto see-the -
| |
| i identification of the residual'before the entire issue was
| |
| ~
| |
| 23 24 considered, and I don' t get that. I see the resolution part 4 25 that they know how'to handle and:then some nebulous cloud of O.
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage - 800-336 6646 1
| |
| , - , . . . . . . . - _ . - . ~ , . , , . - - - . - _ - . . . . . - , , , . . . , , , . _ . - , . , , ._ _..,..-..,,..--m .
| |
| | |
| 0960.03 03 37
| |
| " DAVbur. 1 issues that they think they are going to try to write up
| |
| .O- 2. sometime as a new generic issue.
| |
| 3 That just doesn't fly.
| |
| 4 DR. SIESS: Warren, does the residual go back to 5 the top of the list or is it immediately given a new number, 6 identified and prioritized?
| |
| 7 I think that is what Carl is asking.
| |
| 8 MR. MINNERS: I._ guess in Issue 101 there was o
| |
| 9 already a-regulatory-analysis done, okay. . So the one-third J
| |
| 10 that wasn' t resolved and went back in this issue, it"was 11 reprioritized. But since the regulatory analysis, the 12 numbers were all there and it .was just an administrative .
| |
| l -
| |
| 13 paper exercise, wri t.i ne it up on a different piece of? paper.
| |
| ()
| |
| i I
| |
| ; 14 But there was a little delay until it got 15 actually redesignated as a new issue.
| |
| 16 DR. SIESS: Okay. Proceed.
| |
| ~
| |
| .; 17 MR. MINNERS: Then the imposition which,.as I 18 say, is NRR, Walt'Schwink-is-going to talk about that. l 19 This only deals with the issues which are 20 resolved through some requirement -- and I put that in f 21 quotation marks -- put on licensing. The purpose of this-is 1
| |
| 22 basically to establish what the licensee . is going - to do and l 23 when he is going to do.it. b q
| |
| ; 24 The imposition process is another technical l 25 resolution. Because every-plan'is different.and the generic j (S) i ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
| |
| | |
| . - .. - ~ _ - . - - . - - .. .--
| |
| +
| |
| ~0960-03;b3 38 4
| |
| DAVbur: l resolutions are generic, you have to go through with
| |
| [] ' 2 licensees and try to fit their generic issues on their plant i
| |
| 3 sometimes because there are. design dif ferences that require.
| |
| 4 that. In other cases the licensee comes b'ack and says,. hey, 5 why should I do that, I have got this or that, and we try.to
| |
| , 6 accommodate that.
| |
| 7 The next step is implementation, which Walt will 8 also discuss. This is.the licensing actions, and we now i
| |
| l 9 have a better system of tracking tha't with SIMS,' which is
| |
| . 10 getting up to speed. It is far from perfecti~on, but.we are 11 putting resources into this.
| |
| 12 As I suggested, I think that the ACRS has 13 neglected this area and a lot of people have neglected this 1 O 14 area, and if people neglect it and don't ask questions.an'd 15 there isn't any interest in it, fine, I will.give it a lower 16 priority.
| |
| 17 MR. EBERSOLE: That was_the case. As you were, 18 okay.
| |
| 19 DR. MOELLER: In terms of the imposition, they j 20 are given deadlines?.
| |
| 21 MR. MINNERS: For implementation or imposition?
| |
| 22- DR. MOELLER: For implementation. ,
| |
| l 23 MR. MINNERS: "Given" I think is.too strong. I 24 think it is a process in which'we try to accommodate 25 different things because we don't -- I mean in most cases if l P
| |
| Q ,
| |
| )
| |
| i
| |
| {
| |
| i
| |
| ! ACE-FEDERAL-. REPORTERS, INC. -l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| ,, . ~ . , _ , . . - . _ _
| |
| _ _, .. - _. .w. . - . _ _ . . . , , . , . _ .
| |
| | |
| 0960 03 03 39
| |
| ,DAVbur 1 you start shutting down plants to implement this stuff, it 2 ain' t worth it. So you have to try to fit it into the 3 normal shutdown schedules. They have things they want to 4 do, and there's only so many people you can cram on a site 5 and so much you can do.
| |
| 6 DR. SIESS: If they are operating under a living 7 schedule, I assume that is worked into it.
| |
| 8 MR. MINNERS : Some have living schedules, some 9 don't.
| |
| 10 DR. SIESS: Even if they don't have a living 11 schedule, it is then negotiated in some way?
| |
| 12 MR. EBERSOLE: In the Davis-Besse case and the
| |
| - 13 aspect of implementation, I understand there were actions G 14 hanging over their head for a very long time indeed, but 15 they had to wait until something actually happened that 16 precipitated the implementation program.
| |
| 17 MR. MINNERS: Well, I discuss that. Auxiliary 18 feedwater was an issue. We were negotiating with the 19 licensee to do something about that issue.
| |
| 20 I guess I would hate to admit it to you. They 21 were giving us some PRA analyses which proposed slightly 22 different resolutions than we were proposing, and it just 23 didn' t go fast enough. ,
| |
| 24 I don't think the process was wrong. I think 25 there should have been negotiations.with the licensee.
| |
| V ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| 0960 04 04 40 DAVbur 1 DR. SIESS: I think all it proves is that it was
| |
| \-) 2 a good generic issue.
| |
| 3 MR. MINNERS: That is right.
| |
| 4 Verification, I guess that is a real question.
| |
| 5 How much of this do you have to do? Do we have to go out 6 and inspect everything that we imposed or not?
| |
| 7 DR. SIESS: It depends on whether you-have got 8 people who know what they are doing.
| |
| 9 MR. MINNERS: So that is an overview. Ron Emrit 10 will now give you some details.
| |
| 11 DR. SIESS: Before you sit down, Warren, go back 12 to your slide that listed the. functions of responsibilities.
| |
| 13 I want to just get a little clarification. That was your O
| |
| kl 14 second slide, I guess.
| |
| 15 Now, the.prioritization and resolution are both 16 in Research, which is where you are, right?
| |
| 17 MR. MINNERS: Yes, sir.
| |
| 18 DR. SIESS: Which branch and which division has 19 prioritization?
| |
| 20 MR. MINNERS: What is the name of your branch, 21 Ron?
| |
| 22 MR. ROSZTOCZ Y: Regulatory Applications Division.
| |
| 23 DR. SIESS: Start with the division, the Division 24 of Regulatory Applications.
| |
| 25 MR. EMRIT: In fact, we are in the Generic Issues O l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-334646
| |
| | |
| 0960 04 04 41
| |
| ,DAVbur 1 Branch.
| |
| '' 2 DR. SIESS: Then you have got a Generic Issues 3 Branch?
| |
| 4 MR. MINNERS: No. That division does not have a 5 Generic Issues Branch.
| |
| 6 DR. SIESS: What is the name of the branch.that 7 does the --
| |
| 8 MR. EMRIT: The Advanced Reactors and Generic 9 Issues Branch.
| |
| 10 DR. SIESS: That is an interesting combination.
| |
| 11 (Laughter.)
| |
| 12 DR. SIESS: Okay. And all of the prioritization 13 is in there, right?
| |
| (O m) 14 MR. EMRIT: That is correct.
| |
| 15 DR. SIESS: Does that branch also track the 16 resolution?
| |
| 17 MR. EMRIT: That is correct.
| |
| 18 DR. SIESS: Now, the resolution itself, according 19 to something I have got, is provided between the Engineering 20 Issues Branch in the Division of Engineering,.the Reactor 21 Safety Issues Branch in the Division of Reactor and Plant i
| |
| 22 Systems.
| |
| 1 23 Is that right? l l
| |
| 24 MR. MINNERS: Right, and we have a Human Factors 25 Reliability Branch in that division, which has human factors k_)
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6546
| |
| | |
| - 0960104'04~ 42 DAVbur 1. . generic issues.
| |
| '2 'DR.'SIESS: And Engineering Issues Branch in the 3 Division of Engineering, right?
| |
| 4 MR. MINNERS: Correct. .
| |
| 'S DR. SIESS: Then the Reactor Safety Issues Branch 6 in the other division?
| |
| f 7 MR. MINNERS: Which is Brian-Sheron'sLdivision.
| |
| 8 The Branch Chief is Carl Neal. And in Brian Sheron's 9 division there is a Human Factors and Reliability Branch ,
| |
| 10 which has human factors generic issues.
| |
| 11 DR. SIESS: Is there still a Division of Reactor 12 Accident Analysis?
| |
| 13 MR. MINNERS: Yes, effectively. That is either
| |
| .O 14 where Zoltan is, some of that.-
| |
| 4 15 DR. SIESS: I~have got something that says there 16 is a Severe Accident Issues Branch.
| |
| 17 MR. MINNERS: That is in two' places. This Human 18 Factors and Reliability Branch-has the implementation of 19 severe accident policy, basically doing the individual plant 20 examinations.
| |
| 21 DR. SIESS: I am still talking about resolution.
| |
| 'l 22 I have got two places you do resolution.
| |
| , 23 Is there a third one?
| |
| 24 MR. MINNERS: That is kind of resolution. The-25 function being done there is deciding what the plants have' ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| ; 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6 i
| |
| . - - . - . , , . , , - - . , ., ,. , . , - . . , s , , , , , , , . , , ,-n.
| |
| | |
| 0960 04 04 43
| |
| ,DAVbur 1 to do for individual plant examinations. There is going to
| |
| (') 2 be some implementation, but we still have to decide what'to 3 do, and that is resolution.
| |
| 4 DR. SIESS: I am interested in some names. I 5 have something that says that there is a Division of Reactor 6 Accident Analysis in the Office of Research and there is a 7 Severe Accident Issues Branch which is concerned with the 8 resolution of issues on severe accidents.
| |
| 9 Is that correct or not?
| |
| 10 MR. MINNERS: Yes. Denny Ross is the Acting 11 Division Director, and, yes, there is.
| |
| 12 DR. SIESS: Okay.
| |
| 13 MR. MINNERS: They do severe accident research.
| |
| O,.
| |
| 14 DR. SIESS: And resolution, okay.
| |
| 15 MR. ROSZTOCZY: That branch is basically handling 16 the source term issues and all of the follow-up.
| |
| 17 DR. SIESS: I am just trying to find out where 18 the resolution is being done. It is being done in at least 19 three branches, maybe four.
| |
| 20 MR. MINNERS: Of severe accidents?
| |
| 21 DR. SIESS: No, generic issues.
| |
| 22 MR. MINNERS: That is correct.
| |
| 23 DR. SIESS: Resolution is all being done in 24 Research, but it is passed out to particular divisions 25 depending on the scope of that division, and some of those l
| |
| [ rj \
| |
| l l
| |
| ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6M6
| |
| | |
| . - . . .-- _. =. .
| |
| 0960 04 04 44
| |
| . DAVbur 1- divisions have a branch that is devoted to generic issue
| |
| /~')
| |
| \~/ 2 resolution, some just factor it in to some other branch.-
| |
| 3 Am I right?
| |
| 4 MR. MINNERS: Correct.
| |
| 5 MR. EMRIT: I would just like to add one point 6 here.
| |
| 7 Of the remaining issues to be resolved, NRR has 8 retained-responsibility for resolution of 14 issues out of 9 69.
| |
| 10 DR. SIESS: That is the human factors?
| |
| 11 MR. MINNERS: -Yes.
| |
| l 12 DR. SIESS:' I don't have any problem with-13 fragmentation and the resolution.-- resolutions should go to O 14 the area where the expertise is, and it is. pretty well 15_ l spread around. Prioritization is concentrated.
| |
| 16 MR. MINNERS : Prioritization and tracking are 17 concentrated.
| |
| 18 DR. SIESS: Now, SIMS is not a Research. function?.
| |
| 19 Is SIMS put out by Research?
| |
| 20 MR. MINNERS : Everybody inputs to SIMS.
| |
| 21 DR. SIESS:' But that is over somewhere in the ;
| |
| t 22 administrative area?- 1 23 MR. MINNERS: . All the computer people run it.
| |
| 24 DR. SIESS: The computer bugs do it. Okay, that I 25 answers my question. ;
| |
| 4 ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8004 4 6646
| |
| | |
| -0960104 04 '45 DAVbur 1 -Any other questions for-Warren?
| |
| -n
| |
| \s 2 (No response.)
| |
| 3 DR. SIESS: Let's take about a 10-minute break, 4 gentleme'n, and we will go on with the agenda.
| |
| 5 (Recess.)'
| |
| 6 ( Slide .~ )
| |
| 7 MR. EMRIT: My name is Ron Emrit. Ron Frahm was-8 supposed to be here this morning to give: the presentation.
| |
| 9 He is the Section Leader in the Advanced Reactors and -
| |
| 1 10 Generic Issues Branch'.. He is ill this morning, so' I will be - -
| |
| 11 giving the presentation in his' place.
| |
| 12 This part of the presentation will concentrate on-13 the prioritization ' process.
| |
| O 14 (Slide.)
| |
| 15 I know the ACRS asked specific questions relative 16 to how long it takes to do' things, but before I go into i 17 answering any specific questions, I-would.just like to walk i
| |
| 18 you through the process-briefly.
| |
| i- 19 First, issues are identified and defined. Warren z 20 explained the various methods of identification. Everybody-21 is involved -- the ACRS, the Staff. '
| |
| 22 Sometimes issues are improperly defined. Before 23 the prioritization process begins, we have to go back and i 24 get a feel for exactly what the safety concern of the issue i
| |
| 25 is, and I think you should understand that that really I
| |
| ()
| |
| ACE. FEDERAL- REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347 3700 . Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 .j
| |
| | |
| 4
| |
| ;0960 04 04 46 D Vbur: 1 dela*s' j the prioritization process.
| |
| '~
| |
| 2 By that time we have already given the issue a 3 . number, the clock starts on the prioritization process.' It
| |
| ~
| |
| ; 4- probably takes two to four weeks to go back and get a feel 5 for exactly what we want to'be addressed in prioritization, 6 and I think you should understand that that is added~to'the 7 prioritization process. Even though.we may not have started:
| |
| I 8 any actual calculations, it is added.
| |
| t 9 People.ask us how long do'you take to prioritize 10 an issue. It is added as part of.the process. i 11 The methodology, some of the ACRS' members are 12 aware, was discussed in detail back in.1983.- I won't go i
| |
| 13 into very much detail about the methodology because it has-O 14 been published since 1983 in the introduction of NUREG-0933.
| |
| a 15 But I will just go through the steps again for those who .are 16 not that familiar with it.
| |
| 4 17 First,'we try to_get-frequency and consequence 18 estimates. Frequency, particularly if it is an event that:
| |
| . 19 occurred and the issue was raised, weLtry to do some kind of 20 calculation to pick this up, what kind of frequency estimate 21 we come up with. ,
| |
| 22 The consequences, based on the accident, just 23 exactly what the risk associated with.that: event is. 'We try 24 to think of a possible solution. . Before.we proceed with the 25 calculations, we try to think of exactly how much risk ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS,- INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| _mm _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
| |
| | |
| q 0960'04 04 47 DAVbur 1 reduction can be brought about by that possible solution.
| |
| ' .\>
| |
| ({)
| |
| 2 We take the difference, and we como up with some kind of 3- risk reduction estimate.
| |
| 4 We go into cost estimates, which will basically 5 be industry costs, costs incurred by industry to.fix the 6 problem and the possible solution.
| |
| 7 MR. EBERSOLE: On that topic, do'you really think 8 that industry costs are unbiased?
| |
| 9 MR. EMRIT: That is~a very difficult question for 10 me to answer. The costs are published-in the~ documents. We 11 have a lot of guidance.
| |
| -12 MR. EBERSOLE: Are there.any back-checks on 13 estimates?
| |
| 14 MR. MINNERS: We do independent estimates. .We 15 don't ask industry for the prioritization' process.
| |
| 16 DR. SIESS: Do you think they are unbiased?
| |
| 17 MR. MINNERS: They are correctly biased.-
| |
| 18 (Laughter.)
| |
| 19 MR. EMRIT: The nice thing about our estimates is-20 that they all get documented and published for public 21 review. We have never gotten any comments'back on bad 22 estimates. They are published in 0933.
| |
| 23 DR. SIESS: I saw a document recently. It was a 24 job that was done for NRC at DOE by United Engineers and 25 Constructors, where they sent out questionnaires to a number O
| |
| ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-M>46
| |
| | |
| 0960 04 04 48
| |
| .DAVbur- 1 of. utilities and got the costs of various plant changes, and (L> '2 they were breaking it down into engineering costs versus 3 construction costs.
| |
| 4 I think they were showing it to NRC in order to 4
| |
| 5 get some figures on what percentage of the direct cost was 1 6 engineering. It seems to'me that would be a basis for 7 . telling you whether they were biased, Jesse, because ~ it 8 gives presumably the actual costs.
| |
| 9 There were about six pages of things that were i 10 done,_and they varied quite a bit.
| |
| 11 Are you familiar with what I am talking about?
| |
| ! 12 It was a four-volume report, I believe.
| |
| 13 MR. MINNERS: Tha have contracted out -- Argonne 4
| |
| () 14 can give us a cost estimating method.
| |
| i 15 DR. SIESS: This wasn't a cost estimating method.
| |
| 16 This was a compilation of actual costs.
| |
| 17 MR. MINNERS: It was the Cost Estimating Group, 18 and they have put out such a report.
| |
| 19 DR. SIESS: This was then subcontracted from 20 Argonne-to UE&C?
| |
| 21 MR. MINNERS: That is right.
| |
| 22 DR. SIESS: Okay, and you use that kind of 23 informa tion?
| |
| 24 MR. MINNERS: Yes. -But I also point out that.
| |
| 25 costs are not a very important factor in prioritization.
| |
| ~
| |
| i /\CE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| ,- - - . . + . . - - . - . . - . _ --- .,. _. ..- - - - - .-
| |
| | |
| 0960 04 04 49
| |
| ,D Vbur 1 They are a secondary factor.
| |
| 2 DR. SIESS: Okay.
| |
| 3 MR. EMRIT: Carrying on here, once we get those 4 es tima tes -- I might remind you that 'another part of the 5 process here is if we feel that we cannot -- because of the 6 workload or something like that we feel we need technical 7 assistance, we use our contractor -- specifically, PNL -- to 8 try to get a feel for what the frequency and consequence 9 estimates are. So usually that adds to the three months in 10 the process. We have to send it out there to the West Coast 11 and wait for it to come back. So that is added on to the 12 prioritization process.
| |
| 13 Once we get that information back, assuming it is O 14 an issue that we sent out there for data, we then do our 15 calculations. Like I said, the methodology is all found in 16 NUREG-0933, which is basically a value impact score, and 17 that determines -- like I said, the matrix is well-18 publicized in NUREG-0933. When we get a score, we just-19 apply the matrix to find out exactly where that issue stands 20 relatively to its ranking, if it is high priority, medium.
| |
| 21 Like I said, this has been reviewed by the ACRS 22 before, and that determines the priority of the issue.
| |
| 23 There may be other considerations. Qualitative 24 factors are takra into consideration. Uncertainties. If 25 the engineer doing the calculation feels that he wants to ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| .- . .,. . -. - . . .= . - - - - - -. .- -
| |
| 10960'04 04 50 D Vbur 1 take other things into. consideration, like' occupational risk ,
| |
| 2 exposure and other estimates, implementation costs, 3 inspection costs, maintenance and inspection costs, averted 4 costs, and so forth, those other factors that-could affect 5 the final priority score before we go to the matrix and find 6 out whether it is a high, medium, low, or drop priority 7 ranking.
| |
| 8 MR. EBERSOLE: Explain why cost is not an
| |
| '- 9 important factor early on. It seems to me. that would af fect i
| |
| 10 prioritization early on.
| |
| 11 I think of two examples, both of them 12 Westinghouse -- the absence of their automatic system having 13 diversity -- on the one hand, cost estimates for providing i
| |
| 14 diversity are very normal if it is done by a realist, and i
| |
| 15 they are extraordinarily high if done by the. industry -- and 16 the design that they have for always requiring the response 17 of the aux feedwater system when they. trip.
| |
| 18 These are facets that make you either turn around 19 or turn around.
| |
| i 20 DR. SIESS: Right now what they are prioritizing 21 is the staff effort on this. Whether the staff is going to 22 start work on it, that should be primarily a-function of
| |
| ; 23 whether it'affects safety or not, not what it is going to 4
| |
| : 24 cost the applicant or the licensee. That comes into the 25 resolution.
| |
| 4
| |
| $ /\CE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336-6646 4
| |
| ,, , . . . . .,,-,.o..,-..,..-m.-, . , , - . _ -
| |
| | |
| 0960 04 04 51
| |
| ,DAVbur 1 MR. EBERSOLE: Doesn't that, however, inevitably
| |
| ( )
| |
| '' 2 though bring up what it is going to cost to fix it?
| |
| 3 DR. SIESS: I don't think what it is going to 4 cost to fix it should be any consideration until we get to 5 resolution. I think at this stage the question is, is this 6 issue important to safety?
| |
| 7 MR. EBERSOLE: He mentioned cost.
| |
| 8 MR. WYLIE: How do you use the cost?
| |
| T 9 DR. SIESS: I think they use it in che 10 resolution.
| |
| 11 MR. WYLIE: No. He said he uses it to set 12 priorities.
| |
| 13 MR. EMRIT: We strictly address it in the O 14 prioritization process. This goes back again to the 15 methodology. This has been published for years in NUREG-16 0933.
| |
| 17 It is basically man / rem per million dollars. It 18 is the value impact score we use for priority ranking, and 19 the cost is the denominator and the man / rem risk reduction 20 is the numerator.
| |
| 21 DR. SIECS: What you do then in deciding whether 22 it is important to safety is look at how many man / rem 23 reduction you are likely to get out of it and whether that 24 is significant in relation to cost?
| |
| 25 MR. EBERSOLE: But the man / rem number is such an O
| |
| O ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmcrage 800 33MM6
| |
| | |
| 1 I
| |
| 0960 04 04 52 D Vbur 1 abstract, unreal thing that there is no reality in any of
| |
| ,)
| |
| (_ 2 this process.
| |
| 3 DR. SIESS: The man / rem number may be abstract 4 and unreal, but it has been stated by the Commission as 5 their measure of significance.
| |
| 6 MR. EBERSOLE: I have some trouble, you know, 7 with this.
| |
| 8 DR. SIESS: And these guys work for the 9 Commission.
| |
| 10 MR. MINNERS: We also use core melt, Jesse.
| |
| 11 MR. EBERSOLE: I like that.
| |
| 12 MR. MINNERS: I think most of the issues are 13 prioritized based on core molt.
| |
| 14 MR. EBERSOLE: Do you really stick to that, 15 though?
| |
| 16 MR. MINNERS: We not only stick to it --
| |
| 17 MR. EBERSOLE: Well, if you stick to core melt, 18 you are far closer to hom.
| |
| 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 O
| |
| ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| . .. . _ _ . _ _ ~ _ . -. . _._- _ ._ _ _ _ _ . . . __ . _ . . . _ _ .
| |
| 0960'05 05 53 i
| |
| DAV/bc 1 (Slide.) ,
| |
| ' : 2 MR. EMRIT: Like I said, this goes back four 3 years.ago. It's what we've been using. What Warren was 4 talking about is the' core melt per reactor year. You not' ice
| |
| . 5 as you get into-the 10 to the minus 6 or 7, 10 to the minus 6 5, that's the medium range.
| |
| t t
| |
| 7 If you have a medium range, value impact core,.
| |
| I 8 man / rem per million dollars comes into play. Based on the 9 low cost, obviously, the low cost for the fix, which gives 10 you a high number, you' get into the higher range.
| |
| 11 I think that's what he's talking about, where we j 12 use the core melt per reactor' year.
| |
| 13 MR. MINNERS: All cost does will shift you maybe i
| |
| ' (:) 14 from a medium to.a high in some cases.
| |
| i 15 MR. EBERSOLE: . But, right now,.a medium to high i 16 means you don't do anything about the medium.
| |
| I' 17 DR. SIESS: They don't get dropped anyway.
| |
| I 18 MR. EMRIT: For medium priority issues, you may f 19 be right. In the past, I think some of them, more medium
| |
| ; 20 priority issues are active today than maybe two years ago, l.
| |
| 21 because more resources are available.
| |
| , 22 But that's a question.
| |
| 23 DR. MOELLER: On the lefthand ordinate, you .
| |
| 24 express it in man / rems per million-dollars.
| |
| 25 MR. EMRIT: That's the value impact score we r
| |
| 1 l /(CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. t 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6 4 6 r
| |
| , . _ . , , . - . .- .. -: .- -,.-, ., - - - . -.,-,-,,.s--.- . ~ . - - - , - . _ . ,
| |
| | |
| ._____ .._ ~__._ _
| |
| l 0960 05 05 54 _
| |
| DAV/bc 1 talked about.
| |
| O 2 DR. MOELLER: Generally, you speak in terms of l
| |
| .3 dollars per man-rem.
| |
| 4 MR. MINNERS: A thousand is a thousand. A 5 thousand man / rem per million dollars, is that the same as a 6 thousand dollars per man / rem?
| |
| 7 DR. MOELLER: Okay, I_can understand that, but is 8 there something subtle that maybe I'm missing of why you.say 9 " man / rem"?
| |
| 10 DR. SIESS: They want to.go'from lower left to 11 upper right. Otherwise, it would be going in the other ;
| |
| 12 I direction.
| |
| 13 DR. MOELLER: Does that allow them then to go_up O 14 rather than down on their chart?
| |
| 15 DR. SIESS: I think so.
| |
| 16 DR. MOELLER: .I was trying to picture, I guess,.
| |
| 17 the smaller the man / rem per dollar.
| |
| '18 MR. MINNERS: It was probably a mistake,.so all 19 we did was confuse people.
| |
| 20 DR. SIESS: You could number from top to bottom 21 and get the same thing.- ,
| |
| 22 MR. EMRIT: But what's interesting, I think what 23 you ought to pay close attention to is really~the man / rem 24 total. All reactors, when we do our calculations, going 25 from 5,000 to 50,000, that's really where the issues become ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| 0960 05 05 55 DAV/bc 1 of great significance.
| |
| (~ ~)
| |
| (_ 2 DR. MOELLER: All right. -That then'is the impact 3 if that event should happen.
| |
| 4 MR. EMRIT: That's the risk reduction associated 5 with the possible solution. You know, we impose a solution 6 and we do calculations of what it's going to cost to impose 7 that solution, and also how much man-rem risk reduction is 8 going to come about.
| |
| 9 That may not be the final solution.
| |
| 10 DR. MOELLER: The higher that number, the greater 11 the risk associated with that event.
| |
| 12 MR. EMRIT: That's correct.
| |
| 13 MR. MICHELSON: How do you know how o do these
| |
| (~m
| |
| \- 14 calculations? In certain cases, the generic issue is one 15 you don't really understand very well to begin with. So 16 it's pretty hard.
| |
| 17 MR. EMRIT: Well, that's where our job is so 18 difficult. We try to understand. We have to understand the 19 issue more so that the guy who raised the issue --
| |
| 20 MR. MICHELSON: Is there a danger though of 21 dropping issues from lack of understanding.
| |
| 22 DR. SIESS: Not as long as the ACRS is reviewing s
| |
| 23 them.
| |
| 24 MR. EMkIT: See, overything is published in 0933, 25 DR. SIESS: Let's get something clear on this O
| |
| V ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| .g n ts b960LOS_05 56 DAV/bc' 1 prioritization. The ACRS will review the prioritization of (z 2 every issue. It's accompanied by several pages explaining 3 how they arrived at all these numbers.
| |
| 4 And vnt look at it. If they do it wrong, we.tell 5 them. If they don't understand the issue, we tell them 6 that. And we've got it. We've approved priorities and said 7 this ought to be taken out of this or this generic issue.
| |
| 8 So this is not supposed to be something new to
| |
| \
| |
| , 9 us.
| |
| 10 MR. MICHELSON: No, that's right, it's not.
| |
| 11 DR. SIESS: It's something we're reviewing
| |
| .. r i2 cons tantly'.
| |
| ., -i 13 MR. MINNERS: The danger is pretty small, Carl,
| |
| (,'O 14 because we tend to'be very liberal in prioritizing issues.
| |
| 15 In fact, we've gotten criticized for that,.but I don't think '
| |
| B 16 that's a fair criticism.
| |
| 17 I think we ought to be liberal in bringing on 18 issues and then, when we come to the resolution process, we ;
| |
| 19 ought to be more accurate.
| |
| 20 All we did was waste a little bit of NRC 21 resources. But when you talk to an NRC manager, that's what 22 he gets upset about.
| |
| 23 But, from a national point of view, it's a few ;
| |
| I 24 hundred thousand dollars. It's insignificant. I 25 DR. SIESS: Well, I'm trying to still thin - _ about ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| l 0960 05 05 57 DAV/bc 1 the cost. And what I see here now says that I've got an 7..
| |
| (_) 2 issue that fixing it is going to change the core melt 3 probability from 10 to the minus 7 to 10 to the minus 8.
| |
| 4 It's sure not worth spending very much money on.
| |
| 5 It may not be worth spending any money on from 10 to the 6 minus 7 to 10 to the minus 8.
| |
| 7 MR. MICHELSON: If your numbers are right to 8 begin with.
| |
| 9 DR. SIESS: So that's one reason for having it 10 costed. But, you're right. The horizontal scale dominates 11 this thing.
| |
| 12 MR. EMRIT: That's correct.
| |
| 13 MR. EBERSOLE: One thing that seems to be missing O
| |
| \2 14 from all this I guess is sort of the threshold cost which 15 says: My God, this makes sense here to put in this larger
| |
| '16 bolt than this smaller bolt. You know, the incremental cost 17 is zilch.
| |
| 18 DR. SIESS: Nothing's incremental cost 's zilch 19 by the time the engineering is done.
| |
| 20- MR. EBERSOLE: There ought tb be a dead band some 21 place where you don't_go through t'ts .) nizing proving 22 process.
| |
| 23 DR. SIESS: You know if putting in the larger 24 bolts is going to take you from 10 to the minus 7 to 10 to 25 the minus 8 on core melt, why would you do it? What's wrong 4
| |
| ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| 0960 05 05- 58
| |
| .DAV/bc l' with the design? -It gives you a 10 to the minus 7 on core 2 melt.
| |
| 3 Why do you change ~it to go to 10 to the minus 87 4 In that case, you could find everything in the 5 plant I-can' find that I could raise the factor of safety on i
| |
| 6 somewhere.
| |
| : 7. MR. MINNERS: Jesse would fix the l'ounger chairs.
| |
| 8 MR. EBERSOLE: I would make the bookcases stand ,
| |
| 9- up at Diablo Canyon. .
| |
| 10 DR. SIESS: I would, too. But that's not my job.
| |
| 11 MR.-MICHELSON: It depends entirely on~how
| |
| ~
| |
| 12 confident you are of your numbers. If you really believe 13 it's 10 to the minus 7.
| |
| O 14 MR. MINNERS: That's right. *
| |
| .15 MR. MICHELSON: If you clearly believe that there 16 are uncertainties, there are limited scopes in the analyses, 17 there are'a' number of factors.
| |
| 18 MR. EBERSOLE: There's Murphy's Law.
| |
| 19 DR. SIESS: There are also conservatisms built 20 into the process at every step to take care of some of those 21 uncertainties.
| |
| 22 MR. MICHELSON: -Also, there are uncertainties for 23 which there is no conservatism built in.
| |
| 24 DR. SIESS: If you know that much, it isn't .)
| |
| 25 uncertain. 1
| |
| (). i ace FEDERAL REPORTERS,.INC. l 202-347-3700 . Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6M6 .
| |
| | |
| 0960 05'051 59 l l
| |
| l DAV/bc' 1 .MR. MICHELSON: :Well, you don't put'it-in your D- ;
| |
| k'd _
| |
| 2 numbers'because you don't know how to put itLin your bottom 3' line; you just know it.-
| |
| 4 .If you haven't considered external events in'a 5 PRA, for instance, you know that, but-you' don't know what 6 effect it's going to have on that finalinumberfuntil'you do 7 the analysis.
| |
| 8 MR. MINNERS: But you can make estimates.of that..
| |
| ~
| |
| 9 MR. MICHELSON: No, you can't make estimates of 10 things'that you haven't thought through.yet.
| |
| -11~ MR. EBERSOLE: ILbetLyou could go to Diablo' 12 Canyon today and find the Emergency, Procedures-Manuals, 13 bookcases that are loosely arrayed'in the control. room, O 14 during an earthquake, they'd be scattered all over;the 15 place, and you could never find the first'page'of.the 16 manual.
| |
| 17 DR. SIESS: In the first place,.they'll be metal 18 bookcases..
| |
| 19 MR. EBERSOLE: Hopefully.
| |
| 20 MR. WYLIE: Did we get a copy of that chart?
| |
| 21 DR.-SIESS: We'll get a copy of it; it's not a 22 new one.
| |
| 23 MR. EMRIT: Oka y .' 'I just want to tell you it 24 hasn't changed in four years. It's been documented :in NUREG 25 0933.
| |
| O ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347 3700 - . Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| 0960 05 05 60 DAV/bc 1 DR. SIESS: You know, you can make it constant L/ 2 vertically and remove all these questions and it probably 3 wouldn't affect a single ~ priority. ,
| |
| 4 MR. MINNERS: Yes, you could, that's right.
| |
| 5 DR. SIESS: I don't think cost does come in very 6 strongly.
| |
| 7 MR. EMRIT: Just to give you a feel again for the 8 time it takes to do all our calculations, once we get a 9 feedback from the contractor and we factor that-in and we 10 spend some staff time, that whole process probably takes 11 about six staff weeks of time.
| |
| 12 Staff time, however, is spread out.maybe over a 13 six-month period, we feel, because of-the time it takes to :
| |
| }
| |
| e-)''
| |
| 14 get the feedback from the contractor so we can factor it in. 1 15 DR. SIESS: Is all this donc under contract?
| |
| 16 MR. EMRIT: No.
| |
| 17 DR. SIESS: How many people have you got working 18 on this?
| |
| 19 MR. EMRIT: In the branch?
| |
| 20 DR. SIESS: In the branch.
| |
| 21 MR. EMRIT: We have currently four people in our 22 branch.
| |
| 23 DR. SIESS: Four people, and some of this they do 24 themselves, and some they simply manage contracts with 25 Franklyn Research?
| |
| O ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| }
| |
| | |
| 0960$05'.05/ 61
| |
| 'DAV/bc~ l MR. EMRIT: -We do it all ourselves,.all the
| |
| ,r3 2 . write-ups are'done in-house. ;
| |
| .3 DR. SIESS:- Whattare you talking about 4 contractors?
| |
| 5 MR. EMRIT - For frequency estintiates, consequence 6 estimates and maybe some cost estimates.
| |
| 7- . DR . SIESS: Oh,'only for cost' estimates.
| |
| Risk reduction estimates. 'Sometimes, '
| |
| 8 MR. EMRIT:
| |
| 9 we use them; sometimes, we don't-if we feel we have better.
| |
| 10 numbers. So that's something we have to play with_once we 11 'get it back and see if_we accept'or: reject the numbers 12 before we move on to a final prioritization and go into peer- l 13 ~ review.
| |
| O 14 So, once-we draw our conclusi'ons and we' do a 15 write-up, we put it in the peer. review. And we have a 16 standard process which we're changing right now because. we 17 tried-to get NRR prior to the reorganization,! strictly NRR 18 ~ in terms of the peer review process.
| |
| 19 Now,-it's Research and NRR,-using~the expertise 20 in Research that's coming back to NRR and by the peer review
| |
| '21 process to get some of that expertise involved in the 22 prioritization phase.
| |
| 23 DR. SIESS: When you say four peopl?, do you mean '
| |
| 24 four engineers?-
| |
| 25 MR. EMRIT: That's correct. Once prioritization-ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6M6
| |
| | |
| ~0960 05 05 62
| |
| ,DAV/bc 1 comes back from th'e peer review, which usually we allow 10 ,
| |
| t' 2 days for, but.I have never seen any come back-in 10 days, 3 they usually come back anywhere from four to six weeks.
| |
| 4- Here, again, you're talking about impacts on 5 other people's workload because of the matrix-organization.
| |
| 6 We're asking, they have other more important' things to do 7 before.they get around to reviewing our prioritization. So 8 you ought-to be aware of that, that that adds time to the
| |
| . 9 process.
| |
| 10 Once the peer review comes back and there are-11 comments at the peer review stage, we have to address, that 12 may take some'more time. There may be some' arguments f 13 . relative to the comments and some points that.need to be 14 resolved.
| |
| 15 Once it's finalized and we get agreement, we move 16 on and get it into the PDR. The way we do that --.I'm 17 sorry. The ACRS gets it. The vehicle we use to accomplish 18 that is a cover letter with prioritization as an attachment.
| |
| 19 We put in the priority of that issue. It's i
| |
| 20 signed of f by the office director and signed out' by the -NRR 21 director. Like I said, now it's-going to be the Research 22 Director approving the prioritizations.
| |
| 23 Then they go out to the regions, to the ACRS.
| |
| 24 It's put in the PDR. And, eventually, when the cycle'comes 25 around, it gets published 11n the NUREG 1133.
| |
| Ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6666
| |
| . - . ~ - _ . . , - _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ . . . ~ . _ . _ - , _._ _ ,, ,_
| |
| | |
| (
| |
| 0960 05 05. 63 DAV/bc 1 DR. SIESS: ACRS gets it between those last two r3 O 2 steps.
| |
| 3 MR. EMRIT: That's correct.
| |
| -4 DR. SIESS: And you don't wait for the ACRS, to 5 hear from ACRS before you do something about it?
| |
| 6 MR. EMRIT: That's correct. We go ahead and 7 publish it so it's available to the public, to the industry.
| |
| 8 It's put in the PDR and sent out to the regions at the same 9 time it comes to you.
| |
| 10 Then you have your cycle, too, which is six to 11 nine months. So we can't possibly wait for you.
| |
| 12 DR. SIESS: I'm glad you don' t wait for us.
| |
| 13 MR. EMRIT: But we do recognize your comments and 14 do have to address them, and have addressed them over the 15 years.
| |
| 16 Warren? -
| |
| 17 MR. MICHELSON: Before he speeds you up, let me 18 slow you down a moment.
| |
| 19 (Laughter.)
| |
| 20 MR. MICHELSON: You're trying, I guess, when you 21 identify an issue at the very beginning, you're trying to 22 narrow it down to something that you can sit down and 23 clearly define in limited scope, and so forth, in order to 24 handle it.
| |
| 25 Yet, the issue could be a broad one. Let me give s
| |
| ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-334 6646
| |
| | |
| 0960 05 05 64 DAV/bc 1 you an example. The real concern, for instance, outside of
| |
| :'h
| |
| (''1 2 containment might be the loss of a pressure boundary, 3 particularly a high energy pressure boundary.
| |
| 4 But we didn't attack the question outside of 5 containment as a pressure boundary failure. Rather, we 6 attacked it as a pipe failure. Then we proceed to focus on
| |
| -7 pipes and cracks, and so on.
| |
| 8 We've ignored completely the fact that there are 9 bellows out there, there are manways on tanks, there are 10 flanges, there are seals, all these things, which are also 11 pressure boundary failures if they occur; also lead to the 12 same kind of flooding, and so forth.
| |
| 13 So what's the approach in identifying a generic O 14 issue? Can we identify a broad scope issue and attack it as 15 a broad scope issue? Or do we have to always say " pipe 16 failure" as opposed to pressure boundary failure, and 17 thereby leave out a big set of potential troubles?
| |
| 18 MR. MINNERS: Issue identifiers have a 19 responsibility in there to see that it's done correctly.
| |
| 20 I've gotten issues which people have done in which they said 21 "It's pipe failure." I don't know why they don't say i
| |
| 22 " pressure boundary failure".
| |
| 23 MR. EBERSOLE: Let me give you a great example of 24 that. The dump volume for the boilers. Everybody had a 25 fantastic amount of potential dump volume, spilling the ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364M6
| |
| | |
| 0960 05'05 65 DAV/bc- 1 reactor water all over the place, raising pressures and 2 ' temperatures and having a lock-out.
| |
| 3 of course, it wasn' t the dump volume integrity of 4 the pipe, it's the damned single valves that admit air or 5' . drain the lines, that stick. It was hatch, and they stuck 6 and created an1 enormously important effect.
| |
| 7 That's just what you're talking about.
| |
| 8 DR.-SIESS: Whose responsibility is it?
| |
| 9 MR. EMRIT: I was-just going to address that.
| |
| 10 It's up to the originator. We do not raise issues.~ I'll 11 tell you that right now as I stand here. We have never, wo 12 .probably take the initiative to put issues that we felt L
| |
| 13- needed to be backfit into the process, like Warren alluded O 14 to earlier, issues that were in the resolution stage.
| |
| 15 And by the time we got it, we had declared-them 16 nearly resolved, but at least we put them out so that the 17 ACRS and the public knows that these issues'were raised at 18 some time, they're documented and, hopefully, they won't be 19 raised again in the future.
| |
| 20 But it's not our responsibility to raise issues.
| |
| 21 DR. SIESS: And if we don't like it, it's our-22 responsibility to bring it up.-
| |
| 23 MR. EBERSOLE: Who does raise the issues?
| |
| 24 DR. SIESS: We can if we want.
| |
| 25 MR. EBERSOLE: But I don't like to be the sole O
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| 0960 06 06' 66 DAV/bc: 1 party. I'd like to see somebody else raise issues and then-
| |
| .f 2 have them look at it.
| |
| T 3 DR. SIESS:- There were 50 of them'that cam'_out e 4 of Davis-Besse. If you want to-know who raises issues, 50 ,
| |
| 5 of them came out of Davis-Besse.
| |
| 6- MR. EBERSOLE: After they were triggered by
| |
| . 7 something.
| |
| 8- DR. SIESS: We started this thing 15 years ago.
| |
| 9 The staff had a list of generic issues. The ACRS had a list 10 of generic issues. -We gave them all of ours.
| |
| ; 11 We've been adding to it occasionally from time to 12 time, but we're looking at every generic issue that comes
| |
| ! 13 into them, whether it's drop, medium, licensing issue, O 14 regulatory improvement. We see everyone. We see the value 15 impact statement, we see the basis for it.. And ifLwe don't 16 like it, we can tell them so. We have done it.
| |
| 17 And we're in the process, we can be in the-18 process up at the top. We don't see.it again until it gets 19 to the bottom, this stage of the' process. But we can put 20- them in at the top and modify them at the bottom, or feed 21 them back into the top.
| |
| 22 MR. EBE RSOLE: Some of these things are 20 years j- 23 old.
| |
| 24 DR. SIESS: Maybe.
| |
| 25 MR. MICHELSON: The question of pressure a
| |
| t ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 i
| |
| -_ __ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ = _ - - _ _ _ _ _
| |
| | |
| 0960 06 06D 67-DAV/bc 1 boundaries is as old as the reactor business and we have 2 narrowed it down to deal with certain parts, but we haven't 3 dealt with the rest of it.
| |
| 4 So I suppose, if we wish to impose that as ~a 5_ generic issue, you can come back and say:
| |
| 6 Well, I've handled this under piping.
| |
| 7 MR. MINNERS: Are-you talking-about the Event B 8 issue?
| |
| 9 MR. MICHELSON: That's one of them. That's one 10 of the possibilities. But, don't forget. We're talking 11 about the understanding of the mechanisms of failure, and'so 12 forth, which were only dealt with for pipes, not other 13 devices that can also catastrophically fail and release l 14 large amounts of fluid.
| |
| 15 MR. MINNERS: As Ron said, we spent a lot of time
| |
| ; 16 on peer review for the purpose of trying to get'that kind of 17 feedback, because prioritizers are relatively ignorant.
| |
| I 18 They're not specialists.
| |
| 19 They don't-know much about it. They depend on 20 people to feed that back to them and say: .You didn't do 21 them right.
| |
| 22 DR. SIESS: One problem is defining an issue in 23 terms of what happens, and the other is the consequence.
| |
| 24 What Carl is talking about is related partly to flooding, 25 partly to environmental qualification.
| |
| O Ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6M6 1
| |
| , , - , , - - - - - - ~ ,- , ..-,~ , , , , . , , , - .
| |
| _ . ~ , . - .,, , , - -
| |
| ,-r,~. ,---- . ,----
| |
| | |
| 0960-06 06 68 DAV/bc 1 MR. MICHELSON: ' Partly to pressurization of
| |
| ~O' 2 ' compartments also.
| |
| -3 DR. SIESS: Although I could never figure out 4 what that does'to concrete walls cracking.
| |
| 5 MR. MICHELSON: Concrete walls blow out if you' 6 put 20 pounds pressure'inside the room.
| |
| 7 DR. SIESS: Not many of them are going to take 20 8 pounds without getting a ' lot of cracks in them. - But, the 9 thing is,-if the pipe breaks outside of containment, you may 10 use it for a pipe break, a LOCA type thing. It's 11 environmental. The flooding.
| |
| 12 But you can get the same consequences from other 13 things in pipes. But part of that now is how issues are O 14 defined. Of course, if we talked about pipe break outside 15 of containment and we were thinking I think about some of 16 these aspects, about extending it to other things than 17 pipes.
| |
| /
| |
| 18 MR. MICHELSON: The critical issue comes when we 19 finally start narrowing down pipe breaks to smaller and 20 smaller cracks without remembering that we really have a 21 bigger obligation than the design of the structure. And now 22 the controlling design may come from a belt monitor instead 23 of a pipe cracking, for which we' don't have such nico 24 theories about how things happen; because we run into 25 questions of corrosion and other things.
| |
| ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804 336-6646 h
| |
| | |
| i
| |
| !- .0960'06.06 69 DAV/bc l' -So we've lost.the resolution of the problem when 2 we started narrowing it to-just pip'es. At one time, pipes.
| |
| 3 were good enough. They were the biggest leak-that.you 4 needed for the design purpose.
| |
| 5 DR. SIESS: -What we're going to end up with is a l 6 "one-hoss shay". Everything's just as strong as.the other.
| |
| j-l 7 When it goes, the whole damned thing goes.
| |
| i 8 MR. MICHELSON: That's right.
| |
| I .
| |
| l 9 MR. EBERSOLE: And that's the wrong way to design l-10 it.
| |
| l
| |
| ! 11 MR. MINNERS: Moving right along...
| |
| i 12 (Laughter.)
| |
| ! 13 MR. EMRIT: Yes.
| |
| 'O 14 (Slide.)
| |
| 15 I'd just like to go into answering the. questions 16 raised by the ACRS that are on the agenda. The first one 17 was:
| |
| 18 How fast are generic issues being processed?
| |
| 19 The answer ist Past experience shows that 20 approximately 30 generic issues are prioritized per year and 21 the average time to complete prioritization, which is what I 22 went through, when we receive it, we give it _ a number, is t
| |
| 23 approximately six months.
| |
| 24 DR. SIESS: What's the range? I've been 25 listening to so many PRAs and I hate to deal in averages, so ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, i
| |
| 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6 l
| |
| | |
| t 0960 06 06 70 3 DAV/bc 1 I won't ask.you whether that's the mean or medium. ;
| |
| 2 (Laughter.)'
| |
| 3 MR. EMRIT: Yes, please don't. I'm just trying to give you a feel.- I'm not'saying that everything follows 4 ,
| |
| 5 the norm. ~Some~have taken a lot longer because o'f problems
| |
| ~
| |
| 6 with. peer review.
| |
| 1 7 DR. SIESS: How much longer? Six. years versus I 8 six months?
| |
| j 9 MR. EMRIT: No, I wouldn' t go that f ar. Maybe we.
| |
| 10 have some that have been bogged'down for-18 months.
| |
| l 11 Certainly. But there is a reason why they're bogged down.
| |
| d 12 Because maybe we have problems getting concurrence ~in a peer 3
| |
| . 13 review process.
| |
| ( 14 But we have made an evaluation with nothing ' new
| |
| ! 15 in terms lof information that is going to change the 16 priority. And if it's low or drop', we move on:to other i
| |
| 17 issues that'we have not addressed in detail.
| |
| 4 18 That's how we sort of prioritize our l t
| |
| 19 prioritization process, becauso we've got such a tremendous
| |
| {
| |
| 20 backlog. We will get to that later, by the way.
| |
| j 21 MR. MINNERS: My experience is that, well, low i
| |
| 22' and dropped things tend to hang on because people don't want l
| |
| i l' 23 to let go. So I think the high priority things tend to go l' '
| |
| j 24 through very_quickly, i i(
| |
| 4 25 ' MR. EMRIT: That's very'true.
| |
| i l
| |
| Ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 3366M6
| |
| _- . . , _ . _ - . _ . . . ~ _ . . _ . _ _ - _ _ _ _ . _ . . . ...._ . _ . , _ . _ . _ , . , . . . . . . _ _ _ . ,
| |
| | |
| 0960 06 06 71
| |
| ,_D;AV/bc 1 MR. MINNERS: So, just looking at the numbers I'' ') 2 doesn't really give you an idea.
| |
| 3 DR. SIESS: You're absolutely right, Warren, 4 because if we see one that's marked high, very seldom do we 5 have any comment on it. Somebody may say that's ridiculous, 6- there's no way it can be high.
| |
| 7 MR. MINNERS: The comment usually is:
| |
| 8 You did it wrong, but you got the right answer.
| |
| 9 DR. SIESS: But, if we see a low or a drop, 10 people look at them. They want to be sure we're concurring 11 with dropping something because it isn't important. It's 12 usually more difficult not to decide to do something than it 13 is to do it.
| |
| O 14 MR. MICHELSON: In terms of the process, is there 15 any effort made to go back as you acquire,more and more 16 experience and see if perhaps we shouldn't have dropped?
| |
| 17 MR. MINNERS: We have several issues which we 18 have called reprioritized.
| |
| 19 MR. MICHELSON: Is that an orderly process, or is 20 it just happenstance in which you go back?
| |
| 21 MR. MINNERS: I guess it's happenstance. We 22 don't have any systematic way of going back over every 23 issue.
| |
| 24 MR. MICHELSON: I wouldn't think of redoing them
| |
| , 25 so much as kind of rethinking maybe overy six months to see ACE. FEDERAL REvonTEns, INC.
| |
| 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 8M3%(M6
| |
| | |
| 0960 06 06 72 DAV/bc 1 if something has come to light that would change your mind.
| |
| / \
| |
| 2 MR. MINNERS: I don't think that's necessary. We 3 get enough feedback from AEOD and everybody else. There's 4 no need to question it again.
| |
| 5 DR. SIESS: But I think the question was raised:
| |
| 6 If we went to a new reactor type, do you go back 7 and look at all the lows and drops to see how they might
| |
| , 8 apply to that new type? Or, for that matter, to the highs?
| |
| 9 MR. MINNERS: We haven't boon presented with the 10 new reactor type, so I presume we haven't done it.
| |
| 11 DR. SIESS: If somebody came in with a massive 12 safety system on a reactor.
| |
| 13 MR. MICHELSON: Maybe a drop will come back into O 14 play, depending on what's being proposed. But there's 15 nothing in the process as I see it with new reactor designs 16 to require it coming back and reviewing issues that are in 17 the low or dropped category.
| |
| 18 MR. HERNAN: I'd like to remind you, Carl, that 19 the EPRI program has done this. They've gone through about 20 700. Those are all the items that have ever been 21 prioritized. They're trying to make a judgment on the 22 applicability to the new design, whether it's a PWR or a 23 BWR. ;
| |
| I 24 So that's been done on a one-time basis.
| |
| I 25 MR. MICHELSON: My only complaint with the ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3366M6
| |
| | |
| 0960 06 06 73 DAV/bc 1 process there was that it went through last July. Other
| |
| \> 2 than that, that's a good idea. I think, from time to time 3 we should reexamine our decisions.
| |
| 4 MR. MINNERS: We also do that with operating 5 reactors. We send prioritized issues out to each of the 6 licensees and suggest they review those to see if maybe some 7 particular work might make a low priority issue a high 8 priority issue.
| |
| 9 MR. MICHELSON: I gather from reading the AEOD 10 report on feedback of information that was issued about a 11 year ago that they're doing that. But, they aren't doing 12 things that are perhaps much more important than that.
| |
| 13 DR. SIESS: Most of the plants only have 700-800 O 14 people there.
| |
| 15 MR. MICHELSON: And how many of them are looking 16 at this pile of paper coming from NRC?
| |
| 17 DR. SIESS: They're too busy making fixes from 18 the last phase.
| |
| 19 (Slide.)
| |
| 20 MR. EMRIT: Just to tie in with your question, 21 the answer to your question ist On partially-answered 22 issues. There you see the box, going to the next slide.
| |
| 23 (Slide.)
| |
| 24 This is based on the average flow of issues which 25 included all the backlogs we had back in 1982, where we sort O
| |
| %J l l
| |
| ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364 646
| |
| . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _
| |
| | |
| 0960 06 06 74 DAV/bc 1 of average it over a four-year period, FY-83 through '87.
| |
| (O
| |
| 'w/ 2 There is your question. Does that answer your question?
| |
| 3 We'll factor it into it.
| |
| 4 MR. MICHELSON: Yes, except that apparently it's 5 not systematic, but rather random.
| |
| 6 MR. EMRIT: Those four initially, after draft 7 prioritization report went out in '82 and '83, the feedback 8 we got was that people did not agree with some of our 9 reprioritizations. They got thrown back into the hopper.
| |
| 10 Some of them are still there because, obviously, we don' t 11 think any new information is going to change the priority.
| |
| 12 DR. SIESS: Excuse me. New issues, 36 per year.
| |
| 13 I've got a table that came from Speis that doesn't list 14 anywhere near 150 issues over the '83 '87 timespan. That 15 includes 53 new ones that came in in '85, which I suspect 16 were Davis-Besso. ,
| |
| 17 So how do you get 36 per year?
| |
| 18 MR. EMRIT: Again, that includes the backlog that 19 existed prior to 1983.
| |
| 20 DR. SIESS: It says "New Issues".
| |
| 21 MR. EMRIT: We average it out because don't 22 forget we had a problem explaining this yesterday, too.
| |
| 23 DR. SIESS: If it's new issues for '83 to '87 and 24 the GIMCS table says 7 for '83, 10 for '84, 53 for '85, 12 25 for '86, two so far in '87, there's no way that comes out to O
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-tM6
| |
| - ~
| |
| | |
| 1 0960106 06 75 DAV/bc 1- 36'per year.
| |
| .A 2 MR. EMRIT: You're looking at Resolved. You see, I
| |
| , 3 you're --
| |
| 4 DR. SIESS: New Issues.
| |
| i 5 MR. EMRIT: That's. coming out of the process,
| |
| ; 6 high and medium to be resolved.
| |
| 7 DR. SIESS: Okay.
| |
| i f 8 MR. EMRIT: You're not'looking at the whole pile.
| |
| l 9 DR. SIESS: This is new issues, just total.
| |
| j 10 MR. EMRIT: Coming in for prioritizations, you've 11 got to be very careful. . I'm talking prioritization. The j 12 other one's talking about resolution, f-l 13 See, you're looking at the products, the
| |
| $()
| |
| i I 14 survivors.
| |
| l 15 DR. SIESS: These are new.for you. The next-
| |
| ' ^
| |
| 16 batci is new for somebody else. Okay.
| |
| i 17 MR. EMRIT: That's correct. .You're looking at
| |
| ;i 18 what comes out of the bottom of this process.
| |
| I 19 DR. SIESS: Is there a table somewhere?
| |
| i 20 MR. MINNERS: Table 5.
| |
| 21 DR. SIESS: Tablef5.
| |
| ! 22 MR. EMRIT: I think what you're looking at is 1
| |
| 4 23 this number down here.
| |
| 24 DR. SIESS: Let me look at the right table.. !
| |
| 25 Somebody said table five. What page does it start on?
| |
| I i.
| |
| i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646 '
| |
| f
| |
| | |
| 0960 06 06 76 DAV/bc 1 MR. MINNERS: P-5-1. *
| |
| (~h s_/ 2 DR. SIESS: Okay. Now, there I look in that 3 table and it's Issues Identified that I'm interested in.
| |
| 4 Right?
| |
| 5 MR. MINNERS: Correct.
| |
| 6 DR. SIESS: Fine. Thank you very much.
| |
| 7 MR. EMRIT: We took the average and it's kind of 8 biased because of Davis-Besse.
| |
| 9 DR. SIESS: There might be another Davls-Besse 10 next year.
| |
| 11 MR. EMRIT: So you get 34 issues in one fold 12 swoop. So we kind of average it out to give you a picture 13 rather than give you year by year summary.
| |
| O 14 MR. MICHELSON: Another question on your process.
| |
| 15 If you have a USI that's resolved except in the resolution, 16 there's a number of residuals that weren't resolved and they 17 said we'll create a new issue, and that always comes back as 18 a generic issue first and might even work its way back up to 19 a USI.
| |
| 20 But, even though it's a residual USI, it always 21 comes back at the generic level.
| |
| 22 MR. MINNERS: We count that as a new issue.
| |
| 23 MR. MICHELSON: So that's a generic issue.
| |
| 24 Not a new USI. ,
| |
| l 25 MR. EMRIT: That's our secret. When we write it ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage MO 33MM6 1
| |
| | |
| 0960 06 06 77
| |
| ,DAV/bc 1 up, we put in a resolution page of two pages in NUREG 0933.
| |
| \- 2 It's in the conclusion. Hey, this issue was resolved, a reg 3 guide change, SRP change, new rule policy, whatever the 4 products were.
| |
| 5 We identified what portion is going to be 6 addressed in issue 142, if that's the next issue number. So 7 it's there. It's not hidden. The reader can always go back 8 and read the conclusion and find out what the products were 9 and find out where the remaining portions are going to be 10 addressed.
| |
| 11 MR. MICHELSON: Can you tell us later how a 12 generic issue becomes a USI?
| |
| 13 DR. SIESL, I didn' t intend to because that's O 14 been covered 10 years ago.
| |
| 15 MR. MICHELSON: Yes. But things change from time 16 to time.
| |
| 17 MR. EMRIT: Nothing has changed as far as I know.
| |
| 18 There are 10 criteria.
| |
| 19 MR. MICHELSON: Refresh my memory. Road quickly.
| |
| 20 Can you go through the criteria?
| |
| 21 DR. SIESS: Don't do it now. In the meantime, 22 look at the status rept t. It's all covered in Sam's status i 1
| |
| 23 report.
| |
| 24 DR. MOELLER: On this, are we to understand then l
| |
| l 25 that you get behind 10 por year on the average, the backlog?
| |
| ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage IH433MM6
| |
| _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ . _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - ~ _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ . _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _
| |
| | |
| l l.
| |
| l
| |
| ! 0960.06 06 78 DAV/bc 1 MR. EMRIT: If you look at the current backlog, I
| |
| ; 2 think you would find about 61 issues. That pretty.much i L 3 explains over the years why we have not been able to do the i
| |
| 4 backlog.
| |
| l.
| |
| 5 DR. MOELLER: Help me with the bottom.two lines". l
| |
| ~6 I' don't understand. If 13 are resolved, but 17:are !
| |
| 7 resoluted.
| |
| 8 MR. EMRIT: Let me ' explain. Going back to 9 Warren's presentation, when you como into the prioritization 10 process, assuming you accept these numbers, four per year I 11 for being reprioritized and 36 new issues. The average.
| |
| 12 works out to six high, six medium, three NR, two regulatory 13 impact on licensing issues.
| |
| O 14 These are tracked in GIMCS, so you can read the 15 status of all these issues. Now, under the 30, you've got ;
| |
| 16 17. Right? Thirteen drop out. Essentially, they resolve 17 becauso we found out that their low drop or subsumed, in 18 that senso, they're ossentially. resolved; for all-intents 1 19 and purposes, they're not going anywhere. !
| |
| 20 No staff resources, you know. The writeups get i
| |
| 21 published. Low safety significance. Whatever. ;
| |
| 1 22 DR. SIESS: So out of that 30, 12 are in the top 23 box and 13 are in the bottom box -- 17 and 13. Right?
| |
| 24 MR. EMRIT: It's very important to understand 25 what the prioritization process does for you. It eliminates-O ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, l 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6
| |
| | |
| 0960 06 06 79 DAV/bc 1 all thoso issues for further pursuit. No resourcos. It's 2 ossentially resolving those issues.
| |
| 3 DR. SIESS: And the backlog is 10. Now, you're 4 doing 30 a year and you'ro. falling behind 10 a year. What 5 would it take to got you up-to-dato, at least making 6 backlogs even? More peoplo? Moro resources?
| |
| 7 You've got four peoplo now. It would take five 8 and a third peoplo?
| |
| 9 MR. EMRIT: I should explain to you that some of 10 thoso issues in the backlog have actually gono to poor 11 review.
| |
| 12 DR. SIESS: You' re talking about an average now,
| |
| , 13 five years.
| |
| O 14 MR. EMRIT: We figuro it can be dono in loss than 15 that.
| |
| 16 DR. SIESS: If I road that correctly, it says 17 you're totaling up a backlog of about 10 a year.
| |
| 18 MR. MINNERS: Thoro's 61 issuos. Whoro's your 19 Issues, 61, slido?
| |
| 20 MR. EMRIT: I'll got to that.
| |
| 21 DR. SIESS: Thoro may bo 71 next year and 81 the 22 next year.
| |
| 23 MR. MINNERS: What would it take to got rid of 24 thoso? Another couplo of peoplo, I guosa.
| |
| 25 DR. SIESS: The first question would bo what Ace Fnonnan RnvonTuns, INC.
| |
| 202 347 3700 Natlonwide Coverage 80) 3M (M6
| |
| | |
| 0960 06 06 80 DAV/bc 1 would it take to hold it constant, at least to stay current?
| |
| 2 And than what would it take to get it down to zero backlog 3 and then stay constant?
| |
| 4 MR. MINNE RS : If you do 30 a year with four 5 people, I guess it's going to take you another person to do 6 the extra 10.
| |
| 7 DR. SIESS: The 10 won't reduco your backlog, it 8 will just koop it from increasing.
| |
| 9 MR. MINNERS: So you've got 60 issues for a 10 backlog, so that's two years work for four people.
| |
| 11 DR. SIESS: lias anybody complained about that i
| |
| 12 backlog increasing?
| |
| 13 MR. MINNERS: Yes.
| |
| 14 DR. SIESS: Who? The ED0? The Commission?
| |
| 15 MR. MINNERS: Yes. Everybody.
| |
| 4 16 DR. SIESS: llave you told them what resourcos it 17 will take to romody the situation?
| |
| 18 MR. MINNERS: We are in now a process of making 19 some recommondations to the EDO on how to improvo the wholo r
| |
| 20 process. That could probably bo implomontod.
| |
| 21 22 23 24 25
| |
| (
| |
| Acn.I7EDERAL Ri:PonTuns, INC 202 347 3700 N.itionwide Coverage *n1%(M6
| |
| | |
| l i
| |
| l 0960 07 07 81 DAVbur 1 DR. SIESS: Do those recommendations include 2 doing more issuos with fewor people?
| |
| ! 3 MR. MINNERS: Well, Vic just told us to be loan l
| |
| l 4 and mean, so I guess that is what it is.
| |
| 5 DR. SIESS: Right now you are dumping about 13 a l
| |
| 6 year -- that is an averago, lot's say -- on the peoplo that l
| |
| 7 have to resolvo it, and somowhoro we are going to hear how 1
| |
| ( 8 fast they aro resolving it. If you can dump 20 a year on 9 them, will they nood more resources to koop up? Ilow is the l 10 flow through the pipolino, in other words?
| |
| 11 MR. MINNERS: I don't think you are going to got 12 more. When you resolvo that backlog, you are still going to >
| |
| 13 be about 17 issues por year rosolution.
| |
| 14 MR. EMRIT: I think onco wo got a couple of 15 slidos down wo might answer your question.
| |
| 16 DR. SIESS: Well, why wouldn't it chango?
| |
| 17 MR. EMRIT: It is biased by the backlog because 18 tho backlog has already boon looked at. It is still in the 19 hoppor. A lot of them aro lows and drops. You 800 ovory 20 bias.
| |
| 21 DR. SIESS: But if you aro just not building up 22 your backlog, you will bo prioritizing 40 a year instead of i
| |
| 23 30, and I expect the samo proportion of them will bo 24 requiring resolution?
| |
| ]
| |
| 25 MR. MINNERS: Not true. That is whore the O l l Act!. FEDERAL REronTr!ns, INC.
| |
| 02 347 37(x) Nationwide Coverage M(n 316-(486
| |
| | |
| I
| |
| ~0960 07 07 82 !
| |
| l DAVbur 1 assumption is wrong. The 10 per year that are backlogged
| |
| ~
| |
| 2 don' t have the same proportion of high and medium issues as 3 the 17 per year.
| |
| ! 4 DR. SIESS: I have got you. [
| |
| 5 MR. MINNERS: They have a much lower _ proportion.
| |
| 6 DR. SIESS: So if you were doing 40 a year or 7 trying to reduce the backlog, you would do 45 a year, that 8 17 wouldn' t go up proportionally? '
| |
| 9 MR. MINNERS: No.
| |
| [
| |
| 10 DR. SIESS: So you wouldn' t be dumping more on !
| |
| 11 the resolution people. Well, wo will hear lator about what 12 their backlog is.
| |
| 13 MR. EMRIT: As a matter of fact, we are finding 14 fewor and fewer high priority issues. The number of high 15 priority issuen being identified is probably going down in 16 proportion to the total number of issues identified, 17 percentages of high priority issues. Once'you had the 18 tremendous backlog to work off back in 1982, the TMI issues,.-
| |
| 19 the old A, B, C, and D task actions, the NUREG-0371, -0471, 20 the ACRS-0572, all those issues. Initially,-wo found a lot i 21 of high priority issues in that backlog, which was in excess l;
| |
| 22 of 400 issues, but since than you know the average has ;
| |
| 23 droppod in terms of now issues identifiod.
| |
| 24 (Slido.)
| |
| 25 MR. MINNERS: That is also in Tablo 5 if you want O
| |
| Ace FEDERAL RneoRrnRs, INC. .
| |
| 202 347 3700 Nationwide Cmcrage 8 % 3 % # 46
| |
| [
| |
| | |
| 0960 07 07 83 \>
| |
| DAVbur 1 to see it.
| |
| 2 MR. EMRIT: The next question is: are thoro any 3 issues that were identified years ago but not yet 4 prioritized?
| |
| o 5 The answer is, yes, we have a backlog of older' 6 issues that have not yet boon formally prioritized.
| |
| 7 However, the backlog genoric issues have boon screened and.
| |
| i 8 many have preliminary draft assessments. ?
| |
| 9 Liko we said beforo, the workload has proventd5 10 the staf f from formally documenting the prioritization 11 results. ';
| |
| 12 (Slide . )
| |
| 13 I will give you a fool for what those 61 issues 14 are going to look like.
| |
| 15 By the way, for-thoso people who are looking at 16 GIMCS, you aro looking at the and of the first quarter 17 report. Thoro are reasons why thoro was no second quartor I
| |
| 18 report to bring you up to date.
| |
| 19 We are phasing over to the SIMS data base, and 20 that is taking timo in the quality assuranco phaso. Thoro 21 are a lot of proofroading errors to be assigned. The old 22 task managers may or may not be kooping their previous 23 assignments.
| |
| 24 Down to 61. I think the first quarter report 25 shows 65. We are down to 61 as of May 1987. Wo made the C) .
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage MX)-336 (M6 ,
| |
| | |
| l 0960 07 07 .84 DAVbur 1 data available the last couple of weeks.
| |
| (~N
| |
| (-) 2 We feel there are three high priority issues.
| |
| 3 Those three are presently in peer review. The ACRS will be i
| |
| 4 seeing them within another month or so once we get the 5 office director approval and the issue --
| |
| 6 MR. EBERSOLE: Since there are only three, could j 7 you mention what they are?
| |
| l I
| |
| 8 MR. EMRIT: Yes. There are two Davis-Besse 9 issues. Issue 113, dynamic qualification testing of large
| |
| : 10 bore hydraulics numbers. Issue 125.1.5, safety systems 11 testod in all conditions required by DBA, and Issue 12 125.2.11, recovery of main foodwater as an alternative to
| |
| ~
| |
| 13 auxiliary foedwater.
| |
| l l (\- 14 These issues -- the titles are listed in GIMCS in 15 NUREG-0933.
| |
| l 16 MR. EBE RSOLE : That last one is particularly l
| |
| l 17 important to Westinghouse plants, which always trip the main 18 foodwater when they have scram.
| |
| 19 MR. EMRIT: Liko I say, you will bo seeing those.
| |
| l 20 Wo havo 11 medium priority issues, and I don' t l
| |
| l 21 have those listed here with me.
| |
| l I l i 22 MR. EBERSOLE: You say that came out of Davis-l
| |
| ; 23 Bosso, but it is applicable to all?
| |
| l 24 MR. EMRIT: That is correct. These are generic 25 applications.
| |
| , (
| |
| ace FEDERAL RevoRTERs, INC.
| |
| 202 347 37U) Nationwide Coverage 80).33MM6
| |
| | |
| , n'
| |
| .0960 07 07 85
| |
| .DNVbur 1 MR. EBERSOLE: Not just for the B&W BWRs? )
| |
| : 2 MR. EMRIT: I am not totally familiar with the 3 evaluation, but again we are Italking BWRs.
| |
| '4 MR. EBERSOLE: I believe I am correct that it is 5 B&W plants that ramp down and go to main feedwater on trips.
| |
| ; 6 MR. EMRIT: I won' t take: issue with that because ,
| |
| 7 I am not f amiliar with. that evaluation, but you will be 8 seeing that. That is'a promise.
| |
| 9 11 medium priority issues, aboutLthree nearly 10 resolved. Four we feel are resolved ~and are old issues 11 revisted. 14 lows, 10 drops, six subsumed issues, seven :
| |
| 12 licensing issues and three regulatory. impact.
| |
| 13 That is the results of our preliminary screening 14 of the remaining backlog. So to answer the earlier 15 question, you know, has.anybody taken a look at the backlog, 16 sure we have. We' feel we have'three high priority. We have
| |
| ! 17 jumped on those and gotten the evaluations and the peer I
| |
| 18 review, and we are working on the others. About 40 percent 19 of these 61 issues.
| |
| 20 By the way, they include issues that have already; 21 been prioritized. 14 issues --'and'that is GIMCS --'that 22 have.been'through the mill and have been_prioritized once 23 before.
| |
| 24 That is how th'ey fall.
| |
| 25 Any questions?
| |
| ace FEDERAL REPORTERS,--INC.
| |
| ; 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| :0960'07 07 86-DAVbur 1 (No response.)
| |
| }- 2 (Slide.)
| |
| 3 Question number three, what criteria are used to 4 decide which GIs should be prioritized first?
| |
| . 5 The preliminary assessments of the older issues 6 indicated they are of low safety significance 1and generally 7 remain as backlog issues. That I tried to explain to you 8 before.
| |
| 9 New issues are also given a pre'liminary i 10 assessment of their safety significance, and you have seen 11 evidence of- that. f act en the previous slide I'showed -you 12 earlier, three high priority issues coming to you.
| |
| 13 MR. EBERSOLE : . I wonder why the older issues --
| |
| 14 you say they-are of low safety significance.' I'will~ pick a 15 case in point.
| |
| 16 The high pressure lines that feed the RCIC .and 17 HPSI systems on the boilers are interposed.- They are T
| |
| 18 provided with full pressure steam linesLthat_ permeate the 19 machinery rooms, and a longstanding issue going back 20 !
| |
| 20 years is will those valves really close if you b' reach the 21 pressure boundary.
| |
| 22 MR. EMRIT: Are you talking about a specific 23 issue number?
| |
| 24 MR. EBERSOLE: Yes. I don't know-which issue 25 number it is. ,
| |
| ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC; 202-347-3700 ' Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 m y g > - - , , g-- ~q -
| |
| | |
| 0960 07~07 87
| |
| , DAVbur 1 MR. MINNERS: ItLis'one of them.
| |
| ,f s 3 .
| |
| 2 MR. EMRIT: 93. If you are talking about Issue 3 93 -- I think that is what he is talking about, Warren --
| |
| 4 that has already been prioritized. ~ That is not part of the 5 61 scheduled to be reprioritized.
| |
| 6 MR. EBERSOLE: I am just-using it as an example.
| |
| 7 That is an issue 20 years old.
| |
| 8 MR. EMRIT: Unless somebody comes back to us and 9 says we have new information, we don't -look at it.
| |
| 10 DR. SIESS: You have had that for 20 years?
| |
| 4 11 MR. EMRIT: I am not sure of that.
| |
| 12 MR. EBERSOLE: Come on, that-came up-in 1968.
| |
| 13 DR. SIESS: Jesse, an issue and.a generic issue 14 with a number on it is not the same. thing.
| |
| 15 MR. EBERSOLE: Okay, it is a physical problem.
| |
| 16 DR. SIESS: All these guys deal with are. things 17 that get declared generic issues with capital letters.
| |
| 18 MR. MINNERS: That is where the process becomes 19 important, Jesse. That is why I want to emphasize process.
| |
| 20 DR. SIESS: They have to get.them into the 21 system.
| |
| 22 MR. MICHELSON: As long as we are emphasizing the 23 process, I would like to ask the questioncI was about to ask.
| |
| 24 a'little while ago on USIs. You have a' set of criteria by 25 which you judge whether something might be ,a potential USI.
| |
| (.
| |
| . ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage ' 800-336-6644
| |
| | |
| 0960 07 07 88 DAVbur 1 11y real question is, though, is that set of
| |
| ((_~)h - 2 criteria used for each high priority item as you come to it 3 during the initial prioritization process?
| |
| 4 MR. MINNERS: We prioritize high and start 5 working on it. Then we go through and see if it ought to be 6 a USI. So we don't wait to see if it is a USI to start 7 work.
| |
| 8 MR. MICHELSON: You don't wait until it is all 9 done before you make that decision necessarily, either? In 10 other words, if you wait for the generic issue to be 11 resolved before you move on, you might just decide to drop 12 the generic issue and decide that that is a USI?
| |
| 13 MR. MINNERS: We are supposed to look at all the 14 high priority issues periodically and see if they are USIs.
| |
| 15 We have not been very good at that process.
| |
| 16 MR. MICHELSON: But that is the process, though.
| |
| 17 Any time during the work on a high priority issue you might 18 decide to change it?
| |
| 19 MR. MINNERS: Yes.
| |
| 20 MR. MICHELSON: Then there is a process for 21 presenting that formally to the Commission?
| |
| 22 MR. MINNERS: Yes.
| |
| 23 VOICE: The last one we proposed as a USI was GI-24 23, reactor coolant pump seals.
| |
| 25 DR. SIESS: From the staff's point of view, what ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364M6
| |
| | |
| .0960 07'07 89
| |
| _D,AVb ur 1 is the difference between.a USI and a high priority generic
| |
| ~
| |
| 2 issue?
| |
| 3 MR. MINNERS: Reporting frequency.
| |
| ~4 DR. SIESS: . Reporting to whom?- Congress? The
| |
| -5 Commisslon?
| |
| 6 MR. MINNERS: 'No,.to the office director..
| |
| 7 DR.'SIESS: Do-you get' more resources with USIs 8 than you do for high priority generic? issues?
| |
| 9 MR. MINNERS: No,.I-don't think so. I haven't 10 seen any case where a high~ priority' issue -- _
| |
| 11 DR. SIESS: 'I was going to say if we took the
| |
| ~
| |
| 12 last 20 high priority issues and made 'USIs out -of them, do
| |
| : 13 you give them the four or five extra people?
| |
| : O 14 So you don't make a distinction :between them 15 except for reporting?
| |
| 16 MR. MINNERS: Right. USIs'have-a higher 17 visibility.
| |
| 2 18 DR. SIESS: I think.one. reason-is'that the 19 Congress asked for that high visibility,~didn't they? I 20 think the reason they asked for it is that you have 'put-more
| |
| ~
| |
| 21 resources on it if you would get on with it.
| |
| 22 Have they succeeded?
| |
| 23 MR. MINNERS: Oh, yes, because at the time when 24 they instituted that program, yes, generic issues generally 25 were assigned to reviewers in technical branches who did it
| |
| . ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| 0960 07 07 90 DAVbur 1 off and on as they could fit it in with their licensing kJ 2 work. But USIs always had a dedicated task manager.
| |
| 3 But what happened was in '83, after the first 4 reorganization, we had designated task managers for all high 5 priority issues as well as USIs. So that was the big 6 difference.
| |
| 7 DR. SIESS: You simply declared all the high 8 issues USIs. The only dif ference would be in the length of 9 that report to the Congress?
| |
| 10 MR. MINNERS: That is right.
| |
| 11 DR. SIESS: Thank you.
| |
| 12 MR. MINNERS: I have been trying to work to 13 integrate the USIs and the other generic issues. There is 14 still a tendency to keep that separate. I am trying to get 15 people to say, hey, there isn' t any dif ference between these 16 issues. We shouldn't be looking at them any differently.
| |
| 17 DR. SIESS: Okay.
| |
| 18 MR. EMRIT: I would just add relative to Question 19 3, EDO, the Commission, or ACRS interests may cause a highly 20 visible issue to be prioritized first. We have a few issues 21 that have gone that route -- control room habitability, for 22 instance, human factors issues, a program plan which were 23 made into separate issues as documented in Section 4 of 24 NUREG-0933.
| |
| 25 So we have specific examples of that.
| |
| o
| |
| (_) i l
| |
| i ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 ]
| |
| | |
| l 0960 07.07- 91
| |
| :DAVbur (Slide.)
| |
| 3,.
| |
| AJ 2 Okay. I guess the final question is do we 3 . consider the process to be effective?
| |
| 4 Sure, we do.
| |
| 5 DR. SIESS: You are talking about prioritization 6 of the whole thing?
| |
| 7 MR. EMRIT: Strictly, my presentation is 8 prioritization. I am sorry. If I could make the~ correction 9 now, I would. That is the prioritization process.
| |
| 10 DR. SIESS: What is your measure of 11 effectiveness?
| |
| 12 MR. EMRIT: The staff benefits, the-industry 13 benefits, and the public benefits, okay.
| |
| O 14 Just to run down some of the staff benefits that 15 we believe, it allows the staff to focus on the most 16 important issues, obviously high, medium, the relative 17 ranking. It provides proper. identification and 18 documentation of issues to prevent the same issues being 19 raised again in the future.
| |
| 20 It gives you 0933. People'should use it more and 21 more -- and I useEit more and more -- when they want to 22 raise the next issue. You know, we try to prevent' people 23 from raising the same issue 10 times. It is now documented.
| |
| 24 We have never had that before. . That'is a product out of 25 this process, to put some order in the way we do things --
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 - Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| 0960 07 07 92
| |
| ,.,DAVb u r 1 or did things before my time, I guess,.10 years ago.
| |
| I
| |
| (
| |
| -'/ 2 It eliminates and reduces staff efforts on 3 related issues, as I just said. The other side of that is 4 integration of generic issues. Now, today we are 5 integrating. I think a lot of people are interested in the 6 way we are resolving issues it has allowed us, because we 7 know what the descriptions are.
| |
| 8 GIMCS tracks the resolutions, we get to the point-9 where we see three issues going in the same direction, we 10 integrate them and have a consolidated resolution. I think 11 that was a point of concern earlier.
| |
| 12 It increases staff awareness and understanding of
| |
| _ 13 issues and safety concerns. We feel it is cost effective by
| |
| '~'
| |
| 14 resolving issues, like I said before, putting them in the 15 low and drop category. We think we can_ prevent people -- or 16 the staff from spending resources on those issues to get 17 nowhere essentially.
| |
| 18 What this does, also, it reduces the number of 19 issues going into the resolution process.
| |
| 20 And then the bottom line, going back to 0933, the 21 program provides the staff with current information that is 22 updated every six months. That has been one of the products 23 of the process.
| |
| 24 We have a set frequency for publication of NUREG-25 0933 every June and every December, when they cut of f these k_)
| |
| ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
| |
| | |
| 0960 07 07 93 DAVbur 1 for information. So it is published semi-annually.
| |
| t )
| |
| \> 2 Everything that.has been accomplished, 3 prioritized, or resolved gets in NUREG-0933, -0935. We have 4 gotten up to Supplement 6. This coming June we will be 5 publishing Supplement 7. All the new issues that get 6 identified get put in Table 2. The results of the process, 7 whether it is resolved with requirements, without 8' requirements, all those conclusions are accurately reflected 9 in Tables 2 and 3, which is the comprehensive listing of 10 every issue.
| |
| 11 We have about 720 issues right now, in case you 12 want to know.
| |
| 13
| |
| (-)
| |
| i 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 O
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336-6M6
| |
| | |
| (
| |
| 0960 08 08 94 DAV/bc 1 DR. SIESS: What was that last?
| |
| (~)
| |
| \2- 2 MR. EMRIT: I said we're up to 720 issues. The 3 industry benefits, we feel, again, because NUREG 0933 and 4 GIMCS, which is a recorder, gives you the status of the 5 resolution of each other -- the high and mediums and the 6 nearly resolved and the regulatory impact issues. All the 7 issues highlighted for staff action are published in GIMCS 8 every quarter.
| |
| 9 That's available to the public and the industry 10 via the PDR. We feel it allows the public and the industry 11 to understand what we are working on and what we consider 12 important from a safety standpoint, and that's a big benefit 13 to know where we're going.
| |
| 14 It allows the industry to better focus on the 15 more important safety issues. Also, at the same time, 16 coupled with that is the elimination. We feel a benefit 17 here is the industry does not have to pursue less 18 significant safety concerns that have been eliminated by us, 19 the lows and drops.
| |
| 20 Here again let me just point out it was mentioned 21 earlier by the EPRI. NUREG 0933 was used extensively; going j 22 back in 1982 and 1983, we had our own list and we were 23 developing it. When we were studying our-prioritization ;
| |
| l 24 process back in '81 and '82, they basically followed'our ;
| |
| i 25 list and are still following our list with the ALWR program.
| |
| U ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364M6
| |
| | |
| 0960 08'08 95 l' We think that's a' big-benefit.
| |
| f_DAV/bc x
| |
| ' t ,) .2 The public. benefits. It provides the public with 3 documented regulatory efforts-related to the identification 4 and resolution of generic issues, and their importance. . It-
| |
| -5 provides better utilization.of regulatory'and' industry 6' efforts on the most significant safety issues.
| |
| 7 The improved efficiency of:the NRC and the 8 industry should result in increased safety at lower cost, we 9 feel.
| |
| 10 (Slide.)
| |
| 11 Before I leave the podium,'let me'just rehash the 12 fact that this process, the prioritization process again, i 13 has been understood and has been accepted by the GAO report O 14 .that you alluded to earlier.
| |
| 15 I forget the number, but that was published back 16 in 1984. We got a letter from the ACRS after several-trips 17 down here on the methodology accepting the methodology'back 18 in 1983.
| |
| ! 19 Like'I said, the; industry, the advanced light 20 water EPRI program.
| |
| 21 DR.'MOELLER: What is the date of the industry's 22 response? You.know, you gave dates for the other three. I 23 just wondered if there was a date.
| |
| 24 MR. EMRIT : - It's an ongoing.
| |
| .. 25 DR. SIESS: This is the EPRI program.- This is O
| |
| I
| |
| . ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
| |
| | |
| 0960 08.08 96
| |
| ,m DAV/bc 1 the EPRI list of the defining generic issues. We're looking 2 at it somewhere.
| |
| 3 DR. MOELLER: I just wonder if you could assign a 4 date to it.
| |
| 5 MR. EMRIT: It's ongoing.
| |
| 6 DR. SIESS: It's current.
| |
| 7 DR. MOELLER: When did it begin?
| |
| 8 MR. EMRIT: I would go back to 1983 when we were 9 prioritizing trying to get NUREG 0933 in publication. They 10 came in just about the same time. They had their own list, 11 and the government had their list. And they sort of decided 12 to walk in step with our list because it was more 13 formalized.
| |
| g
| |
| \~# 14 Then, of course, we got a Commission letter of 15 approval of the process back in December 1983. And that 16 allowed us to move on and publish NUREG 0933. We've been 17 doing that consistently ever since.
| |
| 18 Thank you.
| |
| 19 MR. HERNAN: There is a three-ring binder that's 20 about that thick, published by EPRI.
| |
| 21 DR. SIESS: Any other questions for Ron?
| |
| 22 (No response.)
| |
| 23 DR. SIESS: Thank you very much for your 24 presentation. We'll now take about a 10-minute break.
| |
| 25 (Recess.)
| |
| I'T
| |
| (/
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| -09'60 08 08' 97 nDAV/bc -1 DR. SIESS: Okay. You have the floor, Warren.
| |
| 2 -(Slide.)
| |
| 3 MR. MINNERS:. Once again, my name is Warren
| |
| -4 Minners. I'm going to now discuss the resolution process, 5 which is the third step in the process after identification 6 and prioritization.
| |
| ;7 (Slide.').
| |
| 8 Once again, I want to review the proces's because 9 that's really.what we're talking about here. And the 10 questions that were asked on the agenda went to how long 11 does it take to do it. And the reason it takes so_long_is 12 because.we go through all these steps.
| |
| 13 The first step in the process,'after it's gone O 14 through prioritization and gets approved and gets assigned
| |
| : 15 to somebody, previously we were'only assigning resources to 16 high priority issues and deferring medium-priority 3 issues.
| |
| * 17 Now that we're in Research,-we'll probably be 18 funding medium-priority-issues also.- After anLissue is 19 assigned, we write up a. task action' plan to define _what the 20 scope of the issue is going-to be, what tasks are going to 21 be done to accomplish the objectives, whose. going to do 22 those tasks, when they're going to be done, those kind of 23 things.
| |
| 24 Sometimes, a contractor is involved in that and 25 we'll hire a contractor to do some or all the tasks.
| |
| , k/
| |
| ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 ;
| |
| | |
| l 0960 08 08 98 DAV/bc 1 Sometimes not. All issues are tracked in GIMCS and the SIMS (3
| |
| \> 2 system.
| |
| 3 So you've got your task action plan. You go 4 through it. And, at the end, you spit out a resolution.
| |
| 5 Now let me backtrack a little bit. In some 6 cases, there is intermediate resolution. In fact, when the 7 issue was first identified, there has always been and there 8 still is a function in NRR to see if any immediate action is 9 necessary on this issue.
| |
| 10 Later on, when it gets assigned, or when it gets 11 partially resolved, we may want to do something. When the 12 steam-binding and auxilliary feedwater pumps first came up, 13 for example, a bulletin was put out telling licensees to O 14 basically increase their surveillance.
| |
| 15 That was done before the issue was resolved. The 16 resolution then went on after that. Issue 99 is -- I don't 17 know -- part-way through its resolution. And we had an 18 incident at Diablo Canyon. People think that we need 19 something inbetween.
| |
| 20 So we're probably going to send out a generic 21 letter to the licensees, even though the issue is not 22 resolved yet.
| |
| 23 So there are intermediate resolutions which we do 24 on an ad hoc basis as we see necessary.
| |
| 25 Now, the resolution will really be done in two O
| |
| ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-334uw,
| |
| | |
| I 0960-08:08- 99 DAV/b'c 1 parts. It's the technical resolution and the regulatory-2' analysis.
| |
| 3 The technical resolution is how do you ,
| |
| 4 technically _ execute it?
| |
| 5 What are you going to do about it?
| |
| 6 The regulatory analysis'is the justification for
| |
| -7 that fix. We now have a safety goal which gives us some 8 guidance and is basically.a cost. benefit analysis.
| |
| 9 What I try to preach is that there ought to be an 10 interaction, an-interation between technical resolution and 11 regulatory analysis-and not just have the regulatory 12 analysis just for rationalization of what you did. But-it l 13 should point you in'the right' direction when you do.the 14 regulatory a'nalysis.- ;
| |
| 15 You should say: Hey, these are.the high. risk-16 things and these.are how you fix the high risk. things.
| |
| . 17 That's_how you're sup'osed p to be using the regulatory 18 analysis. It_shouldn't be some rote thing that you' produce 19 at the end and staple as an. appendix-to satisfy the i 20 requirements. It ought to be a useful'- tool to show you that 21- you've got the best solution.
| |
| 22 That's what it should be used-for. Maybe, at l
| |
| 23 this point, a little talk about costs.: I guess we have'a l 24 reputation for not being very good cost estimators. .And I But that doesn't' necess'arily mean 1
| |
| , 25 would agree with that. '
| |
| O ,
| |
| u 1-ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| -202-347-3700- Nationwide Coverage - 800-336-M46 '
| |
| | |
| 0960 08 180 100 DAV/bc 1 that we're worse cost estimators than the industry or other
| |
| '- 2 people.
| |
| 3 I think. costs are notoriously, badly estimated.
| |
| 4 And I-don't think you can damn any one group of persons for 5 being bad or indifferent cost estimators. -It's a hard thing-6 to do.
| |
| 7 We have a tougher time because at the resolution 8 stage, the fix has not been completely defined, especially 9 if we've gone along with the general policy to have 10 performance-based requirements. Okay.
| |
| 11 Then we don't really know what the fixes are. We 12 just say we've reduced the frequency by 10 percent, or 13 whatever it is. Who knows what the fix is?
| |
| '~
| |
| 14 As we get more proscriptive in the resolutions, 15 we can make better cost estimates. When you get down in the 16 imposition and implementation stage and then the guy starts 17 to put it on his plant, then you have more specific and you 18 get better cost estimates.
| |
| 19 So, cost estimating is basically having the 20 specifics. If you've got the specifics and want to spend 21 the time, you can go out and get good costs. After it goes 22 through the resolution process, it now goes out for a public 23 comment period. ,
| |
| 1 24 And it goes through the staff of the divisions to l
| |
| 25 review it. A number of offices review it. And then they go O
| |
| s_/
| |
| l l
| |
| ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3 % -6646 J
| |
| | |
| y
| |
| :0960 08108 1101 DAV/bc 1 down and present it to CRGR, then the ACRS. Sometimes, we b' 2 go down to the Commission.and present it.to them.
| |
| 3 And after it gets all through that process and we 4 agonize over it, we. publish-it in the Federal Register S' notice. And that'will have some kind of a comment period 6 out on it -- 60, 90, 120 days.
| |
| : 7. (Slide.)
| |
| 8 After the comment-period is over, we get the
| |
| ; 9 comments back in and it goes through what I would call an 10 approval process.
| |
| j 11 The first step is we try to' resolve the public
| |
| , 12 comments, accommodate them in some way. We may reject some, 13 and we state the reason why. We may accept some and modify
| |
| (
| |
| 14 the resolution, or we may modify some of the comments. All ,
| |
| 15 kinds of different things.
| |
| 16 After that, it goes through the.same process as 17 before. We get the staff review, the-other divisions, the 18 other offices. We go through CRGR, through ACRS, through'-
| |
| 19 the Commission sometimes --~not always.
| |
| 20 And after we've gone through that process, we .
| |
| 21 have - to. get somebody to formally ' approve it and say:- Yes, 22 this is what we're going to do.
| |
| 23 In that case, it would be formally-sent from the 24 resolvers, which now would be us and Research, to'NRR. And) 25 that's the imposition phase.' And, usually, it's announced O
| |
| ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.-
| |
| 202 4 47-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
| |
| | |
| 0960 08 08 102 DAV/bc 1 in the Federal Register and it's, as a rule, a generic
| |
| (~'s
| |
| 's J 2 letter of SRP or a Reg Guide, or something like that.
| |
| 3 So you can see we have a long series of actions 4 here. That's one of the contributors to long resoluion 5 times.
| |
| 6 DR. REMICK: Warren, going back to my earlier 7 question now that we're on the resolution, as part of this 8 public ccmment process, do you ever hold a meeting with 9 vendors or operators or licensees that sit down and talk 10 about some of these with knowledgeable people?
| |
| 11 It's very difficult sometimes to put your 12 thoughts in written comments. Sometimes, you can do it 13 better verbally if you get the proper people there.
| |
| 14 Is that ever done?
| |
| 15 MR. MINNERS: Yes, we do that quite frequently.
| |
| 16 I'll give you an example. A-44, we have had many meetings 17 with NUMARC on their initiatives in resolving A-44. We've 18 talked to them.
| |
| 19 A-16 I think had a very close cooperation with 20 industry. That worked out very well. That's also a problem 21 fcr us because that gives the appearance that we're in bed 22 with industry. But what we're talking about is going to the _
| |
| 23 people who know their plants better than we do. And we're 24 trying to find out from them what's going on.
| |
| 25 They have a conflict of interest. We recognize C
| |
| \
| |
| ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-M*6
| |
| | |
| ~. .
| |
| 1 l
| |
| i 0960.08 08 103 1 1
| |
| ,D V/bc 1 there are conflicts of interest. And I think we compensate
| |
| ]l 2- for it.
| |
| 1 3 So we try to talk to industry. Some times , -- I 4 think we feel that industry may-use that as a delaying-5 tactic. They'll come up with an initiative and do the 6 initiative after we've proposed our resolution and then we 7 just have to go talk to them a while.
| |
| 8 But the proper way to do it is to get learly on 9 industry in the process, and I think we're doing.that more 10 and more.
| |
| 11 A-45 -- in fact, A-45, we provided some funds to-12 pay travel expenses for industry-review groups. And we-may 1
| |
| 13 get criticized for that, but I don't think we ought to
| |
| (:) 14 because I think that's working withLindustry to get their 15 input early on in the process to see.what the problems are.
| |
| 16 That should speed'up the process because industry 17 should not have much to complain of at the end of the, 18 process that they didn't have a chance to'have an input.
| |
| 19 DR. REMICK: How about at the end where, let's 20 say, you resolved something and you find that it's something
| |
| (
| |
| 21 that you feel ~should not be imposed?;
| |
| 22 Because if you look at the whole set of plants, .)
| |
| 23 maybe the risk isn't great. Yet, within the whole set of-24 plants, .there are a couple of plants that are particularly 25 bad.
| |
| A)
| |
| (_
| |
| ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage - 800 336-6M6
| |
| | |
| 0960 08 08 104
| |
| ,DAV/bc 1 Do you ever sit down and try to jawbone with
| |
| !x '] 2 those plant owners to make them understand that, although 3 you don' t feel that generically you can impose something, 4 that the situation at their plant is such that they really 5 ought to pay-special attention to it?
| |
| 6 Is that ever done to try to convince them that 7 maybe they should consider doing it on their own?
| |
| 8 MR. MINNERS: I can't think of an example of 9 where we've done that. Maybe somebody else can.
| |
| 10 Bob...
| |
| 11 VOICE: Our proposed resolution on control system 12 interaction really comes down to steam generator reactor 13 vessel overfill. And a lot of the plants already have 14 protection systems for that. And the proposed resolution, 15 which is in concurrence now points out -- has pretty limited 16 requirements. Not entirely, but it's mostly aimed at those 17 plants that don't have protection systems.
| |
| 18 MR. MICHELSON: Of course,.you've cited the very 19 example I've been talking about all morning. And that is 20 that's a very limited resolution system interaction.
| |
| 21 VOICE: He's talking about safety implementations 22 and control systems.
| |
| 4 23 MR. MICHELSON: Okay. So that one is much 24 closer.
| |
| 25 VOICE: As it turns out,'in each class of plants, b,,
| |
| ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6616
| |
| | |
| ~ [0960'08-08 105 V/bc 1 there's only a few plants that aren't considered to be t
| |
| . :2 safety level.
| |
| 3 DR. REMICK: In the case-that you're talking 4
| |
| 4 about, is it a case of that being a report from somebody out 5 'there in the plant that there is greater risk and that they 6 might understand and might be stimulated?-
| |
| 7 Or does the staff do.anything to actually make 8 those people fully aware of the implications for their plant 9 with the' implication that they should look at it more 10 closely?
| |
| 11 VOICE: As the solution is currently drafted, the 12 generic letter would go out'to those specific plants. Well,-
| |
| '( ) 13 it would go out to 'everyone. But those specific plants 14 would have detailed requirements.
| |
| 15 VOICE: And it hasn't gone out for'public. comment 16 yet either. These people'aro1 identified.
| |
| 17 VOICE: It's in the current process right now.
| |
| 18 MR. MINNERS: And we did'that on generic. issue 19 124. We gave a generic resolution and we' identified seven 20 plants that we saw were bad' actors, and we're focusing our 21 results on that.
| |
| 22 But my observation of that process is that it's 23 hard to identify who-the bad actors are. So what you have
| |
| ~
| |
| 7 .
| |
| 24 to do is m~ake everybody.go out and do some studying. LThen I. .
| |
| 25 .you can find out who the bad actors are.
| |
| l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| ,0960 09 09 106 NIVbw 1 (Slide.)
| |
| 2 One question on the agenda is, are all generic 3 issues resolved fast enough? .I think the answer to that 4 question is, I guess nobody is satisfied with how fast 5 generic issues are resolved. We all want to do bettr.
| |
| 6 I don't know how you judge fast enough. In some 7 cases, as we will show later on, if we had done it faster, 8 we might have prevented some incidents. Everybody would 9 like to go faster.
| |
| 10 MR. EBERSOLE:
| |
| Warren, may I ask a question? If 11 we take the issue of fire protection and interface it with
| |
| _s 12 TAP 45 and look at the presence in all the designs of these
| |
| \.J 13 ancient inadequate old circuit extensions from the control 14 room out to various places that are still vulnerable to fire 15 and imposing new risks on the control room functions, how do 16 you interface and come to grips with and integrate these 17 three aspects of safety problems?
| |
| 18 MR. MINNERS: I think A-45 did that. A-45 did 19 look at what are called special emergencies. It was a large 20 contribution to some plants from fire. Taht could be 21 partial justification for putting on maybe a dedicated 22 system. The cases that I saw was the cable spreading room, 23 which had relays in it, so you couldn't use the water spray, 24 you had to use Halon or CO2.
| |
| 25 MR. EBERSOLE: You realize that all the. plants ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| 0960 09 09 107 AVbw 1 have the residual of the early interpretation of GAC-19, 2 which is extended circuits, which has extended vulnerability 3 from the control room out into various areas unspecified.
| |
| 4 MR. MINNERS: A-45 looks at that. It tried to 5 look at it. It is a hard thing to look at, but we tried to 6 look at it and say how much of a contribution is there.
| |
| 7 MR. EBERSOLE: They could be snipped off, if they 8 fulfilled the requirements of fire protection.
| |
| 9 MR. MINNERS: I think there is a case where 10 quantitative analysis probably breaks down and you can't do 11 it.
| |
| 12 MR. MICHELSON: There's a very good example, of
| |
| )
| |
| ''~'
| |
| 13 course, of where again our process is breaking down. That 14 is that the analyses that were done concerning fire did not 15 account for system interaction effects from such sources as 16 inadvertent actuation, because the smoke got away from the 17 fire area and set off a deluge in another part of the 18 building, and so forth.
| |
| 19 There things just aren't chased. So we are led 20 to a falso sense of security fronm the bottom line up, 21 simply because we haven't included all the phenomenon yet.
| |
| 22 I don't know what generic issue starts pulling 23 these things back together again, recognizing that fire is a 24 global phenomenon. It is not limited to the room in which 5
| |
| 25 the thing is burning. It can get into other rooms through ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336-6M6
| |
| | |
| 0960 09 09- 108 I)
| |
| ' u AVbw 1 smoke. We keep our. eye on fire barriers, but we forget that 2 fire barriers allow the transmission of heat. You can get-3 up to to 290 degrees on the other side of three-hour fire 4 barrier and still qualify for three hours. 250 degrees does 5 interesting things to equipment, but I am just wondering how 6 we are going to pull these things together. So we have some 7 confidence that when we draw a conclusion, that it is a real 8 and valid one.
| |
| 9 MR. MINNERS: If we'd done a good regulatory 10 analysis, in addition to a bottom line value impact number, 11 it ought to have a good discussion of those kinds of things.
| |
| 12 Uncertainties, including things that are not adequately O_
| |
| 13 treated in the announcement. That is not easy to do. Burt 14 we should try to do it.
| |
| 15 So I agree. You can't bottom line it. That 16 doesn't mean that value impact analysis is bad.
| |
| 17 MR. MICHELSON: I guess we don't write too many 18 good regulatory analyses, because you will rarely find those 19 caveats in the answer, you know, in the regulation.
| |
| 20 MR. MINNERS: I agree. It takes a lot of time to 21 write a rgulatory analysis, and I am not sure we always do 22 it well.
| |
| 23 We tried to answer the question he 24 asked.
| |
| O 25 DR. SIESS: Excuse me, Warren. What you are ACE-FEDERAL ReponTens, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6M6
| |
| | |
| 0960 09 09 109 k SVbw 1 saying is, it is not a deficiency in the process. It is a 2 deficiency in the execution of the process.
| |
| 3 MR. MINNERS: That is right. I mean, I can point 4 you to where the process is fine, because the old NRR Office 5 Letter 16 had many places in it, where it told you yes, you 6 are supposed to go and discuss these other qualitative 7 factors that can't be treated quantitatively, and it tells 8 you to do that.
| |
| 9 Hcar many people follow that? I don't'know, but 10 it's a matter of getting people trained to write regulatory 11 analysis and think in those terms. I just don't take an 12 engineer off the street and suddenly he becomes a regulatory O, 13 analyst. It takes some training and some experience.
| |
| 14 MR. MICHELSON: We had a very recent experience 15 with this, when we tried to get the resolution of seismic 16 effect, when I asked if a tank of water falls over it, we 17 ought to chase the consequences of the water on the floor 18 not just physically, not just what physically the tank did, 19 but the analysis ended at the point of physical impact. You 20 don't chase the water across the floor.
| |
| 21 So there's really many examples of where we have 22 narrowed our thinking, and I think are being led into some 23 unjustifiable comfort.
| |
| 24 MR. MINNERS: When people review these regulatory 1 25 analyses, they ought to make comments on it and discuss l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 1 l
| |
| | |
| 0960 09 09 110 7
| |
| \ J k_AVbw 1 this.
| |
| 2 MR. MICHELSON: They did. It was discussed at 3 length. Even the ACRS kind of knuckled under a little on 4 it.
| |
| 5 VOICE: Mr. Micholson, I would like to corrrect 6 that. It wasn't that we didn't consider it, that we weren't 7 considering that issue, but we have taken advice of the ACRS 8 and right now the plans are to include that explicitly, as 9 well as several of the other peripheral issues.
| |
| 10 MR. MICHELSON: It is an example of where you 11 broke it off, because you didn't quite know how to handle
| |
| ,s 12 it, so you put it into a new issue. It is not like it's k# 13 dead. It won't die that easily.
| |
| 14 VOICE: It was always in a different issue, but 15 that interface was kind of fuzzy. We have straightened that 16 out.
| |
| 17 MR. MICHELSON: I am just pointing out the 18 weaknesses of using bottom line numbers too religiously.
| |
| 19 MR. MINNERS: Well, here are some statistics we 20 have. Once again,.I wouldn't bottom line these either. 'In 21 the period '83 through '87 -- that's issues that were 22 resolved during that period. Obviously, some issues started 23 before that -- we've done as well as 45, as poorly as 83.
| |
| 24 The average is 54 months.
| |
| \
| |
| 25 DR. SIESS: You could build a nuclear plant in 83 Ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6
| |
| \
| |
| | |
| 0960 09 09 111 AVbw 1 months.
| |
| 2 MR. MINNERS: Some plants you could build in 83 3 months. I would point out some of the things here. These 4 always had dedicated task masters and these only recently 5 had dedicated task masters, and they seemed to be going 6 faster than those.
| |
| 7 MR. MICHELSON: Isn't the level of difficulty 8 kind of increasing the page?
| |
| 9 MR. MINNERS: I hope that is the case.
| |
| 10 MR. MICHELSON: USIs, clearly, are presumably 11 more difficult issues to cope with.
| |
| ,- 12 DR. SIESS: I thought USIs would be a irore
| |
| (~) 13 important issue. That doesn't make it more difficult.
| |
| 14 MR. MICHELSON. It makes it tougher to decide, 15 maybe.
| |
| 16 DR. SIESS: If it is really important, it ought 17 to be easier to decide.
| |
| 18 MR. MINNERS: Now the resources that we were 19 putting on this before were two branches which had about 24 20 people in them. We had another, I forget, maybe 2 million 21 or 3 million dollars of technical assistance that was being 22 devoted toward all of these things. That was our resource 23 level that was being applied to these issues.
| |
| 24 DR. SIESS: Does that show as a line item in your
| |
| '" 25 budget?
| |
| ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-(M6
| |
| | |
| . .. - .. = ~ . _ . . .
| |
| 4 0960'09 09-112 -j
| |
| ;_ AVbw 'l= 'MR. MINNERS: Does what show as a line-item? ,
| |
| j 2 .DR. SIESS - Resolution of generic issues?
| |
| 3 101. MINNERS: Yes.
| |
| ;- 4 The next question'was, what are the factors in
| |
| " ' deciding which generic issues to resolve first.
| |
| 'S 6 (Slide.)
| |
| 7 I guess I thought about that question quite a lot 8 because it seemed like maybe there is more to it'-than I
| |
| . 9 thought, and I think the answer is, it is'prioritization.
| |
| 10 Whatever the prioritization number is, that was the_ purpose .
| |
| 11 of prioritization. That is what-we used, and IEdon't think
| |
| - 12 much else goes into it. I mean, I guess -- the' Chairman-13- commented on one issue once, I don't know, maybe that has '
| |
| ; 14 speeded it up a little bit more, and perhaps some ACRS 15 comments, but I think it is basically,the prioritization l
| |
| 16 priority which determines which issues get done. And~I j 17 think that's proper.
| |
| -4; 18 DR. SIESS: You got away from a' slide where you 19 had the process and ACRS was listed in it.- I think now we 20 are getting copies of the resolution of all generic issues.
| |
| I 21 Has that always been the case?
| |
| 22~ MR. MINNERS:- I would think that you would have 23 gotten' copies, yes.
| |
| x!
| |
| 24 DR. SIESS: We can't find any record of_having
| |
| ; 25 addressed, in the past three or four years, more than about ,
| |
| i ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| j 202-347-3705 Nationwide Coverage 800-3M4646 s
| |
| .%,- -- -, .,, ., - - . , -.e-,-- , . ,, ,-,,7 ,,---,e,-,- .- .-,.-,c,
| |
| , , , . , - . - , , # ,,3 +- -.-,,,,-v-, y .,-
| |
| | |
| l 0960 09 09 113 Vbw 1 five generic issue resolutions.
| |
| .2 MR. MINNERS: -That is a different question.
| |
| 3 Whether you got to review all the' resolutions before they 4 were issued is something else, but certainly after theyfwere 5 resolved, I think you got copies.
| |
| 6 DR. SIESS: What would we get? A copy of.a 7 letter that goes to the office directors?
| |
| 8 MR. MINNERS: Whatever it_was; yes.
| |
| 9 DR. SIESS: Transmitting the' resolution.
| |
| 10 MR. MINNERS: Your problem.would be talking about 11 issues which would be resolved with.no requirement,.which 12 don' t- go through the same review process.
| |
| }
| |
| 13 DR. SIESS:= We - should - be getting _ those - too. -
| |
| 14 MR. MINNERS: I think you' spoke to us once about:
| |
| 15 it, and I hope now you're getting them, and I-thought you +
| |
| 16 got them before. Somehow,. distribution lists get neglected.-
| |
| 17 VOICE: They are addressed to Mr. Fraley. We 18 routinely send them.to him. We are required.to,'on USIs.
| |
| 19 MR. MINNERS: You also'have a check on'this, 20 because 0933 and GIMCS were1 updated all the . time. - So you 21 can see which issues are being resolved. If one of your.
| |
| 22- f avorites is resolved and you haven' t seen it, I guess you 23 can ask some questions.
| |
| 24 MR. EBERSOLE: Warren, a trigger event happened O 25 at Diablo Canyon recently. You know,.they boiled the-ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| . . - . , - . ~ _ - . ~ - , , , , . . - .
| |
| | |
| 0960 09 09 114 AVbw 1 primary coolant. That has energize an ancient problem area 2 in reactor modes, I guess 4, 5.and 6 or whatever. The modes 3 wherein you have shut the plant down suddenly or rather:just 4 taken the lid off, and now you wait for the large RHRV.
| |
| 5 . What this has uncovered, I believe, is-the. realization that-6 the potential for core melt is perhaps as high in most modes 7 as it is in the running mode, and the variety of ways-in 8 which the operators informally handle their problems af ter 9 they do this leads to all sorts of plant-specific approaches 10 to cope with the cooling problem.
| |
| 11 What would be your forecast as to how-long it is 12 going to take to pick up and.run that'to earth?'
| |
| O 13 DR. SIESS: It is on your next slide.
| |
| 14 MR. EBER00LE: Is it?
| |
| 15 MR. MINNERS: I don't think so.
| |
| 16 DR. SIESS:. On my copy, it is.
| |
| 17 MR. MINNERS: .Ron, could you look up the GIMCS 18 sheet on 99? I will try.to get you the answer to that. .I 19 . forget the number.
| |
| 20 (Slide.)
| |
| 21 I think the last question that was aske'd is, are .
| |
| 22 there any GIs not resolved? 7 23 The answer is, obviously,-yes. But I think the 24 question was, are there some real oldies?
| |
| 25 Well, since we really started keeping records, I ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| . 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage . 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| 0960 09 09 115 AVbw 1 think the TMI Action Plan, which was published in 1980, 18 2 of those issues are still unresolved. The Task Action Plan, 3 which was the earlier thing which came out, where the USIs 4 were first identified in that, that was done back in 1979, 5 four of the USIs identified in '79 are still unresolved.
| |
| 6 There are more unresolved USIs, but they were identified 7 later. There are ten generic issues that were identified 8 back then. You can identify those in GIMCS, because these 9 are the ones where the number is pr,eceded by an A or B or C.
| |
| 10 There's been some issues that have been laying 11 around for quite a while.
| |
| ,.m.
| |
| 12 (Slide.) .
| |
| s I i 13 ATWS isn't even on that list.
| |
| 14 (Laughter.)
| |
| 15 Here is the rest of the answer to that question.
| |
| 16 Here are the active issues which are unresolved. This is 17 the current status of the resolution.
| |
| 18 We have 69 issues going through the mill. 9 of 19 them are USIs, 32 high, 16 mediums and 12 NRs.
| |
| 20 So that is the completion of the answer to the 21 question of some other issues which are not here. -
| |
| 22 DR. SIESS: Which table shows the throughput on 23 that? Is that Table 17 24 MR. MINNERS: The throughput? The throughput, I 8 ,
| |
| 25 think, is Table 1. I have Table 1 here, and I will get that ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
| |
| | |
| 0960 09 09 116 AVbw 1 out now.
| |
| 2 DR. SIESS: As we were looking as an increasing 3 backlog on the prioritization, most of the stuff ending up 4 in the backlog, not being too important. In terms of the 5 resolution, Table 1 doesn't look like you are doing too 6 badly.
| |
| 7 (Slide.)
| |
| 8 MR. MINNERS: I think Table 1 says to me --
| |
| 9 DR. SIESS: Without Davis-Besse, you would have 10 done pretty well.
| |
| 11 MR. MINNERS: Well, we've got some anomalies
| |
| ,, 12 here. You see these asterisks. This is where we were 13 fooling around with the human factors. We identified a 14 whole bunch of issues in the human factors program. Then 15 later on, we decided that, no, we didn't really have those 16 issues. So that has added some perturbations in there, but 17 I think we started out with 91 back in '83, and at the start 18 of this year, this is the real number, 86. And we project 19 that we are going to be down to 77 by the end of the year.
| |
| 20 DR. SIESS: That is projecting only two new 21 issues.
| |
| 22 MR. MINNERS: Yes.
| |
| 23 DR. SIESS: What does GIs integrated mean? That 24 is the next to the last column?
| |
| 25 MR. MINNERS: That is where we take these human ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
| |
| | |
| t _l0960 09 09 117 1"')
| |
| \'*AVbw _1 factors issues and put-them back into'the old issues. We 2 have been playing games with those issues. I' don't know 3 exactly why, but that is all that means. We just had some 4 issues ~ that were identified as separate _ issues, and in S decided they really weren't, they were really part of other.
| |
| 6 issues.
| |
| 7 DR. SIESS: If you had'ru) new issues coming in at 8 the front ~end, not at the resolution end, but the very front 9 end of the process, how long would it take you to work off 10 this 69?
| |
| 11 MR. MINNERS: I wish-I'had that slide. I th' ink 12 we're out -- I'm forgotten -- out to-89, I guess. I think O 13 we're out there. We are supposed to have the lastcissue now-14 currently on the books resolved.
| |
| 15 Do you have thatfbar chart anywhere, Ron?-
| |
| 16 MR. EMRIT: No, I don't.
| |
| 17 DR. SIESS: 'Everything has been prioritized?
| |
| 18 MR. MINNERS: Everything has been prioritized.
| |
| 19 All these 86 issues.
| |
| 20 DR. SIESS: You figure the ones haven't been 21 prioritized are in the backlog? '
| |
| 22 MR. MINNERSt- There's only three high priorities 23 on that list.
| |
| 24 DR. SIESS: How do you know they are high O 25 priorities, if they. haven't been prioritized?
| |
| ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| l 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6 4 6
| |
| | |
| 0960 09 09 118 AVbw 1 MR. MINNERS: They have been prioritized. They 2 just haven't been given the Good Housekeeping Seal of 3 Approval.
| |
| 4 5
| |
| 6 7
| |
| 8 9
| |
| 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 l
| |
| 24 ,
| |
| 25 ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364M6
| |
| | |
| - 1
| |
| /0960 10 10 119 Vbur 1' DR. SIESS: Okay.
| |
| '2 'MR. MINNERS:- The staff has done its work. It is 3 just going through the' peer review process. So we have 4 prioritized.it infthat sense.
| |
| 5 DR. SIESS: Okay. I have got the thing we were 6 looking for.
| |
| 7 MR. MINNERS: Okay.: ~Now, I want to skip:down=
| |
| 8 .into what was on the agenda under Section~4.1,-which was-the 4
| |
| ,9 imposition and implementation section.
| |
| 10 (Slide.)
| |
| 11 You asked the question which I am going to- take 12 on answering. The question was, are there any recent O'
| |
| 13 incidents that could have been prevented if.we had resolved 14 some of the outstanding . generic issues?
| |
| 15 I didn' t do- an exhaustive study of this.
| |
| 16- .DR. SIESS: That question said " resolved and 17 implemented."
| |
| 18 Are you going to talk about both parts of the 19 question or just the resolved part?
| |
| s 20 MR. MINNERS: You wouldn't prevent the incident 21 unless it was implemented. I don't think resolution has
| |
| . 22 prevented anything.
| |
| 23 DR. SIESS:
| |
| That is a very important statement to 24 / make.
| |
| l 21 MR. EBERSOLE: You say these are incidents which
| |
| . ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage '800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| 0960 10 10 120
| |
| (~)
| |
| K.AVbur 1 might have 'been prevented by certain actions.
| |
| 2 MR. MINNERS: You_are asking me to speculate?
| |
| 3 MR. EBERSOLE: Yes, I am.
| |
| 4 MR. MINNERS: I don't mind speculating. I don' t 5 know what you mean by "recent" either. The biggio is Davis-6 Besse, loss of auxiliary feedwater.
| |
| 7 If we had implemented Generic Issue 124, I don't 8 think Davis-Besse would have happened. They would have lost 9 their turbines maybe, but they would have had a third pump 10 to take care of them.
| |
| 11 MR. MICHELSON: Did that include valve 12 reliability as part of that resolution?
| |
| O 13 DR. SIESS: No. They would have gotten into the 14 same trouble, but they would have gotten out of it.
| |
| 15 MR. MINNERS: No, 124 is basically should you add 16 a third train.
| |
| 17 MR. MICHELSON: If you look at it that way, 18 basically that is true, yes.
| |
| 19 MR. MINNERS: As I say, I think you would have 20 still lost the two turbine trains, but you would have had a 21 third train.
| |
| 22 DR. SIESS: This bothers me because now I don' t 23 know what we are trying to prevent at Davis-Besse. Davis-24 Besse didn't have a core molt. They didn't do any damage to )
| |
| ('l
| |
| \
| |
| 25 the core. They didn't do any damage to the public. But l
| |
| ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| 0960 10 10 . 121 AVbur 1 they had some valve problems, and they had some auxiliary 2 feedwater reliability problems.
| |
| 3 So you said if 124 had been implemented, it would 4 have prevented what?
| |
| 5 MR. EBERSOLE: Getting so close to the edge.
| |
| 6 MR. MINNERS: Right, getting so close to the 7 edge.
| |
| 8 DR. SIESS: How much farther from the edge do you 9 want?
| |
| 10 MR. MICHELSON: Down to one system. They lost 11 two systems, at any rate.
| |
| ,, 12 MR. EBERSOLE: I was going to ask you something.
| |
| , )
| |
| 13 I know these are controversial opinions. We have some 14 members that I don' t agree with at all who said if we just 15 had a hotsy-totsy maintenance system that this wouldn't have 16 happened. I don' t agree with that at all.
| |
| 17 MR. MINNERS: That is probably a true statement 18 if they had done proper maintenance.
| |
| 19 MR. EBERSOLE: But that is a weaker course to 20 take.
| |
| 21 MR. MINNERS: I am not sure it was maintenance.
| |
| 22 I think the basic problem was the guy went in and when he 23 hit the buttons and isolated the system, that is what 24 screwed it up, because it wasn't designed to operate in that i
| |
| 25 mode. The valves were designed to open up af ter the pumps ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6
| |
| | |
| 0960 10 10 122 (h
| |
| wkVbur 1 had started and pressurized both sides of the valves. If 2 you had prevented that thing, it might have worked.
| |
| 3 MR. EBERSOLE: The system was designed for those 4 valves to open anyway, but it turned out they were not quite 5 good enough any more to do it. They hadn't been maintained 6 to do it and adjusted.
| |
| 7 DR. SIESS: Warren, you are saying Davis-Besse 8 would have been safer if that had happened?
| |
| 9 MR. MINNERS: That is all we are talking-about in 10 any of these incidents. Always safer. There are no 11 absolutes.
| |
| 12 DR. SIESS: Would a PRA have shown it to be O'' 13 safer?
| |
| 14 MR. MINNERS: Yes.
| |
| 15 DR. SIESS: It would have?
| |
| 16 MR. MINNERS: Yes. The only question was the 17 regulatory analysis showed it was very expensive, and when 18 you did the value impact, people said, whoops, maybe that 19 much safety ain't worth that much money.
| |
| 20 DR. SIESS: It only cost a year's operation.
| |
| 21 That is pretty expensive.
| |
| 22 MR. EBERSOLE: Incidentally, that factor it not 23 put in the cost analysis yet.
| |
| 24 MR. MINNERS: Yes, it is.
| |
| 25 MR. EBERSOLE: Is it now? I didn't know that.
| |
| 4 i j /\CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ;
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-0646 11
| |
| | |
| 0960 10 10 123 AVbur 1 The year's outage?
| |
| 2 MR. MINNERS: That is correct.
| |
| 3 DR. SIESS: They were put in the outage for 4 making the fix.
| |
| 5 MR. MINNERS: At least the ones I do or review, I 6 have something to say about. We do one with just offsite 7 costs, okay, j ust of fsite -- what do I want to say -
| |
| 8 man / rem, then just costs to implement the fix, okay?
| |
| 9 But we also do a case in which we look at onsite 10 costs, which includes such things as not only the shutdown 11 time to a core melt but a shutdown time which might result 12 from precursors to core melts.
| |
| 13 DR. SIESS: You mean you factor in the fact that 14 NRC might shut them down for six months for getting too 15 close to the edge; that is factored in?
| |
| 16 MR. MINNERS: Yes. If they had used their feed 17 and bleed and how to clean up the feed and bleed, the cost 18 of that shutdown time is presented.
| |
| 19 DR. SIESS: By not having the auxiliary 20 feodwater, they ended up being shut down for six months by 21 NRC?
| |
| 22 MR. MINNERS: That is right. In fact, we have 23 done this on A-45 and have gotten severely criticized that 24 this is not a proper thing to do in regulatory analysis.
| |
| 25 DR. SIESS: You have control of it. I don't know ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
| |
| | |
| 0960 10 10 124 i
| |
| AVburi 1 why you shouldn't.
| |
| i 2 MR. MINNERS: I am going to put it in.
| |
| -3 DR. SIESS: You can tell a utility that partTof 4 the cost of not making this fix is being shut down for six
| |
| ; 5 months.
| |
| 6 MR. MINNERS: If people don't want to include i
| |
| 7 that in their decisionmaking, I _annot affect that. But I' 8 think any information that you can provide is useful, and 4
| |
| 9 people can weight it as they wish.
| |
| 10 MR. EBERSOLE : Wo uld-you agree with me when I say 11 I think that was a classic case of the value of having 12 diversity?
| |
| 13 MR. MINNERS: Yes. In fact, I have a large ,
| |
| 14 problem now with 124 as we are going through, and we have 15 looked at these two-train systems, but they all have 16 d ive rsity . I keep coming back that this problem was not a 17 three-train problem. It was a lack of' diversity that got l 18 Davis-Bense in trouble.
| |
| 19 So that is one of the considerations. Can I 20 really make this guy do something to put in a third train 1 J 21 when I am not changing the diversity?
| |
| 4 22 MR. EBERSOLE: The competing school of thought 23 which I don't agree with was if they had real good ;
| |
| , 24 maintenance it would never have happened. l i'
| |
| C:) 25 DR. SIESS: I don't think that is particularly j ace FEDERAL REPORTERS,-INC.
| |
| 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-(M6
| |
| | |
| 0960 10 10 125 AVbur 1 pertinent for the general issue. Let's go ahead.
| |
| 2 MR. MINNERS: Then we discussed the Diablo Canyon 3 event. We had a generic issue done on that. The object of 4 this would be to fix this kind of stuff.
| |
| 5 Brunswick and Hatch have recently had trouble 6 with their safety valves. B-55 has been around a long time.
| |
| 7 DR. SIESS: B-55 has been around longer than I 8 have.
| |
| 9 MR. EBERSOLE: May I comment on Diablo Canyon?
| |
| 10 It is not really suction valve interlocks.
| |
| 11 MR. MINNERS: This title is wrong. This issue p_
| |
| 12 has been extended to include all losses of RRR during the 13 shutdown.
| |
| 14 DR. SIESS: Good.
| |
| 15 MR. MINNERS: As Dr. Siess has pointed out, the 16 names mean nothing, right?
| |
| 17 Oconee and North Anna have recently had service 18 water fouling. They took out 26 tons of garbage from 19 Oconce.
| |
| 20 MR. EBERSOLE: May I comment on that because we 21 had a meeting about it Tuesday.
| |
| 22 DR. SIESS: Let's don' t hit the details of these.
| |
| 23 The question is, would the fix have prevented it?
| |
| 24 MR. EBERSOLE: The fix up to now is merely to go r>
| |
| 25 scavenge and clean up the heat exchangers. The real fix is ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-3364 6:6
| |
| | |
| 0960 10 10. 126 l AVbur 1 to'fix the uptake problem.and consider in-the uptake problem' 2 whether they can by a physical accident such as seismic.or
| |
| -3 flooding or high rains' they can literally ~ plug up these 4 systems in a matter of a few minutes to hours.
| |
| 5 MR. MINNERS: You know more about it than I have.
| |
| 6 I haven' t looked at- this issue in a long time.
| |
| 7 MR. HERNAN: That is.what Generic Issue 51 is 8 intended to do, Jesse. It has been expanded.
| |
| 9 MR. MICHELSON: Line fouling isn't solved by the 10 uptake.
| |
| 11 VOICE: Silting, too. We are looking at it in 12 the context of coupling it with seismic events.
| |
| O 13 MR. EBERSOLE: When you look at the muddy bottom 14 on some of those lakes and the closeness of the uptakes to 15 that, you can see the problem.
| |
| 16 VOICE: There are various alternatives-to 17 resolving that now. Cleaning up that intake area and 18 preventing the siltation is one of-the alternatives. It may 19 turn out to be too expensive.
| |
| 20 MR. MINNERS: This is Dr. Moeller's issue. We 21 are working on the issue, Dr. Moeller, but what has happened 22 with this issue, people have been so busy looking at 23 specific plants like Trojan that they haven't had any kind 24 of work on the generic problem.
| |
| O 25 Your question about the air system, okay, that is R ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 # 46 A
| |
| | |
| ~
| |
| t 0960 10 10 127 AVbur 1 also is a generic issue. We asked AEOD to go back and get 2 some more data on the frequency and significance of air 3 system failures. It took some time. They have come back 4 with that now, and that is, I presume, in the prioritization 5 process.
| |
| 6 DR. MOELLER: Thank you.
| |
| 7 MR. MINNERS: This isn't quite the same. Turkey 8 Point had a leak in the head and got a lot of boric acid 9 crystals on the head, which is similar to Issue 29, in which 10 leaks are degrading bolts. It is similar.
| |
| 11 We don't know this value. When I put down 12 12 plants por year may have diesel generator reliability of 13 less than 95 percent, we don't know this number because we 14 haven't gone out and done the survey, 15 But this is pretty much of a guess.
| |
| 16 DR. SIESS: That is listed as B-56.
| |
| 17 MR. MINNERS: This Issue B-56 is being done in 18 conjunction with A-44 to resolve this problem. A-44 says --
| |
| 19 in the rules says you are supposed to have good diesel 20 generator reliability. B-56 will expand upon that and give 21 an outline of what good diesel generator reliability is.
| |
| 22 DR. SIESS: Is that good diesel generator 23 reliability in terms of starting in a certain number of 24 seconds, or does it define generator reliability in terms of 25 station blackout at least an hour and maybe two, four, six, ACE FEDERAL REvonTEas, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage NH-33MM6
| |
| | |
| 0960 10 10 128 i
| |
| AVbur 1 or eight? '
| |
| 2 MR. MINNERS: It is directed toward station 3 blackout, not load. I 4 DR. SIESS: You have 12 plants that couldn't get 5 one diesel online in two hours?
| |
| 6 MR. MINNERS: Yes, and this changes from year to 7 year. This may not be the same plants every year.
| |
| 8 As I say, I don't know this number very well.
| |
| 9 DR. SIESS: That means that less than 95 percent 10 availability within two hours?
| |
| 11 MR. MINNERS: Yes.
| |
| 12 DR. SIESS: For both diesels?
| |
| I 13 MR. MINNERS: This is per diesel.
| |
| 14 DR. SIESS: So that is 99.75.
| |
| 15 MR. MINNERS: And that depends on your diesel 16 configuration, too. i 17 MR. MICHELSON: Does that generic issue encompass 18 the question of the common fuel supplies and their purity, 19 and so forth?
| |
| 20 We have had a couple of interesting events lately 21 involving somewhat less than desirable fuel oil conditions 22 leading to a loss of all diesels.
| |
| 23 MR. MINNERS: We are supposed to have the diesels 24 and their support system, yes.
| |
| s
| |
| ')
| |
| 25 MR. MICHELSON: And the fuel oil supply will be ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage HIV)-33MM6
| |
| | |
| l 0960 10 10 129 AVbur 1 part of the resolution?
| |
| 2 MR. EBERSOLE: Does the particular case up there 3 encompass all the boric acid problems you have seen 4 recently?
| |
| 5 MR. MINNERS: 29 was supposed to be. This was 6 the bolting. Maybe I shouldn't have put this up.
| |
| 7 DR. SIESS: That is not a very good example.
| |
| 8 MR. EBERSOLE: It is lots more than bolting.
| |
| 9 DR. SIESS: There are more ways for bolts to fail 10 than boric acid, too.
| |
| 11 MR. MINNERS: This is not an exhaustive list.
| |
| rs 12 DR. SIESS: Warren, why does B-56 even exist k'-
| |
| 13 separate from A-44?
| |
| 14 MR. MINNERS: Because I haven't been able to find 15 anybody who can sit down and write down what a good diesel 16 reliability program was, okay. So we said there is no sense 17 holding up.
| |
| 18 DR. SIESS: It is not a question of diesel 19 reliability. It is a question of alternating curve
| |
| - 20 taliability.
| |
| 21 MR. MINNERS: I can find people who can tell you 22 how to make the offsite power and the switchyard reliable.
| |
| 23 DR. SIESS: Station blackout is the issue. You 24 know it is a major contributor to core molt. But why isn't I I 25 diesel generator reliability part of the overall basic issue ACE-FEDERAL REponTEns, INC.
| |
| l 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage MM3MM6
| |
| | |
| ,0960 10 10 130
| |
| ' . AVbur 1 of station blackout? )
| |
| 2 MR. MINNERS: It is part of it.
| |
| 3 MR. EBERSOLE: This is a case of the ,
| |
| 4 compartmentalization problem.
| |
| 5 MR..MINNERS: First of all, we are going to go 6 out with A-44, which has a rule which says --- part of the 7 rules say you have to have good diesel generator 8 reliability. That is all it is going to say. It is just' 9 this general criterion, and this is going to expand it and 10 say, hey, here are the elements of a good diesel generator 11 reliability program.
| |
| 12 Now, maybe we can't produce that, okay. There 7,
| |
| U 13 are some plants that have good diesel generator reliability, 14 and there are other plants that are bad.
| |
| 15 Now, why is that? Is that because the diesels 16 are lousy, the people are lousy? I don't know, the phases 17 of the moon?
| |
| 18 DR. SIESS: We are going to be smart enough to 19 figure out which is which.
| |
| 20 MR. MINNERS: We are going to try.
| |
| 21 MR. EBERSOLE: That is the process of bringing
| |
| , 22 them up to some sort of common standard of excellence or 23 acceptability.
| |
| 24 MR. MINNERS: Yes, because we think there are 25 plants out there that have lower than desirable, maybe even ACE FEDERAL REPonTERs, INC, 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6616
| |
| | |
| 0960 10 10 131 AVbur 1 lower than acceptable reliability.
| |
| 2 DR. SIESS: Reliability used to be defined in 3 terms of the quick start, and they had to go through 199 of 4 them without a failure to demonstrate that they could do it.
| |
| 5 In that time they probably couldn't do one.
| |
| 6 MR. MINNERS: This is 95 percent to start and 7 run.
| |
| 8 DR. SIESS: To start and run in how long?
| |
| 9 They originally qualified diesels by doing quick 10 starts.
| |
| 11 MR. MINNERS: That usually isn't the problem. I 7,
| |
| 12 don't think diesols running is the problem, you see. That 13 is not the reliability problem.
| |
| 14 DR. SIESS: You had a whole reg guide built 15 around diesels starting and running without paying any 16 attention to whether the sequences worked, the switches 17 worked, or anything else. It was done right in the 18 factories.
| |
| 19 That is what the reg guide was written on. I 20 never did think it was any good.
| |
| 21 MR. MINNERS: That is why we changed it.
| |
| 22 DR. SIESS: It isn't diesel generator reliability 23 that you are concerned with. At the minimum, it is offsite 24 alternating current reliability. That has got to get it to 25 the buses, and it takes more than the diesel starting, and ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage an33(v6(#3 ,
| |
| | |
| 0960 10 10 132
| |
| '' AVbur 1 you have still got that narrow view.
| |
| 2 MR. MINNERS: Now, I would like to answer a 3 question that wasn't specifically asked, but I think is 4 implied. In fact, it was an explicit question the 5 Commission asked you.
| |
| 6 Ron answered it on prioritization. I would like 7 to answer it on resolution.
| |
| 8 Is the resolution process effective?
| |
| 9 (Slide.)
| |
| 10 I think I could probably break that into two 11 parts. Effectiveness should be measured by the safety being 12 improved.
| |
| O 13 I don't really have an answer to that part of the 14 question. I guess we haven't gone through and actually made 15 an assessment of the generic issues and what effect they had 16 on safety. Maybe we ought to do that someday.
| |
| 17 I do have some answer to the question, 18 administratively, is it effective? Are we identifying 19 issues and resolving issues effectively?
| |
| 20 The bottom line is that of the issues that we 21 have looked at that come in, we have resolved 77 percent of 22 them, okay, and you have to look at resolved in front of the 23 big picture. 37 percent were resolved. In other words, 4
| |
| 24 somebody looked at the issue and said something should be
| |
| ( 25 done or something should not be done.
| |
| Ace-FEDERAL ReponTERs, INC.
| |
| 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage m336-6M6
| |
| | |
| 0960 10 10 133 kwAVbur. 1 That resolution was approved-and'went into the 2- implementation process. Whether that implementation process 3 is as effective as this is another question, but the 4 resolution process, 37 percent.
| |
| 5 16 percent of these we resolved by showing that 6 the issue was really subsumed in another issue. 12 percent 4
| |
| 7 implemented here means_that these are the 0737 items in'the 1
| |
| 8 TMI, okay. .We identified the issues. We approved l 9 resolution of them and imposed'them on plants. Then we have 10 drops and lows.
| |
| 11 So that is the 77 percent.
| |
| 12 So what.is.left are we are still working on
| |
| ( 13 nearly resolved. 2 percent of the issues are nearly i
| |
| 14 resolved.
| |
| : 15 1 percent of the issues are USIs.
| |
| 16 4 percent are high issues that-are still being 17 worked on, and 2 percent are medium, and we still have 8 18 percent of the issues that Ron's group has backlogged and j 19 have not been prioritized.
| |
| 20 That is, he showed you a high fraction of these i
| |
| 21 issues aren't important. They are probably lows or drops or
| |
| : 22 something else. There's probably few high or medium i I
| |
| : 23 priority issues in hero.
| |
| i
| |
| ; 24 Then 6 percent of the issues are regulatory l
| |
| ( 25 impact or licensing issues, which are not safety i I l
| |
| ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.
| |
| i l 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3.16-6M6
| |
| | |
| 0960 10 10 134 AVbur 1 deficiencies. Regulatory impact issues are D-ratchets, and 2 licensing issues are just programmatic.
| |
| 3 So I think the answer is, yes. I think 77 4 percent is pretty good.
| |
| 5 6
| |
| 7 8
| |
| 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 7,
| |
| 25 ACE FEDERAL REvonTEns, INC.
| |
| 202-347 370) Nationwide Cmcrage 800 33MM6
| |
| | |
| s 1
| |
| - 0960 11 11 , 135 V/bc 1 DR. SIESS:. The thing is you're saying it's 2 effective. Your measure of effectiveness is whether you're 3 getting the job done that.you've been asked to do in j . .
| |
| 4 resolving these issues that somebody'else has defined and 5 that you're not the bottleneck.
| |
| 6 MR. MINNERS: We're not-the bottleneck.-
| |
| ) 7 DR.-SIESS: Now, some.of the questions you got 7
| |
| 4 8 ffrom around the table about whether issues are properly i
| |
| ! 9 defined and properly categorized, and so forth, as you said,
| |
| { 10 that's part of the' regulatory analysis which should be j
| |
| 11 addressed there.
| |
| j 12 Do you think you' re as ef fective Has you -could- be
| |
| ()
| |
| I 13 in defining issues that come to you poorly defined or need i 14 redefinition? -
| |
| l 15 MR. MINNERS: That's hard. People.said why don't i ,
| |
| : 16 you include earthquakes.
| |
| 3 -
| |
| 17 DR. SIESS: Is it hard to do technically?. Or is.
| |
| ]
| |
| . 18 it hard to do procedurally?
| |
| I l
| |
| 19 MR. MINNERS: Both. Technically, it's hard to'do. ,
| |
| i 20 because you've got to think of what the issue should be.
| |
| 1 21 And sometimes you don't think .of all the important things.
| |
| 22' You're not that smart, which is why I urge people to do l 23 regulatory analysis, which is what helps you to do the l 24 technical thinking until it's complete.
| |
| i
| |
| ) 25 Procedurally, it's a question of we have only l
| |
| i 1
| |
| i ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| | |
| 0960 11 11 136 AV/bc 1 been successful in taking small bites. Okay? If we try to 2 go out and have expansive programs, it doesn't work. My 3 experience has been you take relatively small bites and work 4 your way through the thing to the end.
| |
| 5 That's my opinion. It's a balance of having the 6 issue small enough so you can do it and big enough that it 7 has some meaning.
| |
| 8 We're continually making that balance. And I'm 9 not sure we always make it right. We welcome anybody else's 10 input on what the scope of the issue should be.
| |
| 11 DR. SIESS: I think that's very well put. And I 12 think it's important. And I think it's something we need to 13 think about, is how you divide up issues to resolve them and 14 still keep them broad enough to be meaningful.
| |
| 15 MR. MICHELSON: I think one way you might 16 entertain doing that is there are certain fundamental issues 17 that we define. And I gave you an example earlier of 18 pressure boundary rupture versus pipe break.
| |
| 19 We should keep in mind, the bigger, shall we say, 20 more global issues, and they should be in a little 21 description somewhere within your staff, or wherever, and 22 each piece of it should be fitted into that.
| |
| 23 Admittedly, you'll still see the gaps. But, 24 hopefully, you're hitting the worst, most serious aspects
| |
| ( )
| |
| 25 first of pipe break and, probably, it's an easier one to Acn FnonRan REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347 37m Nationwide Cmcrage Mn3364M6
| |
| | |
| . ~. . . . . - .
| |
| 4 i'
| |
| 0960 11 11 137.
| |
| * AV/bc 1 handle and perhaps'potentially more serious.
| |
| ^
| |
| 2 So you do that first, but don' t forget there's I 3 another piece of this issue that'some' day has to be I
| |
| 4 addressed.
| |
| i 5 So somebody has to mastermind how these. things i
| |
| j 6 are fitting together. ;
| |
| 7 MR. MINNERS: That's why the documentation is so I
| |
| 8 important. 0933 defines what the documentation is supposed 9 to be.
| |
| 4 10 MR. MICHELSON: This global scope isn't in there.
| |
| I 3 11 The scope of the particular issue is in there but not the i
| |
| * 12 global picture of where that is fitting into the.overall'
| |
| ()
| |
| 13 problem.
| |
| I
| |
| ) 14 That I don't expect you to necessarily want to >
| |
| 15 publish, because you don't always like to talk about all 16 your problems. But, somebody, hopefully, has got in front 1
| |
| : 17 of them the global problem to see how the pieces are fitting 18 into it.
| |
| i' I i 19 VOICE: On the global issues we have, we really i .
| |
| j 20 try to do that. And that's just right on. We're totally l 21 with Warren, and you're right on about the global aspect.
| |
| l 22 But you can't work the global issues. You can only put them
| |
| )
| |
| ! 23 in context.
| |
| j 24 MR. MICHELSON: The system interactions are a i
| |
| ! 25 real good example.
| |
| i Ace FEDERAL REPonTens, INC.
| |
| 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33 4 6646 1
| |
| ~~---_,--.--_.----__._,-m.-. -
| |
| _ , - . . , , . . ~ . , _ . _ . . . _ . , . . . - , , . , . - . . - - . . _ _ , _ - - - - _ . . _ . - . - . - . - _ ~ , . _ . . - . . .
| |
| | |
| ; 0960 11 11 138 V/bc 1 VOICE: We have a lot of experience with trying i 2 to work with global issues, and we've been trying to work 3 the same issues for 10 years.
| |
| 4 MR. MICHELSON: And it may take 20.
| |
| 5 DR. SIESS: Who do you think~looks at.0933?
| |
| 6 MR. MINNERS: Me. You know, I get calls from 7 people and I say, "Go read 0933." The budgeters use 0933.
| |
| 8 and GIMCS all the time.
| |
| 9 MR. MICHELSON: But 933 doesn' t discuss the 10 global' issues that the generic issue is fitting into.
| |
| 11 MR. MINNERS: Yes, it does. It's supposed to j 12 have a section that shows how the , issue connects to all the
| |
| () 13 other issues.
| |
| 14 DR. SIESS: That's not the same thing.
| |
| 15 MR. MICHELSON: That's right, it's not the same j 16 thing.
| |
| 17 MR. EMRIT: You also look at GIMCS, too.
| |
| 18 MR. MICHELSON: It's part of the global issue.
| |
| 19 DR. SIESS: You' re not concerned because the pipe 20 broke, you're concerned about it for other reasons.
| |
| 21 MR. WYLIE: Let me ask in that regard do you !
| |
| 22 consider A-45 a global issue?
| |
| 23 MR. MINNERS: It's more global than most, yes.
| |
| ! 24 MR. WYLIE: Has there been an analysis to see how 25 many of the other issues could be resolved if you resolved 1
| |
| /\CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 i
| |
| , __,...-.m. . . , . . , ,,,__.,_....._..,--.,._m.,.w.- -
| |
| , . . , . . - ~ _. . _ . , -._,,-_.,,,-y- y. . .
| |
| | |
| 0960 11 11 139 AV/bc 1 A-45?
| |
| 2 MR. MINNERS: Yes.
| |
| 3 MR. WYLIE: Could A-45 --
| |
| 4 MR. MINNERS: You should have been to the A-45 5 subcommittee.
| |
| 6 M9. WYLIE: I've been there a couple of times.
| |
| 7 Now I will admit that A-45 does that better than the average 8 issue has done that.
| |
| 9 MR. WYLIE: A-45 is still scheduled now for 6/89 10 resolution.
| |
| 11 MR. MINNERS: That's the review and approval 12 process, t )
| |
| 13 MR. WYLIE: Yet, we've got A-44 and a whole bunch 14 of related issues coming earlier.
| |
| 15 MR. MINNERS: You have to handle that problem.
| |
| 16 DR. SIESS: Why couldn't you just have one 17 generic issue? That would subsume all of them.
| |
| 18 MR. MINNERS: That's right and you would never 19 get it done because the last item would control, and you 20 would never get it done.
| |
| 21 DR. SIESS: Okay. Now, is A-45 that much 22 different?
| |
| 23 MR. MINNERS: We almost didn' t get it done.
| |
| 24 MR. MICIIELSON: What I'd like to see though,
| |
| \
| |
| 25 Chet, is somebody developing a pyramid with core melt at the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336#>M
| |
| | |
| ~* ' ~ - -
| |
| y ,,
| |
| 'y 4
| |
| 0960 11 11 140
| |
| [D' .
| |
| '2AV/bc- 1 top and working on down to the various generic issues. .Then 2 I can see where the blanks are.
| |
| 3 DR. SIESS: It's called an. event tree, Carl.
| |
| 4 MR. MICHELSON: It isn't quite.the same thing.
| |
| 5 Event. trees won't do this. This is a different situation.
| |
| t 6' This is_the generic issue.
| |
| 7 MR. MINNERS: Yes, we have, Carl, because PRAs 8 are exactly what you're talking about.
| |
| 9 .MR. MICHELSON: I'm sorry, they're not.
| |
| 10 MR. MINNERS: The question the PRA asks-is what's 11 the probability of core melt? You go through that PRA and 12 you identify the dominant sequences.
| |
| O 13 MR. MICHELSON: PRAs don't show what they have 14 left out. They don't show what they've left out. They 15 don't show system interactions. They don't show external 16 events in a lot of cases.
| |
| 17 DR. SIESS: I didn't say PRA, Carl. I said event.
| |
| 18 trees. You can take all the things you're thinking about 19 and put them in an event tree. And you can decide at what 20 branching point you want to define it as a generic issue.
| |
| 21 You can' t start up here at core melt, you can start back 22 here at DHR. Have one for ATWS. You can work your way on 23 down.
| |
| 24- How far down you go, sometimes, you can go too O 25 far down. Sometimes, if you don't go far enough, as you ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80433MM6
| |
| :_1.
| |
| | |
| 0960 11 11 141 V/bc 1 say, you'll never solve it.
| |
| 2 MR. MICHELSON: I have no doubt you can draw the 3 event tree. I've never seen it yet, but it can be-done.
| |
| 4 DR. SIESS: It's a way of-thinking about it.
| |
| 5 It's just a question of at which-branch point do you declare 6 everything below it to be an issue.
| |
| 7 MR. EBERSOLE: And DHR is a long trail.
| |
| 8 DR. SIESS: Of course it's a long trail.
| |
| ; 9 MR. WYLIE: If I could pursue this a little bit.
| |
| 10 MR. MICHELSON: Fire has got to fit into it 11 somewhere.
| |
| 12 MR. WYLIE: To pursue A-45 just a little bit 13 more, you say, yes, you've' looked at how many other issues 14 could be resolved by a proposed resolution of A-45.
| |
| 15 Did you include in A-45 proposed resolution the 16 costs that would be saved if you resolved all these other 17 issues with A-45?
| |
| 18 MR. MINNERS: Yes.
| |
| 19 MR. WYLIE: It would seem like to me it would be 20 a substantial amount that would justify an A-45 resolution.
| |
| 21 It seems to me that thc priority is wrong. We've got, say, 22 A-44 being resolved this year and A-45 not 'til '89. i 23 MR. MINNERS: Well,.that's-administrative.
| |
| 1 24 MR. WYLIE: I-know. It's part of-the process. j
| |
| )- 25 MR. MINNERS:
| |
| If people want to, people can say j
| |
| l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-117-3700 Nationwide Coverage ' 800 336-6646 '
| |
| _i
| |
| . - . -- l
| |
| | |
| 0960 11 11 142 AV/bc 1 don't resolve A-44 and wait for A-45. I think that's the 2 wrong answer because I don't think that global fixed A-45 is 3 going to happen. That's my judgment.
| |
| 4 MR. EBE RSOLE: Let me ask you about that.
| |
| 5 MR. WYLIE: That's prej udging.
| |
| 6 MR. EBE RSOLE: I'm not so sure.
| |
| 7 MR. MINNERS: You have to do that.
| |
| 8 MR. EBE RSOLE: Haven't there been some actions 9 that almost make your conclusion come true, which have been 10 deliberate? Isn't it true that A-45 has been snipped at on 11 the edges so that you have narrowed its scope and said, 7
| |
| 12 Well, don't let this aspect of core melt be included in your
| |
| ( ;
| |
| 13 consideration?
| |
| 14 You snip off the things that you have laboriously 15 over the years to do patchwork laid to rest with an enormous 16 incremental cost scattered all over the place.
| |
| 17 Hasn't A-45, even in recent months, been snipped 18 away to leave only essential small core of issues that it 19 will solve, not the whole lot of them?
| |
| 20 Hasn't it been a progressive degradation of A-45 21 in scope?
| |
| 22 MR. MINNERS: I think the scope has been defined 23 to be the correct scope of where you get the most.
| |
| 24 MR. EBERSOLE: You could say, you know, forget
| |
| [
| |
| '-' 25 fire.
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| 0960 11 11 143 AV/bc 1. MR. MINNERS: In the regulatory analysis, things 2 like fire, earthquakes, and all those things, are' credited 3 to a dedicated system.
| |
| 4 DR. SIESS: ' Excuse me, gentlemen. The next 5 meeting, we intended to take up some case histories. I hope 6 you keep track of the ones you're thinking about here.
| |
| 7 I'd suggest we get on with-the process and then 8 get oack to looking at some of these cases and see how they 9 got whittled away and how they went through the process.
| |
| 10 (Slide.)
| |
| 11 MR. MINNERS: This is just a pie chart which 12 shows that we're computerized, which we've just discussed.
| |
| O 13 MR. WYLIE: I think:I was just trying to 14 understand the process and asking about the regulatory 15 analysis.
| |
| 16 MR. MICHELSON: Before you get into details, let 17 me ask relative to .the previous slide and to some of the 18 others, in looking at the resolution of a generic issue, how 19 do you treat the l possibility that we might build plants in 20 the future, and so forth?
| |
| 21 Do we ignore future plants under your 22 resolutions? I find that they don't seem to be mentioned in.
| |
| 23 most cases. Is that purposely done that way?
| |
| 24 MR. MINNERL. I think when we do both the cost 25 and risk analysis, the number we use is 120 or 125, whatever ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| l 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage - ' 800-336-6M6
| |
| | |
| 0960 11 11 144 AV/bc 1 the number is, plants.
| |
| 2 MR. MINNERS: You usually focus on what's out 3 there today. Yet, when we go to future plants, we start 4 talking about look at the resolution of the generic issues 5 and see how it applies.
| |
| 6 Does that mean that we really should expect the 7 new analysis of a given generic issue to be done for a new 8 plant to decide how it should apply?
| |
| 9 MR. MINNERS: A-45 is an example. Maybe this is 10 some of the snipping that Jesse is talking about. Bu t A-4 5 11 is only for operating plants, it is not for new plants.
| |
| 12 Okay. So maybe a dedicated system would be l
| |
| )
| |
| 13 justified on a new plant, but that isn't the scope.
| |
| 14 MR. MICHELSON: So I guess that's another whole-15 discussion and maybe we don't want to start it now. But, 16 somehow, we should eventually have a discussion of the 17 applicability or the process as it applies to new plants.
| |
| 18 I'm thinking now of the EPRI stuff coming through 19 and so forth.
| |
| 20 DR. SIESS: I think you've got a good point, 21 Carl, and maybe we should limit ourselves, since we only 22 have two meetings, to the effectiveness of the generic 23 issues program as it relates to operating existing plants.
| |
| 24 MR. MICHELSON: And not even discuss future.
| |
| I 25 DR. SIESS: Obviously, those out there don't ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| )
| |
| | |
| 0960.11 24 145 AV/bc 1 cause any effect on health and safety.
| |
| 2 MR. MICHELSON: But, sooner or later,.somewhere 3 in what Charlie is doing, we ought to have the discussion.of 4 how this equally works.
| |
| 5 DR. SIESS: I think if we put that limit, we 6 could get somewhere and then the next chairman can worry 7 about it.
| |
| 8 MR. MINNERS: Well, we discussed this slide. I 9 don' t know- whether we're gaining or losing. Somebody had a 10 question about issue 99. We are scheduled to have a CRG 11 package in August '87 and finish it up 'in December ofL '87.
| |
| . 12 MR. MICHELSON: What'is 99?
| |
| ( -
| |
| The loss of RHR"in shutdown modes.
| |
| ~
| |
| 13 MR. MINNERS:
| |
| 14 DR. SIESS: Would-you go back to that pie chart a 15 minute? I don't understand it.at all.
| |
| 16 MR. MINNERS: Maybe I don't either.- Uh-oh. You 17 start off with all the generic issues you've got.
| |
| 18 MR. MINNERS: The 700 issues we've got.
| |
| 19 DR. SIESS: Is one slice there for resolved and 20 one for implemented?
| |
| 21 MR. MINNERS : This is 0737. This is really part 22 ~ of this.
| |
| 23 DR. SIESS: Anything that's been implemented has 1
| |
| 24 been resolved. What about prioritization, 8.4 percent?-
| |
| (:) 25 Those are the ones that haven' t been prioritized?
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 . Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| 4
| |
| ' 0960 11 11 146 p
| |
| \_AV/bc 1 MR. MINNERS: That's your leftover.
| |
| 2 MR. EMRIT: That's the 61 that we talked about 3 previously. That's the 61 issues.
| |
| 4 MR. MINNERS: That's right. That mean 5 prioritization, this-is the backlog.
| |
| 6 DR. SIESS: Subsumed hasn't been implemented.
| |
| 7 MR. MINNERS: You can't tell. Subsumed may be 8 subsumed to resolve issues, or it may be subsumed.
| |
| 9 DR. SIESS: Then you add up to more 100 percent.
| |
| 10 I'm sorry. Implemented has to be implemented and resolved; 11 right?
| |
| 12 MR. MINNERS: Yes.
| |
| )
| |
| ('~# 13 DR. SIESS: And " resolved" over there means 14 resolved, but not implemented; right?
| |
| 15 MR. MINNERS: Yes. Well, no, some of these may 16 also be implemented. I don't know how many of these are 17 implemented.
| |
| 18 DR. SIESS: They ought to be in the other slice 19 then.
| |
| 20 MR. MINNERS: You can put these two slices 21 together. Yes, they're the same thing.
| |
| 22 DR. SIESS: You've got three slices there that 23 are either exclusive or, well, make it --
| |
| 24 MR. MINNERS: Us guys that get involved in it, A
| |
| k/ 25 well...
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
| |
| | |
| - 0960 11'11' '147 4V/bc 1 DR. SIESS: Forget-about it. It's not as helpful 2 as it was. intended to be.
| |
| 3 (Laughter.)
| |
| 4 MR. MINNERS: But it's computerized, right? ,
| |
| 5 DR. SIESS: Righ't.
| |
| 6 MR. MINNERS: I' would like to put a personal note 7 in. I would like to thank the subcommittee, and especially 8 Dr. Siess, because I think you've made a great contribution
| |
| 't 9 to helping resolve generic issues. 'I.wish other people ~in the agency would pay as muchiattention to generic issues and
| |
| ~
| |
| 10 11 we might 'get. as ' well of f as we Jhave in the resolution 12 process.
| |
| 13 So I want to thank you very much for wh'at I think i 14 is your help in this program.
| |
| 15 DR. SIESS: If :you consider what we've been doing 16 ' help, we accept it.
| |
| 17 (Laughter. )
| |
| 18- -MR. MINNERS:- You take what you :can get.
| |
| 19 DR. SIESS: Sam, are we upnto; lunchtime on the
| |
| -20 agenda?
| |
| 21 MR. DURAISWAMY: Close to it.
| |
| 22 DR.'SIESS: .We're close enoughLto.it'that we're 23- not going .to start' the next issue unless somebody wants: to 24 spend an hour on something. We've got two hours on the next ,
| |
| 25 -one...
| |
| i ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 --
| |
| , , , _ , _ - . _ :. . , ...._...a... .. ,. . . _ _ . _ _ . _..._ ,_ ._, , ,- _ . , . . _ . , ,
| |
| | |
| 0960 11 11 148 AV/bc 1 Okay, we'll be back at 1:15.
| |
| 2 (Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the meeting recessed, 3 to reconvene at 1:15 p.m., this same day.)
| |
| 4 5
| |
| 6 7
| |
| 8 9
| |
| 10 11 p_
| |
| 12 N.
| |
| 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 l
| |
| 24
| |
| ,-s
| |
| ( '' 25 i
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-(M6
| |
| | |
| ' 0960 11 11' 149 AV/bc 1 AFTERNOON S E:S S I O N
| |
| '2
| |
| ~
| |
| (1:15 p.m.)
| |
| 3 DR. SIESS: The subcommittee will reassemble.
| |
| 4 We're now going.to talk about the implementation process.
| |
| 5 Walter Schwink.
| |
| 6 MR. SCHWINK: First of all,,my name is Walt 7 Schwink. I'm in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
| |
| 8 I'd like to acknowledge my branch chief, Fred Hebdon. We 9 collectively work --
| |
| 10 DR. SIESS: Would you identify completely the 11 organization? This is NRR?
| |
| 12 MR. SCHWINK: This would be NRR. It's the 'staf f 13 support office to the director, primarily. Specifically, 14 it's the branch responsible for integration. And its title 15 is Research, Licensing and Inspection Integration. Fred is 16 the chief of that branch. I am chief of-the section called 17 Generic Activities Integration..
| |
| 18 MR. EBERSOLE: Research, Licensing and what?
| |
| 19 MR. SCHWINK: Research, Licending-and-Inspection-20 Integration. And that branch reports to-the director.
| |
| 21 22 1
| |
| 23 24
| |
| ( 25 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| 1 l
| |
| 150 l C(-[0 12 12 DAVbur 1- DR. SIESS: What is the section called?
| |
| 2 MR. SCHWINK: Generic Activities Integration i 3 Center.
| |
| .4 DR. SIESS: Thank you. Go ahead.
| |
| .5 MR. SCHWINK: First of'all, I would like to thank 6 you for the opportunity to focus on generic issues. In a 7 previous life, when I was Secretary _of CRGR, I focused on 8 generic activities. I was somewhat of the father of SIMS in 9 creating the data elements and what was to be collected in 10 it.
| |
| 11 Now, in NRR I. guess I am responsible for the
| |
| {} 12 beast I created to some extent.
| |
| 13 In both the past life and the present life ILhave 14 always thought generic activities, issues, and specifics are 15 very important to plant safety. I have always felt we had 16 somewhat of a weakness in getting those changes ^into the 17 plants physically, be it plant equipment' changes, be Hit 18 procedural changes, or be it staff changes.
| |
| 19 MR. EBERSOLE: You don't.say'that in the context 20 that you don't think nongeneric issues are not important?
| |
| 21 MR. . SCHWINK: Not at all. However, I think that 22 the generic issues are of-a higher priority level than most 1 i
| |
| 23 of the nongeneric issues, and frankly I think they get good
| |
| {} 24 attention at-the front-end.
| |
| 25 I am a little concerned about the attention they ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347-3700 - Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| r"'4 .151 (m)0 12 12 DAVbur 1 get in the back-end, making sure physically they are put 2 into the plants.
| |
| 3 My office director is particularly interested in 4 making sure that they get translated into physical changes 5 at the plant because that is where the plant safety comes 6 from. He is embarking on an effort by the creation of the 7 . Integration Branch to make sure that there is a translation 8 from the technical resolution 1to licensing to plant changes 9 and some form of either verification or a routine 10 inspection.
| |
| 11 So it is really an appropriate time for the
| |
| (} 12 subcommittee to look into it.
| |
| 13 I am optimistic about the new reorganization, 14 putting a lot of emphasis and particular emphasis on making 15 sure that there are physical plant changes. So it is very 16 timely, and it is working very much to my liking, I guess is 17 the bottom line.
| |
| 18 I would like to acknowledge'two other people as 19 being here, since I am going to steal some of-their thunder 20 in my presentation. That is: Chuck Fitzgerald, who works for 21 Bill Mcdonald in the new Office. of Automation and Resource i
| |
| 22 Management. Sitting alongside of him is Dick Hart' field.
| |
| 23 DR. SIESS: You mentioned something about
| |
| (} 24 hardware changes.
| |
| 25 What proportion of generic issue resolutions
| |
| . ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
| |
| | |
| I'~i0 12 12 152 V
| |
| DAVbur 1 involve hardware changes as opposed to procedural or 2 training or something of that sort?
| |
| e 3 MR. SCHWINK: My judgment is that any hardware 4 change you make should result in procedural changes in some 5 form.
| |
| 6 DR. SIESS: How many don't' require any hardware 7 changes, just procedural changes?
| |
| 8 MR. SCHWINK: My past experience, I would judge 9 about maybe three-quarters requ' ire hardware changes.
| |
| 10 The first thing I would like to do is try to be 11 the guy that we were trying to identify this morning --
| |
| I 12 (Slide.)
| |
| N.';)
| |
| 13 -- in putting it all together.
| |
| 14 There's a couple of key points I want to bring 15 out in this thing. This should be_in your presentation 16 package that you have.
| |
| 17 The key points being that essentially this 18 morning you heard a discussion of this area of identifying, 19 prioritizing, and developing some kind of technical 20 resolution of a generic issue.
| |
| 21 The rest of this throughout the slide deals with 22 the implementation process, physically making sure something 23 gets changed in the plant, and by something it could be 24 hardware, it could be procedural, or it could be staffing.
| |
| {;
| |
| 25 Once something is approved, it moves on, and it ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| I''O 12 12 153 V
| |
| DAVbur 1 can branch into two parts. One is a short-term action which 2 follows this line. The other one is a longer term action 3 which follows the rulemaking or legislative type proposal.
| |
| J' 4 It is important to recognize that if it~is
| |
| 'S determined that there is a significant safety risk there 6 would be short-term actions to address those problem plants.
| |
| 7 This decision process through here of developing.
| |
| 8 the resolution and deciding whether it is worthwhile-doing 9 and deciding whether to go_ forward with the short-term 10 actions or long-term actions focuses on that idea of should 11 we take some short-term fix.
| |
| () 12 MR. EBERSOLE: Could you give'us a case'in point 13 .like, say, occurred at Diablo and all the'other. plants 14 similar to it?
| |
| 15 DR. SIESS: That is not a generic issue.
| |
| 16 MR. SCHWINK: -I could focus better on station 17 blackouts.
| |
| 18 MR. EBERSOLE: Well, I don't care.- That is all 19 right.
| |
| i 20 MR. SCHNINK: Diesel generators, for example.
| |
| 21 There was a generic letter sent out on diesel' generators.
| |
| )
| |
| i 22 The view was we have got to tell people that we are finding 23 out that diesel generators-are a problem in terms of station
| |
| (} 24 blackout.
| |
| 25 And it wasn't a comprehensive fix because the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| T~70'12 12 154 V
| |
| DAVbur 1 whole station blackout USI is more the global fix. But the 2 problem of recognizing the vulnerability of a plant, 3 principally due to the lack of diesel generator power, was 4 acknowledged in that generic letter.
| |
| 5 So that is an example of the short-term reaction 6 to the problem, recognizing there is a longer term fix 7 coming.
| |
| 8 Another key point in this process is that 9 whatever fix comes out of this, be it short term or long 10 term, there is a problem in translating generic fixes to 11 plant specific fixes, twofold, technically and trying'to
| |
| {} 12 make some judgments about what the priority is for that 13 specific plant.
| |
| 14 So something that might be a high priority 15 generic issue at a specific pidnt could be a low priority 16 issue because that plant may not have a vulnerability to 17 station blackout, as best we can judge.
| |
| 18 So the point I am trying to make with this is 19 that because there has been a lot of work.done in here, 20 there still is a lot of work, plant specific, in trying to 21 decide does this particular plant have the problem, and if 22 he does, how vulnerable is he with that problem and, in the 23 scheme of all the other things that he has to do, either t'~T 24 because of his regulatory backlog or items that he thinks Q
| |
| 25 are important to modify the plant need to be addressed plant ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| i l
| |
| l i
| |
| l l
| |
| 155
| |
| (')'O
| |
| % 12 .12 l DAVbur 1 specifically.
| |
| 2 MR. EBERSOLE: Let me speak to a very difficult 3 problem. I have been working with a little bimonthly 4 operations report activity over in Bethesda, and there is'a 5 distinct coloration of the activity there. It pervaded the 6 whole -- for instance, the Davis-Besse case. It is that-7 there is nothing wrong with-the design of the plant; it has-8 just been mal-maintained or mal-operated.
| |
| 9 I don't really need to sit back and say, no, it 10 was mal-designed, and I won't do it either because that 11 almost has legal implications.
| |
| () 12 So therefore I will strain everything I have got 13 to say that it is a procedural or administrative error of 14 some sort and push away the notion that there is a mal-15 design problem in place.
| |
| 16 How are you coping with that?
| |
| 17 DR. SIESS: He says 75 percent of the resolutions 18 need hardware changes.
| |
| 19 MR. EBERSOLE: I heard him say that, but at the
| |
| ~
| |
| 20 front-end of the line. None of them want to acknowledge 21 there is a design error.
| |
| 22 DR. SIESS: But you are not talking to the same 23 people, are you?
| |
| ! 24 MR. SCHWINK: I think there's two issues.
| |
| {
| |
| 25 First of all, you can have the safest plant that ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 . Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
| |
| | |
| .. ~. - . ..
| |
| i
| |
| ~156 f~")O G 12 12 DAVbur- 1 you could possibly ever design and build and if you have 2 poor human factors like maintenance and management and 3 staffing --
| |
| 4 MR. EBERSOLE: Then you can run into a booby 5 trap.
| |
| 6 MR. SCHWINK: Exactly.
| |
| , 7 So the question you are really asking is, should 8 there be a generic issue called human factors?
| |
| 9 MR. EBERSOLE: -Versus mal-design. Of course,.
| |
| 10 human factors is embodied and mal-design comes outiof it.
| |
| 11 MR. SCHWINK:_ But the bottom line is you should
| |
| (} 12 decide whether or-not to pursue both in the priority scheme.
| |
| 13 The priority scheme is taking into account what makes the 14 most risk contribution to the plant. Theoretically, that is 15 the prioritization we heard this morning.
| |
| 16 I don't think that anyone is going to say that a 17 plant is unacceptable in its design. It is not that the 18 plants are designed wrong. It.just may.be a little weak'on 19 being right.
| |
| 20 DR. SIESS: I,think you are' wrong because 21 certainly the Commission said Davis-Besse was unacceptable 22 when they shut them down for six months.
| |
| i' 23 MR. SCHWINK:- That is'true.
| |
| 24 DR. SIESS: Didn't.the Commission shut down 25 Rancho Seco?
| |
| Y a
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-66t6
| |
| | |
| f~~ 157 b'0'1212 DAVbur 1 MR. SCHWINK: I don't believe they did.
| |
| 2 MR. HEBDON: If I might, Rancho Seco was shut 3 down after the event in December of '85 and remained shut 4 down from that-by confirmatory action le'tter. That did come 5 out.
| |
| 6 DR. SIESS: In effect, to me, that says to me 7 that that plant is unsafe and that is why it is not being 8 allowed to operate. If it isn't true, I don't know on what 9 basis it is shut down.
| |
| 10 MR. SCHWINK: I think the point is that you have 11 a plant that had an acceptable design basis at some point.'
| |
| , ((} 12 As you get smarter --
| |
| 13 DR. SIESS: It is not a question of design basis.
| |
| 14 It is a question that somebody decided it was not safe to 15 operate that plant and it was shut down.
| |
| 16 MR. SCHWINK: At this point in time?
| |
| 17 MR. HEBDON: That lack of safety could be a 18 combination of things. It could be a weakness in design.
| |
| 19 It could be a weakness in maintenance. It could be a 20 weakness in the operating se'.ap.
| |
| 21 DR. SIESS: I' raise the issue because he.said he-22- didn't think anybody did that. He didn't want to say a 23 plant was unsafe.
| |
| {} 24 The Commission has said a plant is unsafe and has 25 shut it down.
| |
| l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| f' O 12 12 158-LU DAVbur 1 MR. SCHWINK: I understand-that, but it is more 2 of a question of how was it' originally designed.and what'is 3 it current status?
| |
| 4 DR. SIESS: That isn't the question at all. We 5 have got plants -- Big Rock Point couldn't meet a single ,
| |
| 6 criterion after it was reviewed under the.SEP, but somebody -
| |
| 7 decided it is safe.enough to operate. . Whenithe NRC shuts a j 8- plant down, the only legal justification they have for doing 9 it is that it is not safe to operate-that plant.
| |
| 10 MR. SCHWINK: I understand that. I am talking 11 about the ones that are operating right now.
| |
| s I
| |
| (} _12 DR. SIESS: Well, they presumablycare safe 13 enough, but if they are not safe enough, we shut them down.
| |
| 14 MR. HERNAN: Chet, can we make a distinction'here 15 between safe design and safe operation?
| |
| 16 DR. SIESS: No.
| |
| 17 MR. HERNAN: We have plants shut down-right now, 4
| |
| 18 Peach Bottom for example. We have~no-problem with the 19 plant, bn' we have a problem with the way it is 1 operated.
| |
| 20 DR. SIESS: I don't care why you shut it down.
| |
| 21 MR. HERNAN: The fixes in the case of Peach 22 Bottom and'most of the fixes in the case of Davis-Besse.
| |
| l 23 DR. SIESS: You tell me why Sequoyah is shut !
| |
| i
| |
| ! 24 down. Is it an unsafe design? It is just like a couple of ;
| |
| [}
| |
| 25 others I know of.
| |
| i ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS,-lNC.
| |
| 4
| |
| 'l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| 0 0:12 12- 159
| |
| %f DAVbur 1 What do you mean by design -- the paper or what 2 actually gets built?.
| |
| 3 MR. SCHWINK: I think it is a matter of both, but.
| |
| 4 I wasn't trying to say --
| |
| 5 DR. SIESS: I mean, we.have got half a dozen
| |
| ~6 plants.that aren't operating because presumably we think 7 they are unsafe.
| |
| 8 MR. SCHWINK: That is correct. But the-ones that 9 are operating,'we have a view that they are safe enough, 10 even given that some of'the generic issues are not. resolved.
| |
| 11 DR. SIESS: Let me back you up just a minute.
| |
| i
| |
| (). 12 You were talking about essentially priorities and 13 implementation here as to which plants. I 14 Are those decisions made by-your branch, your 3 15 section?
| |
| 16 There's a hundred and some odd plants out there.
| |
| i i 17 Research comes up with a. resolution. Who sits down and 18 decides which plants are going to do tnat and which ones 19 aren't?. Do you?
| |
| 20 MR. SCHWINK: No.
| |
| 21 DR. SIESS: How many people do you have-working j 22 with you? :
| |
| l 23 MR. SCHWINK: Let me answer your first' question. 1 l
| |
| 24 The resolution on that issue would identify which
| |
| (]}
| |
| l 25 plants are candidates for having the problem.
| |
| ! /\CE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.
| |
| 4 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage . 800-336-6M6 i
| |
| | |
| i''.0'12 12 160 M
| |
| ; .DAVbur. 1 DR. SIESS: By categories?
| |
| 2 MR. SCHWINK: In general.
| |
| 3 If there are particular ones that are vulnerable 4 that they found through their resolution process, they would 5- identify those.
| |
| 6 Usually, what happens is a request is part of the 7 requirement that says please look at your plant considering 8 these factors, come back and tell us what you think your 1
| |
| 9 plant status is relative to those factors.
| |
| 10 DR. SIESS: That is like a generic letter-that 11 goes to everybody.
| |
| MR. SCHWINK:
| |
| (') 12 That is correct.
| |
| 13 DR. SIESS: For resolution of GI XX. Then when 14 they come back, who now looks at those~ responses?
| |
| 15 MR. SCHWINK: Principally, it is-the Engineering j 16 Division's responsibility to look at it and evaluate it with 17 Research participation, Research being the people.who.
| |
| 18 actually. dealt with the generic issue.
| |
| 4 19 DR. SIESS: The Engineering ~ Division of what?-
| |
| 20 MR. SCHWINK: NRR.
| |
| 1 21 MR. HEBDON:- Keep in mind that part of the 22 development of that resolution -- and I think this is 23 something that we are trying to do more with the new 24 organization -- would be a standard review plan that would l{}
| |
| 25 define what that review should entail.and what the ;
| |
| I
| |
| /\CEJFEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. <
| |
| l 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 4646
| |
| | |
| r- ,0 12 '12 161 V
| |
| DAVbur 1 acceptance criteria are and that type of information.
| |
| 2 That is the type of thing that our branch would 3! ibe involved with, is ensuring that that standard review plan 4 .is prepared as part of the-technical resolution.
| |
| 5 DR. SIESS: Your branch being?
| |
| 6 MR. HEBDON: The branch that Walt is-in, J
| |
| 7 Inspection, Licensing and-Research.
| |
| 8 DR. SIESS: We have got nothing but NRR people in 9 there now?
| |
| 10 MR. SCHWINK: No, we have research people.
| |
| 1' 11 DR. SIESS: I just want to be sure who I am
| |
| (} 12 listening to.
| |
| 13 MR. EBERSOLE: Are you the people who have to 14 draw the line between whether -- a given function which-may 15 be very complex, whether it shall'be automated or manually 16 carried out?
| |
| i 17 MR. SCHWINK: In the resolution process as'far as I -18 identifying what the-fix is for the plant, that'would be 19 dealt with in the actual resolution.
| |
| 20 If a specific plant came back with a proposal to 21 address that generic issue. resolution,'he could also.say in 22 that particular proposal that he thinks he could do it j 23 better through automation or he thinks he could do it better 24 by human interaction.
| |
| [}
| |
| 25 MR. HEBDON: But there would be criterion within i 14CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| I 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646 i
| |
| | |
| .~
| |
| 162
| |
| {}01212 DAVbur 1 the standard review plan that would define how those.
| |
| 2 decisions would be made. The decisions would be made in the 3 Project Management and Technical Review Branches within NRR.
| |
| 4 MR. EBERSOLE: So the factors that would help you j 5 make thJs decision would be in the ' standard review plan?
| |
| i 6 MR. HEBDON: Correct.
| |
| t 7 One of_the things that our' branch is tasked with i 8 is making sure that as these things go forward the standard 9 review plan sections are there. So we-are catching up a j 10 little bit for past ones, but the ones for the future, i 11 before a technical resolution goes forward it goes into the 12 implementation phase. Then there should be the standard
| |
| (]}
| |
| 13 review plan already prepared and the inspection program for 14 it as well.
| |
| 15 MR. EBERSOLE: Fred, you are then going to solve J
| |
| 16 part of this ancient problem of consideration of the 17 elements of whether you automate or not. For-instance, like 18 the ATWS case for boilers, you automate or don't automate 19 considering the difficulty to the operator and his ability 20 to carry out the function.
| |
| 21 I take it you will produce some guidelines.
| |
| 22 - DR. SIESS: That is part of the resolution 23 process.
| |
| (} 24 MR. HERNAN: That is part of the resolution, 25 Jesse. At this point we are talking about the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| ._ ~ . - _ _ ._. -.._ _
| |
| | |
| 163
| |
| {J^10-12 12 DAVbur 1 implementation phase. Those decisions have been made on a 2 generic basis.
| |
| 3 DR. SIESS: By the time you see it there has been 4 a technical report and a change in the standard review plan, 5 if that is the applicable thing?
| |
| 6 MR. SCHWINK: By the time I have seen it, we will 7 already have been involved in the technical resolution and 8 the people working the technical resolution would be 9 developing some of the SRP guidance, which would be by NRR 10 and Research participating.
| |
| 11 DR. SIESS: By being involved, do you get
| |
| {} 12 involved in the actual resolution? I didn't get that from 13 this morning's presentation.
| |
| 14 MR. SCHWINK: We participate in it. We are not 15 the lead office for it.
| |
| 16 DR. SIESS: There is a lead on it, but you, 17 contractors, and Research all may bo involved?
| |
| 18 MR. SCHWINK: That is correct.
| |
| 19 DR. SIESS: You may have a representative on the 20 task force, but it is not necessarily out of your branch?
| |
| 21 MR. SCHWINK: It could have been a lead PM, who 22 is actually living with the resolution da, by day.
| |
| 23 DR. SIESS: You say you hand off now to the
| |
| {} 24 Division of Engineering. That is the Division of 25 Engineering and System Technology. That would go either to-
| |
| /\CEJFEDERAL REPORTERS,1NC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 3364646
| |
| | |
| : "~',0 12 12 164 N.)
| |
| DAVbur- 1 Engineering or Systems, depending on the nature, or to both?
| |
| 2 MR. SCHWI6K: That is correct, or to Human 3 Factors. Usually, it goes to all three because there.i.sa 4 human element.
| |
| 5 DR. SIESS: I haven't gotten Human Factors on 6 mine.
| |
| 7 MR. SCHWINK: If you look'at the Division of 8 Licensee Performance and Quality Evaluation.
| |
| i 9 DR. SIESS: Now, you are in another. division?
| |
| 10 MR. SCHWINK: That is correct. There is a 11 Division of Engineering.
| |
| (} 12 DR. SIESS: I just wanted to get it straight. I 13 asked where it went from you, and'you said the Division of 14 Engineering.
| |
| 15 MR. SCHWINK: That is correct. That is the first 16 block under the Associate Director, which works for Rich 17 Starostecki.
| |
| 4 18 DR. SIESS: I look at this diagram. The Program 19 -Development / Policy Analysis Staff, that is you. Then I see 20 Associate Director for Projects, Associate Director for 21 Inspection and Technical Assessment.
| |
| 22 MR. SCHWINK: That is Rich Starostecki. There -
| |
| 23 are five divisions underneath him.-
| |
| {} 24 DR. SIESS: Okay. So it goes from the Director 25 down through the Associate Director for Inspection and .,
| |
| 4 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336-6646
| |
| | |
| 165
| |
| -\ms
| |
| ['']0 12 12 DAVbur 1 Technical Assessment, from-there down into the appropriate 2 division, which might be Engineering and Technology Systems; 3 it might be Operational Event Assessment.
| |
| 4 Okay.
| |
| 5 MR. SCHWINK: The key is it is not purely one 6 division. One division may have the lead, but he would look 7 for the human element in whatever modification was being 8 proposed. It is a lead kind of division.
| |
| 9 DR. SIESS: The first communication of the 10 resolution of a generic issue with the applicants or with 11 the licensees comes out of your office before it goes
| |
| (} 12 anywhere else. It is a generic letter.
| |
| 13 Who prepares the generic letter?
| |
| 14 MR. SCHWINK: There is a Generic Communications 15 Branch.
| |
| 16 DR. SIESS: Under who?
| |
| 17 MR. SCHWINK: That would be underneath of Rich 18 Starostecki. It is under the Division of Operational Events 19 Assessment.
| |
| 20 DR. SIESS: So your branch isn't'a line branch; 21 it is just a staff function? You just oversee this whole 22 thing?
| |
| 23 MR. SCHWINK: That is correct. We make sure it
| |
| (} 24 gets passed from hand to hand, and we make sure the whole 25 thing gets done.-
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| [~]O 12.12 166 Q/
| |
| DAVbur 1 DR. SIESS: So when Research gets through with 2 something and the task group gets through with a resolution, 3 that is sent over to NRR; it is turned over to your branch 4 to now carry it through the next steps?
| |
| 5 MR. SCHWINK: That is correct.
| |
| 6 DR. SIESS: You pass it on to the technical 7 branches; they will prepare a generic letter; they will get 8 the responses.
| |
| 9 Is there a group set up for each generic issue to 10 do that?
| |
| 11 MR. SCHWINK: It depends on the size of the
| |
| 'T 12 Some of the things have been as simple as a (J generic issue.
| |
| 13 lead person, and other ones have been an assembly of five to 14 seven people.
| |
| 15 DR. SIESS: At what point does this multiple 16 approach come in on human factors that is improving the 17 implementation?
| |
| 18 MR. SCHWINK: It begins in the actual proposed 19 resolution where it is circulating for peer review.. It also 20 continues through writing the SRP guidance for licensing and 21 writing the inspection guidance.
| |
| 22 The question is what attributes should we look 23 for in the proposals coming from a licensee and what should I l
| |
| 24 we inspect in the verification?
| |
| 25 DR. SIESS: Where does the project manager come j l
| |
| /\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364 656
| |
| | |
| F";0 12 12 167 LJ DAVbur 1 into this?
| |
| 2 MR. SCHWINK: The project manager is 3 participating in the actual SRP guidance writing, and the 4 inspector is participating in the actual inspection guidance 5 writing.
| |
| 6 DR. SIESS: Now, ycu say there is a hundred and 7 some odd project managers. They don't all participate in 8 that, do they?
| |
| 9 MR. SCHWINK: What we try to do is select a lead 10 PM to work with the technical resolution in its early stage, 11 and he kind of carries the ball.
| |
| (} 12 DR. SIESS: He or she is supposed to represent 13 the PM's insights to the problem?
| |
| 14 MR. SCHWINK: That is correct.
| |
| 15 DR. SIESS: When it gets down to a specific 16 plant, one has no outstanding generic issues, another one is 17 looking at 30.
| |
| 18 At what point does somebody look at that and ,
| |
| 19 decide?
| |
| 20 You mentioned that earlier at about the upper 21 third of that. I 22 MR. SCHWINK: There are three ways. First, the 23 specific licensee for that plant is required to submit a I
| |
| {} 24 proposal to say how he is going to address that generic 25 issue or whether it is a problem with addressing in his l
| |
| l
| |
| /\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. j 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6 . j
| |
| | |
| F~l0 12 12 168
| |
| 'w)
| |
| DAVbur 1 mind.
| |
| 2 The PM has the lead responsibility for making 3 sure that there is a determination that that is acceptable.
| |
| 4 He would work through the Engineering Division to see if
| |
| ' 5 that is acceptable in the context of the big generic issue 6 resolution.
| |
| 7 DR. SIESS: Does the PM have any authority to go 8 along with that, or is it just his job to pass it on to 9 someone else and say is this acceptable?
| |
| 10 MR. SCHWINK: He has the authority to identify 11 something he thinks is wrong for his specific plant, but he
| |
| (} 12 is one of the participants in the decisionmaking process.
| |
| 13 Engineering would principally determine whether it is 14 acceptable or not.
| |
| 15 MR. HEBDON: But the approval of it would come 16 out of the project management organization, with the 17 technical work coming out of the technical review part of 18 the organization.
| |
| 19 DR. SIESS: Okay. I don't want to get too far 20 ahead of you here, but who does the scheduling?
| |
| 21 MR. SCHWINK: Scheduling is principally the PM.
| |
| 22 That is weighted by what he is told by the Engineering 1
| |
| 23 Divisions.
| |
| 24 DR. SIESS: Are they on the diagram up there?
| |
| (~))
| |
| 25 MR. SCHWINK: I am going to get to it. What I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| 1 l
| |
| r~"O 12 12- 169 l Ns] l DAVbur 1 did was try to block out --
| |
| 2 MR. MICHELSON: Before you go too far, I.have got 3 a problem on the first line of the flow sheet.
| |
| 4 Apparently, when you reach'the' decision portion 5 to the right there,:you:have reached the decision. If the 6 decision is yes, you are going to proceed. Then you can 7 continue. If the decision is no, everything seems to end.
| |
| 8 I thought ACRS should review the "no" decision as 9 well as the "yes" decision, for instance.'
| |
| 10 DR. SIESS: I thought we were told the "yes" this 11 morning.
| |
| {} 12 MR..SCHWINK: There's two things that happen.
| |
| 13 First of all, ACRS gets copies of what goes on up there.
| |
| 14 MR. MICHELSON: That'is the prioritizing bit up 15 there, not the decision.
| |
| 16 MR. SCHWINK: The decision itself, the. decision 17 process is at-this point the EDO decision process.."No 18 further ation" really means in the context of that one 19 specific generic issue resolution. It may mean that it 20 comes back'over here and they modify'it, they add it to 21 another generic issue, they drop it, whatever that decision 22 -means.
| |
| 23 MR. MICHELSON: It may mean-that they just plain
| |
| , (')
| |
| (_/
| |
| 24- . drop it. Don't they review the drops?
| |
| 25 DR. SIESS: Warren told us this morning that we ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 . Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
| |
| | |
| 0960 12 12. 170
| |
| ~
| |
| (%)}Vbur 1 were supposed to get their resolution on every issue, which 2 resolution could be to drop it, and we are not sure who has 3 been getting them. Mr. Fraley has been getting them, Sam 4 hasn't.
| |
| 5 MR. MICHELSON: I would suggest the flow chart 6 directly reflect, though, the process. If you decide no 7 further action, the ACRS doesn't want to look at it.
| |
| 8 It is more like the next line down is shown 9 correctly. You show ACRS involved in the diamond -- no, the 10 next line down. The next time you see ACRS again, right 11 there. That time ACRS is shown in the diamond. That is the 12 process that goes on. In arriving at the "yes/no" decision,
| |
| () 13 somewhere along the way you ask ACRS to look at it, and not 14 only if it is a "yes."
| |
| 15 So if you just modify the drawing that way, I 16 think it more correctly reflects it.
| |
| 17 DR. SIESS: That should happen before it gets to 18 him.
| |
| 19 MR. MICHELSON: Really. But I think the next 20 line they showed it correctly, the way it works.
| |
| 21 Now, the other question in my mind is if the !
| |
| 22 agency decides to drop something, apparently we don't go i 23 through any kind of a Commission notification or anything l 1
| |
| 24 like that. )
| |
| l 25 MR. SCHWINK: It depends on what the issue is.
| |
| ({ }
| |
| 1 l
| |
| ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| V
| |
| -0960 12 12 171
| |
| - 1 If-it is a USI --
| |
| D)Vbur.
| |
| (.
| |
| 2 MR. MICHELSON:- Again, I am looking at your. flow.
| |
| 3 ' diagram,-andmit seems.that if it is a "no"'you do.not inform 4 the Commission. You don't_do anything.- No public comment, l -5 :no nothing.
| |
| 6 MR. SCHWINK: It is not quite that black and 7 white. Whatever is decided here would be put into 0933,as 8 to wnat happened to that particular generic issue. It would
| |
| , 9 -also if it is a rulemaking be put_into the regulatory agenda 10 to say the rule has been terminated or it has been combined 11 with another_rulemaking or some indication of what-happened 12 to that rulemaking because at the point of initiating a 13 rulemaking itialso gets identified in the regulatory agenda.
| |
| (]}_
| |
| I 14 MR. MICHELSON: -But you don't_really go to the 15 Commission to get their approval to drop something at that 16- point-in time?
| |
| . 17 MR. SCHWINK: It depends on the significance of 18 it.
| |
| 19 MR. MICHELSON: I was just trying-to be sticky, I 20 guess, and read the diagram. .-I hope you don't go by the.
| |
| 21 diagram completely.
| |
| 22 (Laughter.)
| |
| 23 MR. HEBDON: The diagram-is a somewhat simplified 24 representation of the process, and as you can see, it is
| |
| /~S 25 already fairly complicted. It certainly doesn't include all t
| |
| \)
| |
| ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| 0960 12 12 172 1 the possibilities of some of the variations on the theme
| |
| (')TVbur
| |
| \_
| |
| 2 that can occur in specific cases. It is really intended 3 just to give a general idea of how the process works.
| |
| 4 MR. MICHELSON: I think if you just eliminated 5 that "no" branch altogether, you would be pretty close. You 6 always get a "yes," you always get a result out of that 7 diagram. The result then is fed back to ACRS to see if they 8 are happy. It is fed back to the Commission to see if they 9 are happy, to see if everybody is happy. If they aren't 10 happy, then the feedback works through the diamond again.
| |
| 11 DR. SIESS: It never goes to the Commission 12 unless they originated the generic issue.
| |
| f)l 13 MR. HERNAN: Carl, at the present time the "no" 14 decisions are not being reviewed by either the Commission or 15 ACRS.
| |
| 16 MR. MICHELSON: Apparently, that is the case.
| |
| 17 But ACRS has asked to be included.
| |
| 18 DR. SIESS: Excuse me. I thought a "no" decision 19 was a resolution and that was drawn up as a resolution and 20 sent to the office.
| |
| 21 MR. HERNAN: That is correct.
| |
| 22 DR. SIESS: Why is it that we got copies of that?
| |
| 23 MR. HEBDON: I guess it is not clear whether you 24 are getting copies.
| |
| /~T 25 DR. SIESS: He says he gets copies of it. How V
| |
| ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
| |
| | |
| 0960 12 12 173
| |
| (')Vbur-s_/
| |
| 1 far down the line, what is happening to them I don't know.
| |
| 2 But we have not seen all the resolutions that I know of.
| |
| 3 MR. HERNAN: What I.am trying to point out is in 4 terms of the memorandum of understanding between the EDO and~
| |
| 5 the ACRS. Those are not required to be reviewed.
| |
| 6 DR. SIESS: I can't believe that, Ron. We are 7 probably more interested in the things that the Commission 8 decides not to do something about than we are in the things 9 they do decide to do something about.
| |
| 10 That has been the history of this committee. We 11 are always more concerned about omissions than commissions.
| |
| 12 -We never disagree with a high priority, or hardly ever. We
| |
| () 13 frequently disagree with a medium, low, or dropped priority.
| |
| 14 We are a check valve, and I can't believe that the 15 memorandum of understanding says that if they decide not to 16 do anything about a generic issue, even if we suggested it, 17 that they don't notify us. It would be completely out of 18 order with what I thought.
| |
| 19 MR. HERNAN: The issues I was speaking of are not 20 Commission decisions, but issues which don't get to the 21 point of proposing a rulemaking.
| |
| 22 DR. SIESS: That is right. We had a list of a 23 hundred general items. We turned them over and combined 24 them with the staff's list. At that time it was our 4
| |
| (} 25 intention that we would be kept informed of how those were ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
| |
| | |
| 0960 12 12 174 Vbur 1 disposed of, and certainly if the staff for some reason 2 decides.that a generic issue doesn't require any action, we 3 would be very much interested in knowing-that.
| |
| 4 MR. HERNAN: I guess the formal manner in which ,
| |
| 5 ACRS is kept informed is probably something that hasn't been 6 formally established other than by submitting the documents 7 to ACRS.
| |
| 8 DR. SIESS: That is fine. If the documents are 9 submitted to us, we are supposed to be able to pick it up 10 from there.
| |
| 11 MR. HERNAN: The memorandum of understanding 12 addresses things that are required to be brought 13 specifically to the attention of the ACRS or a request'for 14 review from the committee.
| |
| 15 DR. SIESS: Which one? This one on deve'lopment 16 of rules, poli'cy matters, and safety-related guidance?
| |
| 17 MR. HERNAN: I am talking about the MOU between -
| |
| 18 EDO and ACRS. l 19 DR. SIESS: This is an MOU'I am reading. It is 20 the only one I have got. It says policy matters and safety-21 related guidance.
| |
| 22 Does it say anything about generic issues? j 23 MR. HERNAN: Yes. There's regulatory policies, .
| |
| 24- safety-related guidance.- There's two categories. There's 25 rules and there's guidance.
| |
| l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage '800-336-6646 l
| |
| | |
| 0960 12 12 175 1 DR. SIESS: I don't thinkf-- I. negotiated that,
| |
| {}Vbur 2 and we weren't even thinking about generic issues. If the 3 EDO is interpreting that to cover generic issues, we need.to 4 work out a new memorandum of understanding. I wouldn't l
| |
| 5 . touch that one with a ten-foot pole again.- We will write a 6 new one.
| |
| 7 Warren said we were getting all the dispositions.
| |
| 8 We should get them..
| |
| 9 MR. SCHWINK: I th' ink you are getting them.
| |
| 10 MR..HERNAN: The confusion may be the MOU covers 11 things that we are-specifically required to request ACRS=
| |
| 12 review as opposed to keeping the ACRS informed by. sending
| |
| '13. them copies.
| |
| 14 DR. SIESS: Look, the memorandum of understanding 15 is a two-pronged thing. If the' Commission had told us they n
| |
| 16 wanted us to review certain things, we went to the EDO and 17 said we are going to 60 these, you have got to get 18 information to us in a timely fashion. At the same time 19 they put an obligation on us that if we.were going to review 20 them we had to tell the EDO how long we were going to take
| |
| , 21 so they could fit into the process.
| |
| 22 That was chiefly on things like rulemaking and-23 policy statements, but it was not intended to cover all the 24 interactions between the ACRS and the regulatory staf f.
| |
| 25 I don't know whether we wrote a letter at the
| |
| }}
| |
| ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage . 800-336-6M6
| |
| | |
| 10960 12 12- 176 1 . time we transferred our generic. items to the staff or we
| |
| ;.{}Vbur
| |
| ; 2 'could even find it. But if it is going to take.a memorandum
| |
| -3 of understanding to do it -- actually,1all we need to do is 4 to be kept informed. If we don't-like it, we will say.
| |
| J 5' something;about it.
| |
| 6 I don't think we have been asking to review and 7 approve the resolution of every generic issue. I think we 8 have to do it on USIs. The Commission has asked us to. But:
| |
| 9 on generic issues I think the burden should be on us to pick 10- out those we want to comment on and tell you if they are 11 likely going to come out next week.
| |
| l' 12 So I think the MOU there really isn't' applicable 13 to this case.
| |
| . (])
| |
| 14 So go ahead.
| |
| i- 15 MR. SCHWINK: Let me make sure I understand.
| |
| 16 Right now it is the view of ACRS that they are going to- pick 17 and choose which of the generic issues they want to look at, 18 not blanket all of them?
| |
| 19 DR. SIESS: We just want to be informed of what 20 is going ora. Right now we review prioritization.on all of 21 them. If we are informed of-the resolution, we pick up on-22 some but not on others. Some of them are hot enough that we 23 have had subcommittees reviewing them as they went along.
| |
| 24 I think we have got some generic issues. All the 25 **"t* have done that, and I think some of the generic issues
| |
| -( } .
| |
| i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.
| |
| 202 347 3700 . Nationwide Coverage 800-336-M86
| |
| . . , , , , - - , . __ __. . - , . . . , . . . . . _ _ ~ . . . . , - - . - . - ~. -- , , , _ _ . , - _ __
| |
| | |
| , 0960 12 12 177
| |
| .( bur- 1 have.
| |
| ~
| |
| 2 MR. SCHWINK: And you are speaking of a-specific 3 notification, not just getting a copy of 0933?
| |
| 4 4 MR. MICHELSON: That is right.
| |
| 5 DR. SIESS: 0933 is a loose-leaf volume. Nobody 6 gets it but me, and I don't read it.
| |
| i 7 MR. EMRIT: Let me just add a little bit.
| |
| ~
| |
| j 8 I think if you look at GIMCS you will find that 9 in several instances the staff feels that the issue should 10 come to the ACRS if it is a particular milestone in the 11 resolution process on various issues.
| |
| '12 i
| |
| Q 13 14 .
| |
| 15 16
| |
| ; 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1
| |
| o 25 i,
| |
| ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
| |
| | |
| l l
| |
| 1 0960 14 14 178 l
| |
| (~]Nbw 1 MR. MICHELSON: My own view would be that the )
| |
| 'm ) l 2 ACRS should get a copy of every resolution and we decide 3 internally which ones of those we might want to review and l
| |
| 4 comment on.
| |
| 5 DR. SIESS: I think we should do it the way we've 6 been operating in some other areas. Sam would get a copy,
| |
| : 7. would call it to my attention and the Staff engineer, if he 8 think he is interested, and we would pass it on.
| |
| 9 MR. MICHELSON: Do the same with prioritization?
| |
| 10 DR. SIESS: Pretty much the same way. With 11 prioritization, we are sure that somebody acts on 12 everything. This way we would merely find out if he was
| |
| (~T y/
| |
| 13 interested 14 MR. MICHELSON: Because you can't always tell 15 from a little brief description somewhere ian the resolution 16 what really may be involved. I think at least one member of 17 the committee might want to take a close look at it.
| |
| 18 MR. EMRIT: My suggestion is, your comments were 19 made in the context of GIMCS. If you look at the milestones 20 in GIMCS, the 69 issues scheduled for resolution, and you 21 feel that a particular issue does not have a milestone for 22 that issue to come to the ACRS, I think your comments should 23 be fed back to us. We will be glad to add a milestone for 24 that issue. I know the USI's do have milestones to be sent
| |
| (~) 25 to the ACRS by '87. I was just looking at some of the other w/
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| - n
| |
| | |
| 6 09601 14 14 '179 1 issues, and not all of them are scheduled to come to the
| |
| (}Vbw-2 ACRS, and I am thinking we ought to make a point of the next 3 issue, GIMCS.
| |
| 4 DR. SIESS: That is early warning, and I think we 5 should do that. We can tell'at that stage. If you see-an 6 issue, if you see the resolution and-then somebody goes to 7 .it and says that really doesn't resolve that issue the way I j 8 understood it, then you may have already gone to the next 9 step, and if we brought your attention to it, we.may end up 10 with a new issue or a redefinition or something else-11 MR. MICHELSON: Particula'rly if it comes out on i
| |
| 12 this first line.
| |
| 13 MR. EMRIT: I think you are going to get that.
| |
| (])
| |
| 14 opportunity by having us put in a milestone to come and see 15 you. That is your choice..
| |
| 16 MR. MICHELSON: But we can't make that choice 17 until we know that you have decided no on the issue. And I 18 don't know that until you get to that diamond. ,
| |
| 19 MR. EMRIT: Forget the diamond. I am back to 20 GIMCS. GIMCS has a set of milestones here that says to the t
| |
| 21 ACRS or not to the ACRS.
| |
| 22 DR. SIESS: I can clearly identify some issues.
| |
| l 23 VOICE: They may want to critique that.
| |
| 24 MR. EMRIT: A lot of these 69 issues will result
| |
| (} 25 in no requirements.
| |
| l l
| |
| l' /\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6M6
| |
| | |
| 0960 14 14 180
| |
| (''sVbw 1 DR. SIESS: You are missing the point. It is V
| |
| 2 easy enough to tell you that we want to see it. That is the 3 only chance we've got to see it, unless we want to see every 4 one, you see. We are perfectly willing to look at something 5 and say, gee, there is a high level of interest here. We'd 6 really like to see that before we get too far on it,_but 7 there might be something else that looked perfectly harmless 8 and say, well, they ought to be able to take care of that, 9 and it turns out somebody says, it is not worth it. Forget 10 about it. And I disagree.
| |
| 11 MR. HERNAN: Isn't the question whether or not 12 ACRS gets a copy of every single resolution?
| |
| () 13 DR. SIESS: I think that is the basic question.
| |
| 14 MR. HERNAN: I don't think we know the answer to 15 that specifically.
| |
| 16 DR. SIESS: If we watch GIMCS and spot something, 17 and we know we are interested, tell them.
| |
| 18 MR. EMRIT: That is in the resolution process.
| |
| 19 DR. SIESS: We know we are going to want'to look 20 at it.
| |
| 21 MR. EMRIT: That is the place you make your 22 contribution.
| |
| 23 .
| |
| DR. SIESS: But we also want to see the net i
| |
| 24 result. We can manage that.
| |
| 25 MR. SCHWINK Just something to call to your N''J)
| |
| Ace-FEDERAL RevonTens, INC.
| |
| 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-66M
| |
| | |
| l 0960 14 14 181
| |
| ("')Vbw 1 attention. I might point out that it also could be brought
| |
| 'x /
| |
| 2 by the Commission or plant specifically, it could be dropped 3 by the Commission.
| |
| 4 MR. EBERSOLE: By whom? Plant specifically?
| |
| 5 MR. SCHWINK: Yes. For example, with station 6 blackout, if a plant can demonstrate that it is not 7 vulnerable to station blackout, likely, he would not be 8 required to so anything.
| |
| 9 DR. SIESS: But that is just a standard way.
| |
| 10 MR. EBERSOLE : That is not dropping it. That is 11 a solution.
| |
| 12 DR. SIESS: It is a solution. If they don't need
| |
| (~') 13 it; don't do it.
| |
| V 14 MR. SCHWINK: But that could be the solution up 15 here also. The judgment is that they don't need it, and 16 then they don't do anything.
| |
| 17 MR. EBERSOLE: But that is not a drop.
| |
| 18 MR. HEBDON: It is the decision that no action is 19 required.
| |
| 20 DR. SIESS: That decision is generic; is that 21 correct?
| |
| 22 MP. SCHWINK: That is correct. It is generic; 23 that is correct. I am just pointing it out, because it 24 could be dropped. Resolved, I should say, at this point.
| |
| ~'
| |
| 25 DR. SIESS:
| |
| (Vi That is what we have been talking ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
| |
| .~ _ _ _ _ _
| |
| | |
| - ~ _ . - - . . . .
| |
| 0960 14 14 182 1- about for the last 15 minutes. A thing can be resolved
| |
| {}Vbw-2 without requiring action. Now'if it is not resolved and 13 there is some action required, then you-get into the t 4 picture.
| |
| 5 MR. SCHWINK: That is correct.
| |
| 6 DR. SIESS: That is what we were talking about 7 with Research.
| |
| 8 MR. EBERSOLE: There's whole tracks on that a 9 little diagram, off to.nowhere, which say, drop it. ,
| |
| 10 DR. SIESS: Half of these, Jesse. You have to 11 reach some point that says that these don't apply to you.
| |
| 12 MR. SCHWINK:- The key to this is, when we say no 13 further action that means that it doesn't apply. That is
| |
| (}
| |
| 14 why we use the word "no further action."
| |
| 15 DR. SIESS: I think it would be easier if we 16 skipped that rulemaking block. If it is rulemaking, we 17 would get right into the middle of it.
| |
| 18 MR. SCHWINK: I'm not sure that's true in all 19 cases. There are some EDOs.
| |
| 20 DR. SIESS: I remember having an agreement, EDO 21 can't make rules.
| |
| 22 MR. SCHWINK: He has authority to sign out 23 certain rules, which means it would not go to the Commission 24 either.
| |
| i 25 VOICE: That doesn't happen too often.
| |
| (])
| |
| i I
| |
| /\CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage - 800-33MM6
| |
| | |
| 0960 14 14 183
| |
| -(''Vbw
| |
| ; 1 MR. SCHWINK: Certain rules, but there are rules
| |
| \_/
| |
| 2 that are more of an administrative nature or characterized 3 as minor policy issues, all right.
| |
| 4 Moving right along. Another key point that I 5 want to make in this is, the issue of whether or not we 6 decide we need to look'at a licensee's proposal before he 7 makes the modification or not, the point being that we think 8 it is sophisticated enough and important enough that we want 9 to pre-review it before he actually physically makes the 10 modification. That is decided with this process of what the 11 licensing guidance is and what the technical elements of the 12 resolution contribute.
| |
| 13 MR. EBERSOLE: That is the ancient old problem.
| |
| (])
| |
| 14 Hadn't you rather look at rather than let him build it and 15 then look at it?
| |
| 16 MR. SCHWINK: You might want to do both. You 17 might decide it is simple enough that you trust him to do it 18 and say that he's done it. You might want him to come in 19 first and tell you how he is going to do it and improve 20 that. Then go out and check to see if he did it the way he 21 said he was going to do it.
| |
| 22 DR. SIESS: Yo say simple enough. I would say ;
| |
| 23 that if you can state your requirement clearly enough, you l 24 shouldn't have to review what he wants to do. ,
| |
| l
| |
| (} 25 MR. SCHWINK: I would say that is probably true !
| |
| ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6 1
| |
| | |
| l 0960 14 14 184
| |
| /~^#bw 1 in most cases,.but there are some things that are just (m) 2 sophisticated enough that you want to make sure that he's 3 balanced it. He's balanced his safety thoughts. Hindsight 4 would be things'like fire protection versus security.
| |
| 5 MR. EBERSOLE: This is where the ancient battle 6 of being too proscriptive comes up.
| |
| 7 DR. SIESS: Do you expect-the licensee to settle 8 that?
| |
| 9 MR. SCHWINK: No, but I would like to hear how 10 he's thought about it in his specific plant.
| |
| 11 DR. SIESS: But if your solution is to put in a 12 separate valve from a separate power source, is that
| |
| (~} 13 something that is sufficiently clear to you and him that you
| |
| (_-
| |
| 14 don't need to know how he is going to do it until after he 15 gets it done?
| |
| 16 MR. SCHWINK: On the surface, it sounds that way, 17 yes.
| |
| 18 MR. HEB DON: I think all we are saying in this 19 is, that there is a measure of response that we can have 20 anything from. It is clear-cut and the criteria are well-21 defined and the requirements are well-defined, and 22 therefore, the licensee can do it and certify that it is 23 done to something that is very complicated, where it is 24 difficult to define the criteria with a great deal of
| |
| (} 25 specificity, in which case we want the licensee to show what
| |
| . Act-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 4 46
| |
| | |
| 0960 14 14 185 1 they are going'to do, then we may actually go inspect how it
| |
| . (}Vbw 2 actually gets installed to track it all the.way through the 3 process.
| |
| 4 DR. SIESS: Let me paraphrase that. If it is 5 clearly prescriptive requirement, you will probably trust 6 him. If it tends to be more perfor,- -oriented or goal-(
| |
| 7 oriented, you would want to look at his response and see if 8 he and you understood the same goals.
| |
| 9 MR. HEBDON: Yes. I believe that is correct. It 10 is the degree to which you can clearly define the criteria, 11 with respect to exactly what you want.
| |
| 12 MR. EBERSOLE: You are a lot safer with the
| |
| (~)
| |
| (_-
| |
| 13 second method, because he can always say, after he built it, 14 that you didn't tell me how to do it.
| |
| 15 VOICE: There's a time element there too, Jesse.
| |
| 16 One of the reasons this takes so long, licensee can 17 certainly delay the implementation process. They send in 18 something that they know is marginal, and it ta':es a while 19 to review and then negotiation. That is one of the problems 20 of this whole process is, there's lots of ways to slow down 21 the process and very few ways to accelerate it.
| |
| 22 DR. SIESS: Sometimes the Staff knows what they 23 want, but they put it in performance terms, and then when 24 the licensee doesn't agree with them, they go back and argue 2
| |
| () 25 it out. The trouble with making it prescriptive is, he may ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-33M646
| |
| | |
| ~\
| |
| 0960 14 14~ - 18 ti 1 be smarter than you and have a better way of doing it. ;
| |
| }Vbw a 2 MR. HEBDON: Plus the variability from plant to 3 plant.
| |
| 4 MR. SCHWINK: The other point I. wanted to make
| |
| 'S is,-given that he installs this modification, whatever it E 6 is, whether or not we decide that a specific verification 7 inspection is necessary, the' routine inspection program may 8- have to be modified, so that.it picks it up five years down j 9 the pike to make sure that it is maintained in the plant.
| |
| 2 i 10 MR. MICHELSON: If you have a case wherein you do i 11 not require a submittal for approval on the solution of a -
| |
| t 12 generic issue, what does the regional inspector then inspect
| |
| (]) 13 against? How does he decide? What does he think about when j 14 he goes to see what the utility finally put in?
| |
| 15 MR. HEBDON: The.other half of preparing the SRP
| |
| )
| |
| 16 as part of the technical resolution is also preparing J
| |
| 17 inspection procedures, whether it is a permanent- change to 18 the inspection manual or whether it is just a temporary 1
| |
| 19 instruction.
| |
| g 20 MR. MICHELSON: Do you prepare a module or a 21 temporary instruction telling the guy that after the utility 22 complies with this generic requirement in whatever manner 23 the utility decides. Here are the things you have to check.
| |
| i 24 MR. HEBDON: That is right. That could be a
| |
| () 23
| |
| , /\CE-FEDERAL REvonTEns, INC. '
| |
| 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage ' 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| i 0960 14 14. -187 r i
| |
| 1 . temporary instruction on a one-time basis and/or it could be
| |
| -{}Vbw j: '2 a change to the inspection program'to add a module or to-3 make a change in a module to pick up that particular item.
| |
| i .
| |
| j 4 MR. MICHELSON: He is not a very good reviewer of l
| |
| 5 the change. He is a good checker of the installation and.
| |
| 6- workmanship and things of that sort, but not necessarily a 7 Egood technical reviewer of a change.
| |
| 8 MR. HEBDON: That is why-our branch is called
| |
| ] ,
| |
| t
| |
| ! 9 Inspection and Licensing Integration. . We are responsible 10 for both the SRP and the Inspection Manual and the idea is l
| |
| 11 to try and make sure-that we balance what is done in the 12 licensing review with what is done in the inspection j (]) 13 program, so that we don't do it in two disconnected pieces f 14 MR. MICHELSON: You tried to write that into the 4
| |
| a .
| |
| : 15 solution of the generic issue then? !
| |
| 1 t
| |
| i 16 , MR. HEBDON: And we want to back that up all the ;
| |
| j 17 way to the solution of the generic issue, yes.
| |
| !] 18 MR. MICHELSON: This will work eventually, but
| |
| : .t i 19 generic issues are already resolved that you now have to l
| |
| 20 write just inspections for, are not going to be so easy. .
| |
| l
| |
| ! 21 MR. HEBDON: Obviously, it is going to take some
| |
| { 22 time to phase this into the process, and there are some-i j 23 generic issues that are at various stages of working their 24 way through the system. We are trying to catch up to them,
| |
| () 25 to the extent we can, but it is going to be difficult for a
| |
| ; 14CEJFEDERAL REvonTEns, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33M446
| |
| | |
| '0960 14 14 188
| |
| (~}Vbw 1 while. Certainly, all generic issues that go forward in the s_/
| |
| 2 future will have the SRP and the inspection program 3 modificazitons incorporated in the development of the 4 technical resolution.
| |
| 5 MR. MICHELSON: When might we start to expect to 6 see this.
| |
| 7 MR. HEBDON: I'm not sure which one is the next 8 one that will go forward, but it should be-the next package-9 that goes forward to CRGR, for example, and if we are trying 10 to catch up with some of them.
| |
| 11 MR. MICHELSON: Af ter April 12th, at least; is 12 that it?
| |
| 13 MR. SCHWINK: I would rather put it after the end
| |
| (])
| |
| 14 of May.
| |
| 15 MR. MICHELSON: Thank you.
| |
| 16 DR. SIESS: I asked you earlier about the role of 17 the project manager in the plant-specific generic issue 18 implementation. Does the resident inspector play any role?
| |
| -f 19 MR. SCHWINK The PM works with the resident l
| |
| 20 inspector to get what the current status of the plant is.
| |
| 21 For example, there may be something that can be modified 22 with the plant in its current status. The PM is literally 23 evaluating the plant status and the proposal that came in 24 from the licensee using the technical people in the 25 Engineering Division to say this looks reasonable and trying
| |
| {~}
| |
| ACE-FEDERAL, REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(x)-33GuA6
| |
| | |
| 0960 14 14 189 1 to balance all that to come up with a schedule for that (V~3Vbw 2 specific plan. That is reasonable from our point of view in 3 a safety concern, and from the licensee's point of view, 4 from a practical world concern.
| |
| 5 DR. SIESS: You used the word " technical people."
| |
| 6 . Isn't the project manager a technical person?
| |
| 7 MR. SCHWINK: Yes.
| |
| 8 DR. SIESS: When the technical reviewer types are 9 reviewing what the licensee proposes, where do they get the 10 information on the peculiarities of that plant?
| |
| 11 MR. SCHWINK: Two places. One, they've gotten it 12 from the history for that plant. That is a matter of f~') 13 record.
| |
| v 14 DR. SIESS: What does that mean? The FSAR?
| |
| 15 MR. SCHWINK: Yes.
| |
| 16 DR. SIESS: You've got a library out there 17 somewhere with all the FSARs in it?
| |
| 18 MR. SCHWINK: Yes. And modifications that have 19 been made to the plant since then.
| |
| 20 MR. HERNAN: I don't know if we said it, but the 21 trigger point for the involvement of the specific PM for 22 this plant would be when the generic letter gets issued by 23 the generic communications branch. From that point on, each 24 project manager has to follow that issue for his plant,
| |
| (} 25 including the establishment of a schedule, branching review ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 MA6
| |
| | |
| 0960 14 14 190
| |
| /~'Vbw 1 of the issue.
| |
| V 2 DR. SIESS: Response comes back to the PM?
| |
| 3 MR. HERNAN: To the project managers; yes. From 4 then on, he or she is responsible for the ultimate final.
| |
| . 5 implementation of that issue.
| |
| 1 t 6 DR. SIESS: They're not responsible? They are 7 responsible, but they don't make the-decision.
| |
| 8 MR. HERNAN: They are responsible for makin.,
| |
| J
| |
| ; 9 several decisions.
| |
| i
| |
| ]
| |
| 10 DR. SIESS: They have to go through the technical 11 review people, i
| |
| 3 12 MR. HERNAN: Yes, they do. But they have the
| |
| (]) 13 authority to reject the technical reviewer, either if the 14 technical reviewer thinks that the project manager has not 15 done a thorough enough job or made some wrong decisions, the 16 PM can challenge that.
| |
| ~
| |
| 17 DR. SIESS: Can challenge it, but not suggest.
| |
| i j 18 MR. HERNAN: Well, the process is there. t 4
| |
| 19 DR. SIESS: For example, in the SEP program, the i
| |
| 4 20 project manager has a lot of authority to overrule technical
| |
| ; 21 reviews. Otherwise all these old plants would be right up 22 where the new ones are. Technical reviewers have no way of
| |
| ; 23 saying this is what the requirements are and this is what i -
| |
| l 24 .the plant is, and they don't agree. Somebody had to decide
| |
| () 25 whether to fix it.
| |
| Ace FEDERAL RevonTens, INC.
| |
| 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 804 336 6646
| |
| ~s,. - - . . -... _ . , , . . _ . . . . _ , . - _ . . - _ , _ . - . , , . - ,,__. ,-,_, .- .
| |
| | |
| i 0960'14 31' 191 '
| |
| Vbw 1 MR. HERNAN: That would not be the project ,
| |
| 2, manager at that level.
| |
| 3 DR. SIESS:- The SEC program was, though, at a 4 ,
| |
| 4 relatively low level. The project manager and immediately 3
| |
| ~-
| |
| 5 above~him.
| |
| ; 6 MR. HERNAN: But there was a'special organization l 7 set upLfor the SEP.
| |
| a
| |
| ' A special authority, but this doesn't 8 DR. SIESS:
| |
| l-9 work like that. The project manager can question, can raise j 10 issues, say, are you sure, you know, that it has to work up 11 through his level to overrule a technical review. MR.
| |
| i 12 HERNAN: Yes.
| |
| 13 DR. SIESS: The project manager and technical.
| |
| (])
| |
| 14 reviewer are in different divisions, aren't they?
| |
| I 15 MR. HERNAN: Yes, they work for different i
| |
| { 16 associate directors.
| |
| 1 1 17 And this process is frequently exercised in 18 licensing. It may go up to the office director or the
| |
| , 19 appeal level.
| |
| ; 20 DR. SIESS: Okay.
| |
| i
| |
| ~
| |
| 21 1
| |
| 22 4
| |
| l 23 24 1
| |
| 2s
| |
| ! (:)
| |
| Ace FnonnAL ReponTens, INC.
| |
| l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmcrage 800 336-6 4 6 i
| |
| | |
| 0960 15 15 192 1 DR. REMICK: I'm confused by a statement you
| |
| (~)'N/bc 2 made. You said the EDO can sign off on certain rules.
| |
| 3 Maybe it's just the difference of definition. I thought the 4 rule was something that changed the Code of Federal 5 Regulations.
| |
| 6 Could you give me an example of something EDO 7 signs off that changes the regulations themselves?
| |
| 8 MR. SCHWINK: There was a rule, the most recent 9 one, there was an omission out of the Safeguards rule for 10 how to protect power supplies for communications equipment.
| |
| 11 The bottom litre we's'it was just simply an 12 omission when they were rewriting the rule.
| |
| 13 That is being signed out by the EDO.
| |
| (])
| |
| 14 DR. SIESS: He notifies the Commission.
| |
| 15 MR. SCHWINK: That is correct.
| |
| t' 16 DR. SIESS: I've seen them.
| |
| 17 DR. REMICK: I didn't realize he had the 18 authority to change something that would actually change the 19 regulation versus change the regulatory guide.
| |
| 20 MR. SCHWINK: That's correct.
| |
| 21 DR. SIESS: This has been delegated.
| |
| 22 DR. REMICK: I guess I can't help but wonder then 23 why the EDO was made aware of the fact that the regulations 24 don't require training programs. If it's purely an
| |
| (~)
| |
| %J 25 omission, why he didn't use that authority. He used other
| |
| (
| |
| ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage m)-336-6M6
| |
| | |
| 4 a, --a--. 4 - esaa s e .- a.- - - u n- . . , . e - a 1
| |
| .0960 15 15 193
| |
| ~
| |
| " h N/bc 1 arguments to say why he shouldn't do it at the time.
| |
| , G '
| |
| ;- 2 DR. SIESS: He probably didn't want'to.
| |
| i 3 DR. REMICK: I'm getting smarter'every. day.
| |
| i 4 .(Slide.)
| |
| j .5 MR. SCHWINK:- This next slide delineates NRR's i
| |
| 6- participation..
| |
| j 7 DR. SIESS: Woll, you know, you've got all these 8 things headed generic issue resolution.. Within our
| |
| }
| |
| j 9 framework, this is implementation.
| |
| I 10 MR. SCHWINK: That's correct. .
| |
| {
| |
| 11 DR. SIESS: Resolution we took care-of this i
| |
| 12 morning. ;
| |
| j 13 MR. SCHWINK: But I want to point out that NRR is j 14 a principal participant.
| |
| f 15 DR. SIESS: But every one of your slides says i
| |
| l 16 generic issue resolution.
| |
| 1 i 17 MR. SCHWINK: I've titled all the slides that, by j 18 that name, simply because that's what we called the meeting i 19 itself, was Generic Resolution.
| |
| 1 I 20 DR. SIESS: That's your fault. We didn't call it 21 that.
| |
| j l J 22 (Laughter.)
| |
| i j 23 DR. SIESS: That's okay, but you know the l 24 difference.
| |
| 25 MR. SCHWINK: Yes.
| |
| l i
| |
| ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage ' 800 33MM6
| |
| | |
| 0960 15 15 194 DR. SIESS: Fine.
| |
| (')V/bc
| |
| .a 1
| |
| 2 MR. SCHWINK: What I want to make a point of is 3 that we participate and we're the principal participants in 4 the identification, the prioritization and the development 5 of the technical resolution.
| |
| 6 We have the lead responsibility for the plant-7 specific imposition of the technical resolution. In this 8 case, Research would participate with us in trying to 9 translate that generic resolution to something that's 10 licensoable for each plant.
| |
| 11 Then of course verification of what was done by 12 the licensee in response to that plant-specific requirement.
| |
| 13 Then, ultimately, the routine inspection to make sure that
| |
| (])
| |
| 14 whatever he installed he continues to maintain the function.
| |
| 15 DR. SIESS: Walter, when you say we are involved, 16 now, clearly, the identification of an issue would be 17 strictly within NRR and just sent on over to Research.
| |
| 18 MR. SCHWINK Not strictly. _It could be AEOD.
| |
| 19 DR. SIESS: But you could do it all on your own 20 apart from anybody.
| |
| 21- MR. SCHWINK Correct.
| |
| l 22 DR. SIESS: Prioritization is a primary function 1 23 in Research. They can call on help from NRR. Do you !
| |
| l 24 approve the prioritization? j i
| |
| (} 25 MR. SCHWINK: We give them peer review. We don't Ace FEDERAL ReponTEns, INC. l 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6
| |
| | |
| 9.0960 15 15 195 1-1 approve them, but we give them peer review.
| |
| (}V/bc 2 DR. SIESS: That's not a concurrence.
| |
| i 3 MR. SCHWINK: No.
| |
| 4 DR. SIESS: The same level we do.
| |
| l 5 MR. SCHWINK:. That's correct.
| |
| 6 DR. SIESS: You can disagree with them just like ;.
| |
| 7 we can. All right.- Now, in.the resolution, individuals ,
| |
| 8 from.NRR will work on a task group. But after they have 9 agreed themselves, then that goes for office concurrence? M 10 MR. SCHWINK: Yes.
| |
| 11 DR. SIESS: There's a form of. concurrence on the 12 resolution?
| |
| i 13 MR. SCHWINK: That's correct.
| |
| (]) ,
| |
| ; 14 DR. SIESS: So nothing comes to NRR that they I 15 haven't been involved in. */ l 1
| |
| 16 MR. SCHWINK: That's correct.
| |
| 4 17 DR. SIESS: And when the concurrence is reached, 18 that comes down here at the next to the last bullet.
| |
| 19 MR. SCHWINK: Yes. ,,
| |
| i 20 DR. SIESS: Is everything in NRC this a
| |
| 21 complicated?
| |
| 4
| |
| ] 22 MR. SCHWINK: I tried to simplify these slides.
| |
| 23 (Laughter.)
| |
| 24 MR. EBERSOLE: It's bureaucracy at work.
| |
| j
| |
| [} 25 MR. SCHWINK: You haven't seen anything yet.
| |
| )! /\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| 0960 15 15 196 I
| |
| . /']V/bc 1 DR. SIESS: Yes, I have because I looked at the
| |
| ,k/
| |
| m 2 regulation of transportation of radioactive materials.
| |
| 3 That got into four'other government agencies and 4 50 States.
| |
| t 5 MR. EBERSOLE: At least it's open-ended, Chet.
| |
| 6 (Slide.)
| |
| 7 MR. SCHWINK: I wanted to give a sense of what 8 the full range of requirements would be involved in.these 9 technical resolutions. It could be~ simple, as simple as an 10 information notice, to say, Hey, we look at this. If your 11 plant has anything like this, you ought to-be aware of it, 12 and so forth, to as sophisticated as a legislative proposal. [
| |
| () 13 For example, the criminal history checks with'the 14 FBI and I think some of the Emergency Preparedness wound up *
| |
| ^
| |
| 15 in legislation.
| |
| 16 So there's a wide spectrum of regulatory vehicles i
| |
| l'' 17 to go to licensees with. Some of these are short-term, some 18 are longer-term.
| |
| 19 MR. MICHELSON: Do they go out a generi'c l'tter, e 20 or out as an information notice?
| |
| 21 MR. SCHWINK: It depends on the issue. \
| |
| 22 MR. MICHELSON: The issue requiring no action i
| |
| 23 which you just want to inform a utility, is that called a 24 generic letter then, or information notice?
| |
| 25 MR. SCHWINK Information notice.
| |
| V
| |
| (])
| |
| s l /\CE. FEDERAL REeonTEns, INC.
| |
| : 202-3 6 3700 Nationwide Coverage 80rM34M>46 i 3
| |
| | |
| 0960 15.15 197 1 MR. MICHELSON: Generic letter really suggests
| |
| { }V/bc 2 that some action is needed before --
| |
| 3 VOICE: Or at least you want a response.
| |
| 4 MR. HERNAN: A generic letter can either require 5 or not require a response to enforce new requirements'or to 6 . pass along information.
| |
| 7 MR. MICHELSON: So you have a choice if you don't- f 8 want any response and you just want to inform them, you can 9 send out an information notice.
| |
| 10 MR. HEBDON: Of course, you've got to recognize r
| |
| 111 that, in the past, theLinformation notices and bulletins 12 came out of I&D and the generic. letters came out of NRR.
| |
| 13 They come out of the same organization now, so I
| |
| -( )
| |
| 14 think it will take a little while to sort itself out on how 15 they're going to work.
| |
| 16 MR. MICHELSON: -You'll start.. The lowestnlevel 17 will be an information notice then for these generic 18 businesses.
| |
| 19 MR. HEBDON: That would be the lowest. level. -Of 20 course,.the information notice doesn't impose-the 21 . requirement, but it makes them aware of it.
| |
| 22 MR. MICHELSON: I guess the bulletin is the
| |
| : 23. highest level that a generic issue could generate.
| |
| 24 MR. HEBDON: Legislative proposal.or a rulemaking
| |
| /~T 25 would be the highest.
| |
| V ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 x_- -
| |
| | |
| 0960 15 15 198
| |
| ~
| |
| 1 DR. SIESS: How about a shutdown order?
| |
| k.'// ;V/bc 2 MR. HEBDON: That's third.
| |
| 3 MR. MICHELSON: A shutdown order could come 4 without legislation.
| |
| 5 DR. SIESS: I remember a list that came out the 6 time they were setting up CRGR. By various means, the staff 7 used to put requirements on licensees. I didn't remember it 8 being this large.
| |
| 9 MR. SCHWINK: In fact, it was larger. I created 10 that list. It was six pages long, and it was all the 11 different ways, like informal meetings, for example.
| |
| 12 DR. SIESS: You're right.
| |
| 13 DR. MOELLER:
| |
| -( ) What is the difference in a 14 bulletin and an information notice?
| |
| 15 MR. SCHWINK: A bulletin usually requires som0 16 kind of response. An information notice just simply says, 17 Hey, we found out there's this phenomenon. Be aware of it.
| |
| 18 If it applies to your plant, you know, look at it to see if 19 it does.
| |
| 20 DR. SIESS: On the Surry pipe, they put out an 21 information notice. It's sort of "It could happen to you, 22 maybe."
| |
| 23 DR. MOELLER: Then I see you have regulatory 24 guidane, licensing guidance and inspection guidance. I
| |
| (} 25 guess each is different.
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| 0960 15 15 199
| |
| (~~')V/bc 1 DR. SIESS: That's a telephone call.
| |
| U 2 MR. SCHWINK: This is licensee action. This is 3 staff guidance. And the information notice is kind of in 4 between.
| |
| 5 DR. SIESS: Licensing guidance would be what?
| |
| 6 MR. SCHWINK: SRP.
| |
| 7 DR. SIESS: I see what you mean.
| |
| 8 MR. SCHWINK: Inspection guidance would be the 9 inspection modules and procedures.
| |
| 10 DR. MOELLER: For the staff.
| |
| 11 MR. MICHELSON: Information notice is really in 12 the wrong place. It belongs in the upper list.
| |
| () 13 MR. HEBDON: The intent in putting the 14 information notice where it is is to make it clear that the 15 information notice does not impose the technial resolution.
| |
| 16 The ones abovs it impose it. Below the line, they do not.
| |
| 17 They're still a bit of a mixed bag. But the 18 distinction is that they do not impose the technical 19 resolution.
| |
| 20 DR. SIESS: Put it in between or put an asterisk.
| |
| 21 MR. SCHWINK: Put it at both.
| |
| 22 DR. MOELLER: What then is the difference in an '
| |
| 23 order and a bulletin?
| |
| 24 MR. SCHWINK: First of all, a bulletin by itself l
| |
| (} 25 is not enforceable. Now, everybody pretty much follows what ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| 2 0960 15 15 200
| |
| ~
| |
| 1 the bulletin says because the'next thing that's going to
| |
| (~)V/bc 2 come is the direction either through-an order or an 3 immediate action letter to says Do it.
| |
| 4 It doesn't have a legal basis in and of itself.
| |
| 5 VOICE: It has a closing paragraph.
| |
| 6 (Laughter.)
| |
| 7 VOICE: No, it requires a response. And my 8 former boss, Ed Jordan, used to say, "One of the criteria.
| |
| 9' for a bulletin was that the licensee says, No, we're not 10 going to do it, we're willing to issue an-order."
| |
| 11 So, as Walt says, invariably,' licensees comply 12 with few exceptions.
| |
| () 13 MR. SCHWINK: I'd like to take this opportunity 14 'to work SIMS into this.
| |
| 15 (Slide.)
| |
| 16 I think you'll find SIMS is the only system --
| |
| 17 and I guess I have a little bit of pride of creatorship --
| |
| 18 that tells you from cradle what's go'ing on.
| |
| 19 It's not anything other than a management tool to 20 cause you to ask quertions, but there's nowhere in the 21 agency that you can look at that-in a single place and 22 decide that there's a question you want to ask because 23 things are done in such complexity and they're so piecemeal.
| |
| 24 So, SIMS, in my way of thinking, was the only way
| |
| {} 25 to figure out cradle to grave what's going on in generic 24CEMFEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC. .
| |
| ' 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 ' l .-
| |
| | |
| 0960 15 15 201 1 issues. I'll expand it even further and say generic
| |
| (');V/bc
| |
| (_
| |
| 2 actions, rulemaking, reg guides, generic issues, USIs, TMI 3 action items, the whole list of things.
| |
| 4 DR. SIESS: Let's accept the fact that SIMS 5 exists and it's history. I don't want to spend too much 6 time on it. I got the impression that it was pretty much 7 originatcJ after the GAO report. Is that right?
| |
| 8 MR. SCHWINK: Well, it came into existence that 9 way. But I've been trying for this kind of system since I 10 wrote the original charter from the CRGR.
| |
| 11 DR. SIESS: Let's get something straight. We've 12 got a separate item on the agenda for SIMS.
| |
| 13 MR. SCHWINK: But that's more of the system
| |
| (~Jl 14 architecture.
| |
| 15 DR. SIESS: We're not interested in the system's 16 architecture or the computer experts. The only thing we're 17 interested in in SIMS is what is in it and what kind of 18 reports are easily available from it.
| |
| 19 MR. SCHWINK: That's exactly what I'm going to 20 show you.
| |
| 21 DR. SIESS: Are you going to incorporate that 22 into this part of the presentation? I'd suggest that you 23 hold it off for a little bit and let's decide are you 24 completely finished with how you implement, how we go about (3 25 implementing changes as a result of generic issues.
| |
| 'u)
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6M6
| |
| | |
| 0960 15 15 202 1 Have you covered all of that that you want to
| |
| (^J>V/bc 2 cover in the process?
| |
| 3 MR. SCHWINK: The important part of this though 4 is this directly shows exactly how we go about converting 5 from the generic to the plant-specific. So I'm not getting 6 into the system architecture. It's into the technical 7 substance of how we translate from a generic issue into a 8 plant-specific issue.
| |
| 9 DR. SIESS: And the involvement of the project 10 manager, and so forth?
| |
| 11 MR. SCHWINK: That's correct.
| |
| 12 DR. SIESS: The one. thing we're looking for is
| |
| () 13 who we want to talk to at our next meeting. If we decide to 14 take some generic issue and follow it through, and if we 15 took one and went all the way through from the time it was 16 installed, who are the people that we would discuss this 17 with?
| |
| 18 That's what I'm looking for.
| |
| 19 (Slide.)
| |
| 20 MR. SCHWINK: I picked USIA-44 because you're 21 going to be getting that very soon.
| |
| 22 DR. SIESS: Except that's never been implemented 23 on anything. Why are you talking about it?
| |
| 24 MR. SCHWINK: Two reasons. One, it's considered 25 to be the most important safety issue in the agency by most
| |
| ( '}
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6 4 6
| |
| | |
| 0960 15 15 203
| |
| [ N/bc 1 of the staff.
| |
| 2 DR. SIESS: This morning, we tried to cover a 3 process up through resolution. This afternoon, we were to 4 talk about implementation.
| |
| 5 Why then are you talking about one that hasn't 6 been implemented? It hasn't even been resolved?
| |
| 7 MR. SCHWINK: Because, in the front part of this, 8 we've actually tried to articulate which specific plants are 9 affected by it and articulate how we're going to go about 10 translating this into plant-specific actions.
| |
| 11 DR. SIESS: This is a part of implementation.
| |
| 12 MR. SCHWINK: That's correct.
| |
| (~)
| |
| U 13 DR. SIESS: And you're sort of anticipating that 14 we'll have a sort of resolution.
| |
| 15 MR. SCHWINK: That's correct.
| |
| 16 MR. EBERSOLE: This was a topic of the 17 subcommittee, Charlie, and I think we gave it a resounding 18 vote that it was a very good job except for one thing. It's 19 a subpart of TAP-45.
| |
| 20 And we don't know where TAP-45 will come in to 21 catch it.
| |
| 22 MR. SCHWINK: You mean it's competing. 45 gets 23 done first, you automatically take care of it.
| |
| 24 DR. SIESS: I don't want this. The question of
| |
| (} 25 A-45 and A-44 is being examined by at least two other ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| 0960 15 15 204 t'''3V/bc 1 subcommituccs of the ACRS. I don't want this subcommittee V
| |
| 2 to take time to get into that involvement except at the most 3 generic level.
| |
| 4 Give us a simple example of something we want to 5 discuss.
| |
| 6 MR. HEBDON: I think that's exactly what we were 7 trying to do with this, is to use it as a way of 8 illustrating how the process works, not to try to get into 9 the details of that particular generic issue.
| |
| 10 DR. SIESS: This is the process now at the 11 implementation level where you already have a resolution of 12 A-44. You already have a resolution of A-45. And how
| |
| ~N 13 you're going to go about implementing it.
| |
| (V 14 MR. SCHWINK: That's correct. And the elements 15 of information that are captured in this become the key 16 elements in translating it into plant-specific actions.
| |
| 17 DR. SIESS: This is then partly a hypothetical.
| |
| 18 We don't have an official resolution of either.one, right?
| |
| 19 MR. SCHWINK: I can give you one of these for 20 every generic issue. It stacks up to two foot of documents.
| |
| 21 DR. SIESS: Even whether they've been resolved or 22 not?
| |
| 23 MR. SCHWINK: That's correct.
| |
| 24 MR. EBERSOLE: Two feet?
| |
| /~'$ 25 MR. SCHWINK: Yes.
| |
| \.) l l
| |
| l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage ~ 800-336-6M6
| |
| | |
| l l
| |
| 0960 15 15 205 l 1 MR. HEBDON: Let me clarify. SIMS is a tool for
| |
| (~~3V/bc
| |
| -s/ '
| |
| 2 tracking the issues-through-the entire process from the 3 initial prioritization to the final verification and 4 closecut. The data for any issue will be consistent with.
| |
| 5 where it is in the process.
| |
| 6 But SIMS is.just a tool. I don't want to get 7 hung up on the system other than the fact that it 8 illustrates how the process works.
| |
| 9 If you'd prefer to just go on through the slides 10 on.the process and then we can come back and show how SIMS 4
| |
| 11 is a tool for implementing that process, that certainly 12 would be a way of doing it.
| |
| (} 13 DR. SIESS: I guess I'm not sure what 'you're 14 trying to do. If we want to talk about the processoat some 15 future meeting, we want to talk about specific issues and 16 how they go through the process to really understand it step 17 by step.
| |
| 18 And I'm just getting confused by what level of 19 the process we're in right now. You keep saying that A-44 20 has not been resolved as far as I know.
| |
| 21 MR. SCHWINK: It's not approved.
| |
| 22 DR. SIESS: But it's close to it.- But then you 23 say you have this for every generic issue.
| |
| 24 MR. SCHWINK: That's correct.
| |
| 25 DR. SIESS: 'Whether it's resolved or not.
| |
| (
| |
| ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
| |
| | |
| 0960J15 15 206 Q V/bc 1 MR. EBERSOLE: 'Not 45.
| |
| , V 2 DR. SIESS: He said every generic issue -- 101, 3 A-1, A-3, A-4. Every generic issue.
| |
| 4 MR. HEBDON: There's a SIMS printout for every ;
| |
| 5 issue.- But, the amount of information and the type of 6 information that's in the printout will be-dependent on 7 where it is in the process, and I think what Walter's trying l 8 to'do is to use SIMS as a mechanism for illustrating how the .
| |
| 9 ' process works, since the intent is'that SIMS will be.a very 10 central tool in making sure that the process-works.-
| |
| 11 MR. EBERSOLE: Where is 45 now?-
| |
| 12 MR. SCHWINK: Give me five minutes on this. And.
| |
| 13 if you don't think it's worthwhile, we'll just' skip it.
| |
| 14 15 16 17 18 i 19 4
| |
| 20 21 22 i
| |
| 23 24 1
| |
| : O 25 l
| |
| ace FEDERAL REPORTERS,' lNC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage . 800-3364M6
| |
| ~
| |
| | |
| 0960 16 16 207
| |
| (")V/bc 1 DR. SIESS: I'm trying to understand why we have
| |
| %/
| |
| 2 to understand the tracking system to understand the process.
| |
| 3 MR. SCHWINK: The nature of the generic issue in 4 terms of what plants it applies to, the. time frame that 5 you're willing to tolerate, the last plant making the 6 modification from a planting point of view on an issue 7 that's not resolved yet is important to make sure that the 8 issue has been thought out and will get done at the plant.
| |
| 9 The biggest concern that I have from a personal 10 viewpoint is that these resolutions have had a lot of 11 attention to them, but the question of whether or not they 12 physically exist in the plant is up in the air.
| |
| /"s 13 DR. SIESS: Let's go through A-44 then. Assuming (J
| |
| 14 that it's resolved, and this is what you would do and how 15 SIMS would help you do it.
| |
| 16 MR. SCHWINK: That's correct.
| |
| 17 DR. SIESS: We're into the second package of 18 paper; right?
| |
| 19 MR. SCHWINK: That's right.
| |
| 20 DR. SIESS: Has everybody got it? You'll have 21 trouble reading it up there.
| |
| 22 MR. SCHWINK: The first page of the thing 23 identifies what it is and what they're proposing as a 24 resolution.
| |
| l 25 This is done early in the process for new items.
| |
| (~)N
| |
| \_
| |
| ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 1
| |
| | |
| 0960-16 16 208 1 And of course it's dynamic in that as the solution becomes
| |
| (}V/bc 2 more and more clear, it.would be updated. ,
| |
| 3 DR. SIESS: Whose words are these? Approved 4 words? Or paraphrased?
| |
| ~
| |
| 5 MR. SCHWINK: They're paraphrased.
| |
| 6 DR. SIESS: If some of our people' wanted to 7 follow what you're doing, then we could get on SIMS,through 8 the computer. What they'd get would still be somebody's 9 interpretation lof what somebody else ~ has said.
| |
| 10 MR. SCHWINK: That's correct. It's a 11 paraphrasing.
| |
| 12 DR. MOELLER: And when you say "this staff"11n
| |
| () 13 the righthand column, then you_mean the RES staff?
| |
| 14 MR. SCHWINK: That's correct. This is being 15 changed to reflect the reorganization. But it would 16 identify what and it would identify who.
| |
| 17- DR. SIESS: I hope you would avoid. pronouns like 18 this without an antecedent. I don't know where-the 19 antecedent is. Okay.
| |
| 20 So the description has been around all along.
| |
| 21 Right?-
| |
| 22 MR.-SCHWINK: Yes.
| |
| 23 DR. SIESS: This is a summary-of the solution 24 prepared by somebody in your office. ;
| |
| (} 25 MR. SCHWINK: No. Research..
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336-6646
| |
| | |
| 0960.16 16 209-V/bc- 1 DR. SIESS: Prepared by Research as part of'the
| |
| {
| |
| 2 resolution?
| |
| 3 MR. SCHWINK: That's right.
| |
| 4 MR. EBERSOLE: ' On the solution side, don't you 5 need to qualify that that is a terminal solution that you're 6 done in contrast to TAP-45, which is still floating around 7 trying to get together?
| |
| 8 MR. SCHWINK: If you look in SIMS, you'll find a 9 synopsis.of what they think the solution is for A-45.
| |
| 10 MR. EBERSOLE:. Does it-say but we're not doing 11 it? 'That I thought was pretty well closed off.
| |
| 12 MR. SCHWINK: This-is clearly more final than A-() 13 45. It's not yet this far.
| |
| 14 MR. EBERSOLE: _ How do you distinguish where you 15 are when you're at that paragraph?
| |
| 16 MR. SCHWINK: But it's as of a particular'date in 17 time.
| |
| 18 MR. EBERSOLE: That doesn't mean~anything.-
| |
| 19 MR. SCHWINK: You're going-to-see on the next 20 sheet what the status is. You see, this is a multi-page 21 report.
| |
| 22 DR. SIESS: If I had just this, would I have any l
| |
| 23 way of knowing that there's a relationship between A-44 and-
| |
| ,- 24 A-45?
| |
| (} 25 MR. SCHWINK: Yes. This clues you that there are i
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| . 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 l
| |
| | |
| 0960 16 16 210
| |
| :/"'N/bc 1 23 dependent issues.
| |
| (~)
| |
| 2 DR. SIESS: Where is that?
| |
| 3 MR. SCHWINK: Up in the lefthand corner.
| |
| 4 DR. SIESS: I see it.- And where are those --
| |
| 5 listed somewhere in SIMS?
| |
| 6 MR. SCHWINK: Yes, there's a report that ties 7 those together.
| |
| i 8 MR. EBERSOLE: Is the term " dependent" correct? ,
| |
| 9 MR. SCHWINK: We're trying to come up with 10 whether it's independent or dependent.and theidependency, J
| |
| 11 the next report, if you went to the~next level lower than 12 this, you'd try to identify what those other dependent
| |
| (} 13 issues are.
| |
| 14 MR. EBERSOLE: It's really just related, isn't 15 it?
| |
| 16 MR. SCHWINK: I think there's some dependence 17 associated with A-44, too.
| |
| 18 DR. SIESS: There's three ways you can go. ~There 19 are issues above it in the event tree and there are issues 20 below it in the event tree. And-it may be something over.
| |
| 21 here that is related to it.
| |
| 22 Now, what significance do I attach to 23 " dependent"?
| |
| l 24 MR. SCHWINK: This is a key to tell you that you l u
| |
| 25 need to go look further because there-is a dependence here.
| |
| -[}
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 - Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| 0960 16 16 211
| |
| /''V/bc. 1 And you c'an't treat this just independently.
| |
| b 2 MR. EBERSOLE: But I don't know which 23 they are 3 fby reading that.
| |
| 4 MR. SCHWINK: There will be another report below 5 this. That would say all these other genericLissues are
| |
| ~
| |
| 6 related to this and are tied in in some kind of dependency.
| |
| 7l MR. MICHELSON:. Is that called up as a separate 8 page?
| |
| 9 MR. SCHWINK: A separate report.
| |
| 10 DR. SIESS: Is it in your thing?
| |
| 11 MR. SCHWINK: The SIMS reports, if you get all of 12 them, are about three feet right now. . Standard reports.
| |
| 13 That'would b'e one of these things for every. generic issue.
| |
| (])
| |
| 14 DR. SIESS: But how do I find which 23? Is it 15 the 23 issues are dependent, or is there one issue named No.
| |
| 16 23?
| |
| 17 MR. SCHWINK: They would listLthat there.are 18 dependent issues that you can actually see what they are 19 physically. It's another report from this..
| |
| 20 DR. SIESS: That doesn't take 23. feet of paper.
| |
| : 21. MR. SCHWINK: No. .But youtwould ask for this-22 particular item, what's tied with this particular item.-
| |
| 23 MR. MICHELSON: That would give you a printout of 24 the 23 issues.
| |
| (} 25 MR. SCHWINK: That would identify them. Then you ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| 0960 16 16 212
| |
| /~3V/bc 1 could just ask for that report for each one of those 23 V
| |
| 2 listed.
| |
| 3 DR. SIESS: And you have to figure out how that 4 would relate.
| |
| 5 MR. SCHWINK It would give you some information 6 recognizing you're trying to keep this somewhat terse. I 7 won' t say that it would tell you exactly how they're 8 related, but it would give you un indication on how they're 9 related.
| |
| 10 MR. EBERSOLE: Each one of those would in turn 11 refer to this.
| |
| 12 MR. SCHWINK: That's correct, it's a cross-tie.
| |
| 13 We did that for somewhat of the reason that Carl mentioned.
| |
| (])
| |
| 14 That is, when you break tnese things off and fragment them, 15 how do you keep track of them.
| |
| 16 What we tried to do was, in some way, 17 systematically, to keep track of what all these pieces are 18 and how they go toge'ther.
| |
| 19 MR. EBERSOLE: TAP-45 must have virtually 90 20 percent of all the issues as dependent issues.
| |
| 21 MR. SCHWINK: I think you're right.
| |
| 22 DR. SIESS: We could just prioritize by counting 23 the number of dependent issues.
| |
| 24 (Laughter.)
| |
| (} 25 MR. EBERSOLE: And in fact that would be an ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| -0960 16'16 213
| |
| /"' 1 index.
| |
| ' ( )V/bc 2 MR. SCHWINK: I want to caution you that we've-3 got to keep the building. What we've been trying to do is 4 load SIMS'as quickly as possible so that we get a handle on 5 what everything is to do it.
| |
| 6 That's been a monumental task.
| |
| 7 MR. MICHELSON: So it's not all loaded up yet?
| |
| 8 MR. SCHWINK: Not yet. There's still an issue-of ,
| |
| 9 a quality check.
| |
| 10 DR. MOELLER: Well, in the description, you've 11 correctly referred-to a nuclear power plant up in the top.
| |
| 12 You refer to the type of reactor.
| |
| (}- 13 MR. SCHWINK: Let me get into the next sheets.
| |
| 14 DR. MOELLER: Does this mean that an HTGR has no 15 problem of station blackout?
| |
| 16 MR. SCHWINK: That's my understanding from the 17 station blackout point of view.
| |
| 18 DR. SIESS: Not if you give them eight hours.
| |
| 19 DR. MOELLER: Okay.
| |
| 4 20 DR. SIESS: Several hours.
| |
| 21 MR. SCHWINK: Let me move on to the next page.
| |
| 22 (Slide.)
| |
| 23 Another thing that is in that report, these are 24 the report numbers and they are standard reports. It
| |
| {} 25 identifies some of the benefits and costs attached, i
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
| |
| .,. -. . . _ + - . , _ - - . . , - , .. . - - . .
| |
| | |
| .0960 16'16 214 ,
| |
| (~IV/bc v.
| |
| 1 including' core melt frequency, occupational exposure and 2 public exposure.
| |
| 3 I don't like bottom line numbers. They're great- i 4 for insights, but'nothing beats human judgment in my +
| |
| +
| |
| 5 opinion. It gives you a relative idea, and-that's all I 6 would treat them as.
| |
| 7 But it might be nice to have the machine go in i
| |
| i 8 and sort on some of these and see what the priority comes 1
| |
| 9 out from the machine, how the priority comes out from the 1
| |
| l 10 machines.
| |
| 11 DR. SIESS: I hate to use the expression, but 12 take the bottom line. I'll say the last line.- What'does.
| |
| 13- that mean for a generic issue?
| |
| I ( })
| |
| 14 MR. SCHNINK: It means that if you resolved
| |
| ~
| |
| 15 station blackout fcr the typical plant --
| |
| 16 DR. SIESS: Typical plant?
| |
| 17 MR.- SCHWINK: Whatever that means.
| |
| 18 DR. SIESS: You would get that much?
| |
| ! 19- MR. SCHWINK: Improvement.
| |
| 20 -DR. SIESS:
| |
| That can't be an improvement. . ;.
| |
| 21 MR. SCHWINK: This.is where you would take the 22 core melt frequency.
| |
| 23 DR. SIESS: It would reduce it by a factor of 3.
| |
| ; 24 I guess not. I still don't understand. If I'd reduced the 25 : existing one by a factor of three times 10 to the minus 5,
| |
| (])
| |
| ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| i i 0960 16 16 215 1 that's one hell of a lot of reduction.
| |
| (^'/)V/bc (s I 2 Right now, even if it was one, that would give 3 you an acceptable core melt. I don't think that's what it 4 means.
| |
| 5 MR. SCHWINK: I don't want to focus on the 6 numbers.
| |
| 7 DR. SIESS: I know. I'm just trying to 8 understand what the number means.
| |
| 9 MR. SCHWINK: The number is supposed to mean 10 where you think the core melt' frequency will be moved to.
| |
| 11 And what the range would bo.
| |
| 12 DR. SIESS: Without knowing where it was before.
| |
| (} 13 MR. SCHWINK: Right.
| |
| 14 MR. MICHELSON: The title says changes.-
| |
| 15 DR. SIESS: The thing is suppose.it was 3 times 16 10 to the minus 6th before, and it is going to move to 3 17 times 10 to the minus-5. That's hardly an improvement.
| |
| 18 If it was 1 before and it went to 3 times 10 to 19 the minus 5. But if'it was 3.1 times 10 to the minus 5
| |
| : 20. going to 3, you see, that number is meaningless.
| |
| 21' MR. SCHWINK: .It's meaningless from two points of 22 view.
| |
| 23 DR..SIESS: Useless e I should say. It means 24 something, but it's useless. !
| |
| 25 MR. SCHWINK: One is for a plant-specific
| |
| .{ }
| |
| i Ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646 '
| |
| | |
| ~_ _. . .
| |
| 0960-16.16' 216
| |
| .1- ' situation. You have to-know what-the core melt frequency si
| |
| - ()V/bc 2- that you began with. From the. standpoint of generically 3 speaking, they tried to typify'what a plant is by these six 4 studies,'the six plants-that.they're.' studying.
| |
| 5 There's a problem in trying to' articulate it in a 6 simple number form.
| |
| 7 DR. SIESS:' It's not a change'.
| |
| 8 MR. SCHWINK: I understand what you're saying..
| |
| 9 DR. SIESS: It says " changes".- There's not a 10 change.
| |
| 11 MR. SCHWINK: The problem with trying to come up.
| |
| 12 with this number is that right now' people have tried to load 13 the data in as quickly as possible, when they reached for-(])
| |
| 14 some.
| |
| - 15 DR. SIESS: It means you put the wrong thing in 1
| |
| 16 there. But that's why I'm --
| |
| 17 MR. SCHWINK: I understand that,-but I don't want 18 to focus on the specific data as much as I want to focus on 4
| |
| 19 this is what we're trying to collect.
| |
| 4 20- DR. MOELLER: Could you explain the public.and 4 21 occupational exposure? Does it mean that much would be 22 saved?
| |
| 23 MR. SCHWINK: Averted.
| |
| 24' DR. SIESS: That's what I understood it as,
| |
| (} 25 averted. And the other one is averted, but this one: can't 4
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 , Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| 0960 16 16 217-
| |
| / 7N/bc 1 be averted.
| |
| V 2 MR. SCHWINK: That's right.
| |
| 3 MR. HEBDON: There's an error of interpretation 4 or of putting the number in. We'll have to stra'ighten it-5 out.
| |
| 6 DR. SIESS: It seemed like a good idea to say
| |
| ~
| |
| 7 something about core melt, you'know. But I don't know what I 8 you-can say.
| |
| 9 MR. SCHWINK: The point we're trying to make is 10 that once we get quality data and we were sure of what-we've l- 11 got in here qualitywise, these are the kind of things that 12 are available for the generic issue.
| |
| (} 13 DR. SIESS: When you go into here and you ' tart 14 to put the costs in, it seems possible that solving.the 15 station blackout problent would solve several other problems 16 and avert all the costs of making those changes.
| |
| 17 Is that included anywhere?
| |
| 18 MR. SCHWINE: To the extent.they're included in-19 the Research package on tha valus impact analysis, yes.
| |
| 20 DR. SIESS: 'For ex.imple,-if we went to the A-45 21 dedicated decay heat removal system, that might take care of 22 everything for USIn and 30'GIs would disappear if somebody 23 lookt at that.
| |
| 24 MR. SCHWINK: As part of both the prioritization 25 process and the actual resolution, yes.
| |
| ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364M6
| |
| | |
| 0960 16 16 218 1 DR. SIESS: Yo don't have that for actual plants,
| |
| ('/'N/bc N.
| |
| 2 that's just guessing.
| |
| 3 MR. SCHWINK: Yes. And that's my whole point.
| |
| 4 Even if we had what we think are our best numbers, plant-5 specifically we've got a different story.
| |
| 6 DR. SIESS: You're still guessing.
| |
| 7 MR. SCHWINK: That's correct.
| |
| 8 DR. MOELLER: In the final printout, are these 9 numbers per reactor year, or what?
| |
| 10 MR. SCHWINK': Right now, I think there's a 11 mixture. We would like to have it in per reactor year or 12 some common denominator. Right now, I've seen so many 13 variances. The same kind of problem as this number.
| |
| (( )
| |
| 14 I'm not willing to say what exactly is in there 15 now, but we're moving toward getting a standard way of 16 thinking of things. So we have a reference point.
| |
| 17 Again, I don't like bottom line numbers because 18 in the real'world for specific plants, they don't mean 19 anything.
| |
| 20 DR. MOELLER: But, if you had the best values in 21 here, then supposedly you could look at this chart and i 22 pretty much assign a priority to it.
| |
| 23 MR. SCHWINK: A generic priority to it, that's l 24 correct.
| |
| l
| |
| (~} 25 (Slide.)
| |
| v i
| |
| ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6M6
| |
| | |
| 2 0960 16 16 219
| |
| ("^2V/bc 1 There are some other questions that are answered, j
| |
| &_./L 2 Again, we're still in that same report and we're on page 3 3 of it.
| |
| , 4 DR. SIESS: You're still generic?
| |
| 5 MR. SCHWINK: Still generic.
| |
| 6 DR. SIESS: It's just how you go about 7 promulgating it?
| |
| 8 MR. SCHWINK: Right. There's some questions 9 about whose going to be involved and in what. For example, i
| |
| 10 there's an ACRS review date in there and it indicates 11 whether there will be a rulemaking or some other vehicle,
| |
| ; 12 other vehicle being a reg guide and a generic letter, if 13 there is one, and so forth.
| |
| .~{}
| |
| 14 DR. SIESS: Charlie, did you make that May '87 4
| |
| 15 date? Did we write a letter on it?
| |
| 16 MR. WYLIE: No.
| |
| I 17 (Slide.)
| |
| 18 MR. SCHWINK: We're getting some information 19 .about plants and whether or not it applies to them, and so 20 forth. This hasn' t been filled on yet in some of the areas, 21 like would it apply to plants that are in the OL cycle, but 22 yet do not have an OL? ,
| |
| 23 And does it apply to all plants in the whole 24 process, be they in the OL process or whether or not --
| |
| 25 DR. SIESS: That's essentially the backfit.
| |
| j
| |
| }
| |
| ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| t 0960 16 16 220
| |
| (~3V/bc 1 decision.
| |
| '% J 2 MR. SCHWINK: Yes. And again these are dynamic.
| |
| 3 In other words, as it moves through the decision process, 4 and as it moves through the implementation, these things are 5 being filled in. It gives a summary status for this issue.
| |
| 6 In this case, they're saying it applies to 130 7 plants and the last plant will have it physically done in 8 '92. That's the current planning, I think.
| |
| 9 DR. SIESS: You hope. You haven't had
| |
| ~
| |
| 10 commitments or anything back. That's a target.
| |
| 11 'MR. SCHWINK: From the goal point of view, that's 12 when we think the last plant should have it in place.
| |
| 13 DR. SIESS: How many USIs and generic issues are
| |
| (')T 14 out there now in the process?
| |
| 15 MR. SCHWINK: I've got a summary slide on that.
| |
| 16 DR. SIESS: I just wondered how many we were 17 talking about. Are there a hundred of them? I mean, 18 there's been 700 altogether. I'm not sure most of the are 19 still around.
| |
| 20 Is that your last slide?
| |
| 21 MR. SCHWINK: Yes.
| |
| 22 On page 7, the thin handout, there is a summary -
| |
| 23 ,
| |
| DR. SIESS: 285 have been imposed, 198 have been 24 implemented?
| |
| (~} 25 MR. SCHWINK: You're looking at page 7; 285 have U
| |
| r\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.
| |
| 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| l i
| |
| < l l
| |
| 0960 16 16 221 t'' 1- been imposed, 198 have been implemented for all affected
| |
| (_)TaV/bc 2 plants.
| |
| 3 DR. SIESS: If we assumed a unit called generic 4 issue plan, how many of those would there be out there?
| |
| 5 Okay, we're getting ahead of ourselves.
| |
| 6 MR. SCHWINK: There is a report out of SIMS that 7 answers that question.
| |
| 8 DR. SIESS: Let's go ahead.
| |
| 9 MR. SCHWINK: So you could take this report and 10 get a general sense of what plants are being affected and 11 what the current status is if it's in-the implementation 12 phase. Which plants have actually completed the 13 modification.
| |
| (')))
| |
| 14 It gives a relative percentage. And when we 15 expect the last plant to have it physically implemented.
| |
| 16 We also talk about imposition meaning that the 17 negotiation between the licensee and NRC, specifically, the 18 PM, for what he's going to put in his plant, that all those 19 negotiations would be completed by 1990.
| |
| 20 21 22 23 24
| |
| (~) 25 v
| |
| ACE-FEDERAL - REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| . 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| 0960 17 17 222
| |
| (~)Vbur 1 (Slide.)
| |
| \_ /
| |
| 2 The next thing is -- in that same report is a 3 list by plant of what this generic issue applies to. This 4 is kind of a double-check.
| |
| 5 DR. SIESS: This is all 130 plants?
| |
| 6 MR. SCHWINK: That is correct. This goes on for 7 four pages.
| |
| 8 DR. SIESS: And since this issue is applicable to 9 all plants --
| |
| 10 MR. SCHWINK: Except for HTGR, I believe.
| |
| 11 DR. SIESS: About three years from now somebody 12 will figure out it belongs to that, too.
| |
| ^') 13 VOICE: Of course, we don't have 130 any more.
| |
| (O 14 Lacrosse shut down.
| |
| 15 DR. SIESS: Lacrosse was only about that much, 16 anyway.
| |
| 17 MR. SCHWINK: And there is a key point. We don't 18 want to leave out a plant that is halfway constructed and 19 they have deferred construction and they are going to come 20 back and ask us to continue with the licensing process.
| |
| 21 So this way you pick it up, and it is a constant 22 reminder that it is not something you walk away from for 23 that particular plant.
| |
| 24 And the rest of the pages of that report contain
| |
| . 25 the rest of the plant. So there is no need for me to put up ACE-FED'ERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| 0960 17 17 223
| |
| (^TVbur 1 the other slides.
| |
| LJ .
| |
| 2 (Slide.) '
| |
| 3 Now, you asked -- this one gets a little more 4 oriented toward the summary of all the generic issues, and ,
| |
| 5 what it allows you to do is, based on the input of that last 6 report, it looks at.every generic issue and talks about the 7 approval cycle, the technical resolution, the requirements 8 review, and the requirement imposition and the licensee 9 implementation and the verification.
| |
| 10 DR. SIESS: But that doesn't tell me what plants.
| |
| 11 MR. SCHWINK: Correct. What I am trying to say 12 is that for that past report, this summary draws on that 13 previous report I just put out, and you can go through and
| |
| ([ )
| |
| 14 look at each generic issue and say, for example, this was 15 reviewed and approved on 2/86. There is a "C" next to it.
| |
| 16 That says that was completed.
| |
| 17 DR. SIESS: That doesn't have much to do with the 18 previous one, does it?
| |
| 19 MR. SCHWINK: Except that this is the summary of l 20 all those generic issue reports.
| |
| 21 DR. SIESS: But not the plant reports?
| |
| 22 MR. SCHWINK: No.
| |
| I 23 DR. SIESS: This doesn't have anything to say 1 24 about the plants.
| |
| () 25 MR. SCHWINK: You can quickly go down this whole l
| |
| 14CE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
| |
| - I
| |
| | |
| 3- .
| |
| ,-( . .-
| |
| s, ,
| |
| .s, 3 -$1 f-t 4' 3 Y 224 0960.17.17 i ,
| |
| ("
| |
| 1 list.
| |
| &;Nbur ,
| |
| .j ' 2 DR. SIE'SS: It just strikes the issues.
| |
| 3 MR.'SCHWINK: That isscorrect.
| |
| 4 I DR. REMICK: Ilook-atthadlist,andwheredo.I~
| |
| n' 5 find A-45? ,
| |
| 6 ,
| |
| MR. SCHWINK: Keep going down the list. It goes 7; I on for about, Ijthink, eight pages or nine pages. It has 8 all the TMI' action' items. ,
| |
| ~
| |
| '9 DR. REMICK: What is MPA, by the way?
| |
| 10 MR. SCHWINK: Multi-plant action.
| |
| .11' DR. SIESS: Are you-sure A-45 is in here?
| |
| 12 MR. SCHWINK: Yes.
| |
| 13 DR. REMICK: Has anybody found it?
| |
| . {}
| |
| 14 DR. SIESS: No.
| |
| 15 MR. HEBDON: It'is about.six pages down.
| |
| -16 MR. SCHWINK: Is it at page 6?
| |
| 17 MR. HEBDON: It is on page 2 of the next report.
| |
| 18 DR. REMICK: That.is for Crystal River?
| |
| 19 MR. HEBDON: I am sorry, that'is Crystal River.
| |
| 20 DR. SIESS: It is just 45.-
| |
| l 21- We have got a great system,. haven't we, of. _
| |
| l 22 numbers. l 23 VOICE: I think the report you are reviewing is-24 -just those issues that have been resolved. A-45 has not 25 been resolved.
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage - 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| 0960 17 17 225
| |
| ~/' Nbur l- DR. SIESS: Okay,.we understand.
| |
| V 2 MR. SCHWINK: There is a total report, which I 3 didn't' make in your package which I have up here, that lists 4 all generic issues whether they have been resolved or not 5 resolved.
| |
| 6 DR. SIESS: That is a nice thing about computers, 7 you know.
| |
| ~
| |
| 8 MR. SCHWINK: I was focusing the comments of_this 1-9 L; on the ones that have been resolved and the ones that NRR 10 g 63s'to deal with and is dealing with.
| |
| 11 3 DR. SIESS: You can get more information out of l
| |
| 12 ,5 that. computer than you know what to-deal with, literally.
| |
| 13 (Slide.)
| |
| l 'd MR. SCHWINK: I would like to talk a little bit ,
| |
| 15 about --
| |
| 16 DR. SIESS: Are you going to come'back to finish 17 up this SIMS stuff?
| |
| 18 Right now I am looking for a break spot, and'I-19 think this is it.
| |
| 20 So if we can just switch from the SIMS back to 1
| |
| 21 this, we will take 10 minutes or so.
| |
| 22 (Recess.)
| |
| 23 DR. SIESS: Okay, if you remember where you were.
| |
| 24 (Slide.) ]
| |
| 25- 'MR. SCHWINK: I will talk a little bit about the-ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80fk336-6M6
| |
| _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ -. . _ _ _ = _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . .
| |
| | |
| 0960 17-17 226
| |
| :(~NVbur 1 process on a plant specific basis, where we have generically
| |
| %J
| |
| ; 2 identified what plants would be affected and identified 3 whether we expect to have licensing guidance, if it is' 4 necessary, and have decided whether or not there is
| |
| ~5 inspection guidance separate.from the routine inspection 6 programs necessary.
| |
| 4 7- At this point each. plant can be viewed in terms 8 of what generic actions are required to be addressed at that 9 plant along with the backlog.of~other things that are at 10 'that plant,~ including those that are NRC's requirements and 11 those of the licensees.
| |
| 12 There are three processes that exist.to decide
| |
| ()
| |
| ~
| |
| 13 plant specifically-how all of these requirements for
| |
| * 4 14 modifications are going to be prioritized and to some extent I
| |
| 15 consolidated and, within the consolidation,-integrated to 16 get the most safety with the least amount of burden.
| |
| 17 Because of the collection in SIMS of all of the 18 backlog it is easy to quickly identify what that particular 19 plant has for backlog. So you have both the generic 20 backlog, and you have the plant specific backlog.
| |
| 21 The importance is at this point to really have a 22 collection and understa'nding of what that plant has to do.
| |
| 23 We also have a sense of when we would like to do it by from 24 the generic background. So-there'is a window to. accomplish
| |
| () 25' all-this work at the plant, and that is a negotiation
| |
| ~ Ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-M7-3700 Natioawide Coverage 800 336-6646
| |
| _ 4. , ,- . _ ,# _ . , , . . . _ _ , _ _ - . .
| |
| | |
| 0960 17 17 227
| |
| ' (~72Vbur 1 process.
| |
| 4 V
| |
| 2 I mentioned three processes. One is -- the one
| |
| . -3 that is most used is come in and negotiate with_the PM for 4 that plant _when-these things will be addressed at the-plant.
| |
| 5 That is the predominant way of doing business.
| |
| 6 The licensee comes in with a proposal. That 7 assumes that he understands what all the backlog is for his 8 plant because the PM will have the backlog as identified by 9 SIMS,-and the licensee will have his own agenda for what he 10 would like'to do to his plant, and he would propose how l 11 these two backlogs can be worked off, both in' terms of what 12 can be done-at the same time or consolidated with one-~fix
| |
| (} 13 and when it can be physically done timewise.
| |
| 14 That is the predominant way that the backlog for 15 plant is worked off.
| |
| 16 He also has an option to use the living schedule
| |
| , 17 concept, the integrated living schedule. My understanding 18 is that only three plants have taken advantage of the-19 integrated living schedules.
| |
| 20 There is a policy statement being developed to 21 encourage, endorse, push -- whatever you want to call it'--
| |
| 22 licensees into using the living schedule concept. But.to.
| |
| l 23 date there are only three plants that have used it.
| |
| q 24 The other process is I think a better process, l
| |
| l 25 and that is the ISAP process. My-understanding _is.that only
| |
| }
| |
| l l
| |
| . ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. '
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage - 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| 0960'17'17 228 -i
| |
| .- /~~)Vbur l~ two plants have taken advantage of.ISAP. There will be, I AJ 2: understan'd, an ACRS briefing next month on ISAP.
| |
| 3f ;The bottom line is most plants are being 14 addressed'in terms'of working off their' backlog, using a 5 process of proposing to the PM how he will work'off the 6 backlog of NRC requirements and~his own agenda, and.the PM, 7 with reviewer support, technical reviewer support,.is 8 deciding what parts of that proposal are acceptable and what 9 scheduling and' specific is acceptable.
| |
| ]
| |
| . 10 A problem in the past -- and I will give you some 11 example of that -- is that we reallyfdidn't have a handle on
| |
| -12 the backlog for the plant.. We_ focused on the resolution of 4
| |
| (} 13 something, but somehow it just didn't get handed off either 14 to the licensee-in the form of an imposed requirement for 15 that particular plant or for whatever reason'the licensee 16 just didn't do anything.
| |
| 17 The SIMS benefit is it articulates whatever the 18 total backlog is for the plant. It does it plant 19 specifically and does-it generically.
| |
| ; 20 The key to the process is making sure that you do -
| |
| 21 not address generic-issue resolution-piecemeal. You address 22 it as a cradle to grave entity. Plants don't get safer off 23 of-a piece of paper.
| |
| 24 We'are finding -- and I will throw up a summary 25 sheet -- that TMI action items in some cases haven't been
| |
| ( }-
| |
| ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| '202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6M6
| |
| | |
| 0960 17 17 229
| |
| ~
| |
| )Nbur 1 .done. We are finding that USIs in some cases haven't been
| |
| ('J w
| |
| 2 done. We are finding that high priority issues haven't been 3 done. We are finding that medium priority issues haven't 4 been done.
| |
| '5 The reason for that problem existing is there was 6 not a cradle to grave process for anyone to be able to look 7 and with a single handful of reports be able to tell that 8 everything has been done for every affected plant. E I'iS
| |
| ~
| |
| 9 does that.
| |
| 10 I don' t know where the weaknesses were 11 particularly, and I don't want to dwell on the weaknesses 12 because I think the new organization and the new SIMS will
| |
| () 13 fix it, but the key point is that what SIMS allows you to do 14 is see this whole backlog and a plant can address the whole 15 backlog. That gives the PM a significant advantage over 16 what he has ever had.
| |
| 17 The kinds of things that the PM uses in deciding 18- what comes first, what comes second are articulated in some 19 general categories. It is predominantly a deterministic 20 decisionmaking process.
| |
| 21 Where there are PRAs, they are-useful in sites, 22 but it is usually up to the licensee to come in and make the 23 case why it is okay from a safety point of view for a 24 particular item not to be addressed at his plant until the 25 second and third outage. i
| |
| {;
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-3 0 -3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-33MM6
| |
| | |
| 0960 17 17 230
| |
| ('")Vbur 1 It is not a problem where the sky is falling and
| |
| \>
| |
| 2 everything is all messed up. The problem is that we can't 3 with high confidence say that everything has been done, and 4 we have spent two years collecting this data to try to have 5 an articulate trail to be able to say we know for a fact 6 that this physical thing was put in that plant and it is 7 okay.
| |
| 8 I think most of the high priority stuff has been 9 done at the troubled plants that have it as a high 10 vulnerability. You will see from the summary slide that 11 there is still a way to go before we can say that all the 12 TMI action items are done for every plant.
| |
| 13 DR. SIESS: Is there'anything in SIMS that
| |
| (])
| |
| 14 aasigns your priorities to these things?
| |
| 15 MR. SCHWINK: Plant specifically, yes. Plant 16 specifically, you will see dates put in that reflect what 17 the PM has negotiated for his specific plant, articulating 18 that that item for his plant, even though it may generically 19 be a high priority item, is a low priority item, or vice 20 versa.
| |
| 21 DR. SIESS: Could I tell by looking at a SIMS 22 report that this was a high priority or a low priority item?
| |
| 23 MR. SCHWINK: Yes.
| |
| 24 DR. SIESS: How could I tell?
| |
| s 25 MR. SCHWINK: You ask for that field. There is a N''J ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| .f 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| 0960 17 17 231
| |
| ('7Nbur
| |
| %j 1 report that has that field.
| |
| 2 DR. SIESS: What field? The priority?
| |
| 3 MR. SCHWINK: Yes.
| |
| 4 DR. SIESS: Your priority or the licensee's 5 priority?
| |
| 6 MR. SCHWINK: The negotiated priority.
| |
| 7 DR. SIESS: That is timing you are talking about?
| |
| 8 MR. SCHWINK: It is more than that. It means 9 that for that particular plant we thought it was a high 10 priority item and we weren't willing to wait for three 11 outages to have it physically installed in that plant.
| |
| 12 DR. SIESS: It is actually an item that comes out 13 on priority. In other words, an.A, B, C or 1, 2, 37
| |
| (~))
| |
| 14 MR. SCHWINK: High, medium and low.
| |
| 15 DR. SIESS: So if I look at SIMS and see if 16 something that is three. months behind schedule for 17 completion, I can also ask whether it is a high priority or 18 not?
| |
| 19 MR. SCHWINK: That is correct.
| |
| 20 DR. SIESS: High priority, I can beat on them, 21 and if it is low, I can say --
| |
| 22 MR. SCHWINK: That is correct. That is the 23 benefit to the PM. But understand that that priority, plant 24 specific, may not be the same priority as the generic
| |
| (} 25 priority, and that is the key.
| |
| ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage ^ 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| 0960 17 17 232
| |
| ('''Nbu r 1 DR. SIESS: Oh, yes.
| |
| V 2 MR. MICHELSON: But it was an agreed to priority?
| |
| 3 MR. SCHWINK: It is an NRC-agreed to priority, 4 that is correct.
| |
| 5 DR. SIESS: NRC agreed and the licensee agreed to 6 the extent of a date?
| |
| 7 MR. SCHWINK: That is right, and the priority is 8 driving the dates to some extent.
| |
| 9 DR. SIESS: The licensee might not have agreed 10 with your priority?
| |
| 11 MR. SCHWINK: That is correct.
| |
| 12 DR. SIESS: But you negotiated him down?
| |
| 13 MR. SCHWINK: That is right.
| |
| f's')
| |
| m 14 The best process if you really want to focus on 15 safety importance and dropping things that are trivial is 16 ISAP. It is clearly a focused safety analysis of the 17 backlog for that plant.
| |
| 18 DR. SIESS: Now, when I look at a plant, I have 19 got Crintal River here, these are in chronological order of 20 compl *fon date?
| |
| 21 No, they are not. They are in numerical order of 22 generic issue.
| |
| 23 (Slide.)
| |
| 24 MR. SCHWINK: I could have written those out and
| |
| (} 25 sorted them by any means. I could have sorted them by
| |
| ]
| |
| l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
| |
| | |
| l I
| |
| 0960 17 17 233 1 number. I could have sorted them by dates. I could have
| |
| (^)3Vbur
| |
| %. \
| |
| 2 sorted them -- you pick the way you want to sort them, okay?
| |
| 3 The key is that the PM for Crystal River 3 has in 4 these pages all of the backlog for his plant, plus I can get 5 the plant specific things that are not generic issues in 6 addition to this.
| |
| 7 So he has the total backlog for his plant 8 generically and plant specifically.
| |
| 9 DR. SIESS: Crystal River.has got a few items on 10 here. Could I get the ones -- can I get only the ones that 11 are still outstanding and get rid of all that junk on what 12 is completed?
| |
| ()
| |
| /~ 13 MR. SCHWINK: What I tried to do was give you all 14 the stuff, but you could ask for it to have every generic 15 issue, both approved and coming, plus all the plant specific 16 issues.
| |
| 17 DR. SIESS: I don't want the generic issues if 18 they are completed. They are all finished up and everything 19 is gone.
| |
| 20 MR. SCHWINK: Not really.
| |
| 21 DR. SIESS: On that plant I want to know how many 22 generic issues they are working on r ight now.
| |
| 23 MR. SCHWINK: And you can get that.
| |
| 24 DR. SIESS: I can get the ones that have the
| |
| (~ 25 "C's" left?
| |
| %.)T ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 . Nationwide Coverage 800-33M/>46
| |
| | |
| 1 0960 17 17- 234 l f'']Nbur - 1 MR. SCHWINK: That is correct. The "C's" you are gj 2 concerned with for that plant are these.
| |
| 3 DR. SIESS: That is right. That is what I am 4 looking at.
| |
| 5 MR. SCHWINK: Where you don't see a C there, that 6 means that is the planned date that has been agreed to.
| |
| 7 DR. SIESS: I have got maybe 50 of those items.
| |
| 8 I couldn't count them, but there is a lot on each page.
| |
| 9 MR. SCHWINK: There is a bunch.
| |
| 10 DR. SIESS: Plus plant specific items, and now 11 obviously all of those can't get done at once.
| |
| 12 Are there some priorities assigned there of what 13' order you expect to have them done in?
| |
| (]}
| |
| 14 MR. SCHWINK: The priorities would be negotiated 15 with the licensee plant specifically. The PM has this 16 shopping list of the generic identification of what the 17 priorities are for these things. He tells the licensee, 18 here's the things that NRC expects you to do. You come back 19 and tell me when you think you can do them by.
| |
| 20 He comes back, and he may say two outages, three 21 outages, or one outage, right now. He has to have a basis 22 for why from the safety point of view he thinks it is okay 23 to allow two outages, say, before he has decided, before he 24 actually physically puts that thing in his plant.
| |
| {} 25 DR. SIESS: When we were doing the SEPs, the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3366M6
| |
| | |
| , -0960 17 17 235 Vbur. 1 -staff did'something called an integrated safety assessment, .i I
| |
| 2 which looked at several things that, let's say,:needed to be 3 done and was there some integrated way of approaching it-' .i
| |
| -4 rather than fixing them one by one.
| |
| 1:
| |
| 5 MR. SCHWINK: That is correct.-
| |
| 1 3
| |
| 6 j
| |
| i- 7 - ,
| |
| 8 i
| |
| , 9.
| |
| 10 i
| |
| -11
| |
| , 12 i
| |
| lO 13 14 15 16 -
| |
| 17 18 i
| |
| : 19 20
| |
| ! 21 1 22 i.
| |
| 23 l 24 1 25 1
| |
| L ' ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347 3700 . Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
| |
| ]
| |
| - - - - , , , - . . . , a._,nm , -~
| |
| .._m. g , ,y,,,y a. -...y , - .,e e---.,gze. ,,,_y,..,y,n,, wg,,,,,,_,,,,,,y,n_g, y . g q ,, ,,, y ,,,,re,
| |
| | |
| . -. ~_. , . - - _
| |
| 0960 18 18 236 D vbw i 1 . DR . SIESS: Is'the licensee encouraged or O
| |
| 2 permitted to do that?
| |
| 3 MR. SCHWINK: Yes.- The key is, the licensee does 4 it versus NRC being the' lead to help him do that. ISAP, the
| |
| ! 5 NRC takes the lead.and says, here's what we think the 6 integration'ought to be. In the other case, which is the 7 predominant case, the licensee had to take the initiative to 8 come in and say w' think if we did this one big fix, we'd l 9 take care of four of these backlogged items.
| |
| ) 10 DR. SIESS: On the .wo plants that are under l 11 ISAP, that is what they are doing.
| |
| 12 MR. SCHWINK: That's correct. Plus they are
| |
| (} 13 walking away.from something. NRC is dropping some 14 altogether and saying, you don't have to do anything.
| |
| 15 DR. SIESS: Because there is something else i 16 that's done?
| |
| 17 MR. SCHWINK: No, because they are not worth i 18 doing. But there is an ISAP-specific briefing coming for
| |
| ~
| |
| 19 'ACRS next month, so I don't want to get into the details of 20 that.
| |
| i 21 DR. SIESS: I am responsible, I-think I am.
| |
| 22 MR. EBERSOLE: This page here is on Crystal 23' River. Would you pick up page 1 of the Status Selected 24 Issues Resolved. There is something.on it I'juct wanted to
| |
| (} 25 ask you.about. This is not a plant document.
| |
| 14CE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| [ 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-3364M6
| |
| | |
| l 0960 18 18 237
| |
| /'3Vbw 1 (Slide.)
| |
| C/
| |
| 2 MR. SCHWINK: ThiE is a generic document.
| |
| 3 MR. EBERSOLE: 'I want you to look down there 4 where it says below " water hammer." It says " asymmetric 5 blow down modes on reactor primary." I thought that thing 6 had long.since been laid to rest, and here I somehow see the 7 date 7/87.
| |
| 8 MR._ SCHWINK: You''ve got it. You're right.
| |
| 9 Everybody thought it was resolved. You're absolutely right.
| |
| 10 MR. EBERSOLE: Is it?
| |
| 11 MR. SCHWINK: No.
| |
| 12 MR. EBERSOLE: Come on. That is so improbable,
| |
| (} 13 it is like the sun falling.
| |
| 14 MR. SCHWINK: Yep.
| |
| 15 MR. EBERSOLE: Now it is compounded by the fact 16 that we are going to get leak before break, or rather it is 17 relieved by that. So this merely confirms that that is 18 still floating around.
| |
| 19 MR. SCHWINK: Correct.
| |
| 20 MR. EBERSOLE: No wonder we needed this thing.
| |
| 21 MR. SCHWINK: But understand, two years ago, you 22 would have never been able to do this and know what 23 happened, implementationwise. That is why I am so hung-up 24 on the SIMS as part of this process.
| |
| 25 MR. EBERSOLE: Why is something labeled 7/877 f)
| |
| ~J ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33M446
| |
| | |
| 0960 18 18 238
| |
| /~''7Nbw 1 Why don't you just put down " dead" or something?
| |
| 'm )
| |
| 2 MR. SCHWINK: Because it is actually a 3 requirenant. There are actual facilities that haven't done 4 it yet, and they are on the hook to do it.
| |
| 5 MR. EBERSOLE: Wasn't it universally declared to 6 be ridiculous?
| |
| ; 7 MR. SCHWINK: Yes. Aren't some of the TMI action 8 items the same way?
| |
| 9 MR. EBERSOLE: Why does each customer have to do l 10 this?
| |
| 11 MR. SCHWINK: Number one, there hasn't been a 12 systematic way to be able to find out what this backlog is
| |
| () 13 standing out here like this and ask, gee, you know, time's 14 gone by. These things are 10 or 12 years old. Do we still 15 care about them?
| |
| 16 MR. HEBDON: That's a difficult philosophic issuo 17 of this question of do we still care? If we get one of 18 these, how about all the people who went ahead and did it?
| |
| 19 Is it fair now to take the two or three that straggled, and 20 these dates have dragged it on for eight years, and say, 21 okay, since you have stalled long enough, we will let you 22 cff the hook. So there is a real philosophical question 23 there, and it is a very difficult one to deal with.
| |
| 24 We are still having a very hard time deciding how 25 to deal with it.
| |
| (^- )T .
| |
| ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverrge 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| 0960 18118- 239 1 MR. EBERSOLE: There is another one there, and
| |
| (')*2Vbw x- ,
| |
| 2 that is to maintain the continuity of the record. I had 3- once considered that, and it was so often laid to rest, and 4 if.you'd just. obliterate it, it may come up again sometime.
| |
| 5 MR. SCHWINK: The problem you've got is, that you 6 are on record that it is a regulatory requirement that 7 applies to a certain number of plants. If it applies to a 8 certain number of plants, and let's say, out of 100 plants, i 9 90 of-them have done, it, there are ten plants that haven't l 10 done it, the only process that exists right now is to say 11 this is foolish. It isn't worth it for the other ten plants 12 to do it. That is ISAP.
| |
| r
| |
| (} 13 The PM doesn't have that authority. That is why 14 it amazes me that mora people aren't jumping on-ISAP.
| |
| 15 MR. EBERSOLE: I thought ISAP, it was always in 16 my view the real way to do things.
| |
| 17 MR. SCHWINK: That is correct, but understand 18 that only two plants availed themselves of it.
| |
| 19 MR. HEBDON: I think it mi.ht be best just-to-20 leave that for the ISAP briefing.
| |
| , 21 MR. SCHWINK: I thihk Haddam Neck was one, and I T
| |
| 22 forget who the other one was. But anyway, the point I 23 wanted to make is, there are a whole backlog of things that 24 we thought were done at all affected plants that we have not
| |
| (} 25 been able to find out that they have-been done.
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| l 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33M446
| |
| ._____.______--______________---______._______._____-_-_--_______________________-___._-_.___.s
| |
| | |
| 0960~18 18- 240
| |
| ' tWbw 1 MR. EBERSOLE: The books weren't closed.
| |
| 2 MR. SCHWINK: That's correct. And by the way,
| |
| '3 some of these are TMI action items.
| |
| 4 DR. SIESS: You don't know that they haven't been 5 done.
| |
| 6 MR. SCHWINK: Yes, we do, in some cases, because 7 the licensee came back and said we never heard of this 8- thing.
| |
| 9 DR. SIESS: You've got the record of him telling 10 you?
| |
| 11 MR. SCHWINK: We went out and said, here is a 12 list of things we think that you were supposed to do. How 13 f]) does it compare with what you think you were supposed to do?
| |
| 14 And some of the comments back were, gee, we haven't thought 15 about that. We haven't heard of.it.
| |
| 16 DR. SIESS: They say, we weren't the only one who 17 didn't get the letter.
| |
| 18 MR. SCHWINK: The other part of the problem is, 19 with the current backfit rule, if all of a sudden you say, 20 now you've got to do it, and they haven't done it before, is 21 that a backfit? If it is, do you have to put it"through the 22 backfit process?
| |
| 23 DR. SIESS: That is a generic issue.
| |
| 24 MR. EBERSOLE: I should feel comfortable about
| |
| (} 25 control over heavy, loads, shouldn't I? Well, not over the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| I 0960~18'18 241 -l l
| |
| 1 spent fuel pool. l
| |
| .{}}Vbw 2 MR. SCHWINK: Are you still on this.one?- l 3 MR. EBERSOLE: Right. Bottom line. That is 4 something coming up in '89. -
| |
| 5 DR. SIESS: That's only been going about 15 6 years.
| |
| 7 MR. SCHWINK: But understand, the point I am 8 trying to make is an important point. We've never.been able 9 before to look down a column like this for all the generic 10 issues and say what's done.
| |
| 11 DR. SIESS: That is the generic list. So you 12 don't know what- that means on control over heavyJ1oads. It 13 may be 120 plants.
| |
| (])
| |
| 14 MR. SCHWINK: -I've got-that.for every plant too.
| |
| 15 So the PM has got this backlog-list for that plant.
| |
| 16 DR. SIESS:' How about a list that says how many 17 plants have implemented control over heavy loads?
| |
| 18 MR. SCHWINK: There is a standard report ~out of 19 SiMS that says that. I've got the report. I didn't make a 20 slide of it, but there is a report out of CIMS that says how 21 many plants were affected by it and how many. plants have ,
| |
| 22 physically implemented it. i 23 MR. EBERSOLE: The blanks on the last three :
| |
| 24 columns --
| |
| (} 25 DR. SIESS: A lot of that wasn't physical-ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
| |
| | |
| I 0960 18 18 242 SVbw 1 information.
| |
| 2 MR. EBERSOLE: The blank' spaces on the right 3 three columns mean you haven't figured out yet.
| |
| 4 4 MR. SCHWINK: It means we don't know. The 5 licensee says, I never heard of it before. The PM, whoever 6 was responsible for it, retired, and there is nothing in the l
| |
| 7 docket file, there is nothing on the record anywhere.- We 8 don't know.
| |
| 9 DR. SIESS: Are some of those important?
| |
| 10 MR. SCHWINK: We don't know. I am sorry to say
| |
| ; 11 that, but we don' t know. This has been-the first time that ,
| |
| 12 we've ever been.able to look either plantwise or generic-13 leve1 wise at what physically has been put in the plant.
| |
| (]) I 14 won't even talk.about whether or not we verified it. That's
| |
| : 15 another issue altogether.
| |
| - 16 DR. SIESS: If it is implemented, and you.do not 17 verify it, and you go out and verify it and it is not there, 18 then you've got a criminal case, haven't you?
| |
| 19 MR. SCHWINK: You've got an enforcement issue, if 20 that is what you mean. But what I'm suggesting is that I i 21 don't know if it has ever been verified, and if you.look at 22 some of the guidance, it said something like "do good,"
| |
| 23 whatever "do good" means.
| |
| 24 DR. SIESS: How much.of a job would it be, if
| |
| {} 25 that list for plant X was given to the project' manager and ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80433MM6
| |
| | |
| 0960118 18 243
| |
| -1 the resident inspector and say, now, how many of these p (V~7Nbw 2 things do you know they did't
| |
| .3 MR. SCHWINK: That has been done. You are seeing i
| |
| 4 the reflection of that.
| |
| 5 DR. SIESS: Some, you'can just go look, can't j 6 you?
| |
| [
| |
| < 7 MR. SCHWINK: Some you can, but some you;can't.
| |
| 8 MR. EBERSOLE: .Some of those titles are j 9 ambiguous. Is 674.1 RCP trip pertinent to the small break i
| |
| 10 problem or the ATWS problem?
| |
| i 11' MR. SCHWINK: I'd have to look at the description 12 of the generic issue, and I could tell you that. That is
| |
| (} 13 why it is important to understand that you can also get a 14 terse description of the generic issue out of SIMS also. ;
| |
| 15 But you see, that is the key. It should trigger you to ask >
| |
| 16 the questioin, has this thing been addressed?
| |
| 17 DR. SIESS:. How much can you.do on line with 18 SIMS?
| |
| 19 MR. SCHWINK You can get standrd reports like 20 this simply by calling the number. You can do it fram your 21 home, if you've got a computer with a modem in it.
| |
| 4 22 DR. 'SS: On the screen or printed?
| |
| 23 MR. SCHWINK Either one. Take your pick.
| |
| 24 DR. SIESS: You got yours hooked up, Jesse.
| |
| 25 MR. EBERSOLE: Yes, sir.
| |
| {
| |
| 1 ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. !
| |
| 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4 46
| |
| | |
| [ 0960 18 18- 244 2
| |
| 1 DR. SIESS: Get the. phone company. All you need
| |
| ' {J"'TVbw I
| |
| 2 is the extension number.
| |
| 3 MR. SCHWINK: But understand, the important point 4 of this is, all this is nice to know,.but that is the
| |
| {, 5 important part. If the plant didn't change, it didn't make 6 a difference.
| |
| 7 DR. SIESS: We could put this on our bulletin 8 board, if we had another couple of banks of memory.
| |
| 9 MR. SCHWINK: What is different today is, number _
| |
| 10 one, that we are getting this data' base built. We-do have 11 this report, the PM and the resident, who has a PC on site, 12 can look at his PC screen and see what is there for his
| |
| () 13 plant.
| |
| 14 DR. SIESS: A lot of the licensees must have the
| |
| ; 15 same stuff computerized.
| |
| 16 MR. SCHWINK: The problem is that they don't have 17 our list, and we have not yet:made the SIMS public, because i 18 we are still trying to get --
| |
| 19 DR. SIESS: They must have some system of keeping ~
| |
| ! 20 track of their commitments when they are completed.
| |
| 21 MR. SCHWINK: That is correct.
| |
| 22 DR. SIESS: .Some of these, apparently they don't 23 think there was ever a commitment, so it is not even in 24 their system.
| |
| 25 MR. SCHWINK: That is' correct.
| |
| (]}
| |
| 4 l /\CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3346M4
| |
| | |
| 0960 18 18 245
| |
| ~'3Vbw 1 DR. SIESS: And if it is in their system, it (J
| |
| 2 won't have the same identification.
| |
| 3 MR. SCHWINK: We found when we went out and asked 4 that they and asked, that they roughly were identified the 5 same way. But the point I want to make is, there is a bunch 6 of stuff that they didn't know what it was and never heard 7 of it before. And there is a bunch of stuff that the PM and 8 the resident for the plant didn't know what it was.
| |
| 9 DR. SIESS: Have you figured out why?
| |
| 10 MR. SCHWINK: Yes.
| |
| 11 DR. SIESS: Lack of a OA program in NRC? I mean, 12 that is what owuld be the cause that would hapen to a
| |
| {} 13 licensee, if they didn't have an adequate OA program.
| |
| 14 MR. SCHWINK: Sure, but if you want to know the 15 personal opinion, my personal opinion is, we put a lot of 16 emphasis on the resolution and not much on making sure it 17 gets in the plant. For example, the stuff that came up for 18 nay kind of Commission review or ACRS review, I would bet 19 that there is very little exchange in any of the 20 conversations about licensing or inspection.
| |
| 21 DR. SIESS: I think you missed my point. The 22 licensee says, I never heard of it. There's two 23 possibilities. He is lying or he is telling the truth.
| |
| 24 Are you assuming he is lying?
| |
| {} 25 MR. SCHWINK: No.
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80n 336-(486
| |
| | |
| 0960 18 18 246 1 DR. SIESS: Well, let's assume that he is telling
| |
| (']Nbw
| |
| '._/
| |
| 2 the truth. How come you never heard of itr? You see, if 3 you put the emphasis on requiring it, he will have heard of 4 it.
| |
| 5 MR. SCHWINK: That is correct.
| |
| 6 DR. SIESS: So why didn't he know about it?
| |
| 7 MR. SCHWINK: Because it was looked at 8 generically and the specific plants that were affected 9 weren't identified as they are now in SINS. And the PH had 10 to have enough initiative to go say, I heard you resolved 11 station blackout. Does it apply to my plant?
| |
| 12 DR. SIESS: So the TMI issues were out as a 13 NUREG?
| |
| (~/)
| |
| 14 MR. SCHWINK: It wont out as four or five NUREGS.
| |
| 15 DR. SIESS: Was it a generic lever that 16 referenced the NUREGS? It didn't tell the plants which ones 17 were applicable to you, and so forth.
| |
| 18 MR. SCHWINK: That is right.
| |
| 19 MR. HERNAN: There was a computerized system that 20 the project managers used prior to SIMS to track these items 21 with. It just wasn't integrated outside the Division of 22 Licensing was the problem.
| |
| 23 MR. SCHWINK: As I said, SIMS is the only one 24 that will track cradle to grave. We had piecemeal stuff.
| |
| 25 DR. SIESS: I don't like that expression.
| |
| (~))
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33M446
| |
| | |
| 0960 18 18 247
| |
| ('}Vbw 1 MR. SCHWINK: I don't know how else to coin it.
| |
| %d 2 And it really never becomes an end, because you are going to 3 have continuing inspections on some things to make sure that 4 particular thing in the plant is number one, told to the 5 operator that it exists, two, that it is put into 6 maintenance and surveillance. Three, that it is pedigreed, 7 that' parts replacement is what it should be and four, that 8 you have some sense that it is going to be integrated into 9 his whole plant.
| |
| 10 DR. SIESS: That is no different than any other 11 changes made to a plant. The licensee initiates or you 12 initiate and require it.
| |
| (~)
| |
| v 13 MR. SCHWINK: But I am suggesting that a lot of 14 these things, for example, I have heard stories,.it wasn't 15 in my tech specs, so I don't maintain it. It is physically 16 in my plant. It doesn't work any more, but it is there. It 17 wasn't in my tech spec.
| |
| 18 DR. SIESS: That is the way we operate.
| |
| 19 MR. EBERSOLE: If I just take a case like the BWR 20 ATWS modification, would I find that in here?
| |
| 21 MR. SCHWINK: Yes, you would.
| |
| 22 MR. EBERSOLE: Where would you find it?
| |
| 23 DR. SIESS: Not under Crystal River.
| |
| 24 MR. SCHWINK: It is in a couple places. First,
| |
| (} 25 you will see a whole series of Salem ATWS.
| |
| ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 8m336446
| |
| | |
| 0960 18-18 248
| |
| ('')Vbw 1 MR. EBERSOLE: That's Salem ATWS.
| |
| v 2 MR. SCHWINK: That is right. The Salem ATWS was 3 the generic letter that went out.
| |
| 4 MR. EBERSOLE: Salem is a PWR. I am talking 5 about the boilers.
| |
| 6 MR. HERNAN: It is called Salem ATWS. That is 7 the name of the generic issue.
| |
| 8 DR. SIESS: That is not what Jesse is asking 9 about. He is asking about ATWS, period, not Salem ATWS.
| |
| 10 MR. SCHWINK: It is a trail. What you would do 11 --
| |
| 12 DR. SIESS: What issue is ATWS?
| |
| () 13 MR. EBERSOLE: Which is it?
| |
| 14 DR. SIESS: Sam says A-9. 75? That's Salem.
| |
| 15 MR. EBERSOLE: I can't find it.
| |
| 16 DR. SIESS: Maybe it has been resolved.
| |
| 17 MR. HERNAN: It would be 93, page 1.
| |
| 18 DR. SIESS: Those aren't the ATWS items. That is 19 the Salem issue.
| |
| : 20. MR. HERNAN: It is the generic letter which 21 applied to the ATWS issue.
| |
| 22 DR. SIESS: I don't understand.
| |
| 23 MR. EBERSOLE: What is the page number and where 24 do we find it?
| |
| 25 DR. SIESS: He is telling us that B-76 is ATWS.
| |
| }
| |
| Ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| l 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage HG) 336-(M6
| |
| | |
| 0960 18 18 249
| |
| ] *Nbw 1 We had ATWS long before Salem happened.
| |
| 2 MR. HERNAN: This is a generic letter that went 3 out after the Salem event for all licensees.
| |
| '4 DR. SIESS: But we are talking ~about the ATWS USI 5 recalled for additional injection capacity, hump tricks and 6 all of that stuff.
| |
| 7 MR. SCHWINK: What you would have to do is go to 8 the generic issues. For that.particular generic issue, you 9 would see that there is a bunch of related generic issues 10 tied to it.
| |
| 11 DR. SIESS: We can't even find that one here..
| |
| 12 MR. EBERSOLE: Have I just got a piece of the
| |
| (} 13 whole thing here?
| |
| 14 MR. SCHWINK: Yes, you do. You just have a 15 piece.
| |
| 16 DR. SIESS: You don't have A-9.
| |
| 17 MR. SCHWINK: -I just brought a 44.
| |
| 18 DR. SIESS:- Status of selected issues. Safety 19 issue management system, the whole list. That list right 20 there. Why isn't A-9 in it?
| |
| 21 MR. SCHWINK: This is Crystal River. If A-9 is 22 not in here, the one I am looking at is not. I am looking 23 at the first slide.
| |
| 24 DR. REMICK: This is completed or resolved.
| |
| (} 25 DR. SIESS: That is just resolved.
| |
| ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| i 250 l 0960 18 18 TVbw 1 MR. SCHWINK: That is.right.
| |
| 2 DR. REMICK: A-44 and 45 are not an issue.
| |
| 4 3 MR. SCHWINK: That is right. Now you can get a 4 whole list of all the ones that are not resolved, as well as 5 the ones that are resolved.
| |
| 6 DR. SIESS: So A-9 is not in here, because it is 7 not resolved.
| |
| 8 MR. SCHWINK: That is correct.
| |
| j 9 DR. SIESS: I thought ATWS was resolved..
| |
| .! 10 MR. EBERSOLE: That contradicts other story. Oh, I'
| |
| 11 yeah, we've already put in the pump trips, and we've got the i 12 automatic injection.
| |
| (} 13 MR. SCHWINK: I think you might have some of the 14 responses to some of these generic letters that have gone 15 out that dealt with ATWS.
| |
| l 16 MR. EBERSOLE: The PWR ATWS problem was a totally 17 different matter.
| |
| 18 MR. HERNAN: The generic letter dealt with both 19 PWRs and BWRs.
| |
| 20 DR. SIESS: Wait a minute. What they are telling 21 is, A-9, somebody tells me, is ATWS, is not resolved.
| |
| ! 22 MR. HEB DON: I think what we need to do is to get
| |
| ; 23 the printout for A-9 and find out exactly what the situation 24 is. You know, we really haven't had a chance to go through j 25 the whole data base and verify and double check all the
| |
| [}
| |
| )
| |
| i
| |
| /\CEJFEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3%6M6 ;
| |
| i
| |
| - _ - - _ . . _ _ - . . . . . _ . . _ _ , . , _ . _ . . _ _ . . . _ _ . . _ . . , , . , . _ _ . - _ . . ~ _ _ _ _ . . . , . . . - _ _ _ . .
| |
| | |
| a 0960 18 18 251 C'TVbw 1 information.
| |
| V 2 MR. EBERSOLE: Why don't I have A-9 here?
| |
| 3 MR. HEBDON: We don't know. You've got to look 4 at USIs for which technical resolution is complete, A-9 and 5 why it is not there. Published Rule, final Rule. Completed 6 September 1980. How much more complete can you get from a 7 final rule? -
| |
| 8 MR. SCHWINK: In the plants.
| |
| 9 MR. EBERSOLE: It's got to be there. That 10 doesn't say it's in the plant.
| |
| 11 MR. SCHWINK: That's correct.
| |
| 12 DR. SIESS: It says selected issues resolved.
| |
| () 13 MR. SCHWINK: That doesn't mean in the plants.
| |
| 14 DR. SIESS: What I am finding here is that you 15 fellows are using words in a vey interesting way.
| |
| 16 MR. SCHWINK: Yes.
| |
| t 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
| |
| ~
| |
| 25 (1) i ACE. FEDERAL RevonTens, INC.
| |
| 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 3364M6 i
| |
| | |
| I 0960 19 19 252 1 DR. SIESS: I think one thing that would be very (G'}N/bc 2 helpful to you, to us and perhaps to the industry would be 3 to arrive at a system of words that mean the same thing to 4 everybody. And resolution in this compartment and 5 resolution in this compartment and resolution in this 6 compartment all mean different things to you.
| |
| 7 MR. HEBDON: That's a correct criticism.
| |
| 8 DR. SIESS: And if it's confusing to me, I can 9 understand why some licensees may have been confused.
| |
| 4 10 MR. EBERSOLE: What I think somebody heard is 11 that somebody made a paper rule but nothing followed.
| |
| 12 DR. SIESS: What does this book mean when it says
| |
| (} 13 " resolution"?
| |
| 14 MR. SCHWINK: It means that a technical 15 resolution was approved.
| |
| 16 DR. SIESS: All right.
| |
| 17 MR. HERNAN: Are you looking for something in 18 SIMS that will indicato compliance with'the ATWS rule?
| |
| 19 DR. SIESS: I just want,you to define some terms 20 and not having it dependent on which man I'm talking to.
| |
| 21 This morning, when somebody said something was 22 resolved, they meant the technical resolution had been 23 issued. This afternoon resolves means that it's been put in 24 the plant. .
| |
| {} 25 MR. SCHWINK No. Resolved in the context that's Ace-FEDERAL ReconTens, INC.
| |
| 202-347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-336 M46
| |
| | |
| 0960 19 19 253 f''*aV/bc 1 always been used by NRR and now by Research is they mean s-2 there's a technical resolution that has been approved.
| |
| 3 It does not mean that it's been physically 4 installed in the plant.
| |
| 5 DR. SIESS: You said that A-9 is not in this list 6 because it's not resolved.
| |
| 7 MR. SCHWINK: No. I said that A-9 may not be in 1
| |
| 8 thic list because, number one, it could be a mistake, it 9 hasn't been added in yet. Or, number two, that it's been 10 resolved through a series of these generic letters.
| |
| 11 There were no further actions. ;
| |
| 12 DR. SIESS: That last doesn't make any sense
| |
| () 13 because the Salem ATWS did not address the BWR. And this 14 said it was resolved by rulemaking, which I think is the
| |
| (
| |
| 15 case.
| |
| i 16 MR. IIERNAN: There was a rule passed that plants 17 would have a certain amount of time to comply with the 18 rules. Are you looking for documentation?
| |
| 19 DR. SIESS: I'm just trying to understand what 20 these lists mean. If I go into SIMS and look for an issue 21 and don't find it, that's what we did. Jesso said:
| |
| 22 "What happens to the BWR ATWS?"
| |
| 23 We looked at the list here. It's not here. So, 24 somebody said it's not here because this is only a list of
| |
| (} 25 resolved items.
| |
| I l
| |
| Ace FEDERAL RuPonTnns, INC.
| |
| 202 347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage m) 33MM6
| |
| | |
| 0960 19 19 254 1 MR. SCHWINK: That's one option. The other (v''pN/bc 2 option is it hasn't physically been added in the list yet.
| |
| 3 DR. SIESS: That seems a little strange. Do you 4 mean this list is still in the process?
| |
| 5 MR. HEBDON: The whole data system is still being 6 developed, and it's possible that that one either has an 7 incorrect data field, so it didn't come up where it should 8 have --
| |
| 9 DR. SIESS: I'll buy that.
| |
| d 10 MR. SCHWINK: But I want to answer a specific
| |
| , 11 question. This ATWS thing, if you look across here, you 12 will see some ATWS actions that don't have completion next 1
| |
| (} 13 to them.
| |
| 14 So my answer is no, it has not been completed at i
| |
| 15 all the plants.
| |
| 16 DR. SIESS: I wouldn't expect it to.
| |
| 17 MR. EBERSOLE: That's the PWR problem.
| |
| 18 MR. SCHWINK: I understand, but I can give this 19 to you for every plant.
| |
| 20 MR. EBERSOLE: The old original ATWS issue was in 21 the early seventies.
| |
| 22 MR. SCHWINK: That's correct.
| |
| 23 DR. SIESS: That's when the issue came up.
| |
| 4 24 Nobody's going to do anything.
| |
| {} 25 DR. REMICK: Chot, it's obvious that the staff l
| |
| ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage Hon.336 6M6
| |
| | |
| 0960 19 19 255 1 doesn't have an answer to the question and they.can get that (v'')V/bc 2 information again.
| |
| 3 So I suggest we move on.
| |
| 4 DR. SIESS: Let's be careful about what they can 5 get because they've just told us the data base isn't filled 6 out yet.
| |
| 7 DR. REMICK: Maybe that's the answer.
| |
| 8 MR. IIEBDON: We can pull the full printout for A-i 9 9 and explain why it isn't there. It may be because of an 10 error in the data entry and the system isn't completely 11 developed.
| |
| 12 DR. SIESS: But, on this printout -- not the one
| |
| () 13 there, but the one I'm looking at -- status selected issues 14 resolved.
| |
| 15 Now, resolved there is the same as this morning's 16 resolve.
| |
| 17 MR. SCilWINK: That's correct.
| |
| 18 DR. SIESS: Okay.
| |
| 19 MR. EBERSOLE: Technically resolved.
| |
| J 20 DR. SIESS: It means the staff knows what they 21 want to do to fix it. They haven't decided on whose got to 22 do it. And it hasn't been done yet necessarily.
| |
| 23 But the ATWS rule came out in '80. Is that 24 right? Is it that far back?
| |
| (} 25 MR. SCilWINK: I think it came out in '82.
| |
| Ace FunnRAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347 37(W) Nationwide Cmerage luxk33MM6
| |
| | |
| h 0960 19 19 256
| |
| /'''2V/b c 1 DR. MOELLER: On page 5, on the Crystal River V
| |
| 2 item, you have control room habitability and it says:
| |
| I 3 The method is the TMI action plan. Well, what 4 does that mean?
| |
| 5 MR. SCilWINK There's a TMI action plan item that 6 deals with that specifically, or a group of items and you 7 have to go to that specific issue and identify them.
| |
| 8 You can look through that item and see what the 9 status is of that item for overy plant, because there were 10 TMI action items that came out of both the task plan and 11 then the clarification ultimately that came out of that.
| |
| 12 And if something is a generic issue, identified
| |
| () 13 as a genoric issue, and it was resolved by, let's say, three 14 of the TMI items, there's a tie to that to say here's how it t
| |
| 15 was resolved. And you can go and soo what the status of i
| |
| i 16 those throo items are for those plants.
| |
| 17 DR. MOELLER: I guess I was asking becauso it 18 seems to me control room habitability was raised as an issue 19 quite sometimo after TMI.
| |
| 20 MR. SCilWINK: Dut there woro some TMI items also.
| |
| 21 The question you might have is did those throo items say, if 22 there were throo, that wo supposedly resolved it, did that i
| |
| 23 totally resolvo it or not?
| |
| 24 That's the quality of the resolution.
| |
| 25 DR. MOELLER: Then there is a IIID-2.33, again,
| |
| (~}
| |
| Acts.Fl!Dt!RAL Riiponnins, INC.
| |
| 202 347 3700 Nationwide Costrage 8m336 6M6
| |
| | |
| 0960 19 19 257 T'TV/bc 1 onpage 5.
| |
| , k/
| |
| 2 DR. SIESS: You've got to specify which of those 3 are Roman and which are Arabic or we'll never find it.
| |
| 4 DR. MOELLER: It's Roman III, D as in David, 5 Arabic 2.33.
| |
| 6 "What is that? Establish feasible method of 7 pathway?"
| |
| 8 Is it interdiction or something?
| |
| 9 MR. SCHWINKt I'd have to look up what that 10 specific issue is. Then you'd have that printout like I 11 showed you for A-44.
| |
| 12 MR. EBERSOLE: Why do I have on the first two
| |
| () 13 lines up there BWR pump integrity and PWR pipe cracks?
| |
| 14 MR. SCilWINK: Two reasons. Ono, we were so 15 uncertain of what issues applied and didn't apply to a plant j 16 that wo listed them all. And we asked the PMs and the 17 residents to clearly articulate that it doesn't apply to 18 that plant. That's what NA means.
| |
| 19 That was our way to double-check, to make sure 20 that we didn't loso something in the crack. Once wo got the 21 data baso loaded and we think that it's accurato, wo won't 22 continue to carry the items for a PWR plant or items that 23 don't apply to that partict;1ar plant.
| |
| l 24 DR. SIESS: I got the pretty clear picture that
| |
| (} 25 thoro's no question we can ask about the generic items that i
| |
| Acti FliDlinAL RileonTiins, INC.
| |
| 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage M-13MM4
| |
| | |
| 4 0960 19 19 258 l
| |
| ?N/bc 1 you can't got out of your SIMS once you get it all in there.
| |
| [
| |
| ! 2 MR. SCHWINK: You're right to a certain extent.
| |
| 3 Please understand that SIMS is a tool. It's not smart 4 onough to make decisions. It's not going to tell you about 5 the quality of what that data means.
| |
| t 6 DR. SIESS: Oh, no.
| |
| 7 MR. SCIIWINK The key is we will be able to track
| |
| ) 8 a generic issue and be able to tell you that that plant 9 physically did something about it. Then it will refer you l 10 to the inspection report to say it was dono; it will refer 11 you to the SER report that says hero's the analysis to say l 12 it was acceptable.
| |
| 13 DR. SIESS: If I wanted to know what the issuo
| |
| ;(}
| |
| 14 was in the first place, I'd go to 933?
| |
| 15 MR. SCllWINK 933 will give you a little more 16 articulation on what you saw on the station blackout. But 17 you would be able to have a trail that would point you to l
| |
| t 18 specific documentation. And it would say exactly what that 19 document is.
| |
| 20 For examplo, the SER that said this is 21 acceptable.
| |
| 22 DR. SIESS: Going back to the original definition l
| |
| ) 23 of tho issue, where would I got that? !
| |
| MR. SCllWINK:
| |
| 24 You'd got it from 933. If you 25 wanted a dotalled articulation, you would got it from SIMS.
| |
| [}
| |
| s 3
| |
| Act FilimRAI. Riti>oRrtins, INC.
| |
| 202 347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage MH-)MeM
| |
| | |
| - - . ._~ .. . . - . . , . .
| |
| J 0960 19 19 259
| |
| /'' 1 But if you wanted just that synopsis --
| |
| '. \_)7V/bc
| |
| , 2 DR. SIESS: We always want detail.
| |
| 3 MR. SCHWINK: But, understand that, in a very
| |
| : 4 brief time, you can look through overy generic issue using 5 SIMS.
| |
| 6 DR. SIESS: Well, we've got three lovels. We've 7 got a list of them where they como out on one line. SIMS 8 gives you 10 or 15 linos.
| |
| 9 MR. SCHWINK: That's because of the problem Carl 10 raised this morning. How do I know what happens to it when 11 it gets fragmented.
| |
| 12 DR. SIESS: And 0933 gives you several pages and 13 none of them do much more. SIMS will tie it to other
| |
| (])
| |
| 14 issues, but it really won't tell you too much about how it's ,
| |
| 15 tied to the other issues.
| |
| 16 MR. SCilWINK: It will tell you in somo very 17 gonoral terms, that's correct. l 18 DR. SIESS: Well, I don't soo anything on the A-19 44.
| |
| 20 MR. SCllWINK That's another report that comes 21 out.
| |
| l 22 DR. SIESS: Okay. Playbo we'll try to collect up 23 the sots of those for some people, sit them down at the 24 computer and lot them learn how to do it. !
| |
| i
| |
| (} 25 Itavo you got a handbook on SIMS?
| |
| l Acti Fl!D!iRAL Riti>onTrins, INC.
| |
| l 202 347 37m NanonWde Coverage n-)M646
| |
| | |
| I ;
| |
| l l 260 l 0960 19 19 MR. SCHWINK: Yes.
| |
| {;N/bc 1 2 DR. SIESS: That tells you how to query it? .
| |
| 3 MR. MICHELSON: Sam's going to learn how to do 4 it.
| |
| 5 MR. SCHWINK: Let me give you a couple of 6 summarios that you specifically asked questions on in the 7 agenda.
| |
| 8 DR. SIESS: Are wo back in the first handout now?
| |
| 9 MR. SCHWINK: Yes.
| |
| 10 (Slido.) ,
| |
| 11 You asked for mins and maxos and I gave you an 12 averago, and I tried to give you a fool for where those
| |
| () 13 typically fall. There's not much I can say about that 14 except it's experience. Please understand that's in 15 addition to the technical resolution.
| |
| 16 DR. SIESS: I think the minimums are very 17 impressivo. It doesn' t scom to make a heck of a lot of 18 difference on the priorities. In fact, whether they're 19 high, medium or low priority doesn't scom to make much 20 difference anywhere. And the maximums don't surpriso me a 21 bit, having lived through a couple of them. That's 22 interesting though.
| |
| 23 HR. SCHWINK Recognize this is in addition to e4 the technical resolution.
| |
| (} 25 DR. SIESS: Oh, yes. This is to got somothing Acn FEDERAL RnvonTens, INC, 1
| |
| 202 347 37(X) Nationwide Coverage sub33M4:6
| |
| | |
| 0960 19 19 261
| |
| /'' 1 done in the plan.
| |
| U )V/bc 2 MR. SCHWINK: So what I'm saying is on high 3 priority items you should not be surprised to see before it 4 physically winds up in the plant nine to 10 years.
| |
| 5 DR. SIESS: There couldn't have been an awful lot 6 of those nine to 10 years if you average out at 3.5. We 7 might want to look.
| |
| 8 MR. SCHWINK: I understand that this is one 9 that's imposed on it. This is one they physically 10 implemented. So it's a summation of those two.
| |
| 11 DR. SIESS: What's that mean again?
| |
| 12 MR. SCHWINK: It means there was an approved
| |
| (} 13 technical resolution of the generic issue.
| |
| 14 DR. SIESS: Just take the average. It took three 15 and a half years before you told them whct to do.
| |
| 16 MR. SCHWINK: Yes.
| |
| 17 DR. SIESS: And then another two years for them 18 to do it?
| |
| 19 MR. SCHWINK: Yes.
| |
| 20 DR. SIESS: They're doing a lot better.than you 21 are.
| |
| 22 (Laughter.)
| |
| 23 MR. SCHWINK: That's experience. Understand 24 that's part of this negotiating process.
| |
| (} 25 DR. SIESS: If it's part of the negotiating Ace FnonRAL reporters, INC.
| |
| 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
| |
| | |
| - - . - nR w - - - . __a - s --
| |
| l l 0960 19 19 262 pV/bc 1 process, I guess I would expect to soo more variation in the
| |
| [
| |
| 2 imposition licensing with priority lovels. It seems to me 3 if it was a high priority item, you'd really bang it to 4 them. If it's a low priority item, you might push it to one i
| |
| L 5 side and negotiate over a period of time to 800 how it fit 6 in for a high priority item to take three and a half years 7 to agroo with the licensoo on when he was going to start i 8 one.
| |
| 9 MR. IIEBDON: We were thinking about that as well.
| |
| 10 One of the things to koop in mind is a lot of times, the' 11 high priority item is more complicated, so the complexity 12 tends to offset the priority. And that's why you find f(])
| |
| 1 13 sometimes that the lower priority things got dono more 14 quickly, just because they tend to be simpler.
| |
| 15 They're more straightforward, which is part ot l
| |
| l 16 the reason they have a low priority. It's not a very big 17 deal.
| |
| 18 DR. SIESS: Doponding upon what this committoo 19 decidos when they got through this stuff, one possibility in 20 to try to take a few casos and follow them through the 21 process. I'm beginning to got the fooling that following 22 them through the identification, prioritization and 23 resolution process is not going to be nearly as intoresting, 24 or maybe as important as following them through this i
| |
| {} 25 process.
| |
| ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| l 202-347 370) Nationwide Coverage WW61M4
| |
| {
| |
| | |
| l l
| |
| l 0960 19 19 263 N/bc 1 We can probably go through that other one very
| |
| ! 2 simply. This one's going to be more difficult. So if we're 3 thinking about going that way, you might want to look at 4 some of those long ones, short ones, and that's what I think 5 we've asked the staff for.
| |
| 6 Sam's got somothing to give you when we caucus, 7 or whatover we want to call it, lator on.
| |
| 8 MR. SCIIWINK: I might point out wo wanted to do 9 this on ovary one of thoso gonoric issues to como up with 10 those datos, to say that it was physically dono at the i
| |
| 11 plant. It's taken two years. You're scoing the product of 12 it.
| |
| l 13 DR. SIESS: Doing what?
| |
| 14 MR. SCllWINK Trying to do oxactly what you woro 15 talking about doing.
| |
| 16 DR. SIESS: Wo wanted to just walk through two or l
| |
| l 17 three of them trying to soo what the long ones take. That's 18 a suggestion. Wo haven't agrood to do anything yet.
| |
| 19 MR. IIEDDON: What you might want to do is use 20 SIMS to pick one that's boon around that has a fair history, 21 particularly one that sooms to have a fair spread as to one i 22 that was implomonted at the plant.
| |
| 23 DR. SIESS: I hopo you guys will stick around 24 after this prosentation is over while wo go through this 25 discussion and soo what we're going to como up with.
| |
| Acti Fimt! rat. Ritronnins, INC.
| |
| 202 347 37(0 Nationwide Coserage *0-33M486
| |
| _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
| |
| | |
| 0960 19 19 264 N/bc 1 We've got a list. Whero did this como from?
| |
| ) 2 Roscarch gavo us a list of some possible ones. But now that 3 we've soo some of those figures, wo might want to have ,
| |
| . 4 different critoria.
| |
| . 5 What's your next slido?
| |
| ; 6 (S l ido . )
| |
| 1
| |
| ) 7 MR. SCilWINK: The last one I wanted to show you i
| |
| i 8 is a breakout by item. I tried to categorize those as best 9 I could. They wind up into TMI categorios, USIs, high, !
| |
| f 10 medium, low; and others.
| |
| l 11 The others, I have no idea what the priority is. r 12 DR. SIESS: What's the priority on the others?
| |
| t
| |
| ] 13 Is TMI 0660 higher than USI?
| |
| 14 MR. Sci! WINK: Ono would think so.
| |
| ; 15 DR. SIESS: Do you moan there woro 202 high, high i
| |
| j 16 priority items that came out of TMI? -
| |
| J 17 MR. SCllWINK: Yes.
| |
| 10 DR. SIESS: Unbollavable. Absoluto1y 19 unbolievablo.
| |
| 20 MR. ScilWINK: What's more important is looking i
| |
| 21 within the plants. >
| |
| 22 DR. SIESS: What doos approvod moan?
| |
| l 23 MR. SCllWINK Approved means there's a generie l l
| |
| t 24 resolution issuo approved. ,
| |
| i l 25 DR. SICSS: And that's a technical resolution i
| |
| I ACII.Filor:RAi. RitroRTt:Rs, INC, t
| |
| . 202 347 37tn> Nationwide cmcrage mur))6 m:6
| |
| | |
| l l
| |
| l l 0960 19 19 265
| |
| ! i W/bc 1 that's boon approved. l 2 MR. SCilWINK: Correct.
| |
| 3 DR. SIESS: This is how many have boon imposed on 4 all the affected plants.
| |
| 5 MR. SCl! WINK: That's correct.
| |
| 6 DR. SIESS: They haven't boon imposed on all the i 7 plants. That's not in thero.
| |
| 8 MR. SCilWINK: That's correct.
| |
| 9 DR. SIESS: That's when the ponition was l 10 complotod.
| |
| l 11 MR. SCllWINK: That's correct.
| |
| l l 12 DR. SIESS: That's not a real good monouro of the Q 13 levol of imposition.
| |
| 14 MR. SCilWINK: No, but thoro's a cubroport you can ,
| |
| 15 got out of SIMS and toll you what ,porcontago. l t
| |
| 16 DR. SIESS: And how many have boon implomonted i 17 on? Thoro'n 11 boon dono. What happened to the other 18 novon? Aro those t.ho onen they never hoard of?
| |
| 19 MR. SCilWINK: They just, for whatover reason, 20 didn't got imponod.
| |
| 21 DR. SIESS: And that's a biggor priority?
| |
| 22 MR. SCilWINK Yon.
| |
| 23 DR. SIESS: On tho 0737, how can wo havo moro 24 vorifiod than implomontod?
| |
| 25 MR. SCllWINK: llocauno we took the position on Acit Flit)liRAI, Ritronriins, INC.
| |
| 20214WW Nation *kle Cmerage No 1%um !
| |
| | |
| 0960 19 19 266 W/bc 1 some of them that wo would not necessarily have to do a 2 special verification. They would be picked up in the 3 routino inspection programs. We walked away from those.
| |
| 4 DR. SIESS: They must havo boon implomonted.
| |
| 5 MR. SCHWINK No, that's when they are 6 implomonted, they wil] be picked up. Thoro's no special 7 requirement. ,
| |
| 8 9
| |
| 10 11 12 O ''
| |
| 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Acit.1711DI:llAl. RitronTtists, INC.
| |
| 2024 & U m N.uionwkle Cmcrage molto u,46
| |
| | |
| 0960 20 20 267 AVbw 1 DR. SIESS: Okay.
| |
| 2 ftR. SCllWINK: I want to emphanizo, thin in the 3 past. The reorganization focunod on thin. SIMS in 4 specifically dealing with thin. My offico director in 5 notting up goals for whon ho thinka thingn ought to bo dono.
| |
| 6 11 0 in bringing in each Ptt in the project. roviow and in going 7 through all the outntanding itorra for each plant. I guona 0 the point I am trying to mako in, I am very optimintic that 9 the problom in boing addronned, and it in being addronnod in 10 a way that it han never boon addronnod boforo.
| |
| 11 DR. SIUSS: What in the low priority thoro, tho 12 onon that aron't being workod on at all? Thono munt bo low (3 l C'! 13 lown?
| |
| 14 l MR. SCIIWINK Thono aro lown that wont through i
| |
| 15 ! the approval cyclo and are approved. Thono lown aro in horo 16 ! that wo aro talking about. Thoy'vo actually boon approved.
| |
| 17 Thono rrunt bo from way back, ninco nobody'n ovon boon 18 working on thone.
| |
| 19 MR. SCliWINK That in truo. Gomo of thono aro an 20 old an 1970, '79.
| |
| 21 DR. HIM90: llo f o ro tho priority nyntom got 22 ntartod.
| |
| l 23 MR. UCllWINK: That in corroct. And I think you 24 will find a lot of thono that way too.
| |
| p V 25 DR. HIMOS: It in intoronting that tho lown aro Acisli iii
| |
| >i:itri. Iti i'oRii:its, INC.
| |
| y :o in um N. n. iae nn m.ge mm i n, u,v,
| |
| | |
| ~ ._ . - - . - . . _ ._- - _ . - --. . . _ _ - - . . . - - - - - - . _ . -_-
| |
| 0960 20 20 260
| |
| . JAVbw 1 doing about as well as tho. highs. That probably means they 2 are oastor.
| |
| 3 fi R . II E n D O N : It again gota back to tho fact that 4 a lot of the lows are fairly simplo atenightforward things.
| |
| ! 5 They acom to do bottor than their priority would indicato.
| |
| 6 MR. SCllWINK: Tho other I might want to point out l 7 to you --
| |
| i
| |
| ! O DR. SIESS: You know what I would liko to know?
| |
| 9 I am almont afraid to ask the question, though. Ilow much wo
| |
| ! 10 havo improvod safoty by all thoso.
| |
| ! 11 HR. SCllWINK Wo have ankod Ronoarch in tho I i j 12 backlog of things that havo not boon implomonted on tho '
| |
| lO 13 planto yot, if they would go through for tho troubled plants
| |
| ) 14 and givo un nomo idon of the rink reduction. The problom l 15 you got into in wo don't have plant npocific PRAn, so they 16 are making alwont gonoric judgmonta about the safety honofit 17 of nomo of thono things that woro novor 1cokod at from tho i la nafoty bonotit point of view. Dotorminintically, it was a 19 good thing to do. All THI actionn novor really got 20 chailongod in a nafoty concorn, but dolorminintically, it j 21 was all the right thing to do.
| |
| I
| |
| ! 22 Somo of thono aro boing oxaminod by Rononrch [
| |
| t l 23 right now, and throo of thom, and I don't romorbor which !
| |
| L 24 npocific onon thoy chono, showod that the coro molt Q- 25 froquoney wont form 1.05 10 to tho minun 5 to riomothing liko i
| |
| ! ACl! I''t!DlinAl. Rimon ti:ns, INC.
| |
| :or umm Nation *ue emerm am Iw ua4
| |
| | |
| 0960 20 20 269
| |
| )AVbw 1 1.5 10 to the minun 5. That is, if you did throo of them.
| |
| 2 DR. SICSS: That wouldn't moot the throo critoria 3 for irrprovemt, would it?
| |
| 4 f1R . SCilWINK: That in correct.
| |
| l 5 MR. MICllELS0ti But thono might havo boon very 6 timitod PRAn to, you know. You havo to look at the quality 7 of tho PRA to noo.
| |
| 8 DR. SICSS: It in not tjoing to mako that 9 difforonco.
| |
| 10 t1R . SCllWIt1K Part of the problom wan, they 11 woron't. articulated vory wall whon they woro put in.
| |
| l 12 OR. SICSS: The rotativo valuon of part.icular
| |
| ( )
| |
| -' 13 thingn. PHA ought to bo protty good.
| |
| 14 f1H . ti1Cill:!, SOS: PHAn comparod with each other aro h
| |
| J 15 l ntill tronningtonn. If tho firnt ono wari garbatjo, tho nocond 16 ono wan moro qarbaqo.
| |
| I 17 l DR. S I MS!!: Thon you don't bollovo any l'RA in 10 troaningful.
| |
| 19 tin. titCllMI,00?le Uniono it in a good ono, it inn't 20 tr o a n i n'; f u l .
| |
| 21 OR. 311:33: What in a good ono?
| |
| 22 tt R . ti t CllMLGON : A good ono in of nufficiontly 23 broad neopo and nutticiently good data no tho uncortainty in 24 at a minitrum and ono that han no ominnionn of nuch t.hin<;n an p'
| |
| C 25 ottornal ovontn, firon and rio forth. Thon you ntart to A< :.1'i i)i: ital, Ili.i'oR 11-i<s, IN(;
| |
| [ :n; in i?m Ninance a wo e am t ir, ,M,,
| |
| | |
| 0960 20 20 270 JAVbw I approach a good PRA. Wo don't do thono kind, but that in 2 what you nood if you want to believo the bottom lino.
| |
| 3 D!t . SIESS: Nobody nhould boliovo the bottom lino 4 then.
| |
| 5 MR. IIICllMLSON: Then wo abouldn't bo doing thin 6 oxorcino. Why cortparo garbago with garbago, if you don't 7 boliovo it? If w9 don't baliovo our numbor to bogin with, 0 what in tho problem of a cortain magnitudo rroan?
| |
| 9 DR. SIESS: I a good PRA in a comploto PRA, you 10 could novor trako a good PRA.
| |
| 11 MR. MIClll:!. SON: They could cortainly try bottor
| |
| , 12 thoy havo.
| |
| ! i
| |
| : 1) l MR. SCllWINK What wo aro anarching for in, now 14 that wo aro idontifying thin backlog, how do you dual with i
| |
| 15 it? I'o r o x arr p l o , if you try and innpoet all thono thingn, U
| |
| 16 j you would nhut down tho innpoetion progra.t, junt to innpoct 1
| |
| 17 thono thin 1n. If you wont to tho liconnoo and nald, do thom 18 all in ono outago, you'd koop thom nhut dowq for tho bottor i
| |
| 19 part of tho yoar.
| |
| l 20 DR. S II:SS : Tho thinq in, ye.u don't know what in i
| |
| 21 l t rr po r ta n t . Still you nay you'd nhut down tho innpoetion 22 prog r.im . Woll, you roally look at thono thin;n. Thono aro 23 boekfitn. Thoy'vo boon yono through and gono L5 rough. Thoy 24 woro rainod an qonorio nafoty innuon. I:vorybod) lookod at f'8 25 i them. Thoy prioritit.od thum, got thom out an high.
| |
| I At l Il >i i n Ai. Iti s'on ti ns INO,
| |
| [ w io em moon * ,& < .na m m ut, ua,
| |
| | |
| 0960 20 20 271 WVbw 1 MR. SCllWINK: And the onen that are markod hight 2 that is correct.
| |
| 3 DR. SIESS: And maybe tho ontiro innpoction 4 program nhould be devoted to thono thingn. Maybo thone are 5 moro important than the routino innpoetions they are making.
| |
| 6 Up to the point when you nay that they look important.
| |
| 7 MR. SCilWINK: At thin point, wo aro just gotting 8 to the placo in the progrunn of thin of identifying what tho 9 backlog in, than what wo aro nooing in tho backlog in 10 gotting no big, wo'vo got to have a way to decido thono 11 oxact thingn that you'vo nald, and wo aro noarching for 12 thcno wayn.
| |
| i
| |
| / \
| |
| \
| |
| V] 13 DR. 311:33: You aro alwayn going to havo a 14 backlog. Thoro will novar bo a day whon they implomont it 15 l tho day thoy runolvo it. You aro alwayn going to havo a backlog. Thin ono doonn't look tromondoun. I can't toll 16 l 17 from thin how many plant (tomn thoro are and how many of 10 , thom havo boon complotod. That in tho only kind of numbor i
| |
| 19 that in moaningful.
| |
| 20 l (311do.)
| |
| l 21 ! Thoro wo aro. I havo noon that nomowhoro boforo.
| |
| 22 HR. SCllWINK Of 49$ gonorla innuon, thoy ronult 23 in 9000 plant-npoelfie itomn.
| |
| 24 i DR. !ill:!!:l Now thono numborn --
| |
| 24 VOICI: s They ronultod in 21,000. Tho othor ntno t
| |
| ! /\('l I''l lli 14 Al l(1 l'()lt il'l(5, IN(',
| |
| j, :,o m no m.,m u ,,,o , e n m, ,w,
| |
| | |
| 0960 20 20 272 AVbw I aro specific plant actions.
| |
| 2 DR. SIESS: 21,000 plant actions that wo have 3 identifiod at various lovoin of importance. Let's faco it.
| |
| 4 They can't all bo equally important.
| |
| 5 MR. "CilWINK: And nomo wo don't know.
| |
| 6 DR. SIESS: 4000 of thono, wo haven't ronolved.
| |
| 7 "Wo" being the Staff. Okay.
| |
| O So thoro aro 17,000 plant items that somebody han l 9 idontifiod out thoro.
| |
| 10 llow many of them havo boon complotod? I am 11 talking about now tho 4000 in the Staff backlog. That in 12 gotting into tho point whoro you can talk to tho utilition.
| |
| 13 (Slido.)
| |
| 14 Ilow many now? Lot'n noo. Licensoo'n boon 15 , notiflod on 17,000. Ilow do wo got tho 17,0007 16 MR. SCllWINK Wo had 21,000 that wro thoro for 17 plant. action.
| |
| 10 l DR. H II:SS : I am having troublo kooping track of l
| |
| 19 all the nurfborn. I got tho tint I brought with tro. Which 20 ono did you havo up thoro f t e n t.? It como to 22 0307 I
| |
| 21 ftR. SCllWINKI That. ono.
| |
| I 22 DR. 311:33: llo'n got May. I'rr doalin'; with li 23 l'obruary. Okay. 21,000 in tho total, but 17,000 you aro 24 roady to talk to norrobody about, okay? Now lot'n nuo tho
| |
| (_b 2$ 5 Mitgl nl(do,
| |
| /\< i:.Fi.i>i it Ai. Ri 19in ii in, IN('.
| |
| L m n7 n., s e ,. .,, n.o m o e n . , o,, e,
| |
| | |
| 0960 20 20 273 AVbw 1 (Slido.)
| |
| 2 Thoro is the 17,000. What is the rato of 3 introducing plant items a year?
| |
| 4 MR. SCilWINK: You troan imposing thom on the 5 licencoo?
| |
| 6 DR. SIESS: Thinking thom up.
| |
| 7 MR. IIEllDON: 30 a year was the nurrbor they quoted 8 thin morning.
| |
| 9 DR. SIESS: That in a littio over 3000 plant 10 itoma. They won't all apply in all the planta. Ilut maybo 11 1500 or 2000 now onen. Tha t dooun' t look too bad. You'vo 12 got SER innued on 15,000. That moann they'ro dono; right?
| |
| ps, 8 i x' 13 Safoty ovaluation report.
| |
| 14 FIR . SCllWINK It doonn't moan it's physically 15 ! trtplorrented in the plant, though.
| |
| 16 l DR. SICSS: Did you writo an SER on tho donign?
| |
| i 17 j MR. SCllWINK You.
| |
| 18 DR. SIUSti Whoro in tho lint that nayn 19 phynically implorronted in tho plant?
| |
| I 20 MR. SCllWINK: Right horo.
| |
| l 21 DR. !!!ES!): That in nt.ill not had.
| |
| l
| |
| ; 22 f1R. WYI,t E s That in protty good.
| |
| 23 DR. !!!!:S:18 I would nay tho induntry in doing 24 about an good an tho NRC in.
| |
| ,7 C'# 2 'i M it . !iCllWINK I agroo. You havo to undorntand At IJ1:1)liRAI. Ill.I'OR ll RS, INC.
| |
| ; w w nu a,u..,~ ac o, n m w u w, u, v,
| |
| | |
| 0960 20 20 274 AVbw 1 that the key point that I am trying to mako with the SIMS is 2 that what isn't dono, and that we have not imposed on them 3 and that we don't know about and it has not boon 4 implomonted, I would like to be able to answer to you, thoro 5 are no never minds, don't worry about them, but I can't do 6 that.
| |
| 7 DR. SIESS: You know, this is a pretty good 8 porcentage dono even without SIMS to toll you what hadn't 9 boon dono.
| |
| 10 MR. SCilWIN K Except you wouldn't have known it, 11 if you didn't have SItts.
| |
| 12 MR. SCilWINK: It got along pretty well, I think.
| |
| ( )
| |
| '' 13 I am not at all discouraged by tho backlog.
| |
| 14 MR. SCIIWINK: I am not discouraged. In fact, I 15 mado the point, but I am optimistic and encouraged by the 16 reorganization that, in part, focused on making sure that wo 17 do havo this way to clono them out, and number two, that wo 18 l
| |
| , have a way of monitoring thono all through the procons and 19 through parts of the proconn to mako nuro they do got 20 trannlatod.
| |
| 21 Now I have not naid anything about the quality of 22 thin implomontation or thin vorification.
| |
| 23 DR. SIESS: Yon. I would liko to put somo trust
| |
| ~
| |
| 24 in the utilitlos to do thinga roanonably well. It in their
| |
| ()'
| |
| i- 25 plant that in going to have the coro molt. It cont the last Acti 171!DliitAl. Riil'Olt il!!<S, INC.
| |
| 202 147-1? W NMimide Oncr.we km14 u>u,
| |
| | |
| 0960 20 20 275 bAVbw 1 one a lot of money. I think they would be willing to spend 2 it. The thing is, the ones that aren't up there, let's say, 3 the backlog, some of them may be in the pipeline, just not 4 completed. That would be the difference between SER and 5 verified.
| |
| 6 MR. SCHWINK: And SIMS will tell you that.
| |
| 7 DR. SIESS: Some may not even be in the pipeline.
| |
| 8 And you don't realy know until you start looking, whether 9 some that aren't in the pipeline are really important.
| |
| 10 MR. SCHWINK: That is correct.
| |
| 11 DR. SIESS: So you are entering into sort of a 12 new stage of understanding the situation.
| |
| ''~
| |
| 13 MR. SCHWINK: That is correct.
| |
| 14 DR. SIESS: As of about now, I guess.
| |
| 15 MR. SCHWINK Starting with 1984 and evolving to 16 the point that now you see the SIMS reports I gave you, that 17 is how much we know about those issues.
| |
| 18 DR. SIESS: llave there been any changes in how 19 NRC goes about this, as a result of this?
| |
| 20 MR. SCHWINK: Yes. Number one, there was a 21 reorganization. They created a branch that reported right 22 to the Director's Office that specifically saw to it that a 23 generic issue regulation got transferred into licensing 24 guidance and inspection guidance, and that it actually got
| |
| )
| |
| I i
| |
| 25 transferred to the PM, and he knew that it applied to his Acit-I7tintinAi. IttironTrins, INC,
| |
| , 202 m.nx) Nationwide Cmcrage Mxt3364M6
| |
| | |
| 0960 20 20 276 DAVbw 1 specific plant, and he knew what he had to do in terms of 2 licensing and the inspector knew what he had to do in terms 3 of verification. The reorganization fixed that. The tool 4 to make sure that that gets done and focus management 5 attention on what's not getting done is SIMS.
| |
| 6 DR. SIESS: Is there any intention that you 7 shouldb e implementing these at a more rapid rate, or are 8 you reasonably satisfied with the rate and would just like 9 to know where you are?
| |
| 10 MR. SCilWINK: There's two problems. The first 11 question is, what is the backlog and how safety significant 12 is it? Then from that question, how much resource does it I'' )
| |
| ~
| |
| 13 take to work it off, if you think that it is supersafety 14 significant, and you should work it off very quickly? If 15 you answer those questions, you have a sense of resources.
| |
| 16 Myself, as director, and the management in NRR is of the 17 view that we should be working these things off faster, and 18 here is an emphasis being put on the PM to work them off 19 faster.
| |
| 20 DR. SIESS: Are they satisfied that that is 21 important to safety? l 22 MR. SCilWINK: I don't want to say that. It is 23 that they have not boon able to convince themselves that the 24 backlog that is remaining is not important to saf ety. And l
| |
| \' ''
| |
| 25 it is an unknown, so the conservative thing tc do is to try Acn.17 EnERAE REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| I 202-347-1700 Nationwide Cmerage 8tn 33MM6
| |
| | |
| 0960 20 20 277 bAVbw 1 to address them as quickly as you can. We have asked 2 Research to come up with some way, if they can, of how to 3 prioritize this backlog. Part of the problem is that some 4 of these issues never had a value impact analysis. The 5 requirerent and guidance itself does little more than do 6 good, and it is very difficult to understand what the issue 7 was. It is very difficult to understand what you expected 8 to be done.
| |
| 9 DR. SIESS: What happens when you get 200 out of 10 one incident? I have gotten the impression that if a fix 11 was as simple as, say, installing a couple of valves, that 12 the time involved for the utility to do the engineering, the 13 safety analysis, the checks, get the valves ordered and then 14 find time to do it, can run easily a year or a couple of 15 years.
| |
| 16 MR. SCHWINK: That is correct, at least in 17 outage.
| |
| 18 DR. SIESS: It depends. If they just had an 19 outage.
| |
| 20 MR. SCHWINK: 18 months.
| |
| 21 DR. SIESS: Now some things can run for two to 22 three outages. Why? The engineering shouldn't take that 23 long. The acquisition shouldn't take long. But there could 24 be other things ahead of it.
| |
| '- 25 MR. SCHWINK: That is correct.
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33HM6
| |
| | |
| 3 278
| |
| . -0960 20 20 AVbw l' DR. SIESS: 'If they are running 60-day outages, 2 there are only so many things they can do.
| |
| , -3 MR. SCHWINK: If you are asking for the kinds of 4 things the licensee thinks about, he thinks of public i 5 safety, in terms of what's the radiological release,'what's 6 the-hazardous-material release, what is the personnel 7 safety, what is the occupational exposure, what is the 8 industrial safety, economic performance?. What is'the effect 9 on plant availability, plant efficiency, electrical output ~
| |
| 10 for power rating? From the personnel productivity point,:
| |
| 11 what is the effects on the people, on-the equipment and en 1
| |
| 12 the work environment? And for external impact, what's NRC's LO 13 actions? What are other federal agency _ actions, state and 14 11ocal government actions and what are the' industry 15 organizations actions?
| |
| 16 That's the kinds of things weLsee coming in the 17 licensee's proposal.
| |
| I 18 MR. EBERSOLE: What are my friends going to think I
| |
| > 19 who are in the business with me? What if they-do something 20 I am not doing?
| |
| ]
| |
| a 21 MR. WYLIE: There's no consideration of:the 22 sequencing of putting in all these different modifications.
| |
| 23 MR. SCHWINK: You've got to' understand what it is 24- the issue resolution was trying to get at. You have got to 25 decide whether to consolidate them or integrate them, '
| |
| 7 ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage - 800-336 6646 4 - _ - - ,
| |
| | |
| 0960 20 20 279 gs (bAVbw I whether you put them into the plant with the things the 2 licensees are doing.
| |
| 3 Some of these generic issue resolutions were done 4 in a process where it was very quickly done under the guise 5 of a TMI action item or another thing, and it just clearly 6 wasn't articulated what was expected. Do good means a lot 7 of different things to different people.
| |
| 8 MR. WYLIE: But it was Dr. Siess' question about 9 why it took so long.
| |
| 10 DR. SIESS: I have a question.
| |
| 11 MR. WYLIE: They've got so many modifications 12 being done. They have to do them in the right sequences, O 13 because it takes so many outages.
| |
| 14 MR. SCHWINK: That is correct.
| |
| 15 DR. SIESS: Gentlemen, three of the members have 16 to leave, I guess no later than 5:00 o' clock.
| |
| 17 Am I right?
| |
| 18 I think you are about through, aren't you?
| |
| 19 MR. SCHWINK: I'm done.
| |
| 20 DR. SIESS: We've completed SIMS, and you went 21 through the other stuff.
| |
| 22 MR. SCHWINK: I went through the resolution 23 process.
| |
| 24 DR. SIESS: It's been very helpful.
| |
| 25 I would like to then let you sit down and turn to ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33(r6M6
| |
| | |
| , 0960'20 20 280 AVb'w I the committee to look.at what we might do next, if anything.
| |
| 2 It is entirely possible that the subcommittee feels it has n
| |
| 3 heard enough to tell Mr. Zech what we think about the 4 effectiveness of Staff's handling of generic issues. .Tha t .
| |
| 5 is one possibility.
| |
| 2 6 I am not exactly sure. I am not trying to put 7 words in your mouth, but that is a possibility. It is 8 possible that we have heard enough, tnat we have some ideas 9 on that, that the Staff might like to express some_ things 10 further.
| |
| 11 I had suggested earlier that-it might be useful, 12 if you will look at the last page of the agenda, it's where-() 13 Sam had actually summarized what we could talk about here.
| |
| 14 It might be useful to have another meeting to follow some-i 15 generic issues through the whole. process.
| |
| 16 I would ammond that now to say-that we could 17 follow them through the whole process, an'd we could simply
| |
| } 18 try to follow them through the implementation process.
| |
| l 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ,
| |
| 4 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
| |
| , , - - - _ . . - - - - . . . - - . . . - - . . - - . . - . . - . - . - - - . ~ . .
| |
| | |
| 0960 21 21 281 AVbur 1 MR. EBERSOLE: Let me just ask a question. I 2 understand this SIMS was a management generic issue, but I 3 understood it was also specific issues. We ought to say 4 down here.
| |
| 5 DR. SIESS: We won't worry about that,. Jesse. I 6 want to decide what the subcommittee is going to do at the 7 next meeting. If we could follow selected issues through 8 the whole process or we could maybe follow them through the 9 implementation process. I have got a feeling that to trace 10 it through the whole process doesn't add much. Maybe there 11 are some milestones.
| |
| 12 DR. REMICK: We have an involvement with the
| |
| (#l 13 prioritization process.
| |
| 14 DR. SIESS: And we could look at milestones and 15 see where we came into it and where we delayed it, and so 16 forth.
| |
| 17 The implementation would be more interesting, and 18 we could look at various stages, including the negotiation.
| |
| 19 These are case histories -- I will use that as a shorthand.
| |
| 20 The question would be how many can we handle in a meeting 21 and then on what basis can we choose them.
| |
| 22 Sam has prepared a list of issues that Research 23 suggested.
| |
| 24 MR. DURAISWAMY: The Research people prepared q
| |
| K/ 25 these questions.
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-(M6
| |
| | |
| 0960 21 21 282 DAVbur 1 DR. SIESS: This is from Research, as they went 2 through the process on the basis of maximum time, minimum 3 time, priority, and so forth. We might use these criteria 4 to select.
| |
| 5 Of course, we are not going to meet again next 6 week. So if you could provide us some criteria, we could 7 develop a somewhat shorter list.
| |
| 8 MR. MICHELSON: Is this both USI and generic?
| |
| 9 DR. SIESS: I don't think it makes much 10 difference. The staf f says that USIs and highs don't seem 11 to be that much different. They give them about the same 12 resources in Research in their resolution, and I don't think 13 it makes any difference in the implementation whether it is 14 USI or high.
| |
| 15 Do you make any distinction between USIs and 16 generic issues?
| |
| 17 MR. SCHWINK: We treat USIs and highs, as far as 18 implementation and implementation, pretty much the same.
| |
| 19 DR. SIESS: So USIs and highs are the same 20 categories. Medium would be another category, and I would 21 avoid the TMI items unless somebody knows a particular one 22 or two that they are interested in.
| |
| 23 Would the committee be interested in doing this 24 and involving a utility?
| |
| rn
| |
| ' / 25 If we do simple case histories, we might want the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-7700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336 4 46
| |
| | |
| 0960 21 21 283 bAVbur 1 utility representative at the implementation stage, the 2 negotiation stage, where we tried to do three or four of 3 those in the meeting and we had no idea how many we can do 4 in a meeting.
| |
| 5 That would involve lots of different utilities 6 coming in probably. I think we might get a biased view if 7 we stuck with the same utility all the time. But another 8 cross-cut on this thing would be to get one utility to come 9 in and talk about their integration.
| |
| 10 There is various generic issues at various 11 levels, plus their own plant specific issues, plus their own 12 plant improvement issues, which presumably aren't safety
| |
| (' )
| |
| 13 issues.
| |
| 14 Now, that is getting us into the engineering 15 process, but I think we all have some feel for that whole 16 laundry list of things that Ron mentioned as being what the 17 utility had to consider.
| |
| 18 k MR. MICHELSON: If we select, say, three items of 19 differen things, it would be nice that there be a 20 distribu$1on of type, one structural maybe and one 21 electrical.
| |
| 22 DR. SIESS: One that ended in a technical change 23 and one that ended in a procedural change.
| |
| 24 MR. MICHELSON: One thing that struck me in
| |
| (
| |
| '~' 25 flipping through this list as invaluable from another point l
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REP 6RTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage M)0-3364M6 l l
| |
| | |
| 0960 21 21 284 AVbur 1 of view because it is going to como up again, and that is 2 the very first issue, A-1, water hammer, which went all the 3 way through resolution. It took 60 full months to resolve.
| |
| 4 It was resolved in '84.
| |
| 5 So there is enough history now to see how it is 6 being implemented.
| |
| 7 DR. SIESS: What do you do to implement water 8 hammer?
| |
| 9 MR. MICHELSON: I would like to go back and look 10 at the whole history.
| |
| 11 MR. SCHNINK: They were supposed to change some 12 operating procedures.
| |
| /
| |
| 13 MR. MICHELSON: Whatever has been done, we can 14 now look to see what was done, what was recommended, and 15 then look at a few events after to see did that become 16 before or after implementation.
| |
| 17 DR. SIESS: I have always looked at that 18 particular one as a nonproblem, but if somebody wants to 19 hear about it --
| |
| 20 MR. EBERSOLE: They are still pulling hangers 21 out.
| |
| 22 DR. SIESS: Fine. They are pulling hangers out, 23 but they are not breaking pipes.
| |
| 24 MR. MICHELSON: Just wait a while.
| |
| '' 25 MR. EBERSOLE: Anyway, it doesn't matter, Chet.
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 .,Wrionwide Coverage 8043364616
| |
| | |
| -. _ _ . - ._~ ~. . .-. -_ _ _. - __ __ ____ _ ___ _ _
| |
| 4 0960 21 21 285 AVbur- 1 I think'we need a resolution of what these words mean. We .
| |
| 2 have resolved, for instance, on A-1.
| |
| 3 DR. MOELLER: Chet, there.is a call for comment.
| |
| { 4 DR. SIESS: Just a minute. This sheet of paper 5 that you have.was prepared by Research. Resolved means that ;
| |
| 1 6 a technical resolution has been obtained.
| |
| 7 This is what we were talking about this morning.
| |
| 8 MR. EBERSOLE: But we want.to go further than i 9 that.
| |
| 10 DR. SIESS: This sheet of paper was prepared by i 11 Research at Sam's request to give us a list of 12 representative generic. issues, their priority, how they were I-()
| |
| : 13 resolved, and the dates. This was to help us in picking.
| |
| 14 This has nothing to do with how far we go.
| |
| ; 15 They only do resolutions. So this is as far as ,
| |
| I 16 they went.
| |
| { 17 MR. EBERSOLE : That.is a paper structure?
| |
| 1 4
| |
| 18 DR. SIESS: This is facts, Jesse.
| |
| i l
| |
| 19 MR. EBERSOLE: Let's.take A-1. It says resolved 20 in '84. Okay, there was a resolution. Now, that doesn't 21 say --
| |
| 22 DR. SIESS: A-11, are you looking at?
| |
| ; 23 MR. EBERSOLE: .A-1.
| |
| i
| |
| ! 24 DR. SIESS: A-1 was resolved.
| |
| i .
| |
| j 25 MR. EBERSOLE: That doesn't say what has in fact i
| |
| )
| |
| ) /kCE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| ; 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
| |
| | |
| l 0960 21 21 286 AVbur 1 been transported to the field.
| |
| 2 DR. SIESS: It does not.
| |
| 3 MR. EBERSOLE: So it doesn't close.
| |
| 4 DR. SIESS: It is using resolution, technical 5 resolution.
| |
| 6 MR. EBERSOLE: What I am after is closure.
| |
| 7 MR. MICHELSON: I think we have got a comment 8 back here.
| |
| 9 DR. SIESS: We are all after the same thing, and 10 I am trying to get the conmittee to decide what we want to 11 do.
| |
| 12 Yes, Ron.
| |
| 7,
| |
| ! )
| |
| '-' 13 MR. EMRIT: I don't want to interrupt you, except 14 that I think it would be of great guidance to you if you 15 used NUREG-0933 because if you look at the favored issue, A-16 11 -- sorry -- A-1, you will find it showed it was resolved 17 in 1984, but it only af fected future plants.
| |
| 18 So you have got to look at the products. If you 19 are looking for a projection, it did not affect operating 20 plants.
| |
| 21 MR. MICHELSON: No action on present plants at 22 all?
| |
| 23 MR. EMRIT: At that time six months after the 24 Federal Register notice, at that time. The history is in
| |
| 's 25 0933. If you read the conclusions, I think it will be very ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6
| |
| | |
| 0950 21 21 287 AVbur 1 helpful when you see that issue to walk through the process.
| |
| 2 MR. MICHELSON: So you don't think that is a good 3 one to select?
| |
| 4 MR. EMRIT: It only affects future plants.
| |
| 5 MR. MICHELSON: I guess I have been misled by the 6 staff on. occasion. They keep talking about it has been 7 resolved. Indeed, it had been, of course, with no action 8 required.
| |
| 9 DR. SIESS: It was an SRP change.
| |
| 10 The problem we have, gentlemen, is a very 11 difficult one. Stated simply, it is that we are having 12 trouble as a subcommittee dealing with the generic issues on
| |
| ''Y 13 a generic basis. There are about 700 of them out there, and 14 if we are going to try to look at each one of them and 15 understand what happened, it would be fun, I don't know how 16 we are going to do it.
| |
| 17 Now, what we were asked to do was to comment or 18 determine the effectiveness of the staff on dealing with 19 generic issues. I am sure there are going to be a lot of 20 generic issues that were " resolved" in a fashion that we 21 didn' t know about or didn' t understand and that we disagree 22 with.
| |
| 23 Now, whether on that basis we tell the Commission i
| |
| 24 that they are doing a lousy job because they did something g
| |
| k> 25 we didn' t agree with is up to us to decide. But I think ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 m _ l
| |
| | |
| 0960 21 21 288 bAVbur 1 that the two questions that we spent a lot of time today 2 talking about -- how efficient they are in terms of the time 3 required, how effective they are in terms of how good their 4 resciution was, did they really resolve it, or if it wasn't 5 backfit was that good or was that bad?
| |
| 6 We haven' t spent much time talking about it, but 7 those are really technical rather than procedural questions.
| |
| 8 We haven't decided what we mean by effective, the question 9 of whether they have actually improved safety -- what was 10 it? 21,000 plant items.
| |
| 11 You know they have cost a lot. Whether they have 12 actually improved safety I don't know. Is that a measurable
| |
| /p,)
| |
| ''-' 13 type difference?
| |
| 14 I don't think we will ever know whether they have 15 improved safety. I think I could have fixed the TMI problem 16 with just better operator training and procedures. Instead, 17 they found 202 fixes.
| |
| 18 MR. EBERSOLE: That is right.
| |
| 19 DR. SIESS: Higher than USI priority. That 20 doesn't make sense to me.
| |
| 21 But what do we want to do? Do we want to see 22 whether we agree with what the staff did on specific items?
| |
| 23 It is really hard to do, to look backwards. In the future 24 somebody is going to review every resolution.
| |
| 25 DR. REMICK: I think the implementation, it seems ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8(n33MM6
| |
| | |
| 0960 21-21 289 g AVbur 1 to'me that we haven't looked at in depth. It would be 2 interesting to have a couple of case studies. I won't 3 propose my favorite.
| |
| 4 I think you, the subcommittee chairman --
| |
| 5 DR. SIESS: I don't have any preferences.
| |
| 6 DR. REMICK: -- should pick a couple.
| |
| 7 DR. SIESS: Carl -- for example, Carl thought i 8 that water hammer would be interesting, but if water hammer 9 turned out to be a nonbackfit issue, then the implementation f
| |
| 10 was very simple. There wasn't any except a standard review
| |
| ~
| |
| 11 plan on future plants.
| |
| 12 Now, we are back into the normal process. Some 1
| |
| (} 13 plants may have to change their design if they went into 14 operation, but it doesn't become a very good example of a d
| |
| 15 process.
| |
| , 16 MR. MICHELSON: I fully agree that there isn't 17 any process involved in implementation and that we don't 1 18 want to pick that up.
| |
| 19 DR. SIESS: We might want to argue with whether 20 it should have been implemented differently or resolved 21 differently.
| |
| 22 MR. MICHELSON: That is a different issue.
| |
| 23 DR. SIESS: I think maybe we have to put that 24 behind us now.
| |
| (} 25 If the committee feels it wants to look into ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| 0960 21 21 290 gggAVbur 1 resolution of generic issues, that is something we can start 2 assigning out to subcommittees more than we are doing now.
| |
| 3 As future ones come through, they are going to be reviewed 4 by staff and some members.
| |
| 5 So I guess we need to look at whether the time 6 and the results that have been obtained, you know, are what 7 could reasonably have been expected under the system and if 8 the priorities they assign to other resources are going to 9 be helpful.
| |
| 10 I am still interested in what have we done for 11 safety, I guess the kind of question Carl raised earlier.
| |
| 12 I had a note. I started thinking about this
| |
| (} 13 several months ago, and I am not sure I understand it at 14 all.
| |
| 15 What is A-17?
| |
| 16 VOICES: Systems interaction.
| |
| 17 DR. SIESS: And A-46?
| |
| 18 I had a note, does compartmentalization 19 facilitate resolution but adversely affect implementation --
| |
| 20 you know, break them down into manageable size. But now, 21 when implementation time comes, if we are going to do that 22 sequentially, the same question Charlie was raising about A-23 44 and A-45, you know.
| |
| 24 MR. MICIIELSON : Unfortunately, those interesting
| |
| (')
| |
| U 25 ones haven't been resolved yet.
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| . _ . . . . _ . - .- . .. - - - = . . . - -.
| |
| 0960 21 21 291 AVbur 1 DR. SIESS: We are following those anyway. But 2 again maybe the subcommittees that are looking at A-44 and-3 A-45 are already looking somewhat at the process. I admit 4 those didn't get compartmentalized too much.
| |
| 5- MR. WYLIE: One question --
| |
| 6 DR. SIESS: A-45 is pretty big.
| |
| 7 MR. WYLIE: -- as far as effectiveness goes is 8 these that have been out eight, nine, and ten years in 9 resolution, the question is why? Isn't that the real 10 question?
| |
| 11 Maybe we ought to look at those.
| |
| 12 DR. SIESS: So let's look at something that has
| |
| () 11 3 14 been in minimum implementation for a long time, not that
| |
| _there is one plan out there that hasn't got it after ten J
| |
| ; 15 years but that there's 30 or 40 applicable plants that don't 16 have it.
| |
| 17 DR. REMICK: But Charlie.said resolved. He was 18 looking at the ones that take a long time to resolve.
| |
| 19 DR. SIESS: You think a long time to resolve?
| |
| 20 Take ATWS. That is a great example. You don' t need to pick 21 that one out, do you?
| |
| 22 MR. WYLIE: I am just saying that if we want to 23 study something as to the effectiveness, look at some of 24 them that have been out there so long.
| |
| {} 25 DR. SIESS: There is a long time to resolve and a ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| ._. , . . _ . . ~ . _ _ . . _ _ _ . _, _ _ _ _ _ _ , ,
| |
| | |
| . -- . = . .
| |
| - -. .. . - -. . . . . - . - - - . - - - .~ . . . . -
| |
| -0960 21 21' 292.
| |
| .gggAVbur 1 long time to implement.
| |
| 2 MR. MICHELSON: A-39 might be a good example.
| |
| 3 That is the BWR containment instability problem, and so 4 forth. It took 45 months to resolve, and it was resolved in 5 '82, and they spent hundreds of millions of dollars J
| |
| 6 implementing.
| |
| j 7 MR. EBERSOLE: By the way, the implementation of
| |
| , 8 that is a curious thing, too, because they have never 9 confirmed the suppression pool dynamics with these big 10 downcomers, the T quenchers, the big one.
| |
| 11 DR. SIESS: Do you think that would be 12 interesting?
| |
| () 13 MR. MICHELSON: I don't know. You say you would
| |
| ).
| |
| 14 want something that took a long time to resolve and a-long 15 time to implement.
| |
| 16 DR. SIESS: That only took three years to 17 resolve.
| |
| 18 MR. WYLIE: We have got a hand up back here, 19 Chet.
| |
| ! 20 MR. EMRIT: I think I cc, help you with that. A-21 43, containment sump pump, took the longest time.
| |
| ! 22 MR. MICHELSON: That is another good one.
| |
| 23 MR. EMRIT: That is the longest time from 24 identification through resolution. That was resolved.
| |
| (} 25 DR. SIESS: Is that typical of anything we can
| |
| /\CE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
| |
| | |
| 7 0960 21 21 293 AVbur 1 expect to see now?
| |
| 2 MR. EMRIT: No. That is a worst case.
| |
| 3 DR. SIESS: I don't want the worst because if the 4 whole system is operating differently now, that only tells 5 us, you know, that maybe you weren't very effective eight 6 years ago.
| |
| 7 8
| |
| 9 10 11 12
| |
| ('' ' , 13 x;
| |
| 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 A 25 !
| |
| ( !
| |
| ne 1
| |
| Ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 # 46
| |
| | |
| 0960 22 22 294 1 MR. EMRIT: I'm just trying to address that.
| |
| (O~"TV/bc 2 DR. SIESS: If we are all looking at something 3 that got started eight years ago and only now that got -
| |
| 4 finished, we may see how it held up and what improvements 5 have been made in the process.
| |
| 6 MR. MICHELSON: That's what we have some problems 7 with, too. The Fibrous insulation, and so forth. I suspect 8 anything ACRS got involved in took a long time to resolve.
| |
| 9 DR. REMICK: When you say " finished", are you 10 talking resolved or implemented?
| |
| 11 DR. SIESS: We're talking resolved.
| |
| 12 DR. REMICK: A-44 and A-45 are probably good ones
| |
| (}
| |
| 13 to ask questions on why they took so long to resolve.
| |
| 14 Right? And that's current.
| |
| 15 DR. SIESS: What does that tell us about the 16 process?
| |
| 17 DR. REMICK: I was asking, if you're talking 18 about resolved, those are some that have taken some that are 19 current. They're not eight years ago. They're now.
| |
| 20 So those are possibilities if you're looking at 21 why something takes longer to resolve.
| |
| 22 DR. SIESS: You see, this is why I started off by 23 saying I didn't think we were going to learn that much 4
| |
| 24 looking at case studies at the resolution stage because I
| |
| (} 25 think that the ones that have taken a long time, we were ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Natiorswide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| I 0960 22 22 295 1 involved in, and maybe that's why it took a long time.
| |
| gggAV/bc 2 MR. WYLIE: That may be par the process.
| |
| 3 DR. SIESS: My feeling is I feel reasonably 4 comfortable about the rate at which they're running things 5 for resolution. I know there are things that people think 6 are dragging, but some of the dragging is going on around 7 this table. It's all internal.
| |
| 8 Now, if we can...can you think of any cases?
| |
| 9 MR. EMRIT: I was just going to tell you, you 10 know, my two cents worth.
| |
| 11 DR. SIESS: And inherent in the current system.
| |
| 12 MR. EMRIT: I don't envy you. I've studied this
| |
| (~; 13 when Sam raised the question. And I said, " Sam, you know, L_/
| |
| 14 it's going to be up to the staff, or to the subcommittee, to 15 decide on what's easy and what's difficult. You know, I 16 cannot answer that question."
| |
| 17 You're going to have to answer that question.
| |
| 18 But what we did was when we started this process back in 19 '82, we started keeping records from FY-83 through '87.
| |
| 20 These are the results documented in GIMCS. We find that a 21 lot of them have been resolved.
| |
| 22 If they did result in requirements, they're 23 requied for future plants, I think you have a difficult job.
| |
| 24 DR. SIESS: What's NR?
| |
| '^ 25 MR. DURAISWAMY: Nearly Resolved.
| |
| x_/
| |
| l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336 4 86
| |
| | |
| 0960 22 22 296 1 MR. EMRIT: That's the box we put it in when it ggAV/bc 2 got to us for resolution.
| |
| 3 DR. SIESS: Oh, when it got to you, it was near 4 resolution.
| |
| 5 MR. WYLIF You know, I've been really impressed 6 today by what the staff is doing in handling the situation 7 and resolving them and the tracking system. I personally 8 think they've done an excellent job.
| |
| 9 The thing that bothers me a little bit is what we 10 were talking about before, the global look at a number of 11 issues that are related and as to why we've taken and 12 compartmentalized these things and just looked at these.
| |
| ^
| |
| /)
| |
| J 13 It's sort of like looking at the trees and then 14 the forest. A-45 is a good example of it, where there are 15 so many issues that could be resolved. Even those like fire I
| |
| 16 l protection, as to why those aren't pulled together as one I
| |
| 17 L issue. One major global issue. That's my concern if you i
| |
| 18 talk about effectiveness and safety implications.
| |
| 19 I think that's the one that bothers me more than 20 the rest of it. Now, here, we're talking about A-44. And 21 l we're pushing to get A-44 out. Yet, we haven't resolved A-l 22 45.
| |
| 23 MR. EDERSOLE: That's been going on for at least 1
| |
| 24 15 odd years.
| |
| '"s 25 MR. MICHELSON: 317 fits into the same category.
| |
| J ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| | |
| 0960 22 22 297 1 MR. EBERSOLE: I think it's the nature of the way gggAV/bc 2 we do business.
| |
| 3 DR. SIESS: Let me take something Charlie said in 4 two parts. He started off saying he was fairly well happy 5 with what they're doing in the resolution and implementation 6 and the tracking, and so forth, the way in which they're 7 doing it.
| |
| 8 But let's take that first part. How many agree 9 with that? Do you agree?
| |
| 10 DR. REMICK: In general, I do, yes. I think 11 they've mado dramatic changes and it's beginning to show.
| |
| 12 DR. SIESS: Do you agree, Carl?
| |
| ^3 13 MR. MICHELSON: Yes, I don't have any problem (G
| |
| 14 with what they're doing in an item by item sense.
| |
| 15 DR. SIESS: I do, too. I have the same feeling.
| |
| 16 I don't have any problem with what they're doing. But I do i
| |
| 17 l have a question about what they're doing it to. That's what 18 I think, putting it crudely, I think that's what Charlie's 19 saying and that's what you said.
| |
| 20 I was trying to express it in terms of the event 21 tree. In which branch of the event tree do you define an 22 issue? If you take it down far enough, you've got all these 23 little ones that may be implemented one at a time and one up 24 here. One fix up here might have taken care of all of them.
| |
| (^') 25 I don't think there's anything in the system to
| |
| \J l
| |
| ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347 17(o Nationwide Coserage 8(n,136 6646
| |
| | |
| 0960 22 22 298 gggAV/bc 1 take care of that.
| |
| 2 Do you see it in the system?
| |
| 3 MR. EMRIT: Do you want me to address that?
| |
| 4 DR. SIESS: Yes.
| |
| 5 MR. EMRIT: I think there's been an attempt to do 6 that. If you go back to NUREG 0933, Table 5, you see that 7 it's a list of issues that we brought in and integrated into 8 the existing issues. I'm not saying that's the end.
| |
| 9 We've got to continue down that road. But if wo 10 kept track of all the issues that we've brought into A-44 11 and A-45 that we've accomplished for them, we've already 12 brought a whole lot of issues, you know, on the tree.
| |
| (; 13 Maybe we need to do more of that. And then life 14 gets a little complicated, if that's what you're driving at.
| |
| 15 MR. WYLIE I think you're right. You've 16 identified those things. I think what bothers me, I'll use 17 liarold Lewis' term:
| |
| I 18 If I were Emperor and I was running this show, 19 I'd put my effort where it was most needed. And I would 20 resolve number one, top priority comes first, A-45. I'd put 21 all my resources on that one and gotten that kind of thing 22 done.
| |
| 23 MR. EBERSOLE: Yes.
| |
| 24 l MR. IIERNAN: I thine. we have. )
| |
| T~N 25 MR. WYLIE: I'm not sure you have. My God, we're N/
| |
| i Acti 17iiniiRai. Riti>oRTi Rs, INC l :o:.147.mx) Nationwide Omerage MW)-33 M M (i I
| |
| | |
| 0960 22 22 299 1 talking about it's going to be two more years before it's gggAV/bc 2 resolved.
| |
| 3 DR. SIESS: You're talking implomontation.
| |
| 4 MR. WYLIE: Implementation.
| |
| 5 MR. IIERNAN: We're coming to the ACRS in about 6 two months to talk about A-45.
| |
| 7 ftR. WYLIE: Well, maybe.
| |
| l 8 MR. MICl!ELSON: If you really talk about A-45, wo 9 have to understand our position on systems interaction so wo 10 know when we finally propose a solution to A-45, that it's l 11 free of the system interaction problem. We don't yet fully 12 understand system interaction.
| |
| () 13 So, basically, you're right.
| |
| 14 DR. SIESS: We're going to make it dedicated.
| |
| 15 MR. WYLIE: What I'm hearing is they don't expect 16 they're going to do anything.
| |
| 17 MR. EBERSOLE: Woll...
| |
| l 18 MR. WYLIE: If that's the caso, we should havo 19 known that a long timo ago.
| |
| l 20 DR. SIESS: The solutfon to A-45 and its l l l 1 21 implementation at 130 plants might oliminato 10,000 plant 22 items. I don't know. But, if it would, that's cortainly l
| |
| l 23 where wo nhould be putting our effort.
| |
| 24 MR. EDERSOLE: But we're conditioned to work on 1
| |
| /^', 25 the 10,000.
| |
| V ACli Fl!DliRAl. RiiPORTl!RS, INC.
| |
| :02.147.17(o Nationwide Omcrage MO116(M6
| |
| | |
| ._ _ . _ . _ . - _ - . - - - - _ . . __ - _ _ __ _ ~ _ _ _ _ - . .
| |
| 0960 22 22 300 DR. SIESS:
| |
| {J?N/bc 1 I don't understand how we can talk 4 2 about station blackout and diosol generator reliability as 3 two separate things.
| |
| 4 DR. REMICK: I can understand how you might split 5 off a fragment and you work on it. But I don't know if 6 those fragments are over brought back in an integrated form 3
| |
| : 7 onco each fragment is resolved. If they're over brought 8 back and looked to soo if it solves the problem one started
| |
| ) 9 with before it fragmented.
| |
| 10 MR. iiERNAN: A-44 does integrato. Thoro's two 11 parts to it. There's the off-sito power and the on-site j 12 diosols.
| |
| i
| |
| (}
| |
| 13 DR. SIESS: They're 9till two separate generic j 14 issues.
| |
| J 15 MR. IlERNAN: Thoro's an auxilliary issue on
| |
| , 16 diosol generators, but the main resolution of the diosol 17 generator problem, I'm saying, is A-44.
| |
| 18 DR. SIESS: There's still a separato issue on 19 diosol generators that is not subsumed under A-44. It's not 20 taken out of the list. It's a state of mind, Ron.
| |
| 21 You can't give up on them. Not 'til they're 22 formally integrated. They're going to sit there adding to 23 your statistics.
| |
| 24 MR. EBERSOLE: Tho spirit of that, Chot, was that i
| |
| (} 25 you ought to make those things run as well as you I
| |
| Ace FnonnAt RitronTnns, INC, 202 347 37(o Nationwide Cmerage Mn31MM6
| |
| | |
| I j 0960 22 22 301 l
| |
| l W/bc 1 practically can.
| |
| 2 DR. SIESS: Let's get back to what we do next.
| |
| 3 If it's our concensus that we think they're doing l 4 a good job, but they're doing it on some of the wrong
| |
| {
| |
| l ,
| |
| 5 things, it's a selection of generic issues that concerned us l l 6 more than how they're being physically procedurally handled.
| |
| 7 The process is working, but they're not being logically i 8 related either in the resolution or in the implementation.
| |
| 9 Am I right? This would carry over to the 10 implementation. ;
| |
| 11 MR. MICHELSON: We don't know that yet without f 12 looking at an example or two of implementation. -
| |
| 13 DR. SIESS: That's what I was thinking. We 14 probably will'have to do it. But I'd be very much surprised 15 if they are because there's some resolved ones out there -
| |
| 16 being implemented, and some others that haven't gotten that 17 far. ,
| |
| 18 MR. EBERSOLE: One thing that bothers me is that 19 we will have a legacy now that will allow us interminably to 20 carry the OA high and the detailed surveillance high.
| |
| 21 DR. SIESS: I think...
| |
| 22 DR. REMICK: Case studies of implementation. '
| |
| 23 MR. MICHELSON: When's the next one scheduled?
| |
| 24 DR. SIESS: Whenever we can get it set up and 25- line some people up for it. It's not scheduled until we I
| |
| Ace FconRAL REPORTERS, INC. !
| |
| 202 4474 700 Nationwide Coverage H00436-6646 l
| |
| | |
| 0960 22 22 302 gv/bc 1 know what we want to do. I would think we ought to take 2 some issues or some plants -- I'm not quite sure how to do ,
| |
| . 3 it -- but I would be inclined to look for a couple of plants ,
| |
| 4 'like Northeast Nuclear, Duke -- pick some good ones. I f
| |
| i 5 can't pick bad ones. Or, at least I can't say I'm picking 6 bad ones, although the guys upstairs' don't mind.
| |
| 7 But-we might pick a third one, or something. And' 8 then look at how they are handling.the integration of the 9 implementation to see if we're getting any more integration' ;
| |
| ; 10 at that end than we're getting at the resolution end.
| |
| 11 MR. EBERSOLE: Pick a TVA plant.
| |
| : i I 12 MR. MICHELSON: Not.right now.
| |
| , 13 DR. SIESS: To me, what they're doing in the 14 resolution doesn't help anybody. They still haven't made l 15 any plants any safer. And it's conceivable that the process t J
| |
| 16 will work, Charlie, to where they've resolved.all these f
| |
| i 17 things separately.
| |
| j 18 But, when they got out to the plant, they got
| |
| .i 19 integrated. The plant stalled off on everything but DHR i
| |
| ) 20 until it was in. And then they can come in and argue on 1
| |
| 21 their PRA that the other things weren't necessary, 22 So I think you've got to look at what goes into 23 the plant.
| |
| ! 24 MR. MICHELSON: Are you suggesting that we want i
| |
| 25 to narrow our view to say three utilities? I think aren't 1
| |
| ! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. <
| |
| 202 347 3700 - Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646 l
| |
| : i
| |
| | |
| 1 1
| |
| I 0960 22 22 303 AV/bc 1 you also saying that within those three utilities, we now 2 are a view to just these specific issues?
| |
| I 3 We'll have to pick a few issues for those three 4 plants.
| |
| 5 DR. SIESS: I would be wiling -- if we could get 6 three meetings or something, I'd be willing to just have a l'
| |
| 7 couple of utilities come in and talk in general about.two l
| |
| 8 they handle scheduling and decisions on not only plant-9 specific generic issues but plant-specific issues,.and plant f
| |
| e ,
| |
| 10 bette rment.
| |
| 11 MR. MICHELSON: And then ask them on a speci,fic i
| |
| 12 case.
| |
| i
| |
| (} 13 DR. SIESS: That would be that kind of a cross-
| |
| ! 14 cut. I was trying to find some way of combining it two 1
| |
| j 15 ways.
| |
| j 16 MR. MICHELSON: We could ask them also to talk
| |
| ; 17 about the particular ones we choose as examples.
| |
| ! 18 DR. SIESS: Look, we could pick a utility or two 19 to talk to them, Sam and me, and say, Now, we're interested i
| |
| i 20 in this coordination and aglomeration, and so forth. Can yo l
| |
| 21 think of some good examples?
| |
| 22 I can suggest some; if we agree with them, we can 23 say, Okay, can you come in and talk-about those with us and 24 the staff and the project manager, or whoever we can get.
| |
| }[} 25 MR. MICHELSON: You also might want to choose a l /\CEJFEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| I 202 347 3700 . Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6 2 , . . , , . - . - - , -. _
| |
| - -..-. .. -.- . ~ - -
| |
| | |
| 0960 22 22 304 1 couple of our own to have them talk about also, not just ggAV/bc 2 ones of their choosing.
| |
| 3 DR. SIESS: No. I'm saying maybe they could 4 suggest some sense where they worked out them on an 5 integrated basis. Northeast Nuclear is ISAP. So, there, 6 you've got a real possibility for seeing complete c 7 integration. That's probably one extreme.
| |
| 8 Duke's not ISAP, but I suspect they're doing it.
| |
| 9 MR. MICHELSON: I think that would be a good 10 idea.
| |
| 11 DR. SIESS:- I'd appreciate some suggestions for 12 plants, for people, next week, when you're in for the
| |
| () 13 meeting. Or utilities.
| |
| 14 MR. MICHELSON: How old a plant? For instance, 15 Zion, would that be a good case? The reason I suggest Zion 1
| |
| 16 is because they've also done the A-46 stuff.
| |
| 17 DR. SIESS: Commonwealth has got a lot of people.
| |
| 18 They can afford to send somebody out. .
| |
| 19 MR. MICHELSON: We're not trying to pry into 20 problems, Jesse. We're trying to see how the whole plant 21 maybe handles things.
| |
| 22 DR. SIESS: Look, next week, come in with some 23 suggestions of either utilities or plants; whether we see 24 any difference between a P and.a B, I don't know.
| |
| {} 25 And some issues that might be good candiates, ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| 0960 22 22 305 1 particularly for the integration. Now, in some of these gggAV/bc 2 utilities, they won't hesitate to talk to us about things 3 that haven't been resolved yet.
| |
| 4 A-44, I'm sure they'll be willing to talk about.
| |
| 5 And let's look at that end of it. What we're trying to do 6 is get some picture of how these things come back together 7 in terms of safety.
| |
| 8 I bet you somebody like Northeast Nuclear, with 9 intensive PRAs, might be willing to venture. They must put 10 this stuff into their PRAs.
| |
| 11 They are keeping a PRA.
| |
| 12 DR. REMICK: Susquehanna is keeping one, too, or
| |
| ~') 13 Pennsylvania Power and Light.
| |
| 14 MR. EMRIT: I think we made the point to you back 15 in November when you asked the same question, in terms of 16 the evaluating process, back to 0933, a lot of issues have 17 been resolved with the staff.
| |
| 18 They're not requirements. There was a 19 recognition of these efforts. So I think we might have been 20 remiss in pointing that out this morning about the necessity 21 for requirements.
| |
| 22 They follow the program. There's no generic 23 letter issued. But they did everything we had wanted them 24 to do had we gone out.
| |
| ~
| |
| 25 MR. MICHELSON: Is that generally described in s
| |
| s
| |
| /\CE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| -h 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6616
| |
| | |
| T 0960-22 22 306 1 your resolution document?
| |
| ggAV/bc 2 MR. EMRIT: Yes, it is. So there is no 3 implementation for those items. A-16 is a good example; for 4 all the different testing and for all the different things
| |
| ; 5 we had, we came back and gave them an SER'and said 6 everything is okay.
| |
| 7 But I think you have to read some of these 8 issucs.
| |
| 9 DR. SIESS: You'said 933 and Carl said resolution 10 documents. Those are not the same.
| |
| 11 MR. EMRIT: It's summarized in NUREG 0933.
| |
| ! 12 DR. SIESS: If anybody wants 0933, we'll get it 13 for them.
| |
| 4 s
| |
| 14 MR. EMRIT: ewe'll come back and revise. 'If the 15 conclusion is the issue may be high or medium or what, if 16 it's resolved, we can come back two years later and revise 17 NUREG 0933. Whatever the resolution part of it.is.
| |
| 18 DR. SIESS: Are you talking about the original?
| |
| 19 MR. EMRIT: We've referenced that.
| |
| 20 -MR. MICHELSON:' I know there are references in
| |
| , 21 there. I didn't read those.
| |
| 1 22 DR. SIESS: If you say 0933, what do you mean?'
| |
| +
| |
| 23 MR. EMRIT: NUREG.
| |
| 24 DR. SIESS: The looseleaf?. How many people are
| |
| /~ 25 getting 0933 in six supplements?
| |
| b}
| |
| ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-&A6 e -ne- , ~ , , - - , ,c, -- , a~, -a r- va,------ - - - , - .w re--.-mn-we- e---- - e w,-- - --
| |
| | |
| I 0960 22 22 307 l
| |
| 1 MR. EMRIT: We sent a copy to the ACRS. l ggAV/bc l
| |
| 2- DR. SIESS: Sam gets it.
| |
| 3 MR. DURAISWAMY: Not all'of_them.
| |
| 4 DR. SIESS: Anybody that wants 0933,.it.comes out 5 annually; semi-annually, supplements, updates. By next-6 week, Sam will try to find' resolution reports that you are 7 supposed to have gotten. And if he can't find them in this -
| |
| 8 office, he will get them from Research, the last 10 or 12 9 resolutions. And we'll file a Freedom of Information Act ,
| |
| i 10 request for it.
| |
| i
| |
| ; 11 (Laughter.)
| |
| l t 12 DR. SIESS: And we'll have those for the
| |
| (} 13 subcommittee members so we can look at what we-haven't been 14 seeing. And we'll take care of the future that way.
| |
| 15 MR. MICHELSON: I've seen in the past on occasion 4
| |
| 16 resolution documents, but I think it's only because we came j 17 up with a particular issue.
| |
| 18 DR. SIESS: I'm trying to remember when I've seen '
| |
| 19 them.
| |
| 20 MR. MICHELSON: They're pretty infrequent.
| |
| } 21 DR. SIESS: They're not doing that many a year.
| |
| 22 Let's face it, there's only 10 or 12 being resolved.
| |
| 23- MR. EMRIT: Whatever the number is, periodically. ,
| |
| 24 If it happens in November, we'll try to get it in, into the 25 December supplement so people know it's resolved. It's no
| |
| [}
| |
| 1 1
| |
| /\CE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 5 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336-6M6
| |
| -. --.. -. . . - . . . _ . , - - , . . _ . . . , , _ . . _ . _ . - . . _ _ _ _ , . _ _ . . ~ ~ . , _ - - - . . . _ _ . . _ _ . ,
| |
| | |
| 0960 22 22 308 1 longer high priority.
| |
| gggAV/bc 2 DR. SIESS: Is that the only place they come out 3 is in the supplement?
| |
| 4 MR. EMRIT: We have a responsibility. I can only 5 speak for that.
| |
| 6 DR. SIESS: Would you send something out to the 7 other offices? Is that what goes in 0933? If we get them 8 addressed to Fraley, what are we getting?
| |
| 9 MR. EMRIT: You get the supplement which comes 10 out looseleaf.
| |
| 11 DR. SIESS: Is that what you call the resolution 12 document?
| |
| () 13 MR. EMRIT: No. The resolution document is 14 referenced within the package. It's a memorandum written by 15 somebody, sure. If it's a memorandum to the EEOC.
| |
| 16 DR. SIESS: That's what I want.
| |
| 17 MR. EMRIT: There's a thousand references in 18 NUREG 0933. NUREG to memoranda.
| |
| 19 DR. SIESS: I want the resolution document, 20 memoranda, whatever you call it, for the last 10 ro 15 21 issues.
| |
| 22 MR. EMRIT: If they were published.
| |
| 23 DR. SIESS: I want the memo stapled in one copy 24 and not stapled.
| |
| (~') 25 MR. MICHELSON: Do you send out a letter to each v
| |
| ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8m336#46
| |
| | |
| s 0960 22 22 309 1 and every utility that might be affected?
| |
| gggAV/bc 2 MR. SCHWINK: Specifically, there's a licensing 3 action for each utility.
| |
| 4 MR. MICHELSON: What do you send to the utility 5 in terms of background material?
| |
| 6 MR. HERNAN: It varies.
| |
| 7 MR. SCHWINK: It varies.
| |
| 8 It could be a reg guide, a policy statement.
| |
| 9 MR. MICHELSON: But it won't be a resolution 10 document.
| |
| 11 MR. HERNAN: That's our tool.
| |
| 12 DR. SICSS: Is that considered a tool for (T 13 regulatory analysis?
| |
| 14 MR. HERNAN: They're often published in the 15 Federal Register.
| |
| 16 MR. SCHWINK: CRGR meeting minutes.
| |
| 17 MR. MICHELSON: Maybe we ought to just look in 18 the Federal Register.
| |
| 19 MR. EMRIT: It was put in the Federal Register 20 and related to the resolution. We have cited it here. I 21 just want to show you a sample. Since we came back, this is 22 obviously one that has escaped the process of 23 prioritization. It was identified back in '79.
| |
| 24 The issue was resolved and here are the
| |
| (^)
| |
| LJ 25 references. And he will tell you what the reference ACE FEDERAI. REvonnins, INC.
| |
| I 202 347-370) Nationwide Coverage FW 33MMo
| |
| | |
| 0960 22 22 310 documents were. This reference affects all future plants gAV/bc 1 2 only. I don't envy you, going into the resolutions here 3 for any one of these issues. And these are presented.
| |
| 4 DR. SIESS: Do you get the same thing out of 5 SIMS?
| |
| 6 MR. MICHELSON: It would be better to flip these 7 pages.
| |
| 8 DR. SIESS: What's the order?
| |
| 9 There's no way you can pass that junk up.
| |
| 10 (Whereupon, at 5:05 p.m., the meeting adjourned.)
| |
| 11 12 r' ) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 C') 25 v
| |
| l ACE FEDEP.AL. REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| l 202 347 3700 Nationwide Cmcrage 8(n-33MM6
| |
| | |
| CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER O
| |
| This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:
| |
| NAME OF PROCEEDING: ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS SUBCOMMITTEE ON GENERIC ITEMS DOCKET NO.:
| |
| PLACE: WASilINGTON, D. C.
| |
| DATE: WEDNESDAY, MAY 27, 1987 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
| |
| (sigt t I
| |
| (TYPEDh f)h DAVID L. !!OFFMAN Official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| Reporter's Affiliation I
| |
| i
| |
| : l. ....- ...-
| |
| O RES STAFF PRESENTATION TO THE ACRS
| |
| | |
| ==SUBJECT:==
| |
| OVERVIEW 0F GENERIC ISSUE PROCESS DATE: MAY 27,1987 O
| |
| PRESENTERS: THEMIS SPEIS DEPUTY DIRECTOR /RES WARREN MINNERS DEPUTY DIRECTOR /DRPS/RES SUBCOMMITTEE: ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON GENERIC ISSUES O
| |
| | |
| O GEXERIC ISSEES PROGRAM FOCTIOX RESPONSIBILITY i IDEXTIF:: CATI 0X ALL
| |
| ; PRIORITIZATIOX RES ,
| |
| iO i
| |
| RESOLUTION RES l
| |
| l i
| |
| IYPOS::TIOX NRR i
| |
| ! IMPLEMENTATION LICEXSEES ;
| |
| l
| |
| )
| |
| VERIFICATI0X XRR & REGIOXS lO j
| |
| i I-v%------,--,-w..-,-v~--v--- , n e -- w. -c------ y-,w.,r--,-- - w--,-..--rw----- *r--w--,----,--~... -..,wm- - , - . . - - - . + - - - - - . - - -
| |
| | |
| . . . . . ~ _ _ . . _ . . _ . _ _ . ~ . _ _ _ _ _ . . . . _ . ~ . . _ _ _ . . _ . _ . _ _ - . . _ _ _ _ . . _ . .
| |
| GENERIC IBSUE PROCESS O .
| |
| I IDENTIFICATION ALL I I NRC ST A Fr F < OFrF I CE LETTERS > I I ACRB I I INDUSTRY I I PUBLIC I.
| |
| 1 I
| |
| V .
| |
| I PRIORITIZATION RES I-
| |
| : . l l SAFETY I NON-SAFETY I A
| |
| E A I HIGH I LI I
| |
| ; .I MEDIUM l E l 1 NR I I l
| |
| I LOW l I
| |
| ). I DROP 1 1 I
| |
| l SUBBUMED I i 1
| |
| i RESOLVED l l 8 REGULATORY I -{
| |
| l IMPACT l, l, I
| |
| O -
| |
| I GIMCs i
| |
| i I .
| |
| I
| |
| : : 1 I I HIGH I l l 1 1 MEDIUM i< '
| |
| >l N U R E G-O *P 33 I I NR I I I I RI I I I I LI I n
| |
| ; I I I I I
| |
| . V . .
| |
| I RESOLUTION I RES I I
| |
| V 1
| |
| ]
| |
| | |
| e D .O er - * . . e* e ere em e. O mwop - e w .. . . . . . . , . .
| |
| O GENERIC IBSUES PROCESS (CONT.>
| |
| ~
| |
| l i
| |
| V 1 IMPOSITION NRR I I I I ONLY IBEUES RESOLVED WITH I I REQUIREMENTS I I I 1 ESTABLIBH SCHEDULES WITH I I ,
| |
| LICENSEES I i
| |
| =
| |
| 1
| |
| =
| |
| i l
| |
| V IIMPLEMENTATION LICENBEES l LICENBEE PERFORMS NECEBBARY O l I ACTIONS l
| |
| I I
| |
| I I NRR TRACKB IN BIMS I I
| |
| I V
| |
| I VER I FF I C AT I ON NRR & REGIONS I 1 I I VERIFY LICENBEE ACTION BY I I INSPECTIONS AND/OR AUDITS i I. I.
| |
| e e
| |
| O
| |
| | |
| i O
| |
| RES STAFF PRESENTATION i
| |
| TO THE ACRS :
| |
| 4
| |
| : SUB, EC": 3R ORl" ZA" 0 s PROC ESS .
| |
| i
| |
| )A"!: .
| |
| MAY 27, ' 987 l O
| |
| ! 3R ES EN"ER: RONA_J RA-M,
| |
| ! S EC" O s _EAD ER l RES/)RA/ARG B i
| |
| ! SUBCOMMIT"EE: ACRS S BCOMM" TEE i
| |
| I Os GENER C ISS ES.
| |
| i
| |
| ;o i
| |
| i .
| |
| ; ---- . _ - -._. - - . . _ - . . . . - , - - - - - _ - - . . - - - ~
| |
| | |
| O PRIORITIZATION PROCESS
| |
| * IDENTIFY & DEFINE
| |
| * ESTIMATES
| |
| * PRIORITY RANK I i
| |
| ;
| |
| * OTHER CONSIDERATIONS lO
| |
| * CONCLUSIONS i i
| |
| )
| |
| I i
| |
| * PEER REVIEW
| |
| !
| |
| * OFFICE DIRECTOR APPROVAL i
| |
| l
| |
| :
| |
| * DOCUMENTATION i
| |
| O
| |
| .,__.__m ,___-._,-.,-_.___.__,___.-._.,,___,.---.-_...-.___-.,,__c-._m_,-m_-_,-y_._._._,.._, . . . _ _ _ , , . . _ _ , _ _ , . - -
| |
| | |
| O 4
| |
| : 1. HOW FAST ARE GENERIC ISSUES BEING PROCESSED ?
| |
| ANSWER:
| |
| Past experience shows 30 GIs are prioritized per year.
| |
| The average time to complete prioritization (receipt O of issue through Office Director approval) is (o l months.
| |
| )
| |
| l 1
| |
| 'l I
| |
| i
| |
| -4
| |
| : O i
| |
| , l
| |
| . - . - - - - . . - - . , . . . . - . . - . - . . . - .l
| |
| | |
| i GENERIC ISSUE AVERAGE FLOW FOR FY S3-S7 l NEW I I REPRIORITIZATIONI I ISSUES I I ISSUES I I 36/YR i 4/YR l I. .
| |
| . I
| |
| . V .
| |
| IPRIORITIZATION I . .
| |
| : I SAOKLOG 1 1 30/YR
| |
| * I 6 HIGH I i 10/YR I I 6 MEDIUM I I 3 NR I I 2 RI/LI
| |
| . I.
| |
| O . V i
| |
| . V . . V .
| |
| IRESOLVED I l RESOLUTION I 1 13/YR I i 17/YR I I2 LOW I 85 DROP 1 16 SUBSUM ED I
| |
| )
| |
| I O l l
| |
| l I
| |
| l i
| |
| -, ..e,- , - . - . - . -. -, . - . - - . _ . ,.
| |
| | |
| O ,
| |
| I i l
| |
| : 2. ARE TIIERE ANY ISSUES THAT YERE IDENTmED l YEARS AG0, BUT NOT YET PRIORITIZED ? .
| |
| ANSWER:
| |
| YES; we have a backlog of older issues that have not been formally prioritized. However; the backlog GIs i have been screened and many have preliminary draft l assessments. The work load has prevented the staff 1 from formally documenting the prioritization results.
| |
| Q i
| |
| 4 i
| |
| J
| |
| : O
| |
| | |
| O REMSING ISSEES TO BE PRIORITIZED AS OF (5/87)
| |
| SCREENED RANK NO. OF ISSUES HIGH 3 MEDIUM 11
| |
| .O NEARLY RESOLVED 3 i
| |
| RESOLVED 4 LOW 14 DROP. 10 SUBSUMED 6 H 7 RI 3_
| |
| TOTAL 61 O
| |
| | |
| .. _ _ - = . . _ _ .. - - . .__
| |
| i O
| |
| : 3. YHAT CRITERIA ARE USED TO DECIDE YHICH GIs
| |
| ! SHOULD BE PRIORITIZED FIRST ?
| |
| ANSWER:
| |
| Preliminary assessments of the older issues indicated they are of low safety significance, and therefore generally remain as backlog issues. Newer issues are also given a preliminary assessment of their safety significance.
| |
| : O l However, the EDO, Commission, or ACRS interests may cause a highly visible issue to be prioritized first.
| |
| 4
| |
| , l i
| |
| l O
| |
| l l
| |
| l
| |
| .w-,--..--,-_,~w-.% ., , . , , -_, ,,r-,,_ .,- , . . . . , _ _ ,.. -,,, ._ . , _ , _ - , - , , , ,-.m.., -.
| |
| n,_,,,_ , - . . , , _ - , .
| |
| | |
| (
| |
| O 4. DOES THE STAFF CONSIDER THE PROCESS TO BE EFFECTIVE ?
| |
| ANSTER Yes; the staff considers the Generic Issue Process to be effective.
| |
| * STAFF BENEFITS
| |
| * INDUSTRY BENEFITS
| |
| * PUBilC BENEFITS O
| |
| 1 4
| |
| O
| |
| | |
| 4
| |
| 'l C
| |
| CONCLUSION l
| |
| ; 1 THE PRIORITIZATIOX PROCESS IS i
| |
| ENDERSTOOD AND ACCEPTED BY: l 1 :
| |
| \ -
| |
| GA0 '9/19/84} i lg -
| |
| ACRS '1/11/83; IXDEST3Y '''ALVR PROGRAF' l
| |
| C0YMISSION {12/9/83) 1 l l
| |
| l l
| |
| l
| |
| > l l
| |
| O l
| |
| _.__.__._1__..___.._..-__-____-
| |
| | |
| O O -
| |
| O +
| |
| GE\ ER C SSJ S 3ROGRAV JA~~A l
| |
| l Subsumed
| |
| / I7 ' 'f* @ e . .
| |
| / w.ww' q: , '
| |
| U
| |
| ; 16% $P s \ Implemented 12.1%
| |
| Resolved 'M \
| |
| [ 37.3%
| |
| .q fk;,
| |
| >I 4l l
| |
| mq >
| |
| 1;d Rl/LI 5.5%
| |
| 's
| |
| %g; ,;,j gjfh' Prioritization 8.4%
| |
| L Drop 8.1%
| |
| Nearly Resolved 1.9% Low 3.3%
| |
| USI 1.2%
| |
| High 4.1%
| |
| Medium 2.2%
| |
| | |
| m
| |
| 'o RESOLETIOT OF GSIs
| |
| : STATES AS OF {5/87) i TYP3 ISSUE NO. TO BE :ESO:LVED i
| |
| O ggi g, GSI
| |
| ; 3IGH 32
| |
| , MEDIM 16 l
| |
| ; 1 XR 12
| |
| ''OTAL SS 4
| |
| O
| |
| | |
| V o
| |
| RES STAFF PRESEfHATION 10 THE ACRS
| |
| | |
| ==SUBJECT:==
| |
| RESOLUTION PROCESS DATE: MAY 27, 1987 PRESENTER: WARREN MINNERS n
| |
| 'v' IITLE: DEPUTY DIRECTOR /DRPS PHESENTER'S Nkt TEL, N0, 492-7827 SUBCOMt11TTEE: ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON GENERIC ISSUES O
| |
| | |
| <3 GENERIC SAFELY ISSUES b RESOLUTION PROCESS ASSIGN NEW ISSUE OflLY ll!GH PRIORITY
| |
| : DEFER MEDIUM PRIORITY 1
| |
| i TASK ACTION PLAN LONTRACT THACK IN GIMCS/SIMS RESULUTION INTERMEDIATE RESOLUTION TECHNICAL REGULATORY ANALYSIS PUBLIC COMMENT STAFF REVIEW l LRGR ACRS COMMISSION FRN l
| |
| O l
| |
| | |
| i 3 I
| |
| ! APPROVAL
| |
| 'l i RESOLVE COMMENTS
| |
| ,i
| |
| ) STAFF REVIEl!
| |
| t i CHGR i
| |
| I ACRS
| |
| : t i
| |
| COMMISSION ,
| |
| l {
| |
| IMPOSE l
| |
| 4 l
| |
| : FHN RULE /GL/SRP/R.G.
| |
| i t
| |
| i 1
| |
| l l
| |
| l0 I
| |
| | |
| _~ . ._ _ - . _ _ .
| |
| .d O
| |
| i GENERIC SAFETY ISSUES RESOLUTION TIME l (RESOLVED IN 1983-1987)
| |
| USI'S MIN 45 MOS AVG 54 MOS b
| |
| ; MAX 83 MOS O
| |
| GSI
| |
| ! MIN 4 MOS i
| |
| AVG 28 MOS l MAX 51 MOS l,
| |
| f 1
| |
| O
| |
| | |
| 1 1
| |
| j.s. ;
| |
| 1 2
| |
| -GENERIC SAFETY ISSUES l
| |
| l RESOLUTION PRIORITY .
| |
| PRIURIZAIION
| |
| ~
| |
| f UNRESOLVED !
| |
| l.
| |
| TMI ACIION PLAN (1980) i 18 GSI 4
| |
| i j TASK ACTION PLAN (1979)
| |
| I I 4 USI 10 GSI O
| |
| f i
| |
| e i l i
| |
| 1 \
| |
| i O l l
| |
| | |
| [a v GENERIC SAFELY ISSUES RECENT INCIDENTS DAVIS-BESSE LOSS OF AFW 124 AFW RELIABILIlY DIABLO CANYON LOSS OF RHR 99 RCS/RHR SUCTION VALVE INTERLOCKS ON PWRS BRUNSWICK / HATCH SRV STICKING / LEAKING B-55 IMPROVED RELIABILITY OF TARGEl-RODE SRV O'' OCONEE/ NORTH ANNA SERVICE WATER FOULING 51 - PROPOSED REQUIREMENTS FOR IMPROVING THE OPEN CYCLE SERVICE WATER SYSTEMS TROJAN CONTROL ROOM HABITABILITY 83 CONTROL ROOM HABITABILITY TURKEY POINT CONTROL ROD DRIVE HOUSING LEAK 29 BOLTING DEGRADATION OR FAILURE IN NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS 12 PLANTS YEAR < 95% AVAILABILITY B56 - DIESEL GENERATOR RELIABILITY
| |
| | |
| ,p_
| |
| I Q;y' .
| |
| i l
| |
| O.
| |
| P i GENERIC-ISSUE RESOLUTION ,
| |
| . c I
| |
| I i
| |
| ACRS SUBCOMITTEE PRESENTATION ON 5-27-87 i 2+ -i I 3 FREDERICK J. HEBDON k !
| |
| L ,.
| |
| t
| |
| ! WALTER S. SCHWINK
| |
| ~
| |
| t f
| |
| ,I =1 i-, i t
| |
| , s-I %%
| |
| ' )
| |
| b
| |
| * 1 T
| |
| s i
| |
| D t
| |
| p
| |
| | |
| J [ ~
| |
| ( .
| |
| REGULATORY PROCESS TO ADDRESS REACTOR RELATED ISSUES RES ham AES Dece.ea als set, han att EDO O**'''**
| |
| ( S Mo't j g i%"*'*""'''''*8'3 ( EMen j a a A.. a e o..o.
| |
| c.,,,,,,
| |
| 'e Peace v., # vs. - L h seet e
| |
| " "-. '****''. o.ee"8 : , , ,
| |
| ,,,,e,,,.,.,,
| |
| C.e. * ,. ,.,,,,,e,.,e,e, -
| |
| -e . on C.o.s.e n.o.,e . .
| |
| *e.,,,
| |
| so l
| |
| #* h* g 1 , q6 1
| |
| e i
| |
| .8 1 r as &#e .e**'*
| |
| ene.i trem Oth.e p i i
| |
| 0-,ne, oseice* ead OHitee eeuwss han RES OGC at0D f nep rtee. T g
| |
| thwss sena als CmGn, r n. . ne T Acas Commee ne'===.sa tg, e,a,,
| |
| ACRS ete ' L actea 1 A500 oGC eis e p,- L are ea J het.hsst ea ace.e, Approwel sad .8 (R esse :
| |
| one Souetee Esteenes sad othese $sternel ****c es hAC Commens se enc L_________________J
| |
| .....e.a E Mett g 5 , , ,
| |
| ( j v -
| |
| y Long Term pe.ease m.a. EMeeteo Revice yee 88 *'*
| |
| * Ae**a Innshsees
| |
| * me.new ve. -
| |
| end &#a'*u.'
| |
| W
| |
| ^
| |
| I a
| |
| st.R.ee,n.swesa.ehey
| |
| . o te e is Appe en. I e n.,ie i aene. Ca.en ace 1 l
| |
| i
| |
| : m. me T =9n , ,
| |
| I l
| |
| 4 /
| |
| i i
| |
| l 1>
| |
| Il
| |
| [
| |
| I " o",",'
| |
| "os,,,:: ,ca" Ao A.eme.eeo*e s ( .* ace.ea , e. ) O'e~r**"*'*
| |
| ( .., ne e. ) Acas ea pese.ees-oenese E m* era.s mee _ is.as % R ae se NRC I
| |
| L____________e______________J
| |
| .. . m , m.a ....a mea I"e" E Hoft NRA Deste*a $ H.es E f'ert j g , ( j ( ( j v v v v v-tohat p g,,,,,
| |
| e..e Latese.ee Devonope - - .
| |
| - S e.onse sad A
| |
| .a .
| |
| se Propeeos P'. pose g, , eAce,.e. e g p,,,,,,,e N Cs e.ct eenC easAee Res.eendes aremeate ****"*8' As n. ge,,,,
| |
| Lateae.a.ene e sad Sten to r
| |
| nam a.g.oa
| |
| ( N A R Dece ea j ( E Heat j v v sena e,t.et j
| |
| ^ w as met voe,eso *.maa Nv w aw
| |
| 'w '
| |
| _ -a
| |
| '',9* Propeeed Act as im _r e
| |
| so a .e . - ma-)
| |
| Figure 1 Generic issue Resolution Process for Power Reactors
| |
| | |
| ~
| |
| 2
| |
| .O -
| |
| GEEPJC ISSUE RESOLUTION NRR PARTICIPATION IN THE GENERIC ISSUE RESOLUTION PP0 CESS IDENTIFICATION OF A POTENTIAL ISSUE FOR RESOLUTION PRIORITIZATION OF THE ISSUE DEVELOPENT OF THE TECHNICAL RESOLUTION FOR THE ISSUE PLANT SPECIFIC I W OSITION OF THE TECHNICAL RESOLlHION LICENSING VERIFICATION OF LICENSEE IW LEENTATION l
| |
| * ROUTINE INSPECTION O
| |
| I
| |
| | |
| 3 O-GENERIC ISSilE RESOLUTION IFPOSITION OF TECHNICAL RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUE LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS-4 RULEP% KING ORDER POLICY STATEN NT REGULATORY GUIDANCE GENERIC LETTER iO BULLETIN f
| |
| OTHER OPTIONS FOR DISPOSITION OF THE TECHNICAL RESOLUTION-INFORMATION NOTICE LICENSING GUIDANCE INSPECTION GUIDANCE i
| |
| O 4
| |
| - , - - , - ~ - - - - , ,.n--v, ,,r,---. e n, - -,. . - w--
| |
| | |
| 4 O
| |
| GENERIC ISSUE RESOLUTION PLANT SPECIFIC IW LEEhTATION OF THE APPROVED GENERIC ISSUE RESOLUTION TECHNICAL REVIEW 0F LICENSEE'S PROPOSED MDDIFICATIONS GENERIC REQUIREENTS/ GUIDANCE LICENSING GUIDANCE CONSOLIDATION /INTEGPATION OF NRC REQUIRED NDIFICATIONS WITH lliOSE OF LICENSEE CONSOLIDATED RATHER THAN "PIECEE AL" MDDIFICATIONS O -
| |
| SAFETY PRIORITIZATION OF PLANT MODIFICATIONS
| |
| $ INTEGRATED SCHEDULING SAFETY MDDIFICATIONS RESOURCE NEEDS PLAhT STATUS 2
| |
| * VERIFICATION OF LICENSEE'S ITLEEIRATION SPECIAL INSPECTION BALANCE WITH LICENSE REVIEW ROLITINE INSPECTION O
| |
| | |
| 5 O
| |
| GEERIC ISSUE PESOLUTION PRIORITIZATION OF PLAKT SRCIFIC PEQUIREKhTS/ MODIFICATIONS (LARGEST NET SAFETY IWROVEENT FIRST) j EXISTING REQUIRBENTS
| |
| ! OUTSTANDING TMI ACTION ITEMS i RESOLVED GBERIC ISSUES (USI, HIGH, EDIUM AND LOh')
| |
| O
| |
| * NEW REQUIREE NTS/ GUIDANCE ORRATINGEXPERIENCE LICENSEE PERF0F#!CE INSIGHTS FROM PRA (GENERIC AND PLAhT S KCIFIC)
| |
| UTILITY IWROVEE NTS :
| |
| l i
| |
| O 1
| |
| | |
| 6 O
| |
| v GENERIC ISSUE RESOLUTION TIE FOR IFFOSITION/IPPLEEhTATION OF APPROVED ISSUE RESOLUTION HIGH PRIORITY AVERAGE MINIFUM MAXI M IFFOSITION-LICENSING 41 M 5M 131 M LICENSEE IPPLEENTATI0t' 28 M 1M 42 M EDIUM PRIORITY O AVERAGE um m inuM IPPOSITION-LICENSING 45 M 2M 130 M LICENSEE IFPLEENTATION 30 M 1 M. 69 M LOW PRIORITY 2
| |
| AVERAGE MINI M MAXIFUM IMPOSITION-LICENSING 45 M 10 M 114 M LICENSEE IPPLEEfffATION 21 M 1M 59 M J
| |
| ,, - . - . . ~. . . . , , , ,
| |
| | |
| 7 O
| |
| GEERIC ISSUE RESOLlITION PROCESS i
| |
| STAlllS OF GENERIC ISSUES IFF0 SED IIPLEN NTED VERIFICATION (ALL (ALL S CIAL/
| |
| AFFECTED AFFECTED ROUTINE PRIORITY TOTAL APPROVED PLANTS) PLANTS) (ALL PLANTS)
| |
| TMI-0660 24 18 11 11 11 TMI-0737 178 178 Ili5 109 170 USI 19 5 2 3 3 HIGH 79 37 27 12 22 EDILE 65 47 32 21 26 l
| |
| LOW 36 35 34 22 25 i '
| |
| OTHER + 94 + 67 + 34 + 20 + 43
| |
| ; TOTAL- 495 387 285 198 300 I
| |
| ~
| |
| O
| |
| | |
| 1..
| |
| LO ,
| |
| d i
| |
| i i
| |
| : GENERIC ISSUE RES0LifrION i N
| |
| t i
| |
| ! ACRS SUBCOPMITTEE PRESBiTATION ON 5-27-87 I
| |
| i BY .
| |
| l FREDERICK J. HEBDON l0 a
| |
| i m
| |
| ! WALTER S. SCHWINK 4
| |
| 4 1
| |
| U t
| |
| 3 4
| |
| I e
| |
| t l
| |
| 3 l
| |
| 1 i
| |
| LO 1
| |
| i 1 -
| |
| i
| |
| . J,_., ..m. .-,..y -- .-. < - _ - . _ _ _ _ , _ , , , . . . . _ _ .,,_ _ ,__.__......_,,,,,_,.__,_,_._,._yt.__, -
| |
| | |
| p ( - .
| |
| b U V R-1216310-001 RUN DATE: 05/21/87 SAFETY ISSUES MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 1 SAFETY ISSUE LEVEL INFORMATION ISSUE NUMBER: A-44 TITLE: STATION BLACKOUT CONTACT: A. RUBIN TYPE: USI IDENTIFYING ORGANIZATION: NRR STATUS: SPONSORING OFFICE: RES PRIORITY: U TYPE OF REACTORS AFFECTED: LWR OTHER:
| |
| DEPENDENT ISSUES: 23 DESCRIPTION SOLUTION (NEAR AND LONG TERM)
| |
| ELECTRIC POWER FOR SAFETY SYSTEMS AT NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS IS THIS STAFF IS PROPOSING THAT THE COMMISSION AMEND ITS REG-SUPPLIED BY AT LEAST TWO REDUNDANT AND INDEPENDENT DIVISIONS ULATIONS TO REQUIRE THAT PLANTS BE CAPABLE OF WITHSTANDING EACH OF THESE ELECTRICAL DIVISIONS INCLUDES AN OFFSITE AL- A TOTAL LOSS OF AC POWER FOR A SPECIFIED DURATION AND TO TERNATING CURRENT (AC) SOURCE, AN ONSITE AC SOURCE (USUALLY MAINTAIN REACTOR CORE COOLING DURING THAT PERIOD, DIESEL GENERATORS). AND A DIRECT CURRENT (DC) SOURCE. THE STAFF IS PROPOSING TO ADD A NEW 50.63 AND TO AMEND GEN-APPENDIX A TO 10 CFR 50 DEFINES A TOTAL LOSS OF OFFSITE ERAL DESIGN CRITERION 17 0F 10 CFR 50, APPENDIX A TO REQUIRE POWER AS AN ANTICIPATED OCCURENCE, AND AS SUCH, IT IS RE. THAT ALL LIGHT-WATER-COOLED NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS BE CAPABLE QUIRED THAT AN INDEPENDENT EMERGENCY ONSITE POWER SUPPLY BE OF COPING WITH A TOTAL LOSS OF AC POWER FOR A SPECIFIED PROVIDED. PERIOD OF TIME. THIS TIME WOULD BE DETERMINED FOR EACH THE UNLIKELY, BUT POSSIBLE LOSS OF AC POWER (THAT IS. THE PLANT BASED ON A COMPARISON OF THE INDIVIDUAL PLANT CHARAC-LOSS OF AC POWER FROM BOTH THE OFFSITE SOURCE AND THE ON- DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS WITH FACTORS THAT HAVE BEEN IDEN-SITE SOURCE) IS REFERRED TO AS A STATION BLACKOUT. IN THE TIFIED AS THE MAIN CONTRIBUTORS TO RISK OF CORE MELT RESULT-EVENT OF A STATION BLACKOUT, THE CAPABILITY TO COOL THE ING FROM STATION BLACKOUT. THESE FACTORS ARE: (1) THE RE-REACTOR CORE WOULD BE DEPENDENT ON THE AVAILABILITY OF DUNDANCY THE ONSITE EMERGENCY AC POWER SOURCES, (2) THE RE-SYSTEMS WHICH DO NOT REQUIRE AC POWER SUPPLIES, AND ON THE LIABILITY OF THE ONSITE EMERGENCY AC POWER SOURCES, (3) THE ABILITY TO RESTORE AC POWER SUPPLIES IN A TIMELY MANNER. FREQUENCY OF LOSS OF OFFSITE POWER, AND (4) THE PROBABLE AS OPERATING EXPERIENCE HAS ACCUMULATED. THE CONCERN HAS TIME NEEDED TO RESTORE OFFSITE POWER.
| |
| ARISEN THAT THE OCCURRENCE OF A STATION BLACKOUT MAY BE A IF THE PROPOSED RULE IS ADOPTED, ALL LICENSEE AND APPLICANTS RELATIVELY HIGH PROBABILITY EVENT, AND THAT THE CONSEQUENCES WOULD BE REQUIRED: (1) TO ASSESS THE CAPABILITY OF THEIR OF THIS EVENT MAY BE UNACCEPTABLE, FOR EXAMPLE, SEVERE CORE PLANTS TO COPE WITH A STATION BLACKOUT (I.E., DETERMINE THE DAMAGE MAY RESULT. AMOUNT OF TIME THE PLANT CAN MAINTAIN CORE COOLING WITH AC POWER UNAVAILABLE): (2) TO HAVE PROCEDURES AND TRAINING TO COPE WITH SUCH AN EVENT; AND (3) TO MAKE MODIFICATION, IF NECESSARY, TO COPE WITH A SPECIFIED MINIMUM DURATION STATION BLACKOUT SELECTED ON A PLANT-SPECIFIC. A METHOD TO DETER-MINE AN ACCEPTABLE STATION BLACKOUT DURATION CAPABILITY IS PRESENTED IN A DRAFT REGULATORY GUIDE. APPLICATIONS OF THIS GUIDE WOULD RESULT IN DETERMINATIONS THAT PLANTS BE ABLE TO WITHSTAND STATION BLACKOUTS OF 4 OR 8 HOURS DEPENDING ON THE PLANT *S SPECIFIC DESIGN AND SITE-RELATED CHARACTEAISTICS
| |
| | |
| .- - _.. - .. .-- . . - . . . - . . . . . - - .~ . - . _ . - - _ ~ _ _ ~ - _ . . - _ . - - . - . _. .. - . - . -
| |
| O O O~
| |
| R-1216310-001 RUN DATE: 05/21/87 SAFETY ISSUES MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 2 SAFETY ISSUE LEVEL INFORMATION ISSUE NUMBER: A-44 TITLE: STATION BLACKOUT POINT RANGE l NET CHANGE IN DOLLAR COST ESTIMATE LOW HIGH
| |
| ; NRC DEVELOPMENT. . NOT AVAL -- --
| |
| i NRC (IMPLEMENTATION / IMPOSITION). ... SE5 -- --
| |
| NRC (ASSURE CONTINUED COMPLIANCE). NOT AVAL -- --
| |
| , PUBLIC/ INDUSTRY /0THER ( IMPLEME NTATION ) . 3.6E4 2.1E4 5.9E4 i
| |
| PUBLIC/ INDUSTRY /0THER (CONTINUED COMPLIANCE) 2E3 IE3 3E3 NET CHANGES IN BENEFITS PUBLIC EXPOSURE. , . . 8E4 -- --
| |
| i
| |
| ! OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE . . 2E3 -- --
| |
| CORE MELT FREQUENCY. . 3E-5 1E-6 1.4E-4 1,
| |
| 4 1
| |
| 1 1
| |
| a E
| |
| 1, l
| |
| | |
| . . - . . - -. -. -_ - - . _ - . - -- - ~.
| |
| ^
| |
| o . O Of R-1216310-001 RUN DATE: 05/21/87 SAFETY ISSUES MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 3 SAFETY ISSUE LEVEL INFORMATION ISSUE NUMBER: A-44 TITLE: STATION BLACKOUT
| |
| : 1. ISSUE APPROVAL AND PLANNING: ISSUE APPROVAL DATE: 01/79C
| |
| : 2. TE.CHNICAL RESOLUTION: LEAD OFFICE: NRR SUPPORTING OFFICE (S): RES INITIATION DATE: 07/80 INTER OFFICE REVIEW / COORDINATION COMPLETION DATE: 12/83C PROPOSED SOLUTIONS / REQUIREMENTS APPROVAL BY OFFICE DIRECTOR DATE: 03/84C
| |
| : 3. REQUIREMENTS REVIEW AND APPROVAL: INITIAL CRGR REVIEW DATE: 03/84C RESOLVED WITH REQUIREMENTS:
| |
| RULEMAKING OTHER (SPECIFY1 FORM. . . . . ANPR PROPOSED FINAL REG GUIDE OFFICE RESPONSIBLE. . .
| |
| * NRR NRR NRR EDC APPROVAL TO PROCEED (YES/NO)
| |
| * YES YES YES CRGR REVIEW DATE. . . . .
| |
| * 05/84C 05/87 05/87 ACRS REVIEW DATE. N 03/85C 05/87 05/87 EDO REVIEW DATE . 0 05/85C 07/87 07/87 i APPROVAL (YES/NO), . N YES YES YES COMMISSION REVIEW DATE. . E 03/86C 06/88 N/A APPROVAL (YES/NO). . .
| |
| * YES YES ***
| |
| - PUBLIC COMMENT DATE .
| |
| * 06/86 N/A 06/86 FINAL APPROVAL AND ISSUANCE DATE * ****** 08/87 08/87
| |
| : 4. R_E_QUIREMENTS IMPOSITION NEEDED FOR VERIFICATION:
| |
| A. IMPOSITION - LICENSED PLANTS:
| |
| MULTIPLANT ACTIGN CODE:
| |
| OTHER: APPROVAL OF LICENSEE PROPOSAL NEEDED (YES/NO):
| |
| | |
| ~
| |
| O . O O' R-1216310-001 RUN DATE: 05/21/87 SAFETY ISSUES MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 4 SAFETY ISSUE LEVEL INFORMATION ISSUE NUMBER: A-44 TITLE: STATION BLACKOUT B. IMPOSITION - PLANTS NOT LICENSED: SRP REVIEW PROCESS: OTHER (SPECIFY):
| |
| C. IMPOSITION - ALL PLANTS: OFFICE RESPONSIBLE:
| |
| , D. NEE _D FOR VERIFICATION / POST IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW:
| |
| NEEDED OFFICE fYES/NO_1 .
| |
| RESPONSIBLE VERIFICATION. - -- MPA VERIFICATION PRIORITY:
| |
| POST IMPLEMENTATION .
| |
| : 5. R_E_QUIREMENTS IMPLEMENTATION BY LICENSEE AND VERIFICATION BY NRC:
| |
| COMPLETION DATE OF STATUS (PLANTS] LAST PLANT IMPOSITION. . 0 0F '130 90 IMPLEMENTATION. . 0 0F 130 92
| |
| ; VERIFICATION. . . . 0 0F 130 l POST IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW. 0 0F 130
| |
| : 6. RE_QUIREMENTS IMPLEMENTATION BY STAFF:
| |
| A. STAFF REQUIREMENTS -- SRP REVISION COMPLETION DATE: 08/89 0FFICE(S) RESPONSIBLE: NRR B. ROUTINE INSPECTION PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS: MODIFICATIONS NEEDED (YES/NO): MODIFICATION COMPLETION DATE: ******-
| |
| M0DIFICATION TEXT
| |
| *** NO MODIFICATION TEXT FOR ISSUE ***'
| |
| | |
| R-1216310-001 RUN DATE: 05/21/87 SAFETY ISSUES MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 5
| |
| 'LANT LEVEL INFORMATION ISSUE NUMBER: A-44 TITLE: STATION BLACKOUT -
| |
| IMPOS DOCKET REACTOR OL OL MANAGE IMPOS IMPOS IMPLEM VERIFY PLANT DOCKET # PRIORITY TYPE ISSUE EXPIR METHOD INIT COMPLET COMPLET COMPLET ARKANSAS 2 05000368 PWR 12/78C 12/12 90 90 92 ******
| |
| BEAVER VALLEY 1 05000334 PWR 07/76C 06/10 90 90 92 ******
| |
| BEAVER VALLEY 2 05000412 PWR ****** ****** 90 90 92 ******
| |
| BELLEFONTE 1 05000438 PWR ****** ****** 90 90 92 ******
| |
| BELLEFONTE 2 05000439 PWR ****** ****** 90 90 92 ******
| |
| BIG ROCK POINT 1 05000155 BWR 08/62C 05/20 90 90 92 ******
| |
| BRAIDWOOD 1 05000456 PWR ****** ****** 90 90 92 ******
| |
| BRAIDWOOD 2 05000457 PWR ****** ****** 90 90 92 ******
| |
| BROWNS FERRY 1 05000259 BWR 12/73C 05/07 90 90 92 ******
| |
| BROWNS FERRY 2 05000260 BWR 03/I4C 05/07 90 90 92 92 BROWNS FERRY 3 05000296 BWR 08/76C 07/08 90 90 ******
| |
| BRUNSWICK 1 05000325 BWR 11/76C 02/10 90 90 92 ******
| |
| BRUNSWICK 2 05000324 BWR 12/74C 02/10 90 90 92 ******
| |
| BYRON 1 05000454 PWR 02/85C ****** 90 90 92 ******
| |
| BYRON 2 05000455 PWR ****** ****** 90 90 92 ******
| |
| CALLAWAY 1 05000483 PWR 06/84C ****** 90 90 92 ******
| |
| CALVERT CLIFFS 1 05000317 PWR 07/74C 07/09 90 90 92 ******
| |
| CALVERT CLIFFS 2 05000318 PWR 11/76C 07/09 90 90 92 ******
| |
| CATAWBA 1 05000413 PWR 01/85C 12/24 90 90 92 ******
| |
| CATAWBA 2 05000414 PWR S /N/ ****** 90 90 92 ******
| |
| CLINTON 1 05000461 BWR ****** ****** 90 90 92 ******
| |
| COMANCHE PEAK 1 05000445 PWR ****** ****** 90 90 92 ******
| |
| COMANCHE PEAK 2 05000446 PWR ****** ****** 90 90 92 ******
| |
| COOK 1 05000315 PWR 10/74C 03/09 90 90 92 ******
| |
| COOK 2 05000316 PWR 12/77C 03/09 90 90 92 ******
| |
| COOPER STATION 05000298 BWR 01/74C 06/08 90 90 92 ******
| |
| CRYSTAL RIVER 3 05000302 FWR 01/77C 09/08 90 90 92 ******
| |
| DAVIS-BESSE 1 05000346 PWR 04/77C 03/11 90 90 92 ******
| |
| DIABLO CANYON 1 05000275 PWR 11/84C 04/08 90 90 92 ******
| |
| DIABLO CANYON 2 05000323 PWR ****** 12/10 90 90 92 ******
| |
| DRESDEN 1 05000010 BWR 06/60C 05/96 90 90 92 ******
| |
| DRESDEN 2 05000237 BWR 12/69C ****** 90 90 92 ******
| |
| DRESDEN 3 05000249 BWR 03/71C 10/06 90 90 92 ******
| |
| DUANE ARNOLD 05000331 BWR 02/74C 06/10 90 90 92 ******
| |
| FARLEY 1 05000348 PWR 06/77C 08/12 90 90 92 ******
| |
| FARLEY 2 05000364 PWR 03/81C 08/12 90 90 92 ******
| |
| FERMI 2 05000341 BWR ****** 03/25 90 90 92 ******
| |
| FITZPATRICK 05000333 BWR 10/74C 05/10 90 90 92 ******
| |
| FORT CALHOUN 1 05000285 PWR 08/73C 06/08 90 90 92 ******
| |
| GINNA 05000244 PWR 09/69C 04/06 90 90 92 ******
| |
| GRAND GULF 1 05000416 BWR 08/84C 06/22 90 90 92 ******
| |
| GRAND GULF 2 05000417 BWR ****** ****** 90 90 92 ******
| |
| | |
| ~
| |
| p j U V U -
| |
| R-1216310-001 RUN DATE: 05/21/87 SAFETY ISSUES MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 6 PLANT LEVEL INFORMATION ISSUE NUMBER: A-44 TITLE: STATION BLACKOUT IMPOS DOCKET REACTOR OL OL MANAGE IMPOS IMPOS IMPLEM VERIFY PLANT DOCKET # PRIORITY TYPE _ ISSUE EXPIR METHOD INIT COMPLET COMPLET COMPLET RADDAWNECK- 050002T3 PWR 56767C 0570C - ^ ~ 90- 90- 92- tititt HARRIS 1 05000400 PWR ****** ****** 90 90 92 ******
| |
| HATCH 1 05000321 BWR 10/74C 09/09 90 90 92 ******
| |
| HATCH 2 05000366 BWR 06/78C 12/12 90 90 92 ******
| |
| HOPE CREEK 1 05000354 BWR ****** ****** 90 90 92 ******
| |
| HUMBOLDT BAY 3 05000133 BWR 08/62C ****** 90 90 92 ******
| |
| INDIAN POINT 1 05000003 PWR 03/62C ****** 90 90 92 ******
| |
| INDIAN POINT 2 05000247 PWR 09/73C 10/06 90 90 92 ******
| |
| INDIAN POINT 3 05000286 PWR 04/76C 08/09 90 90 92 ******
| |
| KEWAUNEE 05000305 PWR 12/73C 08/08 90 90 92 ******
| |
| LA CROSSE 05000409 BWR 07/67C ****** 90 90 92 ******
| |
| LASALLE 1 05000373 BWR 04/82C 04/22 90 90 92 ******
| |
| LASALLE 2 05000374 BWR 12/83C 12/23 90 90 92 ******
| |
| LIMERICK 1 05000352 BWR 10/84C 10/24 90 90 92 ******
| |
| LIMERICK 2 05000353 BWR S /N/ ****** 90 90 92 ******
| |
| MAINE YANKEE 05000309 PWR 06/73C 10/08 90 90 92 ******
| |
| MCGUIRE 1 05000369 PWR 07/81C 02/13 90 90 92 ******
| |
| MCGUIRE 2 05000370 PWR 03/83C 02/13 90 90 92 ******
| |
| MIDLAND 1 05000329 PWR ****** ****** 90 90 92 ******
| |
| * MIDLAND 2 05000330 PWR ****** ****** 90 90 92 ******
| |
| MILLSTONE 1 05000245 BWR 10/70C ****** 90 90 92 ******
| |
| MILLSTONE 2 05000336 PWR 09/75C 12/10 90 90 92 ******
| |
| MILLSTONE 3 05000423 PWR 11/85 ****** 90 90 92 ******
| |
| MONTICELLO 05000263 BWR 01/71C 06/07 90 90 92 ******
| |
| NINE MILE POINT 1 05000220 BWR 08/69C 04/05 90 90 92 ******
| |
| NINE MILE POINT 2 05000410 BWR ****** ****** 90 90 92 ******
| |
| NORTH ANNA 1 05000338 PWR 04/78C 02/11 90 90 92 ******
| |
| NORTH ANNA 2 05000339 PWR 08/80C 02/11 90 90 92 ******
| |
| OCONEF 1 05000269 PWR 02/73C 11/07 90 90 92 ******
| |
| OCONEE ? 05000270 PWR 10/73C 11/07 90 90 92 ******
| |
| OCONEE 3 05000287 PWR 07/74C 11/07 90 90 92 ******
| |
| OYSTER CREEK 1 05000219 BWR 08/69C ****** 90 90 92 ******
| |
| PALISADES 05000255 PWR 10/72C ****** 90 90 92 ******
| |
| PALO VERDE 1 05000528 PWR 12/84C ****** 90 90 92 ******
| |
| , PALO VERDE 2 05000529 PWR ****** ****** 90 90 92 ******
| |
| PALO VERDE 3 050005J0 PWR ****** ****** 90 90 92 ******
| |
| PEACH BOTTOM 2 05000277 BWR 12/73C 01/08 90 90 92 ******
| |
| PEACH BOTTOM 3 05000278 BWR 07/74C 01/08 90 90 92 ******
| |
| PERRY 1 05000440 BWR ****** ****** 90 90 92 ******
| |
| PERRY 2 05000441 BWR ****** ****** 90 90 92 ******
| |
| PILGRIM 1 05000293 BWR 09/72C 08/08 90 90 92 ******
| |
| POINT BEACH 1 05000266 PWR 10/70C 07/07 90 90 92 ******
| |
| POINT BEACH 2 05000301 PWR 03/73C 07/08 90 90 92 ******
| |
| | |
| O O .
| |
| O
| |
| ]
| |
| R-1216310-001 RUN DATE: 05/21/87 SAFETY ISSUES MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 7 PLANT LEVEL INFORMATION ISSUE NUMBER: A-44 TITLE: STATION BLACKOUT IMPOS DOCKET REACTOR OL OL MANAGE IMPOS IMPOS IMPLEM VERIFY PLANT DOCKET # PRIORITY TYPE ISSUE EXPIR METHOD INIT COMPLET COMPLET COMPLET PNATRTETSLAND 1 05000212 ~%R 64/74C D6708~ ~ ~ ~9C 90~ 92~ ~******
| |
| PRAIRIE ISLAND 2 05000306 PWR 10/74C 06/08 90 90 92 ******
| |
| QUAD CITIES 1 05000254 BWR 12/72C 02/07 90 90 92 ******
| |
| QUAD CITIES 2 05000265 BWR 12/72C 02/07 90 90 92 ******
| |
| RANCHO SECO 1 05000312 PWR 08/74C 10/08 90 90 92 ******
| |
| RIVER BEND 1 05000458 BWR 07/85 ****** 90 90 92 ******
| |
| ROBINSON 2 05000261 PWR 09/70C 04/07 90 90 92 ******
| |
| SALEM 1 05000272 PWR 12/76C 09/08 90 90 90 92 ******
| |
| SALEM 2 05000311 PWR 05/81C 09/08 90 92 ******
| |
| SAN ONOFRE 1 05000206 PWR 03/67C ****** 90 90 92 ******
| |
| SAN ONOFRE 2 05000361 PWR 02/82C 10/13 90 90 92 ******
| |
| SAN ONOFRE 3 05000362 PWR 11/82C 10/13 90 90 92 ******
| |
| SEABROOK 1 05000443 PWR ****** ****** 90 90 92 ******
| |
| SEABROOK 2 05000444 PWR ****** ****** 90 90 92 ******
| |
| SEQUOYAH 1 05000327 PWR 09/80C 05/10 90 90 92 ******
| |
| SEQUOYAH 2 05000328 PWR 09/81C 05/10 90 90 92 ******
| |
| SHOREHAM 05000322 BWR ****** 04/13 90 90 92 ******
| |
| SOUTH TEXAS 1 05000498 PWR ****** ****** 90 90 92 ******
| |
| SOUTH TEXAS 2 05000499 PWR ****** ****** 90 90 92 ******
| |
| ST LUCIE 1 05000335 PWR 03/76C 07/10 90 90 92 ******
| |
| ST LUCIE 2 05000389 PWR 03/83C 04/23 90 90 92 ******
| |
| SUMMER 1 05000395 PWR 08/82C 03/13 90 90 92 ******
| |
| SURRY 1 05000280 PWR 05/72C 06/08 90 90 92 ******
| |
| SURRY 2 05000281 PWR 01/73C 06/08 90 90 92 ******
| |
| SUSQUEHANNA 1 05000387 BWR 07/82C 07/22 90 90 92 ******
| |
| SUSQUEHANNA 2 05000388 BWR 06/84C 03/24 90 90 92 ******
| |
| THREE MILE ISLAND 1 05000289 PWR 04/74C 05/08 90 90 92 ******
| |
| THREE MILE ISLAND 2 05000320 PWR 02/78C 11/09 90 90 92 ******
| |
| TROJAN 05000344 PWR 11/75C 02/11 90 90 92 ******
| |
| TURKEY POINT 3 05000250 PWR 07/72C 04/07 90 90 92 ******
| |
| TURKEY POINT 4 05000251 PWR 04/73C 04/07 90 90 92 ******
| |
| VERMONT YANKEE 1 05000271 BWR 02/73C 12/07 90 90 92 ******
| |
| V0GTLE 1 05000424 PWR ****** ****** 90 90 92 ******
| |
| V0GTLE 2 05000425 PWR ****** ****** 90 90 92 ******
| |
| WASHINGTON NUCLEAR 1 05000460 PWR ****** ****** 90 90 92 ******
| |
| WASHINGTON NUCLEAR 2 05000397 BWR ****** 12/23 90 90 92 ******
| |
| WASHINGTON NUCLEAR 3 05000508 PWR ****** ****** 90 90 92 ******
| |
| WATERFORD 3 05000382 PWR 03/85C 12/24 90 90 92 ******
| |
| WATTS BAR 1 05000390 PWR ****** ****** 90 90 92 ******
| |
| WATTS BAR 2 05000391 PWR ****** ****** 90 90 92 ******
| |
| WOLF CREEK 1 05000482 PWR 06/85C ****** 90 90 92 ******
| |
| VANKEE-ROWE 1 05000029 PWR 07/60C 11/97 90 90 92 ******
| |
| ZION 1 05000295 PWR 10/73C 12/08 90 90 92 ******
| |
| | |
| . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ ~ . _ , _ . . , _ _ _ . . . . _ _ . . . _ . _ - _ . _ _ .
| |
| . _ _m. -. ., . ... ._. . _ . . .. - -. . . . ,
| |
| t O
| |
| ~
| |
| O . O :
| |
| i i.
| |
| i RUN DATE: '05/21/87.' I R-1216310-001 8' SAFETY ISSUES MANAGEMENT S Y S T:E M PAGE i
| |
| {!
| |
| ; PLANT LEVEL INFORMATION i
| |
| i
| |
| . ISSUE NUMBER: A-44 TITLE: STATION BLACKOUT .{
| |
| 2 IMPOS DOCKET REACTOR OL OL MANAGE IMPOS IMPOS IMPLEM VERIFY 1-PLANT DOCKET # PRIORITY TYPE ISSUE EXPIR INIT COMPLET COMPLET COMPLET
| |
| ; ZIDN 2
| |
| ~~
| |
| 05000754 PWR T1773C 17/05- ~ME_TliOO~~ - ~ 9 0- 92~= **titi.
| |
| t
| |
| ! }
| |
| f-
| |
| * i:
| |
| l 4
| |
| 1
| |
| +
| |
| 4 t
| |
| .( ,
| |
| 1 4
| |
| I i
| |
| | |
| ._.-m . _ _ . _ _ . - _ _ . __. _ ,_ ___ ___ __ __ ._ . . _ . _ -_ .. _ __ .
| |
| 1 PAGE 1
| |
| ;E
| |
| .R-1216530A-001 -
| |
| SAFETY ISSUE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STATUS SELECTED ISSUES RESOLVED D A.T E S A C T-U A L
| |
| .....___ ....../.P R 0 J E C T E D C 0 M P L E T I.0 N SPON APPROVAL / TECH REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENT LICENSEE
| |
| , ' ISSUE NUMBER TITLE OFF FLANNING RESOLUTION REVIEW IMPOSITION IMPLEMENT VERIFICAT i
| |
| .3 SETPOINT DRIFT IN INSTRUMENTATION NRR 11/83C 05/86 02/86C i 12- BWR JET PUMP INTEGRITY NRR 11/83C 09/84C N/A N/A. N/A
| |
| : - 14 PWR PIPE CRACKS NRR 02/81C 10/85C N/A N/A. N/A. 1 3 20- EFFECTS OF ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSE ON NUCL NRR 11/83C 11/83C- N/A N/A N/A J 22 INADVERTENT BORON DILUTION EVENTS NRR 10/82C <10/84C N/A- N/A' N/A p 36 LOSS OF SERVICE WATER (CALVERT CLIFFS UN NRR 11/83C. . 05/86C 06/86C l
| |
| ~
| |
| 40 SAFETY CONCERNS ASSOCIATED WITH PIPE BRE NRR 11/83C 12/83C 12/86. ~N /A t 41 BWR SCRAM DISCHARGE VOLUME SYSTEMS NRR 04/81C 01/84C ?
| |
| t 45- INOPERABILITY OF INSTRUMENTATION DUE TO NRR 11/83C 03/84C- * '
| |
| 50 REACTOR VESSEL LEVEL INSTRUMENTATION IN NRR 11/83C 09/84C N/A N/A ~ N/AI 61 .
| |
| SRV LINE BREAK INSIDE THE BWR WET WELL A NRR 11/84C 07/86 08/86C'
| |
| ! 67.3.3 IMPROVED ACCIDENT MONITORING NRR -
| |
| 04/83C '02/88 00/94 1 67.4.1 RCP TRIP NRR 02/83C 01/88 11/92
| |
| ! 69 MAKE-UP N0ZZLE CRACKING IN B&W PLANTS NRR 11/82C 09/84C i
| |
| 75 (B-76) ITEM 1.1 - POST TRIP REVIEW- PROGRAM DES NRR 00/00C 02/87. 12/88 N/A-75 (B-77) ITEM 2.1 - EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION & VE NRR 07/83C 12/87 07/90:
| |
| s 75 (B-78) ITEMS 3.1.1 & 3.1.2 -POST MAINTENANCE TE NRR 12/84C 09/87 01/90
| |
| ' 75 (B-79) ITEM 3.1.3 - POST MAINTENANCE TESTING - NRR 03/84C 09/87 02/90. N/A j 75 (B-80 l ITEM 4.1 - REACTOR TRIP SYSTEM RELIABILI NRR 11/83C 08/87 00/89 '
| |
| - 75 (B-81 i ITEMS 4.2.1 & 4.2.2 -PREVENTATIVE MAINT NRR 11/85C 08/87 -00/89 N/A 75 (B-82i ITEM 4.3 - AUTOMATIC ACTUATION OF SHUNT NRR 11/83C 07/87 12/89 75 18-85) SALEM ATWS 1.2 DATA CAPABILITY NRR 06/84C 12/87' 00/90 N/A 75 lB-86 SALEM ATWS 2.2 S-R COMPONENTS NRR 02/84C 12/87 07/90 75 (B-87)) SALEM ATWS 3,2.1 & 3.2.2 S-R COMPONENTS NRR 11/84C 12/87 12/89 1 75 (B-88) SALEM ATWS 3.2.3 T.S. S-R COMPONENTS NRR 06/84C 08/87 12/89' 75 (B-89 i SALEM ATWS 4.2.3 & 4.2.4 LIFE COMPONENTS NRR 11/83C 12/99 01/91 07/84C 09/87 00/90 N/A j 75 (B-90 i. SALEM ATWS 4.3 W AND B&W T.S. NRR 4
| |
| 75 18-911- SALEM ATWS 4.4 B&W TEST PROCEDURES NRR 11/84C 06/87 00/87 N/A i 75 -(B-92) SALEM ATWS 4.5.1 DIVERSE TRIP FEATURES NRR 10/84C 08/87 00/90 s t 75-(B-93) SALEM ATWS 4.5.2 & 4.5.3 TEST ALTERNATIV NRR 12/85C 05/88 -05/91 +
| |
| 79 UNANALYZED REACTOR VESSEL THERMAL STRESS NRR 07/83C 10/86 N/A-86 LONG RANGE PLAN DEALING WITH STRESS CORR NRR 06/84C 09/86C 12/90 134 RULE ON DEGREE AND EXPERIENCE REQ. FOR S NRR 02/86C N/A- 09/88 09/88 09/88' A-1. WATER HADMER NRR /79C 03/84C N/A N/A N/A 1
| |
| A-2 A5YpmETRIC BLOWDOWN LDADS ON REACTOR PRI NRR 03/79C 07/87 12/89 N/A A-7 M%RK I LONG-TERM PROGRAM hAR 10/79C 07/86C 12/88
| |
| , A-10 BWR FEEDWATER N0ZZLE CRACKING NRR 08/78C 07/86C 12/90 j A-11 REACTOR VESSEL MATERIALS TOUGHNESS . NRR 11/78C 10/82C ' N/A- N/A N/A.
| |
| A-12 FRACTURE TOUGHNESS OF STEAM GENERATOR & NRR' 06/78C 10/83C A-16 STEAM EFFECTS ON BWR CORE SPRAf DISTRIBU NRR 11/78C 03/83C N/A 4 A-24 QUALIFICATION OF CLASS IE SAFETY-RELATED NRR 08/80C 05/87 09/89 j A-26 REACTOR VESSEL PRESSURE TRANSIENT PROTEC NRR 08/76C 06/84C 00/89 A-36 (C-10) . CONTROL OF HEAVY LOADS OVER SPENT FUEL P NRR 02/80C 03/89 A-36 (C-15) CONTROL OF HEAVY LOADS -PHASE II.(FOLLO NRR 05/83C 01/86C 12/86 1
| |
| 4 4
| |
| 4
| |
| .k
| |
| - - - - . .- , ,,m, .- , , - -
| |
| | |
| ~
| |
| O O C' PAGE 2 R-1216530A-001 SAFETY ISSUE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STATUS SELECTED ISSUES RESOLVED ACTUAL /PR0JECTED C0MPLETION DATES SPON APPROVAL / TECH REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENT LICENSEE ISSUE NUMBER TITLE OFF PLANNING RESOLUTION REVIEW IMPOSITION IMPLEMENT VERIFICAT
| |
| ~~~ ~ ~"
| |
| 5 39 bETkRMkkkTkbhbFbkVPbbLbYhkMkb"Lbkbb~EkR ~kkh78b kb/kkb A-41 LONG-TERM SEISMIC PROGRAM NRR 11/78C 10/84C N/A N/A N/A A-42 PIPE CRACKS IN BOILING WATER REACTORS NRR 07/81C 06/86 N/A A-43 CONTAINMENT EMERGENCY SUMP PREFORMANCE NRR 01/81C 10/85C 10/85C 10/85 N/A N/A B-10 BEHAVIOR OF BWR MARK III CONTAINMENTS NRR 06/78C 09/84C B-19 THERMAL HYDRAULIC STABILITY NRR 06/78 05/85C B-26 STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF CONTAINMENT PENE NRR 06/78C 09/84C N/A N/A N/A B-53 LOAD BREAK SWITCH NRR 06/78C 07/83C B-54 ICE CONDENSER CONTAINMENTS NRR 06/78C 10/84C B-55 IMPROVE RELIABILITY OF TARGET ROCK SAFET RES 11/83C /86 N/A N/A N/A B-56 DIESEL GENERATOR RELIABILITY NRR /83C 07/83C 11/87C 11/88 11/89 N/A B-58 PASSIVE MECHANICAL FAILURES NRR 06/78C 07/85C N/A N/A N/A B-59 (E-04) BWR SINGLE LOOP OPERATION NRR 03/82C 06/87 00/87 N/A B-59 (E-05) W N-1 LOOP OPERATION NRR 12/76C 11/84C 12/89 N/A B-60 LOOSE PARTS MONITORING SYSTEMS NRR 06/78C 09/84C N/A N/A N/A C-11 ASSESSMENT OF FAILURE AND RELIABILITY OF NRR 06/78C 07/85C N/A N/A N/A GI-IE-85-005 RESOLUTION OF IMPORTANT-TO-SAFETY ISSUES RES 06/84C 05/86C GI-IE-85-010 "UNDERVULTAGE TRIP ATTACH. OF WESTINGHOU DIE 11/85C 11/85C 11/85C GI-IE-85-011 MOTOR-OPER. VALVE COMMON MODE FAIL. DURI OIE 07/85C 10/85C 11/85C HF 1.2 ENGINEERING EXPERTISE ON SHIFT NRR N/A N/A 10/85C N/A 10/85N HF 1.3 GUIDANCE ON LIMITS AND CONDITIONS OF SHI NRR N/A N/A 06/86C I.A.1.1.1 SHIFT TECHNICAL ADVISOR - ON DUTY NRR 00/00C I.A.1.1.2 SHIFT TECHNICAL ADVISOR - TECH SPECS NRR 00/00C N/A N/A I.A.1.1.3 SHIFT TECHNICAL ADVISOR - TRAINED PER LL NRR 11/80C 09/86 I.A.1.1.4 SHIFT TECHNICAL ADVISOR - DESCRIBE LONG NRR 00/00C I.A.I.2 SHIFT SUPERVISOR RESPONSIBILITIES NRR 00/00C I.A.I.3.1 SHIFT MANNING - LIMIT OVERTIME NRR 10/80C I.A.1.3.2 SHIFT MANNING - MIN SHIFT CREW NRR 00/00C I.A.1.4 LONG-TERM UPGRADE OF OPERATIONS PERSONNE NRR 05/80C /82C 01/84C 04/83 04/83 1.A.2.1.1 IMMEDIATE UPGRADING OF RO & SRO TRAINING NRR 00/00C I.A.2.1.2 IMMEDIATE UPGRADING OF RO & SRO TRAINING NRR 00/00C I.A.2.1.3 IMMEDIATE UPGRADING OF RO & SRO TRAINING NRR 00/00C I.A.2.1.4 IMMEDIATE UPGRADING OF RO & SRO TRAINING NRR 00/00C I.A.2.1.5 IMMEDIATE UPGRADING OF RO & SRO TRAINING NRR 00/00C I.A.2.2 TRAINING AND OUALIFICATIONS OF OPERATING NRR 05/80C 06/85C 12/86 03/85 03/87 I.A.2.3 ADMINISTRATION OF TRAINING PROGRAMS NRR 00/00C I.A.2.6(4) OPERATOR WORKSHOPS NRR 09/85C I.A.2.7 ACCREDITATION OF TRAINING INSTITUTIONS NRR 05/80C 06/85C 12/86 03/85 03/87 I.A.3.1.1 REVISE SCOPE & CRITERIA FOR LICENSING EX NRR 00/00C I.A.3.1.2 REVISE SCOPE & CRITERIA FOR LICENSING EX NRR 00/00C I.A.3.1.3.A REVISE SCOPE & CRIT. FOR LIC. EXAMS - SI NRR 00/00C 10/85C I.A.3.1.3.B REVISE SCOPE & CRIT. FOR LIC. EXAMS - SI NRR 00/00C 12/83C I.A.3.4 LICENSING OF ADDITIONAL OPERATIONS PERSO NRR 05/80C N/A 02/85C I.A.4.2 LONG TERM TRAINING SIMULATOR UPGRADE NRR 05/80C 04/86C 03/87 /90 /90
| |
| | |
| ~
| |
| O . O O~
| |
| PAGE 3 R-1216530A-001 SAFETY ISSUE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STATUS SELECTED ISSUES RESOLVED .
| |
| ACTUAL /PR0JECTED C0MPLETION DATES SPON APPROVAL / TECH REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENT LICENSEE ISSUE NUMBER TITLE OFF PLANNING RESOLUTION REVIEW IMPOSITION IMPLEMENT VERIFICAT I.B.1.2 EVALUATION OF ORGANIZATION & MANAGEMENT NRR 00/00C I.C.1.1 SHORT-TERM ACCIDENT & PROCEDURES REVIEW NRR 00/00C I.C.1.2.A SHORT-TERM ACCID. & PROCEDURES REV. - IN NRR 10/80C 12/90 N/A I.C.1.2.B SHORT-TERM ACCID. & PROCEDURES REV. - IN NRR 04/83C 12/99 03/91 I.C.1.3.A SHORT-TERM ACCID. & PROCEDURES REV - TRA NRR 00/00C 12/90 N/A I.C.1.3.B SHORT. TERM ACCID. & PROCEDURES REV. - TR NRR 04/83C 12/99 03/91 I.C.2 SHIFT & RELIEF TURNOVER PROCEDURES NRR 00/00C I.C.3 SHIFT. SUPERVISOR RESPONSIBILITY NRR 00/00C I.C.4 CONTROL-ROOM ACCESS NRR 00/00C I.C.5 FEEDBACK OF OPERATING EXPERIENCE NRR 10/80C I.C.6 VERIFY CORRECT PERFORMANCE OF OPERATING NRR 00/00C 06/87 00/87 I.C.7.1 NSSS VENDOR REV. OF PROC - LOW POWER TES NRR 00/00C I.C.7.2 NSSS VENDOR REV. OF PROC - POWER ASCENSI NRR 00/00C I.C.8 PILOT MON OF SELECTED EMERGENCY PROC FOR NRR 00/00C I.C.9 LONG TERM PROGRAM PLAN FOR UPGRADING PRO NRR 05/80C 07/85C 07/85C I.D.1 CONTROL-ROOM DESIGN REVIEWS NRR 00/00C I.D.2.1 PLANT-SAFETY PARAMETER DISPLAY CONSOLE - NRR 10/86C 01/89 12/90 I.D.2.2 PLANT-SAFETY PARAMETER DISPLAY CONSOLE - NRR 04/83C 01/89 12/90 I.D.2.3 PLANT-SAFETY PARAMETER DISPLAY CONSOLE - NRR 10/86C 01/89 12/90 I.G.I.1 TRAINING DURING LOW-POWER TESTING - PROP NRR 00/00C 06/84C I.G.I.2 TRAINING DURING LOW-POWER TESTING - SUBM NRR 00/00C 06/84C I.G.1.3 TRAINING DURING LOW-POWER TESTING - TRAI NRR 00/00C I.G.2 SCOPE OF PREOPERATIONAL AND LOW POWER TE NRR 05/80C /81C 07/81C II.A.1 SITING POLICY REFORMULATION NRR 05/80C 09/84C II.B.I.1 REACTOR-COOLANT SYSTEM VENTS - DESIGN VE NRR 04/83C 04/86C II.B.I.2 REACTOR-COOLANT SYSTEM VENTS - INSTALL V NRR 04/83C 06/86 ;
| |
| 11.B.1.3 REACTOR-COOLANT SYSTEM VENTS - PROCEDURE NRR 00/00C 06/86 II.B.2.1 PLANT SHIELDING - REVIEW DESIGNS NRR 10/80C 10/85C II.B.2.2 PLANT SHIELDING - CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TO NRR 10/80C 12/84C II.B.2.3 L NRR 00/00C 07/87 12/87 1 II.B.2.4 PLANT SHIELDING- EQUIPMENT PLANT SHIELDING - PLANT MODIFICATIONS QUALIFICATI (0 NRR 00/00C II.B.3.1 POSTACCIDENT SAMPLING - INTERIM SYSTEM NRR 00/00C II.B.3.2 POSTACCIDENT SAMPLING - CORRECTIVE ACTIO NRR 12/85C N/A II.B,3.3 POSTACCIDENT SAMPLING - PROCEDURES NRR 00/00C II.B.3.4 POSTACCIDENT SAMPLING - PLANT MODIFICATI NRR 12/85C 08/87 08/90 II.B.4.1 TRAINING FOR MITIGATING CORE DAMAGE - DE NRR 00/00C i II.B.4.2.A TRAINING FOR MITIGATING CORE DAMAGE - IN NRR 00/00C 04/85C 10/85C II.B.4.2.B TRAINING FOR MITIGATING CORE DAMAGE - CO NRR 00/00C II.B.6 RISK RED. FOR OPER. REACTORS AT SITES WI NRR 05/80C 09/85C II.B.8 RULEMAKING PROCEEDING ON DEGRADED CORE A NRR 05/80C 08/85C N/A N/A N/A II.C.1 INTERIM RELIABILITY EVALUATION PROGRAM NRR 05/80C 07/85C II.C.2 CONTINUATION OF INTERIM RELIABILITY EVAL NRR 05/80C 09/85C II.D.I.1 RELIEF & SAFETY VALVE TEST REQUIREMENTS NRR 07/79C 07/87 00/90 05/84C II.D.1.2.A RELIEF & SAFETY VALVE TEST REQUIREMENTS NRR 06/86C 07/87 00/90
| |
| | |
| N. .
| |
| PAGE 4 R-1216530A-001 SAFETY ISSUE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STATUS SELECTED ISSUES RESOLVED A C T U A L. R 0 J E C T E D C0MPLETION DATES
| |
| ________....___/__P_____..._____________ ...__..________________________
| |
| SPON APPROVAL / TECH REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENT LICENSEE ISSUE NUMBER TITLE OFF PLANNING RESOLUTION REVIEW IMPOSITION IMPLEMENT VERIFICAT II.D.1.2.8 RELIEF & SAFETY VALVE TEST REQUIREMENTS NRR 00/00C 12/99 09/90 09/85C II.D.1.3 RELIEF & SAFETY VALVE TEST REQUIREMENTS NRR 12/84C 07/87 00/90 05/84C II.D.3.1 VALVE POSITION INDICATION - INSTALL DIRE NRR 00/00C II.D.3.2 VALVE POSITION INDICATION - TECH SPECS NRR 00/00C II.E.1.1.1 AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM EVALUATION - NRR 00/00C 00/87 II.E.1.1.2 AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM EVALUATION - NRR 10/80C 00/87 II.E.1.1.3 AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM EVALUATIONS - NRR 00/00C 00/87 II.E.1.2.1.A AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM INITIATION & NRR 00/00C 04/87 II.E.1.2.1.B AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM INITIATION & NRR 00/00C 04/87 II.E.1.2,2.A AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM INITIATION & NRR 00/00C II.E.1.2.2.8 AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM INITIATION & NRR 00/00C 06/84N 06/86N II.E.1.2.2.C AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM INITIATION & NRR 00/00C 06/86 II.E.2.2 RESEARCH ON SMALL BREAK LOCAS AND ANOMAL RES 05/80C 07/85C N/A N/A N/A II.E.3.1.1 EMERGENCY POWER FOR PRESSURIZER HEATERS NRR 00/00C II.E.3.1.2 EMERGENCY POWER FOR PRESSURIZER HEATERS NRR 00/00C II.E.4.1.1 DEDICATED HYDROGEN PENETRATIONS - DESIGN NRR 10/80C II.E.4.1.2 DEDICATED HYDROGEN PENETRATIONS - REVIEW NRR 00/00C II.E.4.1.3 DEDICATED HYDROGEN PENETRATION - INSTALL NRR 00/00C 00/89 -
| |
| II.E.4.2.1-4 CONTAIMENT ISOLATION DEPENDABILITY - IMP NRR 10/80C II.E.4.2.5.A CONTAINMENT ISOLAT. DEPENDABILITY - CNTM NRR 10/80C 12/86 06/82C II.E.4.2.5.B CONTAINMENT ISOLATION DEPENDABILITY - CN NRR 00/00C 12/86 04/88 II.E.4.2.6 CONTAINMENT ISOLATION DEPENDABILITY - CN NRR 00/00C 09/87 04/88 II.E.4.2.7 CONTAINMENT ISOLATION DEPENDABILITY - RA NRR 00/00C 09/87 04/88 II.E.4.2.8 CONTAINMENT ISOLATION DEPENDABILITY - TE NRR 00/00C II.E.5.1 B&W DESIGN EVALUATION NRR 05/80C 03/83C II.E.5.2 B & W REACTOR TRANSIENT RESPONSE TASK F0 NRR 05/80C 09/84C II.F.1.1 ACCIDENT-MONITORING - PROCEDURES NRR II.F.1.2.A ACCIDENT-MONITORING - NOBLE GAS MONITOR NRR 00/00C 03/89 II.F.1.2.B ACCIDENT-MONITORING - IODINE / PARTICULATE NRR 04/83C 03/89 II.F.1.2.C ACCIDENT-MONITORING - CONTAINMENT HIGH-R NRR 00/00C 03/89 II.F.1.2.D ACCIDENT-MONITORING - CONTAINMENT PRESSU NRR 06/81C 09/88 II.F.1.2.E ACCIDENT-MONITORING - CONTAINMENT WATER NRR 10/80C 09/88 II.F.1.2.F ACCIDENT-MONITORING - CONTAINMENT HYDROG NRR 06/81C 07/90 II.F.2.1 INSTRUMENTATION FOR DETECT. OF INADEQUAT NRR 00/00C II.F.2.2 INSTRUMENTATION FOR DE1ECT. OF INADEQUAT NRR 00/00C II.F.2.3 INSTRUMENTATION FOR DETECT. OF INADEQUAT NRR 12/83C N/A II.F.2.4 INSTRUMENTATION FOR DETECT. OF INADEQUAT NRR 12/83C 12/88 01/91 II.F.2,5 INSTRUMENTATION FOR DETECT. OF INADEQUAT NRR 00/00C N/A II.G.1.1 POWER SUPP. FOR PRESSURIZER RELIEF, BLOCK NRR 00/00C II.G.1.2 POWER SUPP. FOR PRESSURIZER RELIEF. BLOCK NRR 00/00C III.A.1.1 EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS, SHORT TERM NRR 00/00C III.A.1.2.1 UPGRADE EMERGENCY SUPPORT FACILITIES - I NRR 00/00C III.A.1.2.2 UPGRADE EMERGENCY SUPPORT FACILITIES - D NRR 00/00C III.A.I.2.3 UPGRADE EMER SUPPORT FACILITIES-MODS INC NRR 00/00C
| |
| | |
| O
| |
| ~
| |
| O O PAGE 5 R-1216530A-001 SAFETY ISSUE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM .
| |
| STATUS SELECTED ISSUES RESOLVED ACTUAL / PROJECTED C0MPLETION DATES SPON APPROVAL / TECH REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENT LICENSEE ISEUE NUMBER TITLE OFF PLANNING RESOLUTION REVIEW IMPOSITION IMPLEMENT VERIFICAT III.A.1.3[2] MAINTAIN SUPPLIES OF THYROID BLOCKING AG OIE 05/80C 08/85C N/A N/A N/A III.A.2.1 UPGRADE PREPAREDNESS - UPGRADE EMERGENCY NRR 00/00C III.A.2.2 UPGRADE PREPAREDNESS - METEROR0 LOGICAL D NRR 04/82C 12/87 06/90 III.A.3.4 NUCLEAR DATA LINK OIE 05/80C 06/85C N/A N/A N/A III.D.1.1.1 PRIMARY COOLANT OUTSIDE CONTAIMENT - LEA NRR 00/00C III.D.1.1.2 PRIMARY COOLANT DUTSIDE CONTAIMENT - TEC NRR 00/00C N/A N/A III.D.2.3(1) DEVELOP PROCEDURES TO DISCRIMINATE BETWE NRR 05/80C 08/85C N/A. N/A N/A III.D.2.382) DISCRIMINATE BETWEEN SITES AND PLANTS TH NRR 05/80C 08/85C N/A N/A N/A III.D.2.3(3) ESTABLISH FEASIBLE METHOD OF PATHWAY INT NRR 05/80C 08/85C N/A N/A N/A III.D.2.3(4) LIQUID PATHWAY RADIOLOGICAL CONTROL NRR 05/80C 08/85C N/A N/A N/A III.D.2.5 0FFSITE DOSE CALCULATION MANUAL NRR 05/80C 01/84C N/A N/A N/A III.D.3.1 RADIATION PROTECTION PLANS NRR 01/83C 05/86C 05/86C l III.D.3.3.1 INPLANT RAD. MONIT. - PROVIDE MEANS TO D NRR 00/00C j III.D.3.3.2 INPLANT RADIATION MONIT. - MODIFICATIONS NRR 10/80C III.D.3.4.1 CONTROL ROOM HABITABTLTTY - REVTEW NRR 00/00C 12/89 11/84C i
| |
| l III.D.3.4.2 CONTROL ROOM HABITABILITY - SCHEDULE MOD NRR 09/86C 12/89 l III.D.3.4.3 CONTROL ROOM HABIT /BILITY - IMPLEMENT MO NRR 00/00C 08/85C l II.K.1.1 IE BULLETINS 05, 79-05A 79-05B NRR 00/00C 11/86C II.K,1.10 IE BULLETINS - OPERABILITY STATUS NRR 00/00C l II.K.1.19 IE BULLETINS - TRIP PER LOW LEVEL B/S NRR 00/00C
| |
| ! II.K.1.2 IE BULLETINS 06, 79-068 NRR 00/00C 09/85C 09/85C 09/85C l II.K.1.20 IE BULLETINS - PROMPT MANUAL REACTOR TRI NRR 00/00C l
| |
| II.K.1.21 IE BULLETINS - AUTO SG ANTICIPATORY REAC NRR 00/00C i II.K.I.22 IE BULLETINS - AUX. HEAT REM SYSTM, PROC NRR 00/00C 07/86C t II.K.1.23 IE BULLETINS - RV LEVEL, PROCEDURES NRR 00/00C l II.K.I.3 IE BULLETINS 06, 79-06A. 79-06A REV NRR 00/00C 09/85C 09/85C 09/85C l II.K.1.4 IE BULLETINS 03 NRR 00/00C II.M.1.5 IE BULLETINS - REVIEW ESF VALVES NRR 00/00C II.K.2.10 ORDERS ON B&W PLANTS - SAFETY-GRADE TRIP NRR 00/00C 00/87 l II.K.2.11 ORDERS ON B&W PLANTS - OPERATOR TRAINING NRR 00/00C 02/82C 04/86C 06/86C l II.K.2.13 ORDERS ON B&W PLANTS - THERMAL E CHANICA NRR 00/00C II.K.2.14 ORDERS ON B&W PLANTS - LIFT FREQUENCY OF NRR 00/00C N/A II.K.2.15 ORDERS ON B&W PLANTS - EFFECTS OF SLUG F NRR 00/00C II.K.2.16 ORDERS ON B&W PLANTS - RCP SEAL DAMAGE NRR 00/00C 00/87 N/A II.K.2.17 ORDERS ON B&W PLANTS - VOIDING IN RCS (C NRR 08/80C 01/84 06/85C II.K.2.19 BENCHMARK ANALYSIS OF SEQUENTIAL AFW FLO NRR 00/00C II.K.2.2 ORDERS ON B&W PLANTS - PROCEDURES TO CON NRR 00/00C II.K.2.20 ORDERS ON B&W PLANTS - SYSTEM RESPONSE T NRR 00/00C 08/81C 08/81C N/A II.K.2.8 ORDERS ON B&W PLANTS - UPGRADE AFW SYSTE NRR 00/00C 11/80C 11/80C .
| |
| II.K.2.9 ORDERS ON B&W PLANTS - FEMA ON ICS NRR OS/80C II.K.3.1.A FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS B&O TASK FORCE - A NRR 10/86C 03/84C II.K.3.1.B FINAL RECDP99ENDATIONS,8&O TASK FORCE - A NRR 00/00C II.K.3.10 FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS,B&O TASK FORCE - P NRR 00/00C 00/87 II.K.3.11 FINAL REC 0999ENDATIONS B&O TASK FORCE - J NRR 00/00C
| |
| | |
| PAGE 6 l R-1216530A-001 SAFETY ISSUE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STATUS SELECTED ISSUES RESOLVED ACTUAL C0MPLETION DATES
| |
| ...... ......../ P R 0 J E C T E D SPON APPROVAL / TECH REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENT LICENSEE ISSUE NUMBER TITLE OFF PLANNING RESOLUTION REVIEW IMPOSITION IMPLEMENT VERIFICAT II.K.3.12.A FINAL RECOM..B&O TASK FORCE - ANTICIP. T NRR 00/00C II.K.3.12.B FINAL RECOM..B&O TASK FORCE - ANTICIPATO NRR 00/00C II.K.3.13.A FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS.B&O TASK FORCE - H NRR 10/80C 03/89 02/86C II.K.3.13.8 FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS B&O TASK FORCE - H NRR 00/00C 03/89 II.K.3.14 FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS.B&O TASK FORCE - I NRR 00/00C 06/82C 12/81C II.K.3.15 FINAL RECOPe4ENDATIONS,B&O TASK FORCE - I NRR 00/00C
| |
| ! II.K,3.16.A FINAL RECOM..B&O TASK FORCE - CHALLENGE NRR 00/00C 05/86C l II.H.3.16.B FINAL RECOM. .B&O TASK FORCE - CHALLENGE NRR 00/00C II.K.3.17 FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS,B&O TASK FORCE - E NRR 00/00C II.K.3.18.A FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS,8&O TASK FORCE - A NRR 00/00C 05/87 11/89 06/83C II.K.3.18.B FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS.B&O TASK FORCE . A NRR 04/83C 05/87 11/89 06/83C .
| |
| II.K.3,18.C FINAL RECOP94ENDATIONS,B&O TASK FORCE - A NRR 00/00C 05/87 11/89 II.K.3.19 FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS,8&O TASK FORCE - I NRR 00/00C 05/85C II.K.3.2 FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS,B&O TASK FORCE - R NRR 00/00C 03/85C II.K.3.20 FINAL RECOP94ENDATIONS B&O TASK FORCE - L NRR 00/00C / C / C II.K.3.21.A FINAL RECope9ENDATIONS,8&O TASK FORCE - R NRR 10/80C 10/83C II.K.3.21.8 FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS.B&O TASK FORCE - R NRR 00/00C II.K.3.22.A FINAL RECOPO4ENDATIONS,B&O TASK FORCE - R NRR 01/82C II.K.3.22.8 FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS,B&O TASK FORCE - R NRR 01/82C II.K.3.24 FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS.B&O TASK FORCE - S NRR 00/00C II.K.3.25.A FINAL REC 0pe4ENDATIONS,B&O TASK FORCE . P NRR 00/00C II.K.3.25.8 FINAL REC 0pe4ENDATIONS.B&O TASK FORCE - P NRR 10/80C 01/90 II.K.3.27 FINAL REC 0pe4ENDATIONS.B&O TASK FORCE - C NRR 10/80C 03/89 II.K.3.28 FINAL REC 0pe4ENDATIONS B&O TASK FORCE - Q NRR 03/83C 03/89 II.K.3.29 FINAL REC 0094ENDATIONS B&O TASK FORCE - P NRR 00/00C 02/84C 02/86C N/A II.K.3.3 FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS,B&O TASK FORCE - R NRR 00/00C II.K.3.30.A FINAL REC 0t#4ENDATIONS,8&O TASK FORCE - S NRR 03/83C 01/88 01/87 02/85C II.K.3.30.8 FINAL RECOP99ENDATIONS,8&O TASK FORCE - S NRR 03/83C 01/88 03/88 02/85C II.K.3.30.C FINAL REcopetENDATIONS.B&O TASK FORCE - S NRR 00/00C II.K 3.31 FINAL RECOpe4ENDATIONS.B&O TASK FORCE - C NRR 03/85C 06/88 03/89 02/87C II.K.3.40 FINAL REC 0pe4ENDATIONS.B&O TASK FORCE . R NRR 00/00C N/A N/A
| |
| , II.K.3.43 FINAL REC 09#4ENDATIONS.B&O TASK FORCE - E NRR 00/00C N/A N/A I II.K.3.44 FINAL RECOM. .B&O TASK FORCE - EVAL. TRAN NRR 10/80C 03/83C II.K.3.45 FINAL RECOM..B&O TASK FORCE - MANUAL DEP NRR 00/00C 03/83C II.K.3.46 RESPONSE TO LIST OF CONCERNS FROM ACRS C NRR 00/00C II.K.3.5.A FINAL RECO$e4ENDATIONS,8&O TASK FORCE - A NRR 00/00C 11/90 09/85C II.K.3.5.8 FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS.B&O TASK FORCE - A NRR 11/82C 11/90 II.K.3.57 IDENTIFY WATER SOURCES PRIOR TO MANUAL A NRR 00/00C II.K.3.7 FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS.B&O TASK FORCE - E NRR 00/00C N/A II.K.3.9 FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS.B&O TASK FORCE - P NRR 00/00C
| |
| ! IV.C.1 EXTEND LESSONS LEARNED FROM TMI TO OTHER NMSS 05/B0C 04/83C N/A N/A N/A-1 IV.E.5 ASSESS CURRENTLY OPERATING REACTORS NRR 05/80C 09/85C N/A N/A N/A MPA-A-01 10 CFR 50.55 AlG) - ISI NRR 00/00C 00/87 MPA-A-02 APPENDIX I - ALARA NRR 09/86C 11/87 N/A
| |
| _ _ . -, , , m - , _ , _ _ _ , ,
| |
| : n. .
| |
| l Q h, V PAGE 7 R-1216530A-001 SAFETY ISSUE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STATUS SELECTED ISSUES RESOLVED ACTUAL R 0 J E C T E D C0MPLETION DATES
| |
| .._........____/__P _______....________ ._______..._..___________________
| |
| SPON APPROVAL / TECH REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENT LICENSEE ISSUE NUMBER TITLE OFF PLANNING RESOLUTION REVIEW IMPOSITION IMPLEMENT VERIFICAT MPS-A-03 SECURITY REVIEWS-MODIFIED AMENDMENT PLAN NRR 08/77C 02/81C 05/86 N/A MPA-A-04 APPENDIX J - CONTAINMENT LEAK TESTING NRR 08/75C 04/87 03/89 N/A MPA-A-05 GE MARK I CONTAINMENT TECH SPECS-SHORT T NRR 10/76C 01/79C 11/79C N/A MPA-A-06 RESPIRATORY PROTECTION SYSTEM NRR 08/77C 12/81C 03/85C N/A MPA-A-07 APPENDIX G - FRACTURE TOUGHNESS NRR 05/76C 04/84C N/A MPA-A-08 ECCS EVALUATION-GENERIC PER 50.46 COMPLI NRR 00/00C 12/81C 12/81C N/A MPA-A-09 PRESSURE VESSEL BELTLINE MATERIAL SURVEI NRR 11/78C 05/80 N/A MPA-A-10 CONTINGENCY PLANNING NRR 03/79C 04/83C N/A MPA-A-11 GUARD TRAINING PLANS NRR 08/79C N/A MPA-A-12 VITAL AREA ANALYSIS NRR 08/79C 04/82 N/A MPA-A-13 NON POWER REACTOR SAFEGUARDS PLANS NRR 01/79C
| |
| ! MPA-A-14 10CFR 50.55 A(G) - INSERVICE TESTING NRR 04/76C 05/87 05/90 N/A MPA-A-15 QUALITY ASSURANCE REQUEST REGARDING DIES NRR 10/81C 00/87 MPA-A-16 QUALIFICATIONS OF EXAMINATION, INSPECTIO NRR 08/81C 09/82C MPA-A-18 TECH SPECS AFFECTED BY 50.72 AND 50.73 ( NRR 11/84C 08/87 12/87 N/A MPA-A-19 RECOMBINER CAPABILITY BWR MARK I NRR 07/84C 09/87 01/90 MPA-A-20 10 CFR 50.62 OPERATING REACTOR REVIEWS NRR 06/84C 12/88 02/91 MPA-A-21 10 CFR 50.61, PRESSURIZED THERMAL SHOCK NRR 01/86C 12/87 00/90 MPA-B-01 DIESEL GENERATOR LOCKOUT NRR 11/77C 10/82C MPA-B-02 FIRE PROTECTION NRR 05/76C 11/80C 12/88 N/A MPA-B-03 PWR MODERATOR DILUTION NRR 09/77C 04/82C 12/87 MPA-B-06 BWR RELIEF VALVE NRR 08/77C 10/80C 05/79 N/A MPA-B-07 STEAM GENERATOR FEEDWATER FLOW INSTABILI NRR 09/77C 11/81C 06/86C 04/81C 1 MPA-B-08 PWR HPSI-LPSI FLOW RESISTANCE NRR 05/78C 10/84C N/A I MPA-B-09 CHARGING SYSTEMS PIPE VIBRATIONS NRR 05/78C l
| |
| MPA-B-10 BURNABLE POISON ROD FAILURE - B&W NRR 05/78C 03/80C 01/79C MPA-B-11 FLOOD OF EQUIPMENT IMPORTANT TO SAFETY NRR 09/72C 10/81C 05/86C MPA-B-12 STEAM GENERATOR TUBE INSPECTION NRR 08/74C 05/81C 08/84C N/A MPA-B-13 FUEL ROD BOW NRR 08/76C 01/82C N/A MPA-B-14 CEA GUIDE TUBE WEAR NRR 07/78C 09/81C 11/86 N/A MPA-B-15 C-E POISON ROD GROWTH NRR 02/76C 09/80C 00/00C N/A MPA-B-16 EMERGENCY PLANNING AND REVISIONS NRR 11/80C 00/83 N/A MPA-B-17 TECH SPEC SURVEILLANCE FOR HYDRAULIC SNU NRR 04/80C 08/87 08/90 N/A MPA-B-18 WORTHINGTON RHR PUMP SHAFT INTEGRITY NRR 09/77C 03/79C 12/78C N/A MPA-B-19 NEUTRON SHIELDING - CE REACTORS NRR 01/77C 05/80C 05/79C MPA-B-20 CONTAINMENT LEAKAGE DUE TO SEAL DETERIOR NRR 12/78C 09/81C 04/87 N/A MPA-B-21 LOSS OF 125-V DC BUS VOLTAGE WITH LOSS O NRR 12/78C 05/82C 02/82 N/A MPA-B-22 TECH SPEC SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR NRR 08/78C 08/87 08/90 N/A MPA-B-23 DEGRADED GRID VOLTAGE NRR 05/82C 04/85C 01/90 MPA-B-24 VENTING AND PURGING CONTAINMENTS WHILE A NRR 04/79C 02/86C 09/89 MPA-B-26 INADVERTANT SAFETY INJECTION DURING COOL NRR 09/79C 03/31C N/A MPA-B-27 REVIEW RESPONSES TO IE BULLETIN 78-03 (0 NRR 00/00C 02/81C MPA-B-28 BWR JLT PUMP FLOW INDICATION ELIMINATION NRR 03/76C 02/81C MPA-B-29 BWR FEEDWATER PUMP TRIP NRR 11/78C 04/87 l
| |
| | |
| ~
| |
| O . O O~
| |
| PAGE 8 R-1216530A-001 SAFETY ISSUE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STATUS SELECTED ISSUES RESOLVED ACTUAL C0MPLETION DATES
| |
| --.....-......./..P R 0 J E C T E D SPON APPROVAL / TECH REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENT LICENSEE ISSUE NUMBER TITLE OFF PLANNING RESOLUTION REVIEW IMPOSITION IMPLEMENT VERIFICAT MPA-B-30 STEAM GENERATOR REPLACEMENT PROGRAM NRR 08/77C 07/81C 00/83C N/A I MPA-B-31 LONG SHAFT LHSI & OUTSIDE RECIRC. PUMP D NRR 05/78C 03/82C 00/79C MPA-B-32 BLOCKED SI SIGNAL DURING COOLDOWN NRR 04/78C 11/84C 02/86 N/A MPA-B-35 ORIFICE ROD ASSEMBLY INTEGRITY - B&W NRR 05/78C 02/80C 05/79C MPA-B-36 RESISTANCE TEMPERATURE DETECTOR (RTD) RE NRR 05/78C 08/81C 03/82C N/A MPA-B-37 STEAM GENERATOR TUBE DENTING AND SUPPORT NRR 01/78C 02/81C 00/82C N/A MPA-B-38 TENDON SURVEILLANCE - BECHTEL CONTAINMEN NRR 10/77C 08/83C 03/85C N/A t MPA-B-39 PWR PRESSURE - TEMPERATURE LIMIT TECH SP NRR 08/78C 03/81C 00/88 N/A
| |
| ! MPA-B-40 PIPE SUPPORT BASE PLATES NRR 04/79C 01/81C- 03/85 MPA-B-41 FIRE PROTECTION - FINAL TECH SPECS (INCL NRR 08/79C 12/86C 12/87 MPA-B-42 TMI FOLLOW UP - ALL PLANTS NRR 00/00C 11/81C 09/87 N/A MPA-B-43 PWR FEEDWATER LINE CRACKS NRR 10/80C 05/82C 05/82 N/A MPA-B-44 LESSONS LEARNED IMPLEMENTATION NRR 09/79C 11/81C 09/87 N/A MPA-B-45 WASH 1400 EVENT V. " PRIMARY COOLANT SYST NRR 02/80C 04/81C 01/88 MPA-B-46 ANALYSIS OF TURBINE DISC CRACKS NRR 12/79C 05/85C 00/87 N/A MPA-B-47 ECCS: CLAD SWELLING AND RUPTURE NRR 11/79C 04/81C 07/80 N/A ,
| |
| MPA-B-48 ADEQUACY OF STATION ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTIO NRR 01/80C 05/85C 09/89 MPA-B-49 PWR CONTROL ROD MISALIGNMENT NRR 10/79C 06/32C 06/82C N/A MPA-B-51 EVALUATION OF BULLETIN 79-06 AND 79-08 NRR 04/79C 07/81C N/A MPA-B-52 REVIEW OF SAFETY ASPECT OF INADVERTENT S NRR 06/79C 06/81C 10/80 N/A MPA-B-53 LESSONS LEARNED CATEGORY B (ITEMS) NRR 10/80C 06/81C 10/84C N/A MPA-B-54 LESSONS CATEGORY A TECH SPEC NRR 00/00C 10/81C 09/86 N/A MPA-B-55 B&O REPORT ON BWRS NRR 07/79C 09/80C- N/A MPA-B-56 CONTROL RODS FAILURE TO INSERT. BWR NRR 09/78C 06/81C N/A MPA-B-57 DHR CAPABILITY NRR 06/80C 06/87 02/88 N/A MPA-B-59 MASONRY WALL DESIGN NRR 05/80C 12/87 00/90 MPA-B-61 LOSS OF NON CLASS IE ISC POWER NRR 11/79C 08/82C 07/89 M?A-B-62 ESF RESET CONTROL DESIGN DEFICIENCY NRR 03/80C 03/84C 08/89 MPA-B-63 INTERIM PROCEDURES FOR SHORT TERM BLACK 0 NRR 03/81C 10/82C l MPA-B-64 B&C INDUCED FLUX ERRORS NRR 11/80C 05/82C 04/82C N/A MPA-B-66 NATURAL CIRCULATION COOLDOWN NRR 12/85C 12/87 00/90-MPA-B-67 THERMAL SHOCK NRR 08/81C 02/83C 01/86C N/A MPA-B-69 IEB 80-4 MAINSTEAM LINE BREAK WITH CONTI NRR 00/00C 02/85C MPA-B-70 FATIGUE TRANSIENT LIMIT TS NRR 07/81C 05/82C N/A MPA-B-72 NUREG 0737 TECH SPECS (GENERIC LETTER 82 NRR 03/83C 07/87 00/90 N/A MPA-B-73 PLANS FOR PREVENTING EXCEEDING PTS SCREE NRR 02/83C- 12/83C 02/85C N/A MPA-B.74 THERMAL SHIELD FOLLOW UP ANALYSIS NRR 06/83C. 05/84C 09/84C N/A MPA-B-83 TECH SPECIFICATIONS COVERED BY GENERIC L NRR 11/86C 12/87 11/90 N/A MPA-C-01 PWR SECONDARY WATER CHEMISTRY MONITORING NRR 08/76C- 06/87C 01/87 N/A MPA-C-02 BWR-RECIRC. PUMP TRIP (ATWS) NRR 08/76C 08/79C 00/88 MPA-C-03 QUALIFICATIONS OF RADIATION PROTECTION M NRR 03/77C 07/82C 07/82C. N/A MPA-C-04 FILTER TECH SPECS NRR 11/74C 05/84C 08/82 N/A MPA-C-05 CONVERSION TO STANDARD TECH SPECS NRR 08/76C- 01/82C N/A MPA-C-06 PUMP SUPPORT-LAMELLAR TEARING NRR 09/77C 12/82C N/A
| |
| | |
| m . .
| |
| ) G' PAGE 9 R-1216530A-001 SAFETY ISSUE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STATUS SELECTED ISSUES RESOLVED ,
| |
| ACTUAL /PR0JECTED C0MPLETION DATES SPON APPROVAL / TECH REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENT LICENSEE ISSUE NUMBER TITLE OFF PLANNING RESOLUTION REVIEW IMPOSITION IMPLEMENT VERIFICAT MPA-C-07 FUEL HANDLING ACCIDENT INSIDE CONTAINMEN NRR 01/77C 01/85C N/A MPA-C-08 BWR POST LOCA H2 CONTROL NRR 09/75C 05/81C 00/89 N/A MPA-C-09 PWR AUX FW PUMPS NRR 02/78C 03/81C N/A MPA-C-11 RPS POWER SUPPLY NRR 06/78C 06/85C 06/87 MPA-C-12 BORON SOLUBILITY DURING LONG TERM C00LIN NRR 01/77C 07/82C 09/82C N/A MPA-C-13 LOSS OF OFFSITE POWER NRR 02/80C 05/80C 00/80C N/A MPA-C-14 AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SEISMIC QUALIFICATIO NRR 02/81C 01/87C 12/90 MPA-C-16 UTILITY RESPONSES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATIO NRR 06/85C 08/87 00/89 N/A MPA-D-02 ECCS ZIRC CLAD MODEL ERROR-COMPLIANCE WI NRR 05/78C 09/80C 04/79 N/A MPA-D-03 PRESSURIZER HEATUP RATE ERROR NRR 10/77C 07/79C N/A MPA-D-04 PWR REACTOR VESSEL CAVITY SEAL RING MISS NRR 02/78C 02/84C 12/87 MPA-D-05 PLANT UPI MODEL PROBLEM NRR 01/79C 12/86C 12/88 N/A MPA-D-06 PEAKING MODEL CHANGE FOR CE REACTOR CORE NRR 01/78C 12/78C 03/79C N/A MPA-D-07 BWR POWER LEVEL FOR RWM NRR 01/77C 01/80C N/A MPA-D-08 DEFICIENCY IN CHEM ADDITION TO CONTAINME NRR 09/75C 04/80C 01/83C MPA-D-09 GE ECCS INPUT ERRORS NRR 12/78C 04/79C 04/79C N/A MPA-D-11 FISSION GAS RELEASE NRR 11/76C 09/81C 02/80 N/A MPA-D-13 B&W SMALL BREAK ERROR NRR 04/78C 06/80C 00/81C N/A MPA-D-14 REACTOR VESSEL WELD - WIRE DEFICIENCY NRR 08/78C 10/80C N/A MPA-D-15 HIGH ENERGY LINE BREAK & CONSEQUENTIAL S NRR 09/79C 02/84C 00/87 N/A MPA-D-16 REVIEW OF CORPORATE MANAGEMENT CAPABILIT NRR 06/79C 02/82C N/A MPA-D-17 DEFINITION OF OPERABLE NRR 04/80C 08/87 06/87 N/A MPA-D-18 NUREG 0630 CLADDING MODELS (B&W PLANTS) NRR 06/83C 10/83C 05/86C N/A MPA-D-20 MARK I DRYWELL VACUUM BREAKERS - LICENSE NRR 06/85C 02/87 12/89 MPA-E-01 SPENT FUEL POOL EXPANSIONS NRR 07/79C 01/82C 07/85C MPA-E-02 FUEL CASK DROP NRR 09/75C 09/81C 07/85C N/A MPA-E-03 CORE RELOADS REQUIRING PRIOR NRC APPROVA NRR 00/00C 11/81C 04/79 MPA-E-06 CEA POSITION INDICATION FAILURES - CE NRR 07/78C 04/82C 04/82C N/A MPA-E-07 REACTOR PROTECTION SYSTEM LOGIC - CE NRR 12/77C 03/82C 04/85C N/A MPA-F-08 I.D.1.1 DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REV NRR 09/86C 12/87 00/90 MPA-F-63 III.A.1.2 TECHNICAL SUPPORT CENTER NRR 04/83C 01/88 06/90 MPA-F-64 III.A.1.2 OPERATIONAL SUPPORT CENTER NRR 00/00C 01/88 06/89 MPA-F-65 III.A.1.2 EMERGENCY OPERATIONS FACILITY NRR 03/84C 01/88 05/89 MPA-F-66 III.A.I.2 NUCLEAR DATA LINK NRR 00/00C 12/87 MPA-F-71 I.D.I.2 DETAILED CONTROL ROOM REVIEW (FO NRR 02/87C 01/89 12/90 NMSS-2 ACCESS AUTHORIZATION NMSS 06/80C 10/85C 04/87 12/87 04/88 /89 NMSS-3 MISC AMEND CONCERN PHYSICAL PROTECTION O NMSS 06/80C 10/85C 08/86 10/86 /87 /87 NMSS-4 SEARCHES OF INDIVIDUALS AT POWER REACTOR NMSS 06/80C 10/85C 08/86 10/86 /87 /87 NMSS-5 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR SAFEGUARDS EV NMSS 11/84C 07/86 04/87 /86 /87 /87 NMSS-7 REQUIREMENTS FOR CRIMINAL HISTORY CHECKS NMSS 07/86C 08/86 03/87 /87 /88 /88
| |
| | |
| a
| |
| (% f^s .
| |
| (
| |
| V PAGE 1 R-1216320-001 05/21/87 SAFETY ISSUE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PLANT DATA BY GENERIC ISSUES NSSS THERMAL OL OL PLANT DOCKET TYPE SUPPLIER CAPACITY LICENSEE STATE REGION ISSUE EXPIRATION bRYShkLRkVER3 bbbbb3bh PUk bkh 55kk 5 h kbRkbk PbhER bbRPbRkkkbN F[ h bl/hhC b9/b8 STAGE OF IMPO. IMPO. IMPL. VERIFY APPLICABLE ISSUES RESOLUT INIT. COMP. METHOD COMP. COMPLET ,
| |
| 12 BWR JET PUMP INTEGRITY TECH RES N/A N/A N/A N/A 14 PWR PIPE CRACKS TECH RES N/A N/A N/A N/A 20 EFFECTS OF ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSE ON NUCL TECH RES N/A N/A N/A N/A 22 INADVERTENT BORON DILUTION EVENTS TECH RES N/A N/A N/A N/A 23 REACTOR COOLANT PUMP SEAL FAILURES TECH RES 08/87 02/88 02/90 40 B-65 SAFETY CONCERNS ASSOCIATED WITH PIPE BRE REQ IMPO MULTIPLANT ACTIO N/A 48 LCO FOR CLASS 1E VITAL INSTRUMENT BUSES TECH RES 50 REACTOR VESSEL LEVEL INSTRUMENTATION IN TECH RES N/A N/A N/A N/A 65 COMPONENT COOLING WATER SYSTEM FAILURES TECH RES N/A N/A 67.3.3 A-17 IMPROVED ACCIDENT MONITORING STAFF REV 04/83C 06/87 MULTIPLANT ACTIO 00/89 67.4 1 G-01 RCP TRIP STAFF REV 02/83C 09/87 MULTIPLANT ACTIO 02/85C
| |
| * 68 LOSS OF AFWS DUE TO AFW STEAM HELB TECH RES 04/91 04/94 75 !B-76) B-76 ITEM 1.1 - POST TRIP REVIEW: PROGRAM DES IMP STAFF 11/83C 06/86C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 05/86C N/A 75 'B-77) B-77 ITEM 2.1 - EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION & VE STAFF REV 11/83C 04/87 MULTIPLANT ACTIO 12/86 N/A 75 (B 78) B-78 ITEMS 3.1.1 & 3.1.2 -POST MAINTENANCE TE IMPL LIC 11/83C 09/85C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 12/86 N/A 75 (B-79) B-73 ITEM 3.1.3 - POST MAINTENANCE TESTING - IMP STAFF 11/83C 09/85C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 07/84C N/A 75 (B-80) B-80 ITEM 4.1 - REACTOR TRIP SYSTEM RELIABILI VER STAFF 11/83C 09/85C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 09/85C 75 (B-81) B-81 ITEMS 4.2.1 & 4.2.2 -PREVENTATIVE MAINT IMP STAFF 11/83C 06/86C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 10/85C N/A 75 (B-82) B-82 ITEM 4.3 - AUTOMATIC ACTUATION OF SHUNT VER STAFF 11/83C 03/85C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 03/85C 75 (B-85) B-85 SALEM ATWS 1.2 DATA CAPABILITY IMP STAFF 11/84C 09/85C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 09/85C N/A 75 (B-86) B-86 SALEM ATWS 2.2 S-R COMPONENTS STAFF REV 11/84C 04/87 MULTIPLANT ACTIO 12/86 N/A 75 (B-87) B-87 SALEM ATWS 3.2.1 & 3.2.2 S-R COMPONENTS IMPL LIC 11/84C 09/85C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 12/86 N/A 75 (B-88) B-88 SALEM ATWS 3.2.3 T.S. S-R COMPONENTS IMP STAFF 11/84C 09/85C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 07/84C N/A 75 (B-89) B-89 SALEM ATWS 4.2.3 & 4.2.4 LIFE COMPONENTS STAFF REV 11/84C 01/87 MULTIPLANT ACTIO 00/88 N/A 75 (B-90) B-90 SALEM ATWS 4.3 W AND B&W T.S. STAFF REV 07/84C 04/87 MULTIPLANT ACTIO 08/85C N/A 75 (B-91) B-91 SALEM ATWS 4.4 B&W TEST PROCEDURES IMP STAFF 11/84C 01/87C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 07/84C N/A
| |
| . 75 (B-92) B-92 SALEM ATWS 4.5.1 DIVERSE TRIP FEATURES IMP STAFF 11/84C 09/85C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 07/84C N/A 75 (B-93) B-93 SALEM ATWS 4.5.2 & 4.5.3 TEST ALTERNATIV STAFF REV 11/84C 07/87 MULTIPLANT ACTIO 07/84C N/A 77 FLOODING OF SAFETY EQUIP. COMPARTMENTS B TECH RES 06/88 06/91 82 BEYOND DESIGN BASES ACCIDENTS IN SPENT F TECH RES 11/90 11/93 83 CONTOL ROOM HABITABILITY TECH RES /87 /92 /92 93 STEAM BINDING OF AFW PUMPS TECH RES 08/91 08/93 94 ADDITIONAL LOW-TEMPREATURE OVERPRESSURE TECH RES 06/91 06/94 99 RCS/RHR SUCTION LINE INTERLOCKS ON PWRS TECH RES 01/91 01/93 105 INTERFACING SYSTEMS LOCA AT LWRS TECH RES 04/91 04/94 -
| |
| 04/94 T 122.1B RECOVERY OF AUXILIARY FEEDWATER TECH RES 04/91 122.1C INTERRUPTION OF AUXILIARY FEEDWATER FLOW TECH RES 04/91 04/94 124 AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM RELIABILITY _ TECH RES 04/91 04/94 s
| |
| | |
| - ~ _ . -- ~ .- - _ - - _ - -. -- , - - . . -
| |
| t 1 ,
| |
| t PAGE -2: '
| |
| i I R-1216320-001 05/21/87 SAFETY I S.S U E MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PLANT DATA.
| |
| BY GENERIC ISSUES s 1
| |
| NSSS THERMAL OL OL PLANT DOCKET TYPE SUPPLIER CAPACITY LICENSEE
| |
| < ___ ....___.........._. ..___... .... ........ - ........ .. ._ ..................... .......' STATE REGION _ ISSUE EXPIRATION
| |
| , CRYSTAL RIVER 3 05000302 PWR B&W 2544 MWT FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION FL 2 01/77C 09/08- -
| |
| STAGE OF IMPO. I'MPO .' IMPL, VERIFY l APPLICABLE ISSUES .
| |
| RESOLUT INIT. COMP. METHOD- COMP. COMPLET 133 UPDATE POLICY STATEMENT ON NUCLEAR POWER TECH RES 12/87 12/87
| |
| -134 RULE ON DEGREE AND EXPERIENCE REQ. FOR S REQ IMPO 09/88 09/88 IMP STAFF N/A N/A
| |
| . A- 1 WATER HAMMER N/A N/A A-2 D-10 ASYPO4ETRIC BLOWDOWN' LOADS ON REACTOR PRI IMP STAFF 03/79C 01/84C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 01/84I- N/A A-11 REACTOR VESSEL MATERIALS TOUGHNESS IMP STAFF N/A N/A N/A N/A
| |
| .A-16 D-12 STEAM EFFECTS ON BWR CORE SPRAY-DISTRIBU REQ'IMPO MULTIPLANT ACTIO N/A A-17 SYSTEM INTERACTIONS IN NUCLEAR POWER PLA REQ IMPO 06/88 06/91
| |
| : A-24 B-60 QUALIFICATION OF CLASS IE SAFETY-RELATED VER STAFF 08/80C 02/85C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 08/85C 0 A-26 B-04 REACTOR VESSEL PRESSURE TRANSIENT PROTEC VER STAFF'08/76C 07/79C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 00/00C l A-29 NUCLEAR POWER PLANT VULNERABILITY TO SAB TECH RES 07/87 02/93 02/96
| |
| -A-30 ADEQUACY OF SAFETY-RELATED DC POWER SUPP TECH RES A-36 (C-10) C-10 CONTROL OF HEAVY LOADS OVER SPENT FUEL P VER STAFF 08/77C 07/84C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 07/841 ~t l A-36 (C-15) C-15 CONTROL OF HEAVY LOADS - PHASE II-(FOLLO VER STAFF 05/83C 06/85C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 06/85C-
| |
| 'A-40 SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA' TECH RES A-41 LONG-TERM SEISMIC PROGRAM IMP STAFF N/A N/A N/A- N/A A-43 CONTAIleMENT EMERGENCY SUMP PREFORMANCE REO IMP 0 /82 10/85 N/A- 'N/A.
| |
| - A-44 ' STATION BLACKOUT REQ-IMPO /90 /92 A-45 SHUTDOWN DECAY HEAT REMOVAL REQUIREMENTS TECH RES-A PRESSURIZED THERMAL SHOCK REQ IMPO 01/86 12/86 12/86 8-26 STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF CONTAINMENT PENE IMP STAFF N/A N/A N/A N/A
| |
| ,' B-53 LOAD BREAK SWITCH TECH RES B-56 D-19 DIESEL GENERATOR RELIABILITY 09/84C 09/85C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 09/85I N/A
| |
| - 8-58 PASSIVE MECHANICAL-FAILURES IMP STAFF N/A N/A N/A N/A
| |
| ! B.60 LOOSE PARTS MONITORING SYSTEMS IMP STAFF N/A. N/A. N/A N/A' 1 8-61 ALLOWABLE ECCS EQUIPMENT OUTAGE PERIODS TECH RES 10/91 10/94 l C-11 ASSESSMENT OF FAILURE AND RELIABILITY OF IMP STAFF N/A N/A N/A N/A '
| |
| j HF 1.1 SHIFT STAFFING REQ IMPO 10/83-
| |
| . 01/84C. 10/85C HF 1 2 ENGINEERING EXPERTISE ON SHIFT REQ IMPO 10/85 N/A N/A~
| |
| i HF 8 MAINTENANCE AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM TECH RES
| |
| ! HF-02 MAINTENANCE AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM TECH RES I.A.1.1.1- SHIFT TECHNICAL ADVISOR .ON DUTY IMP STAFF C 11/80C 11/80C 07/80C 1
| |
| I.A.1.1.2 SHIFT TECHNICAL ADVISOR - TECH SPECS VER STAFF N/A N/A N/A 1
| |
| I.A.1.1.3 F-01 SHIFT TECHNICAL ADVISOR - TRAINED PER LL IMP STAFF 10/80C 02/82C TMI ACTION-PLAN 02/82C 05/81C.
| |
| d I.A.1.1.4 . SHIFT TECHNICAL ADVISOR - DESCRIBE LONG VER STAFF C /81C /81C +
| |
| j I.A.1.2 SHIFT SUPERVISOR RESPONSIBILITIES IMP STAFF C 11/80C '11/80C 07/80C
| |
| , I.A.1.3.1 F-02 SHIFT MANNING - LIMIT OVERTIME IMP STAFF 04/81C 06/83C TMI ACTION PLAN 12/81C 05/81C I.A.1.3.2 F-02 SHIFT MANNING - MIN SHIFT CREW IMP STAFF.04/81C 06/83C TMI ACTION PLAN 12/81C 05/81C I.A.1.4 LONG-TERM UPGRADE OF OPERATIONS PERSONNE REQ IMPO 04/83 04/83 ,
| |
| __1__.____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . , _ - - - _ . _ - -, .__-. m . . . . ._
| |
| | |
| r ~s
| |
| % O" f 'O .O .
| |
| PAGE 3-R-1216320-001 .
| |
| ~
| |
| . SAFETY ISSUE MANAG.EMENT SYSTEM:
| |
| PLANT DATA BY GENERIC ISSUES NSSS THERMAL -
| |
| . OL . OLE PLANT DOCKET TYPE SUPPLIER CAPACITY LICENSEE ~ STATE REGION ISSUE EXPIRATION CRYSTAL RIVER 3 05000302 PWR B&W 2544 MWT FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION FL 2 01/77C 09/08 STAGE OF IMPO. IMPO. IMPL. VERIFYe APPLICABLE ISSUES RESOLUT- INIT. ' . C OMP . METHOD COMP. 'COMPLET-
| |
| ~
| |
| kk2k([
| |
| .I.A.2.1.2 khMkbkkkkbPbkkhkkhbFkbkhkbTRkkhkhGTkbHkkh IMMEDIATE' UPGRADING OF PO & SRO TRAINING TECH RES b kkhkhb 11/80C
| |
| ~ [khkhb-11/8GC I.A.2.1.3 IMMEDIATE UPGRADING OF RU & SRO TRAINING TECH RES 11/80C . 11/80C I.A.2.1.4 F-03 IMMEDIATE UPGRADING OF RO & SRO TRAINING IMP STAFF 04/81C 04/83C TMI ACTION PLAN 04/83C 08/81C.
| |
| * I.A.2.1.5- IMMEDIATE UPGRADING OF RO & SRO TRAINING TECH RES 11/80C 11/80C- , -
| |
| I.A.2'.2 TRAINING AND QUALIFICATIONS OF OPERATING REQ IMPO 03/85 12/86 03/85 03/37 I.A.2.3 ADMINISTRATION OF TRAINING PROGRAMS TECH RES 11/80C 11/80C I.A.2.6 -LONG TERM UPGRADE OF TRAINING AND QUALIF REQ IMPO /90 /90 I.A;2.7 ACCREDITATION OF TRAINING INSTITUTIONS REQ IMPO 03/85 12/86 4 03/85 03/87. ~~ !
| |
| I.A.3.1.1 REVISE SCOPE & CRITERIA FOR LICENSING EX TECH RES 11/80C 11/80C 1
| |
| I.A.3.1.2 sREVISE SCOPE & CRITERIA FOR LICENSING EX TECH RES 11/80C 11/80C I.A.4-2 LONG TERM TRAINING SIMULATOR UPGRADE REQ IMPO 186 /90 /90 C 11/80C 11/80C 06/81C I.C 1.1 .SHORT-TERM ~ ACCIDENT.& PROCEDURES REVIEW IMP STAFF
| |
| , I .C. I . 2. A - F-04 SHORT-TERM ACCID. & PROCEDURES REV. - IN IMP STAFF.04/81C 06/84C TMI ACTION PLAN 07/85C - N/A I.C.1.2.B F - IN STAFF REV 04/81C 05/87 'TMI ACTION PLAN 07 85C E08/83C I.C.1.3.A F_-05 SHORT-TERM ACCID. & PROCEDURES REV.04 SHORT-TERM. ACCID.:& TMI' ACTION PLAN 07 85C- REV PROCEDURES N/A.TRA IMP STAFF I.C.I.3'B F-05.SHORT-TERM ACCID. & PROCEDURES REV. - TR STAFF.REV 04/81C .05/87 TMI ACTION PLAN 07/85C 08/83C C 11/80C I.C.2 SHIFT & RELIEF TURNOVER PROCEDURES IMP STAFF 11/80CL 07/80C I.C.3 SHIFT-SUPERVISOR RESPONSIBILITY IMP. STAFF- C' 11/80C. 11/80C. 07/80C IMP STAFF C 11/80C '11/80C 07/80C I.C.4 CONTROL-ROOM ACCESS - 6 I.C.5 F-06 FEEDBACK OF OPERATING EXPERIENCE IMP STAFF 11/81C 12/81C TMI ACTION PLAN 03/82C 05/81C ,
| |
| I.C.6- F-07 VERIFY CORRECT PERFORMANCE OF OPERATING IMP STAFF 11/81C 12/81C TMI ACTION PLAN 12/81C ,05/ SIC I.D.2.1 F-09 PLANT-SAFETY PARAMETER DISPLAY CONSOLE - STAFF REV 04/83C 05/87 TMI ACTION PLAN- 06/86 -i' j I.D.2.2 F-09 PLANT-SAFETY _ PARAMETER DISPLAY CONSOLE ' STAFF REV 04/83C 05/87- TMI ACTION PLAN 06/86- 10/85C I.D.2.3 F-09 PLANT-SAFETY PARAMETER DISPLAY CONSOLE --STAFF REV 04/83C 05/87 TMI ACTION PLAN 06/86 10/85C-I.D.3 .
| |
| SAFETY SYSTEM STATUS MONITORING TECH RES 06/89 /92 /95' /96 II.B.1.1 REACTOR-COOLANT SYSTEM VENTS - DESIGN VE IMP STAFF'10/80C 11/80C .TMI ACTION PLAN 11/80C - N/A-II.B.1.2 F-10 REACTOR-COOLANT SYSTEM VENTS -1 INSTALL V IMP-STAFF 10/80C 09/83C TMI ACTION PLAN 07/85C 10/85C l :II,B.1 3- . F-10 REACTOR-COOLANT SYSTEM VENTS - PROCEDURE IMP STAFF 10/80C 09/83C TMI ACTION. PLAN 07/85C 10/85C II.B.2.1 ' . PLANT SHIELDING.- REVIEW DESIGNS IMP STAFF C 11/80C TMI ACTION PLAN 11/80C N/A II.B.2.3 F-11 PLANT SHIELDING - PLANT- MODIFICATIONS L. IMP STAFF 02/82C 11/83C .TMI ACTION-PLAN 07/83C 09/83C
| |
| .II.B.2.4- PLANT SHIELDING J EQUIPMENT QUALIFICAT 0 IMP STAFF C N/A N/A - 10/85C !
| |
| 4 II.B.3.1 . .POSTACCIDENT SAMPLING - INTERIM SYSTEM IMP STAFF C 11/80C 11/80C 05/81C -
| |
| II.B.3.4 F-12 POSTACCIDENT SAMPLING - PLANT MODIFICATI IMP STAFF.10/80C 11/85C TMI ACTION PLAN 07/83C 03/84C II.B.4.1 F-13 TRAINING FOR MITIGATING CORE DAMAGE - DE.VER STAFF 10/80C 04/83C 1TMI ACTION PLAN 04/83C -!
| |
| II.B.4.2.A F-13 TRAINING FOR MITIGATING CORE: DAMAGE - IN IMP STAFF'10/80C- 04/83C TMI ACTION PLAN. 04/83C -08/81C II.B.4.2.B F-13 TRAINING FOR MITIGATING CORE DAMAGE - CO IMP STAFF 10/80C 04/83C TMI ACTION PLAN 04/83C--08/81C ,
| |
| N/A .N/A N/A II,B.8 RULEMAKING PROCEEDING ON DEGRADED CORE A TECH RES N/A l
| |
| q i
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| /
| |
| n V -
| |
| V.O O.
| |
| PAGE 4 R-1216320-001 05/21/87 SAFETY ISSUE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PLANT DATA BY GENERIC ISSUES NSSS THERMAL OL OL PLANT DOCKET TYPE SUPPLIER CAPACITY LICENSEE STATE REGION ISSUE EXPIRATION CRYSTAL RIVER 3 05000302 PWR B&W 2544 MWT FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION FL 2 01/77C 09/08 STAGE OF IMPO. IMPO. IMPL. VERIFY APPLICABLE ISSUES RESOLUT INIT. COMP. METHOD COMP. COMPLET II.D.1.1 RELIEF & SAFETY VALVE TEST REQUIREMENTS IMP STAFF 10/80C 11/80C TMI ACTION PLAN 11/80C N/A II.D.1.2.A RELIEF & SAFETY VALVE TEST REQUIREMENTS If1P STAFF 10/80C 12/83C THI ACTION PLAN 12/83C N/A II.D.1.2.8 F-14 RELIEF & SAFETY VALVE TEST REQUIREMENTS STAFF REV 10/80C 05/87 TMI ACTION PLAN 12/85C N/A II.D.1.3 RELIEF & SAFETY VALVE TEST REQUIREMENTS IMP STAFF 10/80C 12/83C TMI ACTION PLAN 12/83C N/A II.D.3.1 VALVE POSITION INDICATION - INSTALL DIRE IMP STAFF C 11/80C 11/80C 07/80C II.D.3.2 VALVE POSITION INDICATION - TECH SPECS REQ IMPO N/A N/A II.E.1.1.1 F-15 AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM EVALUATION - VER STAFF 04/81C 04/84C TMI ACTION PLAN 08/85C II.E.1.1.2 F-15 AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM EVALUATION - IMP STAFF 04/81C 04/84C TMI ACTION PLAN 08/85C 10/85C II.E.1.1.3 F-15 AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM EVALUATIONS - VER STAFF 04/81C 04/84C TMI ACTION PLAN 08/85C II.E.1.2.1.A AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM INITIATION & IMP STAFF C 11/80C TMI ACTION PLAN 11/80C 06/79C II.E.1.2.1.8 F-16 AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM INITIATION & IMP STAFF 04/81C 03/83C TMI ACTION PLAN 08/85C 10/85C II.E.1.2.2.A AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM INITIATION & IMP STAFF C 11/80C TMI ACTION PLAN 11/80C 07/80C II.E.1.2.2.8 AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM INITIATION & IMP STAFF C N/A TMI ACTION PLAN N/A N/A II.E.1.2.2.C F-17 AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM INITIATION & IMP STAFF 04/81C 03/83C TMI ACTION PLAN 08/85C 10/85C II.E.2.2 RESEARCH ON SMALL BREAK LOCAS AND ANOMAL TECH RES N/A N/A N/A N/A II.E.3.1.1 EMERGENCY POWER FOR PRESSURIZER HEATERS IMP STAFF C 11/80C 11/80C 07/80C II.E.3.1.2 EMERGENCY POWER FOR PRESSURIZER HEATERS REQ IMPO N/A N/A II.E.4.1.1 DEDICATED HYDROGEN PENETRATIONS - DESIGN IMP STAFF C 11/80C TMI ACTION PLAN 11/80C N/A II.E.4.1.3 F-18 DEDICATED HYDROGEN PENETRATION - INSTALL IMP STAFF 04/81C 08/81C TMI ACTION PLAN 12/80C 05/80C II.E.4.2.1-4 CONTAIMENT ISOLATION DEPENDABILITY - IMP IMP STAFF C 11/80C TMI ACTION PLAN 11/80C 07/80C II.E.4.2.5,A CONTAINMENT ISOLAT. DEPENDABILITY - CNTH IMP STAFF C 04/83C TMI ACTION PLAN 04/83C N/A II.E.4.2.5.8 CONTAINMENT ISOLATION DEPENDABILITY - CN IMP STAFF C 04/83C TMI ACTION PLAN 04/83C N/A II.E.4.2.6 F-19 CONTAINMENT ISOLATION DEPENDABILITY - CN IMP STAFF 04/81C 04/83C TMI ACTION PLAN 04/83C 07/80C II.E.4.2.7 F-19 CONTAINMENT ISOLATION DEPENDABILITY - RA IMP STAFF 04/81C 04/83C TMI ACTION PLAN 04/83C N/A II.E.4.2.8 CONTAINMENT ISOLATION DEPENDABILITY - TE REQ IMPO N/A N/A II.E.4.3 CONTAINMENT DESIGN INTEGRITY CHECK TECH RES 05/92 05/95 II.E.6.1 IN SITU TESTING OF VALVES TECH RES 05/91 05/94 II.F.1.2.A F-20 ACCIDENT-MONITORING - NOBLE GAS MONITOR IMP STAFF 04/81C 12/81C TMI ACTION PLAN 05/86C 10/85C II.F.1.2.B F-21 ACCIDENT-MONITORING - IODINE / PARTICULATE IMP STAFF 04/81C 12/81C TMI ACTION PLAN 07/83C 10/85C II.F.1.2.C F-22 ACCIDENT-MONITORING - CONTAINMENT HIGH-R IMP STAFF 04/81C 01/82C TMI ACTION PLAN 07/83C 10/85C II.F.1.2.D F-23 ACCIDENT-MONITORING - CONTAINMENT PRESSU IMP STAFF 01/82C 07/82C TMI ACTION PLAN 07/83C 04/84C II F.1.2.E F-24 ACCIDENT-MONITORING - CONTAINMENT WATER IMP STAFF 01/82C 07/82C TMI ACTION PLAN 07/83C 07/83C II.F.1.2.F F-25 ACCIDENT-MONITORING - CONTAINMENT HYDROG IMP STAFF 01/82C 07/82C TMI ACTION PLAN 07/83C 10/85C II.F.2.1 INSTRUMENTATION FOR DETECT. OF INADEQUAT REQ IMPO 11/80C 11/80C II.F.2.2 INSTRUMENTATION FOR DETECT. OF INADEQUAT IMP STAFF C N/A N/A 07/80C II.F.2.4 F-26 INSTRUMENTATION FOR DETECT. OF INADEQUAT STAFF REV 04/81C 09/87 TMI ACTION PLAN 08/85C 10/85C II.G.1.1 POWER SUPP. FOR PRESSURIZER RELIEF. BLOCK IMP STAFF C 11/80C 11/80C 07/80C II.G.I.2 POWER SUPP. FOR PRESSURIZER RELIEF. BLOCK REQ IMPO N/A N/A
| |
| | |
| e PAGE 5 4
| |
| R-1216320-001 #
| |
| SAFETY ISSUE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PLANT DATA BY GENERIC ISSUES NSSS THERMAL OL OL PLANT DOCKET TYPE SUPPLIER CAPACITY -LICENSEE STATE REGION ISSUE EXPIRATION CRYSTAL RIVER 3 05000302 PWR B&W 2544 MWT FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION FL 2 01/77C 09/08 STAGE OF IMPO. IMPO. IMPL. VERIFY APPLICABLE ISSUES RESOLUT INIT. COMP. METHOD COMP. COMPLET III.A.1.1 EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS, SHORT TERM REQ IMPO 11/80C 11/80C III.A.1.2.1 UPGRADE EMERGENCY SUPPORT FACILITIES - I IMP STAFF C 11/80C 11/80C 07/80C III.A.1.2.2 UPGRADE EMERGENCY SUPPORT FACILITIES - D REQ IMPO N/A N/A III.A.1.2.3 UPGRADE EMER SUPPORT FACILITIES-MODS INC VER STAFF C N/A N/A III.A.I.3(2) MAINTAIN SUPPLIES OF THYROID BLOCKING AG TECH RES N/A N/A N/A N/A III.A.2.1 F-67 UPGRADE PREPAREDNESS - UPGRADE EMERGENCY IMP STAFF 07/81C 05/83C TMI ACTION PLAN 05/83C N/A III.A.2.2 F-68 UPGRADE PREPAREDNESS - METER 0ROLOGICAL D IMP STAFF 04/81C 03/87C TMI ACTION PLAN 12/84C N/A III A.3.4 NUCLEAR DATA LINK TECH RES N/A N/A N/A N/A III D.1.1.1 PRIMARY COOLANT OUTSIDE CONTAIMENT - LEA IMP STAFF C 11/80C 11/80C 06/80C III.D.1.1.2 PRIMARY COOLANT OUTSIDE CONTAIMENT - TEC REQ IMPO N/A N/A III.D.2.3(1) DEVELOP PROCEDURES TO DISCRIMINATE BETWE TECH RES N/A N/A N/A N/A III.D 2.3(2) DISCRIMINATE BETWEEN SITES AND PLANTS TH TECH RES N/A N/A N/A N/A III D.2.313) ESTABLISH FEASIBLE METHOD OF PATHWAY INT TECH RES N/A N/A N/A N/A III D 2.3(4) LIQUID PATHWAY RADIOLOGICAL CONTROL TECH RES N/A N/A N/A N/A III.D.2.5 0FFSITE DOSE CALCULATION MANUAL TECH RES N/A N/A N/A N/A III.D.3.3.1 INPLANT RAD. MONIT. - PROVIDE MEANS TO D IMP STAFF C 11/80C 11/80C 06/80C III.D.3.3.2 F-69 INPLANT RADIATION MONIT. - MODIFICATIONS IMP STAFF 04/81C 02/82C TMI ACTION PLAN 04/81C 06/80C III.D.3.4.1 F-70 CONTROL ROOM HABITABILITY - REVIEW IMPL LIC 04/81C 02/82C TMI ACTION PLAN 00/87 N/A III.D.3,4.2 F-70 CONTROL ROOM HABITABILITY - SCHEDULE MOD IMPL LIC 04/81C 02/82C TMI ACTION PLAN 00/87 II.K.1.1 IE BULLETINS 05, 79-05A, 79-05B IMP STAFF C C C_ 06/81C II.K.2.10 F-28 ORDERS ON B&W PLANTS - SAFETY-GRADE TRIP IMP STAFF 04/81C 11/81C TMI ACTION PLAN 04/82C 12/81C II.K.2.11 F-29 ORDERS ON B&W PLANTS - OPERATOR TRAINING IMP STAFF 04/81C 02/82C TMI. ACTION PLAN 02/82C 06/81C II.K.2.13 F-30 ORDERS ON B&W PLANTS - THERMAL MECHANICA IMP STAFF 12/80C 04/82C TMI ACTION PLAN 01/81C N/A II.K.2.14 F-31 ORDERS ON B&W PLANTS - LIFT FREQUENCY OF IMP STAFF 04/81C 05/82C TMI ACTION PLAN 01/81C N/A
| |
| . II.K.2.15 ORDERS ON B&W PLANTS - EFFECTS OF SLUG F REQ IMPO 11/80C 11/80C II.K.2.16 F-32 ORDERS ON B&W PLANTS - RCP SEAL DAMAGE IMP STAFF 04/81C 01/82C TMI ACTION PLAN 10/84C N/A II.K.2.17 F-33 ORDERS ON B&W PLANTS - VOIDING IN RCS (C IMP STAFF 04/81C 12/81C TMI ACTION PLAN 12/80C N/A II.K.2.19 BENCHMARK ANALYSIS OF SEQUENTIAL AFW FLO REQ IMPO /81C /81C II.K.2.20 F-35 ORDERS ON B&W PLANTS - SYSTEM RESPONSE T IMP STAFF 04/81C 08/81C TMI ACTION PLAN 12/80C N/A II.K.2.8 ORDERS ON B&W PLANTS - UPGRADE AFW SYSTE IMP STAFF C 11/80C 11/80C N/A II.K.2.9 F-27 ORDERS ON B&W PLANTS - FEMA ON ICS IMP STAFF 08/80C 04/82C TMI ACTION PLAN 08/79C N/A II.K.3.1.A F-36 FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS,B&O TASK FORCE - A IMP STAFF 04/81C 06/84C TMI ACTION PLAN 12/80C N/A II.K.3.11 FINAL RECOMMENDATICNS,B&O TASK FORCE - J REQ IMPO N/A N/A II.K.3.17 F-47 FINAL RECOP94ENDATIONS,B&O TASK FORCE - E IMP STAFF 04/81C 10/83C TMI ACTION PLAN 01/84C N/A II.K.3.2 F-37 FINAL RECopetENDATIONS,B&O TASK FORCE R IMP STAFF 04/81C 09/83C TMI ACTION PLAN 01/81C N/A II.K 3.25.A FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS,B&O TASK FORCE - P REQ IMPO C C II.K.3.3 F-38 FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS,B&O TASK FORCE - R IMP STAFF 04/81C 08/85C TMI ACTION PLAN' 02/83C N/A II.K.3.30.A FINAL RECOP99ENDATIONS,B&O TASK FORCE - S IMP STAFF C 08/85C TMI ACTION PLAN 10/85C N/A
| |
| | |
| b PAGE 6 R-1216320-001 SAFETY ISSUE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PLANT DATA BY GENERIC ISSUES NSSS THERMAL OL OL PLANT DOCKET TYPE SUPPLIER CAPACITY LICENSEE STATE REGION ISSUE EXPIRATION bRYShkbRkVkR3 b5bhb3hh Pbk Bkh hhk4 5 h k bRkbk PbbkR bbRPbkETkbN b 2 bl/hhC h9/h8 STAGE OF IMPO. IMPO. IMPL. VERIFY APPLICABLE ISSUES RESOLUT INIT. COMP. METHOD COMP. COMPLET II.K.3.30.B F-57 FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS,B&O TASK FORCE - S IMP STAFF 04/81C 08/85C TMI ACTION PLAN 10/85C N/A II.K.3.30.C FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS,B&O TASK FORCE - S REO IMPO N/A N/A II.K.3.31 F-58 FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS,8&O TASK FORCE - C STAFF REV 04/82C 01/87 TMI ACTION PLAN 10/85C N/A II.K.3.40 FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS,8&O TASK FORCE - R REQ IMPO N/A N/A II.K.3.43 FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS,8&O TASK FORCE - E REO IMPO N/A N/A II.K.3.5.A F-39 FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS,8&O TASK FORCE - A IMP STAFF 04/81C 02/83C TMI ACTION PLAN 02/85C N/A II.K.3.5.8 F-39 FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS,8&O TASK FORCE - A IMP STAFF 04/81C 02/83C TMI ACTION PLAN 02/85C 10/85C IV.C.I EXTEND LESSONS LEARNED FROM TMI TO OTHER TECH RES N/A N/A N/A N/A IV.E.5 ASSESS CURRENTLY OPERATING REACTORS TECH RES N/A N/A N/A N/A MPA-A-01 A-01 10 CFR 50.55 A(G) - ISI IMP STAFF 12/76C 07/80C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 07/80I N/A MPA-A-02 A-02 APPENDIX I - ALARA IMP STAFF 07/78C 06/84C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 06/84I N/A MPA-A-03 A-03 SECURITY REVIEWS-MODIFIED AMENDMENT PLAN IMP STAFF 08/77C 01/79C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 00/00C N/A MPA-A-09 A-G3 FRESOURE VESSEL BELTLINE F.ATERIAL SURVEI IMP STAFF 01/79C 05/80C MULTIPLANT ACTIO N/A N/A MPA-A-10 A-10 CONTINGENCY PLANNING IMP STAFF 03/79C 04/82C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 04/82I N/A MPA-A.11 A-11 GUARD TRAINING PLANS IMP STAFF 08/79C 03/83C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 00/00C N/A MPA-A-12 A-12 VITAL AREA ANALYSIS IMP STAFF 02/78C 04/82C MULTIPLANT ACTIO N/A N/A MPA-A-14 A-14 10CFR 50.55 A(G) - INSERVICE TESTING STAFF REV 12/76C 05/87 MULTIPLANT ACTIO 12/86 N/A MPA-A-15 A-15 QUALITY ASSURANCE REQUEST REGARDING DIES VER STAFF 12/79C 04/80C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 00/81C MPA-A-16 A-16 QUALIFICATIONS OF EXAMINATION, INSPECTIO VER STAFF 01/82C 04/82C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 08/81I MPA-A-18 A-18 TECH SPECS AFFECTED BY 50.72 AND 50.73 ( IMP STAFF 09/84C 07/86C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 07/86I N/A MPA-A-20 A-20 10 CFR 50.62 OPERATING REACTOR REVIEWS STAFF REV 06/84C 05/87 MULTIPLANT ACTIO 00/87 MPA-A-21 A-21 10 CFR 50.61, PRESSURIZED THERMAL SHOCK IMP STAFF 10/85C 09/86C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 09/86I N/A MPA-B-02 B-02 FIRE PROTECTION IMPL LIC 05/76C 07/79C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 00/87 N/A MPA-B-03 8-03 PWR MODERATOR DILUTION VER STAFF 09/77C 08/80C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 00/80C MPA-B-10 B-10 BURNABLE POISON ROD FAILURE B&W VER STAFF 05/78C 09/78C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 00/78C MPA-B-14 B-14 CEA GUIDE TUBE WEAR .
| |
| IMP STAFF 12/77C 07/81C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 00/81C N/A MPA-B-17 B-17 TECH SPEC SURVEILLANCE FOR HYDRAULIC SNU IMP STAFF 08/78C 02/82C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 02/82I N/A MPA-B-18 B-18 WORTHINGTON RHR PUMP SHAFT INTEGRITY IMP STAFF 06/78C 09/78C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 00/00C N/A MPA-B-20 B-20 CONTAINMENT LEAKAGE DUE TO SEAL DETERIOR IMP STAFF 09/78C 08/80C MULTIPLANT ACTIO N/A N/A MPA-B-21 B-21 LOSS OF 125-V DC BUS VOLTAGE WITH LOSS 0 IMP STAFF 09/78C 11/79C MULTIPLANT ACTIO N/A N/A MPA-B-22 B-22 TECH SPEC SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR IMP STAFF 08/78C 02/81C MULTIPLANT ACTIO N/A N/A MPA-B-23 B-23 DEGRADED GRID VOLTAGE VER STAFF 10/76C 08/83C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 08/85C MPA-B-24 B-24 VENTING AND PURGING CONTAINMENTS WHILE A VER STAFF 11/80C 03/81C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 00/00C MPA-B-26 B-26 INADVERTANT SAFETY INJECTION DURING COOL IMP STAFF 09/78C 09/79C MULTIPLANT ACTIO N/A N/A MPA-B-39 B-30 PWR PRESSURE - TEMPERATURE LIMIT TECH SP IMP STAFF 08/78C 03/81C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 03/81I N/A MPA-B-41 B-41 FIRE PROTECTION - FINAL TECH SPECS (INCL IMPL LIC 01/79C 10/80C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 00/87 MPA-B-42 B-42 TMI FOLLOW UP - ALL PLANTS IMP STAFF 05/79C 03/81C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 00/81C N/A MPA-B-43 B-43 PWR FEEDWATER LINE CRACKS IMP STAFF 05/79C 12/80C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 12/80I N/A
| |
| | |
| o o cy -
| |
| PAGE 7 R-1216320-001 05/21/87-SAFETY ISSUE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PLANT DATA BY GENERIC ISSUES NSSS THERMAL OL OL PLANT DOCKET TYPE SUPPLIER CAPACITY LICENSEE STATE REGION ISSUE EXPIRATION CRYSTAL RIVER 3 05000302 PWR B&W 2544 MWT FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION FL 2 01/77C 09/08 STAGE OF IMPO. IMPO. IMPL. VERIFY APPLICABLE ISSUES RESOLUT INIT. COMP. METHOD COMP. COMPLET .
| |
| MPA-B-44 B-44 LESSONS LEARNED IMPLEMENTATION IMP STAFF 09/79C 05/80C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 07/83C N/A MPA-B-45 B-45 WASH 1400 EVENT V. " PRIMARY COOLANT SYST VER STAFF 02/80C 04/81C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 04/81C MPA-B-46 8-46 ANALYSIS OF TURBINE DISC CRACKS IMP STAFF 12/79C 08/81C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 00/81C N/A MPA-B-47 B-47 ECCS: CLAD SWELLING AND RUPTURE IMP STAFF 11/79C 09/80C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 00/82C N/A
| |
| +
| |
| MPA-B-48 B-48 ADEQUACY OF STATION ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTIO VER STAFF 01/80C 04/84C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 08/85C MPA-B-52 B-52 REVIEW OF SAFETY ASPECT OF INADVERTENT S IMP STAFF 06/79C 06/81C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 06/81I N/A MPA-B-57 B-57 DHR CAPABILITY IMPL LIC 06/80C 10/83C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 00/87 N/A MPA-B-59 B-59 MASONRY WALL DESIGN VER STAFF 05/80C 05/86C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 05/86C MPA-B-61 B-61 LOSS OF NON CLASS IE I&C POWER VER STAFF 11/79C 07/82C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 07/82C MPA-B-62 B-62 ESF RESET CONTROL DESIGN DEFICIENCY VER STAFF 03/80C 07/81C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 07/81C MPA-B-63 B-63 INTERIM PROCEDURES FOR SHORT TERM BLACK 0 VER STAFF 05/81C 12/81C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 00/81C
| |
| * MPA-B-64 B-64 B&C INDUCED FLUX ERRORS IMP STAFF 11/80C 04/82C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 00/82C N/A MPA-B-66 B-66 NATURAL CIRCULATION C00LDOWN VER STAFF 05/81C 06/86C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 12/85C MPA-B-69 B-69 IEB 80-4 MAINSTEAM LINE BREAK WITH CONTI VER STAFF 10/81C 10/82C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 06/82C MPA-B-72 B-72 NUREG 0737 TECH SPECS (GENERIC LETTER 82 IMPL LIC 03/83C 09/85C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 12/86 N/A MPA-B-83 B-83 TECH SPECIFICATIONS COVERED BY GENERIC L STAFF REV 03/84C 04/87 MULTIPLANT ACTIO 11/86 N/A MPA-C-01 C-01 PWR SECONDARY WATER CHEMISTRY MONITORING IMP STAFF 03/78C 08/80C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 04/84C N/A MPA-C-06 C-06 PUMP SUPPORT-LAMELLAR TEARING IMP STAFF 08/78C 04/81C MULTIPLANT ACTIO N/A N/A MPA-C-07 C-07 FUEL HANDLING ACCIDENT INSIDE CONTAINMEN IMP STAFF 01/77C 05/80C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 00/82C N/A MPA-C-14 C-14 AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SEISMIC QUALIFICATI0 VER STAFF 02/81C 08/83C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 07/85C MPA-C-16 C-16 UTILITY RESPONSES TO STAFF REC 0994ENDATIO IMP STAFF 06/85C 12/85C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 04/85C N/A MPA-D-08 D-08 DEFICIENCY IN CHEM ADDITION TO CONTAINME VER STAFF 12/76C 07/79C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 00/79C MPA-D-11 D-11 FISSION GAS RELEASE IMP STAFF 11/76C 02/80C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 00/81C N/A MPA-D-13 D-13 B&W SMALL BREAK ERROR IMP STAFF 04/78C 07/79C MULTIPLANT ACTIO N/A N/A MPA-D-14 D-14 REACTOR VESSEL WELD - WIRE DEFICIENCY IMP STAFF 08/78C 01/80C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 10/79I N/A MPA-D-15 D-15 HIGH ENERGY LINE BREAK & CONSEQUENTIAL S IMP STAFF 09/79C 01/84C MULTIPLANT ACTIO N/A N/A
| |
| .MPA-D-17 D-17 DEFINITION OF OPERABLE IMP STAFF 04/80C 07/81C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 07/81C N/A MPA-D-18 D-18 NUREG 0630 CLADDING MODELS (B&W PLANTS) IMP STAFF 06/83C 07/83C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 00/83C N/A MPA-E-01 E-01 SPENT FUEL POOL EXPANSIONS VER STAFF 01/78C 11/80C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 00/80C
| |
| ; MPA-E-03 E-03 CORE RELOADS REQUIRING PRIOR NRC APPROVA IMP STAFF 01/79C 07/79C MULTIPLANT ACTIO 00/80C N/A MPA-F-08 F-08 I.D.1.1 DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REV VER STAFF 04/83C 02/84C TMI ACTION PLAN 09/86C MPA-F-63 F-63 III.A.I.2 TECHNICAL SUPPORT CENTER VER STAFF 04/81C 09/86C TMI ACTION PLAN 05/83C MPA-F-64 F-64 III.A.I.2 OPERATIONAL SUPPORT CENTER VER STAFF 04/81C 09/86C TMI ACTION PLAN 05/83C MPA-F-65 F-65 III.A.1.2 EMERGENCY OPERATIONS FACILITY VER STAFF 04/81C 09/86C TMI ACTION PLAN 05/83C MPA-F-66 F-66 III.A.I.2 NUCLEAR DATA LINK IMPL LIC 04/81C 07/82C TMI ACTION PLAN 06/86 i MPA-F-71 F-71 I.D.1.2 DETAILED CONTROL ROOM REVIEW (F0 STAFF REV 10/84C 04/87 TMI ACTION PLAN 12/90 NMSS-2 ACCESS AUTHORIZATION REQ IMPO 02/87 12/87 04/88 /89 NMSS-3 MISC AMEND CONCERN PHYSICAL PROTECTION O REQ IMPO 07/86 10/86 /87 /87
| |
| | |
| .- . _ _ . _ .. . . . . . __..-_.__._.-._m. __ . .m ..
| |
| PAGE. 8 s
| |
| R-1216320-001 SAFETY ISSUE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM <
| |
| PLANT DATA BY GENERIC ISSUES NSSS THERMAL OL OL PLANT DOCKET TYPE --SUPPLIER CAPACITY LICENSEE STATE REGION ISSUE EXPIRATION
| |
| ............ ....... ._ ........ __.. . ........ ..... .. _..........._____.... ............. ..... ...... ..... .......... 6 CRYSTAL RIVER 3 05000302 PWR B&W 2544 MWT FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION' FL 2 01/77C 09/08 STAGE OF IMPO. IMPO. IMPL. VERIFY APPLICABLE ISSUES RESOLUT INIT. COMP. METHOD COMP. COMPLET NMSS-4 SEARCHES OF INDIVIDUALS AT POWER REACTOR REO IMPO 07/86 10/86 /87 /87 NMSS-5 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR SAFEGUARDS EV TECH RES /86 /86 /87 /87 NMSS-7 REQUIREMENTS FOR CRIMINAL HISTORY CHECKS TECH RES /87 /87 /88 ./88 NR2-3 SEVERE ACCIDENT POLICY IMPLEMENTATION ON TECH RES 09/87 /89 SEVERE ACCIDENT P /89 i S
| |
| 9 4
| |
| | |
| O
| |
| \
| |
| R g e k
| |
| e s be %
| |
| e h D 4
| |
| x a P a
| |
| | |
| -- .._ _. . - . - . -- .-_ .= - _ _ - - _ . . . . - . . - . -
| |
| i i
| |
| i I
| |
| i S.I.M.S.
| |
| !
| |
| * BACKGROUND i
| |
| * SEPTEMBER 1984, EDO DIRECTED A SYSTEM BE DEVELOPED 1
| |
| j
| |
| * DECEMBER 1985. SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS WERE FINALIZED 2
| |
| * APRIL 1986, SYSTEM WAS OPERATIONAL i
| |
| -+ MAY 1986, UPGRADE TO ADD PLANT SPECIFIC DATA COMPLETED
| |
| )
| |
| i
| |
| * FEBRUARY 1987, UPGRADE TO ADD INSPECTION REPORT DATA COMPLETED 3
| |
| * APRIL 1987, UPGRADE TO ADD NMSS MATERIALS DATA COMPLETED i
| |
| )
| |
| * APRIL 1987, UPGRADE TO ADD NRR GIMCS DATA COMPLETED 4
| |
| A d
| |
| i
| |
| ; /
| |
| | |
| S.I.M.S.
| |
| ;
| |
| * COMPUTER ENVIRONMENT SPECIFICS
| |
| * LOCATED AT NIH COMPUTER CENTER
| |
| * WRITTEN IN RAMIS II DBMS (REPORTER & ENGLISH QUERY)
| |
| * FULL SCREEN PROCESSING AND MENU DRIVEN
| |
| * TRAINING THROUGH ITS LAB
| |
| * ACCESS THRU PC WITH CROSSTALK OR TERMINAL THRU RENEX PROTOCOL CONVERTER
| |
| -+ QUERY RESPONSES ON-LINE TO SCREEN
| |
| * REPORTS BATCH TO NIH PRINTERS, LOCAL PRINTERS OR TO PC PRINTER (IF FEW PAGES)
| |
| | |
| o O
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| O s.I.M.S.
| |
| * GENERAL SYSTEM DESCRIPTION l
| |
| SIMS IS AN AUTOMATED SYSTEM WHICH PROVIDES A SINGLE SOURCE OF VALIDATED, RELIABLE INFORMATION CONCERNING NRC'S MANAGEMENT OF GENERIC ISSUES FROM l
| |
| CRADLE TO GRAVE.
| |
| SIMS CONTAINS INFORMATION AT BASICALLY TWO LEVELS -
| |
| : 1) ISSUE LEVEL - ISSUE LEVEL DATA AND PROCESSES DESCRIBE THE ISSUE, THE RESOLUTION, THE l REQUIREMENTS AND THE TRACKING OF MILESTONES AND STATUS AS THE ISSUE PROGRESSES THROUGH THESE PHASES.
| |
| : 2) PLANT LEVEL - PLANT LEVEL DATA AND PROCESSES
| |
| ; IDENTIFY AND TRACK MILESTONES AND STATUS OF RESOLVED ISSUES AS THEY ARE IMPOSED, IMPLEMENTED AND VERIFIED AT EACH AFFECTED FACILITY OR MATERIALS LICENSEE.
| |
| 3
| |
| | |
| O O O 4
| |
| i 1
| |
| 1 l S.LM.S.
| |
| j
| |
| * MAJOR ISSUE PROCESSING PHASES ISSUE ISSUE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENT IDENT. [ APPROVAI, [ RESOLIJTION mn APPROVAL
| |
| 'v v V g 4 4 .
| |
| ( INSPECTION PROGRAM I I j MODITICATION SRP PROCESS
| |
| ] MODITICATION
| |
| . REQUIREMENTS LICENSEE I
| |
| IMPOSITION A IMPLEMENTATION [ VERIFICATION V V i
| |
| I h
| |
| | |
| O O O S.I .M. S.
| |
| * DATA SOURCES FOR SIMS
| |
| -+ DATA IS ENTERED INTO SIMS DATAHASE VI A
| |
| : 1. ) UPDATE SCREENS
| |
| : 2) AUTOMATIC TRANSFER FROM OTHER SYSTEMS ISSUE SIMS IJPDATE SCREENS LEVEL DATA
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| XFER FROM RITS
| |
| [
| |
| ( ( XFER FROM TMI-Ol_ y PLANT XFER FROM TMI-NTOL LEVEL XFER FROM LORDS y DATA SIMS UPDATE SCREENS
| |
| | |
| . b O O.
| |
| 1 l
| |
| : S.I.M.S.
| |
| l
| |
| * ITEMS COVERED BY SIMS
| |
| * PHASE I COVERAGE INCLUDED:
| |
| ... ALL SAFETY RELATED GENERIC ISSUES AFFECTING POWER
| |
| , REACTORS AS IDENTIFIED BY PROGRAM OFFICES
| |
| ... TMI ACTION PLAN ISSUES PER NUREG-0737
| |
| * PHASE II COVERAGE INCLUDES:
| |
| ALL OTHER GENRIC REGULATORY ACTIONS ORIGINATING OR MODIFYING ANY OF THE FOLLOWING; REGULATIONS ORDERS l REGULATORY GUIDES BULLETINS l STANDARD REVIEW PLAN GENERIC LETTERS
| |
| ! POIJCIES STAFF POSITIONS i
| |
| I
| |
| | |
| l D O O
| |
| ! i i
| |
| i i l S .I.M. S .
| |
| i i
| |
| j
| |
| * GETTING DATA OUT OF SIMS l
| |
| * 10 STANDARD BATCH REPORTS
| |
| *8 UNRESOLVED ISSUES (GIMCS) REPORTS
| |
| *1 NMSS MATERIALS LICENSEE REPORT
| |
| *5 STANDARD ON-LINE QUERIES I
| |
| I 2
| |
| + USER DEFINED ON-LINE QUERIES OR BATCH REPORTS VIA -
| |
| ; ... RAMIS II REPORTER 1
| |
| ... RAMIS II ENGLISH i
| |
| 4
| |
| ; 7
| |
| | |
| i
| |
| ~
| |
| ~o o O l
| |
| 0 3.3. Functions There are five major functions which may be performed using SIMS. These functions are ONLINE RAMIS II REPORTER, RAMIS II ENGLISH, STANDARD QUERIES, SUBMIT BATCH REPORTS, and UPDATE DATABASE. These functions can be invoked by selecting the appropriate option from the screen belour I I I i l SAFETY ISSUES MANAGEMENT SYSTEM MAIN MENU l i I l ? INVOKE ONLINE RAMIS II REPORTER I I I l ? INVOKE ONLINE RAMIS II ENGLISH I I I I ? SUBMIT STANDARD QUERIES l 1 1 I ! SUBMIT BATCH REPORTS l 1 . I I ? UPDATE DATABASE I I 1 l PF9 = EXIT SIMS I ICMD: I l 1 i An X or any other character can be entered where the question mark
| |
| (!) appears to make a selection.- After making a selection, hit the enter / return key.
| |
| )
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| D O
| |
| ~
| |
| O i 4. REPORTS i
| |
| The Reports Function allows the user to select the type of 3
| |
| reports desired. Three types of reports are available* SIMS Standard Batch Reports, NRR Reports, and NMSS Tasks Reports. Jobs are submitted for execution when logging off from SIMS. All batch reports will print at the remote printer selected when the report l
| |
| ! was requested. Small reports (less than 10 pages) can be printed at a PC. To print a selected report at a PC, the user must select the output hold option under the general job setup information prior to running the report. Se'ction 9 describes the procedures used to -
| |
| }
| |
| 4 , retrieve a report from hold and print at a PC.
| |
| I i
| |
| 4.1. Submitting Reports 1
| |
| Dutput selections are preset for batch reports job.
| |
| Selections are begun under Processing Options. To change job information selections, either back tab to the appropriate
| |
| ! entry or forward tab past the last a'vailable entry. To change job information selections, enter a (?) on the old selection, and '
| |
| enter X or any character other than a (?) at the desired selection. When all of the appropriate information has been
| |
| ] The job number will be 1
| |
| selected, press the enter / return key.
| |
| displayed after exiting SIMS.
| |
| 4 a
| |
| l I I I
| |
| ]
| |
| . I SIMS REPORTS MENU i l I j
| |
| : I -? SIMS STANDARD BATCH REPORTS l I 1 l
| |
| j l ? MRR REPORTS l I I 2
| |
| l l ? NMSS TASKS REPORTS I I i
| |
| ' I i I
| |
| , l PF9= RETURN TO MAIN MENU i <
| |
| j l I s
| |
| l CMD: l 1 I l
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| ~
| |
| O O O o
| |
| 4.2. SIMS Batch Reports There are 10 reports avaIIable using the SIMS Batch Report Menu.
| |
| The report processing parameter screen is invoked as soon as a report is selected from the following screen 1 I l l l SIMS BATCH REPORTS MENU l i I I ISSUES LEVEL I l ! STATUS OF SELECTED ISSUES NOT YET RESOLVED l l ? STATUS OF REQUIREMENT REVIEW FOR SELECTED ISSUES I l ? REQUIREMENTS IMPOSITION STATUS OF SELECTED ISSUES l l ? IMPLEMENTATION / VERIFICATION STATUS OF SELECTED ISSUES l l ? STATUS OF REQUIREMENTS IMPLEMENTATION BY STAFF i 1 1 I PLANT LEVEL l l ? ISSUES APPLICABLE TO OPERATING PLANTS I l ? REQUIREMENTS IMPOSITION STATUS l l ! LICENSEE IMPLEMENTATION & NRC VERIFICATION STATUS l l ? ALL PLANT DATA FOR SELECTED PLANTS l I i l ? SIMS-INFORMATION REPORT l l l l PF9= RETURN TO MAIN MENU l 1 l lCMD: l I I
| |
| /C)
| |
| | |
| -. . .- . - .. ..~._. -._
| |
| . . - - ~ .._ _.. . .. .-
| |
| i i
| |
| 4 4.3. NRR Reports are eight reports available using the NRR Reports Menu. The There report processing parameter screen is invoked as soon as a report is selected from the following screent I
| |
| I l
| |
| I NRR REPORTS l l
| |
| l 1
| |
| I l t ISSUES SCHEDULED FOR RESOLUTION I
| |
| I ? TASK SHEETS ;
| |
| I l ? GENERIC ISSUES TO BE PRIORITIZED '
| |
| l I ? GENERIC ISSUES TO BE REPRIORITIZED l
| |
| I ! GENERIC ISSUES PRIORITIZED I
| |
| l ? GENERIC ISSUES RESOLVED BY FY l
| |
| l ? GENERIC ISSUES SCHEDULED FOR RESOLUTION (SUMM)
| |
| ISSUES SCHEDULED FOR RESOLUTION BY FY l t I ?
| |
| I i l l PF9= RETURN TO PREVIOUS REPORT MENU I
| |
| I 1
| |
| I CMD: I 1
| |
| s
| |
| //
| |
| | |
| ._ _.__ _ _ _ _. _.__ _ _ _,_ _ _ _._ _. . _____..~._.._ ._ _._ _ _ _ ._. . _ ____.
| |
| j
| |
| -o o .O i
| |
| i ,
| |
| i, I
| |
| i I
| |
| 4 i
| |
| j 4.4. MMSS Tasks Reports i
| |
| j There is one report available using the NMSS Tasks Reports Menu.
| |
| , The report processing parameter screen is invoked as soon as the report is selected from the following screens b
| |
| ] I I I NMSS TASKS REPORTS I i
| |
| I I l l ? MILESTONE INFORMATION FOR NMSS TASKS l x
| |
| I I j l i j l PF9= RETURN TO PREVIOUS REPORT MENU i I l
| |
| ! I I
| |
| I i I
| |
| 1 i
| |
| l
| |
| !1
| |
| /h i . ._ _ _ _ ~ __. _ _ - . _ _ . _
| |
| | |
| .O O O
| |
| : 5. STANDARD QUERIES The Standard Query Function aIIous the user to submit any of the queries displayed on the SIMS STANDARD QUERIES MENU.
| |
| I I
| |
| I I
| |
| SAFETY ISSUES MANAGEMENT SYSTEM MAIN MENU l l
| |
| I 1
| |
| INVOKE ONLINE RAMIS II REPORTER I l ?
| |
| l l
| |
| INVOKE ONLINE RAMIS II ENGLISH l l !
| |
| I l
| |
| SUBMIT STANDARD QUERIES l l ?
| |
| I 1
| |
| ? SUBMIT BATCH REPORTS I l
| |
| 1 l
| |
| UPDATE DATABASE I l ?
| |
| I I
| |
| l PF9 = EXIT SIMS l l
| |
| lCMD I
| |
| I l
| |
| I 1
| |
| l l
| |
| l SIMS STANDARD QUERIES MENU l I
| |
| i l l ? LIST ALL ISSUES l
| |
| 1 LIST IMPOSITION MULTIPLANT ACTION ISSUES I l !
| |
| l I
| |
| ? LIST IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION STATUS FOR ISSUES I I
| |
| I I
| |
| ? LIST VERIFICATION COMPLETION STATUS FOR ISSUES l l
| |
| I I
| |
| l l ? LIST POST IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION STATUS FOR ISSUES 1
| |
| 1 PF9 = RETURN TO MAIN MENU l '
| |
| I l
| |
| 1 l
| |
| l}7 ICMD:
| |
| l l
| |
| | |
| _ - --. - . - _ - ._ - ~ - . - - - ~__ - - - . ..- - - .
| |
| ~o O O
| |
| ?
| |
| R-12163I0-001 RUN DATE: 05/26/87 SAFETY ISSUES MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE I SAFETY ISSUE LEVEL INFORMATION ISSUE NUMBER; A-10 TITLE: BWR FEEDWATER N0ZZLE CRACKING CONTACT: R. GILBERT TYPE: MPA IDENTIFYING ORGANIZATION: NRR STATUS: SPONSORING OFFICE. NRR P2IORITY: TYPE OF REACTORS AFFECTED: OTHER:
| |
| DEPENDENT ISSUES:
| |
| DESCRIPTION SOLUTION (NEAR AND LONG TERM) j MPA PROBLEM BACKGROUND ESSENTIAL SAFETY MODIFICATION l
| |
| ; INSPECTIONS OF OPERATING 8WRS CONDUCTED UP TO APRIL THE USI WAS RESOLVED IN NOVEMBER 1980. WITH THE
| |
| ! 1978 REVEALED CRACKS IN THE FEEDWATER N0ZZLES OF 20 ISSUANCE OF NUREG-0619. THIS NUREG ALSO INCLUDED i
| |
| ! EEACTOR VESSELS. IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE REcope1ENDATIONS TO CORRECT CRD N0ZZLE CRACKING "
| |
| CRACKING WAS DUE TO HIGH-CYCLE FATIGUE CAUSED BY PROBLEMS. PLANT SPECIFIC FIXES TO MEET NUREG-0619 s INCLUDED SUCH THINGS AS ADOING TRIPLE SLEEVE FLUCTUATIONS IN WATER TEMPERATURE WITHIN THE VESSEL IN THE N0ZZLE REGION. THESE FLUCTUATIONS OCCURRED SPARGERS CONDUCTING PERIODIC INSPECTIONS. AND DURING PERIODS OF LOW FEEDWATER TEMPERATURE WHEN ADDING DIFFERENTIAL THERMO-COUPLES ON THE N0ZZLES WHEN FLOW IS UNSTEADY AND INTERMITTENT. ONCE PLANT SPECIFIC SAFETY EVALUATIONS WERE WRITTEN.
| |
| INITIATED. THE CRACKS ENLARGED FROM HIGH PRESSURE THE RESIDENTS MAY HAVE ALREADY INSPECTED THIS.
| |
| l AND THERMAL CYCLING ASSOCIATED WITH STARTUPS AND SHUTDOWNS THIS ITEM WAS ORIGINALLY IDENTIFIED IN NUREG-0371 AND WAS LATER DETERMINED TO BE AN UNRESOLVED SAFETY ISSUE tuSI).
| |
| POINT RANGE l NET CHANGE IN DOLLAR COST ESTIMATE LOW HIGH NRC DEVELOPMENT. . . . . . . . . ... *** NOME AVAILABLE ***
| |
| NRC (IMPLEMENTATION / IMPOSITION). . . . *** NONE AVAILA8LE ***
| |
| NRC (ASSURE CONTINUED COMPLIANCE). . .. *** NONE AVAILA8LE ***
| |
| PUBLIC/ INDUSTRY /0THER IIMPLEMENTATION) . *** NONE AVAILABLE ***
| |
| PUBLIC/ INDUSTRY /0THER (CONTINUED COMPLIANCE) *** NONE AVAILABLE ***
| |
| NET CHANGES _IN_BE_NEFITS PUBLIC EXPOSURE. . . . . . . . *** h0NE AVAILABLE ***
| |
| OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE. . - . *** NONE AVAILABLE *** ,
| |
| CORE MELT FREQUENCY. . . . . *** NONE AVAILA8LE ***
| |
| M
| |
| | |
| R-1216310-001 RUN DATE: 05/26/87 SAFETY ISSUES MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 2 SAFETY ISSUE LEVEL INFORMATION ISSUE NUMBER: A-10 TITLE: BWR FEEDWATER N0ZZLE CRACKING I. ISSUE APPROVAL AND PLANN.ING: ISSUE APPROVAL DATE:
| |
| : 2. TE_CHNI_ CAL RESOLUTION: LEAD OFFICE: SUPPORTING OFFICE (S): ,
| |
| INITIATION DATE: ,****** INTER OFFICE REVIEW / COORDINATION COMPLETION DATE: ******
| |
| PROPOSED SOLUTIONS /REQUIREP8ENTS APPROVAL BY OFFICE DIRECTOR DATE: ******
| |
| : 3. RIQUIREMENTS REVIEW AND APPROVAL: INITIAL CRGR REVIEW DATE: ****** RESOLVED WITH REQUIREMENTS: Y R_U L E M A K I N G OTHER LSPECIFE FORM. . . . . . . ANPR PROPOSED FINAL OFFICE RESPONSIBLE. . . . . . * *
| |
| * NRR EDO APPROVAL TO PROCEED (YES/MO) * * * ***
| |
| CRGR REVIEW DATE. . . . . . . . * * * ******
| |
| ACRS REVIEW DATE. . . . . . . N N N ******
| |
| EDO REVIEW DATE . . , . . . . . 0 0 0 ******
| |
| APPROVAL iYES/MO). . . . . N N N ***
| |
| COPMISSION REVIEW DATE. . . . . E E E ****** ,
| |
| i l
| |
| APPROVAL (YES/MO). . . . . . * * * ***
| |
| l PUBLIC COPMENT DATE - . . . . * * * ******
| |
| l FINAL APPROVAL AIO ISSUANCE DATE * *
| |
| * 08/78C I
| |
| : 4. REQUIREMENTS IMPOSITION NEEDED FOR VERIFICATION:
| |
| A .. IMPOSITION - LICENSED PLANTS:
| |
| MULTIPLANT ACTION CODE: B-25 -- SWR FEEDWATER N0ZZLE CRACMING OINER: APPROVAL OF LICENSEE PROPOSAL NEEDED (YES/NOI:
| |
| t
| |
| /
| |
| | |
| .g g o D-1216310-001 RUN DATE: 05/26/8T SAFETY ISSUE 5 MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 3 SAFETY ISSUE LEVEL INFORMATION 1 ISSUE NUMBER: A-10 TITLEi BWR FEEDWATER'N0ZZLE CRACKING B. IMPOSITION - PLANTS NOT LICE _NSED: SRP REVIEW PROCESS: OTHER (SPECIFYl: MULTIPLANT ACTION C. IMPOSITI_0_m - ALL 7LANTS: OFFICE RESPONSIBLE: NRR D NEED FOR VERIFICATION / POST IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW:
| |
| NEEDED OFFICE LYE _SLNOJ RESP _0_NSIBLE VERIFICATION. . . . . YES --
| |
| MPA VERIFICATION PRIORITY:
| |
| POST IMPLEMENTATION - --
| |
| : 5. REQUIREMENT _S IMPLEMENTATION BY LICENSEE _AND_VERIF_ICATION_BY_NRC:
| |
| COMPLETION DATE OF STATUS (PLANTS) LAST PLANT _
| |
| IMPOSITION. . . . . . . 24 OF 24 860TC IMPLEMENTATION. . . . . 16 CF 24 9012 VERIFICATION. . . . . . . . 0 0F 24 POST IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW. . 0 0F 24
| |
| : 6. REQUIREMENT _S. IMPLEMENTATION BY STAFF:
| |
| A. STAFF REQUIREPENTS -- N O N E COMPLETION DATE: ****** OFFICE (S) RESPONSIBLE:
| |
| B ROUTIMEjNSPECTION PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS: MODIFICATIONS NEEDED (YES/N01: MODIFICATION COMPLETION DATE: ******
| |
| M0DIFICATION TEXT
| |
| *** NO MODIFICATION TEXT FOR ISSUE ***
| |
| _. _. _ . . . _ _ _ ._ _ _ . _ _ _ _ ._ .. _ , _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ . . _ _ . . _ . . _ , , ~ . . . . - - , _ , _ . . _ - . -.. . . , .. . .. .
| |
| | |
| ' A
| |
| , N 1
| |
| l R-1216310-001 RUN DATE: 05/26/87 SAFETY ISSUES MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 4 PLANT LEVEL INFORMATION ISSUE NUMBER: A-10 TITLE: BWR FEEDWATER N0ZZLE CRACKING IMPOS POST DOCKET REACTOR OL OL MANAGE IMPOS IMPOS IMPLEM VERIFY IMPLEM PLANT DCCKET e PRIORITY TYPE ISSUE EXPJR METHOD INIT COMPLET COMPLET COMPLET REVIEW BRCb45 FERRY 2 05000260 BWR 08/74C 05/07 M 06/84C 06/84C 03/88 N/A ******
| |
| BRCW%S FERRY 3 05000296 BWR 08/76C 07/08 M 06/84C 06/84C 11/84C N/A ******
| |
| BRUESWICK 1 05000325 BWR 11/76C 02/10 M 11/81C 11/81C 11/31C N/A ******
| |
| BEUkSWICK 2 05000324 BWR 12/74C 02/10 M 11/81C 11/81C 07/86C N/A ******
| |
| COOPER STATICM 05000298 BWR 01/74C 06/08 M 10/81C 10/81C 10/81C N/A ******
| |
| DRESDEN 2 05000237 BWR 12/69C ****** M 11/83C 11/83C 11/83C ****** ******
| |
| DRESDEN 3 05000249 BWR 03/71C 10/06 M 11/83C 11/83C 11/83C N/A ******
| |
| DUAAE ARNGLD 05000331 BWK 02/74C 06/10 M 12/81C 12/31C 00/81C N/A ******
| |
| FITZPATRICK 05000333 BWR 10/74C 05/10 M 09/81C 09/81C 01/86C N/A ******
| |
| HATCH I 05000321 BWR 10/74C 09/09 M 10/81C 10/81C 01/86C N/A ******
| |
| HATCH 2 05000366 BWR 06/78C I2/12 M 10/81C 10/81C 01/86C N/A ******
| |
| HOPE CREEK 1 05000354 BWR ****** ****** M 07/86C 07/86C ****** N/A ******
| |
| HUMBOLDT BAY 3 05000133 BWR 08/62C ****** M 06/81C 06/81C N/A N/A ******
| |
| MILLSTONE 1 05000245 BWR 10/70C ****** M 06/83C 06/83C 06/83C N/A ******
| |
| MONTICELLO 05000263 BWR 01/71C 06/07 M 01/82C 01/82C 05/83C N/A ******
| |
| CINE MILE POINT 1 05000220 BWR 08/69C 04/05 M 01/70C 01/70C 12/81C ****** ******
| |
| CVSTER CREEK 1 05000219 BWR 08/69C ****** M 03/82C 03/82C 12/90 N/A ******
| |
| PEACH BOTTCM 2 05000277 BWR 12/73C 01/08 M 09/80C 09/80C 09/80C N/A ******
| |
| PEACH BOTTCM 3 05000278 BWR 07/74C 01/08 M 09/79C 09/79C 09/80C N/A ******
| |
| PILGRIM 1 05000293 BVR 09/72C 08/08 M 05/84C 05/84C 00/00 N/A ******
| |
| CUAD CITIES 1 05000254 BWR 12/72C 02/07 M 11/80C 11/80C 00/80! N/A ******
| |
| CUAC CITIES 2 05000265 BWR 12/72C 02/07 M 11/80C 11/80C 00/80I ****** ******
| |
| VERMGMT YANKEE 1 05000271 BWR 02/73C 12/07 M 06/84C 06/84C 06/84C N/A ******
| |
| i
| |
| /7
| |
| | |
| ~
| |
| D O O s.I.M.s.
| |
| TOTAL NUMBER OF GENERIC ISSUES ISSUE TYPE UNRESOLVED RESOLVED TOTAL TMI-0737 O 178 178 USI 14 5 19 OTHER 94 204 298 TOTAL 108 387 495
| |
| . 387 ISSUES HAVE BEEN TECHNICALLY RESOLVED AND ARE IN VARIOUS STACES OF IMPOSITION. IMPLEMENTATION AND VERIFICATION.
| |
| . 106 ISSUES ARE IN THE RESOLUTION PROCESS.
| |
| ***** DATA AS OF 5/22/87 -****
| |
| /7
| |
| | |
| o O O s.I.M.S.
| |
| TOTAL NUMBER OF PLANT LEVEL ITEMS ISSUE TYPE UNRESOLVED RESOLVED TOTAL TMI-0737 0 9,068 9,068 USI 561 199 760 OTHER 3,5 G 1 7,800 11,361 TOTALS 4.122 17,067 21,189
| |
| ...THE 495 ISSUES CAUSE 21.189 PLANT LEVEL ITEMS.
| |
| . SIMS ALSO CONTAINS 9,158 PIANT SPECIFIC ITEMS WHICH ARE NOT ROOTED IN A GENERIC ISSUE.
| |
| I l ***** DATA AS OF 5/22/87 *****
| |
| 1 17 1
| |
| 1
| |
| | |
| i S.I.M.S.
| |
| l STATUS OF RESOLVED PIANT LEVEL ITEMS LICENSEE SER N/A, OR N/A, OR ISSUE TYPE NOTIFIED ISSUED IMPLEMENTED VERIFIED TMI-0737 9,068 7,941 7,553 6,698 USI 199 199 199 199 OTHER 7,800 7,042 6,528 5,073 TOTALS 17,067 15,182 14,280 11,970 1
| |
| . FOR ALL ISSUES-~ 88.9% HATE SER'S ISSUED 94.0% WITE SER'S HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED OR N/A 83.8% OF THOSE IMPLEMENTED HAVE BEEN VERIFIED OR N/A x
| |
| ***** DATA AS OF 5/22/87 *****
| |
| Jo
| |
| | |
| i i
| |
| i ,
| |
| i i
| |
| l
| |
| \ ,
| |
| l i
| |
| ! S.I.M.S.
| |
| FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT SIMS PLEASE CALL.... '
| |
| i i
| |
| l CHUCK FITZGERALD ON 492-8322 l
| |
| l l
| |
| i 7/ .
| |
| _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - - - -_}}
| |