ML19262B898
| ML19262B898 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/21/1979 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8001160433 | |
| Download: ML19262B898 (100) | |
Text
'
DRMil.
L 1-
/
NUCLEAR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
PUBLIC MEETING CONTINUATION OF BRIEFING ON ACTION PLAN
\\
Place -
Wa.tington, D. C.
Date -
Friday, 21 December 1979 Pages 1 - 74 1754 018 Tw. phen.:
(202)347 3700 ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS,INC.
.s~
OfficialReporters
(
444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 8001100 i
NATIONWIDE COVERAGE. DAILY
r 1
CR8895 DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on Friday, 21 Decerber 1979 in the Commissions's offices at 1717 H Street, N.
W., Washington, D.C.
The meeting was open to public attendence and observation.
This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain
' inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determinations or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
1 1754 4)19
7 2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CR8895 1
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
i 3
PUBLIC MEETING 4
CONTINUATION OF BRIEFING ON ACTION PLAN l
5 I
i 6
1 7
Room 1130 l
1717 H Street, N.W.
8 Washington, D.
C.
i 9
Friday, 21 December 1979 I
i I
10 !
The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m.
j
'l BEFORE:
12 JOtIN F. AHEARNE, Chairman of the Commission e
13 VICTOR GILINSKY, C'ommissioner 14 RICHARD T. KENNEDY, Commissioner 15 '
JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Commissioner 16 PETER A. BRADFORD, Commissioner i
I I
17 l ALSO PRESENT:
Scinto, Chilk, Purple, Gossick, O' Reilly, '
i 18 ll Messrs. Mattson,
!j Scroggins, Bickwit, Mueller, Denton, Levine, Case, Skovholt, 19 !; Budnitz, Stello, and Pike.
20,
21 t
22 p 23 24 1754 020
. ~.. ~.,. ~.
25 l
9}O1 1 3
pv MM I
PR0CEEDINGS 2
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Good morning.
3 We ll, Roger, you're back with us again.
4 Lee, do you have any comments you'd like to make 5
this morning?
6 MR. GOSSICK:
No.
I will Just ask Roger to try to 7
lead us through as f ar as we can get this morning.
8 DR. MATTSON2 Well, we have two hours, and I would 9
suggest that we proceed the way we have talked about last 10 Wednesday.
I think someone described it as " wallowing
.11 through" the bigger issues.
12 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I pref er " wading" there.
It 13 has a sense of motion.
14 (Laughter.)
.15 DR. MATISON:
But 1 think we ought to reserve at 16 least a half hour, and maybe 45 minutes, near the end to 17 talk about a couple of things.
One iss you have in front 13 of you a busy sheet on resources, and we talked about that a 19 little less than the delta you asked for.
It may not spring 20 right out at yo u.
The other thing you have in f ront of you 21 that we would like to talk about about the same time is 22 called a priority-ranking system.
It's a way to put 23 numerical weights on the various elements of the plan, and I 24 think it's good to talk aoout that at the same time we talk 25 about resources.
95,0162 4
pv MM 1
Just to. fill you in on the other sheets of paper 2
you have, one sheet of paper, called " Congressional 3
Commitments," missing from the action plan, you may recall 4
that the office of congressional aff airs some weeks ago went 5
back through commission testimony since the accident 6
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I am missing the action plan.
7 (Document handed to chairman.)
8 DR. MATTSON:
We took the congressional aff airs 9
list of statements of intent or promises or whatever that 10 they found in the testimony and compared with the action
.I l clan, and those are the ones that we think will have holes 12 that we will have to go bac k to do something about.
13 Another thing I told you about on Wednesday that 14 we would provide today is a writeup for a potential addition 15 to the action plan, called " Attit'ude."
That's Roman IV-F, 16 and that's in the s. tack of papers before ycu.
17 I.think we needn't talk about any of those things 13 except the priority thing and the resource thing today, and 19 I propose that we save a half hour at the end and come 20 back.
Also, at the.end I want to talk about schedule.
I 21 will nake a handout of a very busy time line in addition to 22 schedule later.
23 Remenber, last Wednesday we told you how we had 23 divided the tasks, 245 tasks, into A group, S categoriest 25 and we had started with the.first four o'f, the long-tern t754 02;2 v
)
'l
750103 5
pv MM i
major programs in category D and agreed we would come back 2
today and keep that same kind of discussion going.
3 In view of the fact that we've only got an hour 4
and a half or so to work on these category D things, I would 5
like to suggest that we start in reverse order today, go 6
back to the miscellaneous category D items, and then just 7
take a couple of them to give the flavor of what they are, 8
then flop osck to page 2 which was more short-term lessons 9
learned and take a couple or three of those, and then, as 10 tine allows, bounce back to page I 11 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
This action plan.is a buffet 12 meal?
13 DR. MATTSON:
Yes.
14 (Laughter.)
15 DR. MATTSON:
The reason being if we spent today 16 just going on through page I,
you'll only get the flavor of 17 the major programs category and category D.
And rememoer, 18 we said all of them in category D were deserving of 19 attention, and rather early.
So, I thought it would be 20 better than to work through item af ter item, page af ter 21 page, just stipulate at the beginning we can't get through 22 them all but it would be better to give you a flavor.
23 The reason I would like to do that is because I 24 think we will probaoly agree near the end of the meeting as 25 we did near the end of the Wednesday mee, ting that we need to 117 54' J0f 3
9501d4 6
pv MM i
decide when we are going to get the near-term OL and 2
operating reactor specific criteria and items in the action 3
plan on the table f or speci.fic discussion.
And I would like 4
to give you a full flavor f or D bef ore we do that.
5 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
And are you going to, at the 6
same time, suggest when you might be ready to have culled 7
out that list of near-term operator licensing actions?
8 DR. MATTSON:
I'm sorry, I don't -- go ahead.
~
9 Bob.
10 MR. PURPLE:
You will have on the schedule that 11 event.
12 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Fine.
13 DR. MATTSON:
Yes.
I am sorry.
I didn't hear 14 your que stion.
COM$ISSIoljER HENDRIE:
15 When?
16 MR. PURPLE:
de can talk about it now.
17 DR. MATTSON:
We were going to talk about it at 13 the end.
19 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
What's the date?
20 DR. MATTSON:
That we talk about near-term OL and 21 operating reactor criteria, that's the cuestioni right?
22 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE True.
23 DR. MATTSON:
Schedule we're going to show you 24 says we do that after draft No. 2 of 0660, this big thick 25 thing, whicn would say the 22nd of J&nuary.
And the 754'b24'
750105 7
pv M4 1
alternative of that is to do it with draft No.
1, in which 2
case we can do it this af ternoon or any point between this 3
af ternoon and the 22nd of January, at y:ur choice.
4 CHAIRMAN AHEA.4NE:
de ll, I think it's probably 5
less which draft one uses but rather when you are ready to 6
propose some culling.
7 DR. MATTSON:
The time line I will show you shows 8
a number of other things that are going on, and in the 9
context of those otner things that are gcIng on you may want 10 to pick when you talk about the near term of OL and OR
.11 criteria.
12 de ll, you have another piece of paper in front cf 13 you that's got the long-term major programs.
These are the 14 typed version of those long sheets we had on Wednesday.
I 15 would 1ike to slip to the third category, " Mis c e ll ane ous,"
16 and I would like to start with item No. 2, siting.
17 Dan Mueller was here?
IS MR. MUELLER:
Yes.
19 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
If I tak'e this object and 20 throw away the wrong pages, have I missed anything?
21 DR. MATTSON:
That's right.
Throw away the lo ng 22 pages and attach the three tyoed pages, and you've got it 23 right.
24 Mr. Mueller, why don't you come up to the table.
25 I will say a couple of words about the siting 1754 025
950106 8
pvMM 1
action plan.
It's Roman.II-A.
It's easy to find in your 2
book.
Basically, it says:
" Implement the siting. policy 3
task force recommendations and apply the new rule that comes 4
out of those recommendations to new cps."
And then it goes 5
on to say:
"For cps presently pending, develop an interim 6
set of criterion derived from Reg Guide 4.7 and from the 7
siting polic y task force paper" -- 0625 I belleve -
"and S
apply those interim criteria to pending CP applicants before 9
granting a CP.
If they pass, then insofar as siting is 10 concerned, a CP would be granted; if they fail, it wouldn't
.I l be."
12 It goes on to say that for plants which have 13 already been granted a CP but for which no siginficant 14 construction has been accomplished, that is 'de f e rred 15 construction plans.
Similarly, require them to be tested 16 against the interim criteria and make a decision about 17 whether to allow tne CP to continue In force.
Now, there 13 may be grada tions, as the next topic will suggest.
19 The other thing that it says in the siting action 20 plan ls that for Indian Point and Zion, sites with very high 21 population densities, undertake to look at 22 consequence-mitigation f eatures or special operations 23 situations or other things to ameliorate or offset the risk 24 associated with the very high population density site for an 25 operating reactor.
e
". )
,a
, DS4 026
95010'7 9
pvMM i
No.w let me go back to plants under construction or 2
early construction.
It's possible that you might, rather 3
than simply revoke a CP, consider an option of design 4
backfit analogous to, but procably not identical to. the 5
kind of backfit under consideration for the high population 6
dens it y operating --
isn't there some 7
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
doulon't 8
stages you go back down that chain where under a current 9
operating plant, if it's in very high p;pulation dens ity 10 area, and you conclude that it regulres as a result of these 11 reviews extraordinary or extra f eatures -- that is, you go 12 back down the line in the construction process -- there must 13 be a point at which you say that although for an operating 14 plant you wguld recommend putting in these f eatures, for a 15 plant that's hardly starte'd it doesn't make sense to then 16 build it there?
17 DR. MATTSON:
That's clearly a possible decision.
13 I don't know that anybody has thought through their own 19 positions in order to state them to you on how that question 20 ought to come out, but it's that thought process and that 21 decision process that is supposed to be embodied in this 22 action plan.
It will lead to those kind of ouestions and 23 answers.
And the schedule is as stated in the plan.
24 Dan, was there anything you wanted to add from 25 your task manager's view as to what the plan says and wnat g
950108 10 pv MM 1
the uncertainties are on your part and getting it from here 2
to approval,?
3 (At 9: 45, Commissioner Ke nnedy arrives. )
4 MR MUELLER:
One tning I might add, the element 5
of the plan regarding seismic criteria, Part 100, CF4 Part 6
100, is one I think the connission has already discussed in 7
the budget cycle and has already agreed to defer that for 8
some period of time.
So, perhaps that should be stricken 9
from the plan.
10 DR. MATTSON:
Mr. Minogue wrote a letter to
.11 Mr. Denton, I think, yesterday or the day bef ore.
In any 12 event, he recommends that that be done.
I think that as far 13 as our steering group is concerned, tnat's what we would 14 agree with.
15 MR. MUELLER :
I guess the other comment I have is 16 that from my point of view I would prefer to, on the second 17 phase of the plan, the construction permit, nerar-term 18 construction permit cases, to come up with the siting 19 criteria for the new rule, the population density and 20 distribution criteria, and then apply them to the cps.
21 rather than the interim step that Roger suggested.
22 VOICE:
What about the length of time involved?
23 DR. MATTSON:
I don't see any difficulty involved 24 in --
25
'AR. MUELLER:
We're talking about ge tting the
?fhk.0h 4
150109
.11
[o v M.4 I
interim criteria in six months.
2 DR. MATTSON:
We can do the croposed rule 3
criterion the same time?
4 MR. MUELLER :
That's right.
It's a cuestion of 5
letters to the applicants it. March thet yo u su gg es t ed,
5 versus about June or July the way I am suogsting.
7 DR. M AIT50N:
It doesn't s eem like a lot of time 8
un.'.ess you are personally indeoendent on tne CP.
9 CHAIRMAJ AHEARNE:
On page 2-A-2. No. 2, it says 10
" Require all CP 3pplicants, and those CP holders would not 11 accceplish significant construction."
Why wouldn't you just 12 require all CP holders?
13 MR. MUELLER:
I don't think there is any reason 14 why not to.
The question is, of cour.se, you r,equire the CP 15 holders to evaluate their site against'some sort of criteri,a 16 that we come up with.
The real question is t once that's 17 done, what do you do with the information that you have?
13 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
But doesn't it have to oe done 19 anyway?
20 MR. MUELLER:
Yes.
21 CO MMISSIONER MENDRId :
Not from a siting 22 standpoint, for pity's sake s.
You mean you're going to go 23 to North Anna and say, "Tell me about your site, and we're 24 not sure we want North Anna to build here"?
It is built 25 there.
That is, there are a class o't those plantst you come U5:4 @29
95 3;l'0 12 p v MM i
to a place where you have to treat them, in e ff ect, a s 2
though they were operating licenses f rom the standpoint of 3
these siting elements.
You're no longer in a decision 4
states should we build here?
5 CHAIRMAN 6HEARNE:
I am not so much saying that 6
you reached -- that's what I was trying to get at with 7
Roger.
It seens to me there's a phase s at one end there's 3
the area where they have just begun thinking about planning 9
to build a plant; at the other end you have a place where a 10 plant is operating.
A whole spectrum.
You look, I think, 11 at some stage, whether it/ L us or somecody else, is going to 12 take our siting criteria and look across every one of those 13 places.
And at one end of the spectrum where the plants 14 have not yet ev,en begun to be built, they are just in the 15 early planning stag es t it completely f alls out of our siting 16 c r i te rla, you sa y, "No, that's not where we're going to 17 allow a plant."
la CO M;4ISSIONER HENDRI2:
No, no, wait.
You won't 19 look across that whole spectrum of plants with regard to 20 siting criteria.
You wi.11 look across that whole spectrum 21 of plants, looking at emergency planning considerations on 22 the operating end, and at siting criteria which would 23 include energenc y planning at the other end.
And what I an 24 saying is that as you come to tha middle, clants which are 25 in construction don't have operating licenses, are more lit 030..
A50111 13 pv VM I
OL-like than CP-lik e.
2 CHAIRMAN AHEAPNE:
I don't disagree with that.
3 CO MMISSIONER HENDRIE :
So, whatever analysis one 4
does on an operating plant to decide what do we do scout 5
emergency planning and so on is the kind of analysis which I 6
would think appropriate to make of olents that do not ha ve 7
operating licenses but are in tne construction phase.
The 8
siting decisions, it seems to me, are past.
9 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I am not raising it as a siting 10 decision.
It's -- as the e ff ect o f the review shif ts, the il closer you get to operating, it shif ts to the kind of things 12 that they're looking at for a ned plant.
13 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Where are the North Anna, 14 the ones in the North Anna, that have been picked up?
Ar,e 15 they part of reviews of other plants to be completed by 16 September 30, 1980, or is there a gap in there between the 17 cps that will be reviewed and the plants with the OLs?
18 MR. MUE LLER :
I would think it would cone in under 19 item 2 here.
20 MR. DENTON:
Are you talking aoout near-term OLs 21 or any plants that are in the --
22 CO MMI SSIO.1ER 3RADFORD:
Whatever the group is that 23 one decides they're too f ar along in construction to aoply 24 the full siting review to, but that don't yet.have OLs so 25 that they would f all into the category of other operating P754 031
95011'2 14 o
pv MM i
plants to be reviewed for emergency planning.
2 MR. DENTOd*
There aren't any which escape a 3
review, and all the ones that are in the near-term OL stage, 4
something wnich we expect to oe completed this year, we S
would be looking at the emergenc y pl anning capabilities of 5
the states and local areas that they are in.
The ones whicn 7
are f urther down the road we would look under t erms of 3
construction and proce ss, we would take up through letters 9
to them.
But one, for exanple. Sequoyah emergency planning 10 status is an integral part of our review of that. even for 11 the near-term fuel low-power license.
12 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Saul?
13
~
MR. LEVINE:
I just wanted to say that research 15 14 doing some work in conjunction with the task force that d
15 Harold just mentioned, at Zion.
And it's likely that this 16 work will lead to new perceptions that would a ff ect how you G:l 1.7 would look at siting criteria and what you can do about 13 reactors that are already ou11t -- not just Indian Point and 19 Z ion.
So, you will be in the shifting-sand situation for a 20 while.
21 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Shaky foundation?
22 23 24 25
750201 15 kapMM 1
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
A good place to wallow.
2 CHAIRMAd AHEARNE:
That's due March of '80; is 3
that correct?
That particular task force?
4 MR. MATTSON:
That's what he's saying -- Indian 5
Point, Zion.
6 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
And that's also --
7 MR. LEVINE:
There'll be some preliminary research 3
results in a couple of months.
9 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Ve r y g ood.
Any other cuestions 10 of Dan?
All right, onward.
Roger.
11 MR. MATfSON:
The second one --
12 COMMISSI0 DER HENDRIE:
Let's see.
We never sorted
~
13 much on where you draw the line here.
Do you want to try to 14 sort that out?
e 15' MR. MUELLER:
Is this relative t'o cps that have 16 not had significant construction?
17 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Yes.
I was gcing to ask 18 what is significant construction?
How are we going to 19 define that and make that cut?
Then John's got the 20 proposition well, why not all cps?
And I've argued with 21 him about that because Sequoyah is a CP holder under 22 construction, and under this label it seems te me that that 23 f alls into a dif fferent category.
24 MR. MUE LLER :
One of the things we're doing right 25 now is to come up with a cost of delay in effect versus
.t7134033
960202 16 kapMM time, where if you cut off a CP, f or instance, right at 2
about the t'ime it's ready to be issued, what does that cost 3
the utility in terns of turning around and finding another 4
site which would be more acceptable, and also cost of 5
replacement power, and so on.
6 And this type of information, I would think, would 7
help us cone up with some decision.
8 MR. MATTSON:
W' ell, one way to come at is to say.
9 as Dr. Hendrie did, that it's emergenc y preparedness thing 10 that causes the urgency at the OL end, and a siting thing.
Il including emergency preparedness, at the CP end, and try to 12 defin.e what we mean by significant construction, he re on 13 page A-2, and say anything at all that has significant 14 construction we'll take f rom the eme rgenc y prepare.dne ss 15 perspective at the OL stage of licensing, and not look' at 16 them now.
And anything that doesn't pass the significant 17 threshold we will take from a siting perspective now, 13 including emergency preparedne ss.
19 And significant could be based on the sunk 20 engineering costs or coured concrete or things like that, to 21 which Daq's study would probably shed some light.
22 (At 10: 00 a.m., Comm iss ioner Gilinsky enter ed th a 23 room.)
24 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That's the directica I would 25 go.
But I think it needs anotner sort of -- oh. I don't 1754 034',
950203 17 kapMM i
know --- preventive survey there in the middle.
And that is 2
the project _.which is least f ar along in construction. but is 3
Just over whatever line you. nake, so it's the -- as you 4
start from projects that.have not yet been filed, and work 5
up through cps and then come to this dividing line where you 6
stop looking at sita criterion and concentrating on the 7
emergency planning aspects the first case on which that 3
occurs, okay?
9 So, it's sort of the laggard behind.
It is going 10 to be a long time that the OL -- it may be a long time in 11 the OL review, three years, mayce.
Something like that.
12 And I guess people are going to ask you, and I think I 13 probably would, too -- do you have some kind of a survey 14 that you can make of that case which gives you a reasonable 15 assurance that you're not going to come down to the OL stage 16 and sry, " Damn, we drew the line on the wrong side of this 17 project."
You know.
IS MR. MATTSON:
What you're saying, I think, is, Are 19 there any Indian Points that are four or five years away 20 from an OL?
We.want to find them now, even though you are 21 going to wait.
22 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That's right.
That's way I 23 think you end up reviewing all the sites.
24 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Well, you may, and if you 25 adopt some sort of graduated set of survey requiremen'ts.
A 734 435 S
250204 18 k ap MM l
why, that would be reasonable.
2 But I.was hollering because I couldn't s ee going 3
out to the a pplicants on a plant that's built with the same 4
set of questions you go out to soplicants who are saying, 5
well, we contemplate the site, and we contemplate a plan, 6
and what do you.think of that?
7 You know, they are quite dif ferent.
8 MR. DENTON:
I dgn't think we have thought through 9
all of the details of this, yet.
There is at least one 10 plant under construction that has pretty high population 11 density and that's Limerick and we tried to sweep them into 12 the Indian Point-Zion meeting, so they're aware of wnat's 13 going on, but we weren't proposing to deal with Limerick 14 yet, until we get a.little better handle as to Zion, as to 15 whether'or not there are t'echnical fixes which would provide 16 a lot of evacuation time.
If there are, it gives us a 17 different dimension.
18 I see our siting criteria as providing a measure 19 of the f easibility of having adequate emergency planning.
20 Now, just because you are in a low population cite doesn't 21 mean that the state will necessarily make adequate emergency 22 plans.
23 So we are finding, even for cps today who are in 24 low population areas which meet our siting criteria, we're 25 trying to go the extra step and see if the state and
~
}6,
1950265 19 kapNN 1
municipal governments will Indicate their willingness to do 2
emergency planning.
But to make that finding about 3
emergency planning capability five years in the future is 4
more difficult than it is counting people who live ne arby.
5 So there are a number of plants -- there is no 6
plants _that have recently received cps that trip our 7
criteria.
In other words, the old policy of 500 people per 8
square mile kept all the new cps granted well within the 9
feasibility planning range.
3ut there were some plants 10 that received cps several years ago that have significant JI populatlon dens ities and they're the ones where I think we 12 will fall into not just looking at people but looking at the 13 feasibility of emergency planning and the f easibility of 14 backfitting them along the Indian Point and Zion approach.
15 We have g o.tten -- I think we made a lot of 16 progre ss in trying to define the physical parameters to be 17 changed in the plants, filtered containments, hydrogen IS control, better containment heat removal systems, core 19 ladies, and I think in 60 or 90 days we'll be able to come 20 back to you and discuss with you the impact of these 21 engineering fixes on evacuation times.
22 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Are all your fixes engineering?
23 MR. DENTONr No.
We're looking all the way 24 through all the outstanding amendments that are left, more 25 technical personnel on-sate, more people in the control 1754 037 4
950206 20 kapMM i
rooms -- so we are relooking at the entire gauntlet of ways 2
to improve and reduce risk, but I guess I am leaning more 3
towards mitigat 4 ' t.
consequences than I am towards trying a
to reduca the probability, and I'm not sure we can 5
demonstre'
. hat ef f ectively as much.
6 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Joe, I don't think we can draw 7
the line.
8 COMMISSI0 DER HENDRIE 2 I don't think we can,.
9 either, but the discussion, I think, is helpful, and the 10 discussion encourages me more in some ways than the paper in 11 the book.
12 MR. MATTSON2 Let me try to push it on one more 13 dimension.
It's a planning dimension.
In listening to this 14 discussion, it appears to me that the real work to be done 15 is more with older sites already aoproved with no 16 construction.
And if those are the one on which the most 17 staff work is reouired, then it doesn't really make any 18 sense to penalize the pending CP applicants who are clearly 19 going to pass the criteria no matter where they come out in 20 the spectrum of reasonable expectations in light of 3625.
21 Let me ask Dan, is it possiole to significantly 22 cut the March or June date for pending CP applicants, 23 because all of them clearly meet any population density 24 criteria, likely to flow from 0625?
25 MR. MUELLER:
The proolem is that's s6rt of h
95020t 21 kapMM i
putting the cart before the horse, because you're asking me 2
to prejudge how the study.is going to come out.
3 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Right.
4 MR. MUELLER:
And I suppose you could pick one in 5
the desert in Nevada or something and say, yes, that one's 6
fine.
7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I think his answer is.
S certainly, if there's any that were clearly passing the 9
criteria, he has no problem.
10 Ine cuest ion is --
.I 1 Co.VMISSIONER KENNEDY:
What's the criteria?
12 CHAIRMAN AHEA9NE:
Yes.
13 MR. MATfSON:
So this is an area where 14 case-by-case really doesn't work.
You have to do generic i5 criteria se.tting before you issue licenses.
16 MR. CASE:
I'm not sure.
17 MR. MATTSON:
I think you're giving up t oo soon.
18 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I think what underlies your 19 point, Roger, is that in spite of the fact that the criteria 20 remain to be set and so on, in a formal sense, I think you 21 have a feeling as to what they are likely to be in terms of 22 population density and some other parameters.
23 Af ter all, it's not a subject that we come to 24 totally ignorant and without any prior tradition, practice, 25 or even recent discussion.
We have had a paper up he re that 1 T54 $39"
750208 22 k ap MM i
says, look, here's a proposition.
Let' treat railroads this 2
way and gas' pipelines that way and airplanes the other way, 3
and population as follows.
So there is some sense about 4
what is likely to flow from those criteria.
And I tnink as 5
a practical ma tter it is indeed procaole that there are a 6
number of current, recent cps or cu rrent acplications for 7
cps where the sites simply are in low population, los 8
activity enough arees, so that they are likely to neet any 9
reasonable final result on that criteria selection.
10 I agree with that.
Whether it's practical to then
.11 make the leap into a prejudgment of which of those are in 12 that category and which ought to be looked at more closely, 13 is a little to,ugher because, as Dan says, you are then 14 asking to put projects into boxes, and that categorization 15 is bound to'get a lot of flak one way or the other.
Or both 16 ways.
17 MR. MUELLER:
Both ways.
18 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
But I think if we are going 19 to attempt to do things in a f alrly. rapid fashion going down 20 through the spring and into the summer, then you are not 21 going to be able to wait for each step to be fully developed 22 be. fore you advance to the next one. You're going to heve to 23 do a certain amount of this practical overview, and people 24 like Dan and others are going to have to say, It's my 25 judgment.we ought t o look at these f-ive sites and for the 75nt 040'
95020'9 23 s
kapKM i
moment those 10 over there icok fine, and let's not oog 2
ourselves down on that.
3 MR. MATTSON:
You've got to broaden it right now, 4
and think not of siting but the overall plan.
The plan 5
presumes that there are case-by-case approaches whera the 6
staff would bring to you cps, near term OLs --
7 MR. CASE:
Not cps.
3 MR. MATTSoff:
Not case-by-case ?
9 MR. CASE:
I'm speaking f or the lawyers but I 10 think we're involved in typical ex parte questions.
Sefore
.11 you go to a hearing --
12 MR. MATTSON:
Right.
I didn't mean to say it that 13 way.
The taff would still proceed case by case on cps.
14 MR. CASE:
(Nodding affirmatively. )
15 MR. MATTSON:
But the general questlon is:
is 16 this line of -- whatever the answer to this line of thinking 17 ls, is it consistent with our line of thinking in the plan, la overa.11, f or approaching the plants case by case pending 19 full implementation of the entire Action Plan.
20 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I think so, and I think the 21 thrust of the discu ssion here provides the basis for that.
22 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
go on.
23 MR. MATTSON:
I'd like to move back to ite, number 24 one on this page, which is accreditation of training 25 institutions.
I will ask Skovholt to speak on that.
It's 9754'041
950210 24 kapMM i
Task I-A-2.7.
I suspect this one could either have f allen 2
in a miscellaneous category if we chose to place it, or it 3
could have f allen in the program category, in the D items.
4 It's been an issue of some discussion among us before, and 5
the way the plan is written, it presumes that NRO will 6
accredit training institutions.
7 It leaves open, or tries to leave open, the a
question of whether we do that in conjunction with ISPD or 9
without INPO.
It acknowledges that there's study going on, 10 and that we'll await the results of that study.before we
.11 come to you with a way of accrediting that we recommend.
12 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Whe re is the description?
13 MR. MATTSON:
Page I-A-2-10.
14 15 16 Ch 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
. ~.
i75~4 042
CR 8895 MIMI 25 t-3 mte 1 1
MR. MATTSON:
There are two ways we could ask 2
questions about this:
first, if we correctly judge the sense 3
of the Commission that this is the direction we ought to be
! moving; and, second, is it necessary to move with this urgency?
4 I
I 5
Is this something that takes some resources?
t I
6 We are doing a number of other things in training l
! and qualifications and upgrading procedures in control rooms, 7
I i
a > and it might be argued that this is a sort of redundant approach l toimprovingqualitythere,andonecouldjustifywaitingayearl, 9'
l 10 i seeing how INPO comes into being, how good a job it does, and I
l 11 then go to work on accreditation.
12 l COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I was going to say that 13 there is no way you're going to finish your study on accredita-ul' tion by April 1st of 1980 and include in it any reasonable i
i 15 l assessment of where the Institute for Nuclear Power Operations i
i 16 h is going to end up.
So unless one wants to rule out INPO, why, ii there's got to be some schedule.
I is,
MR. MATTSON:
I think it's a little ambitious.
You I
i' 19 know, we've come a long ways.
First we were resistant to i
20 a accreditation.
Now we want to do it in six months.
I think 1
21 it could stand to be stretched a little, and it seems to me 22 i consistent with what you're saying.
23 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
What do we mean by accredita I
24 tion and what's the process by which it would b.e achieved?
I Feeral Reimrten, Inc.
25 MR. MATTSON:
That's the study.
1.754 043
mte 2 26 1
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That's not the study that I 2
understood here.
Well, yes, I guess it is.
There are two 3
studies.
One is how we would go about it and what the criteria l
4j would be for accreditation and what institutions therefore mightl 5
be even considered; and then, secondly, whether we do or do not l
6i take into account or in some way react to the INPO efforts.
7 They're two different things.
8' MR. MATTSON:
Yes.
And I don't think the study l
9 actually treats INPO.
The study is something separate, about 10 the science of accreditation in and of itself.
And then, l
11 separate from that are discussions between the staff and INPO, f alk about the INPO role.
12,
t 13 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I guess I would see it as 14 described as two separate phases.
And I myself wouldn't have 15 any problem trying to -- you know, whether it's April or May l
i t
16 h or June, and that's -- once you get into that kind of a review, i!
you can get a clear picture of how long it would take.
But I
~
15 l: would think you would want to at least try to build up some l
i 19 perspective on what you end up meaning or what we would end P
20 ] up meaning by accreditation in order to be then in a better i
l 21 i position to be able to work with INPO to see whether or not i
22 '
the approach they're taking is going to meet our needs, and 23 also to see whether or not we would want to have some mechanism, 24 l perhaps adjusting or advising them on directions they should l
e Federal Recorters, Inc. '
$4044~!
25 be going.
i
27 mte 3 1
MR. MATTSON:
And even though you probably could do 2
a quick study on accreditation, we'd get awful smart in it and 3
make some decisions awful quick, until you see how the new i
4l agency -- the new Institute grows and matures and how well the 5
short-term things you're doing on training elsewhere in the
^
l i
6j plan are implemented and what lessons you've learned from that 7
implementation, you might be making the wrong decisions if you 8 !! jump quickly.
9 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
What I'm saying is, from my view i
10 I would rather have the study, so that we can get smarter, not 11 aiming at then making quick decisions on, yes, this is it.
12 MR. MATTSON:
What I would like to suggest., then, I
s that we move the thing six months for a decision date and i
~
13 g
14 time, do the studies, think about it; talk to INPO, and learn 15 l from the implementation of other near-term training things, and
~
i i
16 l set a milestone for ourself of like the end of the year.
l o
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Your decision here at least seems g
IE. to be July of '81.
l li 19 MR. MATTSON:
Yep.
I COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
That's the Commission paper 20 '
i i
21 { by May of
'80, and complete the study a month before that.
l 22 MR. MATTSON:
The July of '81 date is the date that i
23 you put the NRC stamp of approval on an accredited training t
24,
institution.
This presumes a Commission decision in May 1980 l
-FMust Remners, ine.
i 25 about how to do that.
I would slip the May '80 d. ate until I
mte 4 28 1
much later in the year, maybe the end of the year, and then 2
slip the July ' 81 date to probably the end of ' 81, the first of 3l
'82.
I i
4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
At the moment I'm more concerned 5
cbout the commitme-date of when we're going to get this i
1' 6
getting smarter paper.
I wouldn't want that to slip too much j
7 further.
I MR.'MATTSON:
We can give you a paper on the d
8 l
9 completion of the study.
10 MR. DENTON:
The study is funded and is being done 11 by several people, including academic deans, who understand 12 the process of accreditation and who are on accrediting commit-13 l, tees for colleges.
So that, I guess, Don, is on target.
l l
ll 14 [
MR. SKOVHOLT:
That's under way.
And once we get 15 ;
it and are able to add any comments to it, we will discuss it i
d 16 h with the Commission.
t
- 7 MR. DENTON:
So that one, as far as I know, is l
is,, right on schedule.
ll 19 MR. SKOVHOLT:
- Yes, it is.
I think the central h
20 !n! question here is, since it is clear that a very basic intent
!~
i 21 i of INPO is to do the very kind of thing which accreditation l
il 22 [ would give us, do we want to, you know, give them sufficient l
I 23 time to really demonstrate that they're doing it in a manner l
24 we consider meaningful and to our satisfaction, before'taking Feerat Reporurs Inc.,
l 25 l action of our own?
I (754 046
mte 5 29 1
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Bu'. that in itself suggests 2
that at the very least, we're going to have to monitor what 3!
they are doing, not only monitor it at the beginning, but in i
4 some systematic and periodic way.
S 3 MR. SKOVHOLT:
Yes, it does.
But in the space of I
i 6;
the next six months, I think all we will have from INPO is a t
7 better defined role, perhaps some procedures which they intend 8
to follow.
But we certainly will not have any established 8
I 9
track record that we can judge.
10 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
And in fact, we' re not going i
I 11 to have an established track record until far enough out that 12 !
some of these inevitably already have been made.
13 MR. SKOVHOLT:
Well, at least --
b
!40 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Long made, in the nature of l
t 15 things.
I I
I i
16 :i CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I would hope that in this l
N i
- 7 i April-May period we would be able to get some perspective from i
h
'l l
15. the staff on, as a result of,this study, what it is that they ll i
l 19 think accreditation in its context would mean or should mean.
'i 20 l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Why are we getting deans of 21 colleges involved?
i 22 MR. DENTON:
Did you say why?
23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Yes.
24 MR. DENTON:
Because I think they're the only ones --
,. Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 at least there's no one on the staf f who fully understands what i
~
1754 047
mte 6 30 1
it means to be an accredited institution.
So we've gone out i
2 to academic individuals who are members of accreding boards, 3
some of whom work for us as licensing examiners, also to study i
4 this problem of accreditation in terms of what programs, text-l l
5 books, curricula, what does it mean to accredit something.
6i I didn't feel we had within the staff anyone who had this kind 7
of background in accreditation, which I consider must be a I
l 8l science all its own.
t 9
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I'm sure it is.
That's what 10 worries me.
I 11 (Laughter.)
I 12 We must ha, some notion of what it is we want.the 13 operators to le'arn.
I had assumed that we would be checking 14', whether in fact that's what they are learning and whether they 15 are being taught properly.
l l
i 16 MR. DENTON:
I think we do have a lot of knowledge i,
17jj in that area.
It was not so much tha t we needed advice on 18 l what the program should be, but how you accredit a program.
We i
19 will review the elements in a program.
But I guess, from first !
!i 20 y principles, 1 didn't know how you audit and accredit a program, j
21 even though I know what ought to be taught in the program.
il 22 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I guess I had viewed accredita-l 23 tion more as a shorthand way of saying a very consistent set l
24 of standards is being applied in a rigorous fashion, in a way l
.. Fee,.t R ecom,s. Inc.
l 25 that you can audit and guarantee that those standards are~being 1754-048
mte 7 31 1
applied and the quality of the product is being achieved, 2
rather than necessarily some sort of a seal that you end up e-3 3'
with.
i 4l I
I i
5 l
6 i
i 7'
l 8
9i l
i 10 11 12 ia i'
14 "
15 l
16 i
i i/
15 I
19 g
D 20 lj i
21 j i
22 l I
I' 23 t
24
., a,-,,.. i.
l if5t049 i
i
9504dl 32 mgc MM 1
MR. DENTON:
If I understand --
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNEs I think it's pre tty clear that 3
we need some sort of ge tting smarter and we're obviously not 4
ready to make decisions.
5 MR. DENTON:
I think I was not thinking of it that 6
way, more in the sense of an accredited medical school and 7
one state honors -- doc tor, a medical doctor granted in 8
another state sort of. thing was what I had in mind.
9 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
But the reason they do it is 10 because of what accreditation stands for, and it's that that 11 I think people who are talking about one ought to have 12 accredited programs is what lt stands for, not a piece of 13 paper, but it's because of what stands behind the place of 14 paper.
15 MR. DENTON:
Yes.
I guess I would just want to 16 make the point, we are comfortable in defining what you 17 ought to be taught, what you ought to know when you come out 18 o f a s ch ool.
1 gue ss I didn't quite know how to audit that 19 program in terms of how periodically should you go there, 20 what should you. check, what qualifications should professors 21 ha e, and this sort of thing.
v 22 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
And the other piece of it is or 23 are the. ways that you establish this criteria, the detail 24 that you lay out.
Is that in such a way that you can have 25 confidence that any other school or any other group of U5A:050
950402 33 mgc MM i
training people taking that.will produce the product as you 2
think it ought to be produced, and that's what underlies 3
accreditation.
4 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
You want the ins t itu t io ns 5
to come forward, if they propose to undertake a program of 6
this kind, with a program that will meet the objective.
7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Right.
8 DR. MATTSON:
It's my understanding that that's 9
what the study includes.
You might learn, for example, that 10 you never write criteria on curricula because it doesn't J1 work.
It's be tter to write criteria on the people wno teach 12 the curricula or vice versa.
I think what Harold is saying 13 is that there are people that worked in that business 14 outside of the nuclear b'usiness_ all their lives, and we are 15 asking them what's been their experience in accreditation.
16 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I gather also f rom what Harold 17 said that some of these people do have f amiliarity with the 18 nuclear side.
19 MR. DENTON:
Yes.
20 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I think we ought to aim at the 21 study and properly, realistically expect it will be swhile 22 after that before we would be prepared to implement a 23 decision.
24 DR. MATTSON:
Given all the other leads on'the 25 training and licensing human factors areas that we will be 1
7S4
)51
9:50403 34 mgcMM i
building up, I.think we want to decrease the resources here 2
a little in81, wait up a little.
3 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Could you say a few words, 4
Roger, about.how you are coordinating with INPO?
5 DR. MATTSON:
There's nobody to coordinate with.
6 They've picked a site, and they have a Board of Directors.
7 They have not announced the Director of INPO.
They are 8
still planning to start up in January.
I know Jim Milhoan 9
from the Standards Staff and the Lessons Learned Task Force 10 nas been in close touch.with Randy Pack at EPRI, who has 11 worked with Chauncey Starr in the initial phases of kicking 12 INPO off, and so we know from the technical po. int of view 13 some thoughts have gone into it.
14' I ha' e been working with John Selby and Bill Lee v
15 to arrange INPO re' presentation on several af f airs in the new 16 year.
And other than that level, the contact and keeping up 17 with them in the news media, there isn't anybody else to 18 touch base with.
19 MR. DENTON:
I think we knod what their Intent 20 is.
They've given us organization charts.
They are picking 21 up posi.tions.
Certainly, you are aware that they would like 22 to be accredited to accredit the utilities, so we know what 23 their posture is.
But we've had no substantive discu ssion 24 on accreditation.
It's more where they stand.
25 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
It wasn't accreditation. It O
t 75.4.q52
950404 35 mqcMM i
was more --
2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
.My understanding was they 3
had something on the order like 20 technical staff people 4
already on the Board.
They have selected quite a few.
I 6
hope they don't get into a Region ll office down there.
7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
They're advertis ing.
8 (Laughter.)
9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Has anybody done anything 10 about ref using them the opportunity to buy tickets on the
.11 Metro to Silver Spring?
12 (Laughter.)
13 MR. DENTON:
I did call their office yesterday as 14 a check and they answ'ered, so they are in busines$.
But.I' 15 don't know how many staff they actually have on board.
16 MR. BUDNITZ:
They have hired about half a dozen, 17 I think, permanent people, and the rest are on loan f rom 18 various places.
They really haven't started yet.
19 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Roger, I think you ought to 20 silde that study date back a little bit.
I would leave it 21 to you to judge what's practical in view of the resource 22 problems, and I trust one of the things the study will l ook 23 at is whether in fact we need accreditation in the sense 24 that it is being laid out here.
25 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That's one of the advantages
'77dt.053
}0465 36 mgc MM i
of ge tting this -- (inaudible) -- because they can tell what 2
it does and does not give you.
3 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Just so.
4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
How many training 5
institutions wt11 there actually be to be accredited.
6 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
It depends on how much money 7
the re is in training.
They'll spring up all over the place 3
there.
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Can I just ask you, Roger, 10 are you talking about accreditation of schools f or operators J1 or more generally for managers and others, too?
!2 DR. MATTSON:
It could be all of the above or some 13 of the above.
I think we are willing to look at all of 14 them.
I think we would concentrate on operators.
But IS Peter's question *, the Kemeny Con. mission envisioned, I think, 16 a handful at the most.
They talked about a national 17 institution or regional institution.
You can also think of 18 vendor by vendor institutions, or you could think of a 19 handful of colleges that geared up special programs to do 20 this kind of thing.
21 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
There are such already.
22 The Southern States Energy Board.
23 MR. DENTON:
Up to now, the training has been 24 almost completely under the control of the licensee, except 25 for colleges like Memphis State, which I think do have a 17).t054 9
95040'6 37 mgc MM i
program now just to turn out -- is it a two year program?
2 VOICE:
Yes, two year.
3 MR. DENTON:
There are a f ew other schools at ound 4
the country who are talking about getting interested in this 5
sort of thing, but the INPO pitch would be to "Let us be 6
your accreditor of all of the utilities, and you somehow 7
audit us on how well we audit the others."
But there aren't 8
very many colleges actually that have shown an interest in 9
being accredited training institutions other than the INPO 10 Commission.
.11 MR. SKOVHOLT That's correct.
Many colleges have 12 shown an interest to their local utilities in providing 13 customized training that the utility request, but the re 14 hasn't been an Inte rest in general accreditation.
15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY2 Let me just say, what I 16 was concerned about was that we will somehow develop an 17 overly elaborate system which is going to be ac ademically 18 impeccable, and all sorts of institutions -- there may be 19 Commissioners leaving it f or honorary degrees --
20 (Laughter.)
21 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
That sounds reasonable.
22 CONWISSIONER GILINSKY:
But otherwise things will 23 go on as they were.
We will not have come to grips with the 24 problems.
I wonder whether a simpler approach may not in 25 the end be a better one.
e 1 7 5 4.0 5, 5
- f
9504d7 38 mgcMM i
MR. SKOVHOLT*
We may end up proposing any number 2
of options, but I think in respect of the Kemeny Commission 3
recommendations, which I think is very important, we have to 4
explore this.
5 CHAIRMAN AHEARNEJ de have to explore that issue.
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
The question is, what does 7
accreditation mean?
8 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Hopef ully, that's part of what 9
this study will do.
10 MR. SKOVHOLT Yes, sir.
.11 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Roger, please go on.
12 DR. MATTSON:
I would like to page three, having 13 given you a sample of some of. the misce.11oneous, and move to 14 page two.which has got.the title, ":dore Short Term Le ssons 15 L'e a rn e d. "
We will start with Number I, "Shif t Manning", and 16
.ve'll keep Don sitting at the table.
17 Let.me just summarize why this is a D quickly.
18 COMMISSIONER HENDRlE Wait a minute.
We p opped 19 out of " Miscellaneous", did.we?
20 DR. MATTSON:
Yes.
21 (Laughter.)
22 COMMISSIONER HENDRiE I stopped to scratch there 23 for a minute and lost the whole thread.
24 (Laughter.)
25 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
What's the page?
o e
- z1764~056
95040'8 39 mge kW l
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Page two.
2 DR. MATISON:
Page Roman.II, "More Short Term 3
Lessons Learned."
4 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
We're following the logic 5
which was designed last time.
6 DR. MATTSON:
Which was illogical.
7 (L aught er. )
8 DR. MATTSON:
We would like to talk about shift 9
manning which is on page Rocan I-A-1-2.
This came before 10 the Steering Committee as pretty much a short term le ssons
.11 learned, something we wouldn't have had to talk about.
And 12 when the original Steering Committee became aware of a fair 13 breadth of_ thinking ln the staff that shif t manning was a 14 bigger problem than Lessons Learned had understood it to be.
15 If you recall, we said, "Take some of the duties 16 awa y f rom the.shif t supervisor and glve them to an 17 administrative aide, and they can prooably do that in the 18 daytime."
It was pointed out to us that there are 19 administrative things that need to be done on shif t, and 20 just saying, "Give them an aide on the day shif t",
is not a 21 real solution.
That's really part of Number Two that feeds 22 into Number Three.
23 No w it says in Number Three, " Add an 24 adminictrative aide on shift" -- maybe an operating -- an 25 operator in training as an administrative aide.
It goes on f81 0?h7- '
7
950409 40 mgcMM i
to endorse the long term le ssons learned having to do with 2
the number of operators in the. control room.
One RO and one 3
SRO is generally the rule of the Standard Review Plan.
It 4
says to use that while we are undertaking the rulemaking.
5 That is actually Item 3 on page 4.
6 So shif t manning speaks to the support given in 7
the control room to the shif t supervisor and the numoer of 8
qualified operators, one RO and one SRO in the control 9
room.
The Plan is probably going to be amended.
Jin is the 10 Chapter Head.
Brian Grimes, in the context of the Emergency
.11 Preparedness Task Force has prepared a position on shif t 12 manning for the entire operations organization in the back 13 shifts.
He has listed by function everything Including the 14 fire brigade, the control room, the shift technical 15 advisor.
He, too, saw the need for operatlonal aid quite 16 independent from the Steering Group.
17 He has listed the numbers and kinds of skills tnat 18 ought to be on each shift and the kind of skills that ought 19 to be on a 30-minute call basis.
These would, in turn, 20 increase the shif t canning requirements beyond those 21 contemplated in the current edition of the Action Plan.
22 I think I've heard that there can be shif ts in 23 some plants where there are as f ew as five people on shif t.
24 If the Grimes criteria are the right ones -- and they have 25 yet to be brought to you, but here's a number ; he has 4
- 1. 744 - Odi8 t
9$0410 41 mgc MM i
called for ten -- we will add up all these functions that 2
have never been added up before.
3 MR. O'REI LLY:
Tha t did r.ot include the fire 4
brigade.
5 DR. MATTSON:
I thought it did.
Ours lies 6
somewhere in between, and we'll get the Action Plan dorked 7
on.
The reason I wanted to bring it up here is because this 8
is a short term kind of problem.
If the nanning is not 9
suf fic ie nt, people ought to be told rather soon to begin to 10 increase the manning, at least in some of these functions.
Ji If you want to --
12 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
How are you going to vote in 13 consideration of, Brian's recommendations?
14 DR. MATTSON:
His proposal te bring a Commi.ssion 15 Paper f orward 'for your approval.
We would simply change the 16 Plan to say that that Commission Paper is coming forward, 17 and we'll reach a decision and probably replace this shif t 18 manning item with that one.
19 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That raises a question in my 20 mind that was raised as I went through.a lot of this.
This 21 obviously represents a credible amount of work on the part 22 of our staff in trying to boil down an enormous amount of 23 recommendations into some consistent set in approaching the 24 Plan.
At some phase in that, b'etween the time of ha / ing it 25 all boiled down and actually implementing it, how do you s
4 s
1734 759
95041'1 42 mgc MM i
see ge tting a cycling through people who actually are in 2
control rooms -- that is, people.who operate plants, to get 3
a perspective -- at least to get their perspective on it as 4
you're making a lot of adjustments in the operations plans.
5 One of the points over the last year that has come 6
up a number of times is that.we don't have that many people 7
who are f amiliar with the actual hardware operation of the 8
plants.
Maybe.this is not a weakness.
9 I guess I am more asking, is it something that you 10 see es a still-to-come necessary element, and is it reviewed J1 by the operating people?
12 DR. MATTSON:
Well, there are two kinds of reviews 13 one can think of.
One can. think of an industry review of 14 the Action plan, headed by EpRI or Atomic Industrial Forum, 15 send it to individual utilities and ask them for their 16 comments.
I don't think that's the kind of thing you're 17 talking about.
You're thinking more, here are some 18 operational things recommended by a staff that is several 19 steps removed from hands-on operation.
20 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes.
21 DR. MATTSON:
And are they good, bad, or dif f erent 22 things to be doing, and how do we go find out the answers to 23 those questions from people.with those responsibilities.
24 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
More, I am concerned about, are 25 there some. things on the operating side will say, " Wait.
1754 060
?50412 43 mgcMM i
There are some things you real-ly didn't realize."
Or when 2
you put all these pieces together, "Look, here's one of the 3
results that may come out."
4 DR. MATTSON:
They used to be in the Action plan 5
and they were struck by the Steering Group.
It was one of 6
the lessons learned f rom NRR -- was to provide opportunities 7
for discussions between the licensors and the operators, 3
both in the context of their periodic requalification and in 9
the context of si.tting down once a year and talking about 10 the things that have been done in the course of the last
.11 year and how do they look from an operations point of 12 view -- sort of workshops and hands-on operators and 13 operation supervisors from around the country.
14 In the interest of resources, because there were 15 enormous res'ource burdens, they were struck at a lot of hue 16 and cry from the Lessons Learned Task Force.
That's as 17 close as we've come to having anything --
18 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Maybe, I ' m --
19 DR. MATTSON:
It's a good point.
' 20 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I don't know whether it 21 concerns anybody else.
22 DR. MATTSON:
Another way to look at it is, there 23 is an NRC task back at Chapter 4, and you can either get 24 your thoughts ought and get them commented on by the 25 operators, or you can get your staf f out and get them better Yh b
950413 44 mgcMM 1
attuned in understanding the operations point of view.
2 Maybe you need to do a smattering of both.
3 If you want, the Steering Group will go off and 4
think about the question and the next time we talk to you, 5
have a better answer.
6 CHAIRM AN AHEARNE:
I really would like yo u to.
I 7
guess I've been in government or in circl~es long enough now 8
that I keep on unfortunately doing other things in other 9
places, and I'm not sure whether it translates at all, but I 10 can recall once when I was attempting to construct a system
.11 to control airplanes that support people on the ground, and 12 as we were trying to tell the senior command structure, the 13 Army and. the Air Force how to operate their systems, some 14
. wise person suggested that it might really be very useful to 15 try.to pull together a cross-section of lieutenants and 16 captains who ran inf antry battalions and inf antry companies 17 and a bunch of pilots who flew close service support and get 18 them aside and revie.w e verything we're goind, get their 19 recommendations.
20 It turned out to be very valuable, a6d I wa s 21 wondering whether it might not be useful for you to do a 22 similar thing with people who operate plants.
I'm not 23 talking about che corporate managers, that structure.
What 24 I'm concerned about is people who are down, involved in all 25 of these changes.
I don't know whether that would be 4
4 hst s2.
750414 45 mgcMM 1
useful.
2 DR. MATTSON:
Our adjudicatory point of view of 3
safety in the past has kept us talking to a lot of licensing 4
representatives.from utilities and not many operating 5
representatives.
There have been occasions but not near 6
enough.
7 MR. SCINTO:
Reactor operators are licensed oy 8
us.
There's no reason why we can't talk to them.
They are 9
just as licensed as the power plant.
10 DR. MATTSON:
Yes, but it's not oeen a usual
.11 course of action, Joe, to ask a licensed operator what he 12 thinks about this piece of equipment we are thinking of requiring his bo's to put on the maching when that piece of 13 s
14 equipment might cost a million bucks.
4
~
15 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I don't know what the right 16 answer is, but I just get a sense of concern that as we are 77(I 17 about to come down with a very large e ff ort that is going to 18 make at least fundamental changes across a wide spectrum, 19 I'd be a lot more comfortable --
20 DR. MATTSON:
Good point.
I j us t do n't hav e a 21 good answer for how to do it.
22 23 24 25
~
O
46 CR 8895 MELTZER t-5 mte 1 1
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
How to do what?
How to 2
get the comments of operators?
3 MR. STELLO:
Let me broaden that issue, because I l
4 guess it is one I know we talked a little bit about.
It's got 5.
a broader concern than just clearly shift manning.
We are l
6j requiring a considerable amount of change in the way business I
7 is going to be done in terms of procedures, people, what their 8
jobs are.
And I think we need to step back and ask first, l
l 9
how fast can you reasonably do that, assuming it's all right i
to do.
l 10 l
11 And I think we have the first question of, if you 12 do do it too fast, you upset the normal process in the c.ontrol room.
This task plan overlays a lot of new requirements.
I'd 13,
l' i
14 like to endorse what you said, and broaden it, that someone j
F 15 [ has to look at the phasing:
How fast can you bring about that 16 !
change, so that clearly what you are doing is producing a i
i i
l 17 safer environment, not one in which there are too many new i
l 15 g things going on?
And I think you can produce by too much I!
19 newness a question of whether that is in f act safer.
And I h
20 ll think that has to be done ont just for this specific issue, I
i 21 !
but for a lot of the issues that are in the task action plan l
22 l as well as those that are already under way.
i i
23 We are requiring an awful lot of change and we are I
l 24 requiring it very fast.
You could, I think, require that it i
l 75k 064 l
FMetal R eporters, ine.
25 be done too quickly.
\\
\\
I l
47 mte 2 1
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
You're talking about the time l
2 phasing?
l 3
MR. STELLO:
Yes, especially the people-related 4
things that go on in the control room, the procedures and the people and what their jobs are.
5 l
6 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes.
So I guess, Roger, next 7
time if your people could think through some of this.
It's l
8 not unrelated to the other item that you're going to talk about 'j 9
a little later, the time phasing.
10 MR. MATTSON:
Right.
We're aware of the thought.
I1 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Okay.
Move on.
12 !
MR. MATTSON:
Plant drills, design of IA-2-5.
And i
13 l having tried a frontal attack on the simulators the other day, '
l 14 '
I'll try a flank attack on the subject of drilling and simu-15 lating and prototyping today.
i l
16 (Laughter.)
I 17 j 2-6.
This description of what we might do with U
i
- 15. drills goes a little further, I think, we have talked before.
b 19,, It does pick up on the final Lessons Learned recommendation.
ll 20[Therearepeoplewhothinkthatsomeofthesedrillsoughtto 21 l include maneuvers with the plant during shutdown and startup.
I f
22 l One learning experience we're clearly going to have in the next i
23 year or so is the preoperational -- augmented preoperational 24 testing that we talked about Wednesday, and you've heard about l
e-FMcal Re:mnm, Inc.
l 25 that before on Sequoyah, similar near-term.0Ls, which will, I i
1754 065 l
~
48 mte 3 I
think, go a long ways to teaching us the kinds of drills that 2
are useful for training all crews.
3l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I just have to comment.
That I
l dl is assuming -- you said we certainly will have?
l 5!
MR. MATTSON:
The plan I think presumes that, even I
6' if you don't and we don't agree with applicants who want fuel 7
licenses -- and I don't want to throw a cloud over that.
The 1
8' plan presumes we're going to do a lot more preoperational 9
testing, no matter how that issue comes out.
And in that i
10 preoperational testing we'll do a lot more training.
There's 11 an advantage to preoperational testing we hadn't taken before.
12 It isn't just code confirmation and physics confirmation and l
13
~
equipment shakedown.
There can be also a lot of training done, 4
4
,4 " Rather than use one crack crew, use a number of crews, all of 15 lthe operating crews and training vehicles.
l 16 Well, the kind of thing I was trying to get by
., I!
i making this a D was the sense of the Commission as to if drills I I
I6 were a good thing to do.
We have heard them described in the p
i
}C I
context of NUREG-0505 and a number of other places.
We are p
l 20 moving in that direction.
2I Is that consistent with your thinking?
22 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
It's clearly a good thing to !
i 23 There has to be some reasonable balance struck between the i do.
24 amount of plant time you use in these things and -- because.
Federst Reporters, Inc.
j it is an expensive training aid.
Perhaps I could. put,it tihat 17$4 966
49 mte 4 I
way.
2 Nevertheless, the exercises the operators, the 1
3I reactor operators, will get on simulators really needs to be 4
supplemented by some walk-through drills in the plant, so that 5!
the auxiliary operators and the secondary plant operator can l
l 6l go through things that they need to do, and particularly i
I l
7l including such things as go out and.open this valve, close l
I l
8 that vaive, rack out that breaker, remake this connection, and i
9 so on -- sort of off-normal situation drills that you're likely.
I 10 to have to do.
11 And I think it's a good thing to do.
I wouldn't 12 even object to having some li,mited degree of plant maneuvering l
13 l included.
But these are big, cumbe'rsome machines, and they U
14 1 weren't built to be slammed around quite the way the Navy's I
i 15 reactors were.
So necessarily, plant maneuvering as a part of 16 these drills will have to be somewhat circumscribed.
h i
17 j CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Roger, you are running into your l
15 n 45-minute threshold.
Do you want to --
ll i
19 MR. MATTSON:
I wonder if I could ask a question on q
I.
20 the short-term, these More Short-Term Lessons Learned.
I 21 l don't want you to answer now.
I'll put it in your mind, because i
22 '
we need to answer it in the context of our long-term thinking.
t 23 While the page is in front of you, the schedule we're going to i
24 show to you calls for concentration on operating reactor e Federal Reporters, Inc.
l 25, requirements and near-term OL requirements as the next step, T754 067
50 mte 5 1
having taken this sort of general look and taken a smattering 2,of things in various categories.
i 3l And you need and we need to understand how these i
sort of short-term specific lessons learned thingc ought to 4l I
! apply to operating reactors and near-term OLs.
Do we take s,
i 6!
the already approved and implemented short-term Lessons Learned '
i 7
and add to them another set of things, either from this sort l
8 of More Short-Term Lessons Learned list or from things in those 9l other categories I describcd -- quick and easy?
How are we 10 going to decide what constitutes the necessary and sufficient i
11 set of conditions for a near-term OL?
And what are the candidate 12 for adding to that lis,t, if the list needs to be added to?
13 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I think the process goes I
14y forward as we outlined it some time ago.
What you have here 15 is the general matrix, all of the items hopefully sorted out i
i h by plant category.
And out of this there is a subset, which 16 17 !! I will call the licensing subsat, understanding that to apply 4,
il 18 I to operating plants and near-term OLs and so on down the line.
i b
19 And I think the peoole best suited to make an initial sortina 20 :! out of what that subset consists of are you and the steering i-I 21 l group.
22 And I would hope that af ter this meeting, one of 23 the things we could look forward to then was your beginning to l
24 sort that licensing subset.
And we need to come here and talk Federal Amorters, Inc.
25 about it.
1754 068 l
I
51 mte'6 j
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
In fact, frankly, I thought that 2
last time we had agreed that the meeting following this you 3
would be coming in with that.
t 4
MR. MATTSON:
Let me hand this around the table 5
and ask you to spread them out the back there.
6 (Document distributed.)
I 7
MR. MATTSON:
There are two ways to come at that l
g question.
Let me explain the sheet of paper you have.
i 9
Concentrate on the dark line down the middle.
That's a time 10 line, and it's got X's and O's on it, depending on whether it,'s l 11 a discussion or decision point.
You'll notice Draft 0660 came 12 to you on the lith of September, we talked about it on the 19th 13 and the 21st.
You could look at one possible array of future I
- 4f, discussions by following the X's and O's on out the line.
l 15 If you want to use the current draft and the current 16 ; steering group and office director estimate of what are the I
i.
near-term OL and near-term operating reactor requirements, we l
- g ll can have the discussion right now.
It's in the draft.
It's
[
i 19 l in Table 1.
It's got the dates and the fuel load full power I
I 20 kinds of questions specified right in the draft.
I wouldn't 21 { encourage you to do it Christmas day, but maybe next week or i
i the week after, probably a decent way to spend a couple of 22 23 hours2.662037e-4 days <br />0.00639 hours <br />3.80291e-5 weeks <br />8.7515e-6 months <br /> talking about nothing but nea; term OLs, operating 24 reactors.
l
.Feeral Regnrters, inc.
25 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I would guess, independ'ent of 9
1754 069
52 mte 7 I
which approach you're going to take, you're going to have to 2
pull something out for more than just spending a lot of time 3l thumbing back and forth, page X, page Y.
i 4
MR. MATTSON:
We could make a list of what they are 5
and what their general characteristics are.
l 6j CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
You don't think using this l
7 draft is sound?
You would propose using the next draft?
l 8l MR. BATTSON:
See, there's a difficulty with this 9
draft, and the difficulty is that these dates have been not i
i 10 !
looked at from a broad point of view of -- and a staging point l
11 of view; some of it, but not enough.
12 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Yes.
But if you go to 13 draft two, I will b'et you a cookie that there aren't a great
!i M [ many changes of titles of tha tasks in that group.
15 MR. MATTSON:
There won't be many changes in titles, t
16 [ but there will be some changes in dates.
O 17 h COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Fine.
How about pulling us I!
15 out a subset of what you think ought to be the licensing n
li 19 subset, based on draft one and what we understand is that i
20 p before that guy gets very far down the line, why, the schedule j 21 f changes of draft two will come along and will be included in 22 it.
i 23 I think one of the things that we would like to 24 focus on at the next meeting is what is the licensing subset, Feceral Reporters, Inc.
25 some discussion about whether we've got the right tasks.in it. i
- l 175d 070
53 mte 8 1
I don't think at that next meeting we'd have to sort for final 2
and ever the precise schedule of all of those things.
3, COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think that's right.
l I
4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes.
5 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
But we need to come down and !
i 6
decide what is a licensing subset.
As Vic has pointed out, we 7
have a substantial exercise going on here and a lot of things l
8' we need to do.
But we also have a lot of plants out there i
l 9
that are, A, operating and need some fixes, and, B, would like i
10 to operate and need some word from us, et cetera, down the 11 line.
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
In addition to a lot of boards 12 i
13 that are out there waiting.
I 14 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
For instruction.
And we need 15 to also move to help the specific subset, as well as the overall i
16 !
action plan.
So I think you could take -- I think you could i
u U
U:
make a licensing subset directly out of draft one, with the O
t 15 i, understanding that as draft one progresses and iterates to l
!I i
19,
draft two, et cetera, that you will just build those things 9
20 h into the tasks.
I 21 l I think what we would like to do -- to say again, 22 what we would like to do at the next meeting, is to discuss I
23 the array of tasks in what you perceive ought to be the 24 licensing subset, and to focus on whether, on this side of i
Fee,el Remnm.1x.
25 the table, that has the right mix.
And then some'timd 1754 071 i
54 mte 9 1
thereafter we can sort it out whether it's May, June or July 2
for a particular element in it.
3 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I would prefer that, and I think 4
Vic --
i s'
f 5j COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I agree with that.
6 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I agree with that.
7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Peter?
h (Nods head in the affirmative 8
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I 9
MR. P URPLE :
I think it's more than just dates that 10 might change.
Il COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Good.
What I'm saying is 12 that I'll bet you right.now -- -
13 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
It's the marginal change.
What j
i:
I I4 we really want to do is get the fundamental first, the zero l
15 '0. order approximation.
i l
1, 16 MR. MATTSON:
You gave us the information we're
". looking for.
O i
18 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
We gave you an answer, but it
'9 may not be what you're looking for.
20 MR. MATTSON:
What that means, we probably will 21 f drop draft two as it's portrayed here, because it just barely 22 l leads draft three.
And the next significant redraft of the l
23 whole thing will follow Rogovin.
But we can provide the j
24 document we're looking for and get it to you quicker than j
l rJedual Remnus. inc.
25 this draft two shows.
1754 07.2
55 mte 10 1
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Good.
2l MR. MATTSON:
That was the alternative I was trying 1
3 to describe.
If you want it quicker, this is the thing we i
4l have to do.
5j COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
And that will also be a 6!
draft.
7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Of course.
8 MR. MATTSON:
Yes.
And it will be pretty much like 9
this draft, only there are some things that have already been 10 decided within the steering group based on the comments Il received from ACRS review or others.
12 i COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Good.
Fix it.
e 13 MR. MATTSON:
We'11 do that.
14 What's your sense of when --
l I
15 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, we really, I think, are 16 asking you to give us your best first estimate, and in such 17 a way that you have really done this culling out now.
I know t
15 c you say, well, we can right now look at that first table.
I P
l 19 would rather have you tell me when you think you could --
4 20 ll MR. MATTSON:
I'd like to cycle it through the 21,
task managers, have them take a crack at it, rather than the 22 steering group continuing to exercise only its judgment.
I I
23 would propose to ask them to do that, starting this afternoon i
i 24 and finishing one or two days after the new year, so that they l FMerst Reporms. Inc.
j 25 have the option of killing their family vacations or coming l
1754 073
56 mte 11 1
back from their vacations and working on nothing but this the 2
first day or two after they're back.
3 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
You would estimate somewhere
,1 I
4 around that first week of January or towards the --
i 5
MR. MATTSON:
The week of January 7 to 11. I would 6
propose we send it to you a couple of days ahead of schedule, 7
and we'll meet on it that week.
l 8 !
CEAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Fine.
i i
9 MR. MATTSON:
That's also the week of the ACRS I
10 meeting.
So it will be a tight week.
I I
11 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
See how -- I'd rather have i
12 the paper in advance of your final perfections and a meeting i
13 ;
early that week, on the basis that we are likely to want to i.
~4 3 go around it a couple of times, and if we don't meet until l
l 15,
Wednesday or Thursday we are likely -- you know, it'll just j
i 16 !
keep punting on down the line.
l 7
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I think Peter will be away until j
h i5 I think that weekend.
So that in order to have the most i
II 19 fruitful discussion, I think we all have to have a chance to 4
20 ;
be here.
t 21 h MR. MATTSON:
I think we could, for example, since M
22 y' some people have Christmas leave, work on the weekend of the i
i 23 5th and 6th and get you the paper on Sunday night and meet j
I 24 with you on Tuesday or Wednesday morning.
l t-FMerat Reporters, lnc, e-5 25 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Fine.
Why don't you aim it that wa i
i l
1735'074 I
- 950601 57
'shMM i
MR. SCINTO:
I'm just looking at the time.
Does 2
that mean that the commission will get our cut of this thing 3
before they will be taking action on that policy statement?
4 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Which colicy statement?
5 MR. SCINTO:
I'm looking at a piece of pa per that 6
says commission policy statement.
7 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
The commission policy 8
statement, sir, can only follow and we agree on the goddam 9
licensee subse t.
10 You've got to come first.
We have to agree with you.
Il MR. SClNTO:
That's what I had understood.
CHAIRM AN AHEARNE:
We could try to approach of 12 13 having something to have the policy on.
(Laughter.)
14 15 MR. SCINTO:
I was just a li ttle concerned.
It to looked lik.e we we.re having the policy first.
17 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
It would be nice if, 16 indeed, the guidance can flow that way.
But I'm af raid the 19 detail here makes it just impossible.
20 (Simultaneous discussion.)
21 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
We may end up trying to get the su' stance folded in.
22 o
23 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
The comment in the 24 memorandum I wrote long ago to the extent that the short, 25 speedy interim policy s tatement could -- I could concede, 1754.075
N50602 58 ashMM i
drag, until it became the long detail policy statement.
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Right.
3 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I think that's turning out 4
to be the case.
5 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Go ahead, Roger.
o MR. MA TTSON :
Can we talk about the priority 7
ranking system?
Can you turn to these page s (indicating) ?
8 W ha t w e di d --
Y CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
You are going to get to this 10 marginal --
11 MR. MATTSON:
Yes.
What we did was take the 12 ranking system f rom the unresolved saf ety i ssues.
If you 13 Just simply read the purpose of it, then we'll start talking 14 about i t.
15 CHAIRMAN kiEARNE:
Let's see.
If I read your 16 pur po se, could I interpret that last sentence as saying that 17 if it's not related to TMI, you will remove it, even if it 16 is necessary for safety?
19 MR. MATTSON:
Remove it from this plan, but not 20 necessarily from your program.
21 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
It's either not necessary for 22 safety or not related.
23 MR. MATTSON:
What this says is that there are a 24 number of thinas in the plant, and with a few exceptions 25 where we specifically brought them to your a ttention as f7114 076 s
950603 59 ashMM 1
things we need to ad.
2 The task seems to be one of sorting and staging and 3
removing the f at and the extraneous things.
4 What we tried to say here is this is a priority system 5
f or r.anking and then staging the elements of the plan.
But c
we woulc not propose to u se the priority system to remove 7
things f rom the plant.
8 Let's suppose we used a system like this and we ranked everything in numerical order, one through 245.
Everything 9
10 below 50 points' would not be cut out on the basis of the 11 ranking system; rather, there would be a separate finding 12 f or anything removed f rom the plant.
Either it wasn't 13 im por tant to saf e ty or -- I'm sorry -- not nece ssary f or 14 safety, or it was unrelated to TMI, needn't be in this plan.
15 It should be considered in the con text of the rest of the 16 agency's operating plan.
And survival fall on its own 17 meri ts there.
18 Okay.
We took the basic numbering system from the 19 unresolved saf ety issue, generic issue exercise of more than 20 a year ago. We changed some things that weren't a pro pos to 21 these TMI saf ety issues.
22 There aren't any NEPA issues, for example.
And we tried 23 to put costs in in a way that the unresolved saf ety issue 24 peo ple had not.
And Sob, do you want to take i t from 25 there?
1754 077
950604 60 cshMM 1
MR. PURPLE:
Okay, we have two items, 3B and 3C, 2
t ha t tries to give credit f or a small cost item.
And the 3
approach here is one that for each of these smaller credit 4
items, II tnrough the end, is to say that all o ther things 5
being equal, shouldn' t you. give some added merit to a thing 6
that's relatively inexpensive to do?
7 There's a risk in a pproaching it this way that you would S
end up somehow cutting out or pushing way off an item that V
is very expensive.
And we have b.een criticized f or that.
I 10 don't think that happens because an item that is important 11 to safety is going to carry that hundred point high base 12 where this, at most, would only be a 20 point spread.
13 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
It certainly seems to be an 14 interesting way to try.to sort out, recognizing, I'm sure, 15 tha t you're not going to use it as an absolute sorting, nor 16 would we.
17 MR. PURPLE:
Exactly.
18 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Because if something had your 19 judgment of 100 and ended up being sorted out by that basis, 20 you would say, well, wait a minute --
21 MR. PURPLE:
That's right.
I want to empha size,
22 too, we have tried the scoring system on about a dozen 23 action items and got a range of scores that ran f rom 50 to 24 190, maximum total of 210, which gives you some optimism 25 that you might get a spread out of it.
175'4'078
950605 61 ashMM I
But until we go through the whole thing, I wouldn't be 2
too confident we're going to be able to stick to just these 3
factors or these numbers.
4 I think they learned that back when thiy tried the same S
scheme on the generic issues.
They had to modify the thing.
o CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Right.
7 MR. MATTSON:
I guess the poin t is that the 6
steering group would like to try something like this as a 9
replacement for all of tnose HLMs tnat you've got in Table i 10 to give some wri tten down, going in basis for what we did
.11 and see if it adds to our capability.
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Did it rank the dozen 13 items that you checked it against correctly?
14 MR. PURPLE:
I'd say yes; by. definition.
But I 15 didn't really go back and look at the 12'and try to judge.
16 I just simply didn't take the time to do that.
17 Yes, it did, because the high -- the 50 item was one that IS had a zero for safety significance.
19 MR. MATTSON:
Tha t's what I think he means when he 20 says the technical activity steering commi ttee itera ted 21 because they tried it on a few and some of them didn't come 22 cut right.
23 They said, wai t a minu te.
That's clearly not more 24 im por :an t than this other one.
So they looked at their 25 numoers again and said, ah, that's the reason we s houl dn' t 6
17520079
/50606 62 gshMM i
be giving so much weight to this relative to that.
2 And they iterated a coucle of times and then came up with 3
a system tha t they could a pply to all of them.
4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
As long as it makes it 5
come out right.
6 (Laughter.)
7 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Let me ask some questions.
8 First, unoer an item like II, are all tasks and subtasks, y
either one or the other, either improve the human element or 10 the improve the hardware?
11 MR. MATTSON:
I think they'd have to oe if thi s 12 was to be used the way it's implied to, yes.
13 MR. PURPLE:
You'd have to make some kind of 14 j udgment that it's ane or the other.
15 COMMISSIONER KEN EDY:
And it i s po ssible to do 16 witnout forcing the question, to ao that?
17 MR. PURPLE:
I'll know af ter we go through 245 18 items.
It worked f or the 12 I looked at.
19 (Laughter.)
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Now just hang on a bloody 21 minute.
Let me point out to you that you have got a 22 potential delta in the safety significance of 100. Okay?
23 Under type of improvement, the po tential del ta i s 10.
It's 24 10 for utilization of resources under A, waste, and 20 more 25 under 5.
It's 20 under C.
1754 080
iv50607 63 ashMM i
For item 4, there is a potential delta of 30.
For number 2
5, a potential delta of 20.
3 Now what that means is tha t if I have an item of low 4
saf e ty signif icance --
5 MR. MATTSON:
But everybody liked it.
o COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
But it improve s the human 7
element.
Tne pro ject is ongoing.
There is small staff e
resour:e, small industry resource.
It gets done within a v
year and the President's commission recommended it.
10 (Laugnter.)
11 MR. MATTSON:
Tha t's righ t.
We'll do it.
12 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
It's a winner.
13 (Laughter.)
14 And what I suggest is it's garbage.
15 (Laughter.)
16 MR. MATTSON :
No, because the high saf ety 17 improvement one probaoly had some of those other points.
18 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Well, it had to be one of 19 either 20 or 10 under.II.
20 MR. BUDNITZ:
I think it's a legal thing instead 21 of a hardware tning.
22 COMMISSIONER HENDR'E:
There isn't any category 23 for legal things.
24 (Simultaneous discu ssion.)
25 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It would have to. have 6
1754 081
E50608 64 csnMM I
No, it could be zero under --
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Why is a recommendation 3
made by -- le t's say the President's commission considered 4
mroe important than a recommendation made by this 5
c o mm i ssion.
6 (Laugnter.)
7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Vic, if you don't understand 6
that, we'll have another meeting.
9 (Laugnter.)
10 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
And, in fact, licensing 11 boarc cecisions.
12 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
All they're proposing is --
13 Roger isn't saying, let us -- at least I hope he's no t 14*
saying -- that asking us to approve whatever comes out of 15 that ranking.
16 He's saying that they're going to go back and try to 17 think through anc rank all the se ac tions.
le COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Go ahead and give it a 19 tri al.
I'd be glad to look a t the li st.
20 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Right, yes.
Of course.
21 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: But if it turns out that we 22 do an i tem -- tha t there are two items and we have to decide 23 wnich to do first, and it come s out depending on whether 24 Kemeny recommenced it or I dic, I'll tell you how I'm going 25 to vote on that.
1754 ogg
950009 65 OshMM i
( La ughter. )
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Okay, go ahead, Roger.
3 MR. MATTSON: We asked the office directors to co 4
two things:
To go back through the resources f or their 5
office in the entire plan, and as they found errors, to o
correct them.
And to then to another thing, which was to 7
say, of the re sources required to do the plan, which are in 6
the '80 or '81 budget process and which are not?
Y And of those tha t are not, can you reprogram to 10 accommodate them?
.11 Walt Pike is somewhere here.
te al t, do you want to 12 summarize that f or the commission?
13 Walt's the MPA member on the steering group.
14 MR. PIKE:
We went back to the office, jost like 15 Roger was saying, anc got some better resource estima tes for 16 each action.
And we also asked the offices how mucn was not 17 budge ted and not included in their budget,s.
18 Anc we additionally asked if there was reprogramming 19 potential -- we just asked for a yes or no or an unce ctain.
20 So if you look a t this layout, if you look at the big box 21 and you 1cok at the bottom numbers of the big box, what we 22 have for NRR, 164.4 prof e ssional man-years, that's how much 23 out of the 172.8 for NRR f or the entire program tha t is not 24 currently budgeted.
25 And then if you look down at the next smaller box, that If k Ob
$50610 66 gshMM i
is the preliminary asse ssment on reprogramming potential, in 2
the case of NRR, they indicated that at this point, they 3
considered 154.4 to be uncertain in terms of reprogramming.
4 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY :
I would think that one 5
thing is uncertain -- not all of it i s po ssible.
o MR. PIKE:
That's probably so.
7 The other thing, there are some of the items that are a
ongoing.
You can see by the numbers not budgeted being y
smaller than the totals required.
That's a good indicator 10 t ha t some of these programs currently plannec are being
.11 ongoing.
\\,8 12 The same thing, you go across like in I&E, they have it y
13 b udge ted 117.
But they f eel that they tan reprogram 6 14 man-years, roughly 69 man years uncertain.
And they can't a
.5 reprogram about 42.
16 It's probably the best way to look at these numbers and 17 focus en the not budg e te d, and then maybe take a look at the 18 preliminary a ssessment, but re, cognize that these are very 19 rough estimates by the offices, a quick turn-around.
20 21 22 23 24 25 1754 084
950701 67 kapMM 1
Harold, since you've got the largest bulk here, 2
154 uncertain, is that 154 and you are really not sure, or 3
154 ano it's almost certainly "no" bu t you're not quite 4
reacy to say no?
5 MR. DENTON:
I've got a major effort trying to o
answer tnat question.
During the las t half of 1779 we 7
a ccomplis he d, procably, le ss than 50 percent of whot we 6
planned to accomplish in the way of case work, reviews, Y
opera ting reactor amendments, generic work and so f orth, so 10 even the budget that went f orward into '80 did reflect the 11 uncompleting of all the things that should have oeen 12 completed.
13 If we don't do any casework except operating 14 reactors in '80, I can re program out of casework.
So, 15 partially wha t I've got to do is to try to say, su ppo se I 16 want to do X percent of this -- where will it come f rom?
17 There is almost all the work, say, unresolved saf e ty i ssues 18 has to go f orwarc, operating work has to go forward.
So I IV really can't answer that.
I think it's going to be very 20 tough trying to cut between the casework, which is my only 21 place to really absorb anything, and how much to do this, 22 and trying to project wha t the casework loaa might be just 23 to ge t the next nine or so f acilities, continue to a li ttle 24 bit of action on during the '80 period.
25 So I nope to be able to come back to you the next 1S4985'
v50702 kapMM 1
time, in January, and show various assumptions.
2 I don't know if I've helped you very much, but 3
certainly the only place I can reprogram much out of is out 4
of casework.
5 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Would you even be able to get o
155 prof e ssional man-years quickly?
Let's say there was 7
some magic wand that would say, yes, you have the authority 8
to use thats could you get it?
9 MR. DENTON:
That's a good question, cecause they 10 don' t always -- the skill that you need in these 154 might
.11 be in the branches which are fully occupied, and they 12 haven't even been recruited yet.
If you take operator 13 training augmentation, it might not be -- if 28 out of it 14 means increased people in thos.e areas, there's no one I can 15 reprogram.
10 So even staffing the preparation of environmental 17 impact statements doesn't put more people on control room lo design.
So I've got to look at it tha t way.
Then I've got lY to look at i t by disci p1' ne, ano I just don't have a good i
20 f eel f or whether I can reprogram very much.
I'll try to 21 reprogram where I can, and have the skills, but I bet a 22 large fraction of this is not reprogramming.
23 And I am just up in the air at the moment as to 24 where I am going to find and how I am going to ge t through 25 the year and divvy up the resources.
It's going to be a a754 086
950703 69 kapMM I
major impact.
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Then the '817 3
MR. PIKE:
Second page.
4 MR. MAITSON :
The exercise serve to do two things b
to tighten the estimates f or the plan that doesn't have a o
whole lot of planning in it yet, anc confirm that the 7
numbers are very large.
8 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Does anyone have any insightful clever ways of ge tting resolution of this?
/
10 This assumes, at least in MR. BUDNIT2:
11 our case, tha t the '80 sucplemental i s -- (inaudible).
12 MR. DENTON:
For re solution, my understanding is 13 t ha t the steering group does plan for a meeting on just 14 resources., about mid-January.
That's the kind of. target 15 da te I was shooting at, to have a much be tter breakdown --
16 isn't tnat the time, Roger, we were going towards, and each 17 office cirector to take this plan as it now exists, and try 16 to ge t to i'. t-aoout the middle of January?
19 MR. MATTSON :
We're going to have to make some 20 decisions on priorities that overlap and just physically 21 start to move some things, and see how the plan changes. At 22 the same time, we're going to want to ask the office 23 cirecters to identif y potentially reprogrammable resources, 24 and the impact of losing those existing programs.
NRR, if 25 that means casework or other issues, or its ability to 1754-Q87
5950704 70 kapMM i
coordinate with research for six months -- or the office of 2
standards development, pe r ha ps, the loss of the capability 3
to maintain standards f or a year, what does tha t free up for 4
u s --
5 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Bu t i t do e s poin t ou t, as you o
say, the nece ssity f getting soce priorities.
7 MR. MATTSON:
Absolutely.
We have got to have a 8
basis for making the staging changes.
9 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Okay.
Walt?
'60 assumes the 10 su ppl emen tal; is that correct?
.11 MR. PIKE:
I t de pends on how tt, offices handed 12 the figures in.
I'm sure in the case or research, and I 13 think that was the case --
14 MR. MATTSON:
NRR assumed a supplemental.
15 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
All right.
And /81 assumes the 16 budge t as submitted?
17 MR. MATTSON:
Yes.
16 MR. SCROGGINS:
Yes.
19 MR. GOSSICK:
I think what you have to remember is 20 even with the supplemental we're looking at, who knows, 21 April, June -- cefore you'd p. obably get the final bill, and 22 unless you gamble and hire ahead of time -- but right now 23 we're sitting with untilled spaces.
So there is a 24 recruiting problem and I think you really get down to a 25 ma tter of priority.
If everything the Commission is 1754 B88
9'0705 71 5
kapMM i
doing --
2 MR. MATTSON:
I had a call from Ben Zabrowsky in 3
NSEC a day or two ago, who said EPRI has had a computer 4
baseo metnodology for taking backfits and equipment 5
maintenance and equi pment replacement issues and pa tting 6
weighting f actors on them f or their dif ficulty and their 7
influence on availability and what-have-you, and running 8
them through the computer program and telling an individual 9
u tili ty how to stage his changes, or his equipment change 10 out, or his maintenance, or his whatever, so as to maximize 11 his time on-line.
12 They have taken tha t methodology, which was just a 13 mathematical sort of weighting thing, and are trying to do 14 subject areas within the Action Plan, and put risk weighting-15 on them instead of availability weightings on them.
He has 16 asked to come in and talk to us in early January to report 17 on how well that works.
16 He said, f or example, they found one area where it 19 looked like they were trying 11 dif f erent approaches to 20 achieve the same thing.
He said he wouldn't tell me which 21 area it was because he wasn't certain it was.11 yet.
22 And he advanced the f ollowing conce pts if you try 23 to do 11 and you don't have the resources to do them well, 24 or the industry doesn't nave the resources to do them well, 25 you won't get two.
If you, on the other hand, decide that
~
1754'089
v50706 72 kapMM i
some of those are more important than others or naturally 2
f ollow one another, and concentrate on four or five to begin 3
with, the chances of ge tting them done right and well are 4
9 Cod.
5 It's that kind of discu ssion he'd like to have o
with us.
If you have no cifficulty with our proceeding in 7
that way, I'd like the steering group to meet with him about S
the same time we meet with the ACRS.
We will ask the 9
committee if they're in te re sted.
If they are, we may do it 10 prior to committee meeting.
11 COMMISSIOilER HENDRIE:
I'd encourage it.
It seems 12 to me incumbent upon us to seek wisdom wherever we can find 13 it.
14
~
15 r
i6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
OR'8895 73 MELTZER t-8 mte 1 1
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Just as a point of reference, 2
Roger, the dollar numbers in the right-hand column do not i
3l include personnel costs?
I 4
MR. PIKE:
No, they don't.
5 MR. MATTSON:
That concludes what I have.
If you 1
i 6'
have thoughts on this attitude thing we gave to you --
7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Let me, before we go on --
8 i' I have been sitting through this last item of discussion, l
9l this business of priorities.
I would like to suggest here i
10 ;
striking item 5.
11 (Laughter.)
i l
12 !
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Here, here.
h i
13 l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: "I think that's a majority of --
la COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
It may fit in with the 15,l change of attitude.
i 16 h (Simultaneous discussion. )
i j
l
'. ~ l (Laughter.)
.i I
15 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
And we'll put it on the last 19 table.
20 i COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I'm not sure what you can c
1 21 h do with the rest of it.
I'm troubled by the proposition that 1
22 l if all other thin'gs were equal at the end of the first four i
i 23 categories, in effect, the source of the recommendation, to i
24 say nothing about priorities (Inaudible).
l
. Federal Reporters, Inc.
}
25 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I thought it,would have been a
l t754 D91 l
a t'e' 2 74 1
interesting to point out.
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Peter also points out, I
3!
Ed Zebroski would have gotten a zero.
I i
4' (Laughter.)
5l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Any other comments?
i 6i COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
No. That one was simmering 7
as we went through the resources.
8l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Vic?
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I agree with him.
I 10 '
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Dick?
i 11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
No.
All right.
Roggr, I think you and your people l 12 CHAIRMAN MIEARNE:
deserve a lot of congratulations *for the monumental work thab 13 li M"
you've done so far.
And I hope that you get invigorated over c7 15 the holidays, so that you can continue.
l i
16 hl COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I hadn't meant to foreclose e
~ '. any more you wanted to say on the attitude.
4 MR. MATTSON:
If you have comments on the attitude,
{
15 lI M
please feel free to call us and talk to us about it.
h i
20 j CEAIRMAN AHEARNE:
We just did here, i
21 ;
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
You hadn't wanted to go 22 further?
i
' ]h b
l!
23 MR. MATTSON:
I wouldn' t propose we discuss it' at.
24 length today.
s Fewat Reporwrs, lnc.
l 25 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Very good.
Thank you.
l (Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., the meeting was adjourned.l)
I
Task IV F Attitude A.
OBJECTIVE To assess whether further fundamental changes in the attitude of the NRC and the nuclear industry are necessary and, if so, to identify measures that will institute the needed changes.
B.
NRC ACTIONS a.
==
Description:==
One of the principal findings of the President's Commission was that fundamental changes will be necessary in the attitudes of the NRC c.7d the nuclear industry. The President endorsed that fincting.
Several significant actions have been taken, or are underway, that reflect a changing attitude on the part of the NRC and the nuclear industry. The President's actions to appoint a new Chairman from outside of NRC and to propose reorganization legis-lation are steps that will facilitate or, indeed, will force attitudinal change. This total Action Plan itself is felt by some to be the demonstration of an attitudinal change on the part of the NRC staff. Similarly, the nuclear industry has taken several steps (e.g., creation of INP0 and NSAC) that indicate a change in attitude toward reactor safety.
What is needed now is an independent evaluation of the attitude change to determine if it is real (i.e., fundamental vs. cosmetic), permanent, and sufficient. To assure objectivity, such an evaluation should be done by a group outside of the NRC.
Possible alternatives are:
e
l (1) NRC explore with GA0 whether it could undertake this evaluation.
(2) NRC establish contract with outside reviewers (perhaps some members of the Kemeny Comission).
(3) NRC suggest that one or more of its Congressional oversight comittees undertake hearings for this purpose.
s (4) NRC determine that evaluation is one appropriate function of the Advisory Comittee and that no other action is necessary.
(5)
If (1) through (4) are infeasible, task OIA (NRC) to do the evaluation.
The evaluation should separately consider the NRC and the nuclear industry, and should include specific recommendations to remedy any shortcomings found. Attached is an illustrative list of indicators of inadequate attitude that are representative of the types of areas that should be evaluated when considering the NRC. A similar list could be developed for evaluating industry attitude.
b.
Schedule: Complete evaluation by June 1980. Schedule for remedial actions cannot be determined now, c.
Resources: FY 80:
If GA0 or Congress: 0 NRC resource If Special Comission: 5 MY If OIA: 5 MY C.
LICENSEE ACTIONS None, except to cooperate in the evaluation.
v, 1754 094
' ' D.
OTHER GA0 conduct evaluation, if feasible.
E.
REFERENCES
~
President's Comission:
Principal Finding and Conclusion
{
O e
4 9
e 5 % 995
Enclosure to Task IV F l
I Indicators of Inadequate Attitude i
1.
Abuse of generic issues i
2.
Failure to followup on ACRS advice l
3.
Assuming the SRP was safe enough
[
f 4.
Failure to backfit enough things 5.
Failure to do realistic emergency planning i.
6.
Failure to believe serious accident can happen
~,
7.
Inadequate review of operating experience 2.
Lack of a we'.1-thought out, integrated system for assuring nuclear safety 9.
Inadequate handling of staff dissent
- 10. Siege mentality with respect to intervention 11.
Inattention to petitions
- 12. Mindset on human beings l
a.
ALARA b.
procecures c.
training d.
staff training & experience
- 13. Allowing perceived resource limitations to thwart safety improtements
- 14. Preoccupation with licensing schedules
- 15. Protecting industry from costly changes
- 16. Celay in implementing backfit items once decided
- 17. Allowing interoffice rivalries to preclude full utilization of staff talent
- 18. Failure to acxnowledge, or act upon, the message of WASH 1400 regarding the significance of cominant risk contributors g.
Allowing the pencerous 'JRC regulatory procecures to inhibit creative safety I
cesign improvements by incustry j
i
- 20. Failure to estaclish a clear reactor safety cojective l
l 1754 096 i
i
I.
Longterm /llajor Programs 1.
I.A.4
- Simulator Use and Development 2.
III.A.1
- Improve fiRC Capability to Respond to Emergencies (also IIIA.2.5 and 2.6, f4DL and KI dis'.rioution) 3.
IV A
- f;RC Organization & 11anagement (also IV B.6 -
Improved Commo w/ Licensees) 4.
IDI
- Control Room Design 5.
II C.1
- System Engineering & Reliability 6.
IV B.7
- Extend Lessons Learned to other Licensees 7.
IA 3.3
- Internal tiRC Operating License Refor.m 8.
II B
- Degraded Core 9.
IV D
- Safety Policy and Practices 10.
I.C.2 - 16.6-Procedures 11.
IA 2.6
- Longterm Upgrade (of Tng & Qual of Pers.)
12.
18.3
- On-site Safety Engineering 13.
IV C
- Advisory Committees 1754 097
~
II. MORE 5.T.L.I..
1.
IA 1.3
- Shift Manning 2.
IA 2.1.a
- Qualifications of SR0 & SS 3.
IA 2.5
- Plant Drills 4.
IB 4.1
- Management for Construction 5.
IF
- Quality Assurance 6.
IG
- Training during Preop & LP Testing 7.
IIJ1, IIJ2 - Vendor & Construction Inspection Prog.
8.
IIID.l.2.a - Processing of Personnel Dosimeters 9.
IIID 1.4
- Worker Registry 10.
IIID 2.1
- 11..III El.1
- Improved Vent Gas Systems 12.
III E 1.4
- Liquid Pathway Interdiction 13.
III E 2.la - Dose rate Measurements (off-site)
R51.098
III.
f;ISCELLAf;E0US 1.
IA 2.7
- Accreditation of Tng Inst's 2.
IIA
- Siting 3.
III 8.2
- Funding of State & Local Gov't Planning and Preparedness 4.
III B.3
- FEfM role 5.
III C
- Public Information 6.
IV A.4
- Achieve Single Location - Interim 1754.-099
DRAFT Priority Ranking System PLjrpose:
This ranking system is for use in prioritizing both the necessary and the desirable elements of the Action Plan.
It is not intended to be used to eliminate elements from the plan. The only basis for removal of elements will be a finding that they are either not necessary for safety or not related to TMI.
I.
Safety Significance (see Attachment for judgment factors)
High......................
100 Medium.....................
50 Low.......................
O II.
Type of Improvement Improves the human element...........
20 Improves the hardware..............
10 III.
Utilization of Resources A.
Waste:
Project is ongoing, and significant resources would be wasted if stopped............
20 Project has not yet been initiated or small resources now assigned..............
10 B.
Staff resource requirement (Score only if staff is involved in the action item)
Small (<2MY)..................
20 Medium (>2<10MY)................
10 1754 100 Large (>10MY).................. 0
2 C.
Industry Resource Requirement (score only if industry is involved in the action item)
Smal l (< S1.0M)............... 20 Large.................... O IV. Timing of Improvement (i.e., how soon will the expected benefit be realized?)
Within one year..... '.........
30 Within two years 20 Within three years 10 Beyond three years 0
V.
Source of Recommendation a.
President, President's Commission or Congress. 20 b.
Commission and staff investigations and studies (not included in a. above).....
10 c.
Others (not included in a. or b. above).... 0 1754 40P
Judgment Factors for
~
Safety Significance A.
Accident probability Judge whether the action item hns the potential for a large, moderate, or small reduction in accident probability. Where numbers can be estimated, a factor of 10 is large, a factor of 2 is small.
Otherwise, use judgment to assess degree of reduction and consider the directness of the item's relationship to accident initiacors.
B.
Dose consequence Consider whether the quantity of radioactive material that could be released if the action item was not done would be large or small. Also, consider he degree of dose reduction that the item could provide.
C.
Number of levels of defense in depth affected.
~
D.
Pecple Affected An item that provides added protection for the general public should be given more weight than one limited to worker protection.
E.
Organization Level of Action Actions that improve the licensee's or the local authority's capability to mitigate the consequences of an accident are more important than items designed to improve the State or Federal capability. Things that can be done at the site, right away, should be given more weight than things that require long distance response by State or Federal authorities.
0754' 10[
Task IV F Attitude A.
OBJECTIVE To assess whether further fundamental changes in the attitude of the tiRC and the nuclear industry are necessary and, if so, to identify measures that will institute the needed changes.
8.
11RC ACTIONS p
a.
==
Description:==
One of the principal findings of the President's I
Commission was that fundamental changes will be necessary in the attitudes of the NRC and the nuclear industry. The President endorsed that finding.
Several significant actions have been taken, or are undenvay, that reflect a changing attitude on the part of the f1RC and the nuclear industry. The President's actions to appoint a new Chairman from outside of f1RC and to propose reorganization legis-lation are steps that will facilitate or, indeed, will force attitudinal change. This total Action Plan itself is felt by some to be the demonstration of an att'.tudinal change on the part of the NRC staff. Similarly, the nuclear industry has taken several steps (e.g., creation of li1P0 and 14 SAC) that indicate a change in attitude toward reactor safety.
What is needed now is an independent evaluation of the attitude change to determine if it is real (i.e., fundamental vs. cosmetic), permanent, and sufficient. To assure i
ebjectivity, such an evaluation should be done by a group j
I outside of the !;RC.
Possible alternatives are:
h l
i
- (1) NRC explore with GA0 whether it could undertake this eval:stion.
(2) NRC establish contract with outside reviewers (perhaps some members of the Kemeny Commission).
(3) NRC suggest that one or more of its Congressional oversight committees undertake hearings for this purpose.
(4) NRC determine that evaluation is one appropriate function of the Advisory Comittee and that no other action is necessary.
(5)
If (1) through (4) are infeasible, task OIA (NRC) to do the evaluation.
The evaluation should separately consider the NRC and the nuclear industry, and should include specific recommendations to remedy any shortcomings found. Attached is an illustrative list of indicators of inadequate attitude that are representative of the types of areas that should be evaluated when considering the NRC. A similar list could be developed for evaluating industry attitude.
b.
Schedule: Complete evaluation by June 1980. Schedule for remedial actions cannot be determined now.
c.
Resources: FY 80:
If GA0 or Congress: 0 NRC resource If Special Comission: 5 MY If OIA: 5 MY C.
LICENSEE ACTIONS None, except to cooperate in the evaluation.
17.54 104
I l
D.
OTHER iI GA0 conduct evaluation, if feasible.
E.
REFERENCES President's Commission: Principal Finding and Conclusion i
I~
L O
6
~
i i!
Enclosure to Task IV F Indicators of Inadequate Attitude 1.
Abuse of generic issues 2.
Failure to followup on ACRS advice 3.
Assuming the SRP was safe enough 4.
Failure to backfit enough things i
5.
Failure to do realistic emergency planning 6.
Failure to believe serious accident can happen
~
7.
Inadequate review of operat'19 experience S.
Lack of a well-thought out, integrated system for assuring nuclear safety 9.
Inadequate handling of staff dissent 10.
Siege mentality with respect to intervention 11.
Inattention to petitions
- 12. Mindset on human beings a.
ALARA b.
procedures l
c.
training d.
staff training & experience
- 13. Allowing perceived resource limitations to thwart safety improvements
- 14. Preoccupation with licensing schedules 15.
Protecting industry from costly changes 16.
Delay in implementing backfit items once decided
~
'7.
Allowing interoffice rivalries to preclude full utilization of staff talent IS.
Failure to acknowlecge, or act upen, the message of WASH 1400 regarding the significance of dominant risk contributors
'9.
Allcwing the poncerous.'lRC regulatory procecures to inhibit creative safety i
cesign improvements by incustry l
- 20. Failure to es'ablish a clear reactor safety cojective
}7 h
loi kSli t
e 3
- 9 J
a 3
=J se ad as C
C J
C 2e
=e as
'a3 1
.E ts we HO 4
0 8
4C J
3
- 8 3
J Gs H
J L
= = -.
= -. - =. =,
- = = -. = =
d aI "b
4 at *t
=la 343 A40 D
=
N J'il 4
4 -4 3
m
~34
- E A
Ol De C
m 31 %
Al $
"Ph4 :D rmt m
==
4 e4 e
et e el e el e el e e
e e
el C
3 '.1 b
J OA 9N
- =
Ofa==
3 CD JI 3
3 3
as
.1
=
I P=
==
atl
'J 6
M O
ct a
34
-e H
L e
se 3
- =
?
"4
- = 4
@t @5
""*f 3 7n 3
"Pn
@ O ed a*
M a
r4 2"
e et e et e el e el
- e o
e o H
=8 ad 4
C
- mt ?
O4
@l d
- 19 O,
llrt e=
m' 4
el C sm C e
.s A =
l fee a
38D f*
N Of 3
""16 J N1 9
46
.cis
.an.4
-1 s
9 N
i 4
e se 3.3s t
e se e e eee eee eee e se e eee eeeee e
- *l 3 4M
% 3 4
"'I ml /t 4
O 4*.13
==
==
==
==
=GI
- M M 3 51 4 3 3 le 4 N
'*l 2
=*
al a4 4 e =* 3 ag 5 =*
i **
= - H -== -s== H
-(== M
. = =
-q
- J e JJO se 1
=-
O i
i 3
O el 4 3 *
- s 43 3
- .4 C
9 Ie ei 4
e D e,a e
e e
I Jt =3 M O T 1 at s x
- 9 e
Of3 O O O
e O
e O
"3 O
O del 3 ae 3 3 =4 C 4 aC.i SC 3
e e
e
'4 1
O e
=
t e
e p
=.
==
Ol'1 he *1 A b T 4 s 2".
4 MI De 3 a3 =e 43 J 'd z "J -e 3
=l it':
m "J ta 4 s el C -e 4
==n."O O
OO O3 A
O A
O r*
Q.
M
> W== *
==
==
-=
==
=
H
- )
3 De e
el e 9
e el e el e el e
o el O A
M f.e.e3 De a3 3 at J *4 e
CWCE3 O43 N
?
'9
- 4 gl "5l A C
M Af==
0
= *
N i
O 3
3 at O
"5 eee 1
N l
t N
e e
1 I
L1 MC a
- n e
e
===e oe en ee e o eo e e et e e e e e e e ele
- J e
e O
1 3 0
e e
C 0
0 8
I O
1 I
e 3
0 0
0 1
3
= = =.==
e4 O
O 3 O
e O O O
e O
O O
O e
Nm J'
e e
6 0
0 0
l 8
I 4
I I
e e
e e3 L4 pe e
e s
.=
-= fA
==
e e
M 3
A O
s O
."1 C
e e
De e
e a
el e t
e el
-e I
e e
L O
"9 4 3 O
'9 C
O O
O e
e C
O O 'e) e e
L 8
6, p
=
a e
=
C 4
e e
e O+
i ag a=
eoe oeoe eee
=
aee eee ese a
eesee e
=
O 3
==
eme i
t 1
I t
9 8
0 3
0 I
aJ pe e
e= 4 C
1 9i e
e 89 O
O O OO O O OO O
a O
O O
m3 C
e se o e
e e
e a
i 9
6 e
t an e
i I
L e6e
'J ee e e =1 e
e O
==
==
==
a
==
3 e
3e A A A
"I N
N
@* M C
se O e
e M
P
- A
==
e e
De e
el e el e el e e
e el eJ e
e el
- D C==
?
o,.8 e
e C
6 20 @
O4 a's O O O Of at O
O
==
"i t
Pm 91
=e
==
P= L e
e L
=== l
e e
4 6
=
O e 3 e
o eeee o e ete e e e e e e e e e e el a
eeeee en e4 N
e e
N 04 N cla Ole O
31 a3
=
O f -sl
= = ' *. *.
A e
e W"
D N14 41
- D4 N 8
O "Di H
==
C O
e 84 e
se e of e el e Og e el 3
e et C
3 *e e
e
'9 Ol"9 NN
=0 0
3 "9
L O
"3
'=*t Ch.
. at C eee M
LA l Al
.?
A ee 3 e4
==
==
=
==
0
==
14J)
=*
'F A
st'%,
1 D
J'l At a at om e 3
0 g
e Ht 0 19 I
o e
.=
5 t
H L
MN at C
O O
"9 90 0 34 3 O
"4
- 1 2
O O
"5 C
C **
.J
==
A e
e ie i1e tl 4
8 I
t J A
4 l
e C
C *S
=
eeee e e ele e me e e e6 = = es e== =
A anan e e e
==
e 3 A
se N
NlO 3l @
AfD 309 Whi M
=in l
C 6
j 3g
"'I lA Al,**
"Si d
9 O
tI
- 1 tm
- =
C "P
'3s a Ni *'i t
i *=
l ao e
se e 4 e et e el e se 11 O
e Og
- =
3==
I 8.e 3
=*
O Ol 3 Cl **
A8 3 Ol "J 41 M
I fl e
- A **
as P=
'a
== I i
a e
I 4
a 1 3
- J *J &
l la-i 2 fe l - t
==
I 4
1
==
=
==
h3 N m
=e is SIS NI "1
%le
"'nt =
NI se N
- D N4 =e e
==
4y3m ze e
el e el e e6
- el
- el 2
e e
og
>e se e 2 :s N N T
sO Ot 3
- el O Ol"
- t at 4.,
CD N1 C,=
N as "* N O L
r*
y N
N4 "i "b4 N NIO
"*4 a
31 c., De De we =*
-J O N 1 a
l 1 ** *= 1
==
1 A '" *I =: 4 WM-N eoee e e==
e e ami e e et e
- el e e el C
e e e e et e e L c'. C.1.
=4 E N
N P1 O
%IT sta AI P=
A1
=e t'n I
atO O O 3 s *==
C D
-lS JI f*
cl N N1 &
aml
=J f
e 1
% e o eN e
el e et e el e el e el 4
O e
O I
- * * -OJ 4
a3
- 4 O
Dia Ol
- 31 O Si t
=f 4
0 e
1 O""****.3 e *J re se l
l =
=
== 43 as a3 e,
1 1== Ti d TIO O O
?!
3 Ei 4 a3 43 43
== 6 l
== -
Ze
- .J 3 3
= s 6
C =* 3 %
e I
at 4
2 i te
@l a")
e+ 7: H3
>= 1 e se e se e el e e
e el e
e e
i i
1 43 =e f I
M gm slN 01 6
.91 9 NI N pl O
y of
.3 h *C 3't i
f las a98 :2
- sh 44 " *= l P'
.i t
6.*
tl a."e t
==== $
1 I
I l '"
=p
- =
e= N 9.y
"" i O
g d3%
8 -== m -m====4== = =.(==== M== -m M
====q
=a wwe==,
i2 34 "'ll Os 3 34 "J Os 3 38 1
v i a== Ja 4 N e J ""* diis3 e di d ul M
e i.3 i.=4 4 We gtM fat 4 t=8 I
l ** w Ms se t ' JI = e t=
all== b d4 **
all i *1 at i
al On L 6 '3e O a3 **1 O N 08
- M ~31 43 re 01 1:"v w h
.. m. - e.d < a 1 u. - I o.J. Q.e 21 7 = ~11 1 he *'M ~1 ee."16 "il I'
El I*
e x
i 14 at.*14 aC Os C at 21 A at 2' 1 $= O!
J 4
8
= f = 1 = t = 1 1
3 1
J J J u 6e J re im O
3Jra: '
-=
at O at O at 3 et O *C 3
w tu ze 2se ze O
O O
"J' 3
r ce ta
-=
w e
e
~
o
.e
- - -.. -=
t P
OIA Nt =
mlO clN e4 23
==
Se El O
el "4 30 C a} 4 Nt e H
N a of W
e et e el e og e eq 33 el e
e el 4
N O
23 O
aO Ogo Nl O
4 m.a at a
d N
ai t==
- e 4
-. N l
1 9
.ej 3
N O A Di n
- A DIA N
- 1 O
On
-}
re
>t e
el e et e 4e el e e
e e
ai re 46 %
AI A clO 4l N ml a
N el
- 1 14 "9
==t**
Al3 J e
%lO wt N
3 On
'=l i
5 IF
" 41 ee"oeeoeee e e et e e e e e = = el e e eeo
==
as
=
==
t 33re4 a
l
.Ne 9
==
w a
w
4
-4.
-=i-.--
( -4 l
-3 A
==
0 e
e e
t t
e f*
1 0
t t
a
.Tl 44 e
O O O "3 O O O
e O
O O
O O
4 e
e e
e e
e a
i i
e 1
a.
A A
=8
=
.=
w 1
O O O O
A OA O
A A
O i=e 3
3 eel e
et e I
e e
el e 4
e o
e el c -*
O-OA oN N
-i e
al I
t l'"
N 1
eeo ee==
.o e o e et e e
=
==e e e e e e as e
e N
N e
6 C
I l
9 0
I 9
8 l
l 0
9 e
e 4e O
O O O
e Q 3 O
e O
O
'3 O
I 0
1 O
4 1
0 e
e 0
1 8
0 e
e i
3 Cy e
e G
A O
O Al e
e
'.4
.'t 3
3.e e
e met e
s e
e e
et 4 s
e e
1 e
a e
e F"l O
OO O
4O O
- =
4 C
O 4
3 e
e 44 0
1 1
I
=
0 g
c e
a e
e 4
=C e== e e e e el me e
=
m en e ==
m
=
=
e ':3 e 1
' 'O O
+3 e Pe ti 8
4 e
i i.')
1 0
t
' ")
t 3
1 1
1 e
- 40 3
O O O
e O O O
e O
a
- 3 3
30 e
e i
II 8
i O
6 0
l O
I L
I I
i1 e sa e l
A l==
==
==
==
3
==
36
=
es*
Q e
e In O
dl@
21-1 O A A
N 4
O O A e
e e
e el e et w et e i
e og
.3 e
o e
t a
O O
G i.l C
J Al **
PI e 01 N O
- D 4
s.t e
e
=l*
l s=
i==
g' s N,
i o
.e s
==
e e
e I
i
-e e
e e
e e a. e e e el e e es ee eee eoe 2
=
e N
e e
a Ol e M1 e A
P=
13 O
O o
,e
- ="
e E
- 1N ' Ca @
0 N
1 O
=
H N
4 N
C e
e 846 e
el e et @
O e
O e6 3
e e
o C
.3 Al e t
O t
M 4
Os O
"3 L
at e
e Ol d.
eee 11 10 Li O.
l el
==
3
'.n3
-e CF.
"3 Ol O
O O
El
==
==
a
>l I
I e
e6 0 9
8 I
el I*
t e
4 me at Cl O
O N NI O OO 3 N Ni 2
'3 N
O O
e" 4
==
M I
1
$i ell I
1 4
0 0
4 L
Os
.l4 0
4 I
1 l
C 4
"5
==
en e e moi ee ete = =(an e ete e e e e et
'.i eme e a.
e e
E ee l
lO CIN 41 A PIN
%l t1 N
Al c
"3 =e
- =
E4 4
9lA L'a$ *i
"*l N N13
?!
M 1
N NB
=
=*
-e *.i -
W D
Of e el e el e ei'
- el A
3 e
et c
'i w3 l
4 llO Of f'*
T l"J C00 Pi Li a
"31
-3
'M
= N.- ( 45
=
ea a 1
'J U C.
1 1
IN Ni I N Ni at i
l== l 6
0 e
a as e=
c 1
==
=
m3 N S
=e l
O T i f*
%f3 41 3 Oll"*
=* {
3t =e6 O
.e j
O *J O f*
pl e
e4 e el e el e en e el
.r.
. I e
et e4 ee a m. N Tl 3
old c43 Otm
'=l *i N
=c O
v.
P=1
= =.
ne O % N a
O r..I y
TI N Nim NI @
Ji P=
ci a
e a
Sg
>>e>
9 4
l' ao a* F* 4 e; JON N 4
1 e el e e el = e et e" e e e e.e e
C eo t el s G e, %
- /1 ;* - N eee el e e og e Si O Ol IN Si 7
6 I OJOO elT
=4 4 N
I O
sN T( N
-ff el#
Of
.J e
A el i e e e e E * * =
Ma o
4 4
wH e
01 e 4e 43 Of e 4
M 7
e 31 1 7==r
.'g'" *C O O J O r* e*
i O
Il=
C4" 068 esN 06 3
0 O
e6 4
= " * * " ' "
I l
e s
g =1
=e e =E 43 u
l l
i - 1
-?! *9
- 1
-i 1
I
- I 4
l 'sl L 4 3 -2 c r=
3 '-e r
t
==
==
elZ O a3 2 4 ar et a
t t?
==t N OgN 4 T -e J
>; i e el e el e el 0 4 e e;
I e
M me b.8 :t l
Ei
'm T t **
OI N 70 0
%82 28 O
P Of Ot t
O t4
= = =.
i L ei J
Al **
-l ell NO e IS"
~6 4
== N 9 "r s.. re
= ti.. O I
-e - e
.-.--it-.4--M--.-g".==.g 6
4 6
I
-==--ig-
== w w =*
ae 4 O s B '3 31 O 31 ~)
- 31 1
IO 31.'3 O.a4 ea at 48 M s di d de 3
e 1 *.3== Ji.4 N 4 e.L ame.=.8 i.=1
-e i
1 ll
- 1.*
e =1.T.
amt E r MS a's if 48 =4 e. 2( me.E ilm Ml Li aC l
f 3.'2 **l O 'ee '313 M
.*,13 ina' 'jg
- $ 3.
Iw sw 01 iOw 36 Je
- Cl 3 e e."31 1 'a al.1 A 34 8>
.r.s r
t a F ~s 4 6 ~~ s a3 L. m a La Ol 4 et ni t
_4 l
e e
i:EaC 144 *C Cl3 aC 084 at 344 r= 01 U
f
= t
= 1 = i O 3
- s 1
-J s r=
a J -e.J J c= 3 s ri r.
1 I
a
=
e" O at 3 at 14 0 at O
e.s pg 3 '
3%
y, w 3
O 3
3 3
ca va 9
e
'S e
C0t:GRESSIONAL COMMITMENTS MISSING FROM THE " ACTION PLAN" 1.
Attitude a.
Change attitude reflecting old AEC developmental mentality.
b.
Adopt a tough approach in regulating.
2.
Standardization of final design.,
3.
Post-accident financial qualifications a.
See if utility can pay for clean-up.
b.
Insurance requirement.
c.
Parent company responsible for clean-up.
4.
Post-accident rules and regulations.
O O g 8
9 1754 109
.a..
TilREE MILE ISLAND ACTION PLAN ESTIMATED RESOURCE COST DRAFT DATE: 12/20/79 RUH DATE: 12/20/79 (11:15)
CC3 e=**
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM M
FY 1980 M
,q.
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
)
- N 8
a a
a N R HRR R
SP OTHER 0 #
TOTAL 8
3 3
s T a PMY SM # PMY
$M # PMY SM 8 PHY SM # PMY SM N PMY
$M E # PMY
$M TOTAL RLQUIRED 49.6 0.828 71.6 0.028 3.82# 17.9 n # 28.0 0.30 (1)s167.1 4.961 CllAPTER 1 l
8 l
8 l
l l
8 l
l HOT BtIDGFTFD 39.6 0.19# 44.0 0.02# 0.202 16.8 # #
5.5 #105.9 0.41 TOTAL REQUIRED 42.8 1.66# 20.9 0.45s 3.5 53.622 16.1 n a 1.0 (2)# 84.3 55.73 CHAPTER 2 l
8 l
l 8
l 8
l l
8 l
HOT BtIDGETFD 36.4 0.67# 20.2 0.20#
3.5 2.66# 10.0 # # # 70.1 3.53 TOTAL RLQUIRED 67.4 1.743 38.2 7.36# 2.318 6.4 c 13.5 1.00s 1.0 (3)s126.5 12.41 CllAPTER 3 l
8 l
l 8
l l
3 l
l HOT BHDGFTFD 66.4 0.64# 32.7 5.35# 1.00#
3.5 #
6.0 #
1.0 #109.6 6.99 TOTAL KLQUIRED 13.0 0.258 20.4 0.50s 0.258 30.5 n a 22.0 0.80 (4)s 85.9 1.80 CHAPTER 4 l
8 l
8.
l 2
l 3
l C
l l
HOT P U DGETf D 12.0 0.25# 20.3 0.50# # # #
3.0 # 35.3 0.75 TOTAL REQUIRED 172.8 4.472151.1 8.33s 3.5 60.00: 70.9 a 13.5 1.00# 52.0 1.10 3463.8 74.901 TOTALS l
l l
l l
l l
NOT BtIDGFTED 154.4 1.75#117.2 6.07#
3.5 3.86# 30.3 #
6.0 #
9.5 #320.9 11.68 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT - POTENTIAL REPROGRAMMING YES #
6.2 # 0.11a 10.2 n #
3.0 # 19.4 0.11l l
l n
l 8
l l
s I
a l
UNCERTAIN 154.4 1.75# 68.8 6.078 0.70s 0.2 #
6.0 #
2.5 #231.9 8.52 l
n l
s I
l s
I a
l l
NO # 42.2 #
3.5 3.05# 19.9 # #
AEOD(22.5PMY,$0.12M); MPA(4PMY,$0.18M); ELD (1.0PMY); OGC(0.5PMY)
(2)
ELD (1.0PMY)
(3)
ELD (1.0PMY)
QtlALIFIERS (4)
ELD (8.0PMY); HMSS(7.0PMY); ADM(2.7PMY);
1)
SOME RESOURCES WERE INCOMPLETELY OGC/0PE(2.1PMY); OGC(2.0PMY); OPE (0.2PMY)
SPECIFIED.
2)
SOME RESOURCES llAVE HOT BEEN DETERMINED.
- 3) MAHY RESOURCE ESTIMATES STILL MUST BE REFINED.
4)
H0 OVERHEAD (SUPERVISIGH AND CLERICAL)
IIAS BEEN ADDED.
5)
PRELIMIN ARY ASSESSMEllT OF REPROGR AMMIllG OPTIONS IS ROUGil.
THREE MILE ISLAND ACTION PLAN ESTIMATED RESOURCE COST DRAFT DATE: 12/20/79 RUN DATE: 12/20/79 (11:15)
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM M
FY 1981 M
- ~~
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 8
8 8
8 8
H #
wd" NRR 8
IE R
SP B
OTHER 0 #
TOTAL
'Lp3 0
8 T #
e, lp;,,
PMY
$M # PMY
$M # PMY
$N # PMY
$M # PMY
$M # PMY SM E # PMY
$M TOTAL REQUIRED 63.4 0.088 46.0 # 6.758 16.8 a #
5.0 0.18 (1)st31.2 7.01 CHAPTER 1 l
l l
8 i
l 8
l 8
l NOT BUDG E T E.D 54.1 # 45.4 # 0.50# 15.5 # #
1.0 #116.0 0.50 TOTAL REQUIRED 31.2 1.248 25.7 0.90s 2.0 66.213 17.6 n a 1.0 (2)s 77.5 68.35 CHAPTER 2 l
2 l
t l
3 l
t l
l 8
l HOT BHDGE T F;D 18.0 0.49# 25.7 0.902 2.0 5.63#
9.9 # # # 55.6 7.02 TOIAL RLQUIRED 42.2 1.20s 39.0 27.325 0.668 1.63 0.50s 11.5 1.123 1.0 (3)G 95.3 30.81 CHAPTER 3 l
5 l
l 8
l l
2 l
8 l
?9.7 0.10# 28.6 24.32# #
0.8 #
6.0 # # 65.1 24.43 TOTAL REQUIRED # 63.0 0.253 0.25# 12.5 N # 15.5 (4)# 98.5 0.50 CHAPTER 4 1
l s-l l
l 3
1 8
l NOT_BPPCETED 7.5 # 63.0 0.25# # # #
6.0 # 76.5 0.25 1
TOTAL REQUIRED 144.3 2.522173.7 28.47s 2.0 73.87: 48.5 0.50s 11.5 1.123 22.5 1.75 2402.5 108.2 TOTALS l
t I
l n
l s
l l
l HDT PHOGFTFD 109.3 0.59#162.7 25.47#
2.0 6.13# ?6.2 #
6.0 #
7.0 #313.2 32.19 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT - POTENTIAL REPROGRAMMING YES n # 0.288 18.6 # #
2.5 # 21.1 0.28 i
I a
i I
l I
I UNCERTAIH 109.3 0.598 65.7 25.22#
2.0 0.60s 0.8 R 6.0 8 3.5 8187.3 26.41 I
e i
a i
n l
s l
n I
e i
NO # 97.0 0.25# 5.?53 6.8 # #
1.0 5104.8 5.50 NRR IE RES SD SP OTHER TOTAL (1) MP A ( 4. 0 PMY, $ 0.18M) ; ELD (1.0PMY)
(2)
ELD (1.0PMY)
(3)
ELD (1.0PMY)
(4)
ELD (8.5PMY); HMSS(5.0PMY); ADM(2.0PMY)
- i 246 Tr\\sKs J
V ALREADY A
APPROVED (95) i V-SitAPLE To B
AccoMP5" (2:0 V
LESS URGGMTC(
'!A5K5 FOR PRioRnv 3
consioebTtotJ
= 32 PROGRAM 5 (93) 9_
e
(
9*
TA5k5 FOR PRIDEITV CotasIDERATiod I.
Lot 44 TiErf M, [ M ATOR Peo 6R At%
ns %m
_tL.
MoeE STLL IS Peo 6 2 M49 O
_Lu_
Misce LLA N E OUS
/o PeoGeAMs 1754.113
I.
Longterm /ilajor Programs 1.
I.A.4
- Simulator Use and Development 2.
III.A.1
- Impr'ove liRC Capability to Respond to Emergencies (also IIIA.2.5 and 2.6, t!DL and KI distribution) 3.
IV A
- fiRC Organization & ttanagement (also IV B.6 -
Improved Commo w/ Licensees) 4.
IDI
- Control Room Design 5.
II C.1
- System Engineering & Reliability 6.
IV B.7
- Extend Lessons Learned to other Licensees 7.
IA 3.3
- Internal NRC Operating License Reforms 8.
II B
- Degraded Core 9.
IV D
- Safety Policy and Practices 10.
I.C.2 - I6.6-Procedures 11.
IA 2.6
- Longterm Upgrade (of Tng & Qual of Pers.)
12.
IB.3
- On-site Safety Enginieering 13.
IV C
- Advisory Committees
~
1754'414-
II.
MORE 5.T.L.L.
1.
IA 1.3
- Shift Manning 2.
IA 2.1.a
- Qualifications of SR0 & SS 3.
IA 2.5
- Plant Drills 4.
IB 4.1
- Management for Construction 5.
IF
- Quality Assurance 6.
IG
- Training during Preap & LP Testing 7.
IIJ1, IIJ2. Vendor & Construction Inspection Prog.
8.
IIID.l.2.a - Processing of Personnel Dosimeters 9.
IIID 1.4
- Worker Registry 10.
IIID 2.1
- 11..III El.1
- Improved Vent Gas Systems 12.
III E 1.4
- Liquid Pathway Interdiction 13.
III E 2.la - Dose rate Measurements (off-site) 4
).
i lh54115
III. MISCELLA:E0'JS 1.
IA 2.7
- Accreditation of Tng Inst's 2.
IIA
- Siting 3.
III B.2
- Funding of State & Local Gov't Planning and
~
Preparedness 4.
III B.3
- FEMA role 5.
III C
- Public Information 6.
IV A.4
- Achieve Single Location - Interim 1754: 116
1.
t
'!(f!L
>2 I!
e-j JL
-j a
IZ' 1:
Nti
> d I "4 6
1
(
.l3j.h ~l,51
~
8 h
1
.3 f 5-a. :: 0 3 d5 sh i
7$
~A W
9 9.J. $ i
- k. 6 a
2 2
9.,,
4 E hD b (yw[ ~
s,}{}
W 2
S V
e O
{,g Q w
i
.! w
-E
'4 te td
?
I 4pf kM (t-Sb k F 3
F.~
c o p v o - v a v o n'
_< m o
.o 2
t w tj *^P g
h1 b
1 f
.t oEn au 5
-d
.g
<:C
'P
_2
\\
on?- v a'on ty R-
.g f "e
z u +ft TQ tt).o goy
- g g-g d
't; nise e,1<
xt
- t.
Q "t
o mV enwom(yo
-K o
>g 3 oG;g y.
o e-g a.-.-
t- <
nny 3a c, e.
.. -c c.: (j ?
l g
d j;[
.t <
-3 8/s N gspo s
~.
l
<. ft. :j 9
Le x W,est Q "b" o
uk
- R
~
r et,
i o, s-t d
E d.
I...
i
>33 H
42 o k
}
f lC 0 'ai
$i5 k1 3do
,g,f f2171f I
EO enmosv ns330 -+
jh jS g
/a.ittu. b a) oj
..y I
r
,o it il U.S x0
- 2d Q
k g
31 F
. _I o
F-o.o n
I s
-t-d j
o-k 1 ~f
- h. hi '
'glI'