ML20010F686

Transcript of ACRS Ad Hoc Working Groups 810909 Meeting in Washington,Dc Re Nuclear Safety Research,Development & Demonstration Act of 1980.Pp 1-65

ML20010F686
Person / Time
Issue date:	09/09/1981
From:	Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
To:
References
ACRS-T-1000, NUDOCS 8109110177
Download: ML20010F686 (67)

Text

_

NCC'? u REGU.ATORY CO.Ti:SS2CN

'! ?) ;.

~'//;

/,

%(,

7 Q,k,y G}.-

/'

i j

~

In f.e.Ma=s: Of:

ADVISORY COI1MITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS-AD HOC WORKING GROUPS 11EETING ON TtIE NUCLEAR SAFETY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION ACT OF 1980

/6 N'V-N

. ? < 'T\\-[C '?,3 ilt.b L i L D1

';ir 1019317 T 3

,Q ew~~-.- p)

O

\\ f, 4'

\\ /,

69 OATE:

September 9, 1981 PAGZg.

1 - 65

'Qs wfs

G COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHIN 3 TON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 18 1 existing design; and the other are simulators that are {N, n./ 2 designed to simulate a particular reactor system that the 3 vendor of a nuclear steam supply equipment plants provide. 4 Now the coupling of that system to the 5 containments and other safety features is not really 6 understood very well. And, as a matter of fact, in many 7 cases the simulation doesn' t go to coupling the containments 8 and there is reason to believe that there might be some 9 advantage in coupling the nuclear system -- the steam supply 10 system -- and the engineered safety features in such a way 11 that you could find the variations in characteristics that 12 are worth changing and perhaps in some cases identifying 13 dif feren t characteristics that might improve the public 14 safety capacity of these installations. 15 And while I dor't myself know wha t system is 16 needed, I can't hear any of that in this discussion and I 17 rea." Ly believe that was the intent when the idea was 18 initially suggested. 19 MR. MILLUNZI: In looking across at the 20 capabilities tha t exist in trying to achieve the increment 21 of improvements that you're talking about, most people do 22 not think that it's necessary to have a large centralized 23 engineering simula tor f acility. () 24 MR. BENDER: But most people believe in doing what 25 they've been doing. There's no interest in ^.he industry in m) ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 19 1 trying to take any initiative to improve safety, nearly as I {} 2 can see. And the Department of Energy seems to have a 3 similar interest. 4 MR. MILLUNZI: You know, Dr. Bender, those are 5 awfully strong words and I'm saying this to you again, all 6 right? And with all due respect, the Department is 7 dedicated to safety and let me tell you I am and I don't 8 really like that kind of -- we are looking at this thing 9 very seriously and it's not because we have no interest. 10 MR. BENDER: Well, look, th.re's nothing written 11 down that describes the capability. All I've heard so far 12 is the testimony which sav, there are a lot of people that 13 don ' t think it's a good idea without some technical 14 specification and some written capability developed so that 15 there is a basis for judging. 16 It's hard for me to see that people really have 17 looked at the problem adequately. 18 MR. MILLUNZI: I can accept this, if what you're 19 saying to me is that the case that we have presented in here 20 does not satisfy you. I can accept that very well, very ( 21 constructively. 22 But let me say it's a matter, then, that we may 23 not have presented that case, but it ce r tainly wasn't () 24 because we didn 't care or we weren 't trying to improve l 25 saf ety and I'll try to correct that problem for you in ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 20 () 1 trying to present our case. 2 I'd like to hear your comments like we've heard 3 from anybody else on how we can improve pre sen ting our 4 thoughts and where we have an error in judgment and we will 5 strive to correct that. Tha t's the reason why I'm here. 6 3R. BENDERS Well, let me correct the impression I T probably left that I think the Departmont of Energy doesn't 8 care. I think the way in which it's presented leaves the 9 impression that there really has not been very much depth of 10 thought given to how to provide the facility that has been 11 proposed. 12 And it may turn out that it's not a good idea. 13 MR. MILLUNZI: I hear you and I appreciate what 14 you have said and we will review very caref ully, you know, 15 our documents relative to your comments. 16 MR. MATHIS4 Jerry? 17 MR. RAY: In conjunction with this review and as I 18 sense Mr. Bender's comments I think that the major l l l 19 advantange or help in an objective evaluation of the utility i 20 o f this whole ides would be helped if a functional 21 specification were prepared that would reflect what the law 22 says and what the conceptual presentatjans were in the i 23 testimony that was taken before the law was legislated. J () 24 One of the idtas put in might very well be the 25 basis fo; a more objective appraisal than you sense has been j O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVc. S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) U4-2345 21 (} 1 made. I know it would help me tremendously to really 2 evaluate the comments that you have in your report. 3 MR. MILLUNZI: As I understand it, and of course Om 4 I'll look very carefully at the exact wording and will get 5 with the staff if there are any questions, but from my o'n 6 notes what you're really saying is could we develop a 7 functional requirement for this facility and then compare it 8 towards the requireme.'= that the law specified and then see 9 what the f easibility is. 10 MR. BAY: It need not be as complete a 11 specification as for vendor's proposals, but it should be 12 what you would have as a preliminary to the preparation of 13 such. What do you war.t it to do, and so on ? 14 MR. MILLUNZI: We will take that under 15 con sideration. 16 MR. MATHIS: Well, there's one other facet ot 17 this, I think, and, Ivan, you back me up on this. I think 18 most of the simulators that exist today are programmed to a 19 specific incident of some kind and they basically must have 20 been on a ve ry sh o rt time c ycle. And if you're going to go 21 into a broader scale assist, if you will, and design 22 activity, then maybe you need some different codes in 23 addition to maybe a different simulator. () 24 MR. CATTON: In part I think that's right. Most 25 existing simulators handle the abnormal incidents by basing O a ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 22 1 the output on the FSAR, which, again, is based on evaluation {} 2 models, which gets us back to Appendix K. And that's just a 3 fictitious world. 4 Yet the utilities are going to be required to have 5 their operators train on a simulator that properly 6 represents these accidents and I think there was even a date 7 given by which that must be done. And I believe it was 8 early this summer. L, it's kind of a bad situation things 9 a re in righ t now. 10 Just a comment or two on what you said. I think 11 the f unctional ability is here. The types of accidents 12 where you can't make real time calculations, like the large 13 break LOCA, you typically are not that concerned, because 14 it's an automatic operation anyway. 15 The small break and transients, a lot cf the codes 16 now can do real time or better than real time, particularly 17 at RETRAN and the TR AC code, with its new algorithms. The 18 question then becomes how to gat it into the simulator and 19 what's the best mechanism. 20 My feeling is that the national reactor simulator 21 is proba bly not the way to do it, but I do think somebody 22 needs to be doing research to develop the algorithms that 23 could be fed to utilities for use in their own simulators () 24 a nd I don't see that anywhere. 25 MR. MILLUNZI: I would have to say, in looking at O ALDERSoN REPO9 TING COMPANY. INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 .. ~ 23 1 it, that has been where we're leaning tight now is the last {} /- 2 part tha t you're talking about, is how do you do just that. 3 What's the work you have to do to give it to utilities so 4 they can use the existing capabilities or augment what they 5 have. 6 MR. CATTON: If -- they have built into their 7 simulators several of these layers that were concerning you 8 because they basically correlate empirically their simulator 9 to a wide variety of things in a given plan t. It 's the tail 10 end that's not given properly and you know that most of the 11 utilities don't have the capability to do this themselves. 12 And as far as I can tell, at least now, I don't 13 see any rushing forward by the vendors to help them. Maybe ( 14 they are; I don't know. So somebody -- 15 MR. MILLUNZI: There are a lot of people who are 16 rushing forward to help them. 17 MR. CATION: Well, maybe that's true. 18 MR. MATHIS: Chet? 19 MR. SIESS: That's still the thinking towards this 20 simulator. I don't disapprove. I mean, the idea that the 21 utilities are going to have their own simulators with 22 control rooms that look like their own control rooms and 23 the y need all the help they can in getting better simulation 24 programs. 25 But the other idea that was brought up of the O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 24 1 simulation f acility, which might not even have a control [} 2 board attached to it and probably wouldn't even be able to 3 run on the kind of computers that sit in the back of these 4 sim ula tors, tha t has an entirely different function. That's 5 not to train operators. That's to help understand accidents 6 and sequences and interactions of systems and so forth. 7 Now I don't know whether that is what Minogue was 8 thinking about in his letter. It seemed to be what Argonne 9 was talking about in some respects and what INPO was talking 10 about. 11 MR. CATTON: It's my recollection back when this 12 national reactor simulator was being talked about with RES 13 and Budnitz was the director, some of what you're saying was ( 14 the original idea, that it wasn't necessarily to be a 15 simulator set up somewhere in the country that operators 16 would come in and play with. 17 It was more engineering simulation. But a lot of 18 codes are leading to that. The latest versions of RETRAN 19 are getting pretty damn close. 20 MR. SIESS: I think one point is if you have the 21 simulation capability with f ast running codes and you wanted 22 to put in operator intervention type things you wouldn't 23 necessarily have to have a control board to do tha t. (]) 24 Somebody can sit back and say now what could an 25 o pe r do wrong. let's stop it and run that into it. You ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 25 [} 1 know. And it seems to me that industry may not get a 2 tremendous benefit out of this, but I think NRC would in 3 some of our thinking about accidents which is what-iffing, 4 like we were doing 15 years ago, could be what-if a lot more 5 intelligently. 6 MR. MATHIS: If you look at the second 7 recommendation out of th '.s report under simulator, and I'll 8 read it: "The Department should consider research and 9 development on improved simulation in reactor plant 10 performance prediction tools, subject to consideration of 11 their overall priority of these activities within the 12 Department's resea rch and d evelopmen t effort." 13 Ihat 's quite a different recommendation than 14 f orget the simulator. 15 MR. MILLUNZI: 'de really think you have to look at 16 helping the operator and there has to be some simulation 17 activities that are very important. And we really intend to 18 pursue that, but not to the extent as it was -- we 19 interpreted it and most people did in the bill. 20 So we looked at now, all right, we have answered. 21 They have that testimony and everything. It raised a very 22 valid issue. The question maybe could have been phrased a 23 little bit differently in the Act, but still the question () 24 relative to how do you use simulation and how do you help 1 25 the operator is very valid and we intend to pursue that. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 26 ) O 1t - 3==t thet we 111 not eeve10 it e1oog the 211nes that the law calls for and we would go back to g-3 Congress with that recommendation to them. .w 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 O 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 27 1 We would still do work in simulation and we still 2 see it being a large piece of effort. 3 MR. MATHIS: Jerry? 4 MR. RAY: The most persuasive argument you could 5 give me that would influence me to the conclusion that such 6 a f acility is not necessary would be the point that with 7 proper codes there are enough high capacity, highly 8 sophisticated, fast operating computers located around the 9 country in computing centers such that with the proper codes 10 any element in th e ind ustry could take those codes and use 11 those computers if they don't have them in-house to get the 12 effects they need, and so therefore the concentrated effort 13 should be on improved development and improvement of the 14 codes. 15 MR. CATTON: Those computer centers are already 16 available. For about $1,000 a month you can do it on your 17 own. 18 HR. RAY: I know they're expensive, but the 19 machines are available to do it, subject to the requirements 20 f or training and other purposes that you sense might be in 21 the concepts that underlie this question in the first 22 place. But the emphasis on code development and improvement 23 it seems to me is a logical thing to concentrate on. O 24 "a "rttuaz1= 1t 1e ea 1=porteat oae-25 MR. BENDER 4 Well, I don't think we want to lose O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 1 20 rT 1 sight of the f act that the law is written to foster a U 2 certain kind of researca thinking in terms of design 3 improvements. And while these things do exist around the 7-V 4 country, it is not clear right now that there is any effort 5 tha t's directed towards using them for the purpose of what 6 seems to be written into the law. At least it's not obvious 7 to me. 8 HR. MILLUNZI: Well, it's our understanding that 9 the design organizations that do use it, the department is 10 not going to be in the business of developing detailed 11 designs. We will help develop functional requirements and 12 evaluations, but in the main we will leave the development 13 o f the design details to the design organization. ( 14 This item, yo" know, really also should be 15 included in the comprel nsive management plan in the RCD 16 program, and in that area they intend to put together a wide 17 cross-section of people and the need would be identified, 18 and then we would try to decide who would fulfil those needs 19 as much as possible. That aspect would get highlighted and ~ 20 w e wou1d expect the design organizations to provide that 21 capability. 22 So we will push for those kinds of items. But as 23 f ar as who does it, we would try to have a cooperative () 24 program and leave the design details to the design 25 orgaizations. ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 %RGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 29 1 MR. MATHIS4 Any other comment on this particular 2 subject? 3 (No' response.) 4 MR. MATHIS: Shall we move on to the next one? 5 MR. MILLUNZI: The second one is also a position 6 that we have right now, based on activities completed to 7 date. We have a very intensive effort under way with INPO 8 to try to determine the job analyses, skill requirements, 9 training requirements, and the tctai manpower requirements, 10 and the kinds of manpower. And for example, I would have to 11 say the draft that you got, we literally just about sent 12 t ha t work out hot off the p resses. We weren't able to apply 13 our normal quality assurance to the writing. 14 But we thought it was most important to get it out 15 on the 15th of July, get people's responses. And we 16 articulated our conclusion based on the result of the work 17 to date. This work is still being a ug me nte d and the work is 18 continuing with INPO. 19 I would also have to say that we are working very 20 closely with the regulatory staff in this whole general 21 area, and we think that the kind of cooperation that's been 22 going on between the Department, the Commission and INPO in 23 t ha t, along with, as we highlighted in this letter, of 24 coor> era tion between IDCOR, the Commission and ourselves, 25 gives us a high degree of confidence that we're going to be O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 30 1 able to fulfil our coordination requirement very well. {} L And so we are developing the details yet. The 3 details that we have, the additional details that we have to 4 date have no t altered our conclusions. The responses that 5 we have received f rom everyone so far have supported those 6 conclusions. 7 And so at this time it would be fair to re-read 8 the statement that we had in the transmittai letter, and 9 that does represent our position as of today, and that is: to "The Department concludes that it would not be 11 desirable to create a Federal Nuclear _Oper?+ ions Corps. 12 Furthermore, the Department concludes that, although it's 13 theoretically feasible to create such a corps, it would not 14 be appropriate for the type of operation required for a safe 15 U.S. commercial industry. In addition, the program 16 presently being undertaken by the U.S. nuclear industry is 17 suf ficient to meet the needs that a Federal Nuclear 18 Operations Corps might satisfy. Therefore, the significant 19 national effort and expense that would be required to 20 develop and operate such a corps are not warranted." l 21 I'd like to ask Mr. Beaca -- it was my 22 understanding that the Commission ac ;eed with this position 23 also. (]) 24 ME. BEACH: Yes, that's right. 25 MR. MILLUNZIs So I think tha t summarizes where we ) ALDERSON R6 PORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 t 31 () 1 are. 2 MR. MOEllER: I have a couple of conments which I 3 would like to make and obtain from you, of course, 4 cla rification and help on it. As I read the law it asks for 5 several things. The first part is Section 4, item 7, which 6 is at the top of page 3 of the law as it was printed, or in 7 the form printed for us, and it sa ys 8 "To identify the aptitudes, training and manning 9 levels which are necessary to assure reliable operator 10 performance under normal, abnormal and emergency 11 canditions." 12 Now, in the material that you provided to us, I 13 believe those f our -- and I realize you're under time O 14 constraints -- but you addressed the manning side very 15 substantially as to how much training these people need for 16 dif ferent jobs. You are polling people and you have shown 17 these wide orders of magnitude difference in the length of 18 training provided. So all that has to be ironed out. But 19 you are addressing what the law specifies. 20 I've seen very little thus far on the aptitudes 21 tha t these people need to have in order to fulfil the 22 various positions, and I'm sure in due time you will try to 23 address tha t. But let me point out that I have seen () 24 nothing, and I think your draft is weak in that area. And I 25 have seen next to nothing on the difference in tr+ staffing ) i ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (2C2) 554 2345 32 (]) 1 and the aptitudes and the manning or the tranning required 2 under normal, abnormal or emergency conditions. 3 If you read through this, which I have done, it 4 seems that you predominantly address the normal situation. 5 So that's my comment on that portion. 6 Now, the second item, in a sense, tha t they 7 requested of you in the law is found in Section 6, titled 8 " Federal Nuclear Operations Corps." And F -ou have 9 addressed, that is, that the Secretary, in cooperation with 10 the NEC, shall initiate a study as to the sufficiency of 11 efforts in the U.S. to provide specially trained 12 professionals to operate the controls and do all of the 13 other things necessary for the commercial nuclear industry. 14 You are addressing that. But now either I am 15 completely misin ter )re ting from this point on or everyona 16 else has misinterpreted f rom this point on. And of course, 17 when you 're in a minority you begin to say, well, perhaps 18 I 'm the one tha t 's misinterpreting. 19 But Section 6(b), what does it say? It says: "In that is, the evaluation of the 20 conducting the study" 21 sufficiency of our efforts to provide all of these people -- 22 " th a t the Secretary shall assess the desirability and 23 f easibility of creating" -- and let me insert a word, "an () 24 elite," in other words highly skilled - " federal corps of 25 such professionals to inspect" -- now, it says " inspect" -- ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVF., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 33 1 "and supervise such operations." {~ ) 2 It does not say to operate the plants. And yet, 3 you frequently in this report, you the writers, in it you 4 will twist those words and you will say, a federal corps to 5 operate the facilities. It does not say that. It says a 6 f ederal corps to inspect and supervise, an elite federal 7 corps if I may interject my wo rd s. 8 Now let's go on to part 2: "The assessment shall 9 consider tha establishment of an academy." Wha t is the to academy to do? The academy is to train this elite federal 11 corps. It's not to train the masses to operate the plants. 12 It's an academy to train the elite corps who inspects and 13 supervises the masses who are out there doing the job. 14 Now, if my interpretation is correct then yours is 15 not correct, yours being what is given to us in this book, 16 because when the academy is discussed in this report, in the 17 draf t report, it addresses the situation in a manner as if 18 the academy would train the masses to operate the 19 f acilities. 20 So in that respect, then, whether we need an 21 academy I cannot say at this point because we have not dealt 22 with the basic question that we were asked. Now let me hush 23 and hear your response. 24 MR. MILLUNZI: When I talk for the rest of the day () 25 -- the English language is very limited and the word O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 34 1 " operation" means different things depending on what context [} 2 you're talking about. Usually when we talk about operatians 3 we are talking sbout the operators and the maintenance, the 4 whole operation. 5 When we talk about operating the nuclear plant we 6 mean the whole operation, not the hands-on control. Sv we 7 are talking about the total population that you need to do 8 that. So we weren't just talking about the operating. 9 MR. MOELLER: I have no argument there. You need 10 to establish the sufficiency of our educational efforts to 11 provide the necessary manpower for all operations for the 12 nuclear industry. But now when you get to the academy, the 13 law says, if I can read, that the academy is only that 14 would only train the elite corps who inspects and supervises 15 these masses. 16 MR. MILLUNZI Well, to that one, Dr. Moeller, you 17 did inte rje ct the word " elite." 18 MR. MOELLER: Let's delete the word "eli te. " A 19 f ederal corps. 20 MR. MILLUNZI: No, we're conscious of the word 21 " elite." I think Senator Weicker used it. So we were very 22 conscious of the word " elite." And once again here, like in 23 a simulator, we did an exhaustive search of all the (]) 24 background leading up to this. So I wanted to tell you, we 25 acknowledged and we know that the wo rd " elite" could be put ACDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 35 1 in there if one wanted to, and that's the only reason I 3 / 2 vanted to bring that point up. 3 MR. MOELLER: Thank you. O V 4 MR. MILLUNZI: Also, the way it's written it's 5 (b)(1), (2), (3) follow one after the other and they are not 6 separate. In reality, that is one long paragraph. 7 MR. MOELLER: Fine. Read it that way. 8 MR. MILLUNZI4 Ok ay. Now, along tha t line, then, 9 it says "to inspect and supervise the operation, and shall 10 consider to train a corps of professionals in all aspects of 11 the technology, the operations, the nuclear regulatory and 12 rela ted la w. " 13 It would seem to me you are not talking about a ) 14 small cadre. 15 MR. MOELLER: That doesn't bother me at all. You 16 train the corps. Now, if the corps is going to inspect and 17 supervise they must know more than the people they are 18 inspecting and supervising. Therefore they need to be 19 trained in all aspects of nuclear technology, 20 nuclear-related law, health and science. I want them to 21 know all about, in-depth, the information that the people 22 whom they are inspecting need to know. 23 MR. MILLUNZI: Dr. Moeller, if I state for (' } 24 discussion purposes where you are no w, how do you cut off 25 how many guys for each plant? How do you get to the point l () ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 l 36 1 where you don't replace every person inside that plant with (} 2 one of these personnel from the federal corps? Where does 3 the responsibility lie, and how do you stop not replacing 4 one for one? 5 If I have somebody who is responsible for health 6 phy sics, why does the utility hire a guy for health 7 physics? And if I keep going right down this, then I end up 8 replacing everyone? 9 MR. MOELLER: No, I don't -- I'm not sure I 10 completely understand your statement. 11 MR. MILLUNZIa Well, we have one health physics l'i guy for one plant trained at the academy -- 13 MR. M0ELLERs No, no, he's not trained at the 14 academy. The federal corps of professionals who inspect and 15 supervise would be trained at the corps. 16 MR. MILLUNZIs Well, if they're going to supervise 17 don ' t they have to be on site all the time? Otherwise how 18 are they going to supervise? The plants are going 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> 19 a day when they're up. 20 MR. MOELLER: Okay, you've scored a point there. 21 MR. MILLUNZIs I'm just trying to understand you. 22 MR. MOELLER: No, you're helping me to understand, 23 and that's why I'm asking you for clarification. Okay. 24 If you interpret the word " supervise" as being an () 25 employee of the utility who is there and the top man or the ] ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 37 1 foreman in the job, and if you say then all of those top 2 people at each plant must be trained a t the academy, I will 3 grant that I can see interpreting the wording in that O 4 manner. Even so, though, if I do that you're still t'alking 5 about an elite corps of very few people, make it five or ten 6 per pla n t. 7 MR. MILLUNZI4 Dr. Moeller, let me say I think 8 when we all started out we always think it's five or ten, 9 and when we end up looking at the operations of these plants 10 it is not five or ten. 11 MR. MOELLER: But the way you have written your 12 report, you give se the imeression that the academy would 13 train all professionals working in every nuclear power () 14 plant. And I think that's as bad toward that end of the 15 cycle or that swing of the pendulum as I would be toward tha 16 extreme on the other end where I would only train at my 17 academy the NRC inspectors, period, and no one else. 18 MR. MILLUNZI4 We are looking at these total 19 manpower requirements. 20 MR. MOELLER4 Indeed you should. 21 MR. MILLUNZI And we haven't got to the phase on 22 aptitudes. 23 MR. MOELLER: But you need to clarify, at least [} 24 f or me, what it is the academy would do. Well, we knov 25 roughly what they wou?d do, but whom would they train or O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 38 (]) 1 educate or whatever it is they're going to do. And I'm not 2 clear -- I read this numerous times, obviously, to try to 3 interpret what it's saying, and I see the academy as 4 responsible for training f ar f ewer people than you gi' e me 5 the impress 1< 1 you're thinking of in your report. 6 So I think personally, unless you know that your 7 interpretation is correct -- and I do not know that mine is; we need to go, do we not, to the 8 I suspect it's not 9 Congrecs, to the people who prepared this, and say to these 10 gen tlemen, what is it you intended, and then go back to the 11 drawing board and try to prepare a report that addresses 12 specifically what they intended. 13 MR. MILLUNZ.4 Let me add another aspect. When O' 14 you look at all of this, one of the reasons we're going 15 through this, it demonstrates -- you know, what happens is HS these are just the numbers tha t f all out, and it 17 demonstrates that there is an extraordinarily large training 18 job that is required to meet all the manning levels, and '9 tha t the industry is doing that. 20 And so we do have a system in place now where the 21 industry is very conscious of their responsibilities, 22 especially the utilities. And you know, we have a strong 23 f eeling that the ultimate safety of a nuclear power plant () 24 does recide in the utilities, and they have to have that 25 saf ety permeate that whole system and their people have to O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 40C VIRGINIA AVE., S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 .a 39 1 be properly trained. (} 2 They recognize that. The existence of INPO is 3 testimony to that. The careful job in selecting Dennis 4 Wilkinson to be their head -- and he is really doing a good 5 job -- shows the seriousness which they applied to that. 6 And so now we have the industry responding to that 7 need. We have in place the Nuclear Regulatory Co mmission, 8 who has a division on all the other items, and they already 9 are inspecting the plants, and they are responsible for 10 ensuring that they're adhering to the regulations. 11 Is this to be, for example, a third layer of 12 inspecto rs? And why do you need that kind of group if the 13 Regulatory Commission's enforcement and inspection division ) 14 is examining and that crew is doing their job properly? And 15 if the utilities are training their people properly what's 16 so magical about having a U.S. badge on your chest or 17 training at a federal academy? 18 So we don't see the need for it. Also we have a 19 problem tha t there are a lot of legal problems thut have to 20 get looked a t and they're related, too. If somebody comes 21 into tha t plant and is the supervisor, who's liable for 22 Three Mile Island if that had happened while he was there? 23 MR. RAY: The industry through INPO should have (]) 24 the time to demonstrate its effectiveness in this training 25 ef f ort. It hasn't had it. O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) SF 2345 40 1 MR. MILLUNZIa We tried to say that subtly, and 2 your comment is well taken. Severa~ people have told us, 3 and we won't be so subtle. I think in the final report b-s 4 we'll be more explicit. I don't think we 'll be tha t 5 explicit at the end of this month, but we will be by 6 December. 7 3R. MOELLER: I guess the reason I pursued the 8 interpretation thst I made is this, was the item in Section 9 6(b)(3), which says: "The assessment shall include the 10 appropriate organizational approach for the establishment of 11 a f ederal corps within the executive branch." 12 Also, the federal corps, if it's within the 13 executive branch, is a group out there inspecting and 14 supervising. I say, are they actually doing things? I do 15 not see them as plant employees supervisin,- -- 16 MR. MILLUNZI: It's very hard if you're a licensee 17 and this guy, if he just comes in and out interjecting 18 himself. If he says something, the leverage that his words 19 have could be devastating. I 20 MR. M3ELLER: I think, though, before I could 21 personally answer the question, do we need an academy, I 22 would need clarification on who the academy is supposed to 23 train. Cnce I know that, then I'll begin to evaluate that, O 24 end I cennot de thet et this point. 25 MR. MATHIS: Well, I think there is one other O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 V RGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. 0.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 _ _ ~ 41 1 thing, Dade, if I interpret what you said properly, and that {) 2 is whether these people are actually going to be in an 3 operating component or the auditing function. O 4 HR. RAY: That's there again for the delineating 5 function. 6 MR. CATION: I think the NRC schools train them in 7 an audit capacity, and it's a series of two-week coarses, 8 isn't it? You give them a lot more respectability than they 9 really deserve. 10 MR. MILLUNZI: I would look at the solution to 11 tha t a lot dif f eren tly, if you think the training they are 12 getting 13 MR. CATTON: It's just a statemen t. () 14 MR. MILLUNZI: I'd like to respond to your I don 't know what their capability 15 sta temen t, and I think 16 is. What I'm doing is standing back and saying, look, the 17 Commission has organized itself, it has an inspecting 18 division. If they're not doing that job right, let's get 19 them to do that job right without developing another federal 20 institution. I mean, if that's where the problem is let's 21 g et the training right. 22 MR. CATTON: I'm not sure what you should do, but 23 when you read the list of things, the nuclear technolocy, (]) 24 the list of different things -- I don't know of any school 25 in the country right now that trains people in that group of O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 L 42 1 things. If you wanted to become that person, I don't knov {} 2 how you would do it. 3 MR. MILLUNZI: To be that one all-rounded person. 4 MR. CATTON: Nuclear technology, operations, 5 regulatory and related law, and health science. I don't 6 know where that school is. 7 MR. MILLUNZI Well, it turns out when you come to 8 the practicalities of operating the plant, that person has 9 been subdivided into a lot of people. It's not one man. 10 MR. CATTON. Also, the person frequently in that 11 position is somebody who's come up through operations and 12 has very little background, and he's really not the person 13 that I feel comfortable with in that position. I would 14 rather have him, if not in this school, in some other school 15 similar and go through that type of training. 16 MR. MILLUNZI: But now you've touched again on the 17 subject which the industry is looking at and we're looking 18 at and the Commission is looking at, and that is what are 19 the training r'equirements for the management personnel. 20 MR. CATTON: I guess in a way I don't trust the 21 way industry is looking at it. They are looking to satisfy 22 certain requirements in the simplest possible way, which 23 f requently is to send their new trainees to some place that () 24 has one of these water tanks that goes critical, tha' they 25 can do it ten times and meet the requirements. O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 6-I43 ~ ] 1 I really think much more is being requested here 2 than tha t. 3 MR. MILL UN ZI : But again, you really are talking 4 about the sufficiency of somebody doing their job at 5 present, and the way to improve that is to create another 6 f ederal institution. And I think the approach that we're 7 proposing is that, rather than create another federal group, 8 is we're going to evaluate the situation, see if your -- I 9 understand it's a very preliminary feeling that you have -- 10 if they ' re substantiated, then try to work with all the 11 parties involved, the industry and the NRC and whoever else 12 is involved to try to improve that training, if that's what 13 the results come out to be, rather than create another OV 14 f ederal institute. 15 MR. MOELLER: A couple of other comments, and of 16 course you have cautioned us several times that this is very 17 preliminary in nature and I assume people will go through 18 here and challenge certain things. 19 For example, in the INPO report -- yes, the INPO 20 report -- they mention that in terms of training where 21 people lef t a column blank, rather than assuming the person 22 meant a zero in that column -- or in fact, they say that 23 Zeroes were excluded f rom the computations of the averages. O 24 I think somebody needs to go through there. 25 MR. MILLUNZI. Oh, yes, the quality assu ance on C' ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) $54-2345 44 f] ' this has to be done. We are undergoing right now a very 2 extensive job on that. It will not be done by September, 3 but it certainly wil} be done by December. O. 4 MR. MOELLER One other question. It's stated in 5 one of these reports that there was to be a D o c. ..u sna l 6 Research Council, and I suppose INPO, Manpower conference in 7 D.C. in August? 8 MR. MILLUNZI: Yes. And what happened there is we 9 asked the Na tional Academy of Sciences, under the tu chairmanship of Bob Yuricx, to put on a workshop. The 11 workshop will be held at the end of this mo' nth. 12 MR. MOELLER: It is scheduled? 13 MR. MILLUNZI: It is scheduled. The agenda should w/ 14 be coming out next week. The people work for me on this and 15it will be issued in the next week. 16 MR. MOELLER: Finally, the INPO charge or charter, 17 whatever you want to call it, says they're going to upgrade 18 and accredit training institutions. Now, I could see them 19 helping upgrade the programs of the colleges, but how would 20 they get into the accreditation? 21 MR. MILLUNZI: The concept is that INPO and the 22 various utilities and industry are going to have these 13 training schools and what have you, and it's going to be an O 24 industry interne1 eccredition. 25 MR. MOELLER: So they're not talking about GV ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 45 ' Q 1 uni ve rsi ties; they're talking about in-house or 2 utility-sponsored inrtitutes. Thank you. 3 MR. MILLUNZI That's going to be one of the 4 prerequisites to participate in the insurance program. 5 That's the leverage. 6 MR. MATHIS: Any other comments on that particular 7 topic? 8 MR. RAY: Just a question. You mentioned a 9 workshop. When this is scheduled, will we know and be 10 invited to go if we have the time, and so on? 11 MR. MILLUN ZI Oh, yes. We felt bad -- it turned 12 out the Academy, snd for other reasons, we couldn't have it 13 in August. So we pressed very hard to have it in 14 Septembe r. And when the invitations go out each member of 15 the ACRS will be receiving an announcement. 16 MR. MATHIS: Okay, let's move on to the third item 17 now. That's the program management. 18 19 20 21 22 23 O 24 25 O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 . ~.. 46 1 MR. MILLUNZI: Our response to Congress in this {} 2 area is limited to the part on the comprehensive management 3 plan. A lot of people are very interested in section 4 of 3 Y 4 the Act which directs the department to develop programs in 5 various areas. We are not required in December to describe 6 all those programs and develop them, et cetera. 7 We are required to provide the comprehensive 8 management plan as to how we are going to manage the 9 development programs that are specified in section 4.

And, 10 of course, in trying to develop the management plan, you 11 have to try to do things in parallel, and so we are doing 12 them in parallel.

13 Also, we recognized there would be a great ( 14 interest in the nuclear community in just what was the 15 depctment thinking about doing in those areas that Congress 16 has specified. So we included that in the appendices so 17 people could see what it is we are doing in tha t area, 18 recognizing now the differentiation. 19 Now, in trying to develop the management plan and 20at the same time develop the details of the RCD program, we 21 looked a t that list of areas that Congress asked us to 22 develop programs in and took cognizance of the fact that 23 they also mandated us to coordinate safety efforts in the () 24 country. So we figure to trv to put those together and 25 coordinating it to be also aware and have to be aware of ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 47 Q 1 vhat other people are doing. And so we looked at saying 2 when all of these areas of RCD are to be performed, what is 3 to be the utilization of the output. 4 I said ear 11er that we are very conc'erned about 5 the end-product use of what it is -- the results of our 6 programs. So we tried to look around at what would be the 7 end-product use of all this RCD. The purpose of the Act is 8 specified "ery succinctly to improve safety. 9 What we did not want to do and what we are 10 avoiding is to look at each one of those research and 11 development areas in isolation. The same thing holds true, 12 you know, relative to our comments on the simulator, it 13 ought to be an item -- and it is -- in section 4 But what 14 we do not want to do is to start RCD programs in hydrogen 15 without understnading what is the role that hydrogen plays 16 in safety and what is its interaction with how somebody 17 really does provide saf ety for nuclear powerplants. The 18 plants then are out there, are operating, and they are 19 operating safely. 20 Congress is concerned about what we should be 21 doing to improve that safety, so you have to start from the 22 base of what is it you are improving and why. So we are not we do not want to again look at each of these in 23 looking O 24 1eo1etion. Se in trying to deve1op our response end to 25 develop the program to section 4 of the Act, we could not O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 48 1 find a cohesive eystem of regulatory requirements upon which } 2 to base our RED programs. We saw a lot of programs going, 3 but we did not see a cohesive system. O A As a consequence, we have developed a program 5 management plan which will contain a definition phase and an l 6 execution phase. In the program definition phase, we are i 7 developing a cohesive system of requirements to improve, 8 where necessary, the ability of the nuclear industry to 9 perform the four safety f unctions to which light-water 10 reactors have been designed, constructed, operated, and 11 maintained. 12 We will develop and coordinate this program in a 13 manner similar to that being used by the department, the 14 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the industry 15 deg raded-core program. And also, as I stated earlier here, 16 the way we have been doing it on the manpower program, the 17 process to be f ollowed to develop this plan can be 18 summarized as follows: 19 A, we will provide a forum and an internal 20 organiza tion that can successfully coordinate a 21 comprehensive national program in cooperation wi th the 22 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the industry, department, 23 laboratories, other government bodies, and foreign programs, () 24 while maintaining a flexibility for each participating 25 organization to discharge their individual ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 49 1 r es ponsibilities. 2 B, we will organir3 and convene working groups 3 composed of representativer from the organizations 4 identified above to assist the department in formulating a 5 comprehensive program plan, ad then to review the progress 6 and execution of the program. 7 0, we will initiate and complete a program based 8 on the national research, development, and demonstration 9 program plan for improving the safety of nuclear 10 powerplants. In this program we intend to structure it so 11 it will avoid unnecessary duplication of research, 12 development, and demonstration being performed by domestic 13 and f oreign programs. 14 As a result of this, in the following order of 15 priority s The first order of priority being keeping the 16 plants which a re on line a t full power and full operation; 17 the second p riority is plants that are under construction, 18 to get them up to full power and full operating capacity as 19 f ast as possible; and the third priority would be plants for 20 the future. 21 As a result of all this, we have redirected the 22 program -- the department 's ligh t-water saf ety research and 23 development program activities -- and this will be followed O 24 through in the subsequent years to take care -- we are 25 working in programs based on our reviews that we feel pretty O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 50 1 confident that when we are througla with this plan, will have {} a eb i.. do r tan t part in improving the safety of nuclear 3 powerplants. 4 And that is, we vill be emphasizing -- we are not, 5 not will -- we are emphasizing tasks in improving operator 6 performance, assisting INPO in its -- I am reading from the and provide 7 documen,t here, in case you want to look it up 8 technical assistance to the Institute of Nuclear Power 9 Operations f or use by INPO to improve training of nuclear 10 povarpla nt personnel; characterize risks from nuclear 11 powerplant operation s improve emergency preparedness; reduce 12 radiation exposure to workers durino plant operation and 13 m aintenance. Os 14 And we will obtain selected experimental data 15 required for the developmen t of safety improvements. And so 16 our program activities have been redirected and underway in 17 each of those areas. And I think that summarizes how we 18 intend to define the requirements and how we would execute 19 the program in the areas as required by the law. 20 We will look into every one of the areas that were 21 delineated by Congress. And, of course, as Congress 22 manda ted us to also do what is necessary in addition to 23 tha t, for us to go back to them for recommendations. And () 24 you recognize at this time money did not come with that law, 25 but we have redirected our programs accordingly. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 51 (]) 1 And I think that summarizes that portion. 2 MR. SIESS: You put your emphasis on the 3 management plan. It is not a program plan; it is a 4 managerent plan. 5 MR. MILLUNZI: Yes. And by that, Dr. Siess, we 6 ace emphasizing th e program plan -- I mean the management 7 plan. And in parallel, we are developing programs, but we 8 need to have -- we see a great need to move closely in the 9 program plan development, because, a s my ea rlier remarks 10 that we want it to be a cohesive program that is really 11 looking at the problems from the top down rather than from 12 an individual technology up. 13 MR. SIESS: I have been looking a t the Stakf's 14 letter, which I am sure you have not had time to read 15 because you have been talking and I have been reading. And 16 they made the comment that in responding to section 4(a)(2) 17 you should consider initiating some of the programs 18 pre viously proposed under the prorosed safety pr0 gram. And 19 they mentien decay heat systems, operator interface, and 20 evep + seismic design. 21 And I would like to echo that thought, because in 22 the past few years the so-called " improved" reactor safety 23 program, which Congress instiga ted and then never followed () 24 up on -- everytime we talked to DOE about it, it was pointed 25 out to us, quite properly, that 90E did not have any money O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 L 52 (} 1 for it. 2 This seems to be an ideal place to at least ask 3 for money for that program, which has had some interesting 4 questions kicking around much too long. Those things wera S not even mentioned in here. I think there was one reference 6 in your plan to something about improved reactor safety 7 programs, and I do not remember exactly where it was. 8 MR. MILLUNZI4 Along that line, those items plus 9 other ones that have been proposed to us, we will put those 10 through the test of defining, you know, what the issues are 11 and what the requirements are to resolve these safety issues 12 and then determine what role these and other things will 13 play in being able to resolve the issue and execute the 14 plans accordingly. 15 HR. SIESS4 It is mentioned under implementation 16 on page 5 of part 4 It is mentioned there simply to avoid 17 duplication and avoiding programma tic conflict with any 18 reactor safety resea rch program, the Nuclear Regulatory 19 Commission, in cludin g the improved safety systems research 20 program. And it really just was not NRC's program; it was 21 intended to be both. 22 MR. MILLUNZIs The department is going to be very 23 caref ul when we define what part of this effort we should be () 24 doing. We want to make sure that the work we undertake is 25 very appropriate to our role. We want to recognize fully O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 I 53 (} 1 all the ongoing efforts that are there, and really we will 2 be paying very close attention. The most serious attention 3 maybe, if I had to rank them, would be the coo rdina tion 4 activity and being able -- the department is in a unique 5 role in being able to be a coordinator and provide technical 6 assistance on these issues, not being an applicant or a 7 regulator. 8 So what we really want to do is identify what the 9 problems are, what is required to get them done, recognize 10 what is already in place, and then identify out of what is 11 remaining what would be the most appropriate for the 12 department and maybe others to pursue. 13 MR. SIESSs Have you given any th oug h t, do you 14 have any ideas on what you consider as the role of, say, the 15 NRC in its research program, the industry, which would 16 include both utilities, vendors, et cetera, and the 17 nonregulatory or other than NRC go ve rn m en t agencies now? 18 That would be DOE, to a very large part, but in certain 19 areas of health physics, there are other government agencies 20 involved. Have we been looking at this not too deeply in 21 looking at the NRC safety research program? And the 22 question is how do you divide it up? Who should be 23 responsible for what? () 24 MR. MILLUNZI. We are in the process of trying to 25 develop a structure which will enable us to delineate the ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 5* 1 responribilities of the industry and the regulatory bodies. 2 And in doing that 3 MR. SIESS: Where do you put DOE in that? That is O 4 only two. 5 MR. MILLUNZI: Where do I put DOE in that? 6 MR. SIESS: Yes. There are three people that have 7 got money, and therefore there are three people buying 8 research. 9 MR. MILLUNZI: The DOE activities run -- we will 10 t ry, as we said in our letter, we will try to concentrate on 11 developing the functional requirements and evaluate these 12 functional requirements and then have the industry perform 13 most of the detailed design activities, and then work with 14 the NRC along with this as to what would be the RED 15 requirements that they need to complete their part of the 16 eff ort. 17 So, in the main, DOE's efforts are going to be 18 along those lines to improve the safety and improve and ease 19 and smooth out, as we say, the regulatory process. 20 MR. SIESS: Could we take a "for instance"? If 21 you have not thought about it, just say so, because I was 22 thinkinc of something like vented filtered containments 23 where I am not sure who the industry is there. A 24 The AEs design them. The utilities pay for them. V 25 The reactor vendors, you know, are not directly involved. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 55 i dp' 1 It is not quite clear to te who the industry is when we get s 2 into that. The interested industry ?.s obvioinsly anybody who 3 would make designs if somebody else paid them. 4 MR. MILLUNZIs Okay. '4 h a t we have really, we need 5 to go back and in some ways I say you always have to go back 6 to square one to find out why we are really la -- how did 7 the country start to develop nuclear powerplants. And it 8 turns out that the industry, if you look at it, if the world 9 were perfect, it really is the utilities. They buy them, 10 they order them, they pay for them. They are the applicant, 11 they are the holder of the license, and they are 12 responsible. They are responsible to the Regulatory 13 Commission. 14 And so the question of filtered vents has to be 15 put into the whole fabric of what does a utility do to 16 assure themselves that they ars meeting the regulatory 17 requirements plus their economic saf ety and what role does 18 filtered vented containments play in them meeting that 19 responsibility. 20 And it turns out -- so when we intend to go down 21 the road, we view this that the plants have four fundamental 22 saf ety f unctions to perform, and the overall objective of 23 nuclear power is to provide safe, economic means of () 24 generating electricit?. And in order to do that, we have a 25 utility who has both those responsibilities, and the NRC who ALDERSoN REPORTING CoMFANY,INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 ~.. _ _ _ __o 56 (" 1 is resposible for the safety portion. V] 2 And in order to meet the safety requirements plus 3 the economic, the utility has to perform four safety O 4 f unctions: One is it tries to maintain the normal operating 5 mode; in other words, this is going to be the normal 6 operation conditions and the conditions he is going to 7 operate the plant under. 8 Then for the low-probability that he comes out of 9 that normal operating envelope, the next function that he 10 has to perform is to protect the core. 11 Then for those extremely low-probability events 12 where he is not able to protect the core, his next safety 13 f unction is to provide and maintain containment integrity; 14 that is, to keep the radioactive material inside 15 con tainm ent. 16 And then for those extremely low-probability 17 events where he is not able to maintain con tainment 18 integrit y, his next safety f unction is to ensure that there 19 is adequate emergency preparedness. 20 NRC then is responsible for ensuring the public 21 t ha t the risk to them coming from a failure of the utility 22 to perform all those safety functions is not injurious to 23 their health and safety. ({} 24 MR. SIESS: But you realize that if the last two 25 were successful, or either of the last two we re successful, O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 l 57 1 the NBC really would not have to worry about the first two. (} 2 MR. MILLUNZI: Yes. NRC would not have to worry 3 about the first two, but the utiity does, because, for 4 example, at Three Mile Island what we have is a f ailure to 5 protect the core to the criteria that we would probably 6 specify, you know, work out -- not specify and so the 7 utility lost a plant. So the utility is very interested in 8 the first two. 9 Also, now there is a direct interdependence 10 between the requirements of the utility and the NRC, for 11 example, in safety -- I want to talk about safety.-- and 12 that is, a plant that can operate at 100 percent power for 13 100 percent of the time is obviously a safe plant, the } 14 saf est plant you could have and still get the electricity 15 out of it. 16 MR. SIESS: It is probably not as safe as the one 17 tha t shut down for 100 percent of the time. 18 MR. MILLUNZI: If you limit yourself to the 19 release of radioactivity. But if you want to worry about 20 the rest of the world around you without the energy, I guess 21 I d on ' t know. 22 MR. SIESS: I would have to admit that NRC's 23 objective is the first. () 24 MR. MILLUNZI: So safety, in our mind, is nov 25 where can you provide the desired amount of safety and what (O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 ) 58 1 is the most effective way for you to apply your resources. 2 And one should look across all four functions. 3 For example, although in theory and in practical 4 reality, if you do not have failure of the utility to 5 maintain the last two safety functions, the public is 2 ;rotected f rom that. However, it could very well be you can 7 get the same degree of protection for the public for less 8 expenditures by improving the capability of the utilities to 9 perform the first two functions; tha t is, improving the 10 capability to maintain that to stay in that envelope or to 11 improve its capability to protect the core. 12 So what you really need to do is to understand the 13 interrelationship between those four f unctions, what the 14 benefit, the cost benefits are between all four, and then 15 put together your program appropriately. 16 17 18 19 20 21 l 22 23 O 24 25 O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 '/lRGINTA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

1. 6 ar-1 59 1

MR. SIESS: It's not quite that simple, because I S (V 2 think there are dif ferent levels of assurance you can do 3 (w those things that are going to influence regulatory decisions \\- 4 and public decisions. The uncertainties are always in there, and I don't know that we could ever convince anybody that 5 6 we could have a system that would never challenge the 7 2 5 8 containment. E 2 9 I'm equally sure we could not convince anybody a d 10 ' that we have a containment that could meet any challenge. i 11 ' ri m not sure that the relative parceptions of assurance of 12 ~y those two cases might not be different, but I think the 13 g real certainty with which we could take either position is (. ) 5 14 = different. E 15 = MR. MILLUNZI: Yes, I would agree with you, and 16 f 17 that's why we find it most important that we put together is these groups to look at the safety issues, and we put together .a d 19 these groups with the widespread representation that we b' .0., 3 4 intend to do, so that we can get a very thorough and broad G 21 l g -- both breadth and depth -- evaluation of the kinds of things ~ 22 l that you are talking about, and develop an appropriate way 23 ! for the total industry to move forward. ~ es 24 r i \\# By now the word " industry" -- I'm taking a lot of 25 liberty. I hope it doesn't cause anybody a problem, but I A*JE.qscN PE. cRT'Nc COMPANY. INC. ar6-2 60 I think by industry I mean everybody involved with assuring l CE) 2 the public safety of nuclear power. So I include the NRC 3 in that. And that's why we place very great importance on )-) 4 this coordination activity, getting all the groups together, 7 5 9 really discussing these issues thoroughly, defining what 5 6 2 the issues are, and then going to the programs. 7 0 MR. SIESS: You include in that getting them to 8 agree with each other on what those things are? g a d 10 MR. MILLUNZI: At best, I hope that what we can Eg 11 ' do is provide a good Eorum that one can delineate on a E j 12 technical basis and differentiate technical differences 5 13 J and political differences from legal differences, so that () k 14 E we are aware of what the disagreements are, so th'at we can 3 15 4 try to figure out where there are disagreements, what do we j 16 have to do to patch up those disagreements, as well as getting 7 ig the missing technical information. m d 19 So we see in the end we have two jobs on our hands: ie i 20 one, the resolution of differences; and two, a E; 21 getting the technical information. e" 7.2 MR. SIESS: Thank you. 23 Let me ask one more question. Section 4 (a) says rT 24 k/ establish research, development and demonstration program to carry o'it.the purposes of this act. As part of this (%s/ l 3 l ,=gRscM REpcRI*NG COMPANY. INC. ar6-3 61 1 program, the Secretary shall, at a minimum -- and I think it bs 2 listed what came out to be 13 items, which you are addressing 3 ~ in your report, in your response. 4 Have you at this stage thought of any other 5 things that appear to you to be rather significant or of 6 7' equal significance to the ones they listed as a minimum? ~ ~ ] g, MR. MILLUNZI: If you would permit me to duck E 9 that, and I'll tell you why I would like to duck it at this a d 10 time, we obviously -- and I hope you are getting this sense -- 4 11 I we are doing our homework. We are working very hard and 12 i j trying to understand this whole situation, and we don't ~ 13 g have the responses from everyone yet, and we really want to (.) 5 14 look at those responses, and then based on those responses, 15 = = .= take follow-on actions. p 16 E .g 17 We do not want to give anybody the impression 13 that this is going to be another government agency telling b 19 somebody what to do. And so we do have ideas, but we'd like 20 ' to have these ideas come up as part of our discussions with G 21,. g ! everyone, so that we can avoid, to the extent possible, lookin y a 22 like, well, they've already got their minds made up. We really do not have our minds made up. Far from it. And we do have ) j a couple of items, and what I would like to do is to tell you 25 p l ACE.94CN RF CRT*NG COMPANY. INC. ar6-4 62 1 that we've been thinking -- and for the reasons why, I 2 would like to avoid answering at this date. But it's obvious 3 that we 'll be -- before they all get implemented, it will () 4 become obvious what the new ones, and there are other ideas, ? 5 7 and I think the new ideas spring mainly from the fact that 5 6 the law has listed a number of research areas for us to do 7 w rk in, and they almost can strike you as though they were 8 C E 9, developed in isolation, and we are trying to coordinate that. a d 10 So now when you start to coordinate them and ig 11 I interweave them, you see different kinds of ideas come up. 2 5 12 i MR. SIESS: IIave you any idea where they got that 5 ~ 13 ~e list? (^^ 14 MR. MILLUNZI: No -- well, yes. I think in 5 15 5 developing the testimony and the testimony that was used to A 16 = 17 develop the law, I think a number of the individuals came =,' ig forth and came forth with these individual technological b 19 areas and spoke to them in that fashion. 5 M 20 ' MR. SIESS: Thank you. f 5 l [ 21 MR. MILLUNZI: I think it's an amating testimony, I 9.2 ll l I guess, to the political system of democracy. Sometimes we complain when it takes so long for something to get done, () but by the fact that it takes so long, you provide this i 25 mechanism for so many people to be heard, and then these /~T l g ggggdCN RE. cort *NG COMPANY. INC. ar6-5 63 guys wrote it in the framework that they did. They did () 2 give us the requirement and the opportunity to build on what 3 they have listed there. () 4 So I thought that was a very skillful piece of e. 5

writing, that they wrote it that way.

j 6 MR. MATHIS: Jerry? R 7 MR. RAY: Jus t a quickie. A j 8 The management plan that you delineated a little d 9 ~ while ago that's in Section 3 of Mr. Griffith's letter, can z Cg 10 you give me an idea of when you approximately initiated II the development of that plan? 3 f I2 MR. MILLUNZI: As soon as the law was passed in a (} 13 December, but between the activities of the new Congress j 14 and the new Administration, and what-have-you, the law came $j 15 to us and we started working on it and, of course, iinternally --- a g 16 so we started probably in March, February or March. e f 17 MR. RAY: In other words, the law initiated the = } 18 effort. That's what P I read into what you're saying. "g 19 MR. MILLUNZI: Oh, no. n 20 MR. RAY: You had the concept before this legisla-2I tion? 22 (O MR. MILLUNZI: Which concept are you talking 23 about? 24 (~'s MR. RAY: The development of the management plan V 20 for developing and coordinating and so on. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. ar6-6 64 1 MR. MILLUNZI: No. (} 2 MR. RAY: No, what? That you didn't conceive it before, 3 or that it's been initiated by the legislation? f]) 4 MR. MILLUNZI: We had conceived of doing these e 5 coordination efforts, but not to the extent that the law had j 6 said wcs there. We had -- we were starting to, at that time, R R 7 already doing the coordination. I really don't know, you know, s j 8 on something like that. Od 9 MR. RAY: But it wasn't initiated as a result of i C 10 the stimulation of this legislation? Ej 11 MR. MILLUNZI: It was and it wasn't. 3 y 12 MR. RAY: But the scope, I gather, has been influenced E G3 y 13 by the legislation? = l 14 MR. MILLUNZI: Yes, it's been influenced and strengthened. E 2 15 MR. RAY: Thank you. Y y 16 MR. MILLUNZI: Along those lines, the reason I have a W d 17 hard time with that is that in the past we have been working 5 M 18 along these lines with the NRC in selected areas. 5 { 19 For example, on the resolution of the performance 5 20 of the containment cell, we have been working along these lines 21 with NRC. 22 MR. MATHIS: Okay. Are there any other questions? U 23 ' Chet, have you got anything further? 24 If not, I guess that will kind of wrap this up for now. () 25 And thank you, Mr. Millunzi, for your presentation. j ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. ar607 p 1 65 t At 8:45 in the mcrning, 2 the full committee a briefing can you come in and give { 3 then? They'll probably pick at you, too, but that's part of the game. 5 (Laugh ter. ) 7 6 MR. SIESS: Ne always do. 7 2 MR. RAY: I think this has been a profitabl 8 exchange, myself. e 2 E 9 a MR. MATHIS: i Oh, very definitely so. 4 10 N We appreciate your taking the ti 11 1 y me and a enlightening us. i E 12 y ~. 13 MR. MILLUNZI: Well, I mean this: I O It's hard to ,t s 14 say to a group of people like yours l i e ves. 3 You know, you guys are a very important part of thi 15 so we're interested, you know s whole business, 16 and 5 t Ne need your support and l i 17 input in helping us to define this i j 'S as well. welcome the opportunity to be able t So we really \\ b 19 o discuss this with you. ! 4 MR. MATHIS:

Well,

[ 20 I hope we've been helpful L I Wi th th at, 21 we will adjourn. 3 (Whereupon, at 3 : 45 p.m ~ 22 ( the subcommittee l meeting was adjourned.) i ] 24 \\ 25 i i \\ \\ s 1 _,_s c_. _ ar607 65 1 At 8:45 in the morning, can you come in and give 2 the full committee a briefing, then? They'll probably pick 3 {} at you, too, but that's part of the game. (Laugh ter. ) 0 ] MR. SIESS: We always do. 2 7 MR. RAY: I think this has been a profitable e 8 exchange, myself. E 2 9 MR. MATHIS: Oh, very definitely so. a d 10 We appreciate your taking the time and ll i y enlightening us. E 12 y MR. MILLUNZI: Well, I mean this: It's hard to 13 say to a group of people like yourselves. You know, you 3 ) 5 14 E guys are a very important part of this whole business, and 15 = so we're interested, you know. We need your support and 16 v i 17 input in helping us to define this as well. So we really j 'S welcome the opportunity to be able to discuss this with you. d 19 MR. MATHIS: Well, I hope we've been helpful. I 20 Ni th th at, we will adjourn. p ^ 21 ' g (Whereupon, at 3:45 p.m., the subcommittee 22 meeting was adjourned.) 23 24 ("T 25 O /.I.J:E.9dCN ?E.pertT'NG COMPANY. INC. 1 NUCLEAR REGULKIORY CO!C8.ISSION O This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the b O in the ::1atter of:. ACRS/Ad Hoc Working Groups Meeting on the Nuclear Safety Research, Development & Demonstration Act of 1980 Date of Proceeding: September 9, 1981 Decket !Iumber: Placa of Proceeding: Washington, D. C. wore held as herein appears, and that this is the criginal transcript thereof for the file of the Cocmission., Ann Riley Of ficial Reporter (Typed) '3 a _ _$i>J l Of ficial Re porter (Signacitr e) fO O 3 -