ML20023C081
| ML20023C081 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/04/1983 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8305090645 | |
| Download: ML20023C081 (88) | |
Text
f M N $ N $ N N N N N NQ h N N N N N N N NQ0 N NQ000NQ0 kg0 NQNQ0Q0Q000 hh)Q000Q0 h hh) hh)hhhhgh p
12/82 TRANSMITIAL 'IO:
/
/
hm*nt Cbntrol Desk, 016.Phillips ADVANCE:D COPY 'IO: /
/
'Ihe Public W= ant Bocan DATE:
O [ 83 f
cc: OPS File OM M C&R (Natalie)
It:
Attached are copies of a Comnission meeting transcript (s) and related meeting i
h==nt(s). 'Ihey are being forwarded for entry an the Daily Accession List
[
and placanent in the Public Document Ibczu. No other distribution is requested l
or required. Existing DCS identification numbers are listed on the individual l
i documents wherever known.
6
/cdo 6L b
Meeting
Title:
n; ALf ut.L
<A$n lil skk3 V
ue. m Daee, Open x C1os.d E
l
[
DCS Copies i
((
(1 of each checked)
I Item
Description:
Cbpies
)
i Advanced Original May D r1icmte i
j:
'Ib PDR Document be Dup
- Copy
- 1.
TFANSCRIPT 1
1 h
When checked, DCS should send a H
oopy of this transcript to the t
LPDR for:
j
]
l Y
2.
1 )al k 4t &
I
~$
I (I
G ik I1 n
l' s.
Ruudak <k N2 C I
I I
nn~d%
l
%dw PA GA4f3 E
V i
(
s 4.
l
?
{
t (PDR is advanced one copy of each h =pnt,
- Verify if in DCS, and
[
two of each SECY paper.)
Change to "PDR Available."
[.
p g 5 830504 PT9.7 pg
/
t
(~'
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the matter of:
COMMISSION MEETING
~
Docket No.
BRIEFING ON THE STATE OF THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY
' h.,
I l
Location: Washington,D.C.
Pages:
1 67 Date: Wednesday, May 4,1983 b
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES Court Reporters 1625 I Street, N.W. Suite 1004 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 ll
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 BRIEFING ON THE STATE OF THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY 5
6 7
PUBLIC MEETING 8
9 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commissioner's Conference Room 10 lith Floor 1717 H Street, N.W.
11 Washington, D.C.
12 Wednesday, May 4, 1983 13 The Commission met in public session, pursuant to 14 notice, at 10:37 a.m.,
NUNZIO J.
PALLADINO, Chairman of the h
15 Commission, peesiding.
4 h
16 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
8 NUNZIO J.
PALLADINO, Chairman of the Commission 17 l
VICTOR GILINSKY, Member of the Commission 18 JOHN F. AHEARNE, Member of the Commission y
THOMAS ROBERTS, Member of the Commission j
19 JAMES ASSELSTINE, Member of the Commission i
g)
STAFF 'AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT COMMISSION TABLE:
5 21 S.
CHILK j
H.
PLAINE j
22 D.
LYONS W.
OWEN 23 M.
EDELMAN B.
COWAN 24 25
e g
2 1
INDEX PAGE 2
3 Statement of Donald E. Lyons, President, Powcr Systems Group, 4
Combustion Engineering, and Vice Chairman, Atomic Industrial Forum 4
5 6
Statement of Warren H.
Owen, Executive Vice President, Duke Power Company, and 7
Chairman, AIF Policy Committee on Nuclear Regulation 8
8 9
Statement of Murray Edelman, Vice President, Nuclear Group, Cleveland Electric Ill.
Co.,
10 and Chairman, AIF Committee on Reactor Licensing and Safety 17 11 12 Barton Z.
Cowan, Partner Eckert, Seamans, Cherin & Mellott, and 13 Chairman, AIF Lawyers Committee 25 i
14 m
iy
{
16 8
17 o
3 IO m,
p 19 E
{
M Z
e s
21 22 2
23 24 25
a s
(
DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on ___
May 4, 1983 in the Commission's offices at 1717 H Street, N.
W., Washington, D. C.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
I The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.
l 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 l
this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determinations or i
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.
t a
k l
l l
Wm
3 1
EESSEEEEEEE 2
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Good morning, ladies and 3
gentlemen.
This Commission meets this morning to receive a 4
briefing on the status of the nuclear industry'from a 5
delegation of participants in the Nuclear Power Assembly, 6
1983, which is being held this week in Washington.
7 Last February, Mr. Sherwood Smith, general chairman 8
of the Nuclear Power Assembly, requested an opportunity for a 9
delegation of representatives to the Assembly to discuss 10 some of industry's priorities and programs with the 11 Commission.
12 The Commission endeavors' to schedule as 13 circumstances permit, occasional ~ meetings with groups 14 representing the interests of those affected by its h
15 regulatory activities, to exchange views and promote better s.
{
16 understanding of its goals and policies.
6 l
17 In keeping with this practice, the Commission 5
18 granted the request and is pleasdd to welcome today's I
h 19 speakers.
I l
20 The Secretary of the Commission informs me that 21 some public interest groups have recently expressed a cimilar
{
3 22 desire to meet with the Commission.
We shall endeavor to 23 schedule an opportunity to exchange views with them also 24 under a sihilhr consolidated fashion.
25 We have a number of representatives here from the
4 1
Nuclear Power Assembly.
I am going to introduce the lead-2 off speaker, Mr. Donald Lyons, President, Power Systems Group, 3
Combustion Engineering and Vice Chairman of the Atomic Industrial Forum.
I will ask him to introduce the other 4
5 speakers in due course.
6 Unless the Commissioners have opening remarks, I 7
will turn the meeting over to Mr. Lyons.
STATEMENT OF DONALD E. LYONS, PRESIDENT, 8
POWER SYSTEMS _ GROUP, COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, 9
VICE CHAIRMAN, ATOMIC INDUSTRIAL FORUM 10 MR. LYONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, 11 Commissioners.
~
12 We are here today to present the views of the 13 nuclear industry in the context of the Nuclear Power Assembly, 14 that has been in progress for the last three days.
With me 15 today is Warren Owen, Murray Edelman and Bart Cowan, who will 4
y 8
16 assist me in expressing our pri6rities and concerns related Ol 17 to regGlatory policy and its implementation.
5 l
18 The Nuclear Power Assembly was conceived to bring 5
h 19 together all of the elements of the nuclear industry, to e
m concentrate on the issues of importance to us and to make
{
21 these concerns and priorities known, individually and 3
22 collectively to Government decisionmakers.
U In preparation for the Nuclear Power Assembly, the 24 sponsoring organizations developed an industry agenda.
It 25 represents their general views on what needs to be done to
5 i
return the nuclear industry to the state of health this 2
nation deserves and requires.
I will highlight the major 3
elements of this agenda which we hAve with us today and will 4
leave with you.
5 National energy policy must recognize the strategic 6
importance of an adequate supply of electricity to the American PeoP e in providing jobs, security, improved productivity l
7 8
and quality of life.
9 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission process for 10 licensing and regulation of nuclear power plants in our 11 opinion should be reformed.
12 Excellence must be promoted in all phases of nuclear 13 power plant design, construction and operation.
14 Public understanding of the fact : about nuclear power 15 must be improved through the efforts of both industry and
=
f 16 the Government.
8 The nuclear waste storage and disposal program must 17
?
h 18 be implemented in accordance with the Nuclear Waste Policy 5
h 19 Act of 1982.
l 20 Sound nuclear fuel cycle policies must be prom 6ted 5
21 to assure the continued competitiveness of nuclear power.
5 22 A strong research, development and demonstration 23 program must be maintained, including the further development 24 and demonstration of a U.S. breeder reactor technology.
25 U.S.
nuclear export policy must support the
6 1
productive contributions which nuclear power can make to 2
stabilize the worldwide energy situation based upon a 3
framework of broadly accepted international safeguards.
4 Each of these areas is described in detail in the 5
Nuclear Power Agenda for the 80's, a document which we have 6
made available for you.
7 We believe that industry has the primary 8
responsibility to promote excellence in all phases of nuclear g
power plant design, construction and operation.
to Regarding industry's efforts to improve its 11 performance, we are extremely proud of the efforts of INPO, 12 the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations.
We believe they 13 have been an active force in raising the excellence of plant Sperations and are now a significant force in working touard 14 15 improving the techniques for assuring quality in construction.
4 0
8 16 While we will not be discussing their work in detail e
8 17 today in view of INPO's recent presentation to the Commission, f
18 we again reiterate the achievements of excellence and INPO's 5j 19 role in reaching this will continue to have our active t
20 support.
e 4
l 21 I would like to focus now on the need for feform j
22 of the NRC process for licensing and regulation of nuclear 23 power plants.
Substantial change in the process is necessary 24 to assure the cost efficient and the continued safe operation u
of existing plants, to facilitate the completion df those
7 1
plants currently under construction and to retain nuclear 2
power as an option for meeting future demands for electricity.
3 The reform objective most important to the industry 4
is to achieve stability in regulatory requirements, 5
Particularly through control of backfitting process, which 6
we mention 5everal times in our talk.
Creation of the 7
Committee to Review Generic Requirements is a step in the 8
right direction and its effective operation should continue 9
to be encouraged.
The Commission is also considering 10 adoption of policy guidance and more stringent rules to 11 govern backfitting.
These actions are needed and should be 12 expedited by the Commission.
13 In addition to the need for utilities to gain greater 14 confidence through the example of improved regulation of 5
15 current plants, some legislation is also needed to create u
16 a new regulatory system that will provide the needed l
17 confidence for new applications to be filed.
Such a system i
18 would require the ability to license a reactor for E
h 19 construction and operation in one hearing, and to proceed i
l 20 forward through construction into operation without the need
{
21 to go into the second hearing or safety review at the 5
22 operating license stage.
23 It also would require mechanisms for assuring that 24 any changes in requirements subsequent to licensing be z
thoroughly justified by those proposing any changes.
8 1
One stage licensing would be greatly facilitated 2
by allowing for and utilizing pre-approved standard plants 3
and sites.
We believe that the procedures for certifying 4
designs and approving sites could be dndorsed in 5
legislation.
If appropriate, Bart Cowan will comment later 6
on those legislative proposals that are now outstanding.
7 In conclusion, we in industry are strongly committed 8
to working with the Commission to come up with a more 9
stable regulatory process and to resblve key regulatory issues.
10 On this note, I would like to ask Warren Owen, 11 Chairman of the AIF Policy Committee on Nuclear Regulation 12 to highlight key regulator'; policy issues and discuss the 13 interface between industry and the Commission on resolving 14 these issues.
M 5
15 Warren.
$j 16 STATEMENT OF WARREN H. OWEN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, DUKE POWER COMPANY AND CHAIRMAN, 0
17 AIF POLICY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR REGULATION 2
2 18 MR. OWEN :
As Don just suggested, I am here to
!h highlight the regulatory policy issues that are of highest 19 5
l il M
concern to us in the immediate future, and describe briefly
,{
21 the industry's structure in place to interact with the NRC 3
f 22 on these key issues.
These interactions with the NRC are Z3 aimed at improving the regQlatory climate in a way that also 24 allows the nuclear industry to perform as ef fectively as Zi possible.
9 1
Utilities, vendors, and architect engineers interact 2
individually with NRC staff and management on a day to day 3
basis.
In addition, we have some industry institutions which 4
endeavor to work together to present a collective voice.
5 The AIF Policy. Committee on Nuclear Regulation 6
helps provide a bridge with other industry organizations.
7 We have liaison representation from INPO, EPRI, NSAC, from 8
the Owners Groups, APPA, NRECA, ANEC and ANS.
9 As a further measure, we have a common commi ttee 10 representatives with EEI, they have members on our Policy 11 Committee and we have some members on their Executive 12 Advisory Committee, and our staff interact on a continuous-l 13 basis.
The AIF Policy Committee helps provids a common 14 thrust among related AIF committees also, with our membership h
15 including the chairmen of these committees as.well as broad 2y g
16 senior technical representation of vendors, A-Es and from ol 17 the utilities.
5 l
18 Our committees and subcommittees track the NRC 5=
g 19 efforts on licensing reform and resolution of key technical i
~
{
20 issues.
They meet or correspond periodically with the NRC
{
21 management and staff to express indnstry positions and to 5
l 22 be sure that we understand your policies and requirements.
4 M
In many areas, the industry and the NRC have 24 complimentary programs underway.
An example being INPO 25 and IDCOR, et cetera.
Such interactions in our opinion i
10 1
are constructive and help to improve the effectiveness of 2
regulation.
3 The key issues that we will be paying attention to 4
over the next year or so include measures to obtain 5
regulatory stability, incidding the continued work of the 6
Committee to Revidw Generic Requirements, efforts to obtain 7
an effective backfitting rule, and longer term measures toward 8
standardization and one-stage licensing.
9 Also, policy considerations on regionalization, 10 the resolution of issues related to the severe accident 1
rulemaking, efforts to incorporate source term research into 12 the regulatory process, interaction on quality assurance 13 initiatives and inspection and enforcement policy.
14 Both Murray Edelman and Bart Cowan will be discussing 15 issues related to regul; tory stability and backfitting, but 2
f 16 I would like to reiterate Don's remarks that this area is 8
17 number one in importance to the industry.
1 i
18 Those who have been active participants in the 5
h 19 licensing process know that no matter what the regulations i
{
20 say or will say, the ability to get the backfit problem under
{
21 control depends primarily on the capability and will of NRC 2
22 management to assure daat this happens.
This requires 23 Commission support of a management system aimed at assuring 24 that changes in requirements are clearly justified and n
implemented.
11 The actions of the Committee to Review Generic 1
Requirements provides some hopeful signs that this is 2
3 happening.
We also need a backfitting regulation that can be 4
effectively implemented.
A regulation is currently on the 5
books but has seldom been used if at all.
The industry has 6
7 been urging the4 Commission to expedite the development of a new backfit regulation which would provide an acceptable 8
standard of threshold for backfitting, one which would 9
encompass the many ways in which backfitting can occur, and to it which would require a deliberate decision-making process 12 during which the benefics and costs of new proposals are 13 weighed.
Bart Cowan will be discussing this further.
Another area of recent concern relates to the NRC's 14 15 implementation of the proposed regionalization policy.
We 4
l 16 believe that the proposed regionalization policy has the i
17 potential to improve the quality of nuclear regulation but i
?a 18 only if definitive policies and proper management controls Ej 19 are developed in advance of its broad implementation.
i 20 We have special concerns regarding the question of f
5 21 transferring the licensing authority for operating power 22 reactors.
m Much of our concern relating to transferring 24 operating licensing authority revolves around the role and 25 identity of the project manager.
The single point around
12 1
which the industry has the strongest concensus is the need 2
to increase the project manager's authority and influence 3
in relationship to the NRC technica'l staff.
Thus, an 4
underlying principl6 for any reorganization of efforts, 5
whether at headquarters or in the regions, is that high 6
support and visibility must be given to the role of the 7
project manager.
8 In conjunction with needed measures to strengthen g
that role, we believe that mechanisms should be developed 10 which are aimed at assuring that any project manager 11 assigned to a region can function effectively as the 12 principal interaction point between the licensee and NRC, 13 both headquarters and the region.
14 Such mechanisms should include the ability for the h
15 proj ect manager to have prompt access to NRC senior U
aj 16 management to res61ve disputes, particularly as to whether 8
17 an issue should be handled at headquarters or in the f
2 l
18 regional office.
Other mechanisms could include a clear I
h 19 statement of policy and guidelines regarding the authority I
f 20 of the project manager and which directs the technical branches
{
21 to cooperate fully with him in resolving generic and plant 3
22 specific issues.
C 23 Given the importance of these and other related
(
24 mechanisms, they should be carefully mapped out and tested l
m on a trial basis.
In this context, we are proposing a pilot
13 1
regionalization program for transferring operating reactor 2
licensing authority.
In summary, the essence of our pilot 3
program is that project managers could be assigned to work 4
with one or two volunteer utilities in each region.
The 5
experi6nce gained from this process can be used to evaluate 6
the safety and licensing effectiveness of the pilot program.
7 This experience can then be compared against the 8
experience gained at headquarters toward strengthening the 9
role of project managers there.
It will also be relevant 10 in determining the manner in which aspects of operating 11 reactor license authority can be further allocated between 12 headquarters and the regions.
13 We are ready to work with the NRC on the development 14 of the above proposal and to follow up on res61ving issues h
15 related to regionalization.
Mr. Chairman, we will leave with 24 g
16 you today a letter to the Commission covering our proposal ol 17 and copies for each of the other Commissioners.
I 18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Do we have that letter yet?
19 MR. OWEN :
I have it in my briefcase.
I forgot g
E f
20 to bring it with me.
As quick as I can go back there, I
{
21 will deliver it to you.
5 l
M Regarding resolution of the severe accident issue, 23 we have reviewed the SECY-82-1B policy on how this issue will 24 be resolved and supI. ort its thrust to have regulatory 25 decisionmaking completed by mid-1984.
14 1
As you are aware, the industry has set up the 2
Industry Degraded Core Program, called IDCOR, which we 3
continue to support vigorously.
The results of this program 4
should be available in the July 1983 time frame and I :aight 5
add right on schedule, and we urge the Commission to give 6
the program's results considerable attention and weight.
7 IDCOR intends to follow up on this technical report with a 8
resolution phase through which we expect to interact with 9
NRC staff in their efforts to complete the decisionmaking to process by mid-1984.
11 An issue related to the severe accident rulemaking 12 is the recent consideration of new source term information.
13 We have been tracking this issue closely and have high 14 expectations that the results of this research will show that 15 the potential for releases of significant radioactivity Oj 16 has been greatly overstated.
We expect that the insights 8
17 gained from the IDCOR program, from EPRI research and from e
1 18 NRC research will be incorporated into the regOlatory r
h 19 decisionmaking on an expeditious yet orderly basis.
U l
m)
We have also had an active effort to interact 5
21 with the NRC management and staff on the quality assurance s
22 initiatives that you have discussed in the last several 23 months.
Additionally, we are strongly supportive of the 24 efforts that INPO has underway, especially its new program 25 on construction quality management evaluation.
15 1
Both our Committee on Power Plant Design, 2
Construction and Operation and our Subcommittee on Near-Term 3
Operating Licenses have been working with your staf f to help 4
develop a rational approach to construction assessment team 5
reviews, CAT reviews, and to the use of independent design 6
verifications and inspections, IDVP and IDI, I believe they are 7
called in short.
8 Regarding these latter two, we have some continuing 9
questions on their purpose and manner of implementation.
10 Based on the number of independent design verification 11 programs which the industry has performed and the NRC's 12 pilot integrated design inspections and the INPO evaluations, 13 we encourage the Commission to re-evaluate the need of third 14 party evaluations, and if this need is established and 15 understood after reviewing what has come out of all of s
f 16 these inspections and evaluations, then we would ask that 0
l 17 you articulate the objectives and the scope of future third 1
18 party evaluations.
r4 h
19 We would be pleased to interact with you in this i
l 2
re-evaluation.
{
21 Finally, we have an active effort underway, 22 particularly through the AIF Committee on Power Plant Design, 23 Construction and Operation, to work with the NRC to develop 24 a more constructive enforcement policy.
In brief, we believe 25 a system of incentives should be encouraged r~ather than the
16 1
emphasis on punitive measures.
2 I know that the licensees have significant 3
incentives to operate safely.
We have a tremendous 4
financial investment in our plants as well as a public 5
image and professional reputation to protect.
We believe 6
the enforcement policy should recognize these existing 7
incentives and should be used as a remedial tool for helping 8
the licensees to do a better job, rather than relying so 9
heavily on punitive measures.
10 We also have some significant concerns regarding 11 the status of the policies and procedures of the Office of 12 Investigations.
Bart Cowan will Be discussing these in just 13 a few minutes.
14 In closing, I want to emphasize the importance to 5
15 industry of working constructively with the NRC management i
f 16 and staff in efforts to resolve key regulatory issues.
o l
17 We urge you to take our input into account in these 5
l 18 exchanges and to give priority attention to issues we are i
5 h
19 discussing t6 day.
I will now ask Murray Edelman, Chairman 5
f M
of the AIF Committee on Reactor Licensing and Safety, to E,
21 discuss some of die key technical policp issues daat are 22 of concern to the industry.
M CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Warren, before you go on, I 24 would be interested in that letter.
I don't mean right M
at the moment.
Particularly if you have some suggestions i
17 1
on how we might proceed.
We have already written to the EDO 2
asking him to develop a pilot program on project managers 3
being assigned to the regions for Commission consideration.
4 The difficulty in implementing some of these things 5
sometimes is greater than one recognizes.
We will.be 6
interested in the input you have on that.
7 MR. OWEN:
Mr. Chairman, I have that letter and 8
we will give it to you at the end of our discussion today.
9 We were not so presumptive as to come to this table with that 10 letter without having talked to some members of your staff.
11 From an industry standpoint, and I am convinced from 12 their standpoint, we want to go at this with an open mind 13 in a constructive way.
If it turns out to be beneficial, 14 okay; if it turns out it needs some modification, we are 5
15 certainly willing to cooperate in that respect.
2.
]
16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Thank you.
O t
l 17 STATEMENT OF MURCAY EDELMAN, VICE PRESIDENT, i
NUCLEAR GROUP, CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILL. COMPANY 18 AND CHAIRMAN, AIF COMMITTEE ON REACTOR l
j LICENSING AND SAFETY 19 2
MR. EDELMAN:
Good morning.
As both Mr. Lyons and 20 E
21 Mr. Owen have emphasized, the NRC and industry hfforts to s
i 22 bring stability to the regulatory process are of extreme l
23 importance to the industry.
We believe that in addition to 24 helping bring increased stability to plant construction 25 and operation, the success of these ef forts is a l
18 1
Prerequisite to the next nuclear plant order in this country.
2 In this regard, we have been active in the 3
development of proposals to bring about that needed stability.
4 For example, in May of 1981, we provided the NRC with a 5
proposed approach to the establishment and use of safety 6
goals in the regulatory process.
Later dhat year, we 7
provided our views on needed legislative licensing reform.
8 More recently, we h' ave been concentrating on a revised 9
backfitting regulation, which Mr. Cowan will cover in some 10 detail in a few minutes.
11 One common thread which runs through all of our 12 efforts is to bring about regulatory stability is the 13 necessity to justify proposed new requirements on the 14 basis of their costs versus their benefits.
In this regard, h
15 we are encouraged that the Commission has recently 16 promulgated a policy on safety goals and a plan for their O
17 evaluation which provides the methodology for using the u
I 2
3 l
18 Commission's benefit-cost guidelines.
I h
19 I would like to add at this point that we are in I
f 3) agreement with that methodology and believe that its use
{
21 in evaluating proposed requirements will help us. move 2
3 22 considerably closer towards regulatory stability.
23 I would like to turn now to some more specific 24 technical issues and provide you with our views and concerns 2
on them.
19 1
Recently, the USGS provided the NRC with a 2
clarification of their position on the Charleston earthquake.
3 As a result, the NRC staff has developed a plan to address 4
this and related seismic issues.
This plan has been reviewed by our Subcommittee on seismic Design Bases.
In part, it 5
6 calls for a calculation by the end of 1983 of the seismic 7
hazard for every nuclear plant site east of the R6cky 8
Mountains, using a probabilistic methodology developed by 9
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
10 We are concerned with several facets of the 11 staff's plan.
For example, the staff has a schedule for pro-12 ceeding with these probabilistic computations that will not 13 allow time for industry to develop propossd refinements to 14 the Lawrence methodology and to discuss these findings with h
15 the staff.
We believe that the staff plan would result in 3
g 16 the calculation of an overly conservative seismic hazard for oj 17 many plant sites east of the Rocky Mountaihs.
t 18 As recommended by the staff, the industry is 5
h 19 seriously considering embarking on a probabilistic program 5
{
2 of its own, which preliminary estimates indicate will cost
{
21 in the millions of dollar.
j 22 However, it would not be possible for us to complete 23 this effort in a time frame compatible with the current 24 staff schedule.
Unless we have assurance that our efforts M
would receive appropriate consideration by the staff, it
20 1
may hot be useful for the industry to undertake this 2
Program.
We hope that the Commission will support 3
meahingful industry-NRC interface on this important issue.
4 While such interface will necessitate a more deliberate 5
staff schedule for addressing this issue, we believe in the 6
final analysis, a considerably more accurate assessment 7
of an existing seismic hazard will result, as well as an 8
earlier resolution of the overall issue.
9 We have met with the staff and there seems to be 10 some recognition by them of the merits of the interaction 11 with the industry and the priority of obtaining credible, 12 sound and professional technical bases upon which to resolve 13 the issue.
14 over the past several years, a number of technical 5
15 studies by the NRC and industry have been undersay in the g
16 areas of pipe break.
As a result, there appears to be 8
17 general consensus among the technical community that the C
i 18 probability of a double ended rupture in nuclear class i
h 19 piping is so low that it need not be considered.
The ij 2
accommodation of the double ended rupture has resulted in
}
21 the installation of massive and costly pipe restraints.
22 As I have noted in my letter to Har61d Denton 23 from the AIF Committee on March 28th, a current generation 24 PWR can have 250 to 400 whip restraints with an associated Zi engineering effort of 150,000 to 250,000 man hours and a
21 1
total cost of $20 to $40 million.
2 We understand the NRC's technical staff favors 3
elimination of the double ended rupture in many areas where 4-it-is currently required, such as the primary coolant system.
5 However, we also understand that the staff feels contained 6
to revise the general design criteria prior to granting 7
relief on a' generic basis and such a rulemaking could take 8
several years.
9 This delay will negate many of the benefits which 10 could be obtained through a more expeditious procedure, 11 since these massive pipe restraints continue to be 12 designed, fabricated and installed on plants approaching 13 Operation.
14 We have reviewed the general design criteria and 5
15 believe the staff has the flexibility to grant the neeed relief g
16 in this area under the current regulations.
f 17 We urge the Commission to seek an expeditious 1
18 method of resolving this issue.
Our Subcommittee on Load r
f Co binations would be pleased to work with your staff 19 m
I
{
20 towards.such a resolution.
~
r; 21 The issue of emergency preparedness --
22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Before you leave that, there 23 is not only the question of doubled ended pipe breaks but 24 what sort of criteria one would put in place.
Do you 2
have thoughts on that or does the Committee have thoughts
22 1
on that?
2 MR. EDELMAN:
The Committee put a letter in, I 3
believe, on the subject, a couple of months ago to 'the stif f.
4 We had a number of criteria put forth in the letter that would 5
be applicable, similar to the presentations I believe that 6
were made to the ACRS on the subject.
7 The issue of emergency preparedness is one that is 8
of increasing concern to the industry as more and more 9
institutional and political problems continue to surface.
10 The concerns we voiced during the emergency 11 planning rulemaking in 1980, particularly those regarding 12 the effective establishment of the veto power by state and
(
13 local governments, have become a harsh reality.
Last month, 14 we voiced our concerns on emergency preparedness to the h
15 Senate Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation.
a aj 16 In that testimony we recommended among other things i
o l
17 that Congress make the following things clear:
1 18 Make clear the NRC's responsibility to evaluate a i
h 19 plan submitted by a utility applicant in lieu of a state or I
{
M local plan, and make a determination based on that submittal 21 regarding the adequacy of emergency preparedness.
l 22 Take action to assure full implementation of the ZI safeguards Congress intended to establish against misuse 24 of the emergency planning process.
25 Review, factoring in the last three years of
23 1
experience, dae subject of financing emergency planning around the commercial nuclear facilities 'with the intent of 2
3 bringing under control uncertain financial requirements 4
faced by utilities.
5 Attempt to establish a more workable institutional 6
process for the generation, review and approval of emergency 7
plans.
8 We also urge that the NRC consider these g
recommendations.
Our Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness 10 and Procedures and Siting Policies stands ready to work with 11 your staff to. address these issues.
12 The issue of pressurized thermal shock has gone 13 through a substantial amount of study and review by both the 14 industry and the NRC in recent months.
15 The staff's latest plan is to address this issue I
16 using a two phased approach, which includes employing generic 0l 17 screening criteria to determine if further plant specific 3
18 evaluation or action is needed.
g 19 As we discussed in some detail in our letter of I
l 2
December 8th to Mr. Dircks, we believe the imposition by the f
21 NRC of flux reduction requirements on plants predicted to 5
22 exceed the screening criteria would be inappropriate, l
23 particularly if such imposition is based on a comparison 24 to the generic screening criteria alone, rather, plant 25 specific evaluations should be made and alternative ways
24 1
to demonstrate an acceptable level of risk from pressurized 2
thermal shock should be considered and allowed.
3 The staff is currently in the process of developing 4
a proposed rule on this issue.
Our Subcommittee on Reactor 5
Vessel Integrity is currently prepared to follow up to our 6
December 8th letter and would be pleased to meet with the 7
appropriate staff members and provide our recommendations 8
on this matter.
9 Finally, at a briefing of the Commission by industry 10 on March 11, 1983, on the INPO construction evaluation program 11 inlastry spokesmen were questioned on the amount of design 12 information needed to obtain a single stage license.
Our 13 Subconmittee on Standardization has been engaged for 14 approximately the last year in an effort to develop the 5
15 appropriate level of design information for a single stage ij 16 license application.
e l
17 The primary product of this effort will be a 1j 18 proposed revision to Regulatory Guide 170 R3, Standard g
19 Format and Content of Safety Analysis Report, which will I
l 20 describe the information needed to obtain a single stage E,
21 license.
l 22 In addition, actual sample sections of a single 23 stage safety analysis report will be prepared to illustrate 24 the type and level of design detail we propose to provide M
in such a safety analysis report.
- 4
J 25 1
The underlying principle for this entire effort has 2
been to develop a level of design information which will 3
provide the NRC with all the information it needs to reach 4
reasonable conclusions regarding the safety of a proposed 5
design.
6 This effort is approaching a stage where it will 7
be meaningful to present appropriate NRC staff members 8
with cur prbposals on this matter and to receive their 9
comments.
We hope to conduct such communications within the 10 next month or so and would welcome your support in 11 establishing this needed NRC-industry interface.
12 I would now like to turn the discrasion over to 13 Mr. Cowan, who will discuss in greater dept the 14 administrative and if appropriate, the legislative reform 15 measures that the industry is seeking.
16 STATEMENT OF BARTON Z. COWAN, PARTNER, ECKERT, SEAMANS, CHERIN & MELLOTT and 17 CHAIRMAN, AIF LAWYERS COMMITTEE 18 MR. COWAN:
Thank you, Murray.
l 19 Following up the previous remarks of Messrs. Lyons,
l 20 Owen and Edelman, I am going to discuss the administrative 21 reform measures that the industry is seeking w.ithin NRC.
l Upcoming congressional hearings will provide the appropriate 22 23 forum for considering legislative reform measures, including 24 the legislation proposed by the NRC and by the DOE.
I 25 am prepared to discuss our positions on those if that is I
26 appropriate later and if time permits.
1 While we are actively seeking licensing reform 2
legislation, we believe that those reforms which can be 3
accomplished within the existing legislative framework 4
also should be pursued vigorously and in parallel.
Those 5
6 ref rms f all under two major headings, first, backfitting 7
and second, reform of the licensing procedures.
I am going to deviate somewhat from my prepared 8
9 material in order to emphasize certain points, mainly 10 because the prepared material, if I were to go through it all, 11 would be much too lengthy for the short time allocated here.
12 I hope that you will consider some of the more detailed
(
13 comments in the prepared material as you read >it.
14 As has been mentioned several times here before, h
15 backfitting is the single most important issue in i
f 16 licensing reform.
We have repeatedly urged the Commission 8
to take action on this issue during the last year or so 17 2
h 18 and have been disappointed by the lack of progress made 19 in your deliberations on this subject.
20 We think the time to act on adoption of the new 21 backfit rule is now and we respectfully but with a very 22 strong voice urge prompt action by the Commission in this E
23 key area.
24 It needs to be kept in mind that the premise for 25 a backfit rule and the premise on backfitting is that a
27 1
license or permit has already been issued, the Commission 2
staff has already reviewed the license. application, the 3
Licensing Board has already reviewed and considered whether 4
or not to recommend the grant of the license and thus, there 5
hac already been, when we come to the backfit question, 6
either at the construction permit or operating license 7
stage, a determination by the Commission that it will allow 8
the plant to be constructed or in the case of the operating 9
license, it will allow the plant to be operated.
10 Backfitting comes against that background.
11 Secondly, backfitting, as was mentioned by Warren, 12 is a management control problem.
I don't think there is 13 very much disagreement that there is a need to introduce 14 a disciplined documented process for imposing new or modified h
15 requirements on plants that hold construction permits or
=
l 16 operating licenses, and there is a need to identify and 17 set forth the factors that are to be taken into account E
l 18 in connection with that process.
5 h
19 As I indicated in the prepared remarks, we have 0
20 identified certain key elements of any good backfitting rule l
{
21 as being four in number.
First, the rule or a sound 3
22 backfit provision, needs to contain the standard to be I
l 23 applied in order to establish when a backfit will be l
24 required.
It needs to contain a definition of "backfitting" l
25 that is comprehensive in nature.
It needs to contain l
28 1
the f actors to be taken into account in determining when the 2
standard has been met and it needs to contain the procedures 3
that will be utilized in determining when the standard has 4
been met.
5 We believe that there is a need to make sure that 6
all proposed modifications by backfit come within the rule, 7
no matter what the source.
We think that proposed license 8
amendments, proposed rulemaking, proposed new staff 9
guidance and in the case of site approvals or design 10 approvals, changes to site approvals or design approvals, 11 all need to come within the framework of a backfitting rule.
12 Otherwise, we are concerned that if one or another 13 of these is omitted from the scope of the rule, that there 14 will be a tendency on the part of your staff, a natural l
15 tendency, I think, to move to impose backfits through the 3j 16 mechanism that does not require the type of vigorous O
l 17 analysis that a good backfit rule would require.
1 18 The Regulatory Reform Task Force proposal with some a
h 19 modifications we believe contains the central elements needed.
I
~
{
20 I only want to bring one at this point to your attention.
21 There is a need for modification we think of the l
22 rule as proposed by the Regulatory Reform Task Force, and 23 due to the use of and the definition of the words 24
" regulatory requirements."
As: presently proposed, M
the Regulatory Reform Task Force's proposed rule would
I I
29 1
grandfather branch technical positions, standard review 2
plan positions, official letters, et cetera.
In other words, 3
the imposition of a position taken in a branch technical 4
position would not be subject to the backfit rule as we read 5
the proposal of the Regulatory Reform Task Force.
6 We don' t expect that there necessarily would be a 7
lot of challenges in this area by the utilities to something 8
that is well thought out and well presented.
We think it 9
is a question of where the burden of proof ought to ce 10 placed and we do not think that all writings within the 11 staff should be grandfathered in that way in a backfitting 12 rule.
13 Finally, on the subject of backfitting, there is 14 a need for an effective interim policy statement.
A staff 15 Requirements Memo would be a good starting point on this.
t 16 We think there needs to be a rapid study on how to deal with 8
17 NTOL's and for operating reactors, there is a need to 3
l 18 immediately put into effect an interin policy statement i
19 giving the staff guidance as to how it should fit backfits I
{
m while the Commission is going through the backfitting rule
{
21 process.
5 22 Let me turn for a moment to licensing reform.
We a
have urged administrative licensing reform in several major 24 areas.
I think the key to licensing reform is a a
determination of the role or purpose of the hearing, and
30 i
in this regard, we were encouraged that the legislative 2
proposal of the Commission as presented to the Congress 3
included a statement that the purpose of the hearing was to 4
resolve issues of fact in dispute between parties to the 5
Proceedings.
We think that is and should be the sole 6
Purpose of licensing proceedings and that reform of the 7
licensing process needs to stem from that key determination.
8 We have r.uggested several areas in the testimony 9
beginning on page four, where administrative licensing reform to would be appropriate.
Those areas are the question of the 11 contention threshold, the institution --
12 MR. OWEN:
Page two.
13 MR. COWAN:
Page two, pardon me, of the testimony.
14 I have a double spaced version so my numbers are a factor 15 of two.
+
2j 16 The contention threshold we think needs to be 8
17 addressed in licensing reform.
We encourage and believe 2
I
=
l l
18 that hybrid hearings, combining elements of the legislative l
5 h
19 hearings with an opportunity for adjudicatory hearings, 5
{
m should be adopted and we think that the Commission has l
5 21 authority under current legislation without the need for s
22 farther legislation to adopt hybrid hearing format.
M We believe that the sua sconte authority of the l
24 Licensing Board should be removed from the board and the j
M sua sponte authority of the Appeal Board to review issues
31 1
not appealed to it should be eliminated.
I should note there 2
that matters identified by licensing boards and appeals 3
boards but not raised by the parties should not be ignored, 4
rather they should be put into the appropriate channels of 5
the staff for appropriate review and consideration.
6 We believe that issues resolved in an earlier stage 7
of the hearing or in other NRC hearings should not be 8
allowed to be raised again unless there is new information 9
significant to safety which substantially affects the 10 conclusions that were reached at the earlier hearing stage 11 or in another NRC hearing.
12 In other words, we believe in the imposition of 13 the concept of res judicata on a more rigorous basis than 14 has heretofore been the case in NRC licensing proceedings.
15 We urge the Commission with respect to ex parte 4
3j 16 and separation of functions to change its rules to permit 8
17 greater access by the Commission directly to the expertise
?
I 18 of its staff.
We think there are problems with the present E
}
19 rule which prevents the Commission in its most important s
l 20 function, assurance of safety of nuclear plants, from
{
21 obtaining the direct advice of its most knowledgeable 5
22 engineers and scientists within the Regulatory staff.
t 23 Finally, I have noted that we have been looking at 24 the role of the staff in the hearings and have been reviewing 25 that role and hope to address that subject at a later time.
32 1
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
We have had conversations 2
about the usefulne'ss of getting the staff out as a full 3
party, out of the hearings.
I hope you are not backing away 4
f rom that.
5 MR. COWAN:
I am not, Commissioner Gilinsky.
I 6
Personally believe that the role of the staff in the hearings 7
should be changed and the staff should not be a party to the 8
hearing process.
I think it is fair to state that our 9
committee that is working on this, that is the majority view to but there are still some people who either are not convinced 11 and perhaps will never be convinced.
We do not feel in this 12 presentation that we can make a presentation stating that 13 is the industry's position.
14 My personal belief and that I think of the majority 5
15 of the conmittee is that the staff role should be changed 2
f 16 from one of an advocate for the license to a role in which 17 it assists the licensing board in the board's consideration 0
1 l
18 of technical issues before the board renders a decision.
I h
19 Any licensing reform proposal, we think, should i
f 20 focus on four items.
Does it enhance the focus on safety
{
21 not only in the hearings but also with respect to the time 3
22 that your staff and the industry has to devote to the Il matters of importance to safety outside the hearing process.
24 Does it improve dne quality of public participation 25 and allow the public to focus on matters at a time, at
33 1
an early time, when public input is meaningful.
Does it 2
improve the quality of your decisionmaking process and that 3
of your licensing board and does it finally bring about the 4
type of stability, the type of discipline, the type of 5
predictable process that we find so lacking in the current 6
licensing regime?
7 Finally, let me make some general comments on 8
the NRC's enforcement policies and the workings of the Office 9
of Investigations.
10 We believe that licensees have significant incentives 11 to operate safely.
Many of their employees and officers 12 live in the vicinity of their plants and the safety of their 13 family and friends is involved.
14 Beyond that, licensees have a tremendous financial h
15 investment in their plants as well as a public image and
=
f 16 reputation to protect.
We believe the enforcement policy f
17 should recognize these existing incentives and should be i
{
18 used as a remedial tool for helping the licensees do a better n
l h
19 job rather than relying so heavily on punitive type measures.
s l
N While we are heartened by the formation of the f
21 Silbert Commission, we continue to be concerned about the l
22 procedures and policies utilized by the Office of 23 Investigations and the implementation in practice of those 24 procedures and policies.
25 We do not believe sufficient attention has been
34 i
paid by the Commission to the rights of individual employees 2
or to the ~ rights of licensees in connection with investigative 3
activities.
4 Apart from the legal question as to whether th'e 5
Commission violates any due process or other legal rights, 6
if it attempts to deprive employees of their right to 7
effective representation by counsel of their choice, there 8
are significant practical questions as to whether a 9
confrontational and sometimes secretive approach to 10 investigations, as now seems to be the case all too often, 11 will be productive and will lead to safer plants, or whether 12 greater conflict rather than enhanced safety will result 13 merely in greater confrontation.
14 We have formed a special committee to focus our 5
15 ideas and concerns in this entire area and hope that within 2
l 16 the coming months we will be able to have a significant input 8
17 into the deliberative process as you undertake to improve 0
1 18 the ef fectiveness of investigations and enforcement mechanism.
E
)*
19 If appropriate at this time, I can give some general 5
l 3
impressions of the NRC and DOE legislative proposals, but
{
21 in any event, as the last speaker, I want to thank you 3
22 for this opportunity to present our views today.
23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Thank you.
24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Thank you.
If the 25 Commissioners have any comments or questions they wish to
35 I
raise at this point, please proceed.
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I guess at some point, 3
the comment was made that Mr. Cowan is prepared to comment on the DOE and NRC legislative proposals.
I guess we ought 4
5 to ask.
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Is there any objection?
7 (No response. )
8 MR. COWAN:
Without getting into the nitty-gritty 9
details of the respective proposals, we think both proposals 10 recognize the need for legislative action on licensing reform.
11 We believe that the Commission has the authority 12 in the backfit area, if I can address that first, authority 13 by administrative reform to carry out the appropriate 14 reforms of the backfitting regime, but we have not seen that h
15 happen, so we are somewhat disappointed in the exhortation 3j 16 contained in the NRC's legislative proposal on backfitting C
l l 17 which does not write into the act even the standard that 3
18 might be applied for backfitting.
I l
19 I suppose the one area that we have the most trouble 5
{
20 with would be the Commission's proposal in the area of 2,
21 single stage licensing, the combined CP/OL.
As we read the 2
l 22 proposals and reviewed the proposals, we do not see what the 23 Commission has proposed as being one step licensing.
24 We think as it is currently written, it would 25 mandate an operating license hearing before an operating m
e g
36 1
license can be granted or before a plant can be given 2
permission to operate.
We do not see despite the use of 3
the term " combined CP/OL," that it is an improvement over 4
the present regime.
5 As a matter of fact, because of the way the 6
standard is written in, while there is some benefits to be 7
derived from the standard that is written in, as to what 8
issues can be addressed at the operating license hearing, 9
there are some ways in which the standard is less strict 10 than the current standard as applied by the Appeal Board and 11 the Licensing Boards on admitting contentions.
12 Overall and on balance, with respect to dae 13 combined CP and OL, we don't see it as a step forward.
14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Could you explain why you think 15 it is less?
My view is as it is written it is more.
It 3
g 16 does say that the second hearing would only undertake 0
17 treatment of subjects that were not or could not have been 2
2 18 addressed at the first phase of the hearing.
19 MR. COWAN:
Yes, but Mr. Chairman, the words E
j 20 "could not have been," we think are such that almost any
{
21 issue relating to the construction of the plant, to the 3
Z!
quality assurance relating to the plant, to any new matter Z3 that has arisen in the four or five or six years while the 24 plant was under construction, would f all within the
%5 definition of something that "could not have been" raised
37 earlier.
As a result, we are afraid that the words "could 1
2 not have been" as they appear in the proposed statute opens 3
up any development in the area of nuclear safety, any new 4
research development, for example, to be used as a basis for contentions.
5 6
It is the words "could not have been" that has 7
caused us the problem.
We think at the present time the 8
standard is somewhat stricter as imposed by the licensing g
appeal board.
10 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
How would you characterize 11 the present standard?
I don't understand why one would not 12 be able to obtain or raise an issue in the operating license
/
13 Proceeding for any of the reasons you just described.
14 MR. COWAN:
At the present time, the standard that h
15 the appeal board seems to impose involves the reading of the l
16 contentions of a threshold.
That threshold does not appear f
17 to really be that this information wasn't in existence.
The 3
18 threshold seems to be that the information has to have some a
h 19 significance whereas the words "could not have been" may or I
{
20 may not be interpreted to mean the new information has to
{
21 have safety significance.
l 22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I can understand your n
concerns about hearings and so on.
Mr. Lyons mentioned 24 doing away not only with hearings but a safety review at 25 the operating license stage or pre-operation.
Are you
38 1
really going so far as to propose no safety review at 2
that point?
3 MR. LYONS:
I think the proposals are all aimed at 4
giving the licensee some confidence that he is going to find 5
a way to get on the table all the things in the plant design a
early enough so that the continuing reviews will not cause any problems as we have been experiencing for the last few 7 :
I 8
years.
9 I think a review could be made.
Obviously, if it 10 did not impact upon the license that was previously issued.
11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
When you talk review, you must 12 be thinking of something else dif ferent from what I am 13 thinking.
14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
A design review going over 15 the same ground again, which wouldn't be necessary, since
- j 16 the information has been available the first time, which it 8
17 hasn't been generally up to now, or any review at all, 2
I 18 because I must say I cannot concede any Government agency r<
h 19 allowing operations without reviewing whether the plant was 5
20 first of all constructed as it was intended to be, and
=
{
21 beyond that, a whole lot of other issues, whether the staff a
22 of the plant is capable and can be relied upon.
M MR. COWAN:
If I might address that; we think that 24 at the initial licensing phase, there is a need to define 25 the design, the emergency plan, the management structure,
39 1
all of the detailed criteria that are goingLto be involved 2
in the construction of the plant.
We think that in the 3
initial licensing phase, there needs to be established the 4
inspections and the tests and the analyses that are going 5
to be performed to confirm that the plant as constructed or 6
the emergency plan as drafted, for example, conform to the 7
terms of tne combined license, and that specific acceptance 8
criteria should be established at that initial licensing stage 9
that has to be met to properly assure construction or adequate j 10 emergency plans for adequate management structure or what 11 have you.
12 There after, we think that the NRC staff obviously 13 will need to make certain through inspections and through 14 tests and through analysis that things have been performed h
15 properly and that the acceptance criteria or the criteria
$j 16 established in the initial license have been met, and it O
l 17 would be encumbent upon the applicant or the holder of the 5
l 18 license to maintain the supporting data that would be l
g 19 subject to the review of the staff.
5 l
M COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Do you expect formal f
21 approval to that point?
I certainly would.
5 22 MR. COWAN:
If there is a deviation from the 23 combined license which involves a change in the technical 1
24 specifications or an unreviewed safety question, then we 25 vould expect a formal approval at that point.
40 1
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Wouldn' t you have to have 2
approval stating there had not been any deviation?
3 MR. COWAN:
We think that the licensee should 4
certify to the Commission that the plant has been completed 5
in accordance with the license, that the inspection and 6
enforcement mechanism of the Commission should resolve any 7
open items and that there after, absent Commission action, 8
to linit or delay operation, because of some discrepancies g
in the inspection or testing or some other problem that the 10 Commission has observed, that the plant should be permitted 11 to go on line.
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I gather from what you 13 are saying that you don't see any Government approval unless 14 the Government chooses to open up the case in view of 15 something that has turned up or a licensee has brought to
+
3
.s 16 their attention or whatever?
8 17 MR. COWAN:
That is correct.
?
I 18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You are really talking about I
h 19 a clear shot from the initial license?
I
{
20 MR. COWAN:
The initial licensing and authorization 5
21 to construct the plant and if the plant is constructed in 22 accordance with the information and meets the acceptance z3 criteria laid down in the initial license,' it is also an 24 authorization to operate the plant.
25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I regard that as completely
41 1
unrealistic.
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Is your conclusion that you 3
think that is the right way to do it based on a fear that 4
if there is a formal requirement for the Government to 5
do a certification at the end, that will once again reopen 6
is' sues that would lead to hearings?
7 MR. COWAN:
We think that is one element of it, 8
and certainly an important element of it, that if there is 9
a requirement of a finding by the Commission at the end of to the process, that that finding will have attached to it the 11 opportunity for a hearing.
That is not the only element to 12 it.
13 There is also the element that it should be possible 14 early on to identify what is necessary to construct a plant 15 safely and to identify what inspections and tests have to i
l 16 be made in order to make certain that the plant has been so f
17 constructed and that --
y 18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I don't think any other 5
h 19 country does it that way.
In fact, there are rather i
{
20 elaborate approvals at the end, not hearings.
f 21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
When you introduce the concept 22 of acceptance criteria, then somebody has to accept it.
23 That would seem to be a process that has a degree of 24 formality about it.
I find it difficult to say that the Mi NRC shouldn't come in, do its inspection, check whether the
42 1
acceptance criteria have been met.
That is one, observation.
2 The'second is you are describing an ideal world 3
and the ideal does not seem to apply to a number of plants, 4
and it is fine to say we are going to have six or seven 5
shifts of operators and they are going to be well trained 6
and because of pressures from other things, when we come near 7
the operating license stage, we are going to borrow some 8
people from the vendor.and we are going to start up with 9
those things --
10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Or three.
11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Or three, but som'ething less 12 than the acceptance criteria.
Then say, well, we have 14 13 other people ready to take examinations and while our 14 simulator isn' t quite ready on this particular plant -- I 15 think there has to be room for some of the realism that h
3 16 takes place when you are nearing construction and you are 17 about to start.
2 2
18 I think both of these have to be examined and some I
h 19 formal process developed whereby the Commission can state i
l 20 it is satisfied.
{
21 MR. COWAN:
The second point that you raised is 3
l 22 really the question of deviations.
We think if the criteria u
or if the permit says there should be seven shifts, there 24 will be seven shifts of operators and you come --
25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
That's a little much.
43 1
MR. COWAN:
That's a little much, but if it says 2
there should be "X"
number of shifts and you come and say 3
near the end that we are going to have "X" minus "Y" number 4
of shifts, that represents a deviation f rom what was 5
approved and there needs to be the obtaining of prior 6
Commission approval, including an oppcrtunity for a hearing 7
on something like that, if it involves either a change in 8
the technical specifications or an unreviewed safety question.
9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I think that has to be 10 recognized and included in your pattern of thinking.
11 MR. COWAN:
We would include that and urge that type 12 of deviation process be included in any licensing reform 13 package.
14 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
What you also seem to be 15 asking for, I think, to really make that process work, is i
f 16 the inspection function then is nothing more than 8
17 a ministerial function of assuring that all of the necessary a
3 18 acceptance criteria are met.
It is for a very prescriptive 5
h 19 approach to construction, to emergency planning, to staffing, 5
{
20 all of those items that simply cannot be resolved except
{
21 during or towards the end of construction.
22 You'seem to be saying that what you want is a very, 23 very prescriptive approach, where we spell out in every 24 detail what is going to have to be done, so that in essence, 25 the inspection function and the final pre-operation checkof f
44 1
is nothing more than a checkoff to make sure that every one 2
of those efforts is completed.
That sounds to me like 3
something very contrary to what you have been asking for in 4
other areas, where you have said provide the outline of what 5
is necessary or required but then allow us the flexibility 6
on a case by case basis to fit in the real world the kinds 7
of individual proposals that will accomplish those broad 8
objectives.
9 MR. COWAN:
I don' t think we are asking for a 10 prescriptive approach.
We are suggesting, for example, in 11 emergency planning, that detailed criteria can be developed 12 for emergency plans, detailed criteria can be developed at 13 a stage prior to the plant construction starting, and that 14 it isn' t necessary to have the details of the plan so long 5
15 as one knows what is going to be necessary to be elements s
f 16 put together in the plan, and then the inspection and testing 8
17 in that case would involve making certain that the plant as 2
2 l
18 it is developed meets those criteria.
l 19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You are talking about an Ej 20 ideal world, as the Chairman said.
Anything is complicated 5
21 in a nuclear power plant, which is an enormously complicated i
22 thing.
You are going to have hundreds of deviations, if not M
more than that.
There is no way in the world you can get 24 by without that.
How do you plan to handle that?
25 MR. LYONS:
Mr. Chairman, I think one of the people
45 1
involved in going through this process, such as Warren Owen, 2
could talk to that point.
3 MR. OWEN:
Obviously, we might like to see an ideal 4
world and obviously, we have lived in a greatly imperfect 5
world.
Any world that lets you go as far down the road as 6
many of us have and find that -- I would characterize it as 7
pure speculation -- that we are not allowed to move ahead, 8
that is an imperfect world that this country can' t live with 9
in the future.
10 I think we are both struggling to find an answer 11 that gives the appropriate safeguards and part of that 12 safeguard is us carrying out our job to provide electricity 13 and we cannot in good conscience start down a path that 14 does not have more certainty than we have seen in the past.
15 I think our job -- obviously we are not going to 2
j 16 resolve it here today -- our job is to work together to try 8
17 to find out if there is such a mechanism.
While it may be 2
I l
18 true that other countries have severe certification i
19 requirements at the end of their job, they also have severe i
{
20 understandings that the plant must operate and that it does 21 operate.
To compare what we have been doing with what they 22 are now doing to me is apples and oranges.
g 23 Maybe in the future we can work together to find 24 a way.
Certainly, I personally feel that if we don' t find 2
a way for that kind of certainty, then it is a moot question.
46 1
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I don' t think we are taking 2
exception that the concept of trying to stabilize the process 3
was on this point of whether or not somewhere on an one 4
stage licensing, whether or not the NRC should make a finding 5
on whether the acceptance criteria has been met.
6 MR. COWAN:
I believe the question started from 7
comments on the comparison of the legislative prcposals.
We 8
think that both the early design approval or, the early site 9
approval and the design approval proposals contain major 10 elements that are very useful and we will have some specific 11 detailed comments, but we don't have the difficulties with 12 those that we have with the combined CP/OL proposal in the 13 NRC's bill.
14 Finally, with respect to the hearing process, the 15 difference between the DOE and the NRC's bill on the hearing 8
16 process is that the DOE bill would mandate hybrid hearings 0
l 17 whereas the NRC proposal would make use of hybrid hearings 3
18 an option at the discretion of the Commission.
E h
19 We are concerned that if it is an option at the I
l m) discretion of the Commission, that there would be challenges
{
21 in the early cases to the use of hybrid hearings and
{
22 particular procedures, in particular proceedings,.unless Z3 one received the approval not only of the utility involved 24 but also of the intervenors, for going into a hybrid hearing 25 process.
Accordingly, we think hybrid hearings should be
47 1
mandated rather than made optional.
2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
You said earlier that we had 3
the option now to use the hybrid.
Or.e of the reasons we 4
haven' t used it is in part due to that while our practice 5
has been adjudication and therefore -- one of the reasons 6
in saying the law ought to say we are authorized to use 7
hybrid hearings is to get us ou.t of that mold and not have 8
to justify why we are using it, if it appropriate to use it.
9 The law does something for us to overcome the objections.
10 MR. COWAN:
It assists, I agree.
There is a 11 question if you do it only by administrative process.
There 12 is a question as to the authority of the Commission to do 13 it as well as the application to an individual case.
The 14 question as to authority would be taken away if there is
- h 15 a provision in the bill that allows a hybrid hearing as an i.j 16 optional process.
0 17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
In having it mandated, it o
i 18 would seem to me that you have to define it more clearly if r<
h 19 you are going to mandate it.
If you leave some options open, I
{
m you have greater freedom.
If you mandate it, and at some 5
21 place it doesn' t seem appropriate to use it, you have to 5
l l
22 invent a scheme to say, we will use it and then we will go l
23 back to adjudication.
I 24 We have a lot to learn in the use of hybrid hearings.
l M
Mandating it in some particular format before we gain that i
r
48 1
experience might be, counter to what we all want to achieve, 2
that is just a thought.
I dcn' t know if you have any comment 3
on that.
4 MR. COWAN:
I'm not sure the mandate could not be 5
such as within the framework of a hybrid hearing, leave the 6
Conmission the flexibility to defiae the way the hybrid 7
hearing process would work out.
At some point, the 3
Conmission is going to have to come to grips with what does 9
the hybrid hearing mean, what is to go into the legislative 10 phase of the hearing, what is to be, if it is not in the 11 legislation, the standard that allows someone to have an 12 adjudicatory hearing and what are to be the limits of the 13 adjudicatory hearing.
14 That definitional problem still exists, even on an 15 optional hybrid hearing provision in the statute.
i f
16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
We would have greater 8
17 flexibility if it turns out that our first approach was not C
3 18 good enough and we want to modify it.
It would be better 5
}
19 to modify it by changing our rules rather than changing the i
20 laws.
I 21 MR. COWAN:
I think that turns on how prescriptive 5
3 22 the legislation is, how much detail the legislation lays down
?
23 as opposed to saying the Commission will conduct or may 24 conduct hybrid hearings and how much further than that it s
goes.
49 1
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
That concern applies 2
whether the hybrid approach is discretionary or mandatory, 3
if the statute is equally prescriptive and the flexibility 4
is limited either way.
5 MR. COWAN:
Right.
6 MR. OWEN:
I guess it might be fair to say that most e
7 of us would be for something that works.
8 (Laughter.)
9 MR. OWEN:
If we have real technical issues, we 10 want to get on with resolving those and when we look back 11 over what has happened to us over the last five or ten years, 12 we have spent all our time in these hearings talking about 13 most everything except what is perceived or proposed to be 14 an issue, which by the time we spend months and months 15 it disappears, and it wasn' t an issue to begin with.
$j 16 In the meantime, we have absorbed our resources, f
17 frustrated us, left us with plants that we couldn' t operate t
18 and obligations we couldn't fulfill.
I h
19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
When you say " plants i
{
3) you couldn't operate," meaning what?
{
21 MR. OWEN:
I mean impacts on our plant schedule a
22 because of months and months of diversion of resources,
2 23 assets, manpower, to find there really wasn't an issue 24 there after all.
That does not seem to be effective use 3
of resources to me.
50 1
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
We have talked a lot about 2
the extent of which hearings hold up plants.
I can see that 3
at the construction permit stage.
We don' t seem to have 4
found cases of plants that were held up by the hearing going 5
on and then the plant not being ready and not operating 6
because the hearing is going on.
7 MR. OWEN:
We worked for more than a year and 8
poured tremendous resources into a hearing that is upcoming 9
this fall.
I cannot conceive of anyone not understanding 10 that the diversion of those resources, to talk about a 11 problem that in my mind has not even met the threshold of 12 the right to be admitted, to believe that doesn' t impact
(
13 the constrnction of the plant -- you don' t have infinite 14 rescurces.
It is diversion of the resources, h
15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I have heard a very 3
g 16 different view from one of the very large utilities saying O
l 17 this is sort of a side show and it was a big bother but i
g 18 it was not something that impacted on the plant.
19 g
MR. OWEN:
I would certainly like the E
l M
characterization of what it is.
{
21 (Laughter.)
3 l
22 MR. OWEN:
I think daey would also admit in 23 discussion and certainly I feel strongly that you take a 24 portion of your resources and you certainly take your best M
people and they spend time and effort and it is very easy
51 1
to determine what that is, what level that is, and that's 2
bound to be in a finite world where I could much better use 3
those people for something else, if we could find an 4
effective way to deal with these issues.
I'm not opposed 5
to dealing with the issues, I want an effective way to deal 6
with the issues.
7 Let's not spend 18 months before we get to a 8
hearing to talk about what the issues are.
9 MR. COWAN:
I suppose the underlying philosophical 10 question is to what extent is adjudication viewed as the most 11 effective way to reach safety decisions, and speaking now 12 personally and as a lawyer, I don't think adjudication t
13 in most cases is the most effective way to reach the kinds 14 of technical judgments that the Commission has to reach.
15 There are some instances where it may be, and that t
l 16 is why I think a hybrid hearing process is appropriate.
8 17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I am glad to hear a lawyer i
18 sa; what I have been trying to push for a while.
Are there h
19 other questions or comments?
5 I
{
20 Commissioner Ahearne?
21 s
22 2
23 24 25
52 1
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I have one larger question 2
and two minor ones.
The larger question is in reading the 3
letter tha t Sherw~ood Smith sent to us he said tha t you people were going to come and as your title said give us 4
5 a briefing on the state of the nuclear industry.
6 I recognize that from your perspective one of the 7
major issues on the state of the nuclear industry is this a
level of regulation, over regulation, regulation going in g
the wrong direction.
to But Sherwood Smith's letter did say that he would 11 discuss the industry's priorities and programs of enhanced 12 quality assurance to assure the safe design and construction 13 and operation of nuclear facilities.
I guess I would be 14 interested in your comments.
15 We have talked in other meetings and I think 2
{
16 obviously in the view of the Commission or at least some of 8
17 us and some of the staff, there has been a problem in the 18 quality assurance in at least in the construction o'f nuclear ij 19 power plants, of some nuclear plants.
5 l
20 From your view in looking at the state of the 5
21 nuclear industry, is it a serious problem?
Is it a few 22 anomalies?
Is it something that you believe that you on the E
n industry side have to treat as a highest priority if you are 24 going to bring the state of the nuclear industry into one 25 of sound health?
53 1
MR. 0 WEN:
I think we would certainly not dismiss 2
some of the situations as being of no consequence.
I think 3
that would be a mistake.
I think it would also be a mistake 4
to believe that that is widespread.
I believe fundamentally 5
that much of the problem rests in sort of the same arena 6
as our earlier discussion.
7 We all have finite resources.
Some have more than 8
others and some are better able to cope with distractions 9
than others.
I think the industry has made tremendous 10 efforts in the last couple of years starting three or four 11 years ago with the realization that we ought to have something 12 like INP0 which really worked on the incentives that we are i
13 talking about rather than the extreme absorption with the 14 problems that may exist.
15 If you are doing 90 percent of the things you do
$j 16 right and 10 percent wrong, there are two ways of looking at f
17 tha t probl em.
One is to dwell on the 10 percent and the 1
l 18 other is to take the 90 percent and make it 95 or 99 and by 5
h 19 definition the other gets smaller and smaller.
s l
20 I think that requires senior management attention
{
21 and everything the industry has done in the last three or four s
l 22 years has been directed towards getting more s-enior management 23 attention.
I don't know of any utility executive that I have 24 ever met who did not want everything done properly.
M It would be folly to do otherwise and I think we
54 have learned that lesson well.
I think the construction 3
project evaluation effort that the industry undertook, 2
its first meeting to even discuss that problem was held 3
just a few days after Commission Palladino in no uncertain 4
terms told us to get off our duffs and do our jobs.
5 Out in San Francisco we met shortly af ter that 6
and we committed to a program and I think we have ful filled 7
that program to date.
Now where it is going to take us in 8
the long run, no one knows.
But I can assure you that there g
is a sincere effort going on and I think we are making great 10 st-ides.
11 We are certainly making more strides under that l
12 incentive t/pe of a program than I think we can ever make 13 under any sort of punitive approach.
14 I feel pretty good about our progress in that area.
5 15 f.
There are still some problems that we need to address.
f 16 8
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
May I ask you something?
17
?
18 The thing that probably characterizes our system most or defines it most is the fact that we have to deal with so many 19 e
di f ferent enti ties, so many different utilities.
If you 20 start comparing how we do things and how others do things, 5
21 5
that is really the fact in my mind that drives things more 22 than any other.
23 I wonder i f you have any thoughts about how we can 24 25 arrange things so the NRC doesn't have to deal with as many l
1 1
entities as it does.
55 There are owner's groups and so But being able to deal with entiti on.
es that can commit participants so that we can deal with l the 3
think achieve economies of scale ess groups and I prescriptive basis.
and perhaps deal on a less 5
6 rec gn ze a
n rltheutilitiesa re gn c un M es 7
re frequently the government Some how or g
another, I still prefer our approach I know it I think our goal in the industry h is dif ficul t, g
concern.
I think it as been to respond to that is a valid concern.
find i t di,f ficul t.
We know that you We see evidence of that.
g (La ughter. )
MR. 0 WEN:
I don't mean that in the wrong way.
It
?
is hard for us to say that we speak f we are certainly as or everybody but
\\
15 I pointed out in the beginning of my nma ds W ng to M ng Ge indus ky to 16 those matters that we think ca ge ner to talk about g
a generic way, n be effectively handled in 18 1,
INP0, NSAC, the seismic hazards study thatIDCOR, the equipm g
n, we are undertaking -
you can g
tick off a lot o f them and maybe we don't s g
talking about pend enough time the accomplishments that have g
past three or occurred in the four yea rs, but it has been an exciting time g
I think, fo r the industry in beginning to wo k 3
together.
r But we are still more closely di f ferent compa nies in di'fferen t c
t
56 parts of the country regulated by a plethora of regulatory commissions, not just safety commissions but rate commissions 2
and everything else that has an impact.
So while we can work 3
to resolve the problems, I don't think we will ever get to 4
a common voice.
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0:
There is one concept that is 6
at least in my mind and that is standardization and I draw 7
that concept from the aircraft industry.
We have a modest 8
number, I believe, of aircraft manufacturers, but we have 9
many, many operating carriers.
10 The difference in the reactor business and the 11 aircraft business at least on one point is the construction 12 in aircraft is done by the vendors, the limited number that 13 develop the planes and certify that they have been designed 14 f
properly and built properly.
Then the airlines concentrate 15 on making sure they have top notch maintenance teams 16 8
and that their personnel are all properly trained.
17 18 I would hope in the long term that something like i -r that could be developed if standardization really takes hold.
19 That might help us in that regard and still work in the 20 i
21 framework of our system of government and trade.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That certainly sounds like a 22 go d idea.
23 MR. LYONS:
I couldn't wait to hope that we might I
24 also look at it from the regulatory side of that as well.
25
l 57 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
That would help us on the regulatory side.
That is why I think of it because then 2
we can work on it so far as design is concerned and 3
contruction with a modest group and work on the training 4
and maintenance with the larger group.
It is the same kind 5
of problem as with the aircraf t industry.
6 MR. LYONS:
Hopefully to address the last three 7
questions that were raised or comments anyway, the Nuclear 8
Power Assembly is here today to try to present to the g
Commission a unified voice for the industry and the people 10 that are involved in the process.
And while as Warrei. Owen 11 says we like the way the utility structure differs in this 12 country from abroad perhaps moving on with standardization 13 would be a step certainly in the right direction to reduce 14 the number of reviews and the places reviews have to be made.
15 2
CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0:
Any other comments?
f 16 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
I have a quick question.
f 17 1
CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0:
Sure.
18 t
COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
Mr, Edelman, you said in 19 1
testifying. before the Congress on emergency planning, you 20 encouraged them to take action to assure full implementation 21 of the safeguards Congress intended to establish against 22 misuse of the emergency planning process.
Is misuse of the 23 emergency planning process the veto power by state and local 24 governments that you refer to?
25
58 1
MR. EDELi4AN:
Yes, sir.
2 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
Thank you.
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Jim.
4 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Mr. Lyons, you mentioned 5
that one of the major elements of your agenda was to promote 6
excellence in all phases of nuclear plant design construction 7
and operation.
I understand many of the things that the 8
industry has done in that area and I was wondering if there 9
are specific things that you think we ought to be doing 10 to help accomplish that objective in general and 11 second, I guess fo r mysel f, I have a sense that in some 12 specific cases that typically we tend to see as enforcement 13 matters, I see performance that I think falls somewhat sort 14 of that goan and some of you have expressed some concerns 15 about the punitive nature of our enforcement program.
2j 16 I wonder if you have some ideas on how that O
program could be restructured to help further the 17 2
f goal of improving excellence or obtaining that level 18 l
19 l
of excellence particularly in individual problem I
Cases?
~
~
21
$j 22 23 24 25
59 1
MR. LYONS:
I think we have cited particular 2
examples today, in particular INP0 as a place where we can 3
work together for excellence in a construction operation 4
and design.
The work that is being done by AIF and others 5
has been brought to the Commission's attention.
6 We do have cocperation in these areas.
I think 7
if we could seriously get to the issues of backfitting 8
and for regionalization and the proposals that have been 9
made to get on with those things, we perhaps could improve 10 the capacity factors of the operating units today and 11 shorten the construction time as well.
12 So the Commission can work together, I think, 13 with the organizations that have been set up by the 14 indus try to help itsel f.
l 15 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
One of your other goals
- e[
16 and objectives was to improve public interstanding of the Ol 17 facts about nuclear power and you mentioned both efforts by 1
l l
18 industry and by government.
I I
e 19 I have the sense that if one concern stands out i
{
20 among the public it is probably the risk of severe accidents.
{
21 I noted Warren in your comments about the general thrust i
s 22 j
of our approach for dealing with severe accidents.
M I wonder in the context though of this objective 24 whether upon the completion of the IDCOR effort and our own l
2 staff's severe accident research program whether this
(
60 1
particular objective of improving public understanding of 2
the facts of nuclear power might be enhanced by then going 3
ahead with the rule-making proceeding that would fully 4
ventillate the severe accident issues and the alternatives 5
for dealing with it, whether that might promote that 6
particular objective.
7 MR. O h' E N :
Mr. Commissioner, I think from my 8
experience the major problem the public has is our inept 9
way of dealing with it.
Roth of us are in this barrel, our to inept way of dealing with everything that happens.
We leave 11 them with a confidence that is about as low as anything 12 either one of us can do our job.
I think whether or not 13 the hard work that we put in to IDCOR and the hard work 14 that your research staff has done in de area of degraded core l
15 is effective in improving that public acceptance is going i
16 to rest in how firmly and how forthrightly and how quickly 8
17 we can come to a conclusion and stick to it.
2 I
18 I am a fraid that most hearings because of the same 5
}
19 problems that we were talking about don't ever really I
l 20 get down to d ealing with the issue.
They deal with the 5
21 fringes rather than the real issues.
Going through something 22 like that may not add to that confidence.
z3 MR. COWAN:
Let me give a specific example in a 24 non-hearing context of the problems of public perception as n
they relate to the way the Commission carries out its
61 a c ti vi ti es.
When there is an allegation brought and the Commission Office of Enforcement or Investigations starts 2
lo king at the allegations, one of the common complaints 3
that we have been hearing in the last four or five months 4
is that if the allegations prove to be groundless and in 5
most cases, I think, that is the case that there is no 6
sign-off or close-out or statement other thar a very weak 7
statement put out by the Commission with respect to the 8
results of its investigation.
g The weak statement sometimes consists of we 10 have investigated the matter and no further action will be 11 taken at this time or statements of a similar nature.
There 12 has also been a complaint that seems to run through over 13 the last five or six months that it is difficult even to get 14 5
tha t type of close-out.
There are some specific examples 15 f
that I could cite if we wanted to go into individual plant 16 8
investigations where a long time goes by before any kind of 17 statement comes out but af ter the investigation has -been 18 r
concluded and no problem found.
19 I
That type of thing means that the publicity 20 3
21 generated by the initial charges never sees any resolution d
h at the end.
We think that is one area in the inspection and 22 E
23 enforcement policy that needs to have a hard look as to how to close out these things with the appropriate statements 24 25 made by the Commission.
l
62 1
~,.4MISSIONER AHEARNE:
Just as a matter of 2
education, Jim, part, I think, of the public's concern 8
is not as you said with the risk.
It is with the consequences and very little of the public, in fact, very few people seem to draw that distinction.
So normally they say that they 6
are concerned about the risk of nuclear power.
They are not.
7 They are concerned with the consequences and they haven't 8
thought about the probability.
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
You may be right.
I 10 tend to view the issues as intertwined.
One is how likely are 11 these things to happen and two, if they do happen what is 12 likely to be the consequence.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Most people I found who are 14 really concerned about it don't talk about how likely, M
15 j
they haven't really thought through that.
8 16 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
You may be right and 0
17 2
if that is the case, that is why I was inclined to think 2
18 that perhaps ventillating that issue fully and finally once i
2 i
=
19 l
5 and for all might be a step in the right direction.
k 2
i COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That puts us back in that F
21 l
g ideal world though.
l 22 2
(Laughter.)
23 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Certainly more than what l
24 l
has been done in the past would be a step in the right l
l 25 direction.
I have a couple of more questions.
63 Bart, you outlined a number of elements to address backfitting, but Warren, I guess I was struck by one of the 2
things you said where you said that no matter what the 3
regulations say or will say the ability to get the backfit 4
problem under control depends primarily on the capability 5
and will of NRC management to assure that this happens.
8 7
I tend to read that as saying that really the heart of the matter is establishing a disciplined approach 8
or deciding on the need for new requirements.
Would you 9
agree with that and second, would you agree that that stands 10 out perhaps as much more important that the standard itself 11 or the criteria or the other elements that you mentioned?
12 MR. 0 WEN:
You certainly neeri a body of regulations 13 and law and what not to support whatever you are doing.
I 14 2
am not disagreeing with the need for that.
I am often 15 not thoroughly acquainted with what is behind the NRC actions 16 8
but I-know from my own experience in a large organization i
17 2
h that it is the will to control those that means that control.
18 r
l We have problems with backfitting that originates 19 5
in our own organization as well as those that come from l
20 I
21 outside our organization and I know you cannot write a letter
{
that says that will not happen, you have a management will 22 E
to carry them out.
That is what we meant by that.
I 23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
We are certainly working on 24 that, but as you said, we haven't made progress as fast as you 25 L
e 64 1
would like to see us make it but I think we have been 2
addressing it with some intensity in recent months.
3 MR. 0 WEN:
There has been some marked improvement 4
over the last couple of years.
We acknowledge that.
We 5
still have some way to go with it.
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0:
I meant even further that that.
7 Jim, any more?
8 COMMISSIO!'ER ASSELSTINE:
Just a couple more.
9 One on regionalization, I am very pleased to hear people 10 talking in terms of a pilot project for the transfer of 11 project managers.
You all mentioned one approach.
I haven't 12 read the letter yet but in your presentation, Warren, you 13 talked about transferring two or three project managers to 14 each region.
15 I wonder what your reaction would be to an 4
g 16 alternative approach where you would essentially put a
{
17 slightly larger mass of project managers in one region 3
l 18 to get some experience with how regionalization of project 19 managers could work as a functioning group.
l g
E l
20 MR. 0 WEN:
We said one or two in each region.
I i
5 21 think we did not want to be that definitive in that area.
I s
l l
22 WE think there is some merit in having more than one region Z3 because one of the very real concerns that the senior 24 management and the NRC staff has and we have is that we have 25 to find the techniques and the mechanisms for sufficient i
A
65 similarity in the way that those actions are carried out.
We think it needs to be un'derstood that it is a developmental 2
sort of thing and try it and be willing to fine tune it and 3
be willing to fix it and be willing to sit down at the end 4
f a couple of years and individually and then jointly say 5
~
is it working and if it is not working, what might work.
6 We are not opposed to change.
We are opposed to 7
change that doesn't recognize that we might go in the wrong 8
l direction.
g COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Murray, I was very 10 pleased to see the progress that you are making on the 11 commitment that Bill Lee made I guess a few months ago to 12 begin to look at this question of how much design information
/
13 is needed fo r a final design.
14 3
I had a ccmment there that I was real pleased 15 v
f that you all are making some progress on that and are 16 8
prepared to start talking with us about what you have come 17 2
h up with so far.
I think that is a fairly significant element 18 r
I
{
in terms of making the licensing reform program work 1g 5
l particularly on the design aspects for the plants.
20
{
21,
On licensing reform, I have just one more question
.j f r Bart.
Bart, you mentioned you thought that we had the 22 E
l authority now to adopt a hybrid hearing approach.
I grant 23 you?that one can make an argument that the language o f the 24 1
Atomic Energy Act would permit that.
But in light of the fact 25
e 66 1
that we have had a fairly long standing and consistent 2
interpretation of the Act as calling for adjudicatory hearings 3
in facility licensing proceedings and in light of the risk 4
the uncertainty that might be involved if we followed the 5
hybrid hearing approach particularly for operating license 6
applicants and then we are told by the courts that, in fact, 7
we didn't have that authority, doesn't it really make more 8
sense to go the legislative route and not try to impose a 9
hybrid hearing approacn until we get legislative action 10 that would expressly give us the authority to do that.
11 MR. COWAN:
There are two parts to the answer.
12 First, we would prefer the legislative approach because it 13 would eliminate the uncertainty that you point out regardless 14 of how well and good we think the case can be legally that 15 the Commission has authority for imposition of hybrid hearings, 3
16 There is certainly the long history that you cite of Cl 17 interpreting the authority the other way by the Commission.
1 18 So we would prefer a legislative mandate for
{
19 hybrid hearings.
That does not mean however that we think g
5 g
20 it is not useful to go forward with developing hybrid
{
21 hearings within the administrative context because we do 3
l 22 believe that it could be possible that a utility and those 23 who are opposing a plant in a hearing context could come 24 forward and agree that a hybrid hearing would be an Zi appropriate way to proceed.
That would take away the risk
67 you are talkir.g about in terms of the appellate structure 1
and enable the Commission to have some experience with the 2
use of hybrid hearings.
3 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
That's true.
4 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0:
I believe we are going to have 5
to adjourn.
We do have another meeting at 1:30 and there are 6
a number of things to be done between now and then.
Let me 7
say that we appreciate your coming by and we have benefited 8
from the discussion.
g MR. LYONS:
Thank you for the opportunity, Mr.
10 Chairman.
11 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0:
If there is nothing further, 12 we will stand adjourned.
t 13 (Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at 12:15 14 3
o' clock p.m., to reconvene at the Call of the Chair.)
15 4
{
16 8
17 i
0 2
18 r
i 19 E
N
?
21 l
22 24 1
s...
i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
This is-to certify that the attached proceedings before the 3
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4
in the matter of: Briefing on the State of the Nuclear Industry s
6 Date of Proceeding: Wednesday, May 4,1983 Docket Number:
Place of Proceeding: 1717 "H"
Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
io were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the files of the Commission.
['
13 Marilynn M. Nations Official Reporter (Typed) 15 16 IK.u.d.,%v Y'\\. ~!(A_h%
Official R'eporter (Signature) le 19 20 21 22 23 2e
(
25 TAYLOE ASSOCIATES REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL' REPORTERS
.NORFOLKg _VIR GINI A
APRIL 7, 1983 SCHEDULING NOTES TITLE:
BRIEFING ON THE STATE OF THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY SCHEDULED:
10:30 A.M., WEDNESDAY, MAY 4, 1983 DURATION:
1-1/2 HRS PURPOSE:
INDUSTRY GROUPS REQUESTED AN OPPORTUNITY TO BRIEF THE COMMISSION.
SPEAKERS:
1.
OVERVIEW ON STATE OF THE INDUSIEl DONALD E. LYONS, PRESIDENT, POWER SYSTEMS GROUP, COMauSTION ENGINEERING AND VICE CHAIRMAN ATOMIC INDUSTRIAL FORun
~
2.
THE NRC/ INDUSTRY INTERFACE ON REGUEATORY P_OLICY ISSUES WARREN H. 0 WEN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT DUKE POWER COMPANY AND CHAIRMAN, AIF POLICY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR REGULATION 3.
DISCUSSION OF KEY IECHNICAL POLICY }SSUES MURRAY EDELMAN, VICE PRESIDENT, NUCLEAR GROUP CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILL, CO. AND CHAIRMAN, AIF COMMITTEE ON REACTOR LICENSING AND SAFETY 4.
PROCEDURAL ISSUES BARTON Z. COWAN, PARTNER ECKERT, SEAMANS, CHERIN 8 MELLOTT AND CHAIRMAN, AIF LAWYERS COMMITTEE DOCUMENTS:
VUGRAPHS TO BE DISTRIBUTED 5/4.
e e
Presentation to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on The State of the Nuclear Industry on the occasion of s
The Nuclear Power Assembly May.4, 1983 Overview on State of the Industry Donald E. Lyons President-Power Syst ems Group Combustion Engineering and Vice Chairman of the Atomic Industrial Forum
~
The NRC/ Industry Interf ace'on Regulatory Policy Issues t
Warren H. Owen
(
Executive Vice President 4
Duke Power Company and Chairman, AIF Policy Committee on Nuclear Regulation Discussion of Key Technical Policy Issues Murrcy R. Edelman Vice President, Nuclear Group Cleveland Electric Ill. Co.
and Chairman, AIF Committee on Reactor Licensing 4 Safety Procedural Issues Barton Z. Cowan, Partner Eckert, Seamans, Cherin G Mellott and Chairman, AIF Lawyers Committee me
-p,,-c
+-g-.
r--, - --
Presentation by Donald E. Lyons Vice Chairman of the Atomic Industrial. Forum To the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on The State of the Nuclear Industry May 4, 1983 Gentlemen, I am here today to present the views of the nuclear industry in the context of the Nuclear Power Assembly that has been in progress over the last three days.
I am accompanied by Warren Owen, Murray Edelman, and Barton Cowan who will assist me in expressing our priorities an.d concerns related to regulatory policy and its implementation.
The Nuclear Power Assembly was conceived to bring together all of the elements in the nuclear industry to concentrate on the issues of importance to us and to make these concerns and priorities known, individually and collectively, to government decision makers.
In preparation for the Nuclear Power Assembly, the sponsoring organizations developed an industry agenda.
It represents their general views on what needs to be done to return tae nuclear industry to the state of health the nation deserves and requires.
I will highlight the major elements of this agenda:
National energy policy must recognize the strategic e
importance of an adequate supply of electricity to the American people in providing jobs, security, improved productivity and quality of life; 4
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission process for licensing and o
regulation of nuclear power plants must be reformed; Excellence must be promoted in all phases of nuclear plant o
design, construction and operation; Public understanding of the facts about nuclear. power must be o
improved through the efforts of both the industry and the
,t government; The nuclear waste storage and disposal program must be e
implemented in accordance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982; Sound nuclear fuel cycle policies must be promoted tg assure e
the continued competitiveness of nuclear power;
.--.,m,-
,,, -, ~...
- - - - +
~.
o A strong research, development and demonstration program must be maintained, including -the further development and demonstration of breeder reactor technology; e
U.S.,. nuclear export policy must support the productive contributions which nuclear power can make to stabilize the d
worldwide energy situation based upon a. framework of broadly accepted international safeguards.
Each of these areas is described in detail in the " Nuclear Power:
Agenda for the 80's" document which has been made available to you at this meeting.
We believe that industry has the primary responsibility to. promote excellence in all phases of nuclear plant design, construction, and ope ration.
Regarding industry's efforts to improve its perf ormance, we are extremely p(roud of the efforts of the Institute of NuclearWe believe the Power Operations INPO).
in raising the excellence of plant operations and are now a significant force in working toward improving the techniques for assuring quality in construction.
While we will not be discussing their work in detail today -in view of INP0's recent presentations to the Commission, we a~ gain reiterate that achiev ement of excellence, and INPO's role in reaching this will. continue to have our active support.
I would like to focus now on the need' for reform of the NRC process f or licensing and regulation of nuclear power plants.
Substantial change in the NRC process is necessary to assure the cost-efficient and the continued safe operation of existing plants, to f acilitate the completion of those plants currently under construction, and to retain nuclear power as an option for meeting future electricity demands The reform objective most important to the nuclear industry is to achieve stability in regulatory requirements, particularly through control of. the backfitting process.
Creation of the Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) is a step in the right direction and its ef f ective operation should continue to be encouraged.
The Commission is also considering adoption of policy guidance and more stringe nt rules to govern backfitting.
These administrative actions are needed and should-be expedited by the Commission.
-In addition to the need for utilities to gain greater confidence through the example of improved regulation of current plants, some legislation is also needed to create a new regulatory system that would provide the needed confidence for new applications to be filed.
Such a system would require the ability to license a reactor for construction and operation in one hearing, and to proceed forward through construction into operation without the need to go into a second hearing or safety review at the operating license stage.
It also would require mechanisms for assuring that any l
. changes in requirements subsequent to _ licensing be.. thoroughly justified by those p'roposing any changes.
One-stage licensing gould b~e greatly facilitated by allowing for and utilizing pre-approved standard plants and sites.
We believe that the procedures for certifying designs and approving sites should be endorsed in legislation.
If appropriate, Mr. Cowan can comment later on both the NRC and DOE legislative proposals.
In conclusion, we in industry are strongly committed to working with the NRC to come up with a more stable regulatory process and to resolve key regulatory issues.
On this note, I will introduce Warren Owen, Chairman of the AIF Policy Committee on Nuclear Regulation, who will highligh,t key regulatory policy issues and discuss the interface between industry and NRC on resolving these Ls s ue s..
O 9
O l
1 e
O WN **
.a e
l l
Presentation by Warren H. Owen Chairman, AIF Policy Committee on Nuclea'r Regulation To the, Nuclear Regulatory Commission.on The State of the Industry May 4, 1983 As Mr. Lyons suggested, I will highlight the regulatory policy issues of highest concern to the industry and describe briefly the industry structure in place to interact with NRC on these key
-issues.
These interactions are aimed at improving the regulatory climate in a way that also allows the nuclear industry to perform as offectively as possible.
~
Utilities, vendors, and architect engineers interact individually with NRC staff and management on a day-by-day basis.
In addition, however, our industry institutions endeavor to present a collective voice.
The AIF Policy Committee on Nuclear Regulation, which I
- chair, helps provide a bridge with other industry organizations with liaison representation f rom INPO, EPRI, NSAC, Owners Groups, EEI, APPA, NRECA, ANEC, and ANS.
As a further measure, we have common committee representatives on this Policy Committee and the EEI Nuclear Power Exe cutive. Advisory Committee.
Functionally, the AIF Policy Committee helms provide a comm.on thrust among related AIF committees, with members:11'p including the chairmen of these committees, and broad senior technical representation of vendors, A-Es,- and utiliti es.
Our committees and subcommittees track closely and parallel NRC offorts on licensing reform and resolution of key technical issues.
They meet or correspond periodically with NRC management and staff to express positions and clarify our understanding of policies and requirements.
Such interactions are constructive, and, in our opinion, help to improve the effectiveness of regulation.
The key regulatory policy issues that we will be paying attention to l
over the next year or so include:
e Measures to obtain regulatory stability, including the continued work of the Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR), efforts to obtain an effective back fi t ting.'r ule, and longer term measures toward standardiz' tion and one-stage licensing; a
--e Policy considerations on regionalization; e 'The resolution of issues related to the severe accident rulemaking; Efforts to incorporate source term research into the e
refulatory process; l
i l
Interaction on quality assurance initiatives; and e
e Inspe ction and enf orcement policy.
Both Murray Edelman and Bart Cowan will be discussing issues related to regulatory stability and backfitting, but I would like to reiterate Don L'yons remarks that this area is number one in importance to the industry.
Those who have be en active participants in the licensing process know that no matter what the regulations
~
say or will say, the ability to get the backfit problem under control depends primarily on the capability and will of NRC management to assure that this happens.
This requires Commission support of a management syitem aimed at assuring that changes in requirements are clearly justified.
The actions of the Committee to Review Generic Requirements. provide some hopeful signs that this is
,happe n,ing.
Also needed is a backfitting regulation that can be eff ectively implemented.
A backfit regulation is currently on the books, but because of the way the staf f has traditionally operated and because of the way that the rule is worded, it has seldom been used, if at all.
The industry has been urging the C6mmission to expedite the development of a new backfit regulation which would provide an acceptable standard or threshold for backfitting; which would encompass the many ways in which backfitting can occur; and which
.would require a deliberate decision-making process d,uring which the benefits and costs of new proposals ~ are weighed.
Bart Cowan will be discussing this further.
Another area of recent concern relates to the NRC's implementation of the proposed regionalization policy.
We believe that the proposed regionalization policy has the potential to improve the quality of nuclear regulation, but only if' definitive policies and proper management controls -are develope d in advance of its broad impl ement ation.
We have special concerns regarding the question of transf erring "the licensing authority for operating power reactors."
Much of our concern relating to transferring operating licensing authority revolves around the role and identity of the project The single point around which the industry has the manager.
strongest consensus is the need to increase the project manager's authority and influence in relationship to the NRC technical staff.
Thus, an underlying princ.iple for any reorganization of functions, whether at headquarters or in the regions, is that high support and l
visibility must be given to the role of the proj ect manager.
In conjunction with needed measures to strengthen that rolp, we believe that mechanisms should be developed which are aimed at assuring that any project manager assigned to a region can function ef f ectively as the principal interaction point between the licensee l
and NRC (both headquarters and the region).
Such mechanisms should l
include the ability for the project manager to have prompt access to l
NRC senior management to resolve disputes, particularly as to whether an issue should be handled at headquarters or in the regional office.
Other me.chanisms could include a.. clear statement of policy and guidelines regarding the authority of the project,
nanager and which directs the technical branches to cooperate fully with him in resolving generic and plant-specific issues, a
Given the importance of these and other related mechanisms, they should be caref ully mappe d out and tested on a trial basis.
In this conte xt, we propose a pilot regionalization program for transferring
_ operating reactor licensing authority.
In summary, the essence of our pilot program is that p_roject managers could be assigned to work with one or two volunteer utilities in each region.
The experience gained in this process can be used to evaluate the safety and
. licensing effectiveness of the pilot program.
This expe ri ence,can then be compared against the experience gained at hecdquarters t'oward ' strengthening the role of aroj ect managers there.
It will also be relevant in determining the manner in which aspects of operating reactor license authority can be further allocated between headquarters and the regions.
We are ready to work with the NRC on the development of the above proposal and to follow up on resolving issues related to regionalization policy.
Regarding resolution of the the severe accident issue, we have reviewed the SECY-82-1B policy on how this issue will be resolved and support its thrust to have regulatory decision making completed by mid-1984.
As you are aware, the industry has set up the Industry Degraded Core (IDCOR) Program, which we continue to support vigorously.
The results of this program should be available in the July 1983 time frame and we urge the Commission to give the progr.am's results considerable attention and weight.
IDCOR intends to follow up on this technical report with a resolution phase through which we expect to interact with NRC staff in their efforts to complete the decision-making process.
t An issue related to the severe accident rulemaking is the recent consideration of new source term information.
We have been tracking this issue closely and have high expectations that the results of this res earch 'will show that the potential for releases of significant radioactivity has been greatly overstated.
We expect i
that the~ insights gained f. rom the work of IDCOR, EPRI, and NRC research will be incorporated into regulatory decision making on an expe ditious yet orderly basis.
We have also had an active effort to interact with NRC management and staff on the quality assurance initiatives that you have j
discussed in the last several months.
Additionally we are strongly l
supportive of the efforts that INPO has underway, especially its new Program on construction quality management evaluation.
Both our Committee on Power Plant Design, Construction and Operation and our Subcommittee on Near-Term Ope rating Licenses have been working with e
m
~
your staff to help develop a rational approach t'o construction team (CAT) reviews and to the use of independent design as s es sm ent verifications (IDVP),and inspections. (IDI).
Regarding the latter two, we have some continuing questions on their purpose and manner of implementation.
Based on the number of Independent Design Verification programs which the industry has performed, the NRC's pilo *. Integrated Design Inspection and the INPO programs, we ondburage the Commission to reevaluate the need for third party evaluations, and, if this need is established and understood, to erticulate the objectives and scope of future third party evaluations.
We would be pleased to assist in this reevaluation.
Finally, we have an active effort underway, particularly through the AIF Committee on Power Plant Design, Construction and Operation, to work with NRC to develop a mqre constructive enforcement policy.
In brief, we believe a system of incentives should be encouraged r~ather than emphasis on punitive measures.
We believe that the licensees have significant incentive to operate saf ely.
They have a tremendous financial investment in their plants as well as a public image and reputation to protect.
We believe the enforcement policy should recognize these existing incentives and should be used as a remedial tool for helping the licensees dd a better job rather than relying so heavily on punitive measures.
We also have some significant concerns regarding the' status of the policies and procedures of the Office of Investigations.
Bart Cowan will discuss these later.
l In closing, I would like to emphasize the importance to industry of working constructively with the NRC management and staff in efforts to resolve key regulatory issues.
We urge you to take our input into account in these exchanges and to give priority attention to the issues I have just outlined above.
I will now turn to Murray l
Edelman, Chairman of the AIF. Committee on Reactor Licensing and l
Safety, who will discuss some of the key technical policy issues that are of concern to the industry.
e 4%
- m ee 9
Presentation'by Murray Edelman Chairman, AIF Committee on Reactor Licensing and Safety
~
To the Nuc' lear Regulatory Commission on The State of the Nuclear Industry May 4, 1983 4
As both Mr. Lyons and Mr. Owen have emphasized, NRC and industry efforts to bring stability to the regulatory process are of extreme importance to the industri.
We believe that, in addition to helping bring increased stability to plant construction and operation, the success of these eff orts is a prerequisite to the next U.S. nuclear
, plant order.
In 'this regard, we have been active in the development of proposals to bring about this needed stability.
For example, in May of 1981, we provided NRC with a proposed approach to the establishment and use of safety goals in the regulatory process.
Later that year, we provided ou" views on needed legislative licensing reform.
More recently, we have been concentrating on a revised backfitting
. regulation, which Bart Cowan will cover in some detail.
One common thread' which runs through 'all of 'our. ef f orts to bring
~
.about regulatory stability is the necessity to justify proposed new
~
requirements on the basis of their costs vs. their benefits.
In this regard, we are encouraged that the Commission has recently promulgated a policy statement on safety goals and a plan for their evaluation which provides a methodology for using the Commission's benefit-cost guideline.
I would add at this point that we are in agr.eement with that methodology and believe that its use in evaluating proposed requirements will help move us considerably closer toward regulatory stability.
I would like to turn now to more specific technical issues, and to provide you with our views and concerns on them:
~
Recently, the USGS provided NRC with a clarification of their e
position on the Charleston earthquake.
As a result, the NRC Staff has developed a plan to address this and related seismic. issues.
This plan has been reviewed by our Subcommittee on S'eismic Design Bases.
In part, it calls for a calculation (by the end of 1983) of the seismic hazard for
'every nuclear plant site east of the Rocky Mountains, using a
~
probabilistic methodology developed by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL).
We are concerned with several facets of the Staff's plan.
For example, the Staff plan has
a schedule for proceeding with these probabilistic computations that will not allow time for industry to develop proposed refinements to the LLNL methodology and to discuss these with the Staff.
We believe that staff plan would result in the calculation of an overly conservative seismic hazard for many plant sites east of the Rocky Mountains.
As recommended by the Staff, the industry is seriously considering embarking on a probabilistic program of its own, which preliminary ~ estimates indicate will cost in the millions of dollars.
However, it would not be possible for us to complete this effort in a time frame compatible with the Staff's current plan schedule. Unless we have assurance that our efforts would receive appropriate consideration by the staff, it may not-be useful for industry to undertake this program.
We hope that the Commission will support
" meaningful industry /NRC interface on this important issue.
While such interf ace will necessitate a more deliberate Staff schedule for addressing this issue, we believe that, in the final analysis, a considerably more accurate assessment of existing seismic hazard will resul.t as well as an earlier resolution of this issue.
We have met with the NRC Staff and there seems to be some recognition by them of the merits of interaction with industry and the priority of obtaining credible, sound, issue.and prof essional technical bases upon which
~
to resolve this e
Over the past several years, a number of technical studies by NRC and industry have been underway in the areas of pipe break.
As a result, there appears to be general consensus among the technical community that the probability of a double-ended rupture in nuclear class piping is so low that it need not be considered.
The a'ccomodation of the
~
double-ended rupture-has resulted in the installation of massive and costly pipe restraints.
As I have noted in my letter to Harold Denton on March 28, 1983, a. current generation PWR can have 250 - 400 whip restraints, with an associated engineering effort of 150,000 - 250,000 man-hours and a total cost of 20 - 40 million dollars.
We understand the NRC technical staff favors elimination of the double-ended rupture in many areas where it is' currently l
required, such as the primary coolant sys t em.
However, we also understand that the Staff feels constrained to revise the General Design ' Criteria (GDC) prior to granting relief on l
a generic basis and that such a rulemaking could take several
~ years.
This delay w'ill negate many of the benefits which
~-
could be obtained through a more expeditious procedure, since these massive pipe whip restraints continue to be designed, fabricated and installed on plants approaching operation.
We
have reviewed the GDC's and believe that the Staff has the flexibility to grant needed. relief in this area under the current regulations.
We urge the Commission to seek an expe ditious method of resolving this issue.
Our Subcommittee N
on Load Combinations would be pleased to work with your Staff towards such resolution.
The issue of emergency preparedness is one that is of e
increasing concern to industry as more and more institutional and political problems continue to surface.
The concerns we voiced during the emergency planning rulemaking in 1980, particularly those regarding the effective establishment of veto power by state and local governments, have become a harsh reality.
Last month we voiced our concerns on emergency preparedness to the Senate Subcommittee on Nuclear x
Regulation.
In that testimony we recommended, among other things, that the Congress:
- Make clear NRC's responsibility to evaluate a plan submitted by a utility applicant, in lieu of a state or local plan, and make a determination based on that submittal regarding the adequacy of emergency preparedness;
- Take action to assure full implementation of the safeguards Congress intended to establish against misuse of the emergency planning process; Review, factoring in the last three years of experience, the subject of financing emergency planning around commercial nuclear facilities with the intent of bringing under control uncertain financial requirements faced by utilities; Attempt to estab'lish a more workable institutional process f or the generation, review and approval of emergency plans.
We also urge the NRC to consider these recommendations. Our Subcommittee on Emergency Procedures and Siting Policy stands ready to work with your Staff to address this important issue.
The issue of pressurized thermal shock has gone through a e
substantial amount of study and review by both the industry and the NRC in recent months.
The Staff's latest plan is to address this issue using a two-phased approach, which includes employing generic screening criteria to determine if further plant specific evaluation or action is needed.
As we discussed in our December 8, 1982 letter to Mr. Denton, we believe the imposition by NRC of flux reduction requirements on plants predicted to exceed the screening criteria would be inappropriate, particularly if such imposition is based on a comparison to the generic screening criteria alone; rather, plant specific evaluations should be made and alternative ways to demonstrate an acceptable level of risk from pressurized thermal shock should be considered and allowed.
The Staff is currently in the process of ' developing a Proposed rule on this issue.
Our Subcommittee on Reactor Vessel Integrity is. currently preparing a follow up to our December 8,1982 letter and would be pleased to meet with.
appropriate staff members and provide our recommendations on t.us matter.
a e
Finally, at a briefing o.f the Commission by. industry on March 11, 1983, on the INPO construction evaluation program, industry spokesmen were questioned on the amount of derign information needed to obtain a single stage license.
Our Subcommittee on Standardization, has been engaged for approximately the past year in an effort to develop the appropriate level of design information for a single stage license application.
h i
.T e pr mary product of this effort.will be a proposed revision to Regulatory Guide 1.70 R3 (Standard Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants), which will describe the information needed to obtain a single-stage license.
In addition, actual sample sections of a single-stage saf ety analysis report will be prepared to illustrate the type and, level of design detail we propose to provide in such a safety ar.alysis report. The underlying principle for this entire effort has been to develop a level of design information which will provide NRC with all the'information it needs to reach reasonable conclusions r'egarding the safety of a proposed design.
This effort is approaching a stage where it will be meaningful to present appropriate NRC Staff members with our proposals on this matter and to receive their comments.
We hope to conduct such communications within the next month or so, and we would welcome your support. in establishing this
, needed NRC/ industry interface.
I would now like to turn the discussion over to Mr. Cowan, who will discuss in greater depth the administrative and, if appropriate, the 1cgislative reform measures that the industry is seeking.
A 0
6 WN
- h g
~
I i.
Presentation b'y Barton Z. Cowan Chairman, AIF Lawyers Committee
~
~
To the Nuc1' ear Re$ulatory Commission on The State of t e Nuclear Industry May 4, 1983 4
Following up on the previous remarks of Messrs. Lyons, Owen and Edelman, I will discuss the administrative reform measures the
- industry is seeking within NRC.
Upcoming Congressional hearings will provide the appropriate forum for considering the legislative reform measures, including legislation proposed by NRC and by DOE, but I am prepared to discuss. our position on these if appropriate
'and time permits.
1 While we are actively seeking legislative licensing reform, we believe that those reforms which can be accomplished within the existing legislative framework should also be pursued vigorously and in parallel.
These fall under two major headings:
- First, backfitting; and second, reform of licens~ing procedures.
As mentioned several times in the previous remarks, backfitting is the single most important issue in licensing reform.
We repeatedly
,have urged Commission action on this issue during the last year or so, and have been disappointed by the lack of progress made in your i
deliberations on this subject.
As stated by the Commission's Ad Hoc Committee for Review of Nuclear Reactor Licensing Reform Proposals, everyone agrees "on the value of requiring a disciplined, documented justification for the imaosition of new or modified requirements and high level review of each such justification" (Ad Hoc Committee Report, March 22, 1983, p. 5).
The time to' act on adoption of a new backfit rule is now and we. respectfully, but with a strong voice, urge prompt action by the Commission in this key area.
The background and framework for a sound backfit rule already have been developed by the Commission's Regulatory Reform Task Force.
With a few key modifications, the proposal of your Task Force can be maie to contain the central elements needed in a revised backfitting rule.
We continue to urge its early publication for comment.
We also urge early publication of NRC policy guidance to the staff that outlines in a comprehensive way how backfitting should be handled in the interim.
During our study of various alternative suggestions for a revised
--backfit rule, we have identified certain key elements of any good rule.
A sound backfit provision should contain the following:
(1) the standard to be applied in order to establish when a backfit will be required; (2) a definition of backfitting which is comprehensive in nature; (3) the factors to be taken into account in determining when the standard has been met; and (4) the procedure to be utilized in determining when the standard has been met.
I l.
Any backfit rule revision should include a sing 1'e backfitting standard applicable in all situations where backfitting questions arise in proposed madifications of iss.ued licenses..and permits, of design and site approvals'and in renewal of such approvals.
- Thus, the rule should be applicable to both operating plants and those in the licensing pipeline.
Further, the rule should cover the proposed imppsition of backfits via rulemaking, license amendments and new or revised staff guidance documents.
The rule must be carefully drawn so as not to allow staff positions which are not currently embodied in Commission regulations, orders or licenses to be exempt from its operation.
We favor a standard for bac'kfitting under which no backfitting would be required by the Commission unless it clearly can be demonstrated that the proposed backfit will substantially enhance public health
'and safety as a result of improved overall safety of facility
~
operations, and that such improvement is justified when considered over the remaining life of t:1e facility.
The burden should be on the Commission to clearly demonstrate that the backfitting standard has been met, although an exception should be provided when the Commission determines a backfit is necessary immediately to protect the public health and safety or common defense and security.
Backfitting should be broadly defined in the rule to include not only modification or addition required by the Commission, after a CP or 0L has been issued, to structures, systems or components of a
~
facility but also changes proposed to procedures pursuant to which the facility is to be constructed or operated, or the organization required to construct or operate a facility.
Further, any backfit rule should contain provisions as to when new analyses, trsts or i
submittals which would impose substantial costs or other undue burdens, on licensees or approval holders can be required by the Commission.
r
~
The revised backfit rule also should set forth appropriate factors which must be taken into account by the Commission in its analysis before determing that a backfit is warranted.
Finally, a proposed provision should require a systematic and documented review process, including the preparation of a modification analysis, before a backfit can be imposed.
With respect to reform of the licensing process in order to achieve near-term reform and stabilization (apart from backfit provisions discussed above); we urge administrative licensing reform in several major areas:
e Contention Threshold:
The Commission and its licensing boards have failed to establish and enforce a reasonable initial threshold for admitting contentions which become the subject of hearings.
We believe that intervention petitions I
and contentions should be allowed only where a high threshold is met, and that regulatory revision is needed in this area
~
to more explicitly direct what must be shown.
a.
a.-
e Hybrid Hearings:
We believe that a hybrid-type hearing, combining elements of legislative hearings with an opportunity for adjudicatory hearings'; is a worthwhile licensing reform and can be adopted by the Commission without legislation.
Experience has shown that trial-type hearings as currently conducted are of limited use in connection with determining most issues associated with nuclear power 4
licensing and, accordingly, adjudicatory hearings should be used sparingly where need for such a hearing could be demonstrated.
Hybrid hearings should provide for more meaningful participation by the public in the hearing process and should enhance safety by permitting a focus on key issues without diverting attention to matters of little or no safety significance.
e Sua Sponte:
We believe the sua sponte authority should be removed entirely from the licensing boards.
In addition, we also believe that the sua sponte authority of the appeal board to review issues not appealed to it should be eliminated.. This is not to say that matters identified by the licensing board or appea,1 board but not raised by the parties should be ignored where they involve serious safety, environmental or common defense and security concerns.
Rather, such matters should be referred back to the NRC staff for appropriate review and consideration.
e Res Judicata:
We believe that issues resolved on in an earlier stage of a hearing or in other NRC hearings should not be allowed to be raised again unless there is new information significant to safety which substantially affects the conclusion reached at the earlier hearing stage or in the other NRC hearing.
The major, benefit here.will be that licensing decisions on particular issues would be decided and-resources of the Commission and industry would only once,
no longer be required to be diverted to consider the same issue over and over again.
e Ex Parte and Separation of Function:
We urge the Commission t'o change its rules to permit greater access by the Commission to the expertise of its staff.
The present rule
' prevents the Commission, in connection with its most l
important function - assuring the safety of nuclear power -
from obtaining the direct advice of its most knowledgeable scientists and engineers.
We believe this will result in more expertise being focused on technical issues before the
' ' ~ ~
C~ommission, and will also allow the Commission to have greater input into, and control of, the work of its Regulatory Staff.
l e
Role of Staff in Hearings:
We have been reviewing the role of the staff in licensing hearings and hope to address this subject at a later time.
~
Finally, I would like to make some general comments on the NRC Enforcement Policy and the workings of its Office of Investigations.
We believe that the.llcensees have..significant incentive to operate saf ely.
Many of their employees and officer,s live in the vicinity of their plants, and the safety of their families and friends is involved.
Beyond that, our licensees have a tremendous financial investment in their plants as well as a public image and reputation to protect.
We believe the enfor. cement policy should recognize these existing ~ incentives and should be used as a remedial tool for helping the licensees do a better job rather than rclying so heavily on punitive measures.
While we are heartened by the formation of the Silbert Committee, we continue to be concerned about the procedures and policies utilized by the Office of Investigations, and the implementation of those
?olicies and procedures.
We do not believe sufficient attention has
)oen paid by the Commission to the rights of the individual employees or the rights of the licensecs n connection with investigative activities.
Apart from such legal question as whether the Commission violates any due process or other legal rights if it attempts to deprive employees of their right to effective representation by counsel of their choice, there are significant practical questions as to whether a confrontational and sometimes secretive approach to investigations will be productive and lead to safer plants, or whether greater conflict, rather than enhanced s'afety, will result.
We have formed a special subcommittee to focus our ideas and concerns in this entire area, and hope that in the coming months we will be able to have significant input to your deliberative process as you undertake to improve the effectiveness of your investigation and enf orcement mechanism.
If appropriate at this time, I am willing to give you our general impressions of the NRC and DOE legislative proposals.
In any event, as the last speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to present our views to you today.-
~ - -, - ~. - -. - -
- - - - ~ ~
.