Text

Transcript of 900403 Collegial Discussion of Items of Commissioner Interest in Rockville,Md.Pp 1-72
	ML20034B076
Person / Time
Issue date:	04/03/1990
From:	; NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	;
References
	REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 9004250296
	Download: ML20034B076 (76)
	v • d • e

-

4

^* g.

\\-

1; U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A--

7 p

NUCLEA-R REGULATORY COMMIS SIONi J

l T$6 COLLEGIAL DISCUSSION OF ITEMS OF COMMISSIONER INTEREST Location l ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND D3k6l APRIL 3, 1990 Pig 6S:

72 PAGES NEALR.GROSSANDCO.,INC.

C 0 t* R T REPORTER $ AND TRANSCRIBERS.

1323 Rhode Island Avenue, Northwest Washington, D.C.

20005 (202) 234-4433 I

9004250296 900403 PDR 10CFR PT9.7 PDC 1

+

1 r

h DISCLAIMER I

I l

This is.an unofficial transcript'of a meeting-of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held 'on April 3, 1990, in t h o ' C o m m i'e s i o n ' s office at One White Flint North,- Rockville, Maryland.

The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.- This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected or 1 edited, and it' may contain inaccuracies.

i The transcript is intended' solely. for general i

informational purposes.

As provided by 10 C'R 9.103, it'is i

not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.

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

No pleading.or other-paper may-be filed with b

the Commission in any proceeding as the result of, or l

l addressed to, any statement or argument contained: herein, I

l except as the Commission may authorize.

l L

1 l

i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRf0ERS s

1323 rho 0E ISLAND AYINUE, N.W, j

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. 0.C.

2000$-

(202) 232-6600

-e 1

'(:

. UNITED' STATES.OF' AMERICA' NUCLEAR. REGULATORY COMMISSION-k COLLEGIAL DISCUSSION OF ITEMS OF COMMISSIONER--INTEREST.

t PUBLIC MEETING s

i Nuclear Regulatory Commission-One White Flint North Rockville, Maryland Tuesday, April.3, 1990 The Commission met in open session,.~ pursuant-to notice, at 8:30 a.m.,

Kenneth. M.

Carr, Chairman, presiding.

.l COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:-

KENNETH M. CARR, Chairman of the Commission THOMAS'M. ROBERTS, Commissioner KENNETH C.

ROGERS, Commissioner JAMES R.

CURTISS,. Commissioner FORREST J. REMICK, Commissioner I

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.

(202) N WASHINGTON, D C. 20006 (202) 232-6600 -

2 s

STAFF SEATED AT THE COMMISSION TABLE *.

q SAMUEL J. CHILK,-Secretary' WILLIAM C.

PARLER, General Counsel i

s k

t 1

+

i -

1 l

1 1

i i

l l

NEAL R. GROSS I

l COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

1 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 ~

(202) 232-6600 l

3

+

1

^,

1

-P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S y

2

'8:30 a.m.

3 CHAIRMAN CARR:

Good morning,. ladies and.

4 gentlemen.

5 This morning's meeting has been sch'edul'ed as

=

6 a collegial discussion of- -items ; of-Commission:-

7 interest.

These colle'gial. meetings are intended to be 4

l 8

an open forum'for_ discussions of matters affecting.the' I

(

-9 Agency.

10 Before today's meeting, I noted-to my fellow:

11 Commissioners-a few items'I'd like to discuss.

There L

12 may~be topics other Commissioners would like!tb talk 13 about.

l 14 Before we begin, are there any opening comments from my t

15 fellow Commissioners?

16 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:

I forgot-my-4 17 matchbooks.

18 CHAIRMAN CARR:. Oh.,

I don't have any.

19 Commissioner Remick, -do you want to kick.

20 off?

Have you got anything you want;to bring--up?-

~ 21 COMMISSIONER REMICK:

Yes, I dio.

'22 CHAIRMAN CARR:

I was going.. to bring. up -

23 elevators as the first item.

24 COMMISSIONER REMICK:

Go ahead.- Go ahead.

25 CHAIRMAN CARR:

I recommend we get somebody NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) N WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 -

(202) 232 6 -

. ~

II in to check the programs to -- make sure.that -they're i-2

. programmed,so.when the door on your side opens up, you

'3 don't see the door on the other side opening-up at..the i

4-same time.

We'll see if we can.get a little ' better' 5

service.

6' All right.

7 COMMISSIONER REMICK:-

I'm not sure what thec 8

usual format'is, but I have some notes here on'a --

-9 CHAIRMAN CARR:

We don't have a format.

.i 10 COMMISSIONER REMICK:

Okay..

Good.

11 One has to do with the subject that you 12 indicated was of general interest-and that's the 13 design certification review priority and resources.

I 14 f eel that the recent announcements and developments 15 that we've read about and heard about indicate that I 16 think we should carefully reconsider our priorities on 17' review of some of the advanced' designs.

18 Some of the things I had in mind was Mr.

p i

19 Runyan's comments-that in two or three years TVA will-20-need to decide on new capacity and that they've j

i l.

.t L

21

' considered nuclear as one of the options.

l 22 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:

You know, I thought 23 that was extremely interesting, but what.is he going 24 to do with Bellefonte?

l 25 CHAIRMAN CARR:

Going to' finish it, he said.

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

l (202) N WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 232 4600 l

l.

5~

1 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:

What's that?

{

F l

2 CHAIRMAN CARR:

He-said he was_-- going: tou a

3 finish it.

l 4

COMMISSIONER CURTISS:

It 's 'an addition to 5

Bellefonte.

6 COMMISSIONER REMICK:

Y e s,- this: i s a n-~

7 gJJition.

8 CHAIRMAN CARR:.

This is after he does that',-

9 the way I read the article.

-10 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:

Okay.

11 COMMISSIONER-REMICK:.Yes.

.i 12 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:

Excuse me.

13 COMMISSIONER REMICK:

Mr. Farley's statement 14 about their possible interest in adding capacity in 15 the mid '90s and Mr-... G o l d b e r g,

Florida. Power and i

16

Light, statement -that he thought in Florida they 17 should consider nuclear as an option.- And several of l

18 those people have indicated that they have an interest 19 in the 600 megawatt size.

s 20 N o w,. I understand that - we ' re only putting 21 resources into the ABWR, System 80+,

the EPRI l

22 requirements document and what I'd call token into the j

23 modular HTGR and modular liquid metal reactor and are l

l-24 not devoting any resources to the AP 600 SBWR, PIUS 25 and CANDU III.

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

. (202) 234g WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005

-(202) 232-6600

'l 6

i

-f 1

What concerns m e,-

we might be

(

2 unintentionally -influencing. people's-decisions on,

-[

3 future orders for plants by the-fact.that

.f 4

certification reviews might not be completed on plants

~

5 that they otherwise might. select when ~ they have the-6 need for capacity additions.

That's due either to our 7

lack of review or getting started late on the reviews.>

8 What worries me, I

think-we. could:.

9 conceivably be the choke point on the critical path q

10 for those decisions or orders and that concerns me 11 very much because I think we have a responsibility to-12 the public to provide timely reviews.

13 There are, I think, advantages to the NRC 14 being involved at the very early stages,- 'which the 15 Commission has enunciated-in the past.

Certainly to 16 provide to licensee or to vendors and potential 17 licensees the answers to issues on~the licenseability 18 of different systems or

designs, different 19 alternatives to those safety systems design.

A- : very 20 important one is to be involved and provide feedback:

21 on early experimental work, testing and development' 22 that vendors might be doing, that we have. people who 23 are following that, providing. input, providing the 24

-responses, input on maybe whether it's the I

1 25 shouldn't say proper instrumentation, but - adequate NEAL R. GROSS H

r.-

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 234 6 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005

'(202)232 6600

~

- 7.

1 instrumentation to satisfy our-potential:needs when we I

.l review those, answer questions ~ on ' the extent 'of 2

3 documentation that should' be -provided when 4

applications are submitted and a very important' 5

question on what's our. preliminary. feelings on whether-l 6

prototypes might be needed on some?of these-advanced 7

designs and let the industry-know-of that at a-very 8

early stage.

9 Another very important aspect of our being-10 involved. is to develop'our own personnel.

'I'm 11 concerned,

_9 I hope I'm wrong, on whether we've lost

^

12 our ability to do licensing reviews. -We've lost a lot 13 of people to retirement.

People are now doing things l

14 that are not directly-involved with the-licensing _and i

l 15 so forth.

So, I think_we need to take advantage.of-an 16 early opportunity _to get current staff involved early-t 17 in the reviews of these plants, build up their.

I 18 capabilities and so forth.

And I think their being 19 involved is a very important aspect of-that.

L 20 Now, also in the case of Westinghouse and l

21 GE, on their AP 600 and small boiling water reactors,-

22 they've indicated about 18 months, I believe, they i

23 anticipate between the SSAR and the issuance of an-24 FDA.

That's a very short period of time.-

But if we 25 conceivably can make that, our people are going to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON,DC 20005 (202) 232-6000 L

-~

,--.m

i 8-1 have to be up to. speed. -

At the time the SSAR-is i

2 submitted, - they must-know these plants and '. know thet 1

3 experimental data and so forth - has been-developed.

4 And also, it's important to be involved. so ' we-can 5

determine what our research needs'might be,-if we have' 6

codes to develop or things ~ that we have to-do

.to' 7

enable us to adequately review those.

8 Now, on both the AP 600 and SBWR, and I'm 9

not picking them out preferentially, but we know that

.i 10 DOE has provided $50 million each to Westinghouse and 11.

GE to undertake the design of these f acilities.-

I-12 guess EPRI has put in-$30 million into each of these 13 and I presume the vendors are putting in the other $20 14 million match.

So, in each of these cases, there's 15

$100 million that's b e e n ~. c o m m i t t e d - t o design and I-16 think we have an obligation :to become. involved - in 17 those reviews of those designs so that they're not 18 submitted and then we start to try to get up to speed.

i 19 One additional thought, if I may, along that 20 line.

I understand the way we're currently' organized 21 is that for the ABWR' System 80 and AP 600,.NRR has the 22 responsibility, and I -stand to be-corrected - if I'm 23 wrong.

On the modular HTGR, modular liquid metal 24

reactor, PIUS and C ANDU ' III, Research has the 25 responsibility.- I have some concerns there whether we NEAL R. GROSS-COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W-(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 232 6600

1

.+

9 1

might develop. possibly dif ferent - standards for review I'

2 of advanced designs by - having the ' two ' dif f erent i

It.also worries.me that L

3 offices completely involved.

~

4-presumably that these.would become under ' NRR at the:

5 time of licensing review,~whether NRR would feel the 1

6 full ownership of-the certification review done by i

7 somebody oise.

8 So, I'd just like to throw -out f or 4

l

~

9 Commission consideration.. as a stocking horse whether 10 any thought had been given to perhaps establishing a 11.

join division made up= of perhaps NRR and Research l

12 personnel that throw out maybe'a report to-the EDO's 13 office with responsibility of coordinating advanced I

14 reactor design certification reviews and presumably i

15 headed by a senior staff member as a kind of the super' 16 division director.

Eventually,

'I assume this 17 organization would be forwarded to NRR'for licensing 18 reviews or the staff or the. Commission might pr'opose 19 other alternatives.

20 So that's my introductory thoughts on the

~21 question of design certification review.

I think it 22 is important we be involved in these,-at least with at least one or two FTE equivalent providing 23 some 24 feedback to the vendors at a very early stage.

25 I apologize for the lengthy introduction.

^

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

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202)232-6600

10 1

CHAIRMAN CARR:

All right.-

It's onE the 4

2 table.

Any comments?' Commissioner --

U 3

COMMISSIONER ROGERS:

Well, I'm concerned 4

about this long, stretched out ' schedule and some of-l 5

the same issues. that you' are.

In looking at it, it 6

seemed to me in talking to staff there really L ist a' 7

shortage of-qualified people to do the-job.

I i

8

' suggested at'one time that perhaps"certain= individuals 9

should just be dedicated -to~ design reviews and 'do l

1 I

10 nothing else and that apparently is a very difficult 13 thing for NRR to do because'some of--the key, people and 12 a number of different questions have.to be involved in 13 design reviews, so that dedication of individuals 14 looks like a very difficult. thing for them to do when i

..i 15 it really comes down to a shortage of the kind of l

16 experience that's necessary to do this job.

?

17 So, it does seem to me there is a resource 18 question here, although there's also this question of 19 process that's been raised with respect to the 20 immediate reviews of EPRI and GE and CE designs.

I'd 1

21 like us to talk a little bit about that process'while 22 we're on this general topic, but it does appear to be 23-a resource problem in the long run to take on all' of 24 these at the same time even at the modest level that 25 you're suggesting.

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

(202) M WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 -

(202) 232 4 600 f

r

+

r 11-

. I - think= that' that 's something we ought to

(

2 Ltalk about..

Normally, we don't get. _ involved with-3-

allocation of personnel.to particular ; projects. and 4

things of this sort as individual-commissioners.

5 That's'more -- I'd.say a.more administrative function.

5 6-But I think there is a policy issue :at stake here.- of 7

how the Commission deals with this whole question ~of 8

future designs..

So, I think it'is appropriate'for us 9

to discuss it.

1 10 CHAIRMAN CARR:

Commissioner-Curtiss?

11

' COMMISSIONER CURTISS:

Well, I guess I don't 12 disagree with any of the' general sentiments that-have i

13 been expressed, but it does 'seem to me that as we 14 enter a critical phase here now.with the promulgation i

15 of Part 52 and the procedural - shop by and large in i

16 order -- and I will come back to that. A couple of points, t

17 Forrest, that you've raised about essentially complete i

18 design and what constitutes a-complete design and tho-19 ITAC criteria, the inspection test analysis which I 20 know is a second subject that on the procedural side 21 of the shop we need to address.

22 But more generally, I don't have any 23 disagreement with the general sentiments that the 24 Commission needs to be clear in what it expects in 25 this area, that in terms of organizing the resources-NEAL R. GROSS I

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 2000$

(202) 232-6600

?

-i

' 12 '-

l:

~

L 1

and the organization. itself to.' get the most bang. ' out I-

~ consider something that.

~

2-of the buck, we may want to L

3 will bring together in a more focused-way a group that' 4

would have the capability and-the-task exclusively to 5

L 5

look'at these issues.

I 6

I do think there's some difficult: questions.

I 7

-I know we've tossed around the process ' question: now 8

for six or Might,. ten. months' and hopef ully are 9

beginning to sort out exactly what the process is'in l

1 1

10

. terms of what the Commission's role..will be in thatL l

11 process, what the ACRS role is going to be and'when.

12 and under what conditions the staff needs to come to 13 the Commission for guidance.

I 14 The question, I guess, that I see.that'still 15 in my own mind,'I guess, is unclear. are really ' two 16 questions.

One, we haven ' t - defined- ' clearly yet 17 exactly how we're going to approach the EPRI 18 requirements document and what the Commission view is 19 about -the importance and priority-of the EPF.1 20 requirements document.

21 Personally, I guess I've expressed on 22 earlier occasions the view that the'EPRI requirements 23 document is an important vehicle and has the benefit 24 of bringing some. standardization. to bear. between and 25 among the vendor designs within a given class, the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C 20005 (202) 232-6600 I

13 _

i 1

evolutionary requirements document and ' the. passive-l 2

.Yequirements document.'

Bytwe' haven't.yetarticulated 1

I 3

clearly really for either class, in my viiw, what it 4

is that we want to do with ' the EPRI. requirements -

5-

~ document, not-just from a legal standpoint butcfrom~

6 the standpoint o'f allocation of resources.. and -

7 priority.

Do we want to. complete it first before we 8

do any work on conceptual design reviews. f or the-9 passive plants, for ' instance,- or is' there someLwork-10 that can be done or that needs to be done'because of 11 the synergistic effect'of the ' two as we proceed with f

.12 both those initiatives?

I'think we need to be clearc l

13 on that.

s 1

14 Secondly, it's'not clear to me-as you.look 15 at the evolutionary and the passive ' plants and the i

16 latest resources that even at the staf f ' level, much 17 less the Commission level, the resourcesJquestion.is 18 sorted out.

19 I had a chance to take a quick lookeat the 20 package that came up last night'and I haven't done the l

21 arithmetic yet, but just comparing the numbers ' that

{

l-t 22 we're talking about here, for instance that we 23 submitted to the Bevill questions, -as I ran the numbers a

24 it looked like we had in 1991 35 FTEs and $3.0 million 25 for both the ' LWR and the advanced reactor program.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RMODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006

'(202) 232-6600 -

~

+

14 1

1 These-latest numbers,.and there may be_a difference'in-

/

l 2

how you allocate the:-' overhead, but the latest-numbers E

3 that I see from last night are-25.3 FTEs. :So, there's 4

a-dif f erence

'o f 10. FTEs there that I don't quiteL l

5

. understand yet.

It looks like we need to pursue that 6

question in more detail, i

7 CHAIRMAN CARR:

You = want. to look' at that.

h 8

As you said,- that's quick and dirty and subject to:

9 revision.

10 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:

Right.

'It 's 'gone 11 down though by. 'almost a third just in :two or three-12 weeks that we've been talking: to Bevill~.- I did note on.

i 13 the-last page here the comment that--- on the question 14 of essentially complete design, that~ the staff is 15 currently evaluating: that question and if the level of 16 detail' that has been proposed by GE for the ABWR is

~

17 not found to be sufficient to meet the standardization l

18 of 10 CFR Part 52, scheduler delays could occur.

.So, 19 essentially' complete-design is an. important - question l

20 we need to take a look at.

l l

21-I do think we've gone a long ways on the L

22 procedural side with Part 52 to address;the procedural l

23

. questions.

A couple of big ones, essentially complete l

24 design and ITAC, that I know the staff is working on.1 i

25-The ACRS has raised the essentially - complete design i

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

l (202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005

.(202) 232-6600 l

f i

15 1

information question.

'But those are matters.that-are l

2 going'to require Commission-guidance and direction, in a

3 my view.

4 On the technical side, of course, we've got.

5 the list of 15 technical issues in the SECY paperLthat 6

we'll focus on on Apri1~27th.

.In-my view, the safety

~

7 goal implementation plan is a necessary prerequisite 8

to resolving those in a disciplined way and we need t'o l

~

t 9

take a look at that.

But on the technical: side, I-do' 10 think b'oth from the standpoint ofl. the substantive ~

11 technical issues and the resources that we 'didn't 12 commit that there's some hard' thinking-that we need to 13 undertake and organizr and discipline our views on 14 how we want to approach things from here on out.

15 CHAIRMAN CARR:

I missed point 2.

-Point 1 16 was EPRI requirements document and I.--

17 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:

The second point was l

18 the question of how we're going to approach the l

19 allocation of resources and agency interest from ' the -

20 standpoint of the evolutionary versus the passive 21 plants.

The fact of the matter is that'for two of in fact for the only two evolutionary p1' ants 22 the i

23 that will probably go to design certification, as 24 we've discussed at this table, there are only foreign 25 orders for those plants and that's --

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W 902) N WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 232-6600

'16

~

l l'

CHAIRMAN CARR:

Okay, f

1 J

2 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:

-. not an j

1 l

3' insignificant consideration.

I do think'there's some j

4 benefit from the standpoint of the ABWR application in 5

an early demonstration of,Part 52 and its workability.

L 6

So, I wouldn't discount the importance ofIthat.

But

.7 7

the relative importance that we as an agencyLwant to 8

place on the evolutionary class and the passive class,-

a l

9 both from the standpoint of the individual designs'and j

l 10 the requirements document is the second issue.

11

' CHAIRMAN CARR:

Commissioner --

12 COMMISSIONER REMICK:

Could I -respond ' to s

13 part i to that?

14 CHAIRMAN CARR:-

Sure, r

15 COMMISSIONER ~REMICK:

Just)a bit on the EPRI 16 requirements document.

I'think ideally,=if we.had our-1 i

17

druthers, it would be-good if -we had' the EPRI 18 requirement document completed ~and our' review and then l

19 maybe go to their license review basis and then --

l 20 CHAIRMAN CARR:

It's easy to - have our l

21

druthers, t

I 1

22 COMMISSIONER RIMICK:

Yes, but I didn't 23 think we have the luxury of that series review as I 24 see it.

I think if we do-that,-we're going to miss--

25 we're going to receive applications before we've even l

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

(202) N WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 '-

(202) 232 6

i 17 1

participated in some ~of those discussions and that's 4

2 my concern.

3 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:

Yes.

It does seem to

- y 4

me that there needs to be a way to strike the balance 5

between what we've done on the evolutionary plants, i

6 where we have_ reached the -point where the EPRI l

l 7

requirements document, as a document per se, is by and I

8 large going to be irrelevant.-

We've heard-. the ~ GE 9

folks come in and although-there's been considerable 10 coordination, the EPRI requirements document is not 11 going to be complete bef ore we get, into extensive 12 discussion of the EPRI and -- the GE.and CE designs.

13 At the other end of the spectrum, I'm not 14 proposing that the passive EPRI requirements document-15 needs to be complete before any discussion of those 16 passive plants.

In fact, the' logical-point, it'seems 17 to me, to draw the line is'to say before you discuss 18 LRBs, licensing review bases, which is the vehicle for 19 addressing significant policy questions, the. EPRI-j 20 requirements document for passive. plants ought to be 21 complete, it ought to be in place and it ought to be-22 the buyer's guide that would cover the' utilities and i

23 to the extent that it addresses technical issues, 24 covering our review of the passive plants.

25 CHAIRMAN CARR:

We haven't given NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20006 (202) 232-6600

~

18 l

1 Commissioner Roberts a chance to get on the record.

9 2

COMMISSIONER-ROBERTS:

I'm listening.

3 CHAIRMAN CARR:

All right.-

i 4

COMMISSIONER ROGERS:

-I just think that one-5 might misinterpret your. use of the term " irrelevant."

6 It's irrelevant-to the immediate - allocation ' of-7 resources to the GE and CE evolutionary plants',.but I 8

think that EPRI requirements ' document is still very 9

important to have in place because that'does represent, 10 the views of the people who are most likely to buy.-

11 these plants in the future.

-I don't think:-- and one.

l t

12 could easily argue = that they may be looking at-13 evolutionary rather than passive designs for the 14 future just because they represent. a conservative 15 advancement'of engineering practice rather than a' jump 16 into a totally new approach.

One can make ~ some i

17 arguments along those. lines, at any rate.

18 So, I think that-it is relevant to the I

19 future, although it's not necessarily-on the critical.

20 path to the evaluations of the-GE'and CE< evolutionary-21

designs, i

.22 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:

I guess I meant 23 relevant in a more narrow sense.

24 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:

Yes.

25 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:

If we take a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS '

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

(202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 /

(202) 232-6000

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. _ _ _ _ _,____ _~_.

i

,19

.1 specific issue like source term,-hydrogen or a-couple l

11

(

. currently in discussion

?

2 of the big issues that-are 3

between EPRI'and the-Commission.

l 4

COMMISSIONER ROGERS:- Yes.

5 COMMISSIONER CURTISS':

If on;the source' term

~

6 issue-the debate continues'in Chapter,5 on what'.we're i

l-7 going to'do with source term and severe ac'cidents, L

l 8

while GE and CE, which are the two plants that:would-9 be subject to the EPRI' requirements 2 document, are-7 10 proceeding ahead with the more conservative source; 11 term, then in my judgment it doesn't make-a- lot of 12 sense to allocate the resources to - resolving 'the!

13 source. term issue for the evolutionary requirements 14 document because there's no other-plant lef t _ that '

15 would be governed by the outcome of that discussion.

l l

16 It may be useful to discuss that issue because it's i

17 applicable to the' passive plants, but I question the 18 need to expend considerable resources resolving issues 19 when the two plants that are going'to be perhaps the 20 only plants within that class are ' proceeding ahead-21 prior to the resolution of those issues andtin a 22 different way on those particular issues.

23 I do think the EPRI process though in the 24 requirements document is one that has a lot to commend-25 it.

I've been a big supporter of that.

In fact, I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

I (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 232 4600

~

'i

-20 1

think we.ought to strive'to'get.the horse before the

{

2" cart when -it ' comes to the passive requirements 3

' document - just for those reasons.

LI do ' think it's-4 highly relevant for that purpose.

I 5

COMMISSIONER REMICK:

A couple of points I'd 6'

like to make in response.x one,-by the way, although I-7 emphasize our need to review the ' advanced. reactors, -

8 the so-called passive, I did not mean to infer by-that 9

that we would reduce our.- review of the evolutionary-10 designs and requirements: documents there.

Not byfany; 11 means, because I'm not convinced that the next order 12 will be a passive plant.

.So I think we-have to do.all 13 of those.

14 Another point I'd like - to make, although 15 ideally one would like to do this in series,.you have 16 to remember in the case of the APc600 and the SBWR, 4

17 EPRI putting in $30 million and also in addition some 18 staff time, I believe, that they're going ito be-l 19 participating with that.

So, I thinkLthe requirements I

20 document and 1perhaps the designs will be- - f airly 21 closely coupled because of their' investment ~in those

-22 designs.

23 What concerns me, if the nation needs 24 capacity, utilities are ready to order and they decide 25 to order a nuclear plant, I'd hate to have us be in-

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

)

(202) N WASHINGTON D.C.20005 '

(202) 232M i

)

21 i

i the position that we're insisting. that the'most

('

~2 important' thing is the EPRI requirements' document'that; A

I

-3

'must be completed before we'll do anything else. IL 4

don't think we're in a. defensible' position there.-

f 5

CHAIRMAN CARR:

Let me step 'in - a't' this ;

6 point.

7 COMMISSIONER REMICK:

Yes, please.

8 CHAIRMAN CARR: Unless you want some time?.

-[

9-COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:

Go ahead.

10 CHAIRMAN CARR:

The first thing that 11 concerns me is you can see why.the staff's' confused, 12 A.

B, is our job is policy and not allocation of -

13 staff resources to particular things unless we set the-14 priority.

My. impression was we set the: priorities for

,i 15 the two evolutionary. plants and the EPRI.. requirements-16 document for evolutionary as the: top priorities.

But l'

17 we're not talking like that 's - what w e' thought.

I-18 think that's the right priority.

I've heard: a lot of l.

19 complaints about time from the sellers of plants.

[

20 I've heard no complaints about, "You're not going to l.

21 have one ready when-I want to buy.one, " f rom any 1

22 utility.

23 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:

I think that's very 24 valid.

25 CHAIRMAN CARR:

Utilities are not. coming.in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D.C.20005 (202) 232 6

. ~ - - -

.s

-i

' 22 =

4 1

. telling me, "You better4 get on^ with - your work. :I need 4

2 to build.a plant 'and I-lwant - to build _ a ~ certified q

3 plant."

I have heard - zero-comments do that effect.

4 4

That's point 1.

5 Point 2,

I think our priorities 1 of-going 6

with the EPRI. requirements document'is in.accordance j

7 with what the utilities want.

They want tio-specify-8 what they want to buy rather than have 'somebody come:

9 sell them ' a product..

I'm concerned ~ about 10 standardization.

-If.we don't do the EPRI requirements; r

i, 11 document-and if we don't do a.very careful layout:of

12 what we want in an essentially comp 1'eto: design, 13 standardization 'is nothing, in my opinion.

If ' we 14 don't lay that design out to where it is essentially r

'15 complete, then we're going to be right.where'we are 16

today, we're going to have everybody - out' there 17 building what they want.

18 The second thing is we. don ' t have enough l

i 19 staff to do everything.

20 COMMISSIONER REMICK:

That's right.

t i

21 CHAIRMAN CARR:

This priority on ' these l

22 things, as far as'I'm concerned,.the highest priority 23 is keeping the 20 percent-we've got out there. working.

i 24 We've agreed to that, but that's the top priority.

We 25 can't pull people off of those plant life extensions NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.

f (202) N WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 232-6600.

~

.t Ri j

'}

..23 1 l 1

.and put them on these[ things.

WeLcan't take --

}'

i 2-

. COMMISSIONER' ROBERTS:- You say we cannot?-

3 CHAIRMAN CARR:

No.

4 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: ',Yes.

Yes.

'S CHAIRMAN CARR:

We can ' t ' take :.- day to day.

i l~

l 6

safety-that's being-operated'all~over the 120 plants, r

l l-7 take those people and put'them on:these: things and we.

v i

8 don'_t have enough people.to do all the things thdt we-

]

9 all agree it would be nic'e to-do if we had. enough 10 people.

So you-get right down to _ the hard part' _of-11 this problem, you've got to set'the priorities,-you've 12 got to let something go..

13-COMMISSIONER REMICK:

I agree.-

I agree.

14 CHAIRMAN CARR:

And when.-.my feeling-is--

~

15 COMMISSIONER REMICK:

That's my point.

l if you -aren' t going to 16 CHAIRMAN CARR:

l 17 let it go -- if you've'got'to letsit go you've_got to

.18 really let it go.

There's no reason.to keep the-team r

19 together and work on a little bit of everything and 20 never get anything done.

21 COMMISSIONER REMICK:

Could I respond?

22 CHAIRMAN CARR:

Sure.-

I'm just warming up.

23 COMMISSIONER REMICK:

The Commission has.a 24 good excuse.

They have a new commissioner that didn't.

25 participate in those discussions.

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

(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005

'(202) 232 6600'

-. ~.....,

.c i

,g.

l'.

CHAIRMAN CARR: 1 No, no'..

- {"

r

-2 COMMISSIONER'REMICK:

He's unknowledgable.

3 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:

You c a n o n l y e n j o y --

l

~

4 that for a'short period of t'ime.

f 4

5 CHAIRMAN CARR:

And not -only that, you've-6.

only missed-two.'

7 COMMISSIONER REMICK:

And it could be'after 8

this day's discussion, maybe.. utilities x will-let us-9 know that we're.in the critical. path.

I have no idea, 10

.but --

s 11 CHAIRMAN CARR:

I keep askingLthem to come i

12 in.

13 COMMISSIONER REMICK:

-- that's.certainly a 14 possibility.

But also on resources-with;what,-we have 15

3200, 3300 people.

What lI'm-proposing herel'is 16 something a

little bit bigger than a

single i

17 commissioner's office, maybe two commissioners' 18 offices, and out of ' 3200 people, in the interest of 19 our long-term capability to-do what has been our -

l

(

20 historical strength and what we f are_ respected for 21 internationally and that is do an adequate review of 22 licensing safety of licensing reviews.

It's just 23 hard for me to imagine.that we couldn't round up that 24 number of resources.

25 I won't do it here, but I could even suggest NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

(202) 2M33 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 232-6600 -

i-

J 25

\\

an' area where I think.there's some duplication of the 1-I v

2 staff that we might consider.

And I-think we do still' l

3 have people who have experienced what it takes to 'do a.

]

~

i 4

licensing review,.although I'think we ve lost a lot of 5

capability.

So,-I think'some of those peop1'e : still.

l 6

exist and could be brought in without.' necessarily 7

damaging other programs.

8 CHAIRMAN CARR:

Well, that ' point is.well' 9

taken. But what I'm trying to say is.we're here for 10 policy and the staff is there for day to day; 11 operations and decide how to do the work.

Far be it 12 from me to step in there and tell them, "I

think you 13 ought to take five guys off of this;and put it on'th'at 14 and try to - "

All I can tell'them to do is -- and I 15 think all we should tell them to do is, "These are the.

16 priority jobs and we - want a schedule and we want to I

17 make sure you hold to that-schedule and you get it l

18 done."

l 19 I'm concerned whether we can even - hold a 20 schedule or not, A..

B, I was kind of surprised with

~

21 the paper Jim referred to, but I'took the front ~ page l

22 as saying it was quick and dirty because.it looks.to 23 me like that they aren't going with our current 24 prioilties by that piece of paper.

-We're doing a lot 25 of things that I am a little surprised we were doing',

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

(202) N WASHINGT ON, D.C. 20005.

(202) 2324W)0

~

t 26 i

1 but I realize you~can't just, as you say,. start-on. day l'

2 ene with/a complete. clean sheet of paper and all'of a 3

sudden say, "I've got.to get there."

4-On the other hand, the. urgency.that people i

I 5

care talking about and everybody thinks is there, the f

6 urgency, from my standpoint, is to ' not lose the 20 i

7 percent.we've already got out. there =. operating,

[

8 generating electricity.

We've got'.to make sure. that i

.9 stays safe and runs.

If somebody wants to. build the.

I 10 plant, you say somebody's going to come in here and 11 we're not going to be. through with 'our work, we've 12 already agreed if somebody comes in and says, "I want l'3 to build a plant," everything. drops and we get that 14 thing certified.

"r 15 COMMISSIONER.REMICK:

But Ken, the thing I'm l

l 16 trying to-make, they might not be able to make that l

17 decision on which. design until they_have the~results 18 of our certification review.

19 CHAIRMAN CARR:

If they'll come-and complain 20 to me and say which design they prefer, then-I'm more 21 inclined to -proceed with that design than I am.

22 inclined to-proceed with a vendor who's coming'in and:

23 pushing his. design.

24 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:

Presumably, that's 25 what the EPRI requirements document tells you, that-1 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 'RANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

k (202) 234-4 33 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 232-6600 i

e-

27 i

the collection of utilities are interested first in 2

the evolutionary plants.

For that reason, Ken's 3

description of priorities is one that I fully agree 4

with, that we ought to in fact, I'd maybe even 5

shade the emphasis more on the EPRI requirements 6

document Chapter 5 for the benefit of getting that 7

done for the evolutionary plants - as well as the 8

advantage that it gives you in addressing those issues 9

for the passive requirements document.

10 It does seem to me that 0,

this point for 11 the highest priority items that we've identified, the 12 EPRI requirements document and the CE and the GE 13 designs, in my view we haven't sorted out yet, and-the 14 papers that we've got here before us now are an 15 indication of this, haven't sorted out what it's' going 16 to take from the standpoint of staff resources for j

17 those three to address the technical issues that have i

18 arisen, A:

B, to comply with the process that the 19 Commission has formulated over the past six or eight i

20 months.

Until we sort out that process and decide 21 what resource is going to be required, whether it's 25 22 or 35 or some other

number, I

guess I'd be 23 uncomfortable saying that we ought to devote 24 additional resources to that generation of plants that 25 are even beyond the passive category.

NEAL R. GROSS l

CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W-WASHINGTON.D.C 20005 9 02) 232-6000

\\ (202) 234 4 433 l

t 28 1

Having said that, when we get through that i

2 process, and I think we probably will with the April 3

27th meeting and subsequently, hopefully shortly after 1

4 that, then it does seem to me that it's fairito sit up 5

and take notice of what we've done here and ask.

l 6

ourselves the question, are there additional resources 7

left over within the advanced reactor program or from 8

some other source that can be tapped for purposes of 9

now starting the review on, say, the conceptual design 10 of the Westinghouse passive plant or for the MHTGR or 11 say for PIUS or those that, in my judgment are clear.

12 out on the horizon and shouldn't detract from the 13 resources that we need today for what are clearly,'in 14 the view of the utilities, the three highest 15 priorities that we ought to address today.

16 CHAIRMAN CARR:

In the-interest of time --

17 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:

Well, I'd just like to 18 jump in and say I think we got our priorities right.

19 I think that I don't think there's anything wrong j

20 with the priorities.

I think the Chairman's statement l

21 of them was correct.

We've got the priorities right, i

22 I think, given resources, given the current resources.

23 as they have been identified to us by staff.

24 Now, whether one could take another look at I

25 everything we do at NRC and find a way to break loose NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS -

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 (202) 232 0800 m

+-- --

,w y _,.

i 29 1

resources from some activity that may have been -- may

[

i 2

be overstaffed in some way, even though that would l

3 require a different mode of operation to do that or i

4 not,.seems to me something that I would say is more a f

5 management issue that the Chairman will have to deal 6

with with the EDO.

But I'm uncomfortable with our not 7

being able to do more than we're planning to do.

i 8

But I think our priorities are right.

I 9

don't have any question about the priorities.

I think 10 they were absolutely correctly set.

I think that the 11 operating plants have got to be the highest priority 12 of what we attend to.

Maybe the efficiency with-which.

13 we use our personnel resources to do that job might be 14 examined to see whether there's another way to do that 15 and do it just as well with less people that might be 16 qualified who might be qualified to work-in this 17 other area.

But as you know, it's a specialized area.

18 It requires a particular kind of expertise that you

^

19 may not just be able to reach in and take out a warm 20 body and say, N ow, go do design reviews."

21 COMMISSIONER REMICK:

I agree.

That's part 22 of my concern.

23 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:

There's a lot of 24 coming up to speed.

It may be ' that it would be 25 worthwhile trying to actually do an analysis of where NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIDERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

9 02) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C 2000$

902) 232 6000

,a

.e 39 j

i i

the capabilities for design reviews in the past in i

I..

f 2

terms of individuals reside within the Commission.

}

3 They may be spread all over the place now, and whether 3

4 there's any possibility of somehow or other 5.

recollecting those and replacing them with other i

6 people to do those jobs'to which they are currently l

7 assigned.

In.other

words, to preserve that 8

intellectual capability and engineering expertise and

.t 9

experience that's in the Commission today and treat l

t i

10 that as a special resource that we somehow rather like 11 to bring together again and not have it continually 12 dissipated.

13 But I ' think our priorities are right.

I 14 don't question them f or a moment because I think 15 they're absolutely on target given the resources-that 16 we have been told are currently available to.do the' 17 job.

18 COMMISSIONER REMICK:

I don't differ with 19 what you're saying.

In fact, I agree that you can't i

20 take any engineer and make him a reviewer.

They have 21 a different kind of expertise in many cases.

I think 22 we still have some of those resources here.

They are 23 distributed, I believe.

They're valuable and they're 24 going to have to train the people for the future.

25 The point I'm trying to make, going back to NEAL R. GROSS 1

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

- (202) 234g WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 232 0600

4 31 i

1 what Chairman Carr indicated, I'm concerned that we

{

2 might be influencing the decision ~of utilities which 3

design they might --

l 4

COMMISSIONER ROGERS:

I think that's a good 5

point.

I I

6 COMMISSIONER REMICK:

-- because there might 7

be X that'is certified or near certification.

They.

f 8

might prefer, and maybe it's.a better plant, to order l

l 9

Y.

But if Y is not near certification, they don't

[

l 10 know if it's ever going to, if it's going to be

[

i

(

11 licensable, and therefore they might opt for X because t

12 they need capacity in a certain period of time.

13 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:

Doesn't that really 14 bring you back to the EPRI design-requirements because P

15 that's --

16 CHAIRMAN CARR:

If they want to help pick 17 the priorities, I'd' welcome that.

I just haven't 18 received any input.

r 19 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:-

And I think that 20 that --

t 21 CHAIRMAN CARR:

The input that they give me 22 is through the EPRI-requirements document.

l 23 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:

Right.

If that's done l

24 and that's in place, then that represents what the--

l l

25 at least the utilities say that they --

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS S

l 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 234g WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 232 6600 -

\\

32-o 1

COMMISSIONER REMICK:

But that's what they i

2 want to see in the designs, that's correct.

3 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:

Yes.

4 COMMISSIONEP. CURTISS:

Well, let me put a 5

positive word in for influencing the designs.

I think 6

that's what Part 52 is all about from a procedural 7

standpoint.

What we're trying to influence is a 8

minimum number of designs with a high degree of standardization between ' and 9

commonality between 10 among the designs.

I don't think we ought to pick the 11 technology and decide or on the question that I' raised 12 earlier, I don't think we're in a position to say, "We 13 think the next generation plants ought to be the 14

modular, small, passively safe plants that are 15 prefabricated."

I'm not comfortable doing that.

16 That's purely a market decision depending on 17 individual utilities.

l 18 CHAIRMAN CARR:

But i f.

we think 19 standardization is the right way to go, we could 20 certain require it.

21 COMMISSIONER. CURTISS:

I agree.

I ' don ' t 22 think that selection is going to hinge upon the f

23 standardization question.

I don't think the choice of 24 a large versus a small plant is a standardization 25 question.

As I say, I do think we ought to try to-NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 9 02) 232-6000

[

5

2 33 i

o 1

influence the designs to the extent that we're saying f

.i 2

they should be -- there should be fewer of them, they 3

should be standardized, they should.be -- if they can 4

be constructed in a way that avoids some of the QA i

5 problems that we've seen in the past and if that means 6

focusing resources on the EPRI requirements document

[

7 as a vehicle for bringing about some degree of that-8 standardization.

9 The Chairman's proposed another concept j

10 which is to have the Department of Energy put out a 11 bid for a single reactor.

Those are concepts that are 12 designed to influence the process in a way that I 13 c

think is entirely appropriate for us to do.

14 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:

Just before we leave 15 the subject, because I suspect we ought to leave the 16 subject --

17 CHAIRMAN CARR:

We're not going to solve it, 18 I don't think, right here today.

19 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:

I hope we could come 20 together on the point of priorities because it 'does 21 seem to me that the priorities that have been set are 22 not something I'd like to see reopened.

I don't want.

23 the staff confused about what those priorities are.

I 24 think that they were right and I think what we're 25 talking about is extending the activities, but not a NEAL R. GROSS '

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

(202) 234g WASHINGTON. D C. 20005.

(202) 232 0600

34 1

change in priorities.

1 l

2 COMMISSIONER REMICK:

Again, it's very i

3 difficult for me to be against safety of operating r

4 reactors, possibly because that's important.

I am 5

wondering if we're tilted just a little bit too far 6

from the standpoint of resources and are not concerned 7

about the long-term viability of this Agency to do 8

thorough safety reviews for the future, which'is one f

i 9

of our, I think, historical strengths and one of our i

10 responsibilities that I my concerns at the moment 11 are we tilted just a little bit too far.

f 12 CHAIRMAN CARR:

Well, that's a valid 13 concern.

I think we can look at it certainly.

14 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:

Ken, do you think that 15 you would feel it would make any sense to try to at 16 least do an analysis of staff capabilities wherever 17 the expertise may be for doing these reviews that --

18 CHAIRMAN CARR:

Chairman Zech is --

j 19 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:

is not currently 20 in --

l 21 CHAIRMAN CARR:

We just got through doing 22 that last year under Chairman Zech's, I think' issued a l

23 little request to the staff that says, "Let me know if 24 we get a license right away, what you can do to take l

25 care of it."

We got that back, I think.

l j

NEAL R. GROSS t

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

(

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (m) ty.u33 WASHINGTON, D C 2000$

(202) 232 4000 i

35 1

COMMISSIONER ROGERS:

Well --

{

2 CHAIRMAN CARR:

But we can pull it out

{

3 again.

I 4

COMMISSIONER ROGERS:

Okay.

5 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:

Ken, I have three 6

suggestions, concrete,- that I'd like to pursue and 7

just toss out for the staff at this point.

8 One, the paper that came up last night said s

9 the staff is coming up with a response on the question t

10 of what essentially complete design is.

It's a 11 question that the ACRS has raised.

I know it's come 12 up in the context of the GE review.

They're going to l

13 come up in the near future with that.

I guess I would 14 encourage the staff to get up here as early as 15 possible with guidance on whether Part 52 is clear 16 enough on what constitutes an essentially complete 17 design.

18 Secondly, when the staff has sorted through 19 the question of how to approach inspections, tests and 20 analyses, that's another important one that it seems 21 to me is going to require Commission guidance.

22 CHAIRMAN CARR:

The success of Part 52.

j 23 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:

Absolutely.

And as 24 soon as the staff is in a position to come forward l

25 with some thoughts whether Part 52 is clear or not and NEAL R. GROSS q

4 COURT REPORTERS ANDTRANScr3ERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) PM WASHINGTON. O C. 20006 (202) 232 4000_

36 1

if. not what direction we ought to take, I think that I

2 would be helpful.

3 Finally, one point of clarification.

Maybe 4

I ekn pursue this informally with the staff.

I have 5

in my own mind tied the EPRI requirements document for 6

the passive generation to the licensing review basis 7

because I have viewed that, particularly the GE 8

context, as the vehicle that is used. to make 9

significant policy decisions.

I'm a little bit j

t 10 confused about that now because on the one hand I 11 think the GE folks view that as almost a contract 12 between the Commission and GE.

There's been some 13 recent communication.

In fact, I think your office 14 shared it with me, Forrest, that Westinghouse views it 15 as a less formal guidance document for how they're 16 going to approach design certification.

17 If the staff has any thoughts on how they.

18 view the licensing review basis document, I know it's 19 an important document'that we've used in the case of 20 GE.

We intend to rely upon it in the future under the 21 staff's recommendation.

I'd like to have a better 22 feel for how the staff views that document.

23 MR.

PARLER:

Mr. Chairman, if the staff 24 would view such a document as a contract between us 25 and anybody for regulatory purposes, I would hope they NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS ANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234,4433 WASHINGTON O C 20005 (202) 232 4 600

37 1

would consult with us.

t 2

COMMISSIONER CURTISS:

Yes.

I think that's i

I 3

the GE view.

l 4

CHAIRMAN CARR:

Yes, I didn't review it as a i

5 contract.

6 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:

Neither do I.

7 MR. PARLER:

In view of the occasions, I 1

8 thought I'd --

i 9

CHAIRMAN CARR:

Okay.

In the interest of 10 moving on, shall we leave this one for awhile?

11 Anything else you want to bring up?

12 COMMISSIONER REMICK:

I don't know, but why 13 don't you --

14 CHAIRMAN CARR:

Okay.

Commissioner Roberts, 15 you got anything you want to bring up?

16 Ken?

17 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:

Yes.

A principle is a 18 good regulation.

Some time ago in meeting with people 19 and some of my visits to regional offices, I had some 20 very interesting conversations with some of our staff, i

21 One of the points that came out in one of those 22 conversations was that how does one create a good 23 regulator?

How do you take a young engineer out of 1

24 school who's pretty well grounded in engineering 25 fundamentals and give that person some sense of what NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR$ERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE.N WJ

'j 902) PN WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 232 4 600 t

38 o

1 it means to regulate in a technical agency?

I 2

One of the guiding principles that that kind 3

of an individual should begin to think about that 4

wouldn't come out of their engineering training, i

5 necessarily, academic training.

6 In other words, what are the principles of

[

7 good regulation that one would like to convey to an 8

incoming, up and coming regulator?

And that started 9

me thinking about, well, what do we see as the-10 principles of good regulation?

What do we think about 11 in carrying out our affairs?

We're always, of course, 12 in the middle of the thicket of day by day problems, 13 but what are the kind of guiding principles that, as 14 regulators, we should be thinking about?

(

15 I'm not talking about regulations.

I'm 36 talking about the process of exercising one's 17 responsibilities as a regulator.

And so, this is not i

18 a question of what constitutes good regulations.

This 19 is a question of what are the principles that ought to 20 guide a person in thinking about how to create 21 regulations and how to exercise regulatory authority.

22 And so, I started trying to write some of 23 these things down and looked at what other people had 24 spoken about in the past, other Commissioners, in 25 speeches or addresses or whatever, and began to try'to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBER $

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

l (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, O C 20005 (202) 232 4 600

39 1

bring some of.these things together along with some of 1

4 1

2 my own thoughts and talk to my fellow Commissioners a 3

little bit about some of these things, and came up 4

with a couple of points that seemed to make some j

5

sense, shared them with.

you, shared them with the 6

Chairman, and tried to modify them as suggested from 7

your responses.

f 8

.And then the question is, well, what would 9

we do with something like this?

If we did have 10 something that we called

" principles of good 11 regulation," what would we do with it?

And one 12 possible use of it might be to incorporate it in our 13 mission statement and our mission of regulatory 14 philosophy section of our five year plan, 15 The Chairman suggested that my office take 16 on the task of trying to write that into that section h

17 and then see how it might sit with the rest of you.

18 That has been dene and I've. gotten f eedback f rom all 19 of your offices and we've tried to incorporate those 20 suggestions and comments to the largest-extent 21 possible, but in some cases, not many, but in some 22 cases it was really a totally different point of view 23 coming from one area, one group of people, and I felt-i 24 that since the Commissioners already had more or less 25 taken the position they didn't have too much trouble

[

NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 232-0600

49 1

with the statement, I didn't really make some of those

{

i, 2

fundamental changes, although there weren't many, 3

really, very small in this.

4 And I guess the question now is -- you have whether you think that it's 5

all of the result 6

worthwhile going ahead and doing something with it.

^'

7 I'd like to suggest that we incorporate it in the 8

mission and regulatory philosophy section in the five 9

year plan, and I'd be happy to hear your comments on 10 that.

1 11 CHAIRMAN CARR:

Commissioner Curtiss?

12 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:

Well, I've taken a 13 look, Ken, at the redraft that you sent around this 14 morning and I sent you my comments earlier.

I do want l

15 to commend you for the effort that you put in to pull l

16 together some of these concepts that I think we all 17 talk about and that we all realize are touchstones of 18 good important principles of regulation.

19 The document that you propose putting this 20 in, the five year plan, seems to me to be the most 21 logical one, because it's a message in large part to 22 the Agency and its organization, but to the outside 23 world as well.

And I do think you've done a good job 24 of communicating the kinds of principles that ought-to 25 underpin our regulation generally and our day to day NEAL R. GROSS l

CoVRT REPORTERS ANDTRANSCRIBERS 7

1V3 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) F34-4433 WASHINGTON.D.C 20005 p02) 232-6000 -

l

i 41 3

1 activities throughout the Agency.

1 2

CHAIRMAN CARR:

Commissioner Remick?

3 COMMISSIONER REMICK:

Well, Ken, I think you s

4 know that right from the start I was an enthusiastic 5

supporter of your idea, and I think it's an excellent 6

job.

I looked at the most recent version as well as j

7 the other versions and you've incorporated essentially.

i 8

all of my suggestions, so I'm very pleased.

And I 9

agree with what Commissioner Curtiss has said.

I 10 think we ought to use it in the five year plan as 11 information to our staff and to the outside world of 7

12 what we think is important.

13 CHAIRMAN CARR:

Tom?

i 14 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:

I agree.

I 15 CHAIRMAN CARR:

Ken, in order.to not be so 16 unanimous, let me make a few comments.

17 First th' og, when the Commission puts out a l

l 18 piece of paper, my experience, having been a staff 19 person, is when you get a piece of paper from the top, 20 what you really try to figure out is what has changed 21 in the direction I just got.

22 So the question, I think, as you said, we 23 should focus on whether we really need to do this or 24 not, the need for it.

Your forwarding memo said that 25 the changes you're proposing are significant.

I NEAL R. GROSS i

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR!BERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENVE, N W.

(202) 23W33 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 (202) 232-0800

\\

42 1

looked and I

really couldn't discern major

(.

2 significance in the thing, but I think it's a valuable 3

effort.

So I don't have any problem with the paper as 4

written.

5 There are just a couple of things I would 6

like to emphasize if we do put it out.

The first one 7

is at the bottom of the mission area-where you say, f

8

" Essential functions must be maintained through i

9 appropriate combinations of high component and system i

10 reliability, redundancy, and diversity to provide 11 multiple barriers to the release of radiation, defense 12 in depth."

13 Looking way out, when we get to the part 14 where we're going to be working with the passive safe 15 designs of liquid metal and high temperature gas-16 cooled

reactors, there may be some change in 17 philosophy on defense in depth that we will be asked 18 not to go with.

And the question is, do we really 19 want to lock that in now as policy and say you can't 20 build a reactor if you don't.have defense in depth, or 21 do we want to leave that a little bit open for 22 possible --

23 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:

Well, I --

24 CHAIRMAN CARR:

Let me finish.

25 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:

Oh, okay.

I just NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPo4TERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON, D C.10006 (202) 232 4 600

+

W 43 1

wanted to address it, but --

(

2 CHAIRMAN CARR:

I've just got two --

3 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:

Because, I've got a

[

4 solution for that one right off, and it's right in l

5 there, and that's the word " appropriate."

l 6

CHAIRMAN CARR:

Okay.

7 The other one is in the area under t

8 efficiency, in the bottom of the paragraph on 9

efficiency where it says, "where several effective i

10 alternatives are available, the option which minimizes 11 the use of resources should be adopted."

That's 12 sufficiently vague that I'm not sure the staff will 13 know what to do with that.

14 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:

Well, I think that it 15 really should be read that all resources, not just 16 public resources, but any person's resources that are 17 involved.

I think that where we -- I think we should l

18 not be blind to the impact of what we do on other i

19 people's resources, not just our own, and therefore 20 that we should pay some attention, when there are 21 several alternatives available, that that alternative 1

22 which is acceptable to us, but minimizes resources, 23 both our own and someone else's, should be adopted.

24 CHAIRMAN CARR:

Okay.

Let me --

25 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:

That might be a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) WW WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 232 4 000

[

~44 i

1 revolution in government practice.

CHAIRMAN CARR:

Let me ask you a question.

j 2

3 Do you look at.this piece of paper as a i

4 reiteration of the things we think we're doing now, 5

and so there shouldn't be anybody that reads this as a 6

change in direction?

7 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:

Yes.

I really see 8

that as sharpening up, in a sense, just reviewing, 9

going back and looking at what we've done and what' 10 really, if we had to put a statement of practice on 11 it, would be this.

Now there may be some specific 12 areas that somehow, you know, don't quite fit it, but 13 certainly not by design.

14 CHAIRMAN CARR:

Okay.

You want to address 15 the other question I have.

16 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:

The first one, yes.

17 I think that the saving word in that whole l

18 sentence is " appropriate," because if you're facing a 19 situation where you really it isn't appropriate e

20 anymore to combine a collection of different diverse 21 systems because there is a totally new approach, then 22 I think that's still covered here, because it's no 23 longer appropriate.

24 COMMISSIONER T;EMICK:

Could I respond to 25 both those, Ken?

NEAL R. GROSS I

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVEWE N W (202) P344433 W ASHINGTON. O C. 20005 (202) 232-6000 s

o 45 i

I 1

CHAIRMAN CARR:

Sure.

{

2 COMMISSIONER REMICK:

I think the bit of 3

minimizing the use of resources would be consistent l

4 with NEPA.

I think we have an obligation under that 5

to make sure if we have alternatives that we reduce 6

the use of resources.

7 On the bit of provide multiple barriers, I 8

very strongly support that as a basic principle.. And 9

that does not mean that those barriers have to be of 10 one specific type or another.

They might vary with f

11 time, but it doesn't say that this is --

12 CHAIRMAN CARR:

You're not ready to bail out 13 on the defense in depth?

t 14 COMMISSIONER REMICK:

Absolutely not.

15 CHAIRMAN CARR Okay.

16 COMMISSIONER REMICK:

I think it's proven to 17 be very worthwhile.

I 18 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:

I didn't read that 19 sentence, I guess, as implying a change in view on 20 defense in depth, although --

21 CHAIRMAN CARR:

Well, what it does is it 22 prevents a change in view on defense in depth.

And 23 I'm not sure -- I have a pretty open mind on that.

I i

24 think with current light water reactors, that's a-25 tremendous idea.

NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRAN00RIBER$

I 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

202) 23m33 WASHINGTON, D C 20005 (202) 232-0600

46 1

COMMISSIONER CURTISS:

I 'didn't read that,

{

2 for instance, as foreclosing our debate on the-l

{

3 containment question on MHTGR, for instance, or i

4 addressing the question of whether two or three trains 1

5 were appropriate.

6 Just a suggestion in that regard, it may

+-

7 CHAIRMAN CARR:

It's not how we read it that

?

8 worries me.

It's how the staff reads it that worries' 4

9 me.

le COMMISSIONER CURTISS:

That's why I'd like.

11 to maybe suggest a change, if there is c' concern 12 there.

The " appropriate combination," " appropriate"

{

13 modifies the " combination," but it's the def ense in 14 depth principle there at the end.

Maybe the 15

" appropriate" needs to modify be placed someplace 16 further down in the sentence to address the Chairman's 17 concern, because I do share it and it's one that --

I 18 CHAIRMAN CARR:

And if we could -- I mean, 19 if you can provide the same protection without using 20 the defense in depth concept, I have no problem with 21 that.

I'm not sure it's possible, but --

I L

22 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:

Actually, this was not 23 part of the principles of good regulation that I was

-t 24 weaving in.

This is something.that was, I'think, in 25 the original mission statement that we've been dealing NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHDDE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C 2000$

(202) 232 0600 e

y

47 1

with, as was in the five year plan.

I'm not sure, but I

(

2 I think this came right out of the five year plan.

[

3 CHAIRMAN CARR:

You've focused me on it 4

anyway.

5 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:

Which is always a good 6

reason for looking at things again.

7 So this was not part of the principles of

{

8 good regulation, but that's, I believe, wording right 9

out of the five year plan as it currently exists..So i

10 if we want to review that, fine.

l 11 CHAIRMAN CARR:

Okay.

Any more on this 12 subject?

13 COMMISSIONER REMICK:

I just repeat, I'm 14 very much in favor of multiple barriers, not tying it 15 down to I mean this or that --

16 CHAIRMAN CARP:

Okay.

17 COMMISSIONER REMICK:

-- but the concept.

18 CHAIRMAN CARR:

Tom, you got a subject?

19' COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:

No.

20 CHAIRMAN CARR:

Jim, give you a chance.

21 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:

All right.

I only.

22 have one quick one, and actually it's one that's been 23 on my mind for some time.

l 24 The question of the Commission's role and 25 involvement in management-related issues is one that, NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBER $

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 232 66 %

j 48 r

1 since I've come to the Commission, is not clear to me l'

2 that I fully understand what it is that we do and how 3

we approach the murky or the soft area of management-7 4

Title:

M /7 m J /7 I

. (904, '. mWAM "

ll' hr l

Meeting Date:

h5/70 Open X Closed 4

/

j >

-,i

. I ij r I

item Description *:

Copies Advanced DCS-f, l

l

,8 to PDR y

Cg

]

. l its,

.i' j

l 1

71 l

1. TRANSCRIPT 1

s l

$1

< [.?

li l

1 lt L

4i j

I A

l 1

i l l 2.

D 1 l 4

J l

1 2

l 1'

z l

3.

Ii I

1 l

a>

E I I

=ma

l

!?L 3

3 S:

"3 l 4.

a-3 3

l fi !

t;! '

3 r

3 3 l, 5.

0 o

3,l B;

3

l p?

L, a

!l

-3 ll c*

S:

3 :

n 3 :

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

3 m

3 k.(()/ - g

i 3 i C&R Branch files the original transcript, with attachments, without SECY j i papers.

l1 r

3 l

l

{

3 t

E Ih A/AE b

-

ML20034B076

Text

Title:

Navigation menu

Search