ML20038C743
| ML20038C743 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/09/1981 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ACRS-T-1038, NUDOCS 8112140092 | |
| Download: ML20038C743 (61) | |
Text
..
NUCLEAR REGT ATORY COMMISSION r.ua e t
I In d e Ma m cf:
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS WORKING GROUP MEETING ON _THE NUCLEAR SAFETY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, ' AND DEMONSTRATION ACT
~
OF 1980
'//s
.'.: i;. ^
,,'..s;)
.i
....l i e - l
._a
$1 1
O ar:
December 9, 1981 PAGES:
1 - 58 m
AT:
Washington, D.
C.
/
/
?
/
c' Dt
/
O
.uDERSOX ' 't REPORMG 400 Virp d a Ave.,
S.W. Wasnin g=n, D.
C.
20024 Telephc=e : (202) 554-2345
- v;w is 'n' M 11;;O9
- ' Dh
. v.e PD9
1
()
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMEISSION 3
4 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 5
WORKING GROUP MEETING ON THE NUCLEAR SAFETY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION ACT OF 1980 6
7 8
Room 1122 1717 H Street, N.W.
9 Washington, D.C.
Wednesday, December 9, 1981 10 The Working Group convened, pursuant to notice, at 11 4: 16 p.m.,
William M. Mathis presidinc.
12 PRESENT4 13
(])
WILLIAM M. MATHIS, Chairman 14 JEREMIAH J. RAY, Member CHESTER P. SIESS, Member 15 M.
BENDER, Member D.W.
MOELLER, Member 16 D.
OKRENT, Member RICHARD K. MAJOR, Designated Federal Employee 17 DAVID C.
FISCHER, Designated Federal Employee 18 ALSO PRESENT:
l 19 PETE GOLDMAN, Manacer i
?.a n a g em e n t Developmen t Training Center 20 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 21 ANDREW C. MILLUNZI, Director Safety Research and Development 22 Office of Nuclear Power Systems U.S. Department of Energy l
23 0
24 25 O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2 i
1 i
l O t
JERRY D. GRIFFITH, Director 1
2 Office of Nuclear Power Systems U.S.
Depa rtment of Energy t
i 3
Messrs. Beach, Leach, Nurphy,
Dearien,
Chelliah, nU and Ms. Hughes.
j 4
t' l
5 l
6 l
7 I
8 I
9 l
10 11 i
l 12 i
1 j
13
- O 14 j
15 l
i l
16 i
17 l
18 i
19 20 21 22 23 i
24 i
25 1
O i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 4
i
3 Q
1 E'E Q C g g 0 1 g g g 2
MR. MATHIS:
The meeting will come to order.
3 This is a meeting of the Advisory Committee on 4 Reactor Safeguards, Working Groups on The Nuclear Safety 5 Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 1980, Public 6 Law 96-567.
7 I am W. Mathis, Chairman of the ACRS Working Group 8 on the National Engineering Sim ula to r.
Dr. Chet Siess is 9 the Chairman of the Working Group on the Program Management 10 Pla n.
Dr. Dade Moeller, who is not with us yet, is the 11 Chairman of the Working Group on Nuclear Manpower and 12 Training.
Other ACRS members present at the moment, Hr.
13 Bender, and we probably will have others very shortly.
14 The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the 15 final draf t report from the Department of Energy to Congress 16that reports the results of a study on the following three 17 items: One, the need for and feasibility of a national 18 reactor engineering simulator at a national laboratory; two, 19 suf ficiency of efforts in the U.S.
to provide specially 20 trained professionals to operate the controls of nuclear 21 power plants and other f acilities required for use in the 22 back end of the nuclear fuel cycle; and three, program 23 management plan for the conduct of research, development,
(')
24 and demonstration activities.
25 The meeting is being conducted in accordance with
)
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4 1 the revision of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the
{}
2 Government in the Sunshine Act.
Mr. Richard Major, on my 3 right, is the designated federal employee of the meeting, O
4 and somewhere -- I don't know what happened to Dave Fischer.
5 MR. SIESS:
He is out finding me an ashtray.
6 MR. MATHIS:
First things first.
7 MR. SIESS:
Yes.
A good sense of priorities.
8 MR. MATHIS:
The rules of participation have been 9 published previously in the Federal Register on Monday, 10 November 3, 1981.
A transcript of the meeting is being kept 11 and it is requested that each speaker first identify himself 12 or herself and speak with sufficient clarity and volume that 13 he can be readily heard.
m 14 We have received no requests for oral statements 15 f rom members of the public.
We have received no written 16 statements f rom members of the public.
Each portion of the 17 meeting will begin with a brief discussion of a saction of 18 the final draft DOE study.
Tha t discussion should highlight 19 how the final draft report differs from the initial draft l
20 which our working groups reviewed last September.
1 21 Wo rkin g groups would also appreciate hearing how 22 the ACRS comments on the initial draf t reports were 23 incorpo rated into this final draf t.
(])
24 We also ha ve a representative of the NRC staff who 25 will be given an opportunity to present sta ff comments on O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
5
({}
1 tha t section of the final draf t DOE report.
Then we 2 hopef ully will have a general discussion on the appropriate 3 section among working groups.
p)g 4
Are there any questions before we move on here?
5 (No response.)
6 MR. MATHISs If not, we will proceed with the 7 mee ting.
I will call upon Mr. Jerry Griffith, Department of 8 Energy's Acting Director of the Office of Nuclear Power 9 Systems, Office of Nuclear Energy.
10 Mr. Griffith, it is all yours.
11 MR. GRIFFITHs We do not have a very long 12 introduc tory remark.
We appreciate the comments we got on 13 the first draft and we attempted to resolve and incorporate O
14 the recommendations that you made in the second draf t.
To 15 tha t extent, we would like to discuss how well we did this, 16 and if we haven't satisfied you yet, we would like to work 17 so that we can go forward with the final report as close as 18 we can together.
19 dR. MATHIS:
Well, I have no problem with that 20 particular approach.
21 MR. BENDER:
Can I just make one comment?
I 22 did n ' t look at all the pieces of the program.
The only 23 thing that I was somewhat conscious of was this engineering
()
24 simulator thing that was suggested.
As you know, our 25 reaction was to sa y we agree you don't need an operating n
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
s 6
f's 1 simulator, but some kind of capability to deal with the U
2 simulation of operating plants is still needed.
You can 3 read anything into your letter that you want.
It is 4 responsive in the sense you said yes, we are going to do 5something, but it was pretty vague in what the something was.
6 I wondered if you would like to elaborate a little 7 bit on what you havo in mind.
8 MR. GRIFFITH:
Yes.
I think there was a lot of 9 confusion about what was meant initially by a national to engineering simulator facility.
We really had u hard time 11 defining that.
I quess in my mind I finally came down that 12 tha t meant a Schedule 44 construction kind of project, a lot 13 of that kind of activity, make a big facility to do a lot of 14 things.
That is the way most people interpreted it.
It was 15 tha t that we thought it was premature to set about because 16 we really didn 't know how to do that.
17 Ha ving settled that, we decided that we ought to 18 get agreement, a national consensus to do something before 19 we did, and we set up working groups to try to better define 20 wha t is really needed.
We have meetings, as a matter of 21 f a c t, over the next two days, an initial set of meetinos 22 with national industry interested parties, laboratory and 23 industry people to discuss that.
()
24 Now I feel that whatever comes out of those 25 meetinos tha t we are coordinating as an agreed to course of ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7 1 action is what the Department will support and try to 2 initiate.
It is clear, though, that in the bill the way it 3 was passed, that what the Department can do is going to be 4 based on what the Department can sell through the normal 5 budget process, and that also helped determine the course of 6 action that we took.
7 It will take a resolution and consensus and 8 demonstration of need, and we intend to develop that.
9 HR. BENDER:
Can I interpret what you are saying 10 as you think something is going to be provided but right now 11 you haven't done enough internal evaluation using DOE 12 sources to make a judgment as to what it will be?
13 MR. GRIFFITH:
That's correct.
14 MR. BENDER:
I learned this morning that the NRC 15 still has in mind to do something of this sort; again, not a 16 piece of ha rdwa re, but to develop some kind ?f ability to 17 simulate overall plant performance from the safety 18 evaluation basis.
19 I suspect that ought to be cranked into that 20 thinking process.
21 MR. MILLUNZI:
They are going to participate in 22 th e meetings --
23 MR. BENDER:
I see.
O 24 na
- 1ttusz1.
-- se aet e ere ia is the 25 situation of defining the requirements.
P'J ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C.20024 (202) 554-2345
= -.. -__, -..
8 4
(])
1 MR. BENDER:
Do you have any kind of timing on 2 when you will report back on what might be viable?
3 MR. MI1LUNZI:
In the draft that we sent to you we s
gd 4 provided a schedule for all the working groups, and they 5 vill be completed like on April 30th.
6 MR. BENDER:
I see.
So you are saying when those 7 groups get together --
8 MR. MILLUNZI:
There are a number of activities 9 going on in the meantime.
The first set of meetings is to tomorrow and Friday.
Following that, the people are going 11 to provide written comments.
We are then going to have a 12 f ollow-up meeting in the late January time f rame and provide 13 a f eedback, and we are going to proceed all the way down to (s
14 April 30 th having the program definition part hopefully well 15 in hand.
16 MR. GRIFFITH:
There must be at least four or five 17 dif ferent approaches and conceptions as to what the 18 simulation thing should be all about.
NRC now talks about 19 an analyzer with a certain kind of capability.
There are 20 other people who have proposed working with the utilities, 21 especially some tha t are more advanced and desirable of 22 using simulators.
O thers have talked about the laboratory 23 kin d of a large capability.
Some have said the industrial
()
24 vendors alone can develop enough capability and supply it.
25 There are a lot of things to look at here.
Right
()
l l
l ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
'"""'"'^""'""^S"'"'"-
'"2. <2023 ss. 23 s
9
(])
1 now we have a completely open mind.
There might be a couple 2 or several approaches.
3 MR. BENDER 4 Ca.n you keep us informed of the 4 meetings in progress?
5 MR. GRIFFITH:
Yes.
6 MR. BENDER:
I think it would be helpful if you 7 could in some way report to us.
We don 't need to have a 8 day-by-day accounting, but maybe after you have been at it 9 for a month or two you could let us know where you are going 10 with it.
11 MR. MILLUNZI:
I think it would really be helpful 12 for us to prepare and send to you what we prepare for the 13 meeting on January 30th, which is going to be the second O
14 working group meeting.
15 MR. MATHIS:
Are you going to keep tranceripts of 16 your meetings?
17 MR. MILLUNZI:
Well, not transcripts as much as 18 wha t the results are and what the bases were so we can have 19 a track record.
We vill have that.
20 MR. MATHIS:
That would be all we would need.
21 MR. RENDER:
Well, if we knew about the meetings 22 early enough, we might want to send somebody.
23 MR. MILLUNZI:
Well, the whole schedule, for
()
24 exa mple the simulation working group and all th e working 25 groups is provided at the back of all the reports we have O
f l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
.y.
10 C) 1 sent and the dates are all set down here, and we are working
\\J 2 to these da tes.
3 MR. BENDER:
That is all I had.
J 4
MR. MATHIS:
I was going to say, are there any 5 other general comments on this particular subject?
6
( No response.)
7 MR. MATHISs I think the final draft study had 8 very little change over the first one on this particular 9 area.
10 MR. GRIFFITH:
That's true.
There was less change 11 in that karticular section than any other.
We did not 12 receive hardly any comments on that section.
13 MR. MATHISs Well, if there are no other comments 14 on that particular topic, let's shif t to th e -- Dade Moeller 15 is interested in the second one as far as the manpower corps 16 arrangements, so why don't we move on to the Pesearch 17 Development Program Management Plan, and Chet, I will turn 18 tha t ove r to you.
19 MR. SIESS:
Well, I would almost challenge th e 20 previous sta tement.
I think there were fewer changes in 21 this section than almost anywhere else.
The first draft had 22 an appendix which listed a number of project areas.
The 23 resea rch program scopes and questions is deleted from the
()
24 final draf t.
25 In the first draft we commented tha t those looked 1
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
11 1 reasonable.
There wasn't enough detail there to comment 2 on.
We would be willing to comment if we got more detail.
f-)
3 Since there is no more detail, I would say there is not much
()
4 we can add.
5 (Laughter.)
8 MR. SIESS:
We did comment in our original le tter 7 that we thought the general program plan approach, the 8 objectives that were set up and the method of operation and 9 coordina tion among the industry, NRC, DOE and other 10 government bodies and f oreign programs was desirable.
11 You have now set up a series of working groups, 12 and I haven't been able to relate them one to one to th e 13 previous projects.
I assume there was a sort of right angle 14 turn there tha t shows the working group approach.
And 15 aga in, I don't think we have any objection to this 16 app roach.
I don't know to what extent the NBC staff will be 17 par ticipating in these meetings or have participateo in 18 these meetings.
19 MR. MILLUNZI:
As I stated last time when I was 20 with you, on every one of the working groups we set the 21 working groups on a one-to-one to the R ED a reas as close as 22 we could to Caction 4 of the Act.
There really was a 23 one-to-one of those areas we talked about in Appendix A of O
24 tae areit-25 In setting up these working groups we sent blanket ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
12
(])
1 invitations to the NRC, to the Electric Power Research 2 Institute, to the Institute for Nuclear Power Operations, to 3 the industry's ITCOR program, to the Atomic Industrial 4 Forum, and to the Edison Electric Institute, to nominate 5 representatives for every one of the working groups, and NRC 6 has nominees on every one of the working groups.
INPO and 7 the rest of them have done the same thing.
8 We have augmented the memberships on all of those 9 with participants f rom the four generic kinds of owner 10 groups, individual utilities, the universities, and the 11 national laboratories.
So the NBC and these other 12 organizations have been participating and have been at every 13 one of the meetings.
14 MR. GRIFFITHa Dr. Siess, one thing we will be 15 doing in the final draft that gets sent to -Congress and 16 distributei back to all the people who reviewed it will be 17 to improve the ability to crossvalk between the bill and the 18 working groups.
One way is by putting a ch arter for the 19 working groups in writing so that that will provide the 20 areas of coverage in terms of technology and any additional 21 measures that are needed to form a complete crosswalk.
22 MR. SIESS:
What will be the products of the 23 working groups?
()
24 MR. MI1LUNZI.
There will be two sets of working 25 groups.
The first set of wo rking groups is to define what O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
13
()
1 the requirements are.
They will issue reports relative to 2 what the requirements are.
The second --
3 MR. SIESSt With questions?
)
4 MR. MILLUNZIa Fight, with what the issues are, 5 wha t we need to do to resolve them.
It will make a review 6 of what is ongoing and what has been completed applicable to 7 that.
We will then make the simple subtraction that will 8 identify what remains to be done.
Then we will move to the 9 execution phase of that, and we will try to develop a 10 coordinated program in cooperation with all of those 11 organizations that I mentioned that have blanket invita tions 12 to participa te.
13 MR. SIESS:
And these dates carry you through that O
14 first stage, to roughly the end of April?
15 MR. MILLUNZIa Yes, and well into the second one, 16 I hope.
o 17 MR. SIESS:
When do you expect to have some 18 money ?
19 MR. MILLUNZI4 We are using the money we have now 20 to be able to do this.
21 MR. SIESS:
I mean to do research.
22 MR. MILLUNZIs And we think we have been, based on 23 w ha t we have been talking to people for fiscal
'82, we think
()
24 we are going to be working in the areas of improving the 25 operator performance, looking at and reviewing the situa tio n O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
_F--4 64-aa4-Ja-___
J 4
-24 s 4L Am a--
+12 4-.4 a.1d u
l4.4.A-.--
m,-b
.6 i:..
4--w C4---
m
--aE j
i i
14 i -
i.
4 Q
t relative to the source term risk methodology, and getting I
j 2 other selected data and working in energency preparedness.
I O
4 i
5 l
6 i
7 i
8 9
10 A
1 11 12 1
13 1
14 i
15 1
l 16 17 i
18 1
i 1
19 20 q
21 j
22 23 O
24 i
i 25 i
! O I
}
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
15 1
MR. SIESS:
The working group on simulation is in
{}
2 response to the simulator expansion question and not in 3 response to Section IV, is that correct?
4 MR. MILLUNZI4 What we did there was, in the 5 comments that we received and our evaluation and in our 6 recommenda tion ' rela tive to Section IV, we said we were going' 7 to explore that.
That was our recommendation No. 2.
And 8 the Section VIII of the Act, or Section IV of the Act, which 9 told us -- they gave us the list and we could add to it as 10 we saw a ppropriate, we think this falls within being able to 11 add to it as we see appropriate.
12 MR. SIESS:
This is supposed to result in a 13 five-year program.
You will then submit that back to O
14 Congress for funding?
15 MR. MILLUNZI:
Correct.
16 XR. SIESS:
There is no funding of research in 17 ' 92, then.
What about '83?
18 MR. MILLUNZI We had from th e Department, had 19 requested funds.
If we need anything additional we will 20 have to --
21 MR. SIESS:
How much are you talking about for l
l l
22 '8 2 ?
23 MB. GRIFFITH:
1982 is about $10 million.
()
24 MR. SIESS:
When you get through these working 25 groups you will have some idea of the five-yea r program and O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
16
{}
1 the dollars to go with it?
2 MR. GRIFFITH:
Yes.
3 MR. SIESS:
You will then include that in your 4 next budget request to Congress in response to this law?
5 MR. GRIFFITHs Correct.
6 MR. SIESS4 And whether they give you anything 7 v ill --
8 MR. GRIFFITHa Depending on the manner in which we 9 do this, we might still be able to impact the '83 budgets 10 through the congressional actions.
11 MR. SIESSs Now the $10 million you are talking 12 about for '82 is your entire safety funds?
13 MR. GRIFFITH:
Yes.
14 MR. SIESS:
So this is not all new initia tives.
15 Some of this is ongoing work that fits into this program?
16 MR. GRIFFITH:
That's correct.
The budget had 17 gro wn f rom about 5 to 7 to 10, so there is room for some new 18 initiatives and some projects like containment sump vortex 19 problems tha t we were workinc on went away, so we have room 20 f or some ne w initia tives.
21 MR. SIESS:
So some of the things fitted into 22 the se?
23 MR. GRIFFITH:
They will all in the future fit O
24tato there-25 MR. SIESS:
Some of your ongoing work fits in and O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
17
(])
1 some doesn 't?
2 MR. GRIFFITH:
Yes, and that is another section I 3 think we will add, is a description of the ongoing work in 4 our existing budget.
That is factual information. And we 5 think we will include a short description on that.
Our 6 ongoing work, like looking at a nyone else 's, will be 7 reviewed in this definition phase and adjusted to 8 accommodate it.
9 MR. SIESS:
Now as a somewhat subsidiary issue, I 10 noticed tha t NBC's comments on your draft program plan, that 11 they had suggested a couple of items that could be added in 12 in going back to the list of research to improve safety.
13 These were items that I do not believe were included in the 14 A ct itself, but the Act itself was not exclusive, it was 15 "such a s," a s I recall.
16 Are t'.ose f actored into these working groups?
I 17 don ' t have the -- o r d o I have the NRC comments?
18 MR. "ILLUNZI:
Yes, and they will be.
As we go on 19 we will make sure that thoce comments a re addressed, and we 20 vill be meeting with the NRC management and staff to either 21 reach agreement when they are deleted or not, but they all 1
22 will be addressed.
I 23 MR. BENDER:
May I address the question of how
()
24 probabilistic risk techniques might be used to guide the 25 saf ety research program?
Let me illustrate a couple of ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, I
(
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 l
18
(]}
1 things that have crossed by mind of late.
One is I think 2 more recent looks at the risk question have zeroed in on the 3 f act that very likely we have overstated our concerns for 4 the large LOCA and understated our concerns for the small 5 LOCA, and consequently we may need to reorient some of the 6 features in the plants to make them more viable with that 7 shif t in emphasis.
We might want to change the way in which 8 some things are engineered.
9 Would the DOE be looking in its evaluation of 10 research programs to things that might have had the wrong 11 emphasis and could therefore be dealt with differently?
I 12 3R. GRIFFITH:
Yes.
I think that's one of the 13 areas where we think we might be able to provide as 14 significant benefits as anyplace else we can work.
It is 15 clear to us that the utilities have a problem in the 16 operations of their f acilities and the NRC has a problem in 17 the number of opera tions, diff erent kind of operations that 18 are going on.
19 We feel that PRA is primarily a tool to be used, 20 but just use of PRA is not going to solve the problems that l
21 we see.
What we think has to be done, and the utilities l
22 agree with us and work with us, is that they need to define 23 a more systematic way of doing their opera tions and control
()
24 o f their operations in their plants.
They are looking at 25 systems to do th a t with us and at the same time to try to ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
19
{'}
1 unify that approach through the industry, through INPO and 2 other areas so that it grows and is codified in some way.
3 I think this might help the NRC in their 4 regulation of the plants too, but it certainly will help the 5 operators.
They then are in turn interested in using the 6 PR A to help do some of these analyses of relative emphasis 7 and systemization of their approach.
8 MR. BENDER:
But that sounds more like operational 9 procedures, which is important.
Physical changes in plant 10 design seem to be not a part of your view right now.
Is 11 there any interest in looking a t tha t aspect of that?
12 MR. GRIFFITH:
If i t is needed to be.
If a 13 utility analyzes its f eedva ter system and finds it is an rm 14 order of magnitude below reliability figures other people 15 are obtaining, I think that utility ought to be thinking 16 seriously about making some design changes, and I think the 17 attitude of most of them now is that they would.
18 MR. BENDER:
I am thinking more about what the DOE 19 might be doing with its research efforts.
In the interest 20 of enhancing the way in which a utility invests its capital 21 funds for safety features, it would seem to me that you 22 might want to look at whether the money is beino spent in 23 th e right places.
()
24 MR. GRIFFITH:
Right.
25 MR. BENDERS It is all right to say improve the O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. O.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 L
20
{}
1 feedwater system, but there is always the question of should 2 we have designed for the containments to handle a certain 3 kind of pressure and should we be using this kind of design Om 4 practice as a matter of f act.
Those are fundamental 5 questions the DOE could address.
6 HB. GRIFFITH:
Yes.
I think you are right, and 7 the way we are thinking about addressing this problem is not 8 to go to the vendors ourselves and say design new 9 equipment.
We are, again, working with the utilities and 10 with utility owners groups on those kinds of problems to 11 reach agreements across a large sector on the kinds of 12 things that need to be done.
Then we will involve the 13 Department in the functional requirements, working with the 14 utility on what the functional requirements should be to 15 obtain that degree of additional benefit, and the utility 16 will then f und the work that needs to be done and give those 17 requirements to a vendor to design and supply the desired 18 equipmen t.
19 So that we will not get in the design and 20 development of hardware right now, but we will foster an 21 improvemen t in the industry.
And we spend money in this 22 joint venture but the utilities clearly have to carry the 23 b all.
(])
24 MR. BENDERa I remember you spending a lot of 25 money on something called passive containment that was not O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
21
(])
1 very passive.
2
( La u g h t e r. )
3 MR. GRIFFITHs That lot of money was about $50,000.
4 MR. BENDERS Whatever it was, it sure used up a 5 hell of a lot of our time on something not very useful.
6 MR. GRIFFITHs We are not spending any money on 7 that project any more.
8 MR. BENDERS It would have been nice if you had 9 spent it on something we could use our time usefully on.
10 MR. SIESSs Let me ask you a question.
This isn't 11 really a substantive issue and it may be semantic and 12 und erlying, but in the draft you have reference to proposed 13 national LWR PR A program, national hydrogen RCD program.
O"'
14 You have said national programs.
I have noticed that those 15 ref erences do not appear in this draft.
k'a s t h a t just a 16 :oncept that you dropped or do you still have visions of 17 having a national procram under each of those?
18 MR. MILLUNZI:
Under each of those.
That will be 19 a national program plan for th a t activity.
20 MR. SIESS:
I also got the impression from 21 something I heard or something I read that it was DOE's 22 philosophy to work chiefly on those things that would 23 prevent accidents and not devote any or much attention to
()
24 the mitigation of accidents.
I see a working group on 25 con tainment, I see a working group on source tern O
\\
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
22
(]}
1 evaluation.
Was I wrong in my impression or has it changed?
2 MR. MILLUNZI4 No, it has not changed.
3 MR. GRIFFITHs I think that we have in a way 4 always been somewhat mischaracterized in that statement l
5 because while we did emphasize prevention because there was 6 a tendency for the protection of the public from radiation 7 hazards to look more at the mitigation features in the NBC 8 RCD programs, we have always looked across the board, and in 9 f act in our levels of protection programs go out from the 10 protection of the core through containment, maintaining 11 containment integrity through emergency preparedness.
12 We are interested in all of those areas.
It is 13 j u st that the NRC has a lot of work going oil in the other 14 areas.
There is probably less that needs to be done on our 15 p a r t.
16 MR. MILLUNZIs I might add we are going to use 17 probabilistic methods.
PRA, if you are not careful how you 18 use that, means a certain kind of piece of work.
We are 19 talkinc about using reliability engineering and reliability 20 methods and hopefully working with the safety goals and l
21 usino probability methods to allocate the resources among 22 those four areas that Jerry talked about.
23 MR. MATHIS4 David.
()
24 MR. OKRENT:
If I can come back to the first item 25 on simulators, I have Just a minor comment.
When you read O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
23 1 the summary you don't get any of the flavor of the secondary 2 concluFlon, which is that - you are going to look at
~
3 MR. MILLUNZI Simulation.
c3 J
4 HR. OKRENT:
And you may want to include that in 5 your summary. 'It seems to me it is not an unimportant point.
6 MR. MILLUNZI:
In other words, our Recommendation 7 No. 2 is a little too subtle.
8 MR. SIESS:
Simulation working group I think 9 should be brought out somewhere at that point.
10 MR. OKRENT:
I think I would look at it if I were 11 you.
12 MR. MILLUNZI.
Yes.
13 MB. OKRENT:
There was a report that came out 14 around September' by this committee that Professor Rasmussin 15 of MIT chaired for the Nuclear Safety oversicht Committee, 16 and it had a few things in it that were stated that-DOE 17 should look at, if I remember correctly, and I dors *t have it 18 han dy.
One of them related to decon tamina tion.
19 MR. GRIFFITH:
Dose reduction.
e 20 MR. OKRENT:
Are those includ$d in here?
Do you
'7 21 h a ve anything to say about that?
22 MR. GRIFFITH:
We are going to set up two,.new 23 working groups in January.
One of them ts the dose 24 reduction, and the other is fuels.
But I will s6v that we 25 are in a little difficulty right now in tha t area _because
~~
O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
~ __.
_ ~__
r 24
(]')
1and it's probably why it was lef t out here -- at the same 2 time we were wriking this, OMB was -- we did have a dose rx 3 reduction program going on in our LWR technology area.
It
(-)
4 was our thought that we would move that work to safety, call 5 it safety work.
A different budget category is all, but it 6 didn 't really get moved, it got zeroed.
7 So I think that we will do the work, though, and I 8 think it's important work.
We are working on the program.
9 And when we looked at the numbers, had a couple of people 10 look at the numbers, 50 percent of the expected dose that s
11 the public will get is associated with occupational 12 exposure, even considering postulated major accidents of the 13 kind and frequency of the Rasmussen Report.
14 So it is clear that some reduction in these 15 exposures would be cost beneficia.
16 MR. OKRENT:
If I can ask a question that is a 11 little similar to the one that Bender and maybe Siess both 4
18 w er e raising, how are you going to decide which of the areas 19 DOE is eventually going to put money in, if I could put it le 20 t h a t way?
Are you going to develop some kind of guidance or l
21 criteria ?
There is obviously going to be much more that can l
22 be done than you will have money for.
The listing you get 23 f rom the Congress allows and encourages, whatever is the
()
24 right word, work in many, many areas.
~~
25 MR. GRIFFITH:
I think we would work -- a s we ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
~
+
25
()
1 develop the working groups and see the kind of work that is 2 going on and the remaining work, that we would work very 3 closely with EPRI and NRC and probably eventually develop a 4 new memorandum of understanding with the NRC as regards the 5 kinds of work that we do, and try to develop a boundary that 6 makes sense to both of us.
And then either or one of us 7 would have to go through our budget process to attempt to 8 get the money for the money within our boundaries.
L 9
We have had some small discussions with Bob 10 Minogue and he has clearly said there areas he thinks he is 11 doing work that we could probably could do it better, but 12 the discussions have been very preliminary and no 13 conclusions have been reached.
But one of us would have to O-14 go argue f or the money.
4.
15 MR. MATHIS:
Jerry, I have a related question 16 along that line.
That is, if you come up with something and 17 you want to put it in your plan and you cannot get the other
"~
18 party to do it, let's say, what do you do then?
19 MR. MILLUNZI:
We try to go get it done.
20 MR. GRIFFITH4 We try to get it done.
21 MR. SIESS:
That is you are talking about industry 22 doing it as well?
23 MR. MATHIS:
Whomever.
This plan as I envision it
()
24 would be an integrated kind of thing.
You would sa y this 25 needs to be dones industry, you should do this; NBC, you
(
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
26
]
1 should do that.
And if NRC, for example, chooses to feel 2 otherwise, what is your recourse, what is your reaction?
Do n
3 you have a club?
Q 4
(Laughter.)
5 MR. GRIFFITHs No, but I think we have some 6 goodwill and I think that's the best way to do it.
I think 7 you have to look at each one of these as they come up and 8 hopef ully there won' t be any.
But I think there's a 9 dif ferent attitude out there.
For instance, if industry 10 were reluctant now in some areas, we have a good 11 relationship with Dennis Wilkinson, we do a lot of things 12 wit h him.
A telephone call and he might change some 13 attitudes in a few places if tha t needed to be done.
It bd 14 would depend on the problem.
15 But I think we can develop a consensus.
NRC and 16 ou r people and the industry people are working very well 17 rig h t now.
18 ME. XILLUNZIs The working groups have been 19 working Very well so far.
I think we are able so far to 20 k ee p everybody looking at what the requiremen ts a re.
21 MR. SIESS:
It's a lot easier to get people to 22 agree on what needs to be done rather than who is going to 23 p ay for it.
O 24 sa s1ttuaz1.
ree-aut oa the ro11o -up --
25 sometimes.
But I think so far in our discussions with O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
27
(]
1 everyone, John Taylor at EPRI as well, I think there is a 2 recognition and agreement by people that when we get done 3 with this we will be able to take a hard look at it, and fsb 4 using the correctness of the job ve have done, be able to 5 allocate among ourselves how we are going to get this job 6 done.
7 I would hope that it will come to a matter that 8 the budgets would be a problem, not that I think they are 9 necessarily going to be, but ideally that the size of the 10 budget will be the problem, not somebody somebody saying no, 11 we don' t wan t to do tha t.
12 MR. GRIFFITH:
After all, between EPRI, NRC and 13 DOE alone there is almost $1 million worth of work that can 14 be done each year.
Tha t's a lot of money.
15 MR. SIESS:
You said EPRI?
INPO is --
16 MR. GRIFFITH:
I didn't call INPO.
17 MR. SIESS:
You have got a number of things in 18 INF O.
19 MR. GRIFFITH:
And industry is spending some money 20 no w.
ITCOR is $10 million.
21 MR. OKRENT:
If I could ask a question on a 22 dif feren t subject, do you see any possible role for DOE that 23 is properly under the aegis of this program that relates to O
24 c' "ae r*
at="t='
25 O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
28
(])
1 MR. MILLUNZI There does.
Our whole concept, the 2 whole systems approach, once again in looking at all the 3 requirements and what you need, and getting requirements 4 related to how people actually operate and how they may want 5 to approach getting their licenses, everything we do in here 6 ve expect them -- and they have been.
The owners groups and 7 the utilities in their requirements are looking towards 8 requirements for standard plants.
9 We don't see the need at this time to be able to 10 set up, let's say, a special working group to look just at 11 the question of standard plants because it is so prevalent 12 on everyone's mind relevant to the requirements.
13 MR. SIESS:
But if everybody is agreed that 14 standard plants are a good idea and would contribute to 15 saf ety, why isn 't it moving along any better than it is?
16 And it wasn't before TMI.
17 MR. GRIFFITH:
I think the industry didn't see any 18 benefits to standard plants before this tine, but they did 19 see a lot of benefits to trying to keep their own operations 20 coherent.
So there was really not a good forcing function.
21 I think the safety bill, the Department supports 22 standardization and in fact the suggestions were developing 23 f or regulatory reform for the Secretary at the President's
()
24 direction which will incorporate an approach to 25 standardi stion which evolves into a more standardized O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
29
()
1 approach.
2 MR. SIESSa A different approach than the one we 3 have now?
4 MR. GRIFFITH:
I think it is probably similar in 5 nature to the suggestions made to get to a standard plant, 6 but it addresses the process of getting there through the 7 existing pipeline.
8 MR. OKRENT:
I guess my experience has been that 9 the term " standard plant" means different things to 10 dif ferent people.
If I talk to someone from Bechtel it 11 means one thing --
12 NR. GRIFFITH:
It has always meant different 13 things to different people.
O 14 MR. OKRENT:
To Combustion Engineering it means 15 something else.
16 MR. SIESS:
That's why we don 't have them.
17 MR. OKRENT:
Do you ha ve one, or at most two, 18 concepts that describe what you mean when you say "ctandard 19 pla nt "?
And can we then talk a round these?
20 MR. GRIFFITH:
Well, Dave, this really is not as l
l 21 much of a Department problem as it is NRC's.
As I said, we 22 support the concept of standardization.
Certainly all the 23 standa rdiza tion that you could get right down to the last
()
24 pipe like the Admiral does it would have beneficial safety l
25 ef f ects.
We are convinced of that.
l
( O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
30
()
1 The problem is one of practicality and how far you 2 really can go.
I think the NRC and the industry have to fs 3 work that out.
We will support anything we can to get that V
4 process to work, because we think it is important.
I don't 5 know how the RCD program necessarily supports that.
I think 6 that connection is rather weak.
7 MR. OKRENT Well, let me think aloud a little 8 bit.
9 HR. SIESS:
It's on the other end.
10 MR. OKRENT:
I guess it is pretty hard, as I see 11 it, for the NRC to go out and try to go too far down the 12 road of designing a standard plant because it is not really 13 their job to design plants.
But they could help matters if 14 they would make up their minds as to what they thought the 15 plants in the f uture should have, either generally or 16 specifically.
But even then, they would no t be designing 17 such plants.
18 From the industry, as I have tried to suggest, one 19 g et s a wide range of suggestions as to what s ta nd a rdira tion 20 mea ns.
It is conceivable to me that the utilities could 21 band together and somehow develop a few standard designs--
but I mean basically the 22 and I do not mean just NSSS 23 whole plant.
()
24 Maybe they are going to do that; I don 't know.
25 But the only sort of other entity that I at the moment see ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
31
(')i 1 in the picture is DOE that might try to act as a catalyst or 2 pursue it to the point of sayinga Here are some seemingly 7-3 workable approaches.
That would be a sort of a more active y
4 role and a helpf ul thing to other people doing it.
5 I was just wondering if you had any thoughts that 6 way?
I do not know in fact if it is a good thing for you to 7 do or not.
I am just trying to see.
8 MR. SIESS:
You are not saying that ought to be 9 done under the safety rubric?
10 HR. OKRENT:
I originally began with the question 11 of did they think somehow it fell under safety.
To my mind 12 in f act it is related to safety.
13 MR. GRIFFITH:
It is related to safety, yes.
14 ER. OKRENT:
But it could also equally well be a 15 program of its own.
16 MR. SIESS:
Synergistic.
17 MR. MILLUNZI:
It 's not safety RED.
18 MR. SIESS:
It could be a promotional type program 19 t ha t would contribute to safety.
20 MR. GRIFFITH:
Pell, again we are willing to do 21 anything we can to help because we think it is important.
22 Right now, for example, the NRC could provide more 23 incentives.
If for example a stand a rd plant could go
()
24 throuch a licensino process in 90 months, and a completely 25 unstandardized plant took 160 months, there migh t be a O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPAfW,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
E 32
(]}
1 considerable incentive f or the utility to bring a standard 2 plant to the NRC.
3 That is not too hard for the NRC to get that into 4 its procedures.
I am not even sure they would need 5 leg isla tion to do that.
That might be one of the kinds of 6 recommendations that the Department can use.
7 MR. OKRENTa Let me explore that for a moment.
If 8 you really want to get to a point where the plant goes 9 through at 90 months, presumably you would need to have some 10 degree of design of the plant at the point of approval by 11 the NRC, and in fact at the point of construction, also.
12 Because a lot of the problems that arise have nothing to do 13 with the NBC.
They put this pipe here, and then there is 14 another pipe that is supposed to go through the same space,
15 a nd at the end down the road you have to tear them both out 16 and so forth.
17 So again in my own mind I can see various parts to 18 this picture, and I am just exploring it with you.
19 MR. MILLUNZI.
The one that people ha ve been 20 exploring with us in various discussions is whose 21 responsibility it is, and for what part of the job?
The 22 ind ustry feel they have some standardized designs already 23 t ha t they have done.
()
24 One of the things people talk to us about is there 25 a way, using the structured saf ety a pproach that we are Ov ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
33
()
1 developing, could one use that to try to see how you 2 identify what the safety and licensing problems are.
That 3 would certainly be a beneficial area for DOE especially as 4 part of this Act to be able to participate in.
5 But where we are right now with that is a number 6 of just preliminary kinds of decisions.
However, that 7 question that you raised, Dave, people in the industry are 8 asking us the same thing from various parts.
9 MR. SIESS.
There is a strong economic issue here, 10 because even when reactors were selling like hot cakes there 11 was a great reluctance to put all the money into a standard 12 design that would take several sales to recover.
And now 13 that nobody is buying reactors, I just don't know what push 14 there is for standardization.
15 There is a big up-front investment there.
Some of 16 the AEs did not want to get into it at all.
Even utilities 17 tha t did their own engineering did not want to get into it.
18 A nd there has got to be an incentive for somebody, but I do 19 n ot know that there is any incentive for the NSSS supplier 20 in the 90-month licensing and construction period, unless 21 tha t could boost the market somewhere.
22 MR. MILLUNZI:
Clearly the utilities have to want 23 i t.
()
24 MR. SIESS:
The utility has got to do it, and some 25 o f them did not wa n t standard plants.
They wanted to design AV ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
34 1 it their way.
2 MR. GRIFFITHs Most of the AEs do not want it too 3 badly.
4 MR. SIESS:
Well, a pure AE doesn 't, because he 5 only gets paid for one design.
The AEs tha t developed the 6 BOP standard design were also constructors.
7 MR. GRIFFITH4 Some of those AEs are coming 8 around, though.
There is a spectrum of them out there such 9 as Stone C Webster who are very supportive.
10 MR. SIESS:
Yes.
Sargeant-Lundy is a designer.
11 They were not interested.
12 MR. MILLUNZI I detect from our discussions on 13 the various issues that we ought to try to look at this from 14 the top down.
The question is not exactly the way Dr.
15 Okrent described it, but it has been asked in similar veins 16 and people are -- we are starting to talk in a preliminary 17 f ashion on those items.
l 18 MR. BENDER:
Well, the point that has been made a l
l 19 lot of times is tha t there are i,o many standards that there 20 is no standard.
I think somehow, if you are really serious 21 abo u t it, you have got to find some way to consolidate the 22 concept so there are not so many dif ferences.
l 23 MR. GRIFFITH:
Right.
)
24 MR. MILLUNZIs Right.
And those are part of the 25 reasons why things appear to be going slowly.
But there is 1
C>
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 v.-
w-w-
m
-,y
_m
__y 4
w w--pw,
-r-w
-,sw
m w
---a w+
35
('_s) 1 a lot of discussion going on, and the kinds of things you s
2 are talking about are some of the drawbacks -- the kinds of 3 things Dr. Siess mentioned about the incentives, and the 4 "where is the next plant coming from?"
5 There are a lot of things that a re involved, and 6 there are a lot of machinations and chewing on the subject 7 that is going on now.
That much I can tell you.
8 MR. GRIFFITHa I think there is progress, too.
I 9 think you must have the same visibility we do of the 10 attempts of GE, and Combustion, and other people to put out 11 at least a standard nuclear island and get it connected up 12 with either their own or some other AE's standardized 13 design.
Nobody is buying one, but I see more activity than 14 I would expect in this area right now, really.
15 MR. BENDER:
The NSSS people have been doing it 16 right along.
They couple it with the rest of their plants.
17 MR. GRIFFITH:
I think it is a coupling, or either 18 the y are extending their own.
19 MR. SIESS:
They did have standards.
They went 20 through changes.
It was licensing of the standardized pla n t 21 tha t w&s the difference there.
The standard BOP was really 22 new, but I don't think every reactor was custom designcd.
23 MR. MILLUNZI If we can judge from the kinds of
(])
24 discussions and the number of them we have been getting 25 into, I would suspect that before we are done with this that O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
36
( })
1one of the areas we probably are going to be talking about 2 is either why we aren't doing some thing, or why we are doing 3
3 something about this question of the standardized plant.
N /
4 I mean, as of right now we have the working groups 5 established that we mentioned.
We are going to set up the 6 f uels one in January, and the dose reduction, and the 7 progress, if my judgment is right, it will be probably that 8 there is something pertaining to this issue that we will be 9 addressing in one form or another before we are done.
10 MR. BENDER:
Let me offer a thought.
I haven 't 11 really thought much about it, but the only place I can 12 really see that standardization has gotten a real foothold 13 is in France.
They really have standardized --
A\\l 14 MR. SIESS:
And they have one customer.
15 MR. BENDER:
That might be a protty good benchmark 16 to compare other standardization approaches to.
I think 17 tha t would be something the Congress would have a lot of 18 interest in.
I think there are a lot of Congressmen that 19 think the French approach is a lot better than the U.S.
20 approach, or at laast the ones I have talked to have said 21 s o.
22 MR. MILLUNZI:
Well, something else to remember 23 i s, the first question you really have to ask is:
Is it
()
24 necessary?
There are a lot of pros and cons.
The question 25 is trying to determine wha t is necessary, and then what is O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
2 37
()
1 the cost / benefit in the pros and cons of going to a 2 standardized approach.
3 The French went af ter that standardized approach, p)s
\\.
4 I think, not from the concept that standardized plants are 5 saf er; they just had one organization, and that is how they 6 did business.
7 MR. SIESS:
One vendor, one customer.
8 MR. MILLUNZI:
So you ended up being able to do 9 it.
10 MR. SIESS:
That's a beautiful setup.
11 MR. BENDER:
But if you look at the reports, the 12 recent report in Neutronics Weekly, it said the last plants 13 were built in five years.
If that is true --
14 MR. MATHIS:
There is the incentive.
15 MR. BENDER:
There is a real incentive.
16 MR. MILLUNZI:
Well, I think you can take the way 17 t he French do business independent of how they got there.
l l
18 Som e of the reform measures that the NEC might consider 19 would be to do some of the things the French do as far as l
20 backfitting and changes to one plant and applying that to 21 a ll.
But you cannot do that unless you have some semblance 22 of standardization to start with.
l 23 MR. M ILL UN ZI s I might add, though, the French--
()
24 MR. SIESS:
What do you do with a n industry where 25 one company will build three different --
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 L
38
{}
1 MR. MATHIS:
One utility.
2 3R. SIESS:
One utility.
One site will put up Cq plants.
3 three different 4
MR. GRIFFITH:
And three different vendors.
5 MR. SIESSs And three different vendors.
And TVA 6with 17 on order has covered two, I think.
7 HR. BENDER:
They 've only cot four vendors.
8 (Laughter.)
9 MR. SIESS:
Were those deliberate decisions?
Were 10 those marketplace decisions?
Were they licensing 11 decisions?
12 MR. MATHIS:
Marketing errors.
I 13 MR. MILLUNZI I don't know if they were errors.
14 I don 't know why the decision was made.
15 MR. GRIFFITH:
The utilities always did this in 16 the non-nuclear business; they kept their options open to 17 all the vendors probably for market reasons, I guess, as you 18 put it, and I guess they carried tha t over to the nuclear.
19 MR. SIESS:
I would like to get a workino group, 20 not necessarily under the safety rubric, that would-look at 21 wha t are the restraints to standardization.
How many come 22 f rom the utilities?
How many come from the vendors?
How 23 many come f rom the NRC?
Is anybody interested in trying to O
24 remove them2 25 MR. MILLUNZI:
Before we leave this, I would like
- O a
ALCERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
39 1 to point out that GE, for example, built the ER-6 with a 2 Mark III containment in Taiwan in 57 months.
3 MR. SIESS:
GE has gone to a nuclear island.
That 4 is the most complete standard design, all put together by 5 one outfit.'
Have they sold any?
6 MR. MILLUNZI Well, as I said, the one in --
7 MR. SIESS:
I'm talking about C.F.
Brown, GE, 8 everything but the turbine building.
Did they ever sell one 9 of those?
10 MR. BENDER:
Well, the Hartsville, Aestride -- As 11 a matter of fact, it's the guinea pig.
And there is another 12 one somewhere.
13 MR. GRIFFITH:
Scaggett has presently stored 14 MR. MATHIS:
You cannot very well use that one as 15 an example.
16 MR. MILLUNZI:
But I think if we are going to keep 17 this and not get much polarization on this, and really be 18 able to explore it fully, we 've got to remember that the 19 first item is:
Is it necessary to be standardized?
Then we 20 can go f rom th ere and try to evaluate what you do buy, and 21 wha t you do give up.
22 MR. SIESS:
There are benefits, whether they add 23 u p to be necessary or not.
24 MR. BENDER:
I don't like that term "necessary."
25 I think th a t is an overstatement.
The question is:
Is it O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
40 1 desirable?
2 MR. GRIFFITH:
And to what degree.
Degree is a 3 tough question.
V 4
MR. BENDER:
Nothing is "necessary."
5 MR. MILLUN ZI:
I am using the word "necessary" in 6 the best sense, not as being a restrictive kind of thing.
I 7 quess it was maybe a shorthand way of sayings Is it cost 8 beneficial?
9 MR. BENDER:
Yes.
I think that is a better way of 10 saying that, actually.
11 MR. MILLUNZI That is my definition of 12 "nece ssa ry. "
13 MR. SIESS:
Not if you get down to one vendor, it 14 will not be.
15 MR. GRIFFITH:
Well, if we keep going the way we 16 ere going much longer, we will get a few AEs out of 17 business, too.
18 "R.
SIESS:
They pop back in pretty fast.
19 "R.
BENDER:
They cannot afford to have two; they 20 only have one.
21 dB. SIESS:
It is the rate of monopoly, I 22 suspect.
23 MR. BENDER:
That's true.
O 24 xR. OxRtNr:
1f I cen esx e question escut e 25 dif f eren t a rea, this is a highly speculative question.
I O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
41
(])
1 think we are all aware of problems that have arisen from 2 breakdowns in quality assurance, whether it is in design or 3 construction or operation.
But let me leave the operational
{sS
/
4 part out for the soment.
5 I guess I am not sure that people have done 6 research on this question.
There are solutions that were 7 posed about getting an independent review, and so forth and 8 so on.
I do not even know whether it is worth doing th e 9 research, but somebody should ask the question.
.Okay?
10 MR. SIESS.
I think you implied something when you 11 said the breakdown involved the assurance.
You are saying 12 i t was there and broke down.
I an not sure it was there a*.
13 all in some instances, and I am not sure that the breakdown O'
14 in quality assurance was followed by a breakdown in 15 quality.
This bothers me even nore.
16 MR. OKRENT:
Let me give you an example.
There 17 are dif f erent approaches to quality assurance around the 18 w orld.
Is it worth looking at these to see what they are?
19 Is there tangible evidence that one is really better than 20 ano ther, and so forth?
That is one thing out of the blue 21 t h a t one might look at.
If this has been d one, at least I 22 have not seen it.
23 MR. MILLUNZI:
On that iter., Dave, our definition
()
24 of RCD is not a limited version that you are just talking 25 about doing experiments in the labs, or those kinds of O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIAGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
. _ =
42
{]}
1 things, or just developing codes.
From our standpoint, when 2 you are talking about improving the safety of LWEs, you are 3 talking about looking in the areas of how the plants are w/
4 operated and maintained.
5 In order for the utilities and the industry to 6 accomplish that, you are talking about looking at how 7 procedures are developed, implemented, and monitored both 8 internally and externally.
9 So as we get into defining all these requirements, 10 ve really think we will be getting down into these areas 11 which heretofore we really did not look at.
Our definition 12 o f "saf ety" to perform that R&D as required by the Act, 13 improving the safety of LWRs, we will be looking at issues
(~)
s-14 related to the kinds of things you have talked about.
And 15 we have started to talk to INPO about those kinds of items.
16 MR. GRIFFITH.
Dave, I think that is an intriguing 17 i te m.
I always though t the NRC always had a comprehensively 18 required Q A program that was laid on the industry.
It is an 19 intriguing question:
Are there better ways that one might 20 d o it ?
And as Andy said, I think that falls within the 21 purview of the bill to ask a question like that, and at 22 least explore it to the extent that there isn't anything 23 additional that you could do.
()
24 MR. SIESSs What we want is quality.
If you find 25 a better way, find a better name for it.
I think "QA" is O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
43
['}
1getting to be a dirty word righ t now, instead of being the 2 Eleventh Commandment.
3 (Laughter.)
4 MR. MILLUNZI:
Or, the First one.
5 MR. SIESS:
I wasn't. going to be so presumptuous.
6 (Laughter.)
7 MR. MATHIS:
I know some of you people have some 8 other commitments.
Is there anything more on this 9 particular one?
10 MR. SIESS:
What happened to Dr. Moeller?
11 MR. MOELLER:
He is right here.
12 MR. MATHIS:
Dade will lead that subject, which is 13 Item No. II.
That is the Federal Nuclear Operations Corps.
14 HR. MOELLEB Why don't I just ask a couple of 15 questions.
16 MR. MATHISs That is fine.
17 "R.
MOELLER:
I think overall they have come a 18 lon g way, and the revised report certainly addressed a 19 number of the questions tha t we had.
I guess I have just a 20 couple of remarks, and I hope they will be helpful to you.
21 You say se ve ral times, "The Nation's academic and 22 non-academic institutions have a large and expandable 23 capacity," et cetera, "to meet the need."
I think -- and
(])
24 again I am biased in this because I am an academician -- but 25 we may have the capacity, and it may be expandable, but O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
44
{}
1 there is a lot more to it than that.
2 For example, in our own radiation protection 3 program, the graduate program, we have had a lack of 4 students because the other federal agencies are supporting 5 students in other areas.
We teach an environmental health 6 program, of which rad health is one segment.
So the 7 students go where the money is.
8 So we have about three students in rad right at 9 the moment, and because we do not have the students we have 10 ceased teaching the courses.
We only teach the courses that 11 say an industrial hygienist, a basic course that an 12 industrial hygienist might need, or an air pollution 13 student, something like th a t.
O 14 So I would encourage you, if what I am sayino is 15 correct, if other schools are in the same boat, that you not 16 only say this, but put in a word of caution tha t although 17 maybe it is there, it might take some time to expand it or 18 -- I'm not even convinced, in every case, that they could 19 tool up; th a t the universities could tool up and start 20 producing more students, even if they arrived at the door 21 and entered the room.
22 MR. GRIFFITH:
Dade, on that comment, we have 23 gotten the same commant from other sources.
Our initial
(])
24 reaction on the bill was the f ederal corps and not the 25 supply adequacy, and what things we might do.
That view O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
45 1 might have been a little narrow and I think you have a good V( T 2 suggestion to incorporate it, but whether we incorporate it 3 or not we think there may be areas as you suggest where the 4 support of graduate students or something is something other 5 people have suggested such as getting back to intern 6 programs in some of the institutions, this kind of thing.
7 MR. MOELLER:
Yes.
8 MR. GRIFFITH:
We have sympathy with that, and we 9 would support that concept.
I think we can open the door in 10 here to say:
While institutions can expand, the question of 11 whether they will may need some extra support.
12 MR. GOLDMAN:
We have, in the process of 13 responding to Mr. Ahearne in trying to develop a 14 grow-your-own program, Oak Ridge Sta te University took a 15 very extensive look at it for us.
We are essentially at the 16 place now where somebody is making the decision whether to 17 do it or not.
18 What we have found is that in the case of the HP 13 programs, the biggest complaint that they have is that their 20 equipmen t is onsolete.
He was bringing in a whole bunch of 21 ancillary thinos to the teaching.
There are ten operational 22 HP programs in the country, ones that address the 23 opera tional aspects, and they are full.
Th ey can take on
()
24 more, and there are -- we have found there are plenty of 25 students who are willing to go into the program if there is O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHIN', TON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
46 1 a light at the other end of the program for them.
And in
{v')
2 health physics there is more of a light than there is in 3 nuclear engineering.
4 So the problem in HP is not as bad as it is in the 5 engineering aspect of this thing, if you provide the funds, 6 so to speak.
That seems to be the crux of the matter -- and 7a lesser amount of f unds.
The stipends we find that would 8 be required for HP students are $7-to $800 a month, as 9 opposed to $1000 to $1100 for an NE.
Any university that 10 has lesser tuitions and fees, and support rates, are willing 11 to go at it.
So that maybe amplifies that a little bit.
12 I felt the report did not address in the area of 13 availability the amount of nurturing -- mustering, 14 nurturing, and managing of the quantity out there that is 15 necessary.
The point that I made to Andy and to Paul 16 Habenstein in the rewrite of the summary in the front end of 17 i t was that that has to be looked at.
18 MR. GRIFFITHs One problem you have to recognize 19 is that in the present Administration and the climate we are l
20 operating in, DOE would have a hard time getting anything 21 more than a grow-your-own program for our own organization.
22 If we try to do anything tha t costs money, the 23 Administration would tell us that it is an industry problem,
()
24 and the industry ought to grow their own.
25 MR. GOLDMANs We are only talking about other O
1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, I
400 VINGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
47 1 government agencies.
2 MR. MOELLER:
And I wouldn 't 3
MR. MILLUNZI And that is all consistent with our 4 report, and I think what the industry would feel like, too.
5 I think the industry, we've put the numbers in there in th e 6 f ull report.
The industry recognizes their training 7 requirements more than ever, and they really are moving out 8 aggressively.
I think they are and would be paying for 9 their own, and I don't think we would have a problem with 10 tha t.
11 MR. GOLDMAN:
The industry has done something, 12 tho ugh, th a t you should consider.
INPO has gone through 13 this at the undergraduate level and is not supporting it at 14 the graduate level.
If you support it a t the graduate 15 level, then you draw a greater -- you draw people into the 16 undergraduate level.
If they have a place where they know 17 they are going to get an ad vanced degree and then move on 18 into the higher priced, higher paying, and more immediately 19 available working jobs.
20 The decision -- a nd I have not been able to 21 determine how it was arrived at or the people at INPO 22 responsible for the training -- but the Boa rd of Directors 23 m a d e that decision.
O 24 What Oak Ridge is finding, though, is for the 25 program that DOE has started, for every one person applying O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPJY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W 'NASHINGToN, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
08
("%
1 tha t they are going to be able to take, there are 12 U
2 applicants tha t the colleges are picking up because they are 3 that good.
4 MR. SIESS:
Let me say something here.
I think 5 support at the graduate level has a greater effect on the 6 acquisition. and retention of faculty and support a t the 7 undergraduate level, and that is pretty important.
8 MB. MOELLER:
And in this week's Science, for 9 example, there is an article on how engineers are leaving 10 the universities.
Along that same line you have in there 11 that INPO's program "will provide adequa tely trained 12 personnel. "
13 I think here it would help me, and maybe I just 14 did not read it in as detailed a manner as I should have, 15 but here when you are talking abcut INPO.providing 16 adequately trained personnel, I think we need to be specific 17 as to what level of people they are talking about, Cr that 18 you are talkinc about.
19 INPO does have the fellowships now for graduate 20 students in nuclear engineering, and rad protection, and 21 health physics, but the numbers -- I'm not criticizing it; 22 congratulations or thanks to them for wha t they are doing--
23 but isn't the total maybe 39 or maybe it's 79?
What is O
24 it' 25 MR. GOLDMAN:
54.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
no
(])
1 HR. MOELLER:
54 people, and how many of ther. are 2 HPs, and how many are engineers?
3 MR. MILLUN ZI s I think maybe that write-up, what 4 we are alluding to there -- It's INPO and the industry.
5When we are talking 6
MR. M0ELLERs Do you think that is adequate?
7 HR. MILLUNZI I am saying that is not the only 8 thing.
9 HR. MOELLER:
I would say they are setting a good 10 e xa mple, and so forth.
11 3R. MILLUNZI Well, also, though, what I am 12 saying is that the industry as a whole, and INPO is helping 13 them do. this, as an entity they are going to meet their O
\\/
14 manpower requirements.
The plans they have laid out are to 15 provide them both in quantity, quality, and timeliness.
So 16 it is the total program that INPO is building on and working 17 with the rest of the industry which is going to meet it.
It 18 is not simply the education of those 54 students.
That is 19 wha t we were trying to say.
20 YR. MOELLER:
This is another comment, not exactly 21 related, but in the la w and in the opening covering 22 statement in here, you comment -- and the law states this--
23 about reducing the likelihood of disrupting the population
()
24 in the vicinity of nuclear power plants as a result of 25 nuclear power plants accidents.
That is on page 1 of the O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
50 1 law.
{}
2 I wondered where you addressed that, and I found I 3 couldn ' t even understand it.
Did they mean regarding s
%)
4 preventing accidents?
Or that after the accident has 5 occurred, you are going to work out ways so you don't 6 disrupt the population so much?
7 HR. GRIFFITH:
I think primarily you try to 8 prevent the accidents.
But given that, you put in better 9 emergency preparedness and protective-mitigative features.
10 It is a total safety concept.
11 MR. M3ELLER:
Okay.
You have looked at it that 12 w a y, and I would have looked at it that way.
13 Then, when you do talk about emergency planning in 14 the report, then you feel at that point you are addressing 15 that question?
16 MR. MILLUNZIs That is a broad area that we are 17 going to get started looking at in January; and also the 18 business of emergency prepa redness.
19 MR. MOELLER:
And lastly I would comment that once 20 again in reading the report I still did not see how you are 21 going to address the adequacy of the training, or evaluate 22 the adequacy specifically in terms of determining the 23 aptitudes necessary under normal and emergency conditions.
()
24 Where do you address how to determine whether the people 25 trained will possess the aptitudes necessary to respond, or O
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
^
A O
51 1 handle emergency abnormal as well as normal conditions?
2 MR. MILLUNZI: '*2el1[ in talking about'the training 3 and what INPO -aind the industry are.looking at?'
O,-
4 MR.,MOELLER:
In terms Ef-sub[ect matter?
5 MR. MILLUNZIs Yes.
For example, we are: starting,
/, l J'
~
6 off by looking a't what' the task analyses arefjand Nat the
~
.1 7 job analyses are under all of those c6nditions.
~
8 MR. MOELLERa Okay.
/,
wha t will f all out Based on that,J^
_ w 9
MR. MILLUNZI:
, r' 10 are what the skill requirements are.
Once you.,haie,what,the 11 skill requirements are for all those cond1tions tha t you'~
~
2
~
12 talked about, then you would structure tne training progrhay
- 7
~ ' '
13 to make sure that that is there.
~-
f A
14 MR. MOELLER:
All right.
Well, Iwill accept thata, 15 as a good response.
In reading it, I.did not see that.
16 BR. SIESS4 You said "a p ti tu d e. "
" Aptitude" is 17 not a result of training.
Aptitude is what y.ou had before
~
18 you were trained.
19 MR. MOELLER:
Yes..That is selection.-
20 MB. MILLUNZI:
Selection.
Dr. Siess, all of this 21 we are starting off to give the utilities --
22 MR. SIESSa
'You will find different aptitudes fo r 23 normal op'eration than for abnormal operation.
i O
24
<teughter.)
25 MR. GRIFFITHs You're looking for cool heads.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRh.lNIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
~
i 52 l
1 MR. RAYS An offensive and a defensive team.
f 2
MR. MOELLER:
Thank you.
3 MR. MILLUNZI:
Well, we will take a look and see
,.,%Q 7-4 if we can make that more explicit.
5 MR. MOELLER:
It might have been a little of what J
6 Dr. Okrent was saying earlier, that if you abstract it, 7 something with a sentence or a phrase or two -- I'm not 8 saying you should add it, but you should take a look at it.
9 MR. MILLUNZIs Sure.
10
- MR. MOELLER:
Tha nk you, Mr. Chairman.
11 MR. MATRIS:
Are you sure you are through?
That t
12 is unusual.
H TH Jerry, do you have anything further?
15 MR. RAYS No.
16 MR. dATHIS:
Chet?
17 MR. SIESS:
No.
18 dB. MATHIS:
Any other members of the subcommittee?
19 (No response.)
20 MR. MATHIS:
NRC?
21 MR. BEACH:
No.
Our letter for this draft will 22 have almost no comment.
We are pretty well satisfied with 23 this draf t.
They have a few comments on the corps portion 24 of Section 3 of the report, but they are not earthshaking 25 comments.
O 4
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
53 Q
1 HR. MATHIS:
That is " corps" with a "p."
2 MR. BEACH 4 Yes.
3 MR. MATHISs Well, apparently then most of the 4 questions and comments have been reasonably well cared for.
5 HR. MOELLER:
Yes.
6 MR. MATHISs Does the Working Group,.then, have further conclusions they wish to submit?
7 any 8
MR. SIESSs I think we ought to be discharged with 9 thanks.
10 (Laughter.)
11 ER. SIESS:
This will be the shortest ACRS working 12 group there ever was.
13 (Laughter.)
i 14 MR. MATHISa Jerry, do you want anything more from 15 us at this stage of the game?
16 MR. GRIFFITH:
I guess we would need a letter 17 incorporating final comments.
That would help.
18 MR. MATHIS4 Okay.
It will be quite brief.
19 MR. SIESS:
Yes, we are your consultants so I 20 quess you need to have that.
We did that once, but you e
21 didn ' t say you had to listen to us.
22 MR. GRIFFITHs Our desice was to go to Congress 23 with a bill with enough concensus that we could build on it, O
24e#a thet 1e et111 o=r aeeire-25 MR. MILLUNZI Yes.
If we are right, we ought to O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIPGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
54 1 be able to get people to agree; if we are not, we ought to
(';
2 be ready to listen.
So that is how we are approaching 3 this.
O-4 MR. MATHIS:
Well, then I take it that for any 5 future activity va will look forward to hea ring from you 6 periodically when you feel it is in your best interest and 7 ours to keep us informed as to how your various working 8 groupe are going.
Possibly we may want to have other 9 meetings.
I think we can leave that up to your initiation 10 on down the road.
I am sure we are interested, and we would 11 like to be kept informed as to what progress you are making, 12 and what is going on.
But I do not think we need to have 13 any thing that is particularly demanding.
I am thinking of I
14 f ormalities.
15 MR. SIESS:
It is all folded into the research 16 program now.
17 MR. MOELLER:
Yes, and in that Section 3 or u.
18 MR. SIESS:
The context in the future will 19 probably be in the research area, not necessarily with our 20 research subcommittee.
21
- 53. GRIFFITH:
We have normally at least had 22 annual contacts in that area, and th ey shoula get more 23 inf ormation.
()
24 MR. SIESS:
I think as we look at the NRC rerearch 25 program in the future, we will want be wanted to, as we have O
l ALDERSON ftEPoRT!NG COMPANY, INC, j
400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) $$4-2345 L
55
' {}
1 in the past, but you did not have very much going on.
I 2 expect maybe that will increase.
3 MR. MILLUNZI We would expect to have you comment 4 on the requirements, obviously.
We would expect to be able 5 to be providing those to you.
6 MR. MATHIS:
Okay, there is one other problem on 7 the agenda for our meeting on Friday.
We do have an hour 8 set a side to brief the Full Committee.
9 Do you feel that is worthwhile or needed?
10 MB. SIESS:
It seems to me, Charlie, that if we 11 write a letter on this, from what I have heard today, it can 12 say that we believe that our comments on the draf t report 13 have been considered by DOE and, to an appropriate extent, 14 incorporated into the subsequent draft, and we have no 15 f urther comments.
q 16 MR. MATHIS:
Do you think that would satisfy the 17 other members of the committee?
18 MR. SIESS :
Probably not, but --
19 (Laughter.)
20 MR. SIESS:
But I would suggest we draft such a 21 letter and present that to the committee at the time of the 22 report and see if anybody has got any problems with tha t.
I 23 don't really -- you know, we didn't have that many
()
24 comments.
They have been considered.
Some of them have 25 been incorporated, and our comments on the re sea rch program ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
56 1 are still valid.
2 I think that approach is satisf ac tory, and we are 3 looking forward to looking at the program as they develop O
4 it.
5 MR. MATHISa Why don 't we do it that wa y.
I would 6suggest, though, that maybe Jerry, Andy, you all might be in 7 attendance just to field a question or two if it should 8 arise.
9 MR. GRIFFITH I at least plan to be in to a ttendance.
Andy has the working group meetings on the 11 simulator, and we are still trying to decide which place he 12 will go.
I suspect after this meeting today that I may come 13 alone.
14 MR. MATHIS:
Fine.
That is good.
15 ER. BENDER:
Generally I agree with what Chet has 16 to say, but I don't think it would hurt in th e letter to 17 acknowledge the things that are happening -- the workino 18 group on the simulator, and perhaps some of this thinking 19 tha t is going into the RCD program.
20 MR. MOELLER:
And say tha t we wa n t to continue to 21 be in touch.
22 MR. FIESS4 We can acknowledge th e existing 23 working groups, if we wish.
O 24 MR. atxDER.
I thinx thet conveys e sense or 25 something happening which is a substitute for what the O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
57
()
1 Congress might have been proposing, and it serves a useful 2 purpose.
I think it would make the letter more useful to 3 you, as a mattee of fact.
4 MR. GRIFFITH:
Yes.
I think you have hit the 5 heart of wha t was one of our major problems in this.
We 6 could not put a plan together that had any semblance of 7 concensus or correctness in the time the Congress gave us, 8 and we very quickly came to that conclusion as we tried to 9 do it one time.
10 So we had to put together a plan to get there.
At 11 that point, we decided we were going to move out an fast as 12 we could on that plan because we wanted to show some motion, 13 n ot that everything is "manyana."
So we tried to get those s
14 eff orts on track, and we tried to go back and make the plan 15 a little bit more healthy after that work was done.
16 So you have got your fingers on the pulse, Yike.
17 MR. SIESS:
The Congress did not really ask for a 18 complete program.
19 MR. GRIFFITH:
No.
They asked for a program 20 p la n.
21 MR. MATHIS:
That is right.
22 MR. SIESS:
Maybe those words have some specific 23 mea ning to the Congress.
()
24 MR. GRIFFITH:
We used them flexibly so that we 25 could give them a plan for the program.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, p
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
58 1
MR. SIESS:
Yes.
That is what I thought you did.
2 MR. MATHIS:
But they did not expect you to do 3 anything other than put a plan together and incorporate this 4 big plan together.
5 MR. GRIFFITH:
And updated annually, though, so 6 they expect it to grow and improve for five years.
7 MR. SIESS:
So we can comment that the procedures 8 set up for the working group should lead to the development 9 of a program.
We don't want to say a program " plan," but a 10 program.
11 MR. MILLUNZIa We have found very good agreement, 12 and actually people have been very complimentary to us in 13 the f act that we did not just start up and run off and do 14 the Rf.D; rather, that we are taking this considered look at 15 identif ying the issues and the processes we are going 16 through.
It has been quite an effort to put this together.
17 MR. MATHIS If there are no other comments, the 18 mee ting is adjourned.
19 (Whereupon, at 5:35 p.m.,
the subcommittee meeting 20 w as adjourned.)
21 22 23 O
24 25 O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTON. D C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
NUCLEAR REGULATORY CD.T4ISSION This is to certify ; hat the attached pecceedings before the-O in the matter of: ACRS/ Working Group Meeting on The Nuclear Safety Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 1980 Date of Proceeding:
December 9, 1981 Docket flu =b er:
Place of Proceeding:
Washington, D.
C.
were celc. as herein appears, and that this is the original transcrip:
taerec f for the file of the Cocsission.
Jane W.
Be ach Official Reporter (Typed)
O 1
(
l o
s i
/
O icial Reporter (Signature) i i
l O
O
.