ML20043H941

Transcript of 900615 Briefing in Rockville,Md on NRC Recommendations for Implementation of Severe Accident Policy for externally-initiated Events.Pp 1-53.Viewgraphs Encl

ML20043H941
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/15/1990
From:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:
References
REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 9006270109
Download: ML20043H941 (75)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:_ g ..g UNITED STATES OF AMERICA t NUCLEA'R REGULATORY COMMIS SION I I.3' BRIEFING ON STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF SEVERE ACCIDENT POLICY FOR EXTERNALLY INITIATED EVENTS LOC 3 tion ROCKVILLE. MARYLAND StO JUNE 15, 1990 ?E965 53 PAGES i EAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC. COURf REPORTER $ AND TRAhGCRIBERS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, Morthwest Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 9006270109 900615 PDR 10CFR PT9.7 pg g,; ---,....i,i,"-i i i

s -). ~. 4 D I S C L A'I M E R. i This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on -June 15, 1990, in. the ' Commission's of fice at One White. Flint - North',. Rockville,. Maryland. .The meeting was open to public attendance and observation. This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected. or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies. The transcript is intended solely-for general informational purposes..As provided by 10 CFR 9.103',_it'is not part of the formal or informal record of decision-of [ c L 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 the Commission in any proceeding as the result of, or (- addressed to,_ any statement or. argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize. l l-L l l I' HEAL R. GROSS I COURT RfpORTER$ AND TRANSCRIBIRS 1323 RHODI 15 LAND AVINUt. N W. (202) 234 4433 WASHINGToH. D.C. 10005 (202) 232-6600

,;l UNITED-STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BRIEFING ON' STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION-OF SEVERE ACCIDENT POLICY POR-EXTERNALLY' INITIATED EVENTS I 'l PUBLl'C MEETING Nuclear Regulatory Commission I One White' Flint North Rockville, Maryland -g I Friday, June 15, 1990' 1 i The Commission met in open s e s s i o n~, .i pursuant to notice,,at.10 : 0 0 a. m '.,..Kenneth M.

Carr, Chairman, presiding.

-1 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: KENNETH M. CAHH, Chairmon of.the Commission q KENNETH C. HOCERS, Commissioner JAMES H. CllHTISS, Commissioner ] 1 f I 'I l-ll J t NEAL H. CHOSS 1323 Rhode [sinnd Avenue, N.W. Wnnhingt on, D.C. 20005 (202) 2 3 4 - <14 3 3 j d

o-i 2 STAFF SEATED AT Tile COMMISSION T LBLE: SAMUEL J. CHILK, Secretary WILLIAM C. PARLER.; General Couneel JAMES TAYLOR,. Executive Director for Operations .ERIC BECKJORD, Director, Office of Research DR. Til0 MAS MURLEY,- Director,. Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Reguintion DR. TilEMIS SPEIS,. Office of Research JAMES RICHARDSON, NRR LAWRENCE Sil A0,

Director, Division of Engineering, Office of Research

~ WILLIAM BECKNER, O f fi ce of Research r_ J t N E A L II. GROSS 1323 Ithorlo -I s l and Avenue, N.W. Wanhington, 11. C, _ 2000T2 (202).234-4433 =

i e-3' 1 P-R-0-0-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2 '10:00 a.m. 3-Cli AI RM AN CARR: Good morning, ladies and 4 gentlemen. 5 Commissioners Roberts and Remick will not O be with us this' morning.- 7 This morning the Commission will be t 8 briefed by the NRC staff 'on-recommendations for 9 individual plant examination.for severe accident 10 vulnerabilities due .to external events. The 11 individual plant examination concept originated from 12 the Commission's Severe Accident policy Statement. ~1 13 The NRC implemented this policy in part w'i t h generic 14 letter 88-20 issued November 23rd,' -1988 which 15 requested that all licensees < conduct an individual 16 plant examination for severe accident vulnerabilities 17 due to internal events. 18 individual plant examination for severe - 19 ' accident vulnerabil.ities due t o' external events : wns 20 postponed t o-permit 'the staff"to first identify - the 21 external hazards that.need a syst emat ic~ examinat ion, 22 second to identify examination methods and' develop 23 guidance and procedures, and third to coordinate the 24 Individual plant examination for ex t ernal even t s wi t h. 25 other ongoing NRC programs. l .J NEAL H. GROSS 1323 Rhod.- Is l and Aventie, N.W. Washingion, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 r

V y e r~~ 4 l-An NRC external event' steering group has 2 completed recommendations on how to proceed on 3 external events whleb.have been incorporated into an p 4 NRC staff proposed supplement _to generic le'tter 88-20. l 5 This is an information briefing and no ti Commission vote will be-taken at this meeting. 7 .However, the Commission is expected to vote following 8 this meeting on the staf f's recommendation to issue 9 supplement for the. generic letter 88-20 requesting all; s 10 licensees holding operating license for nuclear -power. 11 plant reactor facilities to perform an individual I i 12 pinnt examination of external events for severe l 1 = 13 accident vulnerabilitien and the draft guidance j 14 document. 15 Copies of the staff's slide presentation 10 are available at the entrance to the meeting room. 17 Do any ofn' fellow Commissioners have any 18 comments they wish to m before we begin? 19 1f not, Mr. Taylor, plense' proceed. 20 MR. TAYLOR: Good morning. With me at the 21 tohle, to my left, Bill Beckner, Larry Shao and Themis-22 S p e i r, tenm Research. To my right, Eric Beckjord, 23 Director of Research. Tom Murley, Director of NHR, Jim 24 Richardson from NHH. 25 At you pointed

out, sir, thin is the i j.

NEAL R. GROSS 1323 R h o d <- Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

5 1 s.econd o f ' t wo segments of effort. to fill out the 2 individual plant examination process. The staff is 3-ready to proceed to cover its recommendations. 4 I ' l.1 ask Doctor Speis to start the 5 detailed briefing. G DOCT0lf SPEIS: Thank you. 7 (Slide) M r. --

Chairman, Commissioners, 8

viewgraph number ),. purpose of briefing, I. think we - i 9 have -- Mr. chairman, you adequately described this, i 10 so-we can go to the-second viewgraph. 11 (Slide) The briefing today' will cover 12 some background information relevant t'o 'the-IPEEE:and 13 say a few things about'ils relation to the IPE itsel f., + -; J 14 We will talk about the external event steer.ing group 15 and the extennive interactions we have.' had' with 10 industry regarding this effort. Then we'll discuss 17 the scope of the IPE, which basically : consists of-18 seismic events, fire, high. wind, flood,-tornados and-10 nearby ' industrial facilities. As you ' l l' hear later 20 o n,- the seismic steering group c-excuse me, the 21 external event steering group considered many other 22 events, but t hey excluded n number of them. These are 23 the ones thnt were le f t-in the recommendations. 24 We wi11 then discuss t.he.Implementntion of 25 .the

IPEEE, talk about the schedule and finally f

L. m NI: A L 12. Gif 0S S 1323 Ifhode Island Avenue, N.W. Wanh ingt on, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433,

7 . e = I- }; 6 IJ = 1 summarize again our-recommendations. 2 (Slide)l If we go the next viewgraph, 3 -number 3 I have some-additional-'information-regarding 4 background. But again, Mr.. Chairman, you covered some 5 of them already. I: would like to only mention the-- 6 back in-1980, we concluded at. that. time that -the 7 external events indeed had to be included in the IPE. 8 Ilu t. a t that time we told the Commission'that we needed 0 'a longer

time, more time to evaluate this-area, 10 especially ' t he issues of which external event should 11 be included, identify acceptable methodology and also 12 work to make sure that all other efforts deallng with 13 external e v e n t s--

are properly coordinated and j .a 14 integrated with the IPEEE. 15 (S)ide). Cont inuing -. wit h the background,_ 16 if we go to the viewgraph' number 4, the-work: of.the-17 steering group has been completed

and, c f course, 18 we'll be discusning the recommendations,.

19 I'd like.to say a few, things ~ bout the. a 20 extensive interaction that w'e have-had with the 21 industry nnd the ACRS during the development of both 22 the generic letter and'the guidance document which is 23 attached. The ACHS had sent a-letter to Mr. Chairman 24 da t ed' May 15, where they basically. have agreed with 25 our approach. The only-point they made -i s that if '] 4 NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Wonhington, D.C. 20005-(202) 234-4433i

1 7' l i 1 either the generic' let ter or the guidance document 2 should be revised as a result of the workshop that we ~ 3 plan t o - have, then they would like to give them the 4 chance to review both the generic letter and the 5 guidance document and that will take place. l 6 With - t he industry, you'll see later on ] 7 that we have many meetings in.all areas that we'll be q 8 talking about. Basically, our views and-those of the 1 9 industry coincide in all areas except in the area of 10 seismic events. They have taken issue-with us on-the 11 selection of the review level earthquake. .12 As recently as. yes terday, we got a letter 13 from NUMARC, again pointing out that they don't agree { i 14 wit h us in this area and-they told us.in this letter 15 that they have some additional work underway that they IG think will o f f e c t. ' cither generically 'o r plant ' 17 specifically the seismic characterization, thut is the 18 review level earthquake. We'll bo happy to review i 19 this work when they provide it to us basically.

Also, 20 they make the comment that they would like to be given 21 the opportunity to. review both the' generic letter and 22 the guidance document which, of course, they will when i

23 it goes out and. we' ll appropriately consider their 24 comments. 25 So, with this background, Larry Sha'o,- the f - 4. 1 NTAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 -(202) 234-4433 i

s 1

F i 8 1-Director or'the Division of Engineering, who has been ~ i 2 t he - chai rman of this effort, will now proceed. t o go -3 into nome more detalla. And later on, Mr. Hockner 4 will proceed to discuss the implementation itself. 6 MR. SilAO: (Slide) -Okay. Slido number 5, 0 plenne. t '7 There were thr_ee major objectives ~for the s 8 NHC external event ateering group. The-l first-9 obJeetive in to. identify the important external i . 10 event o, 's ince 't here are so, so ma'ny. ex t e rn a l-even t s. 31 such an.carthclunke, fire,- volcanoen, Inndslide, 12 lightening and so on, "~1 13 The second objective is to develop . _) 14 alterunte or simplified methods since anido from:PRA ) .15 there were no al ternat e methodn for individun] pinnt 10 examinntion for external events. 'For certain external -17 events nuch an t,elsmic loadings,.therccare many, many 18 ongoing NRC progrumn. In order to avoidi duplient ion 19 of ef f ort. on the part of-NHC and alno ;on the purt of 20

industry, the innt objective of the ~ external event q

21 s t ee r i rig group i t. to integrate all NRC external event 22 progrumn. The work, as Doctor Spels,.by,thel external 23 event utecring group has been completed and their 24 recommendutton ' formed the-bunin for the proposed 25 generic letter nnd the draf t guidance document. r-- i NJ:AL R. GHOSS 13P3 Rhode lolund Avenue,- N.W. W a r, L i n g t o n, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 i

9 i 1 (Slide) Next alide',-please. 2 The external _ event' s teering - group members 3 are from various offices of NRC; I'm the Chairman. 4 Tom Novak is from : AEOD, Jin-Richardson from NRR, and 5; Warren Minners from Research. Goutam Bagchi-is G Executivo Secretary. 7-

Because of the. broad scope of the subject -

8-the steering g r o u ri,- in

turn, formo three O

subcommittees, one on ani smic,- one-on fire, and the 10 third one --on high w.ind, flood and' the others. Most j 11 members of the subcommittees .are from NRR and 12 Research. The key members are sitting.here. They can

• m 13 answer any.-<1uestions you ask thenn

.l 34 MR. T AY1,0H : That.'s>a broad atntement. 15 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: On ~ any s t.b j e c t 16 whatsoever? 17 MR. SHAO:.Concernin'g external event. 18 ( S l i d e' )' The next slide, please. 19 The industry organized similar group's and 20 trey ate headed by NUMARC. I think Bill Raisen is 21 here. a 22 The scismic. issues working group, chaired 23 by Hill L i n d til a d - o f General-Elect ri'c is responsible 24 for all seism.ic lasnes. The severe: accident working 25 yroup. which 's responsible ~ for its external i r-m _ NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue. N.W. Vashingion,;D.C. .20005 (202) 234-4433n

g: -j 10: ~ l management and all'other external events is chaired by 2-Cordell Heed of Commonwealth Edison. 3 (Slide) The next slide, please7 ' In developing _ the approaches for. IPEEE, 5 there have been extensive interaction wit h; industry. C There were several management meetings which Jim 7- 'Sniezek, Tom Murley and ' Eric Beckjord, all attend'ed. 8 There were 12 meetings with NUMARC on-seismic. events 0 alone, 11 meetings on fire-and-'seven meetings on highl 10 wind, floods and others. 11 (S1ide) Next s1ide,: please. 12 The external event _ steering group studied "-'~] 13 many. many external events and we-concluded that the [ 14' important external events-are -eart hquake,-

fire, 15 externni flood, wind-and tornado and t ransportation 16 nnd nearby facility accidents.

The IPEEE should-17 include al1 these ivents, in additlon,-you want.the-18 liennnne to confirm that no. known. external event 2 19 uniqut; to the plant with potential to, initiate severe 20 accidents are excluded from the examinations. 21 (Slide) Next slide, p' lease. '22 Now, let me talk about seismic IPEEE.

For, 23 seismir iPEEE, either the seism'ic n.urgin or Nelsmic s'

24 PHA method is neceptable. .30 (S1ide) Next s1ida, please. r~m r NEAL H. GROSS 1323 Uhode Is l and Avenue:, N.W. Washincton, D.C. 20006 q (202? 234-4433

r- - II '~ l The seismic margin method provides an i 2 integrated review of plant response to ' seismic-3 loadings. It provides a measure of plant 0 capability to resist earthquake-loadings beyond; design basis. I' 6 This; method is essentially derived from PRA insights. J G Ilased on these insights, the n umb e r - 'o f systems -and 7 components-t o - be-examined-is. greatly' reduced. Thei 8 seismic margin _- s tudy :equired a thorough waikdown' to; 9 identify any arens that are vulnerable to earthquake t .,I 1 10 loadings. ~The major even t-.of -this method is that no? 11 seismic hazard curves are used i n -. t he exami nt.t i ons. 12 11 shou'Id be-noted. that' the NRC and the q 13 indus t ry - t hrough EPHI has worked on this method-for. i t m_ 14 several years and it has been successfully app. lied'to 15 three plants, Maine Yankee,. Catawba and Hatch. The 16 Maine Yankee and Cut owbn nre PWHs and Hatch is a BWR. 17 This study has been very useful. For instance, Maino 18 Ynnkee has an original design -bacis of only 0.1-g i 19 af t er the seismic margin review hnd -with some 20 modificalions, mostly on' anchorage,.the plant' capacity 21 of Maine Yankee becomes 0.27 g. 22 COMMISSIONEH CURTISS:

Larry,

.on that 23 subject, i f ihe margine approach is used,-is.that'-~ I l 24 gather the role that we would play is just to provide 25 the number, the betting of the plants on that. Can r-q Nf:A l, R. GROSS f 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. ) Wenhington. D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 l N% / L.sMwV e

O.' o, i P i p' 12 1 you expanu upon. your. earlier comment that that's one: 2 isnue on.which you all disagree? 3 MR. SHAO: (Slide) Okay. Give me the 4 bnchup slide, number 2, please. The backup -slide -5 number 2. In the seismic margins method, the pinnt G .c 7 la reviewed against so-called review level ehrthquake.

Well, what's the definition of review-level

[ 9 earthquake? Hoview level earthquake is a screening.or 10 s o-e n 1 1 e'd reporting level carthquake. It dons not. I i 11 represent u plant vulnerability.- If the plant i + 12 capnet t y is lean than a review level earthquake, no m 13 more work has! to be done and tho examination-is over. u.. ) 3 14 llowe v e r, if the plant. capacity is lower than 'the 15 review level carthquake, the4 licensee should evaluste 16 the si gni fi cance of it. The review level-earthquake 17 for various nites, t here. nre-about' 70 siten b ihe-I 1 11 United stntes..would develop through very careful i 10 examinnttoa by ou r consultants, - t he. n.t a f f. and _ we '. a l s o I 20 talked to CHCH,. ACHS. v-21 Mninly, the review _ level" earthquake would L 22 develop based-on two curven. One is called 1.nwrence -[ t 23 lii v e rmo r e c u r v'e. - a n d one's celled SpHI curve. The i a-24 1,nw r e n c e 1.i vermore ' curve was developed based on. NRC; 3 1 25 Heacurch contract and also'NRR conti'act and:I:PRI curve r-d ~ ' N I-: A li - R. G RO S S t ' 1323 Rhode'1sland Avenue, N.W.

Wa s h i n g t o ri, ' D. C..

2000h. ef2001-231-4433 t i

pf

c c

13 P Q* 1 is funded by the-industry. But the problem'is these 2 curves make considerable differences. But these 3 curves mainly are expert opinion.- 4 (SIlde) Before.I come:back to this, let-i i have backup slide number'6,'please.. Number.6. 6 me i G These are the - noismic ' hazard curves for 7 Peach Hottom which are=used in 1150. The upper curve-8 was developed by I,awrence Livermore and the lower- -9 cur.ve was developed by:EPHl. There's n considerable 10 di f ference between the two-curves and.it wl31 give u-11 considerable di f ference in annwera.' c 12 NHO when we developed. review' level 4 -t n 13 carthqunke, we used both curves. We don' t : know which I j 14 one in right. We believe EpH1 in right-and NRC -is 10 right. However, NUMARC. developed their review level .10 earthquake only. based on their curven. So, we feel. I 17 that we have nomo problsen. So, our-teview earthquake-18 in banod on boih curver.. l 19 COMM1SS10NER CURTISS!

Let ~ me make sure ' I' 20 u n d e rr. t a n d what you're saying.

Is it t he staff's -{ "21 position t hat oither carve, either approach. the'EPRI [ i 22 and Lawrence Livermore approach is acceptable? 1 23 - MR. SHAO: No, Maybe I sayait a different 1 24 w a y.. We used bot h' resul t s to come out with the . 25. final --- we used some kind of arithmetic num. So, you-V 5w mee j NEA1, k. GROSS? 1323 Rhode-Island Avenue,.N.W. . -20005-j Wachingt on, D.C. .(202T 234-4433. 1 i

ro, r-34 ~ l can look at EPHI curve, we'look at_ Lawrence Livermore 2 curve and we combine them and come out with-the' final 3 results. he didn't know _their curve, we didn' t - know 4 our curve. We used both results and come.up-with a 5 solutton. A single solution.- o G CHAIHMAN-CAHH: The' curves-look like tNy = 7 differ by n'. factor of ten-probably in the_ probability?- - 8 MR. SHAO ' Okay. Yes. 9 (Slide) Okay. Give me backup slide 10 number 9, pleano. 11 CilAIHMAN CAHH: 1 couldn't tell what' ~ the 12 bo t t'om line wun.; P9 13 MR. Sil AO: Okoy. To answer your ques t iori,- J 14 Chairman, let me show you'the-results of 1160.. 15 Itackup nilde number 9.=pleone. 10 Okay. ~ Thin' summary' is taking ' part in 17 Nillfi:0-1150 for l'ench Ilot t'om. I f: you look-at.the main; 18-seismic external event i 19' COMMISSION 1:H' CUHTISS: _ .Can you enlarge. 20 that n little bit? lias.t ha t iieen on it? "1 MR. SilAO: -You enn't read it?' .: 2 CilAlHMAN CARHi-He enn -enlarge.i t. I 23 think. 24 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: Okay. 26-MR. Sil AO: Okay. If'you look.at external i ee L NEAL H. anOSS l-13ea Rhods Island Avenue, N. W.- W a s h i n g t o n,. ti. C. _ 2000n f: ~ J202)'23444433s m u

s) ~s. '.n - 1 ) g c.. 15 ' 1 event by Livermore and-also by'EPHI, there's a factor 2 of 20 in core melt ' frequency. ~The Livermore curve. 3 given'a result of 7;7x10-5 The EPRI seismic curve 4 give a're's1t 3.1x10-6 There's a:. f a c t o r H-o f 20L fi And accoriine .o the Peach Bottom 1160 study, the: G dominant co. melt frequencyJcomeo from earthquake and 7 fire. Il CH AIHM AN C AllHi - Okey. 9 Mh. Sil A0: (Slide) Okay. Can you go back-10 to bnckup slide number 27 11' DOCTOH SPr!S 1 think if we were' to 12 oummnrize, ihis oren in' highly, uncertain. The curves 13 that provide the likelihood of earthquakes,~no you saw w] .14 the two curves with the largo di fferences, bot h' of 15 them were developed by high experts.. So. we feel that 10 both of them have to be utilized in'exnminntion. The 17 review level ea r t hquake r, t!i nt - are used-. in t hol margina ~ IR

approach, sonnehow you can call

'31-nn nverage of 10 sort o. You know? So, that's kind!or thelbottom'line. 20 .You wanted to say soiuihing?-- 21 Mk. RICHARDSON: Yes.

IEthink 'it ought to 22 be pointed out that this review leve. enrt hqunke, u s.-

23 Larry pointed out, is merely-'s. screening criteria. 24 Those two levels were. chosen, 0.3 g.'and 0.5 g,-only 25 beenuse that.ls where:the preponderance of the data: .I N1:AL k..GHOSS; .1323 Rhodt I r; l a nd-A ve nu e, N.W. s War.hingion, D.C.. 20005 1 (202) 234 4433) m' n.. t

r r 16 ~ l that we have available. We have a group of data token 2 from experience of similar equipment in heavy.. 3 industrial feellities-that have suffered earthquakes, 4 tent data nnd detailed analysis. They're generally 5 centered about 0.6 g and 0.3 g. That's where the i G preponderance :of the data.is. So, -that naturally 7 becomes your screen.; It 's - not.that we expect Lthe-H plant to demonntrate their enpability of-0.6 g,-it's 9 only a starting place so ' you can screen' out a volume 10 of equipment so you don't have to do furt her analysis. 11 So, ii reelly-- needa t o be understood, that 12 these review level. curthqunken are not expectations,' 13 tbey'ie e.creens to use-to eliminute come data-or some. 14 componenin

e. o that you only have t o -look' nt ' selected 15 components that nren't nyallable in the database.'

10 CilA1HMAN C A li R : ' Well,. are. they 17 geographical? For' instance,- the'twoEplant sites that 18-are 0.6 on the hunt Connt'somewhere? 19' Mii. ' HICil AHilSONi No, they're East Coast. P D. Dut,ugnin, it needs t o be/ point ed' out thatD there:in no 21 expectation that t hose - plants be ' demonst rated to.be J 22 capable' of suctnining 0.5:;g. I t 's , Jus t. those two .23 plants in the ' hazard l curves, 'using the. EPRI: Jnndi 24 1.tvermore hurard curvec, appear to be outilers--and we. 26 felt ihnt 1ho 0.3 g-nereen, they.ought'to go a:-)ittlel r_. NIAli-ih GROSS: 13:13 Rhode lslatid Avenue,-.N.h? 14 h i n g t o n.. D, c. 20005 '( 2 0'01 2 3 4-4 4 23 ^ g

p-i e 17 1 above that. And our next data point.was not at 0.31 g .f 2 but it war: at 0.5 g. So, they had toftake the'next -3 step up. 4 CHAIRMAN CARR: Okny. O COMMISSIONER CURTISS:. When you get to the 6-seismic PRAl cpproach,- are you requiring-the. licensees 7 to run both hazaad curves? 8 MR. 'SHAO:

Yes, I'll get back -' t o.

that.' 9 That's the next slido. 10 COMMISSIONI;H CURTISS: Okay. I'm ahead of-11 your graph, but that's -- 12 MR. SHAO: Okay. If I;. answer you the.. 13 seismic-margin methodology program,.maybe'I'll go back, 14 to the next slide. 15 (Slide) Slide 12.- 10 for the seismic' PH A, the staff emphasize bottom 17 line

numbera, mainly because there' are-so much.

18 di f f erence uncertainty in the-scismic heinnl d curves. i 19 So, the answenn are bottom line numbers.; There are 20 two sets of soismic curves, one :(romi Livermore, one-21 from ;rPRI. As I

say, for cert ain' sit es, the. two 22

- neismic curves-give so much difference and both.arn 23 coming - f rom experts in the area. So therefore, for 24 sc.ismic pkA, we want the licensee.to use bot h. cu rver., 25 t o-identify any dominant sequences and dominant > ~ r_ so.- F. . N1: A l. k., O H O S !; 1323 Rhode ininnd Avetnue, ;N.h'. W a s h i n y t on. -. lt. C '., ~20005 (202)'234-4433t

.c 18 r~-" ~ t l components.- 2 That's very funny. Let's say in Peach 3 Bottom and.Surry they use both curves, ~but the 4 dominant' sequences and~. dominant. components are 5 similar, almost similar, even though they're different 6' curves. But every. site will have the same; result. 7 . COMMISSIONER CURTISS: 'Wouldn't tiin t j 8 suggest that if you think a' defensible case can be. i 9-made for ench'of the curven 'that the option of.doing; j 10 c :1 t h e r-I:PH1 or the Lawrence 1.i ve rmo re curve;would be i 11' something sensible-to provide? 12 MR. SilAO: Mniniy beenuse tboy have the l 13 same resuli, beenuse the slope to occur-for these'two.. 14 81ien o r e-the same.- In ui. i f the 's l opes, a re noti the 15 same for tho two curves,.they may have : different L 10 dominant sequeneer..and dominant components.- S o,- I 17 cannot any -~ 18 011 A 1 HM A N CAHR: /1' ' guess; 1 ~ don't L. .1D underetnnd. It 1 ook ed..l i k e t'he t wo ' curves. one :was-20 junt more onnservative thun..the otherJone. -21 .MR. SHAO: Yes.- 22 / Go ahead. 23 MR. H3CHARDSON:.You'so'w one comparison.at-u 24 l'ench Ilo t i om. There a r e ' o t h e r. sii t e s where, i 6. fact, 25 -the' shapes may be n little.different. n.] ~ / "c l l . L,N I:AL H. CROSS 1323 Rhode 3tland Avenue,JN.W. m W a r, h i n g t o n, D.C. 20005. c s 1202) 236 4433-j'fg f. qj[ U .O..

e 1

' i i 19-s I i 1 . CHAIRMAN CARR: They may cross? l 2 MR. RICHARDSON: I don't know of any cases 1 i 3 where they

cross, but they.'may come much closer

) 4 together 'in cortair. frequency ranges. But' it also~ - i 5-ought to: be pointed 'out as you develop -a PRA 0" methodology and'aodel it, it'is -- 1 don't'want to-use-t 7 the w o r d ' " t r i v i a l, *' but a very easy task to run two; s 8 different h a r.a r d curves through It. It would-be - a i 9 very small part of the~ effort. ~ i 10 Cil Al HM AN. C AHit :.Ilut the curves then ~~ ' t ? 11 MR. It!CH ARDSON: And you gnin' insights Il 12 from using both curven and then you arrivo..nt n 13 judgment, do I have u vulnerability? l l 14 C}lAINMAN CARR: Are ~the. curves plant-l \\. 15-specif~ic or geographical area speci fic? l IG MR. RICHARDSON: Plant-specific. j s 17 NR. SilAO: Site'-specific. l 18 Mk. IC Cil AllDSON: S it e-sl cci fi c. i 19 CHAlHMAN'CARR:. Any plant'.on that site? 'I 20 wouldn't have to have a plant.on that-site ond 1ccould l l 21-develop the curves? l r L i 22 .MR. Sil AO : No. Those curves are developed i i \\ 23 based on the sites. We have 70 sites in'the Eastern l 24 United States. We = looked at-these 70 sites and-L j-:

25 devn i cpest ' t hes e curves.

l i 't. NJ: AL k. ' Cil0S$ .1323 Rhode isInnd'.Avenun, N.W.. Wanhington, 11. C.-. 2 0 0 0 6 - 4 (202)' 234-44.33' r ~t-

$.[,. .p .r. w- { , 7-20

CHAIRMAN CARR

Well, I would call those .2 geographically-specific. ,{ 3 MR. SHAO: Okay. Fine. 4-CHAIHMAN CARH:

Okay, i

5 . DOCTOR SPEISt. It is' possible in some 6 canes that we might not havn: considered some detailed .j 7 information. For example, i n. N,UM ARC 's ' le t t er, they ~I H-indiente to us.that they may have'omitted some' plant-l .t 0 specific informat t on.they would like t o. bri ng, t o :: otir i 10 ntient1on. i ~ i 11 CHAIRMAN CARH Okay. m f 12 COMMISS10NERzCURTISS: Let so see:if I-can' 13 summarire whot 1 unde rs t arid yo'u' t o be saying ~'n the o 14 sei sini c PRA npproach, l'nch' of = the curves may capture [ 15-different things. So. 'as 'a

result, you want.to 10 requito them to do, an analysiis. using both of the 17 curver..

Does that sugges t: :nnything nbout' the-18 overnging approach -for the s c i o m i c.- margins -1 10. methodology? i 20 MH. ~ Sil AO: Margin, we. niready nintegrated: 21 two curves already. -So, wo.only look etf- ' t 22' CHAlkMAN CAHk 1: thought' you strid init he 23 inargin the curves weren't ~ used. [ 24 COMMISSIONER CURT 1SS: They iook-the overage of the two. P 25-L [ r- - ~ NEAl. R. CHOSS, ) 1323 Rho'dn Island Avenue,'N.W. 1 W a r. h i n g t o n, ' D. C. '20005 4 (2027 234-41133' t a, g, ~ 3.

t ( t- - 21 ' ~ l MR SHAO: The seismic curves -- 2_ CllAIHM AN. C ARR: Wel l' then,' I'd say they. 3 used them. 4' COMMISSIONER CURTISS: My' quest ion is--if 6 you're 'anying for. seismic. PRA.that you may not catch 0 everything that you want'using just one of the curves, 7; and particularly where they ' cross, -you therefore need 8 to use both curves. Why isn't that' true as.well as 9 .you go'th~ rough identifying the review level; earthquake 10 forJ.the marginn approach? MR. RICHARDSON. Okay. There's a very 12 distinct di f f erence in how you.use>the hazard curves' I 7 13 between the two inethods. In the. seismic margins' 1 14' method, the haenrd curven are used to select-a' review 15 level enrthqunke und that's all they're used for. 10 Once that i s done..t he hnzurd curven are set-naide'and 17 we're jusI out to eniimate the capacity of.t'ho plant. Ili CHA1HMAN CAHH: Okay. 19 MR. If lC H A R DSON : That's l one of the 20 ntrengthn of the mnrgin method - in it . takes - t bei U 21' uncerteinty of the haza d out of the picture. On.the 22 other hand, the pHA, the answers yo; get.arn: highly' 23" dependent upon the characteristle of t h e i np u t. :. the 24 hazard-curve. And - we think it prudent. -- since -i 25 lhere's a diversity of opinion, i t 's, prudent. t o' run j' r-sa N1; A 1 H., G HOS'S ' 1323 Rhode Ir, land Avenue, N.W.. Washingt on, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 ,,l = o

. ~- ~_r. r p 22 ~ l both and gain lusights from both hazard curves. Not 2 true for the margin method because the hazards were 3 only used to select the rev.iew level earthquake and 4 that wunl done. by sort of laying ^ the sites.' out : and: -5 saying, "Do we.have any outliers that ought to be.ai.a 0 little higher lever, review level earthquake?" 7 CilAIRMAN CARR: Are those curves. based-on 8 'the same sets of data? 9 MH. SHAO: No, 'on di fferent-dat a, maihly 10 based on local-geology. 11 CilAIHMAN CAHH: O k a y'. That' explains ;my 12 problem. m 13 COMMISSIONER CURTISSI. And t he' option is .J 14 given io the licensee-to use either the. margins 15 opproach or the seismic PHA? .10 MH. H1CHARDSON:- H1ght.. 17 Mll. SHAO: Yen. !j 18 COMMISSIONER CUHTISS: .-Would ' you expect l 19 the v o s. t mojorii y of t hela t o 'us.e ;t he = margint; -approach? i. 20 MR. Sil AO : - Y e s,- youfre.right. 21 COMMISSIONER. CitRTISS:L Subject to 22 casolution of this: ques t i on.' of. the review level-23 carthquake. 24 MH, Sil AO: Right. -Exactly.- 25 COMMISSIONER CURTISSf Okay. ,i + am NEA1 H. GHOSS' - 1323 Rhode Island Avente, N.W. War.hiurion, Dic. 23005' (202p 234 4433-

v--

o-

. o 2 5 .r-23 1- 'MR. SHAO:- Okay. 'In addition, a good ~ 2 walkdown should be made to identify any areas that are- ~ 3 vulnerable-to earthquake' levels.- -Other areas very 4 'important is we want-a so-ent led high confidence and 5 low priority failuro values ~for' component sequences in G-the' plant, so-called IICLPF curve, plant capacity. For 7-the PRA, you can-generate.so-' called.HCLPF. 8 Okay.- That'n'all I have on scismic and-- .D COMMISSIONER ROGERS:: .Well,.just before 10-ending 'the topic -- 11 , MR. Sil AO :

Sure, 12-

- COMMISSIONER ' HOGERS: in' t he. margins. ,13 mothodology, what do you mean' f rom - what a does t his. i .14 bullet 'renlly mean, from PHA ' insights. You're not 16 doing a sef smic PHA, but the. int ernal' event s PRA or i 1 G_ w h n t-- o r e you tulking about there? 17 MR. SHAO: There'are about"20,.30 seismic 18' PHA. For.t hene seismic PHA, you know:- whi ch..nys t ems ID are most .Important and Wh.ich systems 'are not 20 important.

21 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:'

Not -on this- ; plant t 22 but' for other p1 ants. I 23 MR. SHAO: Yes.- For other plants,- from: a 24. these' experiences, you can. pl.:k out 's ys t ems. 25 CllA1RMAN CARH: Okny., It 's used just"io } r . s. r NEAl; R,' GROSS 1323 Rhode'181 tend.'Avenuo, N.W- .i Washington, D'.C, 20005 (20' ) ' 34-44 33c J J I

N 1 i

L <a

6 ~ ~ ~, ' -1 pick out the systema you're' worried about? 2 MR. SHAO: Right. 3 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Okay. 4 MH. TAYIOR: Bill? d 5 MR. BECKNER: (Slide) Okay. I'm going to G-now look. at the other hazards.= If we go to slide.13, [ 1 7 indicates neceptable methodology for fire IPEEE. 1 8 -currently, t hcH e teering group han -on.ly identi fit d one 'O methodology nud.thnt's.a fire PHA which would also be i .I 10 nugmented b y-n

walkdown, to address soma lanuen 11' identified on part of t h e -. fire risk neoping study.

1 12 Thnt's the -only method that 's. currently ovnilable. m 13 However. EPHI and -NUMA40 ~ a re ' working on a more ..J .j 14 eimplifled approach. Thin essentinlly is a 's u c c e s s - 10 pnth npproach or s impl i fi ed PRA. We have cmet with IG I PHI and NUMARC n number of t imes - on t hia method. We_ j 17 are n t ill. nwui t ing, I believe, their submittal, but lH o n e. c. t h a i r.ubmi t.t n1 'i n ' given io us, wo'wi11 review;it- ~ 19 to see if it's neceptable to.purform the lPEEE. The i 20 fact that this. method is under = development in!'indeed 21 indiented in.the generie letter. So t he. ' licensees d 22 wil1 know cf its ovallability. + .23 (Slide) Slide-number 14 deala with. in~ 24 effect, what.we're enlling the others, the high winds, 25 including:the tornadoes, external floods ond _theLwhole Fo r D d 4 ' 4 1323 nhode 1,,inndeAvenue,.u.W. j-Watc hi ng t on, D.C. !2000T- ] M02) ~ "34 -44 33 E -j

.c c .o I ( i 25 f~ l laundry list of items that we looked at and screened l 2 out. But bnsically, what we're recommending - in this ? u 3- . area is a screening-type approach that maken. heavy use . i 4 of the original design basis of the plant. The reason 5 we're doing this is'that first'of all plants that are 6 designed to current criteria -- and what we mean '. by. .? 7 that-is basically " t he. pos t-1976 - SRP criteria --ithe 8 design. basis in very,. very. conservative in these 4 1 9 nrens. And in addition, the design basis.quite often >) 10 made use of n probablistic approach. j 11' so, what we're' saying is that for i liese I t i 12 a r e n t., if the plant is. basically designed to the newer l 13 criteria, we can screen them out and d o n ', t h a v.e to; r i 14 worry about.i t anymore. But it-As necessary that all 15 plants go ahead and go through this screening process 10 basically f or t wo : reas onto. First of all, there may be

p 17 some older lilants.that areJnot designed to the current

.I 18 Nur er.iterin and, t:econd o f all, newer plant.s may have ~ 19 nearby faci 11(ies-that are not oafety.related und 20 therefore were not designed ta the criteria and they 21 should be looked at. i 22 In addition, there could have-been changes x. 23 in land use - in t he vicinity of the sites since the 24-plant was licended rad'aa *; e ' eel that, again, plants-j 25 should-une o kereening-t eve approach to examine i ni 4- ,h NTAI, H. GROSS 1323 Uhode 1.e. land Avenue, N.W. -j Wa s hi_n g i on,

11. C.

20005 (202) 234-4433J i ( s G!,

I. 7--.- 26 I these areas. 2 That concludes n general. discussion of the 3: basic' external hazards that'we feel need examination. 4' (Slide) If we:can go to slido 16 now -- S COMMISSIONER CtIRTISS: Before you go on, G 'l e t me go back to'the fire -- 7 MR.'BECKNER ' Okay. 8 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: .for 'your D respr nte on t he NtfMARC comments, because~zI gather what 10-yo'. ' r e anying'in tbe.lettercof April 13th is that thot il eNtensive work-that we've 'done 'on Appendix R to date-12 nid the nnnlyses that hnve been done, and they' cite NUREG "'E 13 CR 60 -42. indient e: that as t hey say it,; "The. public 14' risk for inic* nal fire scennrios has been shown,to be 1G heeligible." 10 Two q u e s t i o n s.. 'Nhmber ono,, would you-17 respond to that in torms of thn! risk thet. remains from r l 18 -fire un n resul t' of: t he Appendit R initiatives?' Two, 10' -i f, we proceed wit h' fire in the. context Jof external 20

eventn, what-s t ein.'

doen. the~ staff nciv i s i o n " ' t o-- 21 coordinate the work t hat 's. being - done here with I he? 22 work on Appendix R? 23 MR.. itECKNER: '(S)ide) If_we.want t_o go to 24 backup slide 7, 1-think there's.-an indication of the. 25 risk-t ha t' remains from fire, even w i t h'.- Append i x-H :. i n.

-i.

ri l L N): A li R. CROSS 1323 Rhode 1aland. Avenue, N.W. W a r. h i n ti t o n,J il. C. _. ' 2 0 0 0 5 d202) 234-4433' x

p t 1 q y t-p_ 27 1-place. 2 MR. SHAO: Why don't we' let' Conrad ~ 3 McCracken - answer the ' quest lon.- He's the Chairman,of' 4' the Subcommittee on Fire, fa Conrad? 6 MR. McCRACKEN1-Conrad,McCracken, NRR. 7 I think. I need' t o. go' into a little 8_ background t o'. eddress your question. Appendix R"is 9 'only part of the regulations'on' fire.. It only applien- - 10 i t o a mi ecific reumber of ' plants. The-other,pInnta have 11 other regulatiour..that they meet. 12 Appendix R and thone o tlie r regulations , - -] 13 were a deterministic approach'to go in and protect a W 14-oingle tlrnin-of shutdown equipment. That.was done by 16 hanically putting'a tbree hour. harrier asound'it.- You 16 either wrap the component-or 'you ensure: that. i t 's: 17 sepornted from the:other equipment. l it. Whers people ntnrted t o~. do " pH As, they've 19 gone throuch nbout 20 pHAs.now where fire han=been-20 included. The.mn,Jority of those havelfound: fire to be, 21 n significant factor because 'even though. you'.vc 22 protected.one t rain, you've left the other train 23 v u l n e r a b l e '. -.If the train you've. prot ect ed i s' ou t o f 24 ' service for n n y. n t h t.+ r reason, and in many casesothey ~ O f> didn't have any nignificant' t ime limit s on - how-long 3

u NI: A1; 11.. G ROS S.

1323:Hhode lalond Av'enus..N.W.: Po t lj i n r t on, 11-, C. 2000$ 1202) 234.4433% i 7.g

p p to I 28 l' they could be out of service, it turned out'you had!a ^ 2 very high vulnerability to' fire because the other 3 train which you had not. protected was now: vulnerable. 4 We -found that through.pHAn',- through n-5 logical mothodology of going: through and.looking .O s y s t em n t :1 c a l l y-at all- 'of' </our= equipment and 7 determining what-is avellable, what is'and whattis note 8 liroteeted that you do find vulnerabilities.and, in D fact,-some of those then need to be protected'by~ nome 10 other meann. They enn be protected by ' implementing,a 11 fire watch i f you -have ^ your fire protected train' out 12-of servien, There nre normally simple easy - t hings s to ~J 13 do that you can implement t hiit.will - give - you ' that- .u 14 added asaurance thnt you've detected and taken care of. I r. the vuInerabilitlen, 1S COMMISSIONi-:II:OtfRTISS 'Does tiie NtlREG that' 17 they cite, NIIREG CH 60-42,- focunJ on singlo t rain L or ) I f: c' o e s. 1I t ol:e the sytitemntic approach? t 19' MR. McCRACKEN: It taker, -- J 20 COMMISSION!H C ultTI S S : ' 1 'gnther there bl 21 nrgument here is that-the. nix - reactors tiia t were r t ~22 otudled in thot'NUREC'.. awed no.significant< risk. ] 23 MH. McCHACKEN:- No.: 1-think we dinagree .j .c 24 -with them on whether it shows any significant,rish. q 25 They vent and did a: study at one part'icular plant on' r-NEA1/ H.LGHOSS 1323-Rh6de7 l a 1 o n'd. A v ein U e, N.W.. Washinrten, D. C r-2000!i 1 'l < ( 1.' 0 2 '. 2 3 /i r 4 4 3 3r

1 t " t 7 i 29 'J-1 their. own. The assumptlons they used in.their study t 2 to juntify their pHA beso number we didn't agree with. 3 We think the da t abase l t hey used w' ann' t applicable to-4 nuclear power plants. We simply -- that was something 5 -done very e a r.l y ; wi t h them. That ' was :probably the -r G third or fourth sceting in our. series of 11 meetings. ~ { 7 Since that point, we've really not.. been involved in: f 8 discuss.ing or worrying about.that particular datalase.- 9 COMMISS10NTR CllHTI SS : Okey.

Sc your 10 carlier comment that. thin han been resolveI with 3

11 NUMAHC.rellects a d i s a g re enie n t basically with.:the-12 April 13th positlon. 4 "9 13 MR. Sil AO: Yes.~ 1 t hink _ NUMARC h'a d. n o. [ l a ~ 14 problem with us'on' fire, unless I'm wrong. IS MR. ' McCHACKEN: Not-t h a L - I ' ni nware o f.' i a 10 't h e r e ~ aren't any dinngreement s hetween us on -- we } 17 haven't reviewed -their nethodology yet, though,. so 1H dirugteeiuents could arise. L 19 . COMMISSIONER CURTISS: l~ unde' stand. r ' i 20 MR. BI:CKNEH: Okay. Arc :there ers more 21 questions on the specificchazards? i 22 (S1ido) Then we can. go t o-slide' 15, whichl

]

23 describes the implementation process -that we would-l 24 .r e c om n.e n d. : In effect.- we' re ' recommending n:pr'oceani j 26 t h a t. will' par allel what we did1fot4 the IPE internal j r %= N J: A l, H. CHOSS= 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Wanhington, p.c. 7 2000rr l (202) 234-4433: e

L. b[l}. Le ( v. s 7- '30 I event's which is basically' to lesue a generic letter-2 which would request tho examination and, at the'name .3

Jime, issue a ' guidance documerd as a-draft 'for 4

comment. We would then have a workshop, consider'any. S. comments and questions that we got from the workshop - G on botb: the guidance document _and anyihing in the g 7 generic letteri Then. following-that, we would-11- .rcisnue the guidance document: and'in'eed a supplement ~ d 0 to the. generic lettcr_if~necennnry. ~ 10' Thnt :would ntnri the IPPEE

clock, in-r.

11' effoet. We would perform' n sitallar type o' f request 12 where the licennees would have 00 days to tell us r-] - 13 about their plans which we would review 'and approve,- and-1; 14: then the bnaic requent would be 'that 'the 1 PECI: be I fi completed in three years,'although I'll-talk a little 1G bit more about r,chedule in a moment. 17 (Slide) 'Thnt leads really ' t o the next lL l it - v'lewgraph which isJt.he schedule that; we would propose._ 19 Pending Commission

opproval,

_ve' coul'd ' fl anue the 20 generic letter 'in J sil y'. -) We ' v e. tentutively planned a '21 workshop in t he-September. time framo and - t hat would' l 22-have the guidance. document. being issued on. final in i 23-November or late in the calendar year.- That, again. 21: .giving the three year schedule that'.we would_ request, i L 25-

Au - cousinient ' wi t hDeloning out.nevere accident ir.suca s._

f'.. - NE AL li. OkOSS.- 4, [;, 1323 Ithode-Inland-Avenue, N '. W, m wanhineton. p.c. 2n005 (202) 23414433, 3 + 1 4 ,1

i '.. g r-3I i'~

).

by June of 1995, which the Commission - ' we-t old the 2 Commission was our target. 3 However, 1 do want to' point out that the- -4 schedule problem and the fact that t iie utilities'any 5 be overloaded with both the internal and.the externel. G eventn hus becu a problem that Nt! MARC has ~ made. ' un - 7' . nwn En o f.- As with 'the : t hiernal _ event IPE, we do-5? ' fl

indient, that l i c e ri s e e s - m an y.

requent extensions.and D. that wo - would ovalunte them on a case by cane basin. 10 COMMISS10Nif H CllllTISS: On-ther schedule 11 question here und ' on.that lamun - of ' ext ensions, 1 -12 gother.what you're anying in t h a t. ' t h o s e ' l i c e n si e n s. : that

• "]

13 want to du those in series are likelyl candidntes for .J 14-eNlennlon? 16 Mii. IlEC K NER I Yon. 10 COMMISSIONI:lt OllHTISS t - .And if 1 rend the 17 SI:0Y paper correctly, there nre:six licensees thn't ero l 1 11 not iloi n g them-in oorlen.: -10 M ll, lil:Cis NEld. 'There ntn'e,ix 1lcenacen'that-20 have' told us'airondyr they're'doing. external am n'part .21 nf internol. They're going: ahead. _ Ilu t we huvo not 22 heard the plans, from the other'utilitten. 23 Mil. T A Y l.Oli t There may be more. L 24 Mil. Ill:CKNElt: 'Ihere may be' anny. more1lhan 25 tbut. lf i - c. -

O,_

N!! A1: li. Gil0S S - 1323 Rhode; Inland Avenue,. N.W. . J Knr.hinyton -D.C. 20005 '(202) 234-4433 ty _ I' W

N 'N, =32 1 COMMISSIONER 'CURTISS: Would you expect. 2 the einJ o r i t y of the licensees to do these in series 3 and hence -- 4 MR. IIECKNI'H: There may be hfficiencies to 5 doing it in parallei, or at' least :very close. To. G finish t he int ernn1. event s',. you tend to make:. us e of 7 the same plant models for the: external events and-8 proceed immediately with. external events using 'the 9 same plant models and'the name>cxportime an.for_an-the-10-plant side. 11 COMMISSIONI!R CilHT]SS: Okay. 12 Cl! A 1 HM A N C AliR i Well,.there might be_some 13' advantngen of doing'it-sinuitanoously,oit seems to'me, "~"' .] 14 because fixes _ in one ' place. might interact with fixes 15 intheother}iluce. 10 MH. DECKNElfr C o r r e c t.- - 17 COMMISSIONER.CURTISS:. II wns+trying to get 18 a feel for whether the submit tale will' all come in at 19 the end uf '93 or whet her _ they' 3 li be: rprend~out.nnd) 20. permit th6 staff review of that.toTapread out'as:well. 21 MH, Ill:C);NI'1I: lion t l' have n-feel for that - 2 :' of this point in ~ t ime.. The Internal.evento tend to 23 he -~ 1 PI: t:, tend to be pushed :t oward: the Sept ember ' 92 24 date. 25- . COMMISSIONI:lt CllHTISS :- Right.- 7_ N!!Al H. G110S S - 1323 Uhode Inland' Avenue, N.W. Wnshinfton, li.C. 20005: (2021 234-443A

7-C, .0 - r L 33 I 1 MR. BECKNEH:. So, we may see a staller l 2 trend. i 3 COMMISSIONER'CUHTISS: Okay. } i 4 MR. BECKNER: (Slide) The lasty slide,. '] slide 17, simply ~ restates the~ recommendation. That is i G that we-recommend approving issuance of a' generic. -7 lotter and n support j ng guidance document as.a draft.. i -) 8 for comment that would request-the licensees. conduct j 9 an lp0. The l pll process would then start followjng-j 10 the workshop and nny revisions as necessary to olther 11 the guidance document or-t he' generic letter. That 12 coneludes our pretonta-tlon. l t +7 13 C il A l ll M A N CAHH: Any. questions, [ t 14 . Commissioner llogers? i 10 COMMISS10NEH lt0G EHS : The estiention of 1: 10 cost required to do this, d o_ i-read this correctly 17 t hat your estimate in that these will require nhout IR six person yeart. for each of thoso examples? 10~ MR. til:CliNEll: We view that no an'- upperf i-20 l i m i t ', l 21 COMMISSION!;H If 0GEHS: - How con fi den t1: a re' 22 you of that as being an upper limit? ~! 23 MR. Bl:CliNEH: I guess that was a m a j o r'. 24 issue that we dealt with in. the. int ernal events, and; 't 25-co we kore very careful. We obinined estimates based Q l f ;.J s NEAl R. GROSS 1323 !! bode lalnud Avenue, N.W. y Kashi~ngt.on', D.C...'20005 -l202) 234-4433c n-y.

L et i ! ': 5 g =34 1 on experience with our contractors in 1150 and we also 2 informally questioned a number ofi. companies out in.the 3 world that performed PHA type analysee. We also-4 look'ed at the cost s' fore the. margins methods that - have-5 ~been done. That-number includes quite a -bit of G conservatism,.I believe, because.it was a major issue 7 as far as the validi t y of the estimates-of the R internal events. O COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Doca the industry 10 more or less ngreetwllth.you'on that? 11 Mii. DECKNER: 1 don't think'we've seen any 12 specific. comments from industry on that - at this point 13 -in t i sm. ' 14 00MMISS10NElf ' CUHT1SS: If I recall, the 15 ACRS was skeptical-of your, initial entimate.of 16 400,000. 1 17 MH. DECKNER: -That estimut e 'ir based on l 18 what we felt our cont'ractor's could do it for." 10 COMMISS10NCH. CURTISS:- Did they have - n' 20-number in mind.or Were. thoy Junt skeptical ;of ihe l- -21 400K? - l 22 MN. liEC KNER;. 1; don' t. belicvc they had n-c '23 number in -- 24 COMMISS10NCH CURTISS: 'Okay. 25 CONMISS10NER ROGERS: That's all, f .NEA1/ H. CHOSS 1323 Rhode-'Ir. land Avenue, N.W. ] Washington, D.C. 20005 m (20 0 234 4433 d l 4

s 1 4 \\;~ 35' ~ ' ' 1 CHAIRMAN CARR Commission Curtiss? q -2 COMMISSIONER CliRTI S S Yes. I 'have a 3 number 'of questions. lLet me begin with what happens 4 at the conclusion.of this process because , - thu NilMARC-6 letter raises a number of-questions about whether this 3 3 G. initintive ought .to be subjectedL to :the-backfitL c 7 . analysis. f 8 If I rend-the SECY paper correctly, and 9 l ' ra looking hero.at pnge 3'and-the top of page,4', the! 10 genieric. vulnerabi11Iles.would be' used. t o determine i f. o 11 of ficiencies exist. in the "regula t i ons', that is to say l , 12 the gonoric vulnerabilities identified after the 13 process. -I f deficiencies 'are ident i fied, t he benefi ts. 14 of modifying the regulations would be. accessed against -( 10 the safety coni. It goes on to say at the bottom of 10 that

page, "The sinff expecto Leach. licensee to I

17 identify nll such actions and to implement-them,.-i f.. j 18 oppropri at e, in n timely manner." 19 Now. 'NdMARC't. nrgument, as 1 understand. 1 20 11, is thnt thin in-really a ; predicat e t o c rulemakingL 21 or some

s. o r t of regulatory requirement.

.So, under -i 22' -60.109, you ought to subject this 't o -the: full' 23 regulatory review and the back fi t ' anal ysi s.,. Wha t 's. I 24- .~the response to Ihat?- t 25 This lo'nguage, 1.gueso, soundn'to me.like-s p. .i N L' A L lt. GHOSS 13P3 khode Isinnd Avenue, N.W.. - Wa s h i n c t o n,. D..C..-20005 (2021 234 4433" 7

t. 8 - i- - i 3G _r 1 it is a predicate to:some kind of requirement. Or, to 1 2 put, it nn they did, if we're doing this to. impose ~3- ' requirements on licensees, it.ought to go through'the 4 .procons. I f not, 'why' are we requiring -it ? 0 MH. ILECKNEH: No, I 'think there's; two 6 pointn. here, Number one, if after'we review the bulk 7 of the ! pes and see that there are_ major weaknesses?in. H our regulut.lons, we of course would modify'them.-,And 1) if we chose to modify ihe-regulutions, wo would ' gh 10 tbrough the backfit.procean, of course. There's no, 11' intent or no expectation or no i de n t i f l od - we ak nen s eer 12 in the regulutinnh right now, but obviously wit h ' t his "~1 13 databane that's a posnibility. -,J. 14 The'second point'in for individuni plants.. 16 Whnt we've nuld is if you-find a wenkunsa and you feel A 16 that you-think it ought to.ho-corrected, go'nhend nnd 17 correct it. Don't wait for approvnl from-thu staff,' J lH but co"reet it. under the existing regu]ntions ihut 1 11 all.ou you to improve your plant.: IfL thei staff 20 disagreen with decisions on ~ fixing vulnerabilitien, 21 then of courne-we would use the backfit processc _An'd 22 1here's nothing more than .t hat to be rend int o 'the - 23 words, I don't'think. '24 COMMISSIONCi:- CllR T J S S : I guesp their "5 atcument is t ha t. - 'I t u k_ c 1t everybody would agree-- r-]; 4 NEAl.ii.'GNOSS 1320 hhods ldland' Avenue, N.W4 K n r. h i n g t o n, U. c c. 720006 (2021-234-4433; ) -e

mm :- ~ .e ,< n [ Tt 37. { l if;you impone r;equirementa at the end ofLthis process,- 2: that :those would 'have to go-through the backfit 3 anal'ysis. 4 MR.JBECKNEH Certainly.- We-stated.that.- a G COMMISSIONER CUNTISS-Buti the question; -0 here in -if this-information request which -you're -7 treating under 50. 54. as an informationc request, i f R there's a rennonable expectation that that will'. lend 9 to.the 'impnait ion orc regulatory requirementa... should 10 .that be sub.Jected t'n the backfit analyain up front? 11 MR. DECKNER: l' don't'believe'*there's any 12 expectatlo'n of any specific rule chainge at.this point 13-in time. 'r J I "~~ I 14 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: They cit e. - as an 10 example of thnt,,'the CHGH's approach or USIA-40 where 16 thnt wan done. 2 17-MH. S il A0 F ,A 4G in a : definition 4 of 18 comp 11unce. You've tots A-4G - for 'denign baals.. a s 19 ofnted, ihe compllance i n siu W.. 20' C H AI RM A N.' C A RR :' 'Well, le t ~. mc ampli fyr t ha t-- '21-a littlo, beenuse - 1ilooks like we're aaking;them t'o 1 22 ovaluate.their' plant's occording to criteria'that they 23 might not have been designed to. 24 MR. SHA0! - Ri ght. - 25 Cil Al HM AN CARR;, And-'When;they get:through

r--

'L'# NEAl, R. CHOSS' 'I 'l ;'II. W h ode f 1 WI u n d A v e n u e, N.' W. e W a hincton.-11.C., 20005' '(202).23.ii4433; o

Thu 4 g

o-1,

- 'I. 3 s38 t n ~ l with that, then we may.say, " Hey. there's some things 2 we think you ought to~do against these new criteria-3 that's not really part of your design." And you're ' _4 - saying if they say, "We won't;do it," then we'111have 6 to pass a rule' and requir_e them-to do it, at which) G-time you plan to do the backfit'analysie. 7 Mii. BECKNEH: No. I think this has beenin 8 problem. The criteria that we're putting-down : b o t h '.- 9 the reporting critoria for the internal events: und. 10 externni events and also the review. level e a rt hqiiake 11 .i s ~ Junt that. It's

u. reporting-.critcria.

And it anys 12 in the generic lettor very clearly that these n 13 reporting criteria are not necessarily any ' defitii t ion .J 14 of a vulnernbility~ or any expoetat ion. - It'a' simply 15 the level of detoll ih reporting that wewould like t o. 10 see. 17 A. plant, for instance, that does;not meet 18 the 3.3 g review level 'enrthquake, there's; no 19. expect a t i on; that ihat plant wohld have-to:be upgraded._ 20 1I would. be teviewed on. a case.,by case: basin _ _inf 21 whatever level it could sustain, _ and ' also what the 22 particular vulnerability was, t he - i mpor t'ance o f o t h a t' - 23-vulnerabi1ity. '24-DOCT0ff SPEIS: If I may say something, Mr.. 25 Chairman, thic i t. no different than. the approach we. r--- Ni: A1. II. Gif0SS 1323 Ithoiie Island Avenue, N.W. Wnchingion. D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433.

u A I g t0 s t

i l r.-

39 f ,s I have taken for internal' events. { 2 CHAIRMAN CARR: I'm no more ' comfort able t down to 3' with that than I am with this when we get 4 where the rubber hits the road and we've really got to-6- make: them do it. I 0: DOCTOR SPE15: -We are talking ebout we. 7 are beyond the regulations. Okay?. 8 CilAIRMAN CAHH: Yes. 9 DOCTOR SPEIS: We're talking. about risk f a 10 reduct ion, 'anfet y enhancements. And in that aren, the 11 Commisalon rules.are very cient. We'have tot apply the 7 12 backfit rule if:wn.think-that something should be done [ q ~ 13 to further enhance safety or reduce risk,'you know, t -- 14 CHA1HMAN CARH: Well, 1 applaud what we're 15 doing. What we're really doing is, say, "Take a look: 16 nt your pinnts. I f you ' find.something that : need l l 1 17 fixing, fix it." .And we l' hope that there won't be an 2 1H

nrgument, beenuse they'll obviously want to fix 19 something that needs fixing.

i .20 MR. TAYLOH: That was the idea. g 21 CHAIRMAN CARH: The argument 's. go'ing ' t o 22 come if they say, "We don't,think i t_ needs fixing," 23 and we s a y,- '.' W e think it does need fixing."

Then, r

24 you.'re going to co t hrough n,rulemnking. Is thot what 25 'you'r'e telling me?' h [ ] si . s.. i NEA1, H. GROSS !f 1.323 Hbode Isinnd Avenue, N.W. l War.h i n c t mi, D.C. 20005 lI r ',- ( 2 0 2 F 2 3 4 -4 4 3 3. .u a-

w y 9 -- 7 :e

p,

-s .n y y - g 40, ] ~ 9 l' MROTAYLOR: ' Or individual: plant - f act ors'.= 0 1 2- 'DOCTOH)SPEISM -Yes. -Yea,for-~ individual--, 3-

MR. T/YLOH:

It.might>likely be that or a" .{ . 4 -- grour, of=pinnts. 6-COMMISSIONER. CllRTI S S : - I '_ m.. t r y i ry : t o x J G. - ext ract;; t heJ generall principle Lhere under 50.109-tiia t-- I~ [ 7L think 'I henr:you he saying.J L J f.. you = have nn: initiative' 8' that: -1s going. toL tlead' to the-imposit ion L of.

l 9 -

requii remen t s-a t nomv ' poi n', an.this - one-will or may..- .i 10 doponding ' upon the willingness o f.- t h e - licensecs > and

}

11-the.way in which t he.1iconseesl rend,' "We : expect 1 youf to h fl2 take:those actions." ~ 13 For =purpones :ofJ how 'we interpret the!1 g 14 .back fi t', I g a t h e r -you r -- a rgume n t- -' i s,- in; a case :like. ~ 15 te i n where we start offEdown thatirond:with n; request-Id for 11nformat ion,. what. you' call a 50.54( f)-~ request, I 17 t hot; that fi r st step doesn t, have _ t o. bet subJ ec t ed ' to f 18 t h'e -b a c k r i l procons-even;1f we stipulate at.tho' front i '19 end t hu t-it will11end to~ requirements. '20 MR.'BECKNEHi .At.this point, w e.' have no i

21 expect ation on any fines that might be required, so-fit-9 22 would be d i f ficul t ' to do a<?backfit..

We <have~ no" a a a i 123 .expectatlon of specific fixes or -- ~ p 24 MR. PARLER: -Mr.

Chairman,

.l f :. you would ~25 have to subject.the firstintep t o' a classicol~backfit i ,3 i J. NEAL R.-GROSS 132h !;i-i e Islbnd Avenue, N.W. W a s h i n it. o n, :D ; C. 20005 (20?T 23444433' + n.

o-o 41' ' ~ 1 analysis -going through a cost benefit analysis 'for 2 information ihat you need and you don' t have, __you 3 couldn't 'do that. You _ have: to have a justificalion 4 for the information so ' that. 1 undue burdens are not 7 5 imposed on people. G liu t beyond that,- 1. agree - '.well, not 7 beyond that, but' with that I agree completely. with 8 what Mr. It e ck n e r has described. You worry ab ou t. the 9 back fi t t ing rule when you get to the. point of deciding 10 whether or nct you have to impose additional i 1 II t'e qu i r em en t S. - 1 l

i 12 COMMISSIONED OURTISS:

Let me ask you one j 13 other quention on this point, because they cite a4 r ' ~L.--{ l a 14 section and I'm assuming it's accurately quoted here -1 In out of the rederal Register notice of September 20th, j 16 ' B f>. "The amendment of 50.54(f) should be read as 17 indicating a strong concern on .t he.part of-the 18 C omm i n r. i o n that extensive ~information requestn be 19 carefully imrutinized by ntuff management prior to 20 initinting such requests. The Commission recognizes i 1 21 that there may be inntances where it. is-'not clear i 22 whether o buch fl t wi11 follow an i n fo rma t ion "reques t., " ) 23 which I take it is this case, "those cases should be 24 renolved in favor of analysis." i 20 Their argunent is that this in a ense i u Ni' A L H. GROSS 1323 Rhodt Island Avenue, N.W. Wnnhingion; D,C. 20005 -(202' 23<l-4433

n n; w; i, m l ~ f f1 ) - : { :} s

v;

!Q ^-ng f U . -- t q () ~ fa-} < ; ;: y. 1 s 1 t y. 4,. ~" . l -tt [._ whsriLit's* note iearlor,Jdepending on how'you read,the;

)

c n, .m ,g- ' ' ~ 'f i 12. langunge : -in _ thoSECY-' paper,- ' t h e r e ' n' ' a reasonable j 3-expect a' t ion s t hu t-requi rement s' will follow.- IrF ci t ing: j

4.,

j 4 [ , L4 ; that-Ilanguage ,fronn the

50. 5 4 (. f ) : amendment,_

thej 3g 9,, 'Gl Commission: > took t he posi t ion.zin; '85 that '. where L it 's <d a 0-unclenr1 those.cought-Lio'- b'c / resolved' in favor-o f' 2 v ,7 . analysis'...Is"thiscone of those cases? j i

8 --

- DOCTOH l MUH1,EY: ' Well',- we ' mi ght be sii s sing ;

D s ome t h i n g... C o mm i s s i on e r.--

Maybe the a tin l ys i n E re f e r red : i ^10 to inHthis requent for' informatlonehad

t. o go.i t h ro u g h o

.t ~11 -CHGH review,'and it;had to.go t hrough' ;t he ~ analys is L,t o. } 12:J support'the r e q u e n t L. f c.- i n f o rniu t i o n.. Am;T corrects?C 'm 13 MH.:DECKNEH: 'Yes. 1 g :, a '14f DOCTOH MilHLEY:- '.1 haven't read::that,tbut I-

10. l

. wonder 'does theinnal ys isc re fer t o.- 1 1 G. COMMISSIONEH; CUHTISSi-lThey're:. nrg'ing? u t '17 t b a ts' w - t k 18' DOCTolf MURl,EYI, .- t he : back fi t.. anal ysi s-- L -19' COMMISSIONER CURTISS: --falth'ough'1t has { .20 .bcen referred-to the CHGH,,thatelt_ought to goLthrough -21

the 50.100 buck fit ~ analysin. -na I t u n de rs t hml, Lt h e i r o

22 . position. ff I23 MR. DECKNEH: 1Lthink that's the_ case. t 24' Cll AI RM ANc C ARR : iSounds'like i tf d e p en d s i o n :' .s 25, whether you're anL -op t'i m i s t.~ or > o perdi mi n t. j a l 1 3 NE Ali H.. GROSS 1323 Hbode 1sland. Avenue, Lh. j E'. Wan k i sig t on, c D. C.-.20005, 7j (202i'234-4433) 1 a;: }] i

f;> A

.m c -s 43

• ~

l COMMISSIONER CURTISS: I'm Just reading 2 the language in the SECY paper that says t ha t -- 3 CHAIRMAN CARH: If you think the current 4 plants are going _to come out of this with no. changes I 5-

required, then obviously you ~ don't-need any pre-0 analynis.

If you, on the other hand, 1,elieve they-7 then you might make the argument on the-other 8 sloe. O COMMISSIONER CURTISS: Right. 10 MR. TAYLOR:. We're proceed.ing, you'know-- 11 CRAIRMAN CARR: The. i n d i ciit t o n s that 12-they've given me so for, for instance,-on the seismic 13 events where they've looked at plants t h a t., were i 14 designed for less than what they think they need-now 15 and they look and they're well above'the margin would 16 lend you to he an optimist. 17 COMMISSIONER - CURTISS: puts you. on _ the 18 horns of the dilemma that.the NUMARC s fol ks ~ raised, 19 though. I f you expec t t.ha t, this program won't. lead to 20 any regulotory requirements or changes at the end o f. 21 the process, then.they ask the question'and I'll just 22 ask it here, what's the purpose of the program then? ~i 23 DOCTOR MURLEY. I don't know how we~could 24 conceivably do an ' analysis of the costs 'and the 25 bene fi t s when wo don't have a remote iden:of what'they l ~. a o NEAL R. GROSS-1323 Hbode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234--'4433

c. r-- 44 ~ l would be-before.we ask for this. In other.words,-it's 2-as the Ceneral ' Counsel said. -I f we' re stopped from 3 even asking for-information, I don't know how we'could 4 conceivably do the analysis.. 5 CHAIRMAN CARR: I would think it. depends: G' on the information to come in should give. you n' ~ ~~ 7 confidence level that your regulations are.or'are not H good enough. If-you find that they are not, why-then 9 you have to go through-the rest of the process. 10 COMMISSIONER CI'L ISS : Yes. 1 understand 11 the issue. I'm not sure where I come down on it, but 12 it'n been a helpful discussion. 13' Cl! AIRMAN CARR: We're not going tontake a' 14 vote at this meeting. 15 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: I understand. 10 1.c t me go back. I missed a couple of-17 questions here. On'the Appendix'R fire protection 18 innue, ihe second question that T had was how would 'i 10 the staff propose to cooi'dina t e t he e f for t s here with 20 the ongo ing - fi re protection efforts? Are-there steps 21 that this letter outlines that would ensure that those -1 22 two efforts can be coordinated with the maximum use of 23 resources? 24-MR. McCRACKEN: Yen. Conrad McCracken, )- 25~ NRR. a 1 NI: A L R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Youhinyton, D.C. 2000n (202) 234-4437 a i

4 i 45-The Appendix.R fire-protection issues are. a -2 already resolved, with - the exception of two' plants 3: that we'.re cleaning up. -And we have told-them clearly 4 .in the-way they handle thic thatl they go in-with the 5 assumption that they meet'all the current regulations O' on ' fire' protection, unless. we. find something -that 7 doesn't apply. 8 So we're not -trying to go beyond.. - i, the 9 current regulattons-for fire protectton.. We're i 10 saying, "With that implemented, do you have additional 11 vulnerabilities?"' We're not trying. to-revisit-the 12 isnues that we've already addressed. " -"l 13 C0bibilSS10NER CUHTISS: I guess I had more t. J 14 of n mechanical question. In terms of both that and l 19 seismic, for example, and walkdowns an'd that kind:of i 1G

thing, is the schedule' coordinnted so that the I

i 17 individual 1icensees in -- a 18 FIR. bleCR ACKEN: Yes. 19 C0bibilSSIONER CUHTISS: Go> ahead. 20 b1H. bicC H AC KI:N : Yeu. The. intent is that 21 we're trying to limit the number of'walkdowns.- This - 22 won nn i s, s u e that we.. discussed with nub 1 ARC. There are i 23 cases where they would like to have one big. walkdown 24 that addresses everything. There are ot her cases that 25 they figure they're. going to have a couple of I i NE A1 If, GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washingtnn, D.C 2 0 0 0 f. -(2001 234 4433

e w 1 . ry 46 I walkdownn', but with ' specific people 'looking at .2 specific' issues. But that's one that we've gone 3 through with a senior. management meeting with NUMARC. 4 We've hnd a-number of working group meetings. Our 5 intent is not to have t hem, walkdown the plant ten G-times in the-next five years. We want them to l'imit 7 the~numhor of timen they have to walkdown and go for-8 r.pecif!c purposca with a written procedure before they l 9 go to addreso all the areas that neod.to be-picked.up 10 and have t he proper expert ise of people doing-it. Il MH. HICilARDSON: That's copecially true 12 alno-in the seismic aren where the generic letter 6 R 13 elearly recognizen that A-4G la closely related and ..J 14 requiren extennive walkdown. And we encouragh the-15 industry to closely coordinate those walkdowns, if not 10 the same wnlk down, at.least enke sure-that they. 17 maximize the hone fi t s from euch walkdown so that-therei lH i r, enrry-over ri o t h a't their resources can be ' I l 19 optimized. 20 COMMISSIONEH CURTISS: I think -- let me 21 take n,uiek Iook here. That'a al1 I havo. 21' CHAkHMAN CAHH: Well, I might just comment a 23 that from a health and safety standpoint it looks like 24 a common f.enne~ thing to do. I realir.e there's. lots of -.l 25 i s e. u m, and i share-some of Commissioner i Curtiss' r- ~ ] NI: A l. R. GROSS-1323 Phode Intund Avenue, N.W. W n r. h i rW t'o b, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

&%q t

Q'

h;-

1 [ ig

t s,

x., " W-o . 4 7 :- m N* 1 ' concerns aboutshow w'e?got to thei endpoint; from where-l2 I

we; a re.now; :- bu t I Ldon' ti thi nk - I can s'olve" t hat {here.

s 3i MRI TAYI,0R: Those - concerns Japply "to'.the " 19 .4_ IPE from thoivery_beginnings and:that~is that..there"l'n. 5-

t ha tJ p.os s i b i l i t yj aridi t heri t h'e : s t a f f wil l - have to~

d ) 6 facef--Ethe licensee decides:on its own toimake a t f i x, -- yq 17- .they will.- ^ Tj .8 cCOMMISS10NEHICURTISS;

1. had:(sone-:: ot her j!

u y 9' questions -- 10 .CilAIRMAN CARH:- Sure. 'l l. . COMMISSIONER CURTISS: --E on t het t'esources S 12 isnue I'menn'to ask. 1:noted:here that,you'_ve got th.e q 13' resources-includedsinLthe five ' year plan.; Cla _: t hat-6 1-14 does that nnaume that. t hose' revi ews ;wi'll a l.l ' b o ld o n e'- t 15% in-house, o r -l a there going.to be; contractor :eview;'of; 7.. 10 t IIose no we.1l ? ~ l 17 MH. lii'CKNCH : 'TI's_'similar tohtholinternal. y events, it would be a l mi'x t u re. i 7 19= . COMMISSIONER'CURTISS: A mixture?_- i1 20. . BECKNER: Yes. MR. 21 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: All right, t 22

And, Tom.

back to your - comment [ _ on' s 23 .i n f o rm a t. i o n requestn :on tic' back fi t ti nsue, do ' :1 ~ 24. c interpret you-Lo.be saying.thatianfinformation request' i '?& nuch n r.. t iri ti -or nny -ot her one. that we-might :procsed i e-c 1-NEAL H.. GROSS LL,, < 13 2 ' Ifhode island Avenue, N.W.- H hashington, D.C. (20005 (20M 23404433L e I t

+ ,w 1 y y j 48 1-; with Itself, regardless - o f' what -- t he uitimat'e outcome 2 might be.-- ~ 1et's say, just for.the make of argument, 3 that we stipulate that a regulatory requirement will 4 .be' forthcoming, but not at this point -- that that', in S. your judgement,= would not'be subject to a 50.109 cost O beneftt evaluntlon? 7 DOCTOR MllR LEY: I guess I hadn' t thought 8 about the general question; because 1 can foresee 9 .nrenn where we kind of know'where we're heading. and 10' the techulen1 innue is well-defined where-it may be. Il approprinte to require the analysis before-we even go 12 out wi t h a 50.54( f) request for information. "~l 13 1101. in this very broad area.where wo don't ..J 14 really know what 's ' going ' to come out of it,.it is-a 15 hit of a fi n hi n g. expedi t -i on. I wouldn't know how to 16 do the analysis of where a rule might emerge from this 17 until we get the information back. So it's in -'t hat 18 context that I saId I wouldn'.t here really know how.'to 19 start to do the analysir, of cost and berie fi t s _ of - 20 potential rulemakings when I don't even ~ know. what 1 21-might. emerge. 22 MR. PA H l.E R : 1 think, Mr. Chairman, that 23 the Commission or the -prior Commission-wiien it' 24 approved the It a c k fi t Hule they also approved,- if. 'my 25 r e.c o l l ec t i on i t, correct, n-change to 50. 54 ( f),- which r- ^ NFAl. H. CHOSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Wnshingion, If, C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

-1 ~. 1-49 1 talked about the preparation or the reasons.for such-2 informat ion and that considering the burden that would 3 be imposed on the licensees, et cetera, that if.L-- ande 14 -if you have those considerations,- you'l1 get into a m 5 situation that seems to me'that at-least at the outset G that you would heve complied with what the Commission Li 7; had in mind when it published'the-Backfit-Rule as far -l 1 8 as what considerations should be given to the request y 9 for informatton, 10 As I understand the- - C o m m i s s i~ on e r 's 11

question, if-you know when you're reg'uesting the-12 information before you even get the information pretty' i.

13 much what the ou t come. wi'l l - be, well then should you I m J 14 collapse the 50.64 requirements with the requirements 15 i n. 50.109 for a cost benef t t analysis in - the event IG t hat you can't make the det ermination that the change-is 1 17 needed for adequate protection-purposes? I would 18 1hink that would=be a unique type of2 situntion where 19 ~ you have already made up your mindo before you request 20 the information. ~i 21 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: And the-language 22 that I'm grappling with is actually-the-tougher case. 1.. 23 I think if you know going in that you're going to have N 24 . regulatory requirements that flow out of the process, 25 that's a pretty clear answer. The rederal Register [ G m NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Phodo Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 2000G i o. (2001 234-4433 l l'i

I g 50+ j 1 language that they cite here on those 50.54(f) i 2 changes, though, seems to suggest that in cases where 3 .it's unclent I'll. read it. I 4 "The Commission recognizes that thereJmay- ~ f S be i ns t ances where '. i t -- is not clear whether a backfit. a! G willi follow an i n f o rmrit i on request. Those-_ cases 7 should be resolved in :f avor of the a n a l y s i s.." 4 i 8 1 guess-that may be the case we have!here, l I 9 I need to think about it more carefully, but that's i i 10 the thing I'm grappling with right now. j t 11 CilAIHMAN CARH: I guess my curiosity is 12 rnined in the other direction. If it were clear you q. 13 didn't need it, why would you ask for the information .J 14 nnyway? 16 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: .That's NUMARC's 16 point. I 17 CilAlHMAN C AllH :

Well, but I menn Lthat 18 langungo in there would indicate-that you'd only go 19 out if il w a s.

unclear. You'd have to do an annlysis. 20 If it was elear, it's okay to'go.out for -it. Ilut ie i 21 it was clenr you didn't need i t! f or -' regul a t ion, - why 22 would you want-it? i 23 COMMISS10NEH CUHTISS: I'd like to read-24 the text of thnt -Federn] Register notice m o r e -. .1 25 carefully, but it does reflect the Commission's r- . - + NEAl H, GROSS 1323 khode t r land Avenue, N.W. Warhington, D.C 20005 ( P0 2 ) ' "34 -4 4 33 i

n:., 'y M., a-g T 51 ' ~ l position at the time on how 50.109 should-be 2 vnplemented, and 50.54(f)~. I i 3 MR. PARLER: I would say there would ' be 4 some. question ab'out going out if you dan't need-'it for 5 any regulation or for any other legitimate regulatory 6 purpose. If Lyou don't need it for -either, you 7 shouldn't be asking for information. 8 DOCTOR SpEIS: Mr.

Chairman, n similar i

9 question to Commissioner Curtiss was - raised by 1 10 'Commisnioner Roberts wh'en we were discussing' internal-l1 events. And at-that time,- we provided 'to 'the 12-Commission on -expl i ci t' justification in the form of' 1 -13 the 50.54(f) nnalysis. I 14 MR. TAYLOR: That's ren11y applicable-15 hert: 16 DOCTOR SpEIS: It's totally ~ applicable and 17 _you might want to revisit that. 18 MR. TAYLOR: That's available. You should 19 consider that if we - - - 20 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: I'll'take a look at 21 that. I think that preceded -- 22 DOCTOR SPEIS: W e '.l l make sure -- 23 MR. TAYLOR: It's really -- the philosophy 24 is the same. 25 COMMISSTONER CURTISS: Okay. s.- .i NI'AL R. GROSS 1323 hhode I r.l a n d A v e n u e,- N.W. W a r. h i n g i o n, D.C. 20005 (202)-234 4433

i p 52-1. DOCTOR SPEIS: It's-exactly the sano 2 questior, you know. 'What is your just'ification? 3-MH. TAYLOR: Yes. I 4 MR.- IIECK NE R: Appendix 5 of the generic '5 letter la additional 50.54(f) analyst's 'for -this G request. 7 CilAIRMAN CAHH: Arsy other questions? 8 We l l ', I'd like to thank the staff for this 9 .i n forma t i ve briefing. You've made -significant j 10 progress = toward closure: of the severe-accident issues 11 and _ making recommendations on individual plant 12 examinations for severe accident vulnerab'ilities due ~! 13 to both internal and external

events, containment 14 performance improvements

- and accident management f ~I 15 n t r a t o g i e r., and 1 commend the staff for the progress i 10 that hon been made. .17 still o u t s t a n d l.n g are s t a 'f f l 18 . recommendations, to the-Commission on the scope. and 19 content of ut liit y accident. management: plans expected i l ] 20 in 1991'. 21 1 encourage my fellow Commissioners to i 22 vote on sin f f's recommendation ns soon as possible so 23 that licennees can have the benefit of-staff's work to .24 date on performing a systematic examination of their 25 planto for severe accident vulnernbilities due to r ~NEAL I!, GROSS 132:l Rhode Is.Innd Avenue, N.W. Wonbingion, D.C. 2000f; (?O2) 234-4433. k

m$pu pl~&-4. % 3% Q.%., =. ,s. ~f wl-l & ,.. ~ ., =% u,%,w.~ L S: j g?6i% * ; r W:QR W,u ~ %;n... , n n 4 ', W m f _,r+,f,. Q~A iOf V ww u !r -.r.=wn um w~ nydd,,xww; y s~ n vn. t n, w ip w n(,1 5 W W.',,q w n > m& r ,v_ q xsss; s ana ,.s m, 9-m=,a, Kn m., n <M,. a n+;i n: - + w a .m v w m. 9) . ' bir b, n' 's y g+i n+i f. '.t.,;- , _i G,. Q. Q On ~~ '^ R l t, J'fi J 1 Q:.. J .g;ds TPie, + f g + uj . i,y t k d c d-. .N S q m' m ?, y ;. '- s ~

4. m y.

, y m _, u ' ' 0

w ;_ x-v mu

,s_. t 4-9 P' ! 4'* 4 E ye i. 4 r c74 ? 3 .;M ' it U-h 'O 4 ' ;~-w M 4 -~; i .* Wi i3 .mi. 3,. k ;tl' \\.b % s k,V-au M ih. Y ^; M* s t s[g &m;y. - - r i n t-i t. ~ m v ?m ~= 3 s )[., ~, r_y &s i _ a, n ;- ,= 's 33 yn . W-.:. \\ u Q ? ig -' >, ~lw c ,'v a.J ;. >k _z 1 t. =A ,.y;, e g.,

g x.

+ ,s 5g e" ~ c ~) r e h f _t,,_ ,_g I .' ' ' Q' \\ gA g p y 4

y -

1; a, %,nC. y, 4 m w-g ,&v Wg <. s s s qm

.53,9 pa

,4 - 3 s

m. <a+,

o s y.. . :.,I ' 1 - g~c W 1.1 -.~. -- m m ~ ~ .. gr - _ 4 m" e E- . x... w

ex t e rna F_even ta W mi e

Mn W we 2 l ql r e n> %, '4m y m_ g-1 3 Ld9 *- ), 4'3 ~.

e..-

6-s c n c,., =. a 4 s N b ' M '" -- e ' -4 8 @gi s i W J2; ,9 (A rci t he,re ; any? otherP commen t s? ?. ' ' n.+'s g + n: c e v, = 7, J{p

g

.-b' 1 1 i

jn,+

4 ws-4: 3 .,m m.-,. _.,, e %~ w_.. %. - ,1 fJn'o tW w e r s t a'n d i a'd. j o u r..n e'd b E M %p.N t s m ,o m m 9 y. n,. - w! s

1. fg 3

n, - ~;.. ww -

v...

f,,f. T(Kh.efespona !atin111:...04 F, a in ; e 't h,e? [ab8s j,"-1,~ v-c W

• ?

,M ve m4 4; m -,. c _., -

s.

r 4 s

u. p m

m,, g ", ? 5.. Lent'ltled? matter wasiconcluded.)/ i _s et ' s ,5 2 s 4 ,ws m$m 2 S p/ 4

is we t

9 gL e - a. 3 -'t'M i i 3. . t sG. - t s. h.,. o,wy y e n m, ~, i,,, , ~ a h, j, w+, v,,n, , e em. m =n + en ~, a,7 s m. . 1 a x. m c w 4-y a d,j i s;g q i -'rx ' j]je .i -L' ~> {t t [. Pf _f ({' 7 g t E-

=q 4

+c .y n - ; ).'. x, 9 " h } 'y g- . s jj, - * /C _ W O R t :: + ( 1 i j.S;- l r t;;. ' I ;g 23,' t n ' i,(;j 7,4 Q, 3 ya i 1-J gs.,,! M q), Y 44 -y., )4f k ..a me i V: y .%q g =$ (1 F .y, 25 y e g s. y ,K J 4' q s 4 ' - ;h, s x st) f .w; t =, N.3 + - c yn o, =. _9; s s. v +p -gr 4 < *n v 9. m- -_u l ( s t ,. L t.: gs t n 4 ~. v v,. -v- + s y x y y 2: n

9' u.

'4 }^ f }I

l 0y m#.

~ t sn 4 w, p n m 't y 71 }i s 4, s f .'S n n a. g [ 'Q -w, 'q o 9 j12;, v. ~ c. ~u~ or ,z a r FM E13 - C'- 7 w 'i w Ai w;.- 9L A m ,-S = u ? g'Yl -y E14' ' ) ,'+ s u ,y y -3 g s s 1 Ly , p. t ., L 5 t9 t 159 1 1 1 2 v. l - i],, mp 3 _r, 7 3 O' t 'b ~if 1 6,.. e"- t I .l. f( -,o; ( y 4,

)--

g 3 1

q.

' o. n .u-4, s , ~ ~ k' 4 . 1 fl. 4 1 4,t t l> b(vs. J, 't i r, = _ ? E 'l0-o r - .R

q o

m, {T !{ L 2'0.1 1 L m-

N t,

A J t .12 1. I9 I h 5 3 ~~, m.'.., > + -#c. o . ~. 1,. a ? W t)

9..

• f ~-

1 _ 9 is g, e > NC M. P G 2 g> nn wy,g ma.. 6 _. e ,>q. s,, y 41~* ~'i; s y, ,x _ ([ } Le ,1

23-4 m ~-

p -a m + s It 1. 1 + 9, @,h... - J 2 4.. u

Yo m;

.nr . i 93f 1 4, d. W.F. (S ye g.:,.e v!;. ,ft-s t t u p.. n. c.t,. .Ji y~ y f[f,if . s 6 ,Ai 'NCKl.=.H..,. GROS.S.. d ~ s c-m -1323LHhode W.1andEAQ6nust N,31.. 4 "y m . f4 g - h.i. m o 2.,0 0 0 S &,.,, m , m y. 4 N M Ti g t o n, <D-. C,. t s i r .gy, ~ 3 ,,, p,. , j,.,, + u A n;-eq., 4 o % j g, g,' y- .1, j yg y -y g - yr 'e r - q _ ,( + .., _.. - i -r s, n. s s.+. x,w. ~ .1 : h,n se,, wwi s...m s - + s- .o, M,..o+ + N ' 4 - -~ w' es,s.,e - +- w-- - 8 4 " a V 4 s askw & k m 2,.% +m. ~+w M e - e e.e k s A.4 --..t , ~ m 1 w o g= v. ne 4,. .rs. ev

t I.:0i CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER This is to certify that the attached events of a meeting of-the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled: TITLE OF MEETING: BRIEFING ON STAFF 'RECO.tiENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION 0F. SEVERE ACCIDENT POLICY FOR EXTERNALLY INITIATED E"EllTS

j PLACE OF MEETING: ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND j

.DATE OF MEETING: JUNE 15,.1990 were transcribed'by me. I'further' certify that said' transcription,

i

-is accurate and complete, to.the best of my ability, and:that.the; ) transcript is a true-and accurate record of the foregoing events. l /UQ . m-il. .s Reporter's name Peter Lynch i

l

'l q j NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPotTERS AHO TRAN$CRISER$ 1323 RHODI l$ LAND AYtHUI. H.W, (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 2000$ (202) 232 6600 5

1 1 COMMISSION BRIEFING ON INDIVIDUAL PLANT EXAMINATION EXTERNAL EVENTS -1 o I i 4 1 JUNE 15,1990 i i 1 .a i 6 3 i THEMIS SPEIS. LARRY. SHAO WILLIAM'BECKNER ~

i o

~ t -I 121 <

o,, ,,, i, PURPOSE OF BRIEFING TO DESCRIBE-THE STAFF APPROACH RECOMMENDED IN SECY-90-192-FOR EVALUATING EXTERNAL EVENTS AS PART OF THE INDIVIDUAL PLANT EXAMINATION (IPE) PROCESS. REQUEST COMMISSION APPROVAL TO ISSUE A GENERIC LETTER WHICH.WOULD REQUEST THAT LICENSEES-CONDUCT. AN IPE FOR EXTERNAL EVENTS (IPEEE). O 1-

i L OUTLINE i t i i 4 ' ~ BACKGROUND AND RELATION-TO IPE I EXTERNAL EVENT STEERING GROUP AND INTERACTION. WITH-INDUSTRY j 1 SCOPE OF IPEEE SEISMIC EVENTS l i i FIRE l r HIGH WIND,~ FLOOD, TRANSPORTATION, AND:OTHER ] IPEEE IMPLEMENTATION ~ e i SCHEDULE 1

RECOMMENDATION j

t -.r, y-3 ,<e,,, ,,%.,y,.. g,.,,..,,.

.3 .. [ _.:} BACKGROUND 'AND RELATION TO IPE ~ ^ .\\ COMMISSION'S SEVERE ACCIDENT POLICY-STATEMENT, o AUGUST 8,1985. y 4 l IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR EXTERNAL EVENTS, SECY-86-162, DATED MAY 22, 1986-I EXTERNAL EVENTS TO' BE INCLUDED IN IPE, .l ADDRESS EXTERNAL EVENTS ON A LONGER SCHEDULE-THAN INTERNAL EVENT PORTION OF IPE. l I .I -EXTERNAL EVENTS STEERING GROUP (EESG)~ ~ ESTABLISHED IN DECEMBER 1987.- \\ a I INTERNAL EVENT IPE GL-88-20 ISSUED IN NOVEMBER i 1988 -- EXTERNAL EVENTS 'ON A LATER SCHEDULE. - 1 i;. i. 3 ^1 i j i ~

a ..) l l l BACKGROUND AND RELATION TO IPE (CONT.)- ] q EESG RECOMMENDATIONS COMPLETED. q I INTERACTION WITH INDUSTRY. e l ACRS SUPPORTS. RECOMMENDATIONS.. NOW READY TO PROCEED WITH IPE FOR EXTERNAL EVENTS. 5

l i

1 4. + i ^ i 4 I

y q .z A i NRC EXTERNAL EVENTS STEERING GROUP (EESG) i IDENTIFY THE IMPORTANT EXTERNAL EVENTS. i i - IDENTIFY OR DEVELOP METHODOLOGY FOR EXTERNAL L EVENT IPE. !o INTEGRATE ALL EXTERNAL EVENTS-PROGRAMS. ~ j EESG WORK PROVIDED.THE BASIS FOR PREPARATION-I- OF THE PROPOSED GENERIC LETTER AND DRAFT U

GUIDANCE DOCUMENT.

i i;_ 5 3 i... .c. ,c

] i -q l EXTERNAL EVENT STEERING GROUP MEMBERSHIP i a 1 CHAIRMAN: L. C. : SHAO, -RES MEMBERS: T.NOVAK,'AEOD J. RICHARDSON, NRR W. MINNERS, RES i EXECUTIVE SECRETARY: G. BAGCHI, NRR i SEISMIC SUBCOMMITTEE. CO'-CHAIRMAN: L. REITER, NRR j A. MURPHY,' RES - .l 4 t FIRE? SUBCOMMITTEE L CHAIRMAN:' C. -MCCRACKEN, NRR 1 ~HIGH WIND,LFLOOD & i OTHERS SUBCOMMITTEE 1 -CO-CHAIRMEN: D. JENG, NRR W. BECKNER, RES j i. ~~ 6: q L ~ a. . ~ = .=. .~

... q i .. NUCLEAR INDUSTRY'S COUNTERPART ORGANIZATION o NUCLEAR UTILITY MANAGEMENT 4 AND RESOURCES COUNCIL i (NUMARC) 't i SEISMIC ' ISSUES SEVERE ACCIDENT' l WORKING GROUP WORKING GROUP i CHAIRMAN: W. LINDBLAD -CHAIRMAN:. CORDELL REED RESPONSIBLE FOR-RESPONSIBLE FOR l L -RESOLUTION OF RESOLUTION: OF- ~ i ALL SEISM.IC ISSUES ^ OTHER. EXTERNAL EVENTS l ISSUES AND ACCIDENT

MANAGEMENT 1

i i l p y i --=--,w -v ..w..~ .,.w ,.me -e g p.w- , +, .,=r- -w.,, .rc, e = 9 3 ~w. .g f g.

4 a 1 o i a e INTERACTION WITH INDUSTRY TO DATE - EXTENSIVE INTERACTION HAS TAKEN: PLACE WITH q l LINDUSTRY OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS' ON. IPEEE-I SEISMIC ~(12 MEETINGS) i FIRE (11 MEETINGS) HIGH WINDS / FLOODS (-7 MEETINGS) i i i - SEVERAL NRC/NUMARC MANAGEMENT MEETINGS j, y t 1 8 e e a v-o.rew - m-ss .----- -*~_,, - se

~., SCOPE OF IPEEE ] r SEISMIC HAZARDS i. q INTERNAL FIRES a l~ HIGH WINDS!(INCLUDING TORNADOS); EXTERNAL .FLOODSL(INTERNAL FLOODING PART 0F.IPE); AND-t L NEARBY MILITARY, INDUSTRIAL, LAND. TRANSPORTATION- - FACILITIES. -j ~ l ALL OTHER HAZARDS SCREENED OUT ON A' GENERIC BASIS.EXCEPT FOR SITE-UNIQUE HAZARDS KNOWN TO' THE UTILITY. i l 9 -- J I

t !!+ g P O _o g g 4 d. i g -p p g g 'p ~ + g g s p p S w E w I G V O e L E O E D E S P e O N 9 w I I e H C G g T R A 0 I E M A . R 1 g M S M P I E E L S C C I I B R M M q A T O S S I I P F d. E E r. e E S S C C A p r -g F. m. w q 7 m d .L l 4 i :i' i t l !1lll,i!lr l I!.

r" 5

SEISMIC MARGINS METHODOLOGY OBJECTIVE: PLANT-SPECIFIC ASSESSMENT OF THE INHERENT CAPABILITIES OF A-NUCLEAR POWER. PLANT TO WITHSTAND EARTHQUAKES BEYOND THE DESIGN LEVEL. i

FROM1PRA INSIGHTS-REDUCE NUMBER-OF SYSTEMS. AND COMPONENTS l

~ TO-BE; EXAMINED i INTEGRATED PLANT RESPONSES i L PLANT WALKDOWN -NO HAZARD CURVES USED i i i r . METH DO OLOGY HAS BEEN APPLIED TO ACTUAL PLANTS. 1 i y t i 11. t q a z_~.,, ,,_c, s -. _. ~, ,. ~ =, . ~......,.

( -j ^ 4 SEISMIC PRA-PLANT-SPECIFIC EXAMINATION TO IDENTIFY; l VULNERABILITIES AND UNDERSTAND PLANT RESPONSE-l TO A SEISMIC EVENT. TWO HAZARD CURVES i DOMINANT SEQUENCES f i l ~ DOMINANT COMPONENTS i 1

HIGH CONFIDENCE, I'OW PROBABILITY OF. FAILURE (HCLPF) CALCULATION-g i

PLANT WALKDOWN i 1 i r i. t l' ~ l 12 \\ l. ,.-.,_____..____._=___id

ACCEPTABLE METHODOLOGIES -FOR FIRE IPEEE FIRE PRA NUMARC AND EPRI ARE DEVELOPING AN ALTERNATE METHODOLOGY, TO BE TESTED ON TWO TEST PLANTS BY SEPTEMBER 1990, WHICH WILL BE REVIEWED BY THE STAFF. 13

l -l ACCEPTABLE METHODOLOGIES FOR I IPEEE FOR HIGH WINDS, FLOODS, AND OTHERS l I SCREENING TYPE OF APPROACH, MAKING USE OF j i l PLANT DESIGN BASIS: OLDER PLANTS AND NEWER PLANTS WITH NEARBY FACILITIES NOT DESIGNED USING NRC CURRENT f CRITERIA NEED PLANT-SPECIFIC EXAMINATION. I ( CHANGES IN LAND USE AT SITE VICINITY (i.e., INTRODUCTION OF N'EW HAZARDS) AND CHANGES IN FREQUENCY / SEVERITY OF PREVIOUSLY EVALUATED l 3 l-HAZARDS. i i l !e i I 14 l i

1 l -l IPEEE IMPLEMENTATION i i PARALLELS INTERNAL EVENTS IPE PROCESS: GENERIC LETTER i 3 SUPPORTING GUIDANCE DOCUMENT i l GUIDANCE DOCUMENT TO BE ISSUED FOR COMMENT l l DESCRIPTION OF KEY ELEMENTS OF EXAMINATION PROCESS AND ACCEPTABLE METHODS l REPORTING FORMAT AND CRITERIA (SIMILAR TO INTERNAL EVENT IPE). j i WORKSHOP TO BE HELD. ISSUANCE OF FINAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT WILL START i IPEEE CLOCK. 4 i 15 l l l I t ~.

d IPEEE SCHEDULE ISSUE GENERIC LETTER AND DRAFT GUIDANCE DOCUMENT 7/90 9/90 WORKSHOP ISSUE FINAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT 11/90 4 IPEEE SUBMITTALS DUE IL93** AS WITH THE IPE, LICENSEES MAY REQUEST EXTENSIONS WHICH WILL BE EVALUATED ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS. 16

t i i -l l i RECOMMENDATION l i APPROVE ISSUANCE OF A GENERIC LETTER AND SUPPORTING " DRAFT FOR COMMENT" GUIDANCE DOCUMENT REQUESTING THAT LICENSEES CONDUCT AN IPEEE. IPEEE PROCESS WOULD START FOLLOWING A I WORKSHOP -AND REVISIONS, AS NECESSARY, TO THE i GUIDANCE DOCUMENT AND/OR GENERIC LETTER. I l i 17 i I t.

JklfbWAWIVAMMMMnnMtVfWVA%%%%%WAMd%Affffffggggwuuygg g TP.ANSMITTAL TO: Document Control Desk. 016 Phillips . ADVANCE 0 COPY TO: The Public Occument Room E d bN90 DATE: / { 3 FROM: SECY Correspondence & Records Branch g i l Attached are copies of a Commission meeting transcript and related meeting document (s). They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession L'st'and g_ placement in the Public Document Room. No other distribution is requested or. required. 5 Meeting

Title:

88-2hAfe/h _. b r A b w @ *r 1 W : ^_ T i ? $ $ ? ? $ l 5 K N J o- 'Open N Closed Meeting Date: 4 //.(7 u Item Description *: Copies Advanced DCS l 'a to POR Cg = l

1. TRANSCRIPT 1

1 i e ? o kah e w [ V l! I l: 2. .i l 3. [O I-j ii 1 4 ~ b e I ~. 5. c t .I 1 C } s C e

i q

D; l

i

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

a C&R Branch' files the original transcript, with attachments, without SECY pg papers.

- 1 l i 1 A1AA I kh kkkkh ["I I i '}}