ML20059G265
| ML20059G265 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/06/1990 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ACRS-T-1812, NUDOCS 9009120224 | |
| Download: ML20059G265 (139) | |
Text
r T
C R I G I N E ^ * '~ ' "
~
~
I,(g OFFICIALTRANSCRTPTOF PROCEEDINGS gen @
U.S. Nuclear-Regulatory Comission Advisory Comittee On Reactor Safeguards Ild@*
365TH ACRS GENERAL MEETING Docket No.
(i LOCAT!Ott Bethesda, Maryland DATE Thursday, September 6, 1990 PAGtk l' -.125 l
i AC38 75 Copy-30N
- orte 3e obe Cottee i
ao-um muvausocarss,uu.
1612 K St. N.W Suke 300
,a, o_
Washiristen,D.C 20006 000Cnu (202) 29 5 395o
- ,,oo ; ;or;m
- sonco g.
i:- D C
L s
l.;
g 3
4 PUBLIC NOTICE BY THE 5
UNITED STATES-NUCLEAR REGULATORY-COMMISSION'S 6
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 7
8 DATE Thursday, September 6,-1990 9
10 11 12
(
13 Tha contents,of this transcript'of-the s
14 proceedings of the United States Nuclear Regulatory 15 Commission's Advisory ~ Com:tittee on Reactor Safeguards, 16 (date)
Thursday, September 6, 1990 17 as reported herein, are a record of-the discussions' recorded at'
~
18 the meeting held on the'above date.
19 Ihis transcript has not been: reviewed, corrected 20 or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
21 22 23
((
25 I
1
-1:
ilO 2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
3 NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION 4
5
. ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON, REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 6
365TH ACRS GENERAL MEETING' 7
8'
. Nuclear ~ Regulatory. commission'-
9.
Room P-110
~10 7920 Norf;1k Avenue 11 Bethesda, Maryland-12
' Thursday, September 6, 1990) d 13 i
14 The above-entitled 4 proceedings commenced at 9:15
{
15-o' clock a.m., pursuant'to notice, Carlyle-Michelson, 16 Committee Chairman, presiding.
17 PRESENT FOR THE ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE:
18 Charles J. Wylie, Vice Chairman-19 James. C. Carroll, Member 20 Ivan Catton, Member 21 William Kerr, Member 22 Harold W. Lewis, Member 23 Paul G. Shevmon, Member
(
24 Chester P. Siess, Member 25 David A. Ward, Member I
~.
2' 1
PRESENT FOR THE ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE _
(continued) 2 Lawrence-E. Minnick, Member 3
J. Ernest Wilkins, Jr., Member 4
5 4
6 PARTICIPANTS:
7 8L R. Fraley R. Architzel 9
C. Nichols' S. Diab 10 C. McCracken.
C. Kampe w
11 J. Fitzgerald-N. Jensen 12 J. Hoyle D. Thatcher-h 13 J. Jackson-J.-Taylor' 14 l
15 16-17 18 19 20-21 22 23
{
-24 25
)
'3 1
'P R O C E.E D I N G S'
~ J
.it 2
(9:22 p.m.)-
i-3 MR. MiOMELSON - We willistart the formal record-l-
r 4
for the' day.
Jay. Carroll is the Cognizant-Subcommittee
.l 5
Chairman.
l This month IL guess we'only have one 6
MR.-CARROLL 4
1 7
item on our operating-experience agenda.
This has to do 8
with the efforts of-the Westinghouse Owners Group,"the-t 9
Owners Croup that eventually were approved by;the staff to
=10' provide a relaxation on turbine stop valve: testing,with risk; 11 implications involving turbine missiles.
12 Ate you the man? ~ The background. material, (f
13 incidentally, is in Tab 3 of your binder.
14 (Slide.)
i 15 MR. ARCHITZEL: 'My name ls Ralph'Architzel.
I am-i 16 with the~ Plants-Systems Branch, Section Chiefro'f the Plant
'i 17 Systems Branch.- Dr. Charles Nichols-was the! reviewer for p
18 the Plants Systems Branch for thisl-technicallspecification 19 change-for the lead plant, and Sammy Diab istintthe' Probable-20 Risk Assessment Branch and reviewed the technical-details of' R
21 the Westinghouse Topical Report.
He will be discussing 1
22 those details Ofter I give an overview ~in the'beginning.
23 I would like to help you focus.on'what you might 24 want to consider important with this action.
First, I will 25 tell you where we are on the licensing actions, the status.
I
.-~.
m
. - - ~ ~
~
l 4
o i
1 Next, I will try to explain how this came'about, the history-
]
.l l
t' L
2 of'the action.
I will include.2 brief description of the 3
safety issues.and other cor.41derations.- Finally, I will L
4
' discuss'how we anticipatte thisEprogressing;-
this changec 5
progressing into the futuce..There are some. future actions l
6 associated with the topical report.
Sammy Diab, after I'an.
7 through,.will go into the technical-basis behind'the
~
8 Westinghouse report.
9 First,fregarding the status,!in November of~1989,.
l 10 the NRC issued a-letter approving. referencing of WCAP-11525 11 by members of the Westinghouse Turbine owners subgroup and 12 tech spec change requests for; turbine ~ valve' test-O d,k J 13 frequencies.
This is a. group of do date,' basically a group 14 of 19 units.
There is a different' amount of plants 15 involved, but 19 units.
To date submittals have been 16
. received from Prairie Island which was:thei ead plant that l
17 was issued in. February of 1989~before our approval of-18 referencing the topical by about six months'.. We used the 19 lead plant approach to approve that topical. ~ Diablo Canyon 20 I cod II, Indian Point III and'Kiwani. -There are'14 cther i
21 plants involved in the : subgroup.
They are the only ones 22 that are currently eligible to-reference the topical report.
23 Some other plants in the group are considering submittals.
) 24 Basically the history to go int 9 the current tech' 25 spec requirements, it requires cycling once every seven z
u e-a a
_.---w.-,.-w..o_.-,.
-..ww--+
- - - i w
sw,,e,--
5 1
days.
The current Westinghouse standard tech: specs require 2
cycling the valve-every seven days and once a month cycling l
3-the-valves and observing valve stroke.
Thel individual plant 4
tech specs,are different.: -They.are all.over the plant.-
5 Prairie Island, for exemple~, was.once a month:to, watch the A
lj 6
stroke.
Some of them are the standard tech specs and some u
7 of them don't even have tech specs in this area.
8 MR. MICHELSON:
What kind of cycle do.you have-for;>
i 9
the seven day; is that the 10 percent,zorLisithatfa full' 10 close/ full open?
1 11 MR.-ARCHITZEL:
It's a full close/ full open, and 12 you have to reduce powerito 55 percent.
kO-13 MR. MICHELSON:, That's not just a 10 percent close 14 and then reopen?
15 ICR.-ARCHITZEL:
With.the standard tech spec it's a I
16 full cycle from where.your operating position'is, i
17 MR. MICHELSON:
Full' cycle, every week.
18 MR.-ARCHITZEL:
Every week on you'different 19 valves.- Mot all plants have that; that is just the 20 Westinghouse. standard tech-spec.-
21 MR. MICHELSON:
Do you have to reduce the power to 22 do that?
23 MR. ARCHITZEL:
.Yes, you do.
Some of the problems
.p( )
24 identified by the licensees associated with the current tech >
15 specs include that power is reduced more often than
6 1U
_necessary,!the valves are-cycled:more often than necessary.
E t(.
2-Therefore, the owners of the 19: plants-requested-generic.
3-evaluation to-facilitate tech spec changes,--request to-1 4
reduce the test frequency.
5 MR. MICHELSON:
One more question on testing.- -You 6
said' direct observation.
Do you.sean you go down and look:
7 at the valve,-or you just,look at the-indications that-flow 8
has ceased?
9
-MR. ARCHITZEL:
For the weekly one, you would only
.i 10 have to look at the --
11 MR. MICHELSON: :No, the 31 day.you_said direct 12 observation.
13 MR. ARCHITZEL:
That includes-looking;at the
.14 motion of the valve stem.-
15 MR. MICHELSON:
You have a direct observation 1
16 every week when you do your.seven day cycle?
- q i
17 MR. ARCHITZEL:- You have.it in the control panel.
l 18 MR. MICHELSON:
Yes.
19 MR. ARCHITZEL:
You see the valve close and open.
I 20 21 MR. MICHELSON:
You want to'do something more than 22 that every 31 days.
What is gained by direct' observation if-23 the flow ceases on the other test?
24 MR. ARCHITZEL:
Other than the limit' switch not 25 working, I'm not really sure.
l
w 4
'7:
Il-
.MR. MICHELSON:: You have light indications-and-all 2'
- of that-in the control room. ~ What' don't you-have in the 1
3 control roon that would be important to know by direct 4
observation ~of a main-steam. valve closure?. This is turbine 5
stop valve, excuse me.
6 MR. ARCHITZEL: -I' guess the onlyl thing was 7
binding. You can physically observe 1some binding.->There's 8
problems with internals of the valves:like dampers-and-9 things like.that, you may be ableito see oil leaks and:
10 things like that associated with the1 valves:if you 11 physically go out there, slowness of response.
L 12 KR. MICHELSON:
-I just wonder what:one would be l
l 13 looking for.
14 MR. ARCHITZEL:
Those advantages.you get by 15 physically observing,-which you might not get those if you 16 are just watching the control room.
17 MR. WILKINS:
I suppose you also get an 18 opportunity to see whether the control. room is accurater i
19 whether there are anysinconsistencies'between what you ses
. i 20 directly and what you see in.the control room.
- i 21 MR. ARCHITZEL:
The problem with.the limit 22 switches working, I don't think that would manifest itself 23 very often.
).24 l
KR. MICHELSON:
You don't have any local read outs.
q 25 of anything if you are going to -- I assume direct f
8
.e l observation means get up th're with the valve-'and' watch it'-
1 e
2 Work;-is that what'it means?.
3
'MR. ARCHITZEL:
Yes.
4
.MR. MICHELSON : There are no instrumants;up there.
5 MR. ARCHITZEL: 'Yes.
As I~said before, Prairie 6
Island was the. lead plant for theisubmittal. -They were 7
requiring monthly functionalLtests.- The tech l spec change-8 that we approved'for Prairie Island was basically to adopt a i
-i 9
functional test.at a frequency that'was= consistent with the; 10 WCAP-11525 met.hodology and the established NRC acceptance-11 criteria for the probability ~of a turbine missile ejection i
12 being less than' ten to the minus fifth per year for i
c
~(
13 unfavorably oriented missile.
14 MR. MICHELSON:. One more question.
Onithe.
15 Westinghouse plants, how many turbine stop valves are there?
g 16 MR. ARCHITZEL:- There are -- in this group of 19 17 this is not all Westinghouse plants-by_any,. stretch of'the 18 imagination.
The group of 19 formed'the subgroup, 19. units, 19 and there are eight different categories of plants that I
20 couldn't say.
21 MR. MICHELSON:
Do any of them have just one?
I 22 MR. ARCHITZEL:
No.
23 MR. MICHELSON:
You have about four or eight?
l 24 MR. ARCHITZEL:
You could have.four coming in --
25 MR. MICHELSON:
Four is common, I know.
_. = __ _
1
-8 n
9-q
.: '1 (R )
1 1
MR. ARCHITZEL:
Thislis talking about1the stop
,q i
s 2
valves, the control valves,1the. intercept: valves,_tho' 3
. intercept stop valves, steam dump valves where you don't-1 4
have --
5 MR. ' MICHELSON:
Interstage valves'toog the
)
.6 interstage_ valves as well?
a 7
MR. ARCHITZEL:
You meanithe~non-return valves?
1 j!
8 MR.1 MICHELSON:. For the interstage-coolers.
9 MR.-ARCHITZEL:
If you are talking about-reheaters.
10 l
11 MR. MICHELSON:
Yes.
I 12 MR. ARCHITZEL:
.The plants have reheater stop, d
13 intercept valves and --
14 MR. MICHELSON:
Okay.
1 15 MR. ARCHITZEL:
Some don't have those.- Some just' 16 have dumps.to the atmosphere,Lsome have dumps to,the-17 condenser from that point.
If those were involved and the 18 methodology look at --
19 MR. MICHELSON:' All those are cycled once a week?
1 20 MR. ARCHITZEL:
All'are. cycled -- no, for Prairie 21 Island they are only cycled once-a month.
I am saying what 22 the Westinghouse standard--tech spec requires.
Some plants -
k 23
+
q 24 MR. MICHELGON:
I'm just looking at your slide L
25 which says once every seven days.
l
~
,wi, g
. - +
.-,e--
_,,,------.--__________.____.m
1 q
10 1
1-
-MR. ARCHITZEL:- That-is the standard toch speci
-I J
(1 2
didn't show how th'ay-are' variable. 'The tech specs.are-3-
different for the different' plants.
I 4
MR. WARD:
That's not each valve every sav e days?-
(
5 MR. ARCHITZEL:
Yes,~it'is.-
i That ls what he is apparently 6
MR. MICHEISON:
7-saying.
I didn't real'ize it was that'.
I knew it'was --
~
8 MR. WILKINS:
I really didn't: hear an answer toi 9
Carl's' question as to how many valves are we talking about?
10 MR. ARCHITZEL:- You'could be-talking-about four 11 times 416 or more for cycling.
It takes three or four hours:
12 to do.that, the monthly tests sometir.es.
t l-13 MR. WARD:
The capacity factor in these plants --
l l
You have to go to 55 percent. 'The i
15 big thing then is the boration<to get-down there, and then--
)
l 16 you have:the radwaste to deal:with.
I was going to get-to 17 that later, the downsides are associated with the' decrease 18 in power and also radwaste considerations.
Maybe the plant 19 could trip when you reduce in power.
l 20 MR. SHEWMON:
What was the basis for once a week;.
21 do these things deteriorate so fast we-feel that we-have to 1
22 check them that often, or was that the-argument back then?
l i
l 23 MR. ARCHITZEL:
I will let Sammy get into.that a-
.24 little bit later, the technical basis behind it.
These were.
25 vendor recommendations.
I can say this right now, for the l.
J L]
1 11:
j l
l' Westinghouse standard = tech specs'they_are'vendorr I
2 recommendations.
Initially,-that is what.the-NRC adopted..
3-MR. SHEWMON :. Fine. I was just never quite sure
~
4 where the applicant's arm is behind his back when'ha makes a i
~
5 recommendations.,Maybe they did'it voluntarily.
1 6'
MR. CARROLL:
It is true, Paul,.that~in the<
7 industry inLgeneral)there has been'a historyfofLatop valves 1
8_
failing to close wher, called upon.
This is typically on l
9 super heat units whereLyouLget: blue -
magnitype formation l l
10 closing up the clearances'or bad water chemistry getting-11 deposits in the annular-clearances on the stem.
Neither of 12
.those are that applicable 1to NSSS.
i l I(
13 MR. MICHELSON:
This goes way-beyond turbine stop 1
14 valves.
That is only a-ser'l part of the total' population 15 on a given unit of the turbine valves.
16 MR. ARCHITZEL:
The-control valves-or the stop
'l 17 valves both -- either set of~those are -
18 MR. MICHELSON.
The stop valve I guess is what 19 stops the overspeed.
That's the one that you are worried 20 about, isn't it?
j 21 MR. ARCHITZEL:
Any of them, your stop valve or I
22 your control valve.
Either' one of those If. the set of them 23 close, your two in series --
24 MR. MICHELSON:
Which one of those?
- y 25
.MR. CARROLL:
The stop valve is the --
V
{
1
- 1 12 o
o q
4 L1'
'MR.1ARCHITZEL:.Yov,can't just.say that, because',
Mus
~
2 the reheat.and' intercept _stop valves,.if.they go_there's L3 enough energy'in-the reheaters to overspeed the turbine
-l I
4
- also, j
5 MR.~MICHELSON:
It could be or'couldn't.
6 MR. ARCHITZEL:
Theyfare sufficient -- they are j
i 7
only considered overspeed once you disconnect'it from the --
]
8 MR. MICHELSON: :The overspeed is-the thrust of the-9 whole' argument, isn't it?
l 10 MR. ARCHITZEL:-
It's disconnect of the grid;isuthe 11 initiator.
I mean, you are not pushing electric out'you are:
l 1
12 just pushing'it --
U 13 MR. WARD:
I'm sorry, Ralph.
How many valves are
~
14 there typically then'~ involved?-
15 MR. ARCHITZEL:
They are all-different..
16 MR. WARD:
Okay, but give me a range'then.
17 MR. ARCHITZEL:
A standard design would.have like 1
18 four stop valves --
19 MR. WARD:
Stop valves plus --
20 MR. ARCHITZEL:
Go down in series to four control
'21 valves.
Go down through your reheaters after high pressure 1
22 turbine and come out through maybe four additional combined
- 1 23 interim steps.
Four more intercept. valves and four more q( ) ~ 24 intercept stop valves.
(
25 MR. MICHELSON:
Sixteen then.
0 13
)
1 MR.;ARCHITZELt You'.are talking 16.
2 MR. WARD:
Like 16 valves,'and mach valve is' 3
tested once per week?
4 MR. MICHELSON:- By the standard tsch specs.'
l 5
MR. ARCHITZEL: ' By th's standard ' Westinghouse. tech-6 specs, that is correct.
It doesn't take long to cycle-that-7 valve open and closed.- You just have to have'enough power.
8 down low enough that the: steam can pass through'the 9
remainder.
10 MR. WARD:
They.go down to 55 - I am just trying-11 to understand this.
I 12 MR. ARCHITZELt-Prairie Island went down-to:once'a' (O
13 month, 55 percent to do this test.
14 MR. WARD:
They do them all and-it takes a couple-15 of hours?
16 MR. ARCHITZELt A couple of hours to do.it and 17 watch the cycle, right.
I would like to digress just a 18 moment on a point that was made about not applicable.
Of 19 this group of 19, currently three of those plants,that 20 Westinghouse has said.we have:had valve failure-histories,.
21 and the steam chest models.
It said basically test as a 22 maximum once a month and they have sliding scales'back down
~
23 to once a week still.
i l
(
24 The Westinghouse recommendation, even though we 25 have approved this topical for St. Lucie and -- it was one J
?
1
.'14 J l'
other. plant in the group -- Harris, plus _- maybe: 20 or 30._ ofl l
2 the units that aren't even in the' group are being 1
1 3
recommended.to test at that frequency right now because of-
~
4' recent failures of stop valves.- They have a steam chest, so~
.)
5-
.you come into a steam chest;past the stop valves, so there-t 6
_is a much higher missile ejection probability _ associated 7
with those plants.c There still'are concerns that i
8 Westinghouse has.
9 MR. MICHELSON:- With"all'this testing,3.you must 10 have very good reliability data.
11 MR. ARCHITZEL:
Sammy will go.into that later.
1 12 MR. MICHELSON:
Youfare going to tell us about' D-i 13 that later?
14 MR. ARCHITZEL:
Right.
15 (Slide.' )
16 Let me go on here.
SeveralcNRC_ groups did share
)
17 in this evaluation.
The Prairie: Island PM processed.the j
18 licensingfaction.
The tech spec branch was involved because
,l 19 there are generic implications to the' standard tech. specs.
20 We are considering changing maybe the standard tech specs in:
21 this area. -Materials and Ch.:.:al Engineering LBranch was 22 involved for the SRP section 3513 on turbine protection. ~As 1
23 I said before, Risk Application Branch and review of the-(
24 topical.
Our branch in terms of the testing on the control' 25 stop valves, and the Committee to review requirements got 1
.l o
y i.
'15=
')
3 1 1
involved <in a negative. consent type review ef. our lead plant.
je 2-submittal.
3
-(Slide.)
4 We have already gone over'most oflthese,.-which is:
j 5
basically the pros and cons of the -
in favor of-the 6
approval are the. decrease likelihoodiof reactor. trips 7
because you don't have to reduce power as much. -You 8
increase the capacity factor by;not having to reduce power.
9 The power. reduction that creates power oscillation problems ~.
10 which in' late cycle or.mid-cycle'can be h'ard to adjust to 11 ~
with those power reductions.
The radwaste minimization',
l 12 because you don't have to borate down and then dilute back I
H(O 13 up in power.
14 Keduce wear on the. valves, cycling pressure on the 15 steam system,.it reduces stresc -- the reduced potential 16 ~
damage to main steam condenser due to dumping'. steam, that i
17 hus to do with those that don't-have the intercept stop
~
18 valves.
They don't steam directly to release that energy on 19 reheaters, so you wouldn't then be dumping. steam in that j
20 sense-as often if you reduce this frequency in the 21 condenser.
22 Really, the con is that it reduces'the margin --
l 23 by changing these frequencies you reduce your margin to your
.I 24 turbine overspeed consequence.
l L
25 MR. SIESS:
How do you arrive at that conclusion?
1
-16 1
MR. ARCHITZELt-Which conclusion?.
L CO L
2 MR. SIESS:- The last one, the reliability;--
l i
3' MR. ARCHITZEL:
You don't test as often, so that
]
i e
l' 4
is'a result of the topical which_Sammy-willtget into.
l l
_5 MR.;SIESS:
If you don't test as often the i:
6 reliability of the valve goes down?
]
7' MR. ARCHITZEL:- That's correct.
8 MR. SIESS:
Even'though reducing the testing.
9 reduces wear and other good things?
m 10 MR. ARCHITZEL:
That is-correct.:
11 MR. DIAB This'is by analysis.
j 12 MR. SIESS:
This is'by analysis..
f 13 MR. DIAB:
Right.
i 14 MR. SIESS:
You mean with all the tests:we have --
i 15 l
16 MR. CARROLL:
You have to gosto a microphone and-17 identify yourself.
l l _
MR. SIESS:
With all.the tests.we hava and_all the 18 19 data we have, this is by analysis and.not empirical?
20 MR. ARCHITZEL:
'I would like to say that I don't 21 think it's only by analysis.
Your cycling obviously can get 22 stuck.
You also have a mean time between' detecting a 23 failure of a valve by testing it more often.- If you are' l
1 g
24 testing it weekly you will know the valve is stuck more 25 often.
l
.17 f-1 MR. SIESS:- If the valve (double fails you don't fid change the'mean time between;failurefdatection by testing-2 J
3 more often.
You have to=have a failure rate to begin with,-
j
'1 4
don't you?'
5"
~MR.-ARCHITZEL:.
If'you test'if'once.a' week you' 6
will detect that failure' sooner.
7 MR. SIESS:
Say that again.'
only ifJit fa'ils.
8 MR. ARCHITZEL:
They*are talking,about testing up-9 to once a year, right.
If it fails --'and there havelbeen.
- 10.
failures'-- then you wouldn't go a.whole. year before,youJ f
11 detected that valve failure, you might detect it'in'one 12 week.
It definitely increases:the chance of a turbine d
13 overspeed.
14 MR. SIESS:
The failure has nothing -- are you 15 sure that the frequency of testing has,no effect on how 16 often they failed?
That's not true ' for other' things ----
-i l
17 MR. ARCHITZEL:
'I guess.I wasn't answering that-L 18 question.
19 MR. MINNICK:
Isn't it possible that operating the l
l 20 valve would clean some of this corrosion or'whatever off the-21 stem before it was a real problem and, therefore, improven l
~22 the reliability?
23 MR. ARCHITZEL:
It does have that effect for the 24 ones-that aren't cycling continuously like the control 25 valves.
The stop valves do build up, and it's not as much:
18 1-of a problem'at'all volatile chemistry as it was before'
- 2 fossil plants.
It does have the effect of; enhancing -- I an_
y
-3.
not sure we -- we didn't'come to a ba), nce.
We didn't try 4
to' balance the pros and cons here and sayfoverall-one was 5-better.
We made sure that the change meets our criteria for
)
~
1 6
turbine missile ejection overspeed.: That.is basically what.
l 7
we consider was' acceptable.
8 MR. KERR:
It may be a sinor point,.but.I don't' 9
think you are preventing turbine overspeed consequences,-you q
10 are preventing turbine overspeed.
To get the overspeed the 11 consequences are going to be theLsame whether you test or_
12 not I think.
l Li 13 MR.'ARCHITZEL:
Correct.
T 14 MR. MICHELSON:
Certainly there must be-a lotfof
~
15 other oxperience around the world on these kind of valves.
16 Are you: going.to tell us sometime this morning what other 1
17 people do that have large populations of PWR's like the 18 French?
19 MR. ARCHITZEL:
-I don't have that.information on 20 what the French do.
Typically, these are fairly standard i
e 21 test times once a month on these valves for BWR's and PWR's..
22 I think it is less frequent-to see it once a year which s
23 these plants are going to be capable of going.to.- Consider d )
24 in the back of your mind, not all the plants -- three plants g
25 have submitted it of the 19.
I am not sure they necessarily
..4,..
~. - -.. _ - _ - -. - _- --
s c
19-
!:/
I want to go to those typeLof time' periods for their=own'
(
2-economic reasons, because they want.to make sure the turbine 3
doesn't overspeed.
They have economic reasons to want to 4
make sure the valves close, turbine protection.
They are i
5' not all coming in right away evenlthough they'have the 6
ability to come in, they'are really taking their time on the 1
7 other plants in-the group.
8 I guess this is just the way we see this thing i
9 progressing in time.
Where we have. approved the methodology; 10 individual plants can now comeLin for plant-specific tech-11 spec changes.
Part of our approval was that the. plants 12 continue to maintain the database of failure rate and check'
(
13 that, update the reference like every three years', and' 14 revise the methodology if they change their turbine control 15 systems and things like that..Tbis.is sort of a living i
16 process even though they adopt this tech spec change.
17 Even though the frequency-changes with the data in 18 terms of the testing you even have to change the methodology 19 if you change your control systems, et cetera.
If there are.
20 no further questions on this area I will turn it over to 21 Sammy Diab, who is going to discuss the' topical report.
22 MR. SIESS:
Excuse me.
I'd like to go back to 23 slide you had and get something straight through my thick
!.l( ) 24 head.
It reduces the margin to prevent turbine overspeed 25 consequences.
I assume that the consequences of a turbine L
l
'20
-1 overspeed just plays hell-withJ the turbine ---
2 MR. ARCHITZEL:
I was pointingqout --
Can you prove to me that it affects 4-the probability that the plant will undergo a LocA or core fi melt incident because of a missile?
6 MR. ARCHITZEL:
The analysis wab only'trying'to 7
say that the probability of the missile ejection-was 8
increased up towards --
9 MR. SIESS:
The point I am trying-to make is that, 10 I think the probability of a serious damage to the reactor 11 is almost zero no matter what the prob' ability of_the mirsile 12 O
I 13 MR.-ARCHITZEL:
I guess I would like to --
14 MR. SIESS:- The staff has gone through this 15 analysis time after time and they have assumed that once you-
-16 get the missile we will ignore the problem -- sometimes.theyi 17 will assess the probability of it hitting the containment.
18 That's the one reason we reoriented.the turbine.
The 19 probability that it penetrates the containment once-it hits 20 it and the probability that once it penetratss the-21 containment with a steel liner,-that it will damage the 22 system ins l 'e sufficient to cause an accident.
23 They usually assumed those last two are one, which 24 is ridiculous.
EPRI went to a great deal of trouble to 25 generate missile impacts on steel representing the shroud in-
L l-21, l'
L q 1~
the turbine system and--found out that11t took most of'the RJ 2 --
energy to get through that.
What was left you.couldn't 3
penetrate three' feet of concrete with anyway.
4 MR. CARROLL: ' I'm'not sure that's true.:
l 5
MR. SIESS: ' The tests showed they.could.
I 6
MR. CARROLL:
I'remen.ber seeing:some EPRI and film.
7 and stuff on the test, and th'at missile had: quite-a bit of '
~
d 8
energy :-le f t.
j 9
MR. SIESS:
It did,_and they ran'it'~into a 10 concrete wall with a steel liner on the.back side and 11 nothing' happened.
It didn't go through.
It didn't even.
j 12 swallow concrete with the one-quarter inch'line on it.
OO 13 MR. WARD:
Your point is that the. utility --
14 MR. SIESS:
My point is that-the staff backed,off-15 years ago.
I wish Vance Bush was<still here.
q 16 MR. ARCHITZEL:
I think.you are addressing a l
17 different point, which is maybe we shouldn't have r ten to 18 the minus fifth.
Maybe Cass can ADDRESS THAT>-
19 MR. SIESS:
The point that'I am making is that the 20 bottom line in missile ejection is when it causes an 21 accident to the reactor or to the reactor system and-leads c
22 to some kind of core melt.
I don't think I care ~whether it 23 plays hell with the' turbine or not, that's the industry's 24 problem.
25 MR. KAMPE:
May I respond to that.
Cass Kampe is
~!
22:
o 1~
the name, fron Risk Applications. Branch..I'have had ani f
2 opportunity in the past to'be involved"directlygi the.very
.s 3
aspects that you mention as'far as the risk"of--missiles.
i 4
causing damage to the reactor.
I would like to just point 5
out that in most offthe. analysis that I an aware of,-the-c 6
. damage to the reactor was only one of a large' set of targetsi 1
.7 that were considered in the analysis.
8-
' Typically these included other. areas of the plant.
9 that perhaps were significantly more accessible'to missiles.
10 such as the control room and various safety-related, 11 equipment that could be' damaged..
I 12 MR. SIESS:.I would like to see the referenceito-
'd 13 those analyses.
.That is not what I remember.
14 MR. KAMPE:
Almost every plant.--
15 MR. SIESS:
I remember the staff giving upc on 16 trying to' find out the effectiveness -- saying okay,-we:will 17 just back off and reduce the probability PAPB/PC down so low:
18 that we don't have to worry about the probability.cf D, the-19 probability of E or. probability F.
The staff put all the 20 emphasis on reducing the overspeed incident.
21 I was never convinced that that's where.all the H
22 effort should be.
If-that's really true, I am more 23-concerned about what is going on here now of increasing: that 4(()24 probability than if what I said was trtn about the 125 consequatices once a missile gets out.
I tin't think -- I i
-l
\\
d 23 1
'think this ten to the minus something.between ejection of a 2
missile and damage.to the p1' ant -- let's not say'damageLto 3
~the plant,-I couldn't' care-less.--~offact-on the health'and:
.4 safety of.the public.
j 5
.I don't know how to evaluate the change in 6
proteollity due.to.testj3g unless-I know where this'fitiinto i
7 the overall formula.
8 MR. CARROLL:
Just to digress for,a moment,[the:
1 9
staff is also very actively involved in evaluating disc 10 cracking on Westinghouse and GE turbines'for' exactly tho' 11 same reason.
12 MR..SIESS:
Evaluating what?
OO 13 MR. CARROLL:
Disc cracking, which has.been-a 14 fairly large problem on these shrunk on disc.. They are very-15 much involved in that activity;to'the; point that they have 16
. formulas as to how long you could run the turbine given that 17 you find a given size crack and so forth.
18 MR. SIESS:
Those would affect --
19 MR. CARROLL:
It's the same issue.'
20 MR. SIESS:
Those would affect the conditional 21
. probabilities at design overspeed and' intermediate
.l 22 overspeed.
23 MR. CARROLL:
Yes.
y
-24 MR. SIESS:
You can't have any effect on
- 25 destructive overspeed because that is assumed no matter 1
L.
--_..~..;._.-..,.._....~
-l i
i 24 i
1 whether there are cracks or not, it assumes the missile
{
2 goes.
3 MR. CARROLL:
If it k +,aproper for the NRC to be l
1 4
involved in this issue -
l 5
MR. sItss:
I didr,'t say it's improper.
I just 6
said I can't evaluate the significance of'it by isolating l
-i 7
one part of it and a string of probabilities without --
8 MR. CARROLL:
The same --
9 MR. SIESS:
The bottom line to me is not the 10 ejection of a missile.
11 HR. ARCHITZEL:
This was relaxation.
This tech j
12 spec change was relaxation.
We considered it acceptable O
13 because it still made the SRP criteria for missile ejection.
-l 14 Given that, we still --
15 MR. SIESS:
Given that you still met your f
I 16 criteria.
You are talking either too fast or too low for me i
17 to hear.
18 MR. ARCHITZEL It still meets the SRP criteria I
r i
19 for missile ejection so we approved the relaxation.
I
\\
20 MR. SIESS:
Okay.
You say it's no change.
i L
21 MR. ARCHITZEL:
It's a con.
The margin was l
22 reduced.
It sti'.1 met our criteria.
Tharefore, we approved f
l t
23 the relaxation.
Am I not --
i j
'24 MR. SIESS:
I don't know what you mean by the f
25 margin.
i i
25 1
MR. ARCHITZEL:
If there might have been ten to 4
2 the minus seventh before they are now ten to the minus --
j 3
MR. SIESS:
You mean if permissible was ten to the j
4 minus five and somebody calculated it to be ten to the minus 5
seven before and it's now ten to the minus sj.x, it's okay?
6 MR. ARCHITZEL:
Right.
7 MR. SIESS:
If the SRP means anything, that has to 1
8 be true.
1 i
9 MR. KAMPE I think I~could try to clarify it a 10 little bit.
You are absolutely correct in that in the 1
11 analyses themselves, the probability of the overall -- the i
12 overall probability was segregated into several components.
<4 13 The initiation of misciles was one, the probability of 14 striking something that safcty significant is another, and 15 then the point that you are making as far as missiles 16 penetrating and damaging whethec l' M the reactor or some 17 other part, you are absolvtely ctrrect.
In most cases the 18 assumption there was that the prchebility was one.
It was a P
19 conseratism, and perhaps a veq extrene consispatism.
20 I think the problem -- the word used here in the 21 slide, consequences, perhaps is misleading in that this is l
22 still within the context of that' assumption, n eely that the 23 missile damage probability is one.
So, the isaue that is-(
24 being addressed here is the incremental probabluity of 25 missile generation with the understanding that the other
^
i h
.,,n v~..:
w---,
,.,m,--
-.n
i i
26
(
1 components of probability are not affected by this action.
2 You are correct in tht-regard.
i 3
MR. SIEast I think the whole --
l 4
MR. MICHELSON:
We have about eight minutes to l
5 finish this up.
6 MR. 812888 I think the whole thing becomes 7
trivial, once you understand what you are really looking at.
8 MR. CARROLLt It isn't trivial to the utilities i
9 that are losing five percent in capacity factor.
10 MR. SIESS:
They are the ones that probably 11 proposed it in the beginning and now they want to back off.
I i
12 I don't know why it shouldn't be almost automatic.
d 13 MR. MICHELSON:
Why don't you proceed.
14 MR. DISBt I hope that I :an cover everything that 15 I need in the remaining eight minu:es.
16 MR. CARROLLt Seven.
17 MR. MICHELSON:
We will let you ha.ve eight.
l 18 MR. DIABt I am from the Risk Applications Branch.
19 (Slide.)
20 This is a viewgraph I brought just in casa you 21 would be interested in seeing the physical layout of the i
22 valve, the valves and relationship.
Here you see about 20 l
I l
23 valves - two doz 6n valves.
These are control valves -- you 1
f ) 24 have four of those, stop valves, intercept valves and reheat 25 stop valves.
Every one of the low pressure turbines.
+ _,
.....---..._.,-.,..,+~.m.,
3
I l
i 27 1
l 1
(slide.)
t 2
I think Ralph covered quite a bit of -- especially 3
on the quoutions -- quite a bit of what I had prepared here.
4 The requirement for the more frequent testing came about by 1
5 suggestion again by the vendors, Westinghouse in the days 6
when they used the phosphate treatment in-the feedwater 1
7 becausts of the deposits, et cetera.
More frequent testing.
8 was-cralled for then.
)
l 9
Now, when they all switched to the volatile 10 treatment that warn't really necessary. - As far as the 1
11 various arrangement of valves and how many valves and the j
12 way they were arranged on different turbines, it really l
13 contributed to analysis.
Analysis, in other words, they.had 1
14 prepared about seven different groups of valves depending on j
15 the control logic and the trip logic, the valve arrangements 1
16 and the low pressure turbines which was the main contributor a
l 17 of missiles.
That is where the variability comes in.
{
18 The detrimental aspects of the frequent testing I-19 think Ralph touched on that.
I really don't need to expand 20 on that so much.
Basically the analysis is done to show the l
21 incremental increase in the valva -- missile ejection if the 22 test frequency were to be changed from monthly to every 3
23 three months to every six months to every year.
i g( ) 24 (slide.)
25 This is basically the logic process behind the l
we.-
9 e=%-.9 y-_.- -, -,
_-typg*4..,,y,,,,,.,,,,,,%m,,,
9
.e3wv' w
wrwr-
>*--'**-we1-o-e-w
-v-m ueMe
i l
28 l
1 analysis.
You have an initiating event which is the
, (
'i j
2 frequency of turbine' trip, separation of the load -- the 3
grid from tce plant, and the need to isolate the steam fron i
4 going'into a idle turbine.
The third step here in this e
I 5
logic process aa the overspeed and subsequent or potential l
6 missile ejection.
Every one of these has a couple of-l i-
{
7 bullets here about how to avoid tus trips or what happens in 8
order to~ assure -- ascorcain the valves do function.
The i
9 last one here is the rotor inspection which is the actual
{
10 missile generation in case:you have an overspeed.
l 11 (Slide.)
i 12 This is the equation.used for the analysis.
This j
r
(
13 is the annual likelihood of a missile ejection.
This is
{
14 broken into three parts here.
This is a design overspeed f
15 contribution, this is intermediate overspeed contribution, I
16 and this is the catastrophic overspeed-contribution or j
l 17 destructive overspeed contribution.
The one term here is i
t 18 not shown which is a condition probability, that once you l
19 have a destructive overspeed a missile will be generated.
i 20 The probability of that is assumed as one.
It is assumed j
i 21 that any time you have a destructive overspeed a missile j
22 will be generated.
This is a conservative assumption.
23 (Slide.)
I t
24 This is a simplified diagram that shows the full 25 tree is actually much, much larger, about'100 times largar l
)
I
. _ _ _.. _ _.. _ _ _ ~ _. _
I 29 j
1 than this.
This is the control valve / intercept valve HO 2
failure.
The failure of a valve here can either be due to
~
3 the valve fails to close, the valve mechanically;or by power 4
fails to close, or the logic that requires-that valve to i
5 close does not <ork.
Either or, of those will lead to a j
l 6
failure.
l i
7 The logic. failure can.either be due -- it must be 8
Que to both the control and the protection.
In other words, l
9 the logic that demands the valve'to close, if we lose 4
10 control and the protection of said function, then that leads l
11 to logic failure.
Either one-of those will lead to a 12 success.
4(
) 13 The control failure, then you get into these 14 components of the subcomponents that lead to a control 15 failure.
l 16 MR. MICHELSON:
Excuse me.
Are.you using the term 17 control valve and stop valve interchangeably?
l 18 MR. DIAB No.
19 MR. MICHELSON:
tihere is the stop valve --
20 MR. DIAB:
This diagram here shown full tree is 21 for the control valve.
22 MR. MICHELSON:
Where is the stop --
l 23 MR. DIAB The stop valva --
24 MR. MICHEls0N:
Where is the stop valve on the i
g 25 high pressure turbine?
.. - -. - - - ~..
1:
j 30 e]
1 MR. DIAB I will show you that in the next --
li, MR. MICHELSON:
If.it stops I thought that's all 2-3 you needed intercept as far as that part of the train, and
]
c 4
then you still need to have intercept valves work.
Control 5
valves don't have to work if the stop valves work, do they?
6 MR. DIABt That's true.
7 MR. MICHELSON:
Stop valve, control valve and 8
intercept valve at the top of your chart then, isn't that?
9 MR. CARROLL:
He's just showing the ingic there.
10 MR. MICHELSON:
I --
11 MR. CARROLL The next figure is stop valve.
I 12 MR. MICHELSON:
I'm sorry.
It was premature.
I'm I
13 sorry, I should have flipped the page.
Thank you.
14 MR. DIABt For the protection and trip function 15 failure again, you get into the components and subcomponent 16 failures.
one needs the failure of all of these in order to I
17 lead to a failure of the protection trip function.
18 (Slide.)
19 Somewhat similar logic is used here for the full I
20 tree for the stop valve and reheat stop valve failures.
21 Except for those there is no_ control function.
It is either 22 a valve fails due to power or mechanically, or it fails due' 23 to protection of the trip failure.
Again, the protection g
trip failure here you have to fall the mechanical trip and' 24 25 the electrical trip.
- ~
l i
+
31 1
(Slide.)
40 4
2 This is the top event for the full tree analysis j
3 here which is, again, how does one get into the whole l
4
' scenario of overspending and then missile generation, et 5
cetera.
Of course, the first thing needed here is loss of I
i 6
load, the separation between the grid and the turbine.
7 Westinghouse has gathered -- this is actually NUREG number, 8
a common number that was found.
This was for all PWR's..
/
9 This is all PWR's.
The mean frequency of loss of load is 10 like point five per year with a variance of point four.
I 11 MR. KERRt Why did you use a log normal 12 distribution for that?
13 MR. DIABt I'm sorry?
)
14 MR. KERRt Why did you.use a log normal J
t 15 distribution for that?
l l
16 MR. DIABt I don't know, but that's where the data 17 comes.
I 18 MR. MICHELSON:
We are going to have to wrap this 19 up.
20 MR. KERR You mean the data fit log normal l
21 distribution better than anything else?
~
22 MR. DIABt That's possible.
23 MR. KERR I'm sorry?
3 ( )
24 MR. DIABt I'm saying that's possible.
I really 25 don't know.
I did not go back and review that reference.
b r--
a~
---.s~-v
+v
-.,------.-.,,....~..---m_
4 -
!i I
32 1
There is a reference where that number came fron.-
2 MR. KERRt All right.
f 3
MR. MICHELAON:
We have about run out of time, so q
4 you will have to speed this up in the next minute.
l 1
7 5
MR. DIABt Westinghouse specific -- PWR for all'
.I 6
Westinghouse plants, the numbers are a-little bit better.
i i
7 However, they use in this topical, they use this higher 8
number here.
t 4 -
9 MR. KERRt This is not'just for Westinghouse l
10 turbines, it's for Westinghouse nuclear steam supplies.
11 MR. DIABt The topical.is for Westinghouse i
1 12 turbires.
'( )
13 MR. KERR1 Your slide' refers to Westinghouse PWR's 14 I believe.
i l
15 MR. DIABt I'm sorry, say again..
16 MR. KERRt Your slide refers to. Westinghouse PWR's l
17 I think.
l 1
l 18 MR. DIABt This slide was just.for this top event, j
)
19 which is the loss of load.
However, this-is for all PWR's.
l 20 This is all PWR's including Westinghouse and non-21 Westinghouse turbines.
l 22 MR. KERRt Okay.
l 23 (Slide.)
24 MR. DIABt This is -- I think most of this has q
25 been previously covered.
l
. _ _ _ _ _. _. _. _ _.. _ _... _.. _.. _.. ~. _... ~., _, _. -. _ _ _ -...-
l l
l
\\
33 l
1 MR. MICHEIAON:
Let's go on to your final slide if
- .i l
2 it's been covered already, because we are about five minutes 3
behind already.
4 (Slide.)
)
5 MR. DIAB ' Okay.
The final slide here is the 6
results.
The results again, that topical proprietary.
The 7
results are proprietary information'of Westinghouse.
8 However, we can say that the increase in missile ejection 9
probabilities increases monotonically with the increase in i
10 dis t i frequency.
11 MR. KERRt As Dr. Siess was pointing out, you can 12 say that only if a testing frequency doesn't add any 13 influence on the reliability.
If it does, you can't-14 necessarily make that statentent 15 MR. DIAB:
I'm sorry, could you say that again.
16 MR. KERR:
I think you can make that statement if i
17 the change in test frequency doesn't have any influence on 18 the reliability of the valves.
If the-valves for example 19 became more reliable because one tested them less 20 frequently, you can't necessarily make that statement.
)
21 MR. DIAB:
Testing the valves', the testing the 22 valve every week is only one of the things that are covered 23 here.
The full tree covers control systems, it covers 24 subcomponents and components and --
25 MR. KERR:
Forget it, I'm sorry.
i 34 i
l MR. DIAB Okay.
It's a compilation.
Everything l
.gO1 2
that is fit into the full tree and the list frequency, you 3
test the valves and the more or higher the probability of 4
I guess I really didn't understand the question.
q 5
6 MR. KERR I think that's fair.
l i
7 MR. MICHELSON:
Jay, are we going to have to write 8
any kind of letter on this?
This was for information only?
9 I think we will have to cut it off, because we are running 10 eight minutes behind schedule already.
11 MR. ARCMITZEL:
I just wanted to make one point.
12 The changes on the -- if you go from one a year you'need to d
13 increase a factor of ten those probabilities.
The 14 reliability area is what the optimum would say.
For those 15 topical chaages I don't know how to balance the cycle, but I 16 don't think that would overcome the factor of ten those 17 probabilities.
The reliability area is what the optimum 18 would say.
19 MR. KAMPE:
Also in-reference to'the valve 20 reliability could improve as to frequency gets lowered.
You l
21 may want to read that slide as the monotonic increase is at-(
c 22 worst, that is, what is the expectation.
That could be l
23 better because of effects such as those.
g( ) 24 MR. DIAB:
There is one more thing I would like to 25 mention here, which is those deficiencies that show up due A
35 1
to the frequent testing.
some of these things are very hard i
2 to model.
For instance cycling on piping valves and 3
equipment, the potential for their active trip every time 4
you maneuver the plant down to 40_or 60 percent and up 5
again, these things are hard to model.
They do contribute 6
to risk.
7 So, there are an increased risk'due to the high a
frequency of valve testing.
Thank you.
9 MR. CARROLL Are there any other questions on the i
10 part of the Committee?
j 11 (No response.)
12 MR. CARROLLt We thank the staff for their it 13 presentation.
It was very interesting.
14 MR. MICHELSON:
Are you finished here?-
15 MR. CARROLLt Yes.
16 MR. MICHELSON:
We will take a-break until 10:20.
1 17 (Brief recess.]
18 MR. MICHELSON:
I would like to get on with the i
19 next agenda item, which does go on the record.
We have had 20 several discussions at the planning committee and around the 21 table about what some of the FACA requirements might be.
22.
The Committee has asked that Mr. Fitzgerald come down and 23 discuss these with us.
There is no set format.necessarily 24 for this.
25 Do you wish to make any statement ahead of time or
\\
]
l 36 1
do we just go into a question and answer period?
l 2
MR. FITZGERALD:
You blessed us with a couple of
'{
3 menos on what you want us to discuss, so we are prepared to 4
kind of move in at least on one of the issues which I think 5
is the primary one that you are interested in which is the J
6 FACA app
- ication to subcommittee,. that issue.
l 7
MR. MICHELSON:
That is part of the focus of our 4
8 problem, yes.
i 9
MR. FITZGERALD:
I learned through a memo that I-10 cat on Tuesday that there were a couple of other items that 11 you also desired that we talk about.
j 12 MR. MICHELSON:
We will do it somewhat informally 13 then.
Before we get started though, do any of the members l
14 have any additional items that they would like these 15 gentlemen to be thinking about while we go through our 16 discussion?
17 MR. LCWIS:
My understanding is that you are here i
18 to sort of tell us what the law says, that you are not 19 representing the Commission or us.
20 MR. FITZGERALD:.That's right.
1 21 MR. LEWIS:
Okay.
22 MR. FITZGERALD:
We are here to answer your 1
l 23 questions.
We have given it some thought and we want to Le.
i
'24 helpful in that regard.
I am Jim Fitzgerald with the Office g
25 of General Counsel.
With me I have Neil Jensen, who is a
. ~...I
)
j i
< l 37 j
I 1
Senior Attorney in our Office who works in the FACA area I
2 among others.
We have three attorneys that over time have i
3 gained considerable experience in working with FACA and Neil 4
is one of them.
I will be relying on him'to some extent 5
today too.
l J
6 I have here, because-we will'be referring to 7
these, copies of the GSA FACA regulations. I would'like to 8
just pass them out.
You all may have copies of that.
If' 1
l 9
you don't this may be useful.
10 MR. MICHELSON:
A little redundancy won't hurt.
i t
11 MR. FITZGERALD:
I would like to say that we do 12 appreciate your having us down today.
I look forward to 13 handling any legal questions that you; folks have in the 14 future.
I think that is the mede we have been in since 15 1975, as far as I go back.
In this regard we'are always l
16 prepared to, on short notice, we will answer oral' questions 17 calling for our rapid response.
We will respond orally if i
18 matters are not subject to that kind of immediate feedback, 19 we are willing to do research and respond in writing.
I 20 The item to start off with is application of-FACA 21 to subgroups.
The way we come at this problem is as 22 follows.
We see that the crux of the matter is where 23 substantive deliberations on issues that come before you l
24 takes place.
Where there is substantive deliberation, we f
25 believe in a subcommittee context that FACA applies.
One of
=-.__ --,,,
...w.m s.-,-~,._.m_4%,
- ...r. %.
e..-w.-,,
....,..y,
_.__.___________,__m
f c
38
.i 1
the things you want'to know is on what do we bare that.
(U 2
The GSA regs that we passed out we consider as I
3 binding, as Dr. Lewis indicates in his memo that he passed' 4
arouni today, they are the authoritative source backup 5
knowledge within the Federal government.. They have an.
[
t 6
agency role under the Statute.
Their regs pretty much have i
7 been adopted by the Commission in its recent re-promulgation-l 8'
of Part 7.
For purposes of discussion today, we see that f
i
~
9 three sections of that regulation are pertinent, and that's 10 why we passed these out.
11 This gets into some detail.
With that, I will i
12 turn it over to Neil and he will walk you through that.
O 13 MR. LEWIS
}lou raised the point.
I think I agree 14 that the GSA rules are -- the point of substantive 15 deliberations which you usad as a criteria, it would be 16 awfully nice to know where that appears in the rule.
I 17 MR. FITZGERALD:
Let us work through that and I el 18 sure you will --
19 MR. LEWIS You know what's on our mind.
20 MR. FITZGERALD:
be convinced.
21 MR. SIESS:
I hope that in discussing this you can 22 explain what difference it makes to me as an Advisory 23 Committee member, when you say FACA applies does that tie my.
4 hands behind my back or does it mean that I must make a 1
24 L5 notice in the Federal Register?
Does it mean -- what does
+-w--.-
-9
,---,w-,
.3.,'.
vr.
w v---,
--,-,-s,----,
w,-we-
,,,-,,,.,--..%m--
-%.--=2%
->rms.
-+m m.
I 39 s
l 1
it mean to me as an Advisory committee member on these 1
2 particular things.
Not just why, but what, j
I 3
MR. FITZGERAlbt In answer to that, it pretty auch j
4 4
means that if it applies you have to fulfill certain 1
5 requirements of FACA'which is notice, openness unless i
L 6
closable, having --
7 MR. SIESS:
Is openness a FACA requirement or 8
Sunshine requirement?
9 MR. FITZGERALD:
It's a FACA requirement.
In 10 fact, that is an item in Dr. La_\\s' memo that we wanted to 11 comment on.
Openness is a FACA requirement.
Section 10 of 12 FACA says Advisory Committee meetings shall be open.
l 13 MR. SIESS:
No exemptions?
14 MR. LEWIS:.There are exemptions.
I 15 MR. FITZGERALD:
That is Section 10(a).
I think l
16 Section 10 (c) says -- and cpmes up with exceptions.
17 Basically what -- 10(d) -- what it does is apply the closing 18 exemptions of the Government in the Sunshine Act to FACA 19 Commit?les.
The Government 114 the Sunshine Act, of course, 20 applies more to Federal Commissions and not to Advisory-
)
21 Committees.
l l
l 22 Prior to the existence of the Sunshine-Act you all I
23 could close Advisory Committee meetings based on FOIA f( }
24 exemptions.
Of course, they deal wi documents and weren't 1
25 a very good fit for closing committee meetings.
After the I
--,.,w_
.. m.
,.,y,_,,,_n
,_,y.
my.-_,,,,.y.,q.v._,,,,y-.,..,..,ym_y,_
i i
40 1
Government in the Sunshine they amended FACA to include the 2
Governmort in the Sunshine exemptions as relevance.
l 3
MR. SIESS:
The two main factors are noticing I
4 public participation which I consider part of noticing, and 5
open or closed.
6 MR. FITZGERALD:
Correct.
And then there's some 4
7 other stuff about --
8 MR. SIESS:
Sunshine comes in only because FACA i
9 uses the Sunshine exemptions on the open.
10 MR. FITZGERALD:
Yes, sir, that's it, i
11 MR. LEWIS:
Only for those parts of ACRS 12 activitics that are governed by FACA, and that's what we are d
-13 about to hear.
14 MR. FITZGERALD:
That's the lay of the land.
15 MR. MICHEISON:
Why don't you proceed.
16 MR. JENSEN As Jim started out.by saying, the 17 crux of the answer --
18 MR. KERR Excuse me.
You are going to need to 19 use that microphone.
20 MR. MICHELSON:
Fairly close to the microphone.
21 MR. JENSEN:
The crux of the matter is the extent 22 to which substantive deliberation is going on within either 23 the Subcommittee or the Full Committee which governs whether I
) -24 or not FACA applies.
Where that legal conclusion comes from g
25 in :he GSA regulations is what I would like to briefly walk
_ ______ __j
i i
I 41 j
1 through.
On the handout, if you would turn to Section 101 -
' 7 O
'2 i
6.1007, Item 4.
j i
3 MR. CARROLLt Page 53.
I 4
MR. JENSEN Item number four says the 5
requirements of Paragraphs B-1 and B-2 of this section shall 6
apply for any Subcommittee of a chartered Advisory 7
ccmaittee, whether its members are. drawn in full or in part 8
or full from the parent Advisory Committee which functions 9
independently of the parent Advisory Committee such as 10 making recommendations directly to the Agency rather than 11 consideration by the chartered Advisory Committee.
J 12 MR. LEWIS:
Not all Subcommittees do that.
l
((
13 MR. JENSENs This is the first of three different i
i 14 sections that are applicable to a response to this answer.
15 The requirements in paragraphs B-1 and B-2 are the.
16 chartering requirements.
What Item 4 here is saying is that 17 if the partico.lar Subcommittee is in effect acting 18 independently of the Full Committee either because its 19 recommendations are going directly to the commission or 20 because the full Committee is, in effect rubber stamping the 21 recommendations of the Subcommittee, then all of FACA 22 applies including the chartering requirements.
23 That's one situation.
That's probably a fairly
( ) 24 clear cut situation I would guess as to whether the V
l 25 Subcommittee is acting independently or not.
If you step
~. -
1 42 i
1 backward to Item 3 --
2 MR. MICHELSON:
Before you do that let me clarify 3
one point.
You talk about chartering requirements.
You are 4
saying that the Subcommittee has to have a charter of its 5
own?
6 MR. JENSEN:
It it were acting independently.
7 MR. LEWISt.
If it were' acting --
8 MR. JENSEN:
If you would turn one requirement 9
upwards to Item 3 of the same regulation, 101-6.1007 which 10 says Subcommittees that do not function independently of the 11 full or parent Advisory Committee need not follow the 12 requirements in paragraph B-1 and B-2 of this section, the-13 chartering requirements.
However, they are subject to all 14 other requirements of the Act which are primarily as we just 15 explained, the notice requirements and the openness 16 requirements.
17 What three is telling us is, if we have a 18 Subcommittee that is not acting independently of the Full 19 Comdttee it doesn't need to charter but it does need to 20 follow all of the requirements of the Federal Advisory 21 Committee Act.
So far so go, but now we have the 22 complication which is the third regulatory section I would 23 like to draw your attention to, which is a couple 24 regulations up, 101-6.1004 (k) which is repeated almost 25 verbatim in the NRC regulations.
~ - _ _ _.. _.. _. _.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _. _ _ _. _.. _.
43 1
K reads that meetings of two or more Advisory 2
committee or Subcommittee members convened solely for l
3 different purposes to gather information or conduct-research 4
for a chartered advisory committee to analyze relevant 5
issues and facts or to draft proposed position papers for 6
deliberation by the Advisory Committee or. a Subcommittee of.
i 7
the Advisory committee.
I 8
Subcommittees that are performing any of those 9
four functions do not come within the requirements of FACA.
i 10 That is as far as the openness requirements and notice 11 requirements.
What one needs to do is rec..tcile K -- I will 12 call it K for short -- and three.
13 MR. LEWIS:
I have a question here.
I read K not 14 referring to Subcommittees but as meeting of two or more 15 members which then report to the Advisory committee.
I do 16 not see K as in conflict of three unless three refers 17 specifically to Subcommittee.
1 18 KR. JENSEN:
K does as well.
19 MR. LEWIS No, it does not.
It says two or more 20 advisory Committee members --
21 MR. JENSEN Or --
l 22 MR. LEWIS In other words, we can have members 23 who are not convened as a Subcommittee and it may fall under t
24 K but not under three.
25 MR. JENSEN:
If they are operating as a I
1 44 1
Subcommittee, then --
i
'I 2
MR. LEWISt But that's up to us.
They are not.
i 3
MR. MICHELSON:
Let him finish.
See what you-4 think and then we will ask the question.
1 j
5 MR. LEWIS:
I am saying that Joe,-Pete and Mike go 6
off and prepdre a paper in Chicago --
7 MR. JENSEN:
It's not a Subcommittee if it Joe, 8
Pete and Mike are drafting a proposed position paper and 9
that's solely what they are doing.
It is not a
- J 10 Subcommittee.
1 11 MR. LEWIS:
I agree.
12 MR. JENSEN That's correct.
d
) 13 MR. SIESS:
If we tell three yuys --
14 MR. JENSEN Provided that is solely what they are 15 doing.
If they are -- they are preparing a paper for F
15 dei.
~ + ion presumably --
17 MR. SIESS:
What else could they be doing.
i l
18 MR. JENSEN:
--for deliberation by tho' Full 19 Committee or by the Subcommittee.
20 MR. LEWIS:
That's' correct.
They can do that l
21 without the closure.
22 MR. JENSEN This, of course, is the gray area l
+
l 23 which is why we are arguing about it.
It is hard to imagine g[
) 24 how one can draft anything without a certain amount of 25 deliberation.
You have to decide --
,,-.,......._,,.,y
i 45
-1 MR. MICHELSON:
Wait a sinute.
We have to keep a q
lO 2
record of this.
One at a time.
Hal,.could you please pull 3
your microphone down so the transcriber can hear you, l
4 MR. LEWIS:
Now we are back to where the 5
deliberation appears in the rules.
i i
6 MR. CARROLL:
Yes.
I i
l 7
MR. JENSENs That's right.
The exception -- the K 8
exception that you are focusing on is an exception for a' l
9 subgroup -- Joe, Pete and Mike -- who are simply drafting i
10 position papers for deliberation by either the. Advisory 14 Committee or the Subcommittee.
When the Advisory Committee 12 or Subcommittee does the deliberating --
13 MR. SIESS:
That's a Subcommittee --
14 MR. JENSEN:
-- that's a Subcommittee under three.
]
15 If Joe, Pete and Mike, in addition to simply drafting the 16 paper are also doing substantive deliberations as to what 17 the content of the draft ought to be as opposed to l
18 fulfilling the directives of the Full Committee or the 19 Subcommittee.
Then, Joe, Pete and Mike are in effect acting
]
20 as a Subcommittee.
21 MR. SIESS:
They don't --
22 MR. LEWIS:
That's the difference between us then.
j 23 We think they are not.
24 MR. MICHELSON:
We really do want a proper record 9( A Q.
25 of this I think for everybody.
One at a' time.
46 1
MR. KERR It also permits this group to analyse I/
2 relevant issues and facts.
What is the difference between 3
analysis and deliberation?
It seems to me that is almost 4
undefinable.
Certainly, some kind of discussion and
)
5 analysis is permissible under K.
6 MR. JENSEN:
I think that necessarily in analyzing I
7 relevant issues and facts there's a certain amount of I
i
(
8 deliberation.
9 MR. KERR Right.
1 10 MR. JENSEN ' Which would be permissible.
The i
11 question as always is, where is the line between the l
I 12 deliberation that is necessary simply to analyze the issues j
-()13 and facts and the deliberation which is so substantive in 14 content as to bring it within three.
1 l
15 MR. LEWISt I believe Chet is next.
16 MR. SIESS:
You are talking about what is'done, 17 and I would like to look at K in terms of who does it.
K i
18 starts off and talks about two or more members of an 19 Advisory Committee or Subcommittee.
l 20 MR. JENSEN:
Yes.
I 21 MR. SIESS:
'thet, in effect, establishes either an 22 Advisory Committee or Subcommittee and members of one of 23 those groups.
1
- (~'
24 MR. JENSEN:
That's right.
25 MR. SIESS:
Then, it ends up by talking about
(
f n-
- ~. -
w
.,,..,~.c+,-
,,g,.
v-,.
~. _. _ _
i s
47 1
- l 1
papers for deliberation by the Advisory committee or a
.O J
j 2
Subcommittee of the Advisory committee.
I don't see how j
l 3
under those words we could ever make those two or.three l
4 people a Subcommittee.
They can start out by being members ll 5
of a subcommittee preparing something for deliberation by 6
the Subcommittee and we have immediately set them off as l
7 members of the subcommittee, and they are not going to i
J l
J 8
deliberate.
The deliberative body is the Subcommittee of 1
9 which they are members.
10 That, to me, is as plain as the nose on your face.
11 MR. WILKINS:
May I act like a lawyer for one 12 minute.
The issue might well be a concern by these d
13 gentlemen that when the proposed position paper comes to the i
14 Subcommittee for deliberation that, that deliberation is i
15 perfunctory, pro forma, and they use the word' rubber stamp.
i 16 If they ever sit in one of these meetings they would clearly 17 learn that the Subcommittee -- the proposed position papers 18 brought to Subcommittee by members or brought to the Full 19 Committee by tambers of the Subcommittees are rehashed in J
20 agonizing detail.
1 21 In fact, I almost wish it were more perfunctory ~
L 22 but I don't want to get involved in that discussion.
It is 23 far from perfunctory.
It is in considerable detail.
( ) 24 MR. SIESS:
There are, however, exceptions to that 25 before your time, Ernest.
j t
r
.-,--w----
w
.-e..--..,_m.,--,
,, - --,m,,,,.
,,.m
-..m.5 y..--,
-,,.,-,,,,,---,,er ve
-o-*
I I
48 i
i l
1 MR. SHEWMON:
Not since the AcNW --
ld l
2 MR. SIESS:
Not since the ACNW was set up.
That 3
is why the AcNW was set up, because the committee was 4
passing on Subcommittee reports with -- I wouldn't say 5
perfunctory -- less than complete debate you might say.
6 MR. JENSEN:
I would say those are the -- the line l
7 would be drawn between the exception that you just referred l
l 8
to and what Dr. Wilkins has just referred to.
If the full 9
and complete deliberation is going on.on the part of the 10 Subcommittee based on the position paper presented, then I r
11 wouldn't' think that there would be a problem with-Tom, Joe 12 and Harold --
ll 13 MR. SIESS:
What's mora, I can't think of an l
14 instance where we ever sent off two members to draft a l
l 15 report.
16 MR. CARROLL:
The words in here --
17 MR. SIESS:
Usually --
18 MR. SIESS:
-- about collecting information are 19 the ones that I think are more pertinent to what we do.
20 MR. MICHELSON:
Hal.
21 MR. LEWIS:
I was going to say exactly what Ernie 22 said, that we never rubber stamp anymore.
I think I see 23 what is happening, because our friends from OGC are doing a g( )
24 worse case analysis.
They are trying to close the door 25 against rubber stamping of a group report and doing that --
l
\\
\\
i 49 1
if you will forgive me --'by rather inventively creating l
p 2
these criteria about deliberating in small groups and things i
L 3
like that which I really don't find anywhere except in K 4
which is an exception.
5 The point becomes I think as you said Neil, a gray i
6 area in the sense that they are elements of good will and 7
interpretation involved.
In particular one then has to look 3
L 8
doesn't one, to the intent of the Act.
The intent of the i
9 Act and the intent of the regulations is to keep people from.
10 doing things secretly.
Since our history is that nothing 11 done is small groups -- certainly since ACNW was formed --
l 12 fails to get rather deliberative and complete attention in 13 open meeting here.
We are just not, as far as the intent of 14 the rule, we are not hiding anything.
We really are not.
15 That would push me away from a worse case 16 analysis.
17 MR. FITZGERALD:
I would point out that when you 18 have a specific concrete meeting that you are contemplating 19 or type of meeting, that is the kind of thing that I think 20 historically we have interacted at your request, the i
21 Committee Staff.
We have asked questions, is the meeting 22 going to involve this, will there be this and then that --
23 we have made a judgment based on that kind of input as to gi 24 whether FACA would apply, as to whether it can be closed or 25 open or whatever.
50 i
1 MR. MICHELSON:
I don't think our problem is with I
2 the meetings per se and in announcing meetings.
I think our g
l 4
i 3
problem is with one or two of the Subcommittee members going 4
off in the corner before a Subcommittee meeting or t
5 afterwards and trying to pull together what they think they t
1 6
have heard so they have something proper to bring to the 7
Committee.
I 8
MR. LEWIS Well, that --
9 MR. MICHELSON:
Our Subcommittee Chairman 10 traditionally writes it on his own.because there has been a
.i 2
11 lot of noise about, if he does it alone it's okay but if two l
12 people deliberate with him -- in other words send some 13 copies of drafts back and forth -- then we have a meeting 14 going on even though it wasn't formally noticed.
That is
-i 15 where we get into a problem.
16 You shake your head.
i t
l 17 MR. CARROLLt Let me see if I understand.
I i
18 thought when we started down this path one of the big
(
r l
19 problems was that our Subcommittee meetings have not always
[
i 20 been noticed; is that right?
21 MR. MICHELSON:
That hasn't been our problem at' l
22 all.
23 MR. LEWIS:
No, they have always been noticed.
24 MR. FRALEY:
Since the ruling from GSA that our 25 Subcommittee's fall into this exception we have not always
-l
)
E
)
)
51 A
l 1
noticed them.
Most of the time we have noticed them.
Any
(
2
' meeting that falls.under FACA has been noticed.'
3 MR. SIESSt Under what circumstances have we not 4
noticed them, time restraints or closed?
5 MR. FRALEY:
We have not noticed them because of I
6 time restraints on occasion or because of the fact that they 7
were closed.
8 MR. FITZGERALD:
The fact that they were closed 9
wouldn't be a reason for not noticing normally.
FACA would j
j 10 contemplate notice closure determination --
]
11 MR. SIESS He's talking only about --
i i
12 MR. FRALEY:
We are on our own here.
We arc 1l l(
13 talking about meetings where FACA doesn't apply.
14 MR. SIESS:
Let's put it the other way --
15 MR. FRAT.EY:
FACA is an administrative decision.
16 MR. SIESS:
Let's put it the other way.
We were 17 told by somebody formally that FACA didn't apply to our 18 Subcommittee's because they didn't do certain things.
We i
i 19 really didn't change 90 percent of what we were doing.
We r
20 still noticed all those meetings.
They were still open. I~
l 21 have seen the notices every time I have a subcommittee 22 meeting --
23 Except in a few cases where the time limit was i ((
) 24 there and they couldn't get the notice in.
They said since 25 it doesn't apply we will go ahead and have the meeting.
~
52.
,l 1
MR. MICHELSONt. With a little effort we can 2
. correct that even.
That reallyfisn't I don't think our 1
3 --
problem.
4 MR. CARROLLt I just want to lead-through this.
5 Ray,-what youLare saying-is that a result of the' dialogue J
6 that we have-had in the'last1 few months the staff feels that 7
they can notice all Subcommittee' meetings,if that isn't an 8
unreasonable burf.en.
We could do it, yes.
I' thought you agreed _you would do-
'l 11 it?
12 MR. FRALEY:
Well, --
13 MR. MICHELS'ON:.Right now we-are doing it.
14 MR. FRALEY:
We haven't'done anything:yet..Our 15 policy, sinct we got the interpretationLthat the>
16 Subcommittee meetings were exempt,.we notice the meetings 17 whenever we can and not to notice closed meetings.
We can 18 change that policy if the Committee-decides.that we can de 19 so.
j 1
h 20 MR. MICHELSON:
Wait.a minute.
Raise your hand --
21 Hal's had his up for some time.
l.
22 MR. LEWIS:
I think we are talking about,many 23 things at once wnich is, of course, inevitable and part of-24 the process.
In particular we are running on the line 25 between subcommittee meeting and a group which we were
._._..._._.,_.._[
k 1
53
.x 1
pidviously talking-about which was-organized which is not a-
~
-(
2-subcommittee.
Somebody asked-the question and let me ask 3
for a curbstone; opinion on a hypothetical case.
4
'A hypothetical case'is-that I wake up in the 5
' middle'of the night'one-day and'I decide-that the cause of-6 nuclear safety would be' advanced of OGC were abolished,:.just 7
a fantasy.
People'have fantasies at night.
'I wake up in.
8 the morning and I call Carl or-Ray.and say, I'reallyi.hink' I
9 that we ought to recommend to-the; Commission'that-OGC.be.
f i
10 abolished.
This is, I think you=will agree, a subdtantive 11
- issue. I decide that it would be.a good thing for nuclear.
l 12 safety.
In fact, I wouldn't-be the first one to-have i
13 thought of that but that's'another matter.
14 I say to Carl-and Ray and they agree that it's'a-I 15 good idea, that goe Hal, why don't you develop the' idea so_-
i 16 we can talk about-it at the next Full Committee meeting.
17 Tomorrow, without notice or without anything you and some y
18 like minded people -- let's say Joe, P=L..and Mike because I i
19 don't vant to embarrass my friends -- why don't you meet in 20 the Bahamas and think this over and prepare a position paper-21 for us on that subject and we will' talk it over at the full 22 meeting.
23 Is that legal?
)
24 MR. FITZGERALD:
We think that under an 25 interpretation that we have been advancing that, that could-
... ~. _ _
y 54-l
~ 1 well be beyond the purview of.K.,
-2 MR. LEWIS:
You think it would be beyond the o
3 purview.
On what basis?. That's why I:gave it as:an extrese-.
p 4
case.
Why?.
I am preparing a.positionLpaper.
A' group.of-l 5
members who are not a member of a Subcommittee -- not 6
members.of a Subcommittee convening!to' prepare a position a
7 paper for the Full Committee that will.be discussedLin open j
8 session.
It would be kind of fun, factually.
9 MR.'FITZGERALD:
I don't doubt-that.
10 (Laughter.)
{
11 MR.. CARROLL:
I guess you ought to add to your-u 12 scenario that the Full Committee is, in fact, going to
~ it 13 really talk about it.
i.
[
14 MR. LEWIS:
You can.be sure the' Full-Committee j
t 15 will talk about it.
i 16 MR. CARROLL:
At this point the Ful1~Co$nittee --
17 MR. LEWIS:
I want_to know why-it'doesn't comply i
18 with K.
19 MR. FITZGERALD:
For starters, I think that the ---
1 20 I don't know that it is relevant.
If we are just talking E
21 about members and not a formal ACRS Subcommittee --
22 MR. LEWIS:
I purposely did it that way.
I 23 MR. FITZGERALD:
-- with a --
q(
)
24 MR. LEWIS:
I purposely did it that way.
25 MR. FITZGERALD:
One thing to keep in wind is the b
- ~..
.s
~..,,.
_m.
m
.m..
.i p
55-i y
'l FACA definition.of-Advisory Committee'is any. committee,:
1 2
group, workshop, working group or subcommittee.or subgroup-3
.thereof.
Joe, Pete and-Mike-could well be considered a
~
~4 subgroup of the Committee within that definition..
5' MR.'MICHELSON:
Yes.
6:
MR. LEWIS:
Where --
I 7
MR.:FITZGERALD:.I' don't know if:that's1a-place in l
8 the analysis.
l 9
MR.-CARROLL:
They are.a Subcommittee.
t 10
~MR. LEWIS:
They are a subgroup of the Committee 11' but 1.ot a Subcommittee.
If what you'say.is right Jim,ethen 12 K applies to nobody.
13 MR. KERR:
K is' irrelevant if what.youisay is l
14 true.
I 15 MR. LEWIS: -That can't be true, Jim. ?Where is
. 16 that?
17 MR. CARROLL: 'It says two or more' Advisory 18 Committee members draft and propose positions --
19 MR. CATTON:
Do one, two,.three'or four.-
20 MR. LEWIS:
Yes, but he says'they must be a 21 Subcommittee.- That isn't in fact ---
22 MR. JENSEN:
Is P.here any substantive difference.
23 between Joe, Pete and Mike doing this as three guys who have 24 met in a tavern and Joe, Pete and Mike doing it as a 25 Subcommittee.
l' t
56-1 1
MR. LEWIS:- Yes..
2 MR. CARROLLL They haven't - -
3 MR. LEWIS:
They have been. declared'by the l
4 Committee to be-a Subcommittee.
5
_MR. JENSEN:
See, ILthinkLthe-law is not going to 6
look to what' things are called.
The law is going:to make.--
i 8
MR. LEWIS:
You may think --
9 MR. JENSEN:
--substance --
- 1 10 MR.. LEWIS: ;You may think so, but where-in fact ---
11 or in the GSA rules does-it say that any group-meeting.for 12 any purpose constitutes a de fact Subcommittee? 'It'doesn't'
((
13 say that.
- L 14 MR. KERR:
In' fact, it'specifically puts K in, 15 which seems to me to indicate that=such.a group can-meet ---
16 MR. MICHELSON:
No.-
17 MR. JENSEN:
Provided they are-solely doing the
]
18 things involved -- therefore, by implication of their doing i
19 anything else they come within three.
20 MR. KERR:
Of course.
1 21 MR. SIESS:
It wasn't what:they were doing within 1
22 the limits of K --
23 MR. LEWIS:
I think it is, but they say no.
g(
24 MR. WILKINS:
I taink what Mr. Fitzgerald is 25 saying is that this activi':y is not one of the four items 1
.'l
d 57~
r 1
' listed here.
I think'what'Dr.:Lewiscis saying is that'it-L 2
is.
j d
g 3
MR. LEWIS - That's exactly.right..
'1 4
.MR. WILKINS:.There ist --;I would like to focus-
]
t.
I 5
the discussion on that= difforence Lof opinion, because; that:
(
- l
,6
.is precisely what the 1ssue is.I think. +
]
'l 7
MR. LEw7S:
That's.why I. created this! scenario.;
1
-8 MR t
Yes.'
9 MR. c ITWELALD:
A Mr. Jensen indicated"in-
'I 10 starting off,-we wars focusing on thw
'testion and~saw the.
11 crux of thr: matter as the deliberation.
This-is coming'back.
1 12 to the --
13 MR. 72WIS:
Again, that's not in-the GSA rules ~."
L
-14 MP.. JENSEN:
I think as I heard yor. define your l
15 hypo, this group was admittedly going to talk.cbout a very.
16 substantive matter.
17 MR. LEWIS:
Oh, yes.
18 MR. CARROLL:
They were going to analyze --
19 MR. JENSEN:
Therefore, clearly,.it ist not one of 20 the things in K.
21-MR. LEWIS:
I disagree.
It doesn't say.anywhere
]
- j 22 in K that you are precluded from discussing a substantive-23 matter.
p 24 MR. WILKINS:
Where-it --
25 MR. LEWIS:
It doesn't say that.
In fact, we
)
.58 1
1 wouldn't meet except to' discuss m' substantive matter.
What'
'i 2
do you think we are?
3 (Laughter.)
~
4 MR. LEWIS - Don't answer that.
5 MR.-- WILKINS:
We night discuss something.
j 6
substantive administrative 1y-7
'MR. LEWIS:
One can-argue whether the abolition'of 8
OGC is a substantive matter but we won't.
[
4 9
MR. JENSEN:
If it doesn't come within K, you said 10 it comes-within three.
11 MR. LEWIS:
_No, I'm sorry.
Three refers to 12 Subcommittee or Committee.
l 13 MR. WILKINS:.Let's concede -
.I would argue that
[
14 15 MR. LEWIS:
I won't.
i 16 MR.-WILKINS:- I would argue that this group of 17 individuals who got together for.the purpose of drafting i
18 this proposed position paper does come vithin K because they t
19 are drafting the paper for subseq",nt -- that'c an extra' 1
l 20 word of mine -- deliberation by the Advisory Committee.
Precisely.-
l 22 MR. WILKINS:
Mr. Fitzgerald, it seems to me, is~
23 saying that if they deliberated on their own they are not
]
(()24 within K. I would argue that they can't prepare it unless i
25 they deliberate'it.
l I
_7_._._..__._._-_.
. ~... _
59 MR. LEWIS - I think he's squirming, but he --
.t'iO 1
2 MR. WILKINS:
Therefore --
3 MR. LEWIS:- I think we have him on the run.
4 MR. WILKINS: -The paper lthat.they prepare -- and 5
they might prepare two or three papers'with'differenti 6
positions so that,Lthe full Committee might choose:between 1
7 these. options.
8 MR. LEWIS:
It would be unconscionable ford:hese-9-
people to prepare a position paper for the Full'Committeel 10 without deliberation.
11 MR. CARROLL:
The word analyze 1 issues and :so 'forth 12 implied sor.a degree of'--
d dO. 13 MR..FITZGERALD:
There may have already been-14 deliberation by the normally operating,Sub' committee or Full 15 Committee and Joe, Pete and Mike have been asked.to go'forth l
16 and in a position paper reflect this.
~
17 MR. LEWIS:
That's a-different scenario.
The one 18 that I had was that I woke up at night and'had this 19 brainstorm.. I was trying-to --
20 MR. FITZGERALD:
Right.
2A MR.-KERR:
I don't believe that a lawyer would i
22-take a case-to court which followed the scenario which'you i
23 just described and argue that the' people;itvolved were
(
) 24 breaking the law.
I can't envision that, i
i 25 MR. LEWIS:
I can't either.
l
w------------.-a-----
a--
fl
.]
-60
~
1 MR. WILKINSs: You gentlemen aren't-lawyers and' 2
. t' hose gentlemen are,. so -,
~
3 MR.' CARROLL:
They can imagine it?
4 MR'.1WILKINS:
They can't-imagine court.
5
'(Laughter.)
I 6
'MR.'FITZGERALD:- The purpose-thattyou alludedL tio ;
7 Dr. Siess of the underlying purpose:of-the Act of FACA.which 8
.is to have.information -- to exchange it'and gettit out in 9'
the open.
10 MR.-LEWIS:' There is no' pretense.that it: won' I
11' happen under this scenario -- people will put their thoughts 12 together and then we will havs a free for'all in public,as (O
113 we are doing r.Ow.
]
14 MR. WILKINS:
Is there some case law'where the 15 Supreme Court or other valid court has: ruled that, meetings L
16 of the sort that Dr. Lewis-describes'are,.in-fact, not l'
17 covered by K?
18 MR. FITZGERALD:
This is beyond the pale of any L
L 19 judicial decision to date.
l.
20 MR. WILKINS:
To date, all right.
Maybe1we can i
21 keep it that-way -- at least we don't --
22 MR. MICHELSON:
Let me get one clarification.
Is
~
23 the fact that we establish a subgroup to do a particular ll
~ 24 thing like prepara a position paper, that subgroup it
[
25 appears is an advisory committee under the definitions.
It'
~
~.
~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. _ _ _
n 61 - says right-here-under definitions that-includes anyl subgroup:
.v 2
.thereof,,and that's in the Federal --
i 3
MR. LEWIS:
That ---
1
)
4 MR. MICHELSON:' Except for L yes.'
-5 MR. FITZGERALD:
-K is basically.the: exceptions'of.
6 behavior.
If that group' -- I would maintsin th :.*: if that-7 group -- that group'is controlled by FACE.unless-it is.
8 behaving?in accordance with one of-th'ese fourfitems.. If'
~
9 that same group-ventures,out beyond-theEfour'andithat-kind' 10 of comes-~ afoul'to where it is: solely --
1 11 MR. MICHELSON:l Yes.'
12 MR. FITZGERALD: 'Then,-they continue to function'-
f 13 but they have to function in accordance with three.
l h
14 MR. LEWIS:
We don't disagree on that.
15 MR. CARROLL:
Does your; answer on;Ha's scenario' 16 change any if ACRS had a subcommittee on abolishing OGC and 17 these members were the three members of the! committee and 18 they met?
19 MR. SIESS:
Then.it's a-SEbcommittee.
20 MR. MICHELSON:-
It's an Advisory Committee except 21 under these exceptions -- it's always an Advisory Committee..
~
22 Any three members are an advisory committee.
i 23 MR. SIESS:
Let me get something straight.
jf 24 MR. MICHELSON:
No matter what you call them.
25 MR. SIESS:
Even if I have a designated j
l L
't.is:
i l'
subcommittee and it's-doing-one of the' things.under K,j
-2
'still. subject to.the Act.
s 3
MR. FITZGERALD-Nott ifilt's doing-things under K..-
L 4
MR. SIESS:
It's not?:
g 5
MR. MICHELSON:
Not under K.
i 6
MR.1WILKINS:
Whether-this particularLactivity as
- [
7 Dr. Lewis described-comes under'one of these four-8 categories..
i
^
a
?
-9 MR. SIESS:
Okay, I'm sorry.
10 MR. MICHELSON:
That's an'important activity to 11 us..
That is a "very'important' activity for us.: That is'the 12 heart of our work.
d()13 MR. SIESS:
Witat is?
14 MR. MICHELSON:
Preparing drafts.
e t
15 MR. WILKINS:
That's why-I want'to; focus on --
16
-MR. FITZGERALD:- When;do they.normally get i
17 prepared, these drafts that are:-being: talked about?
18 MR. MICHELSON:
If there ils a subcommittee 19 meeting, the Subcommittee Chairman normally prepares what ha 20 would think would be a suitable draft, that-is< discussed i
21 sometimes ahead of thu Subcommittee meeting with other D
i
'22 members.
It may or sty not be.
It is discussed at the l
23 Subcommittee and it is refined some more by one or more 24 people with suggestions before it gets to full Committee.
25 MR. SIESS:
Carl, I can't think:of an example
,m m
63
- ~
1
'where we.have had-a -
just a" minute.
d
-2
'MR.~MICHELSON:
Before the Full Committee meeting.
3-MR. WILKINS:..But they.go.to --
4 MR. LEWIS '
But than we --
5 MR. WILKINS:
Every word ---
6
-MR. LEWIS:
We don't'know when we go.off --
7 MR. MICHELSON:
Wait a minute now.
-A lot-of:
8 little letters are-brought to,the Full Committee already~
q l
9 drafted.by r. Subcommittee chairman.
I 10=
MR. SIESS:
Yes, but you.said-by:a --
11 MR. LEWIS:
By a Subcommittee - -
12 MR. MICHELSON:
Sometimes it:is and sometimes-it q
(
13 isn't.
14 MR. CARROLL:
I guess I have never been in two
-15 years to a Subcommittee meeting where the Chairman --
16 MR. FRALEY:
If it is drafted by;-a Subcommittee:
17 chairman alone, I don't believe that FACA applies at:all.
18 What we are debating here is the -- two other members go.off 19 and draft it.
If it is drafted by a Subcommittee Chairman 20 alone, FACA does not apply.
21 MR. MICHELSON:
If he never talks to anybody nor 22 gets any input from anybody, no deliberation from anybody 23 that is quite true.
24 MR. LEWIS:
That is a red herring.
25 MR. CARROLL:
That's ridiculous.
I I
64
]
^
n I 1 MR. MICHELSON:
Yes.-
j 2
MR. SHEWMON:. If two paragraphs.-in;the letter or.
3 one paragraph is written by somebody,else but,sach.did it-
~
4 separately, does this change any of this?.
5
-(Laughter.)
I l'
6 MR. JENSEN: 'It sounds as_though-there.-is.no J
l s
7
' deliberation between.tho'twoLof them.. One is doing one 8
paragraph and one is --
1 9
MR. LEWIS:- You have to be kidding.
10 MR. JENSEN:
There is;no deliberation - -
11 MR. LEWIS:
You have to be kidding.
That means 12-that if one guy is, sitting up there writing half of.a letter
(
13 and another guy is writing the other half - which sometimes-a 14 happens -- it is very important that we.make sure they don't-15 talk to each other?
16 MR. SIESS:
Oh, come on.-
17 MR. LEWIS:
You can't be serious.
We are getting-18 away from my scenario here.
19 MR. JENSEN:
Deliberation is the focus.
If they
)
20 talk to each other saying my paragraph should go first --
21 MR. LEWIS:
You can say that, but where is the 22 deliberation in the rules?
The deliberation.is only in the 23 rule under K.
That is where the word appears, and it only 24 says that this group is preparing something for deliberation 25 by a Subcommittee or the Full Committee.
It doesn't say
t g
~
65 1"
they are' deliberating or not' deliberation.
It says the-2 deliberation.does not appear'--~
N i
.3 MR. CARROLLt" - It says;--'
4' MR. LEWIS:.That=is the exceptions?under K.
5 MR. CARROLL:
It says:they may be~ analyzing.
f 1
9 6
relevant issues and facts and drafti'ng..which has some
'7 element of deliberation.
8 MR. LEWIS:
Yes' It.certainly:does not say they 9
are not allowed to deliberatei That,'.it'does not say.,
~
10
'MR. SIESS:
I amiconfused now.
Carl set up a>
11 scenario that I'have<never'seen.
1: have - only been cn1.this ?
12 Committee 22 years.
I havefnever been in a Subcommittee
(
((f ) 13 meeting and have never chaired a subcommittee meeting where 14 the Subcommittee prepared a report for.the full Committee-J 15 except the one instance on reviewing'the transportation 16 groups activities for the EDO.
u
-17 It has generally been our attitude -- it'has' 18 always been my-attitude that a draft of a report-is nothing 19 but a piece of paper until it is laid on'the table.
I don't 20 care whether I drafted it, one'of the staff engineers 21 drafted it.
You would be amazed at the many times when a 22 staff engineers drafted a letter based on what a-23 Subcommittee Chairman told him to do usually.
24 Then that is brought to this table and from there
- 1 25 on, it's the Committee's letter.
l l
66 i
g
=1-MR. MICHELSON ' Yes.
di'g 2'
MR. SIESS:
It is theoretically 1possible that the 3
Ccamittee would approve it without any changes --
1 e
4 MR. MICHELSON:
Not-without discussion.
5 MR. SIESS:
Not without. discussion, even if it's l
6 an. absolutely routine letter.
It is read through.twice and 7
discussion is asked for.
Nobody ever puts it out'and says I 8
move' final.on that.
It is just ridiculous to worry about 9
how we arrive at that piece of paper-we are going to 10 consider.
I 11
.If we can't do it individually.or on'any other 4
12 basis we can't operate effectively.
People have toisit
(
)
13 around this table to do it.
14 MR. LEWIS:
I wonder if we haven't run'this 15 particular scenario into the ground.
It raises in my mind a 16 follow on question which is, there seems to be a case'here-17 in which our reading of'the law differs from your reading of-18 Lthe law.
You can pull the authority thing and'say hey, wo 19 are lawyers and you areinot.
But you know we --'you 20 practice physics to the extent that I practice law and are 21 probably just as opinionated about it as I am about law.
22 In a case like this or some other case like this-23 in-which we have something we regard as important, the p
abolition of OGC -- I can't help but use that scenario --
24 25 and you disagree for good or bad reasons, how would you i
-s,+-+,w-,
.- i s es,-,,, -..
,-,,ww.-
-,.v.*..=.-y---w g-e
=,e-.,,-,-
- -,+
G 67 f) 11 proposa.that wa adjudicate'that between us?
We have a 2
difference of opinion.- Must we accept your-position?
~
3 MR. F1TZGERALD:
One thing that we can do is, we-4 mention the GSA secretariat.- We can feel t, hem about-the 5
-precise question.
1 6
MR.' LEWIS:
We,. meaning you or we meaning both of 7
us?
8 MR. FITZGERALD:
It would'be --
9 MR.-LEWIS:
We would'go to GSA and say that-OGC i
10 has a conflict of interest here because they don't want to-1 1
11 be abolished -- survival instinct 'or something 'like that.
12 MR. FITZGERALD:
There is no conflict of interest.
I Il 13 What the question here is, what is the extent of the 14 language of K.
I 15 MR. LEWIS:
Yes.
SoLwe could go to GSA?
1 16 MR. FITZGERALD:
It's their reg.
17 MR. LEWIS:
GSA would say gee, it's clear-we have~
18 already made a set of regulations only a few-years ago; 19 can't you read?
t 20 MR. FITZGERALD:
They may have already had that 21 question posed to them.
22 MR. LEWIS:
We could give them the specific 23 scenario and say how would you rule on this.
(i 24 MR. FITZGERALD:
The details that the Committee --
25 this is how we function.
i 1
l
~68 1
MR. LEWIS:
We would give them a case.
2
.MR. FITZGERALD:.This isLwhat they.do.
3 MR. LEWIS:
We would give them a-case.-
i L'
4 MR. FITZGERALD:- That is generally _the, situation.=
5 MR. LEWIS:
I. understand that.
Although"it is.
6 getting to look-botter and better as time.goes byJ- -what 7
would our procedure be in going to GSA.if we wanted to do; 8
that in a real case?
9 MR. FITZGERALD:
In a real case'we would;either - a 10 one thing we would probably do.is call up and see if we 11 could set up a meeting with one of their staff people.
When.
12 we are talking about GSA we:are talking about a-15 person'
(
13 operation.
14 MR. LEWIS:
Sure.
I know that.
15 MR. FITZGERALD:
Within GSA.
WE would set up a 16 meeting and go over and present the. case and'get-their i
17 views.
l 18 MR. LEWIS:
Could we shop for a lawyer wichin OGC; 19 could we call OGC himself and say you sent ns these-two bums 20
--send us better and more compliant people.
21 MR. FITZGERALD:
You could always go up the chain i
22 of command.
Clearly, you can go up, l
23 MR. WILKINS:
I think that ought to be explored a c(()24 little more.
I think before OGC goes to.GSA there's a 25 commission -- there's a commission.
If two components of
i 69 L
1 the commission disagree, ultimately the Commission has to'
(. -
2-make 's determination.
L 3
MR.:FITZGERALD:. You are always free'to go to the 4.
Commission, t
5 MR. WILKINS:- I think you have to do-that before i
l
~6 you go to'GSA,. don't you?'
i t
Except that this is ---
7 MR. LEWIS:1 8
-MR. JENSEN:
GSA is-a resource.- You can look at 4
9 GSA as.a resource that you can tap into.; It is much like we 10 would frequently will call up.the ACUS, Administrative:
.l 11 Conference of : the United States: for certain --
4 12 MR. SIESS:
Jim, are you familiar with'this memo
- i 13 from John Hoyle dated July 19,.19887 14 MR. FITZGERALD
Yes.:
t 15-MR. SIESS:
-Do you disagree with.what he did.or i
16 what he heard?
17 MR. FITZGERALD:
Not-really.
We think that is not 18 inconsistent with what we are talking about today.
l-L 19 MR. SIESS:
That our subcommittee's really are not l
20 advisory Committees.
That memo concluded that --.in fact it 4
[
21 didn't just apply to our Subcommittee.
22 MR. JENSEN:
The focus of that memorandum is also 23 on the degree to which deliberation is taking place:within g{
.24 the subgroup or the Subcommittee.
25 MR. SIESS:
No, I don't think so.
I think it
4 t
70
(
l' talks about the deliberat. ion for the final approval must 2-take place in the full committee but I don't_see anything
-3 there that somebody can't think before they'come to the Full l.,
4 Committee.
5' MR. JENSEN:
I can. understand;how you could --
6 MR. SIESS:
As long as the full, Committee.
?
7 properly airs the topi'c they don'* seally care how it got.
4 8
there, that's what.this says.to me.
~
9 MR. JENSEN:
Well,.I-think.this memorandum has'to 10 be read in the context'of the'GSA regulations.
The GSA
. i 11 regulations are --
12 MR. SIESS:
Then we don't need to go.to GSA-
~
i 13 because you can interpret those for us, i
14 MR. WILKINS:
He just did.
15 MR. JENSENs To tho' extent to which substantive-i 16 deliberation is going on within the subcommittee even if-it L
17 also later is going to go on within the Full Committee, the 18 subcommittee is covered by FACA.
I 19 MR. SIESS:
I. don't know where you. read that.=
20 MR. KERR:
But K doesn't --
21 MR. WILKINS:
I think he said something that you 22 ought to listen to what he said.
That is where the i
23 disagreement is.
We ought to focus on the disagreement..He 124 says if the Subcommittee deliberates it doesn't matter that 25 the Committee deliberates --
71 R
(
ll MR. SIESS:
I don't seeLthose words in here.
2-MR..WILKINS:
I' don't. see that in' the ' la - at all.
3 I don't see it, but that's -- they are the-experts'new..
}
l p
4 They are telling us what they see.
l t
5 MR. IEWIS:
They see' things that we can't see l
6 either.
They have to point them'out, j
7 MR. WARD:
If'that's the case, I don't-see where K 8
could apply to anything., I mean, I'think that's.the problem:
.t 9
you see.
There must be some way for members to get together-10 to gather information and conduct research, analyze and
~
11 draft because that's what K is all about'. - In plain english.
-r 12 deliberation is going to be part of'any or all of those:four I
'l l
13 processes.
g 14 MR. JENSEN:
We are back to the gray area, where-b 15 you have decide whether the amount of deliberation that-l 4
16 necessarily is going to be going on is permissible or not or.
17 comes within or without.
I would make two points.
One is, 18 if there is doubt -- if we are really in the gray area, why l
19 not apply FACA.
Why not have an open meeting --
t i
20 MR. CARROLL:
Well, it's --
21 MR. WARD:
Because sometimes two' subcommittee
.1 22 members may be drafting a letter coming back from a meeting 23 on airplanes and sitting next to each other.
We don't want 2 41 to be in a-position of having to notice that sort.of thing.
(
l 25 g
y-w,--
,.,.-gi,,,
____.,_,,m.
____,.__m__.
_______.__,___,,__,,___m_
4 l-
.72 L-1 MR.-JENSEN:
The other point then would have to be l-1 2
that you would look at a broader totality ofthe l
3 circumstances.- To go back to Dr. Lewis' hypo -- as a resulti i
4 of his enumerations in his dreams he has ancidea and calls-i 5
up three people and they set about; to draft a proposal.:
l-6 obviously, this is something that neither the full Committee.
~
7 nor the Subcommittee has heard-about.
8 one would therefore reasonably concludo-that a lot
~
9 of deliberation is going on on.the part of those three and, 10 therefore, FACA applies.
If, on the other hand --
)
11 MR. LEWIS:
Wait a minute --
12 MR. WARD:
I'can't -
you are losing the point.
t0
- i 13 MR. MICHELSON
Wait a minute.
One at a time.
14 MR. WARD:
I know, but he's losing the point.
You 15 are choosing to call that substantive deliberati~ons.
I 16 don't know where you get that.
I'might call that. analyzing
{
17 issues and facts.
18 MR. CARROLL:
And preparing a draft.
19 MR. SIESS:
What public purpose --
20 MR. WARD:
What is the purpose of K -- is to 21 acknowledge that that sort of operation and process goes on 22 outside of the formal requirements of FACA.
t 23 MR. SIESS:
If I am going to bring a draft letter-24 to this Committee to be approved in public, debate it in public, et cetera, et cetera, what public purpose is served 25
E L
73 I
e
.1-in exploring'my mind' processes of-those of me and Dave Ward-l
. t (:
2 sitting next to.each other and arriving at that draft as L
-3 long as the final result has been' debated in'public the pros 4
and cons have been. aired'in public, who cares how-'it got-to 5
that point to begin with?
6 MR. WILKINS:
The answer to that question is 7
Congress cares.
8 MR. MICHELSON:; 'Well, the ---
9 MR. SIESS:
Except for their.ownIdeliberations.
[
10 MR. FITZGERALD:' One question would be with all 11 the pros and cons that you all debated and i'ilter out and 12 come up with a position, would that get --
0 13 MR. SIESS:
If the other --
14 MR. FITZGERALD:
The full Committee.
15 MR. SIESS:
If'the other ten members of this i
la Advisory Committee selected a fairly intelligent group'-- if' j
17 they haven't thought of something, it's their letter.- 2 3
18 might bring something in that letter and they will say 19 that's stupid-and throw it out.
If'they think of something l
l 20 that I forgot they may add it in.
i j
The thing is, the advice that we give to the 21 l
22 Commission will be advice that is arrived at by'this body 23 in full open debate completely aired, maybe even a 24 transcript.
The only part of our advice to the Commission 25 that never gets debated is the additional remarks, which
i i
74
]
.q 1
sometimes carry more weight-than the letter itself.
~
2 MR. FITZGERALD:
There could be --
3 MR. SIESS:
To say that just because'I didn't-4 think of~everything in private -- that's silly.
5 MR. FITZGERALD:
If you had thought of things in' l
6' private and discussed them with other subcommittee members--
)
7 in this Tom, Dick and Harry type of situation and you -
8 determine ~that certain of these things that you'were-9 discussing weren't worthy of going forward to your brothers (
10 on the Committee, they might never ta.nk of them themselves.
1 11
'However, there may be a value of having - -
12 MR. SIESS:
That may'be that they have been;given.
~
N 13 bad advice.
We have just given bad. advice.
14 MR. MIC:!ELSON:. No.
15 MR. SIESS:- It is still the consensus of the.
16 Committee that they want advice-given.
In fact,'.if we 17 didn't think of all the things that'we should have --
18 MR. MICHELSON:
Wait a minute.
Wo.got --
19 MR. WILKINS:
You said something that I half agree 20 with, not necessarily --
l 21 MR. MICHELSON:
It's not your turn.
Mr. Lewis, l
22 and then you will get your chance.
23 MR. LEWIS:
As they say on the Hill, I am happy to i
- (
24 give --
25 MR. MICHELSON:
Then, go ahead..
1
$'b 75 1
ER. WILKINS:
What he says is that if this~ group-(s l
2 of informal individuals has: decided a*ter thinking about it' j
1 3
and talking about it and deliberating -. decided noti to bri.ng) 4 4
something,to the Committee, and it may well' happen that none-5 of the other members of the full Committee think'of'this,.
d' 6
then the public has been excluded from a substantive 1
7 decision.
8 MR. MICHELSON:
Yes.
That can happen.
y 9
MR. SIESS:
This Committee is not --
-(
10 MR.-WARD:
I don't --
11 MR. MICHELSON. It's not your turn,'Chet.
Hal1har 12 had'his hand up for some time.
13
'MR. LEWIS:
Chat, you can come next.
I want for 14 the first time to disagree with myfdistinguished friend,'Dr.-
15 Wilkins.
If I had to make a list of all the ideas that I 16 have had that I have not brought to this Committee or:to any
~
17 other committee, I think we would all be sick to the tummy.
18 It'is crazy --
19 MR. WARD:
It may be a short list, but it would'be 20 all the good ones.
21 MR. LEWIS:
The point is that'the public interest 22 is not really in the things that have been-discarded.
The 23 public interest is in the advice that we give to the f(
24 Commission and the legitimate-basis for that1 advice.
That is going to be dealt with in public.
In fact, I am now 25
d
~
76
([
really' confused about what we'are! talking about, because I.
1 2
.have never seen.the Hoyle,meno until'this moment.. I agree--
3 with it.
It-seems that GSA agrees withLus; completely on 4
this issue, that as long as we discuss the-thing in a full 5
Committee meeting we are okay.
That is'what they say.
i 6
MR.. MICHELSON:
I think I have:that somewhere.
7 MR.'SIESS:
You have gotten off the legalities-and-i 8
onto the, quality of our advice. LIf I think of something'and 9
say that's a lousy idea and I won't put,that in the letter, 10' that's all right because I'm:the only one drafting it.
If' 11 two of us happen to think of~it.and deci'de it's a-lousy 12 idea, now t.J should have decided that publicly and notified O
i i l 13 the public that we decided it.
That's what he's telling me.
14 I just don't believe that the' precess by which.we i
l 15 reach a conclusion at that stage is in the public -- we may 16 give bad advice but at least-it is agreed upon.
Certainly 17 when you write a brief you have somebody review it and 18 somebody reviews that -- I don't know what your Q/A program 19 is for writing briefs.
You don't have to do it in public in 20 order for it to be a good brief, do you?
21 MR. FITZGERALD:.The fact that you do it by 22 yourself -- FACA just like Sunshine, is talking in; terms of 23 Committees.
i
) 24 MR. SIESS:
All right.
Now, we are talking in q
25 terms of two or three people.
1 1
l77 l l' '
MR. FITZGERALD:
That's right.:
-((O H
e 2-MR. SIESSt~ I am willing;to buy,-- the'-
3 Subcommittee works on FACA. -Even-though(we;got Hoyle's 4
- opinion we still notice the meetings'_and we~did~our best to q
~
l 5
do thir and have everybody in.
The_only time that we close ~
j 6
meetings usually is proprietary stuff or'when the staff says-
]
7 we can't talk about it in open meeting.
We don't -- we-8 perfectly willing to talk about atlot-of stuff but the staff-
~
o 9
comes in and says we haven't.sent that to the Commission 10 yet.-
11 MR. WILKINS:
If you have'some ---
-i 12 MR. SIESS:
A SECY goes.out and the staff'says we 13 know the commission war ts to have. your comments the same l-14 time they get the SECY but we can't talk.about this until we l
15 get to a closed meeting.
I don't know how they work that.
j 16 out.
We either close the meeting or.we don _'t do-it, but'we.
17 don't try to sneak around on that.
18 MR. LEWIS:
I think that this is all not very' i
19 important, because what Jim said'was that if there is a 20 disagreement between us we go.to GSA.
That is-what Hoyle 21 has done.
He has ruled -- GSA has ruled on our side on-this l
22 one, the July 19th memo and that subject is over. 'What more 23 shall we talk about?
l 24 MR. MICHELSON:
Maybe Mr. Hoyle might want to l
25 comment on his July 19th memo since -- for the record.
A 78-i
()
1 MR. LEWIS:
Is the July 19th. memo not in the 2
record?-
l 3
MR. MICHELSON:' No. I said he wrote it.to the 4
' record.
5 MR. LEWIS:
That's right, and it rules that we are-6 okay.
7 MR. MICHELSON:
He might want to-comment on what.
8 he wrote.
i 9
MR. LEWIS:
He's there.
i 10 MR. MICHELSON:
Yes.
Let's give him a-chance to 11 defend.himself or whatever the case may be'.. Why; don't you; 12 just sit here for.now and tell us'about this' infamous memo.--
~
~
(O 13 14 MR. HOYLE:
The infamous memo was written two i
15 years ago.
16 MR. WILKINS:. Excuse me.
I am a-new member here, 17 and I haven't met this-gentleman.
You ara Mr. Hoyle?
18 MR. HOYLE:
Yes.
19 MR. WILKINS:
You wrote this. letter.-
20 MR. HOYLE:
Yes.
21 MR. WILKINS:
Okay then.
22 MR. HOYLE:
I am tht Agency's Federal Advisory 23 Committee Management Officer.
Hy function is-to concern i
24 myself about records of Committees, reports -- annual 25 reports to GSA, making sure that the overall management of
l4:'_, _
1-the Federal' Advisory Committee Act in:this: Agency tak s.
~2 place in conformance and in accordance:with the Federal 3-Advisory Committee Act.and guidance'by GSA..
[
4 Mr. l'itzgerald and Mr. Jensen' are my lawyers also.-
.5 I consult with tt ;m whenLI have' legal' questions to conside..
6 I don't recall exactly the circumstances which prompted me-
[
q 7
to make this call to Mr. Houghton, but'over the years the 8
subject of subcommittee activities'is a subject that comes
-l 9
up.
Many agencies of government charter all'their lo subcommittees because their subcomm'itteesLdo-take a very 11 active role in the committee business. ~Very often 12 subcommittees report directly to the Agency.: The rule.is.
l(
13 rather clear on those, that they.have to be chartered 14 separately from the full committee when they do that..
g 15 The ACRS Subcommittee's do not do that as far as.I 16
.:. stand.
I was describing generally-it appears to Mr..
.i 17 Houghton who is not a lawyer, that the ACRS?does much of.its 18 Lork in subcommittees to assist the CommitteeLin getting its.
19 work pushed into this three day monthly meeting.
What they-20 did was research on topics of interest to the full 21 Committee, pulled together facts and-to draft letter reports 22 for consideration by the Full Committee.- I didn't give them-1 23 any specific scenario and I didn't hear.the one which you-g(
24 gave.
I came in a little later for that.-
25 (Laughter) t
i 11 80 I
~
i d(J l
2 MR. H0YLE:
I didn't give them any specific case 1
3 to look at or to let him to go to GSA's lawyers to look at.
j 4
I said based on what I said, what do you thinke He put kind j
J 5
of a general' response -- I think you are probably on safe j
I 6
ground.
I think if the Committee wishes to get a furthtt j
7 reading from them, if the Committee has'a specific scenario i
8 they would like me to try out on them, I for one would be 9
glad to do that.
10 I don't think it needs to be taken to the 11 Commission at this point.
I think we are still trying to 12 decide among ourselves whether we have an agreement or f
d 13 disagreement.
14 MR. LEWIS:
John, wouldn't it be better to simply l
l 15 proceed on the basis of your July 19 of two years ago --
i 16 meno.
As Bl.i o ld earlier, it is very hard to imagine l
17 somebody prosecuting us for conforming to this memo in view 1
18 of some disagreement about the intent of the law.
Am I 19 wrong about that?
I t
20 MR. FITZGERALD:
That may be, but I don't think f
21 that's the kind of thing that you would want to base your i
22 behriior on, whether the likelihood of your getting sued --
[
I 23 MR. LEWIS:
I understand that.
I am basing it en I
gO 24 the law.
i 25 MR. FITZGERALD:
Right.
l
.-.-. ~ - -. -.-.
j si 1
MR. LEWIS:
I am basing it on the legitimate
- h 2
disagreement about the law in which at least the last time I
3 that Mr Hoyle went to GSA we came out clean.
Why keep j
l 4
beating the beact.
5 MR. FITZGENALD:
I don't-think that we see this --
i
)
6 the point is covered in John's meno was inconsistent with j
7 the position we are taking.
d 8
MR. WYLIE:
I think so.
If you look at the last 9
sentence of the seco..d paragraph, he says as long as the j
10 Full Committee properly airs the topic issuing reports to 11 the Commission and the body actually giving the commission 1
12 its advice or recommendation, then the requirements of FACA 13 are met.
That's all we do.
14 MR. H0YLE:
That is given that the subcommittee 15 has stayed within K to begin with.
l-l 16 MR. WYLIE:
Sure.
l l
17 MR. MICHELSON:
Yes.
l 18 MR. LEWIS:
That's right.
19 MR. CARROLL:
Which we believe they do.
20 MR. WYLIE:
That is how we interpreted K.
I 21 MR. H0YLE:
It it stays within K we don't have a 22 problem.
23 MR. LEWIS:
But tiey are saying that we are not f
24 within K if we do substantivo deliberation.
That is the 25 difference between us.
~..
l I
i 82
,i 1
MR. KERR Look, they say if we stay within K --
l 2
they admit it's a gray area, which means that somebody has i
3 to ut. 3 4 ment.
I am not suggesting that -- when I said 4
what I said, I was not.Ottggesting that I thought we ought to 1
5 do something illegal.
6 MR. LEWIS:
No.
l i
2 7
MR. KERR I am simply saying that if judgment is 8
required, there is no reason why we shouldn't use our l
)
9 judgment unless we are prohibited by a court case or l
10 something from so doing.
s i
11 MR. LEWIS:
But it's even a little -- I agree with 12 you, Bill.
It's even a little stronger than that.
When the O
h 13 question was raised admittedly two years ago, GSA
- Mr.
14 Fitzgerald says is really the essential body -- informally 15 suggested we were on pretty solid ground.
I think it not at 16 all unreasonable for us to proceed'accordingly.
l 17 MR. SIESS:
As a Federal Advisory Committee 18 Management office, have you ever had any complaints about 19 the ACF.S not -- I look out there and I see a number of J
20 members of the public at our meetings and even some 21 representatives of the press.
Does anybody ever complain j
22 because we weren't being open?
23 MR. H0YLE:
No, sir, they haven't.
If you have
,(
24 meetings that nobody knows about they don't have anything to 25 complain about.
]
l 1
L.-
- -. _ ~.. _ _. -.
83 MR. CARROLLt We did have that noticing 1
P g
2 complaining over the Seabrook Subcommittee meeting.
l 3
MR. SIESS Even since you wrote that memo, we:
4 have noticed almost every subcommittee meeting.
5 MR.' HOYLE:
Eure, you have.
5 4
6 MR. SIESS:
Ray said except closed ones -- and we 7
close them only on approval, right?
l I
8 MR. HoY12:
That's right, but you do have soma i
9 meetings in which you consider to be closed but you also j
20 consjaer them to be non-FACA meetings.
I take it those are j
11 th5 meetings that are the ones that you are requiring i
12 guidaace on.
If the general counsel who is the legal d
13 interpretar ef the Act here has to assist you in specific 14 cases -- is this particular subject and this type of 15 discussion properly --
16 HR. SIESS:
In my mind, there's no question about 17 meetings.
The question that I think we are arguing about is l
18 what constitutes a meeting.
If two people have lunch 19 together and talk about what ought to be in a letter and --
20 MR. MICHELSON:
Is that a meeting?
21 MR. SIESS:
Is that a meeting?
Should it have 22 been noticed and invited --
l 23 MR. WARD:
I thought that's the issue.
p()
24 MR. SIESS:
Not to mention the argument about what 25 constitutes deliberations.
f.
l
i 84 1
MR. MICHELSON:
Yes.
2 MR. HOYLE:
For that, I believe you need guidance 3
from the general counsel.
4 MR. LEWIS For example --
5 MR. MICHELSON:
That's where we are hopefulli M
6 getting this morning.
I am going to take my opportunity to j
7 raise my own hand once for a while.
8 I don't know about other people's experiences'as i
9 subcommittee chairmen, but in my case I often after the 10 Subcommittee meeting try to prepare a draft of what I think 11 the committee ought to consider. I will take that draft and 12 give it to two or three of the other subcommittee members I(
13 and ask them if they have any comment on it.
They will come l
14 back with comments and changes and clearly I might talk them 15 out of some of the changes and I might agree to some and l
16 even expand upon them.
l 17 The question is, is that process of trying to act i
18 a proper paper to present to the Full Committee a 19 deliberation in itself.
20 MR. WYLIE:
Go ahead and say what happens at full 21 Committee.
22 MR. MICHELSON:
Oh yes.
Clearly, they know what 23 happens when I present it to Full Committee.
It gets thrown 24 out and never even gets any further.
The process --
25 MR. WYLIE There's something else they do too.
4
..n,, -. -
.,n
,...n,.,.,,,
n...._,
l i
35 1-You also give subcommittee report at the same time when you 2
present the letter.
1 i
1 3
MR. MICHELSON:
I must honestly say that I don't l
4 in my subcommittee report tell all the things that we j
5 deliberated over.-- I mean argued over and may not have l
6 included in the letter.
That's the question of what you i
7 didn't include.
I might have gotten talked out of it oz Jay 8
or somebody else got talked out of it.
9 That does go on.
It has to, to bring a reasonable 10 draft to the Full Committee.. It doesn't have to go on if 11 you say no.
Then I prepare a draft alone and the argument 12 starts at the table instead.
That's the difference.
'(
I 13 MR. SIESS:
The point of the GSA --
14 MR. MICHELSON:
That is true.
15 MR. SIESS:
--decision is very clear.
16 MR. MICHELSON:
Let me hear what counsel has to 17 say.
18 MR. FITZGEPALD:
I was going to say in response to 19 that, that it strikes me that did deliberation go on or not.
)
20 It is often a question of degree.
That is a difficulty that 1
21 we are having, when do you go over the line, I think is one 22 of the phrases.
l 23 MR. MICHELSON:
That's the kind of guidance that
[
) 24 we need.is, how much can we deliberate.
25 MR. SIESS:
I don't know where you --
I
~.
.......,__-,._,.r.
, - _ _., _ _., _ _ _ _ _.. -. _ _ _ ~ _ _,. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
i J
8' 1
MR. FITZGERALD:
If you had a three hour meeting 2
on that letter I think -- you were probably deliberating. If j
i 3
it was just some comments received just as you were 4
exchanging and receiving back the markup, probably not.
1 5
MR. WYLIEt In that' regard we are talking-then 6
about the definition of what deliberate means.
1 i
7 MR. MICHELSON:
That's right.
j i
8 MR. WYLIE:
This letter that Mr. Hoyle wrote in a 9
way he defined it because he added that GSA concern comes 10 about when the subcommittee or subgroup deliberates topics 1
11 for the full committee to the extent '; hat the full committee i
12 simply nods approval.
It seems to ee that's a definition of 13 deliberation.
14 If you don't deliberate to that extent, then it 15 doesn't apply then, i
16 MR. JENSEN:
Simply nodding approval would come l
17 within Item 4 of the first regulation.
That would mean you i
18 have really an independent subcommittee and chartering would 19 be required.
The question'is more with the subcommittee
.I 20 that is not operating independo.tly, where the full 21 committee is not simply nodding approval but is giving 22 deliberation to what has been prepared by the Subcommittee 23 which brings you back to K.
l l
24 To what degree has deliberation taken place among i
25 the subgroup or the Subcommittee and the process --
t
- ~ _....,,.,, _ - - - -.
.......-,m m
m-
87 1
MR. MICHELSON Wait a minute.
Hal had his hand O2 up next.
3 KR. SIESS:
He keeps -- if you stop with 4
Subcommittes -- if a Subcommittee drafts a letter and it is 5
done in open meeting and the full Committee looks at it and 6
it looks like a pretty good letter.
All those in favor say 7
aye, that's legal, right?
8 MR. FITZGERALD:
Yes.
9 MR. SIESS:
You keep saying subgroup.
If I. draft 10 a letter because I'm Subcommittee Chairman and I give it to 11 Dave Ward and say take a look at this and do you think it's 12 reasonable, and he changes a few words here..Maybe we sit-(
13 down and argue for an hour.
Then we come into the Full 14 Committee and they discuss it for three hours.
The point 15 that I think is important is that whatever advice that goes 16 out of this Committee to the Commission has been aired in 17 public, has been debated in public -- the consensus has been 18 reached.
19 It might be lousy advice, bu+,- that is not the i
20 issue.
Nothing in the Federal Advisory Committee Act was 21 intended to be sure that you got good advice from Advisory 22 Committees at, only that it was arrived at in a certain l
23 fashion which is probably the best way to assure that it 24 isn't che best advice.
I think the important thing is that y
25 we give good advice, but FACA says we must do it in the
1 88 1
open.
O 2
Except for this talking about two people doing 3
something before the final decision, we are in complete 4
conformance.
5 MR. MICHELSON:
Bill.
~
6' MR. KERR I wanted to say that I, for one, do not 7
need any further guidance on what is deliberation.
8 MR. MICHELSON:
Hal.
q 9
MR. LEWIS:
I wanted to say that I disagree with 10 what Chet said.
This is the finest way to guarantee that t
11 you don't get good advice.
I can think of finer ways to 12 guarantee that you don't get good advice.
d )
13 Let me give you another scenario just as a matter l
14 of curiosity.
Is it' legal for a quorum of this Full A
l 15 Committee to have dinner together, or is it only. legal if we 16 do nothing except tell dirty jokes?
17 MR. FITZGERALD:
You can have dinner together..
18 MR. L6WIS:
It's okay?
19 MR. FITZGERALD:
You can have dinner together.
20 MR. LEWIS:
We can have dinner together.
21 MR. FITZGERALD:
You can't conduct Committee i
22 business at that dinner.
23 MR. LEWIS:
Why not?
24 MR. FITZGERALD:
If you have noticed it and you 25 have invited the public to dinner and it's probably not a wy e
,.,---.m,..
-e.we.,
e e.-n,-
-.m
-,.,.,.,-w..,.
n.
n,_,,,.
_....,n-._.,
......-.- w
.. -... - _ -.. ~ -..
89 1
problem.
(
2 MR. LEWIS:
We cannot discuss anything that has to 3
do with nuclear safety at dinner.
4 MR. CARROLL:
He said conduct --
5 MR. FITZGERALD:- I said Committee. business.
I 6
sean, clearly ~~
7 MR. LEWIS:
Committee business is nuclear safety.
8 MR. FITZGERALD:
A group of scientists'and j
I 9
engineers involved in nuclear safety and you are going to be 10 discussing your field along with dirty jokes.
11 MR. LEWIS:
What if we discuss Committee business 12 that will be then fully aired the next day at the Committee
( )
13 meeting; that is under K.
1 14 MR. FITZGERALD:
I don't think you should do it.
15 MR. LEWIS:
Why is that not under K?
It le a 1
l 16 subgroup -- not a Subcommittee, a subgroup of members of the 1
17 Full Committee d!.scussing Committee business which will then 18 be reported to the Full Committee for its deliberation; why 19 is that not under K?
20 MR. FITZGERALDs
$1ou also mentioned it was a i
1 21 quorum, right?
This is --
22 MR. LEWIS:
K doesn't say anything about a quorum.
1 23 MR. FITZGERALD:
You have a quorum of the Full 24 Committee --
25 MR. LEWIS:
It doesn't say that.
1 e
a m
.-......,-...r,_
.. r.n..m.
.-,.,,c.,..-c..
,.+gw-g75
-3 9
,*y
.. _ _ _... ~. _ ___ _ _ ___
_ _ _ ~. _. _ - _ _ _
i i
90 1
MR. FITZGERALD:
-- meeting over -- it sounds to 10 2
me like it's a dinner meeting.
3 MR. LEWIS:
No, K doesn't say that.
K doesn't say 4
any number greater than two but less than a quorum.
It 5
doesn't say that.
It gives a lower limit but not an upper 6
limit.
I think it comes under K.
j l
7 MR. WILKINS:
I have to agree with Fitzgerald now.
i-8 We are not analyzing relevant issues and facts and drafting 9
position papers.
We are trying to reach a consensus.
10 MR. LEWIS:
No.
Not that at all.
We are simply 11 discussing what happened during the day and what will 12 happen the next day.
4 )
13 MR. WILKINS:
If you look at the intent cf this 24 act, that is -- the intent of this Act is to make. sure that 15 what this committee does is open to the public.
16 MR. LEWIS:
No.
The intent of tha Act is to keep 17 these small groups from presenting a fait accompli to the 18 Full Committee.
I am not talking about that.
19 MR. WILKINS:
Excuse me, I aa not sure that I 20 agree with you there.
21 MR. FITZGERALD:
One nf the intents of the Act is 22 to have-this kind of discuscr.n in the open.
f 23 MP. WILKINS:
My recollection is that I have read 24 Wall Street Jourr.al articles and New York Times articles on 25 this Act dealing with other agencies and not necessarily the
i 91 1
NRC, in which it was quite clear that the intent is to avoid (0
2 having three guys on a golf course talking about the
)
1 3
business of the Committee.
4 Apparently this has gone on. It has gone on.
It's I
5 a golf course, country c'.ub, rotary club or whatever.
If we 6
get together at an ANS Resting which is probably more likely j
7 for this group than a country club, you get.together at an 8
ANS. meeting and four or five'of us are standing around 9
talking about ACRS business. -That is the kind of activity i
10 that the FACA Act was intended to proscribe.
11 MR. LEWIS:
I am not sure that I agree with you.
]
12 Ernie.
I think it was intended to proscribe that sort of j
I l
13 thing when it led to agreements that.-were then not --
14 MR. WILKINS:
How can you be sure that it doesn't i
15 lead to such agreements?
That is the whole point.
You l
16 can't be sure that it doesn't.
1 l
17 MR. WARD:
I think we are wearing this out.
l 18 MR, MICHELEON:
Bill.
19 MR. WILEINS:
I am inclined to go along with Dr.
20 Kerr now.
I think I have had all the advice that I need.
21 MR. KERR:
I was going to suggest that since we 22 are now discussing the issue among ourselves and I doubt if 23 we are providing very much illumination to our distinguished d )
24 legal friends, we maybe should let them go and have lunch or 25 something where they discuss matters that will not be
h- ------
a m
a
.a-,
.y%-w-..,.w-,memw,,4--.3..y--nat-g*gy.
--w--,,-,yqqig----9,,3.
.s-%-p re vvw
-w-y--p-
,w w
.v-g-
I i
i 92 i
1 reported to the commission.
CO 2
MR. MICHELSON:
Before ve do that, there is one l
3 other type of question that I would like to ask you since it 4
does come up on eccasion.
On occasion'the committee likes I
5 to go and talk to one Commissioner at a time to discuss 6
committee cctivities or whatever.
I am representing..the l
7 Committee.
8 What I wanted to tell them is that sometime more e
9 than one person goes or would like to go.
Maybe two' members 10 would like to go and talk to the-Chairman of the Commission 11 or to one of the Commissioner's.
To what extent can we go 12 as more than one and talk to a Commissioner?
Is there I.O 13 anything in here that wcold -- I am not going to say what l
14 subject we are going to talk about because I can't pre-
[
15 predict all of it.
16 MR. FITZGERALD:
I guess I would like to know more 17 about why you are going to talk to the Commissioner.
l 18 MR. CARROLL:
Abolish OGC.
19 MR. MICHELSON:
That might be, yes.
20 MR. FITZGERALD:
To report on a - -
21 MR. MICHELSON:
No.
So far we have only done it 22 one at a time.
I go with Ray and we talk to individual II 23 Commissioner's on a range of subjects which we tell them f )
24 ahead of time what we have in mind and they tell us ahead of 25 time if there is something that they would like to talk
93 i
1 about.
We go over with sort of a set agenda.
f 2
MR. WARD:
To gather information?
j 3
MR. MICHELSON:
As one member I have had no 4
problem -- no consideration here.
5 MR. FITZGERALD That's nothing.
6 MR. MICHELL.At If'two or three members wanted to j
\\
7 go to do this, is that permissible or what would we have to 8
do?
i 9
MR. FITZGERALD:
I would have to think about that.
10 MR. MICHELSON:
One Commissioner at'a time.
11 MR. FITZGERALD:
That's -- this wouldn't be a j
1 12 quorum?
)
I 13 MR. MICHELSON:
No, it would not be a quorum.
It 14 would be more than one member.
It's not really covered by 15 what we are discussing here, but it is a practical question.
16 It has come up on one or more occasions when another member t
17 might have wanted to go.
l l
18 MR. FITZGERALD:
I would be happy to take that 19 under advisement and get back to you on that.
20 MR. MICHELSONt I think it's one worth reading on, 21 just a short note.
t 22 MR. WYLIE:
Would you need to know the purpose of 23 the meeting though?
24
[
MR. FITZGERALP:
Yes.
25 MR. MICHELSON:
He will tell us what purposes
~.... - _.. -
94
~
1 can't be covered.
(O 2
MR. SIESS:
It seems strange'to me that this'has 3
come up.
I would think'one person is worse than,two, i
4 because one person can easily g* to the' Commission and j
5 represent himself as speaking for the Committee. Two people 6
can't do that.
7 MR. FITZGERALD:
Certainly'the one person, it J
8 doesn't raise concerns that the- -
d 9
MR. SIESS:
If I go to a nuclear plant I certainly 1
10 don't go by mystlf, I take a staff engineer or somebody-else.
I 11 so that I am not the Committee.
12 MR. MICHELSON:
That's a different issue because 1
(
13 it's not a Commissioner.
You see our point.
We do like to 14 go -- the chairman of the ACRS likes to talk to individual 15 Commissioner's on occasion to exchange views on where we are j
16 headed or where they think they ought to be headed and thet 17 sort of thing on an individual basis.
1 18 The question is, could that be on a_two or three 19 person basis and not an individual basis.
1 20 MR. FITZGERALD:
I will get back to you on that.
1 21 I would like to, in closing indicate that as you all were 22 interested in the basis of our position with regard to the l
23 position'we have taken with regard to the subcommittee 24 behavior -- the matter that ye were talking about this 25 morning -- we have given you ad nauseam probably our basis.
4
l l
l 95 L.
1 We recognize that it is a gray are; that arguments O
2 can be made in the other direction and from the other point 3
of view.
We were taking a position that we thought.and 4
believed is most fully compatible with the spirit of.where 5
FACA is coming from.
That is not to say that the other 6
position is not devoid of merit at all.
I just wanted to 7
make sure that that's clear.
That's all I have.
8 MR. LEWIS:
I just'want to say two things.
One is 9
that in terms of the spirit of FACA~I think that everything 10 that we do is absolutely A-1 in the spirit of FACA, because 11 every letter that we writs to the commission which is our 12 advice to the commission is based on information that is 13 aired around this table in public.
There may be other 14 conversations and other daydreams that people have, but the 15 spirit of FACA is tht, sughly -- the words that you seem to 16 disagree with but the spirit is certainly there.
17 The second point is that I agree with something 18 that Chet saidt that there is more potential for violation 19 of the spirit of FACA in an individual meeting which is not 20 covered by it than of a meeting with two people which is 21 covered by it.
Just as Carl says he talks to individual 22 commissioner's so do I, and talk to them about substantive 23 things.
It would be easy as pie for me to cut a deal with a 24 Commissioner privately and no one would know about it.
I 25 don't do that in the spirit of FACA, although I wouldn't be l
l
I 96 1
violating the letter of FACA.
(
2 I think we are all honorable.
3 MR. MICHELSON:
It wouldn't be an ACRS commitment 4
at all though, Ha1.
{
5 MR. LEWIS:
No.
But I am a vote on ACRS.
I could I
6 cut a deal on that but I don't do it, because we are all
]
7 honorable people.
I can't 6 peak for everybody.
8 MR. KERR:
We may not be legal, but we are as 9
honorable as hell.
10 (Laughter.)
l 11 MR. MICHELSON:
Are there any other questions 12 before we let these gentlemen go?
$ )
13 MR. WILKINS:
May I mske a comment?
14 MR. MICHELSON:
Yes.
15 MR. WILKINS:
I have dealt ovar the v4ars with a 16 number of lawyers and most of them are pretty good about 17 obfuscating the issues.
I think Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr.
l 18 Jensen have stated their position very clearly.
We may not 19 agree with it and we may think they are as wrong as hell, 20 but I think we have to thank them for stating their position l
21 with precision, clarity and conciseness and perhaps ad I
22 nauseam, but that was our fault and not theirs.
I just 23 wanted to say that on their behalf.
24
[
And, willingness to take all these comments.
I am 25 not going to call it abuse, because lawyers are supposed to
I I
97 1
take abuse.
2 MR. MICHELSONt Do you have any closing remarks 3
that you would like to make?
l 4
MR. FITZGERALD:
You had asked the question about 5
whether FACA or whether FOIA applied to you' folks, the i
j 6
Freedom of Information Act.
That is an easy one.
Section.
j 7
10 provides that subject to 552 of the U.S. Code, Title V, 8
-all your records and reports, et cetera are to be put out in 9
the pub)ic domain and public document room or whatever, j
10 That is the FOIA, so it does apply to your --
11 MR. MICHELSON:
With the exceptions.
I think we 12 comply with that fully.
bO 13 MR. LEWIS:
Does FOIA apply to Conaaittees or 14 commissions?
I thought it required that all Commission 15 papers have to be put out but not necessarily all our --
16 MR. FITZGERALD:
It's the FACA that applies.
FACA 17 incorporates and basically says FOIA applies to your
~
18 documents.
19 MR. LEWIS:
This is a fairly important issue 20 because we often in writing a letter go through ten drafts.
21 Does each of those drafts have to be in the PDR in your 22 view?
23 MR. FITZGERALD:
FOIA wouldn't require -- it would O
24 e=1r a ir we1ei e e#ee er te it ew v eee c veer e er -
25 FOIA request that had been submitted.
That would apply to 2
..m_,
.,-m_.
..... -.... ~,,, _.. _ -,. ~,. _.., _.
98 1
you folks.
As to drafts --
2 MR. LEWIS:
I think we are --
3 MR. FITZGERALD:
I don't think the drafto would be 4
required to be --
5 MR. LEWIS:
I think for the Commission, working' 6
papers are required to be made public.
7 MR. FITZGERALD:
Let's take a quick look at the 8
provisions.
9 MR. LEWIS:
This is an important issue, because we 10 generate lots of drafts.
11 MR. MICHELSON:
While you are looking it up, maybe 12 Ray could tell us what he does with drafts.
13 MR. FRALEY:
Drafts are not retained.
14 MR. MICHELSON:
They are destroyed almost 15 immediately, aren't they?
16 MR. FRALEY:
That's right.
17 MR. LEWIS:
That's right.
18 MR. WILKINS:
They are labeled pre-decisional.
19 MR. MICHELSON:
We normally do not retain that 20 type of --
21 MR. FITZGERALD:
I think that's - here's how it 22 reads.
I think the key is the fact that the. draft is your 23 draft and it isn't made available to the Committee.
Subject 24 to 552 of Title V which is FOIA, the records reports, 25 transcripts, minutes, appendices, working papers, drafts,
99 1
studies, agenda or other documents which were made available 2
to or prepared for by each Advisory _ Committee shall be 3
available for public inspection, et cetera.
4 I think that would be the -- if they were made 5
available to you -- if it's just your draft and you are y
6 working one something --
7 MR. LEWIS:
No, we distribute it around the table.
8 KR. FITZGERALD:
Around the table.
9 MR. LEWTS:
We distribute it around the table.
10 MR. FITZGERALD:
In that case, I would want that -
11 12 MR. MICHELSON:
It goes around the table and 13 occasionally to --
14 MR. LEWIS:
Why don't you research that. That is 15 an extremely important thing.
I don't think that applies to 16 us.
I think it applies to the commission, but why don't you 17 find out.
18 MR. FITZGERALD:
Okay.
19 MR. MICHELSON:
We do not normally retain those i
20 beyond almost that meeting day, maybe within a day or two.
21 MR. SIESS:
You are talking about draft letters 22 but you were talking about draft reports that we have as a 23 basis for what we do have to be made public, right?
{}
24 MR. FITZGERALD:
Rignt.
25 MR. SIESS:
If we have a public meeting and the 1
l
- l 100 i
-1 1
. staff comes in with a draft SECY, if that is passed around i
b 2
the table it has to go in the public document room?
l 3
MR. FITZGERALD:
Pre-decisional, you probably 4
don't have to.
If it is withholdable under FOIA then it.
5 wouldn't have to be placed in the public document room..
1 6
These things --this basically says all of these papers have i
7 to be placed in the public document room subject to FOIA,.
j i
8 that allows you to keep certain things out.-
i 9
MR. MICHELSON:
You look that up though, because-i i
f 10 we don't really want to retain all that paper.
Sometimes-11 there's four, five or six drafts of a letter.
I 12 MR. SIESS:
In the interest of conservation, we l
13 want to --
14 MR. MICHELSON:
Are there any other comments?
i 15 (No response.)
t 16 MR. MICHELSON:
Seeing none, we are going to come f
l l
17 back at 1:15.
}
18 (Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m.,
the Committee rocessed, h
l 19 to reconvene at 1:15.p.m., this same day.)
20 21
,t 22 I
t 23 l
25
~. - -.... - -
i 101 1
AFTERNOON SESSION O
2 (1:18 p.m.)
i 3
MR. MIC4ELSON:
The next agenda items is Generic 4
Issue Number 23, Reactor Coolant Pump Seal Failures.
That j
l 5
is David Ward, if you will.
6 MR. WARD:
This will just be a report from the l
7 Subcommittee.
We don't have any staff presentations, 8
although I do see some acabers of the staff are here.
I 9
think there is one particular point at which they asked for 3
1 10 an' opportunity to comment, and I will give them that 11 opportunity at the end of my presentation.
12 This was a meeting of the Decay Heat Removal q
l 13 Subcommittee.
It was actually joint with the Thermal 14 Hydraulics Subcommittee, so we had a fairly good attendance.
15 We met out in Idaho Falls on August 30th.
We met there j
l 16 because we had Subcommittee meetings the previous days in
- j 17 which we involved presentations from a large number of 4
18 people from INEL.
You have, in addition to what I am going 19 to tell you, you have some information fror Bill Kerr.
20 There is a handout, I believe.
Bill had some craments and 21 Paul Boehnert also has 7-2 is the comments.
22 i'he subject is Generic Issue Number 23, which 23 concerns Reactor Coolant Pump Seal Leakage.
The issue is a 24 problem that can occur in a plant when thcre is loss of 25 cooling to the main coolant pump seals.
Most of PWR seal
)
102 1
J I
pumps are cooled by two ways; first there is an injection, l
t
)
2 sort of backflow injection of cool water over the seals j
3 which keeps the seals face cool.
Tiere.is also what is l
I 4
called a thermal barrier cooling which is sort of an.
i 5
internal heat exchanger which cools the water which is 6
leaking out the seal and going over the seal face.
7 Most pumps in service in U.S. PWR's have both of j
I 8
these, although one manufacturer's pumps that don't actually 9
use the injection backflow for cooling.
A problem comes 10 about that if cooling by one or both means is lost, sono 11 excessive seal leakage can result and you have what amounts t
12 to a small break LOCA through the seal.
It is a small break l(
)
.3 LOCA, but there are a range of possible rates.
14 For purposes of the study the staff made -- it i
15 appeared that 150 GPM might be typical.
It is possible to 16 have rates up to almost 500 GPM, or it is hypothesized that l
17 it is possible to have rates up to 500 GPM if'a certain type j
18 of seal pops open.
That is somewhat in contention.
The 19 industry representatives contended that there is no evidence 20 that that can really happen.
At any rate, I think everyone 1
21 is in agreement that it can happen, that seal leakage rates 22 substantially more than are normal.- In' fact, substantially'
]
23 more than a rate of 20 GPM which is something that can be 24 handed without a problem can occur under some circumstances.
q 25
i 103 1
MR. MICHELSON:
That is a per pump leakage b
2 nultiplied by tour.
3 MR. WARD:
All these are per pump,.thank you.
i 4
This small break LOCA at the seal can.become~a problem. It
)
5 could lead to core melt in two possible scenarios.
One is 6
just sort of what I call a conventional small break LOCA i
7 scenario that goes. bad.
It isn't any different from any.
8 other small break LocA occurring knywhere else in'the 9
system.
In another scenario we are talking about a seal 10 leak that occurs as a result'of a station blackout, and it 11 complicates the station blackout by adding a small break 12 LOCA for which there is no capability to make up to the 4 )
13 scenario.
14 It is actually in this scenario where the seal 15 leak is a complication of a station blackout where the rate 16 of greater than 20 GPM is acknowledged as one that could l
17 drain the system and cause core damage.
18 The risk contribution from these two kind of sets l
19 of scenarios is roughly 50/50 in the presentation we were i
20 giving for a particular case which was used as the basis-for l
21 cost benefit analysis.
T;.. r. umbers of 1.6 times ten to the 22 minus fifth were given as a contrii'ntion to core melt 23 probability by this small break LOCA anc 1.2 times ten to
(
)
the minus fifth were given for the contribution for the 24 i
25 station blackout.
It didn't aske any difference in those
104 1
but they are roughly equal.
It is important to talk about t0 2
them separately becatise they have different cures if there 3
are to be cures.
4 It is also important to notice that they are not 5
trivial.
They are both at the ten to the minus fifth level, 6
a little over ten to the minus-fifth.
One twist on what we 7
have heard is that all of the analyses -- and there have 8
been some fairly extensive analyses -- the fluid phenomena 9
and also of the risk contribution, the PRA sort of analysis.
10 All of this has been done really for Westinghouse pumps with 11 Westinghouse seals.
12 Some of the other PWR's have other types of pumps 13 and other types of seals, Byron Jackson and Bingham --
14 manufacturers.
I think one of them - the Palo Verde 15 ac'ually has pumps of a still different design from a German 16 manufacturer.
Those seals are different.
The difference is 17 that they really haven't been analyzed, and it'is not clear 18 whether the seals in the non-Westinghouse plants ara really I
19 all that similar in the important characteristics of those 20 in the Westinghouse plants.
21 The staff told us that the BWR's have lesser 22 problem apparently; that in seal leakage their's seems to be 23 limited to smaller values.
We really didn't look into and f }
24 hear much about the boiling water reactor recirculation pump 25 seals.
i 105 l
~
1 MR. CARROLL Other'than they felt there were four
()
2 plants that --
j 3
MR. WARD:
That is right.
There were four of the-i 4
older plants that they-thought may have a particular l
i.
5 problem.
In other words, where the rates may be j
6 considerably higher.
They promised that there is some 7
looking into that going on.
Those are four older BWR-8 plants, that's right, i
9 The story or, % + << upW s:Me with seal leaks was a 10 little bit murky.
They s5La ax cb., data up to -- I don't 11 know if it was up to or up through 1986 -- indicated that 12 the rate of small break LOCA's in PWR's in the U.S. was
)
13 about one per 100 reactor years.
In this case, small Break 1
14 LOCA was defined as not just any seal failure but as a seal 15 leakage that was large enough to require ECCS actuations, so 16 it would be substantial leakage.
That's one per 100 reactor 1
17 years.
18 There were also reports more recently that data 19 seemed to be indicating that performance has been better.
4 20 In the period from October of 1988 to February of 1990, 21 there were no incidents of seal leakage that required ECCS 22 action, no leaks big enough for ECCS.
The expected number 23 in that time would have only been about one, so I don't know 24 g
that it is a particularly profound -- zero is a particularly 25 profound statistic or not.
During that same time they told
{
l
l j
i 106 1
us that there were 14 seal failure LER's.
I guess what that
)
- O
- i 2
means is that those were LER's that reported some-problem 3
with or perhaps the principal issue was a seal failure ot l
\\
4 some sort.
Apparently those were sewall enough or didn't
]
j J
l 5
involve major leakage enough that would require ECCS,
[
1 o
6 That would be a rate of approximately one'per ten f
7 reactor years for this lesser sort of thing.
It really i
8 wasn't clear from the data we showed whether things are 9
substantially better in recent years than they were in 10 earlier years or not.
11 The staff had a contractor do, I guess it was a 12 fairly decent cost benefit analysis which would be used as 13 part of the support for any regulatory action the staff was l
14 going to take.
As a result of this, the staff does believe 15 that some fixes are necessary and are justified by the -- I 16 guess they call it a regulatory analysis or satisfy the 17 backfit rule.
They are the present stage of estimation.
18 They are suggesting three fixes.
I 19 One is to improve the quality assurance program l
20 that is required for seals.
In effect, although the-reactor 21 coolant pump seals are part of the reactor coolant pressure r
i 22 system boundary, they really haven't been treated as part of 2.1 that boundary, primarily because the major treatment of that 1
l 24 boundary is under the ASME code which has to do with pipes 25 and metals and that sort of thing, and it really doesn't i
yr A w--
5 p
- w-w-yw'gm w
-w*#i grw-w 1
-mm'-
-P-+,-v-m-+e-aw,+--
-+-v-,-w-
---9 e--
v-1-
--T
107 1
have much room in it for things like seals or gaskets.
It 6
2 doesn't deal with non-piping vessel --
l 3
MR. CATTON:
It explicitly excludes them, doesn't-4 it?
5 MR. WARD:
Yes.
You might say it's obvious, the 6
seals are part of their reactor c.Jolant system pressure 7
boundary and it is, but in the standards that are available 8
it has sort of fallen between the cracks.
Whether this is a 9
big reoblem or not, of course, is one of the things that is-10 being considered.
So, they have some proposals for 11 improving standards which anounts to better quality 12 assurance for seuls.
I think some of the staff seem to
(
13 think that one of the particular problems is simply in 14 assuring that seals are shipped and stored carefull.
15 are not damaged during those operations.
j 1
16 The second step they want to do is, thcy proposed 17
-- is to requira licensees to have some improved or at least j
18 a certain level of instrumentation and procedures that would 19 permit appropriate operator actions or help to assure that l
20 appropriate operator actions would be taken in event of a 21 seal failure in a plant to both tell the operators what to 22 do and make sure they have information telling then what the 23 problem is and whether they are taking the proper action.
i 24 The third item in the set of things that the staff 25 would require would be to provide additional alternative
q 108 1
seal. cooling'means for station blackout event.
It was a
(
J 2
little bit unclear to.ne exactly =how that: relates to the 1
3 station. blackout rule and I.think it was a little bit 1
4 unclear to everybody.
It seemed to be'perhaps not.all that l
1
-5 clear to the staff.
As a matter of fact,-today we have a-6=
couplelof gentlemen from the staff:hore who ara 1 going to j
7 update-us on their position-on that and'what.they propose.
8 here relates to the station blackout rule.
]
9 As a justification for theses-three-things-they 10 want.to=have licensees do -- there was a cost-benefit' 11 analysis made.
This analysis claimsland assumes that,these' 12 three fixes will do a couple of things. 'First, it says;it-l[
)
13 will reduce the risk from the. small1 break LOCA, what;."C call i
v 14 the ordinary small Break LOCA risk, it will reduce thatt risk 15 by about roughly 20 percent.
The;rtsk from; seal-leakage.
j 16 during a station blackout will be reduced about 95 percent.
17 by this.
of course, it im <
, third item,.the alternative.
18 cocling means which would have this big effect of reducing
'l 19 stat. ion blackout seal cooling risk by about' 95 percent.
20 MR. KERR:
It is one of the biggest contributors R21 to the station blackout, core melt frequency-for PWR's.
22 MR. SIE03:
Station blackout is an overall risk 23 too, as T recall.
/'SL 24-MR. WARD:- That's right.
Tr.3 Subcommittee, I
-f 25 think, has <ome concerns about t'e proposal.
I will try to l
~
109 1
summarize them, but I think other members here can say 9
2 something.
First of all, the actual experience seems not to 3
L. as well factored into the proposal as we would have liked 4
to see.
There is some indication that this may be i
5 yesterday's problem rather than something that still exists, 6
primarily because the industry has taken some actions to f
7 improve seal performance.
Whether it is adequate or not or whether the indurtry is going to follow through with it or 8
9 not are questiors.
It is not entirely clear that the 10 proposals are needed.
11 MR. SIESS:
Dave, does the industry include all 12 three PWR vendors?
13 MR. WARD:
Not really.
l 14 MR. SIESS:
If I remember, this camt. up originally
{
]5 o's Westinghouse and I don't remember having ever seen 16 anything on it.
17 MR. WARD:
That seems to be one of the problems, 18 that it's --
19 MR. SIESS:
Has there been a problem with other 20 than Westinghouse pumps?
{
^
21 MR. WARD:
It's not clear that there has been.
22 Let me come to that.
There is also another point that 23 doesn't seem to be resolved is, there is some controversy l
t 24 about the seal leakage rate.
The staff and its consultants 25 maintain that there is a potentia] for the seals to pop open Q
- [ ' z '- j.
110
. ide and permit leakage'almost to 500 GPN.
-.I think!the 1
w O
i2
_ vendors say that can't happen.
On_the other hand, whether 3
the leakage.is,150 or 500 perhaps doesn't really make all 4'
that much difference in the analysis that'we saw.
5 MR. CARROLL:
Popping open is tho' big problem.
If-6 they don't pop open you are probably.down_to the'21 gallon; 7
li'mit on a Westinghouse, a decent high-temperature'---
1 8
MR. WARD:
If you have good high temperature j
9 seals.
l 10 MR. CARROLL:
Secondary seals.-
11 MR. WARD:
Elastomer. seals, which:aren't in there i
12 yet but ehich they are promising to put in all' plants.
Dj 13 starting this year sometime.- It wasn't clear:to us and 14 maybe this will be clarified-today,_ about how-these-proposed 15 fixes inter-relate with the station blackout as Chet pointed
- )
16 out.
The seal leakage in station blackout is,a major I
17 contributor to station blackout risk, and'I guess it only 10 needs to be fixed once if it's going to be< fixed at all.
I 19 Ir. making the. regulatory analysis of the cost-20 bencfit analysis nome of the Committee members =had a prcblem 21 with accepting _the credits given to some of the< fixes, 22 particA riy crediting with the improved Q/A program with 23 the core melt reduction.
That's kind of a familiar problem 24 we have with credibility of risk estimates.
8 25 I titink the Subcommittee had a problem, in that i
I l
ly
- g 3
.y_, 3 y 3. 3 ;
3;
- lli-1 all of the' analysis.and perhaps all of the. problems-seems to s
~
2=
be related.to the Westinghoure pump seals Dat somehow the-3 other manuf acturer's' pumps are being' swept 'ir.*o: the package.
i
'4 It's not clear that the problem exists there, or tnaifthe 5
fixes proposed will,fix,it if it does exist =in those' plants.
6 The Subcommittee concluded that the' resolution"
-l
'7 really isn't completely developed,-ni. that:well developed-1 8
at this point, but that:what the' staff proposes right now is 9
to go out for public comment.
Although=we didn't really 10 make a substantive deliberation about this at tho'
!/
11 Subcommittee meeting --
I i
12 MR. CATTON:< But we did' analyze it.
l l
13 MR. WARD:
We did analyze-it.
I think the Subcommittee wo'ld propose
- hat that's'okay, let-it go out 14 u
15 for public comment.
We predict c.he ' are going to get. a: lot 16 of comt nt thout..., and tt
- vs would like tw.in the normal 17 course of. vents continue our review after that comment 18 comes in and after there-is, perhaps, some modification to 19 the staff proposals.
-1 20
.Do any other'ac.mbers-have anything?
Ivan, Jay and a'
21 Bill were there, and Carl was there.
22 MR. CARROLL:
I would correct one thing you said.
23 My impression -- and I just looked it up -- large leakages 24 have taken place in Westinghouse and BNW plants.
GE plants-25 have not experienced seal leakages.
However, an event such
e-.
112-
'1' as the one at Arkansas I could have failed but didn't.- I lt 2
have-the impression that Westinghouse and their owners Group 3
have taken this issue fairly-. seriously and.have done quite a 4
bit of work in cooperation-with the staff.on this.
5 I have the impression that the other PWR vendor
~
6-owner groups are kind of letting Westinghouse be the 7
stocking horse in'this case.and holding back.
I_almost view:
8 the issuance of that public comment document'as a way for-9 the sta*t to force their hand to ct. art cooperating with i
10-them.
.ee the nodding their heads.
L
(
f e
11 MR. WARD:
That could be.-
This issue has been 12 cooking for a long time.
When it first came out'it was
(
13
-identified as I recall-as a Westinghouse pump' seal problem..
'i -
14 I just haven't seen a lot more information to explain why_it 15 is more than that.
That just hasn't had. time to' develop.
16 perhaps, I don't know.
i 17 MR. CATTON:
Hasn't Westinghouse developed some-18 high temperature seals that don't require cooling?.
19 MR. WARD:
No, i
20 MR..CATTON:- I thought I heard them say that but-e 21 nobody had bought them yet.
J 22 MR. CARROLL:
What they said is, in terms of:
.i 23 dealing with the secondary sea 3 problem they have new
'24 elastomers that they believe nr.ke that problem go away.
In-4 25 terms of the primary seals, their position is that this-seal m
m
- 113-i
~
1
- k 2
- MR.-WARD:
Popping open; r
3 MR. CARROLL:. Popping open phenomena' simply won't-l l
~
l 4
happen on.their seals, and they presented some arguments _'as 5
.to why that was the case. - Without that, you don't have a1 6
.Very big seal: LOCA.
7 MR. SIESS:
The status report says ---
8 MR. WARD: - If the 0 rings hold.together.
i 9
MR._ CARROLL:
And,7the 0 rings hold together.-
10 MR.-SIESS:
The status: report says.there are three 11 seal manufacturam.
Are the seals manufactured separately-12 from the pumpsc I
13 MR. CARROLL:
You mean pump manufacturers.
14 MR..SIESS:
It'sEan integral part of the. pump, 15 okay.
16 MR. WARD:
I don't know)aboutlthat.
t 17 MR. CARROIL:
I think.the pump vendors in;some
~
18 cases buy seal cartridges from other_ vendors for' practical j
19 purposes you can say BJ seals.
)'
20 MR. CATTON:
Haven't both the French and Germans i
21 decide that they should have coolant capabil-ity for the l.\\.
l-22 seals?
l.
23 MR. KERR:
The French have.
L24 MR. CARROLL:
The French have.
25 MR. WARD:
Have the Germans?
v
-*w
~
.-4-*
e
-s,.--rev.-
..we-.ww,,.--__w._.,.
-- m m.
m
~
-~~
~_
s q
1141 l
l:
1 MR.. CARROLL:
I don't-know.1 f
2 --
MR..SIESS:
Don't the French have a separate e
l L4 3
source of cooling water?-
i.
4 MR.JWARDs) Right.; The' German pumps have a 5
different. type of seal..
6 MR.LCATTON, I-guess'the French just decided that i
7
'they didn't'want'to fool-with.the problem.?
l 8
MR. WARD:
Yes.
9' MR.-SIESS:.'If you reduce 95 percent 4 of the 10 station blackout risk,.what does-s m.<
' Leave now as the i
11 dominant risk now to be worked on nexc?
j i
12 MR.. WARD:
You got me'.
I't is plant-specific..
O
. MR. SIESS:
'I am just wondering, hasianybody.
14 thought about how safe'is' safe enough?
15 MR. WARD:
Is there anything else, Carl?- Can:you.
16 think of anything else we missed.
i l
17 MR. CARROLL:
I think one of therissues'that was k
18 raised in Idaho falls was why are.we handling-it in-this i
10 mode as opposed to part of IPE?
20 MR. WARD:
As what?
21 MR. CARROLL:
As part of IPE?
-l l
22 MR. WARD:
Yes.
23 MR. SIESS:
Is-that plant-unique?
a 24 MR. WARD:
It is similar.
Exactly -- you go h
25 through a PRA and --
.~
l 115 o
1 MR. SIESS:
I-just don't;think we should be-1
)
2 shoving everything into'IPE..If it's clearly.a plant-31 specific -- it doesn't even have.to be: plant unique.
It' 4
could be tk-) plants with the same problem and I would~say J
5 the IPE is the place to do it..
6 MR.. WARD:
This is' Westinghouse plants..My guess.
7 is, this is'somewhat more g'aneric thanLa lot-of. things..
1 8
MR. SIESS:
Is.the owners group on this?.
9 MR. WARD:
Yes.
10
~MR. SIESS:
Three of them?
l l
11 MR WARD:. No,'just one so far.
12 MR. CARROLL:
Just Westinghouse.
1 O
h,/
13 MR. SIESS:
Just Westinghouse?
s 14 MR. WARD:
15 MR. KERR:
Westinghouse owners group feels that
{
l 16 they have solved the problen without anf further resolution.
I 17 MR. WARD:
Nobody is listening.
18 MR. SIESS:
You don't believe them?
19 MR. WARD:
I don't.know that-we have --
20 MR. KERR:
I hava-some written comments: there, 21 which I won't repeat.
22 MR. WARD:
Why don't you repeat them?
23 MR. KERR:
Because, I rm not going to insult this p }L 24 group by assuming that you can't read, a
-25 MR. WARD:
It isn't a matter of can't, it's a
116 1L matter of won't or haven't.
q
<g Yl us 2-MR. KERR I can't believe that.
3 MR. MICHELSON:
Where are your' comments, are they l
4 in.tha Tab?-
i j
5 MR. k.a._, :
I would like.to give the staff folks 6'
here a chanco.to say something. - Jerry Jackson _ ---
7 MR. THATCHER:
Dale Thatcher.
8 MR.' WARD:
Dale, did youLwantito say something?:
9 MR.. THATCHER:
Yes.
10 MR. WARD:
Go ahead.
t 11 MR. THATCHER:
I-am-Dale Thatcher, from the office 12 of Research.
Task Manager, Jerry Jackson, is with me.-
We
'(
13 were both in Idaho..What.I wanted to do;was"just kind of 14 update one area. ~ We had a meeting since-that meeting <-- Tan 15 had a staff meeting since our. meeting with the Committee in f
1146 Idaho.
The meeting took place this'1r.st Tuesday,jand it was.
N 17 basically a meeting.with NRR over-the implementation
~
mechanisms for going forward.
As you~are probab'ly well 18 19 aware, NRR does the implementation. things like, issue generic 20 letters and so forth' 21 NRR basically expressed _the view that because they 4
22 were now in the process lof evaluating station blackout 23 submittals from licensees, that they believe they needed"to
( [ 24 inform licensees of the potential impact of the proposed GI -
25 23 resolution on the NRC review of those station blackout
q 117 j
u
'l l'
'submittals~.
Therefore, NRR-is'in-the process of' composing a_
10
.2 p
generic' letter for information only that=would be issued to' n
3 all liceasees at the time that~the,GI-23: resolution would go 4
out for public' comment..- That was basically their need to a
1 5
accomplish it.
l I
J 6
One other thing.that did come up at the meeting --
il 7
MR. CARROLL:
Before you leave that-subject,-I-8 think in our general discussion that was one of the things:
9 that Dave left out, was that the. resolution offsthtion 10 blackout was promised on_21-gallon per purp.
11 MR. THATCHER:- That is-correct.
12 MR. CARROLL: 'Which is the leakaga you get out of P )
13 a pump as long as.long as you can maintain.the seals in 14 their no cooling water configuration without' leakage _or_
15 without something bad happening to'them.
Theyiaren't 16 decoupled issues in any sense.
17 MR. THATCHER:' That's true.
That's why I think l
18 NRR felt the need to specifically inform licensees.
l 19 MR. WARD:
In other words, this issue has to be-1 I
20 resolved to make.the station blackout rule come true or be L
~
l 21 valid, right?
l[
22 MR. CARROLL:
Yes.
l 23 1G4. THATCHER:
The other item that was discussed-i g/
24 very briefly was the subject of possible rule change or new 25 rule.
I guess the only thing that we can say that is, if' 4
l t
.y-n 1
--v,,.-7 as r
44 w
..ma,.
,g_.p:
e au'.
u--=,-+AA,a
..mJ.s
.a we*=A.4*':-s 4.m-e 4
s+
M I
118 7
}
t, 1
upper-management decision would lead t'o'the' initiation of
)
,. O 2
rulemaking for GI-23, that we M uld betreturning to the ACRS-3 to brief them on that whole process.
That would be a change 4
to what we talked about.
5 MR. WARD:
That would still go out for public-s 6-comment process.
7 MR. THATCHER:
Yes.
8
- MR. CARROLL:
It would be a rule that'would do 9
basically =---
10 MR. THATCHER:. What we described in'the meetiing in 11 Idaho, yes.
That-would be it.
12 MR. CARROLL:
Why is that a better way to go?~
{
(
13 MR. THATCHER:
-I think that's.part of the problem, 14 which is the better way to go.
15 MR. WARD:
One reason is that the Agency is 16 supposed to regulate by regulations.
It sounds-like a good
- 17 idea to me if they are serious about it.
18 MR. CATTON:
Couldn't you just have a procedure-19 for watching it and then regulate the procedures?
20 MR. WARD:- You really think this is something that 21 needs to be fixed, and I applaud the idea personally of 22 going out with a rule.
23 MR. CARROLL:
WouldLyou propose that we write a 24 letter on this or let' nature take its.coursa?
25 MR. WARD:
What I propose is that we write a -~ I
~.
l-
- 119' l
l I
fl.
don't know._ I think a Fraley-gram would be appropriate or
~
2.-
just-to mention in the minute : of the meeting that.we don't 1
3 object to.them going out for public comment with this 4-proposed resolution.
l--
S MR. MICHELSON:- It's preliminary, ~ yes.
)
6 MR. WARD:j Yes, right.
A Fraley-gle1.
7 MR. MICHELSON:- David,Ithere is a= representative.
8 of BNW~in the audience who said he is prepared;to say what j
p 9
BNW is doing on this matter if you'would like to hear about' j
10 it.
11 MR. WARD:
Oh, really?.When.df.d that come.up?'.
12 MR. MICHELSOM:- ile just appeared. LWe will have
(
13 opportunities to hear later about -- we will1have to review 14 this one more time I assume after --
15 MR. CARROLL:
We-will have to review it..
I-don't 16 consider that we have reviewed it.yet.
h 17 MR. MICHELSON:
We have looked.at-it once, 18 whatever the word you would'like to use.
19 MR. KERR:
Is he talking about a five or 50 minute
..20 presentation?
21 MR. MICHELSON:
He said a couple of minutes, three 22 minutes.
It's the Committee's wish.
You have to go to a 23 microphone.
Introduce yourself.
24 MR. TAYLOR:
I am Jim Taylor from BNW.
I didn't l
25 come with any prepared speech, but I just wanted to make a l
)
M W
-ww-4-=-
-dwwow w w - wt--W 9"PN ees'W*-wPTN"4 D--g
-w h' e-- N S T
9wP tr '
. - ~.
J
- )
120) 1 couple of comments.
First of all, Dave, you made. a. couple:
1
~
- (
2 of comments a few minutes ago that from aEPRA standpoint.all:
3 seals are pretty much the same.
I don't'think you really 4
meant that the way it might have-sounded.
5 MR. WARD:
No, I meant all Westinghouse seals.
6 MR. TAYI4R.
Certainly.
There are gross i
' We are'in sort of a-7 differences with the other.three seals.
J 8
unique situation in that we have plants with'all three. seal:
9-types on them.
TMI I'has Westinghouse' seals andLDavis-Besse
]
1 10 and Crystal River and Arkansas have BJ seals..Two'of the 11 Oconee units have Bingham seals.
I can't recall exactly 12 which seal failure yeu:were referring to on BNW, but I don't-f 13 think there has-been a significant failure on BNW plants for, 14 the last ten years anyway.
(
15 MR. CARROLL:
It didn't say a-failure,-it'said-l l
16 potential challenge on Arkansas.
17 MR. WARD:
Arkansas Unit I.
q 18 MR. CARROLL:
Arkansas Unit I.
i 19 MR. TAYLOR:
In any event, I don't think it-came 20 close to something that would require ECCS actuation.
But.
4 I
21 in any event, I also wanted to make a comment that we had a
22 made a presentation to the staff a couple of years ago on' 23 the development program that had been undertaken on the IkT 24 seals.
The staff's consultants were there, and they tended 25 to be quite complimentary of that program.
j-E
--n.
....,,,r-.-,
.-n...r,__,.,-.,-.n.,
r-...
- 121 1
subsequent to that time,'those new seals'which'are A
'2-called the-N-9000 seals, four of them have been: installed in-L 3
-Desse, four of:them-have been recently installed on L
4 Crystal River.and all four of them will'sh'ortly be: installed' 5
on Arkansas: Nuclear I.-
That N-9000 seal was one which was.
6 tested extensively-and specifically for blackout conditions.-
7 It was run without cooling for eight hours, and there were 8
conditions imposed _which'were quite severe:in terms-of 9
imposing angles'on the shaft, vibrations and sofon.
10 The'BNW' plant owners have;had some.significant' a
i 11 development work going on, much of it :in parallelJwith-thisl
[
i-
~"
12-work that Westinghouse was doing.
Prior to 1976 there had-13 been a lot of work done on the BinghamLseals, not directly-14 related-to blackout but very much related to seal
'f 1
15 reliability.
I don't think it's right to characterize the -
l 16
- to suppose that the staff'sl plan tcrput'out a-letter of 17 comments is a way of getting cooperation from>the other-18 owners, at least on behalf of the BNW owners _ group.
We'have l
19 offered to do that and have-done that a number of times.
l 20 MR. CARROLL:
When we asked the question at the
{'
21 Subcommittee meeting of why is this: cost-benefit analysis 22 strictly based on Westinghouse used to umbrella W:e other 23 vendor seals, the answer was we can't get the data from the
[ )
24 other vendors; is that not correct?
25 MR. JACKSON:
I guess the answer to that is, the 4
122=
-1 staff' sees it as that there.was a detailed model~andi l
2 analysis made of the Westinghouse. seal.. I think what Jim 3:
Taylor is addressing is a' single test of a Byron Jackson; 4
9000 seal but we don't have a model that would represent'in-5 detail what the flow rates would be.~if you had secondary L
L 6-seal failures or ifyou had the seal faces to pop-openi 7
We-have' looked at this and our; contractors have,-
l
~
8 canada'has done scale model tests-into.the' potential.'for.the 9
seal faces to pop open, and we believe that potential.at 10 least exists for all of the different types of seals.
All.I.
11 was saying is'that'we don't have that same type of' detailed 12 event tree type model for the other pumps.-
13 MR. TAYLCR:
I would agree with that.
14 MR. KERR:
You would prefer.having.'an analysis:to i
15 experiment in making decisions.
16 MR. JACKSON:
We heard that there was goitg to be 17 such a test, and I believe there was a meeting with the-18 staff to present some slides and a. talk on.this test.. To my 19 knowledge, there has b'een no reports. submitted to NRC to 20 show the details or we would oave an.epportunity to have a.
21 really in depth to look at that'. test with our consultants.
22 MR. TAYLOR:
From a itNW owners' group standpoint, 23 we certainly stand ready to provide additional information
- 24 to the staff.
I am not suggesting that it would be the kind 25 of analysis that the Westinghouse owners have sponsored, but r,
m,---
- - +.,,.,, -. -
.-.,,m.<4 v.-
.c 4
=
a i
. ~
123 9
l
- .a >
L
-s 1~
we wouldt certainly.be willing-to bring in tare information Ib_,)
2 about the test program and talk'to the staff labout it.
3 I think David is right about another point, and.
4 that is that there will be a lot of homments coming in 5
during the public comment period.
I just wanted to make a l
6 couple of points.
Those seals that.are onLthe BJ pumps now 7
are new seals.- They have been through an' extensive test 8
program.
One of the sp% ific' tests was aimed at the.
j 9
blackout issue.
10 MR. KERR:
How often;do the people that aratusing-11 these seals expect to have to replace them?
12 MR. TAYLOR:
The newest seal on the.BJ -- the BJ g
h 13 upgrade seal is now expected to last several fuel cycles, 14 Bill.
That is out in the tens.of thousands'of hours.
That-t l
15 is four and five fuel cycles.
16 MR. KERR:
Have you had experience indicating that 17 this is a valid projection?
18 MR. TAYLOR:
We ran demonstration seals -- well,:
19 the-original seal test was run for 8,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br />.
We have run o
20 demonstration cycles now with one and two seals in some of 21 the plants.
At the end of the first year there appears to i
22 be no significant wear at all.
23 MR. KERR:
Thank you, l
f )
24 MR. THATCHER:
We are way beyond three minutes, 25 but could I ask Mr. Taylor a question.
Jerry and I didn't l
l l
l i
1.
,~
124 Tf 1
happen to be at the meeti".g'that Mr. Taylor: referred ^to.
'Is 2
it my. understand.ng that the BJ-seal wasf designed not to be' f
3 cooled?
4 MR. TAYLOR:. I don't think that it was designed to r
5 be run indefinitely without cooling.
6-MR. THATCHER:
That's part of the problem, 7
indafinitely is --
8 7G4. TAYLOR:
You don't design it to run y
C 9
indefinitely.with cooling and expect to get a very long 10 lifetime out of the thing.-
What it was designed to do was 11 to perform under the-no-cooling situation for a limited!
)
12 period of time, and that was proven at the end of the;B,000
(
13 hour1.50463e-4 days <br />0.00361 hours <br />2.149471e-5 weeks <br />4.9465e-6 months <br /> test.
That same seal was the-one that:we subjected to 14 the blackout, no cooling. test.
~
15 MR. CARROLL:
What is a limited period offtime?
16 MR. TAYLOR:
I think originally they were talking.
17 about something like a day of operation.~
18 MR. WYLIE:
What about the Westinghouse and l
l:
Bingham, do they have assimilar characteristic, the new 19 l
~
20 seals?
21 MR. TAYLDR:
I dcn't know anything about the i
22 Westinghouse seals in detail Charlie, except for-the high l
23 temperature elastomer parts of it.
The Bingham pump seals, l
)'24 what they call the 857 seals that were replaced about ten L
25' years ago, he had a number of seal failures in the first~
I,
. i
g'!
125
]
I 1
years of operation.
They.were due'to steel' seal.
i 2
' instabilities.
With the new seal that was put in about 1974 3
.or so, those problems:have all gons-away.- We have not run a-L l
4 specific test on the 857 seal'foroloss of cooling.
5 MR.- MICHELSON:
We need-to move on to the next-6' agenda item.
Did you have anything'.else to say'about this f
1 7
one jet?-
8 MR. WARD-No, I think,that's all.
I gather the 9
. Committee agrees that with a>Fraley-gram to do with what I 10 suggested?
7 11 MR. MICHELSON:
Yes.,
I didn't hear any' violent 12 objection.
. IO,,
13 MR. WARD:
Thank you very much.
14 (Whereupon, at 2:15 p.m.,
the transcript of the l
15
-hearing concluded.)
l
-16 j
\\
17-18 19 20 21 22 23 0
2<
25 l
l r
J REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE This is to certify that'the attached proceed--
ings!before the United Stat 4s: Nuclear =
Regulatory Commission in the matter oft j
NAME'OF. PROCEEDING:
365th ACRS; General Meeting _
i
'l DOCKET NUMBERt.
PLACE.0F,PROCEE6ING:
Bethesda, Marylan'd' were held as herein' appears,-LandL that;this-is the original': transcript.thereofLfor the file'of=
the United States Nuclear Regulat.ory_ Commission.
takenLby me and;thereafter reduced;to typewriting.
~
]J by.me-or under the~ direction of the courttreport-ing--company, andEthat theLtranscript is-a true j
and accurate record of-the foregoing: proceedings.-
l o
% e; M l
1 i
Official Reporter:
Ann Riley-& Associates,-Ltd.
l
O
SUBJECT:
TURBINE VALVE TEST FREQUENCY REDUCTION TS CHANGE:
BASED ON m'4P '.1525 METHODOLOGY DATE:
SEPTEMBER 6,1990 PRESENTERS:
RALPH ARCHITZEL SECTION CHIEF, PLANT SYSTEMS BRANCH-DIVISION OF SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY 492-0804-SAMMY DIAB RELIABILITY AND RISK ANALYST RISK APPLICATIONS BRANCH DIVISION OF RADIATION PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS 492-1075 0
i-
=
i
Ly L. -
O e
)
s l
L-L u
TUR8INE VALVE TEST FREQUENCY-1 T8. CHANGE BASED ON WCAP-11525 WETHODOLOGY:
j
'j'
~
CURRENT 8T8 REQUIREMENT:'
l 3
TEST BY CYCUNG ONCE PER 7 DAYS TEST BY DIRECT OBSERVATION-OF CYCW ONCE.PER!S'1 DAYS l
- O o
PR08 MMS WITH CURRENT' REQUIREMENT:
POWER 18 REDUCED MORE OFTEN THAN NECESSARY 1
a
'e VALVES ARE CYCED MOREl0FTEN THAN,NECESSARY.
1 n
H ACTION:
H e
OWNERS OF 19 PLANTS REQUESTED-GENER.lCTEVALUATION TO FACluTATE T8 CHANGE REQUESTS TO REDUCE TEST FREQUENCY l
-i O
4
. + - - - * - *. - -. - -.
w..e<v
.....*-b.=-.,-.--a--w-*-,-,+-.=>
.-r--.....
- %'*-=%v--e-
u f.
g PROS AND CON OF PROPOSED T8 CHANGE 8
= TO REDUCE TURBlNE VALVE 11EST FREQUENCY PROS:
e DECREASES FREQUENCYLOF REDUCTIONS IN REACTOR POWER 1R EL TNUS:.
e DECREASE 8-LlKEUN000'0F REACTOR 1 RIPS.
e INCREASES CAPACITY FACTOR e
REDUCES POWER 08CILLA110N PROBLEMS O
e REDUCED RADWASTE DUE TO-BORON DlLUTION.
e REDUCES WEAR TO VALVE 8 e
REDUCES STRESS TO STEAM SYS1BI 4
e REDUCES POTENTIAL DAMAGEiTO MAIN CONDENSERM TO DUMPING STEAM CON:
e REDUCES MARGIN TO PREVENT TURBINE-OVERSPEED CONSEQUENCES O
a 1
4 e <
i'
,(
1 l
. GENERAL' RATIONALE:FOR PROPOSAL r
TO DECREASE TURBINE ' VALVE TEST FREQUENCY -
]
'1
-I TIME'
.p j
i
~'
PLANT-SPECIFIC DATA x 19 PLANTS (q
OTHERAPPLICABLE(. GENERIC); DATA k
.3 r
p..
,p WCAP-11525 METHODOLOGY
- -- -l.
-.----m-C Y
Y O
1 l
.i e
t
-WCAP-11525 PLANT-SPECIFIC CHANGES OF TS-TEST FREQUENCY J
WESTINGHOUSE MAINTAINS DATA BASE If i l PERIODIC REEVALUAVION BY PLANT TO VALIDATE TEST FREQUENCY
_ j I
L o
.O l
I
]
j o
TURBINE VALVE TESTING
- HISTORIC BACKGROUND
- VARIABILITY
- DETRIMENTAL ASPECTS O
o WESTINGHOUSE ANA' LYSIS j
~
~~
u l
- VALVE TESTING FREQUENCYxCHANGES
- INCREMENTAL RISK ANALYSIS lO.
O O
LO i'
I..
j
- i..
b l
p I,
I
[
. FREQUENCY INITIATING EVENT TURBINE. VALVES OVERSPEED. AND-
[
k
~
[
DO NOT CLOSE MISSILE EJECTION F
l PRosAssury i
q L
l.
i f
j.
l
.,,......i...
. S.r
.ni.....
- . n 1
n..
.n.. a...
i..
.n..
a 1
a
., min. v.i..
1
. Trio
..n..
L l
q I
i i
3 L
_.]
O.
O O
-i i
i l
n P
=
P(a) P(mla)
+ P(b) P(mlb)
+ P(c) j i
i'!
P
= Annual probabinty of smissile ejection.
P(a)
= Annual probabinty of design overspeed P(b)
= Annual probabinty of intermediate overspeed:
P(o)
= Annw-l probabnity..of destructive overspeed-P(mla) = Conditional-probab1Hty of missiles e. design overspeed P(mlb)' = Conditional probability of missues e interm. omrspeed '
)
' P(mlc) = Assumed' to be c1.0 l
4 4
i.
j
.l l
- I i
i i
~
L 4,
9
- 6 e
f l-h-
OL L-it
- e e, -
8 0-
+
0 a'
g 90 n.
- 0
.C. ' EeE;
- )
il e'E,'Le '
e l
j.
- g
.O
=
w 9
-i
- B.
g a
-g-O 3-g-
i a
1 S'
g.
O e
g[
3 y
- s=
4
,G 0
-j
~$
-i e4
.gc
.t.
g2 1
o a
. m-.
1:n-0 l
7 2,'.
i e s!.
e,
=
On e e-
.y. e n
- e
'I> 0
.O~
e:e
.Oe
'e
=
O es
.< j-f
~.4 t
yi -. ;
I.,
o u-S.g' i.
p s:
L 3l S-p g;
I
.a I.
L-45 l'
G B*
i r
- e 0
F, i
('
t*
O 1
- S' i
o E
S S;
Ii e
o f:(o p;
w E
El l
e t
9 gy S-e
- e 90 l +O
>-.0 G>w b%= ff t-e f.-
g'r--+wre'-4--rq>g*vg-g
'-t-9*W 1r W
h FFWWr=--DCPNw*-9w9-9T-f tr ww W So -+9-e---a7mweM*'-ewrw-t-inreee*w
'7T**=-
a.
- - - ^ -
10 o SYSTEM CONFIGURATIONS; j
- Turbine valve arrangement
- Control; andl trip; systems L
- Turbine ~ types j
o COMPONENT FAILURE DATA u
- Operating experience q
g
- Failure classifications l
- r-
._ ~ ~
Calculations I
L o CONSERVATISMS o MODELING
- Common 'causes j
- Human errors 0
- Maintenance outages
a-.=
1
- e e;,6
?
l ll
.l g
sLa a
us 0>
3 g
I e
il si
-3.i g
gm 31 8
,l al e
i.
n1
- g 8
.a s
lu 3
$4 s-e a l.sI i
.-l.
E.
t' g
al.n s.
=
EE1 2 3 ! :n a l
53
=~
.g g
li O
et Es
.2 581
=
=
R R ;e!
a r.s<
p.
g, e
.x e
.m 0
eL a O
B 3a I e.
3-o o
o o.
lO q
l l.
+, -- - - -,.
,,..,,k.-,...-,.-,_.
4 4
i e
r---t F--,'
_L
_L r-----r---------,---------,
,SV l
1 1
i 3
L-J
,L+-
J l
MSR.
MSR MSR I
I
'r--
J
~ 5
. o I
o v-Tl CC CD CD i
Yy I
I I
~
IN l
l N 1.
IN s-I w
w w
=gy
=-
-=-
=-
ED Tr l N e1 I
4 l IN s _ _1 O
9 9' ce Ch)
CO V
V t___.,
T l
l,;
t i
1 i
r+ - 1 HSR MSR MSR l
r--M l
I m
t t
t y
57 vr.
L t______t._________i__________;
r T-.__;
<___r 11 i
LEGEND.
i CV - CONTROL ' VALVE l
SV - STCP1 VALVE.
- j SVBV - STOP VALVE BYPASS VALVE l
i RSV - REHEAT-STOP < VALVE i
,j L-IV - INTERCEPTOR VALVE HSR:- HOISTURE SEPARATION REHEATER l-i l
1 i I
A SCHE!KC FOR A i'r7 CAL 'L'RS.'NE '!AL',I AR?EGUEi!
OV W.
i