ML20128K236
| ML20128K236 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/12/1993 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ACRS-T-1949, NUDOCS 9302180108 | |
| Download: ML20128K236 (323) | |
Text
. .. ._
,, mP- _-
'n,- --
1.Rh%
g(.
ygggg.
Mpm m QWd$am$meamm nf w;Q ei W nw, m:@g n '4 k.a w .y nMmlM~M Wm, m w ewewwwe;#%OFFICInI;TRAN
% w,.@w% wKf!?
a
- c '
x
m ' D:sn J .
m,g ,,1 A 'y,v.Mf M.;;s w p < a . < ' , :,: :.;p% ny::w ww om t :v q .
& y w n.
&g w;:;:
p% 3)g .y,: J 4m
. 4 ,
-n.
%Why Bt Q:af ;fi.? &g L: gg >
r i ;i-f;jy t ,' !
c si
? y, x a! :
op
..: ; y 9
A ?. s b u,.
? a, l
>e e * > :;O, , 8 ,
er C. * . gy%j n ;>
n
.0 :
+.,+m n L_l!p ?;
my , * *
+ :: t 's q
7/#gQ, O: ;. 'M. n,0M y . S,.L,U i'qf8pat',ch / x>wg plW ls gW ' oic
'.3 7,'.M upM ~
s no X .3, , . ~ ~ v . , s ., . , . --y r i
,, Q'9 w ,3Wi (/jp n. > s ,1 y , g ), ' ' ,' . .
3
, 'w' Q7
.' g
- 'j - [h.[5. g, hy' /d 3 g ql , . ,;{ na w e '> ;4. 1, j \ /,b.f t
, _ ,' cyr ..o 3
l
-w ;f,-({p;w'
. )
y-p+ eq.,tew 3..
i i - a b
f ,6
'b~
, / g ;v; ; '
- f. .I!' e sw1y'r w'\ 'sh e 1
p, ,g; - r *$-',(
i ' y. .
4i
.; g, a e
[
+-
['
s o.
y'
/'..
'g,
/$
v '.
.9t- v' 3
e- dQqy .d,v . :n %- ,t-.vMx+ . ,i >
';t K ' rh. 'an a'l"d, !
- i y
'q 'P,,
, -- .d :
T'-,/i w'&'f'c'tN i i A"# a -2 s & ^ M.y n 'M, - ap.
N, ;ic . vs %' ' : > '/'r M": 3
%rR1'i Mli/g W 9.,bk n M: d/l:K' S4,M . l..VN"Nf iWf Y ' "3 %
W /N ,, y $!
- g g my < vf; o x ,
, e t i . m"'t } qq/:(1gGlE n 'i ' f ,
' 5 d f. S hJ.
y ' ;> ;& ' )% sy
. y' ' pj,
y, ,2 ' p f :n g: . ,
W@My!&
h i!n Wky %MUf Q Mw $;)g, ,W j',MV;D:%Q+QW: Tt ^'4Y t!: Yp 's , M d ' Q <
J ? WlGid. Uf ' %. )
?y L l % %' 'c,lW Wpe% 4lM jG;J:
v e ,' L' fa li, m ; y & y . d'W.ml w\ W l O q y @v o yp,un f: &;% Q <
~ s n y. v u a.m n d, Hi w $/ L'M $ nC M p# @w.vy:w $:;k r s :sl %,, &MNwyt +wLBh ',::, 1 'w" ;
,.. o ,
Q@m,4wnw.
sgV .
Wo * ,~y , {
w' 4
5 y u.e aML m :~ <
f ' lf _ ft
. ?O, ~l' Hb, fI '
n = ;8 - rv e f-tt . 6 +
a
. .,{ n; {
A "n
0 y
. ~ jJem, .m!l s.r i -.
b' .
XA Q v .n A 6 ( . mlw p v #
q .u
},,,'
i Jc l-'
l ^)
': k Wd
.I'.
hwteMl~MS m 5 sa4
. D/D ,.M@N:M.Mhm%lk;'fw- d .' j , kl,h~W. m myNNNl $ p p@ w% I mn N N '$ m$ m MD ss- M M, M N ~o ,
ysamkm m e,meww.w n s w;!nm .y t
u w mm mpmm wh ph mfhwW *!nffb pH w &a n 4 a4 y;w mm w,mufqw:pmm T W~ y M M
- m p ,% W wn,e wAM g w%m n 9 y mmswa
- we wi kwQ y.%yRig . ;w w
nnWMs?qM 9ppW MMmyn lbMcH%y%@m Wkwfg Y%.4kg Yj'%w$fn ;\y y p Qyh4 ~A As ~. -
mWh$94thh N eep4p@oe @nehalGb geh gMk e -
tip%se$.WWqide pW Mi 9 7 wNu%s$$q/m_
MM$@ $MW$NN A #ng$dM@a(Mg%M%dW$$!Mnhd@g u3 amW A ingMWBE. Mp d RM
^
t s Qy I Milyp)hpkW y;&@QglQ&%
g !dhM 2Qs;{MG pWtf MMJ WQ %i&Wyp@@f W:Y:lWdg yfyV q.QQh Mw p@ &y 'N r;p fen> gaann:a#,EDmnd4 punnoiq@NWh%@a%)n$n@gsMggM@
~$+p q ya w% sy:HP:@n MaGR. n DAMN %
$ $ a; Q :t Q, g!$ %gD M 9gy;sWW M dp :+W d& \ % W --&
Ashwegwagen%gnanww
_ b_d _e wp a mwegg sn m _nes m _cmwu usesso agww ns '
32 e Wysp a$m$ g e@mm%W M M2MM Mac2WME N a n 1 p u 9302180108 a wACRS s m930212 a"hyMWcNWJUMlyg %$%:47%Q %p a w V%m?W4Chhmaw
4
- i"46 s
!W h y9 '5x%l.> W Qd PDR h ,,
mN M M saw Y
( pr y yy e< ,
FFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF FROCEEDINGS O
Ageng- Nuclear segulatory commission Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards O 394th General Meeting Docket No.
I
%)
LOCABON: Bethesda, Maryland DATE: Friday, February 12, 1993 PAGE5; 279 - 493 i
t u
C hjp 40[lvgkO ~c k-(kkQ y?,Qgf&g.n ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. !
O 1612 x s's.w. seite 3co Washington, D C. 20t46 [
(202) 293-3950 i 9302180108 930212 (
T-1949 PDR t !
?\
I! 'f a
PUBLIC NOTICE BY THE b
r UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
..DVISORY COttt4ITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS February .12 , 1993 j DATE:
h
(~)
C/ The contents of this transcript of the proceedings of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Advisory Committee on Reacter Safeguards, (date)
February 12, 1993 , as Reported herein, are a record i of the discussions recorded at the meeting held on the above date.
This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
b,.,
-ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 2fXO6 (202) 293-3950
1 l
I
. 279 I
r 1- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA j 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 ***
l 4 ALVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS I
, 5 394TH GENERAL MEETING l
- 6 Nuclear Regulatory Commission l 7 Room P-110 3 '7920 Norfolk Avenue l 1
e 1 9 Bethesda, Maryland l 8 ,
i 10 )
l 11 Friday, February 12,.1993 l
4
'. 12 ,
4 13 The above-entitled proceedings. commenced at 8:30 .
i
- 14 o' clock a.m., pursuant to notice, Paul G. Shewmon, Committee 15 Chairman, presiding. ;
- 16 .
i
- 17 i- :
18 '
i 1
.19 i l--
t a
- - 20 l
l 21 -!
22 a 2
, 23 -l a
- 24 'l
.i i 25 :
i- l ANN RILEY & h.m SCIATES, LTD.
Court - (orters l 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-39501 i
l
. w . _.. a. .._u.__.- = . _ - - l
i j 280
! 1 PRESENT FOR THE ACRS COMMITTEE: ,
2 Ernest J. Wilkins, Jr., Vice Chairman
- 1. -
- : Carlyle Michelson, Me.mber i' L
! 4 Charles J. Wylie, Member
! 5 Harold W. Lewi s, Member ,
i 6 Ivan Catton, Member )
-i
- 7 James Carroll, Member l 8 Thomas S. Kress, Member
i-
- 9 William Linbl ad, Men.ber. l l
l- 10 Peter Davis, Member ,
l .
l-- 11 Robert Seale, Member
- i l
! 12 David Ward, Consultant
!~
! 13 Mr. Leamon, Consultant s i ?
l 14 Doug Coe, Designated Federal Official ?
j 15 !
l-l 16 :
1- ,
i 17
! l
! IG .
- l
[ -. 19 .
!- i l- -20 l r
!' 21 -
l l
1
- 22 li .
! 23 )
! a
!' 24 i
l 25 l 4
! l i-y-
h ANN RILEY1& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
j Court Reporters ~
8' 1612'K Street, N.Wi, Suite 300 o l- Washington, D.C. 20006 l :- (202) 293-3950 j a
1
_1-
- 281 l-
)
1 PARTICIPANTS:
h -2 3 R. Fraley J. Larkins
! 4 S._Duraiswamy-
- -5 R. Baer R. Emrit l
I l 6 P. Norian L. Beltracchi-
)
l- 7 J._Chen P. Cotter l 8 F. Shon L. Dewey l
9 F. Coffman J. Kramer-l l 10 S. Haber P. Apostolak'ia l
. l 4
11 3
i 12 ,
4 l 13 14 ,
i-1 15 ,
l l
l 16 i i 17 l'
l ~18 '
19 .l l 20 i
l' 21 j i -
i 22 '
23 l l
24 -]
j
,_ :25 l I
I l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
CourtEReporters ,
1612 K. Street, N.W.,' Suite 300 l Washington, D.C. 20006
- _ -(202) 293-3950 -1 o
. . .~ . - .. .- -- -. . . - . - . _ . .- . .. .. .. . - - . - . - -.
l.
I .
/
282 f
i 1 PROCEEDINGS i
I 'i 2 .(8 :30 a .m. ]-
l i
3 MR. SHEWMON: The meeting will come to oraer. This i 4 is the 394th meetina of the ACRS. We are meeting with- .
I 5 Government in the Sunshine, according to that act. ;
6 Everybody should speak up so that the nice lady in the 7 corner should hear you. j I 8 Today, we will discuss status of the staff's ,
9 efforts in dealing with issues identified in multiple :
10 systems response program, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ,
11 Panel Activities, preparation of ACRS reports, recent 12 changes to the regulations on the conduct of *ernment 13 employees, research on organizational factors and future
. 14 activities. ...
15 Mr. Doe Coe on my right is the Designated Federal- -'
16 Official for the initDal portion of the meetings. We have l
17 received no written statements or requests-for time for oral l 18 statements at today's rieeting.
l
- 19 The first iten. is multiple systems response 20 program. Do you want to introduce that Carl, or uhould we
[
21 go directly --
i-22 'MR. MICHELSON: I just want to make'a couple of I 23 short statements on it. This is a' longstanding -- the i
24 program itself is not longotanding -- but thisThas been a j 1
25 longstanding issue consisting of a large number of various j l u
i IJM RILEY & ASSOCIATES, IIM). !
Court Reporters )
- 1612 K Street, N.W.,-Suite 300~ l Washington, D.C. 20005 I (202) 293-3950 i
i j 1283 i i smaller issues that were brought up by-the ACRS over a
?
{--. 2 rather long period of time, 10, 12 years or more.
3 It da".es way back to Dave Okreat days. It started ,
f 4 cut partly with the systems interaction questions. It has t
j 5 been associated with three generic issue resolutions. At .
j 6- each time ws: had these resolutions there were always a-
- 7 number of loose ends that weren't taken care of, and these
! 8 were moved on to the next-issue.
f
! 9 Finally, we reached a point where tha. staff agreed i ~
! 10 to-set up a multiple system response program.to cctch all of 11 these issues, so - that they could wri te off on te USI's' that ,
~
- 12 they were trying to write of f cx1, Namely these-were-USI's ,
I j 13 A-17, A-46 and A-47. Thb issues are we?.1 defined in the i
j- 14 NUREG which you have a copy of here. ,
i- '
15 This NUREG was developed by Oak Ridge,' simp.y 1-16 taking all the correspondence, all the information they l 17 could gather, minutes of meetings c.nd.whatever,_and trying
. 18 to pull together what are the issues In this-document you j- 19 will find these 21 issues defined and-so forth. The purpose p 20 of the program then, was to take each of these issues and i
j 21 t ry to somehow resolve them. ,
{ 22 We haven't heard about thia for a long~ time, two
[
23 _or three years now I guess.it's been, but the staff can
-24 correct me'if I am' wrong. I asked fcr this briefin'g, just ,
! 25 to find out what's happened. Where is it, and howfis-it d
~
- 1 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
! Court Reporters l 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300
- Washington, D.C. 20006 i^ (202) 293-3950
-, - _ , . _________.-___---._-.._-.-_.;a
. . . . . . . .- - . . . - -~ ~- . -.- . - -- --~ .-. . . - - .
t
--2 8 4--
l 1 coming along.
We will hear this morning where.we are at on F - m j .
2 'these issues, i.
! 3 I believe that's about all I have~to say, other q
! 4 than I wou'd like to invite your careful attention since ,
i R
- 5 this is a predominantly an ACRS issue to being with. I i
! .i G think it's time for the-ACRS to decide what it wants toido-l
, next. about it. The staff will tell us where they are at, i
8 and then we will have to discuss what our next action is, if j 9 any, t
i 10 .I think Bob Baer --
i 11 MR. CARROLL: I would make the observation, Carl, '
l 12 that it would be nice if many of these issues were being i
l 13 considered in the evolutionary and advanced plant designs.
, 14 I am not sure that too many of them are.
15 MR. MICHELSON: Some are, some aren't, some to
[
16 some e1: tent and some to a little more extent. It's just a i
l 17 total mixed bag. .These are all familiar issues when you '
i
. 18 start looking at them, digital co~ttrol syst. ems and thinga i '
1
- 19 like this, equipment qualit'ication, environmental '
i 20 protection. The whole range, human error. l 21 The whole range in in this one package. I think l 22 it's the best single compilation-of all the isades-that we
( 23 have been discussing for a long number of years now. I b t'
j 24 .believe Mr.-Emrit is going to:make the presentation. He
- j. 25 wi.ll fill us.in on where he's at.
1 1.
I l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES,- LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street,-N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006-(202) 293i3950
. . . - . . . . - . - . - . _ - . . . . . - - . - . - - . - . . . . . ~ ~ - . . - - . - - - . - . - . .. -
l 1'
285: I
[
.1 MR. EMRIT: My name'is Ron Emrit. I'workfwith-
!. -2 Engineering Issues _ Branch in-Research. With me here today j- 3 is the Branch Chief, Bob Baer,.and other members behi'nd us- _1 1- 1 4 in case any questions come up-onLspecific concerns that;I )
I 1
{ 5 couldn't handle alone. )
6- MR. MICHELSON: Would you like to use the podium? !
1 7 MR. EMRIT: We just have-the -- !
R l-
- 3 MP. BAER
- We didn't get any-transparencies made.
I i
! 9 MR. EMRIT: Somehow they are-hard tm come by-
-i f- 10 today, i
4-11 MR. MICHELSON: There is a handout.
- - 12 14R . BAER
- We have copies for everybody.
i.
! 13 MR. MICHELSON: Yes, we all have that, i
14 MR. EMRIT: It's only seven pages.
I 15 MR. MICHELSON: Go ahea'd and proceed,.if you will, )
- 16 please.
17 MR. EMRII: First, we would like to go back j 18 briefly and explain the history. These.insues were
! -19 identified with a resolution of three USI's;'A-17 systems 10 interaction, A-46 seismic qualification of equipment in l'
[ 21 operating plants, and A-47 safety implications of. control e i 1 22 systems, I-0 23 The MSRP was-formulated and contained'21 concerns- >
i i 24 for staff evaluat. ion. As Mr.'Michelson said- these were all-a- 1 S 25 documented and published in NUREG/CR-5420.
a ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD, CourtiReporters-1612'K Street, N.W.,-Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006
-(202)_-293-3950 i
_ . - ~ _.
4 l
] a 286 1
1 Over the years since we received these 21 concerns- d 4
() 2 we have.found that a majority of them are either duplicates j 3 of issues that we had prioritized over the years with our !
) 4 prioritization program. To summarize, we found that 17 of ;
I - - ;
. 5 these issues are either covered in existing issuts that are
- 6 either being resolved right now cr other programs that are ,
i j 7 ongoing in research, e
j 8 If you_look at_page three we still have one issue 1
l 9 that we haven't quite decided what box to put it in yet, and i
j 10 three issues that we think should be dropped, .That accounts
- 11 for the total of 21 issues.
! 12 On page four we have a summary of what happened to
} 13 every one of these concerns in parenthesis. -f you can just i
j 14 follow with rae issue by issue, you will want to refer to the 15 NUREG and we can walk these issues one by one.
16 The first one is failure modes of digital computer i 17 control systems. We found that concern is being addressed i
! 18 right now in the resolution of issue A-19, which was l-l: 19 previously prioritized. 'If you need any specific
[.
20 information as to what's going on in these issues that are l
j 21 covering these concerns, we have mernbers of the staf f . here l_ 22 who would be glad to explain in detail what's going on-in
!. 23 these programs or issueo.
t-24 The second_ concern was specific scenarios not i
! 25 -considered --
1 1
10R7 RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. '
Court Reporters.
s 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 -4 j hashington, D.C. 20006- '
(202)-293-3950 ,
, , . . . .:. .. . - : &.- ...a.------
-. - - -. ..... - - - . ... _-.. -. - . . .. . - . - . . . . . ~
1 g
i
- 287' 1 MR. CARROLL
- When you say it's been picked-up by 2 A-19,- has somebody critically ~ looked;at the scope.of A-19 a 1 i 3 and the-scope of the specific concerns and concluded 4 everything.in the concerns has been covered in the scope.of l 5 A-19?
- 6 MR. EMRIT
- Yes. These conclusions in every case
~
h
. 7 have been drawn in consultation witn:the staff, talking to .
i 4 I i 8 the individual task managers. We have Mr. Beltracchi-here ,
1-i j 9 who has been following this program.
10 MR. SHEWMON: Is A 19 settled, or has it just-been 11 shipped off to Beltracchi's desk and he's been told he's
- 12 responsible for it someday.
j 13 MR. EMRIT: No. He's been working'on it for the -
i
! 14 last couple of years, and he would be-glad to fill you in.
15 MR. SHEWMON: Is it finished, or..is it still in j 16 progress?
! 17 MR. EMRIT: It's still in progress.
l 18 MR, SHEWMON: So, your solution so far is;to have I
- _ 19 sent it to somebody and say chey should work on it. It's i
20 not anything.
21 MR, EMRIT: It's'not completed. It's ongoing, and
{
! 22 from my understanding some Reg Guides:have beenLdeveloped.
[ -23 MR. WILKINS: Is there a timetable for its t
$ 24 . completion?
h j 25' MR. BELTRACCHI: .My name isELeo Beltracchi, NRC ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W4 Suite 300 ,
Washington, D.C. 20006. .
i (202) 293-3950 o ., s # ._ , ,, ,, ... .. .- --_ _ _.__ _ _ _ _ a_..__ - _ . _
- - .-.-.-.-. - . - -r - . . . . . . - - . - - . -
288 1 research. Our branch is doing research to support A-19, but 2 we don't have the specific assignment on it. We are 3 responding to NRR's request in this area.
4 A dilect answer to your question, I don't have the 5 schedule.
6 MR. SHEWMON: Is one of things on your plate to 7 get a schedule?
8 MR. BELTRACCHI: I guess the people from NRR would 9 have to address that. We are responding to user needs from 10 NRR in this area. We do have schedules in that effort.
11 They are specific user ~needs that have come over as 12 memorandum, and we have responded to those with schedules.
13 MR. SHEWMON: If user need you have does not state 14 as defined as satisfactory resolution for A-19 it must be 15 stated some other way. How is it stated?
16 MR. BELTRACCHI: They are broken down into several 17 -- it was'a general I&C memorandum that came 72ver. I think 18 it was January of 1991. It identified several issues.
- 19 MR. MICHELSON
- Will I find A - 'it's been at ,
20 least prioritized, hasn't it?
21- MR. EMRIT: Yes, it-has. It has been documented 1
=
-22 in NUREG 0933.
i
.23 MR. MICHELSON: I couldn't find'it as being 24 worked,-looking at the latest issue.cf your generic-issues-1 25' that have been prioritized. I probably didn i t look at'the i
ANN RILEY_& ASSOCIATES, LT' .
Court Reporters
^1612'K. Street, N.W.,-Suite 300' '
Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 .
r 's, e ' w-- yy , t - -, ,e',. p g ..r's ..- ,,,,s._,, .e ,,.,.r -,5 ---m.,-.- +-n,,,,,N+enue- mm- m.,wnw-s
_. _ . . . . . - _= _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _._. _ . _ ._- . . _ . _ -_ _ . . _ . _ _
1-
- 289 i-1- right page of that document. It should-be A-19, it should l I
j- 2 appear and show a: schedule of when it's-anticipated-to-be
! 3 completed and that sort of' thing.
4 MR. EMRIT: .Are you'talkina about the GIMCS?
i 5 MR. MICHELSON: Yes.
I
6 MR. EMRIT: That 's not prt:sently -- I guess -
I- . .
7 because of the fact that a lot of research projects 8 sometimes we refer to the master plan outside of GIMCS. In f 9 other words there-are other cracking mechanisms for --
10 MR. MICHELSON: .You mean, I don't see the whole l 11 picture on generic issue work by.looking at GIMCS? I i
^
12 thought everytning was in GIMCS.
- 13 MR EMRIT: -We do track the resolution-of -- >
'- MR, MICHELSON: 1A-19 is not in GIMCS.
14 ,
i-i1' 15 MR. EMRIT: The safety issues, the ones that have-I j 16 been identified as high and medium priority over the years e
j 17 are the ones that you would see primarily in GIMCS.
l
- 18 MR. MICHELSON
- -Nell then, jbl9 must have been I
t'
'o lower dropped.
i 20 MR. EMRIT: . No _, it was categorized as a' licensing 21 issue for further study.
22 MR. MICHELSOh .: It hasn't been prioritized.as 23- something to be worked on.
.- 2 4 - MR. DURAISWAMY: 'It has been prioritized. -
25 MR. MICHELSON- Why isn't-it'on the list then?
I g, ANN-RILEY &_ ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters '
1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 '
Washington, D . C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 -
290 1 MR. DURAISWAMY: Other than low, medium and high 2 they have licensing issues and it's in one of those 3 categories.
4 MR. MICHELSON: Those don't get worked except as 5 needed or'something.
6 MR. DURAISWAMY: That's correct.
7 MR. MICHELSON: As needed in what respect, needed?
8 It isn't leading necessarily to the resolution of the issue, 9 it just means there has been some werk on it. I was puzzled 10 why it wasn't in the listing at all.
31 MR. COE: The I&C branch has this, I am told by
. 12 the I&C division.
13 MR. MICHELSON: As what?
14 MR. COE: Has this issue for closure.
15 MR. MICHELSON: What are they-doing with it? Is 16 it just as a licensing issue or do they have it as a low, 17 medium or high priority to be worked?
18 MR. COE: I don't know.
4 19 MR. MICHELSON: Apparently, it has --
20 MR. BELTRACCHI: Let me possibly address the 21 specific issue that you are calling out. We do'have a 22 rather broad research. program in the_ area of' digital P
23 computers. One of the issues thau we are addressing there 24 is really to assess the adequacy of-the-stand?.rds for high 25 integrity systems, and we are doing work.
(..
ANN RILEY &-ASSOCIATES,_LTD.
Court Reporters
. 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
1 4
5 j -291 2
d j
1 We hLee contracted work with the National i -
2 Institute of Standard Technology and.other-contractors i
3 supporting this effort .
{'
f: 4 MR. MICHELSON: Excuse me. This ef fort, - you mean -
{- 5 the human factors aspect?
i j- 6 MR.-BELTRACCHI: No. This is the digital --
i o
{ 7- MR. MICHELSON: -This issue is the human factors. -
l i
i -
- 8 MR. CARROLL
- No. '
! l l 9 % MR. BELTRACCHI: No. -
i l 10 MR. MICHELSON:. Issue number one? !
I i
! 11 MR. BELTRACCHI: No' it's not.
l I .
l 12 MR BAER: -These-numbers, we listed them in the j t .
l 13 order of ones that we think are in someplace else. This is l
- i l 14 actually number three.
15 MR. MICHELSON: I was referring to the NUREG. I j 16 thought it was issue number one in the NUREG.
L ,
j 17 MR. CARROLL: Now you~have me totally-confused.
l- 18 MR. SHEWMON ': Number one on this -- i 19 MR. MICHELSON: These aren't corresponding to the i
- j. 20 NUREG, apparently.
! 21 MR. CARROLL: This is 2.4.1 on-page-10 of the F
i- 22 NUREG.
i .
[s. 23- MR. MICHELSON: No, it's.actually on page-47fof. ,
l 24 the-NUREG_7.4.:. _The whole' detail, go to page 4'7.- That's 1
l 25 the-one you really need to look at- .
t
. ANN RILEY~& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300
- Washington,- D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950-o
-292-1 MR. CARROLL: This is a summary on page ten, am IL
( '
2 righ' 3 MR. MICHELSON: This document numbered them one 4 through 21, but apparently you are not following that 5 numbering scheme in the document. That's: fine. I just want 6 to see which-one you are talking about.
71 MR. BAER: Leo has a slide that he wants to show 8 you, discussing the scope of what he's doing. What we tried 9 to do is match this up with a summary table. These are the 10 17 issues that we feel are handled somewhere else. This is i
11 the first of the 17 issues that we feel are being handled 12 under a different program.
L 13 MR. MICHELSON: It only threw me because you i 14 weren't -- you are numbering 21 concerns. You just aren't 15 using the same. numbers as the NUREG, that's all.
16 MR. EMRIT: That's correct.
17 MR. MICHELSOE That just creates undue confusion, 1 18 of course. Go ahead.
( 19 [ Slides.]
20 MR. BELTRACCH1: I can give you.a quick briefing
- 21 of some of the research programs that we have. This is a 22 slide that I used'for presentation on a.research" review 23 committee to cover advanced instrumentation and controlo:and l.
- 24. human factors work that we currently havefongoing.
25 There-are-eight programs. One_is--the-Halden-.
g, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street,LN.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 i (202) 293-3950 3.
_ _ _ - _ _ _ = _ - _ _ _
293 1 Reactor' Project. . I_can go into detall on that. They do 2 human factors work as well as man-machine interfaced
-3 verification and validation of computer systems. type of 4 work, research. The-second program is a human factors 5 program. Let me skip over that.
6 We currently have ongoing, an effort that is 4 7 jointly funded with EPRI, to develop verification and 8 validation guidelines for expert systems. That work is 1
9 about 70 percent completed. -We.have found some.rather 10 interesting results to date. For example,-in a survey of 11 people doing verification and validation of expert systems i
12 we found that there's very little.up front design and 13 virtually no design verification activities.
14 We have also conducted some experiments to s 15 evaluate the effectiveness of case tools and used a control 16 group that did not use tools and an experimental group'that.
1 4
17 did.use some tools, and we actually assessed two expert
, 16 systems that were seeded with errors and were-able to come
~
, 19 up with-the conclusion that for more complex systems'the 20 case tools actually were very ef fect ive in finding seeded 21 errors.
22 MR. SHEWMON: This is interesting. -The topic r 12 3 - today 1s failure modes of: digital computer.controlLeystems.
24 MR. BELTRACCHI: 'Let me proceed;
. 25 MR. SHEWMOMi Maybe the-next une will address 1t.
u 7 -
' -k_w)_
~ ANN:RILBY &' ASSOCIATES, LTD.
' Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300
-Washington, D.C. 20006 (202)- 293-3950 m _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - -_ - - - - - - _ - - - . -
294-1 MR. LEWIS: Just out of curiosity, I am not quite 2 sure what is meant by V&V of expert systems. Will.you come 3- along and tell-us what was meant by that?
4 MR. BELTRACCHI: -Okay. Expert systems are --
, 5 MR. LEWIS: I know what they are.
6 MR BELTRACCHI: We are out-to do an assessment of 7 -- let me start with verification -- to ensure that each 8 phase of the development process and cycle is correct and 9 has received the proper quality. assurance and assessment 10 prior to proceeding to the next phase, 11 MR. LEWIS: This is simply a matter of studying 12 the. organizational structure through which it is done, and' 13 not the self-consistency of the -- ,
14 MR. BELTRACCHI: No, we'are actual.ly looking at 15 the consistency as well.
16 MR. LEWIS: .That's the question I have in mind. A 17 V&V means to establish that the rules involved in expert 18- systems are transitive and not self-contradictory and that 19 sort of thing?
20 MR. BELTRACCHI: Yes.
21 MR. LEWIS: How'ia that-done?
J 22- MR..BELTRACCHI: We have. looked through it by 23 means such-as requirements--tracing. We have also looked at 24 it in terms of static analysis as well as dynamic testing.
25 MR. LEWIS: Requirements testing is fine, but.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Lourt Reporters 1612-K Street, N.W., Suite-300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
(---.-.-_---_--__---------.---.--..___----._.-.__ _-
i I
l 295 l
1: presumably these are systems that have 10,.000 rules or 2 _100,000 rules.
3 MR. BELTRACCHI: We actually looked at two i r
! 4 systems, okay, because we actually needed-a piece of wood-to l 1
1 5 wheedle on if I may-paraphrase the expression, in order to; ,
6 assess the tools. We call them system A and system B, .and 1 l 7 let me quickly define. -
- l. 8 System A was the reactor safety assessment system l
l- 9 that was developed at NRC in the emergency response center.
10 System B wac EOPTS but you didn't hear me say that. We
- 11 actually took and seeded errors in those, and we actually i
6- 12 had a series of experts go through to see whether they.could-l i
l 13 find those errors. One set of experts did not.have tools :
l
! 14 and another set did. <
15 MR LEWIS: I am not talking about the case tools, 16 7 am talking about the V&V of the expert-system. That's l
l- 17 what you were talking about?
I
} 18 MR. BELTRACCHI: Yes. As I said, we actually did i
i 19 go in and try to assess like in requirements tracing,
- 20 tracing the requirements down through the rules to see l 21 whether it was consistent'.
l l
22 MR. LEWIS: The_ consistency was determined by
-23 having new experts _look through and try to find mistakes.
l j, -24 MR. BELTRACCHI: That is correct.
I t 25 MR. LEWIS: That's not.what we normallyLcall a.V&VL
[ .
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters I 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 I ~ Washington,_D.C. 20006 p (202) 293-3950 f
I
296-1 of' course.
) 2 MR. BELTRACCHIt I was'not the original designer.
3 MR. LEWIS: That doesn't matter.
4 MR. MICHELSON: -I am going to have to cut this 5 off, because we have 21 issues to talk about in the next 6 hour. This is kind of a' briefing. .When we see things we-7 would like to hear about more then we will hold a 8 Fubcommittee. meeting as needed, and get into whatever depth 9 we like. Right now --
10 MR. LEWIS: I was just trying to find out what he 11- neant by what he said.
. '2 MR. LEWIS: That's a legitimate question, all i
3 right.
14 MR. BELTRACCHI: The next project is the Class 1E 15 digital computer systems. This was a comprehensive review 7 16 of the des'gn and development of high integrity computer 17 systems. It was perfcrmed by SOHAR. We have a report on 18 this.
19 lt covered the design,: development, test the 20 architecture, and faultJtolerant syatems as well as fault 21 avoid method and techniques. -
22 MR. SHEWMON: 17ere there f aults' in programming' or 23 did it have to do with failure modes?.
24 MR. BELTRACCHI -: It coveredoboth.
25 MR..SHEWMONi So, that is germane to the --
t ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court. Reporters
'1612 K ~ Street , N.W.,= Suite'300-Washington, D.C.-20006 (202) 293-3950-
297 1 MR. BELTRACCHI: That is correct.
(- 2 M
'R. SEEWMON: It doesn't help us'close it too 3 promptly.
4 MR, BELTRACCHI: That-is correct.
5 MR. SHEWMON: Have we heard enough about<this, 6 Carl?
7 MR. MICHELSON: Unless there are other questions 8 on this particular issue. This one is Leing worked, of-9 course, extensively.
10 MR. CARROLL: I guess I am still-confused. I am 11 looking at page four, item one. It says failure modes-of 2 12 digital control system, May 19. How am I to-relate that to 13 this? What should I be looking at in here.
14 MR. MICHELSON: You are supposed to be looking'at 15 number three.
16 MR. BELTRACCHI: Let me try.
17 MR. CARROLL: Issue number three.
18 MR. MICHELSON: On page --
19 MR. BELTRACCHI: Let me try_to address that, a
20 because in the course of doing this what we-found is that 21 many of the existing standards _were inadequate. - What.we -
22 decided to do is come up with a framework for high integrity 23 systems, and then develop the acceptance-criteria for-that 24 framework. That is our general approach to this.
25 _Doing this for Class 1E or safety systems, the
) ANN RILEY &-ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,_ Suite-300
/ Washington, D.C. 20006
- (202) 293-3950
L 298 l;
1 next step would then be to' scale that down to control
- (f 2 systems and define what would'be adequate, That is the I
3 large, broad overview of-our plan of attack.
i l 4 Mh. MICHELSON: . Jay, did you have any qtestion on 1 E
5 it?
j 6 MR. . CARROLL: I am still reading it. Go ahead.
l 7 MR. MICHELSON: We will move on to the next one.
L 8 MR. CARROLL: Move on to the next one.
l 9 MR. MICHELSON: Which is issue number two on your l
l- 10 list.
- 11 MR. EMRIT
- Thank you. That corresponds to issue. {
i 12 7.4.4, specific scenarios-not considered in USI A-47. l I
k l 13 MR. MICHELSON: This issue is on page 49 of the ,
? '
i 14 NUREG. '
O 15 MR. EMRIT: What we found with this concern was l
16 that there were two parts to this issue. The concern with 17 scram without a turbine generator trip was addressed in our q 18 prioritization of issue 144 which was-sent to the ACRS a !
19 while back, and that was prioritized low. '
20 The other concern for: steam; generator overfill, l l
21 leading to MSLB was addressed in issue 67.3.1 which was-also 22 prioritized low sometime ago.
23 MR. MICHELSCN: I-- could find no record of thast !
24 issue. Could.you help me. 'I l
25 MR. EMRIT: These are all published in NUREG 0933.
) . ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,. Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950'
.1
1 l 299
- 1 MR. MICHELSON
- I beg your pardon?
- 2 MR. EMRIT
- Issue 144?
- ~
3 MR. MICHELSON: No, 67.3 whatever it was, j 4 MR. EMRIT: That was part of issue 67, which is in 5 NUREG 0933 right now.
t 6 MR. MICHELSON: Part of issue 67? ,
1 7 MR. EMRIT: That is correct.
. 8 MR. MICHELSON: A-67?
9 MR. EMRIT: No, just plain 67, which is in Section j i 10 3.
- i. 11 MR. MICHELSON: You certainly don't help the 12 reader much in finding where to read any more about any of
- 13 this. Again, I went to GIMCS and of course couldn't-find 1
I 14 it. I would have to find'it --
\ 15 MR. BAER: GIMCS are the only thing that are being i
- 16 worked on right now. If it's been completed it's no longer 17 in GIMCS.
! 18 MR. MICHELSON: That is true. If it were 1
1 19 completed, I expect to get the whole story on it. I didn't 20 sense that the whole story was in here.
21 MR. EMRIT: Whan these issues are completed and 22 exit GIMCS since they are no longer tracked once they are 23 resolved, then you can go back to NUREG 0933 and read 24 whatever producte or resolution the staff generated.
4 25- MR. MICHELSON: -Let me ask, is this your 67-B 4
i (O
jpf ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters
- 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006
. (202) 293-3950 4
- _ =.
l- 300 l
I 1' work,' or is that also done?
1 1
- () 2 MR.:EMRIT: No. It-was-identified as-low priority 3 several-years ago, and that's documented in-0933.
l 4 MR. MICHELSON: Sam should be able to show us .
i.
i 5 where we responded to issue 67.
6 MR. EMRIT: Yes. That was last published in June, ;
7 1991, that particular. That's the latest _ version, Revision 8 3 of issue 67.
I I MR. MICHELSON:
l 9 Now I know at least where to start' 10 looking for it. l l 11 MR. EMRIT: Let me just stop for a minute to-l-
i 12 explain. In those instances where we have parenthesize 13 nur' 'rs that means that those issues have either been 14 identified before and given a number er these concerns are 15 covered in those issues. In this case 144, we mean issue ,
l l 16 144 which was prioritized separately, short of writing out 17 the whole description again. ;
18 In this case 67.3.1, we mean. issue 67.3.1 which l_
19 was titled steam generator overfill. If you_go to 0933 L 20 revision three, you will find an evaluation of this ll l l21 particular safety concern. ;
I i 22 I think if you go.back'to the NUREG 5420.you will-l H23 find in many instances that Oak' Ridge came.to a lot of these-l' l 24 -preliminary conclusions themselves, and it's also l
- 25 documented, some of their findings. We just took it the a
4- .
}-
l ANN RILEY-& ASSOCIATES,.LTD. '
j- Court Reporters p 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 washington,=D.C. 20006 ---
- j. (202)L293-3950 e
9 gm. .-,.9%.m, . , - . . , , . . on,... ---.n,.,., ,y .. ,,,,_,....,...,...__-~...m_._.
301 1 next-step in order to come back and report to the-ACRS as to-() 2 whnt the staff thinks and not Oak Ridge. In many instances 3 the conclusions have not changed.
4 MR..MICHELSON: Oak-Ridge didn't try-to originate 5 anything. They only tried to go through the documentation 6 and try to pull the issues out.
7 MR. EMRIT: Right, I understand.
8 MR. MICHELSON: Which I think they did reasonably 9 successfully.
10 MR. EMRIT: Right. .In many instances you will 11 find that they have documented where these concerns were 12 addressed previously.
13 MR. MICHELSON: Yes.
14 MR. BAER: One thing to perhaps keep in mind is, 15 we were asked just a couple of weeks ago to come-down here 16 and give a status report. We do intend to put together a
~17 report and come down for a formal presentation if you so 18 desire, probably in the summer to cover each of these '
19 issues.
20 But right now we have nothing in writing except 21 some preliminary drafts and it hasn't been fully reviewed.
22 Please keep in mind that this is sort of a status report at 23 the moment.
12 4 MR. MICHELSON: Right. Does anyone have any 25 further question on that particular issue?
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
- _ _ - _ = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
302 1 (No response.)
() 2 MR. MICHELSON: If not, why don't we proceed to 3 the next one, issue number three.
4 MR. EMRIT: Issue number three corresponds to 5 issue 7.4.5 in 54.20. That's the effects of degradation of-6 HVAC equipment on control and protection systems. ,
7 MR. CARROLL: Page 507 8 MR, MICHELSON: Yes.
9 MR. EMRIT: What we found was that this issue was
- 10. covered in two issues recently. One is issue 143 which is in 11 GIMCS, and that's a high priority issue ongoing. You can 12 find out the status of it by going to GIMCS. The other one-13 is the --
14 MR. CARROLL: What is the issue?
15 MR. EMRIT: Availability of chill water systems.
16 TM't's a high priority issue.
17 MR. CARROLL: Okay.
18 MR. EMRIT: That is being tracked -ful GIMCS right 19 now, so you can read that if you so desire.
20 MR. MICHELSON: That resolution is still due --
21 MR. EMRIT: That'e correct.
22 MR. MICHELSON: It's a present GIMCS date, I 23 think.
24 MR. BAER: .It has just been_ transferred to Paul 25 and myself, so we are-not fully up-to speed. We had a
() ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite.300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
-303 1 little meeting on it' earlier this week and it's ongoing. I J) 2 don't remember the exact date.
3 MR. MICHELSON: One of the outputs was supposed to 4- be, as I understood it, standard review plan section-to 5 cover chill water since there is none presently. Is that r going to be a part of your effort then?
7 MR. BAER: We are just getting into it. We first 8 have to make a determination of the sufficient risk to meet 9 the backfit rules.
10 MR. MICHELSON: At oneLtime we were even promised 11 that standard review plan be ready for ABWR, but itLnever 12 was 3. course.
13 MR. CARROLL: Wait a minute, Bob. You have to 14 make a 109 determination before you can write a standard 15 review plan?
16 MR. BAER: Not necessarily future plants. Our 17 focus is first of all current operating plants. We also ,
18 then take a look at should there be additional requirements 19 for future plant. Our focus -- as I say, I am just getting 20 into this issue.- In general, car focus of'all this is 21 operating plants and yes,'for any backfit we have to make a 22 109 determination.
23 MR. MICHELSON; The standard review plan does not 24' mean additional requirements. Hopefully, it only goes and 25 identifies present requirements and puts them in an orderly ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612'K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950-
304 1 fashion for the reviewer to use as a checklist. It's not 2 new requirements, I hope.
3 MR. BAER: NRR rather than our group normrlly i 4 writes the standard review plans. It's my understanding 5 that they still have to come to this Committee and t o CRGR.
6 First, there's an it.wr office review and then to the ACRS 7 and CRGR.
8 I don't think 143 is that far along, that anyone '
9 has started to try and write a ste.ndard review plan.
10 MR. MICHELSON: _It's been several years _since-the 11 Committee has strongly recommended to the commissior that 12 there be a standard review plan since these systems are not 13 covered by any present plants. We t.hought when we were 14 pursuing it with ABWR, I thoucht we got a message that one 15 was in draft and it's almost ready but we will let you see 16 it pretty soon --
17 MR. BAER: That was within NRR. Our focus is not 18 to start off with a preconceived notion. I-am' talking 1 19 generalities, since I don't know the 143. The issues that I-20 have handled in the past, we don't_ start off with a 21 preconceived notion that this is the product and now we are t
22 going to go and prove that we need it. We start off with 23 the idea that we are going to study:it and-try and see ---
24 MR. MICHELSON: _I hope that you. study it'on the o 25 basis of what-other people might have~ already done'just-to ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
305 1 benefit by that experience. If there is a standard review 2 plan in draft form you would be aware of it, I thirik, t 3 MR. BAER: As I say, this issue was just assigned 4 to me. I an not really up to speed on it.
5 MR. MICHELSON: Any other questions on this?--
G MR. CARROLL. Just a comment for Bob. It's very 7 obvious in talking to NRR on ABWR, that there is a real need 8 for standard-review plan.
9 MR. BAEP: NRR prepared E E"andard review plan, so 10 they may very well have generated one. I don't know.
11 MR. MICHELSON: -Research is doing the work, aren't 12 they? I thought they v. ore.
13- MR. BAER: Not on ABWR. As 1 say, I was just 14 assigned this iasue, so I don't know.
15 MR. CARROLL: That is just symptomatic of the 16 problem of ABWR.
17 JR. MICHELSON: Okay, enough for chill water 18 unless there are any other questions. Let 's go on to yotar 19 next. issue. ,
d 20 MR. EMRIT: Issue number four, this corresponds to 21 issue 7.4.6.
22 MR. CARROLL: Didn't you say there were two issues 23 here?
24 MR. EMRIT: Yes, I'm sorry. The other issue is of 25 lesser concern since that basically documented all the work ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612'K Streer., N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
.. - - ...- ___ .. .-. - . - . - . - _ _ . _ . - . - - _ . _ ~ - - - _ .
i-_ 1 i
1 i
306 4
1 that was going on in laaue 143. The concern, again, was 2 covered another time in one of the SEP issues, 156.3.3 which i f J l 3 was also sent to the ACRS like all prioritization are. That 0 :
}
4 has a very comprehensive write up on the ventilation j 5 systems, again. !
6 Like we said before, the major concern is safety i 7 concern, and that is being addressed in issue 113. )'
8 MR. MICHELSONi We have to see that.
i
! 9 MR. CARRO.LL: Now, 143 is what?
i 1
10 MR. EMRIT: A high priority issue.
{
I
- 11 MR. MICHELSON
- Yes, it's a high priority issue on ,
12 chilled water.
l
) 13 MR. CARROLL: That's the chilled water one.
i j 14 MR. MICHELSON: It may be that that's where they ,
15 are developing tneir standard review plan under that 16 program. I don't know.
17 Mk. CARROLL: What was the second issue that you 1
j la just described. What was the issue. I dea't want to know 19 the numbers k
l 20 MR. EMRIT: The issue was essentially ventilation 1
i.
} 21 systema. That was raised in the context of SFP program. It i
[
22 talks about the issue was the adequacy of ventilation e 1
23 systems to provide a safe environment for plant personnni 24 and ESF systems under normal anticipated transient-and' 1 25 design basis operational conditions.
1 .
i
- ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
j Court Reporters
{ 1612 K Street, N.W.,-Suite 300'
! -Nashington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
!- 1
,,._,..;n;-,,....-.-,-..-. . . _ . . . . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ , . . _ _ .__;.-.,____...,__.__..__..--_._....
I 4
307 !
} 1 MR. CARROLL: Okay, i
! 2 MR. EMRIT: Here again, a lot of that stuff was
! 3 already addressed in other issues. We didn't find anything l
l 4 to pursue that separately.
l 5 MR. MICHELSON: Where do you think that's being 6 addressed? The 143 is addressing just the chilled wat er 7 system, I thought.
8 MR. CARROLL: That's what-he said.
6 9 MR. MICHELSON: But this is the rest of the HVAC.
10 I don't know if anyone is addressing it.
~
It can also 11 degrade in various ways, including being environmentally l
12 exposed to high pressure and blowing out, things of that 13 oort. The ventilation valve, what is the integrity of it if l
14 you have pipe break in a compartment. That's a part of what
,O g
15 this issue is about.
16 Mh. EMRIT: We will be glad to take your commente l 17 ander advisement here. Issue 156.3.3-is-a very extensi"e 18 write up, about three or four pages. That was rent out to 19 the ACRS several months ago. It does not address the-20 lingering-concern for this-issue, 7.4.5. We would be glad-21 to take a look at it again.
l 22 MR. CARROLL: Carl, is part of the problem when we 23 get these prioritization thinga, we are not looking at them l 24 as they seem to be. We are not locking at them in the 25 context of does it satisfy the MSRP program.
l I
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporterc 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300-Washington,-D.C. 20006 l .(202) 293-3950' I
i
I 308 1 MR. MICHELSON: I think that has fcllen in the 2 crack. We have not recognized that these were answers to 3 the issues in the multiple nyctem response program. Now, we 4 are trying to go back and see if they really were.
5 MR. CAHROLL: Do you say that in your 6 prioritization? Do you try tn relate the prioritization.
7 MR. EMRIT: Yes. We always do.
8 MR. CARROLL: To this?
9 MR. MICHELSON: Always do what'?
10 MR. EMRIT: Always refer to where these issues --
11 MR. MICHELSON: Do you refer to 54.20?
12 PR. EMRIT: No, since this issue wasn't 13 prioritized separately.
14 MP. MICHELSCN: The genesis of the issue was from 15 54.20.
16 MR. EMRIT: Okay.
27 MR. MICHELSON: The genesis was way back, ten or 18 15 years ago in sorta cases. It finally was pulled together 19 in S4.20 and now, the issue in front of us at this 20 particular time would he related to 54.20, I think. It 21 should e.
1 22 MR. CARROLL: Excapt that, another variation of 23 that would be that they had a sort of related generic issue 24 and the MSRP sort of amplifies on it or adds an additional 6
25 dimension to it.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES. LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 i Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 243-3950
309
, MR. MICHELSON: Yes.
MR. BAER: When we pullett together this report we
- mre tr *g to address each of the MSRP concerns. If at-
" . .u t.ime we assert that it has been covered in the
.tioritization oi 156.3 we will try and make that case. If g 6 k m make that case we will obviously have to re-examine 7 it. .
8 MR. CARROLL: Okay.
9 HR. LAER: But no, the reverse I am sure hasn't 10 been done. People that have been prioritizing issues as a
- matter of course have not gone back to this NUREG and see--if-12 there was any relationship.
~
13 MR. MICHELSON: What I think you t.re doing now is 14 trying to put together some kind of a dratt document that 15 relates all these resolutions back to 54.20. At least T got 16 a preliminary copy of such an appearing document.
, 17 MR. BAER: Yes, that's correct.
- 18 MR. MICHELSON: Tnat's good, except there is a 19 number of places in there where I think we need to-discuss 20 it.
21 MR. BAER: What I have seen is a first cut draft, 22 that has not been scrutinized by the staff.
n 23 MR. MICHELSON: I think, Jay, you are right. I 24 think~we just didn't always recognize when we~were'seeing 25- these things piece meal through this packaging arrangement, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
5 Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.( Sud te 300 Washington, D.C. 20.06 1 (202) 293-3950'
. . _ . . . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . - _ ___. . _ _ _ -. ~_. _ . _ . _ ._ _ _. _ .
i i
i 1- 310
- 1 that we really needed to go bacx to see how this is, nor did a
! 2 the staff necessarily.
- 3 MR. CARROLL
- Bob is now telling me he's going to i
! 4 do that for us.
i 5 MR. MICHELSON: He is doing it, I think.
! 6 MR. CARROLL: He will do it. l 4
l ? MR. MICHELSON: We have a draft of such a l 8- document. I thought that was a part of it. You have in-i 9 your package a preliminary. draft that was sent to us by-10 copy, which is stamped draft. It's called evaluation of 11 potential safety-issues resulting from the multiple system- l 1
- 12- response program.
- 13 MR. CARROLL: Yes.
, 14 MR. MICHELSON: We have such a draft. Is that the p 15 sort of thing you are going to expand upon? :
i 16 MR. BAER: Yes.
17 MR. MICHELSON: Ne expect to see a cleaned up _ ,
18 version on that.
19 MR. EMRIT: I might just 7.dd here again, just to 20 clear up the confusion, that we treat bmREG 0933 as. the base 21 document. So, we always make reference to issuea 1. hat 22 either have already appeared ^there and have bien published -
23 and revised when they get resolved we go back and revise it, 24 or issues that will be appearing-in 0933 in'the future.
25 That prevents us fron giving these concernernew ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. '
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite'300. "
washington, O.C. 20006
- (202) 293-39501
_ - . , _ - , _ _ ~ _ _ . _ . - . - ..--_ _ ,. _ _ -- . _ u _ ._... _ -._._. _ .= - _ . . . . - - .
l 311 1 numbers, even though they may be repetitive.
2 M:1. MICHELSONs Don't forget, the resolution of A-3 17 had a contingency on it as far as ACRS was concerned.
4 MR. EMRIT: I underrtand.
5 MR. MICHELSON: It was that these 21 items were 6 going to be covered. As far as I can see, A-17 hacn't been 7 resolved until those 21 items that was pointed out are 8 resolved. It's a part of A-17, yet, a part not covered, a 9 So, going back and saying A-17 is resolved doecn't answer
-10 the issue at all. It wasn't resolved, at-least in our l
11 letter.
l 12 MR. EMRIT: Maybe in time we can go back and :
1 13 clarify that in NUREG 0933 once we get this report finalized ,
14 and the ACRS agrees to our final report. Maybe we could go -
15 back in A-17 and reflect the fact that the 21 concerns were l 16 addressed and accepted by the ACRS. For posterity, we can -
l l
17 - l 28 MR. MICHELSON: We need to move on i
19 MR. EMRIT: Okay, fine. !
l <
20 MR. CARROLL: Just one other observation. I guess ,
21 I am a little dismayed at the progress that has been made. '!
h 22 NUREG 54.20 is dated October,'1989. We haven't even related l I
23 the issues fully to-the programs to resolve these things-in l l- .
a 24' two-and one-half 1 years or whatever it is. j l
i
- f. ?5 MR..MICHELSON: We have been asking on more than !
l= i fI l- ,
ANN'RILEY-& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
i Court Reporters !
l 1612-K-Street, N.W., Suite 300 l
[ Washington, D.C. 20006 j (202) 293-3950 j l'
l- . ..
312 1 one occasion for this briefing we are-getting today, ,.
2 occasiono dating back to well over a year ago. The staff 3 said they weren't ready.
4 MR. LI:1BLAD: As I understand it, it's only the 5 Research staff that has reporting today and not the NRR.
6 MR. MICHELSON: Yes, primari2y 1 think it'n a 7 research statf responsibility, this whole system- response 8 program; is that correct't 9 MR. LINBLAU: Yes, but they are telling us they -
10 punted.
11 MR. MICHELSON: I don't think they told us that.
12 MR. CARROLL: In some cases.
13 MR. MICHELSON: I think the program is still -
14 yours; it: that correct?
15 MR. BAER: The MSRP program is still ours, but I 16 am not taking responsibility for every issue that you told 8 17 somebody they ought to write a atandard review plan on for 18 advanced plants.
19 MR. MICHELSON: No, but you are taking --
20 MR. BAER: That is not ours.
21 MR. MICHELSON: You are taking credit for 54.20.
i 22 You stand behind that.
23 MR. BAER: Yes.
24 MR. CARROLL: Will_you take credit _for the two and
, 25 one-half year interval, frem the time that this was ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATE.5, LTD.
Co.trt Reporters
, 1612 K Street, N.W.i Suite'300 Washingtoni D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 L_ __ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ - _ - - _ - _ - . _ - - - - - =--z---__-
l-313 1 published until --
() 2 MR. BAER: Permonally, no. But it is oura, and 3 our nanagement dictates where we put our resources. We are 4 going to try to get back on this. I agree, the progress has 5 not been very swift on this.
6 MR. MICHELSON: I think it's until only several 7 months ago -- being less than a year -- that the attention-8 was refocused on this; isn't that about right?
9 MR. BAER: I suspect that's the case.
. 10 MR MICHELSON: As far as the program is 11 concerned.
12 MR. BAER: It's been continual over the past i,
13 couple of years, as best I can determine, but at a fairly 14 low priority level. We are going to try and focus that now.
15 MR. MICHELSON: Why don t we proceed to the next 16 item.
17 MR, SEALE: Mr. Chaittnan, I seem to' recall at the 13 last meeting that there was some comment to the effect that 19 the Committee should try to integrate its comments and--
20 suggestions with regard to the research program more 21 intimately it.to the individual topical areas where_research 22 is being done. So, when we-do hear-from these people _again, 23 I think it would be very worthwhile for un to try to 24 determine what the specific research elements are that are 25 supporting each one of these activities so that we.can make ANN RILF.Y & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) -293-3950
314 1 a judgment on those activitieu from the point of view of the 9
2 research branch's efforts as well.
3 MR. MICHELSON: Okay, we will ;,o do. Why don't 4 you proceed, Bob, to your next item, 5 MR. EMRIT: Issue number tour on our liet which 6 corresponds to 7.4.6 in 54.20, failure modes reculting from 7 degraded electric power soutces. We believe that that B concern was addressed in the resolution of issue 128 which 9 was resolved within the last --
s 10 MR. MICHELSON: Again, ACRS wrote a letter on 128 e 11 which says we l'elieve_that this is going to have to be done s 12 in the IPE prngram. To_do it in the IPE program you would 13 have to write-guidance _to cover these kinds of thi2gs.
14 MR. BAER: I would have to check our records. I 15 think we responded to that letter, and the 128 program that 16 two generic letters went out. Industry has ?esponded. I 17 think that is pretty much concluded. IPE, obvicualy, has to 18 look at this al.10. At - the time I th '.nk your letter came- out
> 19 Lthe IPE guidance was pretty well net.
20 We proceeded with the two generic letters some 21 time ago. I can't give you the exact date.
, 22 MR. MICHELSON: But if the guidance is already set-23 .you are saying it isn't going to be covered oy the IPE 24 program because it's not in the guidance. Then we are 25 a nking, how come it is thought to be rer,olved. We said chat -
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, L TD .
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., buite 300 Washington, D.C. .10006 .
(202) 293-3950
. . _ _ - _ . _ . . . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . . -_ _ _ _ _ . ~ _ . . - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _
4 i-315 1
i 1 really, we didn't think that you had resolved the program 2 but it could be handled in the IPE.
3 MR. CARROLL: What was 128 again?
- 4 MR. BAER
- Electric power.
1 I
5 MR. CARROLL: I guess I just don't remember it.
l 4 i
- 6 MR. MICHELSON
- We have it in our handout , June I l l
} */ 14, 1989 letter.
- 8 MR. CARROLL
- Page 33. j i i
! 9 MR. MICHELSON: You have the handout. This' issue
- 10- deals with the-difficulty of experiencing say 80 percent.
I
]
i i 11 voltage on your basen, and1then finding out-how everything '
i
?
n
,' 12 responds including the re-powered systems as well as any 13 other devices that will see the same degraded voltage. The I 16 same is also true of over voltage. -
15 These kinds of things, if you are going to cover
{
i 16 it in IPE would have to be identified in a guidance . l li 17 otherwise, .vendoro are not going to look at it. I know they -
i 18 are looking'ut it at least in the case of motor operated 4
j 19 valves, but I am.not sure how far beyond-that. That's 20 covered by the motor operated valve guidance. We thought it l 21 could be done through the IPE progratu. That was the1 final 1
i' 22 sentence of our letter.
23- MR. BAER: I would have to go and find the *
- 24 response. I remember working on the response ~and it-was e - 25 signed off by the EDO. I would have to go and-find-it. I -
i 4
ANN RILEY & ASSOCI ATES, - LTD.-
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006
'(202) 293-3950-M g w te y *. , - g w g e vey ,,w ty e g- -* - + vg wy -'rNr ww r y-ww +tcpi v rt-- +- -re=--r'-de.r_ ae-, w w- .sv-- 'si-
--eru- , - - .- - , _ . - - - - - - - - - - - -
=------------V---
- -.--...-.-._ - - - _ _ - - -- _ - .. - - - - - _.-..-.- - .. _ -- ~
1 i
i j 316 1 don't want to speak from memory.
2 MR. MICHELSON: But it can be done, all right. !
l !
l 3 But without gJidance to do it in the IPE one would not I 4
4 j 4 anticipate that it would be done. Your resolution is )
i j 5 meaningless, unless there is some kind of teeth in it at 1
3 6 least providing guidance to the facility to do it.
s 1
4 7 MR. BAER: We did not take the approach of putting
)
i 8 it in the IPE. I know that. I will have to try and find i l l j 9 you our response to your letter. l 4- i l
10 MR. MICHELSON: I don't know if you were l l 11 responding in those days to letters, which is a very nice J
- 12 system now. At least we know where you stand.
1 l 13 MR. BAER: I am quite sure that we responded to l J
i .
14 that one, Carl.
l 15 MR. MICHELSON: It could be. I didn't hare it.
16 MR. WYLIE: If you did. I don't remember seeing
- 1 17 it.
l 18 MR. BAER: My memory could have failed me, but let I i J- 19 me go and check.
l -
l 20 MR. WYLIE: Do you remember what you said?
i f 21 MR. BAER: 1 think we said that-it's too late for '
i' l 22 the IPE program, i
23 MR. MICHELSON: Why don't we proceed to_the next l
1 24 item.
j:
4-25- MR. BAER: I will get a copy of that letter.
F l.
+- ,
! ANN;RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
F Court. Reporters 1612_K Street, N.W., Suite 300
, Washington,.D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950-
- 1:
.u,i,,---.----n-- -,-,--,i.-s- , , , - - . - , , ~ . - - , , - - ,
. . - ~ . . . . . , - , - - - . n.~. + . - , . .-r--
317 1 MR. MICHEL3ON: We can't go further on this one.
() 2 Jayr did you have a question?
3 MR. CARROLL. No. I just think it's becoming 4 clear, tnat you g2ys really need to produce something that 5 ties all this together in a coherent fashion, to borrow a i
6 word I heard orce.
7 MR. WYLIE- The NUREG bas 2cally says here's the 8 problem. In some cases they say just leavo .8 t, but this is 9 a problem.
20 MR. CARROLL: That was their job. t 11 MR. MICHELSON: That was their job, only. ,
12 MR. WYLIE: In some case 9 it is being adequately 13 addressed under some other resolution under another item.
14 MR. CARROLL: Oak Ridge was harder --
15 MR. BAER: I think Oak Ridge was aared to collate 16 all the comments. I think that they saw that it was being 17 addressed somewhere else and put that in. As. Carl says, I 18 don't think that was explicitly their job.
19 MR. WYLIE They did draw some conclusions.
20 MR. MICHELSCN: They didn't draw any conclusions, 21 Char 3ie, except that --
22 MR, WYLIE: Well, I think F. hat I can find some for 23 you.
24 MR. MICHELSON: Other than they were drawn 25 elsewhere. They1 summarized conclusions. Their job was ANH RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 16th K Street,-N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006-(202).293-3950 l
- - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ = _ _ _ _ - _ _ = _ - - _ __ __ ___ _- ._ _'
318 1 supposed to be collating only, if I understood it correctly.
() 2 Mi. CARROLL: They were just accountants.
3 MR. WYLIE - They make statements in there that 4 this is inadequately handled under industry programs or 5 something of that nature.
6 MR. SHEWMON: Where are wa now?
7 MR. MICHELSON: We are en item five, I believe, 8 compressed air systems.
9 MR. EMR7.T: Which is 54.20, issue 7.4,7, failure 10 modes resulting from degraded compressed air systems. We 11 bel.ieve that this issue was addressed in resolution of issue 19 43, reliability of--ESF-systems.
13 MR. MICHELSON- ACRS rejected A-43, by the way, in 14 t letter. As far as we ate concerned at least, it's not 15 rekvived.
16 MR. EMRIT: I think if you go back uo -- >
P 17 MR. MICHELSON: What you need to pull out and 18 tnink about -- whatever.
19 MR. EMRIT: I think if you go back to 54.20 on 20 page 57, you will see that Oak Ridge at least in their-21 initial findings, said -- if I may quote: "If the proposed 22 requirements of GI-43 are carried through to resclution and 23' implementat3cn and-if the effects of over prcosurization are 24- required to be addressed also, the above deficiencies should 25 be adequately addressed."-- Above, meaning this~ concern which ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court-Reporters 1612 K. Street, ii . W . , Suite 300' Washington,.D.C. 20006 (202) 293-39E0 4 1
319 1 is highlighted here.
() 2 We would be glad to take whatever comments you 3 have into consideration in our final report to you.
4 MR. MICHELSON: I think you have our. letter of 5 April 12, 1988. One of them has it.
6 MR. BAER: What was the date?
7 MR. MICHELSON:
Is there a later one?
8 MR. CARROLL: January;9, 1989, on page 30 of our ,
9 book, Carl, our briefing book.
10 MR. MICHELSON: Yes,.but they said they used A-47 11 as a resolution. I went back'to our A-47 letter, and A-47 12 was not accepted by the ACRS.
-13 MR. CARROLL:- Neither was A-42 14 MR. MICHELSON: That's right.
O. 15 MR. EMRIT: That was just plain 43.
16 MR. MICHELSON: Our last. paragraph says we cannot 17 agree with the staff's recommendations constituting 18 resolution of USI A-47 as originally defined. We went on to 19 'say that they should --
20 MR. CARROLL: We-say essentially the same thing 21 about 43.
22 MR. MICHELSON: That's correct.
23 MR. CARROLL: This gets us'into an issue. If I 4
24 recall'this air system thing, they argued that they-could
.25 not because of backfit, ask-people in the existing plants;to ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 1
320 1 do the kind of test where you woe.ld see what would happen au 2 you -- that may be well and good. The question is, nhould 3 this be applied to the new designs.
4 MR, MICHELSON: This is another whole issue on all 5 of these, of course.
6 MR. CARROLL: I understand, and I guess what I 7 heard earlier from Bob is, our focus is on the operating 8 plants. I hope it isn't so focused on the operating plants 9 that you don't even think about the implication to new e
10 plants being certified.
11 MR. MICHELSON: Of course, the degradation 12 included more than just reduced air pressure.
13 MR. C.TRROLL: Sure.
14 MR. MICHELSON: It included contamination of the 15 air and so forth,-most of which wasn't really addressed very 16 well in the generic letter.
17 MR. WYLIE: In the summary on this issue on page 18 57 it says that Rcg Guide 1.683 addresses all of the 19 elements of this concern but applied to future plants, 20 basically.
21 MR.' CARROLL: But I am pretty sure that !
22 remember, Charlie, that it did not require a pressure. bleed 23 down test.
24 MR. WYLIE: I don't know about that, They are-25 saying-the__ concerns expressed in:this_ issue __are:being-- _
) ANN RILEY-& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Repcrters.
1612 K Street _, N.W., Suite 300-Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
321 1 addressed by this Reg Gttide.
2 MR. MICilELSON: What I think they are saying j l
3 Charlie, is that they are iden;;ifled in the Reg Guide. i I
4 MR. WYLIE: It says addresees.
5 MR. MICllELSON: That's addressed -- they recognize j 6 that there were these concerns and the utility is supposed 7 to do something about it. We recognized that also, and the 8 otaff recognized tha2. Now, what are we doing about1it.
)
l 9 MR. CARROLL: Read the last sentence, Charlie, i
10- -MR. WYLIEL It says verification requested in 11 Generic Letter 88.14 are conducted. All. aspects of this l
1 i 12 issue-should be addressed, f (
13 MR. CARROLL: Except -- l I
14 MR. MICHELSON: For the gradual loss of air j O 15 pressure and over pressurization offects..'Also, the l 16 contamination effects and.so forth, is a smaller issue.
l t 17 It's an incomplete. l l
1
! 18 All'we are trying to do today is'get the flavor i
- 19. for where this whole thing is at. You can kind of get that, ;
t 20 I think.
21 MR.-EMRITt Right, but our contention is that 1 i
22 based on our preliminary findings, that that concern, i k
l 23 gradual loss of air pressure on over pressurizat:1 on events )
. +
l 24 taken in the context'of the prioritization of iosue 43 when i 25 all the acenarios were deve30 ped to determine risk -- to 7
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
l . Court Reporters ;
l 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 i Washington, D.C. 20006
- j. (202) 293-3950 4
i l
322 l
1 determine whether we work on issue 43 --
those things. did
() 2 not pan out as being major contributors to risk.
3 When we looked at the reliability of ES systema 4 back in the mid-1980's in the prioritization of issue 43, 5 that's the point we are trying to make. We could go and 6 prioritize these things but we don f t think that it would 7 really contribute. The major contributors have been 8 addressed and we resolved issue 43 even though the ACRS may l
9 have had disagreements with the staff's resolution. At -
10 least the staff did a good job in taking into consideration s
l 11 all the risk, overything that contributes.
12 MR. WYLIE: It was really a no, never mind.
13 MR. MICHELSON: We accepted the resolution of 14 generic issue A-43 is our letter of January 189, 1989 but it 15 says further work is needed to show the gradual loss of air 16 pressure issue as not a' safety problem for any plant. That !
17 was ACRS' position. It still is, as far as I know.
18 MR. EMRIT: Maybe we will do a better job this !
19 time around.
20 MR .' MICilELSON: You need to -- !
21 MR, EMRIT: Documenting and stating emphatically ,
22 what we think the contribution to risk is, gradual loss of f i
23 pressure will'be, 24 MR. MICHELSON: I think you either need to show 25- that you have addressed that part'of our letter or that you <
MM RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters .
t
, 1612 K Street, N.W.,. Suite-300 Washington, D.C. 20006 {'
-(202).293-3950 ,
f - . !
323 #
-1 have takea care-of it in some way, or you have_ identified
() 2 yes it is a problem and are going to work on it.
3 MR. CARROLL. Yes. There have been some instances 4 of *his out in the industry. In fact, one of the AEOD 5 factors case studies deals with this. It happened at Nine 6 Mile Point 2, and it would have been a disaster because they 7 didn't have any procedures for-dealing with this in the 8 plant. Except that, it turned out that one of the 9 construction guys that had been very involved in pre-op 10 tasting the air aystem had hired on as an operator and 11 happened to be en chift and knew what valves to go and 12 olos(. There was a break in the system and it' started to 13 deprcsovrier nod all kinds of squirrely things were 14 happening.
15 I think my own operating experience says a lot of 16 utilities don't do a very good job of providing procedures 17 tc the operators, to know what to'do when they start seeing 18 the air pressure go down and all the compressors are on, and 19 it's continuing to go down. It's a scary event. I have 20 been through a couple of them.
21 MR. MICHELSON: It's not fail safe either, unless 22 you lose air pressure totally. .Then, things have been 23 designed to_ fail safe. .Thu;-- this is not a totall-- this is 24 not a-loss of air pressure, this is a partial loss and not a 25 totaliloss.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Ccurt Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite-300 j Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
l l 324 1 That is the problem, things behave differently.
2 The design for fail safe does not come into play.
3 MR. BAER: I think we understand the issue, and we ;
l 4 will try to cover it in the write up. I will be honest, I 5 don't think we are going to go back on issues that we think I
6 were resolved five years ago. Maybe we will create mome new 7 unresolved issues that were -- I 8 MR. MICHELSON: We are just trying to find the j 9 status today. i t
10 MR. CARROLL: Guess what, Dob, ACRS can create 11 issues too.- ,
l 12 MR. BAER: That's right. l; l
13 MR. MICHELSON: I think we just need to refresh l
l 14 the Commission's memory on what we had several years ago '
16 that apparently hasn't been resolved in some cases. l t
l 16 MR. BAER: We will systematically go through this ,
17 and we will. summarize it.
18 MR. MICHELSON: Why don't we go to the.next issue.
19 MR. EMRIT: That's~ issue six on our list. That. l f
-20 corresponds to 7.4.0, potential effects of untimely 21 component operation. This issue will be taken into [
s 22 consideration in a prioritization that r.he staff is doing i j 23 right now, issue _160 which deals, I think, with_ spurious i 24
~
actuations of equipment.. This is one-issue that we will l 25 factor into a prioritization, f i
l i l
l ;
e ANN R1 LEY _& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
! Court Reporters l- 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite.300 j Washington, D.C._20006
, (202) 293-3950 1
It c
l 1
l!
l-325 l 1 MR. MICHELSON: All right,
( 2 MR. EMRIT: The next issue which corresponds to j 3 7.4.9, propagation of environments associated with design ;
1 1
] 4 basis earthquake. We think that that's covered in the IPE. I l 5 MR. MICHELSON: I think it is not covered in the i
j 6 IPE, because when we talk about adverse environments we are 7 talking about elevated temperatures, pressures and so'forth, t
l 8 Elevated pressures affect structures as well as components.
9 I don't find for instance, that you. consider the
! 10 possibility of all pressure boundary failures that might I i
l 11 affect structures as well as components. Subcompartment-i l 12 pressurization is a real phenomenon outside of containment, 13 which is where this becomes primarily troublesome. The j 14 design for inside containment and not outside of i
15 containment, l
i l- 16 That's part of the issue.
{ 17 MR. EMRIT: Our IPE expert is not here right now.
18 MR. MICHELSON: It seems these environments 19 propagate around until they. finally relieve-somewhere.
20 Sometimes instead of being_ relieved out though a relief 21 panel it turns out that it flows open and you get into the 22 other divisions, things of that sort.
23 That's what you got to think about, what the 24 system interaction is all about ultimately, getting into 25 places you hadn't thought about or'hadn't considered.
) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
i 326 1 That's what you are doing now, to see if there is a real
() 2 potential for that. Look at doors, to see if that's what 3 they are designed for.
4 It turns out that there are some very interesting 5 LER's lately on people that are going back and looking at 6 tornadoes and finding out that they won't even withstand --
7 some doors will take only one and one-half pound 8 differential pressure.
9 MR. BAER:. I want to make clear, that generic 10 issues do not handle areas of compliance. We have been 11 directed by the EDO that we do not work on compliance. If 12 someone is supposed tc design for-a certain tornado and they-
-13 didn't design for that tornado, that is not a generic-issue._
14 MR. MICHELSON: You missed my point, Bob. The 15 point is, it turns out that steam compartment pressures 16 which is one of the doors involved in Seabrook in this LER, 17 that compartment received several pounds of pressure when 18 you bust a steam line. They are saying it won't even take 19 the differential from a tornado. That's how I found out 20 that the. doors obviously wouldn't_take a differential from a 21 steam line break unless you_ hit an enormous --
22 MR. SHEWMON: His point is what should it have 23 been designed to. Was part of the design criteria that it 24 should take that pressure?
25 MR. MICHELSON: No-. This issue relates to what
) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
327 1 these effects are on components including structures, as
() 2 well as equipment within the room. We know from various 3 LER's that are looking at other issues such as tornado, that 4 they hadn't even probably looked at this issue of steam line 5 break and its effect on doors.
6 Instead, they looked at tornado and affects on 7 doors, and already found that it was deficient. It's more a likely it's deficient for the pipe break which are generally 9 much larger pressures that tornado differentials.
10 MR. BAER: I will have to go back and read _it.
11 MR. MICHELSON: Clearly, it's not a compliance __
'12 issue. It is an issue of design basis requirements,__which 13 is why I thinkEyou deal with this.-
14 MR. BAER: Yes, but if it's an implicit 15 requirement -- I mean, there has certainly been a 16 requirement since about 1973 that people look at high energy 17 pipe breaks and all the effects of that pipe with jet 18 impingement pressure, et cetera.
19- MR. MICHELSON: Yes.
20 MR. .BAER: I won't claim that every plant has 21 fully designed for that, but the requirement is there, .I 22 believe. I will have to go back --
23 MR. MICHELSON: That's what this-issue is about, 24- propagation of environments from pipe breaks in particular.
25 MR. DAVIS: Isn't item seven design basis ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612'K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006-(202) 293-3950-
328 1 earthquakes?
() -2 MR. MICHELSON: No. We got a --
3 MR. WYLIE That's another one.
4 MR. MICHELSON: Item seven where, in your --
S MR. DAVIS: In the handout.
6 MR. MICHELSON: Item seven is the environment 7 associated with design basis earthquake as well -- design 8 basis event, not earthquake.
9 MR. DAVIS: He said earthquake, I am sorry.
10 MR. MICHELSON: He did? This is design basis 11 event, I assume-what was meant. Is that correct?
12 MR. EMRIT: Yes, it is. The issue associated with' 13 this_--- _ _
14 MR. MICHELSON: These are identified adequately, 15 by the way, in 54.20. I_have no problem with the 16 description in there. You-just do -- it includes the 17 heating and ventilating for instance. It sees, also, these 18 adverse environments. !n fact, it carries them to other 19 areas if you can't get isolation. It's hard to get 20 isolation on a damper when you are talking about several 21 pounds pressure in a compartment.
22 It blows out the damper and moves on down the duct 23 to some other compartment. That is what this issue is all 24 about. Why don't we proceed to-the next one.
25 MR. EMRIT: Issue number eight which corresponds
() ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
' Court Reporters 1612'K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
}
329 1 to 7.4.10, evaluation of heat, smoke and water propagation 2 effects resulting from fires. That issue is going to be 3 addressed in a resolution of Issue 57.
4 MR. MICHELSON: I think we are going to pursue-5 this later. Issue 57, I have received the documentation.
6 It's a stack of NUREG's about this '
. What it contains, 7 I don't know.
8 Clearly, that one is addressed, I am su e, in 9 there. We can pass it for'now.
10 MR. EMRIT: So will issue number nice which 11 corresponds to issue 7.4.13, effects of-fire suppression 12 system actuation.
a 13 MR. MICHELSON: That's correct.
14 MR..EMRIT: Safety and non-safety relief 15 equipment.
16 MR. MICHELSON: So is the original issue, 16 and 17 so is the original issue 17, covered by this.
18 MR. EMRIT: We have a couple of more further down 19 the list and I will get to them. Issue 11 which corresponds 20 to issue 7.4.15, seismically-induced spatial and-functional 21 -- did I miss one.
22 Issue ten, effects of flooding and moisture 23 intrusion on non-safoty andisafety related equipment. We 24 believe that that is going to be addressed-from my 25-- discussions, with the experts in the IPE and IPEEE.
ANN RILEY:& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612.K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006-
-(202) 293-3950
l l
330 1 MR. MICHELSONt You can find a few words in there
() 2 that says you think about it, that's right, in the guidance.
3 The staff has never identified the problem.
4 MR. BAER: On IPE, there were some words. The 5 guidance is already out. We amended the guidance to cover 6 moisture and flooding intrusion. That has, I am pretty sure 7 -- I talked to John Flack yesterday because I saw an-LER --
8 the licensees are addressing that issue.
9 MR. MICHELSON: I think that one should be picked 10 up. It would have been nicer if we had given them better 11 guidance, but I think they understand the problem. I have 12 no question on this one. Does anybody else?
13 (No response.)
14 MR. MICHELSON: Why don't we go to the next one. j O 15 MR. EMRITt Issue 11 which corresponds to issue l 16 4.57.4.15, seismically induced spatial _and functional 17 interactions. That also, we believe, is being addressed-in ;
i 18 the IPEEE. 1 l
19 MR. MICHELSON: Most of these, again, are l 20 addressed.in the IPEEE. At the time we commented on IPEEE 21 we pointed out that really they are covered by it but no ;
22 guidance, so that the reviewer doesn't have any starting 23 point other than his own imagination on it. It's because l 24 the -- your guidance document just said look at these things I i t 25 but didn't give any guidance on-the kindsLof problems to be l i
ANN RILEY &. ASSOCIATES,-LTD.
Court Reporters !
1612 K Street, N.W.,. Suite 300 ,
4 .
Washington, D.C. 20006
-(202) 293-3950 ;
.t
- l. _ . _ - . - z-.-_-
331 1 looking at and so forth.
[
() 2 I think that's just a shortcoming of --
3 MR. BAER: John Chen_is handling IPEEE, and he has 4 'come with us this morning. l 5 MR. CHEN: I am the program manager for the_IPEEE.
i 6 I think that what we are talking about in this-guidance 7 itself at this stage, if we look at the 1407, there is not 8 too much details about the guidance itself. -There is other 9 documents. EPRI put out some. specific guidance related to -
10 -
for instance, if we talk about the seismic induced spatial l 1
11 interaction itself, there is a certain guidance dealing with '
12 this issue and tells you how you chould look for these sort l 13 of things.
14 Another thing is,-there is a lot of things based 15 on experience. We are hoping to put out a training program 16 for those people who_are-conducting -- in the walk downs 17 they will-be able to know what's to look'for.
18 In EPRI's document 5041 it has certain amount of 19 guidance which is useful guidance, because they provide 20 - these-sort of things. It's very easy for the utilities to 21 follow. .That's the guidance --
22 MR. MICHELSON: That is_quite true of the seismic 23 guidance concerning'looking at the piping and so forth. I 24 don't think that's particularly true of the next item we are 25 going'to get to, like seismically induced fire. I couldn t l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
332 1 find any good guidance in there on what they-are' supposed to j) 2 do about seismically induced fire.
3 MR. CHEN: That's also in it. There's a lot of 4 things we are dealing with in tne state of art. You have te 5 fina out that there is certain people that will have certain 6 amount of knowledge. Also, there is a lot of common sense.
' Our idea when we put in these seismically induced 8 fire, seismically induced flood, is stimulate people to_give 9 a very-carefal thought about this issue so_you will be able 10 to address these things. Basical.ly, you have to give a very-11 thorough thinking about this. You have, in a ranse --
12 MR. MICHELSON: You have seen the results now of-
- 13 these.IPE's for some time. They are getting to be quite a 14 stack of paper. '
D Are they picking up on seismically induced 15 fire?'
17- MR. DAVIS: This is-IPEEE.
( -18 MR. MICHELSON: That's right, those haven't come 19 in yet. '
_ 20 MR. CHEN: Those are IPEEE. We don't have that
- 21 many yet. We have one, but if we_lcok at another_ issue --
- 22 we talk abour internal floc 3tng_ issue. Internal flooding 23 issue is:similar to-seismically induced flooding if--you want-
~
24 - to say_it's more or less parallel., But internal flooding.
25- we haven't received so-many reports.
e ANN RILEY & ASSCCIATES, LTD. ;
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N W., Suite 300 Washington, D,.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
+
.% s,; . ^
333-
~
1 .The people has put in.a lot of effort and'give a-2 very ca eful thinking about where it can go'and how it can-3 go wrong, and where it will go wrong. Then,lthey provide 4 reasonable assessment. So far we haven'tLhad quite a few of 5 them.
6 MR. CARROLL: Did you find that the approaches c 7 were consistent between one IPE and another, 8 MR. CHEN: I cannot tell you too much about i 9 whether it's consistent or not, because I am not directly 10 related to the IPE. review. But I can tell you that we have 11 come out with a few review reports. I;think basi: ally we 12 are basically satisfied with come of those people that come 13 out with analytical result.
14 I can also assure you that the approach itself l(; ' 15 will be quite diversified because there's a lot of people 16 with different background and with different-exposure. -The' 17 entire thing would not be entirely uniform. However, at end la of this program we will be able to digest all of those input _.
19 and be able to derive those insights. NRC is supposed to 20 provide those insights to the utilities. ,
21 We will have at least-a better picture of what's 3 22 going en.
23 _MR. CARROLL: You called this prod >:ct' insights; -
24 Is it possible_that it's going to:take the-form of some; ,
25 guidance and take the form of requirement-that people redo:
k:
ANN RILEY & ASSOCTATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W-, Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 i
J
i i
' 334 f1 their internal flooding analysis to these new guidelines, l l
- T 2 i whatever they are?
l :. .
r-3 MR.lCHEN: I think it depends on what kind of 4 findings we will come out from this IPE exam 1 nation. If the !
i l 5 result ccme out and they are saying~ internal flooding itself i ,
t 6 will create high vulnerability and under what. circumstances,
(
7 then there will probably be some kind of guidance or some.
l 8 kind of backfit to come out of this' program.
l 9 ' Right now, I cannot tell.you anything along that j' 10 line.
!: 11 MR. DAVIS: John,. what plant,is the one IPEEE that-l- 12 you said you received?
?
l 13 ME. CHEN: We have received four IPEEE. ~'
i 14 MR. DAVIS: You have four. i
- 15 MR. CHEN: Yes. D.C. Cook, Millstone 3, Seabrook, 1
i 16 and also the South Texas.
e j 17 MR. DAVIS: Thank you.
18 MR. MICHELSON: Seabrook will beia. nice one to-l 19 look at,~since-they are-the one that.got-the: tornado probleut
! P.0 - on their doors, see how-they treated that'when they did <
i:
21 .their IPEEE from the viewpoint of-compartment pressurizationI L 22 and flood-and-so:forth and not tornado'. -
i i 23 MR.-CHEM: -Yes. . I - -' - - -
i
[ 24 MR. MICHELSON: It will be a= good' comparison.
[1 E25 MR. CHEN: Yes,.I agree.-
[
t 4
1
- ANN R7LEYL& ASSOCIATES, LTD. l l Court' Reporters
[ 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 3C0 i
Washington,LD.C. 20006 y (202) 2'3-3950 J
- j. 1
,.e, , ; -.,, : ~ u . . - ~ - , , . - . - . , . +,...-...a. -
'l MR. EMRIT: .If you would like, we could just jump 2 to those issues where we came to_a conclusion that they are 3 being addressed in the IPE, and John can just' remain 4 standing at the microphone. If I can just walk him here.
5 Seismically induced fires, that 's item . 7.4'.'16 in 4- .6 54.20. If you have any questions, we believe that.is being.
7 also addressed in the IPEEE.
8 MR. MICHELSON: I don't think we-have any 9 questions on it.
10 MR. EMRIT: Issue 14 which is item' number 18 in-11 54.20, seismically induced flooding. Chir conclusion is thatE 12 that is also being addreased in the IPEEE.
13 MR. MICHELSON: All right-.
14 MR. EMRIT: Our issue 15 which is item 19 in O, 15 54.20, seismic induced relay chatter. That is also IPEEE.
16 MR. MICHELSON: Again, I am getting my numbera a
.e 17 little mixed up. It is terribly unfortunate that you are 18 using a different set of numbers than the-NUREG. 'Since they s 19 are both 21 issues -- but you use different' numbers on 20 different issues'--
21 NIR . EMRIT: Yes, that's --
22 MR. MICHELSON: Is that issue. number'19 in the
.23 NUREG?
I 24 MR. EMRIT: -Yes, it is, 7.4.19.
25 MR. MICHELSON: Number 19 in the'NUREG is being ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES,'LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K' Street, N.W.,= Suite'300 Washington,: D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
\
336 1 handled by generic issue 114, I thought.
2 MR. EMRIT: That was c'ur initial evaluaticn. For 3 the discussions -- what you have there is a draft that is at 4 least a couple of months if not a month.
5 MR. MICHELSON: You have decided now that it's not 6 handled by -- \
7 MR. EMRIT: Part of our job is, you know, it's to -
8 talk to the experts when we try to gather information. I ,
9 guess when we send you a final report I guess we will have a 10 very consistent story as to where we think this isuue is .,
11 being covered.
3 12 MR. WYLIE: The SQUG reviews on this item, how 13 does that stand? Do you know what plants have been looked 14 at?
15 The SQUG, you mean A-46?
MR. CHEN: -
h 16 MR. WYLIE: It has to do with relay.
17 MR. CHEN: We have issued a SSER for A-46 back in 18 May, and they have submitted their plan 120 days response.
19 NRC already addressed or issued their response to A-46 <
20 program. We anticipate about three years they will be able L
21 to finish all this program for A-46. At this stage I think 1 22 a lot of the utilities ia caught in very closely with IPEEE h 23 seismic program for the A-46.
24 That issue we talk about really, chatter itself.
25 It's one of the issues that ongoing address. They have come ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, 'LTD .
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 j (202) 293-3950 l l
i
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ = _ . _ -
337.
1 .out with so-called bad actor list, and they also come out S 2 with specific procedures, how to address this. relay chatter 3 itself, 4
4 A few examples that's been used is one in Diablo 5 Canyon and tne other one.is Hatch. They have used the 6 procedures to address the relay chatter. I think theylalso 7 have quite a few training sessions being conducted by the A-a 46, to train the utility personnel how to use thei:
9 procedures and some others to 'eal with those issues. I 10 think they probably will be addressing-them in a rather .
11 uniform approach, unified approe.ch, 3
12 MR. WYLIE: So,- really, except for walkiag down 13 and examining certain utilities it was mainly to develop the
- 14 procedures, I guess.
,- IC 14R . WYLIE: That is a limited number of plants-17 that you say take three years to implement the-whole thing.
18 MR. CHEN: Yes. ,'
1
._9 MR. EMRIT: Just one more, John. Our' issue 16 20 which corresponds-to 7.4.20, evaluation of? earthquake 4 21- magnitudes greater than the.SSE, John tells me that's being.
22 addressed in the.IPEEE, _Do you have any questions?
23
~
MR. DAVIS: The utility has the option of using a 24 PRA or a seismic. margin approach for responding to that;=i's 25 that correct? ,
q ANN RILF.Y & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters-
-1612 K-Street, N.N., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202)- 293-3950
3 i .:
i i 338 L
[.- .
1 -MR. CHEN: Yes. .I think the whole thing is for.
2 Lhis specific issue itself is not saying the IPEEE asks them. -
t 3 to determine what their capability of whether how much l-4 greater earthquake the SSE can take. The whole thing.is ,
j 5 through the IPEEE program you will be able to come out with 6 a result, what is plant capacity in terms of using the l 7 seismic margin methodology.
j 8 If using the~PRA method you will -- the different t
i 9 seismic levels, what potential vulnerability associated with .
l f 10 your plant will come out'from those results. You will'able I
4
'l to get indirectly, how much capacity the plant has to deal l 12 with earthquake beyond SSE.
i 13 MR. MICHELSON: Any questions?
! 14 [No response.)
t 15 MR. MICHELSON: I think your. issue 17 has been
?
I 1r covered by the resolution of 106. We heard about it b 17 extensively, hydrogen line ruptures. I don't believe i.
j' 18 there's any further-questions on it.
l 19 MR. EMRIT: I would just like to go back to.one
(
i 20 issue in between the IPEEE issues, and that'sfissue 13 which I' :
'21 corresponds to your issue 17.7.4, seismically inducedifire-I j_ 22 suppression system'actuations. You will aloo see that in:
i- .
I 23 the resolution.
- j. 24 MR. MICHELSON: Of 57. '
i-s j 25 MR. CHEN: Of 57.
i.
l:' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES,-LTD.
j Court Reporters .
f 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington. D.C. 20006 l (202) 293-3950 s .
. ~ , , , y
j 339 11 MR. .MICHELSON: .IIwould assune so,7yes. 'We
!-( I 2 haven't got to it yet. We will eventually have a
! 3 Subcommittee meeting dealing with that, inadvertent l 4-
! 4 actuation questions.. It's a very extens-ive document'ation,. ,
- - -l
- 5 and we would want to hear about it. .)
i . . .
l l 6 Bob,. was that in your shop, generic issue 577 .,
I
- i MR. BAER
- No l ,
i 8 MR. MICHELSON: That gets left, I-guess. I-wooder ]
- )
. 9 who is handling it.
i i
. i i 10 MR. CHEN: 'I probably understand-a little bit more i
j 11 about this generic issue 57,_how-the resolution will come
!- 12. out. Basically, I think generic 57 will'come out with an
!. 13 .information notice more or.lesa;1ike;information notice type f '
I , 14 of things to the utility.
8 15 MR. MICHELSON: 'Whe'n do you think'it-will'come I
j- 16 out?
4 17 MR. CHEN: The:information notice ensentially will '
[
j, 18 tell what to otudy through generic issue 57, what we
[_ 19 learned.
4 f 20 MR. MICHELSON: When do you think it's coming out.
[
[ 21 MR. CHEN: When, I cannot tell you. But the'only.
!- 22 thing I:can.tell you is-soon.
I j 23. -MR. MICHELSON: We have the' stack now of the final 4
}. 24 reports, andLI assumeLit's not too.long thereafter that we l: '
4 25 see'the proposed issue resolution.
i 4~,
ANN'RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
- Court Reporters
- l 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 4- Washington, D.C. 20006 ,
- -(202)- 293-3950 i-
. . _ . . _ , = - - m_ m, _- _ . _ - .. . . . . . _ _ ___.a...n.,.,,.__.m.,A_...-,,
._-_.-.n.... . - . -
t
+
l I
340 e
1 MR. CHEN: I cannot te.11 you precisaly the_ time q a
l) 2 but I know it's pretty soon,._because we have a paper
! 3 sometime ago inside NRC for the concurrence._
i j 4 MR, MICHELSON: The reason for asking is that we i
- 5 would like to have a meeting on it, but not unt11_such. time >
! 6 as you are ready. I am trying to get an estimate.
t
, 7 MR. CHEN: The idee of the resolution for 57 is, l 8 all thi.s information will be issued to the utilitfes and I
j- 9 provide them with the information, and' alert them what is ;
- 10 potential problem associated with 57. -Then, they should use -
8 11 those lessons learned to apply for_their IPEEE. In 12 specifically in the IPEEE we ask them to address some of '
l 13 those issueo dealing with so-called firs risk snd scoping
- 14 studies, The 57 is'one of them. A few issues are b ' (' 15 interrelated. i l
- j. a
! 16 MR. MICHELSON: You are going to do it that way, ;
j~ 17 and you are going to have to get it done soon_or it won't l
{ 16 help much. The IPEEE are even coming in already, I gather.
- l. 19 MR. CHEN; There is plan, yes, they are going to .
e i t~
- . 20 receive those information. After that-they may give second s
t c 21 thought to think acout whether they want to amend _their i
l, 22 IPEEE's. For the rest there will be plenty of time because 1
i: 23 they won't send in their Ereport until June of 2 994.
i j 24 So, we have plenty of' time for the-utilityito take i
[ '25 some kind of action here if necessary.
i I 1 A' .
/ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD,
- i. Court Reporters .i
- . 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 l l Washington, D.C._20006 L
(202) 293-3950 4
d t
t .___t.. , , , . _ , . _ , . . . - . . - . . , . . . _ _ . , , , ,
-_ - _ .. _ ___. . . . _ _ - _ . . . .- _- . _ . . - ._....m. .__ - . .
! 34'lt 1 MR. EMRIT: On the question of1the. schedule 0for.
'2 issue 57, you will~get that in-your first quarter fiscal
[ 3 year 1993 update of GIMCS, which-is in production right now.
4 MR. MICHELSON: Which is in production?-
5 MR. EMRIT: Yes.. So,- you should get a. copy. We i
[,
6 usually send six copies down to the ACRS.. You will be-able ,
f- -
' 7 to schedule and know when the staff is going to come. ;
i 8 MR. MICHELSON: .We would like to look at-that with-i 9 you when you are ready, as soon as possible, but only after l-
! 10 you are ready. I don't know who I address this to.
i l~ 11 MR. BAER: I will pass that back. That is being
?- 12 handled. That formally was.a. branch headedLby KarlxKniel'.
l ,
j 13 Since he.has retired his branch has been split, and half of-s
- l. 14 it is going to Charlie-Ader and. half to me.- This 57 went to ,
15 the part with Charlie Ader,'so I.will pass that word on.
[
4 l
j 16 MR. MICHELSON: This one is supposedly-related to ,
I-l 17- the fire risk scoping study which is where it's --
l l
k- 18 MR. BAER: Yes, I think what. John said is quite:
l' l- 19 accurate. There's a ft'rther : complication. The'results-also ,
i
- 20 indicate a high relationsl.ip -- strong risk relstionship i 21 with reactor coolant pump seals. We have had one discussion i.
4 22 with them. It's not clear to me, that the risk identifidd
'~
-2 3 ' -is-both real and exclusive to-the seals.
- That may slow: '
3 24 things down a:little bit as to how?we= resolve 1that part of.
i
! 25 it. ,
i-3 : . .
[i
. ANN RILEY f., ASSOCIATES, LTD.
1 Court Report.ers
+
1612 K Street, N.W., Suite.300 Washington, D.C. 20006 4
(202):293-3950 6
g ,, =
- -r1 y -ry, y , - - _ . - . .*we .%%,..,.r* ,m.%.w a +a.rw_-..e-
i 342 1 MR. SHEWMON: Carl, we have about five minutes, 2 MR. MICHELSON: About f.tve minutes left, yes. I 3 think we have covered all the issues enough to get an idea
(
4 of wuere you are at, unless other members have quections on 5 issues that they want to raise.
6 I would like to ask just briefly your item 21, i
7 which I don't know what number it han.
8 MR, EMRIT: That corresponds to issue 11.
9 MR. MICHELSON: In the NUREG.
4 10 MR. EMRIT: That's correct.
11 MR. MICHELSON: You appreciate the total confusion 12 you are crea::ing with these two sets of numbers.
13 MR. EMRIT: And, I promise you that the final 14 report w:Lll be consistent with your numbering system.
15 MR. MICHELSON: I think they should be consistent 16 with the NUREG.
17 MR. EMRIT: They were just separated this way by 18 group. What you had is the first 17 issues we essentially 19 covered in other wsues, so we wanted to put those up front.
3l 20 The others were lingering concernq.
O 21 MR. MICHELSON: If you took the old numbers and 3
22 stuck them up frent with the cla numbers, that would have 23 been fine.
24 MR. EMRIT: Okay.
25 MR. MICHELSON: What's the story on 21?
i WN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 s
n
t i
2 t
-343' f
i 1 MR. EMRIT: _ Twenty-one, we are still -- I am-a 2 try: ig to gather some stuff from other people, personally f {
- j. 3 t.alking to the IP people. -They are looking at_some. things.
4 1 talked to John Flack, and will continue to talk. We~are -
!' 5 not ready to'tell you whether this issue is being covered in- l e
i 6 the IPE at this juncture.
n l 7 MR. MICHELSON: 1s. John still doing.this work?.
J.
J
! 9 MP. MICHELSON: Yes. ,
f g 10 MR. EMRIT: Yes.
1 .
j 11 MR. MICHELSON: On_this issue for instance, he's f 12 the one? .
13 MR. BAER:
i No, I don't think._he said that's'his.
l -. , - 14 MR. EMRIT.: He is involved with the IPE. I go.and
- - 15 see hira when I try to find out whether these things or' John i
!- 16 Chen, when it's. covered in the IPE. _Those are-the two guys 'i j 17 that we sit down-and look at the issues. I might say that t
18 when these issues were raised in 54.20, the IPE and I?EEE '
ll 19 have not been really fortnulated in it. 'It has really grown.
t __
! 20 We have the benefit of hindsight. A lot of thhse :
4
[
H things.weren't prioritized-separately'as redundant issues-j 22 but have been.taken care of as we went along.in.the IPE and=
23 are being looked at. .I think-ynu-should not neglect that i
j 24 fact _, that these things --
1-t 25 MR. MICHELSON: 1-believe that-taken care of it, i '
?
L 4
ANU RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
,I - . .
Court 1 Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006
-(202) :293-3950
344 I l
~
j 1 I appreciate your coming downcand helping' us to wander -
! 2 through-this a little bit and get a feel for it. We have l- 3 to, as a Committee -- since most of this is by original l
4 l 4 Committee urging -- we will have-to decide.now how we want- j
- 5 to proceed to see how it's cleaned up.
l 1 6 I think your briefing.has been very helpfuli We l
j 7 appreciate it, and recognize that you are not in the best of -
i :
j 8 positions on'this thing either, I
9 MR. BAER: We will try and pull something together i ,
j 10 and get back to you, probably in the summer timeframe. i l 11 MR. MICHELSON: Mr. Chairman, I-believe that 12 finishes it up for 10:00.
j 13 MR. DAVIS: I had one quick commenti if I may. It i 14 seems like I read very recently about a hydrogen line i (~. ,
j 15 rupture and fire in a CIS reactor.
i i
1.
16 MR. MICHELSON: Yes.
{. 17 MR. DAVIS: I am wondering, is there anything from i 18 that event that might be helpful in evaluating the problem.
-19 MR. SHEWMON: Which CIS reactor?
20 MR. DAVIS: It.was a reactor in Russia. ~We.might .
l 21 want to look at that sometime.
i 22 MR. MICHELSON: -Yes, there have been more:than-one-b 23 of those fires on the hydrogen.in the turbine building; l-l 24 There have been several of recent origin, the last couple of i .
25 years.
I
\
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES,-LTD.
Court Reportera 1612 K Street, M.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 1
e
.,e
-- g 4 y s 3-, -7., c - ,w r .,_v -,em, m,
,-. _ _ _ . ~ _ _ _ . _ _ . - ~ . . - .-- -...- - _ . . .__ . . _ , . . - . .__ . . _ ,
i l'
i
-345
- 1 MR; SHEWMON
- Was this in a turbine building.-
2 'MR .MICHELSON: Yes.
- 3- MR. DAVIS
- Yes, that'n my' recollection.-
i 4 MR. COE: That was-just briefed:recentiy by the-
- 5 staffgat an operations-event briefing.
6 MR. DAVIS: Okay.
f.
7 .MR. COE: There is some new information cut on it, j 8 and it was1more significant than.the: staff originally t-l 9 thought. 'It was-ene. year-ago that this happened.
10 MR. MICHELSON: Sometime back.
i
! 11 MR. WYLIEz Didn't you send something around on 12 that?
( 13 -MR. MICHELSON: I believe so.
f- .
14 MR. COE: I think I did, b 15' MR. DAVIS: - Yea, that's where I saw it.
i.
i 16 MR. SHEWMON: We will adjourn.then', until 10:15, i 17 when we hear the ASLB presentation.
j-18 [Brief recess.]
^
- 19 MR- SHEWMON
. Gentlemen,-our next presentation is
[ 20 for information. There is another statutory--Advisory a
{_ 21L Committee in:the office that the= Commission lhas. This one.-
l j, 22 reaches technical decisions.often, as'do other: things.
This V
{. 23 is the Atomic. Safety and Licensing Board. We thoughtiit' 7
{ 24 -would be interesting to have la presentation cx1 their '
} 25 activities.
5 a
4 4
-- ()
~
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court. Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Nashington, D.C. 20006 ;
(202) 293a3950 ;
'- - . v-- e #.y , e ,,m-e.r.-,.-%v he . .,r,v.. + ,-,u .--.-r.C,ww_--w-.a
.v_ &.o--m.ie'- --
e i
j 346 I
1 The chief Judge Paul Cotter lis here, with a_ couple 2 of people, to give us a summary. Thank you very much. The 3 floor'is yours.
l 4 MR. COTTER: Thank you. 1 am Tony Cotter, 5 otherwise known as B. Paul, Junior. I have with me my 6 deputy for technical matters, Fred Shon. I am a lawyer and 7 Fred is a nuclear engineer. I had hoped to bring my a principal deputy Bob Lazo. Bdo has a law degree and Ph.D.
3 in chemistry. I have behind us Lee Dewey, whc is our legal l
10 counsel. i i
l 11 We have not been here for ten years, so we thought -!
l l 12 it might be a good idea for some of you who may have L :
i 13 _ forgotten about us, to come back and sort of refresh-your-14 recollection. -
l l 15 I have given you a little outline, and what I l 16 thought we would do is work _our way through the process a
! 17 bit-. I will try and keep it as painless-as-possible. I l
l 18 will talk-process and organization and-Fred will talk-a
- i I
19 little bit about some of the things that we think we have i-20 accomplished. At the end I understand-there is some-I g_ 21 interest in the design cortification_ proposal, and_ Lee Dewey I
j 22 will talk about that a little bit. !
j- 23 We will take questions at the end, in the middle "
i
} 14 or in the beginning, wherever you think you have something 25 you would like us to expand on a little bit. ,
l.
l-1 4-
) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
j: Court Reporters i 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 ;
[it Washington, D.C. 20006
-(202) 293-3950 '
e -
kl: . . .
347 1 We have handed out a 1991 annual report <from the 2 Licensing _ Panel. 'Probably the_ thing of most interest to you 3 is Appendix A, which at page 21 is a biographical sketch-of 4 panel members. The panel is a body _ created-by statute 5- comprised right now of 16 fulltime panel members, all titled 6 Administrative Judge, and 23 part-time members. Of those, I 7 believe ten are lawyers and the remaining 29 are scientists 8 of one discipline or another, one technical.diccipline-or 9 another, 10 We are directed by the statute to sit in three 11 member boards in-the place of the Commission to hear and 12 decide disputes over the public health and safety of the use 13 of any civilian use or application:for nuclear. We 14 currently have, as members of the panel, 11 lawyers, nine 15 engineers, six physicists, ten environmental and public 16 health scientists three medical doctors, and one i
17 geoscientist.
18 MR. WILKINS: Where do you classify the marine 19 biologist.
20 MR. COTTER: Under environmental. A couple of our 21 people, Herb-Anderson and Frank Hooper are past chairman of 22 the Marine Sciences departments at the University of-23 Michigan and University of Wisconsin,-respectively. Most of
, 24 our part-time members are either academics or national lab 25 personnel. Most of them at this stage in life are_ retired.
O)
(, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950-
348
-1 The average-age of the panel is something like.58, and it 2 was lowered by seven recently when.I hired a couple of.
3 people under 40.
4 The statutory hearing requirements set forth:in 5 Section 189(a) of the Atomic Energy Act, it permits the use 6 of informal hearing procedures principally in connection 7 with the materials license issues. Then, we use formal 8 procedures in connection with' principally power reactors.
9 Our process is essentially what you would expect 10 to find in a trial to a Federal Judge'without a jury in a 11 Federal court. We have all the basic-rules and process of a 12 civil lawsuit. Under Section 189, any application for a 13 construction permit mandates that a hearing shall be-held.
14 It covers all health and safety and defense, security and 15 environmental issues.
16 MR. SHEWMON: .I have the impression that you deal 17 with intervenors a lot more than we do. To have such a 18 hearing it doesn't have to have been an intervenor, 19 MR. COTTER: That's correct. That's an exception 20 to the rule.
21 MR. SHEWMON: Who will become before you_in sach a-22 situation, just the applicant?
-23 MR; COTTER: Applicant and staff. I will get'into 24 that a little bit more as we go on. The-Board's
- 25 responsibility is to decide any issues that might'be put in_
s ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES,.LTD.
Court Reporters:
1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20U06 (202).293-3950
i 1
):
i 349 1 <
~
1 controversy should there be an-intervenor -- this is in f
j ( 2- connection with a construction parmit -- to decide whether
! 3 .the findings.--required by the Atomic Energy Act_andLthe ;
i- 1 Commission's-regulationc should be made and whetheri in ,
j 5 accordance with Part 51,- the' permit should be issued.
4 -
l- 6 In the. case of operating licenses 1we-only hold a
! 7 hearing if'there is an iLntervenor. _If there l's no
! 8 intervenor no hearing is held. The purpose of alliofLthis-i i 9 -is to encourage widespread participation in the development i
1 l
10 and utilization of. atomic energy for peaceful purposes, and-i-
4 11 to the maximum extent consistent with the common defense 1and 12 security and with the health and safety of the public. ,
13 .That's statutory' language.
i
- 14 The-Commission, in performing that function and 15 delegating the litigation section of it to us as you know, a
1 16 has the authority to promulgate whatever rules'and i
17 regulations and orders that it needs to govern the j 18 possession and use of nuclear materials, special nuclear-
!- 19 materials, source material, byproduct material. The statute l 20 also says that no license can be iscued to_any person within 4
3 1 21. the-United States if, in the opinion'of the Commission,--the i-l 22 issuance of the license to such persons would be inimical to- 4 i ~
! 23 the common defense and. security _and health and safety of the-l 24 public.
1 25 That'is basically the decision that we are making- -
4 1
C ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
3 Court Reporters
[ 1612LK Street,.N.W., Suite 300
} Washington, D.C. 20006 j
4 (202) 293-3950
. - - , , . _ . . . - - , , , _ , . . _ . . . - . . . . . .- . . , ..m.
i.
t i 350 ,
t I' _ 1 inEthe firstLinstance on behalf of the Commission.-
l
- 2 What we do is-govern primarily by.three statutes.
3 The first is the Atomic Energy Act which I quoted:from a-4 little bit for you. The second is the Environmental l- ,
- 5 Protection Act, National Environmental Policy Act, I am I 6 sorry. The third, you may not be as familiar with, and
- l 7 that's the Administrative Procedure Act. The Administrative i
j 8 Procedure Actl essentially creates what has become known as l-l 9 the hidden' judiciary, a
10 It creates a judicial function ---they call it l-l 11 quasi-judicial because it is housed in'the executive rather
[ 12 than in the judiciary -- a quasi-judicial 1 function within 13 executive agencies. We are only one body of a number.of 14 bodies and categories of persons titled Administrative Law 15 Judges, who decide disputes between the general public and -
16 the particular agency.
17 The Administrative Procedure Act then, its purpose 18 is to-protect and vindicate the public interest'. It 19 requires that there be notice of the-action that is to"he 20 taken. It-requires that there be a formal- hearing: conducted 21 by an independent presiding officer - .in our case they are 22 generally titled Administrative Judge -- or by one or more 23- members of the Agency, or bylan Administrative Law Judge.
24 As I mentioned at the beginning_this is sort-of 25 like a non-jury trial-in a' Federal Court, so the presiding ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD,
-Court-Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
351-1 officer administers-oaths and' affirmations, they can issue
'( ) 2- subpoenas, they rule on offers of proof and receive relevant
- 3. evidence. They take depositions orfhave depositions taken 4 when it is necessary, they-regulate the course of the-5 hearing, hold settlement conferences and conferences to ,
6 simplify the issues, and dispose of procedural requests and 7 similar natterc, ultimately making a decision.
8 In our case we sit with some xceptions as a-three i 9 member board. The~ Chairman of that board, all three are 10 titled administrative judge but the chairman is usually one 11 legally trained. That person ruas the hearing, runs the 3 12 trial. The other two generally represent disciplines-13 appropriate to the subject matter of the case. Typically, 14 one will either be a physicist or an engineer tx) deal with i
15 safety issues and one1will be an environmental scientist to v
16 deal with environmental issues.
17 MR. KRESS: Is there an appeal process?
18 MR. COTTER: I will come to.that. There is, 19 indeed. We have as you would expect, basic procedural rules 20 which are pretty much laid out in Part 2 of Title X of the 21 Code of Federal Regulations. They permit and. prohibit-22 things that-I won't tell you about because-you will. forget 23 them the second~after I do anyway.
24 I talked a-little bit about the National _
, 25 Environmental ~ Policy Act. .That, as you are all familiar,
. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
_ _ . Court Reporters - -
1632 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950'
iL
- 352
! 1 _ governs the environmental impact of proposed actions and a
() 2 consideration for possible adverae environmental effects.
3 That imposer on the board and obligation when they'get 4 around 'o t issuing a final decision if appropriate, to impose i 5. conditions on the license, whatever-the usage is going to-
) 6 be.
1 -
} 7 The formn1 purposes of hearings, I may have j 8- covered them already, are to afford interested members of 1
, 9- the public an opportunity to have a meaningful. voice in the l 10 review of proposed nuclear energy projects, to provide an 4
! 11 additional measure of protection for the public health and l 12 safety in the environment, to provide-for a technical ' review 1
3 13 by independent technical experts, and to provide the l 14 Commission with the most comprehensive, fully articulated, l- 15 reso2ution of disputed issues ano license applications. We f- 16 will come back to that, which may be a-matter of interest to ,
17- yor in connection with the design certification process.
- 18 Let me describe the process a little bit. First, i . .
j 19 there is a Federal Register' Notice. That puts the country 1
i 20 on notice that a proceeding is available. They have,-they i- .
- 21 being the general public or anyone who wishes to intervene, e
4-22 30 days-from the publication date of that notice in which:to 5(
t 23 petition for the right to intervene 24 The Licensing. Board _is then appointed._ Typically,
! 25- I get a copy of the notice that was sent out_and the request i-b i
!l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
j Court Reporters- . _
4- 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 j- -Washington, D.C. 20006
- (202) 293-3950 i
i
.,- _ -,m,. ,n--,, -
w -
..--- ..- . . - - . - - . . . .- ~_ - .. - ..
1 1
! 353 i
i 1- for a.hea:?ing, and then I sit down with my deputy Bob Lazo, f
() 2 3
and the two of us decide which people would be appropriate to the board in light of the: issues ~at-hand and the workload 4 that we have and how people are burdened or tied up. ,
! 5 The-Board then issues a decision on standing, l 6 whether or not the intervenor can-be admitted to the i
L -7 proceeding. To give you something of an over
]
8 simplification,- the intervenor has to have an interest which' 9 .is affected and has to usually live'within 50 or so miles of 10- the plant, If those two qualifications are not present then
! 11 they are not admitted. I can't give you a statistic but a
[
3 12 very significant portion of request for petitions for F
j 13 hearing are-rejected for those reasons.
14 After the intervenor has been admitted we-then-15 have three parties to the process at least. We have the NRC i-16 staff, we'have the applicant for the license, and we have
- 17 the intervenor. . Frequently we will'have a state or local-18 government whose interests are viewed as being affected, and l 19 they will intervene. We are talking here about typically a-1 1 20 large-piece of complex litigation to be managed.
j}
21 In the case for example-of the Seabrook l 22 proceeding, there were two states and 20 local governments l
[ 23 and-towns along-with the applicant, some individual i-4 24 intervenors. It gets a little-hectic sometimes.
i 25 Typically then after standing has been found.and i
j j
] ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters
[i 1612 K Street, N.W.,-Suite 300 Washington, D.C.. 20006 j (202) 293-3950 4
b._________ ,. ., . . , , , , . , _ _ . . . . , - , . , , , , . . . , , , , , , _ u.,w. ._,.n.,,y ,,
354 1- 'the intervenor has been admitted, then we address the-1f 2 contentions that they_want to have litigated, the issues 3- that they see as presenting a threat to the public health' 4 and' safety one way or-another. We rule on'those.
5 Historically when our workload was composed primarily of 6 operating license cases which is essentially just completed, 7 we would probably refuse admission of 75 percent of'the 8 issues that were asked to be litigated.- We would say that 9 does not amount to an issue under the statute.
10 After that decision is issued,.then the Board 11 issues a notice of hearing'and technically that means that 12 -the proceeding has formally commenced. At that point then, 13 we got into a prehearing phase and discovery. Discovery as 14 you are probably aware, is the process whereby all parties 15 are fully informed of all the relevant information in the 16 possession of the other. So that, when they go to trial 17 there are no surprises, and there is a full'and complete 18 response to the issues which are-posed ~for decision in the 19 trial.
20 A prehearing conference order is issued. Typically 21 we-will schedule discovery, say you have to start at such i
22 and suchLa time.and have to complete certain phases of;it-by .!
23 ~ such a such a time so that we constantly try to hold their-24 feet to the fire so that there's a definitive beginning,
-H 25 middle and ending to the process. Over the course of the j ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD, .j Court Reporters !
1612 K-Street, N.W.,-Suite-300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
355 1 last ten years-the average-length of time for certain kinds
() 2 of. cases -- and we hear maybe 25 different kinds of_ cases -
3 -the average time has gotten shorter and shorter as we get -
4 better and better-at it.
5 We will' hold prehearing conferences to resolve 6 disputes about whether.or not.for example information is 7 protected and does not have to be disclosed, or is protected 8 and has to be disclosed with conditions imposed upon the 9 person who receives it as to who they may or may not'be able 10 pass-it on to and that sort of thing.
11 We hear decisions on whether or not the 12 information has-to-be disclosed at all. One of the parties 13 may say that's not relevant to the issue here and I don't-14 need to give you all that information. Sometimes discovery 15 requests can be very burdensome. It is not uncommon that~
16 we will have request for protection that a request for 17 discovery be denied by the Board. Typically the parties 18 conduct that discovery, that exchange of information among 19 themselves. The Board only gets involved-when there is a 20 dispute between them-as-to whether or not it's disclosab1'e.
21 The staff then issues its documents,_the SER,-the-22 EIS and FES,-and discovery as soon as they are issued, may 4 23 commence. Sometimes we have two or three beginning points 24 with respect to discovery or the disclosure of information 25 which can drag things out.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reportere
'1612 K Street,.N.W.,-Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
356 1 Finally, we get down to a final prehearing
() 2 conference at which point we will rule as to which issues 3 can go to trial and will require evidence, either oral 4 evidence or documentary evidence in support of them and 5 which will not go to trial. Frequently during the course of 6 this exchange of information process two things happen.
7 One, probably 30 percent of the issues drop out simply by 8 virtue of the parties being fully informed as to the 9 information in possession of the other.
10 The second thing that happens is, sometimes the 11 parties will agree to settle things. They will come to an 12 understanding of each other's position and they will come to 13 an agreed upon resolution of the matter and not then pursue 14 it at trial.
15 The hearing itself, I think I have described it.
16 It's direct testimony of witnesses prepared in advance.
17 Typically, it's filed 15 days in advance because tte 18 witnesses typically are experts, therefore, credibility is 19 less of an issue than you might think of in a typical piece 20 of criminal or civil litigation where the credibility of 21 witnesses could be a much more significant factor.
22 Witnesses are often presented in panels Instead 23 of just having one witness on the stand we might put three 24 on the stand, who perhaps develop some aspect of the 25 material that is at issue.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
_ _ . _ . _ _ _ - _ . . _ . _ . _ _ _ . , _ . . = . . _ . ~ . _ ._ ._ - _ - . ..
a e
i 357 a
, 1 MR. WILKINS: Excuse me._ They are sworn,-however.--
2 MR. COTTER: Yes.
- - 3 MR. WILKINS: The witness-is sworn.
4- MR. COTTER: They are under' oath', and there.is a-5 verbatim transcript of the entire process. As an'aside, we !
i 6~ are about to move into-the new building next year. I was 7 looking at other ways of obtaining transcripts, and one of l 8 the things that I am intrigued with looking at is something
! 9 called a voice activated video camera.
i l- 10 They have_those in the courts in Michigan, l
- 11 Kentucky and -- up in Baltimore they.are using them. They-12 use a system of-four or five cameras that automatically i
j 13 respond to whoever is speaking. That.means that_you don't i
j 14 . have to pay a court reporter, you don't.have to wait'for the -
]
- \ 15 record to be transcribed. It's immediately available. A 2
l- 16 lot of people in the state' court-system love it, I' don't-l 4 17 know whether the NRC culture can handle that or not. We i
I 18' will have'to see.
lI 19 Essentially the trial then -- it is really cross i
i 20 examination of the witnesses on their direct testimony.
[
1 21' After that is completed the parties typically will_ file
! 22 proposed findings of fact and conclusions.cf law, and we t
j 23 will take the record -- those proposed findings and we will J
24 sit down, the three of us, and weLwill say-okay you take-
> - 25 this issue, you take this issue, and.you take that issue.
1 i
]- x ANN RILEY & ASSOC 1ATES, LTD.
j Court Rcporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 i- (202) 293-3950 L
1
-358' 1 We will divide it up, they will start writing, and they will-
'2 -go-through three or four drafts.
3 A couple of-years ago the full Seabrook record'was.-
4 something.like 60,000 pages, and we had to write a decision 5 at the end. ~ About ten years ago I started fooling around 6 -'
with computers and one of the things we have done is, we 7 require in the appropriate case-the parties and the court 8 reporter to give us c computer readable ~ floppy disk which'we l
9 then compile and then we put a. full text word search on it i I
so that in that 30,000 pages we had a_ word. search program 10 l
1 11 called Blue fish and we could find anything within four i 12 seconds in that 30,000 pages. '
13 That way, we have some degree of. confidence that . ,
14 are cites to the record are comnlete, that we are thorough, ;
.O 15 - and that we are not missing _anything. It leads you into '
i 16 things that you would never would think of getting into, 17 MR LINBLAD: Judge, while you are speaking of !
l 18 witnesses, is it my recollection that a number of years ago 19 a ruling was made regarding the required appearance of 20 individual members of this Committee? l i
21 MR. COTTER: Fred, your_ memory _is_better that 22 mine. I am drawing a blank.
l 23 MR, SHON: I believe someLyears-ago -- and it's a' 24- !
long time, and it's more like 20 years -- the Commission j t 25 changed-its rules and-regulations to_make it that nobody who ,
i i
i
) ANN RILEY~& ASSOCIATES, .LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite.300 l Washington, D.C. 20006 j
~
i (202) 293-3950 I
359 1 is either a Commission employee or a part-time employee such 2 as people like yourselves, could be in effect subpoenaed by 3 name.
4 The Commission will supply at the discretion of 5 the EDO, a witness to talk about a particular subject. If 6 somebody wanted to call one of you gentlemen they couldn't, 7 generally speaking.
8 MR. LINBLAD: Thank you.
9 MR. COTTER: I think the rationale was that the 10 EDO ought to be able to make a judgment as to whether or not 11 that person's skills are required someplace else. In point 12 of fact and in experience, that's a bad policy. What 13 frequently happens is that the staff will send somebody up 14 who is not really informed and doesn't know what's going on,
)
15 and they get ripped apart by the lawyers. They go home with 16 their tail between their legs and have to send somebody else 17 back, and we have to do it twice. That's life.
18 You asked about appeal. Within 40 days after date 19 of decision or action by the presiding officer or within 30 20 days after a petition for review -- I am starting to sound 21 more like a lawyer here -- or action has been filed, 22 whichever is greater, the Commission may review the decision 23 or action on its own motion. As some of you are aware we 24 used to have an appeal board which served that intermediate 25 function, and the Commission terminated it about 18 months ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
360 1 ago and took the responsibility on directly themselsrs.
2 The Commisuj on essentially acto like our little 3 supreme court They can reach down into the proceco 4 whenever they want, but basically they decide what they want S to review and what th2y don't want to review. They do not 6 review most of what we dc, 7 After they exercise the right to review, that is a done solely on Priefa and paper and argument. There are no a
9 witnessen. The case is not tried again. Af ter their 10 decision in issued, then that decision is appealabic to the 11 Unicud States Court of Appea]c for the District of Columbia e 12 circuit which in the court directly under the Supreme Cnurt.
13 I would say a fair amount of tLngo end ut, in that court, a 14 f air amot'nt of our casea.
15 Depending on where it arises -- one thing that 1 16 did not mention la that we conduct the trial at or near the 17 location where the dispute arose. So, we are c.ircuit 18 ridera. If we are trying casca we are out bt;rrowing a court 19 room somewhere. Sometimes necessity creates c.dditino. The 20 biggest oddity that I can think of, I ha2 a case involving a 21 license amendment to the Dichlo Canyon plants after they haa 22 been licensed.
23 One of the things that we had discovered le thal.
24 they hearing were less disruptive if we did not hear the 25 case in town. Sometimes in fact, some of our people have ANN RILE'( & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 j (202) 293-5950 '
361 ,
3 haJ death-threats. It does draw the lunatic or it can.
() 2 3
I conducted that case in the cabana Room by the pool at a Scanide resort about 20 miles out town and it went 4 just fine, except for the guy in the guerilla suit who was 5 sitting outside the window. It meant that there was a great-6 deal loss disruption of the proceeding.
7 I guess I should also mention that a part of the
) 8 communication component of it, before we actually start the v . trial we have what are called limited appearance statements o
10 _ .in which anybody who wants to can come up-and_ address the 11 Board-for whatever length of time wo will permit. Sometimes-12 we will standardize it at five minutes or so. They will 13 express whatever concerns they have about the plant.
14 occasionally, that will lead to an issue in a 15 case. It's rare, and it is not evidence in the ense and it s ic is not considered so by the Board. It is frequently a 17 chance for local citizens to vent their feelings about the 18 subject, sometimes.to get a little feedback from the board 19 and get a little information. Sometimes that gets a little 20 intense, too. I remember in that Diablo Canyon case-21 somebody accuced me of being a-Nazi.- I tuanked him for his 22 comments and-went_on to the next one.
23 MR. WILKINS: - You indicated.that the Commission 24 could, on its own initiative, review 0 decisien made by your 25 panels. Do the participants have the right to appeal your
() ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 :j Washington, D.C. 20006.
(202) 293-3950
_ _ _________.___m_m__.m_ ___ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
i i
i
- 362
! I decisions to the commission?
1 2 MR. COTTER: Absolutely. ,
! I l 3 MR. %ILKINS: Then the Commission has the-right to '
} 4 say we will accept the appeal or we won't accept it.
l 5 MR. COTTER: Yes, that's exactly the way it works.
4 6
6 It works two way.;. One, the parties appeal and say they got e
7 it wrong, you should look at it and-fix it. Two, the f.
!. 8 Commission.on its own initiative reaches down when no one 9 has appealed and says we are not tco sure about thin, we l l
10 want to look at it. l i
l 11 MR. WILKINS: As just a layman, the 'Jnited States 12 Supreme Court does not exercise that-role, does it? ,
4 1
- 13 MR. C077ER
- Yes, it does. '
3 14 MR. WILY. INS: It does? g l 15 MR. COTTRR: In'some limited conditions. It t
! 16 exercises the role in the sense that it decides whether or 6
t i 17 not to take the appeal.
j 18 MR. W1LXINS: That's one of the --
1 l 19 MR COTTER: That's correct. I guess that's I
j 20 right, it does not. I was thinking of disputes between ,
p.
[ 21 states. I gi'ess it does not reach down without someone f
4 .
! 22 requesting it. That's 7orrect.
23 .hecause-of-the-size.of'these= cases, I have. listed ,
24 'some hearing management tools. I wonit-go into them in any !
- e
- 25 great length, but just to mention that for an example in at
, i.
. I b
1.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters . .
1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300. 1 i Washington, D.C. 20006 .
[ (202)"293-3950 L . ..-.- , --~_,a-. --- . . . - .a - .I--...;..- . . . - . - .. . - -
- .~ - - - -
363-I case like Seabrook where you have 20 local towns that want
() 2 to get into the process, we will consolidate those parties.
3 We will say your concerns are common concerns. Instead of 4 having 20 of you putting on witnesses we are going to ;
5 consolidate you, and you pick a representative and that 6 representative will put on witnesses for all 20 of you.
7 This is an efficient way sometimes to do things. ,
8 We might have -- typically in the last couple of
! 9 years the issues we got into were emergency planning issues.
1-
!' 10 We had a request in connection with Indian Point plants one
- 11 time, where they wanted to put on something like 300 or 400-i
- 12 witnesses from all the little local towns. They wanted to ,
i
( t 13 put=on the chief of-police, the head of the school system, I
l-g.
14 and this, that and the other thing.
i f 15 We wera looking at probably six months of that ;
i j' 16 kind of Etuff.- So, I sent a guy up there and said fix it. >
j 17 He said okay, went up and-looked it all over, and he'said-
- f. 18 you can put on whatever evidence you want and make a ;
19 decision on whatever evidence you'want and who you want to l
t l 20 put it on and how you are going to do it, but' you got two ,
i .
j 21 weeks. That'seemed co-work pretty well and'they went'away [
5 22 happy, and we avoided six months of that' sort of stuff. ;
! 23 Wefuse the telephone a lot because the parties are_
h 24 spread out around the country. We will conduct prehearing t.-
- 25 . conferences by telephone. Sometimes we will have'a court ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
t- Court Reporters' i- 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 i Washington, D.C. 20006-j; '(202) ~ 293-3950 l-a .a.- . . . - . , . . . _ - . - . _ . . . - _ . _ . - . . - - , . - ~ . - , . -. .- .. .. , - ....
i l
l 364-1 reporter on it and sometimes we won't. If it's purely i
j .
2 procedural usually we will not use a court reporter.
i j 3 We sometimes require people to ille cross i i
i 4 examination plans. Cross examination can go on for a week i
! 5 with one witness, and sometimes we will require them to tell I
i 6 us'in advance what they are going to ask them about and how i
j long they are going to take and so forth, and we might put a I 8 little pressure on that to reduce-the amount of time that !
( 9 they use for.that purpose, i
j 10 We use Special_.Nasters in the case that I just l 11 mentioned, about conipressing the time for at least in school l
l 12 testimcny. Scmetimes, we.will appoint an alternate board )
i 13 members just to deal with one particular. issue and then i
l 14 report to the board so that we can run things on 15 simultaneous tracks rather than having to do everything I l
{~ 16' seriatim or chronologically.
- 17 There are a number of othera like that. Let me
(- '
18 turn this over now--- after having probably gotten you half l 19 asleep -- to Fred. He'can talk a little bit about the
[ 20 relationship between lawyers and technical members.
3 21 MR. DAVIS: Excuse me. May I ask a question
! 22 before you do that. I noticed in your annual report for 1 h 23- 1991 you'had a case involving the Palo Verde reactor, in j L 24 which you foundLthe petitioner to have exhibited i ,
}' .25 contemptuous behavior by not showing up at a scheduled t
i s .
k j;
ANN RILEYL& ASSOCIATES, LTD, Court Reporters
- 1617. K Street, N.W., Suite 300 ;
~
1 Washington, D.C. 20006
- -(202) 293-3950 I
d . . .
,--w. < y r, # ._.% g .. .%-,%,-,w..,w..,mw-_..,_.-v,,,., ......r,,,, ,, . ._..4,,m,,_ ,, ...,c.,.,,,, .. w,...m.m.., ,.r..ww.m...
i 4
1 365- ;
, l l 1 hearing. l i
2- Do you have the authority to impose legal f
i
! 3 penaltics when you find contemptuous behavior like that?
I
- 4 MR. COTTER
- We certainly do, and we have-j 5 exercised it. We have terminated cases. If we think that 1
I 6 the intervenor is not conforming to the fundamental I
! 1
! 7 requirements of a piece of litigation we throw them right '
l l
j 8 out and terminate the case, and we have done so. '
- 9 MR. DAVIS . Thank you. ;
10 MR. SHON: I don't want to take up an awful lot of 6 a.
] 11 your time. I do want'to say with regard to the lawyer--
l
- 12 technical member relationship, the first thing you want to j- 13 keep in mind is that-the Board's consist of.two technical 14 people and one lawyer. It is also true, that.as far as a
- l l 15 decision is cons:erned, majority rules. The lawyer does not i
j 16 rule, necessarily.
[.
17 The general collegiate mind of_each board tends
! 18 toward the technical, Judge Cotter is fond of saying that i
J j 19 when we get a dissent on a legal point, it's usually one of 20 the technical people and when we get-a-dissent on a
- 21 technical point it's usually a lawyer.
22
. I think that's -- '
t f 23 MR. COTTER: Without exception. ,
i
{ T4 MR. SHON: Maybe it's without exception instead of 5
25 usually, I think that may well be true. The disputes don't ANN RILEY &-ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\- Court Reporters
!. 16'12 K Strect, N.W., Suite 300 ,
l Washington, D.C 20006. >
i- (202) 293-3950-1 .s
- _, . _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ ._-_...-._.___u,___,_.-,._.,_._,.;;..%,
366 1 usually ap. lit, however, along the disciplinary lines. We
() 2 have rather few dissents, actually. It's kind of a nice 3 thing to be able to dissent.
4 I remember working earlier in the bureaucracy, if 5 one of you disagreed with the other people at your level the 6 boss would simply chew you out, and that was the end of it.
7 Or, you couldn't get the bosu to make a decision. Here, a three panel members -- the three members of the board --
9 make a decision, the majority rules, and the other fellow 10 can tell why he disagrees. That's a very nice thing.
11 MR. WILKINS: How often does it happen, that you 12 get three separate opinions?
13 MR. SHON: That's pretty rare. I can't remember a 14 case.
15 MR. WILKINS: Unlike the Supreme Court.
16 MR. SHON: No, we are not at all like the Supreme 17 Court. Dissent is kind of rare. In fact, some years ago
, la when I was interviewing for my current position with the 19 Commission, Commissioner Gillespie --
some of yoa may 20 remember him -- asked me why we don't dissent more often. I 21 thought about that for a while. He said, you know, the 22 Commission always has a lot of' dissents. There's often a
, 23 dissent in the Commission. But the1 Commission is making 24 rather a different type of decision than we do.
. 25 Our decisions.are focused quite narrowly on the ANN RILEl-& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K '3treet , N.W., Suite 300
'>'a s hi ng ton , D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
i e
j 367 1 1 regulations, the reg guides and 1. hat sort of thing, and the e
!- 2 question is -- at least was at that time with reactor f 3 licensing, the big business -- whether or not the l
} 4 application conforms to the regulations.
l 5 The Commission can consider things that we are i 6 precluded from considering, which is whether the regulationu )
l-7 themselves are a good idea _or not. Of-course, when you are 8 considering whether something iw.a good idea or not, you are
, - )
i l
9 more-likely to-get a dissent-than when you are just i
j 10 considering whether it conforms or not. We are a little bit 1 - -
l 11 - limited. ;
i j 12 I think the diversity of background that we have j 13 is a good thing. I think it gives a lot of different .
a--
! 14 viewpoints. For myself, I have found that the people who l 1
- '5. have a biological orientation that- I work with are much more 1
j 16 likely to have a handiness about- statistics than the _;
i i 17' engineers and physicists do, a feel for that kind of stuff.
! 18 MR.-WILKINS: You' struck a responsive chord, 4 ,-
l 19 MR. SHON: When the actual process is going on,
! 20 . although.it is'the lawyer that is-running the case, there ,
21- are often little intermediate decisions that need to be .
22 made, that herneeds some technical support for. For f 23 _ example, when you are admitting evidence considering whether i .
j 24 something reall'y should be admitted to the' record so that 35 !
~
l- you can use~1t as a basis for a decision, you have.to decide 4
1 i
c t I) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters
, 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite,300
'1 Nashington, D.C. 20006 1
(202):293-3930 l i
i
-,-,m, ,v, w -., c m -,,,-A, - , , . . - - - , . . - ~ 4_.-,----,-.,;--- ...._.4L-~-.
c _ _ _ __. _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ =._ .. _ .. _ _ _ . _. _ _ . _ _ . . . _ . _ _ . _ .
I l 360 i
! I whether the evidence offered is relevant.
1 1
j 2 Relevance, in a technical matter, may well depend i
i 3 on something that a technical expert would know but that a l 4 legal expert might not. We aid the lawyer in making little l
l 5 decisions like admissibility of evidence and that sort of l
j 6 thing as thir.gs go on.
i
[
i 7 With experience, there has been a valuable 8 intermixing, too. The lawyers that we have working for us j j 9 now have all been in this business for a long time. They I
{ 10 all seen and come to understand an awful lot of the j 11 significance, the technical matters, and the things that 3 i 12 confront us. Similarly, the technical people, having been
- 13 in it a long time, have developed a reasonable feel for the t <
14 law and what the regulations require.
i j
4
!(:) 15 MR. LINBLAD: Judge Shon, in recent years there f 16 has been contentions about psychological. stress in the 1
li 17 community. Is that thought to be an issue that is resolved l
i t
18 on a technical basis or on a common sense basis? $
l
- 19 MR. SHON
- You know, one of the difficulties there 20 you see is, to my knowledge -- and I am fairly well familiar l
! 21 with the regulations and the reg guides --'there is very i-
! 22 little said about psychological stress. There is no way' ~
- 23 that you can point out that this proposal fails because it -
t-g 24 induces too muen psychological stress.
1 - .
j- 25 There-may be something hanging'out there, some '
- ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
h L
- Court Reporters
- j. 1612 K' Street, N.W., Suite 300 Wasnington,.D.C. 20006 l (202) 293-3950 i
, - . . , ., - - ,,, . -.~ , . - - - . . . . - .;. ..- - .:
~ _
h 369 1 cort of possibility of that in the aspect of. It where you 6
3 2 are talking about environmental impact, but I don't knew of 3 any way that you could make a decision that would say that; 4 that the paychological stress is too high.
5 One change that we noted towaxd the. end when the 6 laut few reactors were being licensed for operation was that 7 where the earlier contentions and the earlier issues haa 8 hinged about matters like engineering design and physics, at 9' the end an awful lot of issues hinged about emergency 10 preparation and emergency planning.
11 While you have very few-experts on metals and 12 ' embrittlement and so on, everybody is an exper-c on how the 13 roads plug up when the traffic is heavy. You know, all the 14 policemen, everybody that drives in commute traffic, will 15
- ell you that you can't get out of here in an emergency.
16 So, we had an awful lot of witnesses that were no-longer 17 experts in the original meaning-of the word 18 MR. COTTER: I think-it's worth. observing that the 19 system was set up for John Q. Public as much as for the ,
20 legal fraternity, if you will. Consequently, certainly 21 during the 1980's and somewhat during the 1970's, there were 22 more individuals who had no legal training but.would simply 23 read the regulation and file an . intervention petition and a 24 get into the case.
25 In fact, I think there were one or two who, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington,.D.C.;20006 (202) 293-3950 i
l
370 1 because of their involvement as a lay person, ended up going 2 to law school and getting a degree. I think that was ia one 3 case when the case was over. That also means that we see a 4 lot of -- Anitially a lot of housewives who would be 5 concerned about whether their children were at risk and that ,
6 ctrt of thing.
7 MR. SHON: They used to call them LOLITS, little 3 old ladies in tennis shoes. Now lately, with the rush to 9- build power plants over or apparently over, we have had-a 10 lot more of a different kind of case.
11 We have had a bit more of a kind of case. That is 12 the kind of case whereas the licensee who is seeking some 13 sort of review, the Commission can through one of its
) .
14 divisions, order a license to do scmething or request --
15 make a change in the license that the licensee doesn't like .
36 or propose a fine or propose a suspension or something like 17 that.
18 The licensee can then ask for a hearing. In most 19 cases a board will hear that sort of thing. We can have a 20 single lawyer hear it under certain circumstances, coo. We 21 have been hearing that sort of case. These often involve 22 things other than nuclear power plante. They involve 23 decontamination-of previously used sites. One of'the most 24 recent ones, medical misadministration.
25 MR. COTTER: We see a lot of those-these days.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 16121K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 R (202) 293-3950
--_ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ = . --- = - _ . - _ _ _ _ _ - - .. - . _ - - _ _ - .
J-j 1
j 371 1
j .
1 MR. S110N : Yes We see a lot of those. We have
, 2 recently added to the board a board certified health 1-
[ 3 physicist, who is very useful in interpreting these cases as i
1
[ 4 a technical medical.
! 5 One last thing that I would like to do, I have i i j 6 passed out to you a list. It may-not be very easy to read, H i 7 and I don't ask you to read it right now. In fact, I I
I i 8 recommand that you look at it sometime at your leisure. i 9 Feople often used to ask all right, what good does all this I
j' 10 do. Itave you ever found anything that needed ' changing and !
j 11 improve mattere. -]
- - i
! 12 I sear.ched through some cases and came up with a i
j 13 number of different things, a list of generic changes that i
} 14 got made and a list of changes for individual plants that- >
l 15 arose during the hearing process. Au I say on the first I i .
l 16 sheet there, it's a little difficult in a process
- l' complicated as a hearing to really fir who thought of it
. l l 18 first. It's also a little difticult to decide what really I
j 19 is an improvement or what is an unnecessary precaution.
20 These _ are things that ultimately were adopted and '
{ 21 that arose by in large because intervenors or someone -
l 4 22 suggested them in the hearing process. I have offered you a 23 list of-some of the good that this may-have~done intthe -
- l. 24. past. That's about all I really had to say.
1 i 25 MR. COTTER: I used to argue that issue with John ,
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
j Court Reporters
! -1612-K: Street,.N.W., Suite 300 f
Washington, D.C. 20006 (202)E293-3950
- 4 4
- c. . . . , . . ~ , . . _ , _ m ,-__,.,_a_., .. ,;; A _ _ , ..a...______,a..
v--- e m 372 1 Ahern all the time. Arguing with John is a little bit like 2 arguing with gravity. We used to have - that's why we i
3 started looking for a list of things that we could point to.
4 MR. SHOU: It's sometimes difficult, particulary 5 when a lot of people are involved, to accide exnctly where 6 an idea originated. I think that's a .little fuzzy, too.
These are things that came up in hearing and were later 8 adopted es rules or in the technical specification of 9 plants, or s:'iething like that.
10 MR. COTTER: One of the pointa that I used to try P
11 to make with John was that the nimple fact of the existence 12 of the hearing process had a lot oi un-assersable impact, I 13 always felt because licensed users. -- I think it's arguable
}- 14 --
are more careful u would be more careful in the way they 15 go about their businesn when'the risk of having their ,
16 activities detailed and examined under oath at great length j 17 in the public eye is nort. of always lurking in the 18- background.
19 MR. LINBLAD: Could I ask, yesterday the Committee 20 was discussing commitments the licensees make in regulation 1
21 and what the source of commitments are. Are commitments 22- made by licensees .in-a transcript of a hearing?- Are they, 23 themselves in a transcript, a commitment or do they have to 7
9 24 be carried forward by the staff in the issuance of license 25 to become binding on the licensee.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300
. Washington, D.C. 20006
.(202) 293-3950
_ _ - _ _ - _ _ . _ __- _--_ 2--_--.----_--_ -_ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - -
i i
?
l j 373 j 1 MR. SHON: They have to be included in the license i 2 as part of the technical specifications or something like l l ,
j 3 that. Where this comes out, the board has heard all of !
i l 4 these things and presumably has a record of it. When the
} 5 board writes a decision it may well grant _the license only i 1 1 4 6 on condition that the following be included in the technical i 7 specifications.
1
{ 8 Then, when the staff issues the license it's'there i
9 in the technical specifications, unlers that somebody has l 10 appealed and gotten the Commission to eliminate that.
! i
! 11 MR. WILKINS: -Do you monitor the staff performance
! -t 1 12 in that regard?
l-l 13 MR, SHON: No.
o l . 14 MR. COTTER: No. He have neither responsibility I i
l 15 nor obligation in that regard. Typically, a most frequent :
! .i l 16 instance of that sort of thing would be a case where there
+
17 are maybe 20 or 30 issues to be litigated. They will get ;
j 18 all the way up to the point of limitation or they might_get i t l 19 part way into putting on testimony and documentary evidence i
! 20 and decide that they really can resolve it,.and then the L
j 21 - parties will announce en the record that they have-resolved i
- 22 it and are withdrawing the contention, t
23 That record will be incorporated in subsequent j 24 staff action. I guess we ought to turn to the design I 12 5 certification-process. -
i b- ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
i Court Reporters 1612 E Street, N.W.', Suite 300
{ Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 i-EI-ww w vrm ' w w w -- mw w ~- w w v ' ' '
f i
l 374 i
( l MR. SHON: That's an interesting thing. The 2 process that we --
l 3 MR. WILKINS: I had a general question, and I l 4 don't know where-to ask it. Since you are about to make a l 5 transition, let me ank it now. Are the cents of your j 6 operation in the NRC budget?
! 7 MR. COTTERt Yes.
8 MR. WILKINS: That means that they are recovered 2 J I 9 by fully from licensees.
l ..
10 MR.-COTTER: That's right. I fought that battle J1 for a long time. The way it's been resolved so far -- so f 12 that we are not perceived as being indebted to one party to ;
i t
13 the proceeding -- the way it is resolved is that it goes !
- l 14 into overhead as distinguished from being billed ;
15 specifically.
j 16 MR. WILKINS: I guess what I am leading up to is, l ,
i 17 I think it might be appropriate to bi13 some of the costs to l
l 18 the intervenors. But there is no legal authority for that, 19 is.there?
i l 20 MR. COTTER: It's all being billed to the
- l -
21 intervenors , isn't it? Aren't they paying the rates and l
22 whatnot.
23 MR. WILKINS: So am I.
s 24 MR. SHEWMON: A lot of other people get caught in
! 25 that web, not just intervenors, i
[ i 4
l'_ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
! Court Reporters i 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300
{. Washington, D.C. 20006 j (202) 293-3950
-f
_ - - . _ _ - . - - - - _ _ _ =- ..
375 1 MR. SHON: We are all mixed in together. Pogo
() 2 says we have met the enemy, and he is us.
3 MR. WILKINS: I might correct it. There is no 4 legal authority, even if -- in.some cases I believe that 5 courts can levy assessments or fines against frivolous 6 lawsuits.
7 MR. COTTER: There is the ability to do that, yes.
8 On the other hand we don't --
9 MR. WILKINS: Do you do that?
10 MR. COTTER: No. Nor, do we-want to be in'the 11 business of being perceived as justice for sale.
12 MR. WILKINS: I think you made a leap that lost 13 me.
14 MR. COTTER: I mean, if you and your neighbor live 15 side by side and your neighbor can afford to pay the bill to.
16 intervene, then your neighbor can intervene but you can't.
17 MR. WILKINS: I understand. That's juntice for 18 sale, yes.
19 MR. COTTER: Yes.
20 MR.'WILKINS: Which is the American way, isn't it?
21 MR. COTTER: Some of us don't think so. To the 22 extent that that kind of a beast rears its head, we believe 23 the price is eternal vigilance.
24 MR. SHON: I might-say that the process that we 25 have described so far and the way that the licensing of
~
ANN RILEY-& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202):293-3950
376 1 nuclear power plants at any rate has worked up until now is 2- one thing, and the way that it's most likely to work in the
() 3 future as you undoubtedly know, is quite another. We are 4 going to hear more about that now.
5 MR. COTTER: Lee, do you want to talk about design l l
6 certification. H 7 MR. DEWEY: When I heard you all were interested 8 in the subject I prepared a litt]e handout yesterday 9 afternoon. The little handout that I just gave you includes i l
10 more than what I was going to talk about with you today. I-11 was going to talk about the licensing board's role in these 12 new Part 52 design certification rulemaking hearings.
4 13 What 1 gave you went beyond that a-little bit, and 14 went into some other areas about the hearings and the 15 different procedures that are going to be used.
O 16 As I guess you probably know, Part 2 of the 17 Commission's rules contains the procedures for formal 18 hearings at the NRC. They are more formal procedures where 19 there is discovery that is held, where cross examination is ,
20 conducted and that kind of thing. Under Part 52, Part 52 21 does provide for a hearing process. These are going to be -
22 informal hearings.
23 Incidentally, the Administrative Procedure Act 24 does not require the hearings be conducted'for rulemaking.
- 25. The Commission decided that they would allow these limited ANN RILEY.& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters
.O 1612 K Street,.N.W., Suite 300
-Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
i i 377 i4 1 bearings in the case of Part 52 for the certification of
- () 2 designs in new reactors.
f 3 MR. COTTERt It might be worth backing-up. Are j- 4- you familiar with the rulemaking process.- I know you all
} 5 have been around it. Typically, it's notice and comment.
4 l 6 The rule is proposed, published and comment comes back, and i
i 7 it's all done on paper. There are no individuals or bodies 8 and talking to each other, at least not formally.-
9 .MR. WILKINS: Sometimes they have public hearings.
-t 4
l 10 .MR. COTTER: Yes.
W
- 11 MR. DEWEY
- They'have only done that on six
! - 12 different? occasions-in the past in the NRC , where they have
! 13 had hearings with respect to the rulemaking, the GESMO. I 14 am sure you are familiar with some of them. -It's only been
- O 15 done six other times in the past.
j 16 MR. MICHELSON: Can you clarify what you'mean.by ?
l 17 informal?
?
! 18 MR. DEWEY: I am going to get a little into-the j- ,
j 19 informal aspects of how this is going to be. Under our j 20 rules there'are informal procedures under Subpart-L_of Part i
j 21 2. This is different for the Part 52, because they just 1
- 22 epecify -- Part 52 just says informal,_ and they, haven't_gone i .
l - 23_ into what kind of hearings they-are going to be. - That's-i . . .
- 24. what I am going to talk about with you now, and what OGC's-i
( 25 recommendations are with respect to these informal ,
f ANN RILEY_& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
4
' Court Reporters -
g . 1612 K Street, N,W., Suite 300 Washington, .D.C. 20006 1
(202) 293-3950 s
-.a'-
.,--.m.,. - , - . - wym,,w- wr..r-+w-m,----w-- e ww -m w -* -r-'r.-+ . , -m-n,---- -.w-- ~4 'e ..se- - - + --.%--.--+----*--+---=e~e---.*em----=-e
378 1 procedures.
) 2 MR. COTTER: For a benchmark, informal, you could 3 take to mean as an exchange of information on paper rather '
4 than using live witnesses and cross examination.
5 MR. MICHELSON: There are not transcripts and that 6 sort of thing, necessarily.
7 MR. COTTER: That's right.
8 MR MICHELSON: But there might be.
9 MR. DEWEY: It will be a record. It will be all 10 part of a record. To the extent that there are oral 11 hearings, there will always be transcripts.
12 MR. SHON: If I can stick in at this particular-13 point, there are two important things that don't happen in 14 informal hearings that do in formal. From the standpoint of 15 the people who are appearing before the Commission or before 16 the Judge, first of all, you don't get to cross examine the 17 other guy's witness in an informal hearing.
18 Before that, you don't get what the lawyers call 19 discovery. You don't get to ask him everything he has. You 20 just have what you have, and that's it.
21 MR. DEWEY: Insofar as the informal procedures are 22 concerned, as Fred characterized them, they generally -- you 23 don't have cross examination. They give the licensing board 24 questions, the other side will give the licensing board 25 questions, and the board will ask the-questions if it
' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300.
Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
379 1 decides that they are appropriate.
() 2 Then, you have written submissions by the parties 3 in a case that often will not involve a hearing, or in a 4 case if the judge decides it's necessary. That's the 5 procedures under Subpart L.
6 As far au the procedures under this new Part 52, 7 that's what OGC is recommending to the Commission right now e- and it has not been determined exactly what kind of 9 procedures they are going to be. I am going to focus today 10 on the licensing -- proposed licensing-board's role in these 11 new hearings that OGC proposes.
12 What happened was this,_in May of 1992. OGC_sent 13 up a paper to the Commission, SECY 92-170. .In it, OGC 14 presented preliminary recommendations to the Commission-of 15 about what procedures should be conducted at these Part 52 16 hearings. After that OGC held a. workshop in July. At this 17 workshop they had members of the public and the industry and 18 states and whoever was' interested come to the workshop --
19 they had a panel there -- and they received comments.
20 After that, on November 10, 1992 in SECY 93-381, 21 OGC gave its official recommendations to the Commission as 22 to what procedures they believed should be-utilized.
23 The Commission has not yet acted on these 24 procedures. It's my understanding -- although this is just 25 hearsay -- that the Commission is probably not going to make
' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 i' Street , N.W., Suite.300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
_ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ - _ _ ._ __ _._.m_
1
- \
l
- 380 l
j 1 any final decision until its time to have a hearing. In 1 1 1 2 other words, the GE reactor is down the line, and the J I
- 3 Commission in probably not going to come out with any final 4 decision on what kind of proceaures until that time, i
j 5 As far as the licensing board's role is concerned, i
{ 6 that has been highly disputed up to this point. OGC i
4 7 originally recommended in May, i n SECY 92-170, that the 8 licensing board's be limited to what they call a limited 1
9 magistrate role. Under a limited magistrate role the 10 licensing board would only gather-a full evidentiary record
- 11 of all the disputed issues and then they would certify that-i i
12 record up to the Commission.
13 The licensing board would not be allowed to make l
14 any recommendations with respect to that record. In effect,
- 15 the Commission is just getting a large number of papers, and i
I 16 that's all, and no idea of the licensing board as to what i
l 17 the licensing board's views are, s
l 18 MR. MICHELSON: The Commission would make the
?
j 19 decision in these areas.
20 MR, DEWEY: That's right.- When OGC sent this j 21 paper up we sent a memo to OGC which the Commission j 22 subsequently got, and we said that the licensing board-is i
l 23 kind of like a potted plant. We also went on to say that i
i 24 the board would be under utilized in its role. The-i -;
i -- 25. Commission's job in fact would be made more difficult, 1
P
! ANN RILEY & ASSO'IATES, LTD.
- g. Court Reporters-
- 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 l Washington,-D.C. 20006 i (202) 293-3950
-s y r- ~~n,- e x-,-w----n=-:-vm,r-+xw -, g n ,,-e ,mm w-m-n*m'sn'- tw- ++w~w- 's v m ew ,= es v w-m<<-~ + -w*" s - ow n M vrse'*r* 'n'**=r"*-M*'"m~~e"- - O' n v e'
381 1 because they would not have the value of the board 2 condensing all the issues, putting them forward and making 3 them clear as we typically do, 4 By the way, that workshop also agreed-that they 5 didn't like the limited magistrate role, although the 6 industry did.- NUMARC in particular, has filed papers on 7 this subject supporting the limited magistrate role. They 8 pointed out that in the past the hearings that have gone on 9 with rulemaking have traditionally under this role, and that .
.10 they don't want the licensing board to be included because j 11 that would add an unnecessary layer of review to the 12 process. ;
13 That is yet to be decided. The Commission has not 14 yet decided. In SECY 92-381, OGC subsequently revised its 15 recommendation 6 with regard to the licensing board's role.
16 At this time they_said it would be a modified full 17 magistrate. That means the way they define it, is that the 18 licensing board would be allowed to make recommendations i 19 with respect to those matters in controversy where they 20 wanted to make recommendations about -- in other words, the 21 licensing board would not be required to do this but we 22 would be allowed to do this. ,
23 In effect,-under this definition though, we would 24- be treated like any other party, who would have 30 days from 25- the time the record would be closed to offer our ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ,
Court Reporters ,
1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950.
382 1 recommendations. We would not act in our traditional role
() 2 as judge in which the parties submit briefs to us. We 3 evaluate all the evidence and send up our final decision on 4 all the matters in controversy.
5 We have addressed the Commission on this, and we 6 have let them know that we are not fully satisfied with the 7 -modified full-magistrate role. We fell that it should be at 8 least a full magistrate role, in which we will make 9 recommendations and receive the records of the parties.
10 As I say, .this is not yet been decided by the-11 Commission.
12 MR. WILKINS: If I understand your position then, 13 you want to be required to make recommendations.
14 MR. DEWEY: Under the full magistrate -- yes.
, 15 And, act as traditional judges would act, and that is that 16 the parties submit briefs to us with their findings and we 17 decide upon their findings.
18 MR. MICHELSON: But in an informal atmosphere.
19 MR. DEWEY: _In an informal atmosphere.
20 MR. WYLIE: At the workshop, were there others 21 that felt like you do?
22 MR. DEWEY: Yes. The intervenor-groups all did-23 and the states did, too. The State of New York,_the_ State 24 of Illinois, they all believed that the licensing board had 25 a valuable role, that it_had a lot of insights in these
() ANN RILEY &-ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters-1612 K Street,- N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202)-293-3950-I.n' '
I 383
- I areas, and why not hear what they had to say.
2 MR. WILKINS: Did anybody raise the issue that not-
! 3 letting the licensing board do this would have the result of l 4 overwhelming the commission?
5 MR. DEWEY: We raised that point in our memo, in 6 particular, where we said we can be a great help to the 7 Commission by sifting through these things and by getting -
8 -in other words you start out with hundreds and hundreds of 9 contentions perhaps, and the licensing board will sift-l 10 through that and by the time it all comes out it's down to a ,
11 manageable number. We felt that would be very helpful to 12 the Commission. ;
13 MR. COTTER: The principal thing that the hearing !
l 14 process does-is -- it does two things, one, it evaluates ,
O 15 and prioritizes the process of getting to trial. When you i
16 go to trial you are only taking evidence on and really 17 examining thu significant issues. :
i 18 The second thing that it does is, through the j 19 cross examination process it permits a greater in. depth ]
20 exploration of any given issue. For example, in your case 1 21 you all only'have so much time, ours is fulltime, our
]
22 feeling is that we can. contribute that to that sort of l
23 process. -!
24 The other side of the coin is that things might. ;
25 get a little too defined. They will have-a little bit less f f '
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
} Court Reporters l 1612 K-Street, N.W.,-Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006
.( 2 02 ). 293-3950 i
?
' ww .
-,, __ _ . - - - - . _ _ _ _ - , - ~ _ _
1 I
i i
384 j 1 play to go before the Commission if it goes through a more
()
1 2 rigid process like ours, and if it comes out with a specific t-1 3 recommendation on particular issues.
1 1 4 The commission itself in turn might feel a little 1
l 5 bit constrained if there is a specific recommendation before i i j 6 them that they would have to overturn. They might find that-
- 7 that would make their task a little more difficult. It's a 1
1 i i 8 balancing of a range of interests.
I l 9 - MR. DEWEY: As far as the limited magistrate role j 10 -is concerned, does anybody have any further questions on i
j 11 that particular aspect. :
l l 12 MR. MICHELSON: If I understand this informal l 13 process though, your examination would be a little less l
l 14 complete than it would be in your formal process. How much i 15 are you losing between those two cases.
1 16 MR. DEWEY: A good deal.
l 17 MR. MICHELSON: Yes, I would think so. Otherwise, I
l 18 it's all like correspondence, and it's different types --
i 19 MR. DEWEY: Under this process --
the way the OGC i
j 20 is now forming the rule, the parties can ask.for a formal
! 21 process before formal hearings, and they:can ask for 22 specific things like cross examination and things of that I
23 nature.
24 MR. MICHELSON: They can ask for it.
25 MR. DEWEY: They.can ask for it. Under Part 52-( ANN RILEl & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters l' 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 l Washington, D.C. 20006 1- (202) 293-3950 b .wr.v-.-,---= or- -.-w*-- - ~ - --We-+ w
385 1 this will be allowed, that they can ask for it. The way
() 2 that OGC is now recommending, they will be filtered -- put 3 to the licensing board first. Somebody says we need cross 4 examination with respect to this or we need direct 5 examination with respect to these issues and they give the 6 reasons why.
7 The licensing board will take that, and they will 8 decide yes or no on it, and then they will send that to the 9 Commission for the final determination under this Part 52 10 arrangement.
11 MR. MICHELSON: Of whether it should be formal or 12 not.
13 MR. DEWEY: Yes. Any particular aspect should be 14 formal or not, or whether it should be formal.
15 MR. MICHELSON: It's an option always available.
16 MR. DEWEY: It's an option available.
17 MR. COTTER: It's an option that can only be 18 granted by the Commission.
19 MR. DEWEY: They do want our recommendation on 20 that particular aspect. The next point I was going to tell 21 you all about was the area of sua sponte authority for 22 licensing board's at these hearings. Sua sponte authority 23 means that the licensing board in traditional NRC cases can 24 see some matters or problems that should be looked into that 25 the parties themselves haven't brought up.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
o 386 1 Under our procedures -- our procedures under Part-() 2 2 --
the licensing board can request or let the Commission 3 know that they want to handle those procedures and go ahead 4 and look into it. The Commission can prevent them from 5 doing it if they want to.
6 Under Part 52 under these procedures now, OGC 7 originally said in their first recommendation that licensing 8 board should not have any sua sponte authority. In other 9 words, they couldn't even go to the Commission and request 10 that they look into an issue. That was criticized by a lot 11 of parties at that workshen.
12 OGC, subsequently, in their November paper to the 13 Commission SECY paper, said we think-that_OGC should have- __
14 sua sponte authority. Of course, NUMARC still opposes-that, 15 and thinks we should not have any sua sponte authority.
16 Another area of the hearing-process where the 17 licensing board would have less authority than usual is in 18 having to do with hearing requeuts. When people requests 19 hearings traditionally the licensing board decides whether 20 that person has utanding and whether he should be entitled 21 to be in a hearing.
22 OGC, by the way, has set up specific parameters to 23 say that the people who are involved in the Part 52 hearings 24 have to have a background or enough expertise to_be able to 25 put in a -- know about the subject matter and make a ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES,-LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
l
)
387 1
contribution to it, although they specifically say they
() 2 don't have to be expert witnesses to participate in these 3 hearings.
4 This is a different kind of standing. They set up 5 this standing for the Part 52. Traditionally, the licensing 6
board would then rule upon whether people met this test.
7 OGC is recommending that the Commission rather than the 8 licensing board be given the authority for these Part 52 9 hearings.
10 Also with respect to the contentions, I think 11 Judge Cotter has told you about the contention process where 12 parties submit contentions. If they fall within the area of 13 relevancy and they:have enough basis-in fact, then they 14 would be allowed to be a matter of controversy in the 15 hearing. Traditionally, licensing boards have-always done 26 this role.
17 Under the OGC recommendations matters of 18 controversy will now be evaluated by the Commission.
19 Licensing boards will not be given that job. The licensing 20 panel believes that these are matters that have 21 traditionally 1come within our area of expertise and that we 22 are very good at siphoning out these things, and we would 23 like to keep this authoritv. Under OGC's present 24 recommsndation we won't be given it.
25 MR. MICHELSON: The Commission is going to be ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
. Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006
~(202) 293-3950
388 1 busy, aren't they?
2 MR. WILKINS: Let me make a very cynical h
j, 3 observation. OGC has a ccaflict of interest in this issue.
4 The Commissioners do not have the competence or the time to ,
5 handle these things, so they are clearly going to have to 6 delegate it. To whom does the OGC suggest they delegate it, 7 why, to the OGC.
8 I see a very clear conflict of interert in these 9 OGC recommendations. I am sure that you gentlemen are much 10 more astute at observing these things than I am, and you 11 will find a way to say this much more diplomatically and 12 tactfully than I nave.
. 13 MR. COTTER: I couldn't do better than you just 14 did, 15 MR. DEWEY: By the way, that gets us into the 16 separation of function question which I wasn't going to '
17 specifically address because it doesn't theoretically 18 directly involve the panel. OGC's present recommendation 19 for separation of function ---what I mcan by separation of ;
20 function is
- Sis.
21 You have "ortain staff members who have worked on 4 22 the whole design o .1.ication matter, who will work on the 2 certain rule for GE reactor, et cetera, These same people 24 will be called upon by the Commission to rule on these 25 issues in this case. That would certainly create a ANN RILEY & ASSOCIKLES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 i I
389 1 separation'of function problem in the traditional casefhere j 2 at-the NRC.
.3- But with respect to rulemaking the Administrative 4 Procedures Act does not require a separation of functions.
5 The Commission is free to do this. OGC's recommendation is 6 that they want to have-some separation of function but-a-7 limited one. They are saying that the -- in other words,.
8 when the staff members who have worked on the rule all along.
9 are now calle mon to advise the Commission with -respect to 10 the matters in .ontroversy regarding the rule, there wil' .
11 - a limited separation of function in that everything will'now 12 he on the public record.
13 In other words, they will have to do it through 14 SECY papers or through public meetings. Therefore, at least 15 there will be a public aspect to it.
16 MR. MICHELSON: That doesn't change the fact that
$ 17 they have to judge their own work. ,
18 MR. DEWEY: That's right.
19 MR. COTTER: That's right, but the problem iii 20 SECY's defense is -- OGC's defense is that this is a 21 rulemaking. It is not litigation, where there are parties 22 with opposing interr. cts. .What they are doing is inventing a 23 process that is not required. I think all we are really 24 saying ic that it probably would be more efficient and more 25 effective if they used the traditional capabilities-of the J-k'. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
____m_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ . _
_390 1 licensing board has.
[() 2 MP, MICHELSON: But if the ouestion of litigation. '#
3 comes up then you fall to the other formal process anyway.
4 MR. DEWEY: The panel has not taken.--
5 MR. COTTER: I don't expect that to happen.
6 MR DEWEY: The panel has not taken a position 7 with respect to separation of function. All I am doing'is 8 explaining to you what the present.thirg is going to be. I 9 am not saying it's good, bad or incifferent. I am just ,
)
10 reporting it to you. I may have my own opinion, by the wny, 11 but I am just reporting to you what-is taking place, e
12 Another area that I wanted to -- I have told you 13 about other areas where the panel's traditional role has 14 been lessened. We have some other aspects too. I think we 15 said earlier that parties can ask for additional hearing 16 procedures or formal hearings.
17 Here again,.that will be approved by the 18 Commission rather than'the-licensing = board. Also, 19 discovery. .If a party wants discovery against.another party 20 the licensing board will not have the final word. The 21 licensing board will make an evaluation and then.the 22 Commission will decide whether discovery is allowed or not..
23 MR. MICHELSON: These decisions by the Commission
.24 can be appealed to the District-Court-of Appeals, 25 MR. COTTER: Generally, procedural decisions ANN RILEY-& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters-1612 X Street, N W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 1
.._._ .__ _ . ...- _. _ _ ._ _ _.._.._..~._ ..._ -._ . _. _ _ _ _ , . _ . _ , _ . _. .
J
-l
? I L- I 8
. 391.
i 1 cannot be appealed.
l 2. MR. MICHELSON: Then, an.intervenor.cannot get a
- f. 3 hearing-if the Commission' decides not.
! 4 MR. COTTERt That's right,'because.it's a. l l
! 5 rulemaking,
.r -
}
6 'MR. DEWEY: It's a rulemaking. Under the
- 7 Administrative Procedures Act you don't even have to offer a l 8 ' hearing anyway.
i ll 9 MR. MICHELSON: The fellow just waits until the i
- 10 first COL under that rule and then~he gets the.next l' 11 opportunity. ;
12 MR. DEWEY: He would have a hard time. -
l i
j 13 MR. COTTER: Except that,'you cannot -- there is a i 14 general principle-that you cannot challenge a rule. That I 15 is, in part, why they are going-through this process and
!- 16 approving the designs as a rule.
I
- 17 MR. MICHELSON: It sounds a little sticky, that an
- 18 intervenor cannot appeal through the. legal process.
1 ..
! 19 MR. DEWEY: The justification is that the
. 20 . Administrative. Procedures Act -- OGC'sLjustification is'that -
!' 21 the Administrative Procedures Act does not. require'a hearing
- j. 22 in the first place. Therefore, they can have any kind of f
i
[
a 23 . procedures they like,
~
24 MR.~MICHELSON: Have the intervenor types,-public -
f 25 interest types, have they worked this out?
(
ANN'RILEY &-ASSOCIATES, LTD.
. Court Reporters l 1612 K Street. N.W., St_ite 300
- Washington, D.C. 20006 JL (202) 293-3950 i=
. - - .-.. _-.---..-....- -..-. - -. _ ..- - -...-~~... -, - . - - .
392-1- MR.'DEWEY: By in large, yes. They1 felt.that the ,
l 2 board should have the authority to._make all these decisions.
3 MR. MICHELSON: But I mean, the fact that they l
j 4 can't appeal.
i-l 5 MR. DEWEY: That subject was touched on in one l'
6 section, and OGC explained.
l 7 EMR . MICHELSON: I didn't realize that. I thought i
8 it always went through the Commission and if you couldn't i
j 9 get satisfaction you went to the courts.
} 10 MR. COTTER: -The rulemaking comes under ' the t
a j- 11 Administrative Procedure Act,-and the grounds for appealing-
- 12 rulemaking process are very limited, very narrow, t
l 13 MR. WILKINS: You.have to show that.the Commission j 14 didn't follow its own rules in making the rule, t
15 MR. COTTER: Yes.
l 16 EMR. WILKINS: Or , that the rule violates some 17 higher level statute or something.
l:
18 MR. COTTER: That's right. As aLgeneral principle 19 the courts will defer the expertise of a particular agency,
[ 20 particularly a scientific agency.
1 j 21 MR. SHEWMON: Are there other_ questions?
l' 22 MR. LINBLAD: Judge-Cotter, I suspect that your I 23 panel-and our-Committee have.a-common responsibility,' and i
j 24 that-is to recommend to-the Commission-possible' candidates-1
]' -25 for appointment to.our-Committees who are both highly j i '
1 4
1 .
[ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. l
]. Court Reporters l j' 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 1 4 Washington, D.C. 720006
) (202):293-3950 1
a 393.
1 qualified part-time technical members, free of-conflict,
.2 Have you any advice on how you have been successful in 3 searching out those people and selecting them for your 4 panel?
5 MR. COTTER: As you well know, it's brutal'. What 6 -I have done is create what:I call registers of. qualified-7 people. I;have advertised nationally ~in all the journals 8 and_whacnot, and said that if you are interested in being a 9 licensing panel member then come in-and we will interview 10 you. Give us some written examples of materials and we will 11 -- actually, I guess we give them a-little internal rating.
12 'I now have about five-lists'of people who have 13 been through that process and are listed. If I need to fill
- 14 a slot I can go directly to that list rather.than having to
\w / 15 go through this whole' longer process.
16 I-have identified people who are willing to make-17 the kinds.cf sacrifices that you all have to make. _As you 18 know, people do this because they believe.in it and they H19 love it,-not.for-the $49.50 a day or hour or whatever it is.
20 That's the way I have solved the problem.
21 MR.. CARROLL: You mentioned five separate. lists.
-22 MR. COTTER: I_have a list for lawyers, a big list 23 'for lawyers. Then, I have a list --
24 MR. CARROLL: Others.
25 'MR. COTTER: I break them down_ pretty much by-the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300
-Washington,_D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
- 394 1 catagories that I mentioned. I.am particularly-concerned
-2 with the geohydrologic, with the prospect of the high level 3 waste repository. Then, I have physicists and engineers. I 4 don't have any medical doctors right now.
5 I have people that I lump in environmental 6 category, who could be anything from a sanitary engineer to
-7 an oceanographer.
8 MR.-LINBLAD: If-these people are' still out in the--
9 field-then they have a problem with conflict on other-10 assignments.
11 MR. COTTER: Abeolutely. Absolutely, One of the 12 people that you probably know is Dave Hetrick. At different 13 times, I thinK Dave was a consultant on Palo Verde. When he.
14 got that offer to spend some time with them he called me'up 15 and let me know, and I suspend them. I won't.use them as 16 long ac he.has_that kind of a interest or involvement. It's 17 Caesar's wife.
18 MR. SHEWMON: Are there another questions?
19 [No response.)
20 MR. SHEWMON: Thank you very much for coming in, 21 gentlemen.
22 MR. COTTER: Thank-you for your time. We enjoyed 23 it. We should do this more often than every-ten years.
24 MR. MICHELSON: Do we have a staff that takes care 25 of your administrative business?
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
(...- ....- .-..- ~-..-. . - ~ -. -. -- . .- . - . . - . .
e l
1 395 1 'MR . COTTER:
[ Yes. ~I have about 15. people thati l
() '2- cover-a variety of things.
3 MR. MICHELSON: They are fulltime engineers;and i
- -4 secretaries.
- j. 5 MR. COTTER: No, I1do'not-have a' technical staff.
- 6 I used to, but I have been the incredible shrinking :
7 licensing panel for the last five years.. l
{
- 8 HMR.;MICHELSON: You don't have any supporting i
i 4 9 -technical ataff.
i 10 .MR. COTTER: Not now. I used.to, but I do not
} 11 now..I used to.have one-half dozen law clerks _and'on't-have d j, 12 them, i .
13 MR. WILKINS: LThese functions that you are talking -
'14 about really administrative, like payroll'and travel.
l 15 MR. COTTER: That's correct, yes. We are our own-i j 16 staff for those purposes.
17 MR[ WILKINS: Your fulltime people are fulltime ,
I j 18 people. Are your part-time people called:special government .
I :.
- , 19 employees? .
j 20 MR. COTTER: Yes. They have to be,.in order to 21 perform a government function. They can't be a consultant i
a 22- or a: contractor.- ,;
23L MR. DEWEY: I think.they_are the same as.you all.
24 MR. SHEWMON: =Why don't we take a stretch in i: . _ . .
j -25 place,-and then I want to read the Wilkins letter which'is.
i i
1 1
- ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES,-LTD.
Court Reporters
[j - 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 -
! Washington, D.C. 20006 j . (202) -293L3950 I
Y .. . . . . -. . _ . . - .. - _ .__. _ _ -.-.- -. - .
8.
i-396
[
1 the baby blue. We will'go off the recorded record'until.~
-2 3:15 this afternoon.
! 3 [Whereupon, at 11:36 a.m.,.the Committee recessed, l-l 4 to reconvene at 3:15 p.m., this same day.]
i
- 1. 5 I
r l
6 I
l i
! 8 1
[ ,
9 I 10 -,
t j 11 ,
p 12 ,
13
- 14 ;
L.
1
.9 15 i
16 l
17 ,
!- 10
?
- l. 19 i
20 i
! .21
! 22 l 23 s
! 24 l l'
! 25 f
1, I
n, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
j Court Reporters j .- 1612 K~ Street, N.W., Suite 300
- Washington, D.C. 20006
}- .(202) 293-3950 y
b- -
_ - . . - . . , - ..,.,.. . - - . . ....~.2.:-~.
'l j- 397 l.
I 1 AFTERNOON' SESSION -
I
.2
~
[3:00 p.m.]-
4 -!
3 MR. WILKINS: The next item on the_ agenda is -
i
. 1 l- 4 organizational-factors research, I-guess, Jay,E this is your )
5 agenda item. -
i l
. 1 i
- 6 MR. CARROLL: It is, indeed' . You have two pink l
l 7- handouts. Let~me explain that: I am in the process of-i
! 8 drafting a letter, and it 's .really going to be cnr two i
! 9- related subjects.
l 10 As you recall back in November, we had a. ~
i -
11 presentation from AEOD on the human performance studies that l 12 they had been involved in. One of the handouts ic the-final i
13 version of their-report. We gave-AEOD a lot of comments at i ~
j -
14 the~ time of our November meeting on their draft report and i
- 15 many but not all have been addressed in this final version.
- j. 16 The first part.of my proposed letter would be to 17 -formally provide those' comments to the Commission. The i
l- 18 purpose of our meeting today, however, 1s.to look at the t
l- 19 second related subject with is the organizational factors i 20- research program that has been ongoing since itswas revived
.i
[ 21 in 1987 by.RES. It has moved along,-and has been b 22 controversial to the extent that there-have been.a number of 1
f i.
23 senior-management-meetings to ask the question, is this stuff worth doing; Where should we be going.
j_ E2 4 '
1
{ 25 There have been some consolidation of the research-1 p __
4 3.
[. -
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
- Court Reporters I 1612'K Street, N.W., Suite 300 i Washington, D.C. 20006 l- -(202)"293-3950 1-
.- _ , . .a . _ , . _ . _ . .__..a._.. .
n ,
-i
[ 398-i 1 -efforts back a couple of years ago. It has now reached a.
- 2 point where the staff has issued.a SECY which is the second.
- 3 pink covered document.93-020.- ItHis kind.of-a strange i 4 message in the SECY but it will no doubt be claiified for l
S us.
[
I 6 It basically says that research has_ determined i
! 7 that the. front end part of the research effort, namely to .
i 8' develop some measurement-tools to look at organizational l
1-
- j. 9- performance, that effort should be wrapped up and the tools i 10 as they exist today should be possibly be considered ~for use l- 11 in inspections and diagnostic team inspections.and that sort
- g. .
12 of thing, and if it can be shown that these kind of tools .
[ 13 can be used in assessing risk.through PRA that effort maybe.
14 ought to be continued i l
j .
15 Several af us, Bill and I and Dave Ward -- I_ guess l
l 16 everybody knows Tom Leamon, don't they? He's a new 4 17 consultant-to us from Liberty Mutual. We attended the s.
! 18- senior management meeting or workshop in_ November. I_ guess ,
1 4
[ 19 we came away somewhat-frustrated, that the staff was -- the i- 2 0 -- senior management really didn't-understand the problem, is ,
1.
} 21 what I will-Say.
) 22 They just don't seem to want--to come to grips with i- 23 this-very important issue. What I wouldElike to-hear today i '
I- 24 is the. status from the staff and from-the researchers. I' i-25- think we will be persuaded that-the staff:should continue to i
Ti d
( ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
- Court Reporters ,
p 1612.K Screet, N.W., Suite 300
[ Washington,-D.C. 20006
- (202) 293-3950-I
399 1 support this research.
Recall last .nonth we had Eric Beckjord down here
, 2 3 and got some kind of fuzzy answers on this subject from 4 Eric. We also did learn that the level of funding that has 5 existed up until the last fiscal year has been about one 6 percent of the total research budget. I think Dave Ward 7 makes the point that, is the potential payoff of continuing 8 these kind of activities worth one percent of the research 9 budget when y:i. compare it to the kinds of dollars that are 10 spent on thermal hydraulics or seismic research or whatever, h 11 MR. CATTON: I knew where you were leading.
12 MR. CARROLL: You knew where I was leading. As I 13 say, I have a letter st arted. Obviously, I want to hear
)
14 what we hear today before I finish it. Bill, do you have 15 any insights, since you have beer. Involved in this also?
16 MR. LINBLAD: Could I ask you Jay, if we are also 17 going t o hear f rom NRR. I think what research will tell us 10 is that they do research, that theru is a client or customer 19 request for it.
20 MR. CATTOM: The basic charter of research allows 21 them to do important research on their own Maybe we ought i
22 to be the initiator of a request. They don't have to have a 23 letter.
24 MR. SHEWMON: That's your tradition. That's not 25 what I hear from research too often.
1 6 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
--,- .~ . - . . - . . - - . . - . . - . - - .~. . - - - . - - . - - - - . . - - . -
i
- -400 ,
i
! 1 -MR. CATTON: I heard this just the other day, i-2 Paul, from.somebody who~went and read the initiating -- they f- 3 don't call it initiating legislation, do they -- enabling l
4 legislation. That'e the view of people at the Commission 5 level. -
l 6 MR, LINBLAD: We will see what they tellLus in l
7 this regard.-
s i 8 MR. CARROLL: We will see what they tell us. I l_ 9 did speak to Tom Murley yesterday on'this subject, and be e
!- 10 sort of seemed to be waffling a bit but generally taking the-i- 11 party line; that, we ought to turn all of this off other -
l.
l 12 than pelhaps the PRA aspect-of it.
I j 13 MR. CATTON: Our letter.is going to have.to be i 14 pretty damn strong then.
1
[ 15 MR.. CARROLL: Yes. Dave, do you want to add j - - 16 anything to this at this point?
i ]7 MR WARD: No.
i 18 MR. CARROLL 4 Tom, do.you?
i '
i 19 MR. LEAMON: No , I think you said everything, i
l 20 1MR . CARROLL: That's fine. With that, I will turn j
i 21 it over to Frank, I guess.
- t. 22 MR. KRAMER: Thank you, Jay. -I.am Joel Kramer,
! 23 section leader of the reliability assessment section in the
. 2s human factors branch. I am going to be speaking from here, L
25 because my hip won't permit..me to go and. stand up. _I have l
1
'. _ . ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES,-LTD.
L '
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 j . Washington, D.C. 20006
[ (202) 293-3950 4
1;
- i. .
.__-.1. . _ . . . . _ . _ ,,_.--_.,.~....--..-..--.c---e
a 401 1 some introductory kind of remarks to make first. Then t we.
2 will proceed with presentations by Dr. Sonja Haber from 3 Brookhaven National Lab and Dr. George Apostolakis from '
4 UCLA. ;
5 I think we owe a considerable vote of thanks for 6 these folks for getting here today. Even though Sonja is 7 from Brookhaven she happened to have been in Albuquerque 8 most of the week, so we had two people who were gracious to 9 come here on a day that's not our favorite day.
10 The purpose of this briefing basically stems-.from- ,
11 what I believe was the report of the Subcommittee on human-12 ~ factors to the full Committee _back in' December following the '
13 November 12 workshop that we had on the research on the-14 products to senior management. We were asked in December to 15 have the full Committee here have the benefit'of that 16 presentation that several members of the Subcommittee heard 17 on November 12. That's why we are here.
4 18 [ Slides.]
4 19 MR. KRAMER: Organizational factors are important.
1 20 This research has always been exploratory. %e-need to 21 demonstrate feasibility. I think that the research staff 22 and the support that we have from user offices would tend to
-23 indicate that based upon further ongoing discussions with i
-24 our. user offices that there is a possibility that this 25 research could continue.
A _' s ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street,_N.W., Suite 300
,L Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) -293-3950
402 1 I would like to just quickly get-you up to speed a 2 little bit with some chronology that won't appear.--
3 actually, in a way it wi.ll. Sonja, will you put the next-4 overhead on.
5 We last briefed the ACRS in December of 1991.
6 Basically we have been conducting this research for the last 7
7 five years, based on user needs from NRR and AEOD, and 8 internally within research in the area of organizational 9 factors to identify organizational factors that are 10 impor ant to nuclear power plant safety, to develop i 11 techniques which can be-used to measure these factors, and-12 to develop products that can be used by the~ agency to 13 enhance its evaluation of nuclear power plant organizational 14 effectiveness or performance.
, 15 Intended applications include inspections, 16 diagnostic evaluations, senior management review of plant s
17 performance, and probabilictic risk assessment or PSA, if 18 you will, probabilistic safety analysis, i
19 Ia SECY 92-008 in January of last year we briefed 20 the Commission on the progress of research in this area and
[ 21 on the issue of whether or not the products of the research r
22 might be useful in the regulatory process. We committed'to 23 completing a comprehensive ' evaluation of the organizational-24- factors research and-making a decision regarding thecneed
- 25 for continuation or alteration of research plans at the end
,- ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
, Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006
-(202) 293-3950
403 1 of fiscal year 1992.
2 Since January of last year we have had several 3 reviews of this research, including the senior management 4 review in July of last year. Responding to guidance
, 5 provided during that meeting we conducted a workshop with 6 senior management which included some members of the ACRS 7 Subcommitcee on Human Factors, on November 12 of last year.
8 I would like to summarize the Commission paper, 9 93-002 for you. Based upon the results of a comprehensive 10 review of organizational factors research results, the staff 11 has concluded that the gathering of organizational factors 12 data is resource intensive. There is a relatively low cost 13 effectiveness in continuing regulatory research in this area 14 beyond 1993, until it is determined that organizational 15 factors can be reliably integrated into PRA models, 16 RES is meeting with NRR to coordinate further 17 development of human reliability analysis modeling and 18 organizational factors for PRA. It's possible tiat this s 19 further effort will continue at a low level of funaing in 20 fiscal year 1994. Research will also monitor ongoing 21 organizational factors research being conducted by others, 22 and will continue its interaction with NUMARC in this area.
23 MR. CARROLL: On that point, I should mention that 24 we did discuss this situation with NUMARC and INPO. INPO 25 was willing to come today and talk about what they do in ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters
- 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 .
Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 p
404-1 looking at organizational facters as_part of their periodic
() 2- evaluation of each nuclear power. plant.
3 I opted not to invite them, on the basis.that I 4 think most of us have a pretty good idea of how they are 5 approaching-it, which is sort of the traditional way of 6 sending some knowledgeable peonle in and making some 7 subjective judgments about how an organization works and how 8 effective it is.
9 NUMARC, on the other hand, is-in the process of 10 gathering together a compendium'if you will, of-11 organizational factors, approaches and improvements _that all 12 the utilities have underway. I gather than when that is 13 finished they will' share it with the Committee.
14 None of that is what we are talking about today, 15 None of it is trying to develop measurement-tools on 16 performance.
17 MR. WARD: You don't know for sure what NUMARC.is 18 going to come up with I guess, do you?
19 MR. CARROLL: Yes, I do, I_think.
-20 MR. WARD: You do.
21 MR. CARROLL: Can I ask NUMARC if that was a fair-22 characterization of.-- ue see NUMARC nodding affirmatively.
23 MR. WARD: Can I ask=Joel a question. -t Joel,'this-24 statement-that this ongoing work _or the data collection is 25 resource intensive-an~d it's not cost beneficial to the --
ANN RILEY-& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
. : Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
405-1 what does resource intensive mean, and'how do you.xnow it's
() 2 not cost beneficial.
-3 MR. KRAMER: What we tried to do is measure.the 4 results that'we get in terms of stages of research, 5 feasibility, development, evaluation test, implementation 6 based upon criteria,. practicality, . acceptability and 7 usefulness as a function of the funding that we.put in and 8 how that funding-is spent with respect to data collection.
9 Resource intensiveness is not only from.the 10 standpoint of researchers to get the data but the burdens on 11 the plante and the utilities.to provide the report'of their-12 staff for the researchers to collect the data.
13 MR. CARROLL: Joel, isn't what we do today when 14 the staff-comes in and doesia diagnostic team inspection or 15 when INPO comes in and does an evaluation,.isn't that'also 16 extremely resource intensive on the part of those doing-it 17 and on the part of the licensee that is subjected to it, 18 extremely resource intensive.
19 MR. KRAMER: Resource intensive, but;that's1done-20 because it's from a regulatory st&ndpoint that those 12 1 activities are undertaken. -We are researchers.
- 22. MR. CARROLL: But if you hadua-measurement tool 23 that-may take some resources to apply but would avoid some 24 of that, wouldn't that be a-good tradeoff?
25 MR KIUM4ER: That is possible. Before I'get into ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington,TD.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
i=
- t. .
l- !'
! 406--
c 1 what you are going to be briefly introducing with Sonja and -
2 George are going to be covering, I did want'to also indicate ,
- 3 that we are not~here to ask for a letter from ACRS.
l .
4 MR. CARROLL: Understood. You would have no '
l 5 problem if ACRS in its_ infinite wisdom decided to write a l
j- 6 letter though, 7 MR. KRAMER: No. Dr. Sonja Haber from Brookhaven 8 will present the research which describes the organizational.
l 9- factors which we believe are important to plant safety and
(
- l 10 performance, measurement techniques are tools and i
l 11 application of these tools to inspection, diagnostic t
j 12 evaluations and senior management review of plant i . .
! 13 performance and PRA application.
! 14 MR.-CARROLL: Somehow or other something called 3 -
j 15 SALP is missing. I don't understand that.
l 16 MR. KRAMER: Thr. George Apostolakis from UCLA will l 17 present the research which describes the organizational i
j 18 factors from these data from these measurement tools that i
19 might be aoplied to PRA modeling. I would like to emphasize
. 20 that the productsito date are not-final products, and that I 21 the integration of our contractor work is'not yet complete.
! 22 _They are, however, at the stage where we feel that i
j 23- the' factors,-the measurement techniques _and the j_ 24 quantification,-appear'to-be_ feasible. I would also likel t o' -
4 .
1- 25 point out that in our attempt-to focus this research what 2
j:
i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
[n
. Couau' Reporters U 1612-K Street, N.W., Suite 300 j Washington, D.C. 20006 l- -(202) -293-3950
. -. .. - .- . - - - .~
~407 1 you willLsee this afternoon are results based upon researchi
(} 2 3
information gathered-from 15 nuclear power-plants by ten
' contractors over the past five years.
4 In short, there is a consensus among our research-5 contractors. The organizational--factors and dimensions 6 important to safety are also supported by results of-
-7 research in other countries from both nuclear and non-8 nuclear safety applications. It's not to'say though, that 9 the quantification effort is complete and that-extensive 10 formal data collection was conducted at each of the plants.
11 (Slides.)
12 liR . KRAMER: The next overhead highlights of the 13 -- products of research that.Sonja will take you,through.- The 14 -next overhead highlights.the PRA research.in products that
) 15 George.and Sonja-will take you through'again, except that 16 Sonja is going to cover that last bullet in her 17 presentation..
~18 Basically what I am saying is, you are going to 19 hear two PRA applications. I think at the time-of.the 20 November 12_ meeting you did not hear Brookhaven PRA_
21 application. That's sort of new information for you. The--
122 Lpoint I would like to emphasize here is that-while: progress-23- -in the-PRA-application continues to be-difficult it is
-24 significant, and important insights are there.-
25 Without much=further ado, Sonja Haber, from
-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters:
-1612 K Street,- N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006-
.(202)-293-3950'
____=____. . _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ___ -_ _ = _ -__ _ _ _ _ _ - - _
408 1 'Brookhaven.
2 -MR. CARROLL: One sort of general question,-Joel,-
3 before Sonja begins. I' noticed in reading 93-020;some' 4 discussion of work going on overseas.in these areas. It 5 sounds like the Sv b and French and English all have 6 fairly active programs in this area, and must believe that
, 7 there is some benefit of putting research money into this.
8 I always had the notion that Mr. Beckjord and the 9 research organization prided themselves on being world 10 leaders in all i,portant aspects of nuclear safety research.
11 Do you have a response to that?
12 MR. KRAMER: Yes. You have asked a number of 13 questions. First off, none of t pse countries have expended 14 anywhere near the amount of funds that we have expended.
O 15 MR. CARROLL: That we are proposing to stop 16 spending.
17 MR. KRAMER: Many of the. foreign countries -- I 18 think.you have incorrectly characterized how tar'along they 19 are. As the Commission paper would indicate the Swedes are 20 probably_the furthest along. -
Letts-recognize that it's--a 21 vastly different regulatory environment in Sweden. There 22 are far-fewer plants, and I think that's an_important 23 consideration, 24- As'a matter-of fact, we have an international 25 agreementfto share our organizational factors research.with' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006
'(202) 293-3950
409 1 _the' Swede's and'us, and we have common' contractors. We do 2- cross-feed.
3 -The-British have just barely started two projects, 4 a very small-level of funding,_boping to capitalize on what 5 we have done here. Similarly, the French have just-started 6 in their overall human factors research plan, two small 7 projects.
8 MR. CARROLL: Okay, but_they are moving ahead and 9 we are sort of saying okay,-we are not-going to move ahead.
10 MR. CATTON: It's just like thermal hydraulics, 11 Jay, they-are going _to ship.it overseas.
12 MR. CARROLL: I see. I just wanted to --
13 MR. WARD: The difference is, we have already 14 spent a billion dollars in this country on thermal 15 hydraulics.
16 MS. HABER: Why don't we move on to the 17 presentation.
18 MR. CARROLL: Sonja, do you want to begin, 19 (Slides.)
20 MR. HABER: As Joel mentioned,_I am-going to 21 present essentially what amounts to the' effort of a.large.
22 group of-people that have been working on the organizational 23 factors.research for NRC for the past few years with respect 24 to-the organizational factors and dimensions themselves, and 25 the kinds of things that have been identified to be ANN RILEY_& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N ~. W . , Suite 300 Washington,- D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
410 1 important to safety.
J) 2 With respect: to-the concern about some of the !
3 international work, in putting together_this information,. we 4 did use: the resources and the _ literature that exists from 5 many countries and many different efforts, both_ domestically 6 and internationally.
7 MR. CARROLL: Nuclear, and other high risk 8 industries.
9 MR. HABER: Yes, that's.right. The culmination-of 10 a lot of this work is represented on the'next viewgraph. It 11 doesn't do justice to the amountoof work that went into this.
12 cffort to get to this particular place.
13 The culmination 'cWE all of this work' in terms cWE 14 the literature, the field efforts-that have been supported 15 to date by NRC, results from different industries as well as-16 the nuclear industry are summarized here in terms of what we-17 have identified and can socially agreed _on, as the 20 .
18 probably most important dimencions and then subdivided into
-19 five factors related to organizational-performance--and 20 safety.
21 What you see here areEfive factors; culture, 22 communications, decision making,-administrative knowledge 23 and human resources allocations. We could discuss what the 24- titles of these-are or maybe there-would be1better 25- descriptions'for some of them, but'I:think when you look at ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,--Suite:300 Washington,' D.C. 20006 (202)-293-3950-1
d i
1 l
~ 411 r i
[ -1 the dimensions in each of the groups ycu will start-to see 1(); 2 thel kinds of things that each of these factors represent.
t
- . 3 Foi example,' when we say the communications is an
- 4- important factor on safety performance, we are
- looking-at
{ 5 things in_the communications process that would talk about i
j 6 communications external to the plant, within the plant.
3 f 7 itself,'within departments in the plant,- and also-between 8 departments in-the plant. Those are the kinds of' dimensions '
9 that we included under the factor of communication.
l -- 10 I won't go through all of'these. There is i
- 11 literature and reports available that we have_that defines i
i 12 each of these dimensions and what we mean, with some i
l 13 examples of the dimension as relationship to organizational l 14 performance and ' safety specifically in a nuclear power
- j. -
- j. 15 plant.
1 16 MR. KRESS: Sonja, would something like the' amount 17
[ of money spent on maintenance.get subsumed in these?
i l 18 MR._HABER: I am sorry, would it be what?
.19 MR. KRESS: Would something like~the amount of'
). 20- money that an organization spends on maintenance get-
- =
21 subsumed in all of these some'way?
i Yes. - You could look at resource p 22- MR. HABER:
l 23 allocation under the decision making factorithat-would look i
i- 24 at.a specific-financial commitment in terms of staffing-
[
l- 25 budgets, et cetera.
i l I
j '
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
j Court Reporters l' 1612_K Street, N.W., Suite-300 i Washington, D.C. 20006 i
(202) 293-3950
i 412 i;
j 1 [ Slides.) :
) 2 MR . _' HABER : Once we arrived at consensus on the l 3 factors and dimensions, the'next_part of.this effort was try 4 to determine a way that we could_ assess this in terms of 5 having more of.a standardized and systematic way.to look at 6 these organizational factors and dimensions, f
1 7 I am basically going to talk about three-
} 8 techniques that were developed for acquiring a-data that i
9 would then allow us to11ook at the different types'of l
j' 10 application of this research.
l 11 The first one.is a structured interview protocol, a
l .12 and I will'show you some examples of these just to clarify i
j 13 what we mean. _This is the one that you are probably most
!- 14 familiar with. This is the type of methodology where you go
{ 15 in and essentially conduct interviews, either one on one or l 16 one on-two with various people-in the organizat' ion, trying
! 17 to ascertain information on the factors and dimensions that i 18 we have just discussed.
1 4 19 What we now have as a function of this research is i
l 20 a huge database of interview questions that have been used I
i 21 in conducting-this organizational data collection. By in.
22 large, a lot of this is very similar to the methods that'are 23- currently-;being used in the various NRC_ activities, 24 -inspections, diagnostics, that you are all familiar with.
l- 25_ What this-allows __is~a more" standardized systematic
) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
i
~
Court Reporters i -
1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300
, ' Washington, D.C. 20006 (202)-293-3950
. . . . , . ~ . _ .
- . _ . _- . . . - . - - - _ . - - .. - .- . ~- - - - - - . - - -
4 413 l 1 database of_ questions to be used to address specific focus
- ()b 2 -areas. For example, if you know there is a particular 3 problem with decision making at a particular plant you wouldL 4 be~able to call up the questions in;the database and-use i
( 5 'those, and having had data.from.other organizations you 1
i 6 might have some comparative framework.
l 7 MR. CARROLL: Wouldn't a further benefit be that 8 ' presumably there would be'some degree of validation to the
{ 9 meaningfulness of the questions and the technique. Whereas,.
10 today, anybody thatfwants to question a conc 3usion of an NRC i
1 11 diagnostic team. inspection'could probably -- if he wanted to-12 takeuit to court -- could~probably say these guys are a
- 13 bunch of hacks that don't know what the heck they are doing.
14 hm. HABER: I think your validation point is a "o
t l
i 15 very good one. The whole purpose of this research and this
- 16 part of the research is to be able.to validate thertools
! 17 that we-are using and developing.as a function of our-work -
a 18 in the industry, and'that would allow the validation of I
- 19 these types of methods in particular. I won't comment on 1.
I 20 the particular methods currently-being used, t- . .
j 21 -MR. CARROLL: That1doesn't restrain me_from doing
- 22 it,-though.
! .23.
[ Slides.).
24 MR._HABER: ~The second method that I want to j 25 briefly summarize for you is something called the behavioral _
i f
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES,-~LTD.
l' Court Reporters
- 16121K Street, N.W.,.' Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202)-293-3950 '
414 1 anchored rating scale, or BARS for short. It'may be
) 2 unfamiliar to some of you but for those who have conducted a 3 lot of organization and management-research and.that type of 4 activity, BARS is not an unfamiliar concept.
5 A BARS is basically a way of providing a 6 behavioral example, a very concrete example, of the 7 organizational factor or dimension that you are interested 8 in. As I said, I will come to an example in a minute.
9 Aside from just going in and asking somebody a question 10 about the safety culture in their organization or in their u
11 plant, you might present them with some very specific 12 examples of how safety culture might be demonstrated or
- 13. implemented, that you could then actually rate whether or 14 not that plant exhibits that type of behavior or not.
- 15 What I need to point out here most importantly for 16 validation issue as well as reliability issue, the process 17 by which BARS are developed is a very intensive one, in the 18 sense that when you have a final product -- and we do have 19 some and I will show you those -- they were developed by 20 ' experts from the commercial nuclear power plant industry.
21 We sat down, researchers in this program sat down 22 with individuals from plants and extracted from them 23 examples of these types of factors and dimensions. When we 24 -asked them about examples for problem identification, - how do-25 you identify problems in.the plant in a proactive or ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES,.LTD.
Court-Reporters 1612 K-Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202)-293-3950
-__:___ ________=_-_. . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - . ._ _ _--__ ___
415 1 positive type of way, we actually accumulated examples that (f- 2 we could then put into the rating scale and use when we go 3 to other plantsfor look at other departments within that 4 particular organization.
5 Similarly we asked for bad examples, or examples 6 _ where that might not in fact be the case. I.will shcw you 7 specifics in a moment. That's what we mean by developed 8 using experts. These were people from plants themselves, 9 giving us examples most relevant to their day _to day work.
10 The BARS can be used in many different-ways. You 11 can use it as an observer in the plant or the person doing 12 -the interviews ~or assessment or evaluation, and actually 13 complete ~the BARS yourself based on your own observations of 14 what is going on in the plant. You can ask_somebody in the O 15 plant, a department manager,.to complete a BARS relative to 16 what they think is going on in their particular department-17 within the plant.
18 or, you can have other observations and then come 19 back and use the BARS as a summary-of a way of-describing 20 the many things that you saw. The important-issue here is 21- that the BARS is quantifiable. You actually get a' score 22 based on behavioral set of examples _from one.to-five, so 23 that you can then over many dimensions or many departments 24 in the plant, attain _a quantifiable measure of that factor.
25 The final. method that I want to talk abour is the
. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES; LTD.
Court-Reporters.
1612:K Street, N.W.,-Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
416 1 notion of a behavioral checklist. This was actually d@*
2 something that was derived from some of our earlier field 3 work out in commercial nuclear power plants using very 4 structured types of observations where we looked at or 5 followed at supervisors or managers in a plant and tried to 6 ascertain-the kinds of things they did to get their normal 7 day of work completed.
8 Based on that we developed checklista that 9 identified behaviors that should be very easily observable 10 to anybody with a little bit of training but not too much.
,o 11 The e are things that would occur that should be clearly 12 identifiable in the plant. It also allows quantifiable c
13 data, an.d I will show you how in a moment.
14 The important thing here is that this tool was 15 really developed as a function of a request, and the_ request 16 came from some of the resident inspectors that we worked 17 witi n the plants when we went into describe the study and 18 research that we were-doing. They would often say to us 19 will you have a tool that we can use because we are out in.
20 the plant every_ day and we see a-lot of these things, and we 21 really don't have_a good way in which to-identify this.
22 [ Slides.)
23 MR. HABER: What you see on the next viewgraph is 24 really a summary of the-work over a few years-here,-_in terms 25 -of the techniques that we just discussed._ At the top you ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
, Court. Reporters a 1612 K Street,- N.W., Suite 300 washington, D.C. 20006
__ _ _ _ _ _ J2_02 l 2 9 3 3 9 f 5 0__._ _ _ _ __.__. ._
417 1 nee the structured interview, the behavioral checklist or 2 the BARS. Along the side on the vertical left hand side you
^
3 see the factors that we talked about, the five factors and 4 dimensions subsumed under each of these.
a 5 What the double x's" represent are, we have 6 validated tools in that particular technique and aimension.
1-t 7 For example, in the ownership dimension we do have a 8 structured interview. . We do not have at this. time a 9 behavioral checklint or a Bans. In some of the dimensions 4 10 that you will see we have several tools. We think that's 11 important for validating the fact that we are collecting 12 data on that organizational dimension. It would be helpful 13 to have severa) means by which to collect that data.
14 MR CARRObL: In.looking.at this matrix,- do I 15 understand that you believe you could fill in all the blanks 16 if you continued-with-tnis-work with validated techniques.
17 MR. ilABER: I think that is true. The single 18 "x'o" represent tools that are in progress that we db not 1 19 yet feel comfortable with or have not had an opportunity to 6
20 validate but we do have the beginning of it. lThe blanks do 21 represent areas.that we haven't yet even en. barked upon but 22 could if we were to continue the research.
23 hm. DAVIS: Excuse me. - Have:you actually gone out 24 to any plants and did this exercise?
25 MR. HABER: We have used some-of the tools in somo-t ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
6 . Court Reporters 1612 K-Street,:N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006
-(202) 293-3950 ._ _ _ _ _ _ . _- _ ._..
- -- a_- - - m ____ n--_m--___---a-------ua-------i--J-- A--------s-------------.--------------.--ii---u---.u--z--- -----..----- - - - - - - - - - - -w----m- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
_ _ _ . _ _ _ ~ _
J i
l 418 l
f 1 of the plantu as part of the research effort, to develop the 4
i 2 validation and to further modify the tools, i
3 MR. DAVIS: Did you happen to go to Fitzpatrick? )
! 4 MR. HABER: We did not go to Fitzpatrick to I
i 5 collect this type of data, but Dr. Apostolakis will discuss-l 6 some work that he conducted at Fitzpatrick.
I
} 7 MR. DAVIS: Okay, thank you, i
! 8 MR. KRESS: My question was related to his. I am 9 not real sure what you mean by a validating tool in this ,
1 l 10 case. Could you orient me a little on that? l l 11 MR. HABER: Sure.
I l
12 MR. KRESS: I know what you mean by the tool, it's 13 just the validation is what is bothering me.
I 14 MR. HABER: The validation that we talk about is i
f- 15 really two-fold. One is face validity; are we really j
- _ 16 measuring what we think we are measuring in terms of the
,' 17 tool jtself. When we say that we are looking at i
j 18 communication are we really measuring the process of i
l 19 communication.
?
j 20 The more important validation that we also want to j 21 have is that this is a relatively new effort for the ;
j 22 industry. What may be describing the_ dimension in the i 23 aviation industry may not be exactly _the same type of i
L 24 description that_you would-have in_the nuclear industry. So i
25' that, the concept-of a safety culture may be a little bit i i
1 1
- j. 1WN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ,
! Court Reporters
} 1612-K Street,-N.'.,
W Suite 300 t Washington, D.C. 20006 l _202)-293-3950
(
t___ _ _ . _ . _ . . _ .... _ . _ _._. _ _ _ _ . _
419 1 different for the nuclear industry than it would be --
() 2 aviation might ba a bad example --
another industry where 3 some of these tools may have been developed and used in that 4 industry.
5 MR. KRESS: I guess I would call it verification.
6 MR. HABER: Verification.
7 MR. KRESS: Instead of validation, 8 MR. WARD: . I guess when I think of valiciation, is 9 there developed any empirical-evidence that a given score in 10 one direction or another is related to some g'iven level of 11 safety performance.
12 MR. KRESS: Yes, I was thinking in terms of 13 performance indicators.
14 MR. HABER: We do have some validation for that, 15 but it's only based on a couple of plants. So, we are very 16 hesitant to say that we have really_ validated these 17 dimensions in a statistical or a broader sense that we 18 usually work with in this type of work. But we-have 19 comparable data in a couple of plants. In fact, looking at 20 similarities and differences in the data allow us to discuss 21 some validity of these efforts.
22 MR. WARD: Isn't-that very important? Doesn't the 23 whole thing depend-on doing that?
24 MR. HABER: Yes.
25 MR. WARD: The application with any credibility
) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters.
1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 u__a_ __ _a-- . _ha..*m_u- u
420 1 depends on success at doing some sort of validation.
() 2 MR. HABER: That's correct. In order to be able 3 to use these tools with a degree of confidence that you 4 would want and in an application that we are discussing, you 5 would want to have a lot more of-that validation effort.
G MR. LEAMON: Would you address the problem of 7 validating one of the single factors without having the 8 complete checklist. I am worried that if you were aiming 9 towards an instrument that would validate or get 10 performance, how do you intend to validate individual pieces 11 of it when you haven't -- this in a multi-factoral problem, s
12 and you have one result, safe performance.
13 How then, do you look at one of the 20 and relate 14 that to safe performance at this stage.
15 MR. HABER: At this stage that's a very good i
16 point, and we are not at the point yet where we know the 17 relationship of those dimensions or factors. We need much 18 more data to ascertain that relationship. That is a good 19 point.
20 What I would like to do now just briefly -- and we 21 don't have to go through all the examples - I think it 22 helps if you see the kinds of samples at least of some of 23 the techniques that we have been discussing and that we use 24 out in the field.
25 (Slides.]
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,-Suite-300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 h mi ei
. - - _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . - _ _ --_ ___= _ _. -_. .
! 421 1
1 MR. HABER: The first viewgraph here-is just some 2 sample interview questions from the dimension of ownership, 3 how much ownership and accountability do people take in 4 their work. These are the kinds of questions. This is a 5 sampling. We do have more questions in'the database for 6 each of these dimensions. This la a sampling of the kind of 7 information you would extract in the structured interview j 8 protocol technique.
i 9 MR. CARROLL: You would be asking people, all the 10 way from plant manager down to the-new janitor,_ newly hired 11 janitor. I 12 MR. HABER: Yri We do this type of interviewing I
13 at all organizational lvwQs i f-the plant, from the plant ;
i 14 manager down through the employees. !
I 15 MS. HABER: The product of this would be a number l 16 between one and ten that would say how well they ranked on .
[
17 this~ relative to other plants then, or what do you come out !
18 with?
19 MR. HABER: That's a good question.- With-respect
! 20 to the interview protocol itself, we don't quantify that l
21 particular technique. We use that more for a qualitative l 1
I 22 assessment to look at-where some of the other dimensions we l .
i 23 mioht want to go in and_ collect more data upon if:weiget a 24 sense that there might be some information missing or some-25 information1that we are concerned about.
L ,
l-I
( ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court-Reporters i 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite _300 t
- j. Washington, .D.C. 20006 1 (202) 293-3950 i
p . ,
i' .
422 i 1 This is not the quantifiable portion of the data, 2 at least not to date.
3 MR. CARROLL: This, unlike the other two 4 techniques, is not quantified.
l 5 MR. HABER: That's correct.
l 6 MR. CARROLL: But the other two are quantified.
) 7 MR. HABER: That's correct, and we will get to l
8 those here in a moment.
l l 9 MS. HABER: So, none of the organizational factors l
l- 10 are quantifiable?
11 MR. HABER: Yes, In fact, they are all 1
12 quantifiable because they will have at some point at least i i
13 one method or if not more, to allow that quantification l 14 process. !
l 15 MS. HABER: Fine, thank you.
l 16 (Slides.)
17 MR. HABER: Similarly, the second sample again on 18 interview questions this time on the dimension of 19 organizational learning. Essentially, how does the plant l '
j 20 use past experience in modifying its behavior to prevent i
21 future mistakes. That's the dimension that we are 22 interested in. Th,se are the types of questions we-would 23 ask in relationship to that dimension.
1 24 These have been'used in the plants that we have b
- j. 25 been to, to date. We do have qualitative data from that i
4 l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
j Court Reporters ,
j- 1612 K Street, .N.W., Suite 300 j_ Washington, D.C. 20006 l
(202) 293-3950
- j. _ -
y _ . .- - - . - , .
_ _ _ . _ - - ~ _ _ _ - - -
\
1 l 423 l 1 data collection.
) 2 With respect to the quantifiable techniques, the 1
3 first one is the BARS that I mentioned, the behaviorally f 4 anchored rating scales. This is a sample of a BARS on the i
- 5 dimension of organizational learning. At the top is the j 6 ~ definition, the summarized definition of organizational ~
l j 7 learning, the degree to which plant personnel and the j i
j B organization use knowledge gained from past experience to l 9 improve future performance.
i 10 Then essentially what you can do as the observer -
l 11 'or the interviewer or you can ask a manager of a department I
- 12 to do or an employee to do, would be to rate their plant or i
13 their department, whatever-level of the organization that 14 you are looking at, based on these examples.
15 For example, do departments continue to use j 16 procedures and practices that have a history of inefficiency .
- 17 or failure. In other words if they have done nothing to 1
i 18 change-behavior as a function of mistakes that they have i
j 19 made or experience that they have had, they would get a one i
{ 20 for a very poor score. They have not exhibited 21 organizational learning the way we are defining it,
- i
- 22 If, on the other hand, the departments throughout 23 the plant hold-regular meetings t.o discuss how tasks _have r -
24 been performed and how they might be done betterLin a i
[ 25 continual kind of improvement sense you.might give them a d
i-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006-l (202) 293-3950-i
(,.-,,-,. _ . - - , - - . . . - . _ , . - , _ , - . - . - - . --.2._-_..___ _ _a. - - - . - . ~ . - - - - - -
= . _ . _ _ . _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ -
i 6
i 424 f
l 1 five, as an excellent rating. What this allows somebody to 2 come in and do is to identify by what they see going on in _
l 3 the plant, a score on this particular organizational !
4 dimension.
1 S Again, this would be done t hroughout dif ferent '
6 departments in the plant. It could be done at different.
7 management levels in the plant. When we get to some of the 8 other types of dimensions I will show you what that would 9 result in a minute.
10 Another sample on a BARS, problem identification 11 is the dimension we are looking at. We have defined it as a 12 way in which an organization encourages personnel to draw 13 upon knowledge, experience and current information to 14 identify any potential problems. Similarly, we have 15 examples for that dimension.
16 MR. CARROLL: What you are showing us is one of a 17 number of BARS on-the area of problem identification.
.18- MR. HABER: We have several -- we are hoping to 19 get the best if we could get more data, to have -- you would 20 have one-BARS on problem identification. We have numerous
-21 examples that could fit in. There are more than five 22 examples, obviously. What we have done is to get consensus 23 among people from plants on which really represent the best
'24 -behavioral _ example to discuss that dimension..
25 MR. CARROLL: All -.ght,.thank you.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, 11. W . , Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950-
l 425 1 MR. SEALE: You say you hope to get one set, one 2 through five, on this particular problem. Does that mean l 3 that yoti don't attempt to differentiate between a 4 multiplicity of things that might influence problem 5 identification ar.d rate each element in that multiplicity 6 from one to five.
7 Rather, you try to build a gradat. ion which is 8 ccmprehensive over all aspects of problem identification.
9 MR. HABER: Yes, the latter is-correct. I would 10 point out that some of the other factors that would-11 contribute to problem identification might be covered in 12 lll some of the other dimensions. For example, communication 13 might be an issue that would. affect the mechanism of problem l l
l _
14 identification._ So, you would have a score or a tool that l 15 would allow you to assess communication as well as how it 16 might relate to problem identifi::ation. -!
17 Primarily your answer is correct. We would_ hope 18 to get a BARS that would allow us to encompass a more '
19 comprehensive picture because we wouldn't want it to be too i
20 resource intensive to use'down the road. i 21 [ Slides.) '
22 MR. HABER: The final example of a tool before we i 23 get into the quantification, is the.. sample behavioral ,
l 24 checklist. -This is on the dimension of coordination of '
t 25 work,. When observing actual ongoing work or observing a !
i -!
I i -
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters l
, 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 '
Washington, D.C. 20006
- f. (202) 293-3950 l- !
i a L,,, a--, -- - - ~ . , . . - . - . - - - - - - - - - - - _ . ---------A.-=.
426 1 work planning session in the plant you would go down these 2 types of examples and determine if in iact it was occurring, 3 if it was not occurring, or if it was not applicable to the 4 situation this would allow you essentially to have a scoring 5 system of these types of behaviors in the plant with respect 6 to this dimension. Again, you would come up with a 7 quantifiable measure based on either a yea, no, or somc 8 rating.
9 To date. t.s are only using a yea, no, or one, zero 10 kind of binary system right now. We would hope to develop 11 that with additional data. Again, most of this has been 12 based on only a few plants in terms of-these particular 13 tools. So, we stress the need for having more data to be 14 able to improve upon that.
15 Now that you have gone into the plant and have 16 collected the data on the organizational dimensions, either 17 all of them or some of them that you are interested in, 18 perhaps across all different departments in the plant, what 19 you see on the next chart is a matrix that shows you the 20 dimensions as they are quantified. based upon the tools that 21 we have used to collect the data.
22 Again, down the left side are the 20 dimensions 23 that we have been discussing. Across the tcp horizontally 24 are departments labeled A, B, C, D, et cetera. Within each 25 box represents that department's score on those.particular ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612'K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006' (202) 293-3950 l
I i
! 427 l .
j i dimensions. So,-for example, if you look at Department D i
1 2 they had a very poor score, one is low and five would be .
I l i . 4 j 3 high. They had a very poor score on external communications '
I 1
4 on the second dimension. l' 5 That score was derived as a composite of the tools
{ 6 that we have just discussed. To date -- and this issue has f- 7- come up before -- we are using basically a linear 8 transformation. Without enough-data to know the exact j 9 relationship 1between these dimensions we have no way right-i -
l L 10 now to rate them or weight-them, if you will. -Right-now for I 1
i 1
11
! purposes of quantifying, we are simply using type of linear i
j 12 transformation on the dimensions that we look at across the L
! 13 different levels in the organization.
14 If we collect different management levels right l 15 now across different departments, we would really do a i
l 16 summation and then an average for a rating score.
I j 17 Similarly in department D if you look down at 18 personnel selection, dimension number 13, they had a five.
19 Their external ccmmunication is very poor, but they do ;
i
{ 20 select their personnel very well. This is the way you'could l 21 discriminate between these dimensions, between different i
4 22 department within the same plant, i
23 MR.-KRAMER: Excuse me, Sonja. I'think the scale-
] 24 ~is one to seven, isn't it?
i j 25 MR. HABER: I am sorry?
3.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
] Court Reporters i 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Nashington, D.C. 20006 L
.(202) 293-3950 i
..,,J .,m-..<-,,.w._,,-,m.._-..._. - _.,-_ - . a..,.,- _.. .;.~. __.._.__._,_,...._.-.._.__.-_.,a_m-. .- . e - - . . . - . ,
428 1 MR. KRAMER: The scale is one to seven unless the 2 note on the --
3 MR. HABER: You are right, it was one to seven, 4 yes. Thank you. One was the low score and seven was the 5 highest. The five represented toward the high end of the 6 scale but not the highest possible score.
7 [ Slides.)
8 MR. HABER: What you can thea do is take_that-9 large matrix of the 20 dimensions and boil:it down to the 10 five' factors that we discussed before. Again, here, we are 11 doing a linear transformation of those data until we-are 12 sure and have more data on the relationship between those y 13 dimensions.
34 MR. WARD: Sonja, in November I think you said or 15 somebody said, that there was pretty good agreement among 16 the various researchers that the 20 dimensions all made 17 sense.-
18 MR. HABER: Yes.
19 MR. WARD: But-there was not yet good agreement on 20 combining them into the five factors. =Have you made any-21 progress there?
22 MR. HABER: No, we haven't yet. I think part of 23 _it is -- I think that we agree, that we probably have a
-24 subset of five. it think-some of--it-is the labeling of some 25 of the dimensions. The_next step we would like is to have ANN RILEY'& ASSOCIATES,-LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington,--D.C. 20006-(202) 293-3950
~- - - - _ .-.- - - - - - .. - - . - .- - ..- - .~.....- - -- - -
i l 429
- i some data to look at how these dimensions correlate with one
- 2 another in a statistical sense, and that may help us to
) 3 better define the label. ;
i 4 This whole notion of having the relationship again !
{ 5 among the dimensions would be very useful to help do that.
i 1 6 We have not really made any progress on that. At this point i
7 it would be more theoretical rather than empirically based.
8 MR. WARD: The question also arose of i
j 9 interdependency among the dimensions.
j 10 MR. HABER: Right. I think that would be 11 addressed by the --
12 MR. WARD: You would sort that out at the same 1
l- 13 time, do you think?
i ,
- 14 MR. HABER
- Yes.
i
} 15 MR. CARROLL- Sonja, for the benefit of'the group I
- 16 you have referred to researchers, plural. You are 4
! 17 Brookhaven, and who are the others at this point that are
- 18 working on the measurement tool project.
19 MR. HABER: The primary researchers are from Penn
- 20 State University, Frank Landy and Rick-Jacobs, and i
j 21 Brookhaven National Laboratory, that are working on the i
j 22 front end of developing the tools.
1
. 23 MR. CARROLL: Earlier than that there was a cast i
{ 24 of thousands.
4 j 25 .MR. HABER: -There were many, and I should mention i
s s.
ANN-RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
j 1612 K Street, Court Reporters N.W.,. Suite 300-j- Washington, D.C.-20006 (202) 293-3950 i
-s
_. . _ .. _ . ~ . .. _ ,, . _ - . . . . _ . _ . _ - . . - , . . . - - _ _ _ _ _ _ , , - . , -
- - _ =
l 430 1 that some of these interview questions did come out from 2 work that was going on through the University of Minnesota 3 and others as well. So we have attempt to incorporate 4 whatever was available from the program.
5 MR. CARROLL: Joel, as you guys did refocusing 6 along the way it's now down to these two principal 7 researchers, is that situation?
8 MR. KRAMER: Plus Penn State.
9 MR. CARROLL: I said Penn State, i 10 MR. KRAMER: Penn State, Brookhaven, UCLA. The 11 work from Minnesota on organizational learning has been. ,
12 incorporated into this. Brookhaven is the-lead integration
! 13 contractor for-pulling all the stuff together. Our projects
! .i l 14 are basically down to four projects. ,
1 -
15 (Slides.)
l i
16 MR. HABER: What we have now then is, we have a 17 quantification matrix based on either the dimensions or the i 18 factors. You have gone into a plant, you have-collected 19 data on the dimensions,.and you have some way to l t
20 differentiate between departments or between plants on those 21 dimensions or factors.
l 22 The applications that we see these tools being
- 23 most useful for are first off, inspection activities that
i 24 _are_ currently _ ongoing within the NRC.. Typically, NRR' 3 25 inspections or regional inspections -- and I won't include ,
g --
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. f Court Reporters ,
1612 K Street, N-W., Suite 300- t
- . washington, _.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950_- '
l iw W WWv y-TW"rWMWq
- q 3piag gNe mew , . . W--FM NT F *T'M "MF WN h*W'NDMm- PWM-E -wh83*"ON""**'*"--
431 l
l 1 diagnostics in here because we-have that as a separate 2 application. There have been a lot of inspections that have 3 been done from the NRR side or the-region side, and they 4 could use the tools we have been discussing as well as the 5 work process analysis model that Dr. Apostolakis will 6 discuss in a few moments.
7 What it would allow, I think, is a standardization 8 across the plants in the way that these organizational l 9 factors are assessed by these various groups.- It would l
10 allow some comparability in discussing how organization and 1
11 management _is influencing plant performance with_ respect to 12 safety. :
i !
i 13 As I mentioned before, the resident inspectors ;
i 14 came to us and really_ encouraged us to_ develop the !
- 15 behavioral checklist approach or a BARS, that they could use ;
16 in their day to day activities or similarly in their role 17 eventually in the SALP process, by understanding and having l 18 a way to-look at these dimensions that might be useful for :
19 their input in whatever type of inspection activity they are l
20 involved in.
l 21 As I_ mentioned,_ separately is the diagnostic. i 22 evaluation. Two years ago I was a member of a diagnostic l 23 evaluation team, and part of that was to look at how the i ?
j 24 work that we were doing in this research area might.in fact 25 benefit the kinds of activities that are ongoing in the NRC.
j ._
.i l
ANN RILEY;& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
f Court Reporters t L 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 !
l- Washington, D.C. 20006 !
(202) 293-3950' i, l
4- . .
432
! 1 We think that now, with the tools that we have developed l 2 including the work that you will hear about in a few minutes 3 from UCLA, that the work process analysis model -- which I 4 won't describe -- can determine key areas of investigation 5 that might be warranted in the plant. i I
6 In particular, the DARS, the interview questions, 7 the checklist, 1 think all provide a way for systematically 8 observing areas that might be pre-defined. -Part of the 9 diagnostic evaluation as you know, is to collect a lot of 10 data about the plant before you go to the plant.
l 11 You might be able to target and focus certain !
12 areas or departments on these dimensions before you go in 13 and have a good way of assessing those factors when you are l i
14 at the plant, and I think maxinizing time. i O 35 I think also, you would then have the dimension i
16 scores to look at the plant's relative strengths and 17 weaknesses. Again, if you wanted, you might have a relative !
18 way of comparing plants if you were-interested in doing 19 that. l 20 [ Slides.) l 21 MR. HABER: What I am just going to spend a couple 22 of minutes on-right now -- which is not totally the front f
23 end of the process -- Brookhaven early on had started to do
- 24 some work-in--attempting to integrate our research. efforts ,
i 25 into.the PRA process. Many of you may be familiar with -
l' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 t Washington, D.C. 20006 (202).293 .3950-i
< , - , - . , . - . . - _ _ _ _ _ -._.~.__;__~_..___ -________._u_____
433 1
NUREG CR 5538 that describes the work that we did at the
(} 2 3
Diablo Canyon plant a few years ago now, in which we attempted to integrate some of this data into PRA.
4 Only at that time, we did not use the Diablo 5 Canyon PRA. We use the Oconee PRA because we had done at-6 Brookhavet on human erroro related-to the Oconee PRA. Tha 7 had kind of used theoretical data from Diablo, applying that 8 to the Oconee PRA. It was a really hypothetical example of-9 .the way we would incorporate this.
10 Subsequent to that, we did another field study 11 using not e ly the tools that you see-here but they were 12 modificatio.,s because it was earlier than-the integration 13 process we are at now. It did allow us to quantify many of 14 the dimensions that you have seen. Basically, we went to
( 15 the Limerick facility and collected organizational data 16 there. They were very cooperative in the research effort 17 with us.
18 Essentially what we_have_done to_date literally to 19- date -- this past week -- is we chose a method that is a 20 little bit different than you will hear about from Dr.
21 Apostolakis. What we are hoping now as-part of this 22 coordination and integration effort,_will be to combine some 23 of both efforts to come out with the most useful tool.
24 We:did identify ___ dominant accident sequences that
'25 characterize 93 percent of core melt-frequency. This is the O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street,.N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
434 1 new Limerick IPE. We then looked at cutsets within those 2 sequences and identified the human errors in them.
3 MR. DAVIS: When you say human errors, are you 4 talking about human errors based on actions required from 5 the operator only, or are you looking at human errors from 6 test and maintenance considerations of the equipment that 7 are in the cutsets.
3 I
8 MR. HABER: Both. We are looking at all the human l 9 errors that were identified in the IPE by Limerick, that 10 . would show up in these cutsets.
11 MR. DAVIS: Including test and maintenance errors.
12 MR. HABER: That's correct. We did categorize 13 them that way. I will talk about that in a minute.
14 We incorporated the human errors into a database is that allowed us to identify many of these types of issues 16 that you are discussing right now. Just to give you a 17 sample, each human error has a record that identifies 18 basically ell the information that we need in terms of the 19 type of personnel involved, the type of -- if-it was a 20 commission or omission -- led us to characterize these human 21 errors so that we could t'nen put them into various 22 categories. _
23 MR. KRESS: Did you include the initiating event 24 -frequency in these?
2'5 MR. HABER: I am sorry.
ANN RILEY t ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202). 293-3950
7._.__.__...._
{ 435 l-j .
1 MR. KRESS: When you did these, did you include -
! 2 the initiating event frequency.
1 3 MR. HABER:- Yes, I think that's identified up 4 here as well. Yes, we did do that. If it's not on-here it 5 was on the other one.
6 Then what we did was, we grouped the human errors I
{ 7 with respect'to uncertainty. factors. Some of you may be 1
8 fam.iliar that Brookhaven has=done some work in the_rlsk i 1
) 9 sensitivity to-human errors both on the Oconee and LaSalle ,
1 '
i 10 PRA's, where we looked at five sources of uncertainty for i
j 11 human error and grouped human errors in a PRA based upon the i
j 12 level of uncertainty that we thought was associated with j 13 those errors.
i l- 14 We did the same thing here, with respect to the 4 -
15 human errors identified by Limerick. We then quantified 16 this. This process also has_been laid out in some of that 17 risk sensitivity work. We quantified these uncertainty 18 factors for this specific plant. We then looked at what the 19 effect of organizational factors would be on these 20 uncertainty-factors.
21 For example, if one of the uncertainty factors is 22 personnel variability which is one that has been defined, 23 how much would you reduce uncertainty if you knew something 24 about organizational data from that plant could you reduce 25 that uncertainty by some significant amount or by some ANN ~RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202)E293-3950
436 1 amount that might m4he a difference. This is all very 2 prelin'inary information.
3 Some of the methodology is similar to that 4 described in NUREG CR 5538. We then quantified the 5 organizational factors data -- what we just discussed at the 6 Limerick plant -- based on similar types of methods as I
? mentioned. We had, if you will, ratings for Limerick on 8 these organizat ,nal factors.
9 We then weighted these with-respect to-each 10 department. What we did here is, we had a series of experts 11 from commercial nuclear power plants that came in and rated 12 the five factors, the-large factors, and said in an-13 operations department how would you rate communications as 14 opposed to decision making. It's kind of a which one might 15 he more important or would you give more weighting to in 16 terms of the kind of work that has to get done in an 17 operations department.
18 Similarly, we did that about maintenance, I&C and 19 types of errors that might require the synergism between 20 .those two departments or the interaction. We had these 21 experte weight the organizational factors with respect to 22 each of the functional departments that we looked at from 23- the human errors that were identidied.
24 MR. KRESS: You said you quantified that in terms-25 of reduction of uncertainty. Take for example the human ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612'K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950'
437 1 factor that is pretty clear, that would be an-operator did 2 he do this or didn't he do this on a particular sequence 3 that he had to do something. What do you mean by reduction 4 of uncert.ainty.
5 Did you put a distribution on the uncertainty and j 6 give it a probability rather than reduce it? I am focusing 7 on the word reduction. I am not sure what that means.
I 8 MR. HABER: With each of the human error j 9 probabilities for that type of action, each of those actions 10 has a base case probability defined by the plant.
11 MR. KRESS: Right.
I I
12 MR. HABER: Around that is uncertainty. We are j i
13 saying that there are five factors that create some of that l 14 uncertainty in a human error. They are things-like lack of l 15 data, they are things like personnel variability, they are f
16 things like the modeling that goes on in those plants. -i l
17 These are sources of uncertainty around the l 18 development of that base case. We are saying now that if we !
19 had organizational data about the plant, could we reduce the ;
20 amount of uncertainty around that base case, j i 21 MR. KRESS: I see what you mean.
l 22 MR. HABER: We then weighted ---we discussed that, 23 the factors with respect to each department.
24 (Slides.)
25 MR. HABER: -Then,_having the ratings from the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington,-D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
_ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ . _ - -._- _ _.____. _.----~__.m.___-___._--
i i
4 438 l
! 1 organizational data, having the weightings from the experts
() 2 about the influence of those factors for that department, we
{ 3 could the derive departmental score based on the weightings
]
l 4 and the plant specific data. From that, we calculated new l
l 5 human error probabilities.
- 6 Now that we had applied the rating and the 7 weighting, we developed using the success likelihood index i 8 methodology commonly called SLIM, we developed an SLI index l 9 we could then apply to that base case, the original base i
j 10 case provided by the plant, and developed a new human error i
j 11 probability incorporating the weighting and rating based i l
12 from the data that we had collected. We could-then j 13 calculate a new core melt frequency based on those human
! 14 errors.
{ 15 This doesn't exactly have the numbers because we 1
l 16 just got those. Basically, this is the notion that you were ,
. 17 talking about. These are the sources of uncertainty that we ;
1 18 had defined. If we assume that B is the base case presented j 19 to us by the plant in their IPE, then what we essentially 4
l 20 did was derive high and. low human error probabilities, not i
i 21 looking at organizational factors which would be represented 1-22 here and here. .This would-be the-total range if you will,
} 23 of uncertainty around the base caca. ;
i A
i 24 By applying the organizational factors. data we I
"25 think we can reduce the uncertainty to the'new low HEP and i
i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
- Court Reporters -
- 1612-K Street, N.W., Suite 300
- Washington, D.C. 20006 L
(202) 293-3950' ;'
~ _ _ . . _ - - - - _ - . . _ -. . _ . . - , . - . _ . _ _ . _ - _ _ , _ . - _ . . _ . - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ . _ . _ _ _
439 1 the new high HEP. So, we have reduced now the range that we
() 2 are looking in.
3 MR. KRESS: You don't think it might B, itself, to 4 some different value?
5 MR. HABER: I am sorry?
6 MR. KRESS: You don't think it might not have 7 changed B, itself, to some different value.
1 8 MR. HABER: I think'it has I think B star, star
! 9 represents the new base case based on organizational factors 10 data. What we are doing right now is just trying to look at 11 the uncertainty as derived by their own base case.
12 It turns out that when we do this with Limerick 13 using the organizational data-factors that we collected i
! - 14 using their IPE, we, using the dominant accident sequences, 15 we saw a reduction in core melt frequency by-30 percent.
l 16 They were essentially more conservative in their estimate of 17 CMP without having looked at organizational data factor 18 integrated into them.
19 MR. KRESS: Did that come-out just because of the 20 shape of the curve.
21 MR. HABER: I am not even using -- I am using this 22 curve as a theoretical curve.
23 MR. KRESS: I know, but if you are doing it this '
24 way it's only the shape of the curve that could influence 25 that number.
ANN RILEY_& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
. . - - - . _ ~ - . . - . - - . - - . . - . . - . - - - - - - . - - - . - - - . - . -
440 1 MR. KRAMER: Let me indicate that some of these 2 results are so new that the staff has not even seen them.
3 MR. HABER: It's just one method that --
-4 MR. KRAMER: We are first viewing them, as you 5 are. I 6 MR. HABER: It needs a lot more review and 7 discussion. It's just a way of taking the data collected 8 and trying to incorporate it into a PRA.
9 MR. SEALE: I am going to ask you a question about-10 something-that I know very little about, and just reassure i 11 me. I can see one of the difficulties you might have here ,
12 is the reliability of the person or who it is you are asking_ ;
13 the question of. If it's right after a bad experience of 14 some sort of if it's just af ter the individual had gottien a 15 raise. There are just a jillion factors -- including 16 whether or not their spouse kicked them out of the house -
17 that morning or kissed them before they left, whatever the 18 case was.
19 Have you got an-instrument that allows you to try 20 to find out what the personal input influence is on these 21 kinds of assessments.
i i 22 MR. HABER: Your question is very good. We are not~
! 23 trying to develop a tool to assess the -- I want to explain.
! 24- What we do want to do is, we want to have a tool that I 25 maximizes the organizational data that we collect without j '
ANN RILEY-& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters l 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 i Washington, D.C. 20006 '
j (202) 293-3950-y ww - ww -
-- - wew-w r w -e - va% -+ w- =-+ m ee+-- nm re-a--w--m - es-r -r y e ' * -,m.., v er e --- me w rw e4 p si- vs w -c'-->- ->r--+ 're<+r---e= -**no m 's e'"e,e*+=d-e*wve'* re2**~-"W'e**-**'T'*"*'"
_,. _ - .. ~ . - - - . - -.-. _ - - _._ _ . . - .. ..-. - .. - -
441 i i that influence.
1
! 2 HMR.-SEALE: But you are asking people to answer 3 questions - .-
- j. 4 MR. HABER: Let me explainf it to you. In the
, i l 5 development of these types of interviews, tests, scales, I i
l- 6 surveys, whatever you use, there is a way to get out that 7 effect,-that confounding effect if you will.
8 MR. SEALE: The bias.
9 MR. RABER: Yes. Again, through development of l
. :UD the tools, that is part of the process. We would-do a test, ;
i
- 11 retest type of reliability to make sure-that from one day to-I 12 the next that we are really measuring the same thing and not i .
13 getting influences such as you discussed. l
} 14 MR.ELEAMON: Can I ask a question. How do you ,
15 control the individual hearer variability. In other words,
! 16 the person asking questions may vary but also the person's ,
t
! 17 hearing then -- if you take an example, .someone says he is a 4
- -18 real swine. He runs us around all the. time. Does that mean l l
l 19 he's a good manager or he has bad industrial relations.
s 20
! It's very much a part of the hearer rather'than l
3 21 what the person said. I wonder-how you --
.I 22' MR. HABER: We have a measure of inter-rater- "
1 4 23 reliability. You would have as part of it up front, two i
24 people that would be listening and hearing the same c 25 responses and would be coding or rating them. Then, you t
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
- l Court Reporters
- 1612 K Street,-N.W.,-Suite 300 -
. Washington,-D.C. 20006
, -(202) 293-3950 i-1
, , - , , , . . _ , , , . . - ~ . _ -
l i
1
- 442 l
j 1 would look.at the percent of agreement.
2 If you had a tool where you couldn't get a.high l 3 percent of agreement you obviously wouldn't have a reliable j 4 tool, and you would have to modify it.
5 That's all I had.
] 6 MR. CARROLL: I had a couple of questions for i
j 7 Sonja before she finishes. I don't want to slight George, l 8 but I really think the emphasis today is the tools. We are l j 9 aluo interested in the PRA applications.
i
!_ 10 Sonja, I guess I may be putting you on the spot, ;
l 11 but do you agree with the staff's assessment that gathering 12 of data is resource intensive. Are they being biased to i
l 13 some extent -- I know when we asked Eric Beckjord this i
i 14 question he pointed to Diablo Canyon. Gee, we tied those j
j 15 people up for weeks.
1 l 16 Do you believe that the tools you are working on 4
i 17 could get a good measure of the performance of an i
j 18 organization with substantially less resource involvement l 19 than Diablo Canyon?
I j 20 MR. HABER: Yes, I do. I think part of that
!. 21 effort, of course is, as the tools are better refined and we i
j 22 have the ones that we need for each of the dimensions, I -
i 23 think we can do better.
?
! 24 MR. CARROLL: Order of magnitude?
I d
25 MR. HABER: Personally speaking from the 4
i 3
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
l Court Reporters
~
l 1612 K-Street, N.W., Suite 300 1
Washington, D.C. 20006-(202) 293-3950 i-t .- _ ., _ . - _ _ _ _ . . _ . . . . _
443 1 Brookhaven experience, the difference in time between Diablo
() 2 Canyon and Limerick was significantly less. Just having
~
3 been through that experience the first time and knowing what 4 needed to get done, the cost associated was also reduced. I 5 don't know by what degree we would eventually get down to, 6 to the point you are looking at.
7 I can see the process going in that direction.
8 MR. CARROLL: Okay. I guess the other put you on 9 the spot question is, do you believe that this present 10 effort to integrate what has been done so far is really 11 going-to produce'some tools that will be useful in.any sense 12 -to the staff? I guess one fear - -Tom, you expressed it --
13 is that-if the job isn't done and you put out tools that 14 are going to become discredited simply because they are-no 15 good, it's going to be very difficult to ever revive this 16 effort and get anybody to believe in it.
17 My question is, do'you think that the tools to the la point they have been developed are going to be particularly 19 useful?
20 MR. HABER: Useful, I think, is not the operative 21 word. I think they will be useful. I think in order to use 22 them with a level of confidence in applications that we have 1
23 been talking about, no, I.think there needs to be more work 24 done in'that area.
25 Before I think as researchers in this area, we
) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,-Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
444 1 would feel. comfortable giving that tool out as something
() 2 that could be used by the staff, we would like to see some c 3 more developmental work, some more data collected, and some 4 perhaps use of our efforts with staff in applying this.
5 MR. CARROLL: At the time of our meeting on 6 e.ovember 12, I think you'and Rick were going =to go home and 7 do some more thinking about how much more effort you are w
8 really talking about. Do you have, I will use the wrong 9 word again,~useful tools.
10 MR. HABER: We did give tne staff -- and they can 11 address that issue -- some infora.ation regarding that.
12 MR. CARROLL: I would like to hear what that in.
13 MR. KRAMER: I think the best guesstimate at this 14- point on'the front end would probably be something 15 approaching half a million dollars a year for each.three 16 years.
17 MR. CARROLL: The.$1.2 million-a year that you 18 have-been traditionally-budgeting has included the PRA work-19 also, right?
20 MR. KRAMER: Yes.
21- MR.+ CARROLL: Is-this half million, how does it-22 _ compare?
23 MR. KRAMER: The total-guesstimates as this point 24 that I have from Sonja, Rick and George, would say on the f 25 order of about $700,000.00 or $800,000.00 for each of three ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N . W . ,- Suite 300 l Washington,ED.C. 20006 .)
(202)' ~ 293-3 950
. u . _ - --
445 1 or four years.
( 2 MR. CARROLL: You said three before.
3 MR. KRAMER: I am' talking total,-the front end.
4 MR. CAhROLL: The front end.is_ half'million for 5 three years?
6 MR. KRAMER: Yes.
7 MR. LEAMON: Jay, can I ask for a bit-of a
, 8 clarification on that?
9 MR. CARROLL- Sure, if_you would.
10 MR. LEAMON: Sonja,-if no.further money was spent 11 and the products that you have which I believe~itts fair to 12 .say have not been validated were introduced in the field, 6 13 what earthly good might they de 14 MR. HABER: I.think this is a step -- if these 15 types of tools would at least be considered or begin to be 16 thought about in a' framework to use them in the types of
~
17 applications that are going on,!I think that would be a good 18 atep in the'right directica.
19 MR..LEAMON.: That's'a generic view of.this sort of-20' reseacch in general. It is-not specifically these 21 instruments. My-concern-is, as Jhy said,-if;you1put 22 unvalidated instruments out'there to unskilled hands it--
23 would do nobody any good. They'probably wouldn't do-you any_
f 24- good, being a set of skilled hands.
/
25 I.am concerned about the-downstream costfof trying.
. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATRS, LTD.
. Court. Reporters 1612 K Street , - N.W . , Suite 300 Washington, D.C._20006 (202)'293-3950
- - - , . . , - - , - - , - - . _ - , - - - , - - - , - - - _ _ - - , - - - - - - - - . _ - - - . - - - - - --- . - - - , - - - - - - - - - - - .- . - - _ - - - - - - a- -,,-----
446 1 to theoretically salvage something from the past research by.
( 2 dumping it in the field and thinking we have done anything.
3 I imagine it would do harm and not good, at this stage.
4 MR. HABER: There is the potential for that. Some 5 of the tools though, we do hate more data on than others. I 4
6 -wouldn't say they are completely validated. I think we have 7 some confidence as to their application in this type of 8 setting. I think there is a concern on some of the other 9 tools.
10 MR. CARROLL: If I have a socket set and it's 11 missing half the sockets, I am going to be very frustrated 12 when I try to take my engine apart.
13 MR, CATTON: How long has this program been-going 14 on?
15 MR. KRAMER: Since 1987, in its latest version.
16 Research in earlier years, in 1982, had a level'of activity 17 going on. I think there was also one in the 1984. 1985 18 timeframe. Frank may have some more detailsEon tha't.
19 MR. CATTON: You are talking on-the order of ten 1 20 million or so has been spent. What we just heard, it's 21- going to take a million and one-half to finish.
22 MR..KRAMER: It's not ten million that-has-been-23 spent.
24 MR. CATTON: I thought'it was $1.2 million a year, 25 and I Just added.up ten years, I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters
, 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 3 (202) 293-3950
447 1 MR. WARD: Approximately, how much-has beenfspent.
( ); -2 I think that's what Ivan is trying to find out.
3 MR. KRAMER:- Three point eight million, from.1987 4 to 1993.
5 MR. CATTON: It sounded like'$1.5-to finish, or at 6 least put it in some sort of form so that it would-be 7 useful. That's what I-think I heard.
8 MR. KRAMER: Very rough guesstimate on the money 9 left.
10 MR. CATTON: I understand that.it's_ rough, 11 MR. KRAMER: The earlier efforts though, when you 12 got your-ten million, the earlier efforts'in the 1984 13 timeframe were very low funding efforts.
_s 14 MR. ' CARROLL: How does that' contrast-to ROSA?
15 MR. CATTON: -There's still_more than thatlat ROSA.
16 ROSA will be $10 million plus in one year, and it's not
. - 17 clear that-it will be finished.
18- MR. WILKINS:
Or that it will be;useful when it's 19- finished.
-20 MR. WARD: Could I ask.for a1 clarification onIthe~-
21 - .you are talking about one-half million a_ year for three-22 years to compete these tools. Does that include the' 23 validation of the tools? I got what I felt was: sort of a 24 soft answer from it before on validation. I almost1 heard
-25 that you didn't know how to validate them'. How'are-you ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street,JU.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 1
448- .
1 going to validate them. Are you going to figure that out in 2 the next three years?
3 MR. HABER: No. I am sorry if I gave that-4 impression. That would include some of the validation 5 effort in the next two years, going to additional plants. I
< 6 think that we have identified --
7 MR. WARD: By validation-do you mean -- what I 8 mean by validation -- T don't know if it's a good definition 9 -- is that you are going to show that~these factors'or 10 dimensions a related in some predictable way to the safety 11 performance of the plant.
12 MR, HABER: We are going to make sureLthat they 13 are measuring what we think they are measuring and we are 14 going to show --
15 MR. WARD: That may be verification.
16 MR. HABER: I guess it's the confusion in 17 psychology we often talk about.
18 -MR. WARD: You te'll me what they-mean then. I 19 don't know.
20 MR. HABER: We need to -- first we need-to make-21 sure we are measuring what we think we. are measuring, . and1we 22 think we are pretty far in that-arena. Then,.,we-do have-to 23 validate it to safety performance We also-have to --
24 that's part of what we call indexing, I guess, in terms of 25 collecting data at different types'of plants-with different ANN-RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court-Reporters-1612 K Street,- N.W., Saite 300 Washi ngton, D C.- 20006.
(202) 293-3950
449 1 types of performance measures that have known differences in
()- 2 performance ^ records, so that we can index what we are 3 measuring when we look at these dimensions.
4 It's so that we know what a four means when we 5- quantify something in relationship to other: safety 6 performance' measures.
7 MR. WARD: It seems like people have been ,
-8 struggling for a long time to do this indexing and 9 validating. They have these._different performance indicators.
10 which I am not sure mean an awful lot because they haven't 11 been very rigorously indexed or validated or verified,-'or ,
12 shown to relate definitely to safety performance, 13 You are going to do this somehow. Can you give us 14 a hint --
15 MR. HABER: We are going'to attempt to develop a 16 database that would allow us to at-least start looking at 17 that.
.18 _ .MR. WARD: What's in'a database?
19 MR. HABER: Theftype of organizational data that 20 -we have across different types--of plants with different 21 performance measures that we.may be able to use to establish-
-22' that relationship, 23- -MR.-WARD: .W hat-performance. How do1you tell a.
24 ~ good plantifrom.a bad plant, what performance measures are
,. 25 -you going _to use?
- ANN RILEY &-ASSOCIATES, LTD.
. Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite.300 Washington, D.C. 20006 .I (202) 293-3950
450 1 MR. CATTON: Whether they get on the black list or 2 not.
3 MR. RABER: I guess there are some subjective 4 measures that the NRC uses, and if we could go to plants 5 that would allow us to collect data from those types of 6 organizations that would be a first step.
7 MR. KRAMER: Dave, this may become clearer in 8 George's presentation on validation and tying it to safety.
9 MR. SEALE: I had one question, additionally. You 10 said earlier or someone mentioned the danger of dumping a 11 product without having'much understanding about it. I guess 12 the other thing that bothers me is putting the product out 13 in the market and naving it being used by1 improperly trained-14 people.
e 15 I guess my question is, would this effort that you 16- are talking about include something which would. involve a-17 sort of peer group role, some of the ultimate users as 16 . participants in the process.so that they could learn how to
-19 use it.
20 MR, HABER: That was our suggestion,.that we 21 either be allowed to partake-in some of the existing
- 22. activities attempting:to utilize some cf these tools or.have
' 23 staf f perhaps learn with us in. our -data collection . process:
24 as well.
- 25. I don't want_to give the impression -- we feel.--
~
- ANN.RILET &-ASSOCIATES, LTD.-
Court Reporters 1612'E_ Street, N.W. , = Suite 3 00
-Wachington, D=.C. 2000G l(202) f293-3950
_ _ _ _ _ _____________1____~___2.___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
451 1 all of the work that we have done and we have gotten a 2 large consensus, that we have good tools. We have 3 identified the important dimensions here. I don't want to 4 give that impression. I think as a researcher we would like 5 to have a lot more data at the plants from the industry that 6 would help us just feel much better about it.
7 MR. DAVIS: Has this technique ever been used in 8 other industries, and you have data from that?
9 MR. HABER: Yes. Both Brookhaven and Penn state 10 and some of the other organizations that have been involved 11 do work for other organizations, for Department of Energy 12 facilities. Penn State has done work in the past with 13 commercial utilities.
14 This is not a new effort. This is not all new. I i.
15 mean, we are not bringing something -- we are modifying it 16 for the industry and the organization as it needs to be 17 done. The basic premise and foundation is a pretty eolid 18 one.
19 MR. CARROLL: Would you agree with that, Tom?
20 MR. LEAMON: I think so. This is one of those --
1' 21 I think we are talking about yes, we all have a part of 22 the elephant. We are all basing our opinions on what we 23 think the key issue is. One of the ways that this is useful 24 ..s if it's done inside an organization. For example, 25 Petrochemical process is doing internally and develop and ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 1 I
'452 1 institutional commitment, institutional culture which brings 2 all this stuff in every day.
3 If you want,-you might want to describe that as 4 ownership. I hear a regulatory top down view. That's 5 different, A regulatory top down view is going to have 6 harder criteria and bigger numbers _because a three is worse 7 than a four, but if it's inside the organization it is.being 8 meant to improve safety operations internal in the 9 organization. It doesn't matter whether three and one-half 10 is better than four or not-because you are working on that 11 process as a continuous process, kind of like continuous 12 quality.
13 I think one of the problems here is that the 14 researchers at the last meeting made pretty clear that.what i
15 they set off to do, they are doing. Some'of the management 16 views have changed over the lifetime of the project. The 17 objectives of the research as I. understand it, have stayed' 18 pretty much on. focus. The expectations have'not been '
19 controlled quite as well.
20 The question"I have down here is whether~Sonja 21 would feel comfortable about defining and end: product in two 22- years or three years. Now,-what_I_mean:is not what other i'
231 people have been asking, are we going.to have a set-of-tools:
24 Ice can put out'there in three years. If she was given the 25 task of-saying-in three years what will'the product be that-ANN RI. LEY L. ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street,-N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
. .. .. .. - _____- - -_--_ ----_ - - - - - - O
!' 453 i
l 1 we can reasonably expect you_to. deliver on this table.-
2 Then, we~could look at it and see rather better, I_ j i
- 3. feel,- L wherel we might want tx) support it going. '
1
, 4 MR. CATTON: I guess the~ problem right now is that
! 5 it's going:to end, _ The question really is,-should we ,
~
i f 6 encourage them to' continue'it.- I think that's;the ---
l 7 MR. CARROLL: That's the_ question I'had in my; 8 mind. That's the basic questions.
- - 9 MR. CATTON
- I look at the numbers, 30 percent. .
i . -
i 10 -more expenditure -- and keep'in the back of your mind ROSA, i .
e 11 which you so-nicely suggested.
f 12 MR.'COFFMAN: Could I clarify the $3,8 million_
f 13 MR. CARROLL: 'Sure. -
! 14 MR. COFFMAN: The?S3,0 million.was spent over !
- 15 about a'six year-period, We still censider this-to be
I -
4 l- 16 within the realm of feasibility'research. I am not prepared-f 17 to make w comparison to the ROSA facility. I-think:that i .
l 18 might be a worthwhile exercise'--
L
[
19 MR ~. CATTON; No. ,
20: MR. CARROLL: ?That's an inside job. .;
- j. 21' MR. COFFMAN: However, I imagine that,the ROSA l 22; facility is generating data. This~is. feasibility;--
! - 23 'MR. CATTON: That's not clear.
-241 MR. CARROLL: That'sinot clear, atLall.
25- MS. HABER: Tons of data. 'It's whether-they know i '
L i-.
D.
l ANN RILEY-& ASSOCIATES,- LTD.
i Court Reporters
, 1612 K'_ Street,_N.W., Suite 300.
F Washington,D.C. 20006 j' (202)'293-3950 i
.- . a , . - . - - . - -. w . _ .:
454 1 how to use it.
'2 MR. COFFMAN: I will stay away from ROSA. Let me 3 stay with what 1 know. That is, the $3.8 million was spent 4 on feasibility research. That is, in fact, is it feasible 2
5 to do this. Certainly, one of-the questions that you have 6- to be able to answer positively is, I can_ repeat the process 7 or there is some reliability to the process.
< 8 That's where the $3.8 million goes. Typically, in 9 our research projects following feasibility research is'the 10 actual development. Once the principle has been' completed, 11 can in fact you then develop the product so it can be then 1
12 next evaluated, once you get to that third stage of 13 research and evaluation, you start asking the questions 14 about validity, face validity, internal consistency; and 15 realism compared to some outside independent check.
16 Finally, at the end of that, there is a fourth 4
17 stage where you actually implement-the research results.
18 There, you start generating data. This research has spent s'
19 $3.8 million on feasibility;research. To imply that' $1.5
- 20 million more will get-it through theLimplementation stage in 21 a little -- I think it-would be a misconception, j 22 MR. CARROLLi Why didn't you' discuss these matters-23 in your SECY though,_ Frank.
4 24 MR. COFFMAN: -Which matters?.
25- MR. CARROLL: What you just described.
4 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202)- 293-3950
________.________________.______.__m_ _ _ _ _ . _
455 1 MR. COFFMAN: It_has been in previous SECY's, 92-2 008 and in the Commission briefing. I think we have 3- described that this is feasibility research'.
4 MR. CARROLL: Yes, but this-is a particularly 5 _significant SECY, in that you are making the recommendation 6 that this work be wrapped up. I guess you don't really -- ,
7 MR. COFFMAN: We may have been-incomplete.
8 MR. CARROLL: One other question I guess I wanted 9 to ask and'didn't when you'are Joel were starting was, given 10 the fact that everybody seems to agree that_ organizational ~
11 factors are extremely important to safety and you have had 12 this ongoing program,,why;is it that your'research review 1
13 committee has-never been asked to look at this or to look at
~
t 14 this specific' decision.
15 MR. COFFMAN: I can't answer your question. .The .
16 recearch project review committee has looked at this. The 17 nuclear --
19 MR.-COFFMANo -They have reviewed the= program, but -
20 their charter on reviewing the~ program is more is the-21 -approach appropriate and have we gone-to the right people. ,
22 101.-CATTON: No, their_ charter is a11ot. broader 23 than that. Their charter includes advising you'whether to 24 do it or not.
- 25. MR. CARROLLt Or continue it.
) ANN RILEY &_ ASSOCIATES 'LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K' Street, N.W., Suit e 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 H 3
'(202) L293-3950 1,
l
i l L
l i- l
). 456 1 1 MR'. CATTONi Or continue'it, to end it',nor
- -2 redirect it. Their charter is very broad, i . .
l 3 MR. WILKINS: Do we know whether those questions
[ 4 have been asked.
j' 5 MR. CATTON: That was the question that Jay was.
l 6 asking. What we are finding out is that no, they don't p-
!~ 7 know. '
I j 8 MR. WILKINS: That's what it sounds like.
i
! 9 MR. CATTON: We don't know, anyway, i'
l- 10 MR. CARROLLi Have you asked George Sege.
i- -
11- MR. BOERNERT: -I think a Committee was scheduled 1-1 12 i .to look at this fairly soon.
l- '
~
13 MR, WARD: Paul, would you' apeak into the f
14 microphone so that we can hear you.
- 1. '
!~ 15 MR. CARROLL: You must know-that bylnow.
16 MR. BOERNERT: I believe-George Sege told me that-I j 17 the Committee was due to look-at:this fairly soon, the whole l-
! _18 human factors type of stuff. I don't_ recall if he gave-me a i-19 schedule. I. don't think he did,
- i. . .
i 20 MR.-CATTON: 'I get-the feeling that that Committee 4 -
21 is-a little bit out of phase with what's happening, ,
- i. R22 KR. CARROLL: Yes. I sure hope we can get George 23 up here,
{
~
i24 MR. LINBLAD: ~ Jay; I am struck by something that .
- 25 - D t' , Leamon said a'.little bit ago and what'Dr.'Haber said;as-o l- .
i- '
L~ .. ANN RILEY &1 ASSOCIATES, . LTD.
i- .
Court-Reporters 1612 K? Street, N.W., Suite 300
~
Washington, D.C. 20006-
- j. .(202) 293-3950
, , , a - ., , - . , . _ - - - . _u-___ . _ . . _ . . . ~ . _ .
t i
h' i 457 i
l 1.- well, about these methods are-used in industry where the L !
l- 2 process is home grown and not imposed by a regulator. l l 3 I made a remark at the_ November 12 meeting that R l
[
i 4 perhaps was misconstrued, that I totally agree with that. I i 5 think that this research should be done.two places. One, i
i 6 _here in the Agency for the benefit of the Agency,-and one 7 in the industry for the benefit of the industrial _ partners.
h; 8 It's an issue of ownership.
i 9 These issues'are intrusive, and where they are l~
l 10 imposed by third parties they are resistant. Yet, I believe i 11 they are very worthwhile. I believe that discussions like 1
l 12 this about culture and communication and the'like'would be i
j 13 valuable to the operation of this_ agency. I know it would i
- 14 be very valuable to the operation of plants if-it wasn't j f) i Ns - 15 thought to be intrusive.
i.
{_ 16 I suspect that plant operators are doing some of
! 17 tiris . Yesterday we had a presentation by Ralph Beadle from
! 18 the Fitzpatrick organization,_and he described situations i 19 and issue resolutiot that I feel quite sure he used some of i
! 20 these tools, perhaps not as well developed as Dr. Haber has t
[ 21 developed them. I think; issues like this are resolved with i
- ' 22 questionnaires-and interviews and discussion, t'
! 23 I think the biggest problem is confronting-them l-4 24 -and saying are we going to impose.them'on ourselves or are 25 we going lto-impose them on somebody_else'. That's very i
L ANN RILEY~& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
- _ Court Reporters 1 1612 K Street, N.W., Su'ite 300 i_ Washington, D.C. 20006 j (202)_ 293-3950 j ',
3 '. + .
-.--r- , _, . - . . . _ . _ _ _ . , , . - _ . . _ _ -
1 1
3 458 j 1 threatening.
l 2 MR. CARROLL: As I said earlier, the NUMARC effort i
! 3 is going to try-to capture what is being done.out in the J l l 4 industry. ;l s
i j- 5 MR. CATTON: Sometimes maybe the research within l 3 :
6 the agency can.be the guiding light.and the others will take j
}
i j 7 it up just to keep them out of their shop. That's good, 1
i 8 too. We have seen that a number of times.
I i 9 MR. WARD: It happened-in a lot of other areas.
4 .
I 10 Could I ask one question,-Sonja, before_you finish, t
11 MR. CARROLL: .None of you guys want to talk to
- 12 poor George.
I i
13 MR. WARD: Sonja, this work is directed t6 ward a l 14 couple of efforts, one to develop these tools for use by the 15 regulator in evaluating the effect of some organizations.
i
-16 Then, if we give George a chance to talk, to actually
{
17 quantify the impact on a risk of these dimensions. -I think i 18 it's sort of related to what Bill Linblad was saying.
t h '9 I see ultimately a more.important_use of this sort 4
l 20 of research'information, is.to: provide the ability;to 21- utilities to design their-_ organizations to optimize these-1
! 22 factors, not-just measure them or find out1what risk l
23 contribution they got from what_they developed by some means--
24 back 20 years ago. But to actively'use this.information as i
j 25 tools for designing or re-designing;their organizations or i
ANN RILEY.& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
l- Court Reporters i 1612 K_ Street,--N.W., Suite 300 i Washington,.D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
}..
l:
i 459 ,
l u j- _1 features of-their organization.
l 2- When we do thermal hydraulic research for example l
c i 3 -- which hasn't been-done just so that we get a number to j 4 put into a PRA -- it's-been done so that we know how to _
i 5 better design the thermal hydraulic systems-in the plant, i 6 Do you see this sort of information.ever-serving l
7 that' kind of a need? Have you researchers ever-given any 8 thought-to that sort of thing?
4 9 MR. HABER: 'I think that's_an excellent point.
^
10
{- Before I comment on the application of the-insights which I f 11 think is part of what you are getting to and the utility of ;
i -
12 it. I should point out, I don't think we are striving to i 13 define what the perfect organizational structure of a l 14 nuclear-power plant is.
A
__ 15 I think there:are many ways in which you can be l 16 effective and reach the goal of safety performance.
?
17 MR. WARD: Sure, we got two loop plants and'BWR's 18 and PWR's.
19 MR. HABER: I would point out that'in our-20- experience in_ going out-and working with the plants, 21 Brookhaven, UCLA, Penn State, I think_that.the plants have 22 found these kind of insights extremely-useful. In fact, in 23 Limerick we spent a. lot of time with them debriefing,them on 24 the results.and how they might utilize.it=in areas of.
25 communication or team building'or. things that they may want:
ANN RILEY &. ASSOCIATES, LTb
-Court Reporters 1612;K_ Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington,.D.C. 20006 (202)f293-3950 i
i i 460.
1 to use in the future.
2 I think they see the value. I don't think there's 3 any issue there. I think we would be providing insights on i
]
l 4 .how these factors can help them in achieving the. goal.
So, l
! 5 I think that's true. )
!_ 6 MR. KRAMER: I think we need to get on'to George.
j 7 MR. CARROLL: While George is;getting up there, l 8 let me correct:something Paul and/or I said. .The research I
9 committee has no current plans to look this particular 1 l t
10 research program, per. George Sege.
(! >
l 11 MR. BOEHNERT: -The only thing they have looked at ;
?
I h 12 is-man-machine interface. That's the-only aspect of it that l
$ i
- 13 they have reviewed.
1-
. '4 MR. CATTON: Do they set their agenda, or'.does the- -
15 Agency set their agenda?
16 MR. BOEHNERT: I don't know, Ivan. I suspect that 17 they probably-are given direction by Eric; since it's Eric's 18 committee.
l 19 MR. APOSTOLAKIS: We realized. fairly quickly that.
20 we had to take-a fresh approach to PRA, and that it was not !
21 just a matter of updating or modifying quantities that are-22-already in a-PRA but perhaps we ought to look:for a.more 23 -fundamental' change. In. fact,: I think this--is probably one 24 of the-last-frontiers in PRA, in the sense that it.is not 25 included at all in the current-efforts.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, .LTD. -
- Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,' Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006.
-(202) 293-3950
461 1- So, we had some idaas and then just-to make sure 2 that we --
3 MR WARD: _W ould you'say that again? It's not 4 included at all in the current PRA.
5 MR. APOSTOLAKIS: What I am going to describe 11s -
6 not, no.
7 MR. WARD: But we claim the PRA numbers represent' 8 the risk of operating the plant.
9 MR. APOSTOLAKIS: I will address that.
10 [ Slides.]
11 MR. APOSTOLAKIS: We had some: ideas. Thtn, just n
12 to make sure that we were not widely offLthe mark we 13 convened a workshop at UCLA where we invited utility 14 managers who knew about the plants. The only outsider _was 15 actually Joel. We discussed these ideas. They gave us 16 ideas and so-on.
, 17 The fundamental question that we asked was 18 probably the questionLthat the reactor safety study 19- architects asked 20 years ago, before you ask-about failures 20 you have to understand how things are supposed to work. So, 21 how are-things supposed to work. It turns _out that they are-22 much better-organized than_we thought, and what they do-is:
23 follow what is called work processes.
- 24 Here, we have a quick-definition of a1 work 25 . process. It la standardized sequence 1of tasks designed 0 f'1
-g,/ ANN RILEY.& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court ~ Reporters
,. 1612 K Street,'N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 e.
l l
i-l 462 i:
l 1 within the operational environment of an organization to
( -
-2 achieve a specified goal. So, this is the way that things
- 3 are supposed to work. -We contacted utility people,-and thay i
4 confirmed that: this is the way that business is done. In_
l-5 fact, there are work processes who you can categorize them --
!; 6 - this is not an official categorization -- you can have a
{ 7 -group of work processes that refer to plant operation that.
8 are_ relevant to plant _ operation, problem identification, l_ 9. problem solving, maintenance or plant modification, and'then i 10 you have supporting work processes.
i 11 In fact, this is a very nice to-see, because a
i 12 that's really what we have-in the standard PRA with the 4
[ 13 hardware. You have front line systems and support _ systems.
1-L 14 So, immediately you start thinking that maybe we can-do
}
j -
15 something about this, i
- j. 16 By the way, we identified more than 100' processes, 4
l 17 probably into the hundreds. We-spent more time on this one, i
18 the corrective maintenance'one. Let me just show you as an 19 example, the corrective maintenance work process,-to give 20 you a better idea of what we mean by that.
21- [ Slides.]
22 14R. APOSTOLAKIS: _This is the sequence-of tasks 23 that I mentioned. They are all named up here at.the top.
24 What-we have on the bottom, again being PRA guys we are
- 25. thinking about failures and_ defenses'or barriers is, what
. ANN-- RILEY-_ & ! ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court-Reporters 1612 K Street,-_N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006-(202) 293-3950
463 1 are the institutional barriers or checks to make sure that
-( 2 the task-that istnamed up here will actually be' carried out-3 correctly.-
4 When a maintenance order is received -- by the-way, creating this maintenance order is another work' process 5
6 by itself because originally.we had a single box here that-7 says. maintenance order but it's really a whole work process 8 itself -- then'somebody has to prioritize these requests, 9' _and this:is typically done by the work control center. The 10 way this is checked is through multiple reviews, by varying 11 senior people.
12 Then, the enes that are considered important are 13 forwarded to the. planning department where a planner 14 obviously plans. In other words, he has to check whether 15 this is a routine request that is_ covered by some sort of 16 procedure of-if it's new, and if so what to doLand when to 17 - schedule it, and so on. Although there.is a scheduling task 18 later which is muchimore specific, of who isfinvolved:and so 19 on.
20 This work is=being= checked again by--the work 21 control center. Their appropriate departments maybe7get a
-22 chance to-review it. Remember now thiscis sort;of a generic 23 scheme-here. That:doesn't mean that every-plant ~follows 24- every single box. -There may be engineering' reviews.- If the 25- .particular request for instance.has to do--with electrical' i -
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters--
1612 K Street, N.W., Suite: 300 Washington, D . C .. 20006 (202) 293-5950 .
'L___________1____---- - - __
'464 1 equipment, then the responsible department,-the electrical department, will be given a chance to review it.
( 2 3 Then, it goes on to the scheduling coordination, 4 where now you have meetings where' people discuss it, when to 5 do it and what to do it and so-on, what is-the package and i
6 so on. Then, you go on to the actual execution of the 7 mair.tenance. Again, you have several checks here, maybe 8 qualify control people are present and cost mutntenance 9 testing. Then, you go to a very important box here, return 10 to normal line up where you have independent verificatica.
11- Finally, it's documeated.
12 So, this is one of the work processes. Everything 13 that I am going to talk about refers to this work process.
14 At least at this point we understand how things _are supposed-
) 15 to work, and then we can start asking questions about how 16 things can go wrong.
17 Even at this point you can do a lot _of things. In' 18 fact, the tools that Sonja mentioned can be used here 19 because one quest ion: for instance' '.s , are'the work processes 20 at the plant designed well. Are tneycskipping maybe:any of-21 these tasks. If so, why. I mean for maintenance-it's' kind 22 of obvious what you have to do. There may be others that-23 are-more-obscure _ work processes where it:may not be so 24 obvious. :Are there checks appropriate and-so--on, 25 The first_is a design of_the work process. The
=
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court _ Reporters 1612-K Street,-N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
+ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- ____ -
. . _ - . - . . ._ _ _ . _ _ - . . _ _ _ . ~ . - _ _ . .
l 3
1' 465 i t
- _1 second.one is the actual implementation. You-may.have the
.(
4 --
-2 best design in the world, but if the people who are -
3 implementing it are not paying their proper attention =or-if l 4 the safety culture is such that things are taken a little
{ 5 -lightly then, of course, the best designed work process will i
6 not work.
[ 7 .So, one can think now of a questionnaire and j 8- strum ure interview questions and so on that Sonja'can 4 4 i- 9 include in here-questionnaires and her. work, to make sure l 10 that this part of the work is actually.done correctly. We -
j 11 have' developed a model that we call work process analysis 12 model, WPAM.~ This part of the analysis sometimes we.have -
j 13 been using event _ trees to make it more scientific. It is l-4 14 called WPAM-1.
j (~'
- - 15 I will give-you the results first, and then how.to -
j 16 do it. That tends to catch the attention of people, 1
~
l 17 especially if you look at.some of_these results.
1 2
18 (Slides.] ~
[ 19 MR. APOSTOLAKIS: 'As Sonja mentioned earlier, we 20 are using the IPE of Fitzpatrick but I'have to say that_-- _
21 because it's true -- that.the-ratings that we use and the 22 weighting factors and so on, the whole organizational 23 factors part of-this. analysis'does not. apply to Fitzpatrick.
24 Even though-the numbers we are using refer to a poorly 25 managed plant, still I wouldn't say that this is Fitzpatrick ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
-Court Reporters 1612 K' Street, N.W.,' Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-39501
. . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . ~ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . - . _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . . - _ . _ . _ _ _
i f 466- l
! l 1 what--we are doing.
p( '2_ I don't think that it is the correct
- l. - 3 interpretation of what I am showing you here to apply what I I
4 call here present analysis, these numbers to Fitzpatrick.
5 Although_we have been in contact with the utility and we are [
6 probably going to go there and present this' work-_and get- '
7 their feedback -- we are hoping to be able to work'with them 8 sometime next year together to actually do it to the plant 9 itself.
10 MR. WARD: At Fitzpatrick, you said.
11 MR. APOSTOLAKIS: Yes. What we did is we'took the 12 top sequence, the dominant sequence which happens to be loss 13 of power, and_this is an accident sequence of co"rse, very 14 high level. There are many more cutsets fitting'into it. I 15 think there are about 150 but I am not sure. There are 16 many.
17 We took one of-the_very-top ones. This is this 18 _ minimal cutset. It consists of four. events. The initiator, 19 which is loss of offsite power, the subsequent loss of 20 emergency AC power due to miscalibration of'under: voltage 21 relays, MC-1 and MC-2, and then you have station blackout 22 after this. The only source of electric power.is'the 23 -batteries which give you about:eight hours. Iftyou-run out 24 of battery power you have about five-hourst-- that's what 25l the thermalEhydraulic calculations-tell you---- before= '
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court-Reporters-
-1612 K_ Street, N.W., Suite 300 washington, D.C. 20006
- (202)e 293-3950 :
i- '
l 4=
467- )
i !
I
- f. 1 terrible things happen. -There Is.a total of 13-hours within
( ); 2 which you hope that you'will' recover offsite power.
i 3- This is.the probability. The last: term is;the 4 probability of non recovery of offsite power during this-i 5 period that the batteries 1and the physical phenomena.give f 6 you.
i 7 We looked at this, and this is the analysis that-l 8 is included in the IPE, They have the frequency of the _
! 9 initiator, events per year. 'The-calibration probabilities t ,
j 10 were taken from the Swain Gutman: handbook, three times ten l
l 11 to the minus three. The probability of non-recovery of 12 offsite during 13 hours1.50463e-4 days <br />0.00361 hours <br />2.149471e-5 weeks <br />4.9465e-6 months <br /> is 1.3 times-ten to the minus two, i
!. 13 You do the calculations and get the minimal cutset 1
i-14 frequency, 6.7 time ten to the minus nine,' fairly low 15 frequency.
16
! Then, we are also listing here the. sequence j 17 frequency loss of power. This is only one minimal cutset as t
J j- .18 I'said. Finally, just as reference point, the core melt-I-
l 19 frequency that is reported in the IPE, it's'1.9 ten to the-i g, 20 minus six per year- ,
ti P 21 In our. work we took five of the factors of-the 20
. -22 factors'that Sonja' mentioned that we felt were most relevant f: 23 to this minimal cutset, .These are the two communications, 24 inter-departmental 1and intra-departmental, coordination of i-25 work,=formalizatio'n and; training.
i-i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
, Court Reporters 1612 K Streeti N.W.,. Suite-300
- Washington, D.C. 20006
- (202) 293-3950 p
- 1 ' , _ . _. _ -
,_ , - _ __ . , .__._. 2 - . . _ . . _ _ _ .
. . . _ . _ . _ _ _____ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ . . _ . - - _ . _ . ~ ~ _ _ _ . _ . . . _ . _ _
468
[ 1 We used the ratings that Sonja showed in that big
! l 2- table. We carried out the methodology that I have not'
{
i
)
i 3' presented to you yet. We are getting very disturbing-4 results, and.I think I ought to comment;on them.
l l
5 First of all, in my opinion -- I am sure that the l 6 people who did the analysis haveLa good reason for it. In-l 7- fact, we have gotten some feedback from the people who did l.
i 8 it. One should not use the~same number-for miscalibration 9 for two relays. There must be some level of dependence-t l 10 there, and if you go to the Swain Gutman-handbook they give i
j 11 you the five levels, zero, low, moderate, high and complete
- 12 dependence.- ->
- 13 Here, obviously, they are assuming zero dependence
[
1 14 which youLwould really have a hard time defending in my ,
! 15 opinion. The word back was look, when they are not >
j 16 calibrating them at the same time there is a period of one 17 or two weeks between the calibration and they are different ,
i 18 people. So, that argues for maybe a low level of l-t
.' 19 dependence. Again, to say that it is aero, that is pushing _
f i.
20 it a little_ bit.in my opinion. We are going to sit down and j, - 21 talk to_the analysts about it.
}- 22. Of course, this kind:of dependence does.not 1
j 23 include the-fact that-these two events -- these two E '
.[ 24 calibrations -- are-carried out by the same department which 0
125 is instrumentation and control using the same. procedures,
{
j' g ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES,1LTD.
- Court Reporters
[ ~16121K Street,.N.W., Suite 300 F Washington,'D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 i:
L i , . - , , - -, ..2
. . - . - - -. - . - - . - - , . . - . . - - . . . . . . ~ ._ . . - . ~ . - - . -.-
i I t- .
- l J
4 469 I j; I same methods. This is not here. This is what;we are trying i
2.
[ to inject-into this analysis,_the fact that there'is thia
- underlying commonality
[ 4 Our methodology - by the way, whatEIEam telling l 5~ you now, we had not noticed ourselves when we were doing i- 6 this. We'didn't pay attention to this. -
We carried out the b
! 7 methodology and we found this number for the second event
! 8 .24, which'is significantly-higher lthan-the independent --
t
{ 9 in-fact, this is-a-factor of 80 greater than this.one.
I
!: 10 This .24, if you-go back to Swain and Gutman, is j'
11 -within the ballpark of moderate to high dependence. So we I 12 are not really that much off-of what the handbook says.
13 Then, we are doing something which.I think is very new to:
14 PRA's. As you know there is a lot of work'on common cause j 15 f ailures ar.d dependencies and so on. Typically, one couples '
! 16 similar events there like here, miscalibration one, ;
i- 17 miscalibration two, Swain and Gutman tell,you what to do.
l 18 You are talking about hardware. You have the beta ~
4-
[
19 factor more than you haventhe alpha 1 beta gamma model.and so 20 on, all1the Greek letters,- and.they'are telling you how to 21 couple similar events, the failure of'one pump;followed by_
1 j 22 .the. failure'of another pumps. With the organizational h 23 factors you have to worry-about_ coupling dissimilar. events j 24 'because of the: underlying: processes, and this is-new. Here, 4
l 25 we are coupling- the two events,- non-recovery of offsite c-i F
1 J( ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES,-'LTD.
, Court Reporters j 1612 K Street,-N,W., Suite 300' i- Washington, D.C. 20006 L (202) 293-3950 Y
- 4 , , . ~
, _ _. . .~ _-__~.._;_.-_ . _ , _ . - - _ .
,- . .- ..~-. ,...- -..- _ .- --..- ..- - . . - - . . . - - - - . . - .
i -!
f '.
i l 470 *
- 'l power during the 13 hour1.50463e-4 days <br />0.00361 hours <br />2.149471e-5 weeks <br />4.9465e-6 months <br /> period with the miscalibration, s
[ 2' Why.
! ~
l- 3 Welli the eight hours _that I mentioned'come-from-l 4 the batteries. The batteries are supposed to give you DC i=
j 5 power for eight hours. There is strong evidence out there -
1 6 - in fact, we got a NUREG.that was published maybe four or a
! 7 five years ago -- that gives a lot of information about i
8 batteries. There is a clear statement there,_that tne i
9 quality of maintenance or the maintenance work does affect 10 this period of time during which batteries are supposed to 11 give you power. '
~
I j 12 So, the question is now, if the maintenance is of i .
4 13 poor quality to affect'the two acts;of miscalibration are i
14 you going to assume that that time of eirat hours is-j \. 15 independent of this,-no. We are coupling t..ose as well. As
! 16 I say, this'is. fairly new here. You see the number of non- ,
j 17 recovery _of power going up from one 1.3 ten to the minus two I
l 18 to 6.8 -- maybe it's a factor of three.or something. It's 19 not as dramatic as-here.
i 20 If you.go back to the original cutset and you i
- j. 21 carry out-the calculations up'tc the minimal cutset you see _
j .22 that the minimal cutset frequency with-this new set of - i i
j; 23 numbers is significantly different,_and it's--about a factor j - 24 of 400 different.
i
. 25 For-the sequence, again,;ao Sonja and Joel said' i
4
- h. D -
[(,i/f ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
j: Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 i Washington, D.C.-20006 (202) 293-3950-d[ s _ m _1 ._:_
, .-4.. _ ..__._c_.,, ,_ ,,,;_. , . . , ,x . ,.
471-1 and so on, these are very new-results. This is still work-2 in progress, so we haven't had the chance to do the work 3; that we feel1 should be done. For the_ sequence-itself,_ loss 4 of offsite power as I said, there are many cutsets.- To do 5 this to each one of them will take a lot of time. We looked 6 at them'and ar a group we decided that there were about 7 eight minimal cutsats that could be changed,.the frequency 8 of which could be chhnged in a similar.way so we did it in a 9 sort of subjective way.
10 You see here, that the sequence frequency goes up 11 by only a: factor of ten, I don't want you to think that 12 -just because this minimal cutset went up by 400' everything ,
13 goes up by 400. There were-many other minimal cutsets in 14 this particular sequence-which were-not affected 15 significantly. That is what this says, For the core melt 16 frequency we have the same problem. There are many, many i
17 mequences that contribute to that.
18 We did two things, First, we assumed that all the 19 sequences are affected by the same factor. Then, you get.
3 20 2 0 ten to the minus five, an order of magnitude greater 21 than the number reported in-the IPE. -Or-the-other extreme, =
22 none of the other sequences are affected only the_one-we
.23 have studied. -Then you get 7.6 ten to the minus:six, which 24 is'about.a factor of four greater'than the IPE.
25 Here, we have significant changes. Again, I.think ANN RILEY-& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612-K Street, N.W.,-Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006
~(202)1293-3950
472 1 I should comment on this. A+:e these numbers going to hold
) 2 up, I don't know. I suspect that -- I am trying to address 3 this question I put myself in nimilar situations in the 4 past. About 11 years ago I was in the middle of developing 5 what is called the fire risk assessment methodology. We 6 were doing .it for Zion Indian Point at that time.
7 Again, we were tetting very high numbers. Those 8 numbers went down, why, because as you look more carefully 9 you realize that you have made certain conservative.
10 assumptions here and thare that can be removed. In fact, i
11 the code we have th ra is in its third incarnation.
12 There is this natural evolution that tella me-that -
13 perhaps this factor of four to ten will not really be so 14 high On the other hand, judging again from that 15 experience, there are other things that.were left out 16 completely like the impact of smoke. I don't know-what that 17 impt is on risk. Here, I rm not sure that everything that 18 shou. be included has been-included. There are these 19 competing reasons.and causes, that I don't_really know 20 what's_ going to. happen to these_ numbers.
-21 My personal opinion right now is that a factor of 22- _ ten probably_will not_ survive. The_other_ thing is thatimost 23- PRA's don't things _like this. This is not reall.y the impact-24 of organizational' factors. If I were reviewing the IPE
-25 myself, I--would question this assumption'of independence ANN RILEY &'ASSOCTATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 k Street, N . W '. , L 7te 300
. Washington, D.C. 20006 !
_ # - -(2 02) --293-3950J :!
473 1 very seriously no the number would go up anyway.
2 I think when we look at numbers like that that 3 raise the reported results by factors of four to ten, we 3
4 have to be a little bit careful to interpret the numbers and 5 realize that there is no uncertainty analysis that has oeen 6 done here. This is very serious business.
7 After we have this in place we really ought to sit-down and look at all the uncertainties that are introduced 8
9 here and try to do the best job that we can to quantify 10 them.
11 M R '.. K R E S S : George, can I ask you a question at 12 this point?
i 13 MR. APOSTOLAKIS: Yes.
14 MR. KRESS: Thin sort of reqaires that you go into 15 each one of these MC's and pick out their new value, it
[
16 would be very easy it seer s taa me to put a top and bottom 17 value on each one of them in every eutset. -Just like they 18 have a. range already, put a top and bottom that would be 19- related to these factors, e.nd go through PRA on-both ends 20_ and get two bottom numbers that would span the full effects 21- .of organizational factors.
-22 Then, you could use that span and just have a 23 . simple relationship between it and the organizctional. factor.
24 score and go in and pick off-the value you want. You don't i 25 have.to do this one time.
ANN-RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD,
-Court Reporters-1612 K-Street, N.W.,. Suite'300 Washington, D.C. 20006
__( _ 2_02 )f 2 9 3_-_ 3 9_5 0 _. _ _ _ ____
474 1 MR. APOSTOLAKIS: First of all, doing it is not
() 2 that difficult. The difficulty was inventing it. Now that 3 I have it, I have a graduate student that in putting it in 4 the computer. Repeating it is not the problem.
5 What you are saying is where we are trying to go 6 and get that. Let me show you now -- I gave this 4 7 presentation a week or so ago in clearwater where the PSA 8 conference took place. The temperature in the room 9 skyrocketed when I showed these. The next viewgraph was 10 developed. ,
11 (Slides.) ,
12 MR. APOSTOLAKIS: Thare is a common misconception 13 here when one talks about these factors. That is that we 14 are trying to judge or evaluate the quality of the people at 15 the plants. This is false. We are not trying to do that.
16 -We are looking at processes-that.can-be-improved. We are 17 not looking at the quality of people.
18 If I get results like the ones I-just-showed why 19 am I doing the PRA, to go back and find the weak spots and 20 eliminate-them. Here is the IPE-results again. This is the 21 base case, what I just presented is this analysis which 22 raises the number by a factor of ten. These are the five
-23 factors that we use.
24 In this particular plant the data that Sonja~gave 25 us represented a plant that scored very low in all of these,-
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street,-N.W., Suite 300.
Washington, D.C.;20006
_ _ (202)1293 _3950
- l
475 1 about one on the BARS scale. We have a problem with the
() 2 scales, une to aeven and one to five. This is one to seven and what I am going to show-later is one to five. These are 4 the original-scores here, were very low here, very poorly 5 managed plant.
6 '
i raise all of them to six which is a very 7 got plant, . 4u number _goes back. The impact of 8 or! ilzational factors is beyon'd the first decimal point. I
? reco the IPE number unless of course I choose to change 10 the mi libration part which is independent of what I am 11 doing here. I can do more. I can identify by working-12 backwards in my model there are more significant factors. i 13 It turns out that these are the bottom three, coordination 14 of work, formalization and training.
15 If I do something there to improve from the one or
- 16. two that Sonja gave me_and-go.up-to six, then look what 17 happens. The 2.2 ten to the minus five goes down only if I 18 change coordination to 4.S ten tc the minus six, which is 19 now very close to what the IFE is reporting. If I improve 20 the_ formalization part only it's a little worse but it's not -
21 that bad, 5.2 ten to the minus six. Training alone gives.me 22- '7.8. _
23 of course,-the next step is to start making 24 improvements in combinations, in-which case you are going to 25- see even a more dramatic change.
ANN RILEY'&' ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court-Reporters
=1612 K_ Street, N.W., Suite'300 Washington, D.C. 20006
,. (202)_ 293-3950 ..
E 4. K.
m- -_ a -- am_____.____m_ .----._.__2._-._._____m _._m._________.__m -
.___-m_ m___u.--___________--_-____:.___um_ -_A__-___m._
476 1 MS. HABER: How did you quantify the effect of
) 2 going-from a one tr a six?
3 MR, AFsv4vbAKIS: I have not shown you the 4 methodology, which is coming up. It's built into the 5 methodology. The whole idea of the methodology that we have 6 developed is to take the ratings-that Sonja has shown you 7 and come up with numbers like-this for core damage. So, I 8 am working a bit backwards now. I am showing you the results 9 first.
10 MR. CATTOWs That's the usual. method used by NRC.
11 MR. APOSTOLAKIS: I am learning very well, then.
12 MS. HABER: Onward.
13 [ Slides.]
t 14 MR. APOSTOLAKIS: In particular, I have an example
't 15 here of the BARS, As I say, coordination of work could go 16 trom two-to six. In the new scale one was here and I will ,
17 raise it to four. Zut now I know what I have to do, because 18 Sonja =and Rich have told me that a rating of one means that E19 each department goes about its business without-concern for 20 the work of others. Plants developed within departments are 21 too broad for offective implementation and so on.
22 This rating gave =me the f actor: of : ten in the core 23 damage frequency. In the sensitivity study I assume the 4.
24 rating of four, which means that each department develops 25 good plans for how; work will be-accomplished and who is-l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES LTD.
Court Reporters
'1612 - K - Street , N.W., Suite 300
~
Washington, D.C. 20006
-(202). 293-3950 q
477 1 responsible. The-affected parties are not involved in the
() 2 planning stages but are told of the plan as soon as it is 3 finalized and so on.
4 At least I have now a more-concrete way so that I 5 can see how the core damage frequency changes and what 1 6 have to do to reduce that core damage frequency. I think 7 this is the heart of this. Maybe in the interest.of time I 8 can skip the next viewgraph.
9 [ Slides.)
10 MR. APOSTOLAKISt Now,_I am going to talk about 11 how to do it. The results is here. We are back to the 12 point now, where we have the work process. Again,.here are 13 the major tasks, prioritization, planning, scheduling, 14 , execution, and then return to normal and documentation.
15 We developed this organizational factors matrix-16 which is part of the qualitative analysis that has the 20-17 year factors here that Sonja presented. The axis.in this 18 particular case give you a first evaluation'as to which of
- 19. these factors affect which tasks.
20 MR. CARROLL: How did you put-this together, 21 George? How was this put together, who helped you.
- 22. MR. APOSTOLAKIS: This ws.s put.together_ ideally 23 with somebody who knows the plant. In this1particular case 24 it was done an a group. The whole group did it.- I think we ,
~
25 could use more_ help on the engineering side. -That's-why I
' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters-1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300
- . Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950-m rugi i i ii
3 i
, 478
?
l 1 really want to einphasize, this is not Fitzpatrick.
I
- 2 If we ever get to the point where we will do it i
l 3 with their cooperation then they will definitely have a lot 1
- 4 to say about thic. Again, you have to be careful.- You 5 really_ don't want to give all the responsibility to the
{
6 plant peoph because of certain biases that may exist and so j 7 on.
I a This organizational factor matrix la one first 2
?
l 9 step. Then, incorporating the results into the PSA again, I
10 the main-idea was to build on the existing PRA and not.to i 11 start from scratch. Then,- that's a kiss of death of death,_
l 12 of course. In fact, somebody asked me how much money j 13 will you take to do this. I think it would be something 1 14 like schat we spend now to do a fire risk analysis to
- l 15 supplement the PRA. So, we are not talking about big 4
l 16 dollars here.
4 i
17 Basic &lly, the methodologies is the_following. I i
18_ Take the existing PRA with event trees and fault' trees -
i 19 hanging down here,-which gives you an expression for the ,
20.
j- frequency of core damage in terms of the frequencies _of i _ _ .
I
_ 21 minimal cutsets which is a function of quantities like the f
22 fallure rate of hardware, the rate _of-occurrence of common h
_23 modo failures, unava'ilabi3ity due-to maintenance, mean .
-24 repair time, human errors and so on.
25
~
- Imagine this is a function of al1 these 4
g
_)
ANN RILEY.& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
s Court Reporters i
1612_K Street, N.N., Suite-300 e Washington,_-D.C. 20006- ;
l (2 52 ) 293-3950 I
1
. . - . . . - . - - = - - - - - - - - ~ ~- " ~ ~""~~~~"~ ~*
i i
479 l 1 parameters, and that function can be foundlin a *rRA. Our l
! 4 2 task here is now to take the five groups t.iat Sonja l
l . . .
)
} 3- presented of organizational factors, decision making, l i \
! 4 communications and so on with the various dimensions, and i
)
i 5 see how these parameters - that's the idea, the parameters 3
I j 6 -- are affected by these. This'is conceptually what we are 7 trying to do.
8 The next viewgraph actually outlines the.
9 methodology. We start of course with the minimal cutsets 4
[ 10 from the IPE or PRA. Then,-we have two-phason. One is the 2
11 - screening phase and then the.quantification Why do we need- ,
i 12 the screening phase. Again, it's like screening the l
2 13 locations for seismic or fire-analysis. You don't want to i 14 do that for every single occasion in the plant. It's i
15 wasting resources, and you-know in advance that not all l 16 locations could be-important, i 17 Similarly here, you know in advance that all
! 18 minimal cutsets will be affected significantly by these-i i 19 - factors. . How do you screen. Here, you have of course
! 20 hundreds of them. The analysis that I presented earlier i
1 21 WPi.M-1 with the flow diagram, cross reference-table and 3- ,
t -
22 '
l- organizational factors matrix, are inputs-to this. We t
l- 23 define what we call a basic vector which I will show you .
24 right now, to do the screening. ;
]
25 (Slides.]
1 4
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD 7 Court Reporters -
j' 1612 K Street, N.W.,fSuite 300.
b Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 t
=,,-,9.p...-e--,
=
gv.-y--,7 7.-,-.--.,--,,*,.+y ,m, y y v ---h,y.,yw -. rm e ,,.e.,% ..w,v.J.---w w-r--w..e.* - . . . - - . , - . . . . - _ , , . . . - - - * * * .-
480 1 MR. APOSTOLAKIS: Again, I think this can be 2 easily computerized. This as now a subjective kind of 3 analysis to see what are the candidateu, the candidate 4 minimal cutsets for further analysis. We have defined four 9 elements or parameters for each event. One is the work 6 process, which work processes affect that event. Then the 7 candidate parameter group, this can be a failure rate, a 8 human error and so on, tha workang unit that may affect this 9 particular event or department, and then finally the 10 component ID.
11 So now, I can have say a minimal cutset that has 12 two events. I will have one vector for event one and
! 13 another vector for event two, and then I develop according 14 to established rules -- established by ur -- ratings. In 15 other woras if this is a human error and this is hardware 16 how close are they in the sense of how can organizational 6
17 factors affect those two as a group and work units and I.D.,
18 and so on. Then, if you have minimal cutsets that have more 19 than two events, we take the maximum of the ratinga.
20 [91 ides.)
21 MR. APOSTOLARIS: We are rating candidate 22 parametcr groups. There, we have now, these are the six 23 parameter groups, common cause failures, hardware, failure 24 rates, maintenance unavailability, time available for action 25 or this is usually calculated from the physics of the ANN RTLEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 30C Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
3 481 1 problem. This is failure to restore something to the propel 2 configuration. Finally, miscalibration.
3 So now, for human actions for nimilar candidate 4 groups like failure to restore evolve to its proper 5 configuration we use one and so on. .These are fairly
, 6 arbitrary numbers, just to give you the importance of the 7 correlation. Then, of course, somehow after you have the 8 ranking you will have a truncation point'which will reflect 9 the numbers that you have here. ,
10 We did that-to the Fitzpatrick IP, and from,the 3 11 150 minima 3 cutsets I think that were relevant to loss of-12 offsite power, we.were able-to identify the top 25. Then, we 13 changed-the truncation point and went up to the top ten. We 14 also-looked at the bottom 25, to see whether a-more careful 15 examination of the bottom ones would change what we have 16- identified and we were very pleased to see that there was
- 17 nothing-that-was messed up.
18 The next step after the screening is the 19 quantification. The quantification is dor.e using the 20 success' likelihood index which basically; takes into account
- 21 two things. First, the factor-W tells-you-how relevant-a 22- particular organizational factor is to-this taek, like 23 -coordination ~oftwork to.miscalibration. That's a more'or 24 less general result.
25 R is the rating of_that-particular department at
.t E
' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006
=(202) 293-3950-1
__=__==_:- =_ ==
,. . _._ __ _ . _ _ _ ~. _ . _ __ _ _ _ _ .. _ _ _ - - .m._._ _ - . .
1 1
i 482 e
i 1 that plant with respect to that organizational factor. In i 2 other words, if you talk about plant A what la their rating i
! 3 on the organizational factor coordination of work. So, W 4 tells you how important coordinatior, of work is and then R 1
,_ 5 tells you how well it is done at that particular plant. For
} 6 the R's then, you have basically the instrumenta that j 7 Brookhaven and Penn State have developed. For the weights
[
8 basically, the qualitative results from WPAM-1, although r l 9 it's hard really to say BSU will do this and we will do ;
!~
j 10 that. There'is always'a need for interaction, i t
i 11 Primarily they will-have to provide the R'o_and we 12 have to provide the W's.
t
{ 13 Then, we are saying that the frequency of_this I
l 14 particular minimal cutset is the product of the frequency of i
- i- lb the initiator times the frequency of the -- probabilities of 3
-t l 16 the various events. In this particular case I have chosen i
) 17 only two._ You will have the frequency of the initiator and 4
18 the probability of the first event,.then.the conditional l
l 19 probacility of the second.given that the first has occurred,
{t 20 and this is the probability that we are after. Thio will 21 come from_this expression -- again, this is now'a soft part ;
! 22 of the analysis. ;
1 f 23 I_ don't want to give you.the impression that.this t'
24 in on the same footing at Newton's l'aw.' - People are doing
[ 25 tho'best they can to quantify their judgment here, and l
i i
l ANN.RILEY-& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
- i. . Court Reporters 1
-1612 K-Street, N.W.,_ Suite 300' ,
t Washington,'D.C. 20006-c- (202) 293-3950
. , , .,,r--. .y -- + w c % ,, ,. w w w . . - wa ~~~--.---,++a-~=e- '
483 1 that's how we should view these things. Therefore, the 2 uncertainties and everything are very impoztant to quantify 3 but it's a serious effort to make sure that you are not 4 doing crazy things. That's really what this is. This is 5 not a physical law.
6 In the earlier reports and research-from the-
? Imperial-College in England and then other'research at 8- Brookhaven when they develop SLIM mod they argued that there 9 is empirical evidence. Again, it's not-experimental
.10 evidence but some empirical evidence, that an expression 11 like this -- the- h garithm of this probability given in 12 terms of the success likelihood index that I showed of their-13 own is not unreascnable. It's not unreasonable. .Again, you 14 will have some uncertainties about it.
15 The success likelihood index is the sum of these 16 products that I mentioned, the weight of each organizational 17 factor, the rating of the departments with respect to that 18 organizational factor. Then, of course,.another really 19 controversial point is, how do you determine A and B, the 20 anchoring point to go from the success' likelihood index to 21 the probability. In this particular case we take the low 22 point which corresponds to -- when the rating is seven that 23 means it's best. If it's best,-then you are assuming 24 independence for event number-two.
25 If it's one, then the rating with respect to the ANN RILEY &= ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters .
, 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 1300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
484 1 organizational factor is worse so you assume the tightest 2 coupling which is one for sitailar activities -- let's say 3 these two are human actions -- or .1 if-they are different.
4 One is human action and the other is hardware. These are 5 the kinds of things that we would like to have more time to 6 think about and polish and make them more defensible.
7 I am not saying that this is the final word on 8 this, but we wanted to go through the whole process once and 9 then go back. I think there is some work to-be dona hece.
10 llow do we get the W's. The W's are developed
, 11 using-the so-called analytic hierarchy process which, again,
, 12 allows you to use your judgments and the-engineer judgment 13 from the plant in a systematic way. Basically, you put ,
14 specific task up here and then.you are asking how do these 15 tasks or sub-tasks that are part of the corrective 16 maintenance process affect -- how important are they to this J7 specific task.
18 Then, you start doing it two at a time,: like 19 coinparo prioritization to planning and planning to =
20 scheduling, scheduling to execution and so on. Then, you go 21 one level down and you say with respect to scheduling I will 22 concider all these 20 factors down here or the five that we 23 . consider important in this case, and again go through this 24 process of comparicons. Thisis an example'in the next 25 viewgraph for miscalibration.
ANN R1 LEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters.
1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
n .
_ _ _ _ = . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ .. . .. . _ _ _ . ____
h 485 l
1 [ Slides.)
2 MR. APOSTOLAKIS: In this particular example 3 miscalibration, we decided -- why, well that was our best l
4 judgment at the time -- that these three sub-tasks of the-5 corrective maintenance process are the most important.
6 Scheduling and coordination, execution and return to normal 7 lineup. Each vector here shows our judgment. Again, coming j 8 back to the question that eventually it has-to'be the l-9 utiljty judgment that_it compares return to normal line:up l 10 to scheduling.
l 11 Here, we are saying they-are equally important to' ;
I 12 this task. Again, sensitivity studies have to be i
l 13 undertaken. The answer is not always obvious. -j i
14 MR. CA RROLL : . George, I think we are running out !
1 l 15 of time, and I think we have a pretty good flavor of what ;
16 you are doing. Do you think you could wrap what you have ;
i 17 up, in five minutes.
18 MR. APOSTOLAKIS: Maybe I can show you one other 19 minimal cutset that we did. !
20 ISlides.) l 21 MR. APOSTOLAKIS: Then, we did another cutset, and l i
22 that's my last viewgraph. This is, again, one of the t
- 23. minimal'eutsets of the sequence. Loss of-offsite power this 24 time-we are losing emergency-use of power due to-loss of-the !
25 -service water system. Then, again, the standard event,
) ANN RILEY-& ASSOCIATES, LTD, Court l Reporters
-1612 K Street, N.W.,' Suite _300 l l- ,
[ Washington, D.C. 20006- ;
j (202* 1293 3950 i !
1 l:
4
l 486 1 failure to recover offsite power. I 2 We repeated the analysis, and now we have coupling 3 of different events here. I The failure modes are different.
one is failure to restore a valve in train one to the proper 4 ;
5 configuration, and the second is failure to restore the 6 pump. You see, again, that the impact is fairly 7 significant. We are getting about a factor of 400 here. It j 8 was 420 in the previous minimal cutset. This is consistent ,
9 with what we did earlier.
10 That's it.
i 11 MR. CARROLL:
Let me ask this question. The staff l 12 in its SECY says that there is relatively_ low cost i
13 effectiveness in continuing research in t.his area until it 14 1
is determined that organizational factors can be reliably
{ 15 integrated into PRA models. i 4
1
- 16 l My question is, if Sonja doesn't do more work on 17 the front end can you ever demonstrate.that you in= fact can i 18 reliably integrate into PRA models.-
} 19 MR. APOSTOLAKIS: Not really. We really need the i
- 20 reliable inputs.
i The instruments have to be reliable. . _You -
j 21 could say-yes, _ I can still demonstrate - that given reliable >
22 inputs everything else is okay. i 23 MR. CARROLL:
That's not their statement.
24 MR. APOSTOLAKIS:
25' You do need reliable' instruments i to be ableLto implement this. .That's why, as I said , I am -
l I'
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.-
Court Reporters c 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202)~ 293-3950 I
} l 1
i j 467 4
1 hoping to be able to go to Fitzpatrick or another plant and
{
) 2 actually do it from the beginning with Sonja and Rick Jacobs f 3 from Penn State.
f 4 MR. CARROLL: Does anyone have any other questions -
1 l i S from George at this point?
i 6 (No response.) 4
) 7 MR. CARROLL: There are some NRR people here that ,
I j 8_ I didn't realize. Do_you want to say anything about this, t
j 9 Smd says research is meeting with NRR to coordinate future
[ 10 developments. -Who wants to tell me what_ happened-in that j 11 meeting,-if anything, f 12 MR. BECKNER: NRR has followed this in the past, i 13 and we have recognized that it was very difficult _and had a i
j 14 lot of discussions with research.- =We had agreed that this
+
l 15 would be winding down. However, I believe that research has a
l 16 asked not just NRR but-high level managers within NRC'to
! 17 take a look at this and see if this particular effort l 18 shouldn't be continued. I think that's where.it stands i
19 right now.
20 MR. CARROLL: Anything else, Bill, that you would e
21 like to add to it? Does NUMARC have anything that they 1
22 would like to say at this time?
23 [No response.)
l-l- 24 MR. CARROLL': Frank _andfJoei, _do_you want to_ add
! 25 anything about this?.
l
~
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
! Court Reporters
. 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300
' Washington, D.C. 20006
[
4
.(202) 293-3950 I
.. ~ . _ . . _ . . _ . . . . _ _ . _ , _ . _ _ - _ . ~ , . . . . . , . . , - . - . . . - . , . . . _ . . .A_,. - . _ . . _ , ~ , . . . . . . . . . _ . . , , , , .
i 488 1 MR. KRAMER: I just wanted to have George pop up
() 2 ono future plan kind of overhead quickly. i 3 MR. CARROLL: All right.
4 (Slides.]
5 MR. KRAMER: We plan for the current projects that 6 we have to complete this integration-effort, and what we 7 have planned until the end of this fiscal year.
] 8 MR. CATTON: Could you please speak up a little l 9 bit, -
10 MR. KRAMER:- We intend to complete the current 11 projects by the end of this fiscal year, again,-in this-12 integrated mode. It's possible that the maintenance mode 13 beyond fiscal year 1993 will include more than-just keeping i 14 abreast of other activities.
l 15 Some of the quantification work that we have 16 described-may be worth continuing at a low level of funding 17 in'the next fiscal year, pending further discussion with NRR 18 as Bill Beckner indicated. In the' discussions with NRR in 19 the-futura collection of additional data by the research- '
20 team will also'be discussed.
21 MR. CARROLL: Why did you. feel compelled to put 22' this SECYLforward at this time, when-there isn't. agreement '
23 on what ought to be done between yourselves and NRR. Wa s -
24 this some_ schedule that.you_had to-meet?
25 MR. KRAMER: We made a comm'itment-in the last;SECY-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite-300 Washington, D.C. 20006
-(202) 293-3950 l
i i
1 j 489 j 1 paper,1that by the end of the last fiscal year we would do a i
() 2 comprehensive evaluction of this research and make a j j 3 recommendation. Secondly, the presentation last year to the 1 4 Commission resulted in a staff requirements meno that ..ad a l >
j 5 number of items that we needed-to respond tc. ;
! 6 MR. CARROLL: That's corre ;. ,
i j 7 MR. KRAMER: That'a basically the reason why we i
l 8- put this Commission paper forward, to_ inform the Commission '
i 9 on results of that re-evaluation and provide this other i i
L 10 information.
I -
' 11 MR. CARROLL: You could have, however, said-that-12 we are continuing to do our evaluation with NRR. But as far i ,
[ 13 as these other questions you asked us, here is the ,
14 information. If I was a Commissioner and got your SRM I i l
l 15 would say okay, these guys have made up their mind. Except s
! 16 _that, there's a hint that we are still talking to NRR. r l
j 17 I guess if I were a Commissioner I would like a 13 .more complete closure of an issue or more complete l 19- description of where you were going. Does'anybody else have ;
l 20 any questions on this?
_I
?
21 MR, DAVIS: I have a quick comment. George, I am l
! 22 intrigued by what you have done, and I'think it has mer3t.
l- 23 It doesn't suffer from-lack of subjectivity. ,
-\
24 MR. CARROLL: .Like the rest of the PRA? l U l i j 25 MR./ DAVIS: Just for_your information, we were i
, 1
'. ANN ~RILEY'& ASSOCIATES,-LTD. l Court Reporters l
- 1612 K Street, N.W.,1 Suite 300 '
l Washington, D.C. 20006 l (202); 293-3950 1
l
...,. , - ., 4, . ___,:. ,, ,-~._ _ _. a __ . ..;._,.___._......;_..m_,_.-._,_c_,,.-._..- -
m_ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ . _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _
t 490 v 1 treated to a presentation from the Fitzpatrick management l (f 2 team yesterday or the day before, and they have taken rather f j 3 dramatic strides to improve their perceived management ~
i !
] 4 problems up there. You may know that, - but that may ;
i j 5 influence the plant you want to select. That's all I had. ;
1 6 MR. WARD: How do they know the steps they have 7 taken are going to improve the situation?
f l 8 MR. DAVIS: They have responded to three separate i
j 9 evaluations of their organizational structure, and are 2
j 10 responding to the areas that were identified in those i
j 11 evaluations.
i 12 MR. WARD: Who made those evaluations? ,
3 j 13 MR. DAVIS: They made an internal evaluation, INPO
? 14 made an evaluation, and they had the SALP. They all agreed.
l()
15 MR. CARROLL: It was a diagnostic team evaluation.
l 16 MR. DAVIS: Yes. They were remarkably similar. I i
- 17 In fact, the plant agreed with the independent team's i 18 evaluation. '
I ,
{ 19 MS. HABER: They got a whole bunch of new Navy men--
! 20 in Dave, and that will have to improve it, t
- 21 MR. WARD
- That'a it.
1- >
j 22- MR. CATTON: I guess there was a comment made that i 23 I couldn't quite understand'how the core melt probability l
~
24 could be so when the plant is so troubled.
25 MR, WARD: George explained that.
' i l
I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
- i. Court Reporters 1612 K: Street, N.W.,1 Suite;300 l l- . Washington,-D.C. 20006' l F (202) 29323930 '
- u. .
, .. . . . _ . .. - - -. _ _ ,_._ _. . . _ __ _ .-. . - . _ . . . . _ . . _ , . . - _ . _ --_2..._. . - . . . _ . . _ _ . .
..._....___._______..._.._._.-__-._._..m..____ . . _ . _ _ , _ . _ . . _ _ _
a 491 j 1 MR. CATTON: I was just going to say that.
2 George, you gave me a paper sometime ago that showed three l- l 3 orders of magnitude variation in human factor error -l l
t l 4 probability for the same thing. How much could you reduce l I
i S it with what you are-doing. )
I j 6 MR. APOSTOLAKIS: I think that paper referred to I
j 7 dynamic errors during an accident. That's where the largest l 4
l 8 uncertainties are. That's not what I am doing here. -I am ,
l *
- 9 looking at what processes. I am hoping to look at that.
l 10 after this is done.- I'have about 20 years until I retire. -
11 MR. CARROLL: A good organization trains people, 1
- 12 and those are the things to deal'with the' accident-i
- 13 conditions.
i 14 MR. APOSTOLAKIS: That's true. :
! 15 MR. CARROLLt Emphasizes communications.
i 16 MR. APOSTOLAKIS: I would like to respond to Pete.
17 We tried to work with plants when We started this, and we l 18 pretty soon found that the.various constraints that were 19 imposed on tus by the NRC plus the reluctance of 1a lot of the -
- 20 utilities to participate pretty much eliminated everybody.
j 21- Fitzpatrick has been very receptive. Even if they I
j 22 improve things and if they are willing to cooperate with us, i
23 I will grab the opportunity any day. It's kind of funny
{
24 that Sonja has'to fly to Diablo Canyon to do it and I have
{
[ 25 to flv to New iork to do iIt. I guess we need the frequent 4
ANN RILEY.&. ASSOCIATES, LTD.- ;
- Court Reporters I 1612 K Strett, N,W., Suite 300
- Washington,10.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
--. , - ~ . .....m__..,~ J.-.,...... - . . , . . , . . . .,- . - - . .- . - - - . - ~ . . . . - - . . . , . . - . . . . - , . . -,,r-.
_ _ _ - . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . - _ . _ _ _ ~ . _ . - _ . _ _ . - _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ . . . _ . _ _ .
i
?
j 492 e 1 flyer miles.
f 2 Just as a minor comment, subjectivity is not only 4
{ 3 in PRA of course, in the whole safety arena. That's not why 4 I am here.
l 5 MR. CARROLL: We are behind-schedule. I will give i 6 Dave Ward and Tom Leamon each, one minute to give consultant i
j 7 reports.
8 MR. WARD: I sent you a note, and maybe people
- 9 could have copies of that. I would just like to say one 4
1 i 10 thing. What seems to be sort of a summary statement or.
t 11- conclusion in the SECY paper, that gathering data is l'
12 resource intensive and there is a relatively low cost effect i
13 of this continuing in regulatory research, I haven't heard l
4 14 any real basis for those comments. Those are, I guess, 15 opinions.
j 16 MR. CARROLL: Assertions.
i 17 MR. WARD: It's the opinion of the researchers, l 18 but they haven't really given us any technical basis to :
i l 19 support either of those comments. That troubles me, that i
i 20 the paper is written the way it is.
i 21. MR. CARROLL: Tom,.did you have any comments?
i 22 MR. LEAMON: Jtust the general observation, that t 23 premise for doing organizational.research is che i
j 24 organization has some effect on the act of safety.
2S Therefore, if you stop funding it that looks good, but.what l- . ' ANN RILEY-& ASSOCIATES,. LTD.
Court Reporters A-1612 K-Street', N.W., Suite ~300 *
, Washington, D.C. 20006 (202)-293-3950
._.2. _ . . _ _ . _ _ . _ __. m____.___..u_m.....
7 i
l 493 i
i
{
1 you are actually saying is we don't intend or we don't
() 2 believe that this is worth our attention.
! 3 It seems to me the question really ought to be:if !
4 you don't like the way the research is. going, why the heck ,
5 haven't you had more input into the direction rather than f 6 pull the plug on it. Pulling the plug on it saves money I i
{ 7 because the research actually addresses the basic premise, I
8 are organizational factors significant in reactor safety or l 9 not.
i 10 You can't say yes, but we are not-going to do
- 11 anything about it --
at least I don't -think you can.
i i 12 MR.__CATTON: At least_you shouldn't.
i
{ 13 MR. LEAMON: That's right.
I
- j. _
14 MR. CARROLL: Particularly when we have ROSA ,
l 15 sitting out here in the thermal hydraulics --
l 16 MR. CATTON: Ten million dollars.
i d
17 MR. CARROLL: I turn it'back to you, Mr. Chairman, i
l- 18 I do want to thank everybody for coming here on a rainy 1 t
i 19 Friday afternoon.
(
20 MR. SHEWMON: Let's_ sort of let.the room clear for 1
! 21 a minute, and then we will go on to future agenda before we 1
l 22 quit for supper, i
i 23 [Whereupon, at 5:33 p.m., the transcribed portion 24 of the meeting concluded.)
i 25 1
4 j ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court' Reporters i . 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite'300
- - Washington, D.C. 20006 f
.(202) 293-3950 i
, _ .-..,...-,. _ - n :--- ..,--,--. - ._,- n -,.n L -... ,6.~,--,...,-. . - - - . - . + . - . . , - . ~ - - . - . . . . - - - - ~ , - - +
i 1
8 REPORTEK'S CERTIFICATE ,
i This is to certify that the attached proceedings before i the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission j i ,
q
- j In the Matter oft l
NAME OF PROCEEDING: ACKS 394th General Meeting i
I DOCKET NUMBER:
1 I
PLACE OF PROCEEDING _ Dothesda, Maryland l 4 v
j were held as herein appears, and_that.this is the original transcript thereof'for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court' reporting company, and that the ;
transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.
r vf, f] %,
/)'2D.A. 3 L, c&^ u' d J
Official Reporter Ann Riley &-Associatas, Ltd.
s O
' ~
)< O O O 1
i t
t t
STATUS i
)
i OF ;
MULTIPLE SYSTEM RESPONSES PROGRAM (MSRP)
FEBRUARY 12, 1993 ;
i R..EMRIT :
i ENGINEERING ISSUES BRANCH l OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH 7
- (301) 492-3731 !
, i i
?
i' 10F 7 i
i 4
O O o l
! HISTORY t
l o A NUMBER OF RELATED CONCERNS WERE IDENTIFIED THAT WERE NOT
- ADDRESSED IN THE RESOLUTION OF THE FOLLOWING ISSUES:
i L A-17 SYSTEMS INTERACTION :
A-46 SEISMIC QUALIFICATION OF EQUIPMENT IN OPERATING .
1 PLANTS A-47 SAFETY IMPLICATIONS OF CONTROL SYSTEMS t
o MSRP WAS FORMULATED AND CONTAINED 21 CONCERNS FOR STAFF EVALUATION (NUREG/CR-5420) t 2 0F 7 t
t . !
- O O O j PRELIMINARY FINDINGS
- i o
- MAJORITY 0F CONCERNS COVERED IN PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED (AND EVALUATED) GENERIC ISSUES l
SUMMARY
COVERED IN OTHER ISSUES / PROGRAMS 17 TBD 1
- d I
i i
I -
- 3 0F 7 i
1-
i o o o l
i l PRELIMINARY FINDINGS (CONT.)
l o SPECIFIC CONCERNS:
f (1) FAILURE MODES OF DIGITAL COMPUTER CONTROL SYSTEMS i (A-19)
(2) SPECIFIC SCENARIOS NOT CONSIDERED IN USI i A-47 (144 & 67.3.1) 9 I
(3) EFFECTS OF DEGRADATION OF HVAC EQUIPMENT ON CONTROL '
AND PROTECTION SYSTEMS (143 & 156.3.3) ;
^
(4) FAILURE MODES RESULTING FROM DEGRADED ELECTRIC POWER
- SOURCES (128) l; (5) FAILURE MODES RESULTING FROM DEGRADED COMPRESSED AIR ;
L SYSTEMS (43) i i
(6) POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF UNTIMELY COMPONENT OPERATION (160)
(7) PROPAGATION OF ENVIRONMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH DBE i (IPE) 4 0F 7 i
i
) O O O
\
PRELIMINARY FINDINGS (CONT.)- 1 J
l (8) EVALUATION OF HEAT, SMOKE, AND WATER PROPAGATION
! EFFECTS RESULTING FROM FIRES (57)
(9) EFFECTS OF FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM ACTUATION OF NON-
! SAFETY-RELATED AND SAFETY-RELATED EQUIPMENT (57)
- (10) EFFECTS OF FLOODING AND/OR MOISTURE INTRUSION ON L NON-SAFETY AND SAFETY-RELATED EQUIPMENT (IPE &-
IPEEE) j
. (11) SEISMICALLY-INDUCED SPATIAL AND FUNCTIONAL l INTERACTIONS (IPEEE) i (12) SEISMICALLY-INDUCED FIRES (IPEEE) !
(13) SEISMICALLY-INDUCED FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM (57)
~
. ACTUATIONS l.
l ' (14) SEISMICALLY-INDUCED FLOODING (IPEEE) i (15) SEISMICALLY-INDUCED RELAY CHATTER (IPEEE)
L i
I 5 0F 7
__. _ _ . - - - . - - . . . _ - _ ._ . . . . . . _ - - -._ .-... ___ __ ~
O O o l
PRELIMINARY FINDINGS (CONT.)
(16) EVALUATION OF EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDES GREATER THAN THE SSE (IPEEE) ,
EFFECTS OF H'YDR0 GEN LINE RUPTURES(106)
(17) l (18) COMMON CAUSE FAILURES RELATED TO HUMAN ERRORS l
-(DROP)
(19) NON-SAFETY-RELATED CONTROL SYSTEM(DROP)
/ SAFETY-RELATED PROTECTION SYSTEM DEPENDENCIES (20) ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF SEALS, GASKETS, ,
PACKING AND LUBRICATING FLUIDS ASSOCIATED WITH '
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT (DROP)
(21) SYNERGISTIC EFFECTS OF HARSH ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS'(TBD) 6 0F 7
O o o FUTURE ACTION
- COMPLETE EVALUATION OF ALL 21 CONCERNS AND SUBMIT REPORT ACRS l
f 7 0F 7
O HEARINGS AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS:
UDGE SHON RESulilNbAFETYIMPROVEMENTS FROM THE HEARING FROCESS IN COMPIL!NG A LIST OF THIS SORT IT IS aEl.L TO NOTE AT THE GUTSET THAT THE PERIMETERS OF THIS CLASS CF :DEAS ARE ;LL-DEFINED. To SEGIN d!TH, ONE :ERSON'S "'.AFETY IMPROVEMENT" IS ANOTHER'S " UNNECESSARY PRECAUTION." SECOND, O WHERE, AS HERE, THE " IMPROVEMENTS" ARE THE RESULT OF RATHER LEMGTHY DISCOURSE AMONG THE PARTIES, IT MAY BE DIFFICULT TO DECIDE WHAT FEATURES OF THE
" IMPROVEMENTS" REALLY COME FROM THE FROCESS AND WHAT FEATURES COME FROM INDIVIDUAL FLASHES OF INSPIRATION. THIRD, EVEN WHEN THE PROCESS CLEARLY RESULTS lN AN ;MPROVEMENT, IT MAY WELL BE SAID THAT THE IMPROVEMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN THOUGHT OF ANYWAY, ABSENT THE PROCESS.
O F-1
_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~
O HEARINGS #D S/FET( !!Po0VEiBiTS:
JUDCE SlDi NEVERTHELESS, THE FOLLOWING IS A LIST OF MATTERS U S U AL L. Y THOUGHT OF AS ;MPROVEMENTS IN SAFETY, OR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTICN, WHICH HAVE ARISEN THE COURSE OF HEARINGS.
l, GENERIC "ATTERS:
(1)
IMPROVEMENTS IN THE SPECIFICITY OF THE RE00'!REMENTS FOR EVALUATION OF LIGHT-WATER REACTOR
. EMERGENCY CORE-COOLING SYSTEMS, RESULTING FROM THE ECCS RULEMAKING:
(2)
NEW GUIDELINES FOR OFF-SITE RADI0 ACTIVE EXPOSURES, TO BE KEPT "AS LOW AS PRACTICABLE" OR APPROXIMATELY 1% OF ORIGINAL LIMITS, GROWING OUT OF THE ALARA RULEMAKING; O
>> F-2 '
1 -.
O HEARINGS AfD SAFETY IFPCOVEETS:
JUDGE StG (3) RE-ANALYSIS OF STEAM- AND HIGH- PRESSURE LINE ROUTING TO REDUCE DANGERS OF P1PE RUPTURE, OUTSIDE THE CONTAINMENT, DAMAGING SAFETY SYSTEMS; (41 MSER EXAMINATION CF GUIDELINES FOR DETER >.. m ?ANCE AND ACTIVITY OF EARTHOUAKE FAULTLINCS JCEPTABIL1TY OF PROXIMATE LOCATION O OF REACTORS; (5) IMPROVEMENT IN flRC Gu!DELINES AND OPERATING PRACTICES OF LillNSCES AND CONTRACTORS IN THE AREAS OF GUALITY CONTROL (QC) AND QUALITY ASSURANCE (QA);
(6) UNCOVERING WEAKNESSES IN PLANT SECURITY (i
REQUIREMENTS; a
i F-3
FEARitlGS #0 SWEiY l!NE:
JUDE SMI (7) CLOSER ATTENT10tl TO THE IMPACT OF FUEL ELLET DENSIFICATION ON THE SAFE OPERATIONAL LEVEL GF CERTAIN BOLLING WATER REACTORS (BWRS);
4 (8) GREATER- USE 's F ':.L O S ED-C Y CL E-C OOL I!;G TOWERS AND PONDS TO LESSEN HEATED CISCHARGES INTO RIVERS AND LAKES; (9) INCREASED ATTENTION TO THE PROBLEMS OF FISH ENTRAPMENT AND MARINE LIFE ENTRAINMENT CAUSED BY DESIGN AND LOCATION OF A PLANT'S COOLING WATER INTAKE; 4
k (10)- -MORE CAREFUL REVIEW OF EFFECTS OF RELEASE OF RADICACTIVE MATERI ALS ON MARINE LIFE, SHELLFISH'AND CLAM BEDS; F-4
O HEARINGS AND FAFETY IMPROVEMENTS:
JUDGE SHON (11) FUNDAMENTALLY IMPROVED APPROACH.0F c.NVI-RONMENTAL ASSESSMENT BECAUSE OF THE CALVERT CLIFFS CASE. ,
1 s12) " FULL PARTICIPATION EXERCISE" DEFINED IN A MANNER MORE CLOSELY CONSISTENT WITH REGULATIONS IN SHOPEPAM,
- 11. PLANT-SPECIFIC MATTERS:
(1)- DESIGN AND TRAIN!MG IMPROVEMENT AT ST, LUCIE TO COPE WITH OFF-SITE POWER GRID INSTABILITIES.
(2) IMPROVEMENTS Ifl THF. STEAM GENERATOR SYSTEM AT PRAIRIE ISLAND.
(3) ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR TURBINE BLADE INSPECTIONS AND OVERSPEED DETECTION AT N_0RTH ANNA.
~
O F-5 I
O lEARitGS AfD SE/ IIP!O/EEITS:
JUDGE SKXI
( t))
IMPROVEMENT AND CONFORMATION OF THE PLUME EXPOSURE PATHWAY EPZ AT SAN ONOFRE, (5) UPGRADED EFFLUENT TREATMENT SYSTEMS AT PAllSADES AND DRESDEN, (6)
SAFER STORAGE FOR REPLACED STEAM GCN-ERATORS AT TURKEY POINT, (7) CONTROL ROOM IMPROVEMENTS AT KEWAUNEE, (8) DISCOVERY OF GA BREAKDOWNS AT MIDLAND.
AND SOUTH IEXAS, (9)
REQUIREMENT FOR SPECIAL PUMPS AT BEAVER VALLEY FOR USE IN THE EVENT A BARGE DESTROYS THE COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE, s
F-6
i /
O kEARINGS NO SAFETY l'PROVEEfTS:
JtDGE SHJN (10) UPGRADED REQUIREMENTS AT BEAVER VALLEY FOR STEAM GENERATOR TUBE LEAKAGE AND FLUGGING.
(11) EXPANDED DOSE MONITORING REOUIREMENTS AT DAVIS-BESSE, (12) IDENTIFICATION OF DESIGN DEFICIENCIES IN PIPE SUPPORTS AT COMANCHE PEAK, WHEN THE APPLICANT COULD NOT SHOW PROPER DESIGN OF THE PIPE SUPPORTS, THE ENTIRE DESIGN OF PLANT EQUIPMENT AND STRUCTURE WAS CALLED TO CUESTION, SUBSEQUENT INVESTIGATION HAS LED TO NECESSARY CORRECTIVE ACTION COSTING IN EXCESS OF S1,000,000,000.
(13) INSTALLATION OF' FUEL-POOL-MAKEUP LINE.AT BIG ROCK POINT, l
1 -F-7
l I --
O t HEMUNGS 40 SMU( i"PfGNUS:
10GE SIGI
'14) IMPROVEMENTS IN EMERGENCY PLANS AT I BIG POCK Po!NT, (15) " SAFETY-PELATED" AND IMPORTANT 0 SAFETY" CLARIFICATIONS AT SHOREHAM --
A MATTER THAT LATER HAD GEiiERIC REPERCUSSIONS. ,
(16) DETAILED UPGRADING AND ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AT SHOREHAM AFFECTING:
THE REMOTE SHUTDOWN PANEL; THE DIESEL GENERATOR RELAYS; THE DETECTION OF INADEQUATE CORE COOLING; THE LOOSE-FARTS MONITOR)
ECCS PUMP BLOCKAGE; FIRE PROTECTION; g' Oq HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERINGi 4
CONTAINMENT ISOLATION)
F-S j
i O
V R ARINGS N O SAtti v IMPfGUE'TS:
, JUDGE SW)N PRE-SERVICE INSPECTIONI IN-SERVICE INSPECTION; ALARA PRACTICES FOR MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES;
- POST-ACCIDENT MONITORINGi CORE-SPRAY PUMP CPERATION:
CABLE SEPAPAT'GN:
SURVEILLANCE TESTING OF CABLE PENETRATIONS; O
- SAFETY SYSTEM ANNUNCIATION; TURBINE ROTOR SURVEILLANCE; i
FUEL-POOL LEAKAGE: AND RCS LEAKAGE.
4 5
(
-F-9
! EARINGS ATO SAFETY ltPROVDDITS:
JUDE SK N (17) DISCOVERY 'N THE SHEARON HAR_R,IS CASE THAT SIRENS AS SPECIFIED BY FEMA WOULD AWAKEN ONLY ABOUT 75% OF THE POPUL ATION UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE NRC REGULATIONS REQUIRED ESSENTI ALLY 100%"
0F THE POPULATICN TO BE NOTIFIED. IONE-ALERT RADIOS WERE ADDEU TO THE SYSTEM, (18) A THOROUGH REVIEW IN THE CASE OF DAVIS-BESSE LOW-LEVEL WASTE BURI AL, A REVIEW THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN LACKING HAD NOT WELL-FUNDED AND TECHNI-CALLY-COMPETENT INTERVENORS. THE STATE-OF CHIO IN PARTICULAR, ENTERED THE CASE.
(19) THOROUGH RE-ASSESSMENT AND ADOPTION OF COMPENSATORY IMPROVEMENTS IN QA BY APPLICANT WHEN FACED WITH A DENIED OPERATING LICENSE (OL) IN THE
(]
BYRON CASE.-
I F-10 . _ __ _ __D
<T V
HEARING AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS:
JUDGE SHDH (20) OVER 130 COMMISSION-IMPOSED CONDITIONS CN RESTART OF TMI-1, ALL RESULTING FROM EXTENSIVE
- HEARINGS.
(21) CORRECTION CF FLAWS IN THE ZIMMER EMERGENCY PLAN, FLAWS-WHICH CENTERED AROUND SCHOOL EVACUATION AND PUBLIC INFORMATION BROCHURES.
(22) A RE-FOCUS IN THE KRESS CREEK CASE FROM 1
EMPHASIS ON REGULATORY FORM (SOURCE OR BY-PRODUCT O MATERIAL) TO PUBLIC SAFETY SUBSTANCE (DOSE TO THE POPULATION). THE REVIEW RESULTED'IN A REVOCATION OF THE STAFF S SHOW-CAUSE ORDER. {
(23) SINGLE FAILURE CRITERION FOR THE RHR SYSTEM IN FUEL POOL COOLING PPOPERLY FOLLOWED AT VERMONT YANKEE.
(24) A RE-FOCUSING'0F THE FES IN THE REST CHICAGO CASE TO DEAL WITH ONSITE THORIUM MILL TAILINGS AS PERMANE!1T DISPOSAL RATHER THAN LONG TERM STORAGE.
v 1
I F-11
NUREG-1363 V'4 O
. .;; ';..^
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL ANNUAL REPORT FISCAL YEAR 1991 L
w December 1992 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Washington, DC 20555 1
e O
_ _._________________________._____________________________..________.___1_._________________ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _
AVAILABILITY NOTICE Availabliity of Reference Materials Cited in NRC Pubhcations Most documents cited in NRC pubhcations will be available from one of the following sources:
- 1. The NRC Public Document Room. 2120 L Street, NW., Lower Level, Washington, DC 20555
- 2. The Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 37082.
Washington, DC 20013-7082
- 3. The Nationa! Technical information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 Although the listing that follows represents the majority of documents cited in NRC publica-tions, it is not intended to be exnaustive, i
Referenced documents available for inspection and copying for a fee from the NRC Public Document Room include NitC correspondence and internal NRC memoranda; NRC bulletins, circulars, .nformation notices, inspection and investigation notices; licensee event reports;
. vendor reports and correspondence; Commission papers; and apphcant and licensee docu-ments and correspondence.
The following documents in the NUREG series are available for purchase from the GPO Sales Program: formal NRC stad and coritractor reports, NRC-sponsored conference proceed-ings, international agreement reports, grant publications, and NRC booklets and brochures.
Also available are regulatory guides, NRC regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission Issuances.
Documents available from the National Technical Information Service include NUREG-series reports and technical reports prepared by other Federal agencies and reports prepared by the Atomic Energy Commission, forerunner agency to the Nuclear Regule' Commission.
, Documents available from public and special technical librarios include all open literature items, such as books, journal articles, and transactions. Federal Register notices, Federal
- and State legislation, and congressional reports can usually be obtained from these libraries.
- Documents such as theses, dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and non-NRC conference proceedings are available for purchase from the organization sponsoring the publication cited.
Single copies of NRC draft reports are available free, to the extent of supply, upon wntten request to the Office of Administration. Distribution and Mail Services Section, U.S. Nuclear L, Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555.
Copies of industry coass and storidards used in a substantive manner in the NRC regulatory ;
process are maintained at the NRC Ubrary, 7020 Norfoin Avenue, Bethesca, Maryland, for ,
i use by the public. Codes and standards are usually copyrighted and may be purchased j
. from the originatin0 organization or, if they are American National Standards, from the l American National Standards institute,1430 Broadway, New York, NY 10018.
Q NUREG-1363 Vol. 4 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL ANNUALIEPORT FISCAL YEAR 1991
/\ /
O ~~
d . .
v December 1992 t
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Washington, DC 20555 O l
_ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - . . - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - . - - - '- - - - - - - - - ' ' ' - - - ~ '
ABSTRACT in Fiscal Year 1991, the Atomic Safety and Iicensing Commission. The Panel also replaced several badly Ikurd Panel ("the Panci") handled 48 proceedings, a needed technical disciplines lost to retirement over the 20-percent increase over the previous year. The cases last two years. 'this report summarizes, highlights, and aduressed issues in the construction, operation, and main. analyzes how the wide-ranging issues raised in NRC pro-tenance of commercial nuclear power reactors and other ceedings were addressed by the judges and licensing activities requiring a license from the Nuclear Regulatory boards of the Panel during the year.
O O
iii NURliG-1363, Vol. 4
CONTENTS hy'c ABSTRACF .. ... . ... . ............................. ..... ..... .. ........... ... ..... iii I!XECUTIVE
SUMMARY
. . . . . ... .... ..... ........... ... ...... . ... . .... vii Oveniew .. ...... . .. .. ........ . ... .. .......... . ........ . . . .. ........ vii Docket Data .. .. . .. . .. . .. ..... . . .... . ... .......... ... .. . .. .. vii Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... .... ..... . . .......... ........ ..... .. vii
- 1. INTRODUCflON . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. .. . ....... ....... .... .. . .......... ....... 1
- 11. ENSURING THE PUBLIC HEAL TH AND SAFETY: SIGNIFICANT FISCAL Y E AR 1991 D E C I SI O N S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... 2 A. Parci Jurisdiction ......... . .. .. . ... . .. .. ................... ............. 2 H. Significant Panel Decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... .. . ...... ....... ..... ... 2
- 1. Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Proceedings . . . . . . . ... ..... .... .. .. . .... 2
- 2. Experiments with Americium and Plutonium . . . . . . . . . . .. .... .. ... .-......... 2
- 3. latte Intervention: Ignorance of the 12tw ... . ... ... ........................ ....... 3
- 4. Stan ding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . .... .. . . ... .. .. .. ... . 3
- 5. Technical Spccifications Amendments .. ..... .. . .. ....... .... .. ...... 3
- 6. Civil Penalties . . . . . .. . ...... .. . . .. ...... ... ....... . 3
? Written Testimony . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . .......... . .... . 4
- 8. Inspection Fees , , . .. . ... . . .. ... .. .. ...... .. . . .. 4
- 9. Special Nuclear Materials: Emergency Plan . . . ..., . ... . . ... ... .. ..... 4
- 10. Discovery: Materials License Proceedings ..... . .. . ... .. . .... ......... 4
- 11. Dismissal of Parties from Proceedings . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . 4 4 12. Informal Procedures to Resolve Contested issues . , . . . .. ... . ..... ...... . 4
- 13. Standards for Review for Show Cause Determinations . . .. ....... .. . .. . 4
- 14. Decommissioning: NEPA Requirements . . ...... .. . . ... . . ....... . ........ 4
!!!. FISCAL YEAR 1991 CASELOAD ANALYSIS . . .. . . . . .. ... ... ... ...... 5 A. Oveniew . . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. . .. . . . . ... . .. . .. ..... . . . 5 H. The Fiscal Year 1901 Docket . . ..... . . .. .... ... . . .. ... . ... 5 C. Case Management .. . . .. .. .. ..... .... ......... . .... .... .. . . 6 D. Types of Cases . . . . . . . . . . ... . .. .. .... .. ...... . ... . . 6 E. Operating Licenses . . .. ... . . . .. . ,. . ... . ... . ... 8 IV. PERSONNEL AND SUPPORT . . . . ._.. . .. . , . ..... . .. 9 A. Panel Merebers . . .... ..... . . .. . .. . .. 9 H. Professional and Support Staff . . .. . . . . .9
- 1. Technical and Legal Support Staff
~
. . . . . . .. .. .. 9
- 2. Administrative Support Staff .. . . . . . . . .. 9 l
l v NUR EG-1363, Vol. 4 O
V. F.NilANCING Ti!E ADJUDICATORY PROCESS . .. . . ..... . . ..
11 A. General . . . . ..... .. . .. ................ . ........... ..... .. .. ... ... .. ..
. ...... ........ ... .. .. ....... ... 11
- 11. The Panel's Electronic Docket . . . . .... . . .
12 C. Ilearing Procedures . . . . . . . . . . ....... .... ......-.. . . . . ............. . . ....
' Coordination with the Office of the Licensing Support System Administrator ... ............... 12 D.
Agency Court Repcrting Services . . . . ...... ... .. . . . ......... 13 E. . ..... ... . ....
VI. CONCLUSIONS 1
Fiscal Year 1991 in Retrospect .. ,. . 14 A. . . . ....... ...... . ..... . . ..... . .....
14 B. Meeting the Adjudicatory Demands of the Next Decade . . . . . . . . . . .. .. ............. ..
APPENDICES A Organizational Chait . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. ... .... ..... . ......... . ... ... '7 H Atomic Safety Licensing Board Panel . .. . . . .. . . . . ...... .. .... ... ...... 19 C Biographical Sketches of Panel Members . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 L Selected issuances of the AtomM Saf ety and Licensing Boards , . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . ... .. .... 27 E Mejor Federal Statutes and Regulations Relevant to ASLBP Adjudications . ........ ... ... 31 9 '
FIGURES
- 1. Fiscal Year 1983 Caseload Mix by Percent . ...... .. .. ... .. . .... .... .. ... .. . 6
- 2. Fiscal Year 1991 Caseload Mix by Percent . . . . . . . . , ... . . . . ... ........ ... 7
- 3. Fiscal Year 1992 Projected Caseload Mix by Percent . . . .... . . . .. ..... . 7
- 4. Fiscal Year 1993 Projected Caseload Mtx by Percent .. ... .. .... .... . ...... .... .. 7 TABLES
- 1. Fiscal Year 1991 Docket Recapitulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . .... . ... ... .. $
- 2. Panel Caseload by Fiscal Year . . . . . . . . . .... . .. .. .. . .. ..... ........ .. 5
- 3. Increase in Average Caseload per Full. Time Judge / Full-Time Panel Member . . . .. . .. .... . ... 5
- 4. Average Case Age by Type /Overall in FY 1991 .. .... ........ . ..... . .. . ..... ... 6
- 5. Months FY 1991 Cases Were on Docket . ...... .. ... .... . ..... . .......... 6 9 <
d NUREG-1363, Vol. 4 vi
m V EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Overview Caseload per judge: The average caseload per full-time judge increased 13 percent in Fiscal ' Year 1991 over the Although the Fiscal Year 1991 casekiad reflected the average of the seven previous years, kinds of disputes that arise from the regulation of a newly matured industry, three unusual cases were filed. They included the first litigated hearinCs involving the appeal by a utility of a major civd penalty, the first antitrust case Completed Proceedings: Of 48 proceedings on the docket in a decade, and the first application to construct an during the year,24 (50 percent of all proceedings) were enrichment facility. '
closed in 1991. Fifty-two percent of the cases closed were on the docket for only 6 months or less.
Otherwise, however, only 3 of the 48 cases on the Panel's docket for Fiscal Year 1991 related to applications for construction per:aits or operating licenses. 'Ihe Fiscal Year 1991 cases focused on issues arising out of the con-tinuing operation of more than 115 nuclear power plants or related facilities, or programs related to 8,000 matert- Administration als licenses and other nuclear licenses. 'lhus, new filings during the year focused principally on applications for license amendments and challenges to NRC staff en-forcement actions. Staffing: At the close of the previous fiscal year, retirements had reduced full time Panel personnel As described in this report, the Panel continues to im-significantly. To replace lost technical disciplines, the prove the efficiency of the Coinmission's hearing process- Panel hired two full-time and six part-time judges, The highlights are given below, bringing the total to 40 judges (15 full time and 25 part time). The newly hired judges also lowered the Ocket Data average age of full time- Panel members to 56 and part-time Panel members to 68. Nevertheless, more than Cese Ate: The average age of all cases on the docket 70 percent of all judges are currently eligible to retire.
during the fiscal year (as of September 30,1991) was 13.8 Consequently, during the year, the Panel established months, a decrease of 49 percent over the hscal Year registers of qualified candidates, both to obtain and 1986 average age' replace technical disciplines necessary to the Paners workload and to expedite replacement of retirees.
Case Filings: The number of new cases filed in Fiscal Year 1991 exceeded the number of new cases filed in 1990 by 17 percent.
Inspector General's Audit: During the year, the Panel implemented five recommendations made by the Cesek ad: Of the 48 cases on the Panel's docket fo: Fiscal Inspector General in his June 1990 audit of Panel Year 1991,25 cases involved nuclear power reactors or operations. Four of the recommendations urged related facilities (3 involved applications for construction continuation and completion of existing Panel programs.
permits or operating licenses). The remaining 23 proceedings involved other types of Commission licensees.
The Paners Electronie Docket: The Panel made Enforcement: During Fiscal Year 1991, 7 of 15 substantial progress in expanding the scope, depth, and enforcement proceedings were closed, availability of its Computer. Automation Project (CAP) electronic docket during Fiscal Year 1991. At the close of Other Ceses: Of the four categories of cased -hat the the fiscalycar, the Panel was:(1) enhancing the system by Inspector GeneraPs audit recommendcd referring to the adding licensing panel and appeal board issuances within Panel, one Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) case 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of decision; (2) briefing other State and Federal was received at the end of the year, agencies that inquired about the CAP system; (3) expanding the database to hold additional caseloads; and Chearing Contention Resolution. For all proceedings, (4) conducting a major cost reduction study of thost 73 percent of all formal contentions were resolved persovaRoraputer-based, full-text systems to substitute before trial, a continuation of prior experiences. for our mmicomputer-based system.
l vii NUREG- 1363, Vol. 4
O I. INTRODUCTION The Atomic Safety and Licensing floard Panel ("the go beyond the issues placed before them by the parties in Panel") was created by the Commission pursuant to Sec- order to identify, explore, and resolve any significant tion 191 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. question necessary to avoid any threat to the public health The first licensing board was appointed November 9, and safety. Thus, if the public's health or safety are impli-1962. In the ensuing 29 years, nuclear reactor licensing cated, licensing boards must ensure that those interests and construction permit hearings conducted before the are fully explored and effectively preserved.
Panel's licensing boards have been characterized as among the most complex, lengthy, and controversial ad. Moreover, while the Panel has moved away from the large ministrative hearings conducted by the Federal Govern- nuclear power plant operating license proceedings that ment.This results principally from three factors. dominated its docket during much of this decade, the site decontamination, enforcement actions, reactor operator, and materials license proceedings that are taking their First, these hearings routinely involve difficult interre- place continue to raise difficult and sometimes unex-lated questions of policy, law, engineering, and risk as- plored questions of law and science. And in the near sessment, often at the cutting edge of science and tech- future, projected proceedings involving facility decom-nology. Thus, licensing boards must confront not only missioning, license renewal, license applications for new disputed legal and factual arguments, but also competing reactors, and new reactor design certification are likely to technical and scientific theories, opinions, and research once again rank among the most complex and contested findings. Second, hearings before licensing ocards are the proceedings conducted by the Federal administrative iu-principal public administrative vehicle through which in- diciary. Certainly, they will involve novel scientific issues.
dividuals. organizations, and State and local governments Finally, work has begun by the Department of Energy can exercise an equal voice in the resolution of their which will Icad to the high level waste repository pro-concerns about regulated nuclear activities. Thus, diffi- ceeding, a case that could become the most complex and cult technical questions are often resolved in the compli- controversial administrative proceeding ever conducted pied environment of local concerns about the conse- by the Federal Government.
(Jences of severe accidents and the national det> ate over the role nuclear power should play in meeting the Na- In Fiscal Year 1991, the Panel handled 48 proceedings.
tion's energy needs. Third, in deciding whether a license, This report summarizes, highlights, and analyzes how the permit, amendment, or extension should be granted to a wide-tanging issues raised in these proceedings were ad-particular applicant, individual boards must be more than dressed by the boards and the judges of the Panel during mere umpires. Where appropriate, they are required to that year.
O l
l 1 NUREG-1363, Vol. 4
l l
l II. ENSURING Tile PUllLIC HEALTil AND SAFETY: h f SIGNIFICANT FISCAL YEAR 1991 DECISIONS See Appendix D. Some of the more significant of these A. Panel Jurisdiction formal issuances are summarized below.
- lhe Atomic EnerD Act of 1954 (as amended by the .
- Shoreham Nuclear Power Stat. ion linergy Reorganization Act of 1974)("the Act") and its Proceedings
(
implementing regulations require that a formal hearing be held on every application for a construction permit for During Fiscal Year 1991, a licensing board issued a num-a nuclear power plant or related facility. 'there are also ber of decisions for Shoreham responding to motions and opportunities for hearings at the operating license stage hearing requests filed by the Shoreham-Wading River and for hearings for license amendments to nuclear Central School District and Scientists and Engineers for power reactors. Finally, other sections of the Act or the Secure Energy. 'these petitioners wanted Shoreham to Commission's rules provide an opportunity for a formal contmue operating as a nuclear facility. Their opposition hearing on antitrust issues, civil penalties, various en-to decommissiomng Shoreham arose out of an agreement forcement actions, and other matters upon which the between the long Island Lighting Company ("LILCO")
Commission could require a hearing.The Panel's formal and the Staie of New York that IJLCO would not operate proceedings are governed by Ihe Administrative Proce- Shoreham and would sell Shoreham to the Imng Island dure Act,5 U.S.C. 9 551, et ser as implemented by the Power Authority for subsequent decommissioning.
Commission's own rules of pre ce set out at 10 C.F.R.
Part 2. Most hearings are held or near the site of the I.ILCO did not request decommissioning during Fiscal licensed facility or business. Year 1991, but it did request and was granted certain license amendments and a Possession Only License on a Informal hearing procedures are authorized in matters finding that no significant hazards would result from al-affecting one of the NRC's more than 8.000 materials lowing Shoreham to be maintained more economical! -
licensees. See 10 C.F.R. sg 2.1201-2.1251, While the The petitioners opposed these beensing actions, conter deliberative process for judges remains the same under ing that they constituted de facto decommissioning, either type of hearing, informal hearings involve signifi-action that should require the NRC to prepare ermron-cantly different procedures for developing the record mental impact statements. *!he petitioners also claimed upon which decisions must be based. The principal differ, that any environmental impact statements must consider ences include the use of a presiding officer (a single ad-ministrative judge'), written submittals by the parties, the, operation of Shoreham as one of the cost-benefit
~
and,if the piesiding officer determines it to be necessary UPI'0"8' after considering the written submittals, oral presenta- On the basis of several interim rulings by the Commission tions by the parties subject to questioning by the presiding ndicating, among other things. that resumed operations officer. Although the mformal hearing procedures have for Shoreham was not an option, the licensing board re-the potential to shorten and simplify the hearing process, jected most of the petitioners' requests, including all of the realization of that potentialin large degree depends the contentions they submitted for litigation during this on the presiding officer s ability to identify, focus on, and period. Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear explore the matertal factual and technical issues. Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-91-1,33 NRC 15 (1991);
LBP-91-7,33 NRC 179 (1991); LBP-91-23,33 NRC 430
. (1991);13P-9l-26,33 NRC 537 (1991): LBP-91-32,34 B. S.ignipcant I3anel Dec. .iSionS NRC 132 (1991). Ilowever, the board did find that one of the petitioners had standing to intervene (see discussion During Fiscal i, ear 1991, the Panci's boards and presiding on organizational standing, infra).
officers published 38 decisions and issued several hun-dred memoranda and orders in connection with the 48 2. Experiments with Americium and proceedings on the Panel's docket for Fiscal Year 1991. Plutonium in a Subpart L proceeding concerning a university testing facility, the presiding officer granted a license for con-ducting experiments with unencapsulated americium and
' As a matter of Panel practice. an Atomic Safety a ,d t.icensing Board Panci(AStBP) judge having expertne (ie,, legal or technical) comple- aAll citations refer to volume and page numhers of Nuclear Regulatory ..
menting that of the single presiding officeris routinely awgned to the Communon luaances, and ali ca-es may t:e found in the two electronic proceedmg as a special amstant. Icgal databases,IEXIS and WISflAW.
i NUREG-1363, Vol. 4 2
( jonium. Curators of the Unitersity of Afissoun (Trump-S the licensing board found that a New York organization Project), l IIP-91-31, 34 NRC 29 (1991). To ensure had standing to intervene in a license amendment pro-safety, the presiding officer ordered fire extinguishers to ceeding involving the Shoreham facility. llistorically, an be installed and the licensee's procedures to be modified organization establishes standing in an NRC proceeding to reduce the risk of a serious fire that might disperse after some of its members, who potent. ally could be in-nuclear materials. jured by the action in question, authorize it to represent their interests. Ilowever, the board concluded that this
- 3. Late Intervention: Ignorance of the Law organization had standing on its own behalf based on its organizational function of disseminating information to in a Subpart L proceedmg involving a Massachusetts its members. Specifically, this organization was unable to company engaging in the com ersion of depleted uranium, act on information that was essential to its activities w hen the presiding officer dismissed an untimely petition for a the NRC failed to issue emironmental impact statements hearing when the petitioners had not requested a hearing for several licensing actions. In granting standing, the within 30 days of receiving actual notice of the application board recognized that the purpose of the National Envi-and had not demonstrated an adequate excuse for un- ronmental Policy Act of ensuring well-infonned govern-timeliness as required by the regulations. Nuclear Afetals, ment decisions and stimulating public comment on Inc.,1.llP-91-27, 33 NRC 548 (1991). The petitioners agency actions effectively lowers the threshold for estab-argued that they lacked notice because the public infor- lishing injury to infor national intcrests, mation about the application did not include notice of the right to oppose the application. In dismissing the petition, c. Inferred Standing the presiding officer held that the principle " ignorance of in a license amendment proceeding involving Georgia the law is no excuse" applies to the timeliness provisions Power Company O'ogtle, Units 1 and 2), LilP-91-33,34 m the regulations, particularly if a petitioner has enough NRC 138 (1991), a local intervenor had participated in an knowledge to inquire further. The presiPt officer also earlier NRC proeceding invohing the same nuclear facil-noted that in this case the petitioners h' eceived actual ity. The board did not require this intervenor to again notice of the application 8 months taure filing their establish standing because its standing already was estab-uest for a heanng. I shed in the earlier case.
- f. Standing 5. Technical Specifications Amendments
- a. Presumption of Standing Based on Close Pratimity to in Georgia Power Company (Vogtle, Units 1 and 2),
the faciluy ~
LBP-91-21, 33 NRC 419 (1991), a k) cal organization contendel that a technical specifications amendment, in-For purposes of determining whether an intervenor has vohing a plant modification by a licensee, should not be standing, injury has traditionally been inferred in NRC allowed because there was a better way of making this cases where interrenors live within 50 miles of the nuclear modification. The licensee's method met current NRC facility. In a license amendment proceeding involving the regulatory guidance. In dismissing the contention, the Palo Verde nuclear facility, a party contended that the board concluded, as a matter of law, that if regulatory 50-mile presumption should only apply to construction requirements were met, the board could not limit a licen-permit or operating license proceedings which involve see's choice of actions even if one method was clearly wide-ranging activities that can potentially affect a large better than the other.
geographic area. Because license amendment proceed-ings are usually much more limited in scbpe, it claimed 6. Civil Penalties that the petitioner, a resident of Tempe, Arizona, must i Nge the specific injury that could occur from the af. In fewell Geotechnical Engineering. Ltd., LBP-91-29, 33 fected activities. The licensing board disagreed and found NRC 561 (1991), the staff ordered a radiographer to be that the petitioner did not have to show specific injury if suspended from his job for 3 years for violating operating there was potential for offsite consequences. The board Procedures and not being truthful. The licensing board found this potential present at Palo Verde because the modified the order by reducing the period of suspension license amendment involved changes to several systems to 9 months and requiring the radiographer to serve 3 that were important to safety. Arbona Public Service Com- additional months as a radiographer's assistant before pany (Palo Verde, Units 1,2, and M, LBP-91-4,33 NRC resuming work as a radiographer. In reducing the penalty, 132 (1991), the board differentiated between types of willful miscon-duct. The willfulness here, lying when panicked and in a Organizational Standing stressed state of mind, was not as culpable as those cases fLong Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear in which individuals have intentionally plotted to deceive the NRC.The board's decision was appealed by the NRC Power Station, Unit 1), LBP 91-32,34 NRC 132 (1991), staff. i l
l 3 NUREG-1363, Vol. 4
- 7. Written Testimony applications for construction permits or operatingO_
censes for a production or utilization facility. Advanced in Tulsa Gamma Ray, Inc., LBP-91-25, 33 NRC 535 - Medica! Systems, Inc., LBP-91-9,33 NRC 212 (1991).
(1991), a civil penalty proceeding, a party requested that the licensee, an Oklahoma radiography company, be re- 11. Dismissal of Parties from Proceedings quired to file written testimony, as opposed to being abic to use live testimony, at the hearing.1he licensing board in a license amendment proceeding for the Palo Verde held that the licensee in a civil penalty case has a right to nuclear reactors, several petitioners secktng intervention present live testimony where credibility is a significant were dismissed for failing to appear at the prehearing factor, conference. The board concluded that their failure to
- seek a continuance, formally withdraw, or explain their
- 8. Inspection Fees failure to appear, was not only a default, but rg con-temptuous conduct proscribed by the Commission s regu-lations. Arizona Public Service Company (Palo Verde Units In a show-cause proceeding seeking license revocation for 1,2, and 3), LUP-91-13,33 NRC 259 (1991).
failure to pay an NRC inspection fee, a Missouri-hased byproduct material licensee had requested a waiver of that fee on the ground that its licensed equipment was 11 Infm md PMms to Resolve Contested used exc:usively for government projects. Rhodes-Sayre & Issues Associates, Inc., LBP-91-15, 33 NRC 535 (1991). The licensing board considered this request and also analyzed In a license amendment proceeding for the Vogtle whether the staff should have imposed some lesser sanc- facility, the licensees agreed to pursue informal resolu- ,
tion than license revocation. It concluded that there was t on of the issues before the issues were accepted as g
no abuse of staff discretion in either instance, and also C ntentionsin the proceeding.The licensing board deter-mmed that it was authonzed to utihze mformal found that the enforcement actions taken were consistent with other similar NRC actions and with the Commis. Procedures to resolve these issues. It further concluded sion's regulations. that questions posed by a licensing board preceding the grant of a hearing in order to clarify arcar of concern
- 9. Special Nuclear Materials: Emergency " '"* ""Il DISC "C'Y'6' 'E"i ##"" C "P""7(V Units 1 and 2), LBP-91-6,33 NRC 169 (1991).
Plan
- 13. Standards for Review for Show Cause in a Subpart L proceeding concerning a university's test-ing facility, the presidtng officer determined that it is Determinations appropriate for a fire department to have a procedure in in evaluating the actions of the NRC staff in issuing an which firefighters may cease fighting a fire when radiatton Order to Show Cause why a license should not be revoked levels reach dangerous levels. This is similar to proce- for nonpayment of a license fee, a licensing board based dures when great heat or smoke causes firefighters to its review on whether the staff abused its discretion.The cease fighting a fire from a threatened location. Curators board concluded that, even though severe, the sanction of the ~ University of Missoun (Trump-S Project), was consistent with Commission regulations and with en.
LBP-90-38,32 NRC 359 (1990). farcement actions in similar cases. Rhodes-Sayre & Associ-
- 10. Discovery: Materials License Proceedings
- 14. Decommissioning: NEPA Requirements In an enforcement action against an Ohio medicalfacility, _ _
a party against whom summary disposition was granted - In a proceeding involving an application for a Possession contended that the licensing board could not rely on cer- Only License for the Rancho Seco facility, a petitioner, tain affidavits in support of the motion since the party had w ho opposed the facility's shutdown, claimed the license not had an opportunity to cross-examine the affiants.The could not be issued without a NEPA review.1he licensing licensing board ruled that the affidavits were permissible board found that NEPA does not obligate the NRC to for use because the party had ample time to engage in conduct a review of a licensee's decision to cease opera-discovery concerning the affidavits even though a . tions of the reactor. Moreover,the NRCis not required to prehearing conference had not been held. The board review a licensee's decision to cease operations of and reasoned that Commission regulations do not prohibit decommission a power reactor, and there is no require-licensing boards from ordering formal or informal discov- ment that the licensee submit a decommissioning plan -
ery upon the request of a party prior to a prehearing contemporaneously with its application for a Posses conference in a ma terials license proceeding. The regula- Only License as contended by petitioner. Sacramento tory prohibition against discovery prior to a prehearing nicipal Utility District (Rancho Seco Statfon), LBP-91.-17, conference found in 10 C.F.R. 6 2.740(b)(1)is limited to 33 NRC 379 (1991); LBP-91-30,34 NRC 23 (1991).
NUREG-1363, Vol. 4 4
\
" ' - "' SCAL YEAR 1991 CASELOAD ANALYSIS O
A. Overview Tabie 2 Panel caseload by fiscal year Since the first licensing lxiard was appointed by the Com- Fiscal Year No. of Cases mission in 1962,610 cases have been filed,584 of which had been closed by the end of Fiscal Year 1991. During 1984 63 Fiscal Year 1991, the Panel had 48 proceedings on its 1985 55 docket, representing a 20-percent increme in the number 1986 58 l
of cases from the previous year. Of these 48 proceedi :gs, 1987 52 25 involved nuclear power plants or related facilities, and 1933 So 23 involved other Commission licensees. Unlike the dec- 1989 40 ades of the 1970's and 1980's, construction permit and 1990 40 operating license proceedings for nuclear reactors did not 4g 1993 dominate the Panel's docket during Fiscal Year 1991 1 B. Tlie Fiscal Year 1991 Docket Table 2 shows that (although greater than in 1989 and 1990) the number of cases on the ASLBP docket in Fiscal Year 1991 was somewhat less than in Fiscal Years 1984 For proceedings on the Fiscal Year 1991 docket requiring through 1987, the submittal of contentions, the Panel or parties resolved 73 percent of all these contentions before hearing /In the However, this decrease was accompanied by an even same period,30 new cases were docketed as shown in greater decrease in the numberof Panel members. At the Table 1. The type of new filings continued to reflect a end of Fiscal Year 1991, the Panel had 40 judges (15 n full-time and 25 part time). In 1982, the Panel had 68 g"d, beginning during the late 1980's, toward more fo.
d proceedings of greater technical and legal diversity members. Thus, as Tabic 3 shows, the average caseload of i ypical of a maturing industry. Twenty-four proceedings each of the Panel's full time judges increased over the last were closed during the year. 8 years, and in 1991 was 16 percent greater than the average for the 7 previous years.
Table 1 Table 3 Fiscal Year 1991 docket acapitulation increase in average caseload per full time judge / full. time panel member Status of Cases Date Number Average No. of Cases j Fiscal Year per Judge 3 I Pending 10/01/90 18 Docketed FY91 1984 5.8 30 Total FY91 48 1985 5.6 1986 6.0 Closed FY91 24 1987 5.4 Pending 10/01/91 24 1988 6.2 1989 5.4 1990 5.9 1991 6.8 Table 2 depicts the Panel's caseload during the past 8 years. The total number of cases on the docket during i Fiscal Year 1991 was 20 percent greater than in Fiscal Years 1990 and 1989. The Panel is preparing for an even larger casek>ad over the next few yeat3.
fjgejefjegn a"'$NEh#$tc g nd i"'
hdb'h((r and technical advhor.
9 5 NUREG-1363, Vol. 4
C. Case Management average age of cases can also be traced to the employmch of appropriate case management tools. In recent year.
licensing boards and presiding officers have been effec-One racasure of success in an adjudicatory prograrn is the tive in focusing on and efficiendy resolving disputed is-speed with which individual proceedings move from in, sues hetween parties, expediting schedules, and encour- 3 itial filing to final resolu tion.This is generally reflect ed by agmg the settlement of cases. See pages Il-13, infra.
the average age of the cases on the docket. Average case age, in turn, is a function of two interrelated factors: case Efficient case management is also reflected in Table 5.
filings and case closings.The average age of proceedings on the Panel's docket has fallen significantly over the last Fifty-two percent of the Panel's cases on the docket in 5 years. In Fiscal Year 1986, the average age of the cases Fiscal Year 1991 were closed within 6 months from the on the Panel docket was approximately 27 months. In time they were first docketed. Seventy-nine percent were Fiscal Years 1988,1989, and 1990, that number had fallen closed in less than 1 year, to 18.1 .tonths,17.4 months, and 19.2 months, respec- l Table 5 tively, t hen, as Table 4 shows, case age fell even more Months IT 1991 cases were on docket dramatically to 13.8 months in 1991.
\
Duration of Cases No. of Cases Percent Table 4 ~~
Average case age by type /overall in lY 19914 l to 3 Months 16 33 4 to 6 Months 9 19 Type and (Number) All Cases Average 7 tc,9 Months 7 15 of Cases (Months) (Months) 10 to 12 Months 6 12 .
More Than 12 Months 10 21 Construction Permit (1) 77 77.0 Enforcement (16) 198 12.
License Amendments (16) 92 5.7 f Materials License (6) 39 6.5 I). Types of Cases Operating Licenses (1) 111 111.0 Remand (5) 30 6.0 Large, complex operating and cimstruction permit p Suspended (1) 112 112.0
- "E' I" "E Ucensag o nu&ar re ctors have Retrievable Storage (1) 3 3.0 100.0 mW e ne ,s urW tk pan mal EEO Matter (1) 1
& cades; beginning in the late 1980's, however, the Pan-Docket Average 13.8 el's major caseload shifted to cases involving the regula-tion of these reactors after they had been licensed. The difference in cases for these two eras is demonstrated by Ilistorically, these numbers for average number of comparing Figure 1, depicting the caschiad mix for 1983, months on the docket are somewhat misleading because with Figure 2, representing the caseload mix for 1991.
they have been mflated by the presence of a handful of -
p;oceedings characterized by late development of new issues, delays in the issuance of critical licensing docu- ortaen ucom ments,ordelayssought by the parties themselves. If these de'ayed cases are excluded from the calculations, the average age of cases during the past several years would drop significantly and would be only 8.1 months for Fiscal
'I car 1991.
While in large part owing to a reduction in the number of active operating license proceedings and the long. term m
( .si -
permd associated with such cases, the reduction in the Cc N Jr
%ptO3 L7 _
. cossuucTioN rEurr "Werage age" means the number of months from the time a heensing CT I- %
hoard is fit st appoin ted OtsuaDy 30 to 6u days af ter a hcense appheation n A Ph.
t< farmaUy docketed) nntd the cue is chwed or the end of the Incalycar, whwhewt is carhet Average an includes wait,mg time resultmf from L ictNsr.
QE ggy
% dikw SPLc!AL 'l suyrnamn of wurk ce unavailabihty of heanag documents gencept m3nws7 m where a Ucensec has tequc3kd that the entire proceedmg be suspended, im tot example, Wa.hmgton Public Power Supply S Mem, WPPSS Nw J- !
clear Project No. h Werage age' daes not mchxfe the time a caw has i been pendmg on appeal. 1,igure 1. F,iscal T, car 1983 caseload m.ix by percent NUREG-1363, Vol. 4 6
[),
(.' gyj g.g gg 1.NIOR MENT /' rNR)RcEMENT ANTITRLST t m 5E
{ g h{
e -
I h1ME
- 1
/ ,{/, / /,-
AMIiNDMUNT ::: r - % = 01HLR AMENDME'N1 -37 -
'h
'g r D6 j H3 .
. "4{ :$:'j;:
. , 44 ,, ,
n ,,;--
l %; e i
-f p a : L
- ' MATERIAL TDM j '
./ (.it] ML \ . f UCWE
/ ~~"*7
- 12 5 y D*
OPERATING WCrNSE s )- CIP'3T RtrTION ?fhTI OTHER "
43 RLMAN[> 2 14 8 DLCOMMISSK)NING to 4 79 gure 2. Fiscal Year 1991 caseload rnix by percent Figure 3. Fiscal Year 1992 projected caseload mix by percent The two figures graphically illustnte the significant t hift in the nature of the cases before the Panet.in Fiscal Year 1983, construction permit and operating license procecd-ings accounted for 62 percent of the Paners docket. And while license amendment proceedings were, at 26 per.
cent, a significant element in the Panel's docket, no sig- mroacrMtNT nificant number of enforcement actions were filed in Fis- 3" Y " N" cal Year 1983.
o*eal Year .1991, .m contrast, saw operat.mglicensing and
, //
,/ k"""
m mitmt
/- f uctwsu
\dnstruction permit proceedings constituting only 4 per- "*
cent and 2 percent of the Panel's docket, respectively.5 coss7,nenay Enforcement actions and license amendment proceed-ings, however, accounted for almost 65 percent of the roxMrr
" - pMghp.,, WS '
> OPER^TINo Fiscal Year 1991 Panel docket.
"M I '<
"'Is" u is nn- [' hw.%.e On the basis of caseload projections, the pattern reflected Nif . "",j" in the Fiscal Year 1991 caseload is expected to continue uctNsE AMENous.T Ib over the next 4 years with the gradual introduction of 8T^ " " 9 ? " E"T license extension, site selection, and standardized design proceedings, and possible renewed action under previ- Figure 4. Fiscal War 1993 projected caseload mix ously deferred construction permit (CP) and operating by percent license (0L) applica' ions. In addition, beginning in 1993, hearings are projected for rulemaking proceedings which will be held to certify the design of the new reactors presently planned by the nuclear industry. Figures 3 and 4 forecast the projected near-term Panel caseload mix for Just as in Fiscal Year 1991, enforcement and license F; scal Years 1992 and 1993, respectively. amendment proceedings are expected to dominate the Paners near term docket,with these types of proceedings
! accounting for approximately 59 percent of the projected Fiscal Year 1992 docket and 51 percent of the projected Fiscal Year 1993 docket. CP and OL proceedings, on the other hand, are expected to drop to less than 5 percent of the htners Fiscal Year 1992 docket and 7 percent of its Fiscal Year 1993 docket. Preliminary mid term projec-
, tions for Fiscal Year 1993 through Fiscal Year 1995 indi-(?!nywer addition proceedinge to these remanded proceedin!s, ncr the Seabnukthe 1991 Nuclear Powerdocket Sta- included cate that four the car-Fiscal Year 1991 type of caseload mix will
- pn operapng heense wu granted A potennauy large antirrni case whd a uranmm ennchinent facility b
- eensmg case were abo docheted m continue to be the baseload of the Panel's docket, Iwl. Ilowever, its relative importance may dimimsh with the 7 NUREG-1363, Vol. 4
introduction of, for example, design certification, decom. power reactors e Although these 44 plants represent on missioning:. and license extension proceedings, 38 percent of the total nurnber of plants licensed,in fac they represent approximately 45,832 net megawatts of E. Operating Licenses electricity or 46 percent of ali electrical generation by nuclear raeans.
At the end of the fiscalyear, only some remand issues on one nuclear power reactor, the Seabrook Nuclear Station,
'nese units incie . neaver vaiier 2, nraia.ood, nyron i and 2, c i.
remained under active consideration by a iicensing boa.ed laway 1. Cataba 1 and 2, Chnton 1 and 2, Comanche Peak 1 and 2, of the Panel. llowever, m. the last 10 years, h.eensmg Diablo Canyon l and 2, Enrico l'ermi 2, Grand Gulf l and 2, Nine Mile r int 2, Palo verde 1,2,and 3.rerry 1 and 2.niver liend I, san onofie boards have authorized or facilitated the issuance of full- 1 and 2, Seabrook,Shoreham 1,St. Imete 2,Vogtle 1 and 2 M aterford power operating licenses for 44 commercial nuclear 3, aind Wolf C.reck l, Shoreham 1 was ikensed but not operated.w its output is not included in these total generation figures.
l O
]
e I I
NUREG-1363, Vol. 4 8
O IV. l'ERSONNEL AND SUPPollT i A. Panel Members 1. Technical and 1 egal Support Sinff I egal support and advice for the Panel and its 41 full and During Piscal Year 1991, the Panel succeeded in replac- patt-time juJ es t is provided by the Panel's I egal Support ing vital technicnl and legal skills lost in 1990 and recent Staff. The staff consats of the Peacl's Chief Counsel, a years 'the reuarkable stabihty of the Panci's judicial Staff Senior Attorney,and seasonalinternsand lawclarks staffing over the years changed markedly with the lou of who are added as required by the caseload. Directed by full time Judges lloyt (I aw) Harbour (Geology), linen- the Chief Counsti, tte staff providen legal advice, re.
berger (Physics), and Paris (Environment). In addition, search capabilities, opinion draf ting, edithig services, and tbc Panel lost part-time Judges Kirk Duggan (Iaw, lico- support at hearingt !! ah,o supports the Chief Attminis-
, nomics), Milhollin (1aw). Steindler (Chemistry), and trative 1.aw Judge with assistance on a broad ranite of Wenner (law) during 1990. policy matters; provides legal training and keeps Panel i membern informed of important nuclear related activi-
, Consequently, several new judges were added to the ties and legal proceeding; overseed, with the help of the Panel during hsa I Year 1991. On January 7,1991, two Administrative Support Staff, the Panel's legamechnical j full time members, Judges Peter S. I am (Nuclear Engi- hbrary; and participates in the evaluation of coinputer p necting) and Char!cs N. Kelber (Physics) joined the support appropriate to the condua of adjudicatory pro.
Panel. Six part time members, Judges Richard IL Pariiek ccedings.
(Rology), Harry Rein (Medicine), George IL Tidey (Medicine), Ixste S. Rubenstein (Metallurgical Engi- llistorically, inon.dM licenstng lxurds hne obtained n7ering), Peter A. Morris (Physics), and Thomas 11. El- technical support fmm a Panel reactor safety engineer leman (Physical Chemistry) were sworn in. On July 1, and an environmental health scientist. liowever, both 1991, two former NRC Appeal floard members, Judges peitions were vacated in 1984 and have not been filled G. Paul llollwerk 111 (I aw) and Thomas S. Moore (12cv), because of personnel ceiling limitations. During Fiscal re added as full-time Panel members following the Years 1988 through 1990, tenmical assivance, particu.
peal lkurd's abolishment. larly in physics and computer development, v/as provided by the Panel's Senior Technical Advisor, 'lhis position Commission appointment to the Panel is based upon the was vacated in 1991 and has not beer iilled. Currently, the appointee's recognized experience, achievement, and in. Panel uses Administrative Jcdges (Techmeal), when they dependcnce in his or her field of crpertise Once ap. ate available, to perform these support functions.
poir/ad to the Panel, judges are assigned, as cases arise, to individual licensing boards where their professional ex- 2. Administrative Support StafT pertise will assist in resoWng the technical and legal mat.
ters likely to be raised during the proceeding. Program Support: Tne Panel's Program Support and Analysis Staff (PSAS) plans, develops, and coordinates As of the end of the find > car, the Panel had available a pohcies and progams to support the Panel hs areas of total of 40 judges (15 full-time and 25 part-time). Sec responsibilities include budget assistance, personnel, Appendix 11. Ily profession, the judges of the Panel in. labor relations, professional senicss, paralegal services, cluded 12 lawyers.10 public health and environment sei. travel, space and facilities, adj udicatory ides and services, enlists, 8 engmeers,8 physicists, and 3 physicians. Collec- library facilities, sectetarial, and other administrative tively, Panel merrbers held 60 post baccalaureate hearing support to the Panel. See Appendiv A, degrees in engineering, scientific, os legal disciplines. " Organizational Chart." In addition the PSAS maintains Sevend part-time rembers are or have been heads of the Panel's electronic docket, which is avai'able to departments at rnajor universities or national laborato. individual judges and other offices af the Commission ries. As a group, they represent more than nine centuries through the Panci's INQUIRE system. The PSAS also of experience in the nuclear field. See Appendix C, administers the NRC cc art rcporting contract (excluding the reporting contract for the Office of the Secretary),
- d. pr0reSsionai and support starr lufocm th m P ,om.ssi ,, s m ,io ,. .n,e Cnief of tsc Information Procesr.ing Section reports to the Director Support for the activities of the Panel, indwidual licensing and Assistant to the Director. ' Die section is responsible boards, and the Panci's judges is structured along func- for supporting the board by developing and unptementing tallines: (1) legal,(2) technical,and(3)ad ninistrative. the following senices: (1) docket management: (2) mail P Chief Administrative Judge of the Panel manages distribution; (3) automatic data processing (ADP) and supenises these interrelated support activities. systems; (4) Panel administration and individual 9 NURl!O-1363, Vol. 4
proceedings supjurt (particularly full text database consultation with Panel members and I.cral Cc.mse management systems); and (5) training in the use of the periodic evaluations of both the l'anel's existing panel's c4unputeriied systems, including software, computer syttem and newly introduced computer hardware, and INQUt!tLL See pages 11-13, h@v 'In hardware and mitware pnxhtets.
addition, thb section is responsible for conducting, in f
.i o
e NUIEG- 1363, Vol. 4 10
Q V. ENilaNCING TiiE ADJUI)lCATOlW l'ItOCESS A. Celleral able computers for use by judges conducting hearings in the field.
Restrictions on suppait persoanel and conrerns about Finally, nll licensing board Panel decisions are added to the costs of delays in the Commission's licensing process' the adjudicatory database io full. text form, generally on have moved the Panel rapidly tow ard achieving the gml of the date those decisions are issued. 'the decisions are ths an c!ccitonk" office, particularly for managing its volu- immediately available to all Commesion offices in full n!inous and complex hearing records. !mportant adminis- text, trative tasks such as travel and timekeeping have been computerized. The Paners judges at d critical support lmeraally, INQUlitli uses a search.and-retrieval logic personnel have been provided the necessary hardware similar to that emphiyed by the 1.I!XIS and WESTI.AW and sor'tware to obtain maximum efficiency from their legal research sptems. However, to permit easy access to electronic workstations and the Panel's computerhed the system by a potentially wide range of users with vary-docket, ing degrees of expertise INQUIRis emph>ys a series of user friendly, fill in the form screen panels. On the basis
- 15. Tlle l'anci's Electronic Docket of infor nation the user provides through these panels about the nature, scope, and foria of search desired, IN-QUIRH nutomatically generates and executes the neces.
As presently configured, judges and protessional support staff can, from their desks draft, share, and com nce.t on sary search.and. retrieval logic (i c., cornmands). In addi-tion, INQUIRB produces formatted and indexed reports proposed decisions; access and quickly scarch either the wording to the user. defined layouts, thereby providing Panel's electronic docket or the Commission's document information about types of documents contained on the retrieval system; conduct legal research thrcuo,h 1.EXIS system. Selected documents can be dmvnloaded .or print-or WUNILAW: and ornmunicate with each other or ing or word processing, other employees of the NRC through the Commission's Occtrsnic mail system. Ilowever, the memory and storage capabdities of per-sonal computers (PCs) have expanded to the point where in an effort to achieve greater cost benef.ts, the Panel PCs can pe form specific functions like a minicomputer-began m explore replacing INQUIRil, a complicated but at a fraction of the cost. Similarly, software capabili-minicomputer-based system, with a personal computer- ties have expanded to the point where some programs based system. INQUIRE, which is composed of an adj- may well be atic to perform functions now periormed by udicatory database and a companion search-and retrievd INQUIRE.
system, currently operates on an lH M 9370 minicomputer physically kicated at the Commission's White Flint One Consequendy, the information Processing Section is con-facility. Several offices, induding the Commission, are ducting a computer study (based on new ADP require-wired directly to the minicomputer containing IN. ments developed by the Panel) of personal computer.
QUIR F, thereby permittlag quick and continuous access based full-text systems for possible replacement of the to the system. 'lhe Panel's system is directly connected to INQUIRE system. The following software were or are the White Flint rninicomputer through a communications being studied:
controller located at the PanePs liethesaa offices. Other authorized users may access INQUIRB from any kwa. 1. Personal Librarian System (PIS) tion, using a personal computer equipped with a modem. 2. BRS Software Pruducts
- 3. Folio Views By the end ci the day on which any document in any 4. Innerview proceeding is received. the document has been abstracted 5. IZE Software Products and routinely entered into the Paners adjudicatory data. 6. Kenetic base. In addition, in selected complex cases, the full text 7. 1.itidex of significant documents such as predited testimony and 8. Magellan (letus) hearing transcripts are electronically indexed and added 9. Oracle (NUDOCS) to the adjudicatory database. At the close of Fiscal Year 10. Racontex 1991, approximately 200.000 pages of hearing transcripts 11. Text Management System (IMS) and related matenals had been loaded onto the Paners 12. Topic rudicatory database. Where appropriate, discrete por. 13. Verity s of the dat abase concerning a specific proceeding can 14. Word Cruncher e loaded onto the hard dak of one of the Paners port- 15. Zyindex 11 N URiiG-1363, Vol. 4
i i . .
These personal computer estems include state of the- amony the parties and to the possible settlernent of dis. ,'
art mfocmation search technology, including CD ROM put ed issues. In this manact, a large number of proposed databases, image retrieval, concept seatching, natural contentions and adjudicatory matters are resch ed before language queries, thesauruses, and graphic interfaces u formal heanng takes place.
that can be distributed across multi;11c devices, media, 1.icensing boards also routmely encourage the settlement and platforms (mainirmnes, minicomputet s, and pers(mal of cases. During Fiscal Year 1991, boards had substantial computers).The Panel anticipates that these enhanced success in setthog cases before final adjudication. Signifi.
personal computer. based rystems can be bmit on kwal area networks and can be acceastd and maintained by cant litigation expenses were avoided by settlements of t
i sitnultaneous users, at a fraction of the cost of maintain. docketed cases involving Cambridge Medical Technology Corporation. Order of October !",1990; ClarlandElectric ing mainframe systems like INQUIRl!. During 1991, the
- luminating Company (Perry, Unit 1), I.HP-90-39, 32 Panel completed software research which duplicated some minifrune INQUIRl! functions on a personal com. NRC 368 (1990); American Radiolabeled Chemicals. Inc.,
Order of November 5,1991; St. Mmy Medical Center, puter system, and began testing a prototype. LitP-90-46,32 NRC 463 (1990); Northern States Power Company (Prairic Island, Units 1 and 2),1JIP-91-S A,33 Adjudicatory bodies and legal associations thmughout Nlt C 210 (1991); Cintichem,lncorporated. Order of Mat ch North America are showing much interest in the Paneps 14, 1991; Tenneasce Valley Authority (Sequoyah. Units I electronic docket and its growing experience in the use of and 2), LilP-91-10,33 NRC 231 (1991); Barnett lndustrial sut.h dockets in managing complex cases. The Panel's X Ray,1JIP-91-16,33 NRC 274 (1991); Vermont Yantce
> clectronic docket has served as the basis for a course on Nuclear Power Corporation (Vermont Yankee Nuclear the use of computers to manage complex cases which is Power Station), Order of September 3,1991; and Arimna offered annuauy by the National Judicial College in PuNic Service Company (Palo Verde Units I,2, and 3),
Reno, Nevada. Articles describing some aspects of the IJIP-91-37A,34 NRC 199 (1991).
Panel's system appeared in the American liar Associa.
tion's Judges lownal a nd the Pederal Bar News and Journal An increasing number of enforcement, teactor license during the fall of 1990. amendment, and materials licensing pmceedings now d*"i""'"h """"**"""natniaMuining Pm-s-
C, llearing Proceclures ccedings, emanating from NRC oversight of more th4 8,000 materials licenses, are generally conducted as infoNEF in addition to its efforts to computerire the licensmg mal pmceedings under 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart L process, the Panel centinues to explore and impicment These prmeedings rely on the active involvement of a
- traditional case management tools and techniques to single presiding officer to create and shape the record in streamline, focus, and resolve contested licensing mat. the pmceeding. A hearing is conducted only for those ters. Typically, the hearing on a particular application for issues that the presiding officer cannot resolve after con.
a nuclear facility license has three elements: (1) health, sidering the written submittals of the parties.
safety, and the common defense and security aspects of theapplicatian,as required bythe Atomiclinergy Act:(2) in proceedings before a single administrative judge, the environmental considerations as required by the National Panel has adopted a policy of assigning a legal or technical finvironmental Pohey Act; and (3) emergency planning administrative judge from the Panel as an assistant to the requirements. designated presiding officer While obtaining the benefits of the informal pmcedures, the assignment preserves the For purnoses of efficiency, boards frequently structure cross-crpertise of the traditional three member licensing their hearing schedule into distinct phases, each dealing boards to ensure issuance of fully informed decisions.
with discrete groupings of related issues. In the case of a complex proceeding that involves numerous issues under D. C00rtlination with the OITice of the several distinct topics, the Panel has periodically created LicenSillg Support System separate, parallel licensing boards to handle one or more topics. Ilesides the time saved through parallel adjudica. Atiniiiilstrator u tion, each teard can be assigned Panel members whose expertise matches the issues to be resolved. lhe Panel's substantialinterest in the electronic licensing file to be developed in connection with the proposed Ucensing boards have also taken an active role in shaping construction of a high level nuclear waste repository is the issues before them through a thorough ieview and, if based on f.everal grounds. First, under the Commission's appropriate, consolidation of admissiole contentions, an current adjudicatory rules of practice, the Panel will be active involvement in monitonng the discovery portion of the adjudicatory body responsible for rnaking the init the proceeding, and an affirmefive atter pt to foster an decision whether the site ultimately chosen and atmosphere conducive to the free cxchange of views facility actually built satisfy applicable safety a NURiiG-1363 Vol. 4 12
l l
1 i
environmental requirements. Second, the Panel has al- meetings, and investigative interviews, other than those reudy acquired, through its own electronic docket, sulv of the Commission itself, held anywhere in the United stantial experience in the development and use of elec- States. 'the NI(C offices using the court reporting serv-tronic media. Because of the former, the Panel took an ices administered by the Program Support and Analysis active surporting role in the development of the procc- Stal'f of the Panel included the Atomic Safety and 1.icens-dural rules and support systems intended to gosern the ing Appeal Panel; the Advisory Committee on 1(cactor proceeding. In light of the latter, once the Commission Safeguards; the Advisory Cornmittee on Nuclear Waste; adopted special procedural rules intended to govern any and the Offices of Administration, Analysis and livalu-waste repository proceeding, the Panel focused its atten- ation of Operational Data, General Counsel, Govern-tion on actively sharing its experience and expertise in ment and Public Affairs,Information P nurces Manage-
"clectronic dockets" mth the Officc of the ljeensing Sup- ment, investigations, inspector General, Nuclear port System Administrator, the office creatt d by the Materials Safety and Safeguards (NMSS), Nuclear Reac.
Commission to oversee the development of a state-of- tor llegulation, and Personnel, the art, full-text and image-computerized document re-trieval system for the parties and the Panel to use in conducting the high level waste procecding. 'the u:hed.
ule calls fo the Panet to adjudicate any discovery disputes 'lhe Panel's court reportmg contract provides for the after the uiwovery drvmments (estimated at up to 20 preparation of computer readable diskettes of the tran-million pages) are loaded in the 1.icensing Support Sp- seript of the hearing in large, cornpte4 cases. In the appro-tern's electronic registry. 'lhat reposirmy will climinate priate case, parties are directed to file findings of fact, the need for all but a minimal amount of discovery in the conclusions of law, and pre filed testimony or cornput<.r-proceedmg. readable diskettes. Such filings are prepared in ASCil (the Arnetican Standard Coda for Information Inter-E, Ageiicy Court Reportiiig ServiccS change) to overcorne the proldem of incompatibility nmong computers and software. Each day's filings are During Fiscal Year 1991, the Panel continued to manage then compiled and fully indexed by the PSAS's Informa-he NI(C court reporting contract for all pmceedings, tion Processing Section.
O 13 NUl(F.G-1363, Vol. 4
VI. CONCLUSIONS $
A. Fiscal Year 1991 in Retrospect judges to preside.ne use of Panel members to conduct such proceedings will not only eliminate concerns regard.
Fiscal Year 1991,like 1990 and 1989, represented a tran. ing the use of the private sector to make discretionary sitional year between the massive operating license pro- policy decisions, but could also reduce cost by chmmating ccedmgs of the 1980's and the more varied, discrete en, duplicative admiristrative overhead and contractor ex-forcement and materials license proceedings of the early PCUSC8-1990's.
- 11. Meeting (lic Atijutlicatory Dentantis
- lhe current docket reflects the maturing of the nuclear Ol'(lle Next Decatic mdustry and its transition from the construction and m-itial operation era of the 1970's and 1980's to the opera-tion, license renewal, and waste handling era of the Given the economic, energy, and public health and safety 1990's. Given the increasing climination of first. costs imposed upon Commission npplicants, licensees, i
generation operating license piweedings as a major fac. and the public at large in the evcnt of uimecessary or tor in the Panci's caseload, the Fiscal Year 1991 caseload avoidable delays in the nuclearlicensing and enforcement could reasonably be viewed as the Commission's adj. process, the Panel will continue to endeavor to improve udicatory "haseload" Gr. the number and type of cases its procedures and make the hearing process as efficient likely to occur in any particular year given the current as possible.
number and operations of the Commission's licensees).
So viewed, the Paners Fiscal Year 1991 docket c.m he The ability of the Panel as a whole to deal cfficiently with used to gauge future demands on the adjudicatory re- the new and riifferent technical issues of futurc proceed-sources of the Commission in light of the additional mgs could be severely impaired by reducing the depth and caseload that would be generated by new or enhanced range of expertisc represented by the judges remaining regulatory programs, the initiation of a second generation on the Panel. At the end of Fiscal Year 1991, the Panel of nuclear powet reactor licensing proceedmp and li- vas substantially at risk in that tegard as a consequence g cenre extension cases. What is not clear is whether the the average agc30f $6 for full-time judges and 68 years fy major utility civil penalty case and the antitrust case filed part time judges. Consequently, the Panel has initiated during the year are exceptions to the rule or a sign of an active program to establish registers of persona quali-things to come. Such uncertainties make workload fore. fied for appointment to the Panel in the wide range of K casting difficult, disciplines required. %c Panel expects its regi. ster p*o-gram to bear fruit in the coming years. The Panet also Presumably the Paners underutilization in areas identi- provides extensive training for its judges in complex tech-fied by the inspector General will be corTeeted. In those nical areas and in the rapidly changing legal areas in-
, areas (security clearances, personnel, and equal employ- volyrd in nuclear law, his tiaining will continue to en-ment opportunity), the Commirsion e.m nolonger afford sure the necessary expenise to meet the Commission's the added expense of using outside hearing examincts or workload.
J O
N U REG-1363, Vol. 4 14
I O
Al'I'ENDICES
~
O O
-.__._--._____au.______m- m- -- _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -m.. _ _-2mm-___u__._ m-.______._ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ m_a_-
.n x x - - . .
ORG ZATIONAL CHART O ATOMIC SAFElT AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL Is the s:atutory office that perforcs the hearmp functon for the Crvnmanion and euch other reguLeary functons as the Commission authorues.The Chief Adminis-trative Judge deveieps and epphes proceduas gewerning the actrntes or ikurds.
Administratrve Judges. and Administratzve Lau Jimign and makes sp;seprtzte ccommemIa;> orts to the Commission concerningthe rules geventing the camduct of hearinp.
I Chief Admietrative Judge tChainnani B. Paul Cotter. Jr.
Deputy Chief Admini-tatne Ju4e (Exm;ive) Robert M. Lam Deputy Chx' A*ninissa.rve Judge (Technical) Frederrk J. She TiiE PANEL
' Conducts a3 heensmg and other heanngs as directed by the Comension primanty thrwgh indrvidual Atarnic Safety and Liensing Domrds ag psnied by either the
', Commsssion or the Chief Administrative Judge. There is no I:xed number of pue.
txes in the Panel. "Ihe Panel is cornpnsed of (1) any number of Administradve Judges (full-ttme and part-tune). 31ho are lawyers, p-W engise-rs, and e m .
ronmental scientists: and (2) the Administratzve law Jo iges. =bo hear antitnist.
civG p nalty,and othercases and serve as Atomk Safety and Licensing Board Chair-enen. C e so ** tree Adnunistrative Judges serw as presmiing officers alone or on boards for a broad range of pe%i O
PROGRAM SUPPORT AND ANALYSIS STAIT TECHNICAL AND LEGAL SUPPORT STAFF l
I Prmides alllegaland tecfmicalsupport to the Chief Adnatistntzve hidge, the Ad-Prmides planmng. development, coort'instaan impleinentatava and anah/ses of
- n:inistratw im Judrs. boards, and Pane!
policies and programs in supponI of the Panel mefudseg todget personart tabor relatons; professionahervices. travel: space and fanhties; equipment coctmets; in-formation management. including ADP eq :ipn'ent; adjudicitmy fdes and tervius; litwary facilit x secretanal. stcengraphic and clerical semees inciods g field I* car-ing space, equipment management and coordination; meetinr,s; employee training and desciopment FOIA: hcense in data; secanty safety engineerins.
Daector Elva W. Irms Assast;mt to the Director Jack G. Whetstine 2
h D.
r- ~
[ Informatio.: Precessing Section d Z
8 y Prcvides suppon and services in mformation management.shich incledes ceput- $
erizedadjudicatoryfiles,Immisefeedata andviermanagementir:formatenappli-y 4
s A
g, cable to Panel actvitn
~.
s -
Chef hmes k Cuichin V
Al'I'ENDIX 11 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING llOARD l'ANEL Fiscal Year 1991
- 1. l'anel Members 1 A. Omccrs JUDGE U. PAUL COTTER, Jit. JUDGE FREDliRICK J. SHON Chief Administmtive Jndge (Chainnan) Deputy Chief Administrative Judge (lechnical)
J UDGE ROBERT M. L AZO JUDGE IVAN W. SMr!11 Deputy Chief Adminhtrative Judge (Exu utive) Chief Administrative Law Judge II. Full Time Administrative Judges JUDGli Cll ARL11S DECilllOEFl!R JUDGE Cil ARIES N. KEl.HER o Attorney Physicist UDGli Pl?l'ER 11.11 LOC 11
, Environmental Scientist JUDGE G. PAUL llOILWERK 111
^"U'"CI JUDGE PETliR S. LAM JUDGil JAMES fl. CARPET (IT!R tlucicar Engineer Oceanographer JUDGE MORTON A. MARGULIES JUDGE RICll ARD F. COLE A!!orney Environmental Scientist JUDGE JOllN H FRYE !!! JI'DGE THOMAS S. MOORE Attorney Atton.cy C. Part-Time Administrative Judges JUDGE GEORGE C. ANDERSON JUDGliTilOM AS E. EllEM AN Marinc Biologist Nuc! car Engineer Seattle, Washington Raleig,h, North Carolina JUDGE GlENN O. URIGilT JUDGE GEORGE A. FERGUSON Engineer Physicist Hethesda, Maryland Shady Side, Maryland JUDGE A. DIXON CALLill AN JUDGE IIARRY FOllEMAN Physicist Physician
)ak Ridge, Tennessee Minneapolis, Mmnesote
'All ASillP officers, profhalonal and administrative staff., and full-time Panel memters are based in Iktkda, Maryland.
19 NUREG-1361 Vol. 4
JUDGli RICil ARD F.1:OSTliR JUDGli KENNI?lli A. McCOI 1.OM Environmental Scientist lilectrical lingineer Sunriver, Oregon Stillwater Oklahoma JUDGI! J AMiiS P. GLliASON JUDGE MAltSil A1.1.11. Mll l.F.R Att.orney Silver Sprmg, Maryland
^[ah"nlleach, Florida J UDGP. C ADE l' lI. Il AND, JR.
t Marine liiologist JUDGli PliTliR A. MOltRIS llakga llay, California Physicist Potomac Magland JUDGI! D AVID 1. liliTRICK Nuclear lingineer JUDGli R!CilARD R. PARIZl!K 1ucson, Aruona Geologist ni ty Pad, Penn@ania JUDGli ERNEST E. lilLL
' Nuclear Engineer -
Danville, Cahfornia JUDGli11 ARRY RlilN Physician JUDGli FRANK F. IiOOPliR t ungwood, Florida Marine I.liologi3t Ann Arbor, Michigan JUDGli LliSTliR S. RUllliNS'lli!N N ng J UDGli El.14Alllilli 11. JOllNSON g rir na Nuclear lingineer Oak Ridge, Tennessee JUDGli DAVID R. Scil!NK JUDG F. WAl TliR 11. JORD AN Oceanographer Physicist College Station. Texas Oak Ridge, Tennessee JUDGli GIIOl(GE F. TIDl!Y J UDGE J AMEN C. LAMil III Physician Sanitary l!ngines Houston, , Texas Washington, D.C.
7 JUDGliliMMETil A,1.UlillKl! JUDGE SilliLDON J. WOLFli Physicist Attorney Chevy Chase, Maryland Fairfax Virginia 5
3 II. Professional Staff Lilli S. DliWi!Y RGilfiRT R. PlliRCli, Director and Chief Counsel, Senior Attorney Technical and Legal Support Staff Ill. Administradve Officers EINA W. LEINS, Director .l AMilS M. CUTCllIN V, Chief.
Program Support and Analysis Staff Inforrnation Processing Section J ACK G. WilETSTINE Assistant to the Director, Program Support and Analysis Staff NURl!G-1363, Vol. 4 29
1 O Al'I'ENDIX C lilOGRAl'IllCAL SKETCllES OF PANEL MEMllERS ANDERSON, GEORGE C ll.S., Univenity of British Co. Department of Justice, and an associate attorney in the lumbia (1947); M.A., University of British Columbia law firm of Gardner, Carton & Douglas in Washington, (1949); Ph.D., Univenity of Washington (1954). Dr. An- D.C. After graduating ftom law school, he clerked for a derson, currently Professor Emeritus at the School of Federal district court judge and a State supreme court Oceanography, University of Washington, has been a judge.
part. time member of the Panel since 1973. In addition to authoring over 40 publications in the ficids of limnology BR/ Gilt, GLENN O. il.S., University of Oklahoma and oceanography, Dr. Anderson has held numerous (1949); M.S., University of Oklahoma (1950). Judge teaching, research, and administra'.ive positions over his litight has been a full time member of the Panel since
- 40. year career with the University of Washington, the 1972. Before his appointment to the Panel, he spent 22 Atomic Energy Commission and the National Science years with the Phillips Petroleum Company or its succes-Foundation.11ewas Directorof the Schoolof Oceanogra. sor subsidiaries in vanous technical and rnanagement po-phy at the University of Washington for several years. citions overseeing nuclear matters, includmg one year as a technical consultant to the Government of Venezuela, BEC/lHOEFER, CllARll'S. A.B., magna cum laude, Har- and several years at the Idaho National Engineering vard College (1955); LLB., flarvard Law School (19M). laboratory in charge of experiments for SPERT I and Judge Bechhoefer has been a full time legal member of SPliRT II.
the Panel since 1978. Ilefore his appointment to the .
Panel, his Federal service included positions es Counsel Call >#AN, A. DIXON. A.D., Marshall Um.versity(1928);
to the Atomic Safety and Licensmg Appeal Board, attor- bi.A., Duke University (1931); Ph.D., New York Univer-ney with the Office of the General Counselof the Atomic sity (1933); D.Sc. (Hon.), Marshall Umversity (1961). Dr,
- ncrgy Commission, and attorney-adviser in the Office of Callihan has been a part-time member of the Par:ci since
( General Counsel, U.S. Housing and Home Finance 1963. In his $8-year career, he has held positions as a
'ency. He is currently the editor of the Administra!im physicist with the Umon Carbide Co peration and Co-Judiciary News and /oumaland a mernber of the Executive lumbia University, and us assistant professor at the Col-
. Committee of the National Conference of Administrative lege of the City of New York. Dr. Calhhanis currently the law Judges. He has also held seveml leadership positions chairman or member of several committees concermng within theSectionof Administrative 1awof the American nuc! car teactor operations for the United States Army Bar Association. and the American Nuclear Society. In 1988, he received the American National Standards Institute's Meritorious BLOCH, PETER B. B.S., Tufts University (1962); ILB,
- ^*"
Harvar 312w School (1965); I LM., Harvard 12w School CARPENTER, JAMES H. B.A., University of Virginia (1957). Judge Bloch has been a full-time member of the (1949); M.A., Johns Hopkins University (1951); Ph.D.,
Panel since 1981. His prior posit;ons include: Assistant Johns Hopkins University (1957). Dr. Carpenter has been Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals, U.S. a full time memberof the Pinel since 1981. In addition to Department of Energy; attorney-advisor, Office of Opm, - numerous publicationsin the fields of marine science and ions and Review, FERC; Executive Director of the Com-environmental chemistry and research activities for the mission on law and the Economy of the American Bar Chesapeake Bay Institute, Dr. Carpenter has held teach.
Association; Senior Research Associate and Project Man- ing and administrative positions with Johns Hopkins Uni-ager, the Urban Institute; and attorney-adviser, U.S. Se-
, versity and the University of Miami (Coral Gables, Flor-curities and Exchange Commission. Judge Bloch har, pub- ida). During his 34-year career, Dr, Carpenter has been lished several articles on the cenduct and management of on the editorial boards of several national journals, held ennunal investigations, senior positions in several professional associations, and chaired or participated in numerous professional com mit-BOLLMERK, G. PAUL !#. B.A., University of Notre tecs on environmentalissues, patticularly the marme en-Dame (1975); J.D., Georgetown University law Center vironment. Dr. Carpenter was a member of the commit-(1978). Judge Bollwerk has been a full-time legal member tee that issued the BEIR I report (Committee on the of the Panel since July 1991. Before being appointed to Biological Effects of loniring Radiation).
the Panel, Judge Bollwerk served as an administrative dge on the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel, COLE, RICHARD E B.S.C.E., Drexel University (1959);
Osenior attorney on the staff of the NRC Office M.S.S.E., of Gen-Massachusetts Institute of 'l echnology (1961);
eral Counsel, a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney with the Ph.D., University of North Carolina (1968). Dr. Cole has 21 N UREG-1363, Vol. 4
been a full tirne member of the Panel since 1973. In in three professional fields in addition to publishine addition to punishing nurnerour, articles on water, wa.s- merous professional papers in the biological and chernico tewater treatment, and international training of environ- fields, Dr. I nreman has held teaching, administrative, mental engmeeting, Dr. Cole has held teaching, adminis- und research positions with the University of Minnesota trative, and engineering positions in the United States and the University of California, the latter involving work and Guateirala with the Univerrity of North Carolina, in the area of radiation and biomedical research at los Pennsylvania State University, and the Statt of Pennsyl- Alamos.
sania. lie has held several leadership positions and com-mittee assignments with numerous professional associa. FOSTER, RICHARD F. II.S., University of Washmgton tions, and is a Diplomate of the American Academy of (1938); Ph.D., University of Wrshington (1948). Dr. Fos.
linvirontnental lingineers, ter has been a part tune rnember of the Panel since 1981.
Dr. Foster is the author of numerous professional papers C077ER,lL PAUL,JR A.ll. Ptinceton University (1959); on the dtscharge of heat and radionuclides into water J.D., Georgetown Universay (1968). Judge Colter has pathways, and has headed or participated on several pan-been the Chief Administrative Judge of the Panel since els and committees on radiation and the environment for, 1980. liefore 1980, Judge Cetter was a member and then among others, the U.S. Public licalth Service, the Na-Chief Administrative Judge of the Department of flous- tional Academy of Sciences, the International Atomic ing and Urban Development floard of Contract Appeals, Energy Agency, and the NRC Advisory Committee on .
a tnal attorney with !ba 1 LS. Department of Transporta. Reactor Safegu,,rds. During his 50-year carect, Dr. Fos-tion, and in private practice for 6 years. lie is on the ter hn, also beld revarch a nd management positions with faculty of the National Judicial College,is a member of the Sta3 of Washington, the University of Washington, the American I.aw institute, and is a recognized leader in and numerous laboratories and companies at the llan-the use of cornouters in managing cornplex cases. lie is a ford, Washington facility.
8.rusice of Ihe Amenca. c.a of Court Foundation, Chair Elect of the lioard of Decetors of the Supreme Court JOHN H, Hl. A.ll., Davidson ColleEc (19 Opinion Network, holds ses cral leadership positions with Fm',
1LU. Vanderbilt Univeruty (1965). Judge Frye has. 58);
ocen the American Bar Association and the i ederal Har Asso- a full-time mernber of the Panel since 1981. liefore his ciation, and hu written extensively in the field of adminis- appomtment to the Panel, Judge Frye was the ( ounsel to trative law. the Panel and was m pn,vate practice in Washingto D.C., for 8 years. lie has held leadership positions wit EllEAfAN, THOAIAS S.11.S., Denison University (1953); nurnmus committees of the Federal liar Association, Ph.D., Iowa State University (1957). Dr. Elleman was and has published m vanous law journals, appointed to the Panel as a part-time rnember in 1990.
Over the course of Ms 38-year career, Dr. Ellemar has gfggSgy, jg3y,S P. D.S.S., Georgetown University (1948); ILil., Georgetown University- (1950). Judge conducted research in pnvate m, dustry, meluding Caro-Gleason has been a part time member of the Panel since I
hna Power & Light Co. and General Atomics, and at 1980 and held a similar appointment from 1967-1970.
North Carolina State University where he is currently a During his 41 year career, Judge Gleason has held nu-professor of nuclear engineering, a depattment he merous elective and appointive officcs at the county, headed from 1974 to 1979. He has published more than State, and Federallevel; taught at the University of Mary-60 articles m the field of nuclear chemistry. Dr. lilleman is land and liarvard University; maintained a private law also an American Board of Health Physics Hoard Certs*
and consultant practice; and served as an aide to two U.S.
fied Health Physicist.
Senators.
FERGUSON, CEORGE A. II.S Howard University HAND, C4DET H., JR. II.S., University of Connecticut (1947); M.S., ihnvard University (1948); Ph.D., Catholic (1946): M.A., University of California, Berkeley (1948);
University (1965). Dr. Ferguson has been a part-time Ph.D., University of Califorma, Berkeley (1951). Dr.
. member of the Panel since 1972. During his 44-year ca. Iland has been a part time member of the Panel since reer, he has held teaching, administrative, and research 1971. Cerrently limeritus Professor and Emeritus Direc-positions with floward University, the U.S. Naval Re- tot of the University of California llodega Marine talw search Laboratory, the University of Pennsylvimia, and ratory. Dr. Hand has held teaching, research, and admin-Clark Co!!cge (where he was chairman of the Physics istrative positions with Mills College, the Scripps Department).Dr.Ferguson isa memberof the American Institution of Oceanography, the Universityof California Physical Society and several teaching associations. at flerkeley, and the Universty of California at Davis.
FOREAfAN, HARRY. B.S., Antioch College (1938); Ph.D., HETR/CK DAITD L ll.S., Rensselaer Polytechnic Insti-Ohio State University (1942); M.D., University of Califor- tute (1947); M.S., Rensselaer Polytechnic institutg nia (1947). Dr. Foreman has been a part time member of (1950); Ph.D., University of California, Ios Angele#4F the Panel since 197 !. Dr. Foreman's career spans 50 years (1954). Dr. Hetrick became a part-time Panel inember in g NUREG-1363, Vol. 4 22
- 72. Dunng his career as a physicist, Dr. lietrick has of Tennessee, Dr. Jordan spent 27 ) cars at the Oak Ridge orked as a private consultant to General Atomics, Nationallaboratory in vanous research and management llughes Research laboratones, the Marquardt Corpora- positions, ending his long tenure there as its Deputy Di-tion, and linokhaven National lateratory. lle has taught rector, physics at Cahfornia State University at Northridge, the University of Ilologna in Italy, Rensselaer Polytechnic All11ER, CIIARIES N. H.A., University of Minneapolis Institute, and et the University of Arizona. Dr. Tietrick (1947); 1%D. Universty of Minnesota (1951). Ilefore has also worked on nuclear projects at the UnitcJ King. Joining the Panel as a full-time member m 1990, Dr.
dom Atomic linergy Agency in Aldermaston, lingland, Kelber was the Panrs Senior Technical Advisor from the International Atornic Energy Agency in Cuernavaca, 1988 to 1990. He also sened in vanous senior techn, ical Menco, and at the los Alamos Natunal laboratory. positions in the Division of Nuclear Regulatory Research at the Atomic Energy Commission and at the NRC.10-IIll)., ERNESTE. II.S., University of California, llerkeley fore joining the Commitsion in 1973, Dr. Kelber was n
, (1943); M.S., University of California, Herkeley (1959). senior scientist at Argonne National laboratory for 18 Judge 11ill has been a part-time member of the Panel years. lic is a Fellow of the American N uclear Society and since 1972. Currently the president of Hill Associates, a the American Physical Society.
3 nuclear engineering c(msulting cornpany, Judge Ilill has KIJNE, JERRY R. H.S., University of Minnesota (1957):
held numerous nuc! car r nginecring and management pc" sitions in the private sector, with the Atotr" EnerFy M S., University of Minnesota (1960): Ph.D., University of M nnesota (1964). Dr. Khne has been a fulbtime mem-Commissiori, end at the Lawrence 1.ivermore National Labomtoy. f & Panel since 1980. liefore he was appointed to
, the Panel, Dr. Kline held various research and manage-1/OOl'ER,1 RANK F. ILA., University of California ment positions with the Puerto Rico Nudcar Center, the (1939); Ph.D.. UniverJty of Minnesota (1940. Dr. Arg nne National Laboratory, the Atornte Energy Com-Hooper has been a part-time member of the Panel since inission, and the NRC. He is the author of numerous 1973. Currently a Professor Emeritus at the Ur.iversity of scientifie papers and reports m the fields of radioccology Michigan, Dr. Hooper has held teachirig and administra- and soil science.
tive positions at the University of Michigan, the Institute IAM, l'ETER S. II.S., Oregon State University (1967);
Oor Fishenes Research, and the University of Minnesota- M.S., Stanford University (1968); Ph.D., Stanford Uni-In 1962-63 and again in 1956, Dr. Hooper was an aquatic versity (197 l). Dr. Lam was appointed to the Panci as a ecologist with the Atomic Energy tornnassion. From full time judge in 1990. He joined the Nuclear Regulatory 19/9 to 1988, he was chairman of the Ecology, Fisheries Comminion as a reactor systems engineer in 1983 and and Wildhfe Program in the School of Natura* Resources became Chief of the ReactorSystems Section of the NRC at the University of Michigan.
Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data, JOl/NSON, ElllABET/IR. II.S., Western Kentucky Uni-n un ng to We Commpn, W. lam W versity (1943); M.S., Vanderbilt University (1952). Judge Qus pos tions with General Electne and the Argonne i
Johnson has been a part time member of the Panel since mn tom He b ta@ engmeg es 1975. Currer,tly on the staff of the Instrumentation & at San Jose State Unhy ad & nge Wanngton
"# I' Controls Division of the Oak Ridge National laboratory, Judge Johnson has held physicist and engineer positions MMB, JAMES C, III. H.S.C.E. Virginia Military Insti.
on various Union Carbide Corporation nuclear projects tute (1947); M.S., Massachusetts Institute of Technology at Oak Ridge and elsewhere, and was a research assistant (1952); Sc.D., Mast.achusetts Institute of Technology with the Manhattan Project. During her 489ear career, (1953). Dr.12mb has been a part time member of the
, Judge Johnson published numerous Atomic Energy Panel since 1974. Carrently a distinguished visiting pro-Commission and other professional papers, principally fessor of civil engineering at George Washington Univer-o concerned with reactor experiments and nuclear sity and professor of sanitary engineering at the Univer-criticality. sity of North Carolina, Dr. Iamb has also held teaching, engineering, management, and research positions in pri-JORDAN, HMLTER II. A.B., University of Oklahoma vate indu.stry, at Newark College of Engineering, Univer-(1930); M.S., University of Oklahoma (1931); Ph.D., Cali- sity of North Carolina, and Massachusetts Institute of fornia Institute of Technology (1934). Dr. Jordan has Technology, been a part time member of the Panel since 1970. Dr.
Jordan is the author of numerous articles- professional IAZO, ROBERT M. B.S., University of Alberta (1946);
papers, and books in the nuclear und radar fields, and is n M.A., Umversity oWritish Columbia (1950); Ph.D., Uni.
Fellow of the American Nuclear Society and the Ameri- versity of Notre Dame (1954); J.D., Rutgers University can Physical Society. In addition to holding teaching posi- (1958). Dr.1. azo has been a member of the Panel since tions at the University of South Dakota and the University 1970, first in a part-time capacity and, since G72, in a 23 NUREG-1363. Vol. 4
full. time cnpacity. Iletween 1977 4 0. he served as the Moore was in private practice in the firm o.f Volpe,11 lixecutive Secretary of the Panel, and since 1960, as its keyand1.)ons,workedin the Civil Division of the Depart-Deputy Chief Administrative Judge, liefore joining the ment of Justice, served as administrative assistant to the Panel as a full-time member, Dr. I aro mamtained a pri- Governor of Ohio, and clerked for Judge hiiller on the vate legal practice and was a member ci the Patent De- Sixth Circuit before joining the Nuclear Regulatory Com-partments of both Standard Ou of New Jersey and llell mission in 1980.
Telephone laboratories.
MORRIS, l'ETER A. II.A., Swarthmore College (1943;;
LUEBRE, EMMETH <t II.A., Ripon College (1936); Ph.D., University of Virginia (1951). Dr. Morris served as Ph.D., University of Illinois (1941). Dr. Luebke became a a full time administrative judge with the Panel frorn 1981 part-time rnember of the Panelin 19S7 following 15 years to 1987. lie was appointed as a part time judge in 1991.
of service as a full-time rnernber. A Fellow of the Ameri. Before serving on the Panel, Judge Morris worked as can Nuclear Society and recipient of a Presidential Cer. Operational Physics Supervisor with II.I. duPont de tificate of Ment for Microwave Radar Research, Dr. Nemours and Co. from 1951 to 1957, and served the Luebke spent 27 years in private industry involved in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as Director, Office of design, testing, and operation of nuclear power plants for Operations, and Director, Division of Reactor 1.icensing.
st.bmarines. Ilefore that, he taught at the University qf PARIZEK, RICilARD R. II.A., University of Connecti-lilinois and was a research leader at Massachusetts inMi-tute of 'l ethnology' cut (1956); M.S., University of Illinois (1960); Ph.D., Uni-versity of Illmois (1961). Dr. Parizek was appointed as a McCOl10M, KENNE7Hst U.S., Oklahoma State Uni.- part. time administrative judge in 1900. lie has been a versity (1948); M.S., University of Illinois (1949); Ph.D., profmor m ge Geology Department at Pennsylvama
. Iowa State University (1964). Dr. McCollom has been a State Um,versity since 1961 and is president of his own part-time member of the Panel since 1972. lle is currently consugng &m. Pa holds several positions in Dean and Professor limeritus of the College of lingineer- profmonal aWaMons and has authored or co- .
ing, Architecture and Technology, Oklahoma State Uni- authored more than 120 scientific and techrucal papers.
versity. During his 43-year utreer, he has held teaching
- REIN, HARRY ll.S., New York University (1953); M.D.,
research, and administrative positions with Oklahoma State University of New York (1957); J.D., University o State University, Iowa State University, and the Atornic Florida (1982). Dr. Rein was appointed to the Panel as Energy Division of Phillips Petroleum Company. In addi- part-time administrative judge in 1990. Dr. Rein is an tion, he has held numerous leadership positions with sev' active triallawyer and has 23 yeats of active clinical medi-eral professional associations and the Oklahoma lloard of cal experience! Curt ently, Dr. H ein's trial werk is limit ed Registration for Engineers and Iand Surveyors.
to medically related cases. Dr. Rein has published several MARGfRJES MORTON It H'A.. llrooklyn College E" " #" '" "E " #
- F' " *" '" # " " " " " ##
(1953); J.D., Brooklyn law School (1954). Jud8e Mar-gulics has been a full-time member of the Panel since lawyers across the Umted States pertaining to the discov-cry and (nal processes related to cases involving medical :
1982. Ilefore his appointment to the Panel. Judge Mar * ,
questions.
gulics served as an Admmistrative law Judge (1969-1982), R egional Counsel, and trial attorney for the RUBENSTEIN,113TFR S. fl.S., University of Anzona Interstate Commerce Commission, and as a member of (1953); M.S., Carnegie Institute of Technology (1962).
the Anny Judge Advocate General's Corps- Judge Rubenstein was appointed to the Panel as a part-time member in 1990. liefore joining the Panel, he served -
M#.LER, MARSHALL E A.H. with honors, University of in various leadership capacitics with the Nuclear Regula-Illinois (1935); ILH., University of Illinois (1937). Judge tory Commission, including Assistant Director for Region Miller was a full time member of the Panel (1974-1985) IV Reactors, NRR; Director, Systems Division and Stan-and has been a part time member since 1985. Judge dardization, NRR: and Assistant Director, Division of Miller was an Administrative law Judge for the U.S. Systems Integration, NRR. Before joining the Atomic Department of I abor for 11 years and previously a part- Energy Commission in 1967, he worked for the National ner for 15 years in the Washington, D.C., law firm of Aeronautics and Space Administration as a researcher Danzansky & Dickey. Ile is the author of several books on
, and for the TitW and Westinghouse corporations. Judge
, legal practice. Rubenstein has written several articles and papers and lectured on the policies and licensing procedures of the MOORE, THOM<tS S. fl.A., Miami University (Ohio) Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(1968): J.LL, Ohio State University (1972). Judge Moore v as appointed to the ASLHP in 1991 aftera distinguished SC#1NK, DAVfD R. II.A., Pomona College (1952); M.S.,g 10-year career as an administrative judge on the Commis- University of California,I os Angeles (1953); M.S., Stan T -
sion's Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board. Judge ford University (1958); Ph.D., University of California, NURl!O-1363, Vol. 4 24 e
an Diego (1962). Dr. Schink has been a pait-time mem- liefore his appointment to the Panel, Judge Smith served ber of the Panel since 1974. Currently a profeswr of as an Administrative law Judge for the Social Security oceanography and formerly the Associate Dean of the Administration and as a trial attorney in the Antitiust College of Geosciences at Texas A&M University, Dr. Division of the Federal Trade Commission. lie also Schink has written monographs and professional papers served as a county prosecutor, Deputy Director of the on marine geochemistry, silicon, radium, radon, and early Ohio Department of Liquor Control, and engaged in the digenesis. Dr. Schink has also held teaching and research private practice of law.
positionsalihe Palo Altolaboratory,Teledyneisotopes, University of Rhode Island, Scripps Institute of Oceanog-7/DEY, GEORGE FRANCIS. II.A., Uruversity of Virginia raphy, anJ Stanford University. In addition, Dr. Scbink (1980); M.D., University of Virginia (1984). Dr. Tidey was has served on several advisory panels for the National appointed to the Panel as a part-time member in 1991. lle Science 1 oundation and the United Nations. is currently an assistant professor in obstetrics and gyne-SHON, TREDERICK/. II.S., Columbia University. Judge e le t the hemty of has Mcal Woh He Shon has been a full time member of the Panel since 1972 taQt in k same M aWemge ypn UnWedy and rs engaged in a private practice in these areas. Dr.
and currently serves as its Deputy Chief Administrative
.Iidey has co-authored several articles on female fertility.
Judge (Technical). Ilefore his appointment to the Panel, lie is a member of the Amencan College of Obstetnes Judge Shon held manyement positions with the Atomic and Gynecology, the American Fertility Society, and the Ericrgy Comrnission, and worked as a physicist with the Amenean Medical Association.
lawrence Radiation Iahoratory and several corporations within the nuclear industry. Judge Shon has also served as a consultant on reactor safety to the Spanish and Danish WOIEE, SI/ Ell >ON J. A.II., Harvard Uaiversity (.1942);
Atomic Energy Commissions, and taught nuclear engi- IL13., Georgetown University (1956). J udge Wolfe was a neering at the University of California at tierkeley. full time member of the Panel from 1976 to 1988, when he assumed part time status. Ilefore his appointment to .
SM1771, lVAN W. Pre-12w, Ohio Statc University, Mexico the Panel, Judge Wolfe was a partner in Coal Mines City College, Kent State University (1946-48); J.D., Wm. Equipment Sales Company of Terre Haute, Indiana, an McKinley School of law (1952) Serving the NRC as attorney with the Civil Aeronautics lloard, and, for 20 Chief Administrative 12w Judge since 1978, Judge Smith years, a trial attorney with the Chil D; vision of the U.S.
has been a full-time member of the Panel since 1975. Department of Justice.
t f
u O
s
, 25 NUR EG-1363. Vol. 4
O APPENDIX D SELECTED ISSUANCES OF TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING llOARDS October 1,1990 to September 30,1991 e ADVANCED MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC. (One Docket Nos. 50-599-E.SR, 50-600-ESR (ASLilP Factory Row, Geneva, Ohio 44041), Docket No. No. 79-422-01-ES) 30-16055-CivP (ASLilP No. 89-592-02-CivP) Memorandum and Order, IJIP-90-37,32 NRC 270 Memorandum and Order, IJIP. 91-7,33 NRC 212 (October 31,1990).
(March 19,1991). ,
o ARIZONA PUlluC SERVICE COMPANY, et al. SOURI (DIUMP-S Project), Docket Nos.
(Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station. Units 1,2 70-00270, 30-02278-MIA (ASLBP No.
and 3), Docket Nos. 50-528-OLA, 50-529-OLA, 90-613-02-M LA) 50-530-01A (ASLilP No. 91-632-04-OLA) Memorandum and Order, IllP-90-33,32 NRC 245 Memorandum and Order,1JIP-91-20,33 NRC 416 (October 3,1990).
(May 14,1991).
Memorandum and Order, LBP-90-34,32 NRC 253 o ARIZONA PUBUC SERVICE COMPANY, et al. (October 15,1990).
(Palo Vcrde Nuclear Generating Station, Uni's 1,2 and 3), 50-528- 01 A ., Memorandum and Order, IJIP-90-35,32 NRC 259 Docket Nos.
1 50-529- O LA-2, 50-530-OLA-2 (ASI.l!P No. (October 20, M).
91-633-05-OIA-2) Memorandum and Order, IllP- 90-38,32 NRC 359 Memorandum and Order, LUP-91-4,33 NRC 153 (Noveraber 1,1990).
(February 19, 1991).
Memorandum and Order, LUP-90-41,32 NRC 380 Memorandum and Order, LilP-91-13,33 NRC 259 (November 16,1990).
(^E '
Memorandum and Order, IllP-90-45,32 NRC 449 Memorandum and Order, LUP-91-18,33 N RC 394 ( ccemkr W, N).
(May 3,1991).
Memonmdum and Order, LUP-91--I1,33 NRC 251 Memorandum and Order, LBP-91-19,33 NRC 397 (May 9,1991). Memorandum and Order, LDP-91-12,33 NRC 253 (April 15,1991).
e BARNIIFP INDUSTRIAL X-RAY, Docket No.
30-30691-CivP (ASulP No. 91436-03-CivP) Memorandum and Order, LBP-91 -14,33 NRC 265
, Mr morandum and Order, LilP-91-16,33 NRC 274 E ' )'
(April 30,1991). Memorandum and Order, LBP-91-31,34 NRC 29
- CLINELAND Ell CTitlC II.LUMINATING COMPAN Y, et al. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Memorandum and Order, LUP-91-34,34 NRC 159 1), Docket No. 50-440-OLA-2 (ASI.BP No. 90- (August 5,1991).
605-02-OIA) o FEWELL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING, Initial Decision,1J.IP-90-39,32 NRC 368 (Novem-I TD., Docke, No. 030-30870-0M (ASLBP No.
ber 1,1990).
91-629-01-0M) e COMMONWEALTil EDISON COMPANY, et al. Initial Decision, IJIP-91-29,33 NRC 561 (June 25, (Carrol County Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2), 1991).
27 NUREO-1363, Vol. 4
e Fl.ORIDA POWi!R AND LIGilT COMPANY tmd 2),lhxket Nos.72-10,50-282- RS 50-306-Rh (l'urkey Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 3 (ASLitP No. 91-627-01-RS) and 4), Docket Nos. 50-250-OLA-6, Memorandum and Order, IJ1P-91-8A,33 N n 10 50-251-OIA-6 (ASLitP No. 91-625-02-OIA 6) (March 14,1991).
Memorandum and Order, l. IIP-91-2,33 NRC 42 (January 23,1991). e NUCLl!AR METALS, INC., Docket No.
40-672-MI A (ASillP No. 91-639-02-M LA) e GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al (Vogtle Memorandum and Order, IllP-91-22,33 NRC 427 Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), Docket (May 16* 1991)*
Nos. 50-424-OLA, 50-425-OIA (ASI.llP No.
90-617-03-OLA) Memorandum and Order, IllP-91-27,33 NRC 548 Memorandum and Order, LBP-91-6,33 NRC 169 (June 18,1991).
(February 28,1991).
- PUllijC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW liAMPSillRE (Seabrook Station, Unit 1), Docket Memorandum and Order, IllP-91-21,33 NRC 419 (May 15,1991). No. 50443-OIA (ASLilP No. 91-640-09-OIA)
Memorandum nnd Order, IJIP-91-28,33 NRC 557 e GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, cf al. (Vogtle (June 18,1991).
Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50-424-OI A-2, 50-425-OLA- 2 (ASLilP No.
- PUBlJC SERVICli COMPANY OF NEW 91-647-OI A-2) llAMPSillRE (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2),
Docket Nos. 50-443-OLR-3, 50-444-OI.R-3 Memorandum and Order,1 IIP-91-33,34 NRC 138 (ASlJIP No. 90-619-03-01Jt-3)
(July 23,1991).
Memorandum and Order, IllP-90-40,32 NRC 376 Memorandum and Order, IllP-91-36,34 N RC 193 (November 7,1990).
(September 12, 1991).
- PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NE%
e 1ONG ISLAND LIGIITING COMPANY ll AMPSillRl! (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2),
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), Docket Docket Nos. 50-443-OlJt-4, 50-444-0131-4 F
No. 50-322-OLA (ASL11P No. 91 621-01-OI A) (ASLilP No. 90-620-04-llRE-4)
Memorandum and Order, IJ1P-91-1,33 NRC 15 Memorandum and Order, IJIP-91-8,33 NRC 197
. (January 8,1991). (March 12,1991).
Memoran' Jam and Order, LilP-91-7,33 NRC 179 Memorandum and Order, IllP-91-24,33 NRC 446 (March 6,1991). (May 30,1991).
Memorandum and Order, LilP-91-23,33 NRC 430
- PUllLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW (May 23,1991).
IIAMPSillRE (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2),
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL-3 & 5,50-444-OLR-3 & 5 Memorandum and Order, IllP-91-35,34 NRC 163 (ASLilP No. 90-619-03-OI.R-3, (August 29,1991). 91-630-01-OIR-5)
Memorandum and Order, IJIP-91-3,33 NRC 49 o LONG ISLAND LIGilTING COMPANY (January 29,1991).
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), Docket No. 50-322-OIA-2 (ASLilP No.91-631
- PUBLIC SERVICl! COMPANY OF NEW OLA-2) HAMPSillRE (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2),
et Nos. 50-443-OL-R, 50 444-OL-R Memorandum and Order, LBP-91-26,33 NRC 537 (June 13,1991). (A , No. 01-OM)
Memorandum and Order, LHP-90-44,32 NRC 433 Memorandum and Order, LilP-91-32,34 NRC 132 (December 18, 1990).
(July 18,1991).
- RliODl!S-S AYRE & ASSOCIATES, INC e NORTHERN STAl'ES POWER COMPANY Docket No. 30-29086-SC (ASLUP No.
i (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 91.-628-01-SC)
NURiiG-1363. Vol. 4 28
Memorandum and Order.1 JIP-91-15. 33 NitC 268 e 'lliNNESSliliVAlJ JiY ALTillORITY (Sequoyah (April 25,1991). Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos.
50-327-OlA, 50-328-01 A (AStilP No. 90-635-
- SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL, UTilflY DIS- 07-OI A)
TIUCT (Rancho Seco N uclear Generating Station),
Memorandurn and Order,1 JIP-91-10,33 N RC 231 Ikicket No. 50-312-OIA (ASIJIP No. 91-634-06-OI A) (March 18,1991).
h er ora dum and Order. LilP-91-17.33 NitC 379 ,
g ggg g g,, ,,
gg 30-12319-CivP (ASLilP No. 90-618-03-Civl')
le randum and Order, l.IlP-91-30,34 NRC 23 Memorandum and Order,1 JIP-90-42,32 NRC 387
~
(October 29. H90).
e SEQUOYAll 1 UliLS CORPORATION, Docket Memorandum and Order,1JIP-90-43,32 NRC 390 No. 40-08027-MLA (ASLilP No.91-623 (November 15, 1990).
MIA)
Memorandum and Order,1JIP-91-5,33 NRC 163 Memorandum and Order,1JIP-91-25,33 NRC $35 (January 24, Iwl). (June 13,1991).
MARY MEDICAL CENTliR-OARY, Docket e WRANGLlill I AllOltATORiliS, IARSEN Nos 030-31379-0M,030-01615-0M (ASLilP No. l.AllOllATORillS, ORION CilEMICAL COM-90-612- 04-0M) Memorandum and Order, PANY AND JOllN P. l ARSEN, Docket No.
1JIP-90-36,32 NRC 267 (October 31,1990).
9999004-SC-It (ASLilP No. 91-648-01-SC-R)
Memorandum and Order, IJIP-90-46,32 NRC 463 Memorandum and Order,!JIP-91-37,34 NRC 196 (December 26,1990). (September 26,1991).
3 O
29 NURliG-1363, Vol. 4
O APPENDIX E MAJOR FEDERAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS RELEVANT TO ASLilP ADJUDICATIONS
- 1. Federal Statutes Part 32, Specific Domestic IJcenses to M.mu.
facture or Transfer Certain items
- 1. 'Ihe Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amendrd, Containing Hyproduct Material 42 U.S.C. $$ 2011 et seg, Pub.L 83-703,68 Part 33, Specific Domestic Licenses of 11 road STAT. 919.
Scope for Hyproduct Material
- 2. The Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as Part 34, Licenses for Radiography and Radia, amended, 42 U.S.C. 95 201-401, Pub.L tion Safety Requiremeres for Radio-93-438,88 STAT.1233. graphic Operations
- 3. Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act Part 35, Medical Use of flyproduct Material of 1978, as aniended, 42 U.S C. $$ 7901 ct seq , Pub.L 95404. 92 SfAT,3021. Part 39, licenses and Rndiation Safety Requirements for Well legging
- 4. Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.
y $$$51-559. Part 40, Domestic Licensing of Source Material
- 5. Transportation Safety Act of 1974,49 U.S.C/
' s } 1801 et seq , Pub L 93-633,68 STAT. 2156. Part 50, Domestic ljcensing of Production and Utilization Facilities s '
O e. " 'ie i nevi <e < > reit<x ^<i er 1969. ,
amended, Pub.L 91-190,83 STAT. 652.
"""s'""'i'""'"<"'"'"'"'e<""<*"'"-
tions for D_ omestic licensing and Related Regulatory I unctions
- 7. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, Pub.L 95-95,91 STA,I. 685. Part $3, Criteria anJ Procedures for Determin-ng Adequacy of Available Spent Nuclear
- 8. Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982,42 U.S.C. Fuel Storage Capacity
$$ 10101 et seq , PubL 97-425, 96 STAT.
2201.
Part 55, Operators' licenses Part 60, Disposal of High. Level Radioactive II. REGULATIONS wastes Geoiogic yepositories
, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (26 Parts): Part 61, ljcensing Requirements for land Dis-posal of Radioactive Waste Part 0, Conduct of Empkryees Part 70, Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Part 2, Rules of Practice for Domestic ljcens. Material ing Proceeding Pm 71 Packaging and Transportation of Part 19. Notices, Instructions, and Reperts to Radioactive Material Workers; Inspections Part 72, Licensing Requirements for the Stor-Part 20, Standards for Protection Against age of Spent Fuel in an Independent Radiation Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) an , a ntrol and Accounting of Part 21, Reporting of Defects and Noncompli-Special Nuclear Materials anu Part 30, Rules of General Applicability to
. Domestic Licensing of 11yproduct Mate- Part 140, Financial Protection Requirements rial and Indernnity Agreements y 31 NUREG-1363, Vol. 4
tJHC FOf4M ;L6 U. S fJUCLE AR HLOUL AT ORY COMM.50 ION 1. HLPOH1 NUMDf H lr.696 ( AssiW d by NHC, Add Vol ,
tJHCM 1102, Sep ,'*How . af ws Anaendum f Jam-3*. 22 BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET 8*'s . " *"v 3 tr.ee instructions m ine ,e,se, NUlWO-1363 Vol. 4 11lLL Af JD W6l(/LL 3 D Alt HE POH1 PUbubHLD Atomic Safety and 1.icensing floard Panel Annual lleport: 1 iscal Year 1991 uoNm j vrAn December 1992 4 F IN 04 GRANT NUMOLR i
- b. AVIHvHth) tL 1 Y Pt; OF HLPORT II. Paul Cot ;cr, Jr. ^""U"I
- 7. etnoo conHto enssive caiesi j l'Y 1991 8 Pt HF OHMirJO Of ;GANil ATION - NAME AND ADDHL ES (it f44C, provute Dmsson, Othce or Hegos. U G. f Juclear Hegulatesy Commissiori, and maihng address; f coritractor, gatv.Je Name and malhng a@ess )
Atomic Safe y and Licensing floard Panel U.S. Nucleat Reguiatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 9 SPONSOHING OHOAt4ZATON - NAME AND ADORE $$ (It NHC, type
- Same as atxwC*i et Contraetra, growce NHC Dmston, Othce or hogos, U.S twear Repu atory Commissui, aNI maihng eddress.)
Same as 8, atxvc 10 SVm t.MLNT AH f F OT E S
'enth Annual 11eport
- 11. ABSTRACi (200 vnt s or less)
In Fiscal Year 1191, the Atomic Safety and Licensing floard Panel ("the Pancl") handled 48 proceedings, a 20 percent increa se over the previous year. The cases addressed issues in the construction, operation, nnd main-tenance of commercial nuclear power rcactors or other activities requiring a license from the Nuclear llegula-tory Commission. The panel also repla cd several badly needed technical disciplines lost to retirement over the last two years. Dis report summarizes, highlights, and analyres how the wide-ranging issues raised in NitC pro-ceedings were addressed by the judges and licensing boards of the Panel during the year.
- 12. KE WORDS/DrSCRPTORS (Ust words or phrases that will assist researchers in locatin0 the report ) 13. AVAL ARRJTY ST AT E MENT Unlimited ASLilP Annual Report Fiscal Year 1991 Five-Year Projections lIOCl355ified Contentions Filed * "* " P*'"
Unclassified
- 16. NUMDtB Of- PAGt-S
- 16. PFUCE NRC FORM 335 (2-69) m L _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _
O O
on recycled paper O Federal Recycling Program
i-1 #
ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1990 rmsT ctAss pau.
sNITED STATES POSTAGE AND FEES PAID NUCLEAR REGULATOR'f COMMISSION usunc WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 PERMIT NO. G-67 OFFICIA BUSINESS PENALTY FOP PRNATE USE $300
ANNUAL REPORT FO't FISCAL YEAR 1990 O
.JITED STATES O'
FIRST CLASMIL PosTAct Ano rtES PAID NUCLEAR RFCULATORY COMMISSION usnRc WASHINGTON. D.C. 20555-0001 PERMIT NO. G-67 OFFICIAL BUSINESS PENALTY FOR PRtVATE U?E. 8300
a 1
.) -
j February 12, 1993 Presentation to the ACRS
{
L(2) !
s j THE . ARLRF' S ROLE IN DESIGN RULEMAKING . PROCEEDINGS
- i l ?
- I. BACKGROUND _
l A. Under Part 52, designs for nuclear power plants are i j to be certified through rulemaking.
! B. Although the APA does not require that there be 1 hearings for rulemaking,-Part 52 provides an opportunity for the public to request a hearing before !
l an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for the design certification rulemaking. .
l C. On May 8, 1992 (in SECY 170) , 'OGC presented '
preliminary recommendations to the Commission for the
- procedures which it believes _should be adopted for- ,
these hearings. (Part 52 itself contains very little
- about adjudicatory procedures.)-
l' D. OGC subsequently held a workshop and received public comments concerning its proposed procedures. ,
1 On November 10, 1992, in SECY 381, OGC gave the O D.
Commission its official recommendations as to what these procedures should be.
E. The Commission has not yet acted on OGC's-i recommendations. We understand that the Commission may not make a final decision until just before the first rule-making hearing is held.
II. OGC's Recommendations in SECY-92-381 as to the Role of the Licensing Boards
'A. The' Limited Magistrate versus the Full Magistrate 4 Role
~
- 1. In.SECY-92-170i OGC originally recommended l that the role of the Licensing Boards be that of a Limited Magistrate whose' activities'at the hearing would be confined to:
- a. gathering a full evidentiary. record at the-hearing and certifying that record to the Commission T* *-du!!T--2 -*TTM*r"-"--T~? T771 F
- WT W *t9E+17 *9N *
'4T' T-MP 4WN'TT--N'-* m't"'f=$te m erti adr e g v+ e - y<g--wyy--yof'emy er4 W - en-*"w'A 9'W-- TN'e rN
- Sr499't
i '-'N%+85'^"'N F 'T *PM"""t"#
i l
- b. under this role, Licensing Boards would O not make any recommendations to the Commission regarding the issues in dispute i
- 2. In response to SECY-929-170, the Panel, in a memo to OGC, likened the Limited Magistrate Model to a " potted plant" model. The Panel took the
]
- position thats a) the Limited Magistrate model under-
. utilized the talents of Licensing Board members, and j l b) made the Commission's job of deciding controverted issues much more difficult.
- 3. The majority of the participants at the workshop oppose the Limited Magistrate role.
- 4. NUMARC supports the " Limited Magistrate" role.
, Its rationale is tnat: )
4 a) traditionally rulemaking proceedings involving hearings have always vested Licensing Boards in this role, and b) allowing Boards to make recommendations
()
1 adds a wholly unnecessary layer of-review l 5. In SECY-92-381, OGC subsequently revised its Limited Magistrate recommendations and suggested j that Licensing Boards act as a " Modified Full Magistrates." Under this role:
- a. Parties would submit their findings >
!- directly to-the Commission rather than to the Licensing Board.
b) The Licensing Board would have the discretion, but not be required, to prepare
- recommendations to the Commission on any or l all controverted issue. (The Licensing Board, in effect, would be like any party to the proceeding; it would not be acting in the
- traditional judi~cial capacity of reviewing the briefs of the parties.)
- 6. The Panel takes the position that we should be allowed to act as a " full magistrate" (i.e., make recommendations to the Commission on all disputed issues after review!.ng the parties briefs) without the qualifications recommended by OGC.
(As I have stated, the Commission has yet to make l O a decision with respect to OGC's recommendation.)
4 i
W
- B. The Licensing Board's_Sua Sponte Authority at the Hearings To Raise New Issues-
- 1. In SECY-92-381, OGC recommends that Licensing Boards should be allowed to seek sua sponte
- authority from the Commission and request that it !
be allowed to develop a record if a significant 1 safety issue is identified. ( This departs from '
i its previous position in SECY-92-170 ) j j 2. NUMARC has consistently opposed any exercise j of sua sponte authority by Licensing Boards, i
C. Rulings on Hearing Requests and Matters in I Controversy I 1. OGC recommends (p. 64) that the Commission (and not Licensing Boards) rule on the following
!- matters involved in the hearings:
l_ a) requests for informal hearings I
b) specification of controverted issues
- 2. The Panel believes that Licensing Boards
- should make these determinations since they are traditional case-management' functions which our judges have considerable expertise in performing.
i l D. Requests for Additional Hearing Procedures, Formal Hearings, and Discovery i
i 1. OGC recommends-(73) that requests from the parties for the following expanded hearing rights be submitted to Licensing Boards:
i
- -(a)
- additional hearing procedures (e.g.,
direct and cross examination)
(b) formal hearings (c) discovery
- 2. Requests Which the Licensing _ Board determines are meritorious would be referred-to'the Commission for action. ( The Licensing-Board must specify the basis for its recommendations.)
--w-- -
,g.-
. , - . , ,,, , , ,m. - , - -*<~, ,
- 3. OGC recommends (p.74) that Licensing Board not be provided with sua sponte authority to request
' additional hearing procedures or a full hearing.
III. OTHER OGC RECOMMENDATIONS A. Ex Parte or Seperation of Functions (Note--there is no ex parte requirement for these proceedings, but for appearance sake, OGC is recommending certain limited restrictions)
- 1. Commission can obtain assistance of Staff members who participated in the review
- 2. such communication must appear in a public process (i.e., SECY paper, public meeting, etc.)
B. Threshold for Intervenor Participation in Hearings
() 1. Intervenor must submit written comments during written comment period
- 2. These written comments must include the e proposed written presentations to be included in the informal hearing
- 3. Inter"enor must demonstrate it can contribute significantly to the record; however, he need not meet the test for an " expert witness" C. Time Requirements for the Hearing
- 1. Intervenors must file written comments and requests for an informal hearing concurrently and within 120 deys from the Notice of Rulemaking.
- 2. Discovery requests must be filed within 15 days of the Commission's grant of an informal hearing.
D. The Structure of the Hearing
- 1. Held before a Licensing Board (from within or
-without the Commission)
O
. - - - - _ - - - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ --- o
- 2. Informal Hearings consisting oft a) .Intervenors presentations consist oft (1) written submissions, (?) oral presentations to the Board, and (3) written questions to be asked by the Board.
b) Requests for additional procedures or for formal hearings must be filed with Licensing Board within 5 days of the end of the final oral hearing session (then referred to Commission).
c) Applicant and staff are allowed rebuttal.
d) For Licensing Board's functions, see supra, a) After Board closes hearing, it has 30 days to certify the record to the Commission together with any recommendations it may have. Parties also have 30 to submit proposed findings in the form of a proposed final rule.
() E. Proprietary Information ~ ~ ~
-OGC proposes 2 alternatives
- 1. all important design information in Tiers 1 and 2 be non-proprietary, although proprietary information could be referenced as a basia, or
- 2. seek a formal opinion from the office of the Federal Register on incorporation by reference of proprietary information into Tier 2.
[
O
(
O O O' .
REVIEW OF ORGANIZATIONAL FACTORS RESEARCH l
PRESENTATION TO THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS FEBRUARY 12, 1993 l
! J0EL-lKRAMER -
NRC, RES (301) 492-3546 SONJA HABER -
BNL (516) 282-3575 GEORGE:JAPOSTOLAKIS UCLA '(310).825-1300 L
l A n As * <====h R.
O .O O' -
_0BJECTIVES OF ORGANIZATIONAL FACTORS RESEARCli
- USER NEEDS FROM_NRR, AE0D AND:RES o
- IDENTIFY FACTORS.IMPORTANT TO SAFETY
- DEVELOP MEASUREMENT METHODS AND TECHNIQUES
- DEVELOP METHODS FORL INCORPORATION INTO. PRAs-l
O O O'.
APPLICATION OF PRQDUCTS '
- INSPECTIONS ,
e DIAGNOSTIC EVALUATIONS
- SENIOR MANAGEMENT REVIEW OF PLANT PERFORMANCE '
- PROBABLISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT l
I -
I l
0 0 OU .
l BACKGROUND l
- SENIOR MANAGEMENT REVIEWS
- SENIOR MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP
- FY 1993 COMMISSION _ PAPER .
- u. . _ . - - _ - _. , 4 6
O O O~ .
PRODUCTS OF RESEARCH (I)
- 20 ORGANIZATIONAL DIMENSIONS GROUPED INTO 5 FACTORS
- STRUCTURED INTERVIEW PROCEDURES
- BEHAVIORALLY BASED RATING SCALES
- BEHAVIORAL CHECKLISTS
. 1 ~ . . - -.
O O O" .
l PRODUCTS OF RESEARCH (II)
- WORK PROCESS ANALYSIS MODELS-(1 AND II) i
- PRA APPLICATIONS OF CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE PROCESS i
- PRA APPLICATION OF CONTROL ROOM CREW PERFORMANCE' 1
h 6
9 I
V S
~
4 4
9 l
1
w __
~
O O O .
i l
ORGANIZATIONAL FACTORS '
RESEARCH PROGRAM ,
1 Presentation by: '
Sonja B. Haber, Ph.D.
Brookhaven National Laboratory l
Presentation to:
1 Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
- Washington, D.C.
ED ED E t
February 12,1993 EE LE E l
O O O' .
ORGANIZATIONAL FACTORS AND DIMENSIONS 1
Culture Communications Decision-Making
- Organizational Culture
- External Centralization
> Ownership
- Interdepartmental
- Goai Setting 1
- Safety Culture e intradepartmental
- Organizational Learning
- Time Urgency
- Problem Identification
- Resource Allocation
. Administrative Knowledge Human Resources Allocation l
a Coordination 'of Work
- Performance Evaluation !
- Formalization . Personnel Selection
- Organizational. Knowledge
- Technical Knowledge
- Roles-Responsibilities
- Training I
2
c: . .
l i
O O O .
l TECHNIQUES L
Structured Interview Protocol ,
l
- Standardized methodology
+ Database of interview questions
- Similar to methods NRC is currently using ,
l
- Consolidation of interview protocols from many different sources !
J
O O O~
TECHNIQUES (cont'c.).
Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS) e- Incorporates behavioral examples with general performance dimensions.
Behavioral examples of dimensions, ranging from poor to excellent, are
. developed using experts e Readily quantifiable
- Can be used to suromarize:- .
- individual's general observations of plant
- interviewer reactions to information l
- results'from targeted or structured observations i
- - m , -,
O O O~ -
l:. ;
TECHNIQUES (cont'd.)
Behavioral Checklist l
- . Based on data collected during structured observations L
- Behaviors identified are representative of dimensions and are readily L observable
- Unobtrusive 1
- Provides quantifiable data-o I
~
i
. l l- _]
I
-- =
t
- Techniques for Assessing Organizational Factors
~. Techniques :
Factors /Dimenslons - -
_ Structured 1 - Behavior 31 - BARS.
{ : Interview! Checklist CULTURE XX XX P
Organizational Culture X X 2 Ov,nership XX j Safety Culture XX XX
{ Time Urgency XX XX i COMMUNICATIONS XX XX
! External XX A3 j Interdepartmenni XX XX l Intradepartmental XX XX l DECISION MAKING XX XX XX '
l Centralization XX XX Goal Setting XX XX XX j Organizational Learning XX XX Problem Identification XX XX XX l Resource Allocation XX
? ADMINISTRATIVE KNOWLEDGE 4 XX XX XX l
Coordination of Work XX XX XX-
! Formalization X XX 1 -
1 Organizational Knowledge X l
- Roles / Responsibilities X X f
L
- IIUMAN KESOURCE ADMINISTRATION XX.
i XX ;
Performance Evaluation X X 4
Personnel Selection X.
l Technical Knowledge XX
, Training XX
__.o. .. :
i NOTl?;
i gb "
-- XX* indicates an example of that method for that factor / dimension is included in this booklet. :
1
- ~ <
O O O' .
OWNERSHIP Sample Interview Questions
- 1) If you receive a safety report that seems inaccurate, what do you do about it?
1 I2) What examples can you point to that indicate workers are taking responsibility in the safe operation of the plant?
- 3) What examples.can you.give of 'norkers placing blame on other workers when it comes to safety in the plant?
I
- 4) How are individual employees held accountable for safely performing their work?
I
O: :O O~ .
t ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING Sample Interview Questions. ,
- 1) Are positive as well as negative results sufficiently communicated to ali plant personnel?
1
- 2) How are change.s in performance indicators recognized by senior management? Is this recognition timely?
- 3) When your department. experiences an equipment failure, what steps do you take to make sure the problem is not only corrected, but to reduce the probability of thei failure occurring again in the' future? I
- 4) Compared to three years ago, has the plant en,ioyed an improved safety record with respect.'to decreases in safety system infractions / compromises? What has ;
been responsible for this improvement?
- 5) Are there formal.and' informal programs-which provide employees in all functional areas exposure to and awareness'of problems experienced and addressed by ,
other plants? -
l
O O O~ .
ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING BARS The degree to which plant personnel and the organization use knowledge gained from past experience to improve future performance.
EXCELLENT 5 Depanmenic throughout the plant hold regular meetings to discuss how various tasks have been performed and how they might be done better in the future.
4 Individuals and groups of workere seem to pay close attention to past behaviors and how they can be improved in the future.
AVERAGE 3 The plant holds review sessions to discuss operating problems and attempts tc '
uncover solutions to past difficulties.
2 Many individuals seem to commit the same errors over and over, without regard for how these errors can be ' avoided via training or through analysis of past experience.
POOR 1 Departments continue to use systems, irocedures, and work practices that have a history of inefficiency or failure.
_ ._ . . . _ _ . . . . . __ . .___ _-_. ._ . _ _ ~. _ __ . _ _ .
l o o o' .
i ,
i PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION BARS The way the organization encourages personnel to draw upon knowledge, experience, and current information to itientify any potential problems. l EXCELLENT 5 Employees are encouraged to proactively identify potential problems (e.g., equipment, personnel, scheduling). Employees are asked to notify management of potential problems. Management investigates the situation and responds to employees' input with timely feedback.
4 Employees are encouraged to notify management of problems they observe. Problems identified by employees are funneled into a system that evaluates the problem and makes a determination regarding future action. Employees receive feedback about problems tha1 were acted upon.
AVERAGE 3 Employees have a system to report problems they identify. The decisions regarding which problems are attended to and which ones are ignored is made by a select group of individuals. Employees are seldom given feedback about problems they identified or problems that were fixed.
- 2. Employees often feel that reportirig a problem is simply an exercise in futility since the problems reported from the general employee group rarely receive consideration. In some situations, problem identification is met with extreme defensiveness.
POOR 1 Problems go undetected, or unreported, since most workers feel any effort to report problems is viewed as worker complaints. Employees fear being reprimanded for identifying problems.
O O O .
3 Sample Behavioral Checklist Coordination of Work IVhen observing actual ongoing work or observing a work planning session:
- 1) If a change in personnel occurred (e.g., shift change) in the course of ongoing work, did the different ;
individuals give/ receive a status report? Yes No N/A Did any overlap occur among personnel? Yes No N/A
- 2) Were contractor personnel involved in conducting the work kept appraised of the work in progress (e.g.,
any problems that arose, any changes in action or schedule) and/or did they participate (e.g., are their opinions and suggestions sought) in the daily planning associated with the work? Yes No N/A
- 3) Did the department managers of the different groups involved in the work keep each other appraised of the work in progress? Yes No N/A Did these managers in turn keep their employees appraised of the actions of the personnel from other departments? Yes No N/A L
- 4) If someone was busy with their own jobs, did they watch what other unit members were doing and offer assistance when it was needed? Yes No N/A
, 5) Did the employees performing the work plan together and coordinate their efforts?
5
'l amm e ___i__________-____u_..
o o V o) s U .
DIMENSION QUANTIFICATION 7 '
Departments
{'
1 Dimen-!<ms E 1
F C II I A B C D j {
i 4 2 4 3 3 3 3
- 1. Centralization 3 5 1 2 3 1 2 2 2 2 2
- 2. Ihrernal Communication 1 3 Interdepar tmental Communication 3 2 2 1 4 3 3 3 3 4 5 2 3 5 4 3 2 2
- 4. Intradepar tmental Cemmunication 2 4 4 4 4 3 2 2 2
- 5. Coordination of Work 4 3 4 2 3 2 1 i
- 6. l'ormalization 2 2 4 2 2 1 I ! I
- 7. Goal setting 1 l
{
S. Organitational Culture 1 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 2 P y
3 2 3 2 2 I i 1
- 9. Organizational I earning l 4 ..
1 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 3
- 10. Organizational Knowledge l 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 I i
- 11. O wners!.ip 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2
- 12. Performance livaluation 4 5 4 4 4 4 4
- 13. Personr.el Sclettion 2 5
- 14. Prob!cm Identification 2 4 1 1 ! 2 1 1 1 3 2 2 2 2 ? I ' I
- 15. Itcsource Allocation i
4 4 3 2 3 3 2 2
- 16. Itales-Itcsponsibilitics 2 ..
2 4 3 2 2 3 2 2 2
- 17. Safety Culture
- 18. Technical Knowledge 4 4 3 3 4 ,
4 l 4 3 3
- 19. Time Urgency 2 3 5 4 3 4 2 1 1 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 l
- 20. Training 3 l , _
~ - - - -
, , , . _ . . _ _ 2 ..# w _. 5..s _ _
uy
,or /
) G G FACTOR QUANTIFICATION
=-- _
Department, Factors A B C D E F G II I
- 1. Cornmunication 3 3 2 2 4 3 3 ' '
I
- 2. At!ministrative Knou kx!;r 2 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 2
- 3. Iluman itesources At! ministration 3 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 3
- 4. Culture 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 2
- 5. I)ccision Making 2 4 2 2 , _
2 '
2 I I i NOTE; Scale = 1 through 7, with 7 being the highest (best) score and I being the lowest (worst) score.
l
- c. . .__ _-.
O O O~ ,
APPLICATIONS incpection Activities ,
NRR/ Regional inspections might utilize structured interview protocol, behavioral checklist, behaviorally anchored rating scales, work process analysis model Products provide standardization across plants to assess organizational factors
- Resident inspectors might gain most from use of behavioral checklists and behaviorally anchored rating scales Products might aid Resident Inspectors in fulfilling their role in SALP
O O O .
APPLICATIONS (cont'd.)
DIAGNOSTIC EVALUATIONS
. Use of WPAM for determining key areas of investigation within the plant
- Use of BARS for rating general observations of the plant on each of the relevant dimensions
- Use of interview questions for structuring interviews with plant personnel
- Use of BARS for evaluating information from the interview from both the interviewer's and interviewee's perspective
. Use of the behavioral checklists for systematically observing specific areas of the plant
- Use of BARS for summarizing checklist observations
- Use of dimension scores to profile plant's relative strengths and weaknesses
. Collection of this type of information across plants for comparative analyses-development of normative database 4
4
O O O~ .
APPLICATIONS (cont'd.)
INTEGRATION INTO PRA (LIMERICK)
- Identified accident sequences characterizing 93% of CMF
- Identified cutsets and human errors for each sequence e incorporated human errors into database e Grouped human errors with respect to unceriainty factors a Quantified uncertainty factors for plant-specific analysis o Assessed and quantified influence of organizational factors on reduction of uncertainty
- Quantified organizational factors
- Weighted organizational factors with respect to department
O O O~ .
APPLICATIONS (cont'd.)
INTEGRATION INTO PRA (LIMERICK)(cont'd.)
- Derived departmental (i.e., operations) scores based on weightings and plant-specific organizational factors data
- Calculating new human error probabilities based on departrnent scores and uncertainty factors
- Calculating CMF based on new human error probabilities l
O O O~ .
t
- i QUANTIFICATION OF INFLUENCE ,
OF ORGANIZATIONAL FACTORS ON RISK AT NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS GEORGE APOSTOLAKIS Mechanical, Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering Department 38-137 Engineering IV t
University of Califomia .
Los Angeles, CA 90024-1597 '
tel: (310) 825-1300 fax: (310) 206-2302 Presented to the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards February 12,1993 l
t
i; -l1 1 ;
- L ' , " " i.
w g
p e
_ ht T N
_. il n .
G N
S E G d E
1 a ha 1 K N E t.
it o R R m wg c OO PW P
M D A
R O u
L
. . o e T R di f. U S
M F ei e nc ge S O
i p E s
e s R
S
_ d a W I N N 0
s e A O Y 1
ks ve P I T R 1 L S A %
TA A NT R (
WGBMNC go . e o taih 1
N O s
_ c O S AF I GN P s f E OL I I I S A M $--
s oa R A
S S
E R
P S OPDO- E H DC E
T p M-
_ eto c
Z M
C O
M e
- nn eo A R P
G K
_ ui R qa t O R O
_ ez D W E C E
oda si eg zr n 1 B
U D
E R
O M
R O
MGN EI B VL V
1 N I N C
EI A
E E
V 1
f f
B I . e e io N O RN V R O d R RI E O O S O A R A r n H P CM da fa r E F "
N o e
_ no a
D N
O O
F O
. t t C E s n L N ae A M
R U
L 0
1 m om t n R I A M 1A N A$
so O N
F EC B P I
Nr E
T E f L A " s i
R . e e r r B ,
NU O O U A
G"a feiv r R E N I Q AB E r
_ en P MR P
S "R
. r e_ a L
D I 8 e "ss a l
r en co oi t r a S
_ pr N Gt E kp e T O I
NlU 9
D 3-I I r N T 1 D
.._ oo A AR I
A RG A
R . e e ,
O, m
o
. ._m._.._ _. _ __.m._ - _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ . . _ . . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . - . . _ . . _ . _ _ . . . . _ _ . - . _ . . . . - . _
i r
i t
_ WORK PROCESS - CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE :
L 1
i i
sagging htab Neal !
4 hintinimi Pakg Em6on Dmetten g,4 L M!nteremorder y .......... + ............... _y .. . . ..........
% den ___y ............. + ...........
+ .........
IT8W Mahlpletadews e WerkContrdCenter pgn i Mees 5P e MVeMoh W" W&oden I
e PepnsEeDept
- QuityControl '
e Eng!neer!ngRcMew Pdew ,
a fostelntenam - l
, a Respe% Dept teit,g l Pdew ;
r L
5 Attlen '
y = . . . . . . . . .
+
Defensesor '
Barrters t i
t r
I r !
i
. 4 1
{ .
i I
f
O O O' .
' EXAMPLE MCS: T1
- MC1
- MC2
- NR-LOSP-13HR T1: Loss of offsite power MC1
- MC2: Loss of both trains of emergency ac power due to miscalibration NR-LOSP-13HR: Failure to recover offsite power within 13 hrs after T1 Organizational Factors: interdepartmental communication, intradepartmental communication, coordination of work, formalization, training IPE Quantification Present Analysis T1 5.7 x 10 2 5.7 x 10'2 MC1 3.0 x 10- 3.0 x 10 4 n- e- -
34+x .s >
, ...v "MC2 &ndhlper3.0 2510 %. w - l2.4x-, . ~ (::A0f W
- c~;gy sa:t . .,=. s esur ~ nese y~ *
.t . . . y. <<-
- NR-LOSP-13HR J b # ! 3 M 1 0 9;* ^
{6.8 %;;q.qq'#. -10 9 #
' MCS frequency 6.7 x 10* 2.8 x 104 (per ryr)
Sequence frequency 6.2 x 10" 6.8 x 10 4 (per ryr)
, ,_ ~ s 4.~.s v . ~. m.- .-
Core-melt frequency Q,2. 0.m0..ir . , mE#- ))
_,!9&,if0fw;e-%w'y 97.6fxN fE 99. !
3.m , ...m (per ryr) =%f,S3C i este#2)m
O O O~ .
RISK MANAGEMENT I MCS SEQUENCE CDF 6.7 x 10* 6.2 x 10' 1.9 x 10' I 1PE BASE CASE-ORIGINAL 2.9 x 10' j 7.2 x IC* 2.2 x 10 '
RATES ALL RATINGS RAISED TO 2.5 x IO
- 6.2 x 10 ' 1.9 x 10' "6"
!NTliRD!il'ARTMiiNTAl. 2.5 x 10' 63 x to' l .9 x t o '
COMMUNICATION (6)
INTRADEPARTMENTAL 1.7 x 10' 4.2 x 10' l.3 x 10 5 COMMUNICATION (6)
COORDINr70N (6) 5.8 x 10' 1.5 x 10* 4.5 x 10' FORMAI.lZATION (6) 6.8 x 10" 1.7 x 10' 5.2 x 10' TRAINING (6) 1.0 x 10' 2 5 x 10' 7.8 x 10' I _
k
O Coortilnation of Work CARS The formal and informalplanning, i stegration, and impicmentation of the work activities ofindividuals and groups. (Note: planning refers to unantten as well as written plans.)
EXCELLENT 5 When work that affects several departments is planr.ed, all affected parties are contacted prior to the implementat!on of work.
Departments are aware of what is to be done,when, and what each departrnents' role will be in the work. Work is not stopped due to personnel or equipment shortages.
4 Each departmem- develops good plans for how work w!!! be accomplished and who is responsible for each step in the vwk process. Affected panies are not involved in the planning stages, but are told of the plan as r,oon as it is finalized. Workis rarely stopped due to personnel or equipment shortages.
O ^veniot a waeawetu via sarei viemented.-osteera<imeats nadiaaividuai, know their roles and resportsibilities. Departments work individually and usually do not have the acceptance or support of other departments. Affected partiet are not involved in planning, but are simply told to implement the plan when it arrives. Work is often delayed due to personnel or equipmet >honages.
2 Departments often fail to inform other departments or individualt, about upcoming actions that affect their work efforts. Work is eften stepped due to personnel or equipment shortages.
POOR 1 Each department goes about its business without concern for the work of others. Plans developed within depanments are too broad for effective implementation. Work is almost always stopped due to personnel and equipment shortages.
O
The cross reference table for the conective enaintertance work process TASK ACTION /BAIJ' JIRS DEPARTMDR ITKONNE1.
fruritiratbn Work Cmtml C4eter (WCQ WCC5upervuor IVJOPJIIZAllON Ph '
WCC/0;mticms # 5l* *'
Itnw*g MawM. Nee WorkContmlCenter Rh a Control Center WCC$sipovisx IIA.PNDM -- -
Ely:ireering reiews DWseery SyWmL YM FesponrMe Dept. FMew Mal.uerance LLC . WWTACIq)neer ,
Sctm8 uling/Cwedirution N:ining Dgts. , $6edcler SC1fIDULINC/
v g W"%$ Va'W D'Pu-v e peg.
e DWh q,- w (Opmucra for6p sg for wartautbact:stimJ EAtatma Winteruru ht/Dec/ LLC SelfVerifation f W ntenance Mech /II*c/EC DIC1110H G GulseyAssuraxe QC/QA E"6l '"*f Pose 44aintenance ~
g Mairderura Mach /Dec/EC N To Faturn to Noruul g,gne up oyer. ;on, Cmtrd RenOperator NORMAL 2nd Vairatrus operstbns Corwmt Room Qwator DOCUMENTATION Documentation Comp,sev Ont O
'l
.....................s
t uoprauatung1 x x x g fx
..n -
, [ettuoN on utniq X X X x x x x x
Sgg - - ~ "
urrtmitr}v}y x x x x x "I MI x x x x x x
, e e
n.
oo x .x x x x x x x x
- ,x x x x y & ~~~ _
o y
8 uotircaq x x xx x x x x x x x x x g x x 5
'. O m.wunnma x x x x x x x
, ;f gurtnpatpg x x x' x x i 4
g - - - -
o )
"*MM x
~f y x x x x x x x t:
x x x x 8 ji -
" x x x x x x t 2 Suruurta x x x x x x x x 5
~~
a .<
a . ~ ~
j 0 "DMW X x x x x J x >r x x x x
- E i
E o
,g- y u0 M T19014I x x x x x x x x x x x x x x a __
P D
a
? 3 3 -
o G Q W a .
AJ
@ D 2 e e !
j?. ., c E11 x I Tc S ea
~
~ ~ E 8 u a
~
54 h c c 3 c EUM O a
2 E O R E2:- ~ 7
- B m y
!lt Lt 8e e e
= 88 3 o m g "_.]~ Si al 3 g3 8 0-gu 2 e o &
- E aT :s E -cTA o
- n. n< 8. 3 5 g
- =a - e ~2 E T" c 8 D w
- w a,, uU= ~8 U a . -
E F E c 'E Et 6
Ne oEo f$ 'RIo E a ae a. S.
8 _..
e@ R S s.w od C* s.
b 'i 1
u o o u2 O'o u C
s s
OO A c. c-M cx: vs F o s. e o 3
=
10 ls O
U
O O' O. -
INCORPORATION OF ORGANIZATIONAL IMPACT INTO PSA i INITIATING r s .i.. i si.e.. : {[l,y" "*
EVENT "l,*l,'7
, E,li,'. '
OK I OK oK oK CD i
feo - MCS, " fCryA %. T,, 7)
'w ( (. )
< 3r v J J
a ;
I
. . i Decision Making Communications Administrative 1
Knowledge Human Resource r Centralization Allocation Goal prioritization ,
Cooroination of work external Organizational Formalization Performance evaluation '
interdepartmer.tal Organizadonal Personnel selection learning !
intradepartmental Technical knowledge Problerr knowledge identification Roles and Training j responsibilities Resource allocation r.
l r
l
- J Culture:
Organizational culture, Ownership, Safety culture,-Time urgency ;
i I
WOR K PR O CESS ANALYSIS MODEL H OVPAM U) n ~
l 11 FRAAPERIstA.75 1
b
).GNDu.L Ct?T SET 5(MC3) 2.1 VTAM1 DErDu! BAS 2C3'DTIVECIOR M -~ Dowdiagram
,, gm , ay, Of'estAt Y
22 RA13 MC5 DEFDODiCE l =_-
2 f 2.3 h DEIIhMDGIRUNCATIONPODTT5 9
I Y
33 DEVELT AI.CORIIIIM E"4 W@d O r u
52 DETERMDGRAIINGs R. W -E E1"47FA1INGS l N Y
ss / os Ixummons 8 A /
g DENGWE!GIU5 W' M - % TAM !
3 9 5 Y g u DETERMDGANOICR$
I Y
33 RECALCULATE PROBALJJTIES
o o O. .
L BASIC EVENT VECTOR PURPOSE: To facilitate the assessment of the degree of organizational dependence between two basic events.
(WP, CPG, WU, ID)
L WP - Work Process CPG - Candidate Parameter Group WU - Working Unit / Department ID - Component ID i
i
o 0 0.
MCS DEPENDENCE RATINGS a EVENT 1 (WP, , CPG,, WU,, ID.)
EVENT 2 (WP, CPG2 , WU, ID)
R,2 = Ru , - R ego -
%, Ro.
m MCS Dependence Rating i
Ryg = max {R) ij l
l J
o O O. .
RATING FOR DEPENDENCE BETWEEN CADIDATE PARAMETER GROUPS, R epo i
Rego = 1.G for human actions from similar candidate groups (e.g., RE and RE),
0.5 for human actions from dissimilar candidate groups (e.g., RE and MC),
0.1 for hardware-related problems from similar candidate groups (e.g., FR and FR) or for one human action and one hardware related problem (e.g., MC and UM),
0.01 for hardware-related problems from dissimilar candidate groups (e.g., DR and FR).
.1 .01 .01 .01 .01 '
FR .1 .1 .1 .01 .01 .01
'l UM .01 .1 .5 .1 .5 .1 DR .01 .01 .1 -
.1 .1 '
i RE .01 .01 .5 .1 1 .5 '
MC .01 .01 .1 .1 .5 1 t
4
4 l
4
- QUANTIFICATION
,O n
! IMCS
- IIE ] El j l=1 4
i where f ucs = the core damage frequency contributed by a ,
i minimal cut set -
! f,e = the initiating event frequency
- p,'s -= the probabilities of basic ~ events, allowing for the j influence of organizational factors I MCS
- IIE El P2l1
=
log (pali) a S Ll2 l1 + b ,
j 4
SLll1 2
=
{RWi i j
O i
l where R, = _ rating of dimension i j W, = weight with respect to dimension 1 k ,
Wu W,;
l~
d
{WW i
u u 4
p log (p ) = a(SLi g -=
7)+b i log (p,) u a(SLI g =
- 1) + b
- _ where p2 = the lower anchoring point, which is assumed to be-
- equal to the independent failure rate of event 2,
, and j- p,- = the upper anchoring point, which is assumed to be -
, equal to 1'.0 if events i anr12 involve similar-
. activities, and 0.1, if . they are different activities .
6 4
TF * -^FF f' +' W- =w = = -wTM'- m u+ ew m ! ew+s-Ny ew - w m-W4'C e-17 -- d eMp-=- W
i I
t f r 3' i s :
i t
S L' DETERMINE WEIGHTS' FOR EACH CANDIDATE PARAMETER GROUP
., i I-i FERFORMANCE OF A SPECIFIC MALhTENANCE TASK 4 .g I.
K- l 1 I g l l l 3 .
- Initiat:en Ptioritaraston PI:naing sencous;ngicoordinaaton . Execution Retute to. Norma!/Line.cp Documentstion
~
. [\ h k ,
i
?
}
1 Cer-fraherton ;
2 Camurucation - F.sternef +
-3 Commun cetson - - +
!nrerdepartmental j 4 CommwJcetion = . ?
Intradopsetmental 5^ Cocedination of Work ~ i 6 formekstion i
, 7 . - Cool PMtion !
8 Crgnizational Catture 9 Organizational Keentedge to Orgenizational f. earn:ng i- 11 Ownership .
t: Pedermwe Cvatoatoon >
- s3" Persorenel Sefecaum '
14 Problem Identit~cetion .
l 15 diascurc* A! location >
.16 Rote - flesponsicairy ?
, 17 Satsty Cantwo . ,
, t8 Tao?.nical Knowledge {
r 19 Time Uigency ;
20 Training h i
k.
t 3
p
,q-t.l:
r i
- 1 i
, _ ~
O AH_P FOR THE MISCALIBRATION (MC) CANDIDATE PABAMETER GROUP MISCA Lt!!!t ATIO N LEVEL.1 SCllCD U LI NU/COOft DINATION CX ECUTION H C TURN.TO.NO RM A UI.IN C.UP
/N /N /N 1.EVEL.2 3 Interdepartmental communication 4 Intradepartmental communication
, O 5 Coordination of work 6 Formalization 20 Training
~
Scheduling / Execution Return to Coordination normal line up .
Scheduling / (1,1) (1,1) (1,1)
Coordination Execution (1,1) (1,1) I Return to '(1,1) .
normal line-up Weights G333 0.333 0.333
/-
o li SENSITIV!TY ANALYSIS: NEW WEIGHTS 1
.~ . Sensitivity on weights - lPE FRESENT ANALYS!S g (AHP results, UP b 0.1) OUANTIFICATION ,
I T1 6.7 x' 10
- 5.7 x 10 MC1 3.0 x 10 3 ' 3.0 x 10 '
-- m.= ~ . ~ v . ~ ~
nega nz m. *g.. m, cr.=., ... r. ' . ,
YZ2As35;MC2 3 ;' 73.0 x 10 9 ; ' n s - 4.2.7 x 10 ~ _
-a, : - -
n .,~~rm g . w gm EVWN R;LOSPf13HR7 W?'w~ wnmumf$mm _
1 3 :x f1 0 r::
- e 1 ~ ' lJ7.4 x' 10
MCS FREQUENC# 6.7 x 10* 3.5 x 10' (per reactor year)'
[
- SEQUENCE FREO. 6.2 x 107 8.0 x 10' (per reactor year);
c ~ ,. c-w~-- ,- nm c,cm gw- ~ nasw v
m,%dgej1:SJx+10*"
4 3EF $@w hmt:1.0 x 10?6fd?S~
.,.g n,.
t
- @ CORE MELT!FREQ)w.@@l$$$$Q5NdN@$$2dE$$
5!NTdirYedEto7ySN)3k is;f Tf D^ i M_[_! _
L l'
[ .~-
l n-t i
u._--
w , =
O O O .
L l
_ SENSITIVITY ANALY_S__ I_S: ANOTHER MCS__
l .M CS: T1
- RE-V
- RE-P
- NR-LOSP-1.3HR r
i T1: Loss of offsite power RE-V
- RE-P: Loss of emergency ac power due to the less of both trains of the
- i. emergency service water system
.NR-LOSP-13HR: Failure to recover offsite power within 13 hrs after T1 r
! IPE Quantification Present Analysis T1' 5.7 x 10 4 5.7. x 104 RE-V 3.0 x 104 ,
3.0 x 10-'
( m,~ m - .
m-. m -
~y : ;%.3.8%faks., _M
~
RE-P ' gi _s _$f %- & O j :1 0 h % # h a esan --a :. _ w n ~o~v -a.
wifs3jt:1&'J:-fu n ~ w: i 8. T x ;f g F ,S ' ? eI NR-LOSP-13HR R
. w .m.m
. . . , .m .
MCS frequency (per gg_ ~gjgifg{m . spghfg 7?&d5..TxjfaQiqf wc mnea-w m;zgm:am e;m ry7j s
u~3:g y;a_u qm ~ 3_ :4:,s+ pa,::n. ( y - wzg; g _
' \ illl l Il 1I ,l O
S N
A L
P O E R
U T N U O F I T
. A E R D G
O E M T
N E I C N
E A T N E E L T P N M I O A C M o *
- lllL LllIi.ILl! . .
l ! .: ! lli l l ll[