ML20133H215

Summary of ACRS Subcommittee on Long-Range Plan for NRC 850516 Meeting in Washington,Dc Re Technical Issues Concerning Regulation of Nuclear Power Plant Safety Over Next 5 to 10 Yrs

ML20133H215
Person / Time
Issue date:	05/21/1985
From:	Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
To:	Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
References
ACRS-2316, NUDOCS 8508090239
Download: ML20133H215 (9)

Text

I //683- 4J &

Aze msu f mMRMTR J

J CERTIFIED COPY g{ g ghi ,MM[

~

ISSUED: MAY 21, 1985 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE LONG RANGE PLAN FOR NRC MAY 16, 1985 WASHINGTON, DC A meeting was held by the ACRS Subcommittee on the Long Range Plan for NRC on May 16, 1985 in Washington, D.C. The purpose of this meeting was to continue discussions on developing a Long Range Plan for the NRC.

Topics under discussion were primarily technical issues related to the regulation of nuclear power plant safety and safety regulation over the next five to ten years. The majority of the meeting consisted of discussions with Dr. John Ahearne, Vice President, Resources for the Future (RFF); Mr. Carl Giesler, Vice President-Power Production, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation (WPSC); Mr. James Knight, Acting Director, Divison of Engineering, NRR; and Mr. John West, Vice President (retired), Combustion Engineering (CE). Notice of this meeting was published in the Federal Register on Wednesday, May 1, 1985 (Attachment A). A meeting schedule is Attachment B. The entire meeting was open to the public. Richard Major was the assigned staff member for this meeting.

Participants ACRS Speakers M. Carbon, Chairman J. Ahearne, RFF D. Moeller, Member C. Giesler, WPSC F. Remick, Member J. West, CE C. Wylie, Member J. Knight, NRR R. Major, Staff Discussion With: John Ahearne, Vice President, Resources for the Future Dr. Ahearne suggested that a long range plan must go beyond technical l issues. It would be necessary to try to predict the future, honestly and objectively, prior to formulating a long range plan. Items such as power requirements and availability of power sources other than nuclear should be considered. Issues such as a separation of power generation companies from power distribution companies could be addressed. A long range plan for a regulatory agency could encourage new plant designs, i 8508090239 850521 DC iG::ATED ORIGINAL l PDR ACRS PDR 2316 1

o LONG RANGE PLAN 2 May 16, 1985 Meeting but should not attempt to design them. He felt the Committee should ha:e input to the formulation of a long range plan but should not be the group to actually write it. A long range plan, it was felt, would lose strength if it were a consensus document.

Dr. Ahearne felt that the U.S. energy supply was fairly diversified at present, that environmental issues will have an impact on the economics of various forms of power generation, and that, in the final analysis, the economics of power production will govern this country's choices.

In the future the NRC may be faced with reviewing a nuclear power plant of foreign design for operation in the U.S. He felt NRC should maintain the capability to accept such designs and review them efficiently.

One item Dr. Ahearne thought to be worthwhile is a review of the agency's regulations to see if they could be streamlined, consolidated, and, in some cases, discarded. A more coherent whole is needed. The NRC must face the question of how safe is safe enough, and decide if all good ideas must be backfit. He noted the United Kingdom (UK) performs a less detailed review than the U.S. The UK issues a certificate similar to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and then leaves the design alone. Once an acceptable level of risk is met, backfitting is not required.

Regarding quality assurance, Dr. Ahearne felt that what was really needed was tough standards. He feels current quality assurance problems are due in part to NRC not being tough enough.

In setting a safety goal it was suggested that NRC must set the standard and then have Congress endorse it. A level picked by Congress should be made in comparison to other risks taken by society as a whole. Such a process was estimated as taking four to five years.

1. May 16, 1985 Meeting LONG RANGE PLAN 3 o

In discussing research it was suggested that it be more focused on NRC's regulations. Research should attempt to quantify whether or not a regulation is too conservative or not conservative enough. The focus of the research in reviewing rules would depend on the areas thought to be important in the long range plan. The scenario picked for the future in the long range pion would guide the priorities of the research effort.

On the area of standardization Dr. Ahearne thought that for standardization to really work what would be necessary is a complete plant. What he believed to be necessary was something similar to an airworthiness certificate issued by the FAA. Standard plants would be identically the same.

Dr. Ahearne thought the use of designated representatives in areas of design, manufacturing and construction would be a good idea.

Certification points built into the system to close out portions of a project seemed appropriate.

Discussion With: Carl Giesler, Vice President-Power Production, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation Mr. Giesler felt that economics would make nuclear power important in the 1990's and early 2000's. He felt the cost of cleaning emissions from fossil plants will make the nuclear option more desirable.

Mr. Giesler explained that several conditions would be necessary prior to building another nuclear unit. The Price-Anderson Amendment would have to be extended. The enforcement policy should not be so punitive.

Backfitting can not continue as it has. The licensing process must be revamped; some assurance is necessary for a company to believe they can bring a nuclear unit on line in a timely manner. He also felt the issues of high- and low-level wastes are a political issue that must be resolved.

f LONG RANGE PLAN 4 May 16, 1985 Meeting The current backfit process is unworkable. He explained there are over a hundred changes scheduled to be made on WPSC single nuclear unit Kewaunee. This vast number of changes is felt to be counterproductive to safety. A true cost / benefit evaluation for every backfit must be made.

The morale of the operating crews was characterized as low. The requal-ification process requires operators to study and master many academic disciplines which are not relevant to plant operations. To keep up with the requalification challenge, operators spend 20-25% of their time in l training.

Mr. Giesler thought it would be worthwhile for NRC managers to be rotated through a utility corporate structure. This would allow NRC managers to observe the situations that arise when constructing or operating a nuclear plant. He also felt that the NRC's senior resident inspectors should be more involved with licensing actions. The resident inspectors do have an appreciation of the physical plant.

Mr. Giesler mentioned that nuclear plant operators were paid a wage similar to fossil plant operators. However, at Wisconsin Public Service nuclear operators are starting to be paid a premium to reflect the additional effort associated with nuclear operations.

, A one-step licensing process was characterized as a necessity. The hearing process was blamed for extreme delays that contributed little to l

l safety.

In discussing the nuclear industry's approach to quality assurance, Mr. Giesler felt it was averdone. Minor errors are blown out of proportion. He felt a performance-based quality assurance program would help and felt the designated representative concept had merit.

• LONG RANGE PLAN 5 May 16, 1985 Meeting The amount of unquantified conservatism applied to nuclear power plants needs to be put into perspective. Some sort of societal goals are

! necessary, so that resources spent on nuclear plant design conservatisms are not diverted from other areas of industrial safety, for example, the chemical or natural gas industries.

The plant operators at Wisconsin Public Service are high school graduates, qualified for the job of operator through testing. The best people are then promoted.

Mr. Giesler felt the area of plant security was receiving enough attention. He noted that plant security measures had stricter compliance requirements than safety related equipment. He was also concerned that security arrangements at plants might adversely affect operability.

( In the future, Mr. Giesler expects utilities to build plants smaller than the current generation plants. Penalties imposed by public utility commissions on excess capacity will tend to encourage utilities to construct smaller units. He also said he would seriously consider f buying a complete standard plant that includes balance of plant l features.

Discussion With: John West, Vice President (Ret.), Combustion j Engineering ,

Mr. West discussed the current effort by-EPRI on standardization. He suggested the ACRS become more involved with this development effort l especially at the outset. The effort was said to be a fresh look at I light water power reactors, designed to take the best features from existing experience and produce a standard plant concept.

LONG RANGE PLAN 6 May 75, 1985 Meeting Some distinction between new plants and old plants needs to be made.

Care must be taken in adding improvements to plants once they begin operation. Some more thought needs to be given to cost / benefit.

Currently if an improvement makes a plant a little safer it is added.

Mr. West encouraged pursuing the source term. A foolproof containment that would always conta.in fission products would virtually eliminate offsite hazards. Emergency planning would then be unnecessary. The benefits to the public perception of nuclear power would be worth the added cost of such a containment.

"" . West wondered about the sharing of industry's R&D dollars. If one

.endor proves a concept, why should the NRC Staff require the next supplier to use the concept to prove it again?

l Prior to any more nuclear plants being ordered, utility executives must l have more confidence that schedules and costs can be predicted.

Economics will drive the choice between nuclear and fossil plants, but Mr. West believes both will survive in the next fifteen years.

James Knight, Acting Director, Division of Engineering, NRR l

i Mr. Knight thought the agency should have a Long Range Plan. He noted that often available resources are used addressing the day-to-day f

situations that arise. He believed the agency should develop the internal energy to look ahead.

He felt that in some cases admini:,trative issues have driven ter h:iical issues. In one instance he noted that the licensing process was so cumbersome it inhibited making changes. Approved designs are not improved or modified for fear of regulatory delays.

In the area of quality assurance Mr. Knight expressed some concerns. He was concerned that even at the current levels improper components are

4 k

4 LONG RANGE PLAN 7 May 16, 1985 Meeting installed and they are not found until a much later time. He was I concerned that the current quality assurance system has increased costs, but felt quality had not risen in proportion to costs. He also wondered why good quality commercial grade material is not sufficient for nuclear plant use. He.noted that the increased procedures and costs associated with producing nuclear grade material is driving vendors from the

, nuclear business.

Mr. Knight felt the long range plan effort would force a look at the current regulations and regulatory publication. A prioritization should be established to review these documents.

In the future, Mr. Knight felt, the Staff must learn to use the expertise that exists in industry rather than trying to duplicate it.

Closino Session Dr. Carbon explained the next meeting of the Long Range Plan Subcom-

- mittee is scheduled for July 10, 1985. He will invite an additional ,

group of guests with whom the Subcommittee will continue discussions.

NOTE: A complete transcript of the meeting is on file at the NRC

- Public Document Room at 1717 H St., N.W., Washington, D.C.

or can be obtained at cost from Ann Riley & Associates, 1625 I St., N.W., Suite 921, Washington, D.C. 20006, telephone (202)293-3950.

t i

i

m

. .~

l' Federal Registrr / Vol. So, No. M / W2dnesday. May 1;1th ih i M i

supplemental petitions and/or requests consultar ta. and Seuff. Murname destrius amp 'khs asks 6'aufflif#'

san ==fwes d te *E Ae== ='Itse, tts -

for heann will not be ectertained to sgake oral statements abannld moufy absent a detennination by the the ACRS staff =>=her named below as camouksets. and 9taff. Pertoes dudeteg t

far in ademmoe as la practicable se that. to sabe tid statements shaqdditedy Commission. the presiding officer or b ap te enangesmerds can he ===de. the A(25 sentanseber =&amed betow as

< Atomic Safety and ucensmg Board As la adeemos as to practinMe se est the initial portfee of the designated to rule on the petition request, that the petitioner has made a and/or meeting. the Subcoaumittee, aloeg'with appreyrtete are==g===sts omnheinees.

r any of its conaaltants who assy be During the initial portion of Sie substantial showing of good cause for the granting of a late petition and/or prenant, many exchange prehminary meetaas. the %Aaar==lan== einesedth views reprding asetters to be any ofits eMannia who may be request. net determination will be present, may exchange preuninary based upon a balancing of the factors considered during the balance of the views meerding matters to be specified in to CMt 2.714(a)(1)(IHv) and meeting. canoidend during the balants of the He hhma'ahtaa will than bear 2.714(d). meetmg For further details with respect to this presentations by and hold ri-aions with representatfees of the NRC Staff. The Subcomunfttee wtB Iben bear cction. see the licensee's application for presentattoos by and hold discussions cmendment dated April 9.1985, the its consultanta, and other interested persons regardaag this review. with represenestives of the NRC Staff.

steam generator inspection interval its conodeanta, and other triterested Further information regardutg topics report submitted March 19.1985, and the persons regardng this ewetew NRC staffs safety evaluation dated to be discussed, whether the meeting Fustberinformationregudas espics February 7.1984 which are available for hu been e-N or searhaduled. the to be discumeed. whether the meeting Chairman's neling on requests for the public inspection at the Commission's bas been canceGad or resubedaled, the qpportunity to present oral sta tsmen*=

Public Document Room.1717 H Street Casinnan's ruhus en requests Fur the NW. Washington, D.C, and at the San and the time aDotted therefor cza be obtained by a prepaid talephone call to oppwtanity to presamt aral statsenents Clemente Pubbe IJbrary. 242 Avenida the cognizant ACRS staff ===her. Mr. and the time atlan=<f therefor can be Del Mar. San Clemente, California ah*=mari by a pegald telepheme cau to Richard Majar [ telephone 202/634-1414) 92672. the rngnr==nt ACRS stuff member. Adr.

between 8:15,aan.and 520 p.m..EST.

Deted et Bethe da. Mary (and. tfus zsth day Persons plaruung to attend this meeting Herman Alderman (*=3*aka=> 302/e54-of Apnl taas. are urged to contact the above named 1414} between his a.m. and teo pa.

For the Nuclear Regalatory Comrnission. individual one or two days before the EST. Persons planning to attamd this scheduled meeting to be advised of any meets,g are urged to ===*=r* the abore lehn AJe .

named individual one or two days i chief, cpem: ire Reactors Branch No i changes in schedule, ete, wiuch may '

before the meAarfuled meeting to be NU " *l'"* have occurred.

advised of any changes th schedeia,etc j W e6-1057 m &45mm) Detad Apr9 2E m which may have occurred. ,

enAass cena run ow Morton W. th Assistont Exenrrrve Dnectorfor Prcycef Deted Aprisk1851 Review. Morton W. UbaAta.

thoclear Regulatory Commisalon (rit Doc. 45-185r5 Filed 4-3D-a5;It45 am) Auistenf AbreceerveDrroevorfbreiefect f Advisory Committee on Reactor Aeriew. ,

Safeguards; Subcomadttee on Long samo coes timoe-a j Range Plan for NRC; Moeting [nt Doc.es-lesr4 Pned 4-sNec tes aml

'"""*"' l ne ACRS Subcommittee on long Advtsory Cemmittee on plenctor -

Range Plan for NRC will hold a meeting SaW k SaboompvWthe on ,

8Y '""# " P9'8" (3*" POSTAL.EUIVICE tree t .W i o .

ne ACRS Subcommittce on M**Y A*8 'I E 8Y"'"' #

pu ic a t d nee Systematic Evaluation Program (San ne agenda for subject meeting shall aanscy:Pcsand gereice.

Onofre) will hold a meeting on May 15.

be as followr 1965. Room 104A,1717 H Street NW, Thisrsday. May 16.1985-430 a.ar until acreoec Advanoe notice of new routine Washington. DC. m to be added to an an=hry sysassa of the condusion ofbusiness .

ne entzre aseeting wiU be open to records, and final motice of the deletion he Subcommittee will continue to of a tempormy contine m.

develop a long range plan for the NRC. Public attendance.

ne agenda for the subgect meeuas Topics to be discussed are technical and sW be as foHows: suestia d e se of !MS Mn*nt administrative issues related to the is to petmde ' on for pobhc Wednesday. May 14 2sB54M o.m. comment concemtng the Puotal Service,s regulation of nuclear power plant safety euullJAe cortdueioa afhusinaos and safety regulation over the next 5 to Proposal to add a mw routim m to 10 years. ne Sehmmmittee wit weiew the Integrated Piant Safety Analysis Report *Ystem USPS 050.028. Finance Records-Oral ststements may be presented by Payrou Syskm. and to publish notice of members of the public with the (IPSARJ kr San Onofre Unit 1.

Oral statememts may be presented by the deletion of a W q toutiu m concurrence of the Subcommittee members of the public with the to that sy*m. -

Chairman; written statements will be satt: Any laterested . party may submit eccepted and made available to the concurrence of the Sobcomasittee written comments on Part 2 of this Committee. Recordings will be permitted Chairman: written sesterments will be notice regartfing the pmposed new only during those partions of the accepted ann made arallable to the Committee. Recordings wiU be permitted ructine one. Comraents must ce received meeting when a transcript is being kept. on er before Mey 31.1985. Part 1 became and questions may be anled only by only during those partions of the effective February 3,1985.

meeting when a transcript is being kept.

members of the Subcommit6ee.its ATTACHMENT A 1

l

A rro e p p9 eu y g e-PROPOSED SCHEDULE ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON LONG RANGE PLAN FOR NRC MAY 16, 1985 WASHINGTON, DC 8:30 a.m. 1. Chairman's Introduction 10 min

a. Objectives

b. Discussion of schedule' 8:40 a.m. 2. Discussion with: John Ahearne 2 hrs Vice President, Resources for the Future 10:40 a.m. *** BREAK *** 10 min 10:50 a.m. 3. Discussion with Carl Giesler, 2 hr Vice President-Power Production, Wisconsin Public Service Corporatios 12: 50 p.m. * *

• L U N C H *

• 1 hr 1:50 p.m. 4. Discussion with: John West, 2 hrs Vice President (ret.), Combustion Engineering 3:50 p.m. * *

• B R E A K * *

• 10 min ,

4:00 p.m. 5. Discussion with James Knight, Acting 2 hrs Director, Division of Engineering, NRR 6:00 p.m. ADJ0 URN 1

ATTACHMENT B 1