ML20138B753
| ML20138B753 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/11/1985 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-2335, NUDOCS 8510220014 | |
| Download: ML20138B753 (22) | |
Text
-
hb of3 35
' f '? l i -
I '
?
/$W/6/7/3'
!Q( } , _
j' . CERTIFIED COPY DATE ISSUED:0ctober 11,1985 MINUTES OF THE JULY 10-11, 1985 NEETING OF THE ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON A LONG RANGE PLAN FOR THE NRC The ACRS Subcommittee on a Long Range Plan for the NRC met on July 10-11, 1985 in Room 1167 at 1717 H St. NW., in Washington, D. C. The purpose of the meeting was to develop information relative to technical issues related to the regulation of nuclear power plant safety and '
safety regulation-over the next 5 to 10 years. Notice of this meeting was published in the Federal Register on Friday, June 21, 1985 (Attach-ment A). A list of persons attending the meeting is attached (Attach-ment B). A copy of the schedule of discussion is also attached (Attach-ment C). Material distributed to the Subcomittee during this meeting is listed on Attachment D. Copies of these documents are on file in the ACRS office. The entire meeting was open to public attendance. No written statements were received from members of the public and no one requested an opportunity to make an oral statement. Two members of the l public were present during portions of the meeting.
8510220014 851011 PDR ACRS Attendees 2335 PDR l
ACRS Invited Speakers i
M. W. Carbon, Subcom. Chairman Warren Owen, Duke Power Co.
H. W. Lewis William McDowell, U.S.,
D. W. Moeller Gen. Accounting Office G. A. Reed Roger Mattson, International F. J. Remick Dr3IciinnD 02IGIHL Energy Associates g Q St.e g Floyd Culler, EPRI l
- ~1 II 4 ili 1 ertified By M N j j i ; ' ,'J '
bWhNN)!Nb
MINUTES /LONG RANGE PLAN 2 FOR THE NRC, July 10-11,'85
, C. J. Wylie John Taylor, EPRI J. C. McKinley, Staff Others Mike Cheok, NUS Roxanne Goldsmith, NRC L. S. Watson, Bechtel George Sauter, IPRI Johnny Elliott, Duke Power.Co.
Jack Berga, EPRI Opening Statement Dr. Carbon, Subcommittee Chainnan, opened the meeting at 10:00 a.m.,
Wednesday, July 10, 1985 with a statement regarding the cvtv of the meeting, introducing the Subcommittee members present and noting the alteration in the proposed schedule resulting from Mr. Peter Bradford's last minute cancellation. He confirmed the topics and scope of dis-cussion.
Warren Owen The first speaker was Mr. Warren Owen, Executive Vice President, Engi-neering, Construction, and Production Group, Duke Power Company. Mr.
Owen described the long range planning practice of Duke Power Company; pointing out that Duke does its own design and construction. Strategic planning is done by a management comittee of senior corporation offi-cers which meets about four times a year. Planning is done from the top down with the lower echelons solving the short term issues. He also pointed out that Duke takes longer to construct a plant than others since it uses its own crafts people and doesn't build up to the huge number of workers on site that others encounter. He estimated that l
l
[
MINUTES /LONG RANGE PLAN 3
.. FOR THE NRC, July 10-11,'85 40-50% of the cost of a nuclear plant was finance charges. He also estimated that fossil fired plants cost about 65-70% as much as nuclear units, however in the long term the nuclear units produced electricity more economically than the fossil units (coal fired units ran about 20%
higher than the 6-7c/kw-br of nuclear). Even though Duke's fossil units are among the most efficient in the world, nuclear is a bargain for the consumer.
Duke will need additional generating capacity in 1994-1995 and it is already too late for nuclear and probably too late for coal so the decision may be for combustion turbines which won't be economical for the consumer.
Mr. Owen expects there will be electrical brownouts or blackouts before
(
the American society decides it needs to' stabilize regulation. This is true of the public utility commissions as well as the NRC. Fundamental change is required to establish stability. The inclusion of con- '
struction work in progress (CWIP) in the rate base is an important factor in stability and in keeping consumer costs to a minimum. Mr.
Owen concluded that nuclear power is'a bargain for the consumer, a '
headache for the utility and an anathema to the investor, Mr. r Owen pointed out a difference between running the business (nuclear !
power generation) and responding to regulatory requirements. He urged '
that the two not be confused but be attended to separately. He inter-preted the Rogovin and Kemeny reports that came out of the TMI accident i
as saying " Emphasize training and qualifications of people and the human i factors management process. t If you do that, things are going to work ,
out fair.ly well." The other thing he got out of those reports was that P
'- MINUTES /LONG RANGE PLAN 4 FOR THE NRC, July 10-11,'85 the NRC should not be prescriptive in its requirements. The industry took some of these things to heart and established INPO and NUMARC. He didn't think the NRC was as responsive. The only major improvement was the establishment of the CRGR. He credited CRGR with providing suffi-cient control that Catawba is currently ahead of schedule and under budget.
He thought that the NRC Regulations should be simplified, then let the designers simplify the plants.
Mr. Reed agreed that it would be nice to have simpler regulations but he pointed out the problem of the licensee that is intent on meeting only the minimums. To accommodate this entity, the regulations must be detailed.
Mr. Owen noted that INPO and NUMARC were formed to urge excellence on the utilities, to exceed the minimums. He also noted that the NRC should not endorse an INP0 or NUMARC standard because they are not minimum standards and no one can be excellent all of the time.Mr. Owen also noted that the Supreme Court ruled that a Federal regulatory agency, the FAA, had a statutory duty to promote safety but was not required to ensure it. He thinks the same is true of the NRC. The NRC and utility management must provide an environment in which the opera-tors can run the plant safely.
i Mr. Wylie asked about standardization, and Mr. Owen replied that true standardization was impossible to achieve. Mr. Owen thought the ap-proach to standardization was an attitude of not wanting things differ-ent without good reason.
Stick with what works and fix what doesn't.
MINUTES /LONG RANGE PLAN 5 I FOR THE NRC, July 10-11,'85 Avoid ginsnicks. With regard to the comparison to standardized air-i planes, Mr. Owen noted that there are lots of different designs of airplanes flying today. Even within a model line there are many variations.
With regard to safety philosophy, Mr. Owen thought that the defense in depth concept had served the industry well. He did express concern over ,
~
putting in gimmicks that are aimed at improving the chaeces of dealing with an accident that might happen once in a thousand years. He noted that reactor vessel water level instruments are being installed in the Oconee Units. He pointed out that PRA studies show these devices are ;
not worthwhile and the NRC Staff agrees, but now the process is too burdensome to stop. He did not agree that averted costs to the utility should be included on the benefit side of the cost benefit equation. He noted that the TMI-2 accident can be looked at as an economic disaster for the company because of the accident or because of our country's inability to deal with the accident.
1 Mr. Owen thinks the nuclear industry is too paperwork oriented with regard to quality assurance (QA). Many people view QA as a burden rather than a management tool to carry out the licensee's responsibil-ity. He noted that Duke monitors individual workers in certain crafts to evaluate their performance, if a worker has too many rejects he is moved out because it costs a lot of money to correct poor workmanship.
Good quality cannot be inspected in, it has to be built in. Inspection is just another management tool.
l
MINUTES /LONG RANGE PLAN 6 FOR THE NRC, July 10-11,'85 Mr. Owen believes that nuclear plants have long since reached the appropriate level of safety. He believes the NRC needs to manage its regulatory process as much as the utilities need to manage their plants.
Mr. Owen opposed ~ excessive automation end wanted the operator designed into the system to handle the things we haven't foreseen. There are some routine things that the operator shouldn't be burdened with and should be automated. Current plants have gone beyond that point.
Mr. Owen's views on several short topics were:
Don't spend a lot of money studying decommissioning; plants may run for 75 years.
Historic evidence indicates power plants stand up well to earthquakes.
NUMARC is attempting to deal with the sabotage issue; access controls hinder the ability of the operators to operate the plant well. Know and monitor the work force TMI showed that our containment systems work very well Cost-benefit analyses should be dcne for backfit issues. We don't need more gimmicks.
There is no quantified way to determine if an organization is qualified to build and operate a nuclear plant. INP0 applies peer pressure to get utility management to shape up.
. An indicator of trouble within an organization is when its members refer to "they" instead of "we."
MINUTES /LONG RANGE PLAN 7 FOR THE NRC, July 10-11,'85 INP0.and a number of utilities are in contact with foreign countries to exchange information. Duke Power Co. is involved in a number of such agreements.
Some time in the future Duke Power Co. may buy a foreign designed reactor.
The check pilot system has worked well with the large airlines but not very well with the small ones. The same may prove true of the check operator concept.
The NRC needs to exchange views with knowledgeable industry people and to seek help from the expertise that resides in the industry.
A National Reactor Operator training Academy probably would not succeed, INP0 accreditation of utility training programs is the way to' go.
NUMARC is looking into the operator requalification issue and is trying to define the problem. i If an NTSB type investigating team is set up, it shouldn't have a punitive function and could include industry representation.
Bill McDowell -U.S. GA0 Dr. Carbon explained that the Subconnittee was seeking information to i assist in developing-a long-range plan for the NRC.
P Mr. McDowell explained that he was a GA0 evaluator and had been involved '
l l in nuclear matters since the accident at Three Mile Island, Unit 2. He l !
l e , -
- - - , ,.r- - - - - - -.- ,n-- ,. , - - . - - -
i MINUTES /LONG RANGE PLAN 8
,- FOR THE NRC, July 10-11,'85 I
noted that his remarks are his personal observations and not necessarily those of the GA0 or the Comptroller General. A recent report of GA0 findings is "Probabilistic Risk Assessment: An Emerging Aid to Nuclear Power Plant Safety Regulation" GA0/RCED-85-5 dated April 24, 1985.
There is a report on backfitting in preparation, and another, on the Three Mile Island Action Plan, is at the printer's. He pointed out that the GA0 has no enforcement. power but its reports are submitted to Congress and the agency must respond within a specified time. He described how his office obtained information for its reports.
Mr. McDowell foresaw the NRC more oriented toward operation than con-struction and design. He felt that a well operated plant was a safe plant. He expressed concern that the U.S. has given up its lead ia nuclear power technology to foreign designers. He wondered if the U.S.
NRC was addressing the right things. He was bothered by the adversarial relationship between the NRC and the industry. He felt the HRC ignored the wealth of information that is in the field at the operating units.
He cited the NRC requirements of a probable maximum precipitation of 19 inches of rain an hour as a case of excessive requirements. He knew of no instance where rainfall had reached that rate. As an example of constructive cooperation, he cited the living schedule developed for the Duane Arnold facility. This is a case where both the utility and the NRC laid out their needs and agreed upon a schedule aimed at meeting those needs.
Mr. McDowell expressed his concern for NRC requirements that blanket the industry. He favored plant specific application. He also felt that w - - , ,
MINUTES /LONG RANGE PLAN 9 FOR THE NRC, July 10-11,'85 CRGR was being bypassed on occasion. Dr. Siess noted that there are these that claim CRGR has a chilling effect on beneficial changes.
It was Mr. McDowell's view that if the NRC had been more concerned with safe operation than compliance with regulations, the Davis Besse loss of feedwater event of June 9,1985 would not have occurred. He also noted that he and the NRC Staff agree that there is a wide difference between :
operating safely and meeting regulatory requirements. Dr. Siess pointed out that the NRC Staff emphasises that it is up to the licensee to be sure it is safe.
The adversarial relationship between the NRC Staff and the utilities was discussed further with examples being cited. Mr. Remick pointed out Congress' role in creating the adversarial relationship. Mr. McDowell favored a reduction in the adversarial climate.
The role of the NRC Project Manager was discussed. The current role is that of coordinator, Mr. McDowell thought that it should be more of a liaison between site activities and technical review with an eye to the ;
big picture. ,
During the discussion of the competence of the NRC staff it was men-tioned that it would be beneficial for staff members to have experience as participative members at an operating plant. Mr. Sauter (EPRI) endorsed the idea but also observed that it might be useful for some licensee personnel to spend a tour with the NRC to understand the pressures and limitations that the staff works under.
MINUTES /LONG RANGE PLAN 10 FOR THE NRC, July 10-11,'85 !
t l
Dr. Moeller mentioned his frustration in trying to consider a long-range [
plan for the NRC when there isn't any kind of national energy plan. j Such a plan might define the role of nuclear power. It would also be helpful to know EPA's position on acid-rain or the greenhouse effect.
i Roger Mattson '
Dr. Carbon welcomed Dr. Mattson and explained the purpose of the meet-
{
ing. Dr. Mattson replied that he found the letter of invitation very interesting and he felt that this effort was overdue. He noted that, after the Three Mile Island accident, the Kemeny Comission made quite a fuss out of the lack of long-range planning or policy development by the ;
NRC. Dr. Mattson supported the concept of long-range planning but preferred to change the name to strategic planning. He uffered the visualization of a pyramid with three levels. The top level was the !
strategic plan, the middle was the tactical, and the bottom was the operational plan. Most offices and divisions in the NRC have opera-tional plans which are upgraded or revised several times a year and cover a budget cycle of two or three years. There is also a tactical plan which is the Program Planning Guide (PPG) which is updated annual-ly. There is no strategic plan. A strategic plan deals with policy ;
setting and positioning, preparing to change things for the future, not i
just forecasting things beyond the agency's control and anticipating to accomodate them but actually trying to shape the future and develop a :
strategy for the future.
t I
MINUTES /LONG RANGE PLAN 11 FOR THE NRC, July 10-11,'85 Dr. Mattson did not think the ACRS or OPE were the right groups to do strategic planning. It should be done by the five Commissioners. The r
strategy has to be set by the head of the organization. The head may use staff to help but the final product must be that of the head.
Perhaps a "facilitator" could be retained to direct the effort and keep it on track.
The first step that Dr. Mattson suggested was to define the current domain of the NRC. The second was to make a strategic forecast, what things beyond NRC's control are going to happen in the future (what are the opportunities and threats in the future)? The third was to define current strengths and weaknesses. These three things could be done by staff personnel. The fourth step was to develop and make decisions on alternatives. The final step was to set objectives based on step four.
The strategy is decided, now develop the tactics to accomplish the objectives.
Dr. Mattson suggested some things that are currently within the NRC's ;
domain and he mentioned some uses, direct and indirect, of approaches issued by the NRC. He also discussed the integration of domains such as ,
federal and state regulations affecting a utility; what could be changed?' The roles of. EPA, DOE and others need to be considered.
i The concept of differential advantage was introduced. The NRC's differ-ential advantage is federal preemption of the regulation of nuclear matters. Another is experience and institutional memory. A third is the good safety record. There was a lively discussion of the strengths
MINUTES /LONG RANGE PLAN 12
, FOR THE NRC, July 10-11,'85 i
and weaknesses of the NRC. Dr. Mattson had many examples of each as did the Subcommittee.
Dr. Mattson noted his sense of'an increasing adversarial tone between many facets of the NRC and groups that it deals with. He speculated that this might be the consequence of increasing formalization of I communication. Procedures are precluding the ability to ventilate '
issues and talk on a professional level. !
Dr. Mattson discussed a number of alternatives for the NRC as well as a ,
number ,0f ' threats." The conflicting advice in the advanced reactor state 0ent was noted by Dr. Mattson and members of the Subcommittee.
The frequancy of review of the strategic plan was brought up and a number of suggestions made. It didn't anpear that yearly revisions !
would be needed, but when events occur that would affect the plan then it should be reviewed. It was suggested that the first one be ,
developed, then look at it to decide when to revise it.
Dr. Moeller asked who was responsible for developing a national energy i plan or scenario? Dr. Mattson hadn't thought about that but suggested that such organizations as DOE and Resources for the Future might be contributors.
?
Dr. Mattson pointed out that one can plan themselves into inaction so don't let planning dominate the organization. ,
- i
, MINUTES /LONG RANGE PLAN 13 - ;
FOR THE NRC, July 10-11,'85 i With regard to .the question of plant automation, Dr. Mattson noted that the technology was developing rapidly and there is not much the agency can do to hold it back. - The strategic point is to put yourself in a !
position to cope with automation. I i
A wide variety of topics were discussed regarding their strategic, r tactical, or operational relevance. !
Floyd Culler and John Taylor - EPRI i Dr. Carbon welcomed Mr. Culler and Mr. Taylor and explained the purpose ;
of the meeting. !
1 Mr. Culler said that the enthusiasm for nuclear power as a potential l baseload plant remains in the industry. Nuclear power can still~ be I 15-20% less expensive than coal it the nuclear plant is well done. The problems lie in the process of. regulation and to some. extent in the i regulations themselves. Regulation clearly contributes to costs and !
' delays. However, the costs to individual utilities to protect them-selves from loss are greater than the costs to protect the public. Not all nuclear utilities appreciate that fact. ;
It was pointed out that the EPRI board was reluctant to pursue > advanced LWR designs for fear that any improvements identified would be backfit i
into existing plants. There needs to be a definition of an adequate ;
(and acceptable) level of safety. f P
MINUTES /LONG RANGE PLAN 14 I
,- FOR THE NRC, July 10-11,'85 Mr. Culler said that nuclear power should not be compared to zero risks '
but to other means of generating electrical energy. He forecast a new era of industrial growth in the U.'S, due to the ability to deliver energy in several forms to the right place in the right quantity at the {
right time. He proposed that the primary goals of the NRC should h
include a balance of safety vs. risk vs. economic costs. Secondary j, goals would include stabilized regulation and reduced time for !
construction. This would include rigid adherence to the licensing i schedule. Safety goals need to be set and a hierarchy of safety I measures established. He predicted that each plant would eventually use PRA in design and construction. He suggested greater coordination
, between the Licensing Boards, Appeals Board, and local site representatives.
?
Mr. Taylor addressed the technical issues identified.in the letter of invitation. One element of simplification was with the regulations
[
themselves. One of the- primary goals of the EPRI advanced design is simplification. There should be design features to place less burden on ;
the operators.
i Mr. Taylor emphasized that current plants are adequately safe but future plants can have improved. safety. He raised the question of why spend !
money on a new design when you dcn't know what requirements you will be required to meet? He thought that stabilization of the regulatory process was badly needed by the industry. He did not suggest change in i the regulations but asked for case-by-case reviews of utility proposals i to improve or simplify nuclear plant designs. Changing the regulations i
- + = " - ' 4qm I- ~ +-+-g - - - - m m -+r - s-m 4,. - - - - - - - g+y g-y-yq," my-4 -wae"q-'em-
MINUTES /LONG RANGE PLAN 15
.' FOR THE NRC, July 10-11,'85 would make all utilities have to comply and would contribute to instability. He is trying to recapture the flexibility he thought was built into the system originally.
Mr. Taylor pointed out that the EPRI Utility Advisory Comittee had rejected a proposal to design an advanced light-water reactor because they had no idea of what regulations would have to be met to build it.
Subsequent work with the NRC Staff demonstrated that many issues could be resolved and the Utility Advisory Comittee subsequently approved the advanced light-water reactor studies.
Mr. Sauter. suggested there were at least two areas of stability that are needed; one in the requirements for new plants and the other in the requirements for operating plants. Dr. Lewis agreed that these two areas should be kept separate.
The overconservatisrr that was applied in early designs to compensate for uncertainty was noted and it was suggested that it could be relaxed now that more is known about plant performance. Seismic restraints were ,
cited as one of these areas.
Mr. Taylor thought there was merit to a mix of probabilistic and deterministic approaches in future regulatory actions. He also viewed the quality ' assurance problems as being up to the industry to solve, not only for construction but also for maintenance and operation. It was ;
again noted that the continuity of the " paper trail" doesn't assure or l
i l
I
, MINUTES /LONG RANGE PLAN 16 ,
FOR THE NRC, July 10-11,'85 '
degrade quality. Quality is a function of the craftsman and/or design-er, i
i The question of "how safe is safe-enough?" was discussed and a sug- j gestion was made to compare nuclear power to alternate means of gen-eration. Artificial intelligence is anticipated to provide a signifi-cant assist to the plant operators along with automation. The Japanese ;
are experimenting with voice recognition so that an operator can orally ask a question of the system and receive an oral reply.
Mr. Taylor thought the NRC should continue to have a major rule in safety research. By doing so the NRC would maintain the independence of technical judgement that is essential for a credible agency. Mr. Taylor i
reported that he and his senior staff meet with NRC's Mr. Minogue and his senior staff two or three times a year to compare research programs to avoid duplication and see who should do what.
Dr. Lewis mentioned the possibility that it may never be economic to !
decomission a major reactor, but to continue to repair or replace i components and systems. He noted that aircraft licenses do not expire, parts are replaced as they wear out.
i Standardization was discussed. The EPRI representatives wanted system functional standardization with the flexibility to make changes or ,
improvements within the package. The concept would not require replica- ,
tion from plant to plant. It was thought that the NRC Commissioners-were thinking of standardization as replication or duplication. l
, MINUTES /LONG RANGE PLAN 17
,- FOR THE NRC, July 10-11,'85 l Mr. Taylor pleaded for the NRC and the ACRS to become involved in the standards setting for high-level waste. He thought that the EPA was running away in this area and would set standards so stringent that no ,
repository could be built, t Mr. Taylor expressed industry's view that a stable, well-designed set of '
regulations governing decomissioning was needed.
L Mr. Taylor's approach to sabotage would be to make reactors easier to
- operate and thus harder to mess up. They should be provided with highly r effective diagnostic aids which could detect something that was wrong. I Mr. Culler mentioned a set of IAEA guides that are not widely distribut-ed and suggested they be considered for future designs. Also mentioned was a civil defence study done over a period of years at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
I Dr. Lewis recalled that an American Physical Society study once conclud- !
ed that an act of sabotage could not produce an accident more severe i
I than'those currently postulated, but could only increase the probability of it.
1 -
With regard to the adversarial nature of regulation Mr. Sauter attribut-ed it, in part, to a loss of sight of the overall objective and a focusing on the means or process. People become very defensive when l threatened by fines or other adverse actions.
l i
l l
l l
- -- .- - - - - , . ~ . , , - . .. . , . _ . . -
MINUTES /LONG RANGE PLAN 18 FOR THE NRC, July 10-11,'85 Mr. Taylor opposed a government run operator training facility. He thought that the industry should provide effective high-quality training for its operators.
Mr. Culler suggested that each NRC Commissioner be assigned certain responsibilities, for example.
- 1. Coordinate various agency boards, panels, and staff functions.
- 2. Coordinate agency actions with the 50 states
- 3. Coordinate agency actions with industry 4." Coordinate agency actions with various Federal agencies With regard to non-light-water advanced reactors, Mr. Culler said there l was no possibility that any reactor development would be funded by the utilities. Whatever is done will have to come from the government.
Dr. Carbon thanked the participants for their views and adjourned the meeting. The topic was scheduled for discussion at the August 8-10, 1985 meeting of the ACRS.
NOTE: A complete transcript of the meeting is on file at the NRC Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, D. C.
or can be obtained at cost from Ann Riley & Associates, Court Reporters, 1625 I St., NW., Suite 921, Washington, D. C. 20006 (202)293-3950.
-- . -, .-.__v ,, ,.... .. .. , ... . ____
Electric's lon . term seismic program Thursday. July JJ,1985 -dJop.m. until ne entire meeting wl!!be open
= plan for Diab o Canyon. 9. cop.m. -
. public cttendanos. .< ~v }
Orel ststements may be presented by The Subcommittee vill continue ne agenda for the subject anseting members of the public with the discussions on developng commente on shallbe as follows:
concurrence of the Subcommittee k
a long range plan for th, NRC. Topics 7besday.fuly A Jass-Jmp.m. antilthe '
/ Chairman; written statements will be under discussion are prircarily technical . conclusion ofbusiness ~ f, o =W -- ' --- ' - -'"* * 'o th e issues related to the regulation of l
%e Subcommittee will discuss troent, Committee. Recordings will be permitted nut! ear power plant safety and safety -
only during those portions of the regulation over the next 5 to to years. operating occurences.
Oral statements may h presented by meeting when a transcript is being kept. ' Oral statements may be presented by and questions may be asked only by members of the public with the .
members of the public with the concurrence of the Subcommittee ,-
members of the Subcommittee its concurrence of the Subcommittee Chairman; written statements will be
. consultants and Staff. Persons desiring Chairman; written statements will be to make oral statements should notify accepted and made available to the accepted and made available to the Committee. Recordings will be permitted the ACRS staff member named below as Committee. Recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the *
- f '
far in advance as is practicable so that only during those portions of the meeting when a transcript is being kept, appropriate arrangements can be made, meeting when a transcript is being kept, During tha initial port:an of the and questions may be asked only by and questions may be asked only by' members of the Subcommittee.its meeting. the Subcommittee along with members of Subcommittee.its any ofits consultants who may be consultants, and staff. Persons desiring i consultents. and Staff. Persons desiring to make oral statements should notify present. may exchange preliminary to make oral statements should notify views regarding matters to be the ACRS staff member named below as considered during the balance of the the ACRS staff member named below as far in advance as is practicable so that meeting. far in advance as is practicable so that - appropriate arrangements can be made.
- appropriate arangements can be made. During the initialportion of the The Subcommittee will then hear During the initial portion of the presentations by and hold discussions meeting, the Subcommittee, along with meeting. the Subcommittee, along with any of its consultants who may be ..
- with representatises of the Pacific Gas any ofits consultants who may be present, may exchange preliminary .' '
and Electric Company. the NRC Staff. its present. may exchange preliminary views regarding matters to be consultants. and other interested views regarding matters to be persons regard ng this review. considered during the balance of the considered during the balance of the meeting. . -
Further information regarding topics meeting. -
to be discussed. whether the meeting The Subcommittee will then hear The Subcommittee will then hear has been cancelled or resheduled, the presentations by and hold discussions
- presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC Staff.
Chairman's ruling on requests for the with reptesentatives of the NRC Staff.
opportunity to present oral statements Its consultants, and otherinterested .
its consultants, and other interested persont regarding this review.
and the time allotted therefore can be per' sons regarding this review.
obtained by a prepaid telephone call to Further information regarding topfes Further information regarding topics to be discussed, whether the meeting
, the cognizant ACRS staff member. Mr. to be discussed. whether the meeting has been cancelled or rescheduled, the Elpidio G. Igne (telephone 202/634-1414) has been cancelled or rescheduled, the between 815 a.m and 5 00 p m. persons Chairman's ruling on requests for the Chairman's ruling on requests for the opportunity to present oral statements planning to sttend this meeting are opportunity to present oral statements urged to contact the above named and the time allotted therefor can be and the time allotted therefor can be obtained by a prepaid telephonetall to individual one or two days before the obtained by a prepaid telephone call to scheduled meeting to be advised of any the cognizant ACRS staff member. Mr.
the cognizant ACRS staff member Mr. Herman Alderman (telephone 202/834-changes in schedule, etc.. which may }ohn C. McKinley (telephe se 202/634-have occurred. 1414) between 8:15 a.m. and 5 00 p.m.
1414) between 8.15 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Persons planning to attend this meeting ,
Dated }une 18.1985 Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named -
Morton w. ubarun, are urged to contact the above named individual one or two days before the stont Enecutii.e Derecterfor Project Individual one or two days before the scheduled meeting to the advised of any ,.
scheduled meeting to be advised of any changes in schedule'etc., which may
[FR Dok 85-15052 Filed fr-M-85. 8have changes in schedule, etc., which may 45occurred.
am] have occurred. . t ' :-
~
og coog m,
- Deted. Jhne 1s,1ss5. ' ,-
, / Dated June 18.1985.
- Morton W. UberWa, -
Morton W. Ubarkla. Assistant Ea rcusive Directorfor Project Advfsory Committee on Reactor A ssistant Es ecutive Directorfor Project }teview. .
, Safeguards Subcommittee on Long fieview. -
l Range Plan for NRC; Meetin9 [FR Doc. s5-15054 Filed 6-20-45; s 45 am) i
[FR Doc. 85-15053 Filed 6-20-85. e 45 am] ents.o cooe team.as .
The ACRS Subcommittee on Long suneo cooe ww Range Plan for NRC will hold a meeting
- cn July 10 and 11.1985. Room 1167,1717 (Docket No. 80-4001 Washington, DC Advisory Committee on Recetor
^
HThe Street entire NW.[necting will be open to Safeguards Subcommittee on Nector Carolina Power arid Ught Co. and )
public attendance. '
Operations; Meeting North Carolina Eastern Municipal The agenda for subject meeting shall ne ACRS Subcommittee on Reactor E0**' A 9'"CY3 I '*"'"*' 'I be as follows: Am,endment to Construction Permit Operations will hold a meeting on July 9.
Wednesday.fuly M. De5--P:00 o.m. 1985 Room 1046.1717 H Street. NW. , ne U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
.untilthe conclusion of business Washington. DC. Commission (the Commisston) has e
O "
ATTACHMENT A j} ,
Y V- v - ,,,. . . - .
44
<. - . ^
l gt: 'y'**
ATTACHMENT B ACPS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON [ OA//f" h h inrATION com //[ r 7 DATE d DLV JD 19 8 [ - /0 ,' 00 b &
ATTENDANCE LIST 3pL/ #, /f ,
CD PLEASE PRINT:
NAME AFFILI ATION -
1 N4V [MRod $xopensu. ACK c t Tupennyirryg if c/fspe r RF Mick ACRS Suecoxxirrte ;
Oxoe n ,,,p .. .. l t
luA ei F s hhur
tbw'C M ev Jcgs s a ,. ,
E I#"N 0"'N Dur, B,wer C, ,
r 1, $ c C hcet uits ae. w - s u oi :
3 a, s b3-Eh d e ic P>u c- At Ic <:h Ltd d .k i
Oi. l- .
1.,, - ' e. . 1 ,,
i
$LFAir) SffD SSS C. R Sirn "
i
/L L TAM N D0h/FL L G#o Evor unron f0S[R /I7*730 AJ V TfMA/ArMWAl A/FM P Y3 f n e . TD, 0%cc Brasn W2l
^
. R oyo Cmis E/=s t '
Jo n Dnos Ernr
_N4goto l-[ WIS kS$$
l-i i
1
AcRS s5BcossITTEt MEETINs oN doA/G3A M hm A/GE [b 1.0cATIo:4: 2co#7
~
//d 7
. DATE: yu i y // *_ -
to / o: b e A. %
70 LY dl30 II #7, ATTENDANCE LIST PLEASE PRINT:
NAME BADGE N0. AFFILIATION
'~
TL 0(ho4 -
NE xtc ,
84 kh l i 6 Wdsc>- 0 Otii
_ncCLA s <na nug -
'\dh w creN cel'I ch?/624, c onv h3 @L gr J xjama fovy 3 arrea r roaos O ).d [ N cow 3 bdrA 0-TC Dauw cow wert v a ,som Y p.ci w & ac n- 7 ein DA c ,+ 60c .rr e G - o't 4 7 b c- hu.i d .so~
d d kA.OLw d 2- 0931 3 d u r F ,s.s .m Df 7M I r TDo.v&
~
J Am65 k . . A b tJ 6 S 6 - Q#i '? )
k/ t ll Alp' T c r prah f- 69f C hike. 'I kb ke^ '
NRe-d $~ I'er,JpW f-6 75 7 DErreir FonoJ 1avne F. m s ech wwr mso n hmAunmA E - om 'TL u t C L C
$ N ) / /b or7\d f'ch-7 .!D e? Th er f O d d c n 0 . <
1, W 6~ e. ou1 pss 4 cd % bk E-b R1 hfMk bl+
$bh!l0$W= E-OS &fkI L%Osw e-oide GA-i.-
bieaNW W f 0990l 16A1 -
ip >
, ACRS SUBCOMM8TTEE MEETfNG ON DA/G AA/M My [
LOCATIO.'O Co /97 //[ [ ,
/ a: b o A. m,
, W E: 3v iLy 39 Y l/l o. - f;39 y m, '
ATTENDANCE LIST i
PLEASE PRINT: l NAME BADGE ii0. AFFILIATION !
F c v u _is /2 Eo95L u l
r wcn coby -
l
- 1. A r Itz er coiri %v(&he c am . !
/
F 5
{
l i
i l
f i
l l
i i
l b%
I
. #g "%,jo, , UNITED STATES ATTACHMENT C
[ g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
- , -l ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS f W ASHINOTON, D. C. 20655
- n J&
June 17, 1985 PROPOSED SCHEDULE ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON LONG-RANGE PLAN FOR NRC JULY 10-11, 1985 WASHINGTON, D.C.
Wednesday, July 10, 1985 9:00 A.M. Chairman's Introduction I hr.
- a. Objectives
- b. Discussion of Schedule
- c. Discussion of OPE outline of LRP 10:00 A.M. Discussion with: 2 hrs.
Warren Owen, Executive Vice-President Engineering, Construction, & Produc-tion Group, Duke Power Company 12 Noon *** LUNCH ***
2:00 P.M. Discussion with: 2 hrs.
Peter Bradford, Chairman, Public Utilities Commission State of Maine 4:00 P.M. ***8REAK*** 15 mins.
4:15 P.M. Discussion with: 2 hrs.
Roger Mattson, Vice-President, Nuclear Safety and Operations International Energy Associates, Ltd.
6:15 P.M. *** RECESS ***
Thursday, July 11, 1985 6:30 P.M. Discussion with: 21 hrs.
Floyd Culler, President Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)
John Taylor, Vice-President' Nuclear Power EPRI 9:00 P.M. ***ADJ0 URN ***
i t -
ATTACHMENT D LIST OF HANDOUT MATERIAL 1.
Report to the Congress by the Comptroller General "Better In-spection Management Would Improve Oversight of Operating Nuclear Plants" GA0/RCED-85-5 dated April 24, 2985.
2.
Report to the Congress by the Comptroller General "Probabalistic Risk Assessment: An Emerging Aid to Nuclear Power Plant Safety Regulation" GA0/RCED-85-11 dated June 19, 1985.
r i
d
_ _ _ . _ . , , .--e. --- , . _. - - .- - ~ . . , , ,-.-