ML20154C751
| ML20154C751 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook, 05000000, Shoreham |
| Issue date: | 05/04/1988 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20154C754 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#288-6267, REF-10CFR9.7 OL, OL-1, OL-3, OL-5, OL-6, NUDOCS 8805180296 | |
| Download: ML20154C751 (86) | |
Text
.
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
ANNUAL BRIEFING ON THE STATE OF THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY Location:
ONE WHITE FLINT NORTH, ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND
~Date:
WEDNE5'
~Y, MAY 4, 1988 D
(
i Pages:
1-60 l
Ann Riley & Associates Court Reporters 1625 i Street, N.W., Suite 921 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 I
8805100296 080504
.7 PDR
DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States-Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on Mey'4, 1988 in the Commission's office at One White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been rev'iewed, corrected or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is
~ mot part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this trans.cript do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs.
s No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of, or addressed to, any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
l P
i l
l i
1 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 ANNUAL BRIEFING ON THE STATE OF THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY 5
6 PUBLIC MEETING 7
8 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9
One White Flint North 10 Rockville, Maryland 11 12
~~
13 WEDNESDAY, MAY 4, 1988 14 15 The Commission met in open session, pursuant to 16 notice, at 10:00 a.m., the Honorable LANDO W.
ZECH, Chairman of 17 the Commission, presiding.
18 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
19 LANDO W.
- ZECH, Chairman of the Commission 20 FREDERICK M. BERNTRAL, Member of the Commission 21 KENNETH CARR, Member of the Commission 22 KENNETH ROGERS, Member of the Commission 23 24 25
,_,,,,-r, y
.,=._-.---.,_..y_,.~
,,-,,.-7
,--.---.r,--..
a 2
1 STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT THE COMMISSION TABLE:
2 3
S.
Chilk 4
R. Campbell 5
G. O'Connor 6
G. Taylor 7
W.
Parker 8
S. Smith 9
B.
Lee 10 11 3 2...
13 14 4
15 l
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 l
25 l
e 3
1 P R O C E E D I'N G S 2
(10:00 a.m.)
3 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
4 Welcome to our guests this morning.
This morning we'll hear 5
from representatives of the American Nuclear Energy Council.
l 6
They are to brief the Commission on the state of the j
7 nuclear industry from their perspective.
This meeting is 8
scheduled to be a part of the Annual Nuclear Power Assembly.
9 This year's theme for the Nuclear Power Assembly is l
10 Nuclear Energy, Meeting Our Needs Now And In the Future.
The 11 Commission has recently testified before Congress and we stated l
1
~
12 that nuclear plant operations appear to be improving.
13 The number of unplanned trips is being reduced.
The 14 number of safety system challenges are dropping.
The radiation 15' exposure to workers is decreasing.
The volume of radioactive 16 waste generated is decreasing.
17 These indicators are all positive and we're 18 encouraged to see the overall utility industry showing this 19 sort of improvement.
20 We recognize that these are gross measures and that 21 thay're real nuclear utility leaders whose performance exceeds 22 the industry average and is even higher than these average-23 indicators.
24 Unfortunately, however, there are some plants which, 25 while they perform in accordance with our regulatory rules and i
I 4
~
1 regulations, they do not contribute to the improvement that the 2
industry trends show.
3 This means that there is still' room for more 4
improvement.
The industry challenge remains the same as it was 5
when the report in 1986 was published -- that report on 6
"Leadership and Achieving Operational Excellence," when that 7
report was published -- and the challenges are still very real 8
and certainly th-: e challenges are still before the nuclear 9
industry.
10 The Commission certainly supports those challenges 11 that were outlined in that report.
This morning, Mr. Campbell, 12 ~
Mr. O'Connoi'and Mr. Smith, we want to welcome you and your 13 colleagues to our new NRC Headquarters.
14 Ha're still settling in here, but with a few things 15 to still iron out, our new Headquarters certainly appear to be 16 very satisfactory and we welcome you to one of our first 17 meetings in this new facility.
18 Do any of my fellow Commissioners have any opening 19 comments to make?
Mr. Rogers will not be with us here this 20 morning.
Mr. Roberts, excuse me.
Commissioner Rogers is here 21 as you can see.
22 If there are no comments, then, Mr. Campbell, you may 23 proceed.
~
24 MR. CAMPBELL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
We 25 are very privileged and are very pleased to be here in this
5 1
beautiful new facility today.
2 I'm Bob Campbell, Chairman of the Pennsylvania Power 3
and Light company. We're pleased, particularly, to be here as a 4
part of our annual. briefing that we have seen over the years as 5
a part, and a very important part, of our annual Nuclear Power 6
Assembly.
7 The past two days during our meeting we have heard 8
from officials, from the Executive Branch and from Congress.
9 We discussed nuclear plant standardization and we've talked 10 about uranium mining and enrichment legislation.
11 We've had discussions on the development of advanced 12 ~
reactor tech'n' ologies.
And we've really covered a wide range of 13 timely and very important issues.
14 We've heard people in Congress acknowledge what you 15 just said, Mr. Chairman, and that is that nuclear energy plays 16 a very vital role in our country's energy future.
17 But we were reminded during the course of our 18 discussions at the Nuclear Power Assembly this week, that even 19 with this understanding and support, political and 20 governmental, uncertainties, of course, remain.
21 So, in spite of a very successful year, and we feel 22 we have had a very successful year in Congress, we've had a 23 successful year, we believe, at the state level, and really 24 most importantly, we've had a successful year in the operations 25 of our plants.
We still have challenges aplenty.
6
'l With me today, as you've indicated, are two senior 2
industry executives, Jim O'Connor, who is Chairman and Chief 3
Executive Officer of Commonwealth Edison, and Jim is going to 4
talk about the state of the industry.
5 As Jim will tell you, we in the nuclear power 6
industry are very serious about our emphasis on excellence, 7
operational excellence.
1 8
We are deeply committed, also, to maintaining nuclear 9
energy as an option for the nation's energy supply.
Sherwood 10 Smith, who is the Chairman, President, and Chief Executive 11 Officer of Carolina Power and Light Company, will discuss the
~~
12 ~
industry's efforts to improve nuclear technology and 13 operations.
14 He will focus primarily on the recent accomplishments 15 of the Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI.
Sherwood is a 16 member of EPRI's Board of Directors.
17 But before Jim and Sherwood sp a?., I appreciate the 18 opportunity to say a few words in my capacity as Chairman of 19 NUMARC.
20 our industry's commitment to nuclear energy requires 21 us, we believe, to take a very realistic view of the challenges 22 we have before us.
23 We all share in the responsibility to resolve the 24 challenges we have.
Over the past few years, though, we 25 believe we've seen some very fundamental and important changes
7 1
in the way that we all approach our nuclear responsibilities.
2 We have made a strong commitment to achieving 3
operational excellence and we've made great progress in such 4
areas as operating and n.aintaining op? plants and training our 5
people.
6 We don't claim, yet, to be fully satisfied, but our 7
. progress has been real and very importantly, it's been 8
measurable.
But, of course, we don't operate in a vacuum.
9 Every decision we make is influenced by the 10 institutional and the regulatory environment in which we 11 operate.
12 ~
To be sure that we keep our nuclear power plants 13 operating well, and keep the nuclear option open for the 14 future, our goals must relate constructively to the' 15 inrititutions that shape the environment in which we operate.
1G And, of course, the public must be assured that our 17 nuclear plants are operated well.
That is, safely and 18 reliably.
19 It's clearly our mutual objective to provide safe, 20 efficient electricity generated by nuclear power.
There ar.e 21 encouraging signs that our shared vision of how to achieve 22 these goals is providing safe and efficient electricity from 23 our nuclear power plants.
24 And we think that our shared vision is coming 25 together and that, as we see that being expressed in Congress
8 1
and in the NRC and in the nuclear industry itself, and the 2
public, we have a sense that we're all moving in the same 3
direction.
I' 4
on the regulatory front, we are pleased that 14 new j
t 5
nuclear plants received operating licenses last year.
We are 3
I 6
also gratified by this commission's constructive approach to 7
addressing such issues as erosion-corrosion, and operator 8
requalification.
9 On erosion-corrosion, the Commission played a strong 10 oversight role as the industry develops specific solutions.
On 11 operator requalification, the commission asked the industry to
~'
12 ~
define specific problems and solutions which resulted in a more 13 comprehensive program to measure operator performance.
14 That is, instead of regulating the problem solving 15 process, the NRC is judging the results of our programs on the 16 basis of our performance.
17 We believe this approach is working well on these 18 issues as it has in the past on issues such as accreditation of 19 training programs.
20 It's a good use, we believe, of our expertise and 21 resources.
It preserves the NRC's mission of regulating 22 prescribed levels of safety by monitoring our performance and 23 results.
i 24 We believe in effective, realistic, and workable 25 solutions.
We believe this approach, having the industry 4
- -- -,p.
n---
,y s
>g o
"m ~ ~
9
+3 s
3
'" s develop and implement sc'>dchns to problems where they ' exist, i.
~
2
. is appropriate.
S N
3
\\
We're encouraged by it.
We are dedicated to making t
4 sure that our performance on these issues will encourage the 5
Commission to use it'm' ore-widely in the futurc.
o
\\
A.[
J
- g O
We hope ne car. uaftWs approach in the maintenance t
s
.3 7
area.
Our,of forts 'at'i not irit'dndc.'d to supplement regulation 2^,
i., '
3 and Mersight, but to complement them, thereby advancing the i,
g 9
safety goals that both the NRC and the~ nucle.sr energy industry 10
. share.
r
~
1 11
'N
. With thac, let me turn to my colleague from 12 "'
. Commonwealth"Edison, Jim O' Conn'>r, and, again,,say just how
~
~13 much, as phairmek'if the Nuclear Power Assembly, we appreciate 14 3eing here today.
4 i's 15 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank ou very much.
Mr. O'Connor, 16 welcome to you.
II MR. O'COWOR$
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and M
gentlemen, good morning.
Let me please start by endorsing Bob 19 Campbell's statefant that thy ;tualear industry is single-m..
20 mindedly dedicated to self improvement and to superior 21 performance in opera [ ions.
42 Throughout 6ur inoontry today, from the board room to 22- _
the contr oi rocm, we are determined to achieve and maintain 24 exemplary prformanrw -in both the management and operation of 25 every one of our plants.
\\
a 4
e
10 1
In my remarks today, I'd like to review briefly what 2
has been achieved over the past year, and what we hope to 3
achieve in the year ahead.
4 By and large, this past year has been a rewarding one 5
for the industry.
Our drive for excellence is bearing fruit s
6 and we are much heartened by a number of the positive 7
developments that we see on Capitol. Hill.
8 In that arena, as you know, Congress is close to 9
extending and revising the Price Anderson Act.
The new version 10 strengthens the Act by raising the public liability production 11 from a nuclear accident more than ten-fold.
~'
~
12 This industry and its supporters also turned aside an 13 attempt in the House of Representatives to give state and local 14 government effective veto power over the operation of nuclear 15 power plants.
16 We think this is a very key vote in as much as it 17 reaffirms the original intent of Congress to leave the 18 regulation of nuclear energy in the hands of the Nuclear l
19 Regulatory Commission.
20 It was encouraging to utilities to know that Congress l
l 21 supports the concept of uniform safety standards and 22 enforcement policies for all nuclear plants.
23 The experience at Shoreham and Seabrook shows just 24 how disastrous it can be if this authority were to be disbursed 25 among the various states, l
11 1
We were also gratified by congressional agreement to 2
redirect the nation's high level nuclear waste management 3
program.
4 Lack of progress in implementing the Nuclear Waste 5
Policy Act of 1982 has really been a source of continuing 6
frustration for all of us these past few years.
7 From a financial standpoint, the utilities have been 8
paying the bill, with our obligation to fund program, yet, 9
until we could see some real progress made on the waste 10 disposal front, the public continues to remain skeptical about 11 the future of nuclear power and our nation's true resolve to 12 "'
deal effectively and aggressively with what continues to be the 13 major concern that they have about nuclear power.
14 We look forward, now, to seeing some progress and we 15 think that that is good news for all of us.
That there have 16 been other achievements.
17 We see serious efforts to place the Federal 18 Government's uranium enrichment enterprise on a more 19 businesslike footing, and Congress has taken the first steps 20 toward reforming the licensing process.
21 Finally, we see very clear signs of congressional 22 willingness to give serious consideration to the development of 23 advanced nuclear power technologies.
24 These are all very important steps in their own 25 right, but they have a collective importance that goes far
12 1
beyond any single individual event.
2 When we step back and look at the last year's events J
3 as a whole, we see that we, the industry, the congress, the 4
Executive Branch, and you, the industry's regulators, are 5
creating the conditions and laying the foundation which was 6
necessary for the next generation of nuclear power plants in 7
this nation.
8 For the nuclear energy industry to succeed, the most 9
important reality and clearly our most important responsibility 10 is to operate the plants that we now have just as well as we 11 possibly and humanly can.
12 ~
As you know, the industry, about ten years ago, 13 launched a comprehensive self improvement program, and this 14 grew out of the results and the lessons learned from Three Mile 15 Island.
16 We realized then, and realize even moreso today, that 17 the performance of our industry as a whole is determined by the 18 least among us, that we are all held hostage to the performance 19 of any one plant.
l 20 We recognize, as Bob pointed out, that not all of our l
21 plants are, today, performing as well as they might.
But we 22 recognize and believe, also, that our self improvement efforts 23 have already paid handsome dividends and will continue to do 24 so.
25 And.the improvement and the indicators that you
13 1
mentioned, Mr. Chairman, I think bears this out and perhaps I 2
can define them just a little bit more to give you an 3
indication of the progress that has been made since 1980 in 4
some of the areas that you talked about.
5 For example, in the area of unplanned reactor scrams, 6
they dropped from an average of 7.4 per unit in 1980, to less 7
than 3 per unit in 1987.
8 The lost time accident rate was reduced to one-fourth 9
its level in 1980.
And this, among many of us in the industry, 10 is a very key barometer of attitude among our employees, of how 11 they treat with respect the technology that they're dealing
~
~
12 with, and is a key criteria by which to measure overall 13 performance.
14 The radiation exposure that you referred to among our 15 plant workers in our boiling water reactor facilities, and 16 measured in terms of man-rem per unit, dropped from 1,230 in 17 1980 to~521 in 1987.
18 And in our pressurized water plants, the exposure 19 dropped from 597 to 368 man-rem per unit.
The average volume 20 of low level solid radioactive waste per BWR unit, dropped from 21 1,113 cubic meters in 1980 to 459 in 1987.
22 And the average volume per PWR dropped from 586 cubic 23 meters-to 194.
In these latter two areas that I've just 24 alluded to, we met what we had established as our goals for i
25 1990, several years earlier than anticipated.
14 1
And'we have every reason to believe that some of the 2
other indicators and the goals that we have established for 3
them will be met sometime in 1988 or '89, earlier than our 4
first target dates that were established.
5 Further evidence of operational progress appeared in 6
the recent NRC report on abnormal occurrences which listed 7
three abnormal occurrences in the first three quarters of 1987.
8 And that's significantly lower than what we had 9
experienced in previous years.
While we take a lot of pride in 10 this collective progress, we also ~r.now that we can never relax, 11 we can never be over confident in our quest for excellence in operations, 'and that has to be applied at every single nuclear 12 13 facility in the country.
14 Looking ahead, we hope to see substantial progress in 15 several major areas in the very near future.
In responding to 16 the host of inquiries that we receive from members of Congress 17 as to what our priorities on the nuclear agenda are, we point 18 out that our primary goal is to see that Seabrook and Shoreham 19 are brought on-line.
20 These plants are ready to operate.
They have 21 developed satisfactory emergency plans, and they are clearly 22 needed to meet electricity demand in the areas that they serve, 23' and especially in those areas where tney would now rely on
!~
24 large amounts of imported oil.
25 These units, plants, stand as symbols of governmental
15 1
unpredictability to which nuclear power has been subjected.
If 2
local politics are permitted to override the technical judgment 3
and lawful authority of the NRC, we're quite confident that 4
electric utilities will not ever again be able to consider 5
nuclear energy as an option for the future.
6 Such short sighted manipulation of the regulatory 7
process by local authorities clearly is not in the best 8
interest of this nation.
9 As a corollary to this issue, we hope that the next 10 year brings final resolution to the controversy over emergency 11 planning regulation.
12 Thls commission has to be commended for the action
~
13 that it took last year in clarifying and affirming its 14 congressionally mandated authority over emergency planning.
15 This was an extremely positive first step.
Now it's 16 essential that the next r".eps be taken so that no plant is 17 prevented from operating because of the failure of local 18 governmental units to participate in emergency planning.
19 And we, as an industry, assign an extremely high i
20 sense of urgency to this priority.
Another priority for us is 21 standardization and licensing reform.
22 It is, again, self evident that no utility in this i
23 country would consider ordering another nuclear plant without 24 some assurance that if we go ahead and build the plant as 25 originally designed and approved, that we will then be able to
16 1
operate it.
2 We simply can't afford to see a $10 billion i
3 investment, like we have on the East Coast, continue to stand 4
idle.
5 The solution must include development of standardized 6
reactor designs, proapproval of nuclear plant designs and 7
sites, and consolidation of the construction permit and 8
operating licensing proceedings into one step.
9 As long as a plant such as Seabrook and Shoreham, 10 which had been built according to, and which have met all 4
11 regulatory requirements continue to be prevented from 12 ~
operating, tee future of the nuclear power industry lacks i
13 certainty.
'i 14 With our growing dependence on imported oil, and the 15 rising demand for electricity, the nation is leaving itself j
16 open to great risks without the nuclear option.
i 17 If we look elsewhere around the world, we see some 18 cur nation's chief economic competitors, such as in Southeast l
19 Asia and Western Europe, ordering, and they'll surely construct 20 and operate new nuclear plants.
21 Almost all of the plants that they are planning are 22 next step evolutions and developments which stem from the l
23 United States light water reactor technology.
24 These countries are benefitting from, yet, another f
25 technology that we pioneered.
Although we might find it 1
l
17 1
difficult to regain the technological leadership that we once 2
held, we must preserve the nuclear option as part of our energy 3
supply, if we're going to compete effectively in the world 4
marketplace, and if we're going to be able to provide safe, 5
reliable, secure electric power for the future.
6 As I mentioned at the autset, our goal in industry is 7
to achieve the highest possible levels of excellence in the 8
operations of our plants.
9 If we achieve that goal, we will have delivered on 10 the promise of nuclear energy as a safe, reliable, economical 11 source of electric power, and earn, in the process, the trust
~
12 of the public and policy makers at all levels of government.
13 That confidence, then coupled with a credible, 14 predictable regulatory system, will provide the impetus and 15 confidence which are absolutely essential to the future 16 development of nuclear power.
17 Thank you again, Mr. Chairman and members of the 18 Commission, for the opportunity to present our remarks to you
^
19 today.
20 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you very much, Mr. O'Connor.
21 Mr. Smith, please?
22 MR. SMITH:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of 23 the Commission.
It is a pleasure, also, to be here with you 24 today and to report to you in a summary fashion upon the 25 electric utility industry's work in nuclear research and a
O 18 1
development, particularly the work that is now being done 2
through the Electric Power Research Institute.
r 3-My own company was a founding member of that 4
institute.
I currently serve as a member of the Board of e
[
5 Directors and Executive Committee, and as Chairman of the 6
Strategic Planning Committee of EPRI.
7 In my remarks, I will touch on the substantive issues 8
of safety first, accident research, reliability, operating the 9
maintenance expenditures, and the ALWR program, as we call the e
10 Advanced Light Water Research program.
11 I note that the Commission has scheduled a meeting, I 12 ~~
believe, on June 16th for our Steering Committee of EPRI to 13 report in more detail on the ALWR program.
14 In the nuclear area, EPRI is one organization of our I'
15 team of organizations that's dedicated to safety and i
16 reliability and operational excellence.
[
17 EPRI works closely with NUMARC, the Nuclear 1
18 Management and Resources Council, with INPO, the Institute of 19 Nuclear Power Operations.
l 20 EPRJ collaborates with NUMARC in such areas as 21 erosion-corrosion, decay heat removal, severe accident issues, 22 and others.
l l
23 And, EPRI has worked closely with INPO on a variety i
24 of technical issues.
Equipment reliability, water chemistry, l
25 maintenance, human factors guidelines, and in service i
19 1
inspection are some of those.
2 I'd like to review briefly some of the facts about 3
our EPRI research.
Our membership consists of over 70 percent 4
of America's generating capacity, and over 90 percent of our 5
operating nuclear plants.
6 Tha utility industry contributes over $360 million to 7
those research efforts.
Just under 20 percent of the $360 8
million is devoted to nuclear research.
9 The Nuclear Power Division's research budget is 10 augmented'by a number of cooperative co-funded programs, 11 including a number of cooperative programs with the NRC for 12 which we attach a pie value and are very appreciative of the 13 cooperative spirit exemplified through t:1at work.
14 Currently, about 50 percent of the benefits that 15 accrue to the utilities from EPRI research, have come from 16 Nuclear Power Division programs.
17 As to safety first, I wish to stress our commitment 18 to this approach we call safety first, when we set priorities 19 for our nuclear energy research.
20 We take a broad view of safety.
In our view, it 21 includes both reactor safety and personnel safety.
Two 22 examples of this work would be the recent pipe rupture at a 23 large PWR in December of 1986.
24 When this occurred, EPRI immediately created a task 25 force and a program on erosion-corrosion, in high pressure
20 I
water, or single phase piping, drawing on experts and 2
materials, water chemistry, thermal hydraulics, and system 3
engineering.
4 We sponsored workshops and distributed reports on the 5
technical aspects of the program, developed a computer program 6
which we called C-H-E-C, or CHEC, to help utilities predict 7
where to look for single phase erosion-corrosion.
8 EPRI also helped, with NUMARC, to develop some 9
recommendations on this issue and we're establishing a parallel 10 code that we call C-H-E-C-M-A-T-E, CHECKMATE, to predict 11 erosion-corrosion in pipes carrying a mixture of saturated 12 steam and water, or two phase fluid.
13 our EPRI research has also helped reduce occupational 14 radiation exposure, about which Mr. O'Connor reported a moment 15 ago.
16 The collective radiation exposure predictor unit has 17 dropped 50 to 60 percent since 1980, and EPRI's contribution to 18 this has been the LoMI decontamination. process, improved 1
19 control over primary water chemistry, automated inspection 20 techniques, and the development of a new cobalt-free alloy to 21 replace stel' lite, which has been a major source of cobalt.60 in 22 nuclear plants.
23 In the area of accident research, our utility 24 industry assigns a high priority to sovere accident research.
25 In the seismic area, for example, EPRI has developed new
j 21 1
analytical tools to perform large' scale seismic tasks, and 2
gathered extensive earthquake survivability data to help 3
resolve. concerns about the seismic adequacy of our design.
4 We think that this has helped resolve the scientific 5
issues that involve large "possible earthquakes in the 6
eastern United States.
7 EPRI's work on severe accidents also include 8
emergency diesel generator liability, decay heat removal, the 9
IDCOR program, and extensive experimental work on containment 10 integrity.
11 In the area of reliability, one of goals, of course,
~
~
12 must be improved reliability and availability, and EPRI has 13 several valuable programs in this area.
14 A couple of examples are these:
EPRI helped develop 15 ways to prevent intergranular stress corrosion cracking in 16 boiling water reactors.
This problem hed caused major outages 17 at BWR's.
Through EPRI, our utility sponsored a 9-year, $90 18 million program to develop remedies, including crack-resistant 19 materials, new welding procedures, water chemistry guidelinea 20 and advanced in-service inspection methods.
21 Also, our research has helped improve the reliability 22 and availability of steam generators and reduced repair and 23 inspection costs.
Between 1980 and 1984, the average annual 24 loss capacity from forced and extended outages for steam 25 generator replacements, was 5.7 percent, at an average annual
22 1
cost of $196 million.
In 1985 and 1986, th'at loss capacity 2
rate was lowered to 1.7 percent, at an average annual cost of 3
only $59 million.
This was over a threefold improvement, which 4
shows how research geared to the improvement of plant 5
reliability can also reduce costs.
6 In the area of operations and maintenance, we believe 7
fundamentally that we need to learn more about how to spend our 8
money more wisely.
We are helping with INPO, the development 9
of practical, cost-effective approaches to improving industry 10 operations and maintenance practices.
And we're building on 11 many of the good programs at a number of utilities.
~
12 The' principal' focus, of course, remains safety and 13 improved reliability.
But because of the rapidly rising O&M 14 costs of nuclear power in recent years, EPRI has been forced to 15 re-evaluate some of its earlier objectives and resources 16 allocations with regard to the benefits of some maintenance 17 programs in terms of reliability and safety.
l 18 We think that we are spending substantially and very l
19 adequate funds in this area, but we believe that those funds 20 can be spent by the utilities more effectively, so that we will 21
.be able to stabilize and prevent the continued increase in 22 these O&M expenditures.
Other countries -- France and Sweden, 23 for example, have demonstrated that they've been able to d6 24 this with excellent operation safety and maintenance 25 Our aim is to introduce a more effective learning
23 i
I curve in all elements of maintenance, not just in key 2
components like steam generators.
A rapid review and feedback 3
will result in technical information and practical guidelines 4
for maintenance personnel.
5 In the area of advanced reactors, although there are 6
a number of very difficult institutional factors which we view 7
as the main impediment to nuclear energy's expansion in the 8
next decade and beyond into the next century, we think that now 9
is the time to determine'the technical characteristics of the 10 next generation of reactors.
That's the purpose of the program 11 that I mentioned, that we call our ALWR, or Advanced Light
~
12 Water Reactor' Program.
~
13 We are pleased with its progress, not in the least 14 because it places a responsibility on developing the technical 15 characteristics for the design on the utilities themselves, 16 which will have the responsibility of designing, ordering, 17 building and operating those plants.
As a result,.EPRI's 18 management of this ALWR program relies extensively on our 19 utility membership, and our growing experience in the operation 20 of our current generation of light water reactors.
21 The ALWR program is a joint program with the 22 Department of Energy, and their support and participation, of 23 course, is vital to the program's success.
DOE also has the 24 primary role for longer-range reactor development -- the liquid 25 metal-cooled and gas-cooled systems.
In those two areas,
0 24 1
EPRI's role is a more modest one of support.
2 Our primary utility focus at EPRI, is on the ALWR.
3 We think that for the ALWR to be a candidate for utility 4
investment, it must meet three fundamental standards.
- First, 5
and foremost, it must be an excellent power plant in al?.
6 respects, as to safety, as to its maintainability, as to its 7
compatibility with the environment.
And second, it must be 8
economically attractive, as compared with fossil-fired units.
9 Finally, the ALWR must provide a very high protection for the 10 utility investment in terms of predictable construction costs, 11 schedules, assured licensability, predictable operating and
~
12 maintenance costs, and a very low risk, of course, of a severe 13 accident.
14 Our ALWR program is developing two design concepts to 15 meet these standards. In each case, both the pressurized water 16 reactors and the boiling water reactor designs are being 17 considered.
We call these two design concepts the evolutionary 18 plant -- that is for the improvement of our current type of 19 light water reactors, and the passive safety plants.
The 20 evolutionary plant design focuses on a 1,000 megawatt electric 21 plant.
The passive concentrates upon a 600 megawatt elcatric 22 reference plant.
23 In the evolutionary ALWR concepts, systems and 24 hardware are conventional, but the designs place increased 25 emphasis on safety, simplicity, increased design margin, and
25 1
improved human factors.
For example, a PWR designed to meet 2
these standards, would use a conventional reactor coolant 3
system, but with much improved reactor coolant pump seal 4
designs, steam generators with greater corrosion resistance, 5
and a larger, secondary side water inventoiy, and a much larger 6
pressurizer to accommodate a full post-scram transient without 7
actuation of pilot-operated relief valves.
8 The reactor manufacturers are developing the detailed 9
designs to be consistent with the utility requirements, and are 10 submitting them to the NRC for its certification.
11 The second ALWR design option, which may be
~
12 potentially more attractive over the longer term, is a passivo 13 plant.
The ALWR passive plant increases the use of intrinsic, 14 physical characteristics such as gravity and natural 15 circulation, to remove. decay heat, provide emergency core 16 cooling, and prevent core damage.
The incentives for 17 developing a passive plant are very substantial.
18 The plant protection systems would substitute 19 intrinsic, or passive responses for the active engineered 20 safeguards equipment that we have in our existing plants.
The 21 passive plant offers greater opportunity than the evolutionary 22 plant to simplify -- that is, by reducing the number of valves, 23 pumps, tanks, instruments and so forth, with an intended 24 improvement in safety, improvement in construction time and 25 costs, improvement in plant operability, and maintainability.
26 1
The passive plant may turn out to be more easily 2
licensable than existing plants, because of its simplicity and 3
free safety margins, and improved human factors.
We feel 4
confident that ALRW program will yield financially attractive, 5
licensable standardized systems, ready for construction, when 6
they are needed in the next decade.
The promise of this 7
program is reflected in the fact that we're joined both 8
financially and technically, by utilities from Japan, Taiwan, 9
Korea, Italy and the Netherlands.
10 In closing, let me say that we appreciate very much 11 the cooperation of the NRC in identifying joint efforts for 12 safety research within our industry.
We believe that such 13 joint projects produce more meaningful results than could be 14 provided by independent work.
They may be in a more timely and 15 a more effective manner, and importantly, at the least cost to 16 the rate payers.
And may I add in closing, that at my age and 17 assuming the indulgence of my board of directors, I would hope 18 to be present when :he request is made for the approval of a 19 construction permit for an ALWR in the 1990's.
Thank you.
20 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you very much.
Mr. Campbell, 21 does that complete your presentation?
22 MR. CAMPBELL:
That would complete the statements we 23 have, and it has been our format to invite questions and 24 discussion, so we will turn it back to you, Mr. Chairman.
25 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Thank you very much.
27 1
Questions from my fellow commissioners?
commissioner Bernthal?'
2 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Well, I appreciate the 3
opportunity to chat with you for what I trust will bc the last 4
time.
Not because you won't be here again, but perhaps I won't 5
be.-
6 I want to pick up for a moment, Sherwood, on comments 7
you've made on the advanced reactor program at EPRI, because I 8
just came back from Seattle where I gave a talk, as did Dr.
9 Stalkoff, the new head of EPRI, on the subject of advanced 10 reactors, and in particular in my case, on the subject of the 11 commission's advanced reactor policy and the program, the
~
12 nascent program, I should say, that ws have on that subject 13 within this agency.
14 It may be fitting that that could well be the last 15 speech as I gave as a commissioner, because that's kind of 16 where I started when I came into this agency.
When I arrived 17 at the NRC, there was no policy here.
In fact, there was 18 decidedly a policy against any kind of early involvement in 19 assessing the safety characteristics of conceptual designs of 20 any kind.
21 With the help of the congress, and I should say with 22 the very strong support of EPRI, and particularly the strong 23 support of John Taylor, who's sitting in the background there, 24 we turned that policy around, and today we have an active 25 advanced reactor policy and an advanced reactor program in this
28 1
agency, so that if that progran is continued to be nurtured 2
here in the next few years, we're not going to be in the' 3
situation that we used be in, where the NRC listened politely 4
when someone spoke of a new design, and then ran off and washed 5
its hands until a construction permit application landed on the 6
table.
7 And at that point, as you well know, the intellectual 8
investment and the financial investment is such that new 9
designs und certainly construction permits take on a life of 10 their own, and that's not in the public interest, it's not in 11 the interest of the NRC as the regulatory body, and it's 12 certainly not in the interest of the industry.
So, I just want 13 to give credit here where it's due to EPRI, and particularly to i
14 John Taylor and to you, who are on the board of EPRI who have 15 supported this program and I would urge you to continue to.
16 support it in the future.
We may not have that policy here 17 today, had it not been for the active support of EPRI.
18 I wanted to touch on one other issue that you spoke 19 of only briefly, and that's the issue of maintenance, because, 20 as you know, this Commission is currently in the throws of 21 promulgating a maintenance policy statement.
In fact, I guess 22 the -- is the final statement out, or is it a proposed i
23 statement?
Well, it's out, I guess.
And in fact, the question i
24 is now before the Commission on whether the Commission should 25 initiate rule-making in this area.
The ACRS has looked at this i
p
29 1
very carefully.
It's, I think, a very great credit and help to 2
the commission that some of the members of the Commission, in 3
fact, the newer members -- Commissioner Carr, in particular --
4 have taken a great interest in the maintenance area.
5 Could you give us some indication, and we'll take 6
advantage of the situation here today perhaps, to give us your 7
thoughts on what form a maintenance rule might take?
What 8
areas the Commission might profitably and properly head in this 9
area, if the commission did decide to undertake rule-making.
10 MR. SMITH:
May I begin briefly, and then there are 11 others here that I think would wish to speak to that.
And 12 there is some work being done, I believe now, at NUMARC, in 13 this whole area.
14 Maintenance is tremendously important.
With the 15 variety of the some 109 plants or units that we have in 16 operation at a number plants, perhaps, I don't know, 65 sites 17 or thereabouts now, around the country, it is important that 18 the maintenance at the plant, regardless of what I say here, 19 what Congressional inquiries may get into, what policy is 20 written -- and I would hope it would be a policy here and it 21 would not be rule-making -- what really is important is, is a
22 what takes place at the plant.
23 And that involves the plant management, the company's 24 executive organization, the training and the standards that are 25 applied, both to the operation and the maintenance.
And I
30 1
would hope that whatever is done, takes into account, the need 2
not to be so overly prescriptive that one limits the ability of 3
the trained person there at the site, with the pump or the 4
other pieces of equipment, to do what should be done.
5 A very simple example -- whether that's to put in 6
another drop of oil or change the seal early offsite, or to do 7
something like that -- I would hope that whatever action is 8
taken, that it would be one that incorporates full 9
understanding of the great diversity that we have in this 10 country, that places the responsibility in terms of results, on 11 the people there at the plant, on the company.
And as I mentionedeahlier,ourNUMARCorganizationhasbeendevotinga 12 13 great deal of effort through our utility operating personnel on 14 this subject.
And. Bob, you may wish to comment further on what 15 NUMARC is doing.
16 MR. CAMPBELL:
Well, we have, as you know, been very 17 active in this area.
And it really deals fundamentally with 18 the point that I was making with respect to looking to the 19 industry to provide solid programs which we think we have 20 underway, and which we think are capable of being monitored.
21 And we think that our results in this area are quite capable of 22 being monitored.
23 So that, in effect, if rule-making is to come about, 24 and we would much prefer the approach that I had mentioned 25 earlier on erosion, corrosion, and in the areas where we had
31 I
worked together so effectively on dealing with operator 2
training, that we could find a way in which, by careful review 3
of the programs that we have developed within our industry, 4
which we think are going to be very effective, that we can 5
build the regulatory oversight in such a way that we do not in 6
any way supplant that particular element of your
~
7 responsibility, but that we take full advantage of the 8
expertise that we have developed out there and which we think 9
are part of these management systems that have been put into 10 place which, as Sherwood has mentioned, have a fair degree of 11 site-specific management approach to it.
12 And our concern would be, that if we end up with a 13 rule-making which is prescriptive, wo would lose the initiative 14 that we have underway and would not be able to quite reach the 15 highest level of capability in maintenance that we think we are 16 capable of reaching.
So again, our feeling would be that we 17 prefer no rule-making.
We prefer policios in this area.
But 18 to the extent that rules are promulgated, we'd like to see i
19 those rules stated as much 3:s possible, in a policy mode, and 20 deal with the nuclear steam supply system as opposed to the 21 bala'nce of plant.
l 22 MR. O'CONNOR:
I may add one brief comment on this.
23 It is in all our self-interests to have an aggressive 24 maintenance program for a lot of reasons, not the least of 25 which is tha't it is a self-criterion that we are judged on, but
32 1
more than that'we know of the very deep interest that the 2
Commission has in maintenance and preventive maintenance and 3
what it can contribute to increased availability.
In the long 4
run the economic argument is going to be a very critical one in 5
assessing the advantages of nuclear power.
If our maintenance J
6 is improved, our availability correspondingly should also 7
improve.
8 There have been various efforts that Bob and Sherwood 9
mentioned, both within our industry and also looks overseas.
10 Admiral Wilkinson led a team to Japan a few years ago and took t
a very active look over a several week period at the 11 12 maintenance practices of the Japanese to see if we could learn 13 from them.
At the same time we have looked to the French and 14 their kinds of programs.
This exchange of information is 1
15 becoming more commonplace.
It isn't on an ad hoc basis nearly 1
J 16 as much as it once was.
We are feeling that we are learning i
17 and we are taking the process a step back to the preventive 18 area much more aggressively than we did in previous years.
L 19 I just subscribe to what both Bob and Sherwood said, i
20 that it is important that. recognition be given the site 21 specific kinds of requirements that are there before we engage 22 in what could be referred to or considered perhaps more 1
23 proscriptive regulation than we need at this point in this 24 area.
25 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Is it possible -- I don't l
33 1
know whether you have any more specific thoughts on this, but 2
my sense is, at least in my case, if we did go to a rule in 3
this area that one would look for a performance based criterion 4
of some kind.
That is a term that was kicked around here at 5
the table the last time we spoke with the staff about this 6
subject.
But it is not clear to me that the staff knows 7
either, exactly where we would hvad with a rule.
j 8
Do you have any thoughts on the kind of performance 9
criteria that one might consider that would make some sense?
10 MR. CAMPBELL:
Yes.
Since we have been doing so much 11 work with our members of NUMARC, I thought that I might just 12 ask Byron Lee, who is our president of NUMARC and who was here 13 this morning, if he'd comment on just where we are at NUMARC on i
14 that particular issue, and I think -- Byron, if you would.
15 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Byron, would you please come to the 16 table and identify yourself to the reporter again, please.
17 MR. LEE:
I am Byron Lee, president of NUMARC.
18 First, I ought to say that we are trying to set up a meeting, 19 Commissioner Bernthal, to brief the Commission, hopefully some 20 time before you leave, on all of the efforts that the industry 21 has underway in the maintenance area.
We briefed the staff 22 about a month or so ago on those issues, and we had a briefing 23 last Friday for the technical assistants of the Commissioners, i
24 We would like to tell you all the things that are 25 going on.
In terms of a combined program between EPRI and f
34
[
1 INPO, INPO is taking a look at what are the types of 2
indicators, performance indicators.
Obviously, the capacity 3
factor is one.
They do have a whole series of indicators that 4
are behind the 10 basic performance indicators they have that 5
look at maintenance work load, percent of maintenance that is 6
maintenance man hours that are directed toward preventative or 7
predictive type of maintenance, looking at a variety of 8
maintenance programs.
9 I think that we can say that your policy has 10 certainly given the industry some guidance and some direction 11 and we understand, we believe what you are trying to accomplish 12 "
or what you'd like to see us accomplish, and we'd like to have i
13 the opportunity to work again -- much like the training area.
l 14 I think the training area and the accreditation programs and so 15 forth are a model for the way that we might be able to develop 16 a program.
That doesn't mean that at some point in the future 17 there would not be a rule, when we have a better idea of 18 exactly.what can be put into a rule that will not subvert or 19 misdirect our efforts.
20 I think we have to avoid developing again a lot of 21 paper and not maintenance.
I think our goal is to maintain the i
22 plants.
We recognize there is a need to nave the capability l
23 for the commission to come in and inspect our efforts and what I
I 24 have you, so I think those are the directions that we are 25 beginning to look at.
l e
35 1
MR. CAMPBELL:
This is a top priority item for us in 2
Thank you very much, Byron.
3 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Thank you.
We appreciate it.
4 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Commissioner Carr:
4 5
COMMISSIONER CARR Yes.
In your '86 report on 6
leadership and achieving operational excellence, the so-called 7
Sillin Report, you had three things in there:
(1) improve 8
operational performance in nuclear power utilities; (2) 9 improving the nuclear utility industry interface with the NRC; 10 and (3) establishing a unified nuclear utility industry 11 organization.
Two of those are pretty well under control.
You
~
~
12 haven't commented on a nuclear utility interface with the NRC.
13 Would you -- have we accomplished any of our objectives in that l
14 particular area?
15 MR. CAMPBELL:
That is the area that our industry 16 reorganizational structure that led to Byron Lee coming in to 17 be president of a full-time NUMARC was intended to direct his 18 attention to.
We consider that, and so does Lee Sillin and his 19 co:uthors to be a fundamentally important part of the whole 20 recommendation.
21 We believe that the constructive interaction between 22 the NRC staff and NUMARC and NUMARC's approach to issue-23 oriented involvement of the top senior executives in our j
24 industry in problem solving that deals with issues that were of 25 concern to the Commission on safety and reliability of our 1
4a 36 1
plants is the way to accomplish that.
2 At NUMARC our management system is to involved the 3
very best we have in our industry in dealing with problem-4 solving and today in our industry in this country we have some 5
of the very top managers and technical expertise that exists.
6 It is Byron Lee's task as president of NUMARC to mobilize and 7
bring together into an effective management team that 8
considerable capability to solve problems that are on the 9
agenda of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
10 That is the organizational response, commissioner, to 11
,the Sillin Report.
It is the forLation of a strong NUMARC, 12 bringing all the top people in oar industry into this problem-13 solving and working with the staff on such issues as 9
14 maintenance, which is a cruciul issue to the Commission, we 15 understand, and behind Byron Leu's very brief report is the 16 very, very large team of top people in our industry that are 17 workin'g on that problem.
18 COMMISSIONER CARRt I guess my real question was, is 19 the interface workitig any better?
20 MR. CAMPBELL
- How do you feel, Byron, on a day by f
21 day basis?
Hew would you comment?
22 MP. LEET Well, I would say that --
i 23 COMMISSIONER CARRt I am not looking for compliments.
24 I am looking to solve problems if we've got them.
25 MR. LEE Yes, sir.
I guess my judgment is that I
- q w
.w
>w
~
[
37 s
x s
1 don't knov whether I can say better.
I wou$d say the interface 2
is working 51211.
I think wi have developed the approach that 3'
is consistent with all of the Commission's rules and s
4
.;egulations to have our irseerfaces in public ond I think that 5
ats least my assessment, annLI believe the industry's 6
assessment, the people that I am worXing with in the various 7
working groups and the various industry organizations feel that 8
our interface has been working very well.
9 I thinK the secret will be to be sure that the public 10 believes eventually that that interface is working well, in 11 their interest as well as ours.
12 MR. SMITH:
Commissioner Carr, if I could add to that 13 on a different subpact.
It has to do with the interface at th'e 14 plant level.
I think all of realize that a system of 15 enforcement that utilizes fines where fines unfortunately may 16 be deemed to be necessary, is a part of regulation here in this 17 industry as it is in other industries.
There is concern, 18 however, I think generally throughout the industry as to the 19 way in which a system utilizing finen may be applied when the 20 industry itself is seeking improvement and the violations or
- i 21 deficiencies are uncovered as a result of a very diligent 22 industry effort and reported.
Then rather than'be, obviously, 23 criticized if that's needed for allowing the condition to exist 24 that shouldn't have existed, but somehow there needs to be some 25 thought given to whather or not in many case a pat on the back
38 1
1 for identifying your problem, bringing it up and fixing it may 2
be more appropriate than a fine.
3 That's just a general observation but I think as we 4
instill in our operators the value of candor or openness, not 5
only cooperation with the NRC and with INPO but actually 6
digging and digging deeper and deeper to find things that need 7
to be corrected -- now it is our company's objective, I'm sure 8
it is the objective of every company to operate so that you are 9
never in a position where you are vulnerable to a fine, but 10 where the utility themselves have real in-depth digging 11 efforts, I think some recognition of that needs to be given by 12 ~
the NRC in 15s enforcement policy.
13 COMMISSIONER DERNTHAL:
I'll just make a comment on 14 that.
This business of fines has always been a primxly one.
I 15 think the Commission has discussed and over it certainly as 16 long as I have been here -- longer, I'm sure -- and I've got to 17 say I have never been in favor of the nickel and dime sort of 18 fines.
I think that they are largely counterproductive.
The 19 slowness of our process here very often means that they don't 20 have the intended impact on the utility.
I still wonder 21 sometimes whether a point system of some kind isn't a better 22 way to go.
By that I mean it seems to me that when you get a 23 fine you ought to really get a fine, one that the Board of 24 Directors hears about, not just a few people and primarily a 25 news clip early on and then another one later on in the
?
39 1
newspaper that perhaps creates the' impression two or three 2
times over that there are three events, when in fact there is a 3
single event.
4 I don't know whether there is any way out of that.
5 It has never been an easy problem for us to deal with, but I 6
still adhere to the view that small fines probably don't 7
achieve a great deal and I wonder whether we shouldn't go to a 8
system of points or something where there is an accumulation 9
and where, if the track record is bad then you get a fine that l'0 will make your hair stand on end.
It seems to me that is a 11 better way to go.
Just a thought.
CHIIRMANZECH:
Commissioner Rogers?
12 13 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Yes.
On the EPRI programs, is 14 EPRI giving some consideration to the general problem of 15 maintaining a continuity of research competence in an arca of 16 long standing interest to the industry, in some fundamental areasthatwillalwhysbeimportantandneedtobemaintained, 17 18 but may not be the jazziest or most exciting areas of research 19 for young people to go into, and yet, as a nation, we don't 20 want to lose that competence to be able to tap it when we need 21 it.
22 And what comes to mind is the kind of sorry state, my 23 understanding, the sorry state of radiation chemistry of water 24 under the conditions of pressure and temperature at the time of 25 the Three Mile Island accident, that the great deal of 1
.j
40 1
difficulty in finding experts to come in and'really set that 2
system in the proper perspective.
3 I'm not sure I'm right on that particular point, but 4
it's just illustrative of the type of situation I'm thinking 5
about, that areas of research that need continuing nurturing to 6
maintain a national competence that can be tapped from time to 7
time as unforseen problems arise, that are really relevant to 8
the nuclear industry.
9 And I wonder if EPRI has given any thought to that.
10 You operate in basically a contract mode, I believe, in which 11 you contract out for research, but once a particular piece of
~
research is Aompleted by a given organization, you may move to 12 13 another organization for the next time around.
14 And that has advantages in being able to tap what 15 exists but it doesn't necessarily provide a continuity of 16 interest that might be necessary to sustain that kind of 17 expertise over lean periods.
18 I wonder if EPRI has thought anything about that.
19 MR. SMITH:
Yes.
We have, Commissioner Rogers.
And 20 I'd like to ask John Taylor to comment on that in more detail.
21 There is considerable pressure on EPRI for funding, 22 and we always have more work that we wish to do that's valuable 23 than we have funds, even with our $360 million.
24 In recent years, we've been particularly squeezed
'25 because some utilities, large utilities, have dropped out and
,w---
r
,r wr r
w r,-,--
41 1
discontinued EPRI funding because they have had plants that for 2
one reason or another have not been completed, have not been 3
licensed, or if completed and licensed, their state regulatory 4
commissions have not allowed them to put that investment in 5
their rate base.
6 There are probably six to eight major companies 7
around the country that have had to cut all fundings including 8
their EPRI funds.
9 Now, a few of those are beginning to come back, but 10 in recent years, we felt a tight squeeze on our funding.
But 11 even within those limits, we've sought to be mindful of what 12 you addressed.
13 MR. TAYLOR:
John Taylor, Vice President of Nuclear 14 Power, EPRI.
Commissioner Rogers, your comment is very vital.
15 In certain areas such as steam generator reliability, 16 the DWR pipe cracking, we are continuing those programs in a 17 fairly vigorous way.
18 The very high level of effort which Sherwood 19 described to us, which was fostered by supplementary funds from 20 the nuclear utilities, is past us because the crisis is.
21 But we have two major base programs underway to 22 continue to follow those issues.
We don't fully understand all 23 the circumstances to this day, we don't expect to for a decade 24 or more.
25 So, those will be focused on in the sense you
42 1
described.
Now, other than that, our response to your concern 2
is through the formation of what we call centers.
3 Recently, we formulated what we call a Seismic 4
Center.
The basic idea is to have an intellectual center, not 5
a building per se, in which every element of seismic adequacy 6
is considered from the seismicity issues themselves all the way 7
through the design processes that are associated assuring 8
seismic adequacy.
9 And we intend to keep that center essentially over an 10 indefinite period of time.
Another example of center is our 11 effort to form, which is underway and has been approved by our 12 Board, a Nuclear Maintenance Assistance Center.
13 Now, this center will be established.
Right now, 14 it's being operated out of our offices.
It will, in something 15 like a year from now, be established in the east or mid-west of 16 the country, and will be permanent.
17 In fact, we're putting the whole thing to the test.
18 It's our plan that, over a period of about five years, that 19 center will be self sustaining.
It will not be fostered by the 20 EPRI funds, per se, but will be sustained by the utilities who 21 see a real value in it.
22
~If we're successful, that will continue as a center 23 for developing maintenance technology for an indefinite period l
l 24 of time.
l l
25 other elements in EPRI have established centers of
43 1
similar nature and we will continue to foster that~ principal to 2
sustain attention to those fundamental technical issues over 3
the years.
4 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
One of the important features 5
of a center of th'at sort, I would think, would be not only the 6
conduct of the research, but the training of young people in 7
that area as well, because it's those people who are going to 8
maintain the continuity.
9 After all, we all do get old eventually, and somebody 10 else has got to come along and carry that forward.
11 MR. TAYLOR:
The training of the technologists and 12 the training of the utility personnel who use that information, 13 both.
14 MR. O'CONNOR:
Toward that end, commissioner, I'm 15 sure you are aware that.the Institute for Nuclear Power 16 Operations does have a very active scholarship program that 17 feathers funds out to virtually every major university with a 18 nuclear engineering pre, ram in the country to support students 19 in those programs.
20 We think this has been a major contributor to both 21 our electric utility industry as well as to some of the vendors 22 in continuing the attention and the need for the kinds of 23 technicians that are going to be required in the future.
24 So, it's been a helpful program, we believe.
25 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
And, just one other, on a
44 1
different area, the maintenance area.
We've all heard about 2
how maintenance and -- operations and maintenance costs have 3
been going up.
4 But I wonder if the industry has really tried to peel 1
5 apart in the maintenance cost area, the catch up cost versus 6
the ongoing cost, steady state cost.
7 Because, we've seen a lot of increased activity in 8
maintenance that represents -- has to represent to some degree 9
catch up of situations that really didn't get enough attention 10 in the past.
11 And until you get through that transient period,
~
~'
12 you're certainly going to see a big build up, and I wonder if 13 you've really tried to analyze what the components of the total 14 costs are in terms of catch up and steady state, and take a 15 look at that because, obviously, that's an important long term 16 commitment.
17 MR. CAMPBELL:
That's a very important question, 18 Commissioner.
I thought maybe we could, again, ask if others 19 might comment on that.
20 I think that each of the companirza has dedicated 21 enormous financial resources to what might be considered to be 22 capital improvements to their plants.
23 Whe%hte or not these capital improvements are related 24 to older plants being brought to a level of compliance, or 25 newer plants, it's still an enormous capital resource.
i d
45 1
Beyond that, the question of catch up in maintenance, 2
if you want, I'd like to hear the comments of others on, but 3
it's been my general feeling that in terms of -- the classic
~4 expression would be deferred maintenance, we have precious 5
lit tle of that.
6 What we call a refueling outage is really a 7
maintenance in refueling outage, And we take a look at the 8
thousands and thousands of tasks that are done in a refueling 9
outage, most of those tasks, the vast majority of those tasks, 10 almost 90 percent of them, are related to maintenance.
11 And if there is a question of not being able to completeth[sparticularactivityuntilthenextrefueling
~
12 13 outage, a major maintenance item, in all cases, it seems to me, 14 these matters are items that fit into a category that the l
l 15 question of bringing them up to a level can be easily handled 16 by just simply picking it up next time around.
17 I think we're going to see a large amount of money 18 continue to be put into these programs because of our 19 preoccupation to having our plants operate almost perfectly 20 when they're on-line.
21 So, I'd like to hear some comments from anybody else, 22 from either EPRI, also, or from you, too, Byron, with respect 23 to that topic.
24 Gut it seems to me that down the road, we have to 25 find a way in which we can truncate these costs because we are, i -
46 1
"today, spending an enormous amount of money on every outage in 2
order to make sure that we pick up every maintenance item that 3
we possibly can do to make sure the plants are going to run as 4
well as they can.
5 MR. LEE:
One element of catch-up costs has been, by 6
and large, big reliability programs, both steam generators and L
7 pipe cracking, which you can very quantitatively establish.
8 And they're very vast amounts of money that have been spent 9
there.
The more subtle elements of catch-up that bear on a 10 large variety of equipment, we've not been able to develop any 11 quantitative evaluation of them.
We've looked at costs, 12 ~
Commissioner [andyoucan'tfindanycorrelationwithcosts 13 versus availability, cost versus any of the tangible 14 performance indicators that exist.
My judgment therefore is, 15 as Sherwood has already said, that it isn't so much that we're 16 not spending enough money, it is we're not spending the money 17 as effectively as we could.
18 The EPRI program is trying to. address that, and I'd 19 say, in 2 ways.
One, to focus attention on the important 20 issues.
And the second is to foster the learning curve.
In 21 the first, we're trying to bring to bear, methodologies such as 22 what we call reliability-centered maintenance.
And it's a 23 merger, really, of the probablistic risk-assessment methodology 24 that's been evolved in the safety areas, with methodologies 25 that the aircraft industry has utilized to substantial success
47 1
in maintenance, to give the utilities a means by which they can 2
. focus on the most important thing. Provide along with that, 3
human factors guidelines and things that will help them make 4
the best use of their human and physical facilities.
5 The second area, fostering a learning curve -- again, 6
Sherwood's already mentioned.
When you get away from the big 7
things like the steam generator, the utilities have no 8
effective way of intercommunicating with each other, so each is 9
learning by each other's experience.
And a fundamental step 10 we're taking there, is to try to form this Nuclear Maintenance 11 Assistance Center, which will be the clearing house for that 12 kind of information.
13 We have generator one product that's been through
~
14 tremendous comments from the utilities.
This graph we have 15 today has just been revised with 2,000 comments from people in 16 the field, and it's centered on motor-operated valves -- the 17 motor operators for the motor-operated val'ves.
18 And it's the comprehensive manual to indicate to the 19 management all the way down to the fellow who is adjusting the 20 valve, what we know about it, how to go about it.
It's a first 21 product of this nature.
And my feeling is, with that kind of 22 focused effort, and sharing of knowledge, we will improve 23 maintenance, and we'll find'the costs coming down.
So I 24 wouldn't want to say, costs go up, reliability goes up, safety 25 goes up.
We don't see that in the facts, and I'm convinced l
y----
,y-_
7
--e
-3.,
---+------ry
48 1
that that isn't what we should be aiming for.
2 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Do you have any comparison 3
with other countries in that respect?
It seems to me that if 4
you look to France, in particular, is there any reason to think 5
that this vector continues to head onward and upward and 6
outward?
7 MR. LEE:
Fred, if you look around the world, you 8
find that we spend twice as much on maintenance and operations 9
as any other country when we average things out.
And our 10 reliability -- again, our indicators are not as good as 11 their's.
So there's not correlation.
12 C0kMISSIONERBERNTHAL:
So it's either catch-up, or 13 the money is not being spent effectively -- one or the other, I 14 guess that about covers it.
15 MR. LEE:
Well, like I say, you can put your fingers 16 on big areas of catch-up.
Billions of dollars have been spent 17 on catch-up on the big reliability issues.
That's very clear.
18 MR. SMITH:
If I could just add one individual 19 company comment, we've sought to do this type of analysis in 20 our own company, and we have both PWR's and BWR's.
And we 21 stopped to look at what's going on in other countries, and 22 recently 2 of our senior operating people visited a number of 23 plants in West Germany, and their maintenance costs per KWH are 24 much lower.
25 In some ways, the design of their plants is
49 1
different, in that, you might say, they were designed to run.
2 They weren't designed to be backfitted.
And you just, in some 3
of those plants, are going back to the basic design and the 4
construction.
They were designed and built in a way that lent 5
themselves to be operated with lotter maintenance costs.
And 6
so, that's just a generic thing, particularly with some of the 7
older plants that we've got to live with.
And as John said, 8
we've got to find a way to spend the money in the most 9
effective way, with the predictability, reliability, and set 10 priorities.
It's a hard task.
11 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Another way of saying the samething,kthink, is it that often helps to have done 12 13 something second, and not first.
That was true in the case of 14 european television as well.
But their plants really are a 15 second generation in many respects, and therefore, I suppose I 16 guess it's true that they haven't had to do some of the patch-17 up and catch-up things that we have.
18 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Mr. Rogers, anything else?-
19 MR. ROGERS:
No thank you, Mr. Chairman.
20 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Well, I have several comments to 21 make,' but first of all, before I do that, let me thank all of 22 you this morning, for an excellent presentation.
Mr. Campbell, 23 as the general chairman of the Nuclear Power Assembly, I think 24 you have brought to the Commission this morning, some valuable 25 information,'and update on the status, as well as the progress
50 1
in the nuclear industry, and we're grateful to you for that.
2 And Mr. O' Conner, your comments on the overview of 3
the state of the industry, I think, are very appropriate as 4
always.
I think your continuing efforts for the Nuclear Power 5
Assembly and for the leadership role in the nuclear industry is 6
again, commendable.
And we appreciate not only your comments, 7
but your continuing active role in these leadership areas.
8 And Mr. Smith, the same for you.
Your continuing 9
leadership role across the board, as well as this morning in 10 bringing us your views on the future and the particular 11 development of nuclear energy as it applies to EPRI.
And I 12 appreciate particularly, and I think the Commissioners do too, 13 the leadership role that you three gentlemen and others in the 14 technical features of nuclear power, to the extent the many
~
15 things you've mentioned this morning -- safety considerations 16 for advanced reactors as well as the current reactors, 17 Mr. Taylor's comments on the cracking problem, the BWR's, the 18 steam generator problem, and PWR's, and so forth.
19 I think we should recognize that your involvement in l
20 these rather technical issues indicates your willingness to pay 21 attention to details, and to find out the important features of 22 safety, as well as reliability and availability.
I think this 23 is indicative of your willingness to get your hands dirty, and 24 to get into areas where, in my view, improvements can be made, 25 and I appreciate your presentations all, i
51 1
Just a few general comments.
First of all, yesterday 2
I had the chance to visit the Crystal River Plant near Tampa --
3 just north of Tampa, Florida, a Florida Power Company Plant.
4 It's the 97th plant in our country that I've had the 5
opportunity to visit.
And in the past almost 4 years of 6
observing the plants and the people and the management of.the 7
nuclear industry, I've developed some of my own comments which 8
I've noted in various media, so they're not anything that 9
hasn't been said before, really.
But I just say again, 10 yesterday visiting that plant and hearing you this morning, 11 kind of re-assesses and re-affirms some of the feelings I've 12 had about, for example, NRC's relationship with the industry.
13 And we hav'e different roles to play, but I think we 14 have a common goal.
The NRC role, as I see it, is one of 15 providing a regulatory framework that focuses on the Atomic 16 Energy Act and the statutes under which we operate, to provide 17 the benefits of the peaceful use of nuclear power to.the 18 American people, with reasonable assurance that the public 19 health and safety will be protected.
That's a very real 20 responsibility we have for our government.
And we take that 21 responsibility very seriously as I'm sure you're aware.
22 Your role, of course, is to be responsible for the 23 design which we would approve.
But you would initiate the 24 decign of the plant, the quality construction of the plant, and 25 then the excellent operation of the plant, including
52 1
maintenance and all the other' areas -- training -- that go with 2
that.
That's your role and your responsibility.
But our 3
common goal -- we do have a common goal, and the common goal is 4
to provide for the safe operation of nuclear power plants.
5 So, even though our roles are different, our goal is 6
very similar.
There's where we come together, and for that 7
reason, it's been my view that the NRC's role with industry 8
kind of boils down to 4 points that I keep in mind.
And first 9
of all, I think we should encourage excellence oc. your part, as 10 well as our part.
That's a commitment that we really have to 11 encourage -- excellence across the board -- 3.ncluding quality.
That'squalikypeople,qualityequipment, quality performance, 12 13 quality training, quality everything.
But quality has to bc 14 foremost.
We encourage excellence.
15 Second is, I believe that the NRC should, where it's 16 appropriate and within the bounds of our regulations, to 17 cooperate with utilities and with industry to improve safety.
18 Why?
Because that's our common goal -- your's and our's.
So I 19 think we should cooperate when it's appropriate and within our 20 regulations to improve safety.
21 And third, I think our role with your's, is to 22 oversee your operations, to demand compliance with our 23 regulations.
That's our responsibility.
We ought to carry 24 that out, and be tough regulators -- firm regulators, but tough 25 regulators -- fair, but tough, to ensure that we' carry our a
53 1
responsibilities to our government.
2 And fourth then, I think we do have a responsibility 3
to conduct prompt and tough enforcement when it's warranted.
4 Now, I agree with some of the commentu made earlier, that that 5
policy can have a negative impact, and that's concerned me too.
6 On the other hand, that's the rules we operate under now, and 7
we ought to carry them out.
I do think we probably should look 8
to see whether we can make a better contribution to safety, by 9
making those enforcement rules more constructive, more positive 10
-- encourage safety, rather than perhaps be negativo.
But 11 that's an important area that I think requires our continuing
~
'~
12 efforts to see if we can't improve.
13 But those are kind of some of my views as to -- and I 14 think we're doing those things.
I think you're doing them.
i 15 think we are improving our relationship.
This leadership in 16 achieving operational excellence that I referred to in my 17 opening comments, and Commissioner Carr referred to also,- does 18 have.some very important message, I think -- a very important 19 message signed out by some of the leaders of the industry.
20 Commissioner Carr asked about improving the nuclear j
21 utility industry interface with the NRC, and I think that is 22 improving.
Mr. Lee has come to me on several occasions, to 23 tell ma how'he's getting started, and how it's starting to move 24 in that direction, and I think perhaps Mr. Lee, the next 25 session that you have, you might want to expand your call to
. - -., = - - - -, -, - -
.., _. -. - - -, - _ -. _ _. _ _ _ _... - - - -, - - _,.. _ _ _. -. -,.. - -,., _ _ _ _ _ -. _.. _ - ~.. _ - _ - - - -, -
54 1
all the Commissioners, so they will get a feel.
I know you're 2
just beginning, but I think the beginning is solidifying now, 3
and I think that would be appropriate to a personal visit to 4
all of the commissioners, perhaps, and let them know exactly 5
what you are doing, because I think the beginning is there.
6 You talked this morning about some self-improvement 7
initiatives, and NUMARC, INPO, EPRI, EEI, plays a role, as we 8
know, owners groups -- there's a lot of things going on in the 9
utilities themselves that I think is healthy.
And I encourage 10 those continued efforts to self-improve, if you will.
And 11 think that's something that we can be encouraged by.
12 And I think also that some of things that are 13 important to me, and I think that I have seen at least some 14 improvements as I've visited plants and met more people in this 15 industry -- an improvement in discipline.
I think we still 16 need more.
Improvement in formality, procedures, attention to 17 detail '-- kind of hard-nosed, hard work.
Some of the stuff 18 we're involved in isn't all a great mystery, so much as it is 19 the follow-through on what we know we have to do and should do.
20 Root cause analysis is something that can be 21 improved.
Some utilities, in my judgment, do it very well, 22 others -- there's room for improvement.
Maintenance -- we've 23 talked about maintenance this morning.
My first assessment 24 when I first looked at the plants in our country, one of my 25 concerns was maintenance.
I didn't think we did it very good I
o 59 1
in this industry of our's.
I still think it needs a lot of I
2 improvement.
I must say, in the past almost four years, I've 3
been encouraged by what I've seen.
4 I've been encouraged by NUMARC's initiative to take a 5
hold of maintenance and try to recognize it as an important 6
priority.
On the other hand, I think there's still room for 7
improvement.
My inclination is to go for rule.
I hear what 8
you say.
I understand what you say, and I would agree that the 9
rules should not be prescriptive, but perhaps it should be 10 performance-based.
We need something, I think, to recognize 11 within the NRC, and the industry working together, that
~
12 maintenance is extremely important.
13 To me it's a mark of professionalism.
To those of 14 you who do maintenance very well, it's my view that that's a 15 mark of understanding what it's all about, because if you 16 continue to operate the plants with a minimum of maintenance, I l
17 simply don't think that's in your best interest.
It's not in 18 our best interests as far as safety is concerned.
It's not in j
19 your best interest as far as safety is concerned.
20 I firmly believe that a safe plant is a reliable 21 plant, is an economic plant.
It will have a good capacity 22 factor.
It'll be a profitable plant.
That's your business, of 23 course.
We come together with the first one -- safety.
If 24 it's safe, and you focus on maintenance and other things to i
25 make it safe -- good, solid training, competent people -- then L
4 56 1
you'll have a reliable plant as well as a safe plant.
And then 2
you'll have, in my judgment, an economical plant.
So it's not 3
only in our best interest, it's in yours.
4 I think maintenance can contribute in a very 5
significant way to safety, to reliability and to economics.
6 Now I recognize it is a challenge that you have to convince 7
your PUC's in some cases that overhauling a pump when it's not 8
broken is the right thing to do.
In my judgment, that's a 9
challenge you have and I think you ought to be up to the 10 challenge, because how long do you run a pump before you 11 overhaul it?
You want to run it until it breaks?
I don't
~
12 think so.
I don't think you should.
Certainly you can rw it 13 a certain period of time.
How long?
I don't know, but thette 14 are a lot of smart people who have run pumps a long period of 15 time that could give us a pretty good estimate of when should 16 that pump be overhauled.
What should you do?
Maybe you don't 17
'have to have a complete breakdown and take it all apart and 18 start over again but maybe there are certain things you should 19 do.
It is not a mystery.
20 It's not been done very well, in my judgment, but it 21 can be done be'tter and therefore I think maintenance -- when I 22 see a utility -- frankly, Crystal River in my judgment had a 23 good maintenance program, one of the best I've'seen -- and when 24 I see somebody that understands how important maintenance is, 25 it at least has an impression on me that perhaps they really do
I 9
57 1
understand the importance of safety,' reliability and economics,
~
2 how they all come together, and maintenance plays a very 3
important role in it -- perhaps more important in my judgment 4
than has been seen up until now.
5 But again, I am encouraged by what I hear and what I 6
see improving.
I just think there is more room for 7
improvement.
8 For the future -- we talked a little bit about the 9
future this morning, and in my view the one thing we need to do 10 if there is going to be a real future for nuclear power in our 11 country is to continue to cperate the plants safety.
We must 12 continue to have safe operations.
We pointed out some areas, I 13 did in my opening remarks, Mr. O'Connor did too, about the 14 statistics.
Results are there.
We can show -- you can show 15 where things are improving, and I agree with that.
That must 16 continue.
If there is going to be a future, we must continue 17 to operate the plants safety.
They can be operated safely in 18 my judgment.
We must be confident but not over-confident.
We 19 must work hard to keep our confidence, but not be over-20 confident, not be complacent, not be too satisfied -- because 21 there is still room for improvement in my judgment.
22 So for the future I think we need standardization.
I 23 think we need pre-selected sites.
I think we need single stage 24 licensing.
That's what our bill in the congress has proposed 25 for the past few years, as you know.
We need your support for
58 1
that.
I hope it will pass in the Congress.
I don't know 2
whether it will or not, but we certainly hope it will.
On the 3
other hand, if it doesn't pass, this Commission is working to 4
see what we can do with our own authority to move towards 5
standardization, move towards pre-selected sites and even move 6
within the bounds of our own authority and the regulatory 7
framework that we work under to move even towards single stage 8
licensing to see what we can do to do something ourselves.
9 So we are working on it ourselves, but we would ask 10 for your continued support, and the primary reason we ask your 11 support is for safety.
That is our common goal.
Safety is our 12 common goal.
I believe standardization, pre-selected sites and 13 single stage licensing will increase safety.
It really will.
14 It till lay it out in the public ahead of time, make our 15 dec! sions upfront.
Everybody can get involved, make all the 16 decisions possible upfront, and when the decision is made we 17 build the plant, build it safely and reliably so it will 18 operate economically.
To me it just makes sense to do that and 19 that is that we are trying to do with our legislative proposal.
20 If that doesn't pass we are trying to do.it within our own 21 authority, within the law to see what we can do.
That is our 22 effort to improve safety and we need your support for those 23 initiatives.
24 Finally, let me just say that it has been my 25 assessment, conclusion of visiting a number of plants and
59 1
1 meeting a number of you leaders that there are several 2
important features to make a successful nuclear power utility, 3
nuclear power industry in our country.
First of all, the 4
design of the plant is crucial.
It must be a good design.
It 5
must be well constructed with quality and it must be operated 6
properly.
7 And then you say, well, beyond that how do you 8
continue to operate it?
My view is if there is any one key, it 9
is leadership involvement.
I used to say management 10 involvement, but that connoted more resources and less people.
11 I think people are the key.
People are the key.
So I think if
~
~~
12 you say ' leadership involvement, at least to my way of thinking 13 it describes better what I am trying to say -- that is a 14 commitment to excellence, a real commitment to quality:
15 quality people and hard work and attention to detail and the 16 real sincere commitment to doing it right and doing it right 17 the first time.
But leadership involvement -- and getting that 18 down the line, all the way down the line, accepting 19 responsibility, accountability and authority.
Get it down the 20 line:
make everybody feel ownership of the plant, of the 21 diesel engine, of the power plant part that they work on, but 22 that is-leadership involvement.
i 23 I must say I am encouraged by what I see in this 24 regard this morning, your presence and your knowledge of some 25 of the key features.
The industry in my view is improving --
60
.)
1 and it's leadership involvement, your continuing involvement, 2
your continuing efforts to improve.
With a lot of hard work 3
and getting your hands dirty and getting in to find out what is 4
going on, and follow through down through your organization --
5 those are the'important things, I think.
6 But just remember that our common goal is public 7
health and safety and I think working together with the 8
industry and with the various groups in the atmosphere of 9
cooperation when we can, when it is within our regulatory 10 responsibilities to do so, the legal requirements we have, if 11 we can remember our common goal and work together, then I think 12 we will be better serving the public health and safety and 13 better serving the American people.
14 So those are some of my thoughts this morning, and I 15 would ask you to continue your efforts to bring improvements to 16 this industry.
I think they are not only in your best 17 interests of your organizations but they are in the best 18 interest of the Regulatory Commission and in the best. interest 19 of the American people.
20 Are there other comments from my fellow 21 Commissioners?
l Thank you again very much.
Appreciate your being 22 23 with us this morning.
We stand adjourned.
24 (Whereupon, at 11:32 a.m.,
the hearing was i
25 adjourned.)
r l
o 1
2 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 3
4 This is to certify that the attached events of a 5
meeting of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:
6 7
TITLE OF MEETING:
State of the Nuclear Industry 8
PLACE OF MEETING:
Washington, D.C.
9 DATE OF MEETING:
May 4,1988 10 11 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original 12 transcript thereof for the file of the Commission taken
('
13 stenographically by me, thereafter reduced to typewriting by 14 me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and 15 1
that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the 16 foregoing events.
17 4
18 le 19 20 4
21 22 Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
23~
24 l
I 25 l
l I
l
-. _ -. - _ _ _. _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _. -. _ _ _ _. _,., _ _ -.. -.. _ - _ _ _, _ _ _. _... _,.., ~ -, _.. _.... _. _,. _ -,.,.. - _ _ _,..
. _ _,,. ~, - -
v L
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS By Robert K. Campbell Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer Pennsylvania Power and Light Company and General Chairman, Nuclear Power Assembly J
before the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission May 4,1988 In Conjunction With The l
1988 NUCLEAR POWER ASSEMBLY i
l'
NRC Briefing h
IlfrR0_DUCTORY REMARKS Robert K. Campbell GOOD MORNING.
I'M ROBERT CAMPBELL, CHAIRMAN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY AND CHAIRMAN OF THE NUCLEAR POWER ASSEMBLY.
WE ARE PLEASED TO BE HERE FOR OUR ANNUAL BRIEFING AS PART OF THE ANNUAL NUCLEAR POWER ASSEMBLY.
IN THE PAST TWO DAYS WE HAVE HEARD OFFICIALS FROM THE EXECUTIVE 3 RANCH AND CONGRESS DISCUSS NUCLEAR PLANT STANDARDIZATION, URANIUM MINING AND ENRICHMENT LEGISLATION, THE STATUS OF NRC REORGANIZATION, THE DEVELOPMENT OF ADVANCED REACTOR TECHNOLOGIES, AND OTHER TIMELY AND IMPORTANT ISSUES.
WE HEARD THEM ACKNOWLEDGE NUCLEAR ENERGY'S VITAL ROLE IN OUR COUNTRY'S ENERGY FUTURE.
AND WE WERE REMINDED THAT, EVEN WITH THIS UNDERSTANDING AND SUPPORT, POLITICAL AND REGULATORY UNCERTAINIIES i
REMAIN.
IN SPITE OF A SUCCESSFUL YEAR--IN THE CONGRESS, ON THE STATE LEVEL AND IN OUR.OWN NUCLEAR OPERATIONS--WE HAVE CHALLENGES APLENTY.
WITH ME TODiY ARE TWO SENIOR INDUSTRY EXECUTIVES.
JIM O'CONNOR, CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF COMMONVEALTH EDISON COMPANY, WHO WILL TALK ABOUT THE STATE OF THE INDUSTRY.
I AS JIM WILL TELL YOU, WE IN THE NUCLEAR POWER INDUSTRY ARE SERIOUS ABOUT OUR EMPHASIS ON EXCELLENCE IN ALL ASPECTS OF OUR OPERATIONS.
WE ARE DEEPLY COMMITTED TO MAINTAINING NUCLEAR ENERGY AS AN OPTION FOR THE NATION'S ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY.
1 r
XEROX TELECOPIER 295 1 77-77-??;77877 ??i CCITT 03 t If2
XEROX TELECOPlER 295 :
??'77- ??; ??: ?? M,
CCiTT G3 0 i01 MMY 2 '88 12:03 FROM PPL T OtJE R 16 PAGE.001 I
' SHERWOOD SMITH, CHAIRMAN, PRESIDFNT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, WILL DISCUSS THE INDUSTRY'S EFFORTS TO IMPROVE NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY AND OPERATIONS.
HE WILL FOCUS PRIMARILY ON THE RECENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE, OR EPRI.
SHERWOOD IS A MEMBER OF EPRI'S BOARD OF DIRECTOR $.
BEFORE JIM AND SHERWOOD SPEAK, I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY A FEW WORDS IN MY CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN OF NUMARC.
OUR INDUSTRY'S COMMITMENT TO NUCLEAR ENERGY REQUIRES US TO TAKE A REALISTIC VIEW OF THE CHALLENGES.
WE ALL SHARE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO RESOLVE THESE CHALLENGES.
OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS SOME FUNDAMENTAL AND IMPORTANT CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE WAY WE APPROACH OUR NUCLEAR RESPONSIBILITIES.
WE HAVE MADE A S,TRONG COMMITMENT TO ACHIEVING OPERATING EXCELLENCE, AND HAVE MADE GREAT PROGRESS IN SUCH AREAS AS OPERATING AND MAINTAINING OUR PLANTS AND TRAINING OUR PEOPLE.
WE DON'T CLAIM YET TO BE SATISFIED, BUT OUR PROGRESS IS REAL AND MEASURABLE.
BUT, AS YOU RNOW, WE DON'T OPERATE IN A VACUUM, EVERY DECIFION WE MAKE IS INFLUENCED BY THE INSTITUTIONAL AND REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH WE OPERATE.
IF WE ARE TO KEEP OUR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS OPERATING WELL, AND KEEP THE NUCLEAR OPTION OPEN FOR THE FUTURE, OUR GOALS MUST RELATE CONSTRUCTIVELY TO THE INSTITUTICNS THAT SHAPE THE ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH WE OPERATE.
THE PUBLIC MUST BE ASSURED THAT OUR NUCLEAR PLANTS ARE OPERATED WELL--SAFELY AND RELIABLY.
( xdGi;1 Tf/CECDI@f tw W-M-M:M:99 97:
cu i i i o,3,
M&( ' 2 '88 11:33 JROM PPL TOWER 16 PAGE 001 s
p 3-IT'S CLEARLY OUR MUTUAL OBJECTIVE TO P.'A0 VIDE SAFE,
)
T.F/ICIENT ELECIRICI?Y GENERATED BY Nij0 LEAR POWER.
THERE ARE
'!NCOURAGING SIONS THAT OUR SHARED VISION OF HOW TO ACHIEVE THESE COALS OF PROV DING SAFL AND EFFIC'IENT ELECTRICITY FRO'M NUCLEAR F)WER ARE COMING TOGETFER AND.THAT THE CONGRESS, THE NRC, THE 4
N1, CLEAR INDUSTRY AhD THE PUBLIC ARE MOVING IN THE SAME DIRECTION.
ON THE NEGULATORY FRONT, WE ARE PLEV'e MAT 14 NEW i
UUCLEAF. PLANTS RECEIVED OPERATING LICENSES LAs-YEAR.
WE ARE ALSO GRATIFIED BY THIS COMMISSION'S CONSTRUCTIVE APPROACH IN ADDRESSING SUCH ISSUES AS EROSION-CORROSION AND OPERATOR REQUALIFICATION.
ON EROSION-CORROSION, THE COMMISSION PLAYED A r
STRONG OVERSIGHT ROLE AS THE INDUSTRY DEVELOPED SPECIFIC SOLUTIONS.
ON OPERATOR REQUALIFICATION, THE COMMISSION ASKED THE INDUSTRYTODEFINNSPECIFICPROBLEMS,WHICHHASRESULTEDINA MORE COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM TO MEASURE OPERATOR PERFORMANCE.
INSTEAD OF REGUL TING THE PROBLEM-SOLVING PROCESS, NRC IS JUDGING TH'I RESULTS OF OUR PROGRAMS ON THE BASIS OF OUR PERFORMANCE.
VE BELIEVE THIS APPROACH IS WORKING WELL ON THESE I
ISSUES, AS IT HAS IN THE PAST ON ISSUES St"CH AF ACCREDITATION OF TRAINING PROGRAMS, IT IS A GOOD USE OF ALL OUit EXPERTISE AND i
RESOURCES.
.17 PRESERVES THE NRC'S MISSION OF REGULATING l
PRESCRIBED LEVELS OF EAFETY BY MONITORING OUR PERFORMANCE, AND IT RESULTS Y.N EFFECTIVE, REALISTIC AND WORKABLE SOLUTIONS.
l 1
l
j D WE BELIEVE THIS APPROACH--EXPECTING INDUSTRY TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS WHERE TIIEY EXIST--IS l
APPROPRIATE.
AND WE ARE DEDICATED TO MAKING SURE THAT CUR PERFORMANCE ON THESE ISSUES WILL ENCOURAGE THE COMMISSION TO USE IT MORE WIDELY IN THE FUTURE, WE HOPE WE CAN USE THIS APPROACH IN THE MAINTENANCE AREA, OUR EFFORTS ARE NOT INTENDED TO SUPPLANT REGULATION AND OVERSIGHT BUT TO COMPLEMENT THEM, THEREBY ADVANCING THE SAFETY GOALS THAT BOTH NRC AND THE NUCLEAR ENERGY INDUSTRY SHARE, WITH THAT, LET ME TURN THE PODIUM OVER TO MY COLLEAGUE FROM COMMONWEALTH EDISON, JIM O'CONNOR, S/2/88
.. TOTAL FaiE.00:
- - ~
. 1, A STATE-OF-THE-INDUSTRY REPORT by James J. O'Connor Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Commonwealth Edison Company before the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission hf ay 4,1988 in Conjunction With The 1988 NUCLEAR POWER ASSEMBLY
i
.p.
i NRC Briefing:
A STATE-OF-THE-INDUSTRY REPORT By James J. O'Connor Good morning, gentlemen.
Let me begin by endorsing Bob Campbell's statement that the nuclear industry is singlemindedly dedicated to self-improvement and superior performance in its operations, communications, our responsiveness to regulation in fact,in all aspects of our operations. Throughout the nuclear utility indus try today, from the board room to the control room, we are devoted to achieving and maintaining exemplary performance in both management and operation at all of our plants.
In my remarks today, I want to review briefly what we have achieved over l
the last year and what we hope to achieve in the months ahead.
f By and large, the last year has been a rewarding time for the nuclear l
industry. Our drive for excellence in operations is bearing fruit. And we are i
i much heartened by a number of positive developments on Capitol Hill.
a,, - - -.,,
,n n--
.. _ Legislative Achievements. As you know, Congress is close to extending and revising the Price-Anderson Act. The new version strengthens the act by raising the public's liability protection from a nuclear accident more than tenfold.
Strong nuclear support also turned aside an attempt in the House of Representatives to give state and local government effective veto power over the operation of nuclear power plants. This key vote reaffirmed Congress's intention to leave regulation of nuclear energy in the hands of the NRC. It was encouraging to utilities to see Congress reaffirming the federal responsibility to assure uniform safety standards and enforcement policies for all of our nuclear plants. Our experience at Shoreham and Seabrook shows how disastrous it could be if this authority were dispersed among the various states.
We were also gratified by congressional agreement to redirect the nation's high-level nuclear waste management program. Lack of progress in implementing the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 was a continuing source of frustration for us, for two reasons. From a financial standpoint, because the utilities are meeting their oblig'ation to fund the program. And from a public information standpoint, because the pub!!c will remain skeptical about our ability to dispose of the waste safely until we can show real progress. Under the new arrangement, we should soon see progress, which is good news for all of us.
I r
And there have been other achievements. We see serious efforts to set
[
the federal government's uranium enrichment enterprise on a more businesslike footing. Congress has taken the first steps toward reforming the licensing process. And we see early signs of congressional willingness to consider support for advanced nuclear power technologies. After a rocky start, the new U.S.-Japan nuclear cooperation agreement breezed through Congress.
These are all important steps in their own right, but they have a collective importance that goes beyond each individual event. When we step back and look at the last year's events as a whole, you can see that we-the industry, Congress, the Executive Branch and you, the industry's regulators-are i
i creating the foundation necessary for successful operation of our current plants and for the next generation of nuclear power plants in this country. All of the nuclear industry's efforts-in Congress and among the states, in our communications programs and our regulatory efforts-are geared toward this objective.
Industry Achievements. For the nuclear energy industry to continue to flourish, one of our primary responsibilities is to operate the plants we have as well as humanly possible. As you know, the industry launched a comprehensive, industrywide self-improvement program almost 10 years ago, as a result of all the lessons learned from Three Mile Island. We realized then that all nuclear power plants are affected by the performance at any one plant.
l
We recognize that not all of our plants are yet performing to the high standards we expect, but we believe that our self-improvement efforts have already paid handsome dividends and will continue to do so. The improvement in industrywide performance indicators measured by the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO), and by the Commission, support this conclusion.
You will be hearing a full report from INPO in a couple of weeks, but I'd like to mention some of the most notable performance indicators for 1980 through 1987:
unplanned automatic scrams dropped from an average of 7.4 to less o
than 3; the lost-time accident rate improved from 1,36 to 0.34; o
radiation exposure among plant workers (measured in man-rem per o
=
unit) dropped from 1,230 to 521; the average volume of low-level, solid radioactive waste per BWR o
unit dropped from 1,113 cubic meters to 459; and the average volume per PWR unit dropped from 586 to 194.
o The last two have already exceeded the goals set for 1990, and some of the other indicators may do so this year or next.
Further evidence of operational progress appeared in last month's NRC report on abnormal occurrences for the third quarter of 1987, which listed only two incidents. That brought the total number of abnormal occurrences for the first three quarters of Fiscal Year 1987 to only three, less than previous years.
l l
t
. Future Challentes. We are proud of our collective progress, but we know that major challenges remain. Looking ahead, we hope to see substantial needed progress in several major areas in the next year, One of our primary goals for the year is to see Seabrook and Shoreham o
on-line. These plants are ready to operate, have developed satisfactory emergency plans, and are clearly needed to meet electricity demand and to replace imported oil use in their regions. They stand as symbols of the government unpredictability to which nuclear power is subject, As a corollary to this issue, we hope the next year brings final resolution o
of the controversy over emergency planning regulation. We commend the Commission for its action last year in clarifying and affirming its i
congressionally-mandated authority over emergency planning.
Another high priority for us is standardization and licensing reform. It's o
self-evident that no utility la this country would consider ordering another nuclear plant without some assurance that,if we build the plant as approved, we will be able to operate it. No industry can afford to see a large investment-like two nuclear plants on the East Coast-standing idle. The solution must include development of standardized reactor designs, pre-approval of nuclear plant designs and sites, and consolidation of the construction permit and operating Ilcense procedures into one step.
-______ _ ___ ____ _____ _ _ _ J
t,
in addition, we would like to see the question of the organizational o
structure of the Commission resolved. Let me acknowledge our awareness that reorganization of the Commission would not be a panacea. We also j
believe strongly that the licensing process should be reformed at the same I
time Congress tackles organizational change.
I The nuclear industry's position on this issue is shaped, first of all, by the j
need to assure that any change in the Commission's structure is compatible with its safety responsibilities. And second, any reorganization should recognize that we must have a credible, effective
[
regulatory agency if we are to have a viable nuclear program.
l The nuclear industry has urged that any changes be considered in light of their consequences for the entire agency and its regulatory program, not merely as a reaction to the problems of the moment or as piecemeal changes in individual offices or functions. Any changes must avoid l
dispersing or dissipating the agehey's regulatory resources, and avoid
}
duplication of the Commission's regula. tory functions. Finally, change should not produce confusion of regulatory authority. The NRC, or any t
b successor agency, must be maintained as the sole body responsible for l
safety regulation of nuclear power activities.
l
[
i I
t
As long as plants like Seabrook and Shoreham-which have been built according to and have met all regulatory requirements-are prevented from operating, the future state of the nuclear power industry looks bleak. With our growing dependence on imported oil and our rising electric power demand, the nation is leaving itself open to great isks without the nuclear option.
Elsewhere around the world, some of our nation's chief economic competitors, in the Far East and Western Europe, are ordering-and will surely hulld and operate-new nuclear plants. Almost all of the plants they are planning are next-step evolutions and developments stemming from U.S. light water reactor technology. Those countries are benefitting from yet another technology that we pioneered.
We must preserve the nuclear option as part of our energy supply if we are to compete effectively in the world marketplace and if we are to provide secure, reliable electric power for the future.
As I mentioned earlier, our goal as an 1,ndustry is to achieve the highest possible levels of excellence in nuclear plant operations. If we achieve that goal, we will have delivered on the promise of nuclear energy as a safe, reliable, economical source of electric power, and earned the trust of the public and policymakers in all levels of government. That confidence, coupled with a credible, predictable regulatory system, will provide the impetus necessary for the next nuclear generation.
4.
This brings me to our next presentation. The next nuclear generation is, at the moment, a research and development task and Sherwood Smith will brief you on the work underway at EPRI in this and other areas.
O i
I l
i I
i t
)
l
T I
SI ATUS REPORT ON UTILITY RESEARCH ON NUCLEAR POWER by Sherwood H. Smith, Jr.
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer Carolina Power and Light Company _
before the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission May 4,1988 In Conjunction With The 1988 NUCLEAR POWER ASSEMBLY
o i
i NRC Briefing:
STATUS REPORT ON UTILITY RESEARCH ON NUCLEAR POWER By Sherwood H. Smith, Jr.
Good morning. It is a pleasure and privilege to report to you on the electric utility industry's work in nuclear research and development-particularly the R&D efforts of the Electric Power Research Institute. My own company was a founding member of EPRI and I serve on the EPRI Board aad Executive Committee and as Chairman of the Strategic Planning Committee.
In the nuclear area, EPRIis one part of a team of utility-sponsored organizations dedicated to safety, reliability and operational excellence. EPRI works closely with both NUMARC(The Nuclear Management and Resources Council) and INPO (the Institute of Nuclear. Power Operations). EPRI has collaborated with NUMARC in such areas as erosion-corrosion, decay heat removal, severe accident issues and others. And EPRI has worked closely with INPO on a variety of technical issues-equipment reliability, water chemistry, maintenance, human factors guidelines and in-service inspection, among them.
I F
i P
t Let me review briefly some facts about EPRI research. EPRI's utility membership represents over 70 percent of America's generating capacity and l
over 90 percent of our operating nuclear plants. The utility industry contributes over $360 million to these research efforts; just under 20 percent is dedicated to nuclear power research. The Nuclear Power Division's research budget is augmented by cooperative or co-funded programs, including a number of cooperative programs with the NRC. Currently, about 50 percent of the benefits that accrue to utilities from EPRI research have come from nuclear power division programs.
Safety First. I want to stress EPRI's commitment to a "safety-first" 3
approach when it sets priorities for nuclear energy research. We take a broad view of safety. In our view, it includes both reactor safety and the safety of nuclear plant personnel. Here are just two examples.
4 p
Af ter the December 1986 feedwater pipe rupture at Surry, EPRI created a task force and a program on erosidn-corrosion in high pressure water (or single-pr.ase) piping, drawing on experts in. materials, water chemistry, thermal i
J hydraulics and systems enginee'ing. EPRI sponsored workshops and distributed r
reports on the technical aspects of the problem, and developed a computer program (called CHEC) to help utilities predict where to look for single-phase I
i erosion-corrosion. EPRI also helped develop a set of NUMARC Working Group recommendations to address this issue, and is now developing a para'.lel code (called CHECMATE) to predict erosion-corrosion in pipes carrying a mixture of I
saturated steam and water (or two-phase) fluid.
1 u
j I
i
. ~ _ -
7.,--
,m
,__._.-+--___,_--m--n._----
r
.w+w.,_,
.-., e
?
. i i
EPRI research has also helped reduce occupational radiation exposures.
You heard Jim O'Connor mention that collective radiation exposure per nuclear unit has dropped 50-60 percent since 1980. EPRI's contribution in this i
area includes the LOMI decontamination process, improved control over i
primary water chemistry, automated inspection techniques and the development of new cobalt-free alloys to replace stellite, a major source of cobalt-60 in nuclear plants.
l Accident Research. The utility industry assigns a high priority to severe i
accident research. In the seismic area, for example, EPRI has developed new j
analytic tools, performed large scale seismic tests, and gathered extensive earthquake survivability data to help resolve concerns about seismic adequacy.
)
This has helped resolve seismic issues involving possible large earthquakes in l
I the eastern U.S.
i EPRI's work on severe accidents also includes emergency diesel generator' reliability, decay heat removal, the IDCOR program and extensive j
i experimental work on containment integrity.
Reliabilltv. One of our industry's goals is improved reliability and availability and EPRI has several valuable programs in this area. Just a couple l
j of examples:
b o
f s
i e
t i
j
.. t o EPRI helped develop ways to prevent intergranular stress-corrosion cracking in boiling water reactor recirculation piping, which has caused major outages at BWRs. Through EPRI, the utilities sponsored a nine-year, $90 million program to develop remedies, including crack-resistant materials, new welding procedures, water chemistry guidelines and advanced in-service inspection methods, o EPRI research has also improved the reliability and availability of steam generators and reduced repair and inspection costs. Between 1980 and 1984, the average annual lost capacity from forced and extended outages and steam generator replacements was 5.7 percent, at an average annual cost of
$196 million, in 1985 and 1986, that lost capacity rate was lowered to 1.7 percent, with an average annual cost of $59 million--over a three-fold improvement. This shows how research geared to improved plant reliability has also reduced costs.
Operations and Maintenance.. EPRIis helping INPO develop a practical, cost-ef fective approach to improving industry operations and maintenance practices, building on the progr'ams already in existence at many utilities. The principal focus remains safety and improved reliability. But the need to address the acute problem of escalating O&M costs forced EPRI to re-evaluate the objectives, resource allocation and benefits of maintenance programs in terms of improved safety and reliability, it seems clear that the industry is spending more than enough money on O&M. U.S. O&M costs are among the highest in the world-higher than France, Sweden, and other countries with excellent operations and maintenance. The U.S. industry needs to spend its money more wisely.
o
-S-a To help utilities optimize their maintenance programs, EPRI is working closely with INPO on severalinitiatives. EPRl's major new maintenance effort is the Nuclear Maintenance Assistance Center, or NMAC. Modeled somewhat af ter the Nuclear Safety Analysis Center (NSAC), NMAC will provide a vehicle l
for timely analysis and dissemination of field experience and the transfer of new maintenance technology.
Our aim is to introduce a more effective "learning curve" in all elements of maintenance, not just in key components like steam generators This rapid review and feedback will result in technical information and practical guidelines for maintenance personnel.
Advanced Reactors. Although institutional factors are the main impediment to nuclear energy's expansion, now is the time to define the f
technical characteristics of the next generation of nuclear power plants. That is the purpose of the last program I will discuss, the industry's Advanced Light l
Water Reactor (or ALWR) program. '
We are pleased with this program's progress-not least because it places the responsibility of developing the requirements for future nuclear plants i
squarely where it belongs-in the hands of the utilities. The utilities are I
accountable for the safety and economic performance of these reactors, and I
must provide the resources for their construction, operation and maintenance.
As a result, EPRl's management of the ALWR program relles heavily on the I
}
utility executives that serve on the ALWR Steering Committee.
l l
I
. i The ALWR program is a joint effort with the Department of Energy, whose participation and support is vital. DOE also has the primary role in long-range reactor development-the liquid metal cooled and gas cooled systems, in which EPRI plays a modest supporting role. The primary utility focus is on the ALWR.
For the ALWR to be a viable candidate for utility investment, it must meet three fundamental standards. First, it must be an excellent power plant in all respects. This means safety foremost, but it also includes reliability, maintainability and compatibility with the environment. Second,it must be economically attractive compared to fossil-fired units. Finally, the ALWR must provide very high protectien of the utility investment in terms of predictable construction costs and schedules, assured licensability, predictable l
operating and maintenance costs and very low risk of severe accident.
The ALWR program is developing two design concepts to meet these standards, in each case, both pressurized water reactor and boiling water reactor designs are being considered. The two design concepts are an i
evolutionary plant (1,000 megawatt electrical reference design) and a cassive safety plant (600 megawatt electrical reference design).
(
1 1
< i in the evolutionary ALWR concepts, systems and hardware are conventional, but the designs place increased emphasis on safety, simplicity, increased design margin and improved human factors. For example, a PWR designed to these standards would use a conventional reactor coolant system, but with much improved reactor coolant pump seal designs; steam generators with greater corrosion resistance and a larger secondary side water inventory; and a much larger pressurizer to accommodate a full post-scram transient without actuation of pilot operated relief valves. The reactor manufacturers are developing the detailed designs to be consistent with the utility requirements and are submitting them to NRC for certification.
The second ALWR design option, potentially attractive over the longer term, is the passive plant. The ALWR passive plant increases the use of intrinsic physical characteristics, such as gravity and natural circulation to remove decay heat, provide emergency core cooling and prevent core damage.
The incentives for developing the passive plant are substantial. The plant protection systems would substitute intrinsic, or passive, response for the active, engineered safeguards equipment used in existing plants. The passive plant offers greater opportunit than the evolutionary plant to simplify-by reducing the number of valves, pumps, tanks and instruments-with an attendant improvement in safety, construction time and cost, plant operability and maintainability. The passive plant may be more easily licensable than existing plants because of its simpilcity, increased safety margins and improved human factors.
l 1
l We are confident that the ALWR program will yield financially attractive, licensable, standardized systems, ready for construction when they are needed during the next decade. The promise of this program is reflected in the fact that it is being joined, financially and technically, by utilities from 1
I Japan, Taiwan, Korea, Italy and the Netherlands.
In closing,let me just say that we appreciate the cooperation of NRC in identifying areas of joint safety research with the industry. We believe such joint projects produce more meaningful results, which are used in a more timely and effective manner, at less cost to both the taxpayer and the ratepayer.
1 I
I i
i I
[
l
?
1 t
l i
I i
i t
l i
t
)
I
r-
'iMNd%%%%%%%%%d 6%Wh%%%%WA%%%%ld%%%% 6%%%%Wgggfefgeggg TPANSMITTA1. TO:
Occument Control Desk 016 Phillips 0
ADVANCEO COPY TO:
The Public Document Roem
[/6 /fI OATE:
/
l FROM:
SECY Correspondence & Records Branch Attached are copies of a Commission meeting transcript and related meeting l1.
document (s). They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession t.ist and placement in the Public Document Room. No other distribution is requested or j
required.
I Meeting
Title:
b al
/$ad^o 0,v [IL defL r/
/
/ l> _
Aua lt s > _,
- Ats+ &,-
)( '
Meeting Date:
.{M4/# F Open Closed i.
l Item Description *:
Copies l
Advanced OCS fl
- 8 i
to PDR g
ii l I.
- 1. TRANSCRIPT 1
1 l!
1 J l l l' l !
- 2. Ol d e n e < A e'?,Ne M / t i T
/
/
l 1
'h,s -r>r. redL L L p i :'
1 r wL<J l
/
3 fCCCina,2. /7 jjl 06_.
4'
~
- 4. /0Ls Xs->nt.J t'l /N t a< ~ erL
/
/
f 1 :-j
'd/ M,dc4 gk-
+
3 5-2.
3 l, 3
3 :,!
6.
3 3 :
3 :
- PDR is advanced one copy of each document, two of each SECY paper.
Q C&R Branch files the original transcript, with attachments, withcut SECY y$
3 :j j papers.
=
3 :
h E
3
!I@hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhlWMBBBMhhhhhhhnnhhn
.