Text

Transcript of 981119 ACRS Meeting Re Reliability & Probabilistic Risk Assessment,Plant Operations & Regulatory Policies & Practices in Rockville,Md.Pp 1-138.With Reporters Certificate
	ML20196A316
Person / Time
Issue date:	11/19/1998
From:	; Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
To:	;
References
	ACRS-T-3059, NUDOCS 9811270113
	Download: ML20196A316 (141)
	v • d • e

{{#Wiki_filter:(. 5 7 h5 +9g

j y

1 3 . <n, J ( ,I if. f g 1 ~ Y ei..!1

p*

3 - . 4, - e t p i s ed s 4 g ) 1 l 4 ^ 8 P d ^ is' ,I! 3 M.'fi g 'd TRO4 (ACRS) @g, RETURN ORIGINAL e ) ,Y 5{ # TO BJWHITE [,hf' y M/S T-2E26 p., '3 a. 415-7130 , o

,,i j-ddj THANKS!

f j d. N$ Nhf^ 'f

A;gdI8dshs$

[ [. ? :" g w '"" g f.k o m g; _ p 7 : p g a g,:a ngg a 'y h ), -? !$, s 'k r

N' h_,.R. ?N%!:lfp ((pl%f64.'h[,%%%$$I;,,,,N[' '

r g r

l l s. DP:MA ?OFFICIAIiTRANSCRIPTIOF PROCEEDIN. GS.. m e o pgw NNUCIMAR!REGUL TORYfCONINIISSIONL wf.;4g;n w w. w-py .y ..(f; i p v ? A ' '. ~. _?ADVISORYLCOM, M. ITTEE;ON?REACTO.R SAFEGUARDS. " 0 yA - c w- - =

5 7.o W

p-5 ~m, w w w, n a-p.g < m. ~ a- ~ c ~ ga., u m q w :g l gl

ng

\\ Yk& ' X

N

~, &h?,1%wg(:K: db,% l y f4 .) l s + r ,e 4. [a.331 c%.-,4 a .. ).,. [ t _ jj ,1g' .s + 1 Q;Q,.. $,. e 3 3 v 1 g@, F Q.,~ ~ m,M M q w s $,!y,l&Titieff,

m ' ?ACRSJfEETING"RE

\\ .nh' }:) c i .y;, ' ?; e e' Da.m,74 w.. sw w% A W ,Je M A May ]x 3 m. Mm...... 1 ;., aJ ~., E

t TRELIABILITY: AN, D PROBABILISTICf m-5 g

,s 4 o &;$; y' " x u a q. ,I ' &.5 ' s 2 .l ... -[ y; ?~,. M

RISKi ASSESSMENT,rPLANTT. y D,

" w ~,,' [T : V$ .;+ ~ ~ \\ d ' S; J ~ e M,.,; %, e.a ~ bdPERATIONS_?,ANDLREGULATORYf 1 .o pg,., &. i : 1 p yy .._,.....,ch...?,.,<,' 3( . l.

g A

, m, _ S w, ,J -w + .. 3 + f

. g c/

y:s RPOLICIES AND! PRACTICES 1 < .1 n . ay ^ }hfi." y $@6}i. W f.iy gg, '[ [ ' v ,a +' x + 3: y, ' j %{[ O N r 4 4 u p %apy,,,. fA g ,.3 h, u T TRO4 (ACRS) 'M gpn

g

-g m ' ? Docket nom ', RETJRN ORIGINAL W %.;. r,-. n. :/ -,; , < %< m4 TO BJWHITE d, m m.

a

.47 N,. - - WL.,&. e M/S T-2E2E e cm e. .ta + m. y e, y,.; ngcv, x c w w m. .o p, TaANxs! 4

g; f',' ll'E jA.

_.,,/ .b 5 . [,; ? ' -' 9'T Y L 'L e r <.,; u.). u .n.b i .. s. [ p'_ s. . 3 0 ., m; :;,_ ,; 7 g. g;, - +,M,_'X' . y; . Work 70rder Nor ' ASB-300-552. ' ' g a .p 'y; v <,u. I Q i ? 4 /" u e .i r !$.pf,1, ' " 9811270113 981119 I . @ k-PDR ACRS f @ @f E'

T-3059 N

i M .) d/@, 4 e

f. Me,.e

, e LOCATION: Rockville,MD. [ d/.J,;#f.y j i ,- go \\, 3 g - M, L. 4}[f.:lE

lDATEi Thursday, November 19,1998 PAGES:1 - 138 f-A Or

. w~ m q p < > J " m*. - ! i J t

i r

s .f LQ ,.,? '~! .y. 4,0f t, ,CT ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. MY., *, 1pgGennect uteMSuite.4014_ g~':f p* ?,:gh,

TCY OJ ' R etaIn f

y. 1 \\ t y.; Y.y.: W. y

p. ;

N R'R,.,1 CC C Bi '8'0D: 16COMi::':er n _.s,u . a,,. [g M.h ) y .g '~' g p.<. 5 c.'[Y. 1 S. I e,- r ,.3s ,s 7 g g. 0 s e w

k) DISCLAIMER UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS NOVEMBER 19, 1998 The contents of this transcript of the proceeding of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, taken on November 19, 1998, N_ as reported herein, is a record of the discussions recorded at the meeting held on the above date. i This transcript had not been reviewed, corrected and edited and it may contain inaccuracies. O V

1 1 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 3 4 5 ACRS MEETING RE RELIABILITY AND PROBABILISTIC 6 RISK ASSESSMENT, PLANT OPERATIONS, AND '7 REGULATORY POLICIES AND PRACTICES-8 9 10 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11' TWFN Building, Room T2B3 12 Two White Flint North 13 Rockville, Maryland 14 Thursday, November 19, 1998 () 15 The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:06 16 p.m. 17 MEMBERS PRESENT: 18 GEORGE APOSTOLAKIS, Chairman, ACRS Subcommittee on 19 Reliability and PRA 20 THOMAS KRESS, Chairman, ACRS Subcommittee on 21 Regulatory Policies and Practices 22 GRAHAM WALLIS, Member, ACRS 23 24 25 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i }

_ _. _ _ _ _ ~. _ - -.. _ _. _ _ _ _ _ i 2 l 1 PROCEEDINGS I 2. [1:06 p.m.] 3 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: The meeting will now come to y 4 order. 5 'This is the first day of a joint meeting of the 6-ACRS Subcommittees on Reliability and Probabilistic Risk l 7 Assessment, Plant Operations, and on Regulatory Policies and l 8 Practices. 9 I am George Apostolakis, Chairman of the 10 Subcommittee on Reliability and PRA. Dr. Thomas Kress is 11. Chairman of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Policies and 12 Practices. ACRS member in attendance is Dr. Graham Wallis.

13 The purpose of thib meeting is to continue the 14 subcommittees' discussion of proposed options to make 10 CFR

() 15 Part 50 and 10 CFR 50.59, changes, tests, and experiments, 16-risk-informed. That's for today, the 19th. 17 .The subcommittees will review proposed changes to 18 the NRC assessment programs, including integrated review of 19 assessment processes, senior management meeting process, as 20 well as programs for risk-based analysis of reactor 21 operating experience, including risk-informed performance 22-indicators, and this is for tomorrow. 23 The subcommittees will gather information, analyze 24 relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions 25 and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full l /N ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. J (_s/ Court Reporters J 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

3 1 committee. [~') 2 Michael T. Markley is the cognizant ACRS staff N/ l 3 engineer for this meeting. j 4 The rules for participation in today's meeting 5 have been announced as part of the notice of this meeting 6 previously published in the Federal Regiscer on November 4, 7 1998. 8 We have received no written comments or requests 9 for time to make oral statements from members of the public. 10 Before we begin, I need to announce a change to 11 the agenda. 12 The Nuclear Energy Institute will not make 13 presentations as had been previously noted in earlier l l 14 versions of the agenda and on the ACRS internet home page. ,-() 15 NEI representatives are, however, expected to be in 16 attendance and may provide comments. i 17 We will now proceed with the meeting, and I call 18 upon Mr. King, Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Barrett -- you're not 19 here -- to begin. 20 Thank you very much. 21 MR. KING: And we're not sure whether Gary is 22 going to show up or not. 23 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Okay. 24 MR. KING: Holahan. 25 Mr. Cunningham is going to lead the presentation /i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ! (._/ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

4 1 and bring you up to date on where we stand on developing a (f 2 paper to go to the Commission on options for risk-informing 3 Part 50,- and we'll start with some background and bring you 4

up to date'as to where -- at least at this point, where we-5 think the paper is headed.

6 MR. CUNNINGHAM: We have a number of items in our 7 . presentation this afternoon, some of which we've talked to 8 the committee or th'e subcommittee to before. As Tom said, 9 we're going to try'and then'take that background and move on 10 to say, well, where do we see that we think we're going as 11-of'now? i 12 Basically, we're going to go over the -- some of 13 the. comments that were received at the October public 14 workshop, cg> back to' the objectives of the proposed Part 50 f ( 15. modification, the elements of that, some options that we 16 have now for making the modification, and some more l 17 discussion of policy issues,. including some pros and cons of l 18 those, describe some of the implementation issues, talk 19 briefly about how we see the NEI whole-plant study fitting l 20 into this, and come back with some -- then some preliminary ] 21 recommendations and kind of some -- where we're going from 22 here. 23. This slide and the next slide go back to the 24 October workshop, where we had members of the public and 25 members of the industry describe what they thought needed to O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters i 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 d Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 )

5 1 be done in terms of modifying Part 50. n J } 2-There were a number of areas of general' agreement, \\_/ i ~3 including the agreement on where the -,the objectives that 4 were laid out by the staff that we'd have a phased approach, 5 that we would focus -- there were recommendations on. 6 focusing early on scope issues. 7 The NEI representatives recommended that we use 8-the maintenance rule which is now out or will be coming out 9 soon for revision as a test bed for redefining and 10 clarifying the scope. 11 Issues such as process changes and specific rule 12 modifications they thought were of a lower priority, and 13 there was some agreement on the criteria for evaluating rule 14 options. () 15-Some issues where there was not complete agreement 16 at the October meeting -- one was the definition of 17 safety-related that was proposed by industry. Basically, we 18 were not in agreement that the proposal made then was what 19 we thought was the right definition. 20 We wanted to better clarify the issue areas where i 21 NRC needed prior review and approval of a proposed change as 22 opposed to where licensees could make these changes on their 23 own, and in that respect, we had indicated our concern that, 24 when we were talking about design changes, that we were more 25 conscious or wanted to reflect more on the issue of review I O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

I i i 6 1 and approval of. design changes before they were actually h 2

made, v

3 And again, there were other issues, the need for a 4 framework for use risk assessment across many parts of the 5 regulatory decision-making process, including license 6 amendments, enforcement, performance assessment, and I'll 7 come back to that issue in a little bit. l 8 We've laid out before and we'll show again the 9 three objectives for our modification of Part 50. 10 The first is to enhance or improve our safety 11 decision-making process and our decisions by focusing-our 12 resources, the staff's resources, and licensee resources to 13 areas commensurate with the importance to safety of those 14 areas. ( 15 The second point is we want to have a framework l 16 that the staff.can use to be able to use risk information, i 17 take. action in all regulatory matters, and third, allow use L 18 of risk information to provide some flexibility in the 19 licensing and operational areas for licensed plants. l 20 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Regarding the objectives, I 21 think we will need at some point to have a more clear j 22 statement what the objectives are, because you know, 23 importance to health and safety is very high-level, and I 24 was reading some of the documents that Mike sent to me, 25 which I think apply really for tomorrow, but still, the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters ^ 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

7 1 . issue of objectives is very important, and'for example,.the [ ) 2 most' common objective that most people use -- that's why. .3 it's the most common -- is core damage frequency and LERF, t 4: .right? We're trying to keep those within the goals. I -5 But I think there are others that.perhaps 6 everybody understands but nobody ever states. explicitly, 7; because clearly we are not interested only'in keeping that 8 -- 'those numbers below the goals, there are other things l -9 that we are concerned about, and I think an attempt to list 10 those would be very useful,.at least to me but I think also 11 to the public, to understand what the objectives of the 12 agency are. 13 For example, does the agency really want to 14 . prevent initiating events from happening? You know, the ( 15 occurrence of the initiator does not necessarily lead to ~ 16 core damage,. and yet, it may have unpleasant consequences, 17 and perhaps we don't want these things to happen. 18- . So, is that something you can address now, Mark, or make a note and maybe at some other time -- 19 20 MR. CUNNINGHAM: It's probably -- at a later time 21 would be better. When we get to the back, we have a series 22 of implementation issues, and I believe the first one is, in 23 effect, what are the metrics that we use to define 24 importance to safety and health and safety, and it comes I 25 back to, as you say, issues like is core damage frequency I l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington,.D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l l

8 1 adequate or appropriate or are there-others, that sort of sq 2 thing. 3 But we would expect - - to get ahead of myself a 4. little' bit -- the implementation issues would come sometime 5-a few months down the road. We want to first get a sense of 26 a general direction that the Commission wants us to go in 7 .and then we come back and face some of the more specific 8 issues. 9 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: But that's when the specific 10 objectives will drive the process, e 11 But what I'm saying is that perhaps, when we list 12 objectives of modification, we should -- well, it's not just 13 the modification, the objectives of regulations. What is it 14 that we're trying to do? I think a discussion on that would () I 15 be very useful. 16 Because as I was reading the documents, I mean it 17 was clear that there was a general objective stated up 18 front, but then the actual implementation, as you call it, 19 was driven by several other concerns that had not been 20 stated, and now they are not secret, I don't want to imply 21 they are secret, but maybe an effort to list them in bullet 22 form would be useful. '23 Like the strategic plan -- I mean you can start 24 with that from the Commission. I mean they state very 25 clearly they don't want to see any accidents. ' L [' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ( Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 ~n m%e n p-. .ve -ry--1 mm--.

9 1 Now, that's, again, relatively high-level, but ) f 2 what else? 3 MR. KING: We had put together a view-graph -- I-4 guess we never showed it to you -- about -- I call it the 5 desired attributes of Part 50, so that.when you're all done, 6 you know, what do you want this end product to look like? 7 . What do you want it.to do? 8 DR. APOSTOLAKIS:. Exactly. 9 MR. KING: And you could even take that -- and it 10 was -- you know, it probably had seven or eight bullets on 11 the page, and then you could take that and even break it 12 down to another level dealing with things like CDF, ALARA, 13 defense-in-depth, Part 20-type releases, you know, all the 14 things that you might want to consider, technical things () 15 that you want the revised Part 50 to accomplish. 16 DR APOSTOLAKIS: Defense-in-depth is an 17 interesting idea, for example. 18 Defense-in-depth is not -- well, you can say it's 19 an objective, but it's really a way, a tool for achieving 20 something. 21 So, the objective really is something else. I 22 don't know what that would be, but you want the thing to be 23 spread over the sequence, right, I mean the frequency. You p -24 ' don't want to have a sequence where one of the events has 25 almost, you know, a probability of failure of .9, say, and /\\ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

10 'l then you rely on something else to save you. () 2 DR. KRESS: I've never understood the rationale 3 behindLthat, George. 4 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Behind what? l l 5 DR. KRESS: Behind spreading the sequences. l 6 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: That's the principle of 7 defense-in-depth. L 8 DR. KRESS: I don't think so. That's a possible l 9 defense-in-depth principle, but -- t l 10 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: It is, unless you can't do it, 11 like when you have the vessel involved. 12 DR. KRESS: You know, I would have selected a 13 distribution among the sequences that gave me the smallest l 14 uncertainty in my answer. That certainly wouldn't be equal 15 contribution from each one. 16 There's all sorts of ways to spread the results l 17 among sequences, and each of them could be called 18 defense-in-depth,.and I'm not sure whether -- I might want 19 one sticking way up. It-may be the right way to do it. 20. I've never seen a good rationale for that. l 21 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: I'm talking about a single 22-sequence. l 23 DR. KRESS: I may want to see a single one 24-s' ticking way out. That may be the best -- 25 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Sticking'way up, but within the i[ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l. i

. _. -. _... _. _ _ _. _ ~ _ _, i ? 11 i i f 1 sequence, I think the general approach is, _you know, to have ! () 2 two or three things that save you, and each one contributes 3 .to the' frequency of the sequence. l j 4 DR. KRESS: It may be that the way you implement l 5 defense-in-depth does end up spreading -- making the 6 ' sequences rather equal. I 7 DR.'APOSTOLAKIS: I think there is a more 8 fundamental -- I 9. THt. KRESS: But that's not the objective, I don't 10 think. I ( 'll DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Well, that's why I want to see I J12 the objective. 13 DR. KRESS: Okay. l 14 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: I think the objective -- one of i 15 the objectives is that we really -- let's see. We don't 16 want to rely on one safety feature that should have very 17 high or very low un-availability, okay, things like that, 18 and the reason must be the uncertainties' involved. If you L 19 were absolutely certain that that thing would, indeed, have l 20 an un-availability of 10 to the minus 9, they probably 21 wouldn't do anything else. l So, there are objectives, I think, that are not 1 L 22 i i L 23 really spelled out, but people, you know, understand them, 24 .and they proceed with that understanding. But I think this 25. would be a good time to try to articulate what we're trying l 4 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Nashington, D.C. 20036 -(202) 842-0034

..._...-___..m_. 12 1 to do, what we're trying to. achieve.. () 2 MR. KING: We can get that view-graph. 3 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Well, we can start with that, 4' "sure, I mean if you can send somebody to bring it. 5 MR. KING: All right. 6 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Okay. 7-MR. CUNNINGHAM: While Tom's going off to do that, '8 let's go back to deal with the elements that we have talked 9 about in terms of how we might -- what elements of Part 50 10 we might modify. 11 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Let me betray my ignorance here, 12 What kinds of regulations are in Part 50? I mean I am 13. familiar with a lot of them, but is that the totality of 14 nuclear reactor regulations? 15 MR. CUNNINGHAM: No. 16 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: No. 17 MR. CUNNINGHAM: It governs -- it's the principle 18 part of Title 10 which covers reactor design and operations. 19 It and Part 100 are the key pieces. Part 100 deals with the 20 siting aspects and that sort of thing, but when you get into 21 the design of the facility itself, the NSSS, the containment 22' structures, that sort of thing, that's embodied pretty much 23 in -- 24 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Operations? 25 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Operations and things. Technical "/ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

...m.__.. .. _. _. ~.. i: 13 1 specifications are part of -- requirements on -- for 2 technical specifications are in there, so that you have -- 3. part of what you have in Part 50 is process rules, you know, 4 this is how you get a;1icense, this is how you change a 5 license, and here's the conditions that you can change 6 license, and that's what we've been talking about here. .7 In terms of process regulations, 50.12 is how you 8 get an exemption to a specific part of the regulations. 9 50.59 defines what licensees can change in their plant .l ~ 10 without approval from NRC. So, there's.a set of process 11 regulations. L 12 There's also a set of, if you will, technical l 13 regulations that you have on the ECCS. 50.46 is the ECCS 14 design. You have regulations on pressurized thermal shock 15 and station black-out and that sort of thing. j 16 MR. BARRETT: Hydrogen control is 50.44. Then 17 there's also a set of rules that govern the qualifications l l 18 of equipment such as the ASME code requirements, the 19 qualifications for EQ, equipment -- or environmental 20 qualifications, seismic qualifications, fire protection is l 21 in there, period testing, such as in-service inspections, j l l 22 in-service testing. 23 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: So, Appendix R is part of 50. 24 MR. CUNNINGHAM: It's Appendix R to Part 50. 25 Appendix A is the general design criteria, and Appendix B is t I !~ ' Court Reporters ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 4 7

14 1 quality assurance, J is containment leakage, R is the () 2 details on fire protection. 3-MR. BARRETT: Emergency planning regulations are 4 in Part 50, emergency planning, emergency response. 5 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Part 50? Shouldn't it be in 6 Part 100? That's okay. 7 MR. CUNNINGHAM: So, at any rate, when we talk 8 about modifying Part 50, we've thought about making 9 modifications to the process elements of it to say that this 10 is how you could modify those processes to allow risk 11 -information to be used more directly in an exemption. 12 When we talked about Reg. Guide 1.174 and things, 13 we were connecting those to two parts of the regulations, 14 50.90 and 50..92, that allow -- that's the process by which () 15 you get license amendments. 16 So, you could change those to allow risk 17 information to be more explicit in that process, and there's 18 been a lot of discussion with respect to 50.59 in that 19 regard of how risk-informed and how far does the present 20 proposed modification to 50.59 go in terms of being 21 risk-informed? 22 You could -- the third bullet, you could modify 23 specific regulations, could go into 50.46 and put in -- 24-there are several ways you could do it. You could put in 25 what's in some parts of the regulations, what we call an () ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. (s / Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

1 15 1 acceptable alternative provision that some parts -- so, you () 2 have to do this and this and this or you could propose an 3 acceptable -- an alternative which would be found acceptable 4 by the staff, that sort of thing. 5 DR. KRESS: These are alternatives on how you 6 would modify the regulation. 7 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Correct. So, an acceptable 8 alternative provision could be built into any number of the 9 technical regulations, if you will. 10 Another way to do it is to go into a specific 11 technical regulation and modify it to say I'm going to 12 change that regulation to be risk-informed directly. 13 So, in theory, you could go into, again, the ECCS 14 requirements and say something, that I no longer need to do () 15 this, I can do this because of my own knowledge of risk 16 information. 17 DR. KRESS: Aren't you almost automatically 18 constrained to one and three? It looks like you're almost 19 stuck with one and three. 20 MR. CUNNINGHAM: There have been times when the 21 middle one has occurred. I believe the last time they 22 modified Appendix J, it was, you..now, via that second 23 route, they went and actually modified the technical 24 requirements, but that -- some of those are very daunting to 25 take on, I must say, especially something like ECCS, because [~' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters ) 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

. - _ ~ - - - - _ _. -,. _ - - - -. - - - 16 1 it's so -- () 2 'DR. KRESS: It's been -- got such a history. I 3 MR. CUNNINGHAM: It has such a long history and so 4 much, if you will, case law that goes with it that -- ~ 5 DR. KRESS: And I can't see you modifying the PTS l 6

rule.

It's already risk-informed. i 1 7 MR. CUNNINGRAM: Yes. There's some of them -- as 8 you say, something like that or the station black-out rule, j l 9 where it's got risk almost inherently built into it. 10 MR. BARRETT: There was a proposal some years ago 11-to take a second look at 50.44,.which is hydrogen control 12 requirements. 13 DR. KRESS: That might still be a good proposal. 14 MR. CUNNINGHAM: In fact, if you recall, one of ) 15 the NEI Task 0 proposals is from the San Onofre plant to 16 make substantial' modifications or request an exemption, I 17-guess, or an amendment on their hydrogen control, on their 18 hydrogen recombiners. 19 DR. KRESS: That would be a good one to look at. 20 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Yes, because there's a lot of 21 questions of whether there is a real benefit to that in 22. . terms of risk to the public. .23 The third aspect is that you could'go in and 24. identify regulations that really have little or no safety 25 . significance and just remove them from the regulations. () ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

l 17 l 1 That another way to risk-inform the whole body of the -- 1 ) f2 DR. KRESS: As long as you have a good definition 3 of safety significance. 4 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Yes, that's right. Even that's 5 -not:something you do casually, if you will. j '6 DR. KRESS: It's not just CDF and LERF. 7 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: The objectives become important 8 .there. -9 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Yes. 10 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Maybe you-can, say, delete .11 regulations-that do not contribute to the satisfaction of 12 your objectives. 13 .R. CUNNINGHAM: Yes, that's right. M '14 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: And you avoid the issue of ) 15 safety significance. I 16 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Yes. Okay. 17 Going back to the second, another issue that comes 18 across that's been identified by the industry is that, if 19 you go across the various pieces of Part 50, there are terms i 20 introduced like safety-related and important to safety and 21 such that are not well-defined and are not consistently 22. defined, and those lead to the definitions of scopes of 23 requirements that vary from part of -- within -- across 24 . individual pieces of Part 50. 25 This was point out in the public workshop by NEI l I~ \\ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. I \\- - Court Reporters L 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

l 18 l 1 in the context of the maintenance rule, that the scope of -m ( ) 2 equipment that's covered in the plant by the maintenance 3 rule is much broader than that covered by other parts of the 4 regulations. l 5 So, one of their recommendations was to go back 6 and try and make consistent what we mean by safety-related 7 equipment or some such term. 8 DR. KRESS: I got the impression from reading that i 9 that if you could just redefine that one part of it, they'd 10 be pretty happy. 11 MR. CUNNINGHAM: That's right. Certainly, they j i 12 are very interested in seeing it dealt with within the 13 specific context of the maintenance rule. They see that as i 14 something where there is a fair amount of benefit, I r'% (,) 15 believe, to be gained by the licensees, because there's a 16 lot of what they consider to be unimportant equipment that's 17 covered by the maintenance rule. 18 And the last element of the modification is an 19 issue of trying to clarify the staff authority to use risk 20 information in its decision-making process, and perhaps the 21 last time we were here, we were talking about -- we were 22 considering the idea of explicitly adding something to Part 23 50 to provide -- to make clear that the staff has the 24 authority to use risk under these types of circumstances, 25 even if a plant is in compliance with the regulations. l l [~D ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 'k-Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

~ .~_ i ) 19 1 Over the last few weeks, we've been talking with () 2 the lawyers here in the staff, and they say you don't need a i 3 modification of Part 50 to accomplish that. It's there 4 already, but we need to be much more clear as to how that l .5 -occurs and when that can occur and that sort of thing. So, 15-that's another element of our modifications. 7-DR. APOSTOLAKIS: But my understanding is that 8 risk was not an element of the ori inal license. i I 9 Quantitative measu;es of risk were not. 10 MR. KING: That's true. 11 MR. CUNNINGHAM: That's true for the existing 12 reactors. 11 3 DR. KRESS: Is it a back-fit problem, then? -14 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Yes. j () 15 MR. BARRETT: That depends on what process you're 16 in. 17 For instrace, we had a case recently in f ront of

18 the ACRS which was power uprates, and that was a request to 19 change the licensing basis, and the request to change the 20 licensing basis was based entirely upon meeting 21

. deterministic criteria that are already part of Part 50 and 22 Part 100. 23 Nevertheless, we asked the risk question, and we 24 asked it in some specific areas where we thought it might 25 have an impact. l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

_.. -. +... . -. ~. - -. -. i 20 1 DR. KRESS: What would you have done if you had () 2 not gotten an answer, though? 3-MR. BARRETT: Well, if we had either not gotten an 4 answer or not gotten a satisfactory answer or, based on the 5 -answer, decided that it was an unacceptable risk, then it i 6 becomes' incumbent'upon'the staff to demonstrate that this is 7 -- in this particular instance, compliance with the rules -8 does not p: ovide adequate protection. 9 DR. KRESS: You already have that authority. 11 0 MR. BARRETT: We have that authority, but it's a i 11 very high hurdle to go over. 12 MR. KING: Key words there are " adequate 13 protection." 14 DR. KRESS: Which gets into a whole mishmash of () ~ what that actually means. l 15 li6 MR. BARRETT: In the past, the staff has held that 217 as an extremely high hurdle to go over. That's not -18 necessarily the case. It could be that if, in the future, 19 there were numerous cases like this, you know, it might

20 become -- I won't say routine, but it might become a 21 mechanism that we would be more willing to use.

22 DR. KRESS: If you had the authority to just base 23 things on risk thinking without even getting into the 24 adequate protection, it would make' life a lot easier for 25' everybody, wouldn't it? I i 3 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. i Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

l -21 E -1 MR. BARRETT: That was-the reason we brought this () 2' up in the first. place, but in discussions with the Office of l 3' General Counsel, we.found out that building that kind of i 4 thinking into the regulations becomes extremely difficult. 5 It's not just -- there's-no magic wand that you can put into 6 50.90 that says, well, you can risk for licensing actions, 7 or 50.12'that says you can just ask the risk questions when j 8' it comes to exemptions. .It becomes much more complex than I 9 would have guessed. 10 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Since Tom's back with the slide, ) 11 shall we go back to the issue'of -- j 12 MR. KING: We put this together as a result of one 13 of our earlier interactions where we talked about what is it 14 - -how do you know what you want to change or that you even () 15 need change in Part 50 unless you know what that ultimate 16 Part 50 you would like -- what characteristics you would 17 like to see in that ultimate Part 50, and we sat down and 18 put this together. You can sort of consider this the next 19 . level down below the three objectives that Mark had on slide 20 five. 21' Just to walk through it quickly, you know, the 22 first one is we want to make sure Part 50 focuses on those design and operational aspects most important to safety, -23 24 then we went on and said necessary to meet the Commission's 25 safety goals, which really define how safe is safe enough, l l ~ [~ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l l

22 l 1 where do you stop regulating, allow accommodation of j i(_s ) 2 plant-specific. design and operational characteristics, I w.) j 3 recognizing that the risk profiles from plants are 4 different, the systems, structures, components, human 5 actions may be different. 6 If you really want to regulate and use risk 7 measures to regulate, you have to allow accommodation of l 8 these plant-specific characteristics. 9 Be clear, consistent and coherent. You know, now 10 we have rules with different scopes. 11 Even though they're all in Part 50, some of them 12 aren't consistent in terms of the scopes of things they 13 cover, how far they go in terms of safety, whether that's -- 14 whether they're selecting initiating events or design basis . /~'s 1 (,/ 15 accidents that are very unlikely or those that are maybe 16 more likely to occur. 17 There's a whole range of spectrum of things in l 18 Part 50. 19 Fourth one, defense-in-depth. We put that down to 20 say that we don't want to put all our eggs in either 21 prevention or mitigation basket. 22 Now, how you achieve defense-in-depth is subject 23 to discussion, but we felt defense-in-depth was a desired 24 attribute. 25 Use performance-oriented approach where practical, ,n ( ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 o (202) 842-0034 1

i 23 i 1 and if we can identify things that are directly measurable i l [' )T 2 that would give you some confidence that you're achieving l 3 the safety performance you want, our view is we ought to 4 write the rule to focus in on those, not specify a program 5 or specify a specific design feature. I 6 In some cases, you may have to do that, but 7 wherever possible, if there is a performance measure, let's 8 write the rule to use that. 9 And then is it practical to implement, you know, 10 recognizing that there are cost-benefit considerations, 11 recognizing that PRAs don't cover everything, recognizing j 12 that you have to inspect and enforce whatever you come up 13 with, and clearly, we want to be consistent with the 14 risk-informed inspection, plant performance assessment s(,) 15 process, so just those practical aspects. 16 Now, clearly, you could go one step even below 17 this and start talking about CDF or LERF or those kinds of 18 more detailed objectives that you want. 19 DR. KRESS: I'm not sure it's a step below but 20 that it's a parallel step. 21 MR. KING: May be a parallel step. 22 DR. KRESS: Because you know, I see these as -- 23 they're good. You know, there's nothing wrong with them. 24 They're good attributes you want to have in 10 CFR 50 when 25 you change it. /'N

(

) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. !'d Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

~ . - ~.. - I i l 24 l' I would think there's probably a. list of things i j ). 2 -that could be put down that -- I don't know if they had them 3 or not, but say we want a 10 CFR 50 that accomplishes these 4 ends, and these are characteristics of it, of how you go 5 about accomplishing it, but they're not the ends themselves, 6 and I would think that list, along with this list, would be l 7 a real good thing to have. 8 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: That's what I meant by 9 objectives.

00 DR. KRESS:

Yes. i 11 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: In fact, in your first bullet, 12 the notion of important to safety is not well-defined, I 11 3 don't think. So, by stating those objectives, then you 14 clear that up. ) 15 MR. KING: Yes. 16 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: So, I agree with Tom, this is a 17-good beginning, but really, what are the objectives we want H18 to meet? What is it we don't want to see happen? 19 Now, some of those are, I think, embedded in what 20 you have there, I mean when you put defense-in-depth and so 21' on, but it would be nice to spell them out. J 22 MR. KING: There is another level down, a level of l 23 detail that needs to be added to this, like the definition 24 'of important to safety, what is it that's going to be in and L 25 what is it that's not going to be in. I I

'O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 l (202) 842-0034 -. _=

25 1 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: And say this is the set of our () 2' objectives and, in fact, yoa know, this set is what we call-3' important:to. safety, because your objectives will include 4 risk considerations, right? 5 MR. KING: Yes. 6-DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Because I don't think we are 7 regulating risk only. 8 MR. KING: No. 9 DR. APOSTOLAKISi We are not. 10-MR. KING: No. 11 ';MR. BARRETT: But you know, in a way, we've done a .12 lot of that thinking. We have gone through the whole 13 thinking process of developing a PRA policy statement. 14 We said that, you know, it's not just . h( ~ probabilistic risk assessment and there are other .,) 15 16 controlling parameters such as the existing regulations, 17 defense-in-depth, and margins. 18 DR. KRESS: I-think a lot of it's out there. 19 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: You're not starting from-20 scratch. 21 .MR. BARRETT: The regulatory guides -- I think we 22 understand what we gain and what we give up when we use CDF 23 and LERF as surrogates for risk, and we've gone through that 24 whole thinking process. So, you know, I don't know that 25' it's a lot of de novo thinking that we have to do. O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l 1.... m

_=. 26 1 MR, KING: As Mark said, at this stage, for this (} 2 options paper, we didn't feel.it was necessary to get into 3 this level of detail. Once we get the general direction 4 from the Commission, then these are the kinds of things we 5 need to come back and deal with. 6 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: I don't think it's a detail, and 7 I think the Commission should see these things as part of 8 this, because I think these are high-level objectives. 9 This agency wants to achieve the following 10 objectives, and when we revise 10 CFR 50, we will do it in a 11 way that we will do so. 12 So, it seems to me the Commission paper has to be 13 sensitized to-that. 14 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Would you envision some of the (~N ( ) 15 statements like that are in the strategic plan? 16 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Some of them, yes. 17 MR. CUNNINGHAM: You know, that we have -- an 18 outcome of Part 50 is that we -- of a modified Part 50 is 19 that we have no deaths as a result of -- 20 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: That's right. 21 MR. CUNNINGHAM: -- accidents from the current 22 generation of nuclear power plants or something like that. 23 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Right. And then you go down one 24 level. In fact, the top structure of the integrated review 25 process does a lot of that. (~' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. A Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

l 27 1 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Yes, that's right. They ,m ( ~ 2 establish the cornerstones and starting from the strategic G \\ 3 plan, that sort of thing. 4 MR. BARRETT: But if you g'o back to slide five, 5 though, I think what we've said here is what our objectives 6 are. 7 You know, we're not saying that we're going to out 8 to change Part 50 to reduce risk. You know, we're basically 9 saying that the plants are safe, and so, it's really the 10 other side of the coin that we're looking at here. 11 We don't want to give up the level of safety we 12 have now, as measured by whatever surrogates we come up with 13 and using the ones we already have come up with. 14 The goals here are different. They're to allow /~s (,) 15 resources to be reoriented to those areas that have the 16 greatest impact on safety. 17 DR. KRESS: Yes, but I think it's the articulation 18 of that level of safety that you now have that needs to be 19 this list. 20 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Right. 21 DR. KRESS: These are the things we hope we have 22 accomplished by 50 already, and we want to preserve those, 23 and when we go making this -- these modifications to be 24 risk-informed, we want to preserve these things, and I think 25 that's the articulation we're looking for. l l [N ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

t 28 1 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: So, in slide five, again, you () 2. know, the words "importance to safety," such articulation 3 will help us understand that a little better. 4' I am not saying that they should be new 5 objectives. I mean they have been around, and I agree with 6 you,1 Rich, that you guys have thought about them. All I am .7 saying is maybe having a place where they are listed will be 8 very useful to everyone. ) 9 DR. KRESS: Basically it's a question of we're 10 trying to protect the health and safety of the public. What f- ~11 does that actually mean? i 12 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: What does it mean? 13; DR. KRESS: It's not just risk. 14 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Exactly. 11 5 DR. KRESS: And I think expanding on that. 16 DR.-APOSTOLAKIS: Yes. 17 Okay. 18 Shall we continue, then, with Mark's presentation? 19 You are on seven, I believe, now. 20 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Yes. 21 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: By the way, are we going to meet 22' again as a subcommittee with these gentlemen? 23 MR. MARKLEY: This is scheduled to go to the full ~24 ' committee in December. 25 DR. KRESS: When are you going to take it to the O 3 JJRJ R1 LEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. I Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

~ _ _ _.. ~.. ~ ~ ... - - -,~. l 29 1 Commissioners? l 2 MR. CUNNINGHAM: I'm sorry. 3 IN1. KRESS: When does'the options' paper go to the 4 . Commissioners? A 5. MR. CUNNINGHAM: The paper that embodies what 6-we're talking'about today is due to the EDO -- due to the 7 Commissioner the end of November. 8 DR. KRESS: So, it will already have gone to the 9 Commission the December meeting? l 10 MR. MARKLEY: You should have it before the i 11 December meeting such that you would be able to comment and i 12 write a letter on it. 13 DR. KRESS: But they will already have gone to the 14 Commission. () 15 MR. MARKLEY: That's to the EDO. 16 MR. CUNNINGHAM: No, that's to the Commission. 17 MR.-KING-If we meet our schedule, the Commission ) 18 -will have it before you meet, but you'll also have the i 19 version that goes to the EDO. 20 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: When is this? 21 MR. KING: Next week. We need to get it to the .22 EDO next week. 23 MR. MARKLEY: So, the key question is when does 24 the draft or whatever is going to the EDO become available 25-to.you? lO ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 L Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

L l i l-30 r: 1 MR. KING: Next week. / b 2 DR. KRESS: I'm sure we'll have a chance'to see it LV 3 all~again. I mean this isn't going to happen overnight. L 4 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: If we write a letter in December 5 6 DR. KRESS: A letter may be late in December. 7 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Too late in one sense and too r 8 soon in another. L 9 MR. MARKLEY: It won't be too late in the fact-10 that the Commission has your letter in consideration of l l 11 whatever.they decide to do with regard to this. i l 12 MR. KING: That's right. l 13 MR. CUNNINGHAM: The paper will be asking for a 14 series of decisions from the Commission, and certainly, L( ) 15 they'll have your letter to consider as they do that. 16 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Yes, but will we have time to 17 digest the proposal? 18 DR. KRESS: I don't know. That's a good question, i 19 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Because we're going to get it 20 next week. l 21 DR. KRESS: That's a good question. 22 MR. CUNNINGHAM: The intent of the paper is that, 23 right now, we're looking for -- trying to narrow from a 24 fairly broad set of possible goals down to a more narrow set i i ~25 of goals but not trying to define very precisely how we're i I i-1 ) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034' l

_... _.. _ _.. __._~... _ _ _. _ _. _. _. _.. _ _ _ _... _. _ _. _ _ _ _ _. _.. __ 31 i l 1 going to proceed with modifying-Part 50. f '[~\\' 2 So, now, it's the first screen, if you will, of u,) A 3 what to-do, and we want some -- we'd like to.get some I 4 -decisions from the Commission that said, okay, given that 5 now we have a better idea of-what direction you want us to 6 proceed in and go from there. 7 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: How many pages will it be? 8 MR. CUNNINGHAM: The. paper itself? 9 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Five? 10 MR. KING: With attachments. The paper will be 11 five. 'The attachments -- who knows? i 11 2 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Does one have to read the '13 attachments to write a letter? 14 So, I see now. That's why this is happening. Do 15 you think you have time to put a list of objectives by the s 16 ' time you have to send it up? 17 DR. KRESS: Not if it's due next week. 18 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: If it's due next week, I doubt 11 9 ' it. 20-MR. BARRETT: I think that, for the level of 21 decision we're asking the Commission for, it's a very 22 high-level set of questions. 23 For instance, I'm getting a little bit ahead, but 24 just to give you the sense here, we're asking the Commission -25 whether we should focus-on questions of scope or whether we i l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

I [ 32 i i should focus on questions of regulatory requirements, with ( 2 the recommendation being more-the former than the latter, t 3 .These are very high-level questions. The next level of 4 . detail becomes much more complex. 5 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: What is the time scale for that I ( 6 schedule for the next level? It depends on the Commission's L. 7 decision. i l-8 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Yes, that's correct. 9 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: It's too bad, though, that NEI l q 10-will not make a presentation today, because we don't know -- 11 JMR. MARKLEY: They've' spoken a couple of times at 12 the past subcommittees. 13-DR. APOSTOLAKIS: On this? 14 MR. MARKLEY: Yes. l 15-MR. BRADLEY: Biff Bradley, NEI. l6' I'd be happy to add any remarks at the end of the i i 17 day, but primarily we don't -- we've already provided the 18 presentation and,.I guess,- at this point, don't have a lot 15F to add to what was said before unless there's something that 20 comes out today that we can comment on. j 21 If there's any specifics, we'll be happy to 22 address those. 23 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Now, when you spoke before, did 12 4 ' you address these options that Mark is sh.. wing now? That's 25 where I would like to have your opinion. l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. [ \\-. Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

33 1 MR. BRADLEY: I believe we have, maybe in a () 2 slightly different context, but you know, we've certainly 3 laid out what we believe the path is, and I think it's 4 ' fairly consistent with what I've seen so far. 5 MR. BARRETT: We had the workshop in this room on 6 the 27th and 28th of October, in which there was, as Mark 7 characterized it, I would say, a pretty broad consensus of 8 where our priorities would be. 9 The following day, on the 29th, we addressed this 10 subcommittee, and I think it's fair to say there was fair .11 ' unanimity between the staff presentation and the industry 12 presentation. 13 Not at lot, at least conceptually, has changed 14 since then. () 15 DR. KRESS: I was wondering -- we have some other 16 representatives of industry here -- if they might want to 17 make some comments near the end of the talk. 18 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Well, maybe after the staff 19 completes its presentation? 20 Now, are you going to prioritize these options for 21 the Commission? 22 MR. CUNNINGHAM: In a sense, yes. We're going to 23 prioritize them in the sense of what we think we should 24 pursue first, yes. 25 Shall I go on? Okay. O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

34 1 So, slide seven basically lays out -- talks about [ ) 2 the options for dealing with the elements that we had talked 3 about on the previouc slide, modifying process rules, 4 modifying specific regulations, dealing with scope, and that 5 sort of thing. 6 So, you can lay out a number of options on this. 7 Basically, from our standpoint, the righthand column, the 8 issue of clarifying the staff's authority, I think, is an 9 important item for any option that we pursue. 10 The other things then become what is the relative 11 -- where do we think we could get the most benefit from a 12 specific type of modification relative to bringing -- well, 13 in the sense of bringing risk into the process effectively 14 and allowing risk to be used more by the plants and by the ,~ '( ) 15 staff. 16 So, you could lay out and say, basically, the 17 bottom option is where we think we want to be today. 18 As Rich and I talked about a little earlier, we 19 see a phased approach to this. 20 We see the issue of clarifying the definitions and 21 the scope as probably the most important thing to do first, 22 but we would propose something where we tackle definition of 23 scope, some of the process rules, specifically 50.12 and 24 50.59, in this phase one, as well as trying to clarify the 25 authority, and within phase one, there may still be [ } ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. \\/ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

I L 35 l 1 subdivisions, if you will, to say we want it -- within scope i I ( ) 2 of definition, we want to say we want to deal with the 50.65 %J 3 first, the maintenance rule scope first, within that. l 4 We're still hashing that out among ourselves, but 5 we think, right now, the big benefits to be achieved are in 6 dealing with the definition of scope issues and tackling 7 50.59 and 50.12, 8 In a sense, I've jumped past this already. 9 As we're deliberating which one of these elements 10 we wanted to go towards first and that sort of thing, we had 11 a set of criteria. 12 First of all, how effective are we -- would any 13 option be in achieving the objectives that we lay out in 14 terms of focusing resources on the most safety-significant 15 issues, clarifying the staff's authority, and then providing 16 the flexibility for licensees and the staff to use risk 17 information. 18 DR. KRESS: Did you guys sit down with these and 19 put numbers on them and see which option came out ahead? 20 MR. CUNNINGHAM: We've been doing that, and we 21 continue to haggle over that, if you will, internally, as to 22 the right kind of numbers and that sort of thing, and we 23 want to provide some sense of that to the Commission, but 24 it's still in a discussion stage, if you will, to some 25 degree. i [) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. \\s / Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l

l 36 1. Clearly, we want to deal'with options that have () 2 Costs. We have to consider the cost to the licensees and to 3 -the staff. 4 There's an up-front cost with a lot of these j 1 5 modifications, there's also long-term. costs, and we're l 6 trying to check all those out. 7' DR. KRESS: Does savings show up in there, also? 8 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Yes, either way. 9 DR. KRESS: The costs could be off-set with .10 long-term gains? 11 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Yes, that's correct, initial -12 cost, long-term gains, that sort of thing. This is kind of 13 a net type of discussion, if you will. 14 I'll. switch now over to another part of what we 0) 15 think has to be in the paper, trying to get clarification (, 16' .from the Commission on, i 17-Right now, we think we've gotten to three policy ) 18 issues. 19 The first is something we've discussed with the 20 subcommittee and the committee before, which is do we make 21 tl 3se modifications to Part 50 mandatory on all licensees, 22 or should it be voluntary, and I will come back with each of 23-these in a few minutes and talk about the pros and cons. 24 The second is exemptions for pilot plants. We see 25 a real benefit to having plants, in a sense, trying out some /\\ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 y w -e,.

i I 37 i 1 of these possible modifications as we're trying to develop V'm s 4 2 them, but the question is, do we go ahead and grant 3 exemptions to those licensees for specific changes, 4 exemptions from specific parts of Part 50, to allow them to j 5 get the benefit of the changes and to allow us to really 6 test out the process to see if we're accomplishing as much 7 as we thought we might, we think we might. 1 8 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Why is that a policy issue? If 9 they do the -- if they convince you that they should be 10 exempted, why do you need a decision from the Commission? 1 11 MR. CUNNINGHAM: For a couple of reasons. 12 One is there has been a sensitivity over the last 13 few years to the staff granting exemptions to licensees, in 14 a general sense, not specific to something like this, and () 15 second?y, this is -- you don't normally see in rule changes 16 pilot plants where they're seeking or getting relief from 17 the regulations prior to the finalization of the rule. 18 So, it's a little bit of a variation on the 19 process, and we think that that's an issue that the 20 Commission ought to deal with and make the decision on, l 21 rather than us. 22 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Okay. 23 MR. KING: These would be fairly extensive 24 exemptions. These aren't, you know, one piece of a rule for 25 a plant. These would be sweeping changes like scope of /~ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 5,s Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

i 38 j 1 what's regulated. So, we consider this major enough it's a ~h [d 2 policy issue. 1 3 MR. CUNNINGHAM: And third point here ib 4t 4 --the idea of making a modification of 50.12 and making it 5 as a direct and final rule. What that means is that you -- 6 the process for getting public input into this process is 7 somewhat different. 8 You go out and announce something as being a i 9 direct and final rule subject to public comment, and if you ) 10 get a lot of comment, ti a you stop that process and go back 11 to the normal process for seeking public comment. f 12 The idea here is basically that a modification of 13 50.12 to bring risk information into it could help us early 14 -- to have that early on could help us in making -- working /"h IV) 15 with the pilot plants and making the other modifications to 16 Part 50, 17 So, we see a real -- a potential benefit to having 18 that established very early in the process. 19 A direct and final rule can occur much more 20 quickly than the normal rule-making process, which can take 21 a couple of years. 22 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: So, in a direct and final rule, 23 the public has the opportunity to comment? 24 MR. CUNNINGHAM: They have an opportunity to 25 comment, yes, and absent substantial -- I'm not sure exactly /^' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ( Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842 0034

. ~ I 39 ) j 1 what the words are but substantial comment from the public, (- 2 the rule becomes final. If there'is substantial comment, 3 -- then you back off. 4 'DR. APOSTOLAKIS: So, the staff does'not have to 5 respond to the public comments? ~ i l 6 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Yes, they do. 7 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: So, how do you save time? That I 8 sounds like the rormal process. l 9 MR. CUNNINGHAM: You can save time if there is not i l 10 substantial public comment. 1.L MR. KING: You issue it basically as a final rule 'i. 2. with a certain period of time for people to comment. If no l 13 substantial comments comes in, it's a final rule, skip the 14-proposed rule stage. () 15 So, you do it once, and as Mark said, if there's 16 big objections raised, then you go back and'do the regular 17 process. I l 18 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: So, in essence, if there are 19 minor comments, you just don't include them. 20 MR. KING: Right. 21 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Correct. 22 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Okay. That's what you're 23 saying. 24 MR. CUNNINGHAM: This is done occasionally, I 25 guess would be a way to characterize it. It's not a process ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l

a r a n . ~., s.s - sn -..n. a s w a.,_ a s. s.

c. n u

_.a,i

s. n a

a-~.+ +--e su.n a s.~..~ w 6 a.- ,s.,< -,s.a.- .u-. . ~, 40 i 1. that's used very often by the Commission, but it has been e .( 2 done every once in a while. 3 The next three slides cover -- talk about some of 4 the pros and cons for each of these policy issues. I i 5 Going back to the issue of mandatory versus 6 voluntary, some of the pros for having a mandatory rule 7 would be you've got the uniform achievement of the 8 objectives across all of the plants that you don't see this 3 9 discontinuities of plants that have -- are abiding by the 10 new rules versus those abiding by the old rules. 11 Again, similar type of thing, you have a single 12 set of requirements for all of the plants; the process is L 13 presumably then more clear, more stable, more consistent 14 across the industry. [ 15 In the long term, we think that buys you something 16 in terms.of resources, from the staff's standpoint, that we 17 don't - - that the inspection resources would be lower than l 18 you'd otherwise require, and technical review resources, as 19 well. t j 20 Some of the things that would lead you not to make t 21 this mandatory basically is that there's -- there would be a L 22 substantial cost imposed upon licensees that are now not 23 very much in the risk-informed business, if you will and 24 from their standpoint, certainly there would be no l . 25 particular -- no clear benefit from this. They see big i' i i ' [~ ' ' Jam RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. .\\ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

41 1 ' modifications to their existing rules, not much -- not 2 obviously a clear benefit, r 3 I believe this was discussed by-NEI in the 4 workshop that many'--'there are a number of licensees, it 5 was not-obvious to them that they would want to make this 6 change absent some clear benefit that they would see at the ~ 7 same time. 8 If we make it mandatory, we'd have to go through 9 our own back-fit process and have to make a convincing case 10 that this is a justified back-fit, and we've got issues of 11 -- you know, we have plants in license renewal and the 12 question of what happens to those, and how does this 13 modification to Part 50 -- how could it impact those plants. 14 that would be looking for license renewal down the road? () 15 DR. KRESS: How do you do a back-fit when, say, 16 it's a rule change, and.normally, you're looking at relative 17 cost-benefits that has to pass some sort of dollars per 18 man-rem-type thing? That's generally man-rems saved and 19 dollars spent, and what we have here is dollars saved and 20 man-rems increased. 21 What does the back-fit rule -- how does it deal 22 witn that? l 23 I characterize most of these as things that are 24 going to save money for the licensees. It's probably going .25 to increase the man-rems to some extent. It may not. ![ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 'v Court Reporters i 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 L (202) 842-0034 l l. I'

l 42 1 MR. KING: But you'll be bringing things in that [ }' 2 weren't regulated before. That will cost the utility money. v 3 And you'll be removing things that are regulated today, and 4 that will save the utility money. 5 DR. KRESS: If, on balance, it turned out, well, 6 we expect a slight increase in man-rems and money saved, 7 does that automatically place the back-fit rule in? 8 MR. CUNNINGHAM: That's not the only test in the 9 back-fit rule. 10 DR. KRESS: I know. The man-rems have to' meet the 11 safety goal screen, also. 12 MR. CUNNINGHAM: That's right. There is a 13 question of is there substantial additional protection from 14 these requirements and that sort of thing that would have to D. !,) 15 be passed also. 16 DR. KRESS: Suppose it's not any additional 17 protection at all. Does it fail the back-fit rule, then? 18 MR. KING: Not necessarily. You're almost talking 19 like a reverse back-fit, which we've done, burden 20 reduction-type things. 21 DR. KRESS: You have done something similar to 22 that. 23 MR. KING: Appendix J, for example, where we 24 modified that to allow less frequently leak-rate testing. 25 It was that kind of argument. Yes, you may get some l i l i O. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. t(_ / Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 L (202) 842-0034 i l

i 43 1 additional higher leak rate in a containment that could ( 2 result in some -- 3 DR. KRESS: Exactly what I had in mind. '4 MR. KING: So, it's been done, yes, and I'm not 5' sure the guidance is all that clear as to where you draw the [ 6-line lik'e it is when you go the other way, but it has been 7 done, and I think you're right, we could be in that kind.of 8 . situation here. 9 MR. BARRETT: We really don't know how to do it as 10 a mandatory change, however. I don't think we have any .11 experience in this arena with regard to mandatory changes. 12 As you know, there are three ways of changing the 13 rules. There are adequate protection back-fits, there are 14 compliance back-fits, and then there are safety beneficial I () 15 back-fits, and within each of them, there are some options, 16-

and we haven't really explored all those options to'see if 17 this fits into any of them.

18 DR. KRESS: Actually, it looks to me like it 19 doesn't fit either of those three categories. 20 MR. KING: Appendix J, you remember, was a 21 voluntary rule that revised Appendix J as voluntary. 22 DR. KRESS: It looks to me like you save yourself j 23 a lot of hassle if it's voluntary. 24 MR. KING: In the back-fit space, you might. 25 DR. KRESS: You may not accomplish some of these ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. \\ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

44 1 desired things, but maybe save you a lot of hassle. i ['} 2 MR. KING: But as Mark says, if you really think

N_/

3 this is the right thing to do, do you really want it to be 4 voluntary? I mean this is probably the biggest question the 5 Commission is going to face. 6 DR. KRESS: Is there such a thing as make it 7 voluntary now and mandatory later? 8 MR. KING: Sure. You can make it voluntary. You 9 can hope that, if it's successful, there will be a lot of 10 volunteers, or you can say, based on experience, I'll 11 revisit the mandatory issue later. 12 MR. DUDLEY: Noel Dudley, NRC staff. l 13 Tomorrow, the CRGR is going to review a 14 modification to Part 26 which is the security check-in of fm ) 15 individuals and how often you have to do the screening, drug (J 16 screening, and that's exactly the issue they're going to 17 have to struggle with, is whether that rule can be made 18 mandatory based on the fact that it's going to -- that it 19 appears to be acceptable to the industry, but it does put in 20 place another set of criteria. 21 MR. BARRETT: The back-fit rule is a rule. 22 DR. KRESS: Yes, it's there. You have to address 23 it no matter what, I mean if you're trying to make it 24 mandatory. 25 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Yes. We ran into this, actually, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. -( Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l l l

. _. - ~ - 45 1 last year, on theLissue of risk-informed in' servi'ce 2 inspection. We had'to go through an analysis. 3 It wasn't a back-fit analysis, but in the context 4 of the Paperwork Reduction Act or one of those, we had to 5 make an argument to.the Office of Management and Budget of 6 how much this risk-informed ISI and the other things would 7 cost'the industry, and'is it worth' imposing that and that 8 sort of thing,'and the industry comment, at least-in that L '9 context, was that we were -- I can't remember if it'was 10 conservative or optimistic -- our estimates of the costs 11 were too high, because they thought they'd end up saving l 12 money in that context, but you still have to go through the 13 process, even though it's saving' money, if you will. 14' DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Now, if it's not mandatory on '() 15 paper, is it really mandatory in real life? I mean is 1.174 16 really voluntary? .17 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Yes. 18 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: It is? 19 DR KRESS: Yes. We should resolve that right y 20 now. 'Yes, it's voluntary. 21 MR. BARRETT: In fact, it is voluntary, 22 MR. CUNNINGHAM: We talked about this a little bit 23 earlier, but there's a policy issue before the Commission -- 24 we put before the Commission for the exemptions for pilot l 25 plants. l i l' s LO ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters i-1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l l

i l 46 1 Basically, if we've got pilot plants and we're rmv) ( 2 working with the staff to help us better risk-inform Part 3 50, should they be allowed to request and have exemptions 4 granted on aspects of Part 50 that seems to have a safety 5 benefit, if you will? 6 Some of the pros, we think it will help us provide 7 a more clear assessment of the actual safety and resource 8 benefits of a change, and I think it's a statement to the 9 industry that we're willing to proceed with this and 10 actually make -- reduce requirements or change requirements 11 to make them more safety beneficial. 12 It's an early show of commitment, if you will, or 1 13 willingness on the part of the agency to make those types of 14

changes, 10

(,) 15 On the con side. of course, is it introduces the 16 possibility that plants will get -- individual plants will 17 get exemptions, and by the time we get to the final rule, 18 that the rule may be somewhat different than what was 19 allowed in the exemptions. 20 So, you could have that kind of inconsistency for 21 some of the pilot plants, and then if there's a resource 22 requirement on the part of the staff and the licensees to 23 process these exemptions, that type of thing could end up 24 delaying the final rule. 25 The third policy issue, a direct and final rule I (y ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. r l \\- Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 )

i 47 1 for 50.12 again, I guess we talked about this before. m(J ) 2 Should we use this process to put into place a 50.12 that is 3 risk-informed, will allow risk-informed exemptions that will 2 l 4 help us in the rest of the work to modify Part 50, give us 5 an ability to use risk in granting the exemptions and that 6 sort of thing, i 7 DR. KRESS: - When was this option to rule-making 8 instituted? Has it been around a while? 9 MR. KING: It's been around at least for the past 10 four or five years that I can remember. 11 DR. KRESS: When they instituted this kind of 12 option, they must have had something in mind that -- the 13 reason for wanting this or maybe even criteria for when you 14 would use it versus the normal rule-making. Does that sort r(,,) 15 of thing exist? 16 MR. KING: Yes, there are. I can't cite exactly 17 -- there are some guidelines for rule-making. 18 DR. KRESS: I can guess what the guidelines might 19 be and what the reasons might be, and it looks to me like 20 this particular activity probably does fit those guidelines. 21 I don't really know what they are. I'm just speculating in 22 my own mind. 23 It would probably fit those guidelines, and you 24 know, it seems to me like you ought to go back to those to 25 answer this question. Does this thing fit the original [) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. \\~/ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l l

... ~ -. a. 48 1 reason for this option and the guidelines set up for it? ( 2 And I'll bet it does. '3 . DR. MILLER: One..of the guidelines would be the 4 staff's expectation of minimal public comment, right? 5 MR. KING: Non-controversial. 6 DR. MILLER: Right. 7 MR. KING: You know, it's used for administrative 8' . changes,-why bother going through the full 9 resource-intensive process? 10 DR. KRESS: That's what I was speculating would be 11 some of the guidelines. 12 MR. KING: Non-controversial things, which we 13 believe this would be. We would think everybody would agree 14. that risk is an important consideration. ) 15 DR. KRESS: I think the process you're' going 16 through will make it that way. I don't know. You have to 17 deal with'the public, and they may think this is 18 controversial. 19 MR. CUNNINGHAM: That mechanism is in there, is in 20 the process. 21 DR. MILLER: The process says, if you receive 22 substantial public comments, you have to go back. 23 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Yes, that's right. 24 DR. KRESS: That accommodates that problem. 25 DR. MILLER: That occurred with the replacement of c O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

~. - ..... ~.. -. -. -. l' 49 1 l' 279 with 603 in the rule-making. There was comment, and 2 they had.to go cycle it through again. 3 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Yes. So, then you revert back to i 4 .the normal, if you will, process. 5 So, again, you're gambling a little bit to say, if l l 6 I proceed with this, I might gain a lot of time. If there 7-is substantial comment, though, you've lost some time. 8 DR. MILLER: Do you lose any time at the end 9 'versus the other process? 10 MR. CUNNINGHAM: You probably use some. 11 DR. MILLER: You lose the time when the direct ' 12. rule is out. That's the time you lose. 13 MR. CUNNINGHAM: That's right, the time to build o i l 14 the case for the direct and final. ] 15 DR. MILLER: -Which is 90 days, usually. i 16 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Yes, that sort of thing. So, you 17 ldse some time, but you could gain a fair amount. 18 The next two slides include the implementation i ( - 19 issues that we're going to describe to the Commission in l 20 this paper. The idea is that we want mostly to inform them 21 that these are the issues that are going to be tied in to 22 this. 23-We're not going to make -- ask them to say l l 24 anything about these or we're not going to tell them how L 25 we're going to resolve some of these issues -- that would i i f, - ' ["') ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. \\/ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 o l

~ _. - - 1 50 j 1 come in the next phase -- but.say we acknowledge that t-2' there's a number of issues like this that we'll have to 3 wrestle with in the next round of this process. l 4 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Can you give me an example of a 5 non-safety-related SSC that is risk-important? 6 MR. KING: The hardened vents on Mark I 7 containments. i 8 MR. CUNNINGHAM: In PRAs, you will see 9 cross-connects between systems that aren't safety related 10 that have a real benefit, see auxiliary boilers or something 11. that'are in the secondary part of the plant that can have a 12 benefit, but they're not safety-related, that do show as a ) 13 benefit in a risk' analysis. 14 MR. KING: The feedwater system in some plants, () 15 _just the main feedwater system. I 16' MR. BARRETT: Reactor coolant pump seals. 17 DR. MILLER: What about safety-related that are 18 not risk-significant? l i 19 DR. KRESS: There's some of those, too. 1 L 20 DR. MILLER: I notice you didn't put that in the 21 list. L 22 DR. KRESS: They know how to handle those. They 23 don't know how to handle these. 24 DR. MILLER: There are those who believe that that 25-shouldn't happen. 4 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. \\m-Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

51 1 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Yes, that's right. There is the t ( } 2 other. side of it that's not said here, which is are the<.a -- s, 3 is there equipment in the plant that's considered 4 safety-related that does not have a substantial impact on 5 safety? 6 DR. KRESS: I'm assuming automatically that 7 something will be done about those. 8 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Your presumption was correct. If 9 you're going to deal with the definitions, you have to deal 10 with both sides. It's a fair point that we didn't include 11 those. 12 DR. MILLER: I think we should include those. 13 Your presumption and what's real is not necessarily the same 14 thing. r~s ( )i 15 MR. CUNNINGHAM: At the risk of going back to the ~. 16 South Texas screen water pumps, that's an example. It's l 17 perhaps an extreme example. Screen wash pumps. 18 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: So, is the second entry there 19 related to 50.59? l 20 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Yes. 21 MR. KING: But it's more than 50.59. But 50.59 is l 22 a piece of it. 23 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: What is covered that is not in 24 50.59? 25 MR. BARRETT: I think what this really deals with

[D ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

\\_ /

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

~ 52 1 is the fact.that there could be hundreds or thousands of ! 'q' ( j 2 pieces of equipment that would change from within the scope 3 to outside the scope of some of the regulations or from 4 outside into the scope of regulations, and for those that 5 are going outside the scope of regulations -- for instance, 6 we know from the South. Texas example with graded QA that 7 there are thousands. 8 You wouldn't want to have to deal with unreviewed 9 safety questions on each of those, and so, is there an 10 efficient way of making that transition -- once you have 11 made the safety case, for instance, possibly generically, is 12 there a way that a plant can make that transition without 13 going through several thousand licensing actions, which is 14 not feasible either from the point of view of the licensee 15 or the staff. t-i 16 That's one of.the reasons why, in the option where 17 we would put the scope changes as a near-term option, we 18 also put the process changes as a near-term option, because 19 the two have to go hand in hand to be feasible.

20.

MR. KING: A clear example to me is tech specs. 21 Even if you have a risk-informed 50.59, it still is going to 22 require NRC approval to change tech specs, and if you start 1 23 ' changing the scope or the definitions of safety-related, l 24 there may be things in the tech specs that don't make sense L 25 anymore that will still require NRC review and approval to ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. l \\-- ' Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

_ ~ _. 53 11 getlthem'out, because 50.59'doesn't_ allow tech spec changes ) ~2 to be done by the licensee, and are we going to be swamped -3 with' hundreds of tech spec changes, or is there some other 4 way we can handle that? 5 We' don't have an answer to this yet, but it's an 6 issue we have to deal with. 7 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Is there a similar piece of '8 regulation now on the' books besides 50.59, or is this a 9-revolution? 10 MR. CUNNINGHAM: This is an issue, again, as Rich 11 was saying, that as we make a transition to a risk-informed '12 Part 50, a lot of things could come in and out of scope and 13 that sort of thing, and during that transition, how much 14 review and approval does the staff want to have? l r f(,) 15 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: So, this is more permanent. l 16' MR. CUNNINGHAM: There is a permanent mechanism, t i 17' most of which is covered under 50.59. l 18 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: But right now, we don't have j 19 anything similar, because there is no transition to 20 anything. 21 MR. KING: No. I think Mark's right. This would 22 be primarily, in the transition period, how do you deal with 23 this large volume of changes? l 24 I think, once you get through that, a 25 risk-informed 50.59 might be able to maintain the level of l ' /~'h ' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. l \\~./ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

54 1 review and approval you want to maintain, but it's this ] _2 transition period that looks like it could swamp everybody, j 3 and how do we deal with that? 4. DR. MILLER: It seems like this is the most j 5 important question to make this work. I mean 50.59 only 6-deals with changes. It doesn't deal with the situation 7 where you're going to re-categorize something from 8 safety-related to non or so forth. .9 It seems like this question is almost the Achilles 10 heel of this whole process. 11-MR. KING: Yes. r i i 12 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Again, in the sense of when we -- i 13 the South Texas example of they wanted to change graded QA, 14 and what they ran into was issues of 50.59 and things like .(o) 15 that that prevented them from accomplishing all that they i 16 thought they could. j 17 DR. MILLER: Well, changing Appendix B, basically. 18 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Yes. 19 The third issue is an issue we've talked about 20 many, many times in different contexts here, is what's the 21 quality of the risk analysis that would go with these, be 22 required as part of the risk-informed Part 50 and different 23 aspects of Part 50? 24 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: It should be appropriate to the 25 application, right? ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

55 j 1 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Appropriate for the application, v ( \\ 2 yes. L.) 3 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: It's a non-issue. 4 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Sometimes. 5 DR. KRESS: Except for the word " appropriate." 6 You have to figure out what that means. 7 MR. CUNNINGHAM: On slide 14, we have other 8 issues, you know, what's the required documentation that has 9 to come into the staff, 10 DR. KRESS: What is implied by the word 11 " docketed"? What am I supposed to understanding from the 12 word " docketing." What all is implied by that? If the PRA 13 was required to be docketing, what is it we're asking? 14' MR. CUNNINGHAM: What is intended there was do you ,s ( ) 15 take the full FRA, put it on the docket, make it available 16 for public review and that sort of thing. 17 DR. KRESS: You guys would review and approve and 18 make it part of the licensing basis? 19 MR. CUNNINGHAM: No. 20 MR. KING: We don't have to necessarily review and 21 approve it. 22 DR. MILLER: Just goes in the public document 23 room. 24 MR. KING: But it goes -- it's available to the 25 public. It's another chapter of the FSAR. l ' /) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. (ms Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l l

_. _. ~ 56 1 DR. KRESS: So, it'may not be as burdensome as I ,2 'might read'into it. 3 MR. MARKLEY: Tom, normally, documents that a 4 licensee would submit would be under their license number. 5' So, if someone is looking for something related to anything i l 6 that they've corresponded back and forth to the NRC, it 7 would be under that docket. 8 DR. KRESS: I see. That's all it means. 9 MR. MARKLEY: Yes. 10 DR. KRESS: Thank you. 11 MR. CUNNINGHAM: It's an issue in the sense of 12 logistics and things. It's a very large amount of 13 information. How much of that has to be formally provided i 14 to the staff, as opposed to sitting at the site, available 15 for use? 16 DR. KRESS: Thank you. l 17 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Another issue -- what changes do 18, we need -- would we need to make to a wide spectrum of -- 19 potentially a wide spectrum of regulatory guides and SRPs 20' that are out there today to reflect the changes in -- if you 21 will, if we change the scope, if we change the definitions, 22 that sort of thing. 23 There's a whole litany of additional documents. 24 It even goes beyond SRPs and things. 25 It brings technical positions and all of that -- 4 O) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ,. (_ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

.. ~ -. - - -. = L 57 1 that documentation that the staff has'and that guidance that

()

2 the staff has and the documentation that the licensees have L 3 ought to somehow have to be modified to reflect all of these 4 changes. i 5 DR. KRESS: Would one option be, if you went the 6 voluntary route, to leave all those alone and have 7-supplements or part'two or something like that? i i i 8 DR. MILLER: Has anybody even started looking at. 9 that' question? 10 MR. CUNNINGHAM: We've started looking at it in 11 the sense of trying to make sure we understand what 12 regulations tie to what reg. guides and SRPs and vice versa, 13 if you will, and where some of this information starts to l 14 show up in the reg. guides and that sort of thing. 15 DR. MILLER: It's a massive amount. l 16 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Yes, that's correct, i 1 17 MR. KING: Yes. That's being done as we speak. l 18 We've got a table showing where the terms " safety-related," 19 "important to safety," and these other related terms show up 20 in the regulations. We're now going through the reg, guides 21 and SRPs and finding the same -- trying to identify the same i l 22 wording in those documents, and you're right, it's a lot of l 23 24 DR. MILLER: I think of I&C, and it's kind of l .25 overwhelming. d 1 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 L Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 t

58 l 1 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Yes, it is. It's a daunting ! r^sv) 2 task, that's-for sure, and this is probably why, for some of ( 3 those licensees out there, they say why would I want to go 4 through.this, is it really to my benefit to go through that 5 potentially large amount of documentation and work with it? 6 The same thing applies to us, because it's a big cost to us, 7 as well. 8 DR. MILLER: The reg. guides endorse standards, 9 and does that mean the standards have to change? j 10 MR. CUNNINGHAM: There's all kinds of questions 11 like that. 12 MR. BARRETT: If I could just get back to this 13 question of docketing, I think there is a perspective 14 related to docketing. ) 15 What's on the docket, in a sense, forms the safety 16 case that the licensee has for their license, and it 17 includes, of course, the FSAR, the technical specifications, 18 but it also includes anything that a licensee submits under 19 oath or affirmation in support of a license amendment, and 20 so, there is a desire to keep the docket tight and keep it 21 -- limit it to information that's absolutely necessary to 22 make the safety case for the plant and limit it to 23 information that has a high degree of qualification. L 24 So, on the docket, you will find information from l 25 the PRA that has been reviewed as to its accuracy and its I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. N Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 l (202) 842-0034 l

~- l l i 59 1 ability ~to-support specific license' amendments, but there's () 2 a reluctance on the part of licensees to put the entire PRA 3 out~there because of the' questions related to certifying the 4 quality of the entire study but also with regard to the i 5 implication that,'somehow or other, this entire study 6 represents part of the safety case for the plant, which, in 7 the legal' sense, it does not. 8 DR. KRESS: That's an important question. 9 MR. CUNNINGHAM: The last two aspects of our i. 10 . implementation issues. 11 One is we have modifications going on in parallel 12 or revisions to the inspection process and enforcement and 13 assessment, and there could be implications of that program 14 on modifications to Part 50 and vice versa, and we need to () 15 make sure we don't work at cross purposes here, and there's 16 also a number of rule changes that are underway or planned '17 over the next year or two related to specific parts of Part l 18 50, and how do we interplay this change -- these changes 19 that ;m're talking about with those ongoing changes? 20 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: So, today, then, you are not -- 21 or in this document that you will send up to the Commission, 22 you are not really addressing the substance of the problem, i 23 which is how to actually modify parts of Part 50 to make 24 them risk-informed. 25 You are just addressing process questions. You O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i

. ~. 60 1. are requesting authority from the Commission to do certain p l 2 things. Shall we start with the scope first or do something . (j 3 else? 4 But let's say if they say, yes, do the scope .5-first, you.are not discussing how you are going to do that. 6 MR. CUNNINGHAM: That's correct. 4 .7 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: And you have not thought about 8-it yet. 9-MR. CUNNINGHAM: No, we've thought about it a good 10 deal, but that's not going to be included in the paper that 11 goes up next week. 12 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: So, when is that going to 13 happen? It depends on when the Commission -- 14 MR. CUNNINGHAM: It depends on what the Commission g: 15 tells us. 16-DR. APOSTOLAKIS: When do you think the Commission 17 will make a decision? ] t 18 DR. KRESS: After they get our letter. i 19 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Oh, in February? ] 20 MR. KING: January. 21 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: You think? 22 MR. KING: That's my personal view based upon 23 their desire to make progress in the risk-informed arena. 24 DR. KRESS: They probably will act on this pretty 25 quickly. O\\ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters '1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

61 1. DR. APOSTOLAKIS: When are they meeting with the () 2 Senate again? 3 MR. KING: January 28th. 4 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Okay. That's a good date. 5 Okay. 6 MR. CUNNINGHAM: One of the items that was on the 7 agenda for this afternoon was the role that the NEI 8 whole-plant study has in our -- in this whole process that 9 we're talking about this afternoon. 10 I think we talked about it earlier, but we have 11 two_ Task 0 requests in the Arkansas request related to 12 modifications to emergency proceduree dealing with hydrogen 13 control, dealing with the issues of hydrogen control within 14 emergency procedures. That request is approved. () 15 There's a San Onofre request under a staff review 16 now, in looking at the requirements for maintaining hydrogen 17 recombiners at the site. 18 The other part of it is the task one through six. 19 As we understand it right now, there is a good bit of work 20 going on in those tasks one through six for three plants, 21 looking at the costs, where the costs are being incurred in 22 the plants, the operations or design on fuels or whatever, 23 that sort of thing, and trying to break down where the 24 utilities are spending their money and in trying also to 25 look at where the -- from their PRA and their expert panels O.- ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

. _. _. _... ~ _ - _. - _ _. _. _ _ _ _. _l 62 1 .and things -- where the risks are in that plant and trying i. 2-to look for imbalances between those two, if you will. 3. ~ That type of-information, I think,-we'would be 4 looking to use that-information.as we proceed'with our-Part 5 50 modifications I think it provides useful information to 6 'us on both the costs and the risks for those three plants. L 7. In some contexts, there had been talk of 8 exemptions associated with the whole-plant'-- the specific 9 licensees for the whole -- in the whole-plant study, and we f 10 talked about it before. We have a policy issue before the 11. Commission about that, and it's hard for us to tell what -- ) 12 how that will come out. l 13 Again, I think we can benefit from what's going on l I i l 14 in the three plant studies that are underway as part of the ! A( ) 15l task one through six work. 16 DR.'KRESS: If you don't exempt those plants, 17 won't.it screw up their. ongoing pilot studies pretty bad? 18.. MR. CUNNINGHAM: That's a concern. It could. It 19 . impacts us in the sense that we wouldn't get the full 20 benefit of seeing how these regulatory changes really play 21 out. It harms us. It also harms the licensee, the licensee 2 2 -- community in general in the sense that they don't get that l 23 sense either of, you know, how much is this really going to i L 24' save us in terms of costs over the long term, and it's an 25 immediate effect on the licensees that are participating of, I t N ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters j 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 i (202) 842-0034 i ..m

l' l 63 1 .you know, they have to make a business decision, is the cost () 2 of. continuing to1 participate worth it if we~aren't going to 3 get these exemptions. 4 MR. KING: I' don't think it's a fatal -- if the 5 Commission says.noLexemptions, I don't think that's a fatal 6- -flaw. 7' -I think these plants could very well come in and 8 be pilots like were done on IST and ISI in the sense that 9 we'll 7nge the rules, we're going to have to write some 10 reg. guides to lay out the details of how to-implement those 11 rules. 12 Those pilots could be used to help us write those L 13 reg. guides, use them to actually try implementing a new f -14 safety-related definition and use that experience to write ) ( 15 the reg. guide or use them in some fashion during the public i 16 comment period to help really flesh out what all this means. 17 So, I think there's options, and I don't think the l 18 Commission decision on exemptions versus no exemptions is l 19 the -- you know, a go/no-go kind of thing for pilots. I l L 20 think there are other fall-back positions. l 21 MR. CUNNINGHAM: That leads us, in a sense, to our preliminary recommendations, one of which is -- deals with 22 23 the pilot plants, the middle one, that I think it would -- 24 from our standpoint, it would be beneficial to have these l ~ 25 pilot plants in here,<and we would hope that we have the I k]s) / ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 I

64 1 opportunities to deal with them in that sense and make use - h) ( 2 of the information that they could provide. 3 MR. BAJOREK: Which slide are the options listed? 4 DR. KRESS: That was the one with the X's? 5 MR. KING: Yes. Seven. 6 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Yes. Seven. 7 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Basically, at the moment, we 8 believe that we would like to proceed with option four, 9 which is laid out in these two bullets here, that we would 10 like to go after the definition of scope and deal with the 11 issues of 50.12'and 50.59 at the same time and the authority 12 issue. 13 The thing that would be put off until a later 14 phase would be changes to specific requirements. I think 15 we'd benefit first from gaining the general knowledge from 16 changing the scope and definition and that sort of thing and 17 then target specific requirements. 18 DR. KRESS: What's the difference between option 19 two and four? Option two, you just wouldn't even think 20 about phase two? 21 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: There wouldn't even be a phase 22 two? 23 DR. KRESS: That's what I'm asking. 24 MR. CUNNINGHAM: The difference between option two 25 and four is the phase two, if you will, which will be go in ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. N Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

65 1 and target specific requirements. 2 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: If you don't do that, then how i 3 are'you revising Part 50?. 4 -MR. CUNNINGHAM: You're still revising it in the -5 sense that you're making consistent the definitions of { 6 safety-related and important to safety or whatever they-7 happen to be across all of Part 50. 8 .You're making the scope of requirements of SSCs "9 that are recovered by those' definitions consistent across 10 Part-50. You're also risk-informing some of the procena 11 elements. 12 MR. MARKLEY: But for example, it wouldn't 13 consider stuff like 50.12 and 50.59, then? Is that what 14 you're saying? (/ 15 MR. CUNNINGHAM: I'm sorry. Specifi.7 requirements 16 in the context of specific technical requirements as opposed -17 to process requirements. 18 So, would you target -- this would be a place 19 where a specific requirement might be you change 50.46 to 20-deal with risk-informed ECCS requirements or that sort of 21 thing. That's what would be put off into the phase two. 22 MR. KING: Yes. Phase one would include 50.12 and . 23 50.59. - 24 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Which are specific requirements. ' 25' MR. CUNNINGHAM: Yes, specific process O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 A e--- e 1as w-w, -m.. -s -e ---,e--*w e m .*r:-w-- -++e---- e ---

66 1 requirements. u /~ s ( ) 2 DR. KRESS: The third bullet on slide 16 -- could -A_/ 3 I read that exempt pilot plants? That's not what you mean 4 to say there? You're leaving that up to the Commission. S MR. CUNNINGHAM: Yes, that's a Commission 6 decision. 7 DR. KRESS: You're not making the recommendation. 8 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Not at this point, no. 9 Moving on then, the final slide, what comes next, 10 we've got a paper to complete, and it's due to the EDO the j 11' end of next week, due to the Commission about a week after 12 that. 13 We'll back here if you invite us to the full 14 committee to talk about this issue on -- I believe it's -- p (,,) 15 right now, it's scheduled for December 3rd, maybe the 16 morning of December 3rd. 17 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: The morning of December 3rd? 18 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Yes. 19 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Is that a Thursday? 20 MR. MARKLEY: Uh-huh. 21 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: What time? 22 MR. BARRETT: It's 8:45 to 10:30. 23 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: It's too late to change it. 24 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Anyway, following that, then, the 25 paper will get up to the Commission, and we'll await the (' ) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. \\- Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

l 67 El guidance of the Commission to try to help us narrow down how ] 2 we're going to -- how we might approach this issue. 3 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Thank you, gentlemen. 4 DR. KRESS: Is the EDO going to read that over I 5 Thanksgiving? i 6. MR. CUNNINGHAM: I suspect, at the very least, EDO j 7-staff will be reading it'over Thanksgiving. 8-DR. APOSTOLAKIS: I suspect some members of this i 9 committee will be reading it over Thanksgiving. 10 DR. KRESS: I'll get cranberry juice on it. 11 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Well, thank you, gentlemen. 12 Any comments from members of the public? 'First of 13 all, from the committee members. , 14 DR. MILLER: I think there's a number of serious ( 15 and challenging questions here. 16 DR. KRESS: Yes, I think they've got some good 17 questions. They understand what the issues are. 18 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Does anybody understand the 19 answers? -20 DR. KRESS: Are we going to write a letter saying 21 what our opinion ought to be on these options and on the 22 policy directions? 23 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Well, let's do it this way. 24 Let's first give the opportunity to the industry to talk, if 25 they want. .( ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

68 1 DR. KRESS: That's a good idea. ,q l 5 2 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: In case there are some V 3 disagreements. 4 And then we should have a discussion of what your 5 presentation should be at the full committee meeting and 6 what this subcommittee will -- the way they put it is 7 collect information, analyze relevant issues ar.d facts. 8 DR. KRESS: How are we going to do that? 9 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: So, any comments from the 10 public? 11 MR. BRADLEY: Where is everyone today? I2 This is Biff Bradley of NEI, and I appreciate the 13 staff's presentation today. I think, as ue all noted, I 14 think we've all hit on a common understanding of what the (n) 15 important elements are. 16 I just wanted to take the opportunity to make one 17 more pitch for our proposal to use the maintenance rule as, l 18 I think, what the staff calls the test bed for these reform 19 activities. 20 Certainly, NEI would like to see this proceed and 21 be successful, and there is a wide spectrum in the industry, 22 as we talked about today, of, you know, support for this 23 risk-informed regulatory improvements. 24 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: I don't know, Biff. In "Inside l 25 The NRC," there was an article there that, really, there 1 / ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. k-Court Reporters m 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 t

_. _ _ __ _ _.___ _ _ _ _ _..___ _.~. s 69 -1 isn't much support. There are two or three utilities that ) ~2' are pushing this. 3 MR. BRADLEY: There's a wide spectrum, okay, and j i 4 you have the whole spectrum. You have the South Texas and' i l l 5 'the San Onofres with a excellent, you know, well-established l 6. PRAs, big support staffs, a lot of work invested, then you j j 7 have the other -- you know, you have -- all the way on the '8 other side, you may have plants with two years left on their I 9 OL or five. years or not a great desire to upset the whole I 10 process by which their plants are being regulated at this. 11 point. 12 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: But where is the silent 13 maj ority? 14 MR. BRADLEY: Well, that's where I'm trying to ( 15 get. 16 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: If I let you. l [ 17 MR. BRADLEY: Yes. 18 I think, you know, we've given a lot of thought to l 19 the maintenance rule proposal, and I see that as having a 20 major advantage in getting the whole body of the industry on 21 board with these activities in a rapid fashion, for a number 22 of reasons. 23 One is the scope of that rule already encompasses 24 'everything safety-related plus a large number of non-safety .25 -- of traditionally non-safety-related structures, systems, r f ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l

f 70 1,

and components.

.2 i .There's a perceived large advantage to being able 3 to risk-inform.that rule. The perception is that that scope 1 4 j can be significantly. reduced, significant resource savings I 5 - without negative safety' impacts. 6 I believe that the use.of the maintenance rule 7 actually obviates a lot of these policy issues that have '8 been identified. I believe that can be pursued in a 9 mandatory fashion. There's a benefit there for practically 10 every plant. 11 That's made more so by the fact that there is an 12 existing rule-making that's going to establish a requirement 13 for a configuration risk assessment, and it's imperative 14 that we have a scope of SSCs that we can conform a good, you 15 -know, valid configuration risk assessment on. 16 Right now, the scope of that rule is so 17 encompassing that it's going to water down the ability to 18 really perform that assessment correctly, and so, we have a 19 great opportunity now to -- and it's our formal comments 20 that are going to come in on December 14th, and we're going 21 to say -- you know, recommend that that rule be re-noticed

2-and expanded to include the scope provision before that goes 2

23 forward with the (a) (3). change. 24 I don't see that you need pilot plants. The whole 25 industry is going to be on-board with that for the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

71 l' rule-making, and personally, I don't even think you need {) 2 50.12 exemptions to support that process. 3 So, looking at the policy issues here, I think we 4 can basically -- 5 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Where is "here"? Where are you 6- .looking at? 7-MR. BRADLEY: Page nine of your handout. 8 Tha have the opportunity to move forward without 9' having to -- you know, we've certainly got to wrangle with 10 those as-we proceed through the whole body of regulations, 11 but some of those I believe we can move forward in parallel 12 to go forward with our maintenance rule activity. 13 I think that is predominantly what I wanted to 14 say. ) 15 I hope that the ACRS letter and the NRC's paper to 16 the Commission are supportive of our approach relativ,e to L17 the maintenance rule in particular. 18 I guess I wasn't clear from this whether it was 19 going to get down to that level of detail or just talk about 20 -scope and what,1but in terms of getting good, you know, 21 emphatic, wide-spread industry support, that is the -- you 22 know, I can tell you from my perspective, that is the way to 23 do it. 24 I think if we identify or try to tackle other 25 regulations instead, the level of support will be ON ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

i 72 1 substantially less. ex i ( ) 2 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: So, you would not encourage the 3 staff to work on 50.12. Is that what you're saying? 4 MR. BRADLEY: I'm not suggesting that we not work 5 on any of the things that have been identified but just that 6 we -- in 50.12, like I said, that's a little bit of a -- 7 that's more of a legal issue, I think, in terms of whether 8 the existing wording of 50.12 can accommodate alternatives, 9 and I guess there are different ways to read it. I've read 10 it, and it seems there are words there, but maybe there are 11 better words that could be put in. 12 This is the first -- I guess one of the things I 13 heard today for the first time was the idea of a direct 14 final rule on 50.12. That's certainly not something we (~% (,) 15 would object to, but again, I'm hearing that for the first 16 time today. 17 But I do think that, with proceeding along, we can 18 proceed in parallel and move forward fairly rapidly with the 19 maintenance rule in terms of defining the scope of equipment 20 important to safety, and then, once that's established, the 21 whole industry is going to have a lot better understanding 22 of whet the real impact of all these other changes is going 23 to be, whether they're willing to pursue them, etcetera. 24 So, again, I think the staff has done a great job 25 on this, and we're looking forward to being able to see the [\\-) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

73 1 Commission paper. [~ 2 MR. CUNNINGHAM: I realized as I was putting this \\- 3 together that we never really talked about the issue of the 4 NEI recommendation on the maintenance rule. 5 At the first level, it's certainly not intended to 6 say that we're discounting that or anything. The paper that 7 we're going forward to the Commission, I think, has to I i 8 address that, and I think we recognize that it's a 9 reasonable type of thing to include in.that phase one. 10 MR. BARRETT: But the paper will go up before the 11 NEI comments are received by the Commission. So, the 12 reference to maintenance rule as a test bed is something 13 that we contemplate doing, but it's not something we can i 14 explore in any detail in the paper. i ,r g t l( ) 15 MR. BRADLEY: Do you see that there's an action we 16 can take to -- are you suggesting we should -- 17 MR. BARRETT: I think, given the situation we're 18 in right now, it would be difficult to change course in 19 terms of what actually gets into this paper. 20 MR. KING: I don't think there's an action for 21

you, I mean you ga.e us this feedback at the workshop.

22 It's on the record, i' 23 MR. BRADLEY: Right. And also, at least week's 24 stakeholder meeting, I think Corbin McNeal and Harold Ray l 25 made some very good points with regard to the advantages of l 1l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. !\\- Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l /

m 74 1 the maintenance rule as the test bed, and if the ACRS staff [ 2 hasn't taken a look at that transcript, I'd recommend that, 3 as well. 4 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Yes, maybe we should get a copy. 5 MR. BRADLEY: It's pretty lengthy. You've got to 6 get in there and find the relevant parts. 7 _DR. APOSTOLAKIS: I know. 8 MR. BRADLEY: Just like these, right? 9 MR. KING: We're not ignoring your recommendation. 10 I think we've discussed it. Exactly what the paper is going 11 to say about it is to be determined at this point, but I 12 think it's a good suggestion, and you don't need to do 13 anything else to put it on our plate. I think it's c;. our i 14 plate. (3) 15 MR. BARRETT: Yes. When we summarized the results / 16 of the public meeting, that's the way we summarized it, 17 that's the way we understood it, was that the industry was 18 interested in putting scope on the table as its primary 19 priority, using 50.65 as a test bed. But anymore detail 20 than that we don't have, and so, I think that's where we 21 probably would leave it. 22 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Anything else, Biff? 23 MR. BRADLEY: I don't believe so. l 24 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Thank you. l 25 Bob? l 1 ,[) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 1 s-./ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 L Washington, D.C. 20036 l (202) 842-0034 l

75 l 1 MR.-CHRISTIE: My name is Bob Christie, /T 2 Performance Technology. O 3 My words will be my own words. 4 I don't believe I could ever speak for the three 5 units. The three units have gone through a lot of ups and 6 downs in the last 18 months. 7 I think I would speak for all of us, however, to 8 say that this is not going to be easy. I mean none of us 9 believe this is going to be easy, but we all believe that it 10 has to be done, I mean just has to be done. 11 The California experience is going to be there and 12 will probably spread, and we're going to have to live with 13 more focus on a lot of things. 14 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: You're speaking in terms that y) 15 are not quite understood. The three units? This California 16 experience? What are these? 17 MR. CHRISTIE: Oh, okay. I'm speaking for the 18 three units, the pilot plants, the whole-plant study -- 19 Arkansas, San Onofre, and South Texas. 20 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Okay. 21 MR. CHRISTIE: The California experience is the 22 economic deregulation of California -- 23 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Okay. 24 MR. CHRISTIE: -- and the paper by J.D. Shiffer 25 that basically explained it to me when I was out at the j ( ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 'ws Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

76 1 American Nuclear Society conference in San Francisco a while [h 2 ago. GI 3 I believe that the pilot plants are fairly 4 encouraged. If we can get it going, I mean that would be -- 5 it's something that they all have felt that had to be done. 6 I doubt any of them believed it would happen, but it may 7 happen. It would certainly be nice to have it happen. 8 I think the objectives that I saw here today are 9 exactly the objectives of what we now call the whole-plant 10 pilot studies. That is, we would like to make sure that the 11 public health risk and the resources are focused on the same 12 thing. I mean, to us, that's it. 13 As Mr. Shiffer says in his paper describing 14 economic deregulation, we really do have to get a very good mk,) 15 handle on what he called how safe is safe enough, and we 16 have to make sure that the plant people know that, that they 17 have a very clear recognition that doesn't result in 18 ambiguities in their minds. 19 So, whether we'll achieve that or not, I don't 20 know, but I believe that the three -- you know, the Arkansas 23 Nuclear One people, the San Onofre people, and the South 22 Texas people will certainly work as hard as they can and 23 give it their best shot to see what happens. 24 DR. KRESS: Would you want to speak to the 25 question of whether you think those plants ought to be b. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. \\ s/ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 } Washington, D.C. 20036 ) (202) 842-0034 i L.

77 1 exempt from the rule while they carry out their program as b 2 now exists? 3 MR. CHRISTIE: We've had discussions with the 4 staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on this. Our 5 position is we don't want to say that this has to be -- as 6 people say, it has to be a certain way or anything like 7 that. We don't -- we threw it out one time as a possible 8 way to go about it. It doesn't have to be done. 9 All three units are completely flexible as far as 10 the process. I mean whatever -- and we would cer.ainly hope 11 to be able to work with anybody. I mean it doesn't matter 12 to us who it is. 13 DR. KRESS: Well, if this was voluntary, it 14 wouldn't matter anyway. /"'N (,) 15 MR. CHRISTIE: Well, you know, again, the process, 16 I think, will either work or it will not work. If it works 17 and the three pilot plants basically end up being so much 18 more cost-effective in a new regime, there won't be any 19 problem about voluntary or mandatory. l 20 If you will be able to be more coct-effective, you 21 will probably end up, I think, consistently achieving higher 22 or what I would call lower levels of risk, and I think you 23 will achieve better cost-effectiveness, if you do it right, 24 and we're hoping we can do it right, and if we demonstrate 25 we do it right, you will have no trouble. O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. t (m I Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

.-.._..._.-_..___-.________.__.._m 0 l -78 1 I mean you will see a long line signing on th 2' dotted line tomorrow. It won't be, you know, worried about 3 that. 4 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: I'm confused about the mandatory 5

thing, j

6 I mean.if you -- as Tom pointed out -- and I know l 7. very senior members of the Commission and of the agency i '8 never fail to remind us-that the whole effort here does not 9 have its sole ~ objective removing burden. There may be some i-10 additional requirements. 11 So,.let's say now that you modify parts of Part 50 1 12 and you have some additional requirements plus a removal of L 13 burden. Can that be voluntary? There will be additional 14 requirements that you feel are important to risk, but then () 15 that's a voluntary thing? 16-I can see something that removes burden as being i 17 voluntary. 18-DR. KRESS: It has to fit the back-fit rule. 11 9 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Well, whatever it has to fit, 20 it's hard for me to see that you will have requirements for '211 some units -- 22 DR. KRESS: They can'certainly make it mandatory 23 if it's part of the back-fit. '24' MR. BARRETT: It depends on how you view this. If 25 you want to take a specific part of the plant that's not C ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters h 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i

.. - - -.... -. - _. -. -. - _. ~ - [ 79 i i currently within the licensing basis and say I'm. going to t ~ ) [% /) 2 . pass'a rule that requires you to give that full regulatory 3-treatment, then that's got to be mandatory. 4 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Yes. 5-MR. BARRETT: We've gone through that over the 6-past 20 years, since WASH-1400. 7 We've.done it for station black-out, we did it for 8~ ATWS, we've done it under certain circumstances with generic 9 letters, you know, and it's possible that we could do it for .10 other parts of the plant, but we've been studying many parts 11. of the plant like that for years and years, and we have not 12 been able to come to a decision that we want to make that 13 step, for instance, for reactor coolant pump seals, that we -14 want to give enhanced regulatory treatment to that -- to () 15 those parts of the plant. 16 So, what we're talking about here instead is -- ~ 17 - we're talking about here is an alternative method of 18 defining what is within the scope of regulatory oversight. 1 19 Today, the way it's defined is through design 20 basis accidents, primarily. Of course, there are other 21 things, but I'll oversimplify. 22 We're talking about shifting our focus to 23; something else, and that shift in focus is going to pull j R24 some things into the design basis, but it's also going to l 25 push a lot of things that are, as we say, not very important l V ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.. l Court Reporters i 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

80 1 -to achieving risk outside of the scope of a lot of 2 regulatory requirements. 3-DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Well, that part I can see how it 4 can be voluntary. 5 MR. BARRETT: Uh-huh. 6 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: But the former, if you decide to 7 make it part of the design basis, then everybody complies, 8 right? 9 MR. BARRETT: What you end up with if you go 10 voluntary is you end up with two acceptable methods of 11 defining. .12 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: And that's okay? That can .13 happen? .14 MR. BARRETT: That can happen, sure. C 15 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: I guess I'd have to see specific ( 16 cases.to understand the method. 17 Any other issues? 18 Graham? 19 DR. WALLIS: I don't know if my comments can help 20 you by next week. I find this whole thing to be very 21 diffuse and fuzzy and full of very general statements. 22 To make a good design, you have to be clear at '23 what you're trying to do, and George went back to the 24-objectives. 25 I think you really need a much clearer statement ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ( Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 i Washington, D.C. 20036 (202)'842-0034

81 1 'of what~you're'trying to do, what are the measures for {} 2 success, how you will quantify improvements, what are the 3-problems with the present system, why will the design you're l 4 trying to come up with be.somehow better than this present 5 system. 6' Now, you have words like " enhanced safety 7' . decisions," mean nothing to me at all. " Areas commensurate l 8 with their importance" means nothing at all, really. It's 9 so vague that it could mean anything. 1 -10 Using risk information to take action is a 11 mechanism of an objective. This is a better mechanism than 4 12 some other mechanism. 13 I'm not sure that providing flexibility in 14 licensing is a good objective. It may be very tough but ( 15 simple and understandable. Inflexible might be better. I -16 don't know. 17 But until you compare it with what you're trying 18 to do as an objective, I don't really see what the words 19 mean. 20 So, I don't know if I can help you, but I want i 21 something which is more like the classical approach to a 22 design problem, where you say what you're trying to do, look 23= at ways to do it, evaluate it on some basis of metrics, and 24-then figure out which is the best way to do it. 25 DR. KRESS: Your name is not Dana Powers, is it? O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

82 1 DR. WALLIS: I think, generally, I get a feeling ) 2 that this is a good thing to do, but surely you can make a l 3 better case for it, articulate it in a more logical way. 4 But I don't know how you do that in a week. 5 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: I guess there is no response. 6 Anything else? Other members? i 7 [No response.] 8 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Okay. Thank you very much. 9 Thank the members of the public for providing comments. And 10 we will reconvene at 3:15 for the 50.59 discussion. 11 [ Recess.] 12 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: We're back in session. 13 The next item is 50.59, and Mr. King and ms. 4 14 Drouin will make the presentations, p.) i 15 MR. KING: We're going to have Mr. Guttmann here s_, 16 with us, also. 17 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Okay. Good to see him again. 18 MR. KING: Mary and her staff have been working on 19 taking some real examples and testing these various options 20 that have been described to the subcommittee before on how 21 to risk-inform Part 50, and what we're going to focus on 22 today is what's happened with Part 50 using some real 23 examples and actually take one and walk through how it can 24 be -- 25 DR. APOSTOLAKIS So, let me understand the 1 [ ) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. , ' \\ s/ Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

~ i l 83 ) 1 schedule now. When is this supposed to be completed, the [~ ) 2 50.59? v 3 MS. DROUIN: February. 1 4 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Oh, February. 5 MS. DROUIN: Yes. l 6 MR. KING: Well, we owe a report on the options to 7 NRR in December, and then, in February, there's going to be 8 recommendations on what to do with these options. 9 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: And when do you want a letter i 10 from the ACRS? In December or in February? 11 MS. DROUIN: Well, the report that's going out in 12 December is just going to be describing all the options and 13 then evaluating each option by itself. 14 The report in December will not have any () 15 comparison of the options against each other. That is 16 what's going to come out in February, where we're going to 17 discuss how this option stacks up against this option and 18 then make recommendations. 19 That part will not be in the December report, just 20 a description of the options and how they fall out against 21 the evaluation factors. 22 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Now, when you say February, you 23 mean sometime in the middle of February? 24 MS. DROUIN: Sometime in February. 25 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: So, if the ACRS is to comment on l l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i

84 1 that, that would be -- the earliest will be March. f~'\\ 2 MR. MARKLEY: Right now we're scheduled to look at V 3 the proposed rule-making along that same time-line. Is this going to be part of the rule-making package, or is this 4 5 going to be a separate document, still? 6 MS. DROUIN: It's a separate document, but the 7 reason it got postponed is because 1.71 is out for public 8 comment, and so, part of our report is going to take into 9 account, you know, what the comments come in on the new 10 rule-making on 1.71, which -- and that ends in January. 11 MS. McKENNA: This is Eileen McKenna, NRR. 12 The comment period ends in December, and then 13 we're going to try to respond to the comments and going 14 forward with the final rule-making. <() 15 The schedule the Commission has given us right now 16 is February 19th, which I think we've mentioned before to 17 the committee is a very ambitious schedule, but that's the 18 present one. 19-MS. DROUIN: So, I mean it all fits in together. 20 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: What I don't understand is where 21 we come in. We are writing a letter in December anyway? 22 MR. MARKLEY: You were expecting to comment on the 23 options, if you see fit, in December, and you will 24 definitely be reviewing the proposed rule-making later. l 25 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Do you plan to give us the l h ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. \\~/ Court Reporters 1025-Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1C'4 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l

~ - -. _.. -. -. - -. - - _. -.. _ - i I 85 1 options that you will send up to the EDO soon? [( } 2 MS. DROUIN: That's where we're supposed to come 13 back, I'believe, December 3rd -- 4. DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Okay. 5 MS. DROUIN: -- for the full committee, and at' 6 that' point, we're going to go through and discuss here's how 7' we see each option against our factors. 8 -DR. APOSTOLAKIS: But you don't intend to send us 9 a document before then. 10 MS. DROUIN: We intend to send you a rough draft 11 tomorrow. =12 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Oh. Here. You will bring it 13 here, you mean. 14 MS. DROUIN: I will physically carry it down here

}p}

15 to you? I.mean is that what you -- sure. 16 MR. MARKLEY: They'll still be here. 17 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: You can send somebody else. L 18 MR. KING: If you're here, we'll hand-carry.it o l 19

down, i

20 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Yes. 21 MR. KING: You've seen the options. There were 11 1 22' of them. Mary described them before, and she's going to i 23 summarize them. i 24 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Since we're here, we might as 25 well take it with us. Okay. l-i (. e ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 1

~ .__---___.---~ 86 1 MR. KING: What we were going to cover on this was l 2 give you a. status of where we are in assessing the options, 3 a quick summary of the options to refresh your memory, some I '4 examples.of things.that have actually been tested in plants, t 5 real cases, against the existing 50.59, and what happened to 6 those, so you can see the kinds of problems that have been 7 run into, and then go into some detail describing the test 8 case where we took that and.ran it through the new process 9 and then talk about some evaluation factors that we're going 10 to be using to compare the 11. options that Mary and her 11 folks have come up with. 12 As far as status, we had briefed you before. Mary 13 had a meeting with industry to actually talk about some of 14 these examples and do some trial applications of real-life 15 examples. 16 The options have been identified. You'll see the 17-evaluation factors later, that there was -- you know, 18 there's work ongoing now to assess the options using real 19 test cases. 20 The intent is, when this document -- we're going 21 to give you a draft tomorrow. We'll actually send the thing 22 officially to NRR in the middle of December. The idea was 23 to also put that in the PDR so other people could look at 24 lit, and Mary has scheduled a public meeting for January 19th 1 1 25 to try and collect any comments on those options before we j ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

87 t -1 actually go back and make a recommendation'in February to 2 NRR, and I think -- where is that going to be? Here in the L 3 auditorium, I think, right? l 4 1MS. DROUIN: 'It will be in the auditorium. We're 5 going to hopefully get out a Federal Register notice next 6 week just to alert people that this is happening and they I 7-can get it on their calendar, even though the document won't t 8 be publicly available, of course, till mid-December. 9 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: January 19th? 1 l'0 MR. KING: Yes. 11 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Are we here then? 12 MS. DROUIN: It's a Tuesday. 13 MR. MARKLEY: Yo11r retreat is the following week, 14 but there are several subcommittees that week, () 15 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: There is a fire subcommittee 16 meeting on'the 20th, right? There is a PRA subcommittee on 17 the 21st. 18 MR. KING: This is a relatively new thought to try 19 and have this one-day workshop to get some feedback from 20 people outside the NRC, but I think it's worthwhile doing, 21 and then, again, we'll go with the final recommendation to 22 NRR in February. 23 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Okay. 24 MR. KING: Go ahead, Mary. 25 MS. DROUIN: We discussed the options, you know, l l' ["'\\ ' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. (s / Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l ?

88 1 inLdetail'last time, so we weren't going to spend a lot of () 2 ' time today on going through the options, but we wanted just 3' to, you know, do a little bit of repeat. 4 Again, the options, we have divided them in two 5 parts. One was looking at the scope of 50.59, remembering 6 that, right now, under the existing 50.59, it's limited to i l 7 the SKR, describing changes in the SAR. I l 8 'Ek), some of the options we re looking at is r 9 changing the -- keeping the scope within the SAR but making l 10 it more risk-significant or, also, not limited to the SAR, 11 going across the facility, and trying to get to the j 12 risk-significant SSCs. 13 The other options go more towards the parameters i 14-of the existing 50.59. () 15 'The first set of options keep the current i 16' parameters but are looking at adding minimal increases.that i 17 are not currently. allowed. ) 18 Then the second is actually replacing the existing l 19 parameters with; risk measures, looking at delta-RAW, 20 delta-CDF, the RAW in the risk reduction per the maintenance 21 rule, looking at a delta-LERF, looking at the Farmer's 22 curves. 23 So, these are the different types of things that 24 we're looking at for the options. 25 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Now, the first bullet under i h ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. v Court Reporters i 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 L Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

l 89 l l 1 parameter options -- you say you will keep the current 50.59 \\ s l[/] 2 parameters, but you have to do something to define \\_ 3 increases. 4 MS. DROUIN: Yes. 5 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Probably or something. l 6 MS. DROUIN: Yes. But it would still be those 7 same seven parameters. 8 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Now, what does delta-RAW mean? 1 9 I mean RAW itself is a delta. You take the component and 10 you assume it's always down and you calculate RAW. So, 11 changes in RAW means what? 12 MS. DROUIN: This one is getting more towards 13 Tom's suggestion that he 14 DR. KRESS: Mine wasn't a delta-RAW. i r-(, 15 MS. DROUIN: Well, that's true. 16 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: RAW actually identifies what's 17 significant, and then you work on the delta. But there is 18 no such thing as delta-RAW. RAW itself is a delta. 19 DR. KRESS: Mine basically had a cut-off point on 20 RAW -- 21 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Yes. 22 DR. KRESS: -- and would define what 23 insignificance was. t 24 MS. DROUIN: Yes. l 25 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Now, this comes again to the I /' kN) Court Reporters ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. s 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 i Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l

90 1 issue of objectives that we also discussed earlier, but (~') 2 something that is not clear to me at this point, and I think V 3 several members of the ACRS also have been struggling with t 4 his issue, is is the intent of 50.59 to deal with severe 5 accidents? 6 But all these measures, except the last one, do 7 deal with severe accidents. I mean to define RAWS and so on 3 and CDF, we are talking about something pretty serious. 9 So, are you -- then what's going to happen to 10 other situations where you may not even get a raw, but still 11 you don't want them to do change, effect changes without i l 12 approval. 13 That's something that is not clear to me. I mean 14 are these cases trivial, so we don't need to worry about (% 15 them? 16 MS. DROUIN: No, I don't think they're trivial, l 17 but in the evaluation of the options, that is, in my mind, a 18 factor that you take into account whether that's an option 19 you would want to pursue. 20 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: I see. i 21 MS. DROUIN: So, we aren't ignoring it. It's 22 coming more into play in the evaluation of the option. 23 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Okay. But the intent, though, 24 is not to deal only with severe accidents. 25 MS. DROUIN: No, because the current 50.59 is (N ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. (m-) Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

i 91 t. j-1 across the facility. ! (T 2 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Acrosc the facility. So, that \\s / l 3 includes core accidents less than severe, you know, not plus 4 nine, but also includes other sources of radioactivity like 5 spent fuel pool and so on. 6 MS. DROUIN: Uh-huh. i 7 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: And what is the initiating event 8 there? Do we have a set of initiating events for non-core 9 l 10-DR. KRESS: We do for the pool. 11 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: We do for the pool, but -- l 12 DR. KRESS: Other things like -- 13 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Yes. 14 DR. KRESS: You also have some for the water, A 15 primary system water, always has iodine in it. I don't (a) 16 think you have anything for the resins and the low-level 17 waste and stuff like that, such things as initiating events, 18 there. L 19 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Now, if we ask the question l 20 again of objectives here, I mean the scope options to some 21 extent address that, because if you take as a point of 22 reference the SAR, then you are saying I don't want l 23 significant deviations, changes from what is already in the 24 SAR, right? 25 If they are significant, I want to review it. i /~ k,')s ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters s 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 ) (202) 842-0034 I

t i 92 1 Otherwise -- and what you're going to -- what you propose (~') 2 under bullet one is, maybe within that context, we will use l 's.) l 3 some risk information to say that some things are more 4 important than others. 5 If I go to the second one, now I look at the whole l 6 facility. Do I also take as a point of reference the way 7 the facility is now and I want minimal changes from that 8 point of reference, or will I have an absolute bound up to j 9 which the utility will be able to change without prior 1 10 approval? 11 You see what I'm saying? There are two different 12 things. 13 One is relative, because you're saying this is the 14 way it is now, and all I -- if you change it by epsilon, /\\ I ( ) 15 then fine, do it. %/ 16 Now we have to define what epsilon is. Another 17 approach -- because that epsilon now is relative to the way 18 it is now. 19 Or you can have an absolute, which sort of is what 20 NEI alluded to when they said -- when they asked the 21 question of who owns the margin between the operating ) 22 envelope and the safety envelope. 23 I'm not saying that that's the say we should do 24 it, but I mean, certainly that's a fundamental question of 25 scope. l i / ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. (,N) Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

- - ~ -.~ l 93 1 MR. KING: The way I understand this, the scope. j .(^T 2 options are -- we would redefine the definition of + s). 3~ safety-related, for example. i 4 Anything.that would fall under that new definition 5 would not be subject to a 5".59-type evaluation, and 6 anything that's outside that definition would now be a i 7 candidate for making 50.59-type changes. 8 MS. DROUIN: Right. 9 MR. KING: Now, when you droy,Jo'r and talk about 10 parameter options, that goes one step further and says, 11 okay, there are things under -- that fall within the new 1 12 definition of safety-related, but I can make epsilon-type 13 changes to those provided they fall within -- you know, we 14 define epsilon, and I think, under the parameter options, () 15 it's defining epsilon. 16 There are -- you know, there's various levels that 17 you can go here. 18 I think whatever risk-informed scope we come up 19 with on the big Part 50 effort is going to be the same scope-20 that we apply to Part 50.59. 21 MS. DROUIN: Exactly. 22 MR. KING: So, I think these things have been sort 23 of heading on parallel tracks, but they've got to come 24 together real soon in the scope area. 25 MS. DROUIN: Yes. ON ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

l 94 l 1 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: But basically, the difference l (, ~) 2 between the first two options, the scope options, the basic 3 difference is that one looks at the whole facility, the way 4 it is now, the other looks at the SAR the way it is now. 5 DR. MILLER: That will be defined ultimately by 6 Part 50. 7 MR. KING: Yes. 8 MS. DROUIN: Exactly. s 9 MR. KING: Whatever Part 50 ends up with deal with 10 the scope part here. 11 DR. MILLER: That will be ultimately defined by 12 Part 50. 13 MR. KING: Yes. 14 MS. DROUIN: That's exactly right. O .Q 15 Okay. 16 This is just a summary of the examples, and the ) 17 main point to show here is we've got two sets of examples, 18 where the top ones are showing the ones that -- where the 19 utility needed to go in for a license amendment because the 12 0 change was ending up as a USQ and the bottom one was not a 21 USQ, but when you look at the righthand column, what you can i 22 see is that none of these changes to the facility had any 23 kt d of risk impact. 24 So, whether or not they needed Commission 25 approval, it had no significance of risk. i ' /^) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. k s/ Court Reporters m 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20035 (202) 842-0034

) i o 95 1-DR. APOSTOLAKIS.: So, these are actually 50.59 2 cases. L 3 MS. DROUIN: These are actual cases. l 4 ~ DR.-APOSTOLAKIS: And the staff looked at them 'l 5-after the fact and agreed. Is that what this is? 6 DR. MILLER: No, it-didn't agree. 7 DR.'APOSTOLAKIS: Didn't agree? 8 MS. DROUIN: The first ones, the staff -- they had 9 to submit for Commission approval. y 10 DR. APOSTOLAKIS-But who decided that? The 11 utility or the staff forced them to do it? 12 MS. DROUIN: It failed -- I shouldn't say it 13 failed. They went through -- 14 DR APOSTOLAKIS: Yes. Oj,)- 15 MS. DROUIN: -- the 50.59 process, and in goitg l 16 through the 50.59 process, it ended up as a USQ. 17 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: So, it's not that they decided 18 that it was 50.59 and'the staff said no. 19 MS DROUIN: The licensee decides. I l 20 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: The licensee. Okay. j 21-MS. DROUIN: The. licensee goes through the 22 evaluation and it comes out with that answer. 23 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Right. I 24 MS. DROUIN: So then they submit it as a USQ. 25 DR MILLER: My question on that -- at what point /~' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. V) Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 l (202) 842-0034

.. _., _.. ~.. _.. _ 96 i 1-did it, quote / unquote, " fail" and become a USQ? Which point ~~2 on'the_50.59 process?- 3 .MS. DROUIN:. Well, I wasn't going to go through 4 each one'of these., 5 DR.' MILLER: Dcn't go through'each one, but -- 6 MS. DROUIN: We're going to go through a test case 7-and you'll see -- 8 DR. MILLER: Okay. '9 MS.-DROUIN: -- an example. 10 DR. MILLER: So then we'll understand-it. If it 11: failed on, say, the SAR or it failed -- 12 MS. DROUIN: Right. 13 DR. MILLER: -- on one of the parameters. 14 MS. DROUIN: So, if we get to the next one, we're p) l 15 going to get right directly to that. 16 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: And also, the last three, Mary, 17. that was'a utility's determination that there was no 18 unreviewed safety question -- 19 MS. DROUIN: That's right. 20 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: -- and the staff agreed after l 21 the fact. I 22 MS. DROUIN: Well, the staff comes in and might do 23. an audit -- 24' DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Yes. 25' MS. DROUIN: -- or might not do an audit. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

97 1 Now, whether these three were ever audited, I 2 don't know. =; .\\ 3 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Okay. 4 DR. KRESS: These are different utilities? 5 MS. DROUIN: Different utilities. 6 MR. KING: Let's take the first one. These are t 7 'all' discussed in the report that you'll get tomorrow, but 8 just to follow up on Dr. Miller's question, take the first 9 one, correct error in dose calculations for the processed 20-gas system. 11 Looking at the report, that failed the test 12 because the consequences were increased. They were i 13 increased by 1 millirem. 14 DR. MILLER: It was in the scope, but then it ( ) 15 failed one'of the questions. 16 MR. KING: It was increase in consequence, and the 17 increase was 1 millirem. 18 MS. DROUIN: But to follow up with what Tom said, 19 each one of these is discussed in the report. It's going to' j 20 tell you what they wanted to change, why it got an 21 evaluation, and why we felt it had -- what we felt was the l 22 risk significance of it. 23 DR., APOSTOLAKIS: This you have not shown us 24. before. 25 MS. DROUIN: No, we summarized these last time. l l [ - ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 1 r-

98 1 1 DR. KRESS: There was a summary in the sense of 2 numbers, but we asked for examples, and now they're -- 3 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: So, this subcommittee meeting is 4 very useful. 5 DR. KRESS: The report we're getting tomorrow is 6 going to go through each one of these. 7 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Yes. 8 MS. DROUIN: Yes, in detail. 9 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Mr. Bradley. 10-MR. BRADLEY: Thanks. -11 Biff Bradley, NEI. 12 I had a question. This is a real interesting 13 slide that I haven't seen before either. 14 The yes -- the ones that answered yes to USQ -- () 15 was that based on the current zero standard interpretatico 16 of 50.59? 17 MS. DROUIN: Under the existing 50.59. These are 18 all things that are in the past. 19 MR. BRADLEY: Okay. 20 Now, if you had the current rule-making in place, 21 with the words " minimal" in the rule, would these still have 22 failed or would they have been USQs? 23 MS. DROUIN: We're in the process of going through 24-these right now under each option. There will also be a 25 discussion of all of the examples to say, okay, for this ANN RILE'I A ASSOCIATES, LTD. ,,,/ Court 'cportors 1025 Connecticut Avauue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

99 1 option, here's what would happen. 2 MR. BRADLEY: I think that's a pertinent question, 3 because this slide tends to suggest that, you know, 50.59 4 isn't a very good test, I mean in risk space, and with the 5 current rule-making, I mean if these could conceivably all 6 turn to no's, I would think, if the word " minimal" had -- 7 now, maybe the one you mentioned about the consequence 8 increase -- but I think that's something you might you want 9 to consider as you move this forward, is, you know, being 10 clear about whether that's the zero standard or the minimal 11 that's giving you that yes. 12 MS. DROUIN: We're in the midst of doing that '13 right now. I just don't have that information. 14 We're in the midst of writing, believe it or not, f~) ( 15 as we're speaking. 16 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: I didn't see you write. I 17 understand the pressure you're under, Mary. 18 MS. DROUIN: But each one of these examples is 19 evaluated under the proposed options to see, well, here's 20 the before, here's the after, are we gaining anything, are 21 we maybe, in a sense, making it worse? 22 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: But it would be -- I think, on 23 your list of examples., you should add a few where the 24 utility and the staff disagreed and see whether, under your 25 new options, there wouldn't be a disagreement. \\s]./ (' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l

~ J 100 1~ See, right now, you are telling us these are'all () 2 the licensees determinations, but what if the licensee in 3 some instance decided, for example, no, there is no 4 unreviewed safety question, then-there was an audit and the 5 staff said no, there is, and now you come in with your i i 6 option and say, well, if this option were in place at the j-7 time, there wouldn't have been a disagreement. 8 I mean that really would be very enlightening. L [ 9 Can you do that by tomorrow? 10 DR. MILLER: How about yesterday? 11 MS. DROUIN: I'll take that as a compliment, .12 George, to our abilities. 13 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: I know that you can't do it by 14 tomorrow, but at some point, it would be nice, and I think e i Lk 15 it would be very, very useful to all of us. I 16 MS. DROUIN: No, we have not gone back to.see-17 which of these have been audited, but we can do that. 18 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Now, isn't it interesting, the ) l 19 fourth one? Look at the fourth one. Modify single-failure 20 trip logical main feedwater control valves. I mean the risk 21 cignificance decreased and yet there was an unreviewed 22 safety question? Can you elaborate a little bit on that? L '23 MS. DROUIN: You'can't wait till tomorrow and get 24 your report? l 25 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: I'm dying, Mary. '( ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l l-I

~ ~. _ 101 l 1l .DR. MILLER: It's the last page of a Clancy book I [ 2- .have. ( 3 DR.,APOSTOLAKIS: Of the what? 4 DR. MILLER: A Tom Clancy book. 'S MR. KING: Because it made a slight increase in 6 the un-availability of the feedwater isolation function. F '7 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: I'm sorry. It did what? 8 MR. KING: It slightly increased-the 9 un-availability of the feedwater isolation function. 10 DR..APOSTOLAKIS: But why did the risk l 11 significance decrease? Do you mean the risk was' decreased? 12 DR. MILLER: That's their analysis of that 13 particular evaluation. 14 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Yes. ) 15 DR. MILLER: Poste facto. 16 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Right. I 17 DR. MILLER: Okay. 18 MR. KING: The risk decreased because, according 19 to the write-up, it reduced the probability of a reactor 20 trip, even though it did increase the un-availability of one 21 particular function. 22 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: So, it increased the 23 un-availability of -- 24 MS. DROUIN: It increased the probability of 25 equipment malfunction occurrence. l l' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. s Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 l (202) 842-0034

mm A _am. 4 a 2 .,a. _2 2 ,u-+_. 102 1 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Which equipment was this? l. t. - l 2 MS. DROUIN: The main feedwater control and bypass 3 -- no, the single failure trip logic of the main feedwater [ 4 control and bypass valves. 5 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: What was decreased? I 6 MS. DROUIN: But you ended up with a reduction in 7 the probability of reactor trip and the overall was a 8 decrease in the CDF. 9 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Which means -- which was my 10 argument when I wrote that addendum -- that you can't look 11 at these things in isolation. 12 You have to place them in a context, some sort of l 13 a sequence, because the net result - - this is an excellent l 14 example -- may be beneficial when, in fact, if you look at () 15 the little piece, you say, well, gee, that increases the 16 probability of malfunction. 17 MS. DROUIN: That's right. 18 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: You really need the context to 19 do this. 20 MS. DROUIN: That's right. When you put it all in 21 there, what you saw overall was a decrease in CDF. 22 DR. MILLER: See, 50.59, in many cases, the way 23 it's done now, probably is conservative. l 24 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Oh, I bet it is. 25 DR. MILLER: There's six questions. t [/h ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. \\_ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

i 103 1 1 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Yes, it starts out among the /^h { } 2 other regulations as being very conservative. 3 DR. MILLER: Seven questions you ask. As George 4 says, you ask each one individually and not in toto. 5 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: This is an excellent example 6 which has to be used in the future. 7 MS. DROUIN: We will highlight that one. 8 Okay. 9 DR. APOSTOLAEIS: Is there a document with more l 10 detail than this? j 11 MS. DROUIN: It's in the report. 12 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: I know. More than what's in the

13 report.

14 MS. DROUIN: Yes. ( ) 15 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Okay. 16 MS. DROUIN: You can go to the files. 17 Okay. 18 What we're getting into now is the test case, the 19 infamous screen wash booster pumps at South Texas which 20 we're using as the test case. 21 When you look at South Texas, at the essential 22 cooling water system, the water source, the essential 23 cooling pond is a chemically-controlled water source. You 24 have these traveling water screens with a screen wash 25 booster pump. l (/ \\ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. \\_- Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

104 i 1 These booster pumps are auto-actuated on the (L.) 2 receipt of a safety injection signal, and the booster pumps i 3 are classified as safety-related. 4 So, that's essentially what the facility is. 5 In case you don't know what traveling water screen 6 -- we have a very simplistic diagram there for you. It 7 seems like we're entertaining people with our little 8 cartoon. 9 But that little one on top -- that's the screen 10 wash booster pump, and what the situation is is that they 11 would like to take this booster pump that is classified as 12 safety-related and classify it as non-nuclear safety. 13 So, that's the facility change that the utility 14 would want to make. /*~' (N) 15 DR. MILLER: Is that really a facility change, or 16 they just want to change its category? 17 MS. DROUIN: Well, a facility change can be a 18 design change, it can be an operational, it can be changing 19 somethir.g from -- the word " facility" is a very general 20 broad term. It doesn't necessarily mean they're making a 21 physical change. It doesn't necessarily mean that. 22 When you look at the essential cooling water 23 system -- now, again, this is not our assessment here. This 24 is the licensee's assessment. But when you look at their 25 PRA that they have done -- and they've done a full-scope, /S ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. '%-) Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

105 1 level one, two, three internal and external events PA. ? ,m l%-]' 2 When you look at the internal events part of the 3 PRA, the booster pumps are not a failure mechanism for ECW. 4 So, when you just look at that part of the PRA, it has no 5 impact on risk. 6 DR. WALLIS: It doesn't fail. They're there to 7 make sure ECW functions properly, aren't they? It's not 8 failure, but it would -- it wouldn't function so well if the 9 screens plugged up and didn't get washed and all that. 10 MS. DROUIN: Again, you're coming back to the fact 11 that this is a water source that -- for an internal event 12 situation, those booster pumps are not needed. 13 DR. WALLIS: They're there to fulfill some 14 function, which is to clean the screen, which has an effect / \\ (,) 15 on the flow rate of the ECW, doesn't it? 16 MS. DROUIN: That's right. 17 DR. WALLIS: So, I don't quite understand there 18 being no impact on risk. 19 MS. DROUIN: Because it's a chemically-controlled 20 pond, and there's nothing there, supposedly, to clean during 21 an internal event situation. 22 DR. WALLIS: So, these are unnecessary pieces of 23 equipment. 24 MS. DROUIN: From what I understand, and the 25 licensee has come in and done an evaluation. They have said I /T ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. (- > Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

l 106 1 that these booster pumps are not a failure mechanism during 2 an internal event situation. l 3 Now, when you get to external events, this is 4 where they could potentially be a failure mechanism, where 5 you would need them to operate, and under external events, 6 the information we got from them is that, when you look at 7 your floods, under.a flooding situation, the entire intake 8 structure itself would be underwater. 9 So, whether or not you had the screen wash pumps 10 would be immaterial, because you've already failed the 11 emergency cooling water pumps -- sorry -- the essential i 12 cooling water pumps. l 13 In looking at high winds, tornados, that sort of 14 thing, those also came out to be an impact on risk, because l L s,/ 15 looking at the location of South Texas, the probability of 16 getting debris coupled with the frequency of the event and 17 that gives you kind of an idea of what the facility looks 18

like, 19 DR. WALLIS:

The whole issue is how cruddy the l 20 pond is. 21 DR. MILLER: I thought the pond we already knew L 22 was not cruddy. I I 23 MS. DROUIN: Now, if that's a false assumption -- 24 I mean we're going with the baseline that -- with the 25 assumption that the assumption is correct, that it's not I () ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 4 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 l (202) 842-0034 l l

107 1 cruddy. 1 [d h 2 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: How come we don't have that 3 slide? 4 MS. DROUIN: Which one? That's a backup. 5 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Okay. 6 MS. DROUIN: Going to what -- the facility change i 7-again, what they wanted to do was go from safety-related to 8 non-nuclear safety. 9 So, what we're going to go through now is, under I 10 the existing 50.59 process, would they need Commission 11 approval, and under the current 50.59 process, they would 12 need Commission approval, although supposedly, by their 13 assessment, it has no risk significance. 14 DR. MILLER: In this case, what step did it fail? / ^ )\\ 15 MS. DROUIN: That's what we're going to go s 16 through, the seven parameters, because it ends up as an 17 unresolved safety question. 18 So, the first parameter under the existing 50.59 19 is looking -- you know, there may be an increase in the 20 probability of occurrence of an accident. It passes this 21 one. The failure of the booster pumps don't cause an 22 accident previously evaluated in the SAR. 23 The next parameter looks at whether or not there 24 may be increases in the consequence of an accident.

Here, 25 it does not result in a USQ, because the booster pumps,

,[ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court ' Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 i (202) 842-0034

108 1 again, are.not required to support the ECW in the mitigation (( 2 of a' design basis accident, and so, therefore, no potential 3 for an increase in dose. 4 Now, going to the next one, which looks at the 5 . equipment malfunction,.this is where it ends up as a USQ. 6 The parameter is looking at whether or not there may be an 7 increase in probability of occurrence of equipment 8 malfunction. 9 And although the reclassification is not impacting 10 the function by going from safety-related to non-safety 11 related, there may be - some unquantifiable reduction in 12 the reliability may be implied. 13 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: That's.because of the change in 14 QA and all'that stuff which the Office of Research is 15 quantifying? 16 MR, KING: We are going to attempt to quantify, 17 but what Mary is saying is here is a pump that you say you 18 don't need, so you want to change it from safety-related to 19 non-safety-related. 20 When you do that, you say, well, that may not be 21 as reliable, then, if I don't maintain it or keep all that 22 QA control. You're sort of caught in a Catch-22. You can't 23- .put it over there, because its reliability may change, and 24 that's what's causing you from putting it over there, even 25 .though you don't need it. You know, it's a circular Ib ' \\- / ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l

- ~.., ~ i -109 1 argument. [ L '2 .MR. MARKLEY: It provides a tremendous financial j LJ 3' benefit because then you don't have to buy pedigreed 4 safety-related qualified stuff and they can get .5 off-the-shelf equipment and don't.have to qualify it 6 themselves either. 7 DR. MILLER: But the current 50.59 process would 8- 'never let you change anything from safety to 9 non-safety-related, then. 10 MR. KING: If it passed these tests, you could, 11 but here's one that trips you up. 12 DR. MILLER: It.would never pass these tests. I 13 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: It will never pass, because 14 presumably less QA increases the failure. rate. (G,) .15 Any comment? 16 MR. BRADLEY: Yes. Biff Bradley, NEI. 17 Just sort of following up my previous comment, 18 again, I think the current rule-making, the 50.59, would fit 19 this particular problem by adding the word " minimal" in 20 front of that, and I'm not saying that -- I mean I think 21 what you're proposing here goes a lot further than that, but i 22 just a note that, you know, some of these things you're 23 pointing out will be fixed by -- assuming that the existing 24 rule, you know, goes through early next year, some of these 25 -examples will be taken carc of, not all, but this one is one ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

110 1 that would.be. )' 2 MS. DROUIN: Right. And we're going to point that 3 out. 4 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: But you are now -- both of you 5 are assuming that relaxation of the QA requirements results 6 in a minimal change in reliability. Is that the official 7 position of this agency? 8 MS. DROUIN: Well, it's a case that I think 9 it's more of a case, how do you prove it doesn't? 10 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Excuse me? 11 MS. DROUIN: How do you prove it doesn't? It's 12 more of an implication, and there's the problem. 13 DR. KRESS: If they prove it doesn't, it does. 14 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Yes, but it was a big deal when () 15 we were discussing the risk-informed -- 16 MR. KING: It's a candidate for a monitoring 17-program, where if you made that change, you'd want to 18 actually keep an eye on the pump to see does its reliability 19 really change? 20 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Well, you may be creating a 21 precedent here. 22 MR. KING: I mean that's how we dealt with that in 23 ~1.174 and int he graded QA reg. guide, keep an eye on those j 24 things that are key to your risk argument. 25 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: But coming back to Biff's point, /~' k~s') ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

4 . _. ~... _... .m 111 1 we are, working on the assumption -- we are starting with the (>) 2-assumption-that the' change is minimal. 3 MR. KING: .Yes, that's a key assumption in your 4 ' risk analysis. 5-DR. MILLER: Does that mean, anytime you change i 6 anything from safety to non-safety-related, it would be a 7-minimal change in' reliability? 8 MR '. KING: No, I wouldn't say that. 9 DR. MILLER: You have to do each one kind of 10 individually. 11 MR. KING: Yes. You have to look at what you're 12 changing. Maybe QA, in some cases, is something you can 13 demonstrate some real benefit from a risk standpoint. 14. MR. MARKLEY: That works as far as monitoring ) 15 with, you know, active equipment that's used frequently, but i 16 for standby equipment that very seldom operates, you won't 17' have many data points. 18 DR. MILLER: But you may have data points from 19 industrial applications. I don't know if that can be used 20 or not, other applications outside the industry. 21 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: We don't collect that data, 22 though. 23 DR. MILLER: Well, it would be up to the licensee 24 to show that. 25 DR. WALLIS: This booster pump is not in the PRA. (' l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 i I Washington, D.C. 20036 j; (202) 842-0034 l-i \\

-.,. -.. ~. _ - ... -. - - - -. _. - -... ~.... -. l I t i L 112 f l 1 Is there a PRA'for this plant? 2 MS, DROUIN: There is'a PRA for this plant. 3 DR. WALLIS: This is not in the PRA modeling? i 4 HMS. DROUIN: The booster pump is -- was addressed i 5 in the sense that, when you looked at the essential cooling 6 water system and you looked at the failure mechanisms, what l 7 were the. potential failure mechanisms, and it was shown not i 8-to be a failure mechanism. i 9 So, I mean I don't want to come in and say it 10 wasn't in the PRA, because that would -- you know, I don't 11 want to imply that they didn't look at it. It's not modeled .12 in there because the assessment was made it wasn't needed on 13-the in' nal. events part. 14 So,-you aren't going to go to the PRA, for ) -15 example, and get an'importance measure off of it, but it's 16 not there for a. specific reason. I 17 DR. MILLER: Based on that, that deems it 18 risk-insignificant. 19 MS. DROUIN: That's right. 20 Then on the external event part, under the 21 flooding, it could have been a failure mechanism, but the 22 floods that were looked at were severe enough that it not 23 .only failed the booster pumps, it already failed the main 24 pumps, so you already had a failure of one. So, again, you 25 aren't going to see that modeled in there, because you had ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. t-Court Reporters j' 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

.. ~. _ _. _... _.. _. - _. _ _.. _. -. _1 -113 1 already failed the main pumps. i r i l (* 2' DR '. WALLIS: I' guess the key evidence is how m l 3 cruddy.the water is, and that has to be measured somehow'. L 4 That doesn't appear in your discussion at all. 5-MS. DROUIN: Well, I mean we can come in and show-6 you the documentation on that. I mean I didn't bring it in, l 7 .but they do have, you know, a_ process to keep it clean. 8 DR. WALLIS: It shows the difficulty of assessing l .5F all these things where there are quite a few different 10 interacting components here. 11 'DR. MILLER: My understanding is the assumption l l 12 was the water was clean. 13 DR. WALLIS: Assumption isn't going enough. We 14 need evidence. p( 15 DR. MILLER: But if we provided evidence that the l 16 water is clean -- j. 17 MR. MARKLEY: I don't know the details, but it 18 seems like this is a different kind of pond. It's isolated. i 19 It's not like a river flow where you have debris floating 20 down it. j 21 MS. DROUIN: It's a chemically-controlled pond. I i

22 mean I don't know what more to say.

It's in their FSAR that l [ 23 it's chemically-controlled. 24 DR. WALLIS: So, then you have to look at the 25 possibility of failure of the chemical control system. It i . /' ') ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ! v Court Reporters 10DS Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

. - -..... ~ - - -. 114 1- ~ seems. endless. ] 2 MR. KING: The key assumption is they keep the 3 pond clean, and that's a key assumption. j 4 DR. MILLER: And they have something to monitor ~5' the fact that it's clean. 6 MS. DROUIN: Anyway, skipping over to slide 13 -- i 7-because the other ones just go through the other parameters, 8 but it was the equipment malfunction one that caused them to i 9 be a USQ. 10 Again, I just have a summary of the options here. 11 The current rule-making under 1.71 is the minimal increase, 12-and under that one, we felt like 50.59 -- this test case 13 would not have needed Commission approval. 14 You have this thing down here in italics because w 15 when we looked at this test case, we just put a boundary 16 around 50.59. 17-This is a unique test case in the sense that it's 18 wanting to change the term " safety-related," and all we're 19 trying to say here is that, when you look at the options 20 that are proposed, they would not provide an impediment to l l-21 going from safety-related to non-safety-related, but there's l 22 other regulations where you get into the term 23 " safety-related" that could cause a problem, but that all 24 fits into the global part of Part 50 and redefining the term 25 " safety-related." l [~') ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. \\s Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 I

115 11 DR.'APOSTOLAKIS: I guess the first sentence i'~Y 2 confuses me,~" assumes any changes to other regulations have ~ -b1 .3 occurred." What does that mean?. 4' MS. DROUIN: Well, I_just didn't want to put this 5 slide up without that caveat there, because I didn't want 6 you to think that, for this test case, if the only thing you 7 change was 50.59, that they would not have to go to the -- 8 they would not have to go to the Commission for approval 9 because of the fact they're wanting to go safety-related and 10 there's other things in Part 50 that would catch them. 11 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: You're not supposed to do that. 12 MS. DRCUIN: That's right. I'm not dealing with 13 that in terms of ---I'm just.looking at 50.59. In the 14 ' options we're looking at -- )_ 15 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Do you mean that assumes no l-16 changes to other regulations have, occurred? Is that what 17 you're saying? 18 MR. KING: No. She's saying that you can't just 19 change the scope of 50.59 in isolation, because other 20 things, unless you go through Part 50 in some comprehensive 21 fashion and make it consistent in terms of scope, there may 22 be other things that catch you. That's what happened to 23 South Texas on graded QA. 24 DR. KRESS: He's saying that you probably would -25 have had to have Commission approval for this if you changed 'i-[\\ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. \\-) Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 1 L I

116 1 50.59. ('~ 2 MR. KING: In isolation, \\s-)/ 'j 3 DR. KRESS: But it wouldn't be 50.59 that caused 1 4 it. Something else would have done it. Avoid the word 5 "any" from now on. 6 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: You mean assumes some changes to j 7 other regulations have occurred. 8 DR. KRESS: It assumes the appropriate changes i 9 that would have caught this. 10 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Okay. 11 MR. KING: Yes. 12 MS. DROUIN: Okay.

Sorry, i

13 Okay. 14 The next slide is a summary of the factors that Q i 15 we're going through and running each of the options through x 16 and ultimately, you know, coming up with recommendations. 17 The first set of options -- sorry -- the first set 18 of evaluation factors is looking at the objectives of the 19 risk-informed process. 20 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Let's say we are convinced that 21 this is okay. 22 MS. DROUIN: Okay. 23 DR. WALLIS: What is an enhanced safety decision? l 24 We had that expression earlier today. What does that mean? 25 DR. KRESS: Make a better decision faster. l l [Ox-) Court Reporters ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l-

i 117 1 1 MR. KING: Make a better decision f' h 2 DR. WALLIS: On what basis? What measure do you x,J. 3 have for enhanced safety decision? The public is safer? Is 4 that what you mean? There's some measure of public safety 5 you're using, or the decision itself is better or what? 6 MR. KING: You now have a tool that takes an 7 integrated look at the plant and human hardware and the 8 human aspect and can actually give you some indication, 9 whether it's risk to the public or core damage frequency or I 10 whatever you're interested in, as to what the ultimate 11 result is. 12 DR. WALLIS: So, it's a better decision? 13 DR. KRESS: It better accomplishes the objectives 14 of 50.59. (m) 15 DR. WALLIS: Circular, then. 16 MR. KING: It's a better decision because you have 17 more information and more insight into what's really 18 occurring when you make this change, what's the integrated 19 effect, whether you called that better or enhanced. 20 DR. WALLIS: Enhanced safety decision means 21 somehow that safety has been enhanced, doesn't it? 22 MR. KING: No. It means you're making a better 23 decision. 24 DR. MILLER: " Enhanced" modifies both safety -- 25 DR. KRESS: It's an enhanced decision. l 'O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. \\~ Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l

118 1 DR. WALLIS: Well, you can't enhance a decision, ts_-) - 2 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Better informed. 3 DR. WALLIS: It isn't a measure. You can only 4 enhance something which is measured on a scale. 5 DR. KRESS: I don't think that's true. 6 DR. WALLIS: So, it's a more rational decision? 7 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Better informed. 8 DR. KRESS: It better meets the original 9 objectives of 50.59. 10 MR. KING: Can you make better decisions with this 11 risk information, or do you make worse decisions with it? 12 DR. WALLIS: How do you measure better? You've 13 got to have a measure. 14 DR. KRESS: You allow the plant to do something /~T (,/ 15 without having all the crap go into the Commission for 16 approval and save lots of money and it didn't hurt the 17 health and safety of the public. 18 MR. KING: You're going to cause the staff and the 19 plant to put their resources on things that are important 20-instead of things that are unimportant. 21 DR. KRESS: Yes. 22 DR. WALLIS: I think you have to be clear on some 23 of these rather vague terms like " enhanced safety decision," l 24 which is why I'm asking the question. I think you ought to l 25 he careful you don't fall into the trap of something that I i -[ ) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. \\ x' Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 L (202) 842-0034

119 1L everyone seems'to.think is a good term _which really doesn't- ~ '2 mean very,much. 3 DR. KRESS: It. sounds good, though. [- .4 DR. WALLIS: It sounds good,.but it may be 5 meaningless. 6 DR, APOSTOLAKIS: I think it's better informed. j 7 Is that really what we mean?.Better. informed safety 8. de' cision. I.

.9 MR. KING:

It is. It's better informed. Hopefully you make the right decision. 10 11 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: What I'm saying is, if you l 12 replace " enhanced" by "better informed" -- 13' DR. WALLIS: What you mean is it's a decision 14 based on quantitative risk and not on judgement. Isn't that r( 15 what you mean? It's a decision based on measure rather than 16 judgement. Is that what you mean? 17-DR. MILLER: Not only that, it takes'in more 18 information, in addition to being less subjective. 19 MR. KING: It takes an integrated look. It puts 20 it on a quantitative fashion. 21 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: This one was really still 22 judgement but with more information, because ultimately, you 23 don't know what the impact of removing it from the 24 safety-related category -- what the impact is on the failure l 25 rate. It was a judgement there. h) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. \\~/ Court Reporters [ 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C 20036 t (202) 842-0034 l l.

. ~... -. 120 1 DR. WALLIS: So,-we don't know if it was enhanced O 2 or-not, really. V 3 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: But it is better, though. 4 Because-all.this information that Mary gave us 5 that, you know, they went to the PRA, that the utility did 6 this, they judged-it was not important when they looked at 7 the system, unless it was a flooding condition and then -- I 8 mean all that thought process really improves the 9 decision-making. 10 DR. MILLER: And that process wasn't available 11 when the plant made their decision. 12 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: It was not. 13 DR. WALLIS: .It's a more logical process? 14 MR. KING: It's more logical, more systematic, () 15 more complete, more integrated, more information. 16 DR. WALLIS: I think that's more meaningful than 17 simply words like " enhanced safety." 18 MS. DROUIN: Well, we tend to just use these words .19. because these are the exact words from the Commission's PRA r i 20 policy statement. 21 DR. WALLIS: Do they know what they mean? 22 MR. KING: You'll have to ask them. 23 MS. DROUIN: George, did you want to go through j 24 these other ones? I mean I didn't understand whether you 25 wanted to go through the rest of the factors. That's I.{f ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut' Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 .(202) 842-0034 i t

._... =.. -... 121 1 basically our presentation. { 2' DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Well, at this point, then, you 3 are not really evaluating the options that you listed on 4 .page four, right? 5 By the way, on page four, I would recommend that 6 you drop the word " Farmer's" and replace it by frequency and 7 consequence, because'for 50.59 purposes, you really don't 8 use Farmer's acceptance criteria, frequency consequence 9 . curves. 10 MS. DROUIN: Sure. 11 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: You don't have absolute 12 acceptance criteria in this particular case. 13 MS. DROUIN: Right. 14 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: And that's what Farmer's line () 15 was. 16 MS. DROUIN: I understand what you mean. 17 DR. MILLER: And we decided delta-RAW was -- 18 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Yes, we dropped the delta in 19 front of the RAW. 20 MS. DROUIN: Yes. 21: DR. A?OSTOLAKIS: And whatever else comes out. 22 Okay. 23 So, you are not evaluating the options. So, that 24 would make-the review easy. 25 MS. DROUIN: When you get your report tomorrow, .-{' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. s_- Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 msm. Y r

122 1 you will go through -- [ 2 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Is it five pages? How many ( .3 pages is it? 4 MS. DROUIN: It's going to be like 75 pages. 5 DR. MILLER: So, this kind of analysis is going to 6 be done for each one of those cases. 7 MS. DROUIN: You're going to see, for example, 8 there's a table here that lists all the factors, and then 9 they'll have, you know, better, same, more, and then for 10 each of the factors, there will be a discussion on why we 11 feel that - rates that way, for every option. 12 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Let me come back to your 13 example. 14 DR. KRESS: Then when you go to total these up to -(g) 15 see how they score, you're going to give equal weight to 16 every option? 17 MS. DROU I don't know. That's what's 18 happening in December-January time-frame. 19 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Okay. 20 If I look at the example you just descri i and I 21 go back to page four, did you use any of this? Did I miss 22 it? There was another place here in page four where you had 23 to have another arrow to allow for the situations where the 24 thing is not in the PRA for whatever reason. 25 MS. DROUIN: That's right. O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. (m,) Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

i 123 1 'MR. BRADLEY: That's a good point. I was going to 2 'make that same clarification. And this would seem to 3 illust' rate the importance of what's modeled and the criteria 4 for that, as well, I guess. 5 MS. DROUIN: That's going to be an important 6 point, because even though you might have a good basis for 7-not putting it in the model -- 8 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: That's-right. 9. MS. DROUIN: -- you know, and that's why one of 10 the factors'that we look at is what level of detail of a PRA 11 you're going to need. 12 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: But again, I come to my favorite 13 and perhaps tiresome theme. All this is core-oriented. All 14 these measures -- () 15 MS. DROUIN: I understand. 16 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: -- are severe accident. 17 MS, DROUIN: I understand. 18 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: So, the fact that that 19 particular licensee said this is not relevant -- and they 20 were right -- it was not relevant to what they were trying 21 to do, calculate core damage frequency and LERF. 22 Now, if they we.nted to calcul&te something else, 23 maybe this particular piece of equipment would be relevant, 24 and 50.59 really doesn't care. 25 MS. DROUIN: That's right. O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

124 1 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: So, maybe we need another -- j fi 2 MS. DROUIN: But again, George, I don't think y/ 3 that's another option. I think that's one of the factors 4 against whether this is a viable option. 5 You know, is it -- you know, are you just then 6 addressing part of 50.59, and what do you do with the part 7 that's not addressed? 8 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Right. And I fully agree that 9 it's not an easy thing to consider, because the nice thing i 10 about class nine accider-ts is that we have analyzed them to 11 death. I mean the PRAc you have now all these importance 12 measures, and it's great. 13 it's when you go to the other stuff that we don't 14 have much to work with. / '\\ (_,/ 15 DR. KRESS: Those are all dealt with in most 16 deterministic space. 17 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Mostly deterministic space, l 18 exactly, and that's why I was trying to do with the FC 19 curves, to try to get out of it, but there are difficulties 20 there, as well. 21 So, that will be for January-February. 1 22 MS. DROUIN: Uh-huh. 22 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Okay. 24 Anything else you would like to say? 25 MS. DROUIN: Be kind. [ T ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. \\I Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

i I 125 1 DR. WALLIS: I don't quite see how the example [/ 3 2 fits into the presentation. It was a very interesting N_ 3 example. Did it help to clarify what you need to do? 4 DR. MILLER: To me, it clarifies the role risk 5 information will play in this particular 50.59 decision. It 6 says the plant came up with one conclusion, and if you use 7 risk information, integrated, you come up with a different 8 one, and now they're going to give us 20 different cases. 9 DR. WALLIS: Risk information is really just an 10 encoding of the fact that they didn't think it was going to 11 have any impact, so it wasn't in the PRA, juct saying it a 12 different way. 13 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: But the point is, again, you 14 wouldn't have any impact on core damage. () 15 Now, somebody who knows more about the plants than 16 I has to look at this and ask himself or herself what else 17 could it impact, this particular piece of equipment, that 18 the staff would like to prevent? Maybe there's nothing, or 19 maybe there's something that is an embarrassing incident or 20 something, you know, the embarrassment factor that has come 21 down from you guys. 22 DR. MILLER: But the original analysis was based 23 on a design basic accident. That's where the decision was 24 made. 25 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Okay. So, what role did it plav O) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. (s-Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

L 126 i 1 in the design basis accident, this thing? ['T 2 MS. DROUIN: Nothing. I V 3 DR. MILLER: Nothing. 4 MS. McKENNA: Excuse me. If I could just clarify 5 one thing, I think that we kind of. skipped over a little bit 6-on that one slide, that it didn't play a' role in the design ~ 7 basis accidents for internal events, it did play a role for I 8 the high winds ~and flooding, and that's how it.got into the 9 design _ basis in the first place. If there was any impact on i 10 risk, it would be in those scenarios where there was a high 1 11' wind or flooding that posed -- brought this debris or 12 whatever onto the screens and the booster pump would'be used 13 to clear. 14 -DR. APOSTOLAKIS: So, you did look at the flood. () 15 MS. DROUIN: Again, if you go back to that slide 16 17 Dh APOSTOLAKIS: Well, we'll see tomorrow. We'll i 18 find out tomorrow. I _19 ' MS. DROUIN: What it was is that, on the flooding, i 20-remember that the floods that they would encounter would l 21 wipe out the whole structure, the whole intake structure, so l. 1ML you wouldn't only just lose the screen wash booster pumps, 23 you would actually lose the essential cooling water pumps 24 themselves. 25 DR. WALLIS: I'm not sure I believe that. I'think i. l-l l f'} ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. s_f Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l~ Washington, D..C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 1

~ l 127 1 there are intermediate floods which can crud up the pond L ( 2 without necessarily wiping outLthe pump, c. 3 MS. DROUIN: Well, I mean I'm not -- 4 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Maybe the utility made that 15-assumption because they were looking at something very i l 6 ' severe. MS. DROUIN: I have not personally gone and looked 7 8 at their external events PRA. They submitted it to the NRC. 9 This was a very detailed review by the NRC, and we approved 10 their PRA. ~ j .11 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Do you have the flooding l l 12 analysis for the utility? i-13 MS. DROUIN: Uh-huh. We did review it. 14 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: How big is it? ) 15 MS. DROUIN: Excuse me? 16 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Is that big? Can we get a copy? l 17 MS. DROUIN: I don't know. You probably could. I 18 would assume, since we reviewed it, it's available. I 19 personally don't have it. .20 ~ DR. APOSTOLAKIS: I'd like to see it. Is it 21 possible to get a copy of that? It must be a public i i 22 document now, since it was given to you. L 23 MS. DROUIN: We'll talk to Mike and see how we go l l-24 about getting it. l 25 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Okay. ! - Q(,,/ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. i Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 L (202) 842-0034 l' L i m-

128 1 MS. DROUIN: But I'm just saying that, you know, 2 they have done an analysis, it was a detailed one, the NRC 3 did review it, and we didn't find problems with it. 4 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Okay. 5 MS. DROUIN: And I'm just saying the result of 6 that analysis showed that, under flooding conditions, the 7 whole intake structure would be flooded. The other external 8 events was the high winds, and in that case, it was becoming 9-negligible because-of the low frequency of it. 10 Now, I mean we can go back and -- you know, if you 11 want to question the quality of it, but you know, I'm taking 12 13 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: No, no, no, no question of the 14 quality. All I'm saying is that this analysis may be () 15 perfectly reasonable for the purposes that it was done, 16 - which was to see whether you would end up with a class nine 17 accident. 18 MS. DROUIN: Right. 19 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: But now you can look at it from 20 a different perspective and say can I have an incident that 21 does not necessarily lead to core damage as we usually 22 define it but an incident that I don't want anyway, in which 2l3 case the fact that -- then I will not have to go to such a 24 severe flood as to lose the whole ECW, and then Dr. Wallis' 25 concern perhaps becomes mare real. O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

129 1 DR. KRESS: There may be better examples. () 2 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: There may be better examples. C/ 3 DR. KRESS: This one may not be the right one. 4 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: May not be the right one. But 5 that would be the equivalent analysis here. 6 DR. KRESS: Yes, the equivalent to that. 7 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Yes. 8 DR. WALLIS: It may be that, in this example, 9 physically modeling the flood is more important than all 10 this risk stuff anyway. I 11 I don't quite understand yet how the example helps 12 you to sort out what you should do about 50.59, which is the 13 real question. 14 MS. DROUIN: Well, it's not just using this Q, s,, 15 example. 16 DR. WALLIS: Okay. But you are using examples. 17 MS. DROUIN: We have a test case. We've looked at 18 other examples. We're looking at evaluation factors. We've 19 got a huge slurry of things we're looking at. 20 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: This is one of the things you 21 have already done. 22 DR. MILLER: And we're going to see the other 15 i 23 or 18 or whatever it is tomorrow. 24 MS. DROUIN: Yes. I mean you're going to get like 25 a 75-page report tomorrow. ('"'} ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. \\_ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l l

130 1 DR.~ WALLIS: Do these examples tell you what you l 2 should do with 50.59? They point a direction in which to 3 go? 4 MS '. DROUIN: Again, at this point, we have not 5 looked at it in an integrated fashion. We've looked at it 6 on an option by itself, how did it work with that option. 7 ' Any kind of cross-comparison in terms of pointing this way 8 versus that way, we have not done that yet. 9 DR. WALLIS: So, you're still at the level of 10 defining the problem in terms of how things worked in the 11 past, looking at all these cases to see how things worked 12 out in these cases. 13 You haven't yet got to the stage of saying how 14 would it work out under a new and better system with those ) 15 same sorts of examples. 16 MS. DROUIN: We have gone through all the 17 different options and said how would these examples -- how 18 would that example work under this option, how would it work 19 under this, yes, but what we haven't done is said, okay, it 20 worked this way under option one, it worked this way under -21 option two, it worked this way under option three, and what 22 does that tell us. That part we have not done yet. 23 DR. KRESS: I think the chances are, Graham, that 24 .any of the options -- if you had one option that would 25 change it from no Commission approval -- I mean from ( ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 g g ,..-w3..i.ym .t-~ -+4 -7 = M- -P'-*

M&

N^+"*

131 1 Commission approval required to no Commission approval s (V) 2 required, probably many of the options would make that 3 change for you, it won't tell you which one's the best, l 4 It will just tell you that, if you change the 5 rule, it will help things, but it don't tell you which way 6 to change the rule. 7 MS. DROUIN: That's right. And that's why we had i 8 these other evaluation factors to look at. 9 DR. KRESS: That's why you've got those, to figure 10 out which rule -- the examples won't tell you much except, 11 yes, if you change 50.59, it would probably be useful. 12 MR. MARKLEY: Actually, I find this example to be 13 more helpful in understanding Part 50 than 50.59. This 14 tells ma the problem is safety-related and how that fits () 15 into what to do, and it really doesn't help you much with 16 50.59. 17 DR. KRESS: Yes, it really does. 18 MS. DROUIN: It helps you in the sense that 50.59, 19 in terms of what you want to change, you can go and change 20 Part 50, but again, you know, we're trying to do this in an 21 integrated fashion, not just 50.59 over in isolation by 22 itself but as part of the whole part of changing Part 50. 23 So, in terms of just 50.59, if what we're doing -- 24 would that cause an impediment in and of itself, and so, 25 that's what this case is telling -- that it's not -- 50.59, ( ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. \\~ / Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

132 1 at least the options that we've looked at, would not be an &[~. 2 impediment, but you still have to look at the overall Part 3 50. 4 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: And you learned other things 5' .from other examples. 6-MS. DROUIN: Yes. 7 DR. MILLER: I assume each example you probably 8 learned something different. 9-DR. APOSTOLAKIS: So, when you come to the full 10 committee, are you going to present the same example or 11 .maybe another one? 12 MS. DROUIN: Well, what we were going to do on 13 that one was to go through the options and how -- what we 14 learned on each option. ( 15 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: You will not give an example? 16 How much time have we allotted? 17 MR. MARKLEY: I believe it's about an 18 hour-and-a-half. I'm guessing. 19-DR. APOSTOLAKIS: I think -- I find the examples 20 extremely informative. 21 MS. DROUIN: Whether you do the example and then -22 all the. options under the example or you go to the option 23-and say, well, here is how the examples worked and the other 24 , factors -- I mean whichever way you want to hear it is the 25 way we'll do it. \\ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 L

133 1 DR. WALLIS: I'd like to see the connection ()i 2 between the examples and the process of deciding what to do 3 with 50.59, which means looking at the options. 4 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: All right. 5 DR. MILLER: Well, what it does for me is it 6 removes -- what we've been talking about so far was so 7 abstract at times I couldn't lock into it, I couldn't get my 8 arms around it. This certainly helps me substantially in 9 that issue. 10 Agreeably, it's not going to be comprehensive, 11 because you can't do thousands of examples. So, you have 12 20, and I think it will give us a lot of insight. 13 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: But at some point in the future, 14 in January-February, it would be nice to look at a few ,,() 15 examples where there was disagreement. 16 DR. MILLER: Yes, I think that's an excellent 17 idea. 18 DR. WALLIS: If you're going to introduce a new 19 method, you've got to show how, in these cases, it would 20 have been better. 21 MS. DROUIN: We're going to do that with those. 22 We picked 20 examples. 23 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Okay. 24 Any recommendations to the presenters regarding 25 the meeting with the full committee, or the recommendations (~T ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. \\_,) Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 t

I 134 1 are implied in the comments? -[ 2 DR. MILLER: The entire committee will get this 3 report, I assume, right? 4 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: No, we'll keep it secret from 5 them, Don. Only the members who are here today will have a 6 chance to see it. 7 DR. WALLIS: The examples are very good, but pick 8 examples that have a clear message. 9 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Okay. Think about it, Mary, and 10' think about it-on the 3rd of December to find anothe. 11. example that contributes -- 12 MS. DROUIN: These are the examples we have. I 13 mean I don't want to make promises here. 14 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Not new ones. You say you have -j () 15 already done 15. 16 DR. MILLER: Twenty. 17 MS. DROUIN: The examples that we have listed 18 there are the examples we have. 19 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Yes, but the one you picked to 20 elaborate on could be another one. ~21-MS. DROUIN: Okay. We have examples and then we 22 have the test case. '23 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Oh. 24 MS. DROUIN: Okay. 25 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: That's different. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. s, Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 L

135 1 MS. DROUIN: The test case in terms of the screen [V ) 2 wash booster pump -- that's the test case. 3 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Okay. 4 MS. DROUIN: That's what we focused on because 1 5 that was what the agenda of today was. 6 We had that one view-graph that had a summary of 7 all the examples, and those are the ones that are written in 8 detail in the report and that we will go into more -- i 9 MS. BURGESS: Sonia Burgess of Region III, 10 inspector. i 11 The cases that you wanted where the licensee and 12 'the NRC disagreed -- we're not going to find those. We are 13 going to find those in enforcement history, but they are not 14 -- they're either -- going to result in where the licensee ( ) 15 has changed it back to the facility as described in the SAR. 16 There is not going to be a case where we disagreed 17 and then we backed down. At least I can't think of any. 18 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: But the mere fact that you 19 disagreed will shed light on all this. 20 MS. BURGESS: That is going to be impossible to 21 get. 22 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Impossible? 23 MS. BURGESS: By tomorrow, absolutely. 24 [ Laughter.] 25 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: No, I'm talking about () ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. (_) Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

136 1 January-February, when you will'look at -- you know, to () 2 actually recommend an option. The reasons for disagreement, 3 I think, will be very -- 4 MS. BURGESS: It's possible, and what we would 5 have to do is we would have to go and look at enforcement 6. history, where~the licensee changed the facility back to the 7 way it was identified in the SAR, and then we would have to 8 evaluate that care. 9 Unfortunately, though, I don't think we're going 10 to be able to get enough information that's on the docket 11 without going to the licensee to answer all the questions 12 about risk. 13 DR; APOSTOLAKIS: If there was a disagreement and 14 it's part of the enforcement history, shouldn't there be a 15 record someplace? 16 MS. BURGESS: But it follows the current 50.59 17 process. 18 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: That's what we want. 19 MS. DROUIN: George, we will see if we can get 20 this; 21 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: The current 50.59, yes. 22 MS. DROUIN: Right, under the current 50.59. 23 I mean, if we can find some, I mean we will give 24 it a good faith effort to do it, but I just don't want to j l 25 make a commitment that, yes, we will do it, because I don't ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. l Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

137 1 know what kind of time it's going to take, because there's l () 2 not just a place to go look. I mean we're going to have to l 3 do some searching, and I' don't know if thatLsearching is j 4 going to end.up taking a day's worth of timesor if it's 5 several weeks of time. 6 That's what I don't know right now. 7 MS. McKENNA: I think the point that Sonia was 8 making is,-evenLif we had these cases where here was one 9 where the licensee said there was no increase in' probability 10 'and the inspector looked at it and said, well,-it looks to 1 11 me 1ike there is an increase in probability and that debate 12 was engaged, to try to analyze that case from some of these j 13 risk options, we may not have the information because of the 14 nature of the. accidents or the events that you were looking ) '15 at, and certainly, the information that would be on the 16 docket, in the inspection report, in the violation, or in 17 licensee's response, would not be focused on those kinds of 18 questions. .19 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Well, that's a risk we may want 20 to_take,-but there may be cases.where -- l 21 MS. DROUIN: There may, and we will see what we -22 can find. 23 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Good faith effort. 24 MS. DROUIN: Good faith effort. 25 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Thank you. i i / ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i l'

138 1 MS. BURGESS: And those examples are in the ) 2 hand-outs that we presented.to you last time, every single 3 one of them, because I gave you that extra one about that 4 current one, so you'have been provided them. 5 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: We stand corrected 6 [ Laughter.] 7 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Anything else you would like to 8 add? [No response.] 10 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Members? 11 [No response.] 12 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Public? 13 [No response.] 14 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Well, thank you very much. This t 15 is the end of today's meeting. Thanks for coming. Very 16 -interesting presentation. 17- [Whereupon, at 4:28 p.m., the meeting was '18 recessed, to reconvene at 8:30 a.m., Friday, November 20, 19-1998.] 20 J21 22' 23. 24 25 D } ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. \\~/ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

...~ _ . _.~- _.-.-. REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE This.is to certify that the attached proceedings

before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in i

the matter of: NAME OF PROCEEDING: ACRS MEETING RE RELIABILITY i AND PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT, PLANT OPERATIONS, AND REGULATORY POLICIES AND PRACTICES 1 DOCKET NUMBER: l PLACE OF PROCEEDING: Rockville,. MD were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and thereafter reduced to typewriting'by me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings. i. / M $W on Hundley Official Reporter Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd. Ijo .}}

ML20196A316

Text

Navigation menu

Search