ML20203A812
| ML20203A812 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/10/1986 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ACRS-T-1532, NUDOCS 8607170329 | |
| Download: ML20203A812 (332) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
OR'.GINAL M
O UN11ED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO:
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 315TH GENERAL MEETING I
O LOCATION: WASHINGTON, D. C. PAGES: 1 261 DATE: THURSDAY, JULY 10, 1986 l} O .P',
j3 :
s n . v,,. m ,, .,
J ;.' l[ . ,
~ '
/-
~>~; ,
'f ,e n b .
.) ; Gi l ;pl '~. rr m : ,
' ' ' ' L' -D '
000717032; 31'sO 7 1 0 #1 -[f '
l'liit 4CF= Js s O (j j j (")
r -i na em v Ae-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
O OfficialReporters j 444 North CapitolStreet Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 347-3700
\ NATIONWIDE COVERAGE l
W O PUBLIC NOTICE BY THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONERS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS
- THURSDAY, JULY 10, 1986 The contents of this stenographic transcript of the proceedings of the United States Nuclear Regulatory
~
Commission's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), as reported herein, is an uncorrected record of the discussions recorded at the meeting held on the above date.
No member of the ACRS Staff and no participant at O this meetiny accepts any responsibility for errors or inaccuracies of statement or data contained in this transcript.
4 4
O 1
--,-e , - , _ . , , -
.,__,_.-,..-.-r . - , . . , . - . . - , . - , , .w-, . , . . , . -.---.e y- - , - . - . - - --.
CR27477.0 1 .
DAV/sjg g)
( UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 4
315TH GENERAL MEETING 5
6 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7 Room 1046 1717 H Street, N.W.
g Washington, D. C.
Thursday, July 10, 1986 10 The 315th General Meeting convened at 8:30 a.m.,
Mr. David A. Ward, Chairman, presiding.
O 13 i ACRS MEMBERS PRESENT:
i 14 l MR. DAVID A. WARD l
15 l MR. JESSE C. EBERSOLE MR. HAROLD ETHERINGTON 16 DR. MAX W. CARBON
! DR. WILLIAM KERR DR. HAROLD W. LEWIS 17 l DR. J. CARSON MARK i MR. CARLYLE MICHELSON 18 ; DR. DADE W. MOELLER i DR. DAVID OKRENT 19 l MR. GLENN A. REED l DR. FORREST J. REMICK 20 l; DR. PAUL G. SH3WMON ;
DR. CHESTER P. SIESS 21 l MR. CHARLES J. WYLIE 22 23 O 24 25 l
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 4770 01 01 2
) DAVbw 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 MR. WARD: The meeting will now come to order.
3 This is the first day of the 315th meeting of the 4 Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.
5 I am David Ward, the committee Chairman.
6 During today's meeting the committee will first 7 hear a report by the Chairman regarding items of current 8 interest.
9 Second, hear about and discuss the .
10 standardization of policy statements. This will include 11 briefings by the NRR Staff and then the discussion with 12 representatives from AIF, EPRI and the NRR Staff on the
( ,j 13 Advanced LWR program.
14 Third, we'll discuss ACRS views regarding future 15 plan designs.
16 Fourth, hear about and discuss the 17 reorganization of TVA.
18 Fifth, hear a report of the subcommittee, our 19 Subcommittee on Auxiliary Systems, regarding the fire 20 protection features of nuclear plants on the Standard 21 Nuciear Plant Section 922.1.
22 This meeting is being conducted in accordance 23 with the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the Government 24 in the Sunshine Act.
p 25 Mr. Raymond Fraley is the designated federal ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-1700 Nadonwideforcrase M33fHi646 O
4770 01 02 3 DAVbw 1 employee for the initial portion of the meeting.
2 All of today's session will be open to the 3 public.
4 A transcript of portions of the meeti[g is being 5 kept, and I request that each speaker use one of the 6 microphones and first identify herself or himself and speak 7 with specific clarity and volume, so that she or he can be 8 readily heard.
9 We have received no written statements or .
10 requests to make oral statements from members of the public 11 regarding today's session.
12 (Discussion off the record.)
() 13 MR. WARD: Let's go ahead with the first agenda 14 item, the Standardization Policy Statement.
15 Mr. Wylie.
16 MR. WYLIE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
17 The ACRS Advanced Lightwater Reactor Design 18 Subcommittee met yesterday. We had nine members of the ACRS 19 present, a large contingency. Myself, Dr. Moeller, Jesse 20 Ebersole, Dr. Carbon, Glenn Reed, Carlyle Michelson, 21 Dr. Remick, Dr. Siess and Dr. Kerr.
22 We had presentations about EPRI on the Advanced 23 Lightwater Reactor Requirements Program. We had 24 presentations by the Department of Energy on the DOE f
25 Advanced Lightwater Reactor Program, and their interface --
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
< $2-347-3700 Nationwide Covea 800 336-6646
4770 01 03 4 1 a description of their interface and participation with EPRI
()DAVbw 2 on the requirements program.
3 We had presentations by the Staff covering the 4 Staff's review of the EPRI program, and included 'in that 5 presentation was a document or a suggestion as to how the 6 ACRS may participate in the Staff's rview of the EPRI 7 program. That will be covered by the Staff later in 8 presentation, and we can discuss that in more detail 9 following the presentations today, during the discussion -
10 period.
11 There was a good exchange and clarification by 12 members of the program. I just might say that the EPRI
(,) 13 program scope is to accomplish key prerequisites to the 14 development of an advanced lightwater reactor design 15 requirements, which would make available advanced lightwater 16 reactors to the U.S. as an attractive option for the time 17 frame 1990 to 2000.
18 Today we will hear from EPRI and the Staff, in 19 scaled-down versions, of what the Subcommittee heard and 20 discussed yesterday. Holding to the true tradition of the 21 Subcommittee we were on time, finishing 45 minutes late and 22 covering two-thirds of our agenda. So we didn't get to the 23 discussion of the Standardization Policy Statement, but it 24 will be presented this morning by the Staff.
T
('d 25 You have an agenda before you. There are two ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202 347-3700 Nanonwide Coveraar 800-336 4 646 !
4770 01 04 5 i 1 parts to that agenda,
()DAVbw 2 The first part addresses the Standardization 3 Policy Statement and the EPRI Advanced Water Reactor f.
4 Program.
5 The second part begins the ACRS views and 6 recommendations regarding the future plant design 7 requi'rements.
8 The first part of our program this morning is by 9 the Staff, to be presented by Dino Scaletti to cover the -
10 discussions regarding the' legislative changes regarding 11 standardization and one-step licensing. Then he will cover 12 the proposed Standardization Policy Statement.
f;
() 13 Mr. Scaletti?
14 MR. SCALETTI: Good morning. My name is Dino 4
15 Scaletti from the Standardization and Special Projects 4
16 Directorate of the Division of PWR Licensing.
]
17 With me today is Mr. Fank Riley, the Director of
! 18 PWR Licensing and Mr. Ed Burkau, the Director of Staff i
19 Information, Staff Information Director.
20 We have been asked by the Subcommittee and by the 21 ACRS to provide a status report on the philosophy and status j 22 of the proposed Standardization, Policy Statement, also to ,
l 23 discuss the preliminary NUREG that is going to support the 24 Standardization Policy Statement, and to say a few words 25 about the proposed licensing reform legislation.
. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3 2-347-3700 Nationwide Cu ; 800-33dM646
4770 01 05 6 1 (Slide.)
Iv)DAVbw 2 I would like to structure my discussion this 3 morning along the following outline:
4 a brief discussion of some background 'of 5 development of existing standardization policy, the need for 6 revisions to this policy, a chronology of recent policy 7 development, goals of the proposed standardization policy, 8 discussion of the preliminary NUREG, which will support the 9 standardization policy and conforming changes to the .
10 regulations, that is, the changes that may be required or 11 the regulations that may be affected or will be affected by 12 the standardization policy, and then some highlights of the
,,3
(_) 13 proposed reform legislation.
14 (Slide.)
15 As you can see, the current policy has been 16 developing over a period of about 14 years, with the initial 17 policy statement issued in 1972, and then three of the 18 concepts, which we have today -- reference system, duplicate 19 plant and manufacturing license -- were announced in March 20 1973.
21 Following that, in '74, the replicate plan't 22 concept.
23 In July '77, there was a draft statement issued 24 which became the 1978 policy statement and brought together
()
'/
25 all of the four concepts into one policy statement and the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 MR3Wril ffationwide Coverage 800 0364646
4770 01 06 7 1 details of implementing those also.
()DAVbw 2 (Slide.)
3 The '78 policy statement, which is the most 4 current on the books now, needs to be change.d bec'huse of --
5 we've had considerable experience dealing with standard 6 designs over this period of time. One of the concepts in 7 there dealing with final design approvals, is and 2s, which 8 were issued for different periods of time and had different 9 requirements associated with those, is no longer .
10 practicable. And the last two final design approvals that 11 we've issued had just been issued as final design 12 approvals.
I) v 13 There have been numerous PDAs and two FDAs 14 issued. There have been construction permit and OL licenses 15 issued on the replicate plant and duplicate plant concepts.
16 And one manufacturing license issued, so that in effect, all 17 the standardization concepts have been utilized to date.
18 In August of '75, the Commission issued its 19 severe accident policy statement, which set forth the 20 criteria for which new plants would be judged or the 21 standards by which they would be judged. It also indicated 22 approval times for the reference system concept, which is 23 the only one it dealt with.
24 And then the provisions of the draft Nuclear 25 Power Plant Licensing and Standardization Act. This would ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
t 202-347-3700 Nationwideh 800 33H646
C 4770 01 07 8 I allow one-step licensing. It also discusses certified
()DAVbw 2 designs for ten-year periods. It discussed alternative 3 siting and approval periods for ten years. It changes the 4 fee recovery system for the reference system cone'ept, and it 5 also discusses or sets a threshold for changes to approved 6 designs.
7 o All these have to be included or considered for 8 the Standardization Policy Statement.
9 (Slide.) .
10 Chronology of recent policy development or 11 development of the policy that you gentlemen have before 12 you. The last version was made in May 1986. In February of
() 13 last year, the Commission issued a Staff Requirements memo, 14 which asked us to revise the 1978 Policy Statement take 15 into consideration all these other aspects of policies that 16 were i, existence at the time. The Staff, feeling that 17 industry should have the input into development of the 18 policy or at least we should be able to see what they would 19 like, requested or met with the AIF to propose a policy of 20 their own, independent of Staff views.
21 The Staff also undertook to develop a policy 22 statement. The AIF had a study group on the practical 23 application of standardized nuclear plants in the United 24 States.
25 In November '85, the AIF submitted to us and to ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage, 800-336 6646
4770 01 08 9 1 the Commission their proposed policy. The Staff put it
()DAVbw 2 together in a package with their policy and the reason for 3 changing all the supporting documentation and met with the 4 Commission in December of 1985.
5 Now the two policies, the AIF policy and the 6 Staff policy, were surprisingly similar. One of the big 7 differences being just the duration of approvals.
8 At the December meeting with the Commission, the 9 Commission asked the Staff to poll other industry groups .
10 other than just the Atomic Industrial Forum and, 11 specifically, NUMARC, EEI and EPRI. They also asked the 12 Commissioners' Assistants and the Office of Policy
() 13 Evaluation to develop a consensus for guidance for the Staff 14 in developing future policy.
15 In March, we packaged the industry views from 16 the NUMARC, EEI and EPRI, the commission already having the 17 views of the Atomic Industrial Forum, and sent them to the 18 Commission. They were asked to determine if the four 19 concepts that were existing were suitable for their needs.
20 The consensus from the three groups was that the proposed 21 design certification should be the long-term goal of the 22 Commission, the four existing concepts should be retained in 23 the policy, and all of these three groups supported the 24 Atomic Industrial Forum effort..
25 April of '86, we received from the Office of the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 _
Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646 _ __
4770 01 09 10 1 Secretary, the consensus document from OPE and the
()DAVbw 2 Commissioners' Assistant. In May of '86, along with that, 3 there were questions that were asked of the Staff. They 4 asked us to consider this draft policy, which is' included in 5 the April '86 SECY memo. We did that. We made what we 6 thought were necessary revisions to this policy and sent it 7 back to the Commission in May 1986.
8 MR. WYLIE: Dino, let me just ask a question.
9 We have the April draft and then the May draft, .
10 OPE and the Commission's Assistants compared the OPE draft 11 and then the Staff compared the May draft; right?
12 MR. SCALETTI: Yes.
() 13 MR. WYLIE: We've been asked to comment on both 14 drafts.
15 MR. SCALETTI: Are we being asked to comment on 16 hoth drafts? Are you asking that question of me? I can't 17 answer that question. The Staff position is set forth in 18 the May 14th version that was sent to the Commission.
19 MR. WYLIE: Okay. We did receive a letter from 20 the Chairman saying that he would like comments on both 21 versions.
22 MR. SCALETTI: The Staff perceives there to be 23 very little difference between the two documents, our May 24 14th version and the April version that was sent up from OPE C)
(> 25 for the Secretary.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804 336 4646
4770 01 10 11 4
1 DR. MOELLER: On your previous chart, what is
()DAVbw 2 "SRM"?
3 MR. SCALETTI: Staff Requirements Memorandum. It 4 is a memorandum that would come from the Office df the 5 Secretary, dictating to the Staff that they should take 6 further action.
7 MR. WYLIE: Does the NUREG outline -- that's not 8 part of the policy statement, is it?
9 MR. SCALETTI: The NUREG outline is not part of .
10 the policy itself, no. It would be the implementation 11 guidance for the policy.
12 (Slide.)
() 13 The goals of the proposed standardization policy 14 are directed towards what the Staff perceives to be the 15 ultimate licensing goals, a certified reference system 16- design and also the policy indicates the benefits of 17 utilizing a preapproved site and licensing process. The 18 policy recognizes the benefits of using essentially complete 19 plants, would strongly recommend but not require 20 standardized procurement, construction, installation and 21 quality assurance practices, training in emergency operating 22 and maintenance procedures for an essentially complete plant
- 23 and would also encourage or require, essentially, final 24 design detail information, which would be the information b) ss 25 required by 50.34(b), the type of information required for ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Cg ._ . _ _ _ 80433MM6 _
1 l
l 4770 01 11 12 l
ID DAVbw 1 OL reviews.
LJ 2 DR. CARBON: When you say encourage or require, 3 do they have the option?
4 MR. SCALETTI: Well, a policy stateme[t is not a 5 regulation. Therefore, it would be essentially a 6 requirement, but it certainly does not have the weight of a 7 regulation.
8 MR. MICHELSON: Would you clarify the point on 9 the level of detail. I think you said, essentially, that .
10 available to the Staff at the OL stage.
11 MR. SCALETTI: No. I said the information 12 required by 50.34(b) of our regulations, the type of
([) 13 information that would be required for an operating license 14 review.
15 MR. MICHELSON: Does that go beyond what's in the 16 FSAR?
17 MR. SCALETTI: That is what the FSAR is built 18 on.
19 MR. MICHELSON: It's that level of detail then.
20 Appreciating you can't build a reactor from an FSAR.
21 MR. SCALETTI: Clearly, I agree with that, but 22 there should be other supporting information.
23 MR. MICHELSON: Wait a minute, now.
24 You know, the Policy Statement says that you must l 25 have an essentially complete design, both with respect to l
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Cov'erage 800-336 6646 !
O 4770 01 12 13 scope and level of detail.
()DAVbw I 2 What do they mean by " complete design," from the !
3 level of detail point of view?
4 MR. SCALETTI: The proposed legislatioh states, 5 for a standard design. It means a design which the 6 Commission determines is sufficiently detailed and complete 7 to support licensing of a commercial function and 8 utilization facility, and we are bound by what is in the 9 legislation, the proposed legislation, and in the severe .
10 accident policy statement.
11 12
() 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347-370) _,
Nationwide Coverage _ _ 800 336-6646 _ _ _ _ ,
4770 02 01 14 1 DR. MARK: I'll talk a bit more about this later,
(}DAV/bc 2 but I want to mention here the general item of sabotage is 3 not on that list, nor is the word even used anywhere in the 4 papers I've read. And it certainly should be.
5 MR. SCALETTI: Well, it wouldn't be the details 6 of implementing Commission policy are going to be put forth 7 in the standardization NUREG. Presently, sabotage is not 8 included in the NUREG. It will address other Commission 9 policies and regulations. .
10 And if the ' committee feels strongly about it, 11 they should comment.
12 DR. MARK: That's all I meant to suggest.
() 13 MR. MORIA: May I make a comment? Frank Moria of 14 the staff.
15 I think we should examine and look at this 16 document as what it is. It's a policy statement that is 17 trying to outline what the Commission's goals and objectivec 18 are in the long-term for standardization.
19 It doesn' t identify the specifics of a process.
20 It identifies a process by which these goals can be 21 attained.
22 Many of the questions that the committee is 23 focusing on is specific in the implementation, what is going 24 to be the level of detail, what factors would be considered 25 from the point of view of sabotage.
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347-3700 _
NationwideCoverage __ _
800-336-6646 _ . , , _
l 4770 02 02 15 l It would appear to me that the severe accident
('DAV/bc
} 1 2 policy statement has a provision in it that says generic 3 issues and unresolved safety issues have to be considered in 4 the development of a new design.
5 And, certainly, there are one or two generic 6 issues that are related to sabotage. There was an 7 unresolved safety issue, A-45, that has the sabotage aspect 8 to it. Whether that encompasses the concerns of the 9 committee on those generic issues may not be clear to me at -
10 this time.
11 Maybe you have other views as to the scope of 12 those kinds of considerations. But it appears to me that
() 13 this policy statement is a broad umbrella document in which 14 the Commission is trying to attempt to articulate to the 15 industry what its goals and objectives are toward 16 standardization.
17 The previous policy which we came down here and 18 discussed with the committee prior to the December meeting 19 tried to preserve the majority of the options and talked to 20 the Commission in terms of there's going to be a transition 21 period.
22 Much of the industry view said the long-term 23 design certification is something that we can see as an 24 objective; it's not going to be something that's going to be 25 realized in the near-terem.
, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
.__,._____ _ _ _ EM3M _ _- - -, Nationwide CW _ _800-336 # 46 _ ,_ _ _
4770 02 03 16 1 We'd like to preserve all the other options out
()DAV/bc 2 there for standardization in the licensing of nuclear power 3 plants. The policy statement the staff initially proposed 4 to the Commission had all of the options articula'ted, 5 references to manufacturing licenses, the replicate and 6 duplicate concept.
7 The Commission was very concerned that it was too 8 imbalanced. They wanted to have a policy statement that 9 focused on reference design that emphasized and encouraged .
10 that we want complete designs and also encouraged 11 essentially final design detail information.
12 If one looks at the white paper that the AIF
() 13 submitted on standardization, it seems that the industry is 14 willing to go in some instances way beyond 'e could get 15 at the FSAR level.
16 I don't think it's really cle- aat that design 17 information that we're going to get and implement this thing 18 is until we have an opportunity.
19 So I think these are fair questions to be asked.
20 But I think what we ought to do is keep the focus that this 21 is a policy document that's trying to articulate a process 22 and a goal for the future, and perhaps not all of the items 23 of how it's to be implemented and how we're going to get 24 there.
25 DR. MARK: I don't really disagree with anything ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 _ Nationwide Cm 800-336-6M6
C 4770 02 04 17 1 you've said. And I certainly don't propose that we here
()DAV/bc 2 shoald go into details as to how sabotage considerations 3 shoald be implemented.
~
4 As a policy, it belongs in the policy' statement.
5 MR. ETHERINGTON: The word " complete design" 6 bothers me still. When they prodace an FSAR it does not 7 look at details. It knows they exist. They mast oxist or 8 yoa coaldn't baild a very good plant.
9 Is this reqaired for a generic design? Do I .
10 anderstand that we expect detailed drawings to exist or not?
11 MR. SCALETTI: As I stated, the Commission stated 12 in the proposed legislation that the design had to be 13 safficiently complete to sapport licensing.
( [1 14 From that, I woald perceive that it woald reqaire 15 the design to be developed at a level which we woald expect 16 of an operating license review.
17 I don't expect that we're jast going to get the 18 FSAR and the material in the FSAR withoat having anything to 19 sapport it. Any of the backgroand, the drawings and the 20 docamentation that woald go along with it.
21 MR. ETHERINGTON: Jast layoat drawings then?
22 MR. SCALETTI: Yoa know, certainly far more than 23 yoa woald have for constraction, and along the lines of what 24 we woald expect from an operating license review. 1
( 25 When we're going to take an operating license ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- D2 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
4770 02 05 18 1 review, we expect certain things to be available to as.
f]DAV/bc 2 MR. ETHERINGTON: Yoa don't really look at the 3 drawings?
4 MR. SCALETTI: In many cases, we don'tI really 5 look at them, yes. We expect them to be there. We expect 6 the drawings to be developed for'a certified design.
7 MR. ETHERINGTON: Yoa're expecting an enormoas 8 expenditare of money by the designers withoat having sold a 9 plant. .
10 MR. SCALETTI: If we're to certify the design and 11 to make it viable for 10 years and not sabject to challenge 12 in individaal licensing procedares, yoa have to go that O 13 . cer-14 MR. WARD: Dino, I'm not sare yoa qaite answered 15 Mr. Etherington's qaestion. For an operating license 16 review, yoa know detailed drawings are available, mast be 17 available, becaase yoa have the evidence of a constracted 18 plant.
19 Now, for this process, do yoa reqaire detailed 20 drawings, design drawings, be completed and available for 21 yoar review if yoa want them?
i 22 Yoa didn't say yes or no to that.
23 MR. SCALETTI: I didn't say yes or no becaase for '
24 an operating license review at the stage when the staff is 25 writing the safety evalaation reports, all of the final ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l X12 347 3700 Nationwide CsGtp 800-336 4646
O 4770 02 06 19
/")DAV/bc
\~/
1 design drawings are not complete. It's an evolving process 2 and, in many stages, the plants are 40 percent complete, 3 less than that perhaps, so everything may not be there.
4 Bat my impression of what woald be reqaired woJ1d 5 be that level of detail for certifying a design at a 6 minimam. Like I said, this design woald be approved for 10 7 years and not sabject to challenge.
8 In operating or constraction reviews, that 9 portion of the design is certified and we woald expect final .
10 design information to certify it.
11 MR. MICHELSON: I don't think he'c answered yoar 12 gaestion yet either. He hasn't answered my qJestion
() 13 either. And I think, as a policy statement, althoagh it's 14 nice to say it mast be an essentially complete plant design, 15 I think it's important somewhere in that policy statement to 16 identify with a coaple of sentences at least what yoa mean 17 by " essentially complete design" becaase yoa're establishing 18 a policy now that the staff is sapposed to be carrying oat, 19 bat not identifying what yoa mean.
20 MR. MORIA: May I make a comment?
21 I think that's a concern and has been a concern 22 between the staff and the indastry and the Commission how to 23 articalate what that final design level is. And I think 24 there has been movement between the staff's always going in 25 position was, at least what we get for an OL and an FSAR.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336-6646 __ _
2 4770 02 07 20 1 MR. ETHERINGTON: At least what yoa get bat not
['J1DAV/bc 2 as mach as yoa coald get.
3 MR. MORIA: That was oar going in position. The 4 indastry's view was, well, we don't think it sho[ld be that 5 mach; it shoald be something more than a CP and something 6 less than an OL. It's been a point that's been very 7 difficalt to find.
8 I don't think it's an important point from the 9 perspective of issaing a policy statement becaase I think, .
10 in order to issae an FDA design approval, the staff and the 11 indastry will have to come to some kind of accommodation, if j 12 that information, as Dino says, is safficient for as to
() 13 sapport this design in a certified process for 10 years.
14 And part of that process is the staff' review, the 15 staff evalaations, coming to this ACRS, going throagh 16 whatever hearing process the Commission decides is necessary 17 to certify that design.
18 And I gaess what I'm saying to yoa, yoa're right, 19 we haven't. We've sort of been skirting the gaestion and 20 haven't been answering it directly, becaase I dcn't think ;
i 21 any of as really have a good firm answer. l 22 I think the way we're going to answer that 23 gaestion is to get the policy oat, get one of these in and 24 try to implement it, and take a design certification 25 process.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 Nationwde Corr 7 8@33MM6 _ . _ _ _ _ ,
4770 02 08 21 1 There are other steps in the process. In
{}DAV/bc 2 addition, the final design approval can be conditioned jast 3 like any license, so if there are holes within the context 4 of a design that we have concerns aboat, or the [ommittee 5 may have concerns aboat, or the Commission has concerns 6 aboat, the license coald be conditioned sach that there is a 7 specified inspection hold points, additional information 8 hold points and verification hold points.
9 So I think it's a fair gaestion. I don't think .
10 we have a fair answer for yoa today. And I think we're 11 trying to articalate where we are with respect to that 12 particalar issae at this point.
O 13 - "a wr'te= tee me ex a>e eio=- wi11 enee 14 detail be in the NUREG that's proposed?
15 MR. MORIA: The schedale for the NUREG, 16 Mr. Wylie, Jaly 31st, here it is today, the 9th of Jaly. I 17 don' t think I'm going to be in that mach better a position.
18 I think we're going to articalate it in broad terms, the 19 kinds of concepts and the things we woald expect.
20 I think yoa woald see some of the material that 21 was in the AIF docament talking aboat the kinds of 22 information that coald be made available, and that woald be 23 made available for Js to make the jad;ments that the design 24 is ready to go throagh this process.
25 MR. ETHERINGTON: I think I woald be inclined to ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage __. , 800-_336 4646
4770 02 09 22 1 avoid the ase of the word " complete" in that statement.
(}DAV/bc 2 MR. . MORIA: We have another problem. The word 3 " complete", Dr. Etherington, in the context of the policy 4 statement was trying to encoarage a complete des [gn of the 5 facility, more than jast the NSSS system. It woald go to 6 the entire plant.
7 The other thing is the level of design 8 info rmation . I don't think we're asing " complete" in the 9 context of level of design information. .
10 MR. WYLIE: Bat yoJ're asing the word 11 " essentially complete".
12 MR. MORIA: The essentially complete plant and
() 13 final design information.
14 DR. KERR: Woald it be reasonable then to say 15 that the carrent policy is that the level of detail regaired 16 be negotiated between staff and the first organization that 17 tries to pat one of these together?
18 MR. MORIA: I think the policy statements was the 19 Commission's direction was try not to address that in the 20 policy statement; articalate that the best way yoa can 21 within the NUREG. And, essentially, that's what we'll be 22 saying in the NUREG:
23 Here's the kinds of things we think we're going 24 to need for these kinds of things. And we'll have to do 25 something to find oat how mach of each of these that we Aa-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- D2-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
4770 02 10 23 need.
()DAV/bc 1 2 MR. WYLIE: Mr. Reed has a gaestion.
3 MR. REED: The word " complete" also bothers me 4 and I wonder if that means balance of plant, nonsafety-5 related. Or does it jast address safety-related, 6 significant safety parts of the plant.
7 MR. SCALETTI: The word " complete" was somewhat 8 akin to at least a naclear island design or a power block 9 design, which covered all the safety systems in the -
10 baildings. Hoasing safety systems.
11 MR. WYLIE: Bat it doesn't'say that.
12 MR. SCALETTI: It clearly doesn't.
() 13 MR. WYLIE: If yoa read it, it says:
14 An essentially complete plant. And then it talks 15 aboat level of detail that will be essentially complete 16 information. It really doesn't say that.
17 If yoa read this, there's only one...the 18 Commission saying yoa're only going to consider one thing--
19 a reference system design certification for an essentially 20 complete plant, with essential 1_y completed, detailed 21 information.
22 That's what it says. That's the policy.
23 '
MR. SCALETTI: The information that addresses j 24 that or defines that are sapposed to be incladed in the 25 NUREG.
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Com;3 _
800-336-6646 __ __
4770 02 11 24 1 MR. MICHELSON: Yoa f arther conf Jse the issae by
( )DAV/bc 2 saying "both with respect to scope and level," which 3 indicated a two-dimensional completeness; which is rather 4 interesting. It certainly isn't complete in scope if it 5 jast covers the power ulock.
6 Bat I don't want to debate the fine points.
7 MR. SCALETTI: We're limited to certain aspects 8 of the design that can't be complete becaase they're site-9 related. Certainly y'oa cannot expect to inclade that in .
10 there also.
11 MR. WARD: So is that all the text incladed? The 12 balance of plant is incladed except for site-specific
()
13 featares?
14 MR. SCALETTI: This is idea]ly what woald be 15 there. Bat this is not reqaired by the policy statement; it 16 coald be less than that. As Frank said, yoa know, this is 17 ander development. We're trying to address this as best we 18 can.
19 MR. MICHELSON: This is sapposed to be ased for 20 ,
one-step licensing also; is that correct?
21 l MR. SCALETTI: That's correct.
1 22 MR. MICHELSON: So this is the only shot the NRC 23 will get at the design. Whatever that level of completeness 24 is at the time they look at it, that's it.
^
k- 25 MR. SCALETTI: There are checks and balances in ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
d 202-347-3700 Nationwide Cove age 80 4 336 6646
l l
4770 02 12 25 1 the one-step licensing process which allow --
()DAV/bc 2 MR. EBERSOLE: Jast a simple gaestion. Can a 3 plant be approved with no more consideration for sabotage 4 than is carrently provided in, say, the latest de'Aigr.?
5 MR. SCALETTI: Say that again? I'm sorry.
6 MR. EBERSOLE: Woald a standardized plant be 7 approved with no more consideration for valnerability i
8 against sabotage than we carrently have in the latest 9 designs? -
l 10 MR. SCALETTI: If a plant came in now, it woald 11 have to meet oar carrent sabotage reqairements. And also 12 address A-29. If a plant came in 10 years from now ander
() 13 this policy, it woald have to address the carrent Commission 14 regalations at that time, and the policies at that time.
15 MR. EBERSOLE: So we have a floating target here?
16 MR. MICHELSON: That's not the way I anderstand 17 it. I thoaght yoa were certifying the design for 10 years, i
18 which means, le yoa want to change it nine years from now, 19 it's a backfit.
20 MR. SCALETTI: That part of it was approved 21 today; ander the carrent reqairements woald be good for 10 22 years. Any changes to that design woald be sJbject to the i 23 backfit regalations.
1 24 A plant that came in for a design approval and 25 certification 10 years from now woJ1d be sJbject to the l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
'.u2-347-3700 Nationwide Coverase 804336464
F 4770 02 13 26 1 Commission's regalations that are in effect 10 years from !
()DAV/bc 2 now.
3 MR. MICHELSON: I'm referring to a design that's 4 certified today. No plant has come in yet to baf5d, bat a 5 plant comes in nine years from now, it's the certified 6 design approved today that coants.
7 And if yoa want to change it, it's a backfit, I 8 thoaght. So what yoa're reviewing today has got to be what 9 yoa're happy with for 10 years. .
10 MR. SCALETTI: Correct.
11 DR. OKRENT: Can' t that be renewed?
12 MR. SCALETTI: It coald be renewed if it meets
() 13 the carrent Commission regalations. That issae woald have 14 to be addressed. If they promalgated a new regalation, they 15 woald have to address the certified design. Whatever the 16 oatcome of those were, if they're reqaired to meet changes.
17 DR. MARK: Yoa referred to A-29. A-29 is a stady 18 at this, point as far as I know, so I can get certified today 19 withoat any attention to A-29.
20 MR. SCALETTI: No, yoa have to address it 21 according to the Severe Accident Policy Statement.
22 DR. MARK: It's all as if a thing we're going to 23 stady is not in effect.
24 MR. SCALETTI: It still has to be addressed 25 whatever it is. If A-29 develops into something farther, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 _
, Nationwide CQ __ _ __ _._ 800 336 6646 _ _. _ _ _ _
4770 02 14 27 l 1 then that's what it's going to have to -- that's going to
()DAV/bc 2 have to be addressed. It's a high priority generic safety 3 issae.
4 Therefore, it's regaired to be addresdAd by the 5 Severe Accident Policy Statement.
6 DR. CARBON: Let me be sare I Jnderstand what yoa 7 said. At the time of renewal at the end of 10 years, the 8 renewal woald have to take into accoant all new regalations 9 set ap daring the first 10-year period; is that correct? -
10 MR. SCALETTI: It woald have to comply with the 11 carrent regalations. Now, compliance coald be as a resalt 12 that the regalation was promalgated and addressed this
() ,13 category of plants, and so they didn' t have to do anything.
14 That woald be compliance.
15 It's still compliance with that regalation. If 16 there was a regalation which wasn' t addressed, they'd have 17 to address that regJ1ation, that's correct.
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
} 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide C@ CBR"CS
4770 03 01 28
,,3 x j DAVbar 1 MR. MORIA: From the perspective of renewal, 2 there woald have to be a showing by the whole of the 3 certified design that he meets the carrent regalations.
4 DR. CARBON: The carrent regJlations eanS then
~
5 carrent?
6 MR. MORIA: Yes, at the time. So they woald 7 probably come in for an application sometime before the 8 expiration date of the 10-year period and he woald have to 9 make some showing -- and it woald be a conscioas decision -
10 process -- that, yes, what he hss enoagh or that regalation 11 wasn' t applicable or he has made changes to conform or 12 whatever.
(~h t/ 13 DR. CARBON: Bat if there have been new 14 regalations established, when he comes in he mast meet those 15 new regalations?
16 MR. MORIA: Yes.
17 DR. OKRENT: Can I comment on that? ,
l 18 Sometimes new regalatione are adopted front-fit 19 only, so people come in and find, yes, indeed, there are new 20 regalations bat they only apply to plants who received their 21 CDA or FDA or PDA or PDQ --
22 MR. MORIA: If I was the regalator at that time, 23 yes, for the plants yoa are bailding ander that certified 24 design, it wasn't forward fit on yoar part. Bat in order
(~N
\- 25 for yoa to get the next 10 plants for the next 10 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- , , , , . ~ . . - -
1 4770 03 02 29
()DAVbar 1 years, that is a forward fit. Therefore, yoa have to comply 2 with it.
3 DR. OKRENT: Yoa said if yoJ were?
4 MR. WARD: We want a system in place.'
5 MR. MORIA: I think the system woald say that if 6 yoa say here is the design approval that is good antil the 7 year 1995 and I have a regalation between now and 1995 that 8 says I am only going to do this on fatare plants.
9 DR. KERR: Mr. Chairman, it seems clear to me -
10 that we don't know what is going to be done 10 years from 11 now, and there is no sense in discassing it in detail.
12 DR. OKRENT: Let me give a good, hard example.
() 13 MR. WARD: Dave, we are in a level chair here.
14 Yoa are welcome to join as.
15 DR. OKRENT: I will speak ap.
16 They approve a plant now with no dedicated 17 bankered heat removal system. 10 years from now they decide 18 that they woald like f atare plants to have this, bat they 19 recognize that for existing plants it is a nontrivial change 20 4 in design, and so forth, even if the plant has not been 21 bailt.
22 So yoa make yoar gaess as to what the then CRGR 23 rales on front-fit and backfit will be.
24 MR. SCALETTI: The policy woald expect also that 25 the reference system design woald be certified, and the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Natenwide Coverase B(D 33MM6
4770 03 03 30
/w)DAVbar
!s 1 certification process woald constitate staff review of the 2 design, the review being sabmitted to the ACRS for their 3 review and approval.
4 Once this was complete and if it was determined 5 the design was safe enoagh, a final design approval woald be 6 issaed. This final design approval is a preregaisite for 7 certification.
8 It woald be then sabject to one of foar 9 ralemaking options, which yoa have attached to yoar May 14th -
10 memorandam to the Commission, briefly the foar being simply 11 notice and comment -- I woald like to make a comment on 12 that.
() 13 - In the May 14th version'the staff regaested 14 raling oat that option as a viable option, from the 15 standpoint that it may not allow for adegaate pablic 16 participation, bat it is still an option now.
17 second woald be notice and comment, with the 18 right to reqaest a legislative type hearing.
19 Third woald be notice and comment, with a 20 mandatory hearing. It woald be absent regaest.' The hearing 21 woald be mandatory. Again, it woald be a legislative type 22 hearing.
23 The foarth alternative woald be a formal, on the 24 record proceeding held by some representative of the 25 Commission.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 4770 03 04 31 g
( JDAVbar 1 DR. REMICK: It coald be the Commission if they 2 wished?
3 MR. SCALETTI: It coald be the Commission if they 4 wished.
5 The design woald then be certified after 6 saccessfally completing one of the foar ralemaking options 7 and then become part of the NRC regalations for a period of 8 10 years. Now, this woJld be a rale.
9 The certified portions of the design, not being .
10 sabject to litigation in individaal licensing proceedings, 11 if yoa combine that with the alternative site, preapproved 12 site, yoa can significantly cat down the time for licensing
(,) 13 the facility.
14 MR. MICHELSON: What is the significance of jast 15 stopping at the FDA level versJs going ahead with ralemaking 16 and certification?
17 MR. SCALETTI: That woald be considered one of 18 the transition options.
19 MR. MICHELSON: Yoa don' t have to go on from the 20 FDA if yoa wish, bat if yoa don't, then yoa are more likely 21 to be sabject to pablic intervention, and so forth?
22 MR. SCALETTI: Yoa are sabject.
23 DR. REMICK: And the choice coald be in the 24 ralemaking. I assame it is the vendor who is the one
{)
25 defending in the ralemaking, where in the other case it ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 341:3790 Nationwide Coverzac M1%6646 _
4770 03 05 32
,1DAVbar 1 woald be the prospective licensee, with assistance 2 pres amably f rom the vendor.
3 Am I correct?
4 MR. SCALETTI: Yes, that is correct.
5 MR. RILEY: The applicant, which woald likely be .
6 the vendor.
7 MR. SCALETTI: Whatever the application was made 1
8 ap of. It may be vendors and atility applicants. It may be 9 a combination that coald certify the design. .
10 (Slide.)
11 Now, the preliminary NUREG oatline, sapporting 12 NUREG, these are the major headings of the categories to be
( ,s) 13 discassed in the NUREG. ,
14 The backgroand and parpose of the NUREG is to 15 provide details for implementing the Commission's policy, 16 also an implementation of the transition options. It will 17 have in it the standardization policy statement.
I 18 It will have a discussion, again, of the 19 Commission's desired alternative, the design certification 20 concept. It will discuss the transition options, which are 21 the reference system concept, the duplicate plant concept, 22 the replicate plant concept, the manufacture and license. l 23 There is also one other category, deferred l 24 plants, the Commission feeling, or staff feeling, that i \
25 deferred plants are a viable energy alternative here, and ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
207.147-1'00 Narinnwude Cnverane IKn136-6M6
r 4770 03 06 33
~/ S
) DAVbur 1 it was determined that it would be discussed in the 2 document, some of the deferred plants being the standard 3 plants but some are nonstandard plants.
4 Completeness of design scope and detail. It will 5 discuss what is required of the four or five concepts, 6 certifying the design and the other transition options, what 7 is required of those options as far as scope of design 8 detail.
9 Changes to approved designs. It will discuss the -
10 backfit policy and how it applies to each one of these 11 designs, which is consistent with the Commission's proposed 12 legislation. Changes to any approved design would be (n) , 13 required to have to demonstrate substantial increase to the 14 public health and safety.
15 It would also indicate that any changes wanted to 16 be made by the applicant for the design approval, if they 17 wanted to .ake a change in the design, this design could be 18 changed by going through either a requested change to i
19 rulemaking, depending on what the design approval was, and 20 these -hanges, if approved, would only be forward fit unless 21 it was demonstrated that again there had been the same 22 criterion of substantial increase to the public health and l l
23 safety. '
24 Licensing fees in the proposed legislation would
( ) !
25 allow for allocating the fees to the users of the design ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
?n' 1J' 1'm N2rinnu.dr enternar StutitA A&ta
4770 03 07 34
()DAVbur 1 and not to the vendor. This would be done both for 2 alternative siting and also for design approvals.
3 Related policies and regulations. In here the 4 severe accident policy statement requirements - '$afety 5 goal, the regulatory reform proposal before Congress now, 5 the SRP rule, the source term policy, the early site 7 approvals. These will be discussed in this section and how 8 they relate to the standardization.
9 MR. MICHELSON: On the matter of fees, how do you .
10 handle the problem that a vendor may be designing a reactor 11 for foreign use but wants to get it certified domestically?
12 I guess you go through the whole process without O)
(_ 13 ever receiving compensation and there won't be any domestic 14 users that you can tax.
15 What is the problem?
16 MR. SCALETTI: Fees are recoverable from the 17 vendor after expiration of the design approval or in total.
18 So the fees would be recoverable.
19 MR. MICHELSON: In 10 years?
20 MR. SCALETTI: 10 years.
21 MR. MICI!ELSON: You have to wait 10 years to get 22 your money?
23 MR. MORIA: It is just a deferred payment.
24 DR. MARK: I am sorry to be so ignorant. I can't 25 picture what is implied by such a phrase as source term l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3111A7.1?rn Nar mnwwi, Owerman ambi1& Men
4770 03 08 35
( l DAVbur 1 policy. There is a source term. There is a description of 2 what the source term may be taken to be.
3 What is the source term policy?
4 MR. SCALETTI: This is meant to be this new 5 source term that is under development by the Commission to 6 be used in new licensing actions. GESSAR was the first 7 through. It had exemptions to use newly developed source 8 te rms .
9 This will discuss -- -
10 DR. MARK: I could picture the policy as being 11 let's have no source.
12 MR. SCALETTI: If that is what it says, that is
(~N i x,) 13 what will be in it.
14 DR. MARK: What I could imagine a little easier 15 is we are going to tell you, specify what you may take as 16 the source term. That is hardly a policy. It is the result 17 of a source term study.
18 Is that what is meant here by the source term 19 policy?
20 It is a new TID-1444.
21 MR. MORIA: All this section is meant to be is to 22 articulate the industry, the uses of the document, that in 23 addition to the standardization policy there are other l
24 policy and related regulations that the Commission has you l
(~h 1 t )
25 I should be aware of.
l l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Covera 2e !KB3364646 '
I 4770 03 09 36 O
(_j DAVbur 1 One of them is the source term studies. This 2 year we will indicate what the status of those studies are, 3 and that if they wanted to use these things on a different 4 kind of schedule, perhaps what kind of showing tIey would 5 have to make in order to make use of some of that material 6 acceptable.
7 That is all it is meant to be,- is~an articulation 8 of where we are.
9 DR. MARK: That I can more easily understand. .
10 MR. SCALETTI: Design certification, rulemaking 11 options. We have discussed those before. We will have a 12 discussion of the four alternatives and their
() -
. 13 recommendations that, number one, is not applicable, that we 14 recommend using it.
If DR. REMICK: Will that be fleshed out more than 16 you have in the back of the policy statement at the moment, 17 or will it be left fairly loose?
18 MR. SCALETTI: I think it is probably going to 19 stay about the way it is.
20 DR. REMICK: I was a little surprised. If I put 21 on my public hat, it seems to me -- and I were to be asked 22 to make comments on the policy statement -- I might want to 23 know what shot I might have in the future. If I wanted to 24 participate in a hearing, what standing and what interest O 25 must I demonstrate?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l
,,,m,._ __ _ --
l l
M l
4770 03 10 37 lf }j DAVbur s, 1 And without that detail it seems to me it is very 2 difficult for the public to know what possibility for input l
3 they might have.
a.
4 MR. SCALETTI: This is perhaps a good point.
5 Obviously, this is in the regulations, but I will see if we 6 can make a change to that.
7 DR. REMICK: Yes, but that is for the 8 adjudicatory type of hearings. You have legislative and 9 others proposed here, and it would not be clear to me as a .
10 member of the public.
11 MR. SCALETTI: I don't know how to differentiate 12 between the adjudicatory and the legislative hearings as far
() 13 as public participation goes.
14 MR. MORIA: Frank Moria, from the staff again.
15 Dr. Remick, I think what we have got here is an 16 exposition of the options that are available. The 17 Commission asked for that articulation and never really 18 decided to pick one or the other. So what we have here is 19 just an articulation with where the options are.
20 , The staff is taking the position -- while this 21 first one is a viable one, we would say that we would want 22 to focus on one of these other three. But it is really of a 23 policy nature and may be a point that the committee might 24 want to raise, in saying perhaps in conjunction with this O 25 policy the Commission could either articulate what its ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 147 1700 Nanonmuk Covermee 30[k1E 66d6
4770 03 11 38
()DAVbur 1 preference is or express to the public -- to get reviews and 2 that type of process.
3 DR. REMICK: It does indicate they want to defer 4 some of these things and handle it on a case-by-case basis, 5 but if you are sending it out for public comment, as I say, 6 if I am a member of the public, I am not sure whether I like 7 it or not -- if I wanted to be sure that at some future time 8 if I want to participate, that I can -- unless I know.
9 MR. MORIA: I understand perfectly what you are -
10 saying. I am just telling you where we are. It is a policy 11 option. No decisions have been made on that.
12 MR. SCALETTI: A notice of hearing would be put gy
(_) 13 out when an application for design certification came in.
14 As Frank has mentioned before, the schedule for 15 i the NUREG was the end of this month. We have requested a 16 delay in that of approximately a month. So right now we 17 would be around, I guess, mid-September, beginning of 18 ; September, mid-September.
I 19 ' MR. WARD: Dino, a question. In the NUREG 20 outline you do have an item there saying NUREG -- well, it 21 says completeness of the design scope and detail, what we 22 talked about before.
23 f But when you were asked earlier about the extent 24 to which the NUREG would clarify thac, I didn't get a sense
'"' 25 that the NUREG was going to say an awful lot about that.
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
507.1.t' .1*rY! % mnmid,t h rsa. San.114 4&JA
I 4770 03 12 39 !
()DAVbur 1 MR. SCALETTI: The NUREG will address it. The 2 NUREG will make its best attempt to try to clarify what 3 would be required.
4 Clearly for the replicate plants, dup [icate 5 plants, they are a little more clear-cut because they are 6 actual license applications.
7 With regard to design certification and the 8 reference system concept, it is a little fuzzier and not as 9 much is required. .
10 We will do our best. You have heard much of it 11 today, and this is the best I can tell you. I am not 12 meaning to avoid the issue. I am trying to give you an
() 13 explanation as clearly as I can at this time, but it will be 14 discussed. It will be in the NUREG.
4 15 DR. KERR: It seems to me that the best 16 explanation is at this time the staff is avoiding the 17 issue. I am not trying to be critical, but it seems to me i
! 18 you have not settled that question. It is perhaps 19 impossible to settle it at this point.
20 MR. SCALETTI: We haven't settled it to the 21 committee's satisfaction. However, we have settled the 22 issue from the standpoint that it would -- for design 23 certification you are required to comply with 5034(b), which 24 is the operating license information requirement.
25 That is the best I can tell you now.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
E D3F-Di U __ __ ___________ 9 t u r c h _ _ _ __ ____ ____ e _____ _ _ _ __ _ ____ __ __
4770 04 01 40 L_/DAV/bc 1 MR. MORIA: I think, Dr. Kerr, you're correct.
2 It's not that we' re trying to avoid it. I think we're 3 trying to articulate what we mean by the words " essentially 4 complete" in design and scope as well.
5 I don't think you'll see a clearer specific 6 list. I think it will say:
7 This is the kind of information. This is the 8 regulation. These, for example, are the kinds of things 9 we'd like to see.
10 We would not go to the rigidity of saying it must 11 be this piece of paper and all of these. It's going to be a 12 kind of "For example..." kind of thing. Have that kind of l3
\~- / 13 specificity. No more than that.
14 (Slide.)
15 MR. SCALETTI: The conforming changes to the 16 regualtions, obviously, until the Commission has published l
17 l its policy statement in filed form, we have really no way of 18 knowing what impact on the existing regulations now. The 19 regulations that deal with standardization are MN&O. They 20 could possibly just go through with no changes at all.
21 They don't provide specific details. As it 22 stands now, they apparently are not inconsistent with the 1
23 policy that we have issued. There may be some desire to
, 24 change or to include duration times in Appendix 0 for 25 certified designs.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- fr 1.111*n0 % nan ai& Cmerase M 1 M 6646
4770 04 02 41
)
v DAV/bc 1 If that was the case, then it would have to be 2 modified. So it may or may not require changes to these 3 three parts. It could be that the Commission could say, we 4 might want to say that N&M are only for interim p riods of 5 time, or interim periods. They might want to delete those 6 regulations.
7 I don't know how. 50.34(f), the CP/ML rule, 8 definitely needs to be updated. It is required by the 9 severe accident policy statement. It's required by the 10 standardization policy statement, too. But the basic 11 requirement comes from the severe accident policy 12 statement.
13 And it is inconsistent from the standpoint that -
14 50.34(f) applies only to five or six applications that were 15 in place at the time of TMI.
16 The degraded core stuff may require some changes, 17 but that would result from the severe accident policy 18 statement.
. 19 We would oppose, if the Commission approves its 20 .
standardization policy, we would plan to have the requisite 21 changes to the three standardization appendices for 22 Commission approval within approximately 90 days.
23 DR. REMICK: Dino, I've just been assuming this 24 would go out for public comment. Will it?
O 25 MR. SCALETTI: The changes?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
--- n n --
l 4770 04 03 42
,, DAV/bc 1 DR. REMICK: The proposed policy statement.
2 MR. SCALETTI: Absolutely. I assume the NUREG 3 will, too.
4 (Slide.)
5 Now, some highlights of the proposed 6 legislation. The legislation addresses specifically three 7 areas. There are other conforming changes within the 8 regulation but, basically, its construction permitted 9 operating licenses. That section, there would be a change 10 to authorize one-step licensing, which the Commission does 11 not have at this time.
12 Early site reviews, and approval of designs. The r~s t
13 certified standardized designs, the 10-year approvals. Now, 14 the Commission does have the authority with respect to 15 Appendix 0 to certify designs now.
16 So, clearly, we can certify a design without the 17 ;
legislation. Pre-approved sites, that I guess could be done 18 l also. We have a site suitability, Appendix 0 to Part 50.
i 19 j We also have a proposed regulation, Appendix A, to Part 51, i
20 which would authorize and set forth the requirements for 21 doing an alternative site review for the National 22 Environmental Policy Act.
23 I One-stop licensing, as I said, is in there. It 7-3 24 would be required, legislation passage would be necessary to
( )
25 implement that one-step licensing. It also sets standards ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- m. ... m . ~ .....
4770 04 04 43 k DAV/bc 1 for backfitting to licenses, design approvals and site 2 approvals.
3 What is says is that any changes to an approved 4 design or to an approved site would have to demonstrate 5 substantial increases to public health and safety. It 6 allows for allocation of fees to the users of design 7 approvals. And it provides congressional endorsement for 8 the stability of the licensing process.
9 I think that the industry believes it's probably 10 one of the more important aspects of one-step licensing.
11 Now, one-step licensing, allocation of fees, and 12 the last category here would require the legislation to be 13 passed before those could be implemented.
14 DR. REMICK: Does that mean that Congress would 15 have to approve this through legislation before this policy 16 could go into effect, or just those aspects of it?
17 MR. SCALETTI: No. The policy could be one-step 18 licansing or two-step licensing. The legislation would have 19 to be aporoved before we could do one-step licensing.
i 20 The legislation would have to be approved before l
21 we could allocate the fees to the users. Now, the fee 22 structures could be changed back to the old way, which used 23 to require 20 percent payment each time the design was 24 referenced for five periodn.
O 25 DR. REMICK: Anot:her question though. Some of ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m ,,,. ~.. _ _ _ _-
i 4770 04 05 44 1
(')s
(_ DAV/bc 1 these I think are in the current proposed legislation; is l 2 that correct?
3 MR. SCALETTI: They're in the 1985, right.
4 DR. REMICK: Do you plan additional pr posed 5 legislation?
6 MR. SCALETTI: Not that I'm aware of.
7 DR. REMICK: Why do we have to slide in on the 8 highlights of the proposed legislation? I'm confused.
9 MR. MORIA: Dr. Remick, this is legislation 10 proposed to the Congress by the Commission that hasn't been 11 acted upon. It was proposed in '82, revised again in '85.
12 And this is the proposal that's before Congress.
13 I believe there's one or two hearings that have 14 been held.
15 DR. REMICK: Including all those elements?
16 MR. MORIA: All those elements are part of the 17 currently proposed legislation.
18 DR. CARBON: Does DOE also have proposed 19 legislation?
i 20 '
MR. MORIA: Yes, sir. DOE also has proposed 21 legislation in this area. There are some differences 22 between them, but many of the elements are the same. There 23 have been at least one or two Senate hearings. I'm not sure 24 if there have been any House subcommittee hearings on both O~ 25 the DOE proposals and the NRC proposals.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. !
m,.m . . . .__= _. ,
O 4770 04 06 45 DAV/bc 1 MR. SCALETTI: That concludes my remarks.
2 DR. WYLIE: Any other questions for Dino?
3 (No response.)
4 DR. WYLIE: If not, let's proceed then Let's go 5 on with the next subject.
6 Dr. Fred Sears of AIF will present the AIF's 7 discussions on the proposed standardization policy 8 statement.
9 DR. SEARS: Good morning. My name is Fred Sears, 10 Vice President of Nuclear and Environmental Engineering for 11 Northeast Utilities. I'm appearing before you today on 12 behalf of the Atomic Industrial Forum, study group on s
13 practical application of standardized nuclear power plar."cs 14 in the United States.
15 (Slide.)
16 MR. WARD: Fred, do we have a copy of your 17 slides?
18 DR. SEARS: I will make a copy available.
19 With the U.S. economy expanding and the demand 20 1 for electricity on the rise again, many utilities are i
21 beginning to plan for new generating capacity that will be 22 needed in the 1990's and later.
23 Unfortunately, nuclear power is not currently s 24 perceived by the utility industry or our invcstment 25 community.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
ETR 347.hTi) fatew~MhCdoverage 800 33Mi646
4770 04 07 46 I
(>)DAV/bc 1 Yes, sir?
2 DR. MARK: You spoke of demand for electricity 3 on the rise. I believe that is true where Northeast is 4 active. Is it uniform across the country?
5 DR. SEARS: The percentage of rise is not. But, 6 in our discussions ~ within the committee, everyone has 7 reported that they are having an increase. It varies by 8 several percentage points, but everyone is in the process of 9 looking at that.
10 And they are also all in the process of planning 11 for what they need to do for the future, so it's very i
12 pertinent; even if someone is stable, they still have to
/ )
k'# 13
- look to the future.
14 DR. MARK: I rather pictured that. I know, in 15 the Northeast, it is specifically true it may be higher than 16 anywhere else. I was wondering if it was true in the other 17 sections to some extent or other. You're telling me it is.
1 18 DR. REMICK: Because large numbers of people from 19 teh Southwest are now moving back to the Northeast.
20 (Laughter.)
1 21 DR. SEARS: As I said, nuclear power though is 22 not currently perceived as a viable generation investment.
23 Part of that perception is an unstable and unpredictable I
7y 24 licensing process. It's very expensive and requires much O
25 too long to license and construct a plant.
ACE _ FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
4770 04 08 47 L' DAV/bc 1 Consequently, throughout this country, the 2 general perception is that nuclear power is not an economic 3 generation alternative.
4 My statement here today will focus on ome 5 proposed revisions which you've heard about earlier from the 6 NRC to the current licensing process.
7 What we on the AIF study group feel can be done 8 about it:
9 We believe that these revisions will improve the 10 viability of nuclear power. And also they will enhance 11 nuclear plant safety.
12 , specifically, today, I will address the nuclear
(')
13 plant design certification process and a combined 14 construction and operating license.
15 In doing this, I will also describe briefly the 16 information that the industry believes would adequately 17 support an application for design certification.
19 This is an area you were questioning earlier. We 19 believe this is a fresh approach to an issue that all of 20 us--utilities, vendors, AE's, the NRC, the public and 21 Congress--have been concerned with for several years.
22 (Slide.)
23 The first element of our proposal is the design g3 24 certification process. In our views, designs for standard Lj' 25 plants would be developed by a consortium made up of ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
. . . . . .. ~ .....
l i
l l
4770 04 09 48 l q
\ / DAV/bc 1 utilities, vendors, turbine generator vendors, AE's, 2 constructors. Necessary information to certify the design 3 would be documented in a plant safety report.
4 The report would be submitted to the N C for 5 review and approva. . Approval of that design would 6 culminate with the issuance of a design certification, which 7 would be valid for a period of 10 years with options for 8 renewal.
9 The objective of the design certification is to 10 develop a detailed plant design which completely satisfies 11 regulatory requirements before construction begins -- to 12 license it and then to freeze it.
\
('~' 13 In order for design certification to be issued, 14 the design must be sufficiently finalized so that there's a 15 clear definition of all relevant safety aspects.
16 The NRC review of the plant safety report would 17 confirm that subsequent construction inspection, testing and i
18 operation could all be performed in accordance with pre- 1 l
19 approved methodologies. The plant safety report would l
20 contain the following inform 21 Design basis criteria, the analysie and design 22 methods, the functional design of the systems, the physical 23 arrangement of auxilliary balance of plant and nuclear steam 1
24 supply systems and components, acceptance and startup I l
25 testing requirements and the probabalistic risk assessment i l
l l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. _ , _ . .
4770 04 10 49 (D
V DAV/bc 1 methodology that would be used to assess this.
2 The NRC and the applicant must agree in advance
~3 on the depth of design details necessary to later confirm 4 that the plant meets the specifications.
5 Confirmation would be achieved through 6 inspections, tests, analysis and acceptance criteria which 7 would be agreed to beforehand.
8 The design detail would also have to support the 9 preparation of the equipment procurement specifications, 10 qualification, installation and testing.
11 What would not be included in this information is 12 the name plate information of the specific equipment. But O 13 the requirements for it would be.
14 This design certification process is not business 15 as usual. It represents a significantly different 16 philosophy of designing, constructing and regulating nuclear 17 power plants.
18 In the past, preliminary design information was 19 furnished in the NRC at the construction permit stage; then, 20 ' later, more detailed designs and regulatory requirements 21 were finalized in parallel with the plant construction.
22 This two-step process permitted both the plant i 1
23 owner and the NRC to make significant and often costly plant 24 changes during the operating license stage.
25 In the proposed design certification process, the l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS g INC.
4770 04 11 50 1-)DAV/bc 1 design engineering is essentially completed. I will talk a 2 little bit more about what we mean by that.
3 The regulatory requirements would be thoroughly 4 defined and incorporated and public input would b 5 considered before the construction of the plant.
6 DR. KERR: Mr. Sears, what is the significance of 7 the statement on the previous slide that PRA methodology 8 would be outlined? Whatever it says. Does that imply that 9 PRA would not be carried out? That one would simply tell -
10 the NRC how a PRA could be carried out?
11 DR. SEARS: No. What it means is that the 12 boundaries of the methodology, how it's going to be applied, 1
N/ 13 what the assumptions are and all that, would be agreed upon 14 and what acceptance would be agreed upon, because, 15 othe rwise, we can all state a core melt frequency or a 16 public safety and no one knows what we're talking about.
17 DR. KERR: Then the P'RA would be carried out at 18 what point, if at all?
19 DR. SEARS : The PRA would be carried out. Once l
20 l1 that was agreed upon, it would be carried out based upon the 21 specific design before construction began.
22 DR. KERR: Thank you.
I 23 DR. SEARS: The essentially complete design I'm
,_ 24 talking about to support the design certification process U 25 includes the following documents, drawings and information.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- n*.1.t*.1*nn A se nnmids ("%ernas
. STYL 11A AL1A
4770 04 12 51 DAV/bc 1 Not necessarily all information, but they're all available 2 a.nd done.
3 MR. MICHELSON: May I interrupt for a moment for 4 clarification of your previous statement?
5 You said the PRA would be done before 6 construction started?
7 DR. SEARS: That is correct.
8 MR. MICHELSON: That means the design would be 9 complete in that kind of detail before construction started?
10 DR. SEARS': We are looking at design for the NSSS 11 that is essentially 100 percent complete, 90 percent
__ 12 complete, on balance of plant. It will include --
~) 1. 3 MR. MICHELSON: Before construction?
14 DR. SEARS: Before construction.
15 MR. MICHELSON: You're not using the old 16 classical way of designing while you're building?
17 DR. SEARS: No, sir.
18 MR. MICHELSON: Thank you.
19 DR. SEARS: We're looking at having that done.
20 '
Small piping or things might be included, but the general 21 cable layouts, piperuns, all that, would already be done 22 ;
before we started.
23 MR. MICHELSON: But this complete design would be 24 done after the FDA was already issued? '
()i w
25 DR. SEARS: No, sir. We're looking at completing ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
,m,,.-,_ . . . . . . , . . . . . . _ , , , , , . ,
l l
4770 04 13 52 r's s
- i. J DAV/bc 1 this whole thing. And maybe if I can go through the next 2 couple of things --
3 MR. MICHELSON: Better than I thought. Thank 4 you.
5 DR. SEARS: --
then we can try again if we 6 haven't answered your questions.
7 MR. ETHERINGTON: In other words, this will be 8 done before there's a customer?
9 DR. SEARS: That is correct. That's one reason 10 we believe that this will be an action of a consortium 11 involving both customers and vendors who believe that there 12 is a process.
p k/ 13 DR. REMICK: I don't want to belabor it but when 14 you said before there's a customer, am I correct that you're 15 talking about it at the time of design certification, this 16 is part of the design certification package, presenting the 17 things you've just stated?
18 DR. SEARS: That is correct.
19 DR. CARBON: PRA would be done before the design 20 certification were issued to you by NRC?
21 DR. KERR: That isn't what he said.
22 DR. SEARS: No. The methodology would be in that 23 thing. But before we go in, they may well occur in the same
~. 24 time frame. In order to answer many of the questions, we b 25 may have to have that information to the NRC. But we will ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l
- n'.1J'.1*nn N2r.nnside Cnserzar RlMk11M6M
.. . . .. . . . = . . _ . ~ - - . . ~ - _ . . _ _. - .=.-- .. ,
l 1
4770 04 14 53 l DAV/bc 1 have to settle on the methodology that is used before we t
2 start that.
3 t-
}
4 :
1 i
- 5 l I
6 7 !
) .
8 !
9 i 10 !
11 12 i
4 i
O 13 14 15
. 16 4
i 17 18 2
19
)
- 20 3
21 2
22 23 i 24 O 25 l
1 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. -U N -
N
4_770 05 01 54 7
k'DAVbur 1 We are looking at providing within the group that 2 puts this together the design basis criteria, the plant 3 general arrangements, the structures, components, cable 4 trays, pipe runs, things of that sort, realizing there will 5 have to be specific analysis done once you bring the 6 nameplate into it.
7 But we can lay out the plant beforehand -- PNIDs, 8 control logic diagrams, system functional descriptions, 4
9 component and procurement specifications, including 10 acceptance requirements for those components.
11 So we will have the information that is necessary 12 to do the analysis even if we don't have a specific piece of
( _. )
13 equipment.
14 (Slide.)
15 The construction and installation 16 specifications -- the QA prograras, the emergency plans, i
17 security plans, the ALARA, radiation protection plans, the 18 accident analysis, the draft technical specifications, and 19 the risk analysis -- all this will be brought together.
20 It is important to note that these are the l
21 documents which will control the construction and operation i
22 ! of the plant and they are being set before this ever 23 l begins. Any additional documentation required to support f3 24 the NRC safety evaluation would be provided with the plant j 25 safety report as part of the design certification l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. _ , , ~ , . .
i
4770 05 02 55 LJ DAVbur 1 application.
2 As I have said, the design will be essentially 3 complete before submittal of the plant safety report. The 4 only plant design activity remaining would be ass ciated 5 with site-specific features and incorporating equipment 6 nameplate info'rmation.
7 The effort to support such a design certification 8 application will result in a large expenditure of manpower 9 and funds. It is our estimate that this effort will cost 10 , between 150- and S200 million before the application is ever 1
11 made.
12 (Slide.)
g.s
\ ')
t
- 13 The keystone to the effectiveness of this design 14 certification process, however, is its linkage to the 15 combined construction and operating license.
16 The design certification alone does not reduce 17 the investment risks sufficiently to permit nuclear power to 18 be competitive with other available generation 19 alternatives. In fact, it is doubtful that any of us as 20 i utilities will accept the risk of contributing to a nuclear 21 plant without some high degree of assurance that it can be 22 l constructed on schedule, within budget, and that it will be l
23 l permitted to operate when it is completed. That is one 24 reason for specifying so many things -- the emergency plan 7- ,
Lj l 25 and other things -- up front.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
'O' ti'.1*nn Nartnnaide Fnternas SafL116 6L16
4770 05 03 56 DAVbur 1 In the construction and operating license 2 process, there will be an opportunity for further public 3 participation on site-specific considerations consistent 4 with the intent of the Code of Federal Regulation . Any l 5 discussions on the adequacy of the plant design itself will 6 already have occcurred at the time of the design 7 certification application review and approval. Only 8 site-specific issues would be considered at the construction 9 and operating license stage.
10 After the construction and operating license has 11 been issued and construction begun, confirmatcry audits 12 would,be conducted by both the NRC and the owner. These O 13 audits would ensure that the plant is being constructed in 14 accordance with the preapproved requirements and that the 15 owner is satisfactorily performing the agreed upon tests and 16 inspections.
17 Upon completion of construction, the NRC would 18 then finalize those audit results and the owner will begin 19 plant operation.
20 The design certification process and the 21 construction and operating license will result in 22 significant progress toward consistent performance-based 23 regulation and away from variable regulation which 24 characterizes the existing process.
25 DR. REMICK: Before you leave that slide, Fred, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERSgC.
4770 05 04 57 m
DAVbur 1 I had a quick question.
2 Under the confirmatory audits, is there any 3 consideration given to readiness reviews?
4 DR. SEARS: The acceptance criteria th t are set 5 up within the design certification and the COL would specify 6 what all the audits would be and what the acceptance 7 criteria would be up front. So everyone knows what the plan 8 says, and all the audit says is you have done what you 9 agreed to do.
10 DR. REMICK: So that could be a possibility?
11 DR. SEARS: Yes.
12 (Slide.)
"s 13 We are trying to define for everyone what it is 14 we are going to do and what it takes to reach the 15 assurance. -
16 MR. MICHELSON: Since you are departing now to I
17 another area, I would like to ask my question now to make 18 sure I understand.
19 I Do you intend to go directly to the design 20 certification process, or are you going through the FDA 21 process first and then getting that design certified?
22 DR. SEARS: It is the intent that -- we believe 23 the best way to go is to go direct to the design l
24 certification. We also believe, though, that with the FDAs 25 that are available and the designs, it is appropriate to l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
?n7.1AL1*M1 Mas-ade f*e --
mL UE "
4770 05 05 58
. DAVbur 1 keep those options open at present because there are already 2 FDAs in existence that vendors may wish to use, there are 3 already designs that are approved that people may wish to 4 use in order to be restarted.
5 As a grouping, though, we feel the design 6 certification is the appropriate way.
7 MR. MICHELSON: The other question, from my 8 looking at your listing of what you would have prepared at 9 the time of certification, it would appear that there is 10 very little left to do in terms of what you need to design 11 in order to construct.
12 In your opinion, how many drawings remain or what O 13 kind of drawings remain to be done in order to actually 14 build the plant from your package?
15 DR. SEARS: We believe at the time of the COL 16 that over 70 percent of the drawings will be completed. No 17 system would be started until it was about 95 percent 18 complete.
19 The things that remain to be done at that point 20 are the specific nameplate information, where you have a 21 pump and you now have to look at how it specifically is 22 mounted to meet the specifications, how your flange to the i 23 pump is set up, all the other information that is 24 available.
O 25 MR. MICHELSON: It is a complete construction ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. _ . . . . .
I 4770 05 06 59 O
w/ DAVbur 1 package except for these specific fittings of the individual 2 components that you now have to go out and buy?
3 DR. SEARS: That is correct.
4 MR. MICHELSON: Thank you.
5 MR. ETHERINGTON: You use the word " consortium."
6 Do you visualize more than one nuclear steam 7 supply system design within the consortium, or do you 8 visualize four consortiums?
9 DR. SEARS: I don't believe it is possible to say 10 today. It is going to depend upon how the groupings feel, 11 what competitive approach they want to do and how they deal 12 with antitrust and other things of that nature.
rT k) 13 -
All of the industry is participating in the study 14 group looking at standardization and is sharing the ideas 15 about how to approach it. We don't have any one group 16 leading that. So everyone is there.
17 It is sort of a business decision as to who joins 18 the group.
19 MR. ETHERINGTON: Yes, I recognize that.
20 DR. SEARS: I don't have any inclination as to 21 how it will be.
22 MR. MICHELSON: I would like to ask one more 23 1 question. ,
24 In the event that you decide to go the route of O 25 using an FDA already issued, are you hereby in this !
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3?00 Nationwide Coverase 800-33MM6 l
4770 05 07 60 DAVbur 1 discussion saying that you will commit to the completion of 2 the design before certification like you have in the case if 3 you went directly to certification?
4 DR. SEARS: It is the general belief t at no one 5 is going to step into this arena without having that design 6 complete. That is not to say that some utility may not at a 7 point feel comfortable with their own financing and whatever 8 to go ahead using the presently available process. We don't 9 believe it is going to happen.
10 DR. CARBON: You made the point that the COL 11 would give you a pretty strong assurance they would be able 12 to operate the plant.
O O 13 Where do considerations of management 14 qualifications, manpower, manpower training, and all that 15 sort of thing come in? Are they supposed to be considered 16 at the time of the COL or at the time of operation?
17 DR. SEARS : Everything should be considered at 18 the point of the COL. Any needs for additional manpower or 19 changes that aren't made there should be spelled out so that 20 I all criteria are known for what needs to be had.
21 Then it is up to the consortium, the utility, to 22 j meet those commitments. There should be no further 23 reviews after that operating license has been issued. The 24 criteria have been stated and everyone has agreed that is O.,
25 what is necessary to protect the health and safety of the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
ini 1A? 17An M.a mM I*- $1M11.24 6&d&. . . -
4770 05 08 l 61 DAVbur 1 public.
2 DR. CARBON: But there will presumably be reviews 3 to satisfy NRC that the criteria have been met?
4 DR. SEARS: That is correct. That sho ld be part 5 of the process, to spell out those confirmatory audits or 6l reviews, or whatever you would choose to call them.
1 7 I would like to talk about what we believe are 8 the benefits of the design certification and construction 9l operating license process.
10 We believe if it is successful that nuclear power 11 again will be competitive with other generation 12 alternatives.
O 13 We believe that the process will be successful 14 because a stable and efficient licensing process has been 15 shown in other countries to permit significant reductions in 16 the real cost of nuclear power. Reductions in cost occur 17 from two significant factors.
18 First off, the cost of borrowed funds will be 19 reduced because the investors and the lenders can perceive l
20 that once the design certification and the COL have been 21 cbtained the project progress is predictable and the 22 investment risk is reduced.
23 Secondly, the time from the start of construction 24 to plant operation is significantly reduced. This occurs O 25 i
because the design is essentially complete, the regulatory l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
T 147-1700 Narinnwide Cnverman 200.1 m
l 4770 05 09 62
/ '
-P)DAVbur 1 requirements are defined and stabilized prior to the 2 initiation of construction.
3 The result is reduced rework, optimized design, 4 and improved construction management. You know w at it is 5 that you have to do. Reduction in the construction time 6 significantly reduces escalation co'sts and finance charges 7 i for the project as well as assuring that we are able to meet 8 the needs of our customers.
9 (Slide.)
10 The proposed design certification / construction 11 and operating license process enhances public participation 12 in the licensing process.
\'J 13 { During the design certification proceedings, the 14 public has available the f t 11 information on the plant 15 design so that they may express their concerns about the 16 l adequacies of that design.
l 17 DR. REMICK: Fred, can I interrupt you?
18 There is one aspect of it that still surprises 1
19 j me, and it is related to what you just said; that is, it 20 seems if you are going to have a design as complete as you l
21 indicate at the design certification stage that you could 22 pretty well carry out a PRA.
23 l Now, as I understand it, you conduct a PRA before I
(~x., 24 l construction but not before design certification. Members v
25 of the public might want to know what the outcome of that i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 1
4770 05 10 63 j (s DAVbur 1 PRA is.
i 2 But, more - impo rtan tly , I thought one of the 3 valuable things with the PRA is that you could look to 4 alternative designs as a way of perhaps enhancing safety.
5 If you conduct the PRA af ter the design is complete, I am 6 not sure you are going to get that benefit.
7 DR. SEARS: I probably confused the issue a 8 little bit here. Part of going after the design 9 certification at the initial stage is to set the ground 10 rules for the PRA. The point is, with those ground rules 11 set, to have it done so that you do indeed show we meet the 12 criteria. ,
13 I think I answered an earlier question, I said we 14 do it at the COL. The final thing, as I say, yes, indeed, I 15 have done -- those assumptions I have met at the COL. But 16 in the design certification it is intended to bring that 17 forwa rd , to bring forward here's the results of it, but we 18 have to have set the framework.
19 DR. REMICK: At least for the internal 20 I initiators, I can see you doing that. Perhaps external 1
21 would have to be site dependent.
22 DR. SEARS: We hope in many cases to be able to ;
l 23 address the externals in an envelope that are going to be l l
24 met.
25 MR. MICHELSON: Some day the PRA should depend i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. !
202-347 ~1700 Nmzanunde Cmermae MD.11Mnda i
4770 05 11 64 1 DAVbur 1 upon the nuclear components selected, which hasn't happened 2 yet.
3 DR. REMICK: I understand, but you might have to 4 refine it.
5 MR. MICHELSON: I think you can make a nice first 6 cut at a PRA without having the components manufacturers 7 selected.
8 DR. SEARS: The intent is to use generic data at 9 that point and then to go to the nameplate.
10 DR. LEWIS: Can I ask a whimsical question? I 11 missed part of your talk, so I apologize. It may have been 12 covered.
O 13 But you list public participation enhanced as one 14 of the benefits.
15 Is it a benefit because you believe it improves 16 the safety of the design or because it improves the 17 atmosphere, period?
18 DR. SEARS: Mostly because it improves the 19 atmosphere that the whole thing is up front and that we can 20 4 clearly settle it on technical issues rather than emotional 21 issues.
22 So you deal with the aspect of the public health l
23 and safety. The information is available to allow the 24 public to question those items, and there are two
%/
~)
25 opportunities, one when you question the plant design itself ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
_ ~ _ _ _
4770 05 12 65 fl Ls'DAVbur 1 to assure that it meets the requirements.
2 There is a second opportunity when you start 3 dealing with the site-specific, and you now deal with how 4 does this apply in this area, and you are able to separate 5 the design of the plant from the local considerations.
6 I But in each case you have all the information 7 necessary. I think that enhances the participation as well 8 as changing the atmosphere that everything is decided up 9 front. You don't wait until it is completed and then say, 10 now, let's settle an issue.
11 DR. LEWIS: But from what you have just said, I 12 gather that you don't really envisage the public O 13 participation will produce any changes in the plant design?
14 DR. SEARS: I don't think I could say that. I 15 think there has been public participation which has resulted 16 in meaningful changes.
17 , DR. LEWIS: And have those been for the better?
l 18 DR. SEARS: The meaningful ones, yes, sir. There 19 l have also been other changes that have been done for reasons I
20 j of just coming to an agreement and saying, okay, if I do 21 this, will you leave me alone?
22 Hopefully, we move out of that scenario.
I 23 DR. LEWIS: Do you think any of the changes that 24 have resulted from public participation have degraded the 25 safety of the plant?
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l
- _ _ o
i 4770 05 13 66
(~ ,
hJDAVbur 1 DR. SEARS : Yes, I do, because I believe'they 2 detract the operators from the function they ought to be 3 doing.
4 DR. LEWIS: Thank you. I just wanted o get that 5 on the record. It is a mixed blessing.
6 MR. WYLIE: Let me ask a question. If you go 7 this route -- and the policy statement seems to be leaning 8 this way -- and you have got all the information, except you 9
haven' t bought the components, and you go ahead and issue a 10 design certification, at least as I read tne policy 11 l statement, then it is not open for litigation. The basis of I
12 l many of the questions that come up at public hearings are
'N~') 13 based on components.
14 Now, what is the legality of that?
15 DR. SEARS: Would you care for me to answer that 16 from my standpoint as an NS?
17 Our look at this is that in the desian documents 18 we have specified the performance and acceptance criteria 19 and that that has been the basis for making the decisions on 20 the safety of the plant. It is our job then to show that 21 the equipment we bought met those performance requirements i
l 22 and was installed in a way that we said it did, so that we 23 assure that level of safety.
,s 24 If we have done thzt, then we have answered the i !
\J' 25 question, and it is not operating new items that that l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
_ ._ .. ~ ... _.
4770 05 14 67 7
\1>\ DAVbur 1 safety is assured. The whole process always allows if there 2 is a new safety question of significance, for that to be 3 reviewed, and if it makes an improvement in safety, to 4 require changes to the plant.
5 MR. WYLIE: The challenge, of course, is based on .
l 6 experience with equipment with the industry, such as the 7 diesel generators are deficient and other components are l
8 ! deficient, that arise. It is a little hard to see how you I
9 can avoid those just by specifying that you meet certain 10 parameters because those are experienced deficiencies.
11 12 x> 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 1
,s 24 U
25 I I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l
- ff 1 t* 1*hn N.5 o n ia.id a F ,i mas en 9An 116 64 44
(3 4,40 06 01 68 1 DAVbw 1 DR. SEARS: It's not simply specifying that we 2 meet it. It's that we have defined the parameters that are 3 important to safety, and we must met those.
4 MR. WYLIE: Those are performance standards. I'm 5 talking about quality.
6 DR. SEARS : That's a performance standard also, 7 if quality is performance to specification, that's what 8 quality means.
9 MR. WYLIE: It is a little more than that.
10 MR. SCALETTI: If the piece of equipment was not 11 certified through the process, whether or not that piece of
( 12 equipment itself met or fell within the envelope of the 13 design on which the PRA was based, mitigation of that piece 14 of equipment being able to do the job is certainly a viable 15 option, bdcause that would not have been certified.
16 MR. REED: That is still open at the 17 site-specific stage.
18 MR. SCALETTI: It would be, if the piece of 19 i I equipment was not approved.
20 MR. MORIA: I think if a party came forth at the 21 COL hearing and wanted to challenge and met the test of 22 standing that they have evidence to show that a piece of 23 equipment used in the plant was not consistent with the 24 design that was certified, there is a possibility that that 25 could be, that that specific item could be perhaps litigated ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
ini 9 a1 91an hP..__.._J_f...-- QAA ild adJa
\
l 4770 06 02 69 ;
DAVbw 1 at that point in time, that there would have to be a showing l
2 I by that party, bringing the question.
3 MR. MICHSLSON: Could you clarify for me at what 4 point in time the COL hearing takes place.
5 MR. MORIA: When there's the marriage of a site :
6 to the design.
7 MR. MICHELSON: Defore the construction starts?
8 MR. MORIA: Correct.
9 l MR. MICHELSON: You haven't bought the component 10 yet, before the construction starts. I haven't bought my 11 valves yet. I've specified them. I've got them all in this 12 package, but I don't know who is going to supply them. I O 13 don' t know that until I get well into construction.
14 MR. RILEY: There is another opportunity -- prior 15 to approval for operation of the plant, there is another 16 opportunity for hearing. Again, if somebody can make a 17 showing, if necessary, there is still another opportunity.
18 MR. MICHELSON: It becomes a backfit at that 19 point, unless you show it didn't meet the performance 20 requirements.
I 21 MR. RILEY: You would have to show it didn't met 22 it.
23 MR. MORIA: That is right. You have to say
- 24 that. That's right.
25 MR. RILEY: It did not meet the certification.
ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
_ , - _ m._ __ __
I 4770 06 03 70 7-i / DAVbw 1 DR. SEARS: I would like to reply from our 2 viewpoint. Our viewpoint is that the COL is done before the 3 j construction, and that is the final hearing, but it is not a i /
4I hearing afterwards. And that is what we are proposing, that 5 we have specified what the acceptance criteria for that 6 plant is to meet its responsibilities, and that is what we 7 are proposing, and that if you meet those criteria, unless Si you define that there is a new issue, then you have met what 9 , the criteria was, and there is not another hearing, because 10 that goes back to the two-step licensing process.
11 MR. MICHELSON: That is what I thought. I don't i
12 l think you ever hear about it again.
I'l l
\' MR. SCALETTI: This proposed legislation sets 13 l 14 thes standard for a hearing under the one-step process. If i
15 j just prior to operation, there is a three-day period prior 16 to notice of operation, it has to be put forward in the 17 ,
Federal Register at that time and any challenges to the I
l 18 i design would be reviewed by the Commission. l 19 j MR. MICHELSON: Is that your understanding? l 20 l DR. SEARS: It is our understanding of what has '
21 been proposed. It is not our understancing of the way it 22 should be done. We believe it should be one-step 23 licensing.
7s 24 l MR. MICHELSON: That clears it up for me.
()
25 DR. SEARS: We believe that the one-step process ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Mn1 117 1*M h f . . . a - . m J . t'a . . . W 1114.4.44
4770 06 04 71 DAVbw 1 is important, because it defines the issues at the front end 2 and gets agreement on them, that it is very necessary, 3 because, in order to achieve stability, you must know what 4 the acceptance criteria are. The utility, the builder must 5 know and the NRC must know ahead of time. They must know 6 what they can expect us to do.' The public should 7 participate at that point, so that they deal with the 8 site-related issues.
9 The DC/ COL process, we believe, also enhances 10 safety, because it better utilizes both the industry and the 11 regulatory personnel. It allows the NRC, the vendors, the 12 AEs and the utilities to concentrate on the key issues on 13 fewer designs and it reduces the demands on the technical 14 resources by ever-changing criteria and design. This added 15 stability of engineering, construction, regulation and 16 operation and the resultant shortened construction period 17 will enable utili' ties to plan new plants with more 18 confidence. Utilities will be able to more accurately 19 predict their final costs and to effectively match capacity 20 l additions with growing customer demands.
21 In summary, I would like to emphasize that 22 nuclear power is not today, generally, a competitive 23 generation alternative for future plants in the United 24 States under the current licensing process. The industry
)
25 has proposed licensing reform which utilizes design ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS,
.... ... .... . .x.-
INC.
4770 06 05 72 DAVbw 1 certification and the COL, construction and operating 2 licensing.
3 We have elaborated today on the extensive design 4 information which will be completed and available to the 5 NRC. We have also submitted a white paper to the NRC, which 6 we will make available to you on this subject.
7 The design certification, construction, 8 operating license process is intended to provida a major 9 step toward reviving nuclear power as a viable, safe, 10 competitive generation alternative for this country. This 11 i will occur by reducing the cost, restoring investor 12 confidence in the design, regulation, construction and O 13 operation of nuclear facilities.
14 We, the AIF Study Group on Standardization, urge 15 your committee to take an active and aggressive role in 16 bringing about meaningful and timely licensing reforms, 17 which we've discussed here today.
l 18 I would like to thank you for the opportunity to 19 appear before you.
20 I will be happy to answer any further questions.
21 MR. MICHELSON: On the white paper you referred l 22 to, is that a fairly detailed document, which details more 23 of what you've presented here, or is it just a public 24 relations type document?
25 DR. SEARS: It was our submittal to the NRC, )
! l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
j
4770 06 06 73 I JDAVbw 1 which was mentioned back in November. It talks about 2 continuing the existing use of existing processes, and it 3 talks in more detail about the design certification COL. It 4l does not necessarily go into how it is described nd things 5 of that sort.
6 MR. MICHELSON: I have seen that one. It doesn't 7 commit the kinds of things that you're indicating you may be 8 willing to commit today. Is what you presented today, 9 presented in any written document as a proposal?
10 DR. SEARS : I'm trying to remember. I think part 11 of it is in priorities testimony before Congress. The 12 numbers that I have talked about today have been developing t
13 over the past several months as the Study Group has met, and 14 some of the work products of the Study Group will be 15 reflected in this.
16 MR. MICHELSON: Eventually, will we see a 17 f commitment of the kind that you presented today in report 18 fo rm?
19 DR. SEARS : Bob, can you help me on that? I 20 ' think we are intending to have a Study Group rcport. He was l i
i 21 asking, will there be a commi tment in further Study Group 22 products to the percent-complete type things.
1 23 MR. MICHELSON: To the definition of completo l
,- 24 design that was presented this morning.
i
( ~
25 VOICE: There will be a more detailed ,
i i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
"*' ? 4 ? **1)
- u w f_ .L w h.AA . A.Jd d
4770 06 07 74
/~N.
\_)DAVbw 1 description. I don' t think it makes a lot of sense to talk 2 about percentage design completion as opposed to designing 3 what you are going to provide, because it is widely 4 misunderstood.
5 MR. MICHELSON: When will we see that 6 description?
7 VOICE: There will be -- the Standardization 8 Group is meeting on the 17th. They are going to talk about 9 finalizing some of the products, but I can't commit right 10 now as to when it will be available, but I am hoping it will i
11 be toward the end of the month, but I can't commit to that.
12 MR. ETHERINGTON: Are the reactor suppliers
[')
\- 13 represented on the Study Group 14 DR. SEARS: Yes, sir, they are 15 VOICE: Can I just add one further thing? There 16 is an opportunity -- we do propose an opportunity for a 17 hearing in the operating license stage, if several threshold 18 criteria are met, but I can't tell you offhand what they l
19 are, but it is in our report, but they're a little tougher 20 <
criteria because of the opportunities the public has had in 1 21 advance.
l 22 DR. SEARS: The criteria we have been talking l
23 about in general indicate that there is new information or 24 lack of performance in some area, okay? In general, it is O' , 25 the new information issue that is in there.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
W L17.1? fin Narmnwuie Cnverman m33Mdd6
4770 06 08 75 DAVbw 1 MR. WYLIE: Are ther any other questi~ons of 2 Dr. Sears?
3 (No response.)
4 MR. WYLIE: If not, thank you, Dr. Sea s.
5 I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, a ten-minute 6 break.
7 MR. WARD: Fine.
8 (Recess.)
9 MR. WARD: Mr. Wylie.
10 MR. WYLIE: The next item on our agenda is the 11 presentation on the EPRI, Advanced Lightwater Reactor 12 Requirements Program.
13 Dr. Sears is going to put on his.EPRI hat, as 14 chairman of the Steering Committee, for the EPRI Advanced 15 Lightwater Reactor Program now and present that portion of 16 our program.
17 DR. SEARS : Good morning, again.
18 j For the record, my name is Fred Sears, Vice ;
! l 19 i President, Nuclear and Environmental Engineering for l 20 Northeast Utilities. I serve as the Chairman of the 21 Utilitius Steering Committee for the Advanced Lightwater 1
22 Reactor Program of the Electric Power Research Institute.
23 This Utility Steering Committee is composed of l 24 experience senior nuclear utility executives and iaanagers.
25 The Committee represents a broad experience base of nuclear ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-349-3700 Nauonwide Coverase 800-33HM6
4770 06 09 76
(.,
l_jDAVbw 1 design, construction, operation and maintenance. Their 2 experience is used to guide the EPRI ALWR program 3 activities, which you will be hearing more about today.
4 These activities are a major part of t e Advanced 5 Lightwater Reactor activities in the U.S.
6 (Slide.)
7 I hope you can see this. I will use this just to 8 give an overview and then turn it over to EPRI.
9 There are really kind of four major elements of 10 what is going on in the ALWR efforts in the U.S. today.
11 The first is determining the set of regulatory 12 requirements for the next generation of lightwater
()
'NJ 13 reactors.
14 You will be hearing considerably more about this 15 from Dave Moran of the NRC later on today, when he talks 16 about the activities that we have ongoing.
I 17 Secondly, is the generation of a set of 18 utility-approved, and I would emphasize the words 19 ,
" utility-approved," and NRC certified plant requirements i
20 ! documents for advanced lightwater reactor nuclear power i 21 plants.
22 Carl Stahlkopf of EPRI and Dan Noble of EPRI will 23 be talking much more to you this morning about that effort.
fs 24 This is one of our major activities in trying to determine e
t .
LJ 25 i what the utilities want from an advanced lightwater I
\
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- rf9.1.t" 1*m % inn a nd, Inusrma SOfL114.ALIA
l l
1 4770 06 10 77
'zs'DAVbw reactor, so we can combine that and ensure that we have a 1 i 2 plant that is usable, as well as safe.
3 Those two are mutually necessary to each other.
4 I They are not exclusive.
5 Secondly -- or thirdly is, having gotten this 6 requirements document, to develop detailed engineering 7 design and obtain NRC licensing certification for the next 8 generation lightwater reactor and toward the end of the EPRI 9 , presentation, you will be hearing from Del Bunch of the l
10 Department of Energy regarding support activities they are 11 carrying out, which are in concert with the requirements 12 document, to try to get a certification.
/^S I Y 13-l Fourthly, and I want to emphasize that this is a 14 separate activity from the requirements document itself, ils 15 a conceptual design of a small, and in our mind, that is, 16 less than are equal to 600 megawatt electric advanced 17 PWF/BWR. The requirements document, at utility insistence, l
18 l is based upon evolution, taking known technology and i
19 l applying it.
20 -
This last bullet here, we have allowed the word i
21 l " revolution" to come in somewhat and asked them to give the 1
22 j designers some blank pieces of paper and see what they can l
l 23 l come up with, applying what is known today and seeing how we 73 24 , can make major step changes in the design of the smaller
(_/ l 25 ; reactor.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- T.117.1*m N2rusnmula N arna. 2nti.114 44JA
1 i
I
.1 l
4770 06 11 78 i
/~
1T/DAVbw 1 Many of these step changes are possible because 2 of the small size and because you can rely on more passive 3 features. You will also be hearing about this from Carl 4 Stahlkopf and Dan Noble in their presentations. .
5 With that introduction, I would like to ask Carl 6 and Dan if they would come up and begin their presentation 7 on the EPRI program.
8 MR. REED: Question. I keep hearing about this 9 smaller reactor. Certainly, there are advantages to a 10 smaller-sized reactor for other customers and potential 11 customers and other utilities and smaller utilities, but it 12 seems to me that the overhead -- we'll call it the overhead 13 -- of the regulatory process and the activism and societal l
14 activities, the challenges are all so overwhelming that you 15 just can't make up for the eco.wmics and make favorable 16 economics out of of smaller sizes. It is even difficult, 17 perhaps impossible to do it now in larger sizes.
18 Are you really going to be able to overcome that 19 overhead burden?
20 i DR. SEARS: One of the requirements that we have 21 laid on EPRI in their small reactors is that that, indeed, i
22 be accomplished. The Steering Committee spent yesterday l 23 listening to two presentations on small reactors.
24 Certainly, within those presentations, there did appear to 25 be come hope that the small reactor could, basically, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
4770 06 12 79 DAVbw 1 produce power at the same cost as the large one. There wer 2 some inherent characteristics they were able to draw on, and 3 I think that is one of the things we want to see if we can 4 do. We believe it is possible. We hope it is po sible. If 5 it is not,.they will not have a future.
6 MR. REED: As an example, do you think you can 7 cut the number of personnel involved in the activity?
8 DR. SHEWMON: Why don' t we wait and see what they 9 have to say?
10 MR. REED: Well, this is the general list here.
11 DR. SHEWMON: But you are asking a specific 12 question. I would like to hear what he has to say on it.
O 13 DR. SEARS: I will tell you at this point, I 14 don' t know. That's not been part of what they have 15 presented. They have presented some things which greatly 16 simplify and may well help to reduce the Staff, but as we 17 move into Phase 2 of that program, that will be one of the 18 l questions we have to have answered. We don't know at this 19 point.
20 DR. OKRENT: Despite Professor Shewmon's interest 21 . in moving ahead, I have a general kind of a question.
22 As I am sure you are well aware, from time to 23 time, under various auspices, there are discussions, 24 contemplations on what safety improvements might or should 73 l
%J l 25 be censidered or made in reactors not yet built. l l
l l
m ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. a
4770 06 13 80
/~N;
'l 'DAVbw 1 I am interested in understanding how your group 2 attacked this issue, if it did.
3 Was it set up as a specific topic and dealt with 4 in detail, or just what?
5 DR. SEARS: That has probably been one of the 6 more controversial issues that we have had in our discussion 7 within the Steering Committee. We have, indeed, specified, 8 and you will be hearing about this from Carl, we have 9 specified targets within the requirements document for 10 safety of the plant and the public, and those requirements, 11 both were to protect the public and were to protect the 12 investment. We have put, as a target, a core damage (s) 13 frequency of less than 10 to the minus 5 per year, and we 14 also have an exposure to the public at the sito boundary 15 goal, I believe it is 25 rem at a frequency of less than 10 16 to the minus 6, if I am not mistaken, per year.
17 Those are part of the requirements, and the 18 ! designs that are put forward, indeed, have to meet that.
i 19 That is part of our requirements document.
l 20 l Inherent in that are the discussions yet to take I !
21 place on me thodology. Again, as we talked this morning, 1 1
22 earlier this morning, on how those goals are set in 23 determining what the basic assumptions, what assumptions are
, -) 24 l' made with respect to external events, what assumptions are
\_/
25 made with respect to human errors. Things of that type.
J
$CE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ,
l
1 4770 06 14 81 m
b- DAVbw 1 But there is a specific target within those requirements to 2 help assure an improved level of saftey over the existing 3 designs.
4 5
1 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 ,
13 14 ,
15 1
16 l l
17 !!
18 l
19 20 <
21 22 23 24 25 ACE _ FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m..._......~_ _ , _
l I
4770 07 01 ! 82 I
,rn i l
LJDAVbur 1 MR. EBERSOLE. One of the point topics taken out l
2 this morning -- but it is only one point topic among many -- j 3 is the topic of sabotage. There are others like that.
4 There is no guidance in the current re ulatory 5 structure as to what to do about it beyond general 6 identification of the issue. You must take this and harden 7 it into a reality that you either are or are not going to 8 deal with.
9 Have you got a piece of paper that picks up all 10 these things which are not within the current regulatcry 11 structure which you abrogated in periods of duress, which 12 represent a set of items against which we do not want to
(.)
13 build new plants?
l 14 DR. SEARS: You will hear today described a 15 process in which we are working with the NRC as to how 16 I various unresolved safety issues are being addressed.
17 The issue of sabotage I believe is specifically 18 covered in Chapters 3, 4, and 5, to the degree that it can 19 j be right now, of our requirements documents, which are i
20 i presently in preparation.
l 21 ,
MR. MICHELSON: I think what we are referring to, 22 l though, are resolved safety issues which were resolved in a 23 l less than fully satisfactory manner for advanced design but 24 were deemed to be satisfactory to fix what you have already 7)
\ >
25 I built. I think that is what Jesse was referring to.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l
- n* 1.f* 1*nn *, u . in a ..in N an s m Bar 114 Ed dd
4770 07 02 83 DAVbur 1 Don't look at the resolution and say that, 2 therefore, it is a good way to design.
3 DR. SEARS: Each of those issues is discussed l
4 with the NRC. I think you will hear both Carl and Dave on 5 that and the process we have been going through.
6 We have looked at some -- I think the number is 7 703 various issues to determine whether they are applicable 8 to the ALWR, whether they have already been settled 9 satisfactorily, or whether there is a different approach on 10 those issues within the ALWR.
11 I think you will hear about that today.
12 MR. MICHELSON: A good example is fire N 13 protection, which we didn't hear'about in the subcommittee 14 because you haven't addressed fire protection.
15 MR. STAHLKOPF: We haven't addressed it yet.
16 MR. MICHELSON: You haven't even met the present 17 regulatory requirement, which isn't a very good way to 18 design.
19 DR. SEARS: It is more than a matter of we 20 haven't addressed it yet. Remember, we are in the front 21 areas of our requirements document. We do have areas in 22 which that will be defined.
23 DR. OKRENT: Just as a point of education, that 24 25 R off-site with a frequency of 10 to the minus 6 per 25 '
reactor-year, I assume that was?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERSdNC. l
4770 07 03 84
-)
b>DAVbur DR. SEARS:
1 10 to the minus 6.
2 DR. OKRENT: That was with evacuation or what?
3 DR. SEARS: That requirement is placed on the 4 plant, and now the requirements document and the design must 5 specify how that is met. It is under accident conditions.
6 DR. OKRENT: I understand that. I am just trying I
7l to understand, does it assume that there is evacuation?
8 DR. SEARS: No, it does not.
9 DR. OKRENT: So it is with no evacuation?
10 DR. SEARS: That is correct.
11 DR. OKRENT: Will we hear more about that today?
12 DR. SEARS: If you choose to.
O- 13 DR. OKRENT: I am interested.
14 MR. STAHLKOPF: Thank you, Fred.
15 For the record, my name is Carl Stahlkopf, 16 Director of the Nuclear Systems and Materials Department at 17 the Electric Power Research Institute, and have the l l 18 responsibility for the advanced light water reactor 19 program.
20 i I would like to elaborate just a bit on the i 1 21 introductory remarks that Fred made, and really I think it l
22 is appropriate to point out to this committee the number of 23 ! organizations that are playing a major role in this effort, 24 and I really choose to look at thir not as EPRI's advanced 25 light water reactor program -- I think that would be a ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, LNC.
?n7.1M_1?dn N ar ma d. &- 2un 121.444& . . . .
4770 07 04 85 DAVbur 1 terrible misnomer -- but the United States light water 2 reactor program because it really does involve many other 3 segments of the industry other than EPRI.
4 (Slide.)
5 As Fred quite rightly pointed out, there are four
- 1 6 major portions to the program. Three of those EPRI is 7 involved in. Two of those segments DOE is involved in. NRC 8 is involved in all four of the segments of this.
9 Let me try to make that differentiation for you.
10 The utility requirements document which you will i
11 be hearing about today has just completed the first chapter 12 of a 13-chapter submission to the NRC. This first chapter i
O 13 can be thought of as the overall design chapter and, in our 14 parlance, probably represents approximately one-third of the 15 work of this effort.
16 This utility requirements document, although it 17 is somewhat size transparent for purposes of comparison, is
- 18 really centered around an 1100-megawatt plant, and this 19 utility requirements document effort should not be confused i
20 l with the small plant design development.
I 21 I found there was some confusion in the 22 subcommittee yesterday, so I wanted to make that 23 differentiation, that these are two separate entities and 24 should not be confused by the committee. 1 25 ! I would like to say that DOE is helping EPRI l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
4770 07 05 86 O
'kJDAVbur 1 by supporting specific design work around Chapter 6 and 2 Chapter 10 of the utility requirements work.
3 We have been working for almost four years now in 4 the regulatory stabilization area with the Nuclear 5 Regulatory Commission to try to understand and to define the 6 set of safety and licensing issues that a new reactor would 7 be subject to.
8 I think we have gone a long way in doing that, 9 and I think that you will hear from both Dave Moran and 10 perhaps Carl Neal today about where that program stands, the 11 philosophy behind it, and where we will be going on a 12 regulatory front.
13 I think the staff should be commended for the 14 really hard work in going from some 700-plus issues down to 15 a base, I think, of in the neighborhood of 46 issues, which 16 are used for the base regulatory design requirements for 17 outstanding issues that we will be facing in the utility 18 requirements document effort.
19 The small plant design effort I think I will only 20 treat briefly today, and I will do as I did with the 21 subcommittee yesterday, offer to come back at a time of your 22 choice and speak on it in more depth, the reason being there 23 are a number of interesting and innovative aspects to this.
24 I believe if we were to get into this, into the depth 25 necessary to really make it understandable or interesting ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS,1NC.
4770 07 06 87 a s'DAVbur 1 to the committee, it would eat up more time than allowed 2 here.
3 Let me simply say that we started out not quite a 4 year ago tendering for proposals for small reacto s in the 5 600-megawatt range. We received proposals then from four 6 teams representing the four major light water reactor 7 vendors in the United States. At that time we trimmed down 8 ,
to three teams, the three teams that were left at the 9 beginning of the combustion.
10 They were Combustion Engineering -- I am sorry, 11 Combustion Engineering was dropped out. Babcock & Wilcox 12 ,
and UE&C was one team that was carried forward.
( ) !
13 l Westinghouse and Burns & Roe was the second team. A third 14 l team of GE, Bechtel, and'MIT.
15 We have subsequently gone through one more round l
16 '
of competition and are now commencing on a three-year 17 program for a more detailed program, and we are now down to 18 two programs -- one BWR team, GE/Bechtel/MIT, and one PWR 19 ,
team, Westinghouse / Burns & Roe.
20 i. The small plant designs that have been 21 developed -- and I must say that they are in a very nascent 22 state at this time -- share one common theme, and that is 23 l going very iteavily toward passive safety features. That is 24 '
a very large departure from what you will see with their g-))
N 25 l current designs.
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
4770 07 07 88
('8 h/ DAVbur 1 So with that. I really choose to speak not any 2 more on the small plant development, but would make both 3 EPRI and the design teams available to you at a later date 4 so we can take the proper time to put out before you these 5 more revolutionary designs.
6 (Slide.)
7 As Fred has stated, the utility requirements 8 document effort really was set up to build on a broad base
~
9 of experience of the present U.S. utilities with the 10 operation of the current generation plants. It was felt 11 very strongly by the utility community that if they went 12 into a second generation of nuclear power plants they very O 13 I strongly wanted the experience that they had, both good and i
14 bad, to be fed back into the design of those plants, and at 15 the time EPRI undertook this program it was not clear that 16 there was a mechanism for this to happen.
17 l So we set up our program. It is governed by a 18 Steering Committee, which is led by Fred. Its members are 19 drawn from senior utility people who have significant i
20 1 hands-on plant operating experience. It is their experience 21 and the experience they can draw from their staffs that 22 really help guide us in the direction that we go in the 23 development of the requirements for :his next generation of i
- 24 reactors.
25 l We are working with a variety of contractor i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I W 1.J? Mfari kL.- L I*- ana.1m . .-
l l
4770 07 08 89 i f%
kl DAVbur 1 teams -- NSS suppliers, and architect engineers. l l
2 The major people who are involved are the teams ,
3 of Combustion Engineering and Duke Power, General Electric.
t 4 Bechtel and MIT should also be on that list. Westinghouse, 5 Sargent & Lundy, and Commonwealth Edison and Stone & Webster 6 and Yankee Atomic.
7 In addition to that, we are using two consultant 8 organizations for assistance to EPRI as an extension of our 9 current staff, those being MPR Associates on primarily 10 PWR-related issues and Sol Levy, Incorporated for primarily 11 BWR-related issues.
12 (Slide.)
13 The requirements document itself will be 14 submitted and, as a matter of fact, has just been submitted 15 in its first chapter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 16 for their approval. As it stands now, the NRC will be 17 issuing a draft SER for each chapter, with a final overall 18 SER when the thirteenth chapter is completed and into the 19 Commission.
20 I should also say that in the follow-on program, 21 which Del Bunche will speak about today, the design 22 certification program, memorandums of understanding exist i 23 between the U.S. Department of Energy, EPRI, and the vendor, p 24 who will be doing his work toward design certification.
(_) i 25 ! That EPRI requirements document will be used as the design i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS INC. l
4770 07 09 90 T
('dDAVbur s 1 basis for that regulatory submission.
2 Now, EPRI will be reviewing the licensing 3 submissions before they are made to ensure that they are in
/
4 accordance with the requirements document, and we are very 5 pleased to see that both DOE, as the sponsor, and the 6 vendors, GE and Combustion Engineering, who have been 7 selected, view very positively the hard work and insight 8 coming from the utilities to guide them for their next 9 generation submissions.
10 (Slide.)
11 I think one need you need to understand about the 12 EPRI program, we feel that our program itself is fully 13 supportive of the industry's effortn to develop standardized 14 nuclear plants, but the EPRI requirements document program 15 itself does not develop a standardized plant. It develops 16 requirements, which then the vendors or the vendor and the 17 architect engineer teams subsequently take through the FDA 18 or certification process to gain standardization.
19 We feel that we provide a common base for the 20 ' reactor vendors to come in with other standardizations, but 21 we ourselves are not standardizers. I think there was some 22 confusion in the subcommittee yesterday about how EPRI 23 played a role in standardization. I believe this addresses 24 that question.
V,f g 25 I think it is also important to note that there l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I I
i l
4770 07 10 t 91
/~'s l iJ DAVbur 1 has been quite a bit of foreign interest in the requirements 2 document effort and in the small reactor program.
3 We presently have memorandums of understanding, 4 either in the process of being signed or having b en signed, 5 with Taiwan Power for their participation in the utility 6 requirements document, with Japan Atomic Power Company for 7 their participation in the development of the small 8l reactors.
l 9 '
We have exchanged a memorandum of understanding
- 10 ; which is under negotiation with Korea Electric Power and 11 with Kanzai of Japan for their participation in this 12 ,
program.
/~T :
k- 13 ! Again, let me state that the program will not be-i 14 tilted to meet the needs of the foreign countries. Part of 15 l the information contained in those MOUs makes it very clear i
16 ! that they are participating to gain education in the 17 l American system, but our systems will not look at things 18 that will be uniquely of interest to foreign parties.
19 i (Slide.)
20 I think I would like to speak just a bit on the 21 i first effort that we have been working with the NRC on with l
22 l this program. That is the regulatory stabilization process.
23 l l
c3 24 l When we first began to talk with Fred and others
(\._ /
) i I
25 i of our Utility Steering Committee about the possibility of ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- - , . - , . _ . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . _ . . .
4770 07 11 92
(~%
' DAVbur 1 putting together a requirements program, it became very 2 clear that before you could set the requirements for the 3 next generation reactor it would be necessary to understand 4 what regulatory restraints would be placed on tha reactor.
5 We came up to see Mr. Denton and Mr. Palladino at 6 that time and spoke with them about trying to understand in 7 more detail just exactly what would this effort face, what l
8 were the actual outstanding safety and licensing issues.
9 They were kind enough to send us back tens of 10 , pounds of books, which said within these are contained the 11 l cutstanding safety and licensing issues, and when you go i
12 through them why don' t you get back to our staf f and6 1et's 13 see if we agree.
l 14 Well, that was the beginning of a program that 15 has taken us --
16 (Slide.)
17 -- from a position in 1983, where when all was l
18 l said and done we and the Commission agreed that there were 19 l some potential 588 issues at that time, to a date where we l
20 see new issues coming in at a rate of about 30 a year. So ;
- i 21 l in 1986 we are looking at some 703 issues.
1 22 During that time we have worked with NRC, with I i
23 l Dave Moran, with Carl Mule, and his folks, to understand how
, -) 24 these issues may or may not be applicable to the advanced
"\_ ) ,
25 light water reactor requirements document.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l
- (19 1 f
- 9"Y % .a .J.(*.. QdV1 11( (( d i
4770 07 12 93 4 )DAVbur 1 You will hear from Dave today. I don't intend to 2 get in and make his presentation, but you will hear from him 3 and Carl how we have changed this number from some 703 down 4 to a base of about 46 -- this number fluctuates u and down 5 almost daily. I think 46 is the appropriate number -- which 6 are serving as our design basis licensing issues.
7 Also, Dave will speak to you about screening 8 criteria which will be used as new issues come in -- again, 9 we anticipate at a rate of about 30 a year. They may or may -
10 not be backfitted in the process, depending on whether they 11 meet a certain screen which has been agreed upon by both 12 organizations.
13 14 15 16 17 18 j 19 20 21 l 22 23 1
24 ! '
l (1) 25 1 l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
4770 08 01 94 a'h
\ J DAV/bc 1 I think it's probably most appropriate for us now 2 to talk about chapter one. I know the subcommittee had an 3 opportunity to look at chapter one yesterday and the 4 executive summary that went along with it.
5 We have more copies today. Hopefully, while we 6 won't have enough for the entire committee, those whom we 7 miss, we'll get out and federal express to you probably 8 tomorrow.
9 At this juncture, I would like to tur, it over to 10 Dan Noble, who has been responsible for the generation of 11 chapter one and is in charge of the entire utility 12 requirements effort.
bl
'~
13 MR. NOBLE: My name is Dan Noble, with the 14 Electric Power Research Institute. My comments today will 15 l be focused on the utility requirements document.
16 I will be talking about where we've come to date 17 and where we'll be going with the requirements document 18 effort in the coming couple of years.
19 We have made available or are making available I
20 '
copies of documents I have examples of here. One is an 21 executive summary to our set of requirements documents and I
22 chapter one.
23 ! (Slide.)
24 In a short and very capsuled form, I would like O 25 to talk about what requirements are, because requirements ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m,. ,,. m_ __ _
!f 4770 08 02 95
- DAV/bc 1 are not design information. Requirements, as cast in our 2 set of requirements, are those features that the 3 U.S. utilities desire in advance, like water reactor 4 plants.
5 So it's an extensive compilation of design, 5 construction and plant performance requirements for an i
7 advanced plant. And it ^ertainly reflects what utilities 8 want as we proceed through review and approval with the 9 utility steering committee.
10 ! And it certainly will reflect NRC goals and 11 criteria as we proceed to the review of the various 12 chapters.
(~,
x/ -
13 Incidentally, the review of chapter one is 14 commencing. Chapter one was submitted to the NRC staff on 15 Tuesday of this week to begin their review process.
16 We see this document as a starting point for l
17 I subsequent detailed engineering which establishes 18 conformance to these utility requirements, and provides the 19 ' basis for the development of standard plant designs of the 20 type discussed here earlier today.
1 21 (Slide.) l
\ l 22 MR. EBERSOLE : Can I ask a question?
23 In establishing the calendar basis for this 73 24 design year, is due regard taken for the fact that the load i )
25 , growth problem and the declining status of our existing i
ACE _ FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
.,4.,. m . - . . . 4 . m . .. . . . _ , _
1 1
e 4770 08 03 96
&_/DAV/bc 1 plants forecasts the need to get going on some sort of 2 generation on some sort of calendar basis?
3 I take it that consideration is built in here 4 somewhere, o'ut I rather think that it's projected a good 5 deal beyond where we really need new plants.
6 MR. NOBLE: Our effort, and we consult 7 continuously with the member utilities of EPRI and attempt 8 to match our schedules with their needs; our effort has 9 recently been accelerated and I will be talking about that 10 as I proceed through the presentation.
11 It's been accelerated in particular to match up 12 effectively with the Department of Energy process that Del 13 Bunche will be reporting on in a few minutes.
14 MR. EBERSOLE : Was it anticipated before this 15 plant came into operation that there would be a substantial 16 building of fossil-fired or oil-fired or whatever 17 atmospheric pollution plants that we currently produce?
18 MR. NOBLE: Many utilities have said that the 19 nuclear generation option is not a real viable one for them 20 j in the short-term. And if they need to select a generating 21 plant, it would be a fossil plant or some other type of 22 generation option for the very short-term.
23 As I said, we have submitted chapter one. It is 24 an overall -- its title is Overall Requirements. And it O 25 builds a foundation or a basis for detailed and more ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-1700 Nauonwide Coverama 200d & dada . ._. . _ . . _ _
O 4770 08 04 97 (D
._/ DAV/ bc 1 specific requirements to follow. It covers design bases, 2 statements, materials, constructability, maintainability, 3 and so on.
4 We have completed in a draft state cha ter two.
5 That chapter is currently undergoing review by the utility 6 steering committee. And we had a meeting to begin that 7 review process this week with that committee.
8 We have, in the process of preparation, chapters 9 three, four and five, which deal with many of the key
-l 10 features of the Nuclear Island.
1 11 We have accelerated our schedule, as I mentioned '
12 previously, so that submittals to the NRC for review on 13 chapters three, four and five will occur in the summer of 14 1987, with subsequent chapters to follow in a rather
)
15 expeditious manner. l
{
16 So that, by early 1988, the essential elements of 17 the complete plant requirements have been completed and 18 submitted for review. That's our current schedule as set 19 forth in our program.
20 As you can see, the chapters cover the complete l
21 plant scope, and the participation by our contractor team, 22 which represents a cross-section of contractors active in 23 nuclear design and the nuclear design and construction 24 business in the United States are participating in that O 25 program.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
1 l
4770 08 05 98
(~) l
&_ JDAV/bc 1 DR. OKRENT: Question. In which of those l 2 chapters should I expect to find objectives or requirements ;
3 on core melt frequency per reactor year, off site dose 4 limits per reactor year, things of this sort?
5 MR. NOBLE: The base requirement, the numbers 6 that Fred Sears quoted to you, the 10 to the minus 5 core 7 melt frequency, core damage frequency, and the off site 8 exposure limit, those numbers appear in chapter one. Those 9 requirements, those goals, appear in chapter one.
10 The process of establishing a set of requirements 11 to completely fulfill those goals, howpver, are going to be 12 filled out in the succeeding chapters.
- ' 13 For example, chapter six, which is the one on 14 plant layout, will contain much of the information on 15 building arrangement and features of separation and routing 16 of equipment, both mechanical and electrical, which will 17 l address some of the concerns I have heard raised earlier on l
18 j fire protection and security.
i 19 I I have also addressed, of course, the important i
20 ; subject of core melt frequency. But there will be -- the i
21 answer to that question is that there will be a continuing 22 l!
filling out of requirements which will support and implement 1
23 i the overall base requirement of 10 to the minus 5.
l 7s 24 DR. OKRENT: We all know that there are
( )
l 25 '
uncertainties and estimates or predictions cf such numbers. 1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-34-F00 Nationwide Coverage 900-33HM6
t 4770 08 06 '99
(_[DAV/bc 1 How does this program plan to deal with the existence of 2 uncertainties when it assigns objectives like this?
3 MR. NOBLE: One of the things that was decided 4 early on that we would need to do, this was decid d really 5 at the point of review of these numbers or this goal with 6 the utili ty steering committee, is that it would be 7 necessary for this program to define the methodology and the 8 ! assumptions inherent in reaching a conclusion as noted.
l 9 j That process of definition of stating the terms 10 and the way that number is reached is in process at this 11 I
, time.
12 ,DR . OKRENT: Do we know what 10 to the minus 5 (m
k_' 13 l per year means now? I mean, is it a mean? Is it something
, 14 i that the staff could say we have reasonable assurance that 15 it has been met? How would you categorize it at this time?
16 MR. NOBLE: Are you directing that question at 17 i me?
'. 8 l DR. OKRENT: Yes. You're the one at the podium.
19 MR. NOBLE: We have enough assurance that that 20 l can be met given reasonable assumptions that we have put it i
21 forth as an objective.
22 So we have enough assurance to publish that 23 ,
number as an objective and the utilities have enough 7_
24 assurance that it can be met with advanced design concepts
? ) ,
'~'
25 l that they've agreed to let us publish it.
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-u m 00 Narierwide Covmar S M 116-6646
4770 08 07 100
(_ JDAV/bc 1 The manufacturers and the contractors that we 2 deal with have enough assurance that they believe they can 3 meet it with detailed design features.
4 DR. OKRENT: Let me draw on an example from 5 another aspect of the entire nuclear fuel cycle with regard 6 to the geologic disposal of high level radioactive waste.
7 l The EPA has adopted the standard which permits 8 ! certain releases and also states that these releases shall i
9 not be exceeded where the likelihood, for example, of more 10 than 1 in 10 ove 10,000 years.
11 ! And if I understand the staff's approach, they 12 plan to have reasonable assurance that the EPA standards are t/ 13 met. -
14 And there's more parts to it than this. Do you 15 have in mind something that resembles this? Or, just what 16 do you have in mind?
17 i MR. NOBLE: I'm not familiar with the process you 18 l referred to, so I really can't comment on whether ours will 1
19 resemble it.
20 l The other statement that I think I can make at i
21 this time is we intend to define a set of conditions of 22 reaching that number. It is not defined currently.
23 i And I couldn't comment in the kind of detail I I
,- 24 l think you're looking for at this meeting. We expect, as the
(3J l 25 program progresses, to be able to do that. We think it's l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202 W . mon marionwide coverue 8(D 33M
4770 08 08 101 DAV/bc 1 essential that we do that. However, we're not prepared to 2 do it at this juncture of our process.
3 DR. OKRENT: Okay.
4 MR. NOBLE: I want to talk about some f the 5 features first in general, some of the very important 6 features that the utilities have specified in chapter one as 7 the bases for moving forward with detailed requirements.
8 (Slide.)
9 We've been discussing safety just now. And
- 10 that's the first topic up, and the one of greatest 11 importance . The utilities and the personnel participating 12 in this review at EPRI have placed a great deal of 13 emphasis in chapter one on the subject of safety, and have 14 placed some very challenging goals to attempt to establish,
! 15 prove, sustain in the fulfilling of the requirements out of j 16 the detailed design.
17 ! We intend to do that through some emphasis in i
18 l some general categories of effort. One of those, and a l
19 I mattar of great importance to us, is the process of 20 l simplifying plants from the plant operator's viewpoint.
21 I'll talk a little bit more about that in just a moment.
l 22 ! We think it's essential that design margins be 23 improved in plant designs. I'll talk a little more about i l
24 that later.
O 25 This whole subject of these plant designs as they ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
232 347-3 % Nanonwide Coverase M33H646
4770 08 09 102
( DAV/bc 1 appear, as they are envisioned through the eyes of the plant 2 operator, are most important.
3 And, of course, we do intend to employ 7
4 quanti".ative risk assessment methodologies.
5 DR. OKRENT: Containment is not specifically 6 identified as an area in which you will achieve improved 7 safety. Is it that you feel the existing containments are 8 the ultimate? That they may not be the ultimate, but
~
9 they're good enough and can hardly be made much better? Or 10 just what?
11 MR. NOBLE: Let me show you where in our schedule 12 of events here we'll be addressing containment.
13 (Slide.)
14 In chapter five, currently, that's under 15 preparation in a very preliminary kind of outline form, 16 there is a section on containment as it applies to safety 17 systems, which is the title of chapter five.
18 DR. OKRENT: But what I was getting at is, in the 19 sense management, if I were managing a project, I would 20 early on identify things that I thought were going to 21 warrant emphasis. In effect, you had a short list.
22 And I only observed that that short list did not 23 include containment.
24 MR. NOBLE: That list was really kind of a O 25 , general level, I think, above an area that I would include ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-1700 Nanonwide Coverase E n11&ddd6
4770 08 10 103 im U DAV/bc 1 the list of the subject of containment. Containment is very 2 definitely on the list for improvements. Very definitely.
3 I think we see it as an area of concern.
4 Certainly, from the public health and safety poin of view.
5 So we see it as essential in establishing advanced reactor 6 requirements to give very, very careful and thorough 7 consideration to the subject of containment integrity.
8 (Slide.)
9 one of the needs expressed in our requirements is 10 the need for greater design margins. It's related to 11 simplification, I think, but, moreover, it's j ust flat-ou t 12 related to improvements in plant designs 'and things like n
U 13 impreved core thermal margins; having the ability to operate 14 the plant where you're not real close to limits.
15 So that it's a continual disturbance and a l
16 concern to the operators. It certainly involves tradeoffs, 17 and we're always concerned about those tradeoffs. We 18 obviously have the economic factors of cost before us, but 19 we believe that it's possible to make some definitive I
20 improvements in plant design margins.
21 (Slide.)
22 In the requirements document there's a very heavy 23 emphasis placed on utilizing 30 years of commercial nuclear 24 power experience. So, where practical, we're going to use 25 the fully mature designs and equipment that have been ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
292 147.t'no Nationwide Coverage R(W 314-%We
4770 08 11 104
/"
L_s%DAV/bc 1 established and proven over time.
2 We certainly want to employ the fixes to the 3 well-known problems of nuclear power plants that have been 4 established. However, there are going to be case where 5 there are technological improvements that we're going to 6 want to take advantage of.
7 Maybe the best example of that is the case of 8 plant instrumentation. So,.therefore, we're developing some 9 general criteria to take advantage of those advanced
- 10 technologies, 11 First of all, where there's a clear benefit, 12 there's an extremely high confidence of success, and where
-( 13 we have some experience in comparable environmental 14 situations.
15 So that's our developing situation with respect 16 to reliance on experience. I want to show you in the next 17 three slides some of the specific and I believe quite 18 aggressive overall requirements that are set forth in our 19 chapter one.
20 l (Slide.)
21 The safety goals targets we have established were 22 discussed somewhat. They clearly indicated at the top they 23 the first priority of our program.
24 There are a set of plant performance requirements O 25 that have been established. The first of these relates to l
, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
M07-Ni2 - CD0DC2D _ _______--- - -- - __-
4770 08 12 105 O
DAV/bc 1 plant availability. Plant availabilities in this country 2 are not good; they lag behind those of other countries.
3 Those plant availability numbers are as good or 4 better than what's being achieved in the U.S., an here in 5 the world, excuse me.
6 I think they're somewhat better in fact than 7 most. It calls for a very high confidence in the 8 operability and reliability of plant equipment systems.
9 10 11 12 O n 14 15 16 17 l 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 O 25 ACE _ FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
,m mj0 09 01 106 1 DAVbw 1 It calls for specific numbers of 87 percent 2 overall availability, but really the plant is designed so 3 that it can operate at a much higher level, when e are not 4 encountering outages of lengthy duration for some purpose.
5 You can see that the refueling interval noted there is an 6 18-day fueling interval with the ability to operate or 7 having the option to operate for two years between 8
l refuelings and that the reliability of the instrumentation i
9 i systems to be designed and the characteristics, the dynamics l
10 of the steam and fluid flow and the plant be such that 11 l inadve r, tent trips are drastically reduced from what are p
C 12 currently experienced.
13 Plant lifetime is to be established, so that 14 components of systems are designed for a 60-year life, 15 recognized that in many cases the service life of components 16 will not be of that length, for good reasons. So the plant 17 layout will be such that there will be greater ease of 18 either complete removal and replacement or partial removal 19 ; that is necessary to sustain that 60-year life.
20 l DR. OKRENT: Excuse me. Under availability, 21 where it says " designed for 92 percent annual availability,"
22 i do you have in mind designed and tested? It is my l 7, 23 l understanding that in Japan, at least for some components,
) 24 '
l the vendors subjects them to tests which provide, indeed, a 25 much higher assurance that in the plant they are less likely ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
,m, m ~ . m_ _
4770 09 02 107 O
t / DAVbw 1 to give difficulty. He doesn't just design better.
2 I was wondering if you have anything in ycur plan 3 that would reduce that sort of thing?
4 MR. NOBLE: We have not included it as yet, 5 specific requirements for component testing. We may do so 6 in future chapters, as we get into talking about specific i
7 components in the areas of the plant where performance of 8 specific components, because of our experience with them is 9 concerned.
10 I think we are certainly relying a great deal in 11 our process on proven experience, and the more we depart 1
12 from successful prudent experience with components, the more 13 we will have to employ testing to sustain the kind of -
1 14 availabilities that we are seeking in this plant design.
15 DR. OKRENT: There are many components for which 16 our proven experience wouldn' t match your 92 percent annual 17 availability.
18 MR. NOBLE: Correct.
i 19 MR. REED: You talk proven design, and then you 20 note there is a two-year refueling interval, which almost 21 tells me it is not a proven design, that you are talking a 22 spectral shift of some variety. Lots more gray rods and 23 black rods. I would hardly see that as a proven design.
24 MR. NOBLE: I recognize your comment. One of the 1 0 25 things that we are not to the point of reaching a final l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
_ _ m m-- --- m m ---_ m - -
4770 09 03 108 O
L /DAvbw 1 conclusion with respect to is the particular part of the 2 plant design, but the features such as you are talking about 3 would be difficult to pass our criteria 'of plant 4 simplification, adding the kind of complexity that is 5 necessary, in terms of increased numbers of control rods, 6 does not pass that criteria whatsoever.
7 MR. REED: Certainly. I perhaps recognize the 8 reactor you are talking about, and I would say that it 9 certainly will not make 87 percent availability in the first 10 ten years, because there are very complex aspects of the 11 control rod changeout and upside down activities and 12 increased lengths and problems with respect to human
- 13 activities in and around refueling and maintaining your 14 reactor.
15 So I would say that your two-year refueling 16 interval and some of those things are subject to challenge.
17 MR. EBERSOLE: May I ask, in your equipment 18 specifications, are you going invoke reliability 19 requirements and the methods of obtaining those?
20 MR. NOBLE: I guess I have a little bit of 21 difficulty in answering that too explicitly at this time 1
l 22 without actually proceeding through the chapters to kinds of 23 develop that.
24 MR. EBERSOLE: I am trying to get a perspective j
() 25 on the criterion of choice. ;
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
_ - +_ n -
l 4770 09 04 109
(,
(J DAVbw 1 MR. NOBLE: The approach taken in these 2 requirements documents is not to produce an equipment 3 specification. The approach we're taking is to set very 4 difficult requirements that the suppliers of equi ment and 5 systems responsive to these requirements will have to 6 establish.
7 MR. EBERSO.5E : How do you do that, unless you 8 write reliability requirements in specs?
9 MR. NOBLE: That would be an appropriate way of 10 establishing these requirements have been met. There is a 11 section in Chapter 1 dealing with requirements for system by 12 system availability.
13 MR. EBERSOLE : But you don't buy system by 14 system; you buy pieces.
15 MR. NOBLE: But to date, we have not specified 16 the availability of an individual component. We really have 17 done only one chapter, where we are down to talking about 18 it.
19 MR. EBERSOLE : How do you avoid the low bidder 20 problem?
21 MR. NOBLE: The way that is addressed in this 22 program is, the designs produced in conformance with these 23 i have to establish that they meet them. One way of doing 24 that would be to establish the availability, reliability 73
'd 25 1 requirements in the performance specifications.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
4770 09 05 110
, DAVbw 1 MR. EBERSOLE: Of a component? That's a 2 reliability specification.
3 MR. NOBLE: Yes.
4 MR. EBERSOLE: That will be interestin .
5 MR. WYLIE: Are you addressing the requirements 6 document?
7 MR. NOBLE: The reliability of individual 8 components, we may. I guess we are not far enough down the
^
9 road to really give it an explicit answer. To date, we have
- 10 not done that in the drafts of Chapter 2. It doesn't mean 11 that we won't. It is certainly a viable alternative for us 12 to pursuo.
13 MR. WYLIE: Have you considered it?
14 MR. NOBLE: Certainly.
15 MR. WYLIE: What about fragility levels? Do you
- 16 plan to do that?
17 MR. NOBLE: I guess I'd have to give a little bit 18 of a noncommittal answer at this point. We haven't done f
i 19 it. We haven't proceeded down that far. We've certainly 20 talked about the qualification of equipment to perform its 1
21 intended function. I am sure we will have some specific 22 requirements to implement that.
23 MR. WYLIE: I was" thinking in connection with a 24 follow on PRAs, where fragility on levels of -- seismic 25 ~ fragility, for example, can play a very important part. i i
ACE-FEDERAL MPORTERSM.
O 4770 09 06 111 DAVbw 1 Is there any attempt to set those?
2 MR. NOBLE: Where necessary to establish the
! 3 design requirements in meeting our overall levels; yes. I 4 think in some cases, it will be for key, very sen itive 5 design feature. For instance, it becomes a great concern of 6 ours or the Regulatory Groups, in establishing that we meet i
- 7 our core damage frequency number. Then if that is an 8 essential element in our trying to put forth a network of 9 requirements that accomplishes that, we will do it.
10 MR. WYLIE: The reason I bring it up, Dr. Okrent 11 raised the question about uncertainty a few minutes ago and 12 contributing, as those uncertainties are, the industry uses 13 generic numbers which necesssarily don't really have a 14 direct bearing on the types of equipment used in this 15 environment like relay chatter, for example, levels, which 16 has no relationship with actual relays used in those 17 systems.
18 (Slide.)
19 DR. SHEWMON: Do they tend to chatter more or 20 less?
21 MR. WYLIE: They tend to chatter more.
l 22 DR. SHEWMON: The real relays chatter less, 23 you're saying?
i 24 MR. WYLIE: They've been developed -- over the l 25 last 10 or 15 years, there have been developed relays which i
!, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTcRS, INC. !
- - .< - - - - - - _ _ _ o
0
^
l 4770 09 07 112
) DAVbw 1 don't chatter.
2 MR. NOBLE: The area of waste generation 3 treatment systems is addressed in Chapter 1, and a 4 requirement that the plants be designed to produc no more 5 than 2500 cubic feet per year is established. That is a 6 significant improvement from the experience of current 7 plants. Of course, I think current plants are also 8 improving the performance from year to year in that
- 9 category.
10 Personnel exposure. Another important concern, 11 in terms of advanced requirements. The number of 100 12 man-rem per year is established as the requirement.
l 13 Cost is a concern in this process. There are 14 numerous trade-offs along the way. It is difficult to 15 establish cost, because we are not dealing with a complete ,
16 design. We are dealing with a set of design requirements, 17 but we do have goals that we are dealing with in the cost 18 area and that number of 6.5 cents per kilowatt hour 19 represents about a 40 percent improvement from current i
20 plants that would have been licensed and gone into operation 21 since 1985.
l 22 One feature that we are incorporating in this 23 program is a very heavy emphasis on life cycle costs rather
. 24 than capital costs. Our processes of evaluation of various 25 alternatives give very heavy consideration to the i
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
4770 09 08 113 DAVbw 1 ,
maintenance and operation factor in equipment performance.
i 2 DR. OKRENT: Is that a plant like St. Lucie 2 or 3 the average of the plants, when you say the capital is 4.5 4 cents per kilowatt hour?
5 MR. NOBLE: That's our target. I can't recall 6 specifically what we were comparing that with, when I 7l mentioned that we had a 40 percent improvement. I think it 8 is with respect to -- I do remember a figure for St. Lucie 9 2, and I think we are approximately 15 to 20 percent better 10 ;
than a plant like St. Lucie 2.
11 MR. REED: We saw a plant here the other day with 12 a 1000-person staff, and you realize a plant with a O 13 1000-person staff, 1100 megawatts would cost 1 cent or more 14 just for payroll. I don't see payroll mentioned.
15 MR. NOBLE: It is included in this O&M figure.
16 MR. REED: And all the supplies and parts and 17 pieces are included under that? You must be thinking of a 18 staff much less than 1000.
19 l MR. NOBLE: This program doesn't set the staff 20 ; size, but it certainly would be much less than 1000.
21 l MR. EDER30LC I see these plants flooded with 1
22 l security people, and I am not impressed by that statement.
I Are you going to consider that in the design 23 l 24 ; aspect? Are they, by deliberate and careful intent, less 25 subject to sabotage, internally?
c ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERSdNC.
(
4770 09 09 114 DAVbw 1l MR. NOBLE: Certainly, one of the improvements we 2 are going to be called upon to make is the internal plant
, 1 I 3 layout. A lot of the existing operating plants have had to 4 deal with regulations for security that were not in effect 5! when those plants were designed.
i i 6j .
MR. EBERSOLE: It is not merely layout. It is j
7 more than that. It is the fact that you can probably design j 8i systems that will trigger the plant to a safe and secure i 9 : state, if somebody touches it in the wrong place.
! i
! 10 MR. NOBLE: That is clearly true. Yes? .
i 1
i 11 DR. SHEWMON: When you end constructability down i
j 12 there with initial operations, is that the startup of fuel O 13 loading, first critical? What does that mean?
14 MR. NOBLE: It is through the testing sequence to
) 15 commercial operation. That end point is commercial 1
i 16 operation, so that 54 months establishes a complete schedule 1
{ 17 through the startup and testing process.
- 18 Now one of the chief ways of accomplishing that 19 is certainly embodied in the comments you heard earlier this
]
1 l 20 morning about having very complete design operation along 21 the way. l l
j 22 Our Chapter 1 sets forth requirements for design j !
j 23 i completion, not for regulatory review, as you have been
- 24 ! discussing, but at the point of plant order, we asked that l 25 j the design be 70 percent complete, in terms of the number l
j i
i AGE-FEDERAL REPORTERSg INC.
I i
4770 09 10 l 115 i ()
,1s DAVbw
{ 1: of documents, design documents required and the point of 1
, 2 start of construction. We require that the design be 90 1
l 3 l percent complete.
I i
] 4 j MR. EBERSOLE : With the present state of trouble i
I
! 5 in the business, we're looking at lifetime well beyond 40 I! .
l 6l years. Are we going to change that nominal lifetime in your
! 7l design?
] 8! '
MR. NOBLE: Yes. We have a design requirement i *
- 9 for 60 years. One of the key factors in that, the vessel i i i 10 j considerations are certainly believed to be feasible.
4 11 DR. SHEWMON: What will your end of life, J
12 thickness of wall be? Do you know what the target is?
( 13 j i
MR. NOBLE: I really can't give you a number. We 14 I are not to that stage yet. It is more of a designer input, j
3 15 I guess, to our requirement. Our requirement will just j 16 stipulate that we have a reactor vessel design for that l 17 l 60-year lifetime. It will be up to the design organizations ,
18 to produce a design and a set of materials and fabrication i 19 characteristics which will meet that requirement.
20 l That concludes the renarks that I was prepared to l
{ 21 l make today on the status and direction of our requirements
! 22 i document.
i l l
! 23 ; I would like to turn the microphone and the 4
24 podium over to Del Bunche of the Department of Energy to l 25 comment on the reference.
i i
- - - - - - _ ACE-FEDER&REPORTERSdNC._
.. . -- - -.-- . =. - .. . . - - _ . - -.
l i
4770 09 11 i 116 a ,
- DAVbw 1! MR. BUNCHE
- I see we are running a little j
- 2 late. I will try to keep my remarks brief. i
- 3 (Slide.) l
)
- 4 j I have just two charts to show.
i i
) 5 As a first observation, it is obvious we are in a
! 6i period of declining budget, a period of declining confidence 1
j 7 in nuclear power. It is essential, therefore, that we .
8 l maximize the value of whatever limited resources we have for 9 l nuclear R&D and emphasize those programs that are going to *
} l 1 10 address the most pressing problems.
i 11 To that end, we are -- in fact, this has been l
i 12 commented on several times this morning -- committed to ,
!l j
O 13 I i
supporting the utility vendor advanced lightwater reactor 1
14 program. It is part of an overall' strategy that we think.is l
1 15 . very important for this country. This department has been j 16 I supporting programs that will lead to what I will call i l l 17 l simpler, safer and better, more reliable reactors for the
! I t
18 i future.
1 I i 19 I understand yesterday there was a question about i
I 20 the existence of any document that might describe the i !
- 21 '
department's programs.
] ,
i 22 , In the '87 budget, we've kind of laid it out in 23 elegant oureaucratese. In March of this year, we sent l 24 l something to the Hill that describes the advanced lightwater ,
I
! 25 I reactor program, what we expect it to do, how it fits in i i
l
\ ;
i .
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I I
4770 09 12 117 7,
e- /DAVbw 1 i with the EPRI program.
2 .
I'd be pleased to make a copy of that available i
3 to you, if you would like. I think it might answer some of 4 your questions.
5 MR. EBERSOLE: What does the word " cluster" mean
- l 6 j in dollars?
i 7 MR. BUNCHE: In dollars, in 1987, a couple 8 hundred million dollars. We've spent -- I believe the 9
statistics are about $20 billion so far, related to civilian 10 commercial nuclear power.
11 MR. EBERSOLE: This is the value that is set on 12 the restoration of the nuclear option by DOE 7
(')'
'- 13 MR. BUNCHE: I think the value that is set on 14 . the nuclear option is not necessarily measure in dollars, 15 sir. It may be measured in our con aued support for 16 licensing reform. Whatever assis .nce we can bring to bear 17 and others can bring to bear to get some of these troubled 18 ! plants on line and to create a climate in which we might 19 have people who are willing to commit to nuclear power in 20 this country again.
21 ,
That is not necessarily all dictated by simple 22 R&D expenditures.
23 MR. WARD: Mr. Bunche, we would like to have (q 24 copies of those documents.
w/
25 MR. BUNCHE: Sure. I will leave one with you t
l l ACE 7EDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- - - . .- .- -- = .- __
4770 09 13 118 DAVbw 1 today.
l
- 2 I think the program that we have all been hearing
! 3 about this morning, namely, the advanced lightwater reactor
- i /
4 program, the next general lightwater reactor program, is l 5 regarded by the Department as a very key aspect of getting
! 6 on with the job of providing for 'a nuclear future in this
! 7 country.
, 8 Now what I want to do is go now to the next 9 chart, if I can find it.
f 10 (Slide.)
j 11 l It is the specific subject of today's 1 i i 12 discussion. It shows simply an attempt on the key players'
]
O 13 parts, namel the NRC, the industry, the utillties, that is, 14 and the suppliers. The suppliers, that is. To try to get i -
15 from the talking stage to the doing stage, to get the 16 requirements reviewed by the industry, reviewed by the NRC j 17 and get the work products reviewed by the industry and the i 18 NRC, so that decisions can be made whether or not these are !
i 19 1 good, bad or indifferent and whether or not they meet ,
i l 20 l whatever perceptions or requirements there are. l i
i i 21 I think the EPRI ALWR program is a very valuable 4
22 l '
way to get to the point where all parties can reach a final I
I 23 l conclusion on whether or not the next generation plants are 24 ready for use. That is the bottom line I wanted to get to.
25 4 The point of this chart, basically, is a l
- ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. y
l i 4770 09 14 l 119 l
k DAVbw 1 mechanism for creating the linkages between suppliers, the 2 utilities, the NRC, so that you can both see the 3l requirements, that is, the utilities' requirements and the 4 NRC's requirements and the products and see whether or not i
5 there is a matchup there, i
6 Dr. Okrent spoke this morning about dedicated 7 bunkered heat removal systems. I think it is one thing to i
8 ; have a requirement that says here is 10 to the minus 5 per i l '
l 9 l reactor year or whatever that means. That doesn't get at i 10 the point of, does that particular product make it or not I
i 11 make it. Does a bunkered system provide the additional 1
12 measure of safety that pgople want to see, particularly, the i
O 13 people in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
i 14 What we've suggested, and I think what most
! 15 people have encouraged us to support, is a program where we l
l 16 can get the utilities' requirements on the table, get them
- 17 reviewed, get the products that are now ready, get them j 18 reviewed and see if there's a matchup with the NRC's needs.
f 19 l What you see here is an accommodation, I think, f 20 and a sound one on the part of the utilities and the t
i 21 suppliers. It says DOE's verification program, but it is j 22 i really the suppliers' verification program.
l l
l 23 2
25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERSd[C. _ _ _
. _ = . _
I I
4770 10 01 ! 120 I
b DAV/bc 1 We're facilitating this with some of " Uncle's" 2 money to compare and cross-fire with the regulatory staff 3 the utilities requirements and product lines.
4 And, at this point, we've got two product lines l
5 ! for which we have specific schedules, one of which is the i
6 '
General Electric-Hitachi-Toshiba advanced boiling water I
i 7 reactor that's been under development in Japan.
8 There's a program that has been developed in 9! cooperation with the regulatory staff to get that product 10 reviewed here, get it cross-reviewed with the developing 11 utility requirements programs.
12 The second one is Combustion Engineering System i O 13 80 program. As you know, they have an FDA. There are a lot 14 of open issue still on severe accidents. One of the things
~
15 we want to do is to encourage the industry and the t
I 16 l regulatory staff to take a look at System 80, see whether or !
i 17 not it matches against the utility requirements, see whether i
! 18 or not it matches against the contemporary requirements in 19 the severe accident area, so we can get a determination one 20 way or the other: Is that product viewed as ready for use
] 21 today, tomorrow, next year? Whatever and whenever it takes
) 22 to reach a final decision, so somebody is prepared to make
! I j 23 an order.
1 24 We have received copies of letters that the 25 l advisory committee on reactor safeguards has issued to the j I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
4770 10 02 121 DAV/bc 1 Commission suggesting in fact a desire on your part and 2 others to take a look at these designs early on, before it's l
3 too late, before all the decisions are locked in and frozen.
1 4 i We have a separate pattern of activity which has i
5l been talked about briefly this morning by Carl Stahlkopf, 6 namely, the mid-sized development programs.
7l There are I think some pretty exciting, more 8 ! innovative projects for which concepts have been developed.
l '
9 I think it's important to work with the staff and the 10 advisory committee fairly soon to talk about those concepts i
11 ; and to sort out where their strengths and weaknesses lie.
i 12 l The point of all that, my concluding remark is, I O
U 13 think we ought to be looking at this as basically a two-14 step process. Step one is let's get the gut issues on the 15 l table. Are we satisfied with the basic criteria? Do we 16 l think they're going to lead to sound work products?
17 l The second stage: Let's look at the 18 ! implementation. That's where certification comes in. It's 19 the proof of the pudding.
20 '
I think we have to do the first one and reach I
21 I whatever issues are on the table quickly, and get a 22 disposition; then work on the implementation.
23 i The Department is very interested in getting n 24 . these issues opened up and resolved. And we're looking C l 25 j forward to continued interaction with the industry and the i
ACE-3EDERAL REPORTERS
, t INC.
l I
4770 10 03 122
[D l
'tDAV/bc 1 ' NRC to make progress in this area.
2 I'd be glad to answer any questions.
3 MR. REED: I sort of threw this challenge at EPRI 4 several weeks or months ago in a subcommittee meeting. Let 5 me try it on you as DOE representative.
6 Yankee Row, I recall having lived through that.
7 And I recall the amount of paper that we had and the do'llars 8 j it cost. I find that here, 25 years later, we have a 9 hundred times as much paper at least, and 20 times as many 10 costs, and maybe 50 times as many regulatory activities and 11 regulat-ions, and so on and so forth, and I wonder:
., 12 What caused it all? And should we look for a 1O
! 13 fresh, completely new start and refocus the way in which we 14 create a nuclear light water reactor, the way we regulate it 15 and what the scope of regulation should be.
16 I'm reminded that one person said that nuclear is 17 dead until there is a rebirth and a retrenchment. And then I 18 mentioned a thing called the " safety envelop".
19 1 What we're here for is to protect the health and l
20 1 safety of the public and prevent core melt.
21 All right. Now, we think of our safety envelop.
4 22 .
What really needs to be regulated anyway?
I ,
23 1 Shouldn't that be the fundamental beginning for '
l 24 a DOE-EPRI process, for a rethinking of the light water 1
25 reactor? I am sort of convinced that the safety envelop is
_-_-_---_-l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
. _ - _ _ _ - _ _ - __ x l
4770 10 04 123 f'i k J DAV/bc 1 the decay heat removal system, a high integrity reactor 2 vessel, a containment structure of high integrity and a 3 sub-criticality system.
4 Does anything have to be addressed?
5 Is DOE looking at that kind of refocusing or l
6 retrenchment of the proliferating process and activities?
l 7 l MR. BUNCHE: The short answer is yes. Shortly l
8! after the present administration came into being, there was 9 a review called for by President Reagan of the full 10 structure.
11 l I can recall both review conducted by the office l
12 of Science and Technology Policy about the regulatory l
O 13 frameworks of this agency and others.
14 I think it's fair to say that there is a fair I
' 15 j amount of work still going on looking at ways to restructure l
16 the regulatory operations.
17 Most people I've talked to conclude that you 18 can' t claim this light. There's no way to get from here to 19 there very quickly.
20 <
The attempt by the administration in 1983 for a .
l 21 comprehensive regulatory reform package simply fell apart.
22 We've had a very difficult time getting a very simple, what 23 I think is a fairly straightforward legislative reform p 24 package through the Hill this year.
V 25 On the matter of doing it by a technology fix,
@ j EDERA @ RTERS M .
4770 10 05 124
(~)DAV/bc d' 1 finding some way to bring the technology parts of it' 2 together, so that these pieces and only these pieces are-3 significant ones to be worried about, after the demise of 4 the breeder reactor, the Clinche River breeder reactor 5 program, there was a refocusing of the liquid metal systems 6 and a refocusing of the gas reactor systems, to try to i
l 7 collapse the safety-related envelop down to a very small 8 portion of the plant.
1 i
9l Concepts have been developed based on that 10 premise. They show a lot of promise. They also show the J
11 difficulty of doing it without a lot of development and 12 testing. I think what I see here in the advanced light
' () 13 -
water reactor program is an attempt to marry the best of 14 what we know how to do with some sort of rational change or 15 streamlining of the regulatory process.
! 16 It may be a half-measure, but it's perhaps the 17 best half-measure to bring a better nuclear future in the 18 immediate decade.
19 Other kind of activities look to me to be a 20 little further off in time.
! I 2
21 ! MR. WYLIE: Any other questions?
i
! 22 (No response.)
i i 23 MR. WYLIE: Does that complete teh EPRI l
24 presentation? All right. Then I'll call on Dave Moran, I 25 , guess, for the staff to present the staff's participation in ME-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. _
l 4770 10 06 ! 125 e
e', ,
I i 'DAV/bc 1 tne review process of the EPRI advanced light water 2 pt gram.
3 (Slide.)
4 MR. MORAN: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name 5 f is David Moran. I am the NRC Project Manager for the Light 6
f Water Reactor Program. My position is located within NRR, 7 in the Division of Safety Review and Oversight.
8l i Today, my prepared material covers the staff 9 j review plan for the requirements document, chapter one, 10 i which we received on Tuesday. There are a couple of other i
11 ; items which Carl Stahlkopf mentioned that I would cover.
i 12 j And I have some supplementary material where I
(,
13 l can do that if time permits. This would be on the reduction i
14 l of issues from the 500 some odd when we entered into this 15 l joint program with EPRI.
i 16 i; And I have some information on how we brought I
17 j this about. And then on the screening criteria for handling i
18 issues up to the time the requirements document was 19 l submitted. We set July 1 as a transition date. After that, i
20 we have a new set of criteria to review on issues which are 21 outstanding or newly i droduced into the system.
l 22 l I will cover this material, the chapter 23 l transmittal schedule, which is based on EPRI's ability to 1
,7 3 24 l transmit. We're going to spend a nominal six months per
- l
(/ !
25 , chapter. There are 13 chapters. I'll go through the l l l l l 1
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l:
4770 10 07 126 l
W DAV/bc 1 chapter titles, the contents of chapter one, the staff 1
2j disciplines required for this review, chapter one and l
3 i subsequent chapters.
l 4l I'll go through a discussion of the staff end 5 product, which is an SER of acceptance for the entire 6 document. I'll go through a matrix of chapter versus staff 7 , disciplines so we can see the kinds of disciplines that we 8 are going to bring to bear on the material. And then the 9 ! manloading detail, I'll discuss, and I'll end up with t
10 suggestions for our future interaction with the ACRS.
11 ! (Slide.)
12 ! The review schedule, which I guess has been put I '
(J 13 on -- the delivery schedule, I guess, has been put on l
14 before.
15 Chapter one was received a couple of days ago.
16 : The other chapters are coming in, as you see here, and six 17 months beyond each one of these dates, the review of each 18 !i chapter is scheduled for completion through the staff 19 '
review; obviously, with the advent of the DOE program, 20 supporting General Electric and supporting a Combustion 21 ! Engineering design which is required by DOE to be based on 22 their requirements document. It was necessary for EPRI to 23 '
do some consolidation and coordination with their g3 24 l transmittal to us for review to better meet the needs of the
() !
25 people who are planning to submit designs for review and l l i
! dCE-FEDERAL REPORTERS,11}C.
4770 10 08 127 i
L_JDAV/bc 1 certification by the NRC.
2 So we have three, four and five chapters coming 3 in as a group; seven through 12 coming in as a group. I 4 haven't yet worked out how we're going to handle hat, if we 1
5 do it, in six months for three chapters.
6 : We'll have to incrbase the manpower substantially l
7 during that short period of time.
8 (Slide.)
9 But it looks as though that's pretty much what 10 we're going to have to do. The 13 chapter titles are i
11 these. We are dealing with chapter one, which is overall 12 l requirements. This was a considerable effort for EPRI.
[)'-
13 They clafm that it's about 35 percent of their total 14 effort.
15 There was tremendous learning involved on their 16 l part, according to them, to get started on this effort and i
17 to enable everybody involved to shift gears from their l
18 normal mode of operation, which was design and construction ;
! l 19 l and operation back to a previous step, which is the '
20 ; specification, which is what the requirements document is.
I 21 ! We look upon it in the staff as a performance 22 l specification or design envelop.
i 23 l (Slide.)
i
,~s 24 ; Which will be used by designers to generate the (ss ) '
25 r design specifications, both general and detailed, and their i
e I
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m.,, ,,.- _ ,. .-
I 4770 10 09 ! 128
- b l (s'DAV/bc 1 design.
2 Chapter one consists of these subsections. And 3 from this material and a couple of glimpses of early drafts 4 that I was able to obtain, we determined what the staf f 5 i disciplines would be to prepare for the review.
6 There are many, many ways to break down j 7 engineering work and to specify the disciplines required 8 l to do the engineering work.
9: (Slide.)
i 1
10 ! This happens to be ours. Anybody can argue it l
11 but it's supposed to cover an entire plant, which is what 12 l the requirements document is intended to cover.
/; !
NJ F
13 So these are the disciplines that we are using 14 in addition to these disciplines, which we are going to try 15 to draw from the division where I work, the Division of 16 Safety Review and Oversight, in order to exercise better 17 control.
f I
18 i In addition to that, it's necessary for us to 19 have coordination with the licensing divisions because, i
20 , after this requirements document is completed and approved 21 l by the staff through an SER, then that will be used as the 1
22 I guiding document for the review of the designs.
1 23 j So these three divisions have to be kept abreast i
,73 24 ; and fully informed of our efforts, plus human technology
- ) '
%J ,
25 j must also be informed.
j ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 4770 10 10 129 Cr
\~/ DAV/bc 1 DR. OKRENT: Question. Where would you bring 2 PRA, severe accidents, sabotage into that set of 3 disciplines?
4 MR. MORAN: The PRA requirement has to be 5 considered after the design has been generated. So whatever 6 the rules are on the books for handling PRA's, those are the 7 ones that will be used at the time a design is presented and 8l a PRA is necessary.
i 9 This is a specification which will be used for i
10 generating a design.
11 DR. OKRENT: How about containment performance?
12 MR. MORAN: The existing regulations will be used
( l 13 to measure whether EPRI's document has incorporated those 14 regulations in their specifications, and the resolution of 15 safety issues which is ongoing, which there are 46 which now 16 impact, which now have been determined to impact this 17 document, are known to EPRI insofar as the staff is able to 18 , determine what the expected resolution will be -- that is 19 j incorporated.
I :
20 And so all requirements which include those 21 subjects that you brought up are required to be included in 22 l this and the SRO has sections which contain specialists who l
23 l would review those sections.
24 DR. OKRENT: I would suggest, at your leisure, O 25 l you and others go back and review the answer and see l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m,m m_m m__ _ m
l.
4770 10 11 ;
130
/~'; I t
i/ DAV/bc 1 ; whether it constitutes an adequate response. But I don't 2l want to belabor this point.
3l '
MR. MORANt I surely invite help from my 4 cohorts. Carl Neal?
5 MR. NEAL: Carl Neal from staff.
I 6 I think Dr. Okrent is probably worried about the 7l implementation of severe accident policy requirements 8 document. I certainly feel that EPRI expects to address the 6
i 9!
cevere accident policy and will be reviewing the 10 requirements document in light of the severe accident i
11 j policy, and in line with any other further implementation of i
12 that policy that's being developed by the SRO.
13 We have a separate branch within our division 14 l; doing that work, so that we're well-informed as to what the 15 l!
implementation of that would be.
16 l We'll be reviewing this document with that i
17 l implementation guidance.
l 18 i ,
l 19 I 4
20 21 !
1 22 !
l 23 1
<s 24 l
(_) I 25 !
l l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- - , . - - - ~ - -
70 11 01 131 1 DAVbur 1 DR. OKRENT: I was really looking at the 2 viewgraph and what it reported to say would be the 3 disciplines, and it seems to me that it might be , lacking, 4 but I don't want to belabor it.
5 MR. NEAL: It is consonant with the severe 6 accident policy, and also you have the Reliability and Risk 7 Assessment Branch, which is available to us to discuss the 8 PRA methodology and the scope and assumptions used in the 9 PRA work.
10 (Slide.)
11 MR. MORAN: Concerning the staff end-product,
,y 12 which will be an SER for the overall document, and as we N) 13 review each chapter of the incremental submission of 14 chapters and groups of chapters, we will come up with a 15 draft SER covering that section.
16 EPRI has desired to have an SER for each
- 17 chapter. : Insofar as we can provide a very cogent draf t of j 18 that, we taill do so when the review for each chapter is
- y i 19 completed, and the final product will include probably 20 ' either 13 sections or 13 chapters in the SER.
21 I think this last point bears emphasis. The f 22 staff review is directed at determining whether the a y l r 23 requirements document adequately reflects NRC rules and 1
(')
x_-
24 regulations to protect the public health and safety. ,
l 25 i In addition, of definite importance to the l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 1
,_,. m _ _ _ _ __
70 11 02 132 1 DAVbur 1 industry, the document will contain the desires, wants, and 2 needs of the industry as laid out by EPRI.
3 We are concerned with public safety and following 4 the rules to see they are adhered to. We are not 5 particularly going to pass judgment on whether one aspect of 6 the design is better than something else that could have 7 been chosen. It is necessary to make sure that this whole 8 thing ends up with a viable operating plant or else we are 9 wasting our time as well as EPRI's.
10 So although that is not our principal concern --
11 (Slide.)
12 -- we will be on the lookout for something that 73 U 13 just won't work and will let EPRI know if we need 14 clarification.
15 This is a matrix showing the disciplines and the 16 chapters.
17 Chapter 1, being overall requirements, covers 18 every discipline that we have laid out. The others are as 19 you see, and I guess anybody can have a shot at that and 20 i say, well, something else should be included. We certainly 21 will be looking at this very closely as we go through the ;
1 22 review to make sure it is all-inclusive. ,
23 (Slide.) l 24 As for resource allocation, we have a line item
('}
25 budget for this job, which was directed by the Chairman. ,
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I W 1.17A*m 'larinnwide Coverage B@33M
70 11 03 133 1 DAVbur 1 This fiscal year there is myself and two full-time 2 equivalents. There will be about six people working on 3 Chapter 1 through the end of the fiscal year on a,part-time, 4 basis.
5 I set a budget of about 1800 man-hours per 6i chapter, which I think is sufficient to do the job.
7 This being an incremental submission, with the 8 submission of Chapter 9 it will be necessary to go back and 9 perform an integrating review because when we receive the 10 earlier chapters there will be questions that can only be 11 answered when we see the later chapters which haven't yet 12 been submitted at that time.
7-]3
\- .
13 So I have allocated an arbitrary 600 man-hours 14 per month to perform that integrating review. It is 15 sort of comparable to the design process, where a designer, 16 after he runs through his design the first time completely, 17 ; has to chase his tail, as we say, back through, tighten up 18 and check and make sure all systems and pressures, fits, and 19 tolerances match.
I I think those of us who spend a modicum of time 20 l 21 l on the design boards won't have any trouble seeing that 22 l!
parallel.
l (Slide.)
23 l
( 'j 24 As for future interactions with the ACRS, these 25 are our suggestions. We want to keep you informed. We 1
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
W,1.17.1*M N2rinnaide Nerso, OfL114.66.1A
I
\
J
/^70 11 04 134
(_) !
1 DAVbur 1 appreciate your input to us. I 2 We feel that after we review Chapter 1 it would 3 be appropriate when we have a draft of that secti,on of the ,
4 SER that we inform you of what w'e have accomplished and get 5 your thoughts on it at that time. We will be better able to 6 tell you how it is going, and you will also have had a 7 chance to look at Chapter 1 yourselves and be informed as to 8 what you would expect.
9 If key topics come up that are of significance, 10 we will schedule discussions with the appropriate 11 subcommittee. We think that as groups of chapters are 12 reviewed from time to time we would also want to make a 13 report to you, and when the final SER is ready in final 14 draft, we would like to go over it with you. We would 15 appreciate a letter from the ACRS at that time if that would 16 be appropriate.
17 MR. WYLIE: Could I ask the committee if they 18 have any comments on the procedure Mr. Moran has suggested 19 here with this outline?
20 (No response.)
21 MR. WYLIE: Basically, you are suggesting that 22 the appropriate time would be when the staff has done an 23 essential review of chapters, and you would like to meet l
() 24 with the subcommittees, I assume, and then bring it to the 25 full committee?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
e a a e aeaa ei a n dan lif (s as
135 i '1)70 11 05 I' DAVbur 1 MR. WARD: Charlie, we are having trouble hearing 2 you down here.
3 MR. WYLIE: Essentially, what is being, proposed 4 is that at the appropriate time after staff has done 5i sufficient review they would like to meet with the ACRS to 6 get their input and comments and then ultimately, before the 7 final SER is written -- or after the SER is written, they i
8l would like a letter from the ACRS.
l 9j Are there any comments on that process?
i 10 Yes.
11 DR. OKRENT: I would suggest that there be some
() 12 intermediate point where the full committee looks at what I LJ 13 will call more significant aspects and at least discusses 14 them before waiting until everything is set.
15 MR. WYLIE: As I understand it, Chapter 1 is 16 going to be under review for six months, essentially by the 17 , staff for the next six months.
l 18 l At some time appropriate -- Chapter 1 of course 19 is, as indicated, a very important document. It sets the 20 !i requirements for the rest of the chapters -- sometime toward 21 the middle or latter part of that review, I guess, you are 22 , suggesting that --
l 23 l DR. OKRENT: That is one possibility. We were
( ; 24 ! talking about Chapter 1. There were some things EPRI still 25 has to think through, you know. What do we mean when we l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- , , , , - . ~ . . _ . _ , _
^
/ T70 11 06 136 k.] ~
l DAVbur 1 say 10 to the minus 5 per year, and so forth?
2 But, anyway, I would suggest, whatever it is, one 3 or two on things that you really deem to be of moye 4 importance.
5 MR. WARD: Charlie, I think it is an appropriate 6 approach. You have to recognize that our total committee 7 resources have been rather significantly reduced over the 8 last few years. We are facing some further reduction over 9 the period you are talking about here.
10 So I think the review is going to have to be 11 within the general guidelines we have discussed before as 12 far as the fraction of our resources that can be devoted to 13 this.
14 DR. MOELLER: Will the committee's input on the 15 SERs for the individual chapters then be solely through oral 16 exchange?
17 MR. MORAN: I guess I would have to say I haven't 18 given any thought to that. What I had in mind was this:
19 Chapter 1 is going to be significant, and we I
20 would furnish that portion of the SER that we had drafted up 21 at that time and also give an oral highlight briefing on it, 22 things that we found, if there are open items how we are 23 handling it. We have to work out our question / answer
() 24 routine on open items, that sort of thing.
25 I would say it could be handled in subcommittee, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
a 137 7'}701107 t
1 DAVbur 1 with an oral briefing.
2 MR. HERNAN: Mr. Chairman, within the budgetary 3 restraints of the committee, we would appreciate your, 4 written comments whenever appropriate, certainly at the end, 5 the conclusion of our review and your review of Chapter 1.
6 We think this program is sufficiently important that we 1
7l desire written ACRS guidance as we proceed.
8 Keep in mind this is a two and a half to 9 three-year program.
10 l MR. WYLIE: Okay. We will have to take that 11 . under advisement, I guess, Mr. Chairman.
l 12 Any other questions or comments for Mr. Moran?
(~)
t/
13 (No response.)
14 MR. WYLIE: If not, we thank you.
15 Mr. Chairman, at this point in our schedule --
16 MR. WARD: Charlie, we are down to -- I guess we 17 will want to pick up on Item 3. Rather than start that --
18 is that how you see it?
19 MR. WYLIE: We are down to 2.5 actually, which is 20 ! a discussion of the committee regarding a possible letter on
{
21 the standardization policy statement. I don't know whether 22 l you want to undertake that, discussion now.
23 MR. WARD: Why don't we do that before lunch?
[] 24 MR. WYLIE: As I see it, we have been
<j 25 ! requested -- first, the committee wrote the Commission and l
, ACE _ FEDERAL REPORTERS, _
INC.
^T70 11 08 138 (G
1 .DAVbur 1 said that we would like to consider the standardization 2 policy statements. Then we received a letter back from the 3 Chairman of the Commission stating that he would Jike the 4 ACRS comments, review and comments on this.
5 They pointed out that there were two versions, ac 6 was mentioned earlier. There was the April version, which 7 was written by the Commissioners' assistants and I believe 8 OPE. Then there was the staff version which was written in 9 May, and they requested we consider both of those.
10 They are different wording to some extent. I 11 think the content is about the same.
, 12 I have heard today comments regarding the content 13 of those policy statements, such as the options, the scope 14 of the policy statement covered essentially complete 15 reference plants, which are essentially complete plants of 16 essentially complete design, with no mention of other 17 options. That is one consideration.
18 Certainly, the definition of " essentially 19 complete" has been cuestioned today, the omission of a 20 statement in the policy statement regarding sabotage and 21 security, and I think there is some discussion regarding the 22 terms of the certification, 10-year terms, and what have
, 23 you.
() 24 There may be other considerations that members of 25 the committee would like to bring up.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
. _ . . . _ _ . _ _ _ __ l
139
[770 11 09
\_)
1 DAVbur 1 Dr. Okrent.
2 DR. OKRENT: As you will hear when we begin the 3 Part 3 of the discussion, and as you may well knoy from 4 having read the latest safety policy or safety goals policy 5 ad' opted by the Commissioners, there are some things that are 6 significantly different in that policy from prior versions.
7 One, in fact, was adopted, one was remanded to 8 the staff for probable guidance to examine.
9 I think we will also hear today that the staff 10 itself has some questions concerning containment capability 11 for some of the reactors that were supposedly less in some 12 way by the severe accident policy statement.
13 I don't know how this all fits into some kind of 14 a statement of standardization unless there are appropriate 15 caveats which in my rapid perusal of the thing I didn't 16 quite see.
17 So I for one would like to suggest that we at 18 least go through what we are going to do the first time, not 19 necessarily for the last time, this afternoon and try to 20 l talk about various topics and come back to this question of 21 standard plants and see where we are.
22 MR. WYLIE: Is that acceptable?
23 MR. WARD: It seems to me that there is enough
() 24 interest, that we have heard enough about the policy 25 statement to make some comment on it at this time.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. j
- ,, ~ _ , _ _ _
1 l
l l
1 l
'770 11 10 140 i e ;
N_,' l 1 DAVbur 1 Certainly, I think the comment we make, you know, i 2 could possibly be influenced by our discussion this 3 afternoon. ,.
4 I think there is no problem with that at all, but 5 I think, Charlie, you ought to.have in mind drafting a 6 letter, and what you hear this afternoon should influence 7 that.
8 MR. WYLIE: I will do that.
9 MR. WARD: Okay.
10 MR. WYLIE: I will turn the meeting back over to 11 you.
12 l MR. WARD: Let's break and come back at 1:30, and
(~s V
13 we will pick up with ! tem 3.
14 (Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the committee was 15 adjourned, to reconvene at 1:30 p.m., this same day.)
16 j 17 18 19 l l
20 .
21 22 23 ii f^x
() 24 l l
i 25 l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. _ , _
_ , , . . , _ _ , . . . . . . . ~ . . . . .
4770 12 01 141 ij DAV/bc 1 AFTERNOON SESS ION 2 (2:35 p.m.)
3 MR. WARD: Let's go on to the next topic, topic 4 for the Reorganization of TVA. Again, Mr. Wylie, it's 5 yours.
6 MR. WYLIE: Gentlemen, the ACS ad hoc 7 i subcommittee on TVA held a meeting on June 12th through 13th 8 for the purpose of discussing the TVA management i
9j reorganization and TVA's plans for restart of the TVA l
nuclear power plants.
10 l 11 !l The meeting was held in TVA's Chattanooga office I
12 ! complex on June 12th, and then moved to the Sequoyah site on
\> 13 June 13th.
14 You have been provided with the draft copy of the i
15 ; minutes of that meeting with the information and documents 16 l which were presented to you for today's meeting.
17 l At the subcommittee meeting on June 12th and 18 ! 13th, we had presentations by the staff which summarized the 19 status of the staff's performance review of TVA's. corporate 20 j nuclear performance plan and plant-specific concerns.
21 ! In their evaluation, the staff endorsed the l
22 concepts outlined in the TVA corporate nuclear performance 23 plan, but concluded that there was not sufficient
,3
, 24 j information at the time regarding its implementation to L) l 25 judge its effectiveness.
i 1
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
,,, m- m _.a_. -
4770 12 02 142 l')
P DAV/bc 1 The staff identified plant-specific issues to be 2 resolved. Equipment qualification, welding, design, plant 3 modification controls, operational readiness, resolution of 4 employee concerns and a fire protection and seism c design 5 were identified as issues specifically for Browns Ferry.
6 TVA made presentations on root causes which led 7 to the shutdown of the TVA nuclear plant and the strategy 8 program plan and actions initiated for recovery and restart 9 of the plants.
10 TVA identified the root causes as lack of 11 experienced nuclear managers who can provide leadership in
- 12 the proper direction for TVA's nuclear activities.
j 13 The restart approach is contained in the revised 14 corporate nuclear performance plan, revised March 10, 1986.
15 The TVA described in detail the activities being 16 taken under this plan as assembling a capable senior 17 management team, consolidating nuclear activities within a single organization, centralization of direction and control 18 l 19 from the headquarters division, establishment of clear 20 i responsibility for functional areas, establishing employee l
21 concerns programs, increasing management awareness, improved 22 management systems and controls and programmatic 23 improvement.
24 The evaluation of TVA's difficulties was l 25 conducted by a task force led by Mr. S. A. White in ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
sns nis senn m- . . d.F .. . ann lid dd ad
l Ilq l
4770 12 03 143 1 DAV/bc 1 November 1985. In January 1986, the TVA board of directors 2 appointed Mr. White manager of nuclear power with 3 responsibility of authority over all TVA's nuclear matters 4 to fill the immediata need for experienced nuclear 5 managers.
6 Mr. White went outside TVA and contracted for the 7 services of a number of managers on a temporary basis for 8 two years, or approximately two years. The intent is to 9 train permanent, competent managers from present TVA 10 personnel and new hires during the approximately two-year 11 period.
12 Subcommittee members in attendance at the meeting O 13 were myself, Dr. Carbon, Jessie Ebersole, Carlisle 14 Michelson, Glenn Reed,~ Dave Ward and ACRS consultants Paul 15 Martin and Homer Hagedorn.
16 The subcommittee members and consultants 17 expressed and explored a number of concerns at the meeting, 18 and several have described their concerns and made 19 recommendations and reports since the meeting, including two 20 : reports by the consultants.
21 The agenda today provides for a discussion at the 22 conclusion of the presentations by the staff and TVA. At 23 : that time, the subcommittee members will have the 24 opportunity to express their concerns and recommendations 25 ! during that period.
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
ini 149 1
- twt L_.......J.t"*... Enda 114 44.44
l l
l 4770 12 04 ! 144
' . i, c DAV/bc 1 I would suggest that we proceed on the basis of 2l having the staff make their report TVA make their 3 presentation and then have our consultants make their 4 ! reports. And then open the floor, the table for 5 discussion. If that's acceptable, I think we can proceed 6 and call on the NRC staff to report.
7 MR. WESSMAN: Good afternoon, gentlemen. My name 8 is Dick Wessman. I'm here on behalf of Hugh Thompson of the l
- 9 i staff.
l 10 i (Slide.)
i Hugh Thompson is the director of the TVA 11 l 12 ! oversight group that's been in existence since last fall,
( ) l 13 l coordinating the staff activities on TVA. He was unable to l
14 ! be with us today.
l 15 With me is Joe Youngblood, who is the director of l
16 the PRA Project Division 4, the director that has cognizance 17 l over Watt's Bar and Sequoyah, Larry Crocker, who is from the l
18 ! facility operations branch and who has been our lead 19 ,
reviewer in the corporate plan area; and Carl Stahle, i'
20 project manager for Sequoyah.
21 I wanted to take a few minutes to brief the 22 f committee on a few major status activities and about TVA in i
23 general, and the staff activities in this area, before 24 { turning it over to Joe Youngblood, who will say a few more v
25 words about our activities on the corporate plan, and a few l
l .
, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. _ . , , , _
4770 12 05 ! 145
(
d'DAV/bc 1 of our current thoughts on the corporate plan.
2 (Slide.)
3 As you are aware, we have issued to the 4 Commission several SECY memos, 86-1 A, B and C, w ich have 5 provided status reports every couple of months or so to the 6 Commission. Copies have come to the committee.
7l Revision or s,tatus report 86-1 Delta is about to 8l be signed out to the Commission and passed to the committee i '
9 probably within the next week or so.
10 ,
As before, there have not been definitive TVA l
11 l schedules and most of our activities are based primarily on 12 l staff estimates of when TVA will be ready. And based upon
/ ) l
\' ')
13 informal conversations with TVA as to when major actions 14 will be ready for our review and inspection at the 15 facilities.
I 16 Correctly, or just recently, TVA publicly 17 l announced that Sequoyah Unit 2, which has been the lead unit 18 all along to come back in operation, would be ready to 19 l resume operation in January 1987.
I 20 ,
Based upon informal conversations with TVA a 21 l month or so ago, they indicated that Watt's Bar would not be 22 ready for licensing before about May of 1987.
l 23 And at this point, we really don't have l
( 24 l definitive schedules regarding when any of the Browns Ferry V !
25 units will come back into operation.
l-ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- n' 1 t* 1*fr N wan a ih r,, .rior WYk 116.nn.in
l 4770 12 06 146 DAV/bc 1 As you are aware, the corporate plan, which was 2l originally submitted to staff last fall, was revised in 3 March of '86 and was reviewed by the staff and comments 4 provided to TVA on the 1st of May.
5 Then, subsequent to our Commission meeting where 6l we briefed the Commission concerning our review of the i
7l corporate plan on June 6th, we then transmitted our I
8l preliminary evaluation of that plan to TVA.
9 ! Our understanding is that TVA is preparing a l
10 second revision to the corporate plan based upon,our 11 comments and the preliminary evaluation which has been 12 provided them.
13 j Other major activities that have recently gone 14 l on, in early June, we completed our initial evaluation of i
15 l intimidation and harrassment issues at TVA, based upon some i
16 l work done primarily in March and April of this year, and i
transmitted this report to TVA.
17 l i
18 i As yet, we do not have TVA's response to that 19 i report.
I 20 Some major activities at Sequoyah that have gone i
21 l on recently, of course, EQ was the major issue that led to l
22 ; the Sequoyah shutdown late last summer. We've done a number l
23 of inspections and reviews in this area and are essentially
,rq 24 j complete with the inspection activity in this area.
V .
25 There are a couple of major EQ issues that are I 1 ACE-FEDER.'..L REPORTERS, INC.
4770 12 07 147 h/ DAV/bc e 1 still open, one of them involving cable splicing 2 manufactured by Raycam, and an issue concerning high energy 3' line breaks, which remain to be resolved.
4 As yet, we do not have the TVA certifi ation that 5 the EQ area is complete and ready to resume operation. A 6 major area of activity that we expect to have involves the 7 area of design control.
8 TVA is developing a design control and l 9 reverification program at Sequoyah. It will probably be the 10 model program that they'll apply then to design verification 11 activities at Browns Ferry. And at Watt's Bar.
! 12 We have done an initial inspection in this area,
/~T k/ 13 have no formal submittals from TVA yet, but expect a number-14 of inspection activities to go on in this area in the next 15 few months.
16 Welding inspections. As far as Sequoyah goes, we 17 are essentially complete with our welding inspection 18 activity at Sequoyah. And, really have no major welding 19 issues that are currently outstanding at the Sequoyah 20 l facility, unless something surfaces via the employee concern 21 program and requires additional activity.
22 MR. EBERSOLE: I have a question on welding 23 activities. Where the problem with the welding was the loss 24 of fabrication records, so you didn't look at the metallury, 25 what process did you use to, quote, " inspect," unquote, the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
e I
770 12 08 148
'DAV/bc 1 ! welds? Did you cut out both samples? Did you excise 2 samples of the metallury? Or, what did you do? You can't 3 look at them with a diecheck or ultrasonic or x-ray, or 4 anything like that.
5 MR. WESSMAN: I'm not sure I can address the 6 details of the welding review that we have done. The 7 i welding team that we had on site did not bring i
I 8 l representatives of them down here today.
I -
9 ,
MR. EBERSOLE: You don't then know what was done 10 l to cope with loss or fabrication of records?
11 MR. WESSMAN: I can't answer that question. No, 12 sir. Inspection activity in the employee concerns area has
, i
\> 13 gone on for the last several months as well as Watt's Bar.
14 There are programmatic changes being made by TVA and we 15 expect a fair amount of inspection activity in this area to 16 continue.
17 As I said, Watt's Bar is the better part of a 18 year away. Major activi*.ies that will be coming there will i
19 involve welding inspections, design control activity and a 20 ,
lot of review of the employee concerns activity there.
I 21 j ht Browns Ferry, there are no definitive 22 schedules yet. There have been some recent management i
23 l changes at Browns Ferry as a result of dissolution of the
,m 24 contract between TVA and their contractor, MAC, Management
! )
Q ,1 25 I Analysis Corporation, I believe it is. And a new site 1
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- ..- ~ _ . ~ . . _ . -
l 4770 12 09 149 (M ,
br DAV/bc 1 director has recently been appointed out there.
2 With that snapshot of some recent activities 3 going on between the staff at the TVA facilities, let me ask 4 Joe Youngblood to come up and bring up up to date on the 5 corporate plan.
6 (Slide.)
7 MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Thank you, Dick. I'd also like 8 to mention we have Dan Muller here, who is the project j
9 director for the contract on Browns Ferry.
10 This slide represents the four areas of concern 11 for the corporate area outlined in our September 17, 1985 12 5054(f) letter to the Commission. The four bullets there O 13 are fairly self-explanatory.
14 (Slide.)
15 DR. OKRENT: Could you put that last viewgraph...
16 MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Back up again? All right.
17 l DR. OKRENT: Should it be obvious to me that i
18 those are the issues of import and there are not others?
19 . MR. YOUNGBLOOD: With regard to corporate l
20 management. I wouldn't think that it would necessarily be 21 obvious to you that these are the only issues. These are 22 the issues that were expressed in the 5054(f) letter. This 23 is what TVA is required to respond.
24 DR. OKRENT: Were there other issues'that the 25 staff thought might be significant, or thought were ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
%ni ta1 19shn hi_.._-.._J.f...-- EdM1 Tid 44A4
4770 12 10 150 '
7s h- DAV/bc 1 significant?
2 MR. YOUNGBLOOD: In the corporate area? I don't 3 believe so.
4 Carl, do you remember anything?
5 MR. WESSMAN: I think these are the main issues 6 that were identified back in August and September last year 7 when we developed that 5054(f) letter that was issued 8 September 17th.
9 MR. EBERSOLE: Can I ask you about that first 10 bullet, Action by TVA board to remain informed and involved?
11 Implicit in that statement is that they were 12 already being informed all along and a system exists that O 13 they were informed, and you're just going to keep it up.
14 In fact, aren't you having to establish the 15 system to inform them in the first place?
16 MR. YOUNGBLOOD: You're probably right with 17 regard to that.
18 MR. EBERSOLE: If it's implicit, it means that 19 l there was a system in place to keep them informed in the I
20 I beginning. It's a political word.
21 DR. OKRENT: Let me ask just one question.
22 Do you have any kind of opinion on the need for 23 management at that level to be knowledgeable and to 24 establish basic philosophy?
25 ,
MR. YOUNGBLOOD: You're talking about at the l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 4770 12 11 151
(~~h
'r'# DAV/bc 1 board level?
2 DR. OKRENT: Yes, I am.
3 MR. YOUNGBLOOD: At the board level, I think it's 4 more a policymaking decision and being aware of t e problems 5 that are going on with regard to the facilities.
6 DR. OKRENT: I don't really think I understand 7 what you said.
8 MR. YOUNGBLOOD: I really don't think of the 9 board as being the level at which technical decisions are 10 made, and so forth. I think of the board as being more the 11 overall management policymaking level.
12 DR. OKRENT: I would have assumed I was talking (3
V' 13 about policy if I, as a member of the board, said:
14 I want to be sure that our nuclear plants are 15 among the top three in the country with regard to how 16 they're built, how they're designed, how they're operated, 17 et cetera.
18 That's policy. Isn't it?
19 MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Yes. I assume it would be.
20 DR. OKRENT: But you don't find any need for a 21 board to have some kind of a policy with regard to the 22 quality of their nuclear power plants.
23 MR. YOUNGBLOOD: I would think the board would 24 certainly be concerned with that.
25 DR. OKRENT: I don't see it somehow on your ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
ini 1.t? 1?nn L.a.am .A. f* - am 90G 114444&
l H
i' 4770 12 12 152 DAV/bc 1 list. That's why I'm asking.
2 MR. EBERSOLE: Is the nuclear expertise of the
+
3 board identified anywhere?
4 MR. YOUNGBLOOD: I don't believe that t is.
5 MR. EBERSOLE: Do we have any statement of the 6 board's background or anything that would help them 7 understand what the director tells them, and their capacity i 8 to receive and understand that?
9 MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Of course, you fellows know 10 where your question is coming from but you know as well as I 11 do that the board is appointed.
12 MR. EBERSOLE: But not like the Commission.
O 13 MR. MICHELSON: Since the board is a fulltime 14 board, not a part-time board, and does exercise major 15 management activities in TVA, hasn't the NRC been a little 16 concerned about their qualificatiens?
17 l The NRC has ways of going through the 18 administration to express its concern so that when 19 appointments come along, perhaps some corrective steps are 20 l taken.
21 Has the NRC indicated any concern about the 22 qualifications of the board, to your knowledge?
23 MR. YOUNGBLOOD: I think the NRC has expressed 24 concerns about the board being cognizant and aware of what's
~J
)
25 i going on and remaining informed. I do not specifically know ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
sas s a w s enn u . _ A t*- SadL114d4J&
I O
4770 12 13 153 DAV/bc 1 that we have gotten into the area of the qualifications of 2 the individual board members.
3 l 4 l 5
6 7
I 8
9 ,
10 11 l
12 O 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 O 25 l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
4770 13 01 154
(~%
il DAVbw 1 MR. MICHELSON: I hadn't heard of any, but I
~
2 thought you could inform us, if they had. Apparent 1y the 3 NRC is not concerned about the qualifications of the Board.
4 MR. YOUNGBLOOD: We have not expressed that.
5 MR. OKRENT: Again, I don't want to lose this.
6 The Board sets policy; right? It's not somebody below l 7 them.
8 MR. YOUNGBLOOD: I'd like to defer to TVA to go 9 over what all of the infrastructures are. -
10 MR. OKRENT: The NRC is evaluating TVA, if I 11 understand correctly.
12 MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Yes, sir.
~
(A-) 13 - MR. WESSMAN: If I may suggest to the Committee, 14 of course, the NRC does not have a requirement concerning 15 boards of any utilities. Many utilities do not have a board 16 such as this. I would like to suggest, because we only have 17 15 minutes in the Staff session, that we let Joe Youngblood 18 go on through the presentation that he has. These 19 particular four criteria were the criteria established in i
20 the September 17 50.54(f) letter. Perhaps we are older and 21 wiser now, six months later; however, I would like to at 22 least summarize where the Staff is before we finish the 23 section for the Staff.
24 MR. OKRENT: If you're older and wiser, I would O 25 have liked to have heard it at the beginning. I didn't ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- m ,m
4770 13 02 155 r~s
\ > DAVbw 1 hear any such statement. That's all. I guess you are 2 older; I am.
3 (Slide.)
4 MR. YOUNGBLOOD: This slide shows the ajor 5 elements of the TVA corporate plan submitted to the Staff on 6 March 10, 1986. The Staff briefly discussed this item at 7l the Lubcommittee meeting and TVA will elaborate further
! during this meeting.
8 ; ,
i 9 l MR. EBERSOLE: There's that word "rema'in" in the '
10 first bullet again.
11 l MR. YOUNGBLOOD: We are consistent anyway.
12 ! ~
(Slide.)
r s, i
\ 'l 13 With respect to our evaluation of the March 10th f
14 l TVA submittal, we provided the following information on this 15 i slide to the Commission and to the subcommittee. In i
16 ! summary, our preliminary review finds the approach 17 ! acceptable, because it provides centralized leadership and 18 direction to the total nuclear power program. It places a 19 i responsibility and accountability with one individual who is 20 unencumbared with the activities.
21 j Furthermore, TVA efforts are under way to clearly 22 l delineate the responsibilities and accountability of other 23 l management positions. We believe this should plainly be one 24 of our concerns for the TVA organization. The Manager of x_/ ;
25 . Nuclear Power is fully responsible for all matters relating ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
,~ m s - , ~ ., .,_
4770 13 03 156 L_'DAVbw 1 to nuclear plant safety. As such, the Staff considers it 2 appropriate that the NMRG, formerly NSRS, report to the 3 Manager of Nuclear Power. This provides him the means for 4 safety review, independent of the line organizati n.
5 The Manager of Nuclear Power reports to and will 6 keep the Board informed on the status of nuclear activities, 7 such that the Board can exercise their oversight role.
8 Also, the Board has newly established a TVA 9 inspector general, who reports directly to the Board and 10 l provides a means for an independent source of information.
11 It is our understanding that the Board is 12 pursuing an outside advisory function for the Board with
> INPO.
13 l 14 MR. MICHELSON: Before you leave that slide, this 15 l might be a good time to ask, do you envision that TVA has a i
16 focal point for safety considerations within the agency, or l
l 17 ;
is it dispersed among a number of different organizations?
18 You were here when we asked the same question.
I 19 You heard the answers earlier.
l 20 ! Do you agree? Is that your understanding of the 21 l answers?
l l 22 ! MR. YOUNGBLOOD: I don't think there is any 1 l 1 23 i single point for safety. The Manager of Nuclear Operations l l
7s 24 l is obviously ultimately responsible, but there are a lot of
(_) l 25 j people that are responsible for safety. l l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l
- n* If.1*nn N 2? .nn aide Int eraar Sa} llb6M8
4770 13 04 157
,m
'. DAVbw 1 MR. MICHELSON: That's right. They are all 2 responsible for safety. I was looking for the focal point, 3 wherein an concentrated effort was focused on the question 4 of safety, instead of having it spread around the agency 5 with no single person or organization really being 6 designated to take that under their wing.
7 Have you found, or do you believe there is?
8 MR. YOUNGBLOOD: I haven' t found a single focus 9 point there, unless you want to talk about licensing and 10 '
engineering.
11 MR. MICHELSON: Remember, we got the answer on 12 .
licensing. The gentleman said, he's not it.
i
(";
/ 13 MR. YOUNGBLOOD: I'd like for him to respond to 14 that again today, if he might.
15 MR. EBERSOLE: Let me ask this question.
16 There was one interesting aspect of the early TVA 17 ! operation, wherein a manager said to one of the safety i
18 i experts, if you didn't ask so damn many questions, we'd get I
19 l; along a lot faster.
20 ;
It suggested, you know, the intrinsic conflict i
21 i between schedules and production and the prosecution of l
22 l; safety issues. I don't see, in this configuration, an 23 independent capacity to investigate issues that may be I
24 controversial and be in contradiction to the schedule.
xs ,
25 j Mr. White holds it all.
l I
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 147 1700 Nationwide Cmerage HXM M.%s6
4770 13 05 158 p/
( DAVbw 1 DR. KERR: Are you talking about this slide?
l 2 MR. EBERSOLE: I'm talking about just what Carl 3 is talking about.
4 MR. MICHELSON: Itwasintheoralprebentation.
5 MR. EBERSOLE: Am I not correct that everything 6 begins and ends with Mr. White?
7 MR. YOUNGBLOOD: So far as nuclear 8 responsibility.
9 MR. EBERSOLE: Including the investigation of -
10 i difficult and perhaps somewhat abstract safety issues which
. I 11 may be in conflict with demanding schedules?
12 MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Wouldn't you think of Admiral
(. f
\J 13 White as a chief executive office for the nuclear 14 operations? Wouldn't that generally be where we would 15 expect that to flow to?
16 .
MR. EBERSOLE: It is the focal point of l
17 l everything. There is little, if any independence of the 18 l safety investigative board, as it existed prior to his l
l 19 l coming to office.
20 !
MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Speaking with regard to the NSRS 21 l staff reporting to the board?
22 MR. EBERSOLE: At one time, it reported to the 23 board.
24 MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Certainly, it reports to the 7_!
\ t 25 ! board. We are back to the technical qualifications of the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- , , ~ - - - --
4770 13 06 159 h)DAVbw v 1 board.
2 MR. EBERSOLE: Correct. That is the problem.
3 MR. YOUNGBLOOD: We generally don't think of the 4 board as being that technically qualified to deal then with 5 those problems.
6 MR. EBERSOLE: They weren' t generally recipients 7 of whatever the previous board could put to them.
8 Okay. I don't know of a better compromise 9 offhand.
10 (Slide.)
11 MR. YOUNGBLOOD: The status of our review at this 12 point in time is that we are awaiting the TVA's submittal of em 13 the next provision of the corporate plan, which I suspect 14 will be incorporated in much of what they are giving you 15 i today. We do not have a document. We are in the process of 16 hiring a management consultant to assist us in our 17 evaluation of the corporate plan and some of the present 18 concerns of the span of management's control at the top 19 level of the nuclear organization, the training of managers, 20 l the transition to TVA employees.
21 It is clear that we share some of the concerns 22 expressed by the ACRS members; however, the plan has i 23 cont ~derable merit, and we believe TVA should be allowed to 24 vigorously pursue the implementation of the plan. We will 25 monitor the effectiveness of the organizational changes, in ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l l
l _ , . _ m .__. _
4770 13 07 160 nDAVbw 1 terms of the results it produces.
2 With that...
3 MR. WYLIE: All right. Let's proceed with the 4 I presentation by TVA.
1 5 I believe Mr. Mason is going to make the 6 , presentation.
I 7 I will call on TVA.
8 !
MR. OKRENT: Mr. Wylie, are we going to hear i
9 today from the NRC Staff, their evaluation of how the Staff 10 '
fell short, if it did?
11 MR. WYLIE: Are you asking that question?
12 MR. OKRENT: Yes.
bI 13 jl MR. WYLIE: The Staff's here, if you would like 14 to ask that.
15 MR. OKRENT: I didn't know what was on the 16 agenda.
17 l MR. WYLIE: The Staff has completed its 18 presentation, unless you have questions of the Staff.
I 19 i MR. OKRENT: I don't mean fell short in what i
20 i it's doing now, but over the period of the past couple of 21 years, has the Staff performed an evaluation of whether it 22 ,
fell short? If so, why and how.
23 i MR. WESSMAN: Let me respond briefly to that.
,s
( )
24 l The Staff has not conducted an evaluation of
\_/
25 itself regarding its handling of the TVA activities at this ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. _
l 1
4770 13 08 161
-s (s)DAVbw 1 time.
2 We have been charged, by both the Chairman and 3 the EDO to conduct a look at ourselves and developed the 4 lessons learned from the TVA experience, but~at t is point 5 in time, the Staff's efforts are primarily directed toward 6 our review of'the TVA activities. We expect later this 7 year, we will start with our examination of the Staff's 8 activities.
9 MR. OKRENT: It would seem to me there is at 10 least a partial failure, because you earlier made some 11 reviews and drew some conclusions. You are now going to 12 make some reviews and draw some conclusions, and in some
\J
- 13 cases, you may draw the same conclusions, not necessarily on l 14 very solid bases. We will leave it at that.
15 MR. ETHERINGTON: Was the TVA decision to go with 16 their plan unilateral or in consultation with the s 17 Commission?
18 MR. WESSMAN: The Browns Ferry shutdown was done I
19 ' with consultation with the Commission, primarily the Region ,
20 '
2 organization. !
21 l; I think the decision to shut down Sequoyah was 22 made unilaterally by TVA in recognition of some of their 23 other qualification difficulties.
24 MR. GRIDLEY: Good afternoon. I am Richard
~) l 25 L. Gridley, Director of Nuclear Safety Licensing for the i
ACE _ FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i I
J 4770 13 09 162 DAVbw 1 Office of Nuclear Power in TVA.
2 I would like to acknowledge some of the other TVA 3 personnel here with me today.
4 We have Chuck Mason, the Deputy Manage of the 5 l Office of Nuclear Power. We have William Grotleff, Director 1
6 of the Division of Nuclear Engineering, Jim Houston, Deputy 7 j Director of the Division of Nuclear Quality Assurance, i
8 i William Caudell, Assistant Manager of the Nuclear Power. We 9 have Mr. Williams who is on Mr. Grotleff's staff, and 10 Mr. Lambert, who is on my staff.
11 Since the submission of the Corporate Nuclear 12 I Plan,*TVA has made a significant change in management p/
- 13 personnel. As a result, we have evaluated the approach for 14 correcting the problems which have arisen in the nuclear 15 l program and have developed a substantial revised nuclear i
16 I performance plan.
17 We met with Mr. Wylie's subcommittee, late last 18 month to discuss the Corporate Plan. The purpose of this 19 ! meeting with the full committee is to further describe the l
20 l measures which TVA has taken and currently intends to take 21 to improve the corporate level management of its nuclear l
i 22 l activities and also to correct the problems which have 23 occurred in this area.
7s 24 l As such, our presentation responds to the ACRS I
) i 25 specific request for information regarding TVA's Corporate ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- n7 1.t? 1 ann Marian e lm A mrama MMLim . . . -
4770 13 10 163 0L /DAVbw 1 Management Reorganization.
2 We also plan to highlight the integrated plan for 3 implementation of the nuclear power plant.
4 Mr. White is fully aware of the magnit de of his 5 assignment, and he is fully cognizant of the huge demands 6 which this task will place on TVA and on the NRC's 7 resources. The task is large, but he believes it is 8 manageable and many actions have already been taken to 9 accomplish our goal.
10 With that brief introduction, I would like to 11 introduce Mr. Mason, the Deputy Manager of the of fice of 12 Nuclear Power.
13 DR. REMICK: Dick, if I could ask a question.
14 Are you a TVA employee, or are you a contractor?
15 MR. GRIDLEY: I am a contractor.
16 MR. MASON: Good afternoon, gentlemen. I am 17 Chuck Mason, Deputy Manager of TVA's Office of Nuclear 18 Power.
19 Mr. White regrets that he could not be here 20 today. His mother passed away yesterday morning, and it is 21 necessary for him to be in California at this time.
22 I am here today to brief the committee on where 23 TVA stands in regard to making improvements in performance 24 ,
of its nuclear program. Specifically, it is my O~
25 understanding that the committee wants a description and l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
, 4770 13 11 164 O
i>/ DAVbw 1 status report on the implementation of our management 2 reorganization.
3 I briefed this committee on January 9, 1986. At 4 that time TVA had just hired Admiral White to man ge its 5 nuclear program. As you know, Mr. White was given a broad, 6 unprecedented authority to correct the problems facing TVA.
7 His charter was to analyze the situation, put 8 together a plan to correct the deficiencies and implement 9 this plan.
~
10 Since January, we have been extremely busy. At 11 this point, the analysis of the major problems has been 12 completed and a Corporate Performance Plan that addresses 4
13 these basic problems has been developed.
14 We are well into the implementation phase of that 15 program.
16 i (Slide.)
i 17 This slide presents a brief overview of TVA's 18 Revised Corporate Nuclear Performance Plan and is the basis 19 i for today's discussion.
l 20 As you can see, this pretty well mirrors the 21 slide Mr. Youngblood has. It points out our major problems 22 in the Performance Plan -- hiring and retention of 23 experienced nuclear managers, restructuring of TVA's nuclear ;
24 organization, improvements in the management control systems 25 and programs, restoring the confidence in TVA management, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
%dh1 1A9 9 este kJ...--..J.#.-_. Adhh t h 4.d AA
l 4770 13 12 165
. 'DAVbw 1 programmatic improvements and implemer.tation of the Revised l
2 Plan.
3 Mr. White has concluded that TVA's most pressing 4l problem was to improve its nuclear management. I fact, the 5 root cause of the overall nuclear program problems has been 6
articulated as a lack of experienced nuclear managers who 7 can provide leadership and direction. The lack of ability 8 to hire, develop and retain experienced nuclear managers and i
9 i fragmented and cumbersome organizational structure and l
10 outmoded and incomplete management control systems were the 11 primary reasons for the decline of the nuclear program.
i 12 These were all closely related.
t
(> ,
k >i 13 First, the organization, as it existed when 14 l Mr. White arrived, presented several problems.
l 15 j (Slide.)
l 16 l We had a lack of communication and coordination
~
17 among our various nuclear departments. The solution was to 18 i bring all nuclear matters under one control, get rid of the 19 j nonnuclear matters, establish clear, simple lines of 20 authority and responsibility and develop consistency across 21 l the entire nuclear effort.
i i
22 i We had several specific weak areas that needed i
23 specific improvement.
,c3 24 l To put this situation into perspective, I want to e
LJ 25 . look back at the organization that existed in 1983 and for l
l l
! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
?9?.147.1?m Nar inn wule (%rrmas RaQ.11&Mada
4770 13 13 166 i
m jDAVbw 1 , several years bafore that.
I 2 (slide.)
3 As you can see, nuclear activities were 4 scattered. We had no common manager, short of the general 5 manager and the board of directors. On the one hand, we had 6 construction, both nuclear and nonnuclear, engineering, both 7 nuclear and nonnuclear under a common manager. We had 8 operations for nuclear and nonnuclear operations under one i
9 i manager. The licensing stuck off to the side. The nuclear 10 safety review staff and the office of quality assurance, all 11 scattered.
12 o
\s 13 1
14 1 l
15 16 I l
17 l l
18 l 19 20 l 21 l 22 ;
l \
23 1
24 j (3
LJ ;
25 :
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i *ni 1 t' 1*r si %.n.in. 1. F u en .i mm san 116 && la
4770 14 01 167 J DAVbur 1l (Slide.)
2 The next slide shows the organization that 3 existed in January, when I briefed you and when M . White 4 arrived. At this time we have made significant 5 improvements, but you still have key elements of the nuclear 6 program scattered and the senior nuclear managers still have 7 significant responsibilities outside the nuclear program.
8 The nuclear safety review staff on January 13th was moved over under Mr. White and before that time it was 9
10 reporting to the board, as has already been pointed out. We 11 had a manager of quality assurance who primarily looked at 12 operational quality assurance. Quality assurance and O 13 engineering construction was still conducted by those line 14 managers.
15 We didn't have budgeting and several other staf f 16 functions assigned at this time.
17 (Slide.)
18 This is the chart as it exists today. You can 19 see there are clear lines of responsibility, reporting to 20 the manager of nuclear power, and the total nuclear 21 responsibility rests with one individual. There are no 22 nonnuclear responsibilities in this organization.
23 These changes do not simply represent shuffling 24 of blocks on a piece of paper. In addition to bringing all 25 the nuclear functions under one manager, some of the more ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
4770 14 02 168
(~'; !
i /DAVbur 1 I significant changes include a significant increase in senior 2 staff in number, experience, and responsibility, elevation 3 of the training division to report directly to the manager 4 of nuclear power and provide training for the tot 1 5 organization, elevation of the licensing section to report 6 directly to the manager of nuclear power.
7! This includes consolidation of several previously I
8! I diverse licensing groups, creation of a nuclear procedures 9! staff, the formation of a planning and financial staff, the 10 strengthening of the nuclear safety review board, and the 11 .
strengthening below this level of quality assurance, 12 engineering, and licensing.
I)
ks' 13 l (Slide.)
14 i Mr. White has stated that he did not find nuclear 15 , managers of TVA lacking in technical skills or professional 16 , knowledge. Rather, he found a situation similar to those I
17 i found in large government facilities such as shipyards; i
18 I namely, a lack of commitment to and responsibility for 19 ; achieving excellence in performance.
20 ! In short, he found a lack of aggressive and 21 l inquisitive managers who would reach out for problems, make 22 i decisions, and take control.
23 l Steps have been taken to solve the immediate
,s 24 problem of the lack of experienced managers.
( ) ,
1/
25 ,
For the key slots, he evaluated TVA managera, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, LNC.
- fi* if** ie % is n... I e f' . as a n a 9/11 114 d.& 14
i 4770 14 03 l 169 DAVbur 1 some of whom were not in the nuclear program when he got
- l 2
l there, and placed these managers in those positions that he l 3 felt they were qualified to field.
i 4l Next, he went outside to contract for the most i
5I talented, experienced managers he could find who were j 6 experts in their field with proven records of ability to 7 motivate and assume responsibility for their activities. He 8 assigned these individuals to line management positions to 9 lead our recovery effort.
10 I At the same time he has identified a permanent 11 i TVA manager to work in a line position either as deputy or J 12 l another assistant to the loan manager to learn and be able 0 13 1 l
I to assume the top position when he is ready.
14 l We are also actively recruiting. Although we i
15 l have had success at the middle level positions, the salary 16 I cap has limited our ability to hire the very top level i
17 i managers. ,
18 l If we go back to the last slide --
1 19 1 (Slide.)
1 20 1
-- you can get an idea of the mix of contract and 21 ,
TVA managers in the new hires.
1 22 I The yellow represents contract or loan employees ;
< 1 23 i who are on board for a specific contract. The duration is I
, i specified, but the duration is also flexible. Generally it i
24 l l 1
25 is two years, but if necesssry, they will be there longer. 1 1
I 4
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l
b, h 4770 14 04 l 170 (O
k# DAVbur 1 . If their replacement is ready ahead of time, they will leave 2 earlier.
3 Red is TVA managers who have assumed new
~
i 4 positions since Mr. White arrived.
5 The white represents TVA managers who have 6 remained in essentially the same position.
7! I might point out that we have one vacant slot.
8 That is site director at Watts Bar that we have been unable 9 to fill at this time. Mr. Cottle is acting site director, 10 l !
although he occupies a position on Mr. White's staff there.
11 l I might also point out the NRC representative i
12 i mentioned that we had a new man at Browns Ferry. That has
( 13 ! not actually occurred yet. We have selected a replacement l
14 l for the Browns Ferry site director. The individual is from l
15 ! Bechtel. He will report next week for full-time 16 assignment. Mr. Bibb will remain for a period of two to 17 three weeks for transition.
18 l We still have one or two other people from MAC in i
19 l key positions in the lower organization.
20 i DR. REMICK: Chuck, before you take that slide 21 i off, what is the significance of nuclear site 22 l representative?
23 . MR. MASON: I am going to comment about that i ,
24 l later.
( l l 25 ! But Mr. White believes in using various sources l
l l
l !
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i i
4770 14 05 171 !
IJ DAVbur 1 of information to make his evaluation of how things are 2 going. He has taken a senior representative, contract 3 , representative, and assigned one to each site as his eyes !
4 and ears onsite to give him an independent daily valuation 5 of the situation that is going on at the various sites.
6 In addition to the reports he gets from the site 7 director and the quality assurance manager and the 8 engineering manager and all the other reports, he wants one
)
9 i more set of eyes and ears.
l 10 ' DR. REMICK: Is it the site director? It is like 11 the plant manager, then?
12 MR. MASON: The site director is quite a bit more
/
than the plant manager. He has the responsibility for 13 14 coordination of the activities of the project engineering 15 group who is onsite, the modification or construction group 16 , who is onsite, the licensing group who is onsite, the plant 17 nanager's staff.
18 We have a specified plant manager. He is 19 primarily responsible for operation and maintenance. The 20 site director takes a lot of the other responsibilities off 21 of his back so he can concentrate on operation and i
22 l maintenance and adherence to the tech specs.
23 '
DR. REMICK: The site director has the i
,1
^
24 : responsibility for operating that site, for that site, and V
25 the representative is an independent eyes and ears?
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i l
4770 14 06 ; 172 ud DAVbur 1l MR. MASON: That is correct. This representative 2 has no line responsibility.
3 , MR. EBERSOLE: Chuck, what sort of size range is i l l 4
there in those blocks, from five people to 500?
5 ,
MR. MASON: In these particular blocks it varies i
i 6 quite a bit. These are staff.' The information staff, for 7 example, has -- Carl is always complaining they don't have 8 i enough. I think they have in the neighborhood of five to
~
9 10.
10 l The Browns Ferry site currently has about 3200 11 ,
people. The engineering organization has in the I !
12 neighborhood of 2600.
O 13 1
- MR. EBERSOLE: Implicit in a diagram like that is 14 sort of the feeling that everyone has the equivalent l .
15 I significance, but that is not the case, is it?
16 l MR. MASON: That is not the case. The size of 17 the groups is not representative of its location on this
! 18 , chart.
19 MR. EBERSOLE: You can't perceive an importance
! 20 ranking there at all?
4 I
21 l MR. MASON: I wouldn't want to put an importance 22 ;
ranking on them, except that Mr. White looks at all of these 23 people across here as his key line managers, and to him, i
24 even though training may have only 400 people, it is as O 25 l
important as engineering in a lot of aspects.
s l ACE-FEDERAL QPORTERSM.
4770 14 07 '
173 i x l O DAVbur 1 i MR. EBERSOLE: The vertical group is the staff?
I I
2 MR. MASON: This is all staff -- the chairman of 3 the nuclear safety review board; the employee concern 4 group -- that is maybe 10 people -- assistant to he manager 5q of nuclear power, that is one individual; planning and 6 financial staff -- I don't know what the count is there.
7 ) Ma. EBERSOLE: Is this sort of an interim 1
8 grouping that may change and get rebunched later on?
9 MR. MASON: I have no indication that this will 10 be changed during Mr. White's tenure or afterwards.
11 MR. WARD: Chuck, would you go back for just a 12 minute to the previous, slide, the one labeled " Management 13 Personnel"?
14 We brought this out at the subcommittee meeting 15 and didn't hear anything there or read anything on the 16 corporate plan, but it would have seemed to me that one of 17 the solutions to the problem here would have been a rather 18 aggressive, explicit management development program, 19 training, indoctrination, and so forth. That seems to be a 20 void in your solution.
21 Do you have any comment on that?
22 '
MR. MASON: Certainly a part of this item right 23 here, using contract personnel, is a big part of our 73 24 ! management development plan for senior management. We L) 25 expect this loan employee or contract manager to have a i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l l l l
l DA ur 1 deputy or assistant for him to groom. A part of hi job is i i i 2l to train that individual and get him up to where he can take
. I
- responsibility for that. He will evaluate the individual r
3l +
4l for performance and pay as well as what kind of training he i
j 1-5l needs. '
4, j 6j .
If one of these contract employees recommends 3
7 that his deputy get three months at Harvard Business School, 4 l 8 we will consider that and maybe send him. If he needs a l
9 course in communications skills improvement, we will give j 10 l him that. l t
i 11 l We do have a lot of parts and pieces to a 12 management development program. We have extensive
]
a 13 ! management development skills training within TVA, within i I 14 I . TVA corporate, that is of course available to the Nuclear I ,
15 j Department.
16 l We do not have an integrated nuclear management L
- 17 i development plan at this time. We will be working to that 18 end for the total management population. We have got 1500 19 to 1600 management scale employees, and we fully intend to 20 , develop an integrated nuclear management develop,nent plan.
l
- 21 l We haven't gotten around to that yet due to the press of 22 other business.
I 23 l MR. EBERSOLE: What is going to keep you from l l i
24 ! becoming a training agency like the Navy and after you get
! 25 ' them trained, because of the salary problem, they will run
_ _ 1-_ 8CE-FEDERAL REPORTERgS.
. .. =. .. ..
4770 14 09 175 DAVbur 1 off?
2i MR. MASON: That is something that we have to 3 consider. We are trying to improve the salary situation. I 4{ am sure you are aware of that. It has been discussed in 5l this forum and others off and on for quite a while.
6 i We have been able to come up with some incentives to be able to attract some mid-level managers, but we 7l 8 l haven't come up with the incentive to keep them other than i
9 l the challenge of the job.
10 MR. EBERSOLE: You will probably have to use religion.
11 l 12 ! MR. MASON: That is a big concern. The board is 13 aqqressively working on that problem.
14 i DR. MOELLER: It seems to me another comment 15 -
would be that you need to have indicators of performance to 16 ' determine whether these changes are working.
17 to you have such indicators of performance?
18 < MR. MASON: For individuals or for the 19 organization as a whole?
20 DR. MOELLER: For the system.
21 : MR. MASON: We are participating in the IN"O 22 ' performance indicator reporting system certainly. Wo look 23l at the performance indicators for each side. We lump them 1
24 l together and look at them. We also monitor our regulatory O 25 ;
performance and the INPO evaluation performance and the I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i 4770 14 10 176 (3
\c/ DAVbur 1 number of quality assurance violations and rad waste 2 , incidents and several other things.
3 That is something you can't monitor this month 4 and then next month make a judgment on whether you have 5 ,
improved. You have got to grind that for a while.
4 6 i DR. MOELLER: What role is INPO playing?
7 MR. MASON: INPO is providing a lot of assist 8 , visits to us on our request in particular areas. They have loaned us one employee, Nuclear Managers Review Group.
9 It 10 is a contract employee provided by INPO -- if that is the 11 "
proper terminology.
12 . INPO has also agreed at the board of directors' 13 ,
request to come in annually once a year and do a corporate 14 ! evaluation until we get our performance back up to what we I
15 ' would call industry standards.
16 j MR. REED: Chuck, on the salary issue, is TVA 17 allowed to pay a bonus for license personnel, and do they?
18 MR. MASON: Yes, we do. Our operat,rs, I might 19 '
say -- and commenting on Jesse's question, too -- our 20 operators are paid competitively with the rest of the 21 ,
industry. They are not up to the ceiling of the board's 22 cap. We can't excoed the board's salary. We can't exceed 23 ! the Congress' salary. But the operators are generally below rg 24 j that, and the premium that we pay them for a licenso bonus C'
25 . and their overtimo does not count against that board cap.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, [NC.
l 4770 14 11 ; 177 Y DAVbur 1 So some of them do get more compensation than the 2l board every year. But it is exempt from that cap.
l 3 i They are paid competitively.
I 4 t MR. REED: So you think your licensed ersonnel I
5 have stabilized?
l 6 MR. MASON: Yes. Several years ago we had this 7! very problem on operators. We were paying less than some of l
8 the other utilities. We lost a few people to utilities, but l
- 9 ; we lost a lot of young new operators. After they got their i
10 l initial training they would pack up and leave and become 11 start-up engineers back several years ago when the industry 12 l was trying to start up a lot of plants.
O 13 That has tapered off somewhat. We have got some 14 of those fellows coming back and wanting a job back.
15 MR. EBERSOLE: I happened to be in South Texas l
16 { sometime ago. They had a terrible flap in 1980. They came 17 l out of it apparently smelling like a rose.
I 18 l I wondered if this is a unique plan or if you i
19 ; have any background investigation in the formulation of it.
20 Does it represent any other attemdtsto come out of a hole 21 like this that you know of?
l 22 MR. MASON: This particular organization, that 23 was not looked at. Our performance plan we did consider.
I 24 ; In putting together our corporate performance plan, we O 25 considered the Davis-Besse situation, Clinton, Zimmer, l
l l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS _ t INC.
l l
l 1 4770 14 12 l 178 O
P DAVbur 1 l
several other plants that had been in trouble and had made i
2 j an attempt to come out. Very definitely.
3l This chart is similar to those the next level 4 down, and as you will see, contract line managers intermix :
t i
5 with TVA managers.
6 (Slide.)
t 7! This is the Nuclear Quality Assurance Division.
l 8! As you can see, we have three in the upper echelons of 9
quality assurance. I am going to quickly run through this 10 next couple here.
11 i (Slide.)
12 MR. MICHELSON: For curiosity, the first one you l
O 13 flashed, both the manager and the deputy are contractors.
\
l 14 l Is the inference that the deputy is being groomed 15 to become an employee? Is that the idea?
16 i MR. MASON: That is not the case in this 17 particular situation. Quality assurance is one of the areas 18 i where we felt a particular weakness in because we were 19 diverse and we had a poor history of quality assurance 20 performance.
1 21 , For this carticular situation we did not have ['
l 22 ' readily available qualifified, or what we considered 23 qualified, deputies. We wanted to get two key senior i
24 experienced quality assurance people in there to head this ,
l .
L l 25 I organization up and bring it together. f l
I
{
j ACE-FEDERAL RgPORTERS, INC.
. - . .. ~ _ . .. .. .
I I
4770 14-13 i 179 g- ;
\,'DAVbur 1 It has taken, I think, just about all our capabilities to do that, but they are well on the way and we 2l i
3j have plans now in the reasonably near future to move the i
4l deputy up to here and let this guy go back to his business 5 and move in a TVA employee.
, 6 I MR. MICHELSON: What is the general plan for 7l weaning off the contractor type employees and going back to j 8 j normal operation?
9 MR. MASON: As I indicated earlier, it is going l'
i i 10 ; to be on a case-by-case basis. When Mr. White feels like l i j 11 l the deputy is qualified, he will release the contractor. If I !
l 12 ; he feels like it takes more than two years, he will extend j
( 13 the contractor.
14 MR. MICHELSON: When does this two years I keep
]
i i 15 ! I hearing start? Would that start back when Mr. White came 16 aboard?
i j 17 MR. MASON: Mr. White's two years started when he
- 18 came aboard. The Stone & Webster agreement started then.
! 19 . We have essentially negotiated some agreements with other
- I j 20 ,
contractors whose two years didn't start till May or June.
i 21
.i 22 i
- 23 1
1 I 24 i
() 25 l j l i
i i
I i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i 4770 15 01 180 ,
.- 'DAVbur 1 ' MR. MICHELSON: We are sort of talking about a 2 year and a half to two years from now?
i 3
MR. MASON: That is sort of what we are 4 envisioning. If we are not far enough along in o r recovery 5 , program and we don't have a sufficient number of individuals 6 qualified, even though we ma/ have some of them replaced, we 7 certainly have tha capability of extending the contract.
8 MR. MICHELSON: I would think you could do it 9 indefinitely. If it is legal now, it ought to be legal 10 forever.
11 MR. MASON: I would like to point out we 12 anticipate, we have plans on this transition program and 13
- management development program. Right now we have got about 14 l 30 of these contract employees scattered throughout the l
15 agency. We have under consideration requests to bring in 16 additional contract employees to work with our line 17 management, particularly in the engineering organization.
lE However, you folks probably know there has been 19 questions raised about conflict of interest and the legality 20 of contractors supervising TVA employees. That whole 21 ,
situation is under, and has been for some time, a lot of 22 ,
scrutiny and investigation.
23 '
We expect that within the next -- I would hate to 24 guess, but two or three weeks anyway -- that that issue will
^) .
25 be put to bed because right now, as a result of all those i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- n* 1 f
- t *t vi N u . m a i. ta r. u .e s .im df M1 11A 1/J.A
}
4770 15 02 181
,r- '
l i 'DAVbur 1 questions and investigations, we have placed a freeze on l 2 . bringing in any more contract employees of this nature just 4
3[ to avoid further aggravation of a potential illegal 4l situation.
5 It turns out that everyrody says it is illegal, 6
then we certainly don't wadt to be increasing it. We are 7 confident that it will turn out satisfactorily, and within 8 another three weeks or so we will be able to utilize 9 : contract employees to help our line managers more at the 10 intermediate level, also, 11 (Slide.)
12 Up to this point we have addressed two of the
('"' ) !
13 i basic
- problems. We have brought a fragmented organization 14 into a tightly controlled organization, and we have in place i
15 ! talented managers to lead us through the recovery process.
16 We are also in the process of making significant I
17 improvements in our management control system.
18 (Slide.)
19 This slide highlights some cf these changes, 20 improvements in procedures.
21 TVA's nuclear groups in the past utilized 22 I programs and procedures which at times were different from 23 those being utilized by other parts of the nuclear
-s 24 l organization. These procedures were adequate for safe
,. J '
25 operation, but they increased the problems of coordination il '
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. _ _
l i
4770 15 03 182
~
I i 'DAVbur 1f and management. We are now in the process of developing new 2 f corporate level standards and directives to govern our 3 ! activities, including those at the nuclear plants.
4l These corporate standards and directiv s can then 5 ! be used to evaluate and revise all existing nuclear 6 procedures as necessary all the way down througn the I
7 organization. This is a long term commitment because we
- 8. have got a lot of procedures, but we have got to start with 9 the corporate level policies and directives and standards.
10 Responsibility and accountability programs. We 11 recognize that an important aspect of establishing employee 12 confidence will be,the concept of responsibility and
( '-') '
13 accountability as a part of our reorganization.
14 l We have instituted a program to assign i
15 responsibility and accountability through all management i
16 ; levels by analyzing each manager's job and rewriting their i
17 ! position description. This will eliminate overlapping and 18 conflicting responsibilities that are common in large 19 g
organizations, particularly in the government.
20 This is a very large effort and one that hasn't 21 ! been done before to our knowledge for an organization this 22 big. We expect the elements of this program to be complete 23 ,
before restart of the first unit. We are well along on this ,
I l r 24 i effort. i
( , ! l w/
25 Improvements in planning and integration of i
l l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- , , - , , ~- -
1 l
1 l 1 4770 15 04 ! 183 DAVbur 1 nuclear activities. We did not have a corporate level i
2i nuclear office assigned the responsibility of integrating 3 the planning, scheduling, and budgeting activities of our i 4l various divisions.
[
5 As part of the consolidation of our organization, l
6 we have established a group with the responsibility for 7 i planning, scheduling, and budgeting controls of our 8 activities.
9 ,
Corporate guidelines are being prepared to i
10 control and monitor these activities. These guidelines will i
11 help assure that the following functions are performed:
l 12 ! One, that the scope of work is defined.
() 13 i l
Two, that schedules are prepared which integrate i
the efforts of all groups.
14 l l
15 t Three, that budgeting of work activities is 16 consistent with the scope of the activities.
I 17 j Four, that schedules are revised and updated in a i
18 ! timely manner.
I i
19 j Five, that plans, schedules, and budgets are 20 monitored by management.
21 ,
Improvements in our tracking system, commitment i
22 ! tracking system.
23 Over the years each organization within TVA had rs 24 tracked NRC commitments for which it was responsible with 5 l 25 ; its own tracking system. Due to the multitude of i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. _
, i i
4770 15 05 184 ;
I 4
!. )
'n /DAVbur 1 commitment tracking systems, some commitments were not 2 -
adequately tracked, addressed, and closed by TVA.
t 3 , We have now created a corporate commitment 4! tracking to be administered by the Director of Nuclear 3 i
5 Safety and Licensing. The corporate commitment tracking 6 ) system, or CCTS, is an integrated data base for tracking all 7 l formal commitments made to the NRC in order to ensure that 8 these commitments will be met.
9 t Timely and effective corrective action for 10 .
conditions adverse to quality, i
11 . During recent years, TVA has identified problems 3
12 in some of its nuclear programs, but has not corrected those t ?
13 problems in a timely manner or we have not identified and 14 corrected the root cause of the program in order to preclude 15 i their recurrence.
16 3 This situation indicated a weakness in our 17 corrective action program and the management of that 18 l program.
19 Our new program, which is now in effect, will 20 ensure that conditions adverse to quality are corrected in a 21 ! timely manner or they will be automatically escalated to the 22 next higher management level all the way to the manager of 23 nuclear power.
cy 24 i Nuclear operations operating experience review.
U 25 i There have been instances when the problems i
!. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l o
I i 4770 15 06 185 > 1 f I l rDAVbur 1 identified in various plants throughout the country have not 2 been accounted for in TVA's plants and when the problems !l 3 ,
identified in one of our plants have not been identified in 4 : our other plants.
i 5 Licensing personnel will now be responsible for 6 managing the TVA nuclear operating experience review program j 7 for internally and externally identified problems or 8 l, events. Under this system significant problems or events ;
9 identified at other plants by either the NRC, INPO, the 10 l nuclear steam supply system vendors, or others and 11 significant problems identified at our own plants will be s
p, 12 ; made the subject of experience review reports.
( )
13 This operating experience information, both I
14 internal and external, will be screened to determine its 15 , applicability to each of our sites. If it is determined 16 j that the problem is applicable, then an analysis will be 17 performed to develop corrective action or positions to be i
18 provided to the sites, engineering and training, to take 19 immediate corrective action if necessary.
I 20 MR. MICHELSON: On this point is the experience 21 , you are referring to the operational experience or design 22 experience?
23 ! MR. MASON: It is all types of experience in NRC i
24 !,
bulletins.
J
/
25 MR. MICHELSON: Your own deviation reports, for l
l l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
4770 15 07 ,.
186
- 4
]'
-'DAVbur 1 instance, hopefully -- when you find deviations at Watts i
2l Bar, there is an organized systematic method of assuring 3 that that has also been rechecked at Sequoyah and Browns 4 Ferry?
5 MR. MASON: That is absolutely correct. One of L
6 ' the instances that led us to this conclusion was a situation 7 j just like you described. We had a problem at Watts Bar, and 8 we did not fully investigate it for Sequoych.
i 9 Increasing upper management awareness of nuclear 10 activities,
)
11 Some of the problems in our nuclear program have 12 . been recurring or have persisted for a significant period of f 'S 13 time without ef fective corrective action being taken. To a 14 large extent, this situation was attributable to a lack of 15 i management awareness of the problem and a lack of management 16 involvement in formulating corrective action.
i 17 , We are now placing into effect a number of 18 measures that we believe will be more effective in assuring 19 top management direct involvement in the nuclear program.
20 These measures are:
21 : One, the board has asked INPO to conduct annual 22 corporate evaluation of our program for the foreseeable 23 , future or until it is clear that the actions taken to
,r y 24 l strengthen our management are working. INPO has agreed to
\,.,/
25 do this. The board of directors will personally be involved l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- 7m * ,.,nn- l a r"* n .r s .ia 900 lin 64.16
I l
4770 15 08 187 7s 1- DAVbur 1 . in receiving INPO's findings at the conclusion of the 2 h corporate evaluation.
3f MR. EBERSOLE: Chuck, I take it that upper 4l management at the very top is really entirely rea tive to 5I whatever you tell them and also zero proactive in initiating i
6! changes?
i 7 MR. MASON: I would say that has been the case in 8 !
the past. That is changing. The board of directors wants 9 to see the performance indicator reports, for example. They 10 want to see reports indicating trends in regulatory 11 ; performance so they can see whether we are making progress 12 ; or we are stable or we are going down.
O -
13 MR. EBERSOLE : So they are going to take an i
interest at long last?
14 l i
15 ; MR. HASON: They are taking an interest; very 16 i definitely. That is not to say that they are going to be 17 involved in making technical decisions, but they are 18 l certainly aware of what is going on. They ar e interested in 19 l what is going on. They want to know 'diether we are making 20 improvements or not.
21 l We are currently strengthening the structure and 22 , organization of the already existing Nuclear Safety Review 23 '
Board by adding a significant number of outside experts as l
'g 24 l board members. Although these boards report to the manager
(\._/ l 25 ! of nuclear power, all of their minutes and their reports i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ,
i ~
4770 15 09 188 i h ,
(a~lDAVbur 1 will also be provided to the board of directors.
2 l MR. MICHELSON: How often will they meet?
l 3 l MR. MASON: They will meet generally once a month 41 or as required.
5 MR. EBERSOLE: Could you, on the commitment
{
6 tracking program, take a substantial design alteration or 7 ! modification and run it through the track it will follow to i
8 i closure?
l 9! As a case in point, suppose that you have a 10 l rather important de'ign modification that has been conceived i
11 l some place and is picked up and has to be done.
I 12 ! Can you comment on how you run it through and
(~'
l 13 close on it?
14 l One of the other open issues was there was never i
15 j any closure on anything. Each entity -- design, 16 construction, and operation -- you took it and ran off with 17 l it into the darkness.
18 How have you fixed that?
19 MR. MASON: We can do that in detail. It would 20 take a long amount of time.
21 MR. EBERSOLE : In a brief way, could you say how 22 you close?
23 MR. MASON: Our chief engineer is sitting there 24 behind you, and I would like to refer that question to him.
i l i
' i 25 j That is one of our big programatic improvements, 1
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 4770 15 10 189 l
\~'DAVbur 1 is design control and closecut of design intormation. I !
l 2 would like to let Bill address his current plans coming up 3l with that.
4 (Slide.)
5 MR. GROTLEFF: I am Bill Grotleff. l 6 Mr. Ebersole, I think we talked about this at the 7 subcommittee meeting.
8 Plant modifications in the past have been issued 9 i piecemeal. Each discipline -- the electrical discipline, i
10 , the mechanical discipline, civil -- issued their part of the 11 l modification package individually, and it might have taken i
12 ; them a number of months to issue those pieces.
(' ,
-' 13 ; At the same time the modification implementation i
14 j was done piecemeal over a period of time. Some 15 modifications were done out of sequence. Some modifications 16 l were incomplete.
I 17 l So we have implemented a package concept on plant i
18 l modifications where we are going to issue one as a 19 stand-alone package. In each stand-alone package we will 20 have a complete identification and description of the 21 ; change, and it will be issued by engineering one time, and 22 it will be issued to a change control board.
23 (Slide.)
, s.
24 We have established at each of the sites a change i !
v 25 ,
control board that will review a preliminary modification i
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- r i- v s ...f.F, .,,w 2fM lin 6/1/.
1 1
I i I i 4770 15 11 ! 190 7--
\~ DAVbur 1) package prior to that detailed engineering being done on it i
2j ;
to assure that that modification is necessary, that it has some safety considerations, and that it is proper 3l 4l That change control board, which is new at each i
5 ' site, is composed of senior people -- the project engineer i
6 at the site, the site director, the quality assurance 7l representative. So it is composed of senior individuals.
l 8l After that change control board accepts the fact 9l that that modification is necessary, then the detailed -
l 10 engineering will be done. A task engineer is assigned to 11 coordinate it, and we will also have a modification engineer 12 l assigned to work with the engineering division to coordinate r~ ,
k_) I 13 j thw detailed development of it.
i 14 i When it is issued, we will issue it as a l
15 !
package. We will go to modifications, prepare the detailed i
i 16 i implementation for installing it, and when it is installed 17 and tested we will close it and we will update the I
18 ! documents, and those updated documents have to come back to 19 ,
engineering, and engineering has to do a final unresolved 20 i safety question determination on the actual implementation.
l 21 l Then we are going to have to change the drawings
?
22 l and have a single set of drawings that will be in the l
I 23 i control room and be in the engineers' and the operators' t 24 I hands.
25 ! MR. MICHELSON: Wouldn't the unreviewed safety !
l i
I l
l I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- n' .1.1*.1*nn Nar.nnmuis Fmermar M 116.4616 .
l
I l
4770 15 12 191
( ') I
'ad DAVbur 1 question determination have to be made before the 2 modification is implemented?
3 MR. GROTLEFF: Yes, sir, we are doing several.
- 4. '
We do one at the start, and then as the modification is 5l installed sometimes there are changes that are made to the 6 i modification during the installation. We are saying each of 7i those has to be reviewed.
8! MR. MICHELSON: Before they are implemente'l?
9 MR. GROTLEFF: Yes, sir.
10 ! MR. EBERSOLE: Can that be kept in a package 11 [ configuration from its inception to its finish?
12 MR. GROTLEFF: Across the board?
("') 13 MR. EBERSOLE: Across the board.
1 14 : MR. GROTLEFF: Yes, sir.
15 MR. EBERSOLE: Thank you very much.
16 MR. MASON: In addition to the director reporting i
17 -
to the board on safety issues, the manager of nuclear power i
will send forward on a routine basis the following documents 18 l I
19 l to the board:
20 l All NRC escalated enforcement actions.
21 All INPO reports regarding TVA.
22 All SALP reports.
23 Employee concerns summary reports.
l (N 24 Reports from the nuclear managers review group.
U l 25 , And monthly site activity reports.
l l
! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS INC.
r 4770 15 13 192 9 DAVbur 1 1 Number fcur, the newly established and now 2! funtioning inspector general, who reports directly to the i
3 board, will provide another avenue for the board to sense 4 employee problems in the early stages.
5 i MR. MICHELSON: Does the board have technical l
6 assistants in Knoxville of its own to take this pile of i
7 paper you are shipping and try to distill it and transfer it l
8 i to the board members?
9 Since they are nontechnical people, certainly 10 ; some interpretation of the meaning and significance of what i
11 j they are receiving has to be done by somebody.
,_. 12 Is that done by staff people, or is it done by
()~
13 , Mr. White going up there personally?
I 14 MR. MASON: They don't have the technical type 15 l people you are talking about, but, for example, the monthly 16 site activity reports are the ones that have the performance 17 -
indicators in there. Those are written primarily for CEO 18 ; level people to be able to understand the trends associated l
i 19 l with it.
20 MR. MICHELSON: That is pretty straightforward.
21 Some of the others you named are not so straightforward.
22 MR. HASON: INPO reports are pretty easy to 23 read. Almost anybody can do it.
(q 24 i SALP reports, the board of directors certainly L.J 25 read our last one and understood it.
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I
i l
4770 15 14 !
q 193 2 Vbur 1 .
Employee concerns summary reports are i
2 straightforward.
3 We are not giving them any significant technical 4 information that is undigestible.
5 I
6 i
7 8
9 i 10 11 12 l 13 I
14 !
15 l i
16 t
17 ;
18 19 20 ,
21 l 22 !
t i
23 i O 25 i 1
i I
l
\ l 1
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
! tii 11T Tithth A. an..sman..Am f saameema Mlh
21 4770 16 01 194
, )AVbw 1 Briefings for the Manager of Nuclear Power.
2 The Manager of Nuclear Power will be kept 3 informed on developments and problems at TVA's nuclear 4 program through the three primary methods.
5 First, as a manager with responsibility for day 6 to day control of TVA's overall nuclear program, he will be 7 in continuous contact with the staff and line managers and 8 therefore, will routinely learn of new developments as they
~
9 occur.
10 Second, he is assigned an individual from nuclear 11 headquarters to each of the TVA's nuclear plants. These 12 individuals will onitor activities at the site, provide (f) 13 independent reports to the Manager of Nuclear Power 14 regarding his activities.
15 And this is the site representative that you 16 asked about.
17 Third, he holds regular meetings with his staff 18 and line managers to receive regular reports from them, 19 identifying significant developments or problems, of 20 course.
21 He also has the nuclear safety review boards and 22 conducts investigations and studies and the nuclear 23 managers' review group that provide information regarding 24 the activity.
, P') 25 Restoring employee confidence in nuclear ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 33MM6 1 J
4770 16 02 195 L 'DAVbw 1 management. TVA has received many employee concerns through 2 its own system, in addition to those received by the NRC and 3 some members of Congress. These employee concerns indicated 4 that many TVA employees had lost confidence in TVA's
- 5) management and its ability to ensure that our nuclear 6 activities were properly conducted.
7 We have now implemented an employee concern 8 ; program at all nuclear locations to permit employees to 9 i openly express any concerns without fear of retribution.
10 This program stresses better employee / supervisor 11 ! communications, but also provides outlets for those 12 >
situations where a" employee might not be comfortable i '
\/ 13 i discussing the concern with his supervisor.
14 l Early indications are that this program is i
15 working to improve the confidence of the employees.
16 Mr. White stresses management involvement in the ,
17 i workplace. Walking your spaces, or as he calls it, walking 18 your ship. He requires each of his managers to do that, to 19 report to him at least weekly on their observations. What 20 are the people telling him? What are they seeing? What is 21 ,
going on? Specifically, reporting on their walks in their 22 ;
spaces.
23 This type of communication from top level
,3 24 ! management to the working man, along with the more
. )
Q ,i 25 experienced, better qualified managers, is also improving i
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 47 0 16 03 196 1s DAVbw 1! employee confidence.
2l My conclusions and a summary statement of the i
3 status of the implementation of our Revised Corporate 4 i Performance Plan. TVA has implemented many of the 5
l improvements described in the revised plan. Other l
6 improvements will be implemented within a short periodoof i
7 ! time. Still others are long-term commitments.
i 8 j Before TVA operates any of its nuclear plants, it 9l will implement those improvements which are essential for I
10 ! TVA to assure effective management. Those improvements 11 ! which TVA considers essential for the effective management i
12 of nuclear activities are as follows:
] 1. Installing a new senior nuclear management 13 j 14 team. This improvement is complete, although we expect that 15 l a few additional changes will be made in the middle level 16 l and some senior level managers. TVA's new senior management 17 l team is in place and is sufficient to provide the necessary 18 leadership direction for our nuclear program.
i 19 2. Restructuring of TVA's nuclear organization.
20 Restructuring of our organization has been implemented, 21 although some minor relignments may still occur. They will 22 not affect TVA's ability to establish clear lines of 23 authority and responsibility and to provide the centralized 24 direction and control of our activity.
O 25 l l
- 3. The third one we consider essentially is l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
4770 16 04 i 197
/% ;
DAVbw 1 establishing an Office of Nuclear Power Employee Concern 2: Program.
i 3 As I mentioned earlier, this program has been 4 established and is implemented and working.
5l In addition to these items, TVA will determine on i
4 6 ! a plant by plant basis what additional steps are necessary i
7 for the safe operation of each nuclear unit.
l i
- 8. Mr. White established site-specific task forces i
9 ; consisting of senior experienced managers of various 10 disciplines to determine what specific actions are required 11 for the restart of each unit on the site.
12 In addition, these task forces were charged with
() 13 l the responsibility of starting site-specific performance 14 plans, formulating restart schedules and keeping Mr. White 15 informed on the progress and problems associated with 16 restart.
, 17 ,
We have now established a restart date for our i
18 ! first unit, that is Sequoyah Unit 2, for January 1987. We 19 are working on an earlier schedule than that. We hope to 20 be able to beat it. January '87 is our specified target i
I-21 date. We are now putting the final touches on the Sequoyah 22 ,
specific performance plan. I am confident that that plan 23 will be submitted to NRC this month and will contain 24 detailed actions to be accomplished before restart, as well 25 as descriptions of our longer-term activitier..
1 l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i 4770 16 05 198 s ;
- - ' DAVbw 1 Performance plans and schedules for Browns Ferry i
2 and Watts Bar are well along in development, but we are not 3
yet prepared to say when the schedule will be published or s .
4 ,
the performance plan will be finished. i 5 Although we realize we have a long way to go in l 1
6l the recovery of the TVA nuclear program, we've made 7 significant progress, and we have every reason to believe 8 this progress will continue and will result in a high level
~
9 of quality and safety.
10 : Any questions? Yes, sir, 11 DR. OKRENT: There are some people in TVA who do 12 things like perform PRAs, and so forth.
, s k /
~
13 Where do they sit?
14 . MR. MASON: They sit in our Office of 15 Engineering in Knoxville.
16 3 DR. OKRENT: In the current organization, to whom 17 do they report, and do they still exist, in fact?
18 (Slide.)
19 MR. MASON: Bill, you can correct me if I make a 20 mistake, but I think there is a Nuclear Engineering Branch 21 l under this supervisor who reports to the Director of Nuclear i
22 i Engineering, who reports to Mr. White. I think it is called 23 l the Nuclear Engineering Branch. ;
em 24 MR. GROTLEFF: It is a different branch. Let me N-] i i
25 show it here. l t
l
- 1 l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
_ , . - m__ _,_
I i
4770 16 06 : 199 DAVbw 1 (Slide.)
2 We have created in the Division of Nuclear 3l Engineering a new branch, which is called Operations 4 Engineering Services. This branch recognzes the act that 5 ; TVA, over the next 20, 30 or 40 years, is going to be doing i
6 mainly engineering support of operational plants rather than 7 ,
designing and building new plants. We feel that in the 8 Engineering Department, we need an arm of engineers with 9
significant operational background and experience. That was -
10 ; the philosophy that went behind the creation of this arm.
11 . We brought many existing TVA employees who are not in the 12 Engineering Division into this branch.
[_s) 13 ! Recently, with the reorganization, we have 14 consolidated engineering. The individual who is heading 15 ! this individual who is heading this branch now, Frank 16 I Dicola, is the Manager of Operation and Engineering 17 Services. He reports directly to me. In that branch, we 18 have created an arm, Reliability and Performance, headed up 19 by Mr. Lau, who has been our senior individual with PRA 20 experience. He has, in his group, a team of people who are 21 the experts in probabilistic risk assessment, failure modes 22 '
and effects analysis. That is where we want that arm. We 23 want them to do two things.
,e w 24 They will do the PRAs for the original design and L/ ,
i 25 licensing of plants; however, we feel PRA plays a lot in the 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3, l 1
4770 16 07 200 l DAVbw 1 reliability and the availability of engineering during the 2 i modifications process. l l
3 So we have said that our engineers, in order to 4 increase the availability and the reliability of ur systems ,
5 g at the operating plant over the years, we're going to keep ll 6 i that at as significant arm in our organization. And that is 7 where they are.
8 DR. OKRENT: A little earlier, in fact, much 9 earlier in the TVA presentation, I think we were introduced 10 briefly to the man who is deputy to Mr. White. Is that 11 right?
12 MR. MASON: That.'s me.
I
~
13 DR. OKRENT: Excuse my poor memory! -
~
14 How much knowledge do you, yourself, have of 15 both the quantitative results and the phenomenology of the 16 3 PRAs that have been done for TVA plants, whether by TVA or 17 under NRC auspices? You, yourself, have you got an intimate 18 knowledge of these?
19 MR. MASON: No, I have very little knowledge of 20 them. I know there is a current question about a Browns 21 -
Ferry PRA. Our staff is looking into that. We expect to l
22 have briefings for Mr. White and myself in the next week or 23 so, and the PRA that was done on Sequoyah and recently F
1 f' 24 : updated and the probability associated with that. I Yj '
25 DR. OKRENT: So should I assume the same answer l l
I l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. _ , _
_ . . . , ,. ..~._
4770 16 08 >
201 l
/' ;i i
2- DAVbw 1l for Mr. White? He has very little knowledge of these?
2 MR. MASON: It's about the same knowledge that I 3 have on PRAs.
4 DR. OKRENT: Below you, who is the first person 5 ; in the line organization who has intimate knowledge of the 6 PRAs that have been done for TVA?
7 , MR. MASON: Bill, would you say that's you?
8i MR. GROTLEFF: The manager who has had the most 9 ,
intimate knowledge in the, management direction of all the 10 past PRA work that has been done for TVA is the manager of I
11 ~ the Nuclear Engineering Branch. These individuals in this 12 organization here reported to the manager of the Nuclear
Engineering Branch up until our recent reorganization. he 13 ,
14 . is the individual with the management intimate knowledge of 1
15 ) what we have done in the past.
i 16 I certainly am not intimately knowledgeable and I 17 am not an expert in the PRA areas.
18 I have had briefings, and that is one of the 19 first things that we did was have a briefing on the PRA work 20 that was done for Browns Ferry, Sequoyah and Watts Bar, and 21 we feel that we do not want to lose that expertise.
22 DR. OKRENT: So I am trying to figure out -- the 23 manager of the Nuclear Engineering Branch, who does he 73 24 report to and how far is he from Mr. White?
V 25 , (Slide.)
l ; ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i i
4770 16 09 ; 202
(~D k 'DAVbw 1l MR. GROTLEFF: The manager of the Nuclear 2 Engineering Branch reports directly to the manager of the 3l Engineering and Technical Services Arm, which is the 4! consolidation of all of the technical engineers within the 5 ! Engineering Division.
6 . DR. OKRENT: So there are quite a few people 7! above him, who are not likely to be knowledgeable about this 8 sort of thing. I am trying to understand why is that a 9 l good thing? It seems to me, if I were the technical 10 manager, which I guess I could say Mr. White is, of all of i
11 i these nuclear power plants, and everybody below him getting i
1 12 ! on down to this manager of Nuclear Engineering Branch, is I
( 13 also a technical manager, it would seem to me I would want 14 to understand what could cause severe accidents in at least 15 the detail shown in major fault trees, and the consequence l
16 of severe accidents and how you get to them in the detail ,
17 l shown in the principal events trees.
18 I would want to understand the phenomenon that l
19 l transpires in containment, and you were unfortunate enough 20 ,
to have more than one kind of containment which complicates 21 f life, in that sense. It's not like, say, the French. Even 22 they are not identical.
23 ; I would say there is a deficiency. I will be l
24 l blunt. I think there is a deficiency in management 25 training, in management knowledge, if one has to go down to l
. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
,_ - ~ , . -
i !
i i
1 203 4770 16 10
( .
I n> DAVbw 1 a low level before one finds, not just briefing kind of !
2 ; knowledge, but a fairly intimate knowledge. I don't mean, 3! you know, how to run the fault tree code or even how to 4 draw the fault trees. You don't have to do any of that to l l
5 , understand the import of these studies. Yet it seems that !
6J that is missing from echelon after echelon of management.
7 And I don't see why it is for the good.
8 MR. GROTLEFF: The manager of our Nuclear 9 Engineering Branch is a senior individual within the i
10 Engineering Division within TVA. He has significant
- l 11 representation on industry committees.
l 12 . DR. OKRENT: You misunderstood. I am not talking ,
13 l about one man. I am caying, in my opinion, all of the 14 , senior executives involved in technical matters relating to 15 the reactor, it is not nuclear engineering that affects 16 plant safety. Now and then, it is important, but it is 17 frequently something that my typical Ph.D. in nuclear 18 engineering would never even have heard of throughout his 19 undergraduate and graduate career, is the chain of events 20 that gets you to or close to serious trouble.
21 MR. GROTLEFF: We don't think it is purely an 22 academic matter either. We have taken our group of the 23 i people with the hands-on ability to do the fault tree ey 24 analysis, do the failure modes and effects analysis. We are O'
25 i sending them to the job sites. We are having them work with i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS INC.
4770 16 1 204 1
. f t-DAVbw 1 the plant operating staff to discuss with them the specific 2 results of probabilistic risk analysis that they have seen 3 , and that we have determined. We are currently discussing 4 with our Browns Ferry operators the things that we have seen l 5 in risk analysis for Browns Ferry, so that we can improve, 6 if necessary, the performance of some of the systems. And l 7 , we are going to expand that expertise in the use of PRAs 8 throughout all of our plants.
9 DR. OKRENT: I hear you, but I'll leave the 10 comments.
i 11 y I have just one more question, and it gets back l
12 to something that one or two of the other members mentioned
(
13 about this focus for safety. I will word it a little h
14 ; differently.
15 Is there some group within the organization that 16 has no other responsibility, except to point out how bad you 17 are doing in safety? In other words, if they miss 18 something, they really don't get praised, as it were. It is 19 i; their job not to miss any flaw, whether it be design, i
20 construction or operation that you have in your system.
21 Do you have such a group -- devil's advocates, in 22 other words -- with regard to how well yea're doing on 23 i safety, and who report, really, I don't mind them reporting, 73 24 to Mr. White aith a copy to the directors, that's okay?
c i ,
\s' 25 ,
i i
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 4770 17 01 ! 205 a DAV/bc 1! MR. GROTLEFF: I'll only talk for engineering, l
2! and I'll let Chuck Mason answer the rest of that. It covers 3l a lot more than just engineering.
And we took that to heart, I think, after the 4l :
5 last subcommittee meeting. This was one of the key issues.
6 In the engineering group at one time at TVA, there was such 7l a small group.
l 8 i It was in the nuclear branch. It had no other l
t
- 9l responsibility except to review for safety implications some
(
10 ! of the systems, the systems interactions. I'm
! 11 reestablishing that within our nuclear branch. In the l
12 l engineering division, they will have no other function.
O 13 However, again, that's only engineering.
14 l There'will be a small group of people in there 15 that will do an engineering analysis for safety implications 1 16 of our plants.
17 Now, I'd really like to have Chuck answer this 18 l whole safety issue for the office, i
19 ,
DR. OKRENT: You said you have an inspector 20 general whose going to be there to listen if people 21 complain, an ombudsman, maybe, that sort of thing.
I j 22 i What I'm asking in effect is:
I I i 23 Are you going to have a chief safety engineer at l
24 the staff ala the Japanese tradition, you know. If you O 25 l
really have a serious accident, he commits hari-kari?
I i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS y lNC.
l 4770 17 02 206 t1-)'DAV/bc 1 Because he takes the job that seriously, is what I mean.
2 You understand, that's his job.
3 i MR. MASON: I don't know that we'll have an
/
individual or a group with that specific charge. Our group 4l 5 i that provides the corporate nuclear safety conscience, if 6 you want to put it that way, is the Nuclear Safety Review 7 Board.
t 8l DR. OKRENT: It's not the same.
9l MR. MASON: It has a fulltime chairman, total 10 I responsibilities associated with safety. They're not i
l 11 ; charged with finding out every safety problem in the 12 organization. Certainly not.
( 13 : To answer the question who is responsible for 14 safety, that's a question like whose responsible for 15 . quality. There's no simple, straightforward answer.
l 16 l Everybody is responsible for quality, and everybody is 17 ! responsible for the safety of their particular activity.
l 18 '
But our corporate body that's charged with being i
19 . our safety conscience is the Nuclear Safety Review Board.
l 20 He has resources available to him to help him in the l
21 l performance of his job, the independent safety evaluation i
22 i group.
23 ! MR. MICHELSON: Could you point out the 24 composition of that board?
25 '
MR. MASON: The composition of the board is l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
is11 1.t* 1*(m S..ma..sm ..l (".s aname MWL1114&JA
l
'. i
. /0 17 03 207 1 DAV/bc 1 currently undergoing change. Bob Cantrell.
2 MR. MICHELSON: Not people so much as where do I I
- 3. they come from. Judging the independence of the board, in l i
4 other words. -
- 5) MR. ' MASON: The type of people that we're going 6 . to have on our various boards, we'll have a board for each '
7 plant.
8l We'll have, of course, the chairman, the site 9 director, the senior quality assurance representative, the 10 senior engineering representative and we'll have consultants 11 : with various discipline backgrounds.
r~T !
! l
- ' 12 MR. MICHELSON: How can you be assured that that 13 l board is going to be in a critical position, so to speak, i
14 since they've got to criticize themselves, the members have 15 got to criticize themselves, in many cases; since they also 16 have the split responsibility of being in charge of 17 engineering and operations, or whatever.
18 , That's not, I think, what Dr. Okrent necessarily 19 had in mind, is it?
20 DR. OKRENT: Ic is not. And, in my opinion, I 21 mean, I've been on enough committees -- I'm still on enough 22 committees in my life, even if you have a fulltime chairman, 7s 23 I'm aware of how much a committee can and cannot do, even if f
v
)
24 they try hard.
25 It seems to me, speaking only for myself, I have i Ac-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- , , , , .- m,_
4770 17 04 208 !
i l
u- 'DAV/bc 1 no idea what the other members think.
2 DR. MOELLER: You mentioned earlier, if I heard 3 . you correctly, that for the next 30-40 years, you saw your 4 j
- major challenge to operate the plants. There would be 5 little design and construction.
6 ,
Is this primarily for the nuclear side, or for 7 all of TVA?
8 MR. MASON: We only talk for nuclear. Certainly, 9 when you look at our situation, the amount of construction 10 ; and design activities over the next few years is going to
~
11 ; diminish in comparison to what it's been in the past. We 12 are trying to build an organization to support four
,e ~
\~ 13 operating nuclear plants, nine units in operation -- not l
14 ! nine units under construction, which requires a totally 15 ; different approach.
16 ) I am sure that, after the last nuclear unit is on l
17 line, TVA will have to build some sort of other facilities 18 '
for the next 40 years. I have no idea what type though.
19 DR. MOELLER: Another question.
20 The material we were provided showed that 21 Mr. White has the 26 people reporting to him and, as I also 22 gathered, most of these people at least indicated to the 23 subcommittee that they were able to see him, you know, if r~s 24 they desired.
- )
a 25 Does he have a set schedule? Do they see him i
l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l i
4770 17 05 g 209 2
c DAV/bc 1 once a week? I think you indicated that he receives written i
2 , reports, I guess, weekly. !
3 MR. MASON: He has set schedules for certain
. I I
4 a activities. For example, each task force reports to him in 1 l
5 person on a weekly basis at a specified time. Each site j i
6 director and each one of his other key managers have to f' i
7 report to him on a daily basis, not necessarily in person, !
8 or at least talk to him on a daily basis.
9 And schedules vary for that contact. Sometimes, -
10 i 's earlier. Sometimes, it's the middle of the day. And, 11 sometimes, he's tied up in other business.
12 : But he returns his calls on a daily basis. You r~Si !
13 l may have to stick around your office until 9:30 or so at i
14 night, but he'll call and he'll make contact with you.
15 MR. REED: I'd like to answer a little bit to 16 Dr. Okrent's comment about the Nuclear Safety Board and who 17 : are these fulltime people that have as their goal only 18 l safety issues.
19 i My personal opinion is, from experience, that 20 safety, as Chuck Mason said, is everybody's business --
21 industrial safety or nuclear safety.
22 And it gets down to the trenches to change the 23 ! locks and lots of little things that positive boards, g~ 24 structured away from the trenches perhaps, don't get s , i 25 ; involved with.
!. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
_ . . ~ _ , . ~ _ _ _
! I i i I !
4770 17 06 l 210 l
/~% i i
kl DAV/bc 1f Now, you can talk about highfalutin physics.
2 -
That, I guess, comes more from the top than it comes from 3 the bottom. But, every day safety and it gets down to 4 i cleanliness in the plant -- janitorial functions, and all 5 i those things -- the total safety in a plant rests with 6 . everybody.
7[ And I think the structuring that has been f
indicated is sound. Committees don't really perform 8{
~
9f safety.
i 10 I >
DR. OKRENT: I was not recommending a committee.
l 11 l MR. REED: I was just trying to be helpful.
i 12 DR. OKRENT: I'm talking about fulltime staff
( 13 l whose job it is to see what may be wrong with the safety.
14 l That includes right at the valves that the operator might be 15 l maintaining, or whatever.
l 16 j You know, I don't disagree with you that, in the 17 l end, it depends -- in the middle of the night or whenver it i
is that most things occur -- on the crew at hand doing the 18 l 19 l right thing.
20 : I'm not trying to take that away. But I lack i
reasonable assurance, okay, that there'll be a group that's 21 li 22 I dedicated and dedicated only to looking for what might be 23 wrong with regard to safety.
l g) 24 l MR. REED: Let me just ask a simple question.
(J [
25 Do you have a safety suggestion box system set l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- n7 LIT.1*nn N armamda f%mesma kML114 44JA
l.
I t
i 4770 17 07 211 I
)
is'DAV/bc 1 up in a form where anybody can drop it in the slot? }
l 2 MR. MASON: Yes, sir.
3 ,
MR. EBERSOLE: Let me ask a question, to see if 4 you've asked a question. You had trouble at Browns Ferry. l 5 We found that the reactor building had porocity when the 6 water level was up near grade. The building let water in 7 'all over the floor.
i 8 So you noticed it and you got busy and you have a I 9 grouting program, I understand, to grout up all these leaky 10 ,
places.
11 Have you asked somebody if the grouting program 12 will go at least eight to 10 feet above grade, because
(
l '
13 that's the Bmf level?
14 '
MR. MASON: I did not ask that specific question, 15 Jessie.
16 l MR. EBERSOLE: How do you know you won't? You're 17 incapable? It's a lousy system in the first place to have i
18 < to throw up levies and haul eight feet of water off, but 19 it's not much good at all if the walls are porous.
20 , So you found out through experience the walls are 21 i porous, below grade. They've got to be impervious above 22 ! grade.
23 Are they?
t 24 i MR. MASON: Mr. Grotleff, would you like to r ; t 25 i address that question?
l i
l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- , , --~ _ __
212 l 4770 17 08 4 I ') i is'DAV/bc 1 Li i
MR. EBERSOLE: It's a question, you know, you !
2 ,
have to ask.
3 '
MR. GROTLEFF: Now we'll find out the answer to i
4 that question. We do have a grouting program. The grouting ;
5 program was developed by our civil engineers. It hasn't 6 been completed yet, but I'm going to find out.
1 ,
1~
7 MR. EBERSOLE: Let me guess it's going to be 8
below grade, but that's all.
9 DR. REMICK: Chuck, you mentioned, in your 10 ! corporate commitment tracking system, you said that you used 11 to track NRC commitments.
12 , What do you do about the many other commitments t
3
\' 13 i that you have to make with other regulatory bodies, -
14 industrial organizations, and so forth?
l 15 Do you use the same system?
16 ;
MR. MASON: We don't use the same system. We l
17 ! have a different system to provide the same function. The 18 corporate commitment tracking system is limited to NRC 19 i commitments. Our own OA commitments, INPO commitments, A&I 20 commitments, that sort of thing, attract on a separate data 21 i base.
l 22 i DR. REMICK: Is there a reason philosophically i
23 why you separate them?
l s 24 i MR. MASON: Not really. We were pretty far along f j !
25 into both of those. We picked the best two data bases that ;
i I
! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
! 202-347-3?m NatiorMb CoveraFe R00 9364616 l
l 4770 17 09 i 213 -
3 i
'DAV/bc 1 we had to go on rather than spend a lot of time developing 2 one data base that would accommodate the large volume of i
3 commitments for both programs.
4 DR. REMICK: Do the NRC commitments go to the 5 board for their informativn on how you' e proceeding? If 6 a so, do the others also go there?
I 7 MR. MASON: They don't go routinely. The reports 8 don't. But NRC commitments, I think the manager of nuclear J
1 9 ' power gets a routine report, and that's as high as that 10 particular one goes. It's a pretty detailed report.
11 DR. REMICK: Thank you.
12 '
MR. MICHELSON: Sometime, I think at the
,m
( ) 9 k- 13 beginning of your talk, and of course at the Chattanooga 14 meetings, there was a discussion about whether or not there 15 might be an advisory board to the TVA board.
16 I think it was once envisioned as five to seven 17 members or something. Is that in now, or out? What's the 18 situation?
19 '
MR. MASON: That has been changed in our 20 submittal on the performance plan. We felt like the 21 organization that we've come up no longer needed an advisory 22 board to the board of directors, and we're going to rely on 23 the annual corporate INPO evaluation, the inspector
,\ 24 l general's reports and the other information that the board i,
25 ' gets.
i 1 4 l
1
! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
an* .1 !?.1~n N 2r u m A ufr ('m erur UYkl%6MA
i 4770 17 10 :
214 7~ ,
1#. DAV/bc 1 MR. MICHELSON: What was the original intent of 2 having these advisers and how is that intent now handled by 3 j INPO?
4 MR. MASON: You've got to go back a little 5 ,
farther than that. The original intent, if you remember, 4
6 last fall, was to hire a nuclear adviser to the board, a 7 ) single individual who would be a nuclear adviser.
d 8 When the board of directors hired Mr. White and
~
9 hired an inspector general, they felt like it was no longer 10 necessary to have another outside adviser.
11 For a short period of time during the early 12 I stages when Mr. White got there, we made the first submittal
(~i
-l
\ 'i 13 on our corporate advisory plan.
14 There was some thought that a nuclear advisory 15 board would provide a useful function. But I guess further 16 study and evaluation of the changes that we're making in our 17 nuclear safety review board and getting outside consultants 18 . would provide adequate coverage in that regard, along with 19 -
the INPO.
20 MR. MICHELSON: It certainly is coverage for 21 Mr. White. It isn't clear that it's coverage for the 1
22 board.
23 MR. MASON: As I indicated, we expect to provide e 24 all the reports of the Nuclear Safety Review Board (m) 25 ! recommendations to the board of directors.
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
_ - . _ m ,, _
4770 17 11 ,
215
, 1
. DAV/bc 1 Any other questions?
2 DR. OKRENT: I have a question. I've been 3 y reading part of the story of TVA. One of the things I read 4 recently was testimony given at a hearing by Congressman 5 Dingell, I think, or whoever it was that was testifying, ,
6 mentioned problems with regard to cabling, pressurized side 7 of the cabling, as I recall -- the way it was installed and 8 i some welding practices that were inappropriate, independent 9 ! of how good the welds were.
10 Why should I assume that everything is tip-top 11 now? Nothing's going to occur like that? And how did
~
12 things like that occur anyway?
13 i MR. MASON: To answer your question, you should i
14 j not assume that everything is tip-top right now because we 15 don't assume everything is tip-top. We take all of those 16 allegations about welding, for example, and we've done 17 exhaustive looks at the welding program at Sequoyah. As the 18 NRC representatives indicated, that effort is just about 19 finished.
20 They've come back behind us and looked over what we've looked at. They are right now close to finish theirs 21 l l
22 at Watt's Bar. We have still a major review effort going on 23 on welding, using a third party to examine both the welding l
f~s I
24 ', program, administration of paperwork and the field welds l s J i l 25 l that exist in the plant -- before we say everything is tip- l i l l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l
- '- -. 8 , n .f,en e r i i.i 9(in.m /A,6
i !
l 4770 17 12 ! 216 3
i 1 I
'.c DAV/bc 1 top or not.
2 '
We're doing similar investigations into cable, 3 sidewall pressure, and similar investigations into 4 essentially all of the employee concerns that hav been 5 raised.
6 'These allegations did come out of the employee 7 concern program, primarily.
8 MR. EBERSOLE: Chuck, what would you do -- and I 9 ,
expect you're the one who says what to do -- if you find a 10 '
critical and important weld for which there is no 11 . fabrication record and, thus, you have no metallurgy?
12 Okay, it looks okay under an x-ray or a die check 13 or a ultra-sonic or whatever the hell else you looka at it 14 ,
with. What do you do?
15 MR. HASON: You bought that up earlier when the t
16 ,
NRC was up here, Mr. Ebersole, and I'm not aware of any 17 significant problems associated with missing metallurgical 18 problems, fabrication records. We may have a few instances 19 '
of missing welder inspector qualification records, but 20 fabrication records, to my knowledge, are not a significant 21 issue in our welding program.
22 MR. EBERSOLE: That's great. You're lucky, 23 ! because you have to cut them out.
r~s. 24 :
MR. MICHELSON: Is the quality of welding rods
( j 25 used, that sort of thing? The record of welding rods used i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
.- ,. , m. _ . _ . . .m , ,m..
l 4
! I t i
! 4770'17'13 217 4
i
) '
DAV/bc 1) is all in good shape?
! i
, 2 MR. MASON: I don't know of any problems
! 3 associated with the records of weld rod quality.
4 MR. MICHELSON: That includes control-weld rods,-
4 i
, 5l of course. ,
I' i 6 i i i 7 l 4
8 r .
f I 9 .
! 10 j .
! 11 l 4
12 -
1 l 13 i
i 14 I 15 l' i
t 16 il f 17 l i
18 j i
4 j 19 3
20 1
l 21 1 22 ,
! 23 l i !
- 24 O 25 j )
! l l
l l l
l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
0 4
4770 18 01 218 c ' DAV/bc 1l MR. HOUSTON: I'm Jim Houston, Deputy Director of 2 ' Nuclear Quality Assurance. Mr. Michelson, there have been a 3 number of allegations concerning the control of weld wire 4 filler material.
5 Those have been extensively investigated and 6 j continue to be as part of the Watts Bar special employee 1
7 concern program, the weld evaluation project. I 8 i So far, the investigations, to the best of my 9 knowledge, have not shown any major problems with the 10 control of material or the traceability of the weld.
11 ;
MR. MICHELSON: Those are the kind of questions i
12 that could raise a question about the weld material.
( )
Yes, sir. And those are the very 13 '
MR. HOUSTON:
14 kinds of questions, as Mr. Mason stated, that we are 15 spending a great deal of time and resource addressing and 16 ,
answering to not only our satisfaction, but then, as 17 ! Mr. Youngblood indicated, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 18 ! is coming behind us and doing extensive inspections and 19 reviews.
20 MR. MICHELSON: In a litt3a more general way, 21 , something is confusing me. I'm st ce you can put me at 22 ease. I find a number of cases wherein there seems to be 23 problems with the welding pr;cedures, at least questions 3 24 raised at Watts Bar.
y i m
25 Are the sar.e procedures that were used in the I
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
4 4770 18 02 1 219 !
~X "I l
.- DAV/bc 1 fabrication of Sequoyah?
2 MR. HOUSTON: In a general sense, and let me 3 address that first. Sequoyah and Watts Bar are of the same 4 evolutionary vintage as far as the codes and standards 5 required to be met. During the construction process, as I 6 think you know, both those plants were started in the early 7 seventies and they have evolved, particularly Watts Bar is 8 still not licensed.
L 9 And, in many ways, it's having to be looked at in 10 the eyes of the current regulatory climate. But let me 11 answer your question specifically about the procedures at 12 Watts Bar as part of the EG&G Department of Energy Review.
( l 13 One of the first tasks they undertook was a 14 ) detailed review of procedures, codes, various points during 15 the process of construction. I believe they had concluded 16 that review and, in that, they had looked at some 30,000 r
17 plus specific attributes relative to procedure.
18 My understanding is, essentially all and perhaps 19 all of those point cases, they found the procedure did exist 20 which invoked the various requirement codes and the records 21 of time and the various activities.
22 MR. MICHELSON: So your procedures then are not 23 , in question any longer? Is that what you're saying?
3 24 MR. HOUSTON: I'm saying, with respect to the
)
v 25 specific question, welding procedures at Watts Bar and other j ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- ,,, , m , ~, . .,_
4770 18 03 220 I
(~N u DAV/bc 1l places, it's not a major' concern.
2! MR. MICHELSON: That's a little bit different i
3l answer than I thought I heard a moment ago. But, that's all a
4 right. khat I wondered.about is if you have proc dures in 5 question at Watts Bar, do you have a system by which you go l'
6 back and re-review how those procedures might have been used 7j elsewhere in TVA to assure that, in those cases, they were 8 '
used correctly?
t MR. HOUSTON: All the concerns identified at 9l 10 : Watts Bar which have generic applicability are being 11 : explicitly evaluated relative to the other plants within the
- 12 l TVA system.
-) 13 MR. MICHELSON: And there's an organized, 14 systematic way of doing this?
. 15 MR. HOUSTON: There's an organized, systemized 16 way of doing it and, in fact, the employee concern task l
17 l group at Watts Bar, the so-called special employee concern 18 program, is in fact doing now the inspections or the reviews l
19 '
of the resolution of those generic concerns at Bellefonte, 20 j Sequoyah and Browns Ferry.
21 That team is now chartered.
22 l MR. WESSMAN: Mr. Michelson, on behalf of the l
23 j staff, we are following behind TVA in both of these areas i
24 extensively. We're just getting underway with the review l 7g l (J l 1
25 ; of such things as the overall welding, the inspection 1 i
i i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. _ ,,. _ .
I l l l 4770 18 04 221 L- DAV/bc 1 program at Watts Bar and the procedures to be used in 2 qualification of inspectors, and things of this nature.
3 ;
We'll have a team of people on and off the site 4
I at several times in the course of the next few months.
5i Similarly, in the employee concerns area, we have i
6 a fair amount of review and inspection activity coming up in 7 the next few months, where we see a potential for generic 8 applicability between Watts Bar and Sequoyah.
9 We will verify that TVA has taken this 10 applicability and transferred the information to the other 11 ; facility, to be sure that it's been appropriately resolved.
12 MR. MICHELSON: Thank you.
r' e
's i '
13 MR. WARD: Mr. Wylie, we're 38 minutes beyond 14 schedule. Are you completed?
15 MR. WYLIE: I'm finished.
l 16 DR. OKRENT: I have one more question, i
17 -
Mr. Chairman.
18 ! Does anyone know what the last INPO review of any 19 of the TVA sites that has been reported?
20 DR. SHEWMON: Their site reports are usually sent 21 -
to the licensee, but not made public.
22 DR. OKRENT: But the licensee knows. I'm trying 23 '
to understand if they were deeply dissatisfied, did they do 7- 24 one. If they did, were they deeply dissatisfied. Were they
( )
25 deeply dissatisfied in any aspects?
I
! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
_ ,,. , m_ .., _
I !
t I
I' 4770 18 05
~
222 i s i
< DAV/bc 1 DR. SHEWMON: Rather than address that to anyone, I l
2 I you might address it to Mr. Mason. l 3 ,
MR. MASON: I'd be happy to answer that.
4 In November of last year, November of '85, INPO 5 came in, did a corporate evaluation of TVA's nuclear 6 programs. That followed the Watts Bar evaluation.
I 7 They were extremely dissatisfied.
8 DR. OKRENT: At Watts Bar?
9 i MR. MASON: At Watts Bar and at corporate. In 10 March -- was it February or Marca of this year -- they did 11 an evaluation at Browns Ferry. It confirmed the things that 12 we've said all along are problems, both in the corporate
> ', 1 13 l evaluation and in the Browns Ferry evaluation.
14 I'd have to characterize their feelings, I guess, 15 as very dissatisfied.
16 DR. OKRENT: All right.
17 : MR. WYLIE: Is that all the questions?
18 Well...
19 MR. WARD: Let's take a 10-minute break and come 20 back for the remainder of this.
21 . (Recess.)
22 MR. WYLIE: I guess, at this time, we'll call on 23 '
our consultants to give us their reports. I'll call on
,cy 24 Mr. Hagadorn first.
t 25 MR. WARD: I'm worried about the schedule. We l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. i
i 4770 18 06 223 ms '
( 4 v DAV/bc 1 are running a little bit behind, but Mr. Wylie and I have l l
2 agreed we would like to give our consultants the time they l l
3 originally had planned on so that we can hear their j 4 i reports. l' DR. SHEWMON: But, if they could condense it a 5 , f 3 i 6 little bit and still give us all that information, it would I 7 be just fine.
8 , MR. WARD: If we can condense our questions and 9 our speeches.
10 MR. WYLIE: Proceed.
11 MR. HAGADORN: It's a pleasure to be here with 12 the ACRS. I'm going to summarize and comment on the TVA-()
13 related memo that I submitted on July 2nd. First, however, 14 I'd like to make a few remarks on the ACRS role in 15 management and organization connected work.
16 You may remember that I was originally asked last 17 November to help you decide the manner and extent of future 18 ACRS involvement on organization and management questions.
19 These questions do seem to loom ever larger in 20 nuclear power plant safety. But, should ACRS, a scientific 21 ,
and technological body, be looking at these soft and 22 ambiguous topics?
23 The current pressing example, obviously, is TVA
,3< 24 and its nuclear power plants and you are, today, continuing m
25 your consideration of a variety of questions about t
4 l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- . . . . , ~ .a - __
t I
l
~
4770 18 07 ! 224 DAV/bc 1 restarting those plants. I believe you intend not only to
- 2l address those questions directly, but to use them to throw 1 4 3j light on what your role should be in future.
/
4 :! After two days with your subcommittee in 5 Tennessee, it seems to me that the committee cannot draw 6l firm lines between the human and the material aspects of 7; safety.
8! !
In a sense, I think it never has drawn any such 9 boundaries because it's always gone where the pursuit of l 1 10 l nuclear power plant safety has taken it.
11 ! If the ACRS finds and accepts the following four l
12 i assumptions, then I think it's already decided that it will t O 13 l be doing more substantial work in the field of organization 14 and management over the months and years to come.
15 j I offer these propositions in the hope that i ;
j 16 formulating, listing and discussing them will help to j 17 ! clarify for the ACRS where it is on this general question.
i 18 ! The assumptions are as follows:
< l 19 i First of all, human factors play an inherent role
, i 20 in nuclear power plant safety. The usability of control and
! 21 ! monitoring equipment can never be safely separated from its l
22 design, construction, calibration and maintenance.
l 23 But it's human factors that determine usability 24 I which, in turn, influence heavily the safety and risk
( I 25 i contributions that emerge from the use of monitoring and l
i
- ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l
, i 4770 18 08 225 DAV/bc 1 control of equipment.
2 , Can human beings meet the operating requirements 3 of the instruments and displays that they are given to i 4 handle continuously, readily, reliably and validly? l l
5 ACRS simply cannot and does not ignore these ,
l 6 human factors and how they play out in nuclear power plant l l
I 7 ,
operations.
i 8 Second, compliance is not enough. No nuclear 9 power plant can be kept sufficiently safe if its 10 management's concern with safety is limited merely to 11 ; complying with NRC regulations.
i 12 1 Safety requires active, continuing management, I )
'~ In 13 proactive inquiry and giving safety reasonable priority.
14 other words, to achieve adequate safety in nuclear power 15 plants, a set of management attitudes and beliefs is 16 , required that views compliance as merely one of the means 17 required to accomplish safety and other fundamental 18 operational objectives.
19 Third, nuclear power plant safety can only be 20 achieved by a safety-minded management, skilled in the ways .
I 21 necessary to bring it off.
22 If you accept the second assumption, then this is 23 just a corrollary and it says that appropriate management 24 skills, attitudes and activities can be identified and r~S.
e ;
25 should be demonstrated by the electric power utilities in i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
, , , . . , . _ _ . . . . ~ . _ . . .m _ !
1 i i 4770 18 09 226 ;
l i DAV/bc the management of their nuclear power plants. -
e 1 l
2 . And, finally, it isn't enough to want safety. I 3 You also have to have and use large amounts of technical 4 competence wisely. Only adequate use of technical 5 competence and technical information permits rational 6 consideration of the safety aspects of management decisions 7 in nuclear power utilities.
8 We talked quite a bit about that this afternoon.
In my opinion, assumptions one, three and four lead directly 9
10 to an agenda for ACRS to clarify the critical safety issues 11 and organization of management to see to it that appropriate l
12 : , standards and guidelines are identified where they don't
(
already exist, and do your share of the necessary remaining 13 14 educational tasks for the Commission and others.
15 You will decide at a suitable time whether to use i
16 . this or some other approach to resolving what your scope of 17 work should be; meantime, we're here to talk about the TVA.
18 '
My overall message about the TVA organization is, 19 . if the ACRS or the NRC staff wants to develop responsible 20 answers to the basic organization and management questions, 21 most of the groundwork has been done.
22 Now, it's a question of finishing the job. The 23 basic issue, of course, is the effect of corporate and power i
,cy 24 , plant organization arrangements on TVA nuclear power plant L
25 safety.
i i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- _ , . . . . . . ~ . . . . _m
227
.'4770 18 10 !
l Ct . DAV/bc 1 Does the organization of TVA hinder,. permit or 2 help safe operation?
3 I agreed at the subcommittee meeting to reflect
~
l 4 on some of the fundamentals with respect to organization l
5 ;
structure.
6 Paul Barton is going to talk about some more l
7 i specific kinds of things after I've finished.
i 8 The memo that I submitted discusses three 9 j subjects:
10 The newly concentrated authority of Mr. White, 11 Mr. White's reporting structure of 26 direct subordinates, 12 and the site director and plant manager role.
O 13 !
i i
And then the memo concludes with a briet section 14 l on the lack of worker confidence in management.
I 15 l Let's turn to White's executive authority and 16 ! i responsibility. The main question about any organizational i
17 restructuring is does it work?- In this case, TVA has given l
18 the accountability for nuclear power generation to 19 Mr. White. Thus, assembling in one job what had been 20 distributed previously among several managers and several I
21 different functional organizations on the assumption.that, 22 to make the organization work better means you're going to 23 ) !
get better decisions made more speedily,.my suggestion is to
! study and compare a few decisions made before this 24 l
( l 25 ! reoganization with others made prior to the reorganization. j 1
I !
1 l
\
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
.,.. ~ _ . . ~ .
l 4770 18 11 ) 228
/ 1
,- JDAV/bc 1! I don't see any merit in trying to make judgments 2 simply on the basis of the structure at all. It doesn't ;
I 3
4 tell you anything. It's a question of how things are l 4 hl going. If you can look at a few decisions that were made 5 last year that are somewhat comparable to some of the 6 decisions being made now, then you can trace out who was l l
7 involved, what kinds of analysis they did, in what order, t 8 who made the tradeoffs and how were the tradeoffs made.
9 And you'd have a very good basis for knowing 10 whether this organization is capable of doing what it's 11 supposed to do and whether it is in fact doing what it's 12 supposed to do faster, better and more cogently than it did
' 13 before.
14 So that you can get a reasonably specific, quite 15 pragmatic documentation on how the organization is working 16 i better, and even some kind of a rough indication of how much 17 better.
18 Let's now turn to White's span of control.
19 Anrbody who has been in charge of a large organization knows 20 that having more than four or five managers reporting 21 directly to you can become a very heavy burden.
. 22 Mr. White's organization chart shows 26 people 23 reporting directly to him. Can that work? Has White's
,s 24 '
reporting burden become so great that it cancels any 25 improvements made by collecting all the reporting channels i
I l
!, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
im.
I I I
i i
4770 18 12 l 229 l
(~T s 'DAV/bc 1 ; in the TVA nuclear power enterprise in his one accoun:able 2- job.
3l What should ACRS and the NRC staff be looking for i :
4 I in order to evaluate this very flat organization?
5 My answer:
i 6 i In looking at this, don't be too literal.
7! Encouraging a lot of people to speak up, to feel close to l
8l the new boss, to be in a position to observe and to be l
stimulated by him is a good way for him to take over his new 9 ,
t 10 , job.
11 ; Furthermore, the flat organization has less 12 I structure than a more articulated organization would, so rx !
\- 13 there'll be less mistake in structure to sweep away before 14 l further refining the present structure, if that becomes 15 desirable.
I In other words, he's got an awful lot of 16 l i
17 flexibility built in to this very flat arrangement.
18 ! It's not going to be a structure that constrains 19 ! him very much when or if he and his closest advisers decide 20 to make it work in some more hierarchical fashion, or 21 j actually decide formally to put in more layers, to cut down 22 ! the numbers of direct reports.
I 23 l The evaluation task is simply to find out and i
24 l verify answers to a few simple questions:
() 25 .
Does every one of his 26 immediate subordinates I
1 l
l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
._ m _ _. -
t I
4770 18 13 230 I-es l
.- DAV/bc 1 report directly to Mr. White for every purpose? Or are l l'
2 there already some internal collection and concentration 3 points? ,
4 For example, for some topics or for so e people 5 or under some circumstances or according to certain decision 6 rules, do people kind of arrange themselves in subgroupings 7 that report indirectly to him?
8 Clearly, the answer is yes. We found that out in 9 the subcommittee meeting in Chattanooga. But I don't have a 10 sufficiently complete answer to be satisfied that I know how 11 that system really is working.
12 And I think that, again, is the issue:
7,)
(
- 13 l How does it work?
14 '
i 15 .
16 l 17 !
18 19 20 21 22 ;
i 23 f
,/ - 24 25 ,
i r
i i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l
3 l
l I !
4770 19 01 231 l X !
- DAVbur 1 What does the staff do whenever there is a backup l t
2 of people waiting or wanting to see Mr. White? What delays t 3 are there? How frequent, and how long are they?
l 4 What standard does Mr. White have in m nd for ;
5 maintaining contact with senior functional staff and the !
6 information to which he has easiest access through them, and j 7 what combination of devices does he expect to use for dcing 8 that?
9 Is there evidence that he is succeeding, and is 10 there evidence that too many people are indeed able to get 11 at Mr. White directly?
12 What are White's contingency plans for dealing
!a'"
i 13 with the situation if bogging down begins to occur?
14 All those questions are practical, simple 15 questions
- hat can generate specific data.
. You can go as 16 far as you want to, as far as you think you need to go 17 '
before you get a real answer as to how well this flat 18 ' organization is working.
19 Let's talk now about organizational integrity at 20 the plant level. If design integrity throughout the plant 21 life cycle has been achieved by the new organization 22 1 structure, as is hoped and intended, that is a potential big 23 ,
plus.
,x
- 24 '
However, I am concerned also about operating
( )
25 .
integrity. Does the combination of site director and plant t
l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- ? f * "T ',. . a .*, (* g r i.a im M6 (4.1/.
l *
, _4770 19 02 l 232 DAVbur 1 manager have enough clout to assure that operations really i
3 2 i do cohere, and can they really be maintained in a coherent' i 3 ;
mode on a minute-by-minute basis, or are there so many other 1 :
1
- 4l channels to headquarters that there's going to be diminished i i 5 operational integrity at the plant level?
Il j 6 It is the same kind of problem that at the ;
- i
) 7l headquarters level has been dealt with by making Mr. White's l 8 job unique. So.he is Mr. Nuclear Power at headquarters.
I i 9l Is it clear how operational integrity at the f
i 10 plant level is to be assured? Is it through individual or
];
4 11 collective accountability?
j 12 ! If the latter, if it is supposed to be some kind i
- 13 of collective accountability, how is it supposed to work?
14 In a memorandum I have written I suggest that the <
4
, 15 starting point for obtaining answers to these questions is
! 16 to be found in the revised job descriptions that middle and 17 senior managers in TVA's nuclear power enterprise have , ,
18 I completed or are complete.
l
! 19 The individual accountabilities are supposed to 20 ) be spelled out clearly, and a first order kind of answer to
! 21 the question of whether or not those power plants can be run I '
- 22 in a concentrated kind of way has to be found in those job f 23 descriptions if they are really worth the paper they are 1 24 ! printed on.
4 O 25 Now, the underlying assumption about safety ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- -. .. --. . - _ . . ~. ..- -. - . . .
i -
4 4 4770 19 03 i 233 DAVbur 1 throughout this discussion is that you are not going to get 1 l 2l it unless you have top management not bogged down, clearly i
3 ,
accountable, functioning ef ficiently, getting the job done, l .
l i 4 ! That is the connection to safety.
j l 5 lj Paul is going to talk in a little while about.
l 6l safety more directly, picking up some of the themes that
- F 1
7 some of you were asking about earlier in the afternoon.
j 8 I want to say a little bit about lack of worker 9 ,
confidence in management. '
I Given the publicity that has been accorded to
{ 10 l I l
- 11 '
employee concerns, it seems to me that the NRC will be 12 well-advised to seek assurances that a reasonable degree of
! () 13 employee confidence in management has actually been restored
] 14 before allowing the first plant or two to be restarted.
i 15 This probably means some kind of employee survey, -
1 i 16 again getting some detailed information, although it may be J
17 adequate simply to publicize again that any whistles that l
18 need to be blown by employees had better be blown-soon.
1 19 Some employees of some TVA nuclear power plants i 20 I strongly believe these plants are not being operated i
21 safety. The question ist do they believe the problems have l
~l 22 been solved?
23 If they don't believe the problems have been 24 l solved, then that is kind of an interesting commentary. If
()
I
' i 25 l !
they do believe the problems have been solved and they don't i
l 1
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 4770 19~04 l 234 DAVbur 1 say so willingly, that is an interesting commentary.
2! If, indeed, confidence has been restored in 3 management, then workers ought to be willing and able to say 4
so, and they probably ought to be asked.
l 5 My purpose in all of these above suggestions is 6 to illustrate that there are reasonable methods available 7l ,
for obtaining the information that is needed to answer the 8l basic question:
9l Is TVA being organized and managed in a manner i !
l 10 i that will contribute to safe operations?
4 11 We, meaning Paul Barton and I, are reporting on a j 12 j selected list of topics. It is not necessarily a complete
, 13 list. I would be happy to address some of the items that 14 aren't on it. For example, some comments that various
) 15 l members of the ACRS have made about boards are very
' l 16 interesting.
4 l
) 17 But we think the rist we have identified is a j 18 good one, one on which all the items are very important. As i 19 ! I see it, if there i.s an organization and management task I 20 l before the ACRS, it is to develop, annotate, and verify this 21 1 kind of a list of important issues about management and I
i j 22 organization and the significance they have for safety so :
i i l 23 that that list can be responsibly applied to all the 1 l 24 completed nuclear power plants in the country and provide 1
4
() 25 . good guidance across a wide range of circumstances.
! l l
l l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l h
4 1 4770 19 05 >
235 DAVbur 1 The point is to simulate the development of a l 2 ; credible methodology for answering the question: is the 5 3 organization and management of this nuclear power plant in 4l such condition that the plant can be operated at or above I
5 accepted safety standards?
l 1
6 i Thank you.
i
- 7 MR. WYLIE: Questions?
- 8 '
DR. MOELLER: Have you had a chance to look at I l l 9l any of the indicators of performance that INPO uses, and if i
i 10 i you have, have you decided whether they truly measure
! I 11 whether management is adequate?
i 12 l MR. HAGADORN: No, I haven't looked at them. I A i U 13 l don't have access to INPO materials.
14 Obviously, what I am suggesting here is based on 15 i the feeling that there are not performance indicators from
- 16 before the organization that make it very easy to make a 17 before and after comparison and that some more active l
I 18 efforts at making that comparison would be very useful at l
19 this time.
f 20 l DR. MOELLER: Have you in your work with the 21 l committee had an opportunity to look at the management of 22 what is considered to be a successful nuclear utility?
23 MR. HAGADORN: No. This is the only exposure I 1
! 24 have had.
- O 25 1 DR. KERR
- It seems to me that what you have said l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
)I 4770 19 06 - 236 m
]
< DAVbur 1) would take the status of existing manageicent and compare it 2 to what it was X months ago. But we also need to know 3 whether it is good enough.
4 , I didn't hear you mention how you go about --
5 maybe there isn't any way to go about that. Maybe we only 6 have to conclude that it is better or worse.
7 MR. HAGADORN: I think the first step is to 8 conclude whether it is better or worse. I have heard around 9 this table some questions about whether something is safe 10 enough, which I think is a broader way of asking the same 11 question.
12 There doesn't seem to be any very definite answer
! s
'- 13 to that question either.
i 14 ,
DR. KERR: I just want to make sure I hadn't 15 ,
missed something.
MR. HAGADORN: The way in which we normally go 16 l 17 l about it is, I think, the same kind of way that you do in 18 '
this committee. You go from one level of generality to a 19 '
more specific level. You go as far as you can go or as far 20 as time permits or until you exhaust yourselves.
21 MR. WYLIE: Any other que'stions?
22 l MR. REED: Just one point. I think this is very 23 1 sensitive and perhaps something that should be talked
,- 24 ! about.
) i 25 l I think if I was in Mr. White's shoes I would i
i i
- ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
' ^
4770 19 07 237
~
s (d DAVbur 1 want as many people as possible for six months or a year 2i reporting to me.
3 i The purpose of that would be to later on 4! establish layers because I have established competence by
\
5l communication.
i 6l Do you feel that is true?
7 . MR. HAGADORN: I certainly feel it is possible.
i 8 I have advised an awful lot of people taking over big 9 l' organizations to go through a period in which they look l
10 j under every rock and establish the best relationships they i
11 l can.
12 I see him as doing things that are very O 13 l consistent with that, and I think it is entirely possible 14 that he will choose to structure the organization in some 15 more hierarchical fashion later on.
16 ! In the memo I wrote, I lay out two or three 17 , possible variations on the theme, on the thought that the l
18 staff and this committee may want to have some of those 19 concepts in their heads at the time that they review what is 20 ,
happening in the TVA so it is a little more comprehensible 21 if those kinds of changes may occur.
22 MR. WYLIE: Any other comments or questions?
23 j MR. EBERSOLE: I just hear that this one-man p 24 organization is something you pretty much approve because he d 25 is got to be everywhere.
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
.- _- , . - . ~ . . . -
l a
1 4770 19 08 238 i
. DAVbur 1 MR. HAGADORN: As a starting point.
1 2 :j MR. EBE RSOLE : As a starting point.
- I 3j MR. HAGADORN: It meets one of the kinds of 1
4 I issues that I think is behind the questions about how high 1 5
in the organization do pecole understand PRAs and what kind 6 of role does the board really have, in that it alves him the 7 opportunity to get the most diverse kinds of inputs 8 functionally and in terms of level of understanding and 9 i occupational perspective and any other number of ways, 10 different sites as well.
11 MR. EBERSOLE: I suppose he will have to put out 3
12 - a periodic report of success or failure or somewhere in
/ l, between on the activities of each of those boxes to keep up I 13 i
14 , with himself?
i 15 MR. HAGADORN: I would think he would.
16 ! MR. EBERSOLE: That would be an interesting 17 ; periodic report to read.
18 ! MR. HAGADORN : I am sure he keeps a little black i
19 book.
20 MR. WYLIE: Others?
21 (No response.)
22 , MR. WYLIE: If not, thanks.
23 ; MR. HAGADORN: You are welcome.
1
,3 24 MR. WYLIE: I call on Mr. Paul Barton now to make l I
(s._.. )
l 25 .his presentation.
- 1 1
i !
! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
. . - - s .- . . . . . . .m t .. c
l !
4770 19 09 l 239 l f I h." DAVbur 1 i MR. BARTON: This is my first time in the role of
- 2. a consultant before this group. I have always been on the 1
1 3 other side trying to get a license, so it is a new 4 experience.
5 But my comments and recommendations today are l l
6 based, of course, on information that was presented at the i
- 7) subcommittee meeting with TVA on June the 12th and 13th, and 1
8 i of course what I have read on the TVA's nuclear performance 9 plan.
10 They are also limited to the suggestions that l
11 Charlie Wylie made concerning the subject he thought I would 12 be better qualified to consider, and these subjects are 13 salary structure, management development, and, number two, l 14 engineering and nuclear safety, and then the last one, 15 restart and power operation.
16 : Now, TVA has clearly pointed out that they 17 consider the root cause of shutting down their nuclear 18 plants was the lack of sufficient number of experienced 19 nuclear operating personnel, and I fully agree with that 20 statement.
21 , Based on my experience with the TVA organization l
22 i through the years, there are two basic reasons why they were 23 unable to develop and retain nuclear managers.
24 Most important is the salary structure, which has L )3 25 the top pay limited by statutory limitations.
! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
.,,m . ~ _ mm_
i 4770 19 10 i 240 i DAVbur 1 The second is the failure to develop a 2l satisfactory performance evaluation program and management I
3 development program.
l .-
t 4l The disposition of the salary program has existed 5 for a long time. Of course, it became much worse following l
6 the Three Mile Island accident, when the industry began 7 trying to improve their operating expertise and began to pay 8 higher salaries to get experienced operating personnel.
It was also pointed out in 1983 by the
] 9l l
10 l President's private sector survey, known as the Grace 11 l Report, which recommended at that time that corrective 12 ; action be made immediately in order to hold together the O 13 j nuclear program management team. But as far as I know, 14 nothing was done at that time.
i 15 I I understand, of course, as the remarks that were 16 l made here today, that considerable improvement has to be 17 l made in the compensation package for nuclear personnel. But 18 ! you need to point out that, at least to the best of my 19 information, that the top pay is still Grade M-13, which is 20 , S72,000 a year, and M-13 applies to the board of 21 i directors. Then from there down, say looking at M-8 through l
22 l M-13, moving up five management levels, there is only $6,545 23 per month of an increase. That is not enough incentive to 24 l get a person to strive for the extra responsibility of O 25 I management.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- rY'. t.t*.1*nn N..rmnmide Cmermae 331136 6646
4770 19 11 ' 241 i'
DAVbur 1 DR. SHEWMON: You said 6000 per month. You meant 2 J 6000 per year?
l 3
3 MR. BARTON: Did I say per month? Pardon me. I 4 was trying to go a little too fast. I will need to slow 5! down a bit.
l Yes, that is 6000 per year, is the differential 6{ j i
7 for five levels of management. I 8 I need to also point out that experienced nuclear 9 ; plant managers today can get offers of 25 to 50 percent 10 above what TVA can possible offer.
11 I still say that unless something is done about 12 the statutory limit on salaries it is going to be difficult, !
l 13 even with the management development program they now have 14 '
underway, to be able to maintain and hold experienced 15 nuclear management personnel.
16 The nuclear performance plan that TVA proposes to 17 follow is relatively heavily filled for the next two years 18 with contract personnel, which of course has been discussed 19 '
here at length today.
20 The important point is within the next two years 21 they plan to fill these positions by training TVA personnel 22 that are now on board or else by going out and hiring 23 experienced people from the industry. They have also o 24 ! admitted, with the present salary structure, that it is
(_) i 25 going to be very difficult to attract people from the l
l l $gp[EDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
4770 19 12 242 ;
E DAVbur 1 industry to be permanent TVA employees. l i
2h So this means that over the next two years they i d l 3 are going to have to develop out of the organization a !
4 senior manager to fill most all of the 12 or more positions !
l now filled by contract personnel.
5 j 4
1 6 In order to accomplish this, there must be !
I' 1
7 j created an extensive and well-organized management 8 development program which will motivate and install i
9 : confidence in their present, middle, and lower management l~
l 10 personnel. i 11 The plan recognizes this need but says very gs 12 i little about how it is going to be accomplished.
- ; j 13 At our meeting at Sequoyah on the 13th, the 14 l management of nuclear personnel outlined the goals and 15 objectives for a management development plan which is 16 supposed to be developed over the next nine months, which 17 included developing 20 or 30 people for top management 18 .
positions.
19 This presents a very tight schedule and little 20 .
appears to be in place at this time except a planned 21 training and motivating workshop for 2200 middle managers.
22 My concern is that considerably more information 23 '
needs to be presented concerning how the bootstrap
(~ ; 24 management development is going to be accomplished in time v ,
25 to replace the contract managers.
! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3 !
1 l l
4770 19 13 1 243 x '
l c' DAVbur 1i Of course, it was brought out today that possibly l l
2 :. some of these contract managers may be able to stay on. I i
3 Turning now to engineering and nuclear safety, ,
. l-4 based on the presentations and documentation I have
- 5) available, I am not satisfied that the proper relationship ;
i l
6 ji and division of responsibility has been established between ;
7 I the director of nuclear engineering and the director of 8 nuclear safety and licensing.
1 9j Additional information needs to be presented
~
10 concerning the responsibility for nuclear safety. That is 11 -I nuclear safety as it relates to the system design and I
12 3 modifications, probabilistic risk assessment and its
( !
'~'
13 results, and safe operating procedures as they relate to 14 system design and industry experienced.
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ;
22 !
23 ;
rx, 24 !
() i 25 ,
i l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l -
244
/'370 20 01 l I .) DAVbw 1 1ll In other words, who is responsible for an 2i independent look at nuclear safety from the point of view of 3 system design and operation, not just from comoliance with 4 the reculations, codes and standards?
Reference was made at the Secuoyah meeting to a 5 :l
\
6, new group identified as Independent Safety Engineering 1
7 Group. There were three people at the site reporting 8l off-site to the Director of Nuclear Safety and Licensin'g.
I -
9! More information needs to be presented concerninc 10 ! the responsibilities of this group. Another item that needs l
11 ! to be clarified is, who is responsible for nuclear fuel l
~
12 j management in the new organization. I believe it was stated i
13 i that the Director of Nuclear Services was responsible for 14 i fuel.
l 15 My cuestion is, whyis not fuel and new 16 core-related design not the responsiblity of Nuclear 17 Engineering?
18 The description of the new Nuclear Engineering 19 ; Organization that was presented in Chattanooga did not fully i
explain the division of responsibility and coordination 20 f 21 between the headquarters group Engineering, located in 22 Knoxville and the engineers located at each nuclear site.
23 ; For example, there appeared to be four levels of
() 24 management between the lead engineers on site and the 25 Director of Nuclear Engineering.
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. _ , , . . . . .
j
,70 20 02 245 1 DAVbw 1 Additional information needs to be presented i
2! I concerning the authority of the site enoineer to make plant 3! modifications and how they assure that their modifications ,
1 4l are in compliance with all license commitments, regulations, codes, standards and nuclear safety recuirements.
5l 6' Now turning to the subject of resuming power i
7l !
operations.
8 I fully agree with the decision of the TVA Board 9l of Directors to place the entire TVA nuclear program under 10 the manacement of one man with full authority. It was an 11 excellent decision.
r .
12 ' I believe the present management team assembled Q ,)
13 l by Mr. White, if it can be held together and maintains its I
14 l present motivation is capable of achieving the excellence in 15 ; management that is necessary to assure that the TVA units i
16 , are coerated in a safe and efficient manner, presenting no l
17 ' threat to the health and safety of the public; however, I am 18 i concerned about the flat organization with 26 people 19 l reporting to Mr. White, that it will not be able to continue 20 in this manner, as they begin to go into full activity, 21 ; activity at somewhat a lower pace, compared to running, say, 22 five nuclear units.
23 Of course, this organization, it has been pointed
,~ !
l 24 out, can probably break down into a lower level with four or
/
25 five people reporting to Mr. White. And of course, if it k
k
! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
'9 \* '~
n I. f' , '(m **( (C id
1 1
l i
/ 770 20 0." 246 l V doesn't break down that way, it will just work by natural 1 DAVbw 1 2 gravity into that type organization, whether it is made 3 formal or not. ,
4 At this time, I cannot predict the timetable, 5 when it will be prudent to resume full nuclear operations.
6 It would take considerable study of the start-up plans, both 7 for Browns Ferry, Secuoyah and Watts Bar, to make that 8 determination, but at the meeting that we had in 9 Chattanooga, very little information was presented 10 concerning the problems that still have to be overcome at 11 Watts Bar or Browns Ferry, but the recuirements to get 12 l Secuoyah started back up or the concerns at Secuoyah, appear 13 to be of minor nuclear safety significance.
14 A maximum effort, in my opinion, should be 15 applied by both TVAa and the NRC organization, to complete 16 the necessary documentation and review of safety questions 17 for Secuoyah and return these units to power at the earliest 18 date that nuclear safety can be assured.
High morale of nuclear plant operating personnel 1 9 {i 20 is one of the most important ingredients for plant safety.
21 Restoring operation at Secuoyah would do wonders for the 22 morale of the entire TVA organization and restore confidence 23 in the present management.
() 24 I
I think we ought to get on with the task, with 25 getting that plant started up and do everything we know to l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. _ , , .
l i
t
^(70 20 04 247 i
I DAVbw 1 get the safety concerns cleared up as cuick as possible.
2l DR. MOELLER: Why is it that Secuoyah has fewer i
3: safety problems than Watts Bar or Browns Ferry? .What is it?
I 4 '
MR. BARTON: I can't say that it does. The only 5 one that I got information on of any significance was 6; Sequoyah, and I am basing some of it on the fact that I had 7l visited Secuoyah before. Secuoyah is very similar to Duke 1
8i Power's McGuire and Catawba plants. The plant has run 9i successfully with a reasonably good operating record for I
10 f several years, and I just can't conceive that there are that 11 many problems out there that couldn't be cuickly corrected 4
( ,, 12 l and started up. The plant looks good. It is one of the i
~- .
13 best-looking plants I've looked at. And I have been in a i
14 l number of them over the last two or three years.
15 l MR. EBERSOLE: In that connection, I have often 16 l wondered if you feel there was justification for shutting it i
17 down on an autonomous basis?
i 18 : MR. BARTON: Of course, I've had the same 19 i thoughts, but I didn't have all the facts at the time it was 20 shut down. I don't have all of them now. I can't help but 21 have an opinion, and that is what I figured I was asked to i
22 ! have.
23 l MR. EBERSOLE: It would be interesting to find
- 24 , out, if they'd been shut down for peanut reasons all this 25 , time.
i I
l l !
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I i
"> 7 0 20 0 5 l 248
/
1 DAVbw 1 DR. MOELLER: I wonder, Mr. Ch a i rma n , if it would 2i be proper to ask the TVA people to comment on why Sequoyah 3i is considered in better shape than the others. A.s Jesse was i
4 saying, what were the basic reasons that Secuoyah was shut 5 down, originally, or when it was?
6 MR. WARD: I think if we want to go to that -- we 7l have had Mr. Bates for a long time, and we could have asked i
8 him.
9 MR. WYLIE: Are you through?
10 i MR. BARTON: Yes.
11 I MR. WYLIE: Mr. Chairman, let me ask you a
, 12 i cuestion. Mr. Barton raised a number of cuestions that only
(
v 13 ! the Applicant, the Licensee, TVA, can answer.
14 ! Would it be appropriate to recuest them to answer i
those cuestions now, or would you desire to do that, to take 15 l t
16 l the time? Or what is this committee's concern?
17 MR. WARD: We really haven't gone up to our 18 j time. Certainly, we could take a few minutes to let TVA 19 respond to anything they have heard, in particular, to 20 . answer Dr. Moeller's cuestions. That seems reasonable to l
21 me.
22 I MR. WYLIE: We could them in order or reverse, so s
23 : Dr. Moeller's cuestion first. ;
i
! I
~s
, 24 l MR. WARD: Why don't we take another 15 minutes l
\:
25 i or?
l l
! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l
- . . . . , m_.~_. mm_
I i
i 70 20 06 249 1 DAVbw 1j MR. WYLIE: Let's do that.
I 2l MR. BARTON: Do you want to let TVA come up?
I 3i MR. WYLIE: I think so, if TVA would 1.ike to 4i answer those cuestions.
5 Chuck Mason may want to do that.
6, MR. BARTON: One or two of them were partially i
7 answered already. I think that was well-started, I think.
8: MR. WYLIE: Maybe you can answer Dr. Moeller's 9; question.
I 10 l MR. MASON: Restate the cuestion.
i 11 f MR. WYLIE: Basically, why they shut down
, 3 12 ! Secuoyah.
t J i
\s 13 ! DR. MOELLER: Is Secuoyah, now, the first unit i
14 that Mr. White has announced that he hopes to be able to 15 l bring back on line, what is it about Sequoyah that is 16 different from the other units that you have?
i 17 ' MR. WARD: You mean, why is it going to be ready i
18 first?
I 19 i DR. MOELLER: Yes. Why is it ready first, if 20 , all of them are TVA, and if it is primarily a management i
21 ' problem and not a physical plant problem?
l 22 MR. MASON: Well, I'll go back and address the 23 reason that Secuoyah was shut down last year, to start
! i (us 's 24 I with.
25 We thought we were meeting the requirements of
- ACE-FEDERAL RIEPORTERS, INC.
! .,m, , --_ m,_
/ 170 20 07 '
250 1 DAVbw 1l the Environmental Qualification Program. Questions kept i
I 2 arising or we kept finding components that maybe weren't 3 qualified. We found enough of those to really get into it j
4{ in detail and raise some serious cuestions as to the i
adecuacy of our cualification program. So we went outside 5l i .
and hired a consultant to come in with expertise in the 6;
7 environmental cualification area and had them do a detailed 8j look at whether our program was adecuate and were we h -
9 environmentally qualified.
10 He did his study in August. He gave us a report l
11 i that indicated that we had serious deficiencies in the l
7- w 12 environmental cualification area. We thought, at the L.) .
13 beginning, they were mostly documentation. We had missing 14 documentation or we hadn't prepared the files adequately to 15 justify the decision that we had met the recuirement.
16 So because of the magnitude of the cuestion 17 j associated with the environmental cualification and the i
verification that we had a significant number of components 18 l 19 which obviously were not environmentally qualified, and we t
20 l would have to do physical work to qualify them, we shut both i
21 l units down, in order to get into that problem and really i
22 l find out the degree and depth of our lack of cualification.
23 I That was the reason for unilaterally shutting l
l , 24 down.
v 25 ' MR. WYLIE: Let me see if I understand. You said I
i i
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. _ , . . .
^ 251
(_7.70 J 20 08 i they said you had a series of problems.. You started off, I 1 DAVbw 1I 2 think, by saying you thought it was missing documentation.
3 Was it, in fact, just paper or was, in, fact, was I
4{ there something wrong with the equipment?
5 MR. MASON: A lot of it was paper. A lot of it 6 was problems with the equipment that we had not, in fact, 7l environmentally qualified. The cable, for example. We had I
i 8! qualified one type of cable and all the other manufacturers 9 of that type of cable, we had assumed were qualified. When 10 I we looked at it, we didn't have the documentation to prove I
that this manufacturer's cable was qualified.
11 l l
12 i MR. WYLIE: But, in fact, you didn't know whether 13 1 it was good or bad?
14 MR. MASON: In fact, we had not qualified by test 15 that manufacturer's cable. So we had to go back'and do 16 those tests, and we did not analyze all of the harsh 17 environments and the equipment in those harsh environments 18 adequately. We missed a lot of equipment in harsh
)
19 l environments that should have been looked at and I
20 environmentally qualified.
21 l DR. MOELLER: Was this common to Watts Bar and 22 Browns Ferry?
23 1 MR. COTTLE: We were in the process, just before
() 24 I
the audit that Chuck mentioned, of trying to make a final submittal to the NRC Staff on qualification, EQ listings for 25 l l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
9tM . tJ* .1-fW1 %.! as m mada t%menan 2dYL114./inJn
I i
l 70 20 09 ! 252 I
1 DAVbw 1 i Watts Bar. We went throuch a series of iterations where we 2! found the plant would identify a component that would
(
3; appear, indeed, to meet the environmental cualifi, cations, I
4; but it wasn't on the list.
5! Our engineering design organization would come 6 back with a revision to the list.
7i That was kind of the basic initiating factor 8, behind looking at the whole EQ program and eventually 9i resulted in bringing in Westek to do an audit. At that 10 ' point in time, I was site director at Watts Bar, discussing l
11 l similar type problems that Mr. Abercrombie was having down 1
f- 12 ! at Sequoyah.
3
('~
13 ! MR. EBERSOLE: At this time, maybe you did a ve'ry 14 l noble thing, but it wasn't being done much anyplace else.
l 15 l Did you look around you at other nuclear 16 installations to make an assessment of to what degree they l
17 had completed environmental cualification efforts? Suppose 18 l you found nobody had much anyway?
19 MR. MASON: Bill, I'll let you address that too, 20 because you were there when it happened.
21 l MR. COTTLE: Mr. Ebersole, we were basically 22 l looking at the legal requirement of the November 30, 1985 23 l date.
i (Kj 24 l MR. EBERSOLE: You didn't look at reality, j
25 , though, in the context of what was the vulnerability.
l l
l ! ACE _ FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
4 _ , , - , - _ . ~ . _ . _
f i
4770 20 10 8 253
,m .
k DAVbw 1f MR. COTTLE: I think we were looking at reality.
2 ; We were already very well aware of significant problems with 3 ; our Browns Ferry unit. We already had Browns Ferry down.
4l We were looking at the reality of the TVA overall nuclear 5 program situation.
6l MR. EBERSOLE: I mean, did you look at the 7 h condition of the other plants at large and say, what is 8I average or typical state of affairs?
1 9 . MR. COTTLE: We did not, for example, take the I.
10 j degree of compliance in EQ of Sequoyah and' compare it to 11 McGuire or Catawba.
12 MR. EBERSOLE: You took a purist point of view --
' ( 13 an Ebersole point of view, that one wants to be a leader.
14 I'm trying to put a halo on him, see. Because I 15 l suspect you fixed conditions which were-rampant across the 16 industry. I don't know that, but.I have my suspicions.
I 17 j Did the Staff observe that? Was the condition at i
18 I Sequoyah uniquely bad? And were there other plants that had 19 i equivalent levels of noncompliance but kept right on l
20 l running? Or are they now?
- 21 MR. WESSMAN: I'm not sure that we have that 22 assessment on the Staff. A good cross section of opinion 23 regarding the other plants, I think our view was that 24 Sequoyah did have a significant number of EQ problems. My 25 personal recollection is that compared to many of the other 1 i I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
?n?. u?.1*dn Narumuk Cmerman C L
)
4770 20 11 254 t
)
e DAVbw 1 facilities that were heading up against the November rule, 2 Sequoyah had more difficulties to resolve than most of the 3 others. l 4 MR. EBERSOLE: Warranting shutdown, in your view? j l
5 I'm trying to put words in your mouth. j 6 MR. WESSMAN: Yes, you are. I think the decision l 1 l 7 for shutdown was made by TVA, not the Staff. I don't think i l
8 the Staff was very happy with TVA's situation in the EQ area 9 vis-a-vis the other utilities. They were clearly doing a [
10 better job of it.
11 MR. EBERSOLE: But you probably would not have 12 called that shot that way?
/
13 MR. WESSHAN: I am not prepared to call that shot 14 myself.
15 ! MR. WYLIE: What did the case of the other 16 j utilities were in a better position show that it was 17 qualified, not that it wasn't?
18 MR. WESSMAN: I think. yes, the other utilities 19 were probably in a better position to show that it was 20 qualified, and of course, the Staff has been doing 21 ,
inspections of some of the other utilities. I just don't 22 have, for the Committee here, the results of, whether on a 23 comparative basis, after doing those inspections, you know, fm 24 was the equipment, in fact, better qualified.
L_. '
25 I think we are digressing from TVA.
i I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
n 1
a 4770 20 12 255 '
i !
x- DAVbw 1 1 DR. KERR: I think these kinds of questions are 2 extremely exciting, and they should be treated as a warning! {
3 (Laughter.)
I h
4 MR. MICHELSON: It's past prime time, in other I 5 words. ;
6 MR. WARD: Well, do we want to give Mr. Mason an 7 opportunity to respond to anything you heard from our l 8 consultants? If you choose to, it's not necessary.
9 MR. BARTON: One of the first concerns was F 10 >
management development. The management development program ,
I 11 -- I don't think you can answer that maybe here tonight, but
,_ 12 l at least I feel like some additional information needs to be
(' ; 13 given on how well they are going to get that management 14 '
development program organized. Nine months looks like too 15 r long a schedule to get it up and organized. They need to 16 move in a hurry, if they are going to develop their people 17 as quickly as they say they are going to.
18 MR. MASON: I thought I heard you say that nine 19 months was an ambitious schedule to get it developed. We 20 don't anticipate having all these managers developed within 21 nine months, but we expect to have a program on the street 22 in nine months.
23 MR. BARTON: I may have gone too fast.
~
24 , Nine months was the period to develop the
- )
25 -
program. I said it was ambitious to get enough people l
I l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
_ . . . . _ . . . . ~ . . . . . . _ . . . . .
l I
I 4770 20 13 , 256 I l
.J DAVbw 1] trained in two years to fill all the jobs, is what I meant 1
21 to say, anyway. Nine months is a time to develop a 3 program. I am saying that is a long time to get started, 4 leaving roughly only 15 months left to do the job.
5 MR. WYLIE: Is this truly a management 6 development program, training managers frca the supervisory 7 level up, not trained to develop managers?
8 1 MR. MASON: What we want to develop is a 9 ! program to handle all of our managers, 1500 to 1600 managers 10 from the general foreman level all the way up and to help i
11 ! them improve their ability to manage and supervise. We are 12 ; not going to rely on that program to develop the
( l A4 13 i replacements for the contract employees who are filling the 14 I key spots.
15 As we indicated before, we are dependent on a 16 one-on-one educational process, the development process.
I 17 Evaluation. Some of those will take less two years. Some 18 ! of them will take two years. Some of them may take longer 19 l than two years, but that is the primary method by which we 20 are going to develop those key managers.
21 ,
We are not going to put anybody in there unless i
22 they've got potential.
23 : MR. EBERSOLE: Do you have an plan defining an
,cs 24 ,
incentive, other than money, for people to stay there?
25 MR. MASON: That's a challenge.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
-- i-- s , ,.ie.. . , . . W **&&&A
I 4770 20 14 , 257 1 1 I l
DAVbw 1 4 MR. EBERSOLE: Patriotism. l l
2 DR. SHEWMON: Living in the TVA area. l 3 MR. EBERSOLE: You've got to find something. f i .- i 4 MR. MASON: I don't care to respond to any of the !
l 5 others. I thought he had a good report. I'd liike to get a 6 copy of that. !
l 7 MR. WARD: Fine. We'll make it available.
8 Mr. Wylie?
9 MR. REED: One little quickie.
10 I raised the issue of selection in the 11 Subcommittee meeting, using EEI tests. I tried to set up a 12 i communication with your personnel manager. I don't know I)
'-~'
13 l whether that took place or not. I believe those tests can 14 be made available.
t 15 I MR. MASON: I appreciate it.
16 l MR. REED: You should know about that.
17 ' MR. MASON: I'll get on that tomorrow.
18 MR. WYLIE: Any other questions?
19 MR. EBERSOLE: One has to h, ave an absolute ferver 20 for perfection 21 4 MR. WYLIE: Any other questions of either 22 j Mr. Barton or Mr. Hagadorn?
23 (No response.)
<7 24 Do you want to go into the Subcommittee comments?
l 25 MR. MICHELSON: We've got to write a letter i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- , , . . . . _ . . . ~ _ _.
4770 20 15 ; 258 !
4 4
vd DAVbw 1 pretty soon, in fact, this week. Sometime we've got to l l
2 discuss them. i i
3 MR. WYLIE: I could either do that, or I could 4 attempt to write a letter from the comments received.
5 '
MR. WARD: The Committee here -- does the 6 Committee think that we should, and are in a position to, !
7 , write a letter on this subject?
l 8 MR. REED: I think from the political point of !
l 9 view, unfortunately, we probably should write a letter; !-
10 however, from the letter writing technique point of view, I 11 think in view of our own lack of management competence, and 12 so on and so forth, we ought to make the letter very short, 7_,
e ;
13 ; and it ought to address that lots has happened and achieving 14 and dealing with basic problems, it looks like they are on ,
15 ' track.
16 . DR. REMICK: On what basis do we write a letter?
l 17 Just on our own option? We have no request, no statutory 18 requirements, or is that our option?
19 MR. WARD: That's right.
20 DR. LEWIS: But I think, if we think there are 21 safety issues, we have an obligation to write a letter, but 22 I think it would be on our own.
23 MR. WARD: Okay.
,- 24 l Why don't you plan on drafting a letter that wwe v )
^
25 will consider on Saturday then?
a l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
1 1
4770 20 16 3 259 f i
r' .
i i i L-'DAVbw 11 MR. WYLIE: Is that the consensus? I've only :
1 2 heard from two people.
3 MR. MICHAELSON: You've received now comment 4 letters. I assume you will either incorporate th m in or we
- 5) will address the comments during discussion, and then they I
6 either become a part of the letter or they become added ;
7 comments to the letter. l 8 Is that correct?
I 9 So you've got letters to read. F a
10 MR. WYLIE: I guess I heard Mr. Reed comment. Is j i
11 that the consensus of the Committee, to write a short l
12 letter, the way he said it?
g_
13 i -
MR. WARD: I think we should write a long I
14 ! letter. I don't think we are going to get an answer right 15 , here.
16 DR. KERR: I would agree with Mr. Reed. I think
)
17 if we write a letter, it should be short.
18 DR. REMICK: I am not convinced we should write a i
19 ; letter, but if we write a letter, it should be short; yes.
20 DR. OKRENT: I'm not convinced we should write 21 it. If we write it, it should be long!
22 '
(Laughter.)
23 ! DR. REMICK: A typical ACRS consensus.
,e < 24 1 MR. WYLIE: Maybe we should entertain a motion as
- )
w- i 25 to whether we should even write a letter or not.
I i, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
. . . . . , ,. .. .. ~ .... . . . . . . .
I 4770 20 17 260 jDAVbw 1 MR. WARD: You're being awfully legalistic about 2 this, because you have to draft it!
3 (Laughter.)
4 ;
MR. WYLIE: I hear several people say we 5 ; shouldn't write a letter and hear a couple saying we 1
6 should.
7 MR. WARD: Okay. I d
I 8 MR. WYLIE: Maybe we should entertain a motion. !
6 9 DR. KERR: What do you think, Charlie? c 1
10 DR. LEWIS: Why don't we take a sense of the 11 Committee about whether we want to write a letter?
12 .
MR. WARD: We don' t need a formal motion.
)
13 How many think that we should write a letter on 14 this subject?
15 DR. REMICK: Excuse me, Dave.
16 . The question was, whether the Subcommitteo 17 Chairman recommended. I appreciate knowing that.
18 MR. WYLIE: Let me say this. I think some of the 19 observations made by the Subcommittee members and the 20 consultants have merit.
21 Now this letter, in that context, can be 22 valuable to the Commission, I think. So I would be in favor 23 of writing it, but, you know, if you're not going to say 24 anything, there is no point in writing a letter.
25 l
1 l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
, , , , . _ - , . - . m_
3 !
i i A770 20 01 261 1- >) DAVbw 1 . DR. REMICK: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman.
1 l
2 ] MR. WARD: No, that was appropriate.
i 1
3 ; Now, how many are in favor of writing a letter?
4 (A show of hands.)
i 5 MR. WARD: Eight, nine. l t
t t l 6l How many opposed?
7 (A show of hands.)
8 MR. WARD: How many indifferent?
9 (No response.)
10 Let's take a very short break.
11 (Whereupon, at 5:45 p.m., the Committee was
-l
)
12 j recessed, at the conclusion of which, an unrecorded session
,-- l t 1
"/
13 l was entered into.) -
1 14 ,.
15 16 t
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 g-) 24 ;
- i. /
25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
. _ , . - . . . . ~ . _ _ , m,,_
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER-O This is to certify that the attached proceedings before
! the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING: ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 315TH GENERAL MEETING i
?
DOCKET NO.:
1 PLACE: WASHINGTON, D. C.
i DATE: THURSDAY, JULY 10, 1986 i
l were held as herein appears, and that this is the original i transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
D 4
DAVID L. HOFFMAN i
Official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Reporter's Afriliation O
. _._ _ _-_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ . . - - _ _ . _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _. _ U
j0 -
l q#
NRR STAFF PRESENTATION TO THE i O ACRS I I i
SUBJECT:
STANDARDIZATION DATE: JULY 9, 1986 l
PRESENTER: DIN 0 C. SCALETTI i
O PRESENTER'S TITLE / BRANCH /DIV: PROJECT MANAGER / SSPD / DPWRL-B PRESENTER'S NRC TEL. NO.: 492- 8208 SUBCOMMITTEE: IMPROVED LWR DESIGNS O
l l
()
STANDARDIZATION -- DISCUSSION OUTLINE BACKGROUND NEED FOR REVISION 1978 STANDARDIZATION
].# POLICY STATEMENT
.;l CHRONOLOGY OF RECENT POLICY DEVELOPMENT
)
GOALS OF PROPOSED STANDARDIZATION POLICY PRELIMINARY NUREG OUTLINE i
i
, CONFORMING CHANGES TO REGULATIONS l PROPOSED LEGISLATION
9 4
O BACKGROUND s
APRIL 1972 INITIAL POLICY STATEMENT ISSUED
.?- MARCH 1973 REFERENCE SYSTEM, DUPLICATE PLANT AND ~
MI
= MANUFACTURING LICENSE CONCEPTS ANNOUNCED Q
- AUGUST 1974 REPLICATE PLANT CONCEPT ANNOUNCED JULY 1977 STATEMENT REAFFIRMING SUPPORT OF STANDARDI-ZATION, AND REQUESTING COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS ON CHANGES ISSUED AUGUST 1978 MOST RECENT POLICY ST/1ES ENT ISSUED O
,t NEED FOR REVISING 1978 STANDARDIZATION POLICY STATEMENT -
STAFF'S EXPERIENCE IN IMPLEMENTING STANDARDIZATION PROGRAM E
d=
PROVISIONS OF SEVERE ACCIDENT POLICY STATEMENT PROVISIONS OF DRAFT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT LICENSING AND STANDARDIZATION ACT I
O
..,.m,- , , .- .e .
d CHRON0 LOGY OF RECENT POLICY DEVELOPMENT i I
f FEBRUARY / APRIL 1985 - SRM REQUESTED REVISIONS TO 1978 POLICY BE PREPARED FOR COMMISSION CONSIDERATION NOVEMBER 1985 - AIF PROPOSAL TO STAFF j
DECEMBER 1985 - COMMISSION BRIEFING
- MARCH 1985 - INDUSTRY VIEWS SENT TO COMMISSION NUMARC EEI EPRI APRIL 1986 - SRM WITH POLICY GUIDANCE l MAY 1986 - REVISED DRAFT POLICY TO COMMISSION 4
4 0 .
4 i
- , - - - - - - , ,,,- - - - - - , -- - - . _ , . - . . , - - , . . . - , , . . , , ,,n.. ., . - . . , - , ., , - , , , , ., , - - - -, , , ,
}
1 .
E i
!s O
1 I
G0ALS OF PROPOSED STANDARDIZATION POLICY I
i
!f ESSENTIALLY COMPLETE PLANT
![?
u 7 ESSENTIALLY FINAL DESIGN DETAIL -
1l d -
i 1
O .
REFERENCE SYSTEM DESIGN CERTIFICATION i
4 I !
i 1
A
{
4 1
1 O
n 4
f 5
t
. _ _ - . ... - _ , . - r. ,-c..---...,,,,w-,_.,-,.m. . . - . . - _ . - - , , - , , . .m m or - ,-.w % ,,v-.r- .,c.r.-,, , .w.y.w,.c..
v PRELIMINARY NUREG OUTLINE BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF NUREG STANDARDIZATION POLICY STATEMENT DESIGN CERTIFICATION CONCEPT
, . TRANSITION OPTIONS f -
COMPLETENESS OF DESIGN SCOPE AND DETAIL 1
CHANGES TO APPROVED STANDARD DESIGNS LICENSE FEES RELATED POLICIES AND REGULATIONS DESIGN CERTIFICATION RULEMAKING OPTIONS 1 RENEWALS i
l
! ()
i i
. . , _ , , _ __ _m- . . , - ___. _.. - _ _ _ _ , , . - _ . . _ _ , , . , . . . - . . , . , , . , _ . . , . , , . . , _ . , _ _ . . . . . _ _ , . , . - , , , _ ,
i l
l h l 1 () l a
1 CONFORMING CHANGES TO REGULATIONS J
10 CFR PART 50
-l . E
'? APPENDIX M - MANUFACTURING LICENSE CONCEPT ~
i ){
=
APPENDlX N - DUPLICATE PLANT CONCEPT
[])
1 APPENDIX 0 - REFERENCE SYSTEM CONCEPT l
10 CFR 50.34(F) - CP/ML RULE I i
SCHEDULE - TO COMMISSION APPROXIMATELY 90 DAYS FOLLOWING
! APPROVED STANDARDIZATION POLICY I
J T
l
.v.,- . - . , . . . . - , ,
i l-()
HIGHLIGHTS OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION CERTIFIED STANDARDIZED DESIGNS j (10 YEAR APPROVALS) 4 PREAPPROVED SITES l
(-10 YEAR APPROVALS)
?
.f
- ONE-STEP LICENSING CE)
STANDARDS FOR BACKFITTING TO LICENSES, DESIGN 4
APPROVALS AND SITE APPROVALS ALLOCATES FEES TO USERS PROVIDES CONGRESSIONAL ENDORSEME14T FOR STABILITY OF THE LICENSING PROCESS t
O s
'TV NRR STAFF PRESENTATION TO THE
'O ACRS
SUBJECT:
STAFF REVIEW 0F EPRI-ALWR REQUIREMENTS DOCUMENT DATE: JULY 10, 1986 l
PRESENTER: D. MORAN O
PRESENTER'S TITLE / BRANCH /DIV: PROJECT MANAGER SAFETY PROGRAM EVALUATION BRANCH, DSR0 PRESENTER'S NRC TEL. NO.: 49-27422 SUBCOMMITTEE: FULL COMMITTEE l
l O
---.---.--..,____._,.--..-.,..-,,,.--_..._.-...._-________.-.,.n. . . _ , , , . , , . , - - . - - , - - _ - , - . , _ _ , . , . _ . , . . , , _ , . _ _ - - - . .
O l STAFF REYlEW PLAN CHAPTER TRANSMITTAL SCHEDULE I REQUIREMENTS DOCUMENT CHAPTER TITLES CONTENTS 0F CHAPTER 1 STAFF DISCIPLINES REQUIRED l
DISCUSSION OF THE STAFF END PRODUCT O
MATRIX OF CHAPTERS VS. STAFF DISCIPLINES l MAN LOADING DETAll l
I O
l r I
. l
'O i
- REQUIREMENTS DOCUMENT CH_ APTER TRANSMllTAL SCHEDULE i
i CHAPTER DATE TO BE TRANSMITTED 1 JULY 1986 2 SEPTEMBER 1986 3,4 & 5 JUNE 1987 6 DECEMBER 1987 O 7 THRU 12 MARCH 1988 13 SEPTEMBER 1988 I
O
'O REQUIREMENTS DOCUMENT CHAPTERS CHAPTER TITLE 4
1 OVERALL REQUIREMENTS 2 POWER GENERATION SYSTEMS 3 REACTOR COOLANT AND NON-SAFETY REACTOR AUXILIARY SYSTEMS 4
4 REACTOR SYSTEMS lO 5 SAFETY SYSTEMS l
) 6 BUILDING DESIGN AND ARRANGEMENTS l 7 FUELING AND REFUELING 8 PLANT COOLING WATER SYSTEMS 9 SITE SUPPORT SYSTEMS 10 INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL SYSTEMS AND PLANT CONTROL STATIONS 11 ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEMS
- O 12 RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE PROCESSING SYSTEMS 13 TURBINE GENERATOR SYSTEMS l
Y
, - , ~ , ..
O l
i CONTENTS 0F CHAPTER 1 l
SECTION TITLE 1 INTRODUCTION
, 2 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR DESIGN 3 DESIGN BASIS EVENTS iO 4 STRUCTURAL DESIGN BASIS i 5 MATERIALS I 6 RELIABILITY AND AVAILABILITY 7 CONSTRUCTABILITY 8 OPERABILITY AND MAINTAINABILITY I
i 9 OUALITY ASSURANCE
! 10 LICENSING l
i
'O
l l
j
'O STAFF DISCIPLINES RE0ulRED SITE AND ENYlRONMENTAL REACTOR SYSTEMS
! PLANT SYSTEMS i
MATERIALS
.O PtANT STRUCTURES i
ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS / INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL 1
I COORDINATION FOCAL POINTS LICENSING DIYlSIONS PWR-A PWR-B BWR HUMAN TECHNOLOGY
\O
- . - - - . . -.-,. __ _ - _.._., ,m._ _ , - _ - - . . _ . _ _ , _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . , _ _ _ _ . ,.,,._m.m....__,,,.
- 'o 1
3 1
STAFF END PRODUCT ONE SER wlTH 13 SECTIONS OR CHAPTERS
- SECTIONS w!LL BE DRAFTED AS CHAPTERS ARE REVIEWED.
SIX MONTHS ALLOTTED FOR REVIEW 0F EACH EPRI SUBMITTAL.
l l0 THE ST^re REvlEw wiLL BE DIRECTED AT DEreRMInINo wHETHeR THE REQUIREMENTS DOCUMENT ADEOUATELY REFLECTS NRC RULES S AND REGULATIONS TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY.
i i
l i
t lO i
I i
_ . , - - .. ,,,,,.y ,.- . . ,,.--_...,___.-__m . - . _ - .,_,.-.. . - , _ . . , _ , _ _ _ , . . . . . . _ - - - , , , - - - - - . ~ . _ . - _ . , , _ . _ _ . - . . . . , _ - - , _
4
'O
- NRC REVIEW RESOURCE ALLOCATION .
i FISCAL YEAR 1986
! PROJECT MANAGER +
- 2 FULL TIME EQUlVALENTS i 1
I REQUIREMENTS DOCUMENT REVIEW l
1800 MANHOURS PER CHAPTER i I
600 MANHOURS PER MONTH INTEGRATION lO (AFTERCHAPTER93 l
i l
i f
lO
DSR0 REVIEW RESPONSIBILITY - ALWR REQUIREMENTS DOUNENT CHAPTER SUBMITTAL SITE / MATERIALS STRUCTURAL I&C REACTOR PLANT DATES EVIRON SYSTEMS SYSTEMS
- 1. OVERALL 6/86 X X X X X X REQJ1REMENTS
- 2. P(MER 9/86 X X X X GENERAT10N SYST.
- 3. PRIMARY 6/87 X X X COOLANT AND NON-SAFETY AUX.SYST.
- 4. REACTOR 6/87 X X X SYST.
- 5. SAFETY 6/87 X X X X SYST.
- 6. APRANGEMENTS 12/87 X
- 7. FUELING & 3/88 X REFUELING B. PLANT 3/06 X X
, COOLING WATER SYST.
- 9. SITE 3/68 X X SUPPORT SYST.
- 10. INSTRUMENT. 3/88 X
& CONTROL
- 11. ELECTRIC 3/88 X X P(NER SYST.
- 12. RADIOACTIVE 3/65 X X WASTE .
PROCESSING SYST.
- 13. TUDBINE 9/88 X X GENERATOR SYST.
l, L
4
()
J I
FUTURE INTERACTIONS WITH ACRS i
i
- STAFF WILL KEEP ACRS INFORMED OF PROGRAM STATUS, 4
i
/,
INCLUDING FURNISHING COPIES OF REQUIREMENTS DOCUMENT j CHAPTERS TO ACRS, t
I -
STAFF WOULD LIKE TO MEET WITH ACRS ON KEY TOPICS ASSOCIATED WITH ALWR REQUIREMENTS DOCUMENT.
! n iV j
- - SUGGEST MEETINGS ON GPOUPS OF CHAPTERS AT APPPOPRIATE i
! TIMES AFTER INITIAL STAFF REVIEW IS COMPLETE AND 1
PRELIMINARY STAFF POSITION ESTABLISHED.
i i
- FINAL MEETING PRIOR TO ISSUING COMPLETE SER, 1
l I
i l
!O I
i
1' 09
, 'O STATEMENT OF C. FREDERICK SEARS ON 4
NUCLEAR POWER PLANT STANDARDIZATION BEFORE THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFETY ON JULY 10, 1986 I
i INTRODUCTION
(]} l.
MY NAME IS C. FREDERICK SEARS, I AM VICE PRESIDENT, NUCLEAR l
AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING AT NORTHEAST UTILITIES. I APPRECIATE YOUR INVITATION TO APPEAR BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE.
I AM SPEAKING TODAY ON BEHALF OF THE ATOMIC INDUSTRIAL
' FORUM'S (AIF) STUDY GROUP DN THE PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF
' i, STANDARDIZED NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS IN THE UNITED STATES.
WITH THE U.S. ECONOMY EXPANDING AND DEMAND FOR ELECTRICITY l
ON THE RISE, MANY UTILITIES ARE BEGINNING TO PLAN FOR NEW
! GENERATING CAPACITY THAT WILL BE NEEDED IN THE 1990'S AND I LATER. UNFORTUNATELY, NUCLEAR POWER IS CURRENTLY PERCEIVED BY THE UTILITY INDUSTRY AND THE INVESTMENT COMMUNITY AS A I
RISKY INVESTMENT. IT IS VERY EXPENSIVE AND REQUIRES TOO IN THIS COUNTRY, IT LONG TO LICENSE AND CONSTRUCT A PLANT.
IS GENERALLY NO LONGER CONSIDERED AN ECONOMIC GENERATION l () ALTERNATIVE BECAUSE OF THESE PROBLEMS.
I
,- ,.-.y _ _ _ _ . . - - - _ _- _ .-,- -, _ . , _ , , . _ _ . . - . - - _ . . , , .- --- , __ ,,._,--y _
- ( MY STATEMENT TODAY WILL FOCUS ON PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE CURRENT LICENSING PROCESS WHICH WE BELIEVE WILL AID IN CORRECTING THIS SITUATION. IN ADDITION, THESE PROPOSED REVISIONS SHOULD ENHANCE NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY.
SPECIFICALLY, I WILL ADDRESS A NUCLEAR PLANT DESIGN CERTIFICATION (DC) PROCESS AND A COMBINED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATING LICENSE (COL). IN DOING THIS, I WILL ALSO DESCRIBE BRIEFLY THE INFORMATION THAT THE INDUSTRY BELIEVES WOULD ADEQUATELY SUPPORT AN APPLICATION FOR A DESIGN CERTIFICATION. THIS IS A FRESH APPROACH TO AN ISSUE THAT ALL OF US, --
THE UTILITY INDUSTRY, VENDORS, THE NRC, THE PUBLIC AND THE CONGRESS -- HAVE BEEN CONCERNED WITH FOR YEARS.
II. THE DESIGN CERTIFICATION THE FIRST ELEMENT OF OUR PROPOSAL IS THE DESIGN O' CERTIFICATION (DC) PROCESS. IN OUR VIEW, DESIGNS FOR STANDARD PLANTS WOULD BE DEVELOPED BY A CONSORTIUM MADE UP OF UTILITIES, NSSS VENDORS, TURBINE-GENERATOR VENDORS, A/ES, CONSTRUCTORS, ETC. NECESSARY INFORMATION TO CERTIFY THE DESIGN WOULD BE DOCUMENTED IN A PLANT SAFETY REPORT (PSR).
IHE REPORT WOULD BE SUBMITTED TO THE NRC FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. APPROVAL OF THE DESIGN WOULD CULMINATE WITH THE ISSUANCE OF A DESIGN CERTIFICATION WHICH WOULD BE VALID FOR 10 YEARS WITH OPTIONS FOR RENEWAL.
IHE OBJECTIVE OF THE DESIGN CERTIFICATION IS TO DEVELOP A DETAILED PLANT DESIGN WHICH COMPLETELY SATISFIES REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS BEFORE CONSTRUCTION BEGINS, THEN LICENSE IT AND FREEZE IT!
t (S) 4
~
- IN ORDER FOR A DESIGN CERTIFICATION (DC) TO BE ISSUED, THE DESIGN MUST BE SUFFICIENTLY FINALIZED SO THAT THERE IS A CLEAR DEFINITION OF ALL RELEVANT SAFETY ASPECTS. THE NRC REVIEW OF THE PLANT SAFETY REPORT (PSR) WOULD CONFIRM THAT SUBSEQUENT CONSTRUCTION, INSPECTION, TESTING AND OPERATION CAN ALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PRE-APPROVED METHODOLOGIES. THE PLANT SAFETY REPORT (PSR) WOuLD CONTAIN THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION:
DESIGN BASIS CRITERIA t
ANALYSIS AND DESIGN METHODS FUNCTIONAL DESIGN OF SYSTEMS i
PHYSICAL ARRANGEMENT OF AUXILIARY, BALANCE OF PLANTS AND NUCLEAR STEAM SUPPLY SYSTEMS AND COMPONENTS ALCEPTANCE AND STARTUP TESTING REQUIREMENTS PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY THE NRC COMMISSION AND THE APPLICANT MUST AGREE IN ADVANCE
[) ON THE DEPTH OF DESIGN DETAILS NECESSARY TO LATER CONFIRM THAT THE PLANT MEETS SPECIFICATIONS. THIS CONFIRMATION WOULD BE ACHIEVED THROUGH INSPECTIONS, TESTS, ANALYSES AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA WHICH WOULD BE AGREED TO BEFORE-HAND.
THE DESIGN DETAIL MUST ALSO SUPPORT THE PREPARATION OF EQUIPMENT PROCUREMENT SPECIFICATIONS AND QUALIFICATION, INSTALLATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES.
THE DESIGN CERTIFICATION (DC) PROCESS IS DEFINITELY NOT
" BUSINESS AS USUAL". IT REPRESENTS A SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT PHILOSOPHY OF DESIGNING, CONSTRUCTING AND REGULATING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS. IN THE PAST, PRELIMINARY DESIGN INFORMATION WAS FURNISHED TO THE NRC AT THE CONSTRUCTION PERMIT STAGE. LATER, DETAILED DESIGNS AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS WERE FINAllZED IN PARALLEL WITH PLANT CONSTRUCTION. THIS TWO-STEP PROCESS PERMITTED BOTH
() THE PLANT OWNER AND THE NRC TO MAKE SIGNIFICANT AND OFTEN COSTLY PLANT CHANGES DURING THE OPERATING LICENSE STAGE. IN THE PROPOSED DESIGN CERTIFICATION (DC) PROCESS, THE DESIGN l
_q_ .
- - ENGINEERING IS ESSENTIALLY COMPLETE, THE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN THOROUGHLY DEFINED AND INCORPORATED AND PUBLIC INPUT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BEFORE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PLANT BEGINS.
THE " ESSENTIALLY COMPLETE" DESIGN DEVELOPED TO SUPPORT THE DESIGN CERTIFICATION PROCESS WOULD INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS, DRAWINGS AND INFORMATION AS APPROPRIATE:
(
DESIGN BASIS CRITERIA PLANT GENERAL ARRANGEMENTS OF STRUCTURES AND COMPONENTS PROCESS AND INSTRUMENTATION DIAGRAMS CONTROL LOGIC DIAGRAMS SYSTEM PUNCT10NAL DESCRIPTIONS COMPONENT AND PROCUREMENT SPECIFICATIONS INCLUDING ACCEPTANCE TEST REQUIREMENTS CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION SPECIFICATIONS DA PROGRAM
) -
EMERGENCY PLAN SECURITY PLAN ALARA/ RADIATION PROTECTION PLAN ACCIDENT ANALYSES DRAFT IECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS RISx ANALYSIS IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS ARE THOSE WHICH WILL CONTROL THE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PLANT. ANY ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED TO SUPPORT THE NRC SAFETY EVALUATION WOULD BE PROVIDED WITH THE PLANT SAFETY REPORT (PSR) AS PART OF THE DESIGN CERTIFICATION (DC)
APPLICATION.
AS I HAVE SAID, THE PLANT DESIGN WOULD BE ESSENTIALLY COMPLETE BEFORE SUBMITTAL OF THE PLANT SAFETY REPORT (PSR)
() TO THE NRC. THE ONLY PLANT DESIGN ACTIVITY REMAINING WOULD BE ASSOCIATED WITH SITE SPECIFIC FEATURES AND INCORPORATING EQUIPMENT NAMEPLATE INFORMATION.
THE EFFORT TO SUPPORT A DESIGN CERTIFICATION (DC)
'(]) APPLICATION WILL RESULT IN A LARGE EXPENDITURE OF MANPOWER AND FUNDS. IT IS ESTIMATED THAT THIS EFFORT WOULD COST BETWEEN $150 AND $200 MILLION.
III. COMBINED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATING LICENSE (COL)
THE KEYSTONE TO THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE DESIGN CERTIFICATION PROCESS IS ITS LINKAGE TO A COMBINED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATING LICENSE. A DESIGN CERTIFICATION ALONE WILL NOT REDUCE THE INVESTMENT RISK SUFFICIENTLY TO PERMIT NUCLEAR POWER TO BE COMPETITIVE WITH OTHER AVAILABLE 4
GENERATION ALTERNATIVES. IN FACT, IT IS DOUBTFUL IF ANY UTILITY WILL ACCEPT THE RISK OF COMMITTING TO A NUCLEAR PLANT WITHOUT A HIGH DEGREE OF ASSURANCE THAT IT CAN BE CONSTRUCTED ON SCHEDULE AND WITHIN BUDGET AND THAT IT WILL BE PERMITTED TO OPERATE WHEN COMPLETED.
IN THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATING llCENSE (COL) PROCESS, THERE WILL BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR FURTHER PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON SITE SPECIFIC CONSIDERATIONS CONSISTENT ANY WITH THE INTENT OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS.
DISCUSSIONS OF THE ADEQUACY OF THE PLANT DESIGN WILL HAVE ALREADY OCCURRED AT THE TIME OF THE DESIGN CERTIFICATION APPLICATION REVIEW AND APPROVAL. ONLY SITE SPECIFIC ISSUES l
WILL BE CONSIDERED AT THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATING LICENSE (COL) STAGE.
AFTER THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATING LICENSE (COL) HAS BEEN ISSUED, AND CONSTRUCTION BEGUN, CONFIRMATORY AUDITS WILL BE CONDUCTED BY BOTH THE NRC AND THE OWNER. THESE AUDITS WILL ENSURE THAT THE PLANT IS BE!NG CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PRE-APPROVED REQUIREMENTS AND THAT THE OWNER IS SATISFACTORILY PERFORMING THE AGREED UPON TESTS AND
() INSPECTIONS. UPON COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION, THE NRC WOULD FINALIZE THE AUDIT PROCESS AND THE OWNER WOULD BEGIN PLANT OPERATION.
IHE DESIGN CERTIFICATION / CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATING LICENSE (DC/ COL) PROCESS WILL RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS TOWARDS CONSISTENT PERFORMANCE REGULATION AND AWAY FROM VARIABLE REGULATION WHICH CHARACTERIZES THE EXISTING PROCESS.
IV. BENEFITS THE PRIMARY BENEFIT OF THE DESIGN CERTIFICATION / CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATING llCENSE (DC/ COL) PROCESS, IF IT IS SUCCESSFUL, IS THAT NUCLEAR POWER WILL AGAIN BE COMPETITIVE WITH OTHER GENERATION ALTERNATIVES. WE BELIEVE THE PROCESS WILL BE SUCCESSFUL BECAUSE A STABLE AND EFFICIENT LICENSING PROCESS HAS BEEN SHOWN TO PERMIT A SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN THE REAL COST OF NUCLEAR POWER. THE REDUCTIONS IN COST OCCUR FROM TWO SIGNIFICANT FACTORS:
- 1) THE COST OF BORROWED FUNDS WILL BE REDUCED BECAUSE INVESTORS AND LENDERS WILL PERCEIVE THAT ONCE A DESIGN
{} CERTIFICATION (DC) AND A CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATING llCENSE (COL) HAVE BEEN OBTAINED, PROJECT PROGRESS WILL BE PREDICTABLE AND INVESTMENT RISK SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED.
- 2) THE TIME FROM START OF CONSTRUCTION TO PLANT OPERATION
- WILL BE SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED. THIS WILL OCCUR BECAUSE THE DESIGN WILL BE ESSENTIALLY COMPLETE AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS DEFINED AND STABILIZED PRIOR TO INITIATION OF CONSTRUCTION. THE RESULT WILL BE REDUCED REWORK, OPTIMlZED DESIGNS, AND IMPROVED CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT.
A REDUCTION IN CONSTRUCTION TIME WILL SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE ESCALATION COSTS AND FINANCE CHARGES FOR THE PROJECT.
THE PROPOSED DESIGN CERTIFICATION / CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATING
() llCENSE (DC/ COL) PROCESS WILL ALSO ENHANCE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE LICENSING PROCESS. DURING THE DESIGN CERTIFICATION (DC) PROCEEDINGS, THE PUBLIC WILL HAVE THE
_y_ -
. OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS THEIR CONCERNS ABOUT THE ADEQUACY OF THE PLANT DESIGN. THIS WILL PERMIT THEM TO EXPLORE TECHNICAL ISSUES TO A GREATER DEPTH THAN IS NOW POSSIBLE AT THE CONSTRUCTION PERMIT STAGE BECAUSE THE DESIGN WILL BE
~
ESSENTIALLY COMPLETE. AT THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATING LICENSE (COL) STAGE, THE PUBLIC CAN PARTICIPATE IN SITE RELATED ISSUES. THE OVERALL PROCESS ALLOWS THE PUBLIC TO 2 PROVIDE INPUT WHEN IT IS MOST MEANINGFUL, THAT IS, BEFORE
~
CONSTRUCTION IS AUTHORIZED.
THE DESIGN CERTIFICATION / CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATING llCENSE (DC/ COL) PROCESS ALSO ENHANCES SAFETY AND BETTER UTILIZES INDUSTRY AND REGULATORY PERSONNEL. IT WILL ALLOW THE NRC, NSSS VENDORS, ARCHITECT-ENGINEERS AND UTILITIES TO CONCENTRATE ON KEY ISSUES AND FEWER DESIGNS. IT WILL REDUCE THE DEMANDS ON THESE TECHNICAL RESOURCES CAUSED BY EVER CHANGING CRITERIA AND DESIGNS.
() THE ADDED STABILITY OF THE ENGINEERING, CONSTRUCTION, AND REGULATORY PROCESSES AND THE RESULTING SHORTENED CONSTRUCTION PERIOD WILL ENABLE UTILITIES TO PLAN NEW PLANTS WITH MORE CONFIDENCE. UTILITIES WILL BE ABLE TO MORE ACCURATELY PREDICT FINAL COSTS AND TO EFFECTIVELY MATCH CAPACITY ADDITIONS WITH GROWING CUSTOMER DEMAND.
V.
SUMMARY
IN
SUMMARY
, WE WOULD EMPHASIZE THAT NUCLEAR POWER IS GENERALLY NOT A COMPETITIVE GENERATION ALTERNATIVE FOR FUTURE PLANTS UNDER THE CURRENT LICENSING PROCESS.
1 IHE INDUSTRY HAS PROPOSED LICENSING REFORM WHICH UTILIZES THE CONCEPTS OF A DESIGN CERTIFICATION (DC) /*O A 4
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATING LICENSE (COL). WE HAVE
{} ELABORATED ON THE EXTENSIVE DESIGN INFORMATION WHICH WILL BE COMPLETED AND AVAILABLE TO THE NRC AT THE TIME OF THE DESIGN l
CERTIFICATION (DC) APPLICATION AND WE HAVE DESCRIBED HOW THE PROCESS WOULD WORK.
I
THE DESIGN CERTIFICATION / CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATING LICENSE (DC/ COL) PROCESS IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE A MAJOR STEP TOWARD REVIVING NUCLEAR POWER AS A COMPETITIVE GENERATION ALTERNATIVE FOR THIS COUNTRY. THIS WILL OCCUR BY REDUCING i THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH NUCLEAR POWER AND RESTORING INVESTOR CONFIDENCE IN OUR ABILITY TO DESIGN, REGULATE, CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE THESE FACILITIES SAFELY, RESPONSIBLY, 1 AND PREDICTABLY.
1 WE URGE YOUR COMMITTEE TO TAKE AN ACTIVE AND AGGRESSIVE ROLE IN BRINGING ABOUT MEANINGFUL AND TIMELY LICENSING REFORM SUCH AS DISCUSSED HERE TODAY. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR BEFORE YOU.
I l
~
O O i
l Nuclear As a Generation Alternative l
i
- Utilities are planning new capacity l
- Nuclear Power not attractive alternative
- Risky investment
- Expensive i
-Time to license and construct a plant is too long l
- Contributory to this situation is current licensing process l - Unstable I
- Unpredictable -
- Revisions to licensing process required I
) 1020-1 on 330 1 -- - - - - - - . - _ _ _
~
i O O d The Design Certification Process I
i j
- Consortium Designs Standard Plant L.
- Submits Plant Safety Report (PSR) to NRC 1
1,
- NRC issues a Design Certification
! I
- 10 years + renewal options j - Design " frozen" i
- PSR will address
- Design Basis Criteria
- Analysis and Design Methods f - Functional Design and Physical Arrangements of Systems
- Plant Physical Arrangement i
- Acceptance Test / Requirements j - PRA Methodology I
- Name Plate information not available i
~
1 O O d l Design Engineering to Support l
Design Certification ~
I
- Design esentially complete on front end
- " Essentially" complete design will encompass l
! - Design Basis Criteria
! - Plant General Arrangements of Structures and Components 1 - Process and Instrumentation Diagrams
! - Control Logic Diagrams
- System Functional Descriptions
)
- Component and Procurement Specifications including l Acceptance Test Requirements l
i - --
o o O
l 1
Design Engineering to Support Design Certification (cont'd.)
- " Essentially complete design will encompass (cont'd'.)
- Construction and Installation Specifications
- QA Program l - Emergency Plans
- Security Plan
- ALARA/ Radiation Protection Plan
- Accident Analysis '
' - Draft Technical Specifications
- Risk Analysis
- Will Not encompass
" Name Plate"information incorporation
- Site specific verification
The Construction and Operating License Process
- Combined construction permit and operating license (COL)
~
- Will make Design Certification (DC) most effective
- DC alone will not sufficiently reduce risks
- COL will provide high degree of assurance completed plant will be allowed to operate
- Public participation on site specific issues at COL stage
- After COL, NRC will perform confirmatory audits against pre-approved critera
- Move toward performance based regulations
O O Q Benefits of DC/ COL
- Cost of nuclear power will be lowered
- Cost of borrowed funds lower
- Less risk
- More stable process
- Total finance charges lower
- Essentially complete design before construction
- Stable regulatory requirements before construction
- Shorter construction time
- Rework minimized
- Design optimized
- Construction management enhanced .
1020-6 on 330
O O d Benefits of DC/ COL (contw.)
- Public Participation enhanced
- Will occur before construction
- Better information available 4
- Safety Enhanced and Industry / Regulatory Resources Better Utilized
- Concentration on fewer designs / key issues Frozen" criteria e Better Utility Planning
- More predictable costs
- Shorter construction time
.+,5 a
- q k - My f.R ..
'o ..
. sf. .
i l
+lv{.{:
. s. -
1 U. S. ADVANCED LWR PROGRAM n.
i l
SMALL PLANT PROGRAM
- DEVELOP CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS FOR SMALL 6 (1 00 MWE) LWRS GE/BECHTEL/MIT WESTINGHOUSE / BURNS & ROE O
O ;
%2
- W'
-,,e em Waeg g-
- Gm w- .
'O 000[ PROGRESS ON REMAINING ISSUES i
- i 400
< - gjon) ha3) tot AL ISStXS -
(670) 600 - C.)
(588) 4/) -
b w 500 -
LL.
O 400 -
E '.
Lu O to E
. (345) 300f g
z .
200
- . (148) 100 - .
REMAmesG ssuts
. (94) (99) (101)
- (58) (56) (49) (44) 0 , i i '
1983 1984 1985 1966 YEAR O
. . . -e,eme _ ** *
'O ADVANCED LR 790iRM REGULATORY STABILIZATIGI OBJECTIVE: DETERMINE THE LIST OF STABLE REGULATtRY REQUIREMENTS WHICH MUST BE MET BY ANY NEW LE DESIGN O .
O
-w-m+. .. ,
l FOREIGN PARTICIPAT MN i
KOREA A DRAFT MOU HAS BEEN EXCHANGES W1T4 ESREA ELEcTarc POWER COMPANY.
1
$150.000 PER YEAR FOR FOUR YEARS PAID TO EPRI.
O -
PARTICIPATION IN Pi(R PORTION OF UTILtTY REQUIREMENTS DOCUMENT ONLY.
STATION TWO ENGINEERS AT Pato ALTO. I OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE QM STEERING COMMITTEE.
l 1
l O
,wm e meem "
h=N
-n.
FOREIGN PARTICIPATI(R TAlWAN MOU SIGNED WITH TA!WAN POWER COMPANY SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF REPUBLIC OF CHINA GOVER$1 MENT.
$225,000 PER YEAR FOR FOUR YEARS PAID 70 EPRI. !
PARTICIPATION IN UTILITY REQUIREMENTS DOCUMENT !
ONLY.
STATION TWO ENGINEEks AT PAi.0 ALTO.
OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE ON STEERING COMMITTEE.
P l
l O
1
_ . . _ --.. - - - ~ ' ~ -
'O JAPAN
- EPRI HAS RECEI.VED A bETTER RROM KAstSAi power EXPRESSING IiNTEREST IW PWRTIICIIPATIJtG in EPRl'S ALWR PROGRAM. i KANSAI 15 nOST INTERESTED IN MSIGII SIMPt.IFICATION OF PWR'S.
EPRI HAS RESPONDED POSITIVELY TO KANSA!'S INTEREST IN THE PROGP.AM DISCUSSIONS ARE UNDERWAY TO SOLIDIFY THEIR PARTICIPATION .
i i
f f
i l
l I
l 8
f i
O .
. i
__ __ - . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ .. .. ._. 6
' 2: ~ -
.2
'O .
3:.
~, ;
FOREIGN PARTICIPATION i
- JAPAN l 1
i i -
M00 IN FINAL STAGES OF NEGOTIATION WITN JAPAN
! ATOMIC POWER COMPANY (JAPC) F0a coorEaarsen su
,! DEVELOPMENT OF (<600MWE) BWR.
EPRI WILL mECEIVE RESRTS OF $1 NILLISM 1986 WORK FUNDED BY JAPC AND PERF8AfqtEB BY GE. l JAPC WILL RECEIVE RESULTS OF EPRI PHASE I STUDIES ON SMALL BWR.
RESULTS OF EPRI PHASE Il STUDIES THROUGH THE END OF 1986.
RISULTS OF RELATED M E INFORMATION ON SMALL BWR DEVELOPMENT TMROUGH THE END OF 1986.
DEPENDING ON TME STATUS OF THE WORK AT THE END OF 1986, BOTH PARTIES WILL CONSIDER EXTENSION OF THE AGREEMENT T0 1987 AND BEYOND.
O !
h l
~
~.- .. 4 O !
l l
l
.EPRI ALWR PROGRAM l
UtEDIBLE SAFE STANDARD PLANT !
EPRI ALWR PROGRAM IS FULLY SUPPORTIVE OF INDUSTRY EFFORTS TD DEVELOP A STANDARDIZED NUCLEAR PLANT DESIGN ,
THE EPRI ALWR PROGRAM LINKED TO PLANT STA E ARDIZATi(Bl. CAN PLAN A SIGNIFICANT PART IN ITS SUCCESS. IN PARTICULAR:
THE RESOLUTION OF REGULATORY ISSUES. VIA THE EPRI REGULATORY _ STABILIZATION PR0 GRAM, CREATES A FAVORABLE CLIMATE FOR STANDARDIZED PLANT LICENSING O -
THE ALWR REQUIREMENTS DOCUMENT SERVES AS A COMPREHENSIVE TECHNICAL BASIS FOR STANDARD PLANT DESIGN THE EPRI ALWR PROGRAM IS COORDINATED WITH DOE'S PROGRAM 10 SECURE NRC CERTIFICATION OF AN ADVANCED BWR AND PWR DESIGN.
l l
l O
. ..~ - .
l
__.__-_+ - e g 4
1 l
~O ADVANCED l LWR BR0 GRAM CONTINUIE BRC IfNTERFACE FOLLOWUP EFFORT AS REQUIREENTS BOCUMENT CMPTERS AR REVIEWED BY NRC
- ENSURE REGULATORY ISSUE RESOLUTICM NBCGRPQRATED
- ACHIEVE FAVORABLE SER FOR EACH CHAPTER NED FOR Q DOCUMENT 1 O
l t
EPRI ADVANCED LIGilT E TER REACTOR PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS...
THE EPRI PROGRAM DRAWS UP(W A BROAD ESE GF EXPERT PARTICIPANTS.
INCLUDING:
l UTILITY INDllSTRY !
EPRI MEMBER J'TilLITIIES REPRESENTED BY A WTILITY STEERING l COMMITTEE OF SENf0R LOTilLITY Mt0FESSIONALS CONTRACTORS O -
TEAMS OF NSSS SUPPLIERS. ARCHITECT ENGINEERING FORMS. AND MAJOR UTILITY COMPANIES. INCLUDING:
COMBUSTION ENGINEERING / DUKE POWER GENERAL ELECTRIC /BECHTEL
- i WESTINGHOUSE /SARGENT s LUNDY/COWONWEALTH EDISON i STONE & WEBSTER / YANKEE ATOMIC DIRECT ASSISTANCE TO EPRI FROM HPR ASSOCliATES S. LEVY, liNC.
O
..en . e eem wN* ***' **
D
. EPRI ADVANCED LIGHT WATER REACTOR PROGRAM THE EPR! PROGR.3M STRUCTURE THE PROGRAM CONSISTS OF THREE SEPARATE BUT RELATED MAJOR ELEMENTS:
UTILITY REQUIREMENTS DOCUMENT THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COMPREHE.'!SIVE SET OF DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ALWR O - i
~itEGllaTC#viTahinzATtom CC0FERATIVE EFFCRT W.iiH NRC 70 llDENTIFY AND RESOLVE ALL OUTSTANDI*G DSSUES OF NUCLEAR PLR.lT SAFETY
- SMALL Pla';T DESIGN DEVELOPMENT THE INVESTIGATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF SMALL (<600 MWE)
NUCLEAR PLANT OPTIONS O
- I . -
l
~
O O O ^
4-e e
DOE ADVANCED LIGilT WATER REACTOR PROGRAM
. G0AL: FOSTER DEVELOPMENT AND CERTIFICATION OF SIMPLER, SAFER, AtlD MORE RELIABLE LIGHT WATER REACTORS FOR THE FulURE, o CLOSE C00RDlhATION WITil THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCll IllSTITU1E/ INDUSTRY ALWR PROGRAM, o PRINCIPAL WORK AREAS LARGE PLANT ABUR AND APWR DESIGN VERIFICATION MID-S ZE INNOVATIVE LWR DEVELOPMENT SPECI AL Ai'PLICATIONS PROGRAMS o STRATEGY: USE ADVAllCED RE/.CTOR CONCEPTS AS ORGAN 171NG FORCE TO TEST SilCCESS OF R8D TASKS, DESIGN DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS AND LICENSING. UTILIZE USER STATEMEllTS OF PRODUCT REQUIREMENTS,
O O O EPRI/ DOE SCHEDULE COMPATIBILITY 1986 1987 1988 1989. 1990 EPRI ACCELERATED SCHEDULE Y
Chapters 1, 2 v v Chaptors __
3' 4' 6 '
LEGEND I
Chapters v Submit SSAR 6, 10 Modulo 9 y Chapters 7, 8. 9, 11, 12 Y NRC Review
.==========================================
_ _ _ SAR Prepor.
DOE VERIFICATION PROGRAM _ _ _ _
- 1. Licensing Dosis
- 2. Nuclear Island " ' -
- Reactor /Sof ety Systems =======_
(Chpt',s 3. 4 5)
_,_____________v v
- Bldg / Arrangements ---- ---- --
(Chpt 6)
- Aux 111ory Support Sys and I&C _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .. _ _ _ _ _ __ r y (Chpt's 7 thru 12) -
PRA/FMEA and Technical ==================- ,
Y ~m W
,; Specifications
'5/30/se
- 3. Turbine Island
0 A'\;' V .
NRR STAFF PRESENTATION TO THE 1
'O ACRS l l
l l
SUBJECT:
TVA - STATUS REPORT ON THE NRC STAFF REVIElf DATE: JULY 10, 1986 i
l PRESENTER: R. H. WESSflAN, TVA PRCUECT STAFF B. J. YOUNGBLOOD, DIRECTOR, PWR PD#4 L. P. CROCKER, FACILITIES OPERATIONS BRANCH O- C. R. STAHLE, SR. PROJECT ftANAGER - SE000YAH PRESENTER'S TITLE / BRANCH /DIV: PWR LICENSING-A PRESENTER'S NRC TEL. NO.: 492-7761 492-8060 SUBCOMMITTEE: AD HOC SUEC0'illITTEE ON TVA C. WYLIE, CHAIRf1AN l
l O l 1
l l
I(]) STATUS OF STAFF ACTIONS ON TVA FACILITIES 0 NO SCHEDULES AVAILABLE FROM TVA, BUT STAFF ESTIMATES OF TVA SUBMITTAL DATES CONTINUE TO SLIP
- 0 CORPORATE PLAN - REVISED IN MARCH 1986
- STAFF COMMENTS - MAY 1986
- PRELIMINARY EVALUATION - JUNE 1986
- TVA PLANNING A SECOND REVISION 0 COMMISSION EVALUATION OF INTIMIDATION AND HARASSMENT FORWARDED TO TVA ON JUNE 2, 1986 !
O SEQUOYAH RESTART EXPECTED IN JANUARY 1987 O -
EQ INSPECTIONS LARGELY COMPLETE TVA DEVELOPING DESIGN CONTROL VERIFICATION PROGRAM
, PRELIMINARY INSPECTION IN JUNE 1986 WELDING INSPECTIONS LARGELY COMPLETE REVIEW 0F EMPLOYEE CONCERNS IS ONG0ING 0 WATTS BAR NOT EXPECTED TO BE READY FOR LICENSING BEFORE MAY 1937 ,
O BROWNS FERRY RESTART DATES REMAIN UNCERTAIN j
O
- - ~ - . = L~-J- -~~--- -~ - - - - - ~ -
'O NRC 50,54(F) LETTER REQUIREMENTS IN CORPORATE AREA 0 SPECIFY ACTIONS BY TVA BOARD TO REMAIN INFORMED AND INVOLVED IN NUCLEAR PLANT PERFORMANCE 0 DESCRIBE MANAGEMENT CHANGES TO STRENGTHEN REGULATORY PERFORMANCE 0 ESTABLISH CORPORATE CONTROLS TO ASSURE AN~ INTEGRATED COMMITMENT TRACKING SYSTEM j-1 0 IMPROVE PROGRAM FOR ESCALATING QA AUDIT FINDINGS O
e i
i e
!O 3
' - - ~ -
. _ . z_.
c:; - ~
1.
~ -
REVISED CORPORATE PLAN (MARCH 10, 1986)
BOARD ACTIONS ,
l 0 BOARD TO REMAIN INFORMED OF NUCLEAR PROGRAM ACTIVITIES 0 IMPROVED CORPORATE OVERSIGHT MANAGEMENT CHANGES 0
ESTABLISH MANAGER OF NUCLEAR POWER AS RESPONSIBLE FOR ENTI NUCLEAR PROGRAM i- 0 RE0RGANIZE NUCLEAR PROGRAM TO ESTABLISH STRONG CENTRAL ORGANIZATION WITH COMPLETE AUTHORITY OVER ALL NUCLEAR
! MATTERS
,O 0
REDUCE LOCAL AUT0NOMY OF INDIVIDUAL SITES 0
MAJOR INFUSION OF OUTSIDE MANAGERIAL AND TECHNICAL TALENT IN LINE POSITIONS OF NEW ORGANIZATION 0
DEVELOP IN-HOUSE MANAGERIAL TALENT TO EVENTUALLY ASSUME CONTROL OF PP.0 GRAM 0
NUCLEAR SAFETY REVIEW STAFF (NSRS) CHANGED TO UUCLEAR MANAGER'S REVIEW GROUP (NMRG) - TO BE USED TO SUPPORT MANAi 0F NUCLEAR POWER l
i 1
COMMITMENT TRACKING AND QA -
0 O INTE3 RATED COMMITMENT TRACKING SYSTEM AND PROGRAM FOR ESCALATING Of AUDIT FINDINGS PEMAIN CONSISTENT WITF OP!G!"f' l S 3"." TT E
_ _ _ _ _ . _ _ - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------ - - - - " ~ ~ ~ ' - ~ ~ "~ "~
~,
'O ,
STAFF EVAttlATION OF REVISED CORPORATE PLAN 0 TVA SUBMITTAL PROVIDES'A CONCEPTUAL DESCRIPTION OF CHAN TVA INTENT, BUT LACKS IMPLEMENTATION DETAILS 0
PLAN'S CONCEPT ACCEPTABLE BUT STAFF COULD NOT MAKE FINAL FINDING WITHOUT THE DETAILS OF IMPLEMENTATION
~
0 RESULTS MAY 9, 1986 OF PRELIMINARY STAFF REVIEW FORWARDED TO COMMI 0 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM TVA REQUESTED MAY 1, 1986 O STAFF CONCERNS AND NEEDS INCLUDED:
() -
DETAILS OF STAFFING, INTERFACE PROCEDURES, AND OPERABILITY OF 0FFICE OF NilCLEAR POWER REVISED OA TOPICAL REPORT DETAILS OF ENGINEERING ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGES 0 TVA SilBMITTED REVISED QA TOPICAL REPORT ON MAY 1, 1986 AND
. IS PREPARING RESPONSE TO OTHER STAFF CONCERNS 0A TOPICAL REPORT UNDER STAFF REVIEW O STAFF WILI. INSPECT IMPLEMENTATION OF PLAN O
5
_ _ _ , . - - , - - - ~ - - ' ' ~
1 rg STATUSOFSTAFFREVIEW (CORPORATEPLRD 0 AWAITIt-E TVA SLB11TTAL OF ADDITI0llAL INFORMATION TO TE CORPORATEPLMI 0 fMTBBIT C0flSULTAfE IS EING OBTAIIED 0 PRESB E CONCERNS
- SPAN OF f%flAGBEIT CONTROL
- TPAlfilfE OF fWMGERS
- TPRISITION TO TVA BRDYEES O
m O
l l
Of .
O \
TVA BRIEFING l TO
- ACRS .
Washington, DC O
JULY 10,1986 .
4 l
1 l
1 i
- m O. u,. Vlason o
1 TVA'S REVISED CORPdRATE NUCLEAR PERFORMANCE PLAN I o HIRING, DEVELOPMENT AND RETENTION OF EXPERIENCED NUCLEAR MANAGERS '
- i o RESTRUCTURING OF TVA'S NUCLEAR ORGANIZATION '
o IMPROVEMENT IN MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AND PROGRAMS
- INCREASING UPPER-MANAGEMENT AWARENESS l
- MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AND CONTROLS.
l - TIMELY CORRECTIVE ACTIONS-i o RESTORING EMPLOYEE CONFIDENCE IN TVA NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT o PROGRAMMATIC IMPROVEMENTS -
t o IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REVISED PLAN
- e o e +
', ORGANIZATION PROBLEM e LACK OF COMMUNICATION AND COORDINATION AMOUNG TVA'S NUCLEAR DEPARTMENTS SOLUTION e BRING ALL NUCLEAR MATTERS UNDER ONE CONTROL e REMOVE NON-NUCLEAR MATTERS e CLEAR, SIMPLE LINES OF AUTHORITY / RESPONSIBILITY e CONS!STENCY ACROSS ENTIRE TVA NUCLEAR EFFORT e STRENGTHENING WEAK AREAS SUCH AS QA, ENGINEERING, LICENSING 9 O O
RQARD ANA i
GENERAL MANAGER NUCLEAR SAFETV OmCE OF REVIEW STAFF ASSUR NCE i
I I OFFICE OF g
! I BALANCE OF l
POWER I CONSTRUCTION TVA IN SEVERAL REPORTING CNAINS I
NUCLEAR 1 LICENSING 1 1
1 I
i I
NUCLEAR OPERA TIONS I
NON-N UCLE A R OPERATIONS I
PLANNING.
RATE MANING l
l F7_
DES 10N CONSTRUCTION l NON-N UCLE A RI NON-NUCLEAR 1
l 1
PRODUCTION I ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION
!, O O #
MANAGER i OFFICE OF NUCLEAR POWER
- 8. A. WHITE DEPUTY MANAGER C.C. MASON a
, liUCt EAR S ATETY REVIEW S TAFF '
N.W. WiliTT g
SUPPORT FUrdCilCliS 34UCl E Art tICEl8$tt(G J.W. IlufII A A4 M Aff AGEll ASSISTAllT mar #AGEll QUAlliY ASSURAllCE Jil. DUR AI L .
IIJ.MtMi38 llutAAll RESOLEICE DEVELOPMENT M E. T AYL OR
- UCLEAR $4FEif STAFF F.A. SZCZEPAHSKI ASSISTANT Td Tite EMPLOVEE CONCERHS t)LPUIY M Af!AGER E.K. SLIGER R P. DElliSE
\
l MAllAGER '
M All A GLil PROJECT M AllAGEMENI fiUCIEAR ENGatJEERitJG &
OllG AltlZ AllOtl OPERATIOllS CONSiftUCilott B elle f onle C.C.MASOt; (VA C All[]
J. P. D ARLulO Walle 8as tinit 3 l W. a. u n O wes I I M ANAGER MAtlADEll 8:llGirlEERINO COllSTRUCTIOla R. W. C ANTREll C. DOtHNE 9# .
g g
ASSISTAl4TS TO -
' ' ' MAtlAGER .
Tl i NUCLEAll SERVICES L. L. JACK SON (Ac tin 0I L. E. M A Rilla '
J. llUTTON I I sROWIIS FERRY SEQUOYAll WATTS DAR (Ac tinal alLLDion W. T. Colm
C=
=W5; 23=5
-"=ua 55"4 s2E M
==
43M M
- -Otii
_u.,
- _E
-==
2"Ca3 E ;
-J
=5 ~3 E
as=s
-3553 g
- s!D =u
= - ::!s E23
=
\
- uC*
=
E: mig" ' =E_ I" a: gar ,5 g Be=i1 =-
-= 23z _!" g*23
= - ::"a ==55 cc 5 ="Y EEEN EEEN -G535 I w
g Eg I" =
a=
fB* E E" EMGR
==== ua CL CC
< am5 =
EE .
w -
m -5 a -t 5 j S- 3 u ==8 - 52 g m
EEa d E.
a 8 LL.
C3 LLJ U ~
9- #m3m u ..
E m5r ..u, un- a L' a1 -= S " ".
O E5:1 E I u. 3 asI" m San *
=E
== n m 3" gg 5
L --
1 2
2 b
e e
m S W
= I = 5 I Em 1 = = 5 l S
sa :
- 2 M =
1
- e. $ ; 0
= -= $5 a
- U $
- E5
. 0003
-Sage su-u m8EW w I
i l
i
\/lANAGEMENT PERSONNEL 4
PROBLEM '
i e LACK OF LEADERSHIP AND DIRECTION SOLUTION i
e GO "OUTSIDE" FOR THESE PEOPLE (CONTRACTOR) i e USE THEM ON A TEMPORARY BASIS (TWO YEARS) e CONTINUE SEARCH FOR TALENT l
e CONTINUE SEARCH OUTSIDE FOR TALENT WILLING TO HIRE IN AS A TVA EMPLOYEE e CONTRACTOR MANAGERS WILL BE TVA LINE MANAGERS, WITH A PERMANENT TVA " DEPUTY" TO TRAIN !
0 0 0 0
NUCLEAR OFFICE QUALITY ASSURANCE OF NUCLEAR POWER NUCLEAR OFFICE OF QUALITY ENGINEERING ASSURANCE DEPUTY ENGINEERING ASSURANCE
^~
PROCUREMENT Q U ALITY TEC HNIC AL
^ ^' SYSTE MS SUPPORT EVALUATION ASSURANCE I
i SITE SITE SITE SITE Q U ALITY QUALITY Q U ALITY Q U ALITY ASSURANCE ASSURANCE ASSURANCE ASSURANCE WNS BELLEFONTE SEQ UOYAH ffRR WATTS B AR O -
O O.
O T
S N L E A M RI D E E N G T A A A N M A M
D L
l E
I F
S S E E S R R R D A U F U R E D F D ND DA L E A E C C TS C ANA o
U O O N R R T S
O P P T
T E N v -
A t
T S T A E S
l R "C I
$ I TA V S S R A N E Y t
S S R u N R O ONE A I TCF AN S CA N N FI I SR W O D O R
I O R R T Y M S E AR A C T C E E E U U I
LW R F'CO F
UP L
C U
T S
P E
O O N D N N O
C S
N O HA H I
T CY A NO N C A U FS R O O
I t
O B E O S T M C
U R T T N 8 n S E M
o N E S
N R it c
ru O
I G
A I" I H A O
S t
s C N A
I TC A NS n
o M CAT C R FI R r a
A I
DS e O
E M lc u
L N C fo U r e
N 1 g
a n
N a S O R M R T I
TT A o E
G F E C CC 8 t A UE ts I
N O J R J S r O T O T o A R S R T p M P N P A e O W r C ly e
r e
v o
p m
e f
N e O E I
T O
T T N e C C O U E to R J F N T O EL S R L N P E O B C
i l
OFFICE F
NUCLEAR "" '"*"" "'"
SAFETY AND LICENSING NUCLEAR SAFETY &
LICENSING DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO LIC ENSING SU." PORT GENERIC SITE NUCLEAR LIC ENSING SAFETY LICENSING MANAGERS (4)
REGULATORY COMPLIANCE ISEG LICENSING MANAGERS (4) (4)
OFFIC E NUCLEAR ENGINEERING NUCLE AR POWER NUCLEAR ENGINEERING NUCLEAR ASSISTANT TO QUALITY ASSURANCE -.-
1 I l MANAGEMENT ENGINEERING ENGINEERING & PROJECT OPER ATIONS SYSTEMS ASSURANCE TECHN M ENGINEERING SUPPORr SERVIC ES SERVICES O O e _ - _ - - - - - - - - -
MANAGEMENT CONTROL SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS c
e INTEGRATED SYSTEM OF CORPORATE PROCEDURES
-ALL NUCLEAR PROCEDURES REVIEWED AND REVISED AS NECESSARY TO BE CONSISTENT
- PREPARATION OF NEW POSITION DESCRIPTIONS FOR MANAGERS
-STRESS ACCOUNTABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY
-USED TO EVALUATE MANAGERS PERFORMANCE e
IMPROVEMENTS IN PLANNING AND INTEGRATION OF NUCLEAR ACTIVITIES e INTEGRATED COMMITMENT TRACKING SYSTEM e
REVISED SYSTEM TO ENSURE TIMELY AND EFFECTIVE CORRECTIVE ACTION FOR CONDITIONS ADVERSE TO QUALITY e EXPANDED OPERATING EXPERIENCE REVIEW PROGRAM e INDREASED UPPER MANAGEMENT AWARENESS OF NUCLEAR ACTIVITIE3 4
4 e G G
w
, D9 g. ,, ..
48 w.MA F
eww M"12 M{ m s.- .
NUCLEAR ENGINEERING i p, s. M.r
- .#sy A + 9cis.. 1e
, n,%,c A di'r": St C3 &j-s.%.g e m . ~
f,[I2 N N }'9fMb'f t
s OPERATIONSN~. '
. .d;;4 WMB;.G G ,1 i >l E s .. ,$ ENGINEERING. .-
dim c,92 . - .
. .l n E'<. :, SERVICES. 'e -
.m. ; _- ct n n
%,- hq:Jd W % %:: J@i.n wu z x' r.p, 2a .
.:n' , , ,
w,PE n-....
, . .w..x a% ., pu p u =t c- g ". v. ._
' DICOLA'. (C) ,
h b +
.s. , , f.
, .. . 74 ; .. . . . . ,
uwx::4, .Qp:,;W 3......
~..'!y i
.a M -a:i: ^* - -
4 5,g ., y y. . . , ~
. A. . .y>. n ,. g .
o,. . ;. . .
.mg r.. v .s.e q sw.g j ,
3 .. ;:Y '
- c. w. , . . . ..
M10 JECT MANAGEMENT
.:u i
4.'.,C a
... " ;- a. .v. ms;~. .
%.g s'$ ,: . ; -
c.
,!yfg.
w v
~ M., w s
- . C. CANTRELi.
-n y.
q , a. x .
.,, -...u.
.. e:
,,. _...%,,.* 4., s .,
j -
\,
e, . . .m;.-, :- 7 g, e-
- , a r f ($.s.,y 3..'
c ?' ; r 7*
~
. l. Nf, Q
_J-
> .<l> +..
f m'
- y4 s
h ' ,
r OSCHANIC,;AL SERVICES 1 ELECTRIC INSTRUNENT RELIABILITY,AND PERFORMANLE
_. CONTROL. SERVICES
+
- a. LAu
- 2. .c.tE. 7 .
- 3. , coir,
~
4'h l
t
'l I
I t
t ,
i . , . . . m ame .. n ai . , a .k '.h w .. ,, . . . . , , . ..-..u6.
4 i
l 4,
3 1
4 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _
CCB YES CHANGE REQUEST PLANT MOD CCB
- PREPARE REVIEN STUDY REVIEH PMP
. g
. OPERATIONS _
REVIEH
- ORDER LONG LEAD MATERIAL 0 A I E + " $ PREP --+
g0RK P g INSTALL *
- DO S D kD n
u DCN'S HTITTEN, DISPOSITIONED, B
AND INSTALLED
. [ .' [I n _, , , ' ,E .'C- ' [ I! d'+ 7'; * , j'*[ I [% M ;y [-f ,
- %g'*[.h.,, .. n.
- )fs- ,< . . A magtm{Og ;
.e
- W > <. :
WF
- e %. e - % . *
- NP 2.; . :R s., ; m.*t;y *w
,,... ,d.w,.~ e.;*ff
- w. T.e4,*, >:Q p y7 gm^'* ?r-sg m ,.74*
g.h-].-[.
, j w egy) ,, ,.! y , . 4 } P'\*t ry. %i y v,,or .a .. .
Se e Y~t. -
t=J.y g .'* / , , ,, y %., %.g.
- p W Wa - -
.*Je mm"L. . + .- . .rc e , +
c ,7, .,: 3
~ , ., m. m. e.;W., 3.21_ 4= . ,.png'f;g
- ywy,
,',~* ,
av
\.
p\
. . .yj ;;% =e' 3, y .,,7,jm: ;mw(
,,,(
' 'Y c J.y;,
y'J].j 1 ',w"
- t ., - -* . >+Q
>7 h Y lQ0%'je 'N Ny.,r.';? & T f^.4'g &*[4M%Wl*L s,Q. n*4
.'.-r s'*BE,e
{ n ? dg[ hh +; s ,Y f(ty .h
~ ~** ..' **Cd ' 1,g".G& .li ',, ? e ? % ? ~h *tw. *Q'?Q
- .5 e ;;
. N, ,' .(} 'fg( ' 'k ",3 Yh ' ' i h.'
- y. .. . ,-
@AL 4,
- m *. gg 5Way g e " s -=,, w y.a. m .P 5 % *@.t.[
..Q.,r. M,n.MDWr4,,j,'v 9.gM**f p,*g r,re*,*i- .h
& *- W. ,* Q &.
. ,, yp g , ,w. .
n* -* M.m .Y..' *% *s**-..Ag h.1e<r, m d ep +S*Vse; C 4*:'e..,sA;er'
%. ' g*gk" Q . i,,'
- ! ~ ,Q '?,h' Q,i ? Y"I *:t* $ ),f" W ^^
~!*h*' W Y. $ $'Aq *,w%*$ ,- p W tyk y_ 3lWrMe.hY' M c' '!+y **5h* y . ~ wh( y.)&wg@'P%f g
., ~* .c [e/A ML.w g;w %r eY,eY@
+
c K:p- 2 t.
- v q : ,=~f,y c':
. 3,L v . ,, a ye TN M-*pd. m" b@ i ' ***
O .c
,i #a:s K . ; P. ppm * %t,y,.m*;, p. n : O %WJC 6 ^%' A , %.,,w w;*r* # *
' g > *# s. p-
- 4*- -
P' % syt
,;o g ay- ff. f,W'.5 A r a , M' +W..~ ; y . , _ . .
- e ,3..t w
,, 9 Q m<w' %W*/" .'D. , M,,w ev%'c $;,
,n W,7 a vd_ +., gm;,. - % h-4-
, giv gag t 5, ;.7~,R, V N '**E"*rCQ**' J &fs Db h%. QJ. ,,c=h Ma ll'y' r
s ,g fo y yyg
/ :gM9. Q,Myu'f}g* %g).
,,u y,:* p M Rl ..;
>s * .g, ' '
4MM6'j'*TJ:
, f., *;l + g.e@+ ~gam&"W-V- Vh9_*3.;..MByy
..,g qlm y w - a :
A 4 7- :,. ,g -
- g % g g C.h , xfQ et
'eQ) : . };V ( '. ' y , f W .*,l.7 -. W' 3Qy hw mGn at ,,, ,M.'a .% ?,.i j.L1,Mst.H .Q %;Mg &
C.m. .v n ..,. .s.- v.
d l ".jp:f.Cw = ..6 4 m. ...a*w* =J w . ,g x y4m.ea w gq .. m . ,.,j[gs;jf, w e,3."..+
t te. . +
py b T, e.
LN,rh,
," R'.3.p.,-* M M-4w
- i, W ' d .e Q w, b
~ga . ,. L4 %s O
- 64. . @ ",f aWLWa}'G 51" **4r..g* -
t 1",/,- ..q', 'd
, gt J . . . .
- - - < y G - 1 *.r,
,g < tj, 25 $
. y ,. , y d % 4 g.
- f .. YO g/.y
- yp. a " g) * .&
' .".' s' r .. w.:$'TWN. '+ 4 , . Iff,%.* ,hb.
N [ f el. ,.,,'5.n,n- ),****=-
, 3?E=f.,$ A.'.- 1 sm>fS *Q ,,.% ,hk ' g:w ."
M@byM, .- ;; 4 h .4'.h 4 4.T 4 c M.: s ,
, ,y z *n q[
61' .< ~ . 5 ..
ETCJ ..
i . .
yn
=
4" w
$%s*a14f x.W.I -%m ,f t1.M,R@
fM - q*" G, pEgd.rg%.WeMNg*4.n,,Q's ; . ae. Ej /M
- w. 4.b
- g&y , ,w%.w,,9+ .
4 i .- M S V We M &; q,.- m vs.cm@s 5f A w' 3*-f ***d. W . .HNs f;t. < s&,5W-;"&
ry 4
- r0 M sqi.Na > w . W'm 4, m&a ,, A@?***%.t ~*L,[ "T*,m
.i CW [d @ 2
.A# M" 7r4
. g!.h :.m'" 'g,
- t ;
' 'g t o-
,,, Ms '
WL *g,c&y%,*F ~.
M e.^w w sw,&fgm .efN.pe : - > -
q $. W-i*. n l' _
Wg *%y. AcQ).
- v-~ .~
,^: m.*g. an
- (p?O;g pgv
.p*= , 4 E
,QWM'%;g #
2
- wo 5 g_
- ~ A ' , . ' . ; h3., @ , v.;Q. mY** .)/ ' ; "
7T .
] , - e-
& y 5 -?h5f. , ;th * $ ^~W 0
l ;' ' y . jy;
~
Qgm{
i[ ~f 4-- t ; , . N* A' "#Id ,9 WR 4f e I e
- N+d5, -
w-%. <
g 4 ' , d %, &n . i. , ,
. - wo ' f _,,t?>_
G,~.'* -
' ' , .D . ,Afp .2 9A ny. - -- %
l -
w-
,, y
,, .s. _ _._ ,
, , --, , wj J [ 1884 -p.a *.
S M, vg W J h,. , .- p @*' . W gi 4,y. ,,. -d
^
.14 s
~(.
.w 'g
-M'
.. . ~%.Ad .; g
. .; 4e [
a ..-n e O*. , ,. T , aw
- 3 . A .*'y g ,
kw -
e n.. (
,o
- a .1 ,.* 'h f-* -.
t ,, w% ,
. , y; L
, e. a a
, .) U $ m.
y i
&, e -o.e
-e ee-. . m., W--
-- ya; -
- u.
- A ,, g I.M. ~. _ ,e(_
M;, , ' . , m.v n=' * *1 Wh g .
eq &v
. , nv
- v. .. -
~*
- r %;., . .
m
. ~ ..
, ; ,y - a *~~*
- ~
e _
l
.f ~ "
~
A ,, =7 p =- -
w
~ -
=#'_
-a D
- -G. w &r W ""
.,5 === O %_
&_ igy -
i
_ T&, ph - - n e, M Q-3;.7 #~ tj,g n C ,
T ev e,, ~ -
-J
$4k Bd_ =
o n. .*
y a a.
> be.
g.
P M~ Q.wh -3 .=
A. .. .. 3, A.GQ . }g
-Q+ - -
.a 2
~.
~
s3 = &
n y.
e s.{
=#
_J\hy,. , , ,s 3 * .
.W ,P, k "
.c .* % .
.- _ ,h ,
, !, fL ^4*^>.- / **U. g-a lW V. # y ,,3,,An.:: + ~ w m .rf w@{f.) , <
f-
._ ;w .2% -
~
.'s t
-fn% g'A. agg _.m ky ; . , . . , - .;...L. R, ,. * '
w g';, . q - l Wa%e@,
R hM. 6 W +..e.,%r. +
g 1
x
+
- -w*
- 1 e' .
l
' i M( ,,+M m i
\ ngm A . W.* gf:t 4 p ,-
! ~gN<T$n >;a,MM. M ,Mny y~*7 'M e D+%.-.
,7'vv W % wn, n .c.e g. , a M.+ ,
I g* dg T v g t's ; G
- y - y ra a
'.gg,8y - q _ _R y ,, m.,.,
J t d 'I '#, *hAiM I
J l
1 1 1
__ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - - - - - - - . . - _ _ _ _ _ - _ . . . _ - _ _ - _ _ . . , _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ . - _.