ML20206H270
| ML20206H270 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/05/1999 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 9905110125 | |
| Download: ML20206H270 (98) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. ( o,. a,.., sn. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t 6
Title:
BRIEFING ON STATUS OF MAINTENANCE RULE Location: Rockville, MD /f s Date: Wednesday, May 5,.1999 Pages: 1 - 86 0 I d 110074 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 1025 Connecticut Avenue,NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C.20036 (202) 842-0034 CERTIFICATE BR' 1882 " 5 5 PT9.7 PDR
7 1 p S-1 l' 1 . UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 4 5 -BRIEFING ON STATUS OF MAINTENANCE RULE. k i 8-Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9 Commission Meeting Room 10 11555 Rockville Pike 11 Rockville, Maryland 12 Wednesday, May 5, 1999 13 14 The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 2:44 15 .p.m., the Honorable Shirley Jackson, Chairman of the 16 Commission, presiding. 17 ~18 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: .19 SHIRLEY JACKSON, Chairman 20: GRETA DICUS, Commissioner 21 NILS DIAZ, Commissioner 22 EDWARD MCGAFFIGAN, Commissioner 23 JEFFREY MERRIFIELD, Commissioner 24 ~25 ANN RILEY-& ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 ~ Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
S-2 l' STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT. COMMISSION TABLE: 2 ANNETTE L. VIETTI-COOK, Secretary 3 KAREN CYR, Office of General Counsel 4-JOSEPH R. GRAY, Office of General Counsel 5 . FRANK MIRAGLIA, Deputy EDO 6 GARY HOLAHAN, NRR 7' RICHARD CORREIA, NRR 8 WILLIAM KANE, NRR 9 THOMAS KING, RES 10-RALPH BEEDLE, NEI 11 HAROLD RAY, Southern California Edison Company 12 TONY PIETRANGELO,- NEI 13 14 15 16.- 17 18 19 20 .21 22 -23 24 25-I I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court-Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
S-3 1-PROCEEDING.S -2 ' CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Good afternoon. -The Commission will be briefed by the NRC Staff and the Nuclear Energy 3 4 Institute on' proposed changes to 10 CFR 50,65, commonly 5 referred to as the maintenance rule. 6 As many of you know, for some time power reactor 7 licensees have shortened refueling outages by better '8 planning and increasing the amount of maintenance performed 9' on line. The existing rule tries to address the point having to do with configuration'of plant systems during 10 11-various modes, including maintenance on line,.by 12 recommending that.the given licensee perform assessments,of 13 the total equipment out of service for maintenance at any 14 one time, with the objective of understanding the overall 15 effect or the performance of safety functions. 16 The Staff has proposed to modify the rule. The 17' proposed modification would require, as opposed to l . 18 recommend, that licensees perform assessments to control the 19 risks associated with the use of on-line maintenance, and l . 20. this proposal enjoyed the support of the Commission and the 21 nuclear power industry. Arriving at appropriate rule 22 language, however, has been difficult. Concerns have been 23 expressed regarding the definition of key terms, the degree . :24 to.which regulatory guidance could or should be used to 25 complete our approach to this subject, and the scope of 4 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025: Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
S-4 1-equipment to be considered by assessments. 2 These concerns have been the subject of much 3 -discussion between the NRC and its stakeholders. As the 4 Staff appears to be' converging on language which they 5 believe is responsive to concerns expressed in this area by 6 a number of parties, now would seem to be an appropriate 7 time for the issue to be discussed in this forum. 8 This meeting is intended both to air the issue and 9 the proposed Staff language in public and to allow the 10 Commission to provide any feedback it desires to the Staff 11 as necessary. 12 As we consider the Staff proposal and the power 13 reactor industry perspectives on this subject, I believe we 14 should do so with the goal of achieving closure on this 15_ question, which has occupied much of our. attention for a 16 very long-time. 17 To paraphrase a statement that some of my i 18 colleagues have used at these meetings, some Commission 19 meetings, we should not allow the better to become the enemy 20 of the good. 21 With this background, let us proceed with the 22 business at hand. I understand that copies of the materials 23 .being discussed are available at the entrances to the room, -24 and unless.my colleagues have sny opening comments they wish 35 to make,-Mr. Miraglia, please proceed. I guess we wore Dr. i '1007 RILEY'& ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
S-5 1 Travers out this morning. 2 MR. MIRAGLIA: Yes, I am here pinch-hitting, and 3 'he's -- 4 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: We want to thank you for -5 hanging in with us here today. 6 MR, MIRAGLIA: Good afternoon, Madam Chairman and 7 Commissioners. As you have indicated, the Staff is here to 8 discuss proposed changes to 10 CFR 65, the maintenance rule. 9 At the table this afternoon is -- with me is Bill Kane, 10 -Associate Director for Inspection and Programs in NRR; Gary 11 Holahan, the Director of the Division of Systems and Safety 12 ' Analysis, NRR; to my far right, Tom King, Director of 13 Division of Risk Analysis and Applications in Research; Rich 14 Correia, on my left, the Chief for the Reliability of 15 Maintenance Rule Section. 16 As you indicated, the maintenance rule went into 17 effect in July of 1996, and at that time it was the NRC's 18 expectations that Licensees would conduct assessments of 19-risk of performing maintenance activities, and that is j 20 currently spe.cified in Section (a) (3) of the rule.
- However, i-21 that rule did not explicitly require the performance of 22
.these assessments. As a result of this, the Staff proposed 23 the rulemaking change that was endorsed by the Commission in 24 an SRM of. September 30th, and the Staff proposal was to 25 change-that rule, would create a new section (a) (4) which ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
c S-6 1 would make.it a regulatory requirement to perform such 2 assessments, to manage the risk for many proposed j .3 maintenance activities. i 4 In support of this briefing, as you summarized, 5 Madam Chairman, Dr. Travers on Friday, April 30th, sent a 6 package to the Commission that consisted of a number of i 7 pieces _of information. It was the package that,the Staff, 8-rulemaking. package that the Staff had prepared after that 9 point and discussed with ACRS and.CRGR. It also transmitted 10 a rulemaking, a -- I'm sorry, the regulatory guide drafc 11 that supports the- (a) (4) revision, and it also included some 12 language limiting _the scope for the pre-maintenance 13 assessments. 14 As you have indicated, Madam Chairman, this was an 15 issue that was commented on in the proposed rule, the scope 16 of these risk' assessments. 17 With that introduction, I will turn the discussion 18 over to Bill Kane. zl9-MR. KANE: One of the more consequential issues 20 'regarding this (a) (4) change as the scope of the -- I'm 21 .sorry - scope of the systems, structures and components to 22- .be_ included in the pre-maintenance assessments, both the NRC 23 and Licensees' focus has been on high safety-significant 24 systems,' structures and components from the beginning. .25 'However, once we: initiated rulemaking to change ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036-(202) 842-0034
l S -' 7 1 the' assessment recommendation to a requirement, the industry r 2 -began to feel that the NRC would require all in-scope. y 3 systems,- structures and components.to be considered in all 4-assessments. That has never been our intent or our y 5 -practice. The objective has been.to provide a method and a .6 regulatory-guide by which the Licensees could screen out 7 from future assessment consideration those 8 low-safety-significant structures, systems and components i 9: that would contribute.little to plant risk when out of 10 service for maintenance. 11 We now-believe that a better course is to have the -12 rule contain some anchoring language that would reflect that 13 approach. However, this change has not -- this is a recent 14 change and has not yet been reviewed by ACRS or CRGR. They 15 reviewed the earlier version. 16 In. discussions earlier today, we.have been 17 communicating'with ACRS, and CRGR, regarding this approach, 18 and in discussions earlier today, which Mr. Correia can 19 address, ACRS expressed some concerns with this approach and 20 may-choose to lay thOse out in'a letter. 21 We really hope that this briefing will facilitate 22 'your review of the package. We can -- we looked at our s 23. schedule and we can forward a revised package to you by May 24 17th. However, it is not likely that we will have completed E. '25 with discussions with ACRS at that time. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters. 1025LConnecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington,-D.C. 20036 (202): 842-0034
n S-6 IL would make it a regulatory requirement to perform such 2 assessments, to manage the risk for many proposed 3 maintenance activities. 4 In support of this briefing, as you summarized, 'S-Madam Chairman, Dr. Travers on Friday, April 30th, sent a 6 package to the Commission that consisted of a number of 7 pieces of information. It was the package that the Staff, 8 rulemaking package that the Staff had prepared after that 9 point and discussed with ACRS and CRGR. It also transmitted 10' a rulemaking, a -- I'm sorry, the regulatory guide dir ~ 11 that. supports the (a) (4). revision, and it also included some 12 language limiting the scope for the pre-maintenance 13 assessments. 14 As you have indicated, Madam Chairman, this was an 15-issue that was commented on in the proposed rule, the scope 16 of these risk assessments. 17 With that introduction, I will turn the discussion 18 over.to Bill Kane. 19 'MR. KANE: One of the more consequential issues 20 regarding this (a) (4) change as the scope of the -- I'm 21 sorry -- scope of-the systems, structures and components to 22 be included;in the pre-maintenance assessments, both the NRC 23 and Licensees' focus has been on high safety-significant 24' . systems, structures and components from the beginning. 25 However,_once we initiated rulemaking to change ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington,~D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
F> r S-7 1 the assessment recommendation to a requirement, the industry began to feel that the NRC would require all in-scope 2 3' systems, structures and components'to be considered in all 3 4 assessments. That has never been our intent or our 5 practice. The; objective has been to provide a method and a 6-regulatory guide by which the Licensees could screen out I 7 from future assessment. consideration those 8. low-safety-significant structures, systems and components 9 .that would contribute little to plant risk when out of 10 service for maintenance. 11 We now believe that a better course is to have the 12 rule contain some anchoring language that would reflect that l 13 approach. However, this change has not -- this is a recent 14 change and has-not yet been reviewed by ACRS or CRGR. They 15 reviewed the earlier version. 16 In disceAsions earlier today, we have been 17 communicating vith ACRS, and CRGR, regarding this approach, 18 and in discussions earlier today, which Mr. Correia can 19 address, ACRS expressed some concerns with this approach and 20 may choose to lay those out in a letter. 21-We really hope that this briefing will facilitate 22 your review of the package. We can -- we looked at our 23 schedule and we can forward a revised package to you by May 24 17th. However, it is not likely that we will have completed i. s5 with discussions with ACRS at that time. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 w L
m S-8 1 'For the details of what~we are. going to propose to 2-you, Richard Correia,fwho is the Chief of our. Reliability 3 and Maintenance:Section, will provide the presentation. 4 MR. CORREIA: ~ Thank you, Bill. 5-Could I have slide 2, please. 6 Just as a way of background to take us from where ~ 7 we've been to where we are, I would like to briefly go over 8 some key points in this. rule change. 9 In SECY 97-055, in March of 1997, we described to 10 the Commission the problems we were having in inspections 11 with enforcing this part of the rule. We couldn't enforce 12 it..If we found an assessment that wasn't done, or it 13 wasn't adequate, we couldn't take enforcement actions. 14 Based on that' SECY,. the Commission, asked the 15 Staff to consider clarifying (a) (3) and to provide examples 16 of weak programs found during the baseline inspection 17' program. In SECY 97-173, we provided the Commission three 11 9 options to consider: 1!O One, make no changes to the rule; 21 Two; change the "should" to a "shall"; 22 And three, make comprehensive changes to the rule. 23 The Staff recommended option two. 24 Slide 3, please. . 25 In the SRM that followed 97-173, the Commission ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 -Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
r S-9 L1 directed us'to prepare and issue for public comment the 2 proposed' rule. We have the rule language here. Besides ~
- 3 changing "should" to "shall," we also included'that these j
4 assessments should include ~ items such as corrective j 5: maintenance and how the results of the assessment should be 6 used. 4 7 _The existing language basically just'says perform l 8 an assessment; it_doesn't say what to do with the results of i 9 the assessment. This language further expanded that thought 10 to say that the assessment should be used -- shall be used, 11 excuse me, to ensure the plant is not placed in a .12 risk-significant configuration or_ configurations that would l 13 degrade the performance of safety functions to an I i 14 unacceptable level.
- 15 COMMISSIONER-DIAZ:
Excuse me, Madam Chairman, let i i j 16 me. correct something for the record here. 1 f 17 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
- Yes, 18 j
COMMISSIONER DIAZ: SRM 97-173 did not contain j 19 this language. You know, the language, the SRM 97-173, the e [ 20 language stopped at "is not placed in risk-significant ^ l { 21 configurations," period. The rest of the phrase was added i[ 22' later'by the Staff. I just wanted the record to reflect l 23 that. ~ 24-MR. CORREIA: That's true. -That's correct. ' k' 25, COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Okay. Thank you. i. L h l -{ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ? Court Reporters y 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l. Washington, D.C. 20036' J-(202) 842-0034 'h-1 L 4
S-10 MR. CORREIA: The' thought behind that additional 2 phrase was to allow licensees to perform or use the result 3. of the assessments, without necessarily using PRAs. That 4' was the intent. Thank you. 5 ' Slide 4. 6 These are what we feel are the more significant '7 reasons for the change from "should" to "shall." First-and 8 foremost, as the Chairman' mentioned in her opening remarks, 9 the industry is increasing the amount and frequencylof -10 maintenance performed at power. There has been a 11-significant change in this since the maintenance rule was 12 written, and we feel that-these assessments are very, very 13 important for plant safety. 14 -We also found during the baseline inspections that 15 several Licensees had problems with the assessments. We } 16 found in some cases assessments were not performed; in other k \\ 17. cases they were performed, but did not include all the 18 systems that might have been out of service at the same 19 time. I 20 Also technical specifications generally were not i i L 21 intended to address removal of multiple equipment out of [\\ i -22 service simultaneously. They looked basically at one or two L 23 systems at a time with a reasonable amount of time to repair j l 34 and restore the equipment to service. j 1 25 As I mentioned earlier, the current assessment in j l I I, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite.1014 i Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 1 i
r 1 S-11 the-rule is a recommendation, not a requirement,'therefore 1 -2 it is not enforceable. And one other change that we are 3. making to. the rule -by '(a) (4) is to clarify that-the rule requirements apply during normal operating and shutdown' i 4 ~5 conditions. ] '6 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Let me ask you a question. 7 MR. CORREIA: :Yes. 8 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: You know, reading your first 9 and third bullets, to what extent _does a typical plant i 10 employing a rolling. maintenance' schedule differ from the 11 . assumptions the~NRC Staff made when either licensing the 12 facility'or when this. rule was initially promulgated? 13 MR. CORREIA: Well, they always have to-comply 14 with the technical specifications. This rule would not } 15 allow them to deviate'from that, certainly. And any other 16 license conditions that they would have. 17 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: How would the rick change if a Licensee entered all the tech spec action statements they 18 19 possibly could? l l 20-MR. HOLAHAN: Could I try that? -21 MR. CORREIA: Sure. 22 MR. HOLAHAN: I think when the technical 23 ' specifications were written, there really was sort of an 24 inherent assumption that this was sort of a one piece of 25-equipment at a time, and I'think the risk assessments aren't ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters-l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 y
S-12 1 .normally done to the requirements; they are done to your 2-best judgment of how plants are really operated. But I 3: think you could say if you took all the equipment out of 4 service that tech-specs would allow, it would basically 5 leave the plant so that any event would not have single 6 failure protection. Usually the redundant systems provide 7 at least a factor of 10 or 20 of increased reliability of 8 mitigation. So you could easily expect risks to increase by 9 10 times, 20 times, if plants are actually run that way. 10 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: Madam Chairman? 11 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Please. 12 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: In reviewing for this 13 . meeting, I was going over the CRGR comments and 14 recommendations from the April 27, 1999 meeting, and I am ' 15 - wondering if you could address a significant comment of 16 this, number two, stating that the Staff is not providing a 17 defensible rationale for its position that the rule change I 18 will provide a " substantial increase in protection of public .19-health and safety." 20 MR. CORREIA: My view was that the reg analysis -- 21 at least it was clear to me and the Staff, that it was 22 inherent in the reg analysis. I think what happened was 23 there.wasn't a clear statement to that fact. We have now 24-since changed the reg analysis to reflect that it does 25 indeed -- is a necessary change. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
S-13 L1 .MR. MIRAGLIA: Commissioner Merrifield, if I might 2 amplify, I believe the thought' process that entered into-3 that comment 1s'that the CRGR members 1 felt that there was an 4 4 argument'to be made'and a story to be told,-but it wasn't 5 clearly articulated within the reg analysis that was 6-provided to~the CRGR, so it-was a recommendation that the '7 Staff.look at that and clearly 1 articulate those points. 8 _They felt that the package did.not do that. And I think 9 that's what l 10 COMMISSIONER _MERRIFIELD: I guess it just raises 11-the connected issue. You know, we have been spending a lot 12 of time.of our new reactor oversight program and one of the 13 things that we have been:seeing is that we have a mature 14 industry'that.has a number of performance indicators that 15' demonstrates it is clearly running a lot more safely than it 16 used to, and has a greater operational performance than it 17 did over a decade or so. And so here we are, on the one .18 hand, saying that we have an issue which will probably -19 substantially increase the safety, yet we have said in other 1 20 contexts that we think, you know, important improvements in 21 safety have already occurred. 22 Given this differentiation, I wonder if you could 23 provide me'a little bit more clarification of why you-24 believe this is important for protecting public health and 25 safety. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters
- 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014
-Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
S-14 1 MR. MIRAGLIA: I-think it would go to some 2 examples that.there are risk configurations out there, 3 particularly in combination, that can put the plantsHat 4 risk. 5 One of the issues that we haven't addressed well 6 are particularly issues with plants in shutdown and the new 7 more on-line maintenance, which is a dif.ferent. approach from 8 the initial licensing. As Mr. Holahan has indicated, the 9 tech specs never contemplated large amounts or pieces of 10 equipment all out at the same time and that kind of thing. 11 So there is that evolution. 12 I don't know if Rich might have some particular 13 examples that could be noted. 14 MR. CORREIA: Well, I can only reflect on what we 15 saw during the baseline inspections. For example, one of 16 the assessment tools at one facility only considered 12 out 17 of 44 high safety-significant SSCs. So if anything was 18 taken, it wasn't on that metric out of service and the risk 19 was unknown, and they could have been in a much higher risk 20 situation than they thought they were. 21 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: If you would have considered 22 all 44 high safety-significant, would you have been -23 satisfied? 24 MR. CORREIA: Certainly our comfort level would 25 .have been up. ANN.RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. { Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
S-15 'l COMMISSIONER DIAZ: -No, no, 4 that is not the i L -2 question. Would you have been satisfied, if 44 out of 44 3L high safety-significant would have been considered? Would 4 that have been adequate protection of health and safety? 5-MR. CORREIA: No,~because there could be some low I 6 safety-significant SSCs that in' combination with some high 7 could change the risk significance _of a configuration, and 8 these are typically support. systems, systems that supply a i 9 supporting function to'the main mitigating system, for 10 example. 11 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: By a factor of 10? The factor 12 of 2? By 10 percent? I mean, of course, the Staff is doing 13 the analysis to justify this position, as you said. As 14' Commissioner Merrifield said, you have now further analysis 15 that justifies this position, so a factor of 2? A factor of 16 10? 17 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Is it a matter of the plant? 18 MR..CORREIA: It's a matter of the plant and the 19 configuration, yes. 20-COMMISSIONER DIAZ: So it's a matter of some 21 specific plants being out of norm, and we are going to t 22-legislate all plants because one is out of norm? I mean I'm '23 just asking. You say you have reviewed the regulatory 24-analysis, and'now you have this justification. 'I just want 25 to make sure that the justification is obvious and plain, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
S-16-l' submitt W t.c ne Commission. s 2 L 'RMAN JACKSON: Gary, do you have any comments 3 .you want .r, *.<e? 4 HOLAHAN: Well, if I remember what was in the +.. ~ 5 reg analysis, and I think we commented on it quite a long 6 time'ago,-if.you remember the Commission guidance on how to 7 do these regulatory analyses and the regulatory analysis 8 guidelines' addresses what credit ought to be given for f 9 voluntary actions on the part of the Licensees in that 10 analysis, and there's some guidelines as to whether programs 11 ought to be given credit versus hardware and structures, and i 12 the Commission guidance is not to give credit for voluntary 113 actions when you are making judgments about whether 14 something should be required or not. 15 After all, if you assume that Licensees are 16 already meeting the rule, then having the rule, of course, 17 has no value because it would be no difference. So in 18 effect what you are judging'is the value of a Licensee not 19 continuing the voluntary action, but going back to the ~ 20-minimum requirements as the regulations would require, and I 21 think there is a substantial value to that. I think that is 22 part of what has happened in that analysis, although I 23 haven't seen it for quite a while, I have to say. 24 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Therefore, you are saying that 25 unless-there's something.we don't know, that nuclear power i ) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters j 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 ) Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 t.
p S-17 l 1 plants today, if they do their normal things and maintain ) 2 voluntary actions that are in the configuration risk j 3 management, then there will be not much difference; :bs that l 4 what you are saying? l. 5. MR. HOLARAN: I think what I was saying is, of 6 course, if Licensees are already.doing exactly what this 7 rule would accomplish,.then there is no value in having the-8 rule. I mean the actual practical implementation at-the 1 9 plant 10 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: But I don't think that's i 11 what the Staff's inspection findings show. I remember the l 12 Quad Cities event, it was Diablo Canyon -- I mean just in 13 the last six months, there have been -- I don't know whether ~14 they'would get there the Morris engine and the new 15 assessment process and be one of the Big 10 findings for the 16 year, but the Staff inspection findings in this case are -- 17 they are finding people are putting their plants in 18 risk-significant configurations. 19 MR. HOLAHAN: And in fact, the value of the rule 20
- Us being able to address those situations.
21 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: I am happy to see Commissioner 22 McGaffigan using the term risk-significant configurations. 23 That means that there is some leeway in here. Okay. Thank 24 -you. 25 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Also it seems that there is the i 1-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
S-18 1 point that seems to underlie what you are talking about, but 2 you don't ever talk about it that explicitly, and it really 3 has to do with some concern for cumulative risk. Is that a 4 fact? 5 MR. CORREIA: Certainly any time a plant places 6 itself in a configuration, there is some risk associated i 7 with that, and it would certainly contribute to a periodic 8 increase in risk, but I think -- 9 MR. HOLAHAN. I think the cumulative risk issue is 10 better covered in the other parts of the maintenance rule I 11 which call for a periodic assessment of balancing, you know, 12 unavailability -- 13 MR. MIRAGLIA: Unavailability. 14 MR. HOLAHAN: -- and maintenance activities. I 15 think this part of the rule is really a 16 configuration-by-configuration situation, you know. Is the 17. situation that you plan to go in one that is, you Know, 18 acceptable from a risk point of view. Obviously if each and s 19 every one is well planned and is acceptable, then I think 20 the total comes out acceptable. And one ought to expect the 21 assessments done once every 18 months or whatever, you know, 22 to reflect all those good judgments made and naturally the 23 conclusions ought to be acceptable. 24 MR. MIRAGLIA: The other key part is to assess and 25 manage; in other words, understand where you are putting the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
9' i 1 S-19 .1 plant;and do,you have compensatory measures or-other 2b measures in place to; understand the significance of the '3' configuration you are in for the duration of the period that l '4 .y'ou are in. i 15 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Madam Chairman, you i l '6; know,,part,of me wishes'that:we had just changed "should".to l ' 7. "shall" on the spot when Commissioner Merrifield's 8 ' predecessor,. Commissioner Rogers, gave a speech to us all 9 early'in'my tenure here about how fundamental it was with 10 the increased amount of on-line maintenance that was going 11- .on and the inspection findings that they were briefing us on 12 .in early '97. I remember him saying this is fundamental. ,13 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: We "should" have gone to 14 "shall." p 15 [ Laughter.] 16 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: I asked Mr. Beedle, Mr. 17-Beedle said we're all for it, and I honestly at'that point 18- .would have endorsed NUMARC, encouraged:the Staff to NUMARC 19 93.01, Rev. 2, just maybe with a couple of "shoulds" changed to "shalls" and_you'd be there. Because it would be a 20. 21 pretty' darn good rule, and obviously there ic a lot of water 3 22 over the dam since,-but this reg guide which uses "should," 23 doesn't use "shall," should be assessed for its impact cn1 -24 key plant safety functions, et cetera, isn't a bad reg guide j. 25 with the few-"shoulds" changed "shalls," but we are -- I 7 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 1'
r-S- 20 1_ guess we are now' going to try to improve.
- 5. <
2' COMMISSIONER'DIAZ: That'was two years ago. A lot -3 of things'have happened since then, and I'm.sure the~ staff
- 4:
and:the industry'are.both more knowledgeable'now about this 5-issue. Is that a yes? You'are more knowledgeable today i (L about the issue than you were two years ago? You'have 7 further risk insight.on.the issue? 8 MR. HOLAHAN: We have certainly thought about it 9'
- more.
I'm not going to -- 10 [ Laughter.] 11 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Okay. I can buy that. 12. CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Why don't you just kind of give 13 .a plain language statement of your bottom line, so we are 14' all normalized to the same point. You know, not is- . temporizing, -you know,' not looking at.our body language; '16 just kind-of give a-plain language bottom line statement of - . here.you are, so we know what page we're on. w 18 M.R. MIRAGLIA: I think I'll give a try, and then l 19 - I'll put my foot in Rich's mouth, and he can correct me. '20= I think what we have -- you know, our initial .21 = approach,1 Madam Chairman, was to say that we can deal with 7 ~ 22-t this issue and addressing the concerns relative to the scope '23' of.these assessments.in terms of regulatory guidance. 24. Given~the amount of discourse and comment that we 2.5-had on'the proposed rule, given the dialogue that we have ANN-RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ' Court Reporters 1025' Connecticut Avenue, NW,1 Suite 1014 -Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 u
7 1 L H S-21 L1 had with various-stakeholders, we now believe that the rule 2 should have some sort of language to -- within the context 4 3 of.the rule to address the scope of the rule, and that is in { t 1 4 some of the proposed language that Rich is going to discuss 5' on a later slide, and that's a very brief summary statement, l 6 but Rich, if you want to add to that. 7 MR. CORREIA: No, that's true. We recognize that 8 not.all systems in the scope of the rule contribute 9 significantly to outage configurations. Our initial 10 thought, our very recent thought, was let the regulatory 11 guide describe a methodology to limit the scope of these 12 assessments as the Licensee would assess and determine that 13 certain systems were not that important in the 14 configuration, they could stop doing the assessments and 15 focus on those that were most important. I believe that is 16 where we are today, and the question is do we put that 17-language in the rule, or do we let the reg guide speak to 18 it. 19 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Do you have a plain language 20 statement? 21 MR. HOLAHAN: I'll give it a try. 22 I'd say that we know from experience and risk 23 analyses that controlling plant configurations is important. 24 It is an important element to risk. It is not unusual in a 25 risk analysis to find out that two-thirds or so of the risk il' l i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
S-22 1 comes from, you know, unusual plant configurations, not when 2 -an event occurs and everything started out in service. So '3 we know that it.is important. But we also know that not '4 ' every piece ' of equipment is. so important that it needs to be 5' controlled. And so it-seems:to-that there is some middle 6' Lground in where.the most important. equipment should have a 7 requirement in' place that says,myou know, for this sort of 8^ equipment, Licensees should be-required.to think carefully 9 when-they are taking it out of service and look at the 110 ._ implications of it. And that's what we are trying to get to 11 in this rule. Il CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So that means you need to bound 13 the SSCs? 14 MR. HOLAHAN: You need to bound it. 15-CHAIRMAN JACKSON: -Okay. 11 6 MR. HOLAHAN: Because not all of them are I 17-important, and'not allaof them are unimportant. '18 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: But given what Mr. Correia said 19 about~-- you're not.related to the sax player. No. Anyway 20 ) i 21 [_ Laughter.) 22 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I just thought about that. 23. EMR. CORREIA: I'do have a nickname, though. '24 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Given_what you said about the '25 fact that some' things that you normally wouldn't -- some ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters-1025-Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 ) Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i m
I S-23 -1 systems that you normal]y wouldn't think of as being 2 safety-significant could impact those that you do,'what is i-3 the fundamental statement about how you bound the scope? 4 How do you bound it? I mean isn't that what all of this 5 discussion is about? 6-MR. HOLAHAN: I'll try it. We've sort of jumped 7 way to the end. } 8 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, I'd like to get to the ] 9-bottom line here. ) 10 MR. HOLAHAN: It seems to me that if we ask 11 ourselves, you know, has this problem been solved before, 11 2 don't people think about these things, you know, every 13-analyst that does a risk assessment is in fact picking 14 systems and components to model because they are concerned 15-that these pieces of equipment, taken in combination with 16 other pieces of equipment and other failures, could lead to 17 unacceptable consequences. That is the basic logical 18-process for deciding what should be modeled in the PRA and 19-what should be left out. Things that even in combination 20 with other things aren't going to cause any problems, i 21-they're not modeled, they're just left out. It's only a 22 fraction of the plant that's modeled in the PRA. .23 In that sense, at least from a starting point of 24 view, we're saying things that are modeled in the PRA are 25 good candidates for those things, you know, that should be I L-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
p S-24 1 looked at for combinations'that'might be risk-significant 2 -for configuration control. That's the sort of logic that L 3 this sort of limiting process leads.us to. L i COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Madam Chairman, we should almost have'different paragraphs from the reg guide 5. 6 and whatever in front of us, but the -- what the -- the reg ~ 7 guide as it existed when they sent it to us on last Friday, 8' the scope paragraph says, "The scope of SSCs to be included 9 in the assessments of maintenance activities may be limited 10 to those SSCs individually or in combination that can be j 11 shown to have a significant effect on the performance of key 12 plant safety functions. The focus of the. assessment should 13. be on the SSCs modeled in the PRA," as Gary just said, "in i 14 addition to all.SSCs considered to be risk-significant by '15 the Licensee's maintenance rule expert panel." 16 That -- is that.where the Staff is? I mean that's 17 what you are trying to get at, are the SSCs that are modeled 18 in the PRA plus the SSCs.that are considered L19 risk-significant by the maintenance rule expert panel, and 20 then you are going to look at whatever number that is and 21 look at them individually and combination? That's what the 22 guide'said as of Friday. Is that where we are trying to get 23 Lto?. 24-MR. HOLAHAh: I think that's what we're -- I think '25 .I'm caying'too many things that Rich ought to be saying. I o ' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters ,1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
p7 I' S-25 1 think that's.where we want to get to, and we are trying to find words that would go in the rule and proper words that 2 3 would be in'the reg guide 'that would lead us there. 4 I think it's kind of early, you know, we haven't 5 had this discussion.with ACRS and with other stakeholders, 15 but 7-CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Repeat.,what you just said. 8 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: The words that are in 9 the reg guide? I'm looking at page 3 in the middle 10 paragraph. 11 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I don't have 3. 12 C6MMISSIONER DIAZ: And there are three 13 requirements in there, not one, but there's three there. 14 The:three sequential requirements. The scope to be included 15 may be limited -- may be limited -- to those SSCs 16 , individually or in combination that can be shown to have a 17. significant effect on the performance of key plant safety 18 functions. -That gives you one thing. 19 The other is the focus of the assessment. Thic is l 20 an additional focus, it is the second tier, no? No?
- Well, 21 it can be' interpreted.
22 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: I think-what my 23 interpretation of the second tier is how to do the first. -24 And so I don't think it says -- the second -- and maybe 25 that's English. I mean we're always -- 1 I 1 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 I i l
U i S-26 ( 1-LCOMMISSIONER DIAZ: No, that's right, and that's 2 why.the. problem is. 3 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, doesn't the last sentence '4 or so give you your escape clause? I mean the-real point 5 .what'I was-going to' argue is.this: i ~ 6- -You know, we need-some breakthrough thinking here. 7 I mean I'm aware of.where NEI is, I'm aware of where the-8 Staff is,.I'm aware'of where Commissioner Diaz is, I'm aware 9' of where'I am. I'm not much aware of anything else. 10~ The issue becomes, for Licensees, is an argument 11. 'I'm sure they would make, that why should they have to do 12 - certain-broad scope assessments each and every time they get 13' . ready to. perform maintenance activities? 14 Our concern, or your concern is, you know, they ~15~ are going to basically _ leave something.out if they do a kind 16 of a one at a time, at a time, at a_ time kind of approach. .17 But'it strikes me that there is an opportunity to do an 18 assessment with some periodicity. Now this says once. But 19' with'some periodicit'y that is not necessarily every time 20 .they are going to take equipment out of service, but 21 something that would be on some time line that might capture 22-any significant changes that have. occurred to the plant. So 23~ you have a-periodic-kind of update of the assessment, but thenconce that's done, so that:they can have some definition 25 -to the first' sentence or two in here, then:that's what they h. ANN RILEY1&' ASSOCIATES, LTD. l Court 1 Reporters .) 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite _1014 Washington, D.C. 20026 (202) 842-0034 o
R S-~ 27 1L , focus'on doing an assessment. 2 I mean why'can't we go there and just kind of end 3 'this' debate? I mean talk to me. 4 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: How much time do'I have? 5 'CHAIRMANTJACKSON: Thirty. seconds. 6 [ Laughter.] 1E COMMISSIONER DIAZ: That's what I was afraid of. 8 I think the Chairman has discussed, you know, 9 . fundamentally what the crux of the matter is. And if I can '10 take more than 30 seconds -- CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Of course. Of course. 1:2 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: -- let.me just back up and ask 11 3
- a series.of questions.
14. Have.we before considered what are the 15; . risk-significant. structures, systems or components? Is that i 16 something that.we have done? j 17 .MR..HOLAHAN: ;Yes. 18 . COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Okay. I mean the fact we use 19 something like that, even'if it was not PRA, when we did .20 environmental qualifications in a certain way, it was not 21. L PRA', but it was kind of a risk insight which we used to 22 determine what equipment had to be environmentall'y 23- " qualified, and you know, it.was a big rule and there were a 24 . lot of-problems. We kind of, you know, turned up the i 25 knowiedge knob and the station blackout, when we did a ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington,. D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
e S-28 I station' blackout, did,we select it, some structures, systems l 2 and components that we thought were high safety ) 3 -significance, that thou shalt have those, and we did. 4 MR. HOLAHAN: Yes. 5' ' COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Correct. All right. Thank 6 you. 7 And then we did ATWS, we also did a selection and 8 said, you know, we are going to classify this structures, 9 systems'and components. I think the bottom line is that 10 presently, 1999, we have the capability to define, okay, 11 once and for all, or maybe for the next three years, okay, 12 what risk-significant structures, systems and components 13 are, and-if not, it is impossible to continue, okay, to .14 risk-inform the Nuclear Regulatory Commission infrastructure 15 because we are missing the central part of where we can find 16 every cornerstone.that will deal with structures, systems 17 and. components. And'I mean if we cannot do it in a more 18 restricted par.t which is an assessment, okay, then how can 19 we have an inspection, you know, an assessment, and 20- ' oversight that is risk-informed, when the inspector is not 21 going;to know what. structures, systems or components are 22 really the ones'that they need to do? 23 So the bottom line is that the maintenance rule 24 provides a vehicle,-okay, to get into the necessary steps to L 2 5' clarify what can and should be risk-informed. And the first ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington,-D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 1
[ S-29 1 part of it is in an assessment mode, not even during mode, 2 can we define what that border is, what the boundaries are? 3 And I believe that the answer, you know, which will be l ) 4 coming, I'm not going to presume, but there is a sequence in t 5 here, and the sequence doesn't end in the other necessary 6 steps, can we define what risk structures, systems and 7 components are risk-significant? And if we can define 8 those, can we then put them in the context of an assessment, 9 okay, mode for the maintenance rule so it can serve as a 10 base for when supposedly some time we are going to 11 risk-inform the rest of the rule and might do other 12 risk-informed things, can we do it in a manner that is 13 consistent with it? We have already defined 14 risk-significant structures, systems and components with 15 regard to technical specifications. We took risk and we 16 stuck it out there, okay, and so the question is, can we 17 come with, as the Chairman said, a boundary just for the 18 assessment? 19 We voted, I voted to have a "should" changed to a 20 "shall" almost two years ago, okay. At the time it was a 21 good idea. Right now this time has almost expired, because 22 other issues are catching up to it. But I am still saying 23 it sounds like a good idea -- I'm sorry, let me finish -- it 24 sounds like a good idea -- 25 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Must be a lawyer. l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
S-30 ) \\ 1 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Not really. j I 2 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: He took that course we ] 3 . were talking about this morning. 4 (Laughter.) 5 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: I was very quiet this morning. 6 I'm using all my time from yesterday and this morning. 7. (Laughter.] 8 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: So, you know, it boils down to 9. one simple question: Can we define what risk-significant 10 systems, structures or components for the scope of the 11 assessment in a manner that serves this country well, in a 12 manner that people can work with it and can serve as a 13 cornerstone for the future? 14 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: And I think the answer is yes. ~ 15, COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Madam Chairman, if I 16 could just -- to some degree, I'm going to try to turn the 17 table on Commissioner Diaz, and in this paragraph, why isn't 18 this a risk-informed definition -- I mean they are saying '19 ' here's the. things that are modeled in the SSC, in the PRA, 20 which I assume are the more risk-significant systems, and in 21 addition consider the things that may be risk-significant 22 based on Licensee's maintenance rule expert panel, which I 23 assume brings in~ operating experience and some deterministic 24 engineering judgment, and so why isn't'that paragraph as it 251 stands -- ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 -(202)' 842-0034
(T p S-31 1 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Commissioner McGaffigan, I am i. 2' -surprised. .You said this morning you would do everything as 3 'an' analytical thing. 'You obviously are doing this -- now .4. I'm not saying like.a: lawyer -- 5 [ Laughter.)
- 6 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
I'm not going to get' .7 drawn:into this discussion, 8 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: But why is it not -- 9 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Because it is not bound. k 10 Because it is not bound. It is unbound. 'It is unbound and j 11 it can't -- it is unbound. If you put it on the street as 12 unbound, and further, you know, if we -- as we walk away 13 from this, you are going to find that people are going to 14 use it in different terms. If it is that well known, okay, .15 well,' then define it further and put it in the body of the 16 17 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Why doesn't the balance of the 18 paragraph help you to bound it? 19 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: The balance of the paragraph j 20' says, you know -- I mean Mr. Holahan says we can define -- a 21
- couple of times when people talked about high, and then we 22
.get into' low, the low in here, you know you said first is 23-the expert assessment and the people that assess 24
- risk-significant configuration.
It doesn't say high or say R25 low. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters I-1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
e S-32 1 The second part comes and talks about mixing low 2 risks which can become high. So what you are doing is you 3 are.now opening, you.know, something that is not bound. Can 4-we define something that is better bound? 5 MR. MIRAGLIA: And the Staff has addressed that 6 issue, I believe, in 98-300 in saying that there are many 7 places within the rules and regulations where we have used 8 structures, systems and components, and that how we analyze 9 that needs to be looked in a holistic kind of way in 98-300. 10 So I think with the thrust of your question 11 before, is that that was the' option that the Staff proposed 12 to the Commission in 98-300, that that takes careful 13 consideration, because the answer may not be exactly the 14 same each time because we answered that question in 15 'different contexts, just as you said, and at different 16 points in time. 'And so what we have here is a definition to 17 recognize in response to the concerns expressed relative to l 18 the rule on industry is that we want some language in the i 19 rule to recognize that the scope of the assessment is 20 different from the scope of the rule. And so that's what 21 the language that the Staff has proposed in the modified 22 language that's on viewgraph 8, is attempting to do. But 23 you do need to -- that's a bridge, a bridge to get to the 24 other issues, you need the companion reg guide. So what it 25 is is recognition in rule space that set the principle and t l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters L 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 1 V
F5 i l' l-S- 33 l-1 the predicate of a basic principle that the rule should i 2 recognize that-the scope of the assessments being discussed 3 in the context of (a) (3) of the rule is different than -4 perhaps the whole scope'of the maintenance rule. 5 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Scope of (a) (4) ? 6 MR. MIRAGLIA: .Yes. I'm sorry. And this is 7 exactly the points that were made at some of the stakeholder 8 meetings,1that some rule language needs to be there to set 9 . framework and principles, but maybe not all of the details. 10 And that's kind of where the Staff is with respect to that. 11 And I guess that's my last attempt at plain English. 12 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: It strikes me that, again I'm 13 going to repeat, you want to be sure that whatever the 14 quote, unquote, scope is of the assessments, that they are 15 robust enough. The Licensees don't want to have to do some 16 full scope assessment each time they get ready to do 17 maintenance. 18 There probably is an argument that can be made 19 that you don't need to do it every time you do maintenance. 20 So-that's one end of the -- you know, doing it ev Jy time. 21 The.other end is-you either don't do it, or you do it one 22 time for all time. And the answer is probably somewhere in 23-between, and I don't know what that in between is, but it 24 Strikes me that we ought to be able to come to some closure. l 25 And I am saying this because I know the industry panel is ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut. Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
) S-34 1 . sitting out-there waiting. And we.need to get to this. I 2 mean we need to bound it, we need to understand the 3 regulators' concern, understand those who have to implement 4 .'its concern, and I guess I'm -- as I look at page 3 of this 1 5. " draft reg guide again, you know, this paragraph that, you- -6 know,.we were focusing on, I am just trying to understand 7 'why we can't come to some closure around this. I mean why 8' do.we just go on and on? I mean let's pick the middle 9 ground here which makes sense and. move along. 10 Yes? 11 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Are you all going to 12 show us wherever you are as of this moment? '13 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Yes, show us where you are. 14 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Whatever in the' language 15 to -- 16 MR. KANE: 'I guess there are two things we want to 17 focus on. One is the linking language that you will get to, 18, and then the schedule for the review of the regulatory 19 guide. 20-CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. I didn't mean to preempt 21 you, even though we obviously did. 22. MR. CORREIA: Slide 8 has.very recently developed; 23 the last sentence in this modified provision was not f 24 included in what we presented to ACRS and CRGR, but as Frank i 1 25. explained, would serve ~as a link between the rule and the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025-Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 2 84 - 034 c
FT o S-35 1 need for a limited scope to a regulatory guide that would 2-develop the language further and define what that scope 2 would be, or the process ~to determine the scope for the 4 assessments, l 5 What we have on page -- slide 9, please. 6 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: Chairman, before we go 7 there. I'm sorry, I know you are trying to pick up some 8 speed, but Commissioners have to keep you from doing that,. 9 The slide indicates that this was developed within 10 the last few days, and I am wondering, given that, I presume 11 that there hasn't been any review of this by ACRS? Have you 12 had any kind of external review of this particular language? 13 MR. KANE: Rich, you -- we had some, as I 14 explained earlier, this language was developed recently and 15. before we came here, we wanted to touch base at least with 16 ACRS and with CRGR, and while I was down here this morning, i 17 Rich did talk to -- could you give us the benefit of those 18 discussions? 19 MR. CORREIA: Yes. A brief discussion when they 20 reviewed the language, the fundamental question was, how 21 will this language capture the combinations of SSCs that we 22 are concerned about that would give you a risk-significant 23 configuration? Previously the language that we showed the 24 ACRS was full scope of the rule, most of the focus on the 25 high safety-significant and the combinations of low that i JJRJ RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
l S-36 1 could give you a risk-significant configuration, and they -- 1 2 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: That's in this reg guide. q 3 MR. CORREIA: Right, which is what we presented to 4 ACRS. 5 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Madam Chairman, I 6 honestly think that this is where I think Commissioner Dia: 7 and I may differ. These words that are in here I think are 8 compatible with the paragraph we have been focused on. 9 Risk-informed evaluation process is shown. We say one 10 acceptable way to do the risk-informed evaluation process is 11 to look at the SSCs mode in the PRA, look at the things that 12 are risk-significant, do a one-time assessment. So I -- and 13 that may be, you know, where the difference is is this 14 language is largely consistent with something that, at least 15 the first paragraph, of something NEI sent in in April as a 16 suggestion. It's almost verbatim, the scope sentence. 17 But the question is, does this link to this? In 18 my view, it would, but maybe in your view, it would not. 19 That's why I asked the question earlier. 20 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: It links. I'm not saying it 21 doesn't link. It is the boundary that is not correct. 22 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: 'Let me just quote Gary 23 Holahan, you know, a few moments ago -- 24 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: At some point, I'd like 25 to get my question -- ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
p g-l l-S- 37 l' COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Oh, I'm sorry. 2 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: And I don't mean to- '3 ~ interrupt, but.-he didn't fully' answer my question, so I 4, wanted -- 5 ' COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Go right ahead. 16-CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Why don't you get your question 7 asked and you make your statement. 8. COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: You were in the midst of 9 ' answering my question. You answered part of my question, 10 and the rest, depending upon how you answered it -- 11 -MR. CORREIA: The ACRS would like to understand 12 better how this language equates to the discussion we had 13 with them last month. How does this capture the 14 configurations that we are most concerned with. And the 15 answer is the regulatory guidance would develop that process 16 on.how this would be done. But they weren't comfortable 17-with this language as doing as we portrayed with them, to 18' them last month. So they may write a letter expressing-i ~ 19 'their views.that perhaps the whole scope of the rule needs 20 .to be evaluated, and maybe this one-time assessment is an 21 adequate process to eliminate some SSCs for future 22 assessments. 23 MR. MIRAGLIA: But in fairness to the ACRS, it 24 was, you know, it was with the subcommittee in a brief 25-discussion on some recently developed words. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 . Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034-L
^ S-38 1 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: I guess-that does raise 2' the question. Commissioner McGaffigan and I, having worked 3: on the Hill, know how this goes. You get to the deadline 4 and sometimes you come up with some language that really 5 hits the mark and sometimes_you don't. And it just does 6 raise an' issue whether, you know, whether we go with this-7 language or we step back a little bit and,-you know,. rather 8 than just focus on this one piece, whether you do it in more 9 of a comprehensive integrated rulemaking package. I don't 10
- know if you've got any thoughts about that.
11 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: If you do that, and you do it 12 in a comprehensive way, you're not going to get to it for 13 some long time down the pike, and I think there's a need 14 with "should" to "shall" to move it forward and to provide a 15 bridge tot he future. 16-COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Could I ask a question 17 that I think is still on this point, that the link of this 18 ' sentence to this reg guidance isn't self-obvious. 19 Commissioner Diaz is worried that the link of the language 20 is noc self-obvious. He'd like it linked to something 21 that's less broad. Could you guys think about the first 22 sentence? I mean the scope of SSCs to be included, are 23-those individually or in -- may be limited to those 24 individually or in combination that could be shown to have a 25 significant effect on the performance of key plant safety ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
e S. 39-1: functions?' UseEthat as a linking sentence? Or -- I mean I
- 2 don't~know what'the --
3 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Okay, let me~take a stab at 4 this. '5 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: On page-8 of'the reg 6-guide?_ 7 COMMISSIONER DIAZ': You know.theEfirst-thing that e 8 I am going:to;take up -- and it's a quick -- and'this is not 9: -important,-but in that first sentence in that paragraph, the 10 Licensee shall assess and manage, okay, we hardly ever use 11 the word manage. We use the word control, okay, like Dr. 12 Holahan was using,- control is an engineering -- 13 COMMISSIONER'McGAFFIGAN: That's what they use in -14 NUMARC 93-01, Rev. 2. 15 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Control is -- it indicates 16 bounds, okay, it indicates that you have kind of a risk 17 setpoint, and you are. going to, you know, have a little dead 18 -band, a band is something we're going to accept, some -19 movement, but that's minor. 20 Let me go to;the second sentence. The scope of 21-the assessment may.be limited to structures, systems or 22 components:that a risk-informed evaluation process has shown 23 to be significant fcr public health and safety. 24 I see this as a way of getting.around, frankly, I 25 mean my probably wrong. opinion, of dealing with can we l i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue,~NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l
fl. S-40 l l 1 . define a scope for the assessment on the maintenance rule, l 2 .okay? 3 In other words, a process now is going to be l 4-defined in this guidance, and that might be okay, you know, 5 if the guidance is precise and we are not going to change it 6 and. going to interpret it and it's going to be subjective, 7-and all of those things. But in reality we know that-you 8 can.take any plant, not a nuclear power plant, but any plant 9 in the.world, and you can take enough individual failures or 10 enough individual low risk components'out, and if you want 11 to, you can make anything fail. There is absolutely no 12 doubt about it. So where do you bound it? Where is the 13 bound that people can use this as an effective tool that 14 will satisfy our concern for adequate protection of health 15 and safety? Where are the bounds in the low risk, you know, 16 individual systems, structures and components? Where do we 17 .put those things together? I said that we have used these ] 18. bounds before. We have used them to establish, you know, 19 when Chairman Jackson pushed for the PRA, there was a 20 boundary in that what we can do with that. This is a little 21 wider-boundary because this is not only PRA, this might be 22 deterministic method, somebody might do a heat balance, they 23 .might say this pump is working at.so many gallons per H 24 minute, and people do this day in.and day out. And yes, 25 ~ there has been,1 quote, you know, things out of ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
f t. S-41 1 1 configuration, but did we'look at consequences? They're j 2 zero, okay? So I mean you have a zero consequence. 3 -So that provides, you know, a_ bound. What is the i 4 problem with providing a more, you.know, acceptable, if you 5 want to, bound the finishing of what, you know, the scope of 6 the assessment is? Because if I-look at the guidance, it-is 7' not bound. You said individuals and things, and then 8 somebody can get up there and say uh, uh, look, you know, 9 you got this one,.this one, this one. No, but you know, my 10 expertise tells me, ah, but see this is a process, since this is a process and you have not bound it by something, 11 12 you know, then you get into the first phrase and -- 13 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: How are you proposing that it 14 be bounded? 15 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: I am proposing that the Staff 16 takes and defines what, you know, for the scope of the 17 assessment, what risk-significant structures, systems and 18 components should be, how they should be defined, okay, how 19 we should get at a definition of what they are. And then in 20 the guidance, you can talk about the process of doing that. 21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: But you can't -- there is no 22 scope that is the scope for all time for all plants. The 23 plants are different. 24 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Nothing in this book, Madam 25 Chairman, tells you that it applies to -- you know, that t I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
S-42 1 it's a specific plant. All of it is, that's why the rule, 2 -you know, has to be, you know, it has to be able to apply, 3-and then the specific differences are taken care of. You 4 know, we talk about a plan with 44 high, you know, high 5' risk-significant systems. Others say they have 28. When 6 you say,-you know,-high risk-significant, it applies to both 7 the one that has identified 28 and the one that identified 1 8 44, and.you'already took cr:e of the difference between 28 9 and 44. 10 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: But high risk significance -- I 11 think the point that the Staff is making is that if you take 12 the systems one at a time, at a time, at a time, you have 13 one definition. If you look at them being taken out of 14 service together in combination, you have another situation. 15 And so_that you can't define the scope just in terms of the 16 one at a time, at a time, at a time definition of what is 17 risk-significant. So you have to bridge that gap. And if 18 you can bridge that gap, then we are home free. But the 19 issue is you can't do it as a one at a time, at a time, at a 20 time analysis. Otherwise, we wouldn't even be talking about 21 configuration. 22 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Madam Chairman, just as 23 'a --'this would be a little bit out of order, but would -- '24 since this language also is almost identical to something 25 that NEI sent in -- ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters l j 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite-1014 ) Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
? S-43 1 CHAIRMAN' JACKSON: Exactly. f-L 2 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: could I ask whether 3-an NEI representative would want to address whether i 4 paragraph 3.on page.3 or paragraph 2, I' guess, on page 3 l* 5 of tha' reg guide is compatible with these words, or whether i 6 if you guys were writing the reg guide, it would say l 7 something significantly different? 8 MR. DIETRANGELO: No. 9 ' COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: But, you know, the 10. paragraph we have been talking about earlier, which is the 11-reg guide as it exists, the answer is no. These same words 12 that the Staff believes, I think, are consistent with this 13-paragraph, NEI believes is inconsistent with this paragraph. 14 So I think -- 15 MR. HOLAHAN: Let me clarify, please. 16 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: ACRS apparently believes 17 something else. 18 MR. HOLAHAN: Well, I think we are talking about 19 two slightly different things. The words in the reg guide 20 were written before the words in the modified rule that we 21-have presented you today. 22 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Right. 23' MR. HOLAHAN: In my mind, I would edit those words 24 to be more consistent with this version of the rule, okay. 25 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: But if the other thing l \\. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court R69srters 1025 Connecticut Aven'ue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D. C.. 20036 l (202) 842-0034 l 1
S-44 1 could be straightforward -- 2 MR. HOLAHAN: For example, it's not clear to me 3 .that that-first sentence that talks about individual and 4 combination is really needed. 5 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: It's still there in the 6 later. sentences, so that the -- I mean, I thought, you know, 7 you can edit, but if you are fundamentally changing what you 8 are going at, then you might edit to say a risk-informed 9 evaluation process to determine whether the systems, 10-structures and components that are significant to public 11' health and safety would include the following, and then go 12 on. I mean there would be a different lead-in to the 13 sentence -- 14 MR. HOLAHAN: Go on to the next sentence that 15 talks about high safety significance and the scope of the 1S 17 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: But I think the heart of 18 the matter is that words -- the words -- the new rule i 19- . language may be significant -- still quite ambiguous as to 20-what reg guide goes with it, and -- whatever. J j -21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Anyway, where were we? j 22 (Laughter.] 23 MR. MIRAGLIA: I think the words by themselves, 24 you need to look at the words in the rule, and then the 25 words in the reg guide. If these are the words that we're ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 L
7 S-45 1-going to put in the rule, then we need to make sure we -- 2 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Why don't you just transmigrate 3 the words from the reg guide to the rule? Is that too -- 4 MR. HOLAHAN: I~think you need'a little more 5-detail in the guidance. Otherwise, I think -- 6 CHAIRMAN JACK 3ON: Well, you can do more detail in 7 the guidance. I am only talking about this paragraph in the 8 middle of page 3. 9 MR. HOLAHAN: The most important word on that page 10 of the reg guide is draft. 11 [ Laughter.] 12 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: That doesn't even have this. 13 This doesn't even rise to that level, and this is what we're 14 -having a Commission meeting on, okay? So -- 15 MR. MIRAGLIA: Work in progress, as we have 16 indicated in our memo. 17 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Madam Chairman, the 18 frustration that I have, that while you and Commissioner 19 Diaz were talking, the same words, these words here, the i 1 20 Staff and perhaps ACRS, although ACRS has doubts, believe 21 are largely consistent with this draft, draft, underline 22. draft, reg guide. NEI believes that these words are i 23 inconsistent with this draft draft, underline draft, reg 24 ' guide. And so there is still. going to be an argument 25 MR. PIETRANGELO: No, no, we do not say that, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters l-1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
S-46 1 Commissioner. 2 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: We are going to ask you what l 3 your bottom line is, too. 4 MR. PIETRANGELO: You can have different sets of 5 words that are consistent with the rule, but mean the same 6 thing, though. What we are thinking that meets that new 7 portion of the rule versur what is.in the.. Staff reg. guide. 8 I think we have different -- 9 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, the Staff -- what's in 10 the Staff's reg guide sounds a lot like what's in your reg 11 guide, or your earlier reg guide. 12 MR. PIETRANGELO: It's not the same. It's not the 13 same. 14 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: My concern is that the 15 argument -- whatever words we choose, and we are fallible 16 humans -- whatever words we choose to put in here as the 17 link to the scope argument, the scope argument having been I 18 kicked over to the reg guide, there's still going to be an j 19 argument -- i l 20 MR. PIETRANGELO: The key word -- 21 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: -- and I hope that -- I 1 22 don't know quite how to prevent that argument as to what the 23 words mean. 1 24 MR. MIRAGLIA: It's still a nested set. I think 25 you need the guidance, and I think what you just heard from ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
P S-47 l 1 the industry is that, given that language, it's important to ~ 2 also understand what's going to'be in the reg guide. l, 3' What Gary just said is that given the language in 4 the rule, we need to make sure that there is those kinds of '5 -linkages. So we have not defined it absent what -- you need 6 the reg guide with these words, or without these words, 7 you're going-to need a reg guide. And that's the question. .8-The Staff's proposal originally that we went to 9 the ACRS with-and we went to CRGR with is that'we thought we 10 could deal with that in the context of the reg guide, and 11 that's the proposal that we had, and I think that was a .12 near-term issue, and in terms of scheduling process, we 13-indicated in response to the concern raised by the industry 14 since the reg guide is important, it's -- we need to 15 understand what that guide is going to be, and that is why I 16 think the point that Bill raised relative to the timing of -17 the reg guide and the effectiveness of the rule is 18 important. Because both of these things have to meet, and 19 there has to be a mutual understanding of what's in the rule 20 and what's in the reg guide, and that's consistent by all 21-our stakeholders. And I think that is the concern you just 22 heard expressed. And I think whether we keep going down the 23 path with the rule package that went to the CRGR and the 24 ACRS, that's going to have to~ happen, and if Staff has got a 25 proposal on how to time the reg guide to make sure that we 1 I l* ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
i S-48 1 have that agreement before we come to the effective date. 2 If'you go this way,'you're~ going to have these rules, and t. 3J -then you're going to make the reg guide'so there's mutual + 4. understanding. But, 'I think, you know, you need both 5 . pieces, 'and maybe we ought tcr talk a bit about' the timing of 6 the-reg guide.to. address -- 7 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, let's"let Commissioner '8 Merrifield'ask his. question, and then I want you to take up 9 on page 9 and walk through that. ' 10 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: Yes,'I guess probably my 11 question is probably a lead-in. I'm just wondering, is it
- L2
-your intention to give CRGR an opportunity to review the - 13 revisedLreg guide, and if so, what's.the -- how does that' - 14 fit into yourJtiming-proposal for this? 15 MR. MIRAGLIA: We are prepared to address that. -16 We have got a presentation on that. 17 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Why don't you walk through 4 18 that. - 19; MR. MIRAGLIA: We are referring to the time line 20 for the reg guide and how we would interact-with ACRS and 21 .CRGR'with' respect to the draft reg guide. 22 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Why don't you do it in a more 23 structured form. Go to.page 9,. walk through that, 24 Commissioner Diaz asked for that. .Then go to page 10 and 25: that. allows.you to talk about the reg guide. ' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters ~1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 -(202).842-0034
F 1 1 S-49 1 MR. CORREIA: Slide 9. Okay, thank you. 2 Again, as we have discussed here this afternoon, 3 our thinking at this time on what the regulatory guide for 4 this modified language, May 1999, might be would be some 5 variation of the configuration risk management process 6 that's currently in Reg Guide 1177. 7 The configuration risk management program, or 8 CRMP, as it's called, scope includes SSCs modeled in a plant 9 PRA, plus the high safety significant SSCs determined 10 through the maintenance of reg guide and industry guideline. 11 The question ACRS has, is this enough? Will this 12 capture the population of those SSCs that you are most 13 concerned with? 14 This is early thinking, where the thought was we 15 would revisit this scope and evaluate and determine if this 16 indeed is enough, or does it have to be modified in some way 17 to capture everything we are looking for? Well, we thought { I 18 this would be a smart starting point, since it's already 19 been written pretty much to use as a surrogate for (a) (3) of 20 the rule because it's not enforceable, and for those 21 licensees that requested tech spec change for an extended 22 AOT, this was one of the processes that they would have to 23 adopt. 24 Again, it's already been discussed extensively 25 with the Commission, the ACRS, the CRGR, and the thinking is ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
b f S-50 t: 1 this'would be a logical starting point. 2 NEI, fin their letter of March 17th of this year, -3z discussed the possibility of using CRMP as a scope for 4 (a) (4). So I think they'are close in thinking,-anyway, in 5 that regard. 6 Slide 10, 7 .Our current plans as addressed in the-rulemaking 8 . package that we have would recommend that once the rule is 9 forwarded to the Commission, that the effective date of the 10 rule be 120 days after the regulatory guide is issued '11 finally, to give' Staff and Licensees enough time to develop 12 the reg guide and have mutual understanding of what the 13 intent is, what the thinking is behind it, and enough time 14 for-them to implement the change, and then make the rule 15 final. 16 Our thinking -- and I guess it goes bcr.k to what 17 -version of-the rule we settle in on -- that it would take 18 probably~six to nine months from the time we have a final 19 rule to the' time we issued the reg guide final, to go to the 20 ACRS, CRGR, public comment, probably a workshop with 21 industry to discuss this on either side of the -- once in 22
- the draft stage, once near.the final stage, reconciliation 23 of comments, before the reg guide would be final.
That's 24 our current thinking. 251 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Which version of '(a) (4) would l 1 -ANN RILEY &. ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
p S-51 l' your rulemaking include? 2 MR. CORREIA: Page 8. '3 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Page 8? 4 MR. CORREIA: Yes. That is the plan. 5 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: But with the implication that 6 the scope of the assessment would be bridged to this 7 regulatory - - 8 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Madam Chairman? 9 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Please. -10 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: I brought 1.177 along 11 with me, too, just to -- I want to understand the scope of 12 structures, systems and components. I'm reading 2372 of 13 CRMP. Included in the CRMP is all SSCs modeling Licensees' 14 plant PRA, in addition to all SSCs considered high safety 15 significant per Rev. 2 of Reg Guide 1.160, which is the 16 maintenance rule, that are not modeled in the PRA. So l 17 that's -- but later on it says when you -- which is the 18 sentence that we were just looking at earlier, later on it 19 says within the plant configuration described by the tech 20 spec action statement with risk-informed, if additional SSCs 21 become inoperable and nonfunctional, the risk assessment, 22 including at a minimum a search for risk-significant 23 configurations, will be performed in a time frame defined by 24 the plant's corrective action program. 25 Is that -- is the additional SSCs that become i. l. } ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. I Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0934
r l t. J S-52 10 inoperable under CRMP;only the[SSCs in the. scope of the CRMP 2; ' program, or-is ittother SSCs?- I mean here you are , l3' spresumabl'y_looking_for combinations, that's what the CRMP
- 4 program.-
'I' interpret that sentence to mean look for 5 combinations:whenJyou do.one'of these things. Tell_me what 6i CRMP~ implies. Does this combination issue come up--in'CRMP? -7 MR. HOLAHAN: Sure. The combination. issue is 8 . covered inherently by the-scope of.the PRA, and that third 9-
- bullet under section-3 which you-just read, was not meant to 10 Lbe another scoping issue.
What-~it was meant to cover is ~ -11 when there_are unplanned situations, when you are already in 121 some' configuration, and then. find that something else fails, 13-or you discover a failure, it then'I think.the scope of 14 whatever -- what it.says is a risk assessment at that point 15 is the same scope as the rest of the CRMP. 16 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Okay. 17 MR. HOLAHAN: So if something,else goes out of 18-service, but it's not within CRMP's scope, then nothing more 19 needs to'be'done. -20 CCMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Okay. 21 MR.-MIRAGLIA: There's parallel language in the 22' draft' reg guide.in-terms of that same_page 3 which talks t 23-about ' 2 4-MR. HOLAHAN: It was not meant to increase -- 25 MR. MIRAGLIA: discovery of emergent' failures. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 . Washington,.D.C. 20036 (202)'842-0034
f5 l i' l ) S-53 j 1 COMMISSIONER.McGAFFIGAN: 'Okay. 2 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. Commissioner Dicus? 3 COMMISSIONER DICUS: No. r, '4 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner Diaz? 5 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: No. 6 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay, this is'what I'm going to 7 .do. I'm going to ask Mr. Correia, Mr. Holahan, and I guess 8 Mr. Miraglia, to stay at the table, and then I am going to i l '9 ask the NEI' representatives-to come forward. A { 10 recommendation has been made by one of the Commissioners 11 that we will have a robust discussion, having all the 12 players at the time, and if I don't have the right 13 combination of individuals, then those of you -- 14 MR. MIRAGLIA: We have ample help on call, 15 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Madam Chairman, in 16 consideration of those who are 41 years old, could we have a 17 two-minute break? 18 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Absolutely. We will take a 19 five-minute break. 20 [ Recess.] 21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. I am going to call on 22 Mr. Beedle to -- 23 MR. GRAY: Madam Chairman, if I could. The 24 Commission, of course, can hear from the persons at the 25 table as to what the rule looks like, but the Commission ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. g Court Reporters i 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
S-54 should not in this~ session negotiate rule language. I would -1~ i
- 2 :
'just like to -- 3' CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, then, I am going to 4 excuse Frank and Gary and Rich. That way we won't make a S mistake, and then ask Mr. Beedle and his folks to move over. '6
- Thanklyou.
.Mr. Beedle. 7 MR. BEEDLE: Good afternoon, Madam Chairman. -8 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I don't have your slides. '9 MR. BEEDLEi We don't have any slides. Things 10 were moving so rapidly, we couldn't catch up with them. 11 ' CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I see. 12 MR. BEEDLE: Actually, I was reminded of the movie -13 Amadeus, when they were critiquing Mozart's latest symphony, 14-and.said this.is really a great symphony,;but maybe there 15. 'are too many notes, and I.think maybe we've got too many l 16 words in there. 17' We have indeed been working on this for a long j I 18 time, and we have tried to accommodate the concerns of the { t 11 9 Staff and we originally sai'd let's change the "should" to 20 "shall," and we thought that was the end of it, but little 21 did we know. Here we are.a couple of years later still i 22 talking about it, so I want to bring some real practicality -. 2 3 - -to this discussion, so we have asked Harold Ray to talk L ~24: about the practicality of the maintenance rule and what the 25 Jusers' concerns are and what the user views are in [ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court-Reporters i 1025' Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 j (202) 842-0034
S-55 .1-connection with this rule language. 2 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Madam Chairman, not to 3 limit Mr. Ray, but I think rather than getting the whole 4 history of the maintenance' rule, I hope we can focus on 5 (a) (4) or (a) (3) -- 6 -CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, let's cut to the chase. 7 What is your bottom line? 8 [ Laughter.] 9-MR. RAY: Chairman Jackson, my bottom line is that 10 I'm here as an ally of the good and, if necessary, an enemy 11 of the better and best, if that's what it takes to get this 12 . job done. 13 So let me start by, if I may, saying that I, j 14 speaking for the industry, support the summary that on a 15 couple of occasions in the dialogue before Mr. Miraglia 16 provided to you. That is to say, we have in front of us 17 here language from the Staff. I understand the ACRS has not 18 achieved closure yet with them on that. But language which 19 I think does as much as may be possible to do in the 20 regulation itself, and there are substantive issues that 21 need to la resolved. I don't know that they can get 22 resolved'in the language. We will have some suggestions to. 23 make to this language, but I want to say right off the top, 24' they are just suggestions. If they are not -- if they don't 25 find acceptance with the Commission, the industry is quite ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
S-56 El satisfied with the language as it stands now, and we feel we 2- .can work with it, recognizing -- 3 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: With which language? (a) (4) ? 4 MR. RAY: ~Yes, the point.on page 8 that was 5 referred to by -- '6 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Page 8. 7 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Do you want Mr. -- 8-MR. RAY: I'm' going-to stick on (a) (4), no matter 9 what, but as I said, we will make some suggestions to the 10-wording for your consideration, but I think we have gotten 11 to a point, and I do want to emphasize this, that as painful 12 as this process may have been up until now, it has produced 13 fruit insofar as I think we are at the point where the 14 discussion can-move into the domain of the guidance that 15 will be associated with this rule. 16 With that in mind, then, let me move'to the 17 language, and I perceive that you'll have questions that 18' you'll want me to respond to, or Mr. Pietrangelo here with 19 me. And let me also say that as Ralph commented, we are not 20
- here with a presentation.
There are two reasons for that. 21 -One, we thought it would be most useful if we responded to l 22 the dialogue that you would have had with the Staff ahead of 23 us; and secondly, much of the material we are talking about, 24 we only just received, and I came here from a meeting I -25 downtown with the industry in which we were looking at piece 3 l J ANN RILEY &-ASSOCIATES, LTD. l Court Reporters + 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
Ps E
- S -
57 1 parts of it:in real time. L
- 2L I2think that, one, it might be a gratuitous, but 0
l l,_ 3' -nevertheless, a comment I want to make to you for your consideration also is that very often in this package, what 4 l' =5 is happening is being characterized or could be interpreted 6 'to'be-a reaction by the Commission to bad things that are { j 'potentially going to happen in the industry, and'again, as I 7 did at'the stakeholders round table some time ago, urge that 8 I i 9 Lthe Commission consider viewing what we are doing here as ) 10 providing an opportunity to enhance safety and to achieve 11 'theLaims-in a more effective way that I think we all share. 1:2 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Let me just interject. I mean 13: I believe my point of view is always that we do what is 14 prudent, particularly if it has the effect of maintaining 15 and/or enhancing safety, and just as I, you know, in private 16 sessions, will say that we shouldn't reference what we are 17 going to do or if those from the industry talk about our 38 rogue inspectors and that kind of thing, I don't accept that 19 kind of language, and that is not a basis for our moving 20 ' ahead. 21 Similarly, the basis of our moving ahead should 22 not'be based on a castigation of what the nuclear industry, 23- .you know,.would do, and so I think we are here to do what is 24-prudent from a health and safety point of view. 25 MR. RAY: Very good. This is an opportunity for ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters i 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
b l i J S-58 l' l' us to improve the results that we are all striving to 2 achieve. l 3~ So now let me_ move quickly on to one of the l
- subjects I would offer to you that follows up on quite a bit 4
5 of the inquiry that Commissioner McGaffigan was pursuing, 1 6 and thatiis the question of scope. 7 I do take the. point.of. view gi.ven.where we all 8 are, and having listened to the comments of the 9 Commissioners here this afternoon, that we are going to have 10 to resolve this in the guidance and, as I said before, I 11 agree with Mr. Miraglia's characterization of the fact that i ~12 that is work yet to be completed. .13 However, it would be remiss of me if I didn't say that in the language on page 8 that has'been offered to you, 14 15 the industry would prefer.and, in-fact, urge that the last 16 sentence basically say that the assessment should be limited 17
- to those high safety-significant structures, systems and 18 components as defined for the particular plant in question i
19 by application'of the maintenance rule itself. 20 In other words, there is a set of components that 21 we already recognize and has been accepted, with a lot of 22-scrutiny,.by the NRC as being high safety-significant 23 components. 24 Now I well understand, and Commissioner McGaffigan 25 pointed out,-that the proposal, I believe, as I understand 1 l l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
S-' 59 li fit,.that the. Staff ~is making'would expand:that to include 2 . items that are addressed by the PRA itself. 3' Now I would~only offer to you this experience. We 4 all. thought, I believe, going back quite a'few years, that !*~ fi when we:said that the maintenance rule'should include any 6 item mentioned or referred to
I forget the exact phrase 7~
now -- in emergency operatingfprocedures, that.that seemed 8 like a sensible and logical thing for us.to do. But I would 9 be here to tell you that I_think that that had unintended 10 consequences. There's;1ots of things, it turned out, that 11-were' referred to in emergency operating procedures that 12 basically.have caused the application-of the maintenance l .13 = rule'as a whole to get entirely bogged down. i 14 Similarly, I am concerned -- and perhaps this is I 15 what Commissioner'Diaz was inferring as well -- that by i 16 simply referring to anything in the PRA and say that if it's 17 in there, then you need to consider it in the context of 18 (a) (4), is going to present us with a scope addition or a 19 breadth of scope which will be beyond that which is 20 necessary and justified by the purposes of (a) (4) in the 21 first instance. 22 Nevertheless, in the paragraph referred to here on "23'
- page 3 of the draft reg guide, which you have been looking l
24 at, _and was a question to us as we were sitting in the back, -25 let me attempt -- and I'll ask Tony to help me if necessary 3 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW,-Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 .(202) 842-0034 g
p S-60 i L 1 here -- to answer the question, what is different between I 2 this and other? scope. definitions. 3; Well, it begins with,- in the very first sentence, 4: it.has the phrase'" individually or in combination" -- I'm on '5-page 3, second paragraph -- "that can be shown to have a 6 significant effect on the performance of key safety 7-functions!" l That reference to "in combination" introduces an 9. uncertainty, I'll call it, with respect to, as Commissioner 10-Diaz. illustrated, how many' things ~:'l-combination. What u 11' exactly is it that we are talking about as determining what -12 the process of looking at things in' combination should be. 13 It-goes on, as I have already mentioned, and 14 refers to, in essence, SSCs modeled in Licensees' PRA, in 15 addition to SSCs. considered to be risk-significant. 16 So I am now repeating what I said earlier, namely 17 .I think we have an issue here yet to be. resolved on the 18 issue of scope. The industry would prefer to see it 191 resolved in this wording here, but in the interest of_ simply 20: . putting.a bridge here, as the Staff has referred to it, to 21 this further discussion, you know, we certainly can 22 understand and accept that'that is_the expedient thing to do i l 23 at this point as far as the rule language is concerned. j l 24: Do.you have any questions on that point? 25 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Madam Chairman, can I -- 1 C -ANN'RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters .1025 Connecticut: Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202).842-0034
p l :. S-61 1 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Yes, please, i
- 2-COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Is SONGS one of the
- 3 plants.that has gotten one of the. allowed outage time 4
extensions and committed to a CRMP program? ~'h~ 5" MR. RAY: -Yes. 6 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Does CRMP require you to 7. .look at combinations? Does Reg Guide 1.77 -- or when you take ---when you're in_this allowed outage time period and 9-additional structures, systems, and components are required 10 to be maintained or taken out~of service, or whatever the 11" right_ word is, to be nonfunctional for a period during 12' maintenance, do you have to look at potential combinations 13 as a part of-your CRMP commitment, just as a factual matter? 14 MR. RAY: I have to answer it this way: We do, 15 and I.can't tell_you whether or not if we didn't that would 16 be okay. In other words, our system inherently does that. 17 There are eight of us at the last count I had, that had 18 these CRMP programs. 'As.far as I know, those that I know of j 19 that do have similar capability to what we have at San j 20 Onofre. So we are going to be talking here about not what 21 is_a non-issue for us, because that indeed is the case, but 22 whether or not we are imposing something that is warranted 23 on the industry as a whole. And that means -- excuse me, i 24 Tony, I'm sorry. That means is -- have we arrived at the 25 point;where we believe it's justified to require in essence l 3 i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i
p S-62 1 that the PRA, which was done to satisfy regulatory i 2 requirement at some point in time, be, as we do at San 3 Onofre, kept available and used for the purpose of 4 configuration management. 5 MR. PIETRANGELO: I thought Gary was right before 6 in the way he characterized the CRMP. You don't see that 7 combination language. It's assumed that the PRA.is capable 8 of looking at what actually is out of service. I don't 9 think you do all these potential what-ifs when something 10 happens. They look at it. That was an emergent work clause 11 that you were citing, Commissioner McGaffigan, and I think 12 Gary identified it as that. COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: But I'm just reading the .4. English, if additional SSCs become inoperable or 15 non-functional, a risk assessment, including at a minimum a 16 search for risk-significant configurations, will be 17 performed in a time frame commensurate with -- defined by 18 the corrective action program. 19 Does that -- you know, if the Staff were to go and 20 take these sorts of words and put them in the reg guide for 21 (a) (4), can you live with it? Because they're saying 22 they're going to take the words with regard to the scope, 23 but if they -- you know, if they go further and take all of 24 these words, are you then in a situation where you will be 25 complaining to us about the guidance? You started off by 4 [ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
S-63 1' saying the guidance is: where the argument needs to be 2 transferred to, but and I guess I'm trying to anticipate. 3 MR. RAY:.Well, to be~ fair to the Staff, 4! Commissioner, it seems_to me.that they have been clear that 5 you wouldn't necessarily have to have an on-line risk 6 monitor in real time. 7 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: For most of the, stuff. 8 MR. IUO(: That's right. I don't want to suggest 9 that that's the necessary outcome. Perhaps Tony knows. But 10 I just don't_know what the middle place is. I know that you 11 can't'-- you would not be able any longer to treat the PRA -12 as it is done today. It would have an impact to say_ 13 whenever you do something that affects a component modeled 14 in the PRA, you must take that into account in an 15 assessment. That would have an impact. How much of an 16 impact, it would be very hard for me to speculate about, but 17 18 MR. PIETRANGELO: All we said in our letter was 19 the CRMP was one way to do it that had already been accepted l 20 by the Staff. I think where we're really coming down, if 21 you want bottom line, Chairman, we've had a process 22 established through implementation of the maintenance rule 23 to identify the high safety-significant SSCs. To my l 24 knowledge, the Staff did not write one violation associated l. 25 with how a Licensee identified what the high ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 i Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i
S-64 1-safety-significant SSCs were'. And correct me if I'm wrong, 2 but-I don't recall.one. But that process was looked at. It 3 used importance measures' associated with PRA. It took those 4 insights, put them through an expert' panel process. We had 5 all sorts of industry meetings on that process, a lot of 6 sharing of information'between plants on 'aw to do that, and 7 we got down to a. set of. safety-significant SSCs.. We think 8 we already meet that provision of the rule, and we have done 9 it already; not that there even has to be additional 10 guidance necessarily identified for how to do that. .11 In fact, the regulatory analysis that basically 12 supports this basically takes credit for what we have 13-already done, and the one time -- that's why we object to 14 'what's in-the draft guide because whether-the Staff put 15 these new words in the rule or not, they're still saying you 16' have to do the same one-time assessment in the guidance to 17 get there. There was no change in the guidance. That's why 18 we couldn't get together last summer because we were always 19 working with words that reflected a risk-informed scope, and 20 the Staff wasn't. 21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Let me -- Mr. Correia, you had 22 a comment you wanted to make? Why don't you go to the 23 microphone. 24' MR. CORREIA: It is true that during the baseline 25 inspections,.we.never cited anyone for not having a -- the I j ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court. Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
E l S-65 l' correct listoof risk-significant SSCs. One very good reason j i 2 is no requirement to do it. It was -- it's a recommendation D ( 3 in the NEI guidance document we accepted for purposes of 4 treatment and determining the performance criteria goals of 5 the ule. Given that, there were no violations, r \\ 6 The other issue, as you brought up earlier, was I 7 that those determinations were made on an SSC-by-SSC case, 8-They-were' looked at individually, using importance measures, 9 and determined what impact they would have on plant risk. 10 Given the expert panel process, they were determined to be 11 high or' low safety-significant. 12 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. Thank you. 13 MR. PIETRANGELO: Right. And there is a question 14 now in terms-of the Staff doesn't like that for a 15 configuration of risk management because,it doesn't look at 16 all the combinations. Okay? And I would stipulate that 17 there may be set out there, if you put them together, as 18 Commissioner Diaz went through, you could find something. 19 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, how can you bound it? 20 Because there is no such thing as configuration risk 21 management if you are doing one at a time, at a time, at a 22 time. Configuration means just that. You have certain 23 equipment out of service, and you have to be able to play l' 24 one thing off against another to understand, you know, how I 25 -- what kind of a risk profile the plant is in as a ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
S-66 1-consequence of that. I mean -- and so that's what I don't 2 understand here in terms of this argument, that it has to be 3 some middle' ground that maybe admittedly bounds things, but i 4 it can't be -- the solution is not one at a time, at a time, 5 at a time. That doesn't make sense to me. You wouldn't 6 have a configuration risk management program if that were 7. the. case. 8 MR. RAY: Well, let me say that we are not 9 suggesting you do things only one at a time, Chairman 10
- Jackson, We are suggesting you consider limiting the scope 11 of this assessment to the high safety-significant items.
12 And I would maintain, contrary to what is often alleged, 13 that supporting systems that are out of service that do 14 . affect any high safety-significant item, does require 15 ~ consideration in that context. But in any event, that's one 16 17 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, how does one clarify'that 18 'part of it, then? 19 MR. RAY: That the supporting systems that affect 20 21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: That's right. Let's cut to the 22' chase. 23 MR. PIETRANGELO: They're high. They're already 24 high. j 25 MR. BEEDLE: If you take a supporting system out I ANN RILEY &' ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
E l V L S-67 1 o'f service-that affects a high risk component, it puts that i 2-high' risk component _in' jeopardy _and out of service, so 3 you've got to'-- you can't ignore'it. 4 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: So, just to clarify, 5-Madam Chairman, all supporting systems that affect high 6 safety significant systems-are themselves high j 7 safety-significant? 8 MR. PIETRANGELO: I'd be surprised if you'd find 9 any that weren't such, because when you'take a supporting 10 system out,~it doesn't take just one system out, it takes 11 several systems out. 12 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: 'Does the Staff agree ~ 13 ' that all -- I mean -- 14 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: All supporting systems support 15 high safety-significant systems under the maintenance rule. 16_ MR. RAY: Before the Staff answers, could I say 17 that I don't think Tony's answer included what I will call 18 system interaction effects. So we do need to take that into 19 consideration, but you asked a question which was how can we 20 bound'this, and I am suggesting simply you can bound it to 21 achieve a reasonable outcome in terms of what I think your 22 _ ultimate goal is. In order to be absolutely certain that 23 you have encompassed everything that might have any effect 24 . whatsoever, of course, the broadest possible scope is the 25 only answer you can come to. But I believe we were in a ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters I 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
S-68 1' mode here in which we were looking to achieve, as I said, 2 the good rather than the'best or perfect that we might some 3 3 day achieve. ) 1 4 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: But the system interaction is l i 5 the good. How are we going to bound it? ..6 MR. PIETRANGELO: Madam. Chairman, you are 7 confusing the -- when this original scoping was done to get 8: the safety-significant SSCs within the broad scope of the 9 -maintenance rule, that was not a configuration assessment. 10 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Absolutely. I know that. I'm 11 not confused at all. 12 MR. PIETRANGELO: What we're saying is but, 13 nevertheless, you can take that as a bounding scope and 14 apply the configuration assessment to it, we believe through 15 what the PRA insights gave you, plus what the operating 16 experience and expert panel gave.you, that that does a 17 pretty good job of bounding what should be applied to this 18 (a) (4) assessment. And all the other -- you know, this 19 combination business, you had a couple anecdotes that, quite ~20 frankly, Commissioner, we have not been able to confirm. 21 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: I guess I should ask, if 22 I'could, the testimony is the rule language may be good '23 enough and it's time to move to the guidance, and your view if we tossed you all in a room for 24 hours -- 24 '25 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: You can't do that. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.'20036 (202) 842-0034
r: I S-69 -1~ 'MR. GRAY: Guidance, you can do that. 2' COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: toss you'all in a 3 room 1for 24 hours -- 4 [ Laughter.) 5 MR. GRAY: But you couldn't throw everything into 6 , guidance, so -- 7 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: In a public. room, this 8 -is.a public room. 9 [ Laughter.] I 10 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: But is there a chance ] that these -- this combination issue of the supporting 11 12 system issue, the system interaction issues, could -- 1 13 reasonable people could come to an agreement? We understand 14 where your ingoing position is, we understand where the l 15 Staff's is, or is that something you need the Commission to j 16 rule on? Will the guidance be back before us in six to nine 17 months because -- 18 MR. PIETRANGELO: I think it will. 19 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: -- with us fighting -- -20 with you guys fighting over two different -- 21 MR. PIETRANGELO: Yeah, because we've been down 22 this path already, and the Staff didn't change the guidance l 23 based on the rule change. They really didn't change 24 anything except the words in the rule. 25 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I think their posit' ion is they I lL' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 Li.
l { S-70 1-haven't had time to change that. 2 MR. PIETRANGELO: But I think that -- 3 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: No, no, no, they've made that 4 very clear,' that they have not had time. 5 MR. RAY: And I think we should accept that to be 6 the case. 7 Having said that, my judgment,is we have work to 8 do'yet on.this issue, and I think we understand the points 9 that you've been -- are implied by your questions, Chairman 10 Jackson, and that there is a difference of view here. And 11 again, to summarize, we think that adequately address the 12 concerns that the Commission has had by limiting the scope '13 of the configuration assessment to the high 14 safety-significant SSCs. i 15' There is obviously a debate about that and making 16 the scope larger to include other things, and that's where 17 we are, and I just don't think that, as much as we would 18 like to see you resolve that here in this language, that 19 that is likely to be a reasonable thing for us to ask for. 20 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: How much of a problem is it for 21. you to do this sensitivity test one time? 22 MR. BEEDLE: I think this -- you are asking the 23 industry to take on a major task of analyzing every 24 combination and permutation of equipment'in the plant -- 25 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: But let me get Harold's point ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 ' Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 m----..
l S-71 1 of view because, you know, you're in the middle of it, and 2 you have a configuration risk management program. 3 MR. RAY: I-do, and that makes me personally not 4 well suited to give you a prediction on the outcome. But if 5 you asked me whether or not we could -- let me make sure I 6 understand the question. 7 You are asking how much of an effort would it take 8 for us to see if-there was something that would be bounding 9 that might go here in the rule language -- 10 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: No, it could be in the 11 guidance. 12 MR. RAY: Oh. Well -- 13 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: On pnge 3, the last sentence 14 of page 3, that's what Chairman Jackson is referring to. 15 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Right. 16 MR. RAY: Okay. Well, I think that that process 17 -- Tony said that we believe we've done it already, but it's 18 not such that we couldn't do it again without a reasonable 19 effor'_, if I understand the point that you are making. 20 In other words, so long as we can narrow t.e scope 21 down so that the -- you know, our ccncern is that from an 22 operational standpoint -- there are some other points, and 23 I'm way cut of time here, that I haven't gotten to yet, so I 24 need to say that it's the operational implementation of this 25 requirement that concerns us all; not can we sit down in a ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters -1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
S-72 1-room and in a week or a month or in some period of time work 2 out something that we all agree on at that point in time. 3 That's not'the point. The point is out there in the plant.s, i 4 in the niddle of the night or on the weekends or all the i 5 other times that the plant has to be configuration-managed, 6 do we have a practical system that can be implemented? 7 That's the question. 8 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, maybe I could live with 9 your definition of a high safety-significant scope as 10 defined in the maintenance rule, if I knew that you at least 11 at one point in time -- and the periodicity issue is open -- 12 usd a-sensitive test to assure that in the sense of j l 13 configuration risk, you had it'right. That's all I'm trying j 14 to tell you, that that is to me, you know, the only prudent 15 thing-to do. 16 MR. RAY. Okay. 'And I would accept, as speaking 17 'for the industry,, that that's a reasonable thing for us to l 18 work on, to'see if we can -- 19 MR. PIETRANGELO: I think that part has been done, ) } 20 too,'and Rich probably knows it better than I do, citing the 21 PECo example, okay? 22 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: But that's PECo. 23 MR. PIETRANGELO: Well, you asked for one 24 sensitivity -- 25 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: No, no, no, no, no. I'm ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. l Court Reporters j l 1025_ Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 i Washington, D.C. 20036 { (202) 842-0034
p S-73 1 . talking about all plants doing it one time. j 2 .MR. RAY: You have each plant do it as a way of 33' defining-the scope'for itself, without having to implement a 4 safety monitor that does it in real time. 5~ MR. PIETRANGELO: I get a lot of phone calls _on 6 the maintenance rule. 7 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So do I. 8 MR. PIETRANGELO: When we put out the -- our own 9 rule language, we have had a task force on it. Here is the 10 sensitivity from the industry. And then there's also a-11 consistency-incoherency question to be looked at, too, also, i 12 This-was one of the first rules that allowed risk insights 1 13 to be used to focus resource's attention on the high safety 14 significant stuff, all right? That's already been done in 15 all the plants. You've got a culture out there that is 16 focused on -- 17. CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Tony, you have not addressed my 18 one at a time, at a time, at a time. 19 MR. PIETRANGELO: Well, I'm about to, Chairman. 20 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay, please do. 21 MR. PIETRANGELO: _Let me get to that, all right. 22 They feel -- most plants feel like they have identified a 23 set of high safety-significant SSCs that they need to focus 24 on. -25 Now for this new -- and this goes back to, well, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES,-LTD. L Court Reporters I 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
F S-74 l 1 we should have just changed "should" to "shall," like -2 Commissioner McGaffigan said before, we could have just l' 3 taken the guidance, endorsed that, and you would have had 4 . enforceability against this-provision, with a pretty' good 5 damned process in1 place already. That's'all we're trying_to 6 do is get to the bottom line quick. We've got a process 7 that already has been looked at by the Staff, identifies the 1 8 high safety-significant SSCs, already -- you know, there is 9 ru) additional burden on Licensees to~take that set, that is '10 consistent with the tools they are already using to perform 1 11 this assessment. Yet_instead of just changing "should" to -12 "shall,"-and getting enforceability, now we want another 13 little tweak in the process, whether it's one time or -- 14 CHAIRMAN JACKSONs Well, but you have your issue i 15' which has'to do with burden on the industry. We have'our 16 issue which has to do with configuration' risk management and 17 . maintenance activities. 18 MR. PIETRANGELO: -Right.
- 19.
. CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So understand now that we have 20 different drivers'here, and we are trying to come to a 21 reasonable solution. 12 2 MR. BEEDLE: Madam Chairman, if I may add, I don't 23 think that you as a group of Commissioners and your concern 1 j 12 4 i for-risk management, configuration management, is any 25 l different than the plant management. i l I I L l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. h I Court Reporters I -1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 I i
7 S-75 1-CHAIRMAN JACKSON: .Well, he talked about burden, 'okay?f And we are interested in not creating unnecessary 2 3' burden. 4 MR. BEEDLE: Well, I understand that. 5, HCHAIRMAN JACKSON: But we will deal with necessary ~ 6 burdens. MR. PIETRANGELO:.And if you deal with it, then it 8 should be in the' regulatory' analysis, too, and stated in 9 there, Chairman, and it's not. 10 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Madam' Chairman, the 11 reasonLI get-: perplexed -- if I could, I'm going to have to 12: leave in a second for my daughter's orthodontist appointment 113' that.I'm already late for -- but the -- if I look at the reg 14 guide,-it'says that the SSCs that you have to look at are 15: the SSCs that support key plant safety functions, and you 16- -define key plant safety functions in your reg guide. That '17 seems-to me --'isn't that a. larger group'than what we are 18-talking-about today? 19-MR. PIETRANGELOs Yes. Yes. -20 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: It's not just the SSCs 21 that are modeled in the PRA or the ones that the maintenance 22' -panel has --'so to some. extent,'you know, you have had a 23 . pretty broad scope to your assessments with "shoulds" rather 24-
- than "shalls" all the way through Chapter 11.
25 MR..PIETRANGELO: The industry guidance is dated ANN-RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
} S-76 i l' in this regard, because you can't take just, say, key safety 2 functions. Most people will say right away, those include 3 all.the safety-related functions. Okay? And then -- 4 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: So this reg guide really 5 doesn't reflect the current NEI position? Okay. That's 6 --the -- I guess I'll leave it at that. 7 MR. RAY: Well, I'd like to -- before you leave, 8 Commissioner McGaffigan, say that we have been talking about 9 scope and we can see how problematic it is, even at this 10 point in time, although I think there's room for resolution, 11 perhaps, as the Chairman has suggested. 12 There is then still the issue of judgment. That 13 is to say, this thing calls for an assessment, and that's 14 understood to be an assessment on the part of the Licensee. 15 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Right. 16 MR. RAY: And management of the risk that results. 17 But throughout here, there.is the implication that there is 18 another judgment to be made, and that is the judgment that 19 you all would make as a regulator. And, therefore, there is 20 an unaddressed future issue here, it seems to me, which is 21 implicit, but I don't -- I am not proposing that we can even 22 achieve closure on it, and that is the question of how much 23 risk is okay and how much is not, and how are we ever going 24 to'come to some conclusion about that. 25 So while, on the one hand,.we debate about whether ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
g S-77 li ,or not to include-this item or that item in the scope or ,2. not, there's -- 3 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Do you have a point of view-4' about how to address that? 5 MR. RAY: I don't. That is, not as a spokesman 6 for the industry, I do not. -7 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Madam Chairman, that was 8 the other question that I had in my mind'that I lost, was 9 what -- with the new oversight process that you all have 10 been intimately involved in, in your -- it's called, I 11 think, the Morris Engine or the Morris whatever by the 12 Staff, but the significance determination process. Doesn't 13 that answer that question to some degree? If somebody goes '14 and puts themself in a configuration, either through lack of 15 assessment or bad assessment or making what in our view is a 16' bad judgment, perhaps, the Morris engine is the significance 17 determination process is the thing that will pop that out. 18' MR. PIETRANGELO: That's right. 19 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: And you have to be 20 pretty bad to pop out; right?. 21 MR. PIETRANGELO: Right. 22 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: So why the concern? If 23 the Morris engine or the significance determination process 24 is the metric by which we are going to judge that? 25 MR. RAY: Let me answer that. I think your ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court. Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202). 842-0034 t
m-S- 78 1 . perception of the outcomes is exactly right, but it leads me 2 then to question why we should be struggling so much over l 3 .trying_to get the last remote non-high-safety-significant 4 item included in this assessment process and ground, because 5 _our concern again is a process concern. We live with ~6 . inspection and enforcement all the time. When people don't 7 dot the I's and cross the T's. I haven't even gotten to the 8 before issue. ( 9 [ Laughter.] 10 MR. RAY: So it's the problem in the 11 implementation in the field that we are concerned about 12 primarily. And with that, I -- 13 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, all I'm really saying is, 14 I mean I don't think that things are so far out of whack. I 15 mean some of this has to do with ownership of words, a lot 16 of it, to me. But if you have some scope and someone asks 17 you to_do a sensitivity analysis as to whether, you know, 18 that scope is really~okay, one time, I don't see what the '19 big deal is. 20 MR. PIETRANGELO: I think Commissioner Diaz gave .21 you the answer to that, Chairman. It's unbounded. How many 22 different combinations can you.look at one time? l 23 MR. RAY: I started to provide an answer.
- 24 Assuming that we have reasonable rules for doing that, then 25 I.would agree with you' If there's nothing more than just ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 u
S-79 1 what you said, then I'm in Mr. Diaz's camp, and I'm not sure i 2 that we're -- 3 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: But that's the point, isn't it 4 -- well, we're'doing it, anyway, the minute we talk about ) 5 reg guides. k j 6 MR. BEEDLE: Chairman, if we talk about these combinations,' if I have 100 pieces of. equipment in my 7 8~ maintenance rule coverage, I think, if I recall correctly, 9 to figure out what all those permutations and combi 1ations, 10 what is it, I don't know, hundred factorial, or something 11 like that. I mean it's.a major effort to try -- 12 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: But you have already talked i 13 about those systems that support the high safety-significant 14 systems. Okay? 15 MR. RAY: Right. j 16 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: And that's a different set than 17 the high safety-significant systems, and there seems to be 18~ some degree of indeterminacy of whether there is a real 19 definition of.those support systems being included as part 20 of the high -- and so that's what I'm talking about in terms 21 of being able to do some kind of sensitivity analysis. I 22 don't see that that is such a big deal, That is not all 23 'these, you know, gazillion permutations and combinations. 24 MR. RAY: Can I differentiate between support 25 systems, which I' share Ralph's off-the-top-of-the-head view [. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. f Court Reporters L 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
FJ, S-80 1-that support systems all the way back to the heat sink, from 2 the reactor fuel clad to'the heat sink, are all high 3 safety-significant systems. When I said system 4 interactions, I meant, you know,-two over one kind of things 5 where you have structures that may be -- 6 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I understand that, but all I'm 7 trying to say.is we need a strawman. You know, we've got to '8 'get beyond our B and C on each side, okay? And we need a 9 strawman, okay? And that's all I'm really trying to say, of 10 how you get to that. 11 MR. RAY: Okay. One or two other things,- then. 12 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Please. 13 MR. RAY: I mentioned the -- before -- I'm going 14 off my little list of things. You know, when we left the 15 meeting downtown this morning, we thought this is great, -16 .this wording is just fine. It was only when we sat back 17 here that we decided there was.a problem. 18 [ Laughter.) 19 MR. RAY: Anyway -- 20 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: That's why'we held this 21 meeting today. 22 MR. RAY: -- we do suggest that in the statement 23 of considerations in the package here is just fine. And 24 'it's clear about emergent conditions and so on and so forth. 25 'The rule language itself -- and I think here we have to turn ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecti cut Avenue, NW,' Suite'1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 -(202) 842-0034 L
(? i-l S-81 l l. 1 to the counsel - 'though, would potentially be problematic. L 2 .Our' view is that we_are willing to rely on the statement of _3 ~ considerations which basically says.if you have an emergent i '4 : . condition,.fix it, don't wait for an assessment to be done, 5. if th'e thing is broken and it affects the safety of the l '6 _ plant; or if you see it, fix it, you don't then -- 7: CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So you could live with the- ~ 8-language in conjunction with the statements of 9
- consideration?
10 MR. RAY: That's, correct. That's right. The 11 literal reading of the language here, though, would suggest 12 in the parentheses in the first sentence that before 13' -performing corrective maintenance, for, example, which might 14-be emergent, you want to do an assessment. I understand the -15, intent,-it's expressed well in the statement of 16. considerations, and we have nothing more to say to you, 17-other than that the language of the rule itself could be 18 interpreted otherwise. 19 MR. PIETRANGELO: Right. So "before" may mean .20. later?- Or "before" may mean not at all? 21 MR. GRAY: That "before" language was included in 1 22 the proposed rule, and presumably we have made that comment. 23 MR. PIETRANGELO: We had another clause. 24-MR. RAY: Yes, and it was picked up in the 25. statement of-considerations almost word for word. So that's ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters .i 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 { Washington, D.C. 20036 (202).842-0034
S-82 1 correct. 2 And with that, the last comment I have to offer-to 3 you is again that I've commented before, and that is I find 4 problematic the claim that the tech specs are intended only 5 to' address single component out-of-service conditions, and i 6 are somehow not adequate to deal with maintenance when the 7 reactor is at power, and so on. 8 But having said that, I think the real issue is 9 ' going to only emerge later when we decide what'the level of 10 judgment is.with regard to the risks that we are assuming 11 with these various configurations and where we are going to 12 draw.the line of what is acceptable and'what is not. And 13 that lies in the' future. 14 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Do you have a comment.you 15 wanted ~to-make, Mr. Correia? -16 MR. CORREIA: No, thank you. 17 CRAIRMAN JACKSON: All right. 18 MR. BEEDLE: Chairman, when we started all this, 19 we were trying to go "should" to."shall" in-order to give 20 the:Staffsthe ability to enforce and impose what.they { 21' thought was a reasonable requirement to do an assessment of 22 equipments.when you take them out of service to do 23L maintenance. And as we know, they -- the industry had been 24 doing that. We've got' mechanisms that we use to acsess. 25 Some plants have got.more sophisticated mechanisms than i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1
- 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014
. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202)'842-0034
S-83 1 others, but they all have a methodology that is used to 2 . assess equipment taken out of service to do maintenance,
- 3.
whether we are'at power or shut down. 4 So the Staff's original intent to get some 5 mechanism to make_this enforceable has now got us into a 6: . position where we are having protracted discussions on what 7- 'the scope of'it.is and the reality is,- over the last t'wo 8 years we have still been doing it, and I think we have kept 9 the plants safe. We have done what was necessary, and 10 that's prudent management. It's-not just because it's part 11~ of the rules and regulations, it's prudent management to 12 manage your risk. 13 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Thank you. I am not even going 14 to.give my usual closing comments. I would just like to 15 thank every -- oh, let me -- I'm sorry. Commissioner 16' Merrifield? I'm sorry. I went through too fast. 17 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: That's all right. 18 I'm not sure where to start. I mean we have the j 19
- modified (a) (4) provision which in the train down here, the 20 subway down there, thought was good and subsequently, as a i
i 21 result ofLwhat.was a very interesting meeting today, 22 determined may not be so good. 2:3 We have the draft. reg guide which the Staff has 24 said is -- the draft is the most important word on page 3. 25_ ,This draft was' written mainly, it seems to me, primarily for ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
7.:. S-84 1-language which has now been superseded by the modified 2 (a) (4) provision, so this doesn't apply any more, and so the '3 outcome of this needs to be rewritten, e 4 I guess, given all the things in front of us, is 5 there,.in your eyes, a success path for us to move forward? 6 MR. RAY: Yes, sir. I would take Chapter 11 of 7 NEI 93-01'which is currently endorsed in Reg Guide 160, Rev. 8 2, use that as a basis for the industry to propose to the 9 Commission language that would implement the rule as 10 adopted, making it more' clear, as it will necessarily have 11 to be, and enforcement space, that is to say there things 12 that were acceptable ambiguities before will no tger be 13 acceptable, and will have to be clarified. But. would 14 propose that we put before you something that you could 15 endorse in a Revision 3 to the Reg Guide 160 as Revision 2 16-endorses NEI 93-01, for the purposes of configuration 17 management. i 18 In other words, 93-01 implements the maintenance ) 19 rule. This now becomes an addition or a modification to 20 maintenance rule..We can revise the industry guidance to l 21-address it, and to incorporate the issues that we have 22 discussed at length here today, and provide it to you as a 23 vehicle fbr Commission-endorsement. 24 MR. PIETRANGELO: Now a lot of that work has been 25 done starting last summer, and the Staff has seen various l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 1 Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 1
E S-85 'l versions of that, so it would'be to take that guidance and 2. to reflect whatever the final rule is, and work with the ~3 -Staff to try to get that endorsed. That's what we intend to 4 do. And that;was whether the. guidance or the rule was going l 5 to be: risk-informed or not, we still'would have raoved 6 . forward.with that effort to develop the guidance. 7 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I think.our. lawyer has 8 something to say. 9 MR. GRAY: I was simply going to say this was -- 10 is the sort of approach that was taken with the original -11 maintenance rule in terms of developing guidance and the NRC 12 then considering endorsing it. 13 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. So the gist of your 14 proposal.is that even though, you know, you might have -15 modified something in this modified (a) (4), that you can 16 ' live with it, with the statements of consideration and with 17 this' approach to the reg guide that you have just 18 delineated? 19 MR. RAY: Correct. 20 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. Commissioner Diaz?- I'm ) 21 going to have to disappear. 22 -COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Quickly, this difference to 23 ' me, it looms big, of, you know, in the rule between high 24 safety-significant SSCs, and you know, I have seen several 25 times people interchangeably use risk-significant SSCs with L. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 i Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 1
S-86 1 high risk-significant SSCs, and this is, you know, where the 2 bottom line is. In other words, we need a common definition 3 that everybody can understand that is usable by the 4 industry, can be enforced by the NRC, and so do you have a 5 stated preference or -- you say you can live with the 1 6. . language _of having the risk-informed process, but I thought 7 you stated that you would prefer to be bound -- to bound the 8 scope by high safety significance? 9' MR. RAY: That was correct, Commissioner Diaz. I 10
- very much wanted to-make that point clear, and thank you for 11 reinforcing it.
12 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Okay. Thank you. 13 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. Thank you. 14 (Whereupon, at 4:44 p.m., the briefing was 15 concluded.] 16 '17 18-19 I .20 21-22 23 24 25 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court' Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202)-842-0034 o
rL 4. - ThisHis'to certify.thatithe attached description of a meeting-oof the U.S. Nuclear' Regulatory Commission entitled: TITLE'OF MEETING: BRIEFING:ON STATUS OF MAINTENANCE RULE PLACE'OF. MEETING: Rockville,-MD DATE OF MEETING: Wednesday, May 5, 1999 was held as herein appears, is a true and accurate record of ~ the meeting, and that this is the original transcript thereof taken stenographically by:me, thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court reporting company Transcriber: Natalie Renner Reporter: Jon Hundlev l* 4 I e
4 E C N ANET O N TIA G N M N O I E I F S E H IVT 5 IR E 6 9 F 9 B R OE 9 0 5 1 N E)L V O H4U R 5 O G. Y T )( R F C I A S R S F (a C N M C 0 / P M O )3 I R 1 90 M S)( 0 1 - 5 Ua 1 O T( 4 B C AH l M Q / TP M P SA ID /R R RN / G CRN A ,A R IER A R OC P TC D A R T A N HC O I C R
) I B s R e M gn e( a ds he in cg v o n e oi o g rt a a pc nh e ) c u dp 1 g n s e ( n an
- v
)i a )i 3s l 3e n ( e) ( ) ) n ae u". ai (h l l ( r e re t hn gs or iu na f p t D wo y sm ib n o N c f g sc rn o c i U ma ai t) i r O eo cu p3 l o( l t R bn rd e ey ) oi r d d el 2 2 G p n n rn ( i e su ho n K dk n o t o C ea of dl i t t b c s ela p A ie om d h o rcb t i B a vs s" f r o" d f e ed ag r o dl t o pt d u sr n o p e )h )d 7 )k 7l m 9s 7a 9u 9e 8o m /" / 3 / n 4w (h o (t c 3 "s e ( 5e f 5 5o 7 r 0m 5 1 e f s 0s g f 7s - e 7 a n 9e 7l 9 t 9p a s Ys Yh C a. Mm Cc s a E Rx E )2 S( Se S( e e
~ d e o cl f t l s t a e e dc fh o o p f s ) renn e e 5 o oiaa t t c r n n l 6 p smn ,d lae a 1 e ml e )e t demt m e r i t r et n c c e vsnr 8 a oi p sn an e s t osafo mapo 9 n xpe ecr e y t r s u e sfie Y p , bee ohsip t rt n C d e gi n a pe ge s v s a E E n ti si enish rncal a G S uiemlehmhtke i t dr t ) t N( 2 c ur w rf s d ( ul oe meor i AT n t t a rc cvs n o esnr i HN o si ,t ar g gn fdl t i i ( t n ent ude CE p onivol o sed ,n r a sdrecd". eiut E M o t r sios t al LM e et epre e ule ct l epo r i u t p t e e d gl ch v UO v s cnf i uTo we l t ) i i 3 RC icsnan wd 3 t l .nt ( a ah a ,ot ns ae ) i DC ngc aonishb l ( t ef ent hcot a t EI e c otir n et n st t L g n n n ca np i S B n aeioa ob nl oe t ai l O a u pi c e o m n pi np l U h t tl ot aaf e ac P c r a ct P nssmeun r h yh u n t O st t i r g et gu ) a e o R R 7 nri sf af i 9 mh p oufneishn a n PO / t ,i c o a g n gi oi t t t 2 F f nindecvio e c o 1 ihinht t r rt ( D 3 misot nceuos t t cf we/olaacs 7 r s n E t nn 1 o ae nio f s et pe U 7 rt e cn o c ot S 9 enc net nmoic t pen art a n S M e: na ams nodr u mse Rl e f uf l r ol I er e u ir s gt esitgy Sr ope o enn f saipufnf emrvf e r a Boueshmobcsneoa e cspac
fo e g r lb n e la a w v e a i t o o c r p r e m o p ta e e f r n o n e s e i la l c e s t n s e o m a a r n r S n b d o E e d s n i t g a G n n e g oy r n i i N a r tl o i u s f r A m d du e u f e o e r d s H o de e t h C y n n n t lb c e e a t a E n m nl n t c e s iu o i L u s om l t it p a p U q e i n s d a e s R r s ye n f a c e e 4 l l R d ai r n r v m a )3 er m s O a ( ne t ) F a es o n tn g f-c e ( S u o e ms o h s r n N m w o ri t nt a e o i u O a o s ui i t i t d at d i S g n n c n t q n n e A u e e r o i i f s o cm m e c i E a f R e s ep n l s u e pi w r u s r c is s q e t o n c n a o a e s ad l i s ht y ui ce a t u r t qc i s ee np yh l t ) f s hi 3 i u dp cl ( t rad d as e u ) n nn Tm a n l Ca I i i ( e o e e il!lll lll l 1l ll
d s t e n y ) v e t "n o e m f o m e a = i e r s ta r n iu) w o s ru e qP o n S g a r r o eM n o r l E i i f R o t i t t i n n R o oC a d I a h n mdn c i-o r e o t t O a n rc tn cm oi s G a C un r f if a o n qw E c S c f i r i g T o d e e o if S e r in r pr e d d A g o sP r u et s bu i f i l t C s at u c hn l d n q t nio s e c k e ie e T s r n r o ngm hm i i N n r u t dis e E q ce 5 b nl r s o uue e eg iods M g r t a to iw s s e e sn s n M ( b ea v st a tM d et n r O d y a r neo l c u e l o semf n ik C n l o pis dms n h if e sso C e d uR s d e set i d lu n s n esa IL e o no n ess n t t t B b h et es dsa e i s a U o mr mC iaf u om t s e u sS n Gee u P d n t e r g sS c c i i e ei uf e yh p o t n mr qn s n o wty v r e d e o s a t se rC a c a s ss i l ) )f u-m e sm 4 4i n g ( g ( re so ) ) g e r ae ai T Af (( ( s R e e e lli
ta k) e h s4 b i R )(a t ts S s e n( u n e l o T p o5 m it i i6 t i i N v t ta s a lu r0 C nd i t E s t t c m u5 n a gr S en M e s e f e S ma i M m c s nf t en t e oa n pw l s n r O s a )s d C d c md a o C e nr d n e i i s eo a f t s t t o s is n e u i C a na o t h t f ai a e g as i i t t I i n d c c s r L o o og mi i B e t e ir y pn f y t dl cp ri l U s n ey od l ns e f t u a e eu p ae cu e P ri b l e o s t o S sf n c n a n i ie h f n l O ws oi l l t a n iaw dr t t T y f et oa c ot 6 ,s nl i) n nt t l i m. u nP ea on r S a r g e h clp se i rm cM E c o l i im f e ei eR rn v v r( s S o ey w T C eo es t e st r s N pt s c f( d e O e ef ni o f-c 0e v m oa 6s s ba or n p 1 s P s t e o a i i .a t v t um 1) r S e st as i c ge oi t i f-e ov e4 r un E e mla f f e l o eri t d Pc oh d )( i t R g p c ian s eu t u( a t rt e s o t r F u n c po Gri s o nff n o F g e a t f ee of ot yf a i mp a sms d r t n t l n A e t a oen a m c see nt t e ce s im egm ba T l a i s n i nm ) S 4 ed hp ua u ua l o u su cu qn ml l i ( gd c a eic ) s o eq ea e o v a uo Ac Te RMb Ce R gd ( e e e e e li l! ji lllllll})
fo e ek v s o i pi t t or n c n de si ev iee e t mrh s i pt a dn e l t r i onhc )9 nains t 9 ewi e 9 t ei u 1 v t bishi v l t t t ir i Np gcn t OA n ee ec nga r i dr a IS-u cpn c oo e s I lc a t Vn ndm man Oe no i Rm acdn ( s e Pm e g, o a n r nt o i ) c t n i 4 vis,sa i t 7 ( c smesm i i )l t ab ce ( u at esd t s e Dp e es a s Eg c cy Si n nsl o l n s a a ,ap s nsho IVe n eesr Er et r p d nue t R nit e e d a a ac sh i t mr n u mt em re t t f gs sc o a i nonl r ( f impoe t ,)hl u r set o ,s f ec ne r cn e or pannaiy tca l eiee l m r et s n o vi t f r s aia e u Bsmhh t t
k sf ir o so o net t pn t i t d eo e n eescn a ivasoc t mt e pf i i e nrchmi n i e l t v nTog o e e s. c i i s nr r ph e o e tu ti b d t b eis n v o N g a gi m t t ace n O) n ienat S9 dva sw I 9 eyo uie.m c t I c sh 9 V1 c l n ,s Oy nrd a s r n es i Ra oa ( n r a PM sc euh e ,st t nc s ) i gsi t 4e (p vn ea us i r 8 smt e )o iit t a s sc (c cs ae adoro Ds et p t l d e l easd Ee c cho e n I n s pt o = Fi n t m m a i i a o I ~ Di n er mt n a O( e e pl u l i e s t l M nn eeay m nt aiehbvt i t e a c yef m ml mad a i s gt eome nshr md ft im p )t o t nr n eoa ,l r u f o ,e f ec smnh t e s l i r cnr e na ska pan yese asrh i l eie l r et ms aic n a o vit l tb f r aaea e u u Bsmhhh p t t t 1ll li lIl l
de s s s s u o ) e e c t 1 d c 0 s re o d t i iu r 3 t g P 9 y e l l y t e ) r n C v n 4 o e R i is ) ( ta m A n 4 )a e e M e l ( d u ) ( t g g D u e a U x a i ( e E g r n N r a / d o IF y n 0 n f M 6 a e r i ID o s t 1 p O a s k n o e s 1 o c l i M u c R G s s i g o ss N e r n R ir e r p O o sr me b l o e i d t ue i ml s 9 t L p a l p(p o o s r A d o u h o e c g A C Ce p S g s f R S yk i O d e n P S ba a )9 i P r b b o t l s9 ds a9 O a C n n ed 1 t t s t R p sa a v n P t t P n p7 elpc o a M7 ec o7 d f e r i F m c 1 1 d uni pS R a in p F s a cdig aR Ch l A s d 1 c n C dr a uG ieS y n T e l a eey dA e l S ss f oR pdt a sM a o c n oo e eR s( f e n rG f n 0i cma l r o o 6) s S a da 1P s R dm i e P P C ar t Ch p n 1M M Sig M i i i c e G R o f a h l R SH Ri Eh t C S D R( C-Cw NC e e e e e e
t l t a n an e s hi m f t nd m o e iu o ta s c s r di o n s f ei e me u d mi s u s o i cG d ey n r r a ho S t t 0 a i N wl 6 A u 1 0 L ng 6 1 oe 1 P sR e i 0 1 F s d 1 r i e u G i F mt G R A f T ma y o S o s r t Cy o t s a od a e lu g t n e0 g l g2 e a a h n n1 R c f i a e. h b o y 0 t c n 6 e n a 1 et a o l e 1 u i rd s ta G i de v r r v e o R r ai p t t r e wc f o u r e a of r c s f Fe D n s i i e e e}}