ML20210B766
| ML20210B766 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/11/1986 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 ACRS-GENERAL, NUDOCS 8609180162 | |
| Download: ML20210B766 (47) | |
Text
.
,.,i
. e.
t~
<=
.yj
/~'-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the matter of:
COMMISSION MEETING Meeting with Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards'on Standardization
([ Policy Statement Docket No.
4
(.
l 4
...42
<1>..'.
_ ~
ll J'
- f..
4 Or; r.*
,.M,~.
...ev. ;p
, -.r:
. f; Location:
Washington, D.C.
Date:
Thursday, Setpember 11, 1986 Pages: 1 - 43
~
8609180162 860911 PDR 10CFR
~
PT9.7 PDR ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES Court Reporters f('
1625 I St., h.W.
Suite 921 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
\\
- ~ ~ -
-0 0
I 1
D 1 SCLA I MER 2
3 4
5 6
This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the 7
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on 8
9-11-86 In the Commission's office at 1717 H Street, 9
'N.W.,
Washington, D.C.
The meeting was open to public s
10 attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been 11 reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain 12 inaccuracies.
18 The transcript is intended solely for general 14 i n f orma t 'l ona l purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is 15 not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the 16 matters discussed, Expressions of opinion in this transcript 17 do not necessarily reflect final determinat' ion or beliefs.
No 18 pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in 19 any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement 20 or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may 21 authorire.
22 i
23 24 25
a 1
1 2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
MEETING WITH ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS ON 5
STANDARDIZATION P5LICY STATEMENT 6
7 Public Meeting 8
9 10 Thursday, September 11, 1986 11 1717 H Street, N.W.
1 12 Washington, D.C.
t.
13 14 The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 15 2:00 p.m.
16 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
17 LANDO W. ZECH, JR., Chairman of the Commission l
18 THOMAS M. ROBERTS, Commissioner 19 FREDERICK M. BERNTHAL, Commissioner 20 KENNETH M. CARR, Commissioner i
21 STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT COMMISSION TABLE:
22 S. Chilk W. Parler 23 D. Ward C. Wylie 24 M. Carbon F. Remick 25 C. Mark H. Lewis
a
'2 o
1 C. Seiss C. Michelson 4
STAFF AND PRESENTERS (Continued):
3 D. Okrent D. Moeller 4
P. Shewmon 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 14 15 16 l
t l 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2
l l 25 1
a
+
3 1
PROCEEDINGS l
2 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Good afternoon, ladies and 3
gentlemen.
Commissioner Asselstine will not be with us this 4
afternoon.
Today we're going to talk about reactor 5
standardization with the Advisory Committee on Reactor 6
Safeguards.
7 Before we begin our discussion today I'd like to 8
express my personal concern at the news I've learned 9
concerning Glenn Reed.
He's unable to be with us and I 10 understand ~he has a heart condition that could be serious.
We 11 certainly, all of us here on the commission and in our agency 12 wish Glenn and his family our deepest sympathy and also our 13 sincere good wishes and our prayers for his speedy recovery.
14 Glenn is not only a very fine member of the Advisory Committee on Reactor S' feguards but I personally think he's a great
-15 a
16 American.
We miss him and wish him well.
We hope he comes 17 bnck very soon fully recovered.
18 We have re'ceived the Advisory Committee on Reactor 19 Safeguards' letter on standardization dated the 15th of 20 August, 1986, which transmits their written comments.
As I 21 understand the letter, the ACRS is indicating that it 22 considered the NRC Staff proposed policy statement that was 23 sent to the Commission on the 14th of May, 1986 and the draft 24 policy statement sent to the staff April loth, 1986 by the 25 Secretary.
1 4
4 1-In preparation for today's meeting we've reviewed 2
the ACRS comments and for my part, I find them to be very i
3 constructive and very helpful.
I'm hopeful that the ACRS will 4
continue and be vigilant of this standardization issue as we 5
pfbceed.
I think the action, the causents by the ACRS are 6
very important.
I personally think this is an area in which 7
the ACRS can indeed make a strong contribution.
All of us I 8
know will review your comments with a great deal of respect.
9 I'd only like to make one quick comment and that is 10 that I have a number of appointments later on today and I 11 hope we can stick reasonably close to schedule because I do 12 have to leave by 3:30 at the latest.
I know we all look 13 forward to your comments and I ask my fellow commissioners 14 first if you have any comments you'd like to make before we 15 turn it over to the advisory committee.
}
16 (No response.]
3 17 Then, Dr. Lewis, I presume you are acting today --
18 you're in the seat there right opposite me.
d 19 MR. LEWIS:
I'm sorry.
I 20 (Laughter.)
21 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
We'll ask then Chairman i
22 Ward to please take over and start the proceedings.
i 23 MR. WARD:
Well, I'm not going to give you anything i
24 very important anyway, but thank you for the opportunity to be 25 here.
I appreciate your comments about Mr. Reed and we'll i
l
5
+
1 pass those on to him.
I talked with him on Tuesday and ha 2
wasn't feeling very well but he's got a lot of fire in him and 3
we expect to see him back in perhaps two or three months.
4 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Well, we sincerely hope he makes a 5'
speedy and complete recovery.
6 MR. WARD:
As you pointed our, we did send you our l
7 written comments on August 12th.
We think this is very 8 ~
important Commission policy and we would like to have a role 9
in it as it evolves.
10 What we'd like to do this afternoon is ask 11 Mr. Wylie, who has been our lead member'in this area, to 12 summarize and comment on the committee position as expressed 13 in the letter, and then I'd also like to give two of the 14 members a chance to explain a little bit the added comments 15 that are with the letter of August 12th.
And I think that 16 should leave plenty of time.for questions from the Commission 17 and further discussion before 3:30.
I see no reason why we l
18 can't finish promptly.
19 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you.
I noticed you correctly 20 referred to your letter of August 12th.
I apologize, I think 21 I said August 15th, but August 12th is correct.
22 MR. WARD:
Mr. Wylie.
23 MR. WYLIE:
We were asked, as you mentioned, to 24 comment on the two drafts which were proposed by the NRC; the 25 one of April 10 by the Commission and the May 14 response
t-6 6
o 1
draft by the NRC Staff.
2 We found the two drafts to be somewhat similar in i
3
_ nature with a certain amount of duplication, much of which-was 4
stated in the two drafts and we did not comment on since we did not feel that we could offer any substantia,1 5
6 improvements.
However, we did not comment on the two drafts 2
7 individually in detail, we chose to address only those areas which were raised in the review of the two drafts, and on 8
9 which the committee had a position and could~ offer some 10 advice.
11 As you mentioned, we did comment by our letter of 12 August 12th and there were additional comments by Dr. Okrent
(
13 and Mr. Glenn Reed which were appended to that letter,~and 4
1 j
14 Dr. Okrant will discuss his comments later and Carl Michelson 15 will discuss Glenn Reed's comments.
16 What I'd like to do, there were nine points which we I
17 discussed in detail in our letter, and I'd just like to i
18 summarize those nine points.
19 The first point was that we felt that the title of 20 the policy statement should be changed to the Policy Statement 21 on Certification for Nuclear Power Plant Standard Designs.
We 22 felt that that best describes the substance and focus of the l
23 policy statement.
And we felt that the policy statement 24 should focus on the standardization of designs rather than j
25 other areas.
We felt that that's where the bulk of benefit p
-,.,-,v,,-.---
-. ~.,, _., - -
_---,,-,,.,--,,,__,-,.,_,...,...__,,.,-,.,___,_,,,,__n_
,,____,--1,-__,.,--..
7 l
1 would be derived from standardization, in the standardization 2
of designs.
3 The ACRS did not feel it prudent to universally 4
standardize other areas, although for a given standard design 5
certain elements of those areas could be standardized to some 6
benefit.
We felt that the benefits derived from 7
standardization of other areas would be small compared to the 8
problems that they would create.
Such as an example would be 9
construction where practices vary in construction by the AE's 10 and the particular construction company.
Construction is 11 somewhat site-specific depending on where the plant is 12 located, whether it's on the seacoast or inland, as far as 13 transportation is concerned, the handling of equipment, the i
l 14 amount of pre-constructed items that could be shipped and this i
15 kind of thing.
16 Also, depending on the location of the site, the 17 availability of concrete for aggregate is site-dependent.
In la some areas you have limestone, in some you have granite.
so a
19 it wouldn't be prudent to standardize on concrete mixes.
20 Let me see if any of the other members have any 21 comment on that point before we go on to the next one.
4 22 (No response.]
23 Some areas could be standardized, such as 24 non-destructive axaminations.
We didn't feel that quality 25 assurance was an area that should be standardized.
I wasn't 1
1
o 8
1 quite certain what was meant by quality assurance in the 2
draft, as to whether it was quality assurance in the aspect of 3
quality control or both.
Quality assurance is an area where 4
it must meet the industry standards and Commission regulations 5
and it varies from utility to utility and company to company, 6
and we didn't think it prudent to standardize in the area of i
7 quality assurance.
There are certain aspects of quality 8
control that could possibly be standardized.
9 Procurement was another area which we didn't feel it i
10 would be beneficial to standardize..But again, though, for a 4
11 certain given standardized design, specifications for the 12 procurement of equipment could certainly be standardized for 13 that particular design.
14 Training again was an area where we didn't feel it
~15 would be prudent to be included in the standardization policy 16 statement.
Training varies from utility to utility, and the r
17 accreditation programs by INPO and the training program seemed 18.
to be well handled by that process.
19 The second point we made, we commented on the 20 Commission's draft of April 10 where we stated that that best 21 represented the Commission's policy on certification of 22 nuclear power plant design.
That statement reads, "The 23 Nuclear Regulatory Commission believes that standardization of 24 nuclear power plant design is a very important initiative that has the potential for significantly enhancing the safety, 25
9 1
reliability and availability of plants."
And so.we offered 2
that as being the best statement of the policy right at the 3
front of the policy statement.
4 We uidn't recommend -- in point three, we didn't 5
recommend including a comment in the policy statement that 6
standardized nuclear power plants should be used to satisfy 7
the ultimate goal of certified designs constructed on 8
pre-approved sites.
We felt that as stated, the message to 9
the industry would be interpreted to mean that this would be 10 the only acceptable or major use of this policy statement and 11 the standardization approach.
And we felt that that would be 12 an overly restrictive requirement.
(
13 Item four, we believe that the policy statement 14 should make it clear that this supercedes the Commission's 15 previous policy on standardization in 1978 since there are a 16 number of things that have happened since that policy 17 statement was written, and that the policy statement needed to 18 be updated, and that was the intent as we understood it of the 19 policy statement and the accompanying NUREG.
I don't know if 20 we need to go into detail about those update points.
21 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
I don't think so, frankly.
We'll 22 look at them carefully, at all your comments, but I don't 23
,think we need to proceed anymore now unless you want to 24 particularly.
25 MR. WYLIE:
In our item five, we offered two
10 1
paragraphs which we suggested may be considered for the 2
opening paragraphs of the policy statement.
They place an 3
importance on the standardization process and focus on the j
4 reference system design concept, certification concept, and i
5 stating that the goal is an essentially complete design to be 6
referenced in individual licensing applications, which we felt 7
gave it the flexibility to be used most effectively by the 8
utilities.
9 Our point six was that we felt that the policy i
10 statement should include a reference to the commission's 11 policies on safety goals and severe accidents and advanced J
j 12 reactors as well as other commission policies, and that that 13 should be -- the implementation of those should be covered in 14 the NUREG.
15 Regarding item seven which pertains to former I
16 Chairman Palladino's comments regarding the empirical 17 information and prototype testing, we elected not to comment 18 on that until we have had further discussion with the staff 4
19 and have seen the details of the accompanying NUREG to the i
20 policy statement.
So we made no comment on that.
21 MR. WARD:
I guess I would like to add to that, 22 though, that the committee felt that although we weren't l
23 really prepared to comment at the time, we think that this is I
l 24 an important point.
We have concern that the standardization 4
25 approach is going to have as a down side the benefits that i
- =_ _.
11 1
come from prototype testing and gradual evolvement of an 2
improved design.
And I think that's what this question that 3
Joe Palladino raised and addressed.
And we think it's a -
i j
4 significant one that should be considered, and we'll be 5
talking more about that later.
6 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Okay, thank you.
7 MR. WYLIE:
Our item eight, it wasn't clear whether 8
the proposed NUREG would be submitted for public comments, and j
9 it's our recommendation that it be done since a great amount 10 of implementation information and detail would be contained in 11 that NUREG.
1 12 Also, we feel that the criterion threshold for 13 standing and interest in participation of the legislative and 14 rulemaking period should be made clear.
i 15
.In our last point that we made, we felt it was 16 absolutely necessary that the definition of " essentially 17 complete design" be thoroughly and clearly defined so that the i
18 industry and NRC will know from the outset what information 19 needs to be generated, and to what degree it needs to be 20 defined in the application for design certification.
21 And I believe that's the substance of the 22 committee's comments and recommendations.
l 23 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Why don't you go ahead, and then we 24 will have a general discussion.
25 MR. OKRENT:
Well, as you can tell on this matter of
12 1
standardization, I am concerned somehow we may have a 2
proliferation of standard designs, and what I would like to 3
see are a few good ones.
So that was the essence of the first j
4 paragraph.
I don't know what one could do legally, but if i
5 you don't have the current authority, maybe you can figure,out 6
a way of getting the authority, and I would suggest that you 1
7 think about that because 20 standard designs is no standard 4
8 designs, to me, in effect.
i 9
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
]
10 MR. OKRENT:
The second point I don't think I have 11 to elaborate on except over the years I have seen enough 4
12 things that would-have been proposed on paper that seemingly 13 were good and even got ACRS letters saying these seem like 14 they can be engineered, and then when they were put into the i
i 15 first plants, they really were significant problems, and not this kind you would want to have in 20 plants in a row, as it 16 i
17 were.
That is the thought, really, in the second one.
18 The third comment relates back, I Juess, a little 19 bit to my own memories of the GESAR II review where the Staff l
20 and General Electric were using PRA to try to decide how 21 should we make changes, if any, in GESAR II.
If that was 22 intended to be a plant for the future which large numbers 1
23 might be built in a wave or so forth, I think that was not a l
l 24 satisfactory process.
25 I think it would indeed be better if the Commission l
1 I
L
q 13 1
could in 3 range of areas provide either performance criteria 2
or in some cases the general design requirements or something 3
-- and I will include sabotage in this group -- that it 4
expects to see in future standard plants.
Otherwise, I an 5
concerned you may get a standard design, for example, from 6
EPRI, who are workirg hard, with certain goals of reliability 7
and a more friendly system and so forth and so on, which is 8
good but which don't necessarily pick up various aspects of 9
improvement, particularly those that relate to greater lo assurance of safety, both preventing core melt and preventing 11 release from containment.
12 So that's the summary.
13 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Fine.
Thank you.
14 Carl.
j 15 MR."MICHELSON:
Yes.
Thank you.
I will try to 16 represent ~Glenn Reed's comment as best I can.
I believe I 2
17 understand what he was getting at.
18 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Fine.
i i
19 MR. MICHELSON:
What Glen is trying to present here is that in the case of the pressurized water reactors, for 20 b
i 21 instance, there being at least two, perhaps three vendors, 22 you will find if you look at such systems as emergency core i
23 cooling, you will find it is done three different kinds of 24 ways, three different kinds of arrangements, and yet 25 essentially with a common purpose or function to be achieved.
i I
14 1
He is saying, I believe, that you ought to look at 2
these functions that you need to achieve more carefully and 3
see if there isn't a common way of doing it and therefore I
4 standardizing across more than one product line.
He, of 5
course, has some obvious difficulties as,sociated with trying 6
to standardize competitors, but I believe he felt that there l
7 might be a significant safety gain and therefore it should be 8
one of the thrusts of a standardization policy.
9 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Fine.
Thank you.
10 Are there any other general comments?
Let us start 11 off with perhaps some questions.
Let me just ask cne first 12 before I call on my fellow commissioners.
13 We have all given a lot of thought to 14 standardization.
One thing that I didn't see mentioned in 15 your comments which I kind of thought I might see but perhaps 16 I missed it -- I don't believa I did -- but I thought somebody 17 would perhaps comment on the importance of simplicity as we i
18 move into the future, and it is just a comment perhaps you can i
19 think about and maybe somebody would like to mention it, but 20 it seems to me that -- you know, I have visited a lot of f
21 plants now myself in our country and also abroad, and'we seem 22 to have a tendency, at least in my view, to perhaps make our l
23 plants not necessarily more complicated but certainly more i
j 24 complex, and some of it is good, I'm sure.
The automation in i
25 some areas is excellent; but also I think maybe we at least
,15 1
might consider the valua of simplicity, and aspacially as it 2
relates to safety.
Naturally, you can go too far in any one 3
directien but I kind of thought I might see that in some of
)
f 4
your comments, but maybe somebody vould like to comment. on 5
that.
6 MR. EBERSOLE:
Commissione; Sech, J'm going to stick 7
my neck out.
I wanted to say something-like that, so I will a
say it now.
It flies in the face of the national position of 9
letting private enterprise do what it wants.
in my own 10 conviction, and I spoke with you and others earlier about 11 this, we should take the cosmic view of whether we even want
^
12 the boiler and the PWR.
Being a submarins man, you and I both
/
13 appreciate that you can hardly beat,a for a vessel liks the 14 submarine.
You can't beat it.
We recently rode on one.
I 15 couldn't believe what it did.
16 But to translate that by extrapolation into 17 commercial configurations using the same ideas brings with it 18 the complications of secondary systems, tubes, boilers, 19 difficulties of primary indirect cooling, the host of things 8
20 whien Mr. Glen Reed is trying to patch ir his so-called 21 blaad-feed systems.
22 I call your attention to the potential in what 1 23 call the simple boiler but with the admitted metallurgical
~
24 problems we would solve, the stress corrosion cracking, that a 25 reactor in shutdown needs only be in a pot with unter covering
m 16 1
it.
It need nct be under pressure.
Ir. needs the s6urae of l
?.
water, which can be virtually 10 tc 15 peig comina from a 3
simole pump.
4 I'm talking about a simpla system with six odd 5
ulements.
A cartoon version shows an old r.an in a shac.% on 6
the side of the plant with a junky pump kud s gauge glass, 7
putting water into an sopen pot, which I ganrantas will open, I
8 with the steam floating off through 7.t scrubbirg kyst,en, 9
initially this condensing system suppreseien pool.
10 subsequtntly a simple scrubbing through hot water, and 11 amission straight atmosphers, on the attempt to reduce core 12 damage mode, to prevcnt.
I'm not invoking post accident i
13 unisms va have better scrubbers.
14 I call you.; attention to the fact that a shutdown 15 core with that power dyrsity is ready to be cooled by cpen 1
J.6 evaporation with virtually no pressura.
You have g.or., and I i
l 17 think tha public will appreciata the fact that a r6 actor core l
16 is not this complex monstar that it is thought to be with i
19 14,000 electronic and piping and other thir.gs distended all 20 over the place.
It need only to a petful of pins with a. cover l
l 21 of watur.
l 22 CHAIEMAN ZECH:
What you describe sounds pretty 1
23 simpla to me.
l 24
)R. EBERSOLE:
It's a boiler.
25 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
ZTot vary complicat.3d.
l
~
17 1
MR. EBERSOLE:
I think we have in my own version, 2
through human weakness or something, extrapolated a PWR to 3
commercial configurations in a disastrous manner.
4 CEAIF. MAN ZECH:
You mean it has gotten too 5
complicated, too complex.
6 MR. EBERSOII:
It has simply been an extrapolation 7
of a submarine engine, which in its own right was the best 8
think you could ever run a submarine with, I'm sure.
On the 9
other hand, it is not logical to say I can make things 10 higger and bigger.
I could have said that with the 11 reciprocating engine in the D-29s I used to be on and driven 12 the reciprocators to 40,000 horsepower, but it wouldn't have 13 been very logical.
I could have made them drive generators.
14 So that is my knowledge.
15 CHA'IRMAN ZECH:
I appreciate that.
Any other 16 comments?
17 MR. SEISS:
I think I can give you a fairly good 18 ruason why we didn't have any comments on simplicity.
As we 19 viewed it, this policy statement dealm only with the process 20 of standardizaticn and to cope with standardization, not with 21 the design of the plants.
You had a previous policy statement 22 that we did have some comments on.
It was called the policy 23 statement on advanced reactors, which had quite a list of 24 desirable features for future reactors, which included 25 redundancy, diversity, and I'm not sure -- simplicity.
Ycu o
18-I wanted to have them redundant and safe and still wanrad than 2
simple, and I think we did have some comments in thers, I 3
think, agreeing with the laundry list.
But this policy 4
sratament is procedural, as we see it, as you read it.
5 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
I sure appreciate that.
I only 6
commented, frankly, becauss I have been well aware in my 7
two-plus years hora that the AC11S is usually'not constrain 6d 8
by anything, but I know the policy is supposed to be on 9
standardization.
Your comment is right on.
That is, of 10 course, what we are trying to do. But it was just a commsnt, 11 and I appreciate the thoughts that have baan axpressed.
12 Other comments hy my fellow comnissionars?
13 Mr. Roberte?
14 (No response.)
15 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Mr. Bernthal?
16 COMMISSIONER BERWTHAL:
Well, I'm not quite'sure 17 where to start, I guess.
I guese I fuel like I'm looking 18 through a glass darkly here.
I can't tell whether there in 19 nothing here that got the ACRS terribly excited, or -- I'm not 20 getting a very strong signal on anything he're, 21 There are a couple of issues that the Commission has 22 debated at considerable length, and I'm not sure fror. Year 23 rather cautious statements here how rou are coming dcwn on 24 some of these.
I have felt very strongly that not only in l
25 this policy statement but al'ao in the other of this quad of
19 1
policy statements the ccanissien hes been working on -- the 2
advanced reacter statenant, the safety goal statement, and the 3
severe accident statement -e that there should be explanations 4
witbin e5ch of how those *our depend on each other and what 5
they mean to each other.
i 6
I think the footnote that I had urged for thi's e
l 7
statement did make it in here.
Didn't it?
Isn't that in S
here, the foctnote on -- well, I belf. eve the explanatory 9
footnote en how this statement relates to those other l
i 10 statements is indeed here, is.it hot?
i I'l For examplh, I don t quite understand -- I agree
- 2 with you that there shculd be reference to those other items, 13 but'I thought there was.
Maybe y.ou kra saying there ought to i
14 be more reference cr somethi;1g.
15 MR.'FYLIE:
There was a foetnote on page 2 that 15 refern to the enhancsd plant sufuty re:ulting from I
17 standardization articulated in the coming Commission policy l
l 17 statement on safety goals, Is that the one you refer to?
19 COMMISSIONIR BERNTF.AL:
Yes, exactly.
Well, that is l
20 not in tan latast version.
I guess it didn't get in th're.
e l
l 21 Ia that cace, I couldn't agree with you more,. I'm having 22 trcuble finding whare thu latest version is here.
2.1 MR. SEISS:
I.n effect, we were mak$na a choice.
l 24 CCMMISSIONER 3ERNTMAL:
In fact, I had urged t, hat 25 that be included r,are, and apparent.2.y it got dropped out.
+
m
, +- -, - - -
.e m,,
+ --
w-
-4 e %
, -, g
-e-n n----,--
e----ew--enn-n,v--
m---%
ww,-
m-m.--
m n,---,,-+-
-w..~,---o-4-+,n~e.m,-,e-~-,,-.m
---en-e-
20 1
MR. WYLIE:
No, I don't think so.
2 MR. WARD: It is in the April loth draft.
3 COMMISSIONER BERNTRAL:
Is that the one you are 4
w,orking on, then?
5 MR. WARD:
Well, we have two of them, you see.
G COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
What is the latest one?
7 MR. WYLIE:
Maybe we didn't make ourselves very 8
clear.
Our item d, we. recommended including reference 'co the 9
Commission-policy on safety coals, severe accidents, advanced 4
30 reactors as well as reference t.o other conmission policy 6
l 11 relevant to future plant designs and the raquirements of these 32 policlek, that it should be defined in the accompanying rag 13 guide.
14 COMMISSIONER RERNTHAL:
Okay.
Whether it is in or
+
15 out, I can't tall.right now. In my judgment, it Whould be 16 ine'luded.
I have urged t. hat it be included.
3,7 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Fall, there is still time to do it.
la It is not over with yet.
19 COMMISSIONER SERNTHAL:
And I would urge that it be 20 included in the other similar policy statements go there is 21 some cror,s reference anC people understgnd what we are trying 22 to achieve here.
23 I have anothe.r concern that the ACRS may not be
'oest qualified and thu commission is hardly qualified to 74 l'
25 comment on in any detail, but it touches on the issue of what t
.-...---,.--m,
,.,-..,,..---n,...-.,__w.
.,.., -,, - -,,. -, _ ~. - -
.. ~ _, -. _ _. - - -.. - -. - -.
21 1
we really mean by a complete plant design, and it has been a 2
question since we started talking about this, whether we were 3
all singing from the same sheet of music when the Commission 4
talked about standardization.
I'm not sure we still know at 5
this point, whether we know yet what standard design means to t
6 esch of us.
)
7 When you talk about that, though, as the 1978 8
statement makes clear and as the history of this subject, it i
i 9
seems to me, makes clear if you go back and look at it -- some
)
of you know this battar than I do -- you do have worry about 10 i
i 11 certain anti-trust considerations. I realize that you probably l
t 12 didn't look at that very carefully, but you can't ignore that 13 entirely. If you start specifying every last detail of the i
14 plant, as the lawyers tell me, at least, and as the 15 Commissien's earlier deliberations and documents on the 4
h 16 subject seem to indicate, you'have to step rather carefully i
17 through that legal maze of. anti-trust considerations.
3 18 That is simply a comment that I offer as a l
4 19 precaution, I guess, and I don't know whether our legal 20 people, if there are any here right now, would agree with that i
l 21 or not.
l 4
22 MR. PARLER:
There is a legal person here, and the 1
23 legal person agrees with that, but you kind of would like to 24 h* ave something firmed up first that you take a look at, and then you pass legal judgment when things firm up.
25 1
1
22 1
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Yes.
Well, that lies 2
behind, I think, in part the ccamission's, or at least my 3
reluctance to get terribly specific on some of these questions 4
of exactly which nut and bolt goes into the plant.
5 MR. WYLIE:
I might comment on that and some of the 6
other members may want to comment also, but the definition 7
that I used basically is down to performance specs, everything 8
except nameplate data.
In other words, you haven't bought the 9
piece of equipment yet.
10 MR. EBERSOLE:
Right.
Then I am inclined to agree 11 with that and I guess I am on board at that point.
Highly 12 specified performance criteria.
13 MR. WYLIE:
All the way down.
14 MR. EBERSOLE:
And then, in fact, one might even 15 specify improved vendors, I presume, the way the FAA does, I 16 gather, for airline construction. I don't know whether you 17 discussed that point much.
18 MR. WARD:
Yes, I think we have.
In fact, I think 19 it is a very important point.
In fact, in my mind, most of 20 the benefits of standardization are from this, are from 21 assuring that the design is essentially complete and defined 22 as it should be, and whether for a custom plant or anything 23 else, I think much of the safety benefit would come out of
- 24 that, whether it is plant standardized or a custom design.
25 MR. SEISS:
Dave, you have used the words "I don't
23 1
like."
You talked about a custom plant or a plant being 2
standardized.
I think we have tried to make a distinction --
3 I certainly have -- between a standard plant and a standard 4
design.
We are not talking about a standard plant.
Two 5
plants made of the same design will not necessarily have the 6
same components in them.
What we would expect is that they 7
would meet the same performance criteria.
One may be twice as 8
reliable as the other, but they would both meet minimum 9
reliability requirements.
10 The plants will not be identical, but the designs 11 will be.
Those parts that are designed that the NRC approves 12 will be standard, and that is essentially the essence of the 13 policy statement, that there will be a certification, 14 rulemaking, and ^verything that the NRC would approve is 15 approved in.advanca for a stLndard design.
16 Now, when it gets built, the two may not look 17 alike.
I mean they may not be painted the same color.
18 There are some of us who would like to see standard 19 plants, and I think depending on how this works out, you may.
20 I think some of the French plants become almost standard; they 21 decide they like certain pumps and they buy those pumps from 22 the same vendor and put them in all their plants.
But that's 23 their decision as one owner.
24 MR. MICHELSON:
The key question that comes up, 25 though, is what you mean by the completeness of design.
Does
24 I
that mean just through the P&ID's, or does that mean including
\\
2 the wire pulling drawings an$ so forth?
Does that include i
~
3 every cable tray?
In other words, does that include 4
everything it takes to go out and build the plant without 5
doing anymore design work?
Is that what's meant by complete 6
design?
7 MR. SEISS:
I don't think so.
l 8
MR. MICHELSON:
I don't either, but I think this is 9
something we debated over a great deal of time.
Where do you 10 cut off when you define an essentially complete design.
11 MR. SEISS:
Well, I think I offered a basis for i
12 that.
It's complete to the extent of what the staff reviews.
13 MR. MICHELSON:
Well, there's a difficulty also 14 because your staff normally sees an FSAR, but in addition it 15 has on call a great deal of additional engineering drawings which it just simply asks the licensee for if it wishes during 16 17 its review process.
Now, should that kind of design be also 18 available at the time you license this particular design?
4 19 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I think the Commission's inclinations on where you draw the line -- if I can try and 20 21 summarize it -- has been roughly as follows.
Anything that is 22 not site-specific, I believe is the way we tried to draw the 23 line here very broadly, should be specified in the plant 24 design.
It was the site-specific features, and I guess I have 1
25 to say -- I don't think cable trays tend to be site-specific.
t 25 1
so you do come up with a pretty complete design in that 2
respect at least.
3 MR. MICHELSON:
That's where the real question comes 4-in.
There's various opinions around this table as well as to 5
what should constitute a sufficiently complete design for 6
one-stop licensing.
7 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
And I have to say~that my 8
own personal impression of where you may even be talking about 9
something close to a standard plant begins and ends where you 10 are satisfied with merely issuing rather detailed 11 specifications on components; that the nuclear steam supply
+
12 system and some point beyond the nuclear steam supply system 13 you draw the line of an island and beyond that island you say 14 well now we're going to quit worrying about exactly which 15 vendor perhaps and worrying so much about the details, but at 16 least we are going to specify rather explicitly what goes 17 beyond that island.
And then maybe you draw another line that 18 is not an island in terms of the structure of the plant itself 19 but rather, a line that refers to procedural matters and t
20 technical matters that involve the site-specific 21 characteristics.
22 That's sort of my own interpretation of what we 23 would try to do.
I have no idea, though, whether that's what 24 you have in mind.
25 MR. WYLIE:
I'd like to comment on that.
We talk
26 i
1 about specifications, performance specs and equipment l
2 component specs, as being a level, that you'd stop.
There are 3
also construction and installation specifications which are 4
produced that say how you do these. things, such as the cable 5
pulling that Carl alludes to and where you place the cable.
6 You don't have to design down to the last cable; just how 7
you're going to do this.
8 And then depending on the construction outfit and 9
the AE, they do things differently.
Some of them do all this 10 in the AE's office, some of them do cable design in 11 construction and the AE produces construction and design 12 specifications that guides the construction people in doing i
13 their on-site development.
There's something like 25,000 14 cables that go in these plants, and it takesta long time to f
15 design all those cables and say where they're going in that 16 plant.
17 MR. LEWIS:
I have an advantage over some of my 18 friends because I wasn't present when this letter was written 4
19 at the meeting last month, so I have no preconceived notions.
20 But I do think there is in my mind, from the conversation, a 21 little bit of confusion about the difference:between 22 performance specs and standard plants; the point that chat was I
23 making.
i 24 And also, I think a little bit of overdrawing of the 25 analogy with aviation, because in the case of aviation the FAA
27 1
specs are really precisely performance specs.
There's 2
essentially no reference to the shape, form, characteristics, 3
complexity, simplicity or anything of the airplane involved.
4 And it is incumbent on the manufacturer proposing an airplane 5
for type certification --
6 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
But they do certify the 7
components then, do they not?
8 MR. LEWIS:
In the end.
But the point is that the 9
manufacturer, who is looking for type certification, doesn't 10 produce any plans to give to the FAA or anything like that.
11 He has the obligation for producing a working mode'l which in 12 turn meets the performance sepcifications, and then when it' 13 has been inspected and thoroughly tested and the plans 14 from which it is drawn have been looked at, then that aircraft
~
15 can receive a type certification.
16 The type certification allows people to build as 17 close as possible replicas.
Then at that point, Fred, you're I
18 quite right.
There are component specs.
That is, you're l
19 allowed to use any engine that meets the usual specifications 20 for engines within that airplane, but if you want to elongate-21 it you have to get it type certified again.
Lots of airlines 22 i
have gone through that.
l 23 So the process is really quite different in that 24 there is a requirement that you produce, with minimum 25 interference from the FAA, a gadget that actually meets the l
28 1
performance specs, and at that point you can freeze it with 2
your type certification and then proliferate models of that 3
thing.
4 This is really quite a different thing because I 5
don't think NRC expects -- although to some extent we do do 6
that -- expects somebody to generate a completely new nuclear 7
plant and bring it in with the chance that you might say gee, 8
we really didn't want to have a plant that color, you know, 9
throw it away and start over again.
10 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Well, I hope that doesn't 11 happen again.
We're supposed to talk to them~while they're 12 working these days.
13 MR. SEISS:
There seems to me one basis for looking 14 at completeness would be to at least start by assuming that 15 things aren'.t going to change that much and that what you'll 16 be certifying is the equivalent of a staff safety evaluation 17 report for an operating license.
18 Now, in writing that SER, the ba'Jis for' their 19 acceptance is usually referenced to the FSAR.
I can't recall 20 whether I've ever seen one where they say that this is what 21 was said in the FSAR and we talked to the applicant and ha 22 provided us some drawings, and after looking at those we 23 decided it was acceptable.
That may be.
But usually I think 24 they'd make a change in the FSAR, because that's what the 25 plant is going to be inspected against, and so forth.
29 1
So if I am right in that picture, the scope of the 2
certification would be the equivalent of an FSAR and a staff 3
safety evaluation report.
Now, I don't know whether they do 4
it from P&ID's or not.
5 MR. MICHELSON:
No, they go back to elementaries a 6
lot of times.
They just ask the utility for them, they look 7
at them and then they say. yeah, the P&ID looks fine.
8 MR. SEISS:
But they don't reference them in the 9
SER, you see, so there's a little fuzziness in there.
10 MR. EBERSOLE:
The FSAR is a very sterile document 11 as to what really goes in the plant and makes it work and not 12 work.
I don't regard at all as the basis for adequate 13 evidence of adequate standards.
You have got to go into 14 P&ID's, you've got to go into elementaries and schematics, 15
.you've got to go into physical arrangements and details.
16 Virtually only a skeleton of this is shown in FSAR's.
You've 17 got to do a horrendous amount of work on a standard plant.
18 By the way --
19 MR. SEISS:
Why on a standard plant rather than on a 20 custom plant?
Why do you have to go to more work on a 21 standard plant than on a custom plant?
22 MR. EBERSOLE:
Because you want to be certain when 23 you produce a number of these -- as far as I'm concerned it's 24 a little bit like the numerical ratio of how many times you're going to build it; I'm going to look at it that much tougher.
25 l
+
30 i
1 Let me go back to a little bit of a convolution of 2
where do you look.
I'm not interested in the switchyard tower 3
base design necessarily; I'm interested -- if I can get away 4
from the system that shuts the plant down in' emergencies and 5
loss of power and all the host of things that make it go 6
wrong, I'm interested in mostly the standardization of the 7
ways that I do this, and I'm interested then -- at that point 8
I can kind of draw a vague line and say there's a balance of 9
plant -- I'll take main feedwater as a case in point -- where 10 I'm not particularly interested in the detail of how the main 11 feedwater system is built or the turbine exciter or whatever.
12 But I am interested in the frequency which it demands that I 13 exercise and need that network of safety systems that takes me 14 home.
15 So there is a rather difficult to define line where 16 standardization is extremely important and then where it is 17 not.
And to find that line will be a neat trick.
I use the 18 challenge frequency.
I don't want to have a system more often
.19 that X times per year in order to associate that with 20 realibility of response.
It's a pair.
Feedwater is a popular
. 21' one at this time.
22 MR. WYLIE:
I'd like to make one comment as to why 23 you'd have to go much further than.the FSAR.
In the past, in l
24 the way the plants were licensed in the past, by the time they l
25 got their operating license, the~ plant was probably not more l
~.
31 1
than 70' percent complete.
And the staff still did a 2
tremendous amount of review and followup after that.
And in 3
this case, we're talking about issuing a certification for a 4.
plant to be constructed before the plant is ever built, and 5-the staff doesn't have that opportunity to follow up'on that 6
design before you certify it.
7 So there's a need to have more detail.
And as I see 8
it, all the design drawings will have to be completed in order 9
to issue a certification, down to, as I say, except for the 10 nameplate data.
It will be a complete package except for the 11 nameplate information.
12 Now, as far as cable pulling goes, when a plant 13 today gets an operating license, there's not more than a third 14 of those-cables pulled.
The installation specifications are 15 written saying how they're going to pull them and where 16 they're going to put them, but they're not pulled at that 17 point.
So you don't need that so much.
All you need is how 18 you're going to put them in that plant, and then it's up to 4
19 the NRC to find out that they did do what they said they were l
l 20 going to do.
21 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Mr. Carr?
22 COMMISSIONER CARR:
I only have one question.
How 23 you gentlemen think this will inhibit or prevent innovation 24 and improvement in what we've got if we end up standardizing.
25 MR. WYLIE:
Well, let me first say that the way I t
- - - - - - - ~
32 see this being used, I see this being used as a vendor like 1
2 Westinghouse or General Electric or Combustion will team up
'l 3
with an AE to'come up with a design, and they'll produce their 4
latest advanced design for their line of reactors and their 5
plant.
6 New personally, I don't think that's going to 7
inhibit innovation and advancement.
8 MR. MICHELSON:
It's not clear to me that the 9
standardized design will necessarily be their latest product 10 line.
They may have two or three standard designs.
General 11 Electric, as an example, may have two or three standard 12 designs.
Maybe one of them is a GESAR-2 and another is an 13 advance boiler and so forth.
Nothing in the policy says that 14 you can only have one.
You can have several.
You can have a 15 line of standard plants.
16 MR. LEWIS:
Again, the way it works in aviation you 17 know is that you do have modifications, the A line, B line, Z 18 line, Mark-17, Mark 98, and eventually you run the end of that 19 road and you feel that you're really changing it, and then a 20 new design comes along.
21 MR. 'MICHELSON:
As you proceed to your more advanced 22 standard designs they will include some of these other 23 features, but you'll still be producing perhaps another 24 standard design like a GESAR-2.
Which is not really a very 25 new plant; it's quite an old plant, as a matter of design
-t
33 1
time.
2 MR. SEISS:
You know, Westinghouse is working on one 3
with the Japanese and General. Electric is working on with the 4
Japanese.
I'm almost certain they've come in and asked for a 5
certification on those.
6 MR. CARBON:
As a comment of experience although in 7
a different country, the French of course have standardized 8
plants, but they also are coming along periodically with new 9
plant designs, new standard ones, in which improvements are 10 incorporated.
They're doing that at present.
11 MR. SEISS:
Two that are being developed now have 12 improvements.
I don't know whether I'd call them 13 innovations.
I'm not sure whether that's a good word or bad 14 these days 15 MR. EBERSOLE:
I guess I don't know what an 16 improvement is.
Under the pressures of what Glenn Reed calls 17 the masters of business administration, it means doing the 18 same thing with less labor and less material.
And frequently 19 in a subtle way it. leads to an inferior product.
20 MR. SEISS:
It might be simpler, Jesse.
21 MR. EBERSOLE:
And they still call it an improvement 22 because you didn't put as much money in it.
Now that's not 23 what I think you should call an improvement.
But 24 nevertheless, the primary pressures in building-anything today 25 in this country is driven by that force; to get the most
34 i
usually in the shortest time out of the least installed 2
material and labor.
I think that's an unfortunate aspect of 3
our social structura and we have to fight it.
4 COMMISSIONER CARR:
Well, I guess I'm worried that 5
we have what I see as a relatively small market; only a 6
hundred -- we're going to have a few more.
If you double that 7
amount there's still only 124.
Whether you can get X number 8
of organizations to build X number of standard designs and 9
make it pay off.
10 MR. EBERSOLE:
Is it a national asset we must have 11 perhaps at the expense of the proper motive.
12 MR. SEISS:
But'you've got a chance you're not going 13 to see another custom design.
It takes 12 years to build and 14 5 years to license.
l 15 MR.* EBERSOLE:
That's the present practice.
It i
16 should take 4 years.
17 MR. SEISS:
A standard design, you've got a chance 18 to sell one.
19 COMMISSIONER CARR:
The main standard design I.'d 20, agree with that.
But it looks to me like the idea behind this 21 thing -- and I'm new at it -- would be that you'd have a 22 design that the vendors would then compete for to build that 23 design.
Much as you do with the submarine.
The 688 class 24 submarines are built by two or three builders.
25 MR. SEISS:
They're designed by the government.
35 1
COMMISSIONER CARR:
Well, I don't see anything wrong 2
with the government having a government design, if that's what 3
it takes.
4 MR. SIESS:
Well, I think you'd get into a lot of 5
antitrust problems.
6 COMMISSIONER CARR:
Why don't we get into them with 7
submarines?
8 MR. SEISS:
That's national defense; an entirely 9
different thing.
10 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Do anything you want there.
11
- (Laughter. ]-
12 MR. EBERSOL2:
I'm not at all sure that nuclear 13 plants are a party to at least in a general way-to being a 14 part of national defense in the long term.
I think it should 15 be a. carefully studied matter as to whether we can let the l
16 option continue to dit, as it has died under the present 17 matrix.
I 18 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Well, we're broadening the 19 discussion quite a bit here.
Let me just make a couple points 20 and I think we can probably conclude today.
21 First of all, most of you have heard me express my l
22 goals as the Chairman before.
First of all, I think we should 23 concentrate on the NRC doing everything we can to insure that 24 the current nuclear power plants in our country continue to 25 operate safely.
At the same time, I think we should do
36 1
everything we can to ensure that our peaceful use of nuclear 2
materials in other applications, in hospitals and industrial 3
applications, also is used to the benefit of our citizens in a 4
responsible manner.
5 And second, I think that we should focus on bringing 6
on the nuclear power plants that are under construction with 7
quality and then operate them in a safe manner.
Those are the 8
two, in my view, most important focuses that I hope to have in 9
the next few years.
10 And third, for the future, though, I really do believe that standardization is awfully important, and I think l
11 l
L 12 that there are so many benefits -- we've already talked about 13.
them many times in the past -- that it's important.
14 Now today we've talked about a lot of important 15 things.- I do think that standardization is a very important 16 initiative.
Our plants are custom build.
Part of our problem 17 in regulation as well as operation and even safety matters is 18 that we have so many different' kinds of plants.
Certainly it l
19 will enhance training to have them standardized, it will l
20 enhance maintenance, it will enhance operational matters, 21 lessons learned.
So many, many advantages of standardization.
22 But as I see your ACRS report to us, you are l
l certainly generally supporting a standardization program 23 24 across the board.
We would all agree that there are degrees l
25 of standardization, and we have alluded to some of them here
r 37 1
today.
And we know that even the term is difficult to come up 2
with.
3 But my personal view is if we go in this direction, we will indeed be moving towards more disciplined technology, 4
5 a more safe technology, and we'll be doing the right thing.
6 We won't probably achieve all the little niceties that some of 7
us would like to see.
I don't think it's perhaps appropriate 8
that we rigidly standardize.
I think we should allow more 9
than one design, myself.
I think we should allow the 10 utilities to have a choice.
11 On the other hand, we don't want to go so far, as 12 Chet pointed out earlier, to have 20 or 50 or so designs
/
13 standardized.
That just loses the whole discipline.
On the I
14 other hand, I think we should have a few -- this is just my 15 personal view -- designs that we would all agree are very 16 conservative, safe, reliable.
And as you've heard me say 17 before, too, my personal view is that I think the first 18 generation of standardized plants should be something that 19 we're all very confortable with.
20 I don't have a very revolutionary thought in mind; 21 it's more evolutionary.
There's probably a plant out there 22 right now that is working very well that we feel is a good i
23 plant with certain modifications for severe accident policy 24 perhaps or something like that.
25 But I take a very conservative approach I think.
4 e
r 38 1
It's something that the vendors, at least those that I've 2
talked to and I've talked to all the responsible leadership I 3
believe in our country, and I think there is a move in that 4
direction.
I think there's a recognition that it's the right 5
thing to do.
'But I do think we have to have the flexibility 6
of more than one design, certainly not a lot but more than 7
one.
8 I think also -- I'd like to say that I think your 9
comments today, all nine of them, should be treated very 10 carefully and reviewed.
I think they're very worthwhile 11 comments.
12 What I would like to do is ask the Secretary to have 13 the staff give us some comments on the ACRS comments to the 14 Commission, and then I'd like the Commissioners to review the 15 ACRS comments'and the staff comments, and on a basis that we i
16 would give priority to, to see if we can't come to a 17 conclusion on our standardization policy.
18 It seems to me that we've talked about it enough.
19 We've acted, I believe, in a responsible manner.
I think that 20 there is room for improvement.
I think we'll be doing 21 something important..
I deeply appreciate the comments of the 22 ACRS, every single member has participated.
And I think that 23 that's been very, very helpful.
2 24 So I would like us.to see if we can't move ahead 25 with this.
I would ask my fellow Commissioners to give their
'I y,,
.,_.._..,___,_.,i
r 39 l
l' attention to this as soon as we get the comments from the 2
staff, and perhaps we can come to a vote and put out a 3
standardization policy that would be an important initiative.
4 Are there any other comments from the ACRS members?
i 5
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I'm not quite finished.
I 6
have to say I'm leaving this meeting somewhat disappointed 7
that we're not getting very far, I guess.
Let me see if I 8
can't elicit some succinct commentary -- maybe there's not 9
much to comment on in the Commission's proposed statement.
10 Would any of you care to suggest what you think is 11 the worst feature, the most disappointing feature of that 12 draft statement that sits in front of you right now?
- If you i
3 had to tell me what is the most disappointing element, the 14 greatest flaw as it sits, what would you say?.
15 MR. WYLIE:
Well, I believe the area where it says 16 that it's not only standardization of design but construction, 17 is probably the one that I think would give the industry the 18 most problem.
19 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
So'the statement of 20 standardization of construction.
I must say I wonder about 21 that myself.
22 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Well, that's one of your comments 23 and certainly we'll be able to look at that.
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Any other volunteers?
4 25 MR. CARBON:
In terms of the biggest disappointment, i
l
~
i 40 1
so to speak, still the point that was made that this really 2
isn't a standardization policy; it's a standardized design 3
policy or certification.
And I'll ude an example here to~
4 point out what I mean.
5 I always thought that EPRI.was trying to come up 6
with standardized plants; they're not.
They're not even 7
trying to come up with standardized designs.
They're trying 8
to come up with standardized requirements, and there are going 9
to be a whole bunch of designs flowing from that.
And it's 10 this lack of being quite specific and quite clear that I find 11 disturbing.
12 MR. REMICK:
The one thing that I would add, and 13 it's not necessarily a disappointment with the policy 14 statement, but the accompanying NUREG document will be an 15 extremely important document in fleshing out what the policy 16 statement really means.
Without having that it's very hard to 17 know and be sure whether one agrees or disagrees with various 18 aspects, and that's an extremely important docunent that the 19 staff hopes to have to you soon and we'll look to with 20 considerable interest.
Bac tuse that will tell us a lot about 21 what is really intended.
22 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
A very important point.
I agree.
i 23 MR. WARD:
One other point, Fred.
I think we refer i
24 to this in our comments six and seven, but the policy 25 statement doesn't -- this is where we say that the policy
r' 41 1
statement should be coordinated with the advanced reactor 2
policy statement.
The policy statement as such doesn't come 3
down very hard on whether there's an openness to establishing 4
or accepting a 20-year old design under this policy or not.
5 It doesn't insist, or there's no thrust for approving designs 6
only for approved plants.
4 7
But the companion to that, if that is going to be 8
the thrust of it, there has to be some way to work this loss 9
of the prototype experience -- that's the point that Joe 10 Palladino raised and which is important.
11 Ek) I think there's two things there that the policy 12 statement in my mind hasn't quite come to grips with, and it's 13 an up and down side of the same issue.
14 MR. CARBON:
I simply want to reinforce Forrest's 15 general comment.
The NUREG is going to be extremely important i
16 in getting down to the details of what we're talking about 17 here.
The policy statement just says gee, this is good, let's 18 do it, and we favor that, but it doesn't really say what we're 19 going to do.
20 MR. EBERSOLE:
My only comment is that I hope we all 21 understand that standardization does not connote improvement.
22 I really mean it.
It's a prelude to continue to do what has 23 been found permissible.
And in general, I've worked on lots i
24 of standardization committees -- it's an expression of what 25 we're already doing and let's be sure that's good enough but
-r_
-._-._..y
.,,m
._w.,,
_ ~.
.me e..
--m
t 6'
42 1
for God's sake don't make it any better because it costs
^
2 more.
That's the standard practice.
~
3 And I was a little disappointed in seeing the 4
absence of some sort of numerical reference that you make to a 5
general allusion to a few plants.
I recall a time at which my 6
bookshelves were broken down by SWESAR, GESAR, BOXAR, HIPSAR, 7
you name it, and it really was an expression of the 8
configuration of our engineering structure at our
]
9 institutions.
We've got beaucoups architect engineers and 10 four vendors.
Three now I think.
A"d each one wanted to get 11 in on the act; each one had his standard.
12 That's not standardization to me.
That's all.
13 MR. SEISS:
Jesse, it's a little more complicated.
inun ones we got in were not architect engineers; they were l
14 15 architect engineers / constructors.
16 MR. EBERSOLE:
Oh, yes, true.
l 17 MR. SEISS:
The pure AE's did not get involved in' 18 standard plants; they could not afford to.
But the consortias I
19 could.
i 20 MR. WYLIE:
Just one last comment.
In general, the 21-committee I think felt that these were fairly written except 22 that one point I made.
But as far as the statement goes, as 23 far as the staff's statement goes, they're very similar.
24 There's a lot of duplication in those drafts.
i 25 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Any other comments?
i l
I
. o*
43 1
(No response.)
2 All right, thank you very much.
3 F,Whereupon, at 3:10 p.m.,
the meeting wap 4
adjourned.]
l 5
t 6
6 7
I i
8 a-I h
9 a
10 i
11 12 4
. [
13 t-14 15 t
16 17 4
19 l
C 20 21 22 l
23 34 i
e I
25 4
f a
,em.-
r e
e--.
,,--,--o-ene
-s---.
a-e--
-e-
--m
~
--n w
a-r r,,,,-
y
-4
~
s s
1 2
REPORTER'S CERTIFICAT?i 3
I 4
This is to certify that the attached events of a neetihg of the U.S. Nuclear Regularcry Cornission entitled:
S 6
7 TITLE CF MEETING:
Standardization ci ?clicy Stateraent 8
PLhCE OF MEETINGt Washington, D.C.
9 DATE OF MEETING:
Thursday, Sept. 11, 1986 10 11 wars he2.d as herein appears, and that this is the original 12 transcrif: thereof for the file of the commission taken
{
13 stenographically by me, thereafter reduced to typewriting by 14 ma or under t.hm direction of the court reporting company, and 15 that the trappeript is a true and accurate record of the 16 foregoing evants.
l 3
1 wird.
Y d
19 20 21 22 Ann Riley & Aescolates, Ltd.
23
~
24 25
YYYSb NVSbYY 0hkkkkkkkkkk&qQgQ&gQ&QQfify)
TRANSMITTAL TO:
y Do m ent Control Desk, 016 Phillips F
~
ADVANCED CCPY TO:
The Public Document Room DATE:
I(a E.
fi 5
FROM:
SECY Correspondence & Records Branch
[
l Attached are copies of a Comissicn meeting transcript and related meeting 6
document (s). They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List and l
placement in the Public Document Roo:n. No other distribution is requested or 4i required.
Meeting
Title:
/vice.th whk dC.% on St&d,de fo flu I
I S hdemel-
}
Meeting Date: 87/It[30 Open y
Closed gy 3:
"3 Item Description *:
Copies 3
Advanced DCS 3
'8 to PDR~
Cg S !!
l i,
3 3 p S l
- 1. TRANSCRIPT 1
1 l:
3 l
3,:'
j:i l$
- 2. AC.95 %
he.# Pe.g.re.A A/Kc.
l_
l
~
r e v u c.E T,W 4.rJh N Poleg W I.S/!5I8k
{
3.
~
4.
g 5.
E 5'
6.
- PDR is advanced one copy of each document, two of each SECY paper.
CttR Branch files the origin 31 transcript, with attachments. without SECY papers.
ajpg htN N b b NIM M NMMY N Nk M MikMMlYMlNMfMMi N M N