ML20214W284
| ML20214W284 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 12/04/1986 |
| From: | Guild R BUSINESS & PROFESSIONAL PEOPLE FOR THE PUBLIC INTERES |
| To: | Callihan A, Cole R, Grossman H Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1797 OL, NUDOCS 8612100156 | |
| Download: ML20214W284 (1) | |
Text
'
/W7 e '
or BPI T
A Business and Professional People for the Public Irdsid5t
( 109 North
Dearborn Street. Suite 1300 - Chicago. Ilhnois 60602 - Telephone:
(312) 6415570 j
'86 DEC -8 Pl2 ;30 cN.KET NUMUR [d-- Mf7-04 Pi!OD. F UTIL FA C.,r."*"" December 4, 1986 ,,r 0 F F_ + . -
CCCK!.i 4 - - .'"'
.. T I ay. n ."
Mr. herbert Grossman Mr. Richard F. Cole Mr. A Dixon Callihan Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Judges:
l By copy of this letter I am transmitting the Intervenors exhibits identified or received during the conference calls of December 3 and 4, 1986, to the court reporter for filing in this proceeding.
I am also transmitting to the Board members copies of Intervenors' Exhibit 285: the interview summaries report on allegations of production pressure on BCAP Task Force engineers.
Sincerely, Robert Guild RG/sp cc: service list
/s
/
)Id b r 1" .=, c:r" r;",. ,,,,,,,, " :,?="to.
3
- c :str m."..i'"" ::':'."::'. ,,
.'".l e -a'
!!.*!.!.*c. .'.'.t'., *="u'o' t..e o ,lte ..,
, u o s.
- l1.* r "
.!,T.",^.7t.".'in"f..
< ~ ~ .a,- - u~a a u. a ca.. . sot s, . . , . .,"J, t.t.t..,
...2, c a., oo.. ... . c.. u, o" < u >e-
!.%,' "'!!="." 'a?,t"t.*Zi" "**"""'
2.U::"" l"!M".*l" 2E'!.,5" *' ** ?*r.',. ,. . . . ,.,,
- "" !*t:::J""'" " ,"03.".O.*,.,
o~ . c .u, !..:,e".,f..a"L..a "7l.".*#;','%
.,c.o,2.a k".a.n'*;.,"ow . e..i a.. .. i.
s,,,,. ,
s~ * 'rm ,... "::a8S:;c' co.
?l :,"s',*42 ucce, v. . . . . . .
- ****' C.lo2*.*/I....
2." '.',so,1,*,.3,'
t
.a o-o e s - -
L";
eg.;,.,,.f r., . c .~... . u.4.. c n.... '?'"C.. . '.s"a.?,"?
. . . s..?n..'"*:"
..~.,
( 8612100156 861204 PDR ADOCK 05000456 j
G PDR
17 i 1 enrichment plant or something like that that's privately !
l 2 owned. Obviously, the waste facilities of DOE, of two 3 different types that DOE is legally mandated to build.
4 So, although there won't be many, the diversity, it 5 seems to me, could be quite challenging, and the 6 responsibilities for those facilities will fall largely within 7 NMSS, it seems to me. And that's a branch of the NRC that, by 8 and large, has not had a great deal of experience in 9 licensing. So, it seems to me that's something we want to be 10 very attentive to in the years ahead.
11 Having said that I do have a question or two. One 12 is, what possible role we may need to plan for in respect to 13 DOE facilities? I'm not suggesting and I'm not supporting, 14 nor would I ever support that the NRC have a direct oversight 15 role over some of DOE's facilities. But there have been 16 increasing suggestions that, at least we ought to use the 17 smart people that we have in this city to bring to bear all 18 the expertise they can marshall on nuclear safety matters, i 19 whatever agency they happen to be in.
20 And that a relationship may need to be established, I
21 for example, that resembles that, that we've always had with 22 naval reactors program.
23 Have you given any thought to what resources might 24 be required for that?
25 MR. DENTON: The group didn't consider that.
18 1 MR. STELLO: We did separately. We were asked 2 questions of that type from representatives of staff up on the 3 Hill. And the resource implications, if Congress were to pass 4 that legislation are significant. And that's what the 5 assumption that's in here is that they don't do that. If they 6 do do, then it's a major change in one of those assumptions.
7 You look at all those DOE facilities, and we have to 8 go through some systematic detailed licensing processes.
9 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: No, no, I'm not saying 10 licensing. I think that's highly unlikely.
11 MR. STELLO: But that was at least one of the 12 proposals.
13 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Yes, I think highly 14 unlikely, though. I think something much less than that is 15 not so unlikely.
16 MR. STELLO: It nevertheless changes. If you slip I
17 it down to just some sort of increased --
18 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Consultation.
i 19 MR. STELLO: Consulting with, then I think we could l
20 probably accommodate within what we have to do that. But if 21 you go to the other extreme, which was proposed, all the way 22 to licensing, then the resource impacts are in fact very, very 23 large. And we took some rough cuts at the numbers, and I 24 think we passed them out. I don't remember them at the 25 moment, but we can look them up. They are significant.
O 19 1
1 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: It seems to me that, if for 2 no other reason, for purposes of answering questions that we l 3 may get on the Hill within the next six months or so on that .
4 subject, we ought to have a little sense of what the impact 5 would be.
i 6 You can play with the idea of licensing, but you 7 won't find me supporting that concept. And I suspect there 8 won't be much support at this table for it.
9 But cooperation and consultation we're used to.
10 We've done that --
11 MR. STELLO: And we do do it.
12 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: -- with respect to naval 13 reactors. Well, we haven't done it with respect to many of 14 the other DOE facilities.
15 MR. STELLO: In a limited way we have. The ACRS i
16 have been involved in some of the reviews we have, but in a 17 very, very limited way.
18 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Very limited indeed, yes.
19 MR. STELLO: Yes.
20 MR. DENTON: That's certainly the type of assumption 21 that if it were to come true, it's one we should list, and it 22 is one we had not thought of, and we will consider it the next 23 time around and see if there's anything -- any reason to add 24 it as an assumption.
25 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: It seems to me that ought to
. _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ~ - _ _ - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ --_ _ _ _ . . -- . - _ _ - - - - - - -
20 1 be in your back pocket maybe.
2 MR. DENTON: All right.
3 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Point 17, I certainly agree 4 with the assumption and the premise there. My only concern is 5 that you seem to talk about the NRC being called upon to 6 license the design. I don't need to remind you that that's
, 7 not the mode we're in anymore, supposedly. I don't want us to 8 lose sight of the fact that DOE has asked, EPRI has asked, and 9 the Commission has set its policy, is to go beyond that and to l 10 do timely reviews as they might be developing such designs.
11 And we've already had a bit of a budget crunch on that point.
12 I guess we're back on the track there.
13 But we ought to be able to respond, and we ought to 14 plan to be able to respond in a timely manner as they develop 15 new facilities and new designs.
16 MR. STELLO: We're doing that.
17 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Good. Okay. That's all.
18 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Any other questions or comments?
19 [No response.)
20 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Let me just say before you go on 21 that, first of all, I think a number of your assumptions 22 certainly could be challenged and we could talk at great i
23 length about them.
24 I think that certainly they appear to be ones that 25 most of us have heard before, and you could argue the
21 1 assumptions. And assumptions are just that. They're not 2 something that, I'm sure that you, you know, have tremendous 3 confidence, they're never going to change, assumptions are 4 just assumptions. And we recognize what that te,rm means.
5 The only other comment I'd make is, though, I do 6 think that even though the assumptions appear, at least in 7 general realistic, that our goals in carrying out our mission 8 should try to change some of those assumptions. At least the 9 performance type assumptions, and perhaps others, so that we 10 will be able to perform better, and as a result carry out our 11 mission better affecting the public health and safety in an 12 improved sort of way.
13 And therefore, even though I don't say we need to 14 accept all the assumptions as something that's written in such 15 a manner that it can't be changed, I do think we should be 16 aware of the fact that we do want to try to change those that 17 we can change in carrying out our mission.
18 So, I presume as we go on the goals will reflect an 19 attempt to do just that.
20 MR. DENTON: Yes, sir.
! 21 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right, let's proceed.
22 MR. DENTON: What we see then, if you turn to the 23 next page, is, this is an opportunity to reposition the 24 resources of the agency to do exactly what you said in order 25 to improve our performance in these areas, and coup with the
22 1 future and be prepared for what the future brings.
2 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Excuse me just a second. That's 3 exactly right. And the whole point of this exercise is not to ;
4 just, you know, say, where do we stand, and look at a big 5 picture. It's an attempt to try to improve and change.
j 6 MR. DENTON: Yes.
7 CHAIRMAN ZECH: And so that's what it's all about.
8 Not only change the ability we have to carry out our mission, 9 but also, in order to do that to refocus our programs and our 10 resources so that we can improve.
11 And so we're trying to do more than just look at a 12 static picture, a snapshot. We're trying to make it into a 13 living thing that we can improve and change.
14 So, I think that's the whole point we're about. I 15 presume that's what this Steering Group is intending to do.
16 All right, go ahead.
17 MR. DENTON: The approach then to developing goals 4
18 is that we decided to develop goal -- broad goals on six major 19 NRC functions, j 20 As a starting point we used the goals and issues 21 identified by the commissioners and by the senior managers at 22 a meeting they had several months ago as a starting point.
4
, 23 Then we took all these points and tried to see what i
24 they really represented as goals. And often, several issues 25 might support the same goal. Some of the issues that have
23 1 been suggested were really strategies for achieving goals 2 rather than the goal itself.
3 So, our purpose then was to try to develop some more 4 specific goals, and then assess strategies for those goals to 5 see if we could come up with a way to make the change that we 6 all desire.
7
[At 10:30 a.m. Commissioner Bernthal left the room.]
8 MR. DENTON: What we've done in the succeeding parts 9 of this presentation is, we've put an asterisk on those goals 10 where we intend to provide the Commission with alternative 11 strategies for achieving those changes.
12 Where there is no asterisk doesn't mean that a goal 13 is unimportant, it just means that the present strategy is 14 seen as an adequate strategy or the time that we have to work 15 on it, it means we're giving our attention to the higher 16 priority one. So, there are a number of goals which don't 17 have asterisks, but it's because we think the existing 18 strategy for dealing with it is fine. We're not going to try 19 to develop an additional way to get at it.
20 Turning to the next page then, we thought we'd start 21 off by defining the mission. The mission is fairly clear. I 22 won't repeat it.
4 23 (At 10:31 a.m. Commissioner Roberts left the room.)
24 MR. DENTON: But that's a succinct statement of the 25 mission which would be the top of the triangle as we know how
24 1 tc say, regulate the commercial use and productions of public 2 health and safety, common defense and security, and the i
3 environmen* are protected.
4 Then moving down that triangle from the apex a bit-P
! 5 to try to state, what are the agency's goals that support that 6 mission. And we've stated them for reactors. The first three 7 are certainly familiar to the people who work in reactors.
8 Continue to operate plants safely, complete the ones under 9 construction properly, emphasize standardization for the 10 future.
11 (At 10:31 a.m. Commissioner Bernthal entered the 12 room.]
13 MR. DENTON: We have equally broad overall goals for 14 materials licenses, that is, ensure that the current future 15 uses of nuclear and radioactive materials are safe and 16 adequately safeguarded, ensure waste is safely disposed.
1 17 And then with regard to management goals, to be sure 18 that we have effective and efficient use of the resources that 19 are available.
20 We've taken these six areas then to be broad agency 21 goals that support the overall mission of the agency.
22 Then turning over to specific goals is where I 23 think we have now tried to identify specific goals which would 24 implement these overall goals.
- 25 Now, we're still dealing at the level of goals and f
e
--e , . . -, _ _ _ _ , _ . . - - - - - . , - , _ _ , , ~ _ ._._ _, ,_-
,,_,,,,n ,,,_, _.. _ _ - - - - - . - . _ , . _ -
25 4
, 1 not strategies. And there are a lot of ideas for achieving 2 goals, but all we've listed here are some of the specific 4
3 goals.
4 We thought that with regard to reactors a very 5 important goal should be that we identify plants with safety 6 problems and adverse safety trends on a more timely basis then 7 we have in the past and take prompt and effective action.
8 We see that as a goal in which we can develop 9 various strategies. And we can get back then to the lo commission ways to approach that through monitoring plant 11 performance and inspections, and come up with some strategies 12 for achieving that goal.
13 A second specific goal we see as very important is l 14 to assure adequate protection of the public and appropriate l 15 responses for plant and site emergencies.
16 And under that goal, for example, would come such
- 17 ideas as articulating a basis -- a policy on containment 18 performance, reviewing emergency planning requirements. Those 19 types of things would be strategies for implementing that t
j 20 goal. And when we come back in February we'll have developed 21 strategies then that we can propose to adopt, to satisfy those
. 22 goals, if the commission thinks the goals are in the right 23 priority.
24 Third, we have as a goal that we can develop a 4
25 strategy for is ensuring that the various state initiatives l
)
1
- _ . - _ _ _ , . . . . , . _ _ _ . _ . . _ , , - _ . , _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ . . . _ _ , . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ , - , , , , _ . . _ , _ _ . . , . . _ . . . , . . , _ _ , . . . _ . _ ~ _ _ __--
26 )
4 1 are not inconsistent with our safety related goals. As we've 2 looked into this area there are a number of things that 3 they're arguing, and some of which have the potential to be 4 inconsistent to goals that we have.
! 5 Areas that -- the fourth specific goal would be to 6 promote the achievement of improved safety and regulatory 7 performance for all reactors. This is a goal that we think 8 industry can share in, that there are various ways that they 9 can promote the aim of excellence and so can we. And it would 10 apply to all plants.
11 We don't propose to try to develop a new strategy 12 from that one, that's why the agency directs a lot of its 13 attention at and over this industry.
14 Likewise, we think a specific goal would be to 15 resolve on a priority basis, those generic safety issues that 16 are troubling us.
17 We don't propose to develop any new strategies 18 there. We have a group working at that, so that's not an area 19 in which we thought we could make a significant contribution 20 over what the present way of working at it in.
21 So, we would propose to come back to the Commission 22 on the first three with specific options and strategies that 23 might be adopted.
24 The next page takes the same format for plants under 25 construction. We think the specific goal there would be to be
27 1 sure that we take prompt and effective action to identify and 2 correct quality problems. That's been an area that has given 3 us trouble in the past, and we see that as a number one 4 specific goal.
5 And the second goal would be to reduce the potential 6 for the types of events associated with transition from 7 construction and operations. They would be ones in which 8 there are a number of strategies that we could employ, and we 9 would identify those strategies for the Commission.
10 The last goal, namely, to be sure that the licensing 11 decisions can be made from the time the plant is complete is a 12 goal we see no strategy different than the one we presently 13 employ in doing that, but we think it's an important goal. We 14 don't propose to try to develop alternative approaches for.
15 With regard to future reactors, we restate the 16 overall goal, the hierarchy of goals. Then we think the 17 specific goals should be to prepare the staff, position 18 ourself with regard to staff, resources and rules, and 19 procedures to perform license reviews of standard designs, and 20 advanced reactors when and if they arrive.
21 And that would also require that we articulate 22 clearly what our requirements are and criteria are for future 23 reactors. In other words, position ourselves so that when 24 these come in we would be there to move along and not be a 25 roadblock.
28 1 CHAIRMAN ZECH: And the next step, of course, would 2 be having in place the capability of doing that and following 3 through.
4 MR. DENTON: Yes, sir.
5 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Yes. All right.
6 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Is that the code word for 7 safety goal, and a clear statement of what safety goals ought 8 to be?
9 MR. DENTON: We didn't intend that to be a code 10 word. We saw it as more being sure that we had laid out all 11 of the aspects needed for futura plants, so that someone could 12 clearly know what they were. In safety goal we talked about 13 that aspect. We didn't see that as a code word, we saw it as 14 a more encompassing statement. So, that it would just be 15 clear to the outside world what would be required of a future 16 reactor.
17 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Well, let me ask the 18 question then, have you considered whether the NRC staff 19 really has adequate guidance on safety goals given, the rather 20 incomplete state of the commission's safety goal policy at 21 this point?
22 MR. STELLO: Yes. We will come back to the 23 Commission and teli you what our plan is, and how we're going 24 to go about implementing the policy issues given to us. Each 25 of the offi::as are in the process of doing that right now.
29 1 (At 10:35 a.m. Commissioner Roberts entered the 2 room.)
3 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: How do you go about 4 implementing what we've given you is one thing. Well, it's 5 probably something the Commission ultimately has to decide, 6 whether we're going to try and give you more specific advice.
7 But we haven't even grappled with the most fundamental 8 question at all, and that's the thousand -- whatever it is, 9 the $1,000.00 personrem criterion and things like that.
10 It might be useful for the staff to come back to us 11 and suggest whether it will be helpful in the future for you 12 to have containment performance criteria, a more specific 13 coremelt down criterion and so on. If you attempt to develop 14 what you're saying, you want to develop here some specific 15 goals for safety requirements and criteria for future plants.
16 I don't see how you can do that without --
17 MR. DENTON: Well, I think that would be a good 18 strategy for us to consider to implement that. And if we 19 decide that that would be an approach to articulate more 20 guidance, we'll make that as a strategy. So, we'll take that 21 recommendation under advisement and consider it when we come 22 back on that issue.
23 The third area we thought there should be a goal 24 wnuld be to pursue enactment of the reformed legislation. We 25 don't have any bright ideas at the moment on the strategies 1
30 1 for doing that, but it's clearly a goal that we should pursue 2 in order to facilitate the standard design.
3 Turning next to specific goals for material 4 licensees. The overall goal is the same as for reactors; 5 namely, that all materials are used safely and adequately 6 safeguarded.
7 We thought the number one specific goal should be 8 , very comparable to the one for reactors. Namely, identify the 9 safety problems and the trends and generic issues on a more j 10 timely basis, and take prompt and effective action. That's 11 for all material licenses. And we thought we could develop 12 some strategies in that area.
13 It has been suggested that we focus more attention 14 on the fuel cycle and some other uses of radioisotopes, and we 15 would try to get strategists to achieve that goal.
16 A second goal would be to give attention to the full 17 range of risk associated with these. In other words, we don't 18 want the voids to exist in our coverage of some of these, and 19 we think we can develop strategies in that ares.
20 A third area that's an important area is to get good 21 arrangements with other agencies and jurisdictions, to enhance 22 the total safety of operation and safeguard of such materials.
23 The fourth goal that we don't propose to develop a :
24 strategy on at the moment is to assure that the protection 25 afforded the public in agreement states is compatible with
31 1 that afforded by licensees or that we would directly regulate.
2 A fifth overall goal we would propose for the 3 Commission is to ensure that nuclear waste is safely 4 disposed.
5 our specific goals there are somewhat more like they 6 are for the advanced reactors, that is, to articulate clearly 7 what our requirements are, and the processes that we would go a through, and enable someone such as DOE to safely dispose of 9 the full spectrum of waste that we have jurisdiction over.
10 And we think we can develop some strategies along that line 11 that would be useful.
12 Another goal would be to assure that our continuing 13 arrangements with other agencies and jurisdictions provide us 14 an integrated approach. The waste disposal has a lot of 15 players in that area, and it's one in which there's a great 16 deal of coordination required. We don't propose a strategy in 17 that, but we recognize that as a goal.
18 Finally, we think it is important to provide 19 assurance that if these waste disposal sites do not become 20 available in the schedules, that the public safety is still 21 protected. By that we mean that utilities may have to 22 continue to provide for storage, above low level and high 23 level storage on-site, if additional repositories don't open 24 as scheduled.
25 With regard to organization and management goals,
32 1 the first specific goal would be to improve our resource, 2 human resource management and organizational structure.
3 We don't plan to reexamine organizational 4 strategies, obviously, we just put that into place. But there 5 are other strategies with regard to training and deployment of 6 resources that we think we can identify some useful strategies 7 on.
8 We think we need to think about providing 9 flexibility for contingencies and changes priorities. That's 10 been a problem in the past, and we don't have a good strategy 11 for it, but it's often we go down the road, and then we have 12 to divert our resources into other areas.
13 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Why didn't you put an asterisk on 14 that one?
15 MR. DENTON: I think because we didn't have a good 16 strategy that we could follow-up on, but we would be happy to 17 give it some more thoughts, Mr. Chairman.
18 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Well, since you commented, it looks i
19 like we could improve in that area. It seems to me you might 20 give it some more thought.
21 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: What does an asterisk mean, 22 I forgot?
23 CHAIRMAN ZECH: It means, enhance the attention.
24 COMMISSIONER CARR They think they can work on that 25 one.
i J
r , - - _ . , . . . - , . . . . _ , _ . _ . - . . . _ . _ . . _ ,,m..._ . _ _ . . . _ _ , _ , , , , . - _ . . - _ _ _ . ~ . = , . _ . - , . _ _ , , , .,
33 1 MR. DENTON: We will work on it and try to --
2 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Without the asterisk means it is 3 going all right like it is. But what the asterisk means is, 4 it enhances attention, as I understand it.
5 MR. STELLO: Or that they have not been able to l 6 convince themselves that they could provide some strategies by l
7 February.
l 8 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Right. All right.
9 COMMISSIONER CARR No asterisk may be just too 10 hard.
l 11 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Well, this sounds like --
l 12 MR. STELLO: By February.
13 CHAIRMAN ZECH: -- that might be in that category of 14 too hard, and I'm asking you to take another look.
l l 15 Okay.
16 MR. DENTON: With regard to item three, most of the l
17 staff think they do a better job in protecting the public 18 health and safety than we are given credit for by a lot of 19 people.
20 Three should have a goal to improve the public l
21 confidence in all levels in what the NRC does, and we think l
22 there are some strategies that we can develop there.
23 CHAIRMAN ZECH: The best way we can do that is to 24 continue the safe performance of all of our facilities, 25 reactors, material licensing, and so forth. I think we've got L
.. . - -- - _ . . _~ - - _ - - . .. - -- .-
34 1 to earn that. And I suggest we -- I think some of your goals P 2 indicated that earlier, and I think that's the right 3 approach. We don't need a public relations campaign, what we 4 need is performance, in my view.
5 Go ahead.
6 MR. DENTON: The fourth goal would be to -- a goal 7 would be, in this changing world where many of tha new plants 4
8 are being built outside of the U.S. that we continue to 9 exchange information with them and learn from international 10 experience and try to profit from that.
j 11 That completes the goals. You have asked that we !
L 12 categorize the goals into goals for the NRC and goals for 13 others and future goals.
1,
, 14 And the last page just shows where some of these I I
15 goals fall. But goals for the NRC I haven't relisted.
i But 16 two of these goals would be goals for industry and Congress, 17 that is, the achievement of improved safety and performance 18 for all plants would be one that industry would share in.
- 19 And then the Congressional enactment of the reform
)
} 20 legislation as would be the goal that Congress will have to l 21 accomplish. !
i 22 With regard to future initiatives, we've just l
23 restated here the three that were in the paper itself
- 24 regarding standard plants designs, future reactor designs, and i
4 25 then the full spectrum of wasta jurisdiction.
i i
i
- . ~ . , _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ , . _ _ _ _ . __ _ . - - . _ -
r 35 1 So, I put this here Just to show that we are 2 thinking along your categorization of goals that the NRC 3 itself should be mostly responsible for, goals that will 4 require others.
5 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL I don't 'fant to beat the 6 horse too much here, but I just come back again to this 7 question of safety goal, and I'll mention a case that's before i 8 us right now and is going to be for awhile, and that's the BWR 9 Mark I.
10 We as a Commission, and I think you as a staff have 11 not really worked out in any detail, at what level of coremelt l
12 probability, for example, we might begin to consider relaxing 13 the defense and depth requirement as it applies to 14 containments.
l 15 The BWR Mark I's have a low coremelt probability, l
16 but appear to have a higher probability for containment i 17 failure in the event of a coremelt. Fort St. Vrain has not la containment, because it is presumed to have a very, very low 19 probability of a core disruptive event.
20 Again, I come back, though, to this point, as you 21 say here, if you intend to define and articulate NRC safety 22 requirements and criteria for future reactor designs, at some 23 point I think we're going to have to try and figure out how 24 that interface works there, between defense and depth and the I 25 overall safety goal that might be required for coremelt, for
36 1 example, and where you begin to trade off defense and depth.
2 If you believe you've got a very, very safe, 3 inherently safe, if you will, core design or reactor design.
4 I hope we give that some thought because we're seeing the 5 problem on the table right now.
6 CHAIRMAN ZECH: My view, if I may interject, is that 7 you're absolutely right, we have to do that. But here, as I 8 envision what we're doing, we're talking about rather broad 9 goals, some specific goals. But flowing from these goals 10 would be the strategy, and then the implementing programs that 11 would address and focus on these very things.
12 So, I agree with Commissioner Bernthal that this 13 should allow us to focus our resources and our, you know, 14 people and dollars on these programs that we do recognize as 15 priority programs.
16 So, I would agree with Commissioner Bernthal that 17 this whole process should -- the next step beyond this, the 18 goal, should give us more specifics, and show us where we 19 should prioritize our attention and our resources. And I 20 think that we should flow from that.
21 COMMISSIONER BERNTHALI I'm really talking strategy 22 in the sense --
23 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Right. As the next step, I think.
24 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Yes.
25 CHAIRMAN ZECH: But it's a good point to bring out,
37 1 because that's all part, as I see it, the logic of what we're 2 trying to do.
3 MR. STELLO And the question that you raised is 4 real, the BWR containments raised that question, not only the 5 safety goal issue comes up, but the degree to which prevention 6 and mitigation raised. The results of what we do see suggests 7 clearly that there are issues that are the dominant sequences, 8 and you can eliminate risk rather than mitigate it by taking 9 action. All that has to be balanced.
10 And we will be coming back to the Commission. I 11 just sent a memo down to the Commission in response to that 12 question, that we'll have to consider all of those, and we'll 13 have indeed a first test.
14 And to the extent that we need further direction, it 15 will become apparent at that time.
16 MR. DENTON: I might just add, there's a similarity 17 on that point with emergency planning.
18 COMMISSIONER BERNTRAL: That's true.
19 MR. DENTON: Some people say, on the amorgency 20 planning one, how far do you go in assuming that the first two 21 barriers have failed. Assume that there has been a coramelt 22 containment failed, or do you give some credit for the first 23 two when you look at the third. So, all three of those 24 defenses are interwoven.
25 And I think a final statement that, Mr. Chairman, as
38 0
1 you said about these goals, once we do agree on what the goals 2 are, it's important to communicate them up and down the line 3 with the entire staff, so that all the programs will get 4 focused. And that would really be the priority of the agency 5 to resolve and work on those strategies.
6 The last page shows the steps that we would envision 7 from here, obtain Commission input on the assumptions and 8 goals. To see if we're on the right track or if we should go 9 some other way.
10 Then, begin as a group to finalize our assumptions 11 and the specific goals.
12 And then, work over the next month or two in trying 13 to develop strategies and alternatives for achieving those 14 goals.
15 So, this was the summary that I had intended to 16 give. Let me ask the members if anyone would like to add 17 anything?
18 (No response.]
19 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right, fine. Thank you very 20 much.
21 Do my fellow Commissioners have comments?
l 22 Commissioner Roberts?
l 23 COMMISSIONER ROBERTSt No.
24 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Commissioner Bernthal?
25 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Well, I have one comment I
39 1 of concern here. I have looked rather carefully and nowhere 2 here do I see specific mention of a major part of this 3 agency's effort that encompasses 25 percent of its budget.
4 Does anybody care to guess what that might be?
5 MR. DENTON: Discussing research?
6 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Yes, I am discussing 7 research.
8 MR. DENTON: Well, we grappled with that issue, and 9 we concluded that research was a strategy for achieving the 10 goal as opposed to a goal itself. And we recognized the 11 importance of research activities, and they would be an 12 integral part of the strategies for making these goals come 13 true, as opposed to putting it up as a goal in itself. But 14 that was discussed. And perhaps, Denny would like to comment 15 further on that issue?
16 MR. ROSS: No.
17 CHAIRMAN ZECH: But I agree, though, that we should 18 hear about this then in the next layer. The next -- the 19 strategies and the programs should show where research is 20 helping us contributing to these goals that we talked about 21 today. That's an important point.
22 And we should -- the next layer should then focus on 23 research as well as other things.
24 MR. DENTON: We had difficulty with that issue, not 25 research, but conceptionally making goals as opposed to ways
i 40 1 to implement the goals.
2 CHAIRMAN ZECH: I understand.
3 MR. DENTON: There are some topics dear to all our 4 hearts, which we would like to see as individual goals, but we 5 tried to keep very high level goals, and what the details and 6 strategies for those.
7 CHAIRMAN ZECE4 So, you only got down so far in the 8 triangle. And the next level in the triangle is going to be 9 more specifics and show the programs, as well as the 10 strategies that will reflect the goals that you have come up 11 with today.
12 MR. DENTON: Yes, sir.
13 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Well, if I may say so, 14 herein lies the fundamental distinction, perhaps, between the 15 impractical mind of a scientist and the practical mind of an 16 engineer.
17 In some respects I think the research program in 18 itself is, and should be, a goal in some areas. A goal of the 19 federal government in this country. And I'm not sure -- well, 20 it's pretty clear that you haven't looked at it from that 21 standpoint. In my judgment that's been one of the problems in 22 our research program, in the understanding of the Congress of 23 our research program, and in our ability to sell our research 24 program, because there are elements in our research efforts 25 that probably could be done anywhere. They could be done
41 1 here. They could be done at DOE, I suspect. They might be 2 done somewhere else in the federal government. They might 3 even be done in the private sector, if they would only do 4 them.
5 But they are in the national interest for us to
. 6 carry forward. They may not have any direct, immediate
{ 7 obvious relevance to specific engineering goals in this 8 agency.
9 I don't care to get into the argument of whether we 10 ought to be doing such things or not, but generally those 11 things need to be done. And it's the responsibility of the 12 government to carry forward in some of those areas. And we 13 have been charged with that responsibility in some cases, s
i 14 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Why don't we just ask the staff, I 1
15 agree, I think we should take another look at -- the Steering
- 16 Group take another look at that to see if perhaps there isn't 17 a way that this important part of our whole program shouldn't a
18 be articulated in some way or another as a goal. I think j
that's what Commissioner Bernthal is saying, 19 f 20 I would submit that that is something you ought to 21 take another look at.
22 MR. DENTON: We would be happy to do that. And 23 there is this related issue that we talked about as a group, 24 and that is, the decline and overall technical capability in i
j 25 the industry in the future --
i i
l
42 1 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: That's right.
2 MR. DENTON: -- where these two kind of go 3 together. We see that the number of suppliers may shrink with 4 time. And there would be, to some extent, the industry in 5 five years from now may not have the resources that it has 6 today to do research.
7 CHAIRMAN ZECH: And for that very reason we may want 8 to elevate the research program in some way or another to 9 reflect specifically in a goal that we're attempting to 10 achieve.
11 MR. DENTON: We'll certainly take another look at 12 it.
13 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Take another look at it, if you 14 would.
15 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Yes, I agree. I think, 16 aside from the philosophical points, you need to go back. And 17 I would urge that you go back and think clearly and hard about 18 what the role of research should be. And I guess the National 19 Academy is about to come in and tell us what they think the 20 role should be, and what the scope of the research should be.
21 And clearly, that has money implications as well.
22 And if we -- if you, and we the Commission decide that this 23 $100 million that we have right now is inadequate, wo need to 24 be able to go to the Hill and tell them why it's inadequate.
25 It might be inadequate, but I just don't -- I don't have a
43 1 good picture right now of what needs to be done in the next 2 five years in research. It might be a lot.
3 So, I would hope that we set some goals there as 4 well, and then worry about the strategy in the next step.
5 And almost as a matter of principle, I think 1
6 research needs to be mentioned here. I don't think Eric and 7 Denny ought to let you get away with this. It should be there 8 somewhere.
9 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Take another look at it.
10 MR. STELLO: We'll do it.
11 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Anything else?
12 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Well, I only had one other 13 very short comment.
14 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Sure, go ahead.
15 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Again, to reemphasize the 16 point I mentioned earlier. Let me just suggest a minor 17 wording change here that I think puts the right emphasis on 18 what we want to do. That point 17.
19 It seems to me that the assumption here in point 17, 20 reading the second sentence, it should be as follows: "It is 21 possible that DOE in cooperation with industry will initiate 22 design of an advanced plant within five years, and that the 23 NRC will be called upon to carry out early reviews of such 24 designs, and may be asked to license a design."
- 25 Now, that's a slightly different assumption that
44 1 seems to be implied there. Whether it will ever be licensed 2 is certainly a question that we will be called upon to do work 3 before we might ever be asked to license.
4 It seems to me it's clearly an assumption it should 5 be operating.
6 MR. STELLO: Have been called upon. We are now 7 doing.
8 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I agree.
9 MR. STELLO: We are in the process of doing it.
10 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I know we're doing it, but 11 I'd like to see that element maintained there, because that's 12 clearly going to happen, whether the license ever happens.
13 CHAIRMAN ZECH: I think that's a good comment.
14 Go ahead.
15 MR. DENTON: I was thinking, if we could get the 16 comments of the Commission in the next week or so on any of 17 this presentation, it would be the -- otherwise, we'll try to 18 refine it and continue to reexamine our own assumptions and 19 words, and work down this. And whenever the Commission as a 20 whole or individually.
21 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Yes. What I'd like to say is, I 22 would ask you to take the comment you heard today and review 23 them. And then I would ask the fellow Commissioners if they 24 had any other specific comments, if they can, to get them in 25 to you within a week or 10-days. Commissioner Asselstine is
\
45 1 not here, we want to give him time to get back, and have him 2 the opportunity to review it, too. So, we may need a little j l
3 more time than that.
4 But I think the rest of us, I would ask to get in a 5 week or 10-days if possible, and we'll try to do that.
6 Anything else?
7 Commissioner Carr?
8 COMMISSIONER CARR: I only have one comment and 9 that's on the mission statement. And where it says; 10 " Regulate the commercial use and production of nuclear 1 11 materials so that public health and safety, common defense and 12 security, and the environment are protected."
13 I would like to make sure the philosophy that we do 14 that with a minimum of regulation to achieve the mission is 15 not overlooked.
16 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Where are you reading from, 17 what page?
18 MR. DENTON: Page eight.
19 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Just overall mission, I 20 think we ought not to lose sight of the philosophy that we do 21 that with a minimum of regulation to achieve the mission.
22 MR. STELLO: If my memory serves me right, the Act 23 says that, as I recall.
24 MR. PARLER: The Act says that for 104 research 25 reactors. But I'm not too sure that the Act says that for
46 1 commercial reactors.
2 COMMISSIONER CARR: It's my understanding that is 3 the philosophy.
4 MR. PARLER: A regulation to get the job done, so 5 that the staff can make the findings that it has to make. I 6 think that's the test that you would always apply.
7 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Well, that's a pretty fundamental 8 question -- suggestion. Let's take a look at it. We want to 9 make sure that we are reflecting the Atomic Energy Act, and 10 very specifically reflecting what we're trying to do.
11 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Speaking of which, does
, 12 anybody have an idea why we got commended for reducing 13 paperwork by 800,000 pages in the last Fiscal Year, when our 14 goal was only about 10 percent of that? What did we do to 15 inherit this accolade from OMB?
16 COMMISSIONER CARR: Probably changed the 17 distribution list.
18 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Does the staff want to respond to 19 that now or do you want to --
20 MR. STELLO: I think we would rather give you a 21 complete response. We have been paying very careful attention 22 to make sure that we don't have paperwork we don't need. And 23 we did have -- we still have a lot of it, and we're trying 24 very hard to systematically go back and reexamine it.
25 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: That was meant to be a trick
47 1 question. I thought maybe there was something outstanding 2 that we did.
3 MR. STELLO: Well, we have been working on it for 4 several years. It's not something, you know, that just came 5 up.
6 MR. PARLER: We've been working on it for several 7 years because of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and the controls 8 under that Act. That might be one of the reasons.
9 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Well, I applaud what we 10 apparently have achieved, thus far having gone unnoticed by 11 the Commission.
12 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Anything else?
13 Commissioner Carr, anything else?
14 COMMISSIONER CARR: No.
15 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Well, let me just say to the 16 Steering Group, I greatly appreciate what you've done. I 17 think this is a very worthwhile project. I think it will 18 provide a framework to allow the Commission to be more 19 involved in the decisions for focusing resources. And that's 20 the effort that I think is so worthwhile.
21 So, I appreciate very much the effort that has gone 22 in. We've got a very fine group of professionals sitting here 23 at the table who are spending time on this program.
24 I particularly want to thank Tom Murley and Jim 25 Keppler, the regional administrators, who are participating.
4 48 1 I think it's important that we get that kind of an input to 2 the senior staff here at the headquarters.
3 I would like to commend Mr. Stello, Mr. Denton, all 4 of you involved in this initiative. I think it will provide 5 something that will give us a framework, again, to allow the 6 Commission to be more involved in focusing our programs, and 7 our resources, and I think that's extremely important.
8 It's a responsibility that the Commission has, in my 9 view. And I appreciate the effort the staff is going through 10 to bring about a framework that the Commission can focus more 11 on these very important issues.
12 Today we really just talked about the goals, I know 13 that. But there is much more to be done. And as we get into 14 the strategies, and the programs, and the budget resources, 15 and so forth, we'll really get down to, I believe, something 16 that will be meaningful for management across the board, and l
17 allow us to make sure that we're going back to carry out our l 18 mission in the best possible way.
19 So, I commend the staff for the effort that you're 20 putting forth, and appreciate -- we've given you a deadline 21 that's, perhaps, a bit tight. But the effort, of course, is 22 to allow us, the Commission, to focus on these things before 23 next summer when we do have to submit to the next Fiscal 24 Year's budget.
25 I think it's important that we allow this process to
49 1 work. And again, in view of the longer range plan, the five 2 year plan and beyond that we, we the commission, I believe, 3 have a responsibility to focus on, I again commend the staff 4 for the effort that's put into this program.
5 If there are no further comments, the meeting is 6 adjourned.
7 [Whereupon, at 11:05 a.m., the meeting was adjourned.]
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 3
4 This is to certify that the attached events of a 5 meeting of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:
6 7
TITLE OF MEETING: Briefing by Steering Group on Strategic Planning 8 PIACE OF MEETING: Washington, D.C.
9 DATE OF MEETING: Wednesday, December 3, 1986 10 ,
11 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original 12 transcript thereof for the file of the Commission taken 13
{ stenographically by me, thereafter reduced to typewriting by 14 me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and 15 that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the 16 foregoing events.
17 18 ---- 1 '---- b ------ - .----
19, Joan Rose 20 21
- 0
}
s 22 Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd. I 23 24 25
)
i i
i STATUS BRIEFING TO COMMISSION ON DEVELOPMENT OF NRC STRATEGIC PLAN i i - .
i I
l l
I
!i t
PRESENTED BY >
NRC STRATEGIC PLANNING STEERING GROUP DECEMBER 3, 1986 '
l
WORK PLAN .
- WORK PLAN ACHIEVES THE FOLLOWING
INCLUDE GOALS THAT THE COMMISSION AND SENIOR STAFF BELIEVE ARE IMPORTANT COMPLETE STRATEGIC PLAN BY END OF FEBRUARY 1987 KEY MILESTONES:
i DEVELOP WORK PLAN (COMPLETED)
DEVELOP AND PRESENT TO COMMISSION:
i --
MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS BEARING ON THE STRATEGIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT t
THE BASIC (OVERALL) NRC GOALS I --
THE SPECIFIC GOALS REQUIRED TO FULFILL THE OVERALL GOALS DEVELOP STRATEGIES, INCLUDING ALTERNATIVES, MOST LIKELY TO ENSURE FULFILLMENT OF
] SPECIFIC GOALS t
PRESENT DRAFT NRC STRATEGIC PLAN TO SENIOR NRC MANAGERS SUBMIT STRATEGIC PLAN TO COMMISSION BY END OF FEBRUARY ,
i I
l __
- e.
- 1 l
STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS i
I i
l i
NRC MISSION
, STRATEGIC % %
PLANNING GROUP %
! RESPONSIBILITY I N OVERALL GOALS - ASSUMPTIONS C
If
! SPECIFIC GOALS If AND STRATEGIES h
if FOLLOW-ON ACTION PROGRAMS EFFORT 1f BUDGET If 2-
b
- MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS BEARING ON DEVELOPMENT OF THE PLAN
- 1. THE NUCLEAR PLANTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION OR IN OPERATION, WHICH NOW REPRESENT ABOUT 15 l PERCENT OF THE U.S. ELECTRICAL CAPACITY, WILL BE IMPORTANT TO MAINTAINING THE. EXISTING l
NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CAPACITY. THERE WILL BE A STRONG INCENTIVE TO KEEP NUCLEAR PLANTS RUNNING AS LONG AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE ONCE THE CAPITAL COSTS HAVE BEEN PAID OFF', THE ELECTRICITY THEY GENERATE WILL BE RELATIVELY INEXPENSIVE. THE FOLLOWING IS LIKELY '
TO RESULT: '
THE EXISTING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS WILL OPERATE TO THE END OF THEIR EXISTING l LICENSE AND ARE EXPECTED TO REQUEST EXTENSION OF THE LICENSE. :
I '
NO DECOMMISSIONING OF LARGE PLANTS WILL OCCUR, BUT SOME OF THE EARLIER SMALL !
REACTORS WILL HAVE ENDED THEIR USEFUL LIFE BY THE YEAR 2000.
- 2. FUTURE REACTOR AND MATERIAL ACCIDENTS CANNOT-BE PRECLUDED, AND THE PREDICTIONS j OF THEIR SEVERITY AND FREQUENCY WILL HAVE HIGH UNCERTAINTIES.
- 3. THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF REPORTABLE EVENTS--BOTH SAFETY AND SAFEGUARDS--AT REACTORS, ;
FUEL CYCLE FACILITIES, AND MATERIAL LICENSEES WILL REMAIN CONSTANT, WITH POTENTIAL
- FOR ONE RELATIVELY SIGNIFICANT EVENT TO OCCUR APPROXIMATELY EVERY TWO YEARS.
- 4. STATE GOVERNMENTS AND AGENCIES, SUCH AS PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONS, WILL BECOME INCREASINGLY INVOLVED IN THE REGULATION AND OVERSIGHT OF NRC REGULATED ACTIVITIES i (E.G., EMERGENCY PLANNING, PRUDENCY REVIEWS AND TRANSPORTATION).
MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS BEARING ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PLAN (CONTINUED)
- 5. THERE WILL CONTINUE TO BE DIVERGENT PUBLIC VIEWS ON THE NEED AND SAFETY OF NUCLEAR POWER.
- 6. INDUSTRY GROUPS, SUCH AS THE INSTITUTE FOR NUCLEAR POWER OPERATIONS (INP0), WILL CONTINUE WITH SIMILAR PROGRAMS AS TODAY.
- 7. THERE WILL NOT BE A SHIFT IN THE WAY UTILITIES ARE OWNED AND OPERATED. GENERATING COMPANIES THAT WOULD OWN GENERATOR FACILITIES AND THEN SELL ELECTRICITY TO TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION COMPANIES MAY BE EXAMINED BUT ARE NOT EXPECTED TO BECOME OPERATIONAL DURING THE NEXT FIVE YEARS.
- 8. THERE WILL BE NO MAJOR NEW LEGISLATION (E.G., SIMILAR TO THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT) REQUIRING MAJOR NEW OR MODIFICATION TO NRC REGULATION.
- 9. THERE WILL BE NO CHANGE TO THE U.S. DOMESTIC SAFEGUARDS THREAT ENVIRONMENT, RELATIVE TO NUCLEAR THEFT AND SABOTAGE, WHICH WILL REQUIRE MAJOR CHANGES TO PROTECTIVE MEASURES.
- 10. THE NUMBER OF MATERIALS LICENSING ACTIONS--ACADEMIC, MEDICAL, AND INDUSTRIAL--PERFORMED BY THE NRC WILL REMAIN RELATIVELY CONSTANT OVER THE NEXT FEW YEARS. SOME REDUCTIONS MAY OCCUR AS ADDITIONAL STATES BECOME AGREEMENT STATES.
_4_
t '
l MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS BEARING ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PLAN (CONTINUED) i
- 11. THERE WILL BE A RELATIVELY SMALL NUMBER OF-APPLICATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN NONREACTOR USES, SUCH AS COMMERCIAL ENRICHMENT, LARGE FOOD-IRRADIATION FACILITIES,
- NEW MEDICAL USES OF ISOTOPES, AND A NEW GENERATION OF TRANSPORT. CASKS.
i
! 12. EFFORT TO INITIATE FUEL REPROCESSING WILL NOT BE MADE.
1
- 13. THE HIGH LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE REPOSITORY PROGRAM WILL PROCEED, PR0 GRAMMATICALLY, '
j ACCORDING TO THE NWPA, ALTHOUGH THE ABILITY TO MEET SCHEDULES WITHIN THE NEXT FIVE l YEARS IS UNCERTAIN. UTILITIES WILL CONTINUE TO EXPAND ON-SITE STORAGE OF SPENT FUEL.
1 i
- 14. AVAILABILITY OF SIGNIFICANT NEW LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL CAPACITY WITHIN THE NEXT i
i FIVE YEARS IS UNLIKELY.
- 15. IT IS UNLIKELY THAT ANY UTILITY WILL PLACE AN ORDER FOR A NEW NUCLEAR POWER PLANT 1
WITHIN THE NEXT FEW YEARS. IT IS LIKELY THAT A UTILITY OR A CONSORTIUM MAY APPLY TO REINITIATE CONSTRUCTION ON A PARTIALLY-CONSTRUCTED-BUT-DEFERRED PLANT WITHIN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS.
i l
} 16.
THE NEXT GENERATION LIGHT WATER REACTOR (LWR) TYPE WILL BE IMPROVED RATHER THAN ABANDONE IN FAVOR OF A RADICALLY DIFFERENT TYPE FOR WHICH THERE IS LITTLE OR NO EXPERIENCE. THERE WILL BE SOME INTEREST IN PARALLEL DEVELOPMENT OF POTENTIALLY ATTRACTIVE TYPES SUCH AS A '
SMALL, PASSIVELY SAFE REACTOR.
I i i
! i l '
I i
) . -.
i
J MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS BEARING ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PLAN (CONTINUED)
- 17. DEVELOPMENT WORK ON ADVANCED LIQUID-METAL AND GAS-COOLED REACTORS WILL CONTINUE. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT DOE, IN COOPERATION WITH INDUSTRY WILL INITIATE DESIGN OF AN ADVANCED PLANT WITHIN FIVE YEARS AND THAT THE NRC WILL BE CALLED UPON TO LICENSE THE DESIGN.
- 18. A BALANCED BUDGET WILL CONTINUE TO BE A U.S. PRIORITY GOAL. THEREFORE, MAJOR GROWTH IN THE NRC BUDGET IS NOT EXPECTED. NRC RESOURCES WILL STABILIZE AT ABOUT THE CURRENT LEVEL.
I i
I i
.j <
l
' APPROACH TO DEVELOPING G0ALS DEFINED BROAD OVERALL GOALS UTILIZED SPECIFIC GOALS / ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY COMMISSIONERS AND SENIOR MANAGERS AS A STARTING POINT MODIFIED, CONSOLIDATED, AND ADDED TO THE SPECIFIC ISSUES / GOALS, AS NECESSARY, TO ENSURE THAT THEY WERE COMPREHENSIVE, SUPPORTED OVERALL GOALS AND WERE GOALS VICE ISSUES, STRATEGIES, OR PROGRAMS IDENTIFIED SPECIFIC GOALS FOR WHICH STRATEGIES WILL BE ASSESSED ONLY ASSESS STRATEGIES, INCLUDING ALTERNATIVES, WHERE CHANGE IN NATURE OF INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL INFLUENCES JUSTIFIES REEVALUATION OF EXISTING STRATEGY (THESE ARE DENOTED BY ASTERISKS IN SUBSEQUENT CHARTS)
EXISTING STRATEGIES WILL BE STATED FOR REMAINING GOALS
MISSION AND OVERALL NRC G0ALS
] MISSION:
I REGULATE THE COMMERCIAL USE AND PRODUCTION OF NUCLEAR MATERIALS SO THAT THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY, COMMON DEFENSE AND SECURITY, AND THE ENVIRONMENT ARE PROTECTED.
l OVERALL G0ALS SUPPORTING'THE MISSION:
4 I NUCLEAR REACTORS I. ENSURE CURRENT PLANTS CONTINUE TO OPERATE SAFELY AND ARE PROVIDED WITH ADEQUATE SAFEG II.
ENSURE PLANTS UNDER-CONSTRUCTION ARE COMPLETED PROPERLY AND READY FOR SAFE OPERATIONS t III. PLACE EMPHASIS ON STANDARDIZATION FOR FUTURE PLANTS 4
MISSION AND OVERALL NRC G0ALS (CONTINUED)
OVERALL G0ALS SUPPORTING THE MISSION:
MATERIAL LICENSE AND WASTE MANAGEMENT '
IV. ENSURE CURRENT AND FUTURE USES OF NUCLEAR AND RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIALS ARE SAFE AND ADEQUATELY SAFEGUARDED V. ENSURE NUCLEAR WASTE IS SAFELY DISPOSED ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT VI. PROVIDE EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT MANAGEMENT OF INTERNAL OPERATIONS, EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND AGENCY RESOURCES.
_g_
SPECIFIC G0ALS FOR NUCLEAR REACTORS I. OVERALL GOAL ENSURE THAT CURRENT PLANTS CONTINUE TO OPERATE SAFELY AND PROVIDE ADEQUATE SAFEGUARDS
[ SPECIFIC GOALS
! *l. IDENTIFY PLANTS WITH SAFETY PROBLEMS AND ADVERSE SAFETY TRENDS ON MORE TIMELY BASIS AND TAKE PROMPT AND EFFECTIVE ACTION.
t
- 2. ENSURE ADEQUATE PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC AND APPROPRIATE RESPONSES FOR SITE i
l' AND PLANT EMERGENCIES. ,
f *3. ENSURE THAT ONGOING-AND DEVELOPING STATE INITIATIVES ARE NOT INCONSISTENT WITH l NRC SAFETY RELATED GOALS.
j 4. PROMOTE THE ACHIEVEMENT OF IMPROVED SAFETY AND REGULATORY PERFORMANCE. i
- 5. IDENTIFY AND RESOLVE PRIORITY GENERIC SAFETY ISSUES AND IMPLEMENT THOSE THAT RESULT IN !
] COST-EFFECTIVE REQUIREMENTS ON A TIMELY BASIS.
r 1
SPECIFIC G0ALS FOR NUCLEAR REACTORS (CONTINUED)
II. OVERALL G0AL ENSURE PLANTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION ARE COMPLETED PROPERLY AND READY FOR SAFE OPERATION.
SPECIFIC GOALS
- 1. TAKE PROMPT AND EFFECTIVE ACTION TO REQUIRE CORRECTION OF IDENTIFIED QUALITY PROBLEMS.
- 2. REDUCE THE POTENTIAL FOR EVENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE TRANSITION FROM CONSTRUCTION TO OPERATIONS.
- 3. ENSURE TIMELY LICENSE DECISIONS FOR PLANTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION WHEN THE REVIEWS AND INSPECTIONS INDICATE THEY ARE READY FOR SAFE OPERATION.
i
~ ~
e SPECIFIC G0ALS FOR NUCLEAR REACTORS (CONTINUED)
III. OVERALL G0AL PLACE EMPHASIS ON STANDARDIZATION FOR FUTURE REACTORS.
SPECIFIC G0ALS l
l
- l. PREPARE TO PERFORM LICENSE REVIEWS OF STANDARD DESIGNS, INCLUDING STANDARDIZED ADVANCED REACTOR DESIGNS. l
- 2. DEFINE AND ARTICULATE NRC SAFETY REQUIREMENTS AND CRITERIA FOR FUTURE REACTOR DESIGNS.
- 3. PURSUE WITH CONGRESS ENACTMENT OF REGULATORY REFORM LEGISLATION.
1
~
t SPECIFIC G0ALS FOR MATERIAL LICENSE AND WASTE MANAGEMENT IV. OVERALL G0AL ENSURE CURRENT AND FUTURE USES OF NUCLEAR AND RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIAL ARE SAFE AND ADEQUATELY SAFEGUARDED.
SPECIFIC G0ALS
- 1. IDENTIFY SAFETY PROBLEMS, ADVERSE SAFETY TRENDS, AND GENERIC ISSUES ON A MORE TIMELY BASIS AND TAKE PROMPT AND EFFECTIVE ACTION.
- 2. GIVE ATTENTION TO THE FULL RANGE OF RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH CURRENT AND FUTURE USES OF RADI0 ACTIVE AND NUCLEAR MATERIAL.
- 3. ESTABLISH EFFECTIVE AND CONTINUING ARRANGEMENTS WITH OTHER AGENCIES AND OTHER JURISDICTIONS TO ENHANCE TOTAL SAFETY OF OPERATION AND SAFEGUARDING OF FACILITIES AND MATERIALS AND TO ENHANCE EFFECTIVE RESPONSE TO OFF-NORMAL SITUATIONS.
- 4. ASSURE THAT THE PROTECTION AFFORDED THE PUBLIC AND THE ENVIRONMENT BY THE AGREEMENT STATE /NRC INTERACTIONS IS COMPATIBLE.
t SPECIFIC G0ALS FOR MATERIAL LICENSE AND WASTE MANAGEMENT (CONTINUED)
V. OVERALL G0AL ENSURE THAT NUCLEAR WASTE IS SAFELY DISPOSED.
SPECIFIC G0ALS
- 1. DEFINE AND ARTICULATE REQUIREMENTS, GUIDANCE, AND PROCESSES FOR THE REGULATION OF MANAGEMENT, TRANSPORT AND DISPOSAL OF THE FULL SPECTRUM OF WASTES UNDER NRC JURISDICTION.
- 2. DEVELOP ONGOING AND CONTINUING ARRANGEMENTS WITH OTHER I.GENCIES, OTHER JURISDICTIONS, AND INTERESTED GROUPS TO ASSURE AN INTEGRATED APPROACH FOR SAFE WASTE MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL. -
- 3. PROVIDE ADEQUATE FLEXIBILITY TO ASSURE THAT WASTE WILL BE SAFELY MANAGED IN THE EVENT OF SLIPPAGE IN DISPOSAL SITES AND FACILITIES SCHEDULES.
SPECIFIC GOALS FOR ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT VI. OVERALL G0AL PROVIDE FOR EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT MANAGEMENT OF INTERNAL OPERATIONS, EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND AGENCY RESOURCES.
SPECIFIC G0ALS
- 1. IMPROVE NRC HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE.
- 2. PROVIDE ADEQUATE FLEXIBILITY IN NRC'S LONG-RANGE PLANNING TO HANDLE CONTINGENCIES AND CHANGING PRIORITIES.
- 3. IMPROVE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN NRC.
- 4. EXCHANGE INFORMATION WITH OTHER NATIONS AND LEARN FROM INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE.
O CATEGORIZATION OF SPECIFIC G0ALS .
! SPECIFIC GOALS FOR INDUSTRY AND CONGRESS PROMOTE THE ACHIEVEMENT OF IMPROVED SAFETY AND REGULATORY PERFORMANCE (I.3)
PURSUE WITH CONGRESS ENACTMENT OF REGULATORY REFORM LEGISLATION (111.3) l SPECIFIC GOALS TO SUPPORT FUTURE NRC INITIATIVES PREPARE TO PERFORM LICENSE REVIEWS OF STANDARD DESIGNS, INCLUDING STANDARDIZED ADVANCED REACTOR DESIGNS (111.1) - i DEFINE AND ARTICULATE NRC SAFETY REQUIREMENT AND CRITERIA FOR FUTURE REACTOR DESIGNS (111.2) -
DEFINE AND ARTICULATE REQUIREMENTS, GUIDANCE, AND PROCESSES FOR THE REGULATION OF MANAGEMENT, TRANSPORT AND DISPOSAL OF THE FULL SPECTRUM OF WASTES UNDER NRC JURISDICTION (V.1) 4 t
. o
. ., p i
NEXT STEPS FOR STEERING GROUP l
i OBTAIN ANY COMMISSION INPUT ON ASSUMPTIONS AND GOALS FINALIZE ASSUMPTIONS AND GOALS I
i ASSESS STRATEGIES, INCLUDING ALTERNATIVES, FOR ACHIEVING SELECTED GOALS i !
3 l -
4 i
w l
i l
l
! _17_
MNWWu n n n Wn nn mv n n nwnnnqvtt wgs gvgygy;(gygg gygggggggg'gg ggg, , ,,
TRANSMITTAL T0: Document Control Desk, 016 Phillips 1
- (
ADVANCED COPY TO: The Public Document Room l DATE: lg 6 14 l FROM: SECY Correspondence & Records Branch l l
Attached are copies of a Commission meeting transcript and related meeting document (s). They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List and placement in the Public Document Room. No other distribution is requested or required.
Meeting
Title:
3 e.MM a bu 9te.t na hfewoi on Qk r skede .
s YksEwa; J J Open X Closed Meeting Date: \1\y {&L Item Description *: Copies '
Advanced DCS
'8 to PDR Cg 1 1
- 1. TRANSCRIPT ui ( )[+ . ., aca AS
~l ) '
I
- 2. bJ.r% A , LAL u,h e ,,tf. I 3.
4.
3:l' 3 l 3
3 =l.l 3="
3 g a ::
3 33, 3 ,
Si 6.
2 :.
3l, 3 -
$!
- PDR is advanced one copy of each document, two of each SECY paper.
3 ! C&R Branch files the original transcript, with attachments, without SECY
$j papers.
2 ::
2
~
5 alR8 FL - --
Y hh hh bI lh h I
.