ML20215F683
| ML20215F683 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/08/1986 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ACRS-T-1552, NUDOCS 8610160323 | |
| Download: ML20215F683 (145) | |
Text
-
$0l-l$$cQ O
Ul\\11EU STATES 1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION dWjg(
~
l I
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO:
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS SUBCORMITTEE ON STANDARDIZATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES' 9
LOCATION:
WASHINGTON, D.
C.
PAGES:
1-141 DATE:
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1986 ACRS0fflCECOPY
':o.lothrleyg.:!romplS0"fice
. -.... ~.
OfficialReporters 444 North CapitolStreet Washington, D.C. 20001 (202)347-3700 NATIONWIDE COVERACE
+-
g_4 n.
1
'i SueWhlsh' 11:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 7%
AM 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
' ADVISORY' COMMITTEE ~ON-REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 4
5 Subcommittee on Standardized Nuclear Facilities
-6 i
7 8~
Room 1046 1717 H Street, N.'.W~.
c 9
-Washington, D. C.
20555 10 -
Nednesday, October-8,.1986 11 12-The meeting of the Subcommittee on' Standardized
(\\ -
13 Nuclear Facilities-convened at 8:30'a.m., Charles J. Wylie, s._/
14 Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
15 PRESENT FOR THE ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE:"
s
-16 Charles J. Wylie, Chairman Max W. Carbon 17 Carlyle Michelson Jesse C. Ebersole 18 STAFF ENGINEER:
19-Herman Alderman 20 COMMISSION STAFF MEMBERS:
21 D. Scaletti 22 Herbert Berkow Tom King 23 Ron Herndon 24 i
n l
t 2
El
_P _R O C _E _E _D _I _N _G _S
~j-s(
)d -
2
.(8:30 a.m.)
3
.MR. WYLIE:
The meeting will now come to order.
'4
'This is the meeting of the ACRS. Subcommittee on Standardized' 5
Nuclear Facilities.
6 I am Charlie Wylie, Chairman of the Subcommittee 7
on Standardized Nuclear Facilities.
The other ACRS members 8
in attendance are Jesse Ebersole and Carlyle Michelson.
.9 The purpose of the meeting is to discuss NUREG 10 1225, Implementation of NRC Policy on Nuclear Power Plant il Standardization.
12 Herman Alderman is the. cognizant ACRS Staff
. [d~)
13 member for this meeting.
14 The rules for participation in today's meeting 15 -
have been announced as part of the Notice of this meeting 16 that was published in the Federal Register on September'1,0, 17 1986.
It is requested that each speaker first identify-18
-himself or herself and speak with sufficient clarity and 1Ef
' volume so that he or'she can be heard readily.
20 As of this morning, we have received no written comments or requests for time to make oral statements drom 21 22 members of the public.
23 Before we begin, I would like to make a comment.
24 If you recall, the Subcommittee and the ACRS previously 2
reviewed the several drafts of the Commission's proposed i
l t
1
.t 3
1
-revised' standardization policy statement.
And, the ACRS A
~2' wrote a letter on August 12 offering its comments and 3
recommendations on those drafts.
4 And, you have a copy in your handout this morning
_5
- of that letter that the ACRS wrote to the Commission on 6
' August 12th.
If you recall, it.was proposed that the 7
standardization' policy statement -- the intent was to have 8
a clear statement of the policy regarding standardization 9
and that the details of implementation'of the policy state-10 ment would be included in the accompanying NUREG, which is 11 now referred to -as NUREG 1225, which was yet to be developed 12 at the time we commented on the policy statement.
13 Now, you have received with the status report 14 for this meeting the draft of NUREG 1225.
The purpose of 15 this meeting is to review the draft of NUREG 1225, assisted 16 by presentations and discussions with.the Staff.
17 And, at the conclusion of today's meeting we 18 should decide what the Subcommittee should recommend as far 19 as our future activities are concerned with regard to this 20 NUREG.
21 In considering NUREG 1225 today, I would remind 22 you of the several recommendations contained in the ACRS 23 letter that'you have before you.
Paragraph 5 -- I will 24 address the paragraphs of that letter that pertain directly 25 to the NUREG 1225.
Paragraph 5 called attention in part to
1 x
..g e
4 1'
the necessity for clearly-defining with respect to scope
( )y 2_
and detail:the definition.of " essentially complete plant 3
design.."
4 And, Paragraph 6 specified that the NUREG should 5
' define-the manner in which the requirements for the 61 Commission's policy should'be incorporated in the future 7
design, including the safety goals, severe accident And 8
advanced reactors and so_forth.
9 Paragraph 8, with regard to design certification 10 by rulemaking, the ACRS recommended that the Commission 11 should seek public comment in whatever option was used in 12 rulemaking'for design certification.
And, then, secondly, O
13 that the criteria for -- thresholds for standing and q,/
14 interest for participation in the hearings on rulemaking
- should be made clear.
157 16 Paragraph 9 repeated the necessity for defining 17
'! essentially complete design," that it be thoroughly and 18 clearly identified as to the complete scope and level of 19 detail of information required for design certification.
20 It is stated also that it is important that the 21 scope and level of detail be equally identified for each 22 of the other options specified.
- 23 There were other comments by David Okrent and 24 Gleen Reed which you also have before you.
25 Before I nroceed, are there any comments by
5 1
other members of the Subcommittee?
2 (No response.)
3 MR. WYLIE:
Well, if not, then suppose we proceed, 4
and I will call on Dino Scaletti of the Staff to make the 5
presentation for the Staff this morning.
6 MR. SCALETTI:
Good morning.
My name is Dino 7
Scaletti.
I am with the Standardization and Special 8
Projects Director, Office of BWR Licensing, PWR Licensing, 9
excuse me, NRR.
10 MR. EBERSOLE:
I have a comment here before we 11 get started here about a root policy.
It's a problem we 12 have got to overcome if we are going to have these plants i
13 the way we want them.
14 The AEC, followed by the NRC, has adopted a 15 puritanical view -- and I want to emphasize that word --
16 and it's impossible to review any product in which you have 17 had a part of the evolution.
You cannot review that which 18 you have created yourself, because you'are biased towards 19 your own product.
2 This prevents them from doing the necessary 21 thing, which is participating in the evolution of design, 22 piece by piece, item by item.
The end result of this is a 23 catastrophe.
24 The 7tegrated, comoleted and sometimes cast in
)
M steel and concrete product is presented to you, and then
6 1
you tear it all'up, and you compound the problems of patching,
<m (bJ_
2 fixing, sometimes'two-to three to four times in costkan'd 3
time.
4 We have got to do something to adopt the FAA' type 5
approach of participating in an evolution, irrespective of 6
the-fact that.the ptoblem we will be judging is that which
~
7 we had a hand in.
Now, I don't see any escape from that in 8
any rational context.
9 The other is sort of a religious thing. -We can't 10 do religious things in this business.
So, that's a policy 11 matter that ought to be straightened out at the Commission 12 level and maybe beyond that, because I don't know what the-13 original Act said.
And, we have interpreted it that 14 industry can create anything they want and we've got to 15 regulate it.
16 That's what-has happened over the last 25' years.
17 And, that's foolish.
And, I would'like that on the record, 18 for sure.
19 MR. SCALETTI:
I know that Mr. Denton has pushed very early involvement with licensees in the review process 20 21 to try'to alleviate some of this.
Other than that, I --
22 we don't design obviously.
23 MR. EBERSOLE:
But, you have to have a common
.24 evolutionary participation.
I am certain you are going to introduce semi-prescriptive suggestions on how to do things.
25 j
7 1
Whether you call that design -- I don't care 2
what you call it.
3 MR. WYLIE:
Don't you think, Jes, that the 4
activity with the EPRI advance in lightwater design is a 5
step in that direction?
6 MR. EBERSOLE:
It's such a weak step, I can't 7
see it.
I think we need a new organization for that purpose.
8 MR. MICHELSON:
Jesse, what do you want if that 9
isn't the right kind of step?
I thought that was the 10 most fundamental step, you start out examining basic 11 design criteria and requirement.
12 MR. EBERSOLE:
Do you see a future in that?
I 13 don't see it having a statute.
14 MR. MICHELSON:
What better way, short of just 15 sitting down and designing it yourself and handing it to 16 them and say:
IIere, make it this way.
17 MR. EBERSOLE:
Well, if I can see a degree of 18 interplay between the regulators and EPRI, which I haven't 19 see yet, fine.
20 MR. MICIIELSON:
You just haven't seen it yet.
21 We will be involved in it, I assume, pretty soon.
22 MR. WYLIE:
Yes.
We've got the first chapter of 23 that requirements chapter, Chapter 1 of the EPRI advanced
/~T 24 lightwater --
l 25 MR. EBERSOLE:
I haven't seen it in detail,
.~
=8 1-Charlie.
And, I doubt if we are ever going to.seeLEPRI' I')';
2 address that detail.
v 3
MR..WYLIE:
Is what?
4 MR. EBERSOLE:
Just the details of design.
5 MR.-WYLIE:
Well, I. don't know.
That's something 6
yet to be seen, I guess.
There are 15_ chapters to that.
7 MR. EBERSOLE:
This Committee is composed of a 8
lot of assiduous aconitions that would not dare open the 9
hood or get their hands greasy.
10 But, that's where the problem has always been.
11 MR.-WYLIE:'
I think your point is well taken'and 12 is something that we should consider and discuss in the-13 future, particularly when we do review chapter 1 within.
)
14 the next'few months.
15-MR. MICIIELSON:
That should be the process, 16 I think, that you would logically follow, is what EPRI 17 is trying to do in working with the Staff.
And, if it-18 isn't going to work, of course, we would have to look at 19 it later.
20 MR. EBERSOLE:
Well, we have a problem, this 21 terrible religious abhorrence of saying:
I want you to 22 do it this way, or whatever, and then give a range of 23 choices.
They don't even do that.
24 MR. MICilELSON:
No.
I think it's a little hard 25 to say yet, but I would probably object also to the Staff
9 1
telling the utilities how to design their plants.
2 MR. EBERSOLE:
Well, the Staff will not even 3
seek simplicity, because it's really evolutionary.
And 4
they will review the most complex and not comment on the 5
fact that that's its nature to start with.
6 They religiously put themselves -- they have 7
religiously forbid themselves from doing that.
8 MR. WYLIE:
Well, let's acknowledge that that's 9
a problem --
10 MR. EBERSOLE:
It's a root problem.
11 MR. WYLIE:
-- and one that we need to be aware 12 of and address in the future.
13 I think our program today, of course, addresses 14 the process of standardization and the mechanism by which 15 to accomplish how we should proceed in that regard.
So, 16 maybe we should go ahead and proceed with that.
17 MR. SCALETTI:
Okay.
With me today, I have Herb 18 Berkow, who is the Director of the Standardization and 19 Special Projects Director.
And, we also have representatives 20 from our advanced reactors group.
Should questions come up, 21 I'm sure they would be more than willing to help me respond.
22 MR. MICHELSON:
Could you tell me how the Staff 23 is defining now advanced reactors as opposed to what we call 24 them, cool lightwater reactors?
25 It gets a little confusing as to what advanced i
10.
T 1
mean's,1for a gas cool or just the lightwater reactor.
I 2
.MR. SCALETTI:
No.
I think advanced means
~3
.-something new and different1in our technology, a revolutionary 4-step' forward rather.than an evolutionary change in the
.5' existing LWR.
6.
So, we consider the likes of ABWR as evolutions 7
of' existing designs.
8 MR. MICHELSON:
They are not considered advanced 9
reactors, just cool lightwater --
10 MR. SCALETTI:
Cool lightwater reactors.
11 MR. MICHELSON:
We were trying to identify in a 12 -
similar fashion.
I just wanted to make sure the Staff is --
13 MR. EBERSOLE:
If you keep calling them advanced L
14 when they are. r.ot advanced, everybody gets! confused.
15 MR. SCALETTI:
Well, we clearly.-- I've talked 16 to the industry.' They are the ones that call it advanced.
18 Tom, do you have anything to add?
~
19 MR. KING:
Ton King from the Staff.
I think 20 Dino characterized it correctly.
The plants now.that we 21 are reviewing, we call advanced to the APWR.
22-MR. EBERSOLE:
I'm reminded of the new office n.
buildings in Washington which are 100 years old.
That's 24 their name, the new office building.of this and that.
25.
MR. BERKOW:
But, the EPRI Drogram has the word
s 11 1
" advanced" in its title.
(~~hl.
.L /
2 MR. KIliG :
It has the word " advanced" but it's 3.
more directed toward the evolutionary type change.
4 MR. EBERSOLE:
To call something advaiced ur new 5
it loses itself.in time.
6 MR.,MICHELSON:
Unless it's truly advanced.
7 MR. EBERSOLE:
Even then, advanced will soon be 8
obsolete.
9 MR.~MICHELSON:' Well, we will have to convince 10 the industry to use the right nomenclature.
11 MR.'EBERSOLE:- Model number would be better.
12 MR. SCALETTI:
Okay, to proceed.
I would like
()
13 to briefly -- I will follow this outline today.
14 (Slide.)
15 I would like to briefly justdo the first three 16 topics on the Discussion Outline:
Need for revision of 17 the standardization policy statement; chronology of recent 18 policy development and the goals of the' proposed standardiza-
\\
19 tion policy.
M And, when we get to the NUREG outline we will
-21 get into the agenda that we have here-for today, topic by 22 topic.
23 (slide.)
l 24 I think you gentlemen have seen this slide before.
It's why we need to revise the 1978 standardization policy 25 1
,n,.n
,,.-,...nv
-re,--
r..,,-
-..,---,-nm
~
.,---.--v--,
s e
12 1
statement.
We have issued a multitude of pump design 2
approvals, both preliminary, final designs.
We've issued 3
approvals of duplicate plants, replicate plants, and we've 4
issued on manufacturing. license.
5 The provision of the severe accident policy 6
statement would necessitate a_ change in the '78 policy 7
statement, in that it establishes the full licensing 8
requirements of future reactors and also affixes the 9
approval time far both preliminary and final design approvals 10 and also certified design approvals, those being five years 11 for preliminary design approval and a final design approval; 12 and, 10 years for a certified design.
13 The provisions of the draft Nuclear Power Plant
_(')'
v 14 Licensing and Standardization Act is authorization for one 15 step licensing.
Again, it talks certification of reference
'- 16 system designs for 10 years.
It changes the fee structure.
17 for the reference system concepts or standardization.
18 It also sets a threshold for changes to approve.
19 designs, and it's consistent with 10 CFR 50.109, the backfit-20 rule.
21 MR. MICIIELSON:
One of the things that I guess I 22 s-hould have realized, and I didn't, and that is that by zi setting this as a 10-year licensing period, this can really' 24 mean that plants that go into oneration as much as 16 years 2
from now will have this design, since all you have to do is
13 1
start on the jcb within 10 years in order to be covered by m
.k _)
2 it even though you go into operation in maybe 16 years.
s 3
This was a little. bit of a revelation.
You are 4
dealing now with standard 16 years, and if it's renewed out s'
26 years.
'And, that was a little bit of a revelation.
I 6
'just hadn't thought about the fact that you have got to 7
tack on six years of construction to the 10 years of license 8
period.
9 And, as long.as you start construction within 10 the 10 years, you are covered even though you don't go into 11 operation.
12 MR. SCALETTI:
I think as long as you file your
('")
13 application within that period of time.
t-14 MR.=MICHELSON:
Yeah, I think that's so.
15 MR. EBERSOLE:
Let's stop and think what that 16 means.
That means these designs that have been patched 17 together -- and I underline that word +- have a future 18 that long, yet they were regulated in that compromised 19 context where you found what you didn't like and you patched 3) it up.
21 I think that's a little bit unfortunate.
22 MR. SCALETTI:
Well, these are not supposed to be 23 patched designs.
These would include both the evolutionary 24 designs as well as, I guess, advanced reactors.
2 MR. EBERSOLE:
I'm talking about the fact that you
14 1
never a hand in the evolutionary process in creating these 2
things; and, therefore, you found them in whatever state 3
you found them and you did whatever you did to them.
4 So, that's my context of patching.
I think it's 5
hard to escape that.
6 (Slide.)
7 MR. SCAI,ETTI :
The chronology of the recent 8
policy development.
Back in February and April, there 9
were two SRMs involved, that requested that we make pro-10 visions to the 1978 policy statement on standardization 11 for their consideration.
12 November of '85 -- well, prior to November, the Staff requested that the AIF develop or take a crack at 13 14 developing a proposed policy to see what the industry needs 15 were.
16 And, in November of '85, the AIF proposal came to 17 the Sta ff.
And, they did -- they had a study group which 18 was entitled " Practical Application of Standardized Nuclear 19 Power Plants in the United States."
And, they out together m
a policy which was included in a December SECY paper to the 21 Commission as well as an inclosure to our proposed policy.
22 In December, we had a Commission briefing in 23 which the Commission told the Staff to go out and poll 24 relevant industry groups, such as NUMARC, EEI and EPRI, to 25 determine whether they agreed with proposed policy as it
15 I
stood.
. ~y
~ N J.
2 We also asked Commission assistance _and the
. 3 Office of Policy Evaluation-to come up with a proposed-4 policy for the' Staff to consider.
5 In 1985 we had received all the industry. views-6 which we sent to the Commission.
And, there was a 7
consensus to those view.
They all agreed that the existing 8
concept of standardization should be maintained.
They 9
believed that design certification should be the ultimate 10 goalaof the Commission.
And, they all supported the AIF 11 effort.
12 In April of '86, we received the SRM which, with
( )
13 the policy guidance that was developed by OPE and the
-Q 14 Commissioners' assistance, and also with instruction that 15 OPE would provide a NUREG outline for our consideration.:
16 In May of
'86, we responded with our policy, 17 revised' policy,~which the Committee has reviewed and 18 commented 1on, along with the April loth policy by the 19 Commissioner assistance.
20 And, August '86, we received your comments.
In 21
~ September of '86, we sent the NUREG to EDO.
The NUREG has 22 since then undergone CRGR review.
And, we are in the process M
of awaiting their comments on the NUREG.
i i
24 MR. MICllELSON:
Is there a new revised draft 25 policy statement from the Commission yet?
I l
l
16 1
MR. SCALETTI:
Not yet.
There'will be --
L/
2 MR. MICHELSON:
Do you have a date that that 3
ought to be --
4 MR. SCALETTI:
We plan on responding to your 5
comments with revisions to-the policy we felt were appro-6 priate based upon your comments some. time soon.
7 They have to.be to the Commission by the 31st'of 8
October.
It all depends on whether -- the last SRM we 9
got asked for the NUREG as well as responses to your 10 comments to be provided to the Commission by the 31st of 11 August.
12 Now, we plan on -- the 31st of October, excuse me.
13 We plan on responding to your comments sooner than that if
)
14 it's agreeable to EDO.
15 MR. MICIIELSON:
Normally, the revised policy
~
16 statement will accompany the proposed NUREG when it --
17 MR. SCALETTI:
We plan on including that,.yes, 18 in the revision.
19 (Slide.)
20 Now, the goals of the proposed standardization 21 policy statement which the NUREG' supports, the policy 22 is directed towards--- the Staff's policy is directed 23 towards the ultimate licensing goal of having a certified 24 design utilized on a pre-approved site.
25 It asks for essentially complete plants, and
b e
3 17-I would strongly encourage that.everything except site-related
~~~
(\\_ 1-2
~ items be provided for certification.
3 Essentially final design detail, it would ask 4-for the level of detail which would be consistent with an 5
operating reactor review'that we would currently do.
6 In the reference system design certification, it 7
would encourage certification of all reference designs.
8 MR. MICHELSON:
In deciding as to what you normally 9
have available at an FSAR stage, have you given some thought-10 now to what, if anything, you ever ask for beyond what is in 11 the FSAR document itself?
12 MR. SCALETTI:
Could you repeat that?
()
13 MR..MICHELSON:
Well, let me ask it a different v
14 way.
A reviewer at the FSAR stage has available to him, of 15 course, a so-called final safety analysis report.
In 16 addition, he has available large amounts of -- potentially 17 available -- other information, some of which he calls upon 18 if he needs to during the review.
19 In the case of standard plants, you will have what M
you say again-is the FSAR level of detail in front of him 21 but nothing else.
So, perhaps the FSAR level of detail is 22 not any longer a correct description of what the final 23 reviewer needs.
24 MR. SCALETTI:
Well, I think your design is going 25 to have to have progressed to a certain point in order to 4
..m, p.---,.
,--e-.
.m,,,,,-_.-.s
{
18 1
develop an FSAR for Staff review.
This design, be it 50 7
2 percent complete, 60, 70 percent complete, I can't answer 3
that right now.
4 MR. MICHELSON:
That's not the thrust of my 5
question.
6 MR. SCALETTI:
But, let --
7 MR. MICHELSON:
That's not the thrust of my 8
question.
9 MR. SCALETTI:
What I'm saying is -- and, let me to just finish here a moment if I could, please -- that when 11 a reviewer is undertaking the review of a certified design, 12 presently all he has before him to review this is NUREG 0800 13 or the standard review plan.
The standard review plan calls 14 for him to make certain findings.
15 Whatever this reviewer needs to make those findings, 16 if he has to go back into the design, he has to call upon 17 procurement specifications to look at specifications or to 18 look at some part of the design that is not in the FSAR, 19 then I would anticipate that this level of detail would be 20 available for him to look at.
21 MR. MICHELSON:
Even now, for standardized plants, 22 you would anticipate a level of detail being available to a
him greater than accustomed to be found in the FSAR.
24 MR. SCALETTI:
Yes, because --
25 MR. MICHELSON:
It could get a little sticky, because
19 1
you haven't designed what that detail might be that the 2
reviewer needs.
And, from what you say, it has to be 3
available to him.
That leaves the architect, engineer in 4
a quandry as to how far he has to go with his design before 5
he can get his license.
6 MR. WYLIE:
Could I -- to pursue the discussion 7
any further at this point, is that premature as far as 8
presentation?
He had that as an item later.
9 MR. SCALETTI:
We can eliminate that item when we 10 get to it.
But, we can get into it more later.
11 MR. MICHELSON:
You are presenting it here, and I 12 was just trying to find out now what he means by " essentially 13 complete."
14 MR. WYLIE:
I understand.
15 MR. MICHELSON:
The NUREG didn't help any.
It 16 confused the issue more.
17 MR. WYLIE:
Well, I agree.
18 MR. MICHELSON:
I'm just trying to get the feel 19 though for what he meant by " essentially complete" and N
what he means by "FSAR level of detail."
And, I was just 21 trying to see if he really means that as just the documenta-22 tion that we normally see at an FSAR stage in front of us U
in a book, or is that the documentation that is normally 24 available to the reviewer at that stage when he calls upon M
the utility to supply it.
20 1
MR. SCALETTI:
I believe it's the latter, because 2
I cannot foresee an application coming in for a standard 3
design which in -- the design has been developed to the 4
extent of the FSAR, and that's it.
Just put together, 5
here's the PSAR.
6 MR. MICHELSON:
I think I have to agree with 7
you completely.
Those are the words I wanted to hear was 8
your intent.
9 But, then we will have to see later when you 10 discuss the NUREG how you get that intent in there, if that's 11 the intent.
12 MR. EBERSOLE:
It seems to me that the FSAR is 13 really a kind of index, and the reviewer must penetrate much finer details than ever is practical to put in the 14 15 FSAR.
As a matter of fact, I think it's too much in there and a few words that must go to the storehouse, which will 16 17 be a warehouse full of drawings.
18 I remember Tom Epoleto (phonetic) used to come down with his schematics and get right on down with it.
19 there was nothing in the rule book that said he had 20
- But, 21 to do that.
22 Here, I think you are putting it on paper.
As 23 I review the PSAR, it is really just a sort of bunch of fundamentals and you then have to pursue a warehouse full 24 25 of drawings where the truth is.
And, how you out the words
21 1
in to make sure that happens at the moment, I don't know.
2 But, I anticipate you have to have them.
3 MR. MICIIELSON:
The problem is assuring the 4
warehouse of drawings --
5 MR. EBERSOLE:
Is full.
6 MR. MICIIELSON:
Or how much will be there when 7
you go to look, or will the cupboard be bare.
8 MR. EBERSOLE:
Yeah, right.
9 (Slide.)
10 MR. SCALETTI:
The agenda that we have for today 11 is structured around the headings and the NUREG document 12 that we are in the process of developing.
13 The background of the NUREG -- obviously, you 14 gentlemen have copies of the NUREG and you have, I'm sure, 15 looked at it.
16 This basically provides the information of why we 17 are developing a NUREG and why the policy is changing, 18 et cetera, applying some of the history of standardization 19 to the regulatory process.
It also includes a summary of M
the standardization policy statement.
21 It will include, when published, a comment as 22 Appendix A to the NUREG of the Commission's policy, as 23 issued for comment.
24 The policy, or the NUREG, then goes into de#ining M
the five concepts of standardization.
Actually, four
r 22 1
concepts of standardization:
The reference systen concept,
' /
2 which would include design certification; the duplicate 3
plant concept, which would be an application to construct 4
and/or to operate a nuclear power plant by different 5
utilities at a number of different -- a different number of 6
sites.
The replicate plant concept would be an application 7
by a utility to construct and/or operate a plant that has 8
a previously approved design.
And, as I said, the manufactur-9 ing license would be an application to construct a number of 10 units at a site other than the sita where they are to be 11 operated.
This could be up to 10 units.
12 All of these, and the reference system concept, 13 which includes preliminary design approvals, final design 14 approvals and design certification.
15 Now, the final design approval, nreliminary design 16 approval and design certification is sort of spelled out 17 on this.
l 18 (Slide.)
19 This is an older slide.
You don't have this in 20 your list.
The PDA would be an approval issued by the Staff 21 for an entire nuclear power plant or major portion thereof.
22 And, this would deem it acceptable for incorporation by 23 reference into an application to construct a power plant 24 or for a manufacturing license.
25 Final design approval would again cover the same --
23 i
either the entire plant or a major portion of the plant.
It
_,/
2 would be deemed that the design was acceptable for incorpora-3 tion by the reference and application for construction 4
permit, operating licenses or combined.
We have the power 5
to do that now.
And, also in the manufacturing licenses.
6 Then, certification would be -- initial certifica-7 tion of that design would become part of our regulations 8
for a period of 10 years.
9 MR. MICHELSON:
Before you leave that slide, this 10 might be a good place to clear up a point.
In reading some 11 of the other material, I came back to the definition of FDA 12 as either being the essentially complete desigh --- I mean, J' j 13 essentially complete plant or a major portion thereof.
( -
14 Does this mean that if I get an FDA on a complete 15 plant and then I wish to do something, say, a design in my
-16 own plant or use a major portion of that FDA, that major 17 portion can be taken out bodily and used?
Or, maybe I iust 18 want the nuclear island on the FDA and not some of the other 19 stuff that might have been in there.
Can I pull the nuclear 20 island out and use it?
21 Is that what is meant by " major portion thereof?"
. 22 MR. SCALETTI:
Well, if we pulled out the nuclear 23 island, then you would have to consider none of the inter-24 faces to that nuclear island would have been reviewed.
n And, I think it would be very difficult.
I ' ra not i
24 1
saying it can't be done, or you couldn't reference portion 2
of the design.
But, you still have the issue of interfaces 3
we have to deal with.
4 MR. MICHELSON:
The question then is, what do we 5
even mean by " major portion there?"
6 MR. BERKOW:
Well, what it means is that we can 7
issue an FDA on a major portion of the plant rather than an 8
entire plant.
That's the concept.
We can issue an FDA on 9
a major portion, not that --
10 MR. MICHELSON:
Okay.
Having issued an FDA, you 11 cannot do less than is covered by that FDA?
That is your 12 intent?
't 13 We will go later into some words that say dif-c L/
14 ferently, but maybe --
15 MR. BERKOW:
We have never focused on that particula c 16 question, but I believe that's our intent.
17 MR. EBERSOLE:
Well, when you issue finul approval 18 on a piece of a plant, you leave the rest of the plant free 19 to -- you have a problem on your hands that you had better 20 face up to, because what you approved is no longer good 21 because of the interface variability.
22 MR. BERKON:
Of course, the interfaces have to be 23 addressed in the portion that you are approving.
24 MR. EBERSOLE:
You would have to have some tight 25 controls on the limits of the interfacial range of
25 1
considerations.
)
2 MR. BERKOW:
I believe that the severe accident s_ _
3 policy statement and the proposed new licensing legislation 4
both use these words; is that correct, Dino?
5 MR. SCALETTI:
That's correct.
6 MR. BERKOW:
That major portion thereof.
So, to 7
do anything else in this standardization policy statement 8
would be incompatible with two documents and policies that 9
already exist.
10 MR. EBERSOLE:
Well, that's saying if I'm bad to 11 begin with I must stay bad.
12 MR. BERKOW:
Right.
But, one of the ground rules
(
13 is that it would be compatible with SAPS and with the J
14 proposed licensing legislation.
That was one of the ground 15 rules we were bound by initially.
16 MR. MICHELSON:
A follow-up of my question, just 17 to be sure I understand you, or that we understand each 18 other.
19 If, for instance, the RHR system that was covered M
by an FDA was exactly what I wanted to use in my custom 21 design, which I'm still allowed to do -- make a custom 22 design that is -- could I -- if I pulled the RHR system M
out of the FDA and said I'm going to pull it out and use 24 it just like it is, it has to be re-reviewed completely in M
a new setting, doesn't it?
26 1
MR. SCALETTI:
I don't think so, i
2 MR. BERKOW:
Not completely.
3 MR. MICHELSON:
I mean, you have the right to re-4 review it and request changes, or whatever?
5 MR. BERKOW:
Yes.
We would not be bound by the 6
FDA or the certification and say we can't look at it again 7
if you are pulling a piece of it out of context.
We 8
would have the right to.
9 MR. MICHELSON:
I sure would like to see that'in 10 the documentation as a clear statement, that you cannot 11 take parts of an FDA and expect them to be covered, that 12 you must take the entire package.
(
')
13 MR. SCALETTI:
Well, doesn't that necessarily
- x.,-
14 mean the Staff would have to re-review that system to --
15 MR. MICHELSON:
No, I'm not saying that at all.
16 I'm just simply saying, what is covered by the FDA, because 17 the FDA says now I can't go back and request changes in 18 that particular area without going through a backfitting 19 process, but if I pull it out of context, if I pull the 20 RHR out I should be allowed now to go back and ask for 21 changes on that RHR system --
22 MR. SCALETTI:
Certainly.
23 MR. MICHELSON:
-- without going through the 24 backfitting --
25 MR. BERKOW:
The FDA, and the things we say about it,
l
27 1
is considered an entity.
Once you take a piece out of it --
~_/
2 MR. MICHELSON:
Yeah.
I would like to see that 3
because of that problem of putting that major portion in 4
this wording and then some other wording I will point out 5
later.
6 MR. SCALETTI:
That is intended to mean that you 7
can receive a design approval on less than an entire plant.
8 MR. MICHELSON:
Yeah.
9 MR. SCALETTI:
Like, we have one design approval 10 out for CE, which is only on the NSSS.
We have the GE final 11 design approval, which is considered a nuclear island, less 12 than a complete plant.
Both are, I guess, considered maior 13 portions, one more major than the other.
j 14 MR. EBERSOLE:
I think that major portion is 15 going to bring us trouble, though.
I think I'm correct in 16 saying the FAA will not let you consider a power plant as 17 an external element of an airplane.
It's an integral part, 18 and you can't even change the name of it; it's got to be 19 a Pratney Whitney or whatever.
20 MR. WYLIE:
Dino, where you do allow, for example, 21 the major portion thereof, FDA or whatever, where is it 22 spelled out the requirements of the interface?
U MR. SCALETTI:
Where is it spelled out, the 24 requirements for interfaces?
25 MR. WYLIE:
Yeah.
28 1
MR. SCALETTI:
I believe it's spelled out in our k" _).
2 standard review plan and also in our Reg Guide 170.
In 3
the NUREG itself, it's not spelled out.
4 MR. WYLIE:
It doesn't make a reference to --
5 MR. SCALETTI:
No, it does not.
6 MR. MICHELSON:
As long as we are on this issue, 7
maybe it's just as well to clear it up now.
Let me read 8
you a sentence on Page 12 of your draft NUREG that got me 9
into this whole question.
10 Here, it was discussing a so-called duplicate 11 plant design as being one of the options that I mi'ht elect g
12 to go.
)
13 And, it said at the top of Page 12:
"Those portions 14 of the duplicate plant design for which a design certifica-15 tion has been issued..."
like, maybe the RHR portion is 16 covered by design certification for standard plant --
17
"... design certification has been issued are not subject 18 to litigation in individual licensing proceedings."
19 And, I said:
Gee, does that mean if I pull the M
RHR off a standard design and use it, I don't -- nobody can 21 comment on it?
22 MR. BERKON:
No, it'doesn't --
23 MR. SCALETTI:
It means that --
24 MR. MICHELSON:
It's a little unclear.
M MR. BERKOW:
It means that your total duplicate
29 1
plant might not have gone through design certification.
p-2 Only portions of it might have gone through design certifica-3 tion.
4 MR. MICHELSON:
But, you must use the entire plant 5
covered by the design certification?
6 MR. SCALETTI:
If you have a duplicate plant --
7 MR. MICHELSON:
And, that's not -- that's not 8
coming through clearly to me.
9 MR. SCALETTI:
Carlyle, if you have a duplicate 10 plant that is built -- that utilizes a -- if it utilized a --
11 if GESSAR was certified, it utilized the GESSAR to design, 12 it's part of the duplicate plant approval, or approval of
(
)
13 the replicate plant, to be replicated you would have to 14 abide by the certified part of that design, because it was 15 certified.
16 MR. MICHELSON:
I would sincerely hope that's the 17 case.
18 (slide,)
19 MR. SCALETTI:
The transition options for 20 standardization, the Commission realizes that the design 21 certification concept is not going to evolve overnight, it M
would require maintaining the existing standardization 23 options as viable options for some interim period, which 24 was not specified.
25 These transition options would be again the
30 1
replication, duplication, the manufacturing license.
And
(
)
E_/
2 the reference system concept, which would be the type that 3
you would certify.
4 So, these options are still viable.
And I believe - -
5 I went through the definitions of these options just prior 6
to the discussion we had.
7 The next one, the completeness of design scope 8
and detail.
This section discusses the scope and level 9
of design detail for each of the standardization options.
10 Now, for duplication and replication and the 11 manufacturing license, these are in the context of a license 12 application, either to construct and/or to operate.
The
)
13 level of detail for those, you would have a final level of 14 operating license; you would have a final level for detail, 15 which would be consistent with our operating license reviews 16 that go on now.
17 For construction permits, you would have that level 18 of information but it would be in the context of an actual 19 license application to construct and/or operate.
M The reference system concept is a little bit 21 different.
That is outside the context of a license to 22 operate or to construct a facility.
23 It is an application for a design approval which 24 would allow you to reference that design of one of these M
other applications.
The level of detail might not be as
i 31 1
complete as it would be for an operating license or for a --
~_
2 if it was for a construction permit, as would be a PDA.
3 It identifies this section, also identifies for 4
design certification the scope of the design to support a 5
design certification.
This process -- this is consistent 6
with the information provided to us by the Atomic Industrial 7
Forum in their proposed standardization policy statement.
8 The information that it does request is -- is 9
requested on Page 9.
It would ask for the design basis 10 criteria, arrangement of structures and components, process 11 of instrumentation diagrams, control logic diagrams, system 12 descriptions, component and procurement specifications, 13 including acceptance tests and requirements.
(
L,/
14 11R. EBERSOLE:
Does that include procurement 15 space?
16 MR. SCALETTI:
Pardon?
17 MR. EBERSOLE:
Does that include procurement 18 space?
19 MR. SCALETTI:
Yes.
Construction and installation N
specifications, quality assurance programs, emergency plans.
21 That would be --
22 MR. EBERSOLE:
Procurement specs, you know, can get ZI to be rather open if they -- and then the two words more 24 equal, which nobody ever knows what that means.
Zi So, I guess you will have to deal with that like it
32 1
has always been dealt with.
2 MR. SCALETTI:
Well, my only association with that 3
has been the procurement specifications that were part of 4
the GESSAR design.
5 MR. EBERSOLE:
It's open-ended, though, by those 6
words in lots of places.
7 MR. MICHELSON:
Is the next speaker going to cover 8
these in much greater detail?
The agenda called for 9
completeness of scope and design.
10 MR. BERKOW:
Well, this is -- you are looking at 11 the next speaker.
12 MR. MICHELSON:
He just phases into it?
Okay, then
)
13 this is the time to stop him.
There are a lot of questions 14 on this section.
15 Is this the time to do it?
16 MR. SCALETTI:
Sure, certainly.
If we are going to 17 go six hours, we need a lot of questions.
18 (Laughter.)
19 MR. MICHELSON:
Why don't we start it on Page 9?
20 I have trouble about the middle of the page.
It says, "The design certification rulemaking will cover the criteria 21 22 necessary for final design approval."
23 Isn't it going to go more than criteria?
Is 24 that all it's going to cover?
In other words, the rulemaking just covers the basic principles and that's it?
25
33 1
MR. SCALETTI:
No.
It covers the design that's y
2 available..
3 MR. MICHELSON:
Then, the word " criteria" wasn't 4
really meant?
5 MR. SCALETTI:
It was a convenient word, I guess.
6 MR. MICHELSON:
You really meant the rulemaking 7
is going to cover the final design, right?
8 MR. SCALETTI:
Correct.
9 MR. MICHELSON:
Okay.
I would suggest the word 10
" criteria" be altered somewhat to be a more clear term, 11 because that only means -- you know what criteria means, 12 and it doesn't mean final design.
13 Now, the next paragraph talks about that essentially 14 what you want to do -- somewhere in here you talk about 15 what you want to see as the FSAR level of detail.
I don't 16 have it marked right now where it said that, but that's 17 what it said here somewhere.
18 The problem is that much of what you list then is 19 beyond the FSAR level of detail.- For instance, you never 20 put construction insulation specifications in an FSAR, 21 generally not at least.
22 You do, for instance, though, put other things M
in.
You put some piping drawings, main:line, or the main 24 steam feedwater piping and some time RHR and a couple of M
other layouts of piping.
And, none of that is even listed
34 1
here as needed for this final design certification.
So, 2
there are no piping drawings listed; there are no electric 3
power single lines listed as even needed.
And, I was a 4
little surprised at that.
5 I thought, unless that's covered --
6 MR. EBERSOLE:
I agree with you.
7 MR. MICIIELSON:
Unless that's covered somewhere 8
else, that one is not in there anywhere.
9 I went through it and I said:
Well, gee, some 10 of these are thing s you don't get in an FSAR; and, some 11 of the things you do get in an FSAR aren't even listed 12 here.
13 MR. BERKOW:
Well, possibly the piping would be
(
)
14 covered under arrangements of structures and components.
15 MR. MICIIELSON:
No.
Mont people that design 16 nuclear power stations know what an arrangement drawing 17 is, and it doesn't include necessarily piping.
18 It is a furniture arrangement.
Arrangement draw-19 ings generally are furniture arrangements, because you 20 have got to show where the basic components are going to 21 be situated.
22 MR. EBERSOLE:
And, it doesn't reflect the U
separated logic in any context unless it's a narrative 24 expression of what you are trying to do.
25 And, that includes separation between units as well
35 1
as between functional processes.
(_)
2 MR. MICHELSON:
Now, one of the things not normally 3
included in the FSAR, but which the reviewer had certainly 4
better look at, ' and that is where you plan on putting cable 5
trays and conduits.
And, there's no -- normally, you don't 6
put conduit drawings and cable tray drawings, although some 7
people have -- it depends.
8 But, the reviewer had better have those in order 9
to verify the physical separations requirement.
10 So, there are some things that are in that 11 shouldn't be in, and there are some things the other way 12 around.
13 MR. EBERSOLE:
Impulse lines that carry information, 14 if they bunch you are in trouble.
15 MR. WYLIE:
Basically, under the arrangements of 16 components, what you are saying is, how detailed are you 17 going to go?
18 MR. MICHELSON:
Yeah.
19 MR. WYLIE:
And, it would seem appropriate that M
that be spelled out in the NUREG so that whoever is using 21 this thing --
22 MR. SCALETTI:
The item that follows -- the 23 paragraph that follows that list of items requires compliance 24 with the severe accident policy statement.
Before licensing 25 requirements, the full licensing requirements require
)
36 1
everything that has gone on -- licensing requirements of J
2 the severe accident policy statement require everything that 3
has gone on in all the years in the past, it requires 4
compliance of the CP&L rule, the other existing Commission 5
regulations which would mean it would have to be reviewed 6
to the current standard review plan.
7 I don't believe anyt-hing is left out.
There are 8
a few things that have been added.
9 MR. EBERSOLE:
I think the industry has found it 10 practicable and a big money saver to construct models out 11 of plastic to understand what they are doing, physical 12 models.
13 MR. SCALETTI:
I'm sorry.
14 MR. EBERSOLE:
Physical models, you know.
You 15 go to the plants and they have found it practical to 16 understand the plant in its-full three-dimensional detail, 17 to construct a physical model to show where things are and 18 what you are doing.
19 I expect if you are going to deal in an investment 20 as big as standard design, you are going to need a physical 21 plastic model.
That's an integral part of it.
22 I don't see any such mention of that sort of 23 rationale here.
24 MR. MICHELSON:
Don't forget now, these designs 25 are a little different.
The people that are trying to get
37 1
this FDA are not necessarily, you know, going to build the 2
plants.
They don't want to invest --
3 MR. EBERSOLE:
That's where you have got the 4
battle.
5 MR. MICHELSON:
I doubt they will scend millions 6
of dollars, the millions of dollars it takes to develop 7
physical models to the detail needed, only for the detail 8
design --
9 MR. EBERSOLE:
Aren't we talking about detail 10 design?
11 MR. MICHELSON:
That's what I'm trying to find 12 out, what the heck we are talking about here.
13 MR. EBERSOLE:
I thought we were.
14 MR. MICHELSON:
We are talking about level of 15 detail equivalent to an FSAR.
It says right in the middle 16 of Page 8, your words.
17 MR. EBERSOLE:
But the people don't know how to 18 put the plant together when they are building it, I don't 19 understand --
N MR. SCALETTI:
We have -- we keep going back to 21 the level of detail that's equivalent to the FSAR level of 22 detail, we have -- the Staff has to review -- there are M
presently no plans, other than to look at these standard 24 review plans, to determine whether or not design certifica-M tion will require some changes.
I don't see any right now.
38 1
I don't foresee any right now.
2 But, we will fully intend to review an application 3
for a design certification to the existing standard review 4
plan, which calls for a certain level of detail.
And, if 5
the reviewer needs this detail I would assume that the 6
vendor would have to be able to back up his FSAR with a 7
design.
8 MR. MICHELSON:
Why don't we say this somewhere?
9 MR. SCALETTI:
I thought we did.
10 MR. MICHELSON:
Well, here is all you say about 11 this.
"An application for an FDA must include to the 12 extent practicable a level of design detail equivalent to
()
that required by 10 CFR 50.34 (b) for a final safety 13 14 analysis report."
That's all he has to provide.
That's 15 the requirement.
16 I find no other requirements anywhere in here 17 going beyo.nd that.
18 MR. SCALETTI:
But, that's all we have to provide 19 for an operating license today.
20 MR. MICHELSON:
No, that's all he provides in 21 terms of a document but not in terms of information.
22 MR. SCALETTI:
Well, the same thing is going to 23 go on.
24 MR. BERKOW:
The initial application -- obviously, U
this application is amended throughout.
39 1
MR. MICHELSON:
But, don't forget, this is a 2
one-shot proposition.
This is a one-step licensing, not a 3
two-step.
4 MR. BERKOW:
That's right.
But, as Dino points 5
out, as we are conducting our review any additional informa-6 tion that we need in order to make the conclusions that we 7
need will be requested and obtained.
8 MR. MICHELSON:
During the FDA review?
9 MR. BERKON:
During the review, that's right.
10 MR. MICHELSON:
Now, if I were -- okay.
Now, after 11 this all goes through rulemaking with these kinds of words 12 in here, and then you come back later and say:
I want 13 this, this and this, I think I would have to say:
- Gee, 14 that's not part of the rulemaking.
I never saw anything 15 in the rules that say I have to go to that level of detail 16 in my design before I pan get an FDA.
17 And, what do you hang your hat on?
What words 18 do you hang your hat on that say:
Yes, you do have to 19 provide this level of detail?
M MR. BERKOW:
I don't think I followed your last 21 question.
22 MR. MICHELSON:
Well, let me slow down and say 23 it differently.
24 If all I need to do is give you the equivalent of M
an FSAR, and I do that in good conscience, and you say:
40 1
No, that's not enough information, I think I have the right 2
to come back and say you are being arbitrary and capricious 3
and that you are asking for things for which the Commission 4
never really intended.
5 MR. BERKOW:
But, why is that any different from 6
a regular custom plant?
We tell the industry now all they 7
need to submit to us is an FSAR, and yet we go through 8
rounds of questions and other dialogues during the review?
9 MR. MICHELSON:
We just got done recognizing 10 that an FSAR level, when you have the operating plant about 11 to go into operation, is fine because clearly you have got 12 all your design.
You couldn't have built it if you hadn't 13 done all your design.
14 The information is all there.
It's just a matter 15 of getting it.
16 In this case, the information has never been 17 developed.
You have not done a detail design of the plant 18 necessary to construct it.
You've only done enough detail 19 design to get a design approval.
20 Normally, you are dealing with almost as-constructed 21 by the time you are up to the operating license.
22 MR. SCALETTI:
Once the review for a normal 23 operating license, when the Staff gets the application for 24 an operating license, the review has progressed to a certain 15 stage.
By the time it goes to the ACRS, the final design of
i '
41 1
the plant is not complete.
Granted, there is a lot of it 2
there.
And, we would anticipate that a lot of it will be 3
there before certification.
4 I don't think you can certiff the design if you 5
don't have much of the final design comoleted.
I'm not 6
saying that you have to identify components and the name-7-
plate, but clearly the design has to be there.
8 MR. MICHELSON:
Well, let me ask you, do you have 9
to do all your cable tray layouts?
Do you have to do all 10 your cable routings?
11 This sort of thing is generally done well into 12 construction before you get to pulling wires.
But, it 13 isn't done at the PSAR stage obviously.
14 MR. SCALETTI:
We are not talking PSAR.
We are 15 talking FSAR.
16 MR. MICHELSON:
Now, FSAR for a design approval.
17 Now, if you really mean that you have developed the complete 18 package of drawings necessary to go out and build the plant, 19 fine.
Tell me that, put it in the document, and I will be M
happy.
21 But, I'm sure you haven't done that.
22 MR. BERKOW:
I agree.
I don't think that we have 23 to go that far.
24 MR. MICHELSON:
I know you have gone more than M
a PSAR, but you haven't told me where.
Well, you said:
Maybe
42 1
it's the FSAR equivalent.
And, I'm saying that's not far 2
enough.
3 MR. EBERSOLE:
Let me give you what is even 4
worse, or certainly it could be worse.
The impulse lines 5
that carry hydraulic information.across the system.
More 6
often or not, in the past nobody knows where they are until 7
you go photograph them.
And, they can be bunched or you 8
can drop a crane load on them and severe a bunch of them.
9 Now, that's true today, we don't know where 10 that can happen.
11 MR. MICHELSON:
If there is any doubt in those 12 cases, the reviewer calls up the inspector and says:
Go
)
13 up and look and see where they are.
You can't do that for 14 this, they are only on paper.
15 MR. SCALETTI:
But, they will be there some time.
16 And, if they are not -- if they are vulnerable, then they 17 would have to be changed.
We don't just do our review, 18 issue design approval and that's the end of it.
19 There's certainly a lot more that goes on.
20 MR. MICHELSON:
Okay.
Now, what does that really 21 mean?
Does it mean that if we find the impulse lines all 22 bunched together that we can get the utility to go and fix 23 it?
Or, do we have to go through the backfit process?
24 MR. SCALETTI:
If they were so identified -- and, M
I look upon the design certification as whatever is identified
43 1
and whatever is reviewed is not subject to challenge later 2
on.
If a system has not been reviewed, it was a conceptual 3
system, it haan' t been reviewed in detail, it hadn't been 4
reviewed to a final level of design detail, then certainly 5
it probably would be vulnerable to making changes to it.
6 MR. MICHELSON:
I think that's a good approach.
7 But, let me give you an example of where I thought that's 8
exactly what you should have done.
9 That was on GESSAR II.
At no time, no time, 10 would you ever supply me a list of the drawing specifications 11 and other documents actually covered by your FDA.
What if 12 you actually said:
Yes, this is what we agreed to?
There
)
13 is no such list ever been issued for GESSAR II.
14 So, now later on they come up and start routing 15 impulse lines and they use a document.
Is that document 16 under the FDA or not?
17 If it weren't under the FDA, then I would agree, 18 yes.
You have to change it.
But, people say:
Gee, I 19 have got a final design approval.
I included impulse lines 20 even though you did not identify them.
21 MR. EBERSOLE:
It was implied that it was 22 included.
23 MR. BERKOW:
But, we would be making certain 24 findings that related to those impulse lines and their 25 acceptability.
And, even though we might not have looked at L
44 1
them in detail during the design certification review, if 2
it turned out that in practice they did not meet the intent 3
of what we approved, I think, yes, we would have the right 4
to go back and make them change it.
5 MR. MICHELSON:
What does the FDA mean, then?
What 6
does the final design approval mean?
7 MR. SCALETTI:
The final design approval means 8
that the document is acceptable for referencing in license 9
applications.
Only that.
10 An FDA would mean that the Staff has reviewed it 11 and the ACRS has reviewed this design.
Now, everything else 12 is subject to litigation, you go through the hearing process
)
13 and --
m-14 MR. EBERSOLE:
Oh, now, that makes it rather clear.
15 You could say, to the extent that information is submitted, 16 everything else is an open target.
17 MR. MICIIELSON:
That would be nice.
That would 18 clear it up.
That's what we wanted you to do, you remember, 19 in GESSAR II.
M MR. EBERSOLE:
Then, that gives them an invitation 21 to do a good job, but let's them do a bad one.
But, they 22 are a target if they do a bad one.
23 MR. BERKOW:
I think that's probably --
24 MR. SCALETTI:
I guess that's how I perceive the M
process.
Now, clearly there are lines -- obviously, there
45 1
are systems that we don't normally review that we find, I 2
guess, acceptable.
You have got to draw the line someplace, 3
and you can't say:
Okay, exactly wha t you have in your 4
FSAR is what you are bound by.
Anything beyond that, we 5
are -- it's fair game for change and for litigation.
6 MR. EBERSOLE:
It gives an open sort of orerogative 7
to you and to the industry.
It gives them the freedom to 8
do the good thing or the poor thing.
And, it gives you 9
the right to shoot down the poor thing.
10 MR. SCALETTI:
We would expect for a design 11 certification that the good thing would be done.
We are 12 issuing this, say, for 10 years.
3 13 And, clearly a design certification is a big 14 step forward.
I don't think we are willing to go with 15 less.
I think we want the design to be identified, to be 16 final design information and not conceptual design informa-17 tion.
18 MR. MICIIELSON:
Well, I think I agree with you 19 completely, but that's not what you do for GESSAR II.
I N
had asked that you simply indicate that; only those items 21 covered by the actual FSAR in GESSAR II,..or referenced in 22 the FSAR as applicable to the FDA, would even be covered.
Z3 If a vendor came in with a new document later 24 and says:
Oh, I think this meets the intent, that new 25 document will be subject to negotiation at that time.
74 a
46
--s 1
MR. SCALETTI:
- Well, I. thought that's what we
,3 1
f 2
- did, because between one Subcommittee meeting'and'one Full
. 3 Committee meeting I had to draft something up for you.
- And, 4
I thought that's what I said.
5 MR. MICHELSON:
Yeah, that's what you said, but 6
then I talked to others who'did not seem to agree with you, 7
for one thing.- So, I said:.Well, gee,: clearly when we'come 8
to. standardization this item ou'ght to be clearly covered.
8 And, I don't find it anywhere in the NUREG, of 10 course, that this is how you are functioning.
I believe 11
.you must identify what your FDA covers.
12 It's only an orderly bookkeeping. process to say V) 13 that all -- the FDA covers only the documents submitted and' y
14 those references indicated in the document as being a part 15 of the design --
16 MR. EBERSOLE:
I think that's very important.
17' MR. MICHELSON:.And, any new document beyond that 18 has to be negotiated.at the time that it's submitted.
19
~ MR. SCALETTI:
Well, ' cJchr3 / you can run into problems there and you could co'.ow;b c defeat the certification
' M 21' process, I would. guess, because obviously whatever was
. 22 certified wouldn't be subject to challenge.
So, whatever 23 challenges to the -- would be to those systems that were 24 not specifically reviewed.
25 And,'you could end up with long -- you would defeat
w-
-w; 4 s -
s.
T
~ J 47 1
- th'e: benefit?of the-certification process.
~
ph f
~
2.-
MR; MICHELSON:. Well, this is'the other' side of the
~3 fcoin, preventing a person from:getting a. certification and
- l 4
'4~
then. coming inL_with a lot ~of surprises-later thatzhe says 5
-wereicovered-by the certification.
And,fyou say you.didn't' 9
6' think they'were.
~
L-7
- MR'.
SCALETTI:
Well, I don't think that'sL. going b
8 to happ.en., I think the review for certification is' going'tv 9
be ' extiremely thorough-.
10
'MR. MICHELSON:
Yes, completely thorough..onLwhat I
11.
- you have in front ofyyou at the time, but not'what is 12.
~ generated later which then comes as a surprise.-
, 13 For instance', the instrument, the sensing lines'
~_
-14 may not have been a document, per se in.the'FSAR,.or even
?
s.
F -
L15 referenced"in-the FSAR' And they come up with a criteria
' 16 -
on_how theyjare, going'to arrange the sensing lines, you
- 17J
.may or.may not beLhappy with what'you see.
'18
.But,iis-it covered-already by the FDA?
-~
s-
- 1 19 '
MR.'BERKOW:
Well, their criteria for howLthey 1
are going to arrange them would probably be included in 20 '
21 o rs, even.though'the details.of how they arrange their j -
22 ~
criteria /would be included --
L.
'23
~MR. MICHELSON:
No matter how smart we are, 24 -
it's always hard to create criteria to cover everything.
But,
25
hopefully-it would be' covered.
's t'<9g f
7,ew' yy v
-=me-y g-g e-ww v p:y----
r.w*,w T
9-.ev-vr1 T *-A rNY- #m'e vet
- rwr-w--*-t-Wfv-*-T so wr rw a r -ev e ~= W'wS've v-7-wer f tr'rr $'w***ww-*-*7-w w v'v'
48 1
MR. SCALETTI:
For design certification, we are 2
goingto have an FSAR, the Staff is going to review it, the 3
ACRS is going to review it and ask questions.
We are going 4
to review it and ask questions.
The ACRS is going to review 5
it and ask questions.
It's going to go to the Commission.
6 The Commission will certainly review it.
7 It will be issued for public comment.
The public 8
is going to review it and ask questions.
And, the Staff is going to have to respond to all of those questions, the 9
Staff and the vendor who is -- who has the application.
10 And, I can foresee a very detailed review being 11 12 undertaken.
13 MR. MICHELSON:
Yeah.
But, what you review is 14 what is in front of you and not necessarily what they forgot to put in the document that they can then generate 15 16 later.
17 MR. SCALETTI:
But, much of that might come out 18 to the reviewer in public comment and Commission review, 19 and would certainly have to be addressed.
And, in address-20 ing it, he is either going to address it from the standooint it will be reviewed later, or here is the resolution to 21 22 that issue.
23 MR. 11ICHELSON :
On the one hand, you seem to be reluctant to narrow your FDA to an identified document and 24 25 its references.
You want to keep it open-ended.
49 1
On the other hand, do you'think we are somehow 2
smart enough to anticipate everything that is going to come 3
in under the open-ended arrangement?
I don't think I am.
4 MR. SCALETTI:
Nor, am I.
And, I don't think we 5
intend to do that.
I'm not trying to maintain a narrow --
6 narrowly define the FDA.
I would like to see it as broad 7
as possible.
8 MR. MICHELSON:
Yeah.
It's sort of like signing 9
a check without quite filling in the amount.
Maybe we 10 will fill in the thousands of dollars but not the hundreds 11 of dollars on the check.
12 You are trying to keep it open-ended and change it 13 later.
I think it's kind of --
14 MR. EBERSOLE:
Hundreds of dollars might be the 15 kind of key to keep things together.
16 MR. MICHELSON:
That might be very important.
17 MR. SCALETTI:
Now, there is a difference between 18 an FDA that's not going to design certification and one 19 that would pursue design certification.
20 And, the level of detail might be different there.
21 We might accept less, we might accept certain conditions 22 on an FDA tha t we would not accept for design certification.
23 So, I can perceive there might be two levels of 24 review or two degrees of review for the two types of final 25 design approval.
So, you would know that well in advance
50 1
and prior to certification.
2 MR. MICHELSON:
Well, it's my understanding that 3
you must go through the FDA stage first.
That's kind of 4
a new wrinkle in here.
5 I thought you used to could be able to get a 6
certification if you wished without getting an FDA.
7 MR. SCALETTI:
You must go through an FDA first.
8 MR. MICHELSON:
You must go to an FDA first --
9 MR. SCALETTI:
Right now --
10 MR. MICHELSON:
-- and then the certification 11 process, you are saying you can open up new issues even on 12 an FDA in the process of certification?
13 MR. BERKOW:
Well, this also states that the 14 applicant must declare in advance that they want to go 15 through the certification process.
They can't tell us after 16 the FDA is issued that they now want certification.
17 MR. MICHELSON:
Is that in here?
What page is 18 that on?
19 MR. SCALETTI:
I believe it's on Page 9.
It's 2
the middle of Page 9.
It may accompany the application for 21 an FDA; however, it must be submitted before the FDA is 22 issued.
23 I believe in response to CRGR comment, we are 24 going to require it be submitted with the application.
25 MR. MICHELSON:
Okay.
If you do that, then you
I 51 1
get -- in my mind, it seems like there might be a different 2
set of arguments if it was just an FDA.
3 MR. BERKOW:
We will know what our end point is 4
while we are doing the review.
5 MR. MICHELSON:
Okay.
Okay.
So, if you -- if 6
you get an FDA without having declared that, then you have 7
to start again to get
-- you have to go and get another FDA 8
to get a certification?
9 MR. BERKON:
I don't know.
10 MR. SCALETTI:
There are two FDAs that are out 11 there now.
GESSAR has said that they do not plan to pursue 12 certification.
CESSAR has indicated they plan to pursue
')
13 certification.
14 Obviously, those FDAs that are in-house would have 15 to be considered differently than one that comes in in the 16 future.
But, I believe that in the future any applications 17 for FSAR approval of certification -- for certification would 18 have to identify at the time of the application.
19 MR. EBERSOLE:
I would look at the CESSAR pursuit 20 of this with considerable suspicion.
21 MR. SCALETTI:
Pardon?
22 MR. EBERSOLE:
I think CESSAR made the 2
better decision.
We will see.
24 MR. SCALETTI:
I can't address that.
25 MR. EBERSOLE:
Well, you know the issues open on
i h.
bp r
5 21
~
1
_Palo VerdeJ and :so forth. :
- y w-
~- \\
. t_/
2' MR. SCALETTI:
Yes.
3 MR. WYLIE:- Well,_I_ guess the questions that 4
'come to my; mind as I look at this and went through it, 5
where you-list on Page 9, at.the bottom of Page.9, the 6'
scope of design developed to support the design _certifica-7
' tion' process should include these things.
8' And, as I went through it and in.looking at it 9-
.and1trying to put myself'in place of.the' designer as he 10 goes through this, and it says. arrangement'of structures and 11 components, the question'that comes to my. mind is to what
- 12 :
detail would I have-to do this.
~
()Y 13 -
For example, in arranging the things that Carl 4
14 mentioned awhile ago, does this include the; arrangement 15 oflthe: piping and the arrangementfof the conduit systems and i
16 all of"those components?
And, I would assume yes.
17-MR. MICHELSON:
But, that's not --
18 MR. WYLIE:
Let me. finish.
Let me go through this.
' Then,' as I talk about process and instrument diagram, zus 19 20
-Carl mentioned, this includes piping and electrical one-lines 21
. and all of this.tus part of these process diagrams, and I 22 would assume, yes,.that it does, you know.
All of those 23 things.
24 In the same way of the control logic diagrams, M-you know.
All the control systems that-are covered by this
,., - - -, - ~.,. - - _,,,. -,.,.
.~
J d
uN 53 1
' certification would be included'in that.. It doesn't mean.
_,m ;
2' that you have got to have every-wire diagramed, but-
'w_,,
3 certainly the elementaries and control diagrams that go 4
along with it:for logic reasons.
Systemidescriptions, 5
does that include the supporting analysis and studies on 6
those systems that specify the performance of those.
7 systems?
And, I would assume, yes.
8 Then, as I go into the next page where it talks 9
about procurement and -- component and procurementispecifica-10.
tions, does that include -- is'it the sizing of the component, 11
.the capabilities and the performance requirements and the-12 margins and the acceptance criteria and, as you say here,
[^
13 the acceptance tests requirements?
s_-
14 There is a difference in the acceptance criteria 15 and in the test requirements.
And, I would assume, yes, 16 that they would be that complete as part of this submittal 17 or supporting information.
18 And, the same way with construction and installa-19 tion specifications.- It would require the acceptance requirements and the criteria and test methods that would N
21 be used in the construction process.
4 22 So, to me, that was the detail that I would be 23 looking for.
24 MR. MICHELSON:
Yeah.
But, you can't read that g
25 in when you go back to Page 8, in the middle of the page, ws.
,.r_,,.
-._r
--..~.,,-. _ >
54 1
and it says that you are dealing with only what you find 2
at the FSAR.
3 MR. WYLIE:
My question is, if that's the level 4
of detail maybe it ought to be specified that's the level 5
of detail we are looking for.
6 MR. MICHELSON:
Now, I was going to suggest some 7
words --
8 MR. WYLIE:
Now, is that specified or implied 9
then by the standard review plan and the adherence to the 10 other requirements, the regulations?
11 MR. SCALETTI:
Clearly, the full requirements of 12 the severe accident review lay out the complete review for 13 the NRC.
The existing -- a review of the existing regula-(lll 14 tion, which is the standard review plan, CP&L rule, which 15 is that rule which is applicable -- which is that rule which 16 is applicable to -- right now written to be applicable to 17 six plants that were pending construction at the time of 18 TMI.
The PRA required resolution of USI, applicable USIs, 19 and high -- immediate priority to GSIs, and a finding of 20 acceptability from the Staff.
21 So, if you read -- those requirements right there 22 cover the whole review, both deterministic and severe 23 accident.
24 MR. WYLIE:
Well, except for the detail of the 25 review I think --
~
55 1
MR. SCALETTI:
Well, the detail is laid out, pq
(.,E 2
the requirements -
the standard review plans-for operating 3
license type of.information, for construction permit type 4
'of information.
There are two_ categories.
5~
And,othey have to comply.withithe standard review 6
plan.
It's part of our regulations, six months prior to 7
the. time of.their filing.
8 MR. MICHELSON:- Well, I think to do some of what 9'
you say for the severe accident policy, the plant full-scale, 10 must be in front of you.
You can't do walkdowns and things 11 of that. sort obviously on paper.
You have to do them 12 physically.
13 And, of course, the physical reality is not going
[v).
14 to be available to you at all.
The best you can do -- and
'15
.that's why I think you throw in the words "to the extent
,16 practicable."
You have to deal with paper.
17 So, the question is:
How much am I going to see f
18 on paper?
How much can I walkdown on paper to decide r
l 19 whether you have met the severe accident policy and so 20 forth?
r 21 And, I'm just trying to find out, what do I expect 22 to find on paper?
And, then I read the middle of Page 8 as l
23 to what I expect to find, is what's required by 50.34 (b).
24 And, 50. 34 (b) says nothing.
8 M
But, then the next part says, and the final safety L
l l
g_.
56 1
analysis report.
Well, that tells me something.
- But, 2
that tells me I can't do a severe accident analysis on an 3
FSAR alone.
It just does not have the level of detail that 4
you need to make that determination.
5 So, how much beyond that can 1 et to find?
6 I find nothing.
7 I was going to suggest words in the middle of 8
Page 8, af ter 50.34 (b), I was going to suggest that you 9
insert:
And customary provided to support a final design 10 and final safety analysis report.
11 That would help me some.
But, the word " support" 12 says it's beyond what's on that paper in the FSAR.
It's 1
13 the kind of information you need to do a true PAR and so 14 forth, and to do a true pipe break analysis and whatever.
15 You've got to know everything, the proximity.
You 16 have to know where all the cable trays are located, where 17 the wires are, where the instrument boxes are, where the 18 junction boxes are, the whole bit, in order to do a severe 19 accident determination in that area.
20 So, you have got to go beyond the FSAR.
And, I 21 don't know just what you would say, but I would suggest the 22 words that I've just said.
23 MR. EBERSOLE:
I don't see any reference in here 24 to even an organized approach demanded by PRA.
25 MR. MICHELSON:
Well, that's in the severe accident
57 1
policy statement.
2 MR. EBERSOLE:
Do you think that's clear enough?
3 MR. MICHELSON:
It's in here.
4 MR. EBERSOLE:
It's buried in there.
5 MR. MICHELSON:
No, no, it 's i n here.
You must 6
meet the severe accident policy.
7 But, I don't know how I would do it if I just 8
had an FSAR in front of me.
9 MR. SCALETTI:
Well, you can't do it with just 10 the FSAR.
11 MR. MICHELSON:
No.
So, it has got to go beyond.
12 Now, the question is, do you have the leverage with which 13 to get the information, as stated in this document?
14 And, I don't find it.
I found it narrowed by 15 that sentence in the middle of Page 8.
At least, expand 16 it to indicate you really expect to see what is normally 17 available at an FSAR stage in present day concepts.
18 And, it goes beyond the paper that's in front of you.
It goes -- normally, you have a plant in front of you 19 M
at that stage, at least so much of it that you could do 21 severe accident PARS and so forth.
22 MR. WYLIE:
Let ne ask you, in talking to AIF --
23 you talked to AIF, we talked to AIF.
We had a meeting with 24 them, and we asked them that question.
And, basically the M
answer I got back from them was that they would do a complete
58 1
design with everything except the nameplate data off of a 2
component that would be supplied.
3 Now, isn't that basically -- to me, that implies 4
you do the whole design process, all drawings.
5 MR. MICIIELSON:
They gave all the good arguments 6
as to why you ought to have it.
MR. WYLIE:
Now, I have to qualify all the drawings.
It's all drawings except those that you can't generate unless 8
you have purchased the component.
MR. SCALETTI:
Yes.
I 11 MR. WYLIE:
For example, details on a pump.
You 12 haven't bought it yet so you can't provide that kind of 13 information.
14 But, it's everything else.
5 MR. MICHELSON:
That's way beyond an FSAR.
16 MR. WYLIE:
Yes.
It's information that's generated 17 when you go for an operating license.
18 MR. MICHELSON:
Yes.
IN MR. WYLIE:
It's available if the regulator --
reviewer wants it, he can get it.
Of course, it's a moutain 21 worth of information.
MR. MICHELSON:
Yes.
MR. SCALETTI:
We would expect the information to be available for certification.
25 MR. WYLIE:
I guess it's a matter cf words in
59 1
conveying that in here.
2 MR. MICHELSON:
Yeah.
Words are not in here saying 3
that that is what you expect to see.
In fact, the words 1
4 seem to be to the contrary.
5 MR. SCALETTI:
Well, they weren't intended to 6
because we thought we had --
7 MR. WYLIE:
I think what it is, when you refer 8
to 34 (b), it says, you know, you generate this information 9
here and it's subject to interpretation.
I mean --
10 MR. SCALETTI:
Sure.
11 MR. WYLIE:
-- it doesn't spell out in detail 12 everything you are going to give them.
It just says that 13 you have to have it available.
14 For example, if I look here, it says:
A descriptior, 15 and analysis of the structure systen and components of 16 the facility with emphasis upon performance requirements, 17 the basis and technical justification thereof upon which 18 such requirements have been established and the evaluations 19 required to show that the safety functions will be accomolished.
20 Now, that takes a lot of information and a lot of 21 supporting information that you are going to ask for in 22 addition to what's submitted-in the formal FSAR.
23 MR. MICHELSON:
Well, what we have become accustomed 24 to is that the FSAR has grown into a document of manageable 25 size, honefully manageable, but I think the NRC has said
60 1
don't put all of the detail, elementaries and everything in 2
it.
If we need them, we will ask for them.
3 So, the FSAR has been kept to a manageable size 4
by leaving out all of this extra detail.
But, it is 5
certainly detail that was available and used by the reviewer.
6 So, we don't want to define now the level of detail we wish 7
to see as that in the FSAR alone.
It must be defined to 8
be beyond that.
In fact, it has to be, whatever it takes 9
for you to do a proper review on a one-stage licensing 10 process.
11 MR. BERKOW:
It's clearly what we intend.
12 MR. MICHELSON:
That's what needs to be clearly 13 brought out.
And, it doesn't seem to come out in what I 14 read.
But, maybe you can tell me what I ought to read 15 that does say that.
16 MR. BERKOW:
Okay.
We certainly can amplify 17 that and put some clarifying statements in this document.
18 But, I think it's imoortant to note that this 19 particular document was not intended to be a cookbook 20 type, procedural type, document.
The policy statement 21 is just that.
It's a very broad policy statement.
22 The NUREG was conceived, because in this particular 23 case the Commission did not want to address anything but 24 design certification.
So, they said take everything else M
that was in the old policy statement and put it in a NUREG.
q
(,
T 61 i
1 The questions you are raising are very, valid 2
questions.
AIF and others have raised the same questions.
3 We don't have all the answers at this point in time.
I 4
think if we waited until we have all those answers, we 5
probably would not get the NUREG out in the time frame 6
that the Commission would like to --
7 MR. MICHELSON:
Well, you seem to know what you 8
expect to have available to you.
Why don't you just sav 9
it?
10 MR. BERKOW:
Well, we can clarify but we can't 11 answer all of the questions in this NUREG that are being 12 raised here today.
To some extent, I think that has to 13 be developed as we get into the implementation. The next 14 phase that we anticipate,after issuance and finalization 15 of the policy statement and the NUREG, is to go back and 16 take a close look at all of our existing regulations, 17 policy, guidance, procedures that the Staff uses and see 18 what changes are needed there.
19 That's the next step.
I'm sure that by the time --
M up until the time and, even including the time, after the 21 first application comes in, we will be working with the 22 applicant in finalizing some of these questions that are 23 being raised.
24 We are going to be feeling our way to some c:: tent.
25 We are not going to have all the answers before we issue
R-62 I
this policy statement.
./3
[uj 2
MR..MICHELSON:
Well, it seems'to me,- though,.the policy statements.are supposed:to indicate what the policy
.3:
4 is, and.I.would think this is an-important policy matter,
.5-as to what 1evel of detail we. expect to finally'see in.the 6
review process.
7-And, that ought to either be in the policy 8
statement or-in the NUREG.
9 MR. BERKOW:
And, we can state that generally.
10 But, I.think some of the discussions we are getting into 11 here get into more detail.
And, I don't think that has a 12 place'in the NUREG.
-[ )
'13
.And, I.think a lot of the-things'we certainly.
14 will need to answer, but it's going to come later on.
15 MR. MICHELSON: L I think we went through this 16 whole discussion when you were here before.
And, then.I' see now the NUREG and'I still don't see'it.
-17' 18 So, I had to assume that you didn't believe it.
19 MR.'BERKOW:
We did.
I think we tried to get the point across while we were discussing the policy 20 21 statement, that the NUREG was not going to have-in it all 22 of the things that you --
23 MR. MICHELSON:
It ought to have at least some
' 24 of the things.
It at least ought to say what you think you 25 are going to get.
It ought to at least say that.
63 1
MR. SCALETTI:
And, we have the process in place.
2 We've had -- we have had reviews of two FDAs and two 3
amendments of GESSAR dealing, one with severe accidents.
4 We have RESAR under review.
We have the ABWR 5
pending.
And, we are reviewing these to our existing 6
regulations.
7 And, I don't think that any of these designs are 8
giving us less than we would have anticipated, or less 9
than we need, to do our review.
We fully anticipate we 10 can review the ABWR under our existing regulations and 11 our existing standard review plan.
12 MR. MICHELSON:
I was going to also suggest that 13 on Page 9, where you try to list what ought to be in there,
^
14 that you eliminate that list completely simply because it 15 just confuses the whole matter as to what you expect to 16 See and don't expect to see.
17 If this is an all-inclusive list, it's dangerous.
18 MR. WYLIE:
It doesn't say that, though.
It 19 says that it includes this, doesn't it?
20 Yes, it should include the following.
21 MR. MICHELSON:
Well, that --
22 MR. WYLIE:
It's not limited, though.
23 MR. MICIIELSON:
No, not limited, too.
But, if 24 you have already said it has to be an FSAR level as covered 25 by 10.34, what more do you need to say?
You just start i
L
64 1
confusing the issue.
2 MR. WYLIE:
Well, 10.34 doesn't go to this detail.
3 MR. MICHELSON:
No, nor is this the correct 4
detail to go to either, because it doesn't define the 5
detail.
6 MR. WYLIE:
Still -- you are right.
I mean, this 7
spells out the scope.
It doesn't cover the detail.
8 MR. MICHELSON:
Yeah.
Arrangements, as you 9
pointed out before, is something that -- what level of 10 arrangements?
11 Most designers, when they talk arrangement drawings 12 they mean the furniture.
They don't mean the detailed
)
13 cable routing or the conduit routing rather.
That's not 14 an arrangement drawing.
15 MR. EBERSOLE:
It's equipment arrangement, as I 16 understand it.
17 MR. MICHELSON:
Yeah.
So, it's dangerous to 18 list this stuff and not be too accurate about it.
19 MR. WYLIE:
Well, maybe you should use the words M
" general arrangements and layout."
21 MR. EDERSOLE:
Well, that's the furniture, the 22 equipment arrangements.
23 MR. WYLIE:
I don't know.
24 MR. EBERSOLE:
At least, from my end of it.
2 I would like to say this paragraph on Page 8 should be
g 65
'1' "such as," because this is a? ighly deficient list.
h ry k-)-
2
- MR. WYLIE:
I_think the list is important and 3
valuable, but I.think you should qualify it~, like.you say.
=4' MR..MICHELSON:
Well, better add to it,-also.
5 Don't you want the electrical one-lines?
6 MR. WYLIE:. Well, I assumed they were in the
'7 process diagrams.
That's a process.
8 MR. MICIIELSON:
No.
Again, the process diagram 9
is an NSSS-vendor term.
It's not electrical at all.
10-MR. WYLIE:
I don't have any problem with spelling 11 it out, you know, like piping. layout.
12 MR. MICHELSON:
But, PNIDs are not electrical'one-13 lines.
14' MR. WYLIE:
I know they are not.
15
'MR. MICHELSON:
That's what he lists here, process 16 instrument diagrams.
e i
17 MR. EBERSOLE:
The emergency plan that you have-18 got in this bullet will vary where'the plant -- we don't
~
- 19 want to put another one on Long Island, I don't think.
20 MR. SCALETTI:
That type of emergency plan would 21 be reviewed in conjunction with a pre-approved site or
. 22 placement of the site.
23 Now, placement of the tech supnort center, the 24 emergency operating facility, et cetera, probably would be 25 covered by --
V i
66 1
MR. EBERSOLE:
There is an implication in the S
2 bullet that says security plan.
I guess that's all 3
administrative and procedural and doesn' t have anything 4
to do with what I call security features.
5 And, that's going to be a bone of contention.
6 MR. BERKOW:
Well, there's no reason why this 7
design certification could not cover vital areas of vital 8
equipment.
9 MR. EBERSOLE:
Well, there is a little problem 10 there when you get into that area.
I've always been dismayed 11 at what you hand out to the public in the way of information, 12 as to where to go to undo the plant.
'~'
13 MR. BERKOW:
Well, okay.
It might have to be 14 withheld; the physical security plans are not out in the 15 public document room.
16 MR. EBERSOLE:
I should think that would be a 17 security matter, to not divulge --
18 MR. BERKON:
But, it could still be submitted and 19 reviewed as part of the design certifications.
3)
MR. EBERSOLE:
Well, one of the weakest areas, 21 throw everything out to the public.
And, though I don't 22 think many people bother to go find where the vulnerable 23 features are, you get into a gray area.
24 I think we should pick up some policy about not 25 letting that get so loose.
67 1
MR. BERKOW:
We protect all of that information 2
- now, 3
MR. EBERSOLE:
How do you do it when you also 4
say what Carl is saying, we divulge all the details?
5 And, we spell it out where everybody can see it.
6 MR. BERKOW:
Well, you are divulging the design 7
details but you are not divulging the security details.
8 You are not divulging how you are protected from a safe-9 guard point of view.
10 MR. EBERSOLE:
The details express the vulnerabilities 11 as well as the need to know.
12 MR. BEFKOW:
But, why is that any different in the 13 design certification case than it is in the regular licensing 14 process that we have now?
It's not clear to me why that would be m' ore of a 15 16 problem under standardization than it is now.
17 MR. EBERSOLE:
Well, some nrocess -- I'm -lust 18 saying, you know, I think it's erroneous to divulge weak 19 or easy places to do things.
20 And, yet the reviewing people need to know.
So, 21 there is some closure on certain aspects of the design that 22 is necessary.
I don't mean closure, I mean some security 23 control over that.
24 How do you take a plant home when it's in trouble 25 because somebody tampered with it?
68 1
MR. NYLIE:
I was pleased to see you put the 2
draft specs in because I think that's important to be 3
submitted up front.
And, some review done.
4 MR. ELERSOLE:
Charlie, what would you say about 5
.the obsolesence of rationale in the context of your 6
discussion with me about the installation design where 7
the slightest verocity is forbidden, yet they have rubber 8
tubes someplace else in the design that leak like a --
9 MR. WYLIE:
You'are talking about penetration --
10 MR. EBERSOLE:
Yeah.
Where you get an inferior 11 design because of requirements of leak tightness in this 12 case which is not compatible with leakage of containment 13 elsewhere.
14 Once you reflect the fact that we don't adhere 15 to obsolecent standards, which we have said --
16 MR. WYLIE:
Some of those sane -- that's a good 17 point.
Some of the things laid out for the advanced 18 reactors, plant designs, could be considered for this 19 process here.
3)
I think what he is alluding to -- you are familiar 21 with those -- you have got them in your plants, where they 22 say don't use that kind of --
23 MR. EBERSOLE:
The realization has come about that 24 we have got a lot of standards that's budget tight.
You 25 get an inferior product as the result.
o
?
69 1
MR. WYLIE:
I mean, under the advanced reactor 2
policy, it says, you know, use proven state-of-the-art 3
technology.
4 MR. EBERSOLE:
Yeah, but also examine requirements 5
which are obsolete.
And the realization -- what we have 6
learned over that 25, 30 years.
7 And, one of them, Charlie, is the use of that very 8
design you discussed with me.
9 MR. SCALETTI:
That should be part of the design 10 certification process, because once we've certified it, it 11 becomes part of our regulations though it's not clearly 12 bound by the rest of the. regulations.
It is a regulation.
13 MR. EBERSOLE:
Let me give you a picture.
You 14 know what I'm talking about.
Charlie said you can get 15 far better high voltage insulators if you use materials 16 which have a slight degree of leakage, insignificant.
17 Yet, on another part of the design you will find rubber 18 tubes that are holding leakage out against an unspecified 19 air system to hold them distended.
M See, these rationalities ought not to persist.
21 And, there's nothing that I know of that says the containment 22 ought to be such that I could go in and tell the shift u
operator, execute containment closure, with no forewarning.
24 And, it will work, because that's the way it's 25 going to happen.
They prepare for weeks testing the holes
70 1
in the containment when they do a leak test, and there is
,. x
(
).'
\\~
2 no' consideration of the dynamic loads on systems.-
-or, 3
there used not to be in spite of-the documentation - ~against 4
theusystems being opened and unable to close.
6 That's not in the regulations.
It's in all the 6
refined detail today.
But, it has never been put in the 7
regulations unless you use regulations in the broadest 8
context.
I think that's what you are doing.
9 MR. WYLIE:
I guess the message, as far as 10 completeness of design goes, is somewhat similar to what.
11 Carl mentioned here earlier, that it should be up front, 12 some statement'to the effect that the supporting documentation
()
13 and design information should be that which would support
.\\_J 14 any final design for review by NRC for the final plant 15
~ approval.
16 How you say that, I don't know.
I mean, it's 17 just something up front on policy.
I think vou attempt to 18 do it at the bottom of Page 10 where it says:
The objective 19 of design certification is to develop a detail plant design 2
that completely satisfies regulatory requirements."
21 MR. EBERSOLE:
Let's go into that.
What do you 22 mean in this context by regulatory requirements?
23 I don't see -- that can mean almost anything to me.
It can be the regulations, it can be Staff positions, 24 l
M it could he whatever.
l-71
- 1 MR..SCALETTI:
Whatever is tied'to 10 CFR 50.
Et 2
MR. EBERSOLE:
It's some pretty dark ones.
'3
-Appendix R:and other Staff positions.
You know,' expand 4
'the: meaning'of that'.
5 MR. SCALETTI:
We have.a standard ~ review plan, 6
which as part of our regulation a requirement to document 7
the deviations from the existing standard review plan _'which 8
was in effect'six months prior to your application.
8 We have all of our regulations and 10 CFR which 10 are there for a reason.
You would have to -- you are 11.
bound by those regulations.
12 Obviously, there are exemptions taken to these
'13 regulations,.and in this case certification.would be a 14 regulation itself and, therefore, would not require an 16 exemption to another regulation.
16 -
Ron, do you want to say something?
17 MR. HERNDON:
I'm Ron Herndon with the NRR Staff.-
18 Jesse, I think -unfortunately the answer to your question 19 is all of the above.
i E
It's the regulation, it's the generic issues that i '
21 are presently being resolved --
22 MR. EBERSOLE:
Is that generally understood by 23 people?
24 MR. HERNDON:
Well, that's precisely why EPRI has 25 a very ambitious program underway right now, to nail those 4
72 1
things down and to specify design --
2 MR. EBERSOLE:
Would it be appropriate for it to 3
be reflected here?
4 MR. IIERNSON:
No.
I think the words here have 5
to be as they are.
6 MR. EBERSOLE:
This is in the general context.
7 MR. HERNDON:
This policy is going to be in effect 8
for some time.
Five years from now it may be something 9
different.
Maybe five years from now we will have a lot 10 of these issues resolved.
11 MR. EBERSOLE:
You see regulatory requirement.
12 It's kind of ambiguous.
13 MR. HERNDON:
It is ambiguous, but it has to be.
14 But, it does mean beyond strictly what's in the regulations.
15 MR. EBERSOLE:
I know that.
Why don't you so 16 state?
17 MR. IIERNDON :
We understand what it means --
18 (Laughter.)
19 MR. EBERSOLE:
Nobody else does.
20 MR. IIERNDON:
-- and the industry understands 21 what it means, too.
And, if we tried to define it today 22 that definition may be obsolete a year from now.
23 MR. EBERSOLE:
Okay.
I agree with that.
24 MR. SCALETTI:
But, they are tied together Z5 through the standard review plan rule, and you can't get
m-m s
-73.
'I aroun'd'that.
L\\s_)
2' MR. WYLIE:
Well, maybe that second. sentence'of 3-
-the'last' paragraph ~at the bottom of Page 10 could be 4
expanded.--'
5 MR. EBERSOLE:
That's:what I want.
~
6
'MR. WYLIE: -- to include what Car 11 suggested.
7 Therefore, an essentially complete design should be provided 8
which would support the necessary review -- whatever those 9
.words'were.
10 -
MR. EBERSOLE:
Regulatory requirements means 11 floating in space, I guess.
12 MR. BERKOW:
But the --
./i 13 MR. EBERSOLE:
Originally, you know, they said
%)
14 _
you have got to shut the plant down from someplace outside 9
15 the control room.
The industry responded by putting exten-16 sion cords out of the+ control room.
Now, we have. Appendix-17-
.R.
18 I don't want to see any' repeat of this sort of 19 thing.
That was-partsof the patching process, the
~
m ambiguousness of:the. criteria.
21 And, the practice of. adopting the cheapest 22 '
solution, which were 'the extension cords out of the control 23 room,which is now, by.the way, must be eliminated by 24 standard design.
These are now antiquated -- in South M
There is a structure in South Texas that should
74 1
not be standardized.
It was the obsolete interpretation 2
of GDC-19.
There is a set of useless and hazardous 3
controls at that plant that have been superseded by the 4
requirements of Appendix R, yet it is put in there and 5
held like a hole in the head.
6 And, it is part of the standard design.
You shall 7
adhere.
Well, I'm saying if you repeat -- it's clearly a 8
detriment.to safety.
9 MR. SCALETTI:
It's -- hopefully, I assume, if 10 that was the case the Staff would not allow South Texas 11 to be replicated.
12 MR. EBERSOLE:
But it was the nodel of the PWRs.
13 We've got a rubber stamp for the future.
And this is a 14 good example of the caution you need to take when you do 15 that.
16 You know what I'm talking about, don't you, 17 Dino?
There's a room down there that says the air is 18 clean and fresh in here, but you can go to here.
The 19 control room can't be occupied.
But, it doesn't account 20 for a trace of damage in -- it doesn't account for a 21 trace of physical damage.
22 And that has been transcended and made obsolete 23 by the appearance of Appendix R, which is:
I want an 24 independent shut-down place.
25 MR. SCALETTI:
Aren't they required to have two?
75 Don't they have two in South Texas?
MR. EBERSOLE:
You mean two independent ones?
3 Well, the independence is for the damage concept because it's what it is.
It's the extension cords from the terminal 5
board to the control room.
6 MR. HERNDON:
Now, Jesse, you have to keep in 7
mind, South Texas, you know, was in the design process 8
and construction process as our fire protection requirements 9
were developed.
MR. EBERSOLE:
I know.
MR. HERNDON:
And, so they were caught at a point 12 where they were permitted to do something and then they made I3 a decision to do something beyond that.
And, so they are a kind of a hybrid.
We are here 15 today to talk about standard plant designs that are going 16 to be submitted to us in the future, which have embodied I
in the standard review plan all the fire protection require-18 ments that the Staff thinks are appropriate at this point in time.
20 So, you know, I don't think we are talking about 21 something that can happen again.
Just like GESSAR will 22 never happen again.
It was a special case in terms of 23 a standard plant.
MR. EDERSOLE:
That's a good thing.
I'm glad to 2,
hear that.
76 1
MR. IIERNDON:
Also, we are getting more 2
sophisticated and the industry is maturing.
I don't think 3
a lot of things that went on in the past are going to be 4
a problem.
5 MR. EBERSOLE:
I hope not.
6 MR. IIERNDON:
There is too much at stake nowadays 7
in terms of economic investment and commitment when a 8
utility or a bidder comes in with a design.
9 MR. EBERSOLE:
I would hope the utilities, which 10 are rich enough, would contribute to the vendors in 11 developing a true standard optimized plant.
I don't know 12 if that process is taking place, but I doubt it.
13 MR. WYLIE:
I think that last sente'nce on the 14 bottom of the page, where you start off with the -- the 15 bottom of Page 10, where you start off with, "The detail 16 should be consistent information required by 10 CPR 50. 34 (b)..."
17 and you could insert right in there, "and require to support 18 the regulatory review in accordance with NRC policies for 19 requirements for operating license applications."
Or, E) something to that nature.
21 Expand that to be all-inclusive.
22 MR. MICHELSON:
I was going to suggest slightly 23 different werds.
The same ones I suggested earlier, almost, 24 and that is, after the 50.34(b), you insert "and customarily 25 provided to support a final safety analysis report review."
77 1
MR. NYLIE:
Okay.
2 MR. MICHELSON:
And the same ought to be inserted 3
on Page 8, the middle of the page.
4 MR. WYLIE:
That's a flag.
5 MR. MICHELSON:
It's just a flag.
It says wherever 6
we have normally got it in FSAR stage, in terms of informa-7 tion, we ought to now still get it, or have available to 8
us.
And, not just what 50.34 seems to say alone, because 9
it's rather undefined.
10 Is there a real problem with the Staff inserting 11 such words?
12 MR. BERKOW:
No.
13 MR. MICHELSON:
Because I thin k that's what --
14 from all of this discussion, which is about 30 minutes of 15 it now, I think that's the message you are giving me, is 16 that you expect to get the same level of information you 17 have always gotten prior to issuing an operating license.
18 And, I'm saying, yeah, and we ought to say that.
19 And, perhaps in these words or perhaps even better words, 20
.but essentially, and customarily provided to support a 21 final safety analysis report review.
22 Is there a booby trap in that?
23 MR. WYLIE:
I can't see one.
24 MR. HERNDON:
Not unless you want -- customarily?
M MR. MICHELSON:
I was leaving a nice open word
78 1
there, because then the guy says:
Well, you never asked 2
for that before.
And, maybe if you have never asked for 3
it before you ought not to be asking now either.
4 But, if you normally have one-line and all this 5
other stuff available to you, even if it wasn't in the 6
FSAR, you still expect them to be available to you.
And 7
that gets -- it keeps the thing more open than you had 8
before, which was a little narr.ower definition.
9 MR. WYLIE:
It just gives you an illustration.
10 Some of the questions that are asked, like on electrical 11 systems.
They ask, has an analysis been made to ensure 12 that under various conditions that the voltage drops or 13 such that would sustain the operation of safety?
14 That's an analysis.
The Staff asks that kind 15 of question, and they go back and have to do all these 16 studies to assure that.
17 MR. MICHELSON:
I think what you are into, if 18 they haven't done it in the case of this FDA you can make 19 that then a provision.
M MR. WYLIE:
Sure.
It's an open item.
21 MR. MICHELSON:
And keep it as an open item.
- But, 22 at least it allows.you to ask for it.
And, if it's unavailable 23
' then you can identify it, because it would be customarily 24 available.
M MR. WYLIE:
Like Dino says, it's their intent to
79 1
do that type of review.
2 MR. MICHELSON:
Then, if the Staff felt it was m_
3 really necessary to do it now, then I think they could ask 4
for it under this provision if the words were in there.
5 MR. EBERSOLE:
What we have been talking about, 6
after this is all done and completed, Carl's big warehouse 7
full of drawings is all finished.
And, we are now at the 8
point to get certified.
9 What are the Staff's plans in the context of --
10 step-wise examining the fraction that has been completed 11 when you are not yet done or ready for the f.inal approval?
12 And you have a verdict that looks like you are going along 13 all right.
I put that part behind me, but then I'm not 14 done until I see the rest.
15 What is the Staff's plan to steadily follow 16 the evolution of the design and stop the process, which 17 accordingly goes on, where it costs you 10 to 15 thousand 19 dollars to change a red light to a green light when you 19 are all done because it shows up in so many drawings?
20 How are you going to follow the evolutionary 21 process?
I see no words in here about your actions or 22 procedures, only the words that you are finished.
ZI And that implies, I think, t o the vendor and designer an enormous potential burden that you are going 24 25 to make him do something after he has laced the plant
80 I
completely together, and you have not been a carty to this 2
evolution?
3 MR. BERKOW:
You mean following the evolution 4
of the design?
5 MR. EBERSOLE:
The evolution of the design at 6
stages to see that they are not going the wrong way which 7
you are going to tear up when they are done.
And that's 8
a very costly process, as we all know.
Just design is 9
a lengthy process, at least.
10 We have got to cease waiting too late to tear 11 up an immense and costly process that has taken place 12 without our previously having looked into its evolution.
13 I think that is critical to the success of this 14 industry.
15 MR. BERKON:
This is somewhat similar as to how 16 we follow the construction of the plant after we issue a 17 construction permit and assure ourselves that it is indeed 18 constructed in accordance with the construction permit.
19 MR. EBERSOLE:
You don't in design evolutions?
20 MR. SCALETTI:
We don't get a crack at the design 21 until a vendor files his application.
22 MR. EBERSOLE:
Why don't you require that you get 23 it?
You don't get it because you don't ask for it, Dino.
4 MR. BERKOW:
But, once we issue the design certification we are, in effect, saying that we are satisfied.
25
81 1
MR. EBERSOLE:
But, by the time you get that 2
far, what with the name of all the details you have got 3
there, you are locked in.
4 MR. BERKOW:
With the exception of open items, 5
that's right, which are specified in the design certifica-6 tion.
7 MR. EBERSOLE:
You are saying the industry could 8
take its own risk?
9 MR. SCALETTI:
We are not locked in.
10 MR. EBERSOLE:
You are not locked in, but you 11 may invade an enormously complex system and again compromise 12 and patch it because of the enormous cost involved in 13 changing it, even though it's just on paper.
14 MR. MICHELSON:
You want to get into the design 15 process, and the Staff is not suggesting that.
And, I'm 16 not sure I would suggest that they get into the design 17 process either.
18 MR. EBERSOLE:
I would have an issue in the matter 19 of getting it to the review process in the course of design 20 evolution.
21 MR. WYLIE:
Do you address those, how you are 22 going to handle the open issues?
23 MR. BERKOW:
No, not really.
24 MR. WYLIE:
Have you thought about it?
25 MR. SCALETTI:
Conditions on a design certification?
82 1
MR. WYLIE:
You go through and apply for design 2
certification on a plant, and there are things that are 3
open.
Now, design certification could be apart, you know, 4
from site approvals or pre-approving the sites.
It could 5
be apart from that.
6 If it's not tied together, it's not required.
- But, 7
there could be things that are required because of site 8
specifics you have got to keep open because you don't know 9
all the answers until you design surface water, for examole.
10 MR. SCALETTI:
They would be reviewed at the 11 time the site and the design were merged and the application 12 came in to construct and operate.
13 MR. WYLIE:
Don't you think you ought to say 14 something about it here?
15 MR. BERKOW:
With the exception of site specific?
16 MR. WYLIE:
I do, but that's just one.
I raean,
17 there could be others.
18 MR. MICHELSON:
How do you handle the open items?
19 MR. WYLIE:
How do you handle the open items?
N How do you close them out?
21 MR. BERKON:
We haven't specified that in here.
I 22 MR. NYLIE:
I'm just asking the question.
23 MR. HERNDON:
It's not specified anywhere in the 24 way we handle open items for plants of operating reactors M
that we are licensing now.
83 1
MR. NYLIE:
Yeah, but those --
h 2
MR. EBERSOLE:
Carl has a valid concern about 3
my proposition, you know, that you follow the evolution.
4 Do you think maybe if you get into it', you willidousome 5
things that might be'less effective than the designer would 6
do?
7 MR. BERKOW:
That's a matter of regulatory 8
philosophy anyway.
I don't think we can address that here 9
today.
10 MR. EBERSOLE:
You might be right.
It all 11 depends on --
12 MR. MICHELSON:
YOu can't review your own work.
13 MR. EBERSOLE:
But, you can't be religiously puri-s 14 tanical about that.
But, puritism, in any case, is a bad 15 thing.
And you ought to participate in the evolution to 16 some degree.
I think it's critical.
17 Unless we can take the current historical state 18 we are in where we don't have the pressure to get nuclear 19 power.
20 MR. BERKOW:
I think, as was pointed out before, 21 we are participating to some degree under the EPRI program.
22 MR. EBERSOLE:
See, if you do, then vou are not 23 burdened with making nasty decisions of tearing up a massive 24 complex and expensive systems.
You have come out clean.
25 MR. BERKOW:
But, we might also be compromising our
84 1
effectiveness as regulators.
2-MR. EBERSOLE:
There is some degree of both of 3
that.
4 MR. BERKOW:
There is a trade-off.
5 MR. MICHELSON:
You are not just sitting down 6
with EPRI, though, and deciding what the design ought to be 7
and then turning around and reviewing it.
8 MR. BERKOW:
That --
9 MR. MICHELSON:
You are reviewing it in pieces 10 as you go.
11 MR. BERKOW:
That's right.
We are not helping 12 him write it.
We are reviewing what they give us.
J 13 Mk. MICHELSON:
I think Jesse is suggesting you
~-
14 help them write it.
15 MR. EBERSOLE:
I'm getting into this.
You look 16 at a system that has a critical thing.
And, you say this is 17 too complex, can you simplify it.
18 MR. HERNDON:
We have no indication the Commission 19 intends for us to do that.
M MR. EBERSOLE:
Is that conceptual design or 21 innovation?
It is not.
You just say:
I don't approve the 22 generalities of this design.
It's too complex.
I want 23 something understandable.
24 MR. BERKOW:
Certainly, in the course of the review 25 we can reject the design for whatever reason, surely.
85 1
MR. EBERSOLE:
And that's a good reason.
2 MR. BERKOW:
And, we can tell them:
Go back and 3
fix the problem that we find with it.
4 But, that's different from telling them:
Here is 5
how you should fix the problem.
6 MR. EBERSOLE:
We have got two things to do in 7
the new designs.
We have got to trip the reactors and 8
we've got some lousy designs that do that, notably GE.'
9 And, if we trip the reactors we've got TAD-45, get rid 10 of the heat and then a proper profile.
That's about all 11 we have got to do.
12 If we do that, everything will stay physical]y 13 the same way it is today.
Solid liquid is a stability 14 problem.
We have to do just those two things.
15 And, we've got to work on the focus of what we 16 work on, just those two physical problems.
We've got to 17 shut the reactors down, we've got to always have a heat 18 balance.
19 What else is there, except if it gets away from M
us, what the hell are we going to do with the radiation?
21 MR. WYLIE:
Okay.
Do you want to take a break?
22 Let's do that.
What have we got, a 15-minute break?
23 Come back at 20 'til.
24 (Whereupon, a recess is taken at 10:25 a.m.,
M to reconvene at 11:46 a.m.,
this same day.)
86 1
MR. WYLIE:
All right.
2 MR. SCALETTI:
I think we can hopefully move on 3
to for our next agenda item, changes to approved and 4
certified designs.
5 MR. NYLIE:
Yes.
6 (Slide.)
7 MR. SCALETTI:
The Commission obviously realizes 8
that one of the benefits of standardization would require 9
limiting the amount of changes to the design, both by the 10 NRC and by the applicant for a design approval.
11 The NUREG defines the backfit rule and also the 12 changes -- defines the changes as set forth in the proposed 13 legislation.
Both of them require for a change to be made 14 to an approved design, be it a reference design, a duplicate 15 design approval, a replicate or manufacturing license, it 16 has to meet a certain test.
17 Both of the tests -- the tests of both the backfit 18 rule, which is 50.109, and the croposed legislation are 19 essentially the same.
And, they require a finding of a m
substantial increase in the overall protection of the public 21 health and safety.
22 So, before the Staff could make a change, this 23 finding would have to be made on the approved design, based 24 upon the design change for the approved design.
25
87 1
Now, the backfit rule also sets the date at which 2
this cost benefit analysis would have to be done to determine 3
if it was a substantial savings to the public health and 4
safety.
For a certified design, the NUREG indicates the 5
design certification would set the date for requiring a 6
7 For a final design approval that would not be 8
going to design certification, the issuance of the final 9
design approval.
For a preliminary design approval, it 10 would be the issuance of a preliminary design approval.
11 So, if you had a preliminary design approval 12 followed by final design approval, then it would be the 13 preliminary design approval.
14 The manufacturing license, and also the date of 15 the base plant for replication and the issuance of the 16 duplicate design approval, would set the date for requiring 17 backfit cost benefit analysis.
18 Now, the Staff's cost benefit analysis would 19 include-all categories of plants that the backfit would 20 be applicable to.
The plants -- if they were plants under 21 operation, plants in construction, or plants on the drawing 22 boards, all those would have to be taken into consideration.
The AIF would like to see the backfit test 23 applied only to the operating plant of that class of plant.
24 25 The Staff interprets the backfit rule to include more, to
88 1
include all the ones I have previously mentioned.
The 2
industry is a little more free to make changes to their 3
designs.
4 Now, before I go into that, also every backfit 5
would be required by the Staff.
It would be required for 6
all ca? gories of design, for the operating reactors, the 7
ones under construction and the ones of future applications.
8 Industry can make a design change a little easier 9
simply by providing an application to make that design 10 change, be it -- if it is simply in the final design 11 approval, then it would be simply an amendment to the final 12 design approval.
If it was for a change to design certifica-13 tion, then the design certification would have to be amended, 14 or the rule would have to be changed and you would have to 15 undertake a rulemaking process.
16 So, this is clearly going to discourage changes 17 in the design, both from the standpoint of the Staff and 18 the industry.
The industry, though, can request a change 19 to be only forward-fit.
This would -- if they wanted a-20 design change to be made to a standard design to all classes 21 of plants that were, say, still on the drawing board, not 22 those under construction and those with operating licenses, 23 this could be done, could be forward-fit.
24 MR. MICHELSON:
Now, to what extent does the 25 backfit rule apply to changes requested by the designer?
89 1
MR. SCALETTI:
The backfit rule would apply if the 2
change that the designer wanted to make the Staff considered 3
would provide substantial increase to public health and 4
safety, it would have to undergo the backfit analysis 5
before we could require it be made on the plants that were 6
in operation.
7 MR. MICIIELSON:
That, I understand.
But, let's 8
assume that, for instance, the designer wishes to make a 9
change for forward-fit plants, for instance.
Would the --
10 and, then it submitted an amendment to its design certifica-11 tion requesting this change.
12 If the Staff, in the process, wished to invoke 13 some additional requirements because they want to make --
14 because the designer wants to make the change, are those 15 additional requirements under the backfit rule?
16 MR. SCALETTI:
Well, for the Staff to make the 17 changes -- to require -- for the Staff to require changes, 18 we would have -- it would have to meet the backfit test.
19 MR. MICIIELSON:
Even though the designer is asking 20 for the changes.
21 MR. SCALETTI:
Well, true.
The designer would 22 come in and ask for the change to be only forward-fit.
If 23 the Staff wanted to backfit it, then they would have to --
24 it would have to meet the test of 50.109.
25 MR. MICIIELSON:
That's not my question.
The
90 1
question is, if the amendment came in only for forward-fit, 2
which you said it could do --
3 MR. SCALETTI:
Yes.
4 MR. MICHELSON:
If it comes in for forward-fit, 5
if the Staff in looking at this change wants to add a few 6
embellishments or whatever to make it what they think 7
adequately safe, are those embellishments under the backfit 8
rule?
9 MR. SCALETTI:
You mean, the embellishments on the 10 design change?
11 MR. MICHELSON:
Yeah, on the design change 12 requested by the designer?
13 MR. SCALETTI:
No.
I don't think so.
s 14 MR. MICHELSON:
Well, see, that's where you get 15 into this problem of the backfit rule and that funny little 16 statement on Page 22 of the backfit rule -- which you 17 probably don't have in front of you.
I can read you the 18 statement.
19 I think you nust have seen this already, because.we
%)
are going to talk to the lawyers about it, but, in essence, 21 it says, "If the licensee believes the amendment process is 22 being used by the Staff to impose a backfit, tne licensee 23 may invoke the rule under 50.109."
24 In other words, licensee can say it is under the 25 backfit rule and you must, even though it's a designer-requested
\\
r 91 1
change and it's only for future plants, if the Staff wants 2
to add or change anything on it, if the licensee wishes he 3
can say:
I want to impose the backfit rule, which forces 4
you then to justify these embellishments for future plants.
5 MR. SCALETTI:
Embellishments of the design 6
change --
7 MR. MICIIELSON:
The design change requested by 8
the designer, not by the Staff.
9 MR. SCALETTI:
That could be true.
10 MR. MICHELSON:
And, I find that very difficult 11 and another problem with this funny little statement they 12 stuck in ba6k.of the rule.
13 MR. WYLIE:
I'm not sure I understand it.
Walk 14 through it again for me.
15 MR. MICHELSON:
Okay.
In SECY 222, which was the 16 final backfit rule, not in the rule but in the preamble, 17 in the Commission's position stated in the statement of 18 considerations, it says:
"The Commission agrees with those 19 who suggest that the Staf f sh oulci not require to prepare a 20 backfitting analysis as a cor.dition orecedent to the issue 21 of a licensed amendment if the licensee requested the 22 amendment pursuant to 10 CFR 59.
23 "If a licensee believes that the amendment process 24 is being used by the Staf f to impose a bac'cfit, the licensee 25 may invoke the rule under 50.109.
It is unnecessary to
r 92 1
amend the rule in this regard, since mention of the point 2
here provides adequate direction to the Staff and licensee."
3 So, you were informed that this was how the --
4 this is a Commission position, but it's not in the rule.
5 But, you are still bound to abide by it.
6 MR. SCALETTI:
That's a Staff precipitated change, 7
right?
8 MR. MICHELSON:
No.
This is a licensee precipitated 9
change.
It's an amendment.
The licensee comes in and says:
10 I want to amend my license.
And the Staff says:
Okay, we 11 will amend it, but what you are suggesting here is going to 12 require this and this be added to it.
13 A good example, fibrous insulation in certain 14 plants.
The licensees are coming in with amendments and 15 saying:
We want to take out a metallic insulation and put 16 in fiber insulation.
The Staff ought to be saying, but 17 isn't:
If you are going to take the fibers out, you had 18 better look at your sumps to make sure it can handle it.
And 19 look at the pumps to make sure the pump seals can handle m
it.
21 If the Staff wants to say that, and if the licensee 22 doesn't like it, it can say:
Justify the redesign to the 23 sump and the pipe seals -- or, pump seals, on the basis 24 of the backfit rule.
25 MR. EBERSOLE:
They can use your own club on you.
93 1
MR. MICHELSON:
Sure.
They can turn the club.
2 And, it says right here that they are allowed to do it even 3
though it's not in the backfit rule.
4 And, that's the same problem here.
If the 5
licensee wants to -- let's say the licensee has said in 6
their FDA that they are going to use metallic insulation.
7 Now, later on they say for future plants I don't want to use 8
metallic anymore, I want to put a fiber.
9 If they come in with an amendment and it's 10 fibrous insulation and the Staff says:
We don't think 11 the sumps is good enough for that, the Staff has to justify 12 that decision with a cost benefit analysis and so forth.
13 How you do such an analysis in a case like this 14 isn't even very clear.
But, I don't think this whole idea 15 was ever thought through before it was put in.
16 But, I'm just asking you that, will you be under 17 the backfit rule?
I think you will be.
18 MR. WYLIE:
You mean, you turn around and ask the 19 licensee to justify his amendment --
M MR. MICHELSON:
Yeah.
21 MR. WYLIE:
-- then he can turn it around and say:
22 Well, you do a cost benefit that requires ne to justify it?
M MR. MICHELSON:
Yeah.
He can say:
Okay, I will 24 do it.
All right.
The Staff has to justify their needs, 25 the Staff's needs or change under the backfit rule.
94 1
MR. WYLIE:
Doesn?t the Staff have the legality 2
of requiring him to justify.his change?
3 MR. MICHELSON:
No.
The FDA was issued with a 4
particular sump, or he designed it in the FDA.
5 MR. SCALETTI:
But that particular sump was 6
designed based upon-metallic insulation so, therefore, any 7
changes to that would require the vendor or whoever was 8
applying for that --
9 MR. MICHELSON:
I think I would agree with you, 10 that --
11 MR. BERKOW:
If this was a certified design, you 12 would have to have a rule change.
13 MR. MICHELSON:
I want to get into that as the 14 next step.
The first step was just to get over this 15 question here of whether it's under the backfit rule.
16 The answer is the licensee can tell the Staff to 17 justify under the backfit rule.
In other words, if the 18 Staff says:
You have got to change the sump design, then 19 the Staff must justify that need with a cost benefit analysis, M
not the licensee.
21 MR. HERNDON:
Carl, the Staff has addressed this 22 same question, as well as other questions, on Appendix K.
23 And our answer was, we don't think it's a problem.
We 24 don't think the backfit rule is going to be used.
M MR. MICHELSON:
We are going to get our lawyers at
e 95 1
the Full Committee meeting I think to explain --
2 MR. HERNDON:
It might be best left until Friday.
3 MR. MICHELSON:
And, I'm just pointing out here 4
is another case where this same provision --
5 MR. HERNDON:
Except we are only talking about 6
license revision once an operating license has been issued, 7
and that's way down the road from what we are talking about 8
today.
9 MR. MICHELSON:
Yeah.
The next part of the questior 10 is, I believe you said that the -- if you want to amend the 11 FDA you have got to go all the way through a backfit rule 12 again, you have to go back through the backfit hearing
)
14 MR. BERKOW:
To make a substantive change to a 15 certified design?
16 MR. MICHELSON:
You have to go through a rulemaking 17 process all over.
18 MR. BERKOW:
You are amending the rule.
19 MR. MICHELSON:
That's three years of work, two 20 years of work.
21 MR. BERKOW:
It doesn't have to be three years 22 of work.
n MR. MICHELSON:
But, it's two years, isn't it?
24 MR. BERKOW:
The way you would change any rule, 25 this would be a rule like any other rule would be.
/
96 1
MR. MICHELSON:
Just like Appendix K, once you 2
stick it in as part of the regulation it's difficult to 3
do anything with it.
4 MR. BERKOW:
That's part of the intent.
5 MR. MICHELSON:
I didn't realize it was going to 6
be part of standard design, that it was so frozen that it 7
would take a rulemaking to alter it.
8 MR. BERKOW:
The design itself is a rulemaking.
9 MR. MICHELSON:
I would have thought that there 10 would be provisions if some judgment is made as to whether 11 it's a significant or less significant change --
12 MR. SCALETTI:
That clearly may be the case.
13 MR. EBERSOLE:
Boy, I see a field-day for an g
14 already rich set of lawyers.
15 MR. MICliELSON:
Every time you want to alter the 16 design, you have to go through a rulemaking?
17 MR. SCALETTI:
I'm sure there is going to be a 18 limit placed on this.
It's going to be well defined to 19 the certification process of what's going to require a 20 rule change to change a design.
L 21 So, you know, that's not clearly defined but I'm 22 sure it will be to the certification process.
23 MR. MICHELSON:
You ought to make some provision 24 to make sure that it's really a substantive, a really M
significant, change before you move to another rulemaking.
97 1
MR. EBERSOLE:
I guess, Carl, if they alter the G
2 design it's subject to this sort of impact.
What is 3
also suggested here in the course of arguments, in the original case the same sort of thing could be invoked.
I'm 4
not going to nodify the design without the equivalent of a 5
6 backfit examination to support the Staff's position, that 7
something conservative ought to be done.
8 Industry could take that stance.
Here, they 9
have the prerogative right there.
But, prior to the 10 issuance of the license the same sort of thesis would probably come up, why do you push us into this corner when 11 12 there is no fundamental basis for it?
13 What it is, it throws out the only real component
(
that we've got that amounts to anything in this business, 14 15 experienced judgment which we numeralize and call PRAs.
16 MR. SCALETTI:
Well, I think it's probably 50.59 17 changes could be made based upon the license that was 18 issued referencing certified designs.
That probably could 19 be done without rulemaking.
20 MR. MICIIELSON :
That should be cleared up, though, 21 shouldn't it, in your NUREG?
This shoulC cc into enough detail to know what kind of changes vould have to go through 72 23 rulemaking?
24 MR. BERKON:
Again, we have viewed that as an 25 implementation detail down the road.
l
98 1
MR. MICHELSON:
It sure is a big detail.
S 2
MR. BERKOW:
There are a lot of big details.
3 MR. SCALETTI:
One thing,I'm sure that's going 4
to be worked out.
I don't really -- other than reciting 5
the -- what is in the proposed legislation and what's in 6
the backfit rule, I don't really think that we can go beyond 7
that.
8 I think it's something that is going to have to 9
be done through the process certification and at that time, 10 when the final rule is issued, it would so define what could 11 be changed and what can't be changed with a rulemaking.
12 MR. MICHELSON:
You will do that before the 13 final rule is issued, though?
14 MR. SCALETTI:
(Nodded in the affirmative. )
15 MR. MICHELSON:
Which will be a year from now.
16 MR. SCALETTI:
No, I meant the rule on the 17 design.
18 MR. MICHELSON:
On individual certification?
19 MR. SCALETTI:
Yes.
20 MR. MICHELSON:
I don't know how you can do it, 21 then.
Yeah, I guess you could.
Sure, on each one 22 separately.
23 MR. SCALETTI:
We have to -- although we have 24 had Appendix 0 which allowed design certification since 25 1976, we have never done one.
So, certainly it is going to k
99 1
be a lot that will have to be worked out through the process.
2 Now, to move on.
License fees.
Again, we have 3
a case where we have license fees defined by 10 CFR Part 170 4
and also for the collection of those fees and also the 5
draft Act would allow us to do something differently than 6
is clearly required by Part 170.
7 170 says -- sets the maximum limit that you have --
8 that a vendor would have to pay for a review, 1.4 million 9
dollars for a final design approval.
It does not address 10 certifications to date.
This 1.4 million dollars would be 11 paid at six months intervals.
You would be billed actual 12 expenses, whatever the Staff review costs were, $64 an
~
13 hour1.50463e-4 days <br />0.00361 hours <br />2.149471e-5 weeks <br />4.9465e-6 months <br />, up to 1.4 million dollars.
(
j 14 The Standardization Act of 1985 would allow the 15 Staff to collect the review costs, or defer the costs from 16 the vendor, the people that were asking for the design 17 approval or the certification, and to charge the users of 18 these designs, such as the utility would reference the 19 design approval or certification, he would be billed a 20 certain portion of the review costs.
21 The details of that have not been worked out.
It would require enactment of the Act before we could do it.
22 23 Right now, we are bound by Part 170, and some 24 modifications of 10 CFR 170.
We clearly cannot charge the 25 user who references a design right now.
So, this is something
100 I
that would have to be done later.
S 2
The Commission, in the Standardization Act, sees 3
it as an incentive to standardization not to charge the 4
vendors for the review process.
5 The fees for the other types of designs would be 6
consistent with whatever they are asking for.
For dupli-7 cate plants, for operating license or for a construction 8
permit, it would be charged accordingly.
For replicate 9
plants, the same way.
And, the fees for a manufacturing 10 license are so specified.in Part 170.
11 And, we do not envision any changes to those.
12 Related policies and regulations.
In the develop-13 nent of the NUREG, we were asked to consider, to address,
-j 14 all of the related policies and regulations, those that 15 were approvea as commission policies or regulations or those 16 that were in the process of being approved.
17 We have addressed the severe accident policy 18 statement, the standard review plan rule, the safety goal 19 policies statement, the regulatory reform or the Standardiza-20 tion Act of 1985, the source term policy and the advanced 21 reactor policy statement, and also early site approvals.
22 With regard to the severe accident review, the 23 severe accident policy statement, we called out the four 24 licensing requirements for future plants.
And you, the 25 Committee, are certainly familiar with those.
It has been
101 1
before you many times.
2 The standard review plan rule requires that any 3
application to documented deviations from the standard review plan, which, is in effect six months prior to its 4
5 application to the NRC for the type of license or approval 6
that it wants.
7 The safety goal, the safety goal was recently 8
published.
The Commission has stated in its safety goals 9
what it expects safety goals to be.
It also indicates 10 that the Staff is developing criteria to implement these 11 safety goals.
12 We indicate in the NUREG that any future applica-13 tions certainly would be bound by the outcome -- or, would 14 have to conform to these criteria that are being developed.
15 Regulatory reform or the draft Standardization Act 16 calls forth or allows for one-step licensing.
It allows 17 for amendment to the fee structure.
It sets aoproval times 18 for certified design of 10 years.
It encourages pre-19 approved sites, and is so specified.
N There is a brief write-up of the regulatory reform f
21 in the NUREG.
22 Source term policy, again it recognizes that this 23 policy is being developed and that source terms may change.
24 Accident source terms may change, or will change, to reflect new guidance from the Staff in its recent policy when it is 25
102 1
developed.
2 Advanced reactor policy, there is a write-up on S
the advanced reactor policy.
The Staff foresees the 4
standardization NUREG to be applicable to advanced reactors.
5 floweve r, it is anticipated that the advanc'ed reactors would 6
have to do more if they wanted to be considered a standard 7
design, such as we would expect a prototype for advanced 8
reactor.
9 If you have any questions on that, Tom King is 10 here, and I'm sure that he can address these questions, being 11 the keeper of the advanced reactor policy statement.
12 MR. MICHELSON:
Question.
On Page 22, Item 3, 13 under the advanced reactor policy, at the end of that Item 3 14 it says, "The Commission would encourage designed construction 15 and operation of a full scale prototype before they are 16 submitted for design approval or design certification."
17 I guess this seems to infer that the Commission 18 really doesn't expect to see somebody come in with an FDA 19 for an advanced reactor until they have actually built and M
operated an advanced reactor of that sort.
21 MR. SCALETTI:
Well, I think the FDA, you could get.
22 The design certification I believe you could not unless it 23 was a prototype that was built.
24 MR. MICIIELSON :
Well, it say triesign approval or 25 design certification.
I think that really meant final design
~,
s,.
103-4 1
. approval, I guess, because you can't'even operate a plant-
- ~y I, )
2
'of any sort-under'any license until you get aLdesign 3
approval.
4 MR. SCALETTI:
You would have-to-have an approval, 5-
~ correct.
6 MR. MICHELSON:: But,'I think you meant finali 7
design approval, FDA or certification is what was really' 8
' meant here, I-assume.
9 Now, to get an FDA then, I would not expect-to s
10 see an FDA. applicant without -- under this policy without 11.
.very likely their having built and operated such a plant
' 12 under a standard-licensing --
13 MR. BERKOW:
As a practical matter yes.-
- But,
(}
-14 this~doesn't prohibit it.
15 MR. MICHELSON:
No, it just says will encourage.
16 I want to make sure of what.we are encouraging here.-
17
-MR.. KING:
If I can just say a. couple'of words.
18 on that.- This is Tom King.
19 What's in the policy or the NUREG standardization 20 is sort of a, general guidance.
What we would like to see,
-21 you' know, we are looking into the three advanced concepts 22 specifically in our standardization plans, each design on 23 its-own merits, to see whether it would require a prototype 24 or not require a prototype, or is that program sufficient.
. 5-We will be writing a Commission paper on that,
104 1
which we expect to bring to the ACRS probably early in 2
1987.
3 MR. MICHELSON:
Again, by advanced you mean high 4
temperature gas and so forth?
5 MR. KING:
HTGR.
6 MR. MICHELSON:
Thank you.
7 MR. SCALETTI:
Early site approval is the last 8
of the related policies and regulations.
The Commission 9
has again, in the Standardization Act of 1985, indicated 10 that they would like to see early site approval, certified 11 sites for periods of 10 years.
12 We also have this proposed amendment to 10 CFR 13 Part 51, Appendix A, which would allow alternative site 14 reviews, which is the same as the pre-approved site.
15 So, we have either proposed regulation -- and wo 16 could do a ore-approved site now'and certify it for a 17 period of 10 years if an application came forth.
18 The rulemaking options --
19 MR. MICHELSON:
Are you leaving this slide, then?
20 MR. SCALETTI:
Pardon?
21 MR. MICHELSON:
It looks like you are leaving 22 this slide.
I was --
23 MR. SCALETTI:
We are richt here now.
24 (Pointing.)
15 MR. MICHELSON:
Oh, I'm sorry.
Go ahead.
105 1
MR. SCALETTI:
The four options which we discussed 2
before, they are simple notice and comment, there is notice 3
and comment with the opportunity for a legislative hearing.
4 There is notice and comment with a required legislative 5
hearing.
And, there is the full blown adjudicatory process 6
for rulemaking.
7 The Commission has decided not to recommend a 8
rulemaking process at this time, only to reserve that until 9
we receive an application for rulemaking.
10 Now, the notice of comment process would be simply 11 once the review has certified -- certified design review has 12 progressed to the ACRS, the Staff would, based upon favorable llll 13 recommendations, issue a final design approval.
This final 14 design approval then would go to the Commission for design 15 certification.
16 For simple notice and comment rules, it would be 17 so noticed and comments solicited and Staff response to 18 comments, would respond to the comments.
And I'm sure the 19 ACRS would have the opportunity to look at the comments and 20 to comment themselves.
21 Following that and a successful resolution of 22 the comments and the designs would become part of the 23 Commission's regulations.
24 The other two rulemaking options, one that would 25 afford a legislative hearing if so requested; and, the other
m 106 1
one that would require a legislative, hearing are just off-
-M
. (_f 2
shoots of the notice and comment.
The process would be the 3
same up to the point comments would be solicited through 4
the Federal Register and-also hearing -- to hear additional f
comments from interested. parties.
'6 And, the full blown adjudicatory process would 7
be hearing by, I assume, some appointed body of the 8
~ Commission, be it the ASLB or the Commission itself.
9 MR. MICHELSON:
Are these the same options that
' 10 would have: to be looked.at if there were to be a change 'in 11' a certified design?
12 MR. SCALETTI:
If the rule was promulgated based.
['~}
13 upon-a full blown adjudicatory hearing, I don't think it's --
v 14 I'm not a lawyer, but I don' t think you have to go through 15 that again to make a rule change.
You'might be able to do 16 it by simple notice and comment.
17 MR. MICHELSON:
If you go through the simple 18 notice'and. comment process to change a rule, what kind of 19
. time does that take;no'rmally?
2 MR. BERKOW:
Thirty days, 60 days, whatever.they 21 decide is appropriate for comment.. And, then, of course,
.22 you have to evaluate the comments.
Depending upon how 23 many you get, that will determine how long it takes to --
24 MR. MICIIELSON:
So, it's about a minimum of four 25 to six months.
107 1
MR. BERKOW:
It's a couple of months.
2 MR. MICHELSON:
Well, it's more than a couple.
3 MR. SCALETTI:
For the NEPA reviews that we used 4
to undertake when we issued a draft environmental policy --
5 a draft environmental statement, we used a 45 day comment 6
period.
This was usually extended at the request of one 7
of the federal agencies or some interested party who wanted 8
or needed more time to comment.
9 So, I think we have a -- the Commission can set a 10 minimum if it likes of 30 days or 20 days, I believe.
11 MR. MICHELSON:
I went back and reread quickly 12 that Section 4 on changes to approve and certify designs.
13 I didn't find anything in there that forewarned me that if 14 I want to make a change to a certified design I'm going to 15 have to go through rulemaking again.
16 Would it be appropriate to do that, if that is 17 indeed the case?
Because, I'm wondering if the Commissioners 18 upstairs realize that if this thing gets cast in some 19 rather heavy concrete and that to make changes, even of 20 the simplest form, might require rulemaking unless some 21 discussion is in here as to what you do.
22 That did not dawn on me in reading any of this, 23 that I should have if I had thought a little bit, I guess.
But, I didn't.
It didn't dawn on me that I would be stuck 24 25 with a rulemaking to make a change in a certified design.
108 1
Maybe it ought to be made clear in that.section 2
as one of the disadvantages of certification is that it's 3
hard to change.
4 MR. BERKOW:
We can make that point.
5 MR. MICHELSON:
I think it ought to be made, 6
because then under the rulemaking part maybe it ought to 7
be a brief paragraph that says that, you know, once the 8
design is certified then you must at least go through a 9
notice and written comments as the minimum option.
10 MR. SCALETTI:
It's difficult to say that it's 11 hard to make a change as a disadvantage of standardization 12 when we have lauded that as an advantage of standardization.
13 So --
4 14 MR. MICHELSON:
Yeah.
15 MR. SCALETTI:
It is difficult to make a change, 16 but we can see that as an advantage and not a disadvantage.
17 MR. MICHELSON:
Yeah.
The reader ought to be 18 forewarned that it isn't -- you know, that's one of the 19 prices you are going to pay now, is that it's going to have 20 to go through a legalistic process to make a change unless 21 something can be worded in to keep the simple changes, at 22 least, out of that process.
23 I don't know how you would do that.
24 MR. SCALETTI:
In one of our -- in the Commission 15 information papers and also the information papers that the i
t
4
.O
~ A
?
L1091' I
a r
at 1.
(Committee has._seen attached to:the May-14th policy statement E '
c v.'
2
- of the, Commission-'was a little more~ involved,with' regard to f
3 these'four-rulemaking1 options.
f4 We.made a recommendation to the-Commission,in
~
5' ithose informationLpapers that the' simple noticefand comment.
' ~
6 tbe.ruledJout as being not. affording-sufficient-_. opportunity 7
forpublic participation.
.Now, we' removed-Litqfrom the) 8
'NUREG.
We still have.the -- but,'we still hold the same.
9 aposition on_that but it was not felt appropriate to.berin -
.10 -
i cluded'in'the NUREG.
11 MR..BERKOW:= But, Dino, it might be worthwhile 12' leaving'it in.there for-changes.z In.other words, itimight' 13' be more appropriate for changes than for,the original rule-
- 14 '
making.
15.
,MR.
SCALETTI:
You,mean, recommend - -
L 16 -
MR. BERKOW:
Notirecommend it, but we would befless-
'17 7
'likel'y toswant to delete it as an option.
'It's probably.
18
.a more viable' option for changes and.would probably add 19 something into-this saying these optionsfare applicable to-Y F
20 changes-as well as to the original rule, in which case.this-E first one would take on added significance.
P 21l 22 MR. MICHELSON:
I would assume it would be your 1.
M-one of choice for most changes unlessLit was really a big V
i.
f.
24
. involved change.
25 MR. SCALETTI:
Back to the slide.
The last one 1
t
,,4
--.,,w.=
e
,e--
,-,,,.,,.,-e,,,,--w2..y,wey,-r.,%-,--
,ww.e,.,,..--.,,.-,,-c.c.m,.,.,,,,ew.r,-,,,,.e m +.wm w y.-r,,-,,,-yy.,,,,--,9w-*er.--,a,-w,+--.-.r.----
110 1
on the list --
G 2
MR. WYLIE:
Before you leave that, Dino, one of 3
the comments the ACRS made had to do with criteria for 4
the standing interest participation in the rulemaking 5
hearing should be made clear.
6 I assume that under 712, the first paragraph, 7
last sentence, is an attempt to address something similar 8
to that.
It says the requesting persons would be required 9
to state what issues they wished to be considered at the 10 hearing and permitted to provide expert testimony.
11 MR. SCALETTI:
Which now?
Give me that page.
12 MR. WYLIE:
Page 25, first paragraph, last 13 sentence.
14 (Mr. Scaletti is looking at the document.)
15 MR. SCALETTI:
That would be part of it.
Whenever 16 the proposed rule would be issued for comment, the Federal 17 Register would state the conditions that would have to be 18 met for interested parties at that time.
19 We did not feel it appropriate to spell out all 20 of the requirements for participation in the NUREG.
They 21 are clearly in Part 2 of our regulations.
22 MR. WYLIE:
What was your last statement?
23 MR. SCALETTI:
I said the conditions for 24 participation as an interested party, or intervenor, or 25 whatever, are set forth in our regulations.
And, at the time
111 this proposed rule was noticed in the Federal Register l
1 those conditions were to be so stated and would tell where 2
and it would tell who could file and what the 3
to file, conditions would be for filing to be an intervenor.
4 Proposed new legislation also 5
MR. BERKOW:
If that was enacted, that would change 6
addresses this.
our regulations or whatever the current regulations are at 7
the time of those that would apply.
8 Would you clear up something for 9
MR. MICHELSON:
is it going to be on the final 10 me?
On this rulemaking, design without a particular site?
11 12 MR. SCALETTI:
That's correct.
13 MR. MICHELSON:
It will be the design certifica-
- And, the site not yet being specified.
14 tion rulemaking, in the then the intervenors can be anybody, I guess, 15 not knowing where this plant might be sited 16 United States, 17 in the future.
18 f tR. SCALETTI:
That's correct.
almost anybody could intervene 19 MR. MICHELSON:
So, 20 with consideration in that case.
once a particular customer or utility 21
- Now, wants to put such a certified design on a particular site, I
22 what kind of a process for public participation does he 23 have to go through to do that?
24 If it was not a pre-approved site, 25 MR. BERKOW:
112 1
you have the regular opportunity for hearing.
h 2
MR. MICIIELSON:
It's really the site approval 3
process that he has to go through next.
If he went 4
through that process with the certified design already 5-selected, that would be one package.
6 If he had gone through it earlier, he would just 7
have a non-specified plant at that site.
Now, that site 8
is approved and the design approved but the two together 9
aren't necessarily aoproved, are they?
10 MR. BERKOW:
No,,and the interfaces of those two 11 are subject to litigtion.
12 MR. MICIIELSON:
The litigation may be -- yeah.
13 It's little more than just the interface.
The combination
' ^'
14 of those two at one location now has to be considered.
15 MR. SCALLETI:
Well, when the site is reviewed, 16 the site envelope has to be considered.
17 MR. MICilELSON:
If the design is within the 18 site envelope that was considered, he doesn't have to go 19 through anymore?
20 MR. BERKOW:
For seismic and things like that, 21 yes.
Now, they could challenge whether that -- they could challenge the design itself whether that was the -- what 22 they provided was the design that we approved.
23 I think there could be challenges to those 24 25 regulations.
113 1
MR. MICHELSON:
Is there such a thing as a 2
rulemaking that involves the site as well as the design 3
to get a certification for the whole package at once 4
instead of being done separate?
5 It wouldn't be part of the rulemaking to certify 6
the site?
7 MR. BERKOW:
No.
By definition, you could not 8
have a rulemaking for a specific site.
9 MR. MICHELSON:
Okay.
Just for the design?
10 MR. SCALETTI:
Clearly, they envisioned that 11 you would have a rule on --
12 MR. BERKOW:
That's right, on a pre-approved site.
~
13 MR. SCALETTI:
But, not --
14 MR. BERKOW:
Not in combination.
15 MR. MICHELS:
And, even though that was envisioned 16 at the time that they went into the process, you treat 17 the two separately?
18 MR. SCALETTI:
I don't know what precludes it.
19 But, I don't know what benefits you would gain from it m
either.
21 MR. BERKOW:
You were certifying the design in 22 a more general sense.
I don't think you would want to 23 certify it only for this particular site.
24 MR. MICHELSON:
That's what I was getting at.
2 MR. BERKOW:
That would be too limiting.
i 114 1
MR.-MICHELSON:
That would be limiting, yes.
- And, 2
I just wanted to find out if that was what was envisioned.
3 You are saying no, you will always certify the 4
design for any site and then the sites will have to be 5
certified as to whether that design is acceptable?
6 MR. BERKOW:
Yes.
7 MR. MICHELSON:
Okay.
Thank you.
8 MR. SCALETTI:
Any further questions on rulemaking?
9 If not, we will go into renewals.
The renewal process.
10 The proposed legislation, as well as the -- well, 11 proposed legislation allows for renewals of design certifica-12 tions up to a period of 10 years.
The policy statement 13 would allow for that.
The severe accident policy statement 14 may call it out, but I believe it just addresses the actual 15 approval period of 10 years.
16 So, for design certification if you met the 17 Commission's regulations it could be approved for another --
18 a period of up to 10 years.
19 For final design approval, which has an initial 20 approval period of five years, it could be approved for up 21 to five years.
This is the same for a preliminary design 22 approval which has an approval period of five years that 23 would allow for approval up to five years.
24 For PDA, for renewal, you would have to demonstrate 25 good cause.
Good cause may be that you could show that you
115 1
had a pending application that was going to reference your I
2 design.
3 Renewals of the other standardization options, 4
replication, duplication and the manufacturing license, in 5
essence, there are no renewal processes for these.
You 6
certainly could extend construction permits.
You can 7
extend the operating license -- well, a construction permit.
8 You could -- I think you are bound by a 10-year 9
period on the manufacturing license for the number of to plants you could manufacture in a period of 10 years.
11 These two are new.
You have to demonstrate that 12 you meet the current Commission regulations that were in 13 effect at the time.
14 MR. EBERSOLE:
You know, something has been 15 bothering me a little bit.
The severe accident policy, 16 we mentioned awhile ago, as first the PRA context of the 17 severe accident policy.
It requires that you have got to 18 do math and a numeralizing of judgments, and that's where 19 you do it.
M That leads up to two boundaries.
One of them is 21 core on the floor.
The other one is the containment.
The 22 core en the floor is a pretty sad state of affairs.
m And, what you are going to look at is the challenge 24 of that happening.
What are the odds that it will?
All you 25 need in the organized context of evaluating a design is an
7
[_
116 1
integral, interrelated' problem.
I'm looking for integrated
.q~-)~
engineering and the' degree of departmentalization, which I__
2 3-still exists in both.the design as well as the. regulatory 4
field.
5 I'm looking for a statement:of your intent and 6
their requirement that you look at integral designs, not 7
pieces thereof, as has been and still'is the practice to a 8-great degree.
I'm referring to a continuance of the channeli-9-
zation of expertise and.how you are going-to do differently 10 from that in this matter.
.11
- You know,.it's a continuing problem.
12 MR. SCALETTI:
Are you saying that we don't~
O'
.13 '
look at --
G 14 MR. EBERSOLE:
The integral picture.
15 MR. SCALETTI:
The integral.' picture?
16 MR. EBERSOLE:
Yes.
Unless you get into a PRA and s
17 it forces you theoretically, at least, to do it.
- But, 18 that's.the cnly.-mechanism that really does.
19 MR. SCALETTI:
This is why we are looking for 50 essentially complete plants so that we can review --
i 21 MR. EBERSOLE:
But, if you review them with the i
22 process!it whacks them up.
If you cut them up in slices --
23 L and, you-know, I used to be on the other side of the table 24 and come up here with a problem that related to six systems 25 at once.
And, I couldn't find a response from the regulatory L
117 1
people as to what to do.
2 To a great degree, I think that still exists.
3 MR. SCALETTI:
Well, I believe you have to look 4
at the whole picture.
5 MR. EBERSOLE:
The PRA is what I'm really focusing 6
on.
I don't see any appearance of it until you look at 7
the horrible aspects of core melts and core on the floor.
8 I think you invoke it earlier than that.as a process, as 9
a methodology that requires a comprehensive and thorough 10 review of the integral package.
11 MR. SCALETTI:
I think that methodology is being 12 further developed to support the policy statement.
It is 13 being developed.
g 14 MR. MICHELSON:
It's a different PRA for 15 severe accidents than it is if you are doing a PRA to 16 determine the level of liability and so forth.
17 It's a different kind of PRA.
18 MR. EBERSOLE:
That's true.
19 MR. MICHELSON:
And, you don't do that for severe N
accidents.
You approach it somewhat differently.
21 MR. EBERSOLE:
Yeah, you are using a finer 22 structure.
23 MR. MICHELSON:
You have to have a much finer 24 structure.
25 MR. EBERSOLE:
That's what bothers me, the absence
e 118 1
of any statement of intent, although I know you feel that's 2
what you will do, your mechanism for doing it.
You look 3
at it, you are not all that good.
4 MR. SCALETTI:
All I can say is further guidance 5
is being developed now to implement the severe accident 6
policy statement, safety goals 7
MR. EBERSOLE:
Well, I was trying to get away 8
from just the severe accident policy.
I'm talking about 9
loss of the coolant.
10 MR. MICHELSON:
Are you required to do a plant 11 specific PRA, not severe accident?
Just a clant specific 12 PRA.
Are you required to do that?
13 MR. EBERSOLE:
I think that's critical.
14 MR. SCALETTI:
Ce,rtification, the PRA certified 15 design would be plant specific obviously. -More than likely, 16 as we went through on GESSAR, there may be fewer interfaces 17 on GESSAR but you have to consider you wouldn't have to redo 18 it, no, for certification.
19 The PRA that was done on the certified desigd 20 would be considered the plant specific PRA.
21 MR.
MICIIELSON:
We've got a communications 22
One is a so-called 24 plant specific PRA and various kinds of accidents, what 25 the probability is and outcome.
And, then you talk to the
119 1
severe accident people and they talk about a severe accident 2
PRA which is different.
They use many of the same elements, 3
but it's approaching it -- it puts in certain probabilities 4
of bad things happening and then it chases out, how severe 5
things can get.
6 MR. SCALETTI:
That's what the PRA in severe 7
accident, that's what we do.
8 MR. MICHELSON:
It's more than an accident PRA.
9 MR. EBERSOLE:
I think the plant specific is 10 short of looking at one; core on the floor is in order --
11 MR. MICHELSON:
PRA including internal events 12 such as flooding, internal flooding.
You don't do that
()
13 in a severe accident PRA but you do it in a plant specific 14 PRA.
15 MR. SCALETTI:
We intend to do it on a PRA 16 done under GESSAR.
It was unfortunate.
It was. looked at, 17 it was determined that -- I guess it came up, funding was 18 not available was the comment, to carry it forth.
The 19 Staff concluded that it would not really make a difference 20 in the overall outcome of the PRA.
21 So, it was considered.
And it would be then 22 done on a plant specific basis, because we felt ' hat we 23 could proceed with that level of PRA for a certified design.
24 I fully expected we would do an internal events PRA, which M
would include internal flooding.
We would probably do
- ~ =
120 1
a limited external events PRA as was --
h 2
MR. EBERSOLE:
What you would do?
I'm talking 3
about the vendor would.
4 MR. SCALETTI:
The vendor would be required to 5
do that.
6 MR. EBERSOLE:
That's not expressed in here.
7 MR. MICHELSON:
It's not clear that it's a require-8 ment.
It's not a part of the standard review plan.I don't 9
believe.
10 MR. HERNDON:
The severe accident policy statement 11 very clearly requires the PRA.
12 MR. MICHELSON:
For severe accidents?
13 MR. HERNDON:
No, not the PRA.
The PRA is used 14 to look for vulnerabilities to severe accidents.
15 MR. MICHELSON:
Yeah, but we are looking --
16 MR. HERNDON:
Those words are repeated in this 17 NUREG, but those words are in the severe accident policy 18 statement which is invoked by this policy statement also.
19 MR. MICHELSON:
I agree with you completely.
20 MR. HERNDON:
It doesn't recognize two different 21 kind of PRAs.
22 MR. MICHELSON:
I need to talk to your PRA people 23 again and find out if there is more than one kind.
You 24 say there is only one kind of PRA and it covers overything, 25 that's great.
121 1
MR. EBERSOLE:
I don't believe that.
G 2
MR. BERKOW:
That's our understanding.
I didn't 3
think this was referring to a specific kind of -- Dino, 4
this is meant to be an overall PRA.
From my understanding 5
of SAPS, that's what this is.
6 MR. EBERSOLE:
When they start out on a PRA for 7
severe accidents, things get a lot cruder.
8 MR. MICHELSON:
Yeah.
It's a cruder -- it's a 9
different kind of PRA you are doing.
You are looking for 10 different outcomes.
11 MR. EBERSOLES:
They don't use the old ones, the 12 ones that might have preceded this might be used as input.
13 But, it's a cruder approach.
s 14 MR. HERNDON:
The specific words state:
Completion 15 of a probabilistic risk assessment and consideration of 16 severe accident vulnerabilities.
17 Those are the words that are in this document, 18 and those are the words that --
19 MR. EBERSOLE:
Implied in this is they are one 20 and the same PRA.
But, they are different.
21 MR. HERNDON:
We don't acknowledge that there is 22 a difference.
It's a PRA.
23 MR. MICHELSON:
Well, there are seismic PRAs.
24 There are all kind of different PRAs, depending if you have a M
particular vulnerability in mind.
You do a PRA looking --
122 1
MR. BERKOW:
It's an overall PRA.
h 2
MR. SCALETTI:
Before GESSAR, we did seismic and 3
we did -- fire was the state-of-the-art problem --
4 MR. MICHELSON:
See, an ordinary PRA, when it 5
comes to core melt, it would stop.
A severe accident PRA 6
hopefully goes beyond and starts looking at the probability 7
that if the core doesn't melt the probability that the 8
containment is going to --
9 MR. SCALETTI:
But that --
10 MR. MICHELSON:
What is the probability that that 11 big a dose is going to get to the boundary.
12 MR. EBERSOLE:
It gets less accurate.
13 MR. SCALETTI:
But it includes both.
14 MR. EBERSOLE:
The fact -- you know, when you are 15 postulating dosage to the people, the wind is blowing in 16 all directions, it gets to a degree of indefinition at that 17 time.
18 MR. SCALETTI:
But, if you have a source term and 19 certainly a containment fails and you come up with a worst 20 case situation, if you can demonstrate that given that worst 21 case situation that you are still -- you have -- it ends up 22 with low consequences.
Then, I don't know what else you 23 can do.
24 MR. MICHELSON:
Well, your normal PRAs stop at 25 the SSE.
That's the design basis of the olant.
They don't
y 123 1
deal with what's the probability of an earthquake beyond f
X-/
2 the design ' basis and what is' the probability of failure 3
of equipment not designed for the SSE.
~
4 Severe accident PRAs, I think, are' supposed-to 5
search into these things.
6 MR. SCALETTI:
Clearly.
You are right, they do.
7 MR. MICHELSON:
But, normal PRAs don't.
They don't 8
gof beyond the SSE.
But, severe accidents you do.-
You start
~9 looking into the probability of the things that are going to 10 be worse than you thought.
11 It's a different PRA, I thought.
12 MR. SCALETTI:
I'm not aware.
' (~)
13 MR. MICHELSON:
If it's all one, then that's LJ -
14 great.
15 -
MR. BERKOW:
That's the interpretation we get 16 from the severe acc'ident policy statement, that it's an 17 overall PRA.
'18 MR. MICHELSON:
We will chase ourselves all the 19 way through this argument again, so I will go to a 20 different question.
21 On Page 18 of your NUREG 1225, Item Number 2 1
22 says that, in essence, you have to demonstrate the technical
'23 resolution of all the applicable USIs and so forth, i
I 24 What does that mean?
Or, what was it intended to M
mean?
4
_~
,.,--,...,,.,...._,_.---_m.
- -, -, _ -.. ~,, -.., -
1 124 1
MR. SCALETTI:
Technical resolution would mean that 2
it could be done by engineering design.
It could be demonstrat-3 ed by virtue of a probabilistic risk assessment at very 4
low consequence and, therefore, was resolved from that 5
standpoint.
6 MR. MICHELSON:
Well, let me -- my question is 7
a little more simple than that.
Normally, you have got a 8
USI or a generic issue, and you eventually tackle it and 8
resolve it.
And the resolution says we will incorporate 10 it into someplace else or whatever.
That's the resolution II in the USI.
It has got nothing to do with standardization 12 at all.
I Now, this talks about the demonstration of 14 technical resolution.
Does it mean that it must -- each 15 one of these USIs must have a resolution before you issue 16 the certified design?
Or, do you show how your certified 17 design meets the resolution arrived at for the USIs?
18 MR. SCALETTI:
It would be, if you have a generic 19 resolution prior to certification during the review process, then it would be expected that the design would meet the 21 generic resolution.
If you don't have a generic resolution, 22 then you still have to resolve that USI.
23 And, case in point is GESSAR 844 that was not resolved for GESSAR during the review process.
Iloweve r,
25 the design itself with the UPPS system, with the 10 hour1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br />
,125
~
I station blackout' capability,Lthe-Staff considered those
,q 2'-
-v two, that the USI'844,-station-blackout, was rr solved.-
3
-MR..-MICHELSON:
So, I'believe what you are saying 4
is the issue has alre'ady been. resolved.
You have to show
~
5
- how you meet, the resolution of the issue.
6 If the issue has not been resolved,.you~have to 7
show how you think you would address it, even not knowing 8
what the resolution might be?
9 MR..SCALETTI: ' You have to resolve it not knowing.
10 what the resolution is.
And, your resolution of the issue 11 may be different than the generic resolution.
12-But, you still have it resolved.
13 MR. MICIIELSON:- So,-that maybe doesn't come 14 through very clear.
That's what you mean here.
Maybe
-15 in your minds it's very clear.
16 MR..IIERNDON:
It's exactly what was done for 17 GESSAR.
It's the type of thing that EPRI is working on 18 right now for all designs, for all of industry.
19'-
And, these words came right out of the standard, 20 the severe accident policy statement.
21 MR. BERKOW:
This is a direct quote.
22 MR. MICIIELSON:
But, this is out of another 23 policy statement.
And, we are now going to talk about 24 standardization and what standardization now means.
25 MR. !!ERNDON :
It means the same thing, the same
126 1
thing that --
2 MR. MICHELSON:
So,this means if you already have 3
a generic issue identified as medium or high, you have to 4
essentially determine how you would resolve it with the 5
standard design not knowing --
6 MR. HERNDON:
You have to resolve it independent 7
of what the Staff ultimately resolves on an engineering 8
basis.
9 MR. MICIIELSON:
Now, which ones do you have to 10 look at?
11 And the problem I have here is that the -- we 12 keep generic new ones.
There isn't a fixed set down there.
13 Which ones do you look at, all those generated right up
"^
14 to the day that you issue the certification?
15 MR. SCALETTI:
I believe that's what we told 16 you on GESSAR, and I think that's the case.
17 MR. MICHELSON:
So, as you keep generating these 18 they will have to be resolved up to the day you issue a 19 certification.
Then, you don't have to address them at 20 all.
21 MR. IIERNDON:
Resolved or determined.
In most 22 cases, determined would mean not applicable.
23 MR. MICIIELSON:
Whatever the case is.
But, you 24 have to keep addressing them right up to the date of the 25 certification; is that correct?
127 1
MR. SCALETTI:
Yes.
I would say yes.
We agree 2
that --
3 MR. MICHELSON:
It isn't real clear from reading 4
this that that is your intent at all.
I think it would be 5
nice to just indicate you have to continue to do this until 6
the certification is issued.
7 MR. BERKON:
Again, we would have to check on 8
what the policy is on that.
9 MR. MICIIELSON :
So, what you are telling me is 10 what you think, not necessarily what has been decided?
11 MR. SCALETTI:
I think we did this on GESSAR.
12 MR. MICIIELSON:
We did a lot of things on GESSAR.
13 MR. SCALETTI:
We had generic issues that were
'~'
14 identified and prioritized during the course of the review 15 until the next to the last supplement, I believe, that the 16 Staff addressed.
17 MR. BERKON:
But, this is a very relevant question 18 on the EPRI effort also.
The question has been raised at 19 what point do you cut off consideration of new --
2 MR. KING:
I can tell you what we have done for 21 the EPRI effort, and that is the requirements document that 22 is being written today is going to consider all issues that 23 were on the books up to July 1st, 1986.
Any issue that is 24 brought up after that time, there is a two-step screening 25 process that EPRI will apply to determine whether that issue
v,.
~
128-
~1
' applies-to the.ALWR.
And, if it does, is there a change
'O.
p.
2-
~ required.
That's all -- this process is. going :to be 3
documented in the new reg-and should be~out.Lshortly.
4 MR.:MICHELSON:, But, your.. certification ~. isn '.t-
-5
- going..to be issued'until -- you-are not even. going to'-
'6 certify the'EPRI --
7
[. MR.~ KING:
No, just theirequirements that a
'8
. designer will then tak'.
e 9
.MR. MICHELSON:
That's a-little different~situa'-
10 tion,;a little less legalistic.
11 There is nothing finally binding on that,.'is 12 there?
You are not certifying ^anything when:you-get it 13 -
.done.
14 MR. KING:
We are not certifying it, but we are-15 -
going to review and approve thislas a process to the 16 Staff.
17
'MR. MICHEISON:
That's~another wh. ole discussion-18-of what that full review means.
And, I don't.want:to get-19 into it.
i-20 '
.But, I did want to understand this.
I think it
{
21-would be nice to clarify, and I don't have a predetermined i
' 22 notion.
I just wondered --
23 MR. HERNDON:
I don't think you could practically j
' 24 -
ever cut off these things.
l 25 MR. MICHELSON:
Well, you certainly --- after the l
l
r 129 1
certification is issued, they are cut off.
Now, they 2
become a change.
3 MR. SCALETTI:
Yes, but when the generic issue 4
is resolved at that time it would be identified, we would 5
have to consider these various classes, what has to be done.
6 MR. MICHELSON:
Sure, but if something had to be 7
done it would have to come in as a change to the certifica-8 tion and it would have to go through rulemaking?
9 MR. BERKOW:
That's correct.
10 MR. MICHELSON:
Now, another problem is, since 11 I've got to speculate ahead what the decision might be 12 on a particular unresolved issue in order to get my certifi-13 cation, if I get a certification based on what I speculate 14 would be the resolution and then the resolution finally 15 arrives and is nicer for me, do I -- what do I -- I guess 16 I have to go through again a change, rulemaking to accommodate 17 the actual official resolution?
18 MR. SCALETTI:
If you wanted to implement other 19 than what you -- was approved for your resolution of that M
issue at the time, I assume if it was significant enough you 21 would have to go through rulemaking.
22 MR. MICHELSON:
I wotild hope that you would write 23 in a orovision that says once the agency has resolved the 1
24 issue that that's really all you have to meet.
That's 25 Staff's resolution, not the one you dreamed up ahead of time
130 1
to get your certification.
2 MR. BERKOW:
Don't you think, Dino, they would 3
have a choice of doing either/or?
4 MR. MICIIELSON:
I would hope so.
5 MR. BERKOW:
If either one is acceptable to the 6
Staff.
7 MR. SCALETTI:
I don't know.
There could be 8
more.
There could be other issues involved here.
If 9
you modify your design through the review process to resolve 10 a USI and the resolution of the USI is something different, 11 then you have to go back and change your designs to accommodat e 12 that.
13 MR. MICHELSON:
I guess it means you have to go 14 through -- I think it might be on the conservative side to 15 resolve these issues.
16 MR. BERKOW:
Or if the Staff's turned out to be 17 more conservative than theirs, making them change it would 18 be a backfit.
19 MR. MICIIELSON:
Yeah.
I just wanted to see what 3) this was, because this is one that is constantly going to 21 be coming up.
I assume we will always have a new generic 22 issue.
23 Okay.
I think that clarifies it.
It wasn't real 24 clear, though, in reading this.
I would think perhaps the Zi words could be made a little clearer.
131 1
MR. SCALETTI:
That concludes what I have.
2 MR. WYLIE:
Does the Subcommittee have any more 3
comments, any questions?
4 (No response.)
5 MP. WYLIE:
I believe we have covered all of the 6
questions the ACRS raised and identified in their letter.
7 We could run over those to make sure, but I think we have.
8 We have addressed the recommendation to address 9
the Commission's policy statements.
They have included 10 those.
11 And, as regards to the question of advanced 12 reactor plants, they included those.
In regard to the 13 prototype testing and this type of thing, the question j
14 regarding participation and the public hearings, 1 think 15 we got an answer, they were basically'following Commission 16 recommendations at the time.
17 Let me ask about that.
Is that being considered 18 for revision as part of the revisions to the regulations 19 for participation in the public hearings?
K)
MR. SCALETTI:
Only from the standpoint that right 21 now for construction permit, there is a mandatory hearing.
22 For an operating license, there is a mandatory notice of 23 hearing, though they do not have to hold a hearing.
That's 24 what would change.
M They would remove, for full operating license,
132 l
1 that portion of the hearing would no longer be mandatory.
2 I mean, they wouldn't even have to notice it.
It would 3
be done prior to the construction permit.
4 I believe that's the change.
And, I don't think 5
it would change the standings of intervenors, et catera.
6 I don't think they would perceive any change there.
7 MR. BERKOW:
They also define threholds for 8
intervention at various stages into the legislation.
They 9
tighten up on the thresholds.
10 MR. SCALETTI:
They define a threshold for a 11 utility, that licensing process and would have to notify 12 the Commission, like in 30 days or some period of time, 13 that they intend to start operating.
14 At that time, the -- in that time, the Commission 15 would notice this in the Federal Register, entertain 16 petitions from the public and address those and determine 17 whether there had to be a hearing at that time or not.
18 But, that's part of the proposed legislation.
19 MR. WYLIE:
But, there is no change as far as 20 the conditions for particinating?
21 MR. SCALETTI:
I don't believe so.
22 MR. BERKOW:
Well, only in that you cannot open up an issue that was covered or could have been raised at U'
24 an earlier stage.
In other words, if somebody realizes now that they have a problem with the plant that they should have 25
r 133 1
raised at the earlier stage but they missed that opportunity, 2
I don't think they would be able to raise it at a later date.
3 MR. SCALETTI:
Well, they could raise it and if 4
it was determined that a decision would have to be made, 5
whether it was an issue or not -- as when the Commission, 6
the notice of the intent to operate was, I assume, filed 7
in the Federal Register.
The Commission would have to 8
consider all petitions that came in and determine their 9
merit.
10 So, you can do it.
11 MR.BERKOW:
I believe, though, that if the Commis-12 sion determines it is an issue that should have been raised 13 at the design certification hearing, that it cannot be f
raised now just because they missed their opportunity.
14 15 MR. SCALETTI:
From that stand, yes.
But, if 16 the issue they raised now had some significance to it, then 17 the Commission could say:
We are going to have a hearing.
18 And that's even though they --
19 MR. BERKOW:
They could.
They could.
Okay.
M MR. EBERSOLE:
Let me ask a question just to go 21 back.
What is the safety problem of the reactor that --
22 it is nothing that's said here about this.
TAP-45 goes into great detail and it's made a finding.
And I think 23 24 this is phenomenal, that the inclusion of conservatisms D
would, in fact, have negative cost impacts.
There is
134 1
evidence that over the last 20 odd years there should have 2
been design features which are now, I think, going to be 3
recommended.
You can show even at this late date that 4
they will have negative cost impacts.
5 Another thing is, we are forever running into 6
the BWR adwor switches.
What I find in here is the absence 7
of any reference to these two operational problems and 8
explicitely call out them and the need for improvement in 9
both of them.
10 We retain the physical state that we started 11 with, but we don't have any emission problem because the 12 transportability of whatever we generate is stable.
Are 13 you with me?
14 I see no reference to these key critical problems 15 or any new view being taken at them in light of the 16 resolution of the current matters such as TMP-45.
- Now, 17 maybe you can just ride on the fact that the conclusions 18 of these studies will be included as consideration.
I 19 don't know.
20 But, I keep going back to the fact that a safety 21 problem is, in the final analysis, more than a key to 22 heat balance.
And I would apply that to a stick of dynamite.
23 If I burn it slowly, it's nothing.
If I touch it off instant:.y,
24 I've got a violent effect.
25 I see no reference, you know, looking into the
135 1
roots of this thing and doing something to the roots in a 2
standard plant.
3 MR. SCALETTI:
This is something I assume a 4
designer should be aware of and should be working on.
5 MR. EBERSOLE:
But you don't say you want to do 6
that.
7 MR. SCALETTI:
I don't think this is the place to 8
do it in this document.
This is clearly just a guidance 9
to the industry and what we perceive as necessary for them 10 to go to design certification or to utilize one of the 11 existing options in standardization that we've had in the 12 past.
13 And to call out specific areas, I don't think is 14 appropriate.
15 MR. EBERSOLE:
You know, I worked for years with 16 standards.
I found out they had one common characteristic, 17 is to reflect ~what we are doing, but heavens sake, not what 18 we ought to do.
Those are standards as the industry looks 19 on them.
20 MR. SCALETTI:
We did say what we think we ought 21 to do.
We ought to go -- everything should be, some time 22 in the future, should be certified and designed.
Everything 23 should go through rulemaking.
Everything should be 24 MR. EBERSOLE:
Certified is another word for 8
M standard.
It's a higher level.
136 1
MR. SCALETTI:
Certainly.
And, we look at this 2
as some stability in the process for 10 year approval 3
periods.
And, these designs are going to be changing 4
continually.
We aren't going to have a BWR-3, 4,
5 and 6 5
all in the licensing process at the same time.
We are 6
going to have maybe two or three designs that the industry --
7 MR. EBERSOLE:
You don't say that.
T could 8
find 15 designs in these.
9 MR. SCALETTI:
Clearly, you could have.
And, I 10 agree with that.
That does not preclude it, but hopefully 11 the evolution of the process is what we are going to have.
12 MR. EBERSOLE:
You are riding on hope, but that's 13 a contradiction to the industry desire for every AE inventor, 14 to have his own --
15 MR. SCALETTI:
I don't think the certification 16 process is going to be an easy thing to go through.
- And, 17 therefore, I don't see vendors coming forth with a design 18 every two or three years to be certified.
On GESSAR II and 19 the development of the severe accident policy statement, we 20 are going to require all designs be certified.
21 Well, the Commission backed off that and decided 22 they would not proceed to certification with GESSAR.
They a
had another design that they were going to develop, and that 24 was the ABWR.
So, it has, from that standpoint, been 25 selectively picked -- the one designer developed one design.
I 137 1
MR. EBERSOLE:
Well, I'm glad they didn't carry 2
that warmed over heart any further than they did.
3 MR. BERKOW:
Economics is going to effectively 4
limit the number of applications you have in design 5
certifica' ions.
6 MR. EBERSOLE:
Well, the need for electric 7
power --
8 MR. BERKOW:
Economics.
If they don't see they 9
are going to be able to sell a-lot of these --
10 MR. EBERSOLE:
There is no other motivation force 11 in that system other than the dollar.
Economics forces 12 the industrial efforts wherever you look.
There is no 13 corporate morality.
At least, that's my view.
14 MR. WYLIE:
Are there any other comments or 15 questions?
16 (No response. )
17 MR. WYLIE:
Well, I believe we have answered all 18 the questions we have set out.
And, I thank you, Dino..
19 MR. MICHELSON:
Excuse me, was the Subcommittee 3) intending to recommend any kind of a letter to the Full 21 Committee?
22 MR. WYLIE:
Well, that's what we need to consider.
23 MR. SCALETTI:
I think we would like a letter so 24 that we -- I'm sure it would be helpful to us, and if we M
had some sort of recommendations --
138 1
MR. WYLIE:
What do you think, Carl?
2 MR. MICHELSON:
I wonder, first of all, does the 3
Staff need a letter to help in any particular process that 4
is going on that we would influence?
Or, do they just 5
want comments?
6 MR. HERNDON:
Well, we think the Commission might 7
appreciate documentation of the fact that you have looked 8
at the implementation documents and the letter you wrote 9
on the policy statement.
10 MR. MICHELSON:
We would write a letter then on 11 the 1225 and any other comments or changes to our previous 12 letter.
13 MR. SCALLETI:
One consideration is that the
./
14 Commission has requested that we give them the policy state-15 ment by October 31st.
So, any changes to be made are going 16 to have to be made relatively soon.
17 MR. MICHELSON:
This is our opportunity then to 18 point out some of the things that came up today that we 19 think might be significant for them to think about in the 20 process, even though in the meantime you may or may not 3
21 be changing them.
22 MR. BERKOW:
That's right.
But, we would like 23 to consider any comments you have before we finalize the 24 NUREG and send it down to the Commission.
M MR. MICHELSON:
And, when does that come due?
139 1
MR. BERKON:
October 31st.
That has already been 2
reviewed by CRGR, where we have their draft commeni~.s.
We 3
will be getting their formal comments.
4 MR. MICHELSON:
We need to write the letter this 5
week, then.
6 MR. WYLIE:
All right.
Suppose we do that.
- And, 7
maybe, Carl, you can give me your comments.
8 MR. MICHELSON:
Yeah.
I will give you a couple 9
ofharagraphs.
10 MR. WYLIE:
And, we can incorporate those, 11 particularly those regarding the details of the design and 12 this kind of thing.
-~l 13 MR. EBERSOLE:
Do you intend to do something?
Do 14 we have any time to discuss this today?
15 MR. WYLIE:
We have got a little bit Friday 16 afternoon, half an hour.
17 =
MR. MICHELSON:
That's hardly time.
18 MR. WYLIE:
We could propose a letter.
But, I 19 tell you, I can talk to Dave Ward and see whether or not 20 he wants to allot any more time than that.
I think there 21 is some flexibility there.
22 MR. MICHELSON:
We really are done with our 23 agenda.
In fact, you were about to say we are done with 24 the meeting.
M Would it be well perhaps for the Subcommittee to
140 1
go through some of these ccmments with the Staff still 2
available for any enlightment?
In other words, it would 3
be nice to go to the Full Committee with a letter that 4
'says, here is what the Subcommittee has agreed to.
The 5
Staff has heard these comments.
6 MR. WYLIE:
We could do that if that's acceptable 7
to the Staff.
8 MR. MICHELSON:
You are not going to have time to 9
do it at the Full Committee meeting with half an hour 10 total.
11 MR. EBERSOLE:
Wouldn't you want to kind of compose 12 the elements of the letter today?
')
13 MR. WYLIE:
We could.
14 MR. MICTIELSON :
We've got half a day left.
15 MR. WYLIE:
Maybe what we could do is walk through 16 the comments and see --
17 MR. EBERSOLE:
Write our letter.
18 MR. MICHELSON:
And then decide whether or not 19 these are worthwhile to put into a letter.
20 MK, EBERSOLE:
Otherwise, you will be hung with 21 doing it by yourself, Charlie.
22 MR. WYLIE:
Okay.
23 MR. MICHELSON:
Since we have got the time, and 24 that doesn't have to be on the record I wouldn't think.
Z5 MR. WYLIE:
Maybe you want to do it now, or after
141 1
lunch.
9 2
MR. EBERSOLE:
It doesn't matter to me.
5 MR. WYLIE:
Well, it's 12 o' clock.
Lunch was 4
at 1.
So, we could go on now.
We could take a five minute 5
break and come back until 1.
6 MR. MICHELSON:
Let the Staff go, then.
- Say, 7
take five minutes and go until 1 o' clock.
8 MR. WYLIE:
Why don't we do that?
9 (Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at 12:02 p.m.,
rinesday,joctober8, 1986.)
10 e
11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 l
l
[
L
1 CERTIFICATE OF PROCEEDINGS 2
This is to certify that the attached proceedings 3
before the NRC Commission 4
In the matter of:
ACRS Subcommittee Meeting 5
Date of Proceeding:
October 8, 1986, Wednesday 6
Place of Proceeding:
1717 II Street, Flashington, D.
C.,
Room 1046 7
were held as herein appears, and that this is the original 8
transcript for the file of the Commission.
9 10 MYRTLE H.
WALSH 11 Official Reporter - Typed 12 13 Ob' Official Deporter - Signature 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2,
'()
PUBLIC NOTICE BY THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONERS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1986 The contents of this stenographic transcript of the proceedings of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), as reported herein, is an uncorrected record of the discussions recorded at the meeting held on the above date.
No member of the ACRS Staff and no participant at
(
)
this meeting accepts any responsibility for errors or inaccuracies of statement or data contained in this transcript.
O
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER 4
!Q U
This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING:
ADVISORY. COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS SUBCOMMITTEE ON STANDARDIZATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES DOCKET NO.:
i PLACE:
WASHINGTON, D.
C.
DATE:
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1986 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(sigt)
(TYPEb)
G.
J.
WALSH Official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Reporter's Affiliation I
., -