ML20235U672
| ML20235U672 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/22/1989 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8903090318 | |
| Download: ML20235U672 (26) | |
Text
.
POB UNITED STATES O
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
...............-===========================================
INDIVIDUAL PLANT EXAMINATION (IPE) MEETING: )
)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
)
)
and
)
)
Nuclear Management and Resources Council
)
(NUMARC)
)
O PAGES:
1 through 24 PLACE:
Rockville,, Maryland DATE:
February 22, 1989 i
....=................................==================
d HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION Q
opdatnoenas
~~
1 o
n~ ", D.C. 20005 WasMagnos
$$$30$00b$ !R C
y-UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY' COMMISSION INDIVIDUAL ' PLANT ~ EXAMINATION (IPE) MEETING: -)
)
Nuclear' Regulatory. Commission (NRC)
)
)
and
)-
)
Nuclear.. Management and Resources Council
)
(NUMARC)
)
Wednesday, Februcry 22,-1989 White Flint Room 2F17 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland The meeting came to order, pursuant to notice, at 2:00 p.m.
BEFORE:
THOMAS E.
MURLEY Director Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 PARTICIPANTS:
ERIC S.
BECKJORD Director Nuclear. Regulatory Research U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 THEMIS SPEIS Deputy Director Office of Research.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 (Continued, next page)
Heritage Reporting Corporation
[)
(202) 628-4888 i.
e
1 2
R 1
PARTICIPANTS (Continued):
,C\\
V) i ASHOK THADANI Assistant Director Reactor Systems j
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1
Washington, D.C.
20555 WILLIAM H. RASIN Director, Technical Division j
Nuclear Management and Resources Council 1776 Eye Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006-2496 C. FREDERICK SEARS Vice President, Northeast Utilities Nuclear and Environmental Engineering P.O.
Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06141 Heritage Reporting Corporation
()
(202) 628-4888
A 3
~1 EBQGEERIEGE
' f}" 2
\\
MR. MURLEY:
My name.is Thomas Murley.
I am from
~
3 NRC.
I am Director of NRR.
This is a meeting between the 4
NRC and NUMARC to discuss issues relating to severe 5
accidents.
6 The meeting was not noticed with the proper amount 7
of timing.
It was not noticed until today, due to an 8
oversight by the staff.
My apologies.
I regret it.
We 9
.have concluded that we should go ahead with the meeting 10 anyhow because the meeting was basically at NUMARC's 11 request, and it wanted to have the meeting before the 12 workshop next week where a lot of details were going to be 13 discussed.
So we thought in fairness we should go ahead 14 with the meeting.
(
15 We are, as you can tell, having a transcript made.
16 We expect to have the transcript placed in the public 17 document room as soon as we can, perhaps even yet this week.
18 We want to listen to your views, for NUMARC.
We 19 will explain NRC policy insofar as we are able, insofar as 20 the policy issues have been settled.
We expect to make no 21 decisions today.
22 First, I would like to discuss a broader issue, to 23 make sure we do explain NRC's severe accident program 24 leading to closure.
The goal is, as I said, to do the 25 actions that are needed to lead to closure of this issue. We Heritage Reporting Corporation
() 4 (202) 628-4888
4 1
do not have a firm time schedule, and in fact we don't have 2
a detailed recipe of all the actions that are needed to lead 3
to closure of severe accidents.
4 We have laid out a program for the Commission last 5
year which in general is the plan.
It involves three key 6'
areas.
The keystone of the actions is the individual plant 7
exams, IPE, where we and the industry use methodologies to 8
look for outliers at their plants, severe accident risk
,9 outliers.
10 Another key area is improved operations.
An 11 element of that area is accident management.
And here we 12 have had discussions in the past with NUMARC on that 13 subject.
Our goal is that the industry would adopt, agree 14 to adopt an accident management program so that the
( )15 framework could be in place to develop severe accident 16 procedures as new information develops and as information 17 comes from the IPE.
18 Our goal in this, although this has not been 19 adopted as Commission policy yet, I can tell you what we've 20 recommended to the Commission, which is that we in the staff 21 would like to see the industry agree to this framework for 22 accident management so that when issues do come up, when 23 information is developed as part of an IPE, that we can use, 24 you all can use the framework to do a disciplined approach 25 to developing severe accident procedures.
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(}
(202) 628-4888
5 1
We are not looking for detailed severe accident 2
procedures at this time.
3 Likewise, there is a parallel, a third parallel 4
effort, which we have called containment improvement 5
program, and here we in the NRC staff are looking at generic 6
improvements that can be made to classes of containments.
7 We think that this is the most efficient way to do it, 8
rather than wait and do it serially after the IPE has been 9
done.
10 In fact, there has been some discussion that I've 11 heard that both accident management and containment 12 improvements ought to be done in conjunction with IPE.
13 Clearly, that is a possibility.
And that has been 14 recommended.
In some cases the Commission is still
()15 considering that for the MARK I containment improvement 16 modifications.
17 The staff has not recommended that approach 18 becauce we think it will just simply take too long and it 19 will be too much of a burden on the IPE program and on the 20 reviews that the staff has to make of the IPE results.
21 Furthermore, there is a question of schedule that 22
'becomes very important here.
We would like to see the 23 severe accident closure for this generation of plants 24 resolved before we have to start heading into license 25 renewal.
And we are laying the groundwork now and the rules Heritage Reporting Corporation
(}
(202) 628-4888
L
^
6 1
for what is going to be the basis for license renewal for
()2 this generation of plants.
3 If the severe accident issue is not closed and if 4
we have to put severe accident into the license renewal 5
package, my sense of things is it's going to immensely 6
complicate the license renewal role and procedures that we 7
have to follow.
8 So that was one of the reasons.
And I think'it is 9
becoming clear that it's a very important reason why we 10
'would like to get the severe accident closure behind us.
We 11 have not laid out a time schedule, as I said.
But our 12 thinking has been somewhere in the next three to five years 1?
we would like to be able to say that we have addressed the 14 issues, the major issues, that each plant has been asked to
( )15 consider those severe accident issues for their plant and 16 there is agreement with the staff on what actions if any 17 need to be taken.
18 That in a nutshell constitutes what we have called 19 closure.
It's not closure in any kind of legal sense, 20 because clearly severe accident issues, like any other 21 issue, can still be brought up before the Commission as I
'22 issues.
23 Finally, where do we go in the near term?
There 24 is a workshop scheduled for Fort Worth next week.
Many of 25 the senior staff that you see here today will be there.
Heritage Reporting Corporation
[}
(202) 628-4888
i 7
The NRC staff intends to be f' exible in our discussions and l
1 2
how we ultimately move ahead on the IPE program.
3 The key element, as I said, is that there be a
~
4 general agreement between us on the goal of closure of the 5
severe accident issue.
Within that overall goal I think-6 there are many details that have'to be worked out of how we 7
get there.
8 We would like to go ahead with the workshop next 9
week where we explain what is.in our draft guidance 10 documento.' We would like to get questions and comments back 11 from the industry.
We would like specifically to get 12 comments on the draft guidance.
We expect there may well be 13 subsequent workshops needed and subsequent comments on the 14 guidance document.
( ) 15 Our goal is to be able to put out the guidance 16 document, the final guidance document in May at which time 17 the clock would start for the industry to begin implementing 18 the guidance.
19 We expect that we will hear from you today in 20 general but also later on in these workshops and subsequent 21 meetings between the staff and industry on details of 22 implementation.
23 That was my introductory thoughts.
Eric, did you 24 have any?
l 25 MR. BECKJORD:
My name is Eric Beckjord, Director l
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(}
(202) 628-4888
-a-.--_.--.---___-_._.-
1 1
8 i
1 of the Office of Research.
/'T
(/ 2 Just picking up on your point about the workshop, 3
Tom, it has taken a long time to arrive at this point in 4
this IPE program, longer than I thought it would take.
And j
i 5
I certainly would like to see it move ahead a rapidly as 1
i 6
possible.
And I don't know that we can answer every 7
question or deal with every issue next week, but I would 8
like to see that we carry it as far as we possibly can, 9
because then it will take, if we do a good job next week it 10 will take less time and less meetings to get to the end of 11 this process and get started with the actual thing.
And I 12 certainly hope we can do that.
Because I think it is 13 important that we get this underway and behind us.
14 MR. MURLEY:
Okay, Bill.
We'll turn it over to
( ) 15 you.
16 MR. RASIN:
Thank you, Tom.
I appreciate the time 17 of both you and Dr. Beckjord. One of our reasons for seeking 18 this meeting is our concern, and we happen to fully agree 19 with you.
We need to get on with this.
It's high time 20 that we did it.
And we think that there is a lot of benefit 21 for industry in proceeding on.
22 With regard to the workshop, we're fully prepared 23 to come in and participate.
We've already provided written 24 comments into the staff that we hope will be input for the 25 workshop.
And we are sure that there will be other comments Heritage Reporting Corporation
(}
(202) 628-4888 4
r p
9 J
l 1
from the industry at large, from the floor, at the workshop.
(
So we are fully in agreement with you that we 2
l 3
should get on, and it is important that we reach closure on 4
the severe accident issue.
5 Nevertheless, as we proceed to do so, this being 6
such a large and complicated area, we do from time to time 7
have questions of a technical nature, questions on focus, 8
have ue lost the big picture, the direction where we're 9
heading, and sometimes that loss or apparent loss of focus 10 gets in the way of proceeding smoothly ahead, not only with 11 the IPE but with the other things that we're working on.
12 So for that reason, we wanted to meet with you. Aa 13 you know, Cordell Reed chairs our Severe Accident Working 14 Group and couldn't be with us today for personal business
( )15 reasons with his own plants.
16 Dr. Fred Sears, who is one of the core members of 17 our working group, and as you will recall was Vice Chairman 18 of the IDCOR Steering Committee is here standing in for r
19 Cordell and representing the working group.
20 Fred would like to make some opening comments,
.21 kind of I think in the same framework that you did, Tom, and 22 then we'll proceed from there'on to some more discussions.
23 MR. MURLEY:
All right.
24 MR. SEARS:
My name is Fred Sears.
First off, I 25 would like to state that the industry i,s anxious to proceed Heritage Reporting Corporation
(}
(202) 628-4888
10 1
to carry out the directive of the severe accident policy
('/ 2
)
N-statement.
3 I would like to just repeat a portion of that 4
statement which was that we are to perform limited scope 5
accident safety analysis designed to discover instances or 6
outliers of particular vulnerability to core melt or 7
unusually poor containment performance given a core melt 8
accident.
9 We are concerned about what we believe is a 10 modification of this directive which was reflected by the 11 generic letter and its associated IPEM SERs.
The industry 12 spent significant time, effort and dollars to define 13 technical issues and a method, the IPEM, to accomplish the 14 policy statement.
m(_j,l5 We worked with the NRC in trying to define these 16 technical issues and reach closure on the majority of them.
17 And we worked to produce a method which would allow the 18 limited scope accident safety analysis to be done.
19 The generic letter essentially wipes out this 20 effort, pointing to almost requiring a Level 1, Level 2 PRA 21 with enhancements beyond what one might even find in a 22 normal such effort of a Level 1 or Level 2 PRA.
23 The aim of the generic letter appears to be to 24 reduce residual risk by' addressing the outliers as indicated 25 by the policy statement.
Heritage Reporting Corporation
()
(202) 628-4888
11 1
The schedules called for in the generic letter do 2
not appear to reflect the effort that would be needed to 3
perform the required task.
The generic letter indicates 4
that it will take approximately 8011 manhours for a unit to 5
carry out the task.
6 The PRA guide, NUREG CR 2300, indicates that that 7
task would take about 2100 to 6800, or 6200 manhours.
8 62,000. I'm sorry.
9 In my own utility, we've looked at it for a unit 10 which we have not done the PRAs on, and we estimate it will 11 take is about 40,00 manhcurs to do what is required.
12 Some of that work would not be done in a normal 13 Level 1, Level 2.
For instance, some of the structural 14 containment work that would be required to meet the generic
( )15 guideline.
16 We are here today to try to help initiate needed 17 steps, to be able to accomplish the policy statement, and 18 arrive at what we believe would be a do-able schedule and a 19 methodology for doing this.
And we will be providing 20 comments today and during the workshop and then Ducceeding 21 interactions with the NRC to try to accomplish this and to 22 we believe bring this back into a little bit closer focus 23 to the policy statement and to be looking at the idea of
- 24 outliers for reactors where the Commission has said that the 25 reactors are safe enough if there are no outliers.
And we Heritage Reporting Corporation
(}
(202) 628-4888
3
.-y
]
12 1
believe.that is important to the actions that we are m
2 undertaking.
i 3
It is also important that we bring this on track 4
so that the other issues that have been identified, the
.5 accident management and other programs can proceed forward, 6
because until we know exactly what is needed and can match 7
those with the resources that are available, it is very 8
hard to undertake another program without definition and 9
without some hope that the guidelines will be adhered to.
10 And Bill will be providing specific comments in areas here 11 in addition to the letter, and so forth.
12 MR. MURLEY:
Okay.
Before we get into real 13 details, I think I sense that as long as we have this 14 agreement which, Bill, you said and Fred said in kir.d of a
( )15 different way, the agreement to work toward closure of the 16 severe accident issue, then I think we can find ways to get 17 there that we feel we're satisfied with and that you might 18 not totally be pleased with but nonetheless that we can move 19 ahead.
20 I think to some extent we have'your letter, Bill 21 to Wayne Houston of Feb'uary 8, so we have heard and read r
22 some of the concerns.
I think to some extent there are some 23 misunderstandings.
And so that -- we'll need to explain 24 those.
25 I think the place to do that in detail is in the Heritage Reporting Corporation
()
(202) 628-4888
____m
13 1
1 workshop.
Maybe we can do it today.
I
/'?s
(
2 To some extent maybe we have ourselves some new 3
information. For example, your estimates of the time taken 4
to do this I think is information at least that I didn't -
5.
have before now.
So-we can discuss these things.
6 I guess I would like to ask either Eric or Themis 7
to task a'little bit about some of the details. But I am 8
wondering, are'there some specific issues or clarifications 9
beyond what we've just said that we need to talk about?
. 10 MR. RASIN:
Well, let me just lay out a couple of 11 things on a higher plane I think that maybe will be helpful 12 as we go through.
13
. Fred mentioned that one of our concerns was the 14 feeling on the part of the industry that we had a good
( )15 definition of what we were doing and where we were going, 16 and that confidence has I think been shaken a little bit by 17 some of the guidance issued, and it is quite possible some 18 of that is misunderstanding.
19 It has an effect as much on the other efforts wo 20.
have underway and I think that this dialogue will help us 21 to give guidance to that.
22 The accident management is not as much of a 23 problem.
As you know, we are working on a rramework for 24 the industry and we expect that to be done in about the 25 March time frame to be ready for review with the Severe Heritage Reporting Corporation
(}
(202) 628-4888
-m_
-________.-_-____.___________-____.________._______.______.__._____-_____.________._._.m_.______
._______-_______.-______.____-____._.__.2.
______________l_____________w
14
-l' Accident Working Group, and shortly thereafter, in~teraction
(
2 with the staff on that.
And I think that is proceeding'.
~3 The only question we have there is the timing and 4
correlation with the IPE and I don't think that is serious.
5 We are also working on the external events which 6
is a concern as to what degree do they have to be included 7
with the IPEs.
And there I think some of these*same issues 8
are getting in our way a little bit.
9 The question of are we looking for vulnerabilities 10 or outliers and what do those terms mean I think is 11 beginning to interfere with our ability to move forward.
We 12 have I know in the seismic area I think a pretty clear 13 picture of gee, this is what needs to be done, but when we 14 put the practitioners to work to develop a methodology, they
()15 get so hung up on this, well, what is an outlier and what 16 does that mean and how do we find that and is this good 17 enough, and can you do that without all the detailed PRA 18 numbers, we're doing a lot of wheel spinning on the front 19 end even though everybody has a general picture of what has 20 to be done.
21 So I'm hoping that these discussions will also 22 allow us to move forward there.
23 Then as a minor point we do seem to have some 24 schedule differences on the rapidity with which we think we 25 can move along with particularly the external events on the Heritage Reporting Corporation
/
(202) 628-4888
15 1
seismic and the fire where there seems to be about a fobr
)2 month difference between staff and industry as to'how fast 3
we perce'ive we can develop the proper methodology.
4 So I am hoping these discussions will kind of
-5 restore that confidence that we all have the focus of what 6
we're doing so we can proceed on.
7 MR. MURLEY:
I need some clarification.-
I thought 8
we left external. events out of this.
9 MR. RASIN:
We left external events out of the 10 letter, Tom, as we read it.
However, the letter states that 11 external events are coming and that one should proceed to do 12 this IPE with the realization that some action on external 13 events will likely follow.
And in order not to get too 14 decoupled from that, we're trying to work with the staff and
()15 the staff is working very hard to try to define exactly what 16 events do we need to do something about and then what kind 17 of a methodology can we develop that allows us to meet the 18 requirements of the policy statement.
19 MR. MURLEY:
So is it your intention to try to do 20 as much in the way of external events during this round of 21 IPE, so to speak, so that you don't have to, we don't have 22 to start it again?
23 MR. RASIN:
Well, I think there is clearly going 24 to be a lag time.
However, we would like to get the 25 methodology developed and agreed upon this year.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 r
16
'l MR. MURLEY:
Okay.
(
2 MR. RASIN:
So that we can have it out to,the 3
industry.
And many people, we think that it will probably 4
arrive just about'the time they're ready for it.
Others are 5
probably a little bit ahead of the game and there will be a 6
' bit of a lag.
But we don't think a serious one.
7.
We do not want to wait until we're all finished 8
and in the process of reviewing the internal events before 9
we even turn our attention on the external events.
10 MR. MURLEY:
Okay. That can be the subject of a 11 subsequent meeting sometime. I'm not prepared myself today 12 to talk about external events. But it's good to know what L
13 the issue here is.
14 MR. RASIN:
It probably is.
My point in bringing
( )15 it up was mainly the fact that this concern of are we 16 looking for outliers or are we trying to address residual 17 risk and what is an outlier and a vulnerability, we need to 18 solve those we think for both purposes.
And if we can 19 resolve those, then I think it will serve to get us back to 20 work on those external event areas as well.
Other than 21 that, we certainly don't need to talk about the detail of 22 external events.
l 23 MR. MURLEY:
The goal has, at least in my mind, 24 it's never wavered.
The goal of IPE was to look for 1
25 outliers, using the methodo1'ogy and the wisdom that we all Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1-
17 1
collectively, the NRC and industry, has generated over the
(
2 years,_ basically PRA methodology and your own methodology, 3
developed through IDCOR.
So that has been the intent.
4 Now, clearly, the methodology has to be. acceptable 5
to the staff to be able to.look for outliers, and to have a 6
credible result when we're done.
7 If it looks to you like we've changed goals,-then 8
I think that is a misunderstanding.
I. don't think we have 9
changed goals.
But if you think that we have tightened down 10 the requirements on'the methodology to the point where we 11 have effectively turned this into a search for residual risk am I paraphrasing you correctly? -- then I think that is 12 13 something that we need to discuss.
I don't know if today's 14 the right place to do it.
I think the workshop is probably
()15 the right place to do it.
16 MR. RASIN:
Yes, it may be.
Let me point out to 17 you a couple things.
The letter that I sent contained two 18 sets of comments.
One was industry comments collected from 19 the entire industry on the generic letter 88-20 itself.
20 The second attachment to that is comments just on 21 the SERs for the industry's IPE methodology that_was 22 developed.
23 I also transmitted that by a second letter back to 24 Mr. Thadani, since that's where I originally received the 25 SERs.
Heritage Reporting Corporation
{
(202) 628-4888
18 l'
If you look in the SERs, you find direct 2
statements that says the purpose of the industry 3
methodology, and I am paraphrasing, not quoting, is to 4
search the plant for vulnerabilities and outliers.
- However, 5
we think the purpose of the methodology should bo to, and 6
then there is a list of things including prepare the
'7 industry for detailed implementation of accident management, 8
and I think there are like three things listed.
9 And so right there I think is indication that 10 somehow we have gone apart and had a misunderstanding since 11 industry and IDCOR interacted with the staff on detail on 12 comments on the methodology and we made quite a few 13 revisions based on staff comments.
14 And then additionally we supplied a total of eight
( )15 pilot applications of that methodology and received comments 16 back on that and it was I believe over a year beyond that 17 time when we finally received the SERs.
And we're quite 18 surprised at the number of enhancements as they were called 19 in the SERs, to the methodology.
And I believe that is what 20 we are reacting to today and that is what caused the 21 ifidustry to feel that hey, somehow we've come to a 22-misunderstanding where we're doing something different than l
23 we thought we were a year and a half, two years ago.
24 MR. MURLEY:
And clearly, if we have specified 25 something or if you read us to specify something, that Heritage Reporting Corporation
{
(202) 628-4888
i 19 1
requires 20 man years to do, if I got your numbers right, 2
Fred, then that's beyond what we had, at least what I had 3
anticipated.
4 So let us try to understand the differences,'where 5
you think the added work is, and maybe what our words have 6
come to mean, and then we can discus's'that further, 7
At the workshop next week, Themic Speis will be 8
there, Frank Congel and Ashok Thadani and other.
But they 9
will be authorized to discuss these in detail and to make 10 clarifications of what we had in mind.
11 I think actually that is the proper place for 12 getting into details.
I would rather not do it here.
13 MR. RASIN:
I think we feel the same way.
14 MR. MURLEY:
Yes.
Are there any other general l h 15 kinds of issues that we need to discuss?
16 MR. RASIN:
Let me just return to a couple points 17 I made earlier on the continuing work and the external 18 ev'ents.
19 While I agree we shouldn't treat those in detail 20 today, let me say that given the schedules that have been 21 set forth that is something we do need to do rather 22 expeditiously.
23 As we understand it, the staff is proceeding on 24 schedule to have draft guidance ready to address all 25 external events in May of 1989.
We believe if we were going Heritage Reporting Corporation gg (202) 628-4888
E 20 1
full course right now, we could have ours ready no earlier 2'
than about September of 1989.
And so given that degree --
3 MR. THADANI:
You mean 1990?
4 MR. RASIN:
No, no.
1989, proceeding toward a 5
generic letter issued by the end of this year.
And I think 6
responded to by Spring of 1990.
But the key is, the real 7
work is in-developing the methodology and the staff is on a 8
very fast track.
And so if we are to provide meaningful 9
contribution to that, methodology is something we'll have to
~~
10 deal with pretty quickly.
I 11 And we can talk about that separately. But I will 12 leave you with the point that without a feeling that again 13.
we understand that we are proceeding to identify 14 vulnerabilities and outliers and what those mean, it is
( )15 pretty hard to get the detailed technical people to work in 16 any degree of comfort.
17 I guess the only message is we' re anxious to get-18 on with it too, and we need to assure that we've dealt with 19 some of these policy level issues so we can proceed forward.
20 MR. MURLEY:
Okay.
I don't know that we need to 21 really spend much more time, then, Bill.
I appreciate you 22 coming in and giving us your thoughts.
I am encouraged that 23 we seem to share the same goal, which is an expeditious 24 resolution of the severe accident issue for this generation 25 of nuclear plants.
Heritage Reporting Corporation
[}
(202) 628-4888 l
21 1
Even if everything goes well, we're still looking
(
2 I think at a three to five year kind of a time frame, but if 3
things don't get well, if they get off track, then we're in 4
a much longer time frame and it gets beyond our planning 5
horizon to some extent even. And that makes it very 6
. difficult for us to lay out the next phase or the next, one 7
of our longer range goals here,' which is to lay out a 8
framework and the rules and the procedures for. leading to 9
And we know that is very important to you 10 all, it's very important to the country'. I think.
That's 11 why I would like to have steady progress on severe accident 12 closure to the point where w e can see where it will be 13 resolved in the next say three'to five years.
14 There have been a number of issues raised in your
()15 letter to Wayne Houston and to Thadani.
We think we see 16 that there have been some misunderstandings.
Perhaps we 17 have not understood some of your points.
But the proper 18 place for detailed discussion of that is at the Fort Worth 19 Workshop next week.
20 So with that, I would propose that we go ahead 21 with the workshop.
We will come back with questions.
You 22 will all have further questions.
Do you intend to respond 23 in writing, do you think, after that workshop, with 24 guidance, or on the guidance document?
25 MR. RASIN:
Yes.
We will.
We will provide Heritage Reporting Corporation
(}
(202) 628-4888
22 1
written comments on that as well as written comments from q
(_/ 2 the industry on other points that may need to be addressed 3
as a result of the workshop, and NUMARC will also act as an 4
interface point for the. industry so we can have whatever 5
dialogue we need to resolve those points and get that 6
information back to the industry and perhaps have a followup 7
workshop.
8 MS. SPEIS:
Themis Speis from the staff here.
9 We also plan to address your questions Friday, 10 especially after the discussions we are going to have next 11 week, where more clarification will take place, and we want 12 to make sure we put it down in black and white so there is 13 no misunderstanding.
14 MR. BECKJORD:
I think we ought to aim to do that
/T
',j l 5 as of the end of the meeting, rather than just responding to
(
16 the letters that we have now.
17 MR. SPEIS:
After we feel we know how to respond, 18 at least to most of them, not all of them.
Because I think 19 we need additional dialogue to get more clarification to 20 make sure we understand your questions.
But our intent is 21 to work that we are going to do a variety.
For example, 22 Fred mentioned the specific points about the resources 23 related to this methodology and the other one, and the 24 structural analysis.
25 And I can tell you that on the later one, i
i Heritage Reporting Corporation I
/~T (202) 628-4888
\\J l
I I
23 1-structural analysis, our intent is to utilize existing 2
structural analysis that has been available done both by 3
andustry and to a large extent by us, as an example.
4 MR. MURLEY:
That is the sort of thing that I 5
think can get clarified to some extent next week.
If it can 6
be clarified totally, then fine, I'm happy.
But I suspect 7
that there may be some residual problems.
If there are and 8-we need to resolve those, I suggest we plan on another 9
meeting like this in about a month when the issues are 10 narrowed down to-their minimum, or to policy issues, so that 11 Eric and I and you all can decide them, so we can start 12 preparing the final guidance document and stay on our 13 schedule of issuing that in May.
14 MR. RASIN:
I think that's fine.
We would like
()15 to, and our posture to the industry at large has been that 16 this is a very complicated process.
We think there will be 17 technical questions all the way through it.
18 MR. MURLEY:
Yes.
19 MR. RASIN:
But that we need to get started with 20 the confidence that we will undertake resolution of those 21 technical questions through the whole process as they come 22 up.
23 So I think that's good, to proceed on that basis.
24*
MR. MURLEY:
Very good.
That concludes the 25 meeting. Thank you.
Heritage Reporting Corporation
[}
(202) 628-4888 i
8
24-1.
(Whereupon,*at 2:41 p.m.,
the meeting was..
2
- concluded. ).
3 4
5 6-
. 7.-
8 9
'10 11
~12 13' 14 0 15 16 17 18 19 l '.
20.
21 1.
22 23 I
24 25 l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1 i
1 CERTIFICATE 2
g 3
This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the
'4 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the mattbr 5
of:
Meeting between NRC and NUMARC 6
Name:
7 8
Docket Number:
None 9
Place:
Rockville, Maryland 10 Date:
February 22, 1989 11 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original 12 transcript thereof for the file of'the United States Nuclear 13 Regulatory' Commission taken stenographically by me and, 14 thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the 15 direction of the court reporting company, and that the 16 transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing 17 proceedings.
' l 9
(-
18
/s/
Mh
- sv
~
4._
ss 19 (Signature typed) :
Tbm Vander Ven Official Reporter 20 21 Heritage Reporting Corporation 22 23 24 25 F
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. _ _ _.. _ _ _.. _.. - _. _.