ML20246B079
| ML20246B079 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/22/1989 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| FRN-55FR29043, REF-10CFR9.7 AD04-1-028, AD4-1, AD4-1-28, NUDOCS 8907070195 | |
| Download: ML20246B079 (89) | |
Text
%MNNWW9Yh80(44W9V0VfVfVpV4%%%%%'pppttVc v4gfph;yp(ggggi rgggg c
TRANSMITTAL TO:
Document Control Desk 016 Phillips 3
ADVANCED COPY TO:
The Public Document Room 0 ATE:
7[5[F9
- j' FROM:
SECY Correspondence & Records Branch E
ll
?
Attached are copies of a Commission meeting transcript and related meeting i;
document (s).
They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List and j
placement in the Public Document Room.
No other distribution is requested or y
reouired.
f Meeting
Title:
MEN b /r/
M b/
b A
s Meeting Date:
6[AA[64 Open X
Closed E'
E i"
i!j-Item Description *:
Copies f='
to POR Copy Advanced DCS E
- 8 ll t
l =
f!
- 1. TRANSCRIPT 1
1 ii n>Imeurswk ll 9
v
-ji 2.
3.
4.
3 -
].
3 1
3 l
jj, 5.
l 3ll W
i 3
i S.
1 1
(
- PDR is advanced one copy of each document, two of each SECY paper.
C&R Branch files the original transcript, with attachments, without SECY
@DA j
papers.
j
,f l
s907070195 890622 25 zl* #
nne nnm
_,,.g' *
.. o 4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS SION m.
ff(}g, BRIEEING ON STATUS OF PROPOSED RULE FOR LICENSE RENEWAL LOCatiOD:
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND
}g(g; JUNE 22. 1989 pag 6S 75 PAGES l
NEALR.GROSSANDC0.,INC.
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBER 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, Northwest Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433 ij
I
~
+
- l 4'
i 1
DISCLAIMER
)
1 l
This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of
{
the United States ' Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on June 22, 1989 in the Commission's office at One l
White Flint North, Rockville, ' Maryland.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected or edited, and.it may contain inaccuracies.
The transcript ie intended solely for general informational purposes.
Ar. provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of, or addressed to, any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
1' NEAL R. GROSS COURT RERORTER$ AND TRANSCRIBERS l
1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
j (202) 234 4433 WA5HINGToN, D.C.
20005 (202) 232-6600 l
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
\\
g.
1.
+' +
+- +
1 1
BRIEFING ON l
2 STATUS OF PROPOSED RULE FOR LICENSE RENEWAL 3
+
+
+
+
-4 JUNE 22, 1989
- 5
+
+
+
+
6 The' briefing was held in the conference room, 7
Nuclear Regulatory' Commission, One White Flint North, 8
Rockville, Maryland, at 10:00 a.m.,
LANDO W.
- ZECH, JR.,
Chairman,. presiding.
10
+
+
+
+
11 PRESENT:
12 LANDO W.
- ZECH, JR., Chairman of the Commission 13 i
THOMAS M. ROBERTS, Member of the Commission 14 KENNETH M. CARR, Member of the Commission 15 KENNETH C. ROGERS, Member of the Commission 16 JAMES R. CURTISS, Member of the Commission 17 ALSO PRESENT:
18 i
SAMUEL J. CHILK, Secretary 19 WILLIAM C.
PARLER, General Counsel 20 DON CLEARY, Staff 21 JAMES SNIEZEK, Staff 22 THOMAS MURLEY, Staff 23 j
THEMIS SPEIS, Staff 24 WAYNE HOUSTON, Staff l
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCkl8ERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W (202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON. D.C.
20005 (202) 232-6600
o 2
1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2
(10:00 a.m.)
3 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Good morning, ladies and l
4 gentlemen.
The purpose of this morning's meeting is 5
for the NRC staff to brief the Commission on the 6
status of the proposed rule for license renewal.
7 The Commission was last briefed on this 8
subject of license renewal rulemaking on the 12th of 9
July of 1988 and subsequently approved publication of 10 an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking to solicit lpubliccomment.
311 12 Those comments have been received, as I 13 understand it, and we will hear about that this 14 morning.
Copies of the slide presentation should be 15.
available at the entrance to the meeting room.
16 Do any of my fellow Commissioners have any 17 l opening com.cnts to make before we begin?
]
I l
(No response.)
18 19 Dr. Murley, you may proceed.
l l'
20 DR. MURLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As 21 you know, Mr. Stello and Mr. Taylor are out today.
t l
22 i With me at the table are my Deputy, Jim Sniezek; on my I
23
, left Don Cleary, who is the leading Staff Manager in 4
l I
24 Research for this project; Themis Speis; and Wayne 25 Houston.
We are here to brief the Commission today on i
I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TR ANSCRIBER5 j
1323 RHODE ISL AND AVENUE N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON DC 20005 (PC2s ???4600 i
f I
ee<
9
-t H
3 1
the status of license renewal activities, staff 2.
activities.
"3 The Research staff has done a good deal of 4
preparatory work on license renewal. issues in the past-5 few years.
This work, we believe, will form a' good l-
'6
' solid basis for the technical issues th'at must be 7
addressed in license renewal.
l:
8 Now, the staff; and that is, NRR and 9
Research, in conjunction with OGC, are working on some 10 of the basic regulatory issues that have to be thought 11 through before we are able to present a draft rule to 12 the Commission later on this year.
13 Mr. Beckjord and I have been given l
14 instructions from the Executive Director for 15 Operations to develop some recommendations for addressing these regulatory issues.
I believe the 16 17 Commission has received a copy _of these instructions.
18 Mr. Sniezek was asked to coordinate staff l
19 efforts so we can provide our recommendations to the l
20 Executive Director by late July.
The staff is working i
21 now on those recommendations and active activities j
1 22 underway.
)
23 In addition, the staff has been working I
24 closely with NUMARC on this subject in recent months.
- NUMARC is leading the industry effort to develop 25 I
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBER 5 l
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVINUl, N.W
{ (202) 234-4433 wA5HINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 232-6600
)
I i
i
^A.
i
- s.
i 4
l l'
technical reports cn1 the issues that need to'be
-2 addressed 1during license. renewal.
3 LWe are aiming to reach agreement on.these i
4.
technical: issues so that we can evaluate. lead plants 5'
in 1991.
As.you probably know, there are two lead 6
plants in this area:
Yankee Rowe and Monticello.
7 They'are' developing detailed technical evaluations of a
8' their plants, and we expect to receive. renewal 9
applications from them in 1991, 10 I will now turn to Themis Speis, who will
]
11 talk a bit about some schedule aspects.
Thank'you.
12.
MR, SPEIS:
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, the j
13 main presentation will be made by Dr. Houston, but I 14 would like to add a few things' initially.
If you will 15 recall, our schedule called for coming up with a final
-16 rule by December 1990, from Mr. Stello's schedule.
17 There is a change in that plan.
18 Our present schedule calls for a final rule 19 by April 1992, or a delay of approximately one and a 20' half years.
1 21 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
You are going to tell us 22 about that this morning, I presume?
23 MR. SPEIS:
I will tell you, yes.
24 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
l 25 MR. SPEIS:
But I would like to make some l
I l
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER 5 AND TRAN5tRIBER5 j
l 1323 RHODI 15L AND AVINUf, N W f (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C.
20005 (202) 232-6600
s
+
5 1
points-about that, Mr. Chairman.
2 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Thank you.
3 MR. SPEIS:
Our earlier approach called for 4
a more general rule with more details to be included i
1 L
5 in a number of regulatory guides.
And those guides 1
6
'were not to be comp 3eted at the same time as the rule, 7
but one or two years later.
8 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Excuse me.
I thought 9
that the reg guide was supposed to be ready in early 10 1990.
That was the schedule that was --
11 MR. SPEIS:
That was a year and a half or so 12 later than the rule itself.
So that is the schedule.
13 Right, Don?
I 14 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
The schedule that was 15 presented to us last July?
I don't believe so.
16 MR. CLEARY:
I believe that schedule said 17 that the regulatory guides would be available in the 18 early 1990s.
19 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
That's right, early l
20 1990 was what the --
21 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
1990s with an "s" on the end 22 of it?
23 MR. CLEARY:
Yes, sir.
24 DR. HOUSTON:
If I may, there is more than 25
! one regulatory guide that is contemplated.
And one to i
i NEAL R. GROSS
{
COURT Rf PORTERS AND TR AN5CRIBER$
1323 RHODE ISL AND AVENUf N W j (202) 234-4433 W ASHINGTON DC 20005 (202) 732 4 600
I which you refer, Commionioner Rogare, I bslieve, 10 2
one that we would call the "information requirements 3
regulatory guide."
It's a guide that's analogous to 4
Reg Guide 1.70, which sets out information 5
requirements for initial applications.
6 The information requirements draft guide was 7
expected to be out prior to the initiation of lead 8
plant reviews.
But the point of the lead plant 9
reviews was as a learning experience, which would then 10 give us an opportunity to finalize the guidance, --
11 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
I see.
i 12 DR.
HOUSTON:
-- including any additional 13 positions that would require a regulatory guide.
14 MR.
SPEIS:
My next point was that the 15 information for these guides were to come from three 16 sources:
research; our experience gained from the 17 view of the two lead plants; as well as the technical 18 information that would be coming from industry, so 19 those three sources.
20
- Now, our process changed somehow, but I don't think there will be any effect on the industry.
21 j
i 1
22 Our approach now calls for much more specificity in 23 the rule itself versus the general one.
l 24 Also we are p3anning to proceed with a 25 generic environmental impact statement versus a more f
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCH:BERS j
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202; 234-4433 WASHINGTON D C 20005 (202j 232.tgge i;I
!1
J
.o 7
i i
llimitedenvironmentalassessmentcontemplatedearlier.
1 2
Our objective is to resolve as many NEPA-related 3
issues generically as possible and then having to 4
avoid addressing NEPA issues in detail for every j
5 plant.
6 I am not too sure we can still eliminate 7
completely addressing plant specific issues, but at j
8 least they will be minimized substantially and that 9
will substantially resolve or conserve staff 10 resources.
11 We will expand on these things in more i
l detail,butIwantedtosensitizeyoutothechangein 12
! direction and some of the basic reasons for that.
13 I
14 j
Wayne?
15 i
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Thank you very i
16 much.
You may proceed.
17 DR. HOUSTON:
If I may have the first page 18 of the viewgraphs, please?
I would like to summarize 19
- what we are going to talk about during the briefing 20 this morning.
l The major headings are a few words about the 21 22 I accomplishments to-date, where we stand; and then a 23 discussion somewhat more in detail on the guidelines i
24 which the EDO has recently given us for dealing with 25
! major policy issues; and then speak to the question of
(
i I
i NEAL R GROSS i
COURT REPORTER 5 AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISL AND AV[NUE N W (202) 234-4433 W ASHINGTON DC 20005 (2026 232-6600 1
l i
8 i
i the technical issues that are involved in license l renewal,whichare, of course, the dominant safety 2
3 issues that are associated with that process; and then f
1 4
say a few words about our interaction with the 5
industry, which is predominantly with NUMARC, but also 6
with the staffs of the lead plants; and, finally, a 7
summary of our general approach, then, to rulemaking 8
as t*e see it now, including the schedule question.
9 Next page, please?
We start here with the 10 identification primarily of things that have happened 11 during the past year, since the briefing on July 12th, 12 for which a SECY 88-180 was transmitted to the 13 Commission on June 27th.
14 As you observed, Mr. Chairman, advanced 15 notice was approved and went out, published in the
" Federal Register" in August of
'88.
Accompanying 16 i
l 17 that was a NUREG document that described in somewhat 18 detail regulatory options for nuclear plant license 19 renewal.
20 These three options that are the primary 21 three options that were identified there dealt with t
22
- the original licensing basis as amended, something that we are currently calling the " current licensing 23 i
i 24 l basis."
" Current" means as of the time of essentially 25 an application for license renewal.
t NEAL R. GROSS COURT tipORTERS AND TRANSCRIBER 5 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W 3
i (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON DC 20005
(?O?i 2324600 i
f
l 9
I 1
The second option was to consider license l
2 renewal in exactly the same category as an application 3
by a new applicant for a new license to operate a 4
plant.
5 The third option was a modification that is 6
a median between those two, if you will, modified or 7
supplemental additional requirements supplementing the 8
current licensing basis in safety significant areas 9
that are believed to be appropriate for extended life 10 of the plants.
11 Next viewgraph, please?
12 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Before you go off to that 13 l one, could you describe in general detail some of the l
l 14
! comments you received in the advanced notice of 15
. proposed rulemaking and the accompanying NUREG-1317?
l 16 l
DR. HOUSTON:
I would like to ask, Don, if 17 l you could address that, I would appreciate it.
MR. CLEARY:
Generally, let's see, we had 53 j
18 19 responses.
Most of the responses were from industry.
! Generally, the industry supported the first 20 21 alternative that we put out, which was the more basic 22 i approach of heavy reliance on existing regulatory 23 requirements.
l l
l Several intervenor public interest groups j
24 l
l were supportive of the third requirement, the third j
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TR AN$CRl0(R$
I 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVINUE N W 1202) 234-4433 WA5HINGTON. D C 20005 (20?) 2324f.00 l
i Il
._-____-___D
i h
l l
10 l
1 alternative, which would basically require analysis, 1
require that current regulatory requirements for new j
2 i
3 plants as of the time of license application be met 4
for relicensing.
5 That was the general breakdown of the 6
responses.
7 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Thank you very 8
much.
You may proceed.
9 DR. HOUSTON:
If I may have Page 3 of the 10 viewgraphs, please?
11 The summary of analysis, of course, has been 12 published, which has more detail in response to your 13 question, Mr. Chairman.
14 In January of this year, the Office of 15 l General Counsel transmitted to the Executive Director 16
! for Operations an analysis and recommendations 17 l regarding the strictly procedural issues associated lwithlicenserenewals.
We will talk about these at 18 l
19 i the latter part of the briefing.
i l
20 But a point that might, I think, be made at 21 this point is that in that summary, the Office of l
l l
22 l General Counsel gave considerable emphasis to the fact I
j l
23 that the safety questions that are associated with l
1 l
24 license renewal rulemaking are purely technical, 25 should be subject to scientific and engineering i
l I
NEAL R. GROSS
]
COURT REPORTERS AND TR ANSCRIBERS l
1323 RHODE ISLAND AV[NUf. N W l
(202) 234-4433 WA5HINGTON. D C 20005 (20?) 232-6600
l I.
i 11 1
consideration, and really are separate from the purely 2
l procedural issues discussed in the paper.
l 3
Next are the NEPA issues.
Generally, I i
i l
think the consensus is that the issuance of a renewal 4
I rulemaking activity represents the beginning of a 5
i 6
major federal action and the issuance of each licenso 7
could be perceived to be a major federal action.
8 In any event, the track that the staff has 9
been on for some time has been to prepare an fenvironmentalassessmentofgenericcharacter.
10 A
i 11 j
draft was initially made available in May, which needs laconsiderableamountofwork.
I believe a copy of 12 l
13 that has been provided to each of you.
l 14 It does consist of a broad range of i
15 j
alternatives under the NEPA category for alternatives.
16 You might say it included consideration of the 17 alternative that a decision might be made that 18 I
licenses should not be renewed, as a starter.
}
19 But there are other alternatives, of course, 1
20 that are analyzed for NEPA purposes.
And, of course, 21 i
as you recognize, the essence of NEPA is to consider l
22 the alternatives to the action that is proposed to be 23 taken.
24 Finally, where we stand today is we have l
25 recently received the EDO guidelines by memorandum
)
{
NEAL R GROSS COURT REPORT [R$ AND TR AN5CRIBER$
1323 RHODf ISL AND AVfNUE N W (202) ?34 4433 WASHINGTON DC 20005 (20? 232-f f 00 o
j
4 12 1
dated June 16th and it discusses our present approach l
2 to major' policy issues.
3 We may go to Slide 4, please?
These 4
guidelines encompass the concept of the license 5
renewal basis and the scope of the license renewal 6
process.
7 I would emphasize it is bar,ically that the 8
goal is continued assurance of adequate protection.
9 What this means is that we are not proposing, we are 10 not considering proposing in license renewal any 11 redefinition of the concept of adequate protection; I
nor are we considering the license renewal process as 12 i
I 13 an opportunity for significant safety improvements 14 that might be perceived that have nothing to do with 15 l an extended term of license.
16 These guidelines discuss the role of the lcurrentlicensinganddesignbasis.
In particular, 17 ilwhatisneededhereinproposingtoidentify, define, 18 fandusetheconceptofacurrentlicensebasis 19 l involves a description of the system that we have in 20 21 place for continued regulatory oversight.
22 In other words, the part of the process will 23 involve a justification for why all of the activities 24 in NRR and in the regions dealing with license changes 25 l and dealing with an inspection, surveillance, and
{
i i
f NEAL R GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TR ANLCRIBERS
]
l 1323 RHODE ISL AND AVINUI N W j (202) 234-4433 W ASHINGTON DC 20005 (20?t 232-6630 h
L i
f
\\
13 1
enforcement activities are adequate, but there will be 2
some additions and modifications in the rule to deal 3
specifically with safety issues arising as a result of i
4 life extension.
I 5
In the rulemaking, however, the point of the f
6 guidelines is to try to define as clearly and sharply 7
as possible that the scope of the rulemaking is 8
intended to achieve an objective of adequate control 9
of those safety issues that are posed solely by the 10 extended life of the plants.
These, of course, are 11 dominated by questions associated with the aging of l plants, the aging of the structures, the systems and 12 13
- the components in nuclear power plants.
i 14 The extended life of the plants means 15 I generally a life beyond the terms of their present 16 l
licenses, which in most cases is 40 years.
And it is, 17 as I have indicated, primarily to control the effects 18 of aging.
19 l
The next slide, please?
A significant or 20 major policy issue that is associated in our minds 21 I that needs to be clarified and crystallized in this l
22 l process deals with severe accident issues.
Our j
i 23 thinking is that, in general, in one way or another, i
24 by various optional mechanisms that have yet to be l
25 l fully analyzed, it is the intent of the staff to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TR ANSCRIBIR5 1323 RHODE f 5 LAND AVENU[ NW I (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (20?) 232-f 600 3
i
! 1
kh
. 1 14 1
recommend that, in effect, severe accident issues be 2
, closed for each plant before it gets a renewed j.
3 license.
4 We are currently in the process of analyzing 5
potential options, including a separate rulemaking, 6
including part of the license renewal-making, and-7' other options.
l 8
The Commission is aware, I am sure, that at' 9
present we are on a track to close severe accident 10 issues with the individual plant examination program, 11 our efforts on containment performance improvements,
.12 and accident management.
13 For most plants, the renewal application 14' considerations are far enough into the future so that
! we would expect that these would not be issues at that 15 time.
But for some of the earliest plants, there is 16 17-the potential for that, and we wish to deal with that i
18 l subject.
19 Finally, the generic treatment of 20 environmental issues.
One thing that I want to make 21 very clear is that our existing regulations in 10 CFR 22 Part 51 do require the issuance by the staff of an 23 environmental impact statement in conjunction with 24 each license renewal that is granted.
25 The objective that we have and the guidance l
i NEAL R. GROSS l
COURT REPORTIRS AND TR ANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODI ISL AND AVf NU[, N W
)
l
<2023 234.4433 wAssiNcToN. o c 2 coos (202 > 232-6600 l
i J
h'",
6,
15 1
from the EDO is to try to resolve as many 2
environmental issues as possible within the context of 3
the rulemaking process itself; that is, support the 4
rulemaking with the appropriate NEPA considerations.
5 The first. step that we are taking in this u
l 6
vein has been and continues to be the preparation of a l-L 7
generic environmental assessment.
This we perceive at l
8 the present time as becoming a basis, then, for the 9
preparation of a generic environmental impact 10 statement.
We will talk about that a little bit more 11 later on.
12 And, of course, we recognize that in taking 13 this tact, that we will need to deal with the impact, 14
. which is not yet entirely clear to us, of the Limerick i
i 15 decision.
16 We expect to be able to draw from the 17 experience that the staff is currently having with the 18 Limerick decision insofar as Limerick Unit II is 19 concerned.
This, of course, deals with the issue of 20 severe accident mitigation design alternatives.
21 If I may have the next viewgraph?
- Turning, 22 then, to the technical issues, the major safety issue 23 really is aging degradation.
What we need is 24 screening criteria for structures, components, and the 25 systems that are both safety significant and subject NEAL R. GROSS i
COURT RfpORTERS AND TR ANSCRIBER5 l
1323 RHODI ISLAND AVINUE N W.
(202) 234-4433 W AS HINGToid D C.
20005 (202) 232 4 600 t
P7TJ
]
I d
5
=
16 i
I 1
to significant aging degradation, l
2
.The sources of information and data 1'
3 available to us at this time and will continue to be 4
available to us are:
predominantly from the.research 5
program on aging, which is still going to continue for 6
several more years; and, of course, from actual i
'7 operating experience of plants.
l 8
I would like to emphasize that the aging 9
research program has not had, by any matter of means, 10 as its sole purpose the development of license renewal 11 considerations, because aging can occur at various 12 rates and at various times in plants and may be just 13 as relevant during the initial 40 years as beyond a 11 4 40-year lifetime for plants.
15-Part of the technical problem, then, is to 16
= sort out those issues that are really associated with 17 extended plant life, as distinct from those issues 18 that are germane within the first 40 years.
19 As you will note, one of the major things 20-that we need to do and are in the process of doing is 21 to determine by careful analysis of our present rules, 22 regulations, and regulatory requirements just to what 23 extent these are, in fact, and will continue to be 24 applicable in an extended term and, in fact, should be 25 the major source of reliance on the part of the staff l
NEAL R. GROSS I
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISL AND AVENUE. N W j
WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (2021 232-6600 j (202) 234-4433 l
l
4 17 h
1 and the commission with respect to adequate control 2
over aging degradation.
3 The experience that we draw on includes not 4
only experience in the United States, but also 1
5 particularly through the aging research program.
We 6
get a lot of useful information from foreign operating 7
experience and a lot of interchange and communication 8
of concerns and actual experience data.
9 There remains, of course, the fact that each 10 operating plant in the United States is likely to have t
11 in some respects very specific and plant-unique 12 operating experience, which they will need to analyze 13 and bring to the process of license renewal when each l makes its application for a renewed license.
14 I
15 l
If I may go to Page 7, please?
The 16 principal focus of interest and concern here under the 17 category of technical issues is just how it should be 18 treated in the rulemaking process itself.
What we are 19 faced here with is the question of degree of 20 specificity that can or should be in the rule versus 21 the degree of specificity that can be left, as it 22 were, for additional staff guidance in the form of 23 regulatory guides.
J 24 As I mentioned earlier, one of the 25 activities currently in process is a careful analysis l
I l
l NEAL R. GROSS
]
COURT REPORTER 5 AND TRANSCRIBER 5 j
t 1323 RHODI ISLAND AVENUE N W
)
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C.
20005 (20?i P32-6600
L o,
s',
18 1
of existing regulations and. requirements to assess the 2
adequacy of these requirements in the context of an-3 extended term for a plant license.
4 I might give an example at this' point in 5
time.
As you are well aware, there is on the books at 6
the present time a rule associated with' equipment
'7 qualification for electrical equipment.
8 Now, for the most part, a fair reading of 9
that rule would suggest that if continued compliance 1
10 with the rule for an extended life were reasonably _
11 assured, there-may be no need to address that as a 12 special issue.
I'm not saying that it won't be, but 13 there may be no need for addressing that as a special 14 issue.
lL 5 '
The thing that is required, the thing that 16 we do recognize, is that much of the equipment that 17 has already been qualified pursuant to that rule has 18 been qualified only for the initial term of the 19 license.
20 To assure continued compliance would mean, 21 at the very least, an effort on the part of the 22 licensees to go back and readdress the question of 23 qualification of that same equipment for an extended j
24 term, whatever that may be, in accordance with the 1
25 requirements of the rule because the rule itself does l
NEAL R. GROSS f
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODI ISL AND AY[NU[, N W 4 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 232 6600 l
B 4
19 l'
not limit.it to_a 40-year term.
Basically, it limits 2-it to the expected operating life of the equipment.
3 But I believe the information that we have 4
is that when'that rule went into place and when it was 5
complied with on the part of licensees, then expected 6
term was considered to be 40 years.
And that is the 7
maximum length of time to which equipment was 8
qualified.
9 Going to Page 8, one of the things that has 10 been mentioned so far, and I would like to stress, is 11 that we have been engaged for quite some time, 12 actually well over the course of a year, -- it is 13 probably more like three years -- in interaction with 14 i
industry efforts associated with what the industry has 15 called the "NUPLEX" program; that is, Nuclear Plant
{ Life Extension.
16 I
l With the appearance of NUMARC a while back, 17 18 that has become part of the NUMARC effort.
And I 19 highlight here the fact that industry participants 20 here in this program include the Electric Power 21 Research Institute, EPRI; various owner's groups,
- 22 utilities; and some support from the Department of 23 Energy, some significant financial support, 24 particularly, from the Department of Energy.
25 So we have been and are and are continuing i
NEAL R. GROSS COURT RIPORTERS AND TR ANSCRIBER5 1323 RHODE l$L AND AY[NUf. N W j (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON DC 20005 (20?> 232 6600 I
p.
v-m 4
-,4(
i 1
.to work very closely with the industry, primarily with 2 --
the~NUMARC-NUPLEX effort, but also, and rather more 3
.recently, the NRR staff has undertaken to interact 4
very closely with personnel in an organization 5
associated with the license renewal application 6
efforts on the part of both Yankee and Monticello.
7 One two-day trip occurred in the very recent sc l
8 past up to Yankee to gain further insights into their 9
program, and another is scheduled, I think, in the 10 next few weeks to' visit Monticello and Northern States 11 Power Company to review their efforts.
- This, L12 incidentally, may involve some pre-application review 13 on the part of.the NRR staff for some of the things lthattheyaredoing.
14 15 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Excuse me.
.Tust 16 before you leave that, does that NUMARC-NUPLEX group 17 include technical specialists on aging and equipment 18 functionality?
19 DR. HOUSTON:
I believe it does.
I think
- 20
,.they are in a better position to answer that question 21 than I am, but yes.
It involves a lot of technical 22 consideration on the part of those, particularly those 23 24 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
I'm not talking about 25 just the owners, but I'm talking about people who are NEAL R GROSS I
CovRT REPORT!R$ AND TRAN5CRIBIPS 1323 RHODE 15L AND AVINUf. N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D C 20005 r?0?> 2324600 f
1 s
21 1
not owners,.but make a specialty of functionality and 2
application.
3 DR. HOUSTON:
One of the national 4
laboratories who has been a strong participant in our S
research program is also contributing to the NUPLEX 6
Program.
That is Sandia National Laboratories.
7 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Okay.
8 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you.
You may proceed.
9 DR. HOUSTON:
The NUMARC-NUPLEX Program has 10 already submitted to the staff for its consideration 11 several reports.
The one is identified as 12
" Methodology to Identify and Evaluate Plant Equipment 13'
'for License Renewal," which came to us in November.
14 The staff has reviewed this, has held a i
15.
! meeting with NUMARC on it.
We have commented on it 16 j and indicated some concerns.
17 The concerns go primarily to the question of 18 not what is said, but what is not said; that is, the 19 question of detail which lead to specific screening 20 criteria.
We had been furnished some draft screening 21 criteria, and we expect to have further discussions 22 with NUMARC-NUPLEX on these.
23 The intent here is that it would be very 24 helpful to both them and us if we can come to an 25 agreement on the usefulness and the adequacy of the
]
1 NEAL R. GROSS l
COURT R[PORTIR$ AND TR ANSCRIBIRS 1323 RHODE 15L AND AVINUI. N W f
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D C 20005 (20,N 232-f400 i
1 et 22 f
1 methodology and the screening criteria.
What is not 2-quite so clear is whether or not it really will, in f
'3 fact, be possible to' generate a fully generic set of 4
screening criteria.
5 As we see it right now, we still may need to 6
be prepared with certain aspects of screening criteria a
7 for plant components, et cetera, that may be somewhat 8
plant-specific.
This, of course, will depend upon the 9
length and character of their operating history and 10 the particular programs that they have in place.
11 Another one has been the "NUMARC NUPLEX lPositionPaperonLicenseRenewalRulemaking,"which 12 13 has been submitted to us in draft form in just April of this year, which has provided the staff with some 14 I
l useful insights to their thinking.
The position 15 I
16 paper, I think, can be characterized as recommending 17 rulemaking.
It is rather general in character.
18 Finally, they have submitted to us more 19 recently, on a date of May 9th, 1989, a " Study of 20 Generic Environmental Issues Related to License 21 Renewal."
And we expect to find this very helpful.
22-It is providing useful input to the staff's NEPA l
23 efforts.
24 We further understand that NUMARC-NUPLEX is 25 working on a document which might have a title NEAL R GROSS COURT REPORTER 5 AND TR AN5CRIBEk5 1323 RHODE 15L AND AVENUE N W (202) 234-4433 wA$HINGTON DC 20005 (20?>237-fA00 i
4 23 l'
'something like "The Applicability of Current 2'
Regulations."
And we hope and expect that we might 3
receive this document to get the benefit of their 1.
4 thinking as soon as possible.
We don't have an l
5 expected target date for that just yet.
-6 Turning to Page 9, some of the major 7
technical work that is being done under the NUMARC-8 NUPLEX effort is the drafting and the drawing up of a 9
fair number of what are described as " industry 10 technical reports," which are to be submitted, the 11 first of which we would expect to receive perhaps 12 within the next month.
13 These deal with particular structures, l
14
{ systems, _or components that the industry considers 15 important and relevant to license renewal.
And I will 16 identify in a few moments the subject titles that have 17 been given to us with respect to those technical 18 reports.
. 19 As has been-indicated, also part of the 20 interaction with industry has been the concept 21 proposed by industry to have two lead plants submit 22 their renewal applications, Yankee anticipated in June 23 of '91, and Monticello in December of
'91.
24 It may be of interest that currently the 25 l Yankee license would terminate in the year 2000.
So i
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISL AND AVINUE N W 5 (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON DC 20005 r20? > ?32 f f>DO u-_.___i__.__
24 1
we are getting close to 10 years prior to the 2
termination of that license.
3 For Monticello, however, the current license 4
is set to expire in the year 2010, so that their 5
application is expected roughly 19 years before the 6
termination of their current license.
7 We understand that other licensees are 8
actively working on their license renewal issues.
! This includes, among others, Surrey, Virginia Power, 9
10 Calvert Cliffs, Baltimore Gas and Electric, and 11 Susquehanna, Pennsylvania Power and Light.
I think 12
! there are others also.
13 I might note in passing that there is an 14 I IEEE working group that is also working on a PLEX 15 standard.
I think I can say we have very little 16 familiarity with that, but there may be people on the I
17 l staff who are more familiar with the status of that r
18 than I am.
19
{
The next two viewgraphs, Page 10 and Page i
20 11, identify the subject areas associated with the 21 industry technical reports that have been proposed to 22 l be submitted to us,
)
23 l
Perhaps the schedule has called for l
24 l submittals that go on into 1991 and perhaps even into 25 1992 dealing with, as we have already mentioned, the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TR ANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENU[ NW (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON DC 20005 (207 232-f f.00 4
i
25 1
screening methodology and criteria, which I think they 1
2 don't regard really as one of their industry technical 3
reports, but it is a set of reports from NUMARC.
4 But the technical reports would deal with 5
PWR containments, the pressure vessels, the reactor l
6 internals, and, going to Page 11, the problem of aging 7
with cables in containment, -- of course, there are 8
thousands of cables in site containment and they might 9
be subject to aging degradation -- BWR MkI 10 containments, the reactor coolant systems, and the BWR 11 primary pressure boundary, and certain other age 12 degradation mechanisms that may affect plant license 13 renewal.
14 One might note in passing here that not 15 included in the list of industry technical reports are I'
16 dealing with the other BWR containments, namely MkIIs 17 and MkIIIs.
18 However, it might be interest to note that with one single exception, the earliest term 19 i
20 expiration for a MkII or MkIII plant is in the year 21 2022.
So it is quite a ways down the line.
The only 22 exception to that is Shoreham, which currently has an 23 expiration date of 2013.
24 I might just say a word, again, with respect 25 to the current approach of the staff to deal with the NEAL R GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBER 5 1323 RHODE ISL AND AV[NU[, N W j (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON DC 20005 IPO?$232-0600
4 j
26 l'
technical issues.
The last item cf the last t echnical-2 report listed here is called " low temperature nectron 3
embrittlement."
4 I might call your attention to the fact that 5
you recently have received a SECY paper,89-180, on 6
this subject, Generic Issue 15, the subject of which 7
was entitled " Radiation Errects on Reactor Vessel 8
Supports."
9 And here again is an area where there is an 10 opportunity for the staff, in the resolution of this 11 issue, to have a resolution which would be effective 12 for license renewal as well as for the existing term 13 of life.
14 So whether or not this becomes a specific 15 subject that needs to be addressed in license rule is 16
! still an open question.
l 17 i
COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
How many technical 18 reports have been completed?
4 19 DR. HOUSTON:
We haven't seen any yet.
COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
These are the titles 20 1.
21 I of those in the works?
l 22 l
DR. HOUSTON:
Yes.
We were given a listing i
23 of these titles and a proposed schedule.
Now, the 24 NUMARC-NUPLEX is a little bit behind the front end of 25
! the schedule, but we understand that the first one l
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTIRS AND TR ANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODI ISL AND AVINU[. N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON DC 20005 (202, 232 4 600 f
27 1
will be here in the relatively near future.
2 And they do expect to make up the time, l
3 because I think they have come to better grips with 4
their own internal organization of how they get these 5
reports reviewed and approved before they transmit 6
them.
7 The first one was sort of the trial case, if 8
you will, of how they expected to proceed with the 9
rest of these.
10 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Where did this list i
11 come from of reports?
I mean, how was that generated 1
12 of the topical list of reports to be done?
13 DR.
HOUSTON:
Of course, it came to the 14 staff in the form of a letter.
I can't answer your 15 question, Commissioner Rogers, as of yet.
16 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
- Well, I'm' not 17 interested so much in the industry end, but to what IS extent was NRC involved.
19 MR. SPEIS:
Can we have Mr. Bosnak addeess 20 that, Mr. Chairman?
21 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Thank you.
1 I
I 22 Please identify yourself far the Reporter.
j I
23 MR.
BOSNAK:
'4 e s.
I'm Bob Bosnak, ti:e
]
I i
(
24 Division of Engineering, Office of Research.
i 25 The staff has t'l several groups that have l
j NEAL R. GROSS l
q COURT REPORTERS ANL TRA*.JSCRIBERS
{
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W i
Z212344433 WASHINGTON D C 20005 Z2: 232400 l l
c
E 28
] been involved in, call it, the " aging, life extension l
2
! issue."
This started several years ago with the 3
TIRGALEX.
That's the Technical Integration Review 4
Group for Aging and Life Extension.
It was followed by a group called "ALEXI."
5 i
l 6
And we met from time-to-time with the 7
industry and discussed issues that we felt were of 8
prime importance, technical importance.
From those 9
issues, I believe NUMARC-NUPLEX put together this list 10 of topical ritports that are due to come in for the l staff review.
11 l
12 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
I take it there are no 13 topics which we feel should be reported on that aren't 14.
I on the list?
I f
MR. BOSNAK:
Well, we didn't look through 15 16
! the list in the idea of whether it is a complete list l or not, but those were the principal things that we 37 f were talking about, sir.
la 19 DR. MURLEY:
I must say, Commissioner, that i
20 I wouldn't rule out that there could well be other i
21
! topics when we get into the review.
I think that i
22
! these are clearly the ones that would come to mind --
23 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Yes.
24 DR. MURLEY:
-- in any first look, but there i
may be others.
25 4
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORT!R5 AND TRAN5(NIB [R$
I 1323 RMODE 15L AND AVINUE N W WASHINGTON DC 20005 pop; 23 pef,oo f (202) 234-4433 b
1
..t e
j 29 1
MR. SNIEZEK:
I would like to add one other i
2 l thing.
I think the assignment from Mr. Stello in the l
3 i recent guidance, as the staff is looking over the next 4
month and a half or so, that is one of the issues we will be looking very hard at:
Are there other things G
that we want to get copies of the reports from the 7
industry on?
8 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
The question of 9
exactly what's in the report.
I mean, it's not just 10 the topical list, but how it's handled wit;i respect to i
11
[ reliability questions, how those are handled.
So it 12 l would be very useful to see a report, a big report.
i 13 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Let's proceed,
'I 14
! please.
l 15 DR. HOUSTON:
All right.
Go to Page 12.
16 l For the balance of the 0;riefing this morning, I want 17 to summarize the aptroach to rulemaking that we are 18 currently taking, dealing first with some of the major 19 policy issues, and then finally the procedural issues 20 l
in which I think you also may be interested.
l 21 l
With respect to the technical and the safety 22 l
issues, we are now proposing a rule to define as i
23 specifically as possible the scope of the application i
24 that would be required focused primarily on the assessment and control of safety significant aging 25 1
i' NEAL R GROSS COURT REPORTER 5 AND TRANSCRIBER 5 l
1323 RHODE ISL AND AVENUE N W 4 (202) 234-4433 W A5HINGT ON DC 20005
(?CP, 232-f f.00 I
t 30 1
degradation due to extended life.
l 2
There will be, of course, certain 3
information requirements, which might, for example, 4
conceptually involve a new part of 10 CFR 50.34, which 5
deals with the question of contents of applications.
i l
6 I
The nature of the detail that we expect to 7
get into may, but not necessarily will, lend itself to 8
the creation of a new appendix to Part 50 to identify 9
that kind of detail.
So that is a possibility.
10 We had not previously been on a track which 11 would have suggested the need for an appendix to Part 12 50 to identify the needs for license renewal 13 rulemaking.
14 Finally, although the guidance that we now 15 i have from the EDO on dealing with the major issues l should reduce to some extent, if not to a considerable 16 i
l extent, the needs for a number of regulatory guides 17 18 which otherwise might have been required to clarify 1
what the staff would consider to be acceptable in 19 i
20 terms of a license renewal application to comply with
]
1 21 whatever the rule rec.uirements are.
22 But we do anticipate there will certainly be i
23 an initial regulatory guide, very likely, which will 24 i describe the information requirements and will be a i
25 companion to information requirements identified in, 1
l J
NEAL R GROSS COURT REPORT!R$ AND TR AN$ CRIB (R$
1323 RHODE 15L AND AVfNU[ NW l
(?O2) 234 4433 WASHINGTON DC 20005 (20?: 232 4 600 i
l<
d'
+
'O 9
'31 1
for example, a modification or addition to Part 50.34.
2-Whether or not additional regulatory guides 3
will be needed to address anything that will be 4
addressed in terms of the details, the specific 5
details, which might be an appendix to Part 50, we are 6
unable at this time to identify any specific number or 7
specific subject areas.
8 But we would expect that there will be some
'u.
9 need for.that, which will come out of the lead plant 10 review process, the aging research program, and our 11 interactions with industry, and the review of the 12 ind:..stry technical reports.
13 Finally, and perhaps in one sense a key
' 14 I consideration, going to Page 13, the approach to 15 rulemaking now involving the proposed preparation of i
16 an environmental impact statement is, in fact, the 17 single thing that is the pacing item for getting the 18 final rule on the street.
19 We estimate that from the time that -- we il will need, of course, some contractor assistance to 20 21 carry out a generic environmental impact statement.
.22 And we estimate that from the time of selection of i
23 such a contractor, at least one and a h31f years will 24 l be necessary in order to produce a draft generic 25 i environmental impact statement.
The cost may be on NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBER 5 i
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUI N W j (202} 734-4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 232 4 600 l
32 1
the order of $2 to 3 million.
2 The major reason for the amount of time that 3
it takes is the collection of environmental 4
information that represents if not, in fact, every 5
single plant that is operating and has an operating 6
license in the United States, but a sufficient cross-7 section of those plants to identify what is considered l
8 to be all of the significant environmental issues.
9 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
You mentioned earlier 10 in your briefing that you intend to prepare what you 11 called a " generic environmental assessment" that would 12 l precede the GEIS.
i 13 l
If you have made the decision to prepare a 14 GEIS, what's the purpose of a GEA, I guess it is, an i
15
! assessment?
16 DR. HOUSTON:
The difference, Commissioner I
j Curtiss, is that the generic environmental assessment 17 18 is something that we have been working on for the last I
19 few years, and it is still useful and helpful.
It 20 l gives us at least a leg up on the preparation of an I
i 21 impact statement.
22 One possible course of action that we might 23 l
follow -- this has not yet been well-defined and we fhopetocometogripswiththisroughlywithinthe J
24 l
'l 25 next month, in accordance with the EDO guidance.
But t
NEAL R GROSS COURT REPORT!RS AND TRAN$CRISER$
1323 RHODI isL AND AVINU[ NW I (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON DC 20005
<PO?) 23?4600 I
l l
r 33 1
one possible path that seems to suggest itself would 1
2 be we think we could probably issue a proposed rule 3
dealing with the technical and procedural issues, 4
still possibly in this calendar year or, at the very 5
latest, perhaps early in 1991.
We think we can come 6
to grips with the scope and content of what needs to 7
be in the rule and what is not in the rule.
8 Now, to support the issuance of a proposed 9
rule in this area, we could then, and would perhaps 10 expect to be able to, issue a for-public-comment draft 11 generic environmental assessment.
i' 12 At the same time, however, we might announce 13 l the staff intent to prepare a generic environmental I
14 l impact statement ultimately.
15 Then we would begin to get the comments back 16 on the technical and procedural issues in the proposed i
l rule, meanwhile proceeding on a tact to prepare the 17 q
ldraftgenericenvironmentalimpactstatement,which 18 i
19 possibly could be issued then in early 1991, perhaps,
!l at the earliest, and get that out for comment, 20
] recognizing that that will then be the support for the 21 i
22 l
final rule.
i 23 l
So that when the final rule is issued 1
24 l sometime in 1992, it would be issued with the final I
25 i generic environmental impact statement.
And this NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER $ AND TG ANSCRIBER5 1323 RHODE ISL AND AVf NU[, N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (2021 232 4 600 1
i 34 1
would also include possibly some changes in 10 CFR 2
Part 51 that deal with license renewal rulemaking.
3 Now, that is just a possible track that you 4.
can have.
'5 DR. MURLEY:
These are the sorts of options 6
that the EDO directed the staff to look into, and we 7
will be doing that over the next month.
And we are 8
just not prepared yet to tell you all the pros and i
9 cons of these various --
10 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
I raise that question 11 because, as I understood it, an assessment is 12 typically the vehicle to assess whether there is a 13 significant environmental impact and, if so, to 14 proceed with an EIS.
l 15 But it sounds here as if you have made the 16 l determination to prepare a GEIS and, hence, the i
17 finding that there will be a significant impact.
18 l
I guess when you get to that point, I would i
19 be interested in not only the piocedural, but the 20 legal underpinnings for publishing a draft GEA, having 21 made the decision to go with the GEIS.
]
COMMISSIONER CARR:
As I read the current 22 23
! regulations, you P ve got no option but to provide an 24 I environinental linpact statement, unless we change the I
25 regulation.
NEAL R GROSS I
COURT REPORTERS AND TRAN$CRIBER$
l 1323 RHODE ISLAND AV[NU[. N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C.
20005 (202, 232 4 600 J. ~L:.
35 1
COMMISSIONER-CURTISS:
That's in addition to 2
the GEIS.
3 DR. HOUSTON:
That's in addition.
4 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Yes.
5
. COMMISSIONER CARR:
One of the requirements 6
to renew the license.
7 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Yes.
O 8-COMMISSIONER CARR:
If you go with a generic 9
environmental impact-statement, won't each plant still
~ 10 be required to have some kind of supplement to that 11' and, further, the process of site-specific problem?
12 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Yes.
13 DR. HOUSTON:
One would, I think, reasonably
- . anticipate that, at least for some plants, there may 14 15 l be sone site-specific environmental concerns which 1
16 have to be addressed on a site-specific basis.
17 The object here is to try, however, to see 18 if we can't resolve as many environmental issues 19 generically so that what is left to be necessary for I
20
- an environmental statement on each individual 21 application is then minimized.
22 l
That's the objective, but it may not be 23 totally eliminated.
It would be desirable, I think, 24 from a resource point of view of eliminating.
- 25 COMMISSIONER CARR:
I understand what you i
NEAL R. GROSS
{
COURT RIPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE 15L AND AV(NUE. N W i (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C.
20005
(?02i 232 4 600 L
36 1
are doing.
2 DR. HOUSTON:
Yes.
I 3
COMMISSIONER CARR:
But it seems to me 4
simpler to just require the licensee to amend or to 5
supplement his current environmental impact statement.
6 Is that more work for us to review those or --
f 7
DR. HOUSTON:
Over the long haul, yes.
Over 8
the long haul, yes.
That is, this is, in part, a 9
resource-savings effort.
It is, puttirig more effort 10 in up front, we will save a lot of resources later on l potentially.
11 I
12
. COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Those may well be 13 j litigable, the individual ones, and end up as i
l proceedings.
14 15 DR. MURLEY:
We are proceeding on the basis 16
, that there will be an opportunity for a hearing for 17 each one of these license renewals.
The question is:
18
! What should be the scope of those hearings?
19 And our idea was to try to see if we could 1
20 settle as many issues generically.
That's the whole 21 purpose of what we will be looking at for the next 22 month.
23 l
COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Do you envision the i
24 l possibility that if you prepared a GEIS, that for some i
25 l of the plants when you get to the analysis of the i
NEAL R GROSS COURT REPORTIR$ AND TR ANSCRIBER$
1321 RHODE ISL AND AV[NQ[ N W i (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON DC 20005 (232) 232-f.600
i 37 1
individual impacts, that the GEIS could be broad 2
enough that you might end up with EA rather than EIS?
3 DR. HOUSTON:
That's the goal.
4 DR. MURLEY:
That's correct.
5 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
In order to do that, 6
would we then have to amend Part 51?
7 DR. MURLEY:
Yes.
8 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Yes.
9 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Let's proceed.
10 DR. HOUSTON:
Turning to Page 14, the last 11 two viewgraphs reflect our approach and consideration 12 of the procedural issues.
These largely come from the 13 l
analysis and recommendations made by the office of I
14
! General Counsel.
15 I would like to just discuss each of these 1
l 16 items rather briefly.
And I'm sure if I make a 17 i misstatement here, we can expect the General Counsel ltocorrectanythingImaysayonthis.
18 19 A determination has been made in the first 20 l
instance that it would be inappropriate for the 21
! Commission to renew licenses by amendment.
And so we l consider that these must be, in a sense, new licenses, 22 I
i 23 that they are renewed licenses and not amended l
24 licenses.
I think that is the major concern.
j 25 i
COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
On that point, is NEAL R GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TR ANSCRIBER5 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUf. N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON DC 20005 f 202i 2324000 1
38 1
there any practical difference between those two, an I
2 amendment versus a license renewal, either technically 3
or legally?
4 MR. PARLER:
From the legal standpoint, I 5
will answer that.
As a matter of fact, I will answer 6
the advice that we give on the technical thing, too.
7 We give them the advice that, from a technical 8
standpoint, it doesn't make any difference.
9 From the legal standpoint, it would seem to 10 me that there would be no real practical advantages to 11 l be gained by calling an extended license an amendment 12 since those advantages, procedural advantages, are not 13 apparent to me.
14 l
It would seem to me that perhaps common 15 sense should prevail and the thing should be called 16 what it really is; that is, a renewed operating 17 l license.
18 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Under either case, 19 upon the application, do these individual utilities 20 continue to operate under timely renewal?
21 MR. PARLER:
That is correct.
Of course, we 22 l have said in the prior meeting that what is a timely I
23 renewal will probably have to be specified and changed I
24
! from the present provision, which I think that permit l
a 30-day filing prior to the expiration as a timely 25 i
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TR AN$CRIBIR$
1323 RHODE I5L AND AviNut N W
! (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON DC 20005 (202i 232 4 600 fI
4 39 1
renewal.
2 As Mr. Houston has pointed out, some of 3
these applications will be filed many years ahead of 4
time.
5 There has been come indication at one of the 6
meetings that I gather this Agency may have had some 7
months ago that perhaps the timely renewal doctrine 8
would not apply.
But, certainly, from a legal standpoint, that is not correct.
9 I
10 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you very much.
Let's 11 l proceed.
I 12 DR. HOUSTON:
We do propose, as is 13 l
recommended by the General Counsel, to recommend to i
14 l the Commission that in each proceeding; that is, in each application for license renewal, there be an 15 16 l opportunity for formal adjudicatory hearings.
1 17 l
General Counsel has determined that an 18 antitrust review by the Attorney General is not 19 required.
20 Then we come -- there are a number of kind 21 of interesting, I think, procedural issues associated including of renewal l with matters of timing, 22 23 l applications and their approvals, and the first of i
24 l which Commissioner Curtiss has mentioned is timely i
25
! renewal policy.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTIRS AND TRANSCRIBERS l
132 3 RHODE ISL AND AVINUf. N W t (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005
<202i 2324600 i
1 l
4 40 1
Presently Part 2.109 would permit.any NRC 2
licensee to submit a renewal _ application for his I
'3 license within no shorter than 30 days before the 4'
termination of his license.
And in accordance with I
5 the Administrative Procedures Act, the license is a
6 automatically extended until the Agency acts upon it.
j l
7 I think many people would perceive that,this l
l 8
might be an unnecessarily short period of time for an 9.
action as complex as renewal of a nuclear power plant 10 license'.
That has been suggested in the General 11 Counsel's memorandum.
12 I might call attention here to the fact that 13 in the recent enactment of Part 52, that subject was 14
! dealt with specifically in the context of Part 52 and I
15
! calls, in the case of both early site permits and, I j think, for the certified designs, if a holder of 16 l either of these wishes to have them renewed, they must 17 18 make application not less than one year nor more than 19 three years prior to the termination of the permit or 20 the certification.
21 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Just one quick 22 question on that.
Did I understand you to say earlier l
23 that, from the standpoint of equipment that's l
i 24 qualified in the plants, that the equipment has been j
i 25 qualified for a maximum life of 40 years?
j i
i NEAL R. GROSS j
l COURT REPORTER 5 AND TRANSCRIBER 5 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVINUI. N W (702) 234-4433 WASHINGTON DC 20005 (2021 ?!?-6600 i
l 4
~.
i 41 1
DR. HOUSTON:
Well, I guess I can't assert 2
that as a fact, but I think our experience in 3'
monitoring and in dealing with the application of the
)
i 4
EQ rule, I believe that many -- I can't really assert i
5 most plants or all plants -- probably have tried to 6
qualify their equipment to what they.then perceive to 7
be the expected life of the plant, which probably was 8
tied to the term of their operating license, because 9
this goes back a number of years.
i 10 If that's the case and now they want to l
11' operate beyond 40 years, they may have to re-qualify 12 in order to continue to comply with the EQ rule.
This 13 is a point that I was trying to make.
14 l
COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Our regulatory 15 l understanding, though, is limited to 40 years?
Is I
16 l
that*--
17 DR. HOUSTON:
No.
In the EQ rule, it 18 doesn't specify the number of years.
19 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Okay.
20 DR. HOUSTON:
It really refers to the 21 expected life, operating life, of the piece of 22 equipment under consideration.
And for some of these, 23 it might be as short as 10 years, and they might have 24 a reasonable expectation that certain items would last 25 the expected operating life.
i l
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTIRS AND TR ANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENU[. N W l (202) 734-4433 WASHINGTON. O C 20005 (202) 232 4600 f.
r
1 42 l
1 But the testing that they may have done to 2
support that decision may have been limited to 40 3
years or 30 years or some number such as that.
And it 4
will vary with different items.
5 MR. SNIEZEK:
Commissioner Curtiss, that's a 6
good example that we have to look at.
We may not have 7
to address that in any rulemaking for life extension 8
because our present rules may be adequate.
It is 9
either qualified or it has to be replaced.
10 Our current rules already say that, so we 11 1 don't have to address it.
It's an issue for the 12 l licensee to make sure they have the right equipment in 13 there qualified, but from a regulatory posture, we may 1
l 14 have to take no further action.
They just have to --
l COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
I guess what I'm 15 16 l getting at is that we have the basis for determining l
17 l that the equipment is qualified up to 40 years, but 18 not beyond.
4 1
19 Would we be comfortable for an applicant l
20
' that comes in fairly late in the operating license, l
21 files, gets timely renewal, if the timely renewal l
22 l would permit the operation past the 40-year period?
l 23 MR. PARI.ER:
Mr. Chairman, may I comment on i
24 that?
l 25 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Yes, please.
NEAL R. GROSS i
COURT REPORTERS AND TR ANSCRIB(R$
1323 RHODE 11 LAND AVENUE N W
. (2021 234-4433 WASHINGTON DC 20005 (202-232-f 600
43 l
1 MR.
PARLER:
If a license is ' ranewed, of 2
- course, the renewal doesn't give the licensee any
)
3 additional benefits than the licensee would have under j
4 the existing license, which was renewed.
5 So if, as Mr. Sniezek pointed out, there was.
6 a problem which had to be rectified, it would have to
'7 be rectified under the renewed license, even though 8
the' license would not' automatically expire.
9 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you.
10 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Excuse me.
11' CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Go ahead.
32 COMMISSIONER ROGERS :
Just on this timing, 13 how does the decommissioning rule come into play here?
14 In other words, there's an advanced decision that has 15 to be made on decommissioning.
16 If that date has passed relative to the end 17 of the license, do we expect to be in communication 18 with a licensee and ask them what their intentions are 19 so we don't come up against this 30-day period, which 20 is absurd?
21 DR. MURLEY:
Jim?
22 MR. SNIEZEK:
Are you going to address that, 23 Wayne?
I mean, otherwise, I --
24 DR.
HOUSTON:
I can.
I mean, yes, we 25 recognize that there can be some unnecessary, perhaps NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON D C 20005 (202) 232 4 600
(,. ' ' '
3
' ),l i 44 1
lack or an appearance of lack of coordination between 2
two difference requirements.
3:
Of course, if a licensee plans to try to get 4
a renewed license, we have given consideration to the 5
possibility of making certain adjustments in what 6
would otherwise be requirements for submitting 7.
decommissioning plans.
And we already have language.
8 for that in some of our straw man rulemaking things..
9 Yes, that is an important question.
Yes.
10' COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
We can write these 11 rules ultimately to make sure that the two fit 12 together properly.
l 13 DR. HOUSTON:
That's correct.
Yes.
14 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
You may proceed.
15 DR. HOUSTON:
I would like to just -- on the 16 subject of timely renewal policy, there are two other 17 things that I would like to say.
One is that it 18-appears that the industry, as reflected in a NUMARC 19 report, is suggesting that perhaps an appropriate 20 period of time for a timely renewal to be effective 21 would be something on the order of one year, rather 22 than 30 days.
I 23.
But we are considering also the possibility 24 of even longer periods of time for that and may, in 25 fact, with the issuance of a proposed rule, ask for i
I j
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER $ AND TR ANSCRIBER$
1323 RHODE l$t AND AVENUI. N W i (202! 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (20?i 232-6600 e
l f
L________
45 1
specific additional public comment on that particular l
l 2
point.
j 3
But there is another aspect of it, which is 4
identified in the next subtopic there, the sufficiency of the renewal application.
At the present time Part 5
i i
6 2.109 does not use wording that reflects a sufficient
{
l 7
or appropriate application.
Merely, it says the 8
I " application."
l 9
I guess a literal interpretation would be:
10 A one-line letter might be considered to be an J
11 application.
In practice, of course, this has not 12 been treated that way.
And I think even in the 13 l materials licensing area, the experience has already l
l l reflected that.
l 14 l
15 So if it becomes necessary or desirable to 16 modify some of the language in Part 2.109 to deal with j
17 i a somewhat different period of time from which time i
18 l the renewal policy would occur, we might also 19 recommend a slight change in the language to assure 1
20
- that it is a sufficient application.
21 This also, I think, comes about from a I
22 recommendation of the General Counsel.
{
23 The earliest filing date is also a matter of j
I 24 some interest.
It clearly is of great interest on the j
i 25 part of the utilities in order to plan adequately for j
l I
i I
NEAL R GROSS COURT RERORTER$ AND TR AN$CRIBER$
1323 RHODI I5L AND AVENUE. N W (202) 234-4433 WA$HINGTON. D C 20005 (202: 232 4 600 l
4
i v
46 1
future generating copecity to have ample time for thet 2
planning.
3
- And, of course, they can't in the final 4
analysis be assured if they wish to renew the 5
operating license for a nuclear power plant.
They 6
need to have very strong assurance, if not, in fact, a 7
renewal in place, a fair number-of years ahead of the 8
time when they would actually need the additional 9
generating capacity or need to make a decision 10 regarding alternative forms of meeting their system 11 needs.
12 Typically, a period on the order of 10 to 12 13 years might be necessary on the part of utilities.
So 14 we are certainly considering the possibility for 15 taking applications 10 to 12 years ahead of time.
16 We are also thinking as much as early as 20 17 years ahead of time.
As I mentioned earlier, in the 18 case of Monticello as one of the lead plants, that 19 application would come in almost 19 years ahead of the 20 termination date of their present license.
So it's a 21 consideration there.
22 The final bullet on Page 14, on the 23 effective date of the renewed license, brings to mind l
24 two options that can be under consi derati on, one of 25 which we call a " supersession license," and another is NEAL R. GROSS l
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W
[
(202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 232 6 l
'47 tc.
l'
.a " tack-on' license."
2' Given that -a renewal license application 3
might - be made, let 's say, for sake of argument,. 10 4
. years ahead of time and the staff takes action.on it, 5
say, within 2 years of that time, then the question 6
is:
Does one' issue a renewed license that is tacked 7
onto the term of the initial license or make it 8
immediately effective as a renewed' license?
9 The path that seems to be the better one 10 that the staff is likely to recommend in this case is 11 the supersession license.
That is, it would become 12 immediately effective on issuance and would supercede 13 the original license.
14 But then one would distinguish between - what q
15 I will call the " renewal term" of the license, of the i
16 renewed license, and the extended term, which would be 1
17 the term of years beyond the initial term of 40 years.
18 And we may find it necessary to make-that distinction 19 in some parts of the rulemaking.
20 Finally, on the last viewgraph, Page 15, the J
I 21 final procedural issues that I wanted to discuss were
]
l-22 the length of a renewal 1icense.
And here again, the 23 distinction that I just made between a renewal term 1
24 and a subset of that, which would be the extended term 25 beyond 40 years, needs to be understood.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR!BERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W
- l (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON D C 20005 (202) 232 4 600
j t
48 1
Clearly, the maximum length of a renewal 2
tern, by statute, would be 40 years.
That is in 4
3 accordance with the same statutes that apply to an l
4 initial application for a license.
5 The staff is considering recommending a-6 somewhat shorter period of time for the extended term.
7 I may call your attention to the fact that in another
(
8 very different context, in dealing with the vendor 9
. designs for future light water reactors, the staff is 10 proposing to review the application with the prospect 11 that a 60-year length lifetime might be appropriate.
12 And so what we are thinking here is something that l
l 13 might be consistent with that.
(
14 l
On the other side of the coin, there's a 15 question of whether or not the staff would recommend 16 or the Commission should have some minimum 17 specification of the length of a renewed license.
18 OGC has addressed this, suggested that if 19 there were no specification of minimum, there is a 20 potential that you might have some more or less last 21 minute applications on the part of some licensees 22 because of delays in construction of new plants or for 23 some other reason that they might want a one-year 24 extension or a two-year extension and this might even become a repetitive process.
So this is another issue 25 i
i NEAL R. GROSS COURT RIPORTER$ AND TRANSCRIBED 5 j
1323 RHODI t$t AND AVINUE. N W i (202) 234-4433 W ASHINGTON DC 20005 (PO?i 232-0600 t
l
'i
'j.
l 49:
]
t
- that we have to deal with, 1
h.-
2 At the present time the staff is sort - of 3
leaning in the direction of not having a minimum 4
specified term, but merely to set, once and for all, 5
so to: speak, the requirements for a license renewal.
6 And maybe the same requirements would apply whether 7
they are asking for 1 year or for 20 years, for L
8
. instance.-
That's just a possibility, but that is 9
another procedural issues which we are addressing.
10 That concludes the remarxs that I ' intended 11 to make, Mr. Chairman.
12 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you.
13.
DR.
MURLEY:
I should add, Mr. Chairman, 14 that there's a great deal of international interest, 15 of course, in the subject of plant aging.
And we are 16 staying in very close touch with the international 17 community on technical issues.
18 We have a good deal to learn from them on things 19.
like pressure vessel embrittlement and annealing and 20 that sort of thing.
And there will no doubt be strong 21' interest from the international community on the 22 approach that we take here in this proceeding.
I 23 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Thank you very 24 much.
25 DR.
MURLEY:
That concludes our NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234.4433 WASHINGTON. O C 20005 (202) 232-6600
50
'1-presentation.
2
' CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you very much.
l
'3-Does General Counsel have a comment?
4 MR. PARLER:
-Mr.
Chairman, I have one point l'
5 that I would like to make briefly on a proce' dural item l'
6 relating to hearings.
There, indeed, would, as Mr.
'7 Houston has said,.be an opportunity for hearing.
8 These would be reactor-type hearings, which we have 9
described as formal adjudications, at least in the 10 past.
11 The point that I would like to make is this:
12
.The law has developed in this area since.these plants 23 were initially licensed.
And I would certainly think 14 that the hearings would be more focused, more 15 efficient, less cumbersome.
16 We are working on procedural changes to 17_
achieve that objective.
18 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Thank you very 19 much.
20 Any questions from my fellow Commissioners?
21 Commissioner Roberts?
22 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
You cited the final 23 rule is going to be issued in '92.
But are Yankee and 24 Monticello still going to submit in '91 and are they 25 comfortable with that?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W l
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C 20005 (202) 232-6600
51 1
Maybe I should ask them, but what's your
! impression?
2 3
DR. MURLEY:
Well, our intention is to have 4
the outlines of the rule itself this summer, later 5
this summer.
In fact, we will bring it to the 6
Commission.
I 7
It is the backup material and the details 8
that would have to go in the technical details that we 9
believe will take the staff quite a bit of time.
But 10 l in terms of the approach that we are having, that i
11 should be clear later on this summer, is our intent.
12 So the answer your question is yes, even I
13' though the final rule would not be in place until
'92, 14
. we believe we can start reviewing it, their I
l application, in '91.
15 16 MR. SNIEZEK:
I would like to add on that.
1 fIthinkconsistentwiththeEDO'sguidance,the 17 18 proposal is to the EDO that we expect to have about 19 the end of July, we give a clear indication at least, 20 subject to the Commission review, that this is the 21
, staff's intent, where the staff wants to go and be, i
22 make it fairly clear to utilities what would be 23 l expected of them, at least that the staff intends as 24 we sit here this year.
I CHAIRMAN ZECH:
This July, next month?
25 I
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER $ AND TG AN$ CRIB [PS 1323 RHODE l$ LAND AVfNUI N W (202) 234 4433 WA$HINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 232-ff>00
s
=.
52 1
MR. SNIEZEK:
The proposal to Mr. Stello 4
2 that he asked for --
3 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Right.
4 MR. SNIEZEK:
-- at the end of July.
5 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
In draft?
6 MR. SNIEZEK:
I would envision our goal is 7
to have what I would call a " draft final rule from 8
the staff perspective, what we would really like to 9
do.
10 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Right.
'Right.
11 MR. SNIEZEK:
But it would be minus the 12 detailed statement of considerations, which, by the 13 time we get done, may be about that thick for the 14 l supporting justification.
That's what's really going 15 to take the time, plus developing the generic 16 environmental impact statement.
17 But what is in the process, what is going to
". 8 be out of the process, we expect to have language 19 there to make it clear to everyone, subject to the 20 Commission review, at that time.
21 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Thank you very i
22 l :tuch.
l 23 l
COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Let me pick up on l
24 l that point, i
25 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Yes.
Go ahead.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT RipORTERS AND TRAN$CRlBIRS 1323 RHODE ISL AND AVENU[. N W l (202) 734-4433 WA5HINGTON. D C 20005 (202: 232 4 600
T*
j 53 1
COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
If a hearing is 2
requested in either or both of those'two pilot 3
proceedings, will.the rule, the final rule, be in 4
place before the hearing begins?
5 In the absence of that, it looks to me like 6
we are going to litigate these issues in the 7
individual proceedings.
8 DR. MURLEY:
Yes.
The intention would be 9
that we would have the rule in place before we go to 10 hearings on this matter --
11 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Okay.
Fine.
12 DR. MURLEY:
-- before we issue the SCR.
I 13 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Okay.
14 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Commissioner Roberts, a
15 anything else?
16 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
I have no further 17 questions.
I have just a comment.
I think this is a 18 very important undertaking, and I encourage you to I
19 l continue with the diligence you have already shown.
I 20' lThat'sallIhave.
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Commissioner Carr?
21 22 COMMISSIONER CARR:
I have a question along 23 l the same lines, and I certainly agree with the i
24 approach of trying to get as much information in the j
25 rule as you can get without reg guides to follow it.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TR ANSCRIBIR$
l 1323 RHODi l5L AND AVENUl N W j
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (20?) 232 4 600
)f 54 s.
1 But my concern is that in the sufficiency-of 2'
the application, I' can see a l'ot of back and forth 13
-.wh'ere you are going to go up and ask them, "You didn't 4'
send'us this and-we.'now need it," -and that's going to 5
continue.
6 Unless we get that particular tning solved, 7
I can see-their application being amended right on up 8
until the bitter end.
9 MR. SNIEZEK:
I think for the lead plants, 30 that is going to be true.
There is going to be more 11 difficulty there.
But I envision when the final rule 12 comes out, at that. time whatever final staff guidance 13 we need for a staff review and guidance to industry on 14 what's really expected will come out contemporaneous 1y 15 with the final' rule, so that it will be locked in 16 place what the real expectations are.
And there 17 shouldn't be that much information to follow.
That is 18 our goal.
19' COMMISSIONER CARR:
I hope you are right.
20 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Commissioner Rogers?
23 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
How do you see the 22 Of fices of Nuclear Regulatory Research and Regulation 23 working together to assure integration of severe 24 accident phenomena in the license extension?
25 DR. MURLEY:
That is one of the tasks that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W
)
(202) 234-M33 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 (202) 232 4 600 l
j 55 j
1 the Executive Director has given us.
The idea that --
)
2 well, I shouldn't speculate how it is going to turn
]
3 out, but, in principle, one can say that what we 4
should try to do is memorialize in this rule the
]
5 closure process that we are on now and, therefore, 6
make it -- and, in effect, it will make it a condition 7
of a renewal license that the severe accident issues l
8 be cloned.
9 Absent a severe accident rule, we have, as 10 you know, a process that we are or.to close the severe 11 accident issue, nonetheless.
And so that w wld be the 12 approach.
13 Now, I don't think we can go much further 14 until we talk it out amongst oursolves.-
15 COMMISSIONER ROGERSt It seems to me that ltherearesomequestionsastothedirectionthatva 16 i
fhave_giventheindustrywithrespecttothe IPE 17 18 examinations and beyond design basis accidents as to 19 how well they will be able to actually satisfy some of 20 our requests in that direction and how those matters 21 will be resolved in time to be tolded into our life I
I extension rule or guidance, whatever it is that we are 22 23 l
intending to come up with in the near future.
24 I have some concerns about that, and I just 25 wonder how you see some of those issues, particularly I
i NEAL R GROSS COURT REPORHR5 AND TRAN5 CRIB (R5 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVINUE N W I
' (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C-20005 (202) 232-6600
. _ _ =
i 4
56
.1 that one.
2 COMMISSIONER CARR:- I think a Level III PRA, 3
if I were going to apply for an extension, I think I 4-would start one of those now, but I can't imagine not requiring that, which we have been through before, you 5
6 know.
7 DR. MURLEY:
We will have to.think these
~
8 things through very carefully.
9 The' question with regard to how do we treat 10 be.eyond design basis accidents, I am treading in new 11 water here, but, in general, I think that the process 12 that we are on for closing the severe accident issue 13 is a careful, comprehensive program.
14 And it could vcey well be that it is 15 sufficient in this rule to memorialize that process 16
. and not require that it be completed before we issue l
l the rule.
17 18 That is to say, we could say that before 19 they get a renewed license, of course, they must have 20 l completed the work.
But we may oe able to issue the
!l rule that just outlines --
21 l
CO& 'SSIONER ROGERS:
By reference to that 22 j
23 l
24 DR. MURLEY:
Yes.
25 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
-- without specific NEAL R. GROSS 1
COUkT R(PORTER $ AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVINUL N W l (202) 234-4433 W A5HINGTON DC 20005 (202; 2324f>00 I
57 4
- b 1
things?
2 DR. MURLEY:
That references that process.
3 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
And if _there are any 4-problems in that, when.you work them out, they will 5
automatically be included in the life extension --
6 DR. MURLEY:
Yes.
7 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
--' procedures of those 8'
3icenses.
9 DR.
MURLEY:
The work on the IPE would 10 clearly have to be done before we could -- under this 11 scenario, would clearly have.to be done before we 12 would grant them a renewed license for a period of 1 ~3 time.
14 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
It looks like the 15 external events :aight be the pacing of it.
16 MR. SNIEZEK:
What we are saying is that for
~
17 the licensee, if they would go up for renewal, would 18 need it the year 2000.
The work that is going on now, 19 that gives them 11 years.
20 DR. MURLEY:
Yes.
21 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Anything else, Commissioner Rogers?
22 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Well, just your own 23-opinion as to what impact the existence or 24 nonexistence of a maintenance rule might be on the 25 development of screening criteria for aging NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANDTRANSCRIBERE 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVINUE.N W
[202) 234 4 433 W ASHINGTON. D C 20005 (20;,232.n30 f
4 e
'58 1
degradation issues.
2 DR. 93RLEY:
Gee, I don't know that we have 3
really thougnt about that.
4 MR. SNIEZEK:
I have given that some 5
' thought.
I believe that if we had a maintenance rule, it would give us a better opportunity to screen some j
6 7
things out of the process, because we already have a 8
rule that addresses the care and feeding of the 9
equipment now and in the-leng-term.
10
'Now, what. it would screen out, I can't say 11 here, but I think it could have helped us in arriving 12-at that conclusion to screen some things out.
13 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
This touches on the
'14 question of what kind of records'we are' going to i
i 15 l
insist on with respect to equipment maintenance in 16 addressing a plant life extension.
i l
How specific is our thinking with respect to 17 18 those requirements?
l 19 l
DR. MURLEY:
There I don't think we have 20 firm recommendations at this time.
Clearly, that is 21 one of the issues that we have to think on.
22 l
DR. HOUSTON:
That would be tied very 23 closely to the screening criteria because one will 24 need records in order to utilize the screening i
25 l criteria they prop.v.9 So it becomes sort of a u
l l
NEAL R GROSS j
COURT REPORTERS AND TR ANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE !$L AND AvfNUE. N W (202) 234-4433 WA5HINGTON. D C 20005 (202) PS24600
~'
59 1
hierarchy.
And you get-down to the question of
'1 2
records, and uo forth, when you get down towards the j
3 bottom of it.
4 One, I think, probably anticipated the 5
potential in the future for a regulatory guide that 6
may devote its03f exclusively to the question of' 7
record requirements or record needs for license 8
renewal. applications to support the use oi' screening 9
criteria, methodology, et cetera, for addressing the 10 important issues.
11 I would add that with respect to the 12 maintenance rule, I think it, with its apparent 13 postponement for some period of time, does provide an 14.
opportunity, at any rate, for the staff noe to get a l
15 l better linkage and coordination between license i
16 renewal requirements and any prospective maintenance 17 rule requirements.
18 As Jim has said, it would be very useful, I 19 think, in the license renewal process to have 20 requirements, general requirements, in the maintenance 21 area in place.
22 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
I know Commissioner 23 Carr has somewhat given the answerg but I'm not sure 24 that's a total answer of your thinking on what has led the staff to adopt a more specific, rather than a 25 i
l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l
1323 EHODI ISLAND AV(NUE. N W I (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C.
20005 (20?) 232-6600 i
a t.;'-
g.
U(;
60-1 general, approach to rulemaking here, this change in 2
point of view that you referred to very early on in 3
your presentation.
'4 DR. MURLEY:
Yes.
There are several 5
reasons.
Let me take a cut, Jim.
First of all, the 6
Limerick case has caused us to realize, I think, that 7
the more that you have and can pin down in a rule like 8
this early on, the better.
9 Also, as I think we got into the details of j
10 how we were going to do the reviews and the scope of 11 individual license proceedirigs, we realized that it 12 was going to be an enormous inpact on the staff coming i
13 l
townrd the end of the '90s probsbly.
14 We took to heart the guidance that we got from Mr. Parler in his January 13th memo to Mr.
15 i
l 16 Stello.
Let me just read this.
"The life extension i
i 17 l
rulemaking should specify the technical requirements l
18 and standards which must be met by each application 19 l
for license renewel.
Otherwise, the review and 20 proceeding will be open-ended."
21 I think it was mainly for those reasons that 22 we concluded we should try to settle as many things as fwecouldintheruleandlimitthescopeofstaff 23 24 review and proceedings.
25 l
COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
This strikes me as a I
NEAL R. GROSS l
COURT REPORTER 5 AND TRANSCRIS[R$
1323 RHODE ISL AND AVINUI. N w i (?O2) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 i?CP) 2324000
61 1
very excellent example of the kind of total systems 2
.look that we have to take about things.
And it sounds 3
to ne like you are doing that quite well, that the 4
coordination between the OGC and --
5 DR. MURL3Y:
Yes.
6 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
-- the past experience 7
in there matterc is now being brought to bear on our 8
approach.
And I think that is very good.
I am 9
pleased to hear that you are willing to take a little 10 change in direction based on a review of everything we 11 know.
12 DR. MURLEY:
Yes.
13 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
That sounds very 14
! healthy to me, and I certainly join commissioner 15 l Roberts in feeling this is a very important kind of 16
! activity that we really have to do our very best on i
17 l and try to move as quickly as we can.
l That relates to what the problems are with 18 i
19 resources.
Do we have adequate resources now, f projected in the future to be able to deal with this?
20 21 1 Are we going to be hung up on a lack of either people 22 I or dolla:rs to do the job?
23 DR. MURLEY:
We are going to be planning on 24 that.
And that is one of the things that Jim Sniezek 25 and our colleagues in research will be looking at over NEAL R. GROSS f
COURT REPORTERS AND TR ANSCRIBER5 I
1323 RHODI 15L AND Avf NUE. N w
. (202) 234 4433 W ASHINGTON, D C 20005 (20?, 232 4 600 l
I
62 3
'1 the next month, resources needed to do this.
I 2'
COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Thank you.
3-CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you.very much.
4
' Commissioner Curtiss?
5 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
I guess I just have q
6 one comment, not any questions.
I do want to add my 7
voice to what I think everybody has said here so far.
8 I am pleased to see that, from the standpoint of 9
technical requirements and environmental issues, 10 severe accident as well, it seems to me like you-are l
11 l
really endeavoring to address these issues in a i
12
' generic way across the board, to the extent that they 13
_l are generic questions.
14 l
We talked a little bit about that yesterday 1
15 i
in the context of the'GEA BWR.
I think this is.an l'approachthatlookslikeitavoidsmuchof'thecase-16 17 specific litigation that might otherwise result.
It 18 is an approach that seeks to identify the generic 19 issues that might arise and address them generically.
1 i
i 20 I think that is a sound approach.
21 I guess I am also pleased to see that we may
)
1 22 see some streamlining in the process that will be
]
i j
23 applied if and when we get into hearings on individual 1
24 cases.
l 25 That is an area where recently I think we 1
l NEAL R. GROSS i
t COURT REPORTIR5 AND TRANSCRIBER 5 j
1323 AMODI ISL AND AVENUI. N W l
(202) P3d.4433
% A5HINGTON DC 20005 (20?; 232-0600 l
l i
gi E
.i 63 1
have seen some more flexibility employed in the 2
standardization rule and materials licenses and 3
operator licensing.
I think that is certainly worth L
4' pursuing.
5' That's all I have.
6-CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you very much.
7.
Well, let me just say the staff is well-8 aware of my interest in this license renewal issue.
9 And we have discussed it now for some time in the past a
10 year or so.
.11 -
I guess I am a little disappointed that we 12 have slipped our date from 1990, I think we had 13 planned at one time, to 1992, although I must say I 14 I think the staff has put in an awful lot of effort and i
15
. thought now.
And I feel more comfortable about the l
16 fact that I think you do have a much better handle on 17 what we have to do.
16 So I hope 1992 can be a firm date.
We are 19 getting to the point where I think the utilities do 20 need to have sufficient time.
The staff needs to have 21 sufficient time to review applications in the future.
22 I think that we are getting to the point now 23 where that ought to be looked at as a real firm 24 commitment on our part, at least to be met with a lot 25
! of attention and effort to make that date a reality.
i I
f NEAL R. GROSS COURT RfpORTERS AND TRANSCR!BIR5 1323 RHODE ISL AND AVINUE. N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202, 232 4 600 i
64 1
Resources are important, too, and I 2
appreciate the fact that Mr. Sniezek has kind of been 3
designated the coordinator, as I understand it, of j
l 4
I this program recently.
5 On the other hand, I think that the plan is 6
that he will only be in that coordinating role until 7
sometime in late July, next month.
So we need another 8
coordinator, it seems like to me.
9 I would suggest, Dr. Murley, that perhaps 10 you discuss it with the EDO and also with your 11 l colleague, Mr. Beckjord, bacause this is an NRR and a f Research joint effort, 12 l
13 I know the Research people have, up until 14
! now, pretty much taken a lead because it is a 15 rulemaking action.
And I think Dr. Speis and his 16 l colleagues have done an excellent job in trying to l
17 coordinate the program.
I But I do think at this stage, it would seem 18 i
i l
19 l to me, anyway, that it is probably more appropriate to 20 shift to NRR for the lead, with support from Research, 21
-- at least that would be my view -- and also strong 22 support from the Office of General Counsel, because we i
23 are at the point right now where we really have to 24 nove, move forward.
25 If Mr. Sniezek is not going to be the l
NEAL R GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBER 5 1323 RHODE 15L AND AVINU[ NW i (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON DC 20005 (20?: 232 4 600
b o
i -
65 7;
p 1
permanent coordinator -- and I know he has got a lot 2
of other' duties, but we should, I think, look 3
seriously at appointing somebody who can be the focal
- 4 point for this and be looked upon by the Commission, 5
anyway, as one that is going to really follow this 1
6 program through working, coordinating, of. course, with 7
Research and; General Counsel's Office and others who 8
might have responsibility.
9 So the program itself is extremely 10 important.
I think it is one that we have a large 11 responsibility in the future, and time is really 12 running by because, although we are talking a few 13 years in advance for license renewal, years go by too 14 quickly.
And we must not, as far as I am concerned, 15 slip any more.
16 Resources have to be looked at very 17 carefully, too, and I appreciate the fact that you are 18 going to be doing that.
It is a program that we have 19 an obligation, a responsibility to cover.
And I think 20 that we have to look at that in a priority sort of 7,1 way.
l I think the discussion on the maintenance 22 l
23 rule is also very important, too, because I agree with 24 Mr. Sniezek's comment that if we did have a 25
! maintenance rule, it might provide more cor.fidence for l
NEAL R GROSS I
COURT REPORTIRS AND TRAN5 CRIB [R5 1323 RHODE ISLAND AV[NUE N W
] (202) 234-4433 W ASHINGTON DC 20005 IPOP, P324600 I
\\
j
+
-i 66 l
1 the staff in coming up'with some of these future j
l 2
determinations that you are thinking about as far as
)
l 3
license renewal is concerned.
l l
4 We don't have that rule yet.
I hope we will 5
have one in the future.
I hope the industry, the i
6 utilitics will assist in drawing up a meaningful 7
maintenance rule.
i l
8 I do think it'is in their best interest, 9
recognizing that, as you approach license renewal, the 10 more specific we can be, as Dr. Murley has emphasized, 1
11 too, on several occasions this morning, I think the 12 better off we will all be and the more confident we
'13 will be that we will have a licensing renewal program 14 i that will satisfy us as far as continuing, ongoing and l
15 continuing, maintenance programs are concerned.
16 Well, let me just say I appreciate the work j
17 the staff has done on this.
Also I agree that it is a 18 very important program, and it is one of the ones that 19 I wanted to be sure was put on the calendar before my 20 term expired.
I appreciate the staff's gathering i
21 information together and working so hard in order to 22 bring us this briefing today.
23 Although we have a couple affirmation l
24 sessions scheduled, I think, this week and next week j
l l
25 perhaps, this may be my last meeting, public briefing l
t NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTIRS AND TR AN$CRIBER$
1323 RHOD [ ISL AND AV[NU[. N W J
l (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D C 20005 (202l 232-f 600 r,
3
.c
'* J,,
67 1
by the staff to the Commission.
2 And so let me just take a couple of minutes 3
to, first of all, thank my fellow Commissioners for 4
the excellent support that they have given me over
'S these past five years, and especially the last three 6
as Chairman.
7 I am grateful to my fellow Commissioners for 8
their confidence and their professionalism, their 9
dedication to the task and as well as to their 10 personal friendship.
11 l
It has been a great privilege of mine to 12 serve with such fine Commissioners, and I will be 13 watching their activities with great interest, but I i
l want them to know that I am grateful for their support 14 15
! these past few years.
I 16 Also I mention very briefly here at these 17 meetings, I would like to thank our Secretary, Sam 18 Chilk, who sits at the other end of the table for all 19 of these meetings and provides all the wherewithal 20 that results in the meetings, and for his fine staff 21 that behind the scenes does so much to make our public l
1 22 meetings possible and to help us present them in a i
23 meaningful and professional manner.
j 4
24 The General Counsel sits at the other end of I
25 l the table and is always available to make sure we keep NEAL R. GROSS I
COURT REROATERS AND TR ANSCQlBIR5 132) RHODE ISL AND AVfNU[ NW I (2023 234 4433 W A SHINGTON DC 20005 vC?
+600 a
1 L_____.__
68 1
on track for all of the discussions we have at this 2
table.
3 Bill Parler is certainly one of the finest 4
general counsels in our country, as far as I am 5
concerned, and a great public servant.
And I know all 6
of the Commissioners would join me, Bill, in our 7
respect and our gratitude for your competent advice l
8 and counsel.
1 9
Dr. Murley, I hope you will relate to Vic 10 Stello and to Jim Taylor and Hugh Thompson and as well 11 as your other fellow office directors, certainly to 12 you personally, and to all of your colleagues, those 13 of you here today and those of you who have been 14 before us many times, my own personal respect and 15 gratitude for your great service to our country.
16 Your professional performance and your 17 dedication to your scientific and engineering 18 responsibilities in order to provide the Commission 19 with the best advice you can has been impressive to me 20 over these past five year s.
21 I want to express to you and to all of the i
22 staff, all the staff, those in the residence, those in 23 the regions, and all of our headquarters people, 24 whatever responsibilities they may have, whether they 25 are senior people or junior people, whether they are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TR ANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D C 20005 (202) 232-6600
69 1
secretaries, or whatever they do, they all have an 2
important role to play in helping all of us to carry l
3 out our responsibilities.
j I
4 So, Dr. Murley, I hope you will pass my j
)
5 respects to Mr. Stello and --
DR. MURLEY:
I will.
Thank you.
6 7
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
-- to his fine people, 8
because we do have an outstanding staff here that 9
supported this Commission so well.
10 We have accomplished a great deal.
And I am 11
- not going to go into all of those things that we have 12 l done in the past few years, but in the past three l
13 years, we have authorized more than 30 plants for full l
14
! power operation, and we have done it carefully and 15 l responsibly.
The Commission has decided on those, 16 with the support of the staff and others, of course.
i 17 But we have reorganized the staff to more i
18 j
functionally work at our responsibilities in the 1990a 19 and in the future.
I think the staff is functioning i
20 l and focusing on operational safety matters, perhaps I
21 l better than we had in the past.
But every so often, 22 it is important to look to the future and make sure 23 j that we are attending to our responsibilities.
And I l
24 l think we have done that very well.
25 We have consolidated.
We all know what a NEAL R GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TR ANSCO BERS 1323 RHODE ISL AND AVENU[. N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON DC 20005
- 202, 232-f 600 1
I
t h
[*.
70 1
. great boon it has been to be in this building.
And I 2
think that it is pretty evident to all of us that-l 3
working together in an atmosphere of teamwork and i
4 rautual respect has been enhanced by being able to work 5
closer together.
6 We have adopted, as you all know, a five-i 7
year plan and put it in place.
And it is functioning 8
very well right now.
I appreciate the tremendous 9
support of my colleagues on the Commission as well as 10 their assistance and as well as all of the staff 11 members who have helped and been involved in 12 developing,that five-year plan.
I think it is 13 providing professional management to our Agency.
14 We have been involved in a lot of important 15 rulemakings and some of the more recent ones.
As we 16 know, the standardization combined licensing 17 rulemaking was significant historical development as 18 far as improving our licensing process, I believe.
i 19 We have been involved with some very 20 important decisions on emergency planning.
We have 21 been involved in many other issues, rulemakings, which 22 I will not try to review at this moment.
23 But we have focused, I believe, on the power j
24 plants themselves, and we can take, I think, some 1
25 i credit for the improved performance of the utilities j
NEAL R. GROSS i
COURT REPORTERS AND TR ANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE 15 LAND AVENUE. N W f (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON DC 20005 (20?; 232 4 600 i
71 t.
'l
.throughout the country.
2 All of the safety parameters,_as we know, 3
have been improved.
Those that we track, we can take-4 nome' credit, I believe, for the improving performance.
5 And certainly we give great credit to the utilities 6
and the industry for their continuing efforts.to 7
achieve excellence.
They are improving.
8
-And our fellow citizens, our country should 9
be encouraged by that improved performance of our 10 power plants in our country.
They are-getting safer.
11 They are operating safely now and they are getting-12 safer.
It is very encouraging.
It is an important 13 message.
14' on the other hand, we shouldn't be 15-complacent.
We have room for improvement, here'in our I
16
' Agency as well as the utilities.
The power plants can 17 all improve, but it should be acknowledged that they 18 have done a great deal to improve themselves, as well 19 as to respond to our regulations.
And the result has 20 been improved safety of operations in power plants 21 throughoat the country.
22 That doesn't mean, again, that we don't have 23 some plants that we are concerned about.
We know we 24 have a watch list, and we have some plants that aren't 25 performing as well as they should, but we have a great NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS.hND TRs.N5CRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISL AND AVENUE. N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINuTON. D L 2000$
QOp 232 6603 o
l 4
72 l'
number of them performing in a very, very fine manner, 2
excellent manner.
And so we have to look at the total 3
picture.
4 We also have focused on the material 5
t licensees and tried to improve our emphasis on them.
6 I think that has been important.
So to those in the 7
NMSS organization, to all of those who follow those 8
activities, I commend them for their performance.
9 And also, though, I offer a word of caution 10 there.
We again have room to improve, in my view, in 11 that field, too.
We have material licensees.
We have 12 state prc* grams and agreements with states, and so 13 forth, and there is a lot of important work going on, 14 but that doesn't mean that we should be complacent 15 there either.
And I think that everyone is aware of 16 that.
So there is much still to be done.
17 We have the waste program issue that is 18 clearly before us and will be for some time, both low-19 level waste and high-level waste, repository issue, i
20 We have many important things ahead of us.
21 The past week, if you will recall, we have 22 had a meeting earlier in the week on the certification 23 of our lead plant for the possibility, essentially, of 24 moving into the advanced reactors in our country, I
25 l
important briefing, General Electric, Westinghouse, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORitR5 AND TR ANSCRIBER5 1323 RHODE 15L AND AVINVE N W 4 (?02) ??4-4433 W45HNGTON OC 7000%
(20' ??? '400 f
g
,,. v.
73
- S 1.*
? 1
.and Combustion Engineering,. all involved in that.
'2-EPRI, others are moving toward the future of nuclear t
3 energy in our. country.
]
4
. This - briefing today on license renewal was 5
an important one, I think, and I am pleased that I 6
could participate in this last important effort to 7
give emphasis to renewal of licenses in our country.
8' So, as I move along here shortly, I want to 9
wish Commissioner.Carr the' very best.
I have great 10 confidence. that he will show strong leadership for 11 this Agency.
I have known him for many years.
We 12 have. been together in the Navy on many occasions, 13 shipmates three times.
14 I think that his competence, his dedication 15 to nuclear energy and to our country will bring this 16 Agency to even stronger heights than it is now.
And 17 some of the comments that I have received from 18 Congress and elsewhere indicating that our Agency has 19 the highest credibility now than it has ever had has 20 made me feel very good.
21 I
give great credit for that to my 22 colleagues on the Commission and to the staff for 23 their hard work.
That's an accolade that I certainly 24 am proud of, but it is the staff's performance and the 25 Commission's performance, our Agency's performance.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 232-6600
s.m
- f. :
'74'
~ a' X
- 1. '
So I do think our. Agency has achieved c.
2 credible rating by' those who know what's going on.
3
'They know'we are a tough,' firm agency.
They know we 4
are criticized from. time-to-time.
But they also.know 5
we-stand tall.
We take whatever criticism is 6
.necessary.
7 And we do what's right.
We try to do what's i
8' right.
That doesn't mean we are perfect.
We're not.
9~
But we certainly t r y,. with all of our God-given 10' talents,.. to do what is right.
We're supported in
.j i
11 these decisions by a fine staff and some excellent 12 public servants.
13 Let me just conclude by saying that, in my 14
- view, there's no finer way to spend your -lif e than l5 public service.
And to all of you on this Agency.who 16 are devoting your life to service of your fellow man,
.17 you have my greatest respect and my. gratitude and my 18 great admiration for your service to our country.
19 You're doing it well, and I wish you the best.
20 Thank you very much.
We stand adjourned.
21 (Applause.)
22 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Commissioner Carr, you want 23 to have the last word?
24 COMMISSIONER CARR:
Certainly I ought to 25 have equal time.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTEHS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVEN'JE, N W (202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202)232 4600 i:
L j
L 1*
~..
l 75 I
1 CHAIRMAN ZECH:- You have equal time.
2 COMMISSIONER CARR:
I'm sure I speak for 3
everybody on the staff and also for my fellow j
i 4
Commissioners when I publicly thank you for your l
l 5
superb leadership over the last three years.
I will I
6 give you a true "Well done.
i 7
I wish you fair winds and'following seas and l
l 8
maybe, in NRC fashion, a black 1mard.
Thanks.
.]
9 CHAIRMAN ZECH:.Thank you very much.
1 10 Thank.you all.and God bless you.
We stand 11 adjourned.
12 (Whereupon, the foregoing briefing was 13 concluded at 11:47 a.m.)
-14 i
i NEAL R. GROSS I
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISL AND AVENU[, N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C.
20005
(?0?> 2324600 1
h
{
.a lv l
a.
y CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER
.q t
.This is'to. certify that the attached events of a meeting j
of the United States Nuclear. Regulatory Commission entitled:
TITLE OF MEETING:
BRIEFING ON STATUS OF PROPOSED RULE FOR LICENSE RENEWAL
~ PLACE OF MEETING:
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND DATE OF MEETING:
JUNE 22, 1989 were transcribed by me. I further certify that said transcription E
is accurate and complete, to the best'of my ability, and that the t'ranscrip't is a true and accurate record of the foregoing events.
A e
0 Reporter's name:
Miles Anderson Y
d NEAL R GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBER 5 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C.
20005 (202) 232-6600 I!
HC R N A O E
I S S G
E S N
R I
M I
K Y M G
A R O N
M N O C I
F 9 E
O T L
Y T A Y E 8 F U B S L R I
9 O R U U O R
1 D O G T B
S L E H E A U A T
R L N 2 T W N E U
O 2 A E E N R G I
T N S Y A E S E S E E A E R S N R
R W L
I U
P C R M J U A M
E S
R N E O
N L
C E
F C C
O U I
N L
EC I
S F
F U O
~
SE U
S S
I YC I
Y L
R O
T P
S G
U N
R D
I O
N K
J I
A A
M M
S H
E Y
S E
T L
R T
R U
I U
A N
O S
W R
M E
F S
M M
I N
O U
H S
O T
S S
E L
I I
N A
T H
C C
C L
I P
L I
A A
M E
N R
O O
D H
E R
I C
T P
C C
U E
N P
I A
A G
T 0
o o
o o
9 4
8 8
9 1
7 T
2 N
A E
L C
N P
I O
L J
R B
A U
E P
G L
C F
N I
G U
O K
N N
A I
S M
8 K
R I
9 E
8 A
O S 8 S
L 9
M F
8 Y 9 8
L 1
T U
1 E
9 A
N R
L S
U
'N 1
N H E
~
M L
2 R
0 A C R
H A
1 I
S W
D T
9 D A I
5 Y
E P
2 N M L
N L
S O
A P
E U
O T
M R
J P
Y S Y 7 O
O 8 R U R
1 R 8 O
G A
3 C
E C
S G
P 9 T U M
1 A
N N
1 A A M
E I
F L
U G S E C
F O
U E
9 G L R
I E 2 E
A
, U L
I R
C R
W
? N T
E 3
B I
0 T S
, N 3 N 8
N O U 7 E 5 O 1
O N G 1
R I
U 3
R S 8
S E A 1
E C T 4
8 S
C S
/ N I
N G N G E E E E M Y
M A
C M
V R R C R M U
I U O E
O D
S C
A F N
L N C o
O o
o o
1l!
f\\
l l
11iIllI1Ij 4
c 9
89 1
YAM L
A T
W N
E E
N 9
M E
8 S
R
)
9 S
1 E
E D
S S
S N
T 2
A E
N 1
C 9
S O
L I
A L
8 E
C
(
N T
9 U
A N
R 1
S S
J E
O S
T M
F I
N E
N E
S O
S N
Y U
I R
E C
M J
V I
H S
I I
D L
S Y
V O
L N
T I
i l
S A
E A
M P
P E
N N
R M
U A
T R
O S
F E
S O
C S
C A
T E
J C
I G
R L
N A
A O
S D
A I
M L
E L
A U
E R
S D
I U
S D
I U
E G
C A
O P
0 R
E D
P N
E o
o 0
=
l
\\i(
l:;l1ll1LL
yl I
I lii il l1!i' l
1!
ll l
l!
j.
~
NO M
I E
Y S
T T
T T
C S
E N
E Y
F A
T S
A L
O S
P R
S P
I F
F S
O O
S E
A E
T B
L E
U A
O F
S 0
N T
R I
S S
0 G
H T
L E
I E
I G
N U
D S
I O
D S
Y A
E S
C E
S C
D R
D I
I F
E E
N L
O D
V T
E L
O N
O A
T S
A P
E A
U X
E T
E C
Y Q
E U
N R
P N
G R
E S
E O
O A
N O
D Y
S M
N J
C R
I T
A B
I A
S U
S A
O M
S N
L E
Y T
R
~
D S
E U
R L
N I
R N
A C
G I
E E
V O
A I
E U
L D
N I
E F
D L
R Q
O S
E E
S C
S I
U T
D R
C F
E S
N N
E D
A O
N A
I E
U O
E I
B T
R N
T S
E T
L N
R I
O R
N E
- L O
U T
G P
E E
D A
C C
N N
V M
W O
I S
E T
I U
E S
F C
K E
S A
G
. N I
O A
U E
E R
M S
F R '
R L
E O
E S
O T
A L
F L
I E
O O
U E
C S
G R
R R
I N
U R
E S
E C
O N
I L
E L
C G
O o
0
~
i!
l!
SE R
U T
N C O U D
G I
R N N A N T T A O T
I I
A G A S T
D A E
D S
A R T A E
C C
R O N D D N C N
U G F A A N O N A
S E
C R A
E' D
S D A I
G M
I I
I I
F E N
A R R U G R D
O R E O G I
L N E I
G P N
F T S G O T O X A
I T
A R E G E F M
C G
I I
I A R E S M P N
L A
I U T N
C T T
R G
H S Y C O H N K R S C
G Y T E F C I
A E
E N S E J N R T M N N I
A A E
T U
I F B I
I
, A U E R L
S N S E S S S F S E U Y Y I
E T O E P R T T R N
)
)
R O I
I Y C E A B S
N C C E
I I
I T S N
(
(
E O
C F F F
D P R
T I
I A
E M U
N C C S E O O
E E E N C S
M P P R
T S S O
A J
E A
R M
T o
o
=
N O
O L
T I
A T
W D
A 8
E E
R 8
N T
E T 9 E
A D N 1
R L
D I
A E
E N
E R
T O
S L N P 9 S
T I
T O
2 N
S I
T C E E
E M
A C 9 U
B C
R T
I Y
O R A V I
8 S
U R
P O U O L 9 S
S L
T P
F L N 1
I P
S U
A N
E P
U S
F V "
O L
B A
D F E L 8
A 9 I
O T D W E
T 8 O
L N
E A
A R
1 N 9 T
A D
S N E P L E
1-W M
E H
A N A
I T
D O
E P R N
N I
N T Y R P
O 9 S
E W
A F
N A R
T R
D I
E O
I Y
R 1
V A O
E 9
N E T S I
)
O S
T N N T T N M P
S 9
I P
T E
E I
F E
E N
1 R
E T
U I
D C S A C
E C
O M
O R C
I I
L L
I N
A R
B L
P D I
(
R A A
L U
R G
U 0 E
S T R X
E W C
J T
S O
E I
R N E E N N
O N
S Y F L
X R T G P G G E F
l I
i E E R O T U N R
C L
N O L N N
I F
E S
P W P O E K
O E T
T U O E D M C
A S
N N
R O P R M Y N Y
A E
H I
A E
D E R
L C
T T U M L U C T
P K
C I
I S
N R R N E Q U U T
A P E M E N R S L U
D A
M E C "
D A
Y U
E N
E N
R I
L 0
o o
o j
SE R
UT C
U T
R N
T E
YR A
)
S M
E V
T I
S R
P 1
L U
E R
T
(
S T
D C
T S
Y I
N R
I I
A R
S S A
R R
M C
L L L
A B
H U
E E C M D S M T
N D
S S E N T E N
S S D T U N
W
~A E E N S O E N I
V V A Y B N O N
S Y
T S
O R O
T G
E E N S E
P T R
O R
R E T T R S M U T
O L
U U M N N U N O E I
C P
O S S S S N E A S O C N M L S I
A E
D S S S L L I
R R
O T E E A A A N O E T C E E
H N R R N N T I
O R A I
R T
L T E P P R R N A C P U T U T
N A
E M E E O T L
I C
M N R R T T C N R Y A N A
O O N N O O R V E R I
I I
N C T A E T E N
G A
T T I
I C M S P H
N T C C I
E U M I
A I
C I
N A
A V V E
N O E E P P S
K E R U A E T
E C R R R R E M R P G T
T I
E L
Y R R R R R R B R R R T S W R
C W W W W W A W W W A A O T
S P B P B P C B P B F C L S
U D
N I
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o
o
TNEM ET E T A
L N
T B E S
M G I
S S N TC S S I
O E G A
P S A P
S M
G S A T I
N A
N E I
N A F L
I A
K Y O C I
L 0
T A
L M
L D F 5
N E
A E I
D E
L C S N E T,
M U
I U G D R
N R
F C I
N S
A O
O S E T
P R
I O
C F T
N I
T E
Y X E
O V
P N T E M
T N
H S O E E
E E
C I
F O R
X C
I I
N C
A S T A
T O
A A S U
D A
I R
C E
Q N
D R
I E
I F U E
E P
E P
Y N L O D R
P U
N A
T I
P P
G E
2 E
F P L N N
A G
9 F
E A O O O
Y 9
N R
F 1
A D
R I
I O
O S
F T T T
I O O N A A
T T
O D M
L A
N E C A
R I
L O
C I
L L
E P R
O A
U A
L O D G F
T G
T U
C U C N E N
E E
A R
I R S A D I
D R
R N
A L
H P
A C
E N
E R
I T
P F
o o
0
^
DE R
I U
QE S N
G R L O
E N
A I
S T V T
N I
D O O A
E E N R C
C G
E P
I I
N E C L P L
L I
S S
O A A P
K E N R R P
D A
U E P E D A
E M S C
N N W
E S I
H E A L
E, L
I L C G Y
A N
U A
S C W E E R L D E Y N I
E T R A
E E O L N A
O E D F O R D N N I
I R T P R O
T U N
D E
O A G
H E M
S T C L F N E C C A
G T A
O I
T I
A O
N A L W L A I
P E Y O R T
D I
R P
O R Y P N C F
P H
A B A E N E
P E
R E T V A
H W L I
S I
L M M E
A Y C E T A U U C
W M M W
L I
I E R I
S O V E E F L E E
I I
N F E N M F
R F N X N E
R E I
U A
F E A I
C Y R T S E E R M M T T I
L I
S F F
N U O O
D U R E T T G H
W R N
T E O G
I I
N P T M N
E P N I
E R O A T L
o o
o o
o
.