Latest revision as of 00:35, 11 December 2024

Text

Transcript of 456th ACRS 981002 Meeting in Rockville,Md.Pp 212-346.Certificate & Supporting Documentation Encl
	ML20154H854
Person / Time
Issue date:	10/01/1998
From:	; Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
To:	;
References
	ACRS-T-3054, NUDOCS 9810150045
	Download: ML20154H854 (174)
	v • d • e

_

TRO4 (ACRS) g RETURN ORIGINAL e

TO BJWHITE I

M/S T-2E26 12l 415-7130

,j THANKS!

g I

i t

); :.

5

)

i b

y si I

s i

4 I

. jjt 3

w se f.,9,

.s.

981015d$ 5 981001

^}

-305 PDRr j

i j

.y n'

t.i l

r we.M

b_pp.

a.n nggg~.,.a&p-@n ; w1M &g%qQv:

,n n

n p ph 4 m ;2 7 p~.3: u.,o A r.h, ~' p g y-nR f

4 t

. y g..;

54g.

+.

y e

WWpa;,

Q R;?QR h xQ Mby3l jC % 4 - a wgY:% K ;A; y%,36 M%yMG,J 8,; m..y y a pp.

M J W C Q &?g g g W :% %,v q%lW j

l

$@hd@M$NMEMMMM M MM hMADVISQRECOh1MOTEELONLREXCTORMSAFEGUARDSMN6eC h

na wnwn nanns an newngmw gewuwwwe swwwnw gam 4 1

M*M,h-NN?&,a$$a$AWW_WWW&.,dC_OMMITTEIDON~lsREAC M, y&

Me%dBM m%m yY Mk' p p mp&gaw s"Uk$w,k0hWNWN k?y$wea wwsivuw > \\

,m.a p?*

+ m %pg

~

h NkW kW

$Y f h ~'

4 m

pyw p vs b.

.s w a %mw + #m y 4 - p u u m, n n,w %w w w e g a' a

rao4 <xcas>

own synm bk hl payqn m-h y nh h0 M

h hk q Q d W $d% g %n $ d h M % N 8 W@ u$ M W 'yp}W p"Q M S b J ?kW2 TO BJWHITE Q,d4%8_8d/(J V

$@flM h@M d$h Q%%%M7 MF g d

%$n$e$ n%.

xd M r

M/S T-2E26 n

,;#f9,u %g % N M

%eWMYt&" %pf%,i &g, -Qp3 +M MQ9Vg#@WnpiV 2 m

WT 4 M:W.

415-7'30 d?p M < % W ning!

Mw %,

^

WW tf #W9...-. N Awm4w[w w.w wxmwm} men Sk< e64p4o m e m @a m w@w%%w[mw a m@m m M

&s&hf&hh&mgdh QM'iS w ag v &yf M.

N h pp F:;

K,W@ng gygW M jdBMPQ v

a4 4

mn nma w w) g A;pW+w &m wl}w&:flm pm/%gt Ah

~y gMm g;hh&'*

f fh ~If

. m g g lyl M [%g'gl.hjf,QfW??

kk R

f~ ?l. j ; [* :

.' w ge d< h ep g,o 4

hkgnw;4yg,gq;/pp, m.f.g e> p &cp<w,g,,q 34.- n p

%.p%m y bx p

r b a'v q3 egg psa u e. q :e As ~ ~.

.n L

7 s

NNhjNM@&n YhWb> W$$$ag;yy~% g<,,;

w i, A

.w l

m, s

7 t

x

, w:s Wg -

g.f n,- A

+ p$ Y - sgp gg 4

e I

cw te no u

i>a an.

NfN&

0NNkYbW? g n,.

w n &a & n& m% N M W Ork:;O WI R N 6 MlE?.

~

% k $ NOW 5 NN' +% Nj..

v r.yw e n n

s

+

$hrL. !

i UWQ PN" c O s VW WSB;30044845xMhl! W, ~ l 'd h& m N

s fMTWMll%a%m &m_% w w w : w x a m wfb W S, m % w m =Q6 cQ* ffig

~ b 1 M

n M hdMAMMMM~ ~jdOR2Nya 4 W,MMW@ffi % W my%)

%?

g C

go@MMxp!A M

w MW MW M $ Ww$,M$rMkW+ %u,$n$o,ogh4 W s W g' %

ay ww we,nm om a

"m" $a y n$n$m <

4.,M ~ 4

9 j

w ran mm

<t n-a

-n

~

?

5 h

a

, n_%qpt.,yp w; 3 ;; M@.,f LR$_kvple,,MDNe:mMWWPM i M.e -

ll

.y

n..t v&xggwpe nqw.s>ya,p.9 yy ~,.

~

x; p.+7 uhhkh hf h

LOCATION?

M W_ a;p gy s

vww w ' w_Mj@=!W%a

%ym yM gww w hq,k.s;im%%..,E m; W:f.OLW' sh m

n,y rJ1+-

S

-m.

f w w)%'q :y,.$^m1 M

w-m -

u. V

> w5p*

q'<t.y m.

i J 11~% :e

%'%wAm:q6.

,c

~

, q. ' f,... D ' / 4~ u M, y g-. [ h' >m s.a%}g4s%' 'i f 4 Ig g

^

'.u v.

..-d s.: :

f,

m J

. p.$.'-

~O'-

(A i$,p;$

I lI. -

s.

g

b iQ

'a M j s

n(g' yyg:.*

q w w-y'h'.

! t y

G

'i 3 L

JP :x s

yL mydp'5L',n gpp.w N:L-d f

u%p/ M.x ;.,' c}sp:~u.. ~ vy.. - I/h' tg&

f,>

,1 kl[ - :. h' n s

4 s,.,~

9#'^'N N: #-'N

.h f

-YJ T

..a y,4 o$

myw&

m q(l$&ym s? khffh,hlm[ Yh?w N f. 7 sq mu wys..g y-h n

4

<w lm?W hN y

k5 pfS?w? ysly$n$5: ff Y y{c

$,,n&,&e y &m&wfh[w~flrl@m[

+

, m$h *l(3&f;$,f m

,o x

,1 Y0 0k W

+$< !!

%x l

'h k

y

~

~?..p p??W :$no?

s m

kh nm, w&a$..m& l? w,.?j, -[wel$m, w

ft lh Yghh.

O+h la%: ~?W? s fh

, 0~

, a, 4A

+ -

ff 0

$$ n 2 ym n v t /l q' 1@" M' M

@W@Q M@a m m u a s m ~ w w a m ~ m e wW ' a gm' m

WdM 9810150045 981001 M u'<

l

%K PDR ACRS

"

WW M N Q d % Wj $ Da?v,

.,,,r.

rg,f gg, g f t'_',

g Ofk [G Q 's L dW '

l (n D 6

M T-3054 PDR n.' ;@>7 g p%x' '/ 'Q, f" gsm-G, g< ~-- -

=[-

g Cy f a.'.hI' M h E 6 @ M $' S jJ W '

%f gANN'fiRILEY WMSS' O'C'IATES/LTD4 y, ff.,,

n wg.

I I

8 p

g y

{ a.

(& M M/M

..n j

.$ 2 d

u.

"O-r..,<34 b

y

., k ta

{

N

, Am?ge eJ,7,J_ -.

g e % g + g@ g g:t ' % w w w &

%Qg mway smo2s conneueaw,so%m g

scw dgg M4 ywashinktonin W

9 wDO mn ws,umgew.ch200MW & "nwwww swn; m< s w

x

(

n.gwg3kNh. n% me,hhMM

' s+e a n%

n,- >x

~J n,h by 4bp % A aASNNN c..

c n~

am r

7 hhd

$C[ I kh hhh h,, m "

M n @ n[k h h a

% we(n }f$e[a ~ ~

~.

~Wi )

h[=[=* i %h,,

9%$. -

h Mk n

Nf k k hd dM M~ yid; p M9N e.. e.

mm s~

- =

. lit.)

a

O DISCLAIMER UNITED STATES NUCLEAR' REGULATORY COMMISSION'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS OCTOBER 1, 1998 i

The contents of this transcript of the proceeding of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Advisory

((~h Committee on Reactor Safeguards, taken on October 1,

1998, V

as reported herein, is a record of the discussions recorded at the meeting held on the above date.

This transcript had not been reviewed, corrected and edited and it may contain inaccuracies.

4 O

212 l

l 1

. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

[~}

.2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

%_/

3' ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 4

5 MEETING:

456TH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 6

ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS l

7 8

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9

'2 White Flint l

10-Rockville, Maryland 11 Thursday, October 1, 1998 12 13 The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 8:30 14 a.m.

I 15 MEMBERS PRESENT:

V

'16 ROBERT L.

SEALE, Chairman, ACRS 17 GEORGE E. APOSTOLAKIS, Member, ACRS 18 JOHN J. BARTON, Member, ACRS 19 MARIO H.

FONTANA, Member, ACRS 20 THOMAS KRESS, Member, ACRS 21 DON MILLER, Member, ACRS 22 DANA A.

POWERS, Member, ACRS 23 WILLIAM J.

SHACK, Member, ACRS 24 ROBERT E. UHRIG, Member, ACRS 25 GRAHAM B. WALLIS, Member, ACRS

/

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.

20036 (202) 842-0034

.~.. -

213

-1:

O 2

. t j.

U 3

4 5

1 6.

7 i

8 9

10 11 s

12 4

13'

.14 4

(

15 16 17 1;

19 20 21 22 23 24

[

25 i

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.

20036 (202) 842-0034 n

n.

~

r -v r.

re

-_, _,. _ -. _ _ = -.. -.. -

. ~ - -

l l

L

'214 1-PROCEEDINGS I

2

)

[8:30 a.m.]

'3 CHAIRMAN SEALE:

The meeting will now come to i

4 order.

This is the second day of the 456th meeting of the 5

Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.

6 During today's meeting the committee will consider j'

7 the following:

lessons learned from the independent safety 8

assessment of the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station and L

9 associated generic safety implications; format and content 10 of ACRS reports to the Congress and the Commission; report l

11 of the Planning and Procedures Subcommittee, future ACRS 12 activities; and proposed ACRS reports.

13' A portion of today's meeting may be closed to 14 discuss organizational and personnel matters that relate

()

15 solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of this 16 Advisory Committee and matters the release of which would 17 constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal 18 privacy.

19 This meeting is being conducted in accordance with 20 the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and 21 Dr. John Larkins is the Designated Federal Official for the 22 initial part of the meeting.

23 We received no written statements or requests for 24 time to make oral statements from members of the public i

25' regarding today's sessions.

A transcript of portions of the 1

(

l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

\\

Court Reporters i

1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.

20036 (202) 842-0034

~. -.. -.

215 1:

meeting is.being kept and it is requested that the speakers b(~N.

2 use one of the microphones, identify themselves, and speak

3

-with= sufficient clarity and volume so that they can be

(:

4 readily heard.

5 Are there any special announcements that we need 6-to make.before we get started with the agenda?

I l

.7

(:No response.]

8'

' CHAIRMAN SEALE: ' Sam, do you' nave anything?

9

'MR. DURAISWAMY:

-No, sir'.

l

10 CHAIRMAN SEALE:

Any of the members have. comments l

11' or things they would like to call to our attention?

12'

[:No response.]

13-CHAIRMAN-SEALE:

That not being the case, the 14 first' thing on the agenda is the lessons learned from the

' (-

15' independent safety assessment of the Maine Yankee Atomic

-16 Power Station and associated generic safety implications.

17

-Tom, you are the Chairman of that subcommittee so l

18 I will ask you to introduce our speakers.

I 19 DR. KRESS:

Okay.

Well, first, just a little bit 20 of background for the members.

21 Maine Yankee problems started with an anonymous 22 allegation back in

'95.

This allegation was that there was 23 inadequate analyses of the emergency core cooling systems l

24 and containment in support of a power uprate, and I don't 25 know what exactly the inadequacies were -- maybe we will

O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.

20036 l

(202) 842-0034 i

t

. =.

c

,a.

.. -.. - ~. ~ -. ~ ~... -. - -.. - -.....

216 1

' find that out'today in these' analyses, but the Staff put

?/~y 2

together a team and did confirm that the allegation was true

,Q 3

and that they clearly had broader implications in areas like 4-what is the code validation and review process that NRC has 5'

and how do they go about reviewing amendments and tracking 1

6 of compliance commitments that are in SERs, maybe even'the 7'

review guidance for uprates and'in general the inspection-8 and audit program, so it has implications.and so this is a l

l 9

generic thing.

It's not just Maine Yankee.

It's what does 10 this mean with respect to the way we go about'doing 11 business.

12 NRC did put together a review team and came~out

-13 with a report that you'have in your package or had sent-to 14 you.

It has a number of what I thought were good

()

15; recommendations and the Staff put together an action plan.to 16-implement some of those, and I think today I gather we are 17.

having -- this is just a briefing and it's probably on the 18 status of this action.

19 So with that as a short introduction, I will turn 20 it over to John Zwolinski to introduce the Staff.

21 MR. ZWOLINSKI:

Thank you very much.

I am John 22 Zwolinski.

I am the Acting Director for the Division of 23 Reactor Projects for Regions I and II.

24 With me are Dan Dorman, our Technical Assistant.

25-Dan was responsible for the plant as the Project Manager for I (/~^)

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.

20036 (202) 842-0034

. ~,,_-.

217 1

the last two and a half years; also Ralph Caruso from our

]

2 Reactor Systems Branch that would be able to get into a 3

level of detail associated with some of the questions we 4

think are of interest to the committee.

5 Before I get started, I would like to thank you 6

all for the opportunity to afford us the opportunity to 7-bring you current on activities and efforts underway in 8

regards to Maine Yankee lessons learned.

9 You may have seen the materials provided the 10 actual lessons. learned numbered on the order of 33 items.

11 We-have completed on the order of about 20 of those.

We are 12-going to get.into some detail as to what is embodied-in 13 those.

14 To give you a little bit of perspective, when the

(

15 allegation was first received in December of 1995 both Dan 16 and myself were asked to get more deeply involved in this 17 particular project.

We were deeply involved in the order 18 that was issued over the -- on January 3rd of 1996 19 essentially derating the plant by about 10 percent power for 20 the next cycle of operation and through 1996 there are a 21 variety of activities that we will get into.

22 I think being dedicated to the facility, 23 representing NRR, and assisting Region I for the last couple 24 of yearc we have gotten into a lot of controversial issues.

25 The entire project is now at a point where we are L

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

g Court Reporters

(. '

1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.

20036 (202) 842-0034

l 218 L

l 1-considering enforcement and that is still predecisional-2-

information that has not been released yet, but there have 3

been corollary activities to what we intend to present today 4

that.have taken an extensive amount of Staff time.

5 With that as just an abbreviated overview, I'd ask 6

Dan Dorman-to start our presentation.

7 MR. DORMAN:

Thank you, John.

Good morning,

-8 gentlemen.

9

'Just briefly, the areas that we are going to 10 discuss I will fill in a little bit more as to how the 11 issues evolved during 1996.

I will give you a high level 12 overview of the 11 issues that were defined in a tasking L

13 memo to the Staff in November of '96 that grew into the 33 14 subissues that are in the report.that you have, (Jr')

15 I will briefly talk about what we are doing on the 16 power uprate issues and then I will turn it over to Ralph 17 Caruso, who has a brief presentation regarding some of the 18 analytical code issues.

19 As Dr. Kress mentioned, this activity was 20 essentially initiated by an allegation that the Staff 21 received in December of 1995.

The Staff did a preliminary 22.

investigation in early to mid-December of 1995 that L

23 identified some substantial concerns with the small break i

24~

LOCA analysis that had been done for the Maine Yankee Atomic 25 Power Station for Cycle 15 operations, which began in L (~

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

(

Court Reporters L

1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.

20036 j

(202) 842-0034

..-..._.m-219 j

1:

1

January of

'96.

"2

.In addition to the order that was issued by.the 3

Staff limiting power of'the facility in January'of 1996 the 4

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation initiated an internal j

-5 lessons learned review to look at analytical code issues, to R

'6

.look at' power uprate review process, and also, because the

.7 small break LOCA issues were directly associated with the

.8 resolution of small-break LOCA-related TMI action items for 9

Maine Yankee, this review also looked at how the Staff had 10 addressed the closure of small break LOCA issues for all of 11 the plants.

12 DR. UHRIG:

Was this peculiar to Cycle 15 or was L

l l

13 this a generic problem?

14 MR. DORMAN:

The issue for Maine Yankee was i

()

15' peculiar to Cycles 14 and'15 for Maine Yankee.

16 DR ~. KRESS:

What were the actual inadequacies?

17 MR. DORMAN:

The principal issue involved the 18 analysis across the full small break spectrum.

When the 19 licensee performed the small break LOCA analysis using the 20 RELAP 5 YA code, which had been developed by Yankee Atomic 21 for Maine Yankee and some other licensees that Yankee 22 provided services for, when they did the analysis for Maine 23 Yankee when they got up to a break size of.35 square feet 24 the output of the code was unstable following safety 25 injection actuation at that break size.

(~N ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

(,,)

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.

20036 (202) 842-0034 t

I

~

220 l'

At that point the analysts at Yankee Atomic made a

/%

2 determination that they were already seeing the peak V

3 cladding temperatures coming down, therefore they concluded 4

that they had identified the limiting break and the peak 5

cladding temperature and did not continue to analyze higher 6

in the break spectrum.

7 The Staff's approval of the code had been for a 8

spectrum up to

.7 square feet.

The previous licensed 9

analysis for Maine Yankee had identified the limiting break 10 size of

.5 square feet, so they had not analyzed.or 11 demonstrated capable of analyzing for that portion of the 12 spectrum for this code.

13 DR. KRESS:

Was it just bad judgment on their part

.14 or --

(

15 MR. DORMAN:

I think that's -- that's I think 16 where the Staff has come down is that the people who were 17 doing this were somewhat isolated from industry and what the 18 practices of the industry were and what the expectations of 19 the agency were in this area.

They made a judgment and we 20 substantially disagreed with that judgment.

21 DR. WALLIS:

Maybe it was exasperation with the 22 code.

23-MR. DORMAN:

Exasperation on the part of the f

24 Yankee analysts?

25 DR. WALLIS:

Well, the code -- the code was

("'s ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

(,)

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.

20036 (202) 842-0034

~. -

l 221 1

supposed to be a tool which would give results, and I i

/~}

2 understand it was unstable, and it can be very exasperating _

%/

3 trying to figure out why that code is behaving that way.

4 MR. DORMAN:

In addition, this was a code that 5

they had spent I believe close to a decade developing and 6

had spent several years trying to get a good analysis for 7

the Maine Yankee plant with this code, so exasperation may 8

be a reasonable --

2 9

DR. WALLIS:

What kind of a plant is this?

10

.?Gl. DORMAN:

This is a Combustion Engineering 11-plant.

However, practically it looks much more like a 1

12 three-loop Westinghouse.

13 DR. UHRIG:

It's two-loop, isn't it?

14 MR. DORMAN:

No, sir, it's a three-loop.

[

15 MR. BOEHNERT:

It's an odd duck.

16 DR. UHRIG:

It's different than St. Lucie then.

17 MR. DORMAN:

Yes, sir.

18 DR. WALLIS:

Is part of the problem that it is an 19 odd duck?

.20 MR. DORMAN:

Not being a code expert, I can't 21 really answer how that affected the code, but I think the 22 problem was, as I understand it, was in the code, not the 23 plant.

24 CHAIRMAN SEALE:

Did they ever identify the 25 reasons -- it doesn't look like something that is easily i.

i l

/~N ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

1 Court Reporters

,L,)

1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.

20036 (202) 842-0034

..n.,

1 222 17 found by.a code review, like NRC went in and reviewed their 2

code and blessed it.

Normally one of the things you don't 3

. find unless_you just exercise the code is areas where it

-4 goes unstable.

5 MR. DORMAN:

One of the anomalies, really the 6

significant. anomaly with respect to how this Three Mile 7

-Island action plan item was closed for Maine Yankee, you 8

will recall that Item 2K330 required licensees to provide a 9'

new code for analyzing small break LOCAs; 2K331 then 10 required them to provide the Commission a plant-specific 11 analysis using the approved methodology.

12 For Maine Yankee the Staff approved the RELAP SYA 13 code in January'of 1989.

Over several years following that, 14

. Maine Yankee had difficulty applying that code for the i

15 plant.

16 In May of 1989 the Project Manager for Maine 17 Yankee at'the time sent a letter to Maine Yankee that 18 essentially said -- I can't quote it to you off the top of 19 my head -- but essentially it said, to the Licensing 20 Manager, we had a phone conversation the other day in which

21 you told me that the code was operable and therefore 2K331 22

-in closed.

Maine Yankee interpreted that to mean that they 23 did not have to submit a plant-specific analysis so the 24 Staff never reviewed a plant-specific analysis for this code H

25 for this plant until the allegation came in in 1995.

1 I

(s ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

\\s,)

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 L

Washington, D.C.

20036 l

(202) 842-0034

.._4 223 1.

When the: Staff went to look at-this application in

{v)

1995 and readLthe report that was provided by Yankee Atomic 2-3 to Maine Yankee,'the report. clearly identified the i

4 instability at.35 square feet and'that was when the Staff began to'take' action that.resulted in the order of January, 5'

6 1996'to addressLin regulatory space the uncertainty we then

-7' had regarding the small break LOCA' analysis for Maine 8-

. Yankee.

'9 DR. WALLIS:

'RELAP'was a code developed by the

'10 Government --

11 MR..DORMAN:

Yes, sir.

1 12 DR. WALLIS:

-- paid for by the Government, in the 13 public-domain.

14

.MR. DORMAN:

Yes, sir.

RELAP SYA was Yankee's

-(

15 developmentoof that.

16 DR.'WALLIS:

'So NRC develops a code, gives it to a 17 user and it doesn't. work and then they blame the user for i

18 not working of the code.

11 9 MR. CARUSO:

The code that was being used was not u

20:

the NRC version of the code.

It was an NRC version that had

.21 been modified substantially by Yankee Atomic so they had 22 made improvements of their own to the code and it was their 23 1 responsibility to determine the tool met their criteria.

24 When the NRC hands out a code to a member of the

-25 public we do not provide any guarantees that the code is l

~'

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters l

1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.

20036 (202) 842-0034

p 224' 1

suitable for their use.

\\ '

2 MR. ZWOLINSKI:

RELAP is' relied upon through the

. '(Q 3

industry -- many other applications.

The RELAP SYA was the

-4 one that did not perform correctly and the point that-Dan is 5

.trying to make here is that 50.46, the ECCS rule, 6

essentially.says I need to analyze through the full spectrum 7

of breaks and when it terminates at

.35, a flag goes up.

8 What is occurring here? -- especially when it was l-9 originally, the safety evaluation that we originally had 10 written on this particular code set it up to

.7, so there 11 were anomalies in what our basic understandings were.

12 DR. WALLIS:

So they made improvement in the code 13 and that made it worse?

14 MR. DORMAN:

They modified the code and when they t%'

(

)

15 applied the modified code for Maine Yankee, it exhibited 16 instability at that break size when the safety injection 17 actuation occurred.

18 DR. WALLIS:

I just wondered, it seems to me that 19 codes in use ought to be robust or the developer of RELAP 20 ought to give some guidelines about how to get out of 21 instabilities.

22-MR. ZWOLINSKI:

Recall that our understanding of 23 Yankee Atomic's view was they had already identified the 24 limiting break for small break.

They were coming down in 25 PCT, and it was an engineering judgment that in so many G(_)

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.

20036 (202) 842-0034

o l;

225 IL 11 wor'ds they had identified the most limiting of breaks for C'i -

2 small break.

0% )!

3 DR.-WALLIS:

This.is probably an argument.they l

4-

-usedlafter they found that they couldn't analyze the next

'l 5'

size.

6 MR. ZWOLINSKI:

In interviews in-1996, and we.are 7

going.back seven, eight years, yes, there was a lot of that 8

type of~ hindsight.

.9:

DR. FONTANA:

Just a question out of curiosity.

H10 '

If a licensee or someone is working with a code and it i

11 doesn't work properly within a range that probably should 12 have, like this one, are they required to let you know about 13 that?

14 MR. ZWOLINSKI:

There is a reporting requirement 15 in 50.46.

16' DR. FONTANA:

There is?

'17 MR. ZWOLINSKI:

Yes, sir, and the reporting 18 requirements differ on how many degrees you can vary for 19:

PCT -- 20 degrees, 50 degrees.

Some are annual reports.

20 Others are very short-term reports.

21 DR. FONTANA:

I take it they did that.

22 MR. ZWOLINSKI:

No, they didn't.

23 DR. FONTANA:

Oh, they didn't.

Thank you.

24 MR. DORMAN:

During the period in early 1996 the 25-Office of the Inspector General also looked into this and i

l l.(

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

i (

Court Reporters L

'1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.

20036 (202) 842-0034

I i.

226 l

1.

issued a report on May 8th of-1996 which was very critical 2

of the Staff's performance in oversight of Maine Yankee.

3 As a result of that report in June of 1996, the 4

Chairman ~ established an independent safety assessment team 5.

to look at oversight.in the performance of Maine Yankee.

i 6

Atomic' Power. Company.

That team consisted of 26 members-7 that included NRC Staff from offices other than NRR and

)

8 Region I who had not been involved in' oversight of Maine

)

9 Yankee.

It also included representatives from the state of j

l 10 Maine.

l 11 That team was on-site during July'and August and 12 into early September 1996 and issued their report on October They briefed.the Commission on October 18th of

13 7th, 1996.

14

'1996.

()

15 DR. WALLIS:

While all this was going on -- excuse

. %./

16 me -- was there an effort to fix the code?.Was that just 17 past history and --

18 MR. DORMAN:

In the order of January of 1996.the 19 Staff went back to the original licensed power level of the 20 facility into a previous analysis to demonstrate that there 21 were sufficient' margins in the previous small break LOCA 22 analysis at the previous power level to provide confidence L23 that the large break LOCA would be bounding at that power l24 level.and would dictate the operating limits for the 25 facility.

l l (/"'T ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

)

Court Reporters L

1025. Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.

20036 (202) 842-0034

.. -. ~ -

l 227 1

DR. WALLIS:

The Staff made these calculations?

2 MR. DORMAN:

The Staff made these judgments and in 3

the order required the licensee to --

4 DR '. WALLIS:

Made judgments?

5-MR. DORMAN:

-- do confirmatory calculations l

6 before the licensee started the facility.

l 7

The Staff did an inspection in January of '96 to 8

confirm that the calculations that the licensee then did 9

confirmed the judgments =that the Staff had made in the 10.

order.

11 DR. WALLIS:

So they had' fixed the code by then?

12 MR. DORMAN:

No, sir.

They had not fixed the 13 code --

14 DR. WALLIS:

Did they ever fix the code?

'O4 15 MR. DORMAN:

No, sir.

'h 16 MR. CARUSO:

Not to our knowledge.

17 MR. DORMAN:

They went -- after the order was 18 issued in order to justify restoring the authorized power 19 level to what it was after the uprates, they went to a 20 different vendor to get a new small break LOCA analysis --

21 DR. WALLIS:

With a different code?

22 MR. DORMAN:

They went to a different code.

23.

DR. WALLIS:

Ah, so they did get a different L

24 calculation then, which was then satisfactory.

25

. MR. DORMAN:

They went to Siemens to use a l

1 l

l g "g -

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

s f

Court Reporters I

1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 I

Washington, D.C.

20036 (202) 842-0034 r-

~.

. _ _ - _. _. _. _.. _. _ _....._ ~- _

l 228 l'

different code, yes,' sir.

J

2 In the ISA report, the ISA team identified at the

)

3 end of their report, in addition to their findings relative 4

to Maine-Yankee, they identified I believe five regulatory 5

issues and these formed the basis of the first several J

6

. issues in the tasking memo of November '96 I

l 1

7 Some of the othez _ssues in that tasking memo 8

arose from questions raised by the Commission during the 9

Commission briefing in October of

'96.

10 DR. WALLIS:

I'm curious -- I'm sorry -- now there 11 was a RELAP code which ran several break sizes up to a break 12 size which it couldn't handle, and then along comes a 13 Siemens code.

Did it re-run the old break sizes?

14 MR. DORMAN:

It ran across the whole spectrum.

15 DR. WALLIS:

Did it give the same answer?

16 MR. DORMAN:

Excuse me?

17 MR. ZWOLINSKI:

It was submitted.

18-DR. WALLIS:

It was submitted.

How different was 19 the answer?

20 MR. DORMAN:

It was submitted and the answer was i

-21

.very close to --

l 22 DR. WALLIS:

It la?

23 MR. DORMAN:

-- what the RELAP SYA gave and that 12 4

-code, in that plant-specific application of the code xere 25 under Staff review at the time that the licensee decided to t

/~

k,\\s[

Court Reporters ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

i 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.

20036 (202) 842-0034 i

~

~ ~

l 229 l

'l decommission the facility.

'2-DR. WALLIS:

Do you remember where the preclad 3-temperature occurred,-what size?

4.

MR. DORMAN:

At.15 square feet, sir.

t 5

DR. WALLIS:.So they had.been all right in l

6 extrapolating.before?-

L h

7 MR. DORMAN:

In 20/20 hindsight it appears that they had found the limiting break size.

Yes, sir.

81 9

MR. ZWOLINSKI:

At the time when we were.

10 developing-the order, we had no confidence that they had 11

--identified the limiting break.

The former CE code that they L

i 12 had relied upon for small break had identified.5 square i

l 13 feet.so you have this fundamental anomaly of the code j

14 stopping at

.35, won't run at

.5, and I have'got a gap in 15-the spectrum.

16 DR. WALLIS:

I understand -- also identifying a 17-maximum is not so easy when there's uncertainty.

18 MR. ZWOLINSKI:

That's true.

19 DR. WALLIS

The maximum can move around quite 20 easily.

l 21 MR. ZWOLINSKI:

Yes.

But that does take us back 22 to Dan's point of when we did issue the order we did go back 23 to their licence power level of 2440 where we had confidence

~

24 that the large break would dominate and thus all our 25 operating parameters were based on the large break.

O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES. LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washingte,n, D.C.

20036 (202) 842-0034

l 230 1

MR. DORMAN:

In December of 1996, shortly after

/~~N 2

the tasking memo was issued, we also completed the lessons V

3 learned report from the activity that was initiated in NRR 4

at the beginning of

'96.

Those -- that report provided a 5

number of recommendations that coincided with a number of 6

the issues in the tasking memo.

7 The Staff from the tasking memo developed a plan 3

to address the Staff actions, which was provided to the EDO 9

in April of 1997, and since then we have provided updates in 10 January and August of 1998 and I believe you have the August 11

'98 update.

12 DR. WALLIS:

This plant was shut down?

13 MR. DORMAN:

Excuse me?

14 DR. WALLIS:

The plant was shut down?

[)

15 MR. DORMAN:

The plan is currently in b.

16 decommissioning, yes, sir.

17 DR. WALLIS:

Decommissioned as a result of this 18' event, these events, or is this just a minor part of the 19 decision to decommission?

20 MR. DORMAN:

It's hard for me to make a judgment 21 on all the factors in their decision.

I think this was 22-probably a substantial portion of the decision, but in 1995 23 the facility was shut down for the vast majority of that 24 year to install sleeves in every operable tube in each of 25 the three steam generators.

O)

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

'\\,,

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.

20036 (202) 842-0034

231 1

In 1997, they conducted the first steam generator 2

inspections, which were conducted after essentially h&lf a 3

' cycle of operation.

They operated for'about-nine months 4

during 1996.

5' On this inspection they certainly would have been 6

able_to plug a number of tubes and justify continued 7

operation with the steam generators as they were at'that 8

point.

However, there were a number of' indications between 9

the tube sheets in the -- or the support plates in the steam 10 generators, a number of indications in cold leg. regions.

11 The indications that they found in the 1996 inspection after 12 only a half a cycle of operation suggested that there was a 13 major uncertainty in the steam generators and there was 14 large costs associated with that.

(

15 With about 11 years remaining in the license, I 16

'think there was a significant economic consideration before i

H 17 the Board of Directors of the company on that factor alone.

18 They had a number of other issues facing them in 19-1997 wit.h regard to the findings of the ISA and a number of 20 other-issues.

However, at the time that the Board made the 21 decision to decommission the facility they had previously 22 provided substantial funding to address those issues, so the 23 steam generators I think were probably the driving factor at 24 the time the decision was made.

However, that was -- that 25 decision was not made in a vacuum relative to the other O'

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.

20036 (202) 842-0034 h

..m. _ _._

232 i

r l

l' costs that they were already facing.

~2:

DR. WALLIS:

Are we going to hear -

we are not l

3 going'to hear from Maine Yankee people?

t i

j 14 MR. DORMAN:

Not this morning, not that I am aware 5

of.

No, sir, i

'6 DR. WALLIS:

Okay.

7 1

MR. ZWOLINSKI:

I think the steam generators also i

8 weighed heavy as they were contemplating sale of the l

9.

facility to PECO and in'their deliberations I think they 1

10 felt that was~the Achilles heel to the plant.

11 MR. DORMAN:

.The 11 broad Staff actions, the first i

12 four are identified here -- adequacy of analytic code j

13-validation and the adequacy of NRC review of analysis codes, 14 and compliance with safety evaluation reports.

Those issues

~T-

[V '

- 15 arise directly for the concerns that the Staff had with the 16 RELAP SYA application for Maine Yankee.

17 The issue of' adequacy for licensing reviews for 18 power uprates comes from two pieces.

I 19 One is the allegation issue that Maine Yankee had 20 relied on inadequate small break LOCA analyses to justify i

21

.their power uprates.

That portion of the allegation that we 22

received was not substantiated in that the power uprates had 23 been approved long,before the RELAP SYA code was a part of 24' the Maine Yankee licensing basis.

25 However, that did become part of the internal I

1:

h ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

7 Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 n

..._. ~.. _.. _ _. _ _. _. _ _ _

i 233 1

lessons learned review that was performed in NRR, and that

[

2L review concluded that there were substantial inconsistencies 3-in the scope and depth of reviews by NRR of power uprates 4

over the last 20 years.

5 The second issue came out of the ISA inspection,

~6 which concluded that Maine Yankee was unable to demonstrate 7l

' operability of two systems for. operation at the higher power 8

level of 2700 megawatts.

One of those was the containment l

9 spray system.

The other was the service water system as it i

related to heat removal from the component cooling water 10 11-systems.

12-DR. WALLIS:

What was the problem with that 13 service water system?

14 MR. DORMAN:

There was a question given with the

( f 15 licensing basis, ultimate heat sink temperature and the 16 configuration of feed exchangers that the licensee had 17 installed as to whether the service water system could 18 remove the full heat load of the component

-19 DR. WALLIS:

It was actually a heat balance, 20 MR. DORMAN:

It was a heat balance, yes.

L21 DR. WALLIS:

it was sink problem rather than a 22 transient problem with voiding or anything like that, it 23 wasn't a boiling problem.

24 MR. DORMAN:

No, sir, it was just'a heat transfer, 25 heat capacity issue.

l i

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

1.(

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.

20036 (202) 842-0034

234 1

DR. FONTANA:

What percentage power uprate is 1 f7 2'

that, approximately?

3 MR. DORMAN:

The power uprate, Maine Yankee 4

actually was originally licensed to 2440, but in the 5

original license, the staff had reviewed to 2560, and 2560 6

was authorized shortly after initial licensing.

The staff I

7 then approved an additional uprate to 2630 in 1978, and an 8

additional uprate to 2700 in 1989.

So, from --

9 DR. FONTANA:

And the last one was when they found 10 the sarvice water system was inadequate?

11 MR. DORMAN:

No, sir.

In the ISAT in the summer 12 of 1996, the ISAT concluded that Maine Yankee was not able 13 to demonstrate operability at 2700.

So it was for that last 14

-- it was for that last power level, but the identification

)

15 was in the summer of

'96.

16 DR. FONTANA:

Thank you.

17 MR. ZWOLINSKI:

To generalize a little bit and put 18 in context, it appeared that as the licensee went up in 19 these various power levels from 2440 to 2700, margins eroded 20 for a number of their key systems.

So some systems 21 essentially did not have as much margin as expected.

And, 22 in fact, when Entergy came in and was doing their own L

23

. analysis, I.think they felt that they would operate the 24 plant at 2440 for the remainder of its life, noting they 25 wanted to recover those margins.

And that was one way to O

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

k,,,)s Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.

20036 (202) 842-0034 L

_.. _ _ - _. _ _ _ _ - _. -.. _. ~.. _ -

235

'1 addrest the service water issue.

But they also needed to

.2 make hardware changes, which were funded, and they were 3'

making at the-time that they decided to go into 4'

decommissioning.

5

.MR. DORMAN:

One of the issues on the adequacy of 6

the containment spray' system,:the. central-issue on the -

7=

adequacy of the containment spray system was credit that the 8

~1icensee had taken for containment pressure post-LOCA in 9

assessing the adequacy of net positive suction head for, 10-those pumps.

As a result of that issue, another issue that 11 the.ISA raised was the clarity and intent of NRC Safety 12-Guide 1 and so that is also one of the ISA staff action 13 issues.

14 One of the areas that the ISA got into in some

()

15

. detail was the licensee's response to Generic Letter 96-01 16 cut testing of safety-related circuits.

Specifically, the 17 license -- or the staff, the ISA questioned the actuation 18 circuits for the containment spray system.

The licensee 19

. spread that and-looked at other ECCS systems, and one of the 20-issues that was identified was that in a cable cleanup 21 program in the control room, in 1991, the licensee had L22 inadvertently removed 15 feet of cable from the safety

'23' injection-actuation circuit for one of the high pressure 24-

. safety injection pumps, such that on a safety injection 25 actuation signal, that pump would not have Eatomatically IN ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

(_,/

Court Reporters l

1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

236 1

started from the period of 1991 until

'96.

2 DR. WALLIS:

They removed a cable?

3 MR. DORMAN:

They had maintenance technicians go 4

in and remove unused cables from the control room and, in 5

.the process, they had removed a used cable and they had not

)

6f identified that because of inadequacies in their circuit

{

l 7

testing program.

When the ISA got into that issue, they 8

enhanced their testing, reperformed the testing in the 9

summer of '96 and found that this cable was missing.

'10 -

DR. WALLIS:

So some circuit was not complete'and 11-they didn't know it?

l 12 MR. DORMAN:

Far a period of about five years.

i, 13 sR. WALLIS:

Sounds like a wonderful story.

14 MR. DORMAN:

Yes, sir.

Because of that, one of l

()

15 the ISA actions had to do with getting into the adequacy of 16 the NRC inspection program for --

17 DR. WALLIS:

Is something to do with Yankees?

18 DR. MILLER:

You live up there.

19 MR. DORMAN:

I think Maine Yankee did some -- did 20 extensive testing in that summer of '96 with the ISA.

This 21 was the only instance of such a substantial problem, so I 22 think this was an isolated instance.

However, logic circuit 23 testing has been a significant issue, and as a generic L

24' issue, and given --

25-DR. WALLIS:

I would think that, yeah, Installed

/"'s ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

(j Court Reporters l

1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.

20036 (202) 842-0034

237 1

some sort of a system which tells you if your circuits are 2

complete --

)

l 3'

MR. DORMAN:

Yes.

4 DR. WALLIS:

-- automatically.

l 5

DR. MILLER:

How did they get -- surveillance 3

6

' requirements on safety channels, how did they get by those 7

and not find this?

t L

8 MR. DORMAN:

That -- ultimately, the answer to 9

that is that their surveillances, their surveillance test 10 procedures did not test the whole circuit, so their 11 surveillance test procedures were not adequate to find the 12 problem.

And the Generic Letter 96-01 actually pre-dated 13 finding this issue, but asked the industry as a whole to 14 look at the adequacy of their circuit testing to test the

( )-

15 entire circuit.

And this particular item, for these staff j

16 actions, was to go back and look at our inspection program 17 and how effective is our inspection program at look at 18 licensee surveillance requirements to see that they are 19 going to find things like this.

l 20 DR. MILLER:

So you have answered my second l

21 question, too.

i 22 MR. DORMAN:

Okay.

Obviously, this finding was a L

23 significant concern for the staff, both in how effectively 1

24 the licensees are doing their own testing and how L

25 effectively we are assessing the adequacy of their

(~'

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

\\

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.

20036 (202) 842-0034 l

sI e e

238 1

surveillance test programs.

I 'T 2

MR. ZWOLINSKI:

From this evolved some concerns V

3 about generic activities for the Yankee plants.

Yankee 4

Atomic was providing quality assurance services to a number 5

of the Yankee facilities, to Pilgrim and to some of the 6

Northeast plants.

One of the findings of Entergy when they 7

were evaluating the quality assurance program at Maine 8

Yankee was they felt that i' was a toothless tiger, in other 9

words, it had little or no standing Uith the Maine Yankee 10 employees and several key departments.

So that was a 1_

concern to the staff, that there was a breakdown in that 12 area, and that was translated throughout the Yankee -- all 13 the different facilities Yankee serviced, as a generic --

14 DR. FONTANA:

Did Entergy -- oh, excuse me, (n) 15 MR. ZWOLINSKI:

As a generic finding.

16 DR. FONTANA:

Did Entergy come in as a consultant 17 or were they thinking of buying it?

18 MR. DORMAN:

Entergy came in to provide management 19 services for the company.

They entered into a contract in 20 February 1997 in which Entergy actually provided the 21 president of Maine Yankee, vice president of licensing and 22 regulatory compliance, and a number of managers at all 23 levels of management at Maine Yankee, but that was a 24 management services contract.

25 DR. WALLIS:

What happened to the costs to the 4 /O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

5%-)

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.

20036 (202) 842-0034

239 1

citizens of Maine for electric power as a result of this?

' I~h 2

MR. DORMAN:

I don't have a direct answer for. 3 that. 4: MR. ZWOLINSKI: I am sorry, I can only speculate. g As Dan mentioned,-the plant was down for much of '95, if not 5 6 almost all of 1995, resleeving the-generators, so they were 7 purchasing power. 8 DR. WALLIS: Well, I can tell you that I live _in a 9 neighboring state, and whenever'our local Yankee reactor is i 10-down, my costs go up. So somebody is paying for all this. 11 DR. MILLER: Yeah, where do they buy their power? 12 MR. DORMAN: A substantial portion of it comes 13 from Quebec, I believe. 14 MR. ZWOLINSKI: From north and south, so from () 15 Quebec, as Dan said, and from a power pool throughout New 16 England. But with the Millstone units struggling in the 17 like period of time, power was very expensive and I am 18 assuming here, but I think the ratepayer ultimately paid the -19 freight on this. 20 DR. BARTON: They always do. 21 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Sure. There is no tooth fairy. 22 MR. DORMAN: I think -- my recollection -- 23 DR. BARTON: They pick it up in your energy 24 adjustment cost. The ratepayer pays for it. 25 MR. DORMAN: My recollection is that in the O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

., _ m. _.. _. _.. ___ _. _ _. _ _._. _. -._. _.. _. __ _ _ l I 240 1 short-term in '96 and '97, Central Maine Power, who was the 2 largest holder of Maine Yankee, was holding their rates 3 steady. However, with.the decision to decommission, L 4 obviously, the ratepayers are going to foot that bill. I l L 5-know there are ratepayer groups that are contesting that -6 with FERC, but that is where it will likely end up. t L 7 DR..FONTANA:.Has decommissioning actively started l 8 or is there -- 9 MR. DORMAN: The last I heard, they were scheduled L 10 to actively start major decommissioning about now.

Yes, 11

-sir. 12 DR. FONTANA: They are supposed to have a 13 set-aside of funds for that? 14 MR. 7,WO'LINSKI: Yes, sir. () 15 MR. DORMAN: Yes, sir. At the time of 16 decommissioning, as I recall, their decommissioning funds 17 were on the order.of $106 million. The estimate at the time 18 they entered decommissioning of the actual cost for 19 decommissioning was slightly over $500 million, with about -20 $125 million of that being associated with costs of 21 maintaining the spentifuel on-site. And I believe that 22 . Maine. Yankee is part of an action against DOE to try and 23' break that issue loose. 24 DR. WALLIS: Did anybody from the' media try to 25 . write stories about this? Was it'a big event in the media f. ~, }- "*g ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. p.g,/; Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

~. 241 l' in Maine? 1 2 MR. DORMAN: All of these -- there were a number 1 3 of big media events in Maine. The allegation itself was big 4 media event. The IG report was a big media event. The ISA 5 report was a big media event. The shutdown of the facility [ 6 in Decenter of '96-and some of the issues that ensued were a 7 big media event, the decommissioning decision was a big 8 media. So, yes, there were a number of big media events 9 there. 10 DR. WALLIS: Yeah. 11 MR. DORMAN: The seventh item actually derives 12 from comments from the public regarding the conduct of the 13 ISAT. The ISAT used, in assessing Maine Yankee's safety 14 performance, they used the criteria that we have used in -() 15 SALP for superior, good or adequate. The public objected to 16 the use of those criteria and said, by definition, there is 17 no unacceptable performance if those are the criteria you 18 are using. 19 The action from the ISA was specifically focused 20 on the adequacy of those criteria in the SALP program. l 21 Since that time we have a much broader review of our 22 licensee performance assessment programs that is being 23 tracked on the Chairman's tracking list, and so this item, 24 this relatively limited item has been transferred to that 25 broader item. (,,]) (" ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

~ _ _ _. _ _ i l 242 l 1 Item number 8 derived from questions from- -/~N .2 Commission about the cumulative effect of operator d 3 . orkarounds. And there is currently a temporary instruction w 4 our for resident inspectors at a finite number of plants to 5 gather data on how~ multiple operator workarounds may affect 6 -- may have a cumulative effect on a burden on the operators .7 _during certain events. The information gathering on'that 8 will continue into the spring and then we will be L 9 reassessing how much we need to change our inspection -10 guidance to help the inspectors assess this impact. 11 .IMt. WALLIS: What are the measurables and aids, is 12 there something measurable from Maine Yankee which actually 13 tells you what the effects were? 14 MR. DORMAN: There was not a measurable from Maine () 15 Yankee and that was why this came out of the Commission l 16 meeting and came in to this staff action. The ISA found a 17 substantial number of operator workarounds at Maine Yankee 18 and.the Commission then questioned, you know, for -- you may 19 have an individual workaround on system A and another one on 20 . system B, and you look at them individually, and neither of 21 them constitute a large impact. 22 DR. WALLIS: Right. 23 MR.HDORMAN: But if they both have the same 241 operator going in opposite directions during an accident, .25 then, obviously, that would be a bigger problem. So that is ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. \\ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l .~

_. _ ~ _ _ _. _.., _. _ _ _ _. _ _ _ 243 1 the kind of thing-that we are trying to get at there. /~ \\ 2 DR. WALLIS: It's something that you think might ] (-) ) '3 be a problom, but it is hard to really assess in a 4 quantitative way. 5. MR. DORMAN: Yes. And it is -- I think it is very i 6 'hard to assess in a quantitative way. I think it is more a 7 judgment of how do different operator workarounds in the 8 plant,.on different systems, have the potential to cause the 9 operators to be running off in different directions, trying 10 to be in two places at one time in responding to an 11-accident. And if that is the case, obviously, that would 12 not be acceptable and the licensee would need to fix those 13 issues. 14 MR. ZWOLINSKI: The temporary instruction-focuses () 15 very hard on the integration of operator activity, and, in f 16 so many words, being asked to do multiple tasks in a short 17 period of. time. 18 DR. WALLIS: So they didn't have events where this 19-showed up, where the operators were running around, as you 20 described them? 21' MR. ZWOLINSKI: No, sir. There were a lot of 22 workarounds in'the control room at Maine Yankee at the time 23 ISAT was there, which ultimately manifested itself before 24 the Commission. p 25

MR. DORMAN

I think ultimately the assessment of i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters I 1025-Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

244 1 the ISAT was that there were quite a number of these things, () 2 .but that individually, they did not seem to be, any of them, 3 significant, and the Commission said, well, what about 4 cumulatively, and the staff did not have an answer for even 5 how to_ assess that, let alone what the answer would be. 6' CHAIRMAN SEALE: I think this is a very 7 interesting example that goes to Dr. Powers' case, or his 8 concerns for the status of a plant during non-routine l 9 configuration. We call it shutdown or low power events and 10 so forth. But, here again, you had a plant which was in H 11 this retubing exercise. I am not sure that there was a 12 great deal of, let's say, systematic assessment given to the 13 configuration they were in under those circumstances with 14 limited cooling capability, and I am not even sure what the () 15 status of the fuel pool was and so on. 16 But here you have a situation where.you are not in 17 the configuration that was the subject of your -- any kind 18 of IPE analysis, or PRA, or anything else. You are very. 19-much dependent on the judgment and the discretion, at least 20 .in that time frame, that was the configuration-of the plant, 21 and the' fact that there were a large number of workarounds 22 going on in the control room is not terribly surprising. I 23 You;know, I think that would -- you would almost be a little 24 bit unaware of reality if you thought there wouldn't be. I' .25 MR. DORMAN: Well, the tubing issue was a period j ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 'S Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

_.__.__.._m l l L 245 1 of an extended shutdown. 2 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Yeah. j 3 MR DORMAN: The core was fully off-loaded and l 4 distinct and separate from what was going on in the l 5. generators. 6 . CHAIRMAN SEALE: So, essentially, it wasn't a 7 power. plant anymore, in that time period. 8 MR. DORMAN: Yes, sir. In that configuration, 9 yes, sir. 10-CHAIRMAN SEALE: So, you know -- 11 MR. DORMAN: But the workarounds that the ISA was 12 addressing were issues of how would the -- what burdens 13 -would be placed upon the operator in responding to an 14 accident when they are operating in a normal configuration t( ) 15-and something off-normal occurs. 16 CHAIRMAN SEALE: But I guess the problem I have is 17 'that it is difficult for me to figure out how you would put J 18 the control room into the workaround configuration if you 19 had fuel in the core. I mean there is no reason to believe 20. .that that set of circumstances would be tolerated once you 21 got the core configuration back in place and had a '22 legitimate requirement to have adequate cooling available, 23 I mean it is just a pile of instruments whenever you have 24 got the fuel out of the core. 25 DR. BARTON: I think what I understood the staff C,/ i ANN RILEY &. ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters i 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

......... ~ - 246 1 to say is even when they were operating, there was a large 2 ) number of workarounds throughout the plant that were L 3 reflected in some kind of tag or something in the control 4 room. 5 CHAIRMAN SEALE: That is not what I heard, I'm 6 sorry. 7 DR..BARTON: That's what I thought I understood. 8 MR. DORMAN: 'Yes, correct. 9 DR. BARTON:.Okay. 10 MR. DORMAN:.That's more what we are addressing 11 here. 12 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Okay. Fine. 13 MR. DORMAN: The other aspect of the shutdown 14 condition is that is a situation which the licensee knows it () -15 is going into, and they have an opportunity to plan and take 16 these~ things into consideration in advance. The type of 17-thing we are talking about is they know they have got 18 something slightly out of the' normal configuration, maybe a 19 valveLthat-is normally open-that is temporarily shut, but if 20 design. basis event A occurs, we need this operator to go 121-over and open that valve. Well, if we have a number of 22 these in a number of systems where, when event A occurs, and 23 we need the same operator to open this valve and go over to 24 this part of the plant and do this action, and go over to 25 this part-of the plant, then we are relying too much on the O . ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. (m,/ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

_ ~... _ -.. I i L 247 1-same operator to do too many things. /~T 2 CHAIRMAN SEALE: And I am saying if the fuel is .b-3 off-loaded, I don't know how you get event A in the first 4. place. 5 MR. DORMAN: I agree. The situations we are' 6 talking about is when the plant'is operating at power. l 7 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Yes, sir. 8 MR.- DORMAN: Item 9 relates to how the staff was 9 addressing licensee design basis recovery efforts, and that 10 was addressed through the 50.54(f) letter that was issued in l 11 -October of 1996 to,each of the facilities and the staff's 12 review of their responses, and now the ongoing programs that 13 the licensees are following. 14 Item 10 was the response to public comments about g 15 the adequacy of their involvement in the ISA process, and l 16 has been addressed through a change to Management Directive 17 3,5 on public involvement. 18 And Item 11 simply required the staff to prepare a 19 response for the EDO's signature to address the licensee's 2'O . response to the ISA report, and that was completed in 21-February of '97. l 22-I mentioned already that the power uprate issue in 23' the ISA plan came from two areas. One was from the NRR 24 lessons learned regarding the consistency -- or rather, -25 actually, the inconsistency over the past 20 years in the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. l Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 i (202) 842-0034 1

l 248 1 scope of power uprate reviews, and also from the two issues f) 2 regarding operability of components at Maine Yankee at the t x_/ 3 higher approved power level. l 4 The interim action that the staff has taken is for 5 power uprate -- 6 DR. WALLIS: Excuse me. This power uprate was j 7 approved by the ACRS? 8 MR. DORMAN: The Maine Yankee power uprate? 9 DR. WALLIS: At some time. Reviewed and -- 10 MR. ZWOLINSKI: I don't know the answer to that, I 11 don't believe so. 12 DR. KRESS: We never reviewed Maine Yankee. 13 DR. WALLIS: We never got into it. 14 MR. ZWOLINSKI: We would obviously have to check (n) 15 the record, but I thought the '78 one came before -- 16 DR. WALLIS: It came before that. 17 MR. ZWOLINSKI: But I know the ones that were more l 18 recent, especially '89, did not. 19 DR. UHRIG: The 5 percent. 20 MR. DORMAN: The '89 one was from 2630 to 2700, 21 would have been about less than 3 percent. The staff has a 22 number of actions that you will see, on the schedules, go 23-out some ways. In the interim, the staff has taken the 24 union of the set of issues that were reviewed in all past 25 power uprates and we are reviewing all of those issues for f /D ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. \\w-) Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 l (202) 842-0034 l

- _ _ _ _.~.- _ _. _._ t 249 r 1 ' current power uprate reviews. So our interim action is,

("'\\

l2 conservatively, to address all of the issues that we have V 3 seen in past uprate reviews. 4 We have an action that is nearing completion on

5

. reviewing past'uprates for.-identification of risk 6 significance issues. We are trying to assess the importance -7 of each of the issues that were identified ~in all past power 8 uprates to determine how broad the scope needs to be power 9 uprate reviews, and we are nearing completion of that risk ? 10 assessment. 11 There is -- we will be evaluating the need for 12 development of a standard review plan, or other guidance for - 13 .the staff in the scope of. power uprate reviews, Right now 14 the resources that would get into that are addressing some () 15 of the 50.59 and FSAR accuracy issues, so we have not 16 initiated that effort,_however, it is in the operating plan 17 for '99. 18 CHAIRMAN SEALE: I assume you are aware of the 19 -recent uprates on Hatch and Monticello. .:20 MR. DORMAN: Yes, sir, In fact, the first one 21 that was issued after the lessons learned came out in 22 December of '96 was the Fitzpatrick uprate, and that was 23 coming close on the heels of that report, and the staff 24 .briefly held up the Fitzpatrick power uprate to make sure we 25 had broadly addressed the issues raised in our lessons O. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD, Court Reporters 102,5 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

250 1 learned. (J ) 2 Once we do have a standard guidance and have 1 3 determined what issues are appropriate for the staff's 4 review on power uprates, we intend to go back and look at 5 some of the past power uprates against that standardized 6 guidance, recognizing that at this point the staff has taken 7 a position on those uprates and any questions that we make, 8 or any improvements that we might require, would be backfits 9 and we would need. to justify it through appropriate 10 regulatory process. 11 If there's no further questions on the uprates, I 12 will turn it over to Ralph Caruso to address what we are 13 doing to address the analytic code issues. 14 MR. CARUSO: Good morning, my name is Ralph es ( ) 15 Caruso. I am the Section Chief of the Advanced Reactors and v 16 Special Projects Section of the Reactor Systems Branch in 17 NRR. I am going to discuss efforts that are ongoing right 18 now in NRR and RES concerning analytical code issues that 19 have surfaced as part of the Maine Yankee event. 20 The first slide here describes a number of issues 21 that were identified as a result of the Maine Yankee ISAT. 22 I would note that some of these issues have also become 23 evident through the advanced reactor reviews that have been 24 conducted over the past five to seven years. 25 The item at the top of the list, adequacy of code ()) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. N_ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

_.m.. l 251 1 documentation, is an^ issue that.seems to have a thread l.. 2 .everywhere.that computer codes are used.- The documentation i 3 i Lthat.s provided by the code developers is not. adequate to o 4 allow a detailed review-and understanding of the code by 1 5 either reviewers or by the' users. 6 In-addition, questions.have arisen about the 7 adequacy of the code assessme'nt work, whether the assessment 8 was rigorous, whether it considered all the situations for 9 which the code was used, and whether there is an adequate 10 database against which the code have-been assessed. 11-In addition, the Maine Yankee ISAT identified 12-inconsistencies in the. staff review process. Becauu: the 13 number of codes -- because the codes that are used by the - 14 industry-are large and diverse, the staff has adopted a () 15-rather ad hoc practice of reviewing them, and we have not 16 documented our review processes or our review standards.. 17 DR. WALLIS: Excuse me. This review invalves - 18 looking at the code, actual lines of code,.and trying to 19 figure out what is going-on there? Or does it involve using - 20 the code? 21 MR. CARUSO: In the past, the staff review process 22. has not generally involved looking at individual lines of 23 code or using the code itself, it has consisted of review of 24 the documentation, review of assessment reports, 25 occasionally looking at individual assessment runs and /) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. -(_/. .1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Court Reporters Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

1 252 l l' possibly, on very rare occasions, looking at individual .../) 2 models. %~J: l ~3 .R. WALLIS: I believe the code isn't quite the D t 4-same as the equations. l 5 MR. CARUSO: That's. correct. l 6-DR. WALLIS:- There are ways that you try to solve h j' 7 the equations by putting in extra things like -- 8 MR. CARUSO: That's correct. ,9 DR. WALLIS: -- on the relaxations and fudge 10 factors _and things to make it work. 11 MR. CARUSO: That's correct. 12' DR. WALLIS: How is there sort of an assessment of 1 13 that? 14 MR. CARUSO: Well, in the past that has been done t( ) 15. through review of-the documentation of, for example, 16 numerical methods, or the models, how the models are 17 implemerted. And, as I said, the code documentation 18 provided in the past has often not been as complete as we 19 would have wished, and this was identified as an area which 20 needs to be improved. 21' DR. WALLIS: .Isn't part of this because of the 22-long time.that somebody -- X -- works on the code in 1970, 23 writes something up, leaves the company, and the legacy is a 24' code this person wrote which no one else understands. 25 MR. CARUSO: I couldn't disagree with you at all Q ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. k_/ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i ,a, . - ~.

l 253 1-on that. t l (d \\ 2 The final item that's listed here as the code i l 3 catalogue refers to license conditions associated with the r .4 acceptance of a code. When the staff writes a safety 5 evaluation report, it usually includes limitations on the 6 use or-application of.the code in terms of the input or the 7 type of plant or limits of applicability of particular { l 8 models or components in the code. And one of the lessons 9 learned out of the Maine Yankee ISAT was that the staff did 10 not have a handle on what the conditions were for the use of 11 the various codes that it had approved. So one of the 12 recommendations was to develop a catalogue of those SERS and 13 the conditions. 14 To address these problems, the staff has.taken ( )' 15 several actions, and these actions are being performed by 16' NRR and RES together. We are developing a standard review 17 plan. NRR has the lead in this area, and we're developing a 18 standard format and content guide and a regulatory guide, -19 which is -- for which research has the cognizance under the 20 close -- in close cooperation with NRR. 21-DR. KRESS: Format and content for the 22 documentation of the code itself? .23. MR. CARUSO: Let me explain what the purpose is. 24 The standard review plan -- purpose of the standard review 25 plan is-to give the staff guidance on how to review a code. I[~ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

f I 254 1 Standard format and. content guide is guidance to licensees [/ t 2-to tell them what they have to provide in their application \\ss i '3-to allow'the staff to do-the review in accordance with the 4 standard review plan. 5 DR. WALLIS: This is the source code that's 6 actually -- 7 MR. CARUSO: No. This is -- when we receive a 8 code for review, we receive a very large package of l 9 documentation, and the format and content guide says, when 10 you're going to provide us with this mountain of paper, what 11 should be there, what should it include, what kind of 12 documentation? l ~13 DR. FONTANA: How do you know the code matches the i 14 documentation? 15-MR.~CARUSO: Well, I don't have it here, but I'm 16 going to talk about some of the practices that we have 17 already started to implement for several code reviews that 18 are about to start, and one of the changes that we are 19-making in our practices is that we are requiring licensees 20 to provide us with the actual code. This is a change from 21 'past practice. 22 I think a large part of the reason why we have 23 never done this in the past is because the codes are so 24 _large that they have required large computers, and we just 25 don't -- we've never had the resources in the past to run , (^'j, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. A _/ Court Reporters s {- 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202)_842-0034

255 i 1 them. But now, we have -- computers are cheap and the codes p-t U,O 2 'are readily portab'.e, so we are starting to require 3 licensees and vendors to provide us with the codes -- (: l 4 ' CHAIRMAN SEALE: Just to confirm -- 5 MR. CARUSO: -- both the source and1-- both the j ~6. source code and compiled versions that we are actually going i ' 7f-to run. 8. CHAIRMAN SEALE: In this case, the code ir 9 question was a code that was a part of the re-load analysis 10 ~ process, and so it came up on a' systematic -- in a fairly 11 systematic routine way that this code was going to have to-12 . flex its muscles. 13 -Are there other codes in this overall -- covered 14 in this overall. plan that are part of the design basis -( ) 15 ' analysis.that are not necessarily to be used on a routine 16 basis to continue to operate.the plant? 17 MR. CARUSO: You mean are -- as part of this 18 effort, are we the staff going to review those codes or -- 119 CHAIPMAN SEALE: Yes. '20 MR.'CARUSO: This issue can get very large. -I 21 have been overseeing the code catalogue to try to document 22 the SERs for all the codes, and we decided that we had to 23 limit it to'ECCS and containment codes because we just don't 24 have enough money to cover -- 25 CHAIRMAN SEALE: But are those -- l /~ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATFS, LTD. Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

256 1 MR. CARUSO: -- all the others. There are /~' 2 structural codes, there are -- Y)i 3 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Sure. 4 MR. CARUSO: -- electrical engineering codes. 5 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Fine. 6 MR. CARUSO: We know they're out tnere and 7 hopefully,.the standard review plan that we developed for 8 the thermal hydraulic codes will provide enough of a basis 9 that a structural engineer can use it. 10 CHAIRMAN SEALE: But in the area of ECCS and 11 containment codes, we recently, of course, just finished the 12 AP600 review, and we kept running into the problem of 13. brusning the dust off of code runs and code decks, if I 14 could use the word -- ( ) 15 MR. CARUSO: Yes. 16 CHAIRMAN SEALE: -- that had more gray hair on 17 them than I do. 18 MR. CARUSO: Yes. 19 CHAIRMAN SEALE: And in fact, these codes were 20 literally inoperable in today's environment, and even if you 21 could got them to run, no one exactly had a good cat of 22 documentation on what-all of the -- pardon me. .I don't want p l' 23 to -- what all of tha problems were and the special l: j 24 interpretational techniques you had to go through in order L l 25 to fish the good stuff away from the throw-away, if you ]1 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, ITD. s, Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 i (202) 842-0034

- -. -.- ~.-. - l l 257 '1' will, in the results. (( 2' Now,'those included,the thermal hydraulics and- \\_: - q 3 -' containment analysis issues, but they're not necessarily the E 4 thing that has to be done every time you do a're-load. They 5 were done initially in the' design. And so are those kinds 6 of calculations in this modified hunting license you've got l 7 or:are youtputting those with the structural analysis kinds 8 .of things? 9' MR. CARUSO: I'm not sure which sort of 10 calculations -- 11 CHAIRMAN'SEALE: Well, there was -- 12 MR. CARUSO: Do you have any examples? 13 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Well, some of the design basis 14 analyses that went'on in the original assessment. () ~15 h... CARUSO: For accident and transient analysis? 16 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Yes. That kind of thing. 17 MR. CARUSO: Well, when you do a re-load, it's my 18 understanding that they have to redo all the -- 19 CRAIRMAN SEALE: You do the full suite. l 20 MR..CARUSO: Full suite. 21 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Okay. Okay. 22 MR. CARUSO: Unless they can make arguments that a 23' the fuel -- that the characteristics are so -- l 24 characteristics ct the new fuel is so similar that they can i L 25 make similarity -- g i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 ] 2 84 -b3 m .. +. - =,

_..-g. . _ _. _ ___ ~-. _.--. _,. _. _ _.. -. _. 258 1 MR. ZWOLINSKI: Bounded by previous analysis. ./ 2 'MR. CARUSO: Yes. \\ l 3 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Yes, but if you make that 4~ argument a few times and then you suddenly come up and find 5 that you can ru). longer _make_it,for you decide that-you will 6 -ru) longer accept it.because of problems like this, 7: MR. CARUSO: Yes. l .8: CHAIRMAN SEALE: -- you may very well.come back 9' and' find yourself with a gray-haired code again that won't '10 do the-job. I l -11' MR. CARUSO: Interestingly _enough, what we're._ 12-finding, and I'll -- when I get into some of the examples, I 13 you'll see it better -- what we're finding is that vendors 14 -and licensees are starting to give up the.ld codes because _() 15 the old platforms aren't available anymore, and they're 16 having the same problem with the documentation that we are, 17 and they can't find people that know.how to run them. So 18 they just say -- they give up on them. They say we'll go 19 buv something else, something new that's portable, that. runs L 20 on: multiple platforms, that's better documented. The i 21 industry is working-together on this. So I think the 22 situation is improving. 23' The scope of these standard review plan and 24 standard format guides includes a discussion of the general 125 principles that are applicable to all analytical codes, the . (( W RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. < fsjj Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut. Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 !~ (202) 842-0034 -.w,..

i 259 L .1 development process, how you do code assessment, L q 2 documentation. L 3 The details -- we're going to consider certain I 14 accident and accident classes such as Chapter 15 accidents, 1 5 .and we will specify_modeling. requirements, assessment data, 6 how close calculations-have:to come to, test data, and 7 criteria ~for determining whether a code is actually able to 8 calculate the. phenomena of interest. 9. We'll be guided a lot in this lar the experience we ~ 1CF have gona through over the past seven years with the 11 advanced reactors where we have reviewed the thermal 12-hydraulic codes and we've reviewed various different 13 methodologies using the CSU methodology. 14' DR.LWALLIS: You didn't actually run those codes, f\\ - ma); though;'you had to accept -- 15 16 MR. CARUSO: No, we did not. 17 DR. WALLIS: -- some sort of a curve supplied by 18 the. vendor? i 19 MR. CARUSO: That's correct. But as I said, the-20 new practice as we're applying it to several codes that I'm 21 just about to get to in a few minutes will be changing, and 22 we will.be running the coder and we will be asking for the 23 . assessment of input data. 24 DR. WALLIS:.And when you write or someone writes 25 an SER, they will actually say that we have also ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 10251 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

260 1 independently checked this thing out, and our results } 2 confirm what's in the SER. U 3 MR. CARUSO: Well, the independent checks -- it's 4 difficult to say what an independent check is, and I hate to 5 6 DR. WALLIS: Well, you have the hunting license to 7 find errors is what you have. 8 MR. CARUSO: Well, that's finding errors in the 9 code itself. There's another aspect of independent checks 10 which involves the staff running our own codes to analyze 11 the plants, and that's really the independent check for an 12 individual plant application. So I'm hesitant to call it an 13 . independent check. I mean, we're the regulator, we are i 14 responsible to check the work of the licensee, and the staff s (v) 15 will do that. That's sort of inherent in the process. 16 DR. WALLIS: I think there's a difference in 17 philosophy, though. I think that the vendor is running the 18 code arm exercising it and e,weaking it in order to get the 19 results that he wishes to get. So it's always emphasizing 20 sort of a result-driven, trying to get a positive result, 21 and it would seem to me the staff would take the opposite 22 approach: take this code, check it for robustness, tweak 23 it, see if it gives you the opposite, the negative result. 24 An absolutely different approach, and it seems to be i 25 necessary that that be done. [~h ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. \\ _,,/ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

-.. ~. _ l 261 b 1 MR. CARUSO: My personal opinion is I think this [ is a good -- this is a much improved process that we're 2 3 about to embark on-because we will have both the code and' 4 the input models to the code. This will allow us to-5 understand how the vendors or the code user is adjusting his 6 input to get the result he wants. It will allow us much ] 7 better to understand where the sensitivities are in the code 8 inputs and the code itself, and we're about to try this out. 9 DR. WALLIS: This sounds great to me, and I just 10 wonder why it has taken so long. 11 MR. CARUSO: Well, as I said before, one of the 12 reasons was computer time. It used to be that these codes 13 required very large computers, and the whole computer 14 environment has shifted, and the agency has made a concerted () 15 effort over the last couple of years to improve our 16 expertise and review in this sort of area. 17 DR. FONTANA: You've always had major computer 18 capabilities in the DOE labs, though. 19 MR. CARUSO: Well, yes, that's true. I -- it's '20 really hard for me to say why it wasn't done in the past. 21 As I say, personally, I think it should have been done. 22 DR. WALLIS: No thanks to Maine Yankee. 23 MR. CARUSO: No, I'm not so sure -- I think -- '24 DR. WALLIS: That was the context in which we came 25 here. l i 'N ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters s 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 '(202) 842-0034

262 1 MR. CARUSO: Actually, I think it's really more /N 2 thanks to the computer manufacturers, b 3 DR. POWERS: Yeu're not the first person to 4 confront the problem of code documentation, validation and 5 verification. Are the standards that you're about to impose 6 upon these codes of your invention or have they followed 7 from some consensus industry standard or some other 8 authoritative body that has given you the guide on how to 9 define all of these things? 10 MR. CARUSO: As I stated, the work that's being 11 done here is being done mostly by the Office of Research, 12 which has gone through a lot of this as part of the advanced 3 13 reactor reviews over the past eight years, and they have had 14 a lot of discussion with us, with you, with the vendors, GE, s(v i 15 Westinghouse, Combustion Engineering, about codes, because 16 that's what we needed to address as part of the review 17 process of the advanced reactors. 18 So we went to research because they had the 19 expertise in this area having gone through this for the 20 advanced reactors. 21 The schedule for development of the reg guide and 22 the SRP includes interactions with the ACRS and with the 23 industry to develop a set of standards that we can all live 24 with. 25 That's my next slide. (N ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. (,,/ Court Reporters j 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 i Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

1 263 1 DR. POWERS: From that, I take it that these are [y 2 springing from the intelligence and the sophistication that U-3 existsiin research. 4 .MR. CARUSO: Yes. 5 DR. POWERS: We hear recently a lot of discussion 6 of'the words good enough versus seeking perfection, and a- ~ lot of people are taking those' things quite seriously. 8 It seems to me that you have to -- that that's 9 driving you to having to have a very precise definition of 10 why you're requiring what you're requiring rather than 11 saying this is a good practice because I think it's a good 12 practice. 13 Is that constraining this kind of activity? 14 MR. CARUSO: There's a certain tension.there, and j ) 15 there's the old saying: perfection is the enemy of -- 16 DR. POWERS: I would just prefer you didn't quite 17 'that because -- 18 MR. CARUSO: -- good enough, is the enemy of good 19 enough. Okay. And I agree with you. Let me give you some 20. more philosophy. 21 We understand that we don't want -- we don't want 22 to regulate to perfection. We can't do that. We understand 23 that. However, the applications of these tools are forcing 24 the developers to sharpen their pencils, to come up with 25 better tools because utilities are under competitive stress 7 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. "\\ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l

1 264 1 to cut costs. So they're always pushing their developers to ( ')T 2 develop better tools. q 3 We have to, therefore, consider them more 4 carefully because they're cutting margins by doing this. So i 5 in the old days, we used to have 50.46, and we said, okay, 6 2200 degrees and 1.02 times ANS standard, this provides lots 7-of margin. Now we have best estimate codes that people want 8 to use because they want to reduce the margins. We have 9 risk-informed regulation where people want to use the codes 10 to support PRA arguments. 11 The uses of these tools are expanding, and 12 therefore, we have to -- we can't be complacent, we can't 13 just establish one set of criteria and say, okay, this is 14 it. The criteria are going to change over time, they're f% (%.-) 15. going to change depending upon the spplication. 16 I can't really say where the criteria are going to 17 go or what we're going to do in the way of criteria because 18 of the tension from the application. 19 DR. POWERS: I guess I'm not asking you for that. 20 I'm asking for a very simple thing, I think is that indeed, 21 there is some constraint on the depth and breadth of the 22 standards that you apply to code assessment, documentation 23 assessments and data, all the things that you're doing with 24 respect to these codes, that has a justification based on 25 what your needs are to carry out your mission. /) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. (m,/ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-Os34

265 1 MR. CARUSO: I'm not sure I understand your -- 2 DR. POWERS: In other words, if I -- Graham over 3 here has standards'for codes that are very, very exacting. 4-I'm glad I'm not one of his graduate students 5 and don't have to prepare a computer code for him because 6 he's very demanding. DR. WALLIS: Any code I write is 7 unintelligible to anybody else. ??ha 's my experience. I'm 8 a terrible codist. Don't hold me up. The only people who 9 know how to write good codes.are the young folks. 10 DR. POWERS: You're a rhetorical example. j 11 [ Laughter.) 12 DR. POWERS: Whereas I'm a sloppy engineer, and to 13 -- and all I care about is the thing works. 14 The standards that he and I have on these codes 1 () 15 are presumably worlds apart. It sounds like they may be 16 identical, but in our rhetorical example, worlds apart. 17 For your needs, presumably they lie somewhere 18 between those two extremes, and I'm asking you, do you -- is 19 there anything that constrains you from just gravitating to 20 Graham's exacting level because he's going to squawk louder 21 than I am? 22 MR. CARUSO: Well, I mean, the ultimate constraint t '23 is resources. We can't -- don't have the retcurces to 24 review down to the individual lines of code. 25 DR. POWERS: But suppose that was necessary to /N ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. \\,) Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C 20036 (202) 842-0034

266 1 carry out your mission. l -2 MR. CARUSO: Well, but it's not. It's not. That 3 .isn't the way we regulate. We don't regulate by inspecting 4 every nut'and bolt in the plant. 5 DR. POWERS: So there is some way to decide how 6' far to carry this -- how much detail there has to be here. 7 MR. CARUSO: That's what I was getting at in my 8 explanation that the level of detail is driven by the i 9 application. As you said, you're an engineer who worries 10 about.how well it works, okay. Hcw well it works depends on 11 the application. How close are you trying to shave the 12 margin. Are you trying to build the bridge that will hold i 13 one small car and you're going to build it just to that -- 14 to hold that' load, or do you want a bridge that will hold ()- 15' anything that can roll over it. 16 In the case of -- it depends on the application. 17 If the application demands a lot of precision, accuracy, a 18 lot of -- a very low level of uncertainty, then your 19 standards are going to be different than if the application 20 includes a lot of margin and doesn't require a lot of -- and 21 you can tolerate a lot of uncertainty. It depends on the 22 application. 23 DR. KRESS: When you jet into this, I'm going to 24 'be interested in following it, you don't intend to put core 12 5 standards that says your thermal hydraulics code or whatever TY' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 1.,,/ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (.02) 842-0034

267-l' has.to be this good?.That sounds to me like'a tremendous _ problem to try to'do that. 2 3 What I think.you'll end up doing is saying how l 4 ' good is your thermal' hydraulic code? Tell.us. Which means i 5 it has to have' capability'for determining the uncertainties, 6 and then you can figure out do.you give guidance en-how to '7 'use-that code with that uncertainty level to meet your 8. standards, and how to incorporate that uncertainty in to 9 meeting your standards. Is that -- j 10 MR.-CARUSO: Yes. DR. KRESS: That's the way you plan tG go, I 12 presume. 13 MR. CARUSO: That's a good statement. It is 14 difficult to determine how good is good enough or state a 15 standard. 16 DR. KRESS: Yes. 17 MR. CARUSO: We're going to be trying to work-18 through that. I've seen several attempts at trying to 19 define this, and they all have their pluses and minuses. 20 DR. KRESS: You really get into a mishmash of 21 things. ) 22 MR. CARUSO: Right. And we're going to work with 23 you and we're going to work with the industry to try to come 24 up with something that everyone can live with. DR. 25 WALLIS: 1 think you've got to be more sophisticated than ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. - \\ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 l (202) 842-0034 1 2

m.. _ _... _.. _.. _. _. _ _.. _ _ _. _ _ _ _. _ _. [. i 268 L 1 just have standards. In our review of -- recent review of l- () 2 vendor submitted code documentation, it appeared as if, as 3~ described in the-pages, they were solving some equations 4 together which had two solutions, two possible solutions, 5 and it was not at all clear that there was any way of 16 . selecting which of these solutions was actually used. 7 Now, that is something that requires someone to 8 understand that this is the case and to ask the question p 9 which of these solutions is the code selecting. Is it doing 10 .them randomly or some rational way or what. You have to get 11 into that sort of level of understanding. It's not just 12 standards. L 13 MR. CARUSO: Well, when the staff does its review, 14 it does review at that level, and that's why we have ("h tl (,). 15' knowledgeable individuals doing these reviews. When they find a situation like that, their first reaction is to ask 16 17 the licensee a question: please explain to me how you 18 choose between the two solutions of this equation? 19 DR. WALLIS: I think you would be better off, as 20 you indicated, if you're actually'in a position to do it l 21-yourself and say we'll run it and see what it actually does. l-22 MR. CARUSO: In some cases, yes; in other cases, L 23 we may decide to just ask a question. 24 DR. KRESS: How are we doing on time? p 25 MR. ZWOLINSKI: I think we've only got ten more I , l' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. (, Court Reporters J 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 1 ,n

i 269 -1 -minutes. ) .2 DR. WALLIS: Well, are you near the end? 3 MR. CARUSO: Well, I've got a schedule here. 4 We've started the process, we've identified the accident 5 analyses that will be covered under the Reg Guide and SRP 6- ' document. Unfortunately, I don't have that list here..And-7 we are going to be working with research through the fall to 8 prepare an outline of the document content, and we're '9 planning.on coming to the ACRS sometime in the late spring 10 with the first draft and we'll be issuing it for public l 11 comment next summer, and hopefully sometime in the year 12 2000, we'll have a procedure in place. 13 DR. WALLIS: I think this would be a good example 14-of a case where NRR has identified.a real need. a t] 15 MR. CARUSO: Yes. 16 DR. WALLIS: And the research that is performed 17 has some real objectives to meet that need. l l-18-MR. CARUSO: Yes. 19 'DR. FONTANA: Now, when research is doing 20 something directly relevant to something you want, do you l: L H21 transfer the funds over to them to do it or does that come 22 out of the original budget? i l 23 MR. CARUSO: No, not in this case. There is no i 24' transfer of funds. It's in their operating plan. 25 DR._FONTANA: It's in their operating plan as j _ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. j' A Court Reporters me j, 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i-p

270 1-well; 2 DR. POWERS: I notice, Mr. Chairman, that we have 3 a variety of pull-outs on meeting with ACRS. 4' CHAIRMAN SEALE: That's on the last-slide, 5 -actually. 6 DR. POWERS: I see that -- my suspicion is that 7 this is a reg guide that the committee would have a great 8 ~ deal of interest. Are we going to try to cover that in the l 9 thermal hydraulics subcommittee or are'we going to look at 10. this not as a thermal hydraulics issue, but as a code issue? 11 CRAIRMAN SEALE: I -- my impression is that the 12-thermal hydraulic subcommittee has gotten a fair amount of 13 background.in this general area as a result of its recent 14 concerns with the problems.we ran into with theLAP600 ) 15 review. Looking at their. schedule of other activities 16 coming up in the immediate future, it seems that they have 17 nothing or very few things that are pressing on their plate. L18 So I think it would be logical to put that into their 19 pocket. 20 DR. KRESS: I think that's probably a good -- I 21 don't know where elre we would put it. 22; CHAIRMAN SEALE: Yes. Whatever yua want to call 23 it, this is the list and there are a lot of familiar 24 suspects up there, so -- 2F MR..CARUSO: I put this list up to just give you .['} ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. t (_/- Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

271 1. an' idea of what's going on in the staff in terms of code ("' 2 . reviews right-now, major code reviews. \\ 3' CHAIRMAN SEALE: Yes. 4 MR.-CARUSO: We've received RETRAN-3D, which is a 5: transient code frcm EPRI, an EPRI user's group. We expect 6 to receive Seiman's RELAP 5 and WCOBRA TRAC best estimate- =7 small break LOCA in the late winter. And these applications 8 are going to be the first ones that we are going to process 9 using this new philosophy, which we have not yet documented, 10 which we are documenting in parallel. 11 But I wanted to point out to you, the RETRAN 12 review, it's being -- RETRAN is a code that's widely used in 13 .the industry and it's our understanding that Westinghouse 14 is going cc replace the LOFTRAN code wit'h RETRAN because ' a[ D 15 utilities want them to use it and LOFTRAN is an old code. '16 CHAIRMAN SEALE: And in the AP600 review, we have 17 already been exposed to some of the vicissitudes of most of 18 these. 19-DR. POWERS: I guess my concern is there seemed to 20 be two things that are coming to the fore here. Point one 21-is are these codes adequate for the.r applications, and an 22 expanding list of applications and a more exacting list of 23 applications indeed it's becoming. The other issue is 24 whether the strategy that they're developing for the review 25 process and the demands they are placing on the j p) - ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. l (, Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 1 l l

.~ 272 1 documentational codes is itself adequate, excessive. I /~ 2 mean, there are two real issues here, and I, with all due h' - 3 deference to my colleagues on the thermal. hydraulics 4 subcommittee, would love to plunge deeply into the details 5 of the physics of these fascinating codes. 6 I think the other issue with the standards that 7 are being applied and the review practice that's being .8 imposed here carry equal weight in this area, especially in 9 light of the quasi-directions or hints that we're getting 10 from the Commission on the way they want to go. 11 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Yes. I think those are very 12 appropriate comments, and I think it's appropriate that the 13 thermal hydraulics subcommittee be very careful that they 14. try to have members of the committee who have concerns for M)' I 15 those' issues involved -- -16 DR. KRESS: Or-make this a joint subcommittee. 17 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Well, you know, so maybe we ought 18 to not have a thermal hydraulics subcommittee anymore, then, 19 and have another subcommittee that worries about the code 20 standards. 21 DR. KRESS: Perish the thought. 22 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Well, you see, I guess I am -- it 23 seems to me that the flexibility in the membership of the 24 committee is a characteristic that we have always 25 encouraged, and I think that has served us reasonably well. A ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. -ds,) Court Reporters 1025 Connecticur Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

. - _ -. -.... ~. -. 273 ll' We are subject to the same kind of pressures from the new ~ r 2-directions and,so forth that these people are getting as 3 they are,-and if.there is'a need to encompass'a. broader 4 scope in our treatment of this particular problem -- i 5 DR. KRESS: Do we have a computer code 6 subcommittee? l 7 CHAIRMAN SEALE: No. But if there is a need to 8 encompass a broader scope, then it is incumbent upon our . 9. processes to embrace that broader scope within what we have. -l 10-available to us -- I think we just do it. L .11 DR. KRESS: It looks like fun. We are looking 12 _ forward to it. 13 CHAIRMAN SEALE: The thing'I am interested in is 14' in your-next slide you have some ACRS things listed there, 15 and some of them are like next month. 16 MR. CARUSO: Well, this schedule was prepared a 17 couple of months ago. l' l 18 CHAIRMAN GEALE: Yes. 19 MR. CARUSO: And we were a little bit [ 20 optimistic -- l l 21 CHAIRMAN SEALE: I figured you might be. 22 MR. CARUSO: -- that we could get together with 23 .you to talk about the RETRAN code some time this fall, to 24: have a kick-off meeting of sorts. We would have the EPRI 25 people.come in here and tell you about it, and we would tell 1 [ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. A Court Reporters '1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 2 84 - b34 ~ ~_

~- 274 1 you about'the progress of the review. /\\- 2 ) I put this up here to show you that we intend to 3 interact with you at many points along the line during the 4 -review to make sure that we don't leave these issues until 5 the very end. 1 6 We don't want to have a surprise at the very end. 7 We don't want to have a surprise at the very end of the 8 process, either you surprised or us surprised. L DR. POWERS: Let me interrupt you again and speak 10 to the "Chairmans" of the Thermal Hydraulics Subcommittee. 11 This looks like a heroic amount of effort here in 12-light of the challenges the Thermal Hydraulic codes have 13 usually faced. I wonder if asking one of the fel'_ows to 14 focus on this activity might help them and you meet their s\\ Q 15 milestones? 16 DR. WALLIS: The same thing went through my mind, 17 except I was wondering how-much of a load this would be for 18 this chap. 19 DR. POWERS: Well, he can accept a load only as 20 big as he can carry. 21 DR. WALLIS: I was going to ask if these are going 22 to be in the form that could be run by someone like a 23 fellow? 24 MR..CARUSO: Well, they will be available 25 internally on the NRC computer network. () ANN RILEY & ASSOr AATES, LTD. s/ Court Reporters s 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) E42-0034

I 275 1 DR. WALLIS: Are they going to be transparent /~N 2 \\,_) enough that they can be.run by somecne who is not really 3 expert or that is maybe not expert but not experienced? 4 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Maybe the answer to that question 5 will determine how hard we are going to be on you whenever 6 we talk to you then. 7 DR. WALLIS: Well, I think a requirement fcr these 8 codes should be that they are transparent enough and well 9 enough documented that a reasonably intelligent fellow can 10 run them. 11 MR. CARUSO: That's unfortunately -- I think that 12 is a little bit easier said than done, because the 13 individual codes themselves require a certain amount of 14 experience and kncwledge to become proficient with. rx ( ) 15 The Staff here spends a lot of time getting %/ l 16 familiar with our own codes and I don't think you are going 17 to -- that these codes are the type that you are going to be 18 able to just put on a PC and have someone run like 19 Wordperfect or a Lotus 1-2-3. l 20 They require someone who, first of all, has run 21 some sort of thermal hydraulic model before to unterstand 22 what they are about, and I think that the learning curve is i 23 going to be steep, but I want to point out the first i 24 activity in the review schedule after submittal is something 25 called an acceptance review. - (/) AMN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. (, Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

i 276 l 1 We'are going to receive the code documentation. I r' 2 We are going to determine whether the code documentation is Y'~'T ) 3 sufficient to continue with the rest of the technical 4 review. If it-is not, we will send it back and part of the 5 acceptance review will include receiving a copy of the code 6 and installing it. 7 If the code isn' t. ready to run, then obviously it 8 is not ready to review. 9 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Let me tell you that one of the 10 things in that first review that we are going to be 11 interested in will be in fact the question of what the 12 standards are that you are going to expect from whoever 13 submits the code to you, addressing these issues that Dana 14' has raised already, and if you think you need -- if that is (o). 15 a generic problem that sweeps across all of these 16 submittals, then maybe it would be appropriate for the 17 Thermal Hydraulics Subcommittee and you to get together and 18 look at that question of standards requirements before you 19 get into the specifics of a particular code. That is l 20 something for you to work out between you, but I think this j 21 standards problems is something we want upfront. 22 DR. WALLIS: Well, I tell you, I intend as soon as l l 23 possible to talk to my colleagues in computer science and l 24 computer engineering and try to figure out what are the 25 latest standards for massive codes. Across the industry ()/ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. (_, Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

277 this has been a consideration, because it is very important. 1 2 ) As the code gets longer and more complicated, you 3 have got to be.very, very careful about how you'put it 4 together. I-think that is the problem with these old 5 thermal hydraulic codes is they have been put together on an l 6 ad hoc basis, and maybe that is why a lot of them should be. 1 7 redone completely from the beginning. 8 MR..CARUSO: Standards is going to be tricky. 9 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Well, that is why we are 10 concerned about it. 11 MR. ZWOLINSKI: Are you using the word " standards" 12 -in the context of acceptance criteria that the Staff will 13 use? 14 DR. POWERS: No, I think we are using it in terms r ( 15 of what is the quality and depth of the documentation and 16 assessment of the code that's required in a generic sense. 17 MR. ZWOLINSKI: The suggestion to possibly meet 18 specifically on that topic then seemingly makes a lot of 19 sense. 20 DR. WALLIS: I think it is like grammar and 21 equations in the normal mathematic paper which is 22 intelligible to somebody else, and very often the old codes 23 are not like that. They can't be read by somebody else with 24 understanding. 25 CHAIRMAN SEALE: We sparred with marshmallows in / ' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ( Court Reporters 1025' Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

278 1 the AP600 review. We kept worrying about the quality of (} 2 documentation, the robustness of the so-called descriptions 3 of how to run things and at what the results would tell you 4 and'so on for years and the cumulative effect of delaying 5 the resolution of those issues was to make that resolution 15 even more and more difficult as time went on. 1 7 We feel like you have to have those concerns, 8 those' requirements upfront,-clearly understood, so that you 9 will have a code that your people can put on the machine, 10 -use and have faith in the results when they emerge. 11 If you don't have that going in, you are not going 12 tx) be any better off with this approach than you have been 13 with the previous approach. You have got to have the 14 documentation so that you can honestly look at the code in a A() 15 critical way. That is what we are concerned about. 16 MR. CARUSO: Okay. We hear you. 17 DR. KRESS: I think, looking at your plans and 18 what you are doing, I think Novak Zuber would be pleased to 19 hear what you are talking about. 20 DR. WALLIS: I think this is wonderful. I came 21 here expecting to hear about Maine Yankee, and we seem to 22 have got off on something which is far more important and 23 generic. I am glad we did. 24 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Yes. 25 DR. KRESS: I said at first this was not about O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

l 279 1 Maine Yankee, it was about l ! (]. 2 DR. POWERS: I think there is a high note here %/ 3 .that Graham would think there was any importance at all to 4- ' thermal hydraulics. 5 [ Laughter.] 6 DR. WALLIS: Would you document that statement so 1 7 I can understand it? I '8 [ Laughter.] i 9 CHAIRMAN SEALE: It was off the record. 10 DR. KRESS: With that, I would like thank the 11 Staff for a very good, interesting presentation and turn it 12 back over to you, Mr. Chairman, 13 CHAIRMAN SEALE: I would like to compliment our 14 Staff Engineer on this, because this was not the usual sort rx 1c) 15 of presentation of a fixed subject that, as you said, it 16 wasn't about Maine ~ Yankee, but it was right at the point we were interested in and I think we ought to tell Paul that we 18 appreciate the fact that he and the Staff were able to 19 communicate with each other and give us exactly what it is 20 we were interested in. 21. MR. BOEHNERT: Thank you, and I will compliment 22 the Staff. '23 DR. FONTANA: For the record, that is Paul 24 Boehnert,-B-o-e-h-n-e-r-t -25 (Laughter.] D ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 1,,,)i Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Sui'e 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

280 L1 CHAIRMAN SEALE: There are come industry people j['} 2 here. You don't have anything to say? Well, I hope you V-3 appreciated the heads-up that this came from -- okay, fine. 4 DR. WALLIS: I was looking for the Research people -5 who are going to have to contribute to this. 6 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Okay. If there is no other 7 comment then, we'll take a 15-minute and be back at 10:20. 8 Thank you. Thanks again, guys. J 9 (Recess.] l 10 CHAIRMAN SEALE: We are now back on the record. 11 We weren't up until now. The next topic has to do with the ) 12 report to Congress and the Commission and Bob Uhrig wants to 13 share his thoughts. He and Med have been beating on this ) 14 with a considerable amount of input from other members of () 15 .the committee, so Bob, would you share with us your 16 thoughts. 17 DR. UHRIG: This is our proposed agenda for today. 18 I thought I would start with a few remarks followed by a 19 couple of presentations, very informal -- one by Med 20 describing the meeting that he attended where the Staff l 21 briefed the Commission on the Research program and then some 22 lessons learned from the Herculean effort of Dr. Powers for 23 putting together last year's program, and then I did receive 24 some comments via E-mail, so I thought I would give each of 25 those individuals a chance to say what they wanted to say [T ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. \\m_) Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 t-i

281 1 and then there would be general discussion and we'll talk (; 2 about an assignment followed by an early adjournment -- Q 3 maybe. 4 The schedule that we have, that we are facing 5 here, with respect to the Congressional report looks 6 something like this. You can see that by next meeting we 7 should have the issues identified. The following meeting, 8 the subcommittee meeting, somewhere along in November or 9 December timeframe. The initial draft should come out of 10 that subcommittee meeting, a revised draft in December, 11 feedback from the Commission in January, and the report to 12 Congress in February. 13 This I believe has come from the Planning and 14 Procedures Committee. I think -- am I correct on that? i 15 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Yes. Qf 16 DR. UHRIG: Okay. Now just for your information, 17 here are the conclusions that were stated at the beginning 18 of the report last year. They are the things that you would 19 expect -- the severe budget reductions causing substantial 20 deterioration in an internationally-respected program -- 21 CHAIRMAN SEALE: You have got to speak in the 22 mike, Bob. i 23 DR. UHRIG: Okay -- the deterioration occurring at 24 a time when the U.S. power industry is undergoing 25 substantial changes. These have safety implications that f)N ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. \\ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i

.. -..... -.,.... - -~..-..... -. - - . ~ .m 282 1 must.be addressed >by.the Commission, and research is-needed ( 2 to address those' issues. 3 The deterioration of research capability is 4 inhibiting'the ability of the Commission to continue the 5 evolution of nuclear power regulation ~. The Commission's 6 core: capability in the nuclear waste area has been .7 dramatically reduced and this could inhibit the Commission's 8 ' effectiveness and-timeliness in conducting the review of the 9 waste depository program. 10 'So that is basically what we told Congress last 11 year. The question is now what do we tell them this year? 12 Here are some thoughts on that, for what it's worth. 113. First of all, as we were talking a few minutes 14 ago,.this is the last report that we will send to Congress, () 15 and there are two views of that. One is sort of'a last j 16' chance to impress Congress with the importance of research 17 and the other'is why bother? 18 I'am not sure there is any need to repeat the 19 messages of the last year. I think they came through loud ~20 and clear, at least as clear as they are going to get to a i 21 busy Congressman, and the message, if anything, should be 22 positive about the benefits of nuclear safety recearch and 23 examples would be appropriate, and the one that I chose here 24 was the PRA research and some of the examples that were 25 cited in the letter that was put together with great .f ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. i \\ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 h -mv-y t m tw,-

283 1 difficulty. yesterday would be appropriate for such a letter I'). 2 and the length of the report itself could be short, as short V '3 as three to five pages, or it could be something like last 4 year's, which I believe was 10 to 12, that order of 5 magnitude. 6 We probably could accelerate the schedule if we 7 needed to -- 8 DR. FONTANA: Seven. 9 DR. UHRIG: Seven? Seven last year? Okay. 10 The thought was that we might want to include the 11 1998 report to the Commission this year to Congress, and j 12 then maybe reference specific messages in the text of that 13 report. 14 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Excuse me, Bob. I had thought we /~' (N) 15 had already asked that that report be sent to Congress. 16 DR. UHRIG: Has it been done? 17 CHAIRMAN SEALE: That is what I am -- 18 MR. EL-ZEFTAWY: It has not been done, because we 19 still have to decide -- if you decide that that is what you 20 want to do -- but it hasn't been done. 21 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Well, since it has got a 1998 22 date on it and since we think it is important, it seems to 23 me that it would be -- 24 MR. EL-ZEFTAWY: I think it was sent to a certain 25 part, not to the whole body of Congress -- I think to [)' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. \\/ Court Reporters s 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

i 284 1

Senator Domenici, some others,~but it was sent as it is.

) -2 You know, there's no-cover letter on it 3 CHAIRMAN SEALE: I understand -- 4 MR. EL-ZEFTAWY: -- and all that. 5 DR.' POWERS: Bob, one of the discussions I had 6 when we were peer-reviewing -- we solicited the Commission's 7 review of the report to Congress before we sent it out last 8 year, and we got together with Mr. McGaffigan, and I think 9-he telegraphed to us some pretty good advice. 10 He is a former staffer for the Congress and it is 11 the staffers who read these things first, and decide whether 12-they.go on to the Congressman or not, and what he-13 telegraphed to us is he-picked up the report and he said 14 .this is an advocacy report -- bingo. At least that message () 15' came across pretty clearly, and he says the trouble with 16 those is that advocacy reports get de-weighted almost i 17 immediately by the staff. 18 Then he thought we would be better served if we 19 had written a detached report, much more akin to what we g, 20 prepared for the Commission, but I think even a step more 21 detached than that. 22 I think that was pretty good advice he gave us 23 there, and it certainly weighed heavily in my thinking that 24 it is very itnportant that I not write this report because I 25 had written that one and I would keep trying to write that O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 ( 2 0.2 ) 842-0034

285 1 same report again. /) 2 I think that if we opt for your last chance to %.J. 3 impress Congress mode of action up there we give real 4 serious consideration to taking McGaffigan's advice and 5 write a report that drips with detachment, just like this 6 last one dripped with advocacy. 7 I would hope that McGaffigan could pick this up 8 and say now thin is a detached report -- with the same 9 confidence that that is what it was that he could say that 10 the previous one was an advocacy report. 11 DR. KRESS: What characterizes a detached report 12 as opposed to an advocacy report -- a balance of negatives 13 and positives or -- 14 DR. FONTANA: The first thing to show is you are () 15 not -- you are in a balanced position to start with. 16 DR. POWERS: I think it is the cheerleading aspect 17 that Bill pointed out several times in preparing the letter 18 yesterday that has to be excised rapidly. 19 I think a preamble in the report that says that it 20 is a detached report telling them what the status of 21 research and research needs are, and avoiding using 22 essential, critical, necessary and replacing those things -- 23 it would be useful, there would be advantages gained by, and 24 things like that. 25 DR. KRESS: Okay. That helps me a little. Thank (O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. (_,) Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

_.._..___m._ 1y 286 1 you. ~ L/) 2 When I get ready-to. write a letter or report or in l N.) 3 the past when I used to do things like that, one of the 4 things that I always started out with is right at the top i 5 before I started the thing was a question -- what do I want 6 this report to accomplish?. What do I want this thing to do? l L 7 What is.its real purpose? Not because I have to write a L 8 report to Congress but vrat do I really want this report to 9~ do. 10 If we could identify that_first, then I think the 11 report,_ nature of the report stems from that. I don't know 12 exactly what it is yet we want to accomplish by this 13' particular report. 14 DR. POWERS: Well, ycu will fin, as I found, for -( ) 15 both reports, the report to Congress and the report to the 16 Commission, that the central theme is by far and away the 17 hardest job that you have to do. 18 Once you decide on that, usually after a year of 19 sitting through committee meetings and subcommittee 20 meetings, the ammunition that you have is there in 21 abundance. 22 DR.-KRESS: Even before I end up with a simple 23 theme -- I mean the question I am asking is what go I as the 24 ACRS want this report to accomplish for ACRS? That is the 25 question -- and then.the central theme that you end up with l / ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. l Court Reporters j 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i

287 1 may stem from that or it may not. You could get that with a V(N 2 variety of themes, but I still don't know what it is we want 3 this report to do for us. 4 DR. UHRIG: I am in the same situation here is I 5 don't know how to write a report that isn't an advocacy 6 report of some sort unless you are in a judgmental situation 7 where you are reviewing something for somebody else. 8 Are we put in the position then of reviewing this 9 program for Congress and saying this is bad and this is 10 good? Is that the kind of thing you are talking about? 11 DR. POWERS: That would certainly be an approach 12 to things, to say this is bad, this is good, this is 13 omitted. 14 DR. UHRIG: And this is an open invitation to have O) 15 your budget cut by a third. x_/ 16 DR. POWERS: Yeah. Or increased by a third. 17 DR. FONTANA: Even though this is detached, we are 18 supposed to be detached, but isn't the message we are trying 19 to get across is that the starvation of the research budget, 20 internally by the NRC, to fund some other things, is not 21 something that should be done? 22 DR. UHRIG: Well, that is internal to the NRC, and 23 Congress does not control that. 24 DR. FONTANA: Well, we ought to say something 25 about it. . (3 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. \\,,) Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

1 I. 288 f 1 DR. UHRIG: They can, but they have apparently -- i i 'h 2 DR. FONTANA: Refused to get involved. A,./ .. 3 DR. POWERS: Well, again, I think that McGaffigan 4 gave us some potent advice. It is like many things, you j 5 have got to get through the first hurdle or you aren't to 6 going to get into the rest of the race. And I think he was 7 telling us, and I believed every word he said. That when 8 these people receive advocacy positions from a variety of 9 different sources, then tend to down-weight that 10 automatically. Now, he did not say they discounted them. 11 He didn't say they threw it out. He simply said that you 12 come in with extra baggage when you are taking an obvious 13 advocacy position. 14 DR. WALLIS: I think you have to tell an l N) 15 interesting story, and you have to have a beginning which i 16 makes someone want-to read the rest of it. Just like when 17 you pick up a novel in the bookstore and look at the front 18 page, and you say, is this something I am really interested 19 enough to go further with? So you have got to have some 20 really good words at the beginning and make them say this is 21 a story I want to read some more about. 22 DR. SHACK: Yeah, but I mean unless this is an 23 advocacy report, I am not sure why we bother to write to . :24 Congress. I mean I am not going to write to Congress and '25 tell them about some interesting results we found in /~N ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. -(_) Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

f 289 1 research, because they won't -- 2 DR. WALLIS: No, why should they be interested. 3 DR. SHACK: The only purpose, it seems to me, in 4 writing this letter is to advocate research. Now, maybe we 5 .want to do it more subtly. 6 DR. MILLER: I think that is the message, do it l -7. more subtly so it looks -- 8-DR. SHACK: Well, you know, I don't see -- you 9 .know, if we are not going to write an advocacy letter. 10 DR. FONTANA: Well, you could be like Marc Antony, =11 .you know, I didn't come to bury Caesar or to praise him. 12 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Et tu, Brute. 13 DR. POWERS: Marc Antony'didn't come to praise 14 Caesar, he came to bury him. A 3 j 15 [ Laughter.] 16-DR. WALLIS: No, he didn't. He didn't at all, he 17 .came in order to promote his own agenda, or stir up the. 18 populace. 19 (Laughter.] 20 CHAIRMAN SEALE: That's right. 21 DR. WALLIS: Or become the next Caesar. - 22 DR. POWERS: Okay. So we are like Marc Antony. 23 DR. WALLIS: I remember that. 24 DR. MILLER: Just we have to be more subtle about i 25 it. I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ( Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

g.__... ._ _ = _._.. -.~._..- i, i l .j r - 290 L 1. 1 L 1 'DR.:UHRIG: Okay. So what you are suggesting -- i i: ')

2 Mario'.

l L3 DR. FONTANA: Could you turn off your microphone? j-L4' We are getting"an' echo between the two phones. 5 IHL UHRIG: Turn that one away. So what you are l 6 suggesting here is that we tone it down in terms of the 7 advocacy issue. Now, it's -- now I am getting an echo. l j 8 DR. WALLIS: Yes. You'are in a big hole now. I 9-CHAIRMAN SEALE: You are under the speaker is what 10 it is. That microphone, when you moved it, is now under an i 1 L 11 overhead speaker, and it is really getting -- there you go. l-12 Maybe that will be better. 13 DR. UHRIG: Is that better? l 14 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Yes. So far, j Lf f -15. DR.'UHRIG: So far. That we have a non-advocacy l w 16 tone to the report. Okay. Any other suggestions? What

s l

17 about subject matter? What content, do you dislike or like '18 the thought that we try to convey some sort of positive L 19 message about the benefits of research without standing up l 20 and screaming that we don't have enough money to do more? 21 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: How about if we treat research 22 the same way we treated PRA in the letter we completed L 23 yesterday, list a few cases where research was really '24 beneficial to the regulatory system and then list a few 25 other circumstances where we now believe research will lead ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. I Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) -842-0034 l-

. ~. __._--._r._ 291 l 1 to a better informed decision. (\\ 2 DR. POWERS:.It seems to me that'that is a thrust j () 3 you can take, but I would select my examples of both 4

directly out of the testimony and the comments made in the 5

recent Congressional hearings. 6 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Commissioners, you mean, before 7 the Commission? What hearings? 8 DR. POWERS: Both the Commission, Commission's 9 testimony and the questions that the Senators posed. 10 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Well, this is a good starting 11 point, yes, but I don't know that we want to limit ourselves 12 to these things, but I would certainly -- 13 DR. POWERS: I don't think I said that,' George. I 14 don't think I'said that. I [ )I 15 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Well, I am sorry then. 16 DR. WALLIS: The questions posed were mostly about 17 the regulatory process and its delays and so on, NRR 18 questions. It is'rather hard to get research into some of 19 those bureaucratic problems. 20-DR. APOSTOLAKIS: I really think we can model it 21 after yesterday's letter. We have the benefits, right? We 22' have two parts now. One is what we are convinced -- the 23 areas that we are convinced research will be useful, and 24 then we anticipate that it will lead to a more efficient 25 system, unless we want to say that (]m/ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. e Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington,-D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

292 1 DR. KRESS: That clearly sounds like a dripping (\\ 2 with advocacy letter to me. I almost am at the point where 3 I don't want to send a positive message, I want to send a 4 negative one. 5 DR. BARTON: Send a scare message. Say that if 6 you don't do research -- 7 DR. KRESS: My personal opinion is that the status 8 of NRC research is abysmal, it is at an all time low. They 9 are not funding any research. They are not doing anything. 10 The rest of the world is running away from them, doing it. 11 We are losing or preeminence in the area of nuclear safety 12 because we are not doing enough. You know, this is a -- I 13 don't want to point to here is all the good things we are 14 doing, here are some things we want to do more. 7m ( ) 15. DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Well, that is an advocacy 16-letter, too, isn't it? 17 DR. KRESS: It is an advocacy, but it a negative 18 type of advocacy. 19 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Now, don't you have to explain 20 to Congress, though, why we have to be preeminent in the 21 world? 22 DR. KRESS: Yeah, I think -- 23 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: If the French do the research 24 and we just get the reports, all we have to do is translate 25 them. l l - ('~N ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. (_) Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 ( Washington, D.C. 20036 i (202) 842-0034

. - ~.. L 293 l 1-DR. KRESS: Yeah. Well, I.think you are right, 2' ) you need.some words. But,.in my mind, this report ought to 3 be -- raise a flag. It ought to be an alarm. i i 4 DR. SEACK: But isn't that last year's report? 3 5 DR. KRESS: Last year's report, I don't recall 6' what it was. But it may have been. 7 DR. UHRIG: Well, those conclusions I read off 8 here just a few minutes ago, -- i 9 DR. KRESS: You meant the one before Dana. 10 DR. SHACK: .The Congressional report. i 11~ DR. KRESS:. Congressional report. l 12' DR. UHRIG: In effect, the last two, which said, l 13 -- you know, itLis heading downhill, it is heading scath, you ] 14 know, it is important. 1 1 [A \\ 15 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Yeah, let's not confuse the two 16 - reports. I think Bill is right, the report to Congress was 17' a little pessimistic. I 18 DR. KRESS: Well, I think -- 19 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: But I think what you said, Tom, 20 can be part of the report, but not the only thing. 21 DR. WALLIS: It should not be written for an l L 22 engineer, it should be written for -- l l 23 DR. UHRIG: A politician. 24 DR. KRESS: Oh, yes, definitely. 25 DR. WALLIS: For people as far removed as / ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 W

294 1 possible. I mean I hate to bring in my Shakespearean ( 2 colleagues and all that, but, you know, skiing companions -- 'n 3 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: You really don't. 4 DR. WALLIS: If I go up the chair lift and I try 5 to explain to this person why research is important, I would 6 say it completely differently than I would say it here. 7 That's the kind of thing. 8 DR. BARTON: Well, does Congress even care about 9 nuclear power? 10 DR. WALLIS: Well, explain to someone you happen 11 to meet on the chair lift why it is important. 12 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: You start out by saying research 13 by any other name. 14 DR. POWERS: Let me answer John's question. My - ( ) 15 reading of the transcripts of the various testimonies was %) 16 that at least the Senators, to a man, espoused their 17 advocacy of nuclear power, to a man. 4 18 DR. BARTON: On the subcommittee. 19 CHAIRMAN SEALE: And recognized the 20 percent 20 contribution. 21 DR. BARTON: I heard the same message. 22 DR. UHRIG: I was surprised at that. 23 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: I was, too. 24 DR. BARTON: Well, I just wonder whether that was 25 politics or whether it was meant. ()N ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. (_ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

295 1 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Especially when Liebermann spoke ( ' 2 up. I couldn't believe what he said. ( 3 DR. POWERS: Well, Liebermann, obviously, was very 4 impressed at the way the NRC went about its business in 1 5 Connecticut. 6 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Yes. 7 DR. POWERS: And, clearly, that is a sentiment to 8 play to, is to say, now, why was Liebermann able to do that? 9 Well, because NRC had tools that had been developed through 10 research in the past. Now, are you going to be able to 11 continue to do that? It depends on developing the tools 12 that you need in the future. 13 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: And then they all praised -- I 14 mean they all urged the Commission to -- I guess to be more O j. 15 sympathetic to the industry, or to help the industry get 16 back on its feet. 17 DR. BARTON: They urged the Commission to do 18 several things, but none of them included doing more 19 research. 20-DR. APOSTOLAKIS: No. No. But then we come in 21 and say -- 22 CHAIRMAN SEALE: OL. problem is to make the 22 connection. 24 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: -- if you want to do this -- 25 CHAIRMAN SEALE: But I think your point -- the Q ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. (_/ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

... _.. ~... _ _. - - _ _. _ _. _ _ _. _. _.... J 296 1 firstLparagraph has to have a quotation on Senator Domenici 1(~N 2-or somebody recognized the importance of the'20 percent ( 3 contribution to the. energy source. 4 DR. BARTON: You need to quote a couple of them, 5- - Liebe rmann', Domenici. 6 CHAIRMAN SEALE: -That's right'. 7 DR. BARTON: Bah-pah-pah-pah-te-da, said, 8 boop-boop-boop. 9-CHAIRMAN SEALE: Yeuh. And with Liebermann, the 10 endorsement of the way the Commission handled the 11 Connecticut thing. 12 DR. KRESS: Well, I hate to. jump in where angels 13 fear to tread. My feeling is that the basic problem with .. 14 the status of NR research is the fact that we are under a / \\ %,) fee structure that says we have to recover all or most 15 .16 DR. BARTON: It is only for more year though. And 17 then what? 18 CHAIRMAN SEALE: And as so maybe now this report 19 is a good time to take a shot at it. 20 DR. KRESS: I think we ought to take a shot. I 21 would love to take a shot at that, because I think that is a 22 basic problem with the NRC and NRC research. 23 CHAIRMAN SEALE: I think you are right, Tom. 24 DR MILLER: I would also note that Congress has 25 passed, based on recent history, a substantial research ("') ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. (,,,/ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

... ~ -... - _ -... ~. -. 297 'l program for DOE. Maybe it is^ time -- 2 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: I will give you'a -- ~ '3' DR. KRESS: NRC is under different rules. j 4'

-DR. MILLER

Oh, no,1 NRC doesn't get any of that. 5 But maybe they can get some of that. 6 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: -Maybe my colleague here can put -l 7 it in Shakespearian terms, but an uninformed regulator is 8 -either conservative or. wrnig. I think that is a great 9 motto. 10 DR. WALLIS: Use words like that, stir things up. 11-DR. APOSTOLAKIS: I am serious. And then'you'give 12 examples. They were wrong with this' sequence, for example, 13 and then give examples of conservatism'that is killing the 14 industry financially. An uninformed regulator is either -b 15 wrong or-conservative. .V 16-DR. BARTON: Overly conservative. 17-DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Overly conservative, or greater 18 -- he uses greater conservatisms. 19 DR. WALLIS: Be careful of the word 20 " conservative," it might mean something else to these -- 21 { Laughter.]. 22' DR. KRESS: Yeah, you're right. 23. DR. BARTON: Like a right-winger. 24 CHAIRMAN SEALE: But the story, told in different 25 language, but the story of the collapse from 300 generic O-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

-.. -. ~ ~. -. -.----. ~. 298 l \\ 1--- issues;- pardon me, 2,000. i {

2 DR. BARTON:

700. ] 3 CHAIRMAN SEALE: 700, okay, to 200 is a good 4 ' example of_how risk-informed analysis protected the industry 5 from 500' loose' cannons. l 6. DR. APOSTOLAKIS: -Right. I think that is a good ,7-point. 8 CHAIRMAN SEALE: And maybe we need to say it more j 9-like that than -- l 10 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: In fact, we have to bring up -- 11 I mean quote Al Gore as well, with the risk stuff in the 12_ federal government. Wasn't he the one who said something

13 like that?- That is why Shirley Jackson went to the White 11 4 House,.when we went to dinner, do you remember?

15 DR. KRESS: Why doesn't he have'a' Tennessee 16 . accent? I have never figured that. 17 DR. BARTON: He was raised in Washington. 18 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: By the way, this argument about 19 an uninformed regulator, I have modified it a little bit, 20 but John Austin told me that. The staff here used it when 21 they appeared before Congress when there was a proposal to '22 abolish the San Antonio Research Center for Nuclear Waste. 23 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Yeah. 24 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: And they argued that, look, you -25 can do that, but when the DOE petition comes for Yucca O-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 5 /- Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

299 1-Mountain, we.will not know as much, and an uninformed ~' f [\\ -) 2 regulator tends to be conservative. Okay. And evidently -- i L 3- .not evidently, I mean Congress did buy the argument, and l 4 they let it live. Because I understand in the bill, there 5 was -- there were explicitly penciling out the funds for the 6 San Antonio -- Southwest Research Center. So it has worked i 7 in the.past. l 8 Okay. And I used it in passing at the -- R l 9 conference the other day and Ochran corrected me. He stood t 10 up, he didn't throw his glasses, but he went like this, he 11 said -- and he said you don't mean that they are always 12 . conservative. I can give you many examples of where they 13 were wrong. 14 [ Laughter. ] -p q j 15 CHAIRMAN SEALE: That is hard to do with a -- 16 George. 17 DR. WALLIS: This is all in the record now. 18 DR. UHRIG: Well, I think I am beginning to get a 19 spectrum of ideas here. Let us cogitate on it and come back l 20 with a proposal next month, next meeting, as far as the 21 report to Congress is concerned. 22 Of the two, this is the smaller report, at least 23 it has been recently. Here is the schedule that we are 24 faced with for the report to the Commission. And you will 25 note that the proposed format and content of the '99 report [~') ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. \\- / Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l I

300 1 is supposed to be handled in September and we are in October -(~T 2 1 today, I believe, so we are already behind the 8 ball. l \\_) 3 So, again, the schedule, as laid out here, gets us down to a 1 4 May report being issued. 5 I have got a brief summary of some of the things 6 that came out of this past report. We don't need to spend a 7 lot of time on this because I am sure you have all read it. 8 But to remind you, from the executive summary, the ACRS 9 review of the nuclear safety research program was to examine 10 the need, scope and balance of the reactor research -- 11 safety research program, determine how the research office l 12 is positioned for the changing environment, how well the 13 office anticipates research needs, the active role dealing 14 with some of the initiatives of the Commission, namely, the p; y) 15 SECY-97-075 dealing with core competencies, and SECY-97-167 x. 16 dealing with -- I have forgotten what it is. 17 Recommend whether the Nuclear Safety Research 18 Review Committee function is needed. And, of course, that 19 is history at this point. So it is really the four tasks 20 there that I think we have a continuing responsibility to i 21 face up to. 22 I am going to skip one of the slides, go on to -- 23 here are some of the changing conditions that we are faced 24 with, and every one of these is going to have some impact on 25 the research program, or the research program should in some /G ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. \\s,) Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l

i 301 l 1 way respond to these. The economic deregulation, aging, the (y 2 premature retirement of facilities, renewal of the 'Q) 3 licensees. i 4 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: I'm sorry. Is there research l 5 being done in this area now? I mean we already have the 6 petitions. 7 DR. UHRIG: There is a lot of research being done 8 in conjunction with aging, which is a very important factor 9 in the license renewal. The issue of Congressional action i 10 to mandate performance-based regulation is an issue that 11 could and is, to a certain extent, being addressed by 12 research. There are continuing improvements in the average 13 performance of the licensees, but that asymtotically 14 approaches a limit because they are a very high online

rh) 15 percentage at this point.

There's continued efforts at V 16 consensus standards that are important to the industry. 17 Research does participate in that. Continuing efforts by 18 the nuclear industry, including the cost of regulation. I 19 am not -- 20 DR. SHACK: Continuing efforts to reduce costs. 21 DR. UHRIG: Reduce costs. Okay. That's what it 22 must have meant. The emergence of new technologies such as 23 digital electronics. This is another issue that is 24 important from a research standpoint. The continued 25 pressure to incorporate risk considerations into the {'% ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters s'~' 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 l (202) 842-0034

m. . -.. ~.. _ _ _ _. _... _. _ _ _ _... _. _ 302 , E- -1 : -regulatory process, and this'is-going to be the name-of the w '2:

game for.the next few years.

More opportunities for the 3 Commission to endorse ~ consensus industrial standards, as 4 . urged 1by Public Law' 104-113,.and declining NRC resources for 5' inspection and monitoring licensing activities. We saw the 6 . thrust of'that coming from Senator'Domenici ano the 7 committee that he-heads. 8 DR'. APOSTOLAKIS: So,.I don't understand. That is 9. not bad. L10' DR. UHRIG: Well, it depends.upon -- you have to,

11 if you have less manpower to carry;out the inspection 12 function, then it has to be done more efficiently,-or 13:

better. You have to do it perhaps differently than we have j 14 - .been doing it'.. A .e 15 LDR.~APOSTOLAKIS: Right. 16 DR. UHRIG: I am not going to go through the rest 17 of this. You have read-the report, as far as those charges -18 are" concerned. Now, the real function here are the 19 . direction of the NRC research program as spelled out in the 20 report last year was to' provide the technical basis for 21 regulatc ry activities to the NRC line organization so that 22 they can carry out their regulatory function to conduct 23 anticipatory research to enable the Commission and line 24. organizations to address issues that are going to come up, 25-or at least they anticipate, and to maintain the technical O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. i Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

303 1 ~ capability within the staff for the Commission and line [~') 2 organizations so they can handle the issues in the future. LJ 3 And one identifiable top level requiremel:c for the 4 NRC research program is they should focus on the_ issues of 5 most risk and regulatory significance. So that is a 6 guideline for the issues that I think we probably need to 7 address in our report. 8-CHAIRMAN SEALE: Bob, there is one item in 9 function 1 there that you didn't underline or mention, but 10 it seems to me it is something that we ought to search our 11 data banks for, and that is the question of whether or not 12 the Commission has the technical basis for making some of 13 the policy statements, or initiating some of the initiatives 14 in policy that they have done in the last year. -s 7(,) 15 If they have had to go off half-cocked because 16-they didn't have the research space to make a better 17 decision, or let's say a more informed decision, I should 18 say, I think that is something that might be worthwhile to 19 have in the report. Point out to them that they were forced 20 to make a more conservative decision because they didn't 21 have the data they needed to make a best factual decision. 22 DR. FONTANA: Does anybody have examples of that? 23 DR. BARTON: Yeah, that is what I was going to 24 say. 25 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Well, I am saying, we ought to C' \\ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters s-1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

304 1 search our memory now, search and see if there are cases [] 2 like that. V' 3 DR. UHRIG: Well, the whole plethora of 4 regulations coming out after the Three -- they are from 5 lessons learned in the Three Mile Island, in that category. 6 . CHAIRMAN SEALE: And I think we all recognize in 7 retrospect, and I think even the Commission has recognized 8 in retrospect, that the first reactions to Millstone were 9 perhaps a little overdre.wn. 10 DR. WALLIS: I think you could say that research 11 saved AP600. I did in my mind. And it wasn't because they 12 were asked specifically to do some things by the policy 13 makers, it is that they themselves discovered that this had 14 to be done and did it. g ( ) 15 DR. SHACK: Let's research -- 16 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Yes, right. 17 DR. WALLIS: Yes, but it wasn't -- I think it 18 could have been managed much better if the right questions 19 had been asked earlier by the regulating agency then 20-Research could have addressed the right problems. 21 I mean you would have got some of those answers a 22 lot earlier, 23-MR. LARKINS: You might want to take a look at 24 some of the re7ulatory initiatives that are going on now. 25 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Yes. f) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. (_/ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

_. _... __. _.._ ~.... _... ~.... .__-.__.m._-_. IL '305 l' LMR.- LARKINS: Some of these -- D '2 CHAIRMAN SEALE: That..is what I was thinking 3

about, take a look at those'and see where'they are limited 4 '

because -- -5 MR. LARKINS: Pilots and some of the other things l' 6 and'they are trying to' accelerate the source term work and j. l 7' they really couldn't move forward on that without research. L 8 ' CHAIRMAN SEALE: -John, something that'came up 9' earlier, to whom has the lastLyear's Commission report, the l 10 NUREG, who.all has received that in Congress, anyone? l

11-

.MR. LARKINS: They generally go to oversight - 12. ' committees. -13. MR. EL-ZEFTAWY: Yes, I think there's sent to the 14' ~ oversight committees,.so Bob - Bob was supposed to draft a i () 15 brief letter last month. 16 DR. UHRIG: I was, wasn't I? I had forgotten ~ - 17 ; - about that. 18 CHAIRMAN SEALE:. Well, let's get that out. 19 That's -- D i 20 DR. UHRIG: Let me draft something. l' l: 21. CHAIRMAN SEALE: Okay. i' i 22 DR. UHRIG: Okay. The laFt item I have here is 23 sort of the conclusions from the '98 report and I have sort 24 of hit some of the spots here -- systematic framework that 25 enforces the close ties.between research activities and the i - [~' 3004 RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025--Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 . Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 fi

... _........ _ -. _... _ _.. _ _... _. _ _. ~ 306 i p .1~

agency,

~["'r 2 The second one down here -- adopt the practice of V 3-scrutable comparison of alternatives in addressing the 4 technical' issues, to devise a process for identifying and 5 prioritizing research needs taking into consideration the 6' long-term;as well asithe short-term needs'and the 7 - development of an.in-house. risk assessment. capability to the 8 extent that it is readily used throughout the agency. That 9-is well underway. .10 And-the other -- continuation of these-i 11 recommendations -- development of PRA methods -- should be 12 . better supportive of the activities of-AEOD. That is 13 . perhaps out of -- 14 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Man, are they ever supportive. r\\ t 15-DR. UHRIG: And NMSS should continue to use l 16 - results from'the total system performance assessment guide, 17 a formal organization structure that identifies, prioritizes 18-the research needs. 19 A subject that needs peer review should be put in 20-place to ensure close coordination and collaboration between 21 the development of research results and the users, and then the recommendation regarding the NSRRC. 22 23 CRAIRMAN SEALE: Bob, you would put your previous 24 . slide up there? 25 The first three things there I could argue are -- / ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. II Court Reporters l. 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l-Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 L iw m .y -.i.se. -gn w w -.e+ e 9

307 1 is a list, if you will, of the desired attributes of a good () 2 research program in a particular area. That is, it has a N_- 3 systematic tramework for defining its needs and assessing 4 the value of the results and so on. 5 It has a practice of scrutable comparison of 6 alternatives in addressing the issues that are involved, and 7 it has a process identifying and prioritizing research needs 8 in that area. 9 If there is such a program in the NRC right now, 10 it's the overall effort in PRA. It's got user input. It's 11 got some research support going on. It's operated by an 12 aware, let's say a manegement team that has an awareness and 13 dedication to getting the job done, and so on. 14 I wonder if it would be worthwhile to include in -[,/\\ 15 this report to the Commission sort of a review of that 16 program in the context of these three recommendations. \\ 17 DR. POWERS: I think that is a great idea. s 18 CHAIRMAN SEALE: To say these guys are doing it 19 right. This is what you have to support to get the job 20 done. 21 It's got management elements. It's got input. 22 It's got user need elements and it's got research -- 23 resource requirements. 24 DR. WALLIS: I think these are very good 25 recommendations and the problem with Research is not in (~} ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. () Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

L 308 It'suin the rest of the agency giving a clear 1-research. [3 2 articulation of what it needs. 3/ s l L3 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Yes, and in that case they do it, 4-and that is why I am -- 5 DR.-WALLIS: That's why we have got to keep 6 hammering away at it. ) l 7 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Yes. .8 DR. WALLIS: If the agency really looked at itself 9 and understood what it needed, there are people in Research I 10 who would do it. 11 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Sure. 12 DR. WALLIS: But if they don't articulate it,-the 13 people in Research are going to be running around, trying to 1 14 find something to do, i () '15 I hope you'll get a.much better definition of this 16 need this year. Last year it was pretty diffuse. 17 DR. UHRIG: Well, I guess.I have always felt a 18 little uncomfortable with the so-called "needs letters" as a 19 driving function for the Research' program. 20 You may remember there was a -- what was it, an 21 Inspector General or GAO report about five years ago that 22' was terribly critical'of anything that wasn't totally ~ 23 documented with needs letters. I think that has died away L 24 to a certain extent but -- ~25 DR. WALLIS: Well, this was perhaps an l, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. e '\\ Court Reporters j 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 [ Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i ~

l I 309 1 overemphasis on the short-term needs. V[~h .2 JR. UHRIG: Well, the point was that they were -- 3 Research was carrying out activities that were not 4~ documented as being needed by the needs letters. That was 5 what the criticism -- I don't remember. I thought it was 6 GAO but it'may have been the Inspector General. It was when l 7. Eric was'still involved as Director of Research. 1 1 8 DR. WALLIS: Well, if it is not in'the letter, 9 maybe it is somewhere else, but the only justification for-10 research has to be some need somewhere. 11 DR. FONTANA: Yes, but often the results of 12 that -- the people who should be identifying those needs '13 often don't know what it is that Research could provide. 14 DR. WALLIS.: That's the problem. That's the 15 problem. 16 DR'. FONTANA: And I lot of times they don't care. 17 DR. UHRIG: Well, I am now through my first 10 18 minutes. Med, do you want to add anything to this as the .19 result-of your attending the presentation to the Commission 20 in way of a perspective? i 21 MR. EL-ZEFTAWY: Just one thing I just want to 22 clarify. I think the discussion about the recovery of the 23-- fee, I think there is some shift right now in this 24 philosophy, and I'll give you two examples. 25' The Calvert Cliffs and Oconee that are coming in 1[' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

.-...-. - - - ~,... - l 310 1. for license renewal, and right.now'the Staff is basically -- ) t 2l .is. going to give them 50 percent of recovery, su they are 3 not'asking for 100 percent recovery, so there might be some ~ 4 shift right now, but total recovery from.the applicants. ) 5 . CHAIRMAN SEALE: Excuse-me'a minute. Where is the i [ 6. rest of the money coming from? 7 MR. EL-ZEFTAWY: Good question right now. It's '8 not'from the applicants. 9-CHAIRMAN SEALE: But it is still from the L. 10' ' industry? 11 MRn EL-ZEFTAWY: I am not sure. .12. CHAIRMAN SEALE: Is this a check-off that Congress ) i 13' .is going to let them have? i 14 MR. EL-ZEFTAWY: No. That decision has been made I J 15 by the agency. 11 6 DR. UHRIG:' Then it'is coming from the industry 17 and - ' 18 CHAIRMAN SEALE:.Then it'is coming from.the other 19' . licensees. '20 DR. UHRIG: Could you -- that's the only place it 21-could be. ~ 22 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Thoughts on that? 23 .MR. EL-ZEFTAWY: Well, it could be overhead from 24-the NRC also.

25.

CHAIRMAN SEALE: But that still has to come from ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

311 j 1 the licensees. (~'} 2 DR. MILLER: I would say the licensees would say LJ 3 gee,-license renewal is important for everybody -- we are 4 going to help support it. 5 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Well, I don't know that you 6 can -- right now, they are pretty -- 7 DR. MILLER: Well, implicitly. 8 MR. EL-ZEFTAWY: Okay. Let me briefly summarize 9 what went on in the August 6 meeting with the Commission. i 10 Basically the Commission acknowledged two reports, the one 11 that was performed by the Inspector General -- 12 DR. FONTANA: Med, who met with the Commission? 13 MR. EL-ZEFTAWY: Okay. The Office of Research, 14 all the management of the Office of Research and I think the ( ) 15 management was basically everybody in the management in the xm/ 16 Office of Research. Basically that is a new position for 17 them except for Larry Shao, who was originally in there, so 18 I think the Commission acknowledged that the Inspector 19 General's report is being critical of the Office of 20 Research. 21 They acknowledged receipt of the ACRS letter and 22 said it's been perceived very, very helpful, probably in 23 this stage of -- they haven't really gone through it yet but l 24 just first look at it it's been very, very helpful. l 25 DR. FONTANA: You are talking about this thing? (~N ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. (,,) Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 i (202) 842-0034

i l 312 l 1 MR. EL-ZEFTAWY: Yes. A couple of points (~) 2' actually. I think Commissioner Diaz raised the point that i V ) 3 there is a lack of criteria of proper balance between the 4 use of the outside contractor and the inhouse research so he L 5 basically was asking the Staff, specifically the Office of 6 Research, to either define the criteria to -- find the l .7 proper balance between the outside and inhouse work. 8 Commissioner McGaffigan also wanted to know how 9 you'-- at least amplify on how to -- the philosophy of 10 saving FTEs by doing research by an outside contractor. 11 The Chairman sort of like agreed with Commissioner 12 McGaffigan and Commissioner Diaz on those points. 13 Commissioner McGaffigan also acknowledged that the 14 report that we have, mentioning the generic safety issues. () 15 It's a very good point and I think the Office of Research 36 has to resolve the generic safety issue problems. 17 Ashok Thadani mentioned the fact -- I think what 18 we wrote in our letter that Research has been very helpful 19 in the AP600 letter, so that observation was very good on 20 Research and I think Dr. Wallis mentioned that too. '21 Basically that was it, except they said I think 22 continuing dialogue between the Office of Research and ACRS 23 has to be continued and come at a later date and tell us the 24 progress that has been made. 25 CHAIRMAN SEALE: After all the success we've had ~(~Ns_) Court Reporters ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

~. -. - -.. _ ~. 1 313 1 at being the number one cheerleader for AEOD, I am not sure j 2' Research -- 3 [ Laughter.]' ) 4 CHAIRMAN SEALE: -- needs our help. 5-DR. POWERS: 'Any more of our help than -- 6 CHAIRMAN SEALE: They may not be able to. live -- 7 DR UHRIG: Dana, would you like to tell us.what 8 you perceive as the lessons learned, including anything that 9 you had in your memo as well as anything else that occurs to 10 you? 11 DR. POWERS: Well, I have certainly sent the 12 committee a memo on what my lessons learned were, and I 13 assume people have seen that. 14 It speaks much more to the mechanics of preparing ) 15 the letter and going through the exercise in doing it'and 16 that's really what I wanted to talk about here. 17 The first chore in preparing the report to the 18 Commission is to find out exactly what the Research program 19 is and to do that you really need the 189s to do that. 20 The difficulty we encountered last year was that 21 most.of the Research managers felt we did not want to go to 22 that depth and they were -- 23 DR. SHACK: They were being helpful. i ; 24 DR. POWERS: Yes, they were being helpful. I mean 25L they really were, and tried to give us more of an overview, ). ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. / Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

.m_. i-l- 314 1. and we really needed to go into depth, and so -- front-end ! 'V /~'Y 2 job,'just get the 189s and then apportion them out to the L .3 subcommittee. chairmen who are actually going to write on the l 4 specific research' programs to help them develop their '5 . write-ups. l l 6 I am very attracted to Bob's. suggestion on report 7 cards rather than -- I mean the previous report established '8 the standards and now you can come back'to report cards on 9 those things. That sounds like an interesting tack to 10. approach it here. l L '11 I also am very attracted to the idea that -- and .12 it certainly is my personal belief now -- the NRC line l 13 organizations do not know how they could benefit from 14-Research. They don't just -- they are very much in the mode () 15 of what is it we can do with what we have available now, and 16 not asking the question is that in fact good enough. 17. When the assumption that what you can do now is 18 good enough that pervaded Mr. Christie's talk yesterday I l 19 think is a very bad assumption to make. I think we have p 20 some pretty good examples of that that came out of the 21 'AP600. When the line organizations are confronted by new 22' technologies, their natural tendency is to say what can we .23 do now rather than saying what is it that we should be able 24 to do with this new technology. l l 25 The example I trot out is not a particularly good l L ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. l - Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 L (202) 842-0034 l 1, . ~. _

._..._.__.._.-,._._.__.__-___.___..._._..._.-._________.m m_. 315 1 example but it is one that I thought was illustrative of the o(( i 2. problem', and that is the catalytic recombiners, that they i \\s f '3 . looked at'it. They looked at what the licensees submitted

4

.and-they. ope cated on that without have any great expertise l-5' 'in catalysis, m .6 They.did not do what I think Brian Sheron properly l l 7 characterized was here is a new technology. Somebody has to -8 give it a longer look than is really available to the line '9-organization, and a more careful look and ask Research to 10 ccome in and help them on that one, 11' It is not a good example because I think the i 12. particular issue is not important but I think it is 13 illustrative of the problem. 14' Again, you just don't have a real good endorsement ()

15

.from the management of the organization and seemingly from 16 the Commission that some of the strides that have been made 17 by giants in the past were good strides but we still need to 18 keep going. My best example of that is right in George's 19 bailiwick, that we have a tremendous understanding of PRA 20 during the operational events and no understanding at all 21 during shutdown events. I do not see how we can live with 22 that. 3 It's driven home to me when I see the results of 2 24 the fire assessment where I went in thinking, well, fire is 25. pretty well taken care of and we'll not see much core damage l' O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. L Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

~ -. - -. - -. -.. _ _ ~ ~... - ~ _ -.. -. 316 if from that, becaure, my goodness, we have tremendous [ 2 ' redundancy. We have tremendous separation of safety 3! ~ systems'-- how can'one fire _ affect everything? And we see i '4' the fire risks coming in and they are very comparable to the 5 normal-operating risks'. i-6' Now I happen to know those fire risk assessments \\ "7 ' tend to be very conservative because it just has not had the i 8 kind of development that operational PRAs have had. i 9 When I translate that to shutdown risk, I say I 10. have an intuition about how dangerous shutdown modes of 11 operation are and it could be just as wrong is my. intuition 12 on the fire risk is. 13 It seems to me that were I moving into a 14 . risk-informed regulatory regime, and I realized I had these ,sm) 15-gaps and deficiencies in my ability and understanding of 4 16 risk,.I would be scared to death. I would be scared to 17 ' death that I would be coming in here and saying this 18 component has a low safety significance and it does for 19 operations and it's absolutely crucial during shutdown -- 20 but1I wouldn't know it. 21 One of the themes that we tried to carry out in 22 the previous report is that if NRC is really serious about 23 wanting to do things better, faster and cheaper, the 24 question is no longer how can Research help. It is a truism 25 then to do things better, facter and cheaper Research is t ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

317 1 essential. [ 2' - V} One of the advantages that I think you have in 3 .this report is that the Commission has listed down some very 4 top priority items that they want to pursue between now and 5 January, but if you look at them, they continue on for the 6 next year, and I think that-that gives you some very 7 specific topical areas that the Research program has to 8 confront. 9 DR. UHRIG: Where is this listing that you 10 ' referred to? Is this in their plan? 11 1 DR. POWERS: Yes. What I have labelled as "The 12 Bible" -- 13 MR. EL-ZEFTAWY: Are you talking about the 14 operating plans for the whole agency? () 15 DR. POWERS: No, no, no. This is the stuff that 16 recently -- 17 DR. LARKINS: The priority list. 18 DR. POWERS: Yes. Well, to continue on on the 19 lessons learned theme, this becomes -- developing your theme

20 and the points you want to go to is of course the hardest 21 job, and that is why I think you have got to have a lot of 22 homework between meetings on this, and that is why I think

'23 having a two-man team is better than one person trying to do 24 it alone. L25 The problem I ran into all the time -- I would get (~} _ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. (,/- Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

- = _ _ =.. -.. - -. _.. -. - - 318 1 these brilliant ideas that quite frankly " sucked" -- but I ) 2 'didn't have anybody that I could just, that I was obligated 3 to. bounce them off, routinely. I found out too late.

See, 4

that's the problem is that I quickly became resistant to 5 changing-the document for a very simple reason. I had spent 6 so much time typing the damn thing up, it hurt my hands to i 1 7 make any more changes. That's terrible. You shouldn't do 8 that. Don would tell me to change a word and I would say I 9 am not going to go look for that damn word and my hands 10 hurt. I am not going change it. That is why I think a 11 .two-man team really helps. 12 DR. MILLER: Any time you have good ideas, half of 13 them are not very good so you need somebody to bounce them i 14 off of. ) 15 DR. POWERS: If you are batting 50/50, you are 16 doing a whole lot better than I did. 17 .DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Linus Pauling said -- they asked I 18 him how did he get the ideas that got him the Nobel Prize 19 and he said, "It's very simple. All you ha ve to do is have 20 very many ideas and throw away the bad ones." 21 DR. MILLER: And fine somebody to help you throw 22 them away. 23 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Right. 24 DR. POWERS: You really need to do that because 25 you get quickly embedded in things. [' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 200)5 (202) 842-0034 1

_._m ____m. 319 [ 1 .DR, WALLIS: That's also'how the agency works, to .f 2 -some extent -- the failure to.look for new ideas and to. \\ 3 . evaluate them'~and toLhave-lots of them so that.they can sort 4 'out1the" good ones is what is lacking. 5 The operational agencies are stuck in the groove 6 of doing what they have always done. L 7 DR. FONTANA: You get punished for having bad 8' ideas. / 9 DR. WALLIS: There is no reward.

10 DR. MILLER:.Well, there are lots of reasons they 11

'are inhibited from having any ideas. '12 DR. POWERS: Ilthink what you will find -- you are 13-going to find two things ---developing a central theme is a 14 very, very difficult job and that you are going to have lots () 15-and lots of minor-themes being advocated by the members and 16 -I think the worst thing you can do in one of these reports 17 is try to carry along too many themes and too many agendas L18 in'this thing. 19 What I would recommend that you do, Bob, for the 20 early meetings like the November and December meetings is to i 21 prepare a bunch of options and try to get agreements on i 22 'which points to carry forward and which ones to say, yes, 23 Lit's a good point, but quite frankly it lies fallow and 24 we'll put'it in our "To Do" list for the-next report. .25~ And use your imagination -- come up with lots of i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. h Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

320 1 options and put it up here and get people to support -- you I have got to have, when pulling the oars gets tough, and you 3 'are putting the words together, you have got to know-4 confidently that you are carrying out a mission that' .5. everybody on the committee supports. l 6 The thing that will deflate you quicker than anything else is to find out that they didn't want to carry 7 8 that theme or'there's some other theme they wanted to carry. 9 DR. WALLIS: My experience in writing committee 10 reports, faculty, is that -- listen. First of all, you 11 listen and.you try to stimulate ideas from everybody. Get 12 them all out there, a tremendous jumble of stuff, and then 13 if you are the writer of the report, you have to put your 14 structure together that brings these things in as much as it () 15 can but it cannot be higgledy-piggledy and pick up all of 16 them in the random. It's got to have a structure. 17 First of all you have got to bring out the ideas 18 early-on. l '19 DR. POWERS: That's right. 20 DR. WALLIS: -- thoughts of bringing them in later 21 and feed them into the structure that is already there. { 22 DR. PC WERS : And what you will find is that unless 23 you put up options and stimulate the discussion, if you rely 24 on getting messages by e-mail, it will be very slow, 25 okay? -- and so I would suggest in your November meeting ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. \\ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

-. -. ~ - ~ 321 1 come up with ideas good, bad, or indifferent, but lots of 2 them, and the committee will be very helpful in throwing L 3 away the bad ones. L 4 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: I find the discussion 5 interesting, and I don't want to -- but this is too general, 6 this is probably something for the retreat. It think the 7-emergent -- I mean the urgent thing here is the assignments. 8' What'do you want to do? Because it is already 11:30. What 9 exactly are we going to do in the next two months, so we can 10. start planning? I mean how to write the report, we can 11 ' discuss off-line, we can -- 12 DR. UHRIG: Well, there are sort of two 03pects to 13 this. One is the theme, the message we are trying to 14 convey, and then there is the second aspect of it, which is () 15 the evaluation of specific programs. 16 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: See, that is what worries me. 17 DR. UHRIG: And that is almost a separate part of 18 this. Now, I think Dana did a pretty good job of 19 in=cegrating this into the report. But I have a feeling that 20 you did an awful lot of this yourself. 21 DR. POWERS: That's right. 22 DR. UHRIG: I am not aware, at least I was not 23 involved in any of the review that'went into last year's 24 report. Maybe it was because I came on late. But just -- 25 well, here, I have this list, it is in your -- but here is /' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

i 322 1 the kind of list. Let me just put one slide up. And this ^ ' :(V) is where I am going to get in real deep trouble because it 2 3 has names beside it. 4 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Bob, before you do that, could I 5 throw one more into the hopper? We have already talked 6 about the report card. I am glad Dana gave it a name. The 7 report card particular research activities. But there is 8 another question we might want to try to address here, and 9 that is how the NEI can benefit from NRC research. That is 10 what the Commission needs to know when they argue with NEI 11 about the fact that there is a requirement for a level of 12 research. 13 And we had a perfect example yesterday in Bob 14 Christie's discussion. He completely ignored the fact that n () 15 the capability that he planned to bring to his industry's 16 process of managing ourselves and leave us alone was very 17 heavily dependent on the results of methodologies, 18 capabilities and so on, that were developed as a part of the 19 PRA, IPE, and the pilot studies processes. Completely 20 ignored the fact that those methods were a part of his tool i 21 bag. And so now he is going to freeze everything in place. 22 What if he had frozen everything in place two years ago? Or 23 five years ago? He wouldn't have anything. 24 And so it strikes me we ought to ask ourselves, 25 where has the industry benefited from NRC research? And ()N ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. \\ Court Reporters s-1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i l.

. _. -. -. ~. 323 1 that.could be,.I think, a very interesting and helpful list .O '2 for'the Commissioners. \\ ) -. 3 DR. MILLER: -Could'that be part of our theme? '4' CHAIRMAN SEALE: Well, it -- 5 DR. MILLER:.Maybe you are writing a report to 6 -Congress and maybe you need to figure out who you are really 7 . writing it to. 8 CHAIRMAN SEALE: It is a thought. I just wanted 9 to throw the idea out there. 10 DR. FONTANA: Now, this review -- you were talking 11 about this review, like a report card on specific'research 12 programs. That is a report to that Commission, not the 13. report to Congress. 14_ EDR. UHRIG: That's right. 'fi 15 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Yeah, right. That's.right. And-g,f . lis what.I saying is, by the way, Commissioners, when you talk 17 to the industry, these are the things you ought to point out 18 to them. 19 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: The reactor safety. study started 20' the whole PRA. I mean that was a product of research. 21: CHAIRMAN SEALE: Yeah. But the point is, they 22 benefited. It is not the research, it is the benefit that 23 ought to be up front. I 24 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: I mean Mr. Christie would have 25 no subject k's /) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

.,, -,........ _... ~ - . ~. - 324 1-CHAIRMAN SEALE: Precisely. 2 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: -- if the reactor safety study i 3-had not been funded. '4 DR. WALLIS:.Another example of where creative 5 .research did something really significant and the 6 ~ implementation and the use of it was what lagged. 7 DR. SHACK: Although industry tends to be rather 8 unimaginative about that, That document we got from whoever L 9 it was that was going'to slash the agency in half also had a 10 survey in there of what research should. be done, and, of 11 course, the research that should be done was exactly what 11 2 they needed right now to solve their particular problem. 13 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Yeah, it is this what have you l l -14 done for me this week kind of thing. L( ) 15 DR. WALLIS: That is typical of a dying industry. '16 An. alert-industry doesn't behave that way. 17 DR. SHACK: I don't know that you are going to_get l 18 a whole lot of insight out of -- 19 DR. WALLIS: .It is like asking the railroads where l L 20 research was needed in the 1950s or something. And they !21 could have taken an attitude, we are going to build the [. 22 railroads or the future. Or they could have said we are 23 dying, we don't care, just get whatever money'out of it we -24 can. L 25 DR. MILLER: Is there any place in this report we I (Q,,/ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters .1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 L

. - - ~. 325 1 should look to the future? The next generation type ( 2 reactors that may be - is the NRC in a position to -- 3 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: That is not the NRC's job, that 4 -is DOE's. 5-DR. MILLER: I understand.that, but should NRC be l 6' -at least looking at what'might be needed if we have to 1 7-regulate something? Is that too far in the future? 8 . CHAIRMAN SEALE: Well, I think it~would be much 19 more appropriate to give the NRC, the Commissioners,. talking i p l. 10 points in supporting the fact that research has been a 11 significant contributor to not only the capabilities of the 12 Commission, but also the capabilities of the industry in -13 doing their job. 14 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: We are a little bit '15 inconsistent, though. It.just occurred to.me,'on the one 16 hand, we'are criticizing-the Office of Research for not i 17 having a systematic.way of allocating research -- 18 DR. BARTON: Prioritizing. j 19 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Prioritizing, doing this, doing 20 that, doing_that. And then we turn around and say, gee, 21 look, you know, the country would have collapsed if the NRC 22 Office of Research hadn't done-this beautiful research. So 23 they can come back and say, why the hell do you want me to 24 devise a new way-of prioritizing since they did a great job. 25 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Yeah, George. I mean it is all a ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ( Court Reporters i L 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

326 11 matter of: degree, and it is all a matter of'-- and I think {' 2 you have to recognize -- 4 3 DR APOSTOLAKIS: But those were different times, 4: ! too. 5 DR. WALLIS: The Rassmussen report-you cited here 6 came about because questions were being asked. 7 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: By Congress. 8 DR. WALLIS: By Congress and,- you know, the 9 nation. 10 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Yeah. 11 DR. WALLIS: And intellectual community about how 12 do we evaluate reactor safety. It was a sort of ferment of 11 3 _ interest that gave rise to the work. 14-DR. APOSTOLAKIS : Anyway, okay, so what do we do -() 15' about the'immediate' future? I mean I am like the industry, 16 I want to know what I am going to do tomorrow. -17 DR. WALLIS: Well, I think -- 18 .DR APOSTOLAKIS: And I am not dying. 19. DR. WALLIS: Do I get a few minutes? '20-DR. UHRIG: Yes. Yes. 21 DR. WALLIS: I don't know whether I do or not. 22 DR. UHRIG: Go ahead. And then we will pick up 23 Mario. 24-DR. WALLIS: I like the idea of starting from the 25 key recommendations. I see them as 1 through 4 and 7 from -f' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. \\ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 r

. -. - - - - -. ~. . - _ ~ 327 l 1 .last year. And really saying how is this actually '{ 2 happening? We made these recommendations, we still stick by 13 'them. Maybe we want to say them slightly differently if we 4 need to. And then look at what has happened over the past 5: ' year and.say' how has this happened? 6 The thing I see the greatest need-for, I have said 7 it already today is proper appreciation, articulation of the 8 .need by the parts of the agency that have the need. And I L 9 think research'is quite able to respond. I think we can 10 probably pick out if we need-examples from the past, it i 11 would probably be best if wel picked out examples, maybe PRA 12 is one, maybe there are some other ones, of successes in the 13 past year, where this format of really specifying the need L 14 and really responding to it, and showing that the response () 15: satisfies the-need, actually worked. If we can show some 16 examples of that. i. 17 We may actually have to show some examples-where 18 it didn't work. And I think we may need some examples where L 19 research itself, through its creativity and awareness was -20 able to perceive a need which then later.on got recognized 21 by the users, because I think that also sometimes happens. 1. 22' But I do see that you have to tie in this need, because that 23 is --'that is needed. But the Commission always needs that. 24 In its own rationale for what it is doing, it has to be L 25 asking these questions, and should be asking these 1 A ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. " (_) Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

. ~. .. - =. 328l 1 questions. (A )' 2 EIf we do that right, it may be easier to write the v 3 Congressional one, because we will understand better why -- 4 how research. fits into the picture of what is needed there. 5 So that was my -- what I said, essentially, to Bob. I-do 6 think we -- we may not be able to look across the whole 7 agency. We may need to dig in deeply into some parts where 8 something is really going on and use them as examples that 9 this is the way to do it,.maybe even this is the way not to ' 10 do it. 11 DR. UHRIG: Mario, I promised you some time for 12 your thoughts or more. 13. DR. FONTANA: Well, I made a tactical mistake, I 14. sent something to you which was just basically scribbles, () 15-but I have got a real good printer, so it looks better than 16 it really is. 17 [ Laughter. ] 18 DR. FONTANA: Well, basically, I said something 19 like this, if light water reactors are mature technology and 20-much research has been performed with respect to reactor - 21 safety over the last 35 years, and most of this research has 22 been in traditional hard science and engineering areas, the 23 technology is pretty well known. 24 Now, there are areas where better precision would 25 be preferred, but in some areas this reduction in /~'\\ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. kl Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

329 1 uncertainty is so difficult to obtain, the cost and effort '( 2 is unwarranted. Considerable gains in safety are 3 considered. 4 We need to identify future areas where the present 5 state of knowledge may be inadequate. Some of these are 6I outside the realm of hard science where we are all i 7 comfortable. So some of these thoughts are kind of random. 8 But I don't mean to denigrate -- there are hard science 9 areas where we all agree.that work is needed such as 10 improvement of thermal-hydraulics models, steam generator 11 inspections and two plug-in criteria, and aging of 12 equipment, et cetera, aging of analysis technology. 13 But I thought I would indicate some areas that are 14 kind of on the edge of hard science. We are rushing toward rJj 15 risk-informed regulation, this is based on PRA technology. 16 Forgive tae, George, but there are areas of PRA technology 17 that I don't think are on really, really -- 18' DR. APOSTOLAKIS: We are rushing, Mario? l 19 Twenty-three years. 20 DR. FONTANA: Well, I mean right now. 21 DR. POWERS: Well, George, that is unfair 22 Because at the time WASH-1400 was done, they couldn't do a 23 decent uncertainty analysis. At the time WASH-1400 was 24 done, they couldn't do a decent severe accident analysis. 25 By the-time WASH-1400 was done, they couldn't do a decent ..O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. \\m L Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

.,. ~ - -..-... - -. -. -.... - - -..~..-... - - - - -._ -. -. j 330 1-' dispersion analysis. 2 DR._APOSTOLAKIS: So what is your point of L 3; referenceLfor saying rushing? h 4 .DR. FONTANA: We are moving toward risk-informed 5 -regulation, and I totally support it. ButIthere are some L 6' . areas that they.are weak; -There's human factors and { l tL 7 organizational factors. 8. DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Humans are notoriously weak; L '9 DR. FONTANA: Now, I am going to say something ^ 10_ lthat, unfortunately, I am going to get on the record, but 11 recommendations to increase research in these areas must be i L 12 tempered by the apparent inability of the present human l-13 factors managers to define research plans coherently. We 14 have said that-before. () '15 DR. POWERS: -That is not news. 16 DR. FONTANA: That is not news. Also, I think 17 there is a lot of-work done on PRA level l's and I think L 18-ultimately.we really ought to be working with 2's and 3's if l .19 we are going to get to really risk-based regulation. That -20 involves what you were driving at, George, with the Farmer 21: curves and that sort of thing. 22 We need to address the quality of PRAs. I know I 23 work is being done on it,.but is there some measure of the 24 quality of the' output in-addition to -- there's two things. 25-One is the quality'of a PRA and the other is how do you l l [~5y-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. \\_/ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 j. (202) 842-0034 L L t r w -y,- .v..

m l. 331 i 1 ' measure a PRA is done to the best quality that is possible i D : f) ~ 2 at the time. '. v t l 3-

Now, I' hate to get into a wish list, but there's 4

obviously greater fuel performance, operation with mox 5-fuels.. Risk for shutdown operation, I won't get into. But

6 the importance of specific regulations to safety is kind of

.7 a -- subject. This-is going to called aging of regulation. 8 Regulations, a lot of them have been put,in place over the l 9 years that have -- some of them had good reasons to start 110 with and some of them had' reasons which are no longer valid. 11 I think you have to get back and look at'this whole plethora '12 of regulations and try to determine what the risk impact of 13 these are, and is there a way of doing this? 14 Also, there is aging of codes and standards. () 15 Should these be looked at on the basis of what we know now, 16 and modified? Performance measures. The senior management l 17 process I think is kind of not too red hot. Some of the L 18 measures are counter-productive to safety. I. think, for 19 example, a measure that says how long you have operated a 20 plant without. shutting it down, and how many SCRAMS you 21-didn't get, aren't necessarily good measures. And, also, I 22 think that the Arthur Andersen study is kind of 23 under-whelming. 24 [ Laughter.] ' 25~ DR. WALLIS: I agree. l-l i /~'j ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. fk/ Court Reporters L 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 L (202) 842-0034

l i 332 1 DR. FONTANA: Now, there are benefits of / 2 V) risk-informed. specific activities, ISA, QA, IST'and so on.

3-Are there measures by which you can indicate how these 4

activities really are affecting risk?~ Those measures may be 5 do-able.. Software testing. What I heard and this is not my 6 -area, but what I heard about software testing is that if you 7. use the right process, you will probably get a good product. 8 But I think what is'needed, and I understand it can't really ' be done now, is some kind of a test and acceptance criteria 10-that measures the performance'of that software rather than [ 11 only looking at if you follow the right processes for l l 12' ' developing the software, you will probably get a good !~ -13 product. 14 Licensing extension -- . II 11 5 DR. POWERS: George, you didn't stand up and (j 16 salute. Smiles over there. l 17 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: I saluted sitting down. 18 DR. FONTANA: Licensing extension rests heavily on 19 aging and particularly areas of assuring that equipment will 20 last until the next time you look at it. And some of this

21 involves inspection and assessment of structures that are L

22 inaccessible. 23 We all know about the effect of deregulation and .24 competitive pressures. Are there techniques for predicting 25 the effects of under-funding on safety, for example? Even e ('/j ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters s_ 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i .. 4-

333 though'you don't want to get into financial operations of 1 ) 2- .the utility, there may be some measures that are~useful 3. there. 4 We were very critical of the core capabilities 5 report. And I think they are trying to do better, and I 6 think they probably will do better, so I won't get into 7 that. ~8 If we are going to review l-- if you are going to 9: review and do a report card on present programs, we probably 10 oughtlto have access to the 189s, and at least look at the 11 scope. I don't think we should determine the quality of the 12 work, this can be.done by peer review, but we need to 13 determine whether the scopes and promised deliverables are 14 consistent with future needs. I 15 With respect to making recommendations, I don't 16 think we should be constrained by budget considerations. -I 17 think we ought to. indicate what we think the recommendations 18' ought to be and then the prioritization within the 19-constraints of a budget really ought to be done -- well, 20' ought to be done by staff using criteria which we think are 21 good criteria. But I don't think we ought to not make 22; recommendations because we don't think the budget is there 12 3 ~ to support it. 24-With respect to the letter to Congress, I think we 25 need a balanced approach. We need to be kind of global in [ \\ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

334 1 our recommendations. Again, I don't think there is anything . y['N ' '2 wrong with repeating things that we have.said before. .You 3 know what the old preacher said about tell them what'you are 4 going to say, then tell them, then tell them what you said. 5 There is goodestuff in the old letter that I think we really u 6 ought to repeat. 7 Finally, I think that Congress -- I don't know how 8 ~ to say this, but the Congress should direct the NRC to 9: maintair.-a viable research program. They can't just give 10 them a pot'of money and say do whatever you want with it and 11 let them take it out of important areas to put in other 12 areas that they consider to be more near-term, providing i 13 near-term -- t 14 DR. UHRIG: But Congress can't manage the research 15 program. L16 DR. FONTANA: No. But can they tell NRC, say, you 17 know, we expect you to maintain a viable research program? 18 Can they do.that much? 19 DR. UHRIG: Well, they do that. They do that by 20 approving the funds. 21 DR. FONTANA: They give me a whole of funds. Can 22 they -- 23 DR. UHRIG: Oh, okay. You are saying that they 24 should specify the funds that go to research? 25 DR. FONTANA: Maybe not that far, but possibly 4 [ '/) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. \\~- Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 4 (202) 842-0034

335 1 indicating that we expect a viable research program. (~') 2 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: I believe they do see the 3 various major items. In fact, that is how they tried to e 4 eliminata the Southwest Research Institute, specifically 5 they targeted it. 6 DR. WALLIS: I think it is more than viable. I 7 tried to get at this in a few words I tried to write a few 8 months ago. It has got to be vigorous and intellectually 9 lively. And you mentioned Farmer curves. Some Farmer 10 curves have been around a long time. It is just, to me, the 11 first step in trying to explain things in a rational way. 12 And we get some curves from Belgium. 13 And so why don't we get at the next generation of intellectual level of understanding, where it is not just 14 ) 15 some kind of a curve sketched on one pi-ace cf paper, very e 16 one-dimensional, a childish sketch representing something. 17 Why isn't something coming out of NRC research saying this 18 is the next step to make it better? It is an NRC curve or 19 NRC three-dimensional thing or something that is an 20 intellectual level above just sketching a line on a piece of 21 paper. And responding to something which has been around a 22 long time. They ought to be generating ideas. 23 DR. POWERS: The temperance of your neighbor when 24 you call a Farmer curve childish is astounding. 25 DR. WALLIS: Much wisdom has come out of the O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

336 1- . mouths'of. children. 2.- -DR. UHRIG: Okay. We come back to the fact that 3 .we have got a very comprehensive array. Yes? '4 DR'.' SHACK: Just one. Dana, were'you ever J 5 successful in getting any of the user needs letters?. That 6 seems to me another piece of input in addition to the 189 7 that would be interesting to look at, sort of related to 8 Graham's question. 9 DR. POWERS:. Whenever I asked for a user.need 10 letter,-it was promptly delivered. 11 INE. SHACK: But.is there a catalog, the whole 12 collecti~on? Do we'know how many there are? 13-IN1'. POWERS: What we did not -- what I don't think 14 exists is a' catalog of the. user need letters that have been Lj ) 15 written, and should have been written. I think you can 16 probably find a catalog.of all of them. 17 What I found in the user need letters was what the 18 report says, is they are -- the ones I examined, and I have 19 to admit that it was -- it was piecemeal, it was whichever 20 ones I asked for, that you don't get a specificity of I need 21. this to do this job, this accurately, this well, and that 22 sort of thing. It is more of the nature of screw around 23 with this and tell me what you can find. 24 DR. WALLIS: We might actually include in our l: 25 -report a critique of these need letters, and how they ought f l I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ,( Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 I

__ _ = _.. ___._. _ __._ O 337 -1 to be-done. } 2 DR. POWERS: Well, I'think that -- quite frankly, 3 I think we have done that. When we delineated for them an 4 approach toward planning, I think'we essentially said that. 5 That approach'to it.now, you may want to refine that, expand 6 upon that, and whatnot. But, again, I will caution you 7 against trying to carry-too many things. 8 DR. UHRIG: Here are the-areas that I took out of 9 the report last year. The itemization at the bottom I found 10-five additional issues that had not been included, although 11 some of them are more the ACNW categories, such as the 12 decommission and the environmental protection, but even if l 13 we just take those areas that are listed up there, and 14 assign two people to each one of them, it means that () 15-everybody is assigned to three topics, with two exceptions, 16 and I tried to do this and I can't make it come out l o 17 rationally without some arbitrary assignments, so I made 18 some-arbitrary assignments but it doesn't make sense to have j 19 somebody spending time reviewing an area that he has no l 20 interest in, so this is strictly a first approximation at l 21 it. 22 Let me pull the curtain. You can see the names 23 that have been put beside there and it's strictly -- there's l 24 usually one person who is an expert in that particular area L 25. and the other person hopefully has some expertise but there f ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. l ( Court Reporters i 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

338 1 was -- I had to do'some arbitrary assignments to make it r{y 2 come out -- the load even. j v i 3 DR. FONTANA: Now we don't have conflict of 4 -interest problems.on this particular list, do we? That's 5 not a consideration? 6 DR. SHACK: I know my 189 pretty well. I can 7 review it -- 8 [ Laughter.) 9 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Great. That is an easy one. 10 DR. FONTANA: I know Shack's got to be on steam 11 generator integrity, for example. 12 DR. POWERS: Can I get heavy section steel? 13 (Laughter.] 14 DR. SHACK: I would suggest that I be moved from T) 15 EAC for example to structural and civil engineering. 16 DR. UHRIG: Why don't I get this to you. I think 17 Med has copies or can get you copies. I did not include 18 that in the handout but what I would like you to do is to 19 mark it up and say this doesn't make sense for me to be 20' 'here -- here is where I belong, this type of thing. 21 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Let's get that back to Bob this 22 afternoon so he can give us a revised assignment list the 23 first thing in the morning. 24 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: What is the assignment actually? ~25 DR. WALLIS: For the next roadblock for the l-B .O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ' \\_ l Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l L

339 1 assignments, so we do things in a congruent, relatively []- 2 congruent way. V 3 DR. UHRIG: Well, that is what I would like to '4 -have some discussion of now is how do we go about this, how 5 has it been done in the past. 6 Dana, can you elaborate on this? 7 DR. POWERS: Well, the way the previous report was 8 structured is that there was a chapter in which the 9 essential points that we wanted to make about the Research-10 program generically were made and then there is Chapter 4, 11 in which we delve into each one of these topics. 12 Basically what happened was that straw men were 13 constructed and then people realigned my wheels for me, 14 especially -- and bamboozled me. excessively on heavy section D) g 15 steel -- persuasively argued the need for heavy section 16 steel, but that was done as an interim measure. 17 The agreement that was struck with the committee 18 in the last, prior to the last report was that for this 19 report the responsible individuals would prepare what they 20 wanted to say on their various topics in a more determined 21 effort and rather than an abbreviated straw man that they r 22 subsequently revised and reconstructed. 23 In the end I thought the straw men worked out 24 pretty well. I mean I think we got 25 DR. UHRIG: But there was no systematic going to l l' I

f~/)

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. s-Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 i Washington, D.C. 20036 l-(202) 842-0034

340 1 Research and saying I want all the 189s. 7[~h 2 DR. POWERS: No, well, what we got was all of the q) 3 budget sheets and things like that on that and they were 4 divided up and separated out to the appropriate' people. 5 DR. UHRIG: Then I've got to get with Research. 6 DR. POWERS: Yes. Depending on the nature of the i 7 work, some of the people with responsibilities'in the area l 8 actually held subcommittee meetings and discussed _the issue. 9 Some of the subcommittees were already scheduled and they 10 could. It was easy to do that. 11 -In other areas they said, well I am sufficiently 12 familiar with the thing -- I don't need a subcommittee. 13 Don's been working with advanced instrumentation and j 14- ~ controls. I think he had informal meetings-but I don't im i i 15 think he had -- you felt no need to have a specific '% / 16. subcommittee meeting on that? 17 DR. MILLER: No. A couple of us met. I met with 18 the Staff a couple times. 19 DR. POWERS: But you had your finger right on 20 that -- 21 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: That's a good example because I 22 understand Research has started several research programs in 23 this area. You are familiar with what is going on and I am 24 not. This is going to be an ACRS report, so how we handle 25 that problem? /] ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. (,,/ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

l 341 1 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Well, I think the first thing-is 2 we ought to settle these namas, okay, get the 189s -- p 3. DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Right. l 4 CHAIRMAN SEALE: -- and dole them out according to 5 the topic:and then ask the two people who are identified to i 6 review the 189s and come up with a statement about -- 7 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: I think we need a serious 8 discussion-of how we are going to do it right now. Anything L 9 you propose I will accept. I propose we recess and take this up again at 1 o' clock. This is not something to be .i 10 I L '11 decided in five minutes. i 12 CHAIRMAN'SEALE: There's Planning and Procedures, 13 so -- 14 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: This is too important. ( ) 15 DR. MILLER: Bob, are you going to add the five 16 issues at the bottom? 17 DR. UHRIG: Well, some of them we don't need -- 18 for instance, the generic safety issue resolution. I think 19 we have addressed that pretty well. ~20 DR APOSTOLAKIS: Not yet. Did we? 21' DR. UHRIG: We are in the process of addressing 22 it. It is the committee. 23-DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Yes. -24 DR. UHRIG: Materials research and regulation, 25-that is probably going to have to be added. (~5 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. \\ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

342 1

Radionuclide transport and behavior -- ,/% 2 DR. POWERS: I will tell you exactly why those t! ;d 3 things were left out, especially materials research and 4 regulation. We couldn't find out who-owned it. 5 DR. FONTANA: -- NMSS type stuff and not -- 6 DR. UHRIG: But there are research projects going 7 on'in that area. 8 DR. POWERS: Yeah -- they turned out dollar-wise 9 to be pretty small. 10 DR. SHACK: One thing we could do is sort of look-11 at the fractions involved here, and my guess is those are 12 down -- l 13 DR. UHRIG: I can go ask them. 14 CHAIRMAN SEALE: I think the next thing to do is () 15 to get the 189s and separate them out according to category 16 so we can get an idea of what the size of these particular 17 things are and decide whether or not we want to assign a 18 trip threshold that says if it is lower than that, let's not 19 beat our brains out on it. 20 DR. SHACK: I would think the ones that are typed 21 up there cover -- 22 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Pretty much, yes. 23 DR. SHACK: -- the-budget. 24 DR. UHRIG: The question is when, how soon we can 25 get those. 'M ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. \\_) Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

l-343 1: CHAIRMAN SEALE:.When can we get the 189s? ~s\\ b' 2 MR. MORRIS: Let's say probably in a couple of 3-weeks. 4 DR. SHACK: Of course everybody is writing the 5 189s for the next year now so what you are going to get are 6 last year's 189s in a couple of weeks. 7 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Okay. 8 MR. MORRIS: You should also look at the operating 9 plans. 10 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Maybe Bob,.you and Mario need to 11 get together with the people in Research and find out when 12 . we can get the 189s and you might want to go through with -13 them and get a rough run-down on the operating plans, and to 14 get an idea of how the allocation here runs. () 15_ I think George's suggestion is a good one. We 16 have several things this afternoon including P&P, future ~17 activities and writing letters but hopefully we can set 18 aside awhile during this afternoon and I think we all need 19 to ruminate on it a bit and let our thoughts mature and get 20 back-to exactly what we ought to be writing up. 21 DR. UHRIG: Med, ran you get the copies of this 22 list here to the members? 23 CHAIRMAN SEALE: The other thing I want to do is 24 make any adjustments to these assignments and let's try to 25 get a recast on that first thing in the morning. Sc ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. s./ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

c 344 1 DR. UHRIG: There's nothinglthat says that-you [' / \\- 2 -have to'have two people-on every one of them. x_ 3 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Well, I think Dana made a pretty 4 eloquent case though for not having too many more. 5 DR. UHRIG: Well,_my point was that one person -- 6: CHAIRMAN SEALE: Well, he needs somebody to talk 7' to'. 8 DR. UHRIG: Okay. That's a good point. i 9 -Go ahead, George. 11 0 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: You said sometime this 11 afternoon. We need the Reporter though. We'd have to do it 12' at 1:00 because the rest of the meeting -- .13 CHAIRMAN SEALE: That's true. Do we need a 14 Reporter for this? I don't think. yi.x) 15 DR. POWERS: No. 16. CHAIRMAN SEALE: Okay, fine. Okay, fine. 17-With that, I think I am going to call a recess -- 18 DR. UHRIG: One last thing, Bob. Just looking at 19 the schedule we are talking about a Research meeting and 20 there's some benefit to having it on the 19th. I think 21 th_re is another meeting that day, the subcommittee. 22 MR. EL-ZEFTAWY: There's one on the 19th. 23 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Of November? 24 DR. UHRIG: Of November. What is the one on the 25 19th? (" ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. i 's Court Reporters '.025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

~ I 345 1 CHAIRMAN SEALE: I can't be here. /~~\\ 2 MR. EL-ZEFTAWY: I think there's Thermal '-V 3 Hydraulics and then there is one on the 20th, which is 4 PRA -- 5 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: I don't know what that means 6 because if I have to hold subcommittee meetings on my 7 subjects I would like to look at the whole schedule as an 8 integrated whole. 9 DR. UHRIG: Okay. We may have to do this -- 10 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Let's discuss this. 11 DR. UHRIG: -- without a subcommittee until early 12 next year, get the draft, first draft, in some form before 13 we really get a subcommittee meeting. 14 DR. POWERS: My strong suggestion is that you

( 3j 15 really develop your ideas and use any kind of meetings that 16 you have, especially meetings with the Research staff, more 17 to confirm those ideas than as a basis for developing them.

18 DR. UHRIG: Okay. 19 DR. POWERS: And I definitely don't think you want 20 to have a concentrated meeting on Research. I think you 21 want to break that up. 22 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: I never walk into a meeting with 23 preconceived ideas. 24 [ Laughter.] 25 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: I form them there.

\\s],/

[ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

..... - - ~. ~. _. _ _... ~.. - -,.. -. ~ l. 346 1 CHAIRMAN SEALE: With that kind'of -- before we ./~h .2 'get.away, someone -- .>G 3 DR. UHRIG: I.think it's mine; i l :- 4: CHAIRMAN SEALE: It's yours? e5 DR. UHRIG: I am missing a card. 6-CHAIRMAN'SEALE: Okay, that's'yours. Okay. We 7' willLget together again at 1 o' clock and.we.can dispense-8 with the record-now. '9 We will see you tomorrow morning. 10 [Whereupon, at 12:04 p.m, the meeting was 11 ' recessed, to reconvene at 8:30 a.m.,fFriday,' October 2, 12 1998.] 13 14. 15 16 17 18 19-20-21 1 22-23 24 25 i l' L IO ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. L 7s / Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

~.- - ~- REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE This is-'to certify that the attached proceedings . /] before the United States Nuclear Regulatory.Commis~sion in r V -the. matter of: NAME'OF PROCEEDING: ~ MEETING: 456TH ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS CASE NUMBER: PLACE OF PROCEEDING: Rockville, MD were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereofLfor the file of the United States. Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and-thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the fortgoing proceedings. Gd T6 y v Cindy Th6 mas Official Reporter Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd. ' ~h ./()

fy 1. ( "L,.. l' v - Q ~ AGENDA FOR REPORTS TO CONGRESSION AND COMMISSION Thursday, October 1,1998, 10:15 to Noon. . Note: Time allocations are only estimates of what the individuals might want. AGENDA' 10 min _ Opening remarks by Subcommittee Chairman (Robert E. Uhrig) BACKGROUND - 10 min Report on Commission Briefing by NRC Staff, "Research: A Imok to the Future" August 6,1998 Memo,(Medhat El-Zefatwy) 20 mm " Lessons Learned from the Research Review Report" June 27,1998 . Memo to ACRS Members,(Dana Powers) DISCUSSION REGARDING 1999 REPORTS (Comments received via e-mail by REU) 10' min Mario Fontana (Comments received via e-mail to REU) 10 min Graham Wallis (Comments received via e-mail to REU) 40 min General Discussion by ACRS Members ASSIGNMENT OF ACRS MEMBERS TO REVIEW SPECIFIC AREAS OF RESEARCH PROGRAM 5 min (Robert Uhrig) ADJOURNMENT ~(for an early lunch) 0; e n w.y.. e

APPROACH FOR 1999 REPORT TO CONGRESS O This is the last Report to Congress (Two views Last change to impress congress! Why bother? There is no need to repeat last year's message. Message (if any) should be positive about benefits of nuclear safety research. Examples may be appropriate. PRA research examples like those in the ACRS Letter to the Commission may be appropriate. it may be appropriate to include the 1997 Report to the Commission (with ceferences to specific messages in the text). O Length may be as short as 3-5 pages. Schedule could be accelerated. (1997 Commission's Report would not seem out of date.) O

O O O i REVIEW OF THE NRC SAFETY RESEARCH PROGRAM AND REPORT TO CONGRESS . Identification ofissues for 1999 Report October 1998 e Subcommittee meeting November 1998 e Initial Draft of 1999 Report to Congress November 1998 = Revised draft of the 1999 Report to Congress December 1998 l e Feedback from the Commission January 1999 = Final 1999 Report to Congress February 1999 f

CONCLUSIONS OF 1998 ACRS REPORT TO U.S. CONGRESS Severe budget reductions are causing substantial deterioration of the internationally respected capability of USNRC to conduct a forward-looking, effective safety research program. This deterioration is occurring at a time when the U.S. nuclear power industry is undergoing substantial changes in response to economic deregulation. These changes may have safety implications that must be addressed by the Commission. Research is needed to ensure that the agency effectively addresses these changes. The deterioration in research capabilities is also inhibiting the Q ability of the Commission to continue the evolution of nuclear reactor regulation to a risk-informed, performance-based structure. The Commission's core capability in nuclear waste research has been dramatically reduced. Further reductions could inhibit the Commission staff's effectiveness and timeliness in conducting reviews of the nuclear waste repository program and cause delays and additional expenditure or National resources. 1 i O I 4 y .r r

O O O REVIEW OF THE NRC SAFETY RESEARCH PROGRAM AND REPORT TO NRC e Proposed Format and Content of the 1999 Report September 1998 i e Assignment of Responsibilities October 1998 l . Input to the draft of the Report December 1998

Draft 1 of the Report February 1998 j

Subcommittee Meeting February 1999 { e t

Draft 2 of the Report March 1999 l
Proposed Final Report April 1999 i

e Final Report on 1999 Program May 1999 i i i N

A O O O i EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

i i The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) review of the NRC Safety l Research Program is presented in this report. This review was undden at the reqd o l Commission. In the Staff Requim..s.ts Memorandum (SRM) dated September 9,1997, j Commission requested that the ACRS: l 1. Examine the need, scope, and balance of the Reactor Safety Research Program. j i 2. Examine how the Office of Research is positioned for the changing enviromnent. j i 3. Examine how well the Office of Research anticipates ind d-f i 4. Take on active role in reviewing ongoing Research Program initiatives, such as h j discussed in SECY-97-075 and in SECY-97-167. Recommend whether the Nuclear Safety Research Review CMm (NSRRC) function j 5. is still needed. i t

O o O A. The Charge to the ACRS i k Examine the need, scope, and balance of the Reactor Safety Research Program j 1. s The d-s to the ACRS to examine the Rwdi Program in terms ofneed, scope, and balance requires some interpretation. The ACRS has interpreted the term "need" to mean that the ~ e Pre i-ilshould: s i

support current Commission initiatives, p
provide the technical basis for future, anticipated regulatory actions, and l
maintain essential technical capabilities that can reasonably be anticipated as being u for future regulatory activities.

l f i 3

7 .m. 2. Examine how the Offlee cf Research is positioned f r the ch=ging environment 'O To understand how the Office of Research is positioned for the +=neine environment, it was necessary for the ACRS io specify ror itseirthe changes in the environment that couid reasonasix be WM to affect the NRC in general and the Research Program in particular. The ACRS believes that the public expectation for ever greater psi-:-2 by its public institutions is an ongoing trend that has for several years had an effect on all regulatory agencies including the NRC. In addition, ACRS feels changes are occurring that are likely to affect the NRC and the regulation of nuclearpower. Among these changes are:

economic deregulation of electrical energy production requiring higher productivity from existing nuclearpower plants, i
aging of the existing fleet of nuclear power plants,
premature retirement of nuclear facilities prior to expiration of their licenses,
renewal of some nuclear power plant licenses,
maturation of probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) technologies, 7

1

Congressional actions to mandate performance-based regulation and more rational regulation

, O in icans of reaiistic measures of risk.

continued improvements in the-average performance oflicensees, 3

4

continued efforts by the nuclear industry to develop consensus standards and uniform approaches to the safe operation of nuclear power plants,
continued efforts by the nuclear industry, including the cost of regulation,
emergence of new technologies such as digital electronics and software that could replace and improve upon technologies available at the time plants were designed and constructed,
continued pressure exerted by the Commission on the NRC staff to incorporate risk considerations into the regulatory process where it is supported by the current state of the art in PRA and to consider performance-based measures where practical, a more opportunities for the Commission to endorse consensus industrial standards as encouraged by Public Law 104-) l3 [6] in place ofregulations and guidance developed by O
declining NRC resources for inspecting and monitoring licensee activities.

.j 3.O O O Lamiro how w;11 th2 Office cf Research anticipates research teeds The ACRS interpreted the charge to " examine how well the Office of Research anticipates research needs" to include anticipation of future needs and anticipation of current needs of the line l organizations for research support in the execution of ongoing agency initiatives and Staff Action l Plans. The Staff Action Plans currently being pursued by the NRC staff that might benefit from l research support are listed in Table I-1. Generic communications and compliance issues that are j being handled by the NRC staffand that might require research support are listed in Table I-2. I l 4. Take an active role in reviewing ongoing Research Program initiatives such as those j disenssed la SECY-97-075 and in SECY-97-167 i The initiatives ofthe Research Fivs-o discussed in SECY-97-075 [8] are to define areas of l core comi Lcy. The 39 candidate areas of core competency identified by the RES staff are listed l in Table I-3. The ACRS inw d this charge to participate in the definition ofcore swp ^-wes j r to be an ongoing task and chose to not explicitly address this charge in this report. Rather, the ACRS will report its activities and reviews ofis d program initiatives in later communications to the i Commission, once the RES staff has had.the opportunity to refine its ideas and appr-W The' initiatives in SECY-97-167 [9] deal with the movement of the responsibility for developing rules l and regulations from RES to the line orBanizations. The ACRS views this as an intemal management j issue and will adopt a performance-based strategy for reviewing these char a j i 5. Recomumend whether the NSRRC function is stiH meeded i The ACRS has interpreted the question conceming the need for the NSRRC function to { encompass the need for the function as it was performed in the past, the need for the function as [ conceived when the NSRRC was originally recommended to the NRC, and the ACRS view of the i need of an analogous function at the s..i time. f r l l I

O O AdditionalRegdressents Questions concerning the Research Program posed orally by the Commissioners have been interpreted as additional rys-.6 for the ACRS review of the Research Prospm. h Comminioners have asked the ACRS to address-

the program.mic issues of research at the NRC, t

suitable criteria for terminating research programs, l t the rationale for the high priority for participating in international cooperative research

programs, i

the staffplans for using information gained from the individual plant examinations (IPEs) and l

individual plant examination ofexternal events (IPEEEs),

methode for pi;c,i;tirlig research activities,
risk-informed applications ofresearch results,
plant aging research program, environmentally assisted cracking and steam generator tube integrity, t
safety issues ofh;cel compan=te, and

~ I

research w.is in connection with piping integrity.

I I f

O O ~ O B . Directions to the NRC Research Pfogram Directions to the NRC Research Fivy i. have been provided by the Commission [10] and are - j i . listed in the documentation for Direction Setting Issue 22 (11]. These dirwim are listed also in the Strategic Plan for the NRC [12]. The ACRS has identified three top-level functions for the Research Prey-ii from these sources: l 1 Function 1: Provide the technical bases for regulatory activities of the NRC line organizations 'and for the - I policy initiatives of the Commission. l Function 2: l Conduct anticipatory research to enable tlie Commission and line ergeraions to address issues that are anticipated to arise. Fametion 3: t i s Maintain technical capabilities w.w.y for the Commission and line organizations to address issues that arise in the future. /~ i The ACRS has been able to identify one top-level, quantifiable requirement for the NRC l Research Pivy.co: T:p belReaguireasent: 'Ihe Research Fivy-u should focus on the issues ofmost risk and regulatory significance. D In addition to the obvious constraints of bu!qetary and manpower allocations,- the Rwa Pi6p-u is also subject to the unquantified constraint that it provide the m support to the line organizations. i

O O o-3 i _t C. ACRS Review ofResearch Activities k i i i To conduct its review of the NRC research activities, the ACRS Subconunittee on Safdy Research Fivap== met with representatives of RES, NRR, and AEOD on Novernber 4-5,1997 [14f '_ At this ms^ Jug, presentations were made by sepasives of the Electric Power RM Institute and the Nuclear Energy Institute on industry-sponsored and managed research pmgnuns. h objective of this Subconunittee ms^ ug was to collect data and develop draft positions for review i J { by the ACRS. At the time ofthe rsJ.g the NRC Research Program had.just W dtid budgetisJ./Jo s andwasexperiencingsomereorganization. Theiqs.u..aoftheGewin Perfonnance and Results Act had only recently been imposed on the Research Program. j !. Consequently, most of the plans for research were not firmly established. l, i ' The ACRS met with representatives of RES on March 5-7,1998 to discuss the Research j Program in detail [15]. Several of the topical Subcommittees of the ACRS met with the RES sd to discuss aspects of the overall Research Program l s

a I

i-l

l 0 0 O l - h ,j D. ACNW Review of Waste Management Research Activities j The Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) voluutm.a to assist the ACRS by j reviewing muh activities under way at the NRC in the area of waste management. The ACNW q l reviewed work on waste management being managed by RES and NMSS, as well as work by the l l Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses (CNWRA), a federal!y funded research end j development center that pmvides ir '-cperd;at technical assistance to the NRC. 'Ibe ACNW elected p j to examine technical===itance work by CNWRA in connection with the Yucca Mountain high-level i waste disposal project in addition to basic research work sponsored by the NRC. ?l i. i i The ACNW met with RES staffon Guicher 22,1997 [16] and on April 21,1998 [17] to die== i { the RES m on radionuclide horsport and decommissioning. The ACNW also had Presentations on waste management research by representatives of the Electric Power Research l Institute and the Environmental Waste Management Program of the Department ofEnergy on March i j 24,1998 [18]. l i a 8 l ( 1

O O O CONCLUSIONS FROM 1998 NUCLEAR SAFETY REPORT TO NRC Recommendation: t The NRC should adopt a systematic fi..cs.sik for the design and engineering ofits Research Prey r. that enforces a close tie between research activities and agency l needs,=== the value of the resuhs to be achieved by the sud, defines the requirements of the research, speciSes the functions of the is& activities, and j de6nes the urgency ofthe results. j Recommendation: TheNRC needs to adopt a r.ctice of scrutable :;omparison of alternatives in f addressing technical issues that require innovation in Selds that are not well established. Recommendation: i l The NRC should devise a process for id airyir.g and pfe:C g is& needs that l encompasses considerations oflong:. term benefits as weH as short-term user needs. The user-need process itselfshould be revised so that it better wr-~as the full range l ofresearch needed by line organizations. i l t Recommendation: l The NRC needs to develop its in-house risk assessment capability to the extent that it [ can be readily used throughout the agency. The in-house capability can be used to assess raates and to improve the planning ofresearch. [ [ t

O o O l CONCLUSIONS FROM 1998 NUCLEAR SAFETY REPORT TO NRC i i Recommendation: The development ofPRA methods should be better supported by the activities of AEOD with the aim ofvalidating and improving PRA.TJeds and results. Recommendation: NMSS should continue to use results from total systems performance assessment to guide the technical work contracted to the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory i )- Recommendation: 1 A formal organizational structure that identifies and prisih research needs and j subjects these needs to peer review should be put in place to ensure close coordii and coBaboration between the dc.@s ofim 4 results and the users of thosei results. t Recommendation: The NRC no longer needs most of the functions of the NSRRC. The Comrrussion j does need a Rsd Program and needs to ensure that this Pr%.ir, cm. fess to the l NRC philosophy of research and to directions given to the Program by the '3 Commission. l l l i

Table A-1. Activities and Projects in the Reactor and Plant Performance Program Activity Projects Thermal Hydraulics / Reactor Physics Boron Mixing Experiments Analysis ofReactivity Transients Integral Test Facility Calculations with RELAP5 Reactor Safety Data Bank Maintenance ofTRAC-BWR PUMA Integral Test Facility OSUIntegral Test Facility RELAP' M:..urr mee 1hermal r.yaraulics Research Rod Bundle Heat Transfer TRAC-P maintenance and consolidation Two phase flow and heat tran,=fer for CFD Development ofmodels for CFD code ActMty - Project Fuel Behavior Code Development for High Burnup Fuel Cladding Metallurgy for High Bumup Fuel Fuel tests at the IGRin Russia Support for the Halden FuelProgram Support for a water loop in the CABRI reactor in France O NUREG-1635 66

Q Activity Project Advanced lastrumentation and Control Membership in the OECD Halden Project Provide line organizations with regulatory guidance related to qualifications ofinstrumentation and control systems with regard to lightning, smoke, EMI/RFI, thennal loads, camera flash, and relay arcing Structured review guidance for requirements of software-based digital safety systems Provide the technical basis and review guidance for use by line organizations in the evaluation of the effectiveness ofhuman-system interfaces at computer-based control stations; revise NUREG-0700 Effects of smoke on electronic components Development ofguidance to assess " commercial off-the-shelf" O (cots)hra-r aa Development of technical bases for review guidance on emerging issues and technologies Develop measures of software system reliability and methods formodeling digital systemsin PRAs H Provide line organizations with the technical bases and review l guidance for assessing the quality of software used in nuclear ~ power plant systems including development of tools for i assessing software; Integrated digital system safety assessment. O 4 W

O i

67 NUREG-1635 't r

) 1-1 i i O ^ *'vi'r reaie* I Haman Factors and i Organizational Performance l Root cause investigation improvements Management and organizational factors in plant performance j annaamments j Activity Project l IPE/IPEEE Reviews i IPEEE submittal review for external hazards l IPEEE insights l Screening reviews ofinternal fires f Screening reviews of seismic hazards iiO ^ *' r r ie

i Severe Accident Risk l

SCDAP maintenance and assessment j OECD RASPLAV } MELCOR code development VICTORIA validation FARO molten fuel coolant interactions Lower head failure experiments l CONTAIN Code Assessment IFCI Maintenance and assessment Direct containment heating issue resolution I Implementation of revised source terms for LWRs }O j NUREG-1635 68 4 m

6

(]

Activity Project Reactor Probabilistic Risk Assessment SAPHIRE code maintenance Tech. Support in risk assessment MACCS maintenance Application of risk insights in regulatory activities i Plant database i Incorporate aging effects into PRA PWR Level 2 and 3 models for the ASP program Consequence model methods development ASP extension L BWR Level 2 and 3 models for the ASP program Technical support for ASP models. Ob Statistical support for risk analysis Events analysis for HRA methodology DigitalI&C Accelerated development of risk based regulations IPE Followup HRA methods based on operating experience (ATHEANA) Fire risk analysis Low power / shutdown risk analysis (FY 1999) l 69 NUREG-1635 s

t Activity Project l Reactor Radiation Protection i ALARA center dose reduction implement 'on Radiation protection / measurement study NEA information system on owupational exposure Radiation protectionissues d i l Support collection and analysis of occupational radiation exposure data l Deterministic effects of Mcytion exposure 'I i 1 lO s l J + l i l t O NUREG-1635 70

Table A-2. ActMties and Projects in the Reactor Materials and Component Behavior Program Activity Project Reactor Vessellategrity Heavy section steel program Heavy section steelirradiations Elastic plastic fracture mechanics evaluations for LWRs Improved irradiation embrittlement correlations Vesselirradiation survey Embrittlement data base & dosimetry evaluation program Radiation embrittlement damage analysis and predictions Intemational pressure vessel technical cooperation Design and metallurgical production of surrogate steel Nondestructive characterization ofRPV steels International conference - NDE round robin Pressure vessel database in ACCESS format Dosimetry technology ActMty Project Environmentally assisted cracking Environmentally assisted cracking of LWRs Intemational cracking ms l O 71 NUREG-1635 L l

i j ActMty Project j Nondestructive i Examination procedures Assessment of the reliability of UT ar.d NDE methods AetMty Project Mechanical / Electrical Components Qualification of safety-related cables Test & inspect safety-related fluid system components l LOCA testing ofcables 4 Effects of aging and emerging issues of MOV perfonnance Integrity of nuclear piping-structural material issues Lightening effects 4 environmental qualification and aging of electrical connectors tr= mission of grid stability / reliability l LBB regulatory guide support ActM2y Project Containment Integrity and Structural Aging Containment integrity under extreme loads I Capacity of aged / degraded containment j Inspection of aged / degraded containment Japanese containment cooperation Seismic response of degraded structures and components I Capacity ofdegraded bellows i

O NUREG-1635 72 i

q w y y +

(J m

Activity Project Structural and Civil Engineering Hualien (Taiwan) soil structure interaction, large-scale seismic test program Seismic Analysis ofpiping Geological and Seismological Siting Studies Japanese collaboration on seismic issues Earthquake investigations Seismic data analysis and event selection Collaboration on seismic proving tests of concrete containment Gamer Valley strong motion study Reevaluation of regulatory guidance for modal comb' ations m Reevaluation of regulatory guidance for seismic category 1 , (s concrete u) Displacement based seismic design Integrity of nuclear piping-structural - materials issues Finite element modeling of coastal storm surges Activity Project Generic Safety Issues Resolution TA for prioritizing and resolving generic issues Streamlining the codes and standards process gm., i 73 NUREG-1635

Table A-3. Aethities and Projects in the Materials Research and Regulation Development Program Activity Project Materials Probabilistic Risk Analysis Methods for medical risk studies Technical assistance for sealed source risk study Dry cask PRA Risk methods for non-reactor facilities j Activity Project Materials Regulatory Standards Development and applicability of criticality safety software O Activity Project Materials Radiation Protection l l Technical basis to support a clearance rule Funding to support BEIR-VII l Health physics TA - Materials l l l l O NUREG-1635 74 l

i 1 Table A 4. Activities and Projects in the Decommissioning Program Activity Project Radionuclide Transport and Behavior in Support for National Academy of Science 6 the Environment workshop on fracture flow. Radionuclide solubilities. I Low-level waste perfonnance assessment l methodology. Monitoring water movement through covers j for near-surface radionuclides. Testing and evaluating conceptual ground water flow and transport models. Facility support for RES staff work being i conducted at Johns Hopkins University on characterization of decommissioning slags. Extension of determination of sorption kinetics for anionic exchange capacity of soils Q to test model performance. I Field test of surface complexation models of t sorption. Evaluation of preferential flow through heterogeneous media. I Radionuclide pathway and uptake studies. Determine thermodynamic data for i radionuclides. Source-term characterization. Unsaturated zone monitoring and field j studies. l 75 NUREG-1635

..~-. l I i O - tr P >.et Decommissioning and Environmental Decommissioning support for rule Protection implementation Guidance and models for reusing and recycling ofmaterials. I Environmental policy and decommissioning issues. Environmental modeling support. 1 Radiological criteria for environmental effluents. i O 1 i i l 1 0 NUREG-1635 76 l

p. O O O l i t i Status of Staff Actions Resulting from I the Independent Safety Assessment of Maine Yankee i i Daniel H. Dorman l NRR/DRPE I October 1,1998 i I i I

g g g. I i + [ Agenda

Background

D. Dorman t Overview of Staff Actions D. Dorman i t Power Uprate issues D. Dorman } Analytical Code issues R. Caruso j i ) l 8 l I I

O O O'

1 Background

12/95 Allegation regarding SBLOCA analysis for Maine Yankee 01/96 NRR initiates internal Lessons Learned review 05/96 OlG Report t 06/96 Independent Safety Assessment established l l 10/96 ISA Report / Commission Briefing i 11/96 ISA Staff Action tasking memo from EDO 12/96 NRR Lessons Learned Report 04/97 Staff Action plans reported to EDO 01/98 Updates of Staff Actions status 08/98

- ~ - _. ~ O O O' t r I I i 1 r Staff Actions t

1. Adequacy of Analytic Code Validation i

l

2. Adequacy of NRC Review of Analysis Codes l

i

3. Compliance with Safety Evaluation Reports t

1

4. Adequacy of Licensing Reviews for Power Uprates i

t i I i I 3

Staff Actions (Cont'd) i

5. Clarity and Intent of NRC Safety Guide 1 i

6. Adequacy of NRC Inspection Program

7. Adequacy of Agency Expectations Regarding Licensee Performance

[ (Transferred)

8. Cumulative Effect of Operator Workarounds

9. Aaency Policy Regarding Licensee Design Basis Recovery Efforts (Complete)

10. Public Involvement in the Assessment Process (Complete)

{

11. Licensee Response to the ISA Report (Complete)

O O O' ~ t Power Uprate issues NRR Lessons Learned identified inconsistencies in the scope of I review of past power uprates ISA identified components for which operability at the approved ' higher power level could not be confirmed Interim action involves comprehensive review scope l t Past uprates screened to identify risk-significant issues j k i Standard review plan (SRP) for uprates to be developed Resources currently addressing 50.59, UFSAR accuracy issues j Past uprates to be assessed against the SRP Questions must be justified via 10 CFR 50.54(f) Improvements must be justified via 10 CFR 50.109 l

Maine Yankee Action Plan I l i Analytical Code issues I [ Ralph Caruso NRR/DSSA/SRXB t 1 i October 1,1998 4 l 1 l l i i I i

o o o Problems identified by Maine Yankee ISAT ( and ACRS in AP600 and Other Reviews ) l t 5 Adequacy of Code Documentation Adequacy of Code Assessment [ j 4 inconsistencies in Staff Code Review Process Code Catalogue l l I i - - ---- - - -- J

O o o j '~ Activities 1 i l Develop Standard Review Plan (NRR Lead) Develop Standard Format and Content Guide / Regulatory Guide (RES l Lead) Scope General Principles Applicable to All Analytical Computer Codes Development Process Code Assessment i Documentation Details Provided for Certain Accident and Accident Classes (e.g. SRP l Chapter 15 Classification) Modeling Requirements i Assessment Data I

o o o'l Proposed Schedule for Regulatory Guide and SRP 08/31/98 NRR identifies all accident analyses to be covered under Regulatory Guide and SRP documents (Will not include containment design reviews) } 10/01/98 NRR presents results of reviewer interviews and previous review history to RES 12/01/98 RES prepares Outline of Document Content for NRR/RES agreement 01/15/99 RES holds meeting with NRR reps. to discuss document outline 04/01/99 RES prepares draft reg guide and SRP for NRR/RES agreement 06/01/99 RES holds meeting with NRR, and industry reps, ACRS to discuss revised reg guide and SRP 08/01/99 NRR/RES issue documents for public comment l 11/01/99 Meet with NRR to discuss public comments 01/15/00 NRR/RES resolve comments and meet with ACRS i l 03/15/00 CRGR Review 05/01/00 issue documents. Begin training for reviewers. i I

T/H CODE REVIEW ACTION PLAN O Codes RETRAN - 3D : Transient S-RELAP5 : BE LBLOCA WCOBRATTRAC : BE SBLOCA Acolications RETRAN-3D 24 utilities Westinghouse replacing LOFTRAN S-RELAPS CP&L - H. B. Robinson reload WCOBRA/ TRAC Consolidated Edison - Indian Point 2 reload Review Efficiencies Acceptance review Bulk of review given to new material Verify previously approved models in range of applicability Peer review of models/ correlations Subset of full CSAU methodology Conservatisms where appropriate it O

Milestones MILESTONES RETRAN-3D S-RELAP5 WCOBRA/ TRAC Submittal July 1998 February 1999 February 1999 Acceptance Review October 1998 February 1999 February 1999 ACRS November 1998 March 1999 March 1999 4 Acceptance Letter November 1998 March 1999 March 1999 4 ACRS December 1998 October 1999 November 1999 1 1 RAls issued December 1998 November 1999 December 1999 RAI Responses February 1998 April 2000 May 2000 Draft SER June 1999 June 2000 August 2000 ACRS July 1999 July 2000 September 2000 Final SER September 1999 October 2000 December 2000 l p k i l h i}}

ML20154H854: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 00:35, 11 December 2024

Contents

Text

SUMMARY

Background

1 Background

Navigation menu

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 =Text=
 {{#Wiki_filter:_
-TRO4 (ACRS) g         RETURN ORIGINAL          e             -
+TRO4 (ACRS) g RETURN ORIGINAL e
-TO BJWHITE               I M/S T-2E26 12l        415-7130
+TO BJWHITE I
-                                                           ,j        THANKS!                  g I
+M/S T-2E26 12l 415-7130
+,j THANKS!
+g I
 i t
-                                                                     ); :.                                 5
+); :.
-                                                                           )                          ;i b
-y
+)
-                              ,                                                                          si
+; i b
-                                                                                          .. ,             I i
+y si I
-s              .
+s i
-4     $            I                     . jjt w se f .,9,
+I
-            , , .   .s. .
+. jjt 3
+w se f.,9,
+.s.
 d$ 5 981001
-       -305                 PDR                                               ...
+^}
-                                                                                                        ^}
+-305 PDRr j
-r                                                               .
+i j
-j i
+.y n'
-j n'    .y t .i    l r we.M
+t.i l
+r we.M
-                                           ,nf WWpa;                                                                      n ~' png y- nR p ph 4 m ;2                                                                                                                                                                                   ,
+b_pp.
-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             +.                   7 p~.3:                      u .,o b_pp.
+a.n nggg~.,.a&p-@n ; w1M &g%qQv:
-Q a.n           nggg~.,.a&p-@n                                   ; w1M            , &g%qQv:                                                                                                                                   ..
+,n n
-R;?QR           h xQ Mby3l y                          e                    A r.h,                                4                    t          . y g. .; 54g.                                                                            .
+n p ph 4 m ;2 7 p~.3: u.,o A r.h, ~' p g y-nR f
-jC % 4 - a wgY:% K ;A; y%,36 M%yMG,J 8,; m . :M                                                                                      .y y J      a pp W .C Q &?g                            g g W ,,:%;; %,v                           j q%lW l
+t
-$@hd@M$NMEMMMM M MM                hMADVISQRECOh1MOTEELONLREXCTORMSAFEGUARDSMN6eC na newngmw                                   wnwn                     gewuwwwe nanns                                                                                   swwwnw gam 4                                                                                                                                              an  h 1                                                    :
+. y g..;
-y                             M, y&                        #                      m%m                                                                                                                                                                                                       Me%dBM M*M,h-NN?&,a$$a$AWW_WWW&.
+g.
-Y pyw        Mk'p p                       p mp&gaw h NkW                s"Uk$w       vs      kW   ,k0hWNWN
++.
-                                                                                                                                                   ~
+y e
-k?y$wea
+WWpa;,
-                                                                                                                                                                                  ,dC_OMMITTEIDON~lsREAC
+Q R;?QR h xQ Mby3l jC % 4 - a wgY:% K ;A; y%,36 M%yMG,J 8,; m..y y a pp.
-                                                                                                                                                                              $Y f > \
+:M J W C Q &?g g g W :% %,v q%lW j
-wwsivuw m
+l
-h ~'
+$@hd@M$NMEMMMM M MM hMADVISQRECOh1MOTEELONLREXCTORMSAFEGUARDSMN6eC h
-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     ,m.a                                         p?*
+na wnwn nanns an newngmw gewuwwwe swwwnw gam 4 1
-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                #                           4
+M*M,h-NN?&,a$$a$AWW_WWW&.,dC_OMMITTEIDON~lsREAC M, y&
-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  .s                                                 + m %pg b.
+Me%dBM m%m yY Mk' p p mp&gaw s"Uk$w,k0hWNWN k?y$wea wwsivuw > \\
-w a %mw + #m uy u synm                                                                  4 -m,          p n na,w %w w                                                           payqn      w e g a' rao4 <xcas>                                                                                                                        own bk                                           hl                                                                                    h                             hk m
+,m.a p?*
-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     -h        y nh h0 M                                                                                                                                       J ?kW2 TO BJWHITE q          Q d- Wn$d% WT                         g %n                 r$ d MF d$h                    h M %%$n$e$                            N 8 W@            g       d                u$ M W 'yp}W                                                                        p"Q M S b $@flMC Q,d4%8_8d/(J m
++ m %pg
-WW %%% %eWMYt&" %pf% ,id?p
+~
-,;#f9        ,u  %g        %  N   M          Q%%%M7                V                                                                                           n%. 4 M:W.                            .
+h NkW kW
-                                                                                                                                                                                                                           ^
+$Y f h ~'
-M/S T-2E26 Mw xd M
+m
-                                                                                                                    &g,M-Qp3          <%W              +M   ning!     MQ9Vg#@WnpiV                                                   415-7'30     2            -
+pyw p vs b.
-h@M-
+.s w a %mw + #m y 4 - p u u m, n n,w %w w w e g a' a
-_ _ - - - _ . - - _ ,                                                                                                                                                                                                . -                           ,                tf #W9.. .-. N--
+rao4 <xcas>
-Awm4w[w w.w wxmwm} men Sk<              e64p4 a4                     w ag vM&yf M . N h pp F:;                                                                                                           K,W@ng~ygygW M                                                                                                               jdBMPQ v
+own synm bk hl payqn m-h y nh h0 M
-o m e m @a m w@w%%w[mw a m@m m 4      ,
+h hk q Q d W $d% g %n $ d h M % N 8 W@ u$ M W 'yp}W p"Q M S b J ?kW2 TO BJWHITE Q,d4%8_8d/(J V
-&s&hf&hh&mgdh                     f     fh     ~If                          QM'iS Ah                                                                                                     mn                  nma                     w      w) ep g,ogMm                     g;hh&'*                M [%g'gl.hjf,QfW?? .' w ge                                                                                                kk                                       R f~ ?l . pj ; [* :                                                        . md<         g ghlyl
+$@flM h@M d$h Q%%%M7 MF g d
-                                                                                                  ;                                                                          4
+%$n$e$ n%.
-%.p%m y L
+xd M r
-, w:s I
+M/S T-2E26 n
-    <
+,;#f9,u %g % N M
-                  .n hkgnw;4yg,gq;/pp, u e. q :e bx n ,- A           s As     an .
+%eWMYt&" %pf%,i &g, -Qp3 +M MQ9Vg#@WnpiV 2 m
-                                                                                  ~     ~
+WT 4 M:W.
-m .f.g e>
+-7'30 d?p M < % W ning!
-         .              s cw
+Mw %,
-                                                                                                                        ,  p &cp<w,g,,q i,       A te
+^
-                                                                                                                                                   .w  g    no A;pW+w w 34.-l n p              t              x-
+WW tf #W9...-. N Awm4w[w w.w wxmwm} men Sk< e64p4o m e m @a m w@w%%w[mw a m@m m M
-                                                                                                                                                                                                                            &m m,   b a'v Wg         -     wl}w&:flmg.f
+&s&hf&hh&mgdh QM'iS w ag v &yf M.
-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                .-          pm/%gt e       q3ggegg psa       ;
+N h pp F:;
-r 0NNkYbW? g                                                                                           u                      i>a                                ~
+K,W@ng gygW M jdBMPQ v
-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      + p$ Y - sgp   n,.
+a4 4
-w
+mn nma w w) g A;pW+w &m wl}w&:flm pm/%gt Ah
-                                                                                                                                   <                                                                                                                                                                                                               4 NNhjNM@&n YhWb> W$$$ag;yy~%
+~y gMm g;hh&'*
-n NfN&                                                                                                  % k $ NOW 5 NN' +% Nj ..
+f fh ~If
-WSB;30044845xMhl!        g< , ,;                                            O s VW W, ~ l 'd h& m s
+. m g g lyl M [%g'gl.hjf,QfW??
+kk R
+f~ ?l. j ; [* :
+.' w ge d< h ep g,o 4
+hkgnw;4yg,gq;/pp, m.f.g e> p &cp<w,g,,q 34.- n p
+%.p%m y bx p
+r b a'v q3 egg psa u e. q :e As ~ ~.
+.n L
+s
+NNhjNM@&n YhWb> W$$$ag;yy~% g<,,;
+w i, A
+.w l
+m, s
+t
+x
+, w:s Wg -
+g.f n,- A
++ p$ Y - sgp gg 4
+e I
+cw te no u
+i>a an.
+NfN&
+NNkYbW? g n,.
+w n &a & n& m% N M W Ork:;O WI R N 6 MlE?.
+~
+% k $ NOW 5 NN' +% Nj..
+v r.yw e n n
 s
-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            $hrL. !
++
-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                +        v r.yw e n i UWQ PN" c n
+$hrL. !
-% &a & n& m%                                   m                =Q6 M
+i UWQ PN" c O s VW WSB;30044845xMhl! W, ~ l 'd h& m N
-N M cQ*               W Ork:;O                        ffig                          WI R N 6 MlE?.m wfb n                                                                                                            W S, m % N                                   w
+s fMTWMll%a%m &m_% w w w : w x a m wfb W S, m % w m =Q6 cQ* ffig
-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 ~   b     1 M ay                                     %?
+~ b 1 M
-fMTWMll%a%m &m_% w w w : w x a                      g                                                                      w           MW                     MW M
+n M hdMAMMMM~ ~jdOR2Nya 4 W,MMW@ffi % W my%)
-go@MMxp!A w ran hdMAMMMM~                                   ,
+%?
-mm
+g C
-                                                                                        ~jdOR2Nya    C   .
+go@MMxp!A M
-ww Mn- $ Ww$,M$rMkW+
+w MW MW M $ Ww$,M$rMkW+ %u,$n$o,ogh4 W s W g' %
-we,nm              4a W,MMW@ffi                                om 4 %u,$n$o,ogh4
+ay ww we,nm om a
-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  . ,M ~ 4 "m" $a;9 a                                %    y n$n$m W my%)
+"m" $a y n$n$m <
-j: W s                  <-nW
+.,M ~ 4
-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 <t ,$ g' %
+;9 j:
-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ~                            -
+w ran mm
-                           ?
+<t n-a
-v&xggwpe                    x; a                            5
+-n
-                                                                                                      .y
+~
-:                         p.+7 h
+?
-:n..t nqw.s>ya ,p.9 yy ~, .
+h
-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       ', ~
+a
+, n_%qpt.,yp w; 3 ;; M@.,f LR$_kvple,,MDNe:mMWWPM i M.e -
 ll
-                                 , n_%qpt                        .,yp w;m3 ;; M@.,f LR$_kvple,,MDNe:mMWWPM                                                                                                                                                              M W_i a;p         M.e     gy -
+.y
-:vww s
+:n..t v&xggwpe nqw.s>ya,p.9 yy ~,.
-uhhkh        %ymhf                    h        LOCATION?
+~
-q'<t.y*ff, w w)%'q I lI. -    JP :x s.
+x; p.+7 uhhkh hf h
-M j M :y,.$^m1 s
+LOCATION?
-                                           ;b n,y rJ1+- m; y
+M W_ a;p gy s
-S y'h'.
+:vww w ' w_Mj@=!W%a
-                                                                                       -m.
+%ym yM gww w hq,k.s;im%%..''',E m; W:f.OLW' sh m
-W:f.OLW'                       'sh .u  G v.
+n,y rJ1+-
-                                                                                                                                        ^
+S
-                                                                                                                                              ..-d      w-m     -        .
+-m.
-s .: : . '> ..#u. V (A i$,p;$
+f w w)%'q :y,.$^m1 M
-J
+w-m -
-                                                                                                                                                                                                                              >   m.
+#u. V
-w5p*                <
+> w5p*
-~% :e      g          w          '  w_Mj@=!W%a
+q'<t.y m.
-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  %'%wAm:q6. ,c m                                ~
+i J 11~% :e
-mydp'5L',nyM          gpp.wgww             w hq,k.s;im%%..''',E
+%'%wAm:q6.
-                                                        ''q   w    w-                                             'i 3              .%                                                                     s
+,c
-                                                                                         !t                                                                ~''O'-                                                    yL N:L- d s,.,~     %                                       *
+~
-                                  #n(g' yyg: .*                                                 *'a i
+, q. ' f,... D ' / 4~ u M, y g-. [ h' >m s.a%}g4s%' 'i f 4 Ig g
-iQ
+^
-                                                                                                                , q. ' f. p.$            ,....'- D ' /mu               4~wys       u M,. .g                    y g-.o$[u%p/                   h' >m       M.x s.a%}g4s%'
+'.u v.
-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ;. ,' c}sp:~u .m. ~ vy'i,o. f. f-4                            f Ig g L
+..-d s.: :
-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                '#                                           -YJ myw&
+*f,
-T kl[  -  :. h'  n    s''    4                                         f
+m J
-                                                                                                                                                                                                                  ..a y ,4                       J sq   9#'^'N N: #-'N      .h n               4                           <w                                                                                                                                              :
+. p.$.'-
-I/h' x,>         tg&
+~''O'-
-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ,1 y y-mh q(l$&ym hN s? khffh,hlm[ Yh?w
+(A i$,p;$
-                                                                                                                                                                                                                             +
+I lI. -
-lm?W                                      y                                             N     ~   f.         7           %x                      , l                 m                                    Y0                                                   y{c k                +$<        ,
+s.
-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             'h
+g
-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            !!    m$h               *l(3&f;$,f
+;b iQ
-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              ,1
+*'a M j s
-                                                                                                                                            , 0~ k5 pfS?w? ysly$n$5:                                                                                                 ff Y
+#n(g' yyg:.*
-$, ,n& ,&e              kh y &m&wfh[w~flrl@m[                                                                                                  .
+''q w w-y'h'.
-w                                  -
+! t y
-                                                                                                    ~?..p p??W          + -
+G
-:$no?            s 0k W nm             , w&a$..m& l? w, .?j , -[wel$m,                                                          4A lh   Yghh            .                            O+h                                                                             >, la%:ff                        ~?W?0 s f
+'i 3 L
-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     , a, ym WdM ft                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       h m                                          $$ n 2
+JP :x s
-@W@Q                                    M@a                           m 9810150045 m             u       981001 a         s         m                 ~      w            w             a              m                   ~        m                e                                     wW                " *aWW
+yL mydp'5L',n gpp.w N:L-d f
-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  '              gm' l %K                                                                                                                                                                                           n                v        t            /l           q'           1@"                              M'                 M MnNwg.           Q d % Wj             M $ Da?v, PDR                ACRS g;@>7     Ofk'/ 'Q[G                      M            ''u'<                                 L dW '                                 "
+u%p/ M.x ;.,' c}sp:~u.. ~ vy.. - I/h' tg&
-g, f"Q 's l                                                                                ,
+f,>
-T-3054                                                        PDR G, g< ~-- - (n                      Cy D I                       -     I p  g             .,,,r.     .
+,1 kl[ - :. h' n s''
-rg,f  gg , g f t'_', y   .
+s,.,~
-                                                                                           %f       { a.          (& M M/M  ..n j     .$ 2      d  u. y
+#'^'N N: #-'N
-                                                                                                                                                                  ., k ta           n.'
+.h f
-                                                                                                                                                                                    "O-g p%x'         r..,<34 8
+-YJ T
-N f
+..a y,4 o$
-a.'.hI' M h E 6 @ M $' SW ' gANN'fiRILEY'' WMSS' O'C'IATES/LTD4 y, ff.,, %Qg
+myw&
-{                                     -,
+m q(l$&ym s? khffh,hlm[ Yh?w N f. 7 sq mu wys..g y-h n
-jJ gsm-                       g
-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              %.          =[-
+<w lm?W hN y
-b g                                     mwaydgg                                                        smo2sywashinktonin                       conneueaw,so%m                                                                                                     >
+k5 pfS?w? ysly$n$5: ff Y y{c
-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        , Am?ge eJ,7,J_ -.
+$,,n&,&e y &m&wfh[w~flrl@m[
-e          %          g       +       g@                  g         g:t            '    %            M4       w            w            w              &
++
-w scw                                                                                   ws,umgew.ch200MW & "nwwww                                                                                                                                            W                  9 wDO         swn;mn                       m<x s a amn%                                                                                 n,- >x                                                                                                                                c                                (                                                    n~
+, m$h *l(3&f;$,f m
-                                                                                                                                                        ~J n,h"                                                           byM4 bp %nA aASNNN r                                                                                 ' s+e n.gwg3kNh.                                   7 n% me ,hhMM c ..
+,o x
-hhd                                           a                                            -$C [ I k h h hh h,, m h
+,1 Y0 0k W
-n e
++$< !!
-a . . e.
+%x l
-Mk
+'h k
-           @ n[k h h Nf kmm  _% we(n }f$e[a                          k hd                  dM M~ yid;~p ~ M9Ns~                            ,
+y
-                                                                                                                                                                                            ~ .
+~
-                                                                                                                                                                                                                       ~Wi     - =  )               h[=[=* i %h ,,
+~?..p p??W :$no?
-* 9%$.. lit.)-         - - -
+s m
+kh nm, w&a$..m& l? w,.?j, -[wel$m, w
+ft lh Yghh.
+O+h la%: ~?W? s fh
+, 0~
+, a, 4A
++ -
+ff 0
+$$ n 2 ym n v t /l q' 1@" M' M
+@W@Q M@a m m u a s m ~ w w a m ~ m e wW ' a gm' m
+WdM 9810150045 981001 M ''u'<
+l
+%K PDR ACRS
+"
+* WW M N Q d % Wj $ Da?v,
+.,,,r.
+rg,f gg, g f t'_',
+g Ofk [G Q 's L dW '
+l (n D 6
+M T-3054 PDR n.' ;@>7 g p%x' '/ 'Q, f" gsm-G, g< ~-- -
+=[-
+g Cy f a.'.hI' M h E 6 @ M $' S jJ W '
+%f gANN'fiRILEY'' WMSS' O'C'IATES/LTD4 y, ff.,,
+n wg.
+I I
+p
+g y
+{ a.
+(& M M/M
+..n j
+.$ 2 d
+u.
+"O-r..,<34 b
+y
+., k ta
+{
+N
+, Am?ge eJ,7,J_ -.
+g e % g + g@ g g:t ' % w w w &
+%Qg mway smo2s conneueaw,so%m g
+scw dgg M4 ywashinktonin W
+wDO mn ws,umgew.ch200MW & "nwwww swn; m< s w
+x
+(
+n.gwg3kNh. n% me,hhMM
+' s+e a n%
+n,- >x
+~J n,h by 4bp % A aASNNN c..
+c n~
+am r
+hhd
+$C[ I kh hhh h,, m "
+M n @ n[k h h a
+% we(n }f$e[a ~ ~
+~.
+~Wi )
+h[=[=* i %h,,
+* 9%$. -
+h Mk n
+Nf k k hd dM M~ yid; p M9N e.. e.
+mm s~
+- =
+. lit.)
+a
 O DISCLAIMER UNITED STATES NUCLEAR' REGULATORY COMMISSION'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS OCTOBER 1, 1998 i
 The contents of this transcript of the proceeding of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Advisory
-((~h Committee on Reactor Safeguards, taken on October 1, 1998, V
+((~h Committee on Reactor Safeguards, taken on October 1,
+: 1998, V
 as reported herein, is a record of the discussions recorded at the meeting held on the above date.
 This transcript had not been reviewed, corrected and edited and it may contain inaccuracies.
 O
-l 212 l           1                        . UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
+l
+l 1
+. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
 [~}
-          .2                       NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION                             l
+.2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-    %_/                                                                                      l 3'                ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 4                                               ***
+%_/
-                   MEETING:      456TH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 6                           ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS l                                                                                            1 7
+' ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 4
-                                           U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9                                        '2 White Flint l
+MEETING:
--                                           Rockville, Maryland 11                                            Thursday, October 1, 1998 12 13                 The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 8:30 14   a.m.
+TH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 6
-I    15   MEMBERS PRESENT:
+ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS l
+8
+U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9
+'2 White Flint l
+-Rockville, Maryland 11 Thursday, October 1, 1998 12 13 The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 8:30 14 a.m.
+I 15 MEMBERS PRESENT:
 V
-        '16                 ROBERT L. SEALE, Chairman, ACRS 17                 GEORGE E. APOSTOLAKIS, Member, ACRS 18                 JOHN J. BARTON, Member, ACRS 19                 MARIO H. FONTANA, Member, ACRS 20                 THOMAS KRESS, Member, ACRS 21                 DON MILLER, Member, ACRS 22                 DANA A. POWERS, Member, ACRS 23                 WILLIAM J. SHACK, Member, ACRS 24                 ROBERT E. UHRIG, Member, ACRS 25                 GRAHAM B. WALLIS, Member, ACRS
+'16 ROBERT L.
-    /                           ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+SEALE, Chairman, ACRS 17 GEORGE E. APOSTOLAKIS, Member, ACRS 18 JOHN J. BARTON, Member, ACRS 19 MARIO H.
-Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+FONTANA, Member, ACRS 20 THOMAS KRESS, Member, ACRS 21 DON MILLER, Member, ACRS 22 DANA A.
+POWERS, Member, ACRS 23 WILLIAM J.
+SHACK, Member, ACRS 24 ROBERT E. UHRIG, Member, ACRS 25 GRAHAM B. WALLIS, Member, ACRS
+/
+ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-          , --         .             ..   , , . . . . . - - . . . . .      .~. . -        . . . . _ . . . . . . - . . _ . - .      . _ . _ . . . . .. ,...
+.~.. -
-213
-                    -1:
+-1:
-. t O  j.
+O 2
-                                                                                                                                                              .
+. t j.
-U                                                                                                                                                                            l 3
+U 3
- ,                   4 5
+5
+6.
-: 6.                                                                                                                                                             I l
 i
-;-                   8 9
+9
+11 s
-,                  11 s
+4
-12 13'
+'
- .                .14 4
+.14 4
-(             15
+(
-.                  16 17 1;
+16 17 1;
-20 21 22
+20 21 22 23 24
-*'                23 24
+[
-[                 25 i
+i
-     ,                                                        ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
- ;                                                                                 Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
-   ,      , , , ,        -   . - , ,    n n.            ~           ,   . - - - ,--      r -v ..
+(202) 842-0034 n
-: r.  - - -         - .,       re                , , ,   ,
+n.
+~
+r -v r.
+re
-       ,    .    . . . - . . .           -_ , _ , . _ - . _ _ = - . . - .. -                    -. _ - . - .                  . ~ - -
+-_, _,. _ -. _ _ = -.. -.. -
+. ~ - -
 l l
-L                                                                                                                 '214 1-                                        PROCEEDINGS I          2
+L
-     )                                                                                                    [8:30 a.m.]
+'214 1-PROCEEDINGS I
-          '3                     CHAIRMAN SEALE:                             The meeting will now come to i
-order.           This is the second day of the 456th meeting of the 5  Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.
+)
-                    During today's meeting the committee will consider j'         7  the following:            lessons learned from the independent safety 8  assessment of the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station and L          9  associated generic safety implications; format and content                                                              ,
+[8:30 a.m.]
-  of ACRS reports to the Congress and the Commission; report l        11   of the Planning and Procedures Subcommittee, future ACRS 12   activities; and proposed ACRS reports.
+'3 CHAIRMAN SEALE:
-'                     A portion of today's meeting may be closed to 14   discuss organizational and personnel matters that relate
+The meeting will now come to i
-()    15 16 solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of this Advisory Committee and matters the release of which would 17   constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal 18   privacy.
+order.
-                     This meeting is being conducted in accordance with 20   the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and 21   Dr. John Larkins is the Designated Federal Official for the 22   initial part of the meeting.
+This is the second day of the 456th meeting of the 5
-                     We received no written statements or requests for 24   time to make oral statements from members of the public i        25'  regarding today's sessions.                                      A transcript of portions of the 1
+Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.
+During today's meeting the committee will consider j'
+the following:
+lessons learned from the independent safety 8
+assessment of the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station and L
+associated generic safety implications; format and content 10 of ACRS reports to the Congress and the Commission; report l
+of the Planning and Procedures Subcommittee, future ACRS 12 activities; and proposed ACRS reports.
+' A portion of today's meeting may be closed to 14 discuss organizational and personnel matters that relate
+()
+solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of this 16 Advisory Committee and matters the release of which would 17 constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal 18 privacy.
+This meeting is being conducted in accordance with 20 the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and 21 Dr. John Larkins is the Designated Federal Official for the 22 initial part of the meeting.
+We received no written statements or requests for 24 time to make oral statements from members of the public i
+' regarding today's sessions.
+A transcript of portions of the 1
 (
 l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
-   \                                                 Court Reporters i
+\\
-Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+Court Reporters i
+Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-,.             -        . ,,              .     , .-            ,    .           ~ . -.. - .       .-. .     . . - . . - . - - -
+~. -.. -.
-1:       meeting is.being kept and it is requested that the speakers 2        use one of the microphones, identify themselves, and speak b(~N .
+1:
-:3       -with= sufficient clarity and volume so that they can be                                                l
+meeting is.being kept and it is requested that the speakers b(~N.
-(:                   4        readily heard.
+use one of the microphones, identify themselves, and speak
-                       Are there any special announcements that we need                                       l 6-       to make.before we get started with the agenda?
+:3
-I l                   .7                         (:No response.]
+-with= sufficient clarity and volume so that they can be
-'                      ' CHAIRMAN SEALE: ' Sam, do you' nave anything?
+(:
-                     'MR. DURAISWAMY:             -No,         sir'.
+readily heard.
-l                :10                          CHAIRMAN SEALE:             Any of the members have. comments
+Are there any special announcements that we need 6-to make.before we get started with the agenda?
-: 11'        or things they would like to call to our attention?
+I l
-l 12'                         [:No response.]
+.7
--                        CHAIRMAN-SEALE:             That not being the case, the 14         first' thing on the agenda is the lessons learned from the
+(:No response.]
-   ' (-            15'        independent safety assessment of the Maine Yankee Atomic
+'
-                  -16         Power Station and associated generic safety implications.
+' CHAIRMAN SEALE: ' Sam, do you' nave anything?
-                      -Tom, you are the Chairman of that subcommittee so l                  18         I will ask you to introduce our speakers.
-I 19                         DR. KRESS:          Okay.         Well, first, just a little bit 20         of background for the members.
+'MR. DURAISWAMY:
-                        Maine Yankee problems started with an anonymous 22         allegation back in '95.                  This allegation was that there was 23         inadequate analyses of the emergency core cooling systems l                  24         and containment in support of a power uprate, and I don't 25         know what exactly the inadequacies were -- maybe we will ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+-No, sir'.
-     *O                                                       Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014
+l
-!                                                      Washington, D.C. 20036 l                                                              (202) 842-0034 i
+:10 CHAIRMAN SEALE:
-t  , - - - , - -                -   . = .               - - .      -       . . , .           - , - ,     ,a.             --      --
+Any of the members have. comments l
+: 11' or things they would like to call to our attention?
+'
+[:No response.]
+-CHAIRMAN-SEALE:
+That not being the case, the 14 first' thing on the agenda is the lessons learned from the
+' (-
+' independent safety assessment of the Maine Yankee Atomic
+-16 Power Station and associated generic safety implications.
+-Tom, you are the Chairman of that subcommittee so l
+I will ask you to introduce our speakers.
+I 19 DR. KRESS:
+Okay.
+Well, first, just a little bit 20 of background for the members.
+Maine Yankee problems started with an anonymous 22 allegation back in
+'95.
+This allegation was that there was 23 inadequate analyses of the emergency core cooling systems l
+and containment in support of a power uprate, and I don't 25 know what exactly the inadequacies were -- maybe we will
+*O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+l
+(202) 842-0034 i
+t
+. =.
+c
+,a.
-  ,         . - _ .       . . - . . - ~ . ~ - . ~ ~ . . . - . - - . . - - . . . . .                            - . . _ . -         . . - . . . - - . .
+.. -.. - ~. ~ -. ~ ~... -. - -.. - -.....
-1      ' find that out'today in these' analyses, but the Staff put
+1
-:?/~y                  2       together a team and did confirm that the allegation was true
+' find that out'today in these' analyses, but the Staff put
-,Q 3       and that they clearly had broader implications in areas like 4-      what is the code validation and review process that NRC has 5'      and how do they go about reviewing amendments and tracking                                                              1 6       of compliance commitments that are in SERs, maybe even'the 7'      review guidance for uprates and'in general the inspection-8       and audit program, so it has implications.and so this is a                                                              l l                      9       generic thing.                           It's not just Maine Yankee.          It's what does 10        this mean with respect to the way we go about'doing 11        business.
+:?/~y 2
-                                NRC did put together a review team and came~out
+together a team and did confirm that the allegation was true
-                    -13        with a report that you'have in your package or had sent-to 14        you.           It has a number of what I thought were good
+,Q 3
-()               15;       recommendations and the Staff put together an action plan.to 16-       implement some of those, and I think today I gather we are
+and that they clearly had broader implications in areas like 4-what is the code validation and review process that NRC has 5'
-: 17.       having -- this is just a briefing and it's probably on the 18        status of this action.
+and how do they go about reviewing amendments and tracking 1
-                                So with that as a short introduction, I will turn 20        it over to John Zwolinski to introduce the Staff.
+of compliance commitments that are in SERs, maybe even'the 7'
-                                MR. ZWOLINSKI:                  Thank you very much.       I am John 22        Zwolinski.                    I am the Acting Director for the Division of 23        Reactor Projects for Regions I and II.
+review guidance for uprates and'in general the inspection-8 and audit program, so it has implications.and so this is a l
-:24                                With me are Dan Dorman, our Technical Assistant.
+l 9
-:25-        Dan was responsible for the plant as the Project Manager for ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+generic thing.
-I (/~^)
+It's not just Maine Yankee.
-     ,,                                                                         Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+It's what does 10 this mean with respect to the way we go about'doing 11 business.
+NRC did put together a review team and came~out
+-13 with a report that you'have in your package or had sent-to 14 you.
+It has a number of what I thought were good
+()
+; recommendations and the Staff put together an action plan.to 16-implement some of those, and I think today I gather we are 17.
+having -- this is just a briefing and it's probably on the 18 status of this action.
+So with that as a short introduction, I will turn 20 it over to John Zwolinski to introduce the Staff.
+MR. ZWOLINSKI:
+Thank you very much.
+I am John 22 Zwolinski.
+I am the Acting Director for the Division of 23 Reactor Projects for Regions I and II.
+:24 With me are Dan Dorman, our Technical Assistant.
+:25-Dan was responsible for the plant as the Project Manager for I (/~^)
+ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-    - - . .      . ~ ,,_-.      .--.-_                        ..        . . .    - -       . . - _ - . - _ - _ - .        . . . . . .
+. ~,,_-.
-1   the last two and a half years; also Ralph Caruso from our
+1
-            ]               2   Reactor Systems Branch that would be able to get into a 3   level of detail associated with some of the questions we 4   think are of interest to the committee.
+the last two and a half years; also Ralph Caruso from our
-                      Before I get started, I would like to thank you 6   all for the opportunity to afford us the opportunity to 7-  bring you current on activities and efforts underway in 8   regards to Maine Yankee lessons learned.
+]
-                      You may have seen the materials provided the 10   actual lessons. learned numbered on the order of 33 items.
+Reactor Systems Branch that would be able to get into a 3
-  We-have completed on the order of about 20 of those.                               We are 12-  going to get.into some detail as to what is embodied-in 13   those.
+level of detail associated with some of the questions we 4
-                      To give you a little bit of perspective, when the
+think are of interest to the committee.
-(             15   allegation was first received in December of 1995 both Dan 16   and myself were asked to get more deeply involved in this 17    particular project.               We were deeply involved in the order 18    that was issued over the -- on January 3rd of 1996 19    essentially derating the plant by about 10 percent power for 20    the next cycle of operation and through 1996 there are a 21    variety of activities that we will get into.
+Before I get started, I would like to thank you 6
-                       I think being dedicated to the facility, 23    representing NRR, and assisting Region I for the last couple 24    of yearc we have gotten into a lot of controversial issues.
+all for the opportunity to afford us the opportunity to 7-bring you current on activities and efforts underway in 8
-   The entire project is now at a point where we are L
+regards to Maine Yankee lessons learned.
+You may have seen the materials provided the 10 actual lessons. learned numbered on the order of 33 items.
+We-have completed on the order of about 20 of those.
+We are 12-going to get.into some detail as to what is embodied-in 13 those.
+To give you a little bit of perspective, when the
+(
+allegation was first received in December of 1995 both Dan 16 and myself were asked to get more deeply involved in this 17 particular project.
+We were deeply involved in the order 18 that was issued over the -- on January 3rd of 1996 19 essentially derating the plant by about 10 percent power for 20 the next cycle of operation and through 1996 there are a 21 variety of activities that we will get into.
+I think being dedicated to the facility, 23 representing NRR, and assisting Region I for the last couple 24 of yearc we have gotten into a lot of controversial issues.
+The entire project is now at a point where we are L
 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
-g                                                  Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014
+g Court Reporters
-(. '                                                      Washington, D.C. 20036
+(. '
-!.                                                               (202) 842-0034
+Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-l                                                                                         218 L
+l 218 L
-l            1-   considering enforcement and that is still predecisional-2-   information that has not been released yet, but there have 3
+l 1-considering enforcement and that is still predecisional-2-
-been corollary activities to what we intend to present today 4    that.have taken an extensive amount of Staff time.
+information that has not been released yet, but there have 3
-               With that as just an abbreviated overview, I'd ask 6    Dan Dorman-to start our presentation.
+been corollary activities to what we intend to present today 4
-               MR. DORMAN:           Thank you, John.        Good morning,
+that.have taken an extensive amount of Staff time.
-            -8    gentlemen.
+With that as just an abbreviated overview, I'd ask 6
-              'Just briefly, the areas that we are going to 10     discuss I will fill in a little bit more as to how the 11     issues evolved during 1996.               I will give you a high level 12     overview of the 11 issues that were defined in a tasking L          13     memo to the Staff in November of '96 that grew into the 33 14     subissues that are in the report.that you have, (Jr')
+Dan Dorman-to start our presentation.
-                I will briefly talk about what we are doing on the 16     power uprate issues and then I will turn it over to Ralph 17     Caruso, who has a brief presentation regarding some of the 18     analytical code issues.
+MR. DORMAN:
-                As Dr. Kress mentioned, this activity was 20     essentially initiated by an allegation that the Staff 21     received in December of 1995.               The Staff did a preliminary
+Thank you, John.
-: 22. investigation in early to mid-December of 1995 that L          23     identified some substantial concerns with the small break i
+Good morning,
-~    LOCA analysis that had been done for the Maine Yankee Atomic 25     Power Station for Cycle 15 operations, which began in
+-8 gentlemen.
-!                                 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
-L ((~
+'Just briefly, the areas that we are going to 10 discuss I will fill in a little bit more as to how the 11 issues evolved during 1996.
-L Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 j                                                (202) 842-0034
+I will give you a high level 12 overview of the 11 issues that were defined in a tasking L
+memo to the Staff in November of '96 that grew into the 33 14 subissues that are in the report.that you have, (Jr')
+I will briefly talk about what we are doing on the 16 power uprate issues and then I will turn it over to Ralph 17 Caruso, who has a brief presentation regarding some of the 18 analytical code issues.
+As Dr. Kress mentioned, this activity was 20 essentially initiated by an allegation that the Staff 21 received in December of 1995.
+The Staff did a preliminary 22.
+investigation in early to mid-December of 1995 that L
+identified some substantial concerns with the small break i
+~
+LOCA analysis that had been done for the Maine Yankee Atomic 25 Power Station for Cycle 15 operations, which began in L (~
+ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+(
+Court Reporters L
+Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+j
+(202) 842-0034
-           .      _ _ .      .._.          . . .                   -    __     .         _ _ . _ . _ . - . _ _ _ - - ._.           ..-..._.m-219                 j 1:
+..-..._.m-219 j
-      : January of       '96.
+:
-              "2                     .In addition to the order that was issued by.the 3        Staff limiting power of'the facility in January'of 1996 the 4        Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation initiated an internal                                                                   j
-               -5        lessons learned review to look at analytical code issues, to                                                               R 1
+: January of
-l
+'96.
-              '6        .look at' power uprate review process, and also, because the
+"2
-               .7        small break LOCA issues were directly associated with the
+.In addition to the order that was issued by.the 3
-              .8         resolution of small-break LOCA-related TMI action items for 1
+Staff limiting power of'the facility in January'of 1996 the 4
-        Maine Yankee, this review also looked at how the Staff had                                                                   !
+Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation initiated an internal j
-         addressed the closure of small break LOCA issues for all of                                                                  l l
+-5 lessons learned review to look at analytical code issues, to R
-         the plants.
+'6
-                      DR. UHRIG:                 Was this peculiar to Cycle 15 or was L
+.look at' power uprate review process, and also, because the
-l            13          this a generic problem?                                                                                                      l l
+.7 small break LOCA issues were directly associated with the
-                     MR. DORMAN:                     The issue for Maine Yankee was                                                  i
+.8 resolution of small-break LOCA-related TMI action items for 9
+Maine Yankee, this review also looked at how the Staff had 10 addressed the closure of small break LOCA issues for all of 11 the plants.
+DR. UHRIG:
+Was this peculiar to Cycle 15 or was L
+l l
+this a generic problem?
+MR. DORMAN:
+The issue for Maine Yankee was i
 ()
-15'         peculiar to Cycles 14 and'15 for Maine Yankee.
+' peculiar to Cycles 14 and'15 for Maine Yankee.
-                      DR ~. KRESS:               What were the actual inadequacies?
+DR ~. KRESS:
-                      MR. DORMAN:                    The principal issue involved the 18          analysis across the full small break spectrum.                                                  When the 19          licensee performed the small break LOCA analysis using the 20          RELAP 5 YA code, which had been developed by Yankee Atomic 21          for Maine Yankee and some other licensees that Yankee 22          provided services for, when they did the analysis for Maine 23          Yankee when they got up to a break size of .35 square feet 24          the output of the code was unstable following safety 25          injection actuation at that break size.
+What were the actual inadequacies?
-(~N                                              ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+MR. DORMAN:
-(,,)                                                    Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 t
+The principal issue involved the 18 analysis across the full small break spectrum.
-I       ._        , _ ,         __     . . _ . _ . ,     _   _ , _               ._ __ .                                        _         _ _ , . _
+When the 19 licensee performed the small break LOCA analysis using the 20 RELAP 5 YA code, which had been developed by Yankee Atomic 21 for Maine Yankee and some other licensees that Yankee 22 provided services for, when they did the analysis for Maine 23 Yankee when they got up to a break size of.35 square feet 24 the output of the code was unstable following safety 25 injection actuation at that break size.
+(~N ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+(,,)
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034 t
+I
-~                       -     - . . .     . . . - .         ..   -.              .    .  .   . - - - ..
+~
-l'              At that point the analysts at Yankee Atomic made a
+l'
-  /''%    2  determination that they were already seeing the peak V       3  cladding temperatures coming down, therefore they concluded 4  that they had identified the limiting break and the peak 5  cladding temperature and did not continue to analyze higher 6  in the break spectrum.
+At that point the analysts at Yankee Atomic made a
-              The Staff's approval of the code had been for a 8  spectrum up to .7 square feet.                     The previous licensed 9  analysis for Maine Yankee had identified the limiting break 10  size of .5 square feet, so they had not analyzed.or 11  demonstrated capable of analyzing for that portion of the 12  spectrum for this code.
+/''%
-              DR. KRESS:           Was it just bad judgment on their part
+determination that they were already seeing the peak V
-        .14  or --
+cladding temperatures coming down, therefore they concluded 4
+that they had identified the limiting break and the peak 5
-(                       MR. DORMAN:              I think that's -- that's I think 16  where the Staff has come down is that the people who were 17  doing this were somewhat isolated from industry and what the 18  practices of the industry were and what the expectations of 19  the agency were in this area.                     They made a judgment and we 20  substantially disagreed with that judgment.
+cladding temperature and did not continue to analyze higher 6
-              DR. WALLIS:             Maybe it was exasperation with the 22  code.
+in the break spectrum.
--              MR. DORMAN:             Exasperation on the part of the f  24  Yankee analysts?
+The Staff's approval of the code had been for a 8
-              DR. WALLIS:             Well, the code -- the code was
+spectrum up to
-("'s                        ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+.7 square feet.
-(,)                                    Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+The previous licensed 9
+analysis for Maine Yankee had identified the limiting break 10 size of
+.5 square feet, so they had not analyzed.or 11 demonstrated capable of analyzing for that portion of the 12 spectrum for this code.
+DR. KRESS:
+Was it just bad judgment on their part
+.14 or --
+(
+MR. DORMAN:
+I think that's -- that's I think 16 where the Staff has come down is that the people who were 17 doing this were somewhat isolated from industry and what the 18 practices of the industry were and what the expectations of 19 the agency were in this area.
+They made a judgment and we 20 substantially disagreed with that judgment.
+DR. WALLIS:
+Maybe it was exasperation with the 22 code.
+-MR. DORMAN:
+Exasperation on the part of the f
+Yankee analysts?
+DR. WALLIS:
+Well, the code -- the code was
+("'s ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+(,)
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-                                                                -..     . . - ..    -      ~ . -    .-     . . -.
+~. -
 l 221 1
-         supposed to be a tool which would give results, and I i
+supposed to be a tool which would give results, and I i
-   /~}
+/~}
-    %/
+understand it was unstable, and it can be very exasperating _
-         understand it was unstable, and it can be very exasperating _
+%/
-         trying to figure out why that code is behaving that way.                               1 l
+trying to figure out why that code is behaving that way.
-                           MR. DORMAN:      In addition, this was a code that 5          they had spent I believe close to a decade developing and 6          had spent         several years trying to get a good analysis for 7          the Maine Yankee plant with this code, so exasperation may 8          be a reasonable --                                                                     ,
+MR. DORMAN:
-9                            DR. WALLIS:     What kind of a plant is this?
+In addition, this was a code that 5
-                          .?Gl. DORMAN:    This is a Combustion Engineering 11-         plant.         However, practically it looks much more like a 1
+they had spent I believe close to a decade developing and 6
-         three-loop Westinghouse.
+had spent several years trying to get a good analysis for 7
-                           DR. UHRIG:     It's two-loop, isn't it?
+the Maine Yankee plant with this code, so exasperation may 8
-                           MR. DORMAN:     No, sir, it's a three-loop.
+be a reasonable --
-[     15                            MR. BOEHNERT:         It's an odd duck.
+9
-                           DR. UHRIG:     It's different than St. Lucie then.
+DR. WALLIS:
-                           MR. DORMAN:     Yes, sir.
+What kind of a plant is this?
-                           DR. WALLIS:      Is part of the problem that it is an 19          odd duck?
-               .20                            MR. DORMAN:     Not being a code expert, I can't 21          really answer how that affected the code, but I think the 22          problem was, as I understand it, was in the code, not the 23          plant.
+.?Gl. DORMAN:
-                           CHAIRMAN SEALE:         Did they ever identify the 25          reasons -- it doesn't look like something that is easily i.
+This is a Combustion Engineering 11-plant.
+However, practically it looks much more like a 1
+three-loop Westinghouse.
+DR. UHRIG:
+It's two-loop, isn't it?
+MR. DORMAN:
+No, sir, it's a three-loop.
+[
+MR. BOEHNERT:
+It's an odd duck.
+DR. UHRIG:
+It's different than St. Lucie then.
+MR. DORMAN:
+Yes, sir.
+DR. WALLIS:
+Is part of the problem that it is an 19 odd duck?
+.20 MR. DORMAN:
+Not being a code expert, I can't 21 really answer how that affected the code, but I think the 22 problem was, as I understand it, was in the code, not the 23 plant.
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+Did they ever identify the 25 reasons -- it doesn't look like something that is easily i.
 i l
-   /~N                                             ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+/~N ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
-,L 1    ,)                                                Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+Court Reporters
-                                     ..n.,                                               -      - ,
+,L,)
+Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
+..n.,
-1
+222 17 found by.a code review, like NRC went in and reviewed their 2
-17  found by.a code review, like NRC went in and reviewed their 2   code and blessed it.      Normally one of the things you don't 3  . find unless_you just exercise the code is areas where it
+code and blessed it.
-              -4   goes unstable.
+Normally one of the things you don't 3
-              MR. DORMAN:    One of the anomalies, really the 6   significant. anomaly with respect to how this Three Mile 7  -Island action plan item was closed for Maine Yankee, you 8   will recall that Item 2K330 required licensees to provide a             l 1
+. find unless_you just exercise the code is areas where it
-'  new code for analyzing small break LOCAs; 2K331 then 10    required them to provide the Commission a plant-specific 11    analysis using the approved methodology.
+-4 goes unstable.
-               For Maine Yankee the Staff approved the RELAP SYA 1
+MR. DORMAN:
-   code in January'of 1989.           Over several years following that, 14   . Maine Yankee had difficulty applying that code for the i     15    plant.
+One of the anomalies, really the 6
-               In May of 1989 the Project Manager for Maine 17    Yankee at'the time sent a letter to Maine Yankee that 18    essentially said -- I can't quote it to you off the top of 19    my head -- but essentially it said, to the Licensing 20    Manager, we had a phone conversation the other day in which
+significant. anomaly with respect to how this Three Mile 7
-:21   you told me that the code was operable and therefore 2K331 22   -in closed. Maine Yankee interpreted that to mean that they 23    did not have to submit a plant-specific analysis so the 24    Staff never reviewed a plant-specific analysis for this code H            25    for this plant until the allegation came in in 1995.
+-Island action plan item was closed for Maine Yankee, you 8
+will recall that Item 2K330 required licensees to provide a 9'
+new code for analyzing small break LOCAs; 2K331 then 10 required them to provide the Commission a plant-specific 11 analysis using the approved methodology.
+For Maine Yankee the Staff approved the RELAP SYA 13 code in January'of 1989.
+Over several years following that, 14
+. Maine Yankee had difficulty applying that code for the i
+plant.
+In May of 1989 the Project Manager for Maine 17 Yankee at'the time sent a letter to Maine Yankee that 18 essentially said -- I can't quote it to you off the top of 19 my head -- but essentially it said, to the Licensing 20 Manager, we had a phone conversation the other day in which
+:21 you told me that the code was operable and therefore 2K331 22
+-in closed.
+Maine Yankee interpreted that to mean that they 23 did not have to submit a plant-specific analysis so the 24 Staff never reviewed a plant-specific analysis for this code H
+for this plant until the allegation came in in 1995.
 I
-(''s
+(''s ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
-        \s,)
+\\s,)
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 L
+Washington, D.C.
+l
+(202) 842-0034
+.._4 223 1.
+When the: Staff went to look at-this application in
+{v'')
+:1995 and readLthe report that was provided by Yankee Atomic 2-3 to Maine Yankee,'the report. clearly identified the i
+instability at.35 square feet and'that was when the Staff began to'take' action that.resulted in the order of January, 5'
+1996'to addressLin regulatory space the uncertainty we then
+-7' had regarding the small break LOCA' analysis for Maine 8-
+. Yankee.
+'9 DR. WALLIS:
+'RELAP'was a code developed by the
+'10 Government --
+MR..DORMAN:
+Yes, sir.
+12 DR. WALLIS:
+-- paid for by the Government, in the 13 public-domain.
+.MR. DORMAN:
+Yes, sir.
+RELAP SYA was Yankee's
+-(
+developmentoof that.
+DR.'WALLIS:
+'So NRC develops a code, gives it to a 17 user and it doesn't. work and then they blame the user for i
+not working of the code.
+9 MR. CARUSO:
+The code that was being used was not u
+:
+the NRC version of the code.
+It was an NRC version that had
+.21 been modified substantially by Yankee Atomic so they had 22 made improvements of their own to the code and it was their 23 1 responsibility to determine the tool met their criteria.
+When the NRC hands out a code to a member of the
+-25 public we do not provide any guarantees that the code is l
+~'
 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
-Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 L                                     Washington, D.C. 20036 l                                          (202) 842-0034
+Court Reporters l
+Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-  .   .._4           _      -- _ . _ _ .            - . _ . . -    _.       . - _ .            . . _ . . _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _
+p 224' 1
-1
+suitable for their use.
-: 1.                     When the: Staff went to look at-this application in 2-     :1995 and readLthe report that was provided by Yankee Atomic
+''\\ '
-{v'')     .
+MR. ZWOLINSKI:
-       to Maine Yankee,'the report. clearly identified the                                                         i 4       instability at .35 square feet and'that was when the Staff 5'      began to'take' action that.resulted in the order of January,                                                l 6       1996'to addressLin regulatory space the uncertainty we then
+RELAP is' relied upon through the
-                        -7'      had regarding the small break LOCA' analysis for Maine 8-     . Yankee.
+. '(Q 3
-                        '9                      DR. WALLIS:           'RELAP'was a code developed by the
+industry -- many other applications.
-                     '10        Government --
+The RELAP SYA was the
-                       MR..DORMAN:            Yes, sir.
+-4 one that did not perform correctly and the point that-Dan is 5
-12                       DR. WALLIS:            -- paid for by the Government, in the 13       public-domain.
+.trying to make here is that 50.46, the ECCS rule, 6
-                     .MR. DORMAN:           Yes, sir.        RELAP SYA was Yankee's
+essentially.says I need to analyze through the full spectrum 7
-      -(               15       developmentoof that.
+of breaks and when it terminates at
-16                       DR.'WALLIS:           'So NRC develops a code, gives it to a 1
+.35, a flag goes up.
-       user and it doesn't. work and then they blame the user for                                                   i 18       not working of the code.
+What is occurring here? -- especially when it was l-9 originally, the safety evaluation that we originally had 10 written on this particular code set it up to
-9                       MR. CARUSO:           The code that was being used was not u                      20:      the NRC version of the code.                      It was an NRC version that had
+.7, so there 11 were anomalies in what our basic understandings were.
-                     .21        been modified substantially by Yankee Atomic so they had 22       made improvements of their own to the code and it was their 23     1 responsibility to determine the tool met their criteria.
+DR. WALLIS:
-                       When the NRC hands out a code to a member of the
+So they made improvement in the code 13 and that made it worse?
-                     -25        public we do not provide any guarantees that the code is
+MR. DORMAN:
-           ~'
+They modified the code and when they t%'
+(
+)
+applied the modified code for Maine Yankee, it exhibited 16 instability at that break size when the safety injection 17 actuation occurred.
+DR. WALLIS:
+I just wondered, it seems to me that 19 codes in use ought to be robust or the developer of RELAP 20 ought to give some guidelines about how to get out of 21 instabilities.
+-MR. ZWOLINSKI:
+Recall that our understanding of 23 Yankee Atomic's view was they had already identified the 24 limiting break for small break.
+They were coming down in 25 PCT, and it was an engineering judgment that in so many G(_)
 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
-l        -
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
-Court Reporters l                                           1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+(202) 842-0034
-p                                                                                                              224' 1  suitable for their use.
+o l;
-      ''\ '
+IL 11 wor'ds they had identified the most limiting of breaks for C'i -
-   ;           2               MR. ZWOLINSKI:                         RELAP is' relied upon through the
+small break.
-   . '(Q 3  industry -- many other applications.                            The RELAP SYA was the
-              -4  one that did not perform correctly and the point that-Dan is                                                   !
-.trying to make here is that 50.46, the ECCS rule, 6  essentially.says I need to analyze through the full spectrum                                                   )
-  of breaks and when it terminates at .35, a flag goes up.
-l' 8  What is occurring here? -- especially when it was l-             9  originally, the safety evaluation that we originally had                                                       ;
-    written on this particular code set it up to                             .7,        so there 11   were anomalies in what our basic understandings were.
-                 DR. WALLIS:                    So they made improvement in the code 13    and that made it worse?
-                 MR. DORMAN:                    They modified the code and when they t%'    15
-(   )        applied the modified code for Maine Yankee, it exhibited                                                       ;
-    instability at that break size when the safety injection 17    actuation occurred.
-                 DR. WALLIS:                    I just wondered, it seems to me that 19    codes in use ought to be robust or the developer of RELAP 20   ought to give some guidelines about how to get out of 21    instabilities.
--                MR. ZWOLINSKI:                         Recall that our understanding of 23   Yankee Atomic's view was they had already identified the 24   limiting break for small break.                             They were coming down in 25   PCT, and it was an engineering judgment that in so many ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
-G(_)                                          Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
-o                                                                                           !
-l 225     '
-IL
-!            11  wor'ds they had identified the most limiting of breaks for C'i -    2   small break.
 % )!
-              DR.-WALLIS:         This.is probably an argument.they           ,
+DR.-WALLIS:
-l 4- -usedlafter they found that they couldn't analyze the next                 'l l
+This.is probably an argument.they l
-'  size.
+-
-              MR. ZWOLINSKI:          In interviews in-1996, and we.are 7   going.back seven, eight years, yes, there was a lot of that 8   type of~ hindsight.
+-usedlafter they found that they couldn't analyze the next
-            .9:              DR. FONTANA:         Just a question out of curiosity.
+'l 5'
-l H10 '  If a licensee or someone is working with a code and it                      i 11    doesn't work properly within a range that probably should 12    have, like this one, are they required to let you know about 13    that?
+size.
-               MR. ZWOLINSKI:         There is a reporting requirement 15    in 50.46.
+MR. ZWOLINSKI:
-'               DR. FONTANA:         There is?
+In interviews in-1996, and we.are 7
-          '17                MR. ZWOLINSKI:         Yes, sir, and the reporting 18    requirements differ on how many degrees you can vary for 19:   PCT -- 20 degrees, 50 degrees.             Some are annual reports.         ,
+going.back seven, eight years, yes, there was a lot of that 8
-   Others are very short-term reports.
+type of~ hindsight.
-               DR. FONTANA:         I take it they did that.
+.9:
-               MR. ZWOLINSKI:         No, they didn't.
+DR. FONTANA:
-               DR. FONTANA:         Oh, they didn't. Thank you.
+Just a question out of curiosity.
-               MR. DORMAN:         During the period in early 1996 the 25-   Office of the Inspector General also looked into this and i
+H10 '
-l l.(    '
+If a licensee or someone is working with a code and it i
+doesn't work properly within a range that probably should 12 have, like this one, are they required to let you know about 13 that?
+MR. ZWOLINSKI:
+There is a reporting requirement 15 in 50.46.
+' DR. FONTANA:
+There is?
+'17 MR. ZWOLINSKI:
+Yes, sir, and the reporting 18 requirements differ on how many degrees you can vary for 19:
+PCT -- 20 degrees, 50 degrees.
+Some are annual reports.
+Others are very short-term reports.
+DR. FONTANA:
+I take it they did that.
+MR. ZWOLINSKI:
+No, they didn't.
+DR. FONTANA:
+Oh, they didn't.
+Thank you.
+MR. DORMAN:
+During the period in early 1996 the 25-Office of the Inspector General also looked into this and i
+l l.(
 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
-i (                                       Court Reporters L                         '1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+i (
+Court Reporters L
+'1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-I
+I i.
-: i.                                                                                            226      l
+l
-: 1.       issued a report on May 8th of-1996 which was very critical 2        of the Staff's performance in oversight of Maine Yankee.
+.
-                      As a result of that report in June of 1996, the 4        Chairman ~ established an independent safety assessment team
+issued a report on May 8th of-1996 which was very critical 2
-: 5.       to look at oversight.in the performance of Maine Yankee.                     i 6        Atomic' Power. Company.       That team consisted of 26 members-7        that included NRC Staff from offices other than NRR and                      )
+of the Staff's performance in oversight of Maine Yankee.
-       Region I who had not been involved in' oversight of Maine 9        Yankee. It also included representatives from the state of               )
+As a result of that report in June of 1996, the 4
-j 10           Maine.                                                                      '
+Chairman ~ established an independent safety assessment team 5.
-l l            11                          That team was on-site during July'and August and 12           into early September 1996 and issued their report on October
+to look at oversight.in the performance of Maine Yankee.
-:13           7th, 1996.       They briefed.the Commission on October 18th of 14          '1996.
+i 6
+Atomic' Power. Company.
+That team consisted of 26 members-7 that included NRC Staff from offices other than NRR and
+)
+Region I who had not been involved in' oversight of Maine
+)
+Yankee.
+It also included representatives from the state of j
+l 10 Maine.
+l 11 That team was on-site during July'and August and 12 into early September 1996 and issued their report on October They briefed.the Commission on October 18th of
+:13 7th, 1996.
+'1996.
 ()
-      . %./
+DR. WALLIS:
-                         DR. WALLIS:    While all this was going on -- excuse 16           me -- was there an effort to fix the code? .Was that just                   ,
+While all this was going on -- excuse
-          past history and --
+. %./
-                        MR. DORMAN:     In the order of January of 1996.the 19           Staff went back to the original licensed power level of the 20           facility into a previous analysis to demonstrate that there 21           were sufficient' margins in the previous small break LOCA 22           analysis at the previous power level to provide confidence L23           that the large break LOCA would be bounding at that power l24          level.and would dictate the operating limits for the 25           facility.
+me -- was there an effort to fix the code?.Was that just 17 past history and --
-l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+MR. DORMAN:
-L (/"'T )                                           Court Reporters 1025. Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+In the order of January of 1996.the 19 Staff went back to the original licensed power level of the 20 facility into a previous analysis to demonstrate that there 21 were sufficient' margins in the previous small break LOCA 22 analysis at the previous power level to provide confidence L23 that the large break LOCA would be bounding at that power l24 level.and would dictate the operating limits for the 25 facility.
+l l (/"'T ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+)
+Court Reporters L
+. Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-         ,        .      .  .    . .  . . .  . . - . ~ -      - .      - - . . - .. . --    . . . . - -     - .-
+.. -. ~ -
-l                                                                                                       227 1              DR. WALLIS:               The Staff made these calculations?
+l 227 1
-             ;   2              MR. DORMAN:               The Staff made these judgments and in 3   the order required the licensee to --
+DR. WALLIS:
-              DR '. WALLIS:             Made judgments?
+The Staff made these calculations?
--              MR. DORMAN:               -- do confirmatory calculations 6   before the licensee started the facility.
+MR. DORMAN:
-l                                                                                                                l 1
+The Staff made these judgments and in 3
-               The Staff did an inspection in January of '96 to                                 l 8   confirm that the calculations that the licensee then did 9   confirmed the judgments =that the Staff had made in the
+the order required the licensee to --
-: 10. order.
+DR '. WALLIS:
-              DR. WALLIS:               So they had' fixed the code by then?
+Made judgments?
-              MR. DORMAN:               No, sir. They had not fixed the 13   code --
+-MR. DORMAN:
-              DR. WALLIS:               Did they ever fix the code?
+-- do confirmatory calculations l
-   'O4         15               MR. DORMAN:               No , sir.
+before the licensee started the facility.
-'h .
+l 7
-              MR. CARUSO:               Not to our knowledge.
+The Staff did an inspection in January of '96 to 8
-              MR. DORMAN:               They went -- after the order was 18   issued in order to justify restoring the authorized power 19   level to what it was after the uprates, they went to a 20   different vendor to get a new small break LOCA analysis --
+confirm that the calculations that the licensee then did 9
-              DR. WALLIS:               With a different code?
+confirmed the judgments =that the Staff had made in the 10.
-              MR. DORMAN:               They went to a different code.
+order.
-: 23.              DR. WALLIS:               Ah, so they did get a different L              24   calculation then, which was then satisfactory.
+DR. WALLIS:
-             . MR . DORMAN:             They went to Siemens to use a l
+So they had' fixed the code by then?
+MR. DORMAN:
+No, sir.
+They had not fixed the 13 code --
+DR. WALLIS:
+Did they ever fix the code?
+'O4 15 MR. DORMAN:
+No, sir.
+'h 16 MR. CARUSO:
+Not to our knowledge.
+MR. DORMAN:
+They went -- after the order was 18 issued in order to justify restoring the authorized power 19 level to what it was after the uprates, they went to a 20 different vendor to get a new small break LOCA analysis --
+DR. WALLIS:
+With a different code?
+MR. DORMAN:
+They went to a different code.
+.
+DR. WALLIS:
+Ah, so they did get a different L
+calculation then, which was then satisfactory.
+. MR. DORMAN:
+They went to Siemens to use a l
 l
-l g "g -                          ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+l g "g -
-s f                                 Court Reporters I
+ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+s f
+Court Reporters I
 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 I
-Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 r-
+Washington, D.C.
-                                      .,          . - . .            .-             - - - .              ~.
+(202) 842-0034 r-
+~.
-_.     ..    . . . .    . . _ .   . _ _ - _ . _ . _ . _ . . _ . _ _ . ...._ ~- _                     ...-_.___.._._ _ _ _ _       ___
+. _ _ - _. _. _. _.. _. _ _....._ ~- _
-l                                                                                                       228 l'        different code, yes,' sir.
+l 228 l'
+different code, yes,' sir.
 J
-              )
+:2 In the ISA report, the ISA team identified at the
-:2                              In the ISA report, the ISA team identified at the 3         end of their report, in addition to their findings relative 4         to Maine-Yankee, they identified I believe five regulatory 5         issues and these formed the basis of the first several J
+)
-     . issues in the tasking memo of November '96                                                                    I l                                                                                                                                               1 7                               Some of the othez _ssues in that tasking memo 8         arose from questions raised by the Commission during the                                                     l 9        Commission briefing in October of '96.
+end of their report, in addition to their findings relative 4
-                                DR. WALLIS:                      I'm curious -- I'm sorry -- now there 11          was a RELAP code which ran several break sizes up to a break 12           size which it couldn't handle, and then along comes a 13           Siemens code.                        Did it re-run the old break sizes?                                       !
+to Maine-Yankee, they identified I believe five regulatory 5
-                                MR. DORMAN:                      It ran across the whole spectrum.
+issues and these formed the basis of the first several J
-                                 DR. WALLIS:                      Did it give the same answer?                          l 16                                  MR. DORMAN:                      Excuse me?
-                                 MR. ZWOLINSKI:                       It was submitted.
+. issues in the tasking memo of November '96 I
--                                 DR. WALLIS:                      It was submitted.        How different was i
+l 1
-           the answer?
+Some of the othez _ssues in that tasking memo 8
-                                MR. DORMAN:                       It was submitted and the answer was                   i
+arose from questions raised by the Commission during the 9
-                   -21          .very close to --
+Commission briefing in October of
-l 22                                 DR. WALLIS:                       It la?
+'96.
-                                MR. DORMAN:                       -- what the RELAP SYA gave and that 12 4        -code, in that plant-specific application of the code xere
+DR. WALLIS:
-                                                                                                                                                )
+I'm curious -- I'm sorry -- now there 11 was a RELAP code which ran several break sizes up to a break 12 size which it couldn't handle, and then along comes a 13 Siemens code.
-          under Staff review at the time that the licensee decided to t
+Did it re-run the old break sizes?
-         /~                                                       ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+MR. DORMAN:
-i      k ,\s[                                                                      Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i
+It ran across the whole spectrum.
+DR. WALLIS:
+Did it give the same answer?
+MR. DORMAN:
+Excuse me?
+MR. ZWOLINSKI:
+It was submitted.
+-DR. WALLIS:
+It was submitted.
+How different was 19 the answer?
+MR. DORMAN:
+It was submitted and the answer was i
+-21
+.very close to --
+l 22 DR. WALLIS:
+It la?
+MR. DORMAN:
+-- what the RELAP SYA gave and that 12 4
+-code, in that plant-specific application of the code xere 25 under Staff review at the time that the licensee decided to t
+/~
+k,\\s[
+Court Reporters ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+i 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034 i
-       ,   .    ..-       ,.     ~  ~ ~        .      -. - . . . - . . - - - --- . . . . - - . - . . - . . - . . . . . -
+~
-l 229 l                'l        decommission the facility.
+~ ~
-                '2-                     DR. WALLIS:        Do you remember where the preclad                                     ;
+l 229 l
--       temperature occurred,-what size?                                                                      ,
+'l decommission the facility.
-: 4.                    MR. DORMAN:        At .15 square feet, sir.
+'2-DR. WALLIS:
-t 5                     DR. WALLIS: .So they had.been all right in l                 6        extrapolating.before?-
+Do you remember where the preclad 3-temperature occurred,-what size?
-L                    h 7                     MR. DORMAN:        In 20/20 hindsight it appears that 81       they had found the limiting break size.                                     Yes, sir.
+.
-                    MR. ZWOLINSKI:           At the time when we were.
+MR. DORMAN:
-          developing-the order, we had no confidence that they had 11          --identified the limiting break.                      The former CE code that they                      ,
+At.15 square feet, sir.
-L                                                                                                                                 i 12           had relied upon for small break had identified .5 square                                               I i
+t 5
-!             13           feet.so you have this fundamental anomaly of the code                                                l j
+DR. WALLIS:.So they had.been all right in l
-          stopping at .35, won't run at                    .5,      and I have'got a gap in 15-          the spectrum.
+extrapolating.before?-
-                       DR. WALLIS:        I understand -- also identifying a 17-          maximum is not so easy when there's uncertainty.
+L h
-                       MR. ZWOLINSKI:           That's true.
+MR. DORMAN:
-             ;19                        DR. WALLIS:        The maximum can move around quite 20           easily.
+In 20/20 hindsight it appears that they had found the limiting break size.
-l 21                        MR. ZWOLINSKI:           Yes.           But that does take us back 22           to Dan's point of when we did issue the order we did go back
+Yes, sir.
-                              ~
+9
-          to their licence power level of 2440 where we had confidence 24           that the large break would dominate and thus all our 25           operating parameters were based on the large break.
+MR. ZWOLINSKI:
-O                                      ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES. LTD.
+At the time when we were.
-Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014                                                      !
+developing-the order, we had no confidence that they had 11
-Washingte,n, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+--identified the limiting break.
+The former CE code that they L
+i 12 had relied upon for small break had identified.5 square i
+l 13 feet.so you have this fundamental anomaly of the code j
+stopping at
+.35, won't run at
+.5, and I have'got a gap in 15-the spectrum.
+DR. WALLIS:
+I understand -- also identifying a 17-maximum is not so easy when there's uncertainty.
+MR. ZWOLINSKI:
+That's true.
+;19 DR. WALLIS:
+The maximum can move around quite 20 easily.
+l 21 MR. ZWOLINSKI:
+Yes.
+But that does take us back 22 to Dan's point of when we did issue the order we did go back 23 to their licence power level of 2440 where we had confidence
+~
+that the large break would dominate and thus all our 25 operating parameters were based on the large break.
+O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES. LTD.
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washingte,n, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-l l
+l 230 1
-    !
+MR. DORMAN:
-                     MR. DORMAN:           In December of 1996, shortly after
+In December of 1996, shortly after
-/~~N    2          the tasking memo was issued, we also completed the lessons V       3          learned report from the activity that was initiated in NRR 4          at the beginning of '96.             Those -- that report provided a 5          number of recommendations that coincided with a number of 6          the issues in the tasking memo.
+/~~N 2
-                     The Staff from the tasking memo developed a plan 3          to address the Staff actions, which was provided to the EDO 9          in April of 1997, and since then we have provided updates in 10          January and August of 1998 and I believe you have the August                            ;
+the tasking memo was issued, we also completed the lessons V
-           '98 update.                                                                            l 12                      DR. WALLIS:          This plant was shut down?
+learned report from the activity that was initiated in NRR 4
-                     MR. DORMAN:          Excuse me?
+at the beginning of
-                     DR. WALLIS:         The plant was shut down?                                I 15                      MR. DORMAN:
+'96.
+Those -- that report provided a 5
+number of recommendations that coincided with a number of 6
+the issues in the tasking memo.
+The Staff from the tasking memo developed a plan 3
+to address the Staff actions, which was provided to the EDO 9
+in April of 1997, and since then we have provided updates in 10 January and August of 1998 and I believe you have the August 11
+'98 update.
+DR. WALLIS:
+This plant was shut down?
+MR. DORMAN:
+Excuse me?
+DR. WALLIS:
+The plant was shut down?
 [)
-b.
+MR. DORMAN:
-The plan is currently in 16          decommissioning, yes, sir.
+The plan is currently in b.
-                     DR. WALLIS:         Decommissioned as a result of this l
+decommissioning, yes, sir.
-'         event, these events, or is this just a minor part of the 19          decision to decommission?
+DR. WALLIS:
-                     MR. DORMAN:          It's hard for me to make a judgment 21          on all the factors in their decision.                     I think this was 22-         probably a substantial portion of the decision, but in 1995 23          the facility was shut down for the vast majority of that 24          year to install sleeves in every operable tube in each of 25          the three steam generators.
+Decommissioned as a result of this 18' event, these events, or is this just a minor part of the 19 decision to decommission?
+MR. DORMAN:
+It's hard for me to make a judgment 21 on all the factors in their decision.
+I think this was 22-probably a substantial portion of the decision, but in 1995 23 the facility was shut down for the vast majority of that 24 year to install sleeves in every operable tube in each of 25 the three steam generators.
+O)
 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
-O)
+'\\,,
-'\,,                                        Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-1                 In 1997, they conducted the first steam generator 2     inspections, which were conducted after essentially h&lf a 3     ' cycle of operation. They operated for'about-nine months 4     during 1996.
+1
-'               On this inspection they certainly would have been 6     able_to plug a number of tubes and justify continued 7     operation with the steam generators as they were at'that 8    ; point. However, there were a number of' indications between 9     the tube sheets in the -- or the support plates in the steam 10     generators, a number of indications in cold leg. regions.
+In 1997, they conducted the first steam generator 2
-    The indications that they found in the 1996 inspection after 12     only a half a cycle of operation suggested that there was a 13     major uncertainty in the steam generators and there was 14     large costs associated with that.
+inspections, which were conducted after essentially h&lf a 3
+' cycle of operation.
-(                    With about 11 years remaining in the license, I 16    'think there was a significant economic consideration before        i H
+They operated for'about-nine months 4
-    the Board of Directors of the company on that factor alone.        l 18                They had a number of other issues facing them in        I 19-    1997 wit.h regard to the findings of the ISA and a number of 20     other-issues. However, at the time that the Board made the 21     decision to decommission the facility they had previously 22     provided substantial funding to address those issues, so the 23     steam generators I think were probably the driving factor at 24     the time the decision was made. However, that was -- that l
+during 1996.
-    decision was not made in a vacuum relative to the other 1
+' On this inspection they certainly would have been 6
+able_to plug a number of tubes and justify continued 7
+operation with the steam generators as they were at'that 8
+; point.
+However, there were a number of' indications between 9
+the tube sheets in the -- or the support plates in the steam 10 generators, a number of indications in cold leg. regions.
+The indications that they found in the 1996 inspection after 12 only a half a cycle of operation suggested that there was a 13 major uncertainty in the steam generators and there was 14 large costs associated with that.
+(
+With about 11 years remaining in the license, I 16
+'think there was a significant economic consideration before i
+H 17 the Board of Directors of the company on that factor alone.
+They had a number of other issues facing them in 19-1997 wit.h regard to the findings of the ISA and a number of 20 other-issues.
+However, at the time that the Board made the 21 decision to decommission the facility they had previously 22 provided substantial funding to address those issues, so the 23 steam generators I think were probably the driving factor at 24 the time the decision was made.
+However, that was -- that 25 decision was not made in a vacuum relative to the other O'
 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
-O'                              Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 h
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034 h
-_ _ .. _ _ _-. _ ._..                    _ _ . _ - _ -_ . _ .. _. _ __. _ .- _                     ..m. _ _._
+..m. _ _._
-,.                                                                                                              232            i r
+i
-l                    l'         costs that they were already facing.
+r l
-                   ~2:                       DR. WALLIS:               Are we going to hear -      we are not l
+l' costs that they were already facing.
-t 3         going'to hear from Maine Yankee people?
+~2:
-i j                  14                        MR. DORMAN:               Not this morning, not that I am aware                   '
+DR. WALLIS:
-         of. No, sir, i
+Are we going to hear -
-                   '6                        DR. WALLIS:               Okay.
+we are not l
-7                       MR. ZWOLINSKI:                   I think the steam generators also             i 8         weighed heavy as they were contemplating sale of the                                            !
+going'to hear from Maine Yankee people?
-l
+t i
-: 9.        facility to PECO and in'their deliberations I think they                                     1 10           felt that was~the Achilles heel to the plant.
+j 14 MR. DORMAN:
-                        MR. DORMAN:              .The 11 broad Staff actions, the first 12           four are identified here -- adequacy of analytic code                                         j i
+Not this morning, not that I am aware 5
--          validation and the adequacy of NRC review of analysis codes, 14           and compliance with safety evaluation reports.                       Those issues
+of.
-    ~T-        - 15            arise directly for the concerns that the Staff had with the
+No, sir, i
+'6 DR. WALLIS:
+Okay.
+1
+MR. ZWOLINSKI:
+I think the steam generators also i
+weighed heavy as they were contemplating sale of the l
+.
+facility to PECO and in'their deliberations I think they 1
+felt that was~the Achilles heel to the plant.
+MR. DORMAN:
+.The 11 broad Staff actions, the first i
+four are identified here -- adequacy of analytic code j
+-validation and the adequacy of NRC review of analysis codes, 14 and compliance with safety evaluation reports.
+Those issues
+~T-
 [V '
-           RELAP SYA application for Maine Yankee.
+- 15 arise directly for the concerns that the Staff had with the 16 RELAP SYA application for Maine Yankee.
-                         The issue of' adequacy for licensing reviews for 18            power uprates comes from two pieces.                                                         I 19                          One is the allegation issue that Maine Yankee had 20            relied on inadequate small break LOCA analyses to justify i
+The issue of' adequacy for licensing reviews for 18 power uprates comes from two pieces.
-          .their power uprates.                 That portion of the allegation that we 22           ; received was not substantiated in that the power uprates had 23            been approved long,before the RELAP SYA code was a part of 24'           the Maine Yankee licensing basis.
+I 19 One is the allegation issue that Maine Yankee had 20 relied on inadequate small break LOCA analyses to justify i
-                         However, that did become part of the internal I
+.their power uprates.
+That portion of the allegation that we 22
+; received was not substantiated in that the power uprates had 23 been approved long,before the RELAP SYA code was a part of 24' the Maine Yankee licensing basis.
+However, that did become part of the internal I
 :
-h                                                ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+h ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
-                                                             Court Reporters
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 n
-;:                                       1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 n                                                                                 _.. - .-                       -
-_ _ . . _ . _._.-         ..   . _ . _ .           ..._. ~ .. _ .. _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ _                _ . _ _ _ - . _ - . _ . . . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _
+..._. ~.. _.. _ _. _ _. _. _ _ _
-i 233 lessons learned review that was performed in NRR, and that 1
+i 233 1
-[         2L review concluded that there were substantial inconsistencies 3-        in the scope and depth of reviews by NRR of power uprates
+lessons learned review that was performed in NRR, and that
-!                        4         over the last 20 years.
+[
-                         The second issue came out of the ISA inspection,
+L review concluded that there were substantial inconsistencies 3-in the scope and depth of reviews by NRR of power uprates 4
-                        ~6 which concluded that Maine Yankee was unable to demonstrate 7l       ' operability of two systems for. operation at the higher power 8         level of 2700 megawatts.                            One of those was the containment l                        9         spray system.           The other was the service water system as it i
+over the last 20 years.
-          related to heat removal from the component cooling water 11-         systems.
+The second issue came out of the ISA inspection,
--                          DR. WALLIS:                 What was the problem with that 13          service water system?
+~6 which concluded that Maine Yankee was unable to demonstrate 7l
-                          MR. DORMAN:                 There was a question given with the
+' operability of two systems for. operation at the higher power 8
-(       f       15          licensing basis, ultimate heat sink temperature and the 16          configuration of feed exchangers that the licensee had 17          installed as to whether the service water system could 18          remove the full heat load of the component                              --
+level of 2700 megawatts.
-                     -19                            DR. WALLIS:                 It was actually a heat balance,                                         --
+One of those was the containment l
-                          MR. DORMAN:                 It was a heat balance, yes.
+spray system.
-L21                            DR. WALLIS:                  --
+The other was the service water system as it i
-it was sink problem rather than a 22          transient problem with voiding or anything like that, it 23         wasn't a boiling problem.
+related to heat removal from the component cooling water 10 11-systems.
-                          MR. DORMAN:                 No, sir, it was just'a heat transfer, 25         heat capacity issue.
+-DR. WALLIS:
+What was the problem with that 13 service water system?
+MR. DORMAN:
+There was a question given with the
+( f 15 licensing basis, ultimate heat sink temperature and the 16 configuration of feed exchangers that the licensee had 17 installed as to whether the service water system could 18 remove the full heat load of the component
+-19 DR. WALLIS:
+It was actually a heat balance, 20 MR. DORMAN:
+It was a heat balance, yes.
+L21 DR. WALLIS:
+it was sink problem rather than a 22 transient problem with voiding or anything like that, it 23 wasn't a boiling problem.
+MR. DORMAN:
+No, sir, it was just'a heat transfer, 25 heat capacity issue.
 l i
 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
 .(
-Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-1                             DR. FONTANA:            What percentage power uprate is 1
+1
-f7            2'          that, approximately?
+DR. FONTANA:
-  .&            3                             MR. DORMAN:           The power uprate, Maine Yankee 4           actually was originally licensed to 2440, but in the 5           original license, the staff had reviewed to 2560, and 2560                                                 1 6           was authorized shortly after initial licensing.                                 The staff 1
+What percentage power uprate is 1 f7 2'
-I 7           then approved an additional uprate to 2630 in 1978, and an 8           additional uprate to 2700 in 1989.                        So, from --
+that, approximately?
-                            DR. FONTANA:            And the last one was when they found 10              the sarvice water system was inadequate?
+MR. DORMAN:
-l 11                                MR. DORMAN:           No , sir. In the ISAT in the summer 12              of 1996, the ISAT concluded that Maine Yankee was not able 13              to demonstrate operability at 2700.                         So it was for that last 14              -- it was for that last power level, but the identification                                                ;
+The power uprate, Maine Yankee 4
-       )    15              was in the summer of               '96.
+actually was originally licensed to 2440, but in the 5
-                               DR. FONTANA:            Thank you.
+original license, the staff had reviewed to 2560, and 2560 6
-                               MR. ZWOLINSKI:            To generalize a little bit and put 18              in context, it appeared that as the licensee went up in 19              these various power levels from 2440 to 2700, margins eroded 20              for a number of their key systems.                        So some systems 21              essentially did not have as much margin as expected.                                    And, 22              in fact, when Entergy came in and was doing their own L           23             . analysis, I.think they felt that they would operate the 24              plant at 2440 for the remainder of its life, noting they 25              wanted to recover those margins.                      And that was one way to O                                               ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+was authorized shortly after initial licensing.
-k,,,)s                                                   Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 L
+The staff I
+then approved an additional uprate to 2630 in 1978, and an 8
+additional uprate to 2700 in 1989.
+So, from --
+DR. FONTANA:
+And the last one was when they found 10 the sarvice water system was inadequate?
+MR. DORMAN:
+No, sir.
+In the ISAT in the summer 12 of 1996, the ISAT concluded that Maine Yankee was not able 13 to demonstrate operability at 2700.
+So it was for that last 14
+-- it was for that last power level, but the identification
+)
+was in the summer of
+'96.
+DR. FONTANA:
+Thank you.
+MR. ZWOLINSKI:
+To generalize a little bit and put 18 in context, it appeared that as the licensee went up in 19 these various power levels from 2440 to 2700, margins eroded 20 for a number of their key systems.
+So some systems 21 essentially did not have as much margin as expected.
+: And, 22 in fact, when Entergy came in and was doing their own L
+. analysis, I.think they felt that they would operate the 24 plant at 2440 for the remainder of its life, noting they 25 wanted to recover those margins.
+And that was one way to O
+ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+k,,,)s Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034 L
-             . _    _ . . _ _ - _ . _ _ _ _ - _ . - . . _ . ~ . . _ -                                     _ . . . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ _
+_.. _ _ - _. _ _ _ _ - _. -.. _. ~.. _ -
-             '1    addrest the service water issue.                                          But they also needed to
+'1 addrest the service water issue.
-             .2    make hardware changes, which were funded, and they were 3'  making at the-time that they decided to go into 4'  decommissioning.
+But they also needed to
-                               .MR. DORMAN:                    One of the issues on the adequacy of 6   the containment spray' system,:the. central-issue on the -
+.2 make hardware changes, which were funded, and they were 3'
-!              7=  adequacy of the containment spray system was credit that the 8  ~1icensee had taken for containment pressure post-LOCA in 9   assessing the adequacy of net positive suction head for,                                                                       '
+making at the-time that they decided to go into 4'
--    those pumps.                                As a result of that issue, another issue that 11     the.ISA raised was the clarity and intent of NRC Safety 12-    Guide 1 and so that is also one of the ISA staff action 13     issues.
+decommissioning.
-                                   One of the areas that the ISA got into in some
-()      15 16
+.MR. DORMAN:
-                  . detail was the licensee's response to Generic Letter 96-01 cut testing of safety-related circuits.                                              Specifically, the 17     license -- or the staff, the ISA questioned the actuation 18     circuits for the containment spray system.                                                 The licensee 19    . spread that and-looked at other ECCS systems, and one of the 20-    issues that was identified was that in a cable cleanup 21     program in the control room, in 1991, the licensee had L22     inadvertently removed 15 feet of cable from the safety                                                                          '
+One of the issues on the adequacy of 6
-           '23'    injection-actuation circuit for one of the high pressure 24-   . safety injection pumps, such that on a safety injection 25     actuation signal, that pump would not have Eatomatically IN                                                      ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+the containment spray' system,:the. central-issue on the -
-l
+=
-(_,/                                                                  Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+adequacy of the containment spray system was credit that the 8
+~1icensee had taken for containment pressure post-LOCA in 9
+assessing the adequacy of net positive suction head for, 10-those pumps.
+As a result of that issue, another issue that 11 the.ISA raised was the clarity and intent of NRC Safety 12-Guide 1 and so that is also one of the ISA staff action 13 issues.
+One of the areas that the ISA got into in some
+()
+. detail was the licensee's response to Generic Letter 96-01 16 cut testing of safety-related circuits.
+Specifically, the 17 license -- or the staff, the ISA questioned the actuation 18 circuits for the containment spray system.
+The licensee 19
+. spread that and-looked at other ECCS systems, and one of the 20-issues that was identified was that in a cable cleanup 21 program in the control room, in 1991, the licensee had L22 inadvertently removed 15 feet of cable from the safety
+'23' injection-actuation circuit for one of the high pressure 24-
+. safety injection pumps, such that on a safety injection 25 actuation signal, that pump would not have Eatomatically IN ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+(_,/
+Court Reporters l
+Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
-1            started from the period of 1991 until '96.
+1
-                         DR. WALLIS:         They removed a cable?
+started from the period of 1991 until
-                         MR. DORMAN:         They had maintenance technicians go 4            in and remove unused cables from the control room and, in 5          .the process, they had removed a used cable and they had not
+'96.
-                                                                                                                                            )
+DR. WALLIS:
-f           identified that because of inadequacies in their circuit
+They removed a cable?
+MR. DORMAN:
+They had maintenance technicians go 4
+in and remove unused cables from the control room and, in 5
+.the process, they had removed a used cable and they had not
+)
+f identified that because of inadequacies in their circuit
 {
-l 7            testing program.        When the ISA got into that issue, they                                        l 8            enhanced their testing, reperformed the testing in the 9            summer of '96 and found that this cable was missing.
+l 7
-                     '10 -                          DR. WALLIS:         So some circuit was not complete'and 11-             they didn't know it?  .
+testing program.
-l l                     12                            MR. DORMAN:          Far a period of about five years.
+When the ISA got into that issue, they 8
-i, 13                            sR. WALLIS:         Sounds like a wonderful story.
+enhanced their testing, reperformed the testing in the 9
-l 14                            MR. DORMAN:         Yes, sir.              Because of that, one of l
+summer of '96 and found that this cable was missing.
-()            15 16 the ISA actions had to do with getting into the adequacy of the NRC inspection program for --
+'10 -
-                           DR. WALLIS:          Is something to do with Yankees?
+DR. WALLIS:
-                           DR. MILLER:         You live up there.
+So some circuit was not complete'and 11-they didn't know it?
-                           MR. DORMAN:          I think Maine Yankee did some -- did 20             extensive testing in that summer of '96 with the ISA.                                This 21             was the only instance of such a substantial problem, so I 22             think this was an isolated instance. However, logic circuit 23             testing has been a significant issue, and as a generic L                     24'            issue, and given --
+l 12 MR. DORMAN:
--                           DR. WALLIS:          I would think that, yeah,                Installed
+Far a period of about five years.
-        /"'s                                            ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+i, 13 sR. WALLIS:
-(j                                                     Court Reporters l                                                 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+Sounds like a wonderful story.
+MR. DORMAN:
+Yes, sir.
+Because of that, one of l
+()
+the ISA actions had to do with getting into the adequacy of 16 the NRC inspection program for --
+DR. WALLIS:
+Is something to do with Yankees?
+DR. MILLER:
+You live up there.
+MR. DORMAN:
+I think Maine Yankee did some -- did 20 extensive testing in that summer of '96 with the ISA.
+This 21 was the only instance of such a substantial problem, so I 22 think this was an isolated instance.
+However, logic circuit 23 testing has been a significant issue, and as a generic L
+' issue, and given --
+-DR. WALLIS:
+I would think that, yeah, Installed
+/"'s ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+(j Court Reporters l
+Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-1   some sort of a system which tells you if your circuits are 2   complete --
+1
-        )
+some sort of a system which tells you if your circuits are 2
-l                    3'               MR. DORMAN:                     Yes.
+complete --
-               DR. WALLIS:                     -- automatically.
+)
-l                    5                DR. MILLER:                     How did they get -- surveillance                          3 6  ' requirements on safety channels, how did they get by those 7   and not find this?
+l 3'
-t L                    8                MR. DORMAN:                     That -- ultimately, the answer to I
+MR. DORMAN:
-   that is that their surveillances, their surveillance test 10    procedures did not test the whole circuit, so their 11    surveillance test procedures were not adequate to find the 12    problem. And the Generic Letter 96-01 actually pre-dated 13    finding this issue, but asked the industry as a whole to 14    look at the adequacy of their circuit testing to test the
+Yes.
-( )-             15    entire circuit.                And this particular item, for these staff                               j 16    actions, was to go back and look at our inspection program 17    and how effective is our inspection program at look at 18    licensee surveillance requirements to see that they are 19    going to find things like this.
+DR. WALLIS:
-l                  20                 DR. MILLER:                     So you have answered my second l                  21    question, too.
+-- automatically.
-i 22                 MR. DORMAN:                     Okay. Obviously, this finding was a L   1              23    significant concern for the staff, both in how effectively 24    the licensees are doing their own testing and how L                  25    effectively we are assessing the adequacy of their
+l 5
+DR. MILLER:
+How did they get -- surveillance 3
+' requirements on safety channels, how did they get by those 7
+and not find this?
+t L
+MR. DORMAN:
+That -- ultimately, the answer to 9
+that is that their surveillances, their surveillance test 10 procedures did not test the whole circuit, so their 11 surveillance test procedures were not adequate to find the 12 problem.
+And the Generic Letter 96-01 actually pre-dated 13 finding this issue, but asked the industry as a whole to 14 look at the adequacy of their circuit testing to test the
+( )-
+entire circuit.
+And this particular item, for these staff j
+actions, was to go back and look at our inspection program 17 and how effective is our inspection program at look at 18 licensee surveillance requirements to see that they are 19 going to find things like this.
+l 20 DR. MILLER:
+So you have answered my second l
+question, too.
+i 22 MR. DORMAN:
+Okay.
+Obviously, this finding was a L
+significant concern for the staff, both in how effectively 1
+the licensees are doing their own testing and how L
+effectively we are assessing the adequacy of their
 (~'
-  \
 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
-Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l
+\\
-sI e             -                                             -                                      -
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
-e
+(202) 842-0034 l
+sI e e
-,
+1
 surveillance test programs.
-I 'T  2            MR. ZWOLINSKI:     From this evolved some concerns V
+I 'T 2
-about generic activities for the Yankee plants.        Yankee 4 Atomic was providing quality assurance services to a number 5 of the Yankee facilities, to Pilgrim and to some of the           l 6 Northeast plants. One of the findings of Entergy when they 7 were evaluating the quality assurance program at Maine 8 Yankee was they felt that i' was a toothless tiger, in other 9 words, it had little or no standing Uith the Maine Yankee 10 employees and several key departments.       So that was a 1_ concern to the staff, that there was a breakdown in that 12 area, and that was translated throughout the Yankee -- all 13 the different facilities Yankee serviced, as a generic --
+MR. ZWOLINSKI:
-           DR. FONTANA:     Did Entergy -- oh, excuse me, (n)  15            MR. ZWOLINSKI:     As a generic finding.
+From this evolved some concerns V
-           DR. FONTANA:     Did Entergy come in as a consultant 17 or were they thinking of buying it?
+about generic activities for the Yankee plants.
-           MR. DORMAN:     Entergy came in to provide management 19 services for the company.      They entered into a contract in 20 February 1997 in which Entergy actually provided the 21 president of Maine Yankee, vice president of licensing and 22 regulatory compliance, and a number of managers at all 23 levels of management at Maine Yankee, but that was a 24 management services contract.
+Yankee 4
-           DR. WALLIS:     What happened to the costs to the 4 /O                     ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+Atomic was providing quality assurance services to a number 5
-%-)                           Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+of the Yankee facilities, to Pilgrim and to some of the 6
+Northeast plants.
+One of the findings of Entergy when they 7
+were evaluating the quality assurance program at Maine 8
+Yankee was they felt that i' was a toothless tiger, in other 9
+words, it had little or no standing Uith the Maine Yankee 10 employees and several key departments.
+So that was a 1_
+concern to the staff, that there was a breakdown in that 12 area, and that was translated throughout the Yankee -- all 13 the different facilities Yankee serviced, as a generic --
+DR. FONTANA:
+Did Entergy -- oh, excuse me, (n) 15 MR. ZWOLINSKI:
+As a generic finding.
+DR. FONTANA:
+Did Entergy come in as a consultant 17 or were they thinking of buying it?
+MR. DORMAN:
+Entergy came in to provide management 19 services for the company.
+They entered into a contract in 20 February 1997 in which Entergy actually provided the 21 president of Maine Yankee, vice president of licensing and 22 regulatory compliance, and a number of managers at all 23 levels of management at Maine Yankee, but that was a 24 management services contract.
+DR. WALLIS:
+What happened to the costs to the 4 /O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+%-)
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-1     citizens of Maine for electric power as a result of this?                     l
+1
-    ' I~h        2                  MR. DORMAN:    I don't have a direct answer for
+citizens of Maine for electric power as a result of this?
-    }}.
+' I~h 2
-    that.
+MR. DORMAN:
-:                 MR. ZWOLINSKI:     I am sorry, I can only speculate.
+I don't have a direct answer for
-g       5     As Dan mentioned,-the plant was down for much of '95, if not 6     almost all of 1995, resleeving the-generators, so they were 7     purchasing power.
+}}.
-                 DR. WALLIS:    Well, I can tell you that I live _in a 9     neighboring state, and whenever'our local Yankee reactor is i
+that.
--      down, my costs go up.       So somebody is paying for all this.               I 11                    DR. MILLER:    Yeah, where do they buy their power?
+:
-                   MR. DORMAN:    A substantial portion of it comes 13       from Quebec, I believe.
+MR. ZWOLINSKI:
-                   MR. ZWOLINSKI:     From north and south, so from
+I am sorry, I can only speculate.
-()      15       Quebec, as Dan said, and from a power pool throughout New 16       England. But with the Millstone units struggling in the 17       like period of time, power was very expensive and I am 18       assuming here, but I think the ratepayer ultimately paid the
+g As Dan mentioned,-the plant was down for much of
-             -19       freight on this.
+'95, if not 5
-                   DR. BARTON:    They always do.
+almost all of 1995, resleeving the-generators, so they were 7
-                   CHAIRMAN SEALE:     Sure. There is no tooth fairy.
+purchasing power.
-                   MR. DORMAN:    I think -- my recollection --
+DR. WALLIS:
-                   DR. BARTON:    They pick it up in your energy 24       adjustment cost. The ratepayer pays for it.
+Well, I can tell you that I live _in a 9
-                   MR. DORMAN:    My recollection is that in the
+neighboring state, and whenever'our local Yankee reactor is i
-,    O                                  ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+-down, my costs go up.
-Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+So somebody is paying for all this.
+DR. MILLER:
+Yeah, where do they buy their power?
+MR. DORMAN:
+A substantial portion of it comes 13 from Quebec, I believe.
+MR. ZWOLINSKI:
+From north and south, so from
+()
+Quebec, as Dan said, and from a power pool throughout New 16 England.
+But with the Millstone units struggling in the 17 like period of time, power was very expensive and I am 18 assuming here, but I think the ratepayer ultimately paid the
+-19 freight on this.
+DR. BARTON:
+They always do.
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+Sure.
+There is no tooth fairy.
+MR. DORMAN:
+I think -- my recollection --
+DR. BARTON:
+They pick it up in your energy 24 adjustment cost.
+The ratepayer pays for it.
+MR. DORMAN:
+My recollection is that in the O
+ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-_      . .. _ _ . _ -            ., _ m. _ .. _ . _ .. ___ _ . _ _. _ _ ._. _ . - ._. _ .. _ . __ _ _
+., _ m. _.. _. _.. ___ _. _ _. _ _._. _. -._. _.. _. __ _ _
 l I
-1        short-term in '96 and '97, Central Maine Power, who was the 2        largest holder of Maine Yankee, was holding their rates 3        steady.           However, with.the decision to decommission, L                     4        obviously, the ratepayers are going to foot that bill.                                                   I 1
+1
-l                                                                                                                                             '
+short-term in '96 and
-L                     5-       know there are ratepayer groups that are contesting that t
+'97, Central Maine Power, who was the 2
-                    -6         with FERC, but that is where it will likely end up.
+largest holder of Maine Yankee, was holding their rates 3
-L                     7                             DR. .FONTANA: .Has decommissioning actively started l                     8        or is there --
+steady.
-                            MR. DORMAN:                             The last I heard, they were scheduled L
+However, with.the decision to decommission, L
-          to actively start major decommissioning about now.                                                  Yes, 11          -sir.
+obviously, the ratepayers are going to foot that bill.
-                               DR. FONTANA:                               They are supposed to have a 13           set-aside of funds for that?
+I l
-                              MR. 7,WO'LINSKI:                                   Yes, sir.
+L 5-know there are ratepayer groups that are contesting that
-()          15                                MR. DORMAN:                             Yes, sir.            At the time of 16           decommissioning, as I recall, their decommissioning funds 17           were on the order.of $106 million.                                                  The estimate at the time 18           they entered decommissioning of the actual cost for 19           decommissioning was slightly over $500 million, with about
+-6 with FERC, but that is where it will likely end up.
-                -20            $125 million of that being associated with costs of 21           maintaining the spentifuel on-site.                                                  And I believe that 22          . Maine. Yankee is part of an action against DOE to try and                                                     1 23'          break that issue loose.
+t L
-                               DR. WALLIS:                              Did anybody from the' media try to 25           . write stories about this?                                               Was it'a big event in the media f.
+DR..FONTANA:.Has decommissioning actively started l
-   ~,
+or is there --
+MR. DORMAN:
+The last I heard, they were scheduled L
+to actively start major decommissioning about now.
+: Yes, 11
+-sir.
+DR. FONTANA:
+They are supposed to have a 13 set-aside of funds for that?
+MR. 7,WO'LINSKI:
+Yes, sir.
+()
+MR. DORMAN:
+Yes, sir.
+At the time of 16 decommissioning, as I recall, their decommissioning funds 17 were on the order.of $106 million.
+The estimate at the time 18 they entered decommissioning of the actual cost for 19 decommissioning was slightly over $500 million, with about
+-20
+$125 million of that being associated with costs of 21 maintaining the spentifuel on-site.
+And I believe that 22
+. Maine. Yankee is part of an action against DOE to try and 23' break that issue loose.
+DR. WALLIS:
+Did anybody from the' media try to 25
+. write stories about this?
+Was it'a big event in the media f.
+~,
 }-
-      "*g                                                    ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+"*g ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
-p.g ,/;   --
+p.g,/;
-Court Reporters l                                            1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+Court Reporters l
+Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-     -  .     .-     .   .-.      . . .  ~.        . - - . . . - . . .             . - . - ..   . . - . . _ .     . _ . . .
+~.
-1
+l'
-l'    in Maine?
+in Maine?
-2                 MR. DORMAN:             All of these -- there were a number 3     of big media events in Maine.                         The allegation itself was big 4     media event.      The IG report was a big media event.                        The ISA 5     report was a big media event.                         The shutdown of the facility
+2
+MR. DORMAN:
+All of these -- there were a number 1
+of big media events in Maine.
+The allegation itself was big 4
+media event.
+The IG report was a big media event.
+The ISA 5
+report was a big media event.
+The shutdown of the facility
 [
-    in Decenter of '96-and some of the issues that ensued were a 7     big media event, the decommissioning decision was a big 8     media. So, yes, there were a number of big media events 9     there.
+in Decenter of '96-and some of the issues that ensued were a 7
-                DR. WALLIS:              Yeah.
+big media event, the decommissioning decision was a big 8
-                MR. DORMAN:             The seventh item actually derives 12     from comments from the public regarding the conduct of the                                                 ,
+media.
-    ISAT. The ISAT used, in assessing Maine Yankee's safety 14     performance, they used the criteria that we have used in
+So, yes, there were a number of big media events 9
-  -()     15     SALP for superior, good or adequate.                            The public objected to 16     the use of those criteria and said, by definition, there is 17     no unacceptable performance if those are the criteria you 18     are using.
+there.
-                The action from the ISA was specifically focused
+DR. WALLIS:
-!         20     on the adequacy of those criteria in the SALP program.
+Yeah.
-l 21     Since that time we have a much broader review of our 22     licensee performance assessment programs that is being 23     tracked on the Chairman's tracking list, and so this item, 24     this relatively limited item has been transferred to that 25     broader item.
+MR. DORMAN:
+The seventh item actually derives 12 from comments from the public regarding the conduct of the 13 ISAT.
+The ISAT used, in assessing Maine Yankee's safety 14 performance, they used the criteria that we have used in
+-()
+SALP for superior, good or adequate.
+The public objected to 16 the use of those criteria and said, by definition, there is 17 no unacceptable performance if those are the criteria you 18 are using.
+The action from the ISA was specifically focused 20 on the adequacy of those criteria in the SALP program.
+l 21 Since that time we have a much broader review of our 22 licensee performance assessment programs that is being 23 tracked on the Chairman's tracking list, and so this item, 24 this relatively limited item has been transferred to that 25 broader item.
+(,,])
 ("
-(,,])
 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
-,                                               Court Reporters
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
-.                          1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+(202) 842-0034
-_ _ _ _ _ . _ _ - . _ . . . - _                       _ _ _ . . _ .        _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _-            ~ _ _ _ . _ _
+~ _ _ _. _ _
 i l
-l 242 1                          Item number 8 derived from questions from-
+l
-  -/~N                   .2           Commission about the cumulative effect of operator d                                  .workarounds.
+Item number 8 derived from questions from-
-                                 And there is currently a temporary instruction 4          our for resident inspectors at a finite number of plants to 5          gather data on how~ multiple operator workarounds may affect 6          -- may have a cumulative effect on a burden on the operators
+-/~N
-                        .7           _during certain events.                  The information gathering on'that
+.2 Commission about the cumulative effect of operator d
-;                          8          will continue into the spring and then we will be L                          9          reassessing how much we need to change our inspection
-                     -10              guidance to help the inspectors assess this impact.
+. orkarounds.
-                           .IMt. WALLIS:           What are the measurables and aids, is 12             there something measurable from Maine Yankee which actually 13             tells you what the effects were?
+And there is currently a temporary instruction w
-                            MR. DORMAN:            There was not a measurable from Maine
+our for resident inspectors at a finite number of plants to 5
-()                  15             Yankee and that was why this came out of the Commission l                      16             meeting and came in to this staff action.                     The ISA found a 17             substantial number of operator workarounds at Maine Yankee 18             and.the Commission then questioned, you know, for -- you may 19             have an individual workaround on system A and another one on 20            . system B,      and you look at them individually, and neither of 21             them constitute a large impact.
+gather data on how~ multiple operator workarounds may affect 6
-                            DR. WALLIS:            Right.
+-- may have a cumulative effect on a burden on the operators
-                            MR.HDORMAN:            But if they both have the same 241            operator going in opposite directions during an accident,
+.7
-                     .25              then, obviously, that would be a bigger problem.                     So that is ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+_during certain events.
-   \                                                                     Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l
+The information gathering on'that 8
+will continue into the spring and then we will be L
+reassessing how much we need to change our inspection
+-10 guidance to help the inspectors assess this impact.
+.IMt. WALLIS:
+What are the measurables and aids, is 12 there something measurable from Maine Yankee which actually 13 tells you what the effects were?
+MR. DORMAN:
+There was not a measurable from Maine
+()
+Yankee and that was why this came out of the Commission l
+meeting and came in to this staff action.
+The ISA found a 17 substantial number of operator workarounds at Maine Yankee 18 and.the Commission then questioned, you know, for -- you may 19 have an individual workaround on system A and another one on 20
+. system B, and you look at them individually, and neither of 21 them constitute a large impact.
+DR. WALLIS:
+Right.
+MR.HDORMAN:
+But if they both have the same 241 operator going in opposite directions during an accident,
+.25 then, obviously, that would be a bigger problem.
+So that is ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+\\
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034 l
+.~
-_. __        __ _ - -        .   ... _    _ _ _ _                 _ . _ ~ _ _ _ . _ . . , _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _
+_. _ ~ _ _ _. _.., _. _ _ _ _. _ _ _
-1         the kind of thing-that we are trying to get at there.
+1
-     /~ \                                                        It's something that you think might
+the kind of thing-that we are trying to get at there.
-(-)            2                      DR. WALLIS:                                                                           ]
+/~ \\
-                                                                                                                                 )
+DR. WALLIS:
-                   '3         be a problom, but it is hard to really assess in a 4         quantitative way.                                                                                  l
+It's something that you think might
-: 5.                     MR. DORMAN:           Yes. And it is -- I think it is very i                   6      'hard to assess in a quantitative way. I think it is more                                          a 7         judgment of how do different operator workarounds in the 8         plant,.on different systems, have the potential to cause the 9         operators to be running off in different directions, trying 10            to be in two places at one time in responding to an 11-           accident. And if that is the case, obviously, that would
+]
-;               12            not be acceptable and the licensee would need to fix those                                         i 13            issues.
+(-)
-                        MR. ZWOLINSKI:            The temporary instruction-focuses
+)
-()         15            very hard on the integration of operator activity, and, in f               16            so many words, being asked to do multiple tasks in a short 17            period of. time.
+'3 be a problom, but it is hard to really assess in a 4
-                        DR. WALLIS:           So they didn't have events where this 19-           showed up, where the operators were running around, as you 20             described them?
+quantitative way.
-'                         MR. ZWOLINSKI:            No, sir. There were a lot of 22             workarounds in'the control room at Maine Yankee at the time 23             ISAT was there, which ultimately manifested itself before p              24             the Commission.
+.
-                         ;MR. DORMAN:          I think ultimately the assessment of i
+MR. DORMAN:
-!                      !                         ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+Yes.
-Court Reporters I                                       1025-Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+And it is -- I think it is very i
+'hard to assess in a quantitative way.
+I think it is more a 7
+judgment of how do different operator workarounds in the 8
+plant,.on different systems, have the potential to cause the 9
+operators to be running off in different directions, trying 10 to be in two places at one time in responding to an 11-accident.
+And if that is the case, obviously, that would 12 not be acceptable and the licensee would need to fix those 13 issues.
+MR. ZWOLINSKI:
+The temporary instruction-focuses
+()
+very hard on the integration of operator activity, and, in f
+so many words, being asked to do multiple tasks in a short 17 period of. time.
+DR. WALLIS:
+So they didn't have events where this 19-showed up, where the operators were running around, as you 20 described them?
+' MR. ZWOLINSKI:
+No, sir.
+There were a lot of 22 workarounds in'the control room at Maine Yankee at the time 23 ISAT was there, which ultimately manifested itself before 24 the Commission.
+p 25
+;MR. DORMAN:
+I think ultimately the assessment of i
+ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+Court Reporters I
+-Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-1   the ISAT was that there were quite a number of these things,
+1
-()   2 3
+the ISAT was that there were quite a number of these things,
-            .but that individually, they did not seem to be, any of them, significant, and the Commission said, well, what about I
+()
-   cumulatively, and the staff did not have an answer for even               l 5   how to_ assess that, let alone what the answer would be.
-'             CHAIRMAN SEALE:       I think this is a very                  l 7   interesting example that goes to Dr. Powers' case, or his 8   concerns for the status of a plant during non-routine l        9   configuration.      We call it shutdown or low power events and 10   so forth. But, here again, you had a plant which was in              H 11   this retubing exercise.        I am not sure that there was a 12   great deal of, let's say, systematic assessment given to the 13   configuration they were in under those circumstances with                I 14   limited cooling capability, and I am not even sure what the
+.but that individually, they did not seem to be, any of them, 3
-()  15   status of the fuel pool was and so on.
+significant, and the Commission said, well, what about 4
-             But here you have a situation where.you are not in 17   the configuration that was the subject of your -- any kind 18   of IPE analysis, or PRA, or anything else.        You are very.
+cumulatively, and the staff did not have an answer for even 5
--  much dependent on the judgment and the discretion, at least 20  .in that time frame, that was the configuration-of the plant,              l 21   and the' fact that there were a large number of workarounds 22   going on in the control room is not terribly surprising.
+how to_ assess that, let alone what the answer would be.
-I 23   You;know, I think that would -- you would almost be a little 24   bit unaware of reality if you thought there wouldn't be.
+' CHAIRMAN SEALE:
-I'     .25              MR. DORMAN:      Well, the tubing issue was a period j''                      ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+I think this is a very 7
-   'S Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+interesting example that goes to Dr. Powers' case, or his 8
+concerns for the status of a plant during non-routine l
+configuration.
+We call it shutdown or low power events and 10 so forth.
+But, here again, you had a plant which was in H
+this retubing exercise.
+I am not sure that there was a 12 great deal of, let's say, systematic assessment given to the 13 configuration they were in under those circumstances with 14 limited cooling capability, and I am not even sure what the
+()
+status of the fuel pool was and so on.
+But here you have a situation where.you are not in 17 the configuration that was the subject of your -- any kind 18 of IPE analysis, or PRA, or anything else.
+You are very.
+-much dependent on the judgment and the discretion, at least 20
+.in that time frame, that was the configuration-of the plant, 21 and the' fact that there were a large number of workarounds 22 going on in the control room is not terribly surprising.
+I 23 You;know, I think that would -- you would almost be a little 24 bit unaware of reality if you thought there wouldn't be.
+I'
+.25 MR. DORMAN:
+Well, the tubing issue was a period j''
+ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+'S Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-      . _. .        __       . . _ . . _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . . . - .                _ _ _ _ _ _ _.__.__.._m     .
+_.__.__.._m l
-l l
+l L
-L 245 1      of an extended shutdown.
+1
-                    CHAIRMAN SEALE:                             Yeah.
+of an extended shutdown.
-j                 3                    MR         DORMAN:                   The core was fully off-loaded and l                4      distinct and separate from what was going on in the                                                   I l        ,       5. generators.
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
-                   . CHAIRMAN SEALE:                            So, essentially, it wasn't a 7      power. plant anymore, in that time period.
+Yeah.
-                    MR. DORMAN:                          Yes, sir. In that configuration, 9      yes, sir.
+j 3
--                    CHAIRMAN SEALE:                             So, you know --
+MR DORMAN:
-                    MR. DORMAN:                          But the workarounds that the ISA was 12      addressing were issues of how would the -- what burdens 13     -would be placed upon the operator in responding to an 14      accident when they are operating in a normal configuration 15-t( )                 and something off-normal occurs.
+The core was fully off-loaded and l
-                    CHAIRMAN SEALE:                             But I guess the problem I have is 17     'that it is difficult for me to figure out how you would put                                           J 18      the control room into the workaround configuration if you 19      had fuel in the core.                               I mean there is no reason to believe
+distinct and separate from what was going on in the l
-: 20.    .that that set of circumstances would be tolerated once you 21      got the core configuration back in place and had a
+.
-               '22      legitimate requirement to have adequate cooling available, 23      I mean it is just a pile of instruments whenever you have 24      got the fuel out of the core.
+generators.
-                   DR. BARTON:                           I think what I understood the staff ANN RILEY &. ASSOCIATES, LTD.
-C,/       i Court Reporters i                                 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+. CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+So, essentially, it wasn't a 7
+power. plant anymore, in that time period.
+MR. DORMAN:
+Yes, sir.
+In that configuration, 9
+yes, sir.
+-CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+So, you know --
+MR. DORMAN:
+But the workarounds that the ISA was 12 addressing were issues of how would the -- what burdens 13
+-would be placed upon the operator in responding to an 14 accident when they are operating in a normal configuration t( )
+-and something off-normal occurs.
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+But I guess the problem I have is 17
+'that it is difficult for me to figure out how you would put J
+the control room into the workaround configuration if you 19 had fuel in the core.
+I mean there is no reason to believe 20.
+.that that set of circumstances would be tolerated once you 21 got the core configuration back in place and had a
+'22 legitimate requirement to have adequate cooling available, 23 I mean it is just a pile of instruments whenever you have 24 got the fuel out of the core.
+DR. BARTON:
+I think what I understood the staff C,/
+i ANN RILEY &. ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+Court Reporters i
+Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D C.
+(202) 842-0034
-   -.     . . . . . . . . . ~ -       - .-..            .     .. _     ._.-. _
+......... ~ -
-1                to say is even when they were operating, there was a large
+1
-      )
+to say is even when they were operating, there was a large 2
-               number of workarounds throughout the plant that were L         3               reflected in some kind of tag or something in the control 4               room.
+)
-                            CHAIRMAN SEALE:              That is not what I heard, I'm 6               sorry.
+number of workarounds throughout the plant that were L
-                           DR..BARTON:             That's what I thought I understood.
+reflected in some kind of tag or something in the control 4
-                           MR. DORMAN:            'Yes, correct.
+room.
-                           DR. BARTON: .Okay.
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
-                           MR. DORMAN: .That's more what we are addressing 11               here.
+That is not what I heard, I'm 6
-                           CHAIRMAN SEALE:               Okay. Fine.
+sorry.
-                           MR. DORMAN:            The other aspect of the shutdown 14               condition is that is a situation which the licensee knows it
+DR..BARTON:
-()    -15               is going into, and they have an opportunity to plan and take 16               these~ things into consideration in advance.                  The type of 17-              thing we are talking about is they know they have got 18               something slightly out of the' normal configuration, maybe a 19              valveLthat-is normally open-that is temporarily shut, but if 20               design. basis event A occurs, we need this operator to go 121-              over and open that valve.                  Well, if we have a number of 22               these in a number of systems where, when event A occurs, and 23              we need the same operator to open this valve and go over to 24               this part of the plant and do this action, and go over to 25               this part- of the plant, then we are relying too much on the O
+That's what I thought I understood.
-(m ,/
+MR. DORMAN:
-                                               . ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+'Yes, correct.
-Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+DR. BARTON:.Okay.
+MR. DORMAN:.That's more what we are addressing 11 here.
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+Okay.
+Fine.
+MR. DORMAN:
+The other aspect of the shutdown 14 condition is that is a situation which the licensee knows it
+()
+-15 is going into, and they have an opportunity to plan and take 16 these~ things into consideration in advance.
+The type of 17-thing we are talking about is they know they have got 18 something slightly out of the' normal configuration, maybe a 19 valveLthat-is normally open-that is temporarily shut, but if 20 design. basis event A occurs, we need this operator to go 121-over and open that valve.
+Well, if we have a number of 22 these in a number of systems where, when event A occurs, and 23 we need the same operator to open this valve and go over to 24 this part of the plant and do this action, and go over to 25 this part-of the plant, then we are relying too much on the O
+. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+(m,/
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-      . . _ ~ . . . _ - . .     - . - - . . - . . - - - . - . - - .                          .. - - - . . - - . .        - - . - - .-
+_ ~... _ -..
 I i
-L 247 1-           same operator to do too many things.
+L 247 1-same operator to do too many things.
-   /~T        2                         CHAIRMAN SEALE:                     And I am saying if the fuel is                                   I
+/~T 2
-  .b-3            off-loaded, I don't know how you get event A in the first
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
-: 4.          place.
+And I am saying if the fuel is
-                        MR. DORMAN:                    I agree. The situations we are'                                     l 6            talking about is when the plant'is operating at power.
+.b-3 off-loaded, I don't know how you get event A in the first 4.
-l 7                         CHAIRMAN SEALE:                     Yes, sir.
+place.
-                        MR.- DORMAN:                   Item 9 relates to how the staff was 9           addressing licensee design basis recovery efforts, and that 10             was addressed through the 50.54(f) letter that was issued in l
+MR. DORMAN:
-           -October of 1996 to,each of the facilities and the staff's 12             review of their responses, and now the ongoing programs that 13             the licensees are following.
+I agree.
-                           Item 10 was the response to public comments about g        15             the adequacy of their involvement in the ISA process, and l          16             has been addressed through a change to Management Directive 17             3,5 on public involvement.
+The situations we are' 6
-                          And Item 11 simply required the staff to prepare a 19             response for the EDO's signature to address the licensee's 2'O           . response to the ISA report, and that was completed in
+talking about is when the plant'is operating at power.
-<          21-            February of '97.
+l 7
-l 22-                          I mentioned already that the power uprate issue in 23'            the ISA plan came from two areas.                                 One was from the NRR 24             lessons learned regarding the consistency -- or rather,
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
-          -25             actually, the inconsistency over the past 20 years in the
+Yes, sir.
-:                                               ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+MR.- DORMAN:
-l                                                                  Court Reporters l                                  1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l                                                       Washington, D.C. 20036 i
+Item 9 relates to how the staff was 9
+addressing licensee design basis recovery efforts, and that 10 was addressed through the 50.54(f) letter that was issued in l
+-October of 1996 to,each of the facilities and the staff's 12 review of their responses, and now the ongoing programs that 13 the licensees are following.
+Item 10 was the response to public comments about g
+the adequacy of their involvement in the ISA process, and l
+has been addressed through a change to Management Directive 17 3,5 on public involvement.
+And Item 11 simply required the staff to prepare a 19 response for the EDO's signature to address the licensee's 2'O
+. response to the ISA report, and that was completed in 21-February of
+'97.
+l 22-I mentioned already that the power uprate issue in 23' the ISA plan came from two areas.
+One was from the NRR 24 lessons learned regarding the consistency -- or rather,
+-25 actually, the inconsistency over the past 20 years in the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+l Court Reporters l
+Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l
+Washington, D.C.
+i
 (202) 842-0034 1
-l 248 1  scope of power uprate reviews, and also from the two issues f)    2  regarding operability of components at Maine Yankee at the t
+l 248 1
-x_/                                                                        ,
+scope of power uprate reviews, and also from the two issues f) 2 regarding operability of components at Maine Yankee at the t
-higher approved power level.                                      ,
+x_/
-l 4            The interim action that the staff has taken is for 5  power uprate --
+higher approved power level.
-           DR. WALLIS:    Excuse me. This power uprate was       j 7  approved by the ACRS?
+l 4
-           MR. DORMAN:    The Maine Yankee power uprate?
+The interim action that the staff has taken is for 5
-           DR. WALLIS:    At some time. Reviewed and --
+power uprate --
-           MR. ZWOLINSKI:    I don't know the answer to that, I    ;
+DR. WALLIS:
-don't believe so.
+Excuse me.
-           DR. KRESS:    We never reviewed Maine Yankee.
+This power uprate was j
-13            DR. WALLIS:    We never got into it.                    '
+approved by the ACRS?
-           MR. ZWOLINSKI:    We would obviously have to check (n)  15  the record, but I thought the '78 one came before --
+MR. DORMAN:
-           DR. WALLIS:    It came before that.
+The Maine Yankee power uprate?
-17            MR. ZWOLINSKI:    But I know the ones that were more    l 18  recent, especially '89, did not.
+DR. WALLIS:
-           DR. UHRIG:    The 5 percent.
+At some time.
-           MR. DORMAN:    The '89 one was from 2630 to 2700, 21  would have been about less than 3 percent. The staff has a 22  number of actions that you will see, on the schedules, go 23- out some ways. In the interim, the staff has taken the 24  union of the set of issues that were reviewed in all past 25  power uprates and we are reviewing all of those issues for f
+Reviewed and --
-  /D                     ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+MR. ZWOLINSKI:
-  \w-)                          Court Reporters l                  1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 l                                (202) 842-0034 l
+I don't know the answer to that, I 11 don't believe so.
+DR. KRESS:
+We never reviewed Maine Yankee.
+DR. WALLIS:
+We never got into it.
+MR. ZWOLINSKI:
+We would obviously have to check (n) 15 the record, but I thought the '78 one came before --
+DR. WALLIS:
+It came before that.
+MR. ZWOLINSKI:
+But I know the ones that were more l
+recent, especially '89, did not.
+DR. UHRIG:
+The 5 percent.
+MR. DORMAN:
+The '89 one was from 2630 to 2700, 21 would have been about less than 3 percent.
+The staff has a 22 number of actions that you will see, on the schedules, go 23-out some ways.
+In the interim, the staff has taken the 24 union of the set of issues that were reviewed in all past 25 power uprates and we are reviewing all of those issues for f
+/D ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+\\w-)
+Court Reporters l
+Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+l
+(202) 842-0034 l
-_    . .  . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . , .    . _ . _ . _ _      - _ _ _ _ .~.- _ _. _ ._
+- _ _ _ _.~.- _ _. _._
-t r
+t 249 r
-1          ' current power uprate reviews.                 So our interim action is,
-:("'\       l2          conservatively, to address all of the issues that we have V
+' current power uprate reviews.
-         seen in past uprate reviews.
+So our interim action is,
-                    We have an action that is nearing completion on
+:("'\\
-               ;5          . reviewing past'uprates for.-identification of risk 6          significance issues.              We are trying to assess the importance
+l2 conservatively, to address all of the issues that we have V
-               -7           of each of the issues that were identified ~in all past power 8          uprates to determine how broad the scope needs to be power 9          uprate reviews, and we are nearing completion of that risk
+seen in past uprate reviews.
+We have an action that is nearing completion on
+;5
+. reviewing past'uprates for.-identification of risk 6
+significance issues.
+We are trying to assess the importance
+-7 of each of the issues that were identified ~in all past power 8
+uprates to determine how broad the scope needs to be power 9
+uprate reviews, and we are nearing completion of that risk
 ?
-           assessment.
+assessment.
-                      There is -- we will be evaluating the need for 12            development of a standard review plan, or other guidance for
+There is -- we will be evaluating the need for 12 development of a standard review plan, or other guidance for
-            - 13           .the staff in the scope of. power uprate reviews,                                 Right now 14            the resources that would get into that are addressing some
+- 13
-()       15            of the 50.59 and FSAR accuracy issues, so we have not 16            initiated that effort,_however, it is in the operating plan 17            for '99.
+.the staff in the scope of. power uprate reviews, Right now 14 the resources that would get into that are addressing some
-                       CHAIRMAN SEALE:                 I assume you are aware of the                        l 19           -recent uprates on Hatch and Monticello.
+()
-            .:20                       MR. DORMAN:               Yes, sir,         In fact, the first one 21             that was issued after the lessons learned came out in 22             December of '96 was the Fitzpatrick uprate, and that was 23             coming close on the heels of that report, and the staff 24            .briefly held up the Fitzpatrick power uprate to make sure we 25             had broadly addressed the issues raised in our lessons ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD, O.                                                 Court Reporters 102,5 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+of the 50.59 and FSAR accuracy issues, so we have not 16 initiated that effort,_however, it is in the operating plan 17 for '99.
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+I assume you are aware of the 19
+-recent uprates on Hatch and Monticello.
+.:20 MR. DORMAN:
+Yes, sir, In fact, the first one 21 that was issued after the lessons learned came out in 22 December of '96 was the Fitzpatrick uprate, and that was 23 coming close on the heels of that report, and the staff 24
+.briefly held up the Fitzpatrick power uprate to make sure we 25 had broadly addressed the issues raised in our lessons O.
+ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD, Court Reporters 102,5 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-1 learned.
+1
-      )  2             Once we do have a standard guidance and have 1
+learned.
-(''J 3 determined what issues are appropriate for the staff's 4 review on power uprates, we intend to go back and look at 5 some of the past power uprates against that standardized 6 guidance, recognizing that at this point the staff has taken 7 a position on those uprates and any questions that we make, 8 or any improvements that we might require, would be backfits 9 and we would need. to justify it through appropriate 10 regulatory process.
+(''J
-            If there's no further questions on the uprates, I 12 will turn it over to Ralph Caruso to address what we are 13 doing to address the analytic code issues.
+)
-           MR. CARUSO:     Good morning, my name is Ralph es (v  ) 15 Caruso. I am the Section Chief of the Advanced Reactors and 16 Special Projects Section of the Reactor Systems Branch in 17 NRR. I am going to discuss efforts that are ongoing right 18 now in NRR and RES concerning analytical code issues that 19 have surfaced as part of the Maine Yankee event.
+Once we do have a standard guidance and have 1
-           The first slide here describes a number of issues 21 that were identified as a result of the Maine Yankee ISAT.
+determined what issues are appropriate for the staff's 4
+review on power uprates, we intend to go back and look at 5
+some of the past power uprates against that standardized 6
+guidance, recognizing that at this point the staff has taken 7
+a position on those uprates and any questions that we make, 8
+or any improvements that we might require, would be backfits 9
+and we would need. to justify it through appropriate 10 regulatory process.
+If there's no further questions on the uprates, I 12 will turn it over to Ralph Caruso to address what we are 13 doing to address the analytic code issues.
+MR. CARUSO:
+Good morning, my name is Ralph es
+(
+)
+Caruso.
+I am the Section Chief of the Advanced Reactors and v
+Special Projects Section of the Reactor Systems Branch in 17 NRR.
+I am going to discuss efforts that are ongoing right 18 now in NRR and RES concerning analytical code issues that 19 have surfaced as part of the Maine Yankee event.
+The first slide here describes a number of issues 21 that were identified as a result of the Maine Yankee ISAT.
 I would note that some of these issues have also become 23 evident through the advanced reactor reviews that have been 24 conducted over the past five to seven years.
-           The item at the top of the list, adequacy of code ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+The item at the top of the list, adequacy of code
 (''))
-N_                             Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+N_
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-     . _   _.m..     . . _ _ _        . _ . . _ _ . _ _ . - _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _. _ . _ ._ _. _ _
+_.m..
-l 251 1        documentation, is an^ issue that.seems to have a thread l ..
+l 251 1
-      .everywhere.that computer codes are used.- The documentation i
+documentation, is an^ issue that.seems to have a thread l..
-o 3      Lthat .s i provided by the code developers is not. adequate to 1
-       allow a detailed review-and understanding of the code by 5        either reviewers or by the' users.
+.everywhere.that computer codes are used.- The documentation i
-                       In-addition, questions.have arisen about the 7        adequacy of the code assessme'nt work, whether the assessment 8        was rigorous, whether it considered all the situations for 9        which the code was used, and whether there is an adequate 10           database against which the code have-been assessed.
+i
--                          In addition, the Maine Yankee ISAT identified 12-          inconsistencies in the. staff review process.                                                    Becauu: the l
+Lthat.s provided by the code developers is not. adequate to o
-          number of codes -- because the codes that are used by the
+allow a detailed review-and understanding of the code by 1
-                - 14           industry-are large and diverse, the staff has adopted a                                                          l
+either reviewers or by the' users.
-()         15-          rather ad hoc practice of reviewing them, and we have not 16           documented our review processes or our review standards..                                                        '
+In-addition, questions.have arisen about the 7
-17                          DR. WALLIS:                           Excuse me.                      This review invalves
+adequacy of the code assessme'nt work, whether the assessment 8
-                 - 18          looking at the code, actual lines of code,.and trying to 19           figure out what is going-on there?                                                    Or does it involve using
+was rigorous, whether it considered all the situations for 9
-                - 20           the code?
+which the code was used, and whether there is an adequate 10 database against which the code have-been assessed.
-                         MR. CARUSO:                           In the past, the staff review process
+-In addition, the Maine Yankee ISAT identified 12-inconsistencies in the. staff review process.
-: 22.          has not generally involved looking at individual lines of 23           code or using the code itself, it has consisted of review of 24           the documentation, review of assessment reports, 25           occasionally looking at individual assessment runs and
+Becauu: the 13 number of codes -- because the codes that are used by the
-'      /'')
+- 14 industry-are large and diverse, the staff has adopted a
-    -(_/.
+()
+-rather ad hoc practice of reviewing them, and we have not 16 documented our review processes or our review standards..
+DR. WALLIS:
+Excuse me.
+This review invalves
+- 18 looking at the code, actual lines of code,.and trying to 19 figure out what is going-on there?
+Or does it involve using
+- 20 the code?
+MR. CARUSO:
+In the past, the staff review process 22.
+has not generally involved looking at individual lines of 23 code or using the code itself, it has consisted of review of 24 the documentation, review of assessment reports, 25 occasionally looking at individual assessment runs and
+/'')
 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
-Court Reporters
+-(_/.
-                                        .1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+.1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Court Reporters Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-1
+252 l
-l l                      l'          possibly, on very rare occasions, looking at individual                           !
+l' possibly, on very rare occasions, looking at individual
-         /'')
+.../'')
-         %~J:
+models.
-           models.                                                                           I l                    ~3                         .R. WALLIS:
+%~J:
-D                             I believe the code isn't quite the t
+l
--          same as the equations.
+~3
-l                      5                        MR. CARUSO:                   That's. correct.
+.R.
-l                      6-                       DR. WALLIS:- There are ways that you try to solve h
+WALLIS:
-j'                     7           the equations by putting in extra things like --
+I believe the code isn't quite the D
-                       MR. CARUSO:                   That's correct.
+t 4-same as the equations.
-                      ,9                        DR. WALLIS:                    -- on the relaxations and fudge 10            factors _and things to make it work.
+l 5
-                        MR. CARUSO:                   That's correct.
+MR. CARUSO:
-I
+That's. correct.
-!                    12'                        DR. WALLIS:                   How is there sort of an assessment of 1
+l 6-DR. WALLIS:- There are ways that you try to solve h
-           that?                                                                             l 14                         MR. CARUSO:                   Well, in the past that has been done t( )        15.           through review of-the documentation of, for example, 16            numerical methods, or the models, how the models are 17            implemerted.          And, as I said, the code documentation 18            provided in the past has often not been as complete as we 19            would have wished, and this was identified as an area which 20            needs to be improved.
+j' 7
-'                       DR. WALLIS:                    .Isn't part of this because of the 22-           long time.that somebody -- X -- works on the code in 1970, 23            writes something up, leaves the company, and the legacy is a 24'           code this person wrote which no one else understands.
+the equations by putting in extra things like --
-                        MR. CARUSO:                   I couldn't disagree with you at all Q                                             ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+MR. CARUSO:
-k_/                                                          Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 i
+That's correct.
-(202) 842-0034
+,9 DR. WALLIS:
-              ,    ,                .                                     ,a,
+-- on the relaxations and fudge 10 factors _and things to make it work.
+MR. CARUSO:
+That's correct.
+' DR. WALLIS:
+How is there sort of an assessment of 1
+that?
+MR. CARUSO:
+Well, in the past that has been done t( )
+.
+through review of-the documentation of, for example, 16 numerical methods, or the models, how the models are 17 implemerted.
+And, as I said, the code documentation 18 provided in the past has often not been as complete as we 19 would have wished, and this was identified as an area which 20 needs to be improved.
+' DR. WALLIS:
+.Isn't part of this because of the 22-long time.that somebody -- X -- works on the code in 1970, 23 writes something up, leaves the company, and the legacy is a 24' code this person wrote which no one else understands.
+MR. CARUSO:
+I couldn't disagree with you at all Q
+ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+k_/
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034 i
+,a,
+. - ~.
-l                                                                                                                     253 1-  on that.
+l 253 1-on that.
-t
+t l (d
-     ''\
+''\\
-l i  (d            2                       The final item that's listed here as the code l                3   catalogue refers to license conditions associated with the r
+The final item that's listed here as the code i
-                .4   acceptance of a code.                When the staff writes a safety 5   evaluation report, it usually includes limitations on the 6   use or-application of.the code in terms of the input or the 7   type of plant or limits of applicability of particular
+l 3
+catalogue refers to license conditions associated with the r
+.4 acceptance of a code.
+When the staff writes a safety 5
+evaluation report, it usually includes limitations on the 6
+use or-application of.the code in terms of the input or the 7
+type of plant or limits of applicability of particular
 {
-l 8  models or components in the code.                                 And one of the lessons 9   learned out of the Maine Yankee ISAT was that the staff did 10    not have a handle on what the conditions were for the use of 11    the various codes that it had approved.                                            So one of the 12    recommendations was to develop a catalogue of those SERS and 13    the conditions.
+l 8
-                       To address these problems, the staff has.taken
+models or components in the code.
-(       )'  15    several actions, and these actions are being performed by 16'  NRR and RES together.                 We are developing a standard review 17   plan.            NRR has the lead in this area, and we're developing a 18    standard format and content guide and a regulatory guide,
+And one of the lessons 9
-              -19   which is -- for which research has the cognizance under the 20   close -- in close cooperation with NRR.
+learned out of the Maine Yankee ISAT was that the staff did 10 not have a handle on what the conditions were for the use of 11 the various codes that it had approved.
--                       DR. KRESS:      Format and content for the 22   documentation of the code itself?
+So one of the 12 recommendations was to develop a catalogue of those SERS and 13 the conditions.
-              .23.                       MR. CARUSO:      Let me explain what the purpose is.
+To address these problems, the staff has.taken
-  The standard review plan -- purpose of the standard review 25   plan is-to give the staff guidance on how to review a code.
+(
-I[~                                        ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+)'
-Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+several actions, and these actions are being performed by 16' NRR and RES together.
+We are developing a standard review 17 plan.
+NRR has the lead in this area, and we're developing a 18 standard format and content guide and a regulatory guide,
+-19 which is -- for which research has the cognizance under the 20 close -- in close cooperation with NRR.
+-DR. KRESS:
+Format and content for the 22 documentation of the code itself?
+.23.
+MR. CARUSO:
+Let me explain what the purpose is.
+The standard review plan -- purpose of the standard review 25 plan is-to give the staff guidance on how to review a code.
+I[~
+ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-f                                                                                            I 254 1   Standard format and. content guide is guidance to licensees i    [''/
+f I
-     \ss t      2-  to tell them what they have to provide in their application
+1
-               '3-  to allow'the staff to do-the review in accordance with the
+Standard format and. content guide is guidance to licensees
-:               4   standard review plan.
+[''/
-             DR. WALLIS:       This is the source code that's 6   actually --
+t 2-to tell them what they have to provide in their application
-             MR. CARUSO:       No. This is -- when we receive a 8   code for review, we receive a very large package of                        l l
+\\ss i
-  documentation, and the format and content guide says, when 10    you're going to provide us with this mountain of paper, what 11    should be there, what should it include, what kind of 12    documentation?
+'3-to allow'the staff to do-the review in accordance with the 4
+standard review plan.
+DR. WALLIS:
+This is the source code that's 6
+actually --
+MR. CARUSO:
+No.
+This is -- when we receive a 8
+code for review, we receive a very large package of l
+documentation, and the format and content guide says, when 10 you're going to provide us with this mountain of paper, what 11 should be there, what should it include, what kind of 12 documentation?
 l
-             ~13               DR. FONTANA:       How do you know the code matches the i
+~13 DR. FONTANA:
-   documentation?
+How do you know the code matches the i
--              MR.~CARUSO:       Well, I don't have it here, but I'm 16    going to talk about some of the practices that we have                    !
+documentation?
-   already started to implement for several code reviews that 18    are about to start, and one of the changes that we are 19-   making in our practices is that we are requiring licensees 20    to provide us with the actual code.          This is a change from 21   'past practice.
+-MR.~CARUSO:
-              I think a large part of the reason why we have 23    never done this in the past is because the codes are so 24   _large that they have required large computers, and we just 25    don't -- we've never had the resources in the past to run
+Well, I don't have it here, but I'm 16 going to talk about some of the practices that we have 17 already started to implement for several code reviews that 18 are about to start, and one of the changes that we are 19-making in our practices is that we are requiring licensees 20 to provide us with the actual code.
-  , (^'j ,                          ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+This is a change from 21
-:   As _/                                  Court Reporters
+'past practice.
-{-                           1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202)_842-0034
+I think a large part of the reason why we have 23 never done this in the past is because the codes are so 24
+_large that they have required large computers, and we just 25 don't -- we've never had the resources in the past to run
+, (^'j,
+ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+A _/
+Court Reporters s
+{-
+Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202)_842-0034
 i
-p-             1    them. But now, we have -- computers are cheap and the codes t
+them.
-U,O        2   'are readily portab'.e, so we are starting to require 3    licensees and vendors to provide us with the codes --
+But now, we have -- computers are cheap and the codes p-t U,O 2
+'are readily portab'.e, so we are starting to require 3
+licensees and vendors to provide us with the codes --
 (:
-l              4                 ' CHAIRMAN SEALE:    Just to confirm --
+l 4
-                  MR. CARUSO:    -- both the source and1-- both the j            ~6. source code and compiled versions that we are actually going i            ' 7f-  to run.
+' CHAIRMAN SEALE:
-: 8.                  CHAIRMAN SEALE:     In this case, the code ir 9    question was a code that was a part of the re-load analysis 10     ~ process, and so it came up on a' systematic -- in a fairly 11      systematic routine way that this code was going to have to-12     . flex its muscles.
+Just to confirm --
-                  -Are there other codes in this overall -- covered 14      in this overall. plan that are part of the design basis
+MR. CARUSO:
-   -(   )   15     ' analysis.that are not necessarily to be used on a routine 16      basis to continue to operate.the plant?
+-- both the source and1-- both the j
-                    MR. CARUSO:    You mean are -- as part of this 18      effort, are we the staff going to review those codes or --
+~6.
-19                     CHAIPMAN SEALE:    Yes.
+source code and compiled versions that we are actually going i
-          '20                      MR.'CARUSO:    This issue can get very large.   -I 21      have been overseeing the code catalogue to try to document 22      the SERs for all the codes, and we decided that we had to 23      limit it to'ECCS and containment codes because we just don't 24      have enough money to cover --
+' 7f-to run.
-                    CHAIRMAN SEALE:    But are those --
+.
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+In this case, the code ir 9
+question was a code that was a part of the re-load analysis 10
+~ process, and so it came up on a' systematic -- in a fairly 11 systematic routine way that this code was going to have to-12
+. flex its muscles.
+-Are there other codes in this overall -- covered 14 in this overall. plan that are part of the design basis
+-(
+)
+' analysis.that are not necessarily to be used on a routine 16 basis to continue to operate.the plant?
+MR. CARUSO:
+You mean are -- as part of this 18 effort, are we the staff going to review those codes or --
+CHAIPMAN SEALE:
+Yes.
+'20 MR.'CARUSO:
+This issue can get very large.
+-I 21 have been overseeing the code catalogue to try to document 22 the SERs for all the codes, and we decided that we had to 23 limit it to'ECCS and containment codes because we just don't 24 have enough money to cover --
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+But are those --
 l
-    /~''                               ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATFS, LTD.
+/~''
-Court Reporters l                              1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATFS, LTD.
+Court Reporters l
+Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-1                       MR. CARUSO:         -- all the others.                            There are
+1
-    /~'  2        structural codes, there are --
+MR. CARUSO:
-Y)i 3                       CHAIRMAN SEALE:                Sure.
+-- all the others.
-                      MR. CARUSO:         -- electrical engineering codes.
+There are
-                      CHAIRMAN SEALE:                Fine.
+/~'
-                     MR. CARUSO:          We know they're out tnere and                                                         (
+structural codes, there are --
-        hopefully,.the standard review plan that we developed for 8        the thermal hydraulic codes will provide enough of a basis 9        that a structural engineer can use it.
+Y)i 3
-                      CHAIRMAN SEALE:                But in the area of ECCS and 11        containment codes, we recently, of course, just finished the 12        AP600 review, and we kept running into the problem of
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
-: 13.       brusning the dust off of code runs and code decks, if I                                                                  l 14        could use the word --
+Sure.
-()  15                      MR. CARUSO:         Yes.
+MR. CARUSO:
-                      CHAIRMAN SEALE:                -- that had more gray hair on 17        them than I do.
+-- electrical engineering codes.
-                     MR. CARUSO:          Yes.
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
-                      CHAIRMAN SEALE:                And in fact, these codes were 20        literally inoperable in today's environment, and even if you 21        could got them to run, no one exactly had a good cat of 22        documentation on what-all of the -- pardon me.                                        .I don't want p
+Fine.
-l'      23        to -- what all of tha problems were and the special l:
+MR. CARUSO:
-j       24        interpretational techniques you had to go through in order L
+We know they're out tnere and 7
-l 25        to fish the good stuff away from the throw-away, if you
+hopefully,.the standard review plan that we developed for 8
-    ]1 s,
+the thermal hydraulic codes will provide enough of a basis 9
-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, ITD.
+that a structural engineer can use it.
-Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 i
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+But in the area of ECCS and 11 containment codes, we recently, of course, just finished the 12 AP600 review, and we kept running into the problem of 13.
+brusning the dust off of code runs and code decks, if I 14 could use the word --
+( )
+MR. CARUSO:
+Yes.
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+-- that had more gray hair on 17 them than I do.
+MR. CARUSO:
+Yes.
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+And in fact, these codes were 20 literally inoperable in today's environment, and even if you 21 could got them to run, no one exactly had a good cat of 22 documentation on what-all of the -- pardon me.
+.I don't want p
+l' 23 to -- what all of tha problems were and the special l:
+j 24 interpretational techniques you had to go through in order L
+l 25 to fish the good stuff away from the throw-away, if you
+]1 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, ITD.
+s, Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+i
 (202) 842-0034
-                       .       -.. .           . , .    -.       - - . -.- ~.- . -                        . . . ..       -
+- -. -.- ~.-. -
-l                                                                                                                            l l                        ,
+l l
-            '1'      will, in the results.
+'1' will, in the results.
-((''       2'                      Now,'those included,the thermal hydraulics and-
+((''
-,   \_: -                                                                                                                  q E                                                                                                                            .
+' Now,'those included,the thermal hydraulics and-
--'
+\\_: -
-containment analysis issues, but they're not necessarily the 4        thing that has to be done every time you do a're-load. They 5       were done initially in the' design. And so are those kinds                                              ,
+q 3 -'
-       of calculations in this modified hunting license you've got                                            :
+containment analysis issues, but they're not necessarily the E
-l 7       or:are youtputting those with the structural analysis kinds                                              1 8      .of things?
+thing that has to be done every time you do a're-load.
-'                      MR. CARUSO:          I'm not sure which sort of 10        calculations --
+They 5
-                       CHAIRMAN'SEALE:           Well, there was --
+were done initially in the' design.
-                       MR. CARUSO:         Do you have any examples?
+And so are those kinds 6
-                       CHAIRMAN SEALE:           Well, some of the design basis 14        analyses that went'on in the original assessment.
+of calculations in this modified hunting license you've got l
-()    ~15 16 h.. . CARUSO:       For accident and transient analysis?
+or:are youtputting those with the structural analysis kinds 8
-CHAIRMAN SEALE:           Yes.        That kind of thing.                              '
+.of things?
-                       MR. CARUSO:         Well, when you do a re-load, it's my 18       understanding that they have to redo all the --
+' MR. CARUSO:
-                       CRAIRMAN SEALE:           You do the full suite.                                        l 20                        MR. .CARUSO:        Full suite.
+I'm not sure which sort of 10 calculations --
-l 21                        CHAIRMAN SEALE:           Okay.         Okay.
+CHAIRMAN'SEALE:
-                       MR. CARUSO:         Unless they can make arguments that a
+Well, there was --
-'       the fuel -- that the characteristics are so --
+MR. CARUSO:
-l 24        characteristics ct the new fuel is so similar that they can i
+Do you have any examples?
-L          25       make similarity --
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+Well, some of the design basis 14 analyses that went'on in the original assessment.
+()
+~15 h... CARUSO:
+For accident and transient analysis?
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+Yes.
+That kind of thing.
+MR. CARUSO:
+Well, when you do a re-load, it's my 18 understanding that they have to redo all the --
+CRAIRMAN SEALE:
+You do the full suite.
+l 20 MR..CARUSO:
+Full suite.
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+Okay.
+Okay.
+MR. CARUSO:
+Unless they can make arguments that a
+' the fuel -- that the characteristics are so --
+l 24 characteristics ct the new fuel is so similar that they can i
+L 25 make similarity --
 g i
-,                                          ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
-Court Reporters
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014
-:                                1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014
 ]
-  84 -b3 m
+84 -b3 m
-                     . . + . -                        ,     .          --            ,  , - , , - . - . ,        = , .-.
+.. +. -
+=,
-      .      _..-g.     . _ _ . .      . _ . . . _ _ , . - .       . .         . _ _ . _ ___ ~-. _ .-- . _ , . _ . _ _ . . - . _ .                            . _ . _ _                _.
+_..-g.
-1                                MR. ZWOLINSKI:             Bounded by previous analysis.
+. _ _. _ ___ ~-. _.--. _,. _. _ _.. -. _.
-   ./                2                              'MR. CARUSO:            Yes.
+1
-   \
+MR. ZWOLINSKI:
-l 3                                CHAIRMAN SEALE:                Yes, but if you make that 4~         argument a few times and then you suddenly come up and find 5           that you can ru) . longer _make_it,for you decide that-you will 6        -ru) longer accept it.because of problems like this,                                                               --
+Bounded by previous analysis.
-:                               MR. CARUSO:           Yes.
+./
-l'
-                    .8:                               CHAIRMAN SEALE:                -- you may very well.come back 9'         and' find yourself with a gray-haired code again that won't
+'MR.
-                  '10           do the-job.                                                                                                                                               I l
+CARUSO:
-                 -11'                                 MR. CARUSO:           Interestingly _enough, what we're._
+Yes.
--           finding, and I'll -- when I get into some of the examples,                                                                                               I 13          you'll see it better -- what we're finding is that vendors 14        -and licensees are starting to give up the .ld codes because                                                                                                 l
+\\
-_()             15           the old platforms aren't available anymore, and they're 16           having the same problem with the documentation that we are, 17           and they can't find people that know.how to run them.                                                                      So 18           they just say -- they give up on them.                                                              They say we'll go 19          buv something else, something new that's portable, that. runs L                  20           on: multiple platforms, that's better documented.                                                             The i
+l 3
-          industry is working-together on this.                                                              So I think the 22           situation is improving.
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
-'                               The scope of these standard review plan and 24           standard format guides includes a discussion of the general 125           principles that are applicable to all analytical codes, the
+Yes, but if you make that 4~
-.     ((
+argument a few times and then you suddenly come up and find 5
- < fsjj W RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+that you can ru). longer _make_it,for you decide that-you will 6
-Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut. Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036
+-ru) longer accept it.because of problems like this, 7:
-!~                                                                     (202) 842-0034
+MR. CARUSO:
-    -.w,..               . .-. -                                         ,,                          .             ,                           - - _ _ . -  -           _, - - . - - .
+Yes.
+l
+.8:
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+-- you may very well.come back 9'
+and' find yourself with a gray-haired code again that won't
+'10 do the-job.
+I l
+-11' MR. CARUSO:
+Interestingly _enough, what we're._
+-finding, and I'll -- when I get into some of the examples, I
+you'll see it better -- what we're finding is that vendors 14
+-and licensees are starting to give up the.ld codes because
+_()
+the old platforms aren't available anymore, and they're 16 having the same problem with the documentation that we are, 17 and they can't find people that know.how to run them.
+So 18 they just say -- they give up on them.
+They say we'll go 19 buv something else, something new that's portable, that. runs L
+on: multiple platforms, that's better documented.
+The i
+industry is working-together on this.
+So I think the 22 situation is improving.
+' The scope of these standard review plan and 24 standard format guides includes a discussion of the general 125 principles that are applicable to all analytical codes, the
+. ((
+W RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+< fsjj Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut. Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036
+!~
+(202) 842-0034
+-.w,..
-i                                                                                                                              259 L                    .1     development process, how you do code assessment, L
+i 259 L
-q              2     documentation.
+.1 development process, how you do code assessment, L
-L                     3                           The details -- we're going to consider certain
+q 2
-!                                                                                                                                           I I
+documentation.
-    accident and accident classes such as Chapter 15 accidents,                                                     1 5    .and we will specify_modeling. requirements, assessment data, 6     how close calculations-have:to come to, test data, and 7     criteria ~for determining whether a code is actually able to 8     calculate the. phenomena of interest.
+L 3
-: 9.                          We'll be guided a lot in this lar the experience we
+The details -- we're going to consider certain I
-                                                                ~
+accident and accident classes such as Chapter 15 accidents, 1
-CF     have gona through over the past seven years with the 11      advanced reactors where we have reviewed the thermal 12-     hydraulic codes and we've reviewed various different 13      methodologies using the CSU methodology.
-'                           DR.LWALLIS:         You didn't actually run those codes, f\
+.and we will specify_modeling. requirements, assessment data, 6
-       - ma);       15      though;'you had to accept --
+how close calculations-have:to come to, test data, and 7
-                           MR. CARUSO:         No, we did not.
+criteria ~for determining whether a code is actually able to 8
-                           DR. WALLIS:         -- some sort of a curve supplied by 18      the. vendor?                                                                                                    i 19                            MR. CARUSO:         That's correct.                    But as I said, the-20      new practice as we're applying it to several codes that I'm 21      just about to get to in a few minutes will be changing, and 22      we will.be running the coder and we will be asking for the 23     . assessment of input data.
+calculate the. phenomena of interest.
-                           DR. WALLIS: .And when you write or someone writes 25      an SER, they will actually say that we have also ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+.
-Court Reporters 10251 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+We'll be guided a lot in this lar the experience we
+~
+CF have gona through over the past seven years with the 11 advanced reactors where we have reviewed the thermal 12-hydraulic codes and we've reviewed various different 13 methodologies using the CSU methodology.
+' DR.LWALLIS:
+You didn't actually run those codes, f\\
+- ma);
+though;'you had to accept --
+16 MR. CARUSO:
+No, we did not.
+DR. WALLIS:
+-- some sort of a curve supplied by 18 the. vendor?
+i 19 MR. CARUSO:
+That's correct.
+But as I said, the-20 new practice as we're applying it to several codes that I'm 21 just about to get to in a few minutes will be changing, and 22 we will.be running the coder and we will be asking for the 23
+. assessment of input data.
+DR. WALLIS:.And when you write or someone writes 25 an SER, they will actually say that we have also ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+Court Reporters 10251 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-1  independently checked this thing out, and our results
+1
-   ''}    2  confirm what's in the SER.
+independently checked this thing out, and our results
-U 3              MR. CARUSO:    Well, the independent checks -- it's 4  difficult to say what an independent check is, and I hate to 5  --
+''}
-             DR. WALLIS:    Well, you have the hunting license to 7  find errors is what you have.
+confirm what's in the SER.
-             MR. CARUSO:    Well, that's finding errors in the 9  code itself. There's another aspect of independent checks 10  which involves the staff running our own codes to analyze 11  the plants, and that's really the independent check for an         l 12  individual plant application.       So I'm hesitant to call it an 13 . independent check. I mean, we're the regulator, we are i
+U 3
-responsible to check the work of the licensee, and the staff s
+MR. CARUSO:
-(v)        will do that. That's sort of inherent in the process.
+Well, the independent checks -- it's 4
-             DR. WALLIS:    I think there's a difference in 17  philosophy, though.      I think that the vendor is running the 18  code arm exercising it and e,weaking it in order to get the 19  results that he wishes to get.       So it's always emphasizing 20  sort of a result-driven, trying to get a positive result, 21  and it would seem to me the staff would take the opposite 22  approach:     take this code, check it for robustness, tweak 23  it, see if it gives you the opposite, the negative result.
+difficult to say what an independent check is, and I hate to 5
-An absolutely different approach, and it seems to be i
+DR. WALLIS:
+Well, you have the hunting license to 7
+find errors is what you have.
+MR. CARUSO:
+Well, that's finding errors in the 9
+code itself.
+There's another aspect of independent checks 10 which involves the staff running our own codes to analyze 11 the plants, and that's really the independent check for an 12 individual plant application.
+So I'm hesitant to call it an 13
+. independent check.
+I mean, we're the regulator, we are i
+responsible to check the work of the licensee, and the staff s
+(v) 15 will do that.
+That's sort of inherent in the process.
+DR. WALLIS:
+I think there's a difference in 17 philosophy, though.
+I think that the vendor is running the 18 code arm exercising it and e,weaking it in order to get the 19 results that he wishes to get.
+So it's always emphasizing 20 sort of a result-driven, trying to get a positive result, 21 and it would seem to me the staff would take the opposite 22 approach:
+take this code, check it for robustness, tweak 23 it, see if it gives you the opposite, the negative result.
+An absolutely different approach, and it seems to be i
 necessary that that be done.
-[~h                        ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+[~h ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
-  \ _,,/                            Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+\\ _,,/
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-    - . . ~ . _       _   . _   ,- _ .            ____ _.__._, ._ . . - . . - _ _ _ . __                               _..
+-.. ~. _
-l                                                                                                                     261 b                  1              MR. CARUSO:         My personal opinion is I think this
+l 261 b
+MR. CARUSO:
+My personal opinion is I think this
 [
-is a good -- this is a much improved process that we're 3 about to embark on-because we will have both the code and' 4 the input models to the code.                                    This will allow us to-5 understand how the vendors or the code user is adjusting his 6 input to get the result he wants.                                         It will allow us much
+is a good -- this is a much improved process that we're 2
-                                                                                                                              ]
+about to embark on-because we will have both the code and' 4
-better to understand where the sensitivities are in the code 8 inputs and the code itself, and we're about to try this out.
+the input models to the code.
-             DR. WALLIS: This sounds great to me, and I just 10  wonder why it has taken so long.
+This will allow us to-5 understand how the vendors or the code user is adjusting his 6
-              MR. CARUSO:         Well, as I said before, one of the 12  reasons was computer time.                           It used to be that these codes 13  required very large computers, and the whole computer 14  environment has shifted, and the agency has made a concerted
+input to get the result he wants.
-()             15  effort over the last couple of years to improve our 16  expertise and review in this sort of area.
+It will allow us much
-              DR. FONTANA:            You've always had major computer 18  capabilities in the DOE labs, though.
+]
-              MR. CARUSO:         Well, yes, that's true.                               I -- it's
+better to understand where the sensitivities are in the code 8
-                '20  really hard for me to say why it wasn't done in the past.
+inputs and the code itself, and we're about to try this out.
-As I say, personally, I think it should have been done.
+DR. WALLIS:
-              DR. WALLIS:         No thanks to Maine Yankee.
+This sounds great to me, and I just 10 wonder why it has taken so long.
-              MR. CARUSO:         No, I'm not so sure -- I think --
+MR. CARUSO:
-                '24               DR. WALLIS:         That was the context in which we came 25  here.
+Well, as I said before, one of the 12 reasons was computer time.
-l i     'N                                  ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+It used to be that these codes 13 required very large computers, and the whole computer 14 environment has shifted, and the agency has made a concerted
-s                                             Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036
+()
-                                                 '(202) 842-0034
+effort over the last couple of years to improve our 16 expertise and review in this sort of area.
+DR. FONTANA:
+You've always had major computer 18 capabilities in the DOE labs, though.
+MR. CARUSO:
+Well, yes, that's true.
+I -- it's
+'20 really hard for me to say why it wasn't done in the past.
+As I say, personally, I think it should have been done.
+DR. WALLIS:
+No thanks to Maine Yankee.
+MR. CARUSO:
+No, I'm not so sure -- I think --
+'24 DR. WALLIS:
+That was the context in which we came 25 here.
+l i
+'N ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+Court Reporters s
+Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+'(202) 842-0034
-1             MR. CARUSO:    Actually, I think it's really more
+1
-/''N    2 thanks to the computer manufacturers, b       3             DR. POWERS:    Yeu're not the first person to 4  confront the problem of code documentation, validation and 5  verification. Are the standards that you're about to impose 6  upon these codes of your invention or have they followed 7  from some consensus industry standard or some other 8  authoritative body that has given you the guide on how to 9  define all of these things?
+MR. CARUSO:
-             MR. CARUSO:    As I stated, the work that's being 11  done here is being done mostly by the Office of Research, 12  which has gone through a lot of this as part of the advanced      3 13  reactor reviews over the past eight years, and they have had 14  a lot of discussion with us, with you, with the vendors, GE, s
+Actually, I think it's really more
-(v  i 15  Westinghouse, Combustion Engineering, about codes, because 16  that's what we needed to address as part of the review 17  process of the advanced reactors.
+/''N 2
-             So we went to research because they had the 19  expertise in this area having gone through this for the 20  advanced reactors.
+thanks to the computer manufacturers, b
-             The schedule for development of the reg guide and 22  the SRP includes interactions with the ACRS and with the 23  industry to develop a set of standards that we can all live 24  with.
+DR. POWERS:
-             That's my next slide.
+Yeu're not the first person to 4
+confront the problem of code documentation, validation and 5
-(''N                      ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+verification.
-(,,/                             Court Reporters                              j 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014                    i Washington, D.C. 20036                           I (202) 842-0034
+Are the standards that you're about to impose 6
+upon these codes of your invention or have they followed 7
+from some consensus industry standard or some other 8
+authoritative body that has given you the guide on how to 9
+define all of these things?
+MR. CARUSO:
+As I stated, the work that's being 11 done here is being done mostly by the Office of Research, 12 which has gone through a lot of this as part of the advanced 3
+reactor reviews over the past eight years, and they have had 14 a lot of discussion with us, with you, with the vendors, GE, s(v i
+Westinghouse, Combustion Engineering, about codes, because 16 that's what we needed to address as part of the review 17 process of the advanced reactors.
+So we went to research because they had the 19 expertise in this area having gone through this for the 20 advanced reactors.
+The schedule for development of the reg guide and 22 the SRP includes interactions with the ACRS and with the 23 industry to develop a set of standards that we can all live 24 with.
+That's my next slide.
+(''N ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+(,,/
+Court Reporters j
+Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 i
+Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-263 1                  DR. POWERS:    From that, I take it that these are 1
+263 1
-[''y    2    springing from the intelligence and the sophistication that U-3    existsiin research.
+DR. POWERS:
-                .MR. CARUSO:    Yes.
+From that, I take it that these are
-                 DR. POWERS:    We hear recently a lot of discussion 6    of'the words good enough versus seeking perfection, and a-lot of people are taking those' things quite seriously.
+[''y 2
-                      ~
+springing from the intelligence and the sophistication that U-3 existsiin research.
-                  It seems to me that you have to -- that that's 9     driving you to having to have a very precise definition of 10     why you're requiring what you're requiring rather than 11     saying this is a good practice because I think it's a good 12     practice.
-                  Is that constraining this kind of activity?
+.MR.
-                  MR. CARUSO:    There's a certain tension.there, and j
+CARUSO:
-     ) 15     there's the old saying:        perfection is the enemy of --
+Yes.
-                  DR. POWERS:    I would just prefer you didn't quite 17    'that because --
+DR. POWERS:
-                  MR. CARUSO:    -- good enough, is the enemy of good  I 19     enough. Okay. And I agree with you. Let me give you some 1
+We hear recently a lot of discussion 6
-: 20. ,
+of'the words good enough versus seeking perfection, and a-
+~
+lot of people are taking those' things quite seriously.
+It seems to me that you have to -- that that's 9
+driving you to having to have a very precise definition of 10 why you're requiring what you're requiring rather than 11 saying this is a good practice because I think it's a good 12 practice.
+Is that constraining this kind of activity?
+MR. CARUSO:
+There's a certain tension.there, and j )
+there's the old saying:
+perfection is the enemy of --
+DR. POWERS:
+I would just prefer you didn't quite 17
+'that because --
+MR. CARUSO:
+-- good enough, is the enemy of good 19 enough.
+Okay.
+And I agree with you.
+Let me give you some 20.
 more philosophy.
-                  We understand that we don't want -- we don't want 22     to regulate to perfection.        We can't do that. We understand 23     that. However, the applications of these tools are forcing 24     the developers to sharpen their pencils, to come up with 25    better tools because utilities are under competitive stress 7                               ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+We understand that we don't want -- we don't want 22 to regulate to perfection.
- "\                                    Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l
+We can't do that.
+We understand 23 that.
+However, the applications of these tools are forcing 24 the developers to sharpen their pencils, to come up with 25 better tools because utilities are under competitive stress 7
+ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+"\\
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034 l
-1
+264 1
-1 to cut costs. So they're always pushing their developers to 2  develop better tools.
+to cut costs.
-(q ')T 3            We have to, therefore, consider them more 4  carefully because they're cutting margins by doing this. So 5  in the old days, we used to have 50.46, and we said, okay,       i l
+So they're always pushing their developers to
-2200 degrees and 1.02 times ANS standard, this provides lots 7- of margin. Now we have best estimate codes that people want l
+( ')T 2
-  to use because they want to reduce the margins. We have 9  risk-informed regulation where people want to use the codes 10  to support PRA arguments.
+develop better tools.
-            The uses of these tools are expanding, and I
+q 3
-therefore, we have to -- we can't be complacent, we can't        '
+We have to, therefore, consider them more 4
-just establish one set of criteria and say, okay, this is 14  it. The criteria are going to change over time, they're f%
+carefully because they're cutting margins by doing this.
+So i
+in the old days, we used to have 50.46, and we said, okay, 6
+degrees and 1.02 times ANS standard, this provides lots 7-of margin.
+Now we have best estimate codes that people want 8
+to use because they want to reduce the margins.
+We have 9
+risk-informed regulation where people want to use the codes 10 to support PRA arguments.
+The uses of these tools are expanding, and 12 therefore, we have to -- we can't be complacent, we can't 13 just establish one set of criteria and say, okay, this is 14 it.
+The criteria are going to change over time, they're f%
 (%.-)
-: 15. going to change depending upon the spplication.
+.
-            I can't really say where the criteria are going to 17  go or what we're going to do in the way of criteria because 18  of the tension from the application.
+going to change depending upon the spplication.
-            DR. POWERS:    I guess I'm not asking you for that.
+I can't really say where the criteria are going to 17 go or what we're going to do in the way of criteria because 18 of the tension from the application.
-I'm asking for a very simple thing, I think     is that indeed, 21  there is some constraint on the depth and breadth of the 22  standards that you apply to code assessment, documentation 23  assessments and data, all the things that you're doing with 24  respect to these codes, that has a justification based on 25  what your needs are to carry out your mission.
+DR. POWERS:
-  /'')                      ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+I guess I'm not asking you for that.
-(m,/                             Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-Os34
+I'm asking for a very simple thing, I think is that indeed, 21 there is some constraint on the depth and breadth of the 22 standards that you apply to code assessment, documentation 23 assessments and data, all the things that you're doing with 24 respect to these codes, that has a justification based on 25 what your needs are to carry out your mission.
+/'')
+ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+(m,/
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-Os34
-l 265 1               MR. CARUSO:           I'm not sure I understand your --
+1
-              DR. POWERS:           In other words, if I -- Graham over 3    here has standards'for codes that are very, very exacting.
+MR. CARUSO:
--   I'm glad I'm not one of his graduate students 5    and don't have to prepare a computer code for him because 6    he's very demanding.               DR. WALLIS:   Any code I write is 7    unintelligible to anybody else.            ??ha 's my experience.            I'm 8    a terrible codist.       Don't hold me up.        The only people who               I 9    know how to write good codes.are the young folks.
+I'm not sure I understand your --
-              DR. POWERS:           You're a rhetorical example.                       j 11                [ Laughter.)
+DR. POWERS:
-              DR. POWERS:           Whereas I'm a sloppy engineer, and to 13    -- and all I care about is the thing works.
+In other words, if I -- Graham over 3
-              The standards that he and I have on these codes                          1
+here has standards'for codes that are very, very exacting.
-()      15    are presumably worlds apart.            It sounds like they may be 16    identical, but in our rhetorical example, worlds apart.
+-I'm glad I'm not one of his graduate students 5
-              For your needs, presumably they lie somewhere 18    between those two extremes, and I'm asking you, do you -- is 19    there anything that constrains you from just gravitating to 20    Graham's exacting level because he's going to squawk louder 21    than I am?
+and don't have to prepare a computer code for him because 6
-              MR. CARUSO:           Well, I mean, the ultimate constraint t
+he's very demanding.
-!        '23    is resources. We can't -- don't have the retcurces to 24    review down to the individual lines of code.
+DR. WALLIS:
-              DR. POWERS:           But suppose that was necessary to
+Any code I write is 7
-  /''N                         ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+unintelligible to anybody else.
-  \ ,)                                   Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C 20036 (202) 842-0034
+??ha
+'s my experience.
+I'm 8
+a terrible codist.
+Don't hold me up.
+The only people who 9
+know how to write good codes.are the young folks.
+DR. POWERS:
+You're a rhetorical example.
+j 11
+[ Laughter.)
+DR. POWERS:
+Whereas I'm a sloppy engineer, and to 13
+-- and all I care about is the thing works.
+The standards that he and I have on these codes 1
+()
+are presumably worlds apart.
+It sounds like they may be 16 identical, but in our rhetorical example, worlds apart.
+For your needs, presumably they lie somewhere 18 between those two extremes, and I'm asking you, do you -- is 19 there anything that constrains you from just gravitating to 20 Graham's exacting level because he's going to squawk louder 21 than I am?
+MR. CARUSO:
+Well, I mean, the ultimate constraint t
+'23 is resources.
+We can't -- don't have the retcurces to 24 review down to the individual lines of code.
+DR. POWERS:
+But suppose that was necessary to
+/''N ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+\\,)
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C 20036 (202) 842-0034
-1    carry out your mission.
+1
-l''     -2                  MR. CARUSO:     Well, but it's not.         It's not. That 3   .isn't the way we regulate.          We don't regulate by inspecting 4    every nut'and bolt in the plant.
+carry out your mission.
-                 DR. POWERS:     So there is some way to decide how 6'                                                                               !
+l''
-far to carry this -- how much detail there has to be here.                  '
+-2 MR. CARUSO:
-                 MR. CARUSO:     That's what I was getting at in my 8    explanation that the level of detail is driven by the                       i l
+Well, but it's not.
-   application.       As you said, you're an engineer who worries 10     about.how well it works, okay.             Hcw well it works depends on 11     the application.       How close are you trying to shave the 12     margin. Are you trying to build the bridge that will hold i
+It's not.
-    one small car and you're going to build it just to that --
+That 3
-l 14     to hold that' load, or do you want a bridge that will hold
+.isn't the way we regulate.
-()-    15'    anything that can roll over it.
+We don't regulate by inspecting 4
-                  In the case of -- it depends on the application.
+every nut'and bolt in the plant.
-    If the application demands a lot of precision, accuracy, a 18     lot of -- a very low level of uncertainty, then your 19     standards are going to be different than if the application 20     includes a lot of margin and doesn't require a lot of -- and 21    you can tolerate a lot of uncertainty.               It depends on the 22     application.
+DR. POWERS:
-                  DR. KRESS:     When you jet into this, I'm going to 24   'be interested in following it, you don't intend to put core 12 5    standards that says your thermal hydraulics code or whatever TY' 1.,,/
+So there is some way to decide how 6'
-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+far to carry this -- how much detail there has to be here.
+MR. CARUSO:
+That's what I was getting at in my 8
+explanation that the level of detail is driven by the i
+application.
+As you said, you're an engineer who worries 10 about.how well it works, okay.
+Hcw well it works depends on 11 the application.
+How close are you trying to shave the 12 margin.
+Are you trying to build the bridge that will hold i
+one small car and you're going to build it just to that --
+to hold that' load, or do you want a bridge that will hold
+()-
+' anything that can roll over it.
+In the case of -- it depends on the application.
+If the application demands a lot of precision, accuracy, a
+lot of -- a very low level of uncertainty, then your 19 standards are going to be different than if the application 20 includes a lot of margin and doesn't require a lot of -- and 21 you can tolerate a lot of uncertainty.
+It depends on the 22 application.
+DR. KRESS:
+When you jet into this, I'm going to 24
+'be interested in following it, you don't intend to put core 12 5 standards that says your thermal hydraulics code or whatever TY' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+.,,/
 Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036
 (.02) 842-0034
--l'   has.to be this good? .That sounds to me like'a tremendous 2
+-l' has.to be this good?.That sounds to me like'a tremendous
- ,         _ problem to try to'do that.
+_ problem to try to'do that.
-                What I think.you'll end up doing is saying how          l 4  ' good is your thermal' hydraulic code?       Tell.us. Which means i
+3
-   it has to have' capability'for determining the uncertainties, 6    and then you can figure out do.you give guidance en-how to
+What I think.you'll end up doing is saying how l
-      '7    'use-that code with that uncertainty level to meet your
-: 8. standards, and how to incorporate that uncertainty in to 9    meeting your standards.        Is that --                           j 10                   MR.-CARUSO:     Yes.
+' good is your thermal' hydraulic code?
-DR. KRESS:     That's the way you plan tG go, I 12      presume.
+Tell.us.
-                  MR. CARUSO:     That's a good statement. It is 14      difficult to determine how good is good enough or state a 15      standard.
+Which means i
-                  DR. KRESS:     Yes.
+it has to have' capability'for determining the uncertainties, 6
-                  MR. CARUSO:     We're going to be trying to work-18      through that.       I've seen several attempts at trying to 19      define this, and they all have their pluses and minuses.
+and then you can figure out do.you give guidance en-how to
-                  DR. KRESS:     You really get into a mishmash of 21      things.                                                              )
+'7
-                  MR. CARUSO:     Right. And we're going to work with 23      you and we're going to work with the industry to try to come l
+'use-that code with that uncertainty level to meet your 8.
-     up with something that everyone can live with.           DR.
+standards, and how to incorporate that uncertainty in to 9
-     WALLIS:     1 think you've got to be more sophisticated than ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+meeting your standards.
--\                                    Court Reporters                              ,
+Is that --
-Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014                     !
+j 10 MR.-CARUSO:
-Washington, D.C. 20036                          l (202) 842-0034                              1 2
+Yes.
+DR. KRESS:
+That's the way you plan tG go, I 12 presume.
+MR. CARUSO:
+That's a good statement.
+It is 14 difficult to determine how good is good enough or state a 15 standard.
+DR. KRESS:
+Yes.
+MR. CARUSO:
+We're going to be trying to work-18 through that.
+I've seen several attempts at trying to 19 define this, and they all have their pluses and minuses.
+DR. KRESS:
+You really get into a mishmash of 21 things.
+)
+MR. CARUSO:
+Right.
+And we're going to work with 23 you and we're going to work with the industry to try to come 24 up with something that everyone can live with.
+DR.
+WALLIS:
+think you've got to be more sophisticated than ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+- \\
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 l
+(202) 842-0034 1
-_ . . __ . __           . _ . _ . _ . _ ..                m . . _ _ . . . _ . . _ . . _ . _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ .
+m.. _ _... _.. _.. _. _. _ _.. _ _ _. _ _ _ _. _ _.
 [.
 i 268 L
-l-1           just have standards.                       In our review of -- recent review of
+just have standards.
-()        2 3~
+In our review of -- recent review of l- ()
-vendor submitted code documentation, it appeared as if, described in the-pages, they were solving some equations as 4            together which had two solutions, two possible solutions,
+vendor submitted code documentation, it appeared as if, as 3~
-!                5            and it was not at all clear that there was any way of 16             . selecting which of these solutions was actually used.
+described in the-pages, they were solving some equations 4
-                       Now, that is something that requires someone to 8            understand that this is the case and to ask the question p                9            which of these solutions is the code selecting. Is it doing 10              .them randomly or some rational way or what.                                                       You have to get 11               into that sort of level of understanding.                                                     It's not just 12               standards.
+together which had two solutions, two possible solutions, 5
-L            13                          MR. CARUSO:                      Well, when the staff does its review, 14               it does review at that level, and that's why we have t
+and it was not at all clear that there was any way of 16
-("h l ( ,).      15'              knowledgeable individuals doing these reviews.                                                            When they 16               find a situation like that, their first reaction is to ask 17               the licensee a question:                           please explain to me how you 18               choose between the two solutions of this equation?
+. selecting which of these solutions was actually used.
-                         DR. WALLIS:                      I think you would be better off, as 20               you indicated, if you're actually'in a position to do it l            21-              yourself and say we'll run it and see what it actually does.
+Now, that is something that requires someone to 8
-l-22                          MR. CARUSO:                      In some cases, yes; in other cases, L            23               we may decide to just ask a question.
+understand that this is the case and to ask the question p
-                         DR. KRESS:                      How are we doing on time?
+which of these solutions is the code selecting.
-p            25                          MR. ZWOLINSKI:                          I think we've only got ten more I
+Is it doing 10
-, l'                                             ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+.them randomly or some rational way or what.
-(,                                                            Court Reporters J                                      1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 1
+You have to get 11 into that sort of level of understanding.
-              .,         ,..               ,,.              . . - , .              -                  _ , .                           .        . - ,      . ,n .
+It's not just 12 standards.
+L 13 MR. CARUSO:
+Well, when the staff does its review, 14 it does review at that level, and that's why we have
+("h tl (,).
+' knowledgeable individuals doing these reviews.
+When they find a situation like that, their first reaction is to ask 16 17 the licensee a question:
+please explain to me how you 18 choose between the two solutions of this equation?
+DR. WALLIS:
+I think you would be better off, as 20 you indicated, if you're actually'in a position to do it l
+-yourself and say we'll run it and see what it actually does.
+l-22 MR. CARUSO:
+In some cases, yes; in other cases, L
+we may decide to just ask a question.
+DR. KRESS:
+How are we doing on time?
+p 25 MR. ZWOLINSKI:
+I think we've only got ten more I
+, l' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+(,
+Court Reporters J
+Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034 1
+,n
 i 269
-                -1    -minutes.
+-1
-                .2                 DR. WALLIS:         Well, are you near the end?
+-minutes.
-          )
+)
-                MR. CARUSO:         Well, I've got a schedule here.                        !
+.2 DR. WALLIS:
-                                        ,                                                                     l 4      We've started the process, we've identified the accident                              !
+Well, are you near the end?
-      analyses that will be covered under the Reg Guide and SRP l
+MR. CARUSO:
--   ' document. Unfortunately, I don't have that list here. .And-7      we are going to be working with research through the fall to 8      prepare an outline of the document content, and we're
+Well, I've got a schedule here.
-               '9       planning.on coming to the ACRS sometime in the late spring 10        with the first draft and we'll be issuing it for public l
+We've started the process, we've identified the accident 5
-       comment next summer, and hopefully sometime in the year 12        2000, we'll have a procedure in place.
+analyses that will be covered under the Reg Guide and SRP 6-
-                  DR. WALLIS:         I think this would be a good example 14-       of a case where NRR has identified.a real need.
+' document.
-a          -
+Unfortunately, I don't have that list here..And-7 we are going to be working with research through the fall to 8
-                  MR. CARUSO:
+prepare an outline of the document content, and we're
-t]-
+'9 planning.on coming to the ACRS sometime in the late spring 10 with the first draft and we'll be issuing it for public l
+comment next summer, and hopefully sometime in the year 12 2000, we'll have a procedure in place.
+DR. WALLIS:
+I think this would be a good example 14-of a case where NRR has identified.a real need.
+a t]
+MR. CARUSO:
 Yes.
-                  DR. WALLIS:         And the research that is performed 17        has some real objectives to meet that need.
+DR. WALLIS:
-l l-            18-                  MR. CARUSO:         Yes.
+And the research that is performed 17 has some real objectives to meet that need.
-                 'DR. FONTANA:         Now, when research is doing 20        something directly relevant to something you want, do you l:
+l l-18-MR. CARUSO:
-L            H21        transfer the funds over to them to do it or does that come 22        out of the original budget?
+Yes.
-i l             23                   MR. CARUSO:         No , not in this case.           There is no i
-'       transfer of funds. It's in their operating plan.
+'DR.
-                  DR._FONTANA:          It's in their operating plan as j_                                      ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+FONTANA:
-j' Ame                                         Court Reporters j,                             1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036
+Now, when research is doing 20 something directly relevant to something you want, do you l:
-;-                                              (202) 842-0034 i-p
+L H21 transfer the funds over to them to do it or does that come 22 out of the original budget?
+i l
+MR. CARUSO:
+No, not in this case.
+There is no i
+' transfer of funds.
+It's in their operating plan.
+DR._FONTANA:
+It's in their operating plan as j _
+ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+j' A Court Reporters me j,
+Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034 i-p
-1-  well;
+1-well; 2
-;                    2                     DR. POWERS:                 I notice, Mr. Chairman, that we have 3   a variety of pull-outs on meeting with ACRS.
+DR. POWERS:
-'                    CHAIRMAN SEALE:                     That's on the last-slide, 5  -actually.
+I notice, Mr. Chairman, that we have 3
-                    DR. POWERS:                 I see that -- my suspicion is that 7   this is a reg guide that the committee would have a great 8  ~ deal of interest. Are we going to try to cover that in the l
+a variety of pull-outs on meeting with ACRS.
-  thermal hydraulics subcommittee or are'we going to look at
+' CHAIRMAN SEALE:
-: 10. this not as a thermal hydraulics issue, but as a code issue?
+That's on the last-slide, 5
-                    CRAIRMAN SEALE:                     I -- my impression is that the 12-  thermal hydraulic subcommittee has gotten a fair amount of 13  background.in this general area as a result of its recent 14   concerns with the problems.we ran into with theLAP600
+-actually.
-       )            15   review.          Looking at their. schedule of other activities 16   coming up in the immediate future, it seems that they have 17  nothing or very few things that are pressing on their plate.
+DR. POWERS:
-L18   So I think it would be logical to put that into their 19  pocket.
+I see that -- my suspicion is that 7
-                    DR. KRESS:                I think that's probably a good -- I 21  don't know where elre we would put it.
+this is a reg guide that the committee would have a great 8
-;                    CHAIRMAN SEALE:                     Yes.         Whatever yua want to call 23   it, this is the list and there are a lot of familiar                                                                    '
+~ deal of interest.
-  suspects up there, so --
+Are we going to try to cover that in the l
-F                     MR..CARUSO:                 I put this list up to just give you
+thermal hydraulics subcommittee or are'we going to look at 10.
-    .['}
+this not as a thermal hydraulics issue, but as a code issue?
+CRAIRMAN SEALE:
+I -- my impression is that the 12-thermal hydraulic subcommittee has gotten a fair amount of 13 background.in this general area as a result of its recent 14 concerns with the problems.we ran into with theLAP600
+)
+review.
+Looking at their. schedule of other activities 16 coming up in the immediate future, it seems that they have 17 nothing or very few things that are pressing on their plate.
+L18 So I think it would be logical to put that into their 19 pocket.
+DR. KRESS:
+I think that's probably a good -- I 21 don't know where elre we would put it.
+; CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+Yes.
+Whatever yua want to call 23 it, this is the list and there are a lot of familiar 24 suspects up there, so --
+F MR..CARUSO:
+I put this list up to just give you
+.['}
+ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+t
 (_/-
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
+1.
+an' idea of what's going on in the staff in terms of code
+("'
+. reviews right-now, major code reviews.
+\\
+' CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+Yes.
+MR.-CARUSO:
+We've received RETRAN-3D, which is a 5:
+transient code frcm EPRI, an EPRI user's group.
+We expect 6
+to receive Seiman's RELAP 5 and WCOBRA TRAC best estimate-
+=7 small break LOCA in the late winter.
+And these applications 8
+are going to be the first ones that we are going to process 9
+using this new philosophy, which we have not yet documented, 10 which we are documenting in parallel.
+But I wanted to point out to you, the RETRAN 12 review, it's being -- RETRAN is a code that's widely used in 13
+.the industry and it's our understanding that Westinghouse 14 is going cc replace the LOFTRAN code wit'h RETRAN because
+' a[ D 15 utilities want them to use it and LOFTRAN is an old code.
+'16 CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+And in the AP600 review, we have 17 already been exposed to some of the vicissitudes of most of 18 these.
+-DR. POWERS:
+I guess my concern is there seemed to 20 be two things that are coming to the fore here.
+Point one 21-is are these codes adequate for the.r applications, and an 22 expanding list of applications and a more exacting list of 23 applications indeed it's becoming.
+The other issue is 24 whether the strategy that they're developing for the review 25 process and the demands they are placing on the j p) -
 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
-Court Reporters                                        -
+l (,
-t 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+Court Reporters l
+Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034 1
-: 1. an' idea of what's going on in the staff in terms of code
-("'            2    . reviews right-now, major code reviews.
-        \  '
-'                    CHAIRMAN SEALE:             Yes.
-                    MR.-CARUSO:     We've received RETRAN-3D, which is a 5:    transient code frcm EPRI, an EPRI user's group.                          We expect 6     to receive Seiman's RELAP 5 and WCOBRA TRAC best estimate-
-                     =7     small break LOCA in the late winter.                  And these applications 8     are going to be the first ones that we are going to process 9      using this new philosophy, which we have not yet documented, 10      which we are documenting in parallel.
-                    But I wanted to point out to you, the RETRAN 12      review, it's being -- RETRAN is a code that's widely used in 13     .the industry and it's our understanding that Westinghouse 14      is going cc replace the LOFTRAN code wit'h RETRAN because 15      utilities want them to use it and LOFTRAN is an old code.
-    ' a[ D
-                   '16                    CHAIRMAN SEALE:              And in the AP600 review, we have 17      already been exposed to some of the vicissitudes of most of 18      these.
--                   DR. POWERS:      I guess my concern is there seemed to 20      be two things that are coming to the fore here.                          Point one 21-     is are these codes adequate for the.r applications, and an 22      expanding list of applications and a more exacting list of 23      applications indeed it's becoming.                  The other issue is 24      whether the strategy that they're developing for the review 25      process and the demands they are placing on the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
-j p) l      (, -                                           Court Reporters l                                       1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 1
 l l
-     -.  .~     -    .    -          .  . - - . .      -.         .   .
+.~
-1   documentational codes is itself adequate, excessive.              I
+1
-    /~        2   mean, there are two real issues here, and I, with all due h' -      3   deference to my colleagues on the thermal. hydraulics 4   subcommittee, would love to plunge deeply into the details 5   of the physics of these fascinating codes.
+documentational codes is itself adequate, excessive.
-              I think the other issue with the standards that                    !
+I
-   are being applied and the review practice that's being
+/~
-             .8   imposed here carry equal weight in this area, especially in 9   light of the quasi-directions or hints that we're getting 1
+mean, there are two real issues here, and I, with all due h' -
-   from the Commission on the way they want to go.                                I 11                CHAIRMAN SEALE:         Yes. I think those are very              l 12    appropriate comments, and I think it's appropriate that the 13    thermal hydraulics subcommittee be very careful that they
+deference to my colleagues on the thermal. hydraulics 4
-: 14. try to have members of the committee who have concerns for                     ;
+subcommittee, would love to plunge deeply into the details 5
-I       15    those' issues involved --
+of the physics of these fascinating codes.
-M)'
+I think the other issue with the standards that 7
-           -16                DR. KRESS:         Or- make this a joint subcommittee.
+are being applied and the review practice that's being
-               CHAIRMAN SEALE:         Well, you know, so maybe we ought 18    to not have a thermal hydraulics subcommittee anymore, then, 19    and have another subcommittee that worries about the code 20    standards.
+.8 imposed here carry equal weight in this area, especially in 9
-               DR. KRESS:         Perish the thought.
+light of the quasi-directions or hints that we're getting 10 from the Commission on the way they want to go.
-               CHAIRMAN SEALE:         Well, you see, I guess I am -- it 23    seems to me that the flexibility in the membership of the 24    committee is a characteristic that we have always 25    encouraged, and I think that has served us reasonably well.
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
-A                             ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+Yes.
-   -ds,)                                 Court Reporters 1025 Connecticur Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+I think those are very 12 appropriate comments, and I think it's appropriate that the 13 thermal hydraulics subcommittee be very careful that they 14.
+try to have members of the committee who have concerns for M)'
+I 15 those' issues involved --
+-16 DR. KRESS:
+Or-make this a joint subcommittee.
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+Well, you know, so maybe we ought 18 to not have a thermal hydraulics subcommittee anymore, then, 19 and have another subcommittee that worries about the code 20 standards.
+DR. KRESS:
+Perish the thought.
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+Well, you see, I guess I am -- it 23 seems to me that the flexibility in the membership of the 24 committee is a characteristic that we have always 25 encouraged, and I think that has served us reasonably well.
+A ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+-ds,)
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticur Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-                                                                                     . - _ - . - . . . . ~ . - .            . . . - - .    --
+. - _ -. -.... ~. -.
-We are subject to the same kind of pressures from the new
+ll' We are subject to the same kind of pressures from the new
-                          ~
+~
-ll' r        .
+r 2-directions and,so forth that these people are getting as 3
-- directions and,so forth that these people are getting as                                                                '
+they are,-and if.there is'a need to encompass'a. broader 4
-   they are,-and if.there is'a need to encompass'a. broader 4   scope in our treatment of this particular problem --
+scope in our treatment of this particular problem --
-i 5                DR. KRESS:        Do we have a computer code 6   subcommittee?                                                                                                           l l
+i 5
-                 CHAIRMAN SEALE:        No.          But if there is a need to                                              I 8  encompass a broader scope, then it is incumbent upon our
+DR. KRESS:
-                  . 9. processes to embrace that broader scope within what we have.
+Do we have a computer code 6
-                                                                                                                                              -l 10-   available to us -- I think we just do it.
+subcommittee?
-L               .11                  DR. KRESS:        It looks like fun. We are looking 12    _ forward to it.
+l 7
-                 CHAIRMAN SEALE:         The thing'I am interested in is 14'   in your-next slide you have some ACRS things listed there, 15    and some of them are like next month.
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
-                 MR. CARUSO:        Well, this schedule was prepared a 17    couple of months ago.
+No.
-l' l                18                  CHAIRMAN GEALE:         Yes.
+But if there is a need to 8
-                 MR. CARUSO:        And we were a little bit
+encompass a broader scope, then it is incumbent upon our
-[                20    optimistic --
+. 9.
-l l                21                  CHAIRMAN SEALE:         I figured you might be.
+processes to embrace that broader scope within what we have.
-                 MR. CARUSO:        -- that we could get together with 23    .you to talk about the RETRAN code some time this fall, to 24:   have a kick-off meeting of sorts.                          We would have the EPRI
+-l 10-available to us -- I think we just do it.
-       ,         25    people.come in here and tell you about it, and we would tell 1
+L
-[A                                      ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+.11 DR. KRESS:
-  .                                                  Court Reporters
+It looks like fun. We are looking 12
-                                  '1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 2  84 - b34
+_ forward to it.
-  ~
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
-    .      .     .                                       _                , _ . .       _-                       _ -_ .__               ~_
+The thing'I am interested in is 14' in your-next slide you have some ACRS things listed there, 15 and some of them are like next month.
+MR. CARUSO:
+Well, this schedule was prepared a 17 couple of months ago.
+l' l
+CHAIRMAN GEALE:
+Yes.
+MR. CARUSO:
+And we were a little bit
+[
+optimistic --
+l l
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+I figured you might be.
+MR. CARUSO:
+-- that we could get together with 23
+.you to talk about the RETRAN code some time this fall, to 24:
+have a kick-off meeting of sorts.
+We would have the EPRI 25 people.come in here and tell you about it, and we would tell 1
+[
+ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+A Court Reporters
+'1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 2
+- b34
+~
+~_
-_. .     . -   . - - -   ~- - --
+~-
-1   you about'the progress of the review.
+1
- /''\-)
+you about'the progress of the review.
-               I put this up here to show you that we intend to 3   interact with you at many points along the line during the 4  -review to make sure that we don't leave these issues until 5   the very end.
+/''\\-
-6               We don't want to have a surprise at the very end.
-  We don't want to have a surprise at the very end of the 8   process, either you surprised or us surprised.
+)
-L               DR. POWERS:    Let me interrupt you again and speak 10   to the "Chairmans" of the Thermal Hydraulics Subcommittee.
+I put this up here to show you that we intend to 3
-              This looks like a heroic amount of effort here in 12-  light of the challenges the Thermal Hydraulic codes have 13   usually faced. I wonder if asking one of the fel'_ows to 14   focus on this activity might help them and you meet their s'''\
+interact with you at many points along the line during the 4
-Q 15   milestones?
+-review to make sure that we don't leave these issues until 5
-              DR. WALLIS:    The same thing went through my mind, 17   except I was wondering how-much of a load this would be for 18   this chap.
+the very end.
-              DR. POWERS:    Well, he can accept a load only as 20   big as he can carry.
+6
-              DR. WALLIS:    I was going to ask if these are going 22   to be in the form that could be run by someone like a 23   fellow?
+We don't want to have a surprise at the very end.
-              MR..CARUSO:    Well, they will be available 25   internally on the NRC computer network.
+We don't want to have a surprise at the very end of the 8
+process, either you surprised or us surprised.
+L DR. POWERS:
+Let me interrupt you again and speak 10 to the "Chairmans" of the Thermal Hydraulics Subcommittee.
+This looks like a heroic amount of effort here in 12-light of the challenges the Thermal Hydraulic codes have 13 usually faced.
+I wonder if asking one of the fel'_ows to 14 focus on this activity might help them and you meet their s'''\\
+Q 15 milestones?
+DR. WALLIS:
+The same thing went through my mind, 17 except I was wondering how-much of a load this would be for 18 this chap.
+DR. POWERS:
+Well, he can accept a load only as 20 big as he can carry.
+DR. WALLIS:
+I was going to ask if these are going 22 to be in the form that could be run by someone like a 23 fellow?
+MR..CARUSO:
+Well, they will be available 25 internally on the NRC computer network.
 ('')
-s/ s ANN RILEY & ASSOr AATES, LTD.
+ANN RILEY & ASSOr AATES, LTD.
-Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) E42-0034
+s/
+Court Reporters s
+Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) E42-0034
-I 275 1             DR. WALLIS:    Are they going to be transparent
+I 275 1
-  /~N    2 enough that they can be.run by somecne who is not really
+DR. WALLIS:
-  \,_)
+Are they going to be transparent
-expert or that is maybe not expert but not experienced?
+/~N 2
-            CHAIRMAN SEALE:      Maybe the answer to that question 5 will determine how hard we are going to be on you whenever 6 we talk to you then.
+\\,_)
-            DR. WALLIS:    Well, I think a requirement fcr these 8 codes should be that they are transparent enough and well 9 enough documented that a reasonably intelligent fellow can 10 run them.
+enough that they can be.run by somecne who is not really 3
-            MR. CARUSO:    That's unfortunately -- I think that 12 is a little bit easier said than done, because the 13 individual codes themselves require a certain amount of 14 experience and kncwledge to become proficient with.
+expert or that is maybe not expert but not experienced?
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+Maybe the answer to that question 5
+will determine how hard we are going to be on you whenever 6
+we talk to you then.
+DR. WALLIS:
+Well, I think a requirement fcr these 8
+codes should be that they are transparent enough and well 9
+enough documented that a reasonably intelligent fellow can 10 run them.
+MR. CARUSO:
+That's unfortunately -- I think that 12 is a little bit easier said than done, because the 13 individual codes themselves require a certain amount of 14 experience and kncwledge to become proficient with.
 rx
-(   ) 15             The Staff here spends a lot of time getting
+(
-  %/
+)
+The Staff here spends a lot of time getting
+%/
 l 16 familiar with our own codes and I don't think you are going 17 to -- that these codes are the type that you are going to be 18 able to just put on a PC and have someone run like 19 Wordperfect or a Lotus 1-2-3.
-l 20             They require someone who, first of all, has run
+l 20 They require someone who, first of all, has run 21 some sort of thermal hydraulic model before to unterstand 22 what they are about, and I think that the learning curve is i
-!       21 some sort of thermal hydraulic model before to unterstand 22 what they are about, and I think that the learning curve is i
 going to be steep, but I want to point out the first i
 activity in the review schedule after submittal is something 25 called an acceptance review.
+- (''/)
 AMN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
-(''/)
+(,
-- (,                              Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-i l
+i 276 l
-1             We'are going to receive the code documentation.
+We'are going to receive the code documentation.
-I r'     2  We are going to determine whether the code documentation is
+I r'
-        )
+We are going to determine whether the code documentation is Y'~'T
-Y'~'T l
+)
-sufficient to continue with the rest of the technical 4  review. If it-is not, we will send it back and part of the 5  acceptance review will include receiving a copy of the code        l 6  and installing it.
+sufficient to continue with the rest of the technical 4
-7             If the code isn' t. ready to run, then obviously it 8  is not ready to review.                                            l 9             CHAIRMAN SEALE:     Let me tell you that one of the 10  things in that first review that we are going to be 11  interested in will be in fact the question of what the 12  standards are that you are going to expect from whoever 13  submits the code to you, addressing these issues that Dana 14' has raised already, and if you think you need -- if that is (o). 15  a generic problem that sweeps across all of these 16  submittals, then maybe it would be appropriate for the 1
+review.
-Thermal Hydraulics Subcommittee and you to get together and        l 18  look at that question of standards requirements before you 19  get into the specifics of a particular code.      That is l         20  something for you to work out between you, but I think this        ;
+If it-is not, we will send it back and part of the 5
-j         21  standards problems is something we want upfront.
+acceptance review will include receiving a copy of the code 6
-            DR. WALLIS:    Well, I tell you, I intend as soon as l
+and installing it.
-l 23  possible to talk to my colleagues in computer science and l
+If the code isn' t. ready to run, then obviously it 8
-computer engineering and try to figure out what are the 25  latest standards for massive codes.      Across the industry ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+is not ready to review.
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+Let me tell you that one of the 10 things in that first review that we are going to be 11 interested in will be in fact the question of what the 12 standards are that you are going to expect from whoever 13 submits the code to you, addressing these issues that Dana 14' has raised already, and if you think you need -- if that is (o).
+a generic problem that sweeps across all of these 16 submittals, then maybe it would be appropriate for the 17 Thermal Hydraulics Subcommittee and you to get together and 18 look at that question of standards requirements before you 19 get into the specifics of a particular code.
+That is l
+something for you to work out between you, but I think this j
+standards problems is something we want upfront.
+DR. WALLIS:
+Well, I tell you, I intend as soon as l
+l 23 possible to talk to my colleagues in computer science and l
+computer engineering and try to figure out what are the 25 latest standards for massive codes.
+Across the industry
 ('')/
-(_,                             Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014
+ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
-,                               Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+(_,
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-1  this has been a consideration, because it is very important.
+this has been a consideration, because it is very important.
-       )
+2
-                As the code gets longer and more complicated, you 3   have got to be.very, very careful about how you'put it 4   together. I-think that is the problem with these old 5   thermal hydraulic codes is they have been put together on an       I l
+)
-  ad hoc basis, and maybe that is why a lot of them should be.       1 7   redone completely from the beginning.
+As the code gets longer and more complicated, you 3
-               MR. .CARUSO:   Standards is going to be tricky.
+have got to be.very, very careful about how you'put it 4
-               CHAIRMAN SEALE:    Well, that is why we are 10   concerned about it.
+together.
-              MR. ZWOLINSKI:     Are you using the word " standards" 12  -in the context of acceptance criteria that the Staff will 13   use?
+I-think that is the problem with these old 5
-              DR. POWERS:     No , I think we are using it in terms r
+thermal hydraulic codes is they have been put together on an l
-(     15   of what is the quality and depth of the documentation and 16   assessment of the code that's required in a generic sense.
+ad hoc basis, and maybe that is why a lot of them should be.
-              MR. ZWOLINSKI:     The suggestion to possibly meet 18   specifically on that topic then seemingly makes a lot of 19   sense.
+7
-              DR. WALLIS:     I think it is like grammar and 21   equations in the normal mathematic paper which is 22   intelligible to somebody else, and very often the old codes 23  are not like that.       They can't be read by somebody else with 24  understanding.
+redone completely from the beginning.
-              CHAIRMAN SEALE:     We sparred with marshmallows in
+MR..CARUSO:
-   / '                         ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+Standards is going to be tricky.
-(                                  Court Reporters 1025' Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+Well, that is why we are 10 concerned about it.
+MR. ZWOLINSKI:
+Are you using the word " standards" 12
+-in the context of acceptance criteria that the Staff will 13 use?
+DR. POWERS:
+No, I think we are using it in terms r
+(
+of what is the quality and depth of the documentation and 16 assessment of the code that's required in a generic sense.
+MR. ZWOLINSKI:
+The suggestion to possibly meet 18 specifically on that topic then seemingly makes a lot of 19 sense.
+DR. WALLIS:
+I think it is like grammar and 21 equations in the normal mathematic paper which is 22 intelligible to somebody else, and very often the old codes 23 are not like that.
+They can't be read by somebody else with 24 understanding.
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+We sparred with marshmallows in
+/ '
+ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+(
+Court Reporters 1025' Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-1  the AP600 review.      We kept worrying about the quality of
+1
-(}    2  documentation, the robustness of the so-called descriptions 3  of how to run things and at what the results would tell you 4  and'so on for years and the cumulative effect of delaying 5  the resolution of those issues was to make that resolution 15  even more and more difficult as time went on.
+the AP600 review.
-7             We feel like you have to have those concerns, 8  those' requirements upfront,-clearly understood, so that you 9  will have a code that your people can put on the machine, 10  -use and have faith in the results when they emerge.
+We kept worrying about the quality of
-             If you don't have that going in, you are not going 12   tx) be any better off with this approach than you have been 13   with the previous approach.        You have got to have the 14   documentation so that you can honestly look at the code in a A() 15   critical way. That is what we are concerned about.
+(}
-             MR. CARUSO:     Okay.       We hear you.
+documentation, the robustness of the so-called descriptions 3
-             DR. KRESS:     I think, looking at your plans and 18   what you are doing, I think Novak Zuber would be pleased to 19   hear what you are talking about.
+of how to run things and at what the results would tell you 4
-             DR. WALLIS:     I think this is wonderful. I came 21   here expecting to hear about Maine Yankee, and we seem to 22   have got off on something which is far more important and 23   generic. I am glad we did.
+and'so on for years and the cumulative effect of delaying 5
-             CHAIRMAN SEALE:      Yes.
+the resolution of those issues was to make that resolution 15 even more and more difficult as time went on.
-             DR. KRESS:     I said at first this was not about O                       ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+7
-Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+We feel like you have to have those concerns, 8
+those' requirements upfront,-clearly understood, so that you 9
+will have a code that your people can put on the machine, 10
+-use and have faith in the results when they emerge.
+If you don't have that going in, you are not going 12 tx) be any better off with this approach than you have been 13 with the previous approach.
+You have got to have the 14 documentation so that you can honestly look at the code in a A()
+critical way.
+That is what we are concerned about.
+MR. CARUSO:
+Okay.
+We hear you.
+DR. KRESS:
+I think, looking at your plans and 18 what you are doing, I think Novak Zuber would be pleased to 19 hear what you are talking about.
+DR. WALLIS:
+I think this is wonderful.
+I came 21 here expecting to hear about Maine Yankee, and we seem to 22 have got off on something which is far more important and 23 generic.
+I am glad we did.
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+Yes.
+DR. KRESS:
+I said at first this was not about O
+ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-l 279 I
+l 279 1
-       Maine Yankee, it was about         --
+Maine Yankee, it was about l
-i l
+! ('''].
-!               2
+DR. POWERS:
-(''']
+I think there is a high note here
-     %/
+%/
-DR. POWERS:       I think there is a high note here
-                       .that Graham would think there was any importance at all to 3
+.that Graham would think there was any importance at all to 4-
--     ' thermal hydraulics.
+' thermal hydraulics.
-                 [ Laughter.]
-                 DR. WALLIS:       Would you document that statement so 1
+[ Laughter.]
-      I can understand it?                                                        I
+DR. WALLIS:
-               '8                  [ Laughter.]
+Would you document that statement so 1
-i           9                  CHAIRMAN SEALE:         It was off the record.
+I can understand it?
-                  DR. KRESS:       With that, I would like thank the 11        Staff for a very good, interesting presentation and turn it 12        back over to you, Mr. Chairman, 13                   CHAIRMAN SEALE:         I would like to compliment our           ;
+I
-       Staff Engineer on this, because this was not the usual sort rx 15 1c)                 of presentation of a fixed subject that, as you said, it 16        wasn't about Maine ~ Yankee, but it was right at the point we were interested in and I think we ought to tell Paul that we 18        appreciate the fact that he and the Staff were able to 19        communicate with each other and give us exactly what it is 20        we were interested in.                                                      I
+'8
-: 21.                  MR. BOEHNERT:       Thank you, and I will compliment 22        the Staff.                                                                  I
+[ Laughter.]
-             '23                   DR. FONTANA:       For the record, that is Paul 24        Boehnert,-B-o-e-h-n-e-r-t       --
+i 9
-             -25                   (Laughter.]
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
-D                                  ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+It was off the record.
-,,,)i                                       Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Sui'e 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+DR. KRESS:
+With that, I would like thank the 11 Staff for a very good, interesting presentation and turn it 12 back over to you, Mr. Chairman, 13 CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+I would like to compliment our 14 Staff Engineer on this, because this was not the usual sort rx 1c) 15 of presentation of a fixed subject that, as you said, it 16 wasn't about Maine ~ Yankee, but it was right at the point we were interested in and I think we ought to tell Paul that we 18 appreciate the fact that he and the Staff were able to 19 communicate with each other and give us exactly what it is 20 we were interested in.
+.
+MR. BOEHNERT:
+Thank you, and I will compliment 22 the Staff.
+'23 DR. FONTANA:
+For the record, that is Paul 24 Boehnert,-B-o-e-h-n-e-r-t
+-25 (Laughter.]
+D ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+,,,)i Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Sui'e 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-L1              CHAIRMAN SEALE:     There are come industry people j['}    2  here. You don't have anything to say?       Well, I hope you V-3  appreciated the heads-up that this came from -- okay, fine.
+L1 CHAIRMAN SEALE:
-             DR. WALLIS:    I was looking for the Research people
+There are come industry people j['}
-          -5  who are going to have to contribute to this.
+here.
-             CHAIRMAN SEALE:     Okay. If there is no other 7  comment then, we'll take a 15-minute and be back at 10:20.
+You don't have anything to say?
-             Thank you. Thanks again, guys.                      J 9              (Recess.]
+Well, I hope you V-3 appreciated the heads-up that this came from -- okay, fine.
-l 10               CHAIRMAN SEALE:    We are now back on the record.
+DR. WALLIS:
-11   We weren't up until now.      The next topic has to do with the    )
+I was looking for the Research people
-  report to Congress and the Commission and Bob Uhrig wants to       l 13   share his thoughts.      He and Med have been beating on this      )
+-5 who are going to have to contribute to this.
-  with a considerable amount of input from other members of          l
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
-()   15 16
+Okay.
-             .the committee, so Bob, would you share with us your thoughts.
+If there is no other 7
-              DR. UHRIG:    This is our proposed agenda for today.
+comment then, we'll take a 15-minute and be back at 10:20.
-  I thought I would start with a few remarks followed by a 19   couple of presentations, very informal -- one by Med 20   describing the meeting that he attended where the Staff            l 21   briefed the Commission on the Research program and then some 22   lessons learned from the Herculean effort of Dr. Powers for 23   putting together last year's program, and then I did receive 24   some comments via E-mail, so I thought I would give each of 25   those individuals a chance to say what they wanted to say
+Thank you.
-[T                        ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+Thanks again, guys.
-    \m_)                             Court Reporters
+J 9
-.                      1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l                               Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 t-i
+(Recess.]
+l 10 CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+We are now back on the record.
+We weren't up until now.
+The next topic has to do with the
+)
+report to Congress and the Commission and Bob Uhrig wants to 13 share his thoughts.
+He and Med have been beating on this
+)
+with a considerable amount of input from other members of
+()
+.the committee, so Bob, would you share with us your 16 thoughts.
+DR. UHRIG:
+This is our proposed agenda for today.
+I thought I would start with a few remarks followed by a 19 couple of presentations, very informal -- one by Med 20 describing the meeting that he attended where the Staff l
+briefed the Commission on the Research program and then some 22 lessons learned from the Herculean effort of Dr. Powers for 23 putting together last year's program, and then I did receive 24 some comments via E-mail, so I thought I would give each of 25 those individuals a chance to say what they wanted to say
+[T ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+\\m_)
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l
+Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034 t-i
-1   and then there would be general discussion and we'll talk
+1
-('';   2   about an assignment followed by an early adjournment --
+and then there would be general discussion and we'll talk
-Q 3   maybe.
+('';
-             The schedule that we have, that we are facing 5   here, with respect to the Congressional report looks 6   something like this.      You can see that by next meeting we 7   should have the issues identified.        The following meeting, 8   the subcommittee meeting, somewhere along in November or 9   December timeframe.      The initial draft should come out of 10   that subcommittee meeting, a revised draft in December, 11   feedback from the Commission in January, and the report to 12   Congress in February.
+about an assignment followed by an early adjournment --
-             This I believe has come from the Planning and 14   Procedures Committee.      I think -- am I correct on that?
+Q 3
-i     15              CHAIRMAN SEALE:      Yes.
+maybe.
-Qf 16              DR. UHRIG:     Okay. Now just for your information, 17   here are the conclusions that were stated at the beginning 18   of the report last year.       They are the things that you would 19   expect -- the severe budget reductions causing substantial 20   deterioration in an internationally-respected program --
+The schedule that we have, that we are facing 5
-             CHAIRMAN SEALE:      You have got to speak in the i
+here, with respect to the Congressional report looks 6
-  mike, Bob.
+something like this.
-             DR. UHRIG:     Okay -- the deterioration occurring at 24   a time when the U.S. power industry is undergoing 25   substantial changes.      These have safety implications that ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+You can see that by next meeting we 7
-f'')N
+should have the issues identified.
-\  ,                              Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i
+The following meeting, 8
+the subcommittee meeting, somewhere along in November or 9
+December timeframe.
+The initial draft should come out of 10 that subcommittee meeting, a revised draft in December, 11 feedback from the Commission in January, and the report to 12 Congress in February.
+This I believe has come from the Planning and 14 Procedures Committee.
+I think -- am I correct on that?
+i 15 CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+Yes.
+Qf 16 DR. UHRIG:
+Okay.
+Now just for your information, 17 here are the conclusions that were stated at the beginning 18 of the report last year.
+They are the things that you would 19 expect -- the severe budget reductions causing substantial 20 deterioration in an internationally-respected program --
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+You have got to speak in the 22 mike, Bob.
+i 23 DR. UHRIG:
+Okay -- the deterioration occurring at 24 a time when the U.S. power industry is undergoing 25 substantial changes.
+These have safety implications that f'')N ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+\\
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034 i
-  . .    .      . - - . .     . -  . . . . . - _..             .. -. .. . . - ., .... - -~..- .. ... - . - -             - . ~
+.. -..... -.,.... - -~..-..... -. - -
-      .m                                           ,
+. ~
-1   must.be addressed >by.the Commission, and research is-needed
+.m 282 1
-(        2    to address those' issues.
+must.be addressed >by.the Commission, and research is-needed
-               The deterioration of research capability is 4    inhibiting'the ability of the Commission to continue the 5    evolution of nuclear power regulation ~.                                           The Commission's 6   core: capability in the nuclear waste area has been
+(
-            .7  dramatically reduced and this could inhibit the Commission's 8 ' effectiveness and-timeliness in conducting the review of the 9  waste depository program.
+to address those' issues.
-               'So that is basically what we told Congress last 11   year. The question is now what do we tell them this year?
+The deterioration of research capability is 4
-  Here are some thoughts on that, for what it's worth.
+inhibiting'the ability of the Commission to continue the 5
-.                 First of all, as we were talking a few minutes 14   ago,.this is the last report that we will send to Congress,
+evolution of nuclear power regulation ~.
-()      15   and there are two views of that.                               One is sort of'a last                           j 16'   chance to impress Congress with the importance of research 17   and the other'is why bother?
+The Commission's 6
-                I'am not sure there is any need to repeat the 19   messages of the last year.                    I think they came through loud
+core: capability in the nuclear waste area has been
-         ~20    and clear, at least as clear as they are going to get to a i
+.7 dramatically reduced and this could inhibit the Commission's 8
-  busy Congressman, and the message, if anything, should be 22   positive about the benefits of nuclear safety recearch and 23   examples would be appropriate, and the one that I chose here 24   was the PRA research and some of the examples that were 25   cited in the letter that was put together with great
+' effectiveness and-timeliness in conducting the review of the 9
-  .f                              ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+waste depository program.
+'So that is basically what we told Congress last 11 year.
+The question is now what do we tell them this year?
+Here are some thoughts on that, for what it's worth.
+.
+First of all, as we were talking a few minutes 14 ago,.this is the last report that we will send to Congress,
+()
+and there are two views of that.
+One is sort of'a last j
+' chance to impress Congress with the importance of research 17 and the other'is why bother?
+I'am not sure there is any need to repeat the 19 messages of the last year.
+I think they came through loud
+~20 and clear, at least as clear as they are going to get to a i
+busy Congressman, and the message, if anything, should be 22 positive about the benefits of nuclear safety recearch and 23 examples would be appropriate, and the one that I chose here 24 was the PRA research and some of the examples that were 25 cited in the letter that was put together with great
+.f ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
 i
-   \                                                 Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 y  .-        t       tw,-
+\\
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034 h
+-mv-y t
+m tw,-
-1   difficulty. yesterday would be appropriate for such a letter I').
+1
-V 2   and the length of the report itself could be short, as short
+difficulty. yesterday would be appropriate for such a letter I').
-       '3   as three to five pages, or it could be something like last 4   year's, which I believe was 10 to 12, that order of 5   magnitude.
+and the length of the report itself could be short, as short V
-              We probably could accelerate the schedule if we 7   needed to --
+'3 as three to five pages, or it could be something like last 4
-              DR. FONTANA:    Seven.
+year's, which I believe was 10 to 12, that order of 5
-              DR. UHRIG:    Seven?   Seven last year?       Okay.
+magnitude.
-               The thought was that we might want to include the 11  j 1998 report to the Commission this year to Congress, and 12    then maybe reference specific messages in the text of that 13    report.
+We probably could accelerate the schedule if we 7
-               CHAIRMAN SEALE:     Excuse me, Bob.       I had thought we
+needed to --
+DR. FONTANA:
+Seven.
+DR. UHRIG:
+Seven?
+Seven last year?
+Okay.
+The thought was that we might want to include the 11 1998 report to the Commission this year to Congress, and j
+then maybe reference specific messages in the text of that 13 report.
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+Excuse me, Bob.
+I had thought we
 /~'
-(N)   15    had already asked that that report be sent to Congress.
+(N) 15 had already asked that that report be sent to Congress.
-               DR. UHRIG:    Has it been done?
+DR. UHRIG:
-               CHAIRMAN SEALE:     That is what I am --
+Has it been done?
-               MR. EL-ZEFTAWY:     It has not been done, because we 19    still have to decide -- if you decide that that is what you 20    want to do -- but it hasn't been done.
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
-               CHAIRMAN SEALE:     Well, since it has got a 1998 22    date on it and since we think it is important, it seems to 23    me that it would be --
+That is what I am --
-               MR. EL-ZEFTAWY:     I think it was sent to a certain 25    part, not to the whole body of Congress -- I think to
+MR. EL-ZEFTAWY:
+It has not been done, because we 19 still have to decide -- if you decide that that is what you 20 want to do -- but it hasn't been done.
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+Well, since it has got a 1998 22 date on it and since we think it is important, it seems to 23 me that it would be --
+MR. EL-ZEFTAWY:
+I think it was sent to a certain 25 part, not to the whole body of Congress -- I think to
 ['')'
-\/
+ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
-s ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+\\/
-Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+Court Reporters s
+Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-i 284       l 1          : Senator Domenici, some others,~but it was sent as it is.
+i 284 1
-                       -2           You know, there's no-cover letter on it
+: Senator Domenici, some others,~but it was sent as it is.
-             )                                                                                                --
+)
-                             CHAIRMAN SEALE:                       I understand --                                       l 4                             MR. EL-ZEFTAWY:
+-2 You know, there's no-cover letter on it 3
-                                                                                            -- and all that.
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
-                            DR.' POWERS:          Bob, one of the discussions I had 6           when we were peer-reviewing -- we solicited the Commission's 7           review of the report to Congress before we sent it out last 8           year, and we got together with Mr. McGaffigan, and I think 9-          he telegraphed to us some pretty good advice.
+I understand --
-                             He is a former staffer for the Congress and it is 11            the staffers who read these things first, and decide whether 12-           they.go on to the Congressman or not, and what he-13            telegraphed to us is he-picked up the report and he said 14           .this is an advocacy report -- bingo.                                    At least that message l
+MR. EL-ZEFTAWY:
-()               15'           came across pretty clearly, and he says the trouble with 16            those is that advocacy reports get de-weighted almost i
+-- and all that.
-           immediately by the staff.
+DR.' POWERS:
-                             Then he thought we would be better served if we 19            had written a detached report, much more akin to what we g,
+Bob, one of the discussions I had 6
-           prepared for the Commission, but I think even a step more 21            detached than that.
+when we were peer-reviewing -- we solicited the Commission's 7
-l 22                              I think that was pretty good advice he gave us 23            there, and it certainly weighed heavily in my thinking that 24 it is very itnportant that I not write this report because I 25            had written that one and I would keep trying to write that O                                                     ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+review of the report to Congress before we sent it out last 8
-Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036
+year, and we got together with Mr. McGaffigan, and I think 9-he telegraphed to us some pretty good advice.
+He is a former staffer for the Congress and it is 11 the staffers who read these things first, and decide whether 12-they.go on to the Congressman or not, and what he-13 telegraphed to us is he-picked up the report and he said 14
+.this is an advocacy report -- bingo.
+At least that message
+()
+' came across pretty clearly, and he says the trouble with 16 those is that advocacy reports get de-weighted almost i
+immediately by the staff.
+Then he thought we would be better served if we 19 had written a detached report, much more akin to what we g,
+prepared for the Commission, but I think even a step more 21 detached than that.
+I think that was pretty good advice he gave us 23 there, and it certainly weighed heavily in my thinking that 24 it is very itnportant that I not write this report because I 25 had written that one and I would keep trying to write that O
+ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
 ( 2 0.2 ) 842-0034
-1 same report again.
+1
+same report again.
 /''')
-%.J .
+I think that if we opt for your last chance to
-           I think that if we opt for your last chance to 3 impress Congress mode of action up there we give real 4 serious consideration to taking McGaffigan's advice and 5 write a report that drips with detachment, just like this 6 last one dripped with advocacy.
+%.J.
-           I would hope that McGaffigan could pick this up             l 8 and say now thin is a detached report -- with the same 9 confidence that that is what it was that he could say that 10 the previous one was an advocacy report.
+impress Congress mode of action up there we give real 4
-           DR. KRESS:    What characterizes a detached report 12 as opposed to an advocacy report -- a balance of negatives 13 and positives or --
+serious consideration to taking McGaffigan's advice and 5
-           DR. FONTANA:     The first thing to show is you are
+write a report that drips with detachment, just like this 6
-()    15 not -- you are in a balanced position to start with.
+last one dripped with advocacy.
-           DR. POWERS:     I think it is the cheerleading aspect 17 that Bill pointed out several times in preparing the letter 18 yesterday that has to be excised rapidly.
+I would hope that McGaffigan could pick this up 8
-           I think a preamble in the report that says that it 20 is a detached report telling them what the status of 21 research and research needs are, and avoiding using 22 essential, critical, necessary and replacing those things --
+and say now thin is a detached report -- with the same 9
+confidence that that is what it was that he could say that 10 the previous one was an advocacy report.
+DR. KRESS:
+What characterizes a detached report 12 as opposed to an advocacy report -- a balance of negatives 13 and positives or --
+DR. FONTANA:
+The first thing to show is you are
+()
+not -- you are in a balanced position to start with.
+DR. POWERS:
+I think it is the cheerleading aspect 17 that Bill pointed out several times in preparing the letter 18 yesterday that has to be excised rapidly.
+I think a preamble in the report that says that it 20 is a detached report telling them what the status of 21 research and research needs are, and avoiding using 22 essential, critical, necessary and replacing those things --
 it would be useful, there would be advantages gained by, and 24 things like that.
-           DR. KRESS:    Okay. That helps me a little. Thank (O
+DR. KRESS:
+Okay.
+That helps me a little.
+Thank (O
+ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
 (_,)
-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
-Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+(202) 842-0034
-          . _      __     _     . _ . _ . _ _ .         _.._..___m._             __ . _._ _ _.             _ _ _ _ . . . . .
+_.._..___m._
-y
+y 286 1
-1  you.
+you.
-        ~
+~
 L/)
-l N.)
+When I get ready-to. write a letter or report or in l N.)
-              When I get ready-to. write a letter or report or in 3  the past when I used to do things like that, one of the i
+the past when I used to do things like that, one of the 4
-  things that I always started out with is right at the top 5  before I started the thing was a question -- what do I want l
+things that I always started out with is right at the top i
-  this report to accomplish?. What do I want this thing to do?
+before I started the thing was a question -- what do I want 6
-L               7  What is.its real purpose?                            Not because I have to write a L               8  report to Congress but vrat do I really want this report to 9~ do.
+this report to accomplish?. What do I want this thing to do?
-               If we could identify that_first, then I think the 11   report,_ nature of the report stems from that.                                I don't know 12   exactly what it is yet we want to accomplish by this 13'  particular report.
+l L
-               DR. POWERS:               Well, ycu will fin, as I found, for
+What is.its real purpose?
-   -(       ) 15   both reports, the report to Congress and the report to the 16   Commission, that the central theme is by far and away the 17   hardest job that you have to do.
+Not because I have to write a L
-               Once you decide on that, usually after a year of 19   sitting through committee meetings and subcommittee 20   meetings, the ammunition that you have is there in 21   abundance.
+report to Congress but vrat do I really want this report to 9~
-               DR.-KRESS:               Even before I end up with a simple 23   theme -- I mean the question I am asking is what go I as the 24   ACRS want this report to accomplish for ACRS?                                 That is the 25   question -- and then.the central theme that you end up with l /                                     ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+do.
-l                                                     Court Reporters j                             1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l                                                 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i
+If we could identify that_first, then I think the 11 report,_ nature of the report stems from that.
+I don't know 12 exactly what it is yet we want to accomplish by this 13' particular report.
+DR. POWERS:
+Well, ycu will fin, as I found, for
+-(
+)
+both reports, the report to Congress and the report to the 16 Commission, that the central theme is by far and away the 17 hardest job that you have to do.
+Once you decide on that, usually after a year of 19 sitting through committee meetings and subcommittee 20 meetings, the ammunition that you have is there in 21 abundance.
+DR.-KRESS:
+Even before I end up with a simple 23 theme -- I mean the question I am asking is what go I as the 24 ACRS want this report to accomplish for ACRS?
+That is the 25 question -- and then.the central theme that you end up with l /
+ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+l Court Reporters j
+Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l
+Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034 i
-1 may stem from that or it may not.      You could get that with a 2 variety of themes, but I still don't know what it is we want V('''N 3 this report to do for us.
+1
-           DR. UHRIG:    I am in the same situation here is I 5 don't know how to write a report that isn't an advocacy 6 report of some sort unless you are in a judgmental situation 7 where you are reviewing something for somebody else.
+may stem from that or it may not.
-           Are we put in the position then of reviewing this 9 program for Congress and saying this is bad and this is 10 good?   Is that the kind of thing you are talking about?
+You could get that with a V('''N 2
-           DR. POWERS:    That would certainly be an approach 12 to things, to say this is bad, this is good, this is 13 omitted.
+variety of themes, but I still don't know what it is we want 3
-           DR. UHRIG:    And this is an open invitation to have O) x_/
+this report to do for us.
-your budget cut by a third.
+DR. UHRIG:
-           DR. POWERS:    Yeah. Or increased by a third.
+I am in the same situation here is I 5
-           DR. FONTANA:    Even though this is detached, we are 18 supposed to be detached, but isn't the message we are trying 19 to get across is that the starvation of the research budget, 20 internally by the NRC, to fund some other things, is not 21 something that should be done?
+don't know how to write a report that isn't an advocacy 6
-           DR. UHRIG:    Well, that is internal to the NRC, and 23 Congress does not control that.
+report of some sort unless you are in a judgmental situation 7
-           DR. FONTANA:    Well, we ought to say something 25 about it.
+where you are reviewing something for somebody else.
-. \,,)
+Are we put in the position then of reviewing this 9
-(3                     ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+program for Congress and saying this is bad and this is 10 good?
-Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+Is that the kind of thing you are talking about?
+DR. POWERS:
+That would certainly be an approach 12 to things, to say this is bad, this is good, this is 13 omitted.
+DR. UHRIG:
+And this is an open invitation to have O) 15 your budget cut by a third.
+x_/
+DR. POWERS:
+Yeah.
+Or increased by a third.
+DR. FONTANA:
+Even though this is detached, we are 18 supposed to be detached, but isn't the message we are trying 19 to get across is that the starvation of the research budget, 20 internally by the NRC, to fund some other things, is not 21 something that should be done?
+DR. UHRIG:
+Well, that is internal to the NRC, and 23 Congress does not control that.
+DR. FONTANA:
+Well, we ought to say something 25 about it.
+. (3 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+\\,,)
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-288 I.
+I.
-i f              1                 DR. UHRIG:     They can, but they have apparently --                              i
+f
-   'h A,./
+DR. UHRIG:
-                 DR. FONTANA:     Refused to get involved.
+They can, but they have apparently --
-            .. 3                 DR. POWERS:     Well, again, I think that McGaffigan 4  gave us some potent advice.           It is like many things, you                               j 5  have got to get through the first hurdle or you aren't to 6 going to get into the rest of the race.            And I think he was 7  telling us, and I believed every word he said.                 That when 1
+i i
-  these people receive advocacy positions from a variety of 9  different sources, then tend to down-weight that 10    automatically.          Now, he did not say they discounted them.
+'h 2
-   He didn't say they threw it out.            He simply said that you                             .
+DR. FONTANA:
-   come in with extra baggage when you are taking an obvious 13    advocacy position.
+Refused to get involved.
-                   DR. WALLIS:     I think you have to tell an                                       l N
+A,./
-       )   15    interesting story, and you have to have a beginning which                                         I i
+.. 3 DR. POWERS:
-   makes someone want-to read the rest of it.               Just like when 17    you pick up a novel in the bookstore and look at the front 18    page, and you say, is this something I am really interested 19    enough to go further with?           So you have got to have some 20    really good words at the beginning and make them say this is 21    a story I want to read some more about.
+Well, again, I think that McGaffigan 4
-                   DR. SHACK:     Yeah, but I mean unless this is an 23    advocacy report, I am not sure why we bother to write to
+gave us some potent advice.
-         . :24   Congress.          I mean I am not going to write to Congress and
+It is like many things, you j
-         '25     tell them about some interesting results we found in
+have got to get through the first hurdle or you aren't to 6
-    /~N                               ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+going to get into the rest of the race.
-   -(_)                                      Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+And I think he was 7
+telling us, and I believed every word he said.
+That when 8
+these people receive advocacy positions from a variety of 9
+different sources, then tend to down-weight that 10 automatically.
+Now, he did not say they discounted them.
+He didn't say they threw it out.
+He simply said that you 12 come in with extra baggage when you are taking an obvious 13 advocacy position.
+DR. WALLIS:
+I think you have to tell an l
+N) 15 interesting story, and you have to have a beginning which i
+makes someone want-to read the rest of it.
+Just like when 17 you pick up a novel in the bookstore and look at the front 18 page, and you say, is this something I am really interested 19 enough to go further with?
+So you have got to have some 20 really good words at the beginning and make them say this is 21 a story I want to read some more about.
+DR. SHACK:
+Yeah, but I mean unless this is an 23 advocacy report, I am not sure why we bother to write to
+. :24 Congress.
+I mean I am not going to write to Congress and
+'25 tell them about some interesting results we found in
+/~N ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+-(_)
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-f 289 1    research, because they won't --
+f 289 1
-DR. WALLIS:
+research, because they won't --
-                              No, why should they be interested.
+DR. WALLIS:
-              DR. SHACK:    The only purpose, it seems to me, in 4    writing this letter is to advocate research.         Now, maybe we 5  .want to do it more subtly.
+No, why should they be interested.
-              DR. MILLER:    I think that is the message, do it l             -7. more subtly so it looks --
+DR. SHACK:
--              DR. SHACK:    Well, you know, I don't see -- you 9  .know, if we are not going to write an advocacy letter.
+The only purpose, it seems to me, in 4
-               DR. FONTANA:     Well, you could be like Marc Antony,
+writing this letter is to advocate research.
-            =11    .you know, I didn't come to bury Caesar or to praise him.
+Now, maybe we 5
-               CHAIRMAN SEALE:       Et tu, Brute.
+.want to do it more subtly.
-               DR. POWERS:    Marc Antony'didn't come to praise 14    Caesar, he came to bury him.
+DR. MILLER:
-A         15 3  j                         [ Laughter.]
+I think that is the message, do it l
--               DR. WALLIS:    No, he didn't. He didn't at all, he 17   .came in order to promote his own agenda, or stir up the.
+-7.
-   populace.
+more subtly so it looks --
-               (Laughter.]
+-DR. SHACK:
-               CHAIRMAN SEALE:       That's right.
+Well, you know, I don't see -- you 9
-               DR. WALLIS:    Or become the next Caesar.
+.know, if we are not going to write an advocacy letter.
-           - 22                DR. POWERS:    Okay. So we are like Marc Antony.
+DR. FONTANA:
-                DR. WALLIS:    I remember that.
+Well, you could be like Marc Antony,
-                DR. MILLER:    Just we have to be more subtle about              i 25     it.
+=11
-I
+.you know, I didn't come to bury Caesar or to praise him.
-     %                             ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
-(                                      Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+Et tu, Brute.
+DR. POWERS:
+Marc Antony'didn't come to praise 14 Caesar, he came to bury him.
+A 3
+j 15
+[ Laughter.]
+-DR. WALLIS:
+No, he didn't.
+He didn't at all, he 17
+.came in order to promote his own agenda, or stir up the.
+populace.
+(Laughter.]
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+That's right.
+DR. WALLIS:
+Or become the next Caesar.
+- 22 DR. POWERS:
+Okay.
+So we are like Marc Antony.
+DR. WALLIS:
+I remember that.
+DR. MILLER:
+Just we have to be more subtle about i
+it.
+I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+(
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-g.__...             ..  . _ -        ._.    ._ _ = _ ._.. - .~._..-              ._ _ _ _ - - - -                     .- ._ - .-
+g.__...
-i,                                                                                                                                   i
+._ _ = _._.. -.~._..-
-     .j r -               '
+i, i
-l 290 L      1.                                                                                                                                     1 L       !!             1                  'DR.:UHRIG:          Okay.             So what you are suggesting --                                i i:                                                                                                                                     I
+l
-        ')            :2    Mario'.
+.j r -
-l                     L3                   DR. FONTANA:              Could you turn off your microphone?
+L
-j-              L4'    We are getting"an' echo between the two phones.
+.
-                  IHL UHRIG:          Turn that one away.                           So what you are l                      6    suggesting here is that we tone it down in terms of the
+L
-            .-         7    advocacy issue.          Now, it's -- now I am getting an echo.
-l         j            8                   DR. WALLIS:            Yes.           You'are in a big hole now.
+'DR.:UHRIG:
-I
+Okay.
-!                      9-                  CHAIRMAN SEALE:                    You are under the speaker is what                               l 10     it is.       That microphone, when you moved it, is now under an
+So what you are suggesting --
-!              i 1
+i i:
-L l-11     overhead speaker, and it is really getting -- there you go.                                                        l 12     Maybe that will be better.
+')
-                   DR. UHRIG:           Is that better?
+:2 Mario'.
-l 14                    CHAIRMAN SEALE:                   Yes.      So far, j
+l L3 DR. FONTANA:
-Lf l wf
+Could you turn off your microphone?
-                   -15.                    DR.'UHRIG:          So far.               That we have a non-advocacy 16     tone to the report.             Okay.               Any other suggestions?                What
+j-L4' We are getting"an' echo between the two phones.
-;s l                    17     about subject matter?                 What content, do you dislike or like
+IHL UHRIG:
-!                   '18     the thought that we try to convey some sort of positive L                    19     message about the benefits of research without standing up l
+Turn that one away.
-    and screaming that we don't have enough money to do more?                                                         ,
+So what you are l
-                   DR. APOSTOLAKIS:                     How about if we treat research 22     the same way we treated PRA in the letter we completed L                    23     yesterday, list a few cases where research was really
+suggesting here is that we tone it down in terms of the 7
-                   '24      beneficial to the regulatory system and then list a few 25     other circumstances where we now believe research will lead ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+advocacy issue.
+Now, it's -- now I am getting an echo.
+l j
+DR. WALLIS:
+Yes.
+You'are in a big hole now.
+I 9-CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+You are under the speaker is what 10 it is.
+That microphone, when you moved it, is now under an i
+L
+overhead speaker, and it is really getting -- there you go.
+l-12 Maybe that will be better.
+DR. UHRIG:
+Is that better?
+l 14 CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+Yes.
+So far, j
+Lf f
+-15.
+DR.'UHRIG:
+So far.
+That we have a non-advocacy l w 16 tone to the report.
+Okay.
+Any other suggestions?
+What
+;s l
+about subject matter?
+What content, do you dislike or like
+'18 the thought that we try to convey some sort of positive L
+message about the benefits of research without standing up l
+and screaming that we don't have enough money to do more?
+DR. APOSTOLAKIS:
+How about if we treat research 22 the same way we treated PRA in the letter we completed L
+yesterday, list a few cases where research was really
+'24 beneficial to the regulatory system and then list a few 25 other circumstances where we now believe research will lead ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
 I Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) -842-0034 l-
-_    __ _.  . _ .      . ~ . . .. . _ - - . .
+. ~.
-__._--._r._     _ _-         __ ._       . _      _ . _
+__._--._r._
 l
-   to a better informed decision.                                                            '
+to a better informed decision.
+(''\\
-(''\
+DR. POWERS:.It seems to me that'that is a thrust j
-DR. POWERS: .It seems to me that'that is a thrust                          j
 ()
-    you can take, but I would select my examples of both 4    :directly out of the testimony and the comments made in the 5     recent Congressional hearings.
+you can take, but I would select my examples of both 4
-                  DR. APOSTOLAKIS:             Commissioners, you mean, before 7     the Commission?              What hearings?
+:directly out of the testimony and the comments made in the 5
-                  DR. POWERS:           Both the Commission, Commission's 9    testimony and the questions that the Senators posed.
+recent Congressional hearings.
-                    DR. APOSTOLAKIS:             Well, this is a good starting 11      point, yes, but I don't know that we want to limit ourselves 12      to these things, but I would certainly --
+DR. APOSTOLAKIS:
-                    DR. POWERS:           I don't think I said that,' George.        I
+Commissioners, you mean, before 7
-,            14      don't think I'said that.                                                                  I 15
+the Commission?
-[% )I                           DR. APOSTOLAKIS:             Well, I am sorry then.
+What hearings?
-                    DR. WALLIS:           The questions posed were mostly about 17      the regulatory process and its delays and so on, NRR 18      questions.       It is'rather hard to get research into some of 19      those bureaucratic problems.
+DR. POWERS:
--                    DR. APOSTOLAKIS:             I really think we can model it 21      after yesterday's letter.                  We have the benefits, right?      We 22'     have two parts now.               One is what we are convinced -- the 23      areas that we are convinced research will be useful, and 24      then we anticipate that it will lead to a more efficient 25      system, unless we want to say that                   --
+Both the Commission, Commission's 9
-e ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+testimony and the questions that the Senators posed.
-(]m/                                             Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington,-D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+DR. APOSTOLAKIS:
+Well, this is a good starting 11 point, yes, but I don't know that we want to limit ourselves 12 to these things, but I would certainly --
+DR. POWERS:
+I don't think I said that,' George.
+I 14 don't think I'said that.
+I
+[ )I 15 DR. APOSTOLAKIS:
+Well, I am sorry then.
+DR. WALLIS:
+The questions posed were mostly about 17 the regulatory process and its delays and so on, NRR 18 questions.
+It is'rather hard to get research into some of 19 those bureaucratic problems.
+-DR. APOSTOLAKIS:
+I really think we can model it 21 after yesterday's letter.
+We have the benefits, right?
+We 22' have two parts now.
+One is what we are convinced -- the 23 areas that we are convinced research will be useful, and 24 then we anticipate that it will lead to a more efficient 25 system, unless we want to say that
+(]m/
+ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+e Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington,-D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
 1
-             DR. KRESS:    That clearly sounds like a dripping
+DR. KRESS:
-(''\
+That clearly sounds like a dripping
-with advocacy letter to me.      I almost am at the point where 3  I don't want to send a positive message, I want to send a 4  negative one.
+(''\\
-            DR. BARTON:    Send a scare message. Say that if 6  you don't do research --
+with advocacy letter to me.
-            DR. KRESS:    My personal opinion is that the status 8  of NRC research is abysmal, it is at an all time low.         They 9  are not funding any research.      They are not doing anything.
+I almost am at the point where 3
-The rest of the world is running away from them, doing it.
+I don't want to send a positive message, I want to send a 4
-We are losing or preeminence in the area of nuclear safety 12  because we are not doing enough.      You know, this is a -- I 13  don't want to point to here is all the good things we are 14  doing, here are some things we want to do more.
+negative one.
+DR. BARTON:
+Send a scare message.
+Say that if 6
+you don't do research --
+DR. KRESS:
+My personal opinion is that the status 8
+of NRC research is abysmal, it is at an all time low.
+They 9
+are not funding any research.
+They are not doing anything.
+The rest of the world is running away from them, doing it.
+We are losing or preeminence in the area of nuclear safety 12 because we are not doing enough.
+You know, this is a -- I 13 don't want to point to here is all the good things we are 14 doing, here are some things we want to do more.
 m
-()    15.            DR. APOSTOLAKIS:     Well, that is an advocacy 16- letter, too, isn't it?
+( )
-            DR. KRESS:    It is an advocacy, but it a negative 18  type of advocacy.
+.
-            DR. APOSTOLAKIS:     Now, don't you have to explain 20  to Congress, though, why we have to be preeminent in the 21  world?
+DR. APOSTOLAKIS:
-;        22             DR. KRESS:    Yeah, I think --
+Well, that is an advocacy 16-letter, too, isn't it?
-            DR. APOSTOLAKIS:     If the French do the research 24  and we just get the reports, all we have to do is translate 25  them.
+DR. KRESS:
+It is an advocacy, but it a negative 18 type of advocacy.
+DR. APOSTOLAKIS:
+Now, don't you have to explain 20 to Congress, though, why we have to be preeminent in the 21 world?
+DR. KRESS:
+Yeah, I think --
+DR. APOSTOLAKIS:
+If the French do the research 24 and we just get the reports, all we have to do is translate 25 them.
 l l
-  - ('~N                    ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+- ('~N ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
-(_)                             Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014
+(_)
-(                              Washington, D.C. 20036 i
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014
+(
+Washington, D.C.
+i
 (202) 842-0034
-          .        .     -         ..   .  - . . . . _         . - ~ . .      -    . - . . - - - . - . -     - , -
+. - ~..
-L l
+L 293 l
-1-                  DR. KRESS:             Yeah.      Well, I.think you are right,
+-DR. KRESS:
-      )
+Yeah.
-'      you need.some words.               But,.in my mind, this report ought to 3       be -- raise a flag.               It ought to be an alarm.                                   i i
+Well, I.think you are right, 2'
-                  DR. SEACK:             But isn't that last year's report?
+)
-l
+you need.some words.
-                   DR. KRESS:             Last year's report, I don't recall                         ;
+But,.in my mind, this report ought to 3
-'      what it was. But it may have been.
+be -- raise a flag.
-                  DR. UHRIG:             Well, those conclusions I read off 8       here just a few minutes ago, --
+It ought to be an alarm.
-i 9                   DR. KRESS:             You meant the one before Dana.                             '
+i i
-'                                                                                                                   l 10                    DR. SHACK:            .The Congressional report.                                  i 11~                   DR. KRESS: . Congressional report.
+DR. SEACK:
-l           12'                   DR. UHRIG:             In effect, the last two, which said,                      "
+But isn't that last year's report?
-l 13       -- you know, itLis heading downhill, it is heading scath, you
+5
-                                                                                                                    ]
+DR. KRESS:
-       know, it is important.
+Last year's report, I don't recall 6'
+what it was.
+But it may have been.
+DR. UHRIG:
+Well, those conclusions I read off 8
+here just a few minutes ago, --
+i 9
+DR. KRESS:
+You meant the one before Dana.
+DR. SHACK:
+.The Congressional report.
+i 11~
+DR. KRESS:. Congressional report.
+l 12' DR. UHRIG:
+In effect, the last two, which said, l
+-- you know, itLis heading downhill, it is heading scath, you
+]
+know, it is important.
 1
 [A
-      \
+\\
-                   DR. APOSTOLAKIS:               Yeah, let's not confuse the two 16       - reports. I think Bill is right, the report to Congress was 17'       a little pessimistic.
+DR. APOSTOLAKIS:
-I 18                    DR. KRESS:             Well, I think --
+Yeah, let's not confuse the two 16
-                   DR. APOSTOLAKIS:               But I think what you said, Tom,
+- reports.
-!           20        can be part of the report, but not the only thing.
+I think Bill is right, the report to Congress was 17' a little pessimistic.
-                   DR. WALLIS:             It should not be written for an l
+I 18 DR. KRESS:
-L           22        engineer, it should be written for --
+Well, I think --
+DR. APOSTOLAKIS:
+But I think what you said, Tom, 20 can be part of the report, but not the only thing.
+DR. WALLIS:
+It should not be written for an l
+L 22 engineer, it should be written for --
 l l
-                   DR. UHRIG:             A politician.
+DR. UHRIG:
-                   DR. KRESS:             Oh, yes, definitely.
+A politician.
-                   DR. WALLIS:             For people as far removed as
+DR. KRESS:
-   /''                                ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+Oh, yes, definitely.
-Court Reporters
+DR. WALLIS:
-:              1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 W
+For people as far removed as
+/''
+ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034 W
-l
+1
-possible. I mean I hate to bring in my Shakespearean
+possible.
+I mean I hate to bring in my Shakespearean
 (''
-    'n 2 colleagues and all that, but, you know, skiing companions --
+colleagues and all that, but, you know, skiing companions --
-           DR. APOSTOLAKIS:        You really don't.                         I 4            DR. WALLIS:       If I go up the chair lift and I try 5 to explain to this person why research is important, I would 6 say it completely differently than I would say it here.
+'n 3
+DR. APOSTOLAKIS:
+You really don't.
+DR. WALLIS:
+If I go up the chair lift and I try 5
+to explain to this person why research is important, I would 6
+say it completely differently than I would say it here.
 That's the kind of thing.
-           DR. BARTON:       Well, does Congress even care about 9 nuclear power?
+DR. BARTON:
-           DR. WALLIS:       Well, explain to someone you happen 11 to meet on the chair lift why it is important.
+Well, does Congress even care about 9
-           DR. APOSTOLAKIS:        You start out by saying research 13 by any other name.
+nuclear power?
-           DR. POWERS:       Let me answer John's question. My
+DR. WALLIS:
-   -(   ) 15 reading of the transcripts of the various testimonies was
+Well, explain to someone you happen 11 to meet on the chair lift why it is important.
-    %)
+DR. APOSTOLAKIS:
+You start out by saying research 13 by any other name.
+DR. POWERS:
+Let me answer John's question.
+My
+- ( )
+reading of the transcripts of the various testimonies was
+%)
 that at least the Senators, to a man, espoused their 17 advocacy of nuclear power, to a man.
-18            DR. BARTON:       On the subcommittee.
+18 DR. BARTON:
-           CHAIRMAN SEALE:       And recognized the 20 percent 20 contribution.
+On the subcommittee.
-           DR. BARTON:       I heard the same message.
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
-           DR. UHRIG:       I was surprised at that.
+And recognized the 20 percent 20 contribution.
-           DR. APOSTOLAKIS:        I was, too.
+DR. BARTON:
-           DR. BARTON:       Well, I just wonder whether that was 25 politics or whether it was meant.
+I heard the same message.
-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+DR. UHRIG:
-('')N
+I was surprised at that.
-(_                              Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+DR. APOSTOLAKIS:
+I was, too.
+DR. BARTON:
+Well, I just wonder whether that was 25 politics or whether it was meant.
+('')N ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+(_
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-1               DR. APOSTOLAKIS:    Especially when Liebermann spoke l
+1
-(''
+DR. APOSTOLAKIS:
+Especially when Liebermann spoke
+('' '
+up.
+I couldn't believe what he said.
 (
-     '  2  up. I couldn't believe what he said.                              l 3      %        DR. POWERS:    Well, Liebermann, obviously, was very 4  impressed at the way the NRC went about its business in             1 5  Connecticut.
+DR. POWERS:
-              DR. APOSTOLAKIS:    Yes.
+Well, Liebermann, obviously, was very 4
-              DR. POWERS:    And, clearly, that is a sentiment to 8  play to, is to say, now, why was Liebermann able to do that?
+impressed at the way the NRC went about its business in 1
-Well, because NRC had tools that had been developed through 10  research in the past.       Now, are you going to be able to 11  continue to do that?       It depends on developing the tools 12  that you need in the future.
+Connecticut.
-              DR. APOSTOLAKIS:    And then they all praised -- I 14  mean they all urged the Commission to -- I guess to be more O
+DR. APOSTOLAKIS:
-:   j. 15  sympathetic to the industry, or to help the industry get 16  back on its feet.
+Yes.
-              DR. BARTON:    They urged the Commission to do 18  several things, but none of them included doing more 19  research.
+DR. POWERS:
--              DR. APOSTOLAKIS:    No. No. But then we come in 21  and say --
+And, clearly, that is a sentiment to 8
-              CHAIRMAN SEALE:    OL. problem is to make the 22  connection.
+play to, is to say, now, why was Liebermann able to do that?
-              DR. APOSTOLAKIS:    -- if you want to do this --
+Well, because NRC had tools that had been developed through 10 research in the past.
-              CHAIRMAN SEALE:    But I think your point -- the Q
+Now, are you going to be able to 11 continue to do that?
+It depends on developing the tools 12 that you need in the future.
+DR. APOSTOLAKIS:
+And then they all praised -- I 14 mean they all urged the Commission to -- I guess to be more O j.
+sympathetic to the industry, or to help the industry get 16 back on its feet.
+DR. BARTON:
+They urged the Commission to do 18 several things, but none of them included doing more 19 research.
+-DR. APOSTOLAKIS:
+No.
+No.
+But then we come in 21 and say --
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+OL. problem is to make the 22 connection.
+DR. APOSTOLAKIS:
+-- if you want to do this --
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+But I think your point -- the Q
+ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
 (_/
-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
-Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+(202) 842-0034
-       . . _ _        __    . ._.- . _ - _ -_        . . . _ . . ~ . . . _ _ . - - _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ . . . .
+... _.. ~... _ _. - - _ _. _ _. _ _ _. _. _....
-1
+J 296 1
-J 296 1      firstLparagraph has to have a quotation on Senator Domenici 1(~N               2-     or somebody recognized the importance of the'20 percent
+firstLparagraph has to have a quotation on Senator Domenici 1(~N 2-or somebody recognized the importance of the'20 percent
 (
-     contribution to the. energy source.
+contribution to the. energy source.
-                     DR. BARTON:           You need to quote a couple of them, 5-    - Liebe rmann', Domenici.
+DR. BARTON:
-                     CHAIRMAN SEALE: -That's right'.
+You need to quote a couple of them, 5-
-                     DR. BARTON:           Bah-pah-pah-pah-te-da, said, 8      boop-boop-boop.
+- Liebe rmann', Domenici.
--                     CHAIRMAN SEALE:                    Yeuh.                  And with Liebermann, the 10       endorsement of the way the Commission handled the 11       Connecticut thing.
+CHAIRMAN SEALE: -That's right'.
-                      DR. KRESS:         Well, I hate to. jump in where angels 13       fear to tread.          My feeling is that the basic problem with
+DR. BARTON:
-               .. 14      the status of NR research is the fact that we are under a
+Bah-pah-pah-pah-te-da, said, 8
- /   \           15       fee structure that says we have to recover all or most
+boop-boop-boop.
-% ,)                                                                                                                     --
+-CHAIRMAN SEALE:
-                .16                       DR. BARTON:           It is only for more year though.                              And 17       then what?
+Yeuh.
-                      CHAIRMAN SEALE:                    And as so maybe now this report 19       is a good time to take a shot at it.
+And with Liebermann, the 10 endorsement of the way the Commission handled the 11 Connecticut thing.
-                      DR. KRESS:         I think we ought to take a shot.                               I 21       would love to take a shot at that, because I think that is a 22       basic problem with the NRC and NRC research.
+DR. KRESS:
-                      CHAIRMAN SEALE:                    I think you are right, Tom.
+Well, I hate to. jump in where angels 13 fear to tread.
-                      DR    MILLER:         I would also note that Congress has 25       passed, based on recent history, a substantial research
+My feeling is that the basic problem with
+.. 14 the status of NR research is the fact that we are under a
+/
+\\
+%,)
+fee structure that says we have to recover all or most 15
+.16 DR. BARTON:
+It is only for more year though.
+And 17 then what?
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+And as so maybe now this report 19 is a good time to take a shot at it.
+DR. KRESS:
+I think we ought to take a shot.
+I 21 would love to take a shot at that, because I think that is a 22 basic problem with the NRC and NRC research.
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+I think you are right, Tom.
+DR MILLER:
+I would also note that Congress has 25 passed, based on recent history, a substantial research
 ("')
+ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
 (,,,/
-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
-Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+(202) 842-0034
-  ,.              --           . . . .        ... ~ -.. . - _ - . . .             . ~ . - .      -      . . . - -      -   ..
+... ~ -... - _ -...
-          ,                                                                                                        297
+~. -.
-               'l     program for DOE.                   Maybe it is^ time --
-                      DR. APOSTOLAKIS:                    I will give you'a --
+'l program for DOE.
-       ~
+Maybe it is^ time --
-              '3'                       DR. KRESS:                    NRC is under different rules.                             j 4'                      ;-DR. MILLER:                   Oh, no,1 NRC doesn't get any of that.
+DR. APOSTOLAKIS:
-    But maybe they can get some of that.
+I will give you'a --
-                      DR. APOSTOLAKIS: -Maybe my colleague here can put                                     -l 7     it in Shakespearian terms, but an uninformed regulator is 8    -either conservative or. wrnig.                           I think that is a great 9     motto.
+~
-                       DR. WALLIS:                    Use words like that, stir things up.
+'3' DR. KRESS:
--                       DR. APOSTOLAKIS:                    I am serious. And then'you'give 12      examples.          They were wrong with this' sequence, for example, 13      and then give examples of conservatism'that is killing the 14      industry financially.                            An uninformed regulator is either
+NRC is under different rules.
-    -b        15      wrong or-conservative.
+j 4'
-    .V 16-                       DR. BARTON:                    Overly conservative.
+;-DR. MILLER:
--                       DR. APOSTOLAKIS:                    Overly conservative, or greater 18      -- he uses greater conservatisms.
+Oh, no,1 NRC doesn't get any of that.
-                       DR. WALLIS:                    Be careful of the word 20      " conservative," it might mean something else to these --
+But maybe they can get some of that.
-                       { Laughter.].
+DR. APOSTOLAKIS: -Maybe my colleague here can put
-'                       DR. KRESS:                    Yeah, you're right.
+-l 7
-: 23.                       DR. BARTON:                    Like a right-winger.
+it in Shakespearian terms, but an uninformed regulator is 8
-                       CHAIRMAN SEALE:                    But the story, told in different 25      language, but the story of the collapse from 300 generic ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+-either conservative or. wrnig.
-O-                                                      Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+I think that is a great 9
+motto.
+DR. WALLIS:
+Use words like that, stir things up.
+-DR. APOSTOLAKIS:
+I am serious.
+And then'you'give 12 examples.
+They were wrong with this' sequence, for example, 13 and then give examples of conservatism'that is killing the 14 industry financially.
+An uninformed regulator is either
+-b 15 wrong or-conservative.
+.V 16-DR. BARTON:
+Overly conservative.
+-DR. APOSTOLAKIS:
+Overly conservative, or greater 18
+-- he uses greater conservatisms.
+DR. WALLIS:
+Be careful of the word 20
+" conservative," it might mean something else to these --
+{ Laughter.].
+' DR. KRESS:
+Yeah, you're right.
+.
+DR. BARTON:
+Like a right-winger.
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+But the story, told in different 25 language, but the story of the collapse from 300 generic O-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-         . - . . - . ~            -      .  ~ . - . - .----.                       - . - - . . . ~ . .     . . . . -
+-.. -. ~
-l l
+~. -. -.----.
+~.
-                                                                                                                          \
+l
-  .            1---         issues;-    pardon me, 2,000.                                                                l i
+\\
-:2                        DR. BARTON:              700.
+---
-{                                                                                                                    ]
+issues;-
-                       CHAIRMAN SEALE:               700, okay, to 200 is a good 4          ' example of_how risk-informed analysis protected the industry 5            from 500' loose' cannons.                                                                    .
+pardon me, 2,000.
-l
+i
-: 6.                       DR. APOSTOLAKIS: -Right.                I think that is a good
+{
-            ,7-             point.                                                                                       I 1
+:2 DR. BARTON:
-                       CHAIRMAN SEALE:               And maybe we need to say it more                   j 1
+.
--           like that than --                                                                             l l
+]
-                        DR. APOSTOLAKIS:               In fact, we have to bring up --                    I 11              I mean quote Al Gore as well, with the risk stuff in the 12_             federal government.                Wasn't he the one who said something                      .
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
-:13              like that?- That is why Shirley Jackson went to the White 11 4            House,.when we went to dinner, do you remember?
+, okay, to 200 is a good 4
-                         DR. KRESS:              Why doesn't he have'a' Tennessee 16           . accent?    I have never figured that.
+' example of_how risk-informed analysis protected the industry 5
-                         DR. BARTON:              He was raised in Washington.
+from 500' loose' cannons.
-                         DR. APOSTOLAKIS:               By the way, this argument about 19             an uninformed regulator, I have modified it a little bit, 20            but John Austin told me that.                    The staff here used it when 21             they appeared before Congress when there was a proposal to
+l 6.
-           '22             abolish the San Antonio Research Center for Nuclear Waste.
+DR. APOSTOLAKIS: -Right.
-                         CHAIRMAN SEALE:               Yeah.
+I think that is a good
-                        DR. APOSTOLAKIS:                And they argued that, look, you
+,7-point.
-           -25             can do that, but when the DOE petition comes for Yucca O-                                      ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
-/-                                                     Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+And maybe we need to say it more j
+-like that than --
+l 10 DR. APOSTOLAKIS:
+In fact, we have to bring up --
+I mean quote Al Gore as well, with the risk stuff in the 12_
+federal government.
+Wasn't he the one who said something
+:13 like that?- That is why Shirley Jackson went to the White 11 4 House,.when we went to dinner, do you remember?
+DR. KRESS:
+Why doesn't he have'a' Tennessee 16
+. accent?
+I have never figured that.
+DR. BARTON:
+He was raised in Washington.
+DR. APOSTOLAKIS:
+By the way, this argument about 19 an uninformed regulator, I have modified it a little bit, 20 but John Austin told me that.
+The staff here used it when 21 they appeared before Congress when there was a proposal to
+'22 abolish the San Antonio Research Center for Nuclear Waste.
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+Yeah.
+DR. APOSTOLAKIS:
+And they argued that, look, you
+-25 can do that, but when the DOE petition comes for Yucca O-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+/-
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-299      )
+1-Mountain, we.will not know as much, and an uninformed
--  Mountain, we.will not know as much, and an uninformed
+~'
-     ~'
+f [\\ -)
-  regulator tends to be conservative.          Okay. And evidently --
+regulator tends to be conservative.
-f [\ -)
+Okay.
-i L          3- .not evidently, I mean Congress did buy the argument, and 4   they let it live.       Because I understand in the bill, there l
+And evidently --
-   was -- there were explicitly penciling out the funds for the                l 6   San Antonio -- Southwest Research Center.          So it has worked i          7   in the.past.
+i L
-l 8              Okay.      And I used it in passing at the --                   R l          9   conference the other day and Ochran corrected me.            He stood t
+-
-  up, he didn't throw his glasses, but he went like this, he 11   said -- and he said you don't mean that they are always 12  . conservative. I can give you many examples of where they 13   were wrong.
+.not evidently, I mean Congress did buy the argument, and l
-l 14               [ Laughter. ]
+they let it live.
-  -p q    j 15              CHAIRMAN SEALE:       That is hard to do with a --
+Because I understand in the bill, there 5
-  George.
+was -- there were explicitly penciling out the funds for the 6
-             DR. WALLIS:       This is all in the record now.
+San Antonio -- Southwest Research Center.
-             DR. UHRIG:       Well, I think I am beginning to get a 19   spectrum of ideas here.        Let us cogitate on it and come back l         20   with a proposal next month, next meeting, as far as the 21   report to Congress is concerned.
+So it has worked i
-             Of the two, this is the smaller report, at least 23   it has been recently.        Here is the schedule that we are 24   faced with for the report to the Commission.          And you will 25   note that the proposed format and content of the '99 report
+in the.past.
-[~')                        ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+l 8
-   \- /                                 Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l                                   Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l
+Okay.
+And I used it in passing at the --
+R l
+conference the other day and Ochran corrected me.
+He stood t
+up, he didn't throw his glasses, but he went like this, he 11 said -- and he said you don't mean that they are always 12
+. conservative.
+I can give you many examples of where they 13 were wrong.
+[ Laughter. ]
+-p q
+j 15 CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+That is hard to do with a --
+George.
+DR. WALLIS:
+This is all in the record now.
+DR. UHRIG:
+Well, I think I am beginning to get a 19 spectrum of ideas here.
+Let us cogitate on it and come back l
+with a proposal next month, next meeting, as far as the 21 report to Congress is concerned.
+Of the two, this is the smaller report, at least 23 it has been recently.
+Here is the schedule that we are 24 faced with for the report to the Commission.
+And you will 25 note that the proposed format and content of the '99 report
+[~')
+ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+\\- /
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l
+Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034 l
 I
-1 is supposed to be handled in September and we are in October
+1
-  -(~T      2  1 today, I believe, so we are already behind the 8 ball.
+is supposed to be handled in September and we are in October
-l  \_)
+-(~T 2
-So, again, the schedule, as laid out here, gets us down to a 1           4  May report being issued.
+today, I believe, so we are already behind the 8 ball.
-               I have got a brief summary of some of the things 6  that came out of this past report.       We don't need to spend a 7  lot of time on this because I am sure you have all read it.
+l
-But to remind you, from the executive summary, the ACRS 9  review of the nuclear safety research program was to examine 10  the need, scope and balance of the reactor research --
+\\_)
-safety research program, determine how the research office l
+So, again, the schedule, as laid out here, gets us down to a 1
-is positioned for the changing environment, how well the 13  office anticipates research needs, the active role dealing 14  with some of the initiatives of the Commission, namely, the p
+May report being issued.
-   ;x.y)   15  SECY-97-075 dealing with core competencies, and SECY-97-167 16  dealing with -- I have forgotten what it is.
+I have got a brief summary of some of the things 6
-               Recommend whether the Nuclear Safety Research 18  Review Committee function is needed.       And, of course, that 19  is history at this point.       So it is really the four tasks 20  there that I think we have a continuing responsibility to i
+that came out of this past report.
-face up to.                                                         '
+We don't need to spend a 7
-               I am going to skip one of the slides, go on to --
+lot of time on this because I am sure you have all read it.
-here are some of the changing conditions that we are faced 24  with, and every one of these is going to have some impact on 25  the research program, or the research program should in some
+But to remind you, from the executive summary, the ACRS 9
-   /G                           ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+review of the nuclear safety research program was to examine 10 the need, scope and balance of the reactor research --
-   \s,)                                Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l
+safety research program, determine how the research office l
+is positioned for the changing environment, how well the 13 office anticipates research needs, the active role dealing 14 with some of the initiatives of the Commission, namely, the p; y) 15 SECY-97-075 dealing with core competencies, and SECY-97-167 x.
+dealing with -- I have forgotten what it is.
+Recommend whether the Nuclear Safety Research 18 Review Committee function is needed.
+And, of course, that 19 is history at this point.
+So it is really the four tasks 20 there that I think we have a continuing responsibility to i
+face up to.
+I am going to skip one of the slides, go on to --
+here are some of the changing conditions that we are faced 24 with, and every one of these is going to have some impact on 25 the research program, or the research program should in some
+/G ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+\\s,)
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034 l
-i l
+i 301 l
-  I 1 way respond to these. The economic deregulation, aging, the      l
+way respond to these.
-('''y   2 premature retirement of facilities, renewal of the
+The economic deregulation, aging, the
-  'Q) 3 licensees.
+('''y 2
-i 1
+premature retirement of facilities, renewal of the
-            DR. APOSTOLAKIS:    I'm sorry. Is there research      !
+'Q) 3 licensees.
-l 5 being done in this area now?     I mean we already have the 6 petitions.
+i 4
-l 7            DR. UHRIG:    There is a lot of research being done 8 in conjunction with aging, which is a very important factor 9 in the license renewal. The issue of Congressional action i
+DR. APOSTOLAKIS:
-to mandate performance-based regulation is an issue that             '
+I'm sorry.
-could and is, to a certain extent, being addressed by 12 research. There are continuing improvements in the average 13 performance of the licensees, but that asymtotically 14 approaches a limit because they are a very high online
+Is there research l
-  ;rh)   15 percentage at this point. There's continued efforts at V
+being done in this area now?
+I mean we already have the 6
+petitions.
+DR. UHRIG:
+There is a lot of research being done 8
+in conjunction with aging, which is a very important factor 9
+in the license renewal.
+The issue of Congressional action i
+to mandate performance-based regulation is an issue that 11 could and is, to a certain extent, being addressed by 12 research.
+There are continuing improvements in the average 13 performance of the licensees, but that asymtotically 14 approaches a limit because they are a very high online
+;rh) 15 percentage at this point.
+There's continued efforts at V
 consensus standards that are important to the industry.
-Research does participate in that.       Continuing efforts by 18 the nuclear industry, including the cost of regulation.         I 19 am not --
+Research does participate in that.
-           DR. SHACK:    Continuing efforts to reduce costs.
+Continuing efforts by 18 the nuclear industry, including the cost of regulation.
-           DR. UHRIG:    Reduce costs. Okay. That's what it 22 must have meant. The emergence of new technologies such as 23 digital electronics. This is another issue that is 24 important from a research standpoint.       The continued 25 pressure to incorporate risk considerations into the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+I 19 am not --
+DR. SHACK:
+Continuing efforts to reduce costs.
+DR. UHRIG:
+Reduce costs.
+Okay.
+That's what it 22 must have meant.
+The emergence of new technologies such as 23 digital electronics.
+This is another issue that is 24 important from a research standpoint.
+The continued 25 pressure to incorporate risk considerations into the
 {'%
-s
+ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
-   '~'
+Court Reporters s'~'
-       !                          Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 l
+Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+l
 (202) 842-0034
-  ..     . - . _._ __ _ ,         _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ . . . . .         m.    . - . . ~ . . _ _ _ _ . _ . . . _ . _ _ _ _ . . . _ . _
+m.
+. -.. ~.. _ _ _ _. _... _. _ _ _ _... _. _
-, E-                    -1 : -regulatory process, and this'is-going to be the name-of the w
+, E-
-                       '2:   ; game for.the next few years.                               More opportunities for the 3    Commission to endorse ~ consensus industrial standards, as 4   . urged 1by Public Law' 104-113,.and declining NRC resources for 5'   inspection and monitoring licensing activities.                                                         We saw the 6   . thrust of'that coming from Senator'Domenici ano the 7    committee that he-heads.
+-1 :
-                         DR'. APOSTOLAKIS:                So,.I don't understand.                              That is
+-regulatory process, and this'is-going to be the name-of the w
-: 9. not bad.
+'2:
-L10'                            DR. UHRIG:           Well, it depends.upon -- you have to,
+; game for.the next few years.
-:11      if you have less manpower to carry;out the inspection 12      function, then it has to be done more efficiently,-or 13:     better.             You have to do it perhaps differently than we have                                                            j 14 -   .been doing               it'..
+More opportunities for the 3
-A              15
+Commission to endorse ~ consensus industrial standards, as 4
-     .e                                           LDR.~APOSTOLAKIS:                  Right.
+. urged 1by Public Law' 104-113,.and declining NRC resources for 5'
-                           DR. UHRIG:           I am not going to go through the rest 17      of this.              You have read-the report, as far as those charges                                                           ,
+inspection and monitoring licensing activities.
-                    -18       are" concerned.                  Now, the real function here are the 19     . direction of the NRC research program as spelled out in the 20      report last year was to' provide the technical basis for 21      regulatc ry activities to the NRC line organization so that 22      they can carry out their regulatory function to conduct 23      anticipatory research to enable the Commission and line
+We saw the 6
-: 24. organizations to address issues that are going to come up, 25-     or at least they anticipate, and to maintain the technical O                                                    ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+. thrust of'that coming from Senator'Domenici ano the 7
-Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 i
+committee that he-heads.
-Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+DR'. APOSTOLAKIS:
+So,.I don't understand.
+That is 9.
+not bad.
+L10' DR. UHRIG:
+Well, it depends.upon -- you have to,
+:11 if you have less manpower to carry;out the inspection 12 function, then it has to be done more efficiently,-or 13:
+better.
+You have to do it perhaps differently than we have j
+-
+.been doing it'..
+A
+.e 15 LDR.~APOSTOLAKIS:
+Right.
+DR. UHRIG:
+I am not going to go through the rest 17 of this.
+You have read-the report, as far as those charges
+-18 are" concerned.
+Now, the real function here are the 19
+. direction of the NRC research program as spelled out in the 20 report last year was to' provide the technical basis for 21 regulatc ry activities to the NRC line organization so that 22 they can carry out their regulatory function to conduct 23 anticipatory research to enable the Commission and line 24.
+organizations to address issues that are going to come up, 25-or at least they anticipate, and to maintain the technical O
+ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+i Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-1    ~ capability within the staff for the Commission and line
+1
+~ capability within the staff for the Commission and line
 [~')
-LJ 2    organizations so they can handle the issues in the future.
+organizations so they can handle the issues in the future.
-              And one identifiable top level requiremel:c for the 4    NRC research program is they should focus on the_ issues of 5    most risk and regulatory significance.      So that is a 6    guideline for the issues that I think we probably need to 7    address in our report.
+LJ 3
--              CHAIRMAN SEALE:     Bob, there is one item in 9    function 1 there that you didn't underline or mention, but 10    it seems to me it is something that we ought to search our 11    data banks for, and that is the question of whether or not 12    the Commission has the technical basis for making some of 13    the policy statements, or initiating some of the initiatives
+And one identifiable top level requiremel:c for the 4
-    -s 14    in policy that they have done in the last year.
+NRC research program is they should focus on the_ issues of 5
-(,)
+most risk and regulatory significance.
-15               If they have had to go off half-cocked because 16-   they didn't have the research space to make a better 17    decision, or let's say a more informed decision, I should 18    say, I think that is something that might be worthwhile to 19    have in the report.      Point out to them that they were forced 20  >
+So that is a 6
-to make a more conservative decision because they didn't 21    have the data they needed to make a best factual decision.
+guideline for the issues that I think we probably need to 7
-              DR. FONTANA:     Does anybody have examples of that?
+address in our report.
-              DR. BARTON:     Yeah, that is what I was going to 24    say.
+-CHAIRMAN SEALE:
-              CHAIRMAN SEALE:     Well, I am saying, we ought to ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+Bob, there is one item in 9
-C's- \                              Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+function 1 there that you didn't underline or mention, but 10 it seems to me it is something that we ought to search our 11 data banks for, and that is the question of whether or not 12 the Commission has the technical basis for making some of 13 the policy statements, or initiating some of the initiatives 14 in policy that they have done in the last year.
+-s 7(,)
+If they have had to go off half-cocked because 16-they didn't have the research space to make a better 17 decision, or let's say a more informed decision, I should 18 say, I think that is something that might be worthwhile to 19 have in the report.
+Point out to them that they were forced 20 to make a more conservative decision because they didn't 21 have the data they needed to make a best factual decision.
+DR. FONTANA:
+Does anybody have examples of that?
+DR. BARTON:
+Yeah, that is what I was going to 24 say.
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+Well, I am saying, we ought to C' \\
+ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+Court Reporters s-1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-1  search our memory now, search and see if there are cases
+1
+search our memory now, search and see if there are cases
 []
-V' 2  like that.
+like that.
-            DR. UHRIG:       Well, the whole plethora of 4  regulations coming out after the Three -- they are from 5  lessons learned in the Three Mile Island, in that category.
+V' 3
-           . CHAIRMAN SEALE:      And I think we all recognize in 7  retrospect, and I think even the Commission has recognized 8  in retrospect, that the first reactions to Millstone were 9  perhaps a little overdre.wn.
+DR. UHRIG:
-            DR. WALLIS:       I think you could say that research 11  saved AP600. I did in my mind. And it wasn't because they 12  were asked specifically to do some things by the policy 13  makers, it is that they themselves discovered that this had 14  to be done and did it.
+Well, the whole plethora of 4
+regulations coming out after the Three -- they are from 5
+lessons learned in the Three Mile Island, in that category.
+. CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+And I think we all recognize in 7
+retrospect, and I think even the Commission has recognized 8
+in retrospect, that the first reactions to Millstone were 9
+perhaps a little overdre.wn.
+DR. WALLIS:
+I think you could say that research 11 saved AP600.
+I did in my mind.
+And it wasn't because they 12 were asked specifically to do some things by the policy 13 makers, it is that they themselves discovered that this had 14 to be done and did it.
 g
-(  ) 15             DR. SHACK:       Let's research --
+(
-            CHAIRMAN SEALE:       Yes, right.
+)
-            DR. WALLIS:       Yes, but it wasn't -- I think it 18  could have been managed much better if the right questions 19  had been asked earlier by the regulating agency then 20- Research could have addressed the right problems.
+DR. SHACK:
-             I mean you would have got some of those answers a 22  lot earlier, 23-            MR. LARKINS:       You might want to take a look at 24  some of the re7ulatory initiatives that are going on now.
+Let's research --
-            CHAIRMAN SEALE:       Yes.
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+Yes, right.
+DR. WALLIS:
+Yes, but it wasn't -- I think it 18 could have been managed much better if the right questions 19 had been asked earlier by the regulating agency then 20-Research could have addressed the right problems.
+I mean you would have got some of those answers a 22 lot earlier, 23-MR. LARKINS:
+You might want to take a look at 24 some of the re7ulatory initiatives that are going on now.
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+Yes.
 f'')
+ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
 (_/
-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
-Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+(202) 842-0034
-   -     . . _ . .._ ,_                 _ . _ . . . __ . _ . ._ ~ . .. . _ . . . ~ . . . .             .__-.__.m._-_. .
+_. _... __. _.._ ~.... _... ~....
+.__-.__.m._-_.
 IL
-                                                                                                                           '305 l'                  LMR.- LARKINS:                             Some of these --
+'305 l'
+LMR.- LARKINS:
+Some of these --
 D
-                      '2                      CHAIRMAN SEALE:                              That..is what I was thinking 3   :about, take a look at those'and see where'they are limited 4 '   because --
+'2 CHAIRMAN SEALE:
-                      -5                      MR. LARKINS:                            Pilots and some of the other things l'
+That..is what I was thinking 3
-j.
+:about, take a look at those'and see where'they are limited 4 '
-    and'they are trying to' accelerate the source term work and l
+because --
-L 7'    they really couldn't move forward on that without research.
+-5 MR. LARKINS:
-!'                      8                    ' CHAIRMAN SEALE: -John, something that'came up 9'    earlier, to whom has the lastLyear's Commission report, the l                  10         NUREG, who.all has received that in Congress, anyone?
+Pilots and some of the other things l'
-* l         ,
+and'they are trying to' accelerate the source term work and j.
-: 11-                      .MR. LARKINS:                             They generally go to oversight
+l 7'
-                  - 12 .     ' committees.
+they really couldn't move forward on that without research.
-!                -13.                         MR. EL-ZEFTAWY:                              Yes, I think there's sent to the i
+L 8
-'       ~ oversight committees,.so Bob -                                    Bob was supposed to draft a
+' CHAIRMAN SEALE: -John, something that'came up 9'
-()          15        brief letter last month.
+earlier, to whom has the lastLyear's Commission report, the l
-                        DR. UHRIG:
+NUREG, who.all has received that in Congress, anyone?
-                                                                                                                        ~
+l
-I was, wasn't I?          I had forgotten
+: 11-
- ;               - 17 ; -     about that.
+.MR.
-                        CHAIRMAN SEALE: . Well, let's get that out.
+LARKINS:
-       That's --
+They generally go to oversight
-D i                  20                        DR. UHRIG:                         Let me draft something.
+- 12.
-l' l:                 21.                        CHAIRMAN SEALE:                              Okay.
+' committees.
-i' i                  22                        DR. UHRIG:                         Okay.        The laFt item I have here is 23        sort of the conclusions from the '98 report and I have sort 24        of hit some of the spots here -- systematic framework that 25        enforces the close ties.between research activities and the i - [~'                                               3004 RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+-13.
-! ! ''                                                                    Court Reporters 1025--Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014
+MR. EL-ZEFTAWY:
-                                                              . Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 fi
+Yes, I think there's sent to the 14'
+~ oversight committees,.so Bob -
+Bob was supposed to draft a i ()
+brief letter last month.
+DR. UHRIG:
+I was, wasn't I?
+I had forgotten
+~
+- 17 ; -
+about that.
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:. Well, let's get that out.
+That's --
+D i
+DR. UHRIG:
+Let me draft something.
+l' l:
+.
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+Okay.
+i' i
+DR. UHRIG:
+Okay.
+The laFt item I have here is 23 sort of the conclusions from the '98 report and I have sort 24 of hit some of the spots here -- systematic framework that 25 enforces the close ties.between research activities and the i - [~'
+RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+Court Reporters 1025--Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014
+. Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034 fi
-   .     .- . _ - . .          . . . _ .-. _ _ _ . _ . - _                _. .         . . . _ . . . . . . . . _ - . _ . . . _ _ . . _ _ . . . _ . _ _ . ~
+... _........ _ -. _... _ _.. _ _... _. _ _. ~
 i
-p                    .1~     agency,
+p
-     ~["'r            2                       The second one down here -- adopt the practice of V
+.1~
--     scrutable comparison of alternatives in addressing the 4      technical' issues, to devise a process for identifying and 5   .
+: agency,
-prioritizing research needs taking into consideration the 6'     long-term;as well asithe short-term needs'and the 7    - development of an.in-house. risk assessment. capability to the 8      extent that it is readily used throughout the agency.
+~["'r 2
-That 9-     is well underway.
+The second one down here -- adopt the practice of V
-                  .10                         And-the other -- continuation of these-i 11        recommendations -- development of PRA methods -- should be 12      . better supportive of the activities of-AEOD.                                         That is 13     . perhaps out of --
+-scrutable comparison of alternatives in addressing the 4
-                        CHAIRMAN SEALE:                Man, are they ever supportive.
+technical' issues, to devise a process for identifying and 5
-r\
+prioritizing research needs taking into consideration the 6'
-t             15-                       DR. UHRIG:            And NMSS should continue to use l                  16       - results from'the total system performance assessment guide, 17        a formal organization structure that identifies, prioritizes 18-       the research needs.
+long-term;as well asithe short-term needs'and the 7
-                       A subject that needs peer review should be put in 20-       place to ensure close coordination and collaboration between 21        the development of research results and the users, and then 22        the recommendation regarding the NSRRC.
+- development of an.in-house. risk assessment. capability to the 8
-                       CRAIRMAN SEALE:                 Bob, you would put your previous 24      . slide up there?
+extent that it is readily used throughout the agency.
-                       The first three things there I could argue are --
+That 9-is well underway.
-      /                                                 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+.10 And-the other -- continuation of these-i 11 recommendations -- development of PRA methods -- should be 12
-II                                                              Court Reporters
+. better supportive of the activities of-AEOD.
-: l.                                     1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l-                                                           Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 L
+That is 13
-iw          m                 .y                 -gn            w                           w                     -.e+         e      - -,
+. perhaps out of --
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+Man, are they ever supportive.
+r\\
+t 15-DR. UHRIG:
+And NMSS should continue to use l
+- results from'the total system performance assessment guide, 17 a formal organization structure that identifies, prioritizes 18-the research needs.
+A subject that needs peer review should be put in 20-place to ensure close coordination and collaboration between 21 the development of research results and the users, and then the recommendation regarding the NSRRC.
+23 CRAIRMAN SEALE:
+Bob, you would put your previous 24
+. slide up there?
+The first three things there I could argue are --
+/
+ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+II Court Reporters l.
+Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l-Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034 L
+iw m
+.y
+-.i.se.
+-gn w
+w
+-.e+
+e 9
-1   is a list, if you will, of the desired attributes of a good
+1
+is a list, if you will, of the desired attributes of a good
 ('')
-N_-
+research program in a particular area.
-  research program in a particular area.          That is, it has a 3   systematic tramework for defining its needs and assessing 4     the value of the results and so on.
+That is, it has a N_-
-                  It has a practice of scrutable comparison of 6     alternatives in addressing the issues that are involved, and 7     it has a process identifying and prioritizing research needs 8     in that area.
+systematic tramework for defining its needs and assessing 4
-                 If there is such a program in the NRC right now, 10     it's the overall effort in PRA.           It's got user input. It's 11     got some research support going on.           It's operated by an 12     aware, let's say a manegement team that has an awareness and
+the value of the results and so on.
-.              13     dedication to getting the job done, and so on.
+It has a practice of scrutable comparison of 6
+alternatives in addressing the issues that are involved, and 7
+it has a process identifying and prioritizing research needs 8
+in that area.
+If there is such a program in the NRC right now, 10 it's the overall effort in PRA.
+It's got user input.
+It's 11 got some research support going on.
+It's operated by an 12 aware, let's say a manegement team that has an awareness and 13 dedication to getting the job done, and so on.
 I wonder if it would be worthwhile to include in
-[%,,/\   15      this report to the Commission sort of a review of that 16     program in the context of these three recommendations.
+-[,/\\
-                 DR. POWERS:       I think that is a great idea.                             \s 18                  CHAIRMAN SEALE:        To say these guys are doing it 19     right. This is what you have to support to get the job 20     done.
+this report to the Commission sort of a review of that 16 program in the context of these three recommendations.
-                 It's got management elements.         It's got input.
+\\
-    It's got user need elements and it's got research --
+DR. POWERS:
-    resource requirements.
+I think that is a great idea.
-                 DR. WALLIS:       I think these are very good 25     recommendations and the problem with Research is not in
+s 18 CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+To say these guys are doing it 19 right.
+This is what you have to support to get the job 20 done.
+It's got management elements.
+It's got input.
+It's got user need elements and it's got research --
+resource requirements.
+DR. WALLIS:
+I think these are very good 25 recommendations and the problem with Research is not in
 (~}
+ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+()
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
+L 308 It'suin the rest of the agency giving a clear 1-research.
+[3 2
+articulation of what it needs.
+/
+s l
+L3 CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+Yes, and in that case they do it, 4-and that is why I am --
+DR.-WALLIS:
+That's why we have got to keep 6
+hammering away at it.
+)
+l 7
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+Yes.
+.8 DR. WALLIS:
+If the agency really looked at itself 9
+and understood what it needed, there are people in Research I
+who would do it.
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+Sure.
+DR. WALLIS:
+But if they don't articulate it,-the 13 people in Research are going to be running around, trying to 1
+find something to do, i
 ()
+'15 I hope you'll get a.much better definition of this 16 need this year.
+Last year it was pretty diffuse.
+DR. UHRIG:
+Well, I guess.I have always felt a 18 little uncomfortable with the so-called "needs letters" as a 19 driving function for the Research' program.
+You may remember there was a -- what was it, an 21 Inspector General or GAO report about five years ago that 22' was terribly critical'of anything that wasn't totally
+~
+documented with needs letters.
+I think that has died away L
+to a certain extent but --
+~25 DR. WALLIS:
+Well, this was perhaps an l,
 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
-      ._                                        Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+e
+'\\
-L                                                                                308 1- research. It'suin the rest of the agency giving a clear
+Court Reporters j
-[3 3/s 2  articulation of what it needs.
+Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014
-l L3             CHAIRMAN SEALE:      Yes, and in that case they do it, 4- and that is why I am --
+[
-             DR.-WALLIS:      That's why we have got to keep          l 6  hammering away at it.
+Washington, D.C.
-                                                                                      )
+(202) 842-0034 i
-l 7             CHAIRMAN SEALE:      Yes.                                !
+~
-              .8             DR. WALLIS:      If the agency really looked at itself   l 9  and understood what it needed, there are people in Research        I 1
-   who would do it.
-              CHAIRMAN SEALE:      Sure.
-              DR. WALLIS:      But if they don't articulate it,-the    )
-   people in Research are going to be running around, trying to        :
-14   find something to do, i
-()     '15              I hope you'll get a.much better definition of this 16   need this year. Last year it was pretty diffuse.
-              DR. UHRIG:      Well, I guess.I have always felt a 18   little uncomfortable with the so-called "needs letters" as a 19   driving function for the Research' program.
-              You may remember there was a -- what was it, an 21   Inspector General or GAO report about five years ago that 22'  was terribly critical'of anything that wasn't totally
-   ~
-l 23   documented with needs letters.        I think that has died away    )
-L            24   to a certain extent but --
-            ~25              DR. WALLIS:      Well, this was perhaps an l,
-;    e ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
-'\                                        Court Reporters                             j 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014
-[                                   Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034                             i
-          ~                   __      ___
 l I
-1        overemphasis on the short-term needs.                                                         i
+1
-           .2                             JR. UHRIG:     Well, the point was that they were --
+overemphasis on the short-term needs.
-V[~h 3         Research was carrying out activities that were not 4~        documented as being needed by the needs letters.                    That was 5         what the criticism -- I don't remember.                    I thought it was 6        GAO but it'may have been the Inspector General.                    It was when                I l
+V[~h
-: 7.        Eric was'still involved as Director of Research.                                              1 1
+.2 JR. UHRIG:
-                           DR. WALLIS:     Well, if it is not in'the letter, 9         maybe it is somewhere else, but the only justification for-10          research has to be some need somewhere.
+Well, the point was that they were --
-                            DR. FONTANA:       Yes, but often the results of 12          that -- the people who should be identifying those needs
+Research was carrying out activities that were not 4~
-          '13          often don't know what it is that Research could provide.
+documented as being needed by the needs letters.
-                            DR. WALLIS.:    That's the problem.        That's the 15          problem.
+That was 5
-                             DR'. FONTANA:     And I lot of times they don't care.
+what the criticism -- I don't remember.
-17                              DR. UHRIG:     Well, I am now through my first 10                          l 18          minutes.           Med, do you want to add anything to this as the
+I thought it was 6
-         .19           result-of your attending the presentation to the Commission                                   l 20           in way of a perspective?                                                                      ,
+GAO but it'may have been the Inspector General.
-i 21                              MR. EL-ZEFTAWY:           Just one thing I just want to 22           clarify.           I think the discussion about the recovery of the 23--         fee, I think there is some shift right now in this 24           philosophy, and I'll give you two examples.
+It was when l
-'                             The Calvert Cliffs and Oconee that are coming in 1['                                          ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+.
-Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+Eric was'still involved as Director of Research.
+1
+DR. WALLIS:
+Well, if it is not in'the letter, 9
+maybe it is somewhere else, but the only justification for-10 research has to be some need somewhere.
+DR. FONTANA:
+Yes, but often the results of 12 that -- the people who should be identifying those needs
+'13 often don't know what it is that Research could provide.
+DR. WALLIS.:
+That's the problem.
+That's the 15 problem.
+DR'.
+FONTANA:
+And I lot of times they don't care.
+DR. UHRIG:
+Well, I am now through my first 10 18 minutes.
+Med, do you want to add anything to this as the
+.19 result-of your attending the presentation to the Commission 20 in way of a perspective?
+i 21 MR. EL-ZEFTAWY:
+Just one thing I just want to 22 clarify.
+I think the discussion about the recovery of the 23--
+fee, I think there is some shift right now in this 24 philosophy, and I'll give you two examples.
+' The Calvert Cliffs and Oconee that are coming in 1['
+ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-             ..    ..       .-.          .-...- . - - - ~ , . . . -                _ _ . - - . _ _ -       . - - .  . . - - . -     -
+.-...-. - - - ~,... -
-l                                                                                                                               310 t
+l 310 1.
-: 1. for license renewal, and right.now'the Staff is basically --                                                   )
+for license renewal, and right.now'the Staff is basically --
-i
+)
-                      .is. going to give them 50 percent of recovery, su they are 2l                 .
+t 2l
+.is. going to give them 50 percent of recovery, su they are 3
 not'asking for 100 percent recovery, so there might be some
-                                                                                        ~
+~
-1
+shift right now, but total recovery from.the applicants.
-shift right now, but total recovery from.the applicants.
+)
-                                                                                                                     )
-                   . CHAIRMAN SEALE:                      Excuse-me'a minute.             Where is the              i
+. CHAIRMAN SEALE:
-[               6. rest of the money coming from?
+Excuse-me'a minute.
-                      MR. EL-ZEFTAWY:                     Good question right now.               It's
+Where is the i
-               '8      not'from the applicants.                                                                                       ;
+[
--                      CHAIRMAN SEALE:                     But it is still from the L.
+.
-'     ' industry?
+rest of the money coming from?
-l 11                        MRn EL-ZEFTAWY:                     I am not sure.
+MR. EL-ZEFTAWY:
-l
+Good question right now.
-            .12.                        CHAIRMAN SEALE:                     Is this a check-off that Congress                         )
+It's
-i 13'     .is going to let them have?
+'8 not'from the applicants.
-l i
+-CHAIRMAN SEALE:
-                       MR. EL-ZEFTAWY:                     No. That decision has been made                          !
+But it is still from the L.
-I J     .
+'
-      by the agency.
+' industry?
-6                       DR. UHRIG:' Then it'is coming from the industry                                               l 17       and - '
+MRn EL-ZEFTAWY:
-                       CHAIRMAN SEALE: .Then it'is coming from.the other 19'     . licensees.
+I am not sure.
-            '20                         DR. UHRIG:                     Could you -- that's the only place it
+.12.
-                                ~
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
--      could be.                                                                                                      ;
+Is this a check-off that Congress
-                       CHAIRMAN SEALE:                     Thoughts on that?
+)
-                    .MR. EL-ZEFTAWY:                       Well, it could be overhead from 24-      the NRC also.
+i 13'
-: 25.                       CHAIRMAN SEALE:                     But that still has to come from
+.is going to let them have?
-,                                               ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+i 14 MR. EL-ZEFTAWY:
-Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+No.
+That decision has been made I
+J 15 by the agency.
+6 DR. UHRIG:' Then it'is coming from the industry 17 and - '
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:.Then it'is coming from.the other 19'
+. licensees.
+'20 DR. UHRIG:
+Could you -- that's the only place it 21-could be.
+~
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+Thoughts on that?
+.MR.
+EL-ZEFTAWY:
+Well, it could be overhead from 24-the NRC also.
+: 25.
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+But that still has to come from ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-j         1 the licensees.
+j
-(~'}    2             DR. MILLER:    I would say the licensees would say LJ 3 gee,-license renewal is important for everybody -- we are 4 going to help support it.
+the licensees.
-            CHAIRMAN SEALE:    Well, I don't know that you         l 6 can -- right now, they are pretty --                               !
+(~'}
-            DR. MILLER:    Well, implicitly.
+DR. MILLER:
-            MR. EL-ZEFTAWY:    Okay. Let me briefly summarize 9 what went on in the August 6 meeting with the Commission.
+I would say the licensees would say LJ 3
-Basically the Commission acknowledged two reports, the one i
+gee,-license renewal is important for everybody -- we are 4
-11 that was performed by the Inspector General --
+going to help support it.
-            DR. FONTANA:    Med, who met with the Commission?
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
-l 13             MR. EL-ZEFTAWY:    Okay. The Office of Research, 14 all the management of the Office of Research and I think the       ;
+Well, I don't know that you 6
-(xm/ ) 15 management was basically everybody in the management in the 16 Office of Research.      Basically that is a new position for 17 them except for Larry Shao, who was originally in there, so 18 I think the Commission acknowledged that the Inspector 19 General's report is being critical of the Office of 20 Research.
+can -- right now, they are pretty --
-            They acknowledged receipt of the ACRS letter and 22 said it's been perceived very, very helpful, probably in 23 this stage of -- they haven't really gone through it yet but l        24 just first look at it it's been very, very helpful.
+DR. MILLER:
-l        25             DR. FONTANA:    You are talking about this thing?
+Well, implicitly.
-(~N                       ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+MR. EL-ZEFTAWY:
-(,,)                             Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014
+Okay.
-,                              Washington, D.C. 20036 i
+Let me briefly summarize 9
+what went on in the August 6 meeting with the Commission.
+i 10 Basically the Commission acknowledged two reports, the one 11 that was performed by the Inspector General --
+DR. FONTANA:
+Med, who met with the Commission?
+MR. EL-ZEFTAWY:
+Okay.
+The Office of Research, 14 all the management of the Office of Research and I think the
+(
+)
+management was basically everybody in the management in the xm/
+Office of Research.
+Basically that is a new position for 17 them except for Larry Shao, who was originally in there, so 18 I think the Commission acknowledged that the Inspector 19 General's report is being critical of the Office of 20 Research.
+They acknowledged receipt of the ACRS letter and 22 said it's been perceived very, very helpful, probably in 23 this stage of -- they haven't really gone through it yet but l
+just first look at it it's been very, very helpful.
+l 25 DR. FONTANA:
+You are talking about this thing?
+(~N ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+(,,)
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+i
 (202) 842-0034
 i l
-l             1                      MR. EL-ZEFTAWY:                  Yes.             A couple of points                 I
+l
-(~)       2' actually.            I think Commissioner Diaz raised the point that i   V
+MR. EL-ZEFTAWY:
-)             3  there is a lack of criteria of proper balance between the                                                ,
+Yes.
-  use of the outside contractor and the inhouse research so he L             5  basically was asking the Staff, specifically the Office of 6  Research, to either define the criteria to -- find the l            .7  proper balance between the outside and inhouse work.
+A couple of points
-                     Commissioner McGaffigan also wanted to know how I
+(~)
-  you'-- at least amplify on how to -- the philosophy of 10   saving FTEs by doing research by an outside contractor.
+' actually.
-                      The Chairman sort of like agreed with Commissioner 12   McGaffigan and Commissioner Diaz on those points.
+I think Commissioner Diaz raised the point that i
-                      Commissioner McGaffigan also acknowledged that the 14   report that we have, mentioning the generic safety issues.
+V
-()      15   It's a very good point and I think the Office of Research 36   has to resolve the generic safety issue problems.
+)
-                      Ashok Thadani mentioned the fact -- I think what                                     !
+there is a lack of criteria of proper balance between the 4
-  we wrote in our letter that Research has been very helpful 19   in the AP600 letter, so that observation was very good on 20   Research and I think Dr. Wallis mentioned that too.
+use of the outside contractor and the inhouse research so he L
-           '21                       Basically that was it, except they said I think 22   continuing dialogue between the Office of Research and ACRS 23   has to be continued and come at a later date and tell us the 24   progress that has been made.
+basically was asking the Staff, specifically the Office of 6
-                      CHAIRMAN SEALE:                  After all the success we've had ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+Research, to either define the criteria to -- find the l
-    ~(~Ns_)                                      Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+.7 proper balance between the outside and inhouse work.
+Commissioner McGaffigan also wanted to know how 9
+you'-- at least amplify on how to -- the philosophy of 10 saving FTEs by doing research by an outside contractor.
+The Chairman sort of like agreed with Commissioner 12 McGaffigan and Commissioner Diaz on those points.
+Commissioner McGaffigan also acknowledged that the 14 report that we have, mentioning the generic safety issues.
+()
+It's a very good point and I think the Office of Research 36 has to resolve the generic safety issue problems.
+Ashok Thadani mentioned the fact -- I think what 18 we wrote in our letter that Research has been very helpful 19 in the AP600 letter, so that observation was very good on 20 Research and I think Dr. Wallis mentioned that too.
+'21 Basically that was it, except they said I think 22 continuing dialogue between the Office of Research and ACRS 23 has to be continued and come at a later date and tell us the 24 progress that has been made.
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+After all the success we've had
+~(~Ns_)
+Court Reporters ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-       -      . ~ .   . - . . -  - . - - . . _ ~ .              - - . - - - . - - . - - - - . - _ . .-.       -
+~.
-313 1  at being the number one cheerleader for AEOD, I am not sure j             2' Research --
+-. - -.. _ ~.
-                [ Laughter.]'
+313 1
-                                                                                                                )
+at being the number one cheerleader for AEOD, I am not sure j
-               CHAIRMAN SEALE:           -- needs our help.
+' Research --
--               DR. POWERS: 'Any more of our help than --
-               CHAIRMAN SEALE:           They may not be able to. live --
+[ Laughter.]'
-               DR         UHRIG:    Dana, would you like to tell us.what 8  you perceive as the lessons learned, including anything that 9  you had in your memo as well as anything else that occurs to 10    you?
+)
-                 DR. POWERS:           Well, I have certainly sent the i
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
-   committee a memo on what my lessons learned were, and I                                   '
+-- needs our help.
-   assume people have seen that.
+-DR. POWERS: 'Any more of our help than --
-                 It speaks much more to the mechanics of preparing
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
-           )    15    the letter and going through the exercise in doing it'and 16    that's really what I wanted to talk about here.
+They may not be able to. live --
-                 The first chore in preparing the report to the 18    Commission is to find out exactly what the Research program 19    is and to do that you really need the 189s to do that.
+DR UHRIG:
-                 The difficulty we encountered last year was that 21    most.of the Research managers felt we did not want to go to 22    that depth and they were --
+Dana, would you like to tell us.what 8
-                DR. SHACK:            They were being helpful.
+you perceive as the lessons learned, including anything that 9
+you had in your memo as well as anything else that occurs to 10 you?
+DR. POWERS:
+Well, I have certainly sent the 12 committee a memo on what my lessons learned were, and I 13 assume people have seen that.
+It speaks much more to the mechanics of preparing
+)
+the letter and going through the exercise in doing it'and 16 that's really what I wanted to talk about here.
+The first chore in preparing the report to the 18 Commission is to find out exactly what the Research program 19 is and to do that you really need the 189s to do that.
+The difficulty we encountered last year was that 21 most.of the Research managers felt we did not want to go to 22 that depth and they were --
+DR. SHACK:
+They were being helpful.
 i ;
-                 DR. POWERS:           Yes, they were being helpful.                I mean 25L   they really were, and tried to give us more of an overview,
+DR. POWERS:
-           ).                                ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+Yes, they were being helpful.
-         - /                                          Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+I mean 25L they really were, and tried to give us more of an overview,
+).
+ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+/
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-_      .m_.    .            -        - - . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ -                          ._ ._      _ __
+.m_.
 i-l-
+1.
-: 1. and we really needed to go into depth, and so -- front-end
+and we really needed to go into depth, and so -- front-end
-   /~'Y     2   job,'just get the 189s and then apportion them out to the
+! 'V
-! 'V L
+/~'Y 2
-l
+job,'just get the 189s and then apportion them out to the L
-          .3    subcommittee. chairmen who are actually going to write on the 4   specific research' programs to help them develop their
+.3 subcommittee. chairmen who are actually going to write on the l
-!          '5  . write-ups.                                                                                                      >
+specific research' programs to help them develop their
-l l           6                     I am very attracted to Bob's. suggestion on report 7   cards rather than -- I mean the previous report established
+'5
-          '8    the standards and now you can come back'to report cards on 9   those things.            That sounds like an interesting tack to
+. write-ups.
-!        10. approach it here.
+l l
-l L       '11                       I also am very attracted to the idea that -- and                                               !
+I am very attracted to Bob's. suggestion on report 7
-l
+cards rather than -- I mean the previous report established
-        .12     it certainly is my personal belief now -- the NRC line                                                           l l
+'8 the standards and now you can come back'to report cards on 9
-    organizations do not know how they could benefit from 14-    Research.           They don't just -- they are very much in the mode
+those things.
-()    15     of what is it we can do with what we have available now, and 16     not asking the question is that in fact good enough.
+That sounds like an interesting tack to 10.
-: 17.                      When the assumption that what you can do now is 18     good enough that pervaded Mr. Christie's talk yesterday I l        19     think is a very bad assumption to make.                                                 I think we have p        20     some pretty good examples of that that came out of the 21    'AP600. When the line organizations are confronted by new 22'    technologies, their natural tendency is to say what can we
+approach it here.
-        .23     do now rather than saying what is it that we should be able 24     to do with this new technology.
+l L
-l l        25                       The example I trot out is not a particularly good l
+'11 I also am very attracted to the idea that -- and
-L
+.12 it certainly is my personal belief now -- the NRC line l
-:.                                     ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+organizations do not know how they could benefit from 14-Research.
-l-                                               Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l                                         Washington, D.C. 20036 L                                                    (202) 842-0034 l
+They don't just -- they are very much in the mode
+()
+of what is it we can do with what we have available now, and 16 not asking the question is that in fact good enough.
+.
+When the assumption that what you can do now is 18 good enough that pervaded Mr. Christie's talk yesterday I l
+think is a very bad assumption to make.
+I think we have p
+some pretty good examples of that that came out of the 21
+'AP600.
+When the line organizations are confronted by new 22' technologies, their natural tendency is to say what can we
+.23 do now rather than saying what is it that we should be able 24 to do with this new technology.
+l l
+The example I trot out is not a particularly good l
+L ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+l -
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l
+Washington, D.C.
+L
+(202) 842-0034 l
 ,
-                         , _ . ..            . ~ . _      .,  . - .                     - - - - - - . -
+. ~. _
-    ._..._.__.._.-,._._.__.__-___.___..._._..._.-._________.m                                                               m_. . . _
+._..._.__.._.-,._._.__.__-___.___..._._..._.-._________.m m_.
-1                  example but it is one that I thought was illustrative of the o(''(
+1
-i \s f
+example but it is one that I thought was illustrative of the o(''(
-: 2.                  problem', and that is the catalytic recombiners, that they i
+i 2.
-I l
+problem', and that is the catalytic recombiners, that they i \\s f
-                                      '3
+'3
-                                                         . looked at'it. They looked at what the licensees submitted              I
+. looked at'it.
-:4                  .and- they . ope cated on that without have any great expertise l-                                     5'                'in catalysis, m
+They looked at what the licensees submitted
-!                                     .6                               They.did not do what I think Brian Sheron properly l
+:4
-l                                      7                   characterized was here is a new technology. Somebody has to
+.and-they. ope cated on that without have any great expertise l-5'
-                                     -8                    give it a longer look than is really available to the line
+'in catalysis, m
-                                      '9-                  organization, and a more careful look and ask Research to 10                   ccome in and help them on that one, i
+.6 They.did not do what I think Brian Sheron properly l
-'                                 It is not a good example because I think the                   i
+l 7
-: 12.                    particular issue is not important but I think it is 13                      illustrative of the problem.
+characterized was here is a new technology.
-'                                Again, you just don't have a real good endorsement
+Somebody has to
-()                        :15 16
+-8 give it a longer look than is really available to the line
-                                                         .from the management of the organization and seemingly from the Commission that some of the strides that have been made 17                     by giants in the past were good strides but we still need to 18                     keep going.      My best example of that is right in George's 19                     bailiwick, that we have a tremendous understanding of PRA 20                     during the operational events and no understanding at all 21                     during shutdown events.       I do not see how we can live with 22                     that.
+'9-organization, and a more careful look and ask Research to 10 ccome in and help them on that one, 11' It is not a good example because I think the i
-                                  It's driven home to me when I see the results of 24                     the fire assessment where I went in thinking, well, fire is
+.
-: 25.                    pretty well taken care of and we'll not see much core damage l'      O                                                                  ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+particular issue is not important but I think it is 13 illustrative of the problem.
-L                                                                                 Court Reporters l''                                                                 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+' Again, you just don't have a real good endorsement
+()
+:15
+.from the management of the organization and seemingly from 16 the Commission that some of the strides that have been made 17 by giants in the past were good strides but we still need to 18 keep going.
+My best example of that is right in George's 19 bailiwick, that we have a tremendous understanding of PRA 20 during the operational events and no understanding at all 21 during shutdown events.
+I do not see how we can live with 22 that.
+It's driven home to me when I see the results of 2
+the fire assessment where I went in thinking, well, fire is 25.
+pretty well taken care of and we'll not see much core damage l'
+O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+L Court Reporters l''
+Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-  ~ - . - - . - - . - . .               . , _    .  . -  _ _ ~ ~ . . . -     ~ _ - . . - .       . . - - . _ - - - . - . - -
+~ -. - -. - -. -..
-!
+_ _ ~ ~... -
-if   from that, becaure, my goodness, we have tremendous                                            >
+~ _ -.. -.
-[                     2   ' redundancy. We have tremendous separation of safety                                       .
+if from that, becaure, my goodness, we have tremendous
-!  ~ systems'-- how can'one fire _ affect everything?                       And we see             i
+[
-                            '4'   the fire risks coming in and they are very comparable to the 5    normal-operating risks'.
-i-6'                 Now I happen to know those fire risk assessments                                  I "7   ' tend to be very conservative because it just has not had the                                    \
+' redundancy.
-i 8    kind of development that operational PRAs have had.                                             i 1
+We have tremendous separation of safety 3!
-                  When I translate that to shutdown risk, I say I
+~ systems'-- how can'one fire _ affect everything?
-: 10. have an intuition about how dangerous shutdown modes of 11      operation are and it could be just as wrong is my. intuition 12      on the fire risk is.
+And we see i
-                   It seems to me that were I moving into a 14     . risk-informed regulatory regime, and I realized I had these 4,sm)               15-     gaps and deficiencies in my ability and understanding of 16      risk,.I would be scared to death.                    I would be scared to 17    ' death that I would be coming in here and saying this 18      component has a low safety significance and it does for 19      operations and it's absolutely crucial during shutdown --
+'4' the fire risks coming in and they are very comparable to the 5
-    but1I wouldn't know it.
+normal-operating risks'.
-                   One of the themes that we tried to carry out in 22      the previous report is that if NRC is really serious about 23     wanting to do things better, faster and cheaper, the 24      question is no longer how can Research help.                       It is a truism 25      then to do things better, facter and cheaper Research is t
+i-6' Now I happen to know those fire risk assessments
+\\
+"7
+' tend to be very conservative because it just has not had the i
+kind of development that operational PRAs have had.
+i 9
+When I translate that to shutdown risk, I say I 10.
+have an intuition about how dangerous shutdown modes of 11 operation are and it could be just as wrong is my. intuition 12 on the fire risk is.
+It seems to me that were I moving into a 14
+. risk-informed regulatory regime, and I realized I had these
+,sm) 15-gaps and deficiencies in my ability and understanding of 4
+risk,.I would be scared to death.
+I would be scared to 17
+' death that I would be coming in here and saying this 18 component has a low safety significance and it does for 19 operations and it's absolutely crucial during shutdown --
+but1I wouldn't know it.
+One of the themes that we tried to carry out in 22 the previous report is that if NRC is really serious about 23 wanting to do things better, faster and cheaper, the 24 question is no longer how can Research help.
+It is a truism 25 then to do things better, facter and cheaper Research is t
 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
-Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-1       essential.
+1
-[''          2'                       One of the advantages that I think you have in
+essential.
-  - V}
+[''
-     .this report is that the Commission has listed down some very 4       top priority items that they want to pursue between now and 5       January, but if you look at them, they continue on for the 6       next year, and I think that-that gives you some very 7       specific topical areas that the Research program has to 8       confront.
+'
-                       DR. UHRIG:      Where is this listing that you 10       ' referred to?          Is this in their plan?
+- V}
-1                         DR. POWERS:       Yes.           What I have labelled as "The 12         Bible" --
+One of the advantages that I think you have in 3
-                         MR. EL-ZEFTAWY:             Are you talking about the 14         operating plans for the whole agency?
+.this report is that the Commission has listed down some very 4
-()      15                          DR. POWERS:       No , no , no.                   This is the stuff that 16         recently --
+top priority items that they want to pursue between now and 5
-                         DR. LARKINS:        The priority list.
+January, but if you look at them, they continue on for the 6
-                         DR. POWERS:       Yes.           Well, to continue on on the 19         lessons learned theme, this becomes -- developing your theme
+next year, and I think that-that gives you some very 7
-:20         and the points you want to go to is of course the hardest 21         job, and that is why I think you have got to have a lot of 22         homework between meetings on this, and that is why I think
+specific topical areas that the Research program has to 8
-            '23         having a two-man team is better than one person trying to do 24         it alone.
+confront.
-L25                          The problem I ran into all the time -- I would get
+DR. UHRIG:
-(~} _                                   ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+Where is this listing that you 10
-( ,/-                                          Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+' referred to?
+Is this in their plan?
+1 DR. POWERS:
+Yes.
+What I have labelled as "The 12 Bible" --
+MR. EL-ZEFTAWY:
+Are you talking about the 14 operating plans for the whole agency?
+()
+DR. POWERS:
+No, no, no.
+This is the stuff that 16 recently --
+DR. LARKINS:
+The priority list.
+DR. POWERS:
+Yes.
+Well, to continue on on the 19 lessons learned theme, this becomes -- developing your theme
+:20 and the points you want to go to is of course the hardest 21 job, and that is why I think you have got to have a lot of 22 homework between meetings on this, and that is why I think
+'23 having a two-man team is better than one person trying to do 24 it alone.
+L25 The problem I ran into all the time -- I would get
+(~} _
+ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+(,/-
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-                 ..    . -        -. .             --   - _   - .   - = _ _ = . . - . . - - . _ . . - . - -          - -   .
+- = _ _ =.. -.. - -. _.. -. - -
-1     these brilliant ideas that quite frankly " sucked" -- but I
+1
-         )  2   'didn't have anybody that I could just, that I was obligated 3     to. bounce them off, routinely.           I found out too late.                                 See, 4     that's the problem is that I quickly became resistant to 5     changing-the document for a very simple reason.                                           I had spent 6     so much time typing the damn thing up, it hurt my hands to                                                 i 1
+these brilliant ideas that quite frankly " sucked" -- but I
+)
+'didn't have anybody that I could just, that I was obligated 3
+to. bounce them off, routinely.
+I found out too late.
+: See, 4
+that's the problem is that I quickly became resistant to 5
+changing-the document for a very simple reason.
+I had spent 6
+so much time typing the damn thing up, it hurt my hands to i
+7
 make any more changes.
-                                      That's terrible.               You shouldn't do 8     that.      Don would tell me to change a word and I would say I 9     am not going to go look for that damn word and my hands 10    hurt.       I am not going change it.          That is why I think a 11   .two-man team really helps.
+That's terrible.
-                   DR. MILLER:      Any time you have good ideas, half of 13     them are not very good so you need somebody to bounce them                                                 i 14    off of.
+You shouldn't do 8
-         ) 15                    DR. POWERS:      If you are batting 50/50, you are 16    doing a whole lot better than I did.
+that.
-                  .DR. APOSTOLAKIS:      Linus Pauling said -- they asked him how did he get the ideas that got him the Nobel Prize I
+Don would tell me to change a word and I would say I 9
-19    and he said, "It's very simple.             All you ha ve to do is have 20    very many ideas and throw away the bad ones."
+am not going to go look for that damn word and my hands 10 hurt.
-                   DR. MILLER:      And fine somebody to help you throw 22    them away.
+I am not going change it.
-                   DR. APOSTOLAKIS:      Right.
+That is why I think a 11
-                   DR. POWERS:      You really need to do that because 25    you get quickly embedded in things.
+.two-man team really helps.
+DR. MILLER:
+Any time you have good ideas, half of 13 them are not very good so you need somebody to bounce them i
+off of.
+)
+DR. POWERS:
+If you are batting 50/50, you are 16 doing a whole lot better than I did.
+.DR. APOSTOLAKIS:
+Linus Pauling said -- they asked I
+him how did he get the ideas that got him the Nobel Prize 19 and he said, "It's very simple.
+All you ha ve to do is have 20 very many ideas and throw away the bad ones."
+DR. MILLER:
+And fine somebody to help you throw 22 them away.
+DR. APOSTOLAKIS:
+Right.
+DR. POWERS:
+You really need to do that because 25 you get quickly embedded in things.
+['
 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
-[' .
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
-Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 200)5 (202) 842-0034 1
+)5 (202) 842-0034 1
-_._m .      ____m.        _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ . . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . - _ . . . _ , _ . _ . _ . . . _ . . . _ _ _ _ . _ _                 . . . _ _ _
+_._m
+____m.
-[             1                                     .DR, WALLIS:                                   That's also'how the agency works, to
+[
-                       -some extent -- the failure to.look for new ideas and to.
-   .f         2
+.DR, WALLIS:
-:   \
+That's also'how the agency works, to
-       . evaluate them'~and toLhave-lots of them so that.they can sort 4         'out1the" good ones is what is lacking.
+.f 2
-                                      The operational agencies are stuck in the groove 6          of doing what they have always done.
+-some extent -- the failure to.look for new ideas and to.
-L             7                                       DR. FONTANA:                                     You get punished for having bad
+\\
-,             8'         ideas.
+. evaluate them'~and toLhave-lots of them so that.they can sort 4
+'out1the" good ones is what is lacking.
+The operational agencies are stuck in the groove 6
+of doing what they have always done.
+L 7
+DR. FONTANA:
+You get punished for having bad 8'
+ideas.
 /
-                                      DR. WALLIS:                                  There is no reward.
+DR. WALLIS:
-:10                                       DR. MILLER: .Well, there are lots of reasons they 11         'are inhibited from having any ideas.
+There is no reward.
-            '12                                       DR. POWERS:                                  Ilthink what you will find -- you are 13-         going to find two things ---developing a central theme is a 14          very, very difficult job and that you are going to have lots
+:10 DR. MILLER:.Well, there are lots of reasons they 11
-()       15-         and lots of minor-themes being advocated by the members and 16         -I think the worst thing you can do in one of these reports 17          is try to carry along too many themes and too many agendas L18           in'this thing.                                                                                                                 l 19                                      What I would recommend that you do, Bob, for the 20          early meetings like the November and December meetings is to                                                                   ,
+'are inhibited from having any ideas.
-i 21          prepare a bunch of options and try to get agreements on                                                                        i 22        'which points to carry forward and which ones to say, yes, 23        Lit's a good point, but quite frankly it lies fallow and 24          we'll put'it in our "To Do" list for the-next report.
+'12 DR. POWERS:
-           .25~                                      And use your imagination -- come up with lots of i                                                                ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+Ilthink what you will find -- you are 13-going to find two things ---developing a central theme is a 14 very, very difficult job and that you are going to have lots
-h                                                                                      Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+()
+-and lots of minor-themes being advocated by the members and 16
+-I think the worst thing you can do in one of these reports 17 is try to carry along too many themes and too many agendas L18 in'this thing.
+What I would recommend that you do, Bob, for the 20 early meetings like the November and December meetings is to i
+prepare a bunch of options and try to get agreements on i
+'which points to carry forward and which ones to say, yes, 23 Lit's a good point, but quite frankly it lies fallow and 24 we'll put'it in our "To Do" list for the-next report.
+.25~
+And use your imagination -- come up with lots of i
+ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+h Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-1       options and put it up here and get people to support -- you
+1
-!        I       have got to have, when pulling the oars gets tough, and you 3     'are putting the words together, you have got to know-                                                 ;
+options and put it up here and get people to support -- you I
-      confidently that you are carrying out a mission that'
+have got to have, when pulling the oars gets tough, and you 3
-        .5.      everybody on the committee supports.
+'are putting the words together, you have got to know-4 confidently that you are carrying out a mission that'
-l 6                     The thing that will deflate you quicker than 7       anything else is to find out that they didn't want to carry 8       that theme or'there's some other theme they wanted to carry.                                         I 9                     DR. WALLIS:               My experience in writing committee 10        reports, faculty, is that -- listen.                        First of all, you 11        listen and.you try to stimulate ideas from everybody.                            Get 12        them all out there, a tremendous jumble of stuff, and then 13        if you are the writer of the report, you have to put your l
+.5.
-       structure together that brings these things in as much as it                                         '
+everybody on the committee supports.
-()   15        can but it cannot be higgledy-piggledy and pick up all of                                            ;
+l 6
-       them in the random.               It's got to have a structure.
+The thing that will deflate you quicker than anything else is to find out that they didn't want to carry 7
-                     First of all you have got to bring out the ideas 18        early-on.
+that theme or'there's some other theme they wanted to carry.
+DR. WALLIS:
+My experience in writing committee 10 reports, faculty, is that -- listen.
+First of all, you 11 listen and.you try to stimulate ideas from everybody.
+Get 12 them all out there, a tremendous jumble of stuff, and then 13 if you are the writer of the report, you have to put your 14 structure together that brings these things in as much as it
+()
+can but it cannot be higgledy-piggledy and pick up all of 16 them in the random.
+It's got to have a structure.
+First of all you have got to bring out the ideas 18 early-on.
 l
-      '19                      DR. POWERS:              That's right.                                                 1 20                      DR. WALLIS:               -- thoughts of bringing them in later 21        and feed them into the structure that is already there.                                              {
+'19 DR. POWERS:
-                     DR. PC WERS :            And what you will find is that unless 23      you put up options and stimulate the discussion, if you rely 24        on getting messages by e-mail, it will be very slow, 25       okay? -- and so I would suggest in your November meeting ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+That's right.
-  \ -
+DR. WALLIS:
-Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+-- thoughts of bringing them in later 21 and feed them into the structure that is already there.
+{
+DR. PC WERS :
+And what you will find is that unless 23 you put up options and stimulate the discussion, if you rely 24 on getting messages by e-mail, it will be very slow, 25 okay? -- and so I would suggest in your November meeting ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+\\
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-         . . _     .-       ._.   .-   ._         - . - . ~ - ~            - - - -.-.- - -
+-. -. ~ - ~
-1    come up with ideas good, bad, or indifferent, but lots of 2    them, and the committee will be very helpful in throwing L        3    away the bad ones.
+1
-L
+come up with ideas good, bad, or indifferent, but lots of 2
-!       4                 DR. APOSTOLAKIS:          I find the discussion 5     interesting, and I don't want to -- but this is too general,                          l 6    this is probably something for the retreat.                    It think the 7-    emergent -- I mean the urgent thing here is the assignments.
+them, and the committee will be very helpful in throwing L
-'    What'do you want to do?           Because it is already 11:30.                  What 9     exactly are we going to do in the next two months, so we can
+away the bad ones.
-: 10. start planning?       I mean how to write the report, we can 11    ' discuss off-line, we can --
+L 4
-                DR. UHRIG:         Well, there are sort of two 03pects to 13     this. One is the theme, the message we are trying to 14     convey, and then there is the second aspect of it, which is
+DR. APOSTOLAKIS:
-()  15 16 the evaluation of specific programs.
+I find the discussion 5
-DR. APOSTOLAKIS:         See, that is what worries me.
+interesting, and I don't want to -- but this is too general, 6
-                DR. UHRIG:         And that is almost a separate part of 18     this. Now, I think Dana did a pretty good job of 19     in=cegrating this into the report.                   But I have a feeling that 20    you did an awful lot of this yourself.
+this is probably something for the retreat.
-                DR. POWERS:         That's right.
+It think the 7-emergent -- I mean the urgent thing here is the assignments.
-                DR. UHRIG:         I am not aware, at least I was not 23    involved in any of the review that'went into last year's 24    report. Maybe it was because I came on late.                      But just --
+' What'do you want to do?
-   well, here, I have this list, it is in your -- but here is
+Because it is already 11:30.
-    /'                        ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+What 9
-Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+exactly are we going to do in the next two months, so we can 10.
+start planning?
+I mean how to write the report, we can 11
+' discuss off-line, we can --
+DR. UHRIG:
+Well, there are sort of two 03pects to 13 this.
+One is the theme, the message we are trying to 14 convey, and then there is the second aspect of it, which is
+()
+the evaluation of specific programs.
+DR. APOSTOLAKIS:
+See, that is what worries me.
+DR. UHRIG:
+And that is almost a separate part of 18 this.
+Now, I think Dana did a pretty good job of 19 in=cegrating this into the report.
+But I have a feeling that 20 you did an awful lot of this yourself.
+DR. POWERS:
+That's right.
+DR. UHRIG:
+I am not aware, at least I was not 23 involved in any of the review that'went into last year's 24 report.
+Maybe it was because I came on late.
+But just --
+well, here, I have this list, it is in your -- but here is
+/'
+ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-i 322 1 the kind of list. Let me just put one slide up. And this
+i 322 1
-      ^
+the kind of list.
-' :(      2   is where I am going to get in real deep trouble because it V)     3  has names beside it.
+Let me just put one slide up.
-            CHAIRMAN SEALE:   Bob, before you do that, could I 5  throw one more into the hopper?    We have already talked 6  about the report card. I am glad Dana gave it a name. The 7  report card particular research activities. But there is 8  another question we might want to try to address here, and 9  that is how the NEI can benefit from NRC research. That is 10  what the Commission needs to know when they argue with NEI 11  about the fact that there is a requirement for a level of 12  research.
+And this
-            And we had a perfect example yesterday in Bob 14  Christie's discussion. He completely ignored the fact that n
+^
-()    15  the capability that he planned to bring to his industry's 16  process of managing ourselves and leave us alone was very 17  heavily dependent on the results of methodologies, 18  capabilities and so on, that were developed as a part of the 19  PRA, IPE, and the pilot studies processes. Completely 20  ignored the fact that those methods were a part of his tool i
+' :(V) is where I am going to get in real deep trouble because it 2
-bag. And so now he is going to freeze everything in place.
+has names beside it.
-What if he had frozen everything in place two years ago? Or 23  five years ago?   He wouldn't have anything.
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
-            And so it strikes me we ought to ask ourselves, 25  where has the industry benefited from NRC research?    And ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+Bob, before you do that, could I 5
-('')N
+throw one more into the hopper?
-   \ s-                           Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 i
+We have already talked 6
-(202) 842-0034 l.
+about the report card.
+I am glad Dana gave it a name.
+The 7
+report card particular research activities.
+But there is 8
+another question we might want to try to address here, and 9
+that is how the NEI can benefit from NRC research.
+That is 10 what the Commission needs to know when they argue with NEI 11 about the fact that there is a requirement for a level of 12 research.
+And we had a perfect example yesterday in Bob 14 Christie's discussion.
+He completely ignored the fact that n
+()
+the capability that he planned to bring to his industry's 16 process of managing ourselves and leave us alone was very 17 heavily dependent on the results of methodologies, 18 capabilities and so on, that were developed as a part of the 19 PRA, IPE, and the pilot studies processes.
+Completely 20 ignored the fact that those methods were a part of his tool i
+bag.
+And so now he is going to freeze everything in place.
+What if he had frozen everything in place two years ago?
+Or 23 five years ago?
+He wouldn't have anything.
+And so it strikes me we ought to ask ourselves, 25 where has the industry benefited from NRC research?
+And
+('')N ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+\\
+Court Reporters s-1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034 i
+l.
-                                                           . . . - . -        . _ . - . - . ~ .       . _ -        . -   .
+. _. -. -. ~.
-1     that.could be, .I think, a very interesting and helpful list
+1
-  .O
+that.could be,.I think, a very interesting and helpful list
-   \ ) -.
+.O
-             '2      for'the Commissioners.
+'2 for'the Commissioners.
-                 DR. MILLER: -Could'that be part of our theme?
+\\ ) -.
-              '4'                 CHAIRMAN SEALE:                   Well, it --
+DR. MILLER: -Could'that be part of our theme?
-                 DR. MILLER: .Maybe you are writing a report to 6    -Congress and maybe you need to figure out who you are really 7    . writing it to.
+'4' CHAIRMAN SEALE:
-                 CHAIRMAN SEALE:                    It is a thought.               I just wanted 9     to throw the idea out there.
+Well, it --
-                   DR. FONTANA:             Now, this review -- you were talking                            l 11       about this review, like a report card on specific'research 12       programs.      That is a report to that Commission, not the
+DR. MILLER:.Maybe you are writing a report to 6
-: 13.      report to Congress.
+-Congress and maybe you need to figure out who you are really 7
-_                  EDR . UHRIG:            That's right.
+. writing it to.
-  'fi       15                    CHAIRMAN SEALE:                   Yeah, right.
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
-g ,f                                                                                         That's.right. And-
+It is a thought.
-           . lis     what.I saying is, by the way, Commissioners, when you talk 17       to the industry, these are the things you ought to point out 18       to them.
+I just wanted 9
-                  DR. APOSTOLAKIS:                       The reactor safety. study started 20'      the whole PRA.            I mean that was a product of research.
+to throw the idea out there.
-:                   CHAIRMAN SEALE:                   Yeah.        But the point is, they 22       benefited.        It is not the research, it is the benefit that 23       ought to be up front.
+DR. FONTANA:
-I 24                   DR. APOSTOLAKIS:                       I mean Mr. Christie would have 25       no subject     --
+Now, this review -- you were talking 11 about this review, like a report card on specific'research 12 programs.
+That is a report to that Commission, not the 13.
+report to Congress.
+_
+EDR. UHRIG:
+That's right.
+'fi 15 CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+Yeah, right.
+That's.right.
+And-g,f
+. lis what.I saying is, by the way, Commissioners, when you talk 17 to the industry, these are the things you ought to point out 18 to them.
+DR. APOSTOLAKIS:
+The reactor safety. study started 20' the whole PRA.
+I mean that was a product of research.
+:
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+Yeah.
+But the point is, they 22 benefited.
+It is not the research, it is the benefit that 23 ought to be up front.
+I 24 DR. APOSTOLAKIS:
+I mean Mr. Christie would have 25 no subject k's /'')
 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
-k's /'')                                            Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-        . , , - , . . . . . . . . _ . . . ~ -           .
+.,, -,........ _... ~ -
-                                                                . ~ . -        . _ . . . -                   _ .   , . . - - . - . - - . .            . . - . . . . . -
+. ~. -
-1-                               CHAIRMAN SEALE:                     Precisely.
+1-CHAIRMAN SEALE:
-                               DR. APOSTOLAKIS:                     -- if the reactor safety study i
+Precisely.
--            had not been funded.
+DR. APOSTOLAKIS:
-                     '4                                DR. WALLIS: .Another example of where creative 5           .research did something really significant and the 6            ~ implementation and the use of it was what lagged.
+-- if the reactor safety study i
-                               DR. SHACK:             Although industry tends to be rather 8             unimaginative about that,                              That document we got from whoever L                     9             it was that was going'to slash the agency in half also had a 10               survey in there of what research should. be done, and, of 11               course, the research that should be done was exactly what 11 2               they needed right now to solve their particular problem.
+-had not been funded.
-                                 CHAIRMAN SEALE:                     Yeah, it is this what have you l
+'4 DR. WALLIS:.Another example of where creative 5
-l                -14                done for me this week kind of thing.
+.research did something really significant and the 6
-L( )               15                                  DR. WALLIS:             That is typical of a dying industry.
+~ implementation and the use of it was what lagged.
-                 '16                An. alert-industry doesn't behave that way.
+DR. SHACK:
-                                 DR. SHACK:             I don't know that you are going to_get l                 18                a whole lot of insight out of --
+Although industry tends to be rather 8
-                                                                               .It is like asking the railroads where 19                                   DR. WALLIS:
+unimaginative about that, That document we got from whoever L
-l L
+it was that was going'to slash the agency in half also had a 10 survey in there of what research should. be done, and, of 11 course, the research that should be done was exactly what 11 2 they needed right now to solve their particular problem.
-               research was needed in the 1950s or something.                                                         And they
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
-                !21                 could have taken an attitude, we are going to build the
+Yeah, it is this what have you l
-[.                22                railroads or the future.                            Or they could have said we are 23               dying, we don't care, just get whatever money'out of it we
+l
-                -24                 can.
+-14 done for me this week kind of thing.
-L                 25                                   DR. MILLER:              Is there any place in this report we I
+L( )
-;                                                          ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+DR. WALLIS:
-;   (Q,,/                                                                Court Reporters
+That is typical of a dying industry.
-                                                  .1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 L
+'16 An. alert-industry doesn't behave that way.
+DR. SHACK:
+I don't know that you are going to_get l
+a whole lot of insight out of --
+DR. WALLIS:
+.It is like asking the railroads where l
+L 20 research was needed in the 1950s or something.
+And they
+!21 could have taken an attitude, we are going to build the
+[.
+railroads or the future.
+Or they could have said we are 23 dying, we don't care, just get whatever money'out of it we
+-24 can.
+L 25 DR. MILLER:
+Is there any place in this report we I
+(Q,,/
+ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+Court Reporters
+.1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034 L
-  . _ .     .. - - - __       - - .      ..   . - .   . -       . - - ~ .       - - - _ . - . .             . .. . -.   --
+. - - ~.
-     l
+1
-,                          1       should look to the future?                The next generation type
+should look to the future?
+The next generation type
+(
+reactors that may be -
+is the NRC in a position to --
+DR. APOSTOLAKIS:
+That is not the NRC's job, that 4
+-is DOE's.
+-DR. MILLER:
+I understand.that, but should NRC be l
+'
+-at least looking at what'might be needed if we have to 1
+-regulate something?
+Is that too far in the future?
+. CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+Well, I think it~would be much 19 more appropriate to give the NRC, the Commissioners,. talking i
+p l.
+points in supporting the fact that research has been a 11 significant contributor to not only the capabilities of the 12 Commission, but also the capabilities of the industry in
+-13 doing their job.
+DR. APOSTOLAKIS:
+We are a little bit
+'15 inconsistent, though.
+It.just occurred to.me,'on the one 16 hand, we'are criticizing-the Office of Research for not i
+having a systematic.way of allocating research --
+DR. BARTON:
+Prioritizing.
+j 19 DR. APOSTOLAKIS:
+Prioritizing, doing this, doing 20 that, doing_that.
+And then we turn around and say, gee, 21 look, you know, the country would have collapsed if the NRC 22 Office of Research hadn't done-this beautiful research.
+So 23 they can come back and say, why the hell do you want me to 24 devise a new way-of prioritizing since they did a great job.
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+Yeah, George.
+I mean it is all a ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
 (
-       reactors that may be -              is the NRC in a position to --
+Court Reporters i
-                     DR. APOSTOLAKIS:            That is not the NRC's job, that l
+L 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
-     -is DOE's.
+(202) 842-0034
--                    DR. MILLER:       I understand.that, but should NRC be l                          6'   -at least looking at what'might be needed if we have to 1
--      regulate something?         Is that too far in the future?
-                   . CHAIRMAN SEALE:            Well, I think it~would be much                   I p                         19      more appropriate to give the NRC, the Commissioners,. talking                            i l.
-       points in supporting the fact that research has been a 11        significant contributor to not only the capabilities of the 12       Commission, but also the capabilities of the industry in
-                      -13         doing their job.
-                     DR. APOSTOLAKIS:             We are a little bit
-                        '15       inconsistent, though.            It.just occurred to.me,'on the one 16       hand, we'are criticizing-the Office of Research for not i
-       having a systematic.way of allocating research --
-                     DR. BARTON:        Prioritizing.
-j 19                     DR. APOSTOLAKIS:             Prioritizing, doing this, doing 20       that, doing_that.         And then we turn around and say, gee, 21       look, you know, the country would have collapsed if the NRC 22       Office of Research hadn't done-this beautiful research.                           So 23       they can come back and say, why the hell do you want me to 24       devise a new way-of prioritizing since they did a great job.
-                     CHAIRMAN SEALE:             Yeah, George.       I mean it is all a
-        .,                                          ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
-i         (                                                  Court Reporters L                                           1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
-11    matter of: degree, and it is all a matter of'-- and I think 2    you have to recognize --
+11 matter of: degree, and it is all a matter of'-- and I think
-{'                                                                                        4 3               DR APOSTOLAKIS:     But those were different times, 4: ! too.
+{'
-              DR. WALLIS:    The Rassmussen report-you cited here 6    came about because questions were being asked.
+you have to recognize --
-              DR. APOSTOLAKIS:    By Congress.
+3
-              DR. WALLIS:    By Congress and,- you know, the 9    nation.
+DR APOSTOLAKIS:
-               CHAIRMAN SEALE:    Yeah.
+But those were different times, 4: !
-               DR. WALLIS:    And intellectual community about how 12     do we evaluate reactor safety.       It was a sort of ferment of 11 3 _  interest that gave rise to the work.
+too.
--               DR. APOSTOLAKIS :   Anyway, okay, so what do we do
+DR. WALLIS:
-  -()
+The Rassmussen report-you cited here 6
-'    about the'immediate' future?     I mean I am like the industry, 16     I want to know what I am going to do tomorrow.
+came about because questions were being asked.
-       -17                DR. WALLIS:    Well, I think --
+DR. APOSTOLAKIS:
-              .DR   APOSTOLAKIS:   And I am not dying.
+By Congress.
-: 19.               DR. WALLIS:    Do I get a few minutes?
+DR. WALLIS:
-       '20-               DR. UHRIG:    Yes. Yes.
+By Congress and,- you know, the 9
-               DR. WALLIS:    I don't know whether I do or not.
+nation.
-               DR. UHRIG:    Go ahead. And then we will pick up 23     Mario.
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
--               DR. WALLIS:    I like the idea of starting from the 25     key recommendations. I see them as 1 through 4 and 7 from
+Yeah.
-  -f'                         ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+DR. WALLIS:
-    \                                Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 r
+And intellectual community about how 12 do we evaluate reactor safety.
+It was a sort of ferment of 11 3 _
+interest that gave rise to the work.
+-DR. APOSTOLAKIS :
+Anyway, okay, so what do we do
+-()
+' about the'immediate' future?
+I mean I am like the industry, 16 I want to know what I am going to do tomorrow.
+-17 DR. WALLIS:
+Well, I think --
+.DR APOSTOLAKIS:
+And I am not dying.
+.
+DR. WALLIS:
+Do I get a few minutes?
+'20-DR. UHRIG:
+Yes.
+Yes.
+DR. WALLIS:
+I don't know whether I do or not.
+DR. UHRIG:
+Go ahead.
+And then we will pick up 23 Mario.
+-DR. WALLIS:
+I like the idea of starting from the 25 key recommendations.
+I see them as 1 through 4 and 7 from
+-f' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+\\
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034 r
-      .     - . . . . - .          .-.. . .       . - . -          - - , . - . , .           . . . . - . - - - - - . ~ .         . - _ ~ -
+. -. - - - - -. ~.
+. - _ ~
 l
-    .last year.               And really saying how is this actually 2    happening?                We made these recommendations, we still stick by
-   '{   ;
-     'them.           Maybe we want to say them slightly differently if we 4    need to.          And then look at what has happened over the past
-          ,                5:  ' year and.say' how has this happened?
-                      The thing I see the greatest need-for, I have said 7     it already today is proper appreciation, articulation of the 8  .need by the parts of the agency that have the need.                                       And I think research'is quite able to respond.
-L                          9 I think we can 10        probably pick out if we need-examples from the past, it i
-        would probably be best if wel picked out examples, maybe PRA 12        is one, maybe there are some other ones, of successes in the 13        past year, where this format of really specifying the need L
-        and really responding to it, and showing that the response
-()                15:
-satisfies the-need, actually worked.                               If we can show some examples of that.
-: i.                    17                          We may actually have to show some examples-where 18        it didn't work.                 And I think we may need some examples where L                     19        research itself, through its creativity and awareness was
-                   -20          able to perceive a need which then later.on got recognized 21        by the users, because I think that also sometimes happens.
 .
-'       But I do see that you have to tie in this need, because that 23        is --'that is needed.                              But the Commission always needs that.
+.last year.
-;                     24        In its own rationale for what it is doing, it has to be L
+And really saying how is this actually
-       asking these questions, and should be asking these 1
+'{
-A                                                       ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+happening?
-" (_)                                                                 Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+We made these recommendations, we still stick by 13
+'them.
+Maybe we want to say them slightly differently if we 4
+need to.
+And then look at what has happened over the past 5:
+' year and.say' how has this happened?
+The thing I see the greatest need-for, I have said 7
+it already today is proper appreciation, articulation of the 8
+.need by the parts of the agency that have the need.
+And I L
+think research'is quite able to respond.
+I think we can 10 probably pick out if we need-examples from the past, it i
+would probably be best if wel picked out examples, maybe PRA 12 is one, maybe there are some other ones, of successes in the 13 past year, where this format of really specifying the need L
+and really responding to it, and showing that the response
+()
+:
+satisfies the-need, actually worked.
+If we can show some 16 examples of that.
+i.
+We may actually have to show some examples-where 18 it didn't work.
+And I think we may need some examples where L
+research itself, through its creativity and awareness was
+-20 able to perceive a need which then later.on got recognized 21 by the users, because I think that also sometimes happens.
+.
+' But I do see that you have to tie in this need, because that 23 is --'that is needed.
+But the Commission always needs that.
+In its own rationale for what it is doing, it has to be L
+asking these questions, and should be asking these 1
+A ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+" (_)
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-                   ...        -    . ~ .    .   -       . . - = . . - . - - -       . _ _ . .-
+. ~.
-l 1  questions.
+.. - =.
-(A v
+l 1
-     )'    2              EIf we do that right, it may be easier to write the 3  Congressional one, because we will understand better why --
+questions.
-how research. fits into the picture of what is needed there.
+(A )'
-So that was my -- what I said, essentially, to Bob. I-do 6  think we -- we may not be able to look across the whole 1
+EIf we do that right, it may be easier to write the v
-  agency. We may need to dig in deeply into some parts where 8  something is really going on and use them as examples that 9  this is the way to do it, .maybe even this is the way not to
+Congressional one, because we will understand better why --
-        ' 10  do it.                                                                           ;
+how research. fits into the picture of what is needed there.
-              DR. UHRIG:       Mario, I promised you some time for 12  your thoughts or more.
+So that was my -- what I said, essentially, to Bob.
-: 13.             DR. FONTANA:        Well, I made a tactical mistake, I
+I-do 6
-: 14. sent something to you which was just basically scribbles,
+think we -- we may not be able to look across the whole 7
-()      15- but I have got a real good printer, so it looks better than 16  it really is.
+agency.
-               [ Laughter. ]
+We may need to dig in deeply into some parts where 8
-              DR. FONTANA:       Well, basically, I said something 19  like this, if light water reactors are mature technology and 20- much research has been performed with respect to reactor
+something is really going on and use them as examples that 9
-        - 21  safety over the last 35 years, and most of this research has 22  been in traditional hard science and engineering areas, the 23  technology is pretty well known.
+this is the way to do it,.maybe even this is the way not to
-             Now, there are areas where better precision would 25  be preferred, but in some areas this reduction in
+' 10 do it.
-  /~'\                          ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+DR. UHRIG:
-kl
+Mario, I promised you some time for 12 your thoughts or more.
-   %                                     Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+.
+DR. FONTANA:
+Well, I made a tactical mistake, I 14.
+sent something to you which was just basically scribbles,
+()
+-but I have got a real good printer, so it looks better than 16 it really is.
+[ Laughter. ]
+DR. FONTANA:
+Well, basically, I said something 19 like this, if light water reactors are mature technology and 20-much research has been performed with respect to reactor
+- 21 safety over the last 35 years, and most of this research has 22 been in traditional hard science and engineering areas, the 23 technology is pretty well known.
+Now, there are areas where better precision would 25 be preferred, but in some areas this reduction in
+/~'\\
+ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+kl Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-1      uncertainty is so difficult to obtain, the cost and effort 2      is unwarranted.      Considerable gains in safety are
+1
-      '(
+uncertainty is so difficult to obtain, the cost and effort
-      considered.
+'(
-                 We need to identify future areas where the present 5      state of knowledge may be inadequate. Some of these are 6I     outside the realm of hard science where we are all i
+is unwarranted.
-     comfortable.      So some of these thoughts are kind of random.
+Considerable gains in safety are 3
-     But I don't mean to denigrate -- there are hard science 9      areas where we all agree.that work is needed such as 10         improvement of thermal-hydraulics models, steam generator 11         inspections and two plug-in criteria, and aging of 12         equipment, et cetera, aging of analysis technology.
+considered.
-                    But I thought I would indicate some areas that are                                     '
+We need to identify future areas where the present 5
-        kind of on the edge of hard science.                        We are rushing toward r                                                                                                                   l Jj        15         risk-informed regulation, this is based on PRA technology.
+state of knowledge may be inadequate.
-        Forgive tae, George, but there are areas of PRA technology 17         that I don't think are on really, really --
+Some of these are 6I outside the realm of hard science where we are all i
-'                    DR. APOSTOLAKIS:            We are rushing, Mario?                                     l l
+comfortable.
-         Twenty-three years.
+So some of these thoughts are kind of random.
-                     DR. FONTANA:        Well, I mean right now.
+But I don't mean to denigrate -- there are hard science 9
-                     DR. POWERS:        Well, George, that is unfair 22          Because at the time WASH-1400 was done, they couldn't do a 23          decent uncertainty analysis.                 At the time WASH-1400 was 24          done, they couldn't do a decent severe accident analysis.
+areas where we all agree.that work is needed such as 10 improvement of thermal-hydraulics models, steam generator 11 inspections and two plug-in criteria, and aging of 12 equipment, et cetera, aging of analysis technology.
-         By the-time WASH-1400 was done, they couldn't do a decent O \m L ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+But I thought I would indicate some areas that are 14 kind of on the edge of hard science.
-Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+We are rushing toward rJj 15 risk-informed regulation, this is based on PRA technology.
+Forgive tae, George, but there are areas of PRA technology 17 that I don't think are on really, really --
+' DR. APOSTOLAKIS:
+We are rushing, Mario?
+l 19 Twenty-three years.
+DR. FONTANA:
+Well, I mean right now.
+DR. POWERS:
+Well, George, that is unfair 22 Because at the time WASH-1400 was done, they couldn't do a 23 decent uncertainty analysis.
+At the time WASH-1400 was 24 done, they couldn't do a decent severe accident analysis.
+By the-time WASH-1400 was done, they couldn't do a decent
+..O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+\\m L Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-   -       ., . ~        . . . . - -  .    - -..-.. . - - . - . - . . . . - - - ..~..-... - - - - - ._ - . - .
+.,. ~
-j                                                                                                                                         330       l 1-'         dispersion analysis.
+- -..-... - -. -. -.... - - -..~..-... - - - - -._ -. -.
-                         DR._APOSTOLAKIS:                                    So what is your point of L                    3;           referenceLfor saying rushing?
+j 330 1-'
-h 4                         .DR . FONTANA:                           We are moving toward risk-informed 5          -regulation, and I totally support it.                                           ButIthere are some                -
+dispersion analysis.
-L                    6'        . areas that they.are weak; -There's human factors and l                                                                                                                                                   {:
+DR._APOSTOLAKIS:
-t L                    7           organizational factors.                                                                                             I l
+So what is your point of L
-: 8.                         DR. APOSTOLAKIS:                                   Humans are notoriously weak; L                   '9                          DR. FONTANA:                            Now, I am going to say something
+; referenceLfor saying rushing?
-         ^
+h 4
-_          lthat, unfortunately, I am going to get on the record, but 11            recommendations to increase research in these areas must be i
+.DR. FONTANA:
-L l-12            tempered by the apparent inability of the present human 13            factors managers to define research plans coherently.                                                We 14            have said that-before.
+We are moving toward risk-informed 5
-()           '15                          DR. POWERS: -That is not news.
+-regulation, and I totally support it.
-                         DR. FONTANA:                             That is not news.            Also, I think 17            there is a lot of-work done on PRA level l's and I think L                  18-           ultimately.we really ought to be working with 2's and 3's if l
+ButIthere are some L
-                  .19            we are going to get to really risk-based regulation.                                                That
+'
-                  -20            involves what you were driving at, George, with the Farmer 21:           curves and that sort of thing.
+. areas that they.are weak; -There's human factors and
-                         We need to address the quality of PRAs.                                          I know              I 23            work is being done on it,.but is there some measure of the                                                         ;
+{
-24            quality of the' output in-addition to -- there's two things.
+l tL 7
--           One is the quality'of a PRA and the other is how do you l
+organizational factors.
+.
+DR. APOSTOLAKIS:
+Humans are notoriously weak; L
+'9 DR. FONTANA:
+Now, I am going to say something
+^
+_
+lthat, unfortunately, I am going to get on the record, but 11 recommendations to increase research in these areas must be i
+L 12 tempered by the apparent inability of the present human l-13 factors managers to define research plans coherently.
+We 14 have said that-before.
+()
+'15 DR. POWERS: -That is not news.
+DR. FONTANA:
+That is not news.
+Also, I think 17 there is a lot of-work done on PRA level l's and I think L
+-ultimately.we really ought to be working with 2's and 3's if l
+.19 we are going to get to really risk-based regulation.
+That
+-20 involves what you were driving at, George, with the Farmer 21:
+curves and that sort of thing.
+We need to address the quality of PRAs.
+I know I
+work is being done on it,.but is there some measure of the 24 quality of the' output in-addition to -- there's two things.
+-One is the quality'of a PRA and the other is how do you l
 l
-[~5y-                                              ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.                                                                 I
+[~5y-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
-     \_/                                                                   Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036
+\\_/
-: j.                                                                            (202) 842-0034 L
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
-L t                                                 .                                    -            r   w  -,       - -y,- .-   --
+j.
-                                                                                                                                              .v..
+(202) 842-0034 L
+L t
+r w
+-y,-
+.v..
-m . . _ . _ _ . _ . .           _ _ . _ _ . ._ _.___._ _ _.__._ _.._._
+m l.
-l.
+i
-                         ' measure a PRA is done to the best quality that is possible i
+' measure a PRA is done to the best quality that is possible i
-i
+D : f) ~
-       at the time.
+at the time.
-D  : f) ~
 '. v t
-l 3-                  Now,        I' hate to get into a wish list, but there's 4        obviously greater fuel performance, operation with mox 5-       fuels. . Risk for shutdown operation, I won't get into.                   But  ,
+l 3-
-:6        the importance of specific regulations to safety is kind of
+: Now, I' hate to get into a wish list, but there's 4
-                .7        a -- subject.          This-is going to called aging of regulation.
+obviously greater fuel performance, operation with mox 5-fuels.. Risk for shutdown operation, I won't get into.
-       Regulations, a lot of them have been put,in place over the l                9        years that have -- some of them had good reasons to start 110           with and some of them had' reasons which are no longer valid.
+But
-        I think you have to get back and look at'this whole plethora
+:6 the importance of specific regulations to safety is kind of
-              '12         of regulations and try to determine what the risk impact of 13         these are, and is there a way of doing this?
+.7 a -- subject.
-                   Also, there is aging of codes and standards.
+This-is going to called aging of regulation.
-()          15         Should these be looked at on the basis of what we know now, 16         and modified?          Performance measures.          The senior management l
+Regulations, a lot of them have been put,in place over the l
-        process I think is kind of not too red hot.                  Some of the L              18         measures are counter-productive to safety.                  I. think, for 19         example, a measure that says how long you have operated a 20         plant without. shutting it down, and how many SCRAMS you 21-        didn't get, aren't necessarily good measures.                   And, also, I 22         think that the Arthur Andersen study is kind of 23         under-whelming.
+years that have -- some of them had good reasons to start 110 with and some of them had' reasons which are no longer valid.
-                    [ Laughter.]
+I think you have to get back and look at'this whole plethora
-~                   DR. WALLIS:                     I agree.
+'12 of regulations and try to determine what the risk impact of 13 these are, and is there a way of doing this?
+Also, there is aging of codes and standards.
+()
+Should these be looked at on the basis of what we know now, 16 and modified?
+Performance measures.
+The senior management l
+process I think is kind of not too red hot.
+Some of the L
+measures are counter-productive to safety.
+I. think, for 19 example, a measure that says how long you have operated a 20 plant without. shutting it down, and how many SCRAMS you 21-didn't get, aren't necessarily good measures.
+And, also, I 22 think that the Arthur Andersen study is kind of 23 under-whelming.
+[ Laughter.]
+' 25~
+DR. WALLIS:
+I agree.
 l-l i
-   /~'j                                     ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+/~'j ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
-fk/                                                          Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 L
+fk/
-l                                                   Washington, D.C. 20036 L                                                              (202) 842-0034
+Court Reporters L
+Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l
+Washington, D.C.
+L
+(202) 842-0034
-l                                                                                                                                                 i 332                     l 1                      DR. FONTANA:                     Now, there are benefits of                                                  l V)
+l i
-   /''         2
+1
-             ;3-risk-informed. specific activities, ISA, QA, IST'and so on.
+DR. FONTANA:
-Are there measures by which you can indicate how these 4      activities really are affecting risk?~ Those measures may be 5     do-able. . Software testing.                                     What I heard and this is not my 6    -area, but what I heard about software testing is that if you
+Now, there are benefits of
-: 7. use the right process, you will probably get a good product.
+/''
-    But I think what is'needed, and I understand it can't really be done now, is some kind of a test and acceptance criteria 10-       that measures the performance'of that software rather than 11       only looking at if you follow the right processes for
+V) risk-informed. specific activities, ISA, QA, IST'and so on.
+;3-Are there measures by which you can indicate how these 4
+activities really are affecting risk?~ Those measures may be 5
+do-able.. Software testing.
+What I heard and this is not my 6
+-area, but what I heard about software testing is that if you 7.
+use the right process, you will probably get a good product.
+But I think what is'needed, and I understand it can't really
+' be done now, is some kind of a test and acceptance criteria 10-that measures the performance'of that software rather than
 [
-l l           12'     ' developing the software, you will probably get a good
+only looking at if you follow the right processes for l
+l 12'
+' developing the software, you will probably get a good
 !~
-           -13       product.
+-13 product.
-                       Licensing extension --
+Licensing extension --
-.(j II    11 5                       DR. POWERS:                   George, you didn't stand up and 16       salute.       Smiles over there.
+. II 11 5 DR. POWERS:
-l           17                        DR. APOSTOLAKIS:                             I saluted sitting down.
+George, you didn't stand up and (j
-                       DR. FONTANA:                     Licensing extension rests heavily on 19       aging and particularly areas of assuring that equipment will 20       last until the next time you look at it.                                             And some of this
+salute.
-:21      involves inspection and assessment of structures that are L           22       inaccessible.
+Smiles over there.
-                       We all know about the effect of deregulation and
+l 17 DR. APOSTOLAKIS:
-           .24       competitive pressures.                           Are there techniques for predicting 25       the effects of under-funding on safety, for example?                                             Even e
+I saluted sitting down.
-('/j s_
+DR. FONTANA:
+Licensing extension rests heavily on 19 aging and particularly areas of assuring that equipment will 20 last until the next time you look at it.
+And some of this
+:21 involves inspection and assessment of structures that are L
+inaccessible.
+We all know about the effect of deregulation and
+.24 competitive pressures.
+Are there techniques for predicting 25 the effects of under-funding on safety, for example?
+Even e
+('/j ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+Court Reporters s_
+Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034 i
+.. 4-
+though'you don't want to get into financial operations of 1
+)
+-
+.the utility, there may be some measures that are~useful 3.
+there.
+We were very critical of the core capabilities 5
+report.
+And I think they are trying to do better, and I 6
+think they probably will do better, so I won't get into 7
+that.
+~8 If we are going to review l-- if you are going to 9:
+review and do a report card on present programs, we probably 10 oughtlto have access to the 189s, and at least look at the 11 scope.
+I don't think we should determine the quality of the 12 work, this can be.done by peer review, but we need to 13 determine whether the scopes and promised deliverables are 14 consistent with future needs.
+I 15 With respect to making recommendations, I don't 16 think we should be constrained by budget considerations.
+-I 17 think we ought to. indicate what we think the recommendations 18' ought to be and then the prioritization within the 19-constraints of a budget really ought to be done -- well, 20' ought to be done by staff using criteria which we think are 21 good criteria.
+But I don't think we ought to not make 22; recommendations because we don't think the budget is there 12 3 ~
+to support it.
+-With respect to the letter to Congress, I think we 25 need a balanced approach.
+We need to be kind of global in
+[ \\
 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
-Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
-                  ,                          . . - . .   .._4-                                       ,-        ,
+(202) 842-0034
-            '
+1
-    though'you don't want to get into financial operations of
+our recommendations.
-       )      2-  .the utility, there may be some measures that are~useful
+Again, I don't think there is anything
-: 3. there.
+. y['N '
-                 We were very critical of the core capabilities 5    report. And I think they are trying to do better, and I 6    think they probably will do better, so I won't get into 7    that.
+'2 wrong with repeating things that we have.said before.
-            ~8                   If we are going to review l-- if you are going to 9:   review and do a report card on present programs, we probably 10      oughtlto have access to the 189s, and at least look at the 11      scope. I don't think we should determine the quality of the
+.You 3
-,          12      work, this can be.done by peer review, but we need to 13      determine whether the scopes and promised deliverables are 14      consistent with future needs.
+know what the old preacher said about tell them what'you are 4
-I   15                   With respect to making recommendations, I don't 16      think we should be constrained by budget considerations. -I 17      think we ought to. indicate what we think the recommendations 18'     ought to be and then the prioritization within the 19-     constraints of a budget really ought to be done -- well, 20'     ought to be done by staff using criteria which we think are 21      good criteria.      But I don't think we ought to not make 22;     recommendations because we don't think the budget is there 12 3 ~   to support it.
+going to say, then tell them, then tell them what you said.
--                  With respect to the letter to Congress, I think we 25      need a balanced approach.                      We need to be kind of global in
+There is goodestuff in the old letter that I think we really u
-[ \                              ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+ought to repeat.
-Court Reporters
+Finally, I think that Congress -- I don't know how 8
-                ,             1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+~ to say this, but the Congress should direct the NRC to 9:
+maintair.-a viable research program.
+They can't just give 10 them a pot'of money and say do whatever you want with it and 11 let them take it out of important areas to put in other 12 areas that they consider to be more near-term, providing i
+near-term --
+t 14 DR. UHRIG:
+But Congress can't manage the research 15 program.
+L16 DR. FONTANA:
+No.
+But can they tell NRC, say, you 17 know, we expect you to maintain a viable research program?
+Can they do.that much?
+DR. UHRIG:
+Well, they do that.
+They do that by 20 approving the funds.
+DR. FONTANA:
+They give me a whole of funds.
+Can 22 they --
+DR. UHRIG:
+Oh, okay.
+You are saying that they 24 should specify the funds that go to research?
+DR. FONTANA:
+Maybe not that far, but possibly 4
+[ '/)
+ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+\\~-
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+4
+(202) 842-0034
-1           our recommendations.               Again, I don't think there is anything
+1
-   . y['N '    '2             wrong with repeating things that we have.said before.                                       .You 3           know what the old preacher said about tell them what'you are 4           going to say, then tell them, then tell them what you said.
+indicating that we expect a viable research program.
-           There is goodestuff in the old letter that I think we really u                6           ought to repeat.
+(~')
-                         Finally, I think that Congress -- I don't know how 8          ~ to say this, but the Congress should direct the NRC to 9:          maintair.-a viable research program.                             They can't just give 10              them a pot'of money and say do whatever you want with it and 11              let them take it out of important areas to put in other 12              areas that they consider to be more near-term, providing i
+DR. APOSTOLAKIS:
-              near-term --
+I believe they do see the 3
-t             14                            DR. UHRIG:           But Congress can't manage the research 15              program.
+various major items.
-L16                            DR. FONTANA:              No.         But can they tell NRC, say, you 17              know, we expect you to maintain a viable research program?
+In fact, that is how they tried to e
-             Can they do.that much?
+eliminata the Southwest Research Institute, specifically 5
-                           DR. UHRIG:           Well, they do that.                 They do that by 20               approving the funds.
+they targeted it.
-                             DR. FONTANA:              They give me a whole of funds.                          Can 22               they --
+DR. WALLIS:
-                           DR. UHRIG:           Oh, okay.                 You are saying that they 24               should specify the funds that go to research?
+I think it is more than viable.
-                            DR. FONTANA:              Maybe not that far, but possibly 4
+I 7
+tried to get at this in a few words I tried to write a few 8
+months ago.
+It has got to be vigorous and intellectually 9
+lively.
+And you mentioned Farmer curves.
+Some Farmer 10 curves have been around a long time.
+It is just, to me, the 11 first step in trying to explain things in a rational way.
+And we get some curves from Belgium.
+And so why don't we get at the next generation of intellectual level of understanding, where it is not just 14
+)
+some kind of a curve sketched on one pi-ace cf paper, very e
+one-dimensional, a childish sketch representing something.
+Why isn't something coming out of NRC research saying this 18 is the next step to make it better?
+It is an NRC curve or 19 NRC three-dimensional thing or something that is an 20 intellectual level above just sketching a line on a piece of 21 paper.
+And responding to something which has been around a 22 long time.
+They ought to be generating ideas.
+DR. POWERS:
+The temperance of your neighbor when 24 you call a Farmer curve childish is astounding.
+DR. WALLIS:
+Much wisdom has come out of the O
 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
-[\~-'/)                                                Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 4
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
-Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+(202) 842-0034
-1  indicating that we expect a viable research program.
+1-
-   ,(~')    2              DR. APOSTOLAKIS:     I believe they do see the 3  various major items.      In fact, that is how they tried to e
+. mouths'of. children.
-  eliminata the Southwest Research Institute, specifically 5   they targeted it.
+.-
-               DR. WALLIS:    I think it is more than viable. I 7   tried to get at this in a few words I tried to write a few 8   months ago. It has got to be vigorous and intellectually 9   lively. And you mentioned Farmer curves.        Some Farmer 10   curves have been around a long time.        It is just, to me, the 11   first step in trying to explain things in a rational way.
+-DR. UHRIG:
-  And we get some curves from Belgium.
+Okay.
-              And so why don't we get at the next generation of 14   intellectual level of understanding, where it is not just e
+We come back to the fact that 3
-      )  15   some kind of a curve sketched on one pi-ace cf paper, very 16   one-dimensional, a childish sketch representing something.
+.we have got a very comprehensive array.
-   Why isn't something coming out of NRC research saying this 18   is the next step to make it better?        It is an NRC curve or 19   NRC three-dimensional thing or something that is an 20   intellectual level above just sketching a line on a piece of 21   paper. And responding to something which has been around a 22   long time. They ought to be generating ideas.
+Yes?
-               DR. POWERS:    The temperance of your neighbor when 24   you call a Farmer curve childish is astounding.
+'4 DR'.' SHACK:
-              DR. WALLIS:     Much wisdom has come out of the O                           ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+Just one.
-Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+Dana, were'you ever J
+successful in getting any of the user needs letters?. That 6
-l 336 1-           . mouths'of. children.
+seems to me another piece of input in addition to the 189 7
-.-                      -DR. UHRIG:      Okay.      We come back to the fact that 3            .we have got a very comprehensive array.                    Yes?
+that would be interesting to look at, sort of related to 8
-        '4                          DR'.' SHACK:    Just one.            Dana, were'you ever J
+Graham's question.
-            successful in getting any of the user needs letters?. That 6             seems to me another piece of input in addition to the 189 7             that would be interesting to look at, sort of related to 8             Graham's question.
+DR. POWERS:. Whenever I asked for a user.need 10 letter,-it was promptly delivered.
-                         DR. POWERS: . Whenever I asked for a user.need                             l 10              letter,-it was promptly delivered.
+INE. SHACK:
-                          INE. SHACK:     But.is there a catalog, the whole 12              collecti~on?      Do we'know how many there are?
+But.is there a catalog, the whole 12 collecti~on?
--                          IN1'. POWERS:    What we did not -- what I don't think 14              exists is a' catalog of the. user need letters that have been Lj   ) 15              written, and should have been written.                    I think you can 16              probably find a catalog.of all of them.
+Do we'know how many there are?
-                          What I found in the user need letters was what the 18              report says, is they are -- the ones I examined, and I have 19              to admit that it was -- it was piecemeal, it was whichever 1
+-IN1'. POWERS:
-             ones I asked for, that you don't get a specificity of I need                            '
+What we did not -- what I don't think 14 exists is a' catalog of the. user need letters that have been Lj )
-: 21.             this to do this job, this accurately, this well, and that 22              sort of thing.       It is more of the nature of screw around 23              with this and tell me what you can find.
+written, and should have been written.
-                          DR. WALLIS:      We might actually include in our l:     25             -report a critique of these need letters, and how they ought f
+I think you can 16 probably find a catalog.of all of them.
+What I found in the user need letters was what the 18 report says, is they are -- the ones I examined, and I have 19 to admit that it was -- it was piecemeal, it was whichever 20 ones I asked for, that you don't get a specificity of I need 21.
+this to do this job, this accurately, this well, and that 22 sort of thing.
+It is more of the nature of screw around 23 with this and tell me what you can find.
+DR. WALLIS:
+We might actually include in our l:
+-report a critique of these need letters, and how they ought f
 l I
-:                                        ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
-,(                                               Court Reporters
+,(
-;                                1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 I             _ . . .       .   . _ _               - - - . _ . - . .     -    -    _ - - . . . - - - - -
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034 I
-__     _     __ _ = _ . . ___._. _ __._                        . . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . . _       . . - _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _            . -
+__ _ = _.. ___._. _ __._
-O                                                                                                                                        .
+O 337
+-1 to be-done.
-            -1           to be-done.
+}
-                             DR. POWERS:      Well, I'think that -- quite frankly,
+DR. POWERS:
-       }
+Well, I'think that -- quite frankly, 3
-           I think we have done that.                   When we delineated for them an 4           approach toward planning, I think'we essentially said that.
+I think we have done that.
-         That approach'to it.now, you may want to refine that, expand 6          upon that, and whatnot.                But, again, I will caution you 7           against trying to carry-too many things.
+When we delineated for them an 4
-                             DR. UHRIG:      Here are the-areas that I took out of 9           the report last year. The itemization at the bottom I found 10-           five additional issues that had not been included, although 11            some of them are more the ACNW categories, such as the 12           decommission and the environmental protection, but even if we just take those areas that are listed up there, and l
+approach toward planning, I think'we essentially said that.
-14           assign two people to each one of them, it means that
+That approach'to it.now, you may want to refine that, expand 6
-()    15-          everybody is assigned to three topics, with two exceptions, l
+upon that, and whatnot.
-          and I tried to do this and I can't make it come out o
+But, again, I will caution you 7
-          rationally without some arbitrary assignments, so I made 18           some-arbitrary assignments but it doesn't make sense to have                                                      j i
+against trying to carry-too many things.
-          somebody spending time reviewing an area that he has no                                                           '
+DR. UHRIG:
-l l          20           interest in, so this is strictly a first approximation at l
+Here are the-areas that I took out of 9
-          it.
+the report last year.
-                              Let me pull the curtain.                       You can see the names 23           that have been put beside there and it's strictly -- there's l          24           usually one person who is an expert in that particular area L          25.          and the other person hopefully has some expertise but there f
+The itemization at the bottom I found 10-five additional issues that had not been included, although 11 some of them are more the ACNW categories, such as the 12 decommission and the environmental protection, but even if l
-     ,                                          ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+we just take those areas that are listed up there, and 14 assign two people to each one of them, it means that
-l (                                                    Court Reporters i                                         1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+()
+-everybody is assigned to three topics, with two exceptions, 16 and I tried to do this and I can't make it come out l
+o 17 rationally without some arbitrary assignments, so I made 18 some-arbitrary assignments but it doesn't make sense to have j
+somebody spending time reviewing an area that he has no l
+interest in, so this is strictly a first approximation at l
+it.
+Let me pull the curtain.
+You can see the names 23 that have been put beside there and it's strictly -- there's l
+usually one person who is an expert in that particular area L
+.
+and the other person hopefully has some expertise but there f
+ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+l (
+Court Reporters i
+Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-1   was -- I had to do'some arbitrary assignments to make it r
+1
-{yj    2   come out -- the load even.
+was -- I had to do'some arbitrary assignments to make it r{y 2
-v i
+come out -- the load even.
-               DR. FONTANA:      Now we don't have conflict of 4  -interest problems.on this particular list, do we?         That's 5   not a consideration?
+j v
-              DR. SHACK:      I know my 189 pretty well. I can 7   review it --
+i 3
-               [ Laughter.)
+DR. FONTANA:
-              CHAIRMAN SEALE:      Great. That is an easy one.
+Now we don't have conflict of 4
-10               DR. FONTANA:      I know Shack's got to be on steam       1 11   generator integrity, for example.
+-interest problems.on this particular list, do we?
-              DR. POWERS:      Can I get heavy section steel?
+That's 5
-               (Laughter.]
+not a consideration?
-              DR. SHACK:      I would suggest that I be moved from T)    15   EAC for example to structural and civil engineering.
+DR. SHACK:
-              DR. UHRIG:      Why don't I get this to you. I think 17   Med has copies or can get you copies.         I did not include 18   that in the handout but what I would like you to do is to 19   mark it up and say this doesn't make sense for me to be 20' 'here -- here is where I belong, this type of thing.
+I know my 189 pretty well.
-              CHAIRMAN SEALE:      Let's get that back to Bob this 22   afternoon so he can give us a revised assignment list the 23   first thing in the morning.
+I can 7
-              DR. APOSTOLAKIS:      What is the assignment actually?
+review it --
-          ~25               DR. WALLIS:      For the next roadblock for the l-B
-     .O                         ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+[ Laughter.)
-;  ' \_ l                               Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l                                   Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+Great.
+That is an easy one.
+DR. FONTANA:
+I know Shack's got to be on steam 11 generator integrity, for example.
+DR. POWERS:
+Can I get heavy section steel?
+(Laughter.]
+DR. SHACK:
+I would suggest that I be moved from T) 15 EAC for example to structural and civil engineering.
+DR. UHRIG:
+Why don't I get this to you.
+I think 17 Med has copies or can get you copies.
+I did not include 18 that in the handout but what I would like you to do is to 19 mark it up and say this doesn't make sense for me to be 20'
+'here -- here is where I belong, this type of thing.
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+Let's get that back to Bob this 22 afternoon so he can give us a revised assignment list the 23 first thing in the morning.
+DR. APOSTOLAKIS:
+What is the assignment actually?
+~25 DR. WALLIS:
+For the next roadblock for the l-B
+.O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+' \\_ l Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l
+Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034 l
 L
-1  assignments, so we do things in a congruent, relatively
+1
+assignments, so we do things in a congruent, relatively
 []-
-V 2  congruent way.
+congruent way.
-                          DR. UHRIG:    Well, that is what I would like to                  '
+V 3
-          '4 -have some discussion of now is how do we go about this, how 5  has it been done in the past.
+DR. UHRIG:
-                          Dana, can you elaborate on this?
+Well, that is what I would like to
-                          DR. POWERS:    Well, the way the previous report was 8  structured is that there was a chapter in which the 9  essential points that we wanted to make about the Research-10   program generically were made and then there is Chapter 4, 11   in which we delve into each one of these topics.
+'4
-                           Basically what happened was that straw men were 13   constructed and then people realigned my wheels for me, 14   especially -- and bamboozled me. excessively on heavy section D) g     15   steel -- persuasively argued the need for heavy section 16   steel, but that was done as an interim measure.
+-have some discussion of now is how do we go about this, how 5
-                           The agreement that was struck with the committee 18   in the last, prior to the last report was that for this 19   report the responsible individuals would prepare what they 20   wanted to say on their various topics in a more determined 21   effort and rather than an abbreviated straw man that they                                  r 22   subsequently revised and reconstructed.
+has it been done in the past.
-                           In the end I thought the straw men worked out 24  pretty well.                   I mean I think we got    --
+Dana, can you elaborate on this?
-                           DR. UHRIG:    But there was no systematic going to l
+DR. POWERS:
+Well, the way the previous report was 8
+structured is that there was a chapter in which the 9
+essential points that we wanted to make about the Research-10 program generically were made and then there is Chapter 4, 11 in which we delve into each one of these topics.
+Basically what happened was that straw men were 13 constructed and then people realigned my wheels for me, 14 especially -- and bamboozled me. excessively on heavy section D) g 15 steel -- persuasively argued the need for heavy section 16 steel, but that was done as an interim measure.
+The agreement that was struck with the committee 18 in the last, prior to the last report was that for this 19 report the responsible individuals would prepare what they 20 wanted to say on their various topics in a more determined 21 effort and rather than an abbreviated straw man that they r
+subsequently revised and reconstructed.
+In the end I thought the straw men worked out 24 pretty well.
+I mean I think we got 25 DR. UHRIG:
+But there was no systematic going to l
 l' I
 ;f~/)
-s-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
-Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 i                                             Washington, D.C. 20036 l-                                                 (202) 842-0034
+s-Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 i
+Washington, D.C.
+l-(202) 842-0034
-1   Research and saying I want all the 189s.
+1
-[~h    2               DR. POWERS:    No, well, what we got was all of the q) 3   budget sheets and things like that on that and they were 4   divided up and separated out to the appropriate' people.
+Research and saying I want all the 189s.
-              DR. UHRIG:    Then I've got to get with Research.
+[~h 2
-              DR. POWERS:    Yes. Depending on the nature of the i
+DR. POWERS:
-work, some of the people with responsibilities'in the area         l 8   actually held subcommittee meetings and discussed _the issue.
+No, well, what we got was all of the q) 3 budget sheets and things like that on that and they were 4
-  Some of the subcommittees were already scheduled and they 10   could. It was easy to do that.
+divided up and separated out to the appropriate' people.
-             -In other areas they said, well I am sufficiently 1
+DR. UHRIG:
-  familiar with the thing -- I don't need a subcommittee.
+Then I've got to get with Research.
-Don's been working with advanced instrumentation and               j 14- ~ controls. I think he had informal meetings-but I don't im i
+DR. POWERS:
- '% /
+Yes.
-i 15   think he had -- you felt no need to have a specific
+Depending on the nature of the i
-: 16. subcommittee meeting on that?
+work, some of the people with responsibilities'in the area l
-              DR. MILLER:    No. A couple of us met. I met with 18   the Staff a couple times.
+actually held subcommittee meetings and discussed _the issue.
-              DR. POWERS:    But you had your finger right on 20   that --
+Some of the subcommittees were already scheduled and they 10 could.
-              DR. APOSTOLAKIS:    That's a good example because I 22  understand Research has started several research programs in 23  this area. You are familiar with what is going on and I am 24  not. This is going to be an ACRS report, so how we handle 25  that problem?
+It was easy to do that.
- /]
+-In other areas they said, well I am sufficiently 12 familiar with the thing -- I don't need a subcommittee.
+Don's been working with advanced instrumentation and j
+-
+~ controls.
+I think he had informal meetings-but I don't im i
+i 15 think he had -- you felt no need to have a specific
+'% /
+.
+subcommittee meeting on that?
+DR. MILLER:
+No.
+A couple of us met.
+I met with 18 the Staff a couple times.
+DR. POWERS:
+But you had your finger right on 20 that --
+DR. APOSTOLAKIS:
+That's a good example because I 22 understand Research has started several research programs in 23 this area.
+You are familiar with what is going on and I am 24 not.
+This is going to be an ACRS report, so how we handle 25 that problem?
+/]
+ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
 (,,/
-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
-Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+(202) 842-0034
-l 341 1              CHAIRMAN SEALE:   Well, I think the first thing-is 2  we ought to settle these namas, okay, get the 189s --
+l 341 1
-p           3.            DR. APOSTOLAKIS:    Right.
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
-l 4              CHAIRMAN SEALE:   -- and dole them out according to 5  the topic:and then ask the two people who are identified to i
+Well, I think the first thing-is 2
-review the 189s and come up with a statement about --
+we ought to settle these namas, okay, get the 189s --
-            DR. APOSTOLAKIS:    I think we need a serious L
+p 3.
-  discussion-of how we are going to do it right now. Anything 9  you propose I will accept. I propose we recess and take 10  this up again at 1 o' clock. This is not something to be         .i I
+DR. APOSTOLAKIS:
-L         '11  decided in five minutes.
+Right.
-i 12             CHAIRMAN'SEALE:    There's Planning and Procedures, 13  so --
+l 4
-            DR. APOSTOLAKIS:    This is too important.
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
-(  )    15             DR. MILLER:    Bob, are you going to add the five 16  issues at the bottom?
+-- and dole them out according to 5
-            DR. UHRIG:    Well, some of them we don't need --           I 18  for instance, the generic safety issue resolution.       I think 19  we have addressed that pretty well.
+the topic:and then ask the two people who are identified to i
-          ~20             DR APOSTOLAKIS:     Not yet. Did we?
+review the 189s and come up with a statement about --
-'            DR. UHRIG:    We are in the process of addressing 22  it. It is the committee.
+DR. APOSTOLAKIS:
--            DR. APOSTOLAKIS:    Yes.
+I think we need a serious 8
-          -24             DR. UHRIG:    Materials research and regulation, 25- that is probably going to have to be added.
+discussion-of how we are going to do it right now.
-(~5                        ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+Anything L
-   \                                 Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+you propose I will accept.
+I propose we recess and take this up again at 1 o' clock.
+This is not something to be
+.i 10 I
+L
+'11 decided in five minutes.
+i 12 CHAIRMAN'SEALE:
+There's Planning and Procedures, 13 so --
+DR. APOSTOLAKIS:
+This is too important.
+( )
+DR. MILLER:
+Bob, are you going to add the five 16 issues at the bottom?
+DR. UHRIG:
+Well, some of them we don't need --
+for instance, the generic safety issue resolution.
+I think 19 we have addressed that pretty well.
+~20 DR APOSTOLAKIS:
+Not yet.
+Did we?
+' DR. UHRIG:
+We are in the process of addressing 22 it.
+It is the committee.
+-DR. APOSTOLAKIS:
+Yes.
+-24 DR. UHRIG:
+Materials research and regulation, 25-that is probably going to have to be added.
+(~5 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+\\
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
+:342 1
+Radionuclide transport and behavior --
+,/''%
+DR. POWERS:
+I will tell you exactly why those t! ;d 3
+things were left out, especially materials research and 4
+regulation. We couldn't find out who-owned it.
+DR. FONTANA:
+-- NMSS type stuff and not --
+DR. UHRIG:
+But there are research projects going 7
+on'in that area.
+DR. POWERS:
+Yeah -- they turned out dollar-wise 9
+to be pretty small.
+DR. SHACK:
+One thing we could do is sort of look-11 at the fractions involved here, and my guess is those are 12 down --
+l 13 DR. UHRIG:
+I can go ask them.
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+I think the next thing to do is
+()
+to get the 189s and separate them out according to category 16 so we can get an idea of what the size of these particular 17 things are and decide whether or not we want to assign a 18 trip threshold that says if it is lower than that, let's not 19 beat our brains out on it.
+DR. SHACK:
+I would think the ones that are typed 21 up there cover --
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+Pretty much, yes.
+DR. SHACK:
+-- the-budget.
+DR. UHRIG:
+The question is when, how soon we can 25 get those.
+'M ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+\\_)
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-:342 1            Radionuclide transport and behavior --
+l-343 1:
-t ,/''%  2            DR. POWERS:    I will tell you exactly why those
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:.When can we get the 189s?
-! ;d 3 things were left out, especially materials research and 4 regulation. We couldn't find out who-owned it.
+~s\\
-            DR. FONTANA:    -- NMSS type stuff and not --
+b' 2
-            DR. UHRIG:    But there are research projects going 7 on'in that area.
+MR. MORRIS:
-           DR. POWERS:    Yeah -- they turned out dollar-wise 9 to be pretty small.
+Let's say probably in a couple of 3-weeks.
-           DR. SHACK:    One thing we could do is sort of look-11 at the fractions involved here, and my guess is those are
+DR. SHACK:
-:       12 down --
+Of course everybody is writing the 5
-l 13            DR. UHRIG:    I can go ask them.
+s for the next year now so what you are going to get are 6
-            CHAIRMAN SEALE:     I think the next thing to do is
+last year's 189s in a couple of weeks.
-()    15 to get the 189s and separate them out according to category 16 so we can get an idea of what the size of these particular 17 things are and decide whether or not we want to assign a 18 trip threshold that says if it is lower than that, let's not 19 beat our brains out on it.
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
-            DR. SHACK:    I would think the ones that are typed 21 up there cover --
+Okay.
-            CHAIRMAN SEALE:    Pretty much, yes.
+MR. MORRIS:
-            DR. SHACK:    -- the-budget.
+You should also look at the operating 9
-            DR. UHRIG:    The question is when, how soon we can 25 get those.
+plans.
-  'M                      ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
-  \_)                            Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+Maybe Bob,.you and Mario need to 11 get together with the people in Research and find out when 12
+. we can get the 189s and you might want to go through with
+-13 them and get a rough run-down on the operating plans, and to 14 get an idea of how the allocation here runs.
+()
+_
+I think George's suggestion is a good one.
+We 16 have several things this afternoon including P&P, future
+~17 activities and writing letters but hopefully we can set 18 aside awhile during this afternoon and I think we all need 19 to ruminate on it a bit and let our thoughts mature and get 20 back-to exactly what we ought to be writing up.
+DR. UHRIG:
+Med, ran you get the copies of this 22 list here to the members?
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+The other thing I want to do is 24 make any adjustments to these assignments and let's try to 25 get a recast on that first thing in the morning.
+Sc ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+s./
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-l-                                                                                343 1:                CHAIRMAN SEALE: .When can we get the 189s?
+c 344 1
-    ~s\   2                 MR. MORRIS:     Let's say probably in a couple of b'
+DR. UHRIG:
--  weeks.
+There's nothinglthat says that-you
-                 DR. SHACK:     Of course everybody is writing the 5   189s for the next year now so what you are going to get are 6   last year's 189s in a couple of weeks.
+[' /
-                 CHAIRMAN SEALE:      Okay.
+\\-
-                 MR. MORRIS:     You should also look at the operating 9   plans.
-                 CHAIRMAN SEALE:      Maybe Bob,.you and Mario need to 11   get together with the people in Research and find out when 12  . we can get the 189s and you might want to go through with
+-have to'have two people-on every one of them.
-        -13   them and get a rough run-down on the operating plans, and to 14   get an idea of how the allocation here runs.
+x_
-()    15_                I think George's suggestion is a good one.         We 16   have several things this afternoon including P&P, future
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
-        ~17   activities and writing letters but hopefully we can set 18   aside awhile during this afternoon and I think we all need 19   to ruminate on it a bit and let our thoughts mature and get 20   back-to exactly what we ought to be writing up.
+Well, I think Dana made a pretty 4
-                 DR. UHRIG:     Med, ran you get the copies of this 22   list here to the members?
+eloquent case though for not having too many more.
-                 CHAIRMAN SEALE:      The other thing I want to do is 24   make any adjustments to these assignments and let's try to 25   get a recast on that first thing in the morning.
+DR. UHRIG:
-Sc                         ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+Well,_my point was that one person --
-s./                                 Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+:
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
-         .-     .-     ,     c , . . , .. . ..            ..       _ ..       .-.      . . . . . . -    . . - . . . - - - . - - . . .       .
+Well, he needs somebody to talk 7'
-1                               DR. UHRIG:     There's nothinglthat says that-you
+to'.
-['x_ /\-     2      -have to'have two people-on every one of them.
+DR. UHRIG:
-                              CHAIRMAN SEALE:          Well, I think Dana made a pretty                                      '
+Okay.
-         eloquent case though for not having too many more.                                                                   ;
+That's a good point.
-                              DR. UHRIG:     Well,_my point was that one person --
+i 9
-:                              CHAIRMAN SEALE:          Well, he needs somebody to talk 7'        to'.
+-Go ahead, George.
-l 8                               DR. UHRIG:     Okay.       That's a good point.
+0 DR. APOSTOLAKIS:
-i 9                              -Go ahead, George.                                                                               '
+You said sometime this 11 afternoon.
-0                               DR. APOSTOLAKIS:          You said sometime this 11         afternoon.               We need the Reporter though.                      We'd have to do it                         ;
+We need the Reporter though.
-'        at 1:00 because the rest of the meeting --
+We'd have to do it 12' at 1:00 because the rest of the meeting --
-            .13                                CHAIRMAN SEALE:          That's true.           Do we need a 14         Reporter for this?                I don't think.
+.13 CHAIRMAN SEALE:
-y
+That's true.
-  .x) i          15                                DR. POWERS:     No.
+Do we need a 14 Reporter for this?
-: 16.                               CHAIRMAN SEALE:          Okay, fine. Okay, fine.
+I don't think.
--                               With that, I think I am going to call a recess --
+yi.x) 15 DR. POWERS:
-                               DR. UHRIG:     One last thing, Bob.                   Just looking at 19         the schedule we are talking about a Research meeting and 20         there's some benefit to having it on the 19th.                                      I think 21         th_re is another meeting that day, the subcommittee.
+No.
-                               MR. EL-ZEFTAWY:          There's one on the 19th.
+.
-                               CHAIRMAN SEALE:          Of November?
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
-                               DR. UHRIG:     Of November.          What is the one on the 25         19th?
+Okay, fine. Okay, fine.
+-With that, I think I am going to call a recess --
+DR. UHRIG:
+One last thing, Bob.
+Just looking at 19 the schedule we are talking about a Research meeting and 20 there's some benefit to having it on the 19th.
+I think 21 th_re is another meeting that day, the subcommittee.
+MR. EL-ZEFTAWY:
+There's one on the 19th.
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+Of November?
+DR. UHRIG:
+Of November.
+What is the one on the 25 19th?
+("''
+ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
 i
-("''
+'s Court Reporters
-  's ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+'.025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
-Court Reporters
+(202) 842-0034
-                                         '.025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
-                                            ~
+~
-I 345 1            CHAIRMAN SEALE:       I can't be here.
+I 345 1
-   /~~\   2             MR. EL-ZEFTAWY:       I think there's Thermal
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
-'-V 3  Hydraulics and then there is one on the 20th, which is 4  PRA --
+I can't be here.
-            DR. APOSTOLAKIS:       I don't know what that means 6  because if I have to hold subcommittee meetings on my 7  subjects I would like to look at the whole schedule as an 8  integrated whole.
+/~~\\
-            DR. UHRIG:      Okay. We may have to do this --
+MR. EL-ZEFTAWY:
-l 10             DR. APOSTOLAKIS:       Let's discuss this.
+I think there's Thermal
-            DR. UHRIG:      -- without a subcommittee until early 12  next year, get the draft, first draft, in some form before 13  we really get a subcommittee meeting.
+'-V 3
-            DR. POWERS:      My strong suggestion is that you
+Hydraulics and then there is one on the 20th, which is 4
-:( 3j 15  really develop your ideas and use any kind of meetings that 16  you have, especially meetings with the Research staff, more 17  to confirm those ideas than as a basis for developing them.
+PRA --
-            DR. UHRIG:      Okay.
+DR. APOSTOLAKIS:
-            DR. POWERS:      And I definitely don't think you want 20  to have a concentrated meeting on Research.         I think you 21  want to break that up.
+I don't know what that means 6
-            DR. APOSTOLAKIS:       I never walk into a meeting with 23  preconceived ideas.
+because if I have to hold subcommittee meetings on my 7
-             [ Laughter.]
+subjects I would like to look at the whole schedule as an 8
-            DR. APOSTOLAKIS:       I form them there.
+integrated whole.
-[                        ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+DR. UHRIG:
-; \s],/                             Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+Okay.
+We may have to do this --
+DR. APOSTOLAKIS:
+Let's discuss this.
+DR. UHRIG:
+-- without a subcommittee until early 12 next year, get the draft, first draft, in some form before 13 we really get a subcommittee meeting.
+DR. POWERS:
+My strong suggestion is that you
+:( 3j 15 really develop your ideas and use any kind of meetings that 16 you have, especially meetings with the Research staff, more 17 to confirm those ideas than as a basis for developing them.
+DR. UHRIG:
+Okay.
+DR. POWERS:
+And I definitely don't think you want 20 to have a concentrated meeting on Research.
+I think you 21 want to break that up.
+DR. APOSTOLAKIS:
+I never walk into a meeting with 23 preconceived ideas.
+[ Laughter.]
+DR. APOSTOLAKIS:
+I form them there.
+; \\s],/
+[
+ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
+(202) 842-0034
-        ..-         . ... . -         -   - . .     . - .       . . . . . - - ~ . ~ . _ . _ _ . . . ~ . . -                   - , . . - . ~
+..... - - ~. ~. _. _ _... ~.. -
+-,.. -. ~
 l.
-1                   CHAIRMAN SEALE:                    With that kind'of -- before we
+1
-      ./~h                .2     'get.away, someone --
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
-     .>G i
+With that kind'of -- before we
-                   DR. UHRIG:             I.think it's mine; l :-
+./~h
-:                  CHAIRMAN SEALE:                    It's yours?
+.2
-!                         e5                      DR. UHRIG:             I am missing a card.
+'get.away, someone --
--                  CHAIRMAN'SEALE:                    Okay, that's'yours. Okay.      We 7'   willLget together again at 1 o' clock and.we.can dispense-8    with the record-now.
+.>G 3
-                          '9                      We will see you tomorrow morning.
+DR. UHRIG:
-                       [Whereupon, at 12:04 p.m, the meeting was 11      ' recessed, to reconvene at 8:30 a.m.,fFriday,' October 2, 12        1998.]
+I.think it's mine; i
+l :-
+:
+CHAIRMAN SEALE:
+It's yours?
+e5 DR. UHRIG:
+I am missing a card.
+-CHAIRMAN'SEALE:
+Okay, that's'yours.
+Okay.
+We 7'
+willLget together again at 1 o' clock and.we.can dispense-8 with the record-now.
+'9 We will see you tomorrow morning.
+[Whereupon, at 12:04 p.m, the meeting was 11
+' recessed, to reconvene at 8:30 a.m.,fFriday,' October 2, 12 1998.]
 14.
-16 17 18 19-20-21                                                                                                                 1 22-23 24 25                                                                                                                 ,
+16 17 18 19-20-21 1
-i l'
+-23 24 25 i
-L                 .
+l' L
-IO
+IO ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
-;                                                        ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
+L 7s /
-L 7s /                                                             Court Reporters
+Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
-!                                               1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
+(202) 842-0034
-      .-         . - . -.    -      ~.-        - ~-              -  .       . . . - . - - . -
+~.-
+- ~-
 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE This is-'to certify that the attached proceedings
-  .V/]      before the United States Nuclear Regulatory.Commis~sion in                                r
+. /]
-           -the. matter of:
+before the United States Nuclear Regulatory.Commis~sion in r
-NAME'OF PROCEEDING:           ~ MEETING:     456TH ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS CASE NUMBER:
+V
-PLACE OF PROCEEDING:          Rockville, MD were held as herein appears, and that this is the original
+-the. matter of:
-         ;  transcript thereofLfor the file of the United States. Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and-thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the fortgoing proceedings.
+NAME'OF PROCEEDING:
-Gd y T6               v Cindy Th6 mas Official Reporter Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
+~ MEETING:
-  './~h
+TH ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS CASE NUMBER:
-()
+PLACE OF PROCEEDING:
+Rockville, MD were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereofLfor the file of the United States. Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and-thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the fortgoing proceedings.
+Gd T6 y
+v Cindy Th6 mas Official Reporter Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
+' ~h
+./()
 fy 1.
-( "L , . .
+( "L,..
 l' v -
-AGENDA FOR REPORTS TO CONGRESSION AND COMMISSION Q~   Thursday, October 1,1998, 10:15 to Noon.
+Q ~
-           . Note: Time allocations are only estimates of what the individuals might want.
+AGENDA FOR REPORTS TO CONGRESSION AND COMMISSION Thursday, October 1,1998, 10:15 to Noon.
-AGENDA' 10 min             _ Opening remarks by Subcommittee Chairman (Robert E. Uhrig)
+. Note: Time allocations are only estimates of what the individuals might want.
+AGENDA' 10 min
+_ Opening remarks by Subcommittee Chairman (Robert E. Uhrig)
 BACKGROUND
-           - 10 min             Report on Commission Briefing by NRC Staff, "Research: A Imok to the Future" August 6,1998 Memo,(Medhat El-Zefatwy) 20 mm               " Lessons Learned from the Research Review Report" June 27,1998
+- 10 min Report on Commission Briefing by NRC Staff, "Research: A Imok to the Future" August 6,1998 Memo,(Medhat El-Zefatwy) 20 mm
-                               . Memo to ACRS Members,(Dana Powers)
+" Lessons Learned from the Research Review Report" June 27,1998
-DISCUSSION REGARDING 1999 REPORTS (Comments received via e-mail by REU)                      ;
+. Memo to ACRS Members,(Dana Powers)
-' min             Mario Fontana (Comments received via e-mail to REU) 10 min              Graham Wallis (Comments received via e-mail to REU) 40 min               General Discussion by ACRS Members ASSIGNMENT OF ACRS MEMBERS TO REVIEW SPECIFIC AREAS OF RESEARCH PROGRAM 5 min (Robert Uhrig)
+DISCUSSION REGARDING 1999 REPORTS (Comments received via e-mail by REU) 10' min Mario Fontana (Comments received via e-mail to REU) 10 min Graham Wallis (Comments received via e-mail to REU) 40 min General Discussion by ACRS Members ASSIGNMENT OF ACRS MEMBERS TO REVIEW SPECIFIC AREAS OF RESEARCH PROGRAM 5 min (Robert Uhrig)
-ADJOURNMENT ~(for an early lunch) 0;
+ADJOURNMENT ~(for an early lunch) 0; e
+n w.y..
+e
-l APPROACH FOR 1999 REPORT TO CONGRESS O
+APPROACH FOR 1999 REPORT TO CONGRESS O
 This is the last Report to Congress (Two views Last change to impress congress!
 Why bother?
@@ Line 2,711: / Line 5,456: @@
 it may be appropriate to include the 1997 Report to the Commission (with ceferences to specific messages in the text).
 O Length may be as short as 3-5 pages.
-Schedule could be accelerated. (1997 Commission's Report would not seem out of date.)                                                     !
+Schedule could be accelerated. (1997 Commission's Report would not seem out of date.)
 O
-i O                                         O                                    O                '
+O O
-REVIEW OF THE NRC SAFETY RESEARCH PROGRAM AND REPORT TO CONGRESS                                 !
+O i
-   . Identification ofissues for 1999 Report      October 1998 e Subcommittee meeting                         November 1998 e Initial Draft of 1999 Report to Congress ,
+REVIEW OF THE NRC SAFETY RESEARCH PROGRAM AND REPORT TO CONGRESS
-November 1998
+. Identification ofissues for 1999 Report October 1998 e Subcommittee meeting November 1998 e Initial Draft of 1999 Report to Congress November 1998
-   = Revised draft of the 1999 Report to Congress December 1998 e Feedback from the Commission                 January 1999
+= Revised draft of the 1999 Report to Congress December 1998 l
-   = Final 1999 Report to Congress                February 1999
+e Feedback from the Commission January 1999
+= Final 1999 Report to Congress February 1999 f
 CONCLUSIONS OF 1998 ACRS REPORT TO U.S. CONGRESS Severe budget reductions are causing substantial deterioration of the internationally respected capability of USNRC to conduct a forward-looking, effective safety research program.
@@ Line 2,725: / Line 5,471: @@
 These changes may have safety implications that must be addressed by the Commission.
 Research is needed to ensure that the agency effectively addresses these changes.
-The deterioration in research capabilities is also inhibiting the Q                   ability of the Commission to continue the evolution of nuclear reactor regulation to a risk-informed, performance-based structure.
+The deterioration in research capabilities is also inhibiting the Q
+ability of the Commission to continue the evolution of nuclear reactor regulation to a risk-informed, performance-based structure.
 The Commission's core capability in nuclear waste research has been dramatically reduced.
-;                           Further reductions could inhibit the Commission staff's
+Further reductions could inhibit the Commission staff's effectiveness and timeliness in conducting reviews of the nuclear waste repository program and cause delays and additional expenditure or National resources.
-;                          effectiveness and timeliness in conducting reviews of the nuclear waste repository program and cause delays and additional expenditure or National resources.
+i O I
-i
+y
-I O
+.r r
-y          -                                           -         -
-O                                      O                                     O REVIEW OF THE NRC SAFETY RESEARCH PROGRAM AND REPORT TO NRC                               !
+O O
-e Proposed Format and Content of the 1999 Report           September 1998 i
+O REVIEW OF THE NRC SAFETY RESEARCH PROGRAM AND REPORT TO NRC e Proposed Format and Content of the 1999 Report September 1998 i
-e Assignment of Responsibilities                          October 1998
+e Assignment of Responsibilities October 1998 l
-      . Input to the draft of the Report                        December 1998
+. Input to the draft of the Report December 1998
-* Draft 1 of the Report                                   February 1998 e  Subcommittee Meeting                                   February 1999 t
+* Draft 1 of the Report February 1998 j
-;
+Subcommittee Meeting February 1999
-* Draft 2 of the Report                                   March 1999
+{
-* Proposed Final Report                   .
+e t
-April 1999 e Final Report on 1999 Program                            May 1999
+* Draft 2 of the Report March 1999 l
-____-_____________________-__-___-______N
+* Proposed Final Report April 1999 i
+e Final Report on 1999 Program May 1999 i
+i i
+N
-A  ,
+A O
-O                                              O                                   O        i EXECUTIVE
+O O
+i EXECUTIVE
 ==SUMMARY==
 i i
-The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) review of the NRC Safety Research Program is presented in this report. This review was undden at the reqd o Commission. In the Staff Requim..s.ts Memorandum (SRM) dated September 9,1997,                 j Commission requested that the ACRS:
+The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) review of the NRC Safety l
-: 1. Examine the need, scope, and balance of the Reactor Safety Research Program.
+Research Program is presented in this report. This review was undden at the reqd o l
-i
+Commission. In the Staff Requim..s.ts Memorandum (SRM) dated September 9,1997, j
-: 2. Examine how the Office of Research is positioned for the changing enviromnent.
+Commission requested that the ACRS:
-i
+l 1.
-: 3. Examine how well the Office of Research anticipates ind d-i
+Examine the need, scope, and balance of the Reactor Safety Research Program.
-: 4. Take on active role in reviewing ongoing Research Program initiatives, such as h discussed in SECY-97-075 and in SECY-97-167.
+j i
-: 5. Recommend whether the Nuclear Safety Research Review CMm (NSRRC) function is still needed.
+.
+Examine how the Office of Research is positioned for the changing enviromnent.
+j i
+.
+Examine how well the Office of Research anticipates ind d-f i
+.
+Take on active role in reviewing ongoing Research Program initiatives, such as h j
+discussed in SECY-97-075 and in SECY-97-167.
+Recommend whether the Nuclear Safety Research Review CMm (NSRRC) function j
+.
+is still needed.
 i t
-O                                               o                       .
+O o
-O     ,
+O A.
-A. The Charge to the ACRS                                                                                                                    '
+The Charge to the ACRS i
-i
+k Examine the need, scope, and balance of the Reactor Safety Research Program j
-: 1. Examine the need, scope, and balance of the Reactor Safety Research Program                                                                                         s The d-s eto the ACRS to examine the Rwdi Program in terms ofneed, scope, and balance requires some interpretation. The ACRS has interpreted the term "need" to mean that the Pres i-ilshould:
+.
-* support current Commission initiatives,                   -
+s The d-s to the ACRS to examine the Rwdi Program in terms ofneed, scope, and balance requires some interpretation. The ACRS has interpreted the term "need" to mean that the
-* provide the technical basis for future, anticipated regulatory actions, and                                                                                        .
+~
+e Pre i-ilshould:
+s i
+* support current Commission initiatives, p
+* provide the technical basis for future, anticipated regulatory actions, and l
 * maintain essential technical capabilities that can reasonably be anticipated as being u for future regulatory activities.
+l f
+i 3
-          .m.      .
-  .        2. Examine how the Offlee cf Research is positioned f r the ch=ging environment
+.m.
-  'O.
+.
-To understand how the Office of Research is positioned for the +=neine environment, it was necessary for the ACRS io specify ror itseirthe changes in the environment that couid reasonasix be WM to affect the NRC in general and the Research Program in particular. The ACRS believes that the public expectation for ever greater psi-:-2 by its public institutions is an ongoing trend that has for several years had an effect on all regulatory agencies including the NRC. In addition, ACRS feels changes are occurring that are likely to affect the NRC and the regulation of nuclearpower. Among these changes are:
+Examine how the Offlee cf Research is positioned f r the ch=ging environment
-* economic deregulation of electrical energy production requiring higher productivity from
+'O To understand how the Office of Research is positioned for the +=neine environment, it was necessary for the ACRS io specify ror itseirthe changes in the environment that couid reasonasix be WM to affect the NRC in general and the Research Program in particular. The ACRS believes that the public expectation for ever greater psi-:-2 by its public institutions is an ongoing trend that has for several years had an effect on all regulatory agencies including the NRC. In addition, ACRS feels changes are occurring that are likely to affect the NRC and the regulation of nuclearpower. Among these changes are:
-.                   existing nuclearpower plants, i
+* economic deregulation of electrical energy production requiring higher productivity from existing nuclearpower plants, i
 * aging of the existing fleet of nuclear power plants,
 * premature retirement of nuclear facilities prior to expiration of their licenses,
-* renewal of some nuclear power plant licenses, 7
+* renewal of some nuclear power plant licenses,
-* maturation of probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) technologies, 1
+* maturation of probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) technologies, 7
-,
-* Congressional actions to mandate performance-based regulation and more rational regulation O            in icans of reaiistic measures of risk.
+* Congressional actions to mandate performance-based regulation and more rational regulation
+, O in icans of reaiistic measures of risk.
-* continued improvements in the-average performance oflicensees, 4
+* continued improvements in the-average performance oflicensees, 3
 * continued efforts by the nuclear industry to develop consensus standards and uniform approaches to the safe operation of nuclear power plants,
-;
 * continued efforts by the nuclear industry, including the cost of regulation,
-,
 * emergence of new technologies such as digital electronics and software that could replace and improve upon technologies available at the time plants were designed and constructed,
-;
+* continued pressure exerted by the Commission on the NRC staff to incorporate risk considerations into the regulatory process where it is supported by the current state of the art in PRA and to consider performance-based measures where practical, a more opportunities for the Commission to endorse consensus industrial standards as encouraged by Public Law 104-) l3 [6] in place ofregulations and guidance developed by O
-* continued pressure exerted by the Commission on the NRC staff to incorporate risk considerations into the regulatory process where it is supported by the current state of the art in PRA and to consider performance-based measures where practical,
-!                a more opportunities for the Commission to endorse consensus industrial standards as
-;                   encouraged by Public Law 104-) l3 [6] in place ofregulations and guidance developed by O
-!
 * declining NRC resources for inspecting and monitoring licensee activities.
-                                                                                                                  .j 3.OLamiro how w;11 th2 Office cf Research anticipates    O                                              O research teeds The ACRS interpreted the charge to " examine how well the Office of Research anticipates research needs" to include anticipation of future needs and anticipation of current needs of the line organizations for research support in the execution of ongoing agency initiatives and Staff Action Plans. The Staff Action Plans currently being pursued by the NRC staff that might benefit from research support are listed in Table I-1. Generic communications and compliance issues that are being handled by the NRC staffand that might require research support are listed in Table I-2.
+.j 3.O O
-: 4.                                                                                                     I l         Take an active role in reviewing ongoing Research Program initiatives such as those                        j disenssed la SECY-97-075 and in SECY-97-167                                                                i The initiatives ofthe Research Fivs-o discussed in SECY-97-075 [8] are to define areas of core comi Lcy. The 39 candidate areas of core competency identified by the RES staff are listed in Table I-3. The ACRS inwrd this charge to participate in the definition ofcore swp ^-wes                         j to be an ongoing task and chose to not explicitly address this charge in this report. Rather, the ACRS             ;
+O Lamiro how w;11 th2 Office cf Research anticipates research teeds The ACRS interpreted the charge to " examine how well the Office of Research anticipates research needs" to include anticipation of future needs and anticipation of current needs of the line l
-will report its activities and reviews ofis d program initiatives in later communications to the                   i Commission, once the RES staff has had.the opportunity to refine its ideas and appr-W The' initiatives in SECY-97-167 [9] deal with the movement of the responsibility for developing rules and regulations from RES to the line orBanizations. The ACRS views this as an intemal management                   j issue and will adopt a performance-based strategy for reviewing these char a                                       j
+organizations for research support in the execution of ongoing agency initiatives and Staff Action l
-                                 .                                                                                   i
+Plans. The Staff Action Plans currently being pursued by the NRC staff that might benefit from l
-: 5. Recomumend whether the NSRRC function is stiH meeded i
+research support are listed in Table I-1. Generic communications and compliance issues that are j
-The ACRS has interpreted the question conceming the need for the NSRRC function to encompass the need for the function as it was performed in the past, the need for the function as                  [
+being handled by the NRC staffand that might require research support are listed in Table I-2.
-conceived when the NSRRC was originally recommended to the NRC, and the ACRS view of the                           i need of an analogous function at the r s..i  time.
+I l
-l I
+.
+Take an active role in reviewing ongoing Research Program initiatives such as those j
+disenssed la SECY-97-075 and in SECY-97-167 i
+The initiatives ofthe Research Fivs-o discussed in SECY-97-075 [8] are to define areas of l
+core comi Lcy. The 39 candidate areas of core competency identified by the RES staff are listed l
+in Table I-3. The ACRS inw d this charge to participate in the definition ofcore swp ^-wes j
+r to be an ongoing task and chose to not explicitly address this charge in this report. Rather, the ACRS will report its activities and reviews ofis d program initiatives in later communications to the i
+Commission, once the RES staff has had.the opportunity to refine its ideas and appr-W The' initiatives in SECY-97-167 [9] deal with the movement of the responsibility for developing rules l
+and regulations from RES to the line orBanizations. The ACRS views this as an intemal management j
+issue and will adopt a performance-based strategy for reviewing these char a j
+i 5.
+Recomumend whether the NSRRC function is stiH meeded i
+The ACRS has interpreted the question conceming the need for the NSRRC function to
+{
+encompass the need for the function as it was performed in the past, the need for the function as
+[
+conceived when the NSRRC was originally recommended to the NRC, and the ACRS view of the i
+need of an analogous function at the s..i time.
+f r
+l l
+I
-      . AdditionalRegdressents                           O                                              O            !
+O O
-Questions concerning the Research Program posed orally by the Commissioners have been interpreted as additional rys-.6 for the ACRS review of the Research Prospm. h                                       ;
+AdditionalRegdressents Questions concerning the Research Program posed orally by the Commissioners have been interpreted as additional rys-.6 for the ACRS review of the Research Prospm. h Comminioners have asked the ACRS to address-
-Comminioners have asked the ACRS to address-
+* the program.mic issues of research at the NRC, t
-* the program .mic issues of research at the NRC,                                                            t suitable criteria for terminating research programs, the rationale for the high priority for participating in international cooperative research programs,                                                                                                 !
+suitable criteria for terminating research programs, l
-i
+t the rationale for the high priority for participating in international cooperative research
-* the staffplans for using information gained from the individual plant examinations (IPEs) and individual plant examination ofexternal events (IPEEEs),
+: programs, i
+* the staffplans for using information gained from the individual plant examinations (IPEs) and l
+individual plant examination ofexternal events (IPEEEs),
 * methode for pi;c,i;tirlig research activities,
-,
 * risk-informed applications ofresearch results,
-* plant aging research program, environmentally assisted cracking and steam generator tube integrity,
+* plant aging research program, environmentally assisted cracking and steam generator tube integrity, t
-* safety issues ofh;cel compan=te, and             .
+* safety issues ofh;cel compan=te, and
-                                                                  ~
+~
-* research w.is in connection with piping integrity.                    .
+I
+* research w.is in connection with piping integrity.
+I I
+f
-O                                                           O                                                                                                                                                                  O
+O O
-                                                                                                                                                   ~
+~
-B      . Directions to the NRC Research Pfogram Directions to the NRC Research Fivy i. have been provided by the Commission [10] and are -                                                                                                                                              j i
+O B
-      . listed in the documentation for Direction Setting Issue 22 (11]. These dirwim are listed also in the Strategic Plan for the NRC [12]. The ACRS has identified three top-level functions for the Research Prey-ii from these sources:
+. Directions to the NRC Research Pfogram Directions to the NRC Research Fivy i. have been provided by the Commission [10] and are -
+j i
+. listed in the documentation for Direction Setting Issue 22 (11]. These dirwim are listed also in the Strategic Plan for the NRC [12]. The ACRS has identified three top-level functions for the Research Prey-ii from these sources:
 l 1
-Function 1:                                                                                                                           -
+Function 1:
 Provide the technical bases for regulatory activities of the NRC line organizations 'and for the -
-policy initiatives of the Commission.
+I policy initiatives of the Commission.
-Function 2:                                                                                                                                                                                                                              ,
+l Function 2:
-l Conduct anticipatory research to enable tlie Commission and line ergeraions to address issues that are anticipated to arise.                                                                                                                                                                                                    !
+l Conduct anticipatory research to enable tlie Commission and line ergeraions to address issues that are anticipated to arise.
-Fametion 3:                                                                                                                                                                                                                              t i
+Fametion 3:
-s Maintain technical capabilities w.w.y for the Commission and line organizations to address issues that arise in the future.             ..
+t i
-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       /
+s Maintain technical capabilities w.w.y for the Commission and line organizations to address issues that arise in the future.
-i The ACRS has been able to identify one top-level, quantifiable requirement for the NRC Research Pivy.co:                                 '
+/~
+i The ACRS has been able to identify one top-level, quantifiable requirement for the NRC l
+Research Pivy.co:
 T:p belReaguireasent:
-             'Ihe Research Fivy-u should focus on the issues ofmost risk and regulatory significance.
+'Ihe Research Fivy-u should focus on the issues ofmost risk and regulatory significance.
-In addition to the obvious constraints of bu!qetary and manpower allocations,- the Rwa Pi6p-u is also subject to the unquantified constraint that it provide the m support to the line organizations.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ;
+D In addition to the obvious constraints of bu!qetary and manpower allocations,- the Rwa Pi6p-u is also subject to the unquantified constraint that it provide the m support to the line organizations.
 i
-O                                                                    O                        o-         3 i
+O O
-_t C. ACRS Review ofResearch Activities                                                            k i     i i
+o-3 i
-To conduct its review of the NRC research activities, the ACRS Subconunittee on Safdy
+_t C.
-     <         Research Fivap== met with representatives of RES, NRR, and AEOD on Novernber 4-5,1997 [14
+ACRS Review ofResearch Activities k
-     '_ At this ms^ Jug, presentations were made by sepasives of the Electric Power RM Institute and the Nuclear Energy Institute on industry-sponsored and managed research pmgnuns. h                      ;
+i i
-objective of this Subconunittee ms^J ug was to collect data and develop draft positions for review
+i To conduct its review of the NRC research activities, the ACRS Subconunittee on Safdy Research Fivap== met with representatives of RES, NRR, and AEOD on Novernber 4-5,1997 [14f
-{ by the ACRS. At the time ofthe rsJ.g the NRC Research Program had.just W dtid
+'_ At this ms^ Jug, presentations were made by sepasives of the Electric Power RM Institute and the Nuclear Energy Institute on industry-sponsored and managed research pmgnuns. h objective of this Subconunittee ms^ ug was to collect data and develop draft positions for review i
-        .      budgetisJ./Jo s andwasexperiencingsomereorganization. Theiqs .u..aoftheGewin                                ;
+J
-        ;      Perfonnance and Results Act had only recently been imposed on the Research Program.
+{
-         ! . Consequently, most of the plans for research were not firmly established.
+by the ACRS. At the time ofthe rsJ.g the NRC Research Program had.just W dtid budgetisJ./Jo s andwasexperiencingsomereorganization. Theiqs.u..aoftheGewin Perfonnance and Results Act had only recently been imposed on the Research Program.
 j
-                   ' The ACRS met with representatives of RES on March 5-7,1998 to discuss the Research Program in detail [15]. Several of the topical Subcommittees of the ACRS met with the RES sd            ;
+!. Consequently, most of the plans for research were not firmly established.
-to discuss aspects of the overall Research Program
+l, i
-                                  .                                                  s
+' The ACRS met with representatives of RES on March 5-7,1998 to discuss the Research j
-                                                                *a I
+Program in detail [15]. Several of the topical Subcommittees of the ACRS met with the RES sd to discuss aspects of the overall Research Program l
-                                                                                   . i-
+s
+*a I
+i-l
-l              0                                               0                                                                                             O
+l 0
-    -h
+O
-,j              D. ACNW Review of Waste Management Research Activities The Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) voluutm.a to assist the ACRS by                                                                !,
+l
-       ,        reviewing muh activities under way at the NRC in the area of waste management. The ACNW                                                              q l         reviewed work on waste management being managed by RES and NMSS, as well as work by the l         Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses (CNWRA), a federal!y funded research end j        development center that pmvides ir '-cperd;at technical assistance to the NRC. 'Ibe ACNW elected                                                      p
+- h
-.!             to examine technical ===itance work by CNWRA in connection with the Yucca Mountain high-level                                                           i i.
+,j D.
-waste disposal project in addition to basic research work sponsored by the NRC.                                                                      ?l i
+ACNW Review of Waste Management Research Activities j
-i              The ACNW met with RES staffon Guicher 22,1997 [16] and on April 21,1998 [17] to die ==                                                           i
+The Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) voluutm.a to assist the ACRS by j
-{'
+reviewing muh activities under way at the NRC in the area of waste management. The ACNW q
-the RES m on radionuclide horsport and decommissioning. The ACNW also had Presentations on waste management research by representatives of the Electric Power Research l       Institute and the Environmental Waste Management Program of the Department ofEnergy on March                                                         i
+l reviewed work on waste management being managed by RES and NMSS, as well as work by the l
-        ;      24,1998 [18].                                                                                                                                        l i
+l Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses (CNWRA), a federal!y funded research end j
+development center that pmvides ir '-cperd;at technical assistance to the NRC. 'Ibe ACNW elected p
+j to examine technical===itance work by CNWRA in connection with the Yucca Mountain high-level i
+waste disposal project in addition to basic research work sponsored by the NRC.
+?l i.
+i i
+The ACNW met with RES staffon Guicher 22,1997 [16] and on April 21,1998 [17] to die==
+i
+{
+the RES m on radionuclide horsport and decommissioning. The ACNW also had Presentations on waste management research by representatives of the Electric Power Research l
+Institute and the Environmental Waste Management Program of the Department ofEnergy on March i
+j 24,1998 [18].
+l i
 a 8
-l                                                        .
+l
+(
-O                                        O                                                                                                                                                                        O CONCLUSIONS FROM 1998 NUCLEAR SAFETY REPORT TO NRC Recommendation:
+O O
-The NRC should adopt a systematic fi ..cs.sik for the design and engineering ofits Research Prey r. that enforces a close tie between research activities and agency needs, === the value of the resuhs to be achieved by the sud, defines the requirements of the research, speciSes the functions of the is& activities, and de6nes the urgency ofthe results.
+O CONCLUSIONS FROM 1998 NUCLEAR SAFETY REPORT TO NRC Recommendation:
+t The NRC should adopt a systematic fi..cs.sik for the design and engineering ofits Research Prey r. that enforces a close tie between research activities and agency l
+needs,=== the value of the resuhs to be achieved by the sud, defines the requirements of the research, speciSes the functions of the is& activities, and j
+de6nes the urgency ofthe results.
+j Recommendation:
+TheNRC needs to adopt a r.ctice of scrutable :;omparison of alternatives in f
+addressing technical issues that require innovation in Selds that are not well established.
 Recommendation:
-TheNRC needs to adopt a r.ctice of scrutable :;omparison of alternatives in
+i l
-,        addressing technical issues that require innovation in Selds that are not well established.                                                                                                                                                                                                      ,
+The NRC should devise a process for id airyir.g and pfe:C g is& needs that l
-Recommendation:
+encompasses considerations oflong:. term benefits as weH as short-term user needs.
-The NRC should devise a process for id airyir.g and pfe:C g is& needs that encompasses considerations oflong:. term benefits as weH as short-term user needs.
+The user-need process itselfshould be revised so that it better wr-~as the full range l
-The user-need process itselfshould be revised so that it better wr-~as the full range ofresearch needed by line organizations. i Recommendation:
+ofresearch needed by line organizations. i l
-The NRC needs to develop its in-house risk assessment capability to the extent that it can be readily used throughout the agency. The in-house capability can be used to assess raates and to improve the planning ofresearch.
+t Recommendation:
-[,
+l The NRC needs to develop its in-house risk assessment capability to the extent that it
+[
+can be readily used throughout the agency. The in-house capability can be used to assess raates and to improve the planning ofresearch.
+[
+[
 t
-O                                                 o                                          O CONCLUSIONS FROM 1998 NUCLEAR SAFETY REPORT TO NRC i
+O o
+O l
+CONCLUSIONS FROM 1998 NUCLEAR SAFETY REPORT TO NRC i
 i Recommendation:
-The development ofPRA methods should be better supported by the activities of AEOD with the aim ofvalidating and improving PRA .TJeds and results.
+The development ofPRA methods should be better supported by the activities of AEOD with the aim ofvalidating and improving PRA.TJeds and results.
-Recommendation:                                                                           '
+Recommendation:
-NMSS should continue to use results from total systems performance assessment to     ,
+NMSS should continue to use results from total systems performance assessment to guide the technical work contracted to the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory i
-guide the technical work contracted to the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory       i
+)-
-                              )-
+Recommendation:
-Recommendation:                                                                            1 A formal organizational structure that identifies and prisih research needs and        j subjects these needs to peer review should be put in place to ensure close coordii and coBaboration between the dc.@s ofim 4 results and the users of those               i results.                                                                               ;
+A formal organizational structure that identifies and prisih research needs and j
-                                                       ..                                         t Recommendation:
+subjects these needs to peer review should be put in place to ensure close coordii and coBaboration between the dc.@s ofim 4 results and the users of thosei results.
-The NRC no longer needs most of the functions of the NSRRC. The Comrrussion             j does need a Rsd Program and needs to ensure that this Pr%.ir, cm. fess to the NRC philosophy of research and to directions given to the Program by the                '
+t Recommendation:
-Commission.
+The NRC no longer needs most of the functions of the NSRRC. The Comrrussion j
+does need a Rsd Program and needs to ensure that this Pr%.ir, cm. fess to the l
+NRC philosophy of research and to directions given to the Program by the
+'3 Commission.
 l l
-i
+l i
-Table A-1. Activities and Projects in the Reactor and Plant Performance Program Activity                                         Projects Thermal Hydraulics /
+Table A-1. Activities and Projects in the Reactor and Plant Performance Program Activity Projects Thermal Hydraulics /
-Reactor Physics Boron Mixing Experiments Analysis ofReactivity Transients Integral Test Facility Calculations with RELAP5 Reactor Safety Data Bank Maintenance ofTRAC-BWR PUMA Integral Test Facility OSUIntegral Test Facility RELAP' M:..urr mee 1hermal r.yaraulics Research Rod Bundle Heat Transfer TRAC-P maintenance and consolidation Two phase flow and heat tran,=fer for CFD Development ofmodels for CFD code ActMty -                                           Project Fuel Behavior Code Development for High Burnup Fuel Cladding Metallurgy for High Bumup Fuel Fuel tests at the IGRin Russia Support for the Halden FuelProgram Support for a water loop in the CABRI reactor in France O            NUREG-1635                                           66
+Reactor Physics Boron Mixing Experiments Analysis ofReactivity Transients Integral Test Facility Calculations with RELAP5 Reactor Safety Data Bank Maintenance ofTRAC-BWR PUMA Integral Test Facility OSUIntegral Test Facility RELAP' M:..urr mee 1hermal r.yaraulics Research Rod Bundle Heat Transfer TRAC-P maintenance and consolidation Two phase flow and heat tran,=fer for CFD Development ofmodels for CFD code ActMty -
+Project Fuel Behavior Code Development for High Burnup Fuel Cladding Metallurgy for High Bumup Fuel Fuel tests at the IGRin Russia Support for the Halden FuelProgram Support for a water loop in the CABRI reactor in France O
+NUREG-1635 66
-l Q                      Activity                                                              Project                                    :
+Q Activity Project Advanced lastrumentation and Control Membership in the OECD Halden Project Provide line organizations with regulatory guidance related to qualifications ofinstrumentation and control systems with regard to lightning, smoke, EMI/RFI, thennal loads, camera flash, and relay arcing Structured review guidance for requirements of software-based digital safety systems Provide the technical basis and review guidance for use by line organizations in the evaluation of the effectiveness ofhuman-system interfaces at computer-based control stations; revise NUREG-0700 Effects of smoke on electronic components Development ofguidance to assess " commercial off-the-shelf" O
-Advanced lastrumentation and Control Membership in the OECD Halden Project Provide line organizations with regulatory guidance related to qualifications ofinstrumentation and control systems with regard to lightning, smoke, EMI/RFI, thennal loads, camera flash, and relay arcing Structured review guidance for requirements of software-based digital safety systems
+(cots)hra-r aa Development of technical bases for review guidance on emerging issues and technologies Develop measures of software system reliability and methods formodeling digital systemsin PRAs H
-'                                                                       Provide the technical basis and review guidance for use by line organizations in the evaluation of the effectiveness ofhuman-system interfaces at computer-based control stations; revise NUREG-0700 Effects of smoke on electronic components Development ofguidance to assess " commercial off-the-shelf" O                                                           -
-(cots)hra- r aa >*- -                -
-Development of technical bases for review guidance on emerging issues and technologies Develop measures of software system reliability and methods formodeling digital systemsin PRAs H
 Provide line organizations with the technical bases and review l
-guidance for assessing the quality of software used in nuclear          ~
+guidance for assessing the quality of software used in nuclear
+~
 power plant systems including development of tools for i
 assessing software; Integrated digital system safety assessment.
 O 4
-W i
+W
-O
+: O i
-'t 67                                         NUREG-1635
+NUREG-1635
-                                                                                      ._        r
+'t r
- )
+)
--1 i    ,
+-1 i
-i I
+i O
-O                                               ^ *'vi'r                                             reaie*
+^ *'vi'r reaie*
-Haman Factors and i                             Organizational
+I Haman Factors and i
-:                             Performance Root cause investigation improvements l
+Organizational Performance l
-.!                                                                              Management and organizational factors in plant performance j                                                                               annaamments j                                                      Activity                                             Project l                              IPE/IPEEE Reviews i
+Root cause investigation improvements Management and organizational factors in plant performance j
-!        .                                                                      IPEEE submittal review for external hazards IPEEE insights l
+annaamments j
-l                                                                               Screening reviews ofinternal fires Screening reviews of seismic hazards f
+Activity Project l
-i r ie
+IPE/IPEEE Reviews i
-* iO i                               Severe Accident Risk
+IPEEE submittal review for external hazards l
-                                                       ^ *' ''r               -
+IPEEE insights l
-l                                                                               SCDAP maintenance and assessment j                                                                               OECD RASPLAV
+Screening reviews ofinternal fires f
-}                                                                                MELCOR code development VICTORIA validation
+Screening reviews of seismic hazards iiO
-!                                                                                FARO molten fuel coolant interactions
+^ *' ''r r ie
-;                                                                                Lower head failure experiments l                                                                                CONTAIN Code Assessment           ,
+* i Severe Accident Risk l
-IFCI Maintenance and assessment Direct containment heating issue resolution I                                                                                Implementation of revised source terms for LWRs
+SCDAP maintenance and assessment j
-}O j                            NUREG-1635                                                          68 4
+OECD RASPLAV
+}
+MELCOR code development VICTORIA validation FARO molten fuel coolant interactions Lower head failure experiments l
+CONTAIN Code Assessment IFCI Maintenance and assessment Direct containment heating issue resolution I
+Implementation of revised source terms for LWRs
+}O j
+NUREG-1635 68 4
 m
-6
-    ; (]         Activity                                     Project                           l Reactor Probabilistic                                                                  l Risk Assessment SAPHIRE code maintenance Tech. Support in risk assessment MACCS maintenance Application of risk insights in regulatory activities i
+; (]
+Activity Project Reactor Probabilistic Risk Assessment SAPHIRE code maintenance Tech. Support in risk assessment MACCS maintenance Application of risk insights in regulatory activities i
 Plant database i
 Incorporate aging effects into PRA PWR Level 2 and 3 models for the ASP program Consequence model methods development ASP extension L
 BWR Level 2 and 3 models for the ASP program Technical support for ASP models.
-O b                        Statistical support for risk analysis
+Ob Statistical support for risk analysis Events analysis for HRA methodology DigitalI&C Accelerated development of risk based regulations IPE Followup HRA methods based on operating experience (ATHEANA)
-,                              Events analysis for HRA methodology DigitalI&C Accelerated development of risk based regulations IPE Followup HRA methods based on operating experience (ATHEANA)
+Fire risk analysis Low power / shutdown risk analysis (FY 1999) l 69 NUREG-1635 s
-  ;                            Fire risk analysis Low power / shutdown risk analysis (FY 1999) l 69                                   NUREG-1635 s
-t Activity                                                                                        Project      l Reactor Radiation i                            Protection ALARA center dose reduction implement 'on Radiation protection / measurement study NEA information system on owupational exposure d
+t Activity Project l
-Radiation protectionissues i
+Reactor Radiation Protection i
-l                                                                                             Support collection and analysis of occupational radiation            i exposure data l                                                                                              Deterministic effects of Mcytion exposure
+ALARA center dose reduction implement 'on Radiation protection / measurement study NEA information system on owupational exposure Radiation protectionissues d
+i l
+Support collection and analysis of occupational radiation exposure data l
+Deterministic effects of Mcytion exposure
 'I i
-                                                                                                                                                     .
+lO s
-lO s
 l J
 +
 l i
 l t
-O            NUREG-1635                                                                                                70                              -
+O NUREG-1635 70
-Table A-2. ActMties and Projects in the Reactor Materials and Component Behavior Program Activity                                            Project Reactor Vessellategrity Heavy section steel program Heavy section steelirradiations Elastic plastic fracture mechanics evaluations for LWRs Improved irradiation embrittlement correlations Vesselirradiation survey Embrittlement data base & dosimetry evaluation program Radiation embrittlement damage analysis and predictions Intemational pressure vessel technical cooperation Design and metallurgical production of surrogate steel Nondestructive characterization ofRPV steels International conference - NDE round robin Pressure vessel database in ACCESS format Dosimetry technology ActMty                                              Project Environmentally assisted cracking Environmentally assisted cracking of LWRs Intemational cracking ms l
+Table A-2. ActMties and Projects in the Reactor Materials and Component Behavior Program Activity Project Reactor Vessellategrity Heavy section steel program Heavy section steelirradiations Elastic plastic fracture mechanics evaluations for LWRs Improved irradiation embrittlement correlations Vesselirradiation survey Embrittlement data base & dosimetry evaluation program Radiation embrittlement damage analysis and predictions Intemational pressure vessel technical cooperation Design and metallurgical production of surrogate steel Nondestructive characterization ofRPV steels International conference - NDE round robin Pressure vessel database in ACCESS format Dosimetry technology ActMty Project Environmentally assisted cracking Environmentally assisted cracking of LWRs Intemational cracking ms l
-O                                                                            71                                    NUREG-1635 L
+O 71 NUREG-1635 L
 l
 i j
-ActMty                                                                        Project j                                    Nondestructive                                                                                                              i Examination procedures Assessment of the reliability of UT ar.d NDE methods AetMty                                                                         Project Mechanical / Electrical Components Qualification of safety-related cables Test & inspect safety-related fluid system components l
+ActMty Project j
-LOCA testing ofcables l
+Nondestructive i
-Effects of aging and emerging issues of MOV perfonnance
+Examination procedures Assessment of the reliability of UT ar.d NDE methods AetMty Project Mechanical / Electrical Components Qualification of safety-related cables Test & inspect safety-related fluid system components l
-;                                                                                                 Integrity of nuclear piping-structural material issues Lightening effects 4
+LOCA testing ofcables 4
-environmental qualification and aging of electrical connectors tr= mission of grid stability / reliability l                                                                                                 LBB regulatory guide support                                     l ActM2y                                                                           Project Containment Integrity
+Effects of aging and emerging issues of MOV perfonnance Integrity of nuclear piping-structural material issues Lightening effects 4
-,                                    and Structural Aging Containment integrity under extreme loads I                                                                                                 Capacity of aged / degraded containment j                                                                                                 Inspection of aged / degraded containment Japanese containment cooperation Seismic response of degraded structures and components I                                                                                                 Capacity ofdegraded bellows i
+environmental qualification and aging of electrical connectors tr= mission of grid stability / reliability l
-O                           NUREG-1635                                                                         72 i
+LBB regulatory guide support ActM2y Project Containment Integrity and Structural Aging Containment integrity under extreme loads I
-q                        w                      y       ,                                    y   +    -              _ , , . , . .         -   .-
+Capacity of aged / degraded containment j
+Inspection of aged / degraded containment Japanese containment cooperation Seismic response of degraded structures and components I
+Capacity ofdegraded bellows i
+: O NUREG-1635 72 i
+q w
+y y
++
-m
+;(J m
-   ;(J              Activity                                     Project Structural and Civil Engineering Hualien (Taiwan) soil structure interaction, large-scale seismic test program Seismic Analysis ofpiping Geological and Seismological Siting Studies Japanese collaboration on seismic issues Earthquake investigations Seismic data analysis and event selection Collaboration on seismic proving tests of concrete containment Gamer Valley strong motion study Reevaluation of regulatory guidance for modal comb'mations Reevaluation of regulatory guidance for seismic category 1
+Activity Project Structural and Civil Engineering Hualien (Taiwan) soil structure interaction, large-scale seismic test program Seismic Analysis ofpiping Geological and Seismological Siting Studies Japanese collaboration on seismic issues Earthquake investigations Seismic data analysis and event selection Collaboration on seismic proving tests of concrete containment Gamer Valley strong motion study Reevaluation of regulatory guidance for modal comb' ations m
-  , (''s                         concrete u)                                                             ,
+Reevaluation of regulatory guidance for seismic category 1
-Displacement based seismic design Integrity of nuclear piping- structural - materials issues Finite element modeling of coastal storm surges Activity                                    Project Generic Safety Issues Resolution TA for prioritizing and resolving generic issues Streamlining the codes and standards process gm.,
+, (''s concrete u)
-i 73                                   NUREG-1635
+Displacement based seismic design Integrity of nuclear piping-structural - materials issues Finite element modeling of coastal storm surges Activity Project Generic Safety Issues Resolution TA for prioritizing and resolving generic issues Streamlining the codes and standards process gm.,
+i 73 NUREG-1635
-l Table A-3. Aethities and Projects in the Materials Research and Regulation Development Program Activity                                                 Project Materials Probabilistic Risk Analysis Methods for medical risk studies Technical assistance for sealed source risk study                              l Dry cask PRA Risk methods for non-reactor facilities                                        j Activity                                                 Project Materials Regulatory Standards Development and applicability of criticality safety software O                                                 -
+Table A-3. Aethities and Projects in the Materials Research and Regulation Development Program Activity Project Materials Probabilistic Risk Analysis Methods for medical risk studies Technical assistance for sealed source risk study Dry cask PRA Risk methods for non-reactor facilities j
-Activity                                                 Project Materials Radiation Protection l
+Activity Project Materials Regulatory Standards Development and applicability of criticality safety software O
-l                                                                   Technical basis to support a clearance rule Funding to support BEIR-VII                                                  ,
+Activity Project Materials Radiation Protection l
-l                                                                   Health physics TA - Materials l
+l Technical basis to support a clearance rule Funding to support BEIR-VII l
+Health physics TA - Materials l
 l l
 l O
-NUREG-1635                       .
+NUREG-1635 74 l
-l
 i 1
-Table A 4. Activities and Projects in the Decommissioning Program Activity                                            Project Radionuclide Transport and Behavior in                Support for National Academy of Science 6
+Table A 4. Activities and Projects in the Decommissioning Program Activity Project Radionuclide Transport and Behavior in Support for National Academy of Science 6
-the Environment                                       workshop on fracture flow.
+the Environment workshop on fracture flow.
-I Radionuclide solubilities.
+Radionuclide solubilities.
-Low-level waste perfonnance assessment l                                                               methodology.                                             ,
+I Low-level waste perfonnance assessment l
-Monitoring water movement through covers j                                                               for near-surface radionuclides.
+methodology.
+Monitoring water movement through covers j
+for near-surface radionuclides.
 Testing and evaluating conceptual ground water flow and transport models.
 Facility support for RES staff work being i
-conducted at Johns Hopkins University on characterization of decommissioning slags.                l Extension of determination of sorption                    l kinetics for anionic exchange capacity of soils           l I
+conducted at Johns Hopkins University on characterization of decommissioning slags.
-Q                                                          to test model performance.
+Extension of determination of sorption kinetics for anionic exchange capacity of soils Q
-      ;   .                                                          Field test of surface complexation models of t
+to test model performance.
+I Field test of surface complexation models of t
 sorption.
-Evaluation of preferential flow through
+Evaluation of preferential flow through heterogeneous media.
-     ;                                                               heterogeneous media.
 I Radionuclide pathway and uptake studies.
-Determine thermodynamic data for i                                                               radionuclides.
+Determine thermodynamic data for i
+radionuclides.
 Source-term characterization.
-Unsaturated zone monitoring and field
+Unsaturated zone monitoring and field j
- ,    j                                                              studies.
+studies.
-l
+l 75 NUREG-1635
-  ;                                                             75                                         NUREG-1635
-  ..~-. _- .       -    . . .  . - - . - .
+..~-.
 l I
-i O                       - tr                                    P >.et Decommissioning and Environmental   Decommissioning support for rule Protection                          implementation Guidance and models for reusing and recycling ofmaterials.                   I Environmental policy and decommissioning issues.
+i O
+- tr P
+>.et Decommissioning and Environmental Decommissioning support for rule Protection implementation Guidance and models for reusing and recycling ofmaterials.
+I Environmental policy and decommissioning issues.
 Environmental modeling support.
+Radiological criteria for environmental effluents.
-:                                                   Radiological criteria for environmental effluents.
+i O
-i O                                    .
 i
 i l
-l I
+0
-0                                                                                    :
+NUREG-1635 76 l
-NUREG-1635                         76 l
-: p. . :
+p.
-O                                                          O                                                                                          O i
+O O
-t i
+O l
-Status of Staff Actions Resulting from the Independent Safety Assessment of Maine Yankee                                                                                                 .
+i t
-i i
+i Status of Staff Actions Resulting from I
-Daniel H. Dorman NRR/DRPE October 1,1998
+the Independent Safety Assessment of Maine Yankee i
+i Daniel H. Dorman l
+NRR/DRPE I
+October 1,1998 i
+I i
+I
-g                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            g             g.                       .
+g g
+g.
 I i
++
+[
 Agenda
-  . Background                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   D. Dorman
-  -   Overview of Staff Actions                                                                                                                                                                                                                    D. Dorman
-  . Power Uprate issues                                                                                                                                                                                                                          D. Dorman
-  . Analytical Code issues                                                                                                                                                                                                                       R. Caruso
-O O                             O' 1
+===Background===
-Background          -
+D. Dorman t
-/95 Allegation regarding SBLOCA analysis for Maine Yankee 01/96 NRR initiates internal Lessons Learned review 05/96 OlG Report 06/96 Independent Safety Assessment established 10/96 ISA Report / Commission Briefing 11/96 ISA Staff Action tasking memo from EDO 12/96 NRR Lessons Learned Report 04/97 Staff Action plans reported to EDO                                   '
+Overview of Staff Actions D. Dorman i
-/98 Updates of Staff Actions status 08/98
+t Power Uprate issues D. Dorman
+}
+Analytical Code issues R. Caruso j
+i
+)
+l 8
+l I
+I
+O O
+O'
+===1 Background===
+/95 Allegation regarding SBLOCA analysis for Maine Yankee 01/96 NRR initiates internal Lessons Learned review 05/96 OlG Report t
+/96 Independent Safety Assessment established l
+l 10/96 ISA Report / Commission Briefing i
+/96 ISA Staff Action tasking memo from EDO 12/96 NRR Lessons Learned Report 04/97 Staff Action plans reported to EDO 01/98 Updates of Staff Actions status 08/98
-_ _ _ _ . ... _ ... _ _ .. _ _ . _  . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ .       - ~ - _ .
+- ~ - _.
-                                                                            ~
+~
-O O       O' t
+O O
+O' t
 r I
 I i
@@ Line 3,042: / Line 5,902: @@
 Staff Actions t
 : 1. Adequacy of Analytic Code Validation i
-l                                                                                             !
+l
-;            2. Adequacy of NRC Review of Analysis Codes i
+: 2. Adequacy of NRC Review of Analysis Codes l
-: 3. Compliance with Safety Evaluation Reports 1
+i
-: 4. Adequacy of Licensing Reviews for Power Uprates                               i t
+: 3. Compliance with Safety Evaluation Reports t
-i I
-i I
+: 4. Adequacy of Licensing Reviews for Power Uprates i
+t i
+I i
+I 3
-,                                                              Staff Actions (Cont'd)                             i
+Staff Actions (Cont'd) i
-: 5. Clarity and Intent of NRC Safety Guide 1                                                     i
+: 5. Clarity and Intent of NRC Safety Guide 1 i
-: 6. Adequacy of NRC Inspection Program                                                         .
+: 6. Adequacy of NRC Inspection Program
-: 7. Adequacy of Agency Expectations Regarding Licensee Performance (Transferred)
+: 7. Adequacy of Agency Expectations Regarding Licensee Performance
+[
+(Transferred)
 : 8. Cumulative Effect of Operator Workarounds
 : 9. Aaency Policy Regarding Licensee Design Basis Recovery Efforts (Complete)
 : 10. Public Involvement in the Assessment Process (Complete)
+{
 : 11. Licensee Response to the ISA Report (Complete)
-O
+O O
-                                                                                                                                   ~
+O'
-O                                                                      O'           t Power Uprate issues NRR Lessons Learned identified inconsistencies in the scope of review of past power uprates                                                                                               '
+~
-ISA identified components for which operability at the approved '
+t Power Uprate issues NRR Lessons Learned identified inconsistencies in the scope of I
-,        higher power level could not be confirmed Interim action involves comprehensive review scope Past uprates screened to identify risk-significant issues                                                                   jk i
+review of past power uprates ISA identified components for which operability at the approved '
-Standard review plan (SRP) for uprates to be developed Resources currently addressing 50.59, UFSAR accuracy issues                                                          j Past uprates to be assessed against the SRP Questions must be justified via 10 CFR 50.54(f)
+higher power level could not be confirmed Interim action involves comprehensive review scope l
-Improvements must be justified via 10 CFR 50.109
+t Past uprates screened to identify risk-significant issues j
+k i
+Standard review plan (SRP) for uprates to be developed Resources currently addressing 50.59, UFSAR accuracy issues j
+Past uprates to be assessed against the SRP Questions must be justified via 10 CFR 50.54(f)
+Improvements must be justified via 10 CFR 50.109 l
 Maine Yankee Action Plan I
-i Analytical Code issues Ralph Caruso NRR/DSSA/SRXB 1
+l i
-i October 1,1998 4
+Analytical Code issues I
-l
+[
+Ralph Caruso NRR/DSSA/SRXB t
+i
+October 1,1998 4
+l 1
+l l
 i i
+I i
-;                o                                      o                                                  o                       ,
+o o
-Problems identified by Maine Yankee ISAT ( and ACRS in AP600 and Other Reviews )
+o Problems identified by Maine Yankee ISAT ( and ACRS in AP600 and Other Reviews )
-t Adequacy of Code Documentation                                                                                     !
+l t
-Adequacy of Code Assessment 4
+Adequacy of Code Documentation Adequacy of Code Assessment
-j inconsistencies in Staff Code Review Process Code Catalogue                                                                                                     '
+[
+j 4
+inconsistencies in Staff Code Review Process Code Catalogue l
+l I
 i
-                                                                   -_ -- -- -- ------_---         ---- - ------ _ - - ---- - - -- J
+- - ---- - - -- J
-O                                    o                                    o
+O o
-                                                                                    '~
+o j
-Activities            .
+'~
-i Develop Standard Review Plan (NRR Lead)
+Activities 1
-Develop Standard Format and Content Guide / Regulatory Guide (RES Lead)
+i l
-Scope General Principles Applicable to All Analytical Computer Codes Development Process i
+Develop Standard Review Plan (NRR Lead)
-Code Assessment Documentation Details Provided for Certain Accident and Accident Classes (e.g. SRP Chapter 15 Classification)
+Develop Standard Format and Content Guide / Regulatory Guide (RES l
-Modeling Requirements Assessment Data
+Lead)
+Scope General Principles Applicable to All Analytical Computer Codes Development Process Code Assessment i
+Documentation Details Provided for Certain Accident and Accident Classes (e.g. SRP l
+Chapter 15 Classification)
+Modeling Requirements i
+Assessment Data I
-o                                                    o                                                                                                      o'l Proposed Schedule for Regulatory Guide and SRP 08/31/98   NRR identifies all accident analyses to be covered under Regulatory Guide and SRP documents                                                                          !
+o o
-(Will not include containment design reviews) 10/01/98   NRR presents results of reviewer interviews and previous review history to RES                                                                                       '
+o'l Proposed Schedule for Regulatory Guide and SRP 08/31/98 NRR identifies all accident analyses to be covered under Regulatory Guide and SRP documents (Will not include containment design reviews)
-/01/98   RES prepares Outline of Document Content for NRR/RES agreement 01/15/99   RES holds meeting with NRR reps. to discuss document outline 04/01/99   RES prepares draft reg guide and SRP for NRR/RES agreement 06/01/99   RES holds meeting with NRR, and industry reps, ACRS to discuss revised reg guide and SRP 08/01/99   NRR/RES issue documents for public comment 11/01/99   Meet with NRR to discuss public comments 01/15/00   NRR/RES resolve comments and meet with ACRS                                                                                                                          i l
+}
-/15/00   CRGR Review 05/01/00   issue documents. Begin training for reviewers.
+/01/98 NRR presents results of reviewer interviews and previous review history to RES 12/01/98 RES prepares Outline of Document Content for NRR/RES agreement 01/15/99 RES holds meeting with NRR reps. to discuss document outline 04/01/99 RES prepares draft reg guide and SRP for NRR/RES agreement 06/01/99 RES holds meeting with NRR, and industry reps, ACRS to discuss revised reg guide and SRP 08/01/99 NRR/RES issue documents for public comment l
-i
+/01/99 Meet with NRR to discuss public comments 01/15/00 NRR/RES resolve comments and meet with ACRS i
+l 03/15/00 CRGR Review 05/01/00 issue documents. Begin training for reviewers.
+i I
-T/H CODE REVIEW ACTION PLAN O     Codes RETRAN - 3D : Transient S-RELAP5 : BE LBLOCA WCOBRATTRAC : BE SBLOCA Acolications RETRAN-3D 24 utilities Westinghouse replacing LOFTRAN S-RELAPS CP&L - H. B. Robinson reload WCOBRA/ TRAC Consolidated Edison - Indian Point 2 reload Review Efficiencies Acceptance review Bulk of review given to new material Verify previously approved models in range of applicability Peer review of models/ correlations Subset of full CSAU methodology Conservatisms where appropriate it O
+T/H CODE REVIEW ACTION PLAN O
+Codes RETRAN - 3D : Transient S-RELAP5 : BE LBLOCA WCOBRATTRAC : BE SBLOCA Acolications RETRAN-3D 24 utilities Westinghouse replacing LOFTRAN S-RELAPS CP&L - H. B. Robinson reload WCOBRA/ TRAC Consolidated Edison - Indian Point 2 reload Review Efficiencies Acceptance review Bulk of review given to new material Verify previously approved models in range of applicability Peer review of models/ correlations Subset of full CSAU methodology Conservatisms where appropriate it O
-Milestones MILESTONES RETRAN-3D                  S-RELAP5      WCOBRA/ TRAC Submittal              July 1998              February 1999    February 1999 Acceptance Review  October 1998               February 1999    February 1999 ACRS              November 1998                 March 1999      March 1999 4
+Milestones MILESTONES RETRAN-3D S-RELAP5 WCOBRA/ TRAC Submittal July 1998 February 1999 February 1999 Acceptance Review October 1998 February 1999 February 1999 ACRS November 1998 March 1999 March 1999 4
-Acceptance Letter November 1998                 March 1999      March 1999 ACRS              December 1998                October 1999   November 1999      l 1
+Acceptance Letter November 1998 March 1999 March 1999 4
-RAls issued       December 1998               November 1999   December 1999      l RAI Responses      February 1998                April 2000       May 2000 Draft SER             June 1999                 June 2000       August 2000      l ACRS                  July 1999                  July 2000    September 2000 Final SER         September 1999               October 2000   December 2000 l
+ACRS December 1998 October 1999 November 1999 1
-p i  k l
+RAls issued December 1998 November 1999 December 1999 RAI Responses February 1998 April 2000 May 2000 Draft SER June 1999 June 2000 August 2000 ACRS July 1999 July 2000 September 2000 Final SER September 1999 October 2000 December 2000 l
-l h
+p k
-i}}
+i l
+h i}}

ML20154H854: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 00:35, 11 December 2024

Text

SUMMARY

Background

1 Background

Navigation menu

Search