ML20134F712

Transcript of 961025 Stakeholders Public Mtgs in Washington,Dc Re Safe Operation of Nuclear Reactors Session.Pp 1-127

ML20134F712
Person / Time
Issue date:	10/25/1996
From:	NRC
To:
References
DSI-G-3-00005, DSI-G-3-5, NUDOCS 9611070162
Download: ML20134F712 (160)

Text

_ _ _. _ -

i,-

d.

Official Transcript cf Praccedings

"[

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

Title:

Stakeholders Public Meetings Assuring Safe Operation of Nuclear Reactors Session s

2 Docket Number:

(not applicable)

Rf[gg 1

MV 05 y D

\\

OfMI6 Location:

Washington, D.C.

e l

l 81 L

l Date:

Friday, October 25,1996 1

l l

Work Order No.:

NRC-890 Pages 1-127 l

NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.

/

Court Reporters and Transcribers

?/

1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

/j 070013 M'ashington, D.C. 20005

/ '

(202) 234-4433 9611070162 961025 l

P NRCSA I NR m 3m~

DuQ'lfe

,ca4 b i tJ lhrairAL % c

I O$

.'s )

1 l

l 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l

2

• * ++ +

3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4

+, + ++

l 5

STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT AND REBASELINING l

l 6

STAKEHOLDERS PUBLIC MEETINGS 7

+++++

8 ASSURING SAFE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR REACTORS SESSION 9

+++++

l 10 FRIDAY 11 OCTOBER 25, 1996 1

12

+++++

l 13 WASHINGTON, D.C.

14 The Assuring Safe Operation of Nuclear 1

15 Reactors Session was held in the Lincoln Ballroom of the 16 Washington Hilton and Towers at 1919 Connecticut Avenue, 17 Northwest at 8:00 a.m.,

Frank Miraglia, Jr.,

Acting 18 Director, presiding.

13 PRESENT:

20 Chip Cameron 21 Doug Brookman 22 Frank J.

Miraglia, Jr.

l 23 Steve Frantz 24 Gary Vine 25 Russ Bell l

NEAL R. GROSS l

COURT RF4RTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1327 RHODE ISt.AND AVE., N W I

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433 i

l

.s 2

1 PRESENT: (continued) 2 Brian McIntyre 3

Tom Tipton 4

Luis Reyes l

5 Janice Stevens 6

Jane Fleming 7

Tom Critec 8

Tim Johnson 9

Ruth McBurney 10 Alan Nelson 11 Lawrence J.

Chandler 12 Henry Morton 13 Tom Hill i

14 Steve Collins 1

15 Greg Gurican 16 Tom Hilt:

17 Themis Speis 18 Clayton Hinnant 19 Jim 20 Tony Th oson i

i 21 Lynne Fairobent 22 Jim Milhoan 23 24 25 l

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1723 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344433

l s1

s a 3

1 A-G-E-N-5-A 2

Acenda Item Pace 3

Reactor Licensing for Future Applicants 8

4 Cperating Reactor Program Oversight 36 5

Power Reactor Decommissioning 62

(

i 6

Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Regulation 93 l

7 8

9 10 11 1

12 13 14 15 16 17 1 -3 19 20 21 22 23 i

24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

(202) 23m33 WASHINGTON D C. 20005-3701 (202) 23m33

es

>s 4

1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2

(8:17 a.m.)

3 MR. CAMERON:

Good morning, everybody.

4 Welcome back.

This is our second day of our public 5

stakeholder meeting on the strategic assessment process.

6 I believe that we had an excellent session yesterday.

I 7

thank all of you for your participation and your 8

contribution to that, and for your observations and 9

suggestions.

It was a very constructive day, and I 10 believe the NRC is getting a lot of valuable information 11 out of the dialogue.

12 Doug Brookman and I, Chip Cameron, will 13 continue to assist you as the facilitators for the 14 meeting.

Let's just contiaue the active and constructive 15 dialogue that we had yesterday.

16 Again,'for those of you who might not have 17 been here yesterday, and just as a reminder.for those who 18 were, after the NRC presentations, if you would like to 19 make a comment or ask a question, please raise your hand.

20 After you are recognized, come up to the microphone.

We 21 also have - ne hand-held mikes that we'll be going through 22 the audience with.

23 State your name and your affiliation, if 24 relevant, for purposes of the transcript.

We are 25 transcribing the meeting.

Try to be concise.

We don't NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W.

(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON O C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433

.i is l

5 1

have unlimited time.

But yesterday, I think we had time l

l 2

for everybody to say what they wanted.

But if we do get 1

3 crowded on time, the facilitators may ask you to sum up l

4 your comments quickly so that we can give other people an j

5 opportunity to speak.

i 6

Now I would again remind you that besides l

7 participating in today's meeting, that there are a number j

I 8

of ways that you can submit comments on the strategic

-9 issues papers.

You can do that through the Internet.

You l

10 can do that hard copy.

There are comment forms that you l

11 can fill out today and deposit with us.

There is, two i

l 12 rooms down, I think it's the Georgetown West'or Georgetown j

l' E

13 East room, but it's that way, you can videotape your I

14 comments for us.

i 15 In that same room, there are copies of all the 16 strategic issues papers if you don't have a copy of them.

l f

l 17 Again, comments are due November 15, I believe.

Yes, 18 November 15.

We are going to do two more meetings, one l

l 19 nex: week in Colorado Springs, and the following week in 20 Chicago.

21 Now, in terms of our agenda this morning, we 22 are going to be discussing the strategic arena of assuring 23 safe operation of nuclear reactors.

We have four papers a

24 in that session.

Again, as we did yesterday morning, we l

f 25 are going to have a presentation, brief presentation of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 3701 (202) 23u33

es

>o 6

1 the contents of the paper by the NRC staff, and then we 2

will go out to you for discussion.

We will then go to the 3

next paper in the session.

4 We are going to break for -- we will have a i

5 break this morning during the first morning session.

When i

6 we are done with the morning session completely, we'll 7

break for lunch.

i 8

Then we are going to come back in the 1

9 afternoon for two concurrent sessions.

One of them is on 10 nuclear waste.

We are going to discuss low level waste, J

11 high level waste and the decommissioning of non-reactor i

12 facilities.

I i

13 This morning we will be talking about the i

14 decommissioning of power reactor facilities.

As I 15 mentioned yesterday, the paper on risk informed and 16 performance-based regulation that's the last paper for 17 discussion this morning, has much broader applicability 18 than just.to reactor areas.

So those of you who are 19 interested-in the materials program will also find that i

20 informative.

We look forward to your comments on that 21 paper.

{

22 The second concurrent session this afternoon 23 is going to be on managing NRC finances.

The focus there 24 will be fees.

25 After we are-done with the concurrent NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISt.AND AVE., N W.

(202) 23w33 WASHINGTON, O C. 2000M701 (202) 2'M33

.~

.e se l

l 7

i I

sessions, we are going to come back here briefly for i

l 2

another plenary session, a short wrap up to just get any j

3 comments that we haven't heard.

Perhaps I ask you a i

4 little bit about the process and just generally close the h

l 5

meeting.

6 The.first three papers this morning are going 1

to be presented one at a time by Frank Miraglia, who is 7

I 1

l 8

the acting director of our Office of Nuclear Reactor 9

Regulation.

The last paper is going to be presented by i

l 10 Tom Hill, also from our Office of Nuclear Reactor 11-Regulation.

12 Frank, I'll just turn it over to you now for L

13 the first paper.

1 14 MR. MIRAGLIA:

Thank you, Chip.

Welcome to 15 the reactor arena.

Arena sort of has an ominous sound,

)

I 16 but I think I'd like to concur in Chip's observations that 17 I don't think there was an arena, I think there was 18 constructive dialogue and comment.

It certainly didn't 19 have the Roman gladiator atmosphere to it at all.

I hope 20 that continues for today's session as well.

21 But I will have three papers to discuss.

I 22 was sponsor for these papers.

As a sponsor, gave broad 23 guidance to staff.

I would like to recognize Mike Case, I

i i.

24 the writer for this particular paper, who is presenting l

25 the slides.

He will be joining at the table, keeping me l -.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W (202) 234 4 33 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 3701 (202) 23 4 433

.e-8 1

out_of trouble during the discussion phase of the program.

2 Direction setting issue number 10 involves 3

reactor licensing for future application.

For over a

.4 decade, the agency has put into place a process for new 5

designs.

The part 52 process was put into place, rules 6

were put in place, and there were three elements in that 7

rule: the design certification piece, an early site review 8

provision, and a combined licensing provision.

9 Since that time, we have been actively-engaged 10 in the design certification program.

We have completed 11 two design certifications for the evolutionary designs, 12 the system 80+ facility for tne combustion engineering 13 design, for PWR, and the advanced boiling water reactor 14 that General Electric designed.

Those design 15' certifications are before'the Commission.

After the 16 Commission decision, those designs will be certified by 17 rule.

That is really a demonstration of the design 18 certification piece of the part 52 rule.

19 We have not tested the early site review 20 provisions of the rule.

There is no combined license on 21 the horizon.

22 Given where we are, the other thing we have 23 under active review right now is the Westinghouse passive 24 design AP600 design.

That is under active review, again, 25 under the Part 52 design certification process.

That's a 8

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

(202) 23W33 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 23m33

9 s.

1 summary of the active cases that are being processed under 4

i l

2 part 52.

I l

3 Given the DSI, I stated as given the current l

3 i

4 environment, what should the Commission's policy on future i

5 reactors be.

The Commission was anxious to test the 6

process, has given priority to the design certifications,

?

7 and given where we are in our projection for the future, i

8 where should we go next.

9 Some of the factors that bear on this decision 10 is that as I stated, the objectives and we tested the 11 design certification objective.

The objective was to 1

12 encourage standardized designs because of the safety 13 benefits that could be gained in having standard designs.

e J

14 The designs that we have within the country i

15 are four principle vendor designs, but with the different I

aitectural engineer and the designs of the balance of if ;

a_<

s 17 plants, we don't have standardization within the country.

18 It makes dealing with issues perhaps a little bit more 19 difficult.

One size does not necessarily fit all.

20 Across the globe, in the Japanese program and I

21 the French program, they have a little bit more structure 22 in terms of standard design.

That has its benefits.

23 Those benefits were to be gained through a standardization 24 process.

That was one of the principle objectives behind 25 the issuance of part 52.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W (202) 23M33 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 23m33

l l

10 l

1 Right now there is no new order for nuclear i

2 power plants on the horizon, as I have said.

The 3

applications for design certification are down to the one 4

active one right now with Westinghouse.

We are close to i

5 wrapping up on the two evolutionary designs.

6 The projection is, is that if we talk about 7

our. planning horizon out to the next five years or so, we 1

8 don't see an application for a new order.

9 There's budgetary pressure on the industry.

l 10 The program has been jointly supported by industry funding 1

11 and the Department of Energy funding.

The Department of 12 Energy and the industry have been funding.these advanced l

13 designs, the applications and budgetary pressures on the 14 industry as well as the Department of Energy, and as you l

15 have heard as a consistent theme throughout the last day 16 or.so, on the NRC.

Those budget pressures are real and i

l 17 are affecting the decisions to move forward on designs.

18 There is foreign interest in U.S.

designs.

19 There's a global market and most of the countries that 20 have this interest would like to see the designs as a U.S 21 approved design.

As was discussed yesterday, the area of 22 growth in terms of energy need are the Pacific Rim l.

23 countries.

There is interest in the foreign area for 24 reactors of U.S. design.

'25 Over the years, there has been congressional i

- NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W (202) 23M33 WASHINGTON D C. 20005 3701 (202) 2344433 r

~.. -, -

)

.a-11 i

i 1

interest in'part 52.

Many of the appropriations bills in f

4 2

previous years directed attention and funding towards the f

3 standardized designs in terms of priority and resources.

i 4

Given where we are and given the budgets for DOE and NRC, I

i 5

that interest isn't being expressed in terms of the 1

4 6

budgetary processes as well.

1 7

We looked at four options in this area.

The 8

first option is a reassess and a reprioritize option.

j 9

Basically, the current process is we do give priority

~

10 attention to the design applications in terms of i

11 scheduling resources.

We had staff set aside to handle j

12 these type of reviews.

i 13 As the interest is waning and as the workload 14 is coming down, the' thought process was here is that we 15 would handle these within the context of overall agency 1'

16 priorities, would not necessarily get the highest i

17 priorities, but looked at it overall, across the agency i

18 and the. office of prioritization system.

That's basically 19 the thrust of option number one.

4 20 Option number two is the sustained j

21-responsiveness.

That sustained responsiveness is 22 essentially what we have been doing in the past.

Putting

-23 resources in priority attention to the designs that are 24 before us.

That is getting more and more difficult to do 25 as the overall budgets are shrinking and the work load in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433

l 12 j

1 other areas is perhaps putting more demands'en the staff, 2

and the workload in this area, as I have indicated, is 1

I 3

winnowing down.

4 So option two would be that'we would put that 5

attention in focus on scheduling resources for these l

6 designs.

7 Option three would be refocus our resources.

8 The refocus would be a conscious decision to close out 9

activities that are ongoing in an orderly kind of way, and i

10 to reassign the. resources that are dedicated as those 11 projects are completed, and refocus those to other i

12 activities within.the agency or within the reactor program t

13 to support the activities in other areas.

)

14 The fourth-option is the single solution.

In and this one is one that says that if there's a 15 terms l

16 national need and there's an interest overall~by the 17 industry and Department of Energy to focus on the pursuit 18 of-another design, that the agency, NRC, would take a view l

19 of being supportive.

That if there is that kind of single 20 focus-in a coordinated national effort between industry 21 and say the Department of Energy or other governmental 22 entities to fund such a project, that NRC would take a 23 role and support the regulatory activities necessary to l

24 support that kind of a program.

That was the thrust of 25 this single solution.

i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

(202) 23m33 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344433

13 1

Each of these have different consequences 2

associated with those.

Those are outlined within the l

3 context of the issue paper.

4 These were the four options that were put 5

before the Commission.

The Commission provided the staff 6

with its preliminary views.

They are summarized within 7

the next few viewgraphs.

8 They recognized that the fundamental economic 9

decisions by license applicants will really determine what 10 we have to respond to in terms of resource needs.

In i

11 other words, if there's applications out there before us, 12 we'll do our part to support those kinds of reviews, and 13 that those decisions are going to be made predominantly on 14 the economic decisions, the dollar decisions that the 1

15 utility faces or the utility industry faces within that l

16 kind of context.

17 The second point that they raised is that we j

l 18 should continue to give priorities for reviewing.

So it's 19 sort of an option to a sustained responsiveness to those 20 applications that are before us and that we are currently 21 reviewing, and if new applications are made, to test the 22 other aspects of the part 52 rule.

It would have that 23 sort of responsiveness from the agency and the staff in 24 responding to those initiatives.

That's the second point 25 on the viewgraph.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

[

14 1

The Commission went on to say that in terms of l

2 moving forward in terms of implementation of this overall 3

approach, that we need to address some points.

These i

4 points are outlined here.

5 The Commission indicated that the utility 6-requirements documents that had been presented and formed i.

7 the basis for each of the standard designs to indicate 8

where they were with respect to the utility requirements 9

document.

These were documents funded by the industry and l

l 10 DOE that provided the basis for the specific applications l

11 for the evolutionary designs, as well as the passive

]

l 12

designs, j

l l

l 13 That in implementation, we need to make sure

]

l i

14 that there is some maintenance of this utility requirement

]

15 document through the first of the kind engineering.

16 First-of-a-kind engineering was a program jointly being 17 funded by the industry and DOE to complete some of the 18 activity.

That issue, funding is dwindling in terms of 19 DOE budget.

But the Commission's guidance was to the 20 extent that there's ongoing activity in that area, we l

l 21 would develop implementation guidance for completing that 22 activity.

l-23 Address an orderly closecut of all the l

24' activities and document the work performed on a number of l

l i

25 programs.

SBWR is the simplified boiling water reactor, i

l NEAL R. GROSS l,

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoOE ISLAND AVE., N W.

i (202) 23W33 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 23W33

____.._m

, o 15 1-which was a passive design submitted by GE, where they did j

2 some testing and decided not to pursue.

So the direction l

3 there is to complete and document where we were with that 4

project in an orderly kind of way.

1 j

l 5

The MHTGR was a gas cooled reactor, and was a 6

design being sponsored by the Department of Energy.

We

)

l l

7 did not do a complete review of that, but we did do an l

l 8

evaluation, raised questions and issues with DOE.

We have J

i 9

closed that project out with a preliminary safety

(

)

l l

10 evaluation report, and have documented the results of that 11 review.

So that activity, the orderly closecut would be a l

\\

12 continuing kind of thing.

l l

l 13 Then the last issue there is to take a step I

i 14 back and evaluate where we have been with the part 52 15 process based upon our experience today and to look at 16 that for lessons learned and any improvements in terms of 17 process, rules, guidance, and the like.

l 18 That is an overall summary of the commission's 7

l 19 preliminary reviews on DSI 10.

Given the current l

20 environment, what should the Commission's policy be with 21 respect to future reactors.

22 f That completes my prepared summary of this 23 aparticular. issue.

I would like to open the floor to 24 questions, discussion, comment.

25 MR. CAMERON:

Yes.

t NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 23u433

~

a e 16 1

MR. FRANTZ:

My name is Steve Franz.

I am 2

with Morgan Lewis and Bockius, LLP.

I was somewhat 3

surprised when I read the paper.

I thought it was going l

4 to be a paper looking at what the policy should be on the 5

licensing of future reactors.

Instead, it appeared to be

{

6 nothing more than a look at how much resources NRC wanted 7

to apply in the future.

8 I don't know how you can determine what 9

resources should be applied unless you determine your I

10 policy first, unless you determine your goal first.

11 I would suggest your goal should be as l

12 follows.

Look at the advanced reactors.

You have the 13 system 80+,

the ABWR, both of which are the safety plants 14 ever approved by the NRC.

They have a core damage 15 frequency that is one to two orders magnitude safer than l

1 16-the current generation of plants.

17 In light of the increased safety of these 18 standard designs, I would say the NRC's policy should be 19 to reduce regulatory barriers to licensing new plants.

20 Now there are also of course other possible policies too,

'21 but none of these policies were ever addressed in your 22-paper.

23 I.was wondering why you didn't really engage

~24 in a bottom-up review of what your policy should be, i

25 rather than just looking at the resources itself.

4 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE, N W.

(202) 234 4 33 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

)

.e a e P

17

'l MR. CAMERON:

Frank?

2 MR. MIRAGLIA:

With respect to the broad 3

issue, there is a Commission statement on advanced policy.

4 The advanced policy is to remove those regulatory 5

barriers.

That was the basis for part 52.

6 The part that has been tested thus far is the 7

design certification piece.

I would agree that in fact 8

the Commission's policy statement recognizes that the goal 9

and objective of new designs would be to have safer type 10 of plants.

i 11 Part 52 was the agency's response to providing 12 that stable regulatory base, and providing the process of l

13 design certification, early site review, and then combined i

14 licensing.

We have only tested the first part.

15 So the question right now from a matter of 16 policy and strategic planning is, is where is the program 17 going.

We are in a response mode.

As a regulatory 18 agency, we provided the regulatory framework, one part of 19 which has.been tested.

If there is another design put 20 before us, if the early site review provision is to be 21 tested, we will continue with trying to test that 22 regulatory base.

23 But I think the policy is already stated out 24.

there.

The question comes is there a need to reexamine 25 that policy in recognition of what the current environment NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433

1 j

i 18 1

is in terms of prospective application for use of that 2

framework.

3 i

3 MR. FRANTZ:

You described your policy as 4

being in a response mode.

There are other possible 5

policies.

You need not be totally reactive.

6 You influence the environment too.

You 7

influence the likelihood of new orders through your f

8 regulatory process.

If you reduce some of the regulatory 9

barriers, it is much more likely that we'll have a new 10 order and much more likely we'll use the other parts of 11 part 52.

I 12 MR. MIRAGLIA:

That's a fair comment.

If 13 there are specific barriers and things, one of the things 14 the Commission has asked us to look at is lessons learned.

15 If there's issues out there that you think in terms of one 16 of the focused questions that need to be considered within 17 the context of this paper, one of the focus questions, the 18 first or the second one, is if you could identify those j

i 19 specifics for our consideration-in the development of this

)

20 issue paper to be put before the Commission, we certainly 21_

welcome your comments on it.

22 MR. FRANTZ:

I think we probably will be 23 submitting some specific suggestions on how you can remove 24 some of those barriers, given the increased safety of 25 these new plants.

I hope that you will consider these.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISMND AWL, N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

)

19 1

MR. CAMERON:

Are you suggesting that there 2

should be an option added to the paper, reduce regulatory t

3 barriers to the licensi'ng of future plants?

4 MR. FRANTZ:

Yes.

Most definitely, l

5 MR. CAMERON:

Okay.

6 MR. FRANTZ:

That would of course require you j

7 to expend some resources that are not discussed right now 8

in your paper.

9 MR. CAMERON:

But it would be active rather 10 than passive, as you put it.

11 MR. FRANTZ:

Yes.

12 MR. CAMERON:

Which I guess is appropriate for 13 this discussion too, but anybody else have a comment on l

14 that particular suggestion, about adding an option of i

15 reducing regulatory barriers?

Yes.

16 MR. VINE:

Gary Vine from the Electric Power 17 Research Institute.

la We have invested over the past 15 years, on 19 the behalf of the nation's utilities and a number of 20 international utilities, well over 100 million dollars in 21 this program, trying to re-initiate and provide for the 22 future an option for nuclear plants to be built.

I think 23 we have done this extremely responsibly.

We have greatly 24' improved the safety of these plants.

We have incorporated 25 operating experience.

We have fundamentally gone back and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 rho 0E ISLAND AVE., N W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433

a O a 0 20 1

assured ourselves that we have resolved all the open 2

safety issues.

3 I have got to tell you, of all the issue 4

papers that I have read, this one is the one that to me is 5

absolutely fundamentally out of touch with reality.

6 It is out of touch with reality because it 7

does not recognize that regulacion is a big part of the 8

problem.

It does site in one spot the existence of the 9

industry's strategic plan for building new nuclear power 10 plants, but it doesn't take the most important point of 11 that strategic plan of relevance to the NRC.

That is, 12 that a stable and predictable regulatory environment is an 13 essential prerequisite to building new plants.

14 The paper is obsessed with talking about when 15 a new order might be placed and using when that order 16 might be placed as the basis for its policy on what to do 17 next and how to spend its resources.

That puts the cart 18 before the horse.

19 We must have not only completed design 20 certifications on these plants to be able to do anything 21 on the industry side, but we must have some evidence that 22 there's going to be a predictable and stable regulatory 23 environment for these plants if they are built.

24 Speaking directly to the comments that you

)

i i

25 just heard, the last four years have been marked by many I

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W I

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 1

1

j 3

21 1

r,tany many examples of unnecessary obstacles thrown up in 1

2 the implementation of part 52, which are not required by 3

part 52, which were not consistent with Commission policy, t

4 that have created unnecessary barriers, that send a very i*

5 strong signal to the utilities in this country that life 6

with a future reactor is going to be more difficult, more 7

regulatory, more complex from a regulatory standpoint, 8

more intrusive, than plants today.

These plants are f

j 9

clearly a couple order magnitude safer.

4 10 We have taken a major step backward.

This i

~

11.

paper does not recognize the fact that there are l

12 fundamental new problems created by the detailed part 52 1

13 implementation, inconsistent with Commission policy, and 14 inconsistent with part 52, that must be addressed.

15 MR. MIRAGLIA:

With respect to the issues that j

i 16 you've raised, part 52 was aimed at addressing those kinds j

l 17 of questions.

The questions of implementation that you 18 are discussing have been raised by the industry in the 19 context of the two evolutionary designs, and some of which 20 in the passive design.

21 Some of those matters are before the l

t i

22 Commission right now.

I am not going to speak to those j

23 kinds of issues.

I think to the content and the comments J

24 that you might want to have in terms of the direction, if 25 you feel that part 52 is not meeting the objectives, I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

-(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

~.-.-

l

,o 22 i

i think those kinds of comments need to be considered and I

f 2

provided to us for consideration in the context of this 3

pape. in terms of strategic planning.

l l

4 I am not going to debate the implementation 5

and the questions that have been raised by the industry.

i 6

The industry has taken a position with respect to those, 7

provided those to the Commission.

The staff has done it t

8 in likewise manner.

That is a matter that's pending.

1 9

That is not for the discussion here at this type of 10 meeting.

11 But in terms of providing comments, in terms l

12 of.what are the issues within the context of part 52, that 13 need to be considered.

The prospect of improvements in 1

14 those areas are certainly kinds of comments and 15 considerations that we are seeking.

If you could provide 16 specifics-on those, we'll present those to the Commission 17 in the context of the strategic plan.

18 MR CAMERON:

Frank, did the staff contemplate 19 addressing those types of issues that both of these 20 commenters brought up within the context of the 21 reassessment option?

22 MR. MIRAGLIA:

The reassess was in terms of 23 reassess where we are on the program, in terms of how we 24 provide resources and prioritization and that type of 25 thing.

t NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N W.

(202) 23m33 WASHINGTON. D C. 2000# 3701 (202) 234 4433

23 1

The Commission has addressed it in terms of 2

when the process is complete on the design certification 3

of the evolutionary designs, when we're complete on the 4

design certification, is to take a step back and look for 5

lessons learned, and in that kind of context.

Those 6

comments would certainly be valuable in that context as 7

well.

8 As I said, we looked at the evolutionary 9

designs as testing those pieces of part 52.

The designs 10 that were put before us are only testing the design 11 certification part of part 52 which had the overall 12 objective I think everyone agrees to in terms of the 13 industry and in terms of the agency and the staff, the 14 Commission.

The question is, is has the implementation of 15 that met the overall objectives, and where can 16 improvements be made.

17 We have not really completed that piece until l

18 the Commission's decision on those particular things are 19 there.

So I think it's going to be done in the context of 20 that process in any event.

But certainly those comments 21 could be useful and would be useful for consideration in 22 terms of the strategic plan as well.

23 MR. CAMERON:

Okay.

We've heard a couple of l

24 suggestions that perhaps there's an option and a very 25 important option that should have been included in the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

l

(

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433 I

i

.m..

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

24 1

paper.

2 MR. BROOKMAN:

I have one quick follow-on 3

comment.

This is Doug Brookman.

I have forgotten your l

4 name.

5 MR. VINE:

Gary Vine from EPRI.

l l

6 MR. BROOKMAN:

Gary, it seems as though in l

7 your comment, you questioned the basic thrust of the paper i

8 and the basic approach.

But what I just heard Frank ask i-i 9

is if you have specific, more specific policy related i

10 issues that you would like to raise at this point.

I 11 MR. VINE:

I see Russ Bell at the mike.

I'll 12 let him answer first, and then maybe add a few after that.

13 MR. CAMERON:

Okay, i

I i

14 MR. BELL:

My name is Russell Bell.

I am with 15 NEI.

In terms of providing the kind of comments that you 1

16 are welcoming, and we appreciate that, I would like to 17 understand the Commission's preliminary views, if I can.

l 18 We appreciate there's a continued priority and design

\\

19 certificatio1. as well as the siting and licensing elements 1

20 of part 52.

21 That can be interpreted a couple of ways.

I i

22 was hoping to get some clarification.

We would like to

(

23 think that in terms of continued priority on the licensing 1

l 24 element of part 52, that that would embody an intent to j

25 move forward and address some of the major aspects of the i

t NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS j

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE, N W.

l (202) 234 4 33 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

l 25 1

licensing element, even now as we go forward to prepare 2

the way for the first license application or further real 3

test of the process.

We wou.'.d like to think that that's 4

encompassed in the Commission's preliminary views.

Could 5

you speak to that?

6 MR. MIRAGLIA:

Mike, could you put that back 7

up?

I think it is embodied in that in terms of that they 8

have revalidated the sustained responsiveness, number one.

9 Number two, in terms of the implementation 10 guidance, that is to the utility requirement document and 11 evaluate the design certification process after the design 12 certification rule makings are complete pending post 13 Commission decision to look at those kinds of lessons 14 learned.

So I think that that avenue is there.

They are 15 directing the staff to continue the activities in those 16 type of areas, including early site reviews or whatever, 17 as well.

18 MR. CAMERON:

Does that answer your question?

]

19 MR. BELL:

I think so.

Thank you, Frank.

20 These bullets here didn't seem to go to the next -- the 21 other two elements of the process.

So I would have liked 22 to have seen something more specific.

In fact, our l

23 comments will seek that.

24 MR. MIRAGLIA:

I think if you go back to even 25 the previous one, it says early site reviews and i

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l

l 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

l (202) 234 4 33 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 2 % 4433 i

l l

.o 26 l

l 1

li' censing, advanced reactors.

So I think they.have l

2 reaffirmed that prioritization.

3 MR. BELL:

As long as we're not waiting for l

4 the first license application to address some of the i

5 important issues that need to be addressed in order to j

6 allow the first license application.

7 MR. MIRAGLIA:

Well, we've had that posture.

l t

8 We've dialogued with the industry in terms of early site l

j 9

reviews.

We have met.

That seems to say we should l

10 continue to give priority to those kinds of initiatives as 11 they put before us, j

12 MR. CAMERON:

But it's clear that this second 13 star does not depend on the NRC receiving an application.

l 14 MR. MIRAGLIA:

I think that we're going to be l

l 15 in a response mode to industries' activities in this area.

i 16 We have worked with the industry and DOE in dialoging on 17 what those next steps be, information.

We have had white l

l l

18 papers and that type of thing.

I 19 If they are suggesting that we ought to 20 provide resources and do something on NRC on an issue, I j

21 don't think -- I think we're in industry proposes and then

]

I 22 we dispose and interact.

I think that's what the second i

23 priority and option was, is that we would provide and give I

24 priority to working with the industry with respect to a

25 those initiatives.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W l

(202) 234 M33 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4 33

l 27 l

1 MR. CAMERON:

Okay.

Thank you, Frank.

2 Gary, do you have any further things to add?

3 MR. VINE:

EPRI's role in this is the design i

I i

4 development part on behalf of the utilities.

It's NEI's i

5 responsibility to deal directly with these regulatory l

6 issues.

7 I don't feel that it's appropriate for EPRI to 8

comment in detail on all of the things that have 9

frustrated the utilities over the last couple years, but I l

10 have got to tell you, that we have had at least one l

11 utility meeting of our utilities, responsible for the 12 requirements document since this issue paper came out.

I

)

l 13 can't convey strongly enough how frustrated and

]

1 14 disappointed the utilities of this nation are in where I

i 15 this issue stands.

j

?

16 The fact that we have attempted on so many 17 occasions to communicate more effective ways of 18 implementing part 52, and it does not seem to be sinking l

19 in.

22 MR. CAMERON:

Okay the frustrations here.

The i

21 first gentleman who spoke talked about a stable regulatory 22 environment.

I think you echoed that.

But the particular l

l i

23 frustrations you are talking about are specifically 24 related to the licensing of future plants rather than the 25 existing regimes.

Is that correct?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE, N W (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433

~

t 28 1

MR. VINE:

Yes.

They have to do with the 2

process that will be used to complete the full part 52 l

I l

3 process of a combined operating license for a future plant l

4 in the united States.

The process issues,. not the l

5 technical issues, the safety issues have been resolved 6

very properly and appropriately by the Conmission.

We are j

i 7

satisfied with the technical resolution of all the safety j

l 8

issues.

It is the process that's been put in place that l

i I

9 is creating frustration.

l 10 MR. CAMERON:

We have heard some very definite b

i 11 strong statements about this issue and another possible 12 option.

I am just curious,'does anybody have another, any l

13 other perspective on that?

Yes, sir.

14-MR. MCINTYRE:

Well, actually, my name is

)

15 McIntyre.

I work for Westinghouse.

It's not on the same 16 option.

You guys are all talking about the next option.

17 I am the guy that doesn't have the FDA.

We are kind of l

l 18 thinking beyond that.

l-i 19 I was told I had five minutes.

So I do have a l

20 I think it's a four minute and 53 second prepared l

21 presentation that I will provide.

So here I am.

22 MR. MIRAGLIA:

We didn't put that five minute-23 limit on you, did we, Brian?

i 24 MR. CAMERON:

No, but he's committed now to 4

25 four minutes and 53 I

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 y.

f 29 1

MR. BROOKMAN:

Does he know about the video 2'

tape?

3 MR. MCINTYRE:

No.

The written comments, j

i 4

trust me, will be much larger than that.

But whoever l

5 answered the phone said five minutes.

So here I am.

6 As manager of safety and licensing for AP600 7

design certification at Westinghouse, it is my privilege 8

to outline to ycu the status and progress on the.AP600 t

l 9

design certification program, and comment on the l

10 appropriate Commission policy for' licensing of future j

f l

11 reactors.

l 12 Congress's Energy Policy Act of 1992 defines l

t 13 several imperatives which must be addressed.

Among these j

i l

14-imperatives is the need to keep the nuclear option open l

15 for the United States.

In a response, the nuclear i

I l

16 industry has developed a compre,hr.sive strategic plan 17 aggressively devoted to making sure that this country has L

18 the nuclear option.

l 19 Our nation's economy growing even at a l

l 20 moderate rate, will dictate the need for additional I

21 generation capacity.

As the need for new baseload t

l 22 generating capacity arrives during the next 15 years, we 23 must have all available options at the ready so that 1

24 effective choices can be made.

l 25 Keeping in the forefront of nuclear technology e

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE. N W.

I (202) 2;. 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344433 i

I

30 1

is also vital from an international perspective.

The 2

United States has long been the world leader in the 3

commercialization of nuclear technology.

The world i

4 continues to look to us for technology development.

l 5

Indeed, without a strong nuclear program, our influence I

6 and shaping the international non-nuclear non-l 7

proliferation regime would be greatly diminished.

I l

i l

8 The export market is also significant, with up 9

to 50 nuclear power plants expected to be built in l

l 10 Southeast Asia over the next 15 years.

1 11 The AP600 design has generated such strong 12 interest world wide that 20 nations have joined in 13 engineering and testing efforts.

This international 14 coalition'is strong evidence that the world still looks to t

15 the United States for leadership in nuclear power and that 16 the AP600 meets the test as a world class product.

l 17 In 1990, Westinghouse was awarded the 120 18 million dollar cost-shared design certification contract 19 from the Department of Energy and EPRI.

In March of 1993, 20 the iti8 million dollar companion cost-shared program, 21 first-of-a-kimi engineering was awarded to Westinghouse as 22 a result of a market-driven utility selection process.

-23 These programs will provide the certainty, and safety, j

24 licensing, cost and schedule.which is needed for public i

.25 investor and utility confidence to proceed with nuclear NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433 l

l 31 1

power.

2 Westinghouse has already expended 125 million 3

on these two essential programs, and has committed to 4

repay 25 million dollars of the DOE funding on design 5

certification as royalties from the sale of the first 6

AP600 plant.

7 We have proceeded aggressively with the 8

program and have successfully completed the test program 9

at Oregon State University and all other design 10 certification testing programs at an expense of over 40 11 million dollars.

The results of these test programs have 12 been successfully used to verify the computer programs 13 used to evaluate the performance of the AP600.

The NRC 14 even now is using the world class Oregon State test 15 facility for their own research programs.

16 The design certification program is now 88 17 percent complete, and is targeted for final design j

18 approval from the NRC in 1997.

At the conclusion of the 19 program, Westinghouse will have spent over 22 million 20 dollars in NRC review fees alone.

21 The ability to construct AP600s around the 22 world, particularly in the Asian nations that will place 23 orders for nuclear power plants in the next three years, 24 depends on the timely receipt of a final design approval 25 from the NRC.

Being licensed in the country of origin is NEAL R. GROSS j

COURT RFPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISMND AWL. N W (202) 2344433 WASHINGTCN. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433

_.. -. - ~.

32 1

essential to. competing in these foreign markets.

Delays 2

will give foreign competitors a crucial advantage and

)

3 potentially deprive the United States for these very 4

important American labor intensive orders.

China alone i

1 5

expects to increase their nuclear generation capacity by t

6 30-fold over the next 24 years.

l 7

It should also be noted that the AP600 program 8

has the support of Congress.

For example, the House l

9 Budget Committee has made it clear that the ALWR and AP600 10 programs meet their criteria for federally funded 11 programs, and that the fiscal year 1997 program has been I

i I

12 approved by Congress.

-13 Substantial progress has thus been made in the 14 AP600 program and the full support and cooperation of the 15 utility members of the Advanced Reactor Corporation, the 16 Department of Energy, and the domestic and international 17 members of the AP600 team.

18 We believe this progress and this program is t

i L

19 vital to the future of nuclear power in America, vital to l

l-20 developing technology exports, and necessary to maintain 21 and enhance our influence in international nuclear policy.

22 We thus strongly recommend that the AP600 23 design program for the NRC be completed on a priority l

24 basis in accord with option two, that of sustained l

)

25 responsiveness of che advanced reactor direction setting NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W (202) 23M433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

,o l

33 1

issue paper.

2 Thank you for your time.

3 MR. CAMERON:

Thank you very much.

I was l

4 going to ask you if you could put that in the context of 5

the options.

You did at the end.

In other words, support 6

for option two, which I guess is part of the Commission's i

1 7

preliminary option.

Right, Frank?

8 MR. MIRAGLIA:

Yes.

Might I ask Brian, the 9

other suggestion that I heard is an active role in terms 10 of sustaining the nuclear option.

I think if there are 11 specific comments as how that could be done, and what role 12 does the NRC have and can play in that given its statutory 13 base of it, and how to interact.

14 If there's some discussion or comments or i

16 thoughts on how that broader objective that I heard in the 16 initial part of your statement, and I believe suggested by 17 some of the other commenters, I think that would be 18 helpful in the comments that you might provide to us in 19 terms of the overall strategic plan.

20 MR. MCINTYRE:

Sure we can put that in the 21 final paper.

I think where you see that, Frank, is the l

22 fact that licensed by the NRC is truly the holy grail when l

23 you are trying to sell a plant overseas.

In our case, 24 what they are looking for is the fact that the staff has 25 looked at it, and they've made a good honest assessment of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W l

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTCV D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 l

l

34 1

the plant.

They have done the confirmatory research and 2

they have scrubbed it.

3 MR. MIRAGLIA:

I think the paper recognizes 4

the importance of that and discussed that as a factor for-5 consideration.

To the extent that the broader issue of-6 how the option can be maintained overall for the U.S.,

and 7

what specific role the NRC could play within the statutory 8

limitations on the agency.

If there's thoughts on that, l

l 9

that would be of interest.

l 10 MR. CAMERON:

Further comments out there?

11 What about some of what we might call the outlier options.

l 12 Does anybody have any thoughts or comments on option four, 13 the so-called single solution option?

Does everybody l

14 understand what option four is?

l i

l 15 MR. MIRAGLIA:

Maybe I could expand a little 16 bit.

17 MR. CAMERON:

That would be great, Frank.

18 MR. MIRAGLIA:

It was in terms of being 19 responsive to the Commission to look at innovative out of l

20 the box type thinking.

It sort of addresses the issue in 21 a very, very broad kind of way, in saying if there's 22 really that need, somebody has to articulate that need.

23 The NRC recognizes it has a role to play, but that role is i

24 confined to the regulatory role and that kind of thing.

i l

25 It would be supportive of that kind of issue.

So to that i

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 2000 # 3701 (202) 23W33

'35 i

i 1

extent, I think it does cover some of the thoughts, maybe

[

2 very very broadly.

3 But it was seen that there needs to be that 4

kind of articulation of an overall policy regarding the 5

nuclear option.

Then certainly NRC has a role in playing l

6 that.

7 It's the-question of our role as regulator as a

opposed to a promoter in that kind of thing.

There's a 9

suggestion in there for that kind of consortium out there 3

10 to present that kind of thought.

We would examine that i

i 11 and consider what our role is on that.

12 MR. CAMERON:

Thank you, Frank.

Any, with 13 that explanation, any comments on option four?

Any other 14 comments on this issue, any perspectives from interests.

15 outside of the nuclear industry?

Okay, well let's do the 16 next issues paper.

3 17 I should point out that the viewgraphs for

~

18 these presentations are in the back of the room and also 19 Frank, you might want to introduce Luis.

20 MR. MIRAGLIA:

Yes.

I didn't introduce him.

21 That is an oversight.

22 MR. CAMERON:

And it's Region III, remember.

23 MR. MIRAGLIA:

And that's a good segway, 24 because we're going to talk about reactor oversight.

But

{.

25 let me correct the oversight.

Luis Reyes is the deputy t.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

^

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 3701 (202) 2344433

l 36 l

1 regional administrator at Region II.

We took pains i

2 yesterday to clarify that on the record.

i 3

MR. REYES:

Thanks, Frank.

4 MR. MIRAGLIA:

In the context of the strategic

-5 planning committee, we looked at -- the reactor area and 6

reactor program cuts across lots of the agencies t

7 activities.

l 8

In the early stages, we had a reactor 9

subcommittee.

On that subcommittee was Luis Reyes, 10 representing the regions and the regional perspective.

Ed i

11 Jordan, from AEOD, and also Dr. Themis Speis, from 12 Research, to get as broad a perspective 'of. the reactor 13 issues, because they do cover a wide gamut of the agency's f

14 activities in the reactor area.

15 So Luis is here today.for moral support.

Dr.

16 Speis and Ed Jordan are here also in that kind of context.

17 DSI 11 talks to operating reactor oversight l

19 program.

Before we talk about the DSI, we do have an j

i 19 oversight program.

I would just like to say that the I

i 20 reactor program is based upon -- the primary 21 responsibility rests with our licensees.

The NRC does not 22 design nuclear power plants.

The NRC does not construct 23 nuclear power plants.

The NRC does not operate nuclear o

i 24 power plants.

What it does it is has a licensing and a 1

25 regulatory process that licenses specific utilities to NEAL R. GROSS I

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433 I.

m.-__-4

37 1

carry out those functions.

As part of that activity, has 2

an oversight responsibility for the implementation of that l

l 3

program.

l 4

Within the elements of that program, there is

{

5 a licensing aspect, there's an inspection aspect, and then 6

there's a performance assessment piece.

Those issues are 1

7 discussed'in the context of the issue paper.

8 Those are all three important elements to the

]

l 9

reactor oversight program.

We have an audit function, in I

10 terms of our inspection.

If we change the licensing 11 process, we.need to consider does that change necessitate 12 a need to the inspection or our process or how we assess 13 the performance of licensees.

So it's an interactive kind l

I 14 of relationship with respect to the three elements of that 15 program.

16 The program is not a static program, in that 17 the process of oversight looks at operating experience, 18 examines research information, and has a feedback 19 mechanism within the context of changes to the process.

20 There's lots of challenges within this area.

21 The specific DSI was given the changes in the external and 22 internal environment, what are the implications for the 23 current strategies for dealing with operating reactors.

24 Some key factors that are discussed, the 25 program is a stable program in the sense that licensing of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W (202) 23W33 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005-3701 (202) 23W33

i 38 1

new reactors is not on the horizon.

So in terms of the i

2 work load, there's a stable of operating plants out there

(

3 that we have to provide the reactor oversight for-l l

4 continued safe operation of those facilities.

5 A projection was made in terms of;looking in a 6

three year to five year planning window, three to 10 year 7

planning window, is that three to five years -- three to 8

five reactors are expected to shut down perhaps 9

prematurely in that time frame.

That reflects past 10 experience.

In the recent past, that's about the number.

11 Given economics and the changing environment and 12 economics, that the -- so that the stable of reactors is 13 going to be about what it is today, with some reductions.

14 The number of new requirements are expected to

)

15 remain relatively low.

That does not mean that there's 16 not going to be any new requirements, because as we gain 17 operating experience, that does require us to take a step 18 back and look at new requirements, new positions, changes l

19 to our program.

20 The next slide continues on some of those.

21 Plants are getting older, aging of equipment, and it does i

22 raise new issues that need to be considered.

So there is j

23 a range of new requirements that are under consideration f

24 and that we've been having dialogue in terms of rule j

25 makings and guidance documents in the agency's processes.

I NEAL R. GROSS i

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 3701 (202) 2344433

39 1

In terms of external factors, the industry 2

deregulation and increasing economic pressures.

This was 3

discussed a bit yesterday in terms of some of the comments 4

from some of the participants yesterday.

I believe Mr.

5 Riccio from Public Citizen alluded to it, Dr. Johnsrud.

I 6

believe Ms. Fleming raised the concern, is that there's an 7

economic deregulation on the horizon in terms of economic 8

deregulation of the electrical utility industry.

9 That has a number -- raises a number of issues 10 for the agency to deal with in terms of what's the impact 11 on that, and how is that going to change the regulatory 12 climate.

13 The agency has looked at financial 14 qualifications in the broad sense, and the context has 15 been is that being an electrical utility within a 16 regulated economic framework provided some stability.

17 There's changes in the wind.

18 We are trying to look ahead and be perspective 19 and saying what do those changes mean to our regulatory 20 program, and to how we should look at licensing of aspects 21 of that, inspection aspects of that, and performance 22 assessment aspects of that.

23 We have a number of activities under way that 24 I'll touch on when we get to DSI 24, but they are relevant 25 to some of the discussion here.

l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005-3701 (202) 234 4 3!

i

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

l.,o 40 1

There has been lots of emphasis on risk

{-

2 informed performance based regulations to make the process 3

more efficient, the current process more efficient in 4

terms of concentrating on the significant risk 5

contributors and to rationalize the regulations and the 6

requirements with their importance to safety.

i 7

We have had activities in this area for cost 8

savings in terms of reducing burden.

We are warranted 1

1 l

l 9

within the context of our licensing process.

Risk 1

10 informed performance based regulations is a paper that 11 we'11 be hearing a little-bit more about this morning.

12 That's something that we have been doing, and we need to i

i I

j

)

13 do in the context of all of these external factors.

Some 14 of these play in both types of direction.

1 15 The industry has expressed concerns in the

)

J 16 past about the level of our inspections, the intensities 17 of our inspections.

There was discussion yesterday at the 18 morning session relative to the role of industry and 19 credit for self assessments.

Some of those aspects have 20 been folded within the context of the program.

21 But again, all of these need to be done in a 22 balanced kind of way.

That term balanced was used in a number of instances in our discussions yesterday on some 23 i

I 24 of those issues in terms of the roles of the industry, the f

25 need for the public to be involved and know in terms of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. O C 20005-3701 (202) 2344433

41 1

1 the public response of the initiatives.

So that balance 2

has to be there.

If those changes are made, they have to l

3 be made in full view of all our stakeholders.

So that's 4

an issue as well.

5 As I said, there's component and systems are 4

6 aging.

Issues are being raised.

They have to be dealt 7

with in the context of the safety implication of what we 8

see cut there in terms of the operating experience for 9

those types of facilities.

10 As a result of that component aging operating 11 experience, safety issues will arise.

They need to be 12 dealt with.

They will change the program in terms of 13 either licensing, inspection or performance assessment.

i 14 There is continued public concern regarding 15 the safety and the interest in the regulatory process.

16 There was a refe: ance yesterday to the lapses in the 17 regulatory process that have been made very publicly 18 visible by facilities in the northeast, New England.

It 19 raises questions and vulnerabilities in our process and 20 our program that need to be considered.

21 As we were putting this issue paper together, 22 we were trying to address some of those issues.

It's a l

l 23 process that is an ongoing process.

Some of those areas 24 are addressed in the broad context of the paper of those.

25 The questions that are raised from a programmatic point of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE. N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

i ec 1

42 f

1 view in terms of the 50.59 process, the lessons learned l

2 that'come out of the Millstone facilities, the lessons 3

learned that would be evolving from the Maine Yankee i

4 facility.

So.those are referenced in here.

Those are 5

going to be factored.into our program, and have continued 6

a type of change.

(

7 The options that were considered.

To review 8

the process in the context of the lessons learned and 1

9 develop mechanisms for a systematic reexamination of the 10 oversight activities to assure continued effectiveness.

l l

11 We have within the context of our program, an assessment I

12 of the implementation of that program.

l l

13 That has raised issues and questions 14 identified by our own assessments, identified in terms of l

15 experience out.t here, identified by the Commission for us 16 to look at changes in improvements to the process.

Some 17 of those are referenced within the context of the paper.

18 A few examples.

19 In terms of performance assessment, the 20 question of making that process more visible and 21 understandable to the regulated community and to the 22 public, there's been an activity that the Commission, the 23 current chairman in particular has asked the staff to take 24 initiatives to look at the performance assessment process.

25 It is evolving.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W.

_l (202) 23m33 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 23M33 j

,a 43 1

There have been a number of briefings of the 2

Commission on how that process has changed with respect to 3

the systematic assessment of licensee performance program, 4

how we conduct plant performance reviews, and the senior 5

management meeting processes to make that more visible, 6

and to have some more quantifiable type measurable type 7

objectives.

So those activities have been ongoing.

8 I referenced the Millstone and the Maine i

9 Yankee experiences, raised some issues in terms of 50.59 10 process, the FSAR.

The expectations we have for our staff l

11 in terms of communication of licensing basis and their 12 activities, and their relationship to inspection.

Those 13 are the kinds of ongoing activities.

14 So the next part of that option is to say what i

is lessons have we learned to try to make our own internal 16 oversight processes more effective, so we identify these 17 things before they reveal themselves to us.

So it's a 18 regulatory excellence activity within the context of the 1

1 19 implementation of the program.

20 The next option was how can we make the 21 process more efficient and effective by working with the 22 industry so we have continued improvements in performance, 23 and recognizing that that has to be done in a balanced way 24 with all our stakeholders, also increased the 25 opportunities for the public's involvement in that type of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 23M33 1

1 44 1

process.

2 There were a number of suggestions that were 3

made within the context of the paper of working in terms 4

of standards and guidance that the industry could propose 5

that could be endorsed by the agency within the context of 6

its process in a public kind of way so we can further 7

improve not only the licensing and inspection process, but 8

our performance assessment processes as well.

9 The next option was perform a business process 10 in a reengineering.

I believe there was some discussion 11 of that in terms and in context of the materials program 12 that was yesterday afternoon's session.

13 In the materials licensing area, they have 14 used business process reengineering to take a step back 15 and saying what can we do to modify the processes to make 16 them more efficient and effective.

There are perhaps some 17 lessons to be learned from that materials program that 18 could be applied to additional improvements and further 19 improvements within the context of the reactor oversight 20 activities that we perform.

21 The Commission provided its discussions in its 22 preliminary reviews and have indicated that option one, we 23 should continue with option one, in the comprehensive 24 review, and include a systematic reexamination of the 25 reactor program, and for us to look at our own assessment NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

(202) 23M33 WASHINGTON. D C 20005-3701 (202) 23M33

.~.

. ~ - -.

i 45 1

processes again, to further improve.

Not only to fix the 1

2 issues and problems we've seen, but what can we learn from s

3 that,.and to apply those lessons learned to broader areas 1

I 4

within the context of the program.

5 The Commission also indicated that option two, 3

a 1

]

6 they see a need -- they encouraged the industry and us to l

l 7.

work together so that we can have guidance and guidelines

't i

j 8

to work with and to provide increased opportunities for 9

public involvement in that process.

I 10 They see that there is a role for industry.

i 11 That role can be explored.

We're encouraged to go forth l

l 12 and work with the industry.

We have done that in a number j

13 of instances.

One instance that comes to mind that was d'

14 discussed somewhat yesterday in terms of the tech spec 15' improvement program.

16 The Commission endorsed a policy a number of 4

l 17 years back,for us to re-examine the tech spec program and 18 suggest some improvements.

The Commission put out a 19 policy statement.asking the staff to review that program.

l t

20 We worked with the industry in terms of the industry 21 providing standard technical specifications for the 22 different vendor type facilities, and coming up with model 23 technical specifications.

24 That was done in a way that was in the public i

I 25 arena.

There was public consideration of the policy NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 23M33

.- -.~-

1 46 1

stat'ement.

That's an ongoing program.

'l

.1 j'

2 I think at this time, we have 12 facilities, i

3 maybe a little bit more.

I know it's double digits, but l

4 it's certainly less than 20, that have implemented the new 5

tech spec improvement program.

The improved technical 4

]

• 6 specifications are a commitment on the part of each 7

licensee to go back and re-examine the Lasis for the terms 4

8 and conditions, and the basis, the design basis for some 9

of the requirements.

It requires a re-examination of that 10 to move forward.

{

11 I think about 70 utilities have indicated and 12 made a commitment to convert to the improvement of the 3

9 13 tech spec analysis, to be accomplished over the next J

1 j

14 couple of years.

15 Again, that was done in a way that there was a j

i 2

t 16 policy statement promulgated.

There was generic 1

j 17 communications that were promulgated.

Each of those had j

18 opportunities for public participation.

The process was 19 open to public's observation.

The individual changes have 20 the process.

21 Notwithstanding that, there are opportunities 22 to perhaps do a better job of informing the public.

I 23 think that came out in yesterday's session, is that in 24 terms of having more of an outreach in explaining what our 25 processes are.

The processes are in some cases very NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C, 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

47 i

1 proceduralized.

The word ritualized was used yesterday by 2

someone, I don't recall who.

That leads to some i

l 1

3.

frustrations in terms of process.

4 Perhaps we should discuss more of an outreach j

5 to put the process in context of perspective.

The i

1 6

observation was made yesterday about the tech specs of 7

that.

If we take 40 percent of the material from limiting j

8 conditions of operations and put them somewhere, there is l

9 a perception that we're taking that off the regulatory l

10 table.

11 The process really says that we remove from 12 those terms and conditions of the technical specification i

13 and put in other control type of documents which need to l

14 be examined.

+

15 So that's a shift in the licensing part of how 16 we handle it, perhaps, but it had to have a countervailing 17 inspection piece.

We need to look at:where, what l

l 18 processes are being used, what control procedures.are 1

19 being used in the needs of the inspection program to 20 ensure that those aspects of that overall decision making 21 process is maintained.

22 So I think we need to do a better job of 23 articulating that.

Because perceptions do become 24 realities.

So we can have perhaps an outreach in some of 25 those areas as well.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N W.

(202) 23W33 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433

. - -. ~~, -

48 i

1-s j-1 The Commission indicated we ought to look at i

2 expanding the use of technology in terms of improving j

i 3

efficiency, in terms of new inspection techniques, new 4

4 ways of communicating information and that type of

'{

5 technology.

I r

i i

6 They also indicated that we perhaps should

-7 examine more flexibility in how we provide staff to 8

multiple sites.

The current policy of the Commission is a

9 an N plus one type policy.

They take the number of 1

4 10 reactors, add one, and that's the number of resident j

8 11 inspectors that would be stationed at a facility.

i

\\

12 There are some provisions for seeking 1[

13 exemption from that.

The suggestion here is for perhaps J

j 14 the staff to go back and say is there another way of.how 15 we would staff multiple unit sites with residents, j

4 16 considering performance and other criteria.

17 As I said, the Commission has been very very 18 clear.

They want us to improve the effectiveness in the 19 understanding of our performance assessment processes that 20 we use in terms of salary.

We need performance review 21 process, the senior management meeting process.

Those are 22 ongoing activities.

So to look for continued ways of 23 doing that.

24 They indicated that they also like parts of 25 option three.

Option three is to try to learn the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

(202) 234 4 33 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

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

o.

s 49 i

j

'l lessons, as I said, from the materials activities, and

+

j.

2 take a step back and saying what aspects of this can be j

3 used within terms of the reactor oversight process and i

'4 come back to the Commission and identify what areas could l'

i-benefit in this area.

l 5

6 They have also asked us to go back and look at 7

other regulatory agencies, foreign and domestic, in terms 8

of seeking out best practices.

What have their approaches

t 9

been to licensing, inspection, performance assessments 10 within the context of their programs.

Forei'gn programs in l

11 the reactor area, other domestic regulatory programs, and 12 see are there some suggestions of potential new techniques.

l 13 that perhaps could be utilized to make the process of j

14 oversight more effective and efficient overall.

15 That is a broad overview of that paper.

Chip, 16 I'll turn it back over to you.

I 17 MR. CAMERON:

Thanks, Frank.

On the last 18 paper, we received some strong suggestions that maybe we i

19 missed an important option.

Are we in the ballpark on j

20 this'one in terms of the options that were identified?

21 Any comments on this particular paper?

22 I guess I had one question that I would hope 23 some people from the audience might respond to, option 24 two discussed increased opportunities for public 25 involvement, as Frank had noted.

Frank also talked about NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE. N W.

(202) 234-4 33 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433

50 i

4 1

1 the tech specs issue.

Does anybody out there have any

{

2 suggestions for how opportunities for public involvement 1

i 3

could be increased in terms of either access to 4

information or influence on the decision making process?

5 I think the Commission is going to be looking for 6

suggestions of that type.

7 MR. MIRAGLIA:

In terms of that, I think the 8

paper recognizes that there's an interaction between some l

9 of these issue papers and the public ra-7nsiveness issues 10 that were discussed yesterday.

Seme of the issues bear on 11 that in terms of this is a manifestation within the 12 context of the reactor program, as well as all the I

13 agencies programs.

There is certainly an outreach

'4 question for us to do.

1 15 Il We have made changes to the 2.206 process as 16 was discussed yesterday.

There are still some j

17 frustrations within the context of that process.

Those 18 changes have been made over what, the last year, Larry?

19 So perhaps we haven't really realized, have they really 20 improved the perception out there.

We're looking for 21 other ways of improving public responsiveness in other 22 areas.

So we would welcome comments.

23 Also, since we are in oversight, I would like 24 to correct another oversight.

Is this my third one?

Mike i

25 Johnson was the writer of this paper.

Mike did a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE. N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

i 51 1

substantive matter to work and activity.

I want to i

l 2

recognize his contributions to the process.

He was the 3

writer of this paper.

I am just a sponsor of the paper, 4

so I think the significant work was done by Mike, and I 5

want to correct that oversight too.

l 6

MR. CAMERON:

Okay.

Thank you, Frank.

Mike 7

is over here, for people who don't know him.

8 I guess I would just emphasize that we would 9

welcome ccmme.ts en how public responsiveness or public 10 involvement might be increased.

It's a laudable i

l 11 objective.

In terms of specific ways to do it, that's 12 what we might be looking for.

13 MR. MIRAGLIA:

There are some suggestions 14 within the context of the paper, but we would certainly 15 welcome additional thoughts and comment in that area as 16 well.

17 MR. CAMERON:

How about BPR?

Is the reactor 18 community excited about the BPR process?

Is the reactor 19 community out there?

Do they know what BPR is?

20 You know, it has been used in the materials 21 area.

I don't know if any of our agreement state l

22 representatives or representatives from the materials 23 license community who have had some exposure or experience 24 with BPR might want to comment on the efficacy of that 25 type of process.

i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433

__m.-._

l' 52 l

l l

1 AUDIENCE MEMBER:

BPR is business process i

2 redesign?

3 MR. CAMERON:

Yes.

It is.

The question is 4

BPR business process redesign.

The answer is yes.

l-5 MR. MIRAGLIA:

Either redesign, reengineering.

I I

l 6

But that's the process.

I came to the latter part of the l

7 materials session yesterday.

There were some favorable i

l l

8 comments, at least relative to what was done in the.

l p

r t

9 materials area.

i 10 I am aware that some of the utilities have l

11 used this process in their own internal processes.

But 12 it's the business process reengineering in terms of making j

13 processes more efficient and effective.

1 I'

14 MR. CAMERON:

I think we have fleshed Mr.

15 Tipton out of the audience.

16 MR. TIPTON:

I'm Tom Tipton from NEI.

I have 17 been sitting through this for two days.

We were going to 18 listen to the last two days, but I do~have a couple 19 points.

20 I think everyone believes there needs to be a 21 complete airing of the issue.

But I think in the i

22 environment that we-are in today, in the economic j

23 deregulated environment, we need timely decision making.

i 24-Now we have gone through an enhanced j

L 25 participatory rulemaking process, and Chip, you were fully i

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE, N W (202) 234 4 33 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433

l e

53 1

involved in that.

But I don't think it's an expedited 2

process.

You spent a lot of time, a lot of effort, and 3

auite frankly, I am still waiting.

i 4

The cther issue I want to make is my. concern i

5 is if we had done this exercise in 1995 instead of 1996, I l

l 6

think the results would be different in that the northea.st 7

event has permeated the reports throughout.

We are not j

8 looking at 15 years of improvement in our industry since 9

1979.

i 10 So the only request I have of the NRC, one of l

11 the main requests I have, is you have got to look at 12 everything we've done.

We have had an event, I mean not 13 an event, but a situation.

I would not call that an.

l

- 14 event.

We are learning from that.

But we have done a 15 lot.

So in terms of your performance indicators, our 16 performance indicators, we have improved dramatically.

17 My worry is, now that we have had the j

l 18 situation of 1996; we are throwing out everything and l

19 starting over.

I think that would be a big mistake, 20 especially in oversight.

Thank you.

i 21 MR. CAMERON:

Thank you, Tom.

Frank?

22 MR. MIRAGLIA:

I would just like to comment.

l l

23 I think the paper does recognize that there has been 24 improved performance in the industry.

It also recognizes 25 that while that performance improved, there are a number NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE, N W.

(202) 23W33 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4 433 l

w+

w e

r v

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

{

i 54 1

of plants that have performance issues and problen s that 2

are a concern to the Commission.

3 The situation that we face is one of erosion d

I 4' of' credibility of the process.

What we have is a process.

i j

5 The reactor oversight that we conduct is very process l

l 6

oriented.

i

{

7 As I said in my initial comments is that the 8

primary responsibility out there rests with our licensees.

r 9

I think it's important-for the licensees to share that 10 burden of responsibility in terms of to eddress the kinds j

l 11 of issues and concerns.

I 12 I think you are right, Tom.

The performance 13 of the industry has improved over the last years.

I think 14 these papers reflect that.

I think many of the reports 15 and other documents that the Commission has put out in the 16 public arena reflect that.

i 17 But there are issues that we have to deal with 18 and assess what their impact is, and learn the lessons and 19 move on.

I think that's correct.

20 MR. CAMERON:

Okay.

Thanks, Frank.

21 Tom, do you have a further comment?

22 MR. TIPTON:

I agree we need to address the 23 issue that we have before us.

But let me also talk about

-24 one other issue that I heard yesterday.

25 In terms of developing industry guidance, I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

(202) 234 4 33 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 1

.. ~. -.

55 1

think we have had several excellent experiences that we 2

can build on.

The development of the industry's 3

maintenance guideline is a perfect example of where 4

everything was in a public forum.

All documents were 5

publicly available.

Everything was reviewed and given 6

opportunity.

7 Where I am struggling is what is the problem 8

that we are trying to solve in terms of additional 9

involvement?

Few in license renewal, far instance, we are 10 going through the same exercise with public involvement.

11 I think it is working very well.

12 So as we go forward, I think when we look at 13 the process of deregulation, competitiveness, that is not 14 necessarily bad.

The only problem I have had with 15 deregulating the telephone industry is the calls I get at 16 10:00 at night, would you like to switch to MCI.

17 MR. CAMERON:

Mine come at dinner.

18 MR. TIPTON:

Someone the other day got a 1 :-

hundred dollar check for changing, so things are looking i

20 up in terms of the cost.

But the reliability of my phone 21 system has not changed at all.

22 So deregulation is not bad.

It's here.

It's l

23 something we're going to have to deal with.

But my worry

?4 is, we're starting to re-engineer in terms of what we need 25 to do.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W (202) 234 M33 WASHINGTON. D C 20005-3701 (202) 234-M33 l

l

m_._

56 l

1 For the oversight, I think it's extremely i

2 important'that we make sure that there is safety value l

l 3

added.

I think we all agree with that.

/

l 4

MR. CAMERON:

Thank you, Tom.

Tom has raised 5

some interesting points.

Does anybody have a response or l-6 fu.ther comment on any of the points that he has raised?

7 Okay, well, why don't we -- Jane Fleming, do 1

l-8 you want to use the standing mike?

I 9

MS. FLEMING:

Actually, I feel a little i

i 10 obligation to speak on behalf of the public as I snnounced l

11 yesterday.

I am just a public citizen, not the public 12 citizen, just a.

13 A lot of areas of this particular paper have l

14 worried me.

I do have comments on it.

One of the major l

l 15 ones is the deregulation.

That is of great concern to myself and many members of the public that I have spoken 16 17 to.

18 The whole area of the increased economic

' 19 competitiveness, being familiar with the phone companies 20 and'everything, I do think Tom did have a point that this 1

1 21 isn't necessarily bad.

But it has to be watched very 22 carefully.

23 The atmosphere for the cost cutting, the 1

1 l

4 24 public perceives that as safety cutting.

Whether that j

25 perception is true or not, the perception is there.

I i

i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433 i

_-~-

1.. c l

57 i

1 think you have to be aware of that.

2 In Massachusetts, the attorney general and l

3 everyone else is jumping into this quagmire on the 4

deregulation, and deals are being cut left and right of 5

how we're going to approach this.

6 One of the things that again, concerns me, is 7

some of the issues being brought to the AG's office is f

8 going back to the old performance based incentives, which 9

I think-when they came out a few years ago, the public's 10 perception again, and I think to some extent was true, 11 look, by you people putting these reg cases in place, you I

l 12 l are pushing the industry to run to the edge of the 13 envelope.

We are more interested in safety.

14 If it is going to cost them a few extra l

l 15 dollars, let them spend the few extra dollars.

But don't i

i l

16 give them performance based incentives saying stay on line 17 no matter what.

It's trying not to say that, but that's 18' about the bottom line that's coming out to you people.

.19 You know, there's a fear that there will be a reduction of 20 safety there.

21 I just wanted to touch on again, public l

22 perceptions.

When you are looking at industry i

i 23 involvement, the industry becoming more involved in 24 setting the regulations and the guidelines, acting as more i

25 of a partner with you, the public perception, the public i

NEAL R. GROSS i

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 1

. = _..

58 1

looks.at that really with a jaundiced eye, as you all i

2 know.

I-mean this isn't any deep secret I'm giving anyone 3

on this one.

4 I would like to speak to Tom's remark too 5

about the Millstones.

Yes, the Millstones have become the 6

cornerstone of everything all of a sudden.

But when it 7

comes to the Millstones, you know, I look at that one, I 8

look at public involvement.

1 9

I can speak back to my own involvement on 10 different things.

What the Millstones have identified, 1

11 which I was already aware of and have even more recently 12 become aware of, I would rather have the public step out j

i 13 and have the NRC do their own job.

But what I have 14 learned over the years is with the public stepping in and 15 prodding and pushing and what not, there are deeper 16 inspections.

17 When you are discussing oversight of the 18 industry and as regulators, part.of the oversight process, 19 and through this whole discussion paper I'm reading more 20 and more inspect the paper, inspect the paper, inspect the 21 paper.

Well, if you want to go back historically, go back

- 22 to the Pilgrim Task Force.

Go beyond the paper and look 23 at the physical reality.

Don't just look at the paper j

24 that's presented to you.

i 25 The industry, I respect their position, i

NEAL R. GROSS i

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE.. N W.

(202) 23m33 WASHINGTON, D C, 20005-3701 (202) 23M33 i

)

1 1

.___.-..-~..- -.-

59 j

1 because I am the public.

I also live in the business I

i 2

world.

I know bottom line of the business world.

I i

3 respect the industry's position for trying to keep their i

4 bottom line down.

But I also se a member of the public, I l

t 5

want my safety protected which is your job as the 6

regulators.

7 When you are doing that, I have learned 1

8 through the task force.

I have learned through a recent t

9 a.egation vehicle down at the Watts Bar licensing l

10 process, push long encugh, push hard enough, be irritating l

11 enough, and you finally nudge the NRC to do the actual in

(

l 12 the field inspections.

13 often times, the NRC finds then, once you_get 14 in the field, compare the paper to the reality, and they 15 don't match.

I think there is a real necessity to go 16 beyond just looking at paper. -You need more in the field l

17 inspection.

l 18 You talk also in here, you speak to using the l

19 FSAR, which I am firm advocate.

Go back to the FSAR.

See 20 if the FSAR matches the reality.

Also go back to your own 21 SSARs, which'is quoted as being the NRC's primary l

'22 licensing documents.

Look at your own SSARs, be sure they 23 match the FSARs,.and that they match the physical i

l 24 realities.

1.

25 These are the things that the public would NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE.. N W (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 3701 (202) 234 4433

m.

,o 60 i

i like to see.

Obviously,.I number one, don't have the 2

knowledge to go in and do an inspection, don't have the i

3 desire to go in and do the inspection, and I am not 4

empowered to.

That is your job in the NRC.

Go in.

'Do t

5 the inspections.

But don't just look.at paper.

Look at 6

the reality.

Thank you.

~

7 MR. CAMERON:

Thanks for those perspectives,-

i 8

Jane.

I think that some of ;he latter parts of your 9

remarks are also relevant t,- the paper that Ed Jordan 10 discussed yesterday on role of the industry, the paper and i

11 the reality.

12 Does anybody have a comment on Jane's 13 observations?

i 14 MR. MIRAGLIA:

Chi p, I would just to say that I

l 15 I think in general, I think in terms of the economic 16 deregulation issue, I think I agree with what Tom'said and 17 also with what you said, Ms. Fleming, in terms of -- and 18 the Commission has indicated to the staff that we need to l

19 have a sensitivity to that issue to make sure that we are 20 aware of what impact that could have in terms of safety 21 implications in terms of safety performance.

22 So I think Tom is right in saying that l

23 deregulation is not necessarily bad, but we need to have a i

24 sensitivity to what the potential impact of those things l

25 are for the areas that we regulate.

1 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

^

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W (202) 23m33 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005-3701 (202) 23M33

_ - ~.

61 1

You pointed out how the local entities or the l

2 other governmental agencies might regulate and have 3

performance incentives and that.

This issue has come up 4

in-the past in terms of some nuclear facilities.

The i

5 Commission has taken a view at that in terms of what the 6

potential safety implications are in there.

7 I'think the key word is perceptions.

There 8-are perceptions out there.

I think if you look at the i

9 options and the Commission's preliminary decisions, they-

-10 are saying to try to work with the industry, but also have 11 the public.

It's the balance issue that was discussed in i

12 scme of yesterday morning's discussion in terms of public 13 responsiveness.

l 14 MR. CAMERON:

Thanks, Frank.

Before we take a i

l l

15 break, does anybody have any final'words for us on this

_.16 strategic issues paper?

Okay, well let's take a break and 17 be back at 10:05.

That'gives us about 20 minutes.

18 (Whereupon, the foregoing matter went off the 19 record at 9:49 a.m.

and went back on the 20 record at 10:17 a.m.)

21 MR. CAMERON:.Okay.

We're going to get 22-started'for the remainder of this morning's session.

We 23 have two papers left to discuss.

I think it's instructive 24 that in both cases, there are important implications for 25 the materials licensing area.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE. N W.

q (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C, 20005 3701 (202) 234 4433

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

_ ~ -. -

l' 62 1

We talked about those implications from the I

2 risk informed performance based discussion, but I think 3

that some of the procedural issues perhaps that are raised 4

by the power reactor decommissioning issue ma) aids be 5

instructive for the materials area.

l 6

I am going to turn it over to Frank, once 7

more, to present the paper.

8 MR. MIRAGLIA:

This is issue paper 24, which 9

is decommissioning for power reactors.

There was a paper 10 I believe that was discussed yesterday that dealt with l

11 materials decommissioning.

To make sure I don't make 12 three for three, the writer for that paper is Singh Bajwa.

13 He is not' sitting at the viewgraph machine.

Singh was on 14 travel today and was unable to be here.

But I did.want to 15 recognize Singh Bajwa's contribution as the writer to this 16 paper.

17 The direction setting issue is what should be l

18 the NRC's strategy for regulating decommissioning 19 activities at power reactor sites.

This issue has been an l

20 issue that's been before the commission a number of times.

21 It is fairly -- it's under active consideration.

22 Back in 1985 or 1986, there was a' change to 23 the 50.86 that talked in terms of decommissioning rule and 24 processes to be followed and procedures to be followed in 25 terms of decommissioning power reactors.

When that rule NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

(202) 23M33 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433

[

63 I

was put'together and drafted in terms of changing i

2 climates, the contemplation was is.that plants would go to i

3 the end of their licensed life and provide it for a 4

prccess to begin in a period five years before the end of 5

the licensed period.

6 Towards the end of the 1980s and into the 7

early.1990s, there were a number of plants that shut down 8

for various reasons, in terms of economics and other 9

reasons.

They were prematurely shutdown facilities.

The 10 rule.that was in place hadn't contemplated that kind of 11 scenario.

I 12 The Commission was dealing with each of these 13 premature decommissionings such as Yankee Rowe and Fort i

14-St. Vrain, Rancho Seco, Trojan, I think there was one more l

15 that I can't bring to mind right now, on a case by case 16 basis.

They directed the staff to'go back and re-examine 17 the rules to incorporate the lessons learned from those 18 kinds of premature decommissionings.

As a result, there 19 were some rulemakings that were put in place at that point 20 in time.

21 In terms-of the factors, again, key factors, 22 external factors is there's a potential deregulation of 23 the power generation that has created'some uncertainties 24 in this area, particularly with respect to the assurance 25 of decommissioning funds.

It has an impact on the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 3701 (202) 234 4433

,o 64 1

vehicles and the financial instruments that are used, the 2

change in the potential of no longer being an electrical 3

utility, would have impact on the financial assurity 4

provisions under the rule.

So that issue is one that the 5

external environment is affecting.

6 The going to economic deregulation of the l

7 industry and the competitive nature of the industry, more 8

economic factors affecting the industry and operation 9

could affect the utility decisions as to continue to l

10 operate, such as represented by some of the. premature

)

l

'll shutdowns or perhaps not seek renewal and aspects of this 12 nature.

So again, that's another impact or external 13 factor that is to be censidered.

i 14 Availability of waste disposal sites impact.

i 15 There have been a number of instances where on-site 16 storage facilities and applications for on-site storage l

17 facilities are receiving local and state approvals or are i

i.

18 being hard to come by.

That can impact continued 19 operation of facilities.

20 Then there's public interest in what happens 21 at a site for decommissioning, based upon site specific l

l 22 factors in the area of local interest.

So these are all 23 factors that bear on this issue.

[

24 Then again, the internal factor is the i

I 25 resources in the budget to implement the program.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W

+

(202) 23m33

' WASHINGTON, O C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433 l

,a j

?

65 1

The options tnet the staff considered in the 2

strategic planning committee considered in this area is 3

that as I said, this is an area that has been evolving and 1

4 is of primary Commission interest and has been, since the 5

mid-1980s.

1 i

6 The current strategy, which is option one, is t.

l 7

to continue thic strategy, is we're implementing the 8

strategy for power reactor decommissioning in a number of i

9 ways.

i 10 There are three major rulemakings that have 11 been underway and at various stages that are perhaps the l

l 12 principle foundation for that strategy.

There's the 13 nuclear part 50 regulation on power plant decommissioning.

l 1

14 The rule was promulgated in final form in August of this 1

1 15 year, it became effective.

i 16 In addition, there is a financial assurance 17 requirement for decommissioning.

That rule was proposed -

l 19

- was out for public comment and proposed comment to deal

.19 with some of the aspects with respect -- that were raised 20 in terms of perhaps deregulation and premature 21 decommissionings.

-22 Related to that area as well is there is an i

23 advanced notice.for rulemaking that the Commission has'put 24 out for comment, raising a number of issues in terms of i

j l

l 25 what the impact or the potential of economic deregulation c.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W (202) 23M33 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005-3701 (202) 23M33 l.,

m,

,n-n n

L..

66 1

is, with an emphasis on the decommissioning funding l

2 activity.

3 Then the third piece is the radiation site 4

release criteria, which I believe was discussed at 5

yesterday's session.

This is in the materials area.

That 6

rulemaking.and that activity will have impact and be l

L 7

incorporated within the agency's programs and processes F

8 for reactor decommissioning.

So the thrust of this, those i

9 three major rule makings.

l 6

10 In addition, there are a number of other I

11 efforts underway with respect to reactor decommissioning.

12 There's an examination of power reactor decommissioning l

l 13 costs.

There were cost estimates made in the past because l

14 of low level waste site availability, or because of on-15 site storage.

Some of those factors, those cost estimates l

1 f

16 are changed or changing.

There's a study underway to' l

i 17 reexamine those cost estimates.

That will be promulgated 18 in terms of a rulemaking.

19 There's rulemaking activities regarding the 20 insurance cost and coverage requirements for permanently 21 shutdown facilities.

That's an ongoing activity.

These 22 are all in various stages of the rulemaking process.

L 23 There's consideration of what should the l

i 12 4 physical protection and storage be, requirements be for i

25 storage of spent fuel at power reactors subsequent to the NEAL R. GROSS l'

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l-1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE.. N W (202) 234-M33 WASHINGTON O C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344433

67 1

decommissioning and shutdown.

2 These issues are all ongoing activities within 3

the context of the agency's program.

Those activities and 4

the status of all of those are discussed within the 5

context of the issue papers.

6 As I say, there were various stages of 7

rulemaking.

Some final rules have just gone into place.

i 8

There are number that are in proposed rules out for public

]

9 comment.

Some are in the early stages, such as an i

10 advanced notice for rulemaking.

11 So it's range and gamut of activity.

This i

12 option would be to continue with those activities underway 13 and that the strategy is sufficient to proceed.

14 The second option would be in terms of can we 15 move in the current direction and get some of these 16 rulemakings done in a more aggressive way, proceed at pace 17 with some of these decommissioning related rulemaking 18 activities and get some of the implementation instruments 19 in place sooner.

20 The rule making process is a disciplined type 21 of process in terms of a proposed rule, period for 22 comment, final rule.

Can we see if we can take a more 23 aggressive approach in trying to get some of these things 24 in place more quickly.

25 The third option would be the converse of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISMND AW., N W (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344433

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

I G8 i

1 that.

Is that because of budgetary constraints and other

\\

2 things, should we perhaps slow down or reprioritize 3

certain activities in this area.

i 4

That's the range of options that were l

5 discussed within the context of the issue paper.

The l

6 preliminary views of the commission are as shown here.

7 They recommend us continuing with the approach.

8 In terms of implementation, they.have looked 9

at in terms of implementing guidance for some of these 10 rules that we should seek perhaps more. innovative 11 approaches to pursue the implementation of some of these

'12 rules.

t i

13 They went on to indicate that in pursuing the 14 current pace of rule making, they gave some specific 15 examples and possible approaches that might be considered.

4 16 I think I would like to make sure that those are put 17 before this audience, because these are additional kinds 18 of questions and issues that the Commission asked j

19 stakeholders to focus on and comment on.

20 Those are shown on this viewgraph.

The 21 examples of these more innovative approaches is to 22 transfer the power plants to agreement state control after 23 the material is placed in dry storage or has been removed-24 from the part 50 site.

25 How should we use the out resources in terms NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N W.

(202) 23 4 433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 23M433 l

.m__._

1 15 9 l

4 1

1 1

of resident inspectors at the commissioned sites?

Should l

3 2

there be a resident throughout the decommissioning process J

t 3

or only at the specific stages when major operations are 1.

1 4

occurring or not at all?

That's an implementation issue

)

1 5

that they asked the staff to consider in the l

6 implementation of these.

7 The last one is taking a performance oriented

{

i i

t 8

. approach by reducing oversight and radiological assessment I

9 of the site when it's. ready to be released.

These are i

10 additional issues that were identified by the commission i

11 that should be focused on within the context of the f

l 12 stakeholder meetings and the comment process and in the 13 Commissioners soliciting your views on these kinds of i;-

14 matters and issues.

They would be of particular interest 1

l i

15 to the Commission as well as to the committee, to forward i

16 those kinds of considerations to the Commission in terms 17 of the stakeholder reports that will be going to the 18 Commission.

19 That's a broad type of summery, overview of 20 this area.

I'll turn it over to Chip and look forward to

' 21 your observations and comments.

22 MR. CAMERON:

Okay, thanks, Frank.

23 The three options that are in the paper are 24 basically a -- relate to_ timing in relationship to a 25 number of approaches to this issue that the Commission is

.NF?.L R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS j

1323 RHoOE ISLAND AVE., N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON O C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433

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

- -. - ~_-_. -

4 70 i

l 1

taking.

Basically,. fast, slow, or maintain the-pace.

We 1

4 2

want to get comments on those particular options.

But are I

3 there other approaches?

j 4

I think the Commission gave a little bit of a i

j 5

hint with the additional questions that they. asked, but be 6

thinking about the issue of if there are other approaches t

i, 7-that the Commission should be considering in the whole 8

area of decommissioning power reactors.

I guess I would 9

just open it up for initial comments or questions on this i

10 particular issue, a

j

.11 MR. CRITES:

Tom Crites, Gaithersburg, k

[

]

12-Maryland.

I have a comment and a question.

i 13 Of all the issue papers that are being i

[

14 discussed, this one seems to be the most poorly developed.

i j

15 Giving an option of doing the'same thing more or'less, is 16 not a great development.or very imaginative.

I think the 17 Commission's responses indicate that as well.

18 If it is to remain as it is, I would suggest i

19 combining it with option paper number.9, which is the 20 decommissioning of non-reactor sites, and r2 titling them.

21 Indeed, there are options discussed in paper 22 number 9,. options two, three and five, which would appear 23 to be pertinent here, as well as comments of the 24 Commissioners.

So either one might combine them or 25' develop this option paper more fully.

l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N W (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433

. _ _ _ =

71 i

1 My question deals with non-power reactors, l.

2 research reactors, university reactors, which are not 3

addressed in either this issue paper or number 9.

I t

l 4

wonder, is that just because there are too few of them to' i

l i

5 bother with?

6 MR. MIRAGLIA:.In terms of, numbers, not too l

7 few.

There have been non-power reactor decommissioning.

l 8

They are usually smaller reactors, more well defined.

i L

i 9

There's a pretty experience in terms of the l

10 decommissioning of that and the processes appear to be in 11 place.

12 I believe the total number of operating non-

.j l

13 power reactors now is in 40 plus.

In terms of operating 14 non-power reactors, the bulk of those being relatively 15 small reactors used in conjunction with university i

16 programs.

There are a number of larger reactors, for 1

17 example, at the NIST fscility, has a large reactor, as 18 well as I guess it's the university -- I'm going to get 19 this wrong, it's one at the University of Missouri.

I 20 can't remember if it's Rollo or Columbia.

I always --

21 MR. CRITES:

It's Columbia.

22 MR. MIRAGLIA:

It is Columbia.

So there are 23 non-power reactors out there, but there are processes in 24 place.

There is experience in place that we have used in 25 terms of decommissioning oflthose types of reactors.

l l

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

.)

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

1 (202) 234-M33 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433

.o 72 P

1 I think we appreciate your comment in terms of 2

the potential combination or reexamination of more fully 3

developing it.

4 MR. CAMERON:

Yes.

I think that's a 5

constructive comment.

6 Now you pointed out there were three options I 7

think from the non-reactor area that might be relevant 8

here.

I wondered if we could -- could we just put those P

9 on the record?

I mean you said three, five and two?

10 MR. CRITES:

Two, three, and five.

11 MR. CAMERON:

Two, three, and five.

12 Tim Johnson, who was the author of that paper, 13 Tim, could you just-basically state what those options 14 are, just so that we can have those on the transcript?

I 15 am putting you on the-spot here.

I don't know if you 16 remember two, three and five off hand.

17 MR. JOHNSON:

Tim Johnson.

I believe number 18 two was to change the' decommissioning criteria.

What was 19-proposed was to use an overall dose objective of I think 20 500 millirem per year, which was consistent with the way 21' 10 CFR 61 for low-level waste disposal was developed for 22 the. waste classification system.

23 I believe option number three was to change 24 the decommissioning review process where in effect we 25 would allow a licensee to undertake decommissioning NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

(202) 23m33 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 3701 (202) 23m33

t 73 1

without approval of a decommissioning plan.

2 I am afraid -- you know, I don't remember what i

3 five was.

1 1

4 MS. MCBURNEY:

Under number nine, option two 5

was to change the decommissioning review process to a J

6 performance oriented decommissioning review process that i

7 would simply provide the residual contamination goals for 8

decommissioning, and allow the licensee to proceed with 9

decommissioning without obtaining approval of a

'10 decommissioning plan.

I 1

l 11 Option three is to change the residual l

12 contamination criteria and review scenarios by allowing i

13 hypothetical intruder doses up to 500 millirem per year.

14 Option five was to regulate source material

[

15 consistently with naturally occurring and accelerator 16 produced radioactive material.

j i

-17 MR. CAMERON:

Okay.

Thank you, Tim.

Thank

[

18 you, Ruth.

I just wanted to get those on, not only on the

[

19 record, but to give people an idea of different types of 20 approaches that might be used.

21 MR. MIRAGLIA:

With respect to two of those l

22 issues, I think they are covered broadly in terms of the j

-23 site release criteria.

We refer to the on-going l

c 24 activities in the material area.

That those things will i

25 move in conjunction with one another.

So I think there's i

(

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N W (202) 23M33 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 23W33 I-I

...r I

f 74 i

j 1

that kind of relationship, the site release criteria.

2 The other issue, in terms of proceeding 3

without a decommissioning plan, what is needed with 1

l 4

respect to decommissioning plans and the timing of plans 5

is addressed in the most recent rule making that I just

=

6 said went into effect in I believe it was August was the 7

effective date.

I don't recall the exact date in August.

f 8

That's addressed.

The Commission has looked at reactor 9

decommissioning and the process and plan and those kinds 10 of things.

So there is that overlap.

But those 11 considerations have been completed in terms of reactor 12 decommissioning.

So if that's helpful to the group, I 13 just wanted to make those points.

14 MR. CAMERON:

Okay.

Thank you, Frank.

I 15 think perhaps the suggestion is is that we do look to 16 other types of approaches for the power reactor area also.

17 They may not fit, but it may give us some food for 18 thought.

19 Along those lines, any other suggestions for 20 other approaches or approaches other than those that have 21.

been considered?

Janice.

22 MS. STEVENS:

Yes.

Janice Stevens, an 23 independent consultant right now.

24 But since we are talking about other 25 approaches, I have had the opportunity to tour a number of NEAL R. GROSS

' COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoOE ISLAND AVE N W (202) 234 4 33 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433

I-75 l'

1 facilities that have been decommissioned throughout l

2 Europe, and actually sit down and talk to people that 3

develop the decommissioning plans, as well as being a 4

business developer and selling decommissioning ideas to l

5 folks, to utilities here in the States, I realize that j'

.6 i

~ decommissioning possibly represents the area of largest 7

uncertainty in the whol'e deregulation process in terms of 9

cost impacts.

9 I think that we can certainly learn a lot from

\\

10 the experience throughout Europe, where they have some 40

]

11 or 50 years sometimes of data that they have entered and 12 factored into their decommissioning plans for more a i

13 realistic approach to estimating costs which are going to j

14 be born by the utilities whenever the other shoe drops'on j

15 deregulation.

s-i 16 So I think that this area is extremely 17 critical from a cost impact standpoint and otherwise.

I l

18 just think that we could learn a lot.

I know the NRC is 19 looking internationally on this point, but I think there's

-20.

a lot more to be learned.

Thank you.

21 MR. CAMERON:

Thank you, Janice.

That's very 22 useful.

A useful suggestion.

How about this whole issue 23-of the potential effects of-deregulation on the capability 24 of the utility to provide the financial assurance for 25 decommissioning.

Do we have some thoughts on that?

Jane.

NEAL R.' GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. O C.: 20005 3701 (202) 23M33

)

i

- i

76 1

MS. FLEMING:

Surprisingly, I hate public l

l 2

speaking.

I would rather hide in the back and have to do 3

it.

4 Some of the concerns I have on the whole issue 5

of decommissioning, and I am familiar with the advanced-6 rule making on the decommissioning funds and what's going 7

on there.

Instead of the other half of that question that 8

I had originally there is, I have to go back,-and I'm 9

sorry, I have to make things very simple.

Some day I will 10 develop a slick way of saying things, but I haven't done 11 that one yet.

So you--have to bear with me while I do it 12 very simply.

13 In the whole deregulation process, there seems 14 to be a trend, rumors, pushed toward licenses will be 15 transferred from a current utility to generator, et 16 ce t e ra',

et cetera.

There's all sorts of scenarios I have 17 heard about out there.

18 My concern in that was one would be, 19 originally would the decommission funds follow the 20 facility?

The second half of that question is, realizing 21 the NRC is working on that process, is the operating' cost 22 to care for the spent fuel?

23 I know now that NEI and the industry has taken 24 DOE to court to start dealing with that problem.

My 25 concern'is, if a license has been transferred from a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE, N W.

'(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 3701 (202) 234 4433

l 77 1

current utility to a generator, will the operating cost, 2

the ratepayers' money they have already put into that pot 3

that DOE is holding?

l i

4 If the scenario comes true that DOE will be 5

handing checks back to the utilities for those operating f

6 costs, parts of the operating costs money they have

)

7 collected for handling spent fuel, will that money stay 4

1 8

with the spent fuel or if -- and I'm going to pick on the i.

i 9

one I know and love the best, if Boston Edison transfers 10 their license to a generator to say, Yankee Atomic, will 11 the money go back to Boston Edison?

Will they be forced t

12 to turn that money over to Yankee Atomic, or will Boston l

13 Edison be able to keep the windfall and say to Yankee I

14 Atomic, you've got the license, we've got the money, good 9

4 l

15 luck.

t 16 One last thing I will throw in there.

With 4

17 decommissioning, a whole other topic, my favorite topic, a

4-l i

18 with the decommissioning, with the problem with spent fuel i

19 being kept on site now either in spent fuels or in cask

{

20 storage, I do feel there's a definite need to up emergency 21.

planning from what was planned a skeletal planning, to 1

l 22-full fledged planning, because there is still a threat to

.I 23 public health and safety.

j 24 MR. CAMERON:

Okay, thanks, Jane.

People have 25 a lot of questions about these issues such as that.

I i

NEAL' R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS a

1 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433

t 78 i

i think that we should try to provide some answers to them, 2

but also let's continue to think strategically.

In other 3

words, the focus is strategic assessment, strategic 4

planning, and how does all of this, what implications do 5

these types of questions have for what the Commission l

l 6

might be doing in the future in terms of strategic 7

planning.

Frank?

o 8

MR. I:IRAGLIA:

Ms. Fleming referenced the 9

advanced notice to the rule making.

There are specific 10 issues in terms of the decommissioning and funding l

i 11 assurance.

There's a broad range of issues in terms of 12 impact of how the timing and extent of deregulation, how 13 stranded costs will, and how are they going to -- what i

14 will PUCs do to certify utilities under their l

i 15 jurisdiction.

What can the NRC do to make sure that the 16 decommissioning '

i are in tact.

i 17 So '

issues and questions are out there to la be considered.

The specifics as to what comes back from 19 the waste fund, that's kind of an evolving kind of issue.

f 20 I'm not sure that I am well versed enough to talk about 21-that.

But the agency has an action plan in terms of i

22-economic deregulation.

23 We are concerned about license transfers.

We-24 are examining the license process regarding transfers of

?

25 ownership, and what does that mean in terms of not only i

i I

NEA". R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 l

e,_,.m y,--

e r

y y

---_.-r

i 79 l

l 1

the decommissioning funding, but for the maintenance of --

l' 2

to assure that the financial viability for the operation i

l 3

that has, that's left in place, that we could look under i

l 4

our regulations'under 50.80.

Do those processes need to

(

5 be modified, changed or guidance given because of these l

6 new economic and financial arrangements that might result 7

from change.

8 MR. CAMERON:

And Jane, perhaps we might have i

9 you talk with Frank and possibly Larry Chandler about some l

l

\\

10 of the specifics of those questions when we're off-line.

i L

11 Does everybody agree with the assumption that i

12 the NRC'should take some action to address decommissioning f

I 13 funding costs in terms of the utility deregulation?

Is it i

l 14 necessary for the NRC to take action on this issue?

There l'

15 are some people shaking their heads.

i j

16 MR. CHANDLER:

Larry Chandler, NRC.

Just let 17 me add something to the equation, because part of the 18 deregulation issue or in parallel with it is an associated 19 issue.

That is, I don't want to say frequency in too 20 strong a way, but the increase we've seen in bankruptcies i

21 of utilities and the implications associated with that for i

22 decommissioning funding assurance.

There have been a I

i 23 couple of bankruptcies, several bankruptcies actually, l

I

[

[

24 over the last several years that we have had to deal with

)

25 and look at the issues.

So if'that engenders any further 1

i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

f (202) 23 4 433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433 I

l r

l 80 l

1 consideration, certainly that will be appreciated also in 2

connection with this DSI.

I 3

MR. CAMERON:

Thanks, Larry.

Further comments l

4 on that specific issue of deregulation?

Go ahead, Janice.

l 5

MS. STEVENS:

Just one additional comment.

6-Maybe not having the focus so much on the cost of it'as 7

looking at the innovative approaches that are being used l

8 again, mainly internationally, with a technical approach l

1 l

9 that might be the best use of NRC resources to look at t

10 that area instead of strictly dwelling on the cost 11 estimates.

l l

l 12 MR. CAMERON:

Thank you.

Good analogies from i

13 the international area is the suggestion.

i l

14 I'think we in terms of going back to the l

l 15 options themselves, I think that Tom Tipton's remark i

16 during the last session about the perhaps snail-like pace l

l 17 of the radiological criteria.

Rulemaking might argue for I

l 18 some to support option two.

I guess option two, is that

)

19 the accelerated option?

20 MR. MIRAGLIA:

You know look at ways of l

21 accelerating that.

I think that matter is' in terms of the 22 radiological criteria we're paralleling in terms of 23 materials decommissioning, reactive decommissioning.

It 24 is in the participatory rulemaking.

Decisions there are l

l 25 going to impact both materials as well as the reactor.

i.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE IS:.AND AVE., N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4 33

81 1

MR. CAMERON:

Okay.

Well, how about some 2

comment on the fast, slow, stay the course, those options.

3

!s there any need for comment there?

4 MR. MIRAGLIA:

I think within the context, 5

there are a number of rulemakings underway at various 6

stages, and is there a need to proceed faster and slower 7

on any individual ones.

Those kinds of comments would be 8

useful.

9 I think you are right.

There has been the 10 sense that that particular one is of high interest.

11 MR. NELSON:

Alan Nelson, NEI.

We have been 12 involved with a number of the decommissioning activities 13 over the last couple of years.

I need to applaud the NRC 14 staff for developing or probably maturing the licensing 15 process as we see it in 50.82.

There are a number of 16 areas that still need to go back and take a look in that 17 area, but it has matured on the lessons learned of those 18 that have prematurely shut down.

j 19 But I wanted to address the options one and 20 two.

Some of those probably, as you look at them, need to 21 go into option two into a more aggressive or forward-22 looking approach.

As you mentioned, the decommissioning 23 cost estimates have been looked at again and again in rule 24 50.75, where it recognizes how much a utility would need 25 to provide as a minimum amount.

Each year a licensee l

NEAL R. GROSS l

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS I

1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE, N W

(

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344433 i

l

i.

l 82 1

looks at 50.75 and the contributions that they are making l

2 and the NRC puts out NUREG 1307, I believe, which f

l 3'

identifies you know, the low level waste cost that we're 4

evaluating that falls into the formula.

l 5

There was a proactive role of the staff more

+

6 aggressively looking at those numbers.

At one point in l

l 7

time, there was a proposed' rule.

This may be what you are

[

l 8

alluding to, as to site specific estimates.

This is what t

9 necessarily affects the operating plants.

My 10 understanding that that proposed rule has been somewhat i

11 tabled.

12 What I would like to recommend is that a more l

1 f

13 aggressive approach be taken on the' site-specific rule.

I 14 understand it was tabled so that we could learn more from

?

l l

15 those plants that are currently being decommissioned.

l l

l 16 Essentially, the PWR'model plant is the trojan i

j-i 17 plant.

We could be looking at anywhere, you know, maybe

)

18 from five to eight, ten years down the line until we truly l

13 find out what the decommissioning costs would be.

i l-20 But in the meantime, in light of deregulation, 21 in light of cost effective approaches, we believe that a.

l

.22 site specific part of the rule should be built into it, 23 and a more aggressive action ought to be taken at least in I

24 that element, to allow that to occur.

t

[

25 Any thoughts on that?

That ought to be, you NEAL R. GROSS court REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W j

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

]

,_i

83 I

(

1 know, staff ought to proceed with that aggressively so 2

that the operating plants can sufficiently fund these i

1.

L 3

decommissioning funding activities.

That will affect, you i

i 4

know, decision making, business decisions that are made in t

l

'S this regard.

Thank you.

i t

6 MR. CAMERON:

Thank you very much, Alan.

I j

7 would ask Frank or someone else from the staff to just for l

i i

8 the benefit of the rest of the audience, could you just i

9 briefly describe what the site-specific rule is, what it i

10 would do and what the status is.

l i

11 MR. MIRAGLIA:

The -- it was summarized 12 correctly that staff was working on such a cost.

The l

13 concern was is because of the changes in the economic

}

14 climate and deregulation,. we-ought to look at those things

,c t

is in some kind of concert, and have an idea of what's l

16 happening in terms of economic deregulation.

What impact 17 that might have.

So it was tabled for those kinds of i

1 18 reasons.

l 19 The status of each of these rule makings and l

l 20 initiatives is summarized within the context of the issue 21 paper.

The suggestion that I made just before that 22 comment ~, and that was a response to that comment, are 23 there specific issues that perhaps need to have some i

i 24 attention.

'That kind of comment would be useful in the I

l 1

p 25 context of developing this issue paper and the views of I

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 3701 (202) 234 4433

, ~.

i

,a o,

84 1

the stakeholders in saying well, maybe we don't need 2

everything accelerated, but there's needs for this piece i

3 versus that piece, and the reasons why, and to have that j

4 kind of information for consideration would be very 5

useful.

We appreciate the comment.

6 MR. CAMERON:

Okay.

Good.

Thank you.

7 Other comments along those lines?

How about i

1 8

the specific questions the Commission asks?

For example, 9

transfer of nuclear power plants to agreement state 10 control after fuel has been put into dry storage or has 1

11 been removed from the part 50 site.

I think that this is 12 a good question that we might get some agreement state 13 comment on, as well as others.

14 MR. HILL:

Tom Hill, Georgia Department of 15 Natural Resources, Radioactive Materials Program.

16 It's exactly that particular point that I 17 wanted to address.

The Commission said that should

]

1 l

18 censider new and innovative regulatory approaches and i

19 included the transfer there.

I guess my comment in short 20 is, been there and done that.

Let's don't go back.

21 (Laughter.)

22 MR. HILL:

Another idea comes to mind, 23 unfunded mandate, you know is a possibility.

There was 24 the site in Georgia, AEC licensed in the 1950s, as I 25 recall, and decommissioned in the late 1960s and turned NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W (202) 234-4433 WASHIP,OTON. O C 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433

1..

85 1

over to the state in 1970, a Lockheed facility.

So I l

2 think that's appropriate.

We've been there.

Let's don't l

3 go back.

4 MR. CAMERON:

So you don't think it's a good 5

idea I guess.

6 MR. HILL:

I don't think it's a good idea.

7 MR. CAMERON:

All right.

Steve, do you want 8

to add to that?

9 MR. COLLINS:

Yes, if the NRC should go 10 forward with the suggested transfer of the nuclear power 11 plants to agreement state control after removal of the 12 fuel, if that should ever happen, the very first step 13 should be that you will start holding topical workshops 14 and meetings with the agreement states to consider this.

15 We will discuss the many technical, legal, and regulatory 16 issues that would arise as a result of that, whether it's 17 unfunded mandates or what happened to all those low level 18 waste fees you collected all those years.

Do we get those 19 to go with the task, several little questions like that 20 that might come up.

21 So don't make this decision in a vacuum.

22 MR. CAMERON:

No.

I don't think that we 23 would, hopefully.

Go ahead, Frank.

24 MR. MIRAGLIA:

I think with respect to many of 25 the decisions that have come out of the strategic planning NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W I

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 l

86 l

1 initiative, would be -- it would be a need for further 2

implementation, further rule makings.

All of those would 3

have to go through the full processes that would be done.

4 So a decision is not going to be made in the dead of 5

night.

6 I believe I could say this, clearly for not 7

only this decision, but for the rest, that those decisions 8

will be made and shared.

Then the implementation plans 9

for each of those decisions would have to follow normal 10 agency processes in terms of the stakeholder interests.

11 So there would be other opportunities, many other 12 opportunities to provide user comments on that.

13 I think that there would be a Commission 14 invitation for this meeting, indicated not only those four 15 focus questions, in that for each of the or several of the 16 issue papers, they have raised some thoughts and ideas to 17 provoke Comment.

So if you have specific comments on 18 these, that is what we are looking for, and we certainly 19 appreciate your views.

20 MR. COLLINS:

Well, if Chip presents a 21 question that way in Chicago, he will get a lot of 22 response.

l 23 MR. MIRAGLIA: I think you've been warned.

24 MR. CAMERON:

Well, in the face of not having 25 discussion, I would rather present it that way than resort NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

87 1

to what's the capital of Minnesota, things like that.

2 MR. COLLINS:

And I agree it needs to be.

3 That's appropriate.

4 MR. CAMERON:

I think that this interchange 5

emphasizes a point that's an important point, and Frank 6

just made it.

Is that particularly in light of some of 7

the comments that we got on the public involvement process 8

of strategic assessment, is that many of these decisions, 9

although a strategic plan will be developed out of this 1]

process, there will be if there's specific regulatory 11 decisions that flow out of that, they will be the subject 12 of the usual public involvement process, or the range of 13 public involvement techniques that we use.

14 Steve, did you have some further comments?

15 MR. COLLINS:

Yes.

When you get to just 16 general comments on the whole DSI as opposed to your 17 specific question.

18 MR. CAMERON:

Great, that's good.

Terrific.

19 MR. COLLINS:

Steve Collins, private citizen.

20 There's no techni al basis for the selection of 15 21 millirem per year as a decommissioning standard.

With 22 this in mind, I support the concept of revisiting the l

23 approach of setting residential contamination criteria and 24 reduce in areas independently of the EPA.

25 With respect to the single issue of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE, N W.

(202) 234 4 33 WASHINGTON D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

ll 88 1

radiological criteria for decommissioning, I recommend the 2

NRC telect option three.

That is, the NRC staff would 3

move slowly in implementing 4 ts current rule making 4

approaches.

5 Given that the NRC's approach to this issue is 6

heavily influenced by its apparent need for agreement with 7

the EPA, and given that the Commission needs to fully 8

consider the options for DSI 9,

it is premature to move 9

forward with the current rule making.

10 I have some specific comments with this DSI.

11 The first one enforces the first comment made.

On page 12 10, paragraph six, the NRC is correct to point out that 13 tnere has been some major controversy involving both the 14 EPA and NRC rule making on the issue of radiological 15 criteria for decommissioning.

16 The statement is made that details of this 17 issue are addressed in DSI 3.

However, DSI 3 refers the 18 reader to DSI 12.

DSI 12 deals mostly with probabilistic 19 risk assessment issues, but does briefly mention that dual 20 regulation between NRC and EPA is a problem.

21 DSI 12, page 25, indicates that radiological 22 criteria for decommissioning is a related issue that will 23 be addressed after the Commission has made decisions on l

24 the major issues in DSI 12.

25 Following this path through the DSIs, the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS '.ND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 reoDE ISLAND AVE., N W (202) 23M33 WASHINGTON D C. 20005-3701 (202) 23M33 I

l

i l

89 i

i reader is left to conclude that the NRC has no immediate 2

recommendation to the commission on this issue.

Nor is it 3

clear that the NRC is soliciting comments on this issue at 4

this time.

l 5

However, the general issue of decommissioning

]

6 is addressed in greater detail and with much greater l

7 imagination in DSI 9.

Option three of DSI 9 appears to 8

have some good ideas which are worthwhile for the NRC to 1

9 explore.

Although when we get to DSI 9, you will find we I

10 are not recommending option three, or I'm not.

l 11 On page 14, paragraph six, with respect to the 12 single issue of radiological criteria for decommissioning, 13 once again we recommend or I recommend that the NRC select 14 option three and move slowly, more slowly in implementing 15 its current rule making approach.

16 Certainly if you decide that you are going to 17 transfer nuclear power plants after the fuel is removed to 18 agreement states, then get into discussions early with 19 that process before the decision is actually made.

20 MR. CAMERON:

Thank you, private cit. zen, for 21 those comments.

It's good to know that people ' ave plowed 22 through some of the connections or disconnections perhaps 23 between some of the papers.

I 24 But how about other comments on the let's go 25 slow on the radiological decommissioning, radiological NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N W (202) 234 4 33 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 l

l L

[,,

90 1

criteria for decommissioning?-

p I'

2 okay.

Anybody want to address the other two 3

questions up here?

Resident site inspector during all 4

phases of decommissioning.

Is that a controversial issue?

l-5 Okay.

How about -- I'm not sure what this 6

means, this third bullet.

Frank, maybe you could explain j

l l

7 that, at least for my benefit, if you wouldn't mind.

l 8

MR. MIRAGLIA:

In terms of decommissioning of 9

sites, reactor sites, I believe it's true of material I

10 sites, is that the facility and the licensee does its i

11 decommissioning surveys.

Then there's independent follow-l 12 up inspections.

It has a very prescriptive type of I

13' process and that kind of thing.

So it's saying there's i

l 14 some flexibility where we would look at those processes l

15 and make a more performance oriented as opposed to the i

16 prescriptive kind of thing.

It's sort of'a specific in 17 terms of performance based, risk based, risk informed i

18 kinds of --

i 19' MR. CAMERON:

Okay, and Tim, is that something i

20 that is also reflected in the non-reactor decommissioning l

l 21 paper, this sort of an idea?

22 MR. JOHNSON:

Tim Johnson.

I don't think i

23 that's explicitly envisioned in the materials 24 decommissioning paper.

I think the option where we were 25 suggesting the possibility of doing without the NEAL R. GROSS I

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433

l..

91 1

decommissioning plan review would still require the i

2 licensee to do final surveys, to demonstrate that they met 3

the criteria, and would still envision us doing l

4 confirmatory surveys.

So this is a little bit different l

5 than what we had envisioned.

l l

6 MR. CAMERON:

Okay.

Thank you.

Steve?

l 7

MR. COLLINS:

Steve Collins, private citizen.

8 With regard to that last item that you brought 9

up, it would appear to me to be very worthwhile l

t i

10 considerations for reactors particularly, for the NRC to 11 let a current licensee stay within the part 20 dose 12 recommendations for workers, and let them do a clean up or 13 decommissioning costs assessed any way they wanted to, 14 without having to spend two years of developing plans and l

15 things on how to do it.

Just let them do it, keeping dose i

16 to their workers low.

Then at the confirmatory survey l

17 stage or just before they ask the regulator to do the 18 confirmatory survey, to see how well they did.

19 Now our experience in decommissioning is is 20 that may end up costing more in the long run on certain 21 specific cases.

But for something that's like a nuclear l

l 22 reactor, probably not.

If you are talking about soil and 23 dirt and groundwater moving through it and carrying 24 materials, you can end up spending a lot more.

But for a 25 facility it may be cheaper just to go in and do it than to i

NEAL R. GROSS l

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

(

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE, N W l

(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. O C 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 l

92 1

do all the planning and engineering which are required for 2

it.

1 3

MR. CAMERON:

So you would support the general 4

concept behind that last question?

5 MR. COLLINS:

I would support the utility i

6 industry as a whole looking at that thoroughly as a 7

generic type approach to maybe doing it, and doing it once i

8 as opposed to every plant site having to go through an l'

l 9

extremely detailed decommissioning planning process.

L 10 MR. CAMERON:

Okay.

Thank you.

What about 11 this idea of a generic approach such as Steve suggested?

12 Anybody from the licensee community,.would they like to 13 comment on that particular point?

Yes, Henry.

f r

14 MR. MORTON:

Henry Morton, a technical j

i

?

l' 15 consultant.

I think that the significant issue here with l

16 respect to this is that it is the end point that is what i

l l

17 the licensee walks away from, what is satisfied in the l,

of it.

j 18 final survey.

That is, the really significant part l'

19 It is not so important or mandatory I think for the agency 20 to go through the process of the review and approval of 21 the plan.

The licensee will need to do the engineering 22 and the decisions on how to do that to protect public i

23 health and safety in the process, and to satisfy the j

24 qualities of the environmental protection, worker l

25 protection.

8 6

l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4 33

.o 93 1

But the methodology of having to do it, I i

2 think is not so significant as the endpoint, and that the i

l 3

agency should really be focusing more.on the' endpoint than 4

cn the. process, more of the performance endpoint.

5 MR. CAMERON:

So I guess you would also 6

support the general concept behind this performance based

'I 7

approach?

l 8

MR. MORTON:

In general I would, yes.

9 MR. CAMERON:

Okay.

Thank you, Henry.

This 10 particular paper was framed in terms of the timeliness of 11 how we complete action on some substantive areas.

So I 12 would hope that all of you who have been commenting on 13 some of these substantive aspects would join us this f

14 afternoon for the discussion of the non-reactor 1

l 15 decommissioning paper, because I think that will'be very l

I 16 relevant.

17 I think we have to move on to the risk 18 infermed performance based approach.

So why don't we do 19 that at this point.

I believe Tom Hiltz is going to do 20 the presentation?

Good.

21 MR. HILTZ:

Thank you, Chip.

Good morning, 22 everyone.

23 As Frank alluded to in his discussion of i

1 j.

24 direction setting issue on oversight of operating i

i 25 reactors, the concept of using risk and risk insights to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W

- (202) 23M433 WASHINGTON D C. 20005-3701 (202) 23 4 433 l

Oe

• O 94 1

improve our regulatory process is not a new one.

In fact, 2

if one were to try to draw a timeline which listed or 3

depicted significant milestones with considering risk to 4

imprcve our process, you would probably have to start that 5

timeline somewhere in the 1970s.

6 Along that timeline, you would see several 7

significant milestones.

Perhaps some of the more 8

significant ones occurred in 1986 with the issuance of the 9

Commission's safety goal policy statement for nuclear 10 power operations.

Another one could be associated with 11 the completion of the individual plant examinations in the 12 early 1990s.

13 The most recent one, the issuance of the 14 Commission's final policy statement on the use of PRA in 15 regulatory activities.

Along with that document also was 16 a companion document, the PRA implementation plan, which 17 describes and monitors and tracks the progress of risk 18 informed activities throughout the agency.

19 The phrasing of the DSI contains the words 20 expanding the scope.

I think the words expanding the 21 scope are reflective of the continued agency emphasis to 22 use risk insights where appropriate to enhance our safety 23 decision making, to reduce unnecessary burden, and to 24 improve staff efficiency.

25 One of the key elements or one of the four l

NEAL R. GROSS l

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433

95 i

elements of the PRA policy statement, the first element 2

said that PRA should be used in all regulatory activities 3

to the extent supported by the state of the art methods 4

and data, in a matter that complements our deterministic 5

approaches and supports our traditional defense in depth.

6 One of the key words in that statement is the 7

word all.

The discussion of this direction setting issue 8

is discussed with that word all or that phrase all 9

regulatory matters in mind.

It's meant to provide an 10 umbrella type approach for how we consider how fast and 11 how far the agency moves in implementing risk informed 12 performance based approaches.

13.

We also recognize that there are differences 14 in the regulations and the regulatory approaches for 15 materials and reactors.

Although we try to draw some 16 distinctions in the paper and recognize that the how far 17 is probably going to be an implementation issue of the 18 overall strategic policy, and how far we go and what areas 19 are more amenable to risk-informed performance based 20 approaches will be identified during that implementation.

21 In the discussion of the paper, you also find 22 sections which discuss definitions or discussions, I 23 wouldn't call them definitions, of risk-informed 24_

performance based regulation, performance based 25 regulation, deterministic, and a general discussion of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W (202) 234 4 33 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433

l 96 1

risk informed.

Those were added to help provide some 2

clarity and context for understanding the direction the 3

Commission may decide on the strategic issue.

4 Also, there's a discussion about regulatory l

5 coherence.

That emphasizes the Commission's desire to l

6 ensure that when we proceed towards more risk informed 7

performance based approaches, we do so in a coherent l

8 manner.

9 Next slide, please.

It is fair to say that 10 the NRC is not the only organization that's interested in 11 risk-informed performance based approaches.

There has 12 been intense interest on the executive branch and 1.

congressional level.

In this recent Congress, there was a 14 government reform bill contained in the Risk Assessment l

15 and communications Act which passed the House, but did not 16 make it out of final resolution in this Congress.

l 17 Congress has also amended or in their recent 1

18 amendment to the Clean Air Act, established a commission 19 for a risk assessment in management as an advisor to the 20 Environmental Protection Agency.

They have completed a 21 draft report which surveyed some regulatory and government 22 agencies to determine how they are using risk for risk 23 management, and to improve their processes.

24 As we move forward, standards settings 25 organizations are also going to play a key role.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE, N W i

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433

]

97 t

l' Organizations such as the International Commission on i

i Radiological Protection, National Council on Radiation i

3 Protection, some of the code consensus organizations

+

i 1

?

4 involved in reactor applications for in-service testing e

1-5 and in-service inspection are becoming involved or likely

[

l 6

to become involved in some of the risk informed

?

l j

7 performance based approaches'.

l i

[

8 Other Federal agencies, in particular, the I

j 9

EPA, is going to influence how fast and how far we 1

10 proceed.

There is ongoing efforts under risk i

i j

11 harmonization between the Environmental Protection Agency i

4 f'

12 and the NRC to try to understand and work more closely-t 13 together in those areas of dual regulation.

~

14 The Commission has specifically asked for 1

15 stakeholder comments on the issue of how risk informed 16 performance based may help us resolve some of the issues 17 or better approaches to duel regulation.

18 Industry, both in the materials and the i

1 19 reactor world, is-going to play a role.

There are several' 20 reactor initiatives ongoing under the PRA implementation

, 21 plan which are a result in large part of industry 22 initiatives.

Those include pilot applications for a great 23 equality assurance for in-service testing, in-service 24 inspection, and some of the changes for risk informed tech 25 specs.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

(202) 23M433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 23 4 433

L t

L 98

{

some of the initiatives are not as prevalent I:

2 in the implementation plan or in the materials world.

I-

-3 think I'll talk a little bit more about the impetus behind t

i l

4 scme of the activities that are ongoing in the agency as i

e 5

we get'in the next couple of slides.

l l

6 Internally, we are recently completing or in f

7 the process of finalizing a business process re-t l

8 engineering or re-design effort in the nuclear materials l

1 9

effort.

I think certainly we want to be sensitive to any i

10 duplicative efforts as we attempt to incorporate risk-

[

t t

11 informed performance based approaches in the nuclear l

12 materials area.

I 13-As I mentioned' earlier, the Commission's PRA i

14 policy statement.

It is important to note, I think, that l

15 performance based is not explicitly mentioned in the j

16 policy statement.

While we have some experience in some t

l 17 larger framework to deal with risk informed along that i

l 18 timeline, performance based is a concept I think that L

19 we're going to have to approach deliberately.

We have j

1 l

20 received some white papers from the industry.

We have 21 implemented the Maintenance Rule, which is a. performance 22 oriented, performance based approach.

We are continuing 23 to identify policy issues and legal issues that may be I.

24 associated with our movement towards more risk-informed 25 performance based regulation.

1 i

l NEAL R. GROSS l'

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

(202) 234 4 33 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 i

99 1

As recently as last week, the staff met with 2

the Commission to brief them on four emerging policy 3

issues that dealt with the increased use of risk in the 4

pilot applications.

5 Next slide, please.

There were several 6

subsumed issues that are talked about in the paper before 7

we get to the options.

Most of those subsumed issues, as 8

Chip had alluded to, really emphasize the nature of risk 9

informed performance-based regulation.

That it's not 10 limited to a reactor regulation.

It will suffuse all 11 areas of our regulatory -- potentially suffuse all areas 12 of our regulatory environment and regulatory approaches.

13 If you have an opportunity to read the six 14 issues, you will see that five of the six issues deal with 15 materials initiatives, indeed will be resolved in the 16 context of the final decision that the Commission makes 17 with regard to this.

19 We proposed four options to address the 19 strategic issue.

The first option was to continue the 23 current process that we have captured under the PRA policy 21 statement and implemented under the PRA implementation 22 program.

The current process is receptive to industry 23 initiatives.

It also contains NRC initiatives to improve 24 its oversight processes in the area of inspection, 25 regulatory effectiveness.

A more recent addition is going NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433

100 1

to determine the appropriate follow-up actions for some of 2

the IFE insights that we gained after reviewing the IPE 3

insight reports.

4 The second option is an option which would, if 5

chosen, would provide a much more narrow focus for and a 6

higher threshold for pursuing risk informed, performance 7

based approaches.

What that option might require is that 8

the staff develop some type of methodology to review 9

proposed approaches to determine whether it's really going 10 to improve public health and safety, and its level or 11 resources and amount of effort and priority would be 12 established based on the results of that assessment.

13 The third option is the most aggressive of the 14 four options.

If implemented as it is discussed in the 15 paper, it would require a comprehensive assessment of all 16 our regulatory processes both in the materials and the 17 reactor areas and other areas of our regulatory processes, 18 and determine where risk informed performance based 19 approaches may be amenable, and once those are determined, 20 to establish some more aggressive process for pursuing 21 those enhancements.

22 It clearly of the options would be the most 23 resource intensive option and, once again, require a great 24 deal of initiative and effort.

25 It is the one with the broader focus though, NEAL R. GROSS court REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE, N W.

(202) 234 4 33 WASHINGTON. O C 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

101 1

anc ir you characterize it in how fast and how far, this l

I 2

option goes the fastest and the farthest of any of the l

3l options.

\\

4 And the fourth option that was discussed would

.i

(

5 also provide a more narrow focus.

It said consider risk l

l

~

6 informed performance based approaches primarily in

)

t 7

response to industry, stakeholder, public demand and

[

8 initiatives, and that would essentially not only provide a 9

much more narrow focus, but may make the NRC less able to l

I 10 deal with emerging technology and issues that it may face, I

11 consistent with some of the increase in technology and

)

l-12 risk, if we just limit ourselves to those things that are 13 brought before us by stakeholders.

14 The next slide, please.

l i

j 15 In the Commission's preliminary view on this

]

16 direction setting issue, the Commission re-emphasized some l

17 of the concepts and goals of the policy statement in that l

l 18 highe_ risk activity should be the primary focus of the i

19 agency efforts and resources.

20 The Commission also supported aspects of j

21 option 1 and option 3.

Option 1 would be continue the l

l 22 current process, but continue to look for ways where 1

23 performance data can enhance the process and could be used i

24 to improve the process.

i j

25 It also said although the preliminary view NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE, N W I-(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 3701 (202) 234 4 33

.c 102 1

didn't endorse a comprehensive review of our regulatory 2

processes, it did encourage us and direct us to proceed to 3

a more aggressive posture towards enhancing the PRA 4

implementation plan where it seems to be appropriate.

5 The staff also, under this preliminary 6

decision, would develop a framework paper for proceedings 7

towards risk informed and performance based approaches in 8

the materials area.

9 We currently have a framework document in the 10 reacter area.

That's SECY-95-280.

There isn't a similar 11 document like that in the nuclear materials area, and I 12 suspect that if this is implemented that many of the 13 subsumed issues would be dealt with in the framework 14 document for incorporating risk into many of the nuclear 15 materials usage.

16 And, finally, the Commission was particularly 17 interested, as I had mentioned before, in trying to garner 18 comments on how the NRC should deal with dual regulations, 19 some of the concerns with dual regulation, and whether a i

20 risk informed, performance based philosophy would help 21 resolve or improve those processes.

22 And that concludes my presentation.

23 MR. CAMERON:

Thank you very much, Tom.

24 Before we go to discucsion, I just would like 25 to introduce Themis Speis, who's the Deputy Director of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISt.AND AVE. N W.

(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 3701 (202) 234 4433

.____.m 0 0 8 e.

103 1

our Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, who's been 1

l 2

instrumental in this paper and is up here with us.

l l

3 Why don't we go right out to you?

Who would 4

like to make the first comment on this particular issue l

5 paper?

l 6

Yes, f

7 MR. HINNANT:

I'm Scottie Hinnant with.

i l

8 Carolina Power and Light.

9 This is one of the issues I think there's most 10 confusion both in the industry and the NRC and public j

11 about what is the real use of PRA going to be relative to i

i 12 compliance.

We talk compliance to every detail of l

l l

13' regulation requirement irregardless of the safety 14 significance, the cost, or the benefit, on the one hand, 15 and then we talk about risk informed regulation, on'the 16 other,-and quite honestly, I think there's an awful lot of i

17 confusion, and I don't see an initiative here that really j

18 focuses on trying to resolve that confusion.

19 We need to either decide PRAs are going to be 1

20 used or they aren't going to be used, and until that case, j

21 I guess the industry has spent an awful lot of money l

22 developing PRA models and results, and I sense a i

23 reluctance to pour a lot more money into refining those l

l 24 models for even better results until there's some idea of l

l 25 what and how they're going to be used, i

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

(202) 23m33 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

__._____....___..__....__._-__m.

.___.._.m.

. o 104 l

1 So I really think this is an important area 2

for the-Commission to come to grips with,.just whether or 3

not PRAs are going to be used, and if so, how.

4 MR. CAMERON:

Okay.

Thank you.

i 5

And before -- Tom, you might want to address 6

that, but I think that part of the confusion also stems I

7 from the fact that this whole concept of risk informed 8

performance based is broader than just the use of'PRAs, 9

isn't it?

.10 MR.

HILTZ:

I think it is, Chip.

i 11 The Commission in its policy statement, I 12 think, clearly articulated its desire to increase the use 13 of PRA.

So hopefully that is pretty clear in the policy 14 statement.

15 How we do that -- or in the issue paper -- how j

16' we do that and how risk can be applied within the t

17 regulatory framework, I think, is an area of concern that

-18 we're working.on.

We'have developed a framework document.

l 19 There are several pilot applications that are currently in 20 progress, and we, anticipate that there'll be draft reg.

21 guides and standard review plans for the four pilots that l

22 I mentioned:

tech. specs., risk informed tech. specs.,

23 in-service inspection,.in-service testing, and graded 24 quality assurance, within the next six months.

Several of 25 those are scheduled by the end of December.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

(202) 23u433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 23 4 433 i

.__.m

. ~ _.

I 105 1

So we do. recognize, I think, that that is an

'2 important consideration to effectively communicate how 3

risk is appropriately used in the regulatory process and i

4 in the decision-making that utilities and other licensees i.

5 use.

i i

l 6-MR. CAMERON:

Okay.

Thank you, Tom.

i 7

Further comments on risk informed performance 8

based?

G Jim.

10 MR. RICCIO:

Jim Riccio, public citizen.

l 11 Thanks, Jim.

12 MR. CAMERON:

Would you repeat that, please?

l l

13 MR. RICCIO:

It's Jim Riccio, public citizen.

- 14 Basically, we just hope the Agency doesn't go 15 too far too fast.

There have been comments made in the 16' ACRS basically that there isn't enough history in this 17 industry to support a too broadly based performance based 18' approach.

Even in NRC's own documents, we have found l

19 instances where we think possibly the pendulum has shifted 20 too far to trying to save the industry money and has l

21 really lost perspective on the'public health and safety.

22 There have been -- for instance, in your 23 elimination of requirements marginal to safety, you had l-L 24 regulations that'in the NRC's reg. review were considered l

25 significant to safety.

So there seems to be, you know, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l

l 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

i (202) 23m33 _

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433 l

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

l 106 1

more of.an approach to save this industry money, and we i

1 2

understand that some of this regulation may be perceived l

3 as being onerous-and burdensome, but I think that you must l

4 basically reassess the effects on public health and l

l 5

safety.

1 6.

We think there have been some good uses of 7

PRA, for instance, with reactor shutdown, for instance.

l l

8 Some of the PRA insights there basically clued the Agency

{

i 9

into the risks that were attendant when the reactor was 10-shut down.

[

11 Unfortunately, when you're issuing documents l

i 12 that are telling the public how much you're saving the i

13 industry in dollars, it kind of shifts their perspective 14 from one of, you know, the Agency is there to protect the j

l I

15 public health and safety rather than the financial i

i l

l 16 interests of this industry.

l 17 MR. CAMERON:

Thank you, Jim.

That was an l

i 18 interesting point about public perception, I think.

l 19 Tom, do you have any comment on that before I 20 ask people o't here if there's responses?

21 MR HILTZ:

Well, one of the' external factors.

22 that maybe I didn't touch on in sufficient detail dealt i

23' with the public, and I think that the strategic issue 24.

paper recognizes that we need'to be deliberate and i

i l

25 thoughtful with how we proceed toward risk informed'and

{

i NEAL R. GROSS l

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS i

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

f (202) 23M33 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 3701 (202) 23m33

107 1

performance based regulation.

2 To maintain public confidence, we have to make 3

efforts to make sure that it's communicated and understood 4

because if we don't do it, then there's certainly the 5

potential that by proceeding in that path we may erode 6

public confidence, which is something that we don't want 7

to do.

8 MR. CAMERON:

And do we have any observations 9

frcm any of you in the audience about Mr. Riccio's 10 cautionary not about how far, how fast that we proceed 11 with this?

12 Tony.

13 MR. THOMPSON:

My name's Tony Thompson on 14 behalf of the uranium producers.

15 We have standards that require us to stabilize l

16 mill tailings piles for 200 to 1,000 years.

So you're 17 into probabilities in terms of engineering judgments about i

19 catastrophic events and other things.

For example, there i

l 19 have been some concerns associated with seismicity, and 22 east to the Rocky Mountains, the uncertainties involved in l

21 assessing seismic potential darn near require that you use 22 probabilistic type of analysis.

l l

23 And I think that there are going to be other 24 materials types of situations where some of the fuel cycle j

25 facilities that may be looking at some sort of on-site i

NEAL R. GROSS l

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W I

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433 t

c--.

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

....~ -_.

l 108 1

disposal.

The use of the probabilistic analysis to define 2

the uncertainties and to allow optimization of the final 3

intervention makes great sense, and so I think that's one l

i 4

place that the Agency ought to definitely look at the use i

I i

5 of probabilistic type performance based, regulatory i

6 overviews.

l l

7 Site closure and waste disposal are going to t

l i

~

8 be areas where that is almost it's the only way it's 9

going to make any sense in some cases, to economically f

10 close down some of these complex sites i

i 11 MR. CAMERON:

Thank you, Tony.

12 Additional comments?

Yes, Henry.

l l

13 MR. MORTON:

I think one comment relevant to 14-probabilistic approach and the risk based approaches is l

15 that it should, indeed, help us to better understand what l

16 the risks are, how to manage them better, and thus, in the l

I 17 end, it really should be viewed, I think, as a very l

I 18 positive approach because the outcome should be better

{

19 public health and safety protection, better production of 20 the environment, better use of the resources that we have

]

21 to optimize that protection.

22 I think that when we look at this risk based, 23 performance oriented approach, we should, indeed, consider 4

24 a couple of things.

The probabilistic approach, one, i

1 25 should help with optimizing these choices and i

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE, N W (202) 23M433 WASF,NGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 23 4 433 i

f.-

l 109 1

understanding where the risks are better, and so I think 2

those, as opposed to the deterministic approaches that we j

3-followed partirtlarly in the materials licensing side of 4

the house, should be encouraged and should be approached i

5 in an_ incremental fashion by the licensees and by the I

6 Agency so.that we understand the steps that we're taking 7

and-that we take them in a responsible incremental t

l l

8 fashion.

l l

9 One of the' things, I think, when we begin to f

I 10 or another thing when we begin to focus on at least 11 overtly the word " risk based," is to understand that we've 12 really prudently been setting. standards and adopting

[

13 limits on the basis of a risk oriented background through i

i 14-the use of standards setting, agency recommendations, such 15 as NCRP, ICRP, risk estimated doses through agencies or i

I 16 organizations such as NCRP, National Academy of Sciences 17 BIER Committee, and so on.

i 1

18 One of the things, I think, if the focus l

1 19 toward risk based is sharpened somewhat, then one of the

.20 things that NRC research will need to or should focus l

I 21 additionally on is the question of the' linear no threshold 22 versus threshold, and I think some more attention will ii 23 need to be applied there.

4 i

24 We've prudently applied an assumption of l

25 linear no threshold at these very low doses that are NEAL R. GROSS

)

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE, N W.

l (202) 23M33 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 1

i

110 1

particularly now being proposed for decommissioning, and l

2 it looks like epidemiology maybe has exhausted about as l

3 much as it's going to be able to tell us and that r

4 increased attention to radiobiology to look at DNA repair, 5

other fundamental radiobiology mechanisms that may help to l-6 answer the question of linear no threshold versus l-7 threshold will be needed if you put additional emphasis on l

t i

l 8

the idea of risk based regulation.

i l

9 MR. CAMERON:

Thanks for identifying that 10 connection, Henry.

I l

l 11 Do we have some --

l i

i 12 MR. THOMPSON:

Can I just l

13 MR. CAMERCN:

Oh, yes, go ahead, Tony.

l 14 MR. THOMPSON:

Tony Thompson again.

I 15 I just want to. follow up with what Henry said.

j i

l 16 If you look at the Commission's current proposed rule for 17' decommissioning and decontamination 15 millirem per year l

i la limit proposed for 1,000 years, it's hard to say that's a L

19 risk based proposal under almost any circumstances.

l 20 So it gets back perhaps to the linear non-21 threshold question that Henry raised, and it certainly i

22 gets into this whole question of risk based and then for 23-1,000 years you're into the probability issue again.

24 MR. CAMERON:

Good point.

J 25 Tom, any comment on either of those two at NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

- 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W (202) 23m33 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005 3701 (202) 234 4 33 l

._._.__.._.____..___..-_._..m.._

_ _ _ _ _. - _ = _.

111 1

this point?

2 MR.

HILTZ:

I'm not an expert in some of the t'

l 3-issues that they're talking about.

I suspect that those 4

will be fleshed out and discussed in the implementation of i

5 a framework for dealing with materials usage.

6 MR. CAMERON:

Good, good, and I have some L

7 questions for you, and I'm.sure the audience, about the 8

framework in a minute, but, Ruth, I think you wanted to j

9 make a --

10 MS. McBURNEY:

Ruth McBurney, Conference of f

j l

11 Radiation Control Program Directors.

i l

12 Just a follow-on to the discussion that we've

[

4 13 been having on this.

As a performance goal, those limit' i

14 standards have worked fairly well, sufferingly only from a i

15 lack of understanding by the public of the meaning of dose 16' limits, and in a transition to a risk informed, 17 performance based approach, risk information should begin 18 with an explanation t, the public that the dose limits j '

19 have.always included safety margins that keep risk as low l'

l 20 as reasonably achievable.

21 It may be that the real incentive for using a

' 22 risk based approach is an attempt to put exposure does 23 information-in'a form that can be more readily understood 24 by the public.

j j

i 25 The changes to this approach should be i

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 3701 (202) 23M33

l..

112 1

accompanied by an aggressive public education program as t

2 we talked about yesterday.

3 This regulatory approach would necessarily be 4

based on probabilistic calculations, as has been mentioned 5

this morning.

Such calculations are usually accompanied 6

by uncertainty analysis.

7 Problems can arise in uncertainty analysis 8

when choosing input distributions which may, under very 9

low probability circumstances, cause the output 10 distributions to include the dose limit.

11 So when we're talking about very, very low, 12 for example, decommissioning standards, it would be better 13 to use as much site or process specific information as 14 possible in a deterministic bounding calculation to show 15 that compliance performance is achievable.

16 MR. CAMERCN:

Okay.

Thank you, Ruth.

17 Do we have any comment on any of Ruth's 18 statements?

13 Lynne.

20 MS. FAIROBENT:

Lynne Fairobent.

21 Chip, not directly on Ruth's statements, but 22 it's something that bothers me on this issue paper, and 23 that is I wonder how easy the public can understand what l

24 this paper is even talking about.

25 I take a look at this paper, and many of us in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE,. N W (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

.___-_._.___._..m.___.___.

'113 1

this room have been involved in PRAs for too many years to

-i t

2 truly acknowledge, but I take a look, and I think the 3

Commission did an admirable attempt at trying to define l

i i

4 some of this terminology, but let me just read-you i

5 something, and you tell me if you think you were l

J 6

successful.

j 7

(Laughter.)

l 8

MR. CAMERON:

We like this.

i l

9 (Laughter )

10 MS. FAIROBENT:

And this gets back earlier to l

t 11 something that Ms. Fleming had commented on about using 12 simple language in order te address some of these issues.

I l

13 This is under the what I would call is, I i

l' I

14 think, the definition on deterministic based.

It's on j

15 page 16.

It says, " Deterministic approaches to regulation I

i l

16 consider a set of challenges to safety and specify how 17 those challenges should be mitigated."

le Okay.

Then it goes on to say, " Simply stated, 19 the deterministic approach establishes requirements for l

l 20 use of nuclear materials and for engineering margin and 21 quality assurance and design, manufacture, construction, 22 and operation of nuclear facilities."

23 I'm sorry, guys, but I don't think that cuts l'

l 24 it.

I mean, I looked through this whole paper, and the 25 majority of the words in this paper are four and five NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4 33

I 114 4

i i

syllables-long, and I don't mean to imply that I think our 2

public is not educated.

I think the problem is that the.

3 public at large is very educated, but we continue to use 4

terminology in this field, in particular in risk, that I'm 5

not even sure a Jot of us in the' field truly understand I

t l

6 what is meant from one application to the next on the use.

i 7

.And I guess I would simply like to urge you go i

8 back and you rethink a redrafting of this to use very l

l 9

simple terminology and define maybe through an example

{

10 what is meant by these differences because I don't think i

i 11 the public can understand this paper.

12

'MR.

CAMERON:

Thank you, Lynne.

i I

I i:

13 And that sort of plays into a question that I i

14 had about the process.

At one point in the paper the i

15 statement is made that the public will likely, play a 16 substantial role in the transition to risk informed, i

17 performance based regulation In order to maintain public 18 cbnfidence, the basis for and implications associated with l

l 19 risk informed, performance based regulatory approaches j

20 should be well defined and easily understood.

21 And that may be an example of the need for l

l 22 that,.and we talk about developing a regulatory framework, 23 and we have.the scoping criteria back in the appendix.

I 24 What process are we going to use to educate the public, j

)

25 inform the public, involve the public in this development NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

(202) 23M33 -

WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 23M33 l

115 i

1 of the regulatory framework, the scoping criteria?

Is 2

there one particular mechanism that will be the focus or 3

is it going to be -- are there going to be many different t

4 initiatives in this area?

5 MR..HILTZ:

I can't answer the question 6

specifically because I think as a result of some of the 7

comments that we'll go back and look at that to make stre 8

that we are addressing the public concerns and making sure l

9 that it's communicated in a way that's understood.

1 10 In the development of the PRA policy i

1 11 statement, for example, though, we developed a draft j

l

\\

4 i

12 policy statement.

We issued it, published it, and we l

l 13 conducted a public workshop on it to try to get public i

14 response to what was being proposed and try to understand 15 the public concerns with or where there may be areas of l

'16-public misunderstanding.

17

'And we typically don't go through thst process 1

i 18 for development of Commission policy papers, but I think

_l

\\

l l

19 that we're getting the message that we certainly need to-20 be very sensitive to that and make sure that what we do is i

21 understood and is communicated effectively to the public.

I 22 MR. CAMERON:

Okay.

Do we have some -- oh, go 23 ahead, Themis.

i i

24 MR. SPEIS:

I would like to add something to 25 this.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 i

_.m o..

116 1

Tom mentioned earlier that we are going 1

2 through a process of developing pilot applications in a 3

l 3

number of areas, and that involves developing guidance, l

4 specifying or codifying as the technology allows the L

5 process itself, and all of this infrastructure that we are l

6 developing in the present will go out for public comments.

7 It will be discussed with the ACRS.

Maybe we should be-8 having some other types of forums to discuss it.

l

'9 So that could be a kind of vehicle where the 10 public can participate more effectively because, as Tom 11 said, these are very important, these pilot applications, 12 because it will kind of -- we're feeling our way, okay, to 13-make sure that the technology is appropriately considered.

14 The public view is, as you heard earlier about the 1

15 radiological criteria, there are.different types of --

l 16 different views in this area, you know, even among some of i

17 the more erudite scientists.

18 So hopefully this pilot application, you know, 19 will receive scrutiny, but hopefully will help us to 20 insure that, you know, we include clarity, among other 21 things.

22 MR. CAMERON:

Thank you, Themis.

I I

23 Do we have some further comments about the 24 difficulty of understanding the presentation of these 25 concepts or mechanisms where the public and, you know, I

l 1

NEAL R. GROSS

?

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

(.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 23M433 i,

I~

117 1

broadly -- I'm using "the public broadly to include a a

2 number of interests on mechanisms for public involvement, 3

communication on these particular issues.

4 (No response.)

5 MR. CAMERON:

Okay.

Any other comments on 6

risk informed?

7 Ruth.

8 MS. McBURNEY:

Ruth McBurney, CRCPD Board of l

9 Directors.

10 As far as the options given, we support a 11 combination of certain aspects of all the options.

12 Promulgation of regulation should be primarily as i

13 described in Option 1 because consideration of industry j

14 demands, safety benefit, ease of implementation, and I

15 available resources should always be considered in 16 rulemaking.

17 As described in Option 2, even when j

1 18 considering the items mentioned in Option 1, overall 19 protection to public health and safety should be given the 20 highest priority.

l-21 In addition, cost-benefit of any rulemaking 22 should also be one of the primary considerations, j

23 overridden only by protection of public health and safety, i

t 24 and in state rulemakings we have to do a cost-benefit

.25 analysis on every regulation that we propose.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE, N W.

(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4 433 i

~_. _... _. _ -

118 i

i There are aspects of Cotion 2, notably to i

2 pursue concurrence with EPA on risk bases and models and l

3 assumptions to be used that would be beneficial.

I think 4

this has been a problem in several areas.

i 5

Option 3, to perform a comprehensive l

6 assessment of NRC regulatory approaches is a desirable 7

goal and would go a long way in achieving regulatory 8

coherence and consistency.

9 Then as described in Option 4, the NRC should-10 always be open to input from the stakeholders.

Licensee e

.11 data concerning risk analysis, cost-benefit analysis, 12 licensing need,,and the licensee's ability to maintain an 13 acceptable. level of safety with inr.ovative approaches must 14 always be considered.

15 Of course, our comments are primarily directed

]

J 16 toward the Materials Program.

I just wanted to mention I

17 that in coordination with'the CRCPD, the NRL has agreed to la participate in a parallel rulemaking process with the 19 agreement states in which participatory involvement among 20 all individual parties is emphasized.

This wasn't

'21 mentioned in this paper, but as I mentioned earlier,.it's 22 primarily directed toward reactor.

p 23 Also, of course, with the states we're l

24 concerned about the cost-benefit analysis.

Designating a i

i 25 rule of an item of compatibility may force a state to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W (202) 234 4 33 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

._...__.._..-.__._.-..__.._.m.

i 119 1

either utilize inapplicable assumptions or not adopt an 2

item of compatibility because an applicable cost-benefit

.3 analysis may not justify adoption of the rule in that L

Jurisdiction.

l 5

So that's my primary comments.

6 MR. CAMERON:

Okay.

Thanks, Ruth.

7 One clarification.

You mentioned a l

8 participatory process that the conference is pursuing.

Is 9

this in a particular substantive area or is it the I

10 application of risk informed, performance based to a.

f j

11 particular substantive area, or is it on this general l

l 12 concept of how you.do a framework?

13 MS. McBURNEY:

In the adoption of any.

I 14 regulations whereby NRC and the agreement states both were 15 going to have to adopt similar regulations in the l-16 materials area, that we've asked and have gotten some 17.

indication that they would be willing to work with us on L

I 18 that.

(

19 MR. CAMERON:

Okay.

Thank you.

20 Tony.

l i'

21 MR. THOMPSON:

I'd just like to say one more 22 time on behalf of the National Mining' Association just 23 discussing the complexities of'this issue itself and 24 trying to address it in some meaningful way to the I

25 Commission, never mind that there may be three or four NEAL R. GROSS

~

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

(202) 23M33 WASHINGTON. D C.' 20005 3701 (202) 23M33

1 120 1

1 other DSIs that are of concern to a particular group of 1

2 licensees, the time frame within which to file comments ic 3

unreasonably short because the notice was sort of 4

fragmented in terms of getting the materials out to the J

5 public, at least as far as our people are concerned, 6

anywhere from, you'know, essentially 40 to 45 days to 7

comment on, you know, a document that's that thick that 8

has a lot of potential impact on the future of the NRC and 9

their relationship.

l 10 So, once again, we think that there ought to 11 be a little bit more time to comment if you want to get 12 the best possible and most informative comments that you 13-can get.

14 MR. CAMERON:

The papers covered the 15 waterfront of all the fundamental issues that we have to 16' deal with, which was the point, and I guess I would just 17 direct that comment to the NRC staff.

18 MR. MILHOAN:

Jim Milhoan, NRC.

19 There is a lot of information, as you point 20 out, in the issue papers we provided.

We tried to make 21 the broadest possible distribution.

22 There is a balance we're having to strike.

23 between the comment period and having those' comments 24 available so that they can influence and have a direct 25 impact.on the strategic plan that we're developing for the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISMND AW., N W

-(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433

L...

121 1

Commission so that that strategic plan can be the 2

undergirding of our process-in the future for both the 3

Agency direction and also needing it for the development 4

of the budget'for next year, for the FY '99 budget we're-I e

5 talking about.

We're talking about budgets ahead, but we 6

need that process done in a very short period of time so b

7 the results of that can, in fact, have an impact and have 8

a basis for us moving forward for development of the next l

L 9

budget cycle, in addition to establishing the direction l

10 for the Agency in development of the strategic plan, i

11 So there is a tradeoff in the amount of time 12 that we provided for public comments.

We attempted to 13 make as broad a distribution as possible starting in mid-t 14 September in light of that very tight time frame, and we i

l-l 15' do understand that that is a particular problem, but we i

16 had the competing factors on the time schedule and the 17 importance of this in setting-future Agency activity.

So l

18 there's a tradeoff in that regard.

19 MR. CAMERON:

And it is true though that l

20 comments such as that will be part of the stakeholder I

i 21 interaction report that goes to the Commission though.

-22 MR. MILHOAN:

Yes, it will.

l-23 MR. CAMERON:

Okay, t

i 24 Yes.

i i

25~

MR. GURICAN:. Good morning.

Greg Gurican, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

(202) 23M33 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433

.-.. =.. -.. - -

122 1

member of the public.

2 I don't know if that'makes me a public citizen l

3 or a private citizen, but I'll --

4 (Laughter.)

.5 MR. GURICAN:

-- take it any way you go.

I 6

guess you guys have struck a nerve with me, so I'm going 7

to talk.

8 I'd like to reiterate the comments from the I

r l

9 gentleman of Carolina Power and Light who said there's a l

10 lot of confusion here, and I'd like to say that I would l

11 support Options 3 and 4 and go as.far as you can go as 12 fast as you can go because the slower it takes you to l

13 develop your positions and to get to the' point where f

i 14 you're done, the more it's going to cost the industry; the l

15 more it's going to cost the public, as members of the i

16 public, as customers of utilities, and as taxpayers.

So 9

17 I'd like to support Option No.

3.

)

18 I want to support Optier. No.

3, as well, l

19 because we see the use of PRA in many areas coming about 20 at long last, for instance, in'the maintenance role.

21 However, when you go to the statements of consideration, 22 for instance,-for the license renewal rule under Part 54, j

-23 it strictly prohibits the use of PRA in that role, and.

t 24 that's why I think if you take a look at Option No. 3 25 again to do your comprehensive assessment, you'll be able i

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W j

(202) 23M33 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005-3701 (202) 23m33 1

~

123 1

to see a better use of PRA in the future.

2 And even going back to the previous issue 3

paper, if we just look at the decommissioning questions 4

which were brought up in some of the options, what risk 5

reduction benefit is there going to be to having a 6

resident inspector on site for all decommissioning 7

activities?

If you use PRA in that instance, I think 8

you're going to find that the answer is none.

9 Okay, and that's my comments.

10 MR. CAMERON:

Well, good.

I would thank you 11 and thank Ruth for bringing us back to the options here, 12 and I guess I would pose the question:

would this 13 particular option, Option No.

3, as you phrased it, this 14 comprehensive assessment, would that be a better vehicle 15 for achieving the type of public education and public 16 responsiveness that we're concerned about?

Would it be a 17 more coherent process if we adopted Option No. 3?

19 Tom, I don't know if you have an answer to 19 that.

20 MR.

HILTZ:

Well, I think coherence needs to 21 be the foundation no matter what option we take, whether 22 it's to continue the current process or perform a 23 comprehensive assessment.

24 If we were to perform a comprehensive 25 assessment, it's not necessarily linked to a more NEAL R. GROSS 4

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISMNO AW. N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4 33

124 1

aggressive public communication program.

I think that has 2

to be an initiative that has to be considered regardless 3

of what option we choose.

4 MR. CAMERON:

Okay, and just for emphasis, the 5

Commission's preferred or preliminary -- not preferred --

6 preliminary option here had elements of a lot of these, or 7

could you restate it for us?

8 MR.

HILTZ:

It principally had elements of 9

Option 1,

which was to continue the current process and 10 include performance data when it becomes available to 11 enhance the performance, oriented performance base aspect 12 of that.

13 Then Option 3, where if implemented, it would 14 ask the staff or if the Commission decides on it, it would 15 direct the staff to look at enhancing the PRA 16 implementation plan maybe more aggressively and look at 17 other areas where we can use risk informed, performance 18 based approaches.

19 MR. CAMERON:

And PRA implementation plan is 20

tor oriented.

21 MR.

HILTZ:

No.

22 MR. CAMERON:

No?

Okay.

23 MR.

HILTZ:

The PRA implementation plan is an 24 Agency-wide plan to monitor and track risk informed 25 initiatives that are progressing throughout the Agency.

j i

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

~ _.....

125 1

MR. CAMERON:

Okay, good.-

2 MR.

HILTZ:

It probably is fair to say that i

3 there are more activities in the reactor area than there 4

are in the nuclear materials area.

5 MR. CAMERON:

Okay.

Well, I think that's 6

important information for people to know that PRA l

7 implementation plan does cover the full range of i-8 Commission activities.

l 9

Okay.

Yes, Tom.

l

[

10 MR. HILL:

Tom Hill, speaking on behalf of the b

11 Organization of Agreement States.

.12 I just wanted to get it on the record that the 13 Organization of Agreement States concurs with the comments i

14 that Ruth made a few minutes ago on behalf of the CRCPD l

15 Board of Directors.

16 MR. CAMERON:

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you,

' 17'

Tom, t

- 18 Do we have some further comments on this l

19 issue?

20 Janice.

21 MS. STEVENS:

Janice Stevens.

22 Yeah, I just have to.say something about this I'm sorry.

I forgot 23 whole issue on communication that I

24 your name.

j l

l 25 MS. FAIROBENT:

Lynne Fairobent.

l i

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODtiISLAND AVE., N W -

(202) 234 4 33 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 3701 (2';2) 234 4433 4.

-r-n-

r

v.,,

_ ~. _. -. _. _

..__..__....~.~..-_.m..._._..._....

126 i

1 MS.-STEVENS: -- Lynne brought up and several 2

others commented on.

It's just so critical.

j' 3

As everyone in here knows, the reason why this l

l 4

industry's in the state that it is today is the lack of

~

l 5

communication.

We all have not appropriately communicated j

6 our industry to the average layman.

7 I mean, how many people.in here actually have l

.8 a nontechnical spouse.or friend or family member that has t

9 ever understood anything that you've ever done in your 10 whole career?

No one.

See?

l 11 MR. CAMERON:

Yeah, we don't associate with L

i 12 those types of people.

l 13 (Laughter.)

3 l

14 MS. STEVENS:

You have a golden opportunity i

15 here with this whole process of trying to pull in the l

i 16 public to take some innovative approaches in simple i

17 things, like breaking down your papers to have summary, t

i 18 broad picture statements in the body of the text and then 19 references to'the appendices, which you've done some, for l

1 20 the more informed,. technical, whatever reader, and then l

21 when you go to your public meeting, certainly keeping to 22 that bigger picture to pull in as many people as possible.

23 Also, if you have those. kind of broad 24 summaries, which you might. formulate by simply going home I

i i

25 to possibly your nontechnical spouse or nontechnical folks i

l NEAL R. GROSS l

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

[

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 2000M701 (202) 234-4433 l

+,

i 127 f

i 1

in the office and seeing what it takes to get them to i

2 understand these issues, and using that to help recast 3

your write-ups here or your summary write-ups.

a 4

But if you come up with those, then you're i

5 going to have an opportunity to do more of a PR job in-6 getting information out to the public and pull more people i

7 into these type meetings, which will enhance the process 8

for all of us.

l 9

So it's'just a simple process that's been used 10 so effectively in so many other industries, and it's about

]

11 time that all of us took responsibility to learn some of j

12 those' types of approaches.

I 13 MR. CAMERCN:

That's a good point, and 1

14 certainly probably the most challenging thing that we've 1

15 all heard over the past day and a half.

To try to do that j

16 is difficult.

17 We have other comments?

18 (No response.)

19 MR. CAMERON:

Okay.

Well, it's noon now.

Why 20 don't we break until 1:15?

And we will have two 12 1 concurrent sessions, one in this room on waste and another 22 one in the room'next door on fees.

I 23 (Whereupon, at 12:03 p.m.,

the meeting was i

24 recessed for lunch, to reconvene at 1:15 p.m.,

the same i

25 day.)

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE.. N W (202) 234 4 33 WASHINGTON. D C. ~ 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

>g i

l CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:

Name of Proceeding:

STAKEHOLDERS PUBLIC MEETINGS ASSURING SAFE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR REACTORS SESSION Docket Number:

N/A Place of Proceeding:

WASHINGTON, DC were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for 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 foregoing proceedings.

M Corbett Riner Official Reporter Neal R.

Gross and Co.,

Inc.

?

i NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT AEPoRTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE, fM (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433

'\\

l

i 1

[

l l

1 i

l Q

Direction SettingIssue No.10

+.

Reactor Licensing For Future

+

-4 Applicants l

October 2c-25,1996 Sponsor: Frank J. Miraglia, NRR f

Writer: Michael J. Case, NRR

/

I

'\\:

I

i i

DSI10 l

l

• Given the Current Environment, What

~ 3<

Should the Commission's Policy Be on j

Future Reactors?

7:.

u l

/

V

i

[

i::

Key Factors

• Commission Objectives in Issuing Part 52 t

• New Order for Nuclear Power Plant L nlikely in Near Term t

o^

• Budgetary Pressure on the Industry,

. :.c Department of Energy, and NRC

• Foreign Interest in L.S. Approved Designs

• Congressional Interest in Both Part 52 Process and Design Certification Progress

[

i Options

• Reassess-Reprioriti72

^:#

1

• Sustained Responsiveness

• Refocus Resources 1

.. t gl

• Single Solution 3

l I

'\\

t Commission's Preliminary Views i

Recognized that func amental economic j

decisions by license applicants will W

determine level of necessary support N. ' _ ;).

1

. * =

N,,RC should continue to give priority f,or reviewing standard and advanced reactor designs, early site approva s, and licensing for new reactor license applicants i

1 Commission's Preliminary Views (cont)

• Staff should develop implementation guidance for the following:

i i

,,f a :.

.a

.w...

- Address maintenance of the Utility Requirements Document and the certified designs through first-t l

of-a-kind engineering

- Address orderly closcout of all activities and document the work performed (e.g., SBWR, j

MHTGR)

- Evaluate design certification process following completion of current applications for lessons learned h#

p-f 1

(

?

l l

l Direction Setting Issue No.11 my Operating Reactor Oversight

~m Program I

October 24-25,1996 Sponsor: Frank J. Miraglia, NRR j

Writer: Michael R. Johnson, NRR l

i l

t

j DSI11 i

I

• Given the Changes in the External / Internal "s

Environment, What Are the Implications Ior

g. e the Current Strategies for t;:Te Operating j

<a:

Reactor Program?

~

i

)

/

l

i 0

Key Factors l

i f

• Internal l

i

- N< o new operating licenses under review l

s 5 reactors expected to shutdown

. 4 Pi prematurely

)

t

- Number of new requirements expected to i

t remain relatively low i

/

n.. -.--.

i i

i Key Factors

• External

- Industry deregulation and increasing economic i.,.

pressures 7,

e,

- Greater use of PRA to allow for cost savings

- Industry concerns regarding the level of inspections

- Component and system aging t

- Safety issues will continue to arise

- Continued public concern regarding safety and interest in the regulatory process h

\\

l Options

• Review the reactor oversight processes in the context of.essons learned from current 1

i issues and develop processes and j

1 e-ei mechanisms to provide for systematic j

reexamination of reactor oversight activities to ensure their continued effectiveness.

l i

l i

V

i f

Options f

• Seek new approaches within the existing 7

reactor oversight framework to improve j

1 ga n;

effectiveness, work with the industry to foster an environment that is conducive to continued improvements in performance, i

and provide increased opportunities f.

or public involvement in the regulatory process.

/

.* Perform a Business Process Reengineering.

b

i

l i

Commission's Preliminary Views i

i

• Option 1

- Continue ongoing comprehensive review

'rj

- Include systematic reexamination of the reactor i

'g.c.

em oversight program i

l

I Commission's Preliminary Views t

Option 2 t i

- Encourage industry to develop generic guidelines

[

that can be endorsed by the NRC and carried out by the industry

- Provide increased opportunities for public 24 involvement l

t

- Expand use of technology to improve efficiency j

- Increase flexibility in staffing multiple-unit sites f

- Improve effectiveness and understanding of aerformance assessment process a

Commission's Preliminary Views i

• Option 3 i

- Consider work process re-engineering methods to improve various aspects of the reactor oversight pi k program r

- Identify for Commission review and approval areas that could beneht

- Consider "best-practices" from other regulatory agencies (foreign and domestic, nuclear and non-nuclear) l V

w:

l i

I l

Direction Setting Issue No. 24 Decommissioning - Power f4 Reactors i

i October 24-25,1996 Sponsor: Frank J. Miraglia, NRR Writer: Singh S. Bajwa, NRR t

i i

I

A i

DSI24 i

i What Should Be NRC's Strategy for Regulating Decommissioning Activities at i

Power Reactor Sites?

l

g I

-.s f

h f

l I

i i

i Key Factors

• External ify

- Potential Deregulation of the Power-Generation Industry has Created Uncertainity with Respect 5

to Decommissioning Funding Assurance (g

- The Future of Nuclear Power Industry Depends f

l on Economic Factors - Could Contribute to f

Utility Decisions to Decommission j

- Availability of Waste Disposal Sites Impact Nuclear Utility Decisions Regarding Continued Operation to End-Of-Lif e

- Public Interest, Depending on Site Specific p

Factors

t

l

I Key Factors

• Internal s.

- Streamlining and Budget Reduction May AITect Decommissioning g*

• • g&

i

/

V i

(

l Options

• Option 1: Continue Current Direction 4

and Approaches t.

l The NRC Would Maintain Its Current l

Direction and Planned Initiatives by l

Continuing the Rulemaking Efforts l

l Currently L nderway.

i f

l i

l l

7i Options i

e.[

• Option 2: Pursue Current Direction and t

Approaches More Aggressively j

r;e e'*g

>m T ae Staff Would Pursue More Aggressively the Current Direction in Relation to Other Activities and Priorities and Seek 1

Opportunities to Accelerate the Execution j

of t;:le Decommissioning Related i

Rulemaking Efforts.

\\

Options

• Option 3: Proceed More Slowly Implementing Current Direction and Approaches s..m e-e..,

The Staff Would Move More Slowly in Implementing Its Current Rulemaking Approaches.

i h

'.?

.i Commission's Preliminary Views

• Option 1:

Continue the current direction and d

approach, is the recommended option.

l Implementation guidance in pursuing this

, c.

option should be expanded to explore more ISi!i innovative approaches in line with the current Commission strategy in this area.

t i

/

k{

~

Commission's Preliminary Views.

• In pursuing the current pace of rulemaking, the

.,j staff should consider new and innovative m

regulatory approaches. Examples of possible approaches that might be considered are:

- Transfer of nuclear power plants to Agreement State

.. 4

. 3,'

control after fuel has been put into dry storage or has been "3

~*

removed from the Part 50 site.

- Placing a resident site inspector during all phases of decommissioning, only during specific phases of decommissioning, or not at all.

- I-laving NRC take an enhanced performance-oriented approach by reducing oversight and performing a radiological assessment of the site when it is ready to be p

released.

+

'i l

I Direction Setting Issue No.12

,:n Risk-Infonned, Performance-o Based Regulation i

October 24-25,1996 Sponsor: Themis P. Speis, RES Writer: Thomas G. Hiltz, NRR h

'i DSI12

.K.:

-Q fj;.

• What Criteria Should NRC E se in

't ;

Expanding the Scope in Applying a Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Approach to p'rt I

.(N.

Rulemaking, Licensing, Inspection, and Enforcement?

i

/

V

\\

\\

Key Factors l

• External Executive Branch and Congress l

r

T Standards-Setting Organizations j

Federal Agencies i

n+

J:r Nuclear Industry l

Public j

• Internal Nuclear Materials Initiatives j

Commission's PRA Policy Statement i

Defense-in-Depth Policy and Legal Issues A

l r,

i Options I

• Continue current process g.

• More rigorously assess relationship to

.w J.y public health and safety g

t

• Perform a comprehensive assessment of j

NRC regulatory approaches

• Consider risk-informed, performance-based approaches primarily in response to j

stakeholder initiatives l

i i

Commission's Preliminary Views 3

• Higher risk activities should be the primary lk.q focus of. a g e n c y e f.. orts and resources

• Staff should continue current efforts (Option 1)

,, 4 g on pilot programs and continue to evaluate i

L1 performance data as it becomes available

• Staff should proceed in the direction of j

enhancing the PRA Implementation Plan (some elements of Option 3) i i

V

\\

<l 7:

Commission's Preliminary Views

• Staff shoulc perform a thorough review of the g

basis for nuclear materials regulations and i

processes to identify anc prioritize those areas that may be amenable to a risk-informed, tej p:

performance-based approach. This assessment should lead to a framework for applying PRA to nuclear material uses j

• The Commission is particularly interested in j

public comments on how NRC should dea. witLa dual regulation w.len applying a risk-inf ormec.,

j performance-3asec regulatory philosophy h

i I

_