ML20205C662: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:}}
{{#Wiki_filter:- - - - - - -
ORIGINg>        _
W -l5                          0 g                                  UNITED STAIES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:                                          DOCKET NO:
ADVISORY COOIITTEE CN REACTOR SAFEGUARD 3 SUBCOM ITTE 05 IIPROVED LlGHTWATER REACTOR DESIGN wen:
9&
o'g 2 8
m rn
                                                                              $p m3
* O m  8  cn
                                                                              $NE                  &  2 5$5                m
                                                                                                    ?
V["n
                                                                                    " E            G
                                                                                        ''S l-  '
LOCATION:      WASHINGTON, D. C.                          PAGES:                1 -  150 DATE:          TUESDAY, AUGUST 5,          1986 IIRSOFR3EC0Ff 30 Nodemove l rom AORS09 ice ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
(
8                                                Cficia' Rqcrurs 444 North Capitol Street Wasbingten. D.C. 20001
    ,ng1;oc.33 a50005                                (202) 347-3700 f,c n s        ,,
540                                    NATIONWIDE COVE? AGE
 
l 1    i l
G              1                      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2                    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 5
6            Advisory Committee on Reactor Saf eguards 7        SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMPROVED LIGHTWATER REACTOR DESIGN 8
9 10 11                            August 5, 1986 Washington, D.C.
12 4            -13  PRESENT:
Dr. Charles J. Nylie, Member.
14                Dr. Dade W. Moeller, Member.
Dr. Glenn A. Reed, Member.
      -    _ 15                Dr. C. P. Siess, Member.
Dr. Carlyle Michelson, Member.                        ,
16                Dr. Max W. Carbon, Member                              l l
l 17                                                                        j l
18 19 20 21 22                                                                          l 23 3c          24 w    25                                                                      !
I ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.      Washington, D.C. (202) 347-3700
 
PUBLIC NOTICE BY THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONERS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS TUESDAY, AUGUST 5, 1986 The contents of this stenographic transcript of the proceedings of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), as reported herein, is an uncorrected record of the discussions recorded at the meeting held on the above date.
No member of the ACRS Staff and no participant at this meeting accepts any responsibility for errors or inaccuracies of statement or data contained in this transcript.
e 0
  . . .        - .-            - - ~
 
2 1                        P R O C E E D I N G S:                                    I dCb~N                                                                                        l
''()    2                                                  (2:10 p.m.)
3                DR. WYLIE:  Suppose we get started. This is a 4  meeting of the Improved Lightwater Reactor Design 5  Subcommittee, and your main mission today is to review the 6  drafts of the Commission's standardization policy statement 7  toward the objective of coming up with an ACRS letter 8    regarding those.
9                We have available today members of the staf f, 10  Dino Scaletti and Dave Moran to answer any questions 11    regarding the staff's version.
12                We have a member of AIF here that could                      .
()  f  13  possibly give us some answers to questions concerning the 14  AIF work that we have had presentations on.
15                We have had several meetings of the 16    subcommittee on the subject of nuclear power standardization 17  within the past year.
18                  We heard f rom the industry about their work 19    toward advanced plant designs and proposals regarding 20    standardization, principally EPRI and the AIF study group on 21    plant standardization.
22                  We met with the staff on several occasions 23    regarding their proposed draft revisions to the Commission's
.q-    24    197 8 standardization policy statement.
25                  In preparation for the July 9th meeting of this l
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Washington, D.C.    (202) 347-3700
 
i 3 j I    subcommittee, members of the subcommittee were sent backup      i 2    information which included the several drafts of the h
3    proposed revisions dating back to I believe it was early 4    December, wasn't it?    December.
5                  Then the latest versions of the Commission, I 6    believe OPE, version of April 10.      Then the NRR version of 7    May 14.
8                  Principally, it's the Commission draft of 4-10 9    and NRR version of May 14 we are considering today.
10                  In his memo the Chairman proposed comments on
,.      11    the policy statement and proposed draf t outline of the 12-    implementation, NUREG.
Uhh  , 13                  As I mentioned, there are two drafts available.
      '14    The commission draft of April 10 and the NRR draft of May 15    14.
16                  I don't know. Does everyone have those?    I 17    assume they were --
18                    What we would like to accomplish is to review 19    these and come up with a letter to the Commission for the 20    ACRS to consider regarding these draf ts.                          I 21                  In preparation for today's meeting, we had an 22    earlier comparison of the two draf ts. There was a letter 23    sent out on July 10 by John McKinley in which he compared 24    the two draf ts. I think all ACRS members received that 25    letter.
l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.      Washington, D.C.    (202) 347-3700
 
4 1                There he made a comparison and he pointed out h2      several areas that were found in the NRR version that was 3  not in the Commission's version.
4                Also, I prepared a comparison which you should 5  have which addresses the pertinent points in the NRR and 6  April 10 version point by point for consideration. I would 7    suggest that our procedure this afternoon be to go through 8    these points and to see if anyone has any comments regarding 9    those.
10                DR. CARBON:  Are you referring to this
      .11  five-page document?
12                DR. WYLIE : Yes.
  )h  13                DR. CARBON:  Comparison, April 10?
14                DR. WYLIE:  That is it, yes.
15                DR. SEISS:  Charlie, there were three drafts of 16    this thing. We are just going to look at the last two?
17                DR. WYLIE:  Yes. The earlier one, you are 18    talking about the December draft, I suppose?
19                DR. SEISS:  Yes.
20                DR. WYLIE : Yes.
21                DR. SEISS:  All right.
22                DR. WYLIE:  The December draft was discussed by 23    the Commission with NRR. They were sent back and requested, 24    I think, to come up with another draf t; is that right?
25                MR. SCALETTI:  The Commission requested or l
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Washington, D. C.  (202) 347-3700
 
5  1 i
1    charged the OPE, their assistants and NRR to come up with                              j
: 5) x                                                                                                !
  "'(]    2    another consensus amongst themselves. That is what the                            I 3    April 10 policy statement is.
4                  DR. SEISS:  That had NRR involvement?
5                  MR. SCALETTI:    It was intended to have NRR 6    involvement in it, but it got to be just OPE and Commission 7    assistance.
8                  DR. SEISS:  Then the May would be essentially 9    the one with NRR involvement.
10                  MR. SCALETTI:  April 10 they sent a SECY
        -11    memorandum saying here are some of our comments and here are 12    the draf t policies.
j      13                  We would 1.ike policies. We would like you to 14    think about these other items.
    . ''  15                  We thought about them, came cack with a revised 16    policy statement which was May 14 to include other concerns 17    the Commission had in the memorandum.
18                  DR. SEISS:  Now coi'ld you summarize briefly 19    what was wrong with the December work that the Commission 20_    didn't like?  What it had that they didn't want in it or 21    what it didn'.t have they wanted in it?
22                  MR. SCALETTI:  It had too much I believe.                          They 23    wanted just a broad statement of policy.
i gs      24                  DR. SEISS:  So that was broken down --
25                  MR. SCALETTI:  Implementing NUREG, correct.
l
,            ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.      Washington, D.C.    (202) 347-3700
 
6 1                  DR. WYLIE:  I might add to that, I understand, 6*
~
2    maybe Dino can comment on this, I understand the Commission 3 ,
in the draft they prepared with OPE, The Commission's 4      assistance and OPE, that they made an attempt to write a 5    policy statement that was simple and their intent was to 6    make it very simple in understanding so anyone could read 7    and understand it, members of the public, whoever. That is 8    my understanding.
9                  MR. SCALETTI:    That's correct. And only to 10    address the ultimate goal of standardization.
11                  DR. WYLIE:  Yes.
12                  MR. SCALETTI:    Design certification.
(:    '13                  DR. WELIE:  Yes.
14                  DR. SEISS:  Charlie, your hand-out here, the 15      numbers refer to the paragraphs in standardization?
16                  DR. WYLIE:  No. I numbered those just for 17      reference. That doesn't --
18                  Number 1 doesn't, it starts at the beginning 19      and I walk through the draf t and just picked out the 20      pertinent points.
21                  DR. SEISS:  The quotes are actually from the 22      draf t?
23                    DR. WELIE:  Some are -- if they are quotes, l
3r'')  24      they are out of the draf t. Yes.                              I R) 25                    DR. CARBON:  Charlie, would you straighten mc ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.      Washington, D.C.  (202) 347-3700
 
7 1      out on something?
2                  Supposedly in Herman's letter it says the h
3      Chairman asked us to prepare, consider both the April 10, 4      '86 and May 14, '86 versions.
5                  Actually, the chairman's letter said the August 6      10 --
7                  MR. ALDERMAN:    I think t'. tere was a 8      typographical error in the chairman's letter.
9                  DR. WYLIE:  Well, there may or may not be.
10                  DR. SEISS:  August 10, April 10, had to be.
11    .              DR. CARBON:  No, August 10, '85.
12                  DR. WYLIE:  Yes, I saw that.
}fh              - 13 '                DR. SEISS:  But there wasn't any August 10,
              ' [ 14        '85.
      .            15                  DR. CARBON:  Well, I sure don't know of any.
16                  DR. WYLIE:  I don't think there was, was there?
17                  MR. SCALETTI:  Not to my knowledge.
18                  DR. WYLIE:  I think that was an error.
          +
19                  MR. ALDERMAN:    I think it was a typographical 20      error in there.
21                  DR. SEISS:  NRR has not had, during the May            l 22      draf t you did not have any collaboration with the authors of 23      the April draft?
l e 'N              24                  MR. SCALETTI:  We did. We met with each, four SEk_)                                                                                          l 25      of the five Commission assistants to discuss some of the            l l
l ACD FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Washington, D.C.      (202) 347-3700
 
8 1    comments on what we perceived to be some of the major Q"( . ) 2                concerns of the policy statement. Howev e r , they had no 3    direct input into our May 10 other than our discussions with 4    them that preceded it.
: 5.                DR. SEISS:  I was trying to see if we could 6    narrow it down to just looking at one of them.
7                DR. WELIE:  I think you could look, my personal 8    opinion, I am not saying it because NRR is here, but I think 9    that the NRR draf t is more coherent, proceeds logically, I
                  .10    think, than the other one. But both, if you look through 11    here --
12                DR. SEISS:  I don't see that many substantive
'i                  13    differences.
14                DR. WILIE :  There's not that much difference, c0 }              15    except there are some differences. We could point those 16    out.
17                If you look at John McKinley's analysis on July          !
18    10 --                                                                !
19                DR. MICHELSON:  Do you have a extra copy of 20    McKinley's letter?  I forgot to bring mine with me.
21                DR. WYLIE:  We could walk down through this, 1
22    because, if you like.                                                l 23                DR. SEISS:  Are why don't we go through your cO                24    list.
Q)                  25                DR. WILIE:  Why don't we do that.      I think it
                                                                                              '1 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. '  Washington, D.C.      (202) 347-3700    !
 
9 l
1                        will address all the issues.      If not, we can pick them up      !
2                        anyhow.
3                                      DR. CARBON:    Can I raise a question before we 4                        do?
5                                      DR. WYLIE:  Sure.
6                                      DR. CARBON:    It's not clear to me that the 7                        policy statements really define what standard designs are.
8                                      DR. MICH ELSON :  That's right.
9                                      DR. CARBON:    Do you want to do anything about 10                        that?    I don't know really how you have policy --
11                                      DR. WYLIE:  Make it definition, or what the 12                        standard plan is, or --
dh      13                                      DR. CARBON:    I don't know.
l                                                                          I end up'not 14                      . feeling that I know what they are talking about.
{',    15                                      DR. MICHELSON:    You are not alone.
16                                      DR. CARBON:    Okay. I can think of several 16
* 17                        things, and I know what I personally would do.      And I think 18                        Joe Paladino, also --                                                '
19                                      DR. WYLIE :  That may be a point of                  l l
20                        clarification that should be done.      I think I know what I am 21                        talking about when I say standardization.                            I I
22                                      Well, I think I do because they basically tie l
l          23                        it into the certification of the reference system design.
l 24                                      DR. SEISS:  Yes.
  }
25                                      DR. WYLIE:  Somewhere that is defined.
l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.        Washington, D.C.    (202) 347-3700
 
10 i
1                    DR. SEISS:  Charlie, one of the questions that 2      came up every time we talked about it was -- I mean the l
3      obvious question is standard plan or standard plan design.
4                    If it's obviously just a standard plan design, 5      there is nothing standard about a plant, components of one 6      may be different than the components of another. Not 7      interchangeable.
8                    DR. WELIE:  Different manufacturer.
9                    DR. SEISS:  Yes. It seems to me the last time 10        we talked about this I got the impression from the staff, 11        it's essentially a standard plant SAR.
p 12                      DR. WILIE:  That's part of it.
4di<                            .
if'              )            13                      DR. CARBON:  I get the impression --
  ~&                            ,
                                  '4~
DR. SEISS:  Once there is, I guess, I know,
:15            whether it's a PSAR or FSAR or something in between is 16        submitted by the staff, reviewed by the staf f, reviewed by 17        the ACRS, there is a commitment that for some length of time 18        those features will not be reviewed again.
19                      DR. WYLIE:  Ten years, I guess.
20                      DR. CARBON:  Let me interject here, because I 21        think it's pertinent.
                                          ~
22                      I get the impression almost that the staff is 23        saying a standard plant is going to be a replica or 3p 3                        24        duplicate or something that has already been built.
40%)4 25                      DR. MICHELSON:    No.
e l
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.      Washington,  D.C.  (202) 347-3700
 
11  l l
1                  DR. SEISS:    I did not get that.
2                  DR. CARBON:    If you look at their standardized 3    policy statement in attachment 5 it comes close.
4                  DR. SEISS:    You are looking at the attachments.
5                  DR. WYLIE:    Dino, maybe you can help me.      Here 6    it is. It's in the earlier draf t. That is the problem. I 7    don't know whether that was defined.
8                  MR. SCALETTI:    December?
9                  DR. WYLIE:    December draf t.
10                  MR. SCALETTI:    Point of clarification here.
11    The Commission wanted a broad, concise statement of policy.
12                  DR. WYLIE:    Yes.                            ,
13                  MR. SCALETTI:    They wanted a new regular to 14    accompany this policy statement that would document, lay out 15    the implementation requirements for standardization.      In 16    their, the various standardization concepts would be defined 17    in that document.
18                  DR. WYLIE:    Okay.
19                  MR. SCALETTI:    As they exist now they are the 20    same as we previously had. Certifying that ref erence system        I l
21    design would be the ultimate goal of standardization, 22    realizing that this will not take place immediately, they 23    believe a certain period of time should be allowed and                l
                                      ~
24    certain transition options should be allowed in which we end 25    up having just the basic ref erence system concept without l
          ~
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Washington, D. C.  (202) 347-3700
 
12 1        certification, duplication, replication and the tp      -
2        manufacturing license.
                        .3                                So these all will be viable options for some 4        interim period of time.              This period of time has not been 5          spelled out to date.            I don't know if it will be in the 6        NUREG.          I am sure it won't be in the policy statement.
7                                DR. CARBON:    What it is, then, the main thing 8        is design certification concept?
9                              MR. SCALETTI:          Ref erence system --
:                      10                                  DR. MICHELSON :          It's not certified, though.
        .            -_11                                  MR. SCALETTI:          The policy statement is directed                            !
12            towards the reference system concept certified.
2%
j                113                                  DR. MICHELSON:- Certification of it.
            ,.,g    ' 14                                  MR. SCALETTI:          Yes.
:g rr
-lb[y3r 15                                                  DR. MICHELSON:          Which is the next step beyond.
: l f''        1; . .
16                                  DR. WYLIE:    That's correct.
17                                  MR. SCALETTI:          Yes.
,        ,~
                      .18                                  DR. MICHELSON:          That is what I think appears, 19              it appears to be pitched towards.
20                                  DR. SEISS:    It doesn't even rule out custom 21            plants, does it?                                                                                        "I 22                                  DR. MICHELSON:          No.
23                                  ME. SCALETTI:          No it just addresses -- custom 24            plants are still allowed for in the policy statement.                                  The
:                      25              standardization policy statement would not address that at l
1                                                                                                                                              .
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                      Washington, D.C.              (202) 347-3700
 
~
13 ;
1  all.
h    2                DR. SEISS:    Doesn't rule it out.
3                DR. WILIE:    Where is the ref erence system 4  concept presently defined?
5                MR. SCALETTI:    In Appendix 0, 10 CFR part 50.
6                DR. WELIE:    So it's in there?
7                MR. SCALETTI:    Yes.
8                DR. WYLIE:    Then all of these are already in
            ,9    there by definition.
10                DR. MICHELSON:    Yes.
11                MR. S CALETTI :  Also defined in the '78 policy 12  statement.
Mk          13                DR.. CARBON:    I am going back to that. In 14  looking at the preliminary NUREG outlines it shows design 15  certification concept, and you just used the words relating 16  that to reference system.
17                Immediately af ter that it talks about the            ;
18  transition options, and the first one is the reference 19  system concept.
l 20                MR. SCALETTI:    That alternative is still there,    .
l 21  to proceed through only a final design approval and stop 22  there. That would be like a GSAR or CSAR is today.        I mean 23  it would stop at that design point.
  .          24                DR. SEISS:    That is a the Appendix 0.
25                MR. SCALETTI:    That would be Appendix 0, ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, IN C .'    washington, D.C.    (202) 347-3700
 
14
[7                            1                      correct.
l kh-)h])                    2                                    DR. SEISS:  Yes.
3                                    MR. SCALETTI:    But Appendix 0 does allow for 4                      design certification, also.
5                                    DR. SEISS:  No, it doesn't.
6                                    MR. SCALETTI:    Yes, it does.                                  It says the 7                      Commission, upon its own initiative, through its own 8                      initiative --
9                                    DR. EBERSOL E:    In the NUREG outline all the
      .                  ~.
10                      transition options, there are five things under there.
r 11                      Essentially the first four are all things defined in a
R'                      12                      Appendix O?
    ,;.m jl                l      .13                                    MR. SCALETTI:    No, replication is not.
  /]Ih:                      14                                    DR. SEISS:  It is not?
  ,2[Ni :-
    ;4: ,                      15-                                  MR. SCALETTI:    No, duplication, manufacturing yo, 16                      license and ref erence system concept.
17                                    DR. SEISS:  What is the difference between 18                      duplication and replication?
19                                    MR. SCALETTI:    Duplication would be an
                          . 20                      application for plants at different sites by different
                    ;        21                      utilities of a design not previously built.
22                                    DR. EBERSOLE:    Duplication is the Wolf Creek?                                              1 l
23                                    MR. SCALETTI:    Wolf Creek, Tyrone, Callaway and i
24                      those.
25                                    DR. WELIE:  What was it called?
l l
                                                                                                                                                                  )
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.-                Washington, D.C.                                    (202) 347-3700
 
15 t
1                MR. SCALETTI:  SNPPS.                                              !
h')
1
(      2                DR. SEISS:  SNPPS is duplication.                                    I 3                MR. SCALETTI:  St. Lucy, I don't think probably 4  was either, I am not sure. But duplication -- Millstone, 5  Jamesport is a replica of Millstone, I believe. I can tell 6  you. I have a list.
7                DR. SEISS:  Duplicate means multiple plants.
8                MR. SCALETTI:  Right.
            '9                DR. MICHELSON:    Not previously built, also.
10                MR. SCALETTI:  Right.
11                DR. EBERSOLE:  Replica is take another and 12    build it.
'If h h g  13                DR. MICHELSON :  Building it.
14                MR. SCALETTI:    '7 8 policy statement, prepared 3:
15    five years af tar design was complete and approved in that 16    you could replicate this design again.
17                DR. SEISS:  But the SNPPS idea wasn't in 18    Appendix 0 at all?
19                MR. SCALETTI:  Yes, it is, duplication.
20    Replication is not in the regulations, it's only in the '78 21    policy statement.
22                DR. SEISS:  All right. Duplicate is SNPPS.
23                MR. SCALETTI:  Correct.
24                DR. EBERSOLE:  Replicate is just, what did you 25    call Brinewood?
l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Washington, D.C.    (202) 347-3700
 
l 16 1                MR. SCALETTI:    They are duplicate, also.
h)v '
  'i            2                DR. SEISS:  Okay.
3                DR. CARBON:    Repeat for me what a replicate 4  plan is, then.
5                DR. SEISS:  Somebody else's design.
6                MR. SCALETTI:    Right, if you wanted to
                                                                                      )
7  construct another Palo Verde or another plant that is 8  already constructed and approved by -- or approved, if you 9  are going to the C P stage.
10                  For an operating license a plant would have to 11    have an operating license.
12                  Design would have been reviewed and approved by
~$l lg        13    the staff and you come in and say I want to build one j ust c          14    like that. Here is all of my supporting documentation.
g}f ,
15                  DR. EBERSOLE :  If Arizona power wanted to build 1
16    Palo Verde four and five that would not be a replication?
17                MR. SCALETTI:    That is reference system 18    concept.
19                  DR. SEISS:  If Commonwealth came in and said 20    they wanted to build Palo Verde four and five at Champaign,        j 21    that would be a replicate, different utility?
l 22                  MR. SCALETTI:    Depends on what they referenced.      4 23    If they referenced the as built Palo Verde design, that is a 24    replicate plant. If they ref erence the CSAR system it could 25    be a combination of both.
l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.      Washington, D.C.  (202) 347-3700
 
l 17 ! l
: 1 I l 1                DR. EB ERSOLE :  Okay. Don't complicate it. I    : )
2  am just going to take somebody else's plant and build one 3  just like it.
4                MR. SCALETTI:    That in most cases would be 5    replication.
6                DR. SEISS:    Replication.
7                DR. WYLIE:    Your intent to take the enclosure 8    that was in the December letter on, that basically spells 9  out all the inclusions in the NUREG --
10                MR. SCALETTI:    Basically, yes.
11                DR. SEISS:  We are looking at the table of 12    contents.
13                DR. WYLIE:  This is the December draft 14  enclosure 1 of that basically spells out all the diff erent 15    concepts.
16                DR. EBERSOLE:    Yes.
17                DR. WYLIE:    Definitions.
18                DR. MICHELSON:    Enclosure 1 actually was the 19    policy statement which you are rewriting enclosure 1 of 20    December.
21                DR. WYLIE :  Yes.
22                DR. MICHELSON:    Now that same inf ormation is 23    going somewhere else.
24                DR. WYLIE:    To the NUREG.
25                DR. MICHELSON:    Yes.
l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.      Washington,    D.C.  (202) 347-3700
 
i l
18    j l
1                                          DR. WYLIE:  NUREG.
. t}' (]) 2                                                          DR. MICHELSON:    Yes, because it is good 3                          inf ormation.
;                        4                                          DR. WELIE:  Yes, sure.
5                                          DR. MICHELSON:    Important, but not necessary l
6                          for policy statement.
          , ', 7                                                      DR. WYLIE:  As Dino states, the intent of the 8                          Commission was to have a broad policy statement.
9                                          DR. SEISS:  That makes sense.
I                10                                                DR. WYLIE:  To have it as simple, take out all
    ..'            11                                the implementa*. ion.
      -L c                                          .
12                                              DR. SEISS:  The staff can change the NUREG.
h            '13                                            -
DR. WYLIE:  They put it in the NUREG.
n'  ,      14                                              DR. SEISS:  Are we going to limit ourselves to 7.,        ,
    .. y yu-          -
15                              comments on the policy statement or --
16                                              DR. WYLIE:  Well, the NUREG outline I think we l                    17                              were requested to do that.
f'                  18                                              DR. MICHELSON:    You can't comment on that i i ,~ ,            19                              outline much.
20                                              DR. WYLIE:  Probably some things --
21                                              DR. EBERSOLE :  We can say it's short.
22                                              DR. MICHELSON:    Yes, but what help is that?
23                                              DR. WYLIE:  The intent was the NUREG has to be
' gg                24                              written.
i 25                                              DR. MICHELSON:    Yes.
l 4                                                                                                                            .
!,                                      ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                  Washington, D.C.    (202) 347-3700
 
19 !
l              ,
DR. WYLIE : I don't know the status of that.
l Okh', ~)
  ,      2                    MR. SCALETTI:  It's in rough draft. It's not    i 3      ready certainly f or comment yet. September 15 is the date 4    we are supposed to have it to the Commission.
5                    DR. WYLIE:  Go ahead.
6                  DR. CARBON:    I still have one more question on 7    what we are talking about. I would like to address it to 8      the EPRI representative. Is he here.
9                    DR. WYLIE:  Yes, okay. Would you identify 10    yourself.
11                    MR. BURGA:                a Jack Burga, W'shington 12      representative, 13                    DR. CARBON:  Do you agree these policy khh )
14      statements are referring to standardization?
15                    What I have in mind is the following. When 16      EPRI, Mr. Staucopf and Mr. Devine came in and talked to us 17      in July and they talked about standardization, and what they 18    were really coming up with were requirements.      They were not 19'    coming up with design.
20                    Both of these policy statements refer to 21      design.
22                    Do you feel that you and they are talking about 23      the same thing?
24                    MR. BERGA:  Well, I think you have it correct.
25      The EPRI intent is to write a requirements document.
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.      Washington, D. C.  (202) 347-3700
 
20 1                        DR. CARBON:        Not design.
    @]                      2                        MR. BERGA:        To which standardized designs could l
3        be made.      The EPRI document, itself, will not be a design, 4        it will be a requirements document.            But it will be the            j 5        source for which standardized designs could be designed.
6                        DR. SEISS:        Against which they will be 7        reviewed.
7
              ^
8                        MR. BERGA:        Yes, sir.
                $            9                        DR. MICHELSON:        It's not part of the policy l'                        '10        statement at all as I understand it.
    -(ry.
11                        MR. B ERGA:      That's right.
e 12                        Dave?    More than more than I would like --
f ;: . v In 5ther words, if there were a
')                          13                        DR. SEISS:
    ..            ,        14        custom plant --
!;6E;77                        .
MR. MORAN:        I am Dave Moran, Project Manager
[* i.'['.[.15
(;;-
  -) ' ''    ,            16        f or the staff on the A L W R program, having worked with
      ,                    17        EPRI for about three and a half years on this.
18                        The purpose of the requirements document is
''i                        19        indeed to foster standardization.          There is no desire to 20        have a lot of different kinds of plants out there in the
                ,          21        next ten to 20 years.
f-22                        The requirements document is a performance 23        specification, it's a design envelope.            .It's a roadmap, I
    ,                      24        believe somebody in'this committee used that last time.              I
:                          25        liked that.
I ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.              Washington, D.C.    (202) 347-3700
 
21 1                    It will enable a designer to f ollow the desires 2      of the industry as to what attributes are desired for the 3      next generation of plants, both quantitatively and 4      qualitatively in very detailed manner.      It will list all of 5      the applicable NRC regulations in their proper perspective
    '6      and with regard to systems and components of the plant.
1 7                    By following it a designer will come up with a 8      design which incorporates both NRC regulations, can meet the 9      regulations, and which takes advantage of all the lessons 10      learned and all the things that the industry wants at the 11      present time.
12                    It is intended by EPRI that the plants built to d    13    'such a design will follow the one requirements document and, 14 . therefore, will be standard designs.
15                    Now, there may be variations in the last ten 16      percent of each plant due to site needs and site 17      idiosyncrasies. But it is envisioned that there will be a 18      single design for PWR and BWR.
19                    DR. CARBON:  I got quite a different 20      understanding July 9.
21                    DR. MICHELSON:  Yes.
22                    DR. CARBON:  It was stated very specifically 23      that there could be several diff erent PWR designs f rom this 24      requirement.
25                    DR. MICHELSON:  That's right.
l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.      Washington, D.C.    (202) 347-3700
 
22 1                MR. MORAN:  It's possible that any entity, any Oy])    (    2    vendor or utility, anybody having a design capability, can 3    take the requirements document and come up with a design.
4                The thought is that af ter the first design 5    comes on the streets, because of the cost of creating a 6    design and because of the involvement of getting a 7    certification of that design, that people will rather take 8    the certified design and build one to that design. That is 9-  the thought.
10                DR. SEISS:  Yes, but --
        ,      11                MR. MORAN:  But there is no question that any 12    entity can come up with a design based on the requirements i            13    document.
        ;      14                MR. BERGA:  There is no intent to preclude any
~ 3,
          ' ;  15    supplier f rom coming up with a design that meets the 16    performance requirements.
17                DR. MICHELSON:    That's right.
18                DR. CARBON:  Presumably, many suppliers will
                                                                                          \
19    come up with standardized design.
20                MR. BERGA:  Yes.
21                DR. SEISS:  Now, if somebody comes up with a 22    standardized design independent of that requirements 23    document, the staff would still review it, I assume.
    ,gr')      24                MR. SCALETTI:  That's correct.
b,j 25                DR. MICHELSON:    It could be certified.
l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Washington, D.C.    (202) 347-3700
 
23          l 1                                      MR. SCALETTI:          That's correct.
            )      2                                      DR. MICHELSON:          Yes.
3                                      DR. SEISS:  I see no formal coupling between 4                  this policy statement and the EPRI work.
5                                      DR. MICHELSON:          And the EPRI work.
6                                      DR. WYLIE:  Doesn't need to be.
: 3.                  7                                      DR. SEISS:  No.
                  .8                                      MR. BERGA:  Thank you.
9                                      DR. WYLIE:  Maybe this makes things a little 10                    muddier --
          ,7      11                                      DR. MICHELSON:          I still have the same question, 9
                                      ~
12                    though, that max has and that I don't think was ever 5E            '13                    answered.
  ' ' j;          14                                      DR. WELIE:  What is that?
T.9
      ,l',        15                                      DR. MICHELSON:          What do we mean by a certified 16                    design, what is the scope of it and so forth?
17                                        I find one term that bothers me in the May                                1 18                    work, the staff talks about a certified design 19                    specification.
20                                        What is that?
21                                        MR. SCALETTI:        Where is that?
1 l                22                                      DR. MICHELSON:          Page 4, about the 7th line 1
23                    down:  To assure that the plant is built within the 24                    certified design specifications.
25                              Does that mean certified design or is that I
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                      Washington, D.C.          (202) 347-3700
 
24 1  something else?
l  2                The term was used in your previous document and 3  subsequently as well.
4                MR. SCALETTI:  Page 47 5                DR. MICHELSON:  Yes.
6                DR. SEISS:  Design certification is 7  capitalized.
8                DR. MICHELSON:  Not my version, it isn't.
9                DR. SEISS:  Page 47 10                DR. CARBON:  Yes, it is.
11                DR. WYLIE:  Where do you see that.
12                DR. MICHELSON :  Oh, up here,  That is design (hlg    13  certification.
14                DR. EBERSOLE:  Yes.
s
  .        15                DR. MICHELSON:  I am talking about the latter 16  part of the same sentence when they talk about built *within 17  the certified design specifications.
18                DR. SEISS:  Yes.
19                DR. WYLIE:  I see.
20                DR. MICHELSON:  What is that.
21                DR. SEISS:  What is certified, the design, or 22  the specifications?
23                DR. MICHELSON:  Yes. It gets back to what do
      '^
e-      24  we mean by certified design. What package are we
%.)}
25  certifying.
l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Washington, D.C.    (202) 347-3700
 
25 1                I thought this meant the specs that you also        i 2    have to write with the design drawings.
3                DR. WYLIE:  That is how I would interpret it.
4                DR. MICHELSON:    Well, I don't know. I am 5    asking.
6                DR. SEISS:  Wait a minute. What you certify --
7                DR. MICHELSON:    You don't certify them 8    necessarily.
9                DR. SEISS:  What you certify would be an F D A, 10    wouldn't it?
11                DR. MICHELSON:    The reason I say that, if you 12    go back to page 1 of the same document, where they start f '13    saying what we are really going to do is focus this policy 14    on the design certification, then it goes on the next 15    sentence to say the concept would require standardization of 16    nuclear plant design and would strongly encourage, which I 17    meant, I interpret means but not require, would strongly 18    encourage standardized procurement.
19                There is where you write your standardized 20    specs.                      ,
21                DR. WYLIE:  No, not necessarily.
22                DR. MICHELSON:    For procurement.
23                DR. WYLIE : You could have standardized specs 24    and still go out and procure different equipment.
25                DR. MICHELSON:    You could have design conceptc l
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.      Washington, D.C.    (202) 347-3700
 
l 26 1    that are standardized and call it a spec.
h)  ;
      ~. /
2                DR. WYLIE:  No, you could write a specification 3    that is standard and it spells out the criteria for it.                                      You 4    can go out and buy anybody's pump.
5                DR. MICHELSON :  I am not saying you can't write 6    one. I am saying is that part of the package.
7                DR. WYLIE:  That is how I interpreted it.
8      ,
DR. MICHELSON:  I don't know.
9                MR. SCALETTI:  As we discussed in July, the 10    level of design detail that is going to be required is not 11    finalized yet. The scope of the design is not finalized 12    yet, f3hgg      13                  We do say essentially complete designs and in 14    essentially final design detail. We are working on that.                                    I 7,
I      15    can't give you a definitive answer right now.
16                DR. MICHELSON:  You don't know what essentially 17    complete means yet.
18                MR. SCALETTI:  As I sat back in July --                                            ,
19                DR. WYLIE:  I will use AIP's definition.                          They 20    have it very well spelled out in page 8 of their report.
21    They say what essentially complete design is. They have got 22    specifications in here.
23                DR. MICHELSON :  I like their definition, for 24    instance.
7 25                DR. WYLIE:  I do, too.
_                                                                                                    l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Washington, D.C.  (202) 347-3700
 
27 !
1                            DR. SEISS:  I think, would that be in the
      $  2              NUREG?
3                            MR. SCALETTI:  It will be in the NUREG. Right 4              now the NUREG I can say pretty much paraphrases what AIF has 5              included.
6                            DR. WYLIE : Here you are, component includes 7              procurement, specification, including acceptance test 8              requirements.
}
9                            DR. MICHELSON:  Yes, it's a good definition, 10              but that is not in this document.
11                            DR. SEISS:  No, that should be in the NUREG.
)
12                            DR. WYLIE:  That was the intent.
* 13                            DR. MICHELSON:  Nor is the guidance, which I 14              would like to this document to provide guidance to the
  'i  ~
15              writer of the NUREG as to how far you want to go, you 16            ' meaning the chairman of the Commission and commissioners.
17              How far do we want to go?
18                            DR. SEISS:  I don't think that is what the 19              Commission --
20                            DR. MICHELSON:  It's their policy.
21                            DR. WYLIE:  They use words like essentially 22              complete design.
23                            DR. MICHELSON:  Yes.
24                            MR. HERNAN:  I would like to take a shot at 25              this.
l ACE PEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.      Washington, D.C.    (202) 347-3700
 
28 1                DR. WYLIE:  All right.
m
      ' ll      2                MR. HERNAN:  This policy statement isn't 3  proposing the NRC get into regulating f urther than it does 4  at this time.
5                We do not as a matter of fact review 6  procurement documents and we do not approve as built 7  drawings for the plant. We take a final saf ety analysis 8  report, and we give the plant an operating license based on 9  the FSAR along --
10                DR. MICHELSON:  From my experience with the
;0 11  staff, you do look at procurement specs, at least you ask 12  for them. I don't know what you do with them.
(hgg        13                MR. HERNAN:  That is not.part of the formal 14  safety evaluation.
      /.      15                DR. MICHELSON:  It's part of the FSAR process 16  to ask f or greater detail and ask f or procurement specs.
17                MR. HERNAN:  Yes, as determined necessary by 18  the staff in the review.
19                DR. MICHELSON:  But that information won't be 20  available to you when you do this review unless it has been 21  worked up. There is nothing, unless you require it, those 22  specs may not even be written.
23                The vendor of the certified design is going to
  'gy-)
  .          24  do no more investing than he has to.
    .y 25                DR. EBERSOLE:  Didn't they tell us if that van l
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Washington, D.C.  (202) 347-3700
 
i 29 1  the case, that would be reviewed as part of the completion                                  l ll  2  of the plant?
3                The plant doesn't get an operating license 4  until you have certified to the same degree you would on a 5  custom plant.
6                DR. WILIE:  But here the intent of this policy 7  statement is to have a certified design that you can go put 8  on a --
9                DR. MICHELSON:  One stop.
10                DR. WYLIE : One stop license and never look at 11  it again.
12                DR. MICHELSON:  That's right.
Idhlg      13                DR. SEISS:  Oh, no. I& E is going to be out
          .. 14  there while we are building it, somebody reviewing-QA.                                -
15                DR. WYLIE:  I am talking about licensing 16  review.
17                MR. HERNAN:  In a one-step you are still going 1
18  to have open items up to the day they are ready to get the                                    l 1
19  operating license that have to be resolved.                                                  l 20                DR. SEISS:  Does this mean once I get a 21  certified design approval, when I get ready to start the 22  plant up, I start the plant up and don't have to ask NRC f or 1
23  start up?
l  .3.c, 24                MR. SCALETTI:  You have to ask for start up.
25  You have to, if I can recall --
l l
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Washington, D.C.  (202) 347-3700
 
30 1                    DR. SEISS:      I have to answer all the questions?
MR. SCALETTI:                        The Commission has to notice the
              ])        2 3      start up in the Federal Register for a period of 30 days.
4      This is in the proposed legislation for one-step licensing 5      which until the proposed legislation is approved and 6      enacted, we can' t have one-step licensing.
4 7                    So there are certain checks and balances 'in the
  >z                      8    proposed legislation that would allow for additional hearing il
              '        9      if necessaey of certain issues, if they were brought forward
  . : .s.
                    . 10-    that the Commission felt deserved a hearing.
11                    DR. MICHELSON:                        But not design questions as I 12      understand it.
ez (j gg ' 13                                  MR. SCALETTI:                        Even design questions,
      ).\';. 14                certainly.
L
  -lI[f, ' 15        '
DR. MICHELSON :                        Now they go through the backfit 5 11 .
16      rule, if they bring them up then, af ter you have already got
                  ,    17      a certified design.
18                    MR. SCALETTI:                        Certainly --
19                    DR. MICHELSON:                        You can ask whatever questions 20      you want to, but you have to go through the backfit process.
21                    MR. SCALETTI:                        Certainly, only if it could 22      substantially increase public health and safety.
t 23                    DR. PICHELSON:                        The certification process is 24      your one and only shot at the design unless you specifically 25        identify open items.
l l
i
                        . ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                            Washington, D. C.                      (202) 347-3700
 
31 1                          Those you have a,further shot at later.                    But if 2          they aren't identified, if they remain silent, they can't be
                      )
3          opened later.
4                          DR. CARBON:  That's right.
5                          MR. HERNAN:  Anything can be opened if it's a 6          serious enough question.
7                          DR. MICHELSON:  Under the back fit rule.
i                        8  ,                        DR. SEISS:  50.54 F, for example.
9                          MR. HERNAN:  Even when a plant is in operation, 10          if we come upon a problem in design we have the option of 4
11          shutting down the plant or, you know, revoking the license.
12          The door is never completely shut.
kh g                '13                          DR. MICHELSON:  Now lt comes up with a backfit
        . . , , . ,. 14-        process.
7s'                15                          DR. CARBON:  If the aim is to get regulatory, s
p 16          what are the magic 'words about stability, they sure won't 17          come with your interpretation.
t 18                          DR. SEISS:  I think they will.        I think what we 19          are talking about is preapproval of certain features of the 20          design as far down the line as is practical to go at that 21          time.
t 22                          MR. HERNAN:  As much as we can.
23                          DR. SEISS:  Once that is preapproved, you don't 24          go through that again.
25                          DR. WYLIE:  That's right.
i                                                                                                                                l
;                              ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.            Washington, D.C.          (202) 347-3700
 
32 1                  DR. SEISS:  I can't see that it is tremendously ll      2    different f rom the ref erence system concept. We went 3    through this whole business on a number of plants.
4    Presumably, they could be built without the staff reviewing 5    that again.
6                  If it came up as a generic issue or a TMI item 7    it damn well got reviewed. It didn't get reviewed in 8    itself.
9                  DR. MICHELSON:    It didn' t get reviewed until 10    the O L stage, though, Chet.
11                  DR. SEISS:  No.
12                  DR. WYLIE:  If the goal, I think it's the goal,
[ lg      13    is one-step licensing, and if you go to that extent, the 14    litigation process, hearings, what have you, there are a 15    questions that come up regarding the performance 16    characteristics of equipment, I can't conceive that you can 3
17    go to that type of proc,ess without having complete design 18    specifications. You just can't do it. You have got to know 19    what you are getting.
20                  Now, you don't have to know what manufacturer 21    you are getting, but you' have to know what the perf ormance 22    of that equipment is and how it's going to be tested and 23    qualified and the whole realm of requirements f or that piece 24    of equipment.
25                  DR. SEISS:  You have to be able to justify what
                                                                                                                  )
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.      Washington, D.C.    (202) 347-3700
 
l 33 1  you are doing from the standpoint of safety.
3( )              2                DR. WYLIE:  Sure, and that's the only way you 3  can do it. When you go before a hearing board and the 4  questions are asked, you have got to be able to answer those 5  questions.
6                DR. SEISS:  What you get in return for that is 7  presumably the right to go about your business af ter that 8  without having to go to another hearing.
s' l ,
9                DR. WYLIE:  That's right, never go back.
10                DR. SEISS:  And answer a lot more questions.
h, .            11                DR. WZLIE:  That's the whole idea, to get it
                  .12  behind you.
3, .
                                  ~
~ hklg              13                DR. MICHELSON:  What we want to do now, move in
          .        14    time this from an O L type today back to a C P type.            We 15  want to get it all behind us at the C P stage.
2            .
16                DR. SEISS:  That's right.
                  ~17                DR. MICHELSON:  To do that you have to know,
: c.          18  you would like to know the same level of detail you already .
19  know at the O L stage, like preoperational test results, a 20  lot of other stuff already coming in. You won't have any of 21    that.
22                DR. SEISS:  Pre-op tests included in standard 23  certification?
24                DR. MICHELSON:  No.
t                  25                DR. SEISS:  I don't think so.
l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Washington, D.C.    (202) 347-3700
 
34 1                  DR. MICHELSON:      It isn't in the O L design, 2      reviews, though, the inspectors were looking at them up to
({}
3      the day they grant the license.
4                  MR. SCALETTI:  They will be for the certified 5      design also. It doesn't buy them a ticket to go out and 6      build it, just start operating it without some sort of 7      oversight throughout the process and without coming back to 8      the Commission when they are ready to operate.
9                  DR. MICHELSON:      The only oversight as I 10      understand it you can now apply, as long as the pre-op tests 11      show the system did what the original documents said it 12    would do, that's as f ar as you can review.              If you have now idhgg              13      decided that isn't good enough, you are into a backfit
      . , , i.        14      situation.
gy. 7
          . . ,        15 '
MR. SCALETTI:  That's correct.
L;-
16                  DR. SEISS:  The only thing the staff doesn't do 17      as I understand it is re-review the FSAR for each of these 18      plants.                .'
MR. SCALETTI:
                    ~ 19                                  That's correct.
20                  DR. CARBON:  As I read page 4 it's exactly what 21      Carl said.
22                  DR. SEISS:  Page 4, Max?                                                                j 23                  DR. CARBON:  Yes, of the May 14 letter.
24                  DR. WYLIE :  This is NRR?    Okay, yes.
25                  DR. SEISS:  Seems to me the whole idea of l
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Washington, D.C.              (202) 347-3700
 
35 l
1  certification by rule-making is a legal rather than 2  technical issue.
3                It may not be unimportant for the standpoint of 4  hearings, but it doesn't seem to me that the design that's 5  gone through the rule-making and certification necessarily 6  will be any better design than simply got a standard plant, 7  whatever the right terne is, reference system approval.
8                MR. SCALETTI:  Final design approval.
9                DR. SEISS:  Yes. Any reason it's a better 10 plant?
11                MR. SCALETTI:  No. If it's acceptable for 12  final design approval, certification certainly may not make i'          13  it more acceptable, but yet it may.
14                It may, through more scrutiny, uncover design
      ~
15  deficiencies.
16                DR. SEISS:  Presumably the rule-making 17  certification you are saying should reach a higher degree of 18  perfec,: ion in return for the ten year lif e or something.
19                MR. SCALETTI:  That's correct.
20                DR. WYLIE:  With this approach there certainly 21  have to be a lot of decisions made early.
22                DR. MICHELSON:  The problem is you are trying 23  to reach tl.e decision-making point at a time when the 24  information you normally have at the O L stage simply isn't 25  available, or not likely to be available because of the
                                  -                                                l l                ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Washington, D.C.    (202) 347-3700
 
36 1    investment it takes to get that information.
G*h,
()  2                DR. SEISS:  That is the utilities' problem.
3  NRC says they can encourage it. If it can't be done, it 4  won't be done.
5                DR. MICHELSON:  We won't know what they are 6    certifying yet. I haven't yet heard, the staff says they 7    haven't decided what they are going to certify yet, if I 8    understand you correctly.
9                By that I mean are you going to certify just P 10    and I D's or what level of information, are you going to
. 11    certify specifications, are you going to certify process 12    descriptions, on down the line of stuff.
thkll 13                DR. SEISS:  What do you do you now.in F D A?
14                MR. SCALETTI:  My only experience has been GSAR 15    2. The level of detail that is there, I believe the level 16    of detail should be at least comparable to GSAR 2 for design 17    certification.
2 18                Obviously, that did not cover the entire plant, 19    certainly a major portion of it, more than had been reviewed 20    in the past.
21                DR. MICHELSON:  Is that the level intended --
22                DR. SEISS:  Has GSAR 2 been built?  Not built.
23                DR. MICHELSON:  It was 40 percent complete 24    already. A hell of a lot of design --
25                DR. SEISS:  That is not a hundred percent.
l l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Washington, D.C.  (202) 347-3700
 
37 l I
i 1                  DR. MICHELSON:  No, but most of your basic O5h
  "! mj      2    design is completed by the time you are 40 percent in 3    construction.
4                  DR. SEISS:  If somebody wants to do a standard 5    design now under this proposal, they would have to get that 6      far along without a plant being started. You are saying you 7      don't think that is economic.
8                  DR. MICHELSON:  That's right.
9                  DR. SEISS:  I am saying I don't care.
10                  DR. MICHELSON:  Yes. If you don't care, then
.            11      that's --
12                  DR. WYLIE :  Maybe we can accept the terms dfhgg        13    essentially complete design.
14                  DR. SEISS:  I think if they can get a plant
    .3 15      built in five years, they can aff ord to put an awf ul lot of 16    money up front somewhere.
17                  DR. MICHELSON:  My definition of essentially 18      complete could be, as one extreme, that I will take all the 19      paper that it takes to build the plant and operate it, put 20      it in this room and leave it, somebody else can walk in, 21    pick it up and go operate the plant.
22                  DR. EB ERSOLE:  You wouldn't get it in this 23      room.
  .          24                  DR. MICHELSON:  I should say this building.
25                    That would be a complete design. We aren't l
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Washington, D.C.    (202) 347-3700
 
38 1      talking that complete obviously.      We are talking something ll          2      less than that.
3                    My only question is, how much less than that 4      are we talking about?
5                    DR. SEISS:    If you had that, NRC would never 6      review it, anyway.
7                    DR. CARBON:    That incidentally is what Joe          ,
8      Paladino thought.
9                    DR. MICHELSON:    I believe Joe thought that and J
10      everybody.
11                    You know, there is some economy of design 12      before you start breaking ground.      It costs a lot of money
                ' 13        to go back and chip out concrete.      EPRI, like it says, it's
          ,;          14      a wise investment.
      -pp.;' ..
j 7            15                    DR. CARBON:    Dino, I am a little confused on 16      something else you said, too.
17                    I supported the GSAR, but I knew from you that 4
18      you have a lot of work yet to do on the final review.      It
                    '19      comes back to ACRS and so forth.      To me that is not a 20      standardized design.
21                    DR. SEISS:    GSAR is not a standard design?
22                    MR. SCALETTI:    GSAR is a reference system 23      design, that's correct.
    , gp S            24                    DR. CARBON:    It's a standard design, I guess.
      %k-)                .
25                    DR. MICHELSON:    Not certified define.
l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.      Washington, D.C.  (202) 347-3700
 
I 39 i
1                DR. SEISS:  Not certified.
A'$ [)
2                MR. SCALETTI:  GSAR, originally, when the 3    policy statement was being written we required all plants, 4    any future plant to be certified.
5                That was subsequently removed f rom the policy 6    statement and GE decided it would not certify GSAR, so it 7    stopped at the final design approval..
8                DR. CARBON:  Okay.
9                DR. WYLIE:  The degree of design necessary to 10    provide essentially complete design would generally be that
:        11    detail suitable for making specific equipment for 12    construction bids as detailed name plate information becomes v;
'lhll)      13    available during the procurement and construction process, 14    refinement of the reference design may be desirable.
si' '        '
15                To take such refinements into account, holder 16    of a license utilizing a reference design may submit as 17    applicable a proposed program of audit team -- utilizing 18    acceptance criteria which are part of the FDA or DC.
19                They define what their concept of essentially 20    complete design is. It's everything except nameplate 21    information.
22                DR. MICHELSON:  That's about it.
23                DR. WYLIE:  That is what they propose.
24 DR. CARBON:  That is what they propose.                                          l l
25                DR. WYLIE:  That is what they propose.
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Washington, D.C.    (202) 347-3700
 
40 1                MR. SCALETTI:  They are smart. They don't get
  .J.%
2  questions.
3                DR. WYLIE:  They won't achieve their goal. I 4    like the staff's statement right up f ront where they say the 5    standardized nuclear power plant should be used to satisfy 6    the ultimate license to build a certified design constructed 7  on preapproved sites.
8                They go on in their goal statement and say --
9  both to with respect to scope and level of detail which then 10  could be referenced in an individual licensing applications.
11                Couple the two together, it pretty well 12  defines --
::s (flll9 13                DR. MICHELSON :  Except they never define what
    ?)    ,
              '14    they meant by essentially complete.
'. 'd,
* LJ          '15                DR. WELIE:  That is in the NUREG.
M 16                DR. MICHELSON:  Yes, but, I just don't know 17  what it's going to mean.
18                DR. WZLIE:  Well, the reason for that, as was 19    explained, it was an attempt to get a broad statement of 20    policy without going into all the details.
21                DR. SEISS:  The difference is Carl said he 22    thought the Commission policy statement ought to be a              !
3 23    directive to the staff as to what detail they should ask
  ;            24  for.
25                I don't think it is. I think the Commission
__                                                    l ACE FEDERAL REPOR5ERS, INC. Washington, D.C.    (202) 347-3700
 
l
                                                                                          \
l  i 41 1  ]
                                                                                      \
1    policy statement is then turned over to the staff to say,
&(-)            2    now you tell us what this means.
3                  DR. WYLIE:  Maybe you can't achieve what the 4    Commission was af ter. That is a very simple statement 5    everybody can understand.
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 e              '13
          .  .14 h!'Ty 15 16
--9 ,
I,        17
  ,a 18 19
              '20 21 22 23 24 25 l
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.      Washington, D.C.  (202) 347-3700
 
27758.0                                                                        42 cox
('T                                                                                    l
\
l              MR. SIESS:      Not if you make it longer than one 2  page.
3              MR. WYLIE:      Maybe you shouldn't.          I don't know.
4  Maybe you shouldn't.
5              MR. MICHELSON:      The EPRI definition isn't very 6  long.
7              MR. WYLIE:      No.
8              MR. MICHELSON:      Certainly quite suitable for a 9  policy statement.      If they did.        That's the policy they had 10  in mind. If indeed that's the policy that the Commission 11  has in mind.
12              MR. SIESS:      You think you would rather have a
~()        13  policy statement?
14              MR. MICHELSON:      Yes, because it's the Commission's 15  policy trying to write down here.              This is really the 16  Commission's paper.
17              The Staff just happened to be writing it for 18  them, as I understand Commission policy.              Not yours.
19              MR. SCALETTI:      That's right.        Do we have a 20  deliberative process which we propose to enter into today?
21              MR. MICHELSON:      Does the AIF definition of 22  " essentially complete" apply to all the concepts, or just 23  recertify, replicate, duplicate?
24 j            MR. WYLIE:      No. This basically addresses -- the 25  AIF persons here can answer that question.              I think it n
U ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i            202-347-3700      Nanonwide Coserage        M4336-6M6
 
I 1
27758.0                                                                      43 AFF                                                                                ;
l P
    '          1  basically --
2                MR. SIESS:  That applies only if it's reference 3  design and one stock license.
4                MR. FONTECILLA:    Curt Fontecilla.        It would be 5  for the design specification.
6                MR. SIESS:  I was going to say if they apply 7  that in the NUREG, would it apply to design certification 8  or would the staff use that definition of essentially 9  complete for the other?
10                MR. SCALETTI:  That would apply to the design 11  certification process; replication, duplication, 12  manufacturing license are so spelled out in the regulation,
    ..v f')      13  at least for the reference system, and the' duplicate plan 14  and the manufacturing license.          Those would be licenses, 15  for the most part, and they would require the level of
'')
16  detail of the type of license they were applying for, be 17  they construction permit or operating license.
18                MR. MICHELSON:    That would still be two stages.
19                MR. SCALETTI:  That's correct.
20                MR. SIESS:  If I wanted to replicate 21  already-built, that's replication; right?
22                MR. SCALETTI:  Yes.
23                MR. SIESS:  To get a construction permit I only 24  need to supply you with as much information as I would for 25  CP on a plant that is not already built?
(2)                                  .
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                -
202-347-3700    Nationwide Coverage      800 33M;646
 
27758.0                                                                          44 AFF l
(~'
1            I will give you the rest of it later on when I l
l 2 apply for the OL?
3            MR. SCALETTI:    If the plant that was being 4 replicated already had an operating license, I think that 5 that would be the information that was provided.
6            MR. SIESS:  I have a feeling if we see the 7 application replication it will be for a plant that has an 8 operating license, which will probably be next month.
9            MR. SCALETTI:    I can't see why we wouldn't.
10            MR. WYLIE:  Let me see.            Would you want to 11 proceed by going down through the Staff's proposed draft 12 and --
()'        13 14 MR. SIESS:  Let me ask you something, Charlie.
Should we concentrate our attention in this on the
      ~
              '15 certified reference design concept and leave these other
[
16 things, you know, sort of as they are now, which I think --
17            MR. WYLIE:  That's what the Staff would propose.
18            MR. SEISS:  That's what the policy statement                        j 19 says.
20            MR. WYLIE:  I would say yes.
21            MR. SIESS:  Of the two groups, the two things, 22 the'second is much more likely to be a reality.
23            MR. WYLIE:  Let me ask one question.                The Staff 24 proposed, in their draft, to make a statement that this 25 policy statement supersedes the Commission's previous                            l O
l 1
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                          -
202-347-3XO      Nationwide Coverage        800 336-6M6
 
27758.0                                                                          45 AFF                                                                                    .
l I
($)        1  policy on standardization in '78.            There seem to be some 2  people that feel like that's not necessary.            Is there any 3  particular reason that was done?
4              MR. SCALETTI:  Yes, because the '78 policy 5  statement is clearly out of date, as I mentioned previously 6  at July meetings and they have statements such as FTA ls, 7  FTA 2s approval periods for three and five years for the 8  reference system concepts.      Those are clearly out of date.
9              MR. SIESS:  Aren't those in the appendix, though?
10              MR. SCALETTI:  No, they are not.          So this would 11  supersede the '78 policy statement.
12              MR. WYLIE:  I am not sure if that was the way it (i        13  was phrased.
14              MR. SIESS:  They can always call it the new
'l        15  policy change.
16              MR. WYLIE:  Well, look, does everyone have a 17  copy of the Staff's draft?      I suppose we could start there.
18  On the first paragraph, we will just -- how do you want to 19  proceed; do you want to read it down or do you want to read 20  it by yourselves?
21              MR. MICHELSON:    Are you going to comment on it 22  paragraph by paragraph?
23              MR. WYLIE:  That might be the best way.                If up 24  to, I can reference you to the comparison I made over here 25  to the Commission's draft.
O i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                        -
l            202 347-3700    Nationwide Coserage        800 336-66:6
 
1l 1  ,
l 27758.0                                                                                46      l AFF i  i
(~~)
k/            1                MR. SIESS:  I don't understand the first one.                  l 2    " Standardized nuclear power plants should be used to 3  satisfy the ultimate licensiig goal of certified designs 4  constructed on preapproved sites."              Is that the only use?
5                MR. WYLIE:  I interpret that that this is the 6  ultimate policy, the ultimate goal.
7                MR. SIESS:  That that goal should be reached 8    through standardized plans?
9                MR. WYLIE:  That's my understanding.
10                MR. KERR:  I would have looked for something 11  about an ultimate goal of enhanced safety.              I was reading 12    through this to find, and I didn't find it right off.                    I
  ~{}'        13  thought it was ending here.
  ,            14                MR. WYLIE:  Well the next sentence does say it 15  does enhance safety.
16                MR. KERR:  Yes, I guess that's true.
17                MR. SIESS:  It seems to me that we have a policy, 18  or we expect to have a policy, of certified designs on 19    preapproved sites.
20                MR. WYLIE:  That's the ultimate.
21                MR. SIESS:  Standardization, we think 22  standardization is the best way to achieve this.                    The          ;
1 23    implication of two policies in the sentence sort of bothers 1
24  me.
25                MRA WYLIE:  If that's the goal of the Commission, (1)                                                                                                .
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                          -
202-347-3700    Nationwide Coserage        80t>336-646
 
i 27758.0                                                                47 AFF                                                                            !
I
.                                                                                    i
{'~3'I    1 it's well stated.
2            MR. CARBON:  I thought our goal was to get 3 licensed plants on the preapproved sites, standardized 4 plants on the preapproved site, rather than certified 5 designs.
6            MR. WYLIE:  Well, that was a way of getting 7 certified design, I guess.
8            MR. CARBON:  Don't we.want standardized plants?
9            MR. WYLIE:  If you look at the Commission's 10 statement, it's a little different goal of standardization, 11 should be an essentially complete plant design package 12 covering design, construction, quality assurance programs, 13 which can then be referenced to individual plant
(
14 applications.
15            MR. SIESS:  Previous reg doesn't mention that 16 ultimate goal of preapproved sites.
17            MR. SCALETTI:  May I make a comment.        Proposed 18 legislation, the sections of proposed legislation, which 19 authorizes use of preapproved site, and the proposed 20 amendment to Part 51, which allow us two preapproved sites.
21 We believe that the Commission, by elevating it to the                '
l 22 point of becoming part of the Atomic Energy Act, and also            '
23 in that same amendment, discussion of standardization and
                                                                                    ~
24 certified designs, I believe the ultimate goal for 25 licensing should be a preapproved site combined with a
('N
    \_J
                                                                                      !i ll ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700    Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
 
27758.0                                                                                      48    !
AFF                                                                                                :
i l
(/~                  1    reference system design, a certified reference system                          i 2    design; so that the' hearing process has taken place on the 3    site, the hearing process has taken place on the design, so 4    all you have to do is take these two, merge them; and what 5    you have left over for licensing or for hearing would be 6    any site-related interfaces that have not been discussed or 7    previously addressed through the course of hearings.
8                  MR. SIESS:      This sentence says if you want a 9    certified design it must be a standardized plan.
10                    MR. SCALETTI:      Yes, that's correct.        I hope 11      there's no intention of certifying other designs other than 12      standard designs, reference ~ system design.
13                    MR. CARBON:      I don't want to quibble in this;
{
14      this may be a small point, but I don't unders'and        t      it. It
-                    15      says the goal is certified designs constructed on
            .        16      preapproved sites.        I would have thought the goal was to 17      have standardized plants on preapproved sites.
la                  MR. SCALETTI:      A certified standardized plant.
19      A certified design would be a standard plant.
20'                  MR. WYLIE:      Somebody could come up and say, I 21'    intend to built a plant but you have to get the design 22    certif.ied'. I suppose that's not a certified plant; it's a 23      certified design.
24                    MR. SCALETTI:      It would be standardized from the 25      standpoint it wduld have a final design approval.
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                      -
202 4 47-3700      Nationwide Coverage  800 336-6M6        l
      ., -  . , . , ~  .-          -      - -                                -
 
I i
27758.0                                                                        49 AFF 1                MR. WYLIE:  I mean, it would be a certified 2    design, would be one, certainly would be standardized 3    because you would have to build another one.
4                MR. SIESS:  I think the cart is before the horse 5    here. I don't know.
6                MR. KERR:  See, it's divided on page .3, the last 7    paragraph, the goal again.      One goal is a licensing goal 8    and the second goal --
9                MR. SIESS:  I am sorry, what page?
10                  MR. KERR:  Page 3, second paragraph.          There the 11      goal of standardization should be an essentially complete 12      plant design which can then be referenced.
()-      13                  MR. WYLIE:  Yes.
14                  MR. SCALETTI:  We are talking licensing goal in 15 one and a standardization goal in another.
16                  MR. SIESS:  That's what is confusing.
17                  MR. SCALETTI:  The first one is intended to be 18      just a statement of' Commission's ultimate goal for 19      licensing.
20                  MR. KERR:  I would think you would have a goal, 21      and then if it enhances licensing, that's one of the 22      benefits.
23                  MR. SIESS:  Has the Commission issued a policy 24      statement on one-step licensing?
25                  MR. SCALETTI:  No, that would be only in the C) i                                                                      i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700    Nationwide Coserage  800-336- % 4
 
l 27758.0                                                                                50 AFF 1    proposed legislation as addressed there.
2                MR. SIESS:        The policy statement on 3    standardization is intended to enhance or expedite the 4    achievement of that other goal on.                  One-step licensing.
5    When you issue a certified reference design, you don't know 6    whether it's standard or not.              All you know is it can be 7    standard if somebody else wants to use it.
8                MR. WYLIE:        That's right.
9                MR. SCALETTI:        We have a problem apparently with 10    semantics here.        The Staff perceives, the vendor would come 11    in and say, I want to standardize this.                  This is my 12    standard design.        I want you to approve it.            If someone
      '(        13    only references it one time and only builds one of them, it 14    is still from our standpoint a standard design.
15                MR. SIESS:        Suppose he just came in and said, I
: i.    >
16    want you -    ,
17                I have a design, I want you to standardize it by 18    rulemaking.
19 i              MR. WYLIE:        It doesn't bother me if they call it 20    standard or not.        This is an approved design, it was.
21                MR. SIESS:        The first subject doesn't introduce 22    the subject nearly as well as the one in the previous draft                      i 23    did.
24  l            MR. MICHELSON:          I like the previous draft better, 25    too.
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                          -
202 347-3700        Nationwide Coserage        800-336-6 4 6
 
i 27758.0                                                              51                  l1 AFF                                                                                        ;;
r')
k/
m l
1              MR. SIESS:  It didn't mention one-step licensing 2    in the first paragraph. I don't know where it got down to 3    it.
4              MR. WYLIE:  What is that you are talking about?
5              MR. SIESS:  The EPRI draft, the first paragraph 6    doesn't even mention one-step licensing.
7              MR. WYLIE:  You are talking about the Commission's 8    policy statement.
9              That's a question of whether --
10              MR. SIESS:  Page 4 would get down to stability 11    and predictability. I am just looking to see where it 12    mentioned one-step licensing.
( J-      13              MR. WYLIE:  You are talking about the April 10 14    draft?
A 15              MR. SIESS:  Yes.
16              MR. WYLIE:  They don't mention it in there.
17              It's not in there.
I 18              MR. SIESS:  That's what sort of threw me.
19              MR. WYLIE:  If you look at John McKinley's 20 i  analysis, you will see the things that are different.            He 21                                  The second one is the one you
                  ~
enumerates them down there.
22    are talking about.
23              MR. SIESS:  Yes. I think it's legitimate for 24    the policy statement to say that although we are given all 25    these options, what we are really looking forward to is the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                        1
                                .-        - - + c - :.        -
 
i 27758.0                                                                          52 AFF em
(_)        I    certification by rulemaking.          That's the way we think you I
I 2    ought to go.      That's a policy statement.      It's an                    :
1 3    encouragement, I guess, for people to do that, and it just 4    hits me wrong coming into this first sentence that 5    standardization, standardized plants should be used to 6    satisfy the ultimate goal.          As if that's the only use.      I            ;
i 7    think it's nonsubstantive, except that I think that 8    standardization is a state of mind and it ain't going to 9    work unless we all are of the same state of mind.
10                MR. WYLIE:      If you look at the Commission's 11    April 10 version, that says the Nuclear Regulatory 12    Commission policy of standardizing power plants is a very 13
_(  .
important issue.. The focus of this policy is the reference 14    system design certification.          This concept would embody 15    standardization of design, construction and quality 16    assurance for the complete plant except for sites and 17    specific interface.
18                MR. SIESS:      I thought that was a pretty good 19    statement. I don't know what it means by the " focus of j
20' I  this policy."      If it really means we really prefer to this 21    this, it would be nice to see it.
22                MR. WYLIE:      If one-step licensing is the goal of 23    the Commission, then something should be said about it.
24                MR. SIESS:      One-step licensing could be 25    facilitated by a standard plan, certified standard designs.
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                          -
t            202-347-3700      Nationwide Coserage    800-33(H5M6
 
I 27758.0                                                                        53 AFF                                                                                    .
t l
[}~      1 That sort of follows, I think.
                                                                                          ~
2            MR. WYLIE:      That could be.          I guess that is 3 stated in the goals statement, talking about a goals 4 statement. There is nothing headed here other than " goals 5 statement."
6            It's not headed that way, but in the Staff's                    !
7 version, over on page 3.
8            MR. SIESS:      See that's the goal of 9 standardization.        The goal of the Commission, which is what 10 is stated in the May draft, says "the ultimate licensing 11 goal," "the ultimate licensing goal."
12            MR. WYLIE:      Which one?
  .()      13            MR. SIESS:      May.
14            MR. CARBON:      Page 1, line 18.
15            MR. SIESS:      I,t has a reference to 16 standardization in relation to one-step licensing.
17            MR. WYLIE:      You are back on the Staff's version.
18            MR. SIESS:      I have them both here.
19            MR. WYLIE:      Well, I don't see that in the i
I 20 Commission's statement.
21            MR. SIESS:      The April version has nothing about 22 one-step licensing, and then the May version comes in the 23 first sentence.
24            MR. SCALETTI:        There should be something in the 25 April version about one-step licensing.
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                        -
202-347-3700          Nationwide Coverage      800-3366M6
 
I l
27758.0                                                                            54 AFF        l
(        l              MR. SIESS:  I will read it.        I glanced through            l i
2  it, didn't find it.
3              MR. WYLIE:  I didn't find it anywhere.                  It may 4  be. I missed it while it was there.                                          ;
i 5              MR. SIESS:  It says everything but one-step                      l i
6  licensing. I don't think those words appear, and I don't                  i 7  believe preapproved sites appear, as such.
8              MR. CARBON:  I believe that's true.                              ,
9              MR. SIESS:  It seems to me that the advantages 10  of one-step licensing are advantages to the industry that 11  the Commission doesn't have to elaborate on.            The 12  Commission needs to say what they think standardization 13  should consist of, and tell people what they expect of them.
(f 14  That should be the policy statement.          If we are in favor of 15  it, we get out and say, here is the way you do it.                    There's 16  been a lot of bad experience with standardization.
17              MR. WYLIE:  Do you want to state that that is 18  the goal of the Commission?
19              MR. SIESS:  One-step licensing?
20              MR. WYLIE:  Yes.
21              MR. MICHELSON:    I perhaps misinterpreted this 22  statement, but in the Commission's statement on page 4 near 23  the bottom it talks about the certified design will be used 24  in the application of a CP/OL.          I misinterpreted that to 25  mean one step.
(2)        j ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                            -
202-347-3XO    Nationwide Coserage      800 336-6646
 
i i
27758.0                                                                                        55 AFF
    \                                                I think you are right.              I think it l                MR. SIESS:
2  is being one step.          In the first paragraph of the 3  Commission's draft, the last line he says "except for 4  site-specific interfaces," which implies site approval.
5                MR. MICHELSON:          I gathered it was one step.
6                MR. STESS:        It seems to me the thought that 7  standardization would be a fine step forward for one-step 8  licensing is an afterthought or an addendum that could be 9  added in at the end of the paragraph, rather than saying 10    this rather cryptic statement that standardized nuclear 11    power plants should be used to satisfy the ultimate
>                12    licensing goal.          Suppose it said "shall be used."                  What 13    would that mean?          If "shall" would be used, what would that
    . (])
14  say to you?
    '-          15                MR. WYLIE:        That means you have to do it.
              ,,16                MR. SIESS:        Is that what it really means?
17                MR. WYLIE:        That's the way I interpreted it.
18                MR. SIESS:        "Should" and "shall" aren't that far 19    apart here.      This is a policy statement.
20                MR. WYLIE:        "Shall" is something you have to do.
21                MR. SIESS:        If I am reading between the lines 22    this is what they think should be done, and that's what I 23    think they really want me to do.                    I think reading it that 24    way that that sentence is really what they mean to say.
25                MS. SCALETTI:        An intent would be for some time O              !                                                                                                        ,
1                                                                                                        I l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                                                    -
l            202 -347-3700        Nationwide Coverage          800-336-6646
 
27758.0                                                                            56 AFF 1  in the future that you would use preapproved sites and you 2  would use certified designs, and not custom plants and not 3  replicate and duplicate plants, to use certified designs.
4                  MR. SIESS:      It's ccaing too early in the policy 5  statement.      At least in the Commission's draft, the first 6  sentence says the Commission believes standardization is 7  important, and it has a potential for enhancing safety 8  reliability and availability.                That to me is a nice, 9  clear-cut policy.          We think it's an important initiative 10  and it has a potential to improve things for everybody.
11  Then it goes on to say that, when we say " standardization,"
12  what we are aiming towards is this reference system design
()      13  certification.          The article goes on to put out some other 14  things. I mean, it comes out right up front and says 15  standardization is good, desirable.
1 16                  MR. CARBON:      Good paragraph.
17                  MR. SIESS:      It doesn't tie it in to one-step 18  licensing.      One-step licensing -- isn't going to do 19  anything to improve the health and safety of the public or 20  health and reliability of the plants, just going to get 21  them built faster and cheaper.                It's important, but not in 22  the same sense.
23                  MR. MICHELSON:        Are we going to give the 24  Commission some word-noodling or some basic guidance?
25                  MR. SIESS:      No.
O                                                                                      r ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700        Nationwide Coverage      804336-6M6
 
l                                                                                    !
l 27758.0                                                                                    57 AFF i
(~l/        1              MR. WYLIE:        No. I don't think we want to do                  i 2  words.
3              MR. MICHELSON:          I don't think so.
4              MR. SIESS:        I don't think anybody will read this,                ,
i 5  "they shall be used to satisfy the ultimate licensing goal."                      i I
6  If they are not going to read it that way, let's go on to 7  the next paragraph and we can go down to something 8  important.
9              MR. MICHELSON:          I think the important difference 10  that does need to be highlighted is the Commission came 9
                    'll  closer to identifying what they meant by standardization, I
                                                                              ~
12  think, than did the Staff.
()          " 13              MR. WYLIE:        In what case, the first paragraph?
14              MR. MICHELSON:        May draft.        Came closer to
          ,'        15  saying what a standardized design is than I could find 16  anywhere in the Commission and in the Staff's document.                        I 17  think that's an important comment if we agree or disagree 18  with that degree of definition.
19              MR. SIESS:        I think the first paragraph of a 20  Commission draft is a pretty darn good policy statement.                        I 21  would like three more paragraphs elaborating on that and 22  quit. But then I am not the Commission and they never did 23  anything in four paragraphs.
24              MR. WYLIE:        Let me ask a question about 25  interpretation.        The last sentence bothers me.              This o
G ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                                -
202-347-3700        Nationside Coverage        S00-336-6646
 
              .    -- ~ _                    . -                _
I' 27758.0                                                                                                          58      ;
l AFF                                                                                                                      i I
C:)                    1        concept would embody whatever it embody.                          Standardization            >
2        of designs, construction.          Now, what does that mean by                              ,
3        standardization, construction?
4                      MR. SIESS:      Everybody uses a hammer the same way.
5                      MR. MICHELSON:        It could mean use the same 6        welding procedures, I don't know.                  I just don't know.                I 7        never considered the construction specifications to be a 8        part of this package.
9                      MR. WYLIE:      Construction bothers me, because if 10            you put one of those plants on an ocean site, then you put 11              it on another site --
i 12                          MR. SIESS:
I am not sure what " standardization 13            of quality assurance" means.            I thought Appendix B was
              ):
14            about as explicit together with three or four NQ standards,
      ,u 15            couldn't get QA much more standard than it is now.
s 16                          MR. MICHELSON:        I think the Commission went too i                          17              far in'their definition of " standard."                  I don't think the 18            Staff is willing to go far enough in theirs; but I think we 19            agree that we are really talking about standardization only 20            of a design top documentation, not of construction type 21            documentation or operation or QA, but I don't know.                              I 22            don't think we need to find out.
i 23                          MR. CARBON:      Let me question that.                      You can say 24            maybe they went too far when they included construction and 25              QA or you could say maybe they didn't go quite far enough O
i l                                                    ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                                      -
i                                                      202 347 3700        Nanonwide Coverage                  800-336-6646
 
i i
27758.0                                                                              59 AFF                                                                                        ,'
1 and should have said "except for site-specific problems or 2 site-specific circumstances and interface."
3              MR. SIESS:      There is nothing in a GSAR or FSAR.
4 The area doesn't exist.
5              Mk.MICHELSON:        The area exists, it's more l
6 specific.
7              MR. WYLIE:      First of all, it's something you 8 can't achieve.        You ought to forget about it.          You are not 9 going to achieve standardization of construction.
10              MR. SIESS:      In the reinforced concrete field 11 there are standards of specification.              They get to a 12 certain point.        Everybody cites them in their GSAR.                Then
  }
      ):    13 they site something else tha't contradicts them.                  Maybe 14 that's what I&E --
15              MR. WYLIE:      The truth of this statement is that 16 this would embody certifications of design construction and 17 quality assurance.
18              MR. MORAN:      Mr. Chairman, I would like to add 19 something on one of your construction deliberation.                      You l
20 asked me down here to help in your deliberations.                    This is        i 21 Dave Moran.
22              EPRI's requirements document, we only have 23 chapter one so far, but its overall requirements addresses 24 constructibility.        It isn't so much a desire to get into                    l 25 the details of how each construction crew should do this or O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700        Nationwide Coverage      800-336-6M6
 
i i
1 27758.0                                                                        60
    ~AFF O          1 that, but it lays out general requirements which lead 2 toward a standardization of the construction and the 3 constructibility of the plant.              You know there are many 4 ways to design a plant, and you can design something to 5 facilitate construction which isn't detrimental to the 6 function; and if there is that possibility, that is the 7 sort of thing that they are addressing.
8            Now, in addition to that, EPRI is working on the 9 aspect of construction verification, which, as you know 10 from our previous plants that have been'oullt and are under 11 construction now, has been a source of great problem.                ,. ad 12 so construction verification at least begins to nail down
  , /~') . 13 the inspection points and the verification points in the
(_/
            - 14 drawings and in the construction plan.
15            So it goes with the standardization concept to 16 work on constructibility, to work on construction 17 verification; but not down to such detail that you are 18 hamstringing the plant superintendent or the site
                                          ~
19 superintendent in this building.
20            MR. WYLIE:      David, it's certifying the process.
21 It is not standardizing the process, it is certifying.the 22 process. What you are interested in is the end product and 23 accepted testing or, the end product.
24            MR. SIESS:      There is a big difference between 25 " construction" and constructibility.              Constructibility is a O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                        -
202-347-3700        Nationwide Coserage      8%336-646
 
l 27758.0                                                                          61 AFF                                                                                      l l
1  feature of design and it should be used -- this word 2  construction may be construed to mean constructibility.                  If 3  the plant's constructibility isn't considered, your 4  standard design is going to be worthless.            Take two plants 5  according to the standard plan, if they are not constructed, 6  they will be constructed according to something else.
7              MR. WYLIE:  Yes.      But you can construct things 8  different ways and get the same end product.
9              MR. SIESS:  I know.        But if you have a design, 10
                            ~
you can construct according to meet that design.                But if 11  you can't meet that design the way it's made, you can 12  change it.
13
  ' J( }
MR. WYLIE:  What you have got, you have 14  construction and installation specifications that you have 15  to achieve, and then the acceptance criteria on testing; 16  and really it's certification of that, not standardization.
17              MR. SIESS:  That may be, but on constructibility, 18  I have seen designs that could not be built that way.                  The 19  reinforcement could not be placed.            Therefore the 20  reinforcement was placed a different way.            That's no longer        i l
21  standard. We have to be sure they are constructible, but                    1 22  that isn't what this says.      Inspection is going to be in 23  there.
24              MR. MICHELSON:    Are you going to have 25  standardized welding procedures?
l C:)        I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700    Nationwide Coverage        80N36-66M
 
l l
r 27758.0                                                                                  62                          '
AFF 1              MR. SIESS:    Sure, Site                    ASME section 3, pages 2  of them.
3              MR. MICHELSON:      Are you going to standardize 4  your welding procedures?    Procedures have to be written 5  utility-specific, because of a lot of details concerning 6  the qualification of welders and u'nion requirements and a 7  whole lot of other things and the procedures when you get
,          8  right down to doing it.
9              MR. SIESS:  That's probably pretty close to the 10  standard now.
11              MR. MICHELSON:      You start out with a industry 12  standard and you customize it to meet your situation.                                    I am 13  questioning, is that what was meant here under the (f-14  construction?
15              MR. MORAN:  Well, I can add a little bit, 16- speaking of welding. I am a student of this requirements 17  document and I read it nights, Sundays and holidays.                          It's 18  a very interesting document.          I want you gentlemen to 19  understand that the requirements document is not to be 20  certified. It is going to be reviewed and approved by the 21  Staff for use in ginning up designs which are intended, as 22  far as EPRI is concerned, to go towards certification.
23              There is a section I am reading now which deals 24  with constructibility and which deals with a specification I
25  for welding, the accepted specification.                      And in those                                    i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                                                        ?
202-M7-3700    Nationwide Coserage                  800-336-6 4 6
 
l 27758.0                                                                              63 AFF i
i                                                                                                    l
  '-          1  specifications, where there's been a problem in the field,                        l l
2  one of our lessons learned, they specify some detail about 3  how the inspection will be performed on welding, on i
4  weldings.
5              MR. MICHELSON:    You are talking also about the 6  original welding process.      The welding procedure.
7              MR. MORAN:  Where a weld will be hidden, then 8  there are certain -- certain instructions in order to make 9  sure that it's inspectable and having to do with the 10  certification of the welder.
11              MR. MICHELSON:    Does the EPRI document go into 12  the --
I'')
V 13              MR. SIESS:  Most of the plants I have seen have 14  been built according to section 3 of the ASME code.
15              MR. MICHELSON:    Doesn't give you welding 16  procedures, just gives you welding requirements.                  You can't 17  take up the ASME code and start welding.
18              MR. SIESS:  Don't they reference AWS procedures?
19              MR. MICHELSON:    Is that where we are going to 20  put this standardized level at?          Where are you going to 21  start?  You can ' t weld from them alone.          You have to 22  customize your plant specific.
23              MR. SIESS:  Can't we leave something for the 24  Staff?
25              MR. MICHELSON:    Sure.        I am trying to figure out O
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                            -
202 347-3700    Nationwide Coserage        800-336-6646
 
l 27758.0                                                                            64 AFF                                                                                        :
1  if we get into it.
2                MR. SIESS:    The Staff reviews these things now, 3  don't they?
4                MR. MICHELSON:      Welding procedures, inspectors 5  do too.
6                MR. SIESS:    What is specified?        Doesn't the 7  Staff review code references, standard references?
8                MR. WYLIE:    You know, it seems contradictory, 9  because it said the focus of the policy, the reference 10    system design certification, and then it says this concept 11    would embody standardization.            It's not necessary to embody 12    standardization, is it, from that concept?
13                MR. SCALETTI:    May I read it?
(])
14                MR. WYLIE:    Sure.
15                MR. SCALETTI:    This may --
l 16            . MR. MICHELSON:      I object to the Commission's 17    version also.
l 18                MR. SIESS:    The other version, in addition to 19    construction, " encourage standardized procurement, 20    construction, installation of quality assurance practices."
21    So procurement of installation I added there.
22                MR. MICHELSON:      All it talks about is 23    encouraging.      Doesn't say you will standardize it.            That's 24    what I read into it.      It just says, I would like you to do 25    it but not required.      But in the Commission it says, we O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                      :
202-347-3700      Nationwide Coverage      800 336-6646        l
 
i 27758.0              -
65 AFF l
          /~T                                                                                            l k/              1 really want you to standardize design, construction and 2 quality assurance.        We want you to do it for an essentially 3 complete plant, which also bothered me a little bit.
4            MR. SCALETTI:        If you read page 2, this may be 5 somewhat contradictory.
6            MR. SIESS:        Which one?
7            MR. SCALETTI:        April 10 version "Use of 8 standardized design can benefit public health and safety by 9 concentrating resource, design, on particular approaches by 10  stimulating" --        it would imply here, at 1 cast as I read it, 11  they wouldn't require it in this case, but it would t
12  stimulate, standardization vould stimulate standardized
(/l s_
13  programs on construction, et cetera.                So I don't know 14  whether in the first paragraph they fully intended to make 15  that a requirement.
16              MR. SIESS:        The Fyench built standardized plants 17  and built them with the work force, so I suspect that 18  construction does become reasonably standardized on the 19' second, third and fourth units.                I think if you talk to 20  Arizona Public Service, or whatever they are called down 21  there, they talk about construction practices on unit 2 and                      :
22  3 versus Unit 1.        They then standardize and approve and 23  expedite.
24              But it seems to me that if the document 25  submitted was standard plant design, includes the same i
J ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700        Nationwide Coverage      80 4 336-6626
 
27758.0                                                                    66 AFF                                                                              ,
I
('h
\'#        1 amount of detail that we see now in an FSAR, the commitment        l,l 2 to follow these specifications, then these plants become 3 standard-built under that design.
4              Quality assurance, I guess I can't quite 5 understand; does that mean that the quality assurance 6 manual should be the same for all plants built under that?
7              MR. SCALETTI:    I believe that's correct.        GSAR 8 had a standardized reference there in their QA manuals for 9 the GSAR plan and therefore they would become part of the 10  design.
11                MR. SIESS:    So all of them are important to the 12  same QA manual and that's about as far down as you can get.
()      13                MR. SCALETTI:    That's correct.
14                MR. MICHELSON:    So the question in my mind, 15  though, I think that still hasn't been answered, do we 16  recommend that, the committee recommend that 17  standardization include construction practices as well as 18  the design?      And it appeared that the Staff's version did 19  not include construction, a'lthough it encouraged 20  standardization of practices.          That's always a good thing 21  to do. But the Commission seemed to be saying, we really 22  want you to standardize design, construction and quality 23  assurance in their first paragraph.
24                MR. SIESS:    How much does GSAR commit to on 25  construction practices?
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                -
202-347-3700    Nationwide Coserage    8%336-6M6
 
27758.0                                                                        67    !
AFF iQ k/        1                MR. SCALETTI:  How much does GSAR commit to in              I 2    construction?
3                MR. SIESS:  Yes, welding procedures.            How far do 4    they go in that document, whatever it was, the FSAR, in 5    saying how things will be built according to what standards 6    they will be built?
i 7                MR. SCALETTI:  W' ell, all of the standards would            !
l 8    be built to a reference of the document.        I would have to          J 9    go look to answer that for you.                                          )
1 10                MR. SIESS:  They would reference section 3 in l
11    AWS and all of those things?
12                MR. SCALETTI:  I believe it's consistent to what O
V 13    you would find.
14                MR. SIESS:  Material specs?        Reference documents?
15                MR. SCALETTI:  Yes.
16                MR. MICHELSON:    Certain components.
17                MR. WYLIE:  Even the second one, standardization l
18    of quality assurance programs is not a very practical thing.
19    If you have a plant that is going to be built by that              --
20  I and I don't know where this is going to fall out, but you 21    can't -- quality assurance programs would have to do with 22    organizations and who people report to and all of this kind 23    of thing; and then some construction outfits, quality 24    control people report to quality assurance, and in some 25 I  other cases, quality control reports to an entirely ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700    Nationwide Coserage    8CO-3364 M 6
 
                                                                                                            \
                                                                                                            '1 l
27758.0                                                                                      68 AFF                                                                                                    '
l l
fb-                    1  different area.        You just can't do that.
2              Now, the end result is that you can't certify a 3  quality assurance program.
4              It shouldn't be part of the design certification 5  process. Everybody has to do it the same.
6              MR. SIESS:        Why not?
7              MR. WYLIE:        Just not practical.          Different 8  organizations do things differently, just like construction; 9  they do things differently.
10                  MR. MORAN:        I believe what you are getting, this 11      is Dave Moran.        I believe what you are getting at, 12      gentlemen, we can use the Defense Department here, no"t ~ the
    '(                  13      way they do it, in the field, but they have a specification 14      which people who want to qualify as builders of DOD 5*  .
15      hardware, must conform to in principle; and there are 16    l certain attributes of the quality assurance and quality 17    control systems that they must have.                But they can be 18      tailor-made to a given company's organization chart.                  It's 19      a general specification or a functional specification, 20      which says everybody has to have these ingredients, or you 21      don't have quality assurance or quality control.
22                  MR. WYLIE:        What do you call it?
23                  MR. HERNAN:        In this business we call it 24      Appendix B. That's where Appendix B is.
25                  MR. WYLIE:        That's a criteria?
()                                                                                                    -
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                        -
202-347-3700        Nationwide Coverage      800 336W>26
 
f 27758.0                                                                          69 !
AFF b
  '#      1              MR. HERNAN:      You are right.      Each organization 2  or site has to have its own people and 3  organization-specific, quality assurance program.
4              MR. SIESS:      Are we for or against 5  standardization?
6              MR. MICHELSON:        Of what?
7              MR. SIESS:      Anything.
8              MR. WYLIE:      I am for the standardization of the 9  end product.      But how do you get from here to there is what 10  you are talking about.
11              MR. SIESS:      Do you really mean that?            By 12  standardization of the end product, I would assume that all
- ()      13  the pumps in each plant are made --
14              MR. WYLIE:      Not necessarily.
15              MR. SIESS:      We thought one advantage of 16  standardization would be that the Staff could really 17  concentrate on that and dig out all the bugs once and for 18  all, rather than reviewing 10 or 15 custom plants and 19  concentrate their resources on standard design.
20              MR. WYLIE:      Then you have to go further than is 21  implied here; for example, let's take diesel generating.
22  If you would stop here, the certified design would be the 23  specification.        Now the --
24              MR. SIESS:      You could spend several man-years 25  looking at diesel generators on plants that already had a --
                    ~
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
            ,            202-347 3700        Nationwide Coverage    800 336-6M6
 
I 27758.0                                                                                70 AFF O              1                    MR. WYLIE:      I think that's probably a good 2      example, because the specification is going to say what the 3      electrical characteristics are you have got to have, and 4      what kind of testing you have got to have, and what kind of 5      power rating you have got to have and all this kind of 6      thing. It's not going to spell out other things; if you 7      are going to bid those things, you are going to bid them to 8      all the different diesel manufacturers in the country.
9      They are going to come in with different diesels,-different 10      design diesels.
11                    MR. SIESS:      Some will be better than others.
12                    MR. WYLIE:      Some will be better than others.
  -( )          13                    MR. MICHELSON:        They will come in with different 14      foundation requirements, too, which will be flexibility of 15      design depending on who you buy from.
16                    MR. WYLIE:      Well, if you want to do anything 17      except certify the design --
18                    MR. SIESS:      What are the disadvantages of 19      standardization?          Any reason we should be against 20      standardization?
21                    MR. WYLIE:      I don't know of any.
22                    MR. SIESS:      There' seems to be a thought kicking 23      around the various times we have talked about it, you could 24      end up with the Staff approving something that when it got 25 l    built wouldn't be as good as what we are getting now you o
(/
i                                    ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                  -
                        ,              202-347-3700        Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
 
I 27758.0                                                                    71    l AFF 1
O
  \#        1  under custom designs.
2              MR. WYLIE:  I think it would be a little better, 3  I personally believe.
4              MR. MICHELSON:    Depends on whose standard you 5  use.
6              MR. WYLIE:  If you do a good job up front, I 7  think that the industry is moving in the right direction; I 8  believe that is going to come out with a better product by 9  far. I think that doing all of the thinking in advance, 10  the problem has been in the past, you already are building 11  these things, where are you going to start thinking about 12  it. There have been a lot of mistakes made.          I'f you go to 13  this extent of detail here that's been indicated, doing all
^(])
14  that thinking up front  --
. ., n 15              MR. MICHELSON:    In the past utilities have been 16  unwilling to put up their money, like $100 million to do 17  all this design work before they start building the plant.
18              MR. SIESS:  The one or two that did ended up
        . 19  saving twice that.
20              MR. MICHELSON:    I know, but the history has been 21  the day they start designing they also start scratching the 22  amount. The day is commitment is made everybody takes off.
23              MR. WYLIE:  The only advantage I see to 24  standardization is people's egos.
25              MR. MICHELSON:    Sure, part of it.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                -
1            202-347-3700    Nationwide Coserage    80M36-646
 
27758.0                                                              72            ,
AFF O
k/        1              MR. SIESS:    There's some potential disadvantages              ;
2  to the industry. Right now we are beating on B&W plants 3  which aren't standard but they are all one vendor.      If we 4  had 20 plants to standard design out there and one of them 5  had an accident or incident, there would be an incident 6  investigation team, at least two of them, I suspect.      The 7  others would be shut down while they worked on the whole 8  thing. In the northeast they think they are better off 9  having three. Arizona Public Service would rather have 10  three alike. I don't know what their reasoning is.
11              As far as the public health and safety is 12  concerned, I can see nothing but advantages in getting more f'    13  designs m'ade before you start building, which I think comes 14  out of standardization, more thorough review by the Staff,
  ~ ^ ~
15  which I think will come out of standardization, and more 16  pressure by the industry to come up with a good design in 17  the first place.
18              MR. WYLIE:    Incidently, the Commission indicated, 19  I think, that they wanted to hear the Committee's opinion 20  on standardization of construction and quality assurance.
21  I think we ought to state what we think.
1 22              MR. SIESS:    I wish I knew what it meant.
23              MR. WYLIE:    That's one of the problems with it.
;            24              MR. SIESS:    I don't know how you specify l
25 i construction other than to say I am going to work to some O
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                    -
l            :o:.m.xm        m _ m c _ :.      -
 
i  l 27758.0                                                                73        !'
AFF                                                                              l
    /~T                                                                                !
l        I  construction specification, of which there are some for 2  steel, some for concrete, some in the electrical field, 3  some in the plumbing field.
4              MR. WYLIE:  Would you accept -- I like the word 5  " certification," but if you want to say " standardization of 6  construction and acceptance criteria."
7              MR. SIESS:  Is that what is implied by the 8  readiness review.that I read somewhere, readiness review 9  program that's in the NUREG outline, on page 2 of the 10  outline, under heading "related policies of regulations" along i
11  with such things as severe accident policy and safety goal 12  policy business one down at the bottom called " readiness
    ~N      13 (d            review program."
14              MR. SCALETTI:  Right.
15              MR. SIESS:  Is that a formal program?
16              MR. SCALETTI:  Well, the plants that are coming 17  on line now are all going through this readiness review
  .          18  program.
19              MR. SIESS:  That's what, to determine if they 20  were constructed as they were supposed to be?
21              MR. SCALETTI:  That's part of it. It is part of 22  it. It is a pilot program.
23              MR. SIESS:  If that's done in custom plants, 24  there's no reason it wouldn't be done on standard plants, 25  is there?
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                -
202-347 3700    Nationwide Coverage 800 336-wm
 
i 27758.0                                                                                                  74 AFF O          1                  MR. SCALETTI:              Yes, that's true.
2                  MR. SIESS:              I&E is going to be out there.
3                  MR. SCALETTI:              Absolutely.
l          ,4                  MR. MICHELSON:                What they are allowed to j            5    question in that process, of course, is where you didn't 6      comply with the standard procedure that you said you were 7    going to follow if that were the case.                              But if you complied 8    with your procedure and they said, well, that really wasn't 9      the procedure you should have used, then that becomes a 10      factor.                                                                        .
11                  MR. SIESS:              If staff approved the procedure once --
12                  MR. SCALETTI:              Unless they determined it has a
() '
13      detrimental impact on the health and safety of the public.
14                  MR. MICHELSON:                Readiness review is to first of 15      all see what you were going to do.                        I think that's the 16      thrust of it.
17                  MR. SIESS:              If you have approved what you have 18      said you are going to do, and you can establish what you r
19      have done, it is probably a step beyond where we are now.
20                  MR. WYLIE:              Let me ask a question.                        Now, in the 21      Staff's version, they use the same words.                              They said this 22      concept would require standardization for a nuclear power 23      plant design and strongly encouraged standardization, 24      standardized procurement, construction and installation.
25      What did they mean by " construction"?
I 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700              Nationwide Coverage              800 336 6M6
 
l 27758.0                    '
75                            ;
AFF 1                MR. SCALETTI:                Well, we felt that we didn't want                                          ;
I 2    to require it.      Felt that for several reasons.
3                MR. WYLIE:                I was trying to find out what it was.
4                MR. SCALETTI:                We had the multiple groups of 5    architect-engineers, groups and constructors out there that
      '                    6    may not all oper' ate and construct in the same manner.                                  For 7    that reason, we felt that it should, if they wanted to 8    include it, then, great, however, it would not require it.
9    Dave --
10                MR. SIESS:                Do you mean turnkey?    In other words, 11    the ideal might be a turnkey operation?
12                MR. SCALETTI:                Could be, yes.                      *
()                  13                MR. SIESS:                If somebody built a plant.
14                MR. SCALETTI:                Yes.
  'j/ ',                  15                MR. SIESS:                We don't have documents as to how it 16    is going to be built.                                                                                              ,
17                MR. WYLIE:                Is moving the reactor vessel on-site 18    to a new position, is that construction?
19                MR. SIESS:                Sure.
20                MR. WYLIE:                Depends on the site and location, 21    whether it's on the seacoast or someplace else?
22                MR. MICHELSON:                  It could vary greatly.
23                MR. WYLIE:                If you could have the same plan, 24    standardized design under the standardization policy built 25    under two locations, it's impossible to standardize.
O 1
I I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                                                                      -l 202 347                      Nationwide Coserage  800-336 6M6
                    ,- ._    , . _    _ . - -3700
 
l                                                                                                                        !
27758.0                                                                                                                  76                i AFF O#
1                    MR. SIESS:                No.            I was going to make the point, 2      if Westinghouse and Bechtel, for example, got together to
!                      3      do turnkey, essentially like C.F. Brown, if they got 4      together turnkey plants and sold them, they would not be 5      constructed in the same manner or with the same people.
6      Standardization of construction plans --
7                    MR. MORAN:                I can add a little bit.                            I can tell 8      you how this question is being handled by EPRI in that in 9      their requirements document, construction and 10      constructibility bo.iled down to a requirement that there be 11      a construction plan.                  You see, one of the things that EPRI 12      and the industry is very aware of is they can't stand anymore
  '( j                13      unknown construction schedules.                                      In order to ensure that 14      there be a construction schedule that hangs together, then
      ,              15      you have to have a plan for construction schedule, and it 16      has to follow good criteria, which they are attempting to i
17      lay down based on lessons learned in the past.                                              So, if in 18      this policy statement you encourage that sort of thing, the 19      requirement that there be a construction plan laid out along 20      the good principles, that is the sort of thing that policy 21      statements can do, I think, profitably.
22                    MR. SIESS:                I think to the extent we would like 23      to see plants built with a minimum of of changes.
24                    MR. MORAN:                Almost zero is what they are heading 25      for here.
4    (2)
I
!                                        ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                                                              -
202-347-3700                Nationwide Coverage                  800-336-6 4 6
 
l                                                              T l
27758.0                                                              77 AFF O
      '~#          1              MR. WYLIE:  That wouldn't require that be a 2  standard plan; you just have a plan.
3              MR. MORAN:  You must have a plan to follow up 4  this document and the plant should have the following 5  attributes and they should list the things that the plants 6  should have.
7              MR. SIESS:  That's clearly good business.
8              MR. MORAN:  This document is for the purpose of 9  helping the industry designer.
                , 10              MR. SIESS:  You are talking about EPRI. I am 11  talking about the policy statement..                          j 12              MR. MORAN:  We don't pay much attention to it 13  except that it's there.and it's something that ought to be 14  there, but we personally aren't going to pass judgment on 15  it.
j                16              MR. SIESS:  Why would the NRC want to encourage j                17  or to embody construction, what one of'these drafts says.
18  The other one says, I think, " encourage."  One reason would i                19  be the number of field changes that are made should be kept 20  to a minimum, and that would be zero, obviously. Every l
21  time you have a change in the field you have another chance 22  to make a mistake.
23              MR. SCALETTI:  You can't endure too many of I
24  those changes and still have a standardized plan. So, 25  therefore, the line, there is a line someplace which says o
V ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m.m.x.        s.e _ m. c _ :.    --
                                                                                      )
 
27758.0                                                                                                      78 AFP
^
l    this is no longer -- you haven't conformed to the design.
2    Therefore, there is no longer a standard plan and a custom 3    plan. So it has to be put in another category.
4                So from that standpoint, construction plan, if 5    it is so provided and approved, certainly is part of the 6    standard design, and, therefore, we would expect the plants 7    to be built in that manner in accordance with this plan.
8                MR. SIESS:        Originally the original statement 9    was, you expect it to be built in accordance with the 10    standard design.        I don't see how NRC can require much more 11    than that. There are many ways of implementing that 12"  requirement.      I think NRC is sticking its neck out by 13    saying, we know how to do it;                we will tell you how to do
              ,'    14    it; and if'it doesn't work, it's your fault.                        That's what
            ,;        15    they do all the time.
16            ,  MR. WYLIE:        Depending on location, where this 17    plant goes, whether it's down in the Northeast or Southwest, 18    construction that controls, materials that control.
19                MR. SIESS:        That's true.          I wouldn't expect the 20    design to specify the aggregate, to specify all the 21    properties in the country at this point.                      If you have 22    gravel, you have to screen it and wash it one way.                                If you 23    have stone, you have to crush it, screen it and wash it.
24                MR. MICHELSON:          You have to do some things in 25    winter you don't have to do in summer, too.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                                            -
202-347 3700          Nationwide Coserage            800 336-6646
 
i 27758.0                                                                                                      79 AFF                                                                                                                                i l
($)            1                  MR. SIESS:      And you have to do some things in                                              l 2 Maine you don't have to do in Florida.
>                      3                  MR. MICHELSON:                It just changes the procedures 4 you are going to use because of the time of the year, but
!                      5 the plant is still a standard plant unless you are going to 6 say standard only if that part was built in December.                                          You 7 know, that's going too far.
8                  MR. SIESS:        It seems to me that if we had a good 9 FSAR-type document, in complete form, and let five people 10 go out there and built a plant to it, that would be a great 11 step forward.            Somewhere, we are trying to go so far beyond 12 that, we are going to complicate the thing to where you
()            13 can't do it.          Standard design you could get.                            I *am not sure 14 you could get standard plants.                          You could get plants built 15 according to a standard design, reviewed according to a 16 standard design.            Pumps will have a certain capacity, the 17 valves will have a certain capacity.                                  They will close and 18 open; there will be all of this and all of that.
19                  MR. WYLIE:      Concrete will meet minimum specs.
20                  MR. SIESS:        I think that's a big step forward.
21 Now, if a policy statement tries to go much beyond that, I
:                      22 think it's just going to complicate it in trying to 23 interpret what it means and trying to apply.
24                  MR. WYLIE:      Would you accept then the certified 25 or standardized -- I like the word " certified" -- certified 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700                Nationwide Coserage              800 336-4M6
 
t 27758.0                                                                                                      80 AFF l
1 1 construction and installation?
l 2                MR. SIESS:                  You have to spell it out a little 3 bit more.
4                MR. WYLIE:                  I mean acceptance, construction l
5 acceptance, whatever.                      Size acceptance criteria could well                                i 6 be in there.                                                                                                  !
7                MR. MICHELSON:                    If you go very, far that gets 8 awfully sticky.
9                MR.WYLIE:                  -I know, but tests should be made on                              ;
i l                10 the concrete at certain intervals and meet certain 11 requirements.
12                MR. MICHELSON:                    Haven't you done that when you
()            13 have specified the code to which it will be built?                                                        -
14                MR. SIESS:                  Some of it you will, some of it you                              I 15 won't.
!                16                MR. MICHELSON:                    You clearly should be specifying 17 the codes.                                                                                                  ,
18                MR. SIESS:                  One of the problems is they 19 specified too many codes.                        They specified codes that are 20 contradictory.
21                MR. MICHELSON:                    It gets awfully sticky if you --
22                MR. SIESS:                  Those are the things I see in a PSAR, 23 much less an FSAR.
24                MR. MICHELSON:                    There are no standards to go by.
25 If you start producing all those standard criteria
. ()
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700                    Nationwide Coverage              80k)36-646                  .
 
27758.0                                                                              81 AFF                                                                                      ,
O          1  documents, that's quite an under taking to standardize them.            j 2              MR. WYLIE:  Isn't that what you want?
3              MR. MICHELSON:    I don't know.
4              MR. WYLIE:  You want a product in the end that 5  meets certain standards.
6              MR. MICHELSON:    We should go no more than 7  meeting standard design but it does have certain standards 8  that are used in both the construction process and design, 9  process. That far you go.      But I think we should recommend 10  that they not attempt to get into the question of 11  standardization and construction.            I think quality 12  assurance could only be standardized to the extent that we 13  have already standardized it with Appendix B and so forth.
14              MR. SIESS:  On page 4 of the Staff's version it 15  talks about stability and predictability.            "
Rulemaking to 16  obtain the designed certification will cover the criteria 17  necessary for the final design of the plant" -- I am not 18  quite sure what that is -      "and should include construction 19  criteria, quality assurance programs, and whatever test 20  analyses and inspection criteria are necessary to assure 21  tnat the plant is built within the certified design 22  specifications."
23              MR. MICHELSON:    Whatever they are.
24              MR. SIESS:  To say it's built in accordance with            j 25 l the certified design might make more sense.              There should
                                                                                          +
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700    Nationwide Coverage          800-336 6 4 6
 
27758.0                                                                              82 AFF
( -)      1  be enough there to give assurance that the plant can be                        '
2  built or will be -- not will be, but certainly can be built 3  in accordance with the certified design.              Presumably there 4  are going to be people out there looking at it at some 5  stage of the readiness review to get some idea on the 6  sampling basis of whether it has been built.                  That comes 7  under the heading of what is covered in the rulemaking.                    I 8  assume some of the same thihgs would have to be covered 9  whether there was a rulemaking or not.
10              MR. WYLIE:      You are back to using the same words; 11  you might say standardized, standardization and design, but 12  it's construction and installation criteria and quality
()      13  assurance, whatever.
14              MR. MICHELSON:      What it amounts to is really 15  complete design work, like just the first overview of 16  construction and quality assurance.              That's as far as I 17  think you can go.      That's as far as we should go.                But 18  that's not the inference brought about by what the 19  Commission itself put in their work, although I don't know 20  if they meant that; I'm not sure they knew exactly what was 21  meant.
1 22              MR. SIESS:      I agree with you.          The degree of 23  completeness of design needs to be spelled out, but that                        l 24  can be in the NUREG.      There are words here that says, the 25 , submittal, the reference design that is certified should (1)                                                                                            .
                                                                                            ,  1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700      Nationwide Coserage        8 % 336-6646
 
t 27758.0                                                                                                                                    83 AFF i
O'                                            1                              include enough information about the OA program,                      f
                              ~
2                              construction criteria, the acceptance testing and so forth, 3                              that we can judge whether it's likely whether you are going 4                              to be able to build it the way you design it.          I think 5                              those are good words. If they quit introducing new words 6                              like the " certified design specifications."      You know, if 7                              this stuff goes to hearing, somebody is going to be reading 8                              every word.
9                                          MR. MICHELSON:    Yes, legalistically.
10                                              MR. SIESS:  Carl had raised the question earlier 11                                    about the certified design specification.      To me it's 12                                    ambiguous. I don't know whether design is certified or
- (~j)
  ~
13                                    specification is certified.
14                                              MR. MICHELSON:    Or whereas a document you are 15                                  calling design specification and certify that document, I 16                                  think we are mincing on words there a little bit.            You can 17                                    fix that part all right, but to try to search out the 18                                  intent.
19                                                MR. MORAN:  I think a design engineer would have 20                                    a tough time figuring that out.
21                                                MR. SIESS:  Specifications and designs are too 22                                    different.
23                                                MR. MICHELSON:    Yes, at least to a designer they 24                                    are.
25                                                MR. SIESS:  He used design specifications in O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-1700    Nationwide Coserage  $^J0-316-6646
_ - . _ - - - - _ _ _ _ - - . _ _ ~ _ - _ - - _ _ - - _ _ _ - - - _ _ _
 
27758.0                                                              84 AFF l
O'        I    designing it.
2                MR. WYLIE:  Why don't we agree we have problems?
3                MR. SIESS:  What don't we have a problem with?
4    What about the last paragraph?
5                MR. WYLIE:  I would rather start at the 6    beginning. Why don't we take a 10-minute break.
7                (Recess.)
8              MR. WYLIE:  If we started down the NRR draft and 9    then we switched, let's go back again. The first paragraph, 10    from what I heard, we liked the Commission draft except we 11    don't like the words " construction quality assurance" there.
12    We need to do something with that. Let's don't get hung up
(}      13    on it. Let's come back to it.  'Let's go on.
14                If we go into the second paragraph of the NRR 15    draft, we have already discussed that to some extent, 16    supersede the '78 policy; and then the provision for other 17    options in the NUREG. I don't think I have any problem 18    with that paragraph. Let's go on to the third.
19              MR. MICHELSON:  Third one, the problem I have 20    with it, is they start out by saying, yes, we really are 21    going to focus on design. The next thing is we would also 22  ; like to see how far we can go on standardizing all the rest l
23 I  of the process; and there I think, first of all, no further 24    guidance was ever provided in this area, although perhaps 25    it's going to be in the NUREG, I don't know. I would be O
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
x.m.m          s.c_ m_...          mu-            ,j
 
27758.0                                                                      85 AFF                                                                                  .
(~h
  \~#      1    interested in seeing what kind of guidance you are going to          j i
2    give on standardized procurement and standardized 3    construction and so forth, or was this just a little 4    motherhood and you are never going to mention it again?
5                    MR. SCALETTI:    Presently it is not detailed in 6    the NUREG.                                                          l 7                    MR. MICHELSON:    You are really focusing on          )
8    design in the NUREG and what the design scope ought to be.
9    I think that's great because I believe that's the first 10    hurdle you have got to get over anyway and a big enough              i 11    piece to bite.        This was just some extra thoughts. Perhaps 12    it ought to be worded slightly different to convey more
()      13    than just the extra thoughts . ' Don ' t expect , in other words, 14    to go to the NUREG now and find out how we are going to 15    encourage this.        Because there's no further guidance or 16    anything that tells me how you are going to encourage it.
17    But it says it would "strongly encourage."          But it isn't 18    -- it's a little more than the concept, because the concept 19    that is going to do this is the concept that would require 20 I  standardization of nuclear power plant design and would 21    strongly encourage standardization of construction.
22                      I don't know that the concept does that. Are 23    you providing guidance on how that would be done or 24    whatever?        I am not sure standardization of design does 25    anything to standardization of construction, unless you t
()          .
I i
j                                                                      i i
r                ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                      -
i                  m,.m            s.e _ m c _ .:. mn-            1
 
27758.0                                                                                        86 AFF s-        1  take some special steps to do it.                I can take a standard i
2  design perhaps and go through six different construction                                ;
3  processes and end up with it at the end.                I can place the 4  vessel early, I can place the vessel late.                I can-do a lot 5  of things.
6              MS. SCALETTI:      I don't intend to cover that in 7  detail.
8              MR. MICHELSON:        I don't think you do.            So it 9  ought to be worded a little differently.                Though there 10  really are some things in construction we ought to try to 11  standardize.      I think eventually it would be nice to study 12  those and put on a NUREG that points these out, but it 13  isn't your intention to do that now.
(
14              MR. HERNAN:      Is your suggestion to the 15  Commission going to be to amplify on this NUREG rather than 16  change this document itself?
17              MR. MICHELSON:        My suggestion would be that that 18  sentence ought to be rewritten to make it clearer that the 19  focus is, indeed, on design, but there are thoughts down 20  the road that we might want to later think about 21  standardization.        Procurement, you could do some 22  standardization even now, perhaps, but I don't know that 23  you intend to give any guidance on doing that, and 24  installation, quality assurance, I don't know.
25              MR. SCALETTI:      I think NUREG is going to request O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                                j 202 347-3700        Nanonwide Coverage        8%336-W6                    i L-            -
 
27758.0                                                                                  87 AFF O        1    that part of the design procurement documents, yes.
2                      MR. MICHELSON:    It's the closest.          It's the next 3    -- it's the closest related step, and I didn't know how far 4  you were going to go there.              That's why I didn't debate; 5    but I think construction -- I would be surprised if you are 1
6    going to tell us much about construction or installation.
7                      MR. MORAN:  Would you say it is important to 8  make a policy statement that it is encouraged that these 9    other aspects be standardized?
10                      MR. MICHELSON:    I think it should be encouraged 11    that we take steps now to see how we could go about 12    standardizing these other steps.                  Those would be good words.
()      13    That would be as far as you would go, and keep the focus on 14    design.
15                      MR. MORAN:  See, standardization of all other 16    industries, except the building and construction industry, 17    implies and demands standardization of tooling and 18    construction and building techniques.                  The biggest examples 19    we have are shipyards; and the lead ship and the next ship 20    are often different because of the method of learning.
21                      MR. MICHELSON:    Are we ready yet to 22    standardize --
23                      MR. MORAN:  We don't have one construction crew?
24 j  That's why.
I 25                      MR. MICHELSON:    -- to break it into pieces?                    But
!            l (1)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
              <                    202 347 3700    Nationwide Coverage        800 336.u>M
                -    , . , _ . .              -                          -          -- -  -- . , . ~
 
27758.0                                                          88 AFF 1 that's what I am getting at. It encourages in a positive, 2 positive piece of the terrain that we are dealing with. I 3 think that would be what we would do, but try to at least 4 focus on what is required in terms of design 5 standardization; if you don't get over that hurdle, you 6 will never get on to these others anyway. So I think a 7 little rewording is all that is needed.
8            MR. SCALETTI:  The hang-up is with construction; 9 not with training?
10            MR. MICHELSON:  I have a hang-up with 11 installation.                                                  l 12            MR. WYLIE:  Would you buy " construction and
(}      13 installation specifications"?
14            MR. MICHELSON:  I don't know what they mean.
15            MR. WYLIE:  You write a spec for them.
16            MR. MICHELSON:  I don't know what they mean.
17 Now, you have to sit down, think them through, work them up.
18 on my part, I would rather see us go on to completion of
  ,            19 design certification and worry about these other steps e
20 later, because I think it's going to -- there are going to 21 be a lot of hurdles to get the industry to thinking about 22 standardizing how they build things, not just the design.
23            MR. WYLIE:  I am not sure if the industry 24 doesn't do this across the board --
25            MR. MICHELSON:  Certification process, you can (2)                                                                      .
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                        .
m.m.m          s._ a. c_:,        m33-            1
 
i 27758.0                                                                                                    89 AFF 1      bite off as much defined by the NUREG.                                                            j l
2                    MR. WYLIE:    What I would suggest wording here,                                  i I
3      for example, this concept would require standardization of                                        i 4      a nuclear power plant design.
5                    MR. MICHELSON:      I am not sure where you are 6      referring to.
7                    MR. WYLIE:    There in that third paragraph.
8      That's where you are, isn't it?
9                    MR. MICHELSON:      Yes.
10                    MR. WYLIE:    Tho way it reads now is 11      " standardization of nuclear power plant design is strongly                                      i 12      encouraged."                                                              *
()        13                    MR. SIESS:    The  "a"    is essential, I think.
14                    MR. CARBON:    It could be " designs," plural.
j              15                    MR. WYLIE:    It's not necessary.                            They all do 16      them alike, but you have a plant.                                                          ,
17                    MR. CARBON:    You can have standardized PWRs and 18      standardized BWRs.
19                    MR. MICHELSON:      I would personally think you
,              20      want to leave it fuzzy.        Don't say          "a" and talk about the I              21      standardized design.        I think that part is acceptable.                                You 22      start getting too specific, it sounds like there is only 23      one.
24                    MR. CARBON:    I agree.          I think it's good as is.
25      But the latter part of sentence needs to be word engineered (2)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700      Nationwide Coverage                          800 336 6M6
 
27758.0                                                                                            90 AFF i
1    to get across the idea that we ought to think about how one i                    2    might standardize the rest of the process; but at this 3    stage, that's not the purpose of the policy statement.                              The
,                    4    purpose is to try to end up with standardized designs.
5                MR. WYLIE:        From my standpoint, if it would say 6    "and would strongly encourage standardized procurement 7    conFtruction and installation specifications and quality 8    assurance processes," it would mean a lot more to me.                              I j                    9    know what those are.
10                MR. MICHELSON:          Do you know what a standard 11    design is?
12                MR. WYLIE:        No, but I know what procurement, 13    construction and installation specifications are.
(~)
u 14                MR. SIESS:        I know it's going to be something 15    different from what we have been getting.
16                MR. MICHELSON:          Yes.      I don't know what 17    standardized procurement documents are.                That could mean 18    anything from many people.
19                MR. WYLIE:        Most AEs, for example, a procurement 20  ,
document is a specification.
21                MR. MICHELSON:          But each AE has its own.                  They 22    are not standardized from AE to AE.
23                MR. WYLIE:        Well, they are.
24                MR. MICHELSON:          Nuclear plants might be 25    standardized within a given design or utility but they may (1)                                                                                                                !
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                                        d 202 347 3700        Nationside Coverage      800 336-6 4 6
        - - - , - -  ~          -              - . . ,              -    -  .      , . .      - - , .      .  ,
 
5 27758.0                                                                              91 AFF l
l g''      1  not be standard in the industry.                That's the problem:      Yes, 2  you have to have standard practices within your company, 3  but we are talking about universal standard practices here.
4              MR. SIESS:        If Westinghouse and Bechtel got a
                                                                                                  ^
5  reference system approved, if somebody wanted to buy it, I 6  think it's pretty obvious that they have got to buy the 7  NSSS from West nghouse.
i It isn't obvious that they have 8  got to get Bechtel to build it, is it?
9              MR. MICHELSON:        That's right.        The practice will
  .          10  vary according to whether Bechtel builds it or Stone &
11  Webster, or whoever.
12              MR. WYLIE:        Would you Duy component                              -
(}      13  specifications.?
14              MR. MICHELSON:          Yes.      I think that's part of the 15  design certification.
16              MR. WYLIE:        Okay, " encourage standardized 17  component construction and installation specs."
18              MR. SIESS:        Wait a minute.          There is something 19  back on -- would you say " standardized component 20 , specification"?        That suggests that all the standard 21  designs have to have the same component specifications.                      I 22  don't think that's true.
23              MR. WYLIE:        No.
24              MR. SIESS:        Westingnouse doesn't have to have 25  the same specifications GE does.
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-3 C 3'no        Nationwide Coserage        8 % 336- % 6
 
I 27758.0      <
92 I
AFF n
1                  MR. WYLIE:  That's why I say put "a nuclear 2    power plant."
3                  MR. SIESS:  It should include component 4    specification, "a standard design should include component 5    specifications."
6                MR. MICHELSON:    That's right. That's the better 7    word. It's the right word, in fact.
8                MR. SIESS:  What they are saying is in most 9    cases those will be performance specifications.
10                MR. WYLIE:  Yes.    .
11                MR. MICHELSON:    Yes. That's a part of the 12    design package which we are somehow trying to find out what rm 1; )      13    is in it but we never quite agreed.
14                MR. SCALETTI:    I am hoping we will get it
+'
15    finalized. I am sure you will have an opportunity to 16    somment on it.
17                MR. WYLIE:  Where are we?
18                MR. MICHELSON:    Third paragraph, the latter part 19    of the paragraph where all these words about standardized 20    procurement and construction.      I personally feel that I 21    don't know what they are talking about, and unless they 22    clarify what you mean by " standardized installation," for 23    instance, or '' standardized ," even " standardized procurement."
24    What does that mean, as opposed to standardized design?
25                  MR. SCALETTI:  It's part of the standardized o
V 1
l                  '
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I              m,.xm            xm_m c-              mu-
 
l 27758.0                                                                                      93 AFF
('D v              1        design.
2                    MR. MICHELSON:        If it's a part of it, then it 3        isn't encouraged, it's required.              So I thought this was        !
4        something else.
5                    MR. SIESS:      Anything that is going to be lf 6        included in your definition of design in the NUREG should 7        be left under design here, not added on.
8                    I really think that if you standardize the plant 9        design, these other things are going to follow along to the 10        extent practical and almost to the extent possible.
11                    MR. MICHELSON:        I think that's right, once you 12        have got a proper design package.                But to tack them on this 13        way infers that there are some other things that won't be
(~)S s_
14        in the design package but you would like to see 15        standardized.      I don't know what they are.
16                    MR. SIESS:      If your emergency operating 17        procedures aren't standard there's something with the 18        design being standard.
19                    MR. MICHELSON:      They can't be standard either l
20    ,
because they will depend on which design they are referring              '
21    l  to.
i 22 !                  MR. WYLIE:      The words here say "strongly 23        encourage."    Doesn't say " require."
24    i              MR. MICHELSON:        They are totally confusing 25        because we don't know what they are talking about.
(~'N
    \_)
l l            ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                    ;
i            202-347-3700      Nationwide Coserage        800-336-6N6    t
.. -      , .,.w..    ,a-                            ,
 
I 27758.0                                                                          94 AFF                                                                                      ,
i
['#                                                                                        l 1  Something over and above the design package, apparently.
2              MR. SIESS:  I think there's a difference in 3  saying that standardization of the design in itself would 4  encourage these things, and the NRC encouraging these 5  things. It seems to me what we want to do is start with 6  standardized plant designs and see where we can go from 7  there and not clutter it up with stuff that nobody will 8  understand, because if anybody thinks that's going to lead 9  to stability of the licensing process, they are crazy.
10  Design you can get pretty well cleared up.            We have 11  standard review plan and the EPRI req,uirements document.
12  We don't set the requirements for the design.                But the rest  l
()          13  of this stuff is wide open.        If you go beyond Appendix B 14  with OA.
15              MR. MICHELSON:    I don't know what it means.            The 16  Commission policy had the same problem in our first 17  paragraph going beyond design and talking about 18  construction and quality assurance.            So that comment, I 19  think, we should make to the Commission.
20              MR. WYLIE:  Would you basically say -- what did 21  you say?                                                                      !
I 22              MR. MICHELSON:    Commission document has the same 23  shortcoming and they talk about standardized construction 24  and standardized quality assurance.            The Subcommittee would 25  recommend to them that they rethink this issue and we would (2)            ,
                ,                                                                            I. ,
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                        l 202-347 3700    Nationwide Coverage        800-336-6 416
 
I                                                                      I l
27758.0                                                                        95 l AFF        l l
O        1  recommend that they focus on the design aspects.              We 2  believe that a lot of the construction standardization may          l l
I 3  automatically result from the design process.
4              MR. SIESS:  If you go to page 2 and look at the 5  things that the Commission hopes will come out of                    l 6  standardization, eliminating the different operations and 7  so forth. Second paragraph, " concentrating the resources 8  of the design engineers and vendors" -- most of that will 9  come out of standardizing the design.          Sure, if somebody 10  ever gets around to building 10 of the standard design
  .        11  construction is going to be helping a lot, but I would 12  rather look at it from the standpoint of what it's going to 13  do from the first one.
14              MR. MICHELSON:    I think we should encourage the 15  Commission to go into other areas later, like training, 16  operating procedures, that sort of thing; try to bite those 17  off now is too much.
I 18              MR. SIESS:  Look at the paragraph on page 2, get 19  down to the fourth line, you have construction practices, 20  OA again, and it doesn't add anything to what was said 21  there, except here it says "by stimulating standardized 22  programs and construction practices."          That's true.      It 23  will stimulate that. Why say that policy and the concept.
24  would "strongly encourage"?          I don't know whether that 25  means the concept, whatever.        So I am in favor of -- I like O          i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
              )            202-347-3700    Nationwide Coverage      800136-6M6
 
I 27758.0                                                                        96 AFF                                                                                  :
I  the wording on the second page better; it says that it                  j 2  would stimulate this.
3                MR. KERR:      The next line, though, says it will 4  improve training.        Lousy instructor is a lousy instructor.
5  I think it will facilitate training.              I am nitpicking, but 6  to me it would facilitate training or make it more 7  efficient or something.        In the top paragraph on page 2, 8  it's again a nit of mine, but the first line talks about 9  reactors and the next to last line talks about reactors.
10                MR. MICHELSON:      Which one are you looking at?
11                MR. KERR:      2.
12                MR. MICHELSON:      Of which document?
{}        13                MR. SCALETTI:      I think i't's in both of them.
14                MR. SIESS:      Nuclear power plant, the reactor is 15  a small part of it now.        I think the thing is I looked at 16  page 2 to find an elaboration of the third paragraph, and 17  actually you continue on page 3; if you look at, these are 18  all intended to be elaborations, some in safety, some in 19  cost. I think the top of page 3 is mostly cost-related and 20  it does mention a drawback.
21                MR. KERR:      We have to be careful because they 22  say that the ACRS will benefit from these designs.
23 ,
MR. SIESS:      Is it clear in the third paragraph 24  again that only the reference design, which strongly 25  encourages-other things.
(Z)                                                                                        !
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700      Narionwide Cnverage      91% 336.M
_ - - . . .                  .~                                                                l
 
I l
27758.0      l                                                                        97 AFF i
i 0"        1                MR. SIESS:        I don't see that the reference i
i 2    design, in terms of the final result on the plant, is any 3    different than our design approval.
4                MR. WYLIE:        The standard design approach may 5    have benefits in the standard advised procurement 6    construction and installation all the time?
7                MR. SIESS:        Look at that paragraph again.              The 8    paragraph starts off, it says, "the focus of this policy is 9    the reference system of design certification."                    That's true.
10                MR. WYLIE:        Yes.
11                MR. SIESS:        I would assume with everything that 12    follows, results from the design certification.
()      13    Certification means hearing; right?                Certification means 14    the rulemaking.        Doesn't the reference design concept 15    equally encourage these things; the fact that it went 16    through a rulemaking, doesn't it encourage standardized 17    production, training, emergency operating and maintenance 18    procedures?
19                MR. WYLIE:        I guess the real difficulty with 20    this is the fact that the NUREG is not written.
21                MR. KERR:        Right.
1 22 MR. SIESS:        That's not my problem.
23                MR. WYLIE:        It complicates it because you don't 24    know what you are talking about in detail; you don't know 25    what you are talking about.
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700        Nationwide Coserage        800-336-66M
 
27758.0                                                                              98 AFF 1              MR. SIESS:      Charlie, here is my problem with 2 paragraph 3. The first sentence I buy.              It was taken from 3 somewhere else.        It says the focus of this is on the design 4 certification.        Now, everything else it says in there is 5 repeated in the next three paragraphs, or the next two, 6 basically.
7              MR. WYLIE:      As benefits of standardization?
8              MR. SIESS:      Yes.      It says it would stimulate 9 standardized programs of construction practices for QA, 10  training personnel.        Says facilitate the training better 11  and so forth.      Those are elaborations on the statement that 12  is made in the third paragraph, with some changes, 13  " stimulates" rather than "strongly encourages."                    I like f( )
14  "~ stimulating" better; "strongly encourage" is a little
    .      15  ambiguous. To me it diluted the first sentence which says 16  the focus of this policy is the reference system, design 17  certification.        Seems to me the reference system itself 18  would do everything that is listed on page 2, wouldn't it?
19              MR. MORAN:      I have to agree.          That's exactly 2'O what happened.        When EPRI and the industry got together to 21  determine how they could get a standardized design that 22  would revitalize the industry, they ended up dealing with 23  all those subjects that you have been wrestling with there,                  l 24  including working on the academy for training and                            j 25  certifying all men or personnel.                They are now working on ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3i00        Nationwide Coserage        800-336-66 4
 
I                                                                          -l I
27758.0                                                                          99 AFF                                                                                  j  l
(~s                                                                                    l' standardized maintenance techniques for the United States.
1 2  So it all follows. You have a good case in point.
3              MR. SCALETTI:  When the design is certified, it 4  is -- it has been given the Commission's stamp of approval; 5  just a reference system design, without certification, has 6  just gone to the Staff and the ACRS.            It hasn't been 7  subject to challenge in any proceedings outside the 8  internal review that goes on here.            So to say that their 9  one is as good as the other, I can't agree with that.
10              MR. SIESS:  I know, but let's take what you have 11  cot here. That paragraph I am going to skip for the moment.
12  On page 2, I have got some advantages of standard design;
()        13  and their advantages, no matter how you go about it, if you 14  go multiple plants of the same design, these advantages 15  still apply, even if they are replications and duplications.
16  If I get enough replicated or duplicated or standard plants 17  out there, plants that are alike, I gain most of these 18  benefits.
19              Now, on page 3, there are some further benefits 20  of standardization by any process; and page 4 talks about 1
21  the goal, and that applies equally, I think, to the 22  replication or duplication, certainly the manufacturing 23  license.
24              Now, I get to page 4, and I get into the 25  stability and predictability and rulemaking.              Now it's I
                !          ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
t            m.m.so        s.,,e..,e. ce .,,,,        so ,33e.ests-
 
27758.0                                                                              100 AFF 1 talking about the special advantages of rulemaking, and                            j 2 what do you get from rulemaking.                You get 10 years instead 3 of five; right?        Page 4 is all dealing with rulemaking, and 4 to me, somewhere I would eliminate the third paragraph and 5 somewhere before page 4 I would introduce the idea that the 6 focus of this policy, is really the ultimate objective of 7 standardization would be rulemaking and design 8 certification and then explain what that involves and what 9 the benefits are.
10            MR. SCALETTI:        You get more than just the 11 five- versus 10-year, five versus 10 years with the 12 certified design.        You get greater assurances in the rm        13 licensing process.        Once a design is certified, it is no
  -( )
14 longer subject to challenge in individual licensing 15 proceedings.
16            MR. SIESS:        Right.      But you don't get any of l
17 these things on page 2 or page 3.                  Bottom of page 3 might 18 be the introduction to certification.                  But if I take the 19 three paragraphs, two on page 2 and the one on the top of 20 page 3, to me those relate to standardization by any means; 21 and starting at the bottom of page 3 -- actually, the first 22 sentence doesn't relate to the certification -- well, it 23 says that that relates to certification.                  "The goal of 24 standardization should be an essentially complete plant
            '25 design both with respect to scope and level of detail which                      j (2)                                                                                            !
i I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                            ,
202 347-3700        Nationwide Coserage        50133 & 6646          i
 
I                                                                                  !
27758.0                                                                                  101 AFF O'
1    can then be referenced in individual license applications."
2    And then it goes on to say "In this process, a design would 3    be certified by the Commission"; and is that true?                        Can't 4    you have an essentially complete plant design both with 5    respect to scope and level of detail which can then be 6    referenced in individual license applications without 7    certification?
8                MR. SCALETTI:        Certainly.          That would be a final 9    design approval.
10                MR. SIESS:        That sentence, as I note, says "in 11    this process."
12                MR. SCALETTI:        Well, for the ultimate goal of
  ,}        13    standardization.
14                MR. SIESS:        I know, but that's two pages back.
15                MR. SCALETTI:        This is what the whole policy 16    statement is intended to address.                  It isn't intended to 17    focus on final design approvals or replicate or duplicate 18    plant approval.        Just certify, the reference systems 19    concept certified.
20  i            MR. SIESS:        The Commission draft said that a lot 21    clearer; said the focus of policy is reference system 22    design certification; in the first paragraph you have it in 23    the third paragraph, followed by a lot of good things that 24    are going to happen whether or not it's certified; and then                        l l
25 i  you see there are certain benefits from standardization;                        iI
                                                                                                  ~
(2)          !
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700        Nationwide Coverage        800-336-6 4 6
~.        _          --
                            ~
 
i l
27758.0                                                                              102  {
AFF                                                                                        ;
i
      "%                                                                                          j 1  these are clearly benefits to the health and safety of the 2  public review process and so forth.              There are some other 3  benefits from certification, which is an incremental 4  benefit in the review and ma , be in the public health and 5  safety, and a significant benefit to the guy that is trying 6  to buy a building and the legal aspects of it.                  The lawyers 7  are going to get a lot out of it.
8              MR. SCALETTI:    Also to the ratepayers who will 9  have to pay for it.
10              MR. SIESS:    The biggest advantages.                              I 11              Ratepayers will get the advantage in six years 12  whether or not it's certified, even if the site has to be                      i 13  approved before that.      As long as you don't tie your money
{)
14  up building that plant while you are getting the plant                          !
i 15  approved, you have the advantage of that if you start early 16  on the site.      It seems to me you ar; citing a number of 17  advantages that apply to standard designs in general, but 18  the way the thing is written, it seems to tie them in only 19  to the design certification.
20              Now, if somewhere you said the previous policy s
21  relating to other than design certification, et cetera, you 22  are not going to bother with, you are just going to talk 23  about design certification, as if that is the only way to 24  go, but it's not the only way to go.              It's the way you 25  would like people to go, but the odds are about 10 to 1.
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTRS, INC.                                          -
202-347-3700      Nationwide Coserage        800-336-6 4 6
 
l i
l 27758.0                                                                      103 AFF I  that the first one you see isn't going to be there.
2              MR. SCALETTI:      That's correct. That's why we 3  have addressed the other options.as an interim alternative 4  in the NUREG.
5              MR. SIESS:      That's fine, and yet the advantages 6  you are citing here are not simply those due to design 7  certification.        I think it's overselling the design 8  certification.        You really have two things to point out:
9  Standardization is good and we are for it for all these 10  good reasons.      We think the certification route is even 11  better for the following additional reasons.
12              MR. MICHELSON:        What are the additional reasons 13  of design that you want to go to design certification as
[)
14  opposed to just going to the reference design?
15              MR. SIESS:      Stability and predictability.
16              MR. SCALETTI:      To facilitate the licensing 17  process to bring it in conformance with the Commission's 18  proposed licensing reform, which addresses preapproved 19  citing, design certification, one-step licensing, and we 20  don't perceive that this is the way to one-step licensing 21  is through the design certification process.
22              MR. MORAN:      As far as standardization, we get 23  all the way as far as its benefits by just going to 24 f reference design only, don't we?
l 25              MR. SCALETTI:      I guess I have to say no, because n
(_)
                                                                                  . l I                                                                    .
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700        Nationwide Coverage  S00-336-6M6    ,
 
27758.0                                                              104 AFF t
1    I believe the Commission has the ultimate say. As far as    I 2    the Staff and the ACRS are concerned, that's correct. But 3    as far as the Commission is concerned --
4                MR. SIESS: What you are saying is, taken in the 5    worst possible way, is that the Staff will do a better job      !
6    of review if they have to go before a rulemaking yearly.
7                MR. MICHELSON:  There is that advantage. Maybe 8    the ACRS, taken in a somewhat better sense than saying that 9    the rulemaking process in itself with the outside 10    intervenors and whatever experts they can muster, can 11    actually lead to improvements.
12                MR. MICHELSON:    It's a cause for more reflection.
(''s . 13                MR. SIESS:  More words.
O 14                MS. SCALETTI:  Also, it provides this input 15    early on in the licensing process.
16                MR. MICHELSON:  Why don't we just say that?
17                MR. SIESS:  They do, in effect, somewhere over 18    there about page 4.
19                MR. MICHELSON:  Doesn't come through in that 20  ,
order.
21                MR. SIESS:  I find it difficult to believe the 22    lawyers will impute it that much.
23                MR. MORAN: My view of the industry is after 24    they spend all the megabucks on the design, they want the i
25 !  benefit of certification, and it's almost no contest to all        j (2)                                                                                .
i                                                                    ,
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                            -
l            xx.m          x.s _ m m .:.      m-
 
27758.0                                                                              105          !
AFF l
  /~T                                                                                                {
kl        1 the utility people.
2              MR. MICHELSON:      I thought GE said no they didn't 3 want to bother with certification.                They already spent the 4 megabucks.
5              MR. SCALETTI:    I believe they now believe they 6 want to pursue their BWR.
7              MR. MORAN:    A BWR is what they are putting their 8 money on.
9              MR. SIESS:    That's a business decision too.
10 There are other advantages to certification.                The backfit 11 gets a little tighter, doesn't it?
12              MR. SCALETTI:    Backfit gets tighter, when the
    )      13 criteria are the same for implementing the backfit, whether 14 it's certified or final design approval.                You still have to 15 demonstrate substantial, or however it, is increase to the 16 public health and safety.
17              MR. MICHELSON:      Stability is better because the 18 public had input on certified design and haven't done --
19              MR. SIESS:    If the hearing goes on long enough 20 it will be obsolete by the time you get through.                      Again, I 21 still think that if you are going to stick to what you have 22 got you have got to put this focus as being up front;                        not 23 laid up in paragraph 2 where it says "the other 24 alternatives are discussed in the NUREG."
25              MR. WYLIE:    If you do that, aren't you back to O
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700    Nationwide Coverage        S00-336 # 2
 
27758.0                                                                                106 AFF 1 the Commission's burden?
l 2                MR. SIESS:    Closer to it, except that you could          ;
3 put it, instead of in the first paragraph -- if I were 4 writing this, I would try to do something to the first 5 paragraph, but I would introduce the second paragraph where l
6 that sent'nce that says "the focus of this policy is the 7 reference system,"          you can say it supersedes the previous 8 one.      "The focus of this policy is the reference system.
9 The other issues that were covered in the previous 10 rulemaking are now discussed with the NUREG."                    That's in 11 effect what you have done.
12                MR. SCALETTI:    Focus of this policy is the 13 certification.
14                MR. SIESS:    That's what I meant.                        I i
15                MR. MICHELSON:      Maybe we should prepare an ACRS 16 version of this policy statement.
17                MR. SIESS:    Thing is, once I get past page 1, it 18 reads like a book.          It really is quite clear.            It's just 19 that I get headed in the wrong direction on page 1, 20                MR. MICHELSON:      In terms of our commments, would 21 it be better to go ahead and rearrange the Staff's paper 22 and incorporate what you think of the Commission's paper 23 and have a new paper and indicate in the letter the reasons 24 why we rearranged the material?                Might be easier than 25 trying to put a lot of words and comment in which they 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700      Nationwide Coverage      800-336-6646
 
I t
l 27758.0                                                                      107 AFF        j                                                                      ,
1
/~')                                                                                    !
\/          1  still won't understand what you mean.
l 2              MR. SIESS:    If you tell them what you are going        !
l 3  to tell them in the first couple of paragraphs, it will be 4  a lot easier to follow.      If I look at page 2 and talk about 5  the benefits of standardization, and I think that I don't 6  see the word " certification" in either of those paragraphs.
7              MR. MICHELSON:      I do see of course being 8  discussion standardizing stimulating programs --
9              MR. SIESS:    Stimulating is -- when I get down to 10  the bottom of page 3, the first sentence is sort of 11  repetition; there is where I'd introduce the idea cf the 12  certification and then go on with the additional benefits 13
'( )            of certification.      Because the top of page 4 is benefits of 14  certification; right?      Then the backfit rule would be left 15  on design certification.      You can do it by simply saying 16  that the other things discussed in NUREG, as you do here, 17  go on to page 2 and 3, just referring to benefits of 18  standardization and then bring in the certification and the 19  initial benefits.      It's too long.
20              MR. WYLIE:    What about the Commission version?
21              MR. SIESS:    It's the same length.
22              MR. WYLIE:    I don't think so.
23              MR. SIESS:    It's got footnotes. Long footnotes.
24              MR. WYLIE:    It is longer, isn't it.        Maybe your 25  comments ought to be directed to what you don't like.
(o
_s ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3"N      Natiortwide Coserage 800-336- % 46
 
                                                                                                                ;i 27758.0                                                                                              108        l AFF 1        Isn't that what we like?                                                            !
2                          MR. SIESS:    Maybe it's because I haven't looked 3        at it. Once I get past the first page, which sort of 4        steered me off, I don't have any problems with it.
5                          MR. MICHELSON:      What are you suggesting?
I-6                          MR. SIESS:    My main trouble is with a couple of 7        sentences.        The first sentence in the report, " Standardized 8        plant should be used to satisfy the ultimate licensing goal."
9                          MR. WYLIE:    We talked about that.
10                          MR. SIESS:    That needs turning around.                  You can 11        say that the ultimate goal of the Commission is licensing a 12        certified design constructed on preapproved sites, and that this policy statement shows how that could be' done or
{}            13 14        something, sets requirements for standardization or 15        whatever.
16                          The next sentence is elaborated on; it's all the 17        good things that result.          Another paragraph that-says what 18        happened to the other standardization options, which is 19        essentially what you have in the second paragraph.
20                          Then I don't see any need for the third 21        paragraph, if you have said in the first paragraph that 22        this whole policy statement is how the certification,                                    ,
23 i design certification, will help achieve the ultimate 24        licensing goal; and on page 2 you talk about advantages of 25        standardization in general; on page 3 at the top of the O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
20M47-37tv)      Nationwide Coserage  8 % 336-6646 t..., m..      ._, -
m._              . -
 
i 27758.0                                                                                        109 cox i
1 1  page, again advantages of standardization.                And then                    ,
2  beginning at the bottom of page 3, you are talking about 3  the additional advantages presumably of certified as 4  opposed to other standard forms.                So it's just a word or 5  two of introducing paragraphs.
6                MR. WYLIE:      Really what you are doing is 7  changing the first paragraph and eliminating the third;                              !
8  right?
9                MR. SIESS:      I would eliminate the third, change 10  the first and do something in the second to emphasize again                          i 11  that this policy statement supersedes the previous one
.            12  insofar as certification is concerned, and the NUREG will                            !
13  describe the remaining options; because you are really not
([
14  removing those options.
~
15                MR. SCALETTI:      Right.
16                MR. SIESS:      Design certification existed under 17  the previous ones?
18                MR. SCALETTI:      It was not spelled out in the '78 19  policy statement.        However, when Appendix 0 was promulgated, 20  it was in the regulations at that time.                I believe it's '76 21  or thereabouts.
22                MR. WYLIE:      What would you say there now?
23                MR. SIESS:      I didn't try to reword it.
24                MR. WYLIE:      You say insofar as the certification, 25  design certification is concerned, is what you said, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700      Nationwide Coserage        800-336-6M6
 
I                                                                          I I
i 27758.0                                                                            110 CoX          ,
i
(~)
s            1  reference design certification?
i 2                MR. SIESS:  I would try something like this, "this 3  policy statement su'persedes the Commission's previous 4  policy on standardization issue in 1978.            The principle 5  thrust relates to the" -- that's not really true.                  I was 6  going to say " relates to design certification," because I 7  still think that there are at least three paragraphs that 8  imply whether it's certified or not.            It's just repetitions 9  of issues of standardization.
10                MR. SCALETTI:  That's correct, but I believe I
11  it's appropriate to have them in here.
12                MR. SIESS:  Yes, I agree to that.            I think I
/~l V
13  could buy paragraph 2 without change, really.                But I think 14  the first paragraph, second sentence, is a nice statement                !
15  of what you have to do about reliability, availability 16  reducing time and cost. First sentence bothered me.
17                MR. WYLIE:  You see if you go to the Commission's 18  opening paragraph, that's the way it opens.
19                MR. SIESS:  First two sentences of the 20  Commission draft is, I think, fine.            I think 21  standardization is great, and this policy focuses on the 22  reference to system design certification, one of the ways 23  of doing it; and the third sentence of the Commission's f
24  draft is wrong, but implies that the reference system l
25 ! embodies the standardization of designs, et cetera.                  It (2)            I
              !                                                                          i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700    Nationwide Coverege        800 336-6M6
 
1 '
27758.0                                                                            111 cox 1 doesn't reference -- all of the systems embody that.                    What 2 is new and different about the reference system design 3 certification is the certification, period.                Probably put a 4 word in there of what they mean about certification.
5            The second paragraph is all right, I think.                    The 6 third paragraph is unnecessary.                It's "the focus of the 7 policy" would be in the previous paragraph, the first 8 paragraph, you know, on the Commission draft; and then you 9 get into all the goodies on page 2 and 3; and I could buy 10 the rest of it, I think, as it is.                                    .
11            MR. WYLIE:      So what you are suggesting is 12 eliminate the third paragraph.
()      '13            MR. SIESS:      The first sentence would be in the 14 third paragraph now and the rest of it is sort of a 15 confusing set of requirements.              Well, the requirements are 16 all right. It's the encouragements.              Repeated in much 17 better words in the next couple of paragraphs.                  Because to 18 say that this would -- stimulating standard programs.                    I 19 think they follow naturally from it, and the " encouraging" 20 is a little misleading.        I don't have any problem with the 21 policy. I just have somi problems with the policy 22 statement. The policy says we are in favor of 23 standardization.        Doesn't say much more than that.
24 Paragraph on backfit is just quoting regulations, the last 25 sentence, certification asks for an amendment; is that new?
O ACE-FEDERAL- REPORTERS, INC.                                          -
202-347-3700        Nationwide Coserage        800 33M426
 
l l
27758.0                                                                              11-2 cox                                                                                            ,
1                    MR. SCALETTI:      No.                                          l 2                    MR. SIESS:      10 years is not in the policy 3        statement.
4                    MR. SCALETTI:      10 years is in the severe action
          -    5        and policy statement.      It says issued for like five years 6        or like 10 years.
7                    MR. SIESS:      You see, what does the policy 8        statement say other than we are in favor of standardization?
9                    MR. SCALETTI:      That's intended to be broad.
10                    MR. SIESS:      Yes. I mean, all we are doing is 11        nitpicking words.      We can sit around here and argue as we 12        have been as to what does it mean by "strongly encourage -
()      13        construction standardization and QA practices."                That's not 14        really a policy, is it?      If that were the Commission policy 15        to strongly encourage it, what would that mean to Staff?
16                    MR. SCALETTI:      It would mean that it would not 17        have to be there.      The design would be what is certified.
18                    MR. SIESS:      But if the Commission said to you, 19        it is our policy to strongly. encourage standardized 20        construction procurement, et cetera, would that be a 21        message to you to go out and strongly encourage it some way?
22                    MR. SCALETTI:      It's intended to be a position of 23        the industry.
24                    MR. SIESS:      When you reviewed the plant, you 25 l      would consider that an option?
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-1700      Nationwide Coverage    800-336 M4
 
27758.0                                                                                  113 CoX            l i
()'
      '-          1                  MR.' SCALETTI:  Certainly.
2                  MR. SIESS:  Whether the concept would mean the 3    Commission would encourage it or the concept would 4    encourage it doesn't make any difference to you.                      The way 5    it reads now, this concept would require standardization of 6    nuclear power plant design and would strongly encourage; 7    it says the concept would encourage.
8                  MR. SCALETTI:  Yes.        Reference system concept.
9                  MR. SIESS:  Yes. Later on it says that it would 10    stimulate.
11                  MR. SCALETTI:  Right.                                              j 12                  MR. MORAN:  I perceive that those are statements
()          13    of fact of policy that carry considerable weight in the 14    industry. They are stating fact.            If the Staff gets ahold 15    of something that says, this is the way you are going to 16    construct it and it doesn't have any specification of 17    standards in it, that we have to read to make sure they are 18    correct, couldn't we just note that they have done that and 19    it's probably good for the building the the plant and 20    doesn't have a factual statement?
21                  MR. SIESS:  This isn't really part of the policy.
22    It's just an assumption by the Commission that adoption --
23                  MR. WYLIE:  This is a statement of fact like he 24    says, I think.
25                  MR. SIESS:  They assume that this concept would O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                          -
202-347-3700    Nationwide Coverage        800-336-6 4 6
- =_.      _        -
 
27758.0                                                                          114    i cox
/N 1  encourage.
2              MR. WYLIE:      Yes.      It doesn't say that it's 3  required. Just says that it will be encouraged by this 4  approach.
5              MR. MICHELSON:        This is a discussion that is put 6  into the policy.        That's the problem with the policy; there 7  is a little too much discussion so you lose the policy 8  during all of the discussion.            Doesn't contribute much to 9  the policy.
10              MR. SIESS:      That's why I like the Commission 11  draft, because I thought the first sentence was abolished.
12  Commission believes that standardization is a very 13  important initiative and has the potential for
(
14  significantly enhancing safety reliability and availability, 15  and to me that's a policy statement.
16              MR. WYLIE:      Yes.      I agree.
17              MR. SIESS:      Now the rest is the focus; that's 18  telling me what to look for, limitation is a scope 19  statement and the concept would embody standardization, 20  designs, construction; that one we thought should come out 21  because the concept doesn't embody all of those things; and 22  the rest of it is saying what is nice about it and 23  explaining. The thing is, that clear statement of policy I 24  don't think exists in the Staff's first paragraph.                  It says I
25  the policy is that standardized nuclear power plants should O
i i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700        Nationwide Coserage    800 326-(1 4
 
27758.0                                                                          ' 115 cox        i l
  ']'
[
1  be used to satisfy the ultimate licensing goal of certified l
2  designs constructed on preapproved sites, and I don't 3  really think that is the policy.                  All I have to do is 4  change "should" to "shall" and I think it's obvious.
5                MR. WYLIE:        What you are basically saying that                    --
6                MR. SIESS:        First two sentences.
7                MR. WYLIE:        You don't disagree with that third 8  paragraph anymore?
9                MR. SIESS:        I'd just take it out.          I don't think 10  it adds here.        If I took the first paragraph out of the 11  Commission draft, the first two sentences, because I don't 12  agree with the third sentence; I don't think you do either.
(J      13                MR. WYLIE:        I don't agree with the third.
14              .MR. SIESS:        I'd take the first two sentences out 15  of it. The second sentence is paragraph 3; right?                    And the 16  rest of paragragh 3 is a single sentence that sort of 17  states what is in the next three paragraphs.                  This thing is 18  short enough that you don't need to summarize the next 19  three paragraphs.        You see, that's editorial type stuff.
20  More substantive thing to me is get the first sentence out 21  of the Commission draft.          That is a policy statement.
22                The second sentence indicat'es a scope of this 23  policy statement, and the rest of it is elaboration.                    We 24  could use the first sentence and say if we had our druthers, 1
25  everybody would use the rest of the reference system design ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3 00        Nationwide Coserage        80t>33 N
 
                                                                                                  ?
l 27758.0                                                                          116          l cox O'        I  certification.        I promise to encourage it or something and i
2  it's not there.
3              MR. MICHELSON:          Another approach is to decide 4  maybe the Commission paper comes closer to begin with and 5  how would you fix its version up to pick up some of the 6  good things that the Staff brought out, because what the 7  Staff did, you know, I think it was in some respects better.
8              MR. SIESS:        I think the second paragraph of the 9  Commission statement is the same as the top of page 2; the 10  next paragraph is essentially the next --
11              MR. SCALETTI:        There shouldn't be a great deal 12  of difference between the two other than some reordering to
()      13  facilitate all of the maneuvering.
14              MR. WYLIE:        The yellow.
15              MR. SIESS:        Let we point out something.          Down 16  here on the Commission, it's those nice good things, then 17  there is a subheading, " reference system, design 18  certification."        It introduces what in your draft is the 19  second paragraph on page 3, it has got a heading.                What I 20  said was it would be nice if you could introduce that 21  paragraph. That's the point at which you are talking about 22  reference system.
23              They didn't make up many changes.              Get down 24  there, you are 1 coking at words.
l 25              MR. MICHELSON:          The key point of all, I think, O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                              -
202-347-3700          Nationwide Coserage    LM336-664                i
 
l                                                                        I i
27758.0                                                                      117 cox l
1        is to what extent you should go beyond design on that 2        document and that can be elaborated.
3                    MR. SIESS:    That's awfully hard.
4                    MR. MICHELSON:    That's the key issue. Then 5        there is some word-engineering which would help the 6        document flow a little better once you get over the key 7        issue of what is the true scope of this document.
8                    MR. SIESS:    The thing I like about the 9        Commission draft was simply I thought there was a good            i 10        clear statement of policy in one sense.      I think that helps 11        a lot. The Staff draft, that is sort of a mixed-up thing 12        with licensing.
13                    MR. MICHELSON:    It wouldn't have hurt if they
(
14        put down on the heading " policy" and next, " discussion."
15      'Because the next paragraph it's all discussion.
16                    MR. SIESS:    I have seen reports that start off 17        with an objective and scope and things like that.        Here 18        they have got " statement" in one sentence and " scope" in 19        another.
20                    MR. MICHELSON:    On your Staff paper on page 3, 21        that last paragraph, I had one small question.        The 22        paragraph starts out with talking about what you think is 23        an essentially complete design; and then the next sentence 24        jumps into something else that says "in this process."          I 25        am not sure what process we are talking about there.        Then l                        !
(Z)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                          -
m.m.m            x _ c _ ,.        --              1
 
i
                                                                          <          118 27758.0                                                                                          ,
cox                                                                                              l s                                                                                            j 1  it jumped into that statement.          Then from then on it was                I 2  talking about design certification and that would -- you 3  are going to clean that part up to rewrite.          There are two 4  totally disjointed thoughts here.
5              MR. SCALETTI:  One thing you have to understand 6  is this draft is before the Commission.          They have the 7  version with advance comment and they have this.              They will 8  come back to us and say, we want more work on it.              We have 9  no plans to change this now until we hear from the 10    Commission again.
11                MR. MICHELSON:    We have two choices:        either to 12    comment with a whole list of things we would do, or
()
  /        13    alternatively, we could send them a rewrite rearranging 14    what we would do, which isn't much more work and probably a 15    lot more understandable.
16 MR. SIESS:  I have the same problem you do with 17    the first sentence. But if I look at the Commission draft 18    with a heading -- the introduction is the same, but the                        -
19    heading gets you on to the reference system certification 20    before you get to that sentence.
21                MR. MICHFLSON:    The Commission screwed it up a 22    little bit --
23                MR. WYLIE:  I am not in favor of writing this 24    for them. I think they are capable of doing that.            I think 25    what we ought to do is say what we don't like about it and
. <1 L/
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-M7-3700    Nationwide Coverage      80M36-446
 
l l
27758.0                                                                        119            !
cox 0          1  what we do like about it and let them write.
l i
i 2              MR. SIESS:  I think they have heard enough maybe.
3              MR. SCALETTI:  We are not in a position to 4  change this until we see the Commission's answer.
5              MR. WYLIE:  I think we ought to say just what 6  you said; that we feel that maybe this is a clear-cut 7  statement of policy in the first opening two sentences of                        1 8  the Commission's statement, for example.            I think that we 9  don't agree that you should require standardization of 10  construction and quality assurance.            I think we ought to            ,
11  say we don't agree.
12              MR. SIESS:  We don't think that that should be
()        13  there. We think the discussion on the subsequent pages 14  that mentioned I had it -- I said this would --
15              MR. WYLIE:  I think what they have implied here 16  is the Staff's draft in paragraph 3 is acceptable with -- I 17  don't know, it doesn't say that it is going to be required.
18  It simply says that this will call out.
19              MR. SIESS:  That's why I said if you leave out 20 I paragraph 3 and wait till you get over to page 3, or l
21  wherever it is --                                                                l 22              MR. WYLIE:  It doesn't cover anything in this 23  paragraph.
24              MR. SIESS:  It says "by stimulating quality 25  assurance, programs, training," so forth.            All those words O                                                                                              i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                        ,  ,
202 347-3700    Nationwide Coserage        8M336-6646            i  !
 
ll
                                                                                        !l 27758.0                                                                          120    l CoX O        1  are there.
l l
2                MR. WYLIE:  I don't think so.
3                MR. SIESS:  Yes, they are.          If I ever can find 4  it I am going to mark it somewhere.
5                MR. MICHELSON:    Near the bottom of page 2.
6  About middle of the paragraph near the bottom of page 2.
7                MR. SIESS:  That paragraph.          Look at the fourth 8  line that begins " stimulating."
9                MR. WYLIE:  In other words, you are saying it's 10  redundant, 11                MR. SIESS:  I like the word " stimulating" rather 12  than " encouraging."
{}      13                MR. SCALETTI:  One thing you should consider we 14  discussed the AIF version that had some things that would 15  be included when you do comment, when you say you don't 16  want to see it and it gets wiped out of the document.
17                MR. WYLIE:  Well, the AIF version doesn't say 18  that they are required for standardization construction.
19                MR. SCALETTI:  OA programs, procurement, et 20  cetera.
21                MR. WYLIE:  I think they say --
22                MR. SIESS:  Frankly, I really like the statement 23  that the implementation of this policy will stimulate these 24  things, rather than saying that the concept will encourage 25  it. That may be a choice of words.            They mean different O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                  -
202 347-3700    Nationwide Coserage        800-33 9 446
 
27758.0                                                                            121 cox C)                                                                                          !
k/        1    things to me.                                                                !
2                I think another comment I would make is that 3    here, where it says "the goal of standardization," if they 4    would put the subheading back in it, would help a great 5    deal.
6                MR. WYLIE:      Where is that?                                l l
7                MR. SIESS:      If you look at page 3 of the 8    Commission report.        And then the same paragraph as the 9    second paragraph on page 3 of the Staff draft, they have a 10    heading on it.        And the heading tells you what it is going 11    to be about. Then the first sentence makes sense.              Carl 12    mads the comment, and I did, too, that the first sentence Il
  'q      13    is unrelated to the certification process without a heading 14    that indicates.
15                MR. WYLIE:      You say it does make sense to put 16    the heading in?
17                MR. SIESS:      Yes. I don't like single headings.
18    I was looking for a place to put another one.
19                MR. MICHELSON:        I still think the Commission's 1
20    version on the bottom of page 3, that first sentence still                    l 21    doesn't fit' the rest of the paragraph.            It's a good 22    sentence, but perhaps somewhere else; it certainly confuses 23    the issue of reference system design certification.                  It is 24    really saying what the goal of standardization is.
l 25 l              MR. SIESS:      How about taking that sentence and                i
('\          l
  \j i  ,
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                      ,-l 202-347-3700        Nationwide Coserage    800-336-6646        l l
 
1 1
27758.0                                                                                      122          i cox                                                                                                        ,
        '\                                                                                                      l
(~/
    '-              1      taking it in place of paragraph 3?              The first sentence 2      starts off "the goal of standardization should be an 3      essentially complete plant design," et cetera.                If that 4      will put in the place of the current paragraph 3, it would 5      introduce all these good things about standardization.
6      Then you go through three paragraphs and you have got one 7      that now talks about the design approval, the certification, 8      and the good things that come from it.
9                  MR. WYLIE:    You mean put this in the draft, the 10          Staff draft, paragraph 37 11                      MR. SIESS:    Yes.
12                      MR. MICHELSON:      I would rather put it in the
                '13'        first paragraph that said you would like to take out of h()
14          the Commission paper. It's the whole goal of this business.
              -15                      MR. SIESS:    This concept would embody 16          standardization of designs and would keep that sentence.
17                      MR. MICHELSON:      I thought you were wanting to 18          pull that sentence. That's the Commission's.
19                      MR. SIESS:    Instead of this sentence, that 20          sentence, use that.
21                      MR. MICHELSON:      You are going to have to do 22          something to get rid of the thoughts.              That's where you 23          stick your goal.
24                      MR. SIESS:    The goal talks about the same thing.
25        l            MR. MICHELSON:      Yes.
(1)                    !
i i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347-3700    Nationwide Coserage        8C0 334646 l
 
t 27758.0                                                                              123 cox i
i 1                MR. SIESS:        I think it reads better.            'I am still !
2    trying to find another heading.
3                MR. WYLIE:        You are saying move it to the third 4    sentence of paragraph 1.
5                MR. SIESS:        The first paragraph would be the 6    first two sentences of the Commission draft.                  You can stay 7    with the Commission draft for a minute, plus the first 8    sentence at the bottom of page 3 of the Commission draft.
9    Second paragraph should be the same; the third paragraph 10    can be deleted.        Put a heading in on that other paragraph 11    and I think I would like it.              I think we can tell the 12    Commission that.        Staff requirements memorandum, change
[')
s_s 13    this, change that.
14                MR. MICHELSON:          I think we also ought to comment 15    that the " term certified design specification" should 16    either be clearly defined or left out because it isn't a 17    standard understood term.
18                MR. WYLIE:        Let me see if I understand.              You 19    take the Commission's first two sentences as the opening 20    paragraph and you add to it the first sentence of paragraph 21    at the bottom of page 3, the first sentence.
l 22                MR. SIESS:        If you want to stick with the Staff                i 1
23    draft.
24                MR. WYLIE:        Yes.
25                MR. SIESS:        And you replace the first paragraph (1)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I            202-347 5 00        Nationwide Coverage      800-336-6 4 6
 
                                                                                    \
27758.0                                                              124 cox
      -        1    of the Staff draft by the first two sentences out of the      !'
2    Commission draft, and the first sentence out of the          i I
3    paragraph on page 3 of the Staff draft.                      l 4              MR. WYLIE:  Staff or Connission draf t?
5              MR. SIESS:  It's the same sentence; right. I 6    was going to say if you wanted to mark up completely in the 7    Staff draft.
8              MR. SCALETTI:  You are saying you don't want the 9    first paragraph from the Staff draft in at all, talking 10    about preapproved sites?          ,
11              MR. SIESS:  I don't see that it adds a damn 12    thing, frankly, if you are going to put your emphasis --
J'us)      13              MR. WYLIE:  It depends on whether or not they 14    want to state that in the policy or not.
15              MR. SIESS:  If you wanted to introduce the whole 16    thing with the statement that the Commission's licensing 17    goal is certified designs constructed on preapproved sites, 18    but that isn't the policy statement. The thing is, if I 19    read the Commission draft, the first sentence is a 20    statement of policy. And it has nothing to do with whether 21    it's a preapproved site or not.
22              Now, when you get over to the reference, the 23 i  certified design, if that's tied to preapproved sites, 24  ;
maybe you want to say something there, "one-step licensing, 25    preapproved sites, would be greatly helped by having O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
;                                    .m        x _ m m....        -              I
 
t 27758.0                                                                            125 cox                                                                                      .
/~T
''''f 1    certified designs and this process would involve so-and-so."
I l
2    But you wouldn't have to have certified designs to go to 3    one-step licensing.
4                  MR. SCALETTI:      Probably, a custom design, could 5    come in, final design, if you had a custom design, and you 6    had all the final design information there, you could go 7    for the one-step licensing process, I believe, yes.
8    However, that's not the goal of the Commission.                  The 9    Commission's goal is everything to be -- the reference 10    system design concepts certified, use these on preapproved 11    sites, sometime in the futtire.
12                  MR. SIESS:    Why don't you say that then?
()        13                  MR. SCALETTI:      I thought we had.
14                  MR. SIESS:    You come in from the back end of it.
15    " Nuclear Regulatory Commission believes standardization of 16    nuclear power plant designs is a very important addition 17    and has significant importance of safety and reliability.
18    Standardization by means of the reference system design 19    certification, together with preapproved sites, would have 20    certain advantages, or standardization by means of a 21 l  reference system design certification would be a major step I
22 '  toward the Commission's goal of one-step licensing and 23    preapproved sites."
24                    First you say standardization is the policy, and 25    standardization by this means would be a major contribution
(?)          !
l 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700          Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6 4 6
 
                                                                                                                              !i t
I{
27758.0                                                                                                          126            i CoX                                                                                                                        ;
i,
            'l or major step or would be essential or whatever.
l 2                  MR. SCALETTI:    I think the first paragraph is 3 intended to establish an ultimate licensing goal.
4                  MR. SIESS:    It shouldn't.          First paragraph 5 should make a statement of policy on standardization not on 6 licensing goals.          You see, that is what is confusing.                                          You 7 can say that the Commission favored standardization.                                                    What 8 is more, we favor standardization by the certified 9 reference design as essential to our ultimate licensing 10  goal of one-step licensing on preapproved sites; right?
11  Then say the focus of this policy statement is the 12  reference design, or you could say the focus of this policy 4
()      13  statement is the reference of design certification, which 14  it is our goal to use as a principal means for one-step 15  licensing on preapproved sites.
16                    That's why you focus on it, because that's 17  really w sc you want.          The first sentence is a policy 18  statement on standardization.                The second is why you are 19  focusing this on the certification, okay.                    Because that's 20  the Commission's real objective.                  That's what they would 21  really like to see.          That would be a good way to do it.                                          Do 22  you see my point?
                                        /
23                    MR. SCALETTI:    I see.
24                    MR. MICHELSON:      Have you finished that?
25                    MR. SIESS:    Yes, I am finished.
O                                                                                                                          .
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                                                              -
202 347-3700        Nationwide Coserage        800-336- % 56
 
                                                                                                      ~
i 27758.0                                                                              127      i cox
          -            1                MR. MICHELSON:      Let me go back.        There is 2  something here that bothered me.              I believe you suggested 3  that we use the, in the Commission's paper, the 4    introductory statement at the bottom of page 3, and I have
                -      5  a little problem with that, because on the next part of 6    that sentence covers plant design construction and quality 7  assurance programs; and I have a real problem with that, 8  because that i.s what we are going to make a comment on to 9  get rid of.      So I like the Staff's first line at the bottom 10    of their page 3, last paragraph, better.
11                  MR. SIESS:    I like this one.
12                  MR. MICHELSON:      I misunderstood.
                    -13                .MR. SIESS:    I told you to take the the first
              }:
              -    14    sentence from the Staff draft and Carl was looking at first 15    sentence of the Commission draft which had more in it.
    ' * '          16                  MR. MICHELSON:      Different.        You are going to use 17    the Staff's draft as the first sentence.
18                  MR. SIESS:    It just has " essentially complete 19    with taspect to scope and level."                The other one went on to 20    construction and so forth.          In fact, if you do what we were 21      just talking about, that might be a little harder to fit in.
22      I am not sure.
23  i MR. MICHELSON:      I have another question.            That 24      is, do we need to say somewhere in the policy statement --
25                  MR. WYLIE:    That's the first sentence on page 3, O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                      .-
202-347-3700    Nationwide Coserage        801336-6646
 
Il  l l
i 27758.0    1 128 CoX                                                                                                                  i 1      last paragraph.                                                                                          1 2                        MR. SIESS:      Then if that paragraph had a 3    7 subheading on it, it could start right off "in this process,"
4    which follows right from the heading.
5                        MR. MICHELSON:        Do we need to say anywhere that J
6      the NUREG is also going to tell us what we mean by 7      " essentially complete design," or is it just -- we are 8    going to say in the first paragraph it's going to be 9      essentially complete design.                  Nowhere else do we say 10    anything about what we mean by that.
11                        MR. SCALETTI:      We do say in the second paragraph,
  -        12      it says the details of the issues and topics are important
()        13      to the policy.
14                        MR. MICHELSON:        I am wondering if maybe it 15      shouldn't also point out in that second paragraph that the 16,    completeness of the design will be defined in the NUREG.
17      You put it into the first paragraph as a statement, but in 18      the second paragraph we -- it's a little fussier when you 19      just talk about details and issues and people don't know 20      it's an issue.              It wouldn't hurt to word-engineer slightly 21      to point out it is going to be in the NUREGs and then the 22    people may say, okay, I will wait and see.
23                        MR. WYLIE:      You are going to add, in the second 24    paragraph -- where are you going to add?
25                        MR. MICHELSON:        Yes, second paragraph where they (2)          i
!                                ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                                              -
l                                    202-347 3700        Nationwide Cov. rage              800 336-6646
 
I 27758.0                                                                            129 cox
        /~'                                                                                        4 1    discuss the NUREG, I would add appropriate words, the fact 2    that the NUREG also covers the definition of the 3    completeness of the design and what we mean by it.                        I 4                MR. MORAN:      I am assuming that means total plant, 5    but you can't do that until you are there in the last 10 6    percent or so together on site.              Are you talking total 7    plant; is that right?
8                MR. MICHELSON:        I don't think you want to get 9    very elaborate in your definition of completeness of design, 10    but maybe a little more than what was said in the first 11    paragraph.
12                MR. SCALETTI:,      Policy statements means in
    '().        13    varying degrees.        We can't be to specific with the policy 14    statement, so we will not -- no way can you ask for a 15    complete plant; you can't address them on the design of the 16    certification process, so it can't be a complete plant.                It 17    can be nearly complete.
18                MR. MICHELSON:        I don't think the policy 19    statement even needs to define in detail what we mean but 20    rather, go look at the NUREG and you will find it.                Just a 21    few words.
22                MR. SIESS:      It would probably be helpful if 23 I  where you talk about the scope of a thing, that you did 24    have a reference to the NUREG, and then the reference in 25    paragraph 2 could be limited to just talking about the O              I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                        -
202-347-3700        Nationwide Coserage      8%336-6M6
 
27758.0                                                                          130 cox b
N'        1  other transition options.
2              One of the problems with paragraph 2 is that 4
3  details of issues and topics important to the execution are 4  sort of mixed into a paragraph that mainly says this 5  supersedes the previous one, and there are other short-term
;            6  transitions and what to do with custom plants are sort of 7  thrown in. That's what NUREG is going to do.          The other 8  thing it will do is implementation and they are sort of 9  mixed together.
10              The one reference to NUREG here covers 11  everything not very well.      I think you could have -- what 12  the NUREG is going to do is cover the other options; right?
13  It's going to give a lot more detail on the implementation-
        )
14  of this thing in relation to the other policies, and it's j
15  going to talk about scope; and if you read this fast, 16  because of the context, to the paragraph, you don't see all i
17  of that in the NUREG. In my first reading of this I 1
18  thought maybe there should be two, three references to the 19  NUREG But I think that paragraph is trying to say what 20  isn't in here, maybe it ought to have been said somewhere                    ;
21  else, too. God knows what the Commission is going to do 22  with this.
23              MR. MICHELSON:    They have so many comments now.
24              MR. SIESS:  Why don't you come to us, first?
25              MR. WYLIE:  He didn't want to get confused.
O v
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                            -
1            202-347 37R)    Nationwide Coverap    800-336- 4 46
 
27758.0                                                                    131 cox            l i
  /~N                                                                                  l
      -          1              MR. SCALETTI:  Because the Commission said to 2  come to them.
3              MR. SIESS:  I know, but you guys listen to us.
4              MR. SCALETTI:  I see.
5              MR. SIESS:  They won't spend this much time with 6  you.
7              MR. WYLIE:  Let me ask about the --
8              MR. SIESS:  I don't know the words anymore.        We 9  moved so much stuff around.
10              MR. WYLIE:  Do you have more words?
11              MR. SIESS:  I am trying to figure out what we 12  have done.
(}            13              MR. WYLIE:  I got that we take the Staff's draft 14  and we replace the first paragraph, you replace it with the 15  Commission's first two sentences and add the first sentence 16  to the Staff's paragraph 3.
17              MR. SIESS:  Carl just raised the point that 18  essentially complete design back to scope and level of 19  detail.
20              MR. WYLIE:  That wis to be added to the second l
21  paragraph.
22              MR. SIESS:  That was to be added to the first 23  paragraph.
24              MR. WYLIE:  Say that again.
25              MR. SIESS:  It was proposed that that be added o
V ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700    Nationwide Coserage  80M36-646
 
l 27758.0                                                                              132 cox
('- ')    I          to the first paragraph.
2                          MR. WYLIE:    That is another one?
3                          MR. SIESS:    Standardization.
4                          MR. WYLIE:    Where are you going to do that?
5                          MR. SIESS:    What did you have for a first 6          paragraph, the two sentences?
7                          MR. WYLIE:    I had the Commission's first two 8          sentences.
9                          MR. SIESS:    That's all?
10                          MR. WYLIE:    No.
11                          MR. SIESS:    And the sentence I just read, goal 12          of standardization?
()      13                          MR. WYLIE:    Yes.
14                          MR. SIESS:    Carl just raised the point that goal 15          of standardization is an essentially complete design; the 16          definition of what is essentially complete may be in the 17          NUREG; maybe there should be a reference to the NUREG.
18                          MR. WYLIE:    I had that in the second paragraph 19          though. I had it in the second paragraph.
20                          MR. SIESS:    It's in the second paragraph now but 21          it's sort of hidden.
22                          MR. WYLIE:    Essentially completed?
23                          MR. SIESS:    It says " details of the issues and 24          topics."
25                          MR. WYLIE:    But I was going to say the scope and
              .                      ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                  1
        ,    !                        202-347 3700      Nationwide Coserage 804336 4 4            l
 
I i
27758.0                                                                                              133 cox                                                                                                      ;
1 something like "The scope and level of detail of an 2 essentially complete design is covered."
l' 3                MR. SIESS:    That's out of place in the second              !
4 paragraph.
5                MR. SCALETTI:    Details means everything:
6 renewals, fees, the whole spectrum there covered.
7                MR. MICHELSON:      Two separate thoughts.
8                MR. SIESS:    How much of that.is in the NUREG?
9                MR. SCALETTI:    You r.ean in the December version?
10                MR. SIESS:    No.
11                MR. WYLIE:    1 think the first paragraph ought to 12 stand as a policy statement, then you go into the other one.
t
()                          13                MR. SCALETTI:    Some of it is being removed 14 because it's obsolete.
f                      15                MR. MICHELSON:      Why don't we leave it up to them 16 to word-engineer but point out the second paragraph ought 17 to be included.
18                MR. WYLIE:    Why did you put the reference to 19 NUREG in the second paragraph rather than in the first?
20                MR. SCALETTI:    Just so that people would know                l l
21 that this policy is strictly, you know, a broad statement 22 of policy and the details of this would be -- so you 23 wouldn't have to read through the whole thing, it would be 24 right up front where you would find the details.
25                MR. WYLIE:- That's true of the rest of it too.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                        ;
202 347 3700      Nationwide Coserage        800-336 6M6        i
                                      . . _ _        - =,. _      _      _ . . _ _ - . _ .    , _ _ .
 
I 27758.0                                                                                              134 i cox                                                                                                      !
    ~
i (T            1    You have to read what's in it to find it.
2                          MR. SCALETTI:  It's a matter of preference 3    styling, that's all.
4                          MR. WYLIE:  If the Commission had a document 5    they would want a document that would cover all the details, 6    after you state your policy and your goal, the details are 7    covered someplace else.
8                          MR. SIESS:  The way they looked at it is this.
9    This supersedes the previous policy.                      What they are saying 10    to me is that much of what was in that previous policy is 11    going to be in the NUREG, including all those things that 12    aren't under the certified design.
  .( )          13                          MR. WYLIE:  Now Carl wants to add the sentence 14    that the definition essentially of complete design is 15    covered in the NUREG.
16                          MR. MICHELSON:    Words to that effect.
17                          MR. SCALETTI:  That second paragraph could very 18    easily fit into the end of the policy statement.                                Just a 19    reference to our previous sense.
20                          MR. SIESS:  It doesn't state that it supersedes 21    but the previous one will disappear just as it disappeared 22    in the NUREGs, including the other options.
23                          MR. MICHELSON:    Wouldn't hurt to tell you that 24    you aren't going to fird all of the details in the next few 25    paragraphs, it's really somewhere else.                      He doesn't start ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700    Nationwide Coserage            800 336-M46
 
l!
Il 27758.0                                                              135              ;i Cox                                                                                    !I ll
    /~T                                                                                      j!
k/          1    pulling it apart. He gets to the last paragraph and says              I  <
2    don't worry, I am going to tell you elsewhere.
3                MR. WYLIE:  Does 150 CFR 50 have to be changed 4    because of this?
5                MR. SCALETTI:  As written, no, I don't think so, 6    unless someone decided that they wanted, the Commission 7    decided they wanted to include the approval period in 8    Appendix 0, which is not specified, but Appendix 0.could 9    stand the way it is, the way this policy is written.      Now n
10    it is in Appendix M. There is, I believe, a 10-year period; 11    you have to build it within 10 years.
12              'MR. WYLIE:  We could add that.
13                MR. SIESS:  I think you could expand that second
[~)
s_
l 14    sentence to say that a NUREG is being published and this 15    will include much of the other options other than the 16    reference design, we will discuss other options, scope of 17    the standard design, et cetera, et cetera; just a little 18    more expansion. I think by doing that it will call 19    attention to it better, because then you explain in the 20    NUREG, this together with the NUREG is really the 21    replacement for the previous policy statement. I think 22    that's important.
23                MR. WYLIE:  They asked for comments also on the 24    outline of the NUREG.
25 l              MR. STESS:  Gocd outline. I am looking forward (2)                                                                                          i I                                                                            :
i          ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                  ,
I            x.m.m          s.c_m c_:.        -                        t
 
27758.0                                                                                                    136  '
cox CE)      I  to reading it.        Find out what~the severe accident policy I
2  and all of that stuff is.                                                                            l i
I 3                MR. WYLIE:      These are just topics here, I guess.
4                MR. SIESS:      Yes, almost section headings.
5  Design, scope and detail.
6                I would think, looking at the outline that 7  almost transition option stuff would be pretty much from 8  Appendix 0 in the previous policy statement.
9                MR. SCALETTI:      With the exception like the 10  reference system concept.
11                MR. SIESS:      Reactivation?
12                MR. SCALETTI:      That may be removed, I am not m
        ):    13  sure.
14                MR. SIESS:      That's okay.
~
15                MS. SCALETTI:      There is a policy being written, 16  and maybe this will be taken out as NUREG, but there is 17  some changes to the reference system concept and has put 18  significant changes, as was previously provided for in '78.
19  Duplication and replication are pretty consistent.
20                MR. SIESS:      Changes in reference system concept, 21  why, because of the certification approach?
22                MR. SCALETTI:      No.      Certification was an option 23 j previously not certified in the '78 policy statement.                                            But I
;            24  the '78 policy statement, as I specified, said before, l
25  authorized FTA ls and FTA 2s to be approved and the PDA (1)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                                                -
202 347-3700        Nationwide Coserage    800 336-6646
 
27758.0                                                                                  137 CoX                                                                                            ,
l 1  process. Those are changing.
2                  MR. SIESS:    Where does the term get mentioned?
3  Does that get discussed at all?
4                  MR. SCALETTI:            What term?
5                  MR. SIESS:    Term of the license.
6                  MR. SCALETTI:            That would be discussed in one of 7  them under the subheadings.                  Well, it's addressed 8  specifically in -- I can't remember what.
9                  MR. SIESS:    It will be there somewhere.                  It may 10  be under renewals.        I think it's addressed under the 11  options that are so specified.
12                  MR. SIESS:    The rulemaking options.                  Is that (s/ )    13  something?
14                  MR. SCALETTI:            The rulemaking options you have 15  seen before, we have recommended that the simple noticing 16  comment not be a viable option because we didn't believe it
  !          17  afforded adequate public participation, so if they agree 18  with that, there are really four options.
4 19                  Three options.            We would wait and see whether an 20 I application is received before you determine what 21  alternative you want to use.
22                  MR. SIESS:    The one you eliminated was C?
23                  MR. SCALETTI:            No, A.
24                  MR. WYLIE:    I had a memo from Forrest Remming 25  here. He said, he suggested a paragraph in our letter on ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l              202-347 3700            Nationwide Coserage    800-136-6646
 
i 27758.0                                                                              138 cox                                                                                          l r
1  this statement.        Says "it is our understanding that the                  i 2  associated NUREG will address rulemaking options for 3  standard design certification."
l 4              If his informed comment is to be obtained during                    j l
5  the public comment period, we think it's important that the 6  options are defined in some detail.                  For example, we think 7  that the criteria goes for standing, and interest for 8  participation in various hearings should be made clear.
9              MR. SIESS:        At this stage all you are going to              I 10  do in the NUREG is present the options?
11              MR. SCALETTI:        Tho' is what we had planned to do.
12  The ones you had seen previously, Charles had mentioned to
()      13  me in the last meeting.
14              Clearly, the opportunity to participate is 15  spelled out in part 2, the regulations.                    I would have to--
16  someone from ELD would have to. write this up and include it.
17  I don't have a problem with it.
18              MR. SIESS:        There's a very interesting thing in 19  here about the ACRS's role.            "ACRS should be given an 20  opportunity to review the complete recoro of a hearing."
21              MR. MICHELSON:          All 30 volumes.
22              MR. SIESS:        It was Indian Point where we either 23  could not review it or did not have the opportunity.                    Six 24  members got upset about it.            Did we review the record on 25  the ECCS hearing; do you know?
(a's t
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                              -
i            202 347-3700        Nationwide Coserage            m>33MM6
 
i i
i 27758.0                                                                                            139          '.
CoX 1                  It says we'd be given an opportunity.                            I don't 2  guess we can argue with that.                "ACRS review of the design 3  should be performed prior to a review of the rulemaking 4  itself."    That's what we are doing right now.
5                  MR. SCALETTI:      FTA would be a prerequisite for 6  rulemaking.
7                  MR. SIESS:    We can, by direction of the 8  Commission or its own discretion, hold one or more public 9  hearings on the design.          That's nothing more than what we 10  would do during our review, I assume.                        I don't know why 11  that is a separate.
12                  MR. SCALETTI:      You are reading from what page?
    .n
    .( )        13                  MR. SIESS:    Yes, page -- rulemaking options, 14  last paragraph.
15                  MR. SCALETTI:      Under the role of the ACRS?
16                  MR. SIESS:    Yes.      I guess that was written by a 17  law engineer.
18                  MR. SCALETTI:      It was.
19                  MR. SIESS:    It says we can have our usual type 20  of hearing, then that tends to tie it back to the 21  rulemsking hearing, see.          Which hearings would be more 22  limited in scope than shows suggested in options B and C 23  above.
l 24                  MR. SIESS:    That would be what we would normally 25  do prior to rulemaking.          I guess in my process of reviewing r-      .
Q.\)                                                                                          .
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
;                  ;              202-347 3700      Nationwide Coserage                800 336-6M6
 
.                                                                                          1 27758.0                                                                        140 cox i
b)
  \/        1 the record, we might do some more of that.
2              MR. MICHELSON:        I would like to ask one question 3 on the opening of the policy statement itself, of the 4 Commission, the first paragraph that we are suggesting they 5 use. They talk there about enhancing safety reliability 6 and availability.        Is there a difference between 7 reliability and availability?
8              MR. WYLIE:      I guess, reliability could be --
9              MR. SIESS:      If you are down six months for 10 maintenance every year, that's available but not reliable.
11              MR. MICHELSON:      My concern is the Agency is not 12 really supposed to worry about economic things.                They are
( };      13 supposed to relate to safety.            I can relate safety in my 14 mind without too much trouble.
15              MR. SCALETTI:      NEPA required those two 16 cost / benefit analyses.      To consider this, you have to 17 strike a cost / benefit policy.
18              MR. MICHELSON:      Are we trying to write a policy?
19              MR. SCALETTI:      Standardization policy would 20 enhance it.
21              MR. MICHELSON:        Is that our role here?              g 22              MR. SIESS:      I read it as words to the industry 23 as to why it ought to be interesting.
24              MR. MICHELSON:        I don't disagree; they ought to.
25 When I try to equate those safety and reliability, I have                    .
I (2)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                      -
202-347 3700      Nationwide Coserage    800-336-%M
 
27758.0                                                              141 cox                                                                        l
    /~T                                                                          i 52        1 no problem. When I equate safety and availability, I have 2 a real problem.
3            MS. SCALETTI:    We do have to address it under-4 our NEPA review.
5            MR. SIESS:    It's not a requirement; it's telling 6 the industry what policy is, what they ought to do.      It's 7 good for them, too. I think that's a legitimate policy 8 statement.
9            MR. SCALETTI:    Cost and benefits, and if you 10 can't determine a benefit that would outweigh the 11 environmental impacts, then you cannot, you can't say it's 12 acceptable.
{}        13            MR. MICHELSON:      You are using availability in 14 the cost / benefit analysis.
15            MR. SCALETTI:    We always have in the past 16 determined what the availability -- however -- amount of 17 megawatts you are going to generate in a year.              ,
18            MR. MICHELSON:      Did you really try to do 19 cost / benefit on this?
20            MR. SCALETTI:    We have on all --
21            MR. MICHELSON:      I mean on this document.
22            MR. WYLIE:    Off-site averted costs would 23 certainly be of benefit to the utilities.
24            MR. MICHELSON:      Availability is not dealing with 25 off-site averted costs. You are trying to struggle a O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                              -
202 347 3700    Nationwide Coverage  8013%M
 
27758.0                                                                                    142              ,
CoX                                                                                                              1
(--      1 little bit.
2            MR. SIESS:          If the Commission were requiring 1
3 son.e thing , they shouldn't justify it on any basis other 4 than public health and safdty.                    There is a little more to 5 it than that; but they are not requiring this, they are 6 stating a policy of encouraging it.                    And I think if you are 7 encouraging somebody to do something to hold out and to 8 remind them it's their benefit, too, it's not out of line.
9            MR. REED:          I would like to make a statement if 10 you guys are about worn out.                I have been listening to this 11 today. I am not a member of this subcommittee, but I keep 12 drifting in.
()      13            MR. WYLIE:          I noticed you drifting in and 14 drifting out.
    ;,    15            MR. REED:          I have been at other subcommittee 16 meetings. What we are talking about when we are talking 17 about this policy of standardization, is that we are going 18 to allow and have for, at least in this country, four 19 standardized, essentially complete reactor designs.                            We are 20 not really going to have a standardized PWR or standardized 21 BWR because there's only one vendor.
22            MR. WYLIE:          Not nationally.                                                      I l
23            MR. REED:          If we get the Japanese to selling                                      ,
i 24 reactors, we will have five standardized reactor designs.
25 If Framatone comes in, we will have six.
o U                                                                                                          ;
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                                                -
202 347 3*00            Nationwide Coserage        800-336-6M6
 
II I l 27758.0    '
143 cox                                                                              ,
O        1                MR. SIESS:  How did you get four?
2                MR. REED:  Combustion, 3&W, Westinghouse and 3  General Electric.
4                MR. SIESS:  B&W is out of business.
5                MR. MICHELSON:  I don't know that I would agree 6  with that.
7                MR. CARBON:  Glenn has good things to say; let's 8  listen.
9                MR. REED:  This bothers me because I think we 10  should be working towards some standardization of some 11  systems and components that eventually, if we were to 12  standardize some systems aspects of the PWR, say, which I
      -()      13  know more about than the BWR; if we were to standardize 14  those things and let nature take its course, we would 15  arrive at a standardized BWR and arrive at it sensibly 16  because it arrived through design improvement and so on and 17  so forth, rather than coming out with an essentially 18  complete plan and get four designs by each vendor. Old Ben 19  Franklin said at one time, I guess, "Take care of the 20  pennies and the dollars will take care of themselves."
21                I think what we should be focusing on is 22  standardizing systems. For instance, I can't believe that 23  there shouldn't be three ways of controlling pressure
!              24  relief on a PWR. Nothing on Combustion engineering, lots 25  of something on Westinghouse and very little on B&W. On (2)        I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                            -
I            . :o .m..        s.e_u. m..:.        mu-
 
                                                                                                                                                          !l 27758.0                                                                                                                      144 I
CoX l'
        /~                                                                                                                                                      '
'      \s)                1  the other hand, I will point out something to you, control 2    rod drives on PWRs are now standardized.                                                    They are all 3  magnetic jacks.                How come?        We could standardize that 4    component, and it's very important from a systematic point i
5  of view; it's a sealed component, hermetically sealed.                                                                      '
6    It's gravity fall; it has all the nice features.
7                          MR. WYLIE:        B&W --
8                          MR. REED:    They make their own but it's still a 9  . magnetic jack it's hermetically sealed; very little 10      difference.
11                            If we can move and yet there were shaft-type 12      control rod drives such as on Consumers Power, Palisade, so l()              13    on, if we can standardize a component like'that, I think we 14      should work towards standardizing systems first, get o
15      systems standardized saying there should or should not be 16      emergency depressurization on PWR, pass that hurdle, make 17      that hard decision; we keep floating around and allowing it 18      to be unstandardized.                    So my vote is that a standardization
;                      19      policy should not be talking about essentially complete 20      plant at this stage.                  It should be talking about 21      standardized system's at this stage and trying to get some                                                                      i 4
l                      22      standardization on so you know what transient response is.
23      You might want to standardize the inventory on-second site 1
24      steam generator so you don't have this whipsawing i
25      transients we get in some reactors.
i                                                                                                                                                      i-i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                                                                -
202                  Nationwide Coserage                                800 336-6M6
                              - , . - _ _ - , - , 347 3700..        -.-        . _ _ . _ - . - _ . . , -- . , - - , _
                                                                                                                                              ~ . - . .
 
27758.0                                                                            145 i COX                                                                                    ,
O
      /      1                MR. SIESS:  Glenn, you talk about              "we."
2  Standardization of the type that's being talked about in 3  the policy statement, "we" is the industry.                How do we get 4  the industry to standardize on systems?
5                MR. REED:  Wel1, if you can standardize on an 6  essentially complete plant, their own.
7                MR. SIESS:  They are taking the initiative there.
8  NRC is not requiring the industry standardize on a complete 9  plant.
10                MR. WYLIE:  If you take that approach, the 11  policy statement, the goal is to have all standardized BWRs, 12  and all standardized PWRs.
      }
13                MR. SIESS:  What Glenn is saying, I thought, was 14  that we should ask them to have a standardized RHR system 15  or a standardized ECCS system.
16                MR. REED:  Or depressurization system.
17                MR. SIESS:  But how do you get the industry to 18  standardize?
19                MR. MICHELSON:      To my way of seeing what he is 20  saying, we really ought to start focusing on what might 21  improve light water reactor designs and then standardize 22  those approved reactor designs, and design standardization 23  is not saying a word about improving anything.                    They are 24  saying we ought to do it the same.                That's the only thrust 25  of this document is everybody should do it the same, and (2)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700      Nationwide Coserage        80).336-66M
 
l                                                                              !
27758.0                                                                              146    '
cox                                                                                        l 1    not necessarily are we asking for improvement.
2                MR. SIESS:      We are not saying they should be the 3    same. We are saying somebody should design a plant that 4    everybody could build the same.              We are going to talk 5    Thursday about improved systems.              We have reviewed two o
6    proposed standard designs and they have certainly improved.
7    Whether they are the ones we want or Glenn wants or Jesse 8    wants, I don't know.      I have a feeling if we could improve 9    everything everybody around this table wants we wouldn't 10    have to worry about improving containments, because that's 11    another point.
12 -              But again, the Commission's policy statement is
    /A_sI    13    in effect, I think, encouraging something that the industry 14    is already doing.      So how would the Commission get the 15    industry to do standard RHR, blowdown and so forth?                  They 16    would have to require it.        Some form.
17                What form of encouragement could they offer?                  I 18    don't think they can encourage it because the incentives 19    that are in the standard plant wouldn't be there.
20                MR. CARBON:      But they could require sabotage 21    protection, blowdown, inventory. .
22                MR. SIESS:      We have required an ECCS.
23                MR. MICHELSON:        Are these comments, though, that 24    should be made concerning standardization or are these                        ;
25    comments that should be made concerning improving power ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700      Nationwide Coverage          304336-6M6
 
4 27758.0                                                                      147
(          l plant design?
2            MR. WYLIE:        I think it ought to be done as 3 advance plants.
4            MR. MICHELSON:        Advance plants improved LWR or 5 something but not under the standardization issuo.
6            As I see it, you don't have to do any improving 7 to standardize.        I don't know of any statement in the 8 policy that says you have to improve, but it says you do 9 have to standardize.
10            MR. SIESS:        It says we think they will lead to.
11            MR. MICHELSON:          I don't disagree with that, but 12 no requirement that they change this or that.
([ )      13            MR. SIESS:        Let's face it, we have seen a couple 14 and they have done a lot of improvements; even some that 15 didn't mean adding something on.
16            MR. MICHELSON:          I think I could come up with a 17 standard design that has no improvements, and as long as it 18 meets the requirements and goes through all the hurdles, it 19 could come out the other end.
20            MR. SCALETTI:        GSAR would have met all the 21 requirements without the improvements that were put forth 22 by GE ar.d requested by the Staf f at the end.
23            MR. MICHELSON:          GSAR I have in mind between GSAR 24 2 and advance boiler.        You don't have to put the advance 25 boiler in to get standard certification.            I could get ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                    -
202-347-3700        Nationwide Coverage  800-336-6646
 
27758.0                                                                                148 CoX          l                                                                                ;
I
()          l  certification on GSAR, too, I think.              If GE wanted to,        "/
i i
2  could get GSAR certified.        Yet they have in their hip                    l 3  pocket a much better design.          There is nothing that sc 4  you can't certify GSAR too because they think you hav; 5  something better in the wings.
I 6              MR. SCALETTI:    You can't say it's a better 7  design until you have reviewed it.              We haven't reviewed it c
8  yet. We know very little about the design.
9              MR. MICHELSON:      You have no requirements that 10    people come in with better designs get certified.
11                MR. SCALETTI:    You have to define what a better 12    design is.                                                            -
()      13                MR. MICHELSON:      I think Glenn is saying though --
14                MR. SIESS:    Let's go back one step.              You have to 15    know what a better design is.
16                MR. MICHELSON:      What Glenn is suggesting is 17    improvements.
18                MR. REED:    I don't see how you people can 19    leapfrog jump into an essentially complete plant without 20    standardizing some of the systems for the PWR.
21                MR. SCALETTI:    Essentially complete plants will 22    standardize the systems.
23                MR. REED:    You will have three different 24    proposals. You will have the CEs without PORVs --
25                MR. SIESS:    Right now that is what the Staff is ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                            -
202-347 3700      Nationwide Coserage        800-336-6M6
 
27758.0                                                                    149 cox l
(%
(-)      1 working to.      If we want to talk about improved reactors, we I
2 are going to talk about it Thursday.
3              MR. REED:  How does it meet the standardization 4 goal of approved safety if we are not going to do it for 5 the essentially complete plant?
6              MR. SIESS:    I don't think the policy statement 7 says this will automatically improve safety.
                          ~
8              MR. REED:  I thought it said something about 9 reliability.
10              MR. WYLIE:  'Yes.
11              MR. MICHELSON:      By the process of 12 standardization you are supposed to be enhancing safety f      13 even though you change nothing in the design.
14              MR. WYLIE:    I think it will be a safer plant.
15 You will review them earlier.            But I think the difference 16 is in the magnitude of improved safety.            The things you are 17 talking about are quantum jumps in safety, whereas the 18 things we are talking about here in the standardization 19 plan is small increments.
20              MR. REED:  You want to snail pace it.
21              MR. SIESS:  We will know what we want after 22 Thursday. That's an optimistic statement if I ever heard i
23 one.                                                                            1 24              MR. WYLIE:    If you had a four-train dedicated 25 heat removal system to a plant, you would obviously improve n
v                                                                                      .
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS INC.                                            !
202-347 3700      Nationside Coserage    800-336-Em
 
i i  ,
i 27758.0                                                                                                                                        150 cox
[                                                                                                                                              :  ,
j
  !                                          I  safety by a long shot.
2                MR. SIESS:                      No.
3                MR. MICHELSON:                            I think Glenn's thoughts are 4  good thoughts.
t 5                MR. REED:                      Another great big part you should 6  think about is containment.                              Doesn't seem to me that everyone 7  should have his or her containment.
8                MR. WYLIE:                      Are we through?                        Thank you.
9                (Whereupon, at 6:05 p.m., the meeting was 10  concluded.)                                                                                                                                  i 11 12 i
13 14                                                                                                                                                i 15 0
16 17 18
{
i 19
:                                            20 t
l                                          21 I
:                                          22 i
j                                            23
  !                                          24
;                                            25 i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                                                                                          -
202 347-3700                          Nationwide Coverage                        800-336-6646
 
CERTTFTCATR OF OPPTCIAL REPORTER O
This  is  to certify that the attached proceedings before the  UNITED  STATES  NUCLEAR  REGULATORY    COMMISSION  in  the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING:      ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMPROVED LIGHTWATER REACTOR DESIGN DOCKET NO.:                                                            1 l
PLACE:                  WASHINGTON, D. C.
DATE:                    TUESDAY,' AUGUST 5, 1986 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission,                                                j l
(sigt)                    f#
(TYPED)
CRAIG L. NOWLES              j official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Reporter's Affiliation O
 
CERTIFICATE OF OFFTCTAT, REPORTER O
This  is to certify that the attached proceedings                before the  UNITED    STATES    NUCLEAR    REGULATORY      COMMISSION in  the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING:          ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMPROVED LIGHTWATER REACTOR DESIGN DOCKET NO.:
PLACE:                      WASHINGTON, D. C.
DATE:                        TUESDAY, AUGUST 5, 1986 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(sigt            .
M (TYPEb)                h WENDY S. COX Official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Reporter's Affiliation
 
> t f#7 COMPARISON OF APRIL 10TH AND MAY 14, 1986 O                '
POLICY STATEMENTS I!
0 APRIL 10, 1986 SECY DRAFT
: 1.    (a)NRCPolicy: (No clear statement of NRC policy is made) Goal of standardization is stated in discussion of " Reference System Design Certification;" i.e.,:
                    "The goal of standardization should be an essentially complete plant design package, covering plant design, construction, and quality assur-ance programs which then can be referenced for individual plant applica-tions."
NRR REVISED DRAFT POLICY STATEMENT OF MAY 14, 1986 (b) NRC Policy:
                    " Standardized nuclear power plants should be used to satisfy the ulti-mate licensing goal of certified designs constructed on pre-approved sites.
April 10, 1986 O  2.    (a) Not included                                                    .
May 14, 1986 (b) "This policy statement supersedes the Commission's previous policy on standardization issued in 1978."
memmemmemememmememememememme_emememmemee_mememememme_eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeemme April 10, 1986
: 3.      (a) Reference to NUREG-XXXX for details of the issues and topics that are important to the execution of this policy.
May 14, 1986 (b) Reference to NUREG-XXXX f,or deta.ils of the issues and topics that are important to the execution of'thfs policy, other short-term licensing transition options and applications not referencing a certified design.
memmememememememememememe_memmemmemememmemmememememmememememmemmemememmemme 9
O
 
s
. Comparisons / April 10                    2 and May 14, 1986 O
April 10,'1986                                                                            3
: 4.    (a) Same as NRR 5/14/86 draft except would " embody" standardization of              -
construction and quality assurance as well as designs whenever NRR's draft would " encourage" the areas listed.
May 14, 1986 (b) The focus of this policy is the reference systems design certification concept for an essentially complete plant except for site-specific interfaces which:
: a. Would require standardization of nuclear power plant design, and
: b. Would strongly encourage standardized
                  -    procurement construction installation
                  -    quality assurance practices
                  -    training
                    -    emergency operating procedures O                -    meiateaeace procedures April 10,1986                                .
: 5.    (a) Essentially same as NRR 5/14/86 draft May 14, 1986 (b) Discussion of the detriments of "one-of-a-kind" approach to reactor design.
April 10,1986                        -
a  s
: 6.    (a)Essentiallysame"NRR 5/14/1986 draft May 14, 1986                                                                                .
(b)Discussionofthebenefitsofstandardizationtoimprovingpublic health and safety.
O
 
4 _  --.-.J                                    --+L.                              A 44 M  ,L  -- a-- - _ _ :
i i
Comparisons / April 10                                                        3                                  i and May 14, 1986                                                                                                ,
O
_________ ________________________________________________________.._________                                j April 10,- 1986                                                                                              -
(a)EssentiallysameasNRR5/14/86 draft 7.
May 14, 1986 (b) Statement of the consistency of standardization policy with other Comission Policy Statements:
j                              -        Severe Accident Policy Statement Safety Goals Advanced reactors April 10, 1986
: 8.        (a) Essentially same as NRR 5/14/86 draft May 14, 1986 (b) Discussion of advantages versus disadvantages of standardization O                      with statement that the Comission's position is that the enhanced safety outweights the disadvantages.                                    '
I April 10, 1986                                    ,
: 9.        (a) Essentially same as NRR 5/14/86 draft May 14, 1986 (b) Statement of the goal of standardization should be an essentially
{'
complete plant design, both with respect to scope and level of detail, which then can be referenced in individual license j                              applications.
w s
!          April 10, 1986
: 10.      (a) Essentially same as NRR 5/14/86 draft                                                          .
i May 14, 1986                                                                                                -
1 O
 
    . Comparisons / April 10                                                              4 and May 14, 1986 O
(b) ' Description of design certification by rulemaking and the use                      '
i thereof, to include.                                                              -
design acceptability by reference in licensing application
                                .            design reviews by staff, ACRS Hearing Boards and Comission.
April 10, 1986
: 11.          (a) Essentially same as NRR 5/14/85 draft May 14, 1986 (b) Commission belief that standardization enhances safety and improves stability and predictability in the regulatory process.
April 10,1986
: 12.          (a) Essentially same as NRR 5/14/1986 draft O "ar 14. 1986                                                                                    -
(b) Rulemaking to obtain the Design Certification would cover the criteria necessary for the final design of the plant and should include:
                                                                  ~
construction criteria quality assurance program necessary tests, analysis and inspection criteria to assume that the plant is built within the certified design specifica-tions.
April 10, 1986
: 13.        (a) Essentially same as NRR 5/14/86 draft
                                                                                      '-      i.\ \
May 14, 1986                                                                                                )
                                                                                                                ~
(b)          Issues completely addressed in the design certification will not be _
                              -subject to litigation in individual 'icensing proceedings.                      .
i O
 
  . Comparisons / April 10                                                        5 and May 14, 1986 O                    -
April 10,1986                                                                                                1 (a) Essentially same as NRR 5/14/86
: 14.                                                                                                          r May 14, 1986                                                                  -
(b) Issues not included in the design certifications rulemaking and the adequacy of satisfactory of interface requirerents may be litigated in subsequent individual plant licensing proceedings.
April 10,1986
: 15.        (a) Essentially same as NRR 5/19/86 draft May 14, 1986 (b) Application of the back-fit rule for proposed NRC modifications to certified designs.
O  aprii to. 1988
: 16.        (a) Essentially same as NRR 5/14/86 draft May 14, 1986 (b) Holders of certifications may modify the certified design by                                            1 applying for'an amendment to the rule.                                                              ;
l April 10,1986 l
: 17.        (a) Essentially same as NRR 5/14/86 draft except NRR draft added proviso "provided the design is found in compliance with the Connissions current regulations."
May 14, 1986                                                          '
                                                                                        ^ N (b) Design Certification issued for 10 year term with an additional 10                              -
years renewal provided the design is found to comply with the                              _
_. Commission's current regulations.                                                      _
9 O
l
                                                                                            . . _ . . - - . -- -        .. - .}}

Latest revision as of 03:34, 30 December 2020

Transcript of ACRS Subcommittee on Improved LWR Design 860805 Meeting in Washington,Dc.Pp 1-150.Supporting Documentation Encl
ML20205C662
Person / Time
Issue date: 08/05/1986
From:
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
To:
References
ACRS-T-1540, NUDOCS 8608120433
Download: ML20205C662 (159)
v • d • e


Text

- - - - - - -

ORIGINg> _

W -l5 0 g UNITED STAIES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO:

ADVISORY COOIITTEE CN REACTOR SAFEGUARD 3 SUBCOM ITTE 05 IIPROVED LlGHTWATER REACTOR DESIGN wen:

9&

o'g 2 8

m rn

$p m3

  • O m 8 cn

$NE & 2 5$5 m

?

V["n

" E G

S l- '

LOCATION: WASHINGTON, D. C. PAGES: 1 - 150 DATE: TUESDAY, AUGUST 5, 1986 IIRSOFR3EC0Ff 30 Nodemove l rom AORS09 ice ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

(

8 Cficia' Rqcrurs 444 North Capitol Street Wasbingten. D.C. 20001

,ng1;oc.33 a50005 (202) 347-3700 f,c n s ,,

540 NATIONWIDE COVE? AGE

l 1 i l

G 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3

4 5

6 Advisory Committee on Reactor Saf eguards 7 SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMPROVED LIGHTWATER REACTOR DESIGN 8

9 10 11 August 5, 1986 Washington, D.C.

12 4 -13 PRESENT:

Dr. Charles J. Nylie, Member.

14 Dr. Dade W. Moeller, Member.

Dr. Glenn A. Reed, Member.

- _ 15 Dr. C. P. Siess, Member.

Dr. Carlyle Michelson, Member. ,

16 Dr. Max W. Carbon, Member l l

l 17 j l

18 19 20 21 22 l 23 3c 24 w 25  !

I ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Washington, D.C. (202) 347-3700

PUBLIC NOTICE BY THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONERS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS TUESDAY, AUGUST 5, 1986 The contents of this stenographic transcript of the proceedings of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), as reported herein, is an uncorrected record of the discussions recorded at the meeting held on the above date.

No member of the ACRS Staff and no participant at this meeting accepts any responsibility for errors or inaccuracies of statement or data contained in this transcript.

e 0

. . . - .- - - ~

2 1 P R O C E E D I N G S: I dCb~N l

() 2 (2:10 p.m.)

3 DR. WYLIE: Suppose we get started. This is a 4 meeting of the Improved Lightwater Reactor Design 5 Subcommittee, and your main mission today is to review the 6 drafts of the Commission's standardization policy statement 7 toward the objective of coming up with an ACRS letter 8 regarding those.

9 We have available today members of the staf f, 10 Dino Scaletti and Dave Moran to answer any questions 11 regarding the staff's version.

12 We have a member of AIF here that could .

() f 13 possibly give us some answers to questions concerning the 14 AIF work that we have had presentations on.

15 We have had several meetings of the 16 subcommittee on the subject of nuclear power standardization 17 within the past year.

18 We heard f rom the industry about their work 19 toward advanced plant designs and proposals regarding 20 standardization, principally EPRI and the AIF study group on 21 plant standardization.

22 We met with the staff on several occasions 23 regarding their proposed draft revisions to the Commission's

.q- 24 197 8 standardization policy statement.

25 In preparation for the July 9th meeting of this l

ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Washington, D.C. (202) 347-3700

i 3 j I subcommittee, members of the subcommittee were sent backup i 2 information which included the several drafts of the h

3 proposed revisions dating back to I believe it was early 4 December, wasn't it? December.

5 Then the latest versions of the Commission, I 6 believe OPE, version of April 10. Then the NRR version of 7 May 14.

8 Principally, it's the Commission draft of 4-10 9 and NRR version of May 14 we are considering today.

10 In his memo the Chairman proposed comments on

,. 11 the policy statement and proposed draf t outline of the 12- implementation, NUREG.

Uhh , 13 As I mentioned, there are two drafts available.

'14 The commission draft of April 10 and the NRR draft of May 15 14.

16 I don't know. Does everyone have those? I 17 assume they were --

18 What we would like to accomplish is to review 19 these and come up with a letter to the Commission for the 20 ACRS to consider regarding these draf ts. I 21 In preparation for today's meeting, we had an 22 earlier comparison of the two draf ts. There was a letter 23 sent out on July 10 by John McKinley in which he compared 24 the two draf ts. I think all ACRS members received that 25 letter.

l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Washington, D.C. (202) 347-3700

4 1 There he made a comparison and he pointed out h2 several areas that were found in the NRR version that was 3 not in the Commission's version.

4 Also, I prepared a comparison which you should 5 have which addresses the pertinent points in the NRR and 6 April 10 version point by point for consideration. I would 7 suggest that our procedure this afternoon be to go through 8 these points and to see if anyone has any comments regarding 9 those.

10 DR. CARBON: Are you referring to this

.11 five-page document?

12 DR. WYLIE : Yes.

)h 13 DR. CARBON: Comparison, April 10?

14 DR. WYLIE: That is it, yes.

15 DR. SEISS: Charlie, there were three drafts of 16 this thing. We are just going to look at the last two?

17 DR. WYLIE: Yes. The earlier one, you are 18 talking about the December draft, I suppose?

19 DR. SEISS: Yes.

20 DR. WYLIE : Yes.

21 DR. SEISS: All right.

22 DR. WYLIE: The December draft was discussed by 23 the Commission with NRR. They were sent back and requested, 24 I think, to come up with another draf t; is that right?

25 MR. SCALETTI: The Commission requested or l

ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Washington, D. C. (202) 347-3700

5 1 i

1 charged the OPE, their assistants and NRR to come up with j

5) x  !

"'(] 2 another consensus amongst themselves. That is what the I 3 April 10 policy statement is.

4 DR. SEISS: That had NRR involvement?

5 MR. SCALETTI: It was intended to have NRR 6 involvement in it, but it got to be just OPE and Commission 7 assistance.

8 DR. SEISS: Then the May would be essentially 9 the one with NRR involvement.

10 MR. SCALETTI: April 10 they sent a SECY

-11 memorandum saying here are some of our comments and here are 12 the draf t policies.

j 13 We would 1.ike policies. We would like you to 14 think about these other items.

. 15 We thought about them, came cack with a revised 16 policy statement which was May 14 to include other concerns 17 the Commission had in the memorandum.

18 DR. SEISS: Now coi'ld you summarize briefly 19 what was wrong with the December work that the Commission 20_ didn't like? What it had that they didn't want in it or 21 what it didn'.t have they wanted in it?

22 MR. SCALETTI: It had too much I believe. They 23 wanted just a broad statement of policy.

i gs 24 DR. SEISS: So that was broken down --

25 MR. SCALETTI: Implementing NUREG, correct.

l

, ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Washington, D.C. (202) 347-3700

6 1 DR. WYLIE: I might add to that, I understand, 6*

~

2 maybe Dino can comment on this, I understand the Commission 3 ,

in the draft they prepared with OPE, The Commission's 4 assistance and OPE, that they made an attempt to write a 5 policy statement that was simple and their intent was to 6 make it very simple in understanding so anyone could read 7 and understand it, members of the public, whoever. That is 8 my understanding.

9 MR. SCALETTI: That's correct. And only to 10 address the ultimate goal of standardization.

11 DR. WYLIE: Yes.

12 MR. SCALETTI: Design certification.

(: '13 DR. WELIE: Yes.

14 DR. SEISS: Charlie, your hand-out here, the 15 numbers refer to the paragraphs in standardization?

16 DR. WYLIE: No. I numbered those just for 17 reference. That doesn't --

18 Number 1 doesn't, it starts at the beginning 19 and I walk through the draf t and just picked out the 20 pertinent points.

21 DR. SEISS: The quotes are actually from the 22 draf t?

23 DR. WELIE: Some are -- if they are quotes, l

3r) 24 they are out of the draf t. Yes. I R) 25 DR. CARBON: Charlie, would you straighten mc ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Washington, D.C. (202) 347-3700

7 1 out on something?

2 Supposedly in Herman's letter it says the h

3 Chairman asked us to prepare, consider both the April 10, 4 '86 and May 14, '86 versions.

5 Actually, the chairman's letter said the August 6 10 --

7 MR. ALDERMAN: I think t'. tere was a 8 typographical error in the chairman's letter.

9 DR. WYLIE: Well, there may or may not be.

10 DR. SEISS: August 10, April 10, had to be.

11 . DR. CARBON: No, August 10, '85.

12 DR. WYLIE: Yes, I saw that.

}fh - 13 ' DR. SEISS: But there wasn't any August 10,

' [ 14 '85.

. 15 DR. CARBON: Well, I sure don't know of any.

16 DR. WYLIE: I don't think there was, was there?

17 MR. SCALETTI: Not to my knowledge.

18 DR. WYLIE: I think that was an error.

+

19 MR. ALDERMAN: I think it was a typographical 20 error in there.

21 DR. SEISS: NRR has not had, during the May l 22 draf t you did not have any collaboration with the authors of 23 the April draft?

l e 'N 24 MR. SCALETTI: We did. We met with each, four SEk_) l 25 of the five Commission assistants to discuss some of the l l

l ACD FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Washington, D.C. (202) 347-3700

8 1 comments on what we perceived to be some of the major Q"( . ) 2 concerns of the policy statement. Howev e r , they had no 3 direct input into our May 10 other than our discussions with 4 them that preceded it.

5. DR. SEISS: I was trying to see if we could 6 narrow it down to just looking at one of them.

7 DR. WELIE: I think you could look, my personal 8 opinion, I am not saying it because NRR is here, but I think 9 that the NRR draf t is more coherent, proceeds logically, I

.10 think, than the other one. But both, if you look through 11 here --

12 DR. SEISS: I don't see that many substantive

'i 13 differences.

14 DR. WILIE : There's not that much difference, c0 } 15 except there are some differences. We could point those 16 out.

17 If you look at John McKinley's analysis on July  !

18 10 --  !

19 DR. MICHELSON: Do you have a extra copy of 20 McKinley's letter? I forgot to bring mine with me.

21 DR. WYLIE: We could walk down through this, 1

22 because, if you like. l 23 DR. SEISS: Are why don't we go through your cO 24 list.

Q) 25 DR. WILIE: Why don't we do that. I think it

'1 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ' Washington, D.C. (202) 347-3700  !

9 l

1 will address all the issues. If not, we can pick them up  !

2 anyhow.

3 DR. CARBON: Can I raise a question before we 4 do?

5 DR. WYLIE: Sure.

6 DR. CARBON: It's not clear to me that the 7 policy statements really define what standard designs are.

8 DR. MICH ELSON : That's right.

9 DR. CARBON: Do you want to do anything about 10 that? I don't know really how you have policy --

11 DR. WYLIE: Make it definition, or what the 12 standard plan is, or --

dh 13 DR. CARBON: I don't know.

l I end up'not 14 . feeling that I know what they are talking about.

{', 15 DR. MICHELSON: You are not alone.

16 DR. CARBON: Okay. I can think of several 16

  • 17 things, and I know what I personally would do. And I think 18 Joe Paladino, also -- '

19 DR. WYLIE : That may be a point of l l

20 clarification that should be done. I think I know what I am 21 talking about when I say standardization. I I

22 Well, I think I do because they basically tie l

l 23 it into the certification of the reference system design.

l 24 DR. SEISS: Yes.

}

25 DR. WYLIE: Somewhere that is defined.

l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Washington, D.C. (202) 347-3700

10 i

1 DR. SEISS: Charlie, one of the questions that 2 came up every time we talked about it was -- I mean the l

3 obvious question is standard plan or standard plan design.

4 If it's obviously just a standard plan design, 5 there is nothing standard about a plant, components of one 6 may be different than the components of another. Not 7 interchangeable.

8 DR. WELIE: Different manufacturer.

9 DR. SEISS: Yes. It seems to me the last time 10 we talked about this I got the impression from the staff, 11 it's essentially a standard plant SAR.

p 12 DR. WILIE: That's part of it.

4di< .

if' ) 13 DR. CARBON: I get the impression --

~& ,

'4~

DR. SEISS: Once there is, I guess, I know,

15 whether it's a PSAR or FSAR or something in between is 16 submitted by the staff, reviewed by the staf f, reviewed by 17 the ACRS, there is a commitment that for some length of time 18 those features will not be reviewed again.

19 DR. WYLIE: Ten years, I guess.

20 DR. CARBON: Let me interject here, because I 21 think it's pertinent.

~

22 I get the impression almost that the staff is 23 saying a standard plant is going to be a replica or 3p 3 24 duplicate or something that has already been built.

40%)4 25 DR. MICHELSON: No.

e l

ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Washington, D.C. (202) 347-3700

11 l l

1 DR. SEISS: I did not get that.

2 DR. CARBON: If you look at their standardized 3 policy statement in attachment 5 it comes close.

4 DR. SEISS: You are looking at the attachments.

5 DR. WYLIE: Dino, maybe you can help me. Here 6 it is. It's in the earlier draf t. That is the problem. I 7 don't know whether that was defined.

8 MR. SCALETTI: December?

9 DR. WYLIE: December draf t.

10 MR. SCALETTI: Point of clarification here.

11 The Commission wanted a broad, concise statement of policy.

12 DR. WYLIE: Yes. ,

13 MR. SCALETTI: They wanted a new regular to 14 accompany this policy statement that would document, lay out 15 the implementation requirements for standardization. In 16 their, the various standardization concepts would be defined 17 in that document.

18 DR. WYLIE: Okay.

19 MR. SCALETTI: As they exist now they are the 20 same as we previously had. Certifying that ref erence system I l

21 design would be the ultimate goal of standardization, 22 realizing that this will not take place immediately, they 23 believe a certain period of time should be allowed and l

~

24 certain transition options should be allowed in which we end 25 up having just the basic ref erence system concept without l

~

ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Washington, D. C. (202) 347-3700

12 1 certification, duplication, replication and the tp -

2 manufacturing license.

.3 So these all will be viable options for some 4 interim period of time. This period of time has not been 5 spelled out to date. I don't know if it will be in the 6 NUREG. I am sure it won't be in the policy statement.

7 DR. CARBON: What it is, then, the main thing 8 is design certification concept?

9 MR. SCALETTI: Ref erence system --

10 DR. MICHELSON : It's not certified, though.

. -_11 MR. SCALETTI: The policy statement is directed  !

12 towards the reference system concept certified.

2%

j 113 DR. MICHELSON:- Certification of it.

,.,g ' 14 MR. SCALETTI: Yes.

g rr

-lb[y3r 15 DR. MICHELSON: Which is the next step beyond.

l f 1; . .

16 DR. WYLIE: That's correct.

17 MR. SCALETTI: Yes.

, ,~

.18 DR. MICHELSON: That is what I think appears, 19 it appears to be pitched towards.

20 DR. SEISS: It doesn't even rule out custom 21 plants, does it? "I 22 DR. MICHELSON: No.

23 ME. SCALETTI: No it just addresses -- custom 24 plants are still allowed for in the policy statement. The

25 standardization policy statement would not address that at l

1 .

ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Washington, D.C. (202) 347-3700

~

13 ;

1 all.

h 2 DR. SEISS: Doesn't rule it out.

3 DR. WILIE: Where is the ref erence system 4 concept presently defined?

5 MR. SCALETTI: In Appendix 0, 10 CFR part 50.

6 DR. WELIE: So it's in there?

7 MR. SCALETTI: Yes.

8 DR. WYLIE: Then all of these are already in

,9 there by definition.

10 DR. MICHELSON: Yes.

11 MR. S CALETTI : Also defined in the '78 policy 12 statement.

Mk 13 DR.. CARBON: I am going back to that. In 14 looking at the preliminary NUREG outlines it shows design 15 certification concept, and you just used the words relating 16 that to reference system.

17 Immediately af ter that it talks about the  ;

18 transition options, and the first one is the reference 19 system concept.

l 20 MR. SCALETTI: That alternative is still there, .

l 21 to proceed through only a final design approval and stop 22 there. That would be like a GSAR or CSAR is today. I mean 23 it would stop at that design point.

. 24 DR. SEISS: That is a the Appendix 0.

25 MR. SCALETTI: That would be Appendix 0, ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, IN C .' washington, D.C. (202) 347-3700

14

[7 1 correct.

l kh-)h]) 2 DR. SEISS: Yes.

3 MR. SCALETTI: But Appendix 0 does allow for 4 design certification, also.

5 DR. SEISS: No, it doesn't.

6 MR. SCALETTI: Yes, it does. It says the 7 Commission, upon its own initiative, through its own 8 initiative --

9 DR. EBERSOL E: In the NUREG outline all the

. ~.

10 transition options, there are five things under there.

r 11 Essentially the first four are all things defined in a

R' 12 Appendix O?

,;.m jl l .13 MR. SCALETTI: No, replication is not.

/]Ih: 14 DR. SEISS: It is not?

,2[Ni :-

4
, 15- MR. SCALETTI: No, duplication, manufacturing yo, 16 license and ref erence system concept.

17 DR. SEISS: What is the difference between 18 duplication and replication?

19 MR. SCALETTI: Duplication would be an

. 20 application for plants at different sites by different

21 utilities of a design not previously built.

22 DR. EBERSOLE: Duplication is the Wolf Creek? 1 l

23 MR. SCALETTI: Wolf Creek, Tyrone, Callaway and i

24 those.

25 DR. WELIE: What was it called?

l l

)

ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.- Washington, D.C. (202) 347-3700

15 t

1 MR. SCALETTI: SNPPS.  !

h')

1

( 2 DR. SEISS: SNPPS is duplication. I 3 MR. SCALETTI: St. Lucy, I don't think probably 4 was either, I am not sure. But duplication -- Millstone, 5 Jamesport is a replica of Millstone, I believe. I can tell 6 you. I have a list.

7 DR. SEISS: Duplicate means multiple plants.

8 MR. SCALETTI: Right.

'9 DR. MICHELSON: Not previously built, also.

10 MR. SCALETTI: Right.

11 DR. EBERSOLE: Replica is take another and 12 build it.

'If h h g 13 DR. MICHELSON : Building it.

14 MR. SCALETTI: '7 8 policy statement, prepared 3:

15 five years af tar design was complete and approved in that 16 you could replicate this design again.

17 DR. SEISS: But the SNPPS idea wasn't in 18 Appendix 0 at all?

19 MR. SCALETTI: Yes, it is, duplication.

20 Replication is not in the regulations, it's only in the '78 21 policy statement.

22 DR. SEISS: All right. Duplicate is SNPPS.

23 MR. SCALETTI: Correct.

24 DR. EBERSOLE: Replicate is just, what did you 25 call Brinewood?

l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Washington, D.C. (202) 347-3700

l 16 1 MR. SCALETTI: They are duplicate, also.

h)v '

'i 2 DR. SEISS: Okay.

3 DR. CARBON: Repeat for me what a replicate 4 plan is, then.

5 DR. SEISS: Somebody else's design.

6 MR. SCALETTI: Right, if you wanted to

)

7 construct another Palo Verde or another plant that is 8 already constructed and approved by -- or approved, if you 9 are going to the C P stage.

10 For an operating license a plant would have to 11 have an operating license.

12 Design would have been reviewed and approved by

~$l lg 13 the staff and you come in and say I want to build one j ust c 14 like that. Here is all of my supporting documentation.

g}f ,

15 DR. EBERSOLE : If Arizona power wanted to build 1

16 Palo Verde four and five that would not be a replication?

17 MR. SCALETTI: That is reference system 18 concept.

19 DR. SEISS: If Commonwealth came in and said 20 they wanted to build Palo Verde four and five at Champaign, j 21 that would be a replicate, different utility?

l 22 MR. SCALETTI: Depends on what they referenced. 4 23 If they referenced the as built Palo Verde design, that is a 24 replicate plant. If they ref erence the CSAR system it could 25 be a combination of both.

l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Washington, D.C. (202) 347-3700

l 17 ! l

1 I l 1 DR. EB ERSOLE : Okay. Don't complicate it. I  : )

2 am just going to take somebody else's plant and build one 3 just like it.

4 MR. SCALETTI: That in most cases would be 5 replication.

6 DR. SEISS: Replication.

7 DR. WYLIE: Your intent to take the enclosure 8 that was in the December letter on, that basically spells 9 out all the inclusions in the NUREG --

10 MR. SCALETTI: Basically, yes.

11 DR. SEISS: We are looking at the table of 12 contents.

13 DR. WYLIE: This is the December draft 14 enclosure 1 of that basically spells out all the diff erent 15 concepts.

16 DR. EBERSOLE: Yes.

17 DR. WYLIE: Definitions.

18 DR. MICHELSON: Enclosure 1 actually was the 19 policy statement which you are rewriting enclosure 1 of 20 December.

21 DR. WYLIE : Yes.

22 DR. MICHELSON: Now that same inf ormation is 23 going somewhere else.

24 DR. WYLIE: To the NUREG.

25 DR. MICHELSON: Yes.

l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Washington, D.C. (202) 347-3700

i l

18 j l

1 DR. WYLIE: NUREG.

. t}' (]) 2 DR. MICHELSON: Yes, because it is good 3 inf ormation.

4 DR. WELIE
Yes, sure.

5 DR. MICHELSON: Important, but not necessary l

6 for policy statement.

, ', 7 DR. WYLIE: As Dino states, the intent of the 8 Commission was to have a broad policy statement.

9 DR. SEISS: That makes sense.

I 10 DR. WYLIE: To have it as simple, take out all

..' 11 the implementa*. ion.

-L c .

12 DR. SEISS: The staff can change the NUREG.

h '13 -

DR. WYLIE: They put it in the NUREG.

n' , 14 DR. SEISS: Are we going to limit ourselves to 7., ,

.. y yu- -

15 comments on the policy statement or --

16 DR. WYLIE: Well, the NUREG outline I think we l 17 were requested to do that.

f' 18 DR. MICHELSON: You can't comment on that i i ,~ , 19 outline much.

20 DR. WYLIE: Probably some things --

21 DR. EBERSOLE : We can say it's short.

22 DR. MICHELSON: Yes, but what help is that?

23 DR. WYLIE: The intent was the NUREG has to be

' gg 24 written.

i 25 DR. MICHELSON: Yes.

l 4 .

!, ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Washington, D.C. (202) 347-3700

19 !

l ,

DR. WYLIE : I don't know the status of that.

l Okh', ~)

, 2 MR. SCALETTI: It's in rough draft. It's not i 3 ready certainly f or comment yet. September 15 is the date 4 we are supposed to have it to the Commission.

5 DR. WYLIE: Go ahead.

6 DR. CARBON: I still have one more question on 7 what we are talking about. I would like to address it to 8 the EPRI representative. Is he here.

9 DR. WYLIE: Yes, okay. Would you identify 10 yourself.

11 MR. BURGA: a Jack Burga, W'shington 12 representative, 13 DR. CARBON: Do you agree these policy khh )

14 statements are referring to standardization?

15 What I have in mind is the following. When 16 EPRI, Mr. Staucopf and Mr. Devine came in and talked to us 17 in July and they talked about standardization, and what they 18 were really coming up with were requirements. They were not 19' coming up with design.

20 Both of these policy statements refer to 21 design.

22 Do you feel that you and they are talking about 23 the same thing?

24 MR. BERGA: Well, I think you have it correct.

25 The EPRI intent is to write a requirements document.

ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Washington, D. C. (202) 347-3700

20 1 DR. CARBON: Not design.

@] 2 MR. BERGA: To which standardized designs could l

3 be made. The EPRI document, itself, will not be a design, 4 it will be a requirements document. But it will be the j 5 source for which standardized designs could be designed.

6 DR. SEISS: Against which they will be 7 reviewed.

7

^

8 MR. BERGA: Yes, sir.

$ 9 DR. MICHELSON: It's not part of the policy l' '10 statement at all as I understand it.

-(ry.

11 MR. B ERGA: That's right.

e 12 Dave? More than more than I would like --

f ;: . v In 5ther words, if there were a

') 13 DR. SEISS:

.. , 14 custom plant --

!;6E;77 .

MR. MORAN: I am Dave Moran, Project Manager

[* i.'['.[.15

(;;-

-) ' , 16 f or the staff on the A L W R program, having worked with

, 17 EPRI for about three and a half years on this.

18 The purpose of the requirements document is

i 19 indeed to foster standardization. There is no desire to 20 have a lot of different kinds of plants out there in the

, 21 next ten to 20 years.

f-22 The requirements document is a performance 23 specification, it's a design envelope. .It's a roadmap, I

, 24 believe somebody in'this committee used that last time. I

25 liked that.

I ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Washington, D.C. (202) 347-3700

21 1 It will enable a designer to f ollow the desires 2 of the industry as to what attributes are desired for the 3 next generation of plants, both quantitatively and 4 qualitatively in very detailed manner. It will list all of 5 the applicable NRC regulations in their proper perspective

'6 and with regard to systems and components of the plant.

1 7 By following it a designer will come up with a 8 design which incorporates both NRC regulations, can meet the 9 regulations, and which takes advantage of all the lessons 10 learned and all the things that the industry wants at the 11 present time.

12 It is intended by EPRI that the plants built to d 13 'such a design will follow the one requirements document and, 14 . therefore, will be standard designs.

15 Now, there may be variations in the last ten 16 percent of each plant due to site needs and site 17 idiosyncrasies. But it is envisioned that there will be a 18 single design for PWR and BWR.

19 DR. CARBON: I got quite a different 20 understanding July 9.

21 DR. MICHELSON: Yes.

22 DR. CARBON: It was stated very specifically 23 that there could be several diff erent PWR designs f rom this 24 requirement.

25 DR. MICHELSON: That's right.

l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Washington, D.C. (202) 347-3700

22 1 MR. MORAN: It's possible that any entity, any Oy]) ( 2 vendor or utility, anybody having a design capability, can 3 take the requirements document and come up with a design.

4 The thought is that af ter the first design 5 comes on the streets, because of the cost of creating a 6 design and because of the involvement of getting a 7 certification of that design, that people will rather take 8 the certified design and build one to that design. That is 9- the thought.

10 DR. SEISS: Yes, but --

, 11 MR. MORAN: But there is no question that any 12 entity can come up with a design based on the requirements i 13 document.

14 MR. BERGA
There is no intent to preclude any

~ 3,

' ; 15 supplier f rom coming up with a design that meets the 16 performance requirements.

17 DR. MICHELSON: That's right.

18 DR. CARBON: Presumably, many suppliers will

\

19 come up with standardized design.

20 MR. BERGA: Yes.

21 DR. SEISS: Now, if somebody comes up with a 22 standardized design independent of that requirements 23 document, the staff would still review it, I assume.

,gr') 24 MR. SCALETTI: That's correct.

b,j 25 DR. MICHELSON: It could be certified.

l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Washington, D.C. (202) 347-3700

23 l 1 MR. SCALETTI: That's correct.

) 2 DR. MICHELSON: Yes.

3 DR. SEISS: I see no formal coupling between 4 this policy statement and the EPRI work.

5 DR. MICHELSON: And the EPRI work.

6 DR. WYLIE: Doesn't need to be.

3. 7 DR. SEISS: No.

.8 MR. BERGA: Thank you.

9 DR. WYLIE: Maybe this makes things a little 10 muddier --

,7 11 DR. MICHELSON: I still have the same question, 9

~

12 though, that max has and that I don't think was ever 5E '13 answered.

' ' j; 14 DR. WELIE: What is that?

T.9

,l', 15 DR. MICHELSON: What do we mean by a certified 16 design, what is the scope of it and so forth?

17 I find one term that bothers me in the May 1 18 work, the staff talks about a certified design 19 specification.

20 What is that?

21 MR. SCALETTI: Where is that?

1 l 22 DR. MICHELSON: Page 4, about the 7th line 1

23 down: To assure that the plant is built within the 24 certified design specifications.

25 Does that mean certified design or is that I

ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Washington, D.C. (202) 347-3700

24 1 something else?

l 2 The term was used in your previous document and 3 subsequently as well.

4 MR. SCALETTI: Page 47 5 DR. MICHELSON: Yes.

6 DR. SEISS: Design certification is 7 capitalized.

8 DR. MICHELSON: Not my version, it isn't.

9 DR. SEISS: Page 47 10 DR. CARBON: Yes, it is.

11 DR. WYLIE: Where do you see that.

12 DR. MICHELSON : Oh, up here, That is design (hlg 13 certification.

14 DR. EBERSOLE: Yes.

s

. 15 DR. MICHELSON: I am talking about the latter 16 part of the same sentence when they talk about built *within 17 the certified design specifications.

18 DR. SEISS: Yes.

19 DR. WYLIE: I see.

20 DR. MICHELSON: What is that.

21 DR. SEISS: What is certified, the design, or 22 the specifications?

23 DR. MICHELSON: Yes. It gets back to what do

'^

e- 24 we mean by certified design. What package are we

%.)}

25 certifying.

l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Washington, D.C. (202) 347-3700

25 1 I thought this meant the specs that you also i 2 have to write with the design drawings.

3 DR. WYLIE: That is how I would interpret it.

4 DR. MICHELSON: Well, I don't know. I am 5 asking.

6 DR. SEISS: Wait a minute. What you certify --

7 DR. MICHELSON: You don't certify them 8 necessarily.

9 DR. SEISS: What you certify would be an F D A, 10 wouldn't it?

11 DR. MICHELSON: The reason I say that, if you 12 go back to page 1 of the same document, where they start f '13 saying what we are really going to do is focus this policy 14 on the design certification, then it goes on the next 15 sentence to say the concept would require standardization of 16 nuclear plant design and would strongly encourage, which I 17 meant, I interpret means but not require, would strongly 18 encourage standardized procurement.

19 There is where you write your standardized 20 specs. ,

21 DR. WYLIE: No, not necessarily.

22 DR. MICHELSON: For procurement.

23 DR. WYLIE : You could have standardized specs 24 and still go out and procure different equipment.

25 DR. MICHELSON: You could have design conceptc l

ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Washington, D.C. (202) 347-3700

l 26 1 that are standardized and call it a spec.

h)  ;

~. /

2 DR. WYLIE: No, you could write a specification 3 that is standard and it spells out the criteria for it. You 4 can go out and buy anybody's pump.

5 DR. MICHELSON : I am not saying you can't write 6 one. I am saying is that part of the package.

7 DR. WYLIE: That is how I interpreted it.

8 ,

DR. MICHELSON: I don't know.

9 MR. SCALETTI: As we discussed in July, the 10 level of design detail that is going to be required is not 11 finalized yet. The scope of the design is not finalized 12 yet, f3hgg 13 We do say essentially complete designs and in 14 essentially final design detail. We are working on that. I 7,

I 15 can't give you a definitive answer right now.

16 DR. MICHELSON: You don't know what essentially 17 complete means yet.

18 MR. SCALETTI: As I sat back in July -- ,

19 DR. WYLIE: I will use AIP's definition. They 20 have it very well spelled out in page 8 of their report.

21 They say what essentially complete design is. They have got 22 specifications in here.

23 DR. MICHELSON : I like their definition, for 24 instance.

7 25 DR. WYLIE: I do, too.

_ l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Washington, D.C. (202) 347-3700

27 !

1 DR. SEISS: I think, would that be in the

$ 2 NUREG?

3 MR. SCALETTI: It will be in the NUREG. Right 4 now the NUREG I can say pretty much paraphrases what AIF has 5 included.

6 DR. WYLIE : Here you are, component includes 7 procurement, specification, including acceptance test 8 requirements.

}

9 DR. MICHELSON: Yes, it's a good definition, 10 but that is not in this document.

11 DR. SEISS: No, that should be in the NUREG.

)

12 DR. WYLIE: That was the intent.

  • 13 DR. MICHELSON: Nor is the guidance, which I 14 would like to this document to provide guidance to the

'i ~

15 writer of the NUREG as to how far you want to go, you 16 ' meaning the chairman of the Commission and commissioners.

17 How far do we want to go?

18 DR. SEISS: I don't think that is what the 19 Commission --

20 DR. MICHELSON: It's their policy.

21 DR. WYLIE: They use words like essentially 22 complete design.

23 DR. MICHELSON: Yes.

24 MR. HERNAN: I would like to take a shot at 25 this.

l ACE PEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Washington, D.C. (202) 347-3700

28 1 DR. WYLIE: All right.

m

' ll 2 MR. HERNAN: This policy statement isn't 3 proposing the NRC get into regulating f urther than it does 4 at this time.

5 We do not as a matter of fact review 6 procurement documents and we do not approve as built 7 drawings for the plant. We take a final saf ety analysis 8 report, and we give the plant an operating license based on 9 the FSAR along --

10 DR. MICHELSON: From my experience with the

0 11 staff, you do look at procurement specs, at least you ask 12 for them. I don't know what you do with them.

(hgg 13 MR. HERNAN: That is not.part of the formal 14 safety evaluation.

/. 15 DR. MICHELSON: It's part of the FSAR process 16 to ask f or greater detail and ask f or procurement specs.

17 MR. HERNAN: Yes, as determined necessary by 18 the staff in the review.

19 DR. MICHELSON: But that information won't be 20 available to you when you do this review unless it has been 21 worked up. There is nothing, unless you require it, those 22 specs may not even be written.

23 The vendor of the certified design is going to

'gy-)

. 24 do no more investing than he has to.

.y 25 DR. EBERSOLE: Didn't they tell us if that van l

ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Washington, D.C. (202) 347-3700

i 29 1 the case, that would be reviewed as part of the completion l ll 2 of the plant?

3 The plant doesn't get an operating license 4 until you have certified to the same degree you would on a 5 custom plant.

6 DR. WILIE: But here the intent of this policy 7 statement is to have a certified design that you can go put 8 on a --

9 DR. MICHELSON: One stop.

10 DR. WYLIE : One stop license and never look at 11 it again.

12 DR. MICHELSON: That's right.

Idhlg 13 DR. SEISS: Oh, no. I& E is going to be out

.. 14 there while we are building it, somebody reviewing-QA. -

15 DR. WYLIE: I am talking about licensing 16 review.

17 MR. HERNAN: In a one-step you are still going 1

18 to have open items up to the day they are ready to get the l 1

19 operating license that have to be resolved. l 20 DR. SEISS: Does this mean once I get a 21 certified design approval, when I get ready to start the 22 plant up, I start the plant up and don't have to ask NRC f or 1

23 start up?

l .3.c, 24 MR. SCALETTI: You have to ask for start up.

25 You have to, if I can recall --

l l

ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Washington, D.C. (202) 347-3700

30 1 DR. SEISS: I have to answer all the questions?

MR. SCALETTI: The Commission has to notice the

]) 2 3 start up in the Federal Register for a period of 30 days.

4 This is in the proposed legislation for one-step licensing 5 which until the proposed legislation is approved and 6 enacted, we can' t have one-step licensing.

4 7 So there are certain checks and balances 'in the

>z 8 proposed legislation that would allow for additional hearing il

' 9 if necessaey of certain issues, if they were brought forward

. : .s.

. 10- that the Commission felt deserved a hearing.

11 DR. MICHELSON: But not design questions as I 12 understand it.

ez (j gg ' 13 MR. SCALETTI: Even design questions,

).\';. 14 certainly.

L

-lI[f, ' 15 '

DR. MICHELSON : Now they go through the backfit 5 11 .

16 rule, if they bring them up then, af ter you have already got

, 17 a certified design.

18 MR. SCALETTI: Certainly --

19 DR. MICHELSON: You can ask whatever questions 20 you want to, but you have to go through the backfit process.

21 MR. SCALETTI: Certainly, only if it could 22 substantially increase public health and safety.

t 23 DR. PICHELSON: The certification process is 24 your one and only shot at the design unless you specifically 25 identify open items.

l l

i

. ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Washington, D. C. (202) 347-3700

31 1 Those you have a,further shot at later. But if 2 they aren't identified, if they remain silent, they can't be

)

3 opened later.

4 DR. CARBON: That's right.

5 MR. HERNAN: Anything can be opened if it's a 6 serious enough question.

7 DR. MICHELSON: Under the back fit rule.

i 8 , DR. SEISS: 50.54 F, for example.

9 MR. HERNAN: Even when a plant is in operation, 10 if we come upon a problem in design we have the option of 4

11 shutting down the plant or, you know, revoking the license.

12 The door is never completely shut.

kh g '13 DR. MICHELSON: Now lt comes up with a backfit

. . , , . ,. 14- process.

7s' 15 DR. CARBON: If the aim is to get regulatory, s

p 16 what are the magic 'words about stability, they sure won't 17 come with your interpretation.

t 18 DR. SEISS: I think they will. I think what we 19 are talking about is preapproval of certain features of the 20 design as far down the line as is practical to go at that 21 time.

t 22 MR. HERNAN: As much as we can.

23 DR. SEISS: Once that is preapproved, you don't 24 go through that again.

25 DR. WYLIE: That's right.

i l

ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Washington, D.C. (202) 347-3700

32 1 DR. SEISS: I can't see that it is tremendously ll 2 different f rom the ref erence system concept. We went 3 through this whole business on a number of plants.

4 Presumably, they could be built without the staff reviewing 5 that again.

6 If it came up as a generic issue or a TMI item 7 it damn well got reviewed. It didn't get reviewed in 8 itself.

9 DR. MICHELSON: It didn' t get reviewed until 10 the O L stage, though, Chet.

11 DR. SEISS: No.

12 DR. WYLIE: If the goal, I think it's the goal,

[ lg 13 is one-step licensing, and if you go to that extent, the 14 litigation process, hearings, what have you, there are a 15 questions that come up regarding the performance 16 characteristics of equipment, I can't conceive that you can 3

17 go to that type of proc,ess without having complete design 18 specifications. You just can't do it. You have got to know 19 what you are getting.

20 Now, you don't have to know what manufacturer 21 you are getting, but you' have to know what the perf ormance 22 of that equipment is and how it's going to be tested and 23 qualified and the whole realm of requirements f or that piece 24 of equipment.

25 DR. SEISS: You have to be able to justify what

)

ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Washington, D.C. (202) 347-3700

l 33 1 you are doing from the standpoint of safety.

3( ) 2 DR. WYLIE: Sure, and that's the only way you 3 can do it. When you go before a hearing board and the 4 questions are asked, you have got to be able to answer those 5 questions.

6 DR. SEISS: What you get in return for that is 7 presumably the right to go about your business af ter that 8 without having to go to another hearing.

s' l ,

9 DR. WYLIE: That's right, never go back.

10 DR. SEISS: And answer a lot more questions.

h, . 11 DR. WZLIE: That's the whole idea, to get it

.12 behind you.

3, .

~

~ hklg 13 DR. MICHELSON: What we want to do now, move in

. 14 time this from an O L type today back to a C P type. We 15 want to get it all behind us at the C P stage.

2 .

16 DR. SEISS: That's right.

~17 DR. MICHELSON: To do that you have to know,

c. 18 you would like to know the same level of detail you already .

19 know at the O L stage, like preoperational test results, a 20 lot of other stuff already coming in. You won't have any of 21 that.

22 DR. SEISS: Pre-op tests included in standard 23 certification?

24 DR. MICHELSON: No.

t 25 DR. SEISS: I don't think so.

l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Washington, D.C. (202) 347-3700

34 1 DR. MICHELSON: It isn't in the O L design, 2 reviews, though, the inspectors were looking at them up to

({}

3 the day they grant the license.

4 MR. SCALETTI: They will be for the certified 5 design also. It doesn't buy them a ticket to go out and 6 build it, just start operating it without some sort of 7 oversight throughout the process and without coming back to 8 the Commission when they are ready to operate.

9 DR. MICHELSON: The only oversight as I 10 understand it you can now apply, as long as the pre-op tests 11 show the system did what the original documents said it 12 would do, that's as f ar as you can review. If you have now idhgg 13 decided that isn't good enough, you are into a backfit

. , , i. 14 situation.

gy. 7

. . , 15 '

MR. SCALETTI: That's correct.

L;-

16 DR. SEISS: The only thing the staff doesn't do 17 as I understand it is re-review the FSAR for each of these 18 plants. .'

MR. SCALETTI:

~ 19 That's correct.

20 DR. CARBON: As I read page 4 it's exactly what 21 Carl said.

22 DR. SEISS: Page 4, Max? j 23 DR. CARBON: Yes, of the May 14 letter.

24 DR. WYLIE : This is NRR? Okay, yes.

25 DR. SEISS: Seems to me the whole idea of l

ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Washington, D.C. (202) 347-3700

35 l

1 certification by rule-making is a legal rather than 2 technical issue.

3 It may not be unimportant for the standpoint of 4 hearings, but it doesn't seem to me that the design that's 5 gone through the rule-making and certification necessarily 6 will be any better design than simply got a standard plant, 7 whatever the right terne is, reference system approval.

8 MR. SCALETTI: Final design approval.

9 DR. SEISS: Yes. Any reason it's a better 10 plant?

11 MR. SCALETTI: No. If it's acceptable for 12 final design approval, certification certainly may not make i' 13 it more acceptable, but yet it may.

14 It may, through more scrutiny, uncover design

~

15 deficiencies.

16 DR. SEISS: Presumably the rule-making 17 certification you are saying should reach a higher degree of 18 perfec,: ion in return for the ten year lif e or something.

19 MR. SCALETTI: That's correct.

20 DR. WYLIE: With this approach there certainly 21 have to be a lot of decisions made early.

22 DR. MICHELSON: The problem is you are trying 23 to reach tl.e decision-making point at a time when the 24 information you normally have at the O L stage simply isn't 25 available, or not likely to be available because of the

- l l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Washington, D.C. (202) 347-3700

36 1 investment it takes to get that information.

G*h,

() 2 DR. SEISS: That is the utilities' problem.

3 NRC says they can encourage it. If it can't be done, it 4 won't be done.

5 DR. MICHELSON: We won't know what they are 6 certifying yet. I haven't yet heard, the staff says they 7 haven't decided what they are going to certify yet, if I 8 understand you correctly.

9 By that I mean are you going to certify just P 10 and I D's or what level of information, are you going to

. 11 certify specifications, are you going to certify process 12 descriptions, on down the line of stuff.

thkll 13 DR. SEISS: What do you do you now.in F D A?

14 MR. SCALETTI: My only experience has been GSAR 15 2. The level of detail that is there, I believe the level 16 of detail should be at least comparable to GSAR 2 for design 17 certification.

2 18 Obviously, that did not cover the entire plant, 19 certainly a major portion of it, more than had been reviewed 20 in the past.

21 DR. MICHELSON: Is that the level intended --

22 DR. SEISS: Has GSAR 2 been built? Not built.

23 DR. MICHELSON: It was 40 percent complete 24 already. A hell of a lot of design --

25 DR. SEISS: That is not a hundred percent.

l l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Washington, D.C. (202) 347-3700

37 l I

i 1 DR. MICHELSON: No, but most of your basic O5h

"! mj 2 design is completed by the time you are 40 percent in 3 construction.

4 DR. SEISS: If somebody wants to do a standard 5 design now under this proposal, they would have to get that 6 far along without a plant being started. You are saying you 7 don't think that is economic.

8 DR. MICHELSON: That's right.

9 DR. SEISS: I am saying I don't care.

10 DR. MICHELSON: Yes. If you don't care, then

. 11 that's --

12 DR. WYLIE : Maybe we can accept the terms dfhgg 13 essentially complete design.

14 DR. SEISS: I think if they can get a plant

.3 15 built in five years, they can aff ord to put an awf ul lot of 16 money up front somewhere.

17 DR. MICHELSON: My definition of essentially 18 complete could be, as one extreme, that I will take all the 19 paper that it takes to build the plant and operate it, put 20 it in this room and leave it, somebody else can walk in, 21 pick it up and go operate the plant.

22 DR. EB ERSOLE: You wouldn't get it in this 23 room.

. 24 DR. MICHELSON: I should say this building.

25 That would be a complete design. We aren't l

ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Washington, D.C. (202) 347-3700

38 1 talking that complete obviously. We are talking something ll 2 less than that.

3 My only question is, how much less than that 4 are we talking about?

5 DR. SEISS: If you had that, NRC would never 6 review it, anyway.

7 DR. CARBON: That incidentally is what Joe ,

8 Paladino thought.

9 DR. MICHELSON: I believe Joe thought that and J

10 everybody.

11 You know, there is some economy of design 12 before you start breaking ground. It costs a lot of money

' 13 to go back and chip out concrete. EPRI, like it says, it's

,; 14 a wise investment.

-pp.;' ..

j 7 15 DR. CARBON: Dino, I am a little confused on 16 something else you said, too.

17 I supported the GSAR, but I knew from you that 4

18 you have a lot of work yet to do on the final review. It

'19 comes back to ACRS and so forth. To me that is not a 20 standardized design.

21 DR. SEISS: GSAR is not a standard design?

22 MR. SCALETTI: GSAR is a reference system 23 design, that's correct.

, gp S 24 DR. CARBON: It's a standard design, I guess.

%k-) .

25 DR. MICHELSON: Not certified define.

l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Washington, D.C. (202) 347-3700

I 39 i

1 DR. SEISS: Not certified.

A'$ [)

2 MR. SCALETTI: GSAR, originally, when the 3 policy statement was being written we required all plants, 4 any future plant to be certified.

5 That was subsequently removed f rom the policy 6 statement and GE decided it would not certify GSAR, so it 7 stopped at the final design approval..

8 DR. CARBON: Okay.

9 DR. WYLIE: The degree of design necessary to 10 provide essentially complete design would generally be that

11 detail suitable for making specific equipment for 12 construction bids as detailed name plate information becomes v;

'lhll) 13 available during the procurement and construction process, 14 refinement of the reference design may be desirable.

si' ' '

15 To take such refinements into account, holder 16 of a license utilizing a reference design may submit as 17 applicable a proposed program of audit team -- utilizing 18 acceptance criteria which are part of the FDA or DC.

19 They define what their concept of essentially 20 complete design is. It's everything except nameplate 21 information.

22 DR. MICHELSON: That's about it.

23 DR. WYLIE: That is what they propose.

24 DR. CARBON: That is what they propose. l l

25 DR. WYLIE: That is what they propose.

ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Washington, D.C. (202) 347-3700

40 1 MR. SCALETTI: They are smart. They don't get

.J.%

2 questions.

3 DR. WYLIE: They won't achieve their goal. I 4 like the staff's statement right up f ront where they say the 5 standardized nuclear power plant should be used to satisfy 6 the ultimate license to build a certified design constructed 7 on preapproved sites.

8 They go on in their goal statement and say --

9 both to with respect to scope and level of detail which then 10 could be referenced in an individual licensing applications.

11 Couple the two together, it pretty well 12 defines --

s (flll9 13 DR. MICHELSON : Except they never define what

?) ,

'14 they meant by essentially complete.

'. 'd,

  • LJ '15 DR. WELIE: That is in the NUREG.

M 16 DR. MICHELSON: Yes, but, I just don't know 17 what it's going to mean.

18 DR. WZLIE: Well, the reason for that, as was 19 explained, it was an attempt to get a broad statement of 20 policy without going into all the details.

21 DR. SEISS: The difference is Carl said he 22 thought the Commission policy statement ought to be a  !

3 23 directive to the staff as to what detail they should ask

24 for.

25 I don't think it is. I think the Commission

__ l ACE FEDERAL REPOR5ERS, INC. Washington, D.C. (202) 347-3700

l

\

l i 41 1 ]

\

1 policy statement is then turned over to the staff to say,

&(-) 2 now you tell us what this means.

3 DR. WYLIE: Maybe you can't achieve what the 4 Commission was af ter. That is a very simple statement 5 everybody can understand.

6 7

8 9

10 11 12 e '13

. .14 h!'Ty 15 16

--9 ,

I, 17

,a 18 19

'20 21 22 23 24 25 l

ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Washington, D.C. (202) 347-3700

27758.0 42 cox

('T l

\

l MR. SIESS: Not if you make it longer than one 2 page.

3 MR. WYLIE: Maybe you shouldn't. I don't know.

4 Maybe you shouldn't.

5 MR. MICHELSON: The EPRI definition isn't very 6 long.

7 MR. WYLIE: No.

8 MR. MICHELSON: Certainly quite suitable for a 9 policy statement. If they did. That's the policy they had 10 in mind. If indeed that's the policy that the Commission 11 has in mind.

12 MR. SIESS: You think you would rather have a

~() 13 policy statement?

14 MR. MICHELSON: Yes, because it's the Commission's 15 policy trying to write down here. This is really the 16 Commission's paper.

17 The Staff just happened to be writing it for 18 them, as I understand Commission policy. Not yours.

19 MR. SCALETTI: That's right. Do we have a 20 deliberative process which we propose to enter into today?

21 MR. MICHELSON: Does the AIF definition of 22 " essentially complete" apply to all the concepts, or just 23 recertify, replicate, duplicate?

24 j MR. WYLIE: No. This basically addresses -- the 25 AIF persons here can answer that question. I think it n

U ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

i 202-347-3700 Nanonwide Coserage M4336-6M6

I 1

27758.0 43 AFF  ;

l P

' 1 basically --

2 MR. SIESS: That applies only if it's reference 3 design and one stock license.

4 MR. FONTECILLA: Curt Fontecilla. It would be 5 for the design specification.

6 MR. SIESS: I was going to say if they apply 7 that in the NUREG, would it apply to design certification 8 or would the staff use that definition of essentially 9 complete for the other?

10 MR. SCALETTI: That would apply to the design 11 certification process; replication, duplication, 12 manufacturing license are so spelled out in the regulation,

..v f') 13 at least for the reference system, and the' duplicate plan 14 and the manufacturing license. Those would be licenses, 15 for the most part, and they would require the level of

)

16 detail of the type of license they were applying for, be 17 they construction permit or operating license.

18 MR. MICHELSON: That would still be two stages.

19 MR. SCALETTI: That's correct.

20 MR. SIESS: If I wanted to replicate 21 already-built, that's replication; right?

22 MR. SCALETTI: Yes.

23 MR. SIESS: To get a construction permit I only 24 need to supply you with as much information as I would for 25 CP on a plant that is not already built?

(2) .

i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. -

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33M;646

27758.0 44 AFF l

(~'

1 I will give you the rest of it later on when I l

l 2 apply for the OL?

3 MR. SCALETTI: If the plant that was being 4 replicated already had an operating license, I think that 5 that would be the information that was provided.

6 MR. SIESS: I have a feeling if we see the 7 application replication it will be for a plant that has an 8 operating license, which will probably be next month.

9 MR. SCALETTI: I can't see why we wouldn't.

10 MR. WYLIE: Let me see. Would you want to 11 proceed by going down through the Staff's proposed draft 12 and --

()' 13 14 MR. SIESS: Let me ask you something, Charlie.

Should we concentrate our attention in this on the

~

'15 certified reference design concept and leave these other

[

16 things, you know, sort of as they are now, which I think --

17 MR. WYLIE: That's what the Staff would propose.

18 MR. SEISS: That's what the policy statement j 19 says.

20 MR. WYLIE: I would say yes.

21 MR. SIESS: Of the two groups, the two things, 22 the'second is much more likely to be a reality.

23 MR. WYLIE: Let me ask one question. The Staff 24 proposed, in their draft, to make a statement that this 25 policy statement supersedes the Commission's previous l O

l 1

l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. -

202-347-3XO Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6M6

27758.0 45 AFF .

l I

($) 1 policy on standardization in '78. There seem to be some 2 people that feel like that's not necessary. Is there any 3 particular reason that was done?

4 MR. SCALETTI: Yes, because the '78 policy 5 statement is clearly out of date, as I mentioned previously 6 at July meetings and they have statements such as FTA ls, 7 FTA 2s approval periods for three and five years for the 8 reference system concepts. Those are clearly out of date.

9 MR. SIESS: Aren't those in the appendix, though?

10 MR. SCALETTI: No, they are not. So this would 11 supersede the '78 policy statement.

12 MR. WYLIE: I am not sure if that was the way it (i 13 was phrased.

14 MR. SIESS: They can always call it the new

'l 15 policy change.

16 MR. WYLIE: Well, look, does everyone have a 17 copy of the Staff's draft? I suppose we could start there.

18 On the first paragraph, we will just -- how do you want to 19 proceed; do you want to read it down or do you want to read 20 it by yourselves?

21 MR. MICHELSON: Are you going to comment on it 22 paragraph by paragraph?

23 MR. WYLIE: That might be the best way. If up 24 to, I can reference you to the comparison I made over here 25 to the Commission's draft.

O i

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. -

l 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 336-66:6

1l 1 ,

l 27758.0 46 l AFF i i

(~~)

k/ 1 MR. SIESS: I don't understand the first one. l 2 " Standardized nuclear power plants should be used to 3 satisfy the ultimate licensiig goal of certified designs 4 constructed on preapproved sites." Is that the only use?

5 MR. WYLIE: I interpret that that this is the 6 ultimate policy, the ultimate goal.

7 MR. SIESS: That that goal should be reached 8 through standardized plans?

9 MR. WYLIE: That's my understanding.

10 MR. KERR: I would have looked for something 11 about an ultimate goal of enhanced safety. I was reading 12 through this to find, and I didn't find it right off. I

~{}' 13 thought it was ending here.

, 14 MR. WYLIE: Well the next sentence does say it 15 does enhance safety.

16 MR. KERR: Yes, I guess that's true.

17 MR. SIESS: It seems to me that we have a policy, 18 or we expect to have a policy, of certified designs on 19 preapproved sites.

20 MR. WYLIE: That's the ultimate.

21 MR. SIESS: Standardization, we think 22 standardization is the best way to achieve this. The  ;

1 23 implication of two policies in the sentence sort of bothers 1

24 me.

25 MRA WYLIE: If that's the goal of the Commission, (1) .

1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. -

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80t>336-646

i 27758.0 47 AFF  !

I

. i

{'~3'I 1 it's well stated.

2 MR. CARBON: I thought our goal was to get 3 licensed plants on the preapproved sites, standardized 4 plants on the preapproved site, rather than certified 5 designs.

6 MR. WYLIE: Well, that was a way of getting 7 certified design, I guess.

8 MR. CARBON: Don't we.want standardized plants?

9 MR. WYLIE: If you look at the Commission's 10 statement, it's a little different goal of standardization, 11 should be an essentially complete plant design package 12 covering design, construction, quality assurance programs, 13 which can then be referenced to individual plant

(

14 applications.

15 MR. SIESS: Previous reg doesn't mention that 16 ultimate goal of preapproved sites.

17 MR. SCALETTI: May I make a comment. Proposed 18 legislation, the sections of proposed legislation, which 19 authorizes use of preapproved site, and the proposed 20 amendment to Part 51, which allow us two preapproved sites.

21 We believe that the Commission, by elevating it to the '

l 22 point of becoming part of the Atomic Energy Act, and also '

23 in that same amendment, discussion of standardization and

~

24 certified designs, I believe the ultimate goal for 25 licensing should be a preapproved site combined with a

('N

\_J

!i ll ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6

27758.0 48  !

AFF  :

i l

(/~ 1 reference system design, a certified reference system i 2 design; so that the' hearing process has taken place on the 3 site, the hearing process has taken place on the design, so 4 all you have to do is take these two, merge them; and what 5 you have left over for licensing or for hearing would be 6 any site-related interfaces that have not been discussed or 7 previously addressed through the course of hearings.

8 MR. SIESS: This sentence says if you want a 9 certified design it must be a standardized plan.

10 MR. SCALETTI: Yes, that's correct. I hope 11 there's no intention of certifying other designs other than 12 standard designs, reference ~ system design.

13 MR. CARBON: I don't want to quibble in this;

{

14 this may be a small point, but I don't unders'and t it. It

- 15 says the goal is certified designs constructed on

. 16 preapproved sites. I would have thought the goal was to 17 have standardized plants on preapproved sites.

la MR. SCALETTI: A certified standardized plant.

19 A certified design would be a standard plant.

20' MR. WYLIE: Somebody could come up and say, I 21' intend to built a plant but you have to get the design 22 certif.ied'. I suppose that's not a certified plant; it's a 23 certified design.

24 MR. SCALETTI: It would be standardized from the 25 standpoint it wduld have a final design approval.

O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. -

202 4 47-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6M6 l

., - . , . , ~ .- - - - -

I i

27758.0 49 AFF 1 MR. WYLIE: I mean, it would be a certified 2 design, would be one, certainly would be standardized 3 because you would have to build another one.

4 MR. SIESS: I think the cart is before the horse 5 here. I don't know.

6 MR. KERR: See, it's divided on page .3, the last 7 paragraph, the goal again. One goal is a licensing goal 8 and the second goal --

9 MR. SIESS: I am sorry, what page?

10 MR. KERR: Page 3, second paragraph. There the 11 goal of standardization should be an essentially complete 12 plant design which can then be referenced.

()- 13 MR. WYLIE: Yes.

14 MR. SCALETTI: We are talking licensing goal in 15 one and a standardization goal in another.

16 MR. SIESS: That's what is confusing.

17 MR. SCALETTI: The first one is intended to be 18 just a statement of' Commission's ultimate goal for 19 licensing.

20 MR. KERR: I would think you would have a goal, 21 and then if it enhances licensing, that's one of the 22 benefits.

23 MR. SIESS: Has the Commission issued a policy 24 statement on one-step licensing?

25 MR. SCALETTI: No, that would be only in the C) i i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336- % 4

l 27758.0 50 AFF 1 proposed legislation as addressed there.

2 MR. SIESS: The policy statement on 3 standardization is intended to enhance or expedite the 4 achievement of that other goal on. One-step licensing.

5 When you issue a certified reference design, you don't know 6 whether it's standard or not. All you know is it can be 7 standard if somebody else wants to use it.

8 MR. WYLIE: That's right.

9 MR. SCALETTI: We have a problem apparently with 10 semantics here. The Staff perceives, the vendor would come 11 in and say, I want to standardize this. This is my 12 standard design. I want you to approve it. If someone

'( 13 only references it one time and only builds one of them, it 14 is still from our standpoint a standard design.

15 MR. SIESS: Suppose he just came in and said, I

i. >

16 want you - ,

17 I have a design, I want you to standardize it by 18 rulemaking.

19 i MR. WYLIE: It doesn't bother me if they call it 20 standard or not. This is an approved design, it was.

21 MR. SIESS: The first subject doesn't introduce 22 the subject nearly as well as the one in the previous draft i 23 did.

24 l MR. MICHELSON: I like the previous draft better, 25 too.

O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. -

202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6 4 6

i 27758.0 51 l1 AFF  ;;

r')

k/

m l

1 MR. SIESS: It didn't mention one-step licensing 2 in the first paragraph. I don't know where it got down to 3 it.

4 MR. WYLIE: What is that you are talking about?

5 MR. SIESS: The EPRI draft, the first paragraph 6 doesn't even mention one-step licensing.

7 MR. WYLIE: You are talking about the Commission's 8 policy statement.

9 That's a question of whether --

10 MR. SIESS: Page 4 would get down to stability 11 and predictability. I am just looking to see where it 12 mentioned one-step licensing.

( J- 13 MR. WYLIE: You are talking about the April 10 14 draft?

A 15 MR. SIESS: Yes.

16 MR. WYLIE: They don't mention it in there.

17 It's not in there.

I 18 MR. SIESS: That's what sort of threw me.

19 MR. WYLIE: If you look at John McKinley's 20 i analysis, you will see the things that are different. He 21 The second one is the one you

~

enumerates them down there.

22 are talking about.

23 MR. SIESS: Yes. I think it's legitimate for 24 the policy statement to say that although we are given all 25 these options, what we are really looking forward to is the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 1

.- - - + c - :. -

i 27758.0 52 AFF em

(_) I certification by rulemaking. That's the way we think you I

I 2 ought to go. That's a policy statement. It's an  :

1 3 encouragement, I guess, for people to do that, and it just 4 hits me wrong coming into this first sentence that 5 standardization, standardized plants should be used to 6 satisfy the ultimate goal. As if that's the only use. I  ;

i 7 think it's nonsubstantive, except that I think that 8 standardization is a state of mind and it ain't going to 9 work unless we all are of the same state of mind.

10 MR. WYLIE: If you look at the Commission's 11 April 10 version, that says the Nuclear Regulatory 12 Commission policy of standardizing power plants is a very 13

_( .

important issue.. The focus of this policy is the reference 14 system design certification. This concept would embody 15 standardization of design, construction and quality 16 assurance for the complete plant except for sites and 17 specific interface.

18 MR. SIESS: I thought that was a pretty good 19 statement. I don't know what it means by the " focus of j

20' I this policy." If it really means we really prefer to this 21 this, it would be nice to see it.

22 MR. WYLIE: If one-step licensing is the goal of 23 the Commission, then something should be said about it.

24 MR. SIESS: One-step licensing could be 25 facilitated by a standard plan, certified standard designs.

O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. -

t 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-33(H5M6

I 27758.0 53 AFF .

t l

[}~ 1 That sort of follows, I think.

~

2 MR. WYLIE: That could be. I guess that is 3 stated in the goals statement, talking about a goals 4 statement. There is nothing headed here other than " goals 5 statement."

6 It's not headed that way, but in the Staff's  !

7 version, over on page 3.

8 MR. SIESS: See that's the goal of 9 standardization. The goal of the Commission, which is what 10 is stated in the May draft, says "the ultimate licensing 11 goal," "the ultimate licensing goal."

12 MR. WYLIE: Which one?

.() 13 MR. SIESS: May.

14 MR. CARBON: Page 1, line 18.

15 MR. SIESS: I,t has a reference to 16 standardization in relation to one-step licensing.

17 MR. WYLIE: You are back on the Staff's version.

18 MR. SIESS: I have them both here.

19 MR. WYLIE: Well, I don't see that in the i

I 20 Commission's statement.

21 MR. SIESS: The April version has nothing about 22 one-step licensing, and then the May version comes in the 23 first sentence.

24 MR. SCALETTI: There should be something in the 25 April version about one-step licensing.

O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. -

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3366M6

I l

27758.0 54 AFF l

( l MR. SIESS: I will read it. I glanced through l i

2 it, didn't find it.

3 MR. WYLIE: I didn't find it anywhere. It may 4 be. I missed it while it was there.  ;

i 5 MR. SIESS: It says everything but one-step l i

6 licensing. I don't think those words appear, and I don't i 7 believe preapproved sites appear, as such.

8 MR. CARBON: I believe that's true. ,

9 MR. SIESS: It seems to me that the advantages 10 of one-step licensing are advantages to the industry that 11 the Commission doesn't have to elaborate on. The 12 Commission needs to say what they think standardization 13 should consist of, and tell people what they expect of them.

(f 14 That should be the policy statement. If we are in favor of 15 it, we get out and say, here is the way you do it. There's 16 been a lot of bad experience with standardization.

17 MR. WYLIE: Do you want to state that that is 18 the goal of the Commission?

19 MR. SIESS: One-step licensing?

20 MR. WYLIE: Yes.

21 MR. MICHELSON: I perhaps misinterpreted this 22 statement, but in the Commission's statement on page 4 near 23 the bottom it talks about the certified design will be used 24 in the application of a CP/OL. I misinterpreted that to 25 mean one step.

(2) j ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. -

202-347-3XO Nationwide Coserage 800 336-6646

i i

27758.0 55 AFF

\ I think you are right. I think it l MR. SIESS:

2 is being one step. In the first paragraph of the 3 Commission's draft, the last line he says "except for 4 site-specific interfaces," which implies site approval.

5 MR. MICHELSON: I gathered it was one step.

6 MR. STESS: It seems to me the thought that 7 standardization would be a fine step forward for one-step 8 licensing is an afterthought or an addendum that could be 9 added in at the end of the paragraph, rather than saying 10 this rather cryptic statement that standardized nuclear 11 power plants should be used to satisfy the ultimate

> 12 licensing goal. Suppose it said "shall be used." What 13 would that mean? If "shall" would be used, what would that

. (])

14 say to you?

'- 15 MR. WYLIE: That means you have to do it.

,,16 MR. SIESS: Is that what it really means?

17 MR. WYLIE: That's the way I interpreted it.

18 MR. SIESS: "Should" and "shall" aren't that far 19 apart here. This is a policy statement.

20 MR. WYLIE: "Shall" is something you have to do.

21 MR. SIESS: If I am reading between the lines 22 this is what they think should be done, and that's what I 23 think they really want me to do. I think reading it that 24 way that that sentence is really what they mean to say.

25 MS. SCALETTI: An intent would be for some time O  ! ,

1 I l

l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. -

l 202 -347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

27758.0 56 AFF 1 in the future that you would use preapproved sites and you 2 would use certified designs, and not custom plants and not 3 replicate and duplicate plants, to use certified designs.

4 MR. SIESS: It's ccaing too early in the policy 5 statement. At least in the Commission's draft, the first 6 sentence says the Commission believes standardization is 7 important, and it has a potential for enhancing safety 8 reliability and availability. That to me is a nice, 9 clear-cut policy. We think it's an important initiative 10 and it has a potential to improve things for everybody.

11 Then it goes on to say that, when we say " standardization,"

12 what we are aiming towards is this reference system design

() 13 certification. The article goes on to put out some other 14 things. I mean, it comes out right up front and says 15 standardization is good, desirable.

1 16 MR. CARBON: Good paragraph.

17 MR. SIESS: It doesn't tie it in to one-step 18 licensing. One-step licensing -- isn't going to do 19 anything to improve the health and safety of the public or 20 health and reliability of the plants, just going to get 21 them built faster and cheaper. It's important, but not in 22 the same sense.

23 MR. MICHELSON: Are we going to give the 24 Commission some word-noodling or some basic guidance?

25 MR. SIESS: No.

O r ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336-6M6

l  !

l 27758.0 57 AFF i

(~l/ 1 MR. WYLIE: No. I don't think we want to do i 2 words.

3 MR. MICHELSON: I don't think so.

4 MR. SIESS: I don't think anybody will read this, ,

i 5 "they shall be used to satisfy the ultimate licensing goal." i I

6 If they are not going to read it that way, let's go on to 7 the next paragraph and we can go down to something 8 important.

9 MR. MICHELSON: I think the important difference 10 that does need to be highlighted is the Commission came 9

'll closer to identifying what they meant by standardization, I

~

12 think, than did the Staff.

() " 13 MR. WYLIE: In what case, the first paragraph?

14 MR. MICHELSON: May draft. Came closer to

,' 15 saying what a standardized design is than I could find 16 anywhere in the Commission and in the Staff's document. I 17 think that's an important comment if we agree or disagree 18 with that degree of definition.

19 MR. SIESS: I think the first paragraph of a 20 Commission draft is a pretty darn good policy statement. I 21 would like three more paragraphs elaborating on that and 22 quit. But then I am not the Commission and they never did 23 anything in four paragraphs.

24 MR. WYLIE: Let me ask a question about 25 interpretation. The last sentence bothers me. This o

G ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. -

202-347-3700 Nationside Coverage S00-336-6646

. -- ~ _ . - _

I' 27758.0 58  ;

l AFF i I

C:) 1 concept would embody whatever it embody. Standardization >

2 of designs, construction. Now, what does that mean by ,

3 standardization, construction?

4 MR. SIESS: Everybody uses a hammer the same way.

5 MR. MICHELSON: It could mean use the same 6 welding procedures, I don't know. I just don't know. I 7 never considered the construction specifications to be a 8 part of this package.

9 MR. WYLIE: Construction bothers me, because if 10 you put one of those plants on an ocean site, then you put 11 it on another site --

i 12 MR. SIESS:

I am not sure what " standardization 13 of quality assurance" means. I thought Appendix B was

):

14 about as explicit together with three or four NQ standards,

,u 15 couldn't get QA much more standard than it is now.

s 16 MR. MICHELSON: I think the Commission went too i 17 far in'their definition of " standard." I don't think the 18 Staff is willing to go far enough in theirs; but I think we 19 agree that we are really talking about standardization only 20 of a design top documentation, not of construction type 21 documentation or operation or QA, but I don't know. I 22 don't think we need to find out.

i 23 MR. CARBON: Let me question that. You can say 24 maybe they went too far when they included construction and 25 QA or you could say maybe they didn't go quite far enough O

i l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. -

i 202 347 3700 Nanonwide Coverage 800-336-6646

i i

27758.0 59 AFF ,'

1 and should have said "except for site-specific problems or 2 site-specific circumstances and interface."

3 MR. SIESS: There is nothing in a GSAR or FSAR.

4 The area doesn't exist.

5 Mk.MICHELSON: The area exists, it's more l

6 specific.

7 MR. WYLIE: First of all, it's something you 8 can't achieve. You ought to forget about it. You are not 9 going to achieve standardization of construction.

10 MR. SIESS: In the reinforced concrete field 11 there are standards of specification. They get to a 12 certain point. Everybody cites them in their GSAR. Then

}

): 13 they site something else tha't contradicts them. Maybe 14 that's what I&E --

15 MR. WYLIE: The truth of this statement is that 16 this would embody certifications of design construction and 17 quality assurance.

18 MR. MORAN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to add 19 something on one of your construction deliberation. You l

20 asked me down here to help in your deliberations. This is i 21 Dave Moran.

22 EPRI's requirements document, we only have 23 chapter one so far, but its overall requirements addresses 24 constructibility. It isn't so much a desire to get into l 25 the details of how each construction crew should do this or O

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6

i i

1 27758.0 60

~AFF O 1 that, but it lays out general requirements which lead 2 toward a standardization of the construction and the 3 constructibility of the plant. You know there are many 4 ways to design a plant, and you can design something to 5 facilitate construction which isn't detrimental to the 6 function; and if there is that possibility, that is the 7 sort of thing that they are addressing.

8 Now, in addition to that, EPRI is working on the 9 aspect of construction verification, which, as you know 10 from our previous plants that have been'oullt and are under 11 construction now, has been a source of great problem. ,. ad 12 so construction verification at least begins to nail down

, /~') . 13 the inspection points and the verification points in the

(_/

- 14 drawings and in the construction plan.

15 So it goes with the standardization concept to 16 work on constructibility, to work on construction 17 verification; but not down to such detail that you are 18 hamstringing the plant superintendent or the site

~

19 superintendent in this building.

20 MR. WYLIE: David, it's certifying the process.

21 It is not standardizing the process, it is certifying.the 22 process. What you are interested in is the end product and 23 accepted testing or, the end product.

24 MR. SIESS: There is a big difference between 25 " construction" and constructibility. Constructibility is a O

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. -

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8%336-646

l 27758.0 61 AFF l l

1 feature of design and it should be used -- this word 2 construction may be construed to mean constructibility. If 3 the plant's constructibility isn't considered, your 4 standard design is going to be worthless. Take two plants 5 according to the standard plan, if they are not constructed, 6 they will be constructed according to something else.

7 MR. WYLIE: Yes. But you can construct things 8 different ways and get the same end product.

9 MR. SIESS: I know. But if you have a design, 10

~

you can construct according to meet that design. But if 11 you can't meet that design the way it's made, you can 12 change it.

13

' J( }

MR. WYLIE: What you have got, you have 14 construction and installation specifications that you have 15 to achieve, and then the acceptance criteria on testing; 16 and really it's certification of that, not standardization.

17 MR. SIESS: That may be, but on constructibility, 18 I have seen designs that could not be built that way. The 19 reinforcement could not be placed. Therefore the 20 reinforcement was placed a different way. That's no longer i l

21 standard. We have to be sure they are constructible, but 1 22 that isn't what this says. Inspection is going to be in 23 there.

24 MR. MICHELSON: Are you going to have 25 standardized welding procedures?

l C:) I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80N36-66M

l l

r 27758.0 62 '

AFF 1 MR. SIESS: Sure, Site ASME section 3, pages 2 of them.

3 MR. MICHELSON: Are you going to standardize 4 your welding procedures? Procedures have to be written 5 utility-specific, because of a lot of details concerning 6 the qualification of welders and u'nion requirements and a 7 whole lot of other things and the procedures when you get

, 8 right down to doing it.

9 MR. SIESS: That's probably pretty close to the 10 standard now.

11 MR. MICHELSON: You start out with a industry 12 standard and you customize it to meet your situation. I am 13 questioning, is that what was meant here under the (f-14 construction?

15 MR. MORAN: Well, I can add a little bit, 16- speaking of welding. I am a student of this requirements 17 document and I read it nights, Sundays and holidays. It's 18 a very interesting document. I want you gentlemen to 19 understand that the requirements document is not to be 20 certified. It is going to be reviewed and approved by the 21 Staff for use in ginning up designs which are intended, as 22 far as EPRI is concerned, to go towards certification.

23 There is a section I am reading now which deals 24 with constructibility and which deals with a specification I

25 for welding, the accepted specification. And in those i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.  ?

202-M7-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6 4 6

l 27758.0 63 AFF i

i l

'- 1 specifications, where there's been a problem in the field, l l

2 one of our lessons learned, they specify some detail about 3 how the inspection will be performed on welding, on i

4 weldings.

5 MR. MICHELSON: You are talking also about the 6 original welding process. The welding procedure.

7 MR. MORAN: Where a weld will be hidden, then 8 there are certain -- certain instructions in order to make 9 sure that it's inspectable and having to do with the 10 certification of the welder.

11 MR. MICHELSON: Does the EPRI document go into 12 the --

I)

V 13 MR. SIESS: Most of the plants I have seen have 14 been built according to section 3 of the ASME code.

15 MR. MICHELSON: Doesn't give you welding 16 procedures, just gives you welding requirements. You can't 17 take up the ASME code and start welding.

18 MR. SIESS: Don't they reference AWS procedures?

19 MR. MICHELSON: Is that where we are going to 20 put this standardized level at? Where are you going to 21 start? You can ' t weld from them alone. You have to 22 customize your plant specific.

23 MR. SIESS: Can't we leave something for the 24 Staff?

25 MR. MICHELSON: Sure. I am trying to figure out O

1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. -

202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646

l 27758.0 64 AFF  :

1 if we get into it.

2 MR. SIESS: The Staff reviews these things now, 3 don't they?

4 MR. MICHELSON: Welding procedures, inspectors 5 do too.

6 MR. SIESS: What is specified? Doesn't the 7 Staff review code references, standard references?

8 MR. WYLIE: You know, it seems contradictory, 9 because it said the focus of the policy, the reference 10 system design certification, and then it says this concept 11 would embody standardization. It's not necessary to embody 12 standardization, is it, from that concept?

13 MR. SCALETTI: May I read it?

(])

14 MR. WYLIE: Sure.

15 MR. SCALETTI: This may --

l 16 . MR. MICHELSON: I object to the Commission's 17 version also.

l 18 MR. SIESS: The other version, in addition to 19 construction, " encourage standardized procurement, 20 construction, installation of quality assurance practices."

21 So procurement of installation I added there.

22 MR. MICHELSON: All it talks about is 23 encouraging. Doesn't say you will standardize it. That's 24 what I read into it. It just says, I would like you to do 25 it but not required. But in the Commission it says, we O

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.  :

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646 l

i 27758.0 -

65 AFF l

/~T l k/ 1 really want you to standardize design, construction and 2 quality assurance. We want you to do it for an essentially 3 complete plant, which also bothered me a little bit.

4 MR. SCALETTI: If you read page 2, this may be 5 somewhat contradictory.

6 MR. SIESS: Which one?

7 MR. SCALETTI: April 10 version "Use of 8 standardized design can benefit public health and safety by 9 concentrating resource, design, on particular approaches by 10 stimulating" -- it would imply here, at 1 cast as I read it, 11 they wouldn't require it in this case, but it would t

12 stimulate, standardization vould stimulate standardized

(/l s_

13 programs on construction, et cetera. So I don't know 14 whether in the first paragraph they fully intended to make 15 that a requirement.

16 MR. SIESS: The Fyench built standardized plants 17 and built them with the work force, so I suspect that 18 construction does become reasonably standardized on the 19' second, third and fourth units. I think if you talk to 20 Arizona Public Service, or whatever they are called down 21 there, they talk about construction practices on unit 2 and  :

22 3 versus Unit 1. They then standardize and approve and 23 expedite.

24 But it seems to me that if the document 25 submitted was standard plant design, includes the same i

J ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336-6626

27758.0 66 AFF ,

I

('h

\'# 1 amount of detail that we see now in an FSAR, the commitment l,l 2 to follow these specifications, then these plants become 3 standard-built under that design.

4 Quality assurance, I guess I can't quite 5 understand; does that mean that the quality assurance 6 manual should be the same for all plants built under that?

7 MR. SCALETTI: I believe that's correct. GSAR 8 had a standardized reference there in their QA manuals for 9 the GSAR plan and therefore they would become part of the 10 design.

11 MR. SIESS: So all of them are important to the 12 same QA manual and that's about as far down as you can get.

() 13 MR. SCALETTI: That's correct.

14 MR. MICHELSON: So the question in my mind, 15 though, I think that still hasn't been answered, do we 16 recommend that, the committee recommend that 17 standardization include construction practices as well as 18 the design? And it appeared that the Staff's version did 19 not include construction, a'lthough it encouraged 20 standardization of practices. That's always a good thing 21 to do. But the Commission seemed to be saying, we really 22 want you to standardize design, construction and quality 23 assurance in their first paragraph.

24 MR. SIESS: How much does GSAR commit to on 25 construction practices?

O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. -

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8%336-6M6

27758.0 67  !

AFF iQ k/ 1 MR. SCALETTI: How much does GSAR commit to in I 2 construction?

3 MR. SIESS: Yes, welding procedures. How far do 4 they go in that document, whatever it was, the FSAR, in 5 saying how things will be built according to what standards 6 they will be built?

i 7 MR. SCALETTI: W' ell, all of the standards would  !

l 8 be built to a reference of the document. I would have to J 9 go look to answer that for you. )

1 10 MR. SIESS: They would reference section 3 in l

11 AWS and all of those things?

12 MR. SCALETTI: I believe it's consistent to what O

V 13 you would find.

14 MR. SIESS: Material specs? Reference documents?

15 MR. SCALETTI: Yes.

16 MR. MICHELSON: Certain components.

17 MR. WYLIE: Even the second one, standardization l

18 of quality assurance programs is not a very practical thing.

19 If you have a plant that is going to be built by that --

20 I and I don't know where this is going to fall out, but you 21 can't -- quality assurance programs would have to do with 22 organizations and who people report to and all of this kind 23 of thing; and then some construction outfits, quality 24 control people report to quality assurance, and in some 25 I other cases, quality control reports to an entirely ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8CO-3364 M 6

\

'1 l

27758.0 68 AFF '

l l

fb- 1 different area. You just can't do that.

2 Now, the end result is that you can't certify a 3 quality assurance program.

4 It shouldn't be part of the design certification 5 process. Everybody has to do it the same.

6 MR. SIESS: Why not?

7 MR. WYLIE: Just not practical. Different 8 organizations do things differently, just like construction; 9 they do things differently.

10 MR. MORAN: I believe what you are getting, this 11 is Dave Moran. I believe what you are getting at, 12 gentlemen, we can use the Defense Department here, no"t ~ the

'( 13 way they do it, in the field, but they have a specification 14 which people who want to qualify as builders of DOD 5* .

15 hardware, must conform to in principle; and there are 16 l certain attributes of the quality assurance and quality 17 control systems that they must have. But they can be 18 tailor-made to a given company's organization chart. It's 19 a general specification or a functional specification, 20 which says everybody has to have these ingredients, or you 21 don't have quality assurance or quality control.

22 MR. WYLIE: What do you call it?

23 MR. HERNAN: In this business we call it 24 Appendix B. That's where Appendix B is.

25 MR. WYLIE: That's a criteria?

() -

1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. -

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336W>26

f 27758.0 69 !

AFF b

'# 1 MR. HERNAN: You are right. Each organization 2 or site has to have its own people and 3 organization-specific, quality assurance program.

4 MR. SIESS: Are we for or against 5 standardization?

6 MR. MICHELSON: Of what?

7 MR. SIESS: Anything.

8 MR. WYLIE: I am for the standardization of the 9 end product. But how do you get from here to there is what 10 you are talking about.

11 MR. SIESS: Do you really mean that? By 12 standardization of the end product, I would assume that all

- () 13 the pumps in each plant are made --

14 MR. WYLIE: Not necessarily.

15 MR. SIESS: We thought one advantage of 16 standardization would be that the Staff could really 17 concentrate on that and dig out all the bugs once and for 18 all, rather than reviewing 10 or 15 custom plants and 19 concentrate their resources on standard design.

20 MR. WYLIE: Then you have to go further than is 21 implied here; for example, let's take diesel generating.

22 If you would stop here, the certified design would be the 23 specification. Now the --

24 MR. SIESS: You could spend several man-years 25 looking at diesel generators on plants that already had a --

~

O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

, 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6M6

I 27758.0 70 AFF O 1 MR. WYLIE: I think that's probably a good 2 example, because the specification is going to say what the 3 electrical characteristics are you have got to have, and 4 what kind of testing you have got to have, and what kind of 5 power rating you have got to have and all this kind of 6 thing. It's not going to spell out other things; if you 7 are going to bid those things, you are going to bid them to 8 all the different diesel manufacturers in the country.

9 They are going to come in with different diesels,-different 10 design diesels.

11 MR. SIESS: Some will be better than others.

12 MR. WYLIE: Some will be better than others.

-( ) 13 MR. MICHELSON: They will come in with different 14 foundation requirements, too, which will be flexibility of 15 design depending on who you buy from.

16 MR. WYLIE: Well, if you want to do anything 17 except certify the design --

18 MR. SIESS: What are the disadvantages of 19 standardization? Any reason we should be against 20 standardization?

21 MR. WYLIE: I don't know of any.

22 MR. SIESS: There' seems to be a thought kicking 23 around the various times we have talked about it, you could 24 end up with the Staff approving something that when it got 25 l built wouldn't be as good as what we are getting now you o

(/

i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. -

, 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646

I 27758.0 71 l AFF 1

O

\# 1 under custom designs.

2 MR. WYLIE: I think it would be a little better, 3 I personally believe.

4 MR. MICHELSON: Depends on whose standard you 5 use.

6 MR. WYLIE: If you do a good job up front, I 7 think that the industry is moving in the right direction; I 8 believe that is going to come out with a better product by 9 far. I think that doing all of the thinking in advance, 10 the problem has been in the past, you already are building 11 these things, where are you going to start thinking about 12 it. There have been a lot of mistakes made. I'f you go to 13 this extent of detail here that's been indicated, doing all

^(])

14 that thinking up front --

. ., n 15 MR. MICHELSON: In the past utilities have been 16 unwilling to put up their money, like $100 million to do 17 all this design work before they start building the plant.

18 MR. SIESS: The one or two that did ended up

. 19 saving twice that.

20 MR. MICHELSON: I know, but the history has been 21 the day they start designing they also start scratching the 22 amount. The day is commitment is made everybody takes off.

23 MR. WYLIE: The only advantage I see to 24 standardization is people's egos.

25 MR. MICHELSON: Sure, part of it.

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. -

1 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80M36-646

27758.0 72 ,

AFF O

k/ 1 MR. SIESS: There's some potential disadvantages  ;

2 to the industry. Right now we are beating on B&W plants 3 which aren't standard but they are all one vendor. If we 4 had 20 plants to standard design out there and one of them 5 had an accident or incident, there would be an incident 6 investigation team, at least two of them, I suspect. The 7 others would be shut down while they worked on the whole 8 thing. In the northeast they think they are better off 9 having three. Arizona Public Service would rather have 10 three alike. I don't know what their reasoning is.

11 As far as the public health and safety is 12 concerned, I can see nothing but advantages in getting more f' 13 designs m'ade before you start building, which I think comes 14 out of standardization, more thorough review by the Staff,

~ ^ ~

15 which I think will come out of standardization, and more 16 pressure by the industry to come up with a good design in 17 the first place.

18 MR. WYLIE: Incidently, the Commission indicated, 19 I think, that they wanted to hear the Committee's opinion 20 on standardization of construction and quality assurance.

21 I think we ought to state what we think.

1 22 MR. SIESS: I wish I knew what it meant.

23 MR. WYLIE: That's one of the problems with it.

24 MR. SIESS
I don't know how you specify l

25 i construction other than to say I am going to work to some O

1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. -

l :o:.m.xm m _ m c _ :. -

i l 27758.0 73  !'

AFF l

/~T  !

l I construction specification, of which there are some for 2 steel, some for concrete, some in the electrical field, 3 some in the plumbing field.

4 MR. WYLIE: Would you accept -- I like the word 5 " certification," but if you want to say " standardization of 6 construction and acceptance criteria."

7 MR. SIESS: Is that what is implied by the 8 readiness review.that I read somewhere, readiness review 9 program that's in the NUREG outline, on page 2 of the 10 outline, under heading "related policies of regulations" along i

11 with such things as severe accident policy and safety goal 12 policy business one down at the bottom called " readiness

~N 13 (d review program."

14 MR. SCALETTI: Right.

15 MR. SIESS: Is that a formal program?

16 MR. SCALETTI: Well, the plants that are coming 17 on line now are all going through this readiness review

. 18 program.

19 MR. SIESS: That's what, to determine if they 20 were constructed as they were supposed to be?

21 MR. SCALETTI: That's part of it. It is part of 22 it. It is a pilot program.

23 MR. SIESS: If that's done in custom plants, 24 there's no reason it wouldn't be done on standard plants, 25 is there?

O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. -

202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-wm

i 27758.0 74 AFF O 1 MR. SCALETTI: Yes, that's true.

2 MR. SIESS: I&E is going to be out there.

3 MR. SCALETTI: Absolutely.

l ,4 MR. MICHELSON: What they are allowed to j 5 question in that process, of course, is where you didn't 6 comply with the standard procedure that you said you were 7 going to follow if that were the case. But if you complied 8 with your procedure and they said, well, that really wasn't 9 the procedure you should have used, then that becomes a 10 factor. .

11 MR. SIESS: If staff approved the procedure once --

12 MR. SCALETTI: Unless they determined it has a

() '

13 detrimental impact on the health and safety of the public.

14 MR. MICHELSON: Readiness review is to first of 15 all see what you were going to do. I think that's the 16 thrust of it.

17 MR. SIESS: If you have approved what you have 18 said you are going to do, and you can establish what you r

19 have done, it is probably a step beyond where we are now.

20 MR. WYLIE: Let me ask a question. Now, in the 21 Staff's version, they use the same words. They said this 22 concept would require standardization for a nuclear power 23 plant design and strongly encouraged standardization, 24 standardized procurement, construction and installation.

25 What did they mean by " construction"?

I 1

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6M6

l 27758.0 '

75  ;

AFF 1 MR. SCALETTI: Well, we felt that we didn't want  ;

I 2 to require it. Felt that for several reasons.

3 MR. WYLIE: I was trying to find out what it was.

4 MR. SCALETTI: We had the multiple groups of 5 architect-engineers, groups and constructors out there that

' 6 may not all oper' ate and construct in the same manner. For 7 that reason, we felt that it should, if they wanted to 8 include it, then, great, however, it would not require it.

9 Dave --

10 MR. SIESS: Do you mean turnkey? In other words, 11 the ideal might be a turnkey operation?

12 MR. SCALETTI: Could be, yes. *

() 13 MR. SIESS: If somebody built a plant.

14 MR. SCALETTI: Yes.

'j/ ', 15 MR. SIESS: We don't have documents as to how it 16 is going to be built. ,

17 MR. WYLIE: Is moving the reactor vessel on-site 18 to a new position, is that construction?

19 MR. SIESS: Sure.

20 MR. WYLIE: Depends on the site and location, 21 whether it's on the seacoast or someplace else?

22 MR. MICHELSON: It could vary greatly.

23 MR. WYLIE: If you could have the same plan, 24 standardized design under the standardization policy built 25 under two locations, it's impossible to standardize.

O 1

I I

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. -l 202 347 Nationwide Coserage 800-336 6M6

,- ._ , . _ _ . - -3700

l  !

27758.0 76 i AFF O#

1 MR. SIESS: No. I was going to make the point, 2 if Westinghouse and Bechtel, for example, got together to

! 3 do turnkey, essentially like C.F. Brown, if they got 4 together turnkey plants and sold them, they would not be 5 constructed in the same manner or with the same people.

6 Standardization of construction plans --

7 MR. MORAN: I can add a little bit. I can tell 8 you how this question is being handled by EPRI in that in 9 their requirements document, construction and 10 constructibility bo.iled down to a requirement that there be 11 a construction plan. You see, one of the things that EPRI 12 and the industry is very aware of is they can't stand anymore

'( j 13 unknown construction schedules. In order to ensure that 14 there be a construction schedule that hangs together, then

, 15 you have to have a plan for construction schedule, and it 16 has to follow good criteria, which they are attempting to i

17 lay down based on lessons learned in the past. So, if in 18 this policy statement you encourage that sort of thing, the 19 requirement that there be a construction plan laid out along 20 the good principles, that is the sort of thing that policy 21 statements can do, I think, profitably.

22 MR. SIESS: I think to the extent we would like 23 to see plants built with a minimum of of changes.

24 MR. MORAN: Almost zero is what they are heading 25 for here.

4 (2)

I

! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. -

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6 4 6

l T l

27758.0 77 AFF O

'~# 1 MR. WYLIE: That wouldn't require that be a 2 standard plan; you just have a plan.

3 MR. MORAN: You must have a plan to follow up 4 this document and the plant should have the following 5 attributes and they should list the things that the plants 6 should have.

7 MR. SIESS: That's clearly good business.

8 MR. MORAN: This document is for the purpose of 9 helping the industry designer.

, 10 MR. SIESS: You are talking about EPRI. I am 11 talking about the policy statement.. j 12 MR. MORAN: We don't pay much attention to it 13 except that it's there.and it's something that ought to be 14 there, but we personally aren't going to pass judgment on 15 it.

j 16 MR. SIESS: Why would the NRC want to encourage j 17 or to embody construction, what one of'these drafts says.

18 The other one says, I think, " encourage." One reason would i 19 be the number of field changes that are made should be kept 20 to a minimum, and that would be zero, obviously. Every l

21 time you have a change in the field you have another chance 22 to make a mistake.

23 MR. SCALETTI: You can't endure too many of I

24 those changes and still have a standardized plan. So, 25 therefore, the line, there is a line someplace which says o

V ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

m.m.x. s.e _ m. c _ :. --

)

27758.0 78 AFP

^

l this is no longer -- you haven't conformed to the design.

2 Therefore, there is no longer a standard plan and a custom 3 plan. So it has to be put in another category.

4 So from that standpoint, construction plan, if 5 it is so provided and approved, certainly is part of the 6 standard design, and, therefore, we would expect the plants 7 to be built in that manner in accordance with this plan.

8 MR. SIESS: Originally the original statement 9 was, you expect it to be built in accordance with the 10 standard design. I don't see how NRC can require much more 11 than that. There are many ways of implementing that 12" requirement. I think NRC is sticking its neck out by 13 saying, we know how to do it; we will tell you how to do

,' 14 it; and if'it doesn't work, it's your fault. That's what

,; 15 they do all the time.

16 , MR. WYLIE: Depending on location, where this 17 plant goes, whether it's down in the Northeast or Southwest, 18 construction that controls, materials that control.

19 MR. SIESS: That's true. I wouldn't expect the 20 design to specify the aggregate, to specify all the 21 properties in the country at this point. If you have 22 gravel, you have to screen it and wash it one way. If you 23 have stone, you have to crush it, screen it and wash it.

24 MR. MICHELSON: You have to do some things in 25 winter you don't have to do in summer, too.

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. -

202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 336-6646

i 27758.0 79 AFF i l

($) 1 MR. SIESS: And you have to do some things in l 2 Maine you don't have to do in Florida.

> 3 MR. MICHELSON: It just changes the procedures 4 you are going to use because of the time of the year, but

! 5 the plant is still a standard plant unless you are going to 6 say standard only if that part was built in December. You 7 know, that's going too far.

8 MR. SIESS: It seems to me that if we had a good 9 FSAR-type document, in complete form, and let five people 10 go out there and built a plant to it, that would be a great 11 step forward. Somewhere, we are trying to go so far beyond 12 that, we are going to complicate the thing to where you

() 13 can't do it. Standard design you could get. I *am not sure 14 you could get standard plants. You could get plants built 15 according to a standard design, reviewed according to a 16 standard design. Pumps will have a certain capacity, the 17 valves will have a certain capacity. They will close and 18 open; there will be all of this and all of that.

19 MR. WYLIE: Concrete will meet minimum specs.

20 MR. SIESS: I think that's a big step forward.

21 Now, if a policy statement tries to go much beyond that, I

22 think it's just going to complicate it in trying to 23 interpret what it means and trying to apply.

24 MR. WYLIE: Would you accept then the certified 25 or standardized -- I like the word " certified" -- certified 1

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 336-4M6

t 27758.0 80 AFF l

1 1 construction and installation?

l 2 MR. SIESS: You have to spell it out a little 3 bit more.

4 MR. WYLIE: I mean acceptance, construction l

5 acceptance, whatever. Size acceptance criteria could well i 6 be in there.  !

7 MR. MICHELSON: If you go very, far that gets 8 awfully sticky.

9 MR.WYLIE: -I know, but tests should be made on  ;

i l 10 the concrete at certain intervals and meet certain 11 requirements.

12 MR. MICHELSON: Haven't you done that when you

() 13 have specified the code to which it will be built? -

14 MR. SIESS: Some of it you will, some of it you I 15 won't.

! 16 MR. MICHELSON: You clearly should be specifying 17 the codes. ,

18 MR. SIESS: One of the problems is they 19 specified too many codes. They specified codes that are 20 contradictory.

21 MR. MICHELSON: It gets awfully sticky if you --

22 MR. SIESS: Those are the things I see in a PSAR, 23 much less an FSAR.

24 MR. MICHELSON: There are no standards to go by.

25 If you start producing all those standard criteria

. ()

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 80k)36-646 .

27758.0 81 AFF ,

O 1 documents, that's quite an under taking to standardize them. j 2 MR. WYLIE: Isn't that what you want?

3 MR. MICHELSON: I don't know.

4 MR. WYLIE: You want a product in the end that 5 meets certain standards.

6 MR. MICHELSON: We should go no more than 7 meeting standard design but it does have certain standards 8 that are used in both the construction process and design, 9 process. That far you go. But I think we should recommend 10 that they not attempt to get into the question of 11 standardization and construction. I think quality 12 assurance could only be standardized to the extent that we 13 have already standardized it with Appendix B and so forth.

14 MR. SIESS: On page 4 of the Staff's version it 15 talks about stability and predictability. "

Rulemaking to 16 obtain the designed certification will cover the criteria 17 necessary for the final design of the plant" -- I am not 18 quite sure what that is - "and should include construction 19 criteria, quality assurance programs, and whatever test 20 analyses and inspection criteria are necessary to assure 21 tnat the plant is built within the certified design 22 specifications."

23 MR. MICHELSON: Whatever they are.

24 MR. SIESS: To say it's built in accordance with j 25 l the certified design might make more sense. There should

+

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6 4 6

27758.0 82 AFF

( -) 1 be enough there to give assurance that the plant can be '

2 built or will be -- not will be, but certainly can be built 3 in accordance with the certified design. Presumably there 4 are going to be people out there looking at it at some 5 stage of the readiness review to get some idea on the 6 sampling basis of whether it has been built. That comes 7 under the heading of what is covered in the rulemaking. I 8 assume some of the same thihgs would have to be covered 9 whether there was a rulemaking or not.

10 MR. WYLIE: You are back to using the same words; 11 you might say standardized, standardization and design, but 12 it's construction and installation criteria and quality

() 13 assurance, whatever.

14 MR. MICHELSON: What it amounts to is really 15 complete design work, like just the first overview of 16 construction and quality assurance. That's as far as I 17 think you can go. That's as far as we should go. But 18 that's not the inference brought about by what the 19 Commission itself put in their work, although I don't know 20 if they meant that; I'm not sure they knew exactly what was 21 meant.

1 22 MR. SIESS: I agree with you. The degree of 23 completeness of design needs to be spelled out, but that l 24 can be in the NUREG. There are words here that says, the 25 , submittal, the reference design that is certified should (1) .

, 1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8 % 336-6646

t 27758.0 83 AFF i

O' 1 include enough information about the OA program, f

~

2 construction criteria, the acceptance testing and so forth, 3 that we can judge whether it's likely whether you are going 4 to be able to build it the way you design it. I think 5 those are good words. If they quit introducing new words 6 like the " certified design specifications." You know, if 7 this stuff goes to hearing, somebody is going to be reading 8 every word.

9 MR. MICHELSON: Yes, legalistically.

10 MR. SIESS: Carl had raised the question earlier 11 about the certified design specification. To me it's 12 ambiguous. I don't know whether design is certified or

- (~j)

~

13 specification is certified.

14 MR. MICHELSON: Or whereas a document you are 15 calling design specification and certify that document, I 16 think we are mincing on words there a little bit. You can 17 fix that part all right, but to try to search out the 18 intent.

19 MR. MORAN: I think a design engineer would have 20 a tough time figuring that out.

21 MR. SIESS: Specifications and designs are too 22 different.

23 MR. MICHELSON: Yes, at least to a designer they 24 are.

25 MR. SIESS: He used design specifications in O

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-1700 Nationwide Coserage $^J0-316-6646

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

27758.0 84 AFF l

O' I designing it.

2 MR. WYLIE: Why don't we agree we have problems?

3 MR. SIESS: What don't we have a problem with?

4 What about the last paragraph?

5 MR. WYLIE: I would rather start at the 6 beginning. Why don't we take a 10-minute break.

7 (Recess.)

8 MR. WYLIE: If we started down the NRR draft and 9 then we switched, let's go back again. The first paragraph, 10 from what I heard, we liked the Commission draft except we 11 don't like the words " construction quality assurance" there.

12 We need to do something with that. Let's don't get hung up

(} 13 on it. Let's come back to it. 'Let's go on.

14 If we go into the second paragraph of the NRR 15 draft, we have already discussed that to some extent, 16 supersede the '78 policy; and then the provision for other 17 options in the NUREG. I don't think I have any problem 18 with that paragraph. Let's go on to the third.

19 MR. MICHELSON: Third one, the problem I have 20 with it, is they start out by saying, yes, we really are 21 going to focus on design. The next thing is we would also 22  ; like to see how far we can go on standardizing all the rest l

23 I of the process; and there I think, first of all, no further 24 guidance was ever provided in this area, although perhaps 25 it's going to be in the NUREG, I don't know. I would be O

I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

x.m.m s.c_ m_... mu- ,j

27758.0 85 AFF .

(~h

\~# 1 interested in seeing what kind of guidance you are going to j i

2 give on standardized procurement and standardized 3 construction and so forth, or was this just a little 4 motherhood and you are never going to mention it again?

5 MR. SCALETTI: Presently it is not detailed in 6 the NUREG. l 7 MR. MICHELSON: You are really focusing on )

8 design in the NUREG and what the design scope ought to be.

9 I think that's great because I believe that's the first 10 hurdle you have got to get over anyway and a big enough i 11 piece to bite. This was just some extra thoughts. Perhaps 12 it ought to be worded slightly different to convey more

() 13 than just the extra thoughts . ' Don ' t expect , in other words, 14 to go to the NUREG now and find out how we are going to 15 encourage this. Because there's no further guidance or 16 anything that tells me how you are going to encourage it.

17 But it says it would "strongly encourage." But it isn't 18 -- it's a little more than the concept, because the concept 19 that is going to do this is the concept that would require 20 I standardization of nuclear power plant design and would 21 strongly encourage standardization of construction.

22 I don't know that the concept does that. Are 23 you providing guidance on how that would be done or 24 whatever? I am not sure standardization of design does 25 anything to standardization of construction, unless you t

() .

I i

j i i

r ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. -

i m,.m s.e _ m c _ .:. mn- 1

27758.0 86 AFF s- 1 take some special steps to do it. I can take a standard i

2 design perhaps and go through six different construction  ;

3 processes and end up with it at the end. I can place the 4 vessel early, I can place the vessel late. I can-do a lot 5 of things.

6 MS. SCALETTI: I don't intend to cover that in 7 detail.

8 MR. MICHELSON: I don't think you do. So it 9 ought to be worded a little differently. Though there 10 really are some things in construction we ought to try to 11 standardize. I think eventually it would be nice to study 12 those and put on a NUREG that points these out, but it 13 isn't your intention to do that now.

(

14 MR. HERNAN: Is your suggestion to the 15 Commission going to be to amplify on this NUREG rather than 16 change this document itself?

17 MR. MICHELSON: My suggestion would be that that 18 sentence ought to be rewritten to make it clearer that the 19 focus is, indeed, on design, but there are thoughts down 20 the road that we might want to later think about 21 standardization. Procurement, you could do some 22 standardization even now, perhaps, but I don't know that 23 you intend to give any guidance on doing that, and 24 installation, quality assurance, I don't know.

25 MR. SCALETTI: I think NUREG is going to request O

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. j 202 347-3700 Nanonwide Coverage 8%336-W6 i L- -

27758.0 87 AFF O 1 that part of the design procurement documents, yes.

2 MR. MICHELSON: It's the closest. It's the next 3 -- it's the closest related step, and I didn't know how far 4 you were going to go there. That's why I didn't debate; 5 but I think construction -- I would be surprised if you are 1

6 going to tell us much about construction or installation.

7 MR. MORAN: Would you say it is important to 8 make a policy statement that it is encouraged that these 9 other aspects be standardized?

10 MR. MICHELSON: I think it should be encouraged 11 that we take steps now to see how we could go about 12 standardizing these other steps. Those would be good words.

() 13 That would be as far as you would go, and keep the focus on 14 design.

15 MR. MORAN: See, standardization of all other 16 industries, except the building and construction industry, 17 implies and demands standardization of tooling and 18 construction and building techniques. The biggest examples 19 we have are shipyards; and the lead ship and the next ship 20 are often different because of the method of learning.

21 MR. MICHELSON: Are we ready yet to 22 standardize --

23 MR. MORAN: We don't have one construction crew?

24 j That's why.

I 25 MR. MICHELSON: -- to break it into pieces? But

! l (1)

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

< 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336.u>M

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

27758.0 88 AFF 1 that's what I am getting at. It encourages in a positive, 2 positive piece of the terrain that we are dealing with. I 3 think that would be what we would do, but try to at least 4 focus on what is required in terms of design 5 standardization; if you don't get over that hurdle, you 6 will never get on to these others anyway. So I think a 7 little rewording is all that is needed.

8 MR. SCALETTI: The hang-up is with construction; 9 not with training?

10 MR. MICHELSON: I have a hang-up with 11 installation. l 12 MR. WYLIE: Would you buy " construction and

(} 13 installation specifications"?

14 MR. MICHELSON: I don't know what they mean.

15 MR. WYLIE: You write a spec for them.

16 MR. MICHELSON: I don't know what they mean.

17 Now, you have to sit down, think them through, work them up.

18 on my part, I would rather see us go on to completion of

, 19 design certification and worry about these other steps e

20 later, because I think it's going to -- there are going to 21 be a lot of hurdles to get the industry to thinking about 22 standardizing how they build things, not just the design.

23 MR. WYLIE: I am not sure if the industry 24 doesn't do this across the board --

25 MR. MICHELSON: Certification process, you can (2) .

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. .

m.m.m s._ a. c_:, m33- 1

i 27758.0 89 AFF 1 bite off as much defined by the NUREG. j l

2 MR. WYLIE: What I would suggest wording here, i I

3 for example, this concept would require standardization of i 4 a nuclear power plant design.

5 MR. MICHELSON: I am not sure where you are 6 referring to.

7 MR. WYLIE: There in that third paragraph.

8 That's where you are, isn't it?

9 MR. MICHELSON: Yes.

10 MR. WYLIE: Tho way it reads now is 11 " standardization of nuclear power plant design is strongly i 12 encouraged." *

() 13 MR. SIESS: The "a" is essential, I think.

14 MR. CARBON: It could be " designs," plural.

j 15 MR. WYLIE: It's not necessary. They all do 16 them alike, but you have a plant. ,

17 MR. CARBON: You can have standardized PWRs and 18 standardized BWRs.

19 MR. MICHELSON: I would personally think you

, 20 want to leave it fuzzy. Don't say "a" and talk about the I 21 standardized design. I think that part is acceptable. You 22 start getting too specific, it sounds like there is only 23 one.

24 MR. CARBON: I agree. I think it's good as is.

25 But the latter part of sentence needs to be word engineered (2)

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6M6

27758.0 90 AFF i

1 to get across the idea that we ought to think about how one i 2 might standardize the rest of the process; but at this 3 stage, that's not the purpose of the policy statement. The

, 4 purpose is to try to end up with standardized designs.

5 MR. WYLIE: From my standpoint, if it would say 6 "and would strongly encourage standardized procurement 7 conFtruction and installation specifications and quality 8 assurance processes," it would mean a lot more to me. I j 9 know what those are.

10 MR. MICHELSON: Do you know what a standard 11 design is?

12 MR. WYLIE: No, but I know what procurement, 13 construction and installation specifications are.

(~)

u 14 MR. SIESS: I know it's going to be something 15 different from what we have been getting.

16 MR. MICHELSON: Yes. I don't know what 17 standardized procurement documents are. That could mean 18 anything from many people.

19 MR. WYLIE: Most AEs, for example, a procurement 20 ,

document is a specification.

21 MR. MICHELSON: But each AE has its own. They 22 are not standardized from AE to AE.

23 MR. WYLIE: Well, they are.

24 MR. MICHELSON: Nuclear plants might be 25 standardized within a given design or utility but they may (1)  !

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. d 202 347 3700 Nationside Coverage 800 336-6 4 6

- - - , - - ~ - - . . , - - . , . . - - , . . ,

5 27758.0 91 AFF l

l g 1 not be standard in the industry. That's the problem: Yes, 2 you have to have standard practices within your company, 3 but we are talking about universal standard practices here.

4 MR. SIESS: If Westinghouse and Bechtel got a

^

5 reference system approved, if somebody wanted to buy it, I 6 think it's pretty obvious that they have got to buy the 7 NSSS from West nghouse.

i It isn't obvious that they have 8 got to get Bechtel to build it, is it?

9 MR. MICHELSON: That's right. The practice will

. 10 vary according to whether Bechtel builds it or Stone &

11 Webster, or whoever.

12 MR. WYLIE: Would you Duy component -

(} 13 specifications.?

14 MR. MICHELSON: Yes. I think that's part of the 15 design certification.

16 MR. WYLIE: Okay, " encourage standardized 17 component construction and installation specs."

18 MR. SIESS: Wait a minute. There is something 19 back on -- would you say " standardized component 20 , specification"? That suggests that all the standard 21 designs have to have the same component specifications. I 22 don't think that's true.

23 MR. WYLIE: No.

24 MR. SIESS: Westingnouse doesn't have to have 25 the same specifications GE does.

O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-3 C 3'no Nationwide Coserage 8 % 336- % 6

I 27758.0 <

92 I

AFF n

1 MR. WYLIE: That's why I say put "a nuclear 2 power plant."

3 MR. SIESS: It should include component 4 specification, "a standard design should include component 5 specifications."

6 MR. MICHELSON: That's right. That's the better 7 word. It's the right word, in fact.

8 MR. SIESS: What they are saying is in most 9 cases those will be performance specifications.

10 MR. WYLIE: Yes. .

11 MR. MICHELSON: Yes. That's a part of the 12 design package which we are somehow trying to find out what rm 1; ) 13 is in it but we never quite agreed.

14 MR. SCALETTI: I am hoping we will get it

+'

15 finalized. I am sure you will have an opportunity to 16 somment on it.

17 MR. WYLIE: Where are we?

18 MR. MICHELSON: Third paragraph, the latter part 19 of the paragraph where all these words about standardized 20 procurement and construction. I personally feel that I 21 don't know what they are talking about, and unless they 22 clarify what you mean by " standardized installation," for 23 instance, or standardized ," even " standardized procurement."

24 What does that mean, as opposed to standardized design?

25 MR. SCALETTI: It's part of the standardized o

V 1

l '

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

I m,.xm xm_m c- mu-

l 27758.0 93 AFF

('D v 1 design.

2 MR. MICHELSON: If it's a part of it, then it 3 isn't encouraged, it's required. So I thought this was  !

4 something else.

5 MR. SIESS: Anything that is going to be lf 6 included in your definition of design in the NUREG should 7 be left under design here, not added on.

8 I really think that if you standardize the plant 9 design, these other things are going to follow along to the 10 extent practical and almost to the extent possible.

11 MR. MICHELSON: I think that's right, once you 12 have got a proper design package. But to tack them on this 13 way infers that there are some other things that won't be

(~)S s_

14 in the design package but you would like to see 15 standardized. I don't know what they are.

16 MR. SIESS: If your emergency operating 17 procedures aren't standard there's something with the 18 design being standard.

19 MR. MICHELSON: They can't be standard either l

20 ,

because they will depend on which design they are referring '

21 l to.

i 22 ! MR. WYLIE: The words here say "strongly 23 encourage." Doesn't say " require."

24 i MR. MICHELSON: They are totally confusing 25 because we don't know what they are talking about.

(~'N

\_)

l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.  ;

i 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6N6 t

.. - , .,.w.. ,a- ,

I 27758.0 94 AFF ,

i

['# l 1 Something over and above the design package, apparently.

2 MR. SIESS: I think there's a difference in 3 saying that standardization of the design in itself would 4 encourage these things, and the NRC encouraging these 5 things. It seems to me what we want to do is start with 6 standardized plant designs and see where we can go from 7 there and not clutter it up with stuff that nobody will 8 understand, because if anybody thinks that's going to lead 9 to stability of the licensing process, they are crazy.

10 Design you can get pretty well cleared up. We have 11 standard review plan and the EPRI req,uirements document.

12 We don't set the requirements for the design. But the rest l

() 13 of this stuff is wide open. If you go beyond Appendix B 14 with OA.

15 MR. MICHELSON: I don't know what it means. The 16 Commission policy had the same problem in our first 17 paragraph going beyond design and talking about 18 construction and quality assurance. So that comment, I 19 think, we should make to the Commission.

20 MR. WYLIE: Would you basically say -- what did 21 you say?  !

I 22 MR. MICHELSON: Commission document has the same 23 shortcoming and they talk about standardized construction 24 and standardized quality assurance. The Subcommittee would 25 recommend to them that they rethink this issue and we would (2) ,

, I. ,

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6 416

I I l

27758.0 95 l AFF l l

O 1 recommend that they focus on the design aspects. We 2 believe that a lot of the construction standardization may l l

I 3 automatically result from the design process.

4 MR. SIESS: If you go to page 2 and look at the 5 things that the Commission hopes will come out of l 6 standardization, eliminating the different operations and 7 so forth. Second paragraph, " concentrating the resources 8 of the design engineers and vendors" -- most of that will 9 come out of standardizing the design. Sure, if somebody 10 ever gets around to building 10 of the standard design

. 11 construction is going to be helping a lot, but I would 12 rather look at it from the standpoint of what it's going to 13 do from the first one.

14 MR. MICHELSON: I think we should encourage the 15 Commission to go into other areas later, like training, 16 operating procedures, that sort of thing; try to bite those 17 off now is too much.

I 18 MR. SIESS: Look at the paragraph on page 2, get 19 down to the fourth line, you have construction practices, 20 OA again, and it doesn't add anything to what was said 21 there, except here it says "by stimulating standardized 22 programs and construction practices." That's true. It 23 will stimulate that. Why say that policy and the concept.

24 would "strongly encourage"? I don't know whether that 25 means the concept, whatever. So I am in favor of -- I like O i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

) 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800136-6M6

I 27758.0 96 AFF  :

I the wording on the second page better; it says that it j 2 would stimulate this.

3 MR. KERR: The next line, though, says it will 4 improve training. Lousy instructor is a lousy instructor.

5 I think it will facilitate training. I am nitpicking, but 6 to me it would facilitate training or make it more 7 efficient or something. In the top paragraph on page 2, 8 it's again a nit of mine, but the first line talks about 9 reactors and the next to last line talks about reactors.

10 MR. MICHELSON: Which one are you looking at?

11 MR. KERR: 2.

12 MR. MICHELSON: Of which document?

{} 13 MR. SCALETTI: I think i't's in both of them.

14 MR. SIESS: Nuclear power plant, the reactor is 15 a small part of it now. I think the thing is I looked at 16 page 2 to find an elaboration of the third paragraph, and 17 actually you continue on page 3; if you look at, these are 18 all intended to be elaborations, some in safety, some in 19 cost. I think the top of page 3 is mostly cost-related and 20 it does mention a drawback.

21 MR. KERR: We have to be careful because they 22 say that the ACRS will benefit from these designs.

23 ,

MR. SIESS: Is it clear in the third paragraph 24 again that only the reference design, which strongly 25 encourages-other things.

(Z)  !

i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347 3700 Narionwide Cnverage 91% 336.M

_ - - . . . .~ l

I l

27758.0 l 97 AFF i

i 0" 1 MR. SIESS: I don't see that the reference i

i 2 design, in terms of the final result on the plant, is any 3 different than our design approval.

4 MR. WYLIE: The standard design approach may 5 have benefits in the standard advised procurement 6 construction and installation all the time?

7 MR. SIESS: Look at that paragraph again. The 8 paragraph starts off, it says, "the focus of this policy is 9 the reference system of design certification." That's true.

10 MR. WYLIE: Yes.

11 MR. SIESS: I would assume with everything that 12 follows, results from the design certification.

() 13 Certification means hearing; right? Certification means 14 the rulemaking. Doesn't the reference design concept 15 equally encourage these things; the fact that it went 16 through a rulemaking, doesn't it encourage standardized 17 production, training, emergency operating and maintenance 18 procedures?

19 MR. WYLIE: I guess the real difficulty with 20 this is the fact that the NUREG is not written.

21 MR. KERR: Right.

1 22 MR. SIESS: That's not my problem.

23 MR. WYLIE: It complicates it because you don't 24 know what you are talking about in detail; you don't know 25 what you are talking about.

l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-66M

27758.0 98 AFF 1 MR. SIESS: Charlie, here is my problem with 2 paragraph 3. The first sentence I buy. It was taken from 3 somewhere else. It says the focus of this is on the design 4 certification. Now, everything else it says in there is 5 repeated in the next three paragraphs, or the next two, 6 basically.

7 MR. WYLIE: As benefits of standardization?

8 MR. SIESS: Yes. It says it would stimulate 9 standardized programs of construction practices for QA, 10 training personnel. Says facilitate the training better 11 and so forth. Those are elaborations on the statement that 12 is made in the third paragraph, with some changes, 13 " stimulates" rather than "strongly encourages." I like f( )

14 "~ stimulating" better; "strongly encourage" is a little

. 15 ambiguous. To me it diluted the first sentence which says 16 the focus of this policy is the reference system, design 17 certification. Seems to me the reference system itself 18 would do everything that is listed on page 2, wouldn't it?

19 MR. MORAN: I have to agree. That's exactly 2'O what happened. When EPRI and the industry got together to 21 determine how they could get a standardized design that 22 would revitalize the industry, they ended up dealing with 23 all those subjects that you have been wrestling with there, l 24 including working on the academy for training and j 25 certifying all men or personnel. They are now working on ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3i00 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-66 4

I -l I

27758.0 99 AFF j l

(~s l' standardized maintenance techniques for the United States.

1 2 So it all follows. You have a good case in point.

3 MR. SCALETTI: When the design is certified, it 4 is -- it has been given the Commission's stamp of approval; 5 just a reference system design, without certification, has 6 just gone to the Staff and the ACRS. It hasn't been 7 subject to challenge in any proceedings outside the 8 internal review that goes on here. So to say that their 9 one is as good as the other, I can't agree with that.

10 MR. SIESS: I know, but let's take what you have 11 cot here. That paragraph I am going to skip for the moment.

12 On page 2, I have got some advantages of standard design;

() 13 and their advantages, no matter how you go about it, if you 14 go multiple plants of the same design, these advantages 15 still apply, even if they are replications and duplications.

16 If I get enough replicated or duplicated or standard plants 17 out there, plants that are alike, I gain most of these 18 benefits.

19 Now, on page 3, there are some further benefits 20 of standardization by any process; and page 4 talks about 1

21 the goal, and that applies equally, I think, to the 22 replication or duplication, certainly the manufacturing 23 license.

24 Now, I get to page 4, and I get into the 25 stability and predictability and rulemaking. Now it's I

! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

t m.m.so s.,,e..,e. ce .,,,, so ,33e.ests-

27758.0 100 AFF 1 talking about the special advantages of rulemaking, and j 2 what do you get from rulemaking. You get 10 years instead 3 of five; right? Page 4 is all dealing with rulemaking, and 4 to me, somewhere I would eliminate the third paragraph and 5 somewhere before page 4 I would introduce the idea that the 6 focus of this policy, is really the ultimate objective of 7 standardization would be rulemaking and design 8 certification and then explain what that involves and what 9 the benefits are.

10 MR. SCALETTI: You get more than just the 11 five- versus 10-year, five versus 10 years with the 12 certified design. You get greater assurances in the rm 13 licensing process. Once a design is certified, it is no

-( )

14 longer subject to challenge in individual licensing 15 proceedings.

16 MR. SIESS: Right. But you don't get any of l

17 these things on page 2 or page 3. Bottom of page 3 might 18 be the introduction to certification. But if I take the 19 three paragraphs, two on page 2 and the one on the top of 20 page 3, to me those relate to standardization by any means; 21 and starting at the bottom of page 3 -- actually, the first 22 sentence doesn't relate to the certification -- well, it 23 says that that relates to certification. "The goal of 24 standardization should be an essentially complete plant

'25 design both with respect to scope and level of detail which j (2)  !

i I

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ,

202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 50133 & 6646 i

I  !

27758.0 101 AFF O'

1 can then be referenced in individual license applications."

2 And then it goes on to say "In this process, a design would 3 be certified by the Commission"; and is that true? Can't 4 you have an essentially complete plant design both with 5 respect to scope and level of detail which can then be 6 referenced in individual license applications without 7 certification?

8 MR. SCALETTI: Certainly. That would be a final 9 design approval.

10 MR. SIESS: That sentence, as I note, says "in 11 this process."

12 MR. SCALETTI: Well, for the ultimate goal of

,} 13 standardization.

14 MR. SIESS: I know, but that's two pages back.

15 MR. SCALETTI: This is what the whole policy 16 statement is intended to address. It isn't intended to 17 focus on final design approvals or replicate or duplicate 18 plant approval. Just certify, the reference systems 19 concept certified.

20 i MR. SIESS: The Commission draft said that a lot 21 clearer; said the focus of policy is reference system 22 design certification; in the first paragraph you have it in 23 the third paragraph, followed by a lot of good things that 24 are going to happen whether or not it's certified; and then l l

25 i you see there are certain benefits from standardization; iI

~

(2)  !

i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6 4 6

~. _ --

~

i l

27758.0 102 {

AFF  ;

i

"% j 1 these are clearly benefits to the health and safety of the 2 public review process and so forth. There are some other 3 benefits from certification, which is an incremental 4 benefit in the review and ma , be in the public health and 5 safety, and a significant benefit to the guy that is trying 6 to buy a building and the legal aspects of it. The lawyers 7 are going to get a lot out of it.

8 MR. SCALETTI: Also to the ratepayers who will 9 have to pay for it.

10 MR. SIESS: The biggest advantages. I 11 Ratepayers will get the advantage in six years 12 whether or not it's certified, even if the site has to be i 13 approved before that. As long as you don't tie your money

{)

14 up building that plant while you are getting the plant  !

i 15 approved, you have the advantage of that if you start early 16 on the site. It seems to me you ar; citing a number of 17 advantages that apply to standard designs in general, but 18 the way the thing is written, it seems to tie them in only 19 to the design certification.

20 Now, if somewhere you said the previous policy s

21 relating to other than design certification, et cetera, you 22 are not going to bother with, you are just going to talk 23 about design certification, as if that is the only way to 24 go, but it's not the only way to go. It's the way you 25 would like people to go, but the odds are about 10 to 1.

O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTRS, INC. -

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6 4 6

l i

l 27758.0 103 AFF I that the first one you see isn't going to be there.

2 MR. SCALETTI: That's correct. That's why we 3 have addressed the other options.as an interim alternative 4 in the NUREG.

5 MR. SIESS: That's fine, and yet the advantages 6 you are citing here are not simply those due to design 7 certification. I think it's overselling the design 8 certification. You really have two things to point out:

9 Standardization is good and we are for it for all these 10 good reasons. We think the certification route is even 11 better for the following additional reasons.

12 MR. MICHELSON: What are the additional reasons 13 of design that you want to go to design certification as

[)

14 opposed to just going to the reference design?

15 MR. SIESS: Stability and predictability.

16 MR. SCALETTI: To facilitate the licensing 17 process to bring it in conformance with the Commission's 18 proposed licensing reform, which addresses preapproved 19 citing, design certification, one-step licensing, and we 20 don't perceive that this is the way to one-step licensing 21 is through the design certification process.

22 MR. MORAN: As far as standardization, we get 23 all the way as far as its benefits by just going to 24 f reference design only, don't we?

l 25 MR. SCALETTI: I guess I have to say no, because n

(_)

. l I .

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage S00-336-6M6 ,

27758.0 104 AFF t

1 I believe the Commission has the ultimate say. As far as I 2 the Staff and the ACRS are concerned, that's correct. But 3 as far as the Commission is concerned --

4 MR. SIESS: What you are saying is, taken in the 5 worst possible way, is that the Staff will do a better job  !

6 of review if they have to go before a rulemaking yearly.

7 MR. MICHELSON: There is that advantage. Maybe 8 the ACRS, taken in a somewhat better sense than saying that 9 the rulemaking process in itself with the outside 10 intervenors and whatever experts they can muster, can 11 actually lead to improvements.

12 MR. MICHELSON: It's a cause for more reflection.

(s . 13 MR. SIESS: More words.

O 14 MS. SCALETTI: Also, it provides this input 15 early on in the licensing process.

16 MR. MICHELSON: Why don't we just say that?

17 MR. SIESS: They do, in effect, somewhere over 18 there about page 4.

19 MR. MICHELSON: Doesn't come through in that 20 ,

order.

21 MR. SIESS: I find it difficult to believe the 22 lawyers will impute it that much.

23 MR. MORAN: My view of the industry is after 24 they spend all the megabucks on the design, they want the i

25 ! benefit of certification, and it's almost no contest to all j (2) .

i ,

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. -

l xx.m x.s _ m m .:. m-

27758.0 105  !

AFF l

/~T {

kl 1 the utility people.

2 MR. MICHELSON: I thought GE said no they didn't 3 want to bother with certification. They already spent the 4 megabucks.

5 MR. SCALETTI: I believe they now believe they 6 want to pursue their BWR.

7 MR. MORAN: A BWR is what they are putting their 8 money on.

9 MR. SIESS: That's a business decision too.

10 There are other advantages to certification. The backfit 11 gets a little tighter, doesn't it?

12 MR. SCALETTI: Backfit gets tighter, when the

) 13 criteria are the same for implementing the backfit, whether 14 it's certified or final design approval. You still have to 15 demonstrate substantial, or however it, is increase to the 16 public health and safety.

17 MR. MICHELSON: Stability is better because the 18 public had input on certified design and haven't done --

19 MR. SIESS: If the hearing goes on long enough 20 it will be obsolete by the time you get through. Again, I 21 still think that if you are going to stick to what you have 22 got you have got to put this focus as being up front; not 23 laid up in paragraph 2 where it says "the other 24 alternatives are discussed in the NUREG."

25 MR. WYLIE: If you do that, aren't you back to O

i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage S00-336 # 2

27758.0 106 AFF 1 the Commission's burden?

l 2 MR. SIESS: Closer to it, except that you could  ;

3 put it, instead of in the first paragraph -- if I were 4 writing this, I would try to do something to the first 5 paragraph, but I would introduce the second paragraph where l

6 that sent'nce that says "the focus of this policy is the 7 reference system," you can say it supersedes the previous 8 one. "The focus of this policy is the reference system.

9 The other issues that were covered in the previous 10 rulemaking are now discussed with the NUREG." That's in 11 effect what you have done.

12 MR. SCALETTI: Focus of this policy is the 13 certification.

14 MR. SIESS: That's what I meant. I i

15 MR. MICHELSON: Maybe we should prepare an ACRS 16 version of this policy statement.

17 MR. SIESS: Thing is, once I get past page 1, it 18 reads like a book. It really is quite clear. It's just 19 that I get headed in the wrong direction on page 1, 20 MR. MICHELSON: In terms of our commments, would 21 it be better to go ahead and rearrange the Staff's paper 22 and incorporate what you think of the Commission's paper 23 and have a new paper and indicate in the letter the reasons 24 why we rearranged the material? Might be easier than 25 trying to put a lot of words and comment in which they 1

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

I t

l 27758.0 107 AFF j ,

1

/~')  !

\/ 1 still won't understand what you mean.

l 2 MR. SIESS: If you tell them what you are going  !

l 3 to tell them in the first couple of paragraphs, it will be 4 a lot easier to follow. If I look at page 2 and talk about 5 the benefits of standardization, and I think that I don't 6 see the word " certification" in either of those paragraphs.

7 MR. MICHELSON: I do see of course being 8 discussion standardizing stimulating programs --

9 MR. SIESS: Stimulating is -- when I get down to 10 the bottom of page 3, the first sentence is sort of 11 repetition; there is where I'd introduce the idea cf the 12 certification and then go on with the additional benefits 13

'( ) of certification. Because the top of page 4 is benefits of 14 certification; right? Then the backfit rule would be left 15 on design certification. You can do it by simply saying 16 that the other things discussed in NUREG, as you do here, 17 go on to page 2 and 3, just referring to benefits of 18 standardization and then bring in the certification and the 19 initial benefits. It's too long.

20 MR. WYLIE: What about the Commission version?

21 MR. SIESS: It's the same length.

22 MR. WYLIE: I don't think so.

23 MR. SIESS: It's got footnotes. Long footnotes.

24 MR. WYLIE: It is longer, isn't it. Maybe your 25 comments ought to be directed to what you don't like.

(o

_s ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3"N Natiortwide Coserage 800-336- % 46

i 27758.0 108 l AFF 1 Isn't that what we like?  !

2 MR. SIESS: Maybe it's because I haven't looked 3 at it. Once I get past the first page, which sort of 4 steered me off, I don't have any problems with it.

5 MR. MICHELSON: What are you suggesting?

I-6 MR. SIESS: My main trouble is with a couple of 7 sentences. The first sentence in the report, " Standardized 8 plant should be used to satisfy the ultimate licensing goal."

9 MR. WYLIE: We talked about that.

10 MR. SIESS: That needs turning around. You can 11 say that the ultimate goal of the Commission is licensing a 12 certified design constructed on preapproved sites, and that this policy statement shows how that could be' done or

{} 13 14 something, sets requirements for standardization or 15 whatever.

16 The next sentence is elaborated on; it's all the 17 good things that result. Another paragraph that-says what 18 happened to the other standardization options, which is 19 essentially what you have in the second paragraph.

20 Then I don't see any need for the third 21 paragraph, if you have said in the first paragraph that 22 this whole policy statement is how the certification, ,

23 i design certification, will help achieve the ultimate 24 licensing goal; and on page 2 you talk about advantages of 25 standardization in general; on page 3 at the top of the O

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

20M47-37tv) Nationwide Coserage 8 % 336-6646 t..., m.. ._, -

m._ . -

i 27758.0 109 cox i

1 1 page, again advantages of standardization. And then ,

2 beginning at the bottom of page 3, you are talking about 3 the additional advantages presumably of certified as 4 opposed to other standard forms. So it's just a word or 5 two of introducing paragraphs.

6 MR. WYLIE: Really what you are doing is 7 changing the first paragraph and eliminating the third;  !

8 right?

9 MR. SIESS: I would eliminate the third, change 10 the first and do something in the second to emphasize again i 11 that this policy statement supersedes the previous one

. 12 insofar as certification is concerned, and the NUREG will  !

13 describe the remaining options; because you are really not

([

14 removing those options.

~

15 MR. SCALETTI: Right.

16 MR. SIESS: Design certification existed under 17 the previous ones?

18 MR. SCALETTI: It was not spelled out in the '78 19 policy statement. However, when Appendix 0 was promulgated, 20 it was in the regulations at that time. I believe it's '76 21 or thereabouts.

22 MR. WYLIE: What would you say there now?

23 MR. SIESS: I didn't try to reword it.

24 MR. WYLIE: You say insofar as the certification, 25 design certification is concerned, is what you said, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6

I I I

i 27758.0 110 CoX ,

i

(~)

s 1 reference design certification?

i 2 MR. SIESS: I would try something like this, "this 3 policy statement su'persedes the Commission's previous 4 policy on standardization issue in 1978. The principle 5 thrust relates to the" -- that's not really true. I was 6 going to say " relates to design certification," because I 7 still think that there are at least three paragraphs that 8 imply whether it's certified or not. It's just repetitions 9 of issues of standardization.

10 MR. SCALETTI: That's correct, but I believe I

11 it's appropriate to have them in here.

12 MR. SIESS: Yes, I agree to that. I think I

/~l V

13 could buy paragraph 2 without change, really. But I think 14 the first paragraph, second sentence, is a nice statement  !

15 of what you have to do about reliability, availability 16 reducing time and cost. First sentence bothered me.

17 MR. WYLIE: You see if you go to the Commission's 18 opening paragraph, that's the way it opens.

19 MR. SIESS: First two sentences of the 20 Commission draft is, I think, fine. I think 21 standardization is great, and this policy focuses on the 22 reference to system design certification, one of the ways 23 of doing it; and the third sentence of the Commission's f

24 draft is wrong, but implies that the reference system l

25 ! embodies the standardization of designs, et cetera. It (2) I

! i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverege 800 336-6M6

1 '

27758.0 111 cox 1 doesn't reference -- all of the systems embody that. What 2 is new and different about the reference system design 3 certification is the certification, period. Probably put a 4 word in there of what they mean about certification.

5 The second paragraph is all right, I think. The 6 third paragraph is unnecessary. It's "the focus of the 7 policy" would be in the previous paragraph, the first 8 paragraph, you know, on the Commission draft; and then you 9 get into all the goodies on page 2 and 3; and I could buy 10 the rest of it, I think, as it is. .

11 MR. WYLIE: So what you are suggesting is 12 eliminate the third paragraph.

() '13 MR. SIESS: The first sentence would be in the 14 third paragraph now and the rest of it is sort of a 15 confusing set of requirements. Well, the requirements are 16 all right. It's the encouragements. Repeated in much 17 better words in the next couple of paragraphs. Because to 18 say that this would -- stimulating standard programs. I 19 think they follow naturally from it, and the " encouraging" 20 is a little misleading. I don't have any problem with the 21 policy. I just have somi problems with the policy 22 statement. The policy says we are in favor of 23 standardization. Doesn't say much more than that.

24 Paragraph on backfit is just quoting regulations, the last 25 sentence, certification asks for an amendment; is that new?

O ACE-FEDERAL- REPORTERS, INC. -

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 33M426

l l

27758.0 11-2 cox ,

1 MR. SCALETTI: No. l 2 MR. SIESS: 10 years is not in the policy 3 statement.

4 MR. SCALETTI: 10 years is in the severe action

- 5 and policy statement. It says issued for like five years 6 or like 10 years.

7 MR. SIESS: You see, what does the policy 8 statement say other than we are in favor of standardization?

9 MR. SCALETTI: That's intended to be broad.

10 MR. SIESS: Yes. I mean, all we are doing is 11 nitpicking words. We can sit around here and argue as we 12 have been as to what does it mean by "strongly encourage -

() 13 construction standardization and QA practices." That's not 14 really a policy, is it? If that were the Commission policy 15 to strongly encourage it, what would that mean to Staff?

16 MR. SCALETTI: It would mean that it would not 17 have to be there. The design would be what is certified.

18 MR. SIESS: But if the Commission said to you, 19 it is our policy to strongly. encourage standardized 20 construction procurement, et cetera, would that be a 21 message to you to go out and strongly encourage it some way?

22 MR. SCALETTI: It's intended to be a position of 23 the industry.

24 MR. SIESS: When you reviewed the plant, you 25 l would consider that an option?

i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-1700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 M4

27758.0 113 CoX l i

()'

'- 1 MR.' SCALETTI: Certainly.

2 MR. SIESS: Whether the concept would mean the 3 Commission would encourage it or the concept would 4 encourage it doesn't make any difference to you. The way 5 it reads now, this concept would require standardization of 6 nuclear power plant design and would strongly encourage; 7 it says the concept would encourage.

8 MR. SCALETTI: Yes. Reference system concept.

9 MR. SIESS: Yes. Later on it says that it would 10 stimulate.

11 MR. SCALETTI: Right. j 12 MR. MORAN: I perceive that those are statements

() 13 of fact of policy that carry considerable weight in the 14 industry. They are stating fact. If the Staff gets ahold 15 of something that says, this is the way you are going to 16 construct it and it doesn't have any specification of 17 standards in it, that we have to read to make sure they are 18 correct, couldn't we just note that they have done that and 19 it's probably good for the building the the plant and 20 doesn't have a factual statement?

21 MR. SIESS: This isn't really part of the policy.

22 It's just an assumption by the Commission that adoption --

23 MR. WYLIE: This is a statement of fact like he 24 says, I think.

25 MR. SIESS: They assume that this concept would O

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. -

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6 4 6

- =_. _ -

27758.0 114 i cox

/N 1 encourage.

2 MR. WYLIE: Yes. It doesn't say that it's 3 required. Just says that it will be encouraged by this 4 approach.

5 MR. MICHELSON: This is a discussion that is put 6 into the policy. That's the problem with the policy; there 7 is a little too much discussion so you lose the policy 8 during all of the discussion. Doesn't contribute much to 9 the policy.

10 MR. SIESS: That's why I like the Commission 11 draft, because I thought the first sentence was abolished.

12 Commission believes that standardization is a very 13 important initiative and has the potential for

(

14 significantly enhancing safety reliability and availability, 15 and to me that's a policy statement.

16 MR. WYLIE: Yes. I agree.

17 MR. SIESS: Now the rest is the focus; that's 18 telling me what to look for, limitation is a scope 19 statement and the concept would embody standardization, 20 designs, construction; that one we thought should come out 21 because the concept doesn't embody all of those things; and 22 the rest of it is saying what is nice about it and 23 explaining. The thing is, that clear statement of policy I 24 don't think exists in the Staff's first paragraph. It says I

25 the policy is that standardized nuclear power plants should O

i i

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 326-(1 4

27758.0 ' 115 cox i l

']'

[

1 be used to satisfy the ultimate licensing goal of certified l

2 designs constructed on preapproved sites, and I don't 3 really think that is the policy. All I have to do is 4 change "should" to "shall" and I think it's obvious.

5 MR. WYLIE: What you are basically saying that --

6 MR. SIESS: First two sentences.

7 MR. WYLIE: You don't disagree with that third 8 paragraph anymore?

9 MR. SIESS: I'd just take it out. I don't think 10 it adds here. If I took the first paragraph out of the 11 Commission draft, the first two sentences, because I don't 12 agree with the third sentence; I don't think you do either.

(J 13 MR. WYLIE: I don't agree with the third.

14 .MR. SIESS: I'd take the first two sentences out 15 of it. The second sentence is paragraph 3; right? And the 16 rest of paragragh 3 is a single sentence that sort of 17 states what is in the next three paragraphs. This thing is 18 short enough that you don't need to summarize the next 19 three paragraphs. You see, that's editorial type stuff.

20 More substantive thing to me is get the first sentence out 21 of the Commission draft. That is a policy statement.

22 The second sentence indicat'es a scope of this 23 policy statement, and the rest of it is elaboration. We 24 could use the first sentence and say if we had our druthers, 1

25 everybody would use the rest of the reference system design ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347 3 00 Nationwide Coserage 80t>33 N

?

l 27758.0 116 l cox O' I certification. I promise to encourage it or something and i

2 it's not there.

3 MR. MICHELSON: Another approach is to decide 4 maybe the Commission paper comes closer to begin with and 5 how would you fix its version up to pick up some of the 6 good things that the Staff brought out, because what the 7 Staff did, you know, I think it was in some respects better.

8 MR. SIESS: I think the second paragraph of the 9 Commission statement is the same as the top of page 2; the 10 next paragraph is essentially the next --

11 MR. SCALETTI: There shouldn't be a great deal 12 of difference between the two other than some reordering to

() 13 facilitate all of the maneuvering.

14 MR. WYLIE: The yellow.

15 MR. SIESS: Let we point out something. Down 16 here on the Commission, it's those nice good things, then 17 there is a subheading, " reference system, design 18 certification." It introduces what in your draft is the 19 second paragraph on page 3, it has got a heading. What I 20 said was it would be nice if you could introduce that 21 paragraph. That's the point at which you are talking about 22 reference system.

23 They didn't make up many changes. Get down 24 there, you are 1 coking at words.

l 25 MR. MICHELSON: The key point of all, I think, O

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. -

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage LM336-664 i

l I i

27758.0 117 cox l

1 is to what extent you should go beyond design on that 2 document and that can be elaborated.

3 MR. SIESS: That's awfully hard.

4 MR. MICHELSON: That's the key issue. Then 5 there is some word-engineering which would help the 6 document flow a little better once you get over the key 7 issue of what is the true scope of this document.

8 MR. SIESS: The thing I like about the 9 Commission draft was simply I thought there was a good i 10 clear statement of policy in one sense. I think that helps 11 a lot. The Staff draft, that is sort of a mixed-up thing 12 with licensing.

13 MR. MICHELSON: It wouldn't have hurt if they

(

14 put down on the heading " policy" and next, " discussion."

15 'Because the next paragraph it's all discussion.

16 MR. SIESS: I have seen reports that start off 17 with an objective and scope and things like that. Here 18 they have got " statement" in one sentence and " scope" in 19 another.

20 MR. MICHELSON: On your Staff paper on page 3, 21 that last paragraph, I had one small question. The 22 paragraph starts out with talking about what you think is 23 an essentially complete design; and then the next sentence 24 jumps into something else that says "in this process." I 25 am not sure what process we are talking about there. Then l  !

(Z)

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. -

m.m.m x _ c _ ,. -- 1

i

< 118 27758.0 ,

cox l s j 1 it jumped into that statement. Then from then on it was I 2 talking about design certification and that would -- you 3 are going to clean that part up to rewrite. There are two 4 totally disjointed thoughts here.

5 MR. SCALETTI: One thing you have to understand 6 is this draft is before the Commission. They have the 7 version with advance comment and they have this. They will 8 come back to us and say, we want more work on it. We have 9 no plans to change this now until we hear from the 10 Commission again.

11 MR. MICHELSON: We have two choices: either to 12 comment with a whole list of things we would do, or

()

/ 13 alternatively, we could send them a rewrite rearranging 14 what we would do, which isn't much more work and probably a 15 lot more understandable.

16 MR. SIESS: I have the same problem you do with 17 the first sentence. But if I look at the Commission draft 18 with a heading -- the introduction is the same, but the -

19 heading gets you on to the reference system certification 20 before you get to that sentence.

21 MR. MICHFLSON: The Commission screwed it up a 22 little bit --

23 MR. WYLIE: I am not in favor of writing this 24 for them. I think they are capable of doing that. I think 25 what we ought to do is say what we don't like about it and

. <1 L/

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-M7-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80M36-446

l l

27758.0 119  !

cox 0 1 what we do like about it and let them write.

l i

i 2 MR. SIESS: I think they have heard enough maybe.

3 MR. SCALETTI: We are not in a position to 4 change this until we see the Commission's answer.

5 MR. WYLIE: I think we ought to say just what 6 you said; that we feel that maybe this is a clear-cut 7 statement of policy in the first opening two sentences of 1 8 the Commission's statement, for example. I think that we 9 don't agree that you should require standardization of 10 construction and quality assurance. I think we ought to ,

11 say we don't agree.

12 MR. SIESS: We don't think that that should be

() 13 there. We think the discussion on the subsequent pages 14 that mentioned I had it -- I said this would --

15 MR. WYLIE: I think what they have implied here 16 is the Staff's draft in paragraph 3 is acceptable with -- I 17 don't know, it doesn't say that it is going to be required.

18 It simply says that this will call out.

19 MR. SIESS: That's why I said if you leave out 20 I paragraph 3 and wait till you get over to page 3, or l

21 wherever it is -- l 22 MR. WYLIE: It doesn't cover anything in this 23 paragraph.

24 MR. SIESS: It says "by stimulating quality 25 assurance, programs, training," so forth. All those words O i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. , ,

202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8M336-6646 i  !

ll

!l 27758.0 120 l CoX O 1 are there.

l l

2 MR. WYLIE: I don't think so.

3 MR. SIESS: Yes, they are. If I ever can find 4 it I am going to mark it somewhere.

5 MR. MICHELSON: Near the bottom of page 2.

6 About middle of the paragraph near the bottom of page 2.

7 MR. SIESS: That paragraph. Look at the fourth 8 line that begins " stimulating."

9 MR. WYLIE: In other words, you are saying it's 10 redundant, 11 MR. SIESS: I like the word " stimulating" rather 12 than " encouraging."

{} 13 MR. SCALETTI: One thing you should consider we 14 discussed the AIF version that had some things that would 15 be included when you do comment, when you say you don't 16 want to see it and it gets wiped out of the document.

17 MR. WYLIE: Well, the AIF version doesn't say 18 that they are required for standardization construction.

19 MR. SCALETTI: OA programs, procurement, et 20 cetera.

21 MR. WYLIE: I think they say --

22 MR. SIESS: Frankly, I really like the statement 23 that the implementation of this policy will stimulate these 24 things, rather than saying that the concept will encourage 25 it. That may be a choice of words. They mean different O

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. -

202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-33 9 446

27758.0 121 cox C)  !

k/ 1 things to me.  !

2 I think another comment I would make is that 3 here, where it says "the goal of standardization," if they 4 would put the subheading back in it, would help a great 5 deal.

6 MR. WYLIE: Where is that? l l

7 MR. SIESS: If you look at page 3 of the 8 Commission report. And then the same paragraph as the 9 second paragraph on page 3 of the Staff draft, they have a 10 heading on it. And the heading tells you what it is going 11 to be about. Then the first sentence makes sense. Carl 12 mads the comment, and I did, too, that the first sentence Il

'q 13 is unrelated to the certification process without a heading 14 that indicates.

15 MR. WYLIE: You say it does make sense to put 16 the heading in?

17 MR. SIESS: Yes. I don't like single headings.

18 I was looking for a place to put another one.

19 MR. MICHELSON: I still think the Commission's 1

20 version on the bottom of page 3, that first sentence still l 21 doesn't fit' the rest of the paragraph. It's a good 22 sentence, but perhaps somewhere else; it certainly confuses 23 the issue of reference system design certification. It is 24 really saying what the goal of standardization is.

l 25 l MR. SIESS: How about taking that sentence and i

('\ l

\j i ,

1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ,-l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646 l l

1 1

27758.0 122 i cox ,

'\ l

(~/

'- 1 taking it in place of paragraph 3? The first sentence 2 starts off "the goal of standardization should be an 3 essentially complete plant design," et cetera. If that 4 will put in the place of the current paragraph 3, it would 5 introduce all these good things about standardization.

6 Then you go through three paragraphs and you have got one 7 that now talks about the design approval, the certification, 8 and the good things that come from it.

9 MR. WYLIE: You mean put this in the draft, the 10 Staff draft, paragraph 37 11 MR. SIESS: Yes.

12 MR. MICHELSON: I would rather put it in the

'13' first paragraph that said you would like to take out of h()

14 the Commission paper. It's the whole goal of this business.

-15 MR. SIESS: This concept would embody 16 standardization of designs and would keep that sentence.

17 MR. MICHELSON: I thought you were wanting to 18 pull that sentence. That's the Commission's.

19 MR. SIESS: Instead of this sentence, that 20 sentence, use that.

21 MR. MICHELSON: You are going to have to do 22 something to get rid of the thoughts. That's where you 23 stick your goal.

24 MR. SIESS: The goal talks about the same thing.

25 l MR. MICHELSON: Yes.

(1)  !

i i

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8C0 334646 l

t 27758.0 123 cox i

i 1 MR. SIESS: I think it reads better. 'I am still !

2 trying to find another heading.

3 MR. WYLIE: You are saying move it to the third 4 sentence of paragraph 1.

5 MR. SIESS: The first paragraph would be the 6 first two sentences of the Commission draft. You can stay 7 with the Commission draft for a minute, plus the first 8 sentence at the bottom of page 3 of the Commission draft.

9 Second paragraph should be the same; the third paragraph 10 can be deleted. Put a heading in on that other paragraph 11 and I think I would like it. I think we can tell the 12 Commission that. Staff requirements memorandum, change

[')

s_s 13 this, change that.

14 MR. MICHELSON: I think we also ought to comment 15 that the " term certified design specification" should 16 either be clearly defined or left out because it isn't a 17 standard understood term.

18 MR. WYLIE: Let me see if I understand. You 19 take the Commission's first two sentences as the opening 20 paragraph and you add to it the first sentence of paragraph 21 at the bottom of page 3, the first sentence.

l 22 MR. SIESS: If you want to stick with the Staff i 1

23 draft.

24 MR. WYLIE: Yes.

25 MR. SIESS: And you replace the first paragraph (1)

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

I 202-347 5 00 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6 4 6

\

27758.0 124 cox

- 1 of the Staff draft by the first two sentences out of the  !'

2 Commission draft, and the first sentence out of the i I

3 paragraph on page 3 of the Staff draft. l 4 MR. WYLIE: Staff or Connission draf t?

5 MR. SIESS: It's the same sentence; right. I 6 was going to say if you wanted to mark up completely in the 7 Staff draft.

8 MR. SCALETTI: You are saying you don't want the 9 first paragraph from the Staff draft in at all, talking 10 about preapproved sites? ,

11 MR. SIESS: I don't see that it adds a damn 12 thing, frankly, if you are going to put your emphasis --

J'us) 13 MR. WYLIE: It depends on whether or not they 14 want to state that in the policy or not.

15 MR. SIESS: If you wanted to introduce the whole 16 thing with the statement that the Commission's licensing 17 goal is certified designs constructed on preapproved sites, 18 but that isn't the policy statement. The thing is, if I 19 read the Commission draft, the first sentence is a 20 statement of policy. And it has nothing to do with whether 21 it's a preapproved site or not.

22 Now, when you get over to the reference, the 23 i certified design, if that's tied to preapproved sites, 24  ;

maybe you want to say something there, "one-step licensing, 25 preapproved sites, would be greatly helped by having O

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

.m x _ m m.... - I

t 27758.0 125 cox .

/~T

'f 1 certified designs and this process would involve so-and-so."

I l

2 But you wouldn't have to have certified designs to go to 3 one-step licensing.

4 MR. SCALETTI: Probably, a custom design, could 5 come in, final design, if you had a custom design, and you 6 had all the final design information there, you could go 7 for the one-step licensing process, I believe, yes.

8 However, that's not the goal of the Commission. The 9 Commission's goal is everything to be -- the reference 10 system design concepts certified, use these on preapproved 11 sites, sometime in the futtire.

12 MR. SIESS: Why don't you say that then?

() 13 MR. SCALETTI: I thought we had.

14 MR. SIESS: You come in from the back end of it.

15 " Nuclear Regulatory Commission believes standardization of 16 nuclear power plant designs is a very important addition 17 and has significant importance of safety and reliability.

18 Standardization by means of the reference system design 19 certification, together with preapproved sites, would have 20 certain advantages, or standardization by means of a 21 l reference system design certification would be a major step I

22 ' toward the Commission's goal of one-step licensing and 23 preapproved sites."

24 First you say standardization is the policy, and 25 standardization by this means would be a major contribution

(?)  !

l 1

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6 4 6

!i t

I{

27758.0 126 i CoX  ;

i,

'l or major step or would be essential or whatever.

l 2 MR. SCALETTI: I think the first paragraph is 3 intended to establish an ultimate licensing goal.

4 MR. SIESS: It shouldn't. First paragraph 5 should make a statement of policy on standardization not on 6 licensing goals. You see, that is what is confusing. You 7 can say that the Commission favored standardization. What 8 is more, we favor standardization by the certified 9 reference design as essential to our ultimate licensing 10 goal of one-step licensing on preapproved sites; right?

11 Then say the focus of this policy statement is the 12 reference design, or you could say the focus of this policy 4

() 13 statement is the reference of design certification, which 14 it is our goal to use as a principal means for one-step 15 licensing on preapproved sites.

16 That's why you focus on it, because that's 17 really w sc you want. The first sentence is a policy 18 statement on standardization. The second is why you are 19 focusing this on the certification, okay. Because that's 20 the Commission's real objective. That's what they would 21 really like to see. That would be a good way to do it. Do 22 you see my point?

/

23 MR. SCALETTI: I see.

24 MR. MICHELSON: Have you finished that?

25 MR. SIESS: Yes, I am finished.

O .

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. -

202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336- % 56

~

i 27758.0 127 i cox

- 1 MR. MICHELSON: Let me go back. There is 2 something here that bothered me. I believe you suggested 3 that we use the, in the Commission's paper, the 4 introductory statement at the bottom of page 3, and I have

- 5 a little problem with that, because on the next part of 6 that sentence covers plant design construction and quality 7 assurance programs; and I have a real problem with that, 8 because that i.s what we are going to make a comment on to 9 get rid of. So I like the Staff's first line at the bottom 10 of their page 3, last paragraph, better.

11 MR. SIESS: I like this one.

12 MR. MICHELSON: I misunderstood.

-13 .MR. SIESS: I told you to take the the first

}:

- 14 sentence from the Staff draft and Carl was looking at first 15 sentence of the Commission draft which had more in it.

' * ' 16 MR. MICHELSON: Different. You are going to use 17 the Staff's draft as the first sentence.

18 MR. SIESS: It just has " essentially complete 19 with taspect to scope and level." The other one went on to 20 construction and so forth. In fact, if you do what we were 21 just talking about, that might be a little harder to fit in.

22 I am not sure.

23 i MR. MICHELSON: I have another question. That 24 is, do we need to say somewhere in the policy statement --

25 MR. WYLIE: That's the first sentence on page 3, O

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. .-

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 801336-6646

Il l l

i 27758.0 1 128 CoX i 1 last paragraph. 1 2 MR. SIESS: Then if that paragraph had a 3 7 subheading on it, it could start right off "in this process,"

4 which follows right from the heading.

5 MR. MICHELSON: Do we need to say anywhere that J

6 the NUREG is also going to tell us what we mean by 7 " essentially complete design," or is it just -- we are 8 going to say in the first paragraph it's going to be 9 essentially complete design. Nowhere else do we say 10 anything about what we mean by that.

11 MR. SCALETTI: We do say in the second paragraph,

- 12 it says the details of the issues and topics are important

() 13 to the policy.

14 MR. MICHELSON: I am wondering if maybe it 15 shouldn't also point out in that second paragraph that the 16, completeness of the design will be defined in the NUREG.

17 You put it into the first paragraph as a statement, but in 18 the second paragraph we -- it's a little fussier when you 19 just talk about details and issues and people don't know 20 it's an issue. It wouldn't hurt to word-engineer slightly 21 to point out it is going to be in the NUREGs and then the 22 people may say, okay, I will wait and see.

23 MR. WYLIE: You are going to add, in the second 24 paragraph -- where are you going to add?

25 MR. MICHELSON: Yes, second paragraph where they (2) i

! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. -

l 202-347 3700 Nationwide Cov. rage 800 336-6646

I 27758.0 129 cox

/~' 4 1 discuss the NUREG, I would add appropriate words, the fact 2 that the NUREG also covers the definition of the 3 completeness of the design and what we mean by it. I 4 MR. MORAN: I am assuming that means total plant, 5 but you can't do that until you are there in the last 10 6 percent or so together on site. Are you talking total 7 plant; is that right?

8 MR. MICHELSON: I don't think you want to get 9 very elaborate in your definition of completeness of design, 10 but maybe a little more than what was said in the first 11 paragraph.

12 MR. SCALETTI:, Policy statements means in

'(). 13 varying degrees. We can't be to specific with the policy 14 statement, so we will not -- no way can you ask for a 15 complete plant; you can't address them on the design of the 16 certification process, so it can't be a complete plant. It 17 can be nearly complete.

18 MR. MICHELSON: I don't think the policy 19 statement even needs to define in detail what we mean but 20 rather, go look at the NUREG and you will find it. Just a 21 few words.

22 MR. SIESS: It would probably be helpful if 23 I where you talk about the scope of a thing, that you did 24 have a reference to the NUREG, and then the reference in 25 paragraph 2 could be limited to just talking about the O I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. -

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8%336-6M6

27758.0 130 cox b

N' 1 other transition options.

2 One of the problems with paragraph 2 is that 4

3 details of issues and topics important to the execution are 4 sort of mixed into a paragraph that mainly says this 5 supersedes the previous one, and there are other short-term

6 transitions and what to do with custom plants are sort of 7 thrown in. That's what NUREG is going to do. The other 8 thing it will do is implementation and they are sort of 9 mixed together.

10 The one reference to NUREG here covers 11 everything not very well. I think you could have -- what 12 the NUREG is going to do is cover the other options; right?

13 It's going to give a lot more detail on the implementation-

)

14 of this thing in relation to the other policies, and it's j

15 going to talk about scope; and if you read this fast, 16 because of the context, to the paragraph, you don't see all i

17 of that in the NUREG. In my first reading of this I 1

18 thought maybe there should be two, three references to the 19 NUREG But I think that paragraph is trying to say what 20 isn't in here, maybe it ought to have been said somewhere  ;

21 else, too. God knows what the Commission is going to do 22 with this.

23 MR. MICHELSON: They have so many comments now.

24 MR. SIESS: Why don't you come to us, first?

25 MR. WYLIE: He didn't want to get confused.

O v

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. -

1 202-347 37R) Nationwide Coverap 800-336- 4 46

27758.0 131 cox l i

/~N l

- 1 MR. SCALETTI: Because the Commission said to 2 come to them.

3 MR. SIESS: I know, but you guys listen to us.

4 MR. SCALETTI: I see.

5 MR. SIESS: They won't spend this much time with 6 you.

7 MR. WYLIE: Let me ask about the --

8 MR. SIESS: I don't know the words anymore. We 9 moved so much stuff around.

10 MR. WYLIE: Do you have more words?

11 MR. SIESS: I am trying to figure out what we 12 have done.

(} 13 MR. WYLIE: I got that we take the Staff's draft 14 and we replace the first paragraph, you replace it with the 15 Commission's first two sentences and add the first sentence 16 to the Staff's paragraph 3.

17 MR. SIESS: Carl just raised the point that 18 essentially complete design back to scope and level of 19 detail.

20 MR. WYLIE: That wis to be added to the second l

21 paragraph.

22 MR. SIESS: That was to be added to the first 23 paragraph.

24 MR. WYLIE: Say that again.

25 MR. SIESS: It was proposed that that be added o

V ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 80M36-646

l 27758.0 132 cox

('- ') I to the first paragraph.

2 MR. WYLIE: That is another one?

3 MR. SIESS: Standardization.

4 MR. WYLIE: Where are you going to do that?

5 MR. SIESS: What did you have for a first 6 paragraph, the two sentences?

7 MR. WYLIE: I had the Commission's first two 8 sentences.

9 MR. SIESS: That's all?

10 MR. WYLIE: No.

11 MR. SIESS: And the sentence I just read, goal 12 of standardization?

() 13 MR. WYLIE: Yes.

14 MR. SIESS: Carl just raised the point that goal 15 of standardization is an essentially complete design; the 16 definition of what is essentially complete may be in the 17 NUREG; maybe there should be a reference to the NUREG.

18 MR. WYLIE: I had that in the second paragraph 19 though. I had it in the second paragraph.

20 MR. SIESS: It's in the second paragraph now but 21 it's sort of hidden.

22 MR. WYLIE: Essentially completed?

23 MR. SIESS: It says " details of the issues and 24 topics."

25 MR. WYLIE: But I was going to say the scope and

. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 1

,  ! 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 804336 4 4 l

I i

27758.0 133 cox  ;

1 something like "The scope and level of detail of an 2 essentially complete design is covered."

l' 3 MR. SIESS: That's out of place in the second  !

4 paragraph.

5 MR. SCALETTI: Details means everything:

6 renewals, fees, the whole spectrum there covered.

7 MR. MICHELSON: Two separate thoughts.

8 MR. SIESS: How much of that.is in the NUREG?

9 MR. SCALETTI: You r.ean in the December version?

10 MR. SIESS: No.

11 MR. WYLIE: 1 think the first paragraph ought to 12 stand as a policy statement, then you go into the other one.

t

() 13 MR. SCALETTI: Some of it is being removed 14 because it's obsolete.

f 15 MR. MICHELSON: Why don't we leave it up to them 16 to word-engineer but point out the second paragraph ought 17 to be included.

18 MR. WYLIE: Why did you put the reference to 19 NUREG in the second paragraph rather than in the first?

20 MR. SCALETTI: Just so that people would know l l

21 that this policy is strictly, you know, a broad statement 22 of policy and the details of this would be -- so you 23 wouldn't have to read through the whole thing, it would be 24 right up front where you would find the details.

25 MR. WYLIE:- That's true of the rest of it too.

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.  ;

202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336 6M6 i

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

I 27758.0 134 i cox  !

~

i (T 1 You have to read what's in it to find it.

2 MR. SCALETTI: It's a matter of preference 3 styling, that's all.

4 MR. WYLIE: If the Commission had a document 5 they would want a document that would cover all the details, 6 after you state your policy and your goal, the details are 7 covered someplace else.

8 MR. SIESS: The way they looked at it is this.

9 This supersedes the previous policy. What they are saying 10 to me is that much of what was in that previous policy is 11 going to be in the NUREG, including all those things that 12 aren't under the certified design.

.( ) 13 MR. WYLIE: Now Carl wants to add the sentence 14 that the definition essentially of complete design is 15 covered in the NUREG.

16 MR. MICHELSON: Words to that effect.

17 MR. SCALETTI: That second paragraph could very 18 easily fit into the end of the policy statement. Just a 19 reference to our previous sense.

20 MR. SIESS: It doesn't state that it supersedes 21 but the previous one will disappear just as it disappeared 22 in the NUREGs, including the other options.

23 MR. MICHELSON: Wouldn't hurt to tell you that 24 you aren't going to fird all of the details in the next few 25 paragraphs, it's really somewhere else. He doesn't start ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 336-M46

l!

Il 27758.0 135 ;i Cox !I ll

/~T j!

k/ 1 pulling it apart. He gets to the last paragraph and says I <

2 don't worry, I am going to tell you elsewhere.

3 MR. WYLIE: Does 150 CFR 50 have to be changed 4 because of this?

5 MR. SCALETTI: As written, no, I don't think so, 6 unless someone decided that they wanted, the Commission 7 decided they wanted to include the approval period in 8 Appendix 0, which is not specified, but Appendix 0.could 9 stand the way it is, the way this policy is written. Now n

10 it is in Appendix M. There is, I believe, a 10-year period; 11 you have to build it within 10 years.

12 'MR. WYLIE: We could add that.

13 MR. SIESS: I think you could expand that second

[~)

s_

l 14 sentence to say that a NUREG is being published and this 15 will include much of the other options other than the 16 reference design, we will discuss other options, scope of 17 the standard design, et cetera, et cetera; just a little 18 more expansion. I think by doing that it will call 19 attention to it better, because then you explain in the 20 NUREG, this together with the NUREG is really the 21 replacement for the previous policy statement. I think 22 that's important.

23 MR. WYLIE: They asked for comments also on the 24 outline of the NUREG.

25 l MR. STESS: Gocd outline. I am looking forward (2) i I  :

i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ,

I x.m.m s.c_m c_:. - t

27758.0 136 '

cox CE) I to reading it. Find out what~the severe accident policy I

2 and all of that stuff is. l i

I 3 MR. WYLIE: These are just topics here, I guess.

4 MR. SIESS: Yes, almost section headings.

5 Design, scope and detail.

6 I would think, looking at the outline that 7 almost transition option stuff would be pretty much from 8 Appendix 0 in the previous policy statement.

9 MR. SCALETTI: With the exception like the 10 reference system concept.

11 MR. SIESS: Reactivation?

12 MR. SCALETTI: That may be removed, I am not m

): 13 sure.

14 MR. SIESS: That's okay.

~

15 MS. SCALETTI: There is a policy being written, 16 and maybe this will be taken out as NUREG, but there is 17 some changes to the reference system concept and has put 18 significant changes, as was previously provided for in '78.

19 Duplication and replication are pretty consistent.

20 MR. SIESS: Changes in reference system concept, 21 why, because of the certification approach?

22 MR. SCALETTI: No. Certification was an option 23 j previously not certified in the '78 policy statement. But I

24 the '78 policy statement, as I specified, said before, l

25 authorized FTA ls and FTA 2s to be approved and the PDA (1)

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. -

202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 336-6646

27758.0 137 CoX ,

l 1 process. Those are changing.

2 MR. SIESS: Where does the term get mentioned?

3 Does that get discussed at all?

4 MR. SCALETTI: What term?

5 MR. SIESS: Term of the license.

6 MR. SCALETTI: That would be discussed in one of 7 them under the subheadings. Well, it's addressed 8 specifically in -- I can't remember what.

9 MR. SIESS: It will be there somewhere. It may 10 be under renewals. I think it's addressed under the 11 options that are so specified.

12 MR. SIESS: The rulemaking options. Is that (s/ ) 13 something?

14 MR. SCALETTI: The rulemaking options you have 15 seen before, we have recommended that the simple noticing 16 comment not be a viable option because we didn't believe it

! 17 afforded adequate public participation, so if they agree 18 with that, there are really four options.

4 19 Three options. We would wait and see whether an 20 I application is received before you determine what 21 alternative you want to use.

22 MR. SIESS: The one you eliminated was C?

23 MR. SCALETTI: No, A.

24 MR. WYLIE: I had a memo from Forrest Remming 25 here. He said, he suggested a paragraph in our letter on ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

l 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-136-6646

i 27758.0 138 cox l r

1 this statement. Says "it is our understanding that the i 2 associated NUREG will address rulemaking options for 3 standard design certification."

l 4 If his informed comment is to be obtained during j l

5 the public comment period, we think it's important that the 6 options are defined in some detail. For example, we think 7 that the criteria goes for standing, and interest for 8 participation in various hearings should be made clear.

9 MR. SIESS: At this stage all you are going to I 10 do in the NUREG is present the options?

11 MR. SCALETTI: Tho' is what we had planned to do.

12 The ones you had seen previously, Charles had mentioned to

() 13 me in the last meeting.

14 Clearly, the opportunity to participate is 15 spelled out in part 2, the regulations. I would have to--

16 someone from ELD would have to. write this up and include it.

17 I don't have a problem with it.

18 MR. SIESS: There's a very interesting thing in 19 here about the ACRS's role. "ACRS should be given an 20 opportunity to review the complete recoro of a hearing."

21 MR. MICHELSON: All 30 volumes.

22 MR. SIESS: It was Indian Point where we either 23 could not review it or did not have the opportunity. Six 24 members got upset about it. Did we review the record on 25 the ECCS hearing; do you know?

(a's t

i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. -

i 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage m>33MM6

i i

i 27758.0 139 '.

CoX 1 It says we'd be given an opportunity. I don't 2 guess we can argue with that. "ACRS review of the design 3 should be performed prior to a review of the rulemaking 4 itself." That's what we are doing right now.

5 MR. SCALETTI: FTA would be a prerequisite for 6 rulemaking.

7 MR. SIESS: We can, by direction of the 8 Commission or its own discretion, hold one or more public 9 hearings on the design. That's nothing more than what we 10 would do during our review, I assume. I don't know why 11 that is a separate.

12 MR. SCALETTI: You are reading from what page?

.n

.( ) 13 MR. SIESS: Yes, page -- rulemaking options, 14 last paragraph.

15 MR. SCALETTI: Under the role of the ACRS?

16 MR. SIESS: Yes. I guess that was written by a 17 law engineer.

18 MR. SCALETTI: It was.

19 MR. SIESS: It says we can have our usual type 20 of hearing, then that tends to tie it back to the 21 rulemsking hearing, see. Which hearings would be more 22 limited in scope than shows suggested in options B and C 23 above.

l 24 MR. SIESS: That would be what we would normally 25 do prior to rulemaking. I guess in my process of reviewing r- .

Q.\) .

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

; 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 336-6M6

. 1 27758.0 140 cox i

b)

\/ 1 the record, we might do some more of that.

2 MR. MICHELSON: I would like to ask one question 3 on the opening of the policy statement itself, of the 4 Commission, the first paragraph that we are suggesting they 5 use. They talk there about enhancing safety reliability 6 and availability. Is there a difference between 7 reliability and availability?

8 MR. WYLIE: I guess, reliability could be --

9 MR. SIESS: If you are down six months for 10 maintenance every year, that's available but not reliable.

11 MR. MICHELSON: My concern is the Agency is not 12 really supposed to worry about economic things. They are

( }; 13 supposed to relate to safety. I can relate safety in my 14 mind without too much trouble.

15 MR. SCALETTI: NEPA required those two 16 cost / benefit analyses. To consider this, you have to 17 strike a cost / benefit policy.

18 MR. MICHELSON: Are we trying to write a policy?

19 MR. SCALETTI: Standardization policy would 20 enhance it.

21 MR. MICHELSON: Is that our role here? g 22 MR. SIESS: I read it as words to the industry 23 as to why it ought to be interesting.

24 MR. MICHELSON: I don't disagree; they ought to.

25 When I try to equate those safety and reliability, I have .

I (2)

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. -

202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-%M

27758.0 141 cox l

/~T i 52 1 no problem. When I equate safety and availability, I have 2 a real problem.

3 MS. SCALETTI: We do have to address it under-4 our NEPA review.

5 MR. SIESS: It's not a requirement; it's telling 6 the industry what policy is, what they ought to do. It's 7 good for them, too. I think that's a legitimate policy 8 statement.

9 MR. SCALETTI: Cost and benefits, and if you 10 can't determine a benefit that would outweigh the 11 environmental impacts, then you cannot, you can't say it's 12 acceptable.

{} 13 MR. MICHELSON: You are using availability in 14 the cost / benefit analysis.

15 MR. SCALETTI: We always have in the past 16 determined what the availability -- however -- amount of 17 megawatts you are going to generate in a year. ,

18 MR. MICHELSON: Did you really try to do 19 cost / benefit on this?

20 MR. SCALETTI: We have on all --

21 MR. MICHELSON: I mean on this document.

22 MR. WYLIE: Off-site averted costs would 23 certainly be of benefit to the utilities.

24 MR. MICHELSON: Availability is not dealing with 25 off-site averted costs. You are trying to struggle a O

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. -

202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 8013%M

27758.0 142 ,

CoX 1

(-- 1 little bit.

2 MR. SIESS: If the Commission were requiring 1

3 son.e thing , they shouldn't justify it on any basis other 4 than public health and safdty. There is a little more to 5 it than that; but they are not requiring this, they are 6 stating a policy of encouraging it. And I think if you are 7 encouraging somebody to do something to hold out and to 8 remind them it's their benefit, too, it's not out of line.

9 MR. REED: I would like to make a statement if 10 you guys are about worn out. I have been listening to this 11 today. I am not a member of this subcommittee, but I keep 12 drifting in.

() 13 MR. WYLIE: I noticed you drifting in and 14 drifting out.

, 15 MR. REED
I have been at other subcommittee 16 meetings. What we are talking about when we are talking 17 about this policy of standardization, is that we are going 18 to allow and have for, at least in this country, four 19 standardized, essentially complete reactor designs. We are 20 not really going to have a standardized PWR or standardized 21 BWR because there's only one vendor.

22 MR. WYLIE: Not nationally. I l

23 MR. REED: If we get the Japanese to selling ,

i 24 reactors, we will have five standardized reactor designs.

25 If Framatone comes in, we will have six.

o U  ;

I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. -

202 347 3*00 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6

II I l 27758.0 '

143 cox ,

O 1 MR. SIESS: How did you get four?

2 MR. REED: Combustion, 3&W, Westinghouse and 3 General Electric.

4 MR. SIESS: B&W is out of business.

5 MR. MICHELSON: I don't know that I would agree 6 with that.

7 MR. CARBON: Glenn has good things to say; let's 8 listen.

9 MR. REED: This bothers me because I think we 10 should be working towards some standardization of some 11 systems and components that eventually, if we were to 12 standardize some systems aspects of the PWR, say, which I

-() 13 know more about than the BWR; if we were to standardize 14 those things and let nature take its course, we would 15 arrive at a standardized BWR and arrive at it sensibly 16 because it arrived through design improvement and so on and 17 so forth, rather than coming out with an essentially 18 complete plan and get four designs by each vendor. Old Ben 19 Franklin said at one time, I guess, "Take care of the 20 pennies and the dollars will take care of themselves."

21 I think what we should be focusing on is 22 standardizing systems. For instance, I can't believe that 23 there shouldn't be three ways of controlling pressure

! 24 relief on a PWR. Nothing on Combustion engineering, lots 25 of something on Westinghouse and very little on B&W. On (2) I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. -

I . :o .m.. s.e_u. m..:. mu-

!l 27758.0 144 I

CoX l'

/~ '

' \s) 1 the other hand, I will point out something to you, control 2 rod drives on PWRs are now standardized. They are all 3 magnetic jacks. How come? We could standardize that 4 component, and it's very important from a systematic point i

5 of view; it's a sealed component, hermetically sealed. '

6 It's gravity fall; it has all the nice features.

7 MR. WYLIE: B&W --

8 MR. REED: They make their own but it's still a 9 . magnetic jack it's hermetically sealed; very little 10 difference.

11 If we can move and yet there were shaft-type 12 control rod drives such as on Consumers Power, Palisade, so l() 13 on, if we can standardize a component like'that, I think we 14 should work towards standardizing systems first, get o

15 systems standardized saying there should or should not be 16 emergency depressurization on PWR, pass that hurdle, make 17 that hard decision; we keep floating around and allowing it 18 to be unstandardized. So my vote is that a standardization

19 policy should not be talking about essentially complete 20 plant at this stage. It should be talking about 21 standardized system's at this stage and trying to get some i 4

l 22 standardization on so you know what transient response is.

23 You might want to standardize the inventory on-second site 1

24 steam generator so you don't have this whipsawing i

25 transients we get in some reactors.

i i-i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. -

202 Nationwide Coserage 800 336-6M6

- , . - _ _ - , - , 347 3700.. -.- . _ _ . _ - . - _ . . , -- . , - - , _

~ . - . .

27758.0 145 i COX ,

O

/ 1 MR. SIESS: Glenn, you talk about "we."

2 Standardization of the type that's being talked about in 3 the policy statement, "we" is the industry. How do we get 4 the industry to standardize on systems?

5 MR. REED: Wel1, if you can standardize on an 6 essentially complete plant, their own.

7 MR. SIESS: They are taking the initiative there.

8 NRC is not requiring the industry standardize on a complete 9 plant.

10 MR. WYLIE: If you take that approach, the 11 policy statement, the goal is to have all standardized BWRs, 12 and all standardized PWRs.

}

13 MR. SIESS: What Glenn is saying, I thought, was 14 that we should ask them to have a standardized RHR system 15 or a standardized ECCS system.

16 MR. REED: Or depressurization system.

17 MR. SIESS: But how do you get the industry to 18 standardize?

19 MR. MICHELSON: To my way of seeing what he is 20 saying, we really ought to start focusing on what might 21 improve light water reactor designs and then standardize 22 those approved reactor designs, and design standardization 23 is not saying a word about improving anything. They are 24 saying we ought to do it the same. That's the only thrust 25 of this document is everybody should do it the same, and (2)

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 80).336-66M

l  !

27758.0 146 '

cox l 1 not necessarily are we asking for improvement.

2 MR. SIESS: We are not saying they should be the 3 same. We are saying somebody should design a plant that 4 everybody could build the same. We are going to talk 5 Thursday about improved systems. We have reviewed two o

6 proposed standard designs and they have certainly improved.

7 Whether they are the ones we want or Glenn wants or Jesse 8 wants, I don't know. I have a feeling if we could improve 9 everything everybody around this table wants we wouldn't 10 have to worry about improving containments, because that's 11 another point.

12 - But again, the Commission's policy statement is

/A_sI 13 in effect, I think, encouraging something that the industry 14 is already doing. So how would the Commission get the 15 industry to do standard RHR, blowdown and so forth? They 16 would have to require it. Some form.

17 What form of encouragement could they offer? I 18 don't think they can encourage it because the incentives 19 that are in the standard plant wouldn't be there.

20 MR. CARBON: But they could require sabotage 21 protection, blowdown, inventory. .

22 MR. SIESS: We have required an ECCS.

23 MR. MICHELSON: Are these comments, though, that 24 should be made concerning standardization or are these  ;

25 comments that should be made concerning improving power ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 304336-6M6

4 27758.0 147

( l plant design?

2 MR. WYLIE: I think it ought to be done as 3 advance plants.

4 MR. MICHELSON: Advance plants improved LWR or 5 something but not under the standardization issuo.

6 As I see it, you don't have to do any improving 7 to standardize. I don't know of any statement in the 8 policy that says you have to improve, but it says you do 9 have to standardize.

10 MR. SIESS: It says we think they will lead to.

11 MR. MICHELSON: I don't disagree with that, but 12 no requirement that they change this or that.

([ ) 13 MR. SIESS: Let's face it, we have seen a couple 14 and they have done a lot of improvements; even some that 15 didn't mean adding something on.

16 MR. MICHELSON: I think I could come up with a 17 standard design that has no improvements, and as long as it 18 meets the requirements and goes through all the hurdles, it 19 could come out the other end.

20 MR. SCALETTI: GSAR would have met all the 21 requirements without the improvements that were put forth 22 by GE ar.d requested by the Staf f at the end.

23 MR. MICHELSON: GSAR I have in mind between GSAR 24 2 and advance boiler. You don't have to put the advance 25 boiler in to get standard certification. I could get ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. -

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

27758.0 148 CoX l  ;

I

() l certification on GSAR, too, I think. If GE wanted to, "/

i i

2 could get GSAR certified. Yet they have in their hip l 3 pocket a much better design. There is nothing that sc 4 you can't certify GSAR too because they think you hav; 5 something better in the wings.

I 6 MR. SCALETTI: You can't say it's a better 7 design until you have reviewed it. We haven't reviewed it c

8 yet. We know very little about the design.

9 MR. MICHELSON: You have no requirements that 10 people come in with better designs get certified.

11 MR. SCALETTI: You have to define what a better 12 design is. -

() 13 MR. MICHELSON: I think Glenn is saying though --

14 MR. SIESS: Let's go back one step. You have to 15 know what a better design is.

16 MR. MICHELSON: What Glenn is suggesting is 17 improvements.

18 MR. REED: I don't see how you people can 19 leapfrog jump into an essentially complete plant without 20 standardizing some of the systems for the PWR.

21 MR. SCALETTI: Essentially complete plants will 22 standardize the systems.

23 MR. REED: You will have three different 24 proposals. You will have the CEs without PORVs --

25 MR. SIESS: Right now that is what the Staff is ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. -

202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6

27758.0 149 cox l

(%

(-) 1 working to. If we want to talk about improved reactors, we I

2 are going to talk about it Thursday.

3 MR. REED: How does it meet the standardization 4 goal of approved safety if we are not going to do it for 5 the essentially complete plant?

6 MR. SIESS: I don't think the policy statement 7 says this will automatically improve safety.

~

8 MR. REED: I thought it said something about 9 reliability.

10 MR. WYLIE: 'Yes.

11 MR. MICHELSON: By the process of 12 standardization you are supposed to be enhancing safety f 13 even though you change nothing in the design.

14 MR. WYLIE: I think it will be a safer plant.

15 You will review them earlier. But I think the difference 16 is in the magnitude of improved safety. The things you are 17 talking about are quantum jumps in safety, whereas the 18 things we are talking about here in the standardization 19 plan is small increments.

20 MR. REED: You want to snail pace it.

21 MR. SIESS: We will know what we want after 22 Thursday. That's an optimistic statement if I ever heard i

23 one. 1 24 MR. WYLIE: If you had a four-train dedicated 25 heat removal system to a plant, you would obviously improve n

v .

l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS INC.  !

202-347 3700 Nationside Coserage 800-336-Em

i i ,

i 27758.0 150 cox

[  : ,

j

! I safety by a long shot.

2 MR. SIESS: No.

3 MR. MICHELSON: I think Glenn's thoughts are 4 good thoughts.

t 5 MR. REED: Another great big part you should 6 think about is containment. Doesn't seem to me that everyone 7 should have his or her containment.

8 MR. WYLIE: Are we through? Thank you.

9 (Whereupon, at 6:05 p.m., the meeting was 10 concluded.) i 11 12 i

13 14 i 15 0

16 17 18

{

i 19

20 t

l 21 I

22 i

j 23

! 24

25 i

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. -

202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

CERTTFTCATR OF OPPTCIAL REPORTER O

This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:

NAME OF PROCEEDING: ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMPROVED LIGHTWATER REACTOR DESIGN DOCKET NO.: 1 l

PLACE: WASHINGTON, D. C.

DATE: TUESDAY,' AUGUST 5, 1986 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, j l

(sigt) f#

(TYPED)

CRAIG L. NOWLES j official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

Reporter's Affiliation O

CERTIFICATE OF OFFTCTAT, REPORTER O

This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:

NAME OF PROCEEDING: ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMPROVED LIGHTWATER REACTOR DESIGN DOCKET NO.:

PLACE: WASHINGTON, D. C.

DATE: TUESDAY, AUGUST 5, 1986 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

(sigt .

M (TYPEb) h WENDY S. COX Official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

Reporter's Affiliation

> t f#7 COMPARISON OF APRIL 10TH AND MAY 14, 1986 O '

POLICY STATEMENTS I!

0 APRIL 10, 1986 SECY DRAFT

1. (a)NRCPolicy: (No clear statement of NRC policy is made) Goal of standardization is stated in discussion of " Reference System Design Certification;" i.e.,:

"The goal of standardization should be an essentially complete plant design package, covering plant design, construction, and quality assur-ance programs which then can be referenced for individual plant applica-tions."

NRR REVISED DRAFT POLICY STATEMENT OF MAY 14, 1986 (b) NRC Policy:

" Standardized nuclear power plants should be used to satisfy the ulti-mate licensing goal of certified designs constructed on pre-approved sites.

April 10, 1986 O 2. (a) Not included .

May 14, 1986 (b) "This policy statement supersedes the Commission's previous policy on standardization issued in 1978."

memmemmemememmememememememme_emememmemee_mememememme_eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeemme April 10, 1986

3. (a) Reference to NUREG-XXXX for details of the issues and topics that are important to the execution of this policy.

May 14, 1986 (b) Reference to NUREG-XXXX f,or deta.ils of the issues and topics that are important to the execution of'thfs policy, other short-term licensing transition options and applications not referencing a certified design.

memmememememememememememe_memmemmemememmemmememememmememememmemmemememmemme 9

O

s

. Comparisons / April 10 2 and May 14, 1986 O

April 10,'1986 3

4. (a) Same as NRR 5/14/86 draft except would " embody" standardization of -

construction and quality assurance as well as designs whenever NRR's draft would " encourage" the areas listed.

May 14, 1986 (b) The focus of this policy is the reference systems design certification concept for an essentially complete plant except for site-specific interfaces which:

a. Would require standardization of nuclear power plant design, and
b. Would strongly encourage standardized

- procurement construction installation

- quality assurance practices

- training

- emergency operating procedures O - meiateaeace procedures April 10,1986 .

5. (a) Essentially same as NRR 5/14/86 draft May 14, 1986 (b) Discussion of the detriments of "one-of-a-kind" approach to reactor design.

April 10,1986 -

a s

6. (a)Essentiallysame"NRR 5/14/1986 draft May 14, 1986 .

(b)Discussionofthebenefitsofstandardizationtoimprovingpublic health and safety.

O

4 _ --.-.J --+L. A 44 M ,L -- a-- - _ _ :

i i

Comparisons / April 10 3 i and May 14, 1986 ,

O

_________ ________________________________________________________.._________ j April 10,- 1986 -

(a)EssentiallysameasNRR5/14/86 draft 7.

May 14, 1986 (b) Statement of the consistency of standardization policy with other Comission Policy Statements:

j - Severe Accident Policy Statement Safety Goals Advanced reactors April 10, 1986

8. (a) Essentially same as NRR 5/14/86 draft May 14, 1986 (b) Discussion of advantages versus disadvantages of standardization O with statement that the Comission's position is that the enhanced safety outweights the disadvantages. '

I April 10, 1986 ,

9. (a) Essentially same as NRR 5/14/86 draft May 14, 1986 (b) Statement of the goal of standardization should be an essentially

{'

complete plant design, both with respect to scope and level of detail, which then can be referenced in individual license j applications.

w s

! April 10, 1986

10. (a) Essentially same as NRR 5/14/86 draft .

i May 14, 1986 -

1 O

. Comparisons / April 10 4 and May 14, 1986 O

(b) ' Description of design certification by rulemaking and the use '

i thereof, to include. -

design acceptability by reference in licensing application

. design reviews by staff, ACRS Hearing Boards and Comission.

April 10, 1986

11. (a) Essentially same as NRR 5/14/85 draft May 14, 1986 (b) Commission belief that standardization enhances safety and improves stability and predictability in the regulatory process.

April 10,1986

12. (a) Essentially same as NRR 5/14/1986 draft O "ar 14. 1986 -

(b) Rulemaking to obtain the Design Certification would cover the criteria necessary for the final design of the plant and should include:

~

construction criteria quality assurance program necessary tests, analysis and inspection criteria to assume that the plant is built within the certified design specifica-tions.

April 10, 1986

13. (a) Essentially same as NRR 5/14/86 draft

'- i.\ \

May 14, 1986 )

~

(b) Issues completely addressed in the design certification will not be _

-subject to litigation in individual 'icensing proceedings. .

i O

. Comparisons / April 10 5 and May 14, 1986 O -

April 10,1986 1 (a) Essentially same as NRR 5/14/86

14. r May 14, 1986 -

(b) Issues not included in the design certifications rulemaking and the adequacy of satisfactory of interface requirerents may be litigated in subsequent individual plant licensing proceedings.

April 10,1986

15. (a) Essentially same as NRR 5/19/86 draft May 14, 1986 (b) Application of the back-fit rule for proposed NRC modifications to certified designs.

O aprii to. 1988

16. (a) Essentially same as NRR 5/14/86 draft May 14, 1986 (b) Holders of certifications may modify the certified design by 1 applying for'an amendment to the rule.  ;

l April 10,1986 l

17. (a) Essentially same as NRR 5/14/86 draft except NRR draft added proviso "provided the design is found in compliance with the Connissions current regulations."

May 14, 1986 '

^ N (b) Design Certification issued for 10 year term with an additional 10 -

years renewal provided the design is found to comply with the _

_. Commission's current regulations. _

9 O

l

. . _ . . - - . -- - .. - .

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20205C662&oldid=3061013"