ML20207C832
| ML20207C832 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/04/1998 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ASB-300-570, NUDOCS 9906030122 | |
| Download: ML20207C832 (89) | |
Text
.
p
- J gw.geg; % :
.::am,,ussa myn 3
49 o -
-1 w u ,
ad hhhk: t.h,h.#
m h o. '. l..,
- o..>a..
s~
Q r,,, f: a .L .~ ~ ;t:b 4 'affkgtw>Qh,t
,e
,) t:.t w+%% .w< :,$..,, r,+1ko A.3. gQ 1:% Q %') ,:l4.nc..
8
. mt
'/ ,r. <; i e
, , , 3? %.
'7 t k,Q i,'6 i gg , , ' I
- w w w,w./lj .o w )~f,0 new , t ,
~ e
, ,r 9., ,
k .:
?
b h si(,/
ggs.p c,, ,m . m, m-u .s s...,: m w, & e! a h p yf a p Ihf.
- ~.Y)f g do ? a 4 s m m ..
e .w,a:u k v . a.,. .
sp%.,4s.
- n. k. ,9em .
p+:m.w. n ,. .
.?. wh .. . x aw .:
,( 4'Qf;y ..h,j' l>jf;, },'
- ': b.
k EU t
.f h y)gJg,g y $
, f ' a? . m,m w; w ; ;f h. g A ; s.j' m, , a( ,9ycpuwA t}.;,.sc t, u : y( y ..
w w wn m f mywwpoe h m s 1 i me ewqm.mapag.eg g w.. + w. a. nw . s g. .
w ~ n
&,w;.Ys xm,a,x b W .i.N'$a . hh.. k N..h.W' m s yh. Y m@ :$ m& ?.if h p e.
., e ,et :e .,,w. .
.h;O'Cb
.n r . . e. .cr.m.
..e- , .%. ;,) &
. m.mn(hikD?%
,, >::. w. .;. n.>c % . m, w:, . . , ., 4e .
. ..:,i.,1,
.gr g ;4.*gj, m.,, u., ,p,,
y kQh:%e.
- m. w., . ,;it..,
m .
o 'e%c.g; .e,.y ,e
- s... 3,;,,,. Ay. }.e; s.; p . . . :. ,.
. " r .
En.ue -
g
.L ggettmen ~
(
k+en.:.;{ft'~^ y,W%
m s6 . , h.
. n,. g? s , .) . 3. y g m.t g %w > h~g["
A. .e4 q . ~
- 1- .
- s. .
.1
. r.g s .
. 1 l
^
1 a,.,- ~ ,
a e g. ; . ,w
..> ; e.a~G, %.. , A, m ;y ,.2, 3
, , y i .
g-7 ;n ., '
,, 19,,,
.. n;+.esv,gy e4~a r.
t
" p ' ;, n . . , m
- =
g ,g %*
(O . . > .
'f.. ?
fk g 4 , ,,, U
.+ ,y,i. g. MIN gg f.jn$gy - ;
4 e
fDb l
C OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
PUBLIC MEETING WITIl NUCLEAR
' ENERGY INSTITUTE Case No.: $ h .
O i-i F-k Work Order No.: ASB1300-570 [ 4 ,
y g.
id S LOCATION: Rockville, MD DATE: Friday, December 4,1998 PAGE 160 - 245 l
. Q '- l g3\
- ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
1025 Connecticut Avenue,NW, Suite 1014
- O% Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842 0034
~, c, ,
, ;, s e ,m 6'I W Pt ,GT [ F. J,iasrcs c
> .1 9
~ ' ~ '
160 I 1 UNITED-STATES OF AMERICA !
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ;
1 3 ***
l l I 4 PUBLIC MEETING WITH NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE i l
- 5 ***
l 7 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 8 Two White Flint North, Auditorium j 9 11545 Rockville Pike 10 Rockville, MD 11 12 Friday, December 4, 1998 13 14 The above entitled meeting commenced, pursuant to 1 1
i)
\s / ' 15 notice, at 9:05 a.m. l 16 17 PARTICIPANTS:
18 CARL PAPERIELLO, NMSS ;
19 LIZ TEN EYCK, NRC/FCSS 20 BILL BRACH, NRC/FCSS 21 DREW PERSINKO, NRC 22 GARY COMFORT, NRC/NMSS 23 HEATHER ASTWOOD, NRC/FCSS l
24 ROB LEWIS, NRC :
l 25 KATHRYN WINSBERG, NRC
() ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.'20036 (202) 842-0034 l
L.
!~
161 s
1 ' PROCEEDINGS 2 [9:05 a.m.)
3 MR. SHERR: Good morning, and welcome back. We 4 still have two agenda items on our agenda, but before we 5 proceed with those, it might be useful to attempt to 6! summarize, as a result of yesterday's discussion, what we I
7 plan to do and what we are expecting. And if that is not i B complete, or needs to_be' clarified, we can work on that.
I 9 Then I understand that the NEI and the industry l l
10 representatives may have a few additional comments to make 11 about yesterday's discussion as well. '
12 I think the first thing is that, by the end of i 13 this month, December, NRC plans to post on the web site 14 revised language for the overall performance requirements.
15 This includes the requirements of 70.60(b) on the 16 consequences, which would be primarily oriented to reflect 17 changes in relation to chemical safety and changes to 18 70.60(c), the levels of protection, to try address the 19 concerns that were expressed yesterday with regard to the 20 language of those provisions.
21 And we are also planning -- anticipating receiving 22 written detailed comments from NEI on nuclear criticality, i 23 and that we will be meeting to discuss those comments and, 24 hopefully, to make progress in identifying needed changes to 25 the criticality SRP chapter in the mid-January timeframe.
i i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
)
[
162 l' And I hoping that we will be able to come to agreement on l
2 dates today if the right NRC representatives are available.
3 Also, we will continue our review of the detailed 4 comments, or the comments that NEI provided on the SRP 5 issues, the top 10 issues, and we will make modifications to 6 the SRP accordingly. And we will provide an analysis of the 7 comments indicating how we have incorporated those and put 8 that on the web as well when we finish that process.
9 We are. assuming at this point that we will expect 10 additional comments on issues associated with the SRP, and 11 assuming those comments are received in the timeframe that 12 allows us to meet our deadlines, we will do the same process 13 for those comments.
,-s 14- Also, the suggestion was made yesterday that NEI k-s 15 might take a -- make an attempt to take one SRP chapter and 16 revise it in a way that they would think that would 17 appropriate, and we would look at that submittal as 18 essentially a proposal for what the general format and
- 19. content of the SRP chapter should be, and we will look at 20 that proposal in that way in relationship to all the other 21 chapters that are pertinent.
22 That is an attempt to try to -- I don't know if I 23 left anything out or not, but to summarize kind of where we 24 went off on -- we finished yesterday's discussion and some 25 of our -- how we will deal with some of these issues.
() ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 1-
{
l 163 1 Are there any changes, additions? !
2 [No response.]
3 MR. SHERR: Okay. Felix, did you have --
'4 MR. KILLAR: Yeah, I just wanted to give you a 5 little review from our perspective. We caucused just after 6 the meeting. We looked at the number of issues. One of the 7 things we looked at and talked about briefly is that there 8 are some other issues of the rule that we haven't got into 9 yet, you mentioned the other day, the reporting 10 requirements, the baseline design criteria, the 70.72 11 provisions. And what we intend to do is to try and get a 12 position together on those before the end of the year and 13 get a letter in to you on those, so at least you.have an f-'S 14 . understanding of where we stand on those particular issues. j (s / 15 We have our discussion on the ISA this morning, j 16 and we anticipate having a follow-up letter on that ISA, i 17 based on what we have done to date the results of this i
18 discussion, so that you at least have something on the j l
19 record on the ISA and our -- something more than just the i i
20 testimony today, but you will have some actual words written 21 down from us.
22 MR. SHERR: Do you expect to have that --
23 MR. KILLAR: We also expect to have that done 24 before the end of the year. Also, we have, as you are 25 aware, we have a draft letter on criticality that we have
/ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 l (202) 842-0034 l-l
F 164 1 'been working on. We anticipate that we will probably be
' O( ) 2 able to wrap that up next week as a result of the discussion 3 yesterday, and where we are on the draft, and so we should 4 get that in to you probably towards the end of next week as 5 well.
6 On the criticality section, the one thing that we 7 want to spend a little time on maybe, if you could, is give 8 us a little bit more understanding of what we plan to 9 accomplish and what the objectives of the criticality 10 workshop is. Or if you have any more insights, maybe if you 11 give us a draft agenda so we could be better prepared for 12 it, it would be helpful.
13 As far as taking on an SRP section, we did spend 14 quite a bit of time talking about that. We thought that, 15 you know, the training or chemical ones would be so 16 unreasonable because we have already looked at those, and 17 they are_ fairly short. We also looked at, rather than 18 taking one of the shorter ones, maybe what we want to do is 19 look at one of the ones that we feel we have more issues 1
20 with such as the QA one or the -- what is it -- !
21 configuration management, what it is called. It has a whole 22' series of ones.
23 We are not sure whether we can come up with a 24 quote-unquote model and so what we are going to have to do 25 is spend some time looking at that and get back with you on ,
l
'-O g ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
f Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
I
?
g 165 l
1 that. But we are going to look at.what we can do along i () 2 those lines. And we have no defined a time for completion L 3' of_that.
4 Basically, we looked at the -- what is the outline 5 you use, and we find the outline is fine, it is just a 6 -matter of how that material is incorporated in the outline 7 and, once again, some reference in each of the sections back 8 to the-ISA to make it clear rather than just have it 9 referenced in chapter 2. So it is going to take us a little i 10 worrying and work to come up with what we feel is, you know, 11 the correct approach. And right now we don't know what --
we know it_is not what-we want, but we don't know what we
~
12 .
13 want to tell you put there, so it is going to take us some
. 14 time to do that.
( i 15 MR. SHERR: Okay. Let me under. stand, are you 16 indicating that.you_are going to provide us comments on 17 these various chapters, but not necessarily a rewrite of any 18 particular chapter?
19 MR. KILLAR: Well, yes and no. If we can come up l
20 with one, we wi11' provide you one, but right now, it is not '
- 21. clear to us. We don't -- we haven't sat down to say yes, we 22' can do it, and we so we can't say yes, we can do it. But at i 23 the same time, in discussions, there are some things we know 24 . we need to do, it is just can we put those in words that are i
25 . meaningful to you and also meaningful to us. !
() ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 1
I j l
166 1 So we are going to work on it, but right now we l
2 -didn't see a clear -- yes, this is exactly what we need to 3 do and this is the way to do it. We said we could make them 4 all very short, one or two pages, is that the acceptance 5 criteria go along with the licensee proposals, but we 6 thought that probably wouldn't cut it, so we felt we needed 7 to do a little more work.
8 MR. SHERR: Okay. What we can expect is we are 9 going to get some additional comments on the contents of the 10 SRP chapters..
11 MR. KILLAR: There will be some additional 12 comments.
13 MR. SHERR: And possibly, we might get a prototype !
14 SRP chapter.
15 MR. KILLAR: Correct. We are going to try and 16 move towards that objective, but right now we don't --
17 different people have different visions of what that may or 18 may not be.
19 MR. SHERR: Is it fair to ask the timeframe, or is 20 that to be determined?
21 MR. KILLAR: Probably to be determined. Certainly 22 not before the_end of the year, and I would think, at the 23 earliest, probably towards the end of January, maybe it l 24 would even be mid-February. You already have the issues 25 that we identified in the SRP in that letter, and we can ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014
' Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
E 1 i
l 167 1 certainly elaborate on those some more, you know, if you (n) 2 have questions on those and stuff.
3 MR. SHERR: Okay. Are we ready to proceed for the 4 next item.
5 MR. KILLAR: I believe so.
6 MR. SHERR: The next item is a pretty basis issue, 7 an important issue, the ISA summary, and the agenda shows l
8 the industry-NEI presentation first, then followed by )
9 discussion. As part of the discussion, we will also have a i 10 presentation.
11 MR. KILLAR: Mark Elliott is our ISA guru today.
1 12 DR. PAPERIELLO: Excuse me. I have about a 20 to 13 30 minute meeting at 9:30. I have to run to that in the 14 other building, but I will be back.
k_) 15 MR. KILLAR: Ted, before Mark gets started, did 16 the other copies of the other presentations, have they been 17 finished?
18 MR. SHERR: Yeah, I'm sorry. I meant to mention 19 that. On the front desk are copies of all the briefing 20 charts that were provided -- that were presented yesterday.
21 And, hopefully, by the time we finish, if we get copies fast 22 enough, we can copies of today's presentations as well.
23 MR. KILLAR: Well, I think the only slide we have 24 today is one side that we already put out there yesterday 25 afternoon. I don't know if there's still some there this
,~
l ) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\ /' Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
F l
l 168 1 morning.
2 MR. SHERR: Okay. I don't know if we need those.
3 You might want to have a copy of it again just to make sure.
l 4 MR. ELLIOTT: Good morning, I am Mark Elliott from 5 BWXT.in Lynchburg. I'll talk a little bit about the ISA 6 results in the licensing environment. I made a slide. You 7 would have to all come up on the stage to read ~it, but.I 8 tried to get it on one piece of paper.
9 What I did with this was I took the outline that 10 was in the draft SRP of a license application, the 10 items 11 that were identified in the table of contents of that, and I 12 made three columns over there.
13 The first one, of course, is the commitments and 14 things that are in the license proper that would require 15 amendment to change. The next column, I called it "on the 16 docket." I consider that to be a space that would available 17 to NRC that would not require prior approval to change. And 18 then the last column, of course, are things that we keep on 19 site and are kept up to date by our configuration management 20 program.
21 So the first two items, of course, are things that 22 are there now, and that have been for many years in the 23 license application. 3 (a) is what I call the ISA program, 24 or the administrative requirements of the program, and the 1
25 commitment'to perform the analyses, what we are going to
-- ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters l
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 l (202) 842-0034
i 169 4 1 look at, what methods we are going to use, what types of
' _s/
\ 2 people we are going to use to assess these things. It is 3 going to have criteria in it that talks about the approach 4 we take to grading the controls and the assurances. And 5 then it will also commit to some type of summary update 6 frequency.
7 And so then in 3 (b) is really the ISA 8 implementation which contains voluminous information, 9 including the detailed process descriptions in which you l 10 would have temperatures and pressures, and different ranges 11 of operations, the individual accident sequences of the 12 operations that were identified through the ISA. And then 13 items were allowed on for safety, the valves, the level l 7- 14 gauges, the active passive engineered controls, t '
\ 15 administrative controls, procedures, things like that. And 16 then, of course, the assurances that are applied to those
-17 items, the maintenance requirements, the function tests, the 18 surveillances, things like that, that make sure that these 19 things are available and reliable when called upon.
20 And then the third part of the ISA section of the 21 license application, I called the ISA summary and you have 22 said in the past that you wanted something submitted as some 23 part of a summary. So in the SRP, I think there was an 24 example of a summary in there, so these items that I listed 25 under 3 (c) come from the draft SRP as to the types of A
V ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
p l'
170 I
1 information that you would expect to see in the summary.
I) 2' And the ones with the asterisks beside them are things that i 3 we think are available in other parts of the license 1
4 application already. The site description, the facility 5 description, the ISA method and the ISA team qualifications, 6 of course, were listed in 3 (a) .
7 So, the summary, I guess, would reference those.
8 It would also have a summary process description in it and 9 some accident sequences which would only be the ones that.
10 you are most interested in, which would be the high risk 11 scenarios.
12 And then a controls overview, we don't propose 13 that we put each valve, gauge in the summary. We intend on 14 saying, you know, what parameters are controlled in that s/ 15 operation and are active in that accident sequence.
16 And then, of course, rad and chem safety are 17 pretty much as they are now. The performance requirements 18 and the program description would be in the license. The 19 implementation of that program and the depth of the 20 implementation, or the rigor of the implementation of that 21 program would be determined through the results of the ISA.
22 That would determine what areas you needed to focus on most.
23 Chemical safety and fire safety, the results of
- 2<4 the ISA really determine what are the performance 25 requirements of that program and what the program consists
! ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 L _
j.-
171 3 1 of. So I really didn't put anything down for that.
1 Those
-( ) 2 ' types of things would'be determined through the ISA results.
3 There may be many' parts of the plant where there are not any 4 chemical hazards of concern and, therefore, there wouldn't 5 be any types of programs required in that area. There may 6 be other areas where there are, and a program may be 7 established for that area.
8 Fire safety, a little bit more broad than chemical 9 safety because of the potential for delivery off-site. '
10 But, anyway, those two, we felt that the ISA 11 results would really guide and direct the performance 12 requirements and the program description of that. program.
13 And then emergency management being the same as it 14 is now, with an emergency plan and a design basis accident r)
(s- 15 for delivering the greatest impact off-site.
16 The decommissioning, two parts to that. One, the 17 funding plan, which we are submitting now. And then, two, 18 the decommissioning plan, and the decommissioning plan would 19 be developed -- the performance requirements and the program 20 description are developed, are based on what you are 21 decommissioning. Of course, if it is the whole site at 22 licensee termination, then it would be fairly large and 23 cover.the whole site. But, as we discussed yesterday, some 24 parts of it, there may be some small parts of the site that 25 are being decommissioned now, so 70.38 may be invoked in
() ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
g l
l 172
- 1. preparing those types of plans.
() 2- We put "to be determined" on here because we 3 didn't know exactly where it would go. Maybe from our i
4 discussions yesterday, I know 70.38 requires a plan to be I
l 1
5 approved, so, certainly that would be in the commitment in
- 6. the license, and maybe some other types of information 7 regarding the decommissioning activities would be placed in 8 the other columns. But if we didn't have -- we didn't spend l 9 a lot of time on it, we didn't have any foresight into where 10 those would go. i 11 And then, of course, the management control 12 systems, which are probably the most significant part of the 13 license application, I believe, would be certainly in the i rs 14 license. The systems that we use, the management control I k_ - 15 programs and systems, procedures, the affirmations that we 16 are' going to do things according to the rules and 17 regulations and what types of audit systems and corrective 18 actions and things like that that are going on, the 19 configuration management assurances, training and things of 20 that nature.
21 I think maybe many of our licensees' licenses are 22 configured somewhat in that manner now. In talking to some 23 of the other people, there have been things that have been 24 sent up to you that aren't incorporated into the license 25 proper but remain as a letter in the public document room on
) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 1
173 1 .the docket. So that is all I have prepared to talk about.
() 2 Does anybody have any questions about these?
3 MR. BRACH: Mark, I just want to clarify, on your 4 table, on the righthand. column, you have on-site and you 5 have a parenthetical, configuration management. I just want 6 to clarify, in your discussion, you identified that Item 10, 7 management control systems, including a number of different 8 aspects, one of which is configuration management. So I 9 just want to clarify I am reading this correctly, that 10 configuration management would be included under Item 10, 11 management control, and that your reference in the righthand 12 column for control, or for maintaining the ISA would be --
13 one aspect would be control through your configuration 14 management control program, is that what you -- if I am 15 reading that correctly.
16 MR. ELLIOTT: Yeah. The configuration management 17 control program at a facility is so large and contains so 18 many different items that all create configuration 19 management, and the ISA, being as a tool used to look at 20 safety and document the safety bases that are in place, 21 would be put into that configuration management program.
22 Now, that configuration management program also 23 consists of quality assurance and inspections and all those 24 things that feed back through each other to maintain the 25 configuration that you have, your internal change control ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
g 174 l
! l' system, things like that. I didn't mean for that to be
!. Oj/. 2 misleading, but it would be there and be kept up to date i
3 through that system, yes.
4 MR. PERSINKO: I have a question. Based on what 5 you said up here, it looks to me that the only item that 6 70.72 provision would apply to would be the ISA summary.
7 But,-yet, you said that is -- you are free to change that.
8 So are you proposing to eliminate the 70.72 section?
9 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes. I would think that there could 10 be some type, if you needed a threshold to require a license 11 amendment, I think that there would be some criteria you 12 could develop other than that, and it may be 13 license-specific.
14 MS. ASTWOOD: I have a question. On your ISA 15 summary on the controls overview, can you give me an example 16 of the controls?
17 MR. ELLIOTT: Does anybody want to describe that?
18 MR. GOODWIN: Those would be the controls that 19' would be incorporated into the process or the system, and we 20 are again talking about the ones for the high risk accident 21 . sequences. But, for example, we have three basic types of 22 ' controls. One would be your passive controls which require 23 no human intervention, if you will; the active engineered; 24 and the administrative type controls, which are heavily 25 dependent upon human intervention.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036
- (202) 842-0034 i
175 1 And then~within those three categories, we would l 2 describe, you know, the types of controls like maybe, for 1
i 3 example, temperature gauges or geometries, you know, being 4 limited to certain diameters. I am trying to think of some 5 other good examples. Limiting your dimensions on your 6 equipment, maybe the test that would be performed, a 7 function test of controls that might control levels, things 8 of that sort.
9 MS. ASTWOOD: How is that different than items 10 relied for safety in 3 (b) ?
11 MR. VAUGHAN: Let me just a little bit to that.
12 That - .if you notice, we got their parenthetically their 13 overview and what we were aiming at when we put that there
- 14 is to (1) write a summary that is publicly consumable, and S- I' 15 if you go to the high level detail of specific items, et 16 cetera, that is not going to be publicly consumable, and so 17 it really doesn't seem to do the public much good for us to 18 have that information on the docket.
19 And the second thing is we were trying to condense 20 it and have it a workable document at a general level of 21 understanding, as opposed to the level of knowledge and 22 detail you would have to know if you went down another step.
23 And we are not trying to fence out the NRC from any level 24 that they want to interface, it is just we believe that you 25 all have certain jobs to do and there ought to be an O
-() ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
g 176 l
L 1 overview type of description that would work well with the
() 2 public and would work well with the NRC. And then, of 3 course, the facility has to have the total detail so we can 4 implement and manage our plant. So that's --
5 MS. ASTWOOD: But the total detail would be 6 on-site?
7 MR. VAUGHAN: Right. Well, it has to be. I mean 8 you can't operate your program if it is not.
9 MR. ELLIOTT: I think we also recognize that there 10 is a line somewhere, and I think we have tried to draw it, 11 that you can have as much information as we have, but the 12 understanding still won't be there without being in the 13 context of the operating facility.
14 MS. ASTWOOD: Right.
O)
(_ 15- MR. SHERR: Can I ask a question, on the same 16 subject? Of course, this item, what is going to be 17 submitted to NRC is, of course, one of the key issues that 18 are dealing with. I think the concept here is okay. Yeah, 19 it basically needs to be provided to NRC, the controls, and 20 we are still having a question in terms -- okay. Now, the 21 question really is what level of detail, which is, you know, 22 -- NRC doesn't want too much details, and, of course, you 23 don't want too much details. The question is just, what is 24 the reasonable bound?
25 I understand, I mean one thing is what is on the
/"N f .
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
g 177 1 public record, the other thing is what is needed in order b
V 2 for NRC to make an informed licensing decision, in an
!- 3 efficient manner. NRC could spend a lot of time at the 4 facility reviewing everything, but I don't think that is in i
5 anybody's interest. So there's a balance between how much 6 detail is provided to essentially minimize the need to go to 7 the facility and look at all the details, at the same time 8 recognizing, yeah, but you don't need all the details here, 9 and the licensee may need to do it on a selective basis.
10 I am just saying that this is a key issue, I 11 think, in terms of what we need to be working on that 12 provides that balance.
13 MR. BRACH: Let me, if I can, I want to follow-up 14 on what Ted was just saying. While information is on the 15 docket, that doesn't mean necessarily in the public docket 16 room. Really, some information is proprietary. Depending l
17 on the facility, it may be of a classified nature. But that ,
18 -- all of our discussions doesn't change that handling of 19 information, or to the extent it is propriety or classified, 20 the protection of that information.
21 I think what Ted is referring to is it may very 22 well -- really, what is on the docket and available to the 23 public needs to be complete enough for the public to 24 understand and be able to, if you will, mirror the type of 25 review and come to the same conclusions we have with regard O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\b Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
p.
178 1 to completion of our licensing review action, but it may
() 2 very well be that the information on the docket but not in l 3 the public document room, based on it may be proprietary or 4 classified in nature, may still be necessary to support our 5 review.
6 And I think what Ted is saying, it still not quite 7 clear yet where the line is drawn between the extent or 8 level of detail to be in the ISA summary submitted to the 9 NRC for review here in headquarters versus whether the more 10 extensive level of detail that is in the ISA summary. So I 11 think that it is still -- excuse me, in the ISA in Item i 11 2 3(b), but there's a difference between those two for sure.
1 13 I think there's still a line -- I think we l 14- recognize there is a line but I think we still probably have O)
(,s 15 some more work as to the extent of the detail in the ISA 16 summary, 17 MR. KILLAR: May I add something along that line, i
18 Bill? You had proposed or actually included a summary or an
-19 ISA summary in the SRP that you had sent out.
20 The industry -- we through Westinghouse, General 21 Electric and B&W have all submitted ISAs to the NRC already 22' and our view, they are in different levels of detail and 23 that is really what the question is is how much detail needs l
24 to be there.
25 If you could give us some indication as to which ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014
- Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 L
179 1 one, not necessarily this is 100 percent the correct way to
'2 do it, but as far as looking at those and giving back to us 3 an idea of, okay, this is the detail that is adequate for 4 our needs, it would give us a better handle because that is 5_ something we prepared..
6 Now we looked at what you had-put in the SRP and 7 we think that is somewhat fairly comparable to the one 8 General Electric I believe prepared, but I don't know that 9 for a fact.
10 Our perception and your perception sometimes 11 aren't necessarily the same so -- and since your perception 12 is sign on the dotted line, we are very interested in your 23 perception.
14 MR. GOODWIN: Let me add that Westinghouse has 15 submitted I believe four ISAs as well, and I think we are 16 working on the fifth right now. It will be submitted 17 shortly.
18 MR. BRACH: We don't have the answer right this 19 minute but I think your comment and question is along the 20 same line I was trying to suggest too, that there is really 21 a level of detail to be in the ISA -- to support our review 22 and activities here. There's really details in the ISA that 23 are retained at the site that we may have to have a site 24 visit to go and review and your example of looking maybe at 25 some of the recent ISAs that have been submitted, the pieces O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
O Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
l I
l 180 1 of the ISAs,.is to.see to where that line could be drawn on i
() 2 the level of detail that is need to support review here and '
3 the level of detail that clearly should be retained at the 4 site for onsite review. 7 hat is what I was trying to say 5
before is that where that line is drawn we need to look at 6 your reference to taking a look at a few that have come in 7 the last year or so is probably a good basis to look at to 8 see how we can best identify where that line is as well.
9 MR. VAUGHAN: Yes. Before we sent in our first 10 summary, we had some informal discussion with the NRC l
11 because there weren't really any good guidelines about how 12 you do this, so we kind of supposed that this information 13 that we sent in would (a) be used to support the NRC review 14 process in writing the SER, and that the second thing it i l
) 15 would do is it would point out those particular high risk
- 16. situations at the plant -- not that those are the only ones 17 that are looked at, but to provide notice that these are the 18 key items and you probably ought to look at these closely, 19 even though you may want to verify some other things, so 20 that was the objective that we started out to write and 21 maybe we didn't meet the mark but at any rate that was where 22 our objective in the absence of any particular formal 23 guidance.
24 MR. PERSINKO: On your chart up there, I see 25 controls in two areas. I see it in the ISA summary. I see
'[A/ } ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
s Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
181 1 it in the management control Section 10.
O l \_ / 2 Are there controls embedded in Sections 4, 5, 6 l
3 and 7 as well, when you say implementation through ISA 4 results?
5 MR. ELLIOTT: That do you mean by controls?
l 6 MR. PERSINKO: Process controls that you would I 7 rely on to reduce the risk to an acceptable level.
8 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, there are controls -- the ones 9 in 4 and 5 are determined through the results of the ISA.
10 MR. PERSINKO: And the controls though then, since 11 it is in the licence, the controls would also be specified 12 then in the license?
1 13 MR. ELLIOTT: No.
14 MR. VAUGHAN: No. The reason the check is there
\ 15 is because the Radiation Safety Program, which is (4) and 16 the Criticality Safety Program requirements, there's detail l l
17 under the current concept -- there are detailed programmatic 18 commitments in the license, and that is what -- that is what l
19 drives what comes out of the ISA in terms of how '
20 radiological safety and criticality safety are applied.
21 MR. PERSINKO: But then if you are relying on 22 controls to reduce you out of the high risk regime into an 23 acceptable risk regime, those controls then -- there would 24 be management controls which would be in the license, 25 requiring pre-approval by NRC, and that is the only place i 1
l l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. i Court Reporters ;
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 i 2 84 b34 j
k 182 1 then that I see controls.
f 2 Any other types of controls could be done without 3 NRC approval or knowledge, I guess.
4 MR. VAUGHAN: If that is your understanding, and I 5 don't doubt that, then we have miscommunicated slightly, 6 okay?
7 MR. PERSINKO: I am trying to get clarification 8 actually.
9 MR. ELLIOTT: Let me -- the management control 10 systems that are in (10) are a description of the control 11 systems such as configuration management, maintenance, 12 training, OA, procedures, audits and assessments, incident 13 investigation and records.
14 The application of those programs and controls to
() 15 specific items and scenarios in the f acility are' in 3 (b) --
16 MR. PERSINKO: 3 (b) --t 17 MR. ELLIOTT: So they would never require any NRC 18 interaction on that. You have already approved those 19 controls through the descriptions of those controls and how 20 they will be applied --
21 MR. PERSINKO: Oh, Where?
22 MR. ELLIOTT: In 10.
23 MR. VAUGHAN: Let me --
24 MR. PIERSON: I'd like to say something.
25 MR. VAUGHAN: Okay.
O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
f
=
183 1- MR. PIERSON: Because what you proposed here
() 2. really is very similar to what we talked about several years 1
3 ago -- it's not that different from what I thought the 4 process should be -- this is-Bob Pierson, NRC.
5 .This is not that different a process than what we 6 started out when we were first volunteering to do ISA.
7 The problem that.we ran into from the Staff's 8 perspective following this scenario is in two items.
9 One is items relied on for safety and the other is 10 control. What the Staff felt they needed is a better 11 definition and a better commitment on your part in terms of 12 what is needed, items relied on for safety, how those items 13 relied on for safety are maintained -- which boils down to 14 the control section, so the Staff's perspective at.least as 15 I saw it is what they felt the weak link here was that they 16 didn't understand how they could maintain control over the 17 items. relied on for safety, maintain control over controls 18 that are relied on, that implement that items relied on for 19 safety.
20 I guess from your perspective, and I am just sort 1 1
21 of trying to play the broker here since I was involved in a l 22 lot of the initial discussion, if we get to that point where 23 we are trying to define items relied on for safety and to l 24 control the items relied on for safety then immediately what 25 'happens is in the ISA summary section a lot of information ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. .
Court Reporters J 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
F l t-184 s
1 that you felt is not-reasonable for us to be asking for has
) 2 to come in on the docket to support that ability of our 3 staff to make that judgment, so I guess in looking at this 4 .what I would say is the real issue here that you need to 5 discuss and figure out.what you are going to do is that
-6 items relied on for safety and the controls, but this isn't 4 7 a bad process.
8 For my perspective it is a reasonable process, but 9 the Staff would have to be willing to accept the fact that 10 they don't always know what items are relied on for safety, 11 that it's going to change with the facility, and they don't 12 always know what the controls are for items relied on for 13 safety. If the Staff can't agree with that, then 14 conversely, we're going to have to decide, you know, it's
() 15 not just that one block.
16 You are going to end up with that ISA summary 17 section -- there's a lot of information there that is going 18 to have to come in to support that moving the items relied 19 on for safety controls up into something the Staff would i
20 either put on the docket or in the license. '
21 But this is from my perspective. I sort of felt 22 in the past couple of years everybody is talking past each i l
23 other and you just have to define what you are willing to '
24 give and what the Staff is willing to accept and move 25 forward because unless you can do that you'll still be C, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014
- Washington, D.C. 20036 l
(202) 842-0034
185 1 talking.
2 MR. PERSINKO: See, if you had in the ISA summary 3 where the controls are listed you have overview -- I don't 4 mean in getting-down to every pressure gauge for every l 5 little component but controls that you are relying on to 6 reduce you down from the high risk regime, but the Staff 7 would have some element of' control itself and the changes if 8 the Section 3 (c) still contained at 70.72 provision, but if 9 you eliminate that, then there is no interaction from the 10 Staff.
11 MR. PIERSON: But originally when we talked about 12 this method, what the Staff -- when we represented Staff were willing to do -- we were willing to accept a 13 14 methodology that described how industry was defining either 15 the ability to either select the control or define how you 16 are moving through to define the control, so in other words, 17 we were willing not only to accept a control like the i 18 pressure gauge but some sort of a process to say, well, how 19 do you use -- how do you make a pressure gauge a safety 20 control, how do you make a level gauge a safety control?
21 What do you have to do to make that happen?
22 The same thing in terms of calculations. How do 23 you go about defining low moderator or how do you go about 24 defining a geometrical control, and we are willing at least 25 in my opinion, we should have been willing at that point to O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 3 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
I 186 1- select it because at that point you were still volunteering
() 2 to do ISAs.
3 We were trying to work through a conundrum of what 4 is enough but still represent something that we can use for 5 a license -- that is the nub of the issue right there. You 6 just have to decide what you want to do and move forward.
7 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, those methods that you just 8 described are'or should be in 3(a).
9 MR. PIERSON: Yes, let me go -- I agree. I agree. I 10 That's what I'm saying.
11 MR. ELLIOTT: Okay.
12 MR. PIERSON: I agree that what you propose here 13 is not that different from the ground rules that we laid out 14 several years ago.in terms of how to work through the 15 process.
16 MR. KILLAR:
~
Right, and basically that is the 17 premise we continue to work on, and our vision of this is 18- that through the license commitments we will identify the 19 type program that we will put in place and describe those 20 programs. We will describe how we will control criticality 21 safety, how we will control radiation protection.
22 If through the ISA we decide we need fire safety 23 programs, how we will do those fire safety programs and
~24 ' things along that line, and then through the ISA process at 25 the site we'll identify the high risk areas and what -- I l
[) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\-- Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 1
I i
1 i
l i
187 1- don't know whether we will use the word " controls" -- but
() 2 what are the items relied on for safety, and then t he 3 controls that go on those items relied on for safety and 4 then we provide a summary of that information to the NRC.
5 Now the idea that we had is because we have 6 described the program, if we decide that we are going to 7 make a different control on that item relied on for safety, 8 as long as it is within our program that we have previously 9 described to.you, we can make that change without going back 10 to the NRC for any type of review of approval, because it is 11 within the approved program.
12 That was our vision and that is how we thought i
13 this process would work is that what we are doing is we're l 14 getting approval of the programs of how we will ensure l 0
\-- 15 safety in our facilities, and we would through the ISA 16 process identify all the various risks in the high risk 17 categories in the items relied on for safety and then 18 through the summary provide you an overview on how we are i 19 implementing both the programs and how they apply to the 20 high risk areas.
21 Our vision will give you confidence that we know 22 what we are doing and we are controlling the right things, 23 but it would also give us the ability to make changes 24 without coming back to the NRC because we are within the 25 programs that we have defined.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 1
o 188 JL <
MR. LEWIS: Under the approach that you have rw
( ,) 2 outlined, if you have a control in place under 3 (c) and you 3 now make a change to that control and you go through your 4 internal site change control procedure and decide that if 5 you do make the change it will result in a new high risk 6 accident, what is the threshold that you would think you 7 would need to come to NRC for approval?
8 MR. ELLIOTT: What would be a new high risk 9 accident?
10 MR. LEWIS: If you were to change out a 11 particular -- decide to go from a system of where you have 12 two pumps that can perform a safety function and you want to 13 eliminate one of the pumps and have only one pump.
14 MR. ELLIOTT: Or you wanted to replace a 15 centrifugal pump with a positive displacement pump -- I 16 wouldn't think that would be of any concern.
17 MR. VAUGHAN: Can I make a little comment on that?
18 We said earlier that we didn't think there ought 19 to be a 70 -- whatever that number is that deals with 20 changes, but quite frankly, either in the regulation or in 21 everybody's license, there has to be a ground rule 22 established of how the licensee and the NRC are going to 1 23 interface on things that change and that is an area that I 24 think some of the most current thinking on that is in our 25 license where we have a fair addressing of that subject but
() ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NN, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 J
r 189 1 clearly not complete enough to handle the ISA world, but we
() 2
~
need to come to agreement on ground rules as to when the 3 licensee has the ability to make changes because they are of 4 a kind that the NRC just doesn't need to bother themselves 5 with, and when what kinds of changes that the licensee may 6 make that in fact the Commission does feel like that there 7 should be some involvement and improvement.
8 So whether you call it 70 point something or 9 whether you put conditions in everybody's license, one of 10 those needs to be addressed and we need to have a meeting of {
11 the minds on how that is going to work.
12 DR. PAPERIELLO: I agree. I am listening to the 13 discussions here. That is really what I think this thing is 14 all about. When I look at what you have up here, I can O)
\m, 15 accept-most of it. I think the devil is going to be in the 16 details. I think-the devil is going to be in 10 -- what our 17 management control systems -- and in the ISA summary what 18 will be the accident sequences and what will be the controls 19 and what is explicitly going to be in the license and, 20 you're right, somewhere along the line -- there's a lot of I 21 things that I frankly want you to be able to change without 1
22 getting our approval.
23 I mean you turn around and change one counting 24 instrument and buy another model, even a different principle 25 of operation, frankly I can think of five different ways of
() ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
(-
190 1 counting beta contamination. You can too. I don't need to
.( ) 2 prove that. Somewhere perhaps if you have some huge 3 pressure vessel and you are going to change it to something 4 else -- I don't know what -- maybe we need to get involved, 5 you know, we need to turn around -- and I think we are 6 probably going to need another meeting to work this one out, 7 but I think that is going to be -- that is the issue, but l 8 fundamentally what you have described here I don't have too !
9 much of a problem with.
10 Again, some of thing I think is to details and I i 11 think this looks good.
l 12 MR. VAUGHAN: A little different aspect of this i 13 that I also wanted to make a comment on, but I appreciate 14 those comments, that is, there is a lot of discussion about l k_)g 15 the subjects of controls and whether those controls are in )
1 16 the license or not and there seems to be some feeling that '
17 if those controls aren't written in the license then they l
18 are not enforceable, and.I tell you, I feel like all of my 19 controls are very enforceable whether they are in the l
20 license or not and the reason is my license tells me all of l l
21 the ground rules, both from a management standpoint as well !
22 as a safety standpoint what the rules of engagement are to 23 identify and implement and maintain controls so if I don't i 24 have controls or they don't work, et cetera, I am 25 automatically in trouble with what is already there.
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 !
(202) 842-0034
l 191 j 1
1 In addition, we have talked about the commitment
() 2 in the ISA section which will be a new piece, but we have 3 always' indicated that our intent is to commit to perform 4 ISAs and use the results and maintain them.
5 I think the licensee's proposal has been sensitive 6 to what the NRC's objective may very well be. It's just 7 maybe a little simpler roadmap to get there, we think, and 8 so that is the other piece of that question. l 9 MR. PIERSON: If I could add something right now, 10 to go back to what Rob said a little bit, when we initially ;
11 started talking about this, we were thinking in terms of 12' what you could do to change the controls.
13 As an example, if you asked the NRC as part of 14 your license application the process you use to determine 15 geometrical control, you didn't need to back anew every time 16 you changed a container because we had already reviewed the 17 process and accepted the process for how you are going to 18 define what the size of the container was in the first 19 place.
20 If, on the other hand, in your application you 21 sent in and you said our control is this geometrical 22 container with nothing more to substantiate it, and then you 23 wanted to change out that geometrical container, then you 24 would have to come in and make the change.
25 That is kind of the philosophy we were using to O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 1
192 1 work through this process and I had a lot of conversation
() 2 with Charlie and with others initially and I don't 3 think this really is that different from what you 4 proposed --
5 MR. COMFORT: I guess I have a question on if you 6 do not.come in for preapproval for changes, you know, get 1
7 ahold of the ISA summary on the docket and you are making 8 changes, to a certain level I agree we have to decide what 9 level would require you to come in on, but is there any 10 consideration of providing updates to the ISA summary or 11 would that only be presumed to be done on a renewal basis?
12 MR. ELLIOTT: We have talked about some type of 13 frequency. We haven't proposed one but clearly there would 14 have to be some routine frequent updates of the information.
\
15 MR. COMFORT: Yes, because my concern there is 16 that if, as a project manager, you are making changes and I 17- don't to a general idea of what is going on on the site and 18 there is some kind of event and I don't have the knowledge 19- of the something that was changed that may have caused it, 20 even if it is after the fact that you submitted it and 21 stuff, it would still be useful on a periodic basis to get 1
22 that.
23 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, I agree. Now when we get to 24 events, you know, a lot of times I could have sent you an 25; update a month ago and an event occurs and your information l
# ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 l (202) 842-0034 L
193 r^wI 1 is not up to date and we of course have the capability to t
(_) 2 send you that information via fax, E-mail, what have you, 3 for you to be able to assess during those periods, but I 4 don't think that neither we nor you would want a frequency l l
5 update that frequent to where you could think that you could I 6 go and pull and have the exact information for any event at 7 any time.
8 MR. COMFORT: I agree with that. It's more of, 9 you know, you don't want to get in a position that there is 10 an event and it is two years later that we heard about 11 something and all.
12 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes.
13 DR. DAMON: My name is Dennis Damon. I am a
-s 14 license reviewer and I want to bring up a different devil f
t 3a
15 that hasn't been mentioned yet. I 16 Before I do, I want to compliment you. I think 17 this is an excellent layout, an excellent format to permit 18 discussions like this and I would like to confirm one of the i 19 previous devils, which is the difficulty of summarizing what 20 the controls are. I think that is really a key point. It's 21 an art form really for you to write a description of the 22 control that is sufficient for the reviewer to tell that 23 that is an adequate control and yet not be too specific 24 about what it is so that you can change things and you don't 25 really have to update that information.
((~h,) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
7 O
194 .
i It is an art form and that is where if you manage 1
() 2 that program, focus your attention on exactly how good those 3 are because we have received things that go in both {
4 directions. I 5 We have received things here that are too 6' specific. We have received things that just say it is a 7 moderation control or it is a concentration control and 8 that's it. There is not enough information there.
9 But that is not the devil I was going to bring up.
10 The devil is you are going to submit only high risk accident 11 sequences and the devil in there -- there's a couple of 12 them.
13 One of them is what is high risk? What is a high l
14 risk _ accident sequence? What I mean is all high consequence j
/~T ;
(s,) 15- accident sequences like all criticality sequences or some l 16 other think like the ones you think are the likely :
17 criticality sequences are what, you know, so that is one 18 devil that has to be resolved as to what that really means.
1 19 The other devil that is in there is one of the 20 things the reviewer like myself is looking for, he's looking 21 for where you have made a mistake, where you have 1 22- categorized something as a low risk sequence, whatever that !
23 is, : and in f act it is . high risk, so the difficulty faced 24 'with.it, if you only send in the highs and he doesn't see ;
- 25 the lows, he doesn't -- how does he know that you have done ;
O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
195 1 that correctly?
( ,) 2 There are ways of doing that. I am not saying I
3 there is no possible solution here. Obviously he can go to 4 your plant and look at some of the low risk sequences to see j 5 if you did them right, but I think more importantly, I think 6 a reviewer should do that but more importantly is there has 7 to be a very clear description of how you do what it is you 8 do so that things get into that high risk versus low risk, 9 and what I mean by that is there has to be a very good 10 description of the methods in the areas of rad releases and 11 chem accidents, there has to be a very good description of 12 how you do the consequence calculations that you did, what 13 criteria, what methods.
,.s 14 Basically there has to be a commitment that gets T ')
\/ 15 sent in with all this other material describing exactly how 16 you did them, because there is a lot of different ways you ,
i 17 could do that, and you could have calcul'ted that, oh, yeah, 18 the guy gets a 1 rem dose whereas if you did it according to 19 a method the NRC would regard as adequate, it might be much 20 higher, so that is the devil in there is that the Division 21 here has put out a thing called Accident Analysis Handbook.
22 It has in there guidance on doing those kind of 23 calculations, but what we need in the application is a 24 commitment either to those methods or something equivalent, 25 so that the reviewer doesn't have to look at your low risk
/~~N ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
!\ ) Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
l 196 1 accident sequences to find out what methods you in fact are 2 using.
3 MR. ELLIOTT: Dennis, I think that maybe on that 4- point we need to recognize that the NRC can't demonstrate to l
l 5 the public the safety of a facility solely through the l
6 licensing process in a vacuum, and I think that if we l l
7 describe to you the. qualifications of people we use, the l 8 methods that we use, how we apply those methods to the 9 different processes at our plant, there needs to be some 10 factor of verification of performance when we do those '
11 things so that whether I have categorized a certain accident 12 sequence in the proper manner would seem to fall over into 13 the verification part of the NRC's assessment of our 14 performance.
()
m
\s 15 DR. DAMON: I was not really referring to, say, 16 lack.of. competence or mistakes that were macie or anything of 17 that manner.
18 I am referring to the fact that if you get into 19 the area of calculating offsite dose received from, say, a 20 radiation release or exposure in chemicals there are 21 different methods that can be used and some professionals-22 would say this is good and somebody else would say something 23 different, and there could be easily a factor of three 24 difference.
25 I think we all just ought to be working on a level ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
l Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
r c
197 1 playing field here'that all the licensees ought to be able F
(Mj -
2 to' work to the same rules, whatever they are, and not allow one to do something different simply to allow them to
~
3 4 categorize something as low risk so that it doesn't' have to 5 be submitted.
6 That is what I am getting at, that it would be 7 nicer if'we had a lot more uniformity and everybody knew 8 what was being done, because it's not very well defined'
'9 because there are such a variety of methods.
10 You know, like in some other areas, in the 11 chemical industry itself, people use standardized computer 12 codes that everybody knows what it is. That is what they 13 use so everybody knows, and in the nuclear reactor, the NRR 14 side that is the way things are. There are certain codes f
(_e 15' that are used and people doing that kind of calculation say, 16 well, ,I used the standard code -- end of discussion -- but ,
17 here we are not in that boat yet.
18 There is a much wider variety of what you can do.
19 I am not going to get into the technical details hat there's 20 a lot that's very technical in dose calculations and some 21 things that are done are very rude and crude and some are
-22 fairly accurate. I think we have to kind of agree that we 23 all understand what kind of calculations are being done.
24 MR. KILLAR: Dennis, there's a couple things that 25 I would like to mention in response to that.
E ' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\'- Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
f i
I 198 1 I think, first off, from the perspective of the
/~x
(_)
2- NRC and the NRC's reviewing an application for a license, 3 they should know from their past experience where they would 4 anticipate various events triggering -- you know, if you are 5 not handling, let's say for instances you have six, if you '
1 6 are starting with powder or pellets, then you won't be l 7 worried about a UF6 release so if the Applicant comes in and i 8 has no words in there about UF6 or offsite release of UF6, 9 then there should be a question.
10 On the other side, if the Applicant is starting 11 with UF6 and he comes in and doesn't say anything about it, 12 then I would think it is prudent of the reviewer to say, 13 hey, guys, how come you didn't say anything about UF6? Have 14 you gone through analysis to demonstrate UF6?
k -) 15 Similarly for, say, like a wet process for 16 conversation and stuff, if they don't come in with 17 anything talking about criticality safety and a wet process 18 for a conversion, you say, well how come you guys don't have 19 anything here about this?
20 So certainly we anticipate that we would know 21 where the risks are and provide those risks but it also is l
22 incumbent upon the NRC to have a fundamental understanding 23 of these facilities to raise the right questions, and so the 24 onus isn't only on the licensee providing this but it is 25 also the NRC asking the right questions.
1 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l
I
p-l l 199 1 At the same time, we can't spend our resources and {
- 2 your resources spending time on questions that should be l 3 asked. If we are st'arting with UO2, why would we get a 4 question about UF6? So things along that line we need to 5 have the right perspective.
6 One of the things that the members talked about is 7 that making available office space for an NRC person to come !
8 down, a reviewer,to come down and spend a month, six weeks, 9 at a facility, and familiarize themselves with the facility 4 l
10 so when they get these applications they get questions, they 11 kl.ow what is basis behind the operations and things on that ;
i 12 line as part of, I would guess, sort of the training or 13 indoctrination of NRC reviewers and it could be a 14 criticality expert or it could be a health physics expert or 15 what have you, but this way when an issue comes up, this j 16 person has familiarity with the facility and he can ask the 17 right questions and we can avoid spending some time 18 sometimes on -- I wouldn't say dumb questions because 19 there's no such thing as a dumb question, but questions we 20 spend a lot of time on that may be not as relevant as other 21 questions, and so these are some things that we think we can 22 do to help the NRC out and which in the long run help us out
'23 ~ as well.
24 DR. DAMON: That is why I focused on this thing 25 about the way you calculate consequences, because if what
,3 .
l j ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. l Court Reporters ,
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 I Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
f t
l-200 1 you are send into the high risk, and you are retaining all O
As _/ 2 these low risk' sequences at your site, and the reviewer 3 says, well, how do I check to see if this -- that something l 4 hasn't been done that I need to review and it has been
- 5. adequate.
l- 6 I am saying the easiest way is for him to gain 7 confidence that the way you did that assignment of high risk 8 versus low risk was correct. Once he is at that point, he 9 doesn't probably need to spend much time at your plant 10 looking through those things. He already knows that you 11 have done a good job., those are the low risk sequences, and 12 he can focus on what you have cend it.
13 But if he doesn't have that confidence that you 14 did it correctly, then he has got to gain that first O-
\~ # 15 somehow, and one way to do is to come to your plant. Like I 16 say, the inefficient way to do it is the way people have
.17 been doing it in the past. They have been going and looking 18 at each individual thing, like each process and stuff. It 19 takes a long time to get familiar with a process, and the 20 analysis that was done for it and stuff, to conclude that, 21 yeah, this was done correctly.
22 I say the efficient way is for him to review --
23 for you to commit to methods, for him to review the methods 24 and then once -- and then look at a few examples and see you 25 did follow your methods, and then he goes home back to the O(,,/ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
7 l'
i l 201
, 1 NRC at headquarters and doesn't have to look at your low i
{) 2- risk accident sequences anymore.
~3 MR. KILLAR: Just a comment. I appreciate your L 4' discussion of the other devil in the details, and I can tell 5
you, from a pretty significant experience at the Wilmington 6 facility anyway, that subject that we were talking about, 7 about what kind of calculations you do, what kind of line, 8 where you put your lines on your matrix as you are trying to 9 categorize these, was absolutely the most difficult task 10 that we had to face with the team members and with 11' management, because our management is very concerned about 12 where we draw those lines, and our employees are concerned 13 about doing it' appropriately in accord with expectation.
14 And, of course, we started this without any of
/ 15 these lines drawn anywhere, so we had to go through a 16 process of trying to figure out where we were going to put 17 the lines to go with the process to make those decisions.
18 And that was a very tough job, and I don't think we have 19 closed that loop in regulated space yet either. So the 20 devil that Dennis brought up is a real thing that has to 21 happen, and we probably need to keep sight of that.
22 But I also agree with -- he is saying the same 23 thing about the programmatic descriptions that we give and 24 the commitments and affirmations and things like that. It 25 is.really the rules of engagement are the things that, I \ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
M Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
202 1 hopefully, give you the right answers. And, so, we need to
( 2 make sure that we have all the right rules of engagement 1
3 written down and then we need to verify that that is being l 4 implemented, and, in fact, is being effective, you know, in 5 place, so. I 6 DR. DAMON: I would like to, you know, speak a j l
7 note of optimism about that in this high risk concept.
8 That's one of the first questions I asked, is -- what do you 9 mean by high risk? Because risk really does have both 10 consequences and likelihoods involved, and what I was trying j 11 to communicate here is that on the consequence side only it 12 is actually easier for you to send us only like -- if you 13 say I am going to send you high consequence events, it is i
14 very easy, I think, for a reviewer to get to the point where j f.\
\ 15 he believes that you have done that correctly, because 16 calculation of consequences follows fairly -- follows 17 methods that, even though I said there is uncertainty in the 18 values, they are a lot better defined than the methods for 19 arriving.at a likelihood. In other words, you give the same 20 problem to two people on the consequence side, they will 21 come up with about the same answer.
22 So I am just saying, in terms of a reviewer being 23 convinced that what you sent him was something, if it is 24 consequences, it is relatively easier. If you define the 25 high risk thing with both consequences and likelihoods, then O
' .() ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters i
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 l
(202) 842-0034
p 203 1 he has to also understand your method for assigning
() 2 likelihoods and, you know, that could be problematic.
3 That's why we took a shot at defining how you do that in the j 4 SRP ISA chapter, is because we recognized that there wasn't 5 any guidance out there on how to make a judgment about 6 likelihoods that was -- you know, where we could all agree 7 we understood what the ground rules were.
8 MS. EYCK: Charlie, I have also one question. You 9 were talking about that that was one of the more difficult l 10 tasks, was where you draw the line. Just thinking back, it 11 seems like you were trying to do that task before we had 1
12 published the draft Part 70, and I am just wondering where 13 we define what we would consider high consequence or 14 intermediate consequence now that is out there. Would that 15 have helped you if that had that earlier on where to draw 1 l
16 the line? l 17 MR. VAUGHAN: It would, it certainly would have 18 helped some. I am not sure that it gave us the -- I am not 19 sure it would give you the final answer, but it would have 20 helped some. I mean we were kind of totally in a vacuum.
21 And what we ended up doing is, as we began to look at other l 22 standards and other requirements, and the way some other 23 things are regulated, and got some ideas about how they went 3 24 at it, and then tried to translate those. I mean for 25 chemical and things of that nature it is pretty easy, but l
C
(,) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
i 204 1 then you have to get to the nuclear piece of this thing, and
() 2 so you have to make a translation, and it was -- but, yeah, 3- this information would help some, but I don't -- I still 4 don't1think it would have solved the problem.
5 MS. EYCK: Also, you had mentioned the thought 6 that we look at the ISAs, or portions of the ISA that have 7 been submitted to us to date and to kind of give some 8 feedback on where we think is the right mark. We did use 9 that as a basis for information when we put together our 10 draft ISA summary. And, so, I think that it would be useful l l
11 to us to get some feedback on where you think the draft ISA I 12 summary is way off the mark. Because I think we did use the 13 submittals that we had to had to date as a basis when we put
,, 14 that together. And my concern now is where are the specific s- 15 areas that you think that that is off the mark. l 16 Now, I think we have already recognized that the 17 items relied on for safety and the accident sequences are 18 going to -- and the controls are going to be the things that 19 it seems are being focused on. But are there any other 20 areas in that draft ISA summary that you feel that haven't 21 hit the mark?
- 22. MR. KILLAR: Unfortunately, we are not in a 23 position to answer that today. We looked at it, but we 24 didn't bring our notes and stuff along those lines, so we 25 would have to go back and look at that. But that is r^N
(',)
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD..
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 L
205 l 1 certainly something we can go back and look at and provide 2 you some RFIs on.
'3 but. PERSINKO: Let me ask -- first of all, let me 4 say I think this is very workable. It is along some of the 5 lines we have been thinking also. The question still is, 6- though,,I.think it is fuzzy as to when NRC. involvement and
)
7 preapproval comes into play. Clearly, if it is in the 8 license, yes, it does, but there are other areas where it is 9 not in the license and that is the fuzzy area.
10 70.72 was an attempt to t2ar to clarify when that 11 involvement. initiated, but you are opposed to 70.72. I was
'12- wondering if you could elaborate on why you are opposed to a 13 70.72 type provision.
14 MR. KILLAR: I wouldn't necessarily say that we fi
\~' 15 -
are opposed to 70.72 provision. I think Charlie articulated
- 16. fairly clearly that we certainly have to have a clear 17 . understanding of what the NRC expectations are or when we 18 . will come in and ask for changes to the license, and ask for 19 amendments and what-have-you, and also what we have the 20 ability to change in-house without coming in to the NRC and
.21 making changes.
22 There's certainly, I think, in our perspective, 23 certainly black and white areas. Any time we put in a new 24 process, we would have to com'e in for the NRC. Any time 25 that we have gone through an evaluation and making a change, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 L
I 206 l
1 we find out, as a result of that evaluation, that we cannot
( 2 stay within the established program that we define for 3- whatever it is, whether it is fire, or chemical, or 4 criticality or radiation protection. We would have to come 5 in and ask for a change to that program and demonstrate that 6 this envelope will now capture that. And so there is no l
)
7 question those type changes that we would to come and ask 8 for approval'on.
9; On the other side of the coin is if we are making 10' a change in a criticality control, and we describe how we 11 will do our criticality control program, where we are 1
12 changing from an administrative control to a geometry I 13 . control or something along that line, since-they are well 14 within our program, we can make those changes without having
("% i (sI 15' to ask_the NRC for approval. And so those are certainly 16 clear.
I 17 I am sure there's going to be some gray areas,
.18 but, you know, in our perspective it is very similar to what l
19; we are doing today.
20 MR. PERSINKO: You are going to be sending in a 21 letter on the ISA issue. It'may be useful if, in that 22 letter, you'try_to describe the kind of things.you were just ;
23 saying as far as when does NRC involvement, preapproval 24 involvement is required for items that are relied on for 25 safety, but not in the license.
( ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
207 1 MR. SILVERMAN: I was just going to say, I mean I (nv) 2 think that exercise is really important, because, as I am 3 listening to everybody, I think there's two issues, two 4 basis issues we are talking about, which are the two issues 5 we need to resolve to get this overall problem resolved.
6 The first one is level of detail in various sections, in the 7 information that will be in our license, in the information 8 that will be submitted on the docket. That is a subjective 9 thing, it is always really hard to get your hands around, 10 but we need to work on that, clearly.
11 The second one is, what are the mechanics of the 12 change process? Because that, in fact, defines the 13 regulatory significance of all these things. Now, I don't 14 think we know right this minute what that change process
/O
( ,) 15 ought to be, but I do think that is a critical issue. And I 16 think if we solve that issue -- we may be able to solve that 17 issue before we really come to a clear meeting of the minds 18 on level of detail, because that is just really dicey stuff 19 I think. But I think it is important that we do that, and 20 it is important that we try to get a meeting of the minds on 21 when we submit this thing called an ISA summary.
22 Under 3 (c) , what is our freedom or lack thereof to 23 change it? When we have commitments in 3(a), what can we 24 change and what can we not change? It may be a 70.72 type 25 provision, it may be something different. But we do need to 1
(~m ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(
N_- } Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l
a
p 208 1 work that out. I think if we did that, we would really have
) 2 gone a long way to solving this problem.
3 MR. PERSINKO: I think so, too. 70.72 was 4 intended to provide flexibility, and that was the whole idea 5 of it, so.
6 MS. ASTWOOD: I have another question. Previous, 7 in other transcripts that I read of other meetings, you 8 know, there was discussion about how much of the ISA goes in 9 the license and if the ISA actually was in the license that 10 there would be, you know, 800 amendments required for that 11 kind of stuff.
12 In your proposal here, how many per year 13 amendments do you see in this kind of regime?
14 MR. ELLIOTT: We were hoping that there would
) 15 essentially be no significant increase in the amount that we l 16 have now.
l 17 MR. KILLAR: And potentially, maybe even a 18- decrease, because we would have the programs defined. As 19 long as we are operating within the programs, we wouldn't 20 need amendments.
21 Now, certainly, if we are going to put in, like I 22 say, a new process or something, there's no question we 23 would have-to have an amendment. So it is just a function 24' of how things change.
25- MS. ASTWOOD: Yeah, you said that before, and I (Ns )' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court' Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
209 1 had a question on that. I am not quite sure how a new i
(%) 2 process would require you to come in under this. Because 3
you could have your program described so broadly that the 4
new program would fit under -- I mean the new process would 5 fit under your programs. Is that not --
6 MR. GOODWIN: You also have your process 7 description section in your license as well.
8 MS. ASTWOOD: Ah.
9 MR. GOODWIN: And if it is not included there in 10 the minimum conditions of operation, then it would not be 11 covered.
12 MS. ASTWOOD: All right.
13 MR. VAUGHAN: Yeah, that's a good question, and 14 you have got some other things like Part 51 and a few things (D
\s-) 15 like that that trap you.
16 But, again, back to the change provision, in this 17 new rule, you know, maybe the words right this minute aren't 18 exactly right, but there needs to be something either in the 19 rule, or in everybody's license that talks about these rules 20 of engagement, you know. And that, I think, is where we 21 need to get most of boundary worked out.
22 MR. PERSINKO: I agree, and I think 70.72 was an 23 attempt to do that, but, you know, if you have suggestions, 24 I would recommend that you put it in the letter that you are 25 going to submit.
l x '
) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
210 1 MR. KILLAR: That's our intent.
O
( ,/ 2 MR. ELLIOTT: Anything else?
3 [:No response.]
4 MR. ELLIOTT: Thanks.
5 MR. SHERR: Okay. Drew Persinko is going to make 6 a brief presentation now. Now, it is our attempt to try to 7 sort out. We would be very interested in the feedback on 8 this in terms of this is the general structure of what it 9 means, what is on the docket and what is in the license, 10 with some sense of things that would involve a 70.72 type 11 change versus things that would be considered a license 12 amendment.
13 MR. PERSINKO: One of the items from the previous 14 public meeting, there was a lot of discussion about what is 15 the license, what is on the docket, and I had a feeling 16 everybody was sort of speaking about different things and 17 using the terms differently. So we came up trying to more 18 clearly define that in a new concept perhaps.
19 This, as it turns out, is similar to what you have 20 'just put up. I think the differences are now that -- of 21- course, anything in the license does require NRC 22 preapproval. On the righthand side we are trying to limit 23 that without getting into very specifics at this point. We 24 are trying to limit that to the items of most importance.
25 The ISA summary, the key difference, I think,
() ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
L 211 1 between what you put up and what we have here gets back to O
\s ,/ 2 'the idea of the change process again, because in this idea, 3 the ISA summary would be subject to 70.72 or a 50.59 like 4 type change process, with the intent that you get 5 flexibility and we get control where we think we need it, 6 and that was the whole idea. It is similar to what you just 7 put up, except for that key element, I believe.
8 We also, in your packet, had put down a set of J
9 definitions to accompany this slide in terms of in the l 10 license, on the docket, ISA summary, ISA, in order to try to 11 hone in a little bit on what those terms really mean.
12 The thought here also is that the ISA summary 13 would be the licensing -- would allow NRC -- would be f~s 14 sufficient to allow the NRC to reach its safety conclusion.
-'# 15 And, as such, if the NRC relied upon it to reach a safety 16 conclusion,- the NRC still wants some measure of control over 17 that document.
18 The other thing, the other item that this was 19 addressing was your statement in the last meeting that,the 20 proposed rule would require you to have 800 amendments.
21 That was confusing to me, I couldn't see why. And that is 22 what I thought made -- you know, we all thought that perhaps 23 the 70.72 provision was not being thought about in the same 24 item that was intended in the proposed rule. So the task 25 force sat down and tried to digest what happened at the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
212 1
previous meeting and that was one of the items we came up 2 with,
(} that maybe -- because we were just trying to figure 3
out why you came up with 800 amendments.
4 MR. KILLAR: Yeah, I guess where the idea of the 5
800 amendments came from is -- there's two actual. One was 6
that we still weren't clear whether the ISA summary was 7
going to be in the license or out of the license. If it was 8
in the license, certainly, we felt there was 800 -- the 1 9 potential for 800 amendments.
10 Even with the idea of the ISA summary being on the 11 docket and not part of the license, there was a concern, and 12 I think you have got it properly characterized here, 13 measures relied on to ensure the availability and reliable 14 items important to safety. As long as it is the measures
(
g j 15 and not the identification of the items important to safety 1
16 that has to be on the summary, then, you know, we don't have 17 a problem. We were concerned that you would want a list of 18 the items by process and that it would be in the license, 19 and then the only way we could change those is get a license 20 amendment to change those. And the way you have it 21 described is certainly the way we envisioned it. And so, 22 certainly, we are not looking at 800 amendments under this 23 scenario.
24 MR. PERSINKO: The task force looked at that very 25 closely, and that's the only way we thought that you could
[ ') ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\/ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
F 212 1 previous meeting and that was one of the items we came up ,
lN 2 with, that maybe -- because we were just trying to figure V
3 out why you came up with 800 amendments.
4 MR. KILLAR: Yeah, I guess where the idea of the 5 800 amendments came from is -- there's two actual. One was 6 that we still weren't clear whether the ISA summary was 7 going to be in the license or out of the license. If it was 1
8 in the license, certainly, we felt there was 800 -- the l i
9 potential for 800 amendments.
10 Even with the idea of the ISA summary being on the 11 docket and not part of the license, there was a concern, and 12 I think you have got it properly characterized here, 13 measures relied on to ensure the availability and reliable 14 items important to safety. As long as it is the measures
{
() 15 and not the identification of the items important to safety 16 that has to be on the summary, then, you know, we don't have 17 a problem. We were concerned that you would want a list of i l
18 the items by process and that it would be in the license,- l 19 and then the only way we could change those is get a license 20 amendment to change those. And the way you have it
'21 described is certainly the way we envisioned it. And so, 22 certainly, we are not looking at 800 amendments under this 23 scenario.
24 MR. PERSINKO: The task force looked at'that very 25 closely,'and that's the only way we thought that you could
') - ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
sd Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 I Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
E i
l 213 1 come up with 800 amendments, if you thought that the entire
("%
() 2 ISA summary was in the license.
i 3 MR. SILVERMAN: Yeah, I think that's what we were 4 thinking at that time. I have a question about what is up l 5 here, just to clarify. Up in the top righthand box it says 6 not in the license, not on the docket, measures to ensure 7 the availability and reliability of items important to 8 safety. Then you drop down and it says, again, in the 9 license, on the docket, measures relied upon.
10 MR. PERSINKO: Well, we were thinking that when 11 you did the ISA, you would also have them in there as well, 12 although~we don't -- wouldn't have any -- we wouldn't 13 control that document. But they would be in that document 14 as well. They would come out of the ISA and they would be
(,/ 15 in,the ISA. Maybe that is a little confusing in the slide, 16 but they would be there as well. That would be the source 17 document that would be used to derive them.
18 MR. SILVERMAN: So they would be in the underlying 19 ISA documentation, the working papers that the licensee has 20 at the site, as well as, you are saying, in the license?
21 MR. PERSINKO: Yeah. Yeah.
22 MR. VAUGRAN: I kind of read the words measures.
23 relied on as not to be specific things, but to refer back to
'24 the use of the rules of engagement for providing assurance 25 to safety-related systems. And in that regard, it is on the l
r I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014
-Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
p 214 1 docket and it is available, as opposed to some kind of an
() 2 3
itemized listing that is separate out of the license.
-that a bad interpretation?
Is l
4 MR. PERSINKO: At this point, that block is 5 discussable. But the idea was it would be more specific, it l 6 wouldn't be just the process. It would be specifics. It 7 would be the measures that you are relying on to do 8 whatever, maybe perhaps move you from a high risk area.
9 MR. VAUGHAN: Our concept, I think, was a little 10 bit clearer than that, and that resulted in a risk 11 evaluation, and then, depending upon what the risk of a 12 particular accident sequence was, then that would drive the 13 graded implementation, which includes lots of things, and 14 one of them are the measures to provide the assurance and
() 15- reliability of the system, and there would be a set of rules 16 of engagement, depending on what the risk of this particular 17 sequence was that would be applied to those items that are 18 relied on to control or mitigate that situation.
19 So, when I read measures, measures is a '
20 programmatic element in the program that you use to treat 21 the various level risk items, as opposed to things or items, 22 per se.
23 MR. PERSINKO: Like I said, wt nadn't completely 24 firmed up that box yet. But one item, one consideration may 25 be similar to what Rob was saying carlier, was, if you are I
(O -3 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\_s/ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 l (202) 842-0034
215 1
relying on two pumps, or whatever, to remove you from a high
() 2 risk area into an acceptable, area, that would be a measure 3 that you are relying on to remove you from the -- to make 4 you an acceptable area. So the measure would be to have two 5 pumps available to reach that acceptable area.
6 MR. SILVERMAN: I thought the pumps would be 7 considered the item relied on for safety.
8 -MS. EYCK: Yes, they would be.
J 9 MR. SILVERMAN: Then you have the control to 10 assure that the item remains available. 1 t
l 11 MS. EYCK: I think at this point we would I think i
12 rather wait and let's see what you provide from an ISA point f l
13 of view'. We have just done some preliminary looking at 14 different options and whatever, but I think at this point we
() 15 are a little ahead of ourself in even addressing the issues, 16 and I think it would be best if_we got what you proposed l
17 first and then let us look at that. Because I think that l 18 this is misleading, the way this is up here, and that it 19 should have included items relied on for safety and the 20 measures to ensure their availability and reliability, as 21 far as where we are right now.
22 So, I think I would rather wait and see what you 23 provide and then we can start our discussions from that 24 point on. i 25 MR. SHERR: I would like to add, though, that I !
l 1
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 l (202) 842-0034 I
o 216 l
1 think what I took from your presentation, in relationship to b
y/ 2 this presentation, was that we seem to be on the same track, 3 in terms of what is on the docket and what is in the ;
i 4 license. Not in terms of the detail, but the type of things 5 that would be in the docket versus the license. So I think 6 we are -- that is a good framework then for us to continue 7 our work on this.
8 Before we go on to the last agenda item, are there j 9 any other comments?
10 MS. GALLOWAY: I did just have one question.
11 There's a bit of dichotomy for me that I haven't been able 12 to resolve in my mind, and I am hoping that maybe someone 13 else can. Part of the discussion on the SRP, I seemed to be 14 hearing, when we talked about the fact that we had --
(/ 15 couldn't include a graded approach in the SRP, and we had to 16 incorporate the highest level for the high risk 17 consequences, you know, incorporated that into the SRP. And 18 I seem to understand that the industry felt that the ISA and 19 the results of the ISA would very clearly establish that 20 that higher level would not necessarily have to be met for 21 .each and every item addressed as part of the ISA, for all 22 the consequences and all the accident scenarios.
23 But, yet, when we talked today about the level of 24 detail that is going to be submitted, it seems to me that 25 that level of detail isn't necessarily enough for the NRC to ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
r-217
.1 be able to conclude, as you have concluded, that, indeed,
() 2 your ISA supports that you would not have to meet the 3 highest standard as defined in the SRP. Is there some 4 discussion that can be provided to help me with this?
5 MR. VAUGHAN: Let me comment on one thing that I 6 had really been meaning to comment on for a period of time.
7 One thing that didn't come out in the discussion about the 8 acceptance criteria in the SRP yesterday was the point that, 9 in defining only one point, particularly if it is either the I 10 maximum or the minimum, that single point does not form a 11 framework within which to grade things. It is only a single 12 point and, effectively, a single point doesn't define a 13 line. So, someway, we have to figure out how to define this
_ 14 continuum or the line that we plan to distribute things on.
\s/ 15 Now, you.know, you can define the beginning and 16 the end, or the top and the bottom. Conceivably, you could 17 define a mid-point. I am not sure which is the best way.
18 But a single point doesn't give us a continuum on which to 19 grade things, and we need to have that straightened out.
20 I don't know whether I can -- I don't really have 21 a complete answer for your other part of the question.
22 MR. LEWIS: Could I suggest that the definitions 23 in the table that Drew just put up, I think they are clearer 24 than maybe what was in the proposed rule as our meaning.
25 And I would hope that the industry could provide us some i
l'
( ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
218 ;
1 comments, because I think it is important that, as far as
() 2 this terminology goes, that we come to the same page in a 3 fairly quick manner.
4 MR. SHERR: Okay. I won't look for a commitment 5 on that yet, but'I would encourage you to do that.
6 There being no more other comments then, why don't 7 we break for 15 minutes. Return at a quarter to 11:00.
8 [ Recess.]
9 MR. SHERR: The last item on the agenda is a broad 10 one, I guess.
11 It is preliminary ISA and other issues and NEI 12 will be providing a presentation.
13 MR. KILLAR: Do you want me to mention about the 14 criticality dates? l 15 MR. SHERR: We have tentatively scheduled the 16 critical meeting for January 13 and 14. We haven't been 17 able to talk to all the potential participants but we think 18 that would probably be a good date and at this point we see 19 the agenda as basically one discussing various criticality 20 issues that are raised in the letter that is forthcoming and 21 secondly to discuss the specific changes to the Standard 22 Review Plan that are desired on the basis of those 23 discussions. ~
24 MR. KILLAR: The last item we have to talk about 25 is the preliminary ISA. We said "other items" but we really ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\~ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
1 219 l 1 don't have any other items because I think we have covered
[\_)\ 2 them throughout the meeting and the few that we still have 1
3 open we will be getting in to you on the change process, '
1 4 70.72 process, the design basis and the -- can't remember i 5 what the third one was -- but anyway -- the reporting, 6 right, but we'll get a letter together rather than bring 7 them up now, because we only have some preliminary thoughts 8 on it.
9 We don't have a real firm position. We'll put 10 those in a letter.
11 On a preliminary IS, we have spent some time !
12 talking about that and our initial reaction or initial 13 response is that it should be taken out of the rule because 14 we had some real problems with the benefit of it being in i O.
( ,/ 15 the rule and how it was going to be implemented.
-16 Our opinions have changed slightly since we read 17 the SRM and thought well, maybe there is merit in having a 18 preliminary ISA and so I think basically where we are coming 19 from right now is that we don't have a problem with doing a 20 preliminary ISA.
21 Where we have a problem is is what is a 22 preliminary ISA?
23 We looked through the Standard Review Plan and we 24 see nothing in the Standard Review Plan that talks about 25 describing what this preliminary ISA is and,,you know, it's
[D
\_
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
m 220 l
1.. a concern, trying to'put our handles around this as we have (q- 2. continued to have issues.about what is an ISA, what is an D) i L 3 ISA summary. Now we have a preliminary ISA -- what is that? l 4 The other aspect of the preliminary ISA we have a 5 concern about is the time involved and the burden of it.
i 6 Certainly when we are out putting in a new process !
7 at a new facility and we start the design and construction 8 .of that facility, we go through and do some type of Haz Op ;
9 analysis or what are the risk or things on that line, and 10 then as we go through we can better define those and get to ,
1 11 a point where we do have a complete ISA but in the early l 12 stages, all we have is just a basic what are the risks we 13 have to mitigate or protect against so that we can take 14 those and incorporate those into the design, and we don't I 15 have a detailed analysis of each of those risks.
16 It's maybe just a checklist or what have you. In 17 fact, if you go back to the Chem Hazards Analysis book, they
-18 provide or provide provisions for that type of analysis in 19 the initial design and that is our vision of what we think 20 this preliminary ISA should be.
21 The other aspect of it on the time issue was we 22 are no: going to spend a lot of time dealing with an ISA, 23 preliminary ISA -- but the other aspect of it is that we 24 don't want this to be a burden for us in dealing with the 25 NRC in that when we go through and do this preliminary ISA,
/ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
b Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avr.nue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
s_
221 1 hazards analysis -- whatever -- checklist, whatever we end 2 up calling it and doing, we submit it to the NRC for 3 information and we're glad to sit down and talk to the NRC 4 about it, but one of the concerns we have is that this is 5 for information purposes and for sort of to put you on 6 notice that this is the direction we are going and these are 7 the hazards we are looking at.
8 We are not anticipating or we certainly are not 9 encouraging to get, you know a whole bunch of requests for 10 additional information on the preliminary ISA. That is one i i
11 of the big concerns we have about the preliminary ISA. j 12 l I think in a nutshell that is basically what our l
13 concerns are with the preliminary ISA and the scope of-it 14 and direction it is going.
I 15 Is there anything else that I missed in our 16 discussion that we want to bring up?
17 MR. GOODWIN: Well, I think you have pretty well 18 covered it. I think any time any of us in industry decide 19 to make a major change to a process or a facility that it 20 certainly is prudent business practice to look at what you I l
21 plan to do and what the risk issues are, the hazards, and I i 22 think for the most part all of us would go through some kind j 23 of a preliminary, if you will, hazards evaluation, whether 24 it is a more detailed Haz Ops type -- that approach -- or a 25 what-if checklist, whatever the case might be.
h
\-
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
p:
I l:
222 1- But it is prudent to look at the risk to make sure l () 2 that we do design the facilities so that once it is 1 3 ' completed._that we can get approval to introduce S&M to the 4 process, so what I think our biggest concern with the- l 1
5 preliminary ISA is the formality of it and the fact that it '
6 does to us I think resemble something like a construction !
7 permit, wnich we have never had to deal with in the past, 8 and we would much prefer not to have to get a construction l l
9 permit if we were to make a change, major change to our i
10 facility, but again I would like to underscore that we do
{
11 look at the hazards. !
I 12 We try to address them and it is done in an 13 integrated fashion.
14 For example, in other words, we would look at what
- 15. type of radiological issues would there be presented by this 16 new facility or process, the criticality hazards, chem 17 safety, the whole works, so it'is done but in a less formal 18 way, if you will.
19 MR. LEWIS: The reading of the draft rule was that j 20 the preliminary ISA is required to be performed and 21 submitted but not reviewed by NRC so my understanding, and 22 correct me, your position is you don't mind performing the 23 preliminary ISA but you do not want to be required to submit 24 it? i 25 MR. KILLAR: Well, we don't have a problem L
( )-
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters i 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 i l Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
l l
1 l 223 l
l 1 submitting it. I guess the problem we have is after it is 2 submitted what happens to it? It wasn't clear to us from 3 the rule what happens to it after it is submitted to the 4 NRC.
5 Certainly if you look at the history of Part 70 l
6 the NRC'is not taking the position that it is a two-part 7 license, that you get a construction permit or a 8 construction licence and then an operating license and we
.9 certainly don't envision that this preliminary ISA drives us 10 in that direction.
11 We certainly don't want it to drive us in that 12 direction.
13 On the other side is that even when we submit the
.g-~g 14 ISA, the preliminary ISA, to the Commission we anticipate 15 you may have some questions and stuff but recognizing that 16 it is a preliminary ISA.
17 As we go through and refine the design we may 18 change systems completely, change the layouts, things on 19 that line.
20 Do we have to state then, are we dictated through 21 this preliminary ISA how we make those changes and what kind 22 of notification we give to the NRC that we are now going to 23 go left instead of right on this process, and so it's more 24 of an administrative concern that we have than anything 25 else.
f3
(_ / ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
224 1 Certainly we recognize that there is not a review
- y,) 2 and approval process, but we are concerned about the 3 administrative aspect of it.
4 MR. PIERSON: I just will give you some background 5 on the preliminary ISA.
6 A real concern that the Staff was trying to 7 address in'the preliminary ISA is new construction of a new 8 facility. There is probably a point at which an existing 9 facility doesn't make a modification -- where a preliminary 10 ISA has to be conducted -- but at least from our perspective 11 our conceptual idea would be that you have about 30 percent 12 of'the design, the preliminary integrated safety analysis 13 for new construction, the idea being that if you were taking 14 credit for safety implications or standards or consequences 15 that we felt that were not acceptable under our review 16 process we could head you off early enough to say that is 17 probably not going to work or we are probably not going to l
l 18 accept that.
19 That might be, say, an offsite consequence, 20 criteria or something like that, and the idea is that it ]
21 really applies to new design and probably this is a j
22 consequence of some of our working with the Department of 12 3 Energy issues.
24 So as far as the existing facilities are 25 concerned, there's probably a point where you need to do a
/~')
! ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l
Q 225
(-
1 1 preliminary ISA on new construction but the question is 2 where you need to work it out.
-3 MR. KILLAR: I'think, and I may be speaking a 4 little bit out of school, I'm sure -- if I am, my members 5 will beat me over the head, but I think we agree with you 6 and I think in fact if you look at history,.the industry is 7 currently doing that, if we were coming in for a new process l
8 and a new design, we'll come in and talk to you about it, .
9 lay it out for you, and if we recognize that we are going to 10 do a widget over here which is up and that you haven't 11 accepted previously, we come in and make sure that you j 12 understand that, and if you have problems how we can address 13 those problems.
14 MR. PIERSON: I think that is probably true --
O Q 15 G.E. with their dry conversion process -- is essentially 16 moderator controlled, but that is the kind of thing that we 17 would see conceptually captured in the preliminary ISA to 18 make sure the staff didn't have any basic fundamental 19 problem in-terms of how you handling that modification.
20 .MR. VAUGHAN: If I could just comment, regardless 21 of what rules did or didn't say, I think our track record 22- has been pretty good on coming to the NRC early on to give 23 them'-- I don't think we have ever given you a preliminary 24 ISA, nothing that in my mind would ever.come close to that 25 definition, and I will talk a little more about that, but we
- O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut-Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
l 226 1
are investing lots of money to do these things at our plant
(
y} 2 and we have business commitments and all of that and so we 3 have to have some degree of appreciation that the NRC will 4 ultimately approve the operation, so as soon as we 5 understand the concepts and the general scope, we want to 6 begin those discussions so that we stay in tune with what 1
7 each other is doing and I think that is really the objective j 8 that we are trying to meet and we may be making it far too 9 complicated when we talk about a preliminary ISA.
10 What actually happens I think in practice right !
11 this minute in the businesses is there is a hazards 12 evaluation done I think -- people may call it different 13 names, but I think in every case where you are looking at 14 new' processes, significant modifications and things like l
() 15 16 that, every business does a preliminary hazards evaluation to find out what hazards have to be addressed in the design 17 and operation of that facility and then they make a 18 qualitative assessment as to whether those are acceptable 19 and that we believe that engineered solutions can be applied 20 to those and once we have answered those questions then we 21 feel comfortable to move ahead and that is part of the kind 22 of information I think that has been shared informally with 5
23 the NRC.
24 Now what we don't always do is the design is not 25 always finalized before we break ground but from the hazards
[(j, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
n 227 1 evaluation we know where the sensitive areas are and
'O
( j 2 construction cannot proceed design until all of those safety
~
3 or hazards-related subjects are resolved.
4 So again in that world it is very difficult to do 5 what I would call a preliminary ISA.
6 MR. PIERSON: I think probably some of this has to 7 do with what our definition and your definition of 8 preliminary ISA is, because from my perspective what you 9 have done is a preliminary ISA. Now that may not be what 10 you have done in terms of what you think a preliminary ISA 11 is b .iuse a preliminary ISA, as I said earlier, is not 12 based on -- it is 20 to 30 percent of the design.
13 It's the conceptual part of the design that is 14 essentially a hazards analysis or it may be more involved f)
(_s/ 15 depending what the complexity is but in effect what you have 16 done is a preliminary ISA.
17 MR. VAUGHAN: Well, I don't think the AICHE 18 Handbook really gives too good guidance on preliminary ISA.
19 It has some very simple methods in it, but even the very 20 simple methods aren't exactly what we are doing at this 21 stage and so part of our reaction is the fact that it has 22 ISA tacked onto it, which puts us in a mode that says go to 23 the AICHE book because we said we were going to follow that, !
24 and that doesn't work for the early stages, but yet our ;
I 25 performance has been pretty good I think as an industry, so i
- ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\s Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
228 1 we need to think about how we factor that in.
2 MR. SHERR: Charlie, you said hazards analysis 3 might put you into the AICHE book too. That aside, in 1
4 looking at the statement of considerations, from what I '
5 heard Felix say it sounds like we are in agreement in terms 6 of what the intent of it is. I think the basic point is, 7 well, the SRP doesn't provide clear guidance in terms of 8 exactly what we expect, the degree of analysis or whatever I 9 as we would expect in a preliminary ISA and it may be it 10 needs to be better defined, but in the statement of j
1 11 considerations itself, it made it clear that NRC was not '
12 going to be approving this.
13 It said the applicant is expected to submit the 14 results of the preliminary ISA based on the modified design 15 of the facility to NRC before construction, however approval 16 is not necessary for the applicant to proceed with '
17 construction, and then it goes on to say in terms of what 18 the underlying purpose is that the submittal of the 19 preliminary ISA for review by NRC provides an opportunity 20 for applicants to get early feedback on the design of their 21 facilities or processes, looking at it in terms of you'd 22 rather hear about at that stage in the process rather than 23 after you have already committed to a certain construction 24 situation.
25 MR. SILVERMAN: If I can, Ted, yes, that's right.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
i-229 1 When the issue first came up, when we first heard the b
(_,/ 2 concept it was preliminary ISA -- it was one bullet on one 3 slide, and our first reaction was, wow, this sounds like a 4 construction permit and probably -- I am guessing -- this 5 language was inserted in response to that concern, and we 6 recognize that language and it is good language, and I think 7 we could close a piece of this out if we just carry it a 8 little bit further into the rule itself, because I think 9 there is a little bit of conflicting language in the rule, 10 and that is in 70.62 --
it's on page 49 of the rule.
11 While the statements of consideration say this is 12 being submitted for information, we are not going to review 13 and approve it, we are not going to hold up construction, if 14 you look at (a) (3) (ii) , each applicant for a license to O
\-) 15 operate a new facility or a new process at an existing ]
16 facility shall perform a preliminary ISA and submit the 17 results to NRC for construction -- the results of the ISA l 18 must demonstrate certain things and shall include certain 19 things and it goes on and says before beginning operations 20 you will update the preliminary ISA, correct any 21 vulnerabilities.
22 This is a review and approval process the way it 23 is written in the rule, and what you are really saying is if 24 you are not. going to use it as a construction permit type ,
25 document then really what you want to review and approve is j
. /'N
'( ,) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
F; 230 1 some form of ISA submittal before you' authorize operations.
() 2 It is not the preliminary ISA. It is the final 3 thing, so I think this language isn't entirely consistent f
i 4 with what fus in the statements of consideration and fixing 5 that up a bit would -- removing that mandatory language I 6 think and' making it consistent with the statement of intent 7 earlier that you quoted would be helpful.
8 MR. VAUGHAN: Let me make a comment about 9 statements of consideration.
10 We have talked a lot about what is in regulated 11 space and " hat is not. Some of my past history there have 12 been several situations that have come up, and I can't 13 remember precisely what they were where during the 14 inspection process there was a new interpretation, not O(_s/ 15 really an interpretation but an inspector took a position )
16 with regard to the words in the regulation that was 17 different than ours, different than we had implemented and 18 in fact reading the statements of consideration it was 19 fairly consistent with what we had done and the way we had 20 implemented it but was not consistent with the way the 21 regulation was being used in that space.
22 We applied one or two of those a little bit and 23 the word that we go back is that the regulation is the 24 regulation, that statements of consideration are a part of 25 it but they are not regulation and therefore if there is a l O . ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
231 1 question, the regulation is what guides it, so statements of
() 2 consideration are good in the process because it gives you 3 an opportunity to explain more what your real objective or !
4 purpose or things like.that is of the provisions that you 5 are putting in there and that gives the public an 6 opportunity to look at that and then look at the words in 7 the regulation and determine whether the words in the 8 regulation communicate the same thing that is in the 9 statements of consideration, but after the rule is written, 10 the rule is the rule.
11 MR. SHERR: I think that's clear. We certainly 12 want the statement of considerations and the words in the 13 rule to be consistent and we'll work at that.
14 MR. ELLIOTT: Felix, I want to reiterate one other 15 thing that Charlie probably talked about a little earlier is 16 this preliminary ISA requirements in the rule certainly adds 17 a degree of formality to probably what has been a current 18 practice but it does say to submit the thing prior to 19 construction and there is certain definitions of what 20 construction is and certainly if you are starting a new 21 building, that would be excavation and footings and things, 22 and as we have talked among ourselves, sometimes there's a 23 long period of time before we ever even get to ground level l 24 with the construction -- several months -- and during that 25 time the design is evolving into maybe even a conceptual
-( ) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
232 '
1 phase so to submit to you a preliminary whatever, hazards
[} 2 analysis, ISA, before construction may not be practical.
3 You may not wish for it at that time but the 4 formality of the regulation is going to require it and we 5 are going to have to be cognizant of the compliance of that.
~6 MR. SHERR: If I understand correctly, you are 7 suggesting that we are careful on how we define construction 8 or use of other. terms.
9 MR. KILLAR: That's all I have. Are there any 10 other comments or questions on this aspect?
11 [No response.]
12 MR. KILLAR: I turn it back over te 'ed.
13 MR. SHERR: This gives me an opport nity to get a 14 little exercise once awhile.
() 15 I think in terms of where we go from here, we 16 talked a little bit about that earlier.
17 One thing, as I mentioned at the beginning, the 18 transcript of the meeting along with the briefing charts and i 1
19 the correspondence as distributed at this meeting will be >
20 placed on the website. I 21 The one slight caveat is that apparently we can 4 22 only put on the website things that we get electronically so 23 we ask that the briefing charts be transmitted to us in that 24 manner. We also made a request or are making a request to i l
25 the authors of the correspondence to do the same.
N ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 ,
i (202) 842-0034 !
i
o .
233 1 In terms of things that we have on track, by the Os
() 2 end of this month, as I mentioned-earlier, we plan to post 3 for comment revised language relating to the overall 4 performance requirements of the rule, which would deal with 5 70. 60 (b) on the consequence and with particular emphasis on 6 the chemical safety aspects, on 70.60(c) on the levels of 7 protection.
8 We anticipate next week or so we will be receiving 9- the detailed written comments on nuclear criticality from 10 NEI and that we have tentatively scheduled the meeting, as I 11 mentioned earlier, for January 13th and 14th, at which time 12 'we plan to review the' specific issues that have been raised 13 as well as the SRP changes that might be considered.
14 Also, as I mentioned earlier, we are still in the
() 15 process of reviewing the SRP comments on the top ten issues
-16 and we will make changes to the SRP as they are considered 17 warranted on the basis of these comments, and we will be 18 providing an analysis of these comments which indicates the '
19 degree to which they have been adopted and this will be put i
20 on the website as well.
21- The indication was that we should be receiving !
22 additional comments on SRP issues at the end of January to 23 the mid-February timeframe and we would anticipate 24' conducting the same process at that time when we receive 25 those comments.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
ss Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
- v. ,
r i
234 1 If in fact, and apparently it is still an open
(~h (s,) 2 issue, the NEI and industry representatives are able to l 3 provide a proposed revision to a particular SRP chapter we 4 will examine that as a basis for looking at the overall 5 format and content of all the corresponding SRP chapters.
6 I understand that particular comments will be
? provided on the ISA within the next few weeks and this will 8 , include matters in terms of what should be in the license
& and what is in the docket, the preliminary ISA, and other 10 issues, and I think you mentioned reporting requirements, 11 baseline criteria in 70.72 and together with those comments 12 and the discussions today we will be looking for changes to 13 various rule language.
14 The suggestion had been made for NRC to look at
\~.? 15 the submittals of ISA summaries that have been provided to 16 NRC as a way of gaining insight in terms of what level we
- 17. are looking at. We commented that that is essentially what 1
18 we did when we provided the attachment to the Commission l 19 paper dealing with the example summary and so we have l 20 requested that perhaps we could get more specific feedback 21 on that ISA summary in terms of what aspects of that seem to 22 be reasonable and what aspects are problematical.
23 As I noted in the beginning, we talked about a lot 24 of things being put on the website and you won't have to l 25 check the website every three minutes to see if something i I 1
i (g-~\ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 .
(202) 842-0034
r 235 1 has popped up or something.- We will provide you l 2 notification when something is put there to facilitate that l-3 in terms of things that are placed on there by NRC.
e, In terms of things that other people place on I i
l 5 there, we won't necessarily be in a position to do that.
6 Before I get into some other matters, Liz, you 7 want to make some comments about these other SRPs.
8 MS. EYCK: Yes. I just wanted to mention that 9 recognizing that we are focusing on trying to be prepared to 10 license other activities, we are planning to put out for 11 public comment a draft SRP for use by AVLIS, for the 12 licensing of AVLIS, and also a draft SRP that we would use 13 for the tank waste remediation system.
14 Recognizing that Part 70 SRP was kind of the
\ 15 foundation document that we have been building on and we'll !
16 be modifying for other applications, the SRP that will go ;
17 out will look very similar to what we have now in the draft l
18 one for Part 70.
l 19 Recognize that as we make changes during this 20 process, putting out the Part 70 one, we will be also 21 looking to modify the other SRP so I don't want you to think 22 that just because that one looks like Part 70 and you got 23 problems with Part 70 that that necessarily is going to be 24 the way that the final format for the other SRPs, but we do 25 need to, because of time constraints, put them out for ,
() ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
236 l
1 public' comment and so I'didn't want you to be~ surprised to
() 2~
see something come out looking similar to the existing SRP.
3 MR. KILLAR: .Liz, can you tell me what the 4 schedule is for those, specific time periods?
5 MS. EYCK: Imminent.
6 MR. KILLAR: Imminent.
'7 MR. PIERSON: They are going to be coming out in 8 the next two or three weeks, and like Liz said, those are 9 new construction facilities that -- with no operating 10 . history. We are trying to establish some basis for what we 11 would use to license, so don't read from that that it 12 necessarily implies that it is or is not a requirement for 13 your facilities.
14 MR. SHERR: Carl, did you have some remarks?
15' DR. PAPERIELLO: I'm sorry I couldn't stay here 16 this morning, I had a fire to put out. The Chairman is
- 17. right now giving a' press conference down in Georgia, and it i 18 turned out there was a newspaper article in yesterday's 19' paper about a site in Georgia contaminated with both DDT and ,
i 20 radioactive material on which there is now a children's !
-21 camp. So it is -- the quantity of radioactive material is 22 200 millicuries of C14 and 15 millicuries of tritium that i 23 were buried under the old Part 20 twe decades ago.
24 But it is amazing how you can -- that is kind of
- 25. the environment we work in, that is part of the problem. i l
l l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 i (202) 842-0034 1
1
237 1 You know, in terms of risk, you can say that is minuscule.
1c L'
I 2 I mean there's mcgacuries of C14 produced in the earth's l 3. atmosphere from cosmic rays, but, you know, 200 millicuries l 4 put in the ground 20 years ago, that has probably been 5 dispersed, you know. The DDT is probably more -- but, anyway.
6 i
7 I think it was a good meeting, at least from the 8 part that I attended, and, of course, I was here most of 9 yesterday. I think we are converging on a number of issue.
10 -I think the Standard Review Plan is going to be more of a 11 problem from talking to people on a one-on-one basis. It is 12 just more pages. I mean the rules are just smaller and we 13 can converge.
i 14 I want to talk about two other things that we have
) 15 started doing, that I have talked to certain individuals 16 about, but I haven't talked to the industry about, which I 17 will come to. And that is, some of the initiatives that are 18 going on in the NRC on the reactor side, I want to bring 19 over into my side of the house, particularly, both in 20 inspection and enforcement, and in licensing.
21 In the inspection area, enforcement area, you may 22 know that in the reactor side, we are going to a program 23 where severity level 4 violations, most of them, rather than 24 being sent to the licensee in a letter requiring a response, I
25 is being turned over to the licensee to follow up on in ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. I
()T
\_ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l
l l-l._
L 238 1 their own corrective action program. And that is an 2 initiative I am trying to implement, I would like to 3 implement, let me put it that way, with NMSS. Now, I am 4 going to have to get the Commission's permission to do this, 5 which they did on the reactor side. The Commission was told '
6 they may be hearing from NMSS, so we are working on that.
7 Part of my problem is I have many different kinds 8 of licensees and most of my licensees do not have formal 9 corrective action programs that look like the one that they 10 have at nuclear power sites, and so the question is how to 11 make this work. So we are launching some pilots. In fact, 12 this morning I had a meeting with the task group on the 13 pilots for the medical side, because we are going to try one 14 in the medical because we do a lot of medical inspections.
15 The other side is looking at both the gaseous 16 diffusion plants and fuel facilities -- how can we make it 17 work? And what I want to do is meet with NEI later this 18 month and talk about some options on how we could make it 19 work. And, of course, when we set the meeting up, I assume 20 they will invite any of you that they would like to invite. 4 21 But what I am trying to do is, if you read --
22 unfortunately, I wanted to bring the stuff here and I didn't 23 have it with me, the handout, what the Commission voted on 24 in terms of the -- on the reactor side. Essentially, what 25 would happen is, for most severity level 4s, which you now tO ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
O Court Reporters 1025. Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
239 1 get a NOV in a letter and it requires a response,
() 2 effectively, it would be turned over to you in the inspection report and said, you know, you fix it as part of i
3 4 the -- you know, the idea with the reactor side is they have 5 corrective action programs and licensees are complaining, 6 well, we have issues and you have issues, but your issues 7 always take priority over our issues.
8 What we ought to do, it ought to be integrated.
9 And so the ones which have the greatest risk ought to be 10 taken care of first, and that is kind of what I am trying to 11 pursue. The question is, is there a mechanism -- do you 12 have a mechanism where, if I turn it over to you, you track l
13 it and fix it. And then, of course, at the reactor sites, 1 14 what we would do is just periodically look at their
() 15 corrective action program and see how things are being taken 16 care of.
17 So~that is kind of where I want to be, but I need 18 to, one, define what the program would look like, and then 19 tell the Commission and have the Commission say, yeah, we 20 concur in that. I just don't feel it is something I can 21 just do on my own.
22 With respect to the licensing, in spent fuel, 23 because we have had a lot of problems and a backlog of 24 licensing work on dual purpose casks, we set up a fairly 25 rigorous, very disciplined program. We have teams reviewing O i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 o
o- ._
240 1 .each design. We have met'with the industry and worked out l2 an arrangement.
3 We are going to meet a schedule, but they have to
~
~4 meet a schedule. In other words, we are going to do reviews
- 5 in'two months with a' team. But when we send out requests 6 for additional information, we need a response in two months 7 because you will-lose your -- we don't have as many teams as 8 we have case work. So what we are trying to do is one 9 person's package'here, soon as that team gets done, they are 10 going _to pick up the next person's package. When they are 11 done, they have to have the response to the previous one so 1 12 they can pick it up. That's one piece, i 13 The other piece, though, is control of requests 14- for additional information. That's a policy that is being 15 . implemented in NRR. I am going to do it across NMSS, but it 16 will look different for different kinds of licensees. In
.17 other words, what works for spent fuel probably will not 18 work _with you, and certainly won't work with my small 19 material licensees. I have something like four teams in 20 each of the divisions working on how this would work.
21 And the goal, the goal is, frankly, a couple of l
22 things. I want to shorten the process. In fact, the 23 backlog ofelicensing in NMSS since I came her has dropped 24 drastically, but it still isn't where I want. I want to get 25= rid of " stinkers," and what I mean by that is cases that are t ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington,. D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
E 1~
\
241 ]
1 floating out there for years, and we have not made a l
) 2' . licensing decision. That's wrong. And, usually, when it J
4 3 happens, you find.out_the reasons. Usually, somebody 4 requests something that we, frankly, don't want to give 5 them, and somebody won't say no. And my position on this is 6 if we are going to say no, we are going to say no. And if 7 we need the Commission's concurrence, we will get the 8 Commission's concurrence on it. But I have to know about 9 it, and if it is buried out there, you know.
10 And that is part of the characteristics of what 11 they are doing in the spent fuel area. In other words, if 12 there are issues that aren't getting resolved, we don't fool I
13 around, we don't get the "do loop" on letters, we escalate
_ 14 both in management here and m~anagement at the licensee's
\ 15 facility.
16 But you can see, if I do this on materials and I j 17 have a small engineering organization that happens to have 18 some gauges, sometimes there's no place to escalate to, so I 19 can't come up with a set of rules that work across NMSS, 20 that :Us part of my problem. Things that we have done in 21 spent fuel will probably work reasonably well in fuel cycle 22 but won't work too well in others, so this is something we 23 have only been working on for about the last month.
24 But, anyway, 'I want to come in to talk to NEI 25 about it, because one of the things I need to do is elicit O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
t ,j Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
242 1 cooperation. We need to get the word out to the thing, and,
) 2 as I said, I don't regulate j ust one industry, I regulate --
l 3' somebody did, in part of a' safety analysis, with a 4 risk-based look, we have identified 40 different 5 technologies that we license. It is -- another way of 6 putting it,'I regulate'and license everything from tritium 7 dial watches to spent fuel canisters, so it is -- and 8 disposal. So it is -- the scaling factor is a problem.
9 But, anyway,.there are things that -- our goal is 10 to be more efficient, to be more timely, and I think it will 11 do everybody good to do this. You know, it will be less of 12- a burden on you and we will resolve issues faster.
13 But I am encouraged by this meeting, I think we 14 have accomplished a lot here. I would like to thank you.
.15 - Any questions for me? I 16 [No response.]
17 DR. PAPERIELLO: Okay. Thank you again.
18 MR. SHERR: I think we are all in agreement with 19 Carl, I think it has been a very beneficial meeting and I 20 would like acknowledge our appreciation for the significant 21 NEI and industry participation, both at this meeting and in 22 the two pieces of correspondence that is provided. This 23 will be very helpful in us moving ahead on the rulemaking 24 package and I look forward to future input and interactions 25- 'as well. We thank you for your efforts.
'() ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
L-243 1
I would also like to thank Cary Brown, Barry 2 Mendelsohn and Jim Hennigan, who made significant 3
contributions to making arrangements for this meeting.
4 These things don't come off by themselves and we very much 5 appreciate that work.
6 And, finally, I would like to thank Jon Hundley, 7 who has.been recording our meeting and making sure that we I 8 are speaking into the microphones clearly. The transcript I 9
of this meeting will be very important and will help us in 10 continuing to work on these matters and we thank you very !
~
11 much for your efforts. Thank you, all. !
12 MR. GOODWIN: Ted, I have got just one last 13 question for Carl. It's more with clarification. I i 14 understand -- we have been told L'/ inspectors recently that
-s
) 15 there have been a couple of policy changes relative to 16 severity level 4 type violations, in particular, those that
- 17. have low safety significance. Is the matter you are talking 18 about with the severity level 4s those with safety 19 significance? I am just trying to --
- 20. DR. PAPERIELLO: Yes. The answer is yes. In 21 other words, most'4s -- there's two issues. One,' low 22 significant severity level 4s should be treated as non-sited 23 -violations. We really, we are going to blur -- I think we 24 -will wind up blurring the distinction. The ones that would 25 now not make that criteria, but are still severity level 4s, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
O. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
244 1 but are not willful, or not repetitive, and things like
() 2 that, in the reactor side, are being turned over to the 3 licensee to incorporated into the licensee's own corrective 4 action program and prioritized. In other words, it gives 5 you control over them relative to the other things that need 6 to be fixed.
7 MR. GOODWIN: Okay. Yeah, I like that change.
8 DR. PAPERIELLO: You know, no, it goes beyond what 9 you have been told. But I need -- I feel I need the 10 Commission's permission to do this. I think I will get it, 11 because they have been kind of put on notice, but I just --
12 and by the time it happens, you won't be surprised.
13 In other words, I am just saying this now, so, I 14 got you here, I can tell you what my plan was, was to meet O. 15 with NEI to use as sort of a broker and help get the word 16 out on the street. Pardon? Of our plans, yeah.
17 Yeah, because I want the plan. I want to make 18 sure that there's -- you know, I have got a practical way to 19 implement it. Then I will want to tell the Commission what 20 I want to do and how it is going to be implemented, because 21 they would ask what I would ask. Is there a corrective 22 program or something that looks like it that you can put it 23 into so that it won't get lost?
24 l MR. GOODWIN: I know we have what we call a safety 25 margin improvement program, which is exactly what you are g
( ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
I 245 1 talking about, so I guess we could implement that.
( 2 DR. PAPERIELLO: I am sure that everybody has ,
)
3 something that looks like it, I just don't know what it is, )
4 so I have got to tell the Commission what it is going to 5 live in. Okay.
6 MR. GOODWIN: Thank you.
7 [Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., the meeting was 8 concluded.]
9 10 11 12 13 14 A/ 15 16 17 ;
18 19 20 l
21 22 23 24 25
) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 l (202) 842-0034
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in l the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING: PUBLIC MEEING WITH NUCLEAR i ENERGY INSTITUTE DOCKET NUMBER: ;
l i
PLACE OF PROCEEDING: Rockville, MD were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and thereafter reriuced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings. ;
I 1
, ceas x _
n Hundley ,
I Official Reporter '
Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
O PART 70 CONCEPT UNDER CONSIDERATION (ON THE DOCKET vs. IN THE LICENSE)
Not in the Not on the ISA (plus other safety license docket analyses / design analyses and measures to ensure the availability and reliability of items important to safety)
Not in the On the ISA Summary and license docket / other safety analyses
"*"*d " "Y ' '
- d " bv "" '"
O NRC.to staff SER establish safety basis in the On the Measures relied on to license docket assure the availability and reliability of items important to safety (to prevent or mitigate certain events)
In the On the License Conditions license docket and Other Requirements
- Items "in the license" can only be changed by license amendment requiring prior NRC approval; 50.59-like evaluations can only be applied to items relied on by NRC to reach its safety conclusion that, are on the docket but not in the license.
Changes resulting from 50.59-like evaluations can be made without prior NRC approval if the change does not result in more than a minimalincrease in risk; otherwise, prior NRC approvalis required
V5-l IS A IN THE LICENSING ENVIRONMENI lp-On Site i
j Commitment (Configuration in License On Docket Management) 1.0 General Site Information /
l 2.0 Organization /
3.0 (a)ISA(Program) .
/
> Commitment to Perform, Maintain and Implement l Results
> Scope (Processes and Hazards to be Reviewed)
> Mdiods
, > Team Member Qualifications l > Graded Approach l > Assurance Criteria
> Summary submittal and update frequency -
3.0(b)ISA (Implementation) /
> Process Descriptions
> Accident Sequences
> ltems relied on for safety
> Assurance applied to Items 3.0(c)ISA Summary /
> Site Description *
> Facility Description *
> Process Description
> ISA Method
- e~g > ISA team *
> Accident sequences (High risk Only)
> Controls (Overview)
- These items are available in other parts of the License i.e. I and 3(a) 4.0 Radiation Safety /
> Performance Requirements
> Program Description
> Implementation through ISA results 5.0 Criticality Safety /
> Performance Requirements
> Program Description
> Implementation through ISA results 6.0 Chemical Safety /
> Implementation through ISA results l 7.0 Fire Safety /
> Implementation through ISA results l 8.0 Emergency Management /
l 9.0 Decommissioning /
l (a) Funding Plan (70.25) l (b) Decommissioning Plan (7038) TBD TBD TBD Performance Requirement Program Description Implementation g 10. Management Control Systems /
p
!