ML20199B102: Difference between revisions

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


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:-
{{#Wiki_filter:}}
l .'
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  .                  /
d    ;e-
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  -                                                                                              /vr
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        /                                                  P g                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        t. gY.. i.,b
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            . '. ? ..~ _f.                                                  p..      f.. Y..e-
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                +
g&
n .W . g S..
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                .,w-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                :
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              . . .~.n..l.<.-
f1                                                                                                        .I                                                                                                                                .,                                                  + : . 3 . . q . .._f.,l p.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                        .. J: $ '.kh+ ''._. Q '                                                                                                                        .-
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  ~                                                                            ,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                . ,                                                                .t                                                                                            .
p;[
                                      ..                                          h.                              ,
2 s
R,                                *                                      '' '                  '.ss                                                  , ,4                .r..
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      .:: ' 'C ;,-
              . ~ r.uy c.. o.                    m x.
a                                                                    jt                                                                                                                .' .
:.4, r                                                                                                                                ..                                                                                                                                                                                    p                                              ..                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ,b,                        .
j .                                        y                                =                                y9                                ,y                  .&                          3
                                                                                                                                                                                                                          ~'
g
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            . a . ;, ,1 ,. ; . > ;, ...                          ..
y q ;, .                                  s.5                                                                                                                                                              '
I                                                      e-f                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          .
i q . y @ w.9: A.I o                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  -
e' '
y~ ,) c:
                                                                                                                , . 3. . .a ..t.              .                                                      ,
:;. un                              ; ;fi .1:1.)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  . g.
,.,;g , *:
                                                ?
                                                                                  .}'? *:' Y% M. R : h . '. ;                                                                                                                                                                                                . y                                                                          ;
a
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                >~                                        . ..
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ;J. #,.:                            i R:. 19h , Q*.;L.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                '                                                              ?,                                            ,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          .f .. '.;:.NO.:                      g ., z.f%,            3
:h',                        n. ,        _..
                                                                                          .E
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ,y 3 , ; - ,                                                          .;                    y ..                                        , _
: y. ~'g
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ' y;.                        _f..g. . . ;. .y[      _
.e
                                                                        %: ke. \ [uL j gi                  -
                                                                                                                                      .i(YT. y y , ,- >. . + '                          . .                                                        ._
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  .                                  -.e                          .(- _ . ~ . .            u.                                                  .-
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  .            m. ;.. .. :.
]q                                                                                                                      ,.; ,                                                                                                                                              _
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    - y                                                          .              '. '. .4< p: g:., q ,;;
fm.                                                      q ..                                    -
                                                                                                                                                                                                                .e                                                                                                                                                                            -
: g.                                            ; y: .. . '.n .
7;, , * ,                                                                                                                                    : ;                                    '
A '                              e                              ,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                .*                                                -                                                                                                                                                                        . (; ,.~, y ; f c .y::        '                            :, ;_
.y .    :                                      y's                                                  -
: s.                                .
y.. ,..: ,,:; -. ;: ,-; y-                                        v.a-e.
g                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        e                                                                                            ...                                                                                                                                            .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  ;.4. ; I '{,j ,g; y%yy.                                                        -
f
                                                                                                                                                                                                                        '' ' g.a
                                                . ety
                                                                                ~ -
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                *                *,7S.h                                              3 f,          .J                      n , ,                                                                                                                              "                                                                                                            >g., , 7. , : ,. g.g . q ~          ..
W, . .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  ^
%:r,                                      (                      . e-
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ~                                        6              a '
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  , .'. ' +Y "' V.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ;. :. ,  .S  ::[. 4 24 3                                .( ' y _
fcfr                                <
:. ."-}, $' '_'s-'                                                              '_ '
4                                                !
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  .Jt.f: q.W.m.                                      Bi;'..
wk                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    *                                                                                                                                ,
                                          '                                                                                                  .. .                                                                    J                        -
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        .4 h.,                                                                                                      ..                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              -
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  =                                          -                                      -
: s.                    v .z.
lpl.Q. y}..
                                                .@h                    p i                                            .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ~.                                        e                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      _.
t            .
m.
4y : . .-                                          .                              .
                                                                                                                                                                                    *-                                  c'.:4.h'                  . '
g* Q y. gy .)                                                                                                                                                                                          ,
: n.            ..
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            -.+.                                                        .t~'                                                              v .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  . . . q. < l' ). . D.:. $.. . . .
                                              'h                                                                                        .
: p.                                                                                                          .                                                                ...                                                                e" .. ~-                                  '                ''-                                                                                              ,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              . ; .w: s c, . 7 ~ ;.
j                                          g.              ;
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  ; . . ,y. :, ;.                                  m;.. .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ..g
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    . .;m. .t . .h. p.
y                                        j - l.
a; ..                                              .                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        .q. ,y ::
eg pg                                    (- ;                                    . 7.,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      l ' :;?..c;
: 1.                                                      . ..                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              ; ." .
&.g g ..g.
                                                                                                                                          .4                                                                                                                                                                  .
_ y .,;            . : ..::;i: u ;q:;.;
y*
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    .w.
.4.> . , e
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      . .::;.m                              m.;m;;g:                                      ;.
t& y: . ?. .=
4Q~
.p 4.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              . .:. { y
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                . .. ;.                                  ,1 q \.. ...?.x.
%,                                    e.(,                                          . *0%.
e                          .J
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                < I
: 9. f... .                                                                                                                          s                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          '
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      . 6                                                                    .-            . 3 , g. . t . . ,.                                      .....
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                . . m.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ; .y;:.::
.q m
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              .., ;., : ....,y.(                                                                      .; ;,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ;:. q
                                                .Y -
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ,                                                                                    . ~ . .. ,
[
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        .sy'
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      }l .. .}.;
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            .J
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                * . } ' ':;
    ..,c                                                                                                          .                                                      . t                                        .                                                    .
  .:. ; , ;                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ..47_ . .,
[.                                                                                                                                      .-                                                                              wa                                                                                                                                          .....
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  . . ... ,.. .:.p.:            :. ;.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ,..;y:                                      ,f ~,.a , .
                                                            - i .L. : .. , - Q / y . . ., _ _' . ; .g
}                          .'.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ..                                                                                              ,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  .y
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ......v.-              +
p '.
                                                                                                                                                    -                                                    p                                                                          .                                                                                            .
s
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ' ."m.; .r          c:
c                                                                                                                            -
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ; A
: g.        ..
e                                .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ~
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  . o s,, . .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ,L-                  ,.. asa                    >; . : .. ,,; .yu r.az;e          -
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    . eg
: fey                      y;.      s',                                                                                              . .                                                    .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ,. m. c. %,.._.:.,.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          ,s                      .,
I) ff .S. .
f-as
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              ..                                                                                                                  -[          j      .
9'. ..
i                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    k.                                                                                              . .., ; ~. u, , . . , .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ''.-4O -                                                      . , .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        .a                              ~                                    .....c..
  .:,p.                                                                                                                                                              s                #                                                                                                                                              ..                                                            :
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          .( N ( " l l .W. . -3; ; }. b. ;,-
                                                                                                                                                      .                                                  ~                  *                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            .                                ~
:. s .-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                -
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            .n                                    ;6
  .,f(; y.s.k .,. .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ., ;,- :(' m.                  ; .,w.        ;:",:; .'
s .(
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          ?      ' , ... :                                                                                      ._
y,                                                                                                                                                                                          '
yyy. y; g :n g                                                '
                                                                                                                                                      ~
: h. e : , ;$ '                                                                                ld                4'.,                                      .4 . . -                                ..
  & %i' ,                                                        _s
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    .                  R.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  ' ;f,.Q.'
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      +..< , yC:*.P'2.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  .p. p.g.-[:;.;Q:;.2.Q w-4 * ~                                                                                            .                                .
g *; . .. . -                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    -
                                                                                                                                                                                        ..                                                                                                                                                                                              ,2l                            . . .,                                                                                                                        ;.                                        a                          .:
s'                                    /                                  .
f                                                          - *                            :.                                                                                                                                    .c;
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ..,n.:.;s; ,:m,..          ,... .;;;>
z;2./. ..:.%.                      e
  .c sg[ 3
  <                                                    t,.y,,,                                                                                                                    '                                            .u                        3 w:
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                -'' ':                                        ',. ;s.
                                                                                                                                                                                                  ' .L o                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      .                                      * . '                                                    ' -
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          . :e y m. s g, , 3 . , ,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      .y
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ..                                                          ~
p                                                    ..y, e ;~ ; y ,                                                                                                                                      .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              -                .s                                .. . . ..
l                    '{.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ~.E.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    .y,
          ~                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          .
f<4_                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              [ . l.
l','Sl,                                                                                          ..__
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      . ; .p;;g.m..:        y ,; .w s.
                          .:                                  i.....,.                                      ,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                , ; l ' L ' . },,                                                                                                                                                                                                ..                        ,
                                                                                ~*
                                                                                                                                    . .                                          '.              1l                                                        .....,..
: 4. , .                                        .                .. ..                            q                            .. -                                .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          . . . . , 3 . ;,                                                            ,.
                                                                                                                                                                      . ~                                    y ..                                                              .
y
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ,t c                                                    -
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      .I                    * -: '
g                        ,1                    [
                                                                                                                                                                                                              ,5  '
(.                                                    4'
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          ~              - -
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ..                          n. .. 9m:
7                                                                                                                                        s n                                                                                                                  .~                            .. ,                                      _,:                        . ;y.a.,,:
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              .;; g :~.pt:.                . ,.gy% ;.
  '4 y>
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              +v.                -                                    . .. ,. ..
g..
j
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              , . f'[ '.' k [. [ ' d','O, w; gw y                                                                                          ,9                          .-                                    3,                                                        .                                                                                                                                                              " '
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            .y f ;' K ':glg ,'Yf[&. Ij
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      '}
yt                    :
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  '' ''  , 6 I, .,'h                          .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                .y.L ',' o''. . '
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  ':;                        fy                                                  <3
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              -- c w .. . . w.: m..em t
            , 9>
t
                                                                                                                                                                . -              .:                                                                                            +. & _ e                  ;
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    .;c .
p.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          ;                      . .. . -. . ..R?v - .~-
r                        s                                                                        .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                .                                    _] , ' f.$.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  ..' 'l f
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          ^                                                                                          :
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          ,b*."                                    .[,                          . . .
_'?'                                                                                                                                              '. ,
['n _ ? / _ . [ 7
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          }g./ Q: .;} yg:_:gg
                                                                                                . 1 {;;                                ;;( }                                          ;, c..                                                                .,.
: c.                          . . .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          . : . v. . .; . .ng3 ,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      . . . -                          .
 
,                                : R 3 NA'_                Ac.Rsr 3016 OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS
 
==Title:==
ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE RELIABILITY AND PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT TR:4    A:xs R E~~33 '' R : 3 : N AL
:: r3r+::Ts v..s  -;e:,
4:s    :::
TRANKs' Docket No.:
Work Order No.:        ASB-300-40 A:1s Ofce Copy- Reta"
: ^ 8 ._10 Oi ': ^.0                L,0rc, ,:ee.
l0 LOCATION:    Rockville, Maryland                                        p    l DATE:        Wednesday,Novendier 12,1997                    PAGES:1 - 309 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
12501 Street, NW, Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 97111802[0 97111c, PDR      ACRS T - 301 e>
PDR
 
        ,                                -.                                ~  .-.    .                .              . ~ . . - ~ . ~ -
o-5 7 .
hfn                .
                                                                              ~
                                                                                                                                            .i
                                                                                                                                            -1 1
DISCLAIMER =                                        ,
1 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S                                                  :
ADVISORY-COMMITTEE ON= REACTOR-SAFEGUARDS b
                                                                                    .. NOVEMBER . 12,- 1997
                                                -The contents of this transcript of the proceeding of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Advisory                                              ,
                                  . Committee on Reactor Safeguards, taken on November 12, 1997, as reported herein, is a record--of the discussions recorded
;                                  at:the' meeting held on the above date, This; transcript had not been reviewed, corrected and edited and it may contain inaccaracies.
S b
P 5
N            _ - - __    _ _ ____ _-. .:        -- .- . . . . _ , . ___..                    .. _,-  -. ._ .._  ,      __._m
 
            . .  . . ,        . ~ _ ~      . . . . , + . _ - _      .  .    . - . - . .  .  . - . - - --      .-.- -
1 1-              UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY-COMMISSION.                                        ~
                      -2                  . ADVISORY-COMMITTEE'ON.REICTOR; SAFEGUARDS;          -
                                                                                                                              .]
                      -3                                                      ***
4                                            ACRS: SUBCOMMITTEE 5              RELIABILITY AND PROBABILISTIC RISK-ASSESSMENT 6
i 7.
8                                                U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,                4 9                                                Two-White Flint North, Room 2B-3
:10                                                      11545 Rockville Pike 11                                                    'Rockville, MD          20852-2738
:12 r
13                                                    Wednesday, November 12, 1997 14 15'                    The subcommittee met pursuant to notice at 8:32
[.                  16        a.m.
17 18      . MEMBERS PRESENT:
19      G10RGE APOSTOLAKIS, Chairman, ACRS 20      DONALD W. MILLER, Member, ACRS 21      MARIO H. FONTANA, Member, ACRS 22        ROBERT.L. SEALE, Member, ACRS 23      THOMAS S'. KRESS, Member, ACRS 24      RICHARD SHERRY, Senior Fellow, ACRS 25.
I L
l Lt                                                ANN RILEY-&              iSOCIATES, LTD.
    '                                                              Court Reporters l.
1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202)-842-0034 1    . . _ -    - _ - .                                          .                    ..-    .                  _ , .
 
                                      , . . . -      - _. -                  - . - .                .-              . _ ~ _ . - .    - _ - - - - . . . .
4
                    ' 1. '  STAFF AND: PRESENTERS SEATED =AT THE-COMMISSION TABLE:
L2 -    MICHAEL T. MARKLEY,-StafLi:ACRS.
'N(
                    -3!    LTHOMAS.KINGi        JStaffI 4    ' GARY-HOLAHAN,.' Staff 5-    GARETt PARRY,. Staff MARK CUNNINGHAM, Staff.
7
                    .g.-
c          .9 s.
              ? 10'                                                                                                                                                ,
              ^11 i
13
.                  14 O
V            15                                                                                                                                              .
                -16 17
[                  18
              ''19-20 1                  21 22 23-
              -24x 25' 1
3 ".    .
ANN-RILEY & ASSOCIATES,- LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,-Suite 300 Washington,:D.C, 20005
                                                                      .(202) 842-0034
 
3 1                          PRO _CEEDINGS
:(As'). 2                                                        [8:32 a.m.)
3-            . CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:  The meeting will now come-4    to order.
5-              This is the first day of the meeting of the ACRS 6    Subcommittee on Reliability and Probabilistic Risk 7    Assessment. I am George Apostolakis, chairman of the 8-  subcommittee.
9              ACRS members in attendance are Tom Kress, Mario 1'    Fontana, Don Miller,- and Robert Seale. ACRS senior fellow 11    in attendance is Richard Sherry.
12              The purpose of this meeting is to review the 13    proposed final Standard Review Plan, chapter 19, and 14    associated Regulatory Guide DG-1061, Guidance for
(}j-15    Risk-Informed Performance Based Regulation.
16              The subcommittee will continue its review of the 17    matter included in the Staff Requirements Memorandum dated 18    May 27, 1997 regarding the use of uncertainty versus point 19    values in the policy issues related to performance -- no, in 20    the PRA-related decision making process, I'm sorry.
21              The subcommittee will discusr. policy issues 22    related to performance-based regulation, including industry 23    initiatives in this area. The subcommittee will gather 24    -inf ormation , analyze relevant-issues and facts, and 25    formulate proposed positions and actions as appropriate for
(
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
N Court Reporters I
1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
i 4          ,
in      Ldeliberation'byfthe= full' committee.              Michael T. Markley.is              i
_ 2 --  -the cognizant ACRS staff engineer for this meeting.
(                                                                                                        l 32                  The rules.for participation in today's meetings-                      ;,
          -4        have been' announced as partLof the notice of this meeting 5:      previously published-in the Federal Register on October 31',
6=      1997.- A transcript of the'_ meeting is being kept and will be 7        made available as stated-in the Federal Register notice.
I-8 --                It is-requested that speakers first identify A          9-      -themselves and speak with sufficient < clarity and volume so 10        that_they can be readily heard.                We have received no written 11        . comments or requests for time to make oral statements from 12'        members of the public.
13                    We will now proceed with the meeting, and I call 14        upon Mr. King, from the Office of Research, and Mr, Holahan,
()      15 16 from the Office of Reactor Regulation,:Mr. Cunningham from Research, and Dr. Parry from NRR.
17                    We'll begin.
18                    MR. CUNNINGHAM:        Good morning.        As the Chairman 19        noted, we're~here this morning to talk about public comment 20        on DG-1061 and SRP, chapter 19, and the Staff's proposed 21        modifications to the documents in response to those 22        comments.
;        23                    In_ addition to'the four of us here at the table, 24        we've got theLprincipal author of SRP chapter 19, Mike Tiac,
        ~25          as well as MarkLRusso and Brad Hardin here who've been
  .O                                    ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
  \ss/f -
                                              -Court Reporters 1250 I-Street, N.W.,-Suite 300
                                          . Washington, D.C. 20005 (202)-842-0034 p
 
5 1    involved in the modifications to the documents.
()      2 3    today.
There's thrce main parts to our presentation The first is to go back and provide a quick summary 4    of the public comments that we've received on 1061 and 5    chapter 19. By and large the committee and the subcommittee 6    have seen these before, so I wouldn't propose tc, spend much 7    time on them.
8              The second part is a summary of the plan changes 9    we're hoping to make, and third-is to go into the details on 10      some of the specific changes.
      -11                I should note thht the comments that we received 12      on SRP chapter 19 were very similar to the comments that we 13      sau on 1061, so we did have a separate presentation here on 14      the SRP section. We'll just  --
the changes that are being O
(_j  15      made to chapter 19 will be basically the same ones that are L
16      being made to 1061.
17                The committee in previous presentations has seen a 18      summary of the public comments we've received on 1061, and 19      chapter 19 dealt with issues such as the need for PRA 20      standards, acceptance guidelines, integrated decision 21    making, some licensing issues, licensing burden issues, the 22      staff review process, and then implementation issues.
23                We're going to cover most of these things today.
24    We will not touch on the issue of PRA standards that's kind 25    of going on now as a separate activity, separate from the t                          ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
  \
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
      -          .-    -      ..    - ~. .            . . - . - -      .-        .  -- -,.            . . - - - .
    ]
6 1      ifinalization?of 1061.                But we'll.try.to-get in on each of                                    ;
    }        .2        the other points.and show you-our proposed' changes.
31                    A number of issues _that'came up on the acceptance 4        guidelines ---we'll talk about most of'these this morning.
J5=      -However, we don't intend at'this point to talk about i~
,            6:      guidelines for temporary changes norJspecific guidelines for 7        shutdown' operations.            We're recommending that those' issues 8        be thought about_more carefully before we decide whether or 9      -not we need guidelines in those areas.                                  So we're going to 10        suggest that those be separated from this version of 1061
          -11        and revisited at a later time.
!          12                      We will come back to the committee at a later time
          -13          to talk about the need for such guidelines and that sort of 14        thing. But we would not propose to include in the December
(      15        version of 1061 either guidelines for temporary changes or 16          guidelines -- additional guidelines, if you will, for 17        . shutdown operations.
        -18                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                          You are not including any 19          guidelines regarding Level 3 analysis as far as I can tell, l
20          unlass it's --
21'                      MR        CUNNINGHAM:            I was going to:come to that.
          '22        .That's correct.          It's one thing that -- there are a couple i
L          23          of items of public comments that we haven't really touched 24        on in this. version of the_ guide.                            That's one of-them we need i-
                                                                                                                                  ~
25-        to haveEsome dialogue on with the committee, I think.
hv
                                        ' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 l                                                    (202) 842-0034
 
7 13              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      What is this?
[')
V
      '  2=              'MR, CUNNINGHAMi    This.is Slide --
3-              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      Oh, Slide 4.
4              MR. CUNNINGHAM:      Four.
5                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Yes. Okay. So you will 6    not-include the first bu1]et; right?      No , no, I'm sorry.
7              MR. CUNNINGHAM:      Temporary changes.
8                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Temporary changes, 9    shutdown, and Level 3.
        '10              MR. CUNNINGHAM:      Level 3 I think --
11              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      We discuss.
12              MR. CUNNINGHAM:      I think we need to discuss over 13    the next couple of days.
14              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      Okay,
, ()      15              DR. SEALE:      Could I ask?
16              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      Yes.
17              DR. SEALE:      Would you say that these issues will 18    not be discussed in the December version of 1061?        Do you 19    plan to ultimately include them in 1061?
20              MR. CUNNINGHAM:      If we -- what we plan to do is to 21    think about these and come up and discuss them with the 22    - Committee more, and it may be that it's appropriate to 23    develop such guidelines.      If it is, then we would revise 24    1061 and -- appropriately.
25              .DR. SEALE:      So you hope to resolve that issue?
[
T s-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005-(202) 842-0034 14
 
Ill
                          -MR,iCUNNINGHAM: .;Yes, that'sjrightc                                              #
2'              DR.fSEALEs- Before:1061-.is final''.                                              ,
          !3                MR'.;CUNNINGHAM:? Yes,
                      - DR . SEALE: .To-resolve'it.--
          .5                MR4 CUNNINGHAM f To resolve it --                                                '$
:6L              DR. SEALE: 'Whichever way..
7-              MR. CUNNINGHAM: -To resolve it either.way, and if 8L  necessary'mak'e a modification-to 1061.                                                        ,
9:              DR. MILLER:    Now let's go -- I-want to go back:to 10    the time line on temporary changes.                          Resolution may be f
11-  nothing or may be --
12                MR. CUNNINGHAM:          The resolution may be that-t
:13    there's ---
14                DR. MILLER:    Do nothing or --
15                MR.-CUNNINGHAM:          There may be nothing to do in 16    that' area,_or'it'may be appropriate to build in some sort of 17    a cap on instantaneous risk or conditional risk, if you
: 18. will,.or something in between, if you will.
19                MR. HOLAHAN:      I think the other consideration with 20    respect to temporary changes is this may not be the right 21-  place for such guidance.          Remember, this -- what we're 22  -talking about now is guidance documents for making license 23    amendments. And most temporary changes don't take place in 24<  -the context of license amendments.
25                DR. MILLER:    Yes.              I can understand that.
  -g9                          ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
  's_/                          .
                                      -Court-Reporters 1250 I. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
  ~ ._ _  _          . .      ._ _ _ .  .. _        _ . _ _ .              . . .                  _ _ _ ___. _ . _ _. _ ._      . _ . .    . - . . _ .
9.
                  !1 ~                      MR.THOLAHAN:: .And so maybe: inspection guidance or.                                                            ,
I.i      -maintenance rule guidance,or4 something..else might be'an.                                                                    f 3;      Lappropriate place to deal with'that: issue as'an alternative
.                ;4-        ito this~.-
5-                      DR. MILLER:
Yes,JI think the point that I -- at 64      ileast I thought I'tried;to:make last time was I still                                                                          ;
t 7        'believe that;there's.got to be1 consistency with temporary-                                                                  -
Et        changestand small changes.                                  Those have to be consistentiin s
;                .9'        scme way.          Maybe you don't: agree _with that, but                                        --
:10                          DR. SEALE:                        Yes, but-q Ell -                        DR. MILLER:' In that context somehow they have to 12-          come together-here, if you agree with that.
13                          DR. SEALE:                        But shutdown'is a fact of life 14          : hopefully occasionally --
                -1 55                        DR.-MILLER:                          U1timately'~-
              -16                            DR. SEALE:                        And ultimately, but the question-then-17          is the issues of-shutdown associated -- would those be in 18          1061?      They're temporary in the sense that they're
              -19            occasional, but they are inevitable.
20                          MR. HOLAHAN:                            No, I -- my comments about temporary p                21          ont s I think wouldn' t apply _ to shutdown.
22                        DR. .SEALE:                        So you would hope to include the 23          shutdown risk guides-in here, i              12 4                        MR. CUNNINGHAM: .What I would suggest is-when we-
              '25            come[back to the acceptance guidelines --
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
O-                                                                Court Reporters
                                                  -1250 I Street, N.W.,, Suite 300
                                                            .W ashington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034-
    =      ._                _z_-u.___    _ _            .._ _ . . _ _              ..  . _ . _ _            __              .        ._    _ ..
 
                            .~            . - . . .    . - - ,            . . . . . -      . -      - . -    .  . - -
10 li                    :DRDSEALE: -;Yes.
                        ;2L                    l'MR. CUNNINGHAM:- Let's come back to(this pointLand-
                      '3-        talk about how1we're:trying;to' deal with --
_y            .4-                      .DR.-SEALE: -Okay.--
5:                      MR. CUNNINGHAM --There'sla fairly narrow issue 6        that1we're ' struggling with here:intthe' area of those-parts-7        of'shutdownTwhere_the containment is open,. and what does 8      _LERF mean if the containment is open and how do you deal 9        with that.        But it's not just shutdown. operations in 10        ~ general, it's the specific --
7 11                            DR. SEALE:
                    ~
I can appreciate your concern.            -
J12                        MR, KING:          One thing we_said when we were talking li        .theLpolicy issues was we did want to in 1061 leave the door 14          open at_this point for licensees to come in and propose-()            15          something that makes sense during shutdown, particularly 16        when the containment's open, recognizing the source term _s 17      'different, s
18                        DR. SEALE:          Sure.
19                        MR. KING:          Dispersion doesn't really deal with 20          that issue, and I think what you're looking at is a draft of 21          1051 that is work in progress, and there are some things
: 22.      1we're going to talk about and some things that.need to.be
,                  T23.        fimproved in the version you're looking at.
3-.      241                        CHAIRMAN'APOSTOLAKIS:                  Now speaking of coming
                                                                                                                            ~
25          back, you will. talk about acceptance and --
O-                                              ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES LTD.
:~-                                                    Court Reporters
                                                      -1250 I Street,;N.W., Suite 300 Washington,fD.C. 20005 (202)~842-0034-                                          -
 
                                                                                                                                                                            . 11  I Ll i                                            cMR) CUNNINGHAM:. Yes.
* I                        '
CHAIRMAN- APOSTOLAK.TS: ' Principles and everything, D
i3i  1because----                                                                          --
          ,                41                                            MR.,CUNNINGHAM:                      Yes.
                          !5                                            . CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                      I have some comments on.the 63  - guide;-itself, so I want to know when-I should give them.to-
:7--  you.                                                                                                                                            !
                          -8:                                            MR. CUNNINGHAM:                      I would say come back in'-- about
                          -9      four-or five slides down we'll start going into-the details.                                                                                  ,
210                                                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                      Okay. Okay, good.
: llL                                                MR. CUNNINGHAM: -And acceptance guidelines are
                    ' 12        there-explicitly, and all of the major points --
13                                                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                      Yes, yes, yes.                                                -
14                                              MR. CUNNINGHAM:                      Are covered there explicitly.
15                                                I've had a number of comments on the integratea 16      decision making process.                                                    One-of-the things again I think we 17      ought to discuss tcday that really hasn't changed very much
_. 18      is the second bullet here of the roles of defense in depth 19      and safety margins.                                                    As the document is -- as we gave it to 20        you, it doesn't really change the discussion of either of
: 21.      those issues, and that would be something I think we ought 22      _to discuss as well.
a.
                  =  23-                                              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                      So'this will happen then.
24      1The' document we have doesn't                                                    --
25-                                              MR; CUNNINGHAM:- Has ---
J.                                                              ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
VJ                                                                                        Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202)-842-0034
(
d                                            ?
y            g--                (-, y .,  y- TNyrmvr
 
12 1            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Doesn't have -- does not
  /D    2 have a better definition, does it?
V 3            MR. CUNNINGHAM:    It has a discussion of defense in 4 depth and safety margins, but it hasn't -- that part of it 5 has not changed f ront the draf t. And the question is do 6 we -- you know, we've had public comment that maybe it's not 7 clear enough, and I think it would be useful to discuss,_put 8 a backup on the slide, if you will, and say does this still 9 capture what we think needs to be captured.
10            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Today, you mean.
11            MR. CUNNINGHAM:    Today or tomorrow.
12            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Okay. Okay.
13            MR. CUNNINGHAM:    Again, this --
14            CHA!RMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    So most of the public
    ) 15 comments refer to the fact that this is a philosophy that 16 has to be maintained, right?
17            MR. CUNNINGHAM:    I don't quite remember it quite 18 that way, but it was pretty close to that.      At any rate, 19 again, this fits in the category that Tom made the comment 20 on that this is -- this document is still evolving, and 21 here's a few pieces that haven't gotten worked completely 22 yet.
23            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    It's interesting, though, I 24 must say it's very interesting that a lot -- many people in 25 the industry are complaining that the current regulatory
  'O
  \ms/
AN" RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W , Suite 300 Washingten, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
_    .__      _    . _ . .._... .___. _ _.. _ . _ _ . . _ _ , _ .                          . _ _ _ ._ .. _ _ _ _._ m .. _ _
13 i    system isLvery-prescriptive,Jand_yet, given the chance, they                                                          i
_2    ask you to be as prescriptive asLyou can. give a better-
: 3. definition'of increased managementiattention, provide-4    > guidance on bundling of changes; you have -- they_want you-                                                          !
5    to'tell them_what to do, and then they will complain.that 6    you-are telling-them what to'do.                  L Islthat somethingfthat.you 7    chare?
8-                    MR. CUNNINGHAM:                          Certainly I think thut's what                    --
9-    the flavor you get out of_the public commrat                                    - -
10                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                          Yes.
11                      MR. CUNNINGHAM:                          Yes, yes.
12                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                          If you give me too much 13      freedom,-I~ don't like it, because I don't know what you 14      expect from me, but if you tell me in detail what you expect
()      15      from me, then you are too prescriptive, and that's 16    burdensome.                So how do we change that?
17                      DR. MILLER:                          I think you need to -- all of us hear 18      the industry later today, right?                                  Don't we hear industry 19      later-today?
20                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS: 'Yes, but I'm not going to
        -21    answer that,                  -But I mean look at the written record, provide 22    better definition, provide better definition, provide
        -23    . guidance, provide more guidance.
DR. MILLER:                          Well, let's look at better definition 12 5    of at'tention.                    Maybe-they-don't fully -- how do I put it? ---
O V'
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250"I Street, N ~. W . , Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005-(202) 842-0034
 
i 14
                                                              ~
1              not trust _but fully.believe or understand what the. staff'is 1
2L            ' going to_do in certain issues.- That's.where they,want-the-                                        -
3              dsfinition,'not.necessarilyfwhat they should-ido.                                                      !
i 4'                            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS: 'Well,.they want-guidance 5              too.        Anyway, it's just a side remark, it's not important.
6              These things will evolve.                      But the guide itself may be-7'            Lunrecognizable_five_ years 2from now, right, .after we have-8              opportunities to use it?
9~                            DR. MILLER:              Well,.it's going to be substantially 10                changed versus what we had right now.
11                                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                      So for the time being I
                  '12                think it's fine.
13=                              DR. MILLER:              Did you want to add something or --
14                                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                      No. That's what I like.
: 15.                              MR. CUNNINGHAM:              Again,; some public comment.
I                  16                                MR. HOLAHAN:              I'm still reacting to the
(                  17                unrecognizable comment.
18                                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                      Yes, I know.      I take it 19                back.
;                ._ 2 0                              MR. HOLAHAN:              Okay.
21 -                              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                      It will ba recognized with 22                difficulty.
'4                _53            ,                  DR.- MILLER:              I was more diplomatic.              I said-2,4              substantially changed; e
25                                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                      Well, you know, foreigners, I
l                                              ' ANN RILEY &-ASSOCIATES, LTD.
        \ f                                                            Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite-500 Washington, D.C.L20005
                                                                        -(202) 842-0034
 
15 1              Guidance for conducting evaluations for 10 CFR rs      2  50.59. That's very interesting.      The way 50.59 is now is
]\_/j-3- not within-the spirit of risk-informed regulation; is that 4  correct?
5              MR. HOLAHAN:  That's correct.-
6            ~ CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    That's correct. And the 7  industry as I recall from one of our meetings the last 8  couple of months doesn't even want to discuss touching 10 9  CFR 50.59. They just want it in place.
10              MR. HOLAHAN:  I think what the industry has 11  encouraged the Commission is to interpret the existing 50.59 12- in a more flexible way.
13              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Flexible way. But still it 14  will not be risk-informed.
O
( ,/    15              MR. HOLAHAN:  It's still a .est cf the licensing 16  basis.
17              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Right.
18-            MR. HOLAHAN:    Yes.
19              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAXIS:    Is this request from the 20  industry which evidently you guys are willing to accept that 21  there is such a thing as a negligible increase in core 22  damage frequency, so, you know, we -- even if the CDF say is 23  above 10 to the minus 4, you still accept that, because it's 24  so small. Is that something you want to tie to 10 CFR 25  50.59?
f)
's>
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
16 1              MR. HOLAHAN:                There is a separate Commission
  ' (''Y  2    paper, SECY 97.205, that discusses 50.59 and possible d
3    changes in FSAR scope, and I think the Commission was 4    offered five options by the Staff. with a recommendation to 5    move -- to do rulemaking on 50.59 and move it in a 6  risk-informed direction.
7              DR      MILLER:            Does the new rulemaking on 50.59, 8  which I have not studied extensively, does that introduce 9    risk-informed concepts?
10              MR      MARKLEY:            Yes, it would.
11              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                    The new rule.
12              DR. MILLER:                  The rule we'll be dealing with.
13              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                    Yes.
14              DR. MILLER:                  The rule we'll have on t'* agenda in
  /~
Q]    15 Q. December, 16              MR. MARKLEY:                  Yes, I'd just like to point out that 17    we are reviewing that at the December full ACRS meeting.
18              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                    Oh, so all these options 19    and everything we have not seen yet?
20              MR. MARKLEY:                  No, you have a copy of that 21    predecisional.        We just got it Friday.
22              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                    Oh, last Friday.
l 23  ;          MR. MARKLEY:                  50.59, right.
24              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                    So -- yeah, I haven't seen 25    that yet.
l i
(
  /h                          ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
O                                            Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034'
 
                -              -      -        --              -.        .-_      _. -_- ,        . - - _ . - . . .          , ~ . . -
1
,                                                                                                                            17 l~                _ So'.the plan is.to have 50-59-in the books the.way~
j[K h              2:  . it has.been;used_maybe being more flexible in its 3-  ' application,.bitt visit the issueEof-making;1t. risk-informed
                            '      ~
z4    . at'a later date,_ right?
                    '5(                  'MR. HOLAMAN:            No,~the later date-is here.                        There              -
6    -is:a. recommendation.                                                                                            I
                      .7                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:~ But that's ceparate_from 1
8      having 50.59 in 'the books as it is.
9                  MR. HOLAMAN:            No, no, we're going to deal with the
                  '10 '      rulemaking on 50.59 in December, which Gary just mentioned
                  .11        has risk-informed --
: 12.                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              And what do people do until.
13        that rule becomes rule?
4          14                    MR. HOLAHAN:- They obey the existing regulation.
15                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              The existing 50.59.                                          4
                  -16                      MR. HOLAHAN:            Yes.
17                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              And how long does it take I                  18        for a rule to take effect?
19                  - MR. HOLAHAN:            Well, it depends how long it takes 20        to write it, but-I would imagine a year or two is considered 21_      rapid.
                  .22-                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              Okay.          So that's why last 23        time Mr.-Beedle I think is his name and --
24                    MR. HOLAHAN:            .Yes.
3-      25                  : CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              And Tony wanted it as soon 4
N --
(                          ANN RILEY.& ASSOCIATES,-LTD.
Court Reporters-1250 I Street, N.W., Suite.300                                                                  :
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034-g(
  ~
                                                        ,.n,-                  ,n-                -                    ,
a
 
18 1  as possible. That's what they wanted.      They don't want to 2,
[]k fool around with it.      That was my impression.        When I
          . started saying risk-informed and all that, they said no, no, 3
4  no, no, we want 50.59.
5-            -DR. MILLER:      Well, the reason is they want        ---
6  50.59 is used extensively as a plant's --
7              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      I know, I know.
8              DR, MILLER:      They don't want to wait a year.
9              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      Exactly.
10              DR  MILLER:    It's already messing them up.
11              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      I'm trying to clear it up 12  in my mind. So we will visit this issue from the 13  risk-informed perspective starting in December.            That's what 14  you're saying?
-O V    15              MR. HOLAHAN:      Yes.
16              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      Now, if -- I think the 17  difference that it would make here is the following, at 18  least in my mind, and I'm sure you will correct me if I'm 19  wrong. The negligible changes in core damage frequency in 20  the current 1061 would still have to be reviewed and 21  approved by the NRC because we don't have the equivalent of 22  50.59 right now.
23              MR. HOLAHAN:      Yes.
24              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      Okay.
25              MR.'HOLAHAN:      Yes.
/m l  i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
'\ 2                              Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
4
  ~
Ji9    q fl.                      CHAIRMAlf APOSTOLAKIS:                                              That_is-the major:
                        -2        difference,nbecause".the industry as I remember there was a
                        -3'      comment somewhere;that they would like those negligible 4'    ; changes nottto be reviewed.
r 5'                      MR. HOLAHAN:                    That's what they said.=                                              ,
6                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                              That's what.they said,' but 7        you-did not accept that, because right now you cannot accept 8-      -it .                                                                                                                  .
9                        MR. HOLAMAN:                    That's right.                                                        '
I10.                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                              Okay. So that's the key 1
                      ~ 11        here.
12-                        DR. MILLER:                  I guess the question is is that key 13_        embedded in this rulemaking on 50.59 we're going to look at 14        and --
15                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                              We will make sure that it 16_        is there at some point.
17-                        DR. MILLER:                  No, what                          --
I didn't hear what Gary 18        said.
19                        MR. HOLAHAN:                    Well, you have to understand what 20      l stage we're at.          The Staff has made a recommendation to the 21-        Commission, okay, with a preferred alternative.                                                      That
.                      22        preferred alternative explicitly says it should follow the-23        philosophy in'1061 and be compatible with risk-informed J24        regulation.
                    -                        DR. MILLER:                  That's the answer.
i
!    M',                                                                                                                                                ,
n't      -
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES,-LTD.
LA-                                                            ' Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005-(202) 842-0034-                                                                      ,
1-
              +    w                          -              ,            -            r w    - + - -                        - , - -          +  g e
 
20 1            MR. Holahan:  Well, I mean, it's for'the
()  3 2- Commission to decide what that answer is.
DR. MILLER:
If your recommendatioD. is agreed to.
4              MR. Holahan:  Right. Right. -Now, I would say two 5  of the other five alternatives alno have various different 6  _ approaches which also have a risk-informed element to them.    )
7              DR. MILLER:  Would they be consistent with 1061?
8              MR. Holahan:  I think they could be made-9  consistent with 1061.
10              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      So the new region now that 11  we have added in the figures you're going to see, the 12  bottom, the negligible changes, is the beginning of a new 13  50.59.
14              MR. Holahan:  Yes.
15              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Okay.
l 16              MR. Holahan:  What I would say is it would allow a 17  new 50.59 to take place 18              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Exactly. I agree.
19            Okay. Good. 'Now it's clear.      Thank you.
20            DR. SEALE:    I would like to ask one question on 21  this issue of the breadth of the current licensing basis.
22  It really goes to the, among other things, to the definition
(
23  or the basis for enforcement action.      Right?
24            MR. HOLAHAN:    Yes, certainly.
25            DR. SEALEi    I mean and if -- and so part of the, l
[}
  'u ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 l
 
                                                                  -n.-                -          ~.          .                -.        - . .            -                  .--
21 l'    you. say. the comments have reque';ted a narrowing, if you1 will, of whatL.the current--licensing' basis __is,                                                  and part of
_3    -theiturf, if you will,Lthat you want to protect is. thel l
44-    present-and? hopefully,Jin some; areas,- additional ba' sis!for                                                                                            i 5;  : enforcement'of the rules that the -- that the licensees hava tofcomply with.--                Is that      --
c 7-                          MR.JHOLAHAN:            Well, I think I might have said11t a 8:    little. differently.                    I:think-I agree with you, but what we 9      are sayingfis when you begin to'look at things from a n-
                '10    -risk-informed perspective, you-find out that there are a 11      bunch of trivial things that you are protecting and'not 12    -allowing-to change in the licensing basis.                                                  Okay.
13                            DR. SEALE:            Yes.
14E                          MR'. . HOLAHAN :        Okay.              And I think.it is getting to 15    . the point where we and the industry out to be able to tell
:                16=      the difference between important things and trivial things.
l';      And so when you reach that stage, you ought to be able to 18      open the door on the opportunity to allow those' trivial 19    _ changes.
20                            DR. SEALE:          Okay.
21                            MR. HOLAHAN:            But not worry about protecting them 22      as part of the licensing basis.
23'                          DR. SEALE:          Yes, but one-of the definitions of' 24      triviality, : again, if you will                              ,  is whether or not this 12 5      particular requirement-in part defines an enforceability ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300
                                                        -Washington,-D.C. 20005
                                                                -(202) 842-0034L b,                            9      r-        e<              ~W --->,r      --  m    -w' rrm-'  + + - - fF ++4- --m" ' - - -
                                                                                                                                                -'T-  pp T-  --- ----+f p e ta-
 
3-                                .                      .i:='          :-:--
22 l'      Ecapability that you'would not otherwise have.
                    '2                    MR.:HOLAHAM: .Yes. -Yeah.N-31                    DR. SEALE: .And if.that;were the case, you.would'
:4          wantLto keepiit.                                                                              ,
5-                  -MR. HOLAMANi- Well,-no, not necessarily._.                                        ?
6-                    -DR. SEALE:: Not-necessarily.
7                      MR . HOIAHAN . - Not nect:ssarily.
                  .- 8                    -DR..SEALE: '.Okay.
All right.
9                      MR.-HOLAHAN:      It may be so unimportant that you E10~            would allow to change in some-fashion.
              'll                        DR. SEALE:      Okay.                                                            ,
                '12 -                      MR. HOLAHAN:      Okay.      I think we -- when we develop 13            this recommendation to the Commission, and I think it will 14          lcome back in December, we. recognize that-this idea of
[\,/-
; (g            15;          negligible change is not just CDF large.early release.
i 16            Okay.
17                        To endorse the whole philosophy of 1061, you also 18            have-to figure out that these negligible, quote,            "
changes,"
19          you know, haven't eroded too much safety margin, that you 20            still have-defense in that.        You have the other principles-
              -21            -to consider, which I~think is more -- it is the right way to 22          go, but it is a little more complicated.
23:                      So I think those, the whole philosophy of 1061 has.
1 24"        Lto lx3 built into;the 5059 process.
              '25'                      .. CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:        The qualitative change must
  ;: t                                        ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
    .\ --                                        _
Court Reporters 1250lI Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005
:(202):842-0034 y            ~                m      q s                              1 /
 
                      ^
23 !
1 .be small too.                                                    !
(  ) _-    2            MR. HOLAHAN:    Yes,-in effect, yes.
x_/
3              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    That's what you are saying.
4            MR. CUNNINGHAM:    Mark, ckay before we leave this 5- .line, just to make it clear, the draft regi that you have 6  today does not change the definition of current. licensing 7  basis.
8            CHAIRMAN APOS% LAKIS:    Yes.
9            MR. CUNNINGHAM:    It is the same as it was in the 10    previous, in the one that was published for direct, for
              *1    comment.
12              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    I don't understand why they 13    want that, the first bullet, right.      Why do they want that?
14    I mean limit the scope to regulations.      Why?  Unless -- who
        )
15    made this comment, can you tell me?
16              MR. CUNNINGHAM:    I am not sure. Do one of the 17    gentlemen over to my left here remember who made the comment
!'            18    on the definition of CLB being too broad?
19              MR. CARUSO:    Mark Caraso, Office of Research. I 20    -believe it was NEI, 21              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    NEI. Now, what is the idea 12 2    behind this?  Why would NEI ask the NRC to limit the scope 23    of what they can change?
24              MR. HOLAHAN:    Well, their interest probably is in 25    limiting the scope of those things that need approval tx) be
; -- (                              ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
    '-                                    Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005
                                          .(202) 842-0034
 
l 24 1  changed.
(    )  -2:            DR. SEALE:  Yeah.                                  -I
%_,i .                                                                        ,
3-            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    But that is'not what it 4  says.
5            DR. SEALE:  No, limit the scope to just 6  regulations or orders, not other things.
7            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    And I don't understand why
                                                                              +
8  not?
9            DR. KRESS:  What other things are we talking 10  about?
11              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Yeah, what other things are 12  talking about?
13              MR. HOLAHAN:  Commitments.
14              DR. KRESS:  Commitments.
(O_)    15              MR. MARKLEY:  Aren't we talking about the 16  difference between what exists for the currently licensed 17  plants and what exists for license renewal in terms of the 18  definition.
19              MR. HOLAHAN:  Well, it seems to me that this is 20  getting back into the 5059 issue. Okay. What requires 21  license amendments, -- and until you trigger a license 22  a.nendment , we don't get into 1061 type issues -- w. hat 23  triggers the need for a license amendment is the 50be test 12 4  and the scope of 5059 is tied to the FSAR. Okay.
25              So I suspect their comment is, if we are talking
/ l                        ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\/                                Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
J 25 1-        aboutLlicensing basis-changes,'we ought to -                                          and I, don't
()            2_
3-know where_they1came up with_this list.
said-if you want to_be_ strict' constructionist from 5059,_you Okay.      I would have
                  -4          would~say, well, you shouldLlimit:your scope to the FSAR.
5                              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:- It's still not clear'to me 15L        -why they would'wantLthis.                          It's not'important.                                                              i 7-                            MR. HOLAHAN:            At this stage, these sort of                                                          -
                          -comments,            I' don't think, make any difference, because these 9        comments'are really affecting what comes, you know, what 10            gets in the scope of 1061 type. license amendments.                                            Okay.
l '.          And-I-think that's,-these issues really belong in the 5059 12            interpretation or rule change, and that is what will 13            determine the scope of what has'to come into, you know, 14            1051, risk-informed license amendments.
15-                                DR. MILLER:          Well, then, when we look at the new, 16            the rulemaking-for 5059, were these comments in some way 17            incorporated in that rulemaking, or is that rulemaking
                .18-          separate, a kind of separate issue?
19                                MR. HOLAHAN:              Well, I think these comments, I 20            wouldn't say were explicitly, you know, considered when the 4
21            options were being developed.                                    But I think the staff 22            understood what -- what_the industry desires.with respect to
              ' 23            minimizing the scope of license amendments.
But I would expect that this, you know, if a 50c9 25            rule change ran its= course, this comment would come back,
      ~
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,-Suite 300-Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
        ---4    ,      ,- ,,          g    . . - -        m --  rp ,      y    , , - - ,-  <--e-.      4 -    r.      . . - - , - - -          . - - . , -
 
26 1  because I think it applies there.                                  It doesr.'t say I agree
()          2 3
with it, but I think it is relevant to that issue.
DR. MILLER:                        I thought you were being hesitant in 4  your words here.
5              MR. HOLAHAN:                            Oks;.
6              MR. CUNNINGHTM:                              Public comments dealt with issues 7  on licenuee burden.                  One of the big issues, of course, was 8  there was a great deal read, apparently read into 1061, that 9  the only acceptable PRA was one that of the highest quality, 10  as they perceived it to be, as defined under Reg. 1602.
                - 1.1                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                            Actually, you know, that 12  is, in a sense, that is true, because we say somewhere that 13  --
in mat ; places actually, that the PRA should be 14  apprepriate to the problem.                                If it is appropriate to the
()      15  problem, it seems to me it is the highest quality for the 16  problem.      But that is not what people understand that, I 17  know.
18                MR. CUNNINGHAM:                          Yes, that's right.            Yes.        0 19                MR. MILLER:                          And we have tried to address their 20  intent either.
21                I'm sorry.
22                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIC:                            No, it was not their 23  intent. No.
24                MR. MILLER:                          That wasn't your intent.
25                MR. CUNNINGHAM:                          We have tried to clarify in the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
O'                                            Court Rcporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Sui
* Washington, D.C.
(202) 842-0034
 
27 l 1    revised version what our intent was on this issue, and it
()  2 3
was driven by what George just was talking of --
commensurate with the quality or the issue at hand.
4                CRAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                              Does anybody know why the 5    industry is still reluctant to do uncertainty analysis?                                                                    I 6    mean it is so trivial now, isn't it?                                                                  Why do people get 7    ocared by uncertainly analysis?                                                                Oooh, it is terrible.
8              DR. KRESS:                                                              Model uncertainties.
9              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                              Model is tough.
10                DR. KRESS:                                                              It is not trivial.
11                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                              But a lot of people don't 12    do that.
13                DR. KRESS:                                                              Yeah.
14                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                              But I am talking about, you
() 15    know, the standard failure rate.
16                DR. KRESS:                                                              That's relatively easy.
17                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                                It is easy. The computer 18    programs are available, you know, the data bases are 19    available.                  But people get scared.
20                DR. KRESS:                                                            Another part of uncertainty that gets 21    a little hard is the incompleteness.
22                CRAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                              The incompleteness is 23    tough, yeah.                                        But these are not issues that                        --
24                DR. KRESS:                                                              It's not that bad.
25                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                              And they are rot, ther:e l
O                                                      ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Court Reporters Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
28  f I            issues don't arise, you know, too trequently.                                In most Level  ;
2            1, you really don't need to worry about these things.
3                      MR. PARRY:            Actually, Tom brought up a point-here                      !
4            though, that the incompleteness issue I think was one-of the l
        -5              major concerns about licensee burden, particularly in                                        j 6            relation to the acceptance guidelines that we had in the 7            original version of 1061, which basically said that any.
8            increase, you needed to consider full scope PRA,                                            ,
9            effectively. And that was, I think was perhaps several of 10              the-comments on burden related to that, i
11:                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAYISt-- Now, when you were saying                                ,
      -12            -completeness, and I looked at this here and it wasn't too 13              clear to me, do we mean completeness of the document, the 14              completeness of the document I have in front of me?
l      15                        MR. PARRY:            No.          The analysis.
16                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOIAKIS:                              Or completeness because 17              there are certain things I can not, nobody knows how to 18              quantify.
19                        DR. KRESS:            No.
20                          MR. PARRY:            No.
21                        -DR. KRESS:            The incompleteness of things left out 22              like fire, seismic.
23                          CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                              Okay. So it. 's of the 24-            document then. 'This' document shows --
125                          DR. KP.ESS:            If that's what -- if that'u what you ANN' RILL'l & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250-I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034                                                '
 
1 29 1          mean by it.-
()    2 3
MR. PARRY:        Of the analysis.
CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              This analysis chose not.to                              i 4          include-seismic.                                                                                        i 5                      DR. KRESS:        Right.                                                                    I 6                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              Even though as a community                              {
7          we know how to do seismic analysis.
* 8                      DR. KRESS: -We can't deal-with the classic                                                  ,
9-        ' definition of incompleteness of things you-left out that-you 10'          didn't know about.          That, you can't deal with.
11                      DR. MILLER:-        I think that's the major worry.                                      1 12                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              But that is not what they_
13          mean.
l 14                      DR. KRESS:        No , I don't think that's -- that's not                                  r
        ~15          a worry, no.
i 16                      'MR. PARRY:        That wasn't the major worry.
17                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              This is more than 18          uncertainty, right?
19                      Where is that analysis?                I think, I remember you 20          have it.
21                        MR. CUNNINGHAM:            I would suggest we come back to 22          what in a little while.
23                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              We will come back.          Okay.
24                        MR. CUNNINGHAM:            Okay. Again, some of the 25=        . comments: overlap with maintenanco requirements.                        We tried to                    )
t ANE RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
    %                                              Court Reporters 1250 I' Street, N.W.,            Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005                                                        .,
(202) 842-0034-                                                          '
L                                                                                                                            t I
e                                          _
                                                                                                                        .~
 
30 1          address that in the present version, as well as dealing with
()            2 3
monitoring, the performance monitoring.
the discussion as well a the documentation discussion We have modified We              !
1 4          will come back to each of these a little bit later.
5                          CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                              I believe that a lot of 6          these comments come from the belief out there that you can                                                        i 7          do a lot of good things with a very crude PRA.                                              Point 8          values, you know, run it through a computer, get something_
9          that is very useful information.                                    I sense the writers of 10            these comments had that in mind.
11                            DR. MILLER:                        Well, they have been using it 12            already.        It's related.                          I think the concern is --
13                            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                              But you can't write a e
14            regulatory document that says, you know, most of the 15            benefits are this and ignore the other stuff.
16                            DR. MILLER:                        I would read, maybe the industry 17            should speak for themselves, but I would read in there, we 18            are using PRA already, don't give us guidelines, you are 19            going to restrict our current use.                                        I think that's what I 20            read.
21                            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                              And we are not, because we 22            are telling them use the appropriate PRA.
23                            DR. MILLER:                        Well,      --
24-                          CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                              So if it the appropriate.
25                            DR. MILLER:                        Their perception, and when they read ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
O-                                                                        Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
1 l
4                                                                                                                                        31 e
3        1-              <
i  . @ quidelines, was exactly you are going to restrict what I        .              /    'we a.                  currently doing, is what I am reading.
,      -                  j v'                              DR. SEALE:                    I think the word gold -- the words r      ,
d      gold plated were used upon occasion.                                                                                                                -,
p                        5                                DR. MILLER:                        You got to realize what we think was                                                    {
                        -6      out there and what they perceived was out there is two                                                                                                l 7      different things.                                                                                                                                    {
8                                CHAIRMAN-APOSTOLAKIS:                                  Yeah.
9                                DR. MILLER:= Perception is reality.                                  -                      I-.think what 10          the staff is doing is going to clarify that, at least what I                                                                                        l j
11_        see, is going a long-way to clarify this misperception, 12_                                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                  Do you think that in                                                j 13          retrospect, 1602 was a mistake?-                                                                                                                      ,
14                                  DR. MILLER:                        No, I think -- I think what the 15          perceived of 1602 was a mistake and so, obviously, we didn't 16-        advocate it to them very well.                                                                                                                      j 17                                  MR. CUNNINGHAM:                          Yes.          We, you know, remember how I
18        many times we talked about this as we were preparing the
                  -19          draft and to make it clear what we thought the role of 1602
* i 20        was and what we thought the role of a quality, a highest                                                                                              ;
                  - 21          quality PRA was, and I thought we had-captured that in 1061.
22          But, obviously, it wasn't perceived as like the way we L                  23          intended it.
i 24                                  MR. KING:                  Yeah.          We could have done more in 1061                                                  4 25          to talk about what':1602 really means and the differences 1
,O
                                                            ' ANN RILEY &~ ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters
                                                            '1250-I Street, N.W.,                                Suite 300                                                          '
Washington, D.C. 20005
                                                                              '(202) 842-0034
  -m      -  ,ev-=----e      wi . wi'w--  -- -ve--
                                                  ..,    e-  - - + y - + - - - . . . . - - -    ,  vm rw w w- 'n a v ir- s - *.+w,-+, ---mq1- -+----c        w w i wr 3 y e v-ir---
 
32 1      between PRA scope and depth for various uses, and we didn't                                                                                                  j 2      do that.
3                                                                                                    DR. SEALE:              I think we have to remember that the    !
4        industry has already invested considerable resources in the 5      various pilot studies, and they probably applied more PRA                                                                                                    ,
6-      than, in doing those analyses, than I think certainly any of                                                                                                ,
7      us anticipated before we saw what they had done, for sure.
8      And if you take a strict reading of 1061, and then say the                                                                                                    i 9        support for the pilot studies will meet the requirements of 10        1061, I would imagine that a lot of them felt that that was 11      not only going to cost them, but they would lose ground.
12                                                                                                    DR. MILLER:              Yeah, that's exactly right.
13                                                                                                    DR. SEALE:              See, that they - that, in essence,      !
14      what they had done to support the pilot studies would be
()                              15      judged to be inadequate under the conditions of 1061.
16                                                                                                  And they are just protecting their investment.
17                                                                                                  DR. MILLER:                Right now they have invested a lot of 18      money in PRA and they have seen very little benefit.                                                                                                  That's 19      why a lot of them are starting to disband their PRA groups, 20      you can see it.
21                                                                                                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                Yeah, but that is a 22      separate issue.                                                                                                They have seen very little benefit because 23      1061 has not existed.
24                                                                                                  DR. MILLER:                I know. They are worried 1061 --
25                                                                                                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                That will give the
[\
  \>
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
_ ._ _. _ - _ _ _ -                                                - _._._. _..m._._._          _ . _ . _ _              - - - ~ _ _
i 33 A                                                                                                          !
1              opportunity to --                                                                                              i
()                        2-3 Y              DR. MILLER:
going to take away the possibility.
Well, they are worried that 1061 is I_think --
4                              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS: ~Well, that's too tragic                                                  j 5_            now. I mean -- okay.                I can see how people can have
]                                o              misperceptions, but let's not'--
!                                                                                                                                                              t l                                7                            DR._ MILLER:            I think we are going to clarify that.                                    ,
i
;                                8-              s            CRAIRMAN APOS19LAKIS:                -- paint things in black 9-            and white.          As you'know, J. don't like-black and white.
10                                DR. MILLER:            I understand.        I think we are going                                ;
11-              'to debate about_a figure before the day is out.
i                            12                                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                That's right.
8 13                                DR. SEALE:            But I think more than that, I think we
!                            14                ought to be more specific in what we mean when we
()                    15                characterize uncertainty.
;                            16                                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                And the pilots, you know, 17                again, ideally, one should have done some of this before                                                        ,
18                they launched the pilots.                    It is done in a negative way.                        So            ,
19                to see some things in the regulatory guide that are not done l
20                by tha pilots is not surprising.
4
;-                        12 1                                DR. KRESS:            That's.right, e                                                                                                                      .                                      t 22                                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                Yeah, it is not surprising.
23                And as long as these things do not revolutionize things and 24-              .gcr back and say,f gee, .everything you have done is wrong, 25                But, of course, there will be'more details here, and t
O\~-
                                                                      . ANN RILEY~& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters
                                                                    -1250 I Street, N.W., Suite-300                                                          -;
Washington, D.~C. 120005                                                            ;
                                                                                  '(202) 842-0034.
 
                                        -. --    n  a.  . . ~ u    , _ . . _ , - ~      ~  _ , . . - .        --- . _ . _ _
I 34                    i i
I 1  refinements and discussions, and people should expect that,
()  2 3
DR. KRESS:      I like to view this as a new standard on how to do risk-informed regulation.
4                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              Yeah.
5                DR. KRESS:      Not just related to change things, it 6  is a standard for how to do.                And I would like to see it 7  done right the first time, regardless of how it was done in 8  the past.
9                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAFIS:              Exactly.                    In fact, Mr.
10  Holahan is on record Laying, I think, because we asked you 11  some time ago, whether, you know, in other places, one could 12  use-it, and you said, yes, the philosophy is there.                                        That's 13  what we are doing now, we are laying the foundation, so it 1;  is great.
O Q  15                MR. HOLAHAN:      Yes.      We sometimes ask -- a 16  regulatory guide is normally written against some 17  regulation.      And when you ask what regulation is 1061 is 18  written against, it is all of them.
19                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              Yeah.
20                MR. HOLARAN:      That would be scary.
21                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              Okay. So you are on the 22  second bullet.
23                MR. CUNNINGHAM:          No , it is not      .
24                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              You moved.
25                MR  CUNNINGHAM:          I moved.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
N-                              Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005
                                .(202) 842-0034
_.          ..            _ _ _        ~              _    _.
 
35 1                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                  Okay.            Slide 8.
2                      MR. CUNNINGHAM:          Yes, slide-8.
3                      DR. MILLER:          Slide 12 if you don't keep --
4                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                  Slides,_too much.
: 5.                      MR, CUNNINGHAM:          The' staff review process, comment                                                                                        ;
6        we received on inconsistent, the potential for inconsistency 7        ,among reviewers and the goal of having Chapter 19 of the.SRP 8        is to reduce that, at least in the context of CLB -- of_CLB                                                                                                        !
9        changes.      There's other aspects of it which go outside, in 10                the sense, Chapter 19, which once you got out_into the areas 11-                of inspection and that type of thing, and I think that is 12-                kind of-somewhat independent or somewhat is a follow up 13                issue to 1061.                                                                                                                                                      t 14                                The staff is trying to deal with those types of
()                                                      15                  issues, new inspection guidance, buy more training to the 16                  staff as what is meant by risk-informed regulation and what 17                  is in 1061, that type of thing.                        So we weren't really going                                                                                  [
l 18                  to talk about that issue very much in 1061, per se.
19                                Implementation issues.                    One of the questions, of                                                                                  j 20                  course, is -- that has come up, is how do we t: ack, why are 21                .
we asking this issue of tracking cumulative changes and that 22                  tigx3 of thing?        We can come back to that later in 23                  discussions because there is an explicit piece now in the                                                                                                          ,
                                                          '24                      documentation of cumulative changes and that may be a good
                                                          -25                    1 place to talk about that.              In fact, all of these                                                                                                    -
I                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    '
l.
l
  )                                                                                                ANN RILEY:& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters                                                                                                                        }
1250 I Street, N.W.,-Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 E
                                                                                                                .(202) 842-0034-                                                                                                                      ,
                                                                              ,          - - . -            ,, , . , .    ,-_._.E.,'_,..,.,. - . _ , - .                                  '-~' ' - - - ' --''-----*-*-"'"e    ' ' - * - - ' ' + - '
 
36 ,
1              implementation issues, I think we will come back to_later in
(              2              one form or another.
3                                                          CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                A need for a de facto                                            !
4            -living-PSA, I mean that is a truism, right?                                                                    We should have-5          -that.                          A livino PSA.                                                                                                        f t
6                                                        MR.-CUNNINGHAM:              If, well, there's two parts.                                          If  :
7-          -you want to be in the busineas of making, if a licensee i
8              wants to be in the business of making CLB changes,Lin.
i 9-          .effect, you have to -- what we are saying is you have to.                                                                                          ,
i l                    10-              have the PRA represent the as-built, as-operated plant, so                                                                                        j 11                it becomes living.                                              Part of it, though, is there's many 12                different definitions of living also.
I                                                                                                                                                                                        '
                    '13                                                            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                This, this complaint from 14                the industry that they have not seen a benefit yet.                                                                                Does          {
k)          15                1061 give them the tool to see the benefits?                                                                      Yes or no?
                                                                                                                                                                                          .t 16                                                          MR. HOLAMAN:            Yes.
I 17                                                          CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                  Yes.        Okay.              So it is                          ,
t 18                reasonable then that they have not seen benefits because we                                                                                        l 19                haven't had this 1061.
20                                                          MR. HOLAHAN:            Yeah.                                                                          4 21                                                          CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                  Yes?
22                                                          MR. HOLAHAN:            Yes, i
23                                                          MR. CUNNINGHAM:              I am going to turn now to, going                                          l
;                    24 ,              into what we have actually changed in the 1061.                                                                          The --
25                                                          CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                  No, the thing that confuses                                      T
      ;                                                                                        7004 RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters                                                                    ;
1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300                                                                ,
;                                                                                                  Washington, D.C. 20005                                                                  <
(202) 842-0034                                                                    ,
  . . . _      --m.              - - . ~ . _ _ . , . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . - _ - _ . _ . . _                                                            - _ _ _ . _ - . _ . . . . .
 
L 37 ;
I    me -- I'm sorry, Mark.                                  But even last night I had the-()                2 3
discussion with from somebody, a senior member from industry.                Yes, but what is the benefit?                                                              And that is what    ,
1
                  '4      confuses me.                                                                                                                            l 5                            It seems to me the existence of 1061 gives you the 6    tool to see those benefits, to reap those benefits.                                                                            So to 7-    complain that you haven't seen any benefits before 1061 8    doesn't make sense, does it?
9'                            MR. KING:                  Well, I think they are concerne:d about                                            i 10        the length of time the pilots have taken, and the resources 11 -      it has taken to get the pilots through.                                                                                                ,
12                                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                  Yeah.
13-                              MR. KING:                  But, again, that is part of this t
14      _ iterative process.                            We are sort of, you know, plowing new L(      )        15      ~ ground every step of the way and it takes time.
16                                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                  But what confuses me is i
17        when I say, yeah, we are going to review 1061 tomorrow.                                                                            By le        December, the staff will have it.                                                      And the comment is -- but 19        what is the benefit?                                I mean that shows that you don't know                                              '
20        what 1061 is.                    The fact that 1061 will be out there is the                                                            .
21        benefit.                Isn't it?                  Do it have it wrong or what?
22                              MR. HOLAHAN:                    No.          1 agree.                            That's why we have
                                                      ~
23        been working on it for almost; two years.
24                              ' CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                  So that shows me then, or                                ,
25        should - show: me that- people who talk way don' t know what 1061
{                                                    ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters l                                                      1250 I-Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washir.gton, D.C. 20005
* L                                                                              (202) 842-0034
 
__  _ . _ .  .m_. __  -  _. . _ _ .            .__        _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ . . . _ . _ . _ _ . ._ __ _.. .. _.
f I
38              l l
1    is.                                                                                                                                                        ;
()  -3 2                DR. MILLER:
MR.- HOLAMAN:
Could be --
Or they imagined --                                                                                                !
: 4.                DR. MILLER:                I think it is the fact that it is not                                                                              l t
5    year.                                                                                                                                                      !
i 6                MR. HOLAHAN:                Or they imagine --                                                                                                !
7                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                            Yeah, but you are telling 8    them,-look, we are reviewing this thing tomorrow because the 9    staff.has to have it out -- I mean to the Commissioner's e
10      office by December 31st.                    They say, yeah, but what's the 11      benefit?    I don't know, I don't know what to say to them.
f 12                  MR.-KING:            Or they could'be skeptical.                                                Or they                                      j 13      could be skeptical that, even with 1061 in place, how are 14      the reviewers going to interpret it?                                        Are they going to, you
() 15      know, apply defense in depth'and disapprove a bunch of 16      changes that would otherwise make sense, you know?                                                                  Is there                                p 17      going to be inconsistent interpretation?                                              We get those kinds                                                    l 18      of concerns.
19                  DR. MILLER:                Well, it is also clear that the 20      staff, beyond what is here in headquarters, is not, maybe 21      not well prepared to handle this yet.
22                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                            Well, it's -- I think what i
23      it is really is the complaint about the current compliance.
24                  DR. MILLER:                Well, I think that                            --
25                  MR. KING:            It'is all embedded into it.
i i
O                          -ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300                                                                                                            .:
Washington, D.C.-20005
                                          . (202):842-0034
                                          - yv-y      r~s y    -,                - ' - -  +g--v-    -+en v r- y. w.r ww, g -v-  >--+--t-w.,+-n=4w,og,~,  y ,-
u--* r-
 
39 1                              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                Rubbish.      That's really-
                                    ~2              what it is.
3-                            DR. MILLER: .You have got plants shut down for 14            - compliance issues.
S'                            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                Compliance is emphasized 6              too much.
7                              DR. KRESS:                          But you can't deal with those kind of 8              complaints except to say we'll do our best, and do some                                                                                                          ;
9              training and things like that.                                                                                                                                  ;
10                              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS - Yeah.                                                                                                                    -
11                              DR. KRESS:                          I mean that's about you can say,                                                                          f 12                              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                See, that is what I find 13              -discouraging.
14                              DR. KRESS:                          Yeah.
,    ()                          115                              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                People seem to dismiss it.
                                  -16              So what, what is the benefit?                                                  I mean it seems to me this is 17              a major.      This is a major change.
18                              DR. KRESS:                        Yeah, but maybe we understand it a 19              little better thr.n they do.
20                              CRAIRBAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                Yeah.                                                                      I 21                              DR. F.RESS:                        But maybe this is a major change.
22-                            DR. MILLhnt                                You still have to put yourself in 23              their position.              You know, they are under lots of preocure 24              and they have firefights every day and they are not dealing                                                                                                    ,
25              with these things on.a daily baais, they are dealing with
    -(                                                                    ANN RILEY.& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
    \                                                                              Court Reporters                                                                                                                .
1250 I Street,' N.W., Suite 300                                                                                                            i Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) = 842-0034 o
i veoa-.
* o- N , , ,
                                        ,, . - - +
                                                        >--,.,a-e s--w------Sn    .+m.-,,S.-a-e,,rwrew                                              ,w,eer.u -~+r r.' ~ ~ -'          . n - " - - - ~-t =-w---~-
 
I i
40 ,
1        firefights.
()                          2 3
CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:- No.
the argument that if you have a regulation, you have to But the argument                          --
{
{
s 4        comply with it, and if you don't like it, change it, it-                                                                                                            l 5      seems to me is a valid argument.                                                                                And this gives you a tool 6      to change the regulations that you think are burdensome and.
7        remove them.                                                                                                                                                        [
i 8                                        -DR. KRESS:                          It gives you a tool to, not change the 9        regulation yet, but it would be a potential use for it later 10-      on.                  This is not aimed at changing the regulations yet.
11        Changes in licensing basis.
12                                            CHAIMCW APOSTOLAKIS:                                                      The basis, yeah, the i
13                Jensing basis.                                      But that'a different.                                      I'm sorry.
14                                            DR            KRESS:            But this certainly could be a tool and                                                          )
()                        15      a way to change regulations.
                                      -16                                            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                      The philosophy is there, 17      yes.
18                                          MR. HOLAHAN:                          Well, it I were a member of the 19      public and I wanted to propose a rule change, I think I l
20      would pick up 1061                                            --
21                                          DR. KRESS:                      Use it is as an argument.                                                                        l 22                                          MR. HOLAHAN:                            -- and use the arguments to say --
23                                          CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                      Exactly.
24                                          MR. HOLAHAN:                            -- these are the kinds-of things the 25      regulations are, you know, are trying to achieve, and they i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.                                                                                          '
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite.300-                                                                                          .
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202)' 842-0034 i
t
  - - - , . . . . , ~ , - . . , _ . -        . . . . - , - . . _ , , -            ..---.._,,-,,,,m._..,____.                          --_.--_-,.-,.,_,,m.~.,.-              - ..._,, .- . - ,_._-...- .. - --
 
l 41 1
1          .can be achieved in this other way.                                                                                                            ]
()      2 3-DR. KRESS:                I maintain that is going to be a very difficult thing to do, because it is awfully hard to get the                                                                                  ;
4            risk importance of a rule, it really.is.                                                      I have tried a few 5            of them, and usually you just -- there's tentacles in each l
6            rule that reach out everywhere in some of the rules,                                                                                          i 7                                  MR. HOLAHAN                      Yes.                  Yes. But it is even more                                    ;
8            difficult -- even more difficult to do it without this sort                                                                                  l i
9            of guidance approach.
10                                  DR. KRESS:                That's exactly right.                                                                      .
t 11-                                  MR. KING:                But I think the industry will be 12            skeptical till they get a few successes under their belt.                                                                                      ,
13          And I think successes to them are some reasonably                                                                                              i 14            straightforward changes made in a reasonable amount of time
()      15            for a reasonable cost.                                And till that happens, they are                                                        i 16          going to be skeptical.
17                                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                        By the way, what is                                      ;
18          happening to the QA thing that you guya talked of last-time, 19            that'you were sending to the Commission?
20                                  MR. KING:              It has been approved by the Commission.
21                                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                        It has been. approved by the 22          Commission.
23                                  MR. KING:              Yes.
24                                  , CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                        Is not a success story?
25                                  MR  KING:              Well, it's a success story.
O                                                ANN RILEY--& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300-i f
                                                              -Washington, D.C; 20005 (202)~842-0034
  - . .      .-      .            - . . - - .            _ - . - . .            - . , . . - . - . - - - - . . -              . _ - , - , - . . . . , , ~ , . , . . , ,
 
42    {.
1              MR. HOLAHAN:            Yes, one.                                                                  ,
()          2 3
MR. KING:
MR. HOLAHAN:
But you've got how long it took.
Well,-having been a regulator for 21 4: years, I-can assure that after we get beyond this step, and 5  maybe there is less skepticism about this step, the industry                                                      ;
          '6    will find something else to be concerned about.                                                      Okay.      >
7                Being a regulated industry-does not produce, you 8  know, happy licensees.                Okay.            You know, they will never                                .
9  --they will never come and knock at the door and thank us 10      for what a good job we will do.                              They will always have the                          ,
:11      next issue.      It is just the nature of being a regulated 12      entity.                                                                                                          l 13                    So if we are all waiting for them to get over this 14      stage and they will come back happy later, don't bother
.    )  15      waiting.
16                    DR. MILLER:            Well, you have -- now, wait a minute.
17      -I would be slightly more positive.                                      Even though there are a 18      lot of negative comments on the new reg, all the regs that 19      are put out there, there are a lot of positive comments on 20      the job they felt the staf f had done to get us to this 21~    point.
22                  MR. HOLAHAN:            Yes.
23'                  DR. MILLER:            So we have to look at the-positive 24      side of these comments, too.                                                                                    .
25.
MR. HOLAHAN: --You just have -- you have to look at
[
  ?%-
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034-                                                                  .t
        - . _ .  -. _~    _ _ .        . _ _ - _ _      _ _ _-..,_-_._- . . . _ _ _ _ . - . _ _ . . . - - . . . _ _ _          -
 
_ ~ _ _ _ _ . _          .              .    .. _ ___ .        .-.. _ . _. _        _ _.. __.
43 1  the magnitude-and intensity of the concerns. .Okay.                                              You              ,
()          2 3
have to judge success more by, you know, how much resistance there is rather than how much enthusiasm there is.                                                                ,
4                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                No, but the fact that                                  l 5  something major-has been approved from the pilots is good, i
6                        MR. KING: ~ That is-a step forward.
4              7-                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                That is a step forward.
8'                        MR. KING:          We have this NEI initiative where they                                  ;
9  want to take-three pilot plants and do a full scope PRA and 10      impare the results against the operation and maintenance                                                        [
            --I      ssts and the regulations.                          And they aro reluctant to embark 12    on spending the money to do those three full scope PRAs 13    -until they get some assurance that things that they think                                                          ,
14    are pretty straightforward changes will, in fact, be                                                              :
()      15    approved by the staff with, you know, on a reasonable time                                                        -
16    Crame.
17                          So they are embarking on three -- three more la    pilots, where they are proposing three specific changes that J
1.9    they want to-see.                    Will, even though we are going to use 20    1061, will we do it in a reasonable amount of time?                                              And              :
21    unless -- and to them, if we do that, that will give them 22    some assurance that it is worth spending the money to
            -23    continue-and come in with the other things.
24                        -CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                  But there is a major 25    difference now between the present situation and the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
      .i                                                _
Court. Reporters                                                            5 1250 I Street,-N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202)-842-0034                                                            .
_-..u.._.__.        _ . . _ , _.                  - .a..    . _ - . . _ . _ . _ . _ _ x.--.__- _ . _ _ _ -.                  _
 
i 44      ;
i i  situation, say, two andla half years ago.                            Now, 106111sfin                    !,
()          .' 2  the books, or will be in th'e books.
MR. KING:      Exactly.
3                                                                                                            (
4                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                  At that time, you know, yo 5  had the pilots,-you had QA, you had IST.                            Ifa underlying                      I 6  philosophy, essentially, right?
7                      MR. HOLAHAN:      Right.
8                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                  Doesn't it make a                            {
9  difference?
          -10                        MR. HOLAHAN:      Itt makes a difference.
11                        DR. SEALE:      Sure, it does, George.              But the                        ,
i 12    difference is lost in the question'of which version of 1061                                            .i 13    do you believe in.                If you believe in the staff's version of 14    1061, that is one answer.                  If you believe in the version                                .
()          15    -that-in reflected in the comments you got, it is just                                                    l
        .16      another piece of paper, or another pile of paper you have to 17    try to comply with.
18                      The proof is going to be in the pudding.                                I mean 19    we can sit here and argue about this all day long.                                        But what 20    we have to recognize is that you have to come up with the 21    kind of language in 1061 that addresses some of these 22-  concerns about what-constitutes completeness, given a 23    certain set-of circumstances and so on, and then just let                                                ;
24~  them ruti it.
        -25                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                  Yeah, that is what I
[
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters                                                        ,
1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C.'20005
: 1.                        (202) . 842-0034                                                      ;
i
 
45 1    saying.
()  2 3
DR. SEALE:          And, you know, when the airline inmastry only has things to complain about, are the quality 4  ! of the food and the lost baggage, it is actually a pretty 5    doggone good way to get around, you know.                                    But peopl6 still 6    complaint.
!                                                                                                                      i 7                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                  And it is the same people 8    who said they want the cheapest ticket possible.
9                      ?R. NILLER:          I think we have got to quit spending i
10 a  maybe too much time worrying about_why they are complaining.
11    I thank we und6rstand why.                    I mean just forge ahead and deal 12    with it.
13                      DR. SEALE:          Right.
14                      CI\IRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                  No, it is important, I
() 15    think, to urterstand why and bring it up to the open.
16  ' Becuuse we keep talking about change in cultures and so on.
17    It seems to ma it is both ways, the culture here, but the 18    culture out there as well.                                                                                  ,
19                      DR. MILLER:          Well, I would say if you want to 20    cha ge the culture, you had better go out and understand it.
21    I don't think we understand the culture right now.
22                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                  Well, it in this compliance 23    thing.
24                      DR. MILLER:          I mean I would have say, I vas in a 25    p3 ant, you know, last week, and I listened.                                  And there's
[)                                ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
-  \/                                      Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
46    j t
                                  'l-                            ~ people out there saying things that kind of surprised me, i
()                                2 3
MR. HOLARAN:
DR. MILLER:
Like?
It is going to be a long before --
i 4~                                here's a comment I heard.                      It's going co be a long time,                  {
5                                till hell freezes over maybe, before this staff is going to 6                            -agree to change a safety related -- something, it categories                                    !
1 7                                low safety significance, to change the burden, the Appendix                                  !
8                                B burden on that.            They say it is never going to happen.
f 9                                            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                    Didn't they just approve 10 it?                                                                                          l 4
11                                                  DR. MILLER:                I am just saying, this is what I am                    j 12                                      hearing from the people at the plant who are never, are 13                                      never going to be in this building.                      These are people really 14                                      doing things.      The plant lovel, -                I just listened.
()                          15-                                                MR. HOLAMANt                  Well, the message of success is not 16                                      going to come from Rockville or from Washington.                                  It is 17                                      going to come from their peers in other utilities who say, 18                                ' guess what I got.
19                                                DR. MILLER:                Yeah.
20                                                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                    Now, I think I asked you 21                                      before, aboat the workshop in August, did people from the
                          -22                                          industry recognize'the historical significance of this, or 23                                      was $t just another documenti                      Did anybody say, gee, you 24                                    know, this -- this works is great?
25                                                  MR. HOLAHAN: -Yes.                                                                  ,
I                                                                              ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 12'O I. Street, N.W., Suite 300                                                  '
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
l 47                      !
1                            -DR. MILLER:              Yes, f
2                            - CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS: LThey did?
3                              MR. HOLAMAN: ~Yes, they did.
4                              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                  Okay.          Now, where are you, 5              Mark?
i 6-                              MR. HOLAHAN:              As a matter of fact, I remember one                                                E 7              individual from a utility stood up and said, we ought to  _
8              stop whining and get on with it, because it is a valuable 9              opportunity.
10                                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                  Good.                                                                ;
11                                  DR. FONTANA:              Go back on the viewgraphs, please.
12-                I would like to take this discussion down the notch Go to i
11 3                -number    8.-
14                                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                  He wants No. 8.                      The one 15                  before.
16                                  DR. FONTANA:              The previous one.                There you go.
17                                  It's little nitty-gritty here.                            Where you have                                    i 18                  tracking of cumulative changes to regs.
19                                MR. HOLAHAN:              Yes.
20                                  PR. PONTANA:              I was looking at Chapter 19 and page 21                  21, it says, " Finally, when risk increases are improved, 22                  reviewers should consider plant performance and past changes 23-                for the licensing basis to ensure that there is no pattern 24                  for a systematic increase in risk."                                Good.    " Insight on a                                ,
25                  licensee operational practice, management controls, risk ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,-Suite 300
                                                                          . Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
i 48        l 1 _ management programs, plant configuration control programs,-                                                                            ,
1
()                    2 3
or performance monitoring programs from previous applications can be obtained from the NRC regional offices l
4    or from documentation of NRC inspection activities."
5                                              Is_that reasonable advice to the reviewet?                                    I mean          j 6      is this:something that can be done, or is this scattered out                                                                          f i
7      in so many different places that it is really asking too                                                                              [
8    much for him to-look at all these things?
l MR. HOLAMAN:            I think it is reasonably available 9
P 10    through the project managers.                                          I would say individual staff 11    members, and maybe, in fact, the advice ought to state it                                                                              .
12    that way.- Project managers for an individual plant, I
                            -13  -think, have-that-kind -- those kind of contacts and that
                                                                                                                                                                          .j
                            -14      kind of information.
()                  15                                            DR. FONTANA:            They can get their hands on it real                                  -i 16    easy.
17                                            MR. HOLAHAN:            I think they have -- yeah.
l 18                                            DR. FONTANA:            I just wanted why they would send 19    them on a wild goose chase.
20                                            MR. HOLAHAN:            Yeah, not every reviewer would have 21    that sort of information.
22                                            DR. FONTANA:            Yeah. Okay. Thanks.                                              -<
                              '23                                            DR.. MILLER:          Is it reasonable to have, put t. hat 24    into this kind of guidance?                                                                                                            <
252                                            MR. HOLAHAN:            I think if you want  --
          .h) v AJM RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters.-
1250 I Street, N.W., Suite    300
.                                                                                            Nashington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
    ._..___---____.___..-__.__._______.m._._.__                                                                                                  . - . _ . _ _ _ . _
49 1                          DR. MILLER:                Or does everybody kind of know that?                                                      l
()                      2 3
If you really want to go, say, a plant, you want to find the nitty-gritty.of what that plant is doing from a regulatory i
4            viewpoint,'you go-to the project manager.                                        Does overybody                                  1 5            know that?                                                                                                                        :
,                                                                                                                                                                              r 6                          MR.-HOLAHAN:                  Well, it wouldn't hurt to say it.                                                    ;
I 7-                          DR. MILLER:                Okay.
i                            8                          MR. HOLAHAN:                  But I think if -- if you are 9-            interested in integral decision making, and you really want.
10-              to understand, you know, is this plant on the watchlist or 11                is it -- is the performance indicators going in a very good                                                                        :
12                or very unfavorable direction, you know, got to go and look.
                        -13                              It's not -- I think it is not so hard to do.
14                              MR. HOLAHAN:                  My recollection is when the Staff k            15                reviewed the South Texas graded QA proposal and we wanted to
                        -16              give it some additional management attention, one of the 17              things we did was open up the performance indicators and 18              look at recent trends and ask what was said about this plant 19              at the most recent Senior Management Meeting.
20                              It seemed to me, I did it myself and it seemed 21              rather aasy.                                                                                                                        ,
22                              DR. FONTANA:                  Okay. Just wanted to know how L
23-              doable it was.
24                              MR          HOLAHAN:        Yes.
                      '25                              DR. FONTANA: .Okay, thanks, t
i L  O                                                              ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I. Street, N.W., Suite 300 L                                                      ,
i                                                                      Washington, D.C. 20005                                                                              '
                                                                            -(202) 842-0034                                                                                  '
i
                          . -            - -    . -    . , ~ . - .        . . - . . . . .  ,  . - . - , . - . - , . - - - , , - - - - , - -                        . -
 
l 50                      1 1                          MR      HOLAHAN:                    Well, at the level I imagine doing                                          l t
    -(f          2        it and that is 1 think what you are looking for is outliers..
Yes, I
3                          DR.-FONTANA:                                                                                                      i 4                          MR. HOLAHAN: - You know, the body of plants, in all 5        behaving reasonably well, if one is a particular problem at
                ~6        a time, you are not looking to distinguish between the Sist 1
7        percentile -and the 52nd percentile.                                                                                              -
8-                          That is meaningless-to me, but if there is a real                                                                  ;
t 9        ongoing problem, I think.they are not so hard to find.
4 10-                          DR. FONTANA:                          Okay. Yes, go ahead.
              - 11                          CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS: . Kind of slow, Mark, today.
12                            MR. CUNNINGHAMt                          Well, I apologize for that.
13                            DR. MILLER:                      Amazing how quickly it went last week 14          when you were in court.
          )
15                            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                As a juror -- as a juror.
16                            [ Laughter.)
17                            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                Jurors are not allowed to 18          ask questions, as you know.
19                            DR. KRESS:                    It must have been tough on you, t
20'                          CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                I don't know why you say 21          that.
22                            MR. CUNNINGHAM:                          I think we will go now to the 23          slower part of the presentation.
24'                          CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                You nocice the statement 25          that Mark just made.                          We are going to th3 slower part of the O'.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
                            ,          ,,,v  ,  -r..~....  ..-.-,..m,        .y--        ,.--.,.%-_,    ,,_,,,-,,,,...mm_m..-..,,43  y ,,-,-- --_~~m,
 
l
                                                                                                                    . 51l I          presentation.                    >
l
( )      2                          MR. CUNNINGHAM:          The-rest of the-presentation 3!          covers what changes we have made to 1061 in the version that                                            j 4          _ we gave you,                                                                                            i 5                          We made one change to the principles -- we will                                          j 6          come back in each'of these and discuss them in more detail.                                              l 7                          One change to the principle -- we have rewritten                                        j 8          the acceptance guidelines including the-discussion of the                                              j 9          treatment of_ uncertainties associated with that.                                                        ;
i 10                            We have added something to the document dealing T
L il-            with bundling.            We-have added something to the document on-                                    p 12            quality and scope,                                                                                      i 13-                            We have recast our discussion of management I
14            attention:and we have changed the discussion on performance
()    15            monitoring,                                                                                              f 16                            We have also maue some modifications to the 17            documentation section to reduce the amount of documentation                                              !
18            that would be submitted with the proposed change.
19                            The last bullet doesn't have a backup slide or a 20            detailed slide asscciated with it -- the issue of Appendix B i
21            -and the NUREG CR report.                When the draft went out for 22            comment it was _reconmended that we have a NUREG CR that 23'            would discuss in more detail the basis for Appendix B and 24            also-go in to_ deal with some other types of initiators.
: 25.                            That is ongoing,          We have not gone back and made I
i, O                                        ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250'I Street, N.W.,' Suite 300-Washington, D.C. 20005 (202)-847-0034
      . - . . ~ -.-                                                                                                -. - ,-  .
 
l 1
52      !
1  the changes to Appendix D at this' point because we are still                                              I
()    2 3
working on the~NUREG CR.
One of the issues we have considered is that if i
4  the-NUREG CR is by and large a self-sufficient document, 5- -then we 11 drop Appendix B=from the' Reg Guide itself and 6  just deal with it as a reg - Jby reference to the NUREG CR.
7              If you would like to talk about this issue, we can                                              1 8  probably put something together for tomorrow or whatever.                                            I 9  was hoping to have Trevor Pratt come down and be available 10  to discuss it.            Unfortunately, he is ill, so he is not going 11  -to be able to make it, but if you would like we can come 12  back to this maybe tomorrow and have at least some                                                          a 13  additional discussion of it.
14              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                              Mario, do you think that L is
()  15  something that we want to talk about or that is something.
16  that can wait?
17              DR. FONTANA:                            I think it probably can wait.
18              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                              Can wait.
19              DR. FONTANA:                            I think  .o, don't you think?
20              DR. MILLER:                            What is the schedule on that NUREG 21  being done?
22              MR. CUNNINGHAM:                            We were hoping to have it done 23  with -- kind of consistent with the timing of the 1061 24  itself but it is -- unfortunately ws don't have it here.for 25- you'to discuss as well, so I guess                                .t is one of those things t
5
  .I l'                          ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
L\#                                                    Court Reporters-L 1250-I Street, N.N., Suite 300 L                                      Washington, D.C. 20005                                                            :
                                                      ~(202) 842-0034 b                    .-  -.      .,,,, - - - .-- - . . , , . ~                      --,,,,-,,,;,,..---,---.-,--,.;
 
      ---      -~    ..--    - -        - .          - - .      . --      . . - - . . . - - . -    . - - - . - .          .
r 53                !
1      that p obably could be slipped a little bit out without
    }        2      compromising the schedule for the December schedule for 1061 3      itself because it is not dealing with the basic philosophies                                                  ;
4      and' principles and things,                                                                                  f 5                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                  Are you going to keep                                    ;
6      calling-it bundling?          It's that kind of colloquial?
: 7.                MR. CUNNINGHAM:              The document itself --                                            [
: 8.                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                  You are calling it 9-    . integrated multichange requests.                                                                            ,
10                  MR. CUNNINGHAM:              Multichange requests.        Yes.
          - 11'                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                  Why don't you start using                                ,
12      it on your slides'as well?                                                                                  l 13                  MR. CUNNINGHAM:              I was in a hurry putting the 14      slide together --
15                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                  I mean you will.
16                  MR. CUNNINGHAM:              If we decide that multichange
          - 17      requests is more understandable than bundling then we will 18    go with that.
19                  DR. SEALE:        There are other connotations of l
20    bundling that--suggest the need for self-restraint.                              That may
          - 21    not be appropriate.
22                  MR. CUNNINGHAM:              Yes.
;          23                  DR. KRESS:        Bundling lends itself to a pretty bad 24      typographical error also -                "D" and "G" is-close in there --                                  '
25                  [ Laughter.)
j                                ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
s'                                            Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,-Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202). 842-0034-
                            #-w      -:            67-4+'                                          YW              eM "'-7T
 
l l
54 1            MR. CUNNINGIUJ4:    Okay. With that, we would go was
(    )  2  into the discdssion of the details of the document.
    \"J                                                                          .
s          3            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    The principles.
4            MR. CUNNINGHAM:    Principles. These are, with the 5  exception of Item 4, the principles as they were in the
  ,        6  draft that went out for public comment.
[
t          7            Based on our experience with the pilot plants, we 8 were discussing and proposing to make a change to Item 4, 9 making in a sense two changes, one that we explicitly talk 10  about that we are talking about proposed increases in core 11  damage frequency and risk and not just risk, and two, we 12  have reworded the discussion of how this works, relates to 13  the Safety Goal Policy Statement.
34            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    You are de facto then O
( ,/ 15  raising then the core damage frequency to the level of QHOs, 16  aren't you?
17            MR. CUNNINGHAM:    No.
18              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Well, look at it. Core 19  damage frequency and risk.
20              MR. CUNNINGHAM:    But I think we are making the 21  statement the principle is consistent now with the body of 22  1061 where core damage frequency is treated as a --
23            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Fundamental goal.
24            MR. CUNNINGHAM:    -- fundamental goal of 1061, the 25  principles --
()
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-tJ34
 
55 1                                                                                              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    What is risk?  Risk is a
  ?
  /                                                                              2                                            QHO?
(
3                                                                                            MR. CUNNINGHAM:    Risk is the OLO or a surrogate 4                                              for QHO which a LERF coulo be.
5                                                                                            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    I don't disagree, by the 6                                          way, with what you have done but I am trying to understand 7                                              the consequences of this.
8                                                                                          MR. CUNNINGHAM:    Yes. We are trying to make the 9                                            distinction here that you can relate LERF and QHOs 10                                                    reasonably well.                                                                                  I 11                                                                                                Core damage frequency you arrive at for a 12                                                    differeat rationale, from a different set of reasoning than 13                                                      startilig from the QHOs.
14                                                                                                I was trying to separate those out.
15                                                                                                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    It seems to me it is a 16                                                    recognition of the special role of the core damage 17                                                      frequancy -- whether you want to call it fundamental or not, 18                                                    what you are saying here, this is something important.
19                                                                                              MR. CUNNINGHAM:    Yes.
20                                                                                              MR. HOLAHAN:  Yes.
21                                                                                              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Which is really the 22                                                    argument perhaps that you will use in the afternoon when we 23                                                      talk about fundamental goals.
24                                                                                              MR. CUNNINGHAM:    Goals, yes, okay.
25                                                                                            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Right?
I                                                                                                                                                                      ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
              \~/                                                                                                                                                                          Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
: m. _ _ .      ._ ._  .      _  _.  .    -    . _ . . _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ - . . - _ . _ . . . . . _ _ . _ . -
1[      -
                                        - MR 4 CUNNINGHAM: = - That -- the l core damage- f requency:                                        -
:                L2      _ guideline'_.;that we:are setting upfdoesn't derive 1very 31    .easilyj---
                      -.41              lCHAIRMANIAPOSTOLAKIS:          Exactly.                      -
                    .5                  .MR.-CUNNINGHAM:        -- with QHOs.;
6'                  CHAIRMAN-APOSTOLAKIS:.      I know what you meant.
7                  MR. CUNNINGHAM:      It comes there.from a separate 8-    -reason.                                                                                                                    -
9-                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:        A_ separate' reason.                            There 101    -is a; separate significance to-this.
              - -                  MR- CUNNINGHAM - Yes and-it was just recommended
                  -12          let's make that very clear'from principles all'the way through the: document -- so.that is the reason for that-14'        change.                                                                                                                    '
: o. m
' h  '
15 :                  MR. HOLAHAN:      However --
16 .'                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:        Yes?
17 --                MR. HOLAHAN:      --~what I would say is what this-18        principle does, it says ' for the purpose of license L~                  19        amendments".
20                  .In effect, _you are going to treat core damage
:                  :21~    : frequency and risk measures and assure that both are being                                                        ,
                '22 handled in'the process.
,f              123                    'That doesn't mean that those are equal of L24:        ' equivalent.      Itsjust'means.that_both need to be done.                                                                  :
,                  2 5 --              -You need to stop your car.at a red light. 'You t.
h-
                                              -ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
''o--  '
Court Reporters
                                                  ~
          ~~
                                            '1250-I/ Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C._20005
                                                        -(202) 842-0034
 
_ _          .      -  .      -- -  .    ~ ..  . -  .    -
57 1 need to stop your car at a stop sign.          That doesn't mean i      2 they are both exactly the same thing.
  -(_
3              I' don't see this being inconsistent with the idea 4 of having risk measures as safety goals and core damage 5 frequency as a subsidiary objective.
6              All this says is that for license amendment 7 processes we are going to respect both the safety goals and 8 the subsidiary objectives,          Doesn't force you to make both 9 of them equal.      You are just going to do both of them, even 10 if they are unequal, 11              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      Yes, but there is also a 12 message, taking it from the other side, or there is 13 something special about the core damaca frequency.
14              MR. HOLAHAN:    Well, there is.
15              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      There is -- and the word i
16 " fundamental" has not been interpreted anyway.          Right?  I 17 don't know what it means to call something fundamental, so 18 we will discuss this later.
19              What is the intent of the Commission's Safety Goal l
20 Policy Statement?      I mean what does that mean?
21              MR. CUNNINGHAM:    Let's back up a little bit.
22              The words as they were in the draft were something 23 like "and meets the" -- no -- "and does not cause the safety 24 goal to be exceeded."
25              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      Oh.
i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
    '--                            Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 l
(202) 842-0034
 
      ~.      . --      -    -        -    ..      --    .  . _.    ~.  - - .    .
56
: 1.              MR. CUNNINGHAM:      So what it is, the issue that p
2  came up in the pilots and writing SERs was that the Staff
(}
3  then was, in order to say that it met this principle, had to 4  say that they have confidence that these plants are better 5  than the safety goals.
6              They said but we don't have the information coming 7  to us that would allow us to make that conclusion in that 8  form, so let's change -- in a sense, let's say we want to be 9  consistent with the intent of the goals but not having to 10  make a positive finding, if you will, that says that these 11  plants meet the goals.
12              MR. KING:      Remember, the intent is defined "How 13  safe is safe enough" so we don't want plants to go up above 14  that definition or that concept.
  'O
( ,)    15              MR. HOLAHAN:      Likewise, we wouldn't necessh.ily 16  impose requirements which are much stricter than is 17  necessary.
18              This also allows for --
19              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:        Go ahead, I'm scrry.
20              MR. HOLAHAN:      Okay. This also allows for a 21  broader principle in the sense that the safety goals have 22  both quantitative and qualitative aspects --
23              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:        That's correct.
24            MR. HOLAHAN:        -- to them and this says that your 25  licensing process adopts the whole of the Safety Goal O                            ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
O                                    Court Reporters
,                            1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
59 1  Statement, and not just the numerical values.
2              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:        I think this is something 3  that we really have to discuss this afternoon.                I-see that 4  at 1:30 we have the possible revision-to the Safety-Goal 5  Policy Statement, elevation of core damage frequency to 6  -fundamental goal -- I mean all this stuff --
7              MR. HOLAHAN:      Yes.
8              MR, KING:      Yes. We'll discuss it all this 9  afternoon.
10              DR. MILLER:      So Principle 4 will come back to 11  visit us.
12              MR. KING:      But I think using the word " intent" is 13  a positive step.      Also it could lead you into the situation 14  of interpretation by others that might be negative.
() 15              I think this definition, no matter which way the 16  Safety Goal Policy revision goes, I think this definition is 17  pretty good.      It can accommodate either way.
18              DR. MILLER:      Yes.
19-            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:        Now you have more slides 20  later as to what -- you have a discussion of each principle 21  or this is it?
22              MR. CUNNINGHAM:      No , this is it in terms of the 23  principles.
24              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:        Then you will have the 25  discussion of each box in the decision-making?
-(                      ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\-                              Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
:60 1              MR..CUNNINGHAM:: We'll'have a discussion of the                      .
()              2
                  -3
                      ~ plachswherewehavechangedthingsiJ.cheboxes,Jifyou
                      .will.                                                                              '
4-            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                      Because.I am trying to:
5  figure ~out now when to give you my' comments on these things.                                ,
You will have also something on the expectations?
7              MR. CUNNINGHAM:                      The expectations didn't change.
8              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                      Didn't change, so.if I have 9  a comment there I have to bring it up:now.
10              MR. CUNNINGHAM:                      Okay. What we can do is if you
                '11 -  want to finish the principles I can ---
12              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                      Let's talk about the 13;  principles first.
                '14                MR. CUNNINGHAM:                      Okay, 15              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                      Let's look at Principle 16    Number 1.      I guess this is the time now where we really have 17    to scrutinize every word?                      This is the last    --
: 18"              "The proposed change meets the current
                -19    regulations."        Is that obvious to everyone what that means?
20              The proposed change will not meet the current L                21    regulations because it's a change.
1.
22              MR. HOLAHAN:            No.            Regulations -- not'the current
: 23. li' censing basis.
24              MR. CUNNINGHAM:                      Oh -- oh, I'm sorry.
25              MR. HOLAHAN:            It allows.you to change the current l
j )                                    ANN:RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporcers 1250.'I Street, N.W., Suite 300
                                              ~ Washington, D.C. 20005
                                                      -(202) 842-0034-
 
61 1 licensing basis in a way that is consistent with the w) s 2 regulations, 3          ' CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Okay, okay, so you are not 4 violating anything after you make the changes?      Okay.
5            Now I think I understand Number 3 -- " Sufficient 6 safety margins are maintained" although I would say -- the 7 discussion in the text is pretty good ectually there, but 8 Number 2 still bothers me, that " Defense-in-depth is 9 maintained."
10            Do you mean " sufficient defense-in-depth"?      Do you 11 mean that the principle of defense-in-depth is maintained?
12            What is it from defense-in-depth that is 13 maintained?
14            DR. MILLER:    This principle hasn't changed, right?
A h    15            MR. HOLAHAN:    Correct.
16            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Yes, but remember that I 17 was troubled by it before.
18            MR. HOLAHAN:    Yes.
19            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    This is the time to clear 20 it up.
21            MR. HOLAHAN:    I thought there was a different word 22 that you were --
23            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    " Philosophy," yes.
24            MR. HOLAHAN:    Ah, that's the word.
25            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    That defense-in-depth
[
V -
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
62 1  philosophy is maintained -- I thought that would do it.
()    2 3
MR  CUNNINGHAM:  Tell you that -- let me put up --
CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Now there is a sentence 4  somewhere -- I have read the document      --
there is a sentence 5  somewhere that is really very good, on page 10:      "The intent 6  of the principle is to assure that the philosophy of 7  defense-in-depth is maintained."
8            DR. MILLER:    Well, I think there is a description 9  in --
10            MR. CUNNINGHAM:    This is the text that comes right 11  after the discussion.
12              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Right, right.
13            DR. MILLER:    And again, this nasn't changed --
14            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      I know.
("%                                        relative to the draft,
( j/ 15            MR. CUNNINGHAM:    --
i      16            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      I remember you guys said 17  that even though you promised to put the word " philosophy,"
18  you dropped it, which really --
19            MR. KING:    No, no , we promised to put it in the 20  discussion part, which we did --
21            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      No, no, no, no.
22            MR. KING:    The problem I have --
23            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      Anyway, I don't want to 24  pursue that.
25            MR. KING:    When you put the word " philosophy" in a
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(\/)                            Court Reporters 1250 I' Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
63 1    and-say "the philosophy defense-in-depth is maintained" and
(,m)    2'- -call that'yourEprinciple, I-don't think it states what-you x_/ .
        -3    really want. I mean you want more than the philosophy.
4              I mean-you want defense-in-depth.
5              Now maybe-you want to say-" adequate 6    defense-in-depth" or " sufficient defense-in-depth" but not 7    philosophy.
8              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    But " Defense-in-depth is 9    maintained" is equally misleading though, because I may 10    interpret this a I have certain redundancy now and diversity 11    and so on, defense-in-depth. I want that maintained.          I 12    want the hardware being there -- you know -- and that is not 13    really what.you mean.
      '14              MR. KING:    When you read the text though, it tells
()    15    you it's not to prevent changes in the way defense-in-depth 16    is achieved. I mean those are the words from the text, so 17    people can adjust things.
18              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    That's right -- but I think 19    that the principle should be stated in a different way, to 20    send -- I mean let me ask you this.
21              The Chairman and the Commissioners will be making 22    presentations and will be giving talks. They will not go to 23    the' text and copy sentences from there. This looks so 24    good -- five principles -- you know?
25              They will ask their assistants to go and make a V[ T;                      ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300
                              ~ Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
    ~ . . .            --      . . - _      . _.. .              . _ . _ ._    ._.  .__.  .. __      . _ . . _ - . _ . .
64
                                                                                                                            ,r l'    ' nice-viewgraph out of the five principles.                  They_will not:go 2'    {to page-10 and'say,;boyf.this sentence really looks good---
                    -3      "In this regard,-the intent of the principle is assure the 4      philosophy of defense-in-depth is maintained."-                                                .
5                    And that is what you are missing by not being 6      precise here, because this is what people are going to use.
7                    MR. KING:            And I wouldn't object to putting the
                    -8      word " adequate" in there or " sufficient" but I would object 9-      to putting the word " philosophy"-in the principle.
10                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              " Adequate" I think sounds 11      good.
12                    DR. KRESS:            George, if you look at page 11 --
13-                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              Yes.
14                    DR. KRESS:            " Defense-in-depth is maintained" has a 15      lot of sub-bullets.
16                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              I understand that.
17                    IMt. MILLER:            -- another slide?
18                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              But I want the principles.
19"      I want the principles though to --                                                            '
20                    DR. KRESS:            That's the follow-up slide.
~
21                    CHAIRMAN'APOSTOLAKIS:              That is the follow-up 22      slide, if there~is one -- if there is one.
23                    DR. KRESS:            If you make the principle --
CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              Are you guys arguing that
                  -25      :we shouldn't be precise?
                                              -ANN-RILEY &' ASSOCIATES, LTD.
  ,
* Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
65 1              DR. MILLER:    If you make a principle fuzzy, it's-A 2    easier to become a principle.
()
3              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Why do you use the word 4    " sufficient" in Number 3 or " Safety margins are maintained."
5              DR. KRESS:    Well, then you have a real problem 6    because I don't know what " sufficient" is.
7              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Well?      And I don't know 8    what " Safety margins are maintained" means either, 9              MR. HOLAHAN:    Well, I do know what it means and it 10    is definitely what we don't want to do.
11              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    We don't want to do that?
12              MR. HOLAHAN:    That sounds like you are not willing 13    to change any of your safety margins.
14              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    That iJ exactly my problem b)
(_  15    with " Defense-in-depth is maintained"      --
that you are not 16    willing to change anything that you have in place now in the 17    name of defense-in-depth.
18              DR. KRESS:    Defense-in-depth is not really 19    quantified and you can't say, you can't put a number on 20    sufficiency, whereas margins I think you can.
21              MR. HOLAHAN:    Well, I think maybe we should talk 22    about this one, because I think the industry is also 23    concerned about this.
24              In my mind-I think of defense-in-depth in two 25  - ways, that is levels of defense-in-depth and whether those ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Rep-rters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
66 1 are functions or physical barriers, there should always be
()    2 3
multiple barriers.
Now the height of those barriers it seems to me is 4 a different question -- you know, how much mitigation' how    ,
5 strong a containment, how good emergency preparedness.
6            I think those are things you are willing to                  t 7 change. I think we talked about this a year ago.
I        8            I think what this principle says is there will 9 always be prevention, there will always be mitigation, there 10 will always be some sort of appropriate containment or 11 fission product retention. There will always be some level 12 of emergency preparedness.
13            To me it doesn't say any more than that.        It says 14 you are committed to a multi-layer, multi-functional 15 approach.
16            Each of those barriers may change. Maybe tomorrow 17 two diesels are acceptable in place of what used to be 18 three, but that didn't change your defense-in-depth.              You 19 are still maintaining defense-in-depth, 20            Now if we need a better way of saying that, then I 21 am all for it.
22            DR. MILLER:  It seems to me it is telling you --
r      23 exactly.what you said. Some form of defense-in-depth is 24 always there. It doesn't tell you, if you have a core 25 damage frequency of 10 to the minus 9,.you still have to h
  ' #N' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington,- D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
67 1  have defense-in-depth -- but_it.might be quite a bit _less.
iA*      2-            DR. KRESS:    -- have to have a containment.
\_)
3            DR. S3 ALE:  But it has to be diverse.
4            DR. MILLER:    Or you might have to deal with 5  Westinghouse --
6            MR. HOLAHAN:    Well -- well -- well, there are some 7  10 to the minus 9 issues for which we don't have 8  defense-in-depth. I think if you look at our sub-bullets it 9  would acknowledge that.
10              Now I never object to the word " appropriate" -- so
      .11-  I mean appropriate defense-in-depth ~should be maintained, I 12    wouldn't object to that.
13              DR. MILLER:    We're talking about the words 14    " appropriate," " sufficient," " adequate" -- you'd put any of p
Q      15    those three in?
16              MR. KING:    Mark reminded me we didn't choose 17    " adequate" because of its connotation of adequate 18    protection. We just didn't want to get into a semantics 19    problem with that.
20              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    But what you are saying is 21  -that the principle of defense-in-depth is maintained.
22              DR. MILLER:    Yes. I like the way it is.
23              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Can you have a principle 24    that is -- that the principle of something has to be 25  maintained?
[\/
                                                                              ~
    )l                      ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250-I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
68 1              MR. HOLAHAN:  The principle of a principle?
                  /                                                                                    2              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Yes. Does it make sense?
h 3              MR. HOLAHAN:    No.
4            -CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Does it make sense to put 5  in Two the word " principle" --
6              MR. HOLAHAN:    No. You could do that but I don't 7  think it is any different from saying " philosophy" or 8  " approach" and I think Tom's reservation about that is it's 9  not philosophy that counts. It is equipment. It is the 10  plant that counts and what we are trying to preserve is --
11              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Wall, that is the problem.
12  If equipment is what counts and you say that that is 13  maintained, then you can change anything.
14              DR. FONTA"A:    No, not really. On page 8 of
                                                              )                                      15  Chapter 19 -- before you get to a point where you have the 16  bullets that are in 1061 it says " Preservation of multiple 17  barriers for radioactivity release" -- you have four bullets 18  here that I think even thought they are still qualitative 19    are pretty good.
20              One is that change does not result in a 21    significant increase in the existing challenges to the 22  integrity of the barriers -- good.
23              Probability of failure of each barrier is not 24  significantly changed by the proposal -- that's good.
25-            New or additional failure dependencies are not
[2
                                  \-
T                                                        ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 30C Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
                            "^%                  - ~ . _
69 11  introduced among. barriers -- blah, blah, blah -- that's n
2  good, (a) 3            The overall redundancy and diversity of barriers 4- is sufficient to be compatible with the risk acceptance 5  guidelines -- the fact that you_can't get too quantitative, 6  it looks like these four bullets are a pretty good 7  description of the barriers.
8            DR. FONTANA:    Then you go on with the bullets of 9  the more philosophical --
10              CHAIRMAN ~APOSTOLAKIS:    You know what I really 11  like, and maybe we can find a way of putting it here, on 12  page 11 of the guide there is a sentence that says it has 13  been and continues to be an effective way -- it refers to 14  defense in depth -- to account for uncertainties in m
k,)  15  equipment and human performance.      Can you find a way to put 16  that here?    Then I think it will be fine. Because that's 17  really what it is.
18              And now we cannot say that this is going to become 19  too long, because one is already three-and-a-half lines, 20              In other words, the fact that defense in depth is 21  a way to account for uncertainties, that's the important 22  thing.
23              DR  KRESS:    I maintain, George, that you would 24  have defense in depth if you had basically zero uncertainty.
25              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    I'm sorry, what?
73
;                        ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
^--)                            Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
70 1              DR. KRESS:    I think you would still have defense II
(>      2    in depth even if you had zero uncertainty.
3              CRAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    No, let's take the extreme
      .4    case, where everybody in the world agrees that Level 1 PRA 5    is perfect, perfect. We know how to calculate the core 6  damage frequency. And the result is 10 to the minus 6, and 7  we all believe it.
8              DR. MILLER:    And there's no uncertainty about it.
9              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    No. We all --
10              DR. MILLER:    Plus or minus zero.
11              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    It's great. It's like the 12  probability of getting three sixes when you .hrow seven 13  dice.
14              DR. MILLER:    Okay.
15              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Gkay?  It's a probability 16    that can be calculated and there is no doubt about it.
17              DR. KRESS:    Well, how did you get to the value of 18    that core damage frequency?
19              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    No, but let's say that 20  that's the case. I'm taking the extreme.
21              DR. KRESS:    But how did --
22              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Would I need the 23  containment?
24              DR. KRESS:    How did the design and operations 25  ' system arrive at that core damage frequency?      By a diversity I                      ANN RILEY &. ASSOCIATES, LTD.
[l
\--
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
                                                          >S.'
71        l 1    and redundancy and training and :--
  -[n )
: 2.                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS: . Right,
: 3-                DR . KRESS : : Certain-things.
            ;4L                ' CHAIRMAN-APOSTOLAKIS: ' Right.
            'S                  DR,:KRESS:.'Those are defense in-depth, 6                CliAIRMAN-APOSTOLAKIS:          Right. But would I:need a-
: 7.  ~ containment, though?        That's'my question.
            '8                  DR. KRESS:      Perhaps-to figure out what that CDF 9  _w as ;
          .-10 L                DR. FONTANA:      If.the.CDF --
Ell-                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:          10 to the minus 8.
                                              ~
12                  DR.-FONTANA: -Yes, wait a minute, depends on 13    whether it leads to a LERF.          Yes, it does. You can have, 14    you_know, it's the LERF4 that's going to affect a risk to the
      >R V      15  -public.
L          16                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:          Okay. Fine. That is also 17  ~ low, and no uncertainty.
18                  DR. KRESS:      CDF could be a LERF if you had no 21 9  _ containment.
20                  CHAIRMkd APOSTOLAKIS:          See, my point is that the 21    -fundamental reason for defense in depth is uncertainty of 22      all kinds, especially incompleteness and model uncertainty.
23                  DR. KRESS:        Well, it's certainly a big driver
: 24. there.
25                  DR. MILLER:        Put_it this way - I think if we were b_^w d ANN RILEY &' ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250'I' Street, N.W., Suite 300
.                                    . Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
  ~      m._    _    _ _ _ .              _._.. . .      . , _ .            . . . _ . ~ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ .                                      _ _ . _
a a
_72                  ?
                                                                                                ~
                      -l'    :able-.toldo exactly'what you said we were, going to do, that's j2    ICDF1withnio uncertainty,Lbi.ih_ blah-blah,--we'd changeIthe=
              +      :3+    -principle then.                                                                                                                                .;
4                            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:-                            Yes.- That's.my. point.          -
Sc'
:5      why' don't:we say that the; principle-is_needed-as a:means of.                                                                                  f 6    : handling uncertainty.
72                          DR.-MILLER:                      Because there's: always going to:be                                                ]
                      .'8    uncertainty.-_Why'even say that.                                            I think the way it is --                                            ,
CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:-                          Because this is misleading, c;          ,
                    ' 10      that's why.-
:-11c                              DR. MILLER:                    No , I don't think it is.
12                              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                            I don't like-this.
13 :.                          _ DR. MILLER:                    Well --
14                              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                          Defense in depth is
_15        maintained is misleading, esricially if you interpret _it the 16      way Tom is said'to be interpreting it.                                                        But it refers to 17      hardware.- Then I don't like it at all, because I can see 18      somebody shying for me defense in depth is having the three                                                                                      .
19      diesels --
                  ' 20                              DR.-MILLER:                    Um-hum.                                                                                  1 21                              CHAIRMAN.APOSTOLAKIS:                          And doing this and doing i                  - 22        that.        The principle says maintain it, I'm sorry, I can't t=                  23 -      touch-it.-              I-can't change anything,:because I have to-3 24        maintainsit.
25-                              MR. HOLAHAN:                        The issue I'm --
ANN RILEY-& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court: Reporters
                                                        -1250 I Street,-N.W.,- Suite 300-                                                                                      '
                                                                - Washington,-D.C. 20005'
                                                                          .(202) 842-0034-w                        Ie.,._- .N's              r----gm-.  , , , , , , -    ,,,,,,,    m    , . - - - . - , - - - ..9e.,4, s g ....,,,      -    , e.,,
: r. . ,_ -.    . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ - . _          . . . . _ . . _ . -        .      _ _ _        _ _ ._. _ _ _ - . _ . _
:73 1                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                          That's'not the intent. 'The 2=        intent.-i~s-notlnot to touch the hardware.-
                                                                                                                    ~
                -3                        MR. HOLAHAN:              The issue'I'm sensitive to.I.think; 4        came up at our workshop, and that is at least one and maybe 5'        more than one person said-this will be everybody's excuse
                $3        for-not wanting to change.
7                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                          And ths.i's why --
8                      MR. HOLAMAN:              My -- you know, my piece.of the pie                                            ?
9        is defense'in depth, And it doesn't matter if it's real low.
10          and everything else, I'm not going to change.
              .11                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                          That's what has bothered me 12          from: day 1.
13                        MR. KING:              And that's why we put a --
14                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                          It's'a license to kill.
        )    15.                      MR. KING:                But that's why we put                  --
16                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                          Even though it's not 002, 17                        MR. KING:                That's why we tried to define under the 18          defense-in-depth paragraph --
19                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                          I know, Tom, I know.
20                        MR. KING:                You know, the fact that you can change 21          things.
12 2                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                            What I'm saying is -- and I 23          fully appreciate that.                  I.really agree with the discussion, 24-          My complaint -- complaint, if you can call it complaint --
25          why don't we try to make-two, _to-change the words or add a l
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
l l.'u( /                                                      Court Reporters.
1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034                                                                      ,
 
        +.  -- -.                  .  ..  - - . .          .      . . , . -          .. - . . . ~ - - . - .                    - . - . . . -
4 74                  i 1        . word'or two-to'make it more: consistent =with what-you:say in-
:E2 1        the: text,ywhichiI:1believe?
          *              ~
3;    -----              --DR'.E KRESS :- ::Youl would like- to- say? suf ficient-; -
j 4:      Lbefore:- -                                                                                                    }
56-                        MR. HOLAHANf -My problem with that is-when you say                                          ;
2 6 ---    -sufficient 11t gives-_ defense in depth a quantitative
                                                                                                                    ----it-                    !
7_- -    Limplies al quantitative aspect to it, which'I thirk is1 wrong.                                              -j 8'                          CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:            Right.                                                    ,
9                          DR. SEALE:    I think what we.-                      .our problem here is E
                  ~' 10            that we want to be sure that -- now I'll use the word to-(11          . define-the word -- that the principle of defense in depth is z i2            maintained,-but the vehicle by-which you lead it is 13-            negotiable.        Why don't_we say diversity in uefense_in depth;                                        ,
14            is-maintained?
115                              CHAIRMAN.APOSTOLAKIS:            Because defense in depth is.
16            not always diversity, is it' DR. SEALE:    Oh,_yes.        Part_of the principle is.
18:                            MR. KING:    Not always.
19                            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:            Not alt'vs.
20                          .MR. HOLAHAN:      Well, that probab.r -- it depends on 21-            what you mean by diversity.
: 22.                        -DR. SEALE: .Well, that means a full scope, things 23"            like the training program and so forth.
                  "24                            DR. MILLER:    ILthink because we're having this
:25-            debate,-I think that. principle 2 is what we should stick to.
ANN-RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters-l                                                      1250:I~ Street,.N.W., Suite 300 2        84    b3
 
:t 15
                                                                                                                                  ~
                .11      .Every time we're. going to deviate into a new word it'.s. going t 2)    -:to-say but,we have:another-however.
                -3                      CHAIRMAN-APOSTOLAKIS:: We are kind of late, f so-I r
4      . propose we take a break now and maybe people'will-think-                                                                        !
5      aboutlit.=                                                                                                                        '
6-                    - MR._ HOLAHAN:                          Okay.                                                                      l 7                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                    Okay?      We'll be back at 8-      10:05, 9                      [ Recess.)
10                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                    Okay, guys.
fill                    _MR. KING:                          All right.            We have -- we've caucused.
12-      We have a preposal to run-by you.
13-                    - CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                  So, we're back on record, 14        okay?. Yes.          Go ahead.                        I see it was easier for you to reach 15        your decision with Gary out of the loom.
16                      MR. KING:                        No, as soon as we reached a decision, 17        he left.
18                      What we propose is a rewording of 2.
19                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                    Okay.
20                      MR. KING:                        And it would read as follows.                The l21 proposed change is consistent with the defense-in-depth 22        philosophy.
23                      CRAIRMAN-APOSTOLAKIS:                                    They're willing to use that word-here?          I-thought                      --
1-25~                      MR.-KING:                        As long as we~put'is consistent.
  ,                                            ANN RILEYL& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
_ Court Reporters
                                              -1250-I. Street,- N.W., Suite 300
                                                            . Washington, D.C. 20005-i                                                                        (202) 842-0034 n
 
76 1                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:            Oh , okay.              I have -- you 2  kr.ow, that's fine with me.                I think it's great.
(G) 3                  MR. KING:    To me, that takes care of my problem.
4                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:            Okay.              Okay.
5                  MR. KING:    And then for consistency we're going to 6  propose a slight wording change in 3 as well, since 1 starts 7  off the proposed change, 2 will now start off the proposed 8 change.        We're going to make 3 start off and read like the 9 proposed change maintains sufficient safety margins.                                      So 10  they all --
11                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:            No. 2 reads the proposed 12  change is consistent with the defense-in-depth philosophy.
13                  MR. KING:      Yes.
14                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:            I think that's great.
      )        15                  MR. KING:    And 3 will now read the proposed change 16  maintains sufficient safety margins.
17                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:            Okay.
18                  MR. KING:    So they all follow the same wording 19    structure.
20                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:            The proposed change 21  maintains sufficient -- right?
22                  MR. KING:    Yes.
23                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:            Don, you have that?                    Tom?
24                  DR. KRESS:      Yes.
25                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:            Did you hear what they I                                    ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
    \/                                            Codrt Reporters 1250 I Street, N.F., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
77 l
1  propose?
()                              2 3
DR. KRESS:
CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:
No, what's the proposal?
To rephrase it, the 4  proposed change is consistent with the defense-in-depth 5  philosophy.
6                    DR. KRESS:                      I like that better.
7                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                      Yes. And they changed 3 to 8 make it consistent, the proposed change maintains sufficient 9  safety margins.
10                    DR. KRESS:                      That's very good.
11                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                        We're all happy.
12                    MR. KING:                      Good.
13                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                      That's all I wanted all 14  along.          I mean the change, not to be happy.
()                    15                      DR. KRESS:                      It doesn't taka much to make you 16  happy.
17                      MR. KING:                      The text then still follows right along 18  with that same wording.
19                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                    Wonderful.          Wonderful. Now 20  I think it's clear, and when people Xerox this to use in 21  their presentations, the message will be there.                                        Great.
22  Great.
23                      MR. HOLAHAN:                    Let the record show that one word of 24  Greek origin was added and that it was acceptable.
25                      CRAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                      Well, we will let the I                                                      ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
                        \2                                                                          Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
78 1  record show that.
O)
(      2            Anything else on 10?
.w/
3            DR. SEALE:    It's hard to imagine a sentence with 4  only one word of Greek origin.
5            MR. HOLAHAN:    But it was the necessary one.
6            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      Kyrie eleison.  ,
7            No. 5 bothers me a little bit.      It doesn't have-8  the aura of a principle, you know.      It's more like a 9- statement.
10            MR. PARRY:    And I haven't been lobbying you for 11  that, George.
12            MR. CUNNINGHAM:    He's been lobbying me for that.
13            MR. PARRY:    I think it's more of an expectation 14  than a --
O
( ,)  15            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS.      Yes, it says, you know, 16  perforinance-based implementation strategies are proposed 17  that address uncertainties.      I mean, that's a sentence that 18  belonha somewhere in page 10 or 11, just like the sentences 19  I read. It doesn't sound like a principio.
20            MR. HOLAHAN:    Actually it has two problems. Not 21  only is it sound,-but -- the sound of it -- but in effect 22  it's not a basic principle.      It is how the other principles 23  should be implemented.
24            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      That's right.
25            MR. HOLAHAN:    It's at a different level.
(%                      ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(
'--)                          Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
o 79 1          CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      That's right.
(q,]  '2          MR. HOLAHAN:      However, however, having been 3 lobbied on the subject and having thought about whether we-4 want the concept of performance base to show up at the 5 highest level or whether we want to_see it at a subsidiary 6 level in a document, I think the Commission's interest in 7 this is high enough that I think we need to advertise it 8 that --
9          CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      Okay.
10            MR. HOLAHAN:      A performance-based approach need, 11  you know, in some description I think belongs up in the 12  principles.
13            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      Okay. Performance-based 14  ieplementation and monitoring strategies are proposed -- not
()  15  proposed -- supplement  --
should supplement the proposed 16  change?  And leave it at that.      Don't say why that they have 17  to address uncertainties.      I mean, we didn't do that in the 18  other principles.
19            MR. KING:    Yes, I don't have a problem with that, 20  but I do think the concept of performance-based 21  implementation to me should stay at the principle --
22            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      Yes, that's what I said.
23            MR. HOLAHAN:      I'll tell you the problem I had. If
~
24  you look in the document, after the principles there's a 25  figure that shows integral decision snaking having these five
(                      ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
  \                            Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
80 1  parts to it.
  ,m
(\_,)    2            CRAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      Oh, okay.
3            MR. Holahan:      It's in the --
4            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      No, that figure is fine.
5            MR.-Holahan: -All right.      Ah, but that figure, the 6  performance-based implementation is on that figure because 7  it's one of the pripalples, and I think that figure, the 8  concept of integral decision making without the performance-9  element there doesn't make sense to me.
10            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      Well, in the figure the box 11  says implementation and monitoring strategies which address 12  uncertainties.
13            MR. Holahan:      Yes.
14            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS.      Why can't we find some 15  statement here that's similar to that?
l 16            MR. Holaha.-      We can find a shorter version.
17            CRAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      Yes, instead of saying, you i
18- know, in analysis models and data and blah blah, I mean --
19            DR. FONTANA:      Is this what you're trying to say, 20  something like implementation and monitoring of the change 21  is performance-based?      Is the change worth talking about?
22            MR. PARRY:      Yes. Yes.
23            DR. FONTANA:      Not all the analysis that would --
24            MR. PARRY:      Yes, the change.
25            DR. FONTANA:      Not all the analysis that went on
  ,/m ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(x >) .                            Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite SJO Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
3                                                  _
81-m  'l        before.the change.
2:                  MR. PARRYi- Right.
3                    CHAIRMAN'APOSTOLAKIS:          I think the message they
              -4        want to send, and-Isagree with it', is~that we -- you comply 5        with the-four principles, you propose a change, we accept it 6        and whatever, but we would like to see-a monitoring strategy 7      -there after that so-we'll all understand what wa did.                  And
              -8        that' monitoring strategy.should define some 9l      performance-based criteria.            That's essentially what you're
:10        saying.
711                    MR .7 HOLAHAN:        Yes.
12                    MR. KING:        Actually, if we wanted to the word --
13        the word structure the same as top four we could say 14        something along the lines the proposed change shall be
()    15        implemented using performance-based monitoring strategies, 16        period.
        ,    17                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:            Say it again, Tom?
18                    MR. KING:        The proposed change shall be 19        implemented using performance based monitoring strategies, a
20                    DR. MILLER:          That's clearer to me.
21                    CHAIRMAh APOSTOLAKIS:            The performance change will
:            22        be implemented.
23                    MR. KING:        Proposa.1 change.
i  >
12 4                  -CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:            Yes, would be --
25~                  MR. HOLAHAN:          Should.
; -                                    ~ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters
                                    ~1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300
                                          ' War ' 'ngton, D.C. 20005
    ~
ff                            (202)' 842-0034
 
82 1                                    CHAIMOW APOSTOLAKIS:              Should be implemented --
()    2 3
: t. hat doesn't quite make sense to me.
MR. HOLAHAN:          No, it's not the implemented.
4                                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKISi              It doesn't make sense. You 5  don't implement                          --
6                                    MR. HOLARAN:          Should be monitored.
7                                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              Should be monitored, using 8 performance-based criteria.
9                                    MR. KING:          Or measures.
10                                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              Yes, or measures. Yes, 11    measures.                          Yes. That makes cense.
12                                    MR. SHERRY:          The impact of the proposed change, 13                                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              That's actually right too.
14    Yes, yes.                        Yes.
15                                      DR. SEALE:          Should or shall?
16                                      CHAIRMAN APOSTO'.AKIS :            Should.
17                                      DR. SEALE:          Yeah, principles should not say shall.
18                                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              Yeah, principles should not 19        say shall.                      Yes, you're right.
20                                    No, you are using a Greek word, strategies.
21                                    MR. h0LAHAN:            Strategy.
22                                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              So it is fine.
23                                    MR. HOLAHAN:            Okay.
24                                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              I bope the Commission is 25        done reading the transcripts.
(                                              ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
83 l
1                      (Laughter.)
2                      MR. HOLAHAN:                                                                        They will put another Greek on this 3      area, that is for sure.
4                      MR. KING:                                                                        All right. I think --
5                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                                          So how does it read now, 6      Tom?
7                      MR. KING:                                                                        The proposed change should be monitored 8    using performance based strategies.
9                      DR. MILLER:                                                                        Impact, we left out the impact.      Put 10      the impact            --
11                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                                        No. No, no. The impact of 12      the proposed change should be monitored -- I thought you 13      were going to say uaing performance based measures rather 14      than strategics.                                                                            Oh, yeah, well, strategies is broader.
      )  15                      DR. MILLER:                                                                        Yeah.
16                      CHRIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                                          I don't have that view.
17      All right.                          I am happy.                                                      Do you really want -- no, I am not 10      happy.        Do you really want "i.e." in a principle?                                                                            In fact, 19      I would say the principle is the first seven words.                                                                                  The 20      proposed change meets the current regulations.                                                                                  Period.
21                      MR. HOIS".AN :                                                                      Well, it sends the wrong message.
22      It sends the meccage that we are not willing to change.
23                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                                        No, you explained it to me 24      earlier when I asked you.                                                                              You say that after you change it, 25      you still have to meec the regulations.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
84 1                                                          MR. llOLAHAN:      Yes. But remember your argument 2                                              about the Commissioner's taking these viewgraphs and using 3                                              them out of context.
4                                                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:        No, but this parenthesis, 5                                            though, I think is really -- I don't know, does anybody else 6                                            feel that way?      I mean you don't put "that is" in 7                                            principles.
8                                                    MR. KING:      It could be put in an expectation.                                  I 9                                          mean that wouldn't bother me.
10                                                                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS;        Oh, for sure, yeah.                                  No, I 11                                                    am not objecting to the message.          The message is important 12                                                  but I wonder whether it belongs here.
13                                                              MR. HOLAlmN :      Since we are accommodating other 14                                                    people, I would suggest that we are better off by taking out 15                                                  the "this principle applies" and just making it one 16                                                  sentence. The proposed change meets the current regulations 17                                                  unless it is explicitly related to a request for an 18                                                exemption or a rule change.
19                                                          CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:        Period.
20                                                          f tR . HOLAHAN:    Period.
21                                                          CIKIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:        Yes.
22                                                          MR. HOLAllAN :    That's fine. Fine.
23                                                          DR      MILLER:  So accepting this criteria on change, 24                                              George is happy.      We have finally made it.
25                                                          CllAIkMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      No, now we can --
AN!i RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Strent, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C, 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
i 85                    i 1                                  DR.-MILLER:    I thirk I agree, that's --                                                                l 2                                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:            We have a nice set of                                                  l
[
3            principles,                                                                                                                    t 4                                  MR. KING:    Now, we have changed all five i
5            principles.              Okay.
6                                    (Laughter.)                                                                                              j l
7-                                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:            The wording, the wording.                                              ,
8            But we always said that.                    We have said that all along, you                                                  f 9            know,'we should worry PSaut details.                          And now the time has 10_              come to actually worry about details.                                                                                        ;
            '11                                    So unless anyone has an objection, we can proceed                                                        ;
12                to 11.
13                                    DR. SEALE:    Do you want to talk about                                                                  #
14              expectations?                                                                                                                  ,
15'                                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:            Is that what 11 is?
16                                    MR. CUNNINGHAM:          No. I have, this is a slide --                                              !
r 17                                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:            Yeah, I have a question.
18              If you all go to page 7 of the guide.
19                                    MR. CUNNINGHAM:          What I did was this is a slide 20              that -- do you want me to ask this question?
21                                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:            No, go ahead.                    This is the P
                                                                                                                                                              ^
22              same note as here?
23                                    MR. CUNNINGHAM:          This is the list of expectations 24              that-are contained on page 7.-                                                                                                i n
25                                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:            Okay.      So-they are on page i
ANN-RILEY &~ ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters L                                                      1250 I Street, N.W., Suite _300 L                                                            Washington, D.C. 20005 l.
(202) 842-0034                                                                              ,
 
i i
86                ,
7.-'Okay.                No , I think we mentioned it earlier.                                  The third                    i
()                      2 3-bullet says, " Metrics for the probabalistic acceptance guidelines will be core damage frequency and large early 4  release frequency."                        And one comment we got was how about 5 someone does a Level 3 PRA, and, in fact, the QHO's of the                                                                      [
6  Commission.                    There was, I demonstrated that I meet the                                                      l 7  QHO's,1 You_will force me tx) go back to core damage                                                                            !
i 8  frequency and large early release.
9                        Now, you said something to the effect that you are                                                      ;
10      not addressing it today.
11-                          MR. CUNNINGHAM:            The guide issue -- one of the                                                  ;
12-    comments we received was-just this comment.                                                  It said the 13_    guide as it is today doesn't, we haven't reflected yet on                                                                      :
14      what we do to change the guide to deal with that.
()
15                            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                      But you will?
16                            MR. CUNNINGHAM:            Well, I think this is a good time
!                    17      to talk about it.
18                            CHAIRMAN APOST0LAKIS:                    Okay.      So, but your intent                                i 19      is to do this before the December 31st deadline?
20                            MR. CUNNINGHAM:            Yes, that's right.
21                            CRAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                      It is not something for --
22                            MR. CUNNINGHAM:            And I think we recognize that 23      just what you are getting at here is a legitimate issue.                                                      If l
L                -24        somebody has a full Level 3 PRA, makes comparisons with the 25      safety goals, should we have to take -- do we want to always l
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005                                                                    i (202) 842-0034
 
87                  l 1                to take them back to LERF?                                                                                                        l
()          2 3
MR. HOLAHAN:
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Well, -
We haven't discussed it fully i
i 4                here within the staff.
5'                            MR. HOLAHAN:                          I think there are some complications G                with that.        Clearly, we still think-that core damage                                                                      i 7                frequency is important.                              Okay.              So I can imagine it being                                !
8                core damage frequency and QHO's in place of LERF, but I                                                                          !
9                don't imagine QHO's in place of both core damage frequency                                                                        }
10                  and LERF.                                                                                                                        !
11                              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                          In essence, Gary, you are 12                  saying that the core damage frequency is a fundamental' goal.
13                'That's what you are-saying.
14                              MR. HOLAHAN:                          It is at least a principle.                    Call it
    )    15                  a fundamental principle.
16                              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                          Why are you trying to tell                            ;
17                  me that you are not saying that?
18                              MR. HOLAHAN:                          Because I want to make a distinction 19                  between two fundamental things that we want to do.                                              We want                          ,
t 20                  to prevent core-damage and we want to prevent health effects                                                                      !
:21                  to people.                                                                                                                        '
22                              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                          Yes,                                                  t 23                              MR. HOLAHAN:                        Okay.              And I don't want to equate
        -24                  those two.        Health effects is more important than preventing 25                  core damage.
-~                                                                                                                                                            i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(~-}                                                              Court' Reporters _                                                                          i 1250 I Street, N.W.,_ Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
l 88          i 1                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS _-Okay.                                                            !
        '2                        MR. HOLAHAN:                          'Okay.                                          ;
(
3                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                          But what is the -- you see,              j 4  in' decision analyuis, th1y talk about, they make a                                                          ;
5  distinction between fundamental objectives and means                                                          !
6  objectives.
7                        A means objective, obviously, is something that is                                      ,
8  on thu          ay to meet!.ng a fundamental objective.                            And the
        -9  fundamental object.ives should not overlap too much.                                                          1 10L                        In other words, if you take one out, then you are 11-  leaving something - _you-have a hole. .Okay.                                      You have a 12  hole.
13                        Okay.                So in every decision problem, you want to                          )
14  meet, to satisfy your fundamental objectives.
()  15                        In reactors, core damage frequency is something 16  you calculate on your way to-the fundamental objectives, the 17  OHO's.          You have to do that.
18                        A similar problem exists in environmental 19-  restoration with water contamination, ground water 20  _ contamination.                      A lot of people worry about ground water 21  contamination, but the counter-argument is, look, in order 22  to calculate risk, you have to estimate, you know, by how 23  much the water is-contaminated, because people drink the 24  water.
25                        The question is now is that a fundamental                                                ,
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Ob-Court Reporters -
_1250 I Street, N.W.,                      Suite 300 1.
Washington, D.C. 20005
                                                              -(202) 842-0034
 
_-          _    - _ . ~ . .        .- . .-      _. _          _    -          _ _ _ _ . .._ _ _ __
t 89 1                objective?          In California, it is.              The law in California is
()    2 3
I don't care about the risk, water has to be clean, ground water has to be clean.                      So they have elevated it to the.                    !
4                fundamental level.
5                                  It seems to me we are acting also as if the CDP 6                were a fundamental goal.                      Now, Gary wants to make a 7                distinction between the CDF and the OHO's, and, say, gee, 8                the QHO's are really more important.                        And I don't know that 9                -- well, first of all, would that make any practical                                            ,
10                difference?
11                                  MR. HOLAHAN:              No.                                                  '
12                                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                No.
13                                  MR. HOLAHAN:              I don't think so.
14                                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                It would not.      So if we 15                said the CDP, maintaining the CDF estimate below a certain 16                value is a fundamental goal of this agency, we are not l      17                really changing the way we are doing business already.                                    Is 18                that correct?
19                                  MR. KING:            I don't think it would change anything                    i 20                in this guide.
21                                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                Or anywhere else.
22                Remember, it is a goal.
I      23                                  MR. HOLARAN:              Yeah.
24                                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                You can still be above it.
25                But--it is a fundamental goal.                    In other words, it is not ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
l (/~s) j i  -
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite              300 t
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
90          l 5
1    something that is derivable from the QHO's and Rick Sherry                                                                                                {
()              2 3
has shown to us that it is really stricter than that.
MR            KING:          Yes.                                                                                                      j 4                    MR. HOLAHAN:                            .Yes.
5                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                              And we all agreed.                          I don't 6    remember anybody disagreeing, saying, gee, this is too                                                                                                      .
7    strict.      We all said 10 the minus 4 really makes sense per                                                                                            j i
8    year.                                                                                                                                                      t 9                    So it seems to me that, de facto, it is a                                                                                                  !
                .10    fundamental goal, but there is a reluctance to recognize it.
              -11      And the industry probably feels that if we call it a                                                                                                      f 12    fundamental goal, then all sorts of new requirements will                                                                                                  .
13    . spring up.            And I don't see that, because it is already                                                                                        l 14    being used as a fundamental goal.                                                    There are no new 15    requirements from this.
16                    MR. KING:                      I think there is a concern -- I think                                                                        !
17    most of the plants meet the QHO's.                                                    It is clear that not all                                            j 18    the plants meet the CDF, 19                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                That  - -
20                    MR. KING:                    I think there is a concern if you 21    elevate it to the level of a QHO.
              -22                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                Dr. Powers has a problem-                                              ;
: 23. with that.              He is not convinced that this popular statement, that all the plants meet-the QHO's is correct.                                                                    He,-for two                            l H25      main reasons,-and I got the memo from him, that is why I am                                                                                                >
'I l                                            ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
[I
  '~-                                                          Court Reporters l
1250 I Street,. N.W.,. Suite 300                                                                                                  1 Washington, D.C.-20005                                                                                                    '
(202) 842-0034                                                                                                  ,
      +,w,' .-              .,.m_,,,  ,,,..e_,...w.,      ...r,  .,,,...,.__,,_,-.,_,,,,_yy., _ , , , . ,        .,,_,-e    ._.,_,w,,,,      ,,-m,                ,m  .y. . ,.p.
 
      .      -.        -  ,_ ~  -  -                  ..-      - -.          . _ - . - - - . - --
91 1  speaking up. Obviously, we have to listen to him.
()  2 3
The two reasons are, first of all, you know, shut down the low power.      I have heard it a lot.
But also he 4  feels that the tools that people use to do a Level 3 PRA are 5  not good enough, dispersion models and so on.                                So for these 6  two main reasons, he says that he remains to be convinced 7  that the plants actually meet the QHO's.
8              Although I think you are right, most people feel 9  that the plants do meet the QHO's, but --
10              MR. KING:      Even if some don't, I think you are                                            ,
11  going to find more that don't meet the CDP than don't meet 12  the QHO's.
13              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                      That is correct.                    And the 14  IPE's have clearly shown that to us.
() 15              MR. KING:      And I think there is some concern as to 16  what does that mean.
17              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                      Well, in practical terms, 18  again, I don't think that you guys took any action to force 19  anybody to go below the 10 to the minus 4, right?                                        You 20  didn't do anything like that.                  You just said, well, it is a 21  fact of life, we'll think about it.                      Because it is a goal.
22  Right?
23              MR. HOLAHAN:        Right.
24              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKISi                      So as a practical matter, 25  there was no change.        Then you have the perception, and that
,                      ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters                                                                  +
1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300                                                              i Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
92        i 1  is a legitimate concern.                  That, you know, the perception                                                                '
()                                2 3
that we have a goal and we violate it, and the goal is fundamental,
[
4              Well, again, I don't know that that is important 5    enough to -- I would like, I would rather call things the 6    way they are. And it seems to me that the large majority of 7    analysts and practitioners, and so on, view the core damage                                                                            1 8  frequency as a fundamental goal.                                                                  We want to prevent that 9    event.
10                        DR. FONTANA:      Yeah, but for, probably for 11              different reasons.      For investment protection, certainly.
12                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                                  That's right.
13                          DR. FONTANA:      And the fact that if you don't get 14 -              core 6amage, you are not going to get the rest of the chain 15                going on.
16                          The problem would really be elevating it to a 17                fundamental goal, it doesn't allow you to trade off at all 18                for containment. For example, take a BWR where the core 19                --where the ability to cool a core is better, but the 20                containment isn't quite as good.                                                                  I am talking about Mark 21                wants.
22                          CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                                  But you have some 23                flexibility, don't you?
24                            DR. FONTANA:      Yeah, but if you -- you know, if you 25                take that to a fundamental goal, and you say there is no way O'
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C, 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
                                  ..          __ ~                  _ _ _ _ .      . _ _ . _ _        _ _ _ . . _ _                  _ . . _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _
i 93                              j 1- I am ever going to exceed it,-then, you know, it' knocks.out-                                                                                                          l
()                    2 3.
some flexibility.
CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAK!S                      Why?            I don't see.
o 4                            DR. FONTANA:                  I think the de facto thing that you
                          -5    are doing is probably-better.                                                                                                                                          ;
6                            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                    No, because -- because                                                                              !
7  people-come back and say, gee, you now, 10 to the minus 3 is                                                                                                          ,
8  really what the goal should be, because that is what you 9  derive when you work backwards from the QHO's.                                                    And it_seems                                                        ;
11 0      to be 10 to the minus 3 is an absolute criteria.                                                        It is one-11      of the few cases where I really-don't want to see anything 12      coming close to that.                                It is not a-goal anymore.                        I am 13      sorry, it is not.                              And 1.1 10 to the minus 3, yes, it makes 14      a difference, it does.
()              15                                So, I want to take that argument away and I want 16      to send a clear message that 10 to the minus 4 is something                                                                                                            ,
17      that we should strive to achieve, we should be striving to 18      achieve.                And if you are above the goal, you had better 19      start thinking about it.                                    You know, we are not going to 20      force you to do anything at this point anyway.                                                    But to start 21      thinking about it.
22                              DR. FONTANA:                    Isn't that what they are dcing?
23                              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                      Yeah, that's what I am 24      saying._          Let's_ recognize that and say, yes, it is a 25      fundamental goal.
l                                                                                                                                                                                                      .-
1 O
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 I
Washington,-D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034                                                                                                      ,
  .-.    , ,v,, - - . , , , -
                                        ,~<.<<,,-._--..mm-mmm___-._                                      __,--_%-.      ~...,-.m.  .......+_L..            - . . . , . - . - . - - - - - , . . , - ,
 
94 1                  And I don't think the perception, I can grant you, 2:      I will grant you that there may be-an-issue with
[C) 3        perceptions. But I don't think it-is strong enough to 4        prevent us from calling it what it is, and we can work on 5        this. I mean we can try to change perceptions.          It is a 6        goal.
      '7                  New, for 20 years we have been saying that a lot 8-      of people don't make a distinction between a goal and a-9-      criteria. I don't know, does it take 300 years for people 10        to start-doing that?-
11                  DR. FONTANA:    2000.
12                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    2000.
13                  DR- FONTANA:
                              .            2000.
14                  MR. KTNG:    We are going to talk about this at
    / 15        1:30, 16                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    I know.
17                  MR. KING:    I have got some pros and cons.
18                  Maybe getting back to your question, what do we 19        want to say about Level 3 information or Level 3 metrics?
20                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    See, that's my point.          If 21        you don't raise the CDF to t.he fundamental level, then I 22        think it is a legitimate argument that bullet 3 can be 23        dropped, if I show to you my Level 3 results and they meet 24        the QHO's. You have no right to check my CDP.
25                  MR. KING:  -I don't agree with you there.
()                            ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
                                                                                                .                                                                                95 1                          CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                              But that's my point.                        De
()          2 3
facto,- you have already elevated it.
MR. KING:                          Yeah, de facto, we have.                                                We have got l
4  -- in some places.
5-                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                              So, why don't we call-it 6- what it is?_ So bullet 3 then makes perfect sense.                                                                                                  Maybe                j i
7  re-word it a little bit, but it makes perfect sense.
,                8                          MR.. CUNNINGHAM:                                      But if we kind of say, in                                                                    !
9  practice, at least, if not -- we are making core damage 10  frequency fundamental.                                            The question then becomes can we 11  somehow have a relation -- establish that in lieu of LERF, 12  somebody could use a Level 3 OHO comparison, is that-the 13  tradeoff that we are willing to --
14                          CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                            That could -- I hadn't
;              15  really thought about it, but I can see that happening, yes.
16                          MR. CUNNINGHAM:                                      That was more of an issue that 17  came up in terms of public comment and things.
18                          CHAIRMAN APOS*0LAKIS:                                                            Yes.              And you are footnote 19  No.      4,        which you don't have there, says there is a
                                                                                                                                                                                                ^
20  superscript 4 after LERF, in parentheses.                                                                                      It says, "In this 21  context, LERF is being used a surrogate for the early 22  fatalities OHO's.                                      That is consistent with what you just 23  said.                                                                                                                                                                      ,
24                          MR. CUNNINGHAM:                                      Yeah.
25                          CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                              If you show me the OHO I
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
O-Court Reporters                                                                                                  ,
1250 I' Street, N.W.,                                                    Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034                                                                                                  ,
      ,.-en e-. c      - , , -    ,m.----,2-  r,-  m---~---4.r-.y-m-,--          m. r    ,-r-evm,wy.w,,,n.n-mer,-.,,,,-,..,e----.---w-,..---.4%                      =-w-    - ,    - , ,-,y
 
                      ,              . . . . . ~    ~ . ._    . - .    . _ -                            .-
1 96          i 1    itself, then I don't need the surrogate.                    But the'CDF I                  l
  /      \        2  -still look it.                                                                              '
  \s,/
3'                  MR. CUNNINGHAM:              Well,- yes, that right. Leaving              l 1
4    the CDF aside-for the-moment, I guess --                                                  l 5                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                Yeah.                              -f 6                  MR. CUNNINGHAM: ~I-don't have any particular                                ,
i                                                                                                                  2 problem with saying, in the expectations and throughout the                                !
7-8    document, to say, in-lieu of a LERF, if you want to show us                                l
                                                                                                                  -l 9    a comparison with the QHO's for your site, your plant and                                  :
10    your site.                                                                                f l
{
11                    MR. KING:            I would propose an alternative.                        !
12                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKISi- Because otherwise, we are                          l 13      really saying the OHO's-are uselessLcompletely. _And I am                                  f n14      not wiling to say that,                                                                    !
(              15                    MR. KING:            No,~I.would propose that we keep the 16      LERP because we also have direction from the Commission to                                ,
17    decouple sites from plant design.
18                    DR. KRESS:            And-this is a very neat way to do                    i 19    that.
* 20                    MR. KING:            And I would propose you use the QHO 21      information.            If you are getting into a situation where                        '
22    there is some question-as to whether your LERP meets the                                    f 23    acceptance guidelines, perhaps you could use some OHO t'
24      information to show that you have a lot of margin.                      But I i
              '25    -wouldn't do-away with LERF.
e c                                                                                                                  :
i [                                              ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.                                      f'
;                                                          Court Reporters _
                                            '1250-I Street,-N.W., Suite 300                                        .
Washington, D.C. 20005                                        }
o (202)'842-0034 l                                _
l                            -.  .
 
97 1                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    There is something wrong 2              with an argument that says here is a surrogate criterion, a 3              surrogate for something else.      But if you go and work with 4              that something else directly, I don't accept that.      There is 5              something with that wrong with that argument.                        ,
6                        MR. KING:    Because e. hat something else then allows    i 7              you to factor in the fact that maybe you are a remote site 8              and you can get away with a lot less mitigation than you 9              could if you stuck with a fixed L3RF criteria.
10                                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Wait a minute now. The 11                      QHO's are in terms of individual risk.
12                                _MR. K;'NG:  But they factor in.
13                                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    So how many people you have 14                      around is irrelevant. Just consider a guy at the boundary, 15                      and you calculate the risk.      So whether you are in the 16                      middle of a desert or in the middle of a city is really 17                      irrelevant. Is it not, Rick?
18                                  DR. KRESS:    No, no.
19                                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    No?
20                                  MR. KING:  The meteorology comes into play.
21                                  DR. KRESS:    Yeah, the population and meteorology.
22                                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Oh, the meteorology is 23                        different.
24                                  MR. KING:  The emergency planning scenario comes 25                        into play. With a remote site, where there aren't many I
  .b V
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters l-                                                        1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300
                                                              """"M ";di '
L
 
l 98                J i
i              people,'can you can evacuate quickly.                                                                                                                1 2                            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKISr                                    Emergency planning for 3                individual risk?                                                                                                                                      j i
: 4.                            DR        KRESS:- Yes.
5                            MR. KING: ~It comes into play in the calculations.                                                                                      j G                            DR. KRESS:                    It is individual out to one mile.                                                                          I i
7                            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                    You divide.                                                                    j 8                            DR. KRESS:                    And then you divide.
                                                                                                                                                                                  ^
9                            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                    Which is really not i
10              -individual risk, t
11                            ' DR.-KRESS:                  Well, it is --
12                              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                    It is normalized societal                                                      ,
13                risk.
14                              DR. KRESS:                    It is the way it is defined, yes.
()      15                              MR. KING:                  It's an average.
16                              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                    Isn't it normalized i
17                societal risk?                                                                                                                                        [
18                              DR. KRESS:                  You're right.                              You're exactly right.                                          i 19                              MR. CUNNINGHAM:                              But the oho's are put in terms of 20              average individual early fatality risk.
21                              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                    Average, in what sense?
22              You take the population, you divide by the population.                                                                                                  f 23                            MR. KING:                  Dana Powers' concern is you go get a                                                                          !
24              - lot-of uncertainty when you are going out and-trying to 25              _ calculate what is'really happening off-site.
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.                                                                                                      !
                                                                - Court Reporters                                                                                                  l 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite.300                                                                                                      [
Washington, D.C. 20005                                                                                                    *
(202) 842-0034                                                                                                i t
or  -
w    4  , -        'Mrym,                    v      e  w    h-e-----vr-+--Fes-  -t--ri--.N-ae+v-    ~'r+-e    tv+=-N'='w"p ' WW'r e-1*Tv' ve'-  *-'+w -
                                                                                                                                                                            -'wr-
 
        -        .  . _ _ . . _ .                _.                . . _ _ . -    __..m    __        _ _ _ .. _ _ _ _ _ .
i 99 1-                          CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                            What?                                                    ;
()          2 3
MR. KING:              And do you want to take something that-has got a lot of uncertainty in the calculation and use that                                                                    j 4    in place of LERF, which has less uncertainty.                                                  And that                            i i
5    bothers me,                                                                                                                        i 6                            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                            We have a figure made that                                ,
7    has (thades of gray.                            If you choose to work with the QHO's, 8    then you chose that route.                                      Expect questions.              Did you get                      l 9    expression well?                  Did you do this well?                            Did you do that 10      well?          But-I will not prevent you, as a matter of principle,                                                              !
11      from doing~that.                    Ii think there is a difference.
_12_                              MR. CUNNINGHAM:                      Another approach to that was, in 13      the increased -- in the management attention area, one thing                                                                      .
          '14      we have talked about is putting that in as a factor that                                                                          !
()      15      could be coming into play.                                      That you give us your QHO                                          g 16      information and if you have, in fact, 7 very good site or 17      something like that, that could be a factor that management 18      would bring to the table to consider.
19                            MR. KING:                I don't mind OHO's as an additional
            '20      factor but I wouldn't throw away LERP and substitute OHO's.                                                                        :
21                            DR. KRESS:                I tell you, I have sort of an inverse 22      problem with this, George.                                      And it goes something like this.
23      If I were going to fully ~ decouple siting from design and 124 ~    focus on design issues only, I would have probably opted to 25      define my criteria in tenns of the CDF and a conditional
()                                          ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W. , : Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005                                                                            :*
.                                                              .(202) 842-0034
                                                                                                                                                        ~
l L                                                                                                                                                      :
      - - - . .                      . _ . . -      . . , - . . - .              .-      = . . . - . - . -                . . - . . - - - - . -
 
f 100 1  containment failure criteria.                                                                                                                              ,
()                  2                              Now, had I put those two as my criteria, we wouldn't be having this argument.                                                            The argument we would be 3
i 4  having is, oh, you have redefined the safety goals.                                                                                  Then I                !
5  would have said, yes, I have, but what I have done is 6  circumvented all this probli a and focused on the things I                                                                                                  i 7  can deal with mostly.                                          And I actually, at the start of this 8  exercise, was going down that route, that the criteria ought 9  to be containment failure criteria and CDF, 10                                DR. FONTANA:                          How 13 that different than LERF?
11                                DR. KRESS:                        It is a lot different that LERP                                                              ,
12    because, basically, you back the LERP off from the QHO, 13  With CDP, you calculate from the other end.
14                                DR. FONTANA:                          It's just what direction you came
()              15    from, but CDF --
16                                DR, KRESS:                        No, no, no.                  No, you can meet the 17    LERP.          You can meet the LERF with the 10 to the minus 7 or 18    10 to the minus 6 CDP.                                            You can't both the conditional 19    containment failure criteria and a CDF, 20                                DR. FONTANA:                          Yeah, but it seems they should come, 21    that the LERP has got to be some function of the core damage 22    frequency and the containment capability.                                                                            Got to be.
2'                                DR. KRESS:                        Well, sure they are related, but what 24    I am saying, if I elevate conditional containment failure 25    probability to a fundamental thing too, then you no longer ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Strect, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
101 1              meet that by just strictly a CDF of 10 to the minus 6.                      You
()                      2-            have, still have to'have your containment there, and it has to be so good.
3 4                                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      That was -- yeah, the CDP                        j S'            is too low, you can still meet the LERP criteria.                                                    f t
6                                      DR.-FONTANA:    Yeah, that's what I was saying                              i 7-            before.
8                                      DR. KRESS:    That's why I was saying it is an 9              inverse problem.                                                                                    !
l 10                                        MR. KING:    But that introduces other problems, il                conditional containment failure problems.                                                            !
12                                        DR. KRESS:    Oh, it introduces --                                          i 13                                        MR. KING:    More than just the CD and safety goals.
14                                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      How about this?  I think we
              )            15                can take care of a lot of these concerns if we combine this                                          !
16                with the principle of defense in-depth.                    Because -- I mean                        :
17-              if your stated policy is that the risk due to reactors-has                                          +
18                to be less than one-tenth of 1 percent, blah, blah, and l
19-                somebody works against that, I mean you can't say, no, you f
12 0            -really have not convinced me.                      There must be something-else 21                that is forcing you to say that.                    And that something else                        i 22                perhaps is defense in-depth,                                                                        t 23-                                        Say, okay. You met the OHO's. Now,-principle No.-
24                2_was that the proposed change must maintain defense
                                            ~
25-in-depth.
i ANN RILEY_& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
O-L                                                                              _--Court-Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,. Suite 300                                          l Washington, D.C. 20005 (202)-842-0034
 
102 1                        DR. KRESS:              And that very well could be my
()    2 3
conditional containment failure criteria versus CDF.
CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                      It could be that, or it                          l 4        could be something else.                        Yeah.        However, the core damage 5        ;requency does not follow from the defense in-depth 6        principle, that is why it has to be elevated.                                          But 7        everything else follows.
8                          Because the value you have accepted for LERF, 9        really can be calculated roughly by working backwards.
10        Right?        So, you know, you have more flexibility there, it 11        Deens to me, 12                          With the CDF, you don't.                              Because if you limit it 13        only to OHO's, and somebody has a 7 times to the minus 4 14        CDF, and has some reasonable probability for containment or
()    15        whatever, they can say, look, I meet the QHO's, I have 16        defense in-depth, leave me alone.
17                          Why do I have defense in-depth?                                  Because, look, 18        the OHO's, you know, they come from the combination of 19        failures.          Right.              And th? probabilities are reasonably 1
20        distribute <t.
21                          Bu*. you say, no, that is not enough, I really want 22        your CDP to De 10 to the minus 4, or I want you to try to 23        make it that way.
24                          Co the combination of QHO satisfaction, but CD 25        --plus defense in-depth does not help me when it comes to l
  / \                                    ANh' RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
  \/                                                      Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Waehington, D.C, 2000.c (202) 042-0034
 
c 103                    ,
e 1          the CDP.                But it helps me with everything olse.
()                2 3          argument.
MR. KING:        I am not sure I am following your total                                                                                        j 4                                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                    You said earlier that what 5-          concerns you is LERP itself.                                          Right?              That even if somebody                                                          ;
6          meets the QHO's, you have a problem with that because of the                                                                                                            j 7          uncertainties, right?                                                                                                                                                    j 8                                  MR. KING:      Uncertainties and'the fact --
9                                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                    And the Coramission also 10          told you not to tie too much --
11                                  MR. KING:      The fact that you can start trading off 12          remote sites for containment.
13                                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                    Trading off.                Okay.
14                                  MR. HOLAMAN:" And-I think there are additional                                                                                                  :
      )            15          issues.
16                                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                    Right. ~ But, and what I am 17          saying is that, given these issues, and given that you have 18          a principle that says that you have to maintain the 19          philosophy of defense in-depth,                                              --
20                                  MR. HOLAHAN:                  Ah, okay.
21                                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                    --
it seem9 to me that you 22          can -- you can satisfy, you now, you can take care of your 23          . concerns regarding LERF, because just by meeting the OHO's 24-        . criteria, you have not met defense in-depth.                                                              You have to do 25'          more.
  / \                        -
ANN RILEY-& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
  \--                                                              Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034                                                                                                                      J.
E h
  -  4,  ,        ,.              , , - , ,      -      ,- L ,  . . . - . , - . . . . . . - .  ,mm--.      yv,,-  .,,,.,,,,--,,m              - - - - _ _ - . - . . , , - , .      ,  -----,-c
 
104 1                                  MR. HOLAHAN:                    True.
: 2.                                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                  Okay.      But you can not use 3              that argument to say that CDP should.not be elevated to the 4              fundamental level either then, because for CDP we have a 5              specific number in mind which is not consistent with the 6              OHO's.        So there you really need to elevate.
7                                  MR. HOLAHAN:                    Let me try it.                      The choice of CDF 8              and LERP as metrics derives, maybe not exclusively, but                                                                              )
l 9              maybe primarily from the desire to preserve the defense                                                                                l 10              in-depth philosophy.                          2t doesn't -- it derives more from
                  . 11              principle 2 than from principle 4.
12                                  The choice of numerical values comes from                                                                          ;
13              principle 4, because that is where you go to the                                                                                      i 14              Commission's safety goal and you find the subFidiary                                                                                  f
()              15              objective of 10 to the minus 4 and you derive a LERF value.                                                                          f 16              But the choice that there should be CDF and LERF, which, in 17          j  effect, are -- you could think of them as levels of defense 18              prevention, mitigation, and even LERP doesn't entirely take 19              care of emergency planning and siting issues.
* 20                                  I think you can argue that the fact that these are 21              the metrics of choice derives from defense in-depth.                                                      And 22              that argues --
l                  - 23                                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                    So you are saying I have                                  >
24              already' looked at defense in-depth, in other words.                                                                                  -
!                    25                                                                See, that-argues for saying, well, I MR._HOLAHAN:
O                                                          ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street,.-N.W., Suite 300
* Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
  ,    _..w,_-    ,,    ...,-.c  .
w..~.vi' 3,  '.m.,.-    ,      -,...,m..m_      ,_....,,..#.m,..,.,,-en.-.    ..,-3mi-,,,,    . . . -..    .,_-,..,m._.,__.m..%.
 
i t
105            l 1    don't.want to substitute QHO for LERF and CDP, because that                                                                                      r
!                      2    would be! inconsistent with the defense in-depth philosophy.
                      .3    Or --                                                                                                                                            l I
4                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:-                            I have followed the                                                        i l
5-  , argument and I think-it is a good argument, but the                                                                                            .
6    conclusion perhaps should be relaxed.                                            In other words, I                                              f 7    have derived LERP and_CDF from defense in-depth.                                                              I have                            !
8    already done it-for you, Mr. Applicant, Mr. Licensee.                                                                    You-                    l 9    are free to go back to the-QHO's.                                      But then you are opening                                                ;
10    up the. issue of defense.in-depth again.                                                                                                        l 11                -
MR. HOLAHAN:              Right.              That's fine.
12 --                      _ CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                          Then we talk again.                                                        !
                                                                                                                                      ~
13                        MR. HOLAHAN:              And as a regulatory guide,--this --
14                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                            Fine with me.                                                            I 15                        DR. KRESS:              That's reasonable.                                                                                -+
16                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                            That's reasonable.
17                        MR. HOLAHAN:              As a regulatory guide, this defines                                                              !
lb    one acceptable way of approaching a license amendment 19    process.
20                        MR. KING:            But I ain not sure you mean when you say                                                              ,
21    you are free,'you go back to the QHO's.
22                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                            Well, I mean, if you want 23    to come here and argue,                        --
24                        MR.-KING:            They control CDF and LERF and then come 25    in with their own-proposal based on QHO's?
i ANN RILEY-& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
  - ; - . , , L -- - - ; L ., -          _.~___,...u.,_.-                    . . , _ - ~ , . -        , _          _ . - ~ . - - . . . _        - - . . _ - - .
 
        ..    - -  - - _ - ~ . . . ._                  ..      ~            -.      _..-    .      ..    .-. .- -
k 106        !
1                      DR. KRESS:            Don't throw away CDP.                                              -
bG  2                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:          Then -- then we have to In other words,                t 3      look at my principle No. 2 all over again.
4      you are saying we as a staff have already built into this 5      principle No. 2, as Gary said, and that's why we came up 6      with LERF and CDF.                But we keep saying this is one way of 7      doing it.
8                      If you want to go back and work with the QHO's, 9      then you also have to convince me that principle No. 2 is 10      somehow satisfied.                So the burden is on you.                    You want the 11      burden of OHO's, yeah, but there is more burden now.
12                      MR. KING:            But if you take LERP and CDP as also a 13      measure of, roughly, the defense in-depth prevention versus 14      mitigation we want to maintain, then they can't throw those 15      away. They got to do CDF, they got to do LERF.                                  And if they 1C      also want to do QHO's,                --
17                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:            Well, you are telling them 18      you have to consider principle No. 2.                  So if they have a 19      brilliant idea that allows them to throw it away, that's 20      fine. But the message is clear that, for us, defense 21      in-depth means that we have to look at these too.                                    But wt 22      are not telling them this is the only way of doing it.
23      That's the only difference, I think.
24                      MR. KING:            Are you suggesting getting rid of the 25      third expectation up there?
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
O-                                          Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _i 107 1                                                        MR. HOLAHAN:              No. 'Fxplaining it better.
()    =2 3
better.
CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                  Explaining it a little more i
i 4                                                        MR. KING:          Okay.                                                                          ;
5                                                        CRAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                  That comes from defense                                    !
G        in-depth and you can still go to the OHO's, but then the                                                                                            ,
: 7.        issue-of-defense in-depth is open.                                                                                                                  i
        .8                                                          DR. KRESS:              What are you going to let them do when 9        they.go to QHO's?
10                                                          CRAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                  I don't know.                                              >
11                                                          MR. HOLAMAN:              I don't know.                                                            ;
12                                                          DR. KRESS:              I know.      But, in principle, you are                                    ,
l 13          going to let them violate either the CDF or tra LERF.                                                                              In 5
      -14          principle, that is all you are going to be allowing them to
()  15          do.                                So you are going to have to decide one way or the other 1-6        whether you are going to allow that based on Level 3 or not.
17                                                          And, personally, I am not so sure I want to.                                                        :
18                                                          MR. HOLAHAN:              Well, there's two ways you can do 19          this.                                      One way is to say, is to open the-door ,a crack to 20s          say, well, we would,-you know, accept arguments to the                                                                                              ,
21          QHO's, but you would have to address defense in-depth and we 22~        'are'not'sure what that is.                                                                                                                          ;
:23                                                            The other way is to say this is one acceptable way 24          of doing it, as we have defined it with CDF and LERF.                                                                              If              ,
25          you wantzto do it differently, you are~not in 1061 anymore, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters.
1250 I Street, N.W..,' Suite 300                                                              - l.
Washington, D.C. 20005                                                                ;
(202) 842-0034 I        _ . - -                                                  -  . - . - . ,    . . -          .
                                                                                                      -                =-        -      - - ,. - --
 
108            ,
1        and you have to, you know, defend the acceptability of' year
{
+
()        2 3
proposal, in effect, from scratch.
it from what-we have done here.
I mean you can't oeri te l
4                            DR. KRESS:      Well, the other thing is, you know, if l
S        you are within the gray area of the LERF criteria, one side 6-        or the other of George's shaded thing, then the full Level 3 7        -might be part of your decision making process.
t 8                            MR. KING:      And I have no problem.with them using                                        {
9        Leve'. ? that way.
10                              DR. KRESS:      That's the way I actually thought
.        11          about it.                                                                                                      ,
12                              MR. KING:      But I am reluctant to do away with CDF 13          and LERP as the way it have it set up.
14                              DR. KRESS:      Yeah, because it is an expression of
()    15          defense in-depth.
16                              MR. KING:      I mean the licensee always has the 17          option to come in and say I propose a new way of approaching 18          this outside of 1061.                  They always have that option.
19                              CRAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                      I think, you know, 20          perceptions can not be important in one place and 21          unimportant in another place.                          And the perception that you 22          have fundamental QHO's that are, in fact, not used at all in
.        23          .1061 is bad.
24                              DR. KRESS:      Well, just, they said that with that,                                      ,
25-          principle-No. 4 says --~                                                                                        :
O                                          ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C.'20005 (202)- 842-0034
 
(
109 1                                CHAIR}Udi APOSTOLAKIS:                                      Yeah, these are suffielent                    j
' \~J l' )      2            provisions,                                                                                                                  f t
3                                DR. KRESS:                                    --  they did use them at arriving at 4              the point          --
5                                CH71RFull APOSTOLAKIS                                      These are sufficient
            '6              conditions to meet the QHO's, 7 -                              MR. HOLARAN:                                    Yes.
8                                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                      But at      ..ey necessary?
9            That is really the fundamental question.                                                                                      ;
10                                  MR. HOLAHAN:                                    Do you have to define necessary in a 11              regulatory guide, or can you just define sufficient?
12                                  CRAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                      But leave the door open for 13              something else.                                  That's what we are saying.                    I think the 14              interpretation we came up with earlier is reasonable.                                                            You
(-),
15              have to meet the OHO's, you have to meet defense in-depth.                                                                    ,
16              We have done this.                                            We thought about it.        We came up with 17              bullet No. 3.
18                                  If you want to go back to the QHO's, of course, 19              you can.          But then you are opening up the issue of defense 20              in-depth.
21                                MR. HOLAHAN:                                      We just rewrite --
22                                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                        How you handle it is your 23              business, but you are opening it.
          -24                                MR. HOLAHAN:                                      You could rewrite the third bullet 25              to say, " Consistent with the defense in-depth philosophy.
      -i l      i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\-                                                                                      Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
110 1                                                One acceptable metric for - "
2                                                          CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                      One acceptable way.
3                                                          MR. HOLAHAN:                                                    "One acceptable way is to use CDF 4                                              and LERF."
5                                                          CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                      Right.                        The way 1061 6                                              describes.
7                                                        DR. FONTANa:                                                    Now, if we are talking about CDF as 8                                            a high level critt on of some kind, are you talking about 9                                            CDF on the basis of what we know now, or forever and ever.
10                                                      In other words, to take up Dana Powers' argument, if you 11                                                      look at shutdown risks and all that kind of stuff, you might 12                                                      find that, as you learn more things in the future, CDF could 13                                                      go higher than the criterion.                                                      What do you do then?
14                                                                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                      Change it.
        )                                                        15                                                              DR. KRESS:                                                  Change it.      You can make it what it is 16                                                    at the time --
17                                                              DR. FONTANA:                                                    Okay. So it is not forever.
18                                                              CHAIRMAN 740STOLAKIS:                                                      The number changes,                                '
t 19                                                            DR. KRESS:                                                  The number changes.
20                                                              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                      The number changes.                      I mean 21                                                  the QHO is a chasy 0~ number too, in principle.
22                                                            DR. FONTANk:                                                    Well, that makes it interesting 23                                                because then your, basically, your LERF has got to change as 24                                                time goes on, 25                                                            DR. KRF 3S :                                                  True. The criteria doesn't change.
()                                                                                                                              ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Court Reporters Washington, D.C. 20005                                                                                  :
(202) 842-0034
 
111 1              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      Everything changes.
()                2 3    criterion.
DR. FONTANA:    No, no, I am talking about the I am not about --
4              DR. KRESS:    Well, the criteria don't "hange at 5    all.
6              DR. FONTANA:    Well, that's what I an saying.
7              MR. KING:    Well, the one-tenths of 1 percent that 8  the QHO's are based on isn't going to change.
9              DR. FONTANA:    That is not going to change.
10              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      No, but the risk of society 11    changes.
12              MR. KING:    The way you calculate that, you know, 13    the risk co society is changed in --
14              DR. KRESS:    Well, that is the nice thing about CDF r
k              15    and LERF, they don't change.
16                MR. KING:    Yeah, CDF wouldn't changed.
17                DR. FONTANA:      Well, that is the point I making.
A 18 )9 CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      They could.                                      They could.
19                DR. FONTANA:      If CDF and LERF don't change --
20                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      It could.
21              DR. FONTANA:      -- and then you learn something in 22    the future and all the calculations come in above that 23    number, what are you going to do?
24              DR. KRESS:    I don't understand what you are 25    saying, h\/
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300                                                          l Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
112 1                                      MR. HOLAHAN:                                                      Use the safety goal.            I mean use the (m      2  safety goal and use the backfit rule.
(
x_-
          )
3                                        DR. FONTANA:                                                    We are setting this thing on the 4  basis of what we know now, and I am sayin g is this set 5  forever in the future, or is it -- or are we saying that, 6  that COF is based on the things that we know how to 7  ca'Aculate today, what the criterion is?
8                                          CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                I think everything is based 9 on what we calculate today.
10                                            DR. SEALE:                                                You know, we have the makings of an 1A  incredible ratchet here if we are not careful.                                                                                          We started 12  off on this busiress of talking about CDF and LERF, not in 13  terms of investment protection, which is, certainly in the 14  case of CDF, really, kind of the fundamental thing as far as (O ,/ 15  the utilities are concerned, but in terms of these being a 16  surrogate for performing a full Level 3 PRA.                                                                                          And that this, 17  in general, will give you a value that is more conservative 18  actually than the Level 3 PRA.                                                                                It is bounded, if you will.
19                                                Now, if you propose -- if you then make CDF 10 to 20  the minus 4 as a requirement, recognizing that it is still 21  conservative, you really have ratcheted everybody.
22                                                DR. KRESS:                                          Well, you are starting out with a bad 23  assumption, that this CDF and this LERF we use is a bound to 24  the QHO, and I don't think it actually is.                                                                                          It is a 25  reasonable surrogate for the OHO.                                                                                It is not a bound.
I                                                                                                ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
        -#                                                                                                      Court Reporters 1250            Street, N.W., Suite 300 War:hington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
    ~  _              _ . . _ _ ~ .        _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ .                      . _ . _ _ _ . _ _.    ..___ _
113        P 1-                      DR..SEALE:                    That's right.                And recognize that'it
                                            ~
2      wasn't-a bound.-:That, in fact,.the OHO gave you more-(                                                                                                      _
3;      flexibility than the CDF did.
4                        DR..KRESS:                    The QHO.gives a lot of flexibility, 5      because once you break-anything down to its-constituent 6      parts, you are limiting the constraint.
7                        DR. SEALE:                    That's right.                What I am-saying is                        )
8-      that if you then put-a firm "thou shalt comply" metric on 9:      CDP too, then what you have done is essentially thrown out 10      the CD -- the QHO as a measure 11                        DR. KRESS:                    No, you-have -- no, I don't think 12'      that, I think they are consistent.                                            You have thrown away the 13      concept that you can have a 10 to the minus 3 CDF and take 14      care of it with your containment, and meet the OHO, you have
(    15      thrown-that out.
16                        MR. KING:                  You have thrown it out.                        But you take a 17      plant that is on a remote site, they may not have to have 18-      much a containment.
19                        DR. KRESS:                    Oh, yeah, you could -- you could stick 20      a plant out in the middle of the ocean and have a CDF of 1.
21-                        DR. SEALE:                    Yeah.              But we have also -- well.
7 22                        MR. SHERRY:                      It seems to me that if you do not 23      allow a' comparison to the QHO's in lieu of the LERF, yoa 24      :have effectively elevated LERF to a fundamental objective.
25-                        CHAIR.1AN APOSTOLAKIS:                                Yes. We don't want to do O'                                    ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATSS, LTD.
Court Report ers 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 l-Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 i            __    ,                  _.            _ _ .                  _.          . _
                                                                                                  . _ _ .-    -._--__-.-_.-u,
 
114 1 that.
n
(    l  2            MR. SHERRY:    My second observation is that LERF,
(,/ -                                                                        '
3 use of LERF and CDF do not really guarantee that you have 4 expressed a defense in-depth philosophy.      For example, if 5 you have a low CDF, 10 to the minus 5, you will 6 automatically meet your LERF.
7            DR. KRESS:    That was my earlier point. Right.
8            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    The containment failure 9 probability would have baen better.
10            DR. KRESS:    I am not sure, there would be a 11 tactical problem with that.
12            MR. HOLAHAN:    Well, that's why we have more than 13 _one principle.
14            MR, SHERRY:    But if you -- you had suggested
()    15 changing a wording on, I think, the third expectation.
16            MR. HOLAHAN:    Yes.
17            MR. SHERRY:    And I do not believe that a defense 18 in-depth argument, or that supports defense in-depth, as you 19 would, as that wording would suggest, the use of LERF and 20 CDF.
21            MR. HOLARAN:    What I would say is it is not, the 22 use of LERF and CDF are themselves not sufficient to assure 23 defense in-depth.
24            MR. SHERRY:    Okay.
25            MR. HOLAHAN:    Okay. But they help.
b                        ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
              \~-                            Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
__  m    _  __    __  _        ._-          - _
115 1            MR. SHERRY:      In one sense they help. They help in 2- the sense that-if-you have a high CDF, then the use of CDF (f
3  and LERF will not allow you to meet the overall objectives.
4  Okay. So in that sense,-yes, it supports defense in-depth.
5            But in the other hand -- on the other hand, a low 6  CDF, if you have a low CDF, then use of LERF and CDF will 7  not.
8            DR. KRESS:      If they have even a 10 to the minus 6 9  CDF, I think their defense in-depth principle says you still 10  will have a containment.      And it doesn't say how good that 11  containment will have to be, but it says you will have one.
12  And so I really think, in practice, the other concepts of 13  defense in-depth that come into play will keep that from 14  being a real problem.
15            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      But, remember, defense 16  in-depth is there because of the uncertainties.        If you make 17  a good case that your CDF is way down there, 10 to the minus 18~ 7, and with, you know, reasonable uncertainties around it, 19  maybe the need for LERF is not there anymore.      And the fact 20  that you have the containment is good enough.      Because you 21  have attacked the reason for having defense in-depth.        Even 22  though-we don't want to admit it explicitly, that's the 23  reason.
24            So I think at works both ways.      Now, when your CDF 25  if high, for sure, I mean your argument is very well taken.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
('                            Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
l                                                                                                                                              116 l
1    But when it is very low, it is not that I am violating I)    2    defense in-depth, maybe the need for defense in-depth is not
            \_-
3    as pressing any more.                    I don't want to say that we don't 4    need it, but it is not as pressing.                                                              But-we have the 5    containment anyway, as Tom said.
6                Maybe I will not worry too much about the actual 7    containment failure probability or the actual LERF value and 8  where it comes from.
9              MR. HOLAHAN:                  But isn't it awfully hard to have a 10    10 to the minus 7 core damage frequency with very small 11    uncertainties.
12                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                            That is true.
13                MR. HOLAHAN:                  In the absence of, say, 10 million 14    year, reactor years of experience.
10
( ,/ 15                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                            You are absolutely right.
16    So this is a hypothetical thing, but it is important.                                                              As a 17    practical matter, I think both of them will be needed.
18                But I think, though, Rick's point was a good one, 19    and I was thinking about it when you presented your thought, 20    Gary. Bullet No. 3 is not a direct consequence of defense 21    in-depth, 22                MR. HOLAHAN:                  It is not the implementation of that 23    principle, by itself.
24                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                            Because there are certain 25    things -- no, it is not.                                  Okay.                              We agree.
O'                                    ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
117 i            So~what-is the conclusion'now?    What is -- do we 2 have a conclusion?
[/1-L 3            DR. KRESS:    The conclusion is we leave it like-it 4 is, I think.
5            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    No. No. We have tc 6 rephrase it though.
7            DR. KRESS:    That was the conclusion I reached.
8            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Aren't we going to rephrase 9 it?
10            MR. KING:    I didn't  --
I haven't heard any 11 suggested rephrasing.
12            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    I thought Gary gave it.
13            MR. KING:    Unless you want to add the word 14 " defense in-depth" somehow in there.      Which is okay with me,
  .O
( ,)  15 I don't have a problem with it.
l 16            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    I would say something to 17 the effect that, in bullet 3 now, that this is one way of 18 doing it. Maybe before bullet 3, it se ms to me, out of l        19 respect, you uhould have a bullet that refers to the QHO's, 20 because that is what the Commission told us the objectives l
21 are. Okay.
22            If they want to go to the QHOs they are free to do l-so.
23        Depends very much on whether CDF is elevated, by the 24 way. Okay?  So maybe you want to say the fundamental goals, L        25 because I'think CDF, there's a good chance it would be l
[\  '
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 847-On34
 
      . , ,  .    .. ..      . . -. - -        - - . - . . ~ - - .            . . - . - .._-    . - .      .-.
r
                                                                                                        '118 1      elevated.        So they're free to do'so, but then they have to                          ;
2    . worry about defense in depth and the. principles. .Then you (f                                                                                                          f 3;    -have-this bullet that'says one way of meeting-the 4      defense-in-depth' requirement is to use CDF and LERF.                      So.you          .;
5      are not shutting-the door.                    So now the message is clear.
6      Right.
7                      MR. KING:- I can accept that.
: 8.                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:            The message-is clear.        If 9    you don't really want to work with what we came up with --
f L
10'                      DR. KRESS:      If I'm going to refer --
            - 11'                      CHAImWUI APOSTOLAKIS:            Expect more work.
12                      MR. KING:    They have that option whether we say it 13-    or not.
14                      DR. KRESS:      George, if I'm going to refer to the
()      15      fundamental goals, I would --
16                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              I'm sorry.
17                      DR. KRESS:      If I were going to have a reference to 18      the. fundamental goals, I would have a reference to the 19      Safety Goal Policy Statement, and that would include the in            20      ancillary of 10 to the minute 4.
p            21                      You see, it may never come about that-10 to the
!            22      minus 4 gets officially promoted to a fundamental goal, and 23      if it-doesn't, you're safe in this regulation just by 24      referring to the policy statement,                    Because then you've L
25-      captured it anyway.
l l
l
    ~
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
( \-                                              Court Reporters l                                        1250-I Street, N.W., Suite 300 o
Washington,-D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
          ~.        -        . _ _ - - - . , . - - - ,                    - . . - . . - - . . . . . . -          . _ - . . . - -
P
                                                                                                                            -119 1                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS: _Okay.                          Yes,1you're probably
()        2 3
                        .right.        -I'm sure'the' staff-willi think about it, you know,-I-mean we-can't decide on'the words~here in committee.
4                      'MR. HOLAHAN: -Apparently we'need 15-minute breaks' 5    in' order-to' reword our documents.
6-                      CHAIRMAN-APOSTOLAKIS:              I thought this was more 7-    than 15 minutes.
8                      By the way, how does this work now.                              I mean, we're 9    supposed to write the letter at the December meeting.
                -10                      DR. KRESS: .The December meeting; yes.                          .
11                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:            Are we going to get a 12    chance to see the final version?
13-                      MR. KING:            You're going to get a reworked version 14'    based upon today's discussion hopefully by the end of next
: 15. Week.
16                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:            Which brings us to --
l:
17                        MR. KING:            Then Mike was saying we're on what.
18~    December 57-19                        MR. MARKLEY:            Yes, December 5, to accommodate l
H                20-    George's travel.
21                        MR. KING:            Right.
!                22.                      MR. MARKLEY:            Friday from 8:35 to 10:00 a.m.
l-L                23-                      CHAIRMAN _APOSTOLAKIS:            No, but I want to have a 24    draft letter before that, I-mean, whether we meet on l
:25      Thursday or Friday is irrelevant.
I                                                    ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 l-                                                            (202)- 842-0034
 
120 1            DR. _ SEALE :'  I do too.
  ', ,I  2            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:        So before I write that V
3  draft letter I have to have the final version.        So you say 4  by the end of next week.
5            MR. KING:      I would hope-by the end of next week to 6  get you a reworked version of this.
7-            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      Basically I have to write 8  the letter over the Thanksgiving weekend.
9            MR. MARKLEY:      We have all that week.
10            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      I'm not here that week.
11            DR. SEALE:      Let me ask you a question. If I had a 12  Level 3 PRA that supported the case, would that be adequate?
13            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      What case do you mean?
14            DR. SEALE:      The case for the change.
    /~%
(_,)  15            DR. KRESS:      What do you mean supported it?
16            DR. SEALE:      Well --
17            DR. KRESS:      The mean value of the --
18            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      You have to meet the --
19            DR. KRESS:      I would ask what she did about    --
20            DR. SEALE:      Well, that's included. A supporting 21  PRA has --
22            DR. KRESS:      I would ask what you did about the L
23  uncertainties first.
24            DR. SEALE:      I did it according to what they said 25  to do, but uncertainties in 1061.
l l
(  )                    ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
i                                  Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
121
            -1                      _DR.LKRESS:- Well,;they didn't address it very f1 2    ,welli--Level 3 uncertainties..                                                                          1
            -3:                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                All he's asking,zif:have.a                      .
4c    LLevel 3 PRA that supports'the change,-and I'ask him about                                                ;
5-    : defense in depth,-say yes, it supports it.                      The answer is                          ;
,            6'    yes.
            .7                        DR. KRESS:        Well, I would ask, did you use MACCS
* 8      and what did you do about emergency-response?                        What did you 9      do about this issue of MACCS and its status of validation 10      with respect-to real transport mechanisms and how did you
          ~11      deal with these things in determining you met the QHO and                                                '
12      what could your 95 percentile probability actually be if you
          .13      did'it correctly?
14                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                And that's the point of the
        )  15~      new bullet combined with the third bullet here, that this:is 16      one way of doing it.                You can certainly do it in a different 17      way.      But then expect these questions.
18                        DR. KRESS:          Expect these other things.          That's 19      exactly --
          .20                        DR. FONTANA:          Wait a minute.        Wait a minute.        If 21      you're looking at the effect of changes, whicli is what this 22-      ~is all about, does it-really matter, as long as it goes down 23      _and_ stays the sama?                                                                                    ,
24'-                      DR. KRESS:          Mario, we've had this argument'before.
12 5      -You're looking at the expected changes on a map of absolute m
4
' t            *                          : ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
w'                                                Court Reporters
                                        -1250 ILStreet, N.W.,; Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
_( r s  l 122
                    >1-                values,.but:.tho~ absolute valuer are aLlittle-fuzzy,-andLyou 2                must;:ha've;both ofithem. lYou'just-can't" focus on one.
                                                                                                      -                                                      l 3                                              DR..-FONTANA . What about effects of uncertainties "4                  in a MACCS calculations?'
SL                                              DR. KRESS:    That's the uncertainty on:where you 61              are'on the absolute value.                                                                                          x 7~                                              DR. FONTANA:    That's right, but that comes'from 8-              t .e amounta of releases and that comes from CDF and so on 9                and so on.
10                                                DR. KRESS:    It comes mostly --
                  -- 11                                                LR. FONTANA:- The question is if you're looking
                  .12                  for changes that you want to make in existing plant, don't u
13                  these4 uncertainties wash out if you're comparing one-to-one 14                  against the other?                        Isn't-that what old -- our buddy in-15                  Knoxville is.doing?
16                                                DR. KRESS:    Bob Christie?
17                                                DR. FONTANA:    Yes, Bob Christie.
18                                                It's been a rhetorical argument.
19-                                                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Listening to you guys --
20~                                                DR. SEALE:    The reason I asked it, I had come up 21                _ with proposed rewording which just said on bullet 3 absent 22=                  the availability of a supporting levelEPRA,                                    - -
:                23                                                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Supporting level 3 PRA?                                    ,
24                                                  MR. KING:    Yes.
25-                                                'MR. HOLAHAN:    No.
7            ~
MC1 RILLY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
            )
4 Court Reporters-1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005                                                        ,
_(202)'842-0034.
v          e- ,            --e,                      y    .  ,-
                                                                                                                                                -t-    M-
 
123 1            DR. FONTANA:    Where are we at?
j  r(  2            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    That wording means V
3 something else, I take it.
4            MR. KING:    I think what we agreed to do was take a S look at bullet 3, maybe add a bullet _before_that that says 6 something like they need to meet the fundamental goals of 7 the safety goal policy. One way to do this is described 8 using CDF and LERF. We'll have to come up with these --
9            DR. KRESS:    I would leave the word fundamental 10  goals --
11            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Walt a minute. I think, 12  even if we accept his werding, there is a lot we're leaving 13  out. For example, principle No. 4 right now says proposed 14  increases in core damage frequency and risk are small.      And O)
(,    15  then we elaborate on tnose later on,'right?    In terms of CDF 16  and LERF. If we recognize explicitly here that one can work 17  with QHOs, do we need to say what small is?    Do we need to 18  say what is very small so it's always acceptable?    Do we 19  need to say how close you are to the goals?    I mean, it's 20  opening up now-all these issues.
21            MR. KING:    But it opens them up that if a licensee 22  wants to use QHOs for all of that, they've got to come in i
23  with their proposal as to what is small in terms of QHO.
24            .CRAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Well, I don't know about 25  that, Tom, because you are telling them what's small in l
t                        ANN RILEY'& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
k                                Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 l                                  (202) 842-0034
 
124 1 terms of CDF and LERF, but you are silent what's small with
()      2 respect to acute fatalities.
3            MR. KING:      No, I thought that.'s what we agreed.
4  We're leaving the door.open.        They can come in and make a 5 proposal using QHOs, but we're not going to give-them 6 detailed guidance like we're giving them on CDF and LERF.
7            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:        That's not what I had in 8 mind, but  --
9            MR. KING:      We're giving them one way, and that one 10  way is based upon CDF and LERF.
11            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:        Yes, but that's not --
12-            MR. KING:      They don't have to use that.
13            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:        The question of how small 14  is small is not really a defense-in-depth question.
      )  15            MR. KING:      No?
16            CHAT.RMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      No, it's something that  --
17  it's a policy issue.
18            MR. KING:      It's a policy issue.
19            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:        So you can leave it up to I
20  them when it comes to defense in depth, because you have 21  stated the principle of defense in depth.
22            MR. KING:      Um-hum.
        .23            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:        And the burden is on them l
24  to show how they comply.
t l        25            MR. HOLAHAN:        Well, I'm having a little problem in i
      \                    ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
k-                                Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
C
                                                                                                                                                -125 1        that.our. expectations and definitions with respect to, you-                                                                        f
              '2-        know, what' is defense in depth and safety margins,-in my:
3        mind is a' complete set, that is, using CDF and LERF and all 4        of these expectations all works together.                                                                When you cvt out          1 5        CDF anafLERP and you just use OHOs it seems to me I'm not 6_        sure that we've defined enough of what we expect with                                                                                l 7:        respect to defense in depth.                                                    I think -- so I --                                  ;
8                      MR. KING:                    I agree, 9                      MR. HOLAHAN:                            To me it doesn't just break --
10        -doesn't break the deal on'that one expectation.                                                                  I think it
          - _11        starts'all over again on all the expectations.
12                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                  So the question is now 13          whether you want to address'that issue at a later date, 14          because it's important enough.                                                    I mean, you can't ignore the
()      15          QHOs. Somebody says I'm willing to spend the extra money 16          and effort to do a full Level 3 PRA including uncertainties-17          to satisfy Dr. Kress.                              And then you are telling me that I 18          cannot use'it?
19                      MR.. KING:                    No , that's not what we're saying.
20                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                  No, you-are telling me I 21          cannot, because there are so many things you have not told
,            22          me. You have not told me what's small', you have not told me 23-        how close I can be to the goal-                                                .
          -24_                      DR. KRESS:                        I-certainly can do that if I want to.
25                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                  But then you are asking me I                                  ' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
    ~
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,-Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 l
 
126 1 to define the regulations myself. Why?  Why?
[)
V 2            MR. KING:  We're defining one way that's 3 acceptable for them to go make these changes.
4            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    It seems to me that there 5 ought to be some guidance from you as to what's small and 6 how close you can be there and so on.
7            MR. KING:  Using QHOs as the measure.
8            DR. KRESS:  Well, you have to start all over.
9            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:  Fair is fair.
10            MR. KING:  Do that in the next week-and-a-half?
11            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:  No, no, no, that's what I'm 12 saying, it has to be later.
13            MR. HOLAHAN:  Fair is fair and practical is 14 practical.
1 r~n kj' 15            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:  That's right.
16            MR. HOLAHAN:  I think there's a question about 17 this, you know, these are interestinc uiscussions, but I 18 don't know of any licensee who's about to use the OHOs and 19 other arguments of defense in depth to propose license 20 amendments. So --
21            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:  Oh, I don't know. I don't 22 know. You may get somebody there that says, you know, 23 because they don't meet the CDF or LERF, they may give you 24 an argument in terms of the QHOs. The question came from l    25 the industry, I understand.
[ T                  ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
  \s                          Court Reporters 1250 I-Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 l
 
                      .  . . . _ . . _ . .        _ _ _ _ _ ._..._.~                      _ . _ _ - _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ ._        __
                      +
127    ;
1 --                        iMR, KING:            I-don't-have a problem'if they comeiin.
2      and:cai % atelCDF.'and LERF and say yes, we' don't exactly:.
3    meet the'                delines, but)I've done;-- gone.all the.way to
              -4    QHOs; and t w: - shows I've got '~a                                lot- of - margin,- and here's a              .
                                                                                                                                      ?
51    piece of supc.u tental-information that says I'm really close                                                    ;
6-    enough, you ouk i to approve the. change-                                        .      I have no problem 7    using QHOs that way, 8                            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                        Yes, but they may not do 9      that.        -I think it's a. matter of principle.                                          If your 10      . fundamental goal is stated in one way, and you propose a
            .11_    whole approach that uses surrogate goals, and then you are 12      completely silent as to what to do with the fundamental 13      goal, it seems to me there is a problem.                                                That's not the way 14      to do it.
      )      15                              DR. KRESS:            It makes a statement about how you 16      feel about that calculation, and that calculation, and I 17      think it's the right statement, if I could speak for Dana 18      Powers and myself.                      I think it's the right statement, 19      because I really don't want to defend Level 3 calculations.
20      If I had to do the uncertainty analysis on them and come up 21      with a high enough level of confidence in it, I think it 22      would just kick all this out the window anyway if I had to-23      do that.                So with this I'm making a statement that I don't 24      want to deal with Level-3 because I don't like the way it's
          '25      done right now.
" ('I                                          ANN-RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street,,N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
128 1                  DR. FONTANA:                                                          How do you feel about Level 2?
    -.s
      ]  2                  DR. KRESS:                                                        Level 2 is a lot  -- I feel a lot 3      better about Level 2 than I do the other.
4                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                          I wou?.d say then, I mean if 5      tnar's the case, put it in the document.
6                  DR. KF.ESS:                                                        Well, by admitting it, it's in there.
7      I mean, it's a statement that's in there, and we -- this is 8      one say --
9  l              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                        The message should be clear 10      in the sense that it should not shut the door, but it should 11      explain why bullet No. 3 was developed.
12                  DR. KRESS:                                                        Well, I would certainly make the 13        hurdles a lot higher if I was going to open the door to 14        the --
O
( ,/ 15                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                          But, you know, you are free 16        to do that, but bear in mind that defense in depth must 17        be -- the principle of defense in depth must be satisfied 18        and questions regarding the analysis and this and this and 19        this and that.                                        I think that's the fair thing to do.
20        Because you hear the argument, why are we doing all this 21      since the IPE's showed that we meet the QHOs.                                                              I mean, 22      that's a widespread belief in the industry.
23                  DR. KRESS:                                                        Well, you realize that the calculated 4
24 j    value you're talking about is once again a surrogate for the 25      QHO. It's an e::pectation of whether you meet it or not, h
V ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 k
 
129 1  and --
(      2            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                        Yes.
U 3            DR. KRESS:                              And this is probably in my mind a 4  better way to deal with that.
5              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                      Oh , it is. But I think it 6  should be made explicit.
7              DR. KRESS:                              Well --
8            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                      See, there is a widespread 9 belief out there --
10              DR. KRESS:                              I thought it was explicit enough, the 11  way they did it.
12              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                      No. That's why we got the 13  comment. You're spending all this effort to --
14              DR. KRESS:                              Well, my problem, George, is just what
( j) 15  they said. If you open the door by references to the Level 16  3,  then you raise expectations that you aren't prepared to 17  deal with yet because you don't know how you're going to 18  deal with it, and that's a whole new set of guidelines and 19  criteria, and with this particular set of documents, I'd 20  just as soon not deal with any of it.
21              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                      I think that's the 22  pragmatic approach and I agree, but take it on the other 23  side, which is a matter really of logical principle.                                                            You 24  have stated your objectives at this level, and now you're 25  telling me that I cannot use arguments pertaining to that
[                        ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
          ..      -- .. . - .              . -- . - - - . , . .                . _ . - - - . . .      . - . , = . . . - - - . . . .
l I
130  l li          ' level? .See,-that-doesn't-make sense.
()              2 3
:DR. KRESS 1 I would say that does make sense.
                                                  -CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS: :It.does.- But;it doesn't--if 4-_          ytsu keep it the.way it is. .But'if you go into the document                                                  i 5            -you=say look,xright now,' given.the state-of the art, given G            the' principles and blah blah blah blah blah, we believe that 7;            the metrics that satisfy our needs are two.                          If someone 8            wants to-work with the QHOs, they're certainly free to do 9            so. :But --;and'then you give a whole list of the                                                              ,
10              ~d ifficult %s that have to be addressed.
11                              DR. KRESS:            Well, I don't know if we're prepared (2              to' develop shat list yer 13                              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              You just gave us a pretty 14              good one.
O is ,/      .15                              DR. KRESS:            Oh, yeah. Okay.
16                              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              Last issue of defence in 17              depth.
18                              MR. SHERRY:            I think another argument for going to 19              the Level 3 calculation for assessing the change in risk is                                                    -
12 0              that later, a few months from now, the staff is going to be.
21              I guess considering changes to -- possible changes to the 22            . safety goals, to-the-ultimate objectives to consider such 23-              things as societal risk 1rather than just average individual 24              risk, possibly_ land contamination.                        The current LERF is-
;              I25              ' derived from one risk metric, the average individual early l'
i
()                                                        ANN RILEY &' ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
131 1_ fatality risk. If you decide to consider other risk factors X
2  such as societal risk,.such as land contamination, what's (v) 3  this mean in terms of a LERF?    Are you going to have three 4  or four different Lit?s?
5            DR. KRESS:    You have a real good point there, real 6  good point, if you change the goal to include societal risk.
7            MR. SHERRY:    A different one of these risk metrics 8  may control the risk for different plants depending on 9  population density and other factors.
10            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    But you are also addressing 11  the pragmatic problem.
12            MR. SHERRY:    I hope so.
13            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    And I don't have any 14  problem with that. I fully agree with what Tom said, but at
,r)
I, ,) 15  the same time, it seems to me that it is odd to have a 16  policy that refers to OHOs and then when it comes to coing 17  something you throw that palicy out of the window. You 18  can't do that.
19            MR. SHERRY:    I agree.
20            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    You can tell people why it 21  is very hard to work with that and that we'll have to do 22  much more, and then you are saying, look, we feel that 23  Bullet Number 3 satisfies a lot of that stuff already -- now 24  if you want to do something else, then here are some of the 25  things that you should expect to be asked about, and leave
(                      ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\-                            Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
132 1  it at that.
()        2 3
If somebody I. ally feels strongly about it, and they establish a research project for three years -- you 4  know, spend a million or two million dollars, and come up 5  with a brilliant way of doing it, then we talk again, but 6  right now it cannot be done -- or it is very hard to do.
7              MR. KING:  What you said is fine with me but I 8 thought what you said before that went beyond just telling 9 them how difficult it is going to be.
10              You were suggesting we ought to define what small 31  is in terms of QHO and some of these other things.
12              CHAIRMAN APCSTOLAKIS:    No, no, no, no.
13              MR. KING:    We leave the door open and tell them lo  it's going to be difficult and --
A V      15              CHAIRMAN APCSTOLAKIS:    And that is why you don't 16  bother to do all this, that you don't anticipate many -- as 17  Gary said -- I don't think anybody will rush to really do 18  this.
19                MR. HOLAHAN:  I have a suggested sentence.
20                CHAIRhN APOfiTOLAKIS:    Okay.
21              MR. HOLAHAN:    "Although in principle the safety 22  goal QHOs could be used directly in decision-making, 23  approaches to address the issue of treatment of 24  uncertainties and the other principles are currently beyond 25  the state-of-the-art."
  - (' N)                      ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
::s
_133 i
                    -1 __              'DR. KRESS:-              'I would agree with the statement. 'A
:A                ..                                                                                                                      s
, ;(              _2      ~truo statement.
3-.
                                        = CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS: -And then what do you-say-
                  .4        after that?
MR. HOLAHAN: - I don'_t say anything.                                Anyone who
                                                                                                                              ~
5-
                  -6      'wants to extend the state-of-the-art can-do-it at their own 7    Erisk.
8                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                        But aren't you going to-9      follow that up by saying that one way the Staff is --
:10                      MR. HOLAHAN:              .Oh, sure.          This would be in addition
                                                                                                                                            .i
              'll            to ---
12                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                        Yes.
13                    DR. FONTANA:              You'could say rathcr than beyond the
                -14          state-of-the-art, you could say beyond the scope of this O
V              1ST document --
16                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                      Well, there'in a 17          difference.
18                    DR. FONTANA:              I know there is a big difference.
19                    MR      HOLAHAN:          I think it is both.                I am willing to 20          say both.
21                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                      You will probably have to
: 22.        wordsmith  it--- but I think you have got the' essence of it.
23                    MR. HOLAHAN:              I have no problem --
              -24 DR. FONTANA:              And alternative-metrics for your 25-        probabilistic acceptance guidelines will be --
  -[                                          ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
C _ _ ..                _                  .
                                                              . Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202): 842-0034 J
            .                            -      . , + - . .                                                -
 
134.
21-                -CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS: -Is the industry. going,to
          '2      address this: committee-this afternoon?=
13                  MR.:HOLAHAN:            -Yes.
4:                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:--And you will have some 5        thoughts about this?
6-                  MR. MARKLEY:            Or I could talk to you now.
7                  THE REPORTER:              Can't. hear you.
          =8                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              Would you come to_the 9      microphone?
10                    THE REPORTER:              Thank you.
11'                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              Okay.
12                    MR. BRADLEY:            Biff Bradley, NEI.
13                    1061 is written-in the context of regulatory 14        improvement and in that respect I've had a lot of 15        discussions with the industry at both the executive level 16        and the working level, and I don't believe that there is a 17        tremendous anticipation or desire on the part of the 18        industry at this point to be able to use QHOs in the 19        regulatory improvement area.
20'                    I mean we recognize that the state-of-the-art is 21        not as developed and most plants have Level                  PRAs. That is.
22        what we would like to be able to use now.
23                    -I'would say fundamentally we don't object to using 24        CDF and LERF as a metric in the context of regulatory 1 25        improvement.
l l:
1 I - (O                              ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
l \/                                                Court Reporters i                                1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
135 1          When we start talking about elevation of the t/~~'1  2 safety goal of the CDP to a fundamental goal and what that
    %l 3 conceivably could mean in regulatory space with regard to 4 potential revisions to the backfit rule or whatever, that is 5 a different question.
                                              ~
6          There we might want to be able to get credit for 7 the margins from the QHOs to the subsidiaries.
8          Also, and I think Tom made this point, in being 9 able to address uncertainty we would like to be able to 10 discuss the fact that there may be margin to the OHOs.
11 However, in general using the EPRI PSA guideline even -- you 12 know -- proposed using CDF at a decision tool, so I would 13 say it's not a major concern of ours at this point.
14          Now I am not really speaking to the Bob Christie (t
l        15 pilot project either, and what they are doing. I am really 16 speaking to regulatory improvement and the ability to make 17 CLB changes in the near term in a practical way.
18          CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    So I think then that what 19 Gary suggested makes sense and to wordsmith it a little bit l
20 and we move on -- and I understand elevating it to a 21 fundamental goal is something else we want to discuss later.
22          MR. HOLAHAN:  And I also don't see a fundamental 23 inconsistency with the NET pilot, what you referred to as 24 Bob Christie's activity in which the OHOs are calculated and 25 they might be used in some screening sense to say, well, l [                      ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
  \~                            Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 WLshington, D.C. -0005
                                -(202) 842-0034 l
 
      .  -.        ..  -              .  - - -        . - . - .. .      . . - . ~ - - .        .- -        - . - - .. .
136 1      here it looks like.an issue that maybe is not contributing.
()              2 3
very much to QHOs and-as-a-screening-item to say okay,inow let'silook at this issue more completely with the whole set 14      of.' principles and see whether.it might be changeable or not.                                        .
                .5                              So-the fact'that you don't put the QHO in the 4
6-    current set of integrated decision guidelines doesn't mean 7      youncan't go out and.do a. calculation-just to identify i
                  '8    Lissues.
9                            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              Okay.        As you have probably          -
10        noticed, we have a new schedule starting with-this committee 11        meeting -- more frequent breaks but shorter -- so now it is 12'        11:13.            We take a 13 minute break.                    Okay?                                '
13-                                (Recess.)
14                                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              By the way, when you j            - 1:s      rephrase that, maybe Footnote-Number 4 on page 7 should be 16        an integral part of this.
17                                Does anyone have anything on the expectations?
18        Are you okay uith what we have done with the expectations?.
19                                Evidently-we have -- we have none.
20                                Moving right along, acceptance guidelines, Mark,
              '21        let me understand something here.                              Are.you going to have a 22        discussion of'the'four elements, five elements of the 23-      . figure?            No?    Because I have some comments on that.                    Do you 24;      -want.me to give them:to you'now?
25'                              MR. CUNNINGHAM:          Yes.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
N/-                                                        Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W;, Suite 300 Washington,.D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
  -      -    .          - _ . _ . - _ _ _                          -        .            .~  _      ___  .
 
i 137 11-                    LCHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:. Okayf-- before we go to'the vb 2      : acceptance guidelines..
                    ;3/                      MR. CUNNINGHAM :'- Yes.    -
I 4                      . CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS: .Okay, good.
5:                      We are on.page 8'of the 1061 document.                      Maybe it 6        is'anlissue of perception hereLtoo,.but -                      you want a                      l 7'      -l copy? ---in the first paragraph of Section 2.3,                        Element 1,              ,
8        icisays that there;are three_ primary activities) second,- the 9      -licensee should identify all SSCs,' procedures, and F
111        activities that are covered'by.the CRB change and 11        revaluation and consider the original reasons for inclusion 12        'of each> program requirement.
13                        Are these things easy to obtain?                  Is this a 14        'necessary burden or --'I mean the " original reasons" --
()            15                        I think I understand what you are-trying-to.do 16        here -- you know, that--there was a reason, there was a 17        reason for certain-things, but asking them to actually 18'        collutt all this information,-I don't know that that is 19        something -- I mean certainly the intent will be discussed
                  '20        .when-you' discuss the --
21-                        MR. KING:          It doesn't say. collect.          It says
                  '22        consider.
L23 -                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              Should-identify SSCs, J24        procedures,' and : activities that are covered and consider.
25                        MR. CUNNINGHAM:              And it is not suggest: 6g that-
    ;    )                                        ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
      'd                                                  -Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite--300
                                                        . Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
138 1 they have to submit that information, all of that detail, if fD                            2 you will, to us.
LJ 3              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    But if you go to the next 4 paragraph though, somewhere in the middle, "with this Staff 5 expectation in mind, the licensee should, third, identify 6 available engineering studies, methods, codes, applicable 7 plant-specific and industry data and operational experience, 8 PRA findings, and research and analysis and results relevant 9 to the proposed CRB change."
10              That is burdensome, is it not?    If I take it 11 literally?      PRA findingn?
12              DR, MILLER:    It says "available," doesn't it?
13              C!IAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Available engineering 14 studies -- I mean that is -- I think the way it is written 15 sounda more ominous than they intend for the writing, so I 16 don ' t- know if you want to just make a note that it is 17 comt. nit.g to reviair., maybe at the next break or at some 18 point.
19              DR. MILLER:    We'll have to have 10-minute breaks 20 overy 19 minutes here.
21              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    As I was reading it, I said, my c,od, you know, if I take this literally then we'll 22 23 never move from Element 1 -- just collect every thing under 24  the sun, 25              DR. MILLER:    But that is a list that they would O                                                ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
  \~ /                                                    Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite  300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
139              i i      concider in any change anyhow.                                                                                    I c
2                    CRAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                  I don't know.                                                  <
3                    DR. MILLER:        I think that ir a list that they 4      might consider any change, whether it be for this or any 5      other change.
6                    CRAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                  It says the licensee should 7      identify --
i 8                    MR. HOLARAN:        Available.
9                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                  What's available?                What is 10      available?    Applicable plant-specific and industry data and 11      operation experience.
12                    I mean this is open-ended.
13                    I know what you mean but maybe we should write
          . 14      what we mean.        Anyway, that is just a comment.
15                    MR. HOLAHAN:        Understood.
16                    CRAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                  Integrated multichange 17      requests -- is that something you are going to discuss 18      later?
19                    MR. CUNNINGHAM:            Yes.
20                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                  Okay, so we don't have to 21      get into that now.
22                    But the other elements may have something.
23                    Defense-in-depth you will get into?
24                    MR. CUNNINGHAM:            We had not planned to get into 25      the. defense-in-depth but we can do it if you like.                                    Again,
,                                      ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\                                                Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300                                                                    ,
Washington, D.C. 20005-(202) 842-0034
    ^-O g                                ,- -      p    p y#  ..  -.-- y    ,w  m -                                  --r-s-- emi
 
_ - _ _ _ _ . _.                    -    _ . _ . _                _ _      m ,    _        _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . -              _ _ _ _ _
140 1        that section had not changed from the draft, from the public
()                    2 3
draft to the version that you have.
CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                Yes. I am using the 4        November 7th.                                                                                                    ,
5                    MR. CUNNINGHAM:              Yes.
6 _.                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                Again, maybe I am reading 7        too much into this -              "The evaluation should consider the 8        intent of the general design criteria and national standards 9        and engineering principles such as the single-failure 10          criterion."
11                      But then later on it says, " Sufficient safety 12          margins are maintained when the codes and standards or 13          alternatives approved for use by the NRC are met."
14                      I don't understand why I have to consider the
()                  15          intent of something that I have to comply with anyway.
16                    How does that help me, considering the intent?
17                    Let me read it again:                "Where a comprehensive risk 18          analysis is not or cannot be done, traditional 19        defense-in-depth considerations should be used or maintained 20          to account for uncertainties.                The avaluation should 21          consider the intent of the general design criteria, national 22          standards, and engineering principles such as the single l                    23          tailure criteria."
24                    But don't you demand that they in fact comply and 25        meet the general design criteria, the national standards and
[ )                                                  ANN-RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
  \/                                                              Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C.'20005 L                                                                  (202) 842-0034
 
l I
141 i
1  engineering principles?-
l 2                      .MR. CUNNINGHAMr                                                  I.think that what we were trying 3  to accomplish.there with discussing the intent was to say                                                                      '[
4  what you may see today, for example, in practice in some 5  area that it's been interpreted it has to be done in a 6  'certain way and there seems to_be no leeway that you could                                                                      .l 7  . relax that.                                                                                                                      !
8                        If you go back to the intent, then it may be that                                                            i I
9  it gives'you more of a reason why you can have some                                                                              i 10    relaxation.
11                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS: _ But you-have just told
              -12'  them --
13                        MR. CUNNINGHAM ' The practice today may be more 14    restrictive than the intent.                                                                                                    l 15                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                  I see -- because, you know, 16    you just told them that the licensee should affirm that the 17  . proposed CRB change meets the current regulations, and-the 18    current regulations --
19                        MR. CUNNINGHAM:                                                Unless --
20                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                  Unless what?
21                        MR. CUNNINGHAM:                                                The proposed changes --                    ;
22--                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                The proposed exemption.              ;
23                        MR .CUNNINGHAM:                                                Right, yes.
24'                      CHAIRMAN.APOSTOLAKIS:                                                  Yes, but that.says current          l 25  -regulations, doesn't'it?
O -
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street,-N.W.,~ Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005
( 202)-842-0034                                                              4
        ..,,_i2.-      _..__,,__n...                          , _ . _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , . . . . . _ . _
                                                                                                                      ., _ , i _. . ~____..._._,,a-
 
l J
142 '
1                      If you~have an exemption in the books, that's not
()      2 3
current regulations?
MR. HOLAHAN: ~ Licensing basis.                                                  [
t 4                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:            That's not what it says.                      i i
5                    When you have an exemption, or rule change,                                      j 6    _doesn't that become part of the current regulations?                                            !
7_                    MR.;CUNNINGHAM:        Rule change does but an exemption                        .
8      does not change the regulations.
9                    MR. HOLAHAN:        It's plant-specific.-                                        ,
10                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              But the rule change does.
11                      MR. CUNNINGHAM:        Yes.
12-                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              Okay, so that that sentence                  f 13      also needs -        you are supposed to meet current regulations 14      unless the proposed change is explicitly related to a
      )    15      proposed exemption.          Delete "or rule change" because that is                                l 16      part of the current regulations.
17                      MR. HOLAHAN:      No.
18                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:            No, change -- change.                          ,
19                      MR. HOLAHAN:      Rule change.
20                    Now when it is being proposed, it could be 21      inconsistent with the current regulations beccuse the                                            i L22      current regulation might not be changed until after the                                          ,
23_    proposal is accepted cn: processed.                  Right?
24                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              Anyway, the word " intent"
                                ~
I 25-    caught my eye there.          I mean if I have to comply with' L
t L                                      ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
L A-                                          Court Reporters. -                                                    :
1250 I Street, N.W.,. Suite 300 L'
Washington, D.C, 20005 (202) 842-0034                                                      '
p
 
  -. .. _ . _ . . _ . _ . . _        _..._.__.._____._________m.._._.._.___._____
143
              -- I            something --
l 2                        'DR. SEALE:                        The point though is that the measure 3            of compliance is to meet the intent.
.                4                          CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                          Well,-is_that really what 5            it is?
6                          DR.-SEALE:                        That is what it is saying.
7                          CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:-                        But in real life, is that 8            what it is?          Is that a complaint right now that Intent has                                      i 9            disappeared?            Right now?- The utilities are directed not to                                  i i
10              look at intent.                    It's-there omitted.                                                  ;
11                            Is that what it is?                          The complaint right now?
12                            MR. CUNNINGHM.                          h9    This was intended to give 13              them --
14                            MR. KING:                        Some margin, 15                            MR. CUNNINGHAM:                        To give them the opportunity to 16              say --                                                                                                  !
17                            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                          Sufficient margin.
          .18                            DR. MILLER:                        Some wiggling room.
19                            (Laughter.)
20                            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                          Okay.                  So you don't see 21              that there is.a problem, then I will go with you.
          -22                            Now, under defense in-depth is maintained, at page 23              11, bullet 3,          " System redundancy, independence and diversity 24              are preserved with commensurate with the expected frequency
          '25                and consequences of challenges to the system."
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
                                                                        -Court-Reporters                                              ;
1250_-I Street, N.W., Suite 300-                                                      '
Washington, D_.C. 20005=
(202) 842-0034-                                            *
      ..u____.__.__._____                          . _ _ . - ...._...._ _.          u,__  _ .._._ .._.,._.._,_ _ _ __._...~,__
 
    . - . - -              _ . - .        - _ .    - _ _    --    ..      . . . - . .          . - ~ _ . .  . - -_- - - _    .
144 1                            I would like to see something about uncertainties
()    2 3
here. That is really why you have the defense in-depth.
MR. CUNNINGHAM:                This is a slide that, it is not                                    !
4            your hand-out, just the bullets that are in the draft reg.
5                            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                  Yeah.                    Well, that is the 6            same bullet.                                                                                                      ,.
7                            MR. CUNNINGHAM:                Yeah, the same bullets.                                            <
8                            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                  The third bullet.                    So it is              ,
9            not really commensurate, that it should be commensurate with 10              the expected frequency.                      It is really uncertainty that is 4
11              driving it. -The more uncertain you are, the more redundancy 12              and diversity you demand, i
13                              MR. KING:              Well, I think it can also be --
14                              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                  Is not true?
() 15                              MR. KING:              But the expected frequency has a role 16              to play too.            Things that are unlikely to occur --
17                              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                  Oh, I don't doubt.
18                              MR. KING:              -- you don't need the redundancy.
19                              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                  I don't doubt that.                      All I 20              am saying is maybe you can add something to the effect that 21              the uncertainty about these things -- I mean, " Redundancy, 22              independence, diversity are preserved commensurate with the 23              expected frequency and consequences and relevant 24              uncertainties or associated uncertainties."
25                              MR. HOLARAN:                Okay.
O                                          ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
i 145                    {
1                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                              Safety margins, you will        _
()              2f 3
discuss.        It doesn't matter.
MR. KING:                                    No, we ---
4                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                              Evaluation of risk imp,                      t, 5    :2.4.2. Are you going to discuss that' separately or shall we f
6    discuss it now?                                                                                                                                            1 r
i 7                    MR. CUNNINGHAM:                                              We were going to discuss the                                              ;
8    acceptance guidelines.
9                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                              Okay.- So that is coming 10      up.      Okay.
11                      sSo then it is back to you then.                                                              No, the 12~    acceptance guidelines is 2.4.2.2.                                                                                                                          [
13                      MR. CUNNINGHAM:                                              Yes.
1 14                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                              It is a subset of this.                                              ;
            )    15                        MR. CUNNINGHAM:                                              Yes. So if you have got 16      something before, we hadn't intended to cover that.
17                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                              Well, in particular, on 18      page 12, I have a very minor comment.                                                            The third bullet 19      says, "One of the strengths of the PRA framework is'its 20      ability to provide the means of characterizing the impact of                                                                                              ,
21      . analytical uncertainty."                                                    What is analytical uncertainty?                        I 22-      don't think that word is used elsewhere.                                                                    Analytical 23      uncertainty.                                                                                                                                              ;
24                      DR.-MILLER:                                          What is-so strange 1about-that word?                                                l I
25                      ' CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                              That is something that is                                            ,
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters
                                              '1250 I Street, N.W.,                                          Suite 300' Washington, D.C. 20005:
(202) 842-0034-                                                                                ,
i 4.._-.    . _ . .._      . . .  . _ _ _ _ , . . , _ . . _ , ~ . . . . _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ , _ .          -_._.._..-..,_,-...._.,_o      __m_.-.___      ., . . . - . . , ,
 
146 1            not used.                    I don't know what it is.                                                !
DR. MILLER:- Well. when you do an analysis, there 4                    3-            is uncertainty in-your-analysis.                                                                      ;
            .        4                                          MR. KING:    Perhaps maybe the sources of 5            uncertainty would be-a better way to say it.                                                            !
6                                          MR. PARRY:    -I think the-impact is fine, but it may                    l 7              be the intent is I think the impact of uncertainties in the 8              analysis.
9                                          CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:            Yeah, drop analytical.
10                                          MR. PARRY:_ Just drop analytical.                                        1 11                                          CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:            That would be much better.
l
: 12.                                          Now,_the preceding bullet, "PRA is also to be used                        l 13            -in this decision making process in two ways, to assess for 14                some situations the overall baseline CDF/LERP of the plant,                                          i 151              and to assess the CDF/LERP impact of the proposed change."
16                                            Now, here we have Dana's complaint again that you 17              can't do that.                      In fact, he says, you know, you don't have 18              shutdown PRA, you don't have low power PRA, you don't know a 19              lot of things, so -- huh?                                                                            .
i                20                                            MR. CUNNINGHAM:    Yeah.          This doesn't preclude
                . 21              qualitative, it is not intended to preclude qualitative
                - 22.              arguments because the --
: i.                23                                            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:- His argument is that you t
24              'can't do it at all.                        How'can you make qualitative arguments                    -t 25            'about something that you have never quantified or addressed?                                            ;
: l.                                                                                                                                        1 i                                                                                                                                        i ANN-RILEY & ASSOCIATES, L'ID.
Court Reporters 1250'I' Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington,:D.C. 20005'                                            '
4 (202) 842-0034-                                            -
 
147 1-                              You know, he is raisingithe question here whether
()          2:
3
                          =  the whole effort here is_really sound.
subscribe to it.
I don't necessarily 4                                MR. CUNNINGHAM:                        Well, it may be better if you                                                !
5            come back and-discuss this in --                                                                                                        l 6                                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                In the acceptance?_
                                                                                                                                                                    )
7                                MR. CUNNINGHAM:                        In the acceptance guidelines.
              -8                                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                              Okay.                                                          3 9                                MR      PARRY:            And also with Section 2.4~.2.3,-I mean I
10              that is where this issueuis discussed.                                                                                                  I 11-                                CHAIRMAN-- APOSTOLAKIS:                            Then I think we are ready-12              to go to that.                  So we.are back to Slide 11.
13                                MR. CU:CNINGHAM:                      Slide 11, yes.                            Slides 11, 12 and                  :
14-            13 are intended to show how-we have changed the quantitative                                                                            ;
(          15          - acceptance guidelines in the document.                                                  We have talked about 16              these before.                Maybe what we could to help out would be go 17              to Slide 13 first.                        If we understand that, then we could i
18            back to Slides 11 and 12 and see if they convey what the                                                                                >
19              intent of 13 is.                                                                                                                        ;
20                                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                              Is a vertical line missing                                      !
21              there for Region III, a 10 to the minus 3, or is it intended 22            to be open?
23                                MR. HOLAHAN:                    It is not.open.
124                                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                It is not-open, 10 to minus                                      -
            ~25            3 is boundary, okay.                                                                                                                    l f
r O                                                    ' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters
                                                    - 1250:I Street, N.W.,' Suite 300
* Washington, D.C. 20005 (202)- 842-0034 s
                                                                                                                                                              % 3' g
r , S.      l v.--  , - - ,  sw % im- 5 c-a    ,-,,.n      n  n          ,..4,-,,4~-,    ,,-l.,,'_J..,',-.. ..,.,,.-,,,,,,n
 
I i
148 1                              DR. MILLER:            It's a wide boundary.
()                2 3
MR. HOLARAN:
figure would be in the_ document.
But we haven't yet decided whether a 4                              DR. MILLER:          Is there an absolute that 10 to the 5              minus 6 on Region III is the number?                      Is there any further 6              discussion?          We might move that up.
7                                MR. KING:          That number is a policy paper going to 8              the Commission.                                                                        ,
9                              DR. MILLER:          Small changes are going to be less 10                than --
11                                MR. KING:          This, what we call Region III, is 12                really a policy iscue.
13                                DR. MILLER:          Yeah.
14                                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              But it is also -- I think
()              15                the question really raises, in an indirect way, the question 16                of the lines.                That in some instances three 10 to the minus 17                6 may legitimately belong in Region III.                      But it is not 18                really an absolute criterion.
19                                DR. MILLER:          Well, the way it is written is very, 20                and, of course, back on Slide 11 it is very clear.                        It says 21                small is defined as less, is less between 10 to the minus 7 22                and 10 to the minus 6.
23                                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              Yeah. Yeah. And I don't 24                think they intend, going back to intends, was that 10 to the 25                minus 7 is really the boundary, that boundary.                      Is that
(
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters
!                                                      1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 l                                                                Washington, D.C. 20005 l                                                                      (202) 842-0034      .
i
    >-,y -
          +--m.-    , - - - , - . y y na , -yw. y  ,--,,-r            ,    ,m-re            ,  r    -      -    ,
 
149 1      true?
()  2 3
MR. KING:
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Yeah, I think we agree.
That's correct, yeah.
4                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              Shall we put up the figure 5      that we prepared and see whether -- if I tell you that the 6      dashed lines will become solid lines, tne way the previous 7      figure was.        Yeah, there and down there.                    And I tell you 8      that, as the bottom bar shows, the scrutiny from the staff 9      and the difficulty of accepting a proposed change, and the 10        number of questions, and all that stuff, goes up the darker 11        the figure becomes.
12                      Would this figure then -- and then, questions like 13        Dr. Miller's question, you know, is really 10 tc the minus 7 14        something that we have agreed on, goes away.                            Because that 15        shows that there is the one truly absolute criteria.
16                      Would anybody have an objection to something like t
17        this replacing the preceding figure, previous figuro?                              And 18        you can put words like Region I, and II and III, I don't 19        have any problem with that.
l    20                    DR. MILLER:            Well, to answer that, I thought the 21        entire committee who was here last week would have an
;    22        objection, l
23                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                They didn't see this.                  The 24-      didn't see the figure with the lines.
25                    DR. MILLER:            Oh, with the lines.
()                              ANh' RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
                                            ' Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washing.on, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
150 1-                                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                      Yeah.
()                      3 DR. KRESS:                        Yeah, we drew the lines-in ourselves.
We decided it is more of a_ confusing factor than it.was a 4            clarifying.                                                                                                                                ,
5                                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                      I argue the other way.                  I                  l l
6            think this really reflects what is in the document.                                                                It is 1
            -7.
                                                                                                                                                                      =
not confusing at all. 'The other_ things is confusing.
8            Because when you look at it first and say, oh, three                                                                                      l t
9            regions, but then when you start thinking about it, all 10            sorts of questions come up.                                                You mean if I am a little bit
                  - above 10 the minus 6, then I am this region, so this applies                                                                              f 12            to me, right?                      And are all points in each region equivalent?
13            They are not.                      The text says they are not.                                Look it back up.
14            They are not.
()      15                                MR. KING:                      I think P. ext would go along with our                                                '
16'          proposed curvo, and I think Gary stated it very well last 17            week.        And what we are really interested in is are they I
18-          me7 ting, basically, is the proposed change meeting the 19            intent of Region I, II or III, and not bewedded so much to 20            the lines, but you can look at it and make a decision based                                                                                ,
21            upon the merits of the change, which region it would go in                                                                ,
22          - without being tied so much to the line.                                                                                                    ,
23                                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                      Yeah, but there is more to                                ,
24:        - it -      A~ point, not all points in each region are equivalent.
25-          That's what the text says.                                              As you move to the right, things 10m RILEY & ASSOCIATES, L1D.
O-Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300                                                                              ,
Washington, D.C. 20005-.                                                                          l
:(202) 842-0034
      ^
i e.,,c - . .  +-,,&    --e..  -,w-.-~,-    ,,v--,,.,--.-e.                                      ---mm,,m...-..-...h,..e.m.4        . . - , - - -
 
151 1          happen.        As you move up, things happen.                                              So, if you want to
()                -2 3
bear all that in mind, that's find.
it makes it explicit.
What this figure does I don't know why it is confusing.
i 4                            DR. KRESS:                        Well, in the first place, it looks to                                                          l 5          me like you drew the shading a decade too low.
6                            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                        A what?        A decade too low.
7                            MR. HOLAHAN:                            I suppose that depends what the 8            shading means.
9                            DR. KRESS:                        Yeah.                So I am not sure what the 10              shading means.                  My interpretation is it is a little too low.
11              And I am not sure --
12                              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                        I am sure I understand 13              that.
14                              DR. KRESS:                        -- whether it is a continuum, with a                                                          ,
()              15              constant first derivative.
16                              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                        Ten to the minus 5.                              Yeah, 17              nothing is accepted above 10 to the minus 5,                                                              is that 18              correct?
19                              DR. KRESS:                        Yeah.
20                              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                        Region I?
21                              DR. KRESS:                        Yeah.                So you would draw a solid line 22              there.
23                              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                        Yeah.
24                              DR. KRESS:                        And Region II is between 10 to the 25              minus 5 and 10 to the minus 6.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
t '
Court Reporters 1250-1 Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
    , , - - - - .                        - - , ,  - - ~ , , - - -  ,  , , - , - ~                        - -
                                                                                                                                , , - - - - .            . - , _ . _ , -        v
 
l 152                      :
1                                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                        Yeah.      That's what it is.
4                                2                                        DR. KRESS:                                                And below 10 to the minus 6 is 3-            negligible.                                                                                                                                                                          l 4                                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                        Oh, okay.          Yeah.                  That8a 5-            fine.
6                                        DR. KRESS:                                                It-looks like --
MR. HOLAHAN:                                                  Well, no.          No,    Tht.t's not what we                                              :
,-                                  9            said last week.                                                      That's not what we -- no.                                                                                      :
9_                                        DR.'KRESS:                                                Well, that is what is on this curve 10-              here.
J 11-                                          MR. PARRYi                                                No, the negligible is not on that.                                                            1 12                                            MR                          CUNNINGHAN:                        It is not on this slide.
l 13                                            MR. PARRY:                                              That slide.            It is not on. Slide 13.                                                f 14                                            MR. CUNNINGHAM:                                                  I think three is characterized as 15                very small changes.
16                                            DR. KRESS:                                              Okay. But that is below 10 to-the 17                minus 6.                                                                                                                                                                            -
MR. PARRY:                                              Below 10 to the minus 6.                        Right.                                        ;
19                                            DR. KRESS:                                              And I think he intended that same                                                              ,
20                thing to be 10 to the minus 6 on his, but it doesn't look
                            - 21                like it on the curve.
22                                            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                        No, no, no.
                            ' 23                                            MR. HOLAMAN:                                                  I see, you are saying you are                                                              -
L                                          :getting~into a gray region when, in fact, those are-very.
25-              small,' pretty white, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Jourt Reporters                                                                                        :
1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300                                                                                                                !
Washington,:D.C. 20005                                                                                          '
(202) 842-0034
  ,u                --#,.u m,  3,.      ,        , - , , _ '4 rr v w- -                  .~.,r,._,                ,..M.,  .,,,wm--,,      -~,,,,r,  v--__we .  % r,,< -,.4,... ,.,m-w..y-..m.
                                                                                                                                                                                                              ,,r.., w-w,. --m.-g~..
 
l 153 1              DR. KRESS:        Yeah.          So, you know, I have -- I have
()      2 3
a problem figuring out what the shading means and --
CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                  No, but I think the fact i
l 4  that you raise the question is healthy.                        That is the whole 5  purpose of the figure.          Should it be white, and what does 6  that mean?  See, these questions were never raised when we i
,        7  were looking at the text, and I find that is the value of 8  the figure. The fact that you are asking the question.
9              Now, I -- all I am arguing is that some 10    indication, there should be on the figure some indication of 11    the fact that all points are not equivalent within a region.
12              I am not arguing that this is the figure.                            So if 13    you think that 10 to the minus 7 shouldn't be there, fine 14    with me. I am not saying this is the figure.                        All I am
()    15    saying is the idea of having, you know, this shading is that 16    something, that I think it conveys a lot.                        And how light 17    should it be?    Should -- should it be darker, for example, 18    as I move to the right towards 10 to the minus 3, to send a 19    message?
20              DR. KRESS:        I think it raises more questions than 21    answers. I think you could say we will give variable 22    regulatory attention depending on how close you are to the 23    lines. That takes care of all shading.                      You don't have to 24    have a computer whis to do your shading for you and worry 25-  about all these other questions.                  You can do it with a few g'
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
_            . . . ~ _ _ _ _ _ . .                  . _ _ _ .          . .. _ ._ _ ____ _ -_                                        .__._ _ _    _._ _ ____
154      l i
1              words. ,What takes -- it's one case where a few.words is                                                                                          i
()
2              worth --
3                                      MR. CUNNINGHAM:                                      A thousand figures.                                                  l 4                                      DR.'SEALE:                        On the other hand, I think the region 5              of negligible calculated change should be indicated on your-                                                                                        l
                .6              figure,                                                                                                                                            f i
7                                      MR          HOLAHAN:                    On whose figure?                                                                j 8-                                      DR. SEALEs- The staff's figure,                                                                                          t 9                                      DR. KRESS:                        They call it Region III.                                                                !
10-                                      CHAIMCW, APOSTOLAKIS:                                                        I don't understand what 11              Region III-is then, if that is not a negligible,                                                                                                  j e
12                                        DR. KRESS:                        That's what it is.                                                                      ,
13                                        MR. HOLAHAN:                            Very small.
E14                                        DR. KRESS:                      Very small.
k  15                                        DR. MILLER:                          There's a difference between very 16              small and --                                                                                                                                      +
17                                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                      There's a difference 18              between very small and small?                                                                                                                      [
i              19                                      DR. MILLER:                          There is a difference between very                                                  l l
l              20              small and negligible.
21                                      MR. HOLAHAN:                              Yes, a factor of 10.
t 22                                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                        How is it handled l                    .
23              differently?
r 24                                    .MR. CUNNINGHAM:                                      Well, the very r nall, again,
              '25              would be, you cold come up above 10 to the minus 4.                                                                                I think        f i
()                                                                1004 RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.. Suite 300 t
Washington, D.C. 20005                                                                                    '
(202) 840-0034'                                                                                :
                                                                                                                                                                                  ?
 
i 155 1        _Dr. Miller's right.                                                    The distinction here is between --                                                                l 2                                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                      What's the difference                                                            !
3          between very small and negligible then?                                                                  There is no                                                      i 4          difference.-                                                                                                                                                              l 5                                      MR. KING:                                  Well, we use che term avery small" and                                                            ;
6          that's to define where you are-not tied to the baseline CDP 7          or LERP value.                                      You can make a change --
                                                                                                                            ~
8                                      DR. SEALE:                                    You only-.do it with regard to CDFs.
9                                      MR. KING                                  Now, if you want to use negligible to                                                            .
10            even define =a sub-region in Region III,                                                              --
l 11                                          CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                      So that's what it is, yeah.
12                                          MR. KING:                                  You could do that.              At this point for 13            the: purposes of this document,- there is no real need to do 14            that,                                                                                                                                                                      i 15                                          CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                      There is no real t
16-            difference, yeah.
17                                        MR. HOLAHAN:                                      THere is no difference.
18                                          CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                      There is no difference.
19                                        MR. HOLAHAN:                                      When we think about it in the 20            context of 5059, it makes a difference.
21                                        DR. MILLER:                                      Why is that-now?-
22-                                        MR. HOLAHAN:                                      Because there might be some changes,
                  't 3            whatever words you want to put on there, that are so l
24            . inconsequential that you would allow licensees to make them r                  25-          ^without review and approval'since --
O r
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.                                                                                                      !
                                                                                                  -Court Reporters                                                                                            !
1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300-                                                                                                      ;
Washington, D.C. 20005                                                                                                l (202) 842-0034                                                                                        ,
 
156 1-                              These are review and approvals.
2                              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                            I think 15 is-at least as 3            misleading as -- sends a completely wrong-message, because 4            we are not in Region.II.                                                  If-I pick two points in Region II, 5            one to-the left and one to the right, the Staff will treat
                        -G-            them very differently.                                                  So I don't know what it means to                            j
                                                                                                                                                                            ~
7            have a box that says Region II.                                                    Now you say I can put words                        ;
18              and explain it, then I take away from the figure.                                                                        The value l
: 9.            of the figure is that, you know, you send a message without                                                                        j i
10              having to read the text.                                                  But it's a real issue here that 11              all the points in one region are not equivalent.                                                                      And the i
12              more I move to -- up or to the right, the more trouble I I
13              should expect.                          That's clear in the text.
f 14                                MR. PARRY:                                    But also part of the intent of that                                  t 15              figure is to make the delineation between those regions                                                                              l 16              where you're talking about having to do an assessment of the 17              full baseline CDP and LERF and those where you're not.                                                                              r 18              That's the reason Region III is on the viewgraph.
19                                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                          But say it again?                        I'm 20                sorry.
21                                MR. PARRY:                                      It's a delineation of where in terms 22              of the delta CDF, the size of delta CDF, where you decide 23              whether you need to look at the whole of the baseline, the absolute value of the CDF on the --
25                              --CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                            Yes, that argues for the i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court. Reporters 1250 I Street,.N.W.,-Suite 300 Washington,- D.C. 20005                                                                    :
(202) 842-0034                                                            6
_ _ _.__ m._._.                              . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . , _ . _ . . _ _ _
 
l 157 1  existence of a figure.
()                                                2 3
DR. SEALE:    When you say --
CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      But we're arguing about the 4  form of the figure.
5              DR. SEALE:    When you say management attention in 6  Region II, which management do you mean?
7              MR. HOLAHAN:    It tended to be management attention 8 during the review here and the staff.
9            DR. SEALE:    By the NRC?
10              MR. HOLAHAN:    Yes.
11              DR. SEALE:    I think you need to be more specific 12  on the figure. I mean, even though you've said that in the 13  text, I think it makes the point that you're talking about 14  the review process.
15              MR. HOLAHAN:    Okay. We're also getting into a 16  difficulty that engineers understand shades cf gray, but 17  lawyers and judges hate shades of gray, and will want a 18  decision to be clear and reproducible and either acceptable 19  or unacceptable. And --
20              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      That goes against the 21  intent and spirit of risk-informed regulations.
22              DR. MILLER:  Well, lawyers and judges are not 23  trained to think about risk-informed decision making.
24              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      Might as well forget that.
25              MR. HOLARAN:    Yes. Somehow some of them think ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
O'                                                            Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
158      !
1              that we're out of step.                                                                                                                                    I mean, there's, you know, some I'')
v 2              things we tave to accommodate.                                                                                                                                                                            i 3                                                      MR. SHERRY:                                                                                                  Gary, did you indicate that Region 4                III has a boundary at 10 to the minus 3 in principle?
5                                                      MR. HOLAHAN:                                                                                                      In principle it does.
6                                                      MR. SF 9RY:                                                                                                  Of course my next        --
t 7                                                        MR. HOLCdAN:                                                                                                      In principle.      Yes, your observation 8              is not in the text.
9                                                        MR. SHERRY:                                                                                                  Is that -- since for small changes, 10              very small changes you do not need to submit a total CDF 11                calculation you'll never know that, whether you're inside or 12              outside a 10 to the minus 3 boundary.                                                                                                                                          At least formally.
13                                                        MR. PARRY:                                                                                            But you will know, though, if you're 14                in danger of getting there because I think you'll know from O)
(_,    15                the parts of the CDP that you've calculated whether you're 16              getting up there or not.                                                                                                                                      You're right, if you haven't 17              calculated it, you don't know where you are.                                                                                                                                            But I think 18              the intent is the higher the calculated CDF, the more --
19              regardless of whether it's full scope or not -- the more 20              scrutiny you're going to get.
21                                                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                                                                        Even in Region III?
22                                                      MR. SHERRY:                                                                                                  I'm talking about Region III.
23                                                'MR. HOLAHAN:                                                                                                            Yes.
24                                                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                                                                        Are you required to submit 25            a CDP in Region III?
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
' N/ [)                                                                                                                                                      Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
  . - _ - . _ - _ - - _ . -                          .  .                  - - .        ..          .          . - . - - - . . - - _ _ _        - _ _ _ - . _ ~ .                - -
159 1                  MR. PARRY:                        No, but you will have done -- I mean,
()                    3 2    everybody's done at least an assessment of CDF of limited scope maybe but they've done one.
4                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                    So it is misleading, 5    because it's open-ended.                                                                                                                                l l
6                    MR. CUNNINGHAM:                        That we can fix.                                  We can just                                    i i
7      stop drawing.
8                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                    Draw a line.
9                    MR. CUNNINGHAM:                        Right there.
10                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                    But even then it's 11      misleading, because you are saying you will treat it 12      differently if CDP is close to 10 to the minus 3 or if it's                                                                                          :
13      close to 10 to the minus 5.                              That's a problem.
14                    MR. CUNNINGHAM:                        I think plain white.
()                  15                    MR. KING:                        The thing we were thinking about when 16      you get out in Region III when you're above a CDF 10 to the 17      minus 4 is when you're looking at the cumulative effect of 18      changes, are they orifting toward higher and higher CDFs or 19      is the general trend to reduce CDF.                                          I think that's -- we 20      had in mind to put in the text some check like that on the 21      cumulative effect.
22                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                  I think this is similar to 23      the debate we've had in the past, not with you but in other 24      contexts, of when you use expert opinions, equal weights or 25      not. It depends how you look at it.                                            Some people think I
O'                                                ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 L
(202) 842-0034
                              . - .      _ _ _ ,  _        ...-..._...,__m.                  _ . . _ . - . . _ -  . .. . _ _ . .                                      . - - -
 
160 1  that, you know, I don't want to get into the business of
()  2 3
assigning weights and so on, so I'll use equal weights.
some other people say no, you are in the business already, And i
4  and you're telling me that you are assigning equal weights,                                      j 5  so you have a burden now of proving that these equal weights l
6  make sense,                                                                                    i 7                It's a subtle difference, but it's an important 8  difference.      You are not out of the business of weights just 9- because you used equal weights.                You have already made a 10  very strong statement that they're equally credible.                      Let me 11  take that here now.          You're not out of the business of 12  shading because you chose to put white everywhere.                      You have 13  made a very strong statement with the white.                And I'm saying 14  that's misleading, more misleading than the shades.
() 15                MR. KING:      No, I think what we're saying is you've 16  got to take the figure and the text together.                                                  ,
17                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:          Definitely. Absolutely.
18                MR. KING:      Each alone can't tell the whole story.
19                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKISi          That's very true.
20                MR. KING:      And I think that's true --
21                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:          How about using both?
22                MR  KING:    I think that's true whether you use the 23  shaded figure or an unshaded figure.
24                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:          Yes, I don't doubt that, 25  don't dispute that.          But it seems to me that you will have I                        ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\-                              Court. Reporters 1250 I' Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
    -  - .-    - . _ .      - - _ _ . - . - _ . - . . - . ~.                                . - . - .._- -      --.-_- -. -            . ._-
161 1    more problems with a figure -- on 15.                                                                                                  f
()    2 3
DR. SEALE:                      Well, but there's an old adage that says if you think you have technical problems, wait until 4    the lawyers get ahold of it.                                    And I think Gary has said that 5    a part of the problem of the practical here is that a shaded 6    figure invites contention.
7                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                      And I am sending the wrong 8    message to the lawyers if I show them the other figure,                                                                                :
9    because now they will take the 10 to the minus 5 as an 10    absolute criterion, and I don't want them to do that.                                                              I 11    want to rub it in their nose that it's a shade.                                                    No , I'm not 12    rubbing, what am I --
13                      DR. SEALE:                      No, they rub the nose in it.
14                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                      The nose-rubbing.                    It's the
()    15    other way, but you got the intent.
16                      DR. MILLER:                        It's a shaded line.
17                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                      See, my point has been all 18    along that we are changing more than just documents.                                                              We're 19    trying to change attitudes and cultures here.                                                  I don't want 20    them to look at the line and say yes, there is a difference 21    above and below, because there isn't.                                                We all know that 22    there isn't.                You have to move far enough to see a 23    difference.              And I don't know how to send that message.
24    That's why we did this.                              It's unusual, I admit, but it sure 25    sends the message.
I\                                    ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\s-                                                      Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
                                                                                                                        ..l l
162                1 l
1            MR. KING:            Well~, suppose you took the unshaded                                      :
()        2-3 figure and instead of drawing sharp lines, put a shaded region in that1 defines the region?                                                                        ,
4              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:            That would be an                                              ;
5  improvement, but I don't know why you're fighting so much 6: the other shaded figure if you're willing to do that.
                                                                                    ~
7              MR. KING:            It seems to me it doesn't define the                                    f 8  -regions very well.
9            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:- No, but you can put the 10    regions.                                                                                                  ,
        -11                MR. KING:            As long as you substitute the lines, 12    put the regions --                                                                                        :
13                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:            No , I'm sorry, you can put 14    the regions.      I'm not saying -- I repeat, I'm not wedded to                                          ;
(  '15      this particular figure.
16                MR. KING:            Right.
17                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:            You can make what I have                                    :
18    now as dashed line solid, you can put the words Region I,                                                ,
19-    II, III, exactly-as you have 15.
20=                MR. KING:            And show shading.
        . 21                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:            And on top of it put the                -
22      shade..
2 3 .-            MR. PARRY- With your little bar chart that 24-    explains what the shading means.
25                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:            Huh?
O                            - ANN RILEY 4. ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters
                              ;1250-I' Street, N.W.,          Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 m                                _ _.                _. -      . - _ , , ,        _,          _. .. _ _ . . , .
 
_..                            ,          .              .-_ _ _ . _ -                    _.___m..                    .. ___ _ . . _ . _ _ _.__ _ ____. _ . .___ _
163                          '
l'                                MR. PARRY:                  With a little chart that                                      --                                                    !
                            -- 2                                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                    If'you wish.                                                                          ,
L3'                                  MR._' PARRY:                Shows what the shading means, f
4                                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                    Yes, if you wish                        .                                              l 5                                  DR. MILLER:'                If you do that, I'd recommend you                                                                                  !
6-        reverse the bar chart so the light --                                                                                                                                    !
I 7                                  [ Laughter.)                                                                                                                                    !
8                                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                    We tried that, Don.                                We 9        can't do.that, they.tell me.                                                                                                                                              !
                          - 10                                    [ Laughter.)                                                                                                                                    .
211'                                  But these people have professional --                                                                                                            ,
1
                                                                                                                                                                                                                -t 12                                    DR. MILLER:                  I hate to get into.the details.                                                                                    ;
13                                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                    My graduate students can do                                                            j 14          it.
          )                15                                    ER. MILLER:                  Well, I'd give it to Ohio State 16          students.
: 17.                                    [ Laughter.)
18                                    MR. HOLAMAN:                  The. Staff has an old technique.
19-        - It's-called cut and beste.                                                                                                                                              .
I 20                                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                    That also.                Let me make it 21          very clear.                    I have no problem with you using 15 as is and-22'          put a shading on top of it.
23                                    MR. KING:                  Okay.          And-put it in'the guide itself.
24                                  - CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                    Yes.      'Yes.
And then maybe
                        - 25,          a-paragraph = discussing it a little more, i!
1                                                                    ANN RILEY-& ASSOCIATC1, LTD.
L ^%-                                                                                    Court Reporters 1250'I-Street, N.W., Suite-300                                                                                                            -
Washington,- D.C. 20005                                                                                                      ,
(202). 842-0034                                                                                                      -
1
      -r  +%,,,e-i.-.%          'r      , . .  .,ew.,+-.a,#            r  .,.,,,-r.,e      m vi    ~-, -,.,.w._qe.,..      >-,%,,.,-yc,          77-mwe,,..w,c,,y,m..v,wyy-,,7,x',,.
                                                                                                                                                                                          -. m g.m,- vN# ,-, y
 
    -. -.                  . .      .. . _ _ _ - _ .        - - . . _ = - _ _ _ _ . . - _ - - .
164 1                  MR. KING:                Yes.
2                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAY,IS:                        Because I don't think there 3      is more information here than there is in the text, and I don't think that there is less information here than there                                                            !
5      is in the text.                                                                                                      ,
6                  DR. MILLER:                I do believe with -- Tom will point 7      out that the shading it a little bit off -- that should bc                                                          ,
8      upward a little bit, so --
9                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                          Oh, yes, and I have no 10      problem with that either.
11                  DR. MILLER:                It should be white, so to speak --
12                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                          I have no problem with 13      that, either.        I will leave it up to the staff to really 14      decide -- if they decids to do this, I'm sure they will
()    15      think about it.
16                  DR. MILLER:                  Okay.
17                DR. KRESS:                  You c< aid put the shading on the lines 18      themselves.
19                    [ Laughter.)
20                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                          I don't want to hear it.                        I 21      didn't hear it at all.
22                But where I'm coming from is that I want to make                                                          ,
23      it very clear to people that this is a new way of thinking.
24      So I want them to see the shade and say I've never seen 25        anything like this before, and then start talking about it, I                                ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
  \-                                                  Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
1 165 1            because they have to understand and reali=e that life now is                                                                    !
()            2 3
different.      It's not black and white, DR. FONTANA:                        It. matches his numbers; it's still f
                -4            too high.
5                          CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                            Yes, the shading will have                                      l
                .6            to be-redone, I agree.                            I agree with all of these comments.                                          l 7            As-long as there is some indication-there that things get                                                                      !
: 8.          darker as you move up or to the right.
9'                        MR. SHERRY:                      One comment on the shading in terms 10            of the-concept, I guess.                              You,are assuming at 10 to the
:11              ninus 7 to 10 to the minus a was -- it was a region which is                                                                    -
12            called-very small region --                                                                                                    ;
13                          CHAIPMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                          There was no ulterior 14            motive there.          I thought that such a region was proposed by
()          15            the staff.      Drop it if it's not.                            That's not what I'm 16            preposing.      If you want to cut the figure off at 10 to the 17            minus 7, that's fine with me.                                                                                                  ,.
I 18                          MR. SHERRY:                      All I.was asking about was the small 19            amount of shading between 10 to the minus 4 and 10 to the 20            minus 3 in the --
21                          CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                          Ten to the minus 4 and 10                                        -
            .22              to the minus 3?                                                                                                                1 23                          MR. SHERRY:                      Yes.                                                                            ,
              '24                          CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAXIS:                          Oh, because the delta CDF 25            is so'small.
O                                          -ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court' Reporters 1250 I. Street, N.W., Suite                                300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
    - - . .        . . . - . . . -    . .    . _ . - . _ - - - - . . - . - - . - -                          , = - . - - . - . - . _ .          . . .. - -
 
166 1                                                      MR. HOLAHAN:                          But there's some.
b)              2                                                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                            But there is some.
G' 3                                                      MR. HOLAHAN:                          Interesting implication in the 50.59 4                            context, which says you must have some residual concerns, 5                            but if 50.59 were to allow licensees to make exceedingly 6                            small changes, why are you concerned about them?
7                                                      CIMIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                            Right now it has to have 8                            some darkness.
9                                                    MR. HOLAHAN:                          Right, it has to be white in the 10                              context of no management attention, no staff prior review 11                              and approv.21.
12                                                      DR. MILLER:                          Does that. mean that 's where 50.59 13                              would be okay?
1?                                                      MR. HOLAHAN:                            Perhaps.
15                                                      DR. MILLER:                          Wherever it's white''
16                                                      MR. HOLAHAN:                            Yes. Or maybe you would reinterpret 17                                the dark to mean even though licensees can do it without 18                                prior review and approval, it doesn't mean there's no 19                                regulatory oversight.                                      It 9till has to be submitted on an 20                                annual basis --
i 21                                                      DR. MILLEtt :                        Right.
22                                                      MR. HOLAHAN:                          And maybe you get some inspectio1 if 23                                you happen to be up that end versus on the other end.
24                                                      DR. MILLER:                          This will give everybody a challenge 25                                to rewrite things..
                >                                                              ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005                                                i (202) 842-n034                                                l
 
167 1-            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS: ~Now even if you do the ID L) 2  shading, and you have the solid-lines,.there is a discussion 3  in the text that the lines themselves are fuzzy.          Yes.
4  Okay,
          ~5            MR. CUNNINGHAM:          Do you want to -- maybe what we 6  could do is go back and talk about the words that at? in the 7  text.
8            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:        When do you plan to do 9  this?  Because I'm willing to look at the draft figure 10  before we get the final guide, if you guys agree.          All you 11  have to do is fax it.
12            MR. KING:        We intend to-hrce it in -- the figure 13  in the guide we send to you late next week.          If we have the 14  figure earlier, we can fax it.
( ,/  15            DR. KhESS:        That's another problem with shaded 16  areas. They don't fax well.
17              [ Laughter.)
18            DR. FONTANA:          Put your densitometer on it.
19-            DR. MILLER:        You can see that this is not going to 20  be an easy thing.
21            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:          It will attract attention, 22  and that's the attention I want.          I really want it to 23  attract attention.
24            DR. MILLER:        You've done that.
25            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:          You're changing cultures
  .[. gt                    ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
  'l'-                            Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
168 1    here, so -- yeah, okay, so you want to go back to 11.
()                        2 3
MR. CUNNINGHAM:    Let's go back to 11. These are the words, the first -- there are single slides here that 4    talk about the words that would go with this figure.
5              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      Yes. How about if we go to 6    page 13 first. There is a sentence that's kind of funny, 7  13 -- no, no, no, of the actual guide.
8              MR. CUNNINGHAM:    Oh, the guide itself?
9              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      Yes,  2.4.2.2 acceptance 10      guidelines, the second sentence.        It sort of describes the 11      figure, you know, the guidelines can be visualized as 12      creating regions and so on.      Now that has to be changed, 13      right, if there is a figure.
14                MR. CUNNINGHAM:    Yes. Yes.
15                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    And it was funny to 16    describe the figure but not show it.
17                MR. CUNNINGHAM:    Yes.
18                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    So I'm just -- okay. Okay.
19              MR. HOLARAN:    I think we do have to face the 20    question about whether the text has to say something about 21    10 to the minus 3.
22              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      Yes. I'll tell you, I 23    think 10 to the minus 3 is a criterion.        It's one of the 24    rare instances, and I don't care what anybody says, if you 25    are close to it, if you go to 1.1 10 to the minus 3, yes, I
  ;                                              ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W-, Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
169 1    will be upset. I don't care whether 1.1 is a 2    distinguishable from 1 or 2.                  You are in a region now where
[JT 3    it's unforgivable.        You shouldn't be there, in my opinion.
4    I mean, if we start tolerating 10 to the minus 3 core damage 5    frequency might you as well. forget about regulating 6    anything.
7                MR. KING:                Well, one reason we sort of left our 8  curve open-ended was the fact that there will be other 9    things that will take place if someone is up in that region                                .
10    at 10 to the minus 3, 11                (Laughter.)
12                So we don't need to really worry about it in the 13    context of --
14                DR. SEALE:                Except that consistency says that you g
(_)                    15    will. I mean that you don't indicate that there's free 16    skating out there, so to speak.
17                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                That's right.              And that's 18    the only place where a bright line makes perfect sense, 19    razor sharp. Mny be far to the left, very dark to the left.
20                MR. CUNNINGHAM:                Well, again, slides 11 and 12 21    were basically the text that would talk about the acceptance 22    guide.
23                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                Yes, I have a problem with 24    the first bullet. Not a problem, but just something that 25    needs to be discussed.                If the application can be shown to n
(  )                                          ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
A/                                                              Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005                                                    l (202) 842-0034                                            I n                                                                                          .
 
l                                                                                                              170 I
i 1  result in a decrease in CDF, now what does that mean?                The
(                            )    2  calculated delta CDF is decreasing, or the overall v'
3  assessment including qualitative arguments is decreasing, 4  the delta CDF is decreasing.
5                MR. KING:        I think it has to be the overall.
6                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:          Pardon?
7                MR. KING:        It has to be the overall. There may be 8 qualitative reasons that tell you it's going to go down even 9 though you have some slight increase calculated.              I mean, 10  you can't throw away the qualitative reasons.
11                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:          So this is then referring 12  to the overall, the calculated -- the calculated delta CDF 13  may be an increase, but because of qualitative arguments, it 14  has become negative.
O ly,)                      15                MR. KING:        Yes. If the overall assessment it it's 16  a decrease for whatever reasons, then that's the way you 17  treat it.
18                CHAIRMAN APCSTOLAKIS:          Well, I don't know though 19  change can satisfy,the principle -- irrespective of the CDF?
20                MR. KING:        If it is a decrease it is irrespective, 21  the baseline CDF.
22                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:          Even if it is a result of a    g 23  qualitative evaluation?
24                MR. KING:        Yes.
25                MR. HOLAHAN:        Yes.
[ 's ANN RILE        & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court iteporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
171 1              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                Is that something that
(                                                              2    makes sense though?
v, 3              Let's I am 10 to the minus 4, baseline CDF.
4              Can I do a calculation that says that the proposed 5    change will increase that by a little bit numerically?                          But
: 6. then I have a qualitative argument that it will really 7    decrease it. So I accept that independent of whether I am 8  10 to the minus 4 or five 10 to the ininus 4?
9              MR. HOLJJDd :              Yes.
10              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                Maybe you're right.
11              MR. HOLAHAN:                In fact, I think it applies to all I
12    the regions.
13              DR. KRESS:            The qualitative argument that it 14    really results in a decrease somehow has to be quantitative n
()                                                          15    because you are saying it's bigger than the increase that 16    you had.
17                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              That's right. That's 18    right.
19                MR. HOLAHAN:              But it doesn't have to be a 20    calculation, does it?
21                DR. KRESS:              It doesn't have to be a calculation 22    but you have to somehow be able to demonstrate that it would 23    be bigger or give reasonable assurance that it would be 24    bigger.
25              DR. FONTANA:              At what level is an increase so
                          )                                                        ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
    \ ~- '
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
172
: 1. -small that-it's -- it would-count as an increase but it's so-2  small you can't distinguish it from zero or negative?
[%.)T 3  Relates to Bullet 1      --
10 to-the minus 8?  10 to the 4  minus --
5-            MR. CUNNINGHAM:        As soon as you say risk neutral, 6  the question is what does risk neutral mean, and to some 7  degree we have walked away from the neutral. concept by going 8  to the very small increase area.
9              DR. FONTANA:        Doesn't matter.
10              MR. CUNNINGHAM:        Wait a minute. Not sure.
11              DR. KRESS:        Risk neutral can get involved in the 12    question of bundling.
13-              MR. HOLAHAN:        I'm sorry?
14              DR. KRESS:        It could get interrelated with the
,O
( ,/ 15    question of bundling.
16                "R . KING:      All of these are related to the 17    question of bundling, yes -- decrease, neutral or increase.
18              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:        What if an applicant comes 19    with a calculated decrease in the CDF and nothing else?
20              MR. CUNNINGHAM:        And nothing else?
2.1              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:        Nothing else.
22              - Would Bullet 1 apply automatically or you would 23    actually do a qualitative evaluation?
24-              You know, the qualitative evaluation does not 25    always work to your advantage.        It may take a calculated r
i                          ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
  \ -                              Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
173
                -1    decrease'and'make itEan-increase.
2                            MR._CUNNINGHAM: .. Y e s . -- T h a t could;-.
              '3-                            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                              Do-you expect many people-
              -4      to do that?                You-probably:have to.do that.
5                            DR. SEALE:                    It's called " quit while you are 6    ahead."
7                            MR. CUNNINGHAM:                              I don't know whether many people 8    are going .tx) do that or not, but.I think it has to work both 9    ways, r'
L10 l                            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                              Yes, it does.
            '11                              DR. SEALE:                    Well --
12                              DR..FONTANA:                        You see Bullet 2, if you are 10 to 13-      the minus 6,                it's more than 10 to the minus 6, the change 14      will be considered, and then you are going to have a
(/      15-      technical review that will address the scope, quality, 16      robustness, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
17                              What if the numbers-crunch out to 10 to the minus 18      8 or-10 to the minus 9?                                          Shouldn't that really be raro?
L            19                              MR.- HOLAHAN:                        If it is 10 to the minus 8, that is
            '20      less than 10 to the minus 6.
21                              DR. FONTANA: -Yes.
1            22-                              MR. KING:                Yes.
23                              DR. FONTANA:                          You wouldn't have to do anything.
24      So~you're'on Bullet 2.
I          - 2 5.                          LMR. HOLAHAN:                        Yes.        You are in Bullet 2.
1
    )                                              ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
s-? :                                                        Court-Reporters 1250 I Street,-N.W., Suite 300
                                                        -Washington, D.C. 20005 (202)'842-0034
 
    ,    .--              .      -_                ~_          .  .      .  . - . . -            . ,        .        . . . - ~ .
174
                  - 1"                              .DR..FONTANA:      You can still l'ook at it.                                              !
                  -2                                  MR.-HOLAHAN:      In fact, you could argue that-you.
3l      .reallyl don't need Bullet 1.
                  '4-                                  DR. FONTANA - Okay.        If~I'came in with a true
: 5:        zero, I would be on Bullet 1, wouldn't I?
6                                MR. HOLAHAN:      Well, you.are in both.
7                                DR. FONTANA:      Or a decrease.
8                              -I am ree.lly in Bullet 2 almost no matter what-I 9        do.
10-                                  MR; CUNNINGHAM:      Yes.
211                                .DR. FONTANA:      Because you will look atnit.                                            -
12-                                  MR. HOLAHAN:      In effect, I think we are require-13          .to look at it because-this is something that some other 14          requirement, 50.59 or a Tech Spec change or something I          15-          requires the Staff to review and approve.
16                                  DR. FONTANA:      Okay.
17~                                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:          Have we told people in no 18 ~        uncertain-terms that they have to do a qualitative analysis
; ..              19          along with= quantitative analysis?                            Because I think the way.
20          it is done now, the qualitative part is used selectively.
21                                  For example, on page 17 in the middle of the page, 22          it says -- of the Guide -                      "In general, if the results of 23          the assessment of delta CDF are not small, ard the
                -24          calculated baseline is greater than 10 to the minus 4, the 25          change will not be approvec unless, for example, it is shown O                                                  . ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034                                                              .;
 
                                                        .,y                        y
      ~
l                                                                                      l?
                                                                                                    '175 t
lj        that.there are unquantified. benefits that are not reflected 2 --    Linitheqquantitativeriykresults."
3      <
I mean there11s a subtle message here.
              -4                      MR. KING:      You're correct.
* 5-                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:            In.some instances you look
  ~
6        7atithe unquantified benefits, but from our' discussion, it 7-        comes that you always:have to look at those.                    ,s 8-                    MR. KING:      Whereyouwanttouse.qualikative 9          arguments to make your case, this' allows you to do it, but-
:IO          you are right, it doesn't require.it in every case to do it.
                              ~
            -11                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:            And should it?
12                      MR. HOLAHAN:      But you do require an appropriate'
            .13-          PRA, which it seems to me that in making that judgment you 14          are -- the pieces that are left out have to be addressed 15          qualitatively.      It is part of the appropriateness, 16                      MR. CUNNINGHAM:        We could skip ahead to Slide 14, 17          We have this bullet, second bullet.
18                      See if this addresses your point, George.
19                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:            Second bullet?                            ,
20-                      MR. CUNNINGHAM:
The second bullet.
21                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:            Yes. Yes, although the 22          unquantified benefits is not really included in this, in it?
23          But?it is coming close to that.
24                      MR. PARRY:      Well, I think those would be covered 25          by the uncertainties, probably.-- you could argue <that they
['
    -s ANN'RILEY~& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250'I Street, N.W., Suite 300                                      '
Washington,-D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
176 1              would.
()            2 3
CHAIRMAN'APOSTOLAKIS:
                                                                                ~
You could. .You could, but Jwe:&re also talking about unqvantified. benefits. .Do we ever 4              .talkiabout unquantified_-- what is the opposite of benefits?
t Detriments?
                  '5                            MR. CITNNINGHAM :
6                            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                    Detriments.          I don't think 7              we-do.
8                            For example, if I test too' frequently, I may make                            _
9              my_ unavailability go down if I calculate it the way I am 10                cal'culating now, but boeause of the high frequency of
                'll'                testing, I may be introducing now deterioration.
12 --                          MR. CUNNINGHAM:                    Yes.
13                              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                    That is on top of 14                everything else, and unless somebody raises a question then, 15                you know, you go and accept the calculated results, which
.                16                really is not valid anymore, because you have introduced a 17                new potential failure mode,_right, that was not in the 18                original calculation -- that kind of analysis, unquantified 19-                detriments.
L                20'                            I don't think -- it is a matter of presentation, I 21                guess, but right now the way it is written we are talking 22                about these unquantified things only when they save us, and f23                -maybe there ought to be a more-generous statement upfron-L24                -that-there willibe two parts,'the calculated and whatever 25-                unquantified things -- which is going to scare people again, t
[N h                                                        ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
        .j;                                                    Court Reporters
                                                        ~1250 I Street,-N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202)1842-0034 F                                                                                                                                    l
 
_ . _ _ _          . _ . , - -      .    . . _ . . -        __    _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ . . . ~ _- _ . _ . . .
177.    ,
                    .1?    ibecause~they are_ going;to think we are;1ookir.g for
    .{    )          2      perfection.
3                      MR. PAkRY: -Actually,-this sentence that, this~
4    ' bullet;that Mark" pointed out-is sort.of included in the                                                    :
5:    :first paragraph under 2,4.2.3, where it talks about having-6      some! degree of confidence that the acceptance guidance have 7-    been met.
P                        It requires that the results of the PRA.be
: 9. analyzed carefully to identify _the significant contributors 10          and-to demonstrate robustness as such.
E11                            I think in the-general sense it's covered.
t 12-                        CRAIRMAN-APOSTOLAKIS:                In any case, the fact that 13          the qualitative arguments can negate calculated decrease I
              '14            think should be -there se:aewhere, because there may be
      /~N                                                                                                                                .
3;_)        15          instances where this nappens.
L                16                          MR. KING:        I think the only place now qualitative 17        detriments are talked about is in the management attention
              .18 region where we would look at things like increased burden 19        on the operator and that kind of stuff.
20                          CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                Yes, yes.
21                          MR. KING:        But it doesn't require the licensee to
              '22          do that.
              -23                            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                I see.            Okay.
24                        -Well, I don!t know.                I'll leave it up to you.                      If 25.
                            'you think there'is something that could.be done about it, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
. . b-                                                    Court. Reporters
                                                -1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
_    _            ._    ~._ .                  _      . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . - . . . _ . _ . _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ . _ - . .. _ _                        _
178                ,
1  that's' fine --- if you: think it ist already covered --
()  -
2
              --- - 3 MR.- CUNNINGHAM:
                      -if-there's other comments ~on those words:or ---
Come back to Slide 11 then.                              See 4-                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                  Yes. .The third bullet --
e                                                                                                                -
1
                -5    10 to the minus 6 to 10 to the minus 5 -- this is what we 6  call small?
7                    'MR . HOLAHAN:                Yes.
8                    MR. CUNNINGHAM:                      Very small.
                  -9                    MR. HOLAHAN:                No , small -- region is small.
            =10        Small, yes.
              '11-                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                  So these are allowed if you
!            '12      .are below 10 to the minus 4.
1 4
13                      MR. HOLAHAN:                Yes.
J -
14-                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                  And that is something that 15      nobody-objected to, right?                              There were no public comments?
16                      MR. KING:            Well, the public corms nts were --
CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                  Very small.
,            '18                        MR. KING:            We dealt with the public comments by 19    - introducing the region of very small.
4 20'                      MR. CUNNINGHAM:                      There was a comment that 10 to 21-    the minus 4 shouldn't-be used.
!-              22                    ' CHAIRMAN'APOSTOLAKIS:                                  Yes.
23                        MR. HOLAHAN:                What we suggested is a compromise 24      between what we had before, which gave to 10 to the minus 4 25      'a very strong rule between small changes and no changes, and t                                              1001 RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
    \~                                                      Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington,:D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
:199 some industry comments that basically:said the line should-                                                                                ,
:26    beidrawn-straight across.                                          You "sliould make;your judgments on
: 3. _ changes irrespective of the baseline CDP.-                                                                                                  3 4              What we have done is we have come up with a                                                                                      ,
5-  compromise which says'for very small changes, yes, we agree,-
f 6-  you can be across the;line,-but for larger but still small-7    changes the 10 to tne minus 4 still-has a. role. .
8~              So I think-this_ compromise won't necessarily
                      -9    satisfy everyone but I think it is' reasonable.
                    -10                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                          And again there is 11      discussion that these-numbers'are not criteria really, and 12      we say applications which result in increases above 10 to 13      the minus 5 would not normally be considered, that is an 14      indication.
15                MR. HOLAHAN:                                Guideline.
16                CHAIRFDW APOSTOLAKIS:                                          Guideline.      I have no 17      problem with this slide.                                      Anybody_has a problem?
18                DR. SEALE:                              What that says of course is that if
                                                                                                                                                                        ^
19      you are below 10 to the minus 5, you'll always -- the intent 20      will be to never accept any increase above 10 to the minus 21      5, 22                MR. KING:                            Individual changes.
23                DR..SEALE:                              Individual changes.that will add to 24      that, incrementally' increase it to above 10 to the minus 5
~
25      or out.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
N                                                                Court. Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300~
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034                                                                                J J.,--.  . . . .          . m - . .                -
                                                                  . . _ . . . -.                  ,.--  -.  . . - - -  ,    .., ,- _ ._                ...-..-~m.__._
 
  '                                                                                              180
                                                                                                                -i 1            MR'. HOLAHAN:      No.
j )        2            DR. SEALE:      Well_-- that'would not_normally_be 3~ considered.
4            MR. HOLAHAN:      ' Individual increments of'10 to the_-
: 15. minus-5, but.theLplant_ baseline could-go from below 10 to d' the minusiS~to above it with some smaller increments.                                          >
7            MR. CUNNINGHAM:            10 to the minus 5 or 10 to the 8  minus 4?    Increments of 10 to the.minus 5 that would cause                                    ,
9  therc. to go above 10 to the minus 4?              Is that what we are 10    talking about?
11                MR. HOLAHAN:        Yes.
: 12.              DR. SEALE:      Okay.      Increase in CDF is delta CDF, 13    okay?.
14-              MR. HOLAHAN:      Yes.
15                MR4 CUNNINGHAM:            I took it your question is if you-16-    had one:that-was right there --
17                DR. SEALE:      No , I just misread.            I read increase 18    to be the sum but it is not.
19                MR. CUNNINGHAM:            No.  -It is the individual.
20                DR. SEALE:      It's the / ?lta CDF.
21              . CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              The second bullet, I think 22    we discussed it      '-lier but let's make sure what the
          ~23    agreement was.
24                :It is o,en-ended now.              You agreed to put a limit 25    onL10'to-the'minu3.3?        Right now it says regardless of where ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
N/                                  Court Reporters 1250 I. Street, N.W., Suite            300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
=                                .                            --        .-        .  . - .            a. =
 
181 1-  the.-total CDF is, it could be 10 to.the minus-1.--
()    27 3
MRL KINGi  We-agreed --
                          -CHAIRMAN-APOSTOLAKIS:      -- I know that other forces 4    will come into the picture.
          'S              MR. KING:  We agreed to discuss 10 to the minus 3.
6_              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Okay -- and the figures 7    show that. We will draw the-line also.
8              MR. PARRY:  Actually, in the report as you have 9    it, as opposed to the bullet on here, there is an additional 10    thing that it says -- the analysis will-be subject to review 11    which will become more intensive the higher the calculated 12    value of CDF. Shading.
13                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Shading. It's darker.
14-              No, but it would-be nice to see it here too, b)-
(_  15. though. There is some sort of a limit there.
16                We-are behind schedule but I think we hava covered 17    a lot of ground. I think that acceptance guidelir.es for 18    LERF, the comments. apply -- no problem.
119                MR. CUNNINGHAM:    Parallel --
20                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Comparison of PRA results 21    with acceptance guidelines -- we discusred this many times 22    in the past. There is nothing new here as far as I can
: 23. tell.
24'              I think it was fine then.      It is fine now.
25:    Anybody who.says that.is not soV ANN RILEY & NSSOCIATES, LTL
,                                    ' Court. Reporters 1250 1 Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 s
 
                .4 -.                ~kt    a                  m 182 1              DR. KRESS:        There was some discussion about
()    2 3
uncertainties -- they would be developed -- at our previous meeting that you weren't at that you may be interested in 4  hearing.                                                                ,
5              Were you going to talk about what the concept is 6  of submitting uncertainties?
7              MR. PARRY:        This is also subject to the acceptance 8  by the Commission of the policy paper that is going to be 9  sent up too.
10              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:        Are we going to see that 11  policy statement?
12              MR. KING:        Policy paper?  You will see it.
13              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:        When?
14              MR    KING:      When it goes to the Commission. We
(    ) 15  talked to you about these issues.            We had a subcommittee 16  meeting not too long ago whore we went through each of the 17  issues that are in the pol'.cy paper and what the 18  recommendation is.
19              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:        Oh , okay.
20              MR. KING:        Due to the compressed schedule we are 21  on, we didn't have time to do things in series.            We had to-22  do it in parallel.
23              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:        I have a few comments on l
24  2,4.2.3.
25              DR. SEALE:        Yes, but Tom raised a question about
[
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 l
 
183 1    uncertainties.
h    2              DR. KRESS:                    Yes, I don't know if they are intended
[G 3    to talk about --
4              MR. KING:                    14 and 17 are the ones intended to talk 5    about the treatment of uncertainties.
6              DR. KRESS:                    Oh, okay.                                              I don't know if George has 7    heard this -- if you have heard how they are planning on 8    treating uncertainties.
9              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                                Yes, I think I have, but we 10    can go over it very quickly.                                But now we are talking about 11    acceptance guidelines, right, so I have some comments on the 12    text.
13                MR. CUNNINGHAM:                        Okay.
14                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                                  Mostly editorial in nature,
                    )  15    but, first of all, I have a problem with the ACRS letters as 16    well, okay?      I have lost the battle -- for the time being.
17                I think when a document has a list of references, 18    they should be taken as seriously as the document itself and 19    much to my regret I don't think they are.
20                DR. MILLER:                      What do you mean by that?
21              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                                      What I mean by that is that 22    there is a lot of interesting stuff in the discussion here 23    that is crying for citations --
24              DR. MILLER:                      Oh, okay.
25                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                                        -- and I go to the
[\-  \
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20C05 (202) 842-0034
 
_~ .-      - .            ..--            .-      . - ~ . _ _ -      ..        -.      - -
y 184
            ,1        references and all I see'is NUREG-this and NUREG-that.                                                    Not          f
  ./..      .              .          .          .
                                                                                                                                              .t
            '2.      -even NUREG.            ..What''I-see is Draft Regulatory Guide 62, __ then                                          '4 3      63, theu 64 to 65.                      That is the list'.                                                              ;
4                        I-don't care about those,                          Put them in one place.
i
            'S                          DR. MILLER:                You are-reference like a scholar in a 6      journal.                                                                                                                -
7                        _ CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                      Yes. When I see here a~
8      discussion of --
9                        DR. MILLER.                I had the'same trouble too.
          -10                          CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                      Now I am vulnerable to i
: 11.        criti"*om nere, but                    --
;          12                          DR. MILLER:                That never slowed you down before.
13                            [ Laughter.)
14                          CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                      But I really think that it
      )~  15        is ridiculous not to give guidance to people on where they 16        can go and learn more about these things and to have 4          17        something that says references that starts with 1061 and 18        goes to 1065, that doesn't help me at all.
19                          Either don't-have any references, or take them a 20        little seriously,- not like.a scholarly article, but at least 21        a little seriously.                        I am having a problem with that.
22                          DR. MILLER:'              You are saying reference outside of 23        Ljust NRC documents.
24                          CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                      In the regulatory arena, 25:        yes.      Ye9 -- and you have to use your judgment.                                        It.has to
, (()                                            ANN'RILEY-& ASSOCIATES,--LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington,--D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
185 1          appropriate, right?
()        2 3
When you are talking about something like model uncertainty, while admittedly very few people have really 4          thought about it, right? -- I am sure the reader would be 5          curious.
6                          Now when you talk about Monte Carlo simulation, 7          everybody knows about it.                                          They don't need a reference to 8        that, so I don't know how to handle that.
9                          I have been bothered by the ACRS letter statement.
10          We had the benefit of the documents referenced, but you 11          know, I think we should take the issue of references more 12          seriously.
13                          You put there only things that you really read and 14          used and those things are not necessarily Regulatory Guides O
(_,/    15          or NUREG reports.            There may be other things as well.
16                          MR. CUNNINGHAM:                                      Well, we can look into that, but 17          I'll just make a point.                                  In Regulatory Guides there may be a 18          certain way of handling this that I have noticed some final 19          Regulatory Guides for example have bibliographies rather 20          than references and things, and so it may become much more 21          general than even what we have here.
22                          CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                            I have no problem with 23          that. As long as when I read this and I get to interesting 24          and new stuff you give me some information.
25                            DR. SEALE:        Where to go.
()                                          ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
186 1            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:        And you know, there are
[)
(,/
      -2  people who.have complained in the past that, you know, even 3  when you put references it is all NUREGs, that the industry 4  is not doing anything out there -- and that is not true --
5  and I think we should take it a bit more seriously.
6            MR. HOLAHAN:        We do need to be careful about what 7  those references.mean, whether it is background information, 8  whether'you are endorsing the paper.
9            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:        I agree.
10            MR. HOLAHAN:        I mean obviously some paper that we 11  are referencing, we haven't sat down and we all go over the 12  wording of and say, well, I would have said it this way.
13            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:        And maybe that is a 14  distinction between bibliography and reference.
15            MR. HOLAHAN:        It may be.
16            CRAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:        And then you chn put the 17  words, "For further information, see . . ." -- period, 18  without telling anybody that you are addressing it.
19            MR. CUNNINGHAM:        If there's no bibliography, there 20  would be no implied endorsement, I would guess, 21            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:        Yes, and I think that is a 22  legitimate point, because you are a regulatory agency.              You 23  have to be careful, but I mean do you promise to think about 2
    .4  -it?
25            MR. HOLAHAN:        Yes.
(  )                    ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
187 1                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Good.
.(    4 2                MR. HOLAHAN:    Could we get candidate references
  %.)
3'  -or --
4              -CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Gareth Parry is a good 5    candidate.
6                (Laughter.]
7                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    He is a walking library.
8                MR. HOLAHAN:    We'll bibliographize him.
9                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Bibliographize Gareth.
10                MR. HOLAHAN:    -- on systems safety and 11      reliability.
12                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Yes, that's right.
13                The so-called " state of knowledge dependency,"
14      then later on there is the word "epistemic" --
7
(_,)        15                DR. MILLER:    Oh, is that word still there?
16                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Yes. Then there is state 17      of knowledge.
18                I think we have reached the point now where 19  -
somebody has to sit down and make sure there is consistency 20      here and also the word "epistemic" is thrown out here on 21      page 16 and as ia.r as I can tell. it was not defined 22      anywhere. Itja relatively new to most people and it doesn't 23      even say that it is equivalent to " state of knowledge."
24                I-mean these are editorial comments but they may 25    be important.
''                                ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
    /
Court Reporters 1250-I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
188 1-            DR . L MILLER:  Okay.
[m]
  \._/
2              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:'    As a comment, under Model 3  Uncertainty, you are discussing the alternate models.          There 4  is a second approach.      It is called the adjustment factor 5  approach, when you have one model and in fact it was used in 6  fire PRAs 'way back.      Nobody paid any attention but it was 7  used.
8                (Laughter.]
9              MR. PARRY:      But isn't that equivalent to playing 10  around with parameters?
11              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      No, it is not. It is not 12  at all. We can discuss that off-line.
13              MR. PARRY:      Okay.
14              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      Let's see. And then again
()    15  on page 18, there is n paragraph that talks about margins
:16  and -- yes, the margin between the S calculated values and 17  the acceptance guidelines, and so on, which brings us back 18  to Dana's point, that you don't have the tools to do all 19  this stuff -- why talk about it?
,      20              So somehow I think we need to say something about 21  it because the issue will be coming up all the time.
22              You talk about margins and then he says you can't 23  calculate that.      Wny are you talking about it?      We talk 24  about our acceptance guidelines depend on delta CDF and CDF 25  but you cannot calculate that.        Why talk about it?
  /
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
  --                                Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
189 1            Well, we need an answer to'that.
(v j  2            MR. PARRY:    I think you may be a little 3  overstating the case.      I mean usually we do know something 4- about some of these contributions.      It may not be --
5            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Well, his point is that 6  people have made the argument many times that we are meeting 7  the QHOs by a factor of 30 or so -- is that correct?
8            He.says I have absolutely no basis for believing 9  that.
10            You know, he is really attacking the -- he is a 11  smart guy. I mean he wants to make an argument, he makes an 12  argument, so you need a serious dounter-argument.
13            DR. KRESS:    He doesn't believe in mass hypnosis?
14            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    So I think it is better to (G,) 15  face that problem upfront and not when we are writing a 16  letter.
17            MR. h0LAHAN:    Okay.
18            MR. PARRY:    That's a threat.
19            [ Laughter.)
20            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    You always give me 21  ammunition. Okay?  Can't be more explicit than that.
22            DR. KRESS:    I think they should be less concerned 23  about that comment of Dana's when they are focusing on LERF 24  and CDF.
25            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Less than the OHOs.
l                      ANN RILEY &' ASSOCIATES, LTD.
k                            Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
190 1                                                              DR. KRESS:    Then it goes only to his issue of
()                                                                    2                                              shutdown and I think his issue there is he thinks shutdown risks have been overestimated rather than underestimated, so 3
4                                            we want to be careful to represent Dana correctly, d                                                              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      I got a memo that all of 6                                            you goatlemen have received from Dana -- and here he seems 7                                              to have a fundamental problem with 1061 itself.
8                                                            DR. KRESS:      Where is this?
9                                                            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      I am trying to find now the 10                                                      actual sentence -- yes, because he goes on to say back at 11                                                    another -- but he says it here as well --
12                                                                      DR. KRESS:  What page are you on?
13                                                                    MR. MARKLEY:  It's directly behind the draft 14                                                    Guide.
O)
(,                                                                15                                                                    DR. KRESS:  I know, but directly behind --
16                                                                    DR. SEALE:  It's about there.
17                                                                    DR. KRESS:  Does it have a page number?
18                                                                  DR. SEALE:  There is a page number on it.
19                                                                  It is right after page 26, 20                                                                  DR. KRESS:  Oh, it is.
21                                                                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Okay.  "A bigger difficulty 22                                                      that I have has to do with the protracted discussions that 23                                                    we have on the subject of risk increases."        Okay. Then he 24                                                    goes on to say that the tools are not available, and so on.
25                                                                  " Risk is too poorly understood. I would be more I)
V ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300                            i Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 d
 
191 Il  supportive of;a risk-informed regulatory. approach.that
  .f)          lt  simply said that.at this early stage _there should-be no 3-  increases in risk."                    And that is a drastic change.
4                  DR.-FONTANA:                  Yes,_but it_does a lot of bundling .              q 5:  here, I1think~.
6                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                    It should encourage 7    bundling of things that increase and decrease risk, but;                                        ,
8    still the fundamental approach will be very different from
:9-  what 1061 has now, and I don't want to have to debate that 10-  argument in December -- to debate this point in December --
11    so it is kind of late.
12                  MR    MARKLEY:              They have not seen this.
13                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                    They have not seen this?
f.
14                  MR. MARKLEY:                  No. I just got it.
15-                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                    Do we need Dana's l
16    permission to give'it to them.
: 17.                  MR. MARKLEY:                  We really do, but --
r              18                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                    Well, we can ask him --
19    because it is addressed to the PRA Subcommittee.
20                    MR. MARKLEY:                  I'll show you where it is.
: l.            21                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                    But it seems to me this is 22    a. serious -- well, and then, by the way, the last sentence
: 23. of his memo is,              "I would appreciate any help the PRA 24    Subcommittee could give me in understanding why m" thoughts 25-    on these subjects are-in error."
I\
    \-'#
ANN.RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters-1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
    -    =-: .        =-        -      -    - _ . - _        _- .        .-        .,  .        -  _-      - .
 
        .-    .              ..        .        -      -. ,.            . . _ . . - - - .          - _ .    - - -    - . . - - - . .      - _ ~ ,    -
    - -                                                                                                                                            192          ,
fly                            DRt. MILLER:- Late,_-but;not'in error,-maybe2            -
2-                          CHAIRMAN-APOS70LAKIS:                            But,:you know,:-I am really                              ;
13 :-          ~ concerned about this.--I:really don't want-to have to'do-14:          this_and have arguments-back_and-forth on~ December 5th.
                    - 5:                          Maybe -- can you contact Dana?-
6 .-                        MR.=MARKLEY:                      Contact.hlm during lunch.
7-                          Cl* AIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                          Okay, and maybe by the-_end                              .
                    .8            of: tomorrow's meeting we'will have some discussion, your 9          preliminary-thoughts perhaps. -That.would be good.
10                                I think it is time to break _for=1unch.                                            We didn't              !
                  -11              finish the whole presentation, Mark,1but is there a' window n                '12              in the. afternoon or tomorrow where we can --
13                              MR. CUNNINGHAM:                          Yes, there's a window, tomorrow
:14              morning at 9:45, I believe it is.
_15                              CHAIRMAN.APOSTOLAKIS:                            Okay.
16                              MR. CUNNINGHAM:                          It is a. continuation, so . veuld 17              assume we would just start going at 9: 45.
11 8                              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                            Okay, great, because this 19            -afternoon we really have to stick to the schedule.
20-                            MR. CUNNINGHAM:                          Yes..
[21                              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                            We have to talk about the
:              22.            Safety. Goal Policy _ Statement, because, as'you know, we are 2 3 -:          meeting with-a couple of.the Commissioners on this.one, then
                                                                ~
24              the: industry for sure has to-take the floor-at 2:45, 25'                            MR. CUNNINGHAM:                          'Yes. I think we are daing okay.
:(                                                  ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES,-LTD.
      ~%    -
Court Reporters 1250 I-Street,- N.W., Suite 300
                                      ,                            Washington, D.C. 20005-
:(202)-'842-0034-
      .                  . .      .      - . _ _                  . . . .          .            _ _      _ _ .      -.- _ _                      ,_ a.. _
 
193 1            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    So we will reconvene at 2- 1:30.
L 3            (Whereupon, at 12:39 p.m., the meeting was 4  recessed, to reconvene at 1:30 p.m., this same day.)          ,
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 f)-
Q  '15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
[D
\2 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
194 1                            AFTERNOON SESSION
(  )    2                                                              (1:30 p.m.)
3                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Ma are back in sess.'.on. 1 4  eee the same players up there.
5                The eutject now is different though, possible 6    revision to the safety goal policy statement.        So who is it, 7  Mr. King or Mr. Holahan or Mr. Cunningham?
8              Mr. King.
9              MR. KING:    I'll btart the presentation.      What we 10    wanted to do today was talk about the issues, potential 11    issues that are involved if we want to go .ack in and modify 12    the safety goal policy statement. elevating CDP to the level 13    of a fundamental safety goal is just one of those issues.
14                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Well, what is the slide (h.
()      15    where it says what your position is?
16                MR. KING:    Well, we'll come to that, 17                CRAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      Pros and conc on the one 18    hand anu the other hand?      Okay.
19                DR. FONTANA:    We're not going to do the rest of 20      this morning's?
21                CHAIRKAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Tomorrow.
22                MR. KING:  Quickly, to just give a little 23    background, the full committee back in August of '96 sent a 24    letter to the Commission suggesting that the CD7 be elevated 25    to the level of a fundamental safety goal and then 1
y''N
( =1                        ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES. LTD.
  \-                                  Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
f i
195    i I              reiterated that in an April '97 letter the Chairman Jackson.                                                                  I
()                      2 3
That prompted her to write a memornndum to the staff that requested we prepare a policy paper with the f
t i
4              staf f's views on the merits of the ACRS recot.3mendation.                                                              We    l:
5            did that back in October, SECY 97-208.                                                                And what we wanted      l c
6              to do today is to tallt about the issues in that paper,                                                                        f r
7              recognizing that the due date we owe the Commission is a 8              recommendation the end of March so we are not prepared to                                                                      ;
9            give a recommandation today but we wanted to --                                                                                ,
10                                                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                      *%rch?  We.are writi..g a 11              letter in December, aren't we?
12                                                    MR. KING:                                      No, not on this.
13                                                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                      Oh, yeah, yeah. I'm just i
14              meeting this afternoon on that information.                                                                  I'm sorry.
()                    15                                                    So what you are saying then is you don't have a 16              position yet.
17                                                    MR. KING:                                      We don't have a position yet. This is 18              the first time we are broaching the subject with the                                                                    r l
19              committee and-what we wanted to do is to make sure that 20              we've got all the-issues identified that need to be
                            .21              -addressed when we prepare this policy paper and we tried to 22-              state those as best we could in the SECY 97-208 and we 23              thought-we would like'to spend a little time discussing 124'              those with_you today, just from the scandpoint of 25              identifying any subjects, pros and cons and so forth that we O                                                                                        ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
1250 I Street,-N.W., Suite 300 Court Reporters Washington. D.C. 20005                                          I (202) 842-0034                                .
_        .u._.___.                        _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . . _ . , _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ , _                                      _
 
  .- -    . - -.-            - - -            - =.-.      .-                    ..- -.-.-.-.----. -
P 196 l
1 need to address as we go ahead and prepare the policy paper.
()    2 3
What we are proposing in terms of activities with ACRS over the next several months followdng today is to get 4 back with you in January and actually go into more detail 5 and try and see if we can formulats some tentative 6 recommendations on the issues.                Basically the issues are do 7 we want to recommend a modification to the safety goal 8 policy and if so what would be the scope and nature of tho.se 9 mcdifications.
10          We would then intend to provide you a draft policy 11 paper for review in February and would come back to the full 12 committee in march and request a letter at that time                                                          ,
13 regarding the staff recommendation.                      Recognizing that, in 14 March, the staff recommendation would be, let's proceed with
()  15 the revision of the safety goal, possioly, and that that 16 would probably be a two-year process to actually modify the 17 safety goal, issue a draft for public comment.                                              We would 18 probably have a workchop or some sort of public meeting on 19 it and then revise it as a final and issue it as a final, 20          So in March, what we are talking about is a 21 recommendation on the scope and measure of the changes but 22 not the actual revised policy itself.
23          CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                Well, if you want to have a 24 meeting in January, though, it seems to me -- are we going 25 to Japan, Bob?
O                    ANN RTLEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
    - -.~ - .                          .-. - - .                            ~ .. . . - - - .- .. - . -                                                              ..-.-.~                  . .-..                      -.
N.
1
                                                                                                                                                                                                - 197                                    j i                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ?
1                                DR.-SEALE:                      I think not.                                            I haven't heard any more
()              2 3
specifically.                      Has'anyone heard anything?
CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS: ' You think not?
                                                                                                                                                                                                            ,                            j I
4                                MR. MARKLEY:                        It's not totally decided at this l
5          point because we have so many_nubcommittees and other                                                                                                                                                  ;
;                    G          meetings al. ready scheduled-for the last two weeks of 7          ' January, so it is somewhat up in the air, as I understand                                                                                                                                              t 8          it.
l                    9                                DR. SEALE:                      Yes, we're still waiting for_                                                                                                                    {
P 4              m10              concurrence.
i I t' ink for all intents and purposes, January is a 12              dead ditck.                                                                                                                                                                                            '
l                13                                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                      Okay.                        Okay, i                14                                  Well, we have very few dates that are available                                                                                                                                    ;
()          15              for the meeting.                      You want a one-day meeting or --                                                                                                                                  ,
16                                  MR. KING:                      I would say, as a minimum, you need a                                                                                                              i 17              one-day meeting.                      If that's what you can fit into your 18              schedule, that's what we'll take.                                                                                                                                                                      ;
,                19                                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                    Okay, we'll have to                                                                                    a 1
20              coordinate it with other things.
                                                    - MR. KING:
21                                                                  Maybe tomorrow we can revisit and try R22              and pin some dates down.                                                                                                                                                                              ;
23                                  CHAIRMAN-APOSTOLAKIS:                                                    Yes, because we have a                                                                                  ;
24              - meeting on human factors, I believe.                                                                                                                                                                J 25                                  MR. MARKLEY:                        We have four days of subcommittee in 4
i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.                                                                                                                                          !
Court Reporters                                                                                                                                          ;
1250-1 Street, N.W.,' Suite 300
                                                                      -Washington, D.C.- 20005-(202)-842-0034 W e-P M * 'eW*<f          +-r-- eve e    Pv g -e        w<
                                                                        'W*tv-per-e'      fr--t N IM=t''s-wvw*T'F-+W
* Pr"N #"'**-'P"M'*F*'T**P"WM'P9F'*'-EeY'Fd'''    e'W'* ep-18Y'--t--M -        '
r-T**en*%-  -F*-'p''*"~**W't*---us''#
r
 
198 f    1        tlye_next-to-last week and in the full committee week, we
  /~D        2        have four days ot meetings as well.
Q 3                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      You have four days of --
      ,    -4          really?
5                  MR  MARKLEY:      In the latter part of January, yes.
6        I'll_get the schedule and --
7                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      Okay, why don't we do that.
3 8                  MR. KING:      The other option is -- is not have a 9        meeting in January and we'll provide you with a policy paper 10          in February and schedule a February subcommittee meeting.
11          That's an option also.
12                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:        Sure. Well, we will have 13          to see how loaded the schedule is, the agenda.
14                    MR. KING:      In the Chairman's memo to us back in
()      15          July, she specifically asked that we look at the issue of 16          elevating CDF to a fundamental goal and sort of outlined 17          some pros and cons in her memorandum.          We looked at those.
,        18          We had also gotten a letter from NEI which in part discussed
* 19          some cons reg.trding that proposal and then in putting the 20          SECY paper together that went up in October, we tried to 21          think if there were any other pros or cons.
22                    What I wnnted to talk about now is sort of a 23          summary for the elevation of the CDF, what we see are the 24          pros and the cons.
25                    If you recall, the safety goal policy statement
                                                                        /
[hi N_/
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
              ,-,w---
                                                          -e-
 
199 1  does use in a qualitative sense accident prevention but does 2'  not-put any quantitative meature on-those. And what -- what 3  we're talking about doing is putting a quancitative measure, 4  10 to the minus 4 CDF up as a fundamentti safety goal.      We 5  think that clearly would provide a statement of -- of what 6  'the Commission's goal is for accident prevention.      It would 7  r'Ytainly preclude then any concern about someone backing 8  down from the OHOs and deriving a CDP that may be 9  ' unacceptably large which, deiending on the site your plant 10    is located on, conceivably you could have CDFs of 10 to the 11  minus 3 and still meet the OHOs.      Putting the CDF up into 12    the safety goal would prevent that.
13              It would also provide some indication of the 14    relative importance of accident prevention versus 15-  mitigation, which can be related to defense in depth.
16              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Tom, it seems to me before 17  we get into the pros and cons, we should really ask the 18  question what difference does it-make.      If you elevate it to
:    19  the fundamental level, what does that mean?
20              MR. KING:    That's actually the first con I have on l-21  the next page. Would it make any practical -- if you go to 22  page 7,  the first bullet under con says, does it make any 23-  practical difference?- Why bother doing it?      What are we 24  going to do different if we did this?      You know, who is i
25  going to use it?    And I think we've kicked this around O:                    ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 l                                (;02) f42-0034
 
200 1    internally and we've been hard pressed to come up with
()          2    anything we did different because of this.
CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:          That's an important 3
4    insight.            So then, where that leaves us, is we will have the t
5    benefits of your slide 6, yeah, 6, especially the thing in 6    parentheses there that you don't discuss any more the fact 7    that this is lower than what you would get by working 8    backwards because it's fundamental, it's a policy issue.                                      ,
l 9    And you don (t have any cons because nothing really changes 10        the way you are using it.
11                            You know, the elevation is a de facto elevation.
12        You are just recognizing what we've been doing.
13                            MR. KING:          But a con could be, if it doesn't buy 14        you anything to do it, a con in if you went ahead and did it i
j f'h
(_)    15        anyway, it takes you time and resources to do that.
1C                            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:          But it buys you what you 17        had on 6.            It provides a clear statement of the Commission's 18        goal, CDFs derived from QHOs may be unacceptably large.                      You 19        know, it buys you that.
c 20                            MR. KING:          But if someone today wanted to make an 21        argument they could have a 10 to the minus 3 CDF working 22        backwards from the OHOs, the fact whether we have a CDF goal l
23        elevated in the policy or not is not going to change the way 24        we would react to that, l            25                            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:          It also helps you with the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(
Court Reporters 1250-I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 I
 
4 201 1 argument that you were advancing this morning that bullet
()  2 3
number 3, that you really want to look at CDP no matter what.
      -4              Now, you can say, I will do that anyway in the                              ,
5 name of defense in depth.                  So -- but I think by calling it a 6 fundamental goal, you have all these conveniences.
7              MR. KING:      It provides some more foundation to S things we already do anyway, or things we want to do anyway.
9 I agree with that.
10              CilAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              That's really what's 11 happening.
12              MR. KING:      But if we don't have it, would it 13 prevent us from doing those things?                    I don't think so.
14              CIIAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              But it could get you into
() 15 arguments with a determined licensee.                    If a licensee for 16 some reason wants to really argue in terms of the OHOs, you 17 may get into a protracted argument there back and forth.
18 That's what the Commission said, that's what we're doing.
a      19              You can say defense in depth and they can argue 20 about defense in depth a different way.                        I don't know.
21              DR. SEALE:        I can remember within my tenure on 22 this committee the statement was made with some adamance 23 that the only concern for the Commission was public safety, c
24 It strikes me that a CDF is a way of saying that there is 4
25 also an interest in          - a legitimate interest in investment O                        ANN RILEY & ASLUCIATES, LTD, sI                              Court Reporters 1250 I-Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 r
 
202                        l 1_    protection.
()            2 3      deals with that only, CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              I' don't think that the CDP i
,                                                                                                                                                                              t
:4                                  DR. SEALE:        I-didn't say only.
5                              - CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                I think it's'public safety.                                                          )
6      Public safety.                                                                                                                                      :
                  -7.                                  DR. SEALE:        I agree.      I agree.                                                                                j 8                                  CHAIRMAN-APOSTOLAF.IS:            It's public health and                                                                !
9      safety in the sense that again, it is the unquantified              -
impact.
11                                  DR. SEALE:        Sure. But it also-implicitly has in                                                                j 12      . it investment protection.
13                                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:            Yes, but we don't do it 14      because of that reason.
()          15                                  MR. SHERRY:          I think there is another way of 16      looking at it.                    I think a goal on core damage frequency is a 17      way to ensure that the public perception of the regulatory 18      process is not compromised.                            For example, if you would allow 19      high core damage frequencies with the assumption that the 20        consequences would be mitigated, okay, would not provide a 21      -lot of confidence to your regulated - 'to the public of the 22        protectiveness of your regulatory process in merely 23-      protecting their safety.
24                                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              I think the fundamental 25      question is this:                      Do the American people expect the L
O
                                                                                                                                                                                ^
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.                                                                                        ,
Court Reporters 1250 I Street,.N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005                                                                                            *
(202) 842-0034 1
9 ww,                    -          - - - --      w-,-              ,-*v              w    .ne-- -w  w            -s*  m-  w  -      -    - e r- y-  g -e e,---y---~,--r--
 
. _ - . -.              -- - -              -. .- _-                        . . _ - . . _ .            . = .    .        _          - _ _ .
I 203 1  Commission to prevent another Three Mile Island.                                          I think
()          2 3
the answer is yes, it's a fundamental goal.
to see another reactor going through that thing, core They don't want 4  damaging and into partial core damage and so, I mean, if it 5  does happen it seems to me that the commissioners would be 6  held liable and liable in the sense that the public -- there 7  will be an outcry.
8                    MR. CUNNINGHAM:          As Tom said, in the policy.
9  statement today there is a discussion that mirrors what you 10  are saying here, that it is the Commission's intent -- I I
11  don't remember quite what the words are but, in reaction to 12  Three Mile Island, we do not want to have one in this 13  lifetime -- lifetime of these, of the operating plants.
14                    CRAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:          So based on what I hear, it
          ) 15  seems to me that it is already treated as a fundamental 16  goal.      What we are talking about here is just calling it                                                                              ,
17  that.
18                    Everything I have heard points to that direction.
19                    MR. HOLAHAN:        Let me try to add something.                              If I 20  look at the NRC's strategic plan issued in September of this 21  year, it addresses these matters.                        Because what it has is, 22  as an agency, it outlines seven goals for the whole agency 23  and the whole reactor program is summarized in one of those                                                                                -
24  goals.
25                    Prevent radiation-related deaths or illnesses due O
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034                                                                            >
                ,              . .                  ,    ._.  -.  -.n, -
                                                                                              ,  - - , ,      ,      , . ,    . _ - .        - ~ . . - -
: g. . _ _            __ __ _ _            --_ _ _ _ _.- _                . _ _      _ __ _      . _ . _            _                    . _ _
204 1    to civilian nuclear reactors, period.                                That's the whole                                        ,
()          2 3
strategic goal.                    Then if you go to nuclear reactor safety, there are two items which are called performance goals, 4    which I presume are to distinguish them from the strategic                                                                    j 5    goals. And these are supposed to be things that you can
                ,6    measure. So they are -- they are performance measures.
7                Zero civilian nucitar reactor accidents.                                  And the 8    footnote basically says, accidents means severe accidents.
9    That is, those accidents in which substantial core --
10    substantial damage is done to the reactor core, whether or ll-    not there are serious off-site consequences.
* 12                  And the second one that says, zero deaths due to 13    radiation or radioactivity releases from civilian reactors.
14    So it says the strategic goal is, don't hurt anybody.                                      The                                t
()
15    performance measures are, don't melt the core and don't 16    induce health effects.
17                  And then there are about two dozen strategies for 18    how to implement those.                        So, even in the strategic plan, all 19    of these things seem to be fundamental but they are done in 20    sort of two stages, fundamental starting out as strategic 21    and then going on to sort of an intermediate level.
22                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                          Would you read again the 23      strategic goal?                    Do we have a copy of this, by the way?
24                  MR. MARKLEY:                      Yes.
25                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAFIS:                          I have one?      You gave me O                                      ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300
              /                                      Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
            +6    y                . , - ,                  y            ,                  ,            -        _  ._.e-.--r - - - ---      e
 
__..._......_._-__...__.._.__.m__._                                                        _ _  _ _ . - _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . . _
l 205                          '!
1-            one today?'                                                                                                                                        I  r 2_                                    MR. MARKLEY:            It. was put in the, mail last week L3            -but..-            =
4                                  . CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              Can I have one today?                                                                    ;
                      ~5                                      MR.-MARKLEY:            Yes.                                                                                                !
i
                    -6                                      MR. SAVIO:          I'll-get you one.                                                                                      !
7-                                    CHAIRMAN-APOSTOLAKIS:              Thanks.
i 8                                      MR. HOLAHAN:            The strategic goal is prevent 9              radiation-related' deaths or illnesses to to civilian nuclear 10              reactors.                                                                                                                                            I 11-                  -
CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              Okay, what does that mean?
12              Physical illness?l Psychological, depression out of tl.is?
13                                      MR. HOLAHAN:            No , radiation-related,                                                                            f 14                                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:- Radiation.                        Well, 15              radiation --                                                                                                                                      .
16                                        MR    HOLAHAN:          It depends what you mean,                                                                          ,
17              radiation --
~
3 18                                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:            The threat of releasing 19                radiation?                                                                                                                                          !
20                                        MR. HOLAHAN:            I don't think that's what it means.                                                                :
21                                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:            That's not what it means?                                                                  !
22                                        MR. HOLAHAN:'            I don't think so.
23                                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              I-know.          I know that's not 24              .what it meansi
: 25.                                  'DR.. MILLER:              If that's true then, see, Three Mile-                                                                L t
ANN RILPV & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters                                                                                              ;
1250.I: Street, N.W.,_ Suite 300                                                                                          *
                                                                    . Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 a.
;- .- __ ~ . . di.        .        1,L . ---- ._.-.-,, .- . -- . _ -- , _,-,_ .,,_....... . ..
                                                      -  - .                                    .-.__..-,a-...-,-.      ..-s              - , - . . _ . . . _ . . . . . - , . - - .-
 
            - - .~ _              .- -. - _ - - . - ..                                        . - . - _ -                            _. . - -          -__ _ - - -_.
206 1      Island wouldn't fall into that goal and you could have. ten
()            13 2      of them and not have'to worry about it.
CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                            Yeah.                                                              ;
4                                  MR.'HOLAHAN            That is the strategic goal and to.
i 5      find out whether you are effectively implementing it, you-6      should count of the-number of similar accidents you've had.                                                                                    J 7                                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                            It seems to me that even 8      there you could make the argument that illness is not.just                                                                                      f 9      physical illness.                          Right?              So it becomes a strategic                                                      !
i
                - 10:        problem.                                                                                                                                        f i
fil -                                    MR. KING:          But then where do you draw the line?                                                            l 12                                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                            The question is really if                                        [
13          you-want to draw a line, does it make any difference in                                                                                        >
i' 14-        anything?                      And your answer is, no.                                I understand Gary's
()          15          concern but he doesn't want to put everything on the same 16          level but, as a practical matter, they are treated as if 17          they are on the same level,                                                                                                                    r 18                                    MR. HOLAHAN:          Yes.
19                                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                            Okay.
20                                      MR. KING:          I'll read you what the current safety i
21          goal policy says.                          It says the Commission intends to 22:          . continue to' pursue a regulatory program that has as its objective providing reasonable assurance while taking 24          appropriate ~ consideration to uncertainties involved that a 25-          severe core damage accident will not occur at a U.S. nuclear ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
O.
i Court Reporters                                                                                  ,
1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300                                                                            t Washington,_D.C. 20005 (202) -842-0034
                                                                                                                                                                            ?
  . . _ . -    . . . - . = -  -          . . . . - - - . . , . -              - - . , . . , , .          . . - . - - . - . - , - .          .. - - , .- - . - . - _,, _
 
_    . . _ . . _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ - .          . . ~ . _ _ . _ . . _ _ _                                  . .. _ _ __ _                    __. _ ... _ _ __ __ _ _ .
                                                                                                                                                                    - 207 1            power. plant.                                                                                                                                            -i
()              2 3
That's their qualitative statement.
quantify it belonged-that.
They never 4                        DR. FONTANA:                            10 that part of the safety goal?
5                        MA. KING:                    Yes, that's from the safety goal
^
6            policy.                                                                                                                                                      ;
7                        DR.-FONTANA:                            Of course, I have to be the devil's                                                                    ,
8            advocate for the other side'saying, TMI showed that-
: 9.          mitigative features work.                                We had a whole bunch of them.                                                                    ,
i 10            The public probably would get satisfied that the mitigative                                                                                                l 11            features are great.
12                        DR. KRESS:                        TMI didn't show that.                                                                                  -
13                        DR. FONTANA:                            Sure it did.                    It showed it in that
                  ' 14            case.
()            15                        DR. KRESSt                        It showed it for that one little 16            sequence.
17                        DR. FONTANA:                            Yes, that's right.                        That was almost                                              j 18            of the record.-
19                        MR. KING:                    I think elevating this clearly would                                                                            I 20            provide some public perception benefit.                                                    People can clearly 21            understand accident prevention more than they can 22            quantitative health objectives, you know.                                                    And it is
                  - 23            something more straightforward to calculate than a                                                                                                        .
24            quantitative health objective.
25                          MR.:HOLARAN -_ Remember what we're talking about.
O                                            ANN RILEY:& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005
                                                                      .(202) 842-0034                                                                                                        ,
's                                                                                                                                                                                            i
  ,.y n  4m4    4        , . . . ,          'h-
                                              .      + , , - - - , .  , . , , . . . .  . . -  . ~ . . m , - . , . . .          .. - , . . - - ,    -s-..  .-.._,..-,m..  . % .,, v ,.+J
 
1 i
208 1  It's not whether core damage is elevated to the level of
()      2 3
safety goal because I think that's already true.
question is whether 10 to the minus 4 core damage frequency The 4  should be elevated to the level of fundamental safety goal.
5                    MR. KING:            Yes, that's two different questions.
6                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                That's not already true, t
7                    MR. HOLAHAN:                Tom, you can read your statement 8  again.
9                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                Well, prevention, i
10                      MR. KING:            The fundamental safety goal policy from 11    '86 says the Commission intends to continue to pursue a 12    regulatory program that has as its objective providing 13    reasonable assurance while taking appropriate consideration 14    to uncertainties involved that a severe core damage accident
()    15    will not occur as a U.S. nuclear power plant.
16                      So, qualitatively, they have already gone on 17    record with that.
18                      DR. FONTANA:                10 to the minus 4 is just an 19    implementation thing.
20                      MR. HOLAHAN:                Well, in this case it is called a 21    subsidiary objective.
22                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                No, but I think what is 23    going to happen, I mean, that is why you need to years to do 24    it.        If the agency decides to proceed, is there a rule here H25    that will change?                A rulemaking?
O                                        ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
i 209 i
1            MR. KING:    No. No. But it follows the same            -
i
()      2 3
procesa as a rulemaking.
CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      Yes, a new policy              l
.          4  statement. It seems to me that the value of 10 to the minus 5  4 is up in the air.      It will be scrutinized and possibly 6  changed. So we are not-really talking about raising that 7  particular value to the-level of fundamental goal.        We are      !
8  talking about making a statement including'a numerical value 9' at that level. That's really the issue.                            ;
10              And I'think the consensus is that we are already            ,
i 11  doing it anyway but it may not be wise to put it at the same 12  level as the OHOs and I don't know why that is so.
13  Prevention,-prevention of accidents, should be as                    ,
14  fundamental as preventing deaths and illnesses.
()    15              DR. MILLER:    What industry sets a_ goal that says 16    ero?
l' 17              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      Yeah, but that's why it's a i
18-  goal. Because you may'have-one.
19              DR. MILLER:    I dare say no other industry would 20  ever do that.
,        21              DR. FONTANA:      They.say is, though.                    ;
22              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      They say it. The airline      .
        -23  industry --                                                          ,
24;            DR. FONTANA:    The goal-is zero.
        - 25              DR.-MILLER:    They don't set a goal that is totally      ,
i-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters                              1 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 o                                Washington, D.C. 20005
                                      .(202) 842-0034 L
(    .
 
                                                            't                                                                                                                                            210 1-          - absent 1the unattainable.                                                            Nuclear can set that goal but the 2            'other ones can't.
d'        3                                        DR. KRES5:                          The safety goals aren't-zero, of 3                                    4            course.
5                                        DR. MILLER:                              That's right, the safety goals aren't 6          ~ zero.
                                      */ '                                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                    Yeah, but that's nuclear.                                                .
J
: 8.                                        DR. MILLER:                              I'm surprised they put the number l
9          - zers down,                                                                                                                                                                    i
                                  -10                  ,
CRAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                      Is there any other industry                                            l
: 11.              that has acceptance goals or safety coals?                                                                                                                                    ,
12                                          MR. SHERRY:                              But remember, it's a goal on deaths                                                  ,
l 13              not'on risk.                            Okay?            There's a difference.                                                                                                .
14                                          CRAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                      Zero deaths due to                                                      i 15              radiation.
16                                      . DR. MILLER:                              Zero deaths aren't due to radiation.
17              That implies you don't believe in the linear theory then.
18'                                          CRAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                      Well, it's a kind of -- the 19              ACRS never reviewed this, right?                                                                        And it shows.                                                        -.
\.
20                                          Maintain low frequency of events which could' lead
* 12 1              to a severe accident and zero deaths.
22                                          Actually, it says, zero civilian nuclear reactor 23                accidents, dash, maintain low frequency of events which 124                could lead to a. severe accident.
25-                                          Somehow, there is a magical place there when, if                                                                                                  ;
i j-- '
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES,1LTD.
~'                  -
Court Reporters L                                                                                    1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300                                                                                                              l
                                                                                                    ! Washington, D.C. 20005                                                                                                      ;
                                                                                                        -(202) 842-0034_
j
                          ,                                                                                                                                                                                                        +
r-                ry-        ,ev--    w,.~4b    m  Swg      w ,re- n .-  .,my-,m<,w-v      -.-,,---,-wm.......-v.3,,.-w.,m,..-*,.ww..,-.w-,-                .. . -vy -vr r- e ,  = - , , - * +rm-v + - ' w e r* v
 
211 1 all the initiators have low frequency, the outcome is zero,
()      2 3
zero frequency, which of course logically doesn't make sense.        Right?              If you start with frequencies, you end up 4 with frequencies.
5                DR. KRESS:                        Frequency is propagated through.
6                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                            Yeah.              It may be very, very 7 low but it's still a frequency.
8                DR. KRESS:                        Bu it doesn't have to be just 9 initiating events we're dealing with.
10                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                          No, yeah, including the --
11  but that's what they mean.                              Maintain low frequency of events 12  which could lead to a severe accident.                                              So it is the 13  initiator plus mitigating systems.                                      But that, presumably, 14  leads you to zero civilian nuclear reector accidents.                                                            So
()    15  Don's point is well taken.                              As a practical matter you can 16  have zero but theoretically it is not zero.
17                  MR. HOLAHAN:                        Sure. For a finite number of 18  reactors for a finite number of years --
19                  DR. MILLER:                        The other, take it one more step, 20    does in fact the NRC have a major impact on attaining that 21'  goal?        Again --
22                    MR. HOLAHAN:                        I think so.          I invested the last 21 23    years in it.
24                    MR. CUNNINGHAM:                        It's discussed in the strategic 25    plan as well, the role of the industry and the NRC in
* 3'                              ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20695 (202) 842-0034
 
l 212 i
t  1    accomplishing that.                                                                                                    ]
()      2 3
DR. MILLER:
still obtain the same goal?
Would the industry without the NRC That's a devil's advocate 4    question.          I mean, we're all spending out time making the 5    same thing-you are.                I think we're part of it.                                                        l 6                      MR. HOLAHAN:              I don't think we're prepared to do 7    that experiment.
8                      DR. MILLER:            Very expensive.
9                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                        Why would it take two 10    years, Tom?          This doesn't seem to be a series issue.
11                      MR. CUNNINGHAM:                      There's other issues as well.                                  i 12                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                        Like?    We'll see?
13                      MR. CUNNINGHAM:                      We'll see, yes, 14                      MR. KING:        There are a number of issues, yeah, we
          )  15    think are -- if we're going to go into the safety goal 16    policy and make a revision, we're going to revice it in nome 17    other areas as well and we'll talk about those.                                          But this --
4            18    changing a policy essentially takes the same route as a 19    rulemaking.          It comes to ACRS, it goes to CRGR, it goes out 20    for public comment and then it's revised and then it goes 21    back through again.
22                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                        Okay, 23                      MR. KING:        I'll continue with the cons.
24                      There was a concern, particularly from the 25    industry, that if we elevated 10 to'the m i nus fourth CDP to-
          \
[2
      \-
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202)- 842-0034
 
213 1                    a fundamental goal, that that would imply that operating
()                  2 3
plants that exceed that goal are unsafe e"en if they meet the QHOs and then also you have the -- the concern that 10 4                      to the minus 4 CDF, particularly for some plants, is more 5                      conservative than the value you would get if you backed down 6                      from a QHO and therefore wouldn't be justified on risk 7                      considerations.
8                                Again, the counter argument to that is this is an 9                    accident prevention goal and would stand on its own merits.
10                                MR, SHERRY:      Tom, that is the reason you would 11                    want to elevate it to a fundamental goal.                If you derived it 12                    and it came out to be about 10 to the minus 4, there would 13                    be no need to elevate it to a fundamental goal which means 14                    you are not deriving it from the OHCs.
                )    15                                MR. KING:      I don't think there is a need today.              I 16                    think I said, if somebody went through that exercise and 17                    came back in and said, my plan can have a 10 to the minus 3 18                    CDF based upon my QHO, I don't think it would get very far.
19                    I don't think we need another -- you know, another document 20                    to help us deal with that situation.
21                                CHAIRMAN APOSTOhAKIS:      But on what basis would you 22                  object?
23                                MR. KING:      Backfit rule, regulatory analysis 24                  guidelines, staff requirements memo from back in 1990.
25                  There's a lot of precedent where we've used that as a -- as l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
  '\                                                                  Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
I 1
214      I l
1  a benchmark.              You can argue,-I guess, precedent is not the                        !
()      2 3
same as a regulation or a policy statement but I think, nevertheless, there's enough out there that we wouldn't have 4  too much trouble dealing with that situation.
5                      DR. SEALE:              I don't think the backfit rule 6  necessarily would help you because they may very well argue 1
7  that they could save money.                                                                  l 8                      MR. KING:              I think if you can show that there is a 9  substantial improvement in safety and do that in a 10    cost-effective fashion, the backfit rule would improve the 11    plant.      I imagine if you are up at a 10 to the minus 3 CDF, 12    it wouldn't be too hard to make that argument.
13                        To me, it boils down to I think there are some 14    perception problems that would be given some more foundation
(      15    by elevating it.                I think from a practical standpoint, we 16    really wouldn't do anything different with the 10 to the 17    minus fourth elevated to a safety goal.                            We wouldn't go back 18    in and fundamentally change the reg analysis guidelines or 19    the backfit rule or anything like that.                            I think those 20    things are built around a 10 to the minus 4 CDF and they're 21    all in place.              So it really is a question of what are you 22    buying for this perception problem or perception issue i
23    versus the time and effort to make the change given what you 12 4  already have in place.
25                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                  I still think that the l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
[\--)                                            Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
        . _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _                    .. _ __      .            __._.._.__.m._                    . _ _  _.        __ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . _
l 215 i      discussion is unnecessary if the CDP were fundamental -- you
()                  2-3 know, what'do you do if they come to you witn a OHO and this and that-and then we have to think, yeah, maybe defense in 4      depth will take us back to this requirement.                                            But all that 5      thinking will be built into the CDP having a goal of 10 to                                                                      .
6      the minus 4 year after year.                              It makes it cleaner, in other l
7      words.        I don't think we are talking about a revolutionary 8      Greek approach, I mean, it just makes it cleaner.
9                      We are doing it and it is recognized we are doing 10          it, putting it down on paper.                                  That's my impression.
11                          MR. KING:        I agree.                      We're not going to have to go 12          in and change a whole bunch of other documents because of 13          this.                                                                                                                          ,
14                          DR. FONTANA:          Any item close to raason for their 15          opposition?
16                          MR. KING:        They were concerned that plants that 17          now exceeded the 10 to the minus fourth value would be 18          perceived as being unsafe and have to go in and make t
19          changes, that it would somehow shine the spotlight greater 20          on their CDP.          Even though they meet the regulations and 21          meet the QHOs.
22                          DR. MILLER:          As long as everybody, including the 23          press, understood 10 to the minus 4 is a goal and not 24_          necessarily -- but we know that isn't true, as far as I
25          industry is concerned.                A lot of people look at these as the i                                                ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
            , , , . ~                                                . . - -            - --..,-..., -  , , -          ,,  -                    . . - - -
                            ,      -,..e..    -          -                                            .
 
216 1    minimum requirements when the Commission really'put them out
()                          2-3 as the. maximum requirements.
MR. KING:                            I would say if we really had everything 4    on a bell-shaped curve, these are ample, t
5-                            DR. MILLER:                            Define how safe is safe enough where                                                      l 6    you stop regulating, basically.                                                      But'you're right, I think a l
7-    lot of-people look at them from the other direction.                                                                                                      j 8                            CHAIRMAH APOSTOLAKIS:                                        Are you going to-talk about                                        (
9    NEI's position?                                                                                                                                          :
L 10-                          MR. BRADLEY:
I can say a few brief words about-11    it.      lt wasn't intending to have a detailed discussion on                                                                                            f 12    that subject today.
13                            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                        Yeah, we'll try to locate                                          1 I don't know if it's here or-not,                                                                                      i 14    -that letter.
                )                15                            MR.-KING:                              It was attached -- the NEI letter is 16    attached to the SECY paper, if you have the SECY 97-208,                                                                                                  l i
17    it's one of the attachments.
18                            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                        The package?          Okay.        So fa i
19    should be able to find it there.
20                            MR. KING:                              Let me go on and talk about other
                              - 21. things we need to consider if we are going to go in and make
: 22. a_ revision to the safety goal policy.                                                            There are a number of 23    things that come out of the work we have been doing on draft 24    - guide:1061 that are topics that are discussed to some extent 25    _ in the_ safety goal policy.- But I think the work that has                                                                                              l 4
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
                                                                                            - Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N W.,-Suite 300              .
Washington, D.C. 20005                                                                                            l
                                                                                                  .(202) 842-0034 1
      =-,--c.----,-.--w-,mee.        ,    .--re .,,,a,-o,-. --*-,-W----,  w-- -y, - - . . ,w,.-:,s-. n.M---wtv.'.7,--,y=-.x[ wy n e w.  ~,-,-# .,3 py-c--v,,  s. w -r -e-+----g --+----i- y
 
I 217 1              been done on 1061 has firmed up what we mean by some of
()  2 3
these statements.
Defense in depth and safety margins are clearly 4              two areas where they are mentioned in the safety goal policy 5              but they are not defined.                              They are just sort of put in j      6              there as something that, you know, everybody seems to know 7              what they mean but they aren't really described in any 8              detail in the safety goal policy.                              So we feel it might be 9              worth, if we are going to update the safety goal policy, to 10              put in a better description of what we mean by defense in 11              depth and safety margins, consistent with 1061.
12                            I know at one time, one of the ACRS subcommittees 13              had a meeting not too long ago on do we need a defense in e
14              depth policy.            I tidnk our view was, we don't need a
    ) 15              separate policy.            If we're going to deal with defense in 16              depth, we ought to deal with it in conjunction with the 17              safety goal policy because the two go hand in hand, that the 18              probabilistic and the deterministic concepts have to be 19              dealt with in an integrated fashion.
20                            The other thing we have done in putting together 21              1061 is we are applying the l'als or using the goals in 22              plant-specific regulatory activities.                                The current safety 23              goal policy only talks about using them in gencric 24              activities.          We need to update that.
25                            We've used LERF in 1061.                          We need to think about, O'                                        ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C.20005 (202) 842-0034 2      -- .        .-.    . _                    - - - - .                        .-    -.        ,
 
                                      . . ,,                    . - _ -                    -. .-                    .- ~    .        ._ . . -                          ._ - . - . - . . .
218 L            - do we need to mention LERP in the safety goal policy.                                                                                  It's
()                          2 J3 another issue.
Oncertainties are-discussed in broad terms in the                                                                                                    ,
i 4-            safety goal policy.                            I think we've gone a lot further than                                                                                    !
i 5              - the safety goal policy in 1061 and we want to take a look at                                                                                                            i i
6              how much of that material it would make sense to put into                                                                                                                j 7              the safety goal policy.                                And then the issue of risk from                                                                                  l 8              temporary plant configurations is something we've put off in 9              1061 but'I: think it is also a question in the safety goal
                                                                                                                                                      !                                                                  i 10            : policy, should-there be some cap on temporary risk for 11              putting a cap oa annualized average risk.                                                                                                                                -
12-                                  So those are-things-that flow out of 1061 that we                                                                                                  }
i
                              - 13              feel we would need to discuss as part of going back with a 14              comprehensive recommendation to the Commission.                                                                    There are
()                        15              also'aume other things that don't come out of 1061 that have                                                                                                            j
                              - 16                been floating around over the years.
l l                                17                                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                              Yeah, but I mean, we have 18              to make clear that you will have had to address these issues 19-              independently of whether the CDF is raised to a fundamental
    !                          20              level.                                                                                                                          .
21                                    MR. KING:                  Yes.        Yes.        But'I think the l                              22                recommendation to look at elevating CDF opened the door of
                  ,            H23                going into-the policy.                              As long as you are going to go into i
24                the policy, there.are other areas you may want to-look at as l
                              - 25              well.
H ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
:                                                                                              Court Reporters                                                                                                          -!
z                                          1250 ILStreet, N.W., Saite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 i                    ' (202) 842-0034 h
    .  .-,r..=    .3,i-    -E<v- ,  .-N.e,v,y,    e =. - . .
5--,.    - +  .w--+,,--we-,    r  e newn  -,,cwr,.      ,-y 4,-          ,,.uo,  y_m,w4+----,r.w.-                    U-re-v.--,,--.-mwe-r-c- wt,
 
219                            ,
1                      CHAIRMAN-APOSTOLAKIS:                              Isn't there another issue                                                              :
()      2 3
that has already-opened the door, whether you can use the stated goals on a plant-specific-basis?                                                                                                              !
4                      MR. . XING - As part of 1061, we've taken that 5-        approach.
6                      CRAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                              So that issue has a.1 ready                                                          g 7          been opened?
8                      MR. KING:                .That issue has been opened.                                        No one has                                  )
9        - asked us to revise the policy statement-yet because of that 10          but now that we've got that question on our table, we might as well look at everything.
12                      Let me-talk a little bit about the other issues 13          that have been hanging around for a while.                                              The current-                                                  l 14          safety goal policy has in-there some words that talk about a
  '(    ' 15          proposed 10 to the minus 6 per year large release general 16          performance guideline.                    It was proposed for further
          ' 17-      - evaluation in the safety goal policy.                                    The staff did do some 18          evaluation t7 try and define what a large release is, 19          basically concluded that at that frequency we can't really 20          define a large release that doesn't in effect become a lot 21          more conservative than the QHos and sent a paper to the 22        . Commission back in '93.                    The Commission-basically agreed to 23          stop-work on this: evaluation.                        We would either need to                                                                        ,
24          remove those words or replace them with something like LERF.
25          But it is an~ issue, what do we do with those words in the
                      ~
  .                                            ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES,- LTD.
L    '-                                                    Court-Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300
                                                    ' Washington,'D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 8
p        ,-+y      h  -- E,        .i.y  'r--
                                                ~v    rr      u--  -c- . * + -ryaysr            --=e,      r e
* es v wtwn m e        rv' eve v- v' ----v---    --wy-t-e2
 
k 220 1-              policy statement.                                                                                                          !
()              2                                  Another issue that has been around for a while is 3                does the latent fatality QHO adequately address societal                                                                  j i                    4                risk?      You start out in the policy statement when it talks                                                            !
;                                                                                                                                                                i 5                about in the qualitative' sense it talks about individual                                                                !
6                risk and societal risk and then it goes into the two OHOs,                                                                '
,                                                                                                                                                                i 7-                the early fatality and latent fatality.                                                            But then when you    j 8                get to actually calculating the latent fatality QHO, it's                                                                j 9                calculated on an individual risk -- risk to an individual 10-                basis.        It's not sccietal.                                                                                          ,
,                  11                                    There seems to be a disconnect between the                                                              '
12                  qualitative statements and the quantitative way_in which the
{                  13-                  latent fatality OHO is implemented.
14                                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                    I think, as we said this
          )      15                  morning, the goal as it is stated now is not an individual 16-                  risk goal and it is not a societal risk goal.                                                            It's kind of 17-                a. funny thing because it is calculated on a societal basis 18                  but then it is normalized to one.                                                You divide by the 19                  population.
20                                    MR. KING:                Yeah, which means it's calculated on an                                        '
21                  individual risk basis.
22                                    MR. CUNNINGHAM:                        Averaging.                              Average individual.
23                                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                  Because if it was 24                  individual risk,_ evacuation should have no impact.
                ~25                                    HMR . CUNNINGHAM:                      _They-limit -- it's not -- they
()                                                          ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters
                                                              -1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 f
t
                                                                      -Washington,.D.C. 20005                                                                    i (202) 842-0034
                            - - . _ _ _ -                  _ _ . _              _m._._.                _ ._ , _ .. _ . _ _ _ _ . .. _ ..,                    _
 
221 1 limit the region where they calculate the consequences as                                                ;
()    2 3
well. So if you move outside of that region, then you're outside the calculation, if you will.
l 4              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              Individual risk means you 5 take an individual, place him or her here and you calculate 6 the probability of their death.                  This is very different from 7 saying I have 2000 people out there whom I may evacuate or 8 some of them I may evacuate, I calculate t!o expected number 9 of deaths and then I divide by 2000.                      That's not individual 10 risk.
      -11              Why are you finding that surprising?                          It's not 12 individual risk.            Because evacuation should play no role in 13 the calculation of the actual individua) risk because it is 14 conditional on the person being there.
O
(,,/  15              MR. HOLAHAN:          I don't see why it needs to be?                        Why 16 can't you calculate individual risk of an individual who may 17 or may not evacuate on some probability basis?                            Why not?
18              MR. KING:        They way the calculation is done, 19 people are removed.            People are taken out of the plume by 20 the evacuation plan and they don't get exposed.
21                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              That's right.            That's what 22  I'm saying.
23                MR. KING:        So evacuation does have a role.
24                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              In the strict sense of the 25  word, it is not individual risk.                  You can define it as i
i
['
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters
;                          1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) :842-0034 N            _    _          .-      .        -                -    .    . - . _              . - - .    . - -
 
222 1    individua? risk but it is really the societal -- the local
.(  )  2    societal risk divided by the number of the persons present, v
3                MR. KING:  That's what. it is and we just called it 4    average individual risk.
5                DR. S2 ALE:  The point though is that the exposure 6    to the nonevacuee is synthetically -- in effect, 7    synthetically low as a result of the evacuation.
8              MR. HOLAHAN:    Yes, of course.
9              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    I mean, I think even in the 10    case of the waste repository, when the Academy came out and 11    argued against the EPA criteria and they proposed individual 12    risk criteria and the debate was what is the critical group, 13    whom are you considering as living there?        But the question 14    of evacuating them never came up.      Do you consider a farmer?
()  15    Do you consider a pregnant woman?      But they live there and 16    they are exposed for their lifetime.
17                MR. CUNNIMGRAM:    But it is also diiferent because 18    you are talking about chronic low-level exposures --
19                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Very true.
20                MR. CUNNINGHAM:    As opposed to potentially 21    lethal  --
22                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    But you could conceivably 23    see some leaks and evacuate the person, right?                Even 10,000 24    years from now. But that is a no-no. Individual risk means 25    they live there, tell me what the probability of death is.
()    ,
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005                                    )
(202) 842-0034
 
223 1                                                    MR. HOLAHAN:    It seems to me that that is an
()                                            2 3
arbitrary definition.
CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                  It is, like any definition, 4                                        right?
5                                                  MR. HOLAHAN:    Well, it isn't the arbitrary 6                                      definition that I would have picked.
7                                                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                  That's not what we do.
8                                                DR. FONTANA:    Actually, Part 100 says you've got 9                                    to stand somebody there for two hours.
10                                                          MR. CUNNINGHAM:    Yeah, and that's a different type 11                                              of --
12                                                          MR. HOLAHAN-    If you wanted to calculate the risk, 13                                              the risk of, you know, the highest individual then I think 14                                              you would assume that that pertaon doesn't evacuate.                    So if 15                                              you are calculating individuals, personally it makes more 16                                              sense to me to calculate the most exposed individual than 17                                            the average.
18                                                        But if I was looking for a societal effect, I 19                                            would war.t to take into account the likelihood of each 20                                            individual evacuating and where they went and --
21                                                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                  Y ts, that's societal. But 22                                            that's not individual. It's societal.
23                                                      MR. HOLARAN:    Right.                                              ,
24                                                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                  Do you have an opinion on 25                                          this, about individual risk?
            -e ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
s-                                                                                                Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
224 1            DR. KRESS:    I think you can define it just about
()            2 3
any way you-want to. The question is, what was the intent of the commissioners in the policy statement.      I think their 4  intent was made clear, was their definition.      And so we
(
5  should go with that because that was the intent.
6            We can bo back and redefine it and say they should
  ?
7  have said something else and if you want to remake a policy              '
8 statement, you may want to rethink that.      But for our 9 intents and purposes, we ought to go with that definl.lon.            ?ggg 10            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    I agree. I agree. But, I
                                                                                            ~:
g 11  mean, i* is addressing it in some way.
12            DR. KRESS:    It is addressing it. Is it adequately 13  addressing it?
14            MR. CUNNINGHAM:    This was  -
issue even at the (f          15  time that the policy statement was originally discussed at 16  the Commission level and there were differences of opinion 17  among the commissioners of whether or net the QHO definition 18  appropriately characterized the qualitative health 19  objective, qualitative goal.
20              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    So you must have been 21  around for a while, huh, to remember that?
22            MR. CUNNINGRAM:    Yes, I've been around for a 23  while.
24            MR. SHERRY:    I think the central question here is 25  whether or not you do the normalization.
()                              ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
225 1              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      Yeah, that's what it comes 2  down to.
3              MR. CUNNINGHAM:    Versus a person rem to the 4  population kind of thing.
5              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      Or the number of deaths.
6  Instead of dividing by the population.
r 7              DR. SEALE:    The intriguing thing about it is the 8 more effective the evacuation gets, the more out of reality
'            9 is the evaluation of the real risk to the individual.        A 90 I
(          10  percent evacuation essentially magnifies the effect        --
11  diminishes the exposure by 10.        A 95 percent evaluation 12  diminishes the exposure by a factor of 20.
]          13              MR. CUNNINGHAM:    The assumption on what fraction
)          14  evacuates is a key assumption in these things.
15              DR, SEALE:    That's right. So the discrepancy 16  between them is magnified the better you get with the 17  evacuatic.a .
18              MR. CUNNINGHAM:    Another factor that comes into 19  play is the region that you are calculating the doses in.
20  The latent goal is zero within 10 miles.        And, in fact, you 21  could have significant doses beyond 10 miles.
22              MR. SHERRY:    I think another factor to look at if 23  you are going to reexamine the safety goal policy is the 24  actual evaluation zones, particularly for the early fatality 25  OHO. In the work that I did, for an individual plant basis, K
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
226 w
1  because for a large number of plants because there are so
    ,~~
(          )    2  few people within that evaluation zone, you know, zero to
    'u 3  one mile beyond the plant boundary, that it is a very              !
4  nonrobust calculation.      For example, you could move one or 5  two individuals a couple of sectors and greatly change the 6  calculated risk.
7              MR. KING:    So you are suggesting maybe one mile 8 and 10 miles may not be the right distances to look at?
9            MR. SHERRY:    It would be better if you could 10  extend the distances to include larger populations around 11  the plant. And then you could, of course, renormalize.
12              DR ' FONTANA:
                                        .            It used to be 50 miles a long tiie 13  ago, didn't it?
14              MR. KING:    The draft safety goal policy for latent
      .O            15  fatalities said 50 miles but the final was changed to 10
(_,/
16  miles.
17              DR. FONTANA:    Yeah, 10 miles because there's a 18  real knee in the curve?
19              MR. CUNNINGHAM:      That's lost in history, I think, 20  as to why it became 10 miles.      So it's -- I don't know. But 21  certainly in backfit considerations, we look at a 50-mile 22  range radius for calculating population dose.      For some 23  reason, they shifted.
24              I think the perception was that the bulk of the 25  population dose would occur within 10 miles so they just
          ,m
(        )                      ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
              \/                                  Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
                                      .                      .~      --    -                              - .
1 227 11    =11mit~it to-thar._                                                                  !
()            2 3
                                        ,MR.-SHERRY:
                                            ~
I think-_it's because-of-the way you are calculating the individual latent cancer fatality risk.
lli    If>you.used the totalLpopulation out to 50 miles in your
                      .5    . denominator to do_your_ division, you are dividing a large
                      -6. population by a-population with an average lower exposure 7    'than if you-looked at just the population within 10 miles, 8~    which would have a higher relative exposure.
                      -!L              MR. KING:        The denominator becomes real big when i                    ?10      you're out to 50 miles.
11                MR. SHERRY:        right.      And the man rem does not
                    -12      increase proportionately.
13                CHAIRMAN'APOSTOLAKIS:            Okay, let's ao on.
14                MR. KING;        Last slide --
b      15                DR. SEALE:        Now, there's a category that will 16    _really tax your powers of-creative definition.
17                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:            Which one.
18                DR. SEALE:        Land contamination.        That's more 19      severe than anything.
20                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:            But you are really killing (21      the-CDF elevating it as a fundamental.            If you raise all 22      these issues, the commissioners would say, we're not going 23      to touch this.
24                DR. FONTANA:        There are a lot of people who don't 25'    want to touch that one. .But when you get down to logic, 4
:                                  ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
          ' ~-                                          Court Reportern L                                            _1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 4
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
228 1  land contamination is something you ought to think about.
7 l3) v' 2  Europeans do it.
3              MR. KING:          It is certainly a societal risk.            I e  mean, how much land do you want to contaminate, particularly                          g 5  if it is permanently contaminated.
6              CRAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                But in the context of 7  elevating the CDF to fundamental level, I would argue 8  that  --
9              DR. KRESS:            This is in the context of should there 10    be a new policy statement.                                                            '
11                  CI! AIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:            Yes, and I would separate 12    the two.
13                  DR. FONTANA:            I think it's two arguments.
14                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS-            Yes, it's two arguments.
l
( _j                                    15    Because if you tie them, then nobody in his right mind would 16    want to open these -- these jssues.                    I mean, these aie -- we 17    are back to 1980,            '79,  when they started the debate on the 18    safety goal, '78?
19                    MR. CUNNINGHAM:            '80, something Jike that.
20                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:            Yes, it lasted for, what, 21    six, seven years?
22                  MR. CUNNINGHAM:            Six years.
23                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              Yes?    You have a question, 24  comment?
25                  MR. SHERRY:          I was just going to comment that some
(, ~}                                                            ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
      '-                                                                          Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300
                                                                            """'t?!!"64?:863
 
2298 1    of the considerations in these latter slides are probably
  /~T    2    more important                                                        --
I mean, elevating CDF to a fundamental
( j
,        3    goal is not really going to change anything in practice.
4                            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                                                                  That's right. These will 5    change.
6                              I think the other policy issue that in my mind is 7    important and pressing 'is whether the safety goals can be 8    used on a plant-specific basis.                                                                                                                That's important. Whether 9  we worry about land contamination is not important.
10                              MR. KING:                                                                                            But again, we've already addressed that v
11    in the context of 1061 and all we would be doing in the 12    policy is codifying that in a higher level document.
13                                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                                                                Yes, the factor you are 14    using,
      ) 15                                MR. KING:                                                                                            So from a practical standpoint, it 16    isn't really going to change anything.
17                                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                                                              But -- but let me think 18    now. Can someone take you to court that the Commission is 19  l  on record saying that the goals are intended to be used on 20    an industrywide average a.id you are using them in a 21    different way in 1061?
22                                MR. KING:                                                                                              I doubt it, since we have gone to the 23    Commission and gotten them to --
24                                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                                                            So the Commission has 25    changed its mind?
    /
(\)                                                                      ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 2000S (202) 842-0034
 
230
              '1                    MR      HOLAHAF:-    .I think ourT lawyers would tell:us
                                                                                                          ~
              ; 2:    'that neither legal. document:has-any legalistanding.                                  Neither
                            ~
3      the policy _ statement-nor'the reg guide.                                                                  ;
4                    CHAIRMAN'APOSTOLAKIS:          _Oh, okay.      So this is a i
5-    beautiful area..
6                :MR        KING: _All right, the-last one is another big 7-    issue that this committee.rai' sed. 'And that_has to do with
.                8      the relationship between the safety goals and adequate
              .SF    protection.and I threw in'a other piece which is also the 10      -current way the safety goals are interpreted by direction of                                                -
11      the Commission, which-is to be used for defining _how safe is                                                ,
12-      safe enough.          That's not really discussed.in the-policy 13-      statement but if we were going to go into the policy 14      statement,'it might be worth discussing that.
, p).
(,      15                      But back to the adequate protection issue, this in'
: 16.      my view is one that I'm not sure what'it would buy us if we 11 7      went in and did the work to actually come up with some 18'      quaatitative. definition of adequate protection using the 19      . safety goals and backing it out as dercribed in your letter.
12 0      I.am not sure how we would use it.                I can only see it 21      causing us trouble and not helping us to improve safety in 22      any way.      You know, I'm just giving you my personal opinion 23      :now.
24                      But it is on the table as'something we have to
      -j;    25      deal with and, again, _I would propose we deal with it in the ANN RILEY'& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
                                                      ~ Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 L(202) 842-0034
 
l 2 11 1  context of looking at the policy statement and the      other
()              2  issues. You know, I've thought about it but I haven 3  really figured out if we were going to do that, why w; eld we 4  do it, what would it buy us other than trouble.
5            DR. FONTANA:    Since you already have a backfit 6  rule, we're probably not going to need to address this.      I 7  think this goes back to when things were always ratcheting 8 in one direction and there needed to be some relief.      Now 9 you guys have more experience than I do on this.      My 10  question is, you know, at what point do you quit?
11              MR. KING:  I think that's the way the policy --
12  safety goals were to be used. At what point do you quit.
13  And I think this policy statement should be revised to make 14  that clear. Because right now it is only in an SRM; it's O
( ,/        15  not in the policy itself. And I have no problem with 16  putting those words in. It's the adequate protection part 17  that's troubling.
18              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    There is one other 19  potential, Tom. And that has to do with -- and Jack, I need 20  your help here, has to do with the advice the Commission is 21  getting from its two advisory committees, the ACRS and the 22  ACNW. The ACNW was writing a letter a couple of weeks ago 23  on defense in depth and other related matters and they were 24  very strongly against any numerical guidelines and in 25  between, you know?    They only wanted the ultimate QHO which
() '-
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
              +                                2
{^
3<                                              ,
                                                                                                                                  -232-          F 1-      ;willfbe definedriater by.some.federaloagencies and this
~
()                    .2
                            ;3 ~
agency-and nothing, lI mean, all~they're saying is defense in depth is a good idea and should.be there and that's it.
4-                        What2do_they_ call-them, the critella subsidiary _--                        _
                                                                                  ?
                            'S-        no, not subsidiary.                                                                                        ,
t Subsystem requirements,
                                      ~
i                  6--                      MR.-SORENSEN:                                                                              i 7                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                  Subsystem requirements.
8          And they argued against that, at least_in the version of the
                            -9          letter _that I saw on philosophical basis, which really I L                        110            ' objected to.                                                                                            ,
o 11                          So here we have one of the committees saying you 12            should implement defense in depth but don't give any
                                                      /
13-          numerical guidance and here we have the other committee
!.                        It            saying, not only should you do it but take one of those I
()                  15            subsystem criteria and elevate it all the way up to the t-16            fundamental goal, 17                          MR. SORENSEN:                If I could add something?                This is 18:          Jack Sorensen.
19                          The letter was, in fact, written and sent to the 20            Commission.          But the fundamental difference is that what the 21            ACNW was talking about was subsystem-requirements in Part
;-                        22            60, the rule itself. -It would be sort of equivalent to
                        -23            putting the 10 to-the minus fourth core _ damage frequency in 24-          Parta60.      So I don't really see any inconsistency in the 25~          positions yet.          The ACNW has not argued against guidance, k                                                            ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
, L N-          -
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 i
  . ~ _ - -                    --        .      -                        . - .          -        -      .      .-              . _.
 
23s 1    They are arguing against putting specific requirements, 2  numerical requirements, such as analogous to core damage
[U) 3  frequencies, into their rule.
4              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      So it is a distinction 5 between criteria and goals again?
6            MR. SOREhjEN:    Well, it is a distinction between 7 requirements and goals, yes.
8            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      Well, that requirement is a 9 criteria, is it not?      You cannot require a goal.                        I require 10          a goal and you reply, yes, I have that goal.                            So I think 11          that's what it comes down to then.
12                    MR. SORENSEN:    Well, their letter simply said when 13        the staff rewrites Part 60, they should leave subsystem 14        requirements out of the rule itself.              The staff is free to 15        generate, or the committee is free to propose, you know, 16        whatever guidance might be appropriate, analogous again to 17        the reg guide under discussion, perhaps.
18                  The ACNW did not take a position against 19      establishing that type of guidance.
20                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    The draft letter I read 21      gave me that impression so maybe --
22                MR. SORENSEN:    But the letter addressed Part 60, 23    the letter addressed the rule.
24              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      So you don't see any 25    inconsistencies?
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
s 234 1            MR. SORENSEN:    I don't.
(J\    2            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      Even if we elevate this to 3  the fundanental level?
4            MR. SORENSEN:    Correct. I still don't see any 5  inconsistency. They have not ruled that out.
6            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    They could have a
                                                                                                                                      -e 7  fundamental goal of certain probability of not releasing 8 anything or a certain amount from the repository itself.
9 That would be consistent with this letter?
10            MR. SORENSEN:    As long as it appeared in some 11  document other than the rule.
12            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    I see.
13            MR. SORENSEN:    Such as a policy statement.                                                              .
14            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Okay. Then I take it back.
(O
( ,) 15  There's no problem; there's no problem.
16            DR. FONTANA:    Is the meaning of adequate 17  protection that you have there on the context that 18  historically if a plant has met all of the regulations?
19            MR. KING:    Yes.
20            DR. FONTANA:    It is really a legal concept the way 21  it's used now. It's not an engineering concept.
22            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Is there anything else on 23  this subject?
24            MR. KING:  No , that completes the list of issues 25  that we feel we need to come back and discuss before we go
[
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
    - . . . .          _.      . _ . . _ _  . ,  _ . _    _,    ._.m  . _ _ _ . _ _ - _ _          ,- .        . _ . . . . _ . _ .    . . _
i 235                          .
11 ~ to the Commission in March with a recommendation.                                                                    ,
j                L2          ,
DR. SEALE-          I think'you have a bundling problem,        .
f
                        -3                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              Yes.        Yes.                -
4                  So you' don't-have_any_ opinion right'now as to              .
5  -whether we should or should not?
6                  MR. KING:'.-I gave you my opinion on adequate;                                                        o 7  Lprotection.
8                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:            'I'm sorry,-what was that?
9                  MR. KING:          I said I gave you my personal opinion _                                            1 10'    on the adequate protection issue, that we should not try and OL1      define it in a quantitative sense.
12                    MR. HOLAHAN:          I agree;with that.
13                    MR. KING:          Yes, th'e others, we don't have a 14      position yet.            But that is something that if'we meet in 15_    January --
                    .16                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              That's kind of unusual, g.
                    '17      right?      We have a position and they don't.                    Isn't it the 18      other way around usually?                How did we find ourselves in this 19      position?
,                    20-                    "1. HOLAHAN:          I think it's because the committee F                  - 21      recommended to the Commission elevating 10 to the minus 4 22      even-thongh no one had proposed such a thing.
23                    -DR. SEALE:          Ke opened this can of worms and now                                                ,
24      they_are telling us how many are in there.
                    -                  DR. MILLER:          They're telling us_to close it back L
y L
,                                                ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters
_                                              1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington,:D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
J
                    <~          >
g-.                                      _
236 o-                                                                                                      ,
IL        up?orinow.we've,got to_ eat:'em..-
g            2;                        : CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:-          Okay, well, thank1you.very:                            ,
    ;N          m:                                                                                                                              -;
                          '3:        ymuch.                                                                                                      -
4'                          . So we will continue . with NEI -in 45: minutes ' -
o                                        <
I 15'-        mean;--.15.
6'                          - [ Recess.]
                          '7-                              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:          We have an industry 4
                          =8=          presentation now:on a number of things.                      Okay, so, Biff?
9-                            MR. BRADLEY: :All right?
l 10                            ' CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:- Yes, f
                        = 111                              Statefyour name again for the record.
1
                        .12-                              MR. BRADLEYa          Okay, I'm. Biff Bradley, NEI, and I
                        -13            appreciate the' opportunity to appear.before the subcommittee                                              -
                                                          ~
14            today and discuss some industry perceptions and there's I)                    15          basically three things I would like to talk about.                        One is 16            in a general sense what led us to comment the way we did and 17          also to. discuss our perception on how the proposed changes 18            to the 1061 would potentially address the comments the 19            industry made.
20                                I want to talk a little bit about some industry
                        -21            initiatives in the' area of PRA quality and certification,
* 22          basically just expand on_some discussions we had at a 23          previous meeting and then, finally, I'll talk a little bit
                                    ~
                        '24 -        about thefelevation.of a safety goal.                    Again, I wasn't 25          really prepared to do that-but I think it is something that ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters-1250 I' Street, N.W., Suite 300-
                                                                    -Washington, D.C. 20005 (202)'842-0034
                                                                                                              ,n                            -
                                  +          w ,          -nn      ,a        -                                  , - - - ,        , - ,
 
237 1 could merit a few words today, fD
  \/
2            I heard a lot this morning,_a lot of discussion of 3 the tone and nature of industry's comments and I can't 4 obviously speak for all the comments that were received but 5 I have had an opportunity to get a lot of perceptions from 6 the industry at different levels. We have two committees at 7 NEI that are involved in this area. One is a more of a 8 working level. That is our risk-based application task 9 force that includes the four owners groups, risk-based 10 activities chairmen as well as a number of other vendor 11 reps.
12            Then we also have an executive level regulatory 13 process working group and I think the concern of the 14 industry and maybe it's somehow come across as whining but I 15 hope that's not the case, is that there has always been an 16 expectation that we could get some limited benefit out of 17 our PRAs with a reasonable amount of effort and that there 18 were some fairly obvious areas we could tackle where we had 19 hoped to achieve a timely success and an encouragement to 20 continue our investment in PRA and I think that really 21 hasn't panned out. Even what had sort of been perceived as 22 being relatively simple changes have proven in reality to be 23 lengthy undertakings.
24            I certainly don't want to give the impression we 25 have given up the ghost on this; I don't think that's the
!                      ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
l [V)
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
3.
                                                                  .. 7 W;                                    /'
                              ;ja
                          #'                                                                                                        238                    9 A.                            ..                                                                      ,
:1--        case at'all.        But--I do think for:the average person:at the
[2L          utility:andJin-the plant,Eyou know,'they_ don't recognize-
    ,                        L3          somethingllike the-publication ofL1061 as a-tangible c
                              .4~      1 benefit.-                                                                >U
                                              ,                    j                                                                                          '
9 5                        To'th5m, a benefit is a.real world change-that has 16      : areal-impactontheLplantand'hknowthisisabroken 7;      ' record but what'wez feally need to see and'what hopefully we 8      _are beginning to see now and as a understand'the graded ^QA 9        application SER has been approved by the Commission and
                            ;10            hopefully that will be issued to the plant in the near                                                            ,
11          future.      And also I think we are pretty close on tech specs, 12-          that those types of enanges where we are seeing a real world 13          impact is what the industry, phe real industry out in the i                            14        -field is looking'f'or.
()                        15                          I have to say, I understand the difficulty of the 16          staff in articulating a framework for-incorporation of PRA                                                        ,
                          'i7            into the regulatory process and it is certainly not an easy 18          task and from our perspective we do have an appreciation for 19- I ' that.        That appreciation may not exist at the plant level.
                            -20                            DR. SEALE:        I would say I think it is very 21          f t$portant that the approval of the graded QA and other 22          simi44'r things- when they do occur should get appropriate 23          notice in the NEI publications that go out to the people 24          within~the industry.              I get I think three or four envelopes 25          a week from you people to go along with the 40 or 50 I get
                                        /
,                                                              ANN-RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 f                                                  ,
  .      , _ _ . . . - -        ' ' ~,          . ,                    .  . . _ _ .    . . . , . .    - , - _. . . , . , .  ._  _  . m    . . . .
 
                                                                                                          ~239 li  .from'the1ACRSR But I1think it!would be!important'that you-
    '                    recognize that.
21 3-              Because, as'you say,-it is not always well known 4:    ~down'inlthe trenches.            But that is something that does-get.
5-    to the trenches.
6                MR. BRADLEY:            That's a good comment and'I would
:7    hope we would communicate that and I am sure we will.                          And                  '
B    ' hopefully we will be communicating a lot of other successes
                                              ~
9-    in the not too distant future.
10                I did want to say, I guess-let me talk a little 11      bit about.the changes that are being proposed for 1061.                            I 12      would like to say that, you know, one, this ACRS forum has 13      been invaluable for us because it is really the only way we 14    -have of gleaning the nature of the changes the staff is
  .()            15      proposing and without that, we would really be totally in a 16      vacuum as to where all this is going.                      I think in a perfect 17      world or a better world it would be good if the staff could 18      see fit to make the iterations of the documents public so                                            i
        =6 19      that we could actually have benefit of the actual revised 20    . document that was issued to ACRS.
21                Given the overall context of what I have heard in 22    ~t his meeting and-the meetings the last couple of weeks, I think their overall reaction,-and I have been communicating 24  gthe discussions.of these meetings out to our committees, the 25-    overall reaction is positive that the types of changes that    -
  .f-                                -ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
L Court Reporters
                                      -1250fI Street, N.W., Suite 300-Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
x
                                                                                                                            -240 1          the staff--is proposing, we believe:do appear to be-()            2'          ~ responsive to the. general concerns we-articulated.
                -3                          I: think we do have a- continuing concern overall 4            with' cost _ effectiveness a14d the process 11tself being subject 5~          to-being lengthy ano drawn out and subject to a lot of 6            questions and I_ think th at is something that is just going                                        ,
7            to have to -- we certair ly hope to see a learning curve 8            coming out of-the pilot projects where we can have some 9-          speedier approvals in the future.
4 10                          There is a sense in part of the industry that the il              pilots are indicative of the ordeal that everyone is going 12              to have to go through to get these types of changes and in-13              that sense there is some concern.                                However, the changes in 14              terms of defining the region of small changes and how you
: 15.              would address uncertainty and some of the other areas that 16              were-discussed this morning I think do, in our mind, 17              represent a real effort to address the issues that were 18              brought up at the workshop and in our comments.
19                          I can't speak to those in great detail because, 20              one, I haven't seen the documents.                                But, you know, we still
  ~
21              haven't gotten all the way through the discussion on the 22                changes but I do think it is encouraging and we are 23              encouraged by the progress.
24                          _The one area, the one other area I would like to
            --- 2 5            mention that is cause for a little bit of continuing concern 1
                                              -ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington,-D.C. 20005
:(202) 842-0034
 
241 1    is on the whole issue of standards development to address s
  ;[Gi    2    PRA quality. -And I recognize this is more of a process 3    issue versus a technical issue. And there was some 4  -discussion this morning of 1061 being -- the reason we 5    haven't.gotten anywhere is we have been spending all this 6    effort working on 1061 and 1061 is in itself the success but 7    many people don't recognize that.
8              I think what we would prefer to avoid is having 9    that same situation develop with regard to the proposed 10    standards development on quality. In other wordc. we don't 11    want that effort in itself to become, one, a precondition of 12    any further actual plant improvements being approved and 13    that takes on a life of itself where everything else becomes 14    held hostage to development of that, similar to what
(~T
()    15    happened with 1061.
16              That is not a good outcome for the industry and we 17    have -- as you know, I guess it was last week or a couple of 18    weeks ago, Greg Kreegar of PECO was in here and discussed 19    the BWR certification process. And the industry has made 20    considerable efforts to address the issue of PRA quality.
21              We recognize that there will have to be a 22  demonstration of a baseline level of PRA quality to support 23    any regulatory improvements and that's one of the reasons 24    that the BWR owners group put that tremendous effort in on 25    that process.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
    /D}
    \-      ,                      Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
242
              '1J                                      As you know, they provided that-document to:the
()        2          .otherD ree. owners groups, the PWR owners groups, and at                                                                                                            j 3              this mt int'all three of-the'PWR_. owners' groups are in the 4-            process                -f: undertaking efforts-to apply the BWR 5:            certific *. ion method to their plants.- And it'is not an 6          . insubstantial task that they_are embarking on.
The-votes are'still out on these various efforts 8              but both'the CE owners groupjLwhich has in the past used a 9 :-          slightly different PRA quality verification technique.which
            -10              was more application driven, has a vote before their body ill;                that would apply-the BWR certification method to all the CE 12              plants.
13                                        There is a similar vote before the B&W owners 14              group that would apply the BWR certification method to all
()      15              the B&W plants and these would be in the next                                                                              - -
the 16                1998-1999 time frame to finish the application to the entire 17                sut of plants.
18                                        The Westinghouse owners group also has an effort                                                                                        ,
19              that would apply, at least at this point I guess, on just a 20              couple of plants in the -- three plants in the near term in
[          21              1998.
          . 22                                        The three PWR owners groups are going to be coming 231              together to look at modifications that may need to be made n        - 24 tocthat certifica. tion approach to. apply it across the 25              industry'            ,      But-through NEI and through our risk-based task 4
y ANN RILEY &-ASSOCIATES, LTD.
    %f                                                                            Court Reporters 1251-I' Street,'N.W., Suite 300 Washington; D.C. 20005
                                                                                  '(202) 842-0034
      +w        --w  -e - - -9w--  ---s eey y-r..rp  g-  -y ~e,mer  g.pi c i-      -r  .y -y              ni  wg., m-yn--.g- ,r-n r--e.e - - - - - - .        er ,-'-e-ry.- we- em -y--- e
 
243 1  ' force,-I believe we just about have an industry consensus s
2    that that method, that we are in agreement and from our
    )
3    perspective that is a method that we could apply and are 4    planning to apply across the industry and would certainly 5    like to have further dialogue with the staff in terms of 6    ferreting out any issues they may have with respect to that 7    and we believe that's a timely way to get some 8    infrastructure in place that would allow us to nove forward 9    with improvements concurrent with development of a standard.
10              Ne-don't, as an industry, object to the 11    development of a standard. The concern is purely one of 12    timeliness and the difficulty of -- a complex issue and a 13    fairly cumbersome consensus process.        And, you know, we I
l      14    don't -- again, the bottom line is we don't want to wait 15    another year or two years or what have you treading water 16    waiting for that to be approved before we can implement 17    changes in the field.
18              So I do want to make you aware of those 19    initiatives we have in place and we will very likely
: 20. approach the staff with regard to having a unified industry 21    position on this and, you know, would like to see something 22    that we can proceed forward with.
23              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      You are not against this 24    initiative that.the staff is undertaking with the ASME?
25              MR. BRADLEY:    No.
[
A ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250.I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 u
 
  ~ _    _        ,    . . . _        ._              -
J-1 244 1:                              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS: ' You:just don't want to.have-
              -- 2  .to wait untilithat is completed?
3-                              'MR.-BRADLEY:                  That is correct.              I think, 4    ultimately, we believe that having a standard to address-PRA                                                                                            ,
5    quality would be a good thing for both us as well as the-6    regulator.                  But, again', we just don't want it to become a 7    precondition.for.any further progress.
8                                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                              Are you participating in 9    this effort?
10                                  MR. BRADLEY:                  The ASME is meeting, the ASME 11'      Council, which is the body over the Board of-Nuclear Codes-12      and Standards, is meeting next week to discuss this effort i            13      and to determine process wise how, I guess, ASME will 14      proceed with it.                            And at that point, depending on what I)        15.  . method they choose,- depending on whether they do it through 16      the O&M committee or through some special committee, it's 17      really within their purview to determine the makeup. -But 18      I'm sure there will be representation of NEI as well as the 19      owners groups on that body.
20                                  And it is our hope that we-can use the BWR
;            -21      certification effort and, you know, analogous industry 22      products as a -- the meat of that standard.                                                      You know, the
.            23      concern we have is we don't want to start with a just purely.
24      conceptual idea.                            We would like to put-something down and 25      say, let's take this and run it through the consensus I .                                            ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
h- -
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington,- D.C. 20005
                                                                        ,(202) 842-0034
                                  ., . , , , - .                      .-          ,,,    e      .,.. . ..            r,,- --
                                                                                                                                - . ~ . . ,      - . , _ , . , , . - . . .
 
T 245 1  process and get approval of it and that's our hope.      But,
  '[J)    2 3
again, you know, it's not something we object to.      I think we've recognized.all along that there is some benefit to 4  having a standard.
5            CRAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Now are you coming before 6; this committee any time.soon regarding that initiative?
: 7.          MR, KING:    We talked about getting together with 8  the committee but we haven'ty set up any time. I think we 9  can mutually agree on what would make sense.
10            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Okay. I think it would be 11  best to do it as soon as possible because I have a lot of 12  questionskin my mind what that will be, 13            MR, KING:- Why don't you suggest some dates and we 14  will pick one.
  /
15            MR. BRADLEY:    The one other area I wanted to talk 16  about had to do with the safety goal policy considerations 17  and I think the staff did a pretty good job articulating the 18  pros and cons of that and I think in our mind, the 19  industry's mind, the major area is understanding what it 20  means to -- what the effect would mean to actually change 21  the safety goal in that regard. And as part of this whole 22  process of developing a policy paper, I think it would be 23  appropriate for the staff to identify exactly what happens 24  when that safety goal is changed. We certainly have some 25  concerns in that regard and that going from elevating the
("")
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
f                                                      246 1          CDP to a fundamental goal is -- does result in the (nI x-)          2          elimination of quite a bit of margin that has previously 1
3          been there in using the OH0s, at least for most plants.
                <    4                      And soeing how the safety goal is use.d to define 5          how safe is safe enough, if we apply -- if we elevate the 6          CDP goal to a fundamental objective and apply it on a plant 7          specific basis, t.he implication is that therre are plants out 8          there that are not safe enough and these plants do all meet 9        the= adequate protection criteria, they have been designed                ,
10          and operated in accordance with the regulations and at this 11 .        point to say they are not safe enough, it is a fundamental 12          and major concern for us in that, you know, that's a major 13          step, a major evolution.
14                      Again, I don't think we have so much concern with
(
(_j        15          the implicit use of 10 to the minus 4 as a measure in 16          regulatory improvement space but when we talk about -- and 17-          there are areas that go beyond just purely technical 18          considerations in terms of the public image and the other 19          perception issues that we have to look at and if suddenly a 20          fraction of the plants are not now meeting a goal or are 21          viewed as not safe enough, that is not an insignificant 22          change in our mind.
23                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:        Bi2f, I think that is a 24          legitimate argument.        But there may be a way around it.      We 25          heard earlier today from Mr. King that the process will be a ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
              \'-)                                            Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 i
 
247 1  two-year-process so there will be plenty of time to think o) i      2  about things.      And we also heard-from Mr. Holahan that he 3  really doesn't like the idea of all these things being on 4- the sameflevel.
        'S              Well, if I have two years and I have this concern, 6  I should be-able to come up with a structure and maybe I 7  have to use different words but a structure that tells me or 8- tells the world that how safe is safe enough is determined 9  by the QHOsLas we know them and that's fundamental.
10                Then I use different words or another part of the 11-  page or something that says the core damage frequency is 12  also a fundamental -- in quotes-now, because I may want to 13  use another word -- goal but that is not part of defining 14  how safe is safe enough, f3j
(. 15                So in other words, there may be an intelligent 16  compromise where you elevate it to a higher level than other 17  things that you have now out you make it clear to people 18  that they should not be using that if they want to addresc 19  the question of how safe is safe enough.        Okay?  And I'm 20  sure there is e way.
21                I mean, we can't figure it out in five minutes but 22  -I don't see that as an insurmountable problem but I do admit 23  that that is a legitimate concern.        I mean, you don't want 24  to have somebody.say, gee, you've been operating for 15 25  years and you are really' unsafe, because that is not the
()''
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
  ..                  . - -      -                ~ .-                .-  - - .        . -. - - .    -    -.--.
L 248 l'        -intent offthis. - So that may:-be possible. --And maybe there
[(    )    2        .areLtwo different tiersLof-the fundamental' level.                    We have            !
                =3'          to-find different words. -But maybe there are.
4                    MR. BRADLEY:- Okay,.I think that-is essentially
.                5          all I wanted to say.          'I will keep my remarks brief; 6          because --
CHAIRMAN'APOSTOLAKIS:                You-were writing behind 8-          that thing?                                                                            +
9'                    MR. BRADLEY: l Yeah.
10-                      [ Laughter.)
21 1                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                At least it was on the 12          back.
13                    -MR. BRADLEY:                That's.a good purpose for it, right?
14                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                It's because you goc three
()    15          or four of those?
            -16                      MR. HOLAHAN:                You should be happy it got used.
17                      MR. BRADLEY:                Personally,.I like the fat lines 7
18          better than the shading but I'll leave that up to you guys.
19                      IM1, MILLER:          Don't dig yourself into a hole you 20          can't get out of by saying nothing on that.                                            i s
:21                      CHAIRMAN APCSTOLAKIS:                He means well.
: 22.                    MR.~BRADLEY:                I -- our industry group will be 23        _ meeting _next week to discuss, now that we have the benefit 24          of a-lot more detail about where the staff is proposing to 25          go with these, we'will have a detailed discussion.                      But my
    - O~                                    . ANN-RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
                                                        . Court Reporters 1250 I! Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005
_(202)' 842-0034
 
249 11    sence>is-fromiwhat~we,have sent out'so far and the feedback                                                  '
l              2    ?I've gotten, that1we are.-- we do believe the staff is Q                                                                                              -
3?    making a substantive effort to make some real: changes to the g_.                      documents'that would enable them to have more' widespread    -
5    -usage,                                                        o                                              -
6                  And, you.know, I guess, just to reiterate, we are'
                          -7      still-a little concerned with the overall process, 4
8    especially given that it involves advanced NRC review in 4
9    most applications, just-the-timeliness of it and the number                                                  -
11 0      of iterations and-the-importance of using the pilots as a 11      . vehicle to get through that morass and congeal it down to 12      something more -- more practical.
13                    And also I would say we support the decision that
.                        14      was made to put the topical reg guides and SRPs on a little I                    15f      more-extended schedule.                  I think that's a good plan to allow l                        .1 <6    the pilots to get along a little further and make sure those 17-      documents accurately reflect the basis for the decisions on 18      the pilot plants.              So that's something we support and one of 19      our major comments has been a concern that those documents 20      didn't necessarily appear to comport with the decisionmaking 21      process of the pilot plants.
22                    From the perspective of our executive group that 23      oversees this area, it is starting to come back on the radar
  -                  L24        screen. You know, the last year or so has been very much
{                        25      consumedfwith the compliance issues, 50.59, FSAR types of
'(                                                      ANN RILEY & ASGOCIATES, LTD.
L\~                                                          Court-Reporters                                                              ,
1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005
                                                                  -(202) 842-0034
 
250 1      issues to the extent that even on the industry side it has
()      2      been hard to get a lot of attention at the executive level                                                                                  ,
3      to regulatory improvement and risk-informed regulation but I 4      am starting to see that dynamic turn around now and I hope 5      we will continue to have good reports to make to our 6      executives in this area.
7                So far, I think, you know, we are communicating 8    where this is heading and trying to be au positive as 9    possible.
10                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                                              But it does maka sense, 11      though, Biff, now that 1061 is in decent shape things will 12      start happening. I mean, people should ses that.                                                                            The 13      delays with the pilots, I mean, they were really 14      justifiable. The staff was very busy producing these
()      15      documents, essentially out of nothing.                                                                              So, you know, you 16      have to grant them something.                                                                          Now that we Lave it, things 17      will happen.
18                  I know that you personally know that because you 19      have been coming here.                                  Buc I know that a lot of people out 20      there, you know, maybe it's what Gary said this morning, 21      they just like to complain.                                                                I don't know.
22                  Well, you didn't quite say it that way.                                                                              I 23      paraphrased.
24                MR. BRADLEY:                                  What he said is he judged succesa by                                              '
25      resistance, not enthusiasm.                                                                And I won't comment on that but
(~~)
(
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 i
 
251 1      it will probably play into his line of thinking if I did.
()      2 3
But that's all I have to say today.
back tomorrow to listen to the rest of the description and I will be 4    possibly have another thing or two to say.
5                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                        You are familiar with the 6      letter from Mr. Colvin to the Chairman dated July 27, '90?
1 7                  MR. BRADLEY:        Yeah.
8                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKISi                        This letter is against 9'    elevating the core damage frequency of 10 to the minus 4 and 10    we make a distinction -- this letter doesn't make a 11    diF*.inction -- the fundamental safety goal.                            And it gives 12      three arguments.
13                  One is, you have reiterated it today.                          Another one 14      is that core damage frequency is a useful value in managing
()    15    plant risk however a one-size-fits-all value does not relate 16    directly to public health and safety effectively for all 17    plant sites.
18                  It seems to me that the reason why you want to                                          -
19    elevate it is becoide you want to have one size for 20    everybody.        Independently of where you are, we want you to                                      '
21    be below 10 to the minus 4, so I am not sure that's a very 22    strong argument.
23                  But the other argument I find a little odd.                          In 24    addition, establishing a 10 to the minus 4 per reactor year 25    core damage frequency value as a fundamental goal could have ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
O'-
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washingtor., . D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 9
        ,,    .-    -,    ,,                v. .          -,                ,  ,e      -
 
I 252                  l i
1        - a' chilling effect on licensee willingness to develop more l
()                        2 3
complete ~ core damage frequency risk analysis that could put their plants close to or above an established goal. .                                                                            !
4                              Well, I mean, it depends how you interpret that                                                              !
5          but to say because I have the goal I would be reluctant to                                                                        i i
6          understand what the riska from my plant are is a-little bit                                                                      i 7          hard to swallow.                    I meau, you should know what the risks are                                                    :
8          independently of the goal.
9                              So, in my opinion, the only argument that really
                            -10              deserves -seriouc consideration is the second one which you 11              repeated today.                                                                                                                  (
12                                  MR. BRADLEY: - I think that latter argument is one                                                            !
13              that you could conceivably question whether it is better not                                                                      f 14              to explicitly.make that argument or not.                      But, you know,                                                    !
()                    15              there is a concern there is a lot of public interest in 1*
16              nuclear-power and, you know, perception of safety is a major 17            - issue-fit a lot of plants.                    You know, if there suddenly was 18            - to become a number where you get above that number and                                                                          i 19              suddenly there is a world of interest in where you're at and 20              how you got there and everything, that there could be some 21              disincentive to further quantify and move, continue this 22            - evolution toward_becoming more risk informed.                                    But I think 23-            ~ that's really not our fundamental argument.-                                                                                    ,
24                                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS _ Okay.          I'm glad to hear
                          ' 25              that. Okay.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.                                                                      ,
Court Reporters                                                                            ,
1250-I-Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005                                                                        +
(202) 842-0034 pygg-y,----yk---rT--                                "v--W- ''t''*r+-
                                                                                                                                +-w-y+-m                      y4 7='g4~ WTT
 
                                                                                                                                                                                ~
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            \
            ,                                                                                                                                                                            253 1                                                DR. SEALS:    This is an area where what you don't
()                2' 3-know can hurt you.
MR, BRADLEY:          Right.                        I think that's true.
4                                                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                  Any questions for Biff?
5                                                Thank you very much, Biff.
6                                                DR.-SEALE:    Let me make one. comment, j
l                        7                                                You made the comment that if it were not for these                                                                                              j 8    sessions with the staff, you would be much less well                                                                                                                                        -
9    informed as to what was really going on and so on.                                                                                                  While we                                i 10-    are very glad that these meetings can help you in keeping Il    track of things and so on, I would like to say that there is l
12    another side to that coin and that is as we go through these                                                                                                                                '
13    situations and so on, granting that you don't know in 14  ~ writing formally what the staff position-is and so on, it is
(                15    still very helpful for us to know what your impressions are 36    of what you heard from the staff and so on.                                                                                                                                                  ,
17                                                So to the extent that it's possible for you to                                                                                                  !
18    respond, similar to what you are doing here today, to                                                                                                                                        ;
19    provide us your perspective on some of these comments that 20    the staff -- and presentations that the staff comes up with.
21    It's very useful.
22                                                So just bear that in mind.                                                You get comething from 23    it and we get -- we can get something from it too if you are 24    willing to_ share _with us your response.                                                                                          I think the staff 25    also can gain and you will notice they are sitting here, 4
;                                                                            ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.                                                                                                                .
L\                                                                                    Court Reporters 1250-I: Street, N.W.,                                Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 t
I ~
 
254 1        watching.          They also gain from this informal dialogue.
()          2 3
Thank you and let's just keep it up.
MR. BRADLEY:                    Okay.
4                          CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                        Thank you very much, Biff.
5                          We have some extra time now so we have two 6        options.        One is we can start a general discussion or we can 7        go back to this morning's presentation that was running late 8        and continue our discussions with Don, Gary and Mark and 9        Gareth.      Is that possible?
10                          MR. KING:                    It's not possible with Mark because he 11        had to leave for something else.                                He was planning to be back 12        and continue the presentation tomorrow right after Joe 13        Murphy.      And I don't even have his -- I could try and go get 14        his viewgraphs if we want to do that and we could try --
15                          CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                        No , there is no reason to 16        do that.
17                        DR. SEALE:                    Essentially, we are at the poir.t where 18        we are going to be talking about acceptance guidelines and 19        uncertainties; is that correct?
20                        MR. KING:                    The uncertainty discussion is what we 21 were going to go into next.
22                        DR. SEALE:                    Okay.
23                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                          Isn't that Gareth?                      Mark 24        will make the whole presentation?
25                        MR. KING:                    I can go try and get the viewgraphs.
s.
()                                                ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
  + *
* 4- +      ee- ?    yr'p---              m          =mw-=es 5                                                                y- -          y  y  nw                ,,  w          *w+ y
 
    -.  . . . . _ _      __ . _ _ ,          _ _ . _ __. _ .__ _                            . _ _ _ _ _ . _    __.___._m.____.
255 1                          CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                      We'have them here.
()              2 3
DR. SEA %E MR. KING:
It's page 14, 15 and 16.
If you want to do it without something I
I 4            on the screen, we can do that._                                                                            !
5                          CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                      Let's see how significant'                        :
i G            that is. Where is it?
7                        MR. KING:                Page 14 we would start with.                                        '
8                        DR. SEALE:                It starts on 14, 15 and 16.
9                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                      Comparison of PRA results                          -
10          with acceptance guidelines.                          And then the bundling issue.
11'                        DR. SEALE:                Well, the range of uncertainties,                                  ,
12            scope of uncertainties.
13                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                      Is Mark essential for this?
i                    14                        MR. KING:                No, he's not essential.                  We can go                  i 15          ahead and do it.
16                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                      What do you think?
17                        DR . S EA' .E :            But don't tell him.
18                          (Laughter.)
19                        MR. HOLAHAN:                      That's fine.          I only have one other 20          consideration, which is that I need to leave at about 4:15, 21                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                      We will finish before then.
22                        MR. KING:                I do, too.      I've got something else, I
23          also.
24'                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                      Okay. _ Tomorrow, there is 25        _some time for general discussion.                            In fact, if we do this j )'                                                  ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.                                                        ;
i -                                                                    _ Court Reporters                                                      '
1250'I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005                                                    ,
(202) 842-0034                                                        l
 
256 1    now, we will finish a little earlier.                  So tomorrow we can
()    2 3
get the comments from-the subcommittee regarding pointers, you know, a letter perhaps and so on.                  So we don't have to l
4    do that today, in other words.                  Right?
5                    We have a part that rays general discussion but we 6    can -- yeah.
7                    Okay, so why don't we go on.                                                    ,
8                    So page 14 of the          >
9                    MR. KING:    Yes.
10                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:          So I already gave you my 11    detailed comments, right?          Section 24.23.
12                    MR. KING:    Yes.
13                      Slides 14 through 17 really talk about how we plan 14    to treat uncertainties, which in concept is similar to what
    ) 15    was proposed in the draft guide that was published back in 16    June but I think in detail has some emphasis on some areas 17    that weren't too clear and I am going to let Gareth go ahead 18    and describe what we propose in that area.
19                    MR. PARRY:    I think what we tried to do is to make l
20    it clear that the whole purpose of doing an uncertainty 21    analysis is part and parcel of trying to understand what the 22    results from the PRA are telling you, particularly with 23    reference to whether we have met principle four.                                                .
24                    There were -- we've kept the discussion on the 25    different types of uncertainty that we had in the original l
l
: l. ( )                            ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters
!                                1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300
!                                    Washington,_-D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
1 257 1  version which was to divide into parameter uncertainties,                                                      ;
()    2 3
model uncertainties and completeness uncertainties.
perhaps being a little bit clearer as to what the role -- as But 4  to how to treat these in the comparison with the guidelines.                                                    '
5                  Specifically, in relation to parameter 6  uncertainties, we have made it clear that the -- that what 7  we should be comparing with the guidelines are mean values.
8  I think in the original version we were sort of a little 9  ambivalent.        We had mean values, point estimates, confidence 10  levels, that type of thing.                              We have, in the policy paper 11  that's going to go up to the Commission, we have recommended 12  that mean value should be used rather than any measures of 13  confidence for a number of reasons.                                  One of them being that 14  that's the way that the -- the guidelines are based on the l()    15  safety goals and their subsidiary objectives, which are 16  meant to be compared with mean values.
17                  Another one is that typically we know from 18  experience that the mean values that are calculated from 19  PRAD typically are around about the 70 to 80 percentile 20  distribution in any case.                              And to calculate a mean, you are 21  taking into account the uncertainty of the parameters.
22                  So for a variety of reasons, we think the mean 23  value is an appropriate thing to use.                                  Now we also, and I 24  think one of the -- during one of the discussions that we 25  had at the last subcommittee meeting, we raised the question O'                          ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
    ,  .-  .      . _ ~ -    - - - - - . - . . - - - - - _                      . - - _ =  . . - -      . _ .  . - .
 
258 l      of whether'you need to actually'do a formal' propagation of                                    j
()              2 3
uncertainty through the analysis to calculate this mean value.        And we have recognized in the guide that'that isn't 4      always'necessary.
5                      But I think what you have to show if you are going                              ;
6      to use anything other than the propagation is that you are                                    ;
7      not going to have a significant impact on what the-mean 1
8      would'be because of, for example, using the same parameter                                      ;
9-      to represent the probabilities of several of the events in                                    ,
10        the: scenarios.-        This thing we call-the state of knowledge 11        correlation which you were one of the earliest to recognize,                                    i 12        George.        At least in the PRA field anyway.
13                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:            This raises another issue, l
14        though.        You remember the Chairman's concern about using oae
()            15        value, no matter what value that is, for making decisione?
16        And we discussed that at one of the subcommittee meetings, i
17        And we had agreed that there would be=some discussion of the                                    I 18      . major contributors to this risk.                  In other words, you are                      t 19        making the decisions using mean values but you are also not 20        making decisions using numbers only.                    You are also looking 21        at what the contributors ars.
22                      .MR. PARRY:          Right.                                                    .
23                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:            Is-that here?
24=                      MR. PARRY:          I think, actually, if you look --                          l 25        maybe it's the second' sentence in Section 2.4.2.3.                                            4 1
['
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I~ Street, N,W.,. Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034-
  ;  - . ~ . . . .        ,.  ,  . - .    - ~    ~ - . + . . _ - . ~    .~....-_.n.-. a    - - . - + -    , _ . , -
 
      ._ . . _        . _ . _ _ . -            -.            _ . _ . .. - _.__ _ _ ._~.. _ . . _ . . _ _ . _ . _ . _ . . . -
259 1                  CRAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                              2.4.2.3?                Page?      Page?-
1F                  MR. PARRY:            Page 15, in the latest version of the
{)
3    : guide.                                                                                                        l 4                  That opening paragraph says that basically to have 5    .some degree of confidence-that the acceptance guidelines                                                      !
6      have been met requires that the results of the PRA be                                                        l
,  gg              7      analyzed carefully _to identify the significant contributors                                                  j i
8      and to demonstrate that the results are robust.                                                              !
9                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                            Yes, I missed that.                    But I 10      wonder whether this is sufficient.
11                  MR. PARRY:            I think probably it may not be 12      sufficient but I-am trying to think whether in other places 13      in the report;we've also made that comment.
i
                                                                                                                                        ~
:                  14                  CRAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                            In other words, when a (h            15      commissioner is about to vote and they see base line CDF,                                                    f 16      mean value,.such and such, with large uncertainties, they                                                      '
lL7        see the proposed delta CDF plus LERF, that it has 18      un:ertainties and so on.                      And inn are telling them, well,                                  [
                -19    . don't look only at these numbers but also go and understand                                                    i i
20      what the significant contributors are.
21                    Can we give them a little bit more guidance as to                                                :
22    .what they can do?                I'mean, this is not -- I don't think you 23      can develop a table that-will tell people what to do.
24      That's out of the question.                        But I wonder whether one 25    , sentence is good enough?
o                                                                                                                                        i O                                          ANN-RILEY &' ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court' Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005                                                              -
(202) 842-0034 s                                                                    --
> - .  ,        -.      ; . ,-. a . .  --
 
r I,
260        ;
1                                          The_ Chairman seemed to be pretty adamant about it:
()
2            Don't tell me to make decisions using one number.
                                                                      -                                                        And now 3            we are giving-her one sentence, look at the significant                                                  !
4            contributors.                                                                                              ,
i 5                                          I don't know_                                                              j t
6                                          MR. KING:    I think the intent.is once you identify                        l 7            the important. sources of uncertainty, you do some                                                        !
I 8            sensitivity analysis, see how important they are.                                                        1 9                                          CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:- But do we say that here?                            !
i 10                                            MR. PARRY: .That certainly comes later in this --
11                                            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      Where?
12                                            MR. PARRY:    Well, in the discussion of-model 13              uncertainty and completeness.                                                                      ;
14                                            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      Dut I would like to see                        !
                  '15                again the words "significant contributors" there.                                        In other 16              words, that this is one picture.                            I don't think you used 17              that there,                                                                                              ,
r 18-                                            I remember talking about uncertainties -- I mean,                          l 19-              sensitivities.                    That's just before the completeness                                  ,
20              uncertainty issue?                      Yeah,    You propagate the thing,                              ,
21                continuum states --
22                                            MR. PARRY:    Again, in the discussion on model                            ;
4 23              uncertainties on page---16?
24                                            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      Yeah.                                          l 25-                                          MR. PARRY:    For example. the impact of using
                                                                                                                                            .i b
()                                                              1 ANN RILEY &' ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters-                                                4 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite-300                                            i
                                                                        -Washington, D.C. 20005                                              :
                                                                              -(202) > 842-0034 -                                            ]
  -.  . . - - - -. -                                  - ..                                                                                a
 
i 261                  l 1  alternate assumptions on models may be addressed by
()          2 3
performing sensitivity studies or by qualitative arguments based on an understanding of the contributors to the results 4  and how they are impacted.
5                And, again, during the completeness, the last 6  paragraph of the completeness, we say that we have to 7  demtastrate one way or another that the out-of-scope 8  contributors are not significant to the issue.
9'              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                        Can we figure out some real 10    cases and see how we would act?                            Let's -- let me give you a 11    hypothetical example.                  It's not quite hypothetical because 12    it was raised when DOE was planning the new production 13    reactor in the late '80s.                      And that was actually a case of 14    the use of PRA in design but we can see what -- so they were
()        15    using -- it's DOE, of course.                            So they were using the 16    Livermore curves.          At that time, there was still a dichotomy 17    between Livermore and EPRI.                            And naturally, the safe 18    shutdown earthquake was pretty high.                              I don't remember .4 9 19    or something like that.                      Pretty high.          Which would have made 20    the project very expensive, very expensive.
21                  This is -- now, this risk drives the result here.
22    However, I think most of us around this table know that this 23    contributor is really extremely uncertain.                                Snere are a lot 24    of alternate models that are available, right?                                          Depending on 25    how you handle expert opinion, you may get different L
l                                  ANF RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300
                                        -Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034-
 
262                                l t
1  -results.                      And, as a side remark, senior management at DOR                                                                                                      j
()                      2 3
was not aware of that.
fell from the clouds, that they were forced to do this with When I pointed that out, they really 4    such soft support.                                        The point that they called me at home to                                                                              l i
5  thank me for doing that, I was surprised myself.                                                                                                                                  ;
6                                What does that tell us though?                                                    Why did that guy, l
7    I should have asked him the director of the project, he                                                                                                                          !
8  actually called me and said, thank you very much for doing                                                                                                                        !
9  this, you saved me.                                            I don't know what he did because the                                                                              ;
10- whole project was canceled after that.
11 1                                If you are a decisionmaker, now, you are faced 12  with'that situation, what is that telling you?                                                                                Here you 13  have a major contributor, large uncertainties, however, you 14  know, there is a lot of model stuff there and the way you
()                  ' Is  handle the expert opinion.                                            If you are the chairman, what 16  would you do?
17                                  I mean, what are we telling them?                                                          It seems to me                                            l 18    that so far what we are telling them is just look at the 19  contributors but we-are not giving any more advice.                                                                                      And I 20  am not claiming I know what that advice should be, I'm just 21  trying to create a situation that's specific enough that 22  perhaps we will get some bright ideas.
23                                  MR. P:RRY:                        I think the overall message tha". we                                                                            :
                                    .24-  are trying to get across-here though-is, understand where                                                                                                                        i 35  the results come from, understand what evidence is being                                                                                                                          >
d O                                                                ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street,-N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005                                                                                                                  -
(202) 842-0034                                                                                                    .
      .,,~.-,m  -s,-,e-,.._,...--e      .-,w... ---w.._,,-,------,r.,,        -r-,-, ,,,,_wwmenn_ , ,            ,.,,r.-        s w. n m. ,, , . , v., w ry -n,---ny  7,-rv -,w,p- -. y-m-,-g n-m e,+ - , - ~ ~ - .
 
263    l
                                                                                          .                                                                        r 1  used to arrive at the decision and then judge whether you                                                            l
()                                  2 3
think it is acceptable based on thatt evidence and how it's been used.
4            Now, if you go back to your DOE example, if I 5  remember right, the Livermore curves were high because of                                                            [
6  one specific expert.
7            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                            Right.
i C            MR. PARRY:          So by decomposing that problem and --
O            HCHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                          And using equal weights,                                  i 10            MR. PARRY:          And using equal weights, okay.                                          But by 11 . decomposing the problem, you could identify the source of 12  the problem if you like.                  And that would at least give you                                            l 13  an indication that what you should be focusing on is whether 14  that expert was more believable than the others or less                                                              1
()                                .15  believable than the others.                            And then you could weigh the 16  decision appropriately.
17            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                            So if I were the director i
18  and according to one estimate my reactor is going to cost me 19  an extra $700 million just because of that, which may bring 20 me to my' knees because Congress may not give it-to me, would 21  I say that expert number five and his opinions do not 22  justify killing the project so I will reduce the SSC because 23  I-am not convinced it should be so high, especially if r
24 across the river there is a plant-that has a .2 g or a .23 g 25 SSC, the same place.
O                                                    1004 RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters-
:1250 I Street, N.W., Suite'300 Washington,,D.C. 20005 (2C2) 842-0034
                                                                  - - . - - - - - - _ . -                                                              . . , . i
 
264 1                        Just because that plant happens to be there
()      2 3
already, it's evolving.                  I don't remember what it is.
would that be a solution to say, you know, if I am going to So 4        have to kill my project, I a" not going to do it on the                                                      3 5        basis of this soft evidence?                        Is that what we're telling 6        them to do?
7                        MR. PARRY:        I don't think so.                  I think what it 8        would tell you to do is before you made that decision, make 9        sure that that piece of evidence that was really pushing you 10        to unacceptability was valid.                        As much as you could.
11                        DR. SEALE:        Or to understand how st.t it is.
12                        MR. PARRY:        Right.
13                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                    And my consultant, me, is 14        telling me that this is very soft, that most of the
      )  15        communfty don't think much of expert number five's model.
16        Okay?      And I'm faced with 700 million if I follow him.
17                        My consultant tells me, that number is very soft, 18        so I take action.            I say, it's not going to be .4 g; it's 19        going to be .3 g.
20                        So what else can I do?                    That's what I'm saying.
21        Tell me.
22                        MR. HOLAHAN:          Let me give you two reactions.
23        First, I think what it tells you is you are making too big a 24        decision with too 1.4ttle information.                            So the analysis 25        points out to you how the input assumptions are driving the l ('
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
              --      .    = . .  . . - -          -    -      -- - .-.            ._. .        .  .        .-      - . , .
 
                              . _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ . = . _ _ . . _ . _ _ .                                            .-
          !:                                                                                                                                              \
l i
265            l 1  answers.              And it seems optimally you go and you don't juggle                                                        '
()          2  around the results.                                      What you do is you go back and find out 3  as best you can, you know, you get 20 experts or something                                                                      !
4  and figure out'whether you really ought to be believing 5  these assumptions or not.                                                                                                        ,
6                          CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                    So I form a new committee?                    I 7                          MR. HOLAMAN:                              Perhaps.
8                          CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                    Because Livermore has done 9  that-for me already.                                        For 10 years they have done it.                    I 10    form a new committee.
11                          MR. HOLAHAN:                              What the analysis may be telling you 12    is that's the most important part of this question and if 13    you don't get that part done reasor. ably well, it's going to 14-  drive your answers.                                      It's either-going to give you t's wrong
(        15    answers or drive you to conservatism that you don't want.
16                          So if you've got a million dollars, don't invest 17    it in more concrete; invest it in getting a better answer on 18-  the. front end.
19                          CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                      If you have that luxury.
20                          MR. .HOLAHAN:                              And you may have a time constraint
                .21    cn you may have run out of experts.
                -22                            CHAIRMAN _- APOSTOLAKIS :                                  That's right. I think the 23    time constraint was-pretty serious until things happened in 24:  the-Soviet Union.                                  But the time constraint was very serious.
25                          MR. HOLAHAN: 'But'at least-you understand I-
: ~-                                                  ' ANN RILEY &" ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters-l                                                    .1250 I Street, N.W., Suite                                300.                                    i 2    84 I b3 L            ,
 
260 1        what's -- I think by decomposing the source of-the:                                                                                          {
2        uncertainty, you are at least understanding what decisions                                                                                    :
3        you are making.
4                                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                Yes.                                            l 5                                MR'. HOLAHAN:            Just-to bring:it back-to what we are                                                          I 6        doing, let me give you the easy part of the answer which is, q
                                                                                                                                                      ~
7        if you convince yourself-that what you are doing is making 8-        very small changes, then we've reconstructed it so that 9-        these problems'are not'very important.                                                                So if you don't
                                          ~                                                                                                                                              '
                                .10        _quite understand where.you are, the uncertainties are pretty 11-        large. But you're convinced that these are very small.
12          Then you can make the problem go away.
1 13                                It seems to me_the difficulty occurs when the 14          change or the whole design or something, something -- that                                                                                    i 15          there is a large, a very significant decision-to be made on j
16          a very limited amount of 'nformation.                                                                                                        f t
17                                CHAIRMAN APO.c"JLAKIS:                                              That's essentially the 18          heart-af the-problem here.
19                                DR. SEALE:            I would speculate that this is exactly 20          the kind of question that the Chairman had in mind when she 21'          said, don't give me a number, give me an uncertainty or 22          something like that.                        And I would speculate that it may in                                                            ,
23          fact.have been the same question.                                                                She may very well have 24        .-been-aware of this problem.
                              -- 2 5                                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS: .She may have been, yes, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court _ Reporters                                                                                  '
1250 I Street,.N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005-(202) 842-0034
 
267 1        ,          Again, I don't think anybody really has the answer 2  but maybe by talking about it                    --
3                    MR. IiOMilAN:      There is not a mathematical answer.
4                    CilAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                  No , it is not.                Absolutely 5  true.
6                    Yes, Gareth.
't 7                    MR. PARRY:      I was going to comment, at least some                                                      ,
8  of the indications that we seem to be getting in some of the 9  SRMs, though, there was perhaps an expe':ation that the 10      answer could be given in a mathematir ,1 form.
11                        CilAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                  No.
12                        MR. PARRY:      You don't think so?
13                        MR. IlOLAllAN :    Oh, yes.
14                        MR. PARRY:      I think so.                      And I thiru    --
15                        CIIAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                  Oh, I'm sorry.                When I say, 16      no, ' mean it cannot be given.
17                        MR. PARRY:      But the expectation seemed to be there 18      that it could be.            And I think what we are presenting here 19      is probably not necessarily what was expected, which is very 20      much a partly numerical but very much a qualitative 21 understanding of the problem.
22'                      CilAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                  lle re , they are again 23      getting different input from their two committees.                                              ACNW, I 24      think, has blessed this use of mean and ninety-fifth 25      percentile and we are shying away.
O                                        ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street., N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
268 1                              MR._ PARRY:                    Right.
2                              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                  On the other hand -- well, 3      okay.
4'                              MR. KING:                  But they are two different approaches, 5      too.          I mean, the performance assesement done by HMSS is not 6      the same as-our best estimate risk assessment.
7                              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                  No, it is not.        But I still 8-    would like to understand the_ primary pathways to release and 9      individual risk.                              The performance assessment, whether it can 10-    do'something about it,- you know, the value of the PRA is 11      really the major contributors.                                  That's when you really begin 12      to understand the system.                                                                                      -
13                              So a purely statistical or numerical approach to                                      i 14    decisionmaking simply doesn't mean much.                                  I mean, you really                  -
15    have to go down to why I am making this decision, you know, 16    and what the benefit will be, 17                              Which may give us -- wnat I'm saying is there may 18    :be_some more you guys can put in here.                                  For example, what if 19    you have a situation like this, okay, like the seismic
                -20    contribution to that reactor, and maybe put some of the 21    thoughts that Gary expressed down.                                  What decisions do you 22    have to make?                        Is it a pressing decision?
23                              Well, one option is not to make that decision and                                      ,
24    try to collect more information and insights.                                    In other 25    words, you know, I hate to say that, but do.more research, b-                                                    ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
i                                                                        Court Reporters _-
1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington,-D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0031
                                                                  , .          -_. _      __          _= _              . _ __
 
269 1  Okay?  That's one option.            It is created by the nature of 2  the problem.
3            If you have a reasonable expectation that at the 4  end of that time, at the end of that project, you will have 5  something useful, of course.            Right?  If you are back to 6  square one, that doesn't help you very much.
7            As a matter of fact, eventually, DOE, EPRI and the 8 NRC funded a group, you know, the Magnificent Seven, to 9 resolve that.            So they did do that at some point. But that 10  didn't help the production reactor.
11            Another one is to say, well, suppose you don't 12  have that luxury.            You really have to make a decision. Then 13  it seems to me t'aese benefits that we've been talking about, 14  you have to do some tradeoffs on a case-specific basis.
()        15  And, I'm sorry, there is no way you can avoid that.              You 16  cannot tabulate everything in advance.
17            So the question might be, for example, I don't 18  know, do I shut them down because tl,e seismic risk is so 19  high?  Okay, even though it's 10 to the minus 5,            it still 20  dominates everything?            I don't think it makes sence to do 21  that.
22            See what I'm saying?            These specifics have to be 23  evaluatad in the context of this particular situation.              But 24  somehow, a narrative to that effect I think would go a long 25  way towards explaining to me, because I can see it's buried
                  )                          :/ V RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
270 !
l'          here and there and maybe some of us around the table                                                                      .
t 2          understand that but I don't think it's-addressing the issue.
3'                                      MR. PARRY:    It may be, too, that it gets addressed 4          to an even grater extent in the integrated decisionmaking.                                                                !
5          .Because the less confidence you can have in meeting                                                                      5 6          principle four, the more you would want to put on the other                                                              {
7          principles, for example.                          Maybe by impe:ing a more strict 8          performance monitoring.
9                                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                    could.                            It depends on 10          the decision.
11                                        MR. PARRY:    Yes, it depends on the decisiol..
12          That's why it's hard to write anything that's too specific 13          in this reg guide.
14                                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:          This is really, I think,
,                      15          this presentation here is extremely important because you 16        - may turn off the commissioners by giving them too little, 17          even though you have thought about the problein.                                                              So that's 18          why I'm saying maybe even a sep wate section perhaps, not 19          long, subsection, something that stands out and says, yeah, 20          we've thought about it and our considered opinion is that 21          you-cannot really formalize it.
22                                        MR. PARRY:    That should have been the role of the                                          <
23          SRMs or the SECY papers, I suppose, too, which you haven't                    .
                      -24          seen.            At least the latest one.
25                                        MR. KING:    I don't      hink the SECY paper says ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, I.TD .
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite                  300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
271 1    anything more than what's-in the draft guide at this point.                                      !
2                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                What concerns me is that at 3    the December meeting we will have to write a letter on that 4    subject as well.                And it is not clear to me what the staff's f
5    position is on that.
6                Is the staff's position here in 1061?                            Because Tom 7    said the SECY paper essentially reiterates this?
8                MR. PARRY:                This is the conclusion.
9                MR. KING:                The SECY paper gets across to the 10        Cor.inission that we're not going with confidence levels or 11        not going with this two-tiered approach like NMSS.                                  We're      ,
12        going basically with the -- identify the key sources of 13        uncertainty, do some sensitivity studies and make a 14        judgmert,  w hich        is in your draft guide.
15                  CHA".RMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                And this is your response 16          to that SRM, your official response?
17                    MR. KING:                  Yes, use mean values.
18                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                  Why don't we have that?                    Is 19          there any reason why we don't have that?
20                    MR. KING:                  We came and talked to you about                    --
21                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                  But we don't have the 22          actual document.
23                    MR. KING:                  Because it's still working its way 24          through concurrence.
25                    I can get you a copy of the draft.                    It will be ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., buite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
i 272                        !
1        predecisional.                              If you want to see it.                                                                                                                l
      /                      2-                                            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                My question-is, when I-3          write a letter, the draft letter, and when the committee                                                                                                                          l l
4-        considers it,.what should I consider as the staff's response                                                                                                                      ,
t 5          to that SRM?                            That's really my concern.                              I want to know what 6          your response is so the letter would be appropriately --
f 7                                              MR. KING:        The response in the SECY paper and the 8          response in the draft guide are going to be the same.                                                                                          So                                :
9          you can look at either one or both.
{
                                                                                                                                                                                                                          ~
10                                              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                More is better than less.
11                                              MR, KING:        I'll get you a copy of the draft,                                                              It                          ,
12          will-be stamped predecisional but that's fine.
13                                              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                Well, Mike will tell me 14        whether I can refer to it or not.
            )              15                                              MR. MARKLEY:            You can, 16                                              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                I can, okay.
I 17                                              But do you think though that it's worth putting a 18          little extra?                              I mean, I will do it in the ACRS letter, the 19        ACRS letter.                              And I hope that my colleagues will --                                                                                                    l 20                                              DR. KRESS:        I'm not sure it belongs in the 21        regulatory _ guide.                            I think in the --
22                                              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                In the SECY paper it 23        belongs?
* 24                                              DR  KRESS:        I'think in the SECY paper.
                            -25                                              CHAIRMAN'APOSTOLAKIS:                Okay.            -I don't have any-l-(
L
            )                                                                  ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
                                                                                        . Court Rep *ters 1250 I Street, N . 6.~ . , Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005                                                                                                                !
(202) 842-0034                                                                                                                !
t I
i .. _ _ . _      , . . . -              _ _--- .,-_._ .-.-- ,,._ _ _ _, _,                        . _ , , , . _  _ _ . . . . . . . _ .    , , _ , _ _ . . . . , . . . , . _ . _ , _ . _ . ,
 
1 273      i 1            problem with that either..
()                2 3
MR. PARRY - We can say,---look to see if we can strengthen the message in the regulatory guide.                                                      ;
4                                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:        Yeah.          And make it clear to                  ;
                      =5            people--that they should not expect clear guidance.- Or it                                          [
6            will be clear but-it will be at a fairly high level.                              That's 7            another way of putting it.                                                                          :
l                    8                                But you cannot -- &nd I am not sure that mean and                                ,
: s.                      9            values and ninety-fifth percentiles are the answer either. ,
                , 10                  You recljy h:le to go'into what's driving your problem.
11                                  MR. KING:    Yeah, but then you get into the L
12              question-of you do some sensitivity studies on the key 13              uncertainties and some drive the mean over the guideline 14              values and some don't, then what do you do.                          And you're
,            )    15                right, there's no cookbook that's going'to give you the 16              ancwer all the time.
r 17                                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      That's right.            But by 18              merely stating all these thoughts, I think you are showing 19              to people that you are taking a position, which I think is                                          ,
20              what is expected of us at this point.                          Not all decision 21              problems can be reduced to a table.                        And there may be                          r 22              situations where I accept it.
23                                  For example, in the production reactor, under the 24              old climate, national security probably-would say do it.
25-              Either-we'll~give-you the-700 million or we will not but we L
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters i                                                          1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300                                                -
i Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
                - . -                _ . . . - .        -.a._      -.    .  . a .          :- -    :- - -            a.-. -    -..
 
_              __          _ . . -          ~                . - _ .  . _ _ . - . . _ . _ _ _ . _ - - _ _ ____ . _ _ _ . _ . - .
i I
                                                                                                                                ,                                274        l
                ,        1-          will build it anyway.                                    You know, there are different
()                  -2 3
decisions depending on the benefits and the circumstances.
DR. FON"ANA:                    They did in 1942.
4        .                            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS: . Exactly.                                                  And we're still          I 5            paying the price, right, cleanino                                                        p the sites?-                              i 6                                      But I really think it's important to do th'at.-
And 7            in fact one can cite a-few papers from the literature and be                                                                        ,
8            truthful for a change and I think a bibliography ic useful 9            and was, consulted, where people actually did use -- in fact, v10                it's somebody else, so B can mention it, like John Garrick 11=            had a paper several years ago, well, actually he's a member i
12              of the ACNW, where he used-the wisdom he accumulated from 13              all the PRAs that his company had done and what action the 14              utilities that sponsored the PRAs took as a result of the 15              PRAs.              Invariably, he went to the major contributors.
16                                        1 gave you a paper some time ago, remember, on                                                              ,
17              fires?
18                                      MR. PARRY:                      Yes, on fires, I got it.                                                      '
19                                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                  Which -- that was on an 20              Indian Point case, so it's a real case.                                                                                              !
21                                      You have to go to the dominant contributors, you                                                              ;
22              have to figure out what to do about them, you know, 23              developing the (,ptions and so on.                                                        And I think that message 24              has-to be sent..
25                                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                    A lot of that will find its
    '(                                                                      ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
    \ /-                                                                                Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite                                            300                              ,
J            ,
Washington, D.C. 20005                                                                        !
(202) 842-0034                                                                  .
_t--.
9              y ee      9 yi          +3.- w .,    e-_,- ,  -,._,.;.%      ,,-,..-,y,-      ,m,w.---    .__g    7,-,m-  .,-.,-.4    -,ymc,,,+.sh  ,, . w-, -- v+--
 
275 1        way into our letter.                  But is it okay for them to contact me 2        informally, as they are doing this?                                                                                      ;
3                        MR. MARKLEY:                It_would be better to go through us.
4                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                  Okay.              Okay.                          ;
5                        MR. PARRY:            Okay,              So we started off by talking                                    ;
6        about using mean values for the parameter.                                                          So'the first two    ;
7          bullets just reiterate that.                                We can use the mean values and                              !
8        the second bullet-just says that, okay,.but you don't always 9          have do use propagation.                        Because we did have a few concerns                                      l 10        .about that.            Although, as you have pointed out, it is sort                                                      !
t
                  -11          of hard to understand that.
12                        But the third bullet is that, "Unquantified                                                              ,
13          uncertainty, such as those arising from model uncertainties 14          incompleteness must be addressed."                                          And Beth asked me a 15          question after the morning session, was what I really meant, l                                                                                                                                                        1' l
16          -- well, what we really meant by this, and perhaps 17          especially when the changes in risk metrics are in the 18          region _of the acceptance guidelines, were only the changes 19-        required to be evaluated?                          There is a typo there.
20                        I think there were some comments that the 21        uncertainties and the change tended to be smaller than the                                                                ,
22        uncertainties in the total.                              And-I guess what we are l
23        concerned about is that, in some cases, in fact, the change, 24        because you are isolating on a small part of the modul,                                                                  ,
,                .25        .might in fact accentuate the uncertainties associated with t
L b    L                                            ANN-RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
E
                                                                ' Court Reporters
                                                    -1250 I Street, N.W., Suite                                    300                                  '
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034                                                                          j i
__ -                . _ l- _ _ _.    .          .    .-
 
276 1  particular modeling assumptions or particular' 2  approximations.
So that in that context, they are going to-3  be relatively larger than they would be in the overall                                                                                        j 4  context of core damage frequency.
5                So it is just a warning that don't think because                                                                                i 6  you are-only calculating changes, that you don't have to i
7  worry about uncertainties.                                                    You may have to worry about 8-  fewer sources of uncertainty, but their impact could be 9  relatively large.
10                  And, in fact, that is what the bullet, the first 11    bullet on the next page says, is that what we want -- what 12    we want to see is a focus on the uncertainties that more
          .13    strongly impact the application.- And for some limited                                                                                        f a
14    changes tliat only result in this, in changes in this very 15    small region, then the' number of uncertainties that we have                                                                                  ;
16    to address may be very small.                                                    And the further you Jet out 17    into the gray region on your diagram, then the more likely                                                                                    j 18    you are --                                                                                                                                    )
19                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                  What a beautiful way to 20    communicate.
f 21                MR. PARRY:                                    Absolutely.                The more likely you are 22    to have to go to look at greater numbers of uncertainties,                                                                                    i 23                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                  The discussion ? .>re are 24    modeled on some of these, very good.                                                    As I said earlier,                                  -;
25    'there is another model in addition to the ultimate model ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
W' Court Reporters                                                                        .
L                                          1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300                                                                                        ;
l                                                            Washington, D.C. 20005                                                                            "
(202) 842-0034                                                                        .
L                                                                                                                                                                :
        .  -- _          ._ _ . , _ _ _ , , . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . . _ __                                    _-                          .-__.a..__,._._.._.._
 
l 277 1                      approach.                                                                                J
()      2 3
MR. PARRY:
CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:
Yeah, I'll look at that.
And also, there was another 4                      -- oh, you say that a good example of model uncertainty is 5                      the characterization of seismic hazard.              Other examples can                  l 6                      be found in the Level 2 analysis.          Okay.      Well, there is                    I 7                      some reference to success criteria in Level 1.
8                                MR. PARRY:          Right.
9                                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:          Do you want to say anything 10                          about LOCA or to be s'*scific?
11                                    NR. PARRY:          Not specifically here.
12                                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:          Okay.
13                                    MR. PARRY:          The, basically, the approach is that 14                          we have outlines that you could use for treating modal
() 15                          uncertainties is really to do appropriate sensitivity 16                          studies, or to demonstrate that the particular model that is 17                          being used is a bounding one, or by just making qualitative 18                          arguments even.          Of course, the qualitative arguments might 19                          be in fact to show that the analysis is bounding.
20                                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:          But you are leaving out 21                          what new reg 1150 did.          You are handling modeling 22                          uncertainties --
23                                    MR. PARRY:          No.
24-                                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:          -- by assembling experts 25                          and different weighting factors.
0
,                                              ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
: w.  , , - -
we. w.
 
1 278 1                                  MR. PARRY:    That's true. But that I would regard
  '(,,)                            2                      that as being a model uncertainty that was explicitly x/
3                      modeled.
4                                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      So you are talking about 5                    the ones that are not explicitly modeled?
6                                MR. PARRY:    Yeah, really, I am talking about the 7                    unquantified ones here.
8                              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      Yeah. You had a nice black  ,
9                  line here somewhere that the sensitivities -- ah, yeah.        It 10                              is not the intent that the search for alternates should be 11                            exhaustivi and arbitrary.      Very good.
12                                      MR. PARRY:    Well, that was another -- that was      -
13                            another comment that we got was that it looked like this 14                            could be a recipe for open-ended discussions.
r8 h                        15                                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      Yeah.
16                                      MR. PARRY:      And it is true, that is not what was l'                          intended. So we don't want people to invent their own 18                          models, particularly ones that have no basis.
19                                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      So coming back to Dana's 20                          problem now, where he claims that if you want to do a Level 21                          3 PRA, the model uncertainties overwhelm you.
22                                    MR. PARRY:    Some people say that about Level 2 as 23                        well.
24                                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      Yeah.
#9 25                                  DR. FCNTANA:    Nobody says it about Level 1?
I rs i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
      \
        '-                                                                          Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034                              l
 
279 1                                            MR. PARRY:        I have heard one or two people say it.
  ,a
(. )                    2                                            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:        About parts of Level 1, but 3                                really not.
3 4                                            So what do we say about that?
5                                          MR. PARRY:        On certain terms of Level 3,    I don't 6                              think we need to -- we are not really addressing Level 3 7                              analyses here.      And to some extent, the Level 2 8                              uncertainties should be handled by, at least to some extent, 9                              by the Appendix B of the reg. guide.            Is that right?      Am I 10                                        right in saying that, Tom?
11                                                  MR. KING:        Well, I think Appendix B is going to 12                                      provide some sort of, I don't know if we will call it 13                                      bounding, but some conservative way to estimate LERF from a 14                                      Level 1 analysis.      It doesn't give you any method to (3
(_,/              15                                      estimate uncertainties.
16                                                MR. PARRY:        Right. But what it does do is you can 17                                      -- if you can satisfy the guidelines with that model,                  --
18                                                MR. KING:        Right.
19                                                MR. PARRY:        -- then you feel reasonably confident 20                                    that you have satisfied them.
21                                                MR. KING:        Right.
22                                              MR. PARRY:        I think that is what it does.
23                                              MR. KING:        Yeah. There was a caution in the guide 24                                  on using Appendix B.          You don't want to use it when you are 25                                  up close to the guidelines.          If you have got a lot of n
i  I                                                                    ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
    '#                                                                                Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
280 1  margin, then it would be okay.        So you don't have to worry x_/
        )'  2  about the uncertainty.
3            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:        Okay. Can we move on 4  to --
5            MR. PARRY:    Yeah, move on to 17.
6            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:        -- bundling of changes. I 7  don't think there is any reacon to discuss this.          It's okay.
8 Anybody has a problem with this?
9            DR. KRESS:      I had a problem earlier but they 10  resolved it.
11            CRAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:        Oh, they did. Okay.
12            DR. KRESS:      Yeah, when we had the discussions last 13-  week.
14            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:        Okay. So let's move on 18
    /~
(_,,)  15  now. Unless you have a problem with it, Gareth?
16            MR. PARRY:        No, I don't.
17              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:        Okay. Bundling of changes.
18  Now, a candidate name is -- what was the name?
19              MR. KING. I'll look it up.
20              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:        Yeah. Integrative 21  multi-change requests.
22            MR. KING:  Multi-change requests.
23            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:        MCR's.
24            MR. KING:  Yes.
25            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:        Multi-change requests,
[)
      \-/
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
281 1  MCR's. Multi-change requests, da that reasonable to call it 7
2  that way?
(v) 3            DR. MILLER:            I think bundling is more descriptive.
4            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:            Yeah, but it is kind of 5  colloquial.
6            DR. MILLER:            But it gives the message.
7            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:            Multi-change requests.
8            MR. KING:  We are not wedded to any particular 9 name. But the message we are trying to get across is you an 10  come in with an integrated package that collects several 11  changes and presents them in oria integrated f ashion, where 12  the results are collectively added up or subtracted and 13  dealt with.
14              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:            How about if you call it 15  Integrated change requests?            Is that an improvement?  Does 16  anybody have an opinion?
17              DR. KRESS:          No. I don't think it is an 18  improvement.
19              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:            It Ls not an improvement.
20  Okay.
21            MR. MARKLEY:            Combined, combined change requests.
22            DR. MILLER:            We are talking about different parts, 23  integrated could mean just a synthesis of things.
24            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:            But that is what he means.
25  He says he doesn't like --
(      )                    AN5' RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
      '' '                            Court Reporters 12dJ 1 Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
282 i
1            MR. KING:          We have an integrated decision making (n
U
    ;  2  process in here.          We don't want it confused with that.
3            MR. PARRY:            How about combined change requests.
4            CHAIRMMI APOSTOLAKIS:              CCR's.
5            MR      MILLER:        More confusing.
6            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              No. I think it is better.
7  Not by much, but it is better.
8            Multi-changes, is there an implication that you 9 put them together?          Because you can have multiple changes 10  and don't see each one separately.
11            MR. MARKLEY:              I would suggest as long as the 12  content is correct, don't worry about the name.                    Let them 13  fix that.
14            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              This is the time to worry
(_j 15  about it. It is worth two minutes.
16            DR. KRESS:            I like the combined change request 17  better than the multi-change.
18              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              Yeah, because I have --
19  what if I have three changes and I go the same day to these 20  guys and submit three different requests.                    I am doing an 21  MCR, am I not?        But that is not what he is objecting to.
22  You are objecting to combining them, or you might object.
23  So I think CCR is probably better.
24            DR. KRESS:            Probably better.
25            MR. HOLAHAN:              I sometimes wonder why we have to ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
N/                                  Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
283 1  make up names for things when we can just talk about them.
/''%.
i,                      )                                              2              DR. KRESS:    Yeah.
x/
3              MR. HOLAHAN:    Does it 7ced -- why does it need a 4  title?
5              DR. KRESS:    Makes it easier to put it on a slide.
6              DR. FONTANA:    What do you mean by the last bullet?
7  That means they don't have to be similar?
8              MR. KING:    The last bullet is really, it leaves 9  the door open for a licensee to come in and propose 10    something that maybe looks unrelated, but for some reason, 11    makes sense. We prefer that we see -- when changes come in      .
12  under a combined change request, that the changes be related 13  either to a system or an activity or a function, or type, 14  type being something like the IST program.
p                                                                                                              .
( ,)                                                                15              DR. FONTANA:    Okay. You are saying you are just 16  not ruling them out of that category?
17              MR. KING:    We are just not ruling them out is what 18  the last bullet means.
19              DR. KRESS:    I have envisioned, for example, there 20  that maybe you do have two really unrelated changes.      One of s
21    them the one that increases CDF's and one decreases. The 22    one that increases it could have very small uncertainties, 23    or the one that decree.ses it could have a large uncertainty.
24  That might be an acceptable combination.
25              MR. HOLAHAN:    Unrelated?
['s                                                                                ANN RILSY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
284 1                .I    -KRESS:  I need to think that out a little
      )-  2    more, u) 3                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      Can we go to page 9 of the 4      1061?  7 have-some detailed comments.
5                  Integrated multi-change. requests.      Okay. You say 6    you might want to change it to combined.
7                MR. HOLAHAN:    If anything, I would like the word 8      related, if it has to have a title.
9                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      No , it is not related.
1CF    Because they can be related but submitted separately.        .The 11      issue here is the combination.
12                MR. HOLARAN:    Yes. Combination of what".
13                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      Of changes.
14                MR. HOLAHAN:    Related changes, f'h V      15                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      Ch. Sure.
16                MR. KING:    Come in as one proposed change, but it 17      is nede of many parts.
.        18                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      But they don't have to be 19    related because you say you can accept even unrelated.
20                DR. SEALE:    The first category they are.
21                MR. KING:    We would like them to be related.      We 22    are not closing the door totally to somebody making a good 23    argument, but    --
24                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      And you will define 25    related, t                            ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
  \>                                  Court Reporters 3350 I Streut, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
285
: 1.            MR. HOLAHAN:  Or if they are not related, you cen g)
(ut                      2  simply review each on its separate, on its merits 3  separately.
4            MR. KING:  Related is defined by those three 5  sub-bullets undar the first bullet on the slide.
6            MR. MARKLEY:    I would be very troubled if you 7  separated related ones, because then you get into 8 partitioning the risk and I don't like that.      I mean it 9 skews the actual perception of what you are doing.      Instead 10  of combining things, you are separating it up and make, 11  chopping it up into smaller pieces to make it look like it 12  is less risk, 13            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    In fact, that is a good 14  point. Maybe you ought to have a little paragraph some O
(_l/                    15  place talking about that.      Because you can play clever games 16  and take a proposed change that leads to an unacceptable 17  increase in CDF, break it up into three pieces and each one 18  is acceptable.
19              Now, at some point, you worry about the cumulative 20  effect, I know.
21            MR. KING:  Right. Exactly.
22            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    But it doesn't hurt to say 23  something when you talk about, in other words, --
24            MR. KING:  That is another argument for ke-ping 25  them related. That you --
[)
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
286 1              DR. MILLER:                                    Well, when you say related, does that (r~):
v-2  mean related in system or function also?                                                                                                  Does it mean 3  related in time?
4              MR. KING:                Time is less important.
5              DR. MILLER:                                      Time is less important.                                                          In other 6  words,  --
7              ML. KING:                    I mean time in terms of a phased                                                                                    ,
8 implementation.
9              DR. MILLER:                                        Right.                                                        The change may be, has to be 10  nade pretty much the same this month or this week And also 11  the next question is, each item in this combined, is there a 12  limit on how it can change the risk?                                                                                                I nean I know the net 13  is to have a net    --
risk neutrality.                                                                                      Were you going to that 14  next?
r''s
( ,) 15                MR. KING:                      I was going to talk about that when we 16  get to Slide 19, and I will also mention that -
17                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                                                              So let me finish with my 18  comments on 9, because I think they relate to this.                                                                                                  The 19  first paragraph, licensees make proposals.                                                                                                  Then the second 20  sentence says, "The staff expects that with respect to the 21  overall net change in risk, MCR's will fall in one of three 22  broad categories, ear.h nf which may be acceptable."                                                                                                  When, 23  in fact, No. 3 is acceptable, the way I see it.
24              MR. KING:                          It ought to be, unless you don't agree 25  with the analysis that supports it.
(m)
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
l 287 1              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:        Yes, but -- oh, I see what t    2  you mean.      Yes. But when you say those for each -- for 3
V 3  which each change decreases risk, I mean, presumably you 4  have been convinced that it decreases risk, so it is 5  acceptable.
6                MR. KING:      Yes.
7                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:        So that may be acceptable 8 doesn't apply to that.          So you need another --
9              MR. PARRY:      If you read the last sentence, though, 10  in the next little paragraph, it says for those in the third 11  category, qualitative analysis may be sufficient.
12                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:        Anyway, I mean, I'm just 13  pointing that out.          If you want to change it, that's up to 14  you.      But then further down, the paragraph that starts with
            /
( ,)\    15  staff expectation is that -- the second sentence is not 16  clear to me.        Improvements in the plant risk profile are 17  achieved when the frequencies of the accident sequences that 18  contribute to CDF and LERF are spread over a more narrow 19  range and che frequencies of the higher ranked                          .1 terms of 20  frequency scenarios are reduced.                    What does it mean are 21  spread over a more narrow range?
22              MR. PARRY:      I think what it means is that the --
23  that if you looked at all the cut sets or the scenarios 24  there wouldn't be a large variation.                          You wouldn't see big 25  differences between some contributors and others.                            It'd be
[J\
              \-
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005                                                  ,
(202) 842-0034                                                    l
 
l l                                                                                                                                288 1    precty much evenly spread.
O    2                                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Oil .
b 3                                      MR. PARRY:    That's what the intent of that is.
4    The words may not say it.
5                                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    I don't think it says that.
6                                      MR. PARRY:    That's what the intent of that is.
7                                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    In other words, you don'e 8  want one contributor to overwhelm everything else.
9                                    MR. PARRY:    Right. Right.
10                                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Why don't you say that?            I 11    don't think that's --
12                                      MR. KING:    I agree. I mnrked these words too as 13      to -- they really don't get the message across.
14                                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Okay.      Okay.      Because I O'
( ,/ 15      couldn't --
l'                                      MR. KING:    We'll clear that up.
17                                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Okay.      Then the next 18        sentence, I don't have any problem WJth it, it is -- in 19      addition it is expected that no significant new sequences 20        are okayed to.                      The Staff also expects that MCRs will 21        further the objectives of risk-informed regulation such as 22      optimizing the use of licensee resources and simplifying 23      plant operations.
24                                      I would add to this something like which lead or 25        would lead to safety enhancement.                            You really don't care
['\
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
289 1      about simplifying plant operations.                          You care about it te
  ,Q
(        l                  2      the extent that it improves safety.
R/
3                MR. KING:                        That's fine.
4                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                        So putting a few words at 5      the end will probably make it read better.
6                Then there is a question mark that I have, 7    somewhere in the middle of the next paragraph.                          MCRs which 8  involve complex relationships -- de you see that?                            In the 9  middle of the last long paragraph.
10                        MR. PARRY:                        Yes.
11                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                          Somewhere in the middle.
12            MCRs which involve complex relationships.
13                      MR. KING:                        Yes.
14                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                        Should be presented to the A
( ,)                15            Staff publicly in concept for information prior to being 16          formally -- is there something I don't understand there?                              ,
17                      MR. KING:                        No, I think we have a garbled sentence 18          there.
1 19                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOIJ.KIS :                      Oh, okay, 20                    MR. KING:                        That needs to be fixed.
21                    CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                        Okay.
22                  MR. KING:                        And I'm not sure what the message is 23        we're trying to get across.
24                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                        Because I wasn't sure 25      either.
        , ~3 l                                                ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
      \- j Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005                                          i (202) 842-0034                              !
 
                  ,                            -- -~                -.- -            - - . - . . . ~          . - .            .    .. .    - . . .
290-              j 1                -MR = KING - WerneedLtot. clean'thatiup.                                                                      _;
f~
2=                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS . Okay. 'Okay.
:3-                DR.-SEALEs- Let us!know what-you'have in mind!sor 4    we don't? spend a lot of work on it.
CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                  Yes.        It didn't make~ sense 6' -to me.
7                .Giay.
8                MR. KING: ~Okay.                The second: slide e                CCRs.              In 9-    addition to-wanting them to be related, we expect the
                    .10      licensee to come in and address-as part of his submittal'the 11.-    relationship.amono the individual changes and how they --
12      and describe how they've been modeled in the risk 13      assessment.      We also want to look at things in two ways. -We 4
                    -14      need to'look at'the overall impact of the change, and then
            )        15      we also feel that we need to look at the individual 16      componenus as well.            The overall impact ought to satisfy the 17      acceptance guidelines as well as the defense in depth and
:18      safety margin are the other principles.
19-                But-then-I think we also had in mind-going in and 20      looking at individual changes that make up the combined 21-    change request and make sure that none of those individually 22    violate the defense-in-depth principle and safety-margin
                    '23 -  principle, that they don't introduce _some new large
.                    24-  - sequence, getting back: to Mike's concern about are they 25_    ' segmenting some large dominant sequence into little pieces i
3                                          ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES,_LTD.
Court Reporters
                                            '1250 I Street, N.W.,. Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
    ,,- , , + , ,        -    ,,          ,    g-  -.      -
                                                                , ,,      r. , -  .                - . - -      . + . - - . .    ,      --+ -
 
291 1_  and trying to get rid of it that way, that they don't trade n
(      )    2    off maybe some likely event against some very unlikely q ,i 3    event.
4              The writeup right now isn't    --
it needs to be 5    expanded in this arna.      But the idea is to look at them both 6    collectively and individually to make sure that they're not 7    doing anything that violates the principles.      So again we 8  need to clean some of the words up, but that's the intent.
9              DR. FONTANA:    What if somebody comes in 10    apathetically, somebody crmes in with three or four proposed 11    actions and they're all negative, they all decrease the CDF, 12    Then they come in later with another one that increases it 13    more than you really want to and they say well, we want to 14    connect these old ones with this new one.      We don't do that.
(3 s ,/    15              MR. KING:    We don't have a provision for doing 16    that the way the guide's set up.
17                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    But you could accept it, 18    though. You don't have a provision against it, either.
19                MR. HOLAHAN:    We have a guideline that might be 20    against it.
21              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Which is?
22              MR. HOLAHAN:    Well, if the net increase --
23              CHAIRF9J! APOSTOLAKIS:    Oh, yes, yes, yes. But the 24    net increase is not increase.
25              DR. KRESS:    If you have living PRA interacting m
l    I                        ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
            \'~
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 l
 
292 1  cumulativeJchanges, it will automatically be caught.
CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:
[G  2                                      I don't know. The point is 3  that --
4            MR. KING:    The cumulative will clearly be tracked, 5  but if he's coming in -- you're coming in with_something 6  that's say a delta greater than 10 to the minus 5 CDF, and 7  you want to make that a little smaller by taking credit for 8  something you did last year, we don't have a provision for 9  that in the guide.
10            CHAIRMAN APOSTOL)K7S:      But in principle you could 11  accept a good argument.
12            MR. KING:    Well, again, you know, one of the 13  things we talkea about in looking at the changes 14  individually la make sure individually they don't violate lk,s) 15  the principles.
16            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      What if you have a licensee 17  that has one of the best PRA groups in the country, really 18  manage their -- they really manage their plant well using 19  risk-informed approaches, every time they interact with you, 20  you are amazed at how beautiful their analysis is, and then 21  one year they come and say gee, look, this time, you know, 22  the change is greater than 10 to the minus 5 and so on, but 23- look, the last five years we've been doing great.      Give us 24  some credit. Are you goinc    say no, what counts is last 25  Monday?
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
  '-                          Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
293 1            .MR. KING:  What have you done for me recently.
2            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    That doesn't make sense to 3  me. But on the other hand you can't really put    --
4            MR. KING:  But I don't think it's a --
5            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Yes, exactly. I don't 6  like --
7            MR. FING:  But you're sort of asking an academic 8  question. If they come in and have some change that --
9            (Laughter.]
10            They have some change that exceeds the guidelines 11  on its own and want to get credit for something they did 12  last year --
13            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:  We just didn't think about 14  it.  'If we had combined them at that time, you would have
  )    15  Lpproved it.
16            DR. FONTANA:  If they're as smart as you said they 17  were, they probably wouldn't say --
18            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:  Okay. Anyway, that's a 19  hypothetical question. But you may face that.
        -20            MR. KING:  Well, again, if we're looking not only 21  at the changes collectively but individually, we would have 22  trouble with one that was a real large increase in CDF that-23- was being whittled away by other smaller ones.
24            MR. HOLAHAN:  Look at the way our lines and your 25  gray areas _are set up. The only example for which that
(/)
N-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
_ Court-Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
294 1  would be-a problem if this' brilliant licensee were to come
      -!/- yi              2  in and want a 10 to the minus 5 increase, that's a pretty V
3  substantial change.
4            CHAIRhW1 APOSTOLAKIS:    Yes.
5            MR. HOLAHAN:    That's probably adding a dominant 6  sequence to the plant that wasn't there before or, you know, 7  doubling one that was there. And to say that well, that's 8  going to be a, you know, a tough call, is, you know, maybe 9 not so unreasonable.
10              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:  Yes.
11              MR. HOLAHAN:  And if I see it's keeping them below 12  10 to the minus 5, yot know, it shouldn't be a problem.            If 13  they want to be graded in 10 to the minus 5,    I don't know 14  why it should be so easy even if they did a lot of stuff
()j t'
15  last year.
16              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    No, it's not going to be 17  easy, but -- anyway, I think --
18              DR. SEALE:  Yes.
19              CRAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    We've done enough for 20  today, so we will see you gentlemen tomorrow morning. Is 21  that the plan?                                                        ,
22            DR. SEALE:  Yes.
23            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAXIS:    No, Joe Murphy is first.
24  You "ill not be here?
25            MR. KING:  Later.
(                          ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
295 1                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                                                        Oh, you don't want to know (J
R
              )    2  what he says.          But we don't have anything on this, do we?
3                  MR. MARKLEY:            No paper yet.
4                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                                                      No paper yet.                And then at 5  9: 45 it's back to you.                  Do you think we're going to need to 6  go all the way to 12:00 o' clock?                                                                                              You're ccheduled from 9:45 7  to 12:00.        Are thingt going to go a little faster tomorrow, 8 or --
9                  MR. KING:    We have 10 more viewgraphs to go 10  through, and then anything else that you want to discuss.
11                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                                                      We should be done before 12  12:00.
13                  MR. HOLAHAN:                Do you wish to discuss Dana Powers?
14                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                                                      Yes. Yes.              Yes.
n k ,),          15                  MR. HOLAHAN:                Okay, that might take some time.
16                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                                                      And perhaps this issue of 17  major contributors or do you want to have more discussion 18  romorrow on that?
19                    MR. PARRY:    If we can think of anything more to 20  say by tomorrow.
21                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                                                      Okay.          Good.        Thank you 22  very much.        Do we want to continue ncw, do we want to 23  have -- well --
24                  DR. SEALE:    What do you want to talk about?
25                  CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                                                                      The schedule says general em
(          )                          ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 W&shington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
296 1-  discussion and recess.
c
(\j    2              DR. SEALE:    Well, would you like to. talk about v
        -3  Dana's note and decide what it is we think we would like for 4  them to --
5-            DR. MILLER:    I won't be here tomorrow.
6'            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Yes. Maybe Don should give 7  me his input if you have any at this point.
8              DR. MILLER:    Well, certainly we want -- you want 9  input in certainties and, I mean --
10              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    The letter.
11              DR. MILLER:    The letter that she has small changes 12    in bundling, no doubt about that.
13              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    So, Bob, do you think it 14    would be a good idea to go around and have you guys give me O(_/ 15    advice on the letter, or shall we do that tomorrow after we 16    complete all the presentations?
17              I'll ask Don. Maybe what we can do, because I 18    don't want to go to, you know, five minutes before 5:00 --
19              DR. SEALE:    No.
20              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Maybe Don, because he will 21  .not be here, you can give me your thoughts and people can 22    jump in as you talk.
23              DR. SEALE:    Yes.
24              DR. MILLER:    So, I think the, certainly the small 25    changes and bundling, it is obvious the diagram is on the A
i                        ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
297 1  agenda whether you want it on there or not.
    .s
        \              MR. KING:    I can't hear.
(V      2 3            DR. MILLER:    I'm sorry. The small changes in 4  risk, small' increases, the -- I g'less we are now calling it 5  combined changes, change requests,-and the diagram that we 6- discussed, which they are going to revise, will be on the 7  agenda whether you want it on there or not.
8            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      Oh, you mean the agenda for' 9  next meeting.
10            DR. MILLER:    For the next meeting.
11            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      Oh, okay.
12            DR. MILLER:    That's what we are talking about, 13  right?
14            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      Yeah.
(O  ,/  15            DR. MILLER:    The issue --
16            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      Well, also the letter.
17            DR. MILLER:    I mean this letter, really, the 18  letter. Now, what we say about it is suppose is going to 19  have to be another issue.      But, obviously, the small char.ges i
20  increases with, particularly with respect to Dana's letter, 21  is going to be a key issue.      A key issue.
22            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      What is a key issue?
23            DR. MILLER:    The small change increases, 24  especially in light of Dana's letter, will be an issue.
25            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      Oh, you mean the Region i
l
  /~%
l l                        ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
l
  \ >)                            Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, E.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
298 1  III, what they call Region J.II?
                .n
(                                  1 :2            DR MILLER:      Right.          Right. That's a good way to
                  \~sI 3  put it, Region III. I would like to see Region III 4  expanded. Dana obviously wants to make Region Ili --
5            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              Expanded?    I hope to know 6 more about that.
7            DR. MILLER:    I think we ought to go to 5 percent, 8 not 1 percent.
9            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              Say that again.        What?
10            DR. MILLER:      I would like to see, now that we are 11  going to have gray areas, maybe, it is probably not going to 12  be --
13              9R. SEALE:    Excuse me,            If you are guys are going 14  to talk, why don't you put you microphones so that we won't S
(                            15  hear you.
16              DR. MILLER:    If we are going to have a shaded type 17  diagram, then this issue becomes irrelevant.                  But if we are 18  going to have lines, I would like to see -- I would like to 19  see the lines move up a little bit to maybe 2 times 10 to 20  the 6 or in that range.
21            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAICS:              We can still move the lines 22  and keep the shaded diagram.
23            DR. MILLER:    And I think cne --
24            -CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:              Oh, okay. So --
25            DR. MILLER:    My view is 1 percent, kind of -- we
[''N~
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-C034
 
1 299 1  don't know the core damage frequency within 1 percent, at (v- )              2  least unless they are better than I think they are.      So why 3  limit our changes to something in the noise level of what we 4  know, of what our knowledge base is with core damage 5  frequency?
6            And also, onc. we go to temporary changes, which 7  they have decided not to address this time, I think we are 8 getting into some sort of a kind of inconsistency.      If you 9  limit the changes to 1 percent, you say, okay, now we are 10  going to have temporary changes. Look at the numbers you 11  come out with. You are going to make temporary changes for 12  a few minutes?
13              DR. SEALE:  May I make a comment on that?
14              DR. MILLER:  This refers to consistent. I am just (n_)            15  saying they don't have a policy on this, so we don't know 16  where we are going. But I just think 1 percent is too 17  small.
18              DR. SEALE:  I agree wholeheartedly with the idea 19  that there is, that the uncertainties are large in any of 20  these evaluations in many cases, -- or at least they are not 21  small-22            It is one thing, it implies one order of 23  uncertainty to say that the threshold for a relaxed level of 24  surveillance is a factor of 100. It implies somewhat 25  different precision in the analysis to imply that the
    ,-m
('')                                ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
300 '-  .
1    threshold for the relaxation is a factor of 50.      And that is (O  j  2-  what going to 2 percent, instead of 1 percent, is.      It seems 3    to me you are -- you are implying an expected uncertainty 4    that is a little bit different when you say 2 percent than 5    you do when you say 1 percent.
6                DR. MILLER:    Well, yeah,  I am not ceitain what 7    you_said, but, yeah, I think uncertainty is substantially 8    greater than 2 percent.      Maybe I am wrong.
9                DR. SEALE:    Well, that is why I say that for all 10    practical purposes, for what we know right now, there is no 11    difference between 1 and 2 percent.
12                DR. MILLER:    That's what I mean. The other is if 13    we look at temporary changes, which, obviously, we don't 14    have a policy on here, any kind of recommendation, if you
! ()    15    look at 1 percent, and then you say, okay, we are going to 16    have a temporary change, say, a factor of 10 increase, how 17    long --and then we are fairly limited how long it can take
        .: . place.      If there is going to be any consistency. Maybe we 19    don' t want consiste:.cy.
20                MR. MARKLEY:    I would contend that temporary 21    changes are unchartered waters here for this, because those 22    things can exist for very brief periods of time, or they can 23    extend for months.      And sometimes, depending on the plant's 24    procedures, years before they ever get folded into permanent 25    modifications.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
__    _                      .            ~
301 1              _DR. MILLER: -Well, I understand that, but then
()  2 3
what is the differenc.e_between a temporary change that goes on for years and a permanent change that goes on --
4                MR. MARKLEY:      It is not a license amendment, and 5    that is what this is about.      But it does fall into that, 6    that lower threshold that we were. talking about before.
7                DR. MILLER:    I'll just temporary changes aren't 8    going to be in the letter.      I am just  --
9                CRAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      Yeah, we don't have that.
10                DR. MILLER:    I am Just looking ahead.
11                DR. KRESS:    In a sense they are.      If the 12    definition of your current living PRA is supposed to capture 13    the current condition of the plant.        They will fall into 14    your, where you fall on the map of CDF and LERF, and will be
(~)
(_) 15 ,
captured to some extent.
        't 16                DR. MILLER:    Well, -
17                DR. KRESS:    They will prohibit other changes. If, 18    for example, they were sufficiently large to get you up 19    _close to the boundaries or something.          So they will be 20    captured to some extent.
. 21                DR. MILLER:    Yeah. Well, they are in there.
22    Those are the issues I think are,      --
23                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      Let me ask you a question.
24                DR. MILLER:    -- since you gave me a quick, a quick 25    turnaround here. Those are the issues I think certainly
()                      ANN RILEY-& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
302 1          have to be in the letter.
  ,a
(      )  2                        Of course, the change in increase in risk will be v
3          a policy issue the Commission will have to deal with.                                  It's 4          a perception issue.
5                        CRAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                            If I change -- if I change 6          digital I&C at my plant, can I use 1061 in any way?                                  Or I am 7          forced to go the deterministic way?                                Because at least there, 8        you are telling me there is what is Chapter 7, a revised 9        Chapter 7 in the SMP.        It says what you should do, I mean 10          control the process and so on.
11                        Chances are I will follow that route rather than 12          1061 because I just don't know what the CDP is.
23                        DR. MILLER:    Well, right now, of course, the way 14          it is written, digital systems, as of now, aren't in the f
(_3),
15          PRA. Isn't that what we are doing?
16                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                          That's right. That's what 17          I am saying.      In fact, that is an extreme example of Dana's 18          concern.
19                        DR. KRESS:  It's one of those -- yeah, it's one of 20          those places where you can't deal with a PRA.
21                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                            It's something that you 22          don't know what to do about.                So the wise approach would be 23          to come to the NRC without mentioning 1061, because I don't 24          know what the CDF is.
25                        DR. KRESS:    I think you use 1061 where you can use (s)
      '*/
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005                                                    l (202) 842-0034                                                        '
 
u
                                                                                                                            --303 1            1061.
2                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                    Yeah.
: 3.                        DR. KRESS:            That's where you can quantify these.
4            with the PRA.. And there are lots of things in the rules and 5            regulations that-~can't be quantified by PRA, and I don't 6            know how you deal with those.                      You have to --
71                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                    Unless: they get bound.
8                        DR. KRESS:            Well, if you can bound'it, then you 9            are dealing with it with the PRA.
10-                        DR. MILLER:                Well, I think with the digital i
11              system, as'we are-moving, ofEcourse, most digital upgrades 12              are going to be within 1059, and it is a way, if I look at 13              pre-decisional draft statements, where we are moving there, 14              I think that will be partly takcn care of by resolving that 15              ambiguity in generic letter 95-02.                          I think we are going to 16              move that way.
17                        Then digital systems can be upgraded as long as 18              you-don't change the risk, so to speak, at-the top level.
19              Then, in a way, you have already done it.                              But that's 20-              another issue that I think-is not -- well, that is an issue a
          .21              that is going to take probably six months or a year or more g          22              to-kind _of work its way out.        _
23                            I think right now you have to assume digital is 24-              not part'of_PRA.        And I think Tom has the.right                        --
right
.          25              approach, you don't use it then.
::b                                        ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
U                                                    Court Reporters 1250=I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington,_D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
304 1                DR. SEALE:      Well, the interesting thing, of
(                      2    course, is if someone went to a digital version, and then G)
                                          '    submitted a request for a change in in-service inspections, 4    or the inetrumentation package, that could reduce risk.
3    That, presumably, could identify some reductions in risk.
6    So the interesting thing is might not get the reductions out 7    of the conversion, but the consequences of the conversion, 8  in terms of acceptable, modified in-service inspection 9  activities, could generate a risk reduction.
10                DR. MILLER:        Yeah. Because one of the advantages 11    of digital is you can have a lot more on-line diagnostics.
12                DR. SE.TLE:      Yeah. Yeah.
13                DR. MILLER:        And so forth.
14                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:        Is the lifetime of 40 years
                        ,o
(_)            15    part of the current licensing basis?
16                DR. KRESS:      Uh-huh.
17                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:        So if I want to request a 18    life extension, I can use 1061?
19                DR. KRESS:      No.
20                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:        Why not?
21                MR. MARKLEY:        Part 54, that is the license 22    renewal.
23                CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:        Yeah, but 1061 says --
24                DR. KRESS:      Because it violates the current 25    regulations, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(m'  ' ]'                                  Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
305 1-            MR. MARKLEY: 'If the license expires, you have got 2  to get a rencwal.
(}
: 3.            DR. KRESS:    It said you had'to still file under 4' corrent regulations.
5            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    But it is a change. Unless 6  the change --
7            DR. MILLER:    It seems to me that two can --
8            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Yeah, the change itself can 9  violate them. You are changing the regulations.      That is 10  what I bad, right?    Unless -- remember that. Unless, 13  unless, unless. Ah, here it is!    "Unless the proposed 12  change is explicitly related to a proposed exemption or rule 13  change.
14            DR. KRESS:    It's neither.
-p
(  15            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    That's not the same thing?
16  So changing the 40 years to 60 years, don't use 1061.
17            DR. KRESS:    I wouldn't think so.
18            DR. MILLER:    Wouldn't you think that  --
19            DR. FONTANA:    You have to address those things 20  which are not normally addressed -- you have to address 21  those that are not addressed in normal maintenance and aging 22  all that kind of stuff. The whole bunch of things that are 23  not addressed in the normal licensing process -- I mean the 24  normal process of running the plant.      No, but like fixed 25  tanks and stuff like that, b'l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
306 1                MR. MARKLEY:    I think th a is a step beyond 1061 O)
(                                    2    and what you are doing now for current licensing basis.          I  o 3    think if this gets established, then that is another step, 4    you know, the license renewal part of it.        Where the license 5    renews 1 might be able to apply this to that, but it doesn't 6    currently exist as such.
7                CRAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      But they said that whatever 8  they do in the future that involves risk will be in the same 9  spirit at 1061. 1061 itself can be used, but the ideas will 10    survivc. That is wnat Holahan has said several times.
11    Right?
12                So, in principle then, I mean if I want to change 13    the rule, -- did you say 5054?      If I want to mcke thac 14    risk-inf e .ned --
(j                          15                MR. MARKLEY:    Part 54.
16                CRAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Part 54. Then I would have 17    to go to this and see how can I take these ideas here, and 18    ms>Se adapt them to license renewal.
19                MR. MARKLEY:    Correct. Well, I think all of those 20    things that Gary was talking about, whether you are adopting 21    an individual submittal as part of what someone is putting 22    in to meet the requirements of Part 54, or whether that 23    becomes a future revision to Part 54, these concepts still 24    could apply.
25                CRAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:      Yeah. Yeah. But I would ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
                      's                '                              Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
_ _ .                                                                                    __                      ~
 
i 307        i i        _have a problem then, that's.my -- why I raised it.                                                The                    ;
()                      2        current PRA really.does not include aging effects.
That's right.
3                    .DR. KRESS:                                                                                                    ;
4                      CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                            The same way that it I
5        doesn't include I&C, digital I&c.
6'                    DR. KRESS:                            That's the completeness.                                              ;
7                  LCHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                              So the idea makes, the idea L
8        Lis good, but my hands are tied.
9                    DR. SEALEs- If you look on page 3.-                                                                          ,
10-                        CHAIRMAN'APOSTOLAKIS - On page--3.
11                        DR. SEALE: 10f the --                                                                                        i 12                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                              Of the document.                          .
13                        DR. SEALE:                            Of the document.                                                      :
14                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                              Okay.
                      '15                        MR.'MARKLEY:                            Of 1061?
ii
                    .16                          DR. SEALE:                            Yes.        The footnote, the current                                  .
17            licensing basis.inclrdes the NRC regulations contained in 18            Parts 2,-19, "O, 21, 26, 30, 40, 50, 51, 54, 55, 70, 72, 73,                                                              ;
19            100, and --
20                        CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                              And appendices thereto,                    ,
21,          right?                                                                                                                    ,
22                        DR. SEALE:                            Well, I didn't get to that part.                          But, 23            anyway,-it is listed.
24                        CHAIRMAN'APOSTOLAKIS:                                              So 54 is listed, t
25-                      DR.~SEALE:                              Yeah, i
ANN RILEY.& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(v)
Court Reportera 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300                                                                        ^
Washington,-D.C. 20005                        .
(202) 842-0034 i
                                                                  . _ . _ _ ~ . . . _ _                      _-      ,  _  _ _ _ . _ -- .- -      . --
 
308 1                              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                  So I could use 1061 then.
()  1 3                application.
MR. MARKLEY:                                  But not as the sole basis for your I mean you could use it for individual 4                applications within the context of Part 54.
S                              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                  Well, I am at a 6                disadvantage here, I don't know what is in Part 54.                                                    But 7                let's say I come before the staff and I say, I followed 1061 8                and I did this beautiful analysis.                                        Please give me an extra 9                five years.
E10                              MR. MARKLEY:                                  I think you would have to get the                                l 11                people from the license renewal group to come and talk to 12                you about that, because I am really not a good spokesman for 13                them.
14                              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                  And I will tell them go
()  15                study 1061 before you talk to me.
15                              DR. FONTANA:                                  Wait till January 23rd.
17                              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:                                    Huh?
lb                              DR. FONTANA:                                  January 23rd.
19                              DR. MILLER:                                Put it on your agenda for the license 20                  renswal then.
21                              CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAK7S:                                    Yeah,  There is a license 22                  renewal meeting and I am not invited.
23                              DR. MILLER:                                I don't know.
24                              DR. SEALE:                            You're invited to everything.
25                              DR; KRESS:                            You can come to everything you want
[
  \
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.h., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 y      --
T-                    -wN              +- M '  v                      -
                                                                                                                          -rwwe      'w-&
                                                                                                                                      -      w
 
309 1  to.
(    2            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    January 23. Well, anythir,g 3  else, Don?
4            DR. MILLER:    Those are the main --
5            CHAIRMAN APOSTOLAKIS:    Those are the main points.
6            Anybody else feels that they have something 7  burning to say?
8            [No response.)
9            CHAIRMAN APOS70LAKIS      Hearing no, we recess until 10  tomorrow morning at 8:30.
11              (Whereupon, at 4:27 p.m., the meeting was 12  ' recessed, to reconvene at 8:30 a.m.,    Thursday, November 13, 13  1997.)
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 m
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(]                            Court ' Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
 
REPORTER'  CERTIFICATE
    )          This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING:      ACRS SUBCOMM)TTEE RELIABILITY AND PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT DOCKET NUMBER:
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 reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings,
                                      \  A1 \ -kt , r LJ              ,\~
Jon Hundley    U Official Reporter Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
O V
                                                                    .i..M}}

Latest revision as of 08:43, 10 December 2024

Transcript of ACRS Subcommittee on Reliability & PRA Meeting on 971112 in Rockville,Md.Pp 1-309.W/presentation Matl & Certificate
ML20199B102
Person / Time
Issue date: 11/12/1997
From:
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
To:
References
ACRS-T-3016, NUDOCS 9711180210
Download: ML20199B102 (312)
v • d • e


Text

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20199B102&oldid=4091283"