Protecting People and the EnvironmentUNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
1
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
3 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
4 ***
5 BRIEFING ON EVALUATION OF THE REQUIREMENT
6 FOR LICENSEE TO UPDATE THEIR INSERVICE
7 INSPECTION AND INSERVICE TESTING PROGRAM
8 EVERY 120 MONTHS
9 ***
10 PUBLIC MEETING
11 Nuclear Regulatory Commission
12 One White Flint North
13 Building 1, Room 1F-16
14 11555 Rockville Pike
15 Rockville, Maryland
16 Friday, March 24, 2000
17 The Commission met in open session, pursuant to
18 notice, at 9:30 a.m., the Honorable RICHARD A. MESERVE,
19 Chairman of the Commission, presiding.
20 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
21 RICHARD A. MESERVE, Chairman of the Commission
22 GRETA J. DICUS, Member of the Commission
23 NILS J. DIAZ, Member of the Commission
24 EDWARD McGAFFIGAN, JR., Member of the Commission
25 JEFFREY S. MERRIFIELD, Member of the Commission
2
1 STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT THE COMMISSION TABLE:
2 KAREN D. CYR, General Counsel
3 ANNETTE L. VIETTI-COOK, Secretary
4 JAMES A. PERRY
5 RALPH BEEDLE
6 WILLIAM SHACK
7 BRIAN SHERON
8 FRANK MIRAGLIA
9 JACK STROSNIDER
10 THOMAS SCARBROUGH
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2 [9:30 a.m.]
3 CHAIRMAN MESERVE: Good morning.
4 Today the Commission will be briefed by staff,
5 ACRS, and industry representatives on the requirement for
6 licensees to update their in-service inspection and
7 in-service testing program.
8 That's the ISI and IST programs.
9 Current regulations require licensees to update
10 these programs every 10 years to the latest edition of the
11 American Society of Mechanical Engineers' boiler and
12 pressure vessel code, as incorporated by reference in 10 CFR
13 50.55(a).
14 The staff has proposed, in a paper currently
15 before the Commission, to eliminate the update requirement.
16 In addition, staff recommends that ISI and IST requirements
17 be baselined to the 1995 edition of the ASME code, with the
18 1996 addenda.
19 Thereafter, program updates to a later edition of
20 the ASME code would be voluntary on the part of licensees,
21 unless the staff establishes new baseline requirements in
22 accordance with 10 CFR 50.109, which, of course, is our
23 backfit rule.
24 We have two panels today.
25 The staff will be in the second panel, and I'd
4
1 like to introduce now our first panel.
2 They are Mr. Ralph Beedle, Senior Vice President
3 and Chief Nuclear Office of the Nuclear Energy Institute;
4 Mr. James Perry, Past Vice President of Nuclear Codes and
5 Standards, who is here representing the ASME; and Dr.
6 William Shack of the ACRS.
7 We very much welcome you here this morning.
8 The Commission specifically appreciates the
9 opportunity to have a question-and-answer interaction with
10 the panelists, so that we'd ask that you be careful to abide
11 by the time on your prepared statements.
12 Let me turn to my colleagues to see if they have
13 any opening statements, and if not, why don't we proceed?
14 Mr. Beedle?
15 MR. BEEDLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
16 Commissioners. Good morning.
17 I would like to address two points today:
18 One, some comments concerning standards
19 development and then, second, some specific comments
20 concerning the proposed rule-making.
21 If I may have the next slide -- in fact, we can go
22 to slide three.
23 Standard development organizations have made a
24 positive contribution over the years to providing the
25 industry with codes, standards, and guides for the design,
5
1 construction, testing, and inspection of our systems.
2 The fundamental purpose of the standards is to
3 recognize sound engineering practice and framework for the
4 application of state-of-the-art technologies such as
5 instrument -- digital instrumentation and control, fiber
6 optics technology, eddy current testing, and so forth.
7 The consensus process and the balance of interest
8 fundamentals to all standard development must be sustained,
9 with continued participation by the user community -- that
10 is, the manufacturers, consultants, architect engineering
11 firms, utilities, and the Federal agencies.
12 As technological advancements are made, the user
13 community will demand the development of new and revised
14 codes and standards, and the extent of user community
15 participation in future codes and standards will certainly
16 develop as a result of practical need and economic value of
17 future codes.
18 Next slide, please.
19 If we could go to slide four?
20 The National Technology Transfer and Advancement
21 Act and the associated OMB circular enables Federal agencies
22 to use technical standards developed by industry consensus
23 standards organizations, with an intent to encourage Federal
24 agencies to benefit from the private sector, to promote
25 Federal agency participation, and to reduce the reliance on
6
1 Government-unique standards.
2 The NRC involvement and industry participation in
3 standards development has been extensive, and it is clear
4 that the NRC has benefitted from this effort.
5 Go to the next slide.
6 According to the NRC's annual report to the OMB,
7 staff has participated -- there have been 145 staff members
8 participating in some 18 standard development organizations
9 involving 260 writing committees, and as a result, seven
10 standards were incorporated by reference in 50.55(a), 30
11 were adopted in six regulatory guides, and eight were
12 adopted in a single reg guide.
13 Overall the NRC has endorsed some 4,000 codes and
14 standards within the regulatory framework.
15 According to the SECY 99-029, there have been
16 approximately 20 such consensus standards mandated through
17 rule-making, and hundreds of consensus standards have been
18 endorsed for voluntary implementation throughout the reg
19 guide and NUREG process.
20 It is not surprising that the extensive
21 utilization of these codes and standards and associated
22 changes, plus the endorsement process have resulted in some
23 delays and some confusion as we go about this process, but
24 nonetheless, it has overall been a successful process.
25 I would suggest that this particular rule-making
7
1 is one that has suffered from the time delays in that we
2 have been working on this since about 1991, and we're
3 hopeful that, as a result of this meeting today, we'll
4 finally see some conclusion to that.
5 Next slide, please.
6 Let me now turn to the proposed rule-making.
7 In SECY 00-11, it discusses several options
8 concerning voluntary updates of various additions to the
9 ASME boiler code.
10 The NRC staff has acknowledged that each of the
11 options discussed in the SECY paper provide an acceptable
12 level of safety, and the industry agrees with the NRC's
13 staff evaluation in that regard.
14 The staff also concludes that the code changes
15 that are associated with these options are not justified
16 when compared to cost implementation imposed on the
17 licensees, and we concur with the staff assessment in that
18 regard, as well.
19 Next slide, please.
20 The question of cost-benefit and demonstrated
21 safety improvement with regard to 50.55(a) has been a
22 longstanding issue within the industry and the NRC, and this
23 is one of the fundamental issues that we hope to address
24 today and reach some consensus based on the decision of the
25 Commissioners.
8
1 The NRC and the industry have been involved in
2 rule-making since 1991 and in '93, when Entergy Corporation
3 submitted a cost-beneficial rule-making that would suspend
4 the periodic update of the ISI/IST requirements, or the
5 10-year ISI.
6 We continue to believe that these recommendations
7 that the staff has proposed represent sound regulatory
8 policy and are consistent with the Commission's stated
9 performance goals.
10 Next slide, please.
11 In the SECY before you, the staff has recommended
12 option 1B, and while we agree that the option 1B would be an
13 improvement, we would like to see the basis for that
14 actually be the 1A, in which we would go back to the 1989
15 code, although we recognize the problems associated with
16 that.
17 The fundamental industry position is that we would
18 like to see the requirement for the 10-year ISI suspended
19 and that any future revisions to the code be implemented
20 through the backfit rule process evaluated by the staff and
21 the industry on the basis of cost-beneficial analysis.
22 So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I would conclude my
23 remarks and await questions at the end of the panel.
24 CHAIRMAN MESERVE: Why don't we complete the
25 statements, and then we'll turn to questions.
9
1 Mr. Perry.
2 MR. PERRY: Good morning, Commissioners.
3 On behalf of ASME, we wish to thank you for the
4 opportunity to brief you on our evaluation of the
5 requirements for licensees to update their in-service
6 inspection and test programs.
7 In our view, the current update requirements
8 should be maintained.
9 ASME codes are first and foremost safety codes.
10 They are intended to protect the health and safety of the
11 public by maintaining pressure boundary integrity and
12 operational readiness of the mechanical equipment. Since
13 the proposed change to the regulation is based on burden
14 reduction, I will address that specific aspect.
15 Next slide, please.
16 Benefits outweighing the cost: This relates to
17 Commission performance goal dealing with reduced unnecessary
18 regulatory burden.
19 The benefits of updating the in-service inspection
20 test programs outweigh the cost.
21 The process of updating the programs focuses on an
22 evaluation of the entire program. It allows you to identify
23 deficiencies and also serves as a basis for making
24 corrections and enhancements.
25 The update provides for standardization and
10
1 consistency of requirements.
2 This will be lost if the 120-month update is not
3 required in the future.
4 Now, using the ISI program as an example based on
5 informal feedback from seven utilities, they estimate the
6 average cost of updating to be about $200,000, or roughly
7 $20,000 for each year of the 10-year interval between
8 updates.
9 Likewise, the O&M; code costs are estimated at
10 about 125,000.
11 I think these are consistent with what the staff
12 reported on the proposed regulation change.
13 Now, it's important to note that, of this cost,
14 the NRC mandated one-time cost to add containment
15 inspection, IWE/IWL provisions, plus the addition of
16 Appendix VIII on performance demonstration for ultrasonics,
17 adds significantly to these totals.
18 So, they are mandated, according to the original
19 proposal.
20 In addition, there are costs that will be incurred
21 as review fees for exemptions and relief requests needed to
22 use costs or rules from later editions of the code.
23 For example, typical cost for a relief request
24 backed by ASME code cases ranges from 10 to 15 thousand per
25 request.
11
1 The cost of relief requests not supported by code
2 cases can range anywhere from 50,000 to a half-million
3 dollars, depending on the complexity of the issue.
4 It is a certainty that, if this proposal is
5 approved, relief requests will dramatically increase,
6 causing an increased burden not only on utilities but the
7 NRC staff, and I think it would be counterproductive.
8 Now, in my view, if I were a utility executive
9 still -- I was one at a utility as a vice president.
10 If I were at a utility and someone were to ask me,
11 if you could save the cost of this update, you know,
12 recognizing the current environment, and it wasn't mandated,
13 would you be for it?
14 Absolutely, I would be for it, but that's a
15 short-term objective, I submit, and I think that we need to
16 be looking at the difference between a short-term focus,
17 which is one what is the administrative costs of making the
18 update, versus the long-term focus, which should be what's
19 the net benefits gained in implementing this over the
20 balance of life of the plant, and I submit that many of
21 these changes reduce the cost significantly over going to
22 the old version of the code.
23 Next chart, please.
24 Now, the ASME codes are really living documents,
25 and this subject relates to the Commission performance goal
12
1 of maintaining safety.
2 They are living documents because they incorporate
3 new and improved methodologies in inspection, testing,
4 design, and materials.
5 They also reflect lessons learned from hundreds of
6 cumulative years of nuclear reactor operating experience.
7 The original code was based -- was very conservative, based
8 on fossil plants, non-nuclear.
9 We've learned a lot since then.
10 In addition, the ASME codes are now moving from
11 the traditional, prescribed repetitive inspections and tests
12 to more risk-informed, performance-based
13 condition-monitoring approaches, and these rank high on the
14 Commission's priorities in terms of risk-informed, for
15 example, as well as ASME's.
16 I'd also like to point out that ASME has responded
17 to requests directly from the NRC on issues important to
18 safety.
19 For example, the old comprehensive pump test is
20 one that originally the Commission asked for and is now
21 included in the O&M; code.
22 Another one has to do with the probabilistic risk
23 assessment standard.
24 That's been a very high priority, and we're making
25 good progress on that, and I think that ties directly in
13
1 line with the direction the NRC Commissioners and staff
2 members are moving toward.
3 Next chart, please.
4 Summary of the changes to the codes from '89 to
5 '99: This, again, relates to maintaining safety.
6 This chart summarizes a number of ASME changes
7 from 1989 to 1999 by change category for the boiler pressure
8 vessel code section 11 dealing with in-service inspection
9 and the operation and maintenance code dealing with the
10 in-service testing.
11 A copy of the description of the actual changes,
12 the proposed purpose, benefits, and classification of the
13 changes has been provided to you as part of our back-up
14 information package.
15 You will note that there are 15 IS's, improved
16 safety, and 29 RRE, reduction in radiation exposure changes.
17 These reflect operational experience to assure safety and
18 ALARA considerations, and incidentally, I consider the
19 reductions in radiation exposure to be safety-related,
20 because obviously we're interested in ALARA, keeping them as
21 low as possible.
22 That also translates into dollar savings, because
23 each man-rem of exposure that's avoided saves approximately
24 $10,000, I think is one norm that I've seen used.
25 Now, these individual and subtle changes that
14
1 improve safety and reduce radiation exposure have cumulative
2 significant beneficial effect that can't be overlooked.
3 Now, many of the changes that we classify as
4 improved industry standards and reduced radiation
5 requirements relate to reductions in examinations and tests
6 and new methods for repair and flaw analysis.
7 Many of the maintenance-classified changes reflect
8 feedback from inquiries, clarification of requirements, or
9 administrative-type changes.
10 So, for an average layman, looking at the code is
11 very complicated, but if you look at it, you say, well,
12 these are just minor changes, word changes.
13 But I can submit to you, gentlemen and ladies,
14 that being on the codes and standards committees for over 17
15 years and seeing how they process these and what they have
16 to go through for consensus, they all have a valid basis of
17 justification to make the change and have to go through the
18 consensus process before they're actually issued.
19 Next chart, please.
20 ASME consensus process and use of volunteers:
21 This subject relates to Commission performance goal of
22 increasing public confidence, because we use an open system,
23 all the meetings are open, the information is available to
24 everybody, and we encourage it, and changes that are being
25 proposed still have to go through a review cycle, public
15
1 review, just the same as the NRC regulations by the ANSI
2 process.
3 But ASME's ANSI-approved procedures require a
4 broad-based balanced group of volunteer experts to serve on
5 the codes and standards committees that produce approved
6 code changes and code cases.
7 The members include approximately 30-percent
8 utilities, 30-percent consultants, and the remaining 40
9 percent include balance of interest categories that include
10 regulators, enforcement agencies, manufacturers, and
11 insurance company inspection agencies.
12 Now, by procedure, there cannot be anymore than
13 one-third of the total membership from any one category of
14 interest, and that's how we keep it balanced. I think it's
15 served us well.
16 The collective effort of all of the volunteers
17 working together on ASME committees, the subcommittees, the
18 subgroups, and work groups to update the codes provide what
19 I call a multiplier effect in direct support of the
20 120-month update.
21 In other words, we're using these collective
22 resources of all of these volunteers toward a common purpose
23 and objective related to the 120-month update.
24 This is considered, in my view, superior to the
25 individual effort of any single category of interest group,
16
1 such as an owners group, or even NEI, from that point. You
2 don't have the broad cross-section of all the participants,
3 including NRC participating.
4 The consensus process is required to be used by
5 each of the ASME codes and standards committee, and it
6 requires that all views and objections be considered, that
7 an effort be made toward the resolution.
8 Now, there has been strong feedback from our
9 volunteer members on the ASME committees that their travel
10 and participation will be cut back in the event the current
11 code becomes voluntary.
12 I think it makes sense. Many utilities and
13 manufacturers are struggling to try to reduce cost, and if
14 this is only going to be voluntary, then the benefits may
15 not be there, so they may choose not to contribute, and I
16 think the same thing may be true with the NRC, based on your
17 reductions in force and so forth.
18 Now, this will make it more difficult for ASME to
19 respond to the critical issues affecting safety, such as
20 aging and degradation of components.
21 Next chart, please.
22 Negative impact of deleting the update
23 requirements: This relates to the Commission performance
24 goal of making NRC activities and decisions more or less
25 effective, efficient, and realistic.
17
1 In my view, this one makes it less.
2 If the future changes to the ASME code become
3 voluntary, then the impact on the changes to a range of code
4 additions and addenda applied by licensees is expected to be
5 great.
6 This will have a negative impact due to
7 inconsistent implementation -- in my view, cherry-picking,
8 where you selectively pick what you want and don't apply the
9 others -- and incidentally, I said the code is fairly
10 complex, and unless someone is very familiar and
11 knowledgeable, there is an opportunity for selecting
12 something and not taking all the other pieces that go with
13 it, so creating additional errors.
14 Also, there would be lack of uniformity and
15 consistency in verifying conformity.
16 It's unlikely that the entire additions or addenda
17 will be implemented. Thus, numerous relief requests will be
18 needed to be handled by the NRC staff, increasing their
19 workload.
20 By deleting the update requirements and making
21 future code additions and addenda voluntary, my personal
22 prediction is that the NRC will place less, nor more,
23 emphasis and apply a lower priority to NRC representatives
24 participating in code committee activities and timely
25 endorsement of these revised codes, and I cite the NQA
18
1 activities as one.
2 We've tried to work with the staff to try to get
3 them to endorse the later codes, and they talk about
4 problems with budgets and so forth.
5 Unless there's a big groundswell, they're not
6 going to do it, and there is one where it's not mandatory
7 but it's recommended.
8 Currently, the regulation lags four years behind
9 the current code, and many code cases still have not yet
10 been included in the latest regulatory guides, and I cite as
11 an example -- there's a letter that ASME sent to the NRC
12 back in July 1997 identifying some 31 approved code cases
13 related to in-service inspection that were not picked up in
14 the proposed Revision 12 to Reg. Guide 1.147, and I submit
15 to you many of those are very significant.
16 One of them on code case 560 alone could save the
17 industry millions of dollars having to do with D.J. Wells
18 and reductions using more advanced techniques.
19 And so, as these are delayed, I think the impact
20 on the staff is greater and on the industry is greater,
21 because you have to go in and get specific approval requests
22 and exemptions in order to allow you to use these.
23 Finally, last chart, in conclusion, by keeping the
24 120-month update, we maintain the stable system which works
25 to provide an integrated approach to safety improvement and
19
1 burden reduction.
2 Maintain the update process. It works well. Use
3 option 2.
4 Thank you very much for allowing us to present our
5 case to you, and thank you for your kind attention.
6 CHAIRMAN MESERVE: Thank you.
7 Mr. Shack?
8 DR. SHACK: Okay.
9 The ACRS also strongly recommends that we retain
10 the 120-month update requirement, the option 2 requirement.
11 In this case -- you know, the ACRS occasionally
12 has different opinions.
13 I think this is not merely a consensus view of the
14 ACRS.
15 This is a unanimous view of all the members.
16 Those with utility backgrounds, I believe, are particularly
17 supportive.
18 We might only sort of vary in our degrees of
19 adamancy.
20 Many of the arguments related to dropping the
21 update are related to the maturity of the inspection
22 process. We just don't see it.
23 When we look at what's being proposed, there have
24 been very significant changes in the last 120-month update
25 period.
20
1 The staff recognizes that in their recommendation
2 to especially include the performance demonstration for the
3 ultrasonic testing, which I think is a particular
4 significant update since the 1989 edition.
5 We believe that there will continue to be
6 important changes as we go to risk-informed inspection, as
7 we develop new technology.
8 Some of these inspections may, in fact, eliminate
9 inspections.
10 As the ASME has noted, reducing unwarranted
11 exposures is also a contribution to safety.
12 We believe these inspections are an important part
13 of the aging management programs that we have for license
14 renewal and that because the ASME provides essentially a
15 peer review of these inspection requirements, as the ASME
16 representative noted, an extremely broad-based group, we
17 think it increases the stakeholders' confidence in the
18 effectiveness of the inspections, and that's important for
19 building confidence in the whole license renewal process.
20 The basic justification for dropping the update
21 requirement is a cost one, that it's just not warranted.
22 We've seen conflicting evidence or estimates of
23 the cost in the presentations to the ACRS. We haven't found
24 any of them particular definitive.
25 Our conclusion is that the net costs either way,
21
1 whether they're a decrease or an increase, are fairly
2 modest, and so, I think there's not a strong cost case to be
3 made for dropping the update.
4 The other part of the process that particular
5 concerns us is the notion that our defense-in-depth
6 requirements really should be subjected to the backfit
7 analyses, and again, while we all agree on the update, we
8 have a variety of opinions on defense-in-depth.
9 But again, if you look at defense-in-depth as part
10 of the engineering approach when used to achieve low-risk,
11 you can evaluate the effectiveness of that process by PRA,
12 and you can do cost-benefit analyses of additional design
13 changes to do that.
14 ISI and the update process, however, really don't
15 follow from that design application of defense-in-depth;
16 they follow from the structuralist approach, that even
17 though our engineering has reduced the risk to acceptable
18 levels, we believe that the integrity of these systems is so
19 important that defense-in-depth measurements, like ISI and
20 the update, are justified in this argument that, just in
21 case we are wrong, just in case there's something we've
22 missed, that although we believe the systems have been
23 designed for low-risk.
24 Single-failure criterion, pipe risks are low risk,
25 but we believe that additional defense-in-depth measures
22
1 like an effective in-service inspection program are an
2 important element in that defense-in-depth approach, and the
3 update process is an important part of the inspection --
4 ensuring the effectiveness of the inspection approach.
5 And that concludes my remarks.
6 CHAIRMAN MESERVE: I'd like to thank you all very
7 much.
8 Mr. Perry, could you say something about how the
9 ASME updates are applied outside of the nuclear context? I
10 mean are non-nuclear boilers, for example, typically
11 required by states to update?
12 MR. PERRY: I think one of the conflicts that we
13 see, if you eliminated this, is that many states that
14 mandate ASME codes require them to be done to the latest
15 ASME code requirement, so they are kept current with the
16 latest one, and this would just make that disparity further
17 and further apart.
18 So, it makes it difficult for the people who are
19 trying to enforce it to try to justify the difference
20 between a statement requirement and a Federal requirement,
21 such as section 3, you know, manufacturers who are building
22 components to the code.
23 CHAIRMAN MESERVE: Do I understand you to suggest
24 that, overtime, then, we would have non-nuclear plants that
25 were forced to comply with more modern codes than nuclear
23
1 plants?
2 MR. PERRY: Right.
3 CHAIRMAN MESERVE: Could you say something about
4 how the ASME considers costs, whether it considers cost, as
5 it evaluates the update process?
6 MR. PERRY: Yes.
7 The code being a safety code, of paramount
8 importance is those measures that protect the health and
9 safety of the public. That's paramount, but a secondary
10 criteria has to do with what's it going to cost to implement
11 it?
12 So, I'll use an example of what section 11 has
13 been doing over the last several years.
14 They have many, many changes that are being
15 considered, and so, to try to get them on their agenda, they
16 prioritize them, and they prioritize them related to --
17 basically related to a safety enhancement or a burden
18 reduction or maintenance-type item, and then they further
19 subdivide it as to high rating of priority or low priority
20 within each of those.
21 So, as they're reviewed and evaluated, there's
22 generally a white paper that goes with it, particularly the
23 more complex ones, that explains what the purpose of this is
24 and what the advantages are.
25 Now, they don't do a finite cost-benefit analysis,
24
1 but I can tell you for a fact that the people who sit on the
2 committees, particularly the ones that have to be -- that
3 are going to be implementing it, are very conscious of
4 what's it going to cost to implement this change and is it
5 beneficial or not?
6 So, there is a balance between enhancing the
7 health and safety and maintaining costs, and I think they've
8 become -- I think the ASME committees have become more
9 sensitive to this over the last probably five to 10 years
10 based on the direction industry is going and what it costs
11 to maintain competitiveness.
12 CHAIRMAN MESERVE: Mr. Beedle, I noticed that, in
13 your comments, you didn't mention cost, but there is -- as I
14 looked through the materials, and I think as Dr. Shack had
15 indicated, there is a range of estimates of costs, I think
16 on the low side are on the order of 200,000 up to as much as
17 1.5 million a year.
18 Can you comment?
19 Is there any reliable information as to what these
20 updates really cost?
21 MR. BEEDLE: The information we've gotten from the
22 utilities would indicate that that's probably a reasonable
23 range, you know, one-and-a-half million down to maybe
24 half-a-million dollars, aggregate somewhere on the order of
25 55 to 155 million dollars throughout the industry.
25
1 So, it's not an insignificant amount of money on
2 that.
3 I don't believe we're talking about abandoning the
4 code development process that ASME has.
5 I think we're really focused on the ISI/IST
6 requirements for the nuclear plant and to update those on a
7 10-year interval, and so, if the impression is that, by not
8 having that requirement, that the nuclear plants are less
9 safe in the operation compared to the non-nuclear facilities
10 in this country, I don't think that's the case at all.
11 These plants were built to the code.
12 When ASME updates some of the code, we don't go
13 back and re-do all of those pressure vessels that we have.
14 We built them to the code at the time they were constructed,
15 and if we build a new plant, even if there was no 10-year
16 ISI update requirement, we would build them to the code as
17 it stands today.
18 So, I don't think we're talking about the whole
19 plant.
20 CHAIRMAN MESERVE: I understand that.
21 MR. BEEDLE: So, I want to make sure we don't get
22 diverted on that one.
23 CHAIRMAN MESERVE: Mr. Perry, you wanted to say
24 something?
25 MR. PERRY: I'd like to give you my impression, my
26
1 own personal opinion about the cost difference.
2 In my view, there's two types of utilities
3 involved in updating the in-service inspection test program.
4 So, you're going to get a wide range of numbers from each of
5 those.
6 On one hand, I think those utilities who have
7 representatives that are actively participating in the code
8 committees are very cognizant of what the changes are and
9 what's the impact and what's the value involved.
10 So, on one hand, I think those utilities can make
11 the update at a much lower cost because of their personal
12 involvement and doing it in-house, as opposed to another
13 utility, the other extreme, let's say they haven't been
14 involved with the code changes at all, they're just going
15 with what they have.
16 Now, all of a sudden, they're getting to the end
17 of the 10-year interval, they have to update.
18 Well, what's this all mean, trying to get caught
19 up at the last minute, and they find themselves going out
20 and hiring somebody else to develop changing the program and
21 modify all those procedures and train their people,
22 significant difference in the cost of those.
23 CHAIRMAN MESERVE: Mr. Beedle, you'd also
24 suggested that we might depart from the staff and go to
25 option 1A, which was to go back to the 1989 code.
27
1 The Commission had previously revised the rule to
2 put us to the 1995 code with, I think, the 1996 amendments.
3 So, it appears that your request is that we
4 backslide from where we are, and could you comment about why
5 we should depart from a decision we've already made?
6 MR. BEEDLE: Chairman, I would never suggest that
7 you should backslide. I wouldn't want to encourage that at
8 all.
9 No, our recommendation has always been, since the
10 outset of this discussion, to -- we agreed with the staff's
11 decision to baseline at the '89 code -- or '89 update -- and
12 to eliminate the 120-month update.
13 So, we're -- I think we're consistent in that
14 regard.
15 The Commission's decision to go to the '95 edition
16 -- we don't have any major objection to that, although,
17 given an option, I would just as soon go back to the one
18 that we recognized was fundamentally sound.
19 So, I guess, if you're going to depart from your
20 original decision, then we'd recommend you go back to the
21 '89, but I certainly don't want you to backslide.
22 CHAIRMAN MESERVE: Okay.
23 Dr. Shack, I have just one question for you.
24 The main thrust of Mr. Beedle's comments was that
25 we apply the backfit requirements in all kinds of other
28
1 contexts, and you talked a little bit about why this was
2 different and that we ought to not apply those requirements
3 with regard to this code just in case we are wrong and
4 because it's related to defense-in-depth, and I'm a little
5 concerned that that gets us on a slippery slope, that there
6 are lots of things that might fall into the area where
7 they're defense-in-depth-related or we might be wrong with
8 our existing requirements and, therefore, should update, and
9 it seems to me the argument that you've made could create a
10 exception to the principle for exceptions to the backfit
11 rule, which is a troubling one, and I wonder if you could
12 comment.
13 DR. SHACK: Well, the ACRS did write a letter
14 saying that we needed some additional guidance and policy on
15 defense-in-depth for precisely that reason, that -- you
16 know, defense-in-depth arguments are difficult to justify on
17 the basis of risk.
18 You know, we have designed these systems so that
19 the risk of pipe failure is small, and from a risk argument,
20 you might argue that you don't need ISI at all, let alone an
21 update to the ISI requirements from a purely risk update.
22 So, we believe that in-service inspection is a
23 defense-in-depth requirement. It's not really related to a
24 reduction risk. It's related to essentially a reduction in
25 the uncertainties associated with any possible estimates in
29
1 that risk, and again, the structuralist point of view, and
2 again, it can lead you to a slippery slope, you know, and
3 without policy and guidance, you are left on a case-by-case
4 basis.
5 You know, our judgement is, in this particular
6 case, this is an important application of defense-in-depth,
7 at a high level and an important level, and ought to be
8 retained.
9 CHAIRMAN MESERVE: Other than the fact that you
10 sort of know it when you see it, can you tell me why ISI and
11 IST is different from other things that are arguably
12 defense-in-depth-related?
13 DR. SHACK: In-service inspection, because it does
14 -- you know, the one thing that you can't do is predict the
15 future, you know, and you can't be assured in every
16 engineering analysis you've considered everything, and so,
17 in-service inspection is that -- the suspenders to the belt
18 that looks for things that, you know, you've missed and
19 phenomena that you haven't anticipated in your design, and
20 so, you know, that's one argument, for example, that -- you
21 know, we wouldn't support updating every update in the
22 consensus code, that's not the thing, but ISI on the primary
23 pressure boundary we believe has a fundamental importance.
24 People don't like leaks from their primary pressure
25 boundary, like steam generator tubes.
30
1 CHAIRMAN MESERVE: Mr. Perry?
2 MR. PERRY: I would like to just add a comment, if
3 I could, too, along those lines, relative to maintaining
4 pressure boundary integrity and operational readiness.
5 I think, in the proposed amendment to the rule,
6 the staff's own words indicated to the effect that the
7 question of the backfit rule that was previously questioned
8 by ADI and, I think, NUBAR, the Commission's position was
9 they maintained that there wasn't sufficient justification
10 to support their argument and that the Commission's position
11 was that they would continue to apply it on routine updates
12 of the ASME code, which has been the practice in the past,
13 up until now.
14 Now, I'll submit to you this: One of the changes
15 that you've incorporated in the latest regulation on the O&M;
16 code has to do with the pump -- integrated pump testing that
17 I mentioned was requested by the NRC.
18 Now, in my judgement -- that's in the regulation
19 now.
20 In my judgement, I'm not sure that it would meet
21 the backfit rule if you tried to apply it.
22 So, I think you need to be cognizant of that, too.
23 Now, that certainly has a big impact on enhancing
24 safety, but it may not, you know, meet this criteria of
25 significant safety impact.
31
1 So, I think we have to -- you know, I look at it
2 from the point of view of what does the public's view of how
3 we're protecting their health and safety mean, and I think
4 that we're not talking about -- certainly, the plants are
5 not -- they are safe, but certainly, if we can do things
6 better, if we learn from our experience and we can improve
7 and we can reduce costs in the process and enhance safety, I
8 think we ought to do it, but to say no, we're not, make it
9 non-mandatory, we're changing the rules, and I think we have
10 to answer to the public, well, why is it now -- you know,
11 they're saying the utilities are being forced to cut back,
12 they've got to be more competitive, and so forth.
13 So, I think it puts the Commission in a bad light,
14 in my view.
15 CHAIRMAN MESERVE: Commissioner Dicus.
16 COMMISSIONER DICUS: Okay. Thank you.
17 Let me put my first question to Mr. Beedle, NEI,
18 and it really has to do with the issue of cost, so I want to
19 pursue that a little more, because you clearly made cost an
20 important part of your discussion.
21 The ACRS suggests that cost is maybe not that much
22 of an issue, and I think even the ASME questions the cost
23 thing.
24 So, I have to ask you, when we look at this as a
25 possibility of reduction of unnecessary burden -- i.e., the
32
1 cost -- is this the main concern of the industry, the only
2 driver behind your recommendation, or is there something
3 else?
4 MR. BEEDLE: Well, I think cost is important,
5 Commissioner, but I don't think that that's the main focus.
6 The main focus is we have a process that's
7 employed in the regulatory framework in every area except
8 this one, and it's the backfit analysis.
9 We look at what is the gain versus what it's going
10 to cost the industry, as well as the NRC, and the impact of
11 implementing those regulations, and we're reasonably
12 confident that this needs to be subjected to that same
13 process.
14 Now, the issue of ISI -- we're not saying we're
15 abandoning the test of these plants.
16 We're not saying we're not going to do the
17 inspection of these plants.
18 We're not looking for leaking reactor vessels and
19 pipes, and I don't think that, if we stopped doing an
20 automatic update of the ISI program, that it's going to
21 cause these plants to fall apart.
22 So, any suggestion from anybody that that's the
23 case, I think, is absolutely misleading.
24 We still have an inspection program.
25 The question is the incremental change in the
33
1 inspection program that's developed through the ASME code
2 process -- is it warranted from a cost-benefit point of
3 view, as examined by the backfit rule?
4 COMMISSIONER DICUS: I think that helps some, but
5 I think the focus of your comments were on cost, and I was a
6 little concerned about that.
7 If that's the only driver we have, we've got to
8 look at the secondary drivers that are there.
9 Let me go to a question with the ASME
10 representative, Mr. Perry.
11 It has to do with your slide four, which is a very
12 interesting slide, but I have to tell you, I found it
13 confusing and not particularly helpful.
14 Even when I went to the back-up material, that
15 didn't help a whole lot.
16 I appreciate the back-up material and what you
17 went in to try to define in detail.
18 I'm not sure I understand the difference between
19 primary basis and secondary basis, but also, of all these
20 things -- and I might center in, which would mean a lot to
21 me, the reduced radiation exposure -- what are the most
22 significant changes? To me, I didn't pull that out of your
23 material.
24 These changes, in the last 10 years -- what is
25 really important?
34
1 MR. PERRY: Okay.
2 Let me first answer your question by explaining
3 the difference between primary and secondary basis.
4 What the section 11 subgroups did is they
5 evaluated each of those changes and tried to classify them
6 according to -- they relate to improved safety or improved
7 industry standards or reduction to radiation exposure and so
8 forth, and when they wrote down on that back-up sheet the
9 first one, that was their primary classification, but they
10 said, you know, it's not just that, there's many others that
11 are impacted. So, they would show several other bases, as
12 well, and so, they call those secondary.
13 What I've tried to show here is the combination of
14 the primary and secondary.
15 In fact, my personal view is I think some that
16 they showed secondary, I felt were probably more primary.
17 So, it's somewhat subjective.
18 But at any rate, that's the difference between
19 primary and secondary.
20 But both of those impact what are you doing by
21 this change.
22 Now, that's a very good question that you ask
23 about what's the safety significance of these.
24 Let me give you a few examples.
25 I think we did to the ACRS, we picked a few, but
35
1 I'll just pick some.
2 There are many changes that are listed as improved
3 safety that relate to changes in containment examination of
4 IWE and IWO, which happens to be one that the Commissioned
5 recognized and mandated in their original proposal; they
6 were making it mandatory. So, that's one, and there's many
7 in there.
8 The second one which is significant -- also,
9 there's several there -- relates to Appendix VIII, the
10 ultrasonic testing performance demonstration, and there are
11 further enhancements.
12 In fact, one of the concerns we had was when the
13 Commission first proposed to impose that, we were concerned
14 that we were in the process of doing a pilot plant of
15 verifying that what we had in the code was reasonable, and
16 we were making changes. So, we hadn't yet optimized
17 Appendix VII.
18 So, we were worried that what the Commission was
19 trying to impose was going beyond what was reasonable, so
20 many changes there.
21 That's also another one that the Commission
22 proposed to mandate.
23 So, that's another category of safety significant.
24 Other examples of improved safety include changes
25 to provide, say, supplemental qualification, requirements
36
1 for UT personnel to improve the UT examiner's skill. That's
2 another category.
3 As we're moving into greater technology and we're
4 looking for more finite things, we need to make sure that
5 the technician's knowledge and experience and expertise and
6 repeatability is there.
7 So, that's one that had a big impact.
8 Also, adding requirements for the application of
9 Appendix VIII flaw sizing to vessels less than two inches in
10 thickness and on components other than those identified in
11 Appendix VIII's scope is another safety significant one,
12 which I might say was issued in the code after the 1995
13 edition. So, it may not be in the current regulation, but
14 that's a significant change, and with it goes refined UT
15 techniques that weren't known 20 years ago.
16 Another example that are important to safety are
17 in the comprehensive pump testing that I mentioned in the
18 O&M; code, and also, condition monitoring of valves is
19 another one that's safety significant, and all the work that
20 was done on MOVs, motor-operated valves, we worked with the
21 Commission on that one, and also, in the O&M; area, on
22 service life requirements for dynamic restraints. So,
23 that's another safety significant one.
24 So, those are some examples of what we mean by
25 those 15 -- there's 15 total, is what I've listed, you know,
37
1 really 13 primary, and then there's two secondary ones for
2 improved safety.
3 COMMISSIONER DICUS: Okay.
4 MR. PERRY: And the reduction in radiation
5 requirements -- there's a lot more, and of course, many of
6 those, you know, have a safety ramification, because as you
7 can reduce the radiation exposure and being able to do
8 things more quickly or expeditiously in a radiation
9 environment, that's also a burden reduction for utilities,
10 as well, enhances their outage time.
11 COMMISSIONER DICUS: So, the improved safety ones
12 are throughout the rest of these or they're separate from
13 them?
14 I mean improved safety -- that would be improved
15 industry standard or reduced radiation exposure, or they're
16 strictly in a separate category.
17 MR. PERRY: Right. All I tried to do is give you
18 examples of the ones that the committee had classified as
19 improved safety.
20 COMMISSIONER DICUS: Okay.
21 I'm not sure I'm real clear on that, but we'll
22 drop that for the moment, for the sake of time, and let me
23 go on, then, finally, to the ACRS, and I want to pull two
24 statements that you've made.
25 You have stated that all three options presented
38
1 by the staff would maintain an acceptable level of safety, I
2 believe.
3 Is that correct?
4 DR. SHACK: Yes.
5 COMMISSIONER DICUS: Then, statement number two,
6 the staff has stated that there are some plants that are
7 applying code provisions that are 17 years old, they're
8 actually the '83 edition, without any adverse safety
9 impacts.
10 Now, you touched on this in your presentation, but
11 to me, those two statements begin to fight with one another.
12 Would you like the opportunity to comment on that?
13 If we're using '83 standards and it's safe enough,
14 but then we have three options here that would be okay, too,
15 what kind of advice are you giving the Commission?
16 DR. SHACK: You know, they're safe enough in the
17 sense that, if you do the analysis, that you can -- you
18 know, pipe breaks are not -- you know, the system is
19 designed to handle that, and so, from that point of view,
20 they're relatively low-risk, and you know, you can say
21 you're maintaining safety because of that.
22 If you really want to reduce the possibility of
23 pipe failures and pipe leakage, then you know, I think that
24 an effective inspection program adds to that.
25 And that's, you know, one of the arguments I would
39
1 have with NEI, that Appendix VIII, to me, is perhaps the
2 most technically significant of all the improvements that
3 have been proposed in the code over the '89 edition, the
4 performance demonstration.
5 And it really comes down to the fact that, you
6 know, you have to really be able to demonstrate that you can
7 find the defect that you're looking for, and you know, the
8 staff, ASME, and ACRS all find that important.
9 And yet, you know, that's the one particular
10 element that NEI has singled out as -- you know, they don't
11 like that addition to the 1989 demonstration and, you know,
12 should be subjected to a cost-benefit analysis.
13 Well, again, for a low-risk system, it's difficult
14 to defend defense-in-depth on a risk basis.
15 COMMISSIONER DICUS: Okay.
16 DR. SHACK: It's just the wrong -- it's the wrong
17 metric to use in this particular case.
18 COMMISSIONER DICUS: But it's difficult -- I guess
19 what you're trying to tell me, if a plant, a licensee is
20 using a very old edition of the code and it's working okay
21 but they ought to do better, it is difficult to make a
22 cost-benefit analysis.
23 DR. SHACK: Yeah. And you know, I would -- you
24 have to look at particular cases.
25 I suspect that, in most of the cases, when the
40
1 plant is using the very old code, they're probably doing
2 inspections for cause, you know, on significant things.
3 You know, if they have stress corrosion cracking
4 in their boiling water reactor, then, you know, you're only
5 using the ASME code sort of where you haven't really
6 identified a particular mechanism.
7 You know, there are augmented inspections wherever
8 we know there's an ongoing identified mechanism of
9 degradation.
10 The ASME code is where we really haven't
11 identified a particular mode of degradation; we're just
12 trying to assure ourselves that there are none going on.
13 COMMISSIONER DICUS: Okay.
14 DR. SHACK: You know, it's looking ahead. It's
15 anticipating.
16 COMMISSIONER DICUS: I'll stop here.
17 Thank you.
18 CHAIRMAN MESERVE: Commissioner Diaz?
19 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Yes.
20 I want to do the same I did the other day and
21 going to essentially be the same question for everybody.
22 Let me start with a small statement, Mr. Chairman.
23 I like small statements.
24 I think everybody agrees that there is a
25 significant importance on maintaining regulatory stability
41
1 and stability of the implementation of that regulation in
2 the power plants. I think everybody agrees with that.
3 I think where there is agreement is what is meant
4 by that regulatory stability and implementation.
5 I think I hear argument for maintaining that
6 stability be state-of-the-art processes, things that are,
7 you know, with a certain frequency, brought up to what the
8 state of the art is, and what stability could also mean,
9 that, you know, we maintain what is already working.
10 I think that is really an important issue. Do we
11 really obtain more stability and better, you know, safety by
12 upgrading to state-of-the-art requirements or by maintaining
13 what already exists?
14 That's one question.
15 What do we really mean by stability of the
16 processes and do we mean, you know, maintaining what is
17 working or do we mean really that the process of adopting a
18 code and updating it with, you know, 10-year frequency -- is
19 that stability, you know, and I'd like each person to answer
20 that question.
21 And the second part of the question is on the
22 issue of cost that has been already addressed.
23 Is the cost really inclusive?
24 You know, has anybody looked at the cost as it
25 would evolve from the standpoint of exemptions or, you know,
42
1 small events might not be detected if you don't have the
2 state-of-the-art, the latest, you know, ISI and IST code
3 available and all of the improvements?
4 Is there really some balancing that comes in the
5 issue of cost that might be hidden from us at the present
6 time?
7 Two parts, regulatory stability, implementation
8 stability, and cost as an all-inclusive consideration.
9 MR. BEEDLE: Let me start out, then, with a
10 comment on the regulatory stability issue.
11 In '91-'93 timeframe, we had a utility that did a
12 review of the ASME code, submitted a cost-beneficial license
13 proposal that was well founded, well studied, clearly
14 demonstrated that the -- while the ISI/IST program was
15 important to us and we recognize that and we're not
16 suggesting for a moment that we abandon that but to continue
17 to update based on where we are today was not particularly
18 beneficial or useful to the industry, in view of the cost
19 that's incurred in that process.
20 Now, that's '93.
21 Here we are in the year 2000.
22 So, I would suggest that we haven't had
23 well-founded regulatory stability in this area since then.
24 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: We'll call that stability,
25 because it hasn't changed.
43
1 MR. BEEDLE: Maybe you're right.
2 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: And that's the point.
3 MR. BEEDLE: Good point. Regulatory stability but
4 perhaps a lot of anxiety and frustration in the rest of the
5 industry trying to resolve and deal with those issues.
6 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: The present frame of year 2000
7 is the one that I'd like.
8 MR. BEEDLE: And we certainly support that.
9 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Okay.
10 MR. BEEDLE: The issue of cost --
11 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: I'm sorry. State of the art
12 or not state of the art?
13 MR. BEEDLE: Well, I see the state of the art gets
14 embodied in the process of going through these consensus
15 standards, and we have many of them.
16 We have encouraged the development of standards on
17 fiber-optics.
18 We have encouraged the development of standards
19 for a number of areas where we see a clear advantage to
20 improving processes and procedures and systems as a result
21 of employing this improved technology, and once we get those
22 standards in place, then we employ those either in the
23 revision modification or adjustment of our systems.
24 So, I don't think that this process has been
25 negligent in incorporating advances in technology. In fact,
44
1 I think it has encouraged it, and we've used that process to
2 foster the development of standards for the use of the
3 industry.
4 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Okay.
5 MR. BEEDLE: Cost. I don't want to leave you with
6 the impression that cost is the only issue in here. It's
7 cost versus what benefit you gain.
8 Now, I am not trying to head to head with Mr.
9 Perry on what changes were made in the code, but let me just
10 give you an idea of what we were looking at in terms of cost
11 and what we were looking at in terms of benefit when we take
12 a look at the 1989 edition versus the '92 edition for ASME
13 code.
14 We did an evaluation of those two codes, and there
15 were some 84 changes between those two code revisions.
16 Seventy-seven of them were editorial. Eight were errata.
17 There were 52 changes that did not make any change in
18 requirements whatsoever. Twenty-two of them reduced
19 requirements, and some 25 had an increase in requirement,
20 and none of them were safety significant. So, even if we
21 spent $100 making those kind of changes, I'm not sure it
22 would be cost-beneficial.
23 So, that's not to say that the code doesn't
24 advance with time, but we haven't had safety-significant
25 issues come out of these codes, and if they were, our
45
1 generic process within the regulatory framework doesn't go
2 to the code issues; they solve them through other
3 mechanisms.
4 So, I'm not sure that I could satisfy in my own
5 mind or in the minds of my members that the codes are
6 necessary to the safety of the plant.
7 They enhance safety, no question about it. They
8 codify processes, no doubt about it.
9 They incorporate new technology and new techniques
10 in the testing and inspection of the programs, no doubt, and
11 we incorporate those whether they're required by the NRC or
12 not.
13 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Okay. Thank you, sir.
14 Mr. Perry?
15 MR. PERRY: Yes.
16 To answer the first part of your question relative
17 to regulatory stability, I submit that, up until this
18 proposed change, the process has been such that there has
19 been a requirement to update every 10 years to the latest
20 ASME code, and it was mandated, and again, we're talking
21 about maintaining pressure boundary integrity and
22 operational readiness of mechanical equipment, which is
23 quite critical to the success of health and safety, and in
24 that process, I think that we've seen some changes in
25 practice over the years, and I'll give you one illustration
46
1 of one that I had personal experience on.
2 I was in the nuclear business for over 40 years,
3 and one of the jobs I had was executive at a nuclear utility
4 during the design, construction, and operation of the plant,
5 and we were in an outage at the end of a 10-year interval,
6 and we were looking to make sure we met all the
7 requirements, and lo and behold, we found there were many
8 cases where we had not met all the 10-year requirements.
9 So, we committed to the NRC to do all the
10 requirements before we restarted, and the deeper we dug, the
11 more we found, and what had happened at this utility was
12 that the work was done by an ISI group; they hired a
13 consultant to do all the testing.
14 This is a B-31 plant.
15 Many of the welds that they tried to inspect were
16 never ground.
17 They were never designed to be UT'd; they were
18 PT'd and x-rayed.
19 So, what the consultant did -- they just wrote on
20 a little report, not prepped for UT, and the utility person
21 threw it in a file.
22 When we came to the end of this, when QA got
23 involved, we found all these had not been done. We also
24 found many other errors in how we interpreted the
25 requirements, mis-interpreted, and had to make adjustments
47
1 and refinements to get this done.
2 Now, that was an assessment that we did as a
3 utility, got that all squared away, took a lot of effort and
4 many man-months, down time, during a period of time when NRC
5 used to have NDE trailers to go in and do their own
6 inspections.
7 They don't have it now.
8 So, the utility -- the NRC has backed off now with
9 respect to the involvement in some of these activities.
10 We're relying more and more on utilities.
11 They're under a lot of pressure to keep the costs
12 down.
13 So, I think they could consider this a
14 dis-incentive to have to expend these additional dollars.
15 But to add to that, when I get to the cost aspect,
16 it's not just the cost of making the update and the changes,
17 but as I pointed out, if there's a disparity between what is
18 baselined and what the latest code is, I can guarantee you
19 that utilities are going to have to go in and get exemption
20 requests to apply code cases that are not yet approved and
21 other changes to make their program workable where they
22 might have misinterpreted or done something wrong.
23 Each one of those requires additional effort on
24 the part of the utility, additional staff effort on a
25 one-by-one basis, and if you make this non-mandatory and
48
1 they pick and choose and cherry-pick and you say the staff
2 is now going to decide whether they're doing it properly, I
3 question whether all the staff members may be qualified.
4 The code is very complicated, and to just pick a
5 portion out and miss something else that goes with it can
6 easily happen.
7 So, when you talk about stability, I think we have
8 the stability when you require the update, require everyone
9 to standardize and make it uniform.
10 Now, in terms of the NRC looking at enforcing,
11 they know what the requirements are; there's consistency for
12 all the inspectors and the teams that go in there.
13 When each utility is doing their own thing, you
14 know, if I were the inspector, I'd pull my hair out, saying,
15 you know, what goes on, all these changes, and so, how it's
16 handled between the region and how it's handled between
17 headquarters becomes a major problem.
18 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Thank you, sir.
19 Dr. Shack?
20 DR. SHACK: In terms of regulatory stability, when
21 you say state of the art, the ASME code is a slow-moving
22 conservative sloth.
23 I mean, you know, it's not exactly rushing to the
24 frontiers, and I think the consensus process itself is a
25 strong filter on things that, you know, although there's no
49
1 explicit cost-benefit requirement, these people are all in
2 the field, you know, they have to implement these things,
3 they have an intimate sort of day-to-day knowledge of what
4 actually goes on.
5 And so, I believe that there's a very -- a good
6 filter there for requirements that are not particularly --
7 you know, again, obviously, we correct editorial errors and
8 such, but I think the true changes in the code really arise
9 out of a consensus of people who are technically the most
10 familiar with this thing.
11 And they're, again, acutely aware of what will
12 happen when they actually have to try to implement these in
13 the field, so that the thought that they're off -- you know,
14 they're nerds advancing the state of the art, I've got a
15 800-megahertz Pentium now and, you know, I'm going to do
16 something different, you know, it's just not the way it
17 works.
18 It's a different sort of process.
19 So, I think, you know, stability, to my mind, is a
20 process that's been working fine for 30 years, and you know,
21 I haven't seen a good case to change it.
22 The cost -- you know, we -- at the ACRS, we only
23 know what's been presented to us, and as I say, I haven't
24 seen a convincing case that the costs are high either way.
25 You know, people cite ranges that go all over the
50
1 map.
2 There are obviously elements of costs on both
3 sides of the equation.
4 As I say, our sort of judgement when we're all
5 said and done was that it was hard to see a large net cost
6 either way.
7 CHAIRMAN MESERVE: Thank you.
8 Commissioner McGaffigan.
9 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Mr. Beedle, yesterday we
10 renewed the license for Calvert Cliffs, and that was a major
11 milestone here.
12 If Watts Bar gets a renewed licensing, it will be
13 operating in 2055 -- I think it got its license in '95 --
14 and I assume it was licensed -- it was a long process, like
15 many of the post-TMI plants, but it's probably licensed to
16 the '83 or, at best, '89 version of the code.
17 Under your recommendation, they would never --
18 they would be operating in 2055 to the '89 code, perhaps
19 cherry-picked, as Mr. Perry said, with addenda since then.
20 Does that make sense?
21 I mean could you operate a plant in 2055 to a 1989
22 code that would be able to buy spare parts? Wouldn't they
23 have to update?
24 MR. BEEDLE: If the major elements in revision to
25 the code are editorial in nature and not safety significant,
51
1 then I don't see any problem.
2 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Take us to the next
3 point.
4 I mean you compared '89 and '92, and I assume that
5 must have been in the Entergy rule-making package that you
6 referred to, and I'm not familiar with that, but we're
7 talking 10-year periods here, we're not talking three-year
8 periods, and Mr. Perry is making the case that, over a
9 10-year period -- and ACRS is heartily agreeing -- that
10 there were some -- and I think the staff heartily agrees on
11 this Appendix VIII -- there were some significant
12 improvements to the code over a 10-year period, and since --
13 you know, I think the analysis has to be, you know,
14 comparing one piece of the code to what it was 10 years
15 previously rather than to -- maybe Mr. Perry would agree
16 that the '92 versus '89 wasn't a big deal.
17 MR. BEEDLE: Well, I think many of the beneficial
18 changes in the code have centered on our testing techniques
19 and how you do the inspections.
20 I think if there was some analysis done by ASME in
21 developing codes that concluded that our vessels and major
22 structures were -- needed to be upgraded, then I think we'd
23 be handling that in a different process than an update to
24 the code.
25 So, I don't think that we're dealing with a
52
1 necessary updating of the code in order to ensure safety of
2 the plant.
3 I think that that's going to happen through the
4 regulatory process.
5 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Mr. Perry makes the
6 point that, if you don't update the code in a holistic
7 manner, an integrated manner, and you allow this
8 cherry-picking, as he calls it, to go on, that that may
9 prove to be more burdensome both to the staff and for the
10 industry, because the exemption cases cost more.
11 Do you have any comment on that?
12 MR. BEEDLE: Well, I don't know that that has been
13 a major issue over the last 15 years.
14 We've updated the code several times where the
15 utilities have encountered the 10-year ISI update process,
16 but in the interval, we've had numerous examples of
17 exemptions necessary to improve techniques for inspection in
18 the ISI/IST program.
19 So, that's happening even if you decide to have a
20 requirement to update this code every 10 years.
21 I don't remember the exact description that Mr.
22 Shack used for the ASME code, but when you update this every
23 five years, I mean you have to have seen some changes in the
24 code cases in that interval, and we certainly aren't going
25 to wait for five years if we see some beneficial use of some
53
1 of those code cases.
2 We've got to figure out whether or not this is
3 really something that's essential to safety or not. I think
4 that's where we've got come down on this.
5 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Mr. Perry, did you want
6 to say something?
7 MR. PERRY: I would like to submit that I think
8 that what we're talking about on these exemptions was a case
9 of the NRC having endorsed the 1989 edition of the code and
10 now we're at 1999 that they made the change.
11 So, during that interval, there wasn't an
12 endorsement of the later code, and secondly, ASME has
13 deliberately tried to maintain code cases to make it easier
14 for the NRC to endorse those by reg guides, and even those
15 lag behind, that's what's forced these updates.
16 But if you look at it in the future -- let's say
17 the 1995 edition and 1996 addenda, which is currently in the
18 regulation -- that's frozen, and now you move forward to
19 2055 -- there's going to be a hell of a lot of enhancements
20 in things.
21 All of these are going to be done by code case or
22 exemptions or what have you, and those are very costly.
23 It's costly for the utilities not only to do it but to
24 submit it to the staff and then answer their questions back
25 and forth, it's expensive for the staff.
54
1 I submit, if you're able to divert your resources
2 more on updating to the later codes and a quicker
3 endorsement of the code cases, you do the analysis once, now
4 all the utilities can implement this, you don't need all of
5 those special approvals.
6 So, that would be a burden reduction, first class.
7 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Mr. Perry, one of the
8 points you make is the potential loss of interest on the
9 part of the industry in participating, and you cited in
10 passing -- and it's not something I'm familiar with -- the
11 problems you're having with NQA in getting the staff's
12 attention to a submission in '97.
13 I know it's not the subject of today's meeting,
14 but could you just tell me in passing what that is and why
15 you think it's safety significant?
16 MR. PERRY: Yeah. That one may not be safety
17 significant, but again, I think that there are significant
18 changes in the NQA-1 standard, 1997, that's
19 performance-based and put the emphasis on the right things
20 that picks up lessons learned and experience and key things
21 that I know the Commission has expressed an interest in, and
22 yet, they're reluctant to come out with a reg guide
23 endorsement, because they say -- and I haven't seen the
24 utilities beating down the bushes saying they want to change
25 it, and things like configuration management --
55
1 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: That's a case of loss of
2 interest on the part of both the utilities and the staff,
3 you would say, in that case.
4 MR. PERRY: Yeah. So, we're pursuing it through
5 the utilities and getting them to come to the Commission and
6 say, now, here's what we would like and why, but what's the
7 Commission's position on this?
8 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: The final issue is the
9 backfit issue, and this gets to this integrated issue.
10 We have before us -- and you guys haven't seen it.
11 We've got a paper on fitness for duty, where we're dealing
12 with a morass of things in looking at -- I think it's 28 or
13 31 worthwhile exceptions to the backfit rule which might
14 pass a -- don't pass the substantial benefit test but maybe
15 pass a worthwhile benefit, you know, cost -- benefits
16 greater than cost.
17 If you look at this as a whole -- and I guess I'll
18 direct this to Mr. Shack -- what is your best guess, if you
19 get rid of the -- the backfit rule doesn't apply here, but
20 if you apply a cost-benefit test to continuing the code
21 requirement -- you know, Mr. Perry has already answered --
22 would there be more benefit than cost?
23 Get rid of the words "substantial benefit." Would
24 there be more benefit than cost to continuing this
25 requirement?
56
1 DR. SHACK: You mean if I compute the cost per the
2 109 guidelines, by the standard regulatory analysis.
3 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: The standard regulatory
4 analysis stops at the substantial benefit test and doesn't
5 get very far, and that's the problem we're facing in this
6 paper. A lot of things don't pass the substantial benefit
7 test. They might pass a cost-benefit test.
8 So, you know, at the margin -- you know, 50.109
9 doesn't just have cost-benefit in it; it has a substantial
10 benefit before you even go to cost-benefit.
11 So, get rid of the substantial benefit test and
12 then go to are the costs, on balance, less than the benefits
13 or more than the benefits?
14 DR. SHACK: This is one of those where it's very
15 difficult to calculate the benefits.
16 I mean you're sort of pushing the limits of your
17 technology.
18 You know, how much is an improvement in in-service
19 inspection a benefit, and that's very difficult to quantify.
20 I suspect I can skew cost-benefit analyses within my
21 uncertainty range.
22 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Okay. I'll let you off.
23 CHAIRMAN MESERVE: Mr. Merrifield.
24 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
25 Mr. Perry, you talk about a variety of different
57
1 things to hammer out.
2 You raised a concern that if we did not have a
3 requirement to do these updates that there may be less
4 interest on the part of industry.
5 I guess my question is this:
6 Does it change in the end if industry is aware
7 that those provisions are voluntary?
8 Does that change the dynamic for how the
9 participants are going to be engaged in the process of
10 developing their roles?
11 MR. PERRY: Absolutely.
12 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: And how might that
13 change?
14 MR. PERRY: I think that the individuals who
15 participate in codes and standards are middle-level to
16 worker individuals who are technically knowledgeable of the
17 subject or intimately involved in implementing these things,
18 and they have to have approval to participate and get
19 support from their companies as the NRC representatives has
20 to have budget to do it, and if they're told this is no
21 longer mandatory, they're saying, well, we don't have to do
22 it, so it's not required, I'm going to reduce my cost, so
23 I'm going to just withhold participation.
24 We've experienced -- and I don't think this is
25 uncommon.
58
1 We've experienced reductions in volunteers as
2 industry -- the nuclear industry shrunk and as competition
3 became greater.
4 They tightened the belt.
5 We've also experienced attrition due to older
6 mature people retiring and not -- the utility saying I'm not
7 going to replace that person, I'm not going to continue to
8 support the code like I used to.
9 So, it's a struggle to maintain good volunteers,
10 but besides the effort of the volunteers, there's research
11 that goes on to back up a lot of these.
12 I can guarantee you that performance
13 demonstration, the involvement of EPRI and industry and the
14 utilities was tremendous.
15 So, it's not until a lot of that's done that we
16 try to codify that.
17 That's going to be lost. There's no incentive to
18 do the research.
19 Who's going to fund it?
20 So, I think there's a big difference, and I
21 submit, I think the same thing is going to impact the NRC.
22 They're going to say -- you know, the individual
23 manager says my budget's being reduced, what can I cut out?
24 Well, let's cut out travel.
25 Where do you go? Well, you go to these code
59
1 meetings.
2 Well, do we have to go to all of those?
3 So, I think it's going to have a negative impact,
4 and the mix is going to be different.
5 I submit that what you'd probably concentrate on
6 is code cases, not revisions.
7 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: Mr. Beedle?
8 MR. BEEDLE: I think, clearly, there is financial
9 pressure in the operation of these facilities, as the
10 environment changes.
11 I don't think that it means that the industry is
12 going to abandon the development of codes and standards that
13 are necessary for the safe, efficient, and effective
14 operation of these facilities.
15 We see significant involvement with the NSSS
16 vendors.
17 We see involvement with ASME.
18 We see involvement with ANS.
19 We see involvement with EPRI.
20 Now, whether or not those change with time, I
21 think it's going to depend on whether or not there's any
22 benefit to be gained from them.
23 If the utilities can gain through ASME, then they
24 will use ASME process.
25 If they're going to gain through the NSSS vendor
60
1 groups to solve their technical problems, I think that's
2 where they're going to go to solve them.
3 So, it's really is there a benefit to the utility
4 in participation?
5 That's really going to be the test.
6 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: You've repeated that
7 theme a variety of times, saying beneficial to the industry,
8 and I'll be honest, that troubles me.
9 Through what lens are you calling beneficial to
10 the industry?
11 You know, here we have various pillars we use to
12 determine our regulatory basis for moving forward on a
13 risk-informed regulatory structure.
14 Those include reducing unnecessary burden, but
15 they also envision using risk to make a better definition
16 for where we're going on a regulatory basis, and that means
17 sometimes reduce unnecessary burden and sometimes increase
18 burden based on risk.
19 We also have the pillars of public confidence, and
20 I guess -- it strikes me -- you know, a sort of devil's
21 argument you could make is, if you set a 1989 baseline
22 standard and anything above and beyond that is voluntary on
23 the industry, and if you use that beneficial-to-the industry
24 standard, what you have is a one-way ratchet.
25 Those cases in which you can reduce, you choose,
61
1 you reduce that unnecessary burden, and those which would
2 have some increase in costs, you wouldn't.
3 I mean under what basis under a strictly voluntary
4 system would industry choose -- how would it determine a
5 benefit if it's going to be an increased cost?
6 MR. BEEDLE: Well, we -- I think we've got a
7 number of examples in the regulatory framework where the
8 industry has been -- has addressed safety issues, at the
9 behest of the NRC, totally outside the framework of the ASME
10 process.
11 So, if the ASME was identifying safety issues that
12 need to be addressed by the industry, I think we'd be
13 addressing them.
14 So, I mean it's not a matter --
15 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: Even in the absence of
16 the NRC saying it meets the backfit test and we're going to
17 make you do it.
18 MR. BEEDLE: Commissioner, we've got scads of
19 codes and standards out there that govern the way we do
20 business, in a lot of cases, that are not mandated, updated
21 every 10 years, and we end up going through a process that
22 gets those things in place.
23 The desire to not have a regulatory requirement to
24 update every 10 years does not mean that we're abandoning a
25 process that gives us some standardization in inspection and
62
1 testing of our systems.
2 That's not what we are after.
3 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: I didn't know whether
4 Mr. Perry or Mr. Shack wanted to make a comment relative to
5 that. Yes, no? Okay.
6 We've got to move forward.
7 I guess, Mr. Perry, we touched briefly -- you said
8 that there are states that require the ASME code outside of
9 our process.
10 If you could share with me and the other members
11 of the Commission which are the states that do apply those
12 independently, that would be helpful, as it relates to
13 non-nuclear facilities.
14 MR. PERRY: I don't have the answer, but we can --
15 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: If you can provide that
16 at a later date, that would be helpful.
17 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
18 CHAIRMAN MESERVE: I would like to thank the
19 panel. I very much appreciate their participation this
20 morning, and let me call the staff to the table.
21 MR. MIRAGLIA: With me today, we have Brian
22 Sheron, who is the Associate Director for Project Licensing
23 and Technical Analysis in the Office of Nuclear Reactor
24 Regulation; Jack Strosnider, to my left, is the Director of
25 the Division of Engineering in NRR; and to Jack's left is
63
1 Tom Scarbrough, Senior Mechanical Engineer in the Mechanical
2 and Civil Engineering Branch in NRR.
3 Brian?
4 MR. SHERON: Thank you.
5 Actually, I guess the first slide is just some
6 background.
7 I think that's already been discussed. So, I'd
8 like, for time's sake, to skip maybe to the second one,
9 current ISI/IST updating approach.
10 A lot's been said already, so I don't want to
11 repeat.
12 What I would like to do, actually, is clarify what
13 we are -- what the staff is proposing. We are proposing
14 that we baseline the endorsed edition of the code that is
15 required, the 1995 edition.
16 Our plan right now -- and we have resources
17 already identified -- is that we will be endorsing probably
18 every year the latest addenda to the code that come out, and
19 then, every three years, we would endorse, hopefully within
20 a year or two of its issue, the latest edition of the ASME
21 code.
22 We are saying we would endorse it, which means
23 that utilities would be allowed to use it, okay, but it
24 would not be required.
25 As we do that review of that code or the addenda,
64
1 we will be subjecting it to the criteria in the backfit
2 rule, 50.109.
3 If we believe that there are improvements in the
4 code, okay, that are important and substantial increase in
5 safety and pass the backfit test, we would go forward and
6 backfit them as a requirement, and we would anticipate that
7 we would backfit them to be implemented at that time, not
8 wait 10 years.
9 My personal feeling is that, if the code
10 improvements are, indeed, substantial, we will probably be
11 putting in requirements more frequently or requiring plants
12 to update more frequently, perhaps, than even is required
13 now.
14 A plant can wait 10 years before it has to update,
15 depending upon when a code is endorsed and what the latest
16 endorsed edition is.
17 As you see, we have plants -- we have five
18 operating on the '83 edition, we have 18 units at the '86
19 edition, and we have 81 units with the '89 edition.
20 We would probably look at, as I said, each edition
21 of the code, we would pick out those areas that we believed
22 were substantial improvements to safety, and we would
23 require them at that time.
24 So, we would not be basically saying everybody
25 must update to a complete edition of the code, but where
65
1 there are areas where there are substantial improvement, we
2 would require those.
3 After some period of time, my guess is that, if we
4 see that there is a substantial improvement in the overall
5 code, then we would probably come forward and say we would
6 anticipate backfitting the entire code.
7 We do have guidance from the Commission back in
8 1993, actually, on backfitting against 50.109 for codes and
9 standards, and this is contained in the CRGR charter,
10 actually, and there is very specific guidance, but
11 basically, what that guidance says is that we can use
12 qualitative arguments to meet the substantial improvement in
13 safety criteria of 50.109 with regard to standards, codes
14 and standards.
15 I'm looking at Revision 6, which is the April 1996
16 charter, but there is words here that says we can use
17 qualitative arguments to require backfitting to codes and
18 standards.
19 So, we believe we have sufficient guidance and
20 sufficient ammunition, I would say, in order to backfit
21 codes and standards if we see there is a substantial
22 improvement.
23 We are not proposing cherry-picking. We have said
24 that, when a utility would update to a newer edition of a
25 code, whether it's endorsed or required, they would be
66
1 required to update to the entire edition, okay?
2 It's not a matter of just going in and saying I
3 want these pieces that are beneficial to me but I'm not
4 going to take that stuff that puts more requirements on me.
5 If you want to update to the new code, you do it
6 in its entirety.
7 Now, just like is allowed today, if a utility
8 wants to take exception to some of those requirements, there
9 is a process they can do that, okay?
10 They can request reliefs from the NRC staff, which
11 means we go through and we do a safety evaluation as to the
12 acceptability of that relief, and we write them a specific
13 approval.
14 So, they cannot cherry-pick without the NRC
15 specifically approving whatever it is that they're asking
16 for.
17 Our process right now -- we don't endorse the
18 addenda through code cases -- I'm sorry -- through our reg
19 guides, okay?
20 Right now, if we endorse any new code cases or
21 anything, it must be through a rule change.
22 It's a little torturous, but we have a footnote in
23 the bottom, in 50.55(a), which talks about a reg guide --
24 1.84, I think it is. Is that right?
25 That reg guide endorses the code cases, but in
67
1 order for the industry to use them as part of an approved
2 rule, we have to change that footnote in the rule.
3 I would also point out that the -- with our
4 risk-informed option, which we have approved -- we have two
5 approved versions, I think, ASME, a Westinghouse approach to
6 risk-informed ISI and IST, and then there's also an EPRI
7 one, which we've recently approved.
8 They don't specifically require any 10-year ISI
9 updating, okay?
10 In other words, what they require now, I believe,
11 is, after 10 years, they have to go back and take a look and
12 see whether there's anything that needs to be changed, okay,
13 but there's no mandatory requirement.
14 So, if a plant actually goes to the new
15 risk-informed approach, they would not be required to update
16 every 10 years.
17 The only other point I would want to make is that
18 -- just from our experience.
19 We participate on numerous codes and standards
20 committees in NRR as well as the rest of the agency, and I
21 think, as Mr. Beedle said, many of those are voluntary in
22 the sense that we don't require the use of that code or
23 standard.
24 An example that comes to mind is IEEE 603, which
25 is basically the replacement for IEEE 279. 279 is required
68
1 in 50.55(a).
2 When we endorsed that, 603, we did not make it
3 mandatory, okay?
4 We said that it was an acceptable alternative to
5 279, but it was not mandated.
6 I am just not aware that there has been any
7 decline or decrease in participation in IEEE standards
8 committees, because we are not requiring, you know, revised
9 IEEE standards, as an example.
10 My feeling is that, if the NRC continues its
11 participation on ASME code committees, which we fully intend
12 to, regardless of whether we drop the requirement or not,
13 the industry is going to have a vested interest, I think,
14 for a couple reasons.
15 One is they're going to want to make sure what
16 we're doing on there, and we're not putting in a whole bunch
17 of new requirements, and second, I think, is that, if there
18 is new technology coming along -- and a lot of it is all
19 designed to make life easier, okay, better inspection
20 methods, easier things where they can inspect, get less
21 radiation dose -- I think there is a real desire, okay, on
22 the part of utilities to continue to participate.
23 So, I guess I don't feel as strongly that there is
24 going to be a tail-off in participation, just because we
25 move forward with this approach.
69
1 So, I think that kind of wraps up my summary of
2 where we are in terms of what our actual proposal is, and I
3 would just reiterate, we are not proposing that we're going
4 to stay on, for example, the 1995 or 1989 edition of the
5 code for the next 20 or 30 years.
6 I would anticipate that we will be having required
7 backfits if there are safety improvements made to the code,
8 probably within, you know, three, four, five years, and that
9 probably, perhaps, you know, within 10 or 15 years, we may
10 look and we may decide that there's enough improvements that
11 we should backfit the entire code.
12 With that, Tom, I don't know if you want to run
13 through your slides real quick.
14 MR. SCARBROUGH: Yes. Thank you.
15 My first slide has the milestones, but I just
16 would like to point out on this slide that we did hold a
17 public workshop with about 60 participants and obtained
18 quite a bit of information in that, and I'll just move right
19 on through that.
20 The next slide are the options, and you've heard
21 those this morning.
22 We are proposing option 1B, which would establish
23 the 1995-96 code, as incorporated in the September rule, and
24 I'll just go on to the next slide.
25 We evaluated the options using the four
70
1 strategicals of maintaining safety, increasing public
2 confidence, reducing unnecessary burden, and making NRC
3 activities more effective, efficient, realistic.
4 With regard to the first goal, maintaining safety,
5 each option will maintain safety by requiring updating of
6 ISI and IST programs based on its specific criteria for that
7 option.
8 For example, option 1 would include a quantitative
9 and qualitative analysis using the provisions of 50.109 to
10 determine when updating is necessary.
11 Option 2 would continue to require the automatic
12 updating, and option 3 would require updating unless the
13 licensee demonstrated that its program provided an
14 acceptable level of quality and safety.
15 We agree that the '95 edition of the code includes
16 many improvements, and we have heard many of them this
17 morning.
18 Option 1 will continue to maintain safety also by
19 endorsing future code editions for voluntary use and
20 requiring updating when necessary based on the provisions of
21 109.
22 We also will maintain the importance of the code
23 by more timely endorsement of the code editions for
24 voluntary use or mandatory use.
25 And finally, we agree that the updating process
71
1 does provide a means of assessing program adequacy and that
2 the voluntary and mandatory updating that will occur will
3 allow this to take place.
4 Next slide, please.
5 With regard to the second goal of increasing
6 public confidence, we believe option 1 will increase public
7 confidence by applying the provisions of 50.109 to updating,
8 consistent with the other new requirements for operating
9 reactors.
10 Option 2 may also increase public confidence by
11 requiring updating to the latest endorsed code editions
12 regardless of safety significance.
13 Option 3 would retain the update requirement but
14 may decrease public confidence by the limited participation
15 provided in the approval of alternatives that would be
16 proposed by licensees.
17 Next slide, please.
18 Regarding the third goal of reducing unnecessary
19 burden, the cost of updating an ISI/IST program can range
20 from 200,000 to over a million dollars per plant. We heard
21 that this morning.
22 Under option 1, licensees would only be required
23 to update their programs when the code improvements are
24 sufficient to satisfy the 50.109 provisions.
25 However, regardless of the decision on the update
72
1 requirement, licensees' cost associated with submitting a
2 relief request will continue as licensees customize their
3 ISI and IST programs to best fit their specific plants.
4 Overall, we consider option 1 to provide the
5 greatest flexibility for licensees to minimize their burden
6 in implementing an effective ISI and IST program.
7 Next slide, please.
8 Regarding the fourth goal of making NRC activities
9 more effective, efficient, and realistic, we plan to improve
10 the ISI and IST updating process under option 1 by more
11 frequent endorsement of new code editions by applying
12 dedicated resources and revising the regulations.
13 Option 1 would also provide a consistent
14 application of 50.109 to ISI/IST updating, similar to other
15 new requirements.
16 Because the staff will continue to review future
17 code editions for endorsement and to review future relief
18 requests, we do not believe that any particular option would
19 result in significant NRC resource savings.
20 Next slide.
21 Further, on that same goal, we are encouraging
22 licensees to develop risk-informed ISI and IST programs and
23 also ASME to establish initiatives that might improve the
24 long-term approach for implementing those programs.
25 We will continue to participate in the code
73
1 process to help ensure that risk-informed initiatives are
2 successful.
3 With the customized ISI and IST programs currently
4 in place at individual plants, we do not believe that
5 modification of the updating process will significantly
6 affect the range of code editions applied at each plant.
7 Finally, any inconsistency that might arise
8 between NRC and state positions would be resolved by Federal
9 preemption.
10 Next slide, please.
11 In conclusion, we believe that option 1 best
12 addresses the four strategic outcome goals, and we propose
13 the 1995-96 code as the baseline, because it is the most
14 recent version endorsed in the regulation, and it does
15 include a number of improvements since the 1989 edition.
16 I'll be happy to answer any questions you might
17 have on our presentation.
18 CHAIRMAN MESERVE: Thank you very much.
19 As I understand the -- I'd like to have you
20 address the regulatory problem that you -- others have
21 argued that you create for yourself by this proposal.
22 The suggestion is maybe, as I understand your
23 proposal, perhaps as long as till 2055, there would be a --
24 what would be applicable would be the 1995 edition of the
25 ASME code, with segments of provisions drawn from successive
74
1 codes that would be added in over time, so that, to the
2 extent that the ASME is trying to develop a unified
3 inter-related code by the process you'd involve, what you'd
4 require would be chunks of things that wouldn't be unified.
5 With licensees, if they want to get the benefit of
6 updated codes, come in and are required to take the entirety
7 of an updated code, so they have an entirely different set
8 of requirements than what you would otherwise require, or at
9 least to the extent that the ASME code is changing over
10 time, which, as we've heard, might be significant over a
11 period of many decades.
12 I just wonder whether you've -- you're not
13 creating a nightmare for yourself in evaluating plants and
14 in doing inspections with the fact that you have just chunks
15 of things drawn from various places that you're inspecting
16 against with many licensees perhaps deciding they want to
17 use updated codes, which could be several decades newer than
18 the baseline, and just -- you're creating an inconsistency
19 between plants, or among the plants, that seems to me just
20 greatly aggravates your problem of conducting your work, and
21 I wonder if you could comment.
22 MR. MIRAGLIA: Brian addressed that to some
23 extent, but in terms of -- I think what we have to recognize
24 is we looked at where plants are now with respect to codes
25 and the exemptions that are required and consistent with the
75
1 code changes.
2 We essentially have a number of customized plants
3 out there.
4 Brian also alluded to the fact that, at some point
5 in time, as these changes became significant in large
6 numbers, that there would have to be perhaps some
7 codification to say that the '95 update should be codified
8 to some greater extent, and Jack's had numerous experience
9 in this, so I'll let him give you the details.
10 MR. STROSNIDER: This answer may not be totally
11 satisfactory, but I've dealt with this issue from
12 headquarters and from the regional perspective. In fact, I
13 supervised the NDE van that was mentioned in some of the
14 earlier presentation.
15 The situation you're describing exists today, and
16 I say that that may not be very satisfying to hear that, but
17 the fact is, as we indicated, we have plants out there that
18 are operating with codes back as early as 1983.
19 Headquarters, in NRR -- we process about 300
20 relief or alternative requests a year, okay, and the outcome
21 of all that is that basically the ISI programs at the plants
22 are pretty much tailored to those plants, and when the
23 inspectors go out to look at them, it's very unlikely that
24 there's any two of them that look the same, and I say that
25 may not be very satisfying, and you say, well, how can I fix
76
1 that situation, and I'm not sure that there's an easy
2 solution to that.
3 Certainly, requiring updates every 10 years,
4 depending upon when a plant was licensed, is not going to
5 provide that kind of consistency, okay?
6 Understand that, you know, that 10-year update
7 occurs at different times for different people, they would
8 be addressing different codes, and as they look at the more
9 recent edition of the codes, they will -- if they see
10 something that's beneficial, they will request to use that
11 through the alternative or relief provisions of the code.
12 Similarly, we backfit -- we have required issues
13 be implemented -- or code activities be implemented on an
14 accelerated basis, depending upon the significance.
15 There was a lot of discussion this morning about
16 Appendix VIII, performance-based qualification of NDE, about
17 IWE/IWL inspections for containment.
18 Those provisions of the code were put through
19 backfit evaluations by the staff, and we required expedited
20 implementation of those, because they had significant safety
21 implications.
22 MR. MIRAGLIA: Can I add to that, Jack.
23 In terms of the two issues that Jack just raised,
24 those were raised as a result of operating experience.
25 The MOV issue was raised and the agency took
77
1 action to deal with the safety issue based upon operational
2 research experience.
3 That need for a codification of a uniform or
4 standard approach to address those issues were the impetus
5 for IWL/IWE issues.
6 I mean there's a number of processes out here in
7 terms of our regulatory processes that -- it's a mechanism
8 for feeding the need for code requirements.
9 MR. STROSNIDER: So, the response that the ISI
10 programs and the IST programs are these plants are somewhat
11 plant-specific, somewhat tailored to the plant based on
12 their age, based on their design -- it may not be totally
13 satisfactory, but that's the case.
14 If we could come up with a way to make it totally
15 consistent, you know, we'd do that, but I'm not sure that
16 there's really -- that that's really practical.
17 But as I did point out, maintaining 120-month
18 update provision or -- it's independent of whether you have
19 that provision or not.
20 CHAIRMAN MESERVE: But doesn't the proposal as
21 you've described it aggravate the situation in the sense
22 that there is this 10-year update requirement, and it may
23 well be that there are people at various stages in -- when
24 the update requirement triggers, but at least you're dealing
25 with a set of plants that are required to deal with a set of
78
1 codes that are reasonably contiguous in time, whereas what
2 you propose would have -- freeze 1995 with segments --
3 unless you do a total recodification and can justify that
4 through a backfit analysis -- that could extend on into the
5 future, so that over time you'd have a situation -- you'd
6 have even a greater disparity than you're observing today?
7 MR. STROSNIDER: The programs that we look at,
8 that have been submitted under the current requirements --
9 50 percent of the resources, 50 percent of the time in
10 reviewing those programs is looking at alternatives and
11 reliefs, where, in fact, the licensee may be updating to,
12 for example, the '89 edition of the code that's saying, you
13 know, I looked at a code case that was published in '95,
14 '96, '97, I looked at something in one of the more recent
15 editions of the code, and I want to use it, all right?
16 That provision will remain there.
17 Now --
18 MR. MIRAGLIA: The answer to the question, Mr.
19 Chairman, I think, is what we're saying, everybody needs to
20 re-baseline against, in the staff's proposed option, to the
21 '95 with the '96 addenda.
22 What the reality is, is everyone would look at
23 that and Jack would indicate there would probably be a
24 number of exceptions or reliefs from that to permit
25 plant-specific exemption requests because of configurations
79
1 in the plants, for accessibility of welds, and so, it would
2 get everybody up to almost the same place, but with time,
3 you're right, without another re-baselining, we would have
4 -- and then we'd essentially be in the circumstances we are
5 today with the current implementation.
6 MR. STROSNIDER: I'm not convinced that we would
7 see a whole lot more relief requests and alternative
8 requests than we currently see, because we see a lot now.
9 CHAIRMAN MESERVE: I'd like to ask you a question
10 about your slide seven, which is -- as drafted -- you said
11 it a little different orally -- is that option 1 was
12 perceived to -- will increase public confidence by applying
13 backfit, option 2 may increase public confidence, and I'd
14 just make the observation that you've created a -- your
15 proposal would create a barrier to updating through the
16 sense that you have to do a backfit justification before
17 applying the more modern ASME code, and it's not clear to
18 me, particularly given the fact that we have an ACRS letter
19 that's been submitted to us, that going to option 1, as
20 you've described it, will increase public confidence.
21 MR. SHERON: I think "may" is a better word. I
22 don't think we have anything that would say -- we're that
23 positive.
24 CHAIRMAN MESERVE: As opposed to option 2 versus
25 option 1, which one do you think would have the greatest
80
1 public confidence?
2 MR. SCARBROUGH: We were thinking there that, in
3 this case, by being consistent, the consistency, so that it
4 would show that the NRC is applying new requirements in an
5 organized fashion consistently across the board for all new
6 requirements.
7 MR. MIRAGLIA: I think it goes to everybody
8 re-looking at the '95-'96 and making a conscious decision as
9 to what applies versus not, and in the near term, that might
10 have a little stronger, but I think, with time, "may" is
11 probably the better word.
12 MR. STROSNIDER: But I do think one of the
13 difficulties when people are looking at option 1 is they're
14 reading as far as eliminating mandatory updates and they're
15 not reading the rest of the proposal, which says, where
16 there are safety significant changes that we can -- that we
17 feel need to be implemented, that we will do that, okay, and
18 you have to ask yourself the question with the current
19 process.
20 If you have people operating to the 1983 edition
21 of the code, if that were really the case, does that provide
22 confidence?
23 In reality, okay, because of other backfit
24 processes and generic letters and other things that we've
25 done, those people are using -- those plants are using much
81
1 more recent things, but like I said, I think the important
2 thing when we look at option 1 is not to over -- to lose
3 sight of the fact that we are talking about implementing,
4 mandating those aspects of the code, like Appendix VIII,
5 like the containment inspection, IWE/IWL, not in 10 years,
6 all right, but on an expedited schedule.
7 CHAIRMAN MESERVE: I'm misunderstanding something
8 in what you're proposing. We currently require compliance
9 subject to this 10-year update, and the current rule puts us
10 to the 1995 code.
11 What we're considering now is the question of
12 whether, for future -- whether that's every -- going to be
13 amended every 10 years automatically or whether we apply a
14 backfit requirement to this.
15 What I'm failing to understand is how, given the
16 issue that's before us, how that's going to bring us to
17 greater consistency among the plants than our current rule.
18 I mean it seems to me that it doesn't.
19 MR. SHERON: It wasn't intended to --
20 CHAIRMAN MESERVE: I thought I heard you saying
21 that that was one of the things, that we would benefit from
22 this, it would bring everyone up to the '95 level. Well,
23 that's where we are regardless.
24 MR. MIRAGLIA: I think it would say -- what the
25 rule would say is that that would be the mandatory baseline
82
1 that everybody has to start from, and then they have to look
2 at their programs versus that.
3 MR. STROSNIDER: It would bring them to a minimum
4 level.
5 We're not suggesting that there's going to be
6 consistency.
7 As I said earlier, when you look at the
8 plant-specific aspects --
9 MR. MIRAGLIA: Some of them are probably already
10 there.
11 MR. STROSNIDER: That's a very difficult thing to
12 achieve, that sort of consistency.
13 CHAIRMAN MESERVE: Commissioner Dicus?
14 COMMISSIONER DICUS: Following up a little bit on
15 that -- and perhaps you went into this, and if you did, I
16 missed it or it wasn't that clear to me.
17 If we were to backslide, as the Chairman
18 mentioned, which we're -- I don't think we're going to do
19 that, but if we looked at the differences in the last 10
20 years in the codes, what number or how many of them reached
21 the importance level that they would meet the 50.109 test?
22 MR. SCARBROUGH: The ones that we did were
23 Appendix VIII, because when we endorsed -- when we were
24 thinking about doing the endorsement, that was going to be
25 accelerated. That was an accelerated implementation for
83
1 that in this most recent code.
2 So, we know that for sure, and so, that would be
3 what we would consider something to be accelerated.
4 Now, we would have to look at -- there's been a
5 lot of talk about the comprehensive pump test.
6 COMMISSIONER DICUS: Right.
7 MR. SCARBROUGH: We'd have to look at it more
8 carefully and see if that might be one.
9 We didn't look at that at the time we were
10 endorsing the '95 code.
11 The only one that really stood out as meeting the
12 109 test was the one on Appendix VIII.
13 MR. STROSNIDER: But I'd also point out that the
14 endorsement requirement to implement IWE/IWL containment
15 inspections, which was a separate rule-making, was also put
16 through the backfit process and done not on a 10-year
17 schedule but on an expedited schedule.
18 MR. SHERON: The approach right now -- I mean when
19 we were reviewing codes for endorsement in 50.55(a), we
20 obviously in the past have not been looking at them from the
21 standpoint of the backfit rule, because we recognize that we
22 said, you know, it doesn't apply in this case, therefore, we
23 don't need to look at it and make that case.
24 Except in situations where there are substantial
25 increases in requirements, new requirements, those have to
84
1 go through the backfitting process, and as you heard, we put
2 those through the backfit process, and they, indeed, passed,
3 and they were implemented, IWE/IWL.
4 COMMISSIONER DICUS: Okay.
5 MR. SHERON: So, to answer your question, I don't
6 think we have looked to say, had we compared the '95 edition
7 to the '89 edition, how many of those items, notwithstanding
8 IWE/IWL and Appendix VIII, how many of those would have
9 actually passed the substantial increase in safety test. We
10 just haven't done that.
11 COMMISSIONER DICUS: Okay.
12 One quick question, because we are on a time
13 crunch here.
14 It gets into the issue, if we did keep the rule as
15 it stands, and every 10 years, or thereabouts, when there's
16 an update, but in the meantime, if ASME identified something
17 critical enough to bring to our attention, can't we go
18 through the 50.109 process?
19 MR. MIRAGLIA: Yes.
20 COMMISSIONER DICUS: So, we can continue to do
21 this, even if we keep the 10-year rule.
22 MR. MIRAGLIA: The IWL/IWE process is one to show
23 that we didn't wait for the 10 years.
24 The other thing in terms of backfitting, you know,
25 we keep -- if there is any safety issue that we feel needs
85
1 adequate protection, we can do that at any time, and the
2 backfit is for enhancements issues, and so, what we're
3 talking about here within the code is our role in that
4 enhancement-type issue, perhaps a clarification in terms of
5 what is required to comply with the code.
6 MR. SHERON: But I think what we're saying is that
7 we don't really -- as I think Mr. Beedle said, okay, if -- a
8 lot of improvements that were made in the code were
9 basically editorial, okay, in nature, and the like, you
10 know, and to have to have them translate that into their
11 manuals and so forth and retrain their tech staff and the
12 like, where you really can't identify a safety basis for it,
13 what we're saying is we don't believe that's appropriate for
14 the NRC staff to have to require that, okay?
15 Utilities can do that at their option, if they
16 feel it's something they want to do, but we basically are
17 saying we want to focus on those aspects of the code that
18 enhance safety, okay, and those are the ones we will decide
19 if it's necessary and then we will backfit them to be
20 implemented, you now, and we won't wait 10 years, we're
21 going to do it right then, okay, on an expedited basis.
22 CHAIRMAN MESERVE: Commissioner Diaz?
23 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: I think a lot of the things
24 have been asked, but I just want to make a comment.
25 I don't think that editorial changes provide a
86
1 great burden.
2 I mean if they do, then there's something wrong in
3 the process.
4 They provide a slight burden but not a significant
5 burden.
6 I mean the burden is on those things that are
7 really, you know, either safety significant or provide a
8 change in the process.
9 Having said that, a quick question.
10 Are there improvements in regulatory stability and
11 in consistency of the application of the regulatory programs
12 by maintaining the 120-month upgrade?
13 MR. SHERON: I would answer -- and I think we
14 touched on that -- and that is that, you know, as plants
15 come into their update -- and I was just checking with the
16 staff, and my understanding is that, if you plotted the
17 anniversary date, okay, as a function of time, you would see
18 basically a sine-wave moving through the system, okay, where
19 there's a whole group of plants that got licensed around the
20 same time. So, their anniversary date is around that time,
21 you know, and then there's -- but there's tails, okay, that
22 will have different anniversary dates.
23 But given that, combined with, as Jack said, that
24 we get about 300 relief requests a year, which is about --
25 translates to about maybe -- what is that? -- three per
87
1 plant, okay, that each plant basically winds up with a
2 customized ISI/IST program anyway, okay, and then we have a
3 bunch of plants that we hope are going to start taking
4 advantage of the risk-informed ISI/IST, which means they're
5 going to move right out of that whole, you know,
6 deterministic approach with the code and use a different
7 approach, and they're not going to be in a 10-year program
8 anymore.
9 So --
10 MR. STROSNIDER: I would add one other
11 clarification here, just because I want to make sure it's --
12 give a fair evaluation of that.
13 There are some aspects of the code, such as the
14 qualification of personnel -- and UT examiners was
15 mentioned, okay, which that would be more uniform, all
16 right, of course, and I would go back and point out again
17 that that's another one that we captured with Appendix VIII,
18 okay.
19 So, people -- you'd have more uniformity from that
20 perspective.
21 When you talk about which actual welds you're
22 looking at and that sort of thing, that consistency is
23 difficult to --
24 MR. SHERON: That would be captured through a
25 backfit, right?
88
1 MR. STROSNIDER: Yes.
2 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: It appears it might be a more
3 fundamental problem with this issue than the upgrades in the
4 codes, and with that, I yield the rest of my time, which is
5 about five seconds.
6 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: The issue of -- the
7 slide that the Chairman talked about, increasing public
8 confidence -- I think you do have it entirely wrong.
9 I would just say that our European colleagues
10 think we're sort of nuts to have a backfit rule to start
11 with, and I think they backfit whenever they see a benefit
12 commensurate with the cost, and they don't have the
13 substantial benefit test.
14 So, the public -- and from my experience, the
15 public interest folks and the CSAS process -- if you're
16 talking -- if by "public," you mean David Lochbaum and
17 Riccio and company, the backfit rule is not -- and the
18 consistent application of it -- is not the first thing that
19 leaps to their mind in building their confidence.
20 MR. MIRAGLIA: But it relates to and it grew from
21 a concern by the regulated industry that we didn't have
22 regulatory stability and that there needed to be a baseline
23 from which to measure. So, I mean there's arguments on both
24 sides of that.
25 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: To continue on this
89
1 backfit issue, Frank, you've been involved in the fitness
2 for duty paper.
3 I don't know whether the other folks at the table
4 are, but you've been involved in it, and you know how much
5 work has gone into --
6 MR. MIRAGLIA: Yes, sir.
7 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: -- over five years or
8 six years --
9 MR. MIRAGLIA: Yes, sir.
10 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: -- every provision of
11 that, looking at whether it passes a substantial benefit
12 test, coming to the conclusion that many of them did --
13 MR. MIRAGLIA: And that issue --
14 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: -- asking us for 31
15 worthwhile exceptions to backfit.
16 Aren't you setting yourself up in this to end up
17 doing the same darn thing?
18 You're going to have to look at a complex code,
19 you're going to have to look at it piece by piece, you're
20 going to have to parse it, in the end the end the staff may
21 -- the ACRS representative was saying you're going to have a
22 hard time, you know, on a cost-benefit basis to justify some
23 of this.
24 MR. MIRAGLIA: Well, I think --
25 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: It's a qualitative
90
1 argument.
2 I can imagine the future papers on the ASME code
3 and a fitness-for-duty paper yay thick.
4 MR. MIRAGLIA: The only analogy that I would
5 submit in that case is the fitness for duty and the
6 application of the backfit rule have that commonality.
7 I think, in the code cases here, we have applied
8 the backfit rule to implement changes in the code prior to
9 the -- so, can we do it and is there a basis to make
10 quantitative arguments?
11 I think we've demonstrated that in a number of
12 instances.
13 In terms of the fitness for duty, the policy issue
14 that came to the Commission is that the Commission had asked
15 the staff to go back and look at the fitness-for-duty rule
16 after two years of implementation and suggest changes. That
17 came up, and the staff originally looked at the changes in
18 an aggregate.
19 If you look at all of these changes and what the
20 pluses and minuses, it would go forward.
21 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: With the
22 fitness-for-duty paper fresh in mind and Brian Sheron's
23 comment that, maybe in 15 years, we might want to endorse a
24 code case in its entirety, I certainly don't want to be here
25 when that paper comes to us, because I do think, if you --
91
1 MR. MIRAGLIA: Well, I certainly won't be here.
2 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: If the backfit rule is
3 applied the same way to that process as it was applied to
4 the fitness-for-duty process, God forsake the trees in the
5 forest of this country -- God help the trees in the forest.
6 I'll pass.
7 CHAIRMAN MESERVE: Mr. Merrifield.
8 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
9 I have to say to Commissioner McGaffigan, this
10 morning, in discussing this with my staff, I had the exact
11 same reaction to the fitness-for-duty rule. So, you're not
12 alone in that one.
13 I guess my one question for the staff is -- you
14 know, we talked in the last panel and I asked some questions
15 relative to what I would term the NEI benefit test.
16 You stated in your clarifications that, as you see
17 it, you know, we're going to fix ourselves with the '95
18 changes, and then, as we go forward, 20 years down the road,
19 if NEI or one of its members said, gee, we want -- we kind
20 of like the 2010 version relative to these couple of changes
21 here.
22 You basically said, well, if you're in for a
23 penny, you're in for a pound.
24 If you want those changes, you've got to be
25 willing to adopt that whole package.
92
1 Is that --
2 MR. SHERON: No.
3 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: No. Okay.
4 MR. SHERON: Well, you can do it either that way
5 -- if you adopt the entire package and if that package has
6 been endorsed by the staff, then --
7 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: I'm saying in the
8 absence of endorsement.
9 MR. SHERON: Okay.
10 In the --
11 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: Let's say we have
12 affixed it.
13 MR. SHERON: Right.
14 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: We have not changed our
15 baseline, it remains a '95 baseline, but that an individual
16 utility wants to take the benefit of changes relative to a
17 2010 version.
18 MR. SHERON: They can come in and request through
19 the relief process that those two -- and we would evaluate
20 them, and if we believe that --
21 MR. MIRAGLIA: I think there's two issues here.
22 In terms of -- we will look at new codes and
23 endorse codes but not say that they're mandatory.
24 If they want to implement that endorsed code, they
25 have to take the whole thing, and we're going to endorse
93
1 those code changes on a more expedited basis.
2 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: So, if I'm a utility and
3 we're all subject to the '95 code and the Commission has not
4 adopted an update to that, I mean in terms of requiring an
5 update, and utility X says, gee, there's this one change in
6 the 2010 code that I like, you're saying they have to come
7 in and they have to adopt the entirety of that.
8 MR. MIRAGLIA: No. They could adopt the whole
9 code without coming to us.
10 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: What do they have to do
11 to get that change?
12 MR. STROSNIDER: The proposal is, if we, 20 years
13 down the road, have endorsed the 2010 code and a licensee
14 wants to accept it in its entirety, they could do that
15 without coming to us.
16 We'd want them to tell us, but they don't need our
17 approval.
18 They could do it, we've already endorsed it, go
19 take the whole thing.
20 If they see one piece of it that they like and
21 they don't want to take the whole thing, then they would
22 come under -- they would come into the NRC under the
23 existing provisions and request an alternative to whatever
24 code they were baselined at, and we would review that and
25 determine whether it was an acceptable alternative.
94
1 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: Okay.
2 Just so this is clear, they could say we only want
3 that one change from 2010 and submit that to the agency.
4 They wouldn't be required to take the whole thing.
5 MR. STROSNIDER: The difference is we would review
6 it.
7 What we're saying they can't do is go cherry-pick
8 from the 2010 code without NRC reviewing what they're
9 picking, and Mr. Perry pointed out that there has to be --
10 you know, when you look at the code, you've got to make sure
11 you're picking up all the relevant portions, and that's the
12 sort of thing we would be looking at.
13 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: That's my only question,
14 Mr. Chairman.
15 The only thing I would say is you had a line of
16 questioning on this panel in which you stated that what we
17 are perhaps faced with -- you know, we're affixing to '95 --
18 is we may have the potential, at least, for having more
19 changes out there and a lot more variation down the line if
20 we maintain this '95 standard, and I have to say I share
21 your concern about that.
22 We are at a point in this agency where we are
23 asked to be more user-friendly.
24 We're also asked to reduce our costs, and I think,
25 you know, this may be one of those cases where trying to
95
1 meet both of those and have regulatory predictability and
2 have confidence of our stakeholders may be coming into
3 conflict. I think we need to think hard about this one.
4 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
5 CHAIRMAN MESERVE: I'd like to thank the staff and
6 our earlier panel, as well, for a very helpful presentation
7 this morning, and with that, we're adjourned.
8 [Whereupon, at 11:33 a.m., the meeting was
9 concluded.]
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
