ML19214A095
| ML19214A095 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/11/2019 |
| From: | NRC/RES/DE |
| To: | |
| Ching Ng | |
| References | |
| Download: ML19214A095 (3) | |
Text
1 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING
SUMMARY
Title:
Public Meeting on Branch Technical Position 3-4 Meeting Identifier: 20190560 Date of Meeting: June 11, 2019 Location: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North, O9-B4 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Type of Meeting: Category 2 Purpose of the Meeting: To discuss Branch Technical Position (BTP) 3-4 criteria for postulating pipe rupture locations and proposed alternatives.
Summary:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) held a Category 2 public meeting on June 11, 2019 from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. eastern daylight savings time (EDT). NRC, Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), vendors, and industry representatives participated in the meeting.
Specific attendees of the meeting are listed in the Appendix. All meeting presentations are available in Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Package No.
Michael Benson, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES), began the meeting by presenting a history of stakeholder feedback regarding the cumulative usage factor (CUF) criterion in BTP 3-4. This presentation also summarized the contents of a forthcoming NRC Technical Letter Report (TLR).
Gary Stevens, EPRI, provided a presentation summarizing the content of EPRI Technical Report No. 1022873, Improved Basis and Requirements for Break Location Postulation, which documents EPRIs recommendations on postulating break locations. This report proposes a risk-informed alternative to the current BTP 3-4 criteria. As an action from a previous public meeting, NRC staff agreed to informally review and comment on this document. As a direct follow up to Gary Stevens presentation, Robert Tregoning (RES) presented on the staffs informal comments on the EPRI technical report.
For the final presentation of the day, Timothy Nowicki, Westinghouse Electric Company, discussed the impact of the BTP 3-4 CUF criterion on the design process for the AP1000.
Understanding such impacts can be useful to the staff in weighing the compliance burden versus the safety benefit of staff positions. Westinghouses discussion was complemented by industry discussion over the phone.
No members of the general public attended this meeting or addressed the NRC staff during the public comment portion of the agenda.
2 Action Items/Next Steps:
- 1. EPRI will consider formulating and then implementing an approach to identify and quantify the burdens associated with implementation of the BTP 3-4 criteria for existing reactors and new plant designs. If possible, this approach should address ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 piping design criteria.
- 2. NRC will evaluate the feasibility of making changes to the BTP 3-4 criteria and will identify a suitable approach for developing the corresponding technical basis for such changes. Possible examples are criteria related to CUF and allowable stresses for ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 piping.
- 3. NRC and EPRI will coordinate a follow-on public meeting to discuss the findings, technical and regulatory implications, and path forward associated with the work to address the above two actions.
3 Attendee List:
Name Organization Rob Tregoning NRC Gary Stevens EPRI Tim Nowicki Westinghouse Glenn White Dominion Engineering, Inc.
Y. C. (Renee) Li NRC Ian Tseng NRC Kamal Manoly NRC Kaihwa Hsu NRC Sunil Weerakkody NRC Tom Loomis Exelon Jeff Poehler NRC Mehdi Reisifard NRC Chakrapani Basavaraju NRC Jana Bergman Curtiss Wright Raj Iyengar NRC Wayne Lunceford EPRI Terry Herrmann Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Bob Carter ERPI Mark Wilson SNC Nuclear Development Mark Gray Westinghouse Craig Harrington EPRI