ML19289E489
| ML19289E489 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/09/1979 |
| From: | Major R Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19289E490 | List: |
| References | |
| 781205, ACRS-1600, NUDOCS 7904210120 | |
| Download: ML19289E489 (16) | |
Text
.
RKliajor/b s 9
y 1 p,pJ 1/9/79 9%,, h f.I b
[
t b E h u,jia }{ilijuTES OF THE ACRSM9;";
g Mashington, D. C.
/DrL3/t.Qf 0
On December 5,1978, the ACRS Generic Items Subcommittee held a meeting in Washington, D. C. to review the status of the various generic items contained in the Committee's flovember 15,1977, " Status of Generic Items Relating to Light-Water Reactors, Report No. 6."
flotice of this meeting appeared in the Federal Register on Monday, November 20, 1978.
A copy of the notice is attachment A.
A list of attendees and participants is attachment B.
No requests to submit oral or written statements were received from members of the public, and none were made at the meeting.
This meeting was entirely open to the public.
Exec tive Session lir. Bender noted this was the firsi. meeting of the Subcommittee this year.
There had not been a previous meeting this year due to a lack of progress towards resolution of the unresolved items.
He noted that a few items may have reached the stage of resolution.
fir. Bender also hoped to spend some-time reviewing the implementation plans of the resolved generic items to assure tte public that the resolution was meaningful.
Dr. Siess suggested it may be worthwhile to try and coordinate or relate the ACRS generic items list to the staff's generic items list.
In the future, it may be possible to look at the ACRS generic items in relation to the staff's list.
As new generic items arise, it may be possible to get the staff's concurrence that they belong on the staff's list of generic items.
ACRS attention could then be devoted to following the staff's generic items resolution process and implementation process.
In general, Dr. Siess suggested that the Generic l'. cms Subcomittee work toward the objective of reviewing the staff's effort on generic items and not just the ACRS list, especially since the staff's generic items list is broader than the ACRS list.
It would be cashr for the subcommittee to follow THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS 7904210(;;to POGR QUAllTY PAGES
one list by gradually prasing out the separate ACRS list when the staff's generic items list adequately represents the items on the ACRS list.
Progress on the Unresolved Generic Items List Contain in the December 4, 1978, Status Report from H. R. Denton to S. Lawroski (attached).
Item 11-1 Turbine Missiles: The staff is in the process of preparing a NUREG report which will recommend specific requirements on turbine fabrication and operation to reduce the overall damage probability.
It was noted that the results of industry studies aimed at deriving con-tainment penetration, formulas are being factored into the resolution plan for this item.
In order to resolve this item, the staff will make revisions.to the Standard Review Plan which will presumably specify turbine orientation, materials to be used in turbine fabrication, and inspections to be run.
Also to be covered will be the tests of the various turbine stop valves used to pre-vent destructive overspeed conditions.
In addition to Standard Review Plan rodifications, at the conclusion of Task Action Plan A-37, (Turbine Missiles) a NUREG report and possibly some tech, spec. recommendations will be made.
II-2 Effective Operation of Containment Sprays In a LOCA This item is being considered in a soon to be released ANSI standard $bsI H581. This standard will address PWR and BWR containment spray system design. Presently, the staff has plans to endorse this standard through a regulatory guide.
The staff has also recently published a NUREG report (NUREG/CR-0009), entitled, " Technological Bases for Models of Spray Washout of Airborne contaminants in Containment Vessels." This document summarizes theories, principles and experi. mental results in the design and review of containment sprays regarding the fission product removal function.
Mr.
Crocker noted that when the above mentioned Reg. Guide is issued. the staff will consider this item resolved.
,-l..
Mr. Crocker also noted that the staff will accept any of the three spray additives (sodium hydroxide, sodium thiosulfate and hydrazine) used to enhance iodine removal. The staff refuses to endorse any one of the additives, and feels that problems associated with a particular additive is a plant operating problem.
It was suggested that a paper by the staff documenting their position not to endorse any one additive over another could form the basis for the Committee considering this item resolved.
It was also noted that such a paper might also include a discussion of the risk aspect of additives in connection with inadvertant operation weighted against the contri-butien to safety.
The philosphy used by the Germans was cited as material for such a discussion.
The FRG does not require containment sprays.
II-3 Possible Failur of Pressure Vessel Post'-LOCA by Thermal Shock Mr. Crocker noted that work is continuing at Oak Ridge in connection with the llSST program.
Apparently, previous test specimens had a thickness-to-diameter ratio at considerable variance with an actual pressure vessel.
The current proposal is to increase the test vessel size to a 39-inch outside diameter with a 4-inch shell. These tests will attempt to confirm initial results on crack propagation.
In general, the concern relating to thermal shock centers on the early pressure vessels.
The plan for resolution is to conduct the additional shock tests on the larger diameter vessel models.
II-5A Monitoring for Loose Parts Inside The Pressure Vessel It was noted little had been done on this item since the last staff report.
Presently, the staff requires a conmitment from applicants and licensees to install a loose parts monitor.
At the present time, however, staff requirements remain to be established.
Mr. Crocker noted that he was not certain whether the staff had a commitment from all plants to install a loose parts monitor.
It was noted that unless informed to the contrary by the staff, the subconmittee will assume the staff has a commitment to r--
-l 4
install loose parts monitors on all plants.
The subcommittee would be willing to present this item to the Committee as resolved using the commitment to install monitors in all plants as the basis for resolution.
II-5B Monitoring For Excessive Vibration Inside The Reactor Pressure Vessel Mr. Crocker noted that there had been no change in the status of this item since the staff's last report to the Comittee.
The item is approved as a Category B task.
Currently, a task action plan is under development.
It was noted that neutron noise equipment may be useful for detecting vibrations in the core barrel, other devices may be necessary to detect vibrations in other pressure vessel components.
The subcomittee agreed it would be desirable to better define what is re-quired in a vibration detector.
Background information on the origin of this item will be prepared and it will be brought before the full Committee in order to improve the definition of this item.
Mr. Crocker noted that the staff's problem description currently involves assessing the need for, and if necessary, developing criteria for acceptable vibration monitoring systems.
~
II-6 Non-Random Multiple Failures.(Former1.y "Conmon Mode Failure")
II-6A Scram Systems Mr. Crocker noted that Scram systems translates to ATUS.
He noted the Committee has had several meetings with the staff on this item and more are scheduled for the future.
Mr. Bender conceded the Committee is being kept informed on the ATWS situation.
II-6B Alternating Current Sources Hr. Crocker observed that for emergency onsite power, Task B-56 is dealing with diesel reliability.
Task action plan A-35 is addressing the adequacy of offsite power systems.
The staff will evaluate the need, if any, to upgrade the offsite power source. Task.A-44 is looking into the surviv-ability of plants without any AC power.
Mr. Aycock remarked that the new I-
, task action plan A-44, " station b'lackout," will try to determine whether or not station blackout should be a design basis.
In addition to surviability without AC power, fir. Bender noted it would also be appro-priate if the task action plan addressed the question of time until restoration of AC power.
II-6C Direct Current Systems Mr. Crocker observed that the current staff position on direct current systems is stated in liUREG-0305, which defines a minimum acceptable DC power system.
The system is basically comprised of two physically independent systems. The staff is looking into the reliability of the DC power systems again.
The end product will be another liUREG report which will document the analyses performed and develop a staff position, perhaps revised, on the adequacy of the existing DC power system.
Completion is scheduled for mid '79.
II-8 BWR Pump Overspeed During A LOCA and II-A-2 PWR Pump Overspeed During a LOCA Even though the resolution of these two items may be differer.t, it was decided to try and consolidate them into one generic item.
The overall staff effort on pump overspeed is included within task acticn plan, B-68.
A current G.E. position concludes that a decoupler between the ' pump and motor is not required since potential missiles resulting from overspeed of both the motor or impeller would be contained within the motor housing o'r pump casing.
The staff is currently evaluating the G.E. data.
Should the staff conclude the G.E. analysis is unacceptable, decouplers would in all probability be considered as a possible solution.
Mr. Bender en-couraged the staff to study the German decoupler approach and noted decouplers are in use.
PWR vendors are arguing that even at 400% overspeed (CE in particular) pump impellers will remain intact.
Research to detennine the maximum amount of overspeed possible.following a LOCA is being conducted.
Results are lower than previously predicted.
F
s
. II-9 The Advischility of Seismic Scram Mr. Crocker remarked that there had been little progress made since the last report to the Comnittee. At that time, the Comnitice felt that the staff should not be looking at an anticipatory type trip system, but rather a system that might trip in the range of 1/2 to 2/3 of the SSE.
It was further suggested that the staff contact the Japanese to find out what they are doing in their plants relative to seismic scrams.
To date, there has been no formal reply from the Japanese.
- However, informal discussions with the Japanese indicate that they do, in fact, have seismic scrams on their plants.
Mr. Crocker was uncertain whether or not a 2/3 SSE scram would be an advantage. Since the scram is no longer anticipatory, it doesn't reduce the load on the ECCS.
The only advantage he could see was to scram after the first shock if the first shock was a prelude to a much larger shock.
Mr. Crocker also mentioned that he personally objected to trying to scram the reactor with all the required valve and equipment motion superimposed on top of earthquake loads.
Mr. Bender noted that for the purpose of resolving this item what is required of the staff'is a statement as to why the Japanese are requiring a seismic scram.
Secondly, it would be helpful to have sone different assessments that address the pros and cons of a less sensitive seismic scram than was considered in the original staff study.
If the staff can not get a formal reply from the Japanese, the staff's impressions based on conversations with expert Japanese along with the staff's own position may form a basis for resolving this item.
II-10 ECCS Capability For Future Plants The present status of this item is contained in the Decemb r 4,1978 status report on unresolved ACRS generic items from H. Dent on to S. Lawroski on pages 23a - 23d.
This item remains unresolved.
~
iib-2 Qualification of New Fuel Geometribs The staff believes this item is resolved.
The procedures outlined in Revision 1 of Section 4.2 of the Standard Review Plan call for the review of a program of prototype testing, lead assembly irradiation, and fuel surveillance. This will insure that future fuel design changes are adequately reviewed.
The subcommittee agreed to propose this item to the full Committee as resolved.
II-4 Instruments to Detect (Severe) Fuel Failures The staff noted that the current instruments used to detect fuel failures are quite sensitive, they will detect not only severe fuel failures but minor failures as well.
However, they don't act very rapidly and, there-fore, are not useful as devices to generate scram signals.
(The instruments derive their sensitivity in part from time delays of a few minutes that permit background activity to decay.)
The staff explained that to get detectors to generate scram signals, the level of effort on this item must be elevated.
Mr. Bender observed that if the staff feels that from a practical standpoint better fuel failure detectors will not be forth coming and the staff is satisfied with current detectors, they shooid present their view to the Committee.
It was decided that the staff should present their concerns to the full Committee on this item.
II-7 Behavior of Reactor Fuel Under Abnormal Conditions Mr. Meyer noted that this item really relates to everything the NRC staff does.
The topic is so general that it is difficult to resolve.
Dr. Siess remarked that behavior of reactor fuels under abnormal conditions was a recommendation to operate PDF.
It was a recommendation to encourage analytic modeling and testing in PDF to study fuel failure propagation, autocatalytic effects, flow blockage, and so forth.
A paper from the staff which states what is being done in the PDF would be responsive to
8 11-7, and might lead to resolution.
It was suggested that this item could possibly be redefined by the Committee in terms of fuel failure propagation.
It was noted that the Committee could decide whether PBF is responsive to this item.
II A-1 Ice Condenser Containments This effort is mainly involved with code work.
A code for the long term, post accident, ice melting analysis (contempt - 4 MOD 2) has been developed at IllEL, verification and maintenance of the code and ice condenser containment design evaluation analyses will be performed in CY-79. The subcommittee observed triat ice condenser plants were being licensed.
Mr. Crocker was not sure if they were approved on an accepted model basis or case-by-case. The staff will review this item and see if an approved model exists.
If this is the case, the staff may take a position on this item and move for resolution.
II A-3 Steam Generator Tube Leakage tir. Crocker noted that this item is being pursued under t.hree separate category A tasks by the staff, one for each of the reactor vendors.
It was mentioned that the ACRS concern was very specific, it concerns ti.e effect of steam generator tube failures on performance during a LOCA.
Mr. Crocker noted that the on-going programs were addressing this concern.
These projects are aiming towards completion in the early 1980s.
It was recommended that the exact nature of the resolution for this item be better defined by the staff.
II.A-4 Periodic (10 year) Review of All Power Reactors There has been no change in this item since the last subcommittee meeting.
The staff's view. remains that the systematic evaluatic. program accomplishes what the Conmittee had in mind for the 10 year review.
It was mentioned that the staff's program is for a one time review of 11 operating plants. After this initial review, a decision will be made based on the results as to whether the program shculd be extended to other operating reactors.
The original ACRS request was for a review program for all reactors that had periodicity built into the program.
The subcommittee suggested this item be referred to the Reactor Operations Subcommittee to decide whether or not to redefine this issue in light of the staff's Systematic Evaluation Program and the staff's recommendations regarding the review of LERs.
II/B-1 Computer Reactor Protection Systems The staff noted a great deal of activity on this item.
Notably, the activity on the CE Core Protection Calculator System (CPCS) which has been re-viewed in conjunction with the Arkansas Nuclear One-Unit 2 operating license application.
Also discussed with the Committee has been the RESAR-414, integrated protection system, a Westinghouse design.
The B&W RPS II system has not been completely discussed with -the Comittee.
The staff's current intent is to develop generic review procedures to handle systems like these in the future.
To date, all these systems are still under review with a number of outstanding issues associated with each item.
IIrB-3 Behavior of BWR Mark III Containments Mr. Crockcr noted that the staff is basically content with the current information on the Mark III containment design.
At the present time, the staff is waiting for experimental confirmation of the Mark III design.
The issue should be resolved by the time an OL application is reviewed for a Mark III containment.
II B-4 Stress Corrosion Cracking In BWR Piping At the present time, the staff has reinstituted the pipe-crack task force.
The task force is expected to issue a report in January 1979.
At that time, the s\\aff will decide on a course of action.
r
II C-1 Locking Out of ECCS Power-0perated Valves This generic item has been considered during the development of the siaff's technical activities program.
It is included in the scope of Task No. B-8.
A ask action plan for this activity is currently under development.
The approach to be taken in the task action plan was not known at the time of the meeting.
II C-2 Design Features to Control Sabotage There is currently an interoffice grotp assigned to this generic item.
The bulk of the work is being done by or through Sandia.
Various design concepts are being identified and examined for feasibility, cost, and effectiveness.
It was noted that the original concern was to call attention to sabotage protection in the original design of plants.
This has been accomplished.
The staff will continue to study the issue through its technical acti-vities program.
If the staff provides a document that supports the idea this item is resolved through the amount of attention it is receiving, then the subcommittee will propose this item to the Committee for their con-sideration.
~
II.-C-3A Decontamination of Reactors.
This item is a category A task action plan (A-15).
The immediate effort at this time is to follow the Dresden decontamination program.
Following the Dresden experiments, the staff will assess the results and decide on a further course of a' tion.
IItC-3B Deconmissioning of Reactors The staff is waiting for and ev'aluating the results of two studies.
A study by the Atomic Industrial Forum has been completed. A Battelle Northwest study is still underway.
After receipt of the final reports, a policy may be established.
Reference was made to the work being done in the Federal Republic of Germany regarding deconmissioning of plants.
. II C-4 Vessel Support Structure This item deals with asymmetric blowdown loads.
This is a category A task action plan (A-2). The staff is nearing resolution of this item for PWRs. The staff requires that applicants make an analysis of their plant to ensura it is designed to withstand these loads.
The issue has now been extended to BURS.
Although the staff feels this issue may apply to BWRs, it is not expected to be as significant as in PWRs.
II C-5 Water Hammer The staff believes they have solved large portions of this item.
The item is being addressed in task action plan A-1.
This item is expected to be resolved by early summer 1979.
It is expected that resolution will be in the form of generic approaches that will have to be applied on' a plant-specific basis.
II C-6 Maintenance and Inspection of Plants The staff is studying thi.s issue through a category B task action plan.
Industry (AIF and EPRI) has a long term program to examine means of reducing radiation levels, and exposures in plants.
It was remarked that there could be no end to the improvements' made as experience is gained.
The staff agreed to attempt to define a basis for resolution applicable to this item. The basis for resolution could take the line of argument that by virtue of the task action plan and industry involvement, adequate support and attention is being paid to this item.
II C-7 Behavior of BWR Mark I Containments The staff has two task action plans addressing this item.
Task action plan A-6, which has been completed, dealt with the Mark I short term program.
Task action plan A-7 dealing with the Mark I long term program is scheduled for completion in 1979.
It is expected that all test work will be completed and plans for revision of the Mark I containment will be established in 1979 and this will constitute resolution.
r- -
II D-1 Safety Related Interfaces Between Reactor Island and Balance of Plant This item is almost completed, the staff is preparing final documentation.
Completion of work on this item is expected in about a month.
The staff is presently implementing the requirements for interfaces, as identified in NUREG 0102, and in its review of SSARs.
Upon final documentation as an Appendix to R.G.1.70, the staff considers that this issue will have been resolved.
The staff report on the status of ACRS generic items lists an item II[D-1B called " Systems Interactions In Nuclear Power Plants."
It was decided not to include this item arbitrarily in the Committee's list without appropriate Committee action.
Although Committee attention has been given to this subject, it was not formally included by the Committee in its list of generic items.
4 II 0-2 Assurance of Continuous Long-Term Capability of Hermetic Seals On Instrunentation and Electrical Equipment A category C task action plan has been prepared, but has not been approved.
At the present time, no work is going on in this area.
II E-1 Soil Structure Interactions This subject has been included in the scope of task action plan A-40 on seismic design.
The staff _aticipates completing a report on soil structure interaction during the first quarter of 1979.
Comoletion of this task will require incorporation of the results into a Regulatory Guide or the Standard Review Plan.
Implementation of Resolved Generic Items
'Mr. Crocker noted that a request was made to the Division of Operating Re-actors to review their plants and note precisely how each resolved generic item was implemented on a particular plant.
Output from this project is still six months away.
It was suggested that asking licensees to update their position on each of these items may be one method of accomplishing
. the staff's review.
In a specific case resolved item ID-2, " Instrumentation to Follow the Course of an Accident," was placed on the resolved list in 1976.
The document which resolved it, Regulatory Guide 1.97 Revision 1, has still to be implemented.
Originally, a lead plant concept was to implement this guide. This was abandoned in favor of an overall implementation program on which the staff is working with the A.I.F.
Mr. Bender asked Mr. Crocker to put together a report telling the Committee how the staff will update the status of implementation of the resolution actions associated with the resolved g_eneric items.
The Committee would be interested in the amount of time this project will take.
If it is possible to do part of the project in a significantly shorter time span than the total effort, i
.nay be appropriate to present the partial findings to the Subcommittee or Committee.
Mr. Bender stressed this project should include all plants, those operating and those under c.onstruction.
SECY-78-616, Reporting the Progress of Resolution of " Unresolved Safety Issues" In the NRC Annual Report Mr. Aycock gave a brief overview of this document.
This information has to be supplied in the Annual Report which the Congress has requested by the end of January.
The Congress wants this information available prior to reviewing the NRC budget.
The paper attempts to separate the unresolved safety issues from the environmental issues, and issues aimed at improving the staff's independent review capabilities.
Requirements (Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974) row call for the staff to report only the unresolved safety issues to Congress. This paper takes the 133 generic issues in the NRR program and decide which ones qualify for reporting to Congress.
The paper is divided into four sections.
Section 1 is a summary of the paper. is a draft of the annual report section to Congress.
. The second enclosure describes the methods used in preparing the draft report section.
The third enclosure is a draft report prepared by the probabilistic assessment staff that provides a risk-based look at each of the generic issues.
This was used to set the priorities of these issues. On page 3 of the report, the fourteen unresolved safety issues arrived at by the staff ere listed.
' The fourteen issues were chosen by the Technical Activities Steering Committee, chaired by Mr. Case and the four NRR division directors.
They picked each item on the basis of how closely it fit the definition developed by the staff of an unresolved safety issue.
"An Unresolved Safety Issue is a matter affecting several nuclear power plants for which it is likely that actions will be taken to (1) compensate for a possible major reduction in the degree of protection of the public health and safety, or (?) provide a potentially significant de-crease in risk to the public health and safety."
No Committee action was sought on this paper.
Mr. Aycock noted it was for the Committee's information.
The paper was sent to all members on December 6,1973.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:40 P.M., December 5,1978.
A complete transcript of the meeting is on file at the NRC Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. or can be obtained from ACE Federal Reporters, Inc., 415 Second Street,.N.
E.,
Washington, D. C. (202-547-6222).
e e
~~
MINUTES OF THE ACRS GENERIC ITEMS SUBCOMMITTEE December 5, 1978 Washington, D. C.
ATTENDEE LIST ACRS M. Bender, Chairman S. Lawroski C. Siess J. McKinley, Staff R. Major, Designated Federal Employee,
NRC STAFF L. Crocker M. Aycock R. Meyers J. Carter PUBLIC R. Borsum (B&W)
W. Bradley (Stone & Webster)
C. Grochnal (Stone & Webster)
C. Fonner (Bechtel Corp.)
D. Jaffee (NUS Corp.)
H. Shirley (G.E.)
e e
9 e
(
.. u J,.s...,m.:.-..@ w...it.. w a.:n W9.%w a.n & <aWEN M.W ~ W Lw jg 54147 I)
~
s.
NOTICES 1
mmittee and Working Group
- Regulatory Act;rif t s. January 3l 1979, 11ccessary time during the meeting for jngs tisus!!y begin at 8:30 a.rn.
Wash!naton. D.C. The subcommittee wt!! such statements.
review working papers and future regula-. The agenda for subject inceting txact time when items ILsted on tory guides; abo. it s til discuss pertinent sW1 be as folicws:
trenda will be discurzsed durir.g
%mmittee mcetings and when ing process and/or reactor operstions.
TL7 DAY. DecEusen 5,1978
- '.mittee and Working Gro;p Notice of this meeting was puoli:.hed Oc-
, will Start will be published tober 20,1978 (46 ITt 49080).
. ' (Lt. Infr1L THE CONCLUS1o?
ntcly 15 days prior to each
- Spent EucJ Storage, Janusry 3.1979 (after-bus! NESS.
55 Information as to whether a noon). Washington. D.C. The Subcommit-
". U.JbcomJnittee may meet in EX-Lee will review the proposed rule devel-. ecuti.e Session, with any of 1" (onsul-ha.s been firinly scheduled ped by the NRC on Licensime Itequire.
'2 or rescheduled
- or whether mcnts for the Storage of Spent Fuelin an tant.1 w ho may be present, t3 explore es h' ave been made in the c':enda Independent Spent Fuct Etcrase Installa-and exchange their preffmh. sry opin-M December 1978 ACRS full tion t !5FSIL fons regardmg matters wir 'n should
-ittec meeting can be obtained
- zitr--ne ntented Phenomena. January 9-be considered during the r. ceting and
.npaid telephone call to the liriy ias vecas. Nev. The subcommittee to formalate a report anu recommen-
.' the Executive Director of the u d. rc aew NRC socnsored research re-dations to the full comm,.,. 4 2 (telephone 202/G34-3267*
gare - scumle design of nuclear power - At the conclusion of (. Executive p:r Notice of this meettne was pub.
Itt J:tober 20.1978 (43 FR 49080).
Session, the St.bcommit. will hear
.y E. Vanderholt) between
. c.ud 5 p.m e.s.t.
. Rep vy Actirtties. February 7 1979.
presentations by and h1 Jcussions hisrien. D.C. The Subcommittee will with representatives of (.
.dC Staff.
I I
.uMMirrrE AfrD WoRFJNo Caoor rew w working papers and future regula-rad their consultants, pc int to the r
Narrmas tory rutdes: also. it vetit discuss pertLnent a
p s.
may JDynamics. November F.*n-30,1978.
methities whtch affect the current licens. then caucus to determin.
mther the a Francisco. Calif. The -
mmmittee ing process and/or reactor operations.
matters identified in thu aal session
!ciect with representat..
f the NRC fruss and review the c.
i basts and ACRS Fcu.Couvrrrrr Mzrrmc5 have been adequately.vvered and whether additional rm angs of the g
s'ruction of the f.! ark 11 imang Water December 7-9. 1978: ' Reactor Safety Re.
.ator (BWR) Conta!nmt. 6 vtt era. Tne scarch-ACR3 Annual Report to Con.
Subcommittee wdl be rmutred.
In addition, it may t>
necessary for vt 11 load definition, w.4 acceptance
- ress.
c:ta, and load comb;nauon methods January 4-8.1479: Agenda to be announced. the Subcommittee to noid one or more at p er r 21 tc r 0,
" ""C*d' ploring matters involving proprietary g
' hember 13. 1973 U3 nt cG.
Information. I have determined, in ac-L er4 52566. respectiretre.
- Dated: No.-. wr15.1978.
-t E!ccincal systens. Deu :
' t.
Cordance with Subsection 10(d) of
, JonN C. Hort.r Public Law 92-M3. that. ::hould such
-htnaton, D.C. Pongaea,
a n.
a dt'isory Commst ce sc:sfons bc recu red it is necessary to te; itice of inis sr.ceting v.a no.
Afanagement O//tccr.
close these senons to protect propri-
.mber 20.1978 (43 FR 4WM.
. $7$eYut onm[u fe tFR Doc;78-32564 Ftled 11-17-78; 8.45 am) etary iniorman1 (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)
C3 U))-
' e'.atus of the various generte items i urther. Irv mation regarding.
a Aed in the Committee's November topics to be c med, whether the If77 Status of Genene items itelat.
[7MO-ObfA]
meeting has be ancelled or, resche-l m Usht. Water Reactors. Iteport No.
ACVISORY COMMITTEE ON KEACTOR SAFE.
duled, the Ch mn's ruling on re.
15 10tice of this meeting was puca.shed C.UAitDS, SUCCOMMITTEE CH uaMAt,3uests for the o.wrtunity to present j ' der 20.1978 t43 FR 490M.
.:sfory Actirtlics. December 6.1978.
I7tMS ggggjcu oral staternents and the tinie allotted
[1.htngton. D.C. 'I he Sut. committee wdl therefor can t)e obtained by a prepaid a
Oki sorking papers and future teruta.
. Meeting telephone call La tne Designated Fed-0 :uldes; also it will di.scuss ptrtanent ACRS.%bcommittee on Gener-eral Employee for this meeting. Mr.
7
!.tdes shich affect the current heerts.
t process and/or reactor crerations. ic. as will ; 3 a meeting on Decem-Richard K. Major (telephone 202-634-M be of this meeting sas taubushed Oc-ber
- D7e.
8.oom 1045.1717 H 1414) between 8:15 a.m. and 6 p.m l =v20.1978 (43 Fit 490SM.
Sht NW-Otington, D.C. 20555, e.s.t.
15 u
Daember 6 1973, in revtew tlu mus of the various ge.
Dated: November 15.1978.
,.*.ee6 Reactors.
- tngton. D.C. Itescheduled f rom No.
ncrte items cWatned in the Commit-JoRN C. Hon.E.
I %.l.1978. Washin.rton. D.C. The
! umuntttee stil continue its reslew of teu's November 15.1917. Status of
" Adt:fsory Committee ders related to NHC L,sonsored re.
Generic Items Relating to 147hg.
Manageret Of/W.
{ J-h en the safety of advanced tractor Water llenctors. Report No. G. Notice Na Nottee of this meeting sas pub-of this meetmc wns published on Octo-
'[FR Doc. 78-32563 Filed 11-17-78; 8:45 am)
- d Odoter 17, 20. and at (43 Pit bu 20 H3 FR 4MO).
,' ?2.0080 and 507G3. respectively).
. In accord.utee with the procedures
' Wf Engincer tratance of plant. De-k N -OI*M}
CY ^
outilned in the 14pr3tA1. ltt elsTt3t on Vt it.1978. Washington. D.C. The
.m ?..
3
'numittee slit restew the I'luor power October 4.1978 (43 FR 45926). oral or (Docket No. 504481
',Ms. Inc Italance of l'tuit Standard Written statements me.y be presented Ift y
pu
. recoMnt s ALA8AMA POWER CO.
toit at
\\ 11
- t E##"
U" "U. t h ose
% Iteference 14atem ts HAtt-lus portions of the meeting when a tran.
.tssuance of Amendment to foolity Opeeseles f t brtllminary destru sipprmal. Nuttee W ****
t% hicettna ans rubitshed October 20 teript is being kept, nn<l questions may IM1 Fit 490ro).
be tuked only by rnemt'crs of the Sut -
The U.S. Nuctent Regulatory Com-4 helear Power Stato,s. t/nif Na 2.
ccm:nittee. Its coruultraatt
- nnd Staff. mis:ilon (the Commission) has lasued ftt l'
d" 1'er*.ons destring to annke orrd estate-Amendment No. G to Facility Operat.
f mnts should notify the DCstr.nated ins: IJcenac No. N1'F-2. issued to Ala.
% Pubite Eerstce Ehetric A taas Co.
Federal Etnployre as far In advance as bnma l'ower Co. (the llecitec). which
'allMme to operate 11 nit No. 2 of this M Wotice of thh nwettna was pub-practicable so that appropriate ar-revised Technical bpecificntions for I
rangesnenta can be mado to a!!ow the operation of the Joseph M. Parley Nu.
,]4 0dober 30.1978 (43 Fat twom, e
- n..
ftDt;;Al, 310t5t12. VOL. 43,140.'124-440HOAY, NOVrM812 30,1973
.v.;..
.u "M
'