ML20010B831
| ML20010B831 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/03/1981 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Mark J Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8108180207 | |
| Download: ML20010B831 (4) | |
Text
PJG 0 31981 DISTRIBUTION:
' Central mle H. Shapar R. Mattson NRC PDR C. Michelson T. Murley l
W. Dircks H. Denton R. Vollmer l
K. Cornell E. Case B. Snyder
[.
T. Rehm PPAS (ED0-10679)
H. Thompson V. Stello D. Eisenhut TSB R/F (ED0-10679) l R. Minogue S. Hanauer TSB ACRS File G. Zech P. Brandenburg (ED0-10679)
SECY (3) (81-0919)
Dr. J. Carson f tark, Chaiman -
s,w m 4 l
Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards l
U. S. Suclear Regulatory Connission trashington, D. C.
20555 i
Dear Dr. !! ark:
This is in response to your letter of July 14, 1981, in which you sunnarize the Comittee's coments and reccmendations regarding potential safety inprovenents which could be incorporated into new designs for nuclear power plants.
Yeur coments on this very important subject are appreciated and will be given careful considcration by the staff as the requirenents for future LilRs are developed. 11e agree that the !!RC should define its changed requirenents on a timely basis. However, we feel that we will be in a better position to do so in about three years since a consolidation ~of those new requirecents nust necessarily await the completion of ongoing rulemaking efforts in various areas. These include siting, hydrogen control, ATilS, nininun ESF and degraded core cooling.
In the neantine, however, a nunber'of the ACRS reconnendations are being addressed by the sta ff. ficetings have been recently held with General Electric and
!!estinghouse regarding their plans for future LURs.
These meetings were l
considered to be very useful and infomative.
In addition, efforts have l
begun in areas similar to the first four "possible approaches" specifically l
recomended in your letter and the staff will review and consider the l
remaining approaches identified as well as your other connents.
l Ue look fo:vard to working with the Connittee nenbers as the safety requirenentsaredevelopedandrequestyourcontinuedinteg w
support.
[
A
/3 p%
.Ls.g6 Sincerely,
/
'j fg l
(SignetD William J.Dircks (E.f AUC 0 51981 * -9:
l t u.s.mg g ma 7 llillian J. Dircks rp+.O
'0 A Executive Director for s
V l
0108180207 810803
/
l PDR MISC h
/
1 PDR
\\
n ').
.V
- SEEPREVIOUSSHEETFORCONCUgENCE
[jf h
mm.....T a m a8 *.......DS.T.:.aR3*...
PGas...
?.?ta,W....
....a:
.... zona.
........'..... !.f.
l
.u- >.99.zech.a.u.i.......v.t.e.l.ex......$..uhg,sgn,,,,,E9$,,s e,,,,,,,,,
,y,R,
,,p,g,,,,,,,,W9,{
l
..Z228/81,,,,,,,,,zzasza1,,,,,,,,,,zz,gy /,8,1.,,,zz,1 81,..,, 7,tcp,,t,8,,1,,,,...,gzJ,zgl.,,.............3.......,
om>
wac ronu ais com> Nacu o24o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usom an-awso
i DISTRIBUTION:
Central File H. Shapar R. Mattson NRC PDR C. Michelson T. Murley
-W. Dircks H.=Denton R. Vollmer K. Cornell E. Case B. Snyder T. Rehm PPAS (ED0-10679)
H. Thompson V. Stello D. Eisenhut TSB R/F (ED0-106 )
Minogue S. Hanauer TSB ACRS File G. Zech Dr. J. Carso !! ark, Chairman P. Branden rg 'ED0-10679)
Advisory Com tee on Reactor Safeguards SECY (3) 81-0919) llashington, D.
20555
SUBJECT:
NEll SAFE C0flCEPTS FOR FUTURE C0llSTRUCT _ff Cear' Dr. ffark:
This is in response to y ur letter of July
, 1981, in which you sunnarize the Connittee's coments d recomendatio s regarding potential safety inprovenents which could incorporated nto new designs for nuclear pow.
plants.
Your connents on thise very inp rtan subject are appreciated and will be given careful consideration by e taff as the requirements for future LURs are developed. lie agree th the NRC should define its changed requirements on a timely basis, u feel we will be in a better position to do so in about three years ince consolidation of those new requirements must necessarily. await the c -pletion f ongoing rulenaking efforts in various areas including si ng, hydrog control, ATHS, nininun ESF and degraded core cooling.
I the meantine, owever, a number of the ACRS recomendations are bei addressed by th staff. !!cetings have been recently held with Cen al Electric and lles inghouse regarding their plans for future LilRs These meetings were nsidered to be very useful and informative.
I addition, efforts have b un in areas similar to the first four "po sible approaches" rpecifica y reconnende? in ~your letter and the st ff will review and consider th ' remaining approaches identified as k 1 as your other coments.
We look forwa d to working with the Comittee acnbe as the safety requilenent are developed and request your continue interest and support.
t Hillian J. Dirckr.
Executive Director for Operat ons l
PPAS:NRR HLThompson l
i h y-7/
/81 TSBdikRU
..J.... g...............DD : NRR D:NRR-EDs OFFICE)
GGZech/LLM TH.urley EGCase HRDenton WJDircks i
SUXNAME)
.... 7../.g./. 8..1......7./..[..../8.1....
. 7../........./.8.1.... l...././........./.8..1....
... 7../........./.8.1..
......i
=E, s,.c roa m no.n nacu oua OFFICIAL. RECORD COPY use= =-on
f e
n
-,c
, y-
'd F ROM:
ACTibN CONTROL DATES-CONTROL NO.
~s.
]
1 COMPL DEADLINE,,,,,,,
~ $ Q L7 7 Q -*- '
'/CR$;
J. CAPSOR $Fk,
ACKNOWLEDG MENfT dl #
DATE OF DOCUMENT g
4 (NTERIM REPLY m
TO:
PREPAftt'PCf%%GNATUR E OF:
FINAL REPLY
[t O CHAIRMAN.
$bI$NU b$IEd!D FILE LOCATION.
~
O EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 1HER:
DESCRIPTION O LETTER O MEMO _ O REPORT- 0 OTHER SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS
.!;rd SATETY C05 CUTS FOR IUTtJ2E
~
T
~
POR Suspense 7/17/31 CGISTRUCT104
-r CLASSIFIED DATA DOCUMENT /CQPY NO.
CLASSIFICATION l NUMBER OF PAGES CATEGORY.
POSTAL REGtSTRY NO.
. O NSI O Ro O FRD s
l ASSIGNED TO:
-DATE INFORMATION ROUTING LEG AL REVIEW D FIN A L-O COPY' ASSIGNED Tor DATE NO LEGAL OBJECTIONS h@AL44%, MhL iii 5/si-Dircis ibper NOTIF'(a 4ecn 1/15/ai Corr. ell MichelsenM l:Ch4 0 "dkr0 EDO ADMIN & CORRES BR l
~
Keh Contn1 Fii n 3.
I'r r a?.
2J7 tibMMENTS, NOTIFY.
Stallo case 4
H-i.ie - E Fd' I
Jtigga - NDY _
bE kNhETION RECOMMENDED:
0 VES 0 NO e
e
, EXECUTIVE DbfECTORNR OPERATIONS j
s, DO NOT REMOL'E TN/S COPY-s PRINCIPAL' CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL-O e
b E
i-L i
1 p
rc 4
J FROM:
A ACTION CONTROL =
DATES CONTROL NO. _..
d
'N C ""' ' ^ ' ' " '
I. Carson Fark-
"/?/'t LACRS:
J j
ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATE OF DOCUMENT-f INTERIM REPLY 9p q pgg I
TO:
PREP RE FOfi$1GNATURE
~
OF:
Chairman Falladiso O CHAIRMAN
""^'"E""
~.-
FILE LOCATION p ' EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR y.
OTHER:
DESCRIPTION O LETTER p MEMO O. REPORT O OTHER SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS -
' Ard 3METY CONCEPTS TCR FUTUIt POR Suspense 7/17/51
- COL 5TECT10*!
CLASSIFIED DATA
- p DOCUMENT / COPY NO.
CLASSIFICATION l '
NUMBER OF PAGES -
CATEGORY-POSTAL REGISTRY NO.
O NSI O RD 0 FRD t
- ASSIGNED TO:
DATE INFORMATION ROUTING LEG AL REVIEW O FINAL O COPY
~ Mnahm M2D Ell C111 gjpggg' Q,4 pgp _
_ ASSIGNED TO:
DATE NO b L OBJECTIONS
?^*h 7f1t/tt (gggg)) -. Mjghg]ggy 2.
Pl$cnhtt
- f. _ W11mD EDO ADMIN'& CORRES BR'
.3 Kehis
- ftMtral fline 3.
Fanausr7. EnWer Ex1
' {'
$gg))O.
CS5e~
4.
l'attstm ih n===
COMM ENTS, NOTIF_Y:.
l T _ - %rt my EXT.
~
M M M ; gngog.
JCAE NOTIFICkTION RECOMMENDED:
0 YES O NO L
I 1_
ppAg
" 3 ' NRC FORM 232
- EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS DO NCT REMOVE THIS COPY
-PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL-l l
l t
l.,
i-
.~
81-0919 No.XXWX)@
Logging Date' 7/l4/bl NRC SECRETARIAT TO: - O Commissione, oate X0 E mec. Dir/Oper. -
O cen. Counsei O Cong. Liaison O soiicitor Public Affair, O secretary 0
' sa aector a ^=aitor Policy Evolution incoming:
J. C. Mark. Chairman From:
ACRS To:
Palladinn Date 7/ld/RI Subsect: now ca fatv enneonte. fnr futura ennstruction Prepare reply for signature of:
E Chairman Commissioner E DO, GC, CL, SOL, PA, SECY, I A, PE C Signatur' block omitted l
C Return original of incoming with response For direct reply * -
g X,,,,,,,,,,;,,,,c,,,,
. O Forinforri.m Rec'd Off. EDO cae..........., tW" me.....o........ L RF Remarks:
i For the Commission:
billie t
- Send three (3) copies of reply to secy Correspondence ord Records Branch nac42 ACTION SLIP 2
i I
pce; UNITED STATES 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
aE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS S
4; WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 July 14,1981 k
Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino Chairman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
SUBJECT:
NEW SAFETY CONCEPTS FOR FUTURE CONSTRUCTION
Dear Dr. Palladino:
In a letter dated September 11, 1980 NRC Chairman John F. Ahearne asked the ACRS for suggestions concerning potential safety improvements which could be incorporated into any new design for nuclear power plants. We responded with a letter dated December 9,1980 to Chairman Ahearne in which we listed some specific issues warranting consideration for potential improvements, out'iined a few possible approaches that might be useful in pursuing the subject, and stated that we would try to develop additional comments by the summer of 1981.
An ACRS Subcommittee held meetings on this subject on January 28, 1981, April 8, 1981, and May 6, 1981. During these meetings the Subcommittee heard presentations and dircussions from representatives of Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Combustion Engineering, Inc., KMC, Inc., General Electric Company, Bechtel Power Corporation, Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, Electric Power Research Institute, the Department of Energy, and the NRC Staff; the Subcommittee also held a cicsed session on sabotage design considerations which was attended by an NRC contractor assisting the Staff in this area.
None of the industry representatives proposed a systematic or comprehensive approach to attacking and resolving the matter of appropriate safety-related design improvements for future LWRs, although some of the reactor vendors indicated they were considering specific improvements in their future prod-uct line. The NRC Staff does. not _ appear _ to_have a.signi.ficant. ongoing ef-fort oriented specifically at defining th+ requirements for_ future LWRs; ho~ wever, they in'dicat'ed that the IREP program and oth'er~probabilistic risk
~
~
analyses, together wi*h a series of studies recently contracted with Sandia' Laboratory in support of the proposed rulemaking on degraded cores, should be of potential future use in this regard.
3 ( o7 2OO 3 cy3 r
u_
m
.e 3
I Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino July 14,1981 l
If the NRC Staff is to do more than review each new application on an ad hoc i
basis, except as new requirements may arise from the currently proposed rule-makings, a range of possible approaches: should be considered, including the
' following:
~
1.
Require that probabilistic risk analysis be used to evaluate the lA b
/r @
c suitability of the proposed design at the construction permit stage.
2.
Rely on the lessor _ learned from probabilistic risk analyses on 1
current plants to provide insight over some extended period of time L A'"q,j as to new requirements which would be implemented when suitable in-formation-has been developed and a need has been demonstrated.
b 3.
Establishment of a list of possible design improvements intended to prevent accidents leading to core melt, similar to that initiated j
for the degraded core rulemaking, and the development of enough con-ceptual design information and evaluation of tne costs and benefits to enable NRC decision making.
M
^)G "
4.
Establishment of a set of studies, irtcluding alternate design op-tions, intended to provide a basis for resolving as many of the y
unresolved safety issues at:d other generic issues as practical.
5.
Selection of specific topics of potentially special significance, such as design features to minimize the likelihood of sabotage by G/m an insider, and the accomplishment of sufficient conceptual design studies and other analyses to enable the development of NRC re-quirements in these matters,.as appropriate.
p 6.
Undertake an LWR nuclear power plant design study which attempts to cd' include the best features of all plants in order to at least provide a standard for comparison.
- y 7.
Undertake studies intended to identify plant features, systems, and components which are better designed to facilitate' proper and ade-quate maintenance.
8.
Undertake a set of studies intended to provide a better basis for GW" judging what one might do at various stages in the progression of serious accidents in order to identify possible improvements in design of equipment or instrumentation.
rf,e,g-
~
9.
Review the general design criteria and similar significant safety requirements used in other countries, compare them with U.S. cri-teria, and decide whether the U.S. criteria should be modified.
0"
- 10. -Undertake a revision of the general design criteria to accomplish any desired changes in requirements.
a. l:
kb c : 12
Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino July 14,1981 We believe that, while none of the alternatives listed are likely to be adequate individually, a combination of such alternatives, suitably molded dnd Coordinated into a systematic and comprehensive program, could provide j
an appropriate overall approach.
We recognize that the NRC licensing staff faces a severe licensing load during the coming months and that manpower resources are currently at a premium. However, we believe that_it is im-portant that the NRC be..able-to_ define its_ changed requirements fcFthe de-p sign of futurELWRC6nia_ timely basis,_saymthirty_r.onths.
Otherwise, new
~
plants 4re likely not to have a more nearly optimal safety-related design, and the licensing process is likely to be more ad hoc. The increased on-going consideration of the merits of LWR standardizaticn provides a still greater emphasis on the need for a timely definition by the NRC of the safety requirements for future LWRs.
We believe that much useful information could be generated by the reorien-tation of a significant portion of the current safety research program without reducing the suppVt level for those research programs which have kp the greatest potential 4r risk reduction, or which deal with issues nct b
generally believed to be w?ll controlled by current re5ulatory positions.
We suggest that the nuclear industry _be_ encouraged _to_ participate _ actively
^fn'the development ~of safet9~ improvements for future reactors. An NRC
\\\\
policy shich makes iicliaFthat propoied'improvenents will not automati-
~
~ ~~
~
~
cally become candidates for backfitting could be helpful in this regard.
With regard to the matter of design improvements to reduce the potential for serious sabotage by an insider, it appears that only a deta: led, NRC-p sponsored and guided effort is likely to develop a systematic new approach.
For some of the other matters, however, the development of tentative per-Nt7 formance requirements may be all that is needed for the purpose. Consider-ations such as these would, of course, enter into the development of a cohesive, coordinated NRC program on this subject.
Although an,improv.ed management and_ operation capability _by the licensee for a nuclear power plant does not fall under the category of design im-
~
tfrg provement, we believe this also warrants considerable attention by the NRC and the industry and should become a generic feature of our approach to new LWRs.
In a very general way, and quite apart from the specific items mentioned
~
above, the encouragement of interest and concern on such matters may also be an important contribution the NRC can make.
1 We recommend that the NRC give the approprjate_pr_iority and resources to the task of developing safety requirements for future LWRs.
Sincerely, J. Carson Mark Chairman L
. _ _