ML20023C951

Summary of ACRS 830223 Meeting W/Subcommittee on SEP in Washington,Dc to Review Facility Integrated Safety Assessment

ML20023C951
Person / Time
Site:	Yankee Rowe
Issue date:	04/07/1983
From:	Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
To:	Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
References
ACRS-2078, NUDOCS 8305180664
Download: ML20023C951 (18)

Text

08J ~ddN)

P n ssessa R n '. i.:

{p!y.,

?

Ji

!r CERTIFIED MINUTES j

,.?

DATE ISSUED: April 7,1983 0 h..h

'e -i. '.' 4 d. M ! <

i

. i t

!?

8& t.'s%.

t a:.)'

G L.D 4 MINUTES OF THE ACRS SUBC0!!MITTEE ON THE SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION PROGRAM ON THE YANKEE R0WE NUCLEAR STATION FEBRUARY 23,1983, Room 1046, Washington, D. C.

The ACRS Subcommittee on the Systematic Evaluation Program met in open session on February 23, 1983 to review The Integrated Safety Assessment of the Yankee Rowe Nuclear Station.

Notice of this meeting was published in The Federal Register on February 7, 1983 (Attachment A). A copy of the detailed schedule of presentation is attached (Attachment B). The subcommittee did not receive any written statements or requests for oral statements from members of the public.

No written reports were issued or approved by the subcommittee at this meeting. A list of attendees at the meeting is attached (Attachment C).

A list of documents provided to the subcommittee during the meeting is attached (Attachment D).

_ Opening Statement by the Subcommittee Chairman Dr. C. Siess, Subcommittee Chairman, opened the meeting at 8:35 a.m. noting that the members of the subcommittee present were: Mr. D. Ward, Mr. J.

8 I rs0 0-Ebersole, and Dr. W. Kerr. He introduced the SEP consultants present as Dr.

o I. Catton, Dr. W. Lipinski, and Mr. Fitzsimmons.

o$

He cited the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the Staff's systematic Ny evaluation program review and the Integrated Plant Safety Assessment review nao NN for the Yankee Rowe plant.

$\\ SQ C ~ f ff 4 ' k ' ',, p{ ;} !,i ' i } '3 g {

us1cnTID ontatm.

3 S

(p, f,

certified II

YANKEE R0WE MINUTES He noted that the meeting was being conducted in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the government in the Sunshine Act and the Designated federal Employee for this meeting was Mr. Herman Alderman.

Dr. Siess mentioned that questions of extreme external phenomena would be handled on a generic basis, for the SEP plants, by the subcommittee on Extreme External phenomena.

Plant Description and Operating History - Mr. Autio, Yankee Atomic Mr. Autio noted that Yankee Rowe is a four loop PWR plant that was designed by Westinghouse.

It is licensed for 600 MW8t). Construction was started in 1957 and initial criticality reached in 1960.

Mr. Autio pointed out that the original fuel was 306 stainless steel clad. The present fuel is zirconium clad. An emergency feedwater system has been added since the original design.

It consists of one steam-driven and two electric-driven feed pumps.

The containment is unique in that it is a bare metal spitere. This allows the containment to act as a heat sink and transfer heat to the environment.

It was noted that the containment can easily transfer the full decay heat, in this manner.

t 9

YANKEE R0WE MINUTES Mr. Autio listed some major design modifications:

1.

The original plant had two low-head safety injection pumps rated at about 300 psi.

In 1962, a high-pressure safety injection pump was added, which puts out about 750 psi.

2.

In 1968, Yankee Rowe went on all volatile chemistry.

3.

In 1980, two electric-driven feedwater pumps were added.

Mr. Autio remarked that the original capital cost for the plant was about 40 million dollars. Additional improvements sine.e construction have been about 35 million dollars.

Topics Deleted and Plant Specific - M. Boyle, NRC The original SEP review started with 137 topics. Twenty-four were deleted because they were being reviewed on a generic basis, and 24 were deleted because they were not pertinent to this plant. This left a total of 89 topics that were reviewed for this plant. Of these 89 topics, 51 were acceptable because they either met acceptance criteria or they were in some way equivalent. This left a total of 38 topics where there were differences between the acceptance criteria and what was found at Yankee. The 38 topics comprised 81 issues.

Topics l'ceting or Equivalent to Current Criteria - M. Boyle, NRC Mr. Boyle noted that most of the topics that were acceptable on another defined basis dealt with seismology.

i

YANKEE R0WE MINUTES Regarding the discussion of the Yankee pressure vessel toughness, Dr.

Siess deferred the discussion to the Full Committee meeting on Yankee.

Application of the PRA - J. Chapman, Yankee Atomic Mr. Chapman stated that there were three basic objectives in the study.

The first was to quantify the risk of plant operation. This includes Plant operation, the core melt frequency, and the risk to the public.

The second objective was to identify the specific aspects of plant design and operation that contribute to those risks. The third objective was to establish the in-house capability to utilize the study and the basic PRA perspective in their decision making.

The PRA was based on random events at power. External events were excluded from consideration.

In response to a question asking the significance of "at power, Mr. Chapman remarked that they did not lood at shutdown conditions and refueling at cold shutdown.

The plant logic model was based on models that were plant specific.

The event trees were very plant specific. Over 500,000 sequences were modeled in the event trees, coupled with the different ways of failing the mitigative systems.

Mr. Chapman related the importance of human perfonnance throughout the study. lie noted the involvenent of Yankee in the study and the value of the years of operating experience. When the event trees were modeled, the effect of the operator was considered. The result is that the operator has been modeled in many more places than had been modeled in the past.

YANKEE R0WE MINUTES PRA Review - M. Rubin, NRC Mr. Rubin noted that the utility-prepared PRA was not available in time for their.eview.

PRA's of similar plants were used as a basis for review.

Systems were looked at in relationship to what impact the SEP resolutions would have on them.

Two issues were considered of high importance to risk..

VIII-3.B D.C. Bus voltage monitoring IX-5 Ventilation systems The concern with VIII-3.B is the lack of a battery current ammeter.

The concern with IX-5 is the ventilation'for certain engineered safety systems.

Two issues were listed as of medium importance to risk.

V-II.B R.H.R. Interlock Requirements (Systems and Electrical).

VI-4 Containment Isolation System The concern with V-II.B is the lack of a pressure interlock between the main coolant and RiiR systems.

The concern with VI-4 is that a small number (4-5) of the containment penetration have relatively high leakage probabilities.

~

YANKEE R0WE MINUTES Issues That Do Not Meet Current Criteria - M. Boyle, NRC The first issue discussed was the medium-voltage penetrations.

The concern expressed regarded the electrical protion of a penetration failing and creating a leakage path to the environment. The Staff's conclusion was that this was a sufficiently unlikely event so that no modification was required.

Dr. Lipinski asked whether, if the AC power was lost, would the control rods aut,omatically fall, or were the scram breakers of the type that require DC power to release. He went on to state that he understood the Staff's position was that the AC feed was acceptable because if you lost AC power the rods automatically fell in.

If the scram breakers were of the type that require a DC signal to trigger them to release, the rods would not immediately and automatically trip.. The reply (later in the day) was that the scram breakers have mechanical latches that require DC power to release, so loss of AC power is not the primary motive to cause the control rods to trip.

Dr. Lipinski inquired whether the scram breakers can be tested during re-actor operation. The reply received later was that the scram breakers can be tested only during shutdown.

YANKEE R0WE MINUTES Issues with Disagreement Between Staff and Licensee - Mr. Rubin, NRC Mr. Rubin described the issue involving the interlocks between re-actor coolant system and the low pressure RHR system. The current criteria requires diverse interlocks between the high pressure and low pressure systems. One key-operated interlock which is admini-stratively controlled is permitted in lieu of one of the pressure interlocks.

The Yankee plant has a key-operated interlock, and they have removed power from two of the valves.

Yankee Atomic believes that this pro-vides adequate protection. The Staff position is that at least one pressure interlock should be provided.

Mr. Farr, S.A.I.

Mr. Farr expressed concern that the administrative control relies on pro-cedures for control, and there is a possibility of going from one pro-cedure to another, and possibly missing items in a procedure.

W. Jones, Yankee Atomic Mr. Jones noted that the procedures have been in use for 22 years without l

any problems. He said that valve positions are checked on a monthly basis.

There are three leads per valve, for a total of six, that have to be in-stalled to provide power. There are wedges in the contactors to preclude operation. The key controls for the valves are in a locked cabinet in the control room. Mr. Jones listed the above to show the deliberate steps required to open these valves. He noted also that, as the control room operator opens the valves, a second control room operator monitors pressure to follow this operation.

t

YANKEE ATOMIC MINUTES Issues Requiring Further Evaluation - Hot Shutdown Systems - A. Kodak, Yankee Atomic Mr. Kodak noted that the proposed Hot Shutdown System is designed to handle the large unexpected seismic events. He mentioned some of the assumptions for the system: the pressure system boundary is assumed to remain intact; ECCS operation is not required; the reactor is presumed to have scrammed; all other means of decay heat removal are assumed to be inoperable. Both on-site and off-site AC are inoperable; and system is capable of operating for three days without makeup water or diesel fuel.

The system consists of flexible piping to a diesel powered pump mounted on a trailer. Water is supplied from the fire water tank, and sufficient pump capacity is provided for both primary system makeup and to supply the steam generators; the charging lines would be used for primary system makeup and the steam generator blowdown lines would be used to provide flow to the steam generators. A boron addition system will have to be added to the system to maintain the boron level in the primary coolant.

The plant was surveyed to determine what valves, structures and components would be necessary to assure operation of the hot shutdown system. These valves, structures and components will be seismically qualified if they fall within the scope of the operation of the hot shutdown system.

4

YANKEE R0WE MINUTES.

h Flooding and Dam Failure - W. Russell, NRC N'

Mr. Russell said that the review of the safety of the Harriman Dam is -

\\

being coordinated between the NRC and the Federal Energy Re'gylatory

.N Commission (FERC). FERChastheresponsibilityforthesafetyofthk dam.

i,'

s The concern in this case is disagreement about the probable maximum The licensee and NRC arrive at differing vbugs precipitation (PMP).

of PMP. The amount of flooding and hypothetical overtopping of thf s dam are developed from the PMP.

If Harriman dam is overtopped it would be breached and cause flooding at the Yankee site.

The NRC has contracted with NOAA to do a site specific PMP for this area.

P The results will'be provided to FERC for their review.

~'

.g Following the de't'efmination of PMP and the evaluation of the dam by FERC, these two conchrns should be resolved.

Issues with Disagreement Between the Staff and Licensee - W. Russell, NRC This issue concerns the need for an ammeter on the battery terminal to i

measure charge / discharge. Mr. Russell noted that the PRA concluded that the importance of tiih DC system was high and it would be useful to detect battery failures at time other than the period of testing.

Mr. Russell stated the reason it was carried as an item of disagreement was v.

5 that the licensee had not responded formally, agd, there may be alternatives i

Mr. Russell ' ould characterize this as w

that could provide the same assurance.

an open area rather than a disaareement.

l_

V

i i

k '.i

(*i 4

.,s-NM 4

k s

,N.

h T g

sy';-

v YANKEE ATOMIC MINUTES 10 -

~

\\

,(-.'

3 Discussion of the SEP _-htr. Kodak, Yankee Atomic Mr. Kodak remarked that7the SEP was worthwhile. He thought that the SEP Staff did a good job 01 focussing on tbe' issues and overall the process

," g worked very well.

pg

\\

\\

~

,,Mr. Kodak emphasiza:1 the need t,f understand the overall impact of an issue before taking action, rather than taklyg action of a piecemeal basis.

Q.

. ~

f r' 9

• I g

g

--Discussion

\\' N

\\

,r.

a 4e'

\\

~

3,'

Dr. Siess noted that the full'ACRS Committee will not discuss Yankee Atomic

' ^

during the March meeting. He said that hewas fairly confident that it wotild be u,

\\'

on the April 1983 agenda.

i

('

The meeting was adjourned at 4:55 p.m.

L]

• NOTE: A complete transcript of the meeting is on file at the NRC Public Document Room at 1717 H St., NW., Washington, D. C. or can be obtained from 'Alderson Reporters, 300 7th St. SW, Washington, D.C.

(202)554-2345.

3

- g

(

k i

m g \\

s A

4 4

I l

3 sN

,5 4

m v

+.

ATTACHMENT A ss2s' Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 26 / Monday. Febniary 7.1983 / Notic1s e

FrotnAI. REoistsm (ExponT Aho luront) i weariniehaoye.e

~,

I E*#*V

~~

• • "'"I D

Teenf Toess se e en e e--e

~

.n Tre wwuomr.

Jsm is.1983. Jert 93 s pct erveed warman as8 33 s, Fuel ter twR, gromane powies

.fd 18.1se3.*S w c2011 oeaeret Dem Co. Jert s.1963. Jett testse8 wadan 1.s00 Add ENUSA se Herme@e's Corognes end em som "T

1500 eLGS of Nessef Urarman-newerpo renood Lr r

g gj g J.

g.1963. Ashhs01645(01& -

90 e.

.s

-. =

6t.'mf 4 co Jert 14.1963. Jert s4 s 95 pet enriched wanne

- s1.394

-, ett Re.oed beiles eterneoka Ural F Japert

~'e.-

~, -.. y --

Mesand bei ter Hernache L>e a V *:

,psg ggweyn,g_

8.,sse'~ -

• a974.7 Regan two bel rode e%cm are e suego at Ito-Fearn Rep.of f(wes test aswtsets.

Jugert 1

2r '

1. .asi

• k leted a ce. Jan 1s.1983.'Jett so ' s es put evtcred weMan-

• !.ij.

woorgrunne Coct. Jett 17, itSA sa ps4 erveed warman sas.OrsA pr g = __.c.,; se mcy,ees te wnewe of

-*d*

rw

~.

...... d.e.sA ubmarresgggy -

".: *-; *y : * *.

0;y T.s ~~.-.

,F*

meiarut ' -

e.

~

Jett 31 -,

e ;*-

... _, z g.,.; ;,,,,,;,,,,, g; -

g.. :

1,900,006,,

As tal m ses messe ear.vnerosi power reacsare EURAfott.. _...;,,. ?, '.g-g n -.

Trenerucseer. ke. one. 21. test oscL Neud weesa

.seca:ed nesi ew t. amain cornt wrwy orer.

• ,g*"

W..:-..., as, ten 2.au ssst.

..e,

[.9 m

.~

m..

essaanet

, w.,..

c.

pit on es,ues nied -44a. e es==l 4

.,,,,,,,,,,,,.,.9.,,,,,,.,,,

m s.o.o coct tsso-os-as y,

.....s Advisory Committee on Reactor ne agenda for subject meeting shall Dated. rebruary 2. tess.

4, John C. Hoyle.

~;

Safeguards; Subcommittee on be as follows:

Advisory Committee Management officer.

g Systema 11c Evaluation Programi pu ox. as-aus rae4 s+at aas e.) . ' ' ~ ^

F.y Wednesday, February 23.1sa3-8:30

.me,.

Meeting * ' '

.x

~"

a.m. until the conclus'lon' of business BfLLaso coot ruw1.as

' * ~ ~ ~

,T.'

%e ACRS' Subcommittee on the Systematic Evaluation Program will hold, During the inlual portion of the

's o meeting on February 23,19a3 Room meeting, the Subcommittee, along with Advisory Committee on Reactor '

.d 1187,1717 H Street, NW, Washington,, any ofits consultants who may be Safeguards; Subcommittee on Cilneh q

s D.C.%e Subcommittee will discuss the present, will exchange preliminary River Breeder Reactor M

Systematic Evaluation Program review views regarding matters to be

%e ACRS Subcommittee on Clinch

-3' e.1 Yankee Rowe. Notice of this meeting considered during the balance of the River Breeder Reactor (CRBR) will hold ~ -,f was published January 18,1983.,

meeting., -

a meeting on February 23 and 24,1983, Washington,DC.%e Subcommittee will #

Room 1048,1717 H Street. NW.,

In accordance vdth the procedcres 4

1 e Subcommittee will thenhear c'ut!!ned th the Federal Register on October 1.1982 (47 FR 43474). oral or

- presentations by and hold discussions continue its review of the application

• T written statements may be presented by ' with representatives of the NRC Staff.

from the Department of Energy for a..g their consultants, and other interested permit to construct the CRBR. Notice of %

members of the public, recordings will be permitted only during those portions Persons regarding this review.

- this meeting was publishe,d, January 18,

',g 1983-

.g cf the meeting when a transcript is being.

' .'~

In accordance w.th the procedures i

k:pt, and questions may be asked only Further information regarding topics by members of the Subcommittee,its to be discussed, whether the n eeting outlined in the Federal Register on e

• m October 1,1982 (47 FR 43474), oral or L

wntten statements may be presentedy =y consultants, and StaII. Persons desiring has been cancelled or reacheduled. the members of the pub!!c, recordings will.'a

. to make oral statements should notify Chairman's ruling on requests for the i

r ths Designated Federal Employee as far opportunity to present oral statements be permitted on1 during those portions i g I

L In advar.ce sa practicable so that.

and the time allotted therefor can be medg w en a transcript is Mng eppropriate arrangements can be made obtained by a prepaid telephone call to kept. and questions may be asked only _.,,gg o

r to allow the necessary time during the the cognizant Designated Federal niceting for such statements.

Employee, hit.Iferman Alderman c\\I

~

nuln a d St f Pe n d si g

%e entire meeting will be open to (telephone 202/634-1414] between 8:15 to make oral statements should notify.,@

public attendance except for those a.m. and 5:00 p.m., EST.

the, Cognizant Designsted Federal Jj. J sessions during which the Subcommittee employee as fa'r in advance as

-,2&

finds it necessary to discuss proprietary I have determined,in accordance with practicable so that appropriate '..., j "'O

,information (Sunshine Act Exemption 4].

Subsection 10(d) of the Federal arrangements can be made to n!!ow the g.,,.. '

One or more closed sessions may be Advisory Committee Act, that it may ba necessary time during the meeting for d,E.*

necessary to discuss such information, necessary to close some portions of this such statements.

2. -

To the ex tent practicable, these closed meeting to public attendance to protect ne entire meeting willbe open to

.W

~

sessions will be held so es to minimize proprietary information.The authority public attendar.ce except for those

'-.*.L'iZ

~

~

!n::n;cn!:::: ta =:=b::: :f ic ;;b'!:

f::::d :2:s: :!:%ptier.lt) to the re:s!cn2 :':-in whid the Sibco un!!!cc7 l' Sunshine Act. 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4).

finds it necessary to discuss, proprietary 3 In attendance. ~

2;::: ;

>.m.

4

..wu w-

.. u.r 4

i

.=

• ~&Q t* :

55l

~, r. st-t p, m -

.n y;m u n y;'

f.Y.i!.T e.'.

2.'.7;~W Q/I

• .u Ee.

Y ~ *

'G a9

? f.

nn e A.

O

• • MEETING ROOM change: Room 1046 ATTACHMENT B g,

o.

t TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE ACRS SEP SUBCOMMITTEE YANKEE NUCLEAR PLANT, FEBRUARY 23, 1983 ROOM 104G 1717 H. St., NW, WASHINGTON, D. C.

8:30 a.m.

-1.

INTRODUCTION 8:35 a.m.

2.

PLANT DESCRIPTION AND OPERATING HISTORY

. 8:50 a.m.

3.

TOPICS DELETED AND PLANT SPECIFIC 9:10 a.m.

4.

TOPICS MEETING OR EQUIVALENT TO CURRENT CRITERIA 4.1 Evaluation of Yankee pressure vessel toughness 10:10 a.m.

5.

APPLICATION OF PRA 10:30 a.m.

BREAK 10:45 a.m.

6.

ISSUES REQUIRING NO BACKFIT 11:15 a.m.

7.

ISSUES REQUIRING fROCED'JRAL OR TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGES LUNCH 12:00 1:00 p.m.

8.

ISSUES REQUIRING HARDWARE BACKFITS 2:00 p.m.

9.

ISSUES REQUIRING FURTHER EVALUATION 9.1 Flooding and dam failure 9.2 Hot shutdown system BREAK 3:30 p.m.

3:45 p.m.

10.

ISSUES WITH DISAGREEMENT BLTWEEN STAFF AND

/

LICENSEE

'/:I$

jKT.~

3:14 p.m.

11.

DISCUSSION ADJOURN 4:30 p.m.

MEETING ROOM: p. _1046 ATTACHMENT C EVISORY CmMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS MEETING CH SYSTEMATICEVALUATTONPROGRAM(EP)

~

Fguary 23, 198), 1717 H St. NW. Wa s hd.221Qa, D. C.

ATTENDEES PLEASE SIC': BElo'.!

TFilAT AFFILIATIO';

BADCE NO.

'T. 3rhc t.1

)k617 9 )__A Utrsen lp?dregi.6 N D:E w_. F,._e rn_ irr

-' R--oibo i1AEC s

1i_f-O 7 c-(

'l A-I' (~

Jill,.*,,Tm g _ _

_ be-- oLT1

.W#4 L

. syguerk.

z

' e - &rs,

% he. Is,ure

. y,.c.

p.i te l,,&N-f k l OA fD-,l % & u

- _ =

i,

_--m---

<a=H A._- gA s t__ u_.-

-m w

w l

5o248

. Jr. -rtimea.

L

.A:. hrcec J F- 02 3~1 s stas l'ee. JA r*+

=.

G

. $ e~<-

Of/s -

b_\\/Ase a

1 lW/--_-

! E-oios_.

1 \\%fw f. s.- ;

_ = _,

T ff P/. 4 J i & -c.?.I 1

ye T

T._R 4

. A_f 7__._

_r &,S _T f.5f%~f _tf5_-

1 N

__ _e-cua wa v._c. t www,.-____

______n

-~~

W

- = _

m m

_a C1%1c %zsaw.w

& 6nv8

% :. A C C C 1

n SH E '

L.

oc u Gs.,e s. t.

s-om

.s a.

L L.f & _ILI,. - _h.Ic.,OI4fj]. 6 -

) 4%CO,,A

$= m

!*-~~- ~ -m-I!, g g e.i _ p ~ ~a c ~g.

m.

a An.e u.n 1 c. 6 m ~i. E...

7 i

Jd51-

. w aarz e msc.a.r m a ar Le4 Leg _L_J.f A.-fo r=

qaq _

_ ~ ~ ~ _ _

g -

u-

~( ~ -~7-

-"~~"

4

, MEETING DATE: _ February 23.19R1 H. ALDERF.:./R. MAJ0P.

SpBCOMITTEE MEETING: Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP)

. LOCATION _ Room 1046, 1717 H St. NW, Washington, D. C.

ATTENDANCE LIST _

? LEASE wuter-i@E s

..u up6uoa..

3,.r./ 5//55

//r4 r

)). A W A7td s.

y,

,j. (, 2 1 51 1 2:9'o W t

(n scr7Z/t.

I'

[s.

Os tipa 5 g)

Aksaxr Y

6.

T C&7~70 ^'

- 1.

D. 7 7 7~2T/em s MS

$// f 7 6 W # "

/

_.s.

J. + c nA v

1. rsk 5 7.?/F F e_ _y/ - A c.Dr%5W

__10.

_ _11.

J7.

1.13.

J4.

i 1

, Js. --

_17.-

I

=

!i

_-e...

-l 09 l

30-21._

l

~

Jr.

_l

.?3.

I I

MEETING DATE: _ February 23.19R1 H. ALDERMAN /R. MAJOR Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP)

$4BC0!ff!TTEE MEETING: _

LOCATION: _ Room 1046,1717 H St. NW, Washington, D. C.

ATTENDANCE LIST _

Pl. EASE

'PRI NT W 4E l

M H L 4H ON

$..Wuw T. hec t u St.? ],(JJil,b l IN v, u:.a i v

.Ir 6.t W r

p, 3.

SoH T GMM owAc (bom 3

%I %%- DOS Tmues S.

LYodS DEW //2R.

bL AdPS F-c / low

. 5.

M n 7eeSfo8 I'7' NNA 6.

/1..

r t

fb b 0k/b I/?S D Y r/-

1.

NWKEE MOMG

.~TA Y K.

TMYEK p,

e_

~Dr?)

70)y'

)!r,Y K r'

//Rtwc ii (4 ~, e..

A

!b~. e

%v.

. A 4>

]), hat U$

_.l

[db>3 b d6 bM M s

Ln. w. o,i c L.< s va m.c,

Yankee A n ~,< c x % phe,i f Swe.ier l

Ybare Akisde.

, x d w a r?

('innsmse 1s. ll1$ WkM

~ _ _

1 hoc 17.

Y ae. M ye b ru,

as,/we 20.

I

=

21.

l~

} 22.

l3 l

l l 24.

s l

ATTACHMENT D LIST OF DOCUMENTS PROVIDED TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE DURING THE MEETING:

1.

Presentation to ACRS SEP Subcommittee on Yankee Nuclear Station, February 23, 1983 - Mr. Boyle 2.

Presentation to ACRS on Yankee Nuclear Power Station -

Probabilistic Safety Study - J. R. Chapman 3.

Hot Shutdown System b

r,,,

m r

v-

D. W.'Morlier e

4/30/83 Report of ACRS Waste Management Subcommittee Meeting on the DOE-Site Characterization Report (SCR) e and the NRC Draft Site Characterization Analysis (SCA) for the Basalt Waste Isolation Project (BWIP)

April 21-23, 1983, Washington, D.C.

I.

General Comments:

1.

One of the most striking facts brought out by these meetings was the critical need for a full exchange of data and information among the several groups involved in preparing and reviewing the Site Charac-terization Report (SCR). Although representatives from both DOE and NRC acknowledged the need for communications and although the channels appear to be improving, more dialo &needs to occur on a regular basis.

This was exemplified by the fact that some of the information presented at this meeting was apparently being heard by DOE and/or NRC personnel for the first time.

It must be recognized that NRC's role is to require that the site be characterized to the extent necessary for licensing and that this characterization be supported by adequate data.

It is DOE's responsibility to be responsive to NRC's requests to the extent practicable. As in the case of this meeting, the ACRS is pleased to foster the necessary exchanges and interactions, to the extent that it can. The Subcommittee plans to continue to interact with both groups and to offer advice as requested.

2.

The limited resources available to both DOE and NRC make it necessary to structure the schedules for data acquisition and analysis very l

carefully.

Both the NRC Staff and the DOE / Contractors should be urged to organize their requests for data and the plans for obtaining such data on the basis of the priorities required by the licensing process.

The Subcommittee heard comments that such organization would be l

l

,_..)