ML20024H070
| ML20024H070 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/29/1991 |
| From: | Fraley R Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Blaha J, Taylor J NRC, NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20024H071 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-GTECI-135, REF-GTECI-NI, TASK-135, TASK-OR ACRS-GENERAL, NUDOCS 9105210098 | |
| Download: ML20024H070 (5) | |
Text
e
[aus o,#'o u
UNITED STATES i
l
t[*t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/q t ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTO4. SAFEGUARDS WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 0,
g
- 's, o#
.....s March 29, 1991 MEMORAl;DUM FOR:
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations ATTN:
J.
Blaha FROM:
R.
F.
Fra cy, ecutive Director, ACRS
SUBJECT:
371ST ACRS MEETIIG FOLLOW-UP ITEMS Based on discussions regarding methods for 4.mproved implementation and follow-up of ACRS recommendations, the Committee agreed that a
summary of
- Actions, Agreements, Assignments, Requests, and Commitments made during each full Committee meeting will be sent to your office following each meeting.
Attached per this agreement is such a summary related to the 371st ACRS Meeting, March 7-9, 1991.
Attachment:
As stated cc w/ attachment:
E.
L. Jordan, AEOD R.
M. Bernero, HMSS T.
E. Murley, NRR E.
S.
Beckjord, RES S.
Chilk, SECY J.
Mitchell, OCM/KC G.
Marcus, OCM/KR D.
Trimble, OCM/JC J.
Guttmann, OCM/FR 9105210098 910329
'}
/
'O/
OENERAL PDR a i o* 1
SUMMARY
OF ACTIONS, AGREEMENTS, ASSIGNMENTS, REQUESTS AND FOLLOW-UP MATTERS 371ST ACRS MEETING March 7-9, 1991 During its 371st meeting, March 7-9, 1991, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards discussed several matters and completed the reports noted below.
In addition, the Committee authorized me to transmit the memorandum identified below.
Copies of these reports and the memorandum are attached.
REPORTS TO THE COMMISSION Fu ll-Tenn Operatina License for the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generatina Station (Report to Chairman Carr, dated March 12, 1991.)
Restart of Browns Ferry Nuclear P13nt. Unit 2 (Report to Chairman Carr, dated March 12, 1991.)
e Proposed Rule on Selection, Trainino, and Oualificat_Lon of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel (Report to Chairman Carr, dated March 12, 1991.)
liEMORANDUM e
Resolution of Generic Issue 135. " Steam Generator and Steam-line Overfill Issues" (Memorandum for W.
Minners, RES, from R.
F.
Fraley, ACRS, dated March 12, 1991.)
Mr. Minners was informed that the Committee decided to take no further action regarding the proposed resolution of Generic Issue 135 and concluded that it had no objection to the publication of this resolution as a final staff position.
QT]lER MATTERS Comparison of the Licensino Review Basis Documents for the ABB e
CE System 80+ and GE ABhR Desians The Committee concluded that the Commission's decision
[ delineated in the March 5,1991 Staf f Requirements Memorandum (SRM) related to SECY-90-353]
to disapprove the staff's proposal to finalize and issue the Licensing Review Basis (LRB) document for the ABB CE System 80+ Evolutionary Light Water Reactor moots the previous Commission request (included in the December 15, 1989 SRM related to SECY-89-311) that the ACRS perform a comparison of the LRBs for CE System 80+ and GE ABWR designs.
1 9
371ST ACRS MEETING - ACTIONS, AGREEMENTS, ASSIGNMENTS AND REQUESTS 2
e ACRS/ACNW Review of Recrul a t_gry Guides Related to 10 CPR Part 20 The ACRS and the ACNW have agreed to the division of responsibilities as noted below for reviewing the new and revised regulatory guides associated with the implementation of the revised 10 CFR Part 20.
As agreed to before, these guides will be reviewed during and also after the public comment period.
j The ACRS has the review responsibility for the following guides:
Radiation protection programs for nuclear power plants.
Control of access to nigh and very high radiation areas in nuclear power plants.
Planned special exposures.
Instrumentations for recording and reporting occupational radiation exposure data (including formats for
" Electronic Media").
The ACNW has the responsibility for reviewing the following guides:
Interpretation of Bioassay Measurements (Regulatory Guide 8.9).
Criteria and Procedures for Summation of Internal and External Occupational Doses.
Assessing External Radiation Doses from Airborne Radioactive Materials.
Instruction on Health Risks from Occupational Radiation Exposure (Regulatory Guide 8.29).
Instructions to Pregnant Women (Regulatory Guide 8.13).
Preparation of Applications for Use of Sealed Sources and Devices for Performing Industrial Radiography (Appendix to Regulatory Guide 10.6).
Preparation of Applications for Medical Uses (Appendix to Regulatory Guide 10.8).
Dose to Embryo / Fetus.
Air Sampling.
371ST ACRS MEETING - ACTIONS, AGREEMENTS, ASSIGNMENTS AND REQUESTS 3
LIST OF FOLLOW-UP MATTERS In its March 12, 1991 report to the Commission related to the j
e proposed Rule on Selection, Training, and Qualification of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel, the Committee stated that it would like an opportunity to review this rule, including any 1
revision to Regulatory Guide 1.8, " Qualification and Training of Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants," after the public comment period.
(Mr. Alderman has the follou-up action on this matter.)
As requested by Dr. Murley, NRR Director, the Committee agreed e
to defer its meeting with him to the May 9-11, 1991 ACRS meeting.
(Mr. Quittschreiber has the follow-up action on this matter.)
Stating that in its March 6,
1991 letter to Mr. Ward, ACRS e
Chairman, the Nuclear Utility Group on Equipment Qualification expressed some concerns regarding the findings of the AEOD case study on solenoid-operated valve problems, Mr. Carroll suggested that cognizant ACRS Subcommittee (s) hold a meeting with the NRC staff and the industry to discuss the differences between the staff and the industry regarding the safety significance of the solenoid-operated valve problems so as to develop a clear perspective of this issue.
The Committee offered no objection to this proposal.
(Mr. Alderman has the follow-up action on this matter.)
The Committee agreed with the proposal by Dr. Siess, Chairman e
of the Regulatory Activities Subcommittee, that the proposed resolution of Generic Issue
- 113,
" Dynamic Qualification Testing of Large Bore Hydraulic Snubbers," be reviewed by_ the Regulatory Activities Subcommittee.
This item is scheduled for discussion during the May 8, 1991 Regulatory Activities Subcommittee meeting.
(Mr. Houston and Mr. Igne have the follow-up action on this matter.)
ITTURE ACTIVITIES The Committee agreed to consider the following items during the 372nd, April 11-13, 1991 ACRS meeting:
Reactor Operatina Experience Briefing and discussion of recent events and incidents that have occurred at nuclear power plants, including the steam generator tube failure at the Mihama Power Stanion in Japan.
Representatives of the NRC staff will participate, as appropriate.
(Note:
This item has been deferred to the May 9-11, 1991 ACRS meeting.)
3*71ST ACRS MEETING - ACTIONS, AGREEMENTS, ASSIGNMENTS AND REQUESTS 4
Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants - Review and report on the e
proposed NRC rule regarding maintenance programs at nuclear power plants.
Representatives of the NRC staff and the nuclear industry will participate, as appropriate.
Alvin W.
Voatle Electric Generatina Plant Briefing and discussion regarding the NRC staff action plan to deal with the lessons learned from the IIT investigation of the loss of vital AC power and decay heat removal event at Vogtle Unit 1 on March 20, 1990.
Representatives of the NRC staff and the licensee will participate, as appropriate.
Containment Desian Criteria for Future Nuclear Power Plants -
Continue discussion of the proposed ACRS report to the NRC regarding containment design criteria for future light-water reactor plants to deal with severe accidents.
Nuclear S Jer Plant License Renewal - Review and report on the e
NRC's proposed final rule regarding renewal of operating licenses for nuclear power plants.
Representatives of the NRC staff and the nuclear industry will participate, as appropriate.
e Risk-Based Performance Indicators Briefing and discussion regarding the status of the research to evaluate performance indicators of safety-system availability, and general use of the performance indicators by the NRC. Representatives of the NRC staff will participate, as appropriate.
(Note:
The briefing related to the general use of performance indicators has been postponed to the May 1991 ACRS meeting.)
e Generic Issue 130, Essential Service Water Systems Failures at Multi-Unit Sites - Review and report on proposed NRC staff resolution of this generic issue.
Representatives of the NRC staff will participate, as appropriate.
e Analysis a.Dd Evaluation of Operational Data Briefing and
' discussion of AEOD review and evaluation of the human factors aspects of events and abnormal occurrences at several nuclear
- plants, o
Meetina with the NRC Commissioners - Meeting with the NRC Commissionerr to discuss safety-related regulatory matters of mutual interOW.
(Note:
This meeting has been postponed to May 1991.)
a a atog'o,,
UNITE D STAT ES
~8" NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
,E ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS S
g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 e.
,+
March 12, 1991 The Honorable Kenneth M. Carr Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Chairman Carr:
I
SUBJECT:
FULL-TERM OPERATING LICENSE FOR THE OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR-GENERATING STATION During ~ the 371st meeting of the Advisory Committee on Reactor J
Safeguards, March 7-9, 1991, we reviewed the application by the GPU l
Nuclear - Corporation and Jersey Central Power & Light Company
~
(licensees) for conversion of the provisional operating license (POL) for the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station to a full-term operating license (FTOL).
During our review, we had the -
benefit of discussions with representatives of the licensees and the - NRC staff.
We also had the benefit of-the documents referenced.
Th6 Committee most recently reported on the Oyster Creek Station in a _ letter-- dated November 9,
1982, relating to the Systematic Evaluation Program-(SEP) review of this-plant.
A ; POL-for Oyster Creek was issued in-April 1969 and commercial operation began in December 1969.. The application for an FTOL was filed in March 1972, but review of this application was deferred
-by the NRC staff in 1975, along with_several other FTOL reviews.
-In 1978, the Oyster Creek Station was included in Phase II of the
'SEP because much of the review needed for the FTOL.was similar in.
scope to that for-the_SEP.
' The Committee, in its November 9,1982 report on the results of the SEP as-applied to-the~ Oyster Creek Station, indicated that its-review of the FTOL application twould be ' deferred until the NRC staff had completed!its actions on the SEP' issues that were still
- pending, and on the Unresolved Safety Issues (USIs).and TMI' Action-Plan' items._
All but parts of-six-of the SEP issues have _ been
- resolved - to _the satisfaction of the NRC staff as reported in
-Supplement 1 to_the Integrated Plant Safety Assessment Report for Oyster Creek'.
The staff has discussed the status of these six
' issues and of the USIs and TMI Action Plan items in its Safety Evaluation-Report related to the FTOL for Oyster Creek.
We believe Alm st<a L o gff.
is<
The Honora'-
Kenneth M.
Carr 2
March 12, 1991 that the procedures and schedules that have been agreed to for resolving these items are satisfactory and that the remaining e.ctions to resolve these items would not be accelerated by withholding an FTOL at this time.
We believe that there is reasonable assurance that the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station can continue to be operated at power levels up to 1930 MWt under a full-term operating license without undue risk to the health and safety of the public.
Sincerely, David A. Ward Chairman
References:
1.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1382,
" Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Full-Term Operating License for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station," January 1991.
2.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0822, Supplement No.
1,
" Integrated Plant Safety Assessment, Systematic Evaluation Program, Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station," July 1988.
3.
Letter dated February 14,
- 1991, from James M.
- Taylor, Executive Director for Operations, NRC, to Philip R.
- Clark, President, General Public Utilities Nuclear Corporation, forwarding Diagnostic Evaluation Team Report for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station.
[
4
[@ *%o UNIT ED STAT U; 8" -
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
,[E ADVISORY COMMITTEE OfJ REACTOR SAFEGUARDS O,,
WA$HINGTON, D. C. 73555
- ..*+
March 12, 1991 The Honorable Kenneth M. Carr Chairman U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Chairman Carr:
j
SUBJECT:
RESTART OF THE BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT 2 During the 371st meeting of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, March 7-9,
- 1991, we reviewed the status of the resolution of the issues relating to the restart of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFNP), Unit 2.
Our Subcommittee on TVA Plant Licensing and Restart met on March 4-5, 1991, to discuss this matter and toured several areas of the BFNP on the morning of March 4, 1991.
We had the benefit of discussions with the NRC staff and TVA representatives, as well as the documents referenced.
The DFNP consists of three BWR electric generating units, each rated at 1098 MWe, TVA shut down Unit 2 for refueling in September 1984 and shut down Units 1 and 3 in March 1985 because of NRC concerns regarding declining performance at BFNP.
All three units have remained shutdown.
On September 17, 1985, the Executive Director for Operations of the NRC issued a letter to the Chairman of the Board of Directors of TVA requesting information on the actions being taken to resolve NRC's concerns about TVA's nuclear program, including the BFNP.
In
- response, TVA submitted to the NRC a
Corporate Nuclear Performance Plan.
This plan identified the root causes of the problem in TVA's nuclear program and described measures to remedy the problems at the corporate level.
In addition to its Corporate Nuclear Performance Plan, TVA prepared separate plans to address the problems at each of its nuclear plants.
The Browns Ferry Nuclear Performance Plan (BFNPP), Rev.
2, describes the problems and the corrective actions to be taken at Browns Ferry.
The BFNPP was specifically directed to the restart of Unit 2, although many of the programs associated with Unit 2 restart have applicability to Unita 1 and 3.
9 /h *RI %Ltt,R ['
w
6 r
The Honorable Kenneth M.
Carr 2
March 12, 1991 TVA determined the problems at Browns Ferry to be the result of three primary causes:
(1)
Lack of clear assignment of responsibility and authority to managers and their organizations that clearly established accountability for performance.
(2)
Insufficient management involvement and cratrol in the work place leading to a failure to adequately establish highest quality of performance.
(3)
Failure to maintain consistently a documented design basis for the plant and to contro.
consistently the plant's configuration with that basis.
The BFNPP identified specific functional areas of plant activities that were determined to require strengthening on a long-term continuing basis.
These included operations, maintenance, surveillance, radiological controls, chemistry, security, emergency preparedness, and scheduling-of activities at the site.
During our review, we considered the organizational changes, plant and equipment modifications, and quality control measures that are being implemented to accomplish improvements and corrective actions.
We also considered matters related to corporate and plant personnel and personnel training programs.
In addition, we were informed of measures that TVA has taken to learn from the nuclear
- industry, including visits to plants with good operating performance.
During the tour of UFNP, members of our subcommittee observed results of TVA management efforts to improve the working environment and morale of plant-employees, to encourage responsiveness, and to establish better lines of communication with employees.
We conclude that the problems and deficiencies that led to the shutdown of BFNP are being addressed adequately.
We believe that after TVA has appropriately implemented its commitments and corrective action plans described in the BFNPP to the satisfaction of the NRC staff,-the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit 2, can be operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the public.
Sincerely, David A. Ward Chairman
~
The lionorable Kenneth M.
Carr 3
March 12, 1991
References:
1.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1232, Volume 3,
April 1989, " Safety Evaluation Report on Tennessee Valley Authority, Browns Ferry Nuclear Performance Plan;" Supplement
' 1, October 1989; and Supplement 2, January 1991.
2.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Corporate Nuclear Performance Plan, Volume 1, Rev.
6, May 5, 1989.
3.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Browns Ferry Nuclear Performance Plan, Volume 3, Rev.
2, October 24, 1988 t
g
-ww,,-.
,,c,,,,-,-,~:-
m asog
[o e
UNITED STATES 8'
~,t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,E ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON HEACTOR SAFEGUAHDS S
c W ASHINGT ON, D. t.:. 20%5 9.....f 54 March 12, 1991 The Honorable Kenneth M.
Carr Chairman U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Chairman Carr:
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED RULE ON SELECTION, TRAINING, AND QUALIFICATION i
OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANT PERSONNEL During the 371st meeting of the Advisory Committee on Reactor
)
Safeguards, March 7-9, 1991, we discussed the Proposed Rule on Selection,
- Training, and Qualification of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel.
This matter was also discussed during a meeting of our Human Factors Subcommittee on March 6,1991.
During these meetings we had the benefit of presentations by and discussions with members of the NRC staff.
We also had the benefit of the documents referenced.
Section 306 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 states that, "The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is authorized and directed to promulgate regulations, or other appropriate Commission regulatory guidance, for the training and qualifications of civilian nuclear power plant operators, supervisors, technicians and other ap-propriate operating personnel."
The Commission considered rulemaking, but in 1984 decided, as an alternative, to permit NUMARC and INPO to develop industrywide improvements to personnel training.
INPO developed a comprehensive program to accredit training programs for plant personnel established by each plant licensee.
In 1985 the Commission issued a Policy Statement on Training and Qualification of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel that endorsed the INPO-managed training accreditation program, with a proviso that it would be evaluated for effectiveness over an initial two-year period.
After this evaluation, the Commission concluded the INPO-managed program was functioning ef fectively, and in 1988 issued an amended policy statement endorsing continuation of the industry program with some minor changes.
However, the Commission's decision to forego rulemaking and substitute a policy statement endorsing an industry program was challenged.
In 1990 the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ordered the Commission to promulgate specific regulatory require-ments for training and qualification of nuclear power plant personnel.
Q,n,1,,,G W h? -3
The lionorable henneth M.
Carr 2
March 12, 1991 The staff has developed a proposed rulemaking package that includes a statement of considerations and proposed additions to 10 CFR Parts 50 and 52.
This proposal expands the scope of the rule beyond what is now covered by the polic managed training accreditation program. y statement and the IIIPo-It includen:
Quality Assurance personnel.
e Training in accident management.
A requirement that a licensee develop and use a formal e
procedure for selection of personnel to be trained.
The package, which will eventually include a Regulatory Analysis and a revision to Regulatory Guide 1.8, " Qualification and Training of Personnel for lluclear Power Plants," neither of which we have l
seen, is expected to be issued for public comment during April 1991.
Although the rulemaking package is incomplete and may not reflect the final staff position, we offer the following comments:
(1)
We do not agree with the staff's proposal to require licensees to develop formal procedures for the selection of personnel to be trained.
Although selection is clearly important, we
{
believe that this function is best lef t to the industry.
This option is not permitted by the Court in the areas of training and qualification.
(2)
Training and qualification requirements for fire brigade and security personnel at nuclear power plants are given in Appendix R of 10 CFR Part 50 and in 10 CFR Part 73, respec-tively.
Neither rule includes requirements for selection of personnel.
This is consistent with our recommendation for selection of other plant personnel.
(3)
We agree with the staff's proposal to include requirements in the rule for training and qualification of personnel who will be performing quality assurance functions and personnel who will be responsible for accident assessmnnt and mitigation.
With consideration of these comments, we have no objection to 1ssuance of the rulemaking package for public comment.
We would like an opportunity to review the package, including any revision to Regulatory Guide 1.8, after the comment per)od.
j Sincerely,
/
David A. Ward i
Chairman
The lionorable Kenneth M.
Carr 3
March 12, 1991
References:
1.
Draft SECY paper for The Commissioners from James M. Taylor, Executive Director for Operations,
Subject:
Proposed Rulemak-ing for Selection, Training and Qualification of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel-(Predecisional).
2.
Section 306 of Public Law 97-425, Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, " Nuclear Regulatory Commission Training Authorization."
3.
Commission Policy Statement on Training and Qualification of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel, published in the Eqderal Rocister, March 20, 1985.
4.
Commission Policy Statement on Training and Qualification of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel, as amended, November 18, 1988.
1 i
-