ML20030D604
| ML20030D604 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/14/1981 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20030D605 | List: |
| References | |
| ACRS-1849, NUDOCS 8109100244 | |
| Download: ML20030D604 (75) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:3 kdA.S - /$ 9' 9'
- /D s i
. \\ N- / Vl DATE ISSUE '). &\\ ^ I D, ; I / ,k C (ITTEE MEETING ON SAFETY PHILOSOPHY, TECHNOLOGY t s .a c ~\\ \\g AND CRITERIA Cl th 't o O \\ \\ APRIL 8, 1981 9 . ) A 4s c.; a e ACRS Subcommittee on Safety Philosophy, Technology, and Criteria ~yeld.. a %'; / I meeting on April 8, 1981 at 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D. C. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss requirements for new (beyond NTCP) plants and approaches for developing requirements for new plants. Notice of this meeting was published in the Federal Register on March 27, 1981. A copy of the notice is included as Attachment A. A list of attendees is included as Attachment B. A schedule for this meeting is included as Attachment C. The handouts for this meeting are included as Attachment D. The meeting was begun at 10:30 am with a short Executive Session in which Dr. Okrent, the Subcommittee Chairman, summarized the objectives for the day's meeting. A closed session on sabotage was held be-tween 10:30 am and 1:00 pm. The meeting was adjourned and reconvened at 2:00 pm. ~ The meeting was conducted in open session until 7:00 pm. During this part of the meeting the Subcommittee heard oral presentations from DOE, EPRI, Westinghouse, and Combustion Engineering. The meeting was attended by Dr. D. Okrent, Subcom-mittee Chairman, Mr. M. Bender, Mr. J. Ebersole, Mr. D. Ward, Mr. J. Ray, Sub-committee members; and Dr. W. Lipinski and Mr. E. Epler, Subcommittee consultants, and Dr. R. Savio of the ACRS Staff. INTRODUCTION Dr. Okrent held a short executive session in which he discussed the purpose of the day's meeting. He noted that it was the Subcommittee's intention to review pro-posals for approaches for developing requirements for r.ew plants and specific design features for new plants. The ACRS has committed to reporting tc the Com-mission on this subject in the summer of 1981 The July Full Committee meeting has been selected as a target date for this project. Dr. Okrent then' closed the meeting to hear presentations on plant design concepts for sabotage protection. CLOSED SESSION (THE LIST OF ATTENDEES IS INCLUDED IN THE ACRS FILES) SABOTAGE PROTECTION Mr David Ericson and Mr. G. Bruce Barnado of Sandia National Laboratory discussed the NRC-sponsored work documented in NUREG/CR-1345 (Nuclear Power Plant Design - Concepts for Sabotage Protection). Objectives for the study were to estimate the ~ slo 9tbOW ~ d Y
. potential value for plant design and damage control measures in providing protection against sabotage in LWR plants and to establish the impact of such matters on plant cost operation and safety. The SNUPPS plant design was used as a model for this study. The design objectivas were to reduce the number of sequences which would be available to a potential saboteur and to reduce the probability of success and the consequences of the sabotage sequences. Techni-cal support was obtained from the four NSSS vendors and a number of utilities, architect engineers, and consultant firms. The study concluded that structural design changes alone do not provide a significant additional pra**ction against outsider sabotage but they can facilitate the implementation of physical protec-tion systems. A significant advantage was thought to be gained by the separation of critical safety trains and the limiting of the access to all units if these trains. This was also thought to result in additional protection against common mode failures by maintenance errors. There was discussion as to aspects of various designs which might result in an incsa sed vulnerability to sabotage. Computer controlled safety and control sys-tems were suggested to be vulnerable to software changes. Protection against insider sabotage vas identified as being extremely difficult. Security investi-gations for plant personnel and the limiting of access to critical plant compo-neats were identified as methods by which the vulnerability of the plant to insider sabotage might be decreased. It was noted that access control would also hinder the movement of plant personnel during emergency situations. - ~. _.... h h
-o, 1 Ul Dh fOIbb!b DISCUSSI0h 11TH THE NRC STAFF - D. MULLER, F. SCHAUER, J. MURPHY The NRC Staff addressed from the structural engineering standpoint the question as to what improvements could be achieved in new plant containments. Their posi-tivu is that there are no constraints on the containment designers except those which exist in the existing codes aad that the cost ($40-50M) of the containment was low enough to allow significant innovations in the cor.tainment design. He believed that NRC's role in assessing the proposed design improvements was in the verificatio'n of performance margins. Site characteristics w'ere discussed. It was noted that the site location can influence the A sign of the plant as demonstrated in the Zion / Indian Point / Limerick evaluations. The current work being conducted to develop a new siting rule is tending towards relatively large allowabic population densities in the low population rone and will not exclude nuclear plc.-t sitet even in the populated eartern parts of the United States. It was n;ted that the capability of sites to.: ope with core meh accidents can vary greatly. The characteristics of the soil, surface water, and ground water were critical parameter.s. It is possible to improve the site (relative to its capability for dealing with a core melt) by the use of dewatering equipment and engineered barriers such as barrier walls. Work is being initiated within the probabilistic risk assessment area which will be directed at modification of the single failure criteria. Work in.the past has been directed at the study of reactor safety improvements which might be viable options for reducing the risk. PRESENTATIONS BY DOE - G. GRIFFITH A presentation was given by Mr. Griffith on the development of licensing criteria. Mr. Griffith indicated that he bdieves that the philosophy presently used to develop design criteria places an undue effort on low probability large conse-quence events and should be modified to give a more balanced con sideration to all levels of protection. He indicated that he believes that licensing criteria should not be overly prescriptive and endorsed the use of the safety goal approach. He noted that he believed that the emphasis that NRC places on the large accidents e
r _4 an'd on mitigation features has the the effect of reducing the effective safety margins of the reactor plant. Mr. Griffith was asked by the Subcommittee for specific examples as to where this might have happened in the licensing process. Mr. Griffith noted that the review of the HCDA for Clinch River Plant was one 3 example. Mr. Griffith noted that he wss relatively new to the LWR industry but that it was his' perception that the same kind of dialogue is being carried on the ATWS issue. The Subcommittee indicated that it was necessary to consider large accidents and low probability events in the design of LWRs and noted that experience has' demonstrated that events have higher probabilities than what had been estimated and that remedies were difficult and expensive. . s Dr. Lowenstein spoke' representing EPRI. EPRI has a number of ongoing research activities that aid in the establishment of new criteria for design improvements. ~ Dr. Lowenstein ' stated that a clear definitien of the current criteria and under-standing of the inherent conservatisms and a consideration of the need, if any, for additional criteria are neede'd to develap requirements for new plants. Dr. Lowenstein also noted that increased plant reliability would result in a benefit of. increased plant safety. He noted that well designed equipment is likely to be inherently safe. P g EWTATION BY WESTINGHOUL - D. KAWLINS. A. ANDERSON, P. MORRIS Mr. Anderson, Mr. Morris, and Mr. Rawlins discussed the W approach to developing improved design.' Design and operating experience, the information in WASH-1400, and the post-THI evaluation are important considerations. They stated that stability in the licensing process would be a very important element in the licensing of future and present plant designs and would greatly af fect the utility commitment to future plants. They noted that many of the licensing reforms cur-rently under consideration (standardization, one-stop licensing, early site review) were specific ways to improve the stability of the licensing process and i strongly. urged that this consideration be incorporated in any initiative for licensing performed. They additionallv noted that it was their opinion that licensing requirements should not be overly prescriptive and should consider the plant as a whole rather than as piece-meal solutions to particular problems. In addition, they indicated that a more rational than is presently used basis must be developed before making decisions as to safet/ and the need for safety improvements. A passive steam condenser system was discussed as an example of 2
5-a safeguards system that was under evaluation. This would be a large heat exchanger placed in a pool of water and connected to the inlet and outlet of the secondary side of the steam generator. The system would require a minimum number of active components that could function even with complete loss of AC power. PRESENTATIONS BY COMBUSTION ENGINEERING - D. PRICE, B. KNAPP The Combustion Engineering representatives discussed the approach to a design improvement and the d>velopment of new plant designs. They indicated that it was Combustion Engineering's belief that the present plant designs were adequately safe and that future design developments should utilize a successive incorpora-tion of evolutionary design improvements. He noted that they have information exchange agreements with foreign countries and are incorporating that insight into new design development.
- w**********************************
NOTE: ADDITIONAL DETAILS CAN BE OBTAINED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT LOCATED IN THE PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM, 1717 H STREET, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 OR FROM ALDERSON REPORTING, INC., 400 VIRGINIA AVENUE, S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. .e 4
\\ p. ( '. Feder:1 Register / Vrl. 46. Nr. 59 / Friday. MIrch 27.1981 / N; tic s 19125 I = p l 'L Afecting with NRCEccutir be h;1d so c: to minimiz2 inconvenience solicit comments en the proposed rule ] Director for Operations-Discuss NRC to members of the public in attendance. change from interested persons. p Staff support of ACRS activities. De agenda for subject meeting shall L CBOE's Statement of the Terms of 'M. Reactor Operating Operience-be as follows: Substance of the Proposed Rula Change Report by NRC Stafi re recent incidents Wednesday. Apri/8.1981-10.30 a.m. ChapterM ,A at nuclear facihtses. Until the Conclusion of Business GNhfA Options r; hfoy 7-G.1961: Agenda to be During the initial portion of the announced. sneeting the Subcommittee, eleg with Defmitions h' j fune 4-d.1981: Agenda to be any of its consultants who me) be Rule 20.1(aHe) [no change] 'a present, will exchange preliminary NominalPrincipal Amount announced. Tkted March 24.19et. views regarding matters to be (h)ne term " nominal principal j considered during the balance of the amount" means the remaining unpaid John C. Ho%e-principal balance of GNMAs required to Advisory Committee Management Officer. meeting The Subcommittee wf!! then hear be delivered to the holder of a call or by yn om suene N.d -m-a. ass.=1 presentations by and hold discussions the holder of a put upon exercise of an musse coot riemes with representatives of the NRC Staff. option without regard to any variance in their consultants, and other interested the remainina unpaid principal balance permitted toI>e delivered upon such Advisory Committee on Reactor persons. Safeguards, Subcommittee on Safety Further information regarding topics exercise by Rule 20.8(c) or the Rules of Philosophy, Technology and Criterla; to be discussed, whether the meeting the Clearing Corporation ondshallbe Addition to Agenda has been cancelled or rescheduled, the
- 1m. main the case ofo single co//or ne ACRS Subcommittee on Safety Chairman *a ruling on requests for the put.
Philosophy. Technology and Criteria opportunity to present oral statements (1}-{k)[no change], a-d the time allotted therefor can be (1)The term " current cash market will hold c. meeting on April 8.1981. in obtained by a prepaid telephone call to price" with respect to GNMAa means {' Room 1046.1717 H Street. N.W.. the cognizant Designated Federal the prevailing price in the cesh market Washington. DC tv discuss matters Employee. Dr. Richard Savio (telephone for GNMA: bearing a particular stated related to the development of safety 202/634-3267) between 8.15 a.m. and inte ofinterest to be delis cred on the criteria for new (later than Near Term Construction permit) LWRs. Among the 5:00 p.m.. EST-next applicable monthly settlement date I have determined. in accordance with determined in the manner specified [by matters to be discussed will be ways by Subsection 10(d) of the Federal the Board]in the Rules of the Cleorms which such plants could be made more Advisory Committee Act thatit may be Corporation.... Interpretations and resistant to sabotage and methods necessary to close portions of this Pohcies [no change] which could be used to develop and meeting. ne authority for such closure Wire Connections evaluate requirements for new plants. Notice of this meeting was published la Exemptions (3) and (4) to the Sunshine . ule 20.2.The Exchange will permit R Act. 5 U.S C. 552b(c)(3)(4). March 24. members to establish and maintain wire in accordance with the procedures Dated March 23.1981. connections with other members and outlined in the Federal Register on John C. Hope, nonmembers for the purpose of October 7.1980 (45 FR 66535). oral or ,tdvisory Committee Mancgement Oficer. obtair.ing timely information on price written atstements may be presented by movements in GNMAs. Written notice members of the public.recordmgs will Ps ou swam m Sa al of each such wire connection shall be i sna m coos n m be permitted only during those portions filed promptly with the Exchange. The 3 of the meeting when a transcriptis being __ Enchange may condition or terminate I kept, and que:tions may be asked only SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE the use of ony such wire cannection if I by members of the Subcommittee,its the Board (or o committee designated by consultants, and Staff. Persons desiring COMMISSION necessary or oppropriate m.'## a l to make oral statements should notify (Retense No.34-17646,ne No. SR-CSOE-the mierest 0> \\ the Designated iederal Employee as far gs,y; of maintaining a fair and orderly moris et in adsance as practicable so that orfor theprotection ofinvestors. .b apptcpriate arrangements can be made Self. Regulatory Organtratloa, /.20.2 replaces Rule d.JJ to allow the necessary time during the Proposed Rufe Changes; Chicago b meeting for such statements. Board Options Exchange,Inc.;GNMA Approval of underlying Securities k The entire meeting will be open to Options 1 public attendance except for those sessions during which the Subcommittee Comments requested on or before Rule 20.7 [no change] finds it necessary to discuss matters May 1.1981. { Rule 20.7 and Interpretations 20.7.01 specifically esempted from disclosure Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the and 20.7.02 [ replace} supplement Rules by statute [Section147 of the Atomic Securities Eschenp Act of 1934.15 5.3 and 5.4} Energy Act) and portions which would U.S C. 78s(b)(1). notice is hereby given Terms of GWA Option Contracts j involve discussions of trade secrets and that on Februe.y ?3.1%1. the Chicago commercial or financial information Board Op9ns bchuge. Incorporated Rule 20 8(s)(no change) f each series (b) De exercise price o [ obtained from a person and privileged ("CBOE") filer' wim the Securities and or confidential. One or more closed Exchange Commiscan the proposed ru4 GNMA options shall be fixed by th sessions may be necessary to discuss change as described in items 1.11. and Ill Board (or the Committee designa%d by such inforniation. (Sunshine Act below, which items have been prer ad the Board) at a percertage of nominal E emptions (3) and (4)).To the estent by the self.regulatery organization.The principal amount, assuming a stated rate prarticable, these closed sessions will Commisalon is publishing this notice to of interest equal to the designated rate. I n%h >4 ~ w- .~ _
T1RE_Tanrrr N / DhTE I .?d/s / ADVISORY COMMllTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS .Y. A gA 4 d u h 7 fedhG yg ATTENDEES PLEASE SIGN BELOW (PLEASE PRINT) NAME , BADGE NO, AFFILIATION 1 J A u
- k. t4 0 e e is
/ 99c /aco_. K A4uwm / wie c'/ivret wmuc a 3 l ' T~. XUo /// w it c. / c c e 9 h / 2' > 7:X jf'/ if4 *:^ /#xX ?< TA-N l NRc/HAR ~ 5
- s
/ r,.,,,+ d Gloy / /) on /imn 7 $l vert Fhul Vl A ' R c k 'fc c ~ 8 s e.,,e L s., / an/sm I , k.. -- /l /.' v,.., p y / a, eas b u,u, u+.. p V,'_, / fL,m. S g / // 1o a.:. a u.~ V/ os,4,huse \\ 11 r a e <.
- 1. n
/ w. m,.,.. >. 3 12, i 3... i \\ f .'.ss. A 's r1 \\ % Loemde:~ l // f P'RT 14 1s L-svse U/ /u'r K .in a 4 / /7 x.; 17.r, J s a
- / //it sa aa
~~ ~ s. !., n.1 (/ / // p., 1s m M am n I /// wueas1 18 l / 6eMd N 4 Ck> l > 'w 20 W 0".
I bas DATE 'l ADVISORY COMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFCGUARDS _Y J$ f/ Cdr$0Y/A AML v &mh ~ ~ VO ATTENDEES PLEASE SIGN BELOW (PLEASE PRiflT) NAME , BADGE NO. AFFILIATION 1 /.F quirk / 6W 2, c) / a 2 /4 ar 3 n u v 4,v /// n "/ s / /7 6 V f' 7 / s [ 9 / // 10 U/ n / 12 /. n I // ~ 1n is U//N 16 l // // 17 n V((/// ',[ 19 20 t
M" ADVISORY COMllTEE Oli REACTOR SAFEGUARDS _/ %%&JWa l' 27142 4,,.e fhu% 4 ATTENDEES PLEASE SIGIL BELO!I lPLEASE PRl!4T) AME , BADGE NO. AFFILIATION 56fD> M^1$3 t d He r. l S 5ourN s // 7 {,i // sn o w,ss 5 m-u., ucc a.+ /,2 P Ad '/, sa 6 u n /// osesr/cra s / 6 s o,z. rwlv,-< ~s TS RgYLoO "/ .1' S 7 f, B Ct\\\\ es o.D /n SD/Pa s G s; n A t o K Tc N C # N [/ [ PES "~ / us 9 2c K i, Lea Cer, o / a q acas w. u 10 h1 ;rn?.c' wass / woti 32.. i && w Y/i&RM [A SwA 084 05 15 D di e:D crad L / / l in a,. is v. e. / 1s ., : i 2../ /A J/ 17 h>. &.... .ta >....,/ \\ /A !/// 39 m 4 4... r, 2o n L / v/ t ~ "s l
ig__rj v.y_ 1 / ADVISORYC0ml}TEEOilREACTORSAFEGUARDS $6lla?)$s hYu$e-Gd93YK, ? / R WAA. W Of ATTENDEES PLEASE sigil BELOW ' LEASE PRlliT) BAUGE (10. AFFILIATION EE ? _ff hh [/[ s- ~ ' /P E c, m.
- /
,// ~ j ft E]t'/x-r - a a r- /// i
- /
f i / /,/ c- / ~ 1.0 ,/ 11 fs/ J2 / 13 f l / ~ i is - /n W/ Ij 1s 17 j /1 .a i 18 !.// / l 30 .20 ( t l v., .p-
m ' PROPOSED AGENDA r APRIL 8,1981 SAFETY PHILOSOPHY, TECHNOLOGY, AND CRITERIA SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING EXECUTIVE SESSION 10:30 - 10:45 am 1. CLOSED SESSION ON SABOTAGE (to be held in Room 1167) 10:45 - 12:45 pm (a) Discussions' on concepts for improved sabotage protection - The recently issued NUREG-1345, " Nuclear Power Plant Design - Concepts for Sabotage Protection" will be discussed............ (45 minutes) Ib) LComments by C. Michelson on Sabotage Protection........................................(30 minutes) (c) General Discussion with the NRC Staff and interested members of the public and industry on concepts for providing improved sabotage protection on new plants and methods for developing and evaluating concepts for improved sabotage protection......................(45 minutes) LUNCH (discussions after lunch will be held in Room 1046) 12:45 - 1:45 pm .2. Discussion with the NRR and RES Staffs 1:45 - 3:45 pm (Topics to be discussed are listed on Attachment A) B R E A K...................................................... ( 15 m i n u te s ) 3., Presentations from industry, government agencies, and members of the public - The topics to be discussed will deal with requirements for new plants and methods for developing requireroents for new plants. The following presentations have been scheduled. Time for additional presentations will be scheduled for the April 8th meeting or for the next Subcomm.ittee (tentatively scheduled for Fay 6, 1981). General Electric and AIF have requested time to address the Subcommittee on May 6, 1981. (a) Presentation by DOE (1 hr) J. Griffith 4:00 - 5:00 pm (b) P.'esentation by EPRI (45 min) 5:00 - 5:45 pm Break (15 min) (c) Presentation by Westinghouse (1 hr) 6:00 - 7:00 pm _(d) Presentation by Combustion Engineering (30 min) 7:00 - 7:30 pm
The Subcommittee requests that the NRC Staff be prepared to discuss t have a regulatory ing topics. It is recognized that the NRC may not yet It is.the Subcommittee intention to discuss position on many of these issues. the NRC Staff's current thoughts on these ' issues. A) In a situation in which manufacturses were not constrained by existing designs, how could design concepts and specific features of existing plant What requirements would be containment designs be cost-ef fectively improved: How would site characteristics influence considered for this class of plants? this process? From the standpoint of radiological consequences, for what types of sites 8)would a core melt into the ground be acceptable and what could be done From the the consequences to the public once the core was in the ground? standpoint of public acceptance, would this be an acceptable regulatory p ophy, and if so, what would an acceptable frequency be? The NRC has recently published NUREG/CR-1345. " Nuclear Power Plant Desior. - C) To what extent would the approach used in Concepts for Sabotage Protection." this work be applicable to resolving other outstanding safety issues, such as Does the NRC believe that this the importance of control systems to safety? approach would be effective and what other approaches might be used? i i e t .}}