ML20035D874
| ML20035D874 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/20/1992 |
| From: | Ward D Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-2809A, NUDOCS 9304140073 | |
| Download: ML20035D874 (20) | |
Text
.
hb h ckc?0 &
o me WW13 CERTIFIED April 20, 1992 D. A. Ward, ACRS Chairman I
SUMMARY
MINUTES OF ACRS PLANNING & PROCEDURES SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING - MARCH 19, 1992 i
DALLAS, TEXAS i
I.
Particioants David A.
Ward, Chairman James C.
Carroll, Member Paul G.
Shewmon, Member I
Ivan Catton, Invited Member R.
F. Fraley, Member S.
Duraiswamy, ACRS Staff 2
i II.
Purcose This meeting was scheduled to discuss:
1.
Imolementation of reauests from the Commissioners durina the ACRS-Commission meetina on March 5.
1992.
Specifically:
Use of DACs in the certification of standardized nuclear power plant designs, 1
Integral system testing requirements for the Westinghouse AP600 passive plant design, and the _
i i
Accident Sequence Precursor Program.
e b
,'Ol 9304140073 920420 N
s 2809A PDR
< " na 97
t I*
i i
See Attachments A and B for specific questions / requests i
from the Commissioners during the March 5, 1992 meeting.
2.
Research subcommittee assianments - Consider proposed elimination of the ACRS Safety Research Program Subcommittee and assignment of research-related functions to other Subcommittees.
3.
Reauest from Chairman Selin to develoo procedures to P
"close the loop" more effectively with the NRC staff See Attachment C for summary of specific comments by Chairman Selin regarding procedures to interface more effectively with the NRC staff in dealing with difficult issues and areas of disagreement.
4.
Replies to ACRS Recommendations from the EDQ Two specific " replies" from the EDO were considered.
They involve e
Use of DACs during 10 CFR Part 52, Design Certification Reviews - See EDO reply dated March 10, 1992 (Attachment D), and ACRS Propcced Containment Criteria to Accommodate Severe Accidents - See SECY-92-070 dated February l
o l
a.
3 i
r 28,
- 1992, regarding NRC staff comparison of proposed ACRS criteria with related criteria j
proposed by industry (Attachment E).
i III. DiscussioD 1.
Response to Commissioners' Recuests durina March 5.
1992 ACRS-Commission Meetina Use of DACs in the reaulatory process The specific questions regarding use of DAC centered around three areas, namely:
l I
a.
What are appropriate constraints regarding the use l
of DAC (e.g.,
are the proposed staff standards, noted below, appropriate as the basis for using a i
DAC)?
only where vendor specific as-built or as-e l
procured information is needed to do the safety assessment but is not available only where it is not technically feasible to j
e I
provide detailed information for certification i
t 4
(e.g.,
in a
rapidly developing field of technology) i only where site-specific information is needed e
regarding plant-site interface and is not available only where it would be economically e
prohibitive to provide detailed information at the certification stage b.
What should be the scope and content of an acceptable DAC for those systems where use of DAC i
is appropriate?
c.
Which specific systems are appropriate for use of DACs and which are not?
Members of the subcommittee concluded that the Committee t
should continue its review of issues related to:
d.
What are acceptable reasons (standards) for using a DAC?
(e.g.,
are the standards proposed by the staff acceptable?)
I
4 5
e.
What areas of plant design should DACs be applied to and which should they not be applied to?
For example, are site-specific requirements appropriate for a DAC?
Can systems interactions such as flooding and fires be appropriately dealt with by DACs?
[
f.
Given a system that is appropriate for a DAC - what j
should the DAC include?
For example, how can I
developing technology be accommodated without unduly giving up standardization?
g.
What is the relationship between DAC and ITAAC?
i Conclusions / Recommendations l
l The members recommended an ad hoc Subcommittee on Design Acceptance Criteria to consider these matters further.
Proposed members are:
i l
Jay Carroll, Chairman Carl Michelson, Member David Ward, Member Paul Shewmon, Member Charlie Wylie, Member Ivan Catton, Member i
t' i
t 1
I l
i i
l 6
t The cognizant staff engineer will be Medhat El-Zeftawy.
Specific subcommittee activities are to include:
- Review, in detail, one or more proposed DACs j
o l
The DAC on Control Room Design
[
1 was proposed specifically as suggested by i
l Commissioner Rogers.
The DAC for the 1&C system was also suggested.
Review the pros and cons of the DAC process.
e o
Meet with NRC representatives such as W.
Russell and/or D.
Crutchfield, industry representatives such as EPRI, NUMARC, and nuclear power oversight committees as well as selected utilities (e.g.,
TVA) to continue review of this subject.
Consider meeting with representatives of German and French groups to discuss if/how their standardization process would/does permit use of DACs. (Note:
The Subcommittee on International Activities (Wilkins) agreed to follow up on this question.) !
J. Carroll, Chairman of the proposed Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Design Acceptance Criteria agreed to schedule the first meeting during the morning of May 6, 1992 (Note:
The Planning & Procedures Subcommittee meeting currently t
scheduled for this time will be rescheduled to the i
l
^
7 i
afternoon of May 5, 1992).
A second meeting of the Ad Hoc Subcommittee will be scheduled during June.
i The subcommittee will bring a proposed report on these issues to the full Committee for consideration during the July 1992 Committee meeting to try to meet the-proposed f
SECY deadline of July 29, 1992.
l l
6 2.
Intecral System Testino for the Westinchouse AP600.
[
i f
Passive Plant l
The proposed plan (described at the Commission briefing i
on March 11, 1992) for separate but " coordinated" FHFP i
testing in the Italian SPES facility by Westinghouse and in the Japanese ROSA-IV facility by the NRC (see Mark
[
f Stella Memo dated March 13, 1992 Attachment F) was I
discussed briefly. Comments by Tom Murley, NRR, and Eric Beckjord, RES, that this program is consistent with the ACRS recommendation for a joint test program were of concern.
Plans to use ROSA-IV and SPES rather than a new facility in the U.S.
designed specifically to simulate l
the AP600 design were also of concern.
Conclusions / Recommendations
[
i
t 8
The Subcommittee endors,'d an invitation to Tom Murley, NRR, and Eric Beckjord, RES, to discuss this matter i
further during the April ACRS meeting and hopefully "close the loop" with respect to the intent of the Committee's March 10, 1992 report on AP600 testing.
I.
Catton, Chairman of the Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena Subcommittee, proposed to hold a meeting (after the April 1992 ACRS meeting) with representatives of Westinghouse, j
NRR, and RES to discuss the following:
i Westinghouse's plans for testing at the SPES e
facility in Italy.
i e
NRC staff's plans for testing at the ROSA IV facility in Japan, f
e What modification need to be made to the ROSA IV facility to accommodate the testing for AP600.
3.
ACRS Review of Selected ITTACs Commissioner Rogers' request that the ACRS review at least a couple of ITTACs to evaluate their scope and content was discussed.
t t
9
?
Conclusions / Recommendations It was agreed that the ACRS should begin its review by selecting two ITTACs when they are available.
Two j
proposed ITTACs were selected for review as follows:
l Standby Liquid Control System (2.2.4) (specifically l
noted by Commissioner Rogers as an example of an ITTAC that is considered satisfactory by the NRC i
staff).
i Residual Heat Removal System (if available in time e
to meet the August 21, 1992 SECY deadline).
i It was proposed that the Advanced Boiling Water Reactors i
Subcommittee (Michelson) review the ITTAC on the Standby Liquid Control System and the Decay Heat Removal Systems subcommittee (Ward) review the ITTAC on the Residual Heat i
Removal System.
l r
It was proposed that C.
Michelson should look at the ITAAC for the Standby Liquid control System to determine whether additional information is needed to perform an effective review of this ITAAC so the need for additional 1
information can be discussed during the May - 6, 1992 subcommittee meeting.
{
l
~
i 10 i
i Both of the ITTACs noted above deal with TIER I systems that will have detailed design information.
At a later date, selected ITTACs for systems defined by DACs should also be reviewed.
l 4.
Accident Secuence Precursor Procram i
t Members discussed the comments by Commissioner Rogers l
during the March 5, 1992 meeting regarding the impact of the regulatory process on reactor safety, specifically the reduced probability of core melt.
Conclusions / Recommendations i
It was agreed that some additional follow-up regarding 5
this issue would be appropriate.
Members noted Dr. Kerr's BBS message #18827 dated March i
16, 1992 regarding the impact of the ATWS rule and the Station Blackout rule on reactor safety.
They requested i
that we assign Steve Mays, ACRS Fellow, to follow-up j
i regarding Dr. Kerr's suggestions that staff efforts in
)
i these areas may have contributed positively and demonstratively to improved reactor safety.
)
i
-)
i 11 P
Alternate mechanisms to gage the regulatory contribution to reactor safety were discussed briefly.
It was agreed to invite Joe Colvin, NUMARC, in to update his previous comments (August 1989 ACRS meeting) about the impact of the regulatory process on reactor safety.
(NOTE:
Mr.
Colvin will not be available until the July or August ACRS meeting.)
The members expressed an interest in the work of Hal i
Lewis and Steve Mays to check the methodology, etc., of the PRAs that are the basis for the staff conclusion in t
the ASP report that core melt probabilities have-decreased from what they were in the 1970s.
Members-asked that they be informed regarding the outcome of this review.
5.
Safety Research Program f
l The Subcommittee discussed the following issues:
Should the Safety Research Program Subcommittee be e
abolished?
[ NOTE:
This issue was discussed briefly by the full Committee during the March 5-7, 1992 meeting.
The Committee suggested that the Planning and Procedures Subcommittee discuss this e
l l
12 l
l matter further during its next meeting and provide its recommendation to the full Committee.]
e If the Safety Research Program subcommittee is abolished, how should the-following functions of 1
j this Subcommittee be carried out?:
i l
Coordination of the ACRS Annual Report to i
Congress on the NRC Safety Research Program by compiling applicable Committee reports prepared during the year.
l Performing periodic reviews of the adequacy of the Overall NRC Safety Research Program and budget.
i I
l
)
Coordination of the preparation of an i
integrated ACRS report to the Commission on the NRC Safety Research Program and budget during 1991.
It was proposed that RES should have the authority to anticipate research needs and take steps to initiate necessary research to meet such needs.
It was pointed out that, under the existing system, RES would not be able to initiate new research i
=
+
13 i
without a " user need" request.
An example was the fire protection research program.
Although RES proposed research in the fire protection area, NRR, I
1 the research.iser office, did not endorse such a research program.
Consequently, the fire protection research was cancelled.
i l
i The members felt that the ACRS has been operating I
more in a " reactive" mode in reviewing the NRC research program rather than in a "proactive" mode.
~
They thought that the Committee should operate more l
in a "proactive" mode and identify new areas of j
1 research that result from Committee activities in i
other areas (e.g.,
review of advanced reactor designs).
It was suggested that the NRC Nuclear Safety l
Research Review Committee (NSRRC)
Chairman be
^
requested to brief the Committee during a near future meeting regarding his views on the strengths
[
t and weaknesses of the NRC Safety Research Program and also the Technical Assistance Program.
Conclusions / Recommendations i
l
14 The Subcommittee members decided to recommend the following to the full Committee:
Abolish the existing Safety Research Program Subcommittee.
Assign elements and subelements of the major e
research programs to cognizant topical subcommittees for review and preparation of Committee
- comments, as appropriate.
(Note:
Assignments for applicable portions of the research program are already included in the list of subcommittee tasks in a general way.
An updating that includes specific detailed assignments will be made.)
Assign lead responsibility to appropriate e
subcommittees, as shown in Table 1,
for coordinating research related activities of the ACRS topical subcommittees.
This would include setting schedules and guidance for use by topical subcommittee chairmen in reviewing the research elements and subelements assigned to them and for developing comments and recommendations, as appropriate, for consideration
15
(
i by the full Committee regarding those portions of the research program for which they are cognizant.
In
- addition, topical subcommittees should be encouraged to give considel' tion to research needs
(
r that may result from specific licensing actions (e.g.,
approval of advanced reactor designs) for which they are the cognizant ACRS subcommittee.
When reviewing the research
- programs, the Subcommittees should explore the following:
What new research is needed?
l i
Are the scope and direction of, and planning l
for, newly initiated elements of the research programs adequate?
Which research being done or proposed is unnecessary?
i i
What recearch should be done by the industry rather than the NRC?
l Is the overall budget for the NRC Safety j
Research Program adequate?
Are the l
4 16 t
allocations of this budget to various research elements generally appropriate?
- Also, the Subcommittees should look at the Technical Assistance Program activities being carried out in the topical areas for which they are responsible, j
i During December of each year, make arrangements for e
a briefing to the full Committee by Mr. Beckjord,
(
RES Director, regarding an overview of the ongoing and proposed research
- programs, priorities, proposed budget, and impacts of any anticipated budget reduction by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
2 This briefing by Mr. Beckjord and other available information would provide the members a basis to j
determine if certain issues need to be brought to the attention of the Commission or the EDO.
If so, f
a report should be prepared during the December i
meeting or the January meeting so it is available when preparing the annual research report to Congress during the February Committee meeting.
f f
17 To assist in preparing the annual ACRS report to the Congress, the Subcommittee agreed that Sam Duraiswamy and the ACRS Chairman will compile a list of applicable Committee reports and letters provided to the NRC during the year, including the comprehensive report to the NRC noted above, if
- any, and provide them along with a
proposed transmittal letter for consideration by the full l
Committee during its February meeting.
r 6.
Procedures to "close the loop" with the reculatory staff a.
During the March 4,
1992 meeting of the ACRS Chairman with the NRC Chairman, Dr. Selin suggested procedures for an exchange of views with staff 1
management level representatives when the Committee and/or the staff recognize that differences of opinion exist or controversial issues need to be reconciled.
Conclusions / Recommendations It was noted that the Committee and staff have already begun a series of meetings that are consistent with this suggestion.
Namely, the meeting with Jim Sneizek and other senior staff managers during the February Committee 1
i
18 meeting to discuss a variety of issues, the session with Tom Murley and senior GE management during the March ACRS meeting to discuss the GEABWR, and a planned meeting with Tom Murley and Eric Beckjord during the April meeting to discuss integral system testing for the AP600.
Members concluded that this type of interfacing with NRC staff management should continue.
b.
The Chairman's second suggestion for an interface between knowledgeable Committee members and working level staff in selected areas was also discussed.
It was noted that individual members do meet and talk with staff members to varying degrees depending on the issues and people involved.
The reaction has not always been positive, however.
[ NOTE:
It should be noted that use of this mechanism should be limited to the comments / opinions of individual members since transmittal of Committee comments and conclusions could violate FACA unless such sessions are conducted in open meetings.
Conclusions / Recommendations
d 19 The subcommittee members concluded that this type of interaction should be encouraged.
7.
Miscellaneous It was agreed that SECY-92-070, Staff Comparison of e
ACRS Proposed Criteria Containment Criteria to Accommodate Severe Accidents with Related Criteria Proposed by Industry (Attachment D) should be discusscd with Tom Murley when he meets with the Committee on April 3,
- 1992, in addition to the discussion of AP600 integral system testing.
As part of the program to familiarize members with e
computer technology, the Computer subcommittee should invite an expert from NASA to brief the Committee on " imbedded systems" in which systems and equipment interact with computers and humans to accomplish a desired result.
Provide all members copies of NSRRC meeting notices and summaries of NSRRC meetings attended by ACRS staff engineers with an appropriate flag to bring them to the members attention.
Attachments:
20 TABLE 1 MAJOR PROGRAM LEVEL RESPONSIBILITY Primary Responsibility Lead Subcommittees for Major Programs Subcommittee Chairman i
(ACRS Staff) 1.
Integrity of Reactor Components Materials and Shewmon Metallurgy (Igne) 2.
Preventing Damage to Reactor Cores Thermal Hydrau-Catton lic Phenomena (Bochnert)
\\
- 3. Reactor Containment Performance Severe Accidents Kerr (Houston) l
- 4. Advanced Reactor Research Advanced Reactor Ward Designs (El-Zeftawy)
- 5. Resolving Safety Issues and Plant Operations Carroll Developing Regulations (Boehnert)
NOTES:
o The major research programs, noted above, are taken from the October 1991 Five-Year Plan for FY 1992-FY 1996.
A new Five-Year Plan for FY 1993-FY 1997 that is being prepared by the staff may include some changes to the research program structure.
In the event of any changes, Table 1 will be modified to reflect those changes.
i Assignments for reviewing the research elements under each major research o
programs will be made after receiving the new Five-Year Plan for FY 1993-FY 1997.
A list will be provided of the topical subcommittees with responsibilities o
in areas of research for which these lead subcommittees have a
coordinating function.
1