ML20043B376
| ML20043B376 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/26/1990 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 9005290227 | |
| Download: ML20043B376 (45) | |
Text
-
L e'
-t t..
s,
^
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS SION..
t-9 tO BRIEFING ON CONTAINMENT PERTORMANCE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (OTHER THAN MARK I)
I LOCatiOD:
R0cxylttt, MARYtAND Date:
APRIt 26, 1990 i
i
?Eg6S 27 PAGES l
I 1
NIALR,GROSSANDCO.,IHC, j
CorRT REPORTEP$ AND TRAh$fRIBERS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, Northwest "ashington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4423 1
I gg52 900426 PT9,y[O[
4 PDC i
i
DISCLAIMER
'i This is an unof ficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on April 26, 1990, in the Commission's office et One 4
White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland.
The meeting was j
open to public attendance and obe6rvation.
This transcript i
f has not been reviewed, corrected or edited, and it may j
contain inaccuracies, j
i 1
4 The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of, or
.i addressed to, any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
f i
NEAL R. GRo$$
CoVRT RfkoRTER$ AND TRAN$ChittR$
1333 rho 0t IlL AND AYtMUt, N.W.
l -
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTc4 D C.
2000$
(202) 232 & '4 t
[
pyn '
e 1
p
- o.,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA L,.
NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING BRIEF ON CONTAINMENT PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (OTHER TMAN MARK I)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1 White Flint North Rockville, Maryland Thursday, April 26, 1990 h
L The Commission met in open sessions, pursuant to notice, at 2:00 p.m.,
Kenneth M. Carr, Chairman, l-presiding, i
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
KENNETH M. CARR KENNETH C.
ROGERS JAMES R. CURTISS FORREST J. REMICK i
i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANDTRANSCRIBERS 13?3 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON DC N (7J2) 2324600
y I;:,-
2 l'
t l
STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT THE COMMISSION TABLE:
t l
SAMUEL J. CHILK Secretary WILLIAM C.
PARLER General Counsel p
JAMES M. TAYLOR EDO i
THOMAS MURLEY Director, NRR WILLIAM BECKNER RES i
ERIC BECKJORD Director, RES g
i' f
THEMIS SPEIS RES e
9 D
F F
t J
k l
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAh D AVENVE. N W p
(202; 234 4433 W ASHINGTON D C m (202) 232 6000
3 w
1 2 B Q'C E E D I E G E a
2 (2:00 p.m.)
3 CHAIRMAN CARRt Good afternoon, ladies and 4
gentlemen.
Commissioner Roberts will not be with us this 9
5 afternoon. This afternoon the Commission will be briefed 6
by the NRC Office of Research and Closure of the 7
Containment Performance Improvement Program.
8 The Containment Performance Improvement Program 9
is one element of the sevefe accident and master 10 integration plan.
Other elements include the individual 11 plant examination effort, improved plant operations, the 12 severe accident research program, examination of external 33 events and an accident management program.
14 This is an information briefing and no 15 Commission vote will be taken at this meeting.
- However, 1
16 the Commission is expected to vote following this 17 meeting, and staff's recommendation for closure of the 18 Containment Performance Improvement Program which 19 includes issuance of a
generic letter to reactor 20 licensees identifying potential vulnerabilities to s
21 containment and improvements to be evaluated on a plant-22 specific basis as part of the individual plant 23 examination effort.
24 Copies of the staff's slide presentation are 1
25 available at the entrance to the meeting room.
Do any NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR$ERS 1303 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (3h 234433 WASHINGTON. D C 2000$
(N7) 732 6600 i
4
(-.
c.
g l-1-
cf ty fOi.iow Commiccicn:ra h;vo cny commento th y wich k
2 to make before we begin?
If not, Mr. Taylor, please
{
[
3 proceed.
~
l 4 l MR. TAYLOR:
Good afternoon.
With me at the 5
table are Eric Beckjord, the director of Office of 6
Research; to my right, Themis Speis, the deputy director, 7
Office of Research; Bill Beckner, Office of Research, and f
e i.
j 8
Tom Murley, director of NRR.
9 Mr. Beckjord has some' opening remarks.
i 10 MR. BECKJORD: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the 11 meeting today is to present the recommendations of the 12 Containment Performance Improvement study for the plants 13 with Mark II, Mark III, ice condenser and large dry 14 containments.
The staff previously presented 15 recommendations for the Mark I containments in the paper 16 SECY-09-017.
17 The staff is proceeding to implement the i
18 hardened vent for these plants, which was described in l
19 Supplement 1 of the generic letter 88-20 dated -- the 20 supplement was dated August 29, 1989.
In this present 21 study for the other containment types the staff has made 22 use of the latest results from Nureg 1150, from other 23
- PRAs, recent PRAs available to us, from research j performed in the severe accident research program and the 24 25 accident management program and other sources to identify NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSOR$ERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
gc2; 234 4433 WASHtNGTON. D C PFJ5 (202) 232 % 10
'Y+
[-
5 5
[
1 ch211cngco to c:ntainment integrity.
2 We have found a
number of possible 3
improvements, out we havo not identified any generic l
l improvements that would be applicable to all containments 4
5 of a given type.
We recommend that the information 6'
developed on insights and improvements be forwarded to 7
all licensees as a supplement to the individual plant i
8 examination letter for their use.
L 9
We will present all ' of this information in 10 published reports and we expect to have them available t
11 for issue at the same time as the supplement to the 12 generic letter.
And I think with that I would ask 13 Dr. Speis to give you the presentation on those findings.
14 DR. SPEIS Mr. Chairman, commissioners.
May 15 I have the second viewgraph, please? After we already -
16
- Mr. Chairman, as Mr. Beckjord talked about the purpose 17 of briefing, the only thing I would like to add ir that 18 our studies have been reviewed by CRGR as well as the 19 ACRS.
We have a letter from.the ACRS which is attached 20 to the Commission paper and basically the ACRS agrees 21 with the staff that we should provide these insights to i
22 the licensees for their folding into the IP process.
23 I think they also caution us to make sure that 24
-- they are telling us to caution the licensees to make 25 sure that they don't focus exclusively on the specific NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIEtER$
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (232)234 4433 WASHINGTON.DC 2000$
(202) 232 6600 t
6 I
1 recommend;ticn3 th3t wa hava m2da, but th y rctoin o 2
broader perspective.
l The next viewgraph, please.
Yes?
3 i
4 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Does the staff correspond l
5 with that?
6 DR. SPEIS:
Yes, in the generic letter that we i --
p 7
have also attached to the Commission
- paper, that i
8 cautionary statement is included there.
So we have no 9
problem.
I think it's a good' recommendation.
In the r
10 outline of the briefing we'll talk to you about, the 11 approach and the basis for our evaluations. We then will 12 describe the staff conclusions on each containment type 13 separately.
14 I
will summarize the impact of our i
15 recommendations on the individual plant examinations 16 which are presently being pursued or in the planning 17
- process, and then we'll again summarize the staff 18 recommendations.
19 The next viewgraph, please.
Some of these 20 things have been said already.
For background to the 21 paper, the Mark I paper which Mr. Beckjord mentioned 22 already, I have listed here the recommendations that were L
23 included at that time.
The reason that we have listed 24 them here is that we are also recommending that the 25 licensees with the Mark II's, Mark III's, ice condensers 1
NEAL R. GROSS l
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR$ERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON O C 20305 (202) 232-6600 m
[
7 L..
1 cnd lorg3-dry ice will 0100 c:noid0r th3 cc'me Cns mb10-i t[
2 of recommendations on a plant-specific basis.
]
3 At the time that we came forward' with our i
4 l specific Mark I -- precise Mark I recommendations, of
)
5 course we.did a detailed cost-benefit analysis as part l
6 of the backfit rule.
The next page, please.
7 Again, the next page is -- we all know the 8
history where the Commission told us to fold them into 9
the IP process, except the hardened vent issue and our 10 latest count as I think we've told you last time was that 11 19 of the 24 licensees would be implementing the hardened 12 vent voluntarily.
13 I'am to have performed regulatory analysis on 14 the other five.
The.other five, four of those plants are 15 the Mark I's with isolation condensers.
Oyster Creek, 16 Dresden 2/3, Millstone and the fifth plant is 17 Fitzpatrick, which they have some questions about our 18 backfit methodology _and also they thought that even this 19 issue should be part of the IP process.But we have to 20 include it, the regulatory analysis, and it is about to 21 be the utilities.
22 Yes?
r 23 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Did I hear you say that 24 this would be coming out soon?
25 DR. MURLEY:
Yes, we believe that it's still NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W m2g34.u33 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 m2, 232-6600 t
I e
w 1
justificd.
T h o d ; t o i l c 'J plent-cpecific ct ben; fit' y
2 analysis confirmed the generic analysis that we did last l
3 year and we should be ready probably as early as next 4
week to send letters out to the five plants saying that 5
'we intend to issue an order unless they change their p
6 mind.
So we'ra prepared to do that.
7 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
For all five?
8 DR. MURLEY:
All five.
9 DR. SpEIS:
With those introductory remarks I
[
i 10 will turn over the presentation to Dr. Beckner.
11 DR. BECKNER:
Okay, if we can go to slide five, 12 please, I'd like to discuss briefly how our approach for 13 the other containment types differed from what we did 14 under the Mark I's and how it was similar.
15 First of all, we only really did a first cut 16 or a screening type look at cost benefit basically to see 17 if there wao anything we might want to carry forward.
1 18 In general though, most of the effort _ primarily was 19 directed toward simply looking at
- insights, 20 vulnerebilities and potential improvements that might be 21 of usefulness to the utilities in the course of their 22 IPE.
23 The reason for this revised approach was 24 basically twofold.
First of all when we went through 25 with our first-cut-type regulatory analysis we didn't see I
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE t?tAND AVENUE. N W (202) 2M33 WASHINGTON D C. 23X$
(202) 232-0600
9 4
1 cnything th;t was obvicu21y c:ct-b:noficial that wo w:uld' 2
. recommend-backfitting to all plants of a given type.
i 3_
And the second reason, of course, is that we 4 -
had the recommendations of the ACRS for the Mark I 5
improvements, where they strongly recommended that this 6
effort be considered in the IPE.
And of course this is.
7 consistent with the Commission direction as far as the 1
8 Mark I effort, too.
And so we primarily directed this, 9
as I said before, towards lookirig at insights that might 10 be useful as the licensees go through their IPEs.
11 Going to slide six, this is really the basis 12 for the recommendations, or what we specifically did.
13 Again, this level of detail, it is similar to the type 14 of thing th6t we did with the Mark I's.
We basically l
15
_took a look at existing PRAs.
This was primarily 1150 16 PRAs, but we did look at other PRAs that were available, 17
' particular for Mark II's since there was not a 1150 plant 18 for a Mark II.
19 We also took the 1150 containment event trees, 20 the information which was generated under that program, 21 and made use of them to evaluate different types of
[
22 improvements to try to determine the benefit and of 23 course to get the overall picture of how an improvement 24 might impact the plant risk.
. 25 We also performed supplementary calculations LE.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202)23 4 433 WASHINGTON D C 20005 (202)232 6600 t
n 1
10 e
1 cf c:ntainm:nt rocp:nno, cg31n pricarily lerking at
- '=
+
2 supple:nenting some of the calculations that were 3
performed in support of the 1150 area and again r
I 4
particularly for a Mark II plant since there was not Mark S-II plant.
t 6
As I indicated before, we did very limited f
b, i
7 cost-benefit analysis, again primarily taking a first cut 8
to see if there was anything that we'd want to pursue 9
further.
10 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Just before you leave 11 that, what do those supplementary calculations deal with?
12 What issues were they?
l 13 DR. BECKNER:
Basically doing calculations of 14 containments, temperature and pressure during the courses 15 of accidents.
Primarily looking and also looking at the 16 effect of various improvements, for instance, back-up 17 power to fans for ice condensers, this type of thing, 16 l'ooking at venting, how that affects containment pressure 19 and so forth.
20 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Were there any issues 21 there that were very difficult to deal with from an 22 analytical basis?
23 DR. BECKNER:
Yes there were.
There was one 24 in particular that I'm going to deal with later on and 25 I'll show you in the Mark II presentation.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPOATERS AND TRANSCR$ERS 1323 RHDDE l$L AND AVENUE, N W.
.(202i 234-4433 WASHING 10N. D C 20005 d@ fJ2 6000
e
~
1 11 1
COMMISSIONER ROGERSt All right, g:Cd.
e 2
DR. BECKNER:
If we want to move to slide seven i
i L.
l 3
these are a summary of the basic recommendations and our l
4 findings.
As has been indicated here, we-did not see 5
anything that we felt we should recommend on a generic J
6 basis.
We did, however, find a lot of sery interesting 7
things,.a lot of insights that we feel the licensees l
l 8
should be aware of and should consider as part of their I
9 IPE.
10 In addition, we did generate a lot of useful 11 technical information.
We have about 10 contractor 12 reports that are coming out.,
We think that this 13 information will potentially be useful to licensees as
.14 they do their IPEs.
15 One thing that we had indicated is that you do 16
-- to the licensees to the IPE is that we didn't want
~
17 licensees to be redoing calculations if they had already 18 been done.
And this will increase the database out there 19 that's available.
20 There were a number of other things that we
-21 found that we did not make specific recommendations, 22 either because there was an ongoing research program in 23 that area or because things were already being considered 24 under the accident management program.
There is of 25 course an overlap with the accident management program NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIEtERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202)234 4433 WASHINGTON D C 20006 (202) 232-6600
12
>4-1 cnd w3'v0 h^d t') 00 rdin;to v;ry c2r0 fully with th:a.
r
,-l 2
Many of the things that we've found have i
3 already been issued under Supplement 2 to the IPE generic i
1 4
letter that were issued as the strategies put out by the 1
5 accident management program.
Slide 8
gives more 6
specifics now about some of the specific items that we'd i
7 like licensees to look at as part of their IPEs.
8 The first containment type I'll talk about is 9
the Mark II's.
What we are recommending is that 3
10 basically Mark II's consider the same improvements that i
I 11 we recommended for the Mark I's.
They are generally i
12 applicable for basically the same reasons.
There is one 13 specific differences we are not recommending for the i
14 Mark II's specifically a hardened vent; rather, we'd like 15 them to take a look at it in the course of their IPEs.
16 And there's a number of reasons for this.
17 First of all, the. existing hardware that's out there for 18 the Mark II'z is highly variable and varies from plant 19 to plant and I'll show you an example of that in a 20 moment.
And in addition, some of the licensees have 21 alerted us to the fact that there are also alternate ways 22 that could be used to potentially cool the suppression 23 pool as a potential alternative venting, and they'd like 24 the option to evaluate them.
L 25 I'm going to come back to the slide in a moment l
l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSORIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (P02) 2344433 WASHING 10N. D C 20005 (202) 232-6000 f
y 13 i,
)
1 f;r tho' Cth0r containment typ:3, but if wa tcyo to Olid3' t
2 9,
this is just a
general picture of a
Mark II 3
containment.
While there are only a limited nurber of I
i
+
4 Mark II containments they are almost all different.
5 We found as far as a hardened vent some Mark II's already 6
had that capability and some did not.
It was highly 7
variable.'
8 As far as the benefit of venting for a Mark II, 9
the primary benefit again is
- in a preventive mode, 10 preventing the TW sequence, although the likelihood of 11 a TW sequence may be less in a Mark II reactor based on 12 the PRAs we saw.
However, I want --
13 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Excuse me, question.
I 14 You've made the statement that some Mark II's had the 15 capability --
16 DR. BECKNER:
Yes.
17 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
-- of a hardened vent.
18 By capabilities do you mean they have it installed or 19 it's ea7: to install?
20 DR. BECKNER:
Some utilities -- at least one 21 utility possibly has a hardened path that could be used 1
22 by changing procedures.
There's other questions from i
23 another utility as far as it's not a hardened vent but 24 they feel it would not fail.
And so again there's a l
25 variability of hardware out there.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBER $
1323 RHODE 13 LAND AVENUE, f W (202; 234 4433 Wt.WINGT ON. D C 2W6 (202) 232-f600
o
[
14 1-Vcnting undir tha --
I-
[t s 2
COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Excuse me, I
have a L
3 related" question.
Is there any reason to believe that 4-any Mark II could not be fitted with the hardened vent
[
5 if one wished to do it?
Is there any technical reason 6
why it could not be done?
7 DR. BECKNER:
We don't know of any reason, but t
8 we have not looked.
We have not looked at various 9
plants.
10 For the other case of venting following a core 11 melt to prevent containment failure this is a more 12 complex issue.
It's complex both because of 13 phenomenology and also because there are variations-in 14 the containment designs.
If you want to focus on the i'
15 area below the reactor vessel and the downcomers and then 16
' move from page 9 to page 10, you can see we have three 17 basic variations in containment design.
i 18 And even within the center design there are two i
19 variations there.
The one design has water directly 20 beneath the pedestal and one does not.
These basic 21 designs of the containment greatly impact the response 22 to the containment following a core melt and following 23 a breach of a vessel where the chorium basically would 24 be deposited on the floor of the containment.
25 The center design basically contains a cavity NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANDTRANSCR$ERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (ygp3 py.u33 WASHINGTON. O C 20005 (202) 232-6600
i, 15
)
1 th t! w;uld be cxp;ct d to r;tsin th3 chtrium, nt F
2 interact with the water at least for a long period of 3
time until the concrete was eaten away.
The two designs
^
4-on either side, it's quite different.
5 one design, the Shoreham-Nine Mile Point design 6
has downcomers directly below the vessel, chorium could 7
potentially flow down the downcomers into the water.
8 Likewise, on your far right the Limerick-Susquehannah 9
design has X-pedestal downcomers, but chorium could flow 10 along the floor and go down the downcomers into the 11 suppression pool.
12 Now, this introduces two areas of uncertainty.
13 First of all there's a phenomenological uncertainty as 14 to exactly how much steam is produced when a given amount
'15 of chork goes down the downcomers and that impacts the 16 pressurizate of the containment.
The other area of 17L uncertainty is what the chorium going down the downcomers 18 would do to the downcomers themselves.
They may well 19 fail.
20 If the downcomers f ail, of course then you have 21 a suppression pool bypass and if you had a vent it would 22 be unscrubbed.
All these issues impact the venting 23 following a core melt, both because they impact how much 24 the containment is pressurized and also they impact
- l 25 whether or not their release would be scrubbed.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHDDE ISLAND AVENUE, N W I
(2p2, p34.g33 WASHINGTON. O C 20005 (2023 232 4 600
16 1
But ' egain thio 10, lct me CCphsoito, th003 2
uncertainties are for the less likely case of venting 3'
occurring after core melt.
But thene are areas that
[
4 there is indeed continuing research and it may be some 5
time before we solve these very difficult problems.
4 6
But this highlights one of the major reasons I
7 why there is phenomenological uncertainty for Mark II's 8
and also there's'large differences between designs and 9
that's why we did not dake specific generic 10 recommendations.
11 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
I have a question.
It'ri 1
12 not directed specifically at what we're discussing today, but with the EDO and Research and NRR represented here, 13 14 when I look at our design certification process is it 15 going to permit such variations in the future of a class 16 of reactor where we have a Mark II with all different 17 kind of designs?
18 I just throw it out.
You need not address it
'19 now.
I couldn't resist raising it.
20 COMMISSIONER CARR We'll deal with some of 21 that tomorrow.
Hes rephrased the essentially complete 22 design question.
23 DR. BECKNER:
If there's no further questions 24 on the Mark II's, I'd like --
l 25 DR. MURLEY:
Point of clarification, Bill.
NEAL R. GROSS I
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202; 2V4433 WASHINGTON D C 20005 (202)2324400
- f. S 17 4
l,'
1 Icn't it tru3 that th3 M;rk II'O do h2v3 VOnting in thoir.
4
?.
I, 2
emergency operating procedures?
{
3 DR..BECKNER:
That's correct, yes.
p-4 DR. MURLEY: So part of the concern that we had 5
on Mark I's, which was if you did vent as part of your j
I 6
emergency operating procedures, you could cause steam or 7
perhaps even some radioactivity out into the reactor
]
8 building.
That would still be a concern on my part, for 9
example.
When the IPEs come in/ I'm going to be looking l
10 to see whether they looked at that question.
r 11 DR. BECKNER:
We can return to slide 8 now and i
12 I'll discuss the Mark III's.
Again, we are recommending i
13 for the Mark III's that they look at again the same set j
14 of improvements.
Again venting is even less of an issue f
15 for the Mark III's primarily because they have a much n
16 larger volume and the likelihood that venting would be 17 required is believed to be much less.
However, we still
{
18 think it's worthwhile looking at it.
19 There is an additional issue, however, for the 20 Mark III's we'd like the licensees to look at.
The only 21 available PRA that we have for a Mark III is the 1150 22 Grand Gulf effort.
That effort found that the dominant 23 challenge to the containment of the Mark III was 24 basically from station blackout and basically from a 25 threat due to hydrogen detonation.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANDTRANSCR$ERS i
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W
?
(702) 734 4 433 WASHINGTON D C 20005 (202) 232 6600 w.
18 I
s-New, 1ct no b2ck up a COc:nd.
Th2 Mark III'O, j
1 2
unlike the other two boiler type of containments are not l
inerted to control hydrogen.
They make use of igniters 3
1 4'
and during a station blackout accident the igniters would j
5 not be available, and that's where the principle threat i
i 6
came from 1150 because of course station blackout was the
~
7 dominant threat for 1150.
.s 8
'Again, 1150 gave a very, very low number for 9
that sequence even though it was' dominant.
But we'd like 10 to have the Mark III utilities basically take a look at 11 the benefit and feasibility of back-up power to the 12 hydrogen igniters as part of their IPE.
13 The same issue exists for ice condensers.
t
'14 Again, ice condensers make use of igniters to control 15 hydrogen.
They are not functional during a station 16 blackout and would like the ice condensers to take a look 17 at the banefit of backup power to the igniters.
18 As far a-the large dry containments, we are 19 much less concerned about these containment types, 20 basically that the 1150 study looked at two large dry ice 21 containments and they did not find hydrogen to be a 22 significant challenge to the containments.
However, we 23 do have a generic issue 121, which is a mortgage that we 24 owe coming -- rather TMI and looking at hydrogen for the 25 other containment types.
I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHDDE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON D C 20005 (202) 232-6600
~
ne._
.a
.a
.19 L'
E
,3 havo to 'dscida wh: thor er ntt. cny" 1
W 2
modifications are needed for this containment type to 3
control hydrogen.- Again, as I said before, the 1150 did 4
not'. find it'to be a challenge, but we don't know whether 5
we can extend the 1150 assumptions for -those two 6 :-
containments to all the dry containments and so what 7
" we're recommending is that the other containments as part 8
of their IPE basically take a look at the hydrogen issue 9
for the containment.
10 The issue here is a
local detonation of 11 hydrogen that may damage important equipment and what 12 we're recommending is a
relatively straightforward 13 screening type of approach that was used in 1150 just to 14 indicate potential ar.eas where detonation could occur and 15-to see if there's any important equipment in that area, 16
- Again, as I indicated before, there is a 17 generic issue.
It would be our intent to go ahead and i
18 recommend the resolution of that generic issue based on 19 the 1150 studies and of course looking on a _ plant-20 specific basis in the IPEs.
21 That concludes the specific recommendations 22 that we'd like the utilities to look at as part of the 4
23 IPE.
If we can move to page 11 I'd like to briefly just 24 talk about what's the impact of this on the IPE.
- Well, 25 first of all, we had indicated in our original IPE NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR!BERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W E2) 23440 WASHINGTON O C 2C005 (202) 232-6600
y;
~20 e.
thnt _ wa would b3 prcviding coma-1 g:nsric - 1cttOr 88-20 2
information to -them as part of the containment s
s 3
Performance Improvement.
4.
What this does basically is it puts the burden 5
on the licensees-to at least make the. initial 6
determination as to whether or not these improvements are 7
cost-effective and worthwhile doing for their plant.
8 This of course is consistent with other aspects of the 9
IPE.
The other aspect though 1 think that's important t
10 is that we will-also have.given the utilities come help 11 on making this decision in that we've recommended some 12 things that we think they should look at and we've also 13 increased the database -- the technical database.that 14 they can make use of.
15 The other point I want to make is, again the 16 IPEs are in process, in the process right now, and we t
17 need to get this information out very quickly to the 18
' licensees..
Going to the last slide, the specific 19-recommendation is to issue a generic letter.
This would 20 be, I guess, Supplement 3 to the IPE generic letter.
21 It would indicate three things.
First of all, 22 it would indicate a completion of the CPI program that 23 there would be no further requirements.
In effect, they 24 can get on with their IPEs and not wait for anything t
25 else.
.Second of all it would contain the previous list NEAL R. GROSS I
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 232 6 f
- i
=
4.
22 i-I 1-of pstcntici vulnorObilitica cnd imprcv0msnto that I'v0 2
just read that we would like licensees to look at.
ii 3
And the last item, we would indicate that we
[
4' will be providing technical'information in the form of 5
contractor reports that may be of usefulness to them.
6 And I'd like to briefly indicate that we are attempting 7
to get these reports out as quickly as we can so they'll 8'
come out in about the same time frame.
The first report 9
is probably in the gate right how, it's in publishing.
10 The bulk of the reports we hope we can get out 11 by June.
We've got one problem report that is running 12 late, but we're going to try to speed that up the best i
13 we can.
So the intent would be to have most of this 14 information out about the same time as this generic 15 letter would be issued.
16 That concludes my presentation.
17 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Questions from the i
18 Commissioners?
~19 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Several ' questions, one 20 related to the last slide.
It's a two-pronged question.
1 21 One, is the staff aware of other issues that might be 22-incorporated into the IPE process?
Do we have anything 23 out in the wings that we know of?
And specifically, how a
24 about generic issue 121 on hydrogen control for large dry I
25 PWR containers?
Will that be finished in time to be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) P344433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202)232 6600
l i'.'
22-
[
I 1
includ:d cr n:t, Cr w3'ro n;t intcnding?
I(
2 DR. BECKNER:
We're proposing.
l COMMISSIONER REMICK: We will propose that this 3
4 would be our resolution of 1217 Consideration in the IPE
)
5
'would --
6 DR. BECKNER:
This would constitute --
tc 7
COMMISSIONER REMICK: This would constitute it?
8 Ch, I see.
9 DR. SPEIS:
Yes, this' would close.
t L
10 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Okay, then the broader 11 question:
Do we know of anything else in the wings that 12 we --
f 13 DR. SPEIS:
No.
currently are 14 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
15 anticipating putting in the IPEs?
So this should be --
L 16 DR. BECKNER:
With the exception of external 17 vents, which is coming within a conth or so.
i
- 18. --
COMMISSIONER REMICK: Ext.?rnal vents, yes. And 19 a question, I guess, that's for our general counsel, just 20' for my own edification.
Going back to Dr. - Murley's 21 indication that a letter will just go out to five 22 licensees asking them why we should not issue an order
^
23 implementing vents, I would assume that they have a 24 pouibilny of requesting a hearing if they want to 25 pursue it further, is that correct?
- NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHDDE ISLAND AVENVE. N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 232m
23
[
-i-1.
MP. PARLERs' YOO, that ' 0. - right.;
And that-u:
2 L possibility'was' raised in~one of the initial papers in 3
this area, I believe 89-017.
There was discussion about 4
the rul'emaking ' approach, the order approach.
And'in 5..
connection with the order approach the possibility of 6
hearings was mentioned.
7 The answer to your question-is yes.
I 8
COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Okay, fine.
And just in 9
. summary I -certainly favor maki'ng the ataff's insights 1
10 from the CPI program available to licensees in r.he IPE j
11
. process.
I appreciate the job you've done and I endorse j
~ '12 the ~ cautionary advice that ACRS gave you',
and, you 1
13
. indicate'you agree with that, l
l 14 That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.-
l 15~
CHAIRMAN CARR:
Commissioner Rogers?
l 16 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
No question,. just a 17.
comment that it seems to me-that this whole program has 18-a certain degree of crispness and completeness to it that f
19 is somewhat unusual, and I want to really complement the j
i 20L staff on bringing this whole thing together and looking a
21-
-- looks as if we're going to finish somethine and move f
And'that's really very gratifying.
'22-on.
q 23 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Commissioner'Curtiss?
24 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Just two questions.
On d
25 the Mark I plants, the 19 that have committed agreed to f
f NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W
- (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. O C 20005 (202) 232 6 3
1
24-s.o 4
Can you toll ms what,thsicch dulo'io e
Y 1.
mnks tha-ch ng3 A 9
h 2
' going l. to : be. for actually ~ implementing the hardware j
t
+
3 modifications?
l
-l
.' 4 DR. MURLEY:
I don't have the schedules with t
5 me.
My impression is that -- anyway, I'll.get them for 6-the' Commission later -- bu't I think most:of them agree 7
to the time that we asked.
Perhaps Ashok Thadani can s
I 8-give you the exact --
9 MR. THADANI:
Most of'the licensees that have 1
10.
volunteered to implement.the hardened vent, the general 11-schedule is to get it done by early 1993.
-It's 12
.approximately a three-year. period.
As Dr. Murley said,
.13 once we:get.our backfit packages out, we're going to try 14 to stick to-similar schedules for these.five units as
^15 well.
16 COMMISSIONER' CURTISS: So the five that ' have t
17 resisted if, absent a request for a hearing and a delay
-18 for that reason, they'd be-expected to meet pretty much 19:
the same schedule then?
20 MR.<THADANI:
That's our expectation.
i 21 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: Okey, that's all I have.
,22-
-One final question -- folding. these recom.nendations into x
-23 the IP
- program, would that -affect the schedule 24 significantly on the IPE program?
25 DR. BECKNER:
It should.not.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON. O C 20005 (202) 232-6600
E,
O 25
,, c
, ', l ; [.
h 1
COMMISSIONER _CURTISS: Ok2y, th0t ' O.011_ I hGv3.
{p l
- 2' CHAIRMAN CARR:
I'm still puzzled here.
This 3,
isi going to take care of containment performance,= isf that e
l4 {
what we're saying?
5-DR. BECKNER:
Yes, sir.
r 6 ~
CHAIRMAN CARR:
- Well, you say no 7
recommendations at this time on other containment
'l 8
vulnerabilities going to ongoing research such as=
j 9
recommended heating and depressbrization.
And then;you 10
~ say well, there's no further requirements. What if those
- 'I 11' research actions require something, I mean?
'l 12-DR. SPEIS:
This is_an ongoing process.
Every 13 plant will have-a management program and if a method-is-
-14 developed'that it makes sense for them to implement in 1
- 15.
-the.. future, then we will bring itto the Coma tssior on.
i
.16 a. case-by case basis.
But it ' should be part ot' the 17.:.
continuing accident nanagement program that every
- plant.
i 18 will be developing.
19 CHAIRMAN CARR:
So I guess we really haven't J
20' put the containment problems to bed yet, you're saying?
21 DR. SPEIS:
- Well, 22
. CHAIRMAN CARR:
We put it to bed generically E
23 and everything else is going to be plant-specific?
H 24 DR. SPEIS:
There could be issues like the
[
25 direct containment heating the pressurization, but as we l:
NEAL R. GROSS l
COJRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l5 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
-(2c2) ru-ua3 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005 (202)232 6600 s
m
,i
-26_
py 4,
.1 h vo~csid b3foro wo cro not curo hew rocl.thic icaua 10.-
(,
2, iAnd before we ask somebody to do~something we'make.sure 3.
thatlit is a real. issue.
'4~
MR. -~ TAYLOR:
I think we've'put it to bed-with j
d e
5
' the stateL of knowledge that we have about these phenomena jb
?
_ ith the feeling-that there may be other ways shM11d j
w
_6 7
these turn out to be problems on a case-by-case basis.
8' CHAIRMAN CARR:
Well, on those two specific
-9
. issues do you have any feel for'the time frame before we c
10
.can put'those to bed?
11 DR.
SPEIS:
- Well, the direct containment 12 heating,. it is our intent, it's one of the highest
'i
- 13 priority efforts in our office te close in in the next 14 two years, by the end of calendar 1991.
15' CHAIRMAN CARR:
Okay.
I also would like-to I
i 16
. join the other Commissioners in thanking you for this 17 briefing and commend you'on the_ progress-that has=been J
18 made to.
enable you -to recommend closure of,the
-19 Containment Performance Improvement Program.
.It's n
20 certainly consistent with my views that potential
.r improvement's to reduce containment failure vulnerability 21 i
7 22 should'be considered in the individua1' plant examination ip 23 efforts nlong with other potential improvements.
24
'As you-mentioned, there are still sofae
'25
' recommendations to the Commission.
You owe us external NEAL R. GROSS o
-;l'[ %
COURT nEPORTERS AND TRANSCRitsERS 1323 RHODE IS, AND JNENUE. N W j
gV; G02) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D C. 20005 (202)232-6600 i
r
E j
[A
'27-Mf 3 y
+
L,
'. ~ '
1-cv0nto Cnd'Cecid nt'm:n2gsm2nt.
And.wo w;uld Cnctur:g3
}
2' you to work expeditiously on those so that the' utilities.
i l"
3 can'.get'those out of the'way;as well.
4 I agree that the ' licensees should have the 5
benefit of-our continuing research on severe accidents
'i 6
and we should ensure our research results - are.' made
V
. 7.'
avoilable in a timely manner so that they can consider 8
them.
I.would encourage my fellow Commissioners to vote
.9 on the staff's recommendation in.this paper as soon as 10 possible.so that we can come to closure on the program, r
11 Any other comments?
If. not, we stand.
i 12 adjourned.
- 1.
13 (Thereupon,. at 2:35 p.m.,
the hearing was
-j
.14.
~ adjourned.)
'15
.[
s
'Y 16=
17' 18 19 20-21 22 12 3
'24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W
,(202) 234-4433 -
WASHINGTON. O C 20005 (202) 232-6600
, iV s
o
e.,
j 4
s 3
. z,.
, k.'
)f' CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER This is to certify that the attached events of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:
TITLE 0F MEETINGt-BRI'EFING' ON CONTAINMENT PERFORMANCE IMPROVDIENT PROGRAM (OTHER THAN MARK I).
PLACE OF MEETINGt ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND DATE OF MEETING
. APRIL 26, 1990-twere transcribed'by me. I further certify that said transcription
.is' accurate and complete, to the best df my ability, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing events.
i
't VC Reporter's name:
JUDY MILLER t
t 4
9
+
NEAL R. GROSS COURT RERomitt$ AND TRANSChitfR$
1323 RH00615 LAND AVENUt. H.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C.
2000$
(202) 232 6600.
\\
~
m.
~.
h 4,, ;
.Q:
COMMISSION. BRIEFING ON RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CONTAINMENT. PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT: PROGRAM FOR PLANTS WITH MARK II, MARK III, ICE CONDENSER, AND DRY CONTAINMENTS l
1 1
i o
THEMIS SPEIS WILLIAM BECKNER OFFICE OF NUCLEAR. REGULATORY RESEARCH i
APRIL. 26,1990 i
t
.=__
o,.
-._.-,__.___.,..____,--,_-.....a.....
+
Am.
~
~
a n g-
-~
c -
x t
L c ' % 5..
. s.
.;]f.
s 31 -
N:
~ - x:[
- p. : - ::3 -
..~
7 7
r l~
1 L
PURPOSE OF BRIEFING TO: SUMMARIZE THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CONTAINMENT PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT PRO. RAM (CPI) FOR ALL CONTAINMENT TYPES G
l OTHER THAN MARK I.
l 4
t o
1-l L-
- - =
~<-o r
~
4
-www
-r~-:
NN r
-- +~*- v v-~
" ve-~u m e '
e s
<~ee--
+
m.:
i OUTLINE OF BRIEFING II
- BACKGROUND
- APPROACH FOR NON-MARK-I CONTAINMENTS TYPES f
- CPI-PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS
- IMPACT.ON INDIVIDUAL PLANT EXAMINATIONS (IPEs)
- STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1
=
~
.=
~
m'
'..; ' Or.
e _;
x o
. x..-
LBACKGROUND-2-
SECY-89-017. PRESENTED) RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
'l l
MARK I CONTAINMENT IMPROVEMENTS.
l i
RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDED:
ALTERNATE-WATER TO CONTAINMENT-AND a
f VESSEL DEPRESSURIZATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS r
l l
IMPROVED PROCEDURES-(REVISION 4) j ACCELERATE STAFF ACTIONS ON STATION-i BLACKOUT RULE i
i i
I i
DETAILED COST-BENEFIT AND REGULATORY-ANALYSES.
l 3-1 i
+
n.
...~n s
,.e,.-,..
,k 4
e s-,.-+..s
>,-v
.-v><,.
.v w
-wm~,,e
.--e-
m
,. o A.
BACKGROUND (CONT.1 y-d COMMISSION DIRECTED THE STAFF TO j
IMPLEMENT THE HARDENED ~ VENT THROUGH 1
PLANT-SPECIFIC BACKFITS FOR -ALL PLANTS NOT:
VOLUNTARILY: MAKING -THIS IMPROVEMENT.
1
- GL-89-16 (9/1/89) INITIATED ~ IMPLEMENTATION OF
}
THE HARDENED VENT.
I
- PLANT-SPECIFIC BACKFIT. ANALYSES COMPLETED-FOR FIVE PLANTS NOT VOLUNTEERIN~G TO 1
i IMPLEMENT THE HARDENED VENT.
ANALYSES ABOUT-TO BE ISSUED TO: UTILITIES.
- DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTLOF HARDENED VENT COMPLETED.
1
REQUESTED EVALUATION OF OTHER MARK I l
IMPROVEMENTS AS A PART OF THE IPE.
u
- 4-l 1
o
y
- tA APPROACH FOR NON-MARK I CONTAINMtNT TYPES
- REDUCED EMPHASIS ON DETAILED COST-BENEFIT TO JUSTIFY SPECIFIC GENERIC REQUIREMENTS.
- DIRECTED PRIMARILY TOWARD INSIGHTS ON VULNERABILITIES AND POTENTIAL f
IMPROVEMENTS.
l
- THIS REVISED. APPROACH RESULTED FROM:
l
~
NO IMPROVEMENTS OBVIOUSLY : COST-BENEFICIAL ON A GENERIC BASIS.
' DIRECTION OF THE COMMISSION AND-ACRS RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED MARK I. IMPROVEMENTS.
a s.
j
. -, ~. - -
,~
r.~.-,u.
v.
.;,~,
..e rn
_,y_.
p.
3 APPROACH FOR-NON-MARK I CONTAINMENT TYPES-(CONT.1 w
- ~ BASIS FOR STAFF ' RECOMMENDATIONS:
REVIEW OF EXISTING PRA INSIGHTS.
SIMPLIFIED CONTAINMENT EVENT-TREES EVALUATING IMPACT OF IMPROVEMENTS.
1 SUPPLEMENTARY CONTAINMENT CALCULATIONS EVALUATING ~ CONTAINMENT RESPONSE / IMPACT OF IMPROVEMENTS.
VERY LIMITED, QUALITATIVE COST ANALYSIS BASED ONLEXISTING INFORMATION.
a i
6-
r m
L
- 1, L
1 CPI PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS FOR.
"NON-MARK I CONTAINMENTS 1
- NO GENERIC REQUIREMENTS RECOMMENDED.
- IDENTIFIED POTENTIAL VULNERABILITIES AND L
IMPROVEMENTS SHOULD BE EVALUATED ON A PLANT-SPECIFIC BASIS AS PART OF THE IPE.
1 i
l
- NO RECOMMENDATIONS AT THIS TIME ON OTHER CONTAINMENT VULNERABILITIES DUE TO ONGOING i
RESEARCH (EG., DCH.AND DEPRESSURIZATION).
l j
l 7
1
=
=
- =
a
I.
VULNERABILITIES / IMPROVEMENTS RECOMMENDED FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE IPE VENTING AND ALTERNATE WAYS
_ MARK II TO-COOL SUPPRESSION POOL.
OTHER MARK I IMPROVEMENTS.
l BACKUP POWER TO H IGNITERS.
2 MARK III VENTING AND ALTERNATE WAYS TO COOL SUPPRESSION POOL.
OTHER MARK I IMPROVEMENTS.
BACKUP POWER TO H IGNITERS.
2 ICE CONDENSER H DETONATION (NUREG-1150 DRY _
2 SCRE?NING METHOD SUGGESTED).
CONTAINMENT 8
k m.
6 IN31NNIVINO3 II MHVIN 1
f w
de j
,D.I.,
[O iom uoinesocrg
e'I
,k ; _
I
.., i., o y i.f ll_. 4 il N suewuicaves y.
g-7 t, g,,,
i.
i ;,. i t
l
\\
L
- i l l'
% saewcouwa 1_
l E?
l weeda*e*ll
^
E
,.mus nw 40 3.i l i
g l'_
'_E x.
nw iw 4
h l
I
=
l auewusenuos 4 tewlJd g,,
I ~,om...
ee r
,i I
I la
?
~ + '
~ +"
p
'I l
REACTOR VESSEL
-. d
- s.
1 i
3.
\\
gl m
e cp
\\.
/. -
\\-
g.
N,*
BIOLOGICAL SHtELD WALLN 1 -
I b*~
F..'.-
g.,* *.
. cJ. '
v;. r y.-
';.. I I...
PEDESTAL
- c. f M.-- -
N
.W.',,
CoNTnot nOo
- ?
I J.
DRIVE AREA f.
g c.,
. ". l OfAPHRAGM
~
' ~ ' '
~
H.'.
FLOOR yHATCHWAY 7
t.' w "r n'-
.....e.....
.~
m.
P
~!*-
... " - = =
e b.
. T, e +* *
..,....... ~
- ... ;... ; - e.,.==
..e.'.....
t
~n...*
....t..,...;
e M.... ? ]
p
- '.. -^
^
..r..
o.
I=E*-
- """'O
- ,Y A.A,
. _ ^
, d.;t.
O"
..~l
'8f
,A S*JMP
, " +
M-9$
G
.6 E
L' 8
..'d
?
.mm
~,,,,,
w a
m
- m
- y
.....s
., e
+~
e
. e,- _1
. _ _- _ w
., ; w
~.a ~
POOL
. W- -
.a o
nr w
m.....
nr n
s A.A.A s%
-s m
e
~~
x~
w
.s n.*
0
'; ?
..e
?
gr.
e.
'j...... i..y;: :._
J.,
I
.;w.
l
. j;;;.,.
}.
>[ r oOwncoMEn m,........;.......
,. u
- *
- Y.'.
- r.....-
a
~
. *. g..- T CONCRETE B ASEM AT
,'.'* o*..*.*,;.
- l.
P""**'
- ~*
- ... - p..y... e *, y
' *~.'**.\\**.'.*,.*l.3.,..,,.'
~-
f.-
8...
'.....,..,".N.,'***,...)**.'.*~.
...;.:..; v. :......s. :... ~ -:...
g,.
....9.....;......z..
.f.......
..s
.. ;.- -a..
e.
m LIMERICK 1/2 WNP-2 SHOREIIAM SUSQUEHANNA 1/2 NINE MILE POINT 2 LASALLE 1/2 l
VARIATIONS IN MARK II PEDESTAL CONFIGURATIONS 8
10 4
4 I
l s
,.e-
<.m.w w
c-
---m.
a7.
2.d w'+>-
W-:.4 i
.e b
L l-
~
j
_f*-
L-j IMPACT OF REVISED ^ APPROACH ON IPE 1
l
- DETERMINATION OF THE NEED FOR CERTAIN-i l
i CONTAINMENT IMPROVEMENTS IS TO BE.MADE 1
ON A. PLANT-SPECIFIC BASIS BY EACH LICENSEE, CONSISTENT WITH OTHER ASPECTS OF THE IPE i
PROCESS.
L
- THIS INFORMATION NEEDS TO BE COMMUNICATED TO LICENSEES QUICKLY SINCE j
THE IPE PROCESS HAS ALREADY STARTED.
i l
t i
i
]
'11 m.-
. x.. -.
4
^
- STAFF RECOMMENDATION
- .e.
ISSUE A SUPPLEMENT TO THE IPE GENERIC
~
LETTER INDICATING:-
- THE COMPLETION OF THE CPI PROGRAM:
i NO FURTHER REQUIREMENTS RESULTING FROM THIS PROGRAM, AND LICENSEES CAN PROCEED WITH THEIR IPEs.
I
- CERTAIN POTENTIAL CONTAINMENT VULNERABILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS THAT i
WOULD BE EXPECTED TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE --IPE.
+
- AVAILABILITY OF CONTRACTOR REPORTS DOCUMENTING THE WORK PERFORMED.
u
.%WWW6h666%WfVW9VWWd%%WpVWWWcVWWWW4dfgWggggyg TP.AH5MITTAL TO:
Document Control Desk, 016 Phillips ADVANCED COPY TO:
The Public Document Room DATE:
57J/ / 9O l
/
FROM: _
SECY Correspondence & Records Branch g
Attached are copies of a Comission meeting transcript and related meeting document (s).
They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List and g
placement in the Public Document Room. No other distribution is requested or g:
required.
m m '+ 2 b v-a _%e Meeting
Title:
A aula m A w & d Meeting Date:
0 /2 b/9()
Open N Closed Item Description *:
Copies Advanced DCS 1
'8 to PDR Cg
)
i ii
- 1. TRANSCRIPT 1
1 0J /amW I
F li 2
k 3.
t; s
c 5.
5 6.
~
l i
- P0k is advanced one copy of each document, two of each SECY paper.
A C&R Branch files the original transcript, with attachments, without SECY
. papers.
\\
vL:
nem w n etw.