ML20054E872
| ML20054E872 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/15/1981 |
| From: | Coffman F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Rubenstein L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054E869 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-82-176 NUDOCS 8206140376 | |
| Download: ML20054E872 (5) | |
Text
U:UT E D ST ATES
', ['i '*# We)g, y. g[sh f.*UCL E AP. P.EGULATCP.Y COT.WlESIOP VU.EHINGT O*?, D. C. ;0000
- 7..
. t o %.ff h. !
,5 c.-
~
APR 15 281 i;Ei;0RANDLE FGR:
L. 5. ;;ubenstein, Acting Chicf Systc=s Intcrcctica Br:nch, DSI FR07h F. D. Cof fr:an, Section Leader, System: Interaction Branch, DSI Sb3]ECT:
AIF-tiRC t'EETIriG O!! SYSTEt'.S ItiTERACTIO"S - APRIL 1,1981 A r=eting was held at the AIF-Bethesda offices on April 1,1981, to provide for industry comments on the February 19 version of the Letter Report entitled The Systems Interaction Branch Approach to Systems Interactions in LWRs.
Since the AIF has a Subcommittee on Systems Interactions, we chose to sample industry connents through that subcc=nittee, chaired by Mr. K. Canady.
A treeting sumnary and the list of attendees are enclosed.
r@f % x F. D.
offman, Section Leader Systems Interaction Branch Division of Systems Integration
Enclosures:
As stated cc:
M. Ernst A. Thadani Meeting Attendees F206140376 820604
~
/
ENCLOSURE 1 AIF-NRC Heetino April 1, li38:
Svstems Interacti_cn Letter Report Sumary_
The purpose of the meeting was to provide for industry connents on the February 19, 1981, version of the Letter Report: The Systems Interaction Branch Approach to Systems Interactions in LWRs.
Since the Atomic Industrial Forum (AIF) has a Subcomittee on Systems Interactions, we chose to sample industry comments by meting with that subcommittee, chaired by Mr. K. Canady.
The Letter Report.had surmarized staff thinking on the approach to be taken by the Systems Interaction Branch, Di tision of Systems. Integration, for the evaluation of adverse systems interactions in LWRs.
The Letter Report served as a vehicle to stimulate dis-It cussion and encourage feedback from the nuclear power industry and others.
was preparatory to the, current' effort to develop interim guidance over the next sevcral xnths for subsequent use in systers interactions revieQs on pilot LWRs.
The interim guidance is being developed with technical assistance from the
~
Battelle Memorial Institute and the Brookhaven National Laboratory.
The meeting discussions were divided into four groups:
(1) t.he implications of
~
past and current NRC reorganizations upon the systems interactions pmgram, (2) the approaches that industry groups are taking to systems interactions, (3) specific connents and questions on certain words and intents in the letter Report, and (4) the reaction of AIF members to a proposal to further incorporate industry expertise through small-group, limited-scope workshops.
Reoraanizati6ns In response to Mr. Canady's lead question, Mr. J. Stolz described the current NRC reorganizations motivated by a congressional emphasis on the issuance of new He stated that the regrouping of resources may delay some of the licenses.
scheduled milestones in the systems interaction program; however, all of the program tasks are expected to remain active.
Mr. Canady reviewed the earlier emphasis that Mr. R. DeYounq, NRC, had given to systems interactions by conducting reviews of the industry's design processes.
However, the April 19"3 NRR reorganization's emphasis did not limit systems interactions to design-interface engineering.
Industry Approaches A primary agenda item was the description of alternative approaches to systems interactions that are being taken by the industry that were not already sumarized in the Letter Report.
Two approaches were described briefly.
First, Mr. Canady and others stated that some utilities are perfoming a Probabilistic Risk Assess-rent (PRA) that is r. ore extensive than the IREP activity by including external events anong the initiators of accident sequences.
(External events such as
~
e 9
m w a
- O de e
O O 9 e
g
)
-2 in~ : adiun>.)
T* E s u'u-carthquates and 1 loo'os comon'ay initiate sysi.eins u
comm.itt(? iccks ct the MRC's systems interaction program as a feasible means of picking up pieces that were missed by a less-than-thorough PRA.
The sernnd alternative acoroach is to ecoloy computerized techniques 'in the search for those systeras interactions initiated by external events. Apparently, Bechtel hcs devcicped such a code to analyze the SNUPPS plants.
In a more general discussion, Mr. Geo. Brazill described the overall approach of the AIF Subcommittee on Systens Interactions.
inelr app,roacn incorporates four thrusts:
1.
Interdisciplinary reviews, 2.
Feedback of Operating Experience, 3.
Integration of the NRC reviews, and, 4.
Adequacy of the NRC reviews.
They conclude that the,first two thrusts have been significantly improved a They exoact that the integration of the staff posteriori THI-2 activities.
reviews will improve as the impact of the systens interaction program is felt.
Mr. Braziil had the impression that there has been a p'aucity of coordination among many NRC programs which contain elements that the AIF considers a part of the systens interactions topic, e.g.,
1.
I&E Bulletin 79-27 on Loss of Non-Class 1-E Instru-mentation and Control Power System Bus During Operation, 2.
Reviews by the Divisi' n of Human Factors, o
3.
Reviews for the environmental qualifications of equipment re.ated to safety, NUREG-0588,
- 4.. I&E Bulletin 80-11 on Masonry Wall Design, 5.
I&E Informat' ion Notice 79-22 on Qualification of Control Systens, 6.
The IREP, 7.
Appendix R Fire reviews, etc.
looks to the systems interaction program for coordinatio*n among The Subconmittea the ongoing prcprans and for supplemental emphasis on those systens interaction He stated a Subcommittee pieces that are missing from the ongoing programs.
concern that an uncoordinated systers interaction program will not take advantage of the present progress that the industry has achieved concerning adverse systems interactions.
They suggested that the systens interactions program should focus on the significant issues that were excluded from present programs.
q e
e 6
d e
e6 e
.e O
3 Specitic Comnents on the ietier Eepori We spent nest of the meeting proceeding throuch the Letter Report addressing specific questions and listening to Subcomr.ittee comments.
Mr. Higgins stateu olans to provide us a written collection of the Subcommittee's cc.7nents. The attendees concluded that the AIF Subcomr.ittee should be given the opportunity to revic.' another version of the Letter Report that assimilates their comments and those of others.
An important point was discussed regarding "the vital safety criteria".
vital functions)y criteria" are actually saft.y functions (covering a range of
- "The vital safet although stated in criteria form.
The Subcommittee suggested the use of two sets of criteria to avoid confusica'.
Both sets of criteria should be derived from the vital safety functions.
The first criteria (search
' criteria) would form the starting point for the process to search the plant to identi fy systems interactions.
The second criteria (importance criteria) would guide the prioritization of those identified systens interactions by their relative importance to safety.
Two sets of criteria provide the flex'.bility needed for deciding which systems interactions are suf ficiently adverse to require corrective action.
Workshon Proposal fir. R. Widrig proposed srall-group, limited-scope workshops as a means to furth'er incorporate industry expertise in the developnent of the systens interactions interim regulatory guidance.
The workshops would be sponsored by BMI to develop those techniques applicable for the in-depth analysis of systems to identify systens interactions.
Mr. Canady agreed that reactor operations personnel possessed the knowledge most useful to such workshops. However, he stated that these types of personnel currently have the most confining schedules.
There was a general expression from the subcommittee that "the industry is' already strapped for resnurces."
e e
l.-
l O
e e
e e
- l
.7 ENCLOSURE 2 AIF-NRC MEETING AFRIL 1, iSCI SYSTEMS INTERACTION LETTER REPORT ATTENDANCE NA"E/0RCANIZATION NAME/0RGANIZATION P. Hi ains J. Stolz/NRC 9
Atomic Industrial Forum F. Coffman/NRC
~12th Floor J. Conran/NRC 7101 Wisconsin Avenue Bethesda, Md.
Dr. P. Cybulskis/BMI Nuclear Flow Systems K. Canady/ Duke Power Battelle P,emorisl Institute S. Rose / Duke Power 505 King Avenue Columbus, Ohio 43201 D.Simhson/TVA R. Widrig/BMI E. Christensen/ Boston Edison Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboraton Richland, WA 99352 T. Sullivan/ Consumers Power Dr. B. Atefi/BNL B. House /Bechtel Dept. of Nuclear Energy B. Renuart/Bechtel Building 130 Brookhaven National Laboratory J.-9 G. Brazill/B&W Upton, New York.11973.
J. Pasquenza/CE Dr. I. Papazoglou/BNL Dept. of Nuclear Energy -
M. Uright/ Westinghouse Building 130
~
Brookhaven National Laboratory E. Cox/ Black & Veatch Upton, New York 11973 -
M. Horrell/EBASC0/Envirosphere P. Alesso/LLNL Nuc1 car Systems Safety Program J. Foley/EES Inc.
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
.M. Gross /EDS Nuc.
P. O. Box 80B Livermore, CA 94550 W
e
=
e..e
- ==se.
=....
= -.
q.
~
.J
-