ML20058C588
| ML20058C588 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/07/1990 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-2709, NUDOCS 9011020011 | |
| Download: ML20058C588 (61) | |
Text
\\
ky g)ggg-ag7 TABLE OF CONTENTS MINUTES OF THE 362ND ACRS MEETING JUNE 7-9, 1990 I.
Chairman's Report (Open)...................................
1 II.
Generic Issue-84, Combustion Engineering Plants Without Power Operated Relief Valves (Open)......-..................
3 III.
NRC Safety Research Program Report to the Congress (Open)..
8 IV.
Siting of Nuclear Power Plants (Open)......................
9 V.
Certification of Evolutionary Light Water Reactors (Open)..
11 VI.
Interim Standard for Hot Particles (Open)..................
13 VII.
Emergency Response Data Systems (Open).....................
16 VIII. Accident Sequence Precursor Program (Open).................
19 IX.
Risk-Based Technical Specific %tions (open).................
22 X.
Executive Session (Open)...................................
25 A.
Reports, Letters, and Memoranda..........................
25 1.
Reports to the Commission............................
25 Proposed Rule to Imoloment an Emercency Re-poonse Data System (Report to Chairman Carr
. dated June 12, 1990).....-............................
25 Mad 3fied Enforcement Policy for Hot Particle Exoosures Incorporatina the Recommendation of NCRP Report No. 106 (Report to Chairman t
u Carr dated June 12, 1990)............................
26 Generic Issue 84. Cpmbustion Encineerinc Plants Without Power Operated Relief Valves (Report to Chairman Carr dated June 12, 1990)...................
27 Draft Studylon Source Term Update and Decouo-lina Sitino from Desian-(Report to Chairman Carr dated June 13, 1990).............................
27 Division of Responsibilities Between the ACRS and the ACNW (Report to Chairman Carr dated July 11, 1990).......................................
27 I-4 ll J
09 U
PDC g
v
'Q:
362nd ACRS Meeting Minutes Table of Contents 11 2.
Memoranda...........................................
27 Schedulina of ACRS Reviews (Memorandum from R.
F.
Fraley for J. M. Taylor dated June 13, 1990......
27 Erpss Release Seekina Nominations for ACRS Membership (Memorandum from M. Lee for F.
- Elizondo, Office of Personnel, and J.
Kopeck, Office of Govern-mental and Public Affairs dated June 22, 1990........
28 B.
Subcommittee Reports (Open).............................
28 1.
Mechanical Components...............................
28 2.
Materials and Metallurgy............................
30 3.
Planning and Procedures.............................
31 C.
Summary / List of Follow-Up Matters (Open)................
32 D.
Future-Activities (Open)................................
35 1.
Future Agenda.......................................
35 2.
Fut.re Subcommittee Activities......................
35 Figure 1,
- p. 22a (Sec. IX)
Figure'2, p. 23a (Sec. IX) b f
4, i,.,
111
=
APPENDICES MINUTES OF Tite 362ND ACRS MEETING JUNE 7-9, 1990 I.
Attendees II.
Future Agenda III.
Future Subcommittee Activities IV.
Other Documents Received v
E O
9
=
1 1
J
- ~ _ - - -. - -.
c
,h 23156 Federal Reginer / Vol. 55. No.109 / Wednesday. June of1990 / Notices 4/%h6 e
expand its understanding of the statements may be supplemented by J.Wpa-2:#p.m.: Accident Sequence ngulated community While the detalled written statements for the
, Precursor Program (Open}--
p om will be primarily open to record. Rulings on who may spesk, the Representatives of the NRC staff will slcians with backgrounds in Nuclear - order of presentation, and time brief the Committee and discuss the icine or Radiation Oncology, others allotments may be obtained by calling status of the Accident Sequence having expert qualifications in related Mr. Camper at (301) 492-3417 between 9 Precursor Program and related reports fields such as Rad!ological Physics or am and 5 pm EDT on June 26.1990.
by the program contractor.
Radiopharmacy will be considered.
- 3. At the meeting, questions from 145p.m.-4:45 p.m.: Risk Based attendees other than the committee Techalcol Speelficottons (Open)-%e B. Reports for ACMUI Comment members, consultants, and NRC staff members will be briefed on the status of Dolning andExpert/se Cr/terlo.%e may be permitted at the discretion of the ' NRC staff activities to develop and use
- NRC has published an advance notice of Chairman.
risk based Technical Specifications for proposed rulemaking requesting 4.%e transcript, minutes of the nuclear power plants comments on training and experience meeting. and written comments will be 4:45pm-s #p.m. (Open)--The criteria for allindividuals who use available for inspection, and copying for members wilt discuss anticipated byproduct material for clinical a fee, at the NRC Public Document subcommittee activities and items proceduree in the practice of medicine Room. 2120 L Street NW., lower level, proposed for ' consideration by the (see 53 FR 18645).%e NRC has also Washington, DC 20555 on or about July Committee, received a contractor's report on tasks 24,1990.
5:Mp.m.-dWp.m.t ACRS performed by individuals in medical use.
- 5. Seating for the pub!!c will be on a Subcommittee Acurlflee-ne members and existing programs for accreditation, first.come/first. served basia, will hear and discuss a report of the t:ertification, and licensure. The NRC The meeting will be held in ACRS Planning and Procedures staff will summmise the public accordance with the Atomic Energy Act Subcommittee regarding conduct of comments received in response to the of 1954, as amendd (primarily section ACRS activities, hg tela), the Federal Advisory Committee AWp.m.-d:# pat Paporollon of the di se
'5 ES.C. App.) and the -
ACRS Reports (Open}-The members is a need for a rulemaking to change the Co.amission,a regulations in title 10.
'vtll discuss proposed committee reports ations that curnatl I
adedACMV1MembYrs$1p. %e Code of Federal Regulations, part 7.
to the NRC regarding items considered,
to NRC will be expandi the membership Deted at Washington. DC, this tot day of during this meeting.
cf the ACMUf to broNeu the points of Juo* 1eso.
Procedures for tliccaduct of and, '
viewrepresented.The ACMUIwill
- For th Nuclear Resuletory Coaunisetoac participation in ACRS meetings were.
published in the Federal Register on t discuss how the membership should be John Heyle,.
September 27,1989 (54 FR 39594).In H cxpanded and the Committee's role in Advisory Comm/ttee. Management Offiwr.
anc4 with thne pmphnM ac mytewing nominations.
[FR Doc. 90-13112 Filed 64 40: 0:45 am)-
or written statements may be pnsented fnquencyofACMV1 Meetings.%e
,,,, m,,
by members of the public. recordings Commission believes that the ACMUI will be permitted only during those should hold meetinas at least semi, Ponfons of the meeting)vhen a.
annually.The ACMUI will discuss Revloed Meeting Agende; Advloory transcript is be kept, and questions.
whether this will be sufficient.
Committee on Remotor Safeguards may be asked o y by members of the -
ILConductof theMuting in accordance with the purposes of Committee, its consultanta, and staff.
- Barry Sie sections 29 and 182b. of the Atomic Persons detring to make oral meeting % gel,M.D willchairthee following procedures will Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2039,2232b), the statements should notify the ACRS ',
Executive Director as far in advance as
, apply to public participation in the Advisory Committee on Reactor
~
mating -
Safeguards will hold a meeting on june practicable so that appropriate
'1. persons may submit written 7-e,1990, in room P-110. 7920 Norfolk arrangements can be made to allow the
- comments by sending a reproducible -
Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland. Notice of necessary time during the meeting for copy to larry W. Camper (see ron this meeting was published in the such statements. Use of still, motion,
pusmesa mePoResAftoN CostrAcT" Federal Register on May 22,1990. This picture and television cameras during ~.
heading for address). Comments must be nvised notice of this meeting includes a this meeting may be limited to selected 1
received by June 19,1990 to ensure session on the proposed rulemaking portions of the meeting as determined conalderation at the meeting. It is not (expedited) regarding the Emergency by the Cheltman. Information rogarding
)
necessary to resubmit written comments Response Data System.
the time to be set aside for this purpose be obtained by a prepaid telephone mafto the ACRS Executive Director.Mr.-
- that were submitted in response to the Friday. june 8.1990, room p6110,792 cal
. Federal Register notices mentioned in Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Md.
Raymond F. Fraley, prior to the meeting.
this meeting notice.
- 2. Requats to make oral statements at acx o.m.-m# o.m. Interim Standard in view of the possibility that the the meeting should be forwarded to Mr.
for Not Particles (Open)-%e NRC staff schedule for ACRS meetings may be Camper in writing by June 19,1990, will brief the members regarding the adjusted by the Chairman as necessary Statements must pertain to the topics
' status of proposed revisions to the to facilitate the conduct of the meeting. -
listed.%e Chaltman will rule on existing standard for exposure of the '
persons planning to sitend should check requests to make oral statements, skin from radioective particles /
with the ACRS Executive Director if Determination regarding oral statements m45 a.m.-12:00 Noon Emergency such rescheduling would result in major by members of the public willbe based Response Dota System (Open)-The inconvenience.
S on the time available and the order in Committee will review and report on the FuMher information regarding topics which requests are received. In general, proposed NRC rule regarding to be discussed, whether the meeting oral statements should be limited to installation and use of an Emergency has been cancelled or nocheduled, the approximately 5 minutes. Oral Response Data System.
Chairman's ruling on requests for the
-i
~.
i
~'
Federal Regist ' / Vol S5,~ No.109 / Wednesday, June'6i1990 /. Notice's.
2315P opportunity toprseent oral statements appearance statements t f th'Jdgard to that participants may want to address in and h time anotted can be obtained by the Order Suspending Brechythera their remarks before the Panel.
a prepaid telephone call to the ACRS Activides and Modifying Ucenses,py as Members of the public are welcome to Enscutive Director, Mr. Raymond F, permitted by 10 CFR 1.715(a).Durin 1 Freley (telephone 301/493-4049).
certain prehearing conference and/g make their views known by (1) or preparing written testimony in advance between F;45 aJu. and 4:30 p.m.
evidentiary hearing sessions, such of the hearing and presenting it before Dewd@ne t, teso, persons will be afforded the opportunity the Panel, (2) speaking briefly on a walk.
MaC.Hoyk, to make orallimited appearance in basis before the Penal, or (3)
Adr/sory Comer /ttee Management Officer' statements. (No such statements will be submitting a written statement for the.
[FR Doc.90-130er Filed 6+40345 aml' heard at the June 22,1990 prehearing record. Rose regowting to speak before conference.) Dese etatements do not Panel members obould be prepared to sums cons mew constitute testimony or evidenes in this answer questions. A transcript of the proceeding, but may help the Board hearing will be made, lDechet Nes 030-81879 and O90 4 tete:
and/or parties in their deliberatione es pates:%e date, location, and time of AsLBP No. 90 012 04 008; EA No.90 0711 to the proper boundaries of the lesve to the hearing is: Priday, August 17.1990, Atomic Safetyanst Lloonalng Board; be considered. Written statements, or Multipurpose Building. Amargosa Valley g and Peeerin0 Conkronoe
(,",'b i e to the e'
1n p.
M1y 31, tem Secretary Docketingand Service
. Before Adadnistrativejudses: Charles Branch, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Aponassas: Request to htify should be Bechhoefer. Chairman. Dr. Walter IL Commission, Washington, DC 20655. A.
made in wriung 2 Ms.Paula N. Alford, Jorden. Dr. Jerry R. Kline copy of such statement or request Director. External Affairs. Nuclear.
in the Metter of St. Mary Medical Centee--
should also be served on the Chairman, Waste Technical Review Board.1111 llobert. St Mary Medical Center--Cary Atomic Safety and Uwnsing Board, 18th Street NW., suite 901. Wash ton, Notice is hereby given that, by EWW-439, Washington, DC 20555.
DC 20036. Requests to testify must realved no later than close of business
> M:morandum and Order dated May 30, Bethods. Maryland, July 20,1990.
1990, the Atomic Safety and Ucensing.
May 31,1890.
Requests to speak briaDy before'h.
Board for this proceeding has granted For the Atomic Sefety and ucenslag Board.
Panel on a walk-in basis will be taken in th3 request of St. Mary Medical chark Bechhoefer
. Center--Hobart and St. Mary Medical the day of the hearing. Persons wanting Cenwr--Cary (Ucensees) for a hearing Chairman Administrot/w/udge. -
to make a brief statement before the in the above. titled proonding.%e '
(FR Doc.90-13aus %d 6+ect s:45 unj Panel are asked to appear at h hearing concerne the Order aesponding -
Amargosa Valley, Nevada, Multipurpose aussa song se c Brachytherapy Activides and Modifyin8 - - -
Building (702-873-4439) on the day of Ucenses,lasued by the NRC Staff on the hearing to alga up for a time slot on.
April 27,1990 (as M 19376, May 9,1930); NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL a first.come, Arst.eerved basta.
he parties to the proceed are &
REVIEW SOARD.
g eg g
Qanaafsp a pebtlon to Transportation Panel; Meeting u P, a
ne rd until intervene.no issue to be considered at Actioec Notice of meeting.
submitted to Members. Transportation en abo e ul be su ined*
suessaany: Pursuant to its authority Panel, Nuclear Waste Technical Review
- For further information concerning under section 5051 of Pub. L 10N03, Board.11111ath Street NW., Butte act.
4, l,
this proceeding, see the staff Order and ' the Nuclear Waste Polley Amendments Washington, DC 200J6. -
- the Ucensing Board's Memorandum and. Act of1987 (NWPAA), the Pon rusmesa perosusATsose costrAct: -
' Order. Other materials concerning this Transportation Panel of the Nuclear Ms.Paula N. Alford, Director. External proceeding are on file at the Weste Technical Review Board (the Affatre, Nuclear Waste Technical Board.
Commission's Public Document Room.
Board) will hold a public hearing to 111118th Street NW., suite 001, i
2120 L Street NW., Washington, DC obtain the views of the public on Washington, DC 20036 (202) 254-47a2. (If 20556, and at b Commlaslon's Region transportation issues under study by the unable to reach at this number, please l
Ill Office,799 Roosevolt Road, Clen Board as part ofits review of b try 703-23M473.)
Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Department of Energy's (DOE) program suppt.assestrAsty usPonesafiose j
During the course of this proceeding, to develop and site a permanent 4
the Liceming Board will conduct one or repository for the disposal of spent Purpose more prehearing conferences and, as nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive g'
ntcissary evidentiary hearing sen!ona.
waste.
%e Nuclear Waste Technical Board (NWTRB) was established by the
{.
. Tha first prehearing conference will The Transportation Panelintends to Nuclear Weste Policy Amendments Act c:mmence at 9:00 a.m. on Friday, June hold several hearings during 1990 and of 1967 (Pub. L 100-203) to evaluato the 22,1990, at the Lake Superior Court, 1991 in different locations around the scientific and technical va lity of l
Civil Division, Court Room 3,400 United Statee. To date, the first hearing activities undertaken M Department t
Broadway, %ird Floor, Cary Indiana
, has been scheduled for August 1990in of Energy in its civill elear weste
- 46402.The time and place of other Amargosa Valley (Nye County),
disposal program.Tl - sete to be sessions will be announced in later Ucensing Board Orders. Members of the Nevada. A second hearing is tentatively disposed of consists pr marily of scheduled to be held in November 1990 commercial spent fuel with some public are invited to attend these in Reno. Nevada. This notice announces defense high-level waste. While the I
sessions.
the date and location of the Drst hearing. Board's charge is broad, the Act Persons who are not parties to the provides procedures for participating in specifically directs the Board to proceeding are invited to submit limited the hearing. and lists some of the issues a aluate activities relating to the l
1
-f
/
f
e'
]
ose reder:1 RegistIr Mol. 55, No.104 / Wzdnesday, May 30, "") / Notices 21957 qstste to workers of Unocal Pipeline 29,1990. Copies of the petition are (Open)-%e members will discuss Compe, f in Olney, illinois.
available for inspection at that address.
proposed supplementary issues in gCAf
't:
Slynco et Washmston. DC, this 18th day of Dated May 15.1990.
addition to those covered in its report of May 1990.
patricia W. Silvey, April 26,1990, Evolutionary Light Water Reactor Certification issues and Their p.7
- Stephen A.Wendner.
Director.Officeo/ Standards Regulations Deputy Director. Office ofI.egislation and and Vorlances.
Relationship to Current Regulatory Actuario/Servkrs. UlS.
[I'R Doc. 90-12487 nled b2S-ao; 8 45 em]
Requirements, 3:45p.m.-6:15 p.ma Personnel if R Doc.10-124ac Died b29-so; 8 45 em]
oumeo coca em Pmctices and Pmcedurea (Closed}- The enwa coag a,e.m
-- members will discuss a proposed NUCLEAR REOULATORY personnel action the discussion of which Mine Safety and Health Administration COMMISSION in open session would represent a clearly unwarranted invasion of
/ Advisory Committ.. on Reactor IDocket No, M4044-Cl personal privacy.
Safeguards; Meeting Agenda This session will be closed to discuss Pyro Mining Co., Petition for Modifloation of Application of In accordance with the purposes of internal personnel practices of the Mandatory Safety Standard sections 29 and 182b.of the Atomic agency and information the release of l
as n$$pe 159$afil na ac so mmt ora St is, e c a
petition to mod the application of 30 Safeguards will hold a meeting on June friday. June 8.1990, mom P-JJO, 7030 7-9,1990,in Room P-110,7920 Norfolk Norfo/A Avenue, Bethesdo Md.
i CFR 75.1100-2(b)(quantity and location enue, Bethesda, a ln ofice of ci firefighting equtpment-belt B:30 0.m.~10:30 a.ma interim Standard a ticles pen The N staff ine f No 15-3920 oca d la Fede al Re s er on May 22,199 1(o WIbr for County, Kentucky. The petition Thursday, June 7,1990, room P-110,7030 status of proposed revisions to the la fils d under section 101(c) of the Norfo/A Avenue.Bethesda,Md.
existing standard for exposure of the ral Mine Safety and llealth Act of 8:30 a.m.-4:45 a.ma Chairman,
skin from radioactive particles.
N ' summa of the RemotAs (Open)-The ACRS Chairman 10:45 a.m-12 Noon: Systematic st:t sments i llows. petitioner's will briefly report regarding items of Assessment of ucensee Performance current interest.
(Open)-The NRC staff will brief the 1.The petition concerns the 8:45 c.m-0:30 a.ma Subcommittee members regarding proposed revisions regt trement that waterlines be thstalled.
parsllel to the entire length of belt ACliFities (Open)-A report will be to the NRC Manual Chapter on conveyors and be equipped with.
given and discussion held re6arding the Systematic Assessment of Licensee firehose outlets with valves at 304 foot ACRS subcommittee meeting on Performance.
Intirvals along each belt conveyor and Mechanical Components held on june c.
1 p.m.-230p.ma Accident Sequence 1990.
PrecursorPmgmm (Open}--
et tallpleces.
- 2. As an alternate method, petitioner 9:30 a.m.-JJ a.m.:NRCSofety Representatives of the NRC staff will L
proposes that where the waterline is Reseoich Progmm (Open)-The brief the Committee and discuss the installed in the adjacent conveyor belt members will discuss the scope and status of the Accident Sequence antry:
nature of its annual report to the U.S.
Precursor Program and related reports c) The waterline would have firehose Congress on the NRC Safety Research by the prugram contractor, cutlets at a maximum of 300-foot Program.
2:45p.m.-4:45p.maRisA Based inttrvals:
110.m.-12:30p.ma Quantitative
. Techmcal Specifications (Open)-The b) Each firehose outlet would have a.
Safety Goals (Open)--The members will members will be briefed on the status of D
250. foot firehose attached and would be discuss the status ofimplementation of - NRC staff activities to develop and use a
loc:ted in a crosecut open tothe belt NRC Quantitative Safety Goals, risk based Technical Specifications for -
entry: and Members of the NRC staff will nuclear power plants.
c) Each firchose outlet location would participate as appropriate.
4:45 p.m.-3:30p.ma future Activkies be clearly marked from each direction in 1:30 p.m.-3:30p.ma Generic issue-ad.
(Open)-The members will discuss
['
the belt conveyor entry, Combustion Engineering Plants Without anticipated subcommittee activities and I;
- 3. Petitioner states that the proposed Power OpemtedRelief Valves (Open)- items proposed for consideration by the i
cit;rnate method will provide the same The members will review and comment Committee, degree of safety for the miners effected on the NRC staff's proposed resolution 5:30p.m.-6:30p.m> Prepamtion of as that provided by the standard.
of this genericissue, Members of the ACRS Reports (Open}-ne members NRC staff and representatives of the will discuss proposed committee reports Request for Comments nuclear industry will participate, as to the NRC regarding items considered
)
Persons interested in this petition may appropriate, during this meeting.
j' furnish written comments.These 3:45 p.m.-4:45 p.ma Siting of Nuclear comments must be filed with the Office Plants (Open).--The members will hear Saturday, June P,1990, mom P-f10, 7030 1~
Norfolk A renue, Bethesda, Md.
of Standards. Regulations and
- and discuss a report from the NRC staff
' Variances. Mine Safety and llealth regarding NRC activities to decouple 8:30 a.m.-JJ a.m.-Preparation of l:
Administration, room 627,4015 Wilson nuclear power plant siting from source ACRS Reports (Open)-The members Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203. All term.
will discuss proposed Committee reports
. comments must be postmarked or 4:45 p.m.-6:45 p.ma Certification of to the NRC regarding items considered received in that office on or before June Erolutionory Light. Water Reactors during this meeting.
l-
)
?, ( e.219S8 Fed:r:
S. [
I I R:gli'or / Vol. 55 No.104 / Wednesday, May t,1990 / No* ices
, #1 a.m.-12 Noon-ACBC
.h Subcomir*/tteo Activities apen)-The BlweeWy Notice Applications and Information and Publications Services,
-d members will hear and discuss the Amendments to Operating Ucenses Office of Administration. U.S. Nuclear
~ status of activities assigned to involving No Significant Hazards Regulatory Commission. Washington.
Considerations
. designated subcommittees regarding DC 20555, and should cite the j-safety related and procedural matters.
I. Background publication date and page number of 3
- Procedures for the conduct of and this Federal Register notice. Written j
participation in ACRS meetings were Pursuant to Public Law (P.L) 97 415, comments may also be delivered to
)
. published in the Federal Regleter on '
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Room P-223, Phillips Building. 7920 e
September 27.1989 (H FR 39594). In-Commission)la publishing this regular Norfolk Avenue. Bethesda, Maryland 4
accordance with these procedures, oral biweekly notice. P.L 97-415 revised from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Copies of or written statements may be presented section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act of written comments received may be
'd by members of the public, recordings 19H. as amended (the Act). to require.
examined at the NRC Public Document the Commission to publish notice of any Room, the Gelman Building,2120 L U
will be permitted only during those amendments issued, or proposed to be Street, NW., Washington, DC. The filing 49 portions of the meeting when a lasued. under a new provision of section of requests for hearing and petitions for i'
transcript is being kept, and questions 189 of the Act.This provision grants the leave to intervene is discussed below.
may be asked only by members of the Commission the authority to issue and By June 29,1990, the licensee may file c
Committee,its consultants, and staff.
make immediately effective any a request for a hearing with respect to
).
Persons desiring to make oral amendment to an operating hcense upon issuance of the amendment to the L
statements should notify the ACRS a determination by the Commission that subject facility operating license and
]
I Executive Director as far in advance as such amendment involves no significant any person whose interest may be N.
, practicable so that appropriate -
hazards consideration, notwithstanding affected by this proceeding and who arrangements can be made to allow the the pendency before the Commission of wishes to participate as a party in the j
~
3 necessary time during the meeting for a request for a hearing from any person.
proceeding must file a written petition such statements.Use of still, motion This blweekly notice includes all foileave to intervene. Requests for a picture and television cameras during notices of amendments issued, or hearing and petitions for leave to
.I this meeting may be limited to selected proposed to be issued from May 7.1990 intervene shall be filed in accordance i,
ortions of the meeting as determined through May 17,1990.The last biweekly with the Commission's " Rules of j
y the Chairma n tice was published on May 10,1990 Practice for Domestic Licensing 7
the time to be sn. Information regording - ($5 FR 20349).
Proceedings"in 10 CFR Part 2.
.i et aside for this purpose l
may be obtained by a prepaid telephone NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF.
interested persons should consult a call to the ACRS Executive Director, Mr.
ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO current' copy of to CFR 2.714 which is d:'
Raymond F. Fraley, prior to the meeting. FACIUTY OPERATING UCENSE AND available at the Cornmission's Public' i
y
' in view of the possibility that the,
PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT.
Document Room; the Celman Building'
^h schedule for ACRS meetings may be HAZARDS CONSIDERATION 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555 ' nd at the Local Public Document" "
adjusted by the Chairman as necessary DETERMINATION AND a
to facilitate the conduct of the meeting, OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING Room for the particular facility involved.'
If a request for a hearing or petition for persons planning to attend should check
'The Commission has made a proposed. leave to intervene is filed by the above j
with the ACRS Executive Director il determination that the following date, the Commission or an Atomic 2
such rescheduling would result in major amendment requests involve no Safety and ucensing Boa'rd, designated 1
inconvenience.
significant hazards consideration. Under by the Commission or by the Chairman
- 1 I have determined in accordance with the Commission's regulations in to CFR of the Atomic Safety and ucensing i
Subsection 10(d) Pub. l.92-463 that it is 60.92, this means that operation of the.
Board Panel, will rule on the request
~4 necessary to close portions of this,
facility in accordance with the proposed and/or petition and the Secretar) or the ih meeting as noted above to discuss amendments would not (1) Involve a designated Atomic Safety and ucensing W
internal personnel practices of the significant increase in the probability or - Board willlasue a notice of hearing or.
Y agency (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2)) and '
casequences of an accident previously - an appropriate order, i
information the release of which would.,. eveluated; or (2) Create the posslNiity of ' ' As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a.
V, i represent an unwarranted invasion of a new or different kind of accident from. petition for leave to intervene shall set df.
personn.e.l privacy (5 U.S.C. 5$2b(c)(0)).
any accident previously evaluated: e(3). forth with particularity the Interest of -
~y Further information regarding topics Involve a significant reduction in a -
the petitioner in the proceeding, and q
to be discussed, whether the meeting margin of safety, The basis for this how that interest may be affected by the y
has been cancelled or rescheduled, the
. proposed determination for each results of the proceeding. The petition g
Chairman's ruling on requests for the amendmeat request h shown below, should specifically explain the reasons -
g opportunity to present oral statements The Commission la seeking public why intervention'should be permitted.
t "r
and the time allotted can be obbined by. comments on this proposed with particular reference to the -
e determination. Any comments received following factors:(1) the nature of the a prepaid telephone call to the AC*
within 30 days after the date of petitioner's right under the Act to be Executive Director. Mr Raymond F.
publication of this notice will be made a party to the proceeding:(2) the
- Fraley (telephone 301/492-8040).
,nsidered in making any final nature and extent of the petitioner's between 7A5 a.m. and 4:30 p.m/
tte, 'nination. The Commission will not - property, financial, or other Interest in Dated: May 24.1990.
Mrma,./ make a final determination the proceeding; and (3) the possible I'h" 9I'"
unless it receives a request for a 1-effect of anhe proceeding on the order which m:g b hearing.
entered in t Adviwry Committec Management Officer Written comments may be submitted petitioner's interest. The petition should El Doc.1012450 F6 led 5-29-eat 8 45 sml.
by mail to the Regulatory Publications '
also identify the specific aspect (s) of the 3
sumo cops neo-oi.m Dranch. Division of Freedom of subject matter of the proceeding as 'o a
1
1/..
/P mascoq'o e
UNITED STATES F
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
3' E
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RF ACTOR SAFEGUARDS 0,,
WASHINGTON. D. ' 20555 J
Revised:
June 5, 1990 SCHEDULE AND OUTLINE'FOR DISCUSSION 362ND ACRS MEETING JUNE 7-9, 1990 Thursday, June 7, 1990. Room, P-110, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Md.
1) 8:30 8:45 A.M.
Chairman's Remarks (Open) 1.1)
Opening Remarks (CM/GRQ) 1.2)
Items of current interest (CM/RFF) 2)
8:45 9:30 A.M.
ACRS Subcommittee Activities (Open) 2.1)
Report of Subcommittee chairman on meeting of 6/6/90 regarding nuclear power plant MOV testing, fire damper reliability, and other valve related matters (CM/EGI) 3)
9:30 11:30 A.M.
Generic Issue-84. Combustion Encineering (10:30-10:45 -' BREAK)
-Plants Without Power Onerated Relief valvos (Open) 3.1)
Report of ACRS subcommittee chairman regarding proposed resolution of this Generic Issue (DAW /PAB) 3.2)
Meeting with NRC staff-and represen-tatives of the nuclear industry as appropriate 8) 11:30 12:30 P.M.
Personnel Practices and Procedures (Closed)
Discuss proposed NRC personnel action (CM/RFF)
(Note:
This session will be closed to discuss internal ~ personnel practices of the agency and information the release of which would represent an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.)
12:30
.1:30 P.M.
LUNCH 5) 1:30 3:00 P.M.
NRC Safety Research Procram (Open) 5.1)
Discussion of the scope and nature of the annual ACRS report to the U.S. Congress on the NRC Safety Research Program (IC/SD) 1 tr-
l '., 'A 2
3:00 3:15 P.M.
BREAK 6) 3:15 4:15 P.M.
Sitina of Nuclear Plants (Open) 6.1)
Comments by ACRS subcommittee chairman regarding proposed NRC activities related to decoupling of nuclear power plant siting from source term (HWL/GRQ) 6.2)
Bri<ai4ng by members 'of the NRC staff 7) 4:15.
5:15 P.M.
Certification of Evolutionary Licht-Water-Reactors (Open) 7.1)
Discuss supplementary issues applicable to certification of ELWRs in addition to those ad-dressed in the ACRS report dated April 26, 1990 (CJW, et al. /MME)
Friday, June 8, 1990. Room. P-110, 7920 Norfolk Avenue. Bethesda, Md.
9) 8:30
-10:30 A.M.
Interir Standard for Hot Particles (Open) 9.1)
Comments by ACRS subcommittee chairman regarding the status of proposed revisions to the existing standard for exposure of the skin from radio-active particles'(JCC/EGI) 9.2)
Meeting with members of NRC staff 10:30 10:45 A.M.
. BREAK 10): 10:45 12:00 Noon Emeraency Response Data System (open) 10.1) Comments by ACRS subcommittee chair-man regarding a proposed NRC rule on the Emergency Response Data System' (JCC/PAB) 10.2). Meeting with NRC staff members 12:00 1:00 P.M.
LUNCH 11).
1:00 2:30 P.M.
Accident Secuence Precursor Procram (Open) 11.1)
Comments by~ACRS subcommittee-chairman regarding the NRC Accident Sequence Precursor Program (HWL/RA) 11.2)
Briefing by representatives of the NRC staff and ORNL 2:30 2:45 P.M.
BREAK
3 4:45 P.M.
Risk-Based Technical Soecifications (Open) 12) 2:45 12.1)
Comments by ACRS subcommittee chairman regarding the status of NRC staff activities to develop risk-based Technical Specifications for nuclear power plants (JCC/PAB) 12.2)
Briefing by members of the NRC staff 5:45 P.M.
ACES Puture Activities (Open) 13) 4:45 13.1)
Anticipated ACRS subcommittee activities (RPS/RFF) 13.2)
Items proposed for consideration by the full Committee (CM/RPS) 13.3)
Division of ACRS/ACNW Responsi-bilities (CM/RFF) 6:15 P.M.
ACRS Subcommittee Activities (Open) 14) 5:45 14.1)
ACRS Planning and Procedures Subcommittee meeting on 6/6/90 regarding ACRS Pro-cedures (CM/RFF)
Saturday, June 9.
1990. Room P-110. 7920 Norfolk Avenue. Bethesda, Md.
.19)i 8:30 11:30 A.M.
PreDaration of ACRS reports (Open)
Discussion of ACRS reports on:
15.1)
GI-84, CE Plants Without PORVs (DAW /PAB)-
15.2)
Certification of ELWRs (Tentative) (CJW/MME) 15.3)
Interim Standard for Hot Particles (Tentative)
(JCC/EGI) 15.4)
Emergency Response Data System (JCC/PAB) 15.5)
Siting of Nuclear Plants (HWL/GRQ) 15.6)
Division of ACRS/ACNW Responsibilities (CM/RFF) 16) 11:30 12:00 Noon ACRS Subcommittee Activities (Open) 16.1)
Materials and Metallurgy Subcommittee meeting on a.g,{g'5/24/90regardingthe jfs integrity of reactor p
/k b pdg,p (I l'l'/k pressure vessels, HSST program, and related Iud' matters (PGS/EGI) 12:00 1:00 P.M.
LUNCH
e 4
2:30 P.M.
Mis.cellaneous (open/ Closed) 17) 1:00 17.1)
Complete discussion of matters considered during this meeting i
i m
~
e O
j@h"7if1; t
L 1 ;e-a MINUTES OF THE 362ND ACRS MEETING JUNE 7-9, 1990 1
.The 362nd meeting of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) was held at Room P-110, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Md.,
on June 7-9, 1990.
The purpose of this meeting was to discuss and take appropriate actions on the items listed in the attached agenda.
The entire meeting was open to public attendance with the exception of a portion that dealt with personnel practicos and procedures.
A transcript of selected portions of the meeting was kept and is available in the NRC Public Document Room.
(Copies of the transcript are available for purchase from Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd., 1612 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20006.)
I.
Chairman's Report (Open)
(NOTE:
Mr. R. F. Fraley was the Designated Federal Of ficial for this portion of the meeting.)
Mr. Michelson, the full Committee Chairman, convened the meeting at 8:30 a.m.
with a brief summary of the planned meeting schedule and the provisions under which the discussions were to be held.
He stated'that the Committee had received neither written comments nor requests for. time to make oral statements from members of the public.
l Items of Current Interest Mr.
Michelson stated that the following items are of current interest:
o All the paper work associated with Dr. Wilkins' appointment to the ACRS has been completed and he is now a voting member of the ACRS.
o
-Mr. Etherington has ended his consulting service to the ACRS.
k
- o The Commission has directed the staff to prepare a generic rule i
for -use in the ' certification of Evolutionary Light Water Reactors -(ELWRs) and Passive Plants.
The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) believes that such a rulemaking is unnecessary.
o Senator Robert Graham (D-Fla.) has replaced Senator Breaux on the Senate Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation.
Mr. Graham's position on nuclear power is not clear.
4
362nd ACRS Meeting Minutes 2
Consolidated Edison Company of New York has announced that it o
plans to meet half of its increased peak demand over the next 20 years by conservation, while the other half will be met through power purchased f rom independent power producers and co-generators. Also, it plans to continue importing a large amount of hydropower from Canada.
o The Loviisa Unit 1
plant at Finland experienced a
circumferential break in the 12.8-inch carbon steel main feedwater piping on May 28, 1990.
The rupture occurred after one main feedwater pump tripped and a check valve slammed shut.
The reactor was tripped manually and there was no injury to personnel or significant damage to safet/ equipment.
The rupture was directly downstream of a flow measuring orifice and immediately upstream of. orifice to flange weld.
The 360-degree orifice flange wall thinning started at the orifice plate and tapered to about 1-mm wall thickness at the rupture.
The original wall thickness at the rupture was 18 mm.
Preliminary investigations indicate that the wall thinning was due to erosion / corrosion.
Unit 2 was also shut down for feedwater
-piping inspection; some wall thinning was measured at similar locations in this unit.
Both units are VVER-440 (440 MW class PWRs) supplied by the USSR in the 1970s.
o A Diagnostic Evaluation Team (DET) has begun its inspection of the Zion nuclear plant to evaluate the status of performance in the areas including:
Engineering design and-technical support Operations and training Maintenance Surveillance and testing Management and organization.
The DET will-also consider activities conducted at the commonwealth Edison Company Corporate Offices as well as at the Zion plant site.
Mr. Michelson suggested that the ACRS staff find out why the Zion nuclear plant was tagged for diagnostic evaluation, The Department of Energy's Defense Programs Of fice has been o
reorganized to appoint:
Mr. Victor Stello as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Facilities.
1 362nd ACRS Meeting Minutes 3
Mr. Donald Knuth, former NRC employee and President of KMC, Inc., as Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for
]
Operations.
II.
Generic Issue 84, Combustion Encineerina Plants Without power QparAled Relief Valves (PORVs) (Open)
(NOTE:
Mr. P. Boehnert was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.)
Mr. Ward, Chairman of the Decay Heat Removal Systems Subcommittee, noted that he had outlined the key aspects of this item during the
-May 10-11, 1990 ACRS meeting.
Etoposed Resolution of GI Dr.
R. Woods, RES Dr. Woods, Of fice of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES), discussed the staff's proposed resolution of GI-84.
Key points noted by Dr. Woods as background include:
o Six operating nuclear units with Combustion Engineering (CE) reactors (System 80 design) (Palo Verde 1, 2, and 3, San Onofre 2 and 3, and Waterford) have no PORVs.
All other domestic LWRs (present and planned) with CE reactors have PORVs, or other high capacity manual venting capability (i.e., vent valves).
o PORVs are relied upon for one or.more of the following:
Preventing safety valve challenges Mitigating steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) sequences Providing low temperature overpressure (LTOP) protection during startup or shutdown cooling operations Feed and bleed decay heat removal (for beyond-design-basis sequences).
of CE maintains that:
With the larger primary system and pressurizer volume of the System 80 design, the safety valves are not challenged on these plants during design basis overpressure events, and hence PORVs are not needed to prevent safety valve challenges.
SGTR. depressurizing function is taceptably performed
-without PORVs - (by a safety-related auxiliary pressurizer spray system).
l
362nd ACRS Meeting Minutes 4
LTOP function is performed acceptably by other relief valves (RHR system).
- However, feed-and-bleed capability is missing on the CE plants without PORVs which provides a diverse method for removing decay heat and can be important in the event steam generator cooling is lost.
Therefore, both the staff and the industry performed probabilistic analyses to determine the risk reduction due to. installing PORVs.
The results of the staff's analysis showed that there was a positive core melt frequency reduction of 2E-05 per reactor per year by installing PORVs, whereas the results of the industry analysis showed a small increase in core melt frequency.
Differences in the above results are due to assumptions about operator's initiation of cooling and the risk due to stuck-open PORVs.
Mr. Ward noted that the pressurizer spray system Ic more reliable P.nd is better than PORVs for depressurization.
Dr. Woods said the pressurizer spray system had to be upgraded to ensure-its survivability due to single failure.
This ancillary spray system is now a safety grade system.
In response to a question from Dr. Kerr, Mr. Liang,. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), said that the spray system would be lost given a station blackout.
Based on studies documented in NUREG-1044, " Evaluation of the Netd for Rapid Depressurization Capability for Combustion Engineering Plants," dated December 1984, the staff believed that-PORVs should be required on the six operating plants with CE reactors.
- However, it deferred implementing such a requirement, pending resolution of Unresolved ~ Safety Issue (USI) A-45, because under USI.A-45 the staff was considering requiring decay heat removal improvements such as a dedicated decay heat removal system for all operating LWRs, and the staff felt that.the bases for requiring such global. improvements might be reduced by requiring PORVs on the six'CE plants.
USI A-45, resolved in
- 1988, did not require any generic hardware improvements.
Mr. Micholson asked why CE is installing pressure relief capability.
on their evolutionary PWR design (System 80+).
Mr. Kennedy, CE, responded that the reasons for installing such a system in the System 80+' design are:
It is required pursuant to the EPRI-ALWR Requirements Document.
o osed a more stringent core damage frequency (CDF) goal of CE imp /RY.
o
$ 10~
o CE wanted to include mitigation capability for the direct containment heating (DCH) scenario, i
m 362nd ACRS Meeting Minutes 5
Mr.
Kennedy mentioned that all CE plants designed before 1970 included PORVs, but those designed after 1970 did not.
Dr. Woods stated that NRC considered two options for resolution of GI-84:
o Require installation of primary system venting capability, o
Cenclude that such venting capability is not required.
Based on the constraints of the Backfit Rule, the staff has concluded that Option 2 is the only viable choice.
However, in accordance with a previous diccerive trcm the Commission, this issue is being brought to the Commission's attention.
Dr. Shewmon asked how these plants cope with an ATWS.
Mr. Minners, RES, stated that CE. plants see high pressures during an ATWS ovent and the addition of a PORV will not help this situation to a great degree.
Mr. Michelson asked how this issue would be resolved for future plants.
Dr. Woods said GI-84 applies only to the six operating plants noted above.
Dr. Woods noted some qualitative arguments that support installation of venting capability.
These arrangements include:
o A more reliable design would give a primary system that cannot be
" bottled up" by excessive unremoved decay
- heat, thus pressurizing it beyond tne point whcre existing safety injection pumps can supply adequate cooling water to prevent core damage, if the cooling functions of the~cecondary system are lost.
o Unquantifiabic limitations of present PRA technology make it inadvisable to rely exclusively on PRA when evaluating the reliability of the decay heat removal system.
The limitations - of PRA performed for resolving GI-84 were noted.
These-included the facts that:
o Human response to unusual events is unpredictable.
o The feed-and-bleed cooling mode may be needed typically after multiple equipment failures ami'-
- !ma r. problems (example event at Palo Verde Unit 3
,n 3/3/89).
o The sum of all decay heat removal reliability improvement is not reficcted in the PR/.,
and may significantly affect the calculated value/ impact ratio.
362nd ACRS Meeting Minutes 6
Dr. Woods reviewed the factors that the NRC staff believed support installation of venting capability.
These factors include:
4 o
New designs have such venting capability (e.g.,
the CE System i
80+) and the EPRI-ALWR Requirements Document requires such a I
capability for ALWRs.
i l
o Palisades plant replaced two existing PORVs with two larger
.l PORVs in late 1989.
o Manual high capacity venting capability provides an accident f
management measure to aid in preventing DCH during high pressure core melt scenarios.
1 The factors that do not support installation of PORVs include:
o The six CE plants currently meet all Commission rules and regulations without installation of a manual high capacity l
venting capability, i
i o
Existing PRA studies and calculated cost-benefit ratios do not i
support backfitting these six plants with such a capability, in i
part due.to the high cost (~$9 million per plant).
The-staff, therefore, recommends that installation of PORVs not be j
required on the six operating plants mentioned above.
However, the l
Commission will be informed that this improvement could significantly reduce the risk of a _ severe accident even though it cannot-be i
-quantitatively demonstrated that it satisfies all the tests of the Backfit Rule.
The RES staff-requested formal. ACRS comments on the proposed l
resolution of GI-84.
i CE Presentation - Mr. H. Kennedy, CE Mr. Kennedy, CE, reviewed briefly the chronology of GI-84.
He noted that, based on the results of the PRAs done by CE, CE concluded that installation of PORVs gave a slightly negative benefit due to consideration of a PORV-initiated LOCA.
i In response to a question from Mr., Carroll, Mr. Kennedy stated that pressure relieving capability was included on the System 80+ design in part to address the concerns of DCH during a severe accident.
In summary, Mr. Kennedy noted:
i o
The six CE plants that do not have PORVs meet or exceed all current and applicable NRC rules and regulations.
362nd ACRS Meeting Minutes 7
l l
o The results of the PRAs performed by CE and NRC showed a small reduction in core melt frequency for loss-of-heat-sink events with PORVs.
o A more extensive PRA study performed by CE showed a small net increase in core melt frequency with
- PORVs, due to the i
possibility of a PORV-initiated LOCA.
o Results of CE and NRC value/ impact analyses do nat; support installation of PORVs based on the backfit criterion.
i o
GI-84 should be resolved without requiring installation of PORVs at the six operating CE plants.
s In response to a question from Mr. Carroll, Mr. Kennedy stated that even with PORV capability, use of feed and bleed is not a guarantee one can recover the plant.
This is due to the small time window
(~20-25 minutes) during which feed and bleed must be initiated to prevent uncovering the core; on the other hand, the operator has ~50-60 minutes to recover secondary side cooling.
Further, all CE plant licenses have emergency operating procedures to address the use of j
feed and bleed, j
Tho' key design parameters of the safety depressurization system incorporated on CE System 80+ design include:
o Approximately double the steam generator boil dry time of the l
System 80 design, due to larger primary coolant inventory and-larger steam generators, a
o Dedicated four-train (mechanical redundancy only) safety j
injection increases available " feed" and therefore significantly increases margin to core uncovery_during " feed-and-bleed."
i o.
Inside-containment refueling water storage tank receives-discharge from safety depressurization valves to prevent release of coolant to containment.
o safety depressurization valves are manually operated and can be l
throttled to provide controlled " bleed."
l Mr.. Ward noted that'the NRC staff requests ACRS comments on this issue.
He proposed that the. Committee issue a letter supporting the
' staff position.
Mr. Michelson suggested comment be included to note the limits of PRAs in arriving at the decision -- not to install PORVs on these plants.
The Committee issued a report to the Commission on this matter as stated in Section X of this document.
{
1
~
362nd ACRS Meeting Minutes 8
LII.
NRC Safety Research Procram Recort to the ConcIERA (Open)
( NOTE : -
Mr.
S.
Duraiswamy was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.)
Dr. Catton, Chairman of the Safety Research Program Subcommittee, stated that the P.CRS used to review the Long-Range Research Program l
(LRRP) plan es well as the research activities proposed for a specific fisaal year.
Since the ACRS felt that reviewing both of f
these matters was somewhat duplicative and time consuming, it j
informed the then NRC Chairman Palladino that it would review and j
comment only on the ongoing and proposed research activities and not l
on the LRRP plan.
l In accordance with the requirement of Section 29 of the Atomic Energy j
Act of 1954, as amended, the ACRS provided annual reports to the Congress on the NRC Safety Research Program and budget since 1977.
In its February 19, 1986 report to the Congress, the ACRS stated that it would be more useful to the Congress if the ACRS provided comments on the NRC research program from time to time as seems appropriate
)
to the issues instead of a comprehensive report on the overall NRC Safety Research Program.
l The February 1988 ACRS report to the Congress included a collection i
of all ACRS-reports to the Commission related to various cleronts of the NRC Safety Research Program that were written between Mar; 198*/
and February 1988.
Since then, the ACRS has been following tt
.amr practice.
Dr. Catton proposed that the ACRS start preparing a comprehensise
' annual report to the Congress on the NRC Safety Research Program and budget.
He believes that, in view of the severe budget constraints, the ACRS should review the scope and direction of the overall NRC Safety Research Program and provide detailed comments to the Congress.
Dr. Sless stated that the ACRS never had any major influence on the
'NRC research budget.
The Congress did not follow the major ACRS recommendations included in its annual reports.
He believes that if the ACRS wants to have certain influence-on the research program, it should write reports on various elements of the NRC research to the RES Director; if it wants to have influence on the research budget, it should write reports to the Commission.
He doesn't understand the rationale for reviving the preparation and submittal of a
comprehensive annual report to the Congress.
After further deliberations, the Committee agreed to reconsider the scope and content of the annual ACRS report to the Congress on the NRC Safety Research Program and budget. The Committee instructed Dr.
t
e 362nd ACRS Meeting Minutes 9
1 Catton to explore the possibility of providing a more comprehensive report to the Congress.
IV.
Sitino of Nuclear Power Plants (Open)
(NOTE:
Mr.
G.
Quittschreiber was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.)
Dr.
- Lewis, Chairman of the Regulatory Polic'ies and Practices Subcommittee, provided a preamble by discussing the history of the source term update and the need for decoupling the design
. requirements from siting requirements.
He stated that this matter was discussed during the May 10-11, 1990 ACRS meeting and the purpose of this briefing was to receive an update from the previous month.
- Staff Study on Source _ Term Update and Decoupline Sitina and Plant Desian for LWRs - Mr.
L.
Soffer, RES Mr. Soffer, RES, stated that 10 CFR 100 requires that every nuclear plant site define the Exclusion Area Boundary (EAB) and the Low Population-Zone (LPZ).
The EAB can have no residents and must be controlled by the applicants.
The LPZ must have a " low" density of residents and the, nearest densely populated center-must be at least 1-1/3 times the LPZ outer radius.
The calculated doses at the EAB and the LPZ must meet 10 CFR 100 Guidelines, i.e.,
25 rem whole body and 300 rem thyroid, for 2-hour and 30-day periods, respectively.
In response to questions from the Committee on how the future LWR
= certification process would encompass the-decoupling of siting from
- design, Mr.
- Minners, RES, said that if the industry wants to incorporate certain mitigation features into a standard design, they can take advantage of the new technical information on the source term that is available.
'The current practice for the use of the source term in regulation,-
which is not in 10 CFR 100, uses the fission product release derived from TID-14844, which was issued in 1962. The containment is assumed-to leak at the maximum leak rate allowed in the technical specifications and fission product cleanup systems are evaluated conservatively to ensure compliance with the requirements._ Doses are calculated using conservative site meteorology.
The staff feels that the current regulations and guidance have served well to set certain plant design and site parameters.
TID-14844 did not originally contemplate credit for the use of fission product cleanup systems, e.g.,
the low leakage containment is the only thing mentioned in TID-14 84 4.
As the size of the plants increased, fission product cleanup systems became necessary to keep exclusion areas from becoming very large.
Currently, 10 CFR 100 and the associated Regulatory Guides primarily influence the plant design and have much
R 1
[e l
~
362nd ACRS Meeting Minutes 10 l
less influence on siting.
Siting is governed by Regulatory Guide i
4.7, which provides typical values the staf f has found acceptable for siting over the years.
Also, 10 CFR 100 does not address the issue of containment failure, which.is the primary contributor to risk.
Current practice does not include an updated understanding of the source term form, content and behavior, and results in designers j
including design features that may not be in the direction of enhanced safety.
l The staff is considering changes to the current siting practice for future'LWRs that would give designers more flexibility to develop designs by utilizing the latest information on more realistic source term assumptions and more directly addressing acceptab1'e site parameters.
For evolutionary LWRs, the staff will continue on a I
case-by-case review (e.g., per SECY-90-016) and will work on updating TID-14844, applicable Regulatory Guides, and the Standard Review Plan i
sections to reflect the latest understanding of the source term and associated methodology.
For evolutionary and future designs,'except-i for ABWR designs, decoupling of design and siting will require updating the regulations and guidance to state severe accident design considerations'and siting parameters.
l The staff is performing a study on possible updating of the current i
siting regulations and related guidance for future LWRs, i.e.,
evolutionary and passive plants, to reflect the staff's latest l
understanding of source term composition and behavior and to focus I
more directly and realistically on those issues affecting risk.
The i
staff wants ACRS feedback on the direction the staff is considering.
The staff is recommending decoupling of siting and design in two steps:
l
)
o Sten 1 s
Update TID-14844 release, Regulatory Guides 1.3 and 1.4, and the corresponding Standard Review Plan Sections recognizing current
}
understanding of the source term.
The current 10 CFR 100 dose j
guidelines would be retained. Current containment design basis,
{
i.e.,
LOCA assumptions, would be retained and the staff would continue to evaluate containment performance under likely severe l
accident conditions on a case-by-case basis.
l o
' Sten 2
[
The benefits, disadvantages, and scope of decoupling plant i
design and siting for future 'LWRs would be evaluated by specifically looking at modifying 10 CFR 100 to specify
(
acceptable-site parameters.
Also, 10 CPR 50 would be modified
[
i i
l t I
- 0 1
o.
I
~
362nd ACRS Meeting Minutes 11 to specify acceptable plant performance and design features, such as containment leak rate and fission product cleanup systems, considering severe accidents.
Preliminary Schedule for Decoupling - Mr.
L.
Soffer, RES The preliminary schedule for decoupling the source term from siting i
for Step 1 is as follows:
o Initiate Changes - 9/90 o
Technical Basis for Timing Change Available
- 12/90 o
Draf t Regulatory Guides, Standard Review Plan sections, and
~
supporting documentation available - 7/91 o
Proposed changes to the Commission - 12/91 o
Final changes to the Commission - 12/92.
The preliminary plan for Step 2 above is to provide a schedule to the Commission by. September 1992.
ACRS Action The Committee reviewed the Draft Commission Paper, Staff Study on Source Term Update and Decoupling Siting from Design, and prepared a report supporting the staff's effort to adjust the source term to reflect current knowledge.
V.
Certification of Evolutiorary-Licht Water Reactors (Open)
(NOTE:
Dr.
M.
El-Zeftawy was the Designated-Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.)
Mr. W/ lie, Chairman of the Improved LWRs subcommittee, stated that during the 361st ACRS meeting, May 10-11,1990,. the Committee members discussed additional issues other than-those proposed by the NRC staff in SECY-90-016 that may_be appropriate for consideration in the evolutionary light water reactor (ELWR) certification process.
The Committee discussed a draft report prepared by Mr. Carroll with input lfrom Mr. Wylie that included comments on the following issues.
Mr. Carroll stated that the proposed comments and recommendations on these issues should also apply to the advanced LWRs for which certification will be sought under 10 CFR 52:
o Scope of PRAs.
Mr. Carroll indicated that from the review of ELWR applications the staff and the applicants are interpreting the scope of PRAs as being limited to accident sequences during
362nd ACRS Meeting Minutes 12 power operation.
He believes that the staff should expand the scope of these PRAs to include potential accident sequences during other modes of plant operation.
He stated that recent operating experience indicates that non-povter operation modes may contribute significantly to the over.il risk of nuclear power plants (e.g.,
events involving loss of reactor vessel inventory during mid-loop operation and intersystem LOCA precursor events during startups).
In addition, Mr. Carroll recommended that the individual plant examination process for currently operating plants be similarly expanded to include non-power operation modes and that the officacy of available emergency operating procedures for these modes of operation be evaluated.
l o
Verification and Validation (V&V) of Computer Software Used in gontrol and Protection Systems.
Mr, Carroll pointed out that all ELWR designs currently under review utilize digital control and protection systems.
He stated that.vich systems offer many advantages regarding reliability and testau111*v.
However, the V&V of software is an extremely important and difficult issue.
Mr. Micholson shared the same concern.
Mr. Carroll cited the Canadian experience with the V&V issue that had delayed the startup of their Darlington station.
Mr. Carroll stated that the NRC staff should place a high priority on developing acceptance criteria for V&V programs, o
Ouality Assurance (OA) recuirements for Desian. Construction, and operation of ELWRs.
Mr. Carroll indicated that the staff has recently moved in the direction of " performance based QA" programs.
This is in contrast to past practice which was heavily oriented towards documentation of quality related activities.
Mr. Carroll stated that he-agrees-with the new approach.
Dr. Siess noted that;he would like more information on this subject and the assurance of a complete performance data base.
o Security Recuirements for ELWRs.
Mr. Carroll noted that the NRC should provide guidance on security measures to the ELWR applicants seeking certification of their designs.
Such guidance should reflect the experience that has been gained from 10 CFR 73, including the lessons learned from the nuclear plant security system regulatory effectiveness reviews.
Mr. Carroll cited the example of locating the control rooms within the plant structure so that they are protected against " truck bombs."
o Other Issues.
Mr.
Wylie indicated that the ACRS should reconsider its recommendation of endorsing the staff's position regarding the " station blackout" issue for the ELWR.
Currently, the staff's position is to require an alternate ac power source
L 362nd ACRS Meeting Minutes 13 for the ELWR.
Mr. Wylie noted that the staff should evaluate cach ELWR design from a risk perspective in order to determine the advantages of a power supply system consisting of Class 1E power sources that are less than (N+2), but have a single, nonsafety-grade, diverse alternate ac power source to supplement them versus the use of full (N+2) safety system trains back through the Class 1E power sources.
(N is the number of trains required to perform a necessary safety function and is equal to one if each train has 100 percent capacity to perform the function; N is equal to two if each train has 50 percent capacity.)
Mr. Carroll indicated that the use of the (N+2) concept ensures that the safety system will function with the single failure of one train while a second train is out of service for maintenance.
After deliberations, the Committee decided not to make any recommendations regarding the above issues, pending detailed review of these issues by cognizant ACRS subcommittees.
The following specific-assignments were agreed upon:
o Plant Onorations (Mr. Carroll) - Expansion of the scope of PRAs for those Modes of Operation other than Mode 1 Operation.
o Computers in Nuclear Power Plant Ocerations (Dr.
hwis)
Verification-and validation of computer sof tware used in control and protection systems, o
Imnreved LWRs (Mr. Wylie)
(N+2) concept o
Safecuards and Security (Dr. Lewis) - Security and protection requirements against sabotage.
VI.
Interim Standard for Hot Particles (Open)
[ NOTE:
Mr.
E. Igne was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.)
Mr.
- Carroll, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Occupational and Environmental Protection Systems, referred to the Committee's May 9, 1989 letter in which the ACRS did not endorse the NRC staff's proposed interim standard on hot particle exposures and recommended that the staf f, upon publication of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) report regarding this matter, incorporate the NCRP recommendations into its policy.
It was also noted that the Commission rejected the staff's interim standard and, in a Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) on this matter, the Commission stated that the staff should either incorporate the NCRP recommendations on hot particle exposures into its position or should provide an acceptable alternative.
362nd ACRS Meeting Minutes 14 In response to a question by Dr. Siess, Mr. Carroll stated that the values of hot particle exposures recommended in the draft standard of the International Commist. ion on Radiation Protection (ICRP) and in the staf f's interim standard are more conservative ' smaller values of hot particle exposures) than the values included an the current modified enforcement policy.
Mr. Carroll stated that the staff's modified enforcement policy incorporates NCRP recommendations and that the negative comments included in Mr. Beckjord's April 20, 1989 letter to Dr. Murley bother him.
HRR Presetntation - Mr.
P. Congel,11RR Mr.
- Congel, liRR, presented a summary of SECY-90-169, Modified Enforcement Policy for llot Particle Exposures.
He stated that SECY-90-169 responds to the SRM on SECY-89-370, revises the draf. policy in SECY-89-370, and incorporates the recommendations in NCRP Report
.No.
106.
The modified policy defines hot particle size as 1 mm in any dimension, hot particle exposure as occupational dose to the skin duetohotparticlesongodyorclothing,betaemissioncritorionof 75 microcurie hours (10 Detas) and skin dose criterion of 50 rad 2
2 over 1 cm at 7 mg/cm.
Emission and dose criteria apply to each exposure (no quarterly or annual limits).
For application of the enforcement for hot particle exposures greater than 10 CPR 20 limits, no notice of violation is given if exposure is less than televant criterion (emission or dose) and no notice of violation is given for f ailure to maxe an "immediate" (less than one hour) notification.
Examples of enforcement severity levels (SL) were given for SLs III, IV, and V.
There are no examples for severity levels I and II.
Mr.
Congol stated that this proposed modified enforcement policy and NCRP Report No. 106 are more restrictive than the 100-rad policy proposed in the staff's originat interim s.andard in SECY-89-370.
He further stated that this proposed policy would use a radiation protection standard at which visible nonstochastic effects might occur.
RES Presentalip] - Dr. D. Cool, RES Dr. Cocl, RES, commented on the msiified policy for hot particle exposures that is delineated in SECY-90-169.
His general comments includes RES concurred in the modified policy as being responsive \\.o the o
SRM on SECY-89-370.
o RES believen certain policy and technical issues should be brought to the Commission's attention.
o Differences still exist between British and U.S.
research results.
362nd ACRS Meeting Minutes 15 o
The NJAP position and the draft ICT' position differ.
o RES believes that the interim limit should be conservative, pending resolution of research results.
o Establishing a limit that permits an observable effect is a major departure from current regulatory philosophy and d-serves public review.
Essentially, Dr. Cool's major objection to the proposed modified policy stems f rom the limits of hot particle exposure that may result in NCRP undefined terms of "not serious" and " deep ulceration."
He further stated thatt o
Effects such as infections and dermal thinning should receive consideration.
o Application of the ALARA principle should apply below the hot particle limit.
o Use of the emission limit is controversial and should have public review.
o The particle size criterion of 1 mm presents problems.
Mr.
Carrn11 stated that EPRI-sponsored
" pig studies" recently completed bi Pacific Northwest Laboratory indicate that the NCRP position ia conservative and that " deep ulceration" implies a tiny ulcer that.quickly heals.
Mr. Carroll stated that he was surprised by. the number of " technical issues" contained in Mr. Beckjord's letter to Dr..Murley given the extensive dialogue that has occurred between the staff and NCRP over the past several years.
Mr. Carroll stated that Mr. Beckjord's letter presented a biased view of. the current hot particle situation.
Dr. Cool stated that an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) on hot particle-exposure is being prepared.
The ANPR will solicit public comments on:
o What hot particle effects should be controlled?
l o
should limits be set at threshold or include a safety margin?
o How should " threshold" be defined?
o What reporting and recording requirements should be used?
l o
i
362nd ACRS Meeting Minutes 16 Ets.13.nis_ tion by NRC Reginn_X - Mr. G. Yuhas, Region V Mr. Yuhas, Region V, discussed the hot particle exposure problem from a regional perspective. He stated that hot particles are not new and that good radiation protection practices are adequate to limit exposures.
He said that the use of cobalt-60 in nuclear power plant components is one of the major sources of hot particles.
If cobalt-60 use is reduced, the hot particle problem should also be reduced.
He further stated that the current regulations are very restrictive and the industry wants relief.
Examples were given of major sources of hot particle concerns at Trojan, San Onofre, Diablo Canyon, Rancho Seco, and Palo Verde nuclear plants.
He concluded his presentation by stating that we should readdress the exposure limits for very small areas of tissue when a reasonabic scientific basis has been developed for the hot particle problem.
The Committee issued a report to the Commission on this matter as discussed in Section X of this document.
Mr. Carroll stated that he would like the Committee to hear a report on BEIR V in the future.
VII.
Preposed Rulemakinc on the Emercency Responst Data System (Open)
[ NOTE:
Mr. H. Alderman was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.)
Mr. Carroll, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Plant Operations, stated that during August 1989, the staff issued Generic Letter 89-15, urging all licensees to participate in the Emergency Response Data 4
System (ERDS) program.
However, since participation was voluntary, only about 50 percent of the licensees agreed to participate in this program.
The proposed rule will require that all licenscos (except 1
those for Big Rock Point Plant and all other plants that are shut down permanently or indefinitely) participate in the ERDS program.
RES Presentation - Dr.
S.
Bahadur, RES Dr. Bahadur, RES, noted that the function of the ERDS would be to require the licensees to have direct electronic transmission of data from their plants to the NRC Operations Center.
The current system uses the telephone to transmit data.
The proposed system would transmit data f rom the licensee's process computer and would come on line during an emergency.
The ERDS would supplement the existing system.
Mr. Carroll remarked that the system would be activated periodically for testing.
Dr. Bahadur said that was correct.
Dr. Bahadur discussed the background of the ERDS.
He noted that the TMI-2 accident raised the issue of the capability of NRC to gather
362nd ACRS Meeting Minutes 17 information on plant conditions during an emergency. This raised the issue of coming up with some sort of alternative means that will give more accurate and timely information.
After considering about four options, the staff decided on the ERDS.
The staff developed the ERDS, contacted the Duke Power and Light Company, and, in an exercise with them, tested the system.
The test was successful.
In 1985, the staf f submitted to the Commission SECY-84-481 proposing the ERDS.
The Commission approved the ERDS concept as outlined in SECY-84-481.
The staff conducted a survey in 1986 to determine the capability of the licensees' onsite data systems to process the desired information.
Of the 188 units, 92 units were contacted.
The capability was found to be close to 100 percent.
As a result, NRC contracted with EI International, Inc. to design and install a system compatible with the licensecs' existing systems so that the NRC could roccive the transmitted information.
The Executive Director for Operations (EDO) approved initiation of the proposed rulemaking related to ERDS in 1989.
While the rulemaking was under development, a generic letter was sent to all licensees encouraging them to participate voluntarily in the ERDS program.
At this time 54 units either have the system or have committed to have the system.
This is about 50 percent participation.
Mr. Carroll asked about the current position of those licensees who have not volunteered to participate in the ERDS program.
Mr.
G.
Zech, Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data (AEOD),
responded that some are waiting to see how the system works, while others are working on changes to their computers to make them more compatible with the ERDS.
Mr. Wylic asked if NUMARC has formulated a position on this matter.
Mr. Nelson, NUMARC, said they are supporting it on a voluntary basis.
He noted that NUMARC is going to review the rule and then take a position on the proposed mandatory participation.
Chances to ProDosed Ruli - Dr.
S.
Bahadur, RES 2
Dr.
Dahadur discussed changes to the rule as a result of the Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) review.
The requirement for licensees to report to the NRC when the system was not in working condition has been deleted.
The reason for this is that a requirement has been added that the system be tested quarterly.
This testing would ensure the general operation of the system.
_a
l 362nd ACRS Meeting Minutes 18 Dr. Kerr asked about the reliability of the system.
Mr. Zech replied that it depends on what the utility has applied to its own computer software through a validation / verification process.
The NRC would require that the software for the ERDS be kept at that same level.
Dr. Kerr commented that, since this is a new and experimental system, it might make some sense to try it out for a year or two before establishing a rule, lie asked if the present system was so inadequate that the new system was needed right away.
Mr. Bahadur said the staff recognizes that the prcaent system is adequate, but has certain limitations.
The amount of data and information that could be transmitted by the existing system in a timely fashion is
- limited, ite said the issue is that the ERDS would supplement the existing system.
Mr. lleltomes noted that, in order for headquarters personnel to fulfill their responsibilities during an emergency, they have to have current and updated information.
This system will greatly assist them in carrying out their responsibilities for monitoring the situation e :ing an emergency and making the necessary communications and recommendations.
Dr.,Kerr asked if there was some sort of evidence that there will be a significant decrease in risk as a result of implementing this system.
Mr. lleltemos replied that the staff's experience since the TMI-2 accident and the experience with the trial program gives the staff the necessary information to make this finding.
Dr. Kerr said that he would have thought that the staff had to document the decrease in risk in some fashion.
He noted that perhaps all the staff had to do was to say that it is the staff's considered judgment that thic vill decrease risk.
lie asked if this was the Case.
Mr. Dahadur said the backfit analysis states that without ERDS the NRC, to fulfill its mission during an emergency situat'.on, would have to rely on the Emergency Notification System that has had several limitations, especially in providing updated information in a timely fashion.
The ERDS is expected to provide accurate and timely information to the NRC Operations Center, and allow the licensees to be able to utilize their manpower for managing the accident rather than spending time on the telephone providing inf ormation to the NRC.
Several of the ACRS Members expressed their concern that the ERDS might lead to a temptation for the Commission to try to manage an accident.
Mr. Zech stated the data would be used to confirm the protective actions that have been recommended to the off-site authorities.
lie noted that the NRC role is to monitor and advise and that only in very rare circumstances would it be to direct, lie noted that they do not foresee that happening.
1 362nd ACRS Meeting Minutes 19 Mr. Bahadur provided the following summary:
o The rule proposes to amend 10 CFR 50.72 to require that the
]
licensee activate the ERDS during an emergency.
o The two benefits of the rule are:
It would provide timely and accurate information to NRC.
The licensee would be able to utilize effectively its resources for the accident management while the data is coming in by direct transmission.
o The cost estimates are:
Cost to industry about $18 million Cost to NRC for initial and quarterly testing about $5 o
million.
He noted that if the Committee concurs in the proposed rule the staff will submit this rule to the EDO by the end of June 1990.
The rule would be sent out for public comments and, following resolution of the public comments, a final rule will be developed by the middle of 1991.
The Committee issued a report to the Commission on the proposed rule on the ERDS as stated in Section X of this document.
VIII.
Accident Beauenge Precursor.PrograE (Open)
(NOTE:
Mr. H. Alderman was the Designated Federal Official for this i
portion of the meeting.)
Dr. Lewis noted that today's presentation was an information briefing and that no Committee action was expected.
He said it would be necessary for him to leave before the conclusion of the precentation, at which time he would turn the meeting over to Dr. Kerr.
Qpenina Remarky - Mr.
E. Jordan, ACOD/Dr. T. Murley, NRR Mr. Jordan, AEOD, said that the purpose of the Accident Sequence Precursor (ASP) program is to provide more rigorous methods to ti.m process of extracting lessons from operational experience beyond deterministic methods.
The analyst determines a conditional ore melt probability by fitting the event that actually occurred into a generic accident sequence, and then laying it out.
This is independent of the normal method of reviewing the licensee event 1
3 j
I 362nd ACRS Meeting Minutes 20 1
report (LER) by looking at the aspects of how many things failed and then making a subjective judgment about its overall significance, Dr. Murley, NRR, said that the information from the ASP programs has been used by NRR tot o
Identify safety issues o
Examine patterns in industry performance o
Verify PRA methods and results.
Dr. Murley stated they are aware that there are some pitf alls in using the data.
11e requested ACRS comments on the ASP program as well as on the application of the results of this program in the regulatory process.
AEOD PresenttlioD - Dr. p.
Lam, AEOD Dr. Lam,-AEOD, discussed the ASP program.
}le defined a precursor as any event involving a failure of a single safety system or the degradation of two or more safety systems, or the occurrence of any one of the following initiators: a loss of off-site power, a loss-of-coolant-accident, a steamline break, or any transients with complications.
Dr. Lam stated that the primary objective of the ASP program is to review LERs, and to identify and characterize precursors.
The ASP analyses provide:
o Core damage accident scenarios for given plant conditions o
Estimation of core damage probability given the event o
Identification of potential plant weakness in operation, equipment reliability, or human recovery.
Dr. Lam noted that the ASP program was started in 1979 in response to a recommendation in the Lewis' Committee report related to WAbM-1400.
Since 1980, more than 40,000 LERs have been reviewed witc 1,500 potential accident precursors identified and about 450 of these quantified.
In 1988, there were no p with conditional core damage probability larger than lo gocursorsThere were seven precursors in the 10" category.
Three of these involve service water system problems, three involve diesel generator problems, and three involve auxiliary feedwater system problems.
t I
362nd ACRS Meeting Minutes 21 Dr. Lam stated that AEOD completed a case studi on service water systems problems in 1988 and is now conducting a comprehensive study on diesel generator common mode failure problems.
Auxiliary feedwater system problems are being considered under Generic Issue 124, " Auxiliary Teodwater System Reliability," and Generic Issue 125,
" Davis-Besse Auxiliary Teodwater Reliability."
Dr. Lam presented the results of the evaluation of five years of data (1984-1989).
The most significant event was the Davis-Besse event in 1985 which involved loss of main feedwater and a loss of au iliary feedwater.
This was assigned a core melt probability of 10' Another significant event was at llatch in 1985.
In this event, a safety reliet valve was stuck open concurrent with the unavailability of IIPCI and RCIC.
This event was assigned a conditional core damage probability of 10'3 Dr. Lam presented the safety system and equipment involved in all the precursorc from 1984 to 1988.
The auxiliary feedwater system has been the most significant, followed by the electrical power system, the main feedwater system, the steam relief valve, high pressure safety injections, service water, instrumentation and control, turbine bypass, and PORV.
Mr. Carroll pointed out the importance of considering shutdown risk.
Dr. Ross, AEOD, noted the ongoing RES studies on shutdown risk.
lie said that risk during shutdown could be half or more of the total risk of the plant.
He said that an interim progress report on this study is expected by the end of 1990.
ERR.Prestniation - Dr. A.
El-Bassioni, NRR Dr. El-Bassioni, NRR, discussed the applications of the ASP program results. He noted that ASP program results have confirmed their past emphasis on certain safety issues.
lie noted that ASP program results have provided evidence of other areas of regulatory concern such as risk associated with shutdown modes of plant operation and interfacing system LOCAs.
lie pointed out that older plants have lower precursor rates than newer plants.
He said they are working on the interpretation of this.
One interpretation is that the older plants have simpler designs and the operators are very familar with the operations.
Dr. El-Bassioni discussed the decline in conditional core damage probability from 1985 to 1988.
He pointed out that they expect this trend to continue, but to be not as steep as between 1985 and 1988.
He said that there might be occasional spikes due to some features
i 362nd ACRS Mocting Minutes 22 that weren't identified before or some other failures that were not recognized previously.
Mr. Wylic noted that one of the methods of meeting the Station Blackout Rule was to install alternate ac power source of. diverse design.
Several recent events involved main stop up transformers being damaged.
He asked if the staff looked at the layout to determine if a transformer fire or explosion could take out the alternate power supply.
Mr. Congol agreed to submit a response to this question.
IX.
Risk-Bastd Technigni SDecifications (Open)
[ NOTE:
Mr. P. Boehnert was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.)
Mr. Carroll, Chairman of the Plant Operations Subcommittee, said that, as requested by the Committee during an earlier meeting, the staff plans to provide an inf ormation briefing on the Risk-Based Technical Specification (xBTS) program.
NRR Presenta_tig_n - Mr. M. Wohl, NHR Mr. Wohl, NRR, discussed NRR's role in the RBTS offort.
In response to a 1987 Commission policy statement, NRR has developed a three-element program:
Development of new star.dard technical specifications o
A parallel program for line-item improvements o
o other supporting activities (including-risk-based approach).
Mr. Wohl stated that ten owners group topical reports using risk and reliability methods have been approved by the NRR staff.
These reports include surveillance test intervals (STI) and allowed outage time (AoT) oxtensions for the:
reactor protection system; safety system actuation instrumentation; BWR isolation instrumentation; and BWR rod block instrumentation.
Most STI extensions are from 1 to 3 months; AOT extension times vary.
The concept of adjusting A0Ts to control risk was noted.
Depending on the risk impact, the A0T is determined accordingly (Figure 1).
In response to Dr. Kerr, Mr. Wohl stated that the " delta"7 change in risk allowed by the staff for this exercise was ~5xlO~ /RY.
He stated also that NRC has no limit on the cumulative increase in risk for these AOTs.
o CONCElvr OF ADJUSTING AOTs TO CONTROL RISK RISK w*:e'D>xmo n
t?
e' g. i>; W; ey,2%y&,gg
[bfe 5 v>
1% 's ?
a y 3 ? f";A,
' p All23{'sW enso:
f fh.f;hhff5 PROPOSED N"
hkd$$[p!
ijk{$n$jgp@j[f[j$@$$j$
h TARGET y!
$-fij$f:E3 AMSK Mt i
RISK 4} G}; qii % @d J
?;i}FMt%i
~ed;b5@V>Ltt?mM:@=:u:';;
D:
- k;i: C 711
' fekPDgl2 tna
, 6nWa &F:
m U
1i
-ht&p+74y&:-.
.n
=
=
=
w AOT AOT AOT: ALLOWED OUTAGETIME
,a TIME C
9 tD M
9
362nd ACRS Meeting Minutes 23 Dr. Kerr asked why no cumulative limit is in place.
An explanation was offered that such a limit may be used as an excuse to take a relaxed approach
- repair a critical equipment.
Dr. Kerr commented that neg1ceting s alative risk was a step away from a risk-based approach.
Exampics were shown of a comparison of AOTs based on risk versus the current AOTs based on engineering judgment (Figure 2).
In response to questions from Mr. Minnick, Mr. Wohl stated that the allowed outage time risk is determined arbitrarily.
In response to a question from Mr. Carroll, the staf f stated that the risk impact of multiple equipment outages can be determined with the RBTS approach.
In fact, this is a key strength of RBTS, as the interrelationship of equipment functions is considered.
In response to a question from Mr. Wylie, Mr. Wohl said t*'
RBTS approach can detect subtle systems interactions via the PL Dr. Kerr asked if the staff has considered reducing (.
.ninating the use of technical specifications based upon their pot
.1al impact on risk.
Mr. Wohl stated that the Standard Technical
'Jifications have significantly reduced the number of technical spc'ifications.
Mr. Wohl stated that the NRC staff established an industry /NRC working group in 1988 to:
o Study the feasibility of a pilot program to use a real-time system at a nuclear power plant o
Define the main characteristics and requirements of a real time risk-based approach to technical specifications o
Assess the effectiveness in onhancing safety and availability of nuclear power plants.
Efforts of industry working group members were noted.
Philadelphia Electric and Southern California Edison are using PRA as a risk profile tool to support plant operations.
A joint effort by EPRI, Westinghouse, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company is under way to develop a risk / reliability-based technical specifications program.
In response to Dr. Kerr, Mr. Wohl said that NRC has taken steps to reduce the amount of testing conducted at power.
Foreign efforts in this area were noted.
The Heysham gas-cooled reactor in the United Kingdom uses a "living PRA" called an Essential Systems Status Monitor to monitor plant risk on a real-time basis.
Finland and Sweden also have related programs under way.
1 I
i i
[
l Risk-Based Technical Specifications Allowed Outage Times (Hrs)
[
/
~
^
223 l
nisk Based f
I D Curront o
W i
e j
d l
O
(
u 92.....-. -.-
f
{
i 72 72 72 g
~
e
/
/
/
_/
~~~
34 i
T l
/'
'I,, W D
/~
/~2 Accumulator MD EFW Pump TD EFW Pump LPIPump i
MD EFW-Motor Driven Emergency Feed TD EFW - Turtune Driven Emergency Feed LPt-Low Pressureinjection i
.i t
4
o i
i 1
1 362nd ACRS Meeting Minutes 24 Regulatory issues that must be addressed for use of RBTS include:
o New interpretation of 10 CFR 50.36 o
Risk-related criteria supplementing current (deterministic) licensing criteria o
Configuration control of the risk model o
Controlled access to risk model o
Determination of the adequacy of base PRA.
NRC sees as its i' ole for RBTS development to:
o Monitor and/or evaluate industry efforts o
Provide guidance, as requested, to industry programs o
Monitor foreign efforts o
Take part in foreign information exchange activities (e.g.,
IAEA).
RES Presentation - Mr.
C.
Johnson, RES Mr.
The objectives of the RES effort include:
Development of methods for analyzing risk-impact of technical o
specifications requirements o
Exploration of alternative approaches l
o Development of bases for potantial improvements.
Mr. Johnson showed a slide to demonstrate that a substantial fraction of the current technical specifications has a negligible impact on reduction of risk.
A similar result was also shown for surveillance tests:
1.e., about 50 percent of the tests have a negligible impact on risk reduction.
Current research efforts include:
a Development of improved methods for evaluating the risk impact o
Investigation of criteria and approaches for operational configuration control Integration of surveillance testing with plant activities.
o RES is also exploring issues involving operational configuration management.
These issues include:
j
.i
o 362nd ACRS Meeting Minutes 25 o
Criteria for configurations to avoid o
Criteria for extensions and actions o
Criteria for assurance tests o
Feedback into surveillance and maintenance programs.
In response to a question from Dr. Shevmon, Mr. Johnson said RES is investigating the negative impact of surveillance testing (at power) on plant risk.
Research planned for FY91 includes study of:
o The risk-impact of requirements during shutdown and action statements requiring shutdown o
Guidelines for extending AOTs by assuring alternate success paths o
Feedback of results as applied to the risk impact for aging plants and new plants.
Mr. Johnson said that the PRA branch of RES is performing two "zero-power" PRAs (one BWR, Grand Gulf; one PWR, Surry) to evaluate shutdown risk.
Dr. Catton indicated this overall program is a good use of PRA technology.
Mr. Carroll thanked the staff for a set of interesting presentations and requested that the staff provide another briefing in the future when the program is further developed.
RES representatives agreed to do so.
X.
Executive Session (Open)
A.
Reports. Letters, and Memoranda (Open) 1.
Repsrts to the Commission o
Pronosed Rule to Implement an Emeraency Resnonse Data System (Report to Chairman Carr, dated June 12, 1990).
The Committee acknowledged that the Emergency Response Data System (ERDS) has positive aspects, but in its view'they are outweighed by some negative aspects.
Therefore, the Committee neither supports the proposed ERDS nor endorses the related proposed rule.
If, however, it is decided to proceed with the ERDS, the Committee recommended that the ERDS not be made compulsory until several years of experience have
362nd ACRS Meeting Minutes 26 indicated the form it should take and the way in which it should be operated.
Additional comments provided by ACRS members James C.
- Carroll, Ivan Catton, and Carlyle Michelson were appended to this report.
o Modified Enf orcement Policy for Hot Particle Exposures Incorporatina the Recommendations of NCRP Report No.
1Q1 (Report to Chairman Carr, dated June 12, 1990).
The Committee stated that the staff's latest modified interim enforcement policy for hot particle exposure, that is based on the recommendations of the NCRP report No. 106, is an acceptable approach until a new limit can be established by revision of 10 CFR Part f
20.
The Committee suggested that the rulemaking on the hot particle issue be given high priority by the staff.
The Committee was surprised by the number of
" technical issues" contained in Mr.
Beckjord's April 20, 1990 letter to Dr.
- Murley, given the extensive dialogue that has occurred between the staff and the NCRP over the past several years on the hot
{
particle issue.
The committee noted that Mr.
j Beckjord's letter presents an incomplete view of the current hot particle situation.
The Committee I
suggested it is important that a
good working relationship be established and maintained between the staff and the NCRP.
o Generic Issue-84.
-Combustion Enaineerina Plants l
Without Power Operated Relief Valves (Report to Chairman Carr, dated June 12, 1990).
]
l The Committee concurred in the staf f's recommendation, that is based on the resolution of Generic Issue-84, i
that installation of PORVs not be required at six i
operating units with Combustion Engineering (CE) reactors (San onofre Units 2 and 3, Waterford Unit 3, and Palo Verde Units 1,
2, and 3).
The Committee noted that the risk analyses that have been performed for resolution of Generic Issue-84 were limited in that they did not include consi : ration of external events as initiators.
l
l 362nd ACRS Meeting Minutes 27 o
Draft Study on Source Term Update and Decouplina Sitina from Desian (Report to Chairman Carr, dated June 13, 1990).
The Committee supported the staff's effort to adjust the source term to reflect current knowledge.
The Committee noted that since it appears that the staff is not entirely clear about its position on siting, it cannot yet provide definitive advice on that aspect of the problem.
o Division of ResDonsibilities Between the ACRS and the
{
Ei!W (Report to Chairman Carr, dated July 11, 1990)
As per Chairman Carr's request, the ACRS and the ACNW a
joint report on the division of provided responsibilities between those Committees in reviewing matters related to reactor safety and radioactive waste management.
2.
Memoranda o
Schedulina of ACRS Reviews (Memorandum from R.
F.
Fraley for J.
M. Taylor, dated June 13, 1990).
Consistent with the Committee's decision, Mr. Fraley has informed Mr. Taylor about the following procedures that the Committee intends to follow with regard to scheduling matters for ACRS review / action:
Matters that require Committee review and action will be scheduled during the ensuing ACRS meeting only if related documents are made available to the Committee during the preceding ACRS meeting (i.e.,
at least one month prior to the anticipated Committee action).
Exception to the above procedure will be made only to deal with really urgent matters.
Urgent matters, if the ACRS staf f management is notified in a timely manner and in writing by the EDO, will be scheduled for Committee consideration during the next ACRS meeting subject to the approval by the cogni: r.t Oubcommittee Chairmen and the full Committee Chairman, and subject to the availability of necessary time for public notice to meet the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) requirements, r
l 362nd ACRS Meeting Minutes 28 o
Press Release Seekina Nominations for ACRS Membership l
(Memoranda from M.
Lee for F.
Elizondo, Office of Personnel, and J. Kopeck, Office of Governmental and Public Affairs, dated June 22, 1990.)
The Committee prepared a draft press release (PR) stating that the Commission is seeking nominations to fill two vacancies on the Committee during 1991. This PR, that has been endorsed by Chairman Carr, has been sent to the Office of Personnel and the Office of Governmental and Public Affairs for publication in appropriate scientific and engineering magazines.
B.
Subcommittee Reporte (Open) 1.
Mechanical Components (NOTE: Mr. E. Igne was the Designated Federal Of ficial for this portion of the meeting.)
Mr. Michelson,. Chairman of the Subcommittee on Mechanical Components, reported on a subcommittee meeting held on June 6, 1990 to discuss fire damper reliability, MOV test results and conclusions, and the status of NRR programs on improving valve reliability.
He stated that plants have been experiencing fire damper problems during air flow conditions.
Further discussion en this matter will be held during the July 1990 ACRS meeting.
Mr. Michelson said that during this meeting the NRC staff and its contractor, Idaho Engineering National Laboratory (INEL),
will brief the Committee regarding MOV tests performed at Wyle Laboratories in Huntsville, Ala. and at KWU f acilities near Frankfurt, Federal Republic of Germany.
These test programs were designed to provide technical insights for use by the staff in the resolution of Generic Issue 87, " Failure of HPCI Steamline Without Isolation,"
and in the implementation of Generic Letter 89-10, " Safety-Related Motor-operated Valve Testing and Surveillance."
1Rtroduction - Dr.
G. Weidenhamer, RES Dr. Weidenhamer, RES, stated that the problem with MOVs is that all the valves tested (that were designed using the-standard-thrust equation)-failed to close.
Mr. Carroll corrected him by saying "the valves f ailed to close fully."
Dr. Weidenhamer acknowledged Mr. Carroll's correction.
362nd ACRS Meeting Minutes 29 Rgu;Lkgtqktnd,__ Obiectives, and Regillts of Test Pr@., - Mr.
K. DeWall, INEL Mr. DeWall, one of the three principal investigators of this program at INEL, discussed briefly the background, objectives, test results, and the conclusions of the gate valve testing program.
He stated that Phase II tests done at KWU verified the Phase I tests. performed at Wyle Laboratories.
Two 6-inch valves in the Reactor Water Cleanup System (RWCU) were tested with high energy water, three 10-inch valves in the High Pressure Coolant Injection (HPCI) were tested with high energy steam, and one 6-inch calve in the RWCU system was tested with hot / cold water (for other non-heated service).
The valve manufacturers were Velan, Anchor / Darling, Wm. Powel, and Walworth.
All valves used Limitorque motor operator with various torque outputs.
It was noted that all of the motor operators had capacities larger than typical for these tests.
At various times during the test programs, parallel diagnostic measurements were made by Bechtcl-KWU Alliance, General Physics, Liberty Technology, Limitorque, MOVATS, Westinghouse, and Wyle Laboratories.
The participation of the diagnostic vendors was not a competition, but a learning experience.
The first concern affects value response and prediction of results.
The disc factor equation currently used by industry to predict the force necessary to open or close a valve is a linear equation with a predetermined constant coefficient of friction.
The results of the calculation is-the primary basis for sizing the valve operator.
The tests have shown that there are two classes of valves:
Those that respond predictably during operation under o
load, albeit with a higher than expected disc friction (0.5 instead of the industry standard value of 0.3) o Those that respond unpredictably, sustaining internal mechanical damage during operation under load.
-The second concern relates to in-situ and prototypical
-testing.
Tests show that:
o Identically manuJtetured valves do not respond identically, so it may be necessary to test all
- valves, o
The rate of loading effect in valves shows marginal behavior.
362nd ACRS Meeting Minutes 30 o
current diagnostic systems do not measure enough valve responso parameters.
The third concern relates to technology transfer, training, and equipment improvement.
Mr.
DeWall stated that informing industry of NRC research results will help the utilities comply with regulatory requirements.
In addition, utility valve test personnel do not receive adequate training in diagnostic testing and signature analysis.
In conclusion, Mr. DeWall stated that:
o The concerns identified during the test program are valid issues.
Addressing and resolving these issues will require additional industry research, o
The 11RC research results can assist industry in meeting current regulatory requirements applicable to gate valves, o
Final resolution will require industry working together and in cooperation with the 11RC.
2.
Materials and Metallurqv
[ NOTE:
Mr. E. Igne was the Designated Federal Of ficial for this portion of the meeting.)
Dr.
- Showmon, Chairman of the Materials and Metallurgy Subcommittee, reported briefly on the outcomo of the May 24, 1990 subcommittee meeting in West Palm Beach, Fla. The meeting addressed two questions:
o The adequacy of low upper shelf (LUS) welds in B&W reactor vossols o
The validity of methods for determining shif t in Nil-Ductility Transition Temperature (NDT) of reactor pressure vessels for LUS wold material.
The wolds in question used Linde 30 flux that contained high copper.
These welds are projected to have Charpy upper shelf energies below 50 ft-lbs before end of life, and this condition violates Appendix G of 10 CFR 50.
The NRC/ASME are only now establishing acceptance criteria for Service Levels A and B that will be used for evaluation or demonstration of safety under LUS conditions.
Analysis will be done using clastic / plastic fracture mechanics
362nd ACRS Meeting Minutes 31
- methods, i.e.,
energy to tear open a crack must be greater than the applied load can generate.
All affected B&W plants belong to the B&W Owners Group on Reactor Integrity.
They have spent about $15 million to date to collect samples, irradiate them, and perform tests in order to obtain a satisfactory data base for evaluation.
Work is still being done on an acceptance criteria for Service Levels C and D (bent out of shape but maintains pressure).
The treatment of pressurized thermal shock is still being discussed.
Efforts are under way to estimate the shift in toughness due to irradiation.
It was stated that large samples for valid K are needed, that are too large for insertion in ze the reactor pressure vessel as surveillance capsules.
Traditionally, the shift in NDT was performed by shifting the Charpy curves at the 30 ft-lb level.
As the upper shelf drops from a value much larger than 30 ft-lbs to under 50 or 40 ft-lbs, there is a question as to whether this technique is still appropriate. Mr. Etherington, ACRS consultant, has been concerned about this shift, and, indeed, the predicted shift is somewhat greater than the actual shift However, the NRC through the Heavy Section Steel Technology (HSST) program that is ongoing at ORNL has done work on this subject that has shown the error is appreciably less than the margin (2 sigma) that the NRC requires in estimating shifts.
Mr. Etherington is now satisfied.
It was stated that Mr. Etherington is to resign as an ACRS consultant because of increasing vision problems.
A Committee letter was written thanking him for his many contributions to the nuclear industry and his many years of service to the ACRS as a member and consultant.
3.
Planning and Procedures (NOTE:
Mr.
R.
F.
Fraley was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.)
The Committee's action on the recommendations of the Planning and Procedures Subcommittee related to various matters are as follows:
o AnDointment/Reannointment of ACRS Memberg The Committee agrood to adopt the new procedures approved by Chairman Carr for appointment of new members and reappointment of on-board members.
.n
s 362nd ACRS Hooting Minutes 32 o
Election of ACRS Offlecrs The Committoo agrood to adopt the additions / changes to the ACRS Bylaws recommended by the Planning and Procedures Subcommittoo with regard to conducting election of ACRS Officers and special election.
1 o
Added Romarks in ACRS Reports The Committeo discussed the guidelines proposed by the Planning and Procedures Subcommittee for adding additional remarks to the ACRS reports.
Dr. Lewis commented that provision should be made to provide on opportunity to other members to join the members, after the mooting, who prepare additional remarks.
He agrood to propose revisions to the ACRS Bylaws to include this provision.
o Conduct of Subcommittee Activition The Committoo discussed the oral interpretation of the FACA requirements provided by OGC with regard to conducting ACRS Subcommittoo/ Subgroup mootings.
The Committoo instructed Mr. Traloy to prepara a letter to OGC requesting written guidance on this matter.
C.
Eummary/ List of Follow-Un Matters (Open) o The Committoo instructed Dr. Catton, Chairman of the Safety Roscarch Program Subcommittoo, to explore the possibility of reviving the preparation / submittal of the annual comprehensive report to the Congress on the NRC Safety Roscarch Program and Budget. The Committee agreed with the suggestion by Mr.
Fraloy that Dr.
Catton moot with appropriato personnel of the Office of Congressional Affairs to find out whether revival of the preparation of
-the annual comprehensive report to the Congress will have any impact on the Commission's logislative proposal submitted to the Congress that requests that the Congress relieve the ACRS from its statutory obligation of submitting annual report to the Congress on the NRC Safety Research Program.
(NOTE:
Dr. Catton mot with Mr. Rathbun, Director of the Office of Congressional
- Affairs, on July 12, 1990 to discuss this matter.) (Mr. Fraley and Mr.
Duraiswamy havo the follow-up. action on_this matter.)
o The Committoo decided not to recommend " additional" issues that may be appropriate for consideration in the ELWR cortification process, pending detailed review of thoso 4
1
\\
1 1
I l
362nd ACRS Meeting Minutes 33 1
issues by cognizant ACRS Subcommittees.
The Committee
)
assigned these issues to various Subcommittees as shovn j
below Plant operations (Mr. Carroll) - Extension of PRAs for those Modes of operation other than Mode 1 operation.
)
Comnuters in Nuclear Power Plant Ooerationa (Dr.
Verification and validation of computer Lewis) software used in control and protection systems.
Imoroved LWRs (Mr. Wylie) - Adoption of the general principle of H+2 trains for active, safety-related functions.
Security and Safecuards and security (Dr. Lewis) protection requirements against sabotage.
The committee stated that after review of these issues, designated Subcommittees could prepare individual reports on these items and submit them for consideration by the full Committee.
(Mr. Bochnert, Mr. Alderman, and Dr. El-Zeftawy have the follow-up action on this matter.)
o The committee suggested that the Improved LWRs Subcommittee hold a meeting with the staf f and discuss "what constitutes an essentially completo design for standard plants" and recommend a course of action to the full Committee for consideration.
(NOTE:
A meeting of the Improved LWRs Subcommittee has been held on July 10, 1990 to discuss this matter).
(Dr. El-Zeftawy has the follow-up action on this matter.)
o The committee agreed not to provide comments to the Commission on SECY-90-080, Draft Regulatory Impact Survey Report, until it has been reviewed by the Regulatory Policies and Practices Subcommittee and a course of action has been recommended for the full Committee consideration.
(Mr.
Quittschreiber has the follow-up action on this matter.)
o Mr. Michelson suggested that the ACRS staff find out why the Zion Nuclear Power Plant was tagged by the NRC staff for diagnostic evaluation.
(Dr. Savio has the follow-up action on this matter.)
o The Committee agreed with the recommendation by Mr.
- Carroll, Chairman of the Maintenance Practices and Procedures Subcommittee, that there is no need to review
_i
4 362nd ACRS Meeting Minutes 34 at this time the proposed criteria (delineated in SECY-90-137) to be used by the staff in determining when the industry progress in the area of maintenance would be sufficient to obviate a need for rulemaking; he plans to hold a Subcommittee meeting, probably during the fall of 1990, to discuss this matter af ter the staf f has progressed further.
(Mr. Alderman has the follow-up action on this matter.)
The Committee agreed with the recommendation by Dr. Lewis, o
Chairman of the Regulatory Policies and Practices Subcommittee, that there is no need to review the NRC proposal, delineated in SECY-90-022, to amend regulations to make unlicensed individuals subject to enforcement actions.
(Mr. Quittschreiber has the follow-up action on this matter, if any.)
o The Committee agreed that the staff brief the ACRS on the following operating events durir.g the July 12-14, 1990 meeting:
Status of the reactor vessel head cracking incidents at Quad Cities and Fitzpattirk plants.
Cracking of pressurizer vessel cladding at the Haddam Neck plant.
Malfunction of molded case GE circuit breakers.
Failure of operators to pass requalification tests at the Brunswick plant.
NRC review of the Westinghouse Owners' Group study l
justifying support of reduction of turbine stop valve i
testing frequency.
(Mr. Boehnert has the responsibility to make necessary arrangements.)
o Mr.
Carroll requested that the staff provide another briefing to the Committee after the Risk-Based Technical Specifications' Program has been developed further.
The RES staff agreed to do so.
(Mr. Boehnert has the follow-up action on this matter.)
The Committee requested that the staf f use " legible" slides o
during the ACKS meetings and also include the names and telephone numbers of the presenters.
(Mr. Fraley has the I
follow-up action on this matter.)
r 362nd ACRS Meeting Minutes 35 o
During the discussion of the,.:ident Sequence Precursor program, Mr. Wylie asked ki.uuner the staff has looked at the layout to ensure that alternate AC power supply used during station blackout conditions is located such that transformer explosion or fire would not render it inoperable.
Mr. Congel, NRR, stated that he would provide l
the information later.
(Mr. Alderman has the follow-up action on this matter.)
o Dr. Murley, NRR, requested ACRS comments on the Accident Sequence Precursor Program as well as on the application of the results of this program in the regulatory process.
(Mr. Alderman has the follow-up action on this matter.)
D.
Eglure Activities (Open) 1.
Future Acenda The-Committee acreed on a tentative schedule for the next Committee meeting (Appendix II).
2.
Future Subcommitteo Activities A list of future subcommittee meetings was distributed to the members (Appendix III).
~
The meeting was adjourned at 12:25 p.m. June 9, 1990.
- ~ -.,
.... ~....-
.. -. -. ~.. - -
.= -._ -
o q..
i il APPENDICES MINUTES OF THE 362ND ACRS MEETING JUNE 7-9, 1990 i
I.
Attendees II.
Future Agenda D
III.
Future Subcommittee Activities IV.
Other Documents Received i
E i
L D
'h e
s E
n.
?
i
if O
a p.
APPENDIX I 362ND ACRS MEETING MINUTES JUNE 7-9, 1990 bTTENDEES THURSDAY. JUNE 7.
1990 Public Attendeen NRC Attendees Brent Sadanskas, SERCH Licensing /Bechtel G. Weidenhamer, RES George Gaydos, SERCH Licensing /Bechtel G.
R. Mazetis, RES Keven DeWall, INEL R. Woods, RES Margo Barron, NUS-LIS F.
Cherny, RES Bill Lavallee, Henze-MOVATS R. Kirkwood, RES Ernie Kennedy, ABB CE M. Taylor, OEDO Steve Toelle, ABB CE K. Kniel, RES Mike Cross H. Pastis, NRR R. Borsum, BWNT J. Mitchell, RES Ben A. Franklin, McGraw-Hill S. B. Burson, RES David Modsen, NUMARC K. Olive, OC Charles Brinkman, 7BB CE E. Heumann, OC David Airzo M. Lopez-Otin, OCM/TR Mika Simpson, EPRI/ Grove Engr.
A. Vietti-Cook, OCN/KC j
Adrian Heymer, NUMARC L. Soffer, RES Mark Beaumont, Westinghouse M.
Slosson, OEDO M. Colagrossi, RES T. Kenyon, NRR FRIDAY. JUNE 8.
1990 Public Attendees NRC Attendees Lynne Neal, USCEA/NUMARC H. Pastis, NRR Eve Fotopoulos, SERCH Licensing Bechtel F. Congel, NRR l
Margo Barron, NUS-LIS J. Wigginton, NRR Lisa McAvay, Bishop Cook Purcell & Reynolds G.
Yuhas, Reg. V Lynne Fairbent, NUMARC J.
Buchanan, NRR Alan Nelson, NUMARC D. Cool, RES l
Randall Beaty, SEA, Inc.
L.
Cunningham, NRR Adrian Heymer, NUMARC A.
Roccklein, RES Joseph Minarick, SAIC Jack Bell, RES Bahmam Ateti, SAIC Michael Weber, OCM/KC Bill Pearce, Consultant M. Taylor, OEDO Bill Moran, RES F.
Costanzi, RES j
S.
Bahadur, RES D. Michaels, OGC Mark Au, RES Jack lleltomos, RES T. DiPiao, RES G.
Zoch, AEOD i
4
-]
1 362nd ACRS Hecting Minutes I-2 NRC Attendees (Con't)
John Jolicoeur, AEOD R. Priebe, AEOD 1
B. Borchardt, OEDO 1
R. Barrett, NRR T. Novak, AEOD P. Lam, AEOD F. Manning, AEOD E. Doolittle, OCM/FR V.
Benaroya, GPA/IP J. Shea, AEOD L. Norrholm, OCM/KC M. Lopez-Otin, CM/TR R. Lober, NRR M. Wohl, NRR F. Coffman, NRR C. Johnson, NRR J. Hoyle, SECY SATURDAY, JUNE 9, 1990 Public Attendees NRC Attendees A. Nelson, NUMARC H. Pastis, NRR k
t z
APPENDIX II 362ND ACRS MEETING MINUTES JUNE 7-9, 1990 FUTURE AGENDA Tentative Schedule for the 363rd, July 12-14, 1990, ACRS meeting:
e Nuclear Power Plant Operatina Experience (Open/ Closed)
Briefing and discussion of nuclear power plant operating experience, including Status of the reactor vessel he.aC cracking incidents at Quad cities and Fitzpatrick plants.
Cracking of pressurizer vessel cladding at the Haddam Neck plant.
Malfunction of molded case GE circuit breakers.
Failure of operators to pass requalification tests at the Brunswick plant.
NRC review of the Westinghouse Owners' Group study justifying support of reduction of turbine stop valve testing frequency.
Briefing by e
Emeraenny Operatina Procedures (Ocen) representatives of the NRC staff and the nuclear industry as appropriata regarding NRC efforts related to the development of emergency operating procedures and performance of PRAs for the shutdown modes of operation.
o Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance Evaluation (Ocen) - Briefing by and discussion with members of the NRC staff regarding their evaluation of the SALP program.
EEBI Advanced LWR Recuirements Document (Open) - Review and report on the NRC staff's draft SER on Chapters 1-5 of the EPRI ALWR Requirements Document.
Representatives of the NRC staff and EPRI will participate, as appropriate.
e Reauirements for Ecsentially Comolete Desian (Open) - Briefing by and discussion with representatives of the NRC staff and the nuclear industry regarding status of the development of requirements for an essentially complete design.
ACRS Sul2.9.9ED ttee Activities (Open) - Hear and discuss reports i
of the status of ACRS subcommittee activities regarding assignments in designated areas such as thermal-hydraulic phenomena and reliability of nuclear power plant fire dampers and related. natters.
r.
{f
- L,, )l) 1 -
362nd ACRS Meeti.ng Minutes' APPENDIX III
' Futuro ~Subcomittee Meetings ACRS/ACNW COMMITTEE & SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING June 8, 1990 362nd ACRS Meetina, June 7-9, 1990, Bethesda _.MD, Room P-110.
Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena. June 14, 1990, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, MD (Boehnert/Quittschreiber), 8:30 a.m., Room P-110. The Subcommittee will discuss the status.of selected research programs including:
the 2D/3D Program and calculational capability for accident management.
Attendance by the following is anticipated, and reservations have been made at the hotels indicated for the night-of June 13:
Dr. Catton HOLIDAY INN Dr. Plesset HYATT Dr. Kerr NONE Mr. Schrock HYATT Mr. Ward HYATT Dr. Sullivan HYATT Dr. Wilkins HOLIDAY INN 21st ACNW Meetina, June'28-29, 1990, Eethesda, MD, Room P-110.
Imoroved Liaht-Water Reactors, July 11, 1990, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda. MQ (El-Zeftawy), 8:30 a.m., Room P-110. The Subcommittee P
will review. the. draft SER for Chapter 5 of the EPRI ALWR
-Requirements Document.. Attendance by the following is anticipated, and reservations'have.been made at the hotels indicated for the night of July 10:
Mr. Wylie HOLIDAY INN Dr. Siess HOLIDAY INN -
Dr. Catton HOLIDAY-' INN Mr. Ward HOLIDAY INN Mr..Michelson DAYS INN (CONGR) fuman Factors, July 11, 1990, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, MD -
POSTPONED to July-31, 1990.
F rd ACRS Meetina, July 12-14, 1990, Bethesda. MD, Room P-110.
?
'TVA Plant Licensina and Restar_t, July 24'(Site Tour) and 25, 1990, Huntsville. AL - POSTPONED to Late August 1990
{-
L L
L L
1,.
.g' on as 2
Imoroved Licht-Water Reactors, July 30, 1990, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, MD (El-Zef tawy), 8: 30 a.m., Room P-llo. The Subcommittee will review the NRC staff's proposal for the completeness of designs of the Evolutionary Light Water Reactors and the Passive Designs.
Lodging will be announced later.
Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Mr. Wylie Dr. Siess Dr. Catton Mr. Ward Mr. Michelson 22nd ACNW Meetina, July 30-31, 1990, Bethesda. MD, Room P-110.
Human Factors, July 31, 1990, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, MD (Alderman), 8:30 a.m., Room P-422.
The Subcommittee will discuss the reports on procedural violations (Chernobyl Spinoff), and organizational factors.
Lodging will be announced later.
Attendy.ce-by the following is anticipated:
Mr. Ward Mr. Michelson
-Mr. Carroll Mr. Wylie Dr. Kerr Occunational and Environmentgl Protection Systems, August 8, 1990 (a.m.) (tentative), B,qthes(1. MD, (Igne).
The Subcommittee will review the Advance Fot. ice r,f Troposed Rulemaking on hot particles.
Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Mr. Carroll Dr. Lewis Mr. Wylie Dr. Moeller Joint Advanced Pressurized Water Reactors and Advanced Boilina Water-Reacto u, Date to be determined (Late. July),-Bethesda, MD (El-Zeftawy/ Alderman).
The Subcommittees will discuss the licensing review basis documents for CE System 80+ and GE ABWR designs.
Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Mr. Carroll Mr. Ward' Mr. Michelson Mr. Wylie Dr. Catton Dr. Shewmon Dr. Kerr-
l'..
o
[e
=
l 3
Decav Heat Removal Systems, Date to be determined (July / August),
Bethesda, MD (Boehnert). The Subcommittee will continue its review of the NRC staff's proposed resolution of Generic Issue 23, "RCP Seal Failures."
Attendance by the following is anticipated:
l Mr. Ward Mr. Michelson (tent.)
i Dr. Catton Mr. Wylie Dr. Kerr Mr. Davis Joint Severe Accidents and Probabilistic Risk Assessment, Date to be determined (July / August), Bethesda, MD (Houston).
The Subcom-mittees will continue their review of NUREG-1150, " Severe Accident Risks: An Assessment for Five U.S. Nuclear Power Plants."
Attend-l ance by the following is anticipated:
I Dr. Kerr Mr. Ward Dr. Lewis Mr. Wylie Dr. Catton Mr. Bender Mr. Michelson Mr. Davis Mr. Minnick Dr.' Lee Dr. Shewmon.
Dr. Okrent Dr. Siess Dr. Saunders l,
f Joint Containment Systems and Structural Enaineerina, Date to be I
l.
-determined (July / August), Bethesda, MD (Houston).
The Subcom-mittees will develop containment design criteria for future plants.
Attendance by-the following is anticipated:
Mr. Ward Mr. Minnick-Dr. Siess Dr. Shewmon
.Dr.:Catton Mr. Wylie Mr. Carroll Mr. Corradini Dr. Kerr Mr. Bender Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena, Date to be determined -( August), Idaho Falls ID (Boehnert).. The Subcommittee will raview the details of the modifications made to the RELAP-5 MOD-2 code as specified in
- the MOD-3 version.
Attendance by the following is anticipated:
i:
Dr. Catton Dr. Plesset l
Dr. Kerr Mr. Schrock Mr. Ward Dr. Sullivan l
Mr. Wylie-
. _ = _ - - _
b e
.e.
5_
n e
4 TVA Plant Licensina and Restart, (Late August 1990) (tentative),
Huntsville. AL (Houston). The Subcommittee will review the planned restart of Browns Ferry Unit 2.
Location and lodging will be announced later.
Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Mr. Wylie Mr. Minnick Mr. Carroll Mr. Ward Mr. Michelson
-Materials and Meta 11urav, Date to be determined, Bethesda. MD (Igne).
The Subcommittee will review the proposed resolution of Generic Issue 29, " Bolting Degradation or Failure in Nuclear Power Plants."
Attendance by the following'is anticipated:
Dr. Shewmon Mr. Ward Dr. Lewis Mr. Bender Mr. Michelson Dr. Kassner.
'Ouality and Ouality Assurance in Desian and construction, Date to
- be determined, pethesda. MD (Igne).
The Subcommittee will discuss i
the performance-based concept of quality, what it means, its implementation, 'and preliminary results.
Attendance by the j
following is anticipated:
Dr. Siess Dr. Stevenson Mr. Ward Mr. Cerzosimo (tent.)
-Mr.-Wylie Decav' Heat Removal Systems, Date to be determined, Bethesda, MD
-(Boehnert).
.The Subcommittee will explore the use of feed and' bleed for decay heat removal in PWRs.
Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Mr. Ward-Mr. Michelson (tent.)
Dr..Catton Mr. Wylie Dr. Kerr Mr. Davis
_g
-Auxiliary and Secondary Systems,.Date to be determined, Bethesda, MD (Duraiswamy).
The Subcommittee will discuss:
'(1) criteria being used by utilities to design Chilled Water Systems, (2)'regu-
-latory requirements: for Chilled Water Systems design, and (3) criteria being used by the NRC staff to review the Chilled Water Systems design.
Attendance by the following is anticipated:
~
Dr. Catton Mr. Michelson Mr. Carroll Mr. Wylie
s.
6 Joint Reculatory Activities and Containment Systems, Date to be determined, Bethesda. MD (Duraiswamy/ Houston).
The Subcommittees will review the proposed final revision to Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50, " Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactors,"
and an associated Regulatory Guide.
Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Dr. Siess Dr. Kerr Mr. Ward Mr. Michelson Mr. Carroll Mr.'Minnick Dr. Catton Mr. Wylie I
l
)
APPENDIX IV MINUTES OF THE 362ND ACRS MEETING JUNE 7-9, 1990 OTHER DOCUMENTS RECEIVED MEETING NOTELOOK lal2 2
MOTOR OPERATED VALVE TESTS Tentative Agenda e
e Status Report with attached Executive Summary from NUREG/CR-5406, "BWR Reactor Water Cleanup System Flexible Wedge Gate Isolation Valve -Qualification and High Energy Flow Interruption Test," dated October 1989 Presentation materials provided during the meeting.
e 3
REVIEW OF GENERIC ISSUE 84, CE Plants Without Power ODerated Relief Valves e
Presentation Schedule Project Status. Report with Attachments:
o ACRS letter dated December 15, 1981 (to Chairman Palladino from J.
Carson Mark),
Subject:
ACRS Report on Final Design Approval for Combustion Engineering, Inc.
Standard Nuclear Steam Supply System (Standard Reference System 80).
ACRS letter to W. Dircks, EDO, NRC from P. Shewmon, ACRS, dated April 5, 1982,
Subject:
Reliability of the Shutdown Heat Removal System on the System 80 Design.-
ACRS letter dated October 18, 1983 to Chairman Palladino from J. J. Ray, ACRS,
Subject:
Need for Rapid Depressurization-Capability in Newer Combustion Engineering, Inc. Plants.
Memorandum to R. Fraley, ACRS, from W. Minners, NRR, dated April 27,
- 1990,
Subject:
Resolution' of li Generic Issue (GI)-84, "CE Plants-Without PORVs" with Enclosure which is DRAFT SECY paper (INTERNAL COMMITTEE USE ONLY).
6 SITING OF NUCLEAR PLANTS (Decouclina Sitina and Source Term) i.
Presentation Schedule l
Status Report with_
Attachment:
l Memorandum to R.
Fraley from W.
- Minners, RES, forwarding DRAFT SECY Paper, Staff Study on Source Term Update and Decoupling Siting from Design (INTERNAL COMMITTEE USE ONLY)
Presentation materials provided during the meeting.
I e
l l
, 9. '.
- 362nd ACRS Meeting Minutes IV-2 tab 7
CERTIFICATION OF EVOLUTIONARY LIGHT-WATER REACTORS Tentative Agenda e
Status Report with Attachments:
e ACRS Report to Chairman Corr, Attachment I
Subject:
" Evolutionary Light Water Reactor Certification Issues and Their Relationship to Current Regulatory Requirements," dated April 26, 1990.
Attachment II-Memorandum to Commissioners from J.
M.
Taylor, EDO,
Subject:
Staff Response to ACRS Conclusions Regarding Evolutionary Light Water Reactor Certification Issues, dated April 30, 1990 9
MODIFIED ENFORCEMENT POLICY FOR HOT PARTICLE EXPOSURES Tentative Agenda e
Status Report with Attachments:
e ACRS Report to Chairman Zech,
Subject:
Generic Letter Related to Occupational Radiation Exposure of Skin from Hot Particles, dated May 9, 1989.
SECY-90-169, " Modified Enforcement Policy for. Hot Revision to Incorporatm Particle Exposures Recommendations Made in NCRP Report No. 106," dated May 11, 1990.
Memorandum to T. Murley from E. Beckjord,
Subject:
Response to the Staff Requirements Memorandum on Modified Policy for Hot Particle SECY-89-370 Exposures.
Presentation materials provided during the meeting.
11 ACCIDENT SEOUENCE PRECURSOR PROGRAM e
Tentative Schedule e
Status Report Presentation materials provided during the meeting.
e 12 BRIEFING ON RISK BASED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS PROGRAM Project Status Report with Attachment - Memorandum to J.
e Carroll, from P.
Boehnert, ACRS,
Subject:
Commission
~
Meeting:
NRC Staff Briefing on Risk Based Technical
-Specifications, April 13, 1990, Rockville, MD Presentation materials provided during the meeting.
e 13.1 LIST OF FUTURE ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS
. ;. s o a.;,
362nd ACRS Meeting Minutes IV-3 liEETlNG HANDOUTS Iah 5.1 SAFETY RESEARCH PROGRAM REPORT TO CONGRESS e
Menorandum to ACRS Members and Staf f from S. Duraiswamy,
Subject:
Status Report - Annual ACRS Report to the Congress, 362nd ACRS Meeting, June 7-9, 1990, dated June 4,
1990 with Attachments:
ACRS Report to T. P. O'Neill, Speaker of the House, 2/19/86 ACRS Report to T. P. O'Neill, Speaker of the House, 12/18/86 Report to M. K. Udall, House Subcommittee Chairman, 1/14/87 Portions of Minutes of Regulatory Policies and Practices Subcommittee Meeting, December 1-2, 1989.
10-1 EMERGENCY RESPONSE DATA SYSTEM (EEDS).
e Presentation Schedule Project Status Report with Attachments:
e Proposed Rule on ERDS Excerpt of Minutes of April 1989 ACRS Meeting ACRS Letter to Commissioner Gilinsky,
Subject:
Nuclear Data Link, dated May 6, 1980 ACRS Letter to Chairman Ahearne,
Subject:
Nuclear Data Link, dated November 12, 1980.
Memorandum to J. Carroll from H. Alderman, ACRS,
Subject:
e CRGR Meeting on the Proposed Rule on the Emergency Response Data System, dated June 7, 1990.
13.2 FUTURE ACRS ACTIVITIES - 363RD ACPS MEETING - JULY 12-14, 1990 Memorandum to ACRS Members from R. P. Savio,
Subject:
Future ACRS Activities - 363rd ACRS Meeting, July 12-14, 1990, dated June 6, 1990.
13.3 SPLIT OF RESPONSIBILITIES - ACRS/ACNW e
Memorandum to Chairman Carr from R.
- Fraley, ACRS,
Subject:
Division of Responsibilities Between ACRS and ACNW, dated February 23, 1990 Memorandum for F. Remick, ACRS and D. Moellor, ACNW from e
Chairman Carr,
Subject:
Division of Responsibilities-between the ACRS and ACNW, dated November 6, 1990 Memorandum to ACRS and ACNW Staff Members from R. Fraley, e
Subject:
Assignment of Responsibilities to the ACRS/ACNW, dated April 26, 1990 with
Attachment:
Memorandum COMFR-90-003 to C.
Michelson, ACRS and D.
Moeller, ACNW, from S.
Chilk, SECY,
Subject:
Lead Responsibility for Review of On-site Dry Cask Storage Facilities, dated April 18, 1990.
,.a-se o
.v 362nd ACRS Meeting Minutes IV-4 TAD -
16.1REACTORVESSELINTEGRITYWithLowUpperShelfEnerhy Agenda e
Status Report with Attachments:
e DRAFT Minutes of the ACRS Subcommittee on Materials Metallurgy May 24, 1990 Meeting (INTERNAL COMMITTEE USE ONLY).
Memorandum to P.
Shewmon, ACRS Member, from H.
Etherington, ACRS Consultant, dated February 7,
1990,
Subject:
K Evaluation for Reactor Vessel ge Steels with Low Charpy Upper Shelf Energy.
Presentation materials provided during the meeting.
.