ML20058C595
| ML20058C595 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/10/1990 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-2706, NUDOCS 9011020013 | |
| Download: ML20058C595 (55) | |
Text
I e
s
- 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS hh c77$
i MINUTES OF THE 361ST ACRS MEETING MAY 10-11, 1990 e
I.
Chairman's Report (Open).....................................
1 II.
NRC Research Program Regarding ?lant Aging (open)...........
2 l
III.
Reactor' Operations and Events (Open).......................
7 IV.
Individual Plant Examination for External Events (IPEEE)
(Open)......................................................
10 V.
BWR Core Power Stability (Open)..............................
13 VI.
Siting of Nuclear Power Plants (open).......................
14 VII.
Maintenance Performance Indicators (open)..................
18 VIII.
Decommissioning of Nuclear Plants - Shoreham Nuclear Power Station (Open)......................................
20 IX.
Proposad NRC Staff's Schedule for Review of the Evolutionary Light W3ter Reactors (ELWRs)-and Passive Advanced Light Water RTct9ts (ALWRs)
(open)................................
23
'X.
Additional Evolutionary Light Water Reactor Certification Issues (Open)................................................ 26 XI.
Executive Sessions (Open)..................................
27 A.
Report to the Commission (open)........................
27 Proposed Generic Letter Sucolement on Individual Plant I
Examination for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities Due to External Events (Report to Chairman Carr, dated-May 15, 1990)...........................................
27 B.
Subcommittee Reports (Open)............................
27 1.
ACRS Action on Review of Proposed Resolution of
' Generic Issue 84, "CE Plants Without PORVs"...
27 2.
ACRS Meeting with the Japanese......................
28 i
C.
-Other Matters (Open)....................................
29 i
NRC Safety Research Program..........................
29 1.
i D.
Summary / List of Follow-Up Matters (Open)............... 29 j
E.-
Future Activities (Open)................................
32 1.
Future Agenda......................................
32 2.
Future Subcommittee Activities......................
32
]
q.o11020013 900510 i[,g$
\\g PDC 2
~,.. _ __
a
" g>_ -.
I 11 APPENDICES MINUTES OF THE 361ST ACRS MEETING MAY 10-11, 1990 I.
Attendees II.
Future Agenda III.
Future Subcommittee Activities IV.
Other-Documents Received l
i i
j
- - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I s
' d Federal Regletor ] Vol. 65, No, So / Wednesday, April 28, 1300 / Notices -
'M, pit Inde ace Avenue, SW.,
esemption mpresents an appropriate,
in the Final Environmental Statement for
[ '.
Wu ton, DC 20694, telephone (202) '
ordwing of priorities and prudent the Shoreham Nuclear power Station.-
3e34000 alloostion of recomoes, Desed: AprG 17,18e0.
p,gdh Coneu/md ~
Bee Henissty.
Knvirotunentallagpoci of the Proposed Action y y ygg gm.,
he/Jisy/earWeen ofriorr.
[FR Dec.eHeat FGod 4 24-tot 648 em]
De proposed exemption affects the requot and did not vesult other nme ones ress4s.e ochedule of flung Reviolon 3 to the agencies or persons.
Shoreham USAR nnd does not affect tia. Finung of No Sigal5centImpact mannw of normal faciuty opwation or
- NUCLEAR REOULATORY the risk of facility accidents. (Shoreham
%. r%=mlaat= bas determined not
> 3-
. COMMISSION le currently shutdown and defueled.)
to propan an environmentallapact he possibuity that the environmental statement for the proposed exemption. '
go,,n, gin,go.333; impact ofiloensed activities would be Band upon the fotogoing environmental altered by changes in the Rhng schedule esseeement, the NRCstaff concludes
. Erwironmental Aseeeement and for USAR Revision 3 is extremely.
that the proposed action will not have a of No impast;Long remote.%e staff has determined,in a.
eigninoant eBoot en the quality of the leland ting estety evaluation to be leeued human environment.
~.
E* Wed2iN "ForfurewdetalbWthroepedtothis a
n Co,,#s',gf:s& age:g,
"*ctait*:2L e
sonsidering leeustle of a one-time Dduobd Safe ly R ch e aus
,f pu egn dtrement fYanaan h$, N'$dl6 Room,2130 L Street NW., We 8u Hal doteof the 2a?0fR Unt
%is on.
ochedular exempuon would pranted 2'!:n*:!Ltun!*'#' jey,'nWAA" 6
g contain'aB changw as of June 38,1980,
~ to the Lona Island Lighting Compar.y Nuclear), power Station (SNPS), located (LILCO tlelicenow, for the Shoreham the date of the Settlement Agreement Dated at ReakvHle, Maryload, this 14th day j
between LILCO and Naw York State.In of Apre seen.
In Butfolk County. New York.
addition, the schedular exemption in
. For the Nealeer Regulatory Ceauslosion.
question would not authorim Mehen c.nedeal.
Environomotel Asessement construction or opwation,would not Jdenufladon ofProposedAcuon authortre a change in licensed activities, AetyDheeder,he/estDhvederoes A4 DMems ofJeanssorho/eser #11. Office of De proposed action would grant a
. not offeet changes in the permitted typer NuclearAenener*Y '~
or amounts of radiological efDuents.
r one-time schedular exemption from the post-accident radiological releases will
{yR Dee.p.4 Iso pued 446 eR 446 am) mquirement of to CFR 80.71(e)(4) to Sle not differ from those determined sassie sous ruse eo.e an annualupdate of tt.e Shoreham does not otherwise affect facilitypreviously, and the proposed exe safety analysis mport. By letter dated December 6, lese, the licaneos mquested radiological efDuents or occupstional Befoguente;Mooling Agende en extension of the schedule for filing,
exposures. With regant to potential non-Revision 3 to the Shomham Updated radiologioolimpacts, the propwed In We dw of
- Befety Analysts Re USAR).
exemptico does not affect plant non. -
esctions se anditsb.of the omic Revision a to the U wee due on radiological effluents and has no other Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 303e, ass 2b), the December 7,1980 and would have ~
environmental impact. %erefore, the Advmay Comunit*4 on Rumor contah.ed all ch as of June 7.1980 thmminalon concludes there are no, 8deguards wulhold a smoung on W the prior to date).We swasurable radiological or non-W12,1sso,in room p-sto,Feao Norfd eeeks oched relief to Ble Revision 3 of the USAR by lune 1.1990, radiological environmental impsets Avenue, Bethesda, land. Notia of Further.puwlon s to the USAh would twoolated with the proposed g
- '0 #"'
g, g, contata all changes as of June as, tese, exemption. -
g,",,'g'8 ' '" March 21' 1900.
the date of the setuenant Agreement Alternot/ve so theProposedAct/on Sursday, May 28,1980.Roosa P418, between LILCO and the State of New Stace'the %=miaalon concluded that : Fase Norfolk Avenea, Bethesda, Md.
r York. %1s schedular exemption is tho' there is no measurable environmental m o.m M o.m.r h 'e-J.
[scuon being considend We
[
brieDyreportregarding tems t
im 6
y,
' The Needfor the ProposedAcdon
( *,';*," fn ;" hI* Q f g*f o.m.:NRC}lenocrch
[.
De licensee's letter of December 5, to the exemption would $ to require the AelotadioPloniAg4 t
1:
1909 provided justification for a delay in licensee immediately to Ale Movision 3-(
ePf*eentatives of the NRC the Bling schedule (and content)of Revision a to the Shoreham USAR.in to the Shoreham USAR. including -
- etaff, contractore, and industry the time between the requimd fliing date changes up to 6 months prior to the date representatives wul brief the (December 7,1980) and the proposed of fuing.Such an action would not Committee, as appropriate, regarding filing date (June 1,1990), the licensee enhance the protection of the research related to nuclear power plant environment.
aging and aging managemut. " -
will submit to the NRC e Defueled
^
Sefety Analysis Report
' Shoreham Nuclear pcwe(DSAR) fcr ~All*!D00V* U** 0$El**03'***
JAW o.m4n.W o.m. and22Wp.m.-
r Station. Unit 1.6p.m
- Reactor Opeiadorw and a
- 1. Granting the request for a schedular
%1e action does not involve, the uw,of ' Events (Open/ Closed)-Repruentatives -
any resources not previously considered of the NRC staff will brief the p.-
y/[ O [ [.4
-4 17812 Federal Rogleter / Vol. 55, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 85, isso / Nottose I
Committee regarding mattwo plated to 3pm4p.arProposedACASReports Fraley (telephone 301[492-e049),
nuclear power plant operations to NAC(Open)-%e Committee will between has am ane 420 p.tn.
including suchitems as a proposed discuse proposed AOLS reports to NRC change in the frequency of turbine stop regarding the matters conaldered during.
Deld Apr018 teso, valve testing and scent operating this meeting as well as a pending John C Hoyle,.
events.
Committee sport on the NRC Seywe AdvisoryComsusdeeM ;
"Offican Portions of this semelon will be closed Accident Research Program, as necessary to disoues Proprietary (FR Dw.96 0e15 F9ed m 445 am],
Information a licable to b matter of Saturday,May ta ises ename seenrene w o
belng dison 3p.n 4p.n ladividualPlant 3:30 a.m-13 noon and 2 p.n~2p.n-r-
Preparation ofReports to theNAC (Open F $ h N (Open}-%e Comadttoo wiu continue preparation of proposed ACRS reporte tDeetiet No.90 414,usense No hpp43, and comnant on b pro [aed MC genedc to NRC regardingitems considered at gA 30 17e]
- i
," mined this meeting and h proposed ACRS
'A Ordw Ove Mmmhry Vulnerebnities due to External Events.
([",I*"
Pemaltyi 046,Cotswba Representauves of the NRC staff will h I"8'*"
Nuoteer Station Unit 8 -
participate, as appropriate.
Procedures for the conduct of and dpa4 par #WA Core Power participetion in ACRS meetings were.
1 Instability n/ Closed *r--
pubbahedin the FedevelRegleter on Representa veeof theNRCstaff,the Septstaber 27,1980 (84 FR see96). In Duke Pew Capany @censwHe &e
.j' GeneralElectric
, and the BWR accordance with thm procedures, eral holder of Opwe uoanne No.NPF43 t
plant ownere of b f or written statemente may be presented
@wneeMeemed
&e Noclw
- Committee mg osing by members of the blic, recordings Regulakry CommiseknICmaminion w, corrective actions to with h leeue walbe permitted during those MC) en May 15,190s.N hwnee-maf
/
as noosesary to discuse Propri be olooedfie adqm6 ens of this Uni a th the Inferination applicable to the matte, may be asked members of the con @6am opedBd emin.
h1 ary Committee,its tante, and staff.
11-A,g",;Jd'is,;,n, ;eg,isy'
,=r.c.ttve Direct 8
i*
f a anoeos t
ras-a= 6e,- e a =u- *e gr ve,,e,,,.ghe,,eui,e C, aus so &o n aie noe e ad,,i e.
j-neotecary time during the meeting for.
we,oo.on i.e.aiad 6. &e Fdday, May 11,1988, Room P.'413, 7pse such statements. Use of still, motion licensee had not conducted its aCdvillee eis Norfolk Avenue,Bethesda,Md.
picture and televleton earneens dwing la fuu cosphanos with NRC i
I) 8:J0 o.n-20 a.m!Sillig ofNuclear this meeting may be lindted to selected requirements. A written Notles of
! FowerPlante-.%NRC staff wiu brief me d h mung as detwinined Violation and Proposed imposition of Civu Penal Notles)was served upon 7
h Commilttee waarding the status of
&e Chainnan.Infwinadon agareng the lisses.the Noues stated the netw se 1stterdated December
- NRC staff efforts to decouple nuclear the time to be set aside for this a
i gg, gggg, plant alting and source twm.
m be obtained by a pepaid hone. h v6dau m,em of b NRC's JMs o.m-fus car Miture ACAS.
to the ACRS Executive Director, Mr.
nquiremame the haaman bd Actfrittee (QpenFThe Committee will Raymond F.Ptsley, ur to the moeung.
. [;] -
discans anticipated subcomuntttu -
la vie d es pool My &et the vloisted, and the amount of the civil estivittee enditeme for.
ochedule for ACRS meetings may be penalty poposed for the violation. Prior conalderation by Committee, adjusted by the Chatsman se neomeary to respeameg to the Notice, the hoensee t
fMS-JJ aoon:Molntenance to facilitate the condoet of the regensted a meetles with NRC to '
3:
. PWrfwmence
}-.
persone planning to attend should dinouse the basease activities aseodated
. Representatives of the staffahd with the ACRS Executive Directorif win te whlagen and b dvd i
gg the nuclearindustry willbrief the auch rescheduling would result in major e
Committee, as appropriate, rega inconvanlance.
was he at the Ucename's d
NRC staff efforts to tm ement a tri Iheve determbedin accordance with Catawba alte on annary 31.1990.%e '
a progism to asetet in development of subasotion 10( ) Pub.1. 9& 488 that it is licemees papaart d to the Notice by letter dated annuy 31,1980,in its -
maintenance performance indicetore.
necessary to oss ofthle th licensee admitted that the
]-
f p.m4p.m.:Decornmiselonlig of ineeting ao noted a ve to discuss tion for which the civilpenal was NuclectPtnrerPlante(
p ProprietaryInformation a ble to proposed hadindeed econfed.
that Representatives of the C staff will the mattare being conel
[5U.S.C-erms, in judgment were made. However, i
brief the Committa regarding SECY-40 552b(c)(4)].
the Moonese asserted that, based on the 064, Shoreham Nuclear Pown Station-Purtherinformation re topico correctic. actione taken, full mitigetton Status and Development.
to be disenesed, wheth the meeting of the olvil penalty le werranted.
2p.m-trespa ACASSubcomm/ttee has been cancelled or reacheduled, the Activity (discuss the nport of b ACRS Chairman's ruling on aqueste for the III OpenF%e Committee will hear and opportunity to present oral statements After aaaannation'of the licensee's
.j Planning and Procedme Subcommittee and the time allotted can be obtained by response and the statements of fact, recommendatione regarding Coramittee a propeM telepbone call to the ACRS explanations, and argenent for procedures.
Executive Director, Mr. Raymond F, mitigation contained therein, the Depoty
i i
+* Mtp4'o UNITED STATES
/
= f]
f,%
NUCLEAR REOULATORY COMMISSION
{
f ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS WASHINGTON, D. C. 20666 o,%,
p' a
e...*
Revised:
May 3, 1990 SCHEDULE AND OUTLINE FOR DISCUSSION 361ST ACRS MEETING MAY 10-12, 1990 I
Thursday. May 10. 1990. Room. P-119 7920 Norfolk Avenue. Bethesda. Md.
8:45 A.M.
Chairman's Remarks (Open) 1)
8:30 1.1)
Opening-Remarks (CM/GRQ) 1.2)
Items of current interest (CN/RFF) 12:00 Noon NRC Research Prouram Recardina Plant
-2) 8145 (9100-9115-Break)
Acina (open) 2.1)
Comments by ACRS cubcommittee chairman regarding the NRC Research Program related to the aging of nuclear power plant components, systems, and structures (CJW/PGS/EGI) 4 2.2)
Briefing by representatives of NRC 1
staff and contractors as appropriate 4,gre 12:00 1 00 P.M.
LUNCH H
2:00'P.M.
ERA.eter ocerations and Events (Open/ Closed) 3)
1:00 3.1)
Briefing and discussion of nuclear
(
power plant operhtional experience including: (JCC/PAB)
L' 3.1-1)
Malfunction of 480 volt circuit breakers (Pilgrim plant:
event date: 3/12 &
3/20/90) 3.1-2)
Degradation of plant service l
water systems (various plants) 3.1-3)
BWR channel box bowing (NRC l
Bulletin issued 3/20/90) l L
3.1-4)
Cracks in reactor vessel head (Quad Cities Unit 2 and i
l Fitzpatrick - Event dates:
4 3/30/90) and 4/30/90,_respec-tively (Note:
Portions of this session will be closed as necessary to discuss Proprietary Information related to the matter being discussed.)
s f h.
a a
e 2
3:00 P.M.
Reactor Ooerations and Eventa (Open/ Closed)
-2:00 3.2)
Continue briefings and discussion of nuclear power plant operational exper-ience (Note Portions of this session will be closed as necessary to discuss Proprietary Information related to the matter being discussed.)
3:15 P.M.
BREAK 3:00 5:45 P.M.
Individual Plant Examination for External
- 4) 3:15 Events (Open) 4.1)
Comments by ACRS subcommittee chairman regarding ACRS review of the proposed NRC generic letter on IPEs for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities Due to I
External Events (CPS /EGI) 4.2)
Meeting with representatives of the i
NRC staff 6:15 P.M.
BWR Core Power Instability 5) 5:45 l
(Open/ Closed) 5.1)
Report by ACRS subcommittee chairmen of joint subcommittee meeting on 4/27/90 regarding proposed corrective action related to BWR core power (Ae.,s instabilities at reduced power / flow k.
conditions (IC/WK/PAB)
(Note:
Portions of this session will be closed as necessary to discuss Proprietary Information related to the matter being discussed.)
. Friday.-May 11, 1990. Room. P-11'O. 7920 Norfolk Avenue. Bethesda. Md.
6)- RB:30
- 10:00 A.M.
Sitino of Nuclear Power Plants (Open) 6.1)
Comments by ACRS subcommittee chairman i
regarding NRC efforts to decouple nuclear plant siting and source term (HWL/GRQ) 6.2)
Briefing by representatives of the NRC staff regarding the status of this activity 10:00~ - 10:15-A.M.
BREA.K 1
~.. -.. -. _. ~
g:
2
\\
10:15
- 10:45 A.M.
Future ACRS Activities (Open) 7.1)
Anticipated subcommittee activities (RPS/RFF) 7.2)
Items proposed for consideration by the full Committee (CM/RPS)
]
8) 10:45
- 12 : 00 Nor -
Maintenance Performance Indicators (Open) i 8.1)
Comments by ACRS subcommittee i
chairman regarding NRC staff efforts to implement a trial program to assist in the development of main-tenance performance indicators (JCC/RA) 8.2)
Briefing by representatives of the NRC staff and industry as appropriate 1:00 P.M.
LUNCH 12:00 2:00 P.M.
Decommissionina of Nuclear Plants (Open) 9)
1:00 9.1)
Comments by ACRS subcommittee
)
chairman (WK/RA) 9.2)
Briefing by representatives of the NRC staff and the licensee regarding decommissioning of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station i
(SECY-90-084) 44M 10) 2:00 _-
5:15 P.M.
ACRS Puture Activities (Open)
(3:00-3:15-Break) 10.1) 2:00-3:30 - Briefing and discussion regarding proposed NRC staff schedule for review of ELWRs (SECY-90-146)
(CJW/CM/MME) l 12 - Dis'uss proposed'addi-10.2) 3:30-4:
c tional (other) items for.
consideration in certification of ELWRs (CJW/MME) 10.3) 4:30-5:00 - Discuss topics, etc.,
for meeting with Japanese (WK/GRQ/RFF) 10.4) 5:00-5 15 - Discuss future ACRS action on GI-84, "CE Reactors Without PORVs,",(DAW /PAB) 6:00 P.M.
Eranaration of ACRS Renorts (Open) 11) 5:15 11.1)
Discuss proposed ACRS reports A,g p y d. D d
/
regarding:
fWl 11.1-1)
Individual Plant Examination for Ext'ernal
'\\
Events (CPS /EGI) l-
\\ \\ 'es c 5
4 jhturd
. Mav 12, 1990. Room P-110. 7920 Norfolk Avenue. Bethesda. Md.
t
- 12) 8:30 12:00 Noon PreDaration of ACRS Reoorts (Open) 12.1)
Supplementary report to NRC regarding certification Issues for ELWRs (tentative) (CJW/MME) 12.2)
Individual Plant Examinations for External Events (CPS /EGI) 12.3)
Proposed schedule for ACRS review of ELWRs (Tentative) (CJW/CM/MME) t 1:00 P.M.
LUNCl!N 12:00 s
2:30 P.M.
Miscellaneous (Open)
- 13) 1:00 13.1)
Complete discussion of items con-sidered'during this meeting (tenta-tive) k~
i W!*h&
l t
O
+
....m...
w CERED
~
~
PROPOSED MINUTES OF THE l
361ST ACRS MEETING MAY 10-11, 1990
'Me 361st meeting of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (AORS) was held at Room P-110, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Md.,
]
on May 10-11, 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.
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 official 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 3
and the provisions under which the discussions were to be held.
He stated that the Committee had received a request from the Yankee Atomic Electric Company for time to make oral statements with regard to the Individual Plant Examination for External Events (IPEEE) program.- The Committee had received no written comments from members of the public.
Items of Current Interest Mr. Michelson stated that the following items are of current interest:
o Dr. Wilkins is attending this meeting as an observer and it is. expected that.he will be a voting member during the June 1990 meeting.
o.
The-Commission has asked the staff to develop a pilot program for Commission consideration that provides positive v
reinforcement in the Commission's regulatory activities by L
recognizing outstanding industry safety performance, both by L
individuals and through specific programs.
The Committee will be much interested in discussing the details of this program with the staff after it has been developed.
l o
The NRC staff held a two-day conference on May 1-2, 1990 at Washington, D.C.,
with representatives of utilities licensed i
l to operate or build nuclear power plants and other interested
. persons for a detailed discussion of regulatory issues of
361st ACRS Meeting Minutes 2
mutual interest to the NRC and the nuclear industry.
Dr.
- Savio, who attended this conference, will provide the Committee with a summary of this conference.
o On April 17, 1990, a Federal Appeals Court ruled that the NRC must establish its own requirements for the training of nuclear reactor personnel rather than rely on the self-regulatory efforts of an industry-based group (INPO).
- Also, the Congress clearly intended NRC to enact a rule rather than a policy statement on the training of nuclear power plant personnel,
't.
o On April 17,
- 1990, the Commission unanimously approved issuance of a full-power license to operate Comanche Peak Unit
.1 nuclear plant.
The staff has submitte"d SECY-90-137, dated April 13, 1990, to o
the Commission, recommending for Commission approval proposed criter3 that would be used by the staff in determining when industrf progress in. the area of maintenance would be i
suffici.nt to obviate a need for rulemaking, i
Mr. 'Mic 2elson suggested that the Maintenance Practices and Procedu *es Subcommittee look at the proposed criteria in SECY-90-137.nd recommend a course of action to the full Committee i
during the June 7-9, 1990 ACRS meeting.
l o.
In SECY 022, the NRC has proposed to amend regulations to make unlicensed individuals: subject to enforcement actions.
l Mr.
Michelson suggested that the ACRS Subcommittee on Regulatory Policies and Practices look at this matter and recommend a course of action to the full Compl? tee during the June 7-9, 1990 ACRS meeting.
o Mr.. Stallo has requested the President to withdraw his controversial and long-stalled nomination for the position of l
Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs.
i I
II.
NRC Research Proaram Recardina Plant Acina (Open)
[ NOTE:
Mr.
E.
Igne was'the Designated Federal Official for this I
portion of'the meeting.)
Mr. Wylie, Chairman ' of the Reliability Assurance Subcommittee, i
stated that the'ACRS Subcommittees on Reliability Assurance and on i
Materials and' Metallurgy held a joint meeting on May 8, 1990 and i
reviewed the NRC Nuclear Plant Aging Research (NPAR) Program.
The i
Subcommittees felt that a briefing to the full Committee by the NRC i
staff and its contractors on the status of the NPAR Program would be beneficial.
1 1
J
361st ACRS Meeting Minutes 3
Mr. Carroll noted that the Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC) was critical of the NRC use of the results of the NPAR program.
Overview of the NARP Procram - Mr. R. Bosnak, RES Mr. Bosnak, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES), presented an overview of the program.
He stated that aging is of concern because failures attributable to aging have been experienced.
Further, current programs for inspection, maintenance, replacement, and repair have not always detected and mitigated degradation prior to failure, and that experience based on long-term operation is
' lacking.
A major reason for aging resonrch is to increase and utilize our knowledge of aging stressors, mechanisms, and degradation in order to manage aging.
In~ response to Mr. Carroll's opening comment, Mr. Bosnak stated that the integration of NPAR program results into the regulatory process _ is what NUMARC objects to.
Mr. Carroll mentioned that, even'after years of work on aging, a definition of aging.that is less controversial'is lacking.
Primary Obiectives of the hainer Research Procram - Mr. M. Vagins, RES Mr. Vagins, RES, discussed the NPAR program.
The thrust of the program is to answer the question:
What is the way to ensure continued safety oc operating nuclear power plants from the engineering standpoint?
To answer this question, it is essential tot o
Determine which components and structures that are important to safety will degrada with age.
o Develop and implement an ef fective aging management procyam.
He stated that, if you understand aging, plant life extension is straightforward.
Mr.
Vagins stated that selection of systems, structures and components (SSC) important to safety will be made deterministically L
or by risk-based methods, or by a combination of both.
Aging mitigation methods will be determined by inspection, general main-tenance, environmental modification, and trending.
He stated that L
the NPAR program objectives are tot 1
o Identify and characterize aging effects which, if unmitigated, could cause degradation to SSC and thereby impair plant L
safety.
l l.
1
t e
361st ACRS Meeting Minutes 4
o Identify methods of inspection for timely detection of significant aging effects prone to loss of safety function.
o Evaluate the effectiveness of maintenance in mitigating the effects of aging.
The NPAR organization was discussed.
It was stated that los program is coordinated with many domestic and foreign entities.
Agina Evaluation of Service Water Systems - Mr.
D. Jarrell, PNL Mr..% rrell, Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL), discussed service water system (SWS) aging degradation assessment.
The SWS is important to safety because it provides a heat transfer path to the ultimate heat sink.
The SWS has a significant redundancy degradation (loss of 100 more redundant trains) rate of about 4.lE-01 per reactor year (AEOD data) and its rate of complete system failure (loss of all system failure) is about 1.5E-02 per reactor year (AEOD data).
The assessment was to determine the root cause of SWS degradation, and if degradation is a function of.open or closed loops.
Based on the results of the assessment, the root cause was found to be accelerated pipe wall depletion due to the flow velocity in the pipe exceeding design condition and due to microbiological bacteria attack.
Mr. Jarrell stated that mitigative actions by the utility include reducing the flow velocity below the velocity that causes pipe wall erosion and initiating a biocide program to eliminate bacteria attack.
Aging degradction was found not to be a function of an open or closed loop.
Aoina Evaluation of Cables - Mr. M. Jacobun, SNL Mr. Jacobus, Sandia National Laboratories (SNL), discussed aging degradation: of cables.
Current NRC programs at SNL related to cables include:
o Phase-I-
study of
- cables, connections, and ' electrical penetrations.
o Experimental evaluation of aged cables for license renewal and plant life extension.
o U.S'.-French cooperative program.
o
. Fire vulnerability of aged electrical components.
The SNL also has programs on local degradation monitoring -and a DOE-sponsored combined environmental life prediction program for
S.
cr K
7; i'
(;4 361st ACRS Meeting Minutes 5
i
$l cables.
The basic objectives are to determine the degree to which
'long-term cable' aging degradation can be monitored and to determine whether aged cables can be qualified for plant life extension
.i ;
beyond 40 years.
Twelve cable products were tested at three
';E nominal aging " lifetimes" of 20, 40 and 60 y"ars under simulated ay irradiation, thermal and loss-of-coole c-accident (LOCA) t Cnvironments.
Some interim conclusions of tne tests are:
ef Several cables performed well throughout all aging and o
simulated accident exposures, indicating good promise for life extension of these products.
o S~
o The overall failure rate of cables in the tests indicates k>
an increased failure trend with increased aging time.
6; o
Single conductor cables generally perform better than h
multiconductor cables, indicating that testing of a y
single conductor cable may not be sufficient to quality
.A multiconductor cable for existing specifications.
- f. ire Barrier Decradation - Mr. W.
Farmer, RES
- 5. J Mr. Farmer, RES,' reported on the status of fire vulnerability of k
eged electrical components.
Cable thermal limit tests on XLPE and l'
EPR cables were completed in 1989.
Tests on the effects of aging
!GT
[.y on:
o Cable fire flammability will be completed in 1990.
C we o
Fire vulnerability of safety-related components will be 5
, performed by 1991.
o Integrity of fire stops, penetration, blankets, and barrier materials will be completed by 1992.
In response to a question by Mr. Michelson, Mr. Farmer stated that
- k.
. Charp bend cable tests have been performed by SNL and a report Written..
fi Reactor Pressure' Vessel" Materials Acinc Studies - Mr.
C.
- Serpan, f
RES Mr. Serpan, RES, discussed reactor pressure vessel materials aging L
ctudies.
The missions of these studies are to provide:
4 o' -
A technical basis for decisions on plant safety considering l
aging in primary systems, components, and supports in -the presence of waterial degradation.
j
?
ie l
361st ACRS Meeting Minutes 6
o The basis for NRC decisions on operation of reactor primary systems, components, and supports in the presence of degradation.
o The basis for revisions to the ASME Code and regulatory requirement for accurate detection and inspection of flaws.
A major er.phasis of this program is to understand the relationships between applied stresses, flaws and material properties, especially as these properties change as a function of aging.
The fatigue design curve in the existing ASME Code will be revisited to account for more realistic nuclear power plant operating conditions.
Annealing studies as well as full-scale testing of a decommissioned reactor will be performed.
ZitRE._E9.f.tIKid The scheduled discussion of Mr. Versely, SAIC, regarding the risk
-effects of aging'was not heard because bad weather prevented his
. presence.
.The scheduled discussion by Mr.
G.
Arundt, RES, regarding the structural aging program was not heard due to lack of time.
Mr. Wylie suggested, and the Committee agreed, that these items be discussed during future subcommittee and/or full Committee meetings.
Industry Actions Related to Plant Acing - Mr. A. Marion, NUMARC Mr. Marion, NUMARC,' discussed industry actions on nuclear power plant aging.
He stated that the need to mitigate time-dependent deterioration of nuclear power plant components is not a new or recent' concept, and that understanding and managing aging is
- crucial to ensuring the safety of nuclear power plants.
He further
- stated that,- ir the utilities'
- view, state-of-the-art aging prediction methods are reflected in current design practices, codes, and standards and that existing inspections, surveillance, L
and maintenance are keys to controlling the offects of aging.
I L
Mr. Marion stated that not all utilities have a good maintenance program and that a few utilities have a maintenance program based on a' trending failure program.
]
1 361st ACRS Meeting Minutes 7
P III. Reactor Operations and Events (Open)
(NOTE:
Mr.
P.
Boehnert was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of ud meeting.)
Mr. Carroll, Chairman of the' Plant Operations Subcommittee, stated that representatives of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) will brief the Committee on certaln recent operating events and regulatory actions.
Of particular interest is the discovery of cracks in the reactor vessel heads at two BWR plants.
Pilaria Plant - 480-Volt cirf,uit Breaker Failure - Mr. J. Raleigh,
'NRR Mr. Raleigh, NRR, stated that a General Electric (GE) breaker, model AK-2 A-50 4 80 volt, failed to close during an automatic transfer, resulting in loss of shutdown cooling.
The cause of the failure was a missing rataining ring on a " prop" pivot pin.
!. tails of the event chronology showed that eight days earlier the treaker had failed to close on a similar auto-transfer.
The t eaker had recently been refurbished and had been cycled.about 35 t imes before f ailure.
The NRR staff had initially thought that the rstaining ring was not installed during refurbishment, but now it 1slieves that the ring was in place but damaged during use; b; wever, the missing. ring was never found.
Lc. Lewis questioned'NRR's conclusion.
The NRR staff said that I
other breakers with missing rings cycled only 4-5 times before failure, whereas this one went 35 cycles.
Also, they had no procedures for checking on the presence of the retaining rings aft 6r refurbishment.
Mr. Baranowski', NRR, stated that now GE has new procedures in place to check refurbished items to ensure that all parts have been in place.
In response to a question from Mr. Carroll, the NRR staff said that all GE facilities should have taken corrective actions to preclude recurrence of similar incidents.
In~ response to another question from Mr. Carroll, the,NRC staff stated that a Nuclear Plant Reliability Data System (NPRDS) search
-alludes - to about 20 other breaker failures that may be due to similar problems.
GE felt this was an isolated instance, but two other_similar failures were seen in refurbished breakers; one of these two was at-the Pilgrim plant where the above-mentioned breaker failure occurred.
Mr.-Michelson suggested that the NRR staff reexamine this item to determine the actual root cause for the breaker failure.
__,jj s
t.
.e t
t' I
l 361st ACRS Meeting Minutes 8
i jli i
?
Essential Service Water System Problems - Mr. R. Woodruff, NRR
{;
i-Mr. Woodruff, NRR, stated that between March 9 and April 11,
- 1990, nine instances of significant problems with plant service water
?
systems (SWSs) have been reported to NRC.
Specifically, the problem seen is actual or potenti-1 low flow to coolers and heat i(,
exchangers associated with safety-eclated equipment.
The causes cited include:
k o
Improper _ balancing of flows y.
o Silting j;
P, Accumulation of corrosion produc',s in piping and components o
o Piping degradation f ',
J Failure of diesel-driven pumps to start on demand.
o G
During July 1989, NRC issued Generic Letter (GL) 89-12 on the topic U
of SWS problems affecting safety-related equipment.
GL 89-12 specified a set of actions to increase the reliability of SWSs.
The provisions of this GL were not applied to closed-cycle systems.
f, Eight of the nine events mentioned above were reported after d;
issuance of GL 89-12.
k Mr. Woodruff discussed, in detail, the SWS events that occurred at h
the Clinton, Peach Bottom, and River Bend plants.
f In response to a question from Mr. Michelson, Mr. Rossi said that the industry is putting forth a major effort to take care of the i
problems related to SWSs.
- L.
In response to Mr. Carroll, Mr. Woodruff said that several of the
[~
'above events were unearthed as a result of GL 89-12.
The staff plans-to issue an Information Notice addressing the more recent 7l, evento for use by licensees in evaluating their SWSs.
't
~ M3/. Michelse,n questioned the exclusion of closed-cycle systems from
': t this exercise.
Mr. Rossi reminded him that this was a point of controversy when ACRS reviewed GL 89-12 last year.
He said that i
NRR~will monitor closely this situation and, if warranted, will-take action pertaining to closed-cycle systems.
BWR Channel Box Bowinct ** Mr. L.
Phillips, NRR Mr. Phillips, NRR, stated that this issue arose as a result of th:s discovery of failed fuel in~a Swedish BWR (Oskershamn 2).
The chief cause of.the fuel failure was due to sustained operation under critical heat flux conditions.
These conditions were, in turn, caused by excessive bowing'of the channel box.
The bowing phenomenon results from higher irradiation growth due to one side of-the box seeing a disproportionally-higher fast flux.
~
V
,-c,-
361st ACRS Meeting Minutes 9
l In response to.a question from Mr. Michelson, Mr. Phillips said i
that GE believed initially that the channel boxes could be reused several times.
Prudent experience has dictated their removal with the cr.mp h ion fuel assembly (3 cyclas of operation).
Mr. Phillips stated that the impact of bowing is negligible for the first assembly lifetime. Critical power ratio (CPR) penalties range from 0. 02-0. 04.
However, this is not the case however for so-called "second-lifetime" use.
The CPR penalty in this case can i
range to 0.20 A-CPR.
In March 1990, NRC issued Bulletin 90-02 concerning this issue.
1 The central focus of the Bulletin's requirement was on plants that were using channel boxes beyond first bundle lifetime.
All plants were directed to report any channel box reuse..
Licensees who elected to remove the second-lifetime boxes were directed to take l
the. minor CPR penalties noted above.
For those who are reusing or plan to reuse the boxes, NRR is requiring use of a CPR correlation that accounts for the potential of significant bowing.
l As of May 8,1990, six plants (Dresden 2, Monticello, oyster Creek, Peach Bottom 2, and Quad Cities 1 and 2) have been identified as reusing channel boxes.
The CPR penalties required range from none, to 13 percent for Monticello.
In' response to a question-from Mr. Carroll, the NRR. staff said the penalty can ' be taken by a power reduction.or other operating adjustments.
In n response. to another question from Mr. Carroll, Mr. Phillips stated that channel box bowing =is not a new phenomenon.
- However, there have not been any fuel failures due to channel box bowing in U.S. plants.
Cracks in Reactor Vessel Head (Quad - Cities. Fitzcatrick)
B.
Elliot, NRR-Mr. Elliot, NRR, stated that cracking has been discovered in the vessel heads of the Quad Cities and Fitzpatrick plants.
Key points noted by Mr. Eliot regarding this item include:
o The reactor vessel head' at the Quad cities plant is cladded, but the one at the Fitzpatrick plant is.not.
Initially, GE cladded the heads to minimize corrosion products.
Later, it was determined the head area did not contribute significantly to corrosion; GE decided to trade corrosion protection for improved thermal fatigue resistance and enhanced ultrasonic examination by deleting the cladding of reactor vessel heads.
.o i
361st ACRS Meeting Minutea 10 o
The cracking at the Fitzpatrick plant, which is mora severe than that at the Quad Cities plant, is in the weld that joins the upper head plate (dollar plate) to the meridian plate. At Quad Cities, the cracking is in the weld that joins the head to the flange plate.
.}
o Detailed examination of the Quad Cities head has identified the causal mechanism as intergranular stress corrosion. Subsurface cracks were formed during original f abrication and are located in the heat-affected zone of the base material. Cold work (grinding) performed during i
fabrication aggravated crack initiation.
Fracture l
mechanics evaluation indicates there is sufficient margin to continue operation for another cycle with the head "as is.'<
o Thare are four other vessel heads with the potential for er acks of this nature on Commonwealth Edison plants. The l!censees will examine them and inform the NRC of their ff.ndings.
o The investigation of the cracking at the Fitzpatrick plant.is still in pro,gress.
Both surface and subsurface indications ha e been found.
The maximum crack depth seen (via UT) is - two_ inches (50% through-wall).
All indications are in the weld material..
Two unusual aspects were noted:
The surface indications are open to as much as 1/16-inch wide.
The subsurface indications do not evidence characteristics typical of crack-like flaws.
Mr. Carroll requested that the NRR staff keep the Committee fully appraised of the vessel head investigation, especially in the case of the Fitzpatrick. plant.
l l
IV.
Individual Plant Examination for External Events (IPEEE) i (Open)
)
(NOTE:
Mr.
E.
Igne was the Designated Federal Official for this j
portion of the meeting.)
l Dr.
- Siess, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Extreme External Phenomena, stated that the ACRS Subcommittees on Extreme External Phenomena and on Severe Accidents met with the staff and its consultants on March 27, 1990 to review the IPEEE program.
The Subcommittees reviewed a proposed supplement to Generic Letter 88-20'and a draft NUREG document that is intended to provide guidance l
a
- . (
..b.-
361st ACRS Meeting Minutes 11 and recommendations to the industry regarding the scope and acceptable methodologies for performing the IPEEE. A workshop will be' planned to< hear comments from the industry on the draft NUREG guidance document prior to issuing it for industry use.
~
A request for time to make oral statements was received from the Yankee Atomic Electric Company.
Dr. Siess stated that Yankee LAtomic will bo heard after the completion of the ataff's presentation.
Introduction /Backaround - Mr. T. King, RES LMr. King, RES, described the approach developed by the staff for evaluating external events as part of the Individual Plant
?
Examination- (IPE) ~ process.
The IPE concept originated from the Commission's Severe Accident Policy Statement (SAPS), dated August L
8, '1985.-.The SAPS implementation plan for external events was described in SECY-86-162, dated May 22, 1986.
In SECY-86-162, the staff. recommended that external events be included in the IPE program-and that;they be addressed on a longer schedule than that t
.for the internal. event portion of-the IPE.
The External. Events.
Steering Group -was! established in December 1987 to develop recommendations regarding the scope, methods and; coordination of
'IPEEE.
The approach for implementing the IPEEE program parallels
. that f or > implementing i the ' IPE for internal events..
A generic
-letter and. ai supporting guidance document will be issued.
-The.
' guidance document will be issued as a draft for public comment f ollowed ' by: a' workshop.. A-final guidance. document will then be preparedrand; issued that will start the IPEEE clock.
Three years aftert issuance:of the final. guidance document, the licensees are required to " submit the 'results of the IPEEE program to.NRC for' review.-
Fire Protection Issues'- Mr. C. McCracken,=NRR Mr.'McCracken,:NRR, discussed +he fire - protection issues.
He-stated that for. internal fires, either-a Level 1' fire PRA or a-simplified-fire PRA, with.specified enhancements in 01.*er case,
'is permitted.
A sinplified fire risk evaluation met)att is=being
- developed:by NUMARC, but has not yet been' evaluated by the staff.
Seismic Events - Dr. L.LShao, RES Dr. Shao RES, discussed seismic events. -He stated thatLa seismic-e margin 1 approach is an acceptable. alternative to a seismic PRA.
However, either method requires a plant walkdown by an experienced
.ltidisciplinary team.
For,other external events, such;as high
-winds,.
- flooding,
'and. transportation accidents, a
screening procedure not requiring a PRA'is proposed.
i nur i
+
7 f(,
q 1
7
'361st ACRS-Meeting' Minutes 12 I
1 Comments by-the Yankee Atomic Eligtric Company j
i Drs. Cornell'an6 Stevenson, consultants to Yankee Atomic Electric Company, briefed the Comm1ttee regarding their approach for seismic margins assessment for.4cr in the IPEEE program.
- Dr. Stevenson reviewed ariefly the lessons learned from recorded earthquakes. He st&ted that seismic vulnerabilities are associated predominantly with anchorage inadequacies and physical interactions.'
These vulnerabilities are called " design basis independent" vulnerabilities.
Design basis independent vulnerabilities can readily be identified by qualified, capable seismic engineers in the course of a thorough plant walkdown.
Dr.
Cornell stated. that there may be a second design basis dependent vulnerability that-results from changing perceptions and procedures.
To evaluate potential design basis dependent variables, a systematic study must-be performed to establish values of-capabilities-of all important components.
Acceptable methods of Eanalysis include the NRC or EPRI seismic. margins assessment (SMA) guidelines.- :Dr.-Cornell then explained the basis.on which
-plants must perform SMAs,
-3 Dr.: CornellE stated that a comparison should be made of plants whose 4
l probabilities exceed the design basis against new plants analyzed
- )
1
, top Re911atory
-ide -1. 60 guidelines.. plants, 0.3g would be an He suggested that, afte 7
identification of older, high-hazard y
appropriate' screening level for the SMAs.
~
'In -conclusion, Dr. Cornell stated that he believes-the ob-)ectives
,of::the Severe Accident Policy, of which.the IPEEE program is a i
'part, are to:
o-(Identify desigii basis indep'endent vulnerabilities by '
appropriate walkdown of all plants o'
Identify and quantify design basis dependent vulnerabilities-I by performing SMAs that vill identify those plants with higher probabilities'of exceeding'the design basis.'
Thet.NRC staff' stated that they have not. heard about the Cornell /Stevenson proposal on-SMA until now.
If a written request is received by the NRC from Yankee Atomic, the staff will review ye, L
the adequacy of:the proposed method.
4 ws..r a
w s
361st ACRS Meeting Minutes 13 i
V.
-BWR Core Power Stability (Open)
(NOTE:
Mr.
P.
Boehnert was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.)
Dr._
Catton,.
Chairman of the Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena
. Subcommittee, reported the results of~the April 27, 1990 joint s
. meeting.of t!? Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena and Core Performance
-Subcommittees.
The meeting was held to review the status of work-under way to resolve the issue of BWR core power stability pursuant -
~ to the. instability event at LaSalle Unit 2 in March 1988.
Key u -
pointo of Dr. Catton's report included:
- o-No information presented at the m'eeting changed the Subcommittee's_ view that the only real safety concern 1: from power oscillations resulting from maneuvers taken to conbrol ATWS. ;One surprising point noted was that fuel damage could c
occur, given relatively low oscillation amp'itudes (~200% peak
- power),. for the case of antisymmetric oscillationr.
o
.The BWR Owners 1 Group (BWROG) has presented three possible'
' solutions" to the out-of-phase instability problem.
These.
g" solutions are:
_ Regional' exclusion-(of the power / flow operating map)
Quadrant-based APRM scram (for BWR/2 plants)
LPRM-based' scram.
-The: NRC staff finds all three solutions
.technicallv f
' acceptable.
In general, the Subcommittees believe that-tb BWROG resolution approach is adequate.
I U-to~
-Regarding the calculation of limit cycle amplitudes, it was t
noted that modeling.of -linear stability is not a problem;
- however, calculation' of finite: element - limit cycles-for
~ bifurcation to higher, stability modes is not possible at 4
x present.
'o The"BWR stabilityLissue is a good example of the need for an NRC research program.
Specifically, the Office of-Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) was able to flush out.the fact'that GE rwas not properly. modeling 'the dynamic effects of - the balance-of-plant;
_this error. led to GE underpredicting the peak limit cycle for.ATWS-induced oscillations.
Mri Michelson" asked.if there are hardware fixes for the ABWR t. hat would address' the issue of _ oscillations, given an ATWS.
Dr. Catton-a isaid that the fuel assembly inlet orifices can be sized to exclude
.i 2
t
C.guawe um_
g, m'
14-u 1
361st ACRS Meeting Minutes (4
He stated also that an analysis.by the Finns "l
Esuch oscillations'.-
showed that rapid' control rod insertion is necessary to damp the He believes that analyses should be
. oscillations caused by'ATWS.
performed to determine if-the injection of liquid boron, via the Control - System, will control this type of ATWS
,l
' Standby. Liquid The Subcommittees believe that the NRC staff will resolve
- j g
event.
the ATWS-related concerns for this issue.
j Dr. Catton indicated that the Subcommittees will review this matter further' prior to recommending a course of action to the full
)
. Committee for. consideration'.- (NOTE:
At this time, it appears that ACRS consideration of this matter might take place around the.end of 1990.T Dr. Lewis said he is troubled that the basic topic of thermal hydraulic behavior of BWRs is still a point of' dispute and is not
~
well:.uaderstood at present.
Dr. Catton said that, for this issue, the. ther.aal hydraulics. behavior is-sufficiently understood.
However, the problems are with the modeling of the neutron kinetics =
M involved.-
Sitiina of Nuclear Power Plants (Open)
VI.
Mr. G.~Quittschreiber was the Designated Federal Official 3,
(NOTE:
for this portion:of the meeting.)-
- Dr.'
Lewis,-. Chairman of the ' Regulatory. Policies and Practices Subcommittee,'provided e.'brief preamble'on.this matter.
l t
Staff'Studv-on Source Term Update and Decouplina Sitina and P an
~
Desian-for LWRs_
--Mr.
T.-King, RES.
a study on that the staf f - 'is - perf orming Mr.; l King, - RES, statedthe-current siting regulations and related possible updating of evolutionary and passive plants, guidance 1for, future.LWRs, i.e.,
a.-
to ' reflect" the staff's latest understanding.of source term Lcomposition and ' behavior and to focus'. more directly and The that.are risk contributors.
realistically.on those.isisues direction the staff is considering will be covered in a paper to; in June
.beoprovided to the ACRS along with a follow-up briefing 1990.
He stated that.ACRS feedback : on this L matter 'Would. be 9.'
helpful.
Lewis regarding the scope of-In response to a-question from Dr.
this study, Mr. King said'that the study would only deal with the form and content of the fission products that are released from a these products ' _ get ~ into and out of ithe degraded core s and howit would.not deal with health effects or the' Safety.
containment; l Goal..
I 4 h
/
5 w
m
~
- 1..:
.a :
.y 361st ACRS. Meeting Minutes 15 m
L i
The.decoupling study began as a result of a July 31, 1989 Staff U
Requirements Memorandum (SRM), in which the Commission requested L
the~ staff to provide a paper on the extent to which the current
. source term can be updated or otherwise improved for future LWRs.
In..SECY-89-341,
" Updated Light Water Reactor Source Term Methodology and Potential Regulatory. Applications," dated November 6,
1989,.the staff stated that it will pursue incorporation of the L
updated source ~ term information into regulatory guidance and
. proposed.to undertake a short study to examine an alternate
. approach of'decoupling siting from reactor design.
Another SRM,
, dated. February 13, 1990,. required that the study be completed by June'30, 1990, including interaction with ACRS.
This SRM also
' directed the staff to propose changes to regulatory positions for current:and future plants where current understanding of the source term would permit.
j
.c The current set of regulations and guidance has served well to set lcertain plant design features and site parameters; however, current regulations and' guidance do not incorporate the updated source term t
linformation- (form,
- content, and -behavior) and make designers
- include: design features that may not be in ; the direction of enhanced safety,.e.'g., valve closure times.
Now, with new designs
~
.under. review, the staff is considering changes that would modify requirements and: guidance to reflect the current undere snding of
- the sourceiterm and to give designers more flexibility t.o develop.
Edesigns with safety features by utilizing realistic source term information.that might' enhance safety.
Mr. King said the changes twould'more directly.' address acceptable site parameters-and more realistically address challenges to the plant.
The study. is expected to result in a plan of action and schedule for specific changes to regulations.
current Sitina Recuirements
- Mr. L. Soffer, RES 1
Mr. Soffor, RES, stated that'the current' siting regulation,-10 CFR
- 10 0 ', requires that every reactor site. define an exclusion area
~ boundary.-and a low population zone,. assuming the existence of a low-leakage'. containment 'with a
fission. product release into containment.
Radiological consequences at the' outer radius of the
. exclusion area 1 boundary and low population zone are evaluated to test the plant design and site.
The calculated doses at the exclusion areaLboundary and:the low population zone must meet 10-CFR.100 guidelines.
.InL respo'nse to a question from Dr. Lewis concerning quantifying the degree of conservatism'in the present requirements with regard to 1
the allowable; containment leak rate, Mr. Soffer said-he felt it was atlleast'an" order of magnitude.
t t
i
~
.c i
4.
r 361st ACRS Meeting Minutes 16 Mr. Soffer stated that the fission product release to containment
' that is-. assumed for siting is derived from TID-14844, issued in 1962, and is presently specified in Regulatory Guides 1.3 and 1.4.
In these documents, the containment is assumed to leak at the maximumileak rate allowed in the technical specifications assuming that the fission product cleanup systems and site meteorology are evaluated conservatively.
Regulatory Guide 4.7 indicates that, at the. - time' of plant startup if population density around a site
- exceeds 500 persons per square mile out to a distance of 30 miles from the-plant, or is-projected to get twice that value at end of
. plant life, then special attention needs to be given to alternate sites with lower population density.
4 In response.to a question from Mr. Carroll concerning how many of today's plants would not fall within these guidelines, Mr. Soffer Jaid that ' a study he did - several years ago showed about a half doren would not satisfy these guidelines.
- Consecuences of current Practices - Mr. L.-Soffer, RES Mr..-Soffer stated that although 10 CFR 100 provides general k
guidanceuwith regard to the need for exclusion area'boun'dary and low population zone, it does not by itself provide = numerical
. criteria for siting, but refers to TID-14844 methodology which is.
_ no. longer current.
Better guidance on criteria comes from the results of ~ case-by-case reviews and values cited in Regulatory -
l;.
. Guide l4.7.
i:
6
- With regard to plant design, TID 14844 is applied to many aspects, E
-some:of'which_are recognized as incompatible with recent research-
- such thatcapplication of TID-14844 source. term may net permit best L
engineering solutions on some aspects.of future plant' design..
1 L
Exclusion-area-and low population. zone sizes are not regulated by L
.10fCFR-100 directly, but rather indirectly via credit given for l!
- fission' product-cleanup systems'and containment. leak. rate.
Part l
100 by itself could permit. metropolitan siting, but this aspect is d
now controlled by Regulatory Guide 4.7-.
l
'- Dr.' Siess asked whether metropolitan siting is -a real. concern.
Mr.
l; Soffer said that some changes would only be an attempt to make the.
L NRC's guidelines complete.
' Dr. Lewis asked.why the staff hasn't updated 'the ' requirements since
~
L,
- TID-14844 was issued nearly 30 years ago.
Mr. King stated.'that L'
siting issues have not been dealt with for the past several years.
t l.
- Since advanced LWR designs are being reviewed the staff, they have
- an incentive to raise the priority of looking at this matter, i,
In1 response to questions from-the Committee, Mr. King said the
(
- staff. is trying to maintain approximately the same level of l
l' nl' L
- c 361st ACRS Meeting Minutes 17
)
exclusion area' boundary and low population zone distances that the
' staff.has generally approved in the'past, but would-like to use
- improved understanding of the source term to look at plant systems
- in-'a mora 4.ntelligent fashion.
The staft is recommending decoupling of siting and design in two steps:
Sten is Update TID-14844 release, Regulatory Guides 1.3 and 1.4, and
-the corresponding Standard Review Plan Sections to recognize current understanding.of the source term.
The current 10 CFR
~
100 dose 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 accident conditions on a-case-by-case basis.
, Th e. effect of these recommendations would allow.ecent research renults -to be. factored into evolutionary plant
~ reviews..
. Regulatory Guide 4.7 will continue to provide assuranceuof exclusion area and low-population zone: sizes consistent with current commission practice.
i s t e n 0 :'
L The_' benefits, disadvantages and scope of decoupling plant' I
. design and: siting for future LWRs ' would be evaluated by l
specifically looking at modifying 10 CFR 100 to specify
.e.aceptable site parameters.. Also,10 CFR 50 would be modified
' t I
n.
,sto'specify acceptable plant performance and design features, such 'as' containment. leak rate and fission = product ' cleanup lc
~ systems,-considering severe-accidents.
l The'effect'of.these' changes is that the plant and containment-design basis would consider severe-accidents and regulation-wou 1 address site parameters directly, The members _ discussed problems associated with the existing
,3 requirements that assume a containment leakage 2 ate for a LOCA and at the same. time a release to the containment from the TID-14344 release.
This-combination requires _ design requirements that may be unreasonable and overly conserv?.tive.
l' Preliminary Schedule for Decouclina - Mr.
L.
Soffer, RES y-Mr. Soffer reviewed briefly the preliminary schedule for decoupling siting from the source term for Step 1:
1 O
y-
x, x n-n.
.361st_ACRS-Meeting Minute' 18 1
lo.
-Initiate' Changes - 9/90 Technical Basis for Timing Change Available
- 12/90 o.
Draft Regulatory guides, standard review plan, and supporting o'
documentation available - 7/91 Proposed changes to the commission - 12/91 o:
Final changes to the Commission - 12/92 o
The preliminary schedule for Step 2 above is to provide a plan to the Commission by September 1992.
Dr.' Lewis suggested that the staff look at these related changes with regard to the safety goal.
' Future ACPS Action a SECY paper,
.The st.af f' stated that.it would provide copies of priori to er during the June 7-9, 1990 ACRS meeting, that-Will include a discussion of the direction the staff is considering with
' regard-to this ratter and also a proposed schedule for resolving e
this matter.
The Committee agreed to discuss the SECY paper during the' June 7-9j 1990 ACRS meeting.,
.VII.
--Maintenance Performance Indicators Demonstrat!.on Procram
[
4 (Open)'
[ NOTE:
-Mr.
H. Alderman was the Designated Federal-Official for Jthis portion of-the meeting.)
lMr'. Carroll, Chairman of tFe Maintenance Practices anct Procedures s.
Subcommittee, noted_that'the: Office for Analysis and Evaluation
-of= Operational ~. Data (AEOD) has requested, time to brief the
' Committee 1on the Maintenance Performance Indicators Demonstration He pointed out that this program had originated,from'a L
- Program..
? Staff Requirements Memoiandum of June 1989,-in which the Commision
-asked.-that a'. demonstration project for the. development of maintenance-performance indicators be' undertaken.
f.ntroduction - Mr.
E._ Jordan, AEOD J
14r. ' Jordan, Director, AEOD, stated that the Maintenance Performance m
Indicators Demonstration Program was:a-cooperative effort between v
the NRC~and six utilities.
Through the coordination of NUMARC and q
. the" Institute for Nuclear Power ' Operations - (INPO),. these - six'-
. utilities volunteered.to participate in this program. The existing set-of. indicators areibased on event-based. data in^the licensee event report file.. The staff researched safety system availability or reliability) and this work is based on component failures that
'are extracted from NRPDS.
1 s
a f :. ' *,.:
I
[
ti i:
lf m
361'st ACRS Meeting Minutes 19 E
b H
DescriDtion/Results of the Procram - Mr. M. Williams, AEOD
~
Y L
'Mr. Williams,_AEOD, discussed briefly the Maintenance Performance
- t Indicators Demonstration Program. He noted that component failures 3:
1
'are-plotted against time.
When the failure rate rises sharply i'
1 af againsti time - by a 'certain magnitude, it triggers an indicator.
About: ten to twelve systems for a specific plant may be monitored.
- The trend is observed over time and compared to a peer group line.
[
u Dr. Lewis asked if it was easy 1.o distinguish between a failure discovered through maintenance and a failure caused by maintenance.
.. Williams -replied that if the narrative includes enough i:
Mr.
- information',;it can be determined.
,}
- n e
Mr. Williams remarked'that about 30 percent of the failures were 4
errors of-commission.- One of their concerns was not to encourage 3
- . too much preventive maintenance.
~ Mr. Carroll asked the staff to define failure.' Mr. Williams said that there were three categories:
j-E o
~ Incipient failures, where tP-ipe n t function is not f
-threatened r
b
- o Degraded ~ failures, where the function will be likely to be threatened' o
' Catastrophic'or immediate fallure, where the component stops functioning.-
N Mr; Williams stated that the. indicator is-triggered on the increase
[
in the failures'per month.
It is calculated on a monthly basis-
~
. across'a: number'of systems,-10.to 12 systems, fin a. plant. involving y
'. aboutl600_to 2000' components.
He remarked that-65-75 percent of
. the component fallures atla plant that'should be reported are being
~
reported.. An INPO evaluation' indicates that:about 80'percentfof~
- the'numberioftfailures are being~ reported.
He stated that at least 4
- two. refueling' cycles of data are necessary-to get ~ reliable
);
indicators.
p 4
t,
'Mr.JWilliams. pointed out that the staff and the utilities had
' disagreements regarding whether. or not the indicator picked up-1
?maintenane4
,ilures, or should they be in a different category?
One'of:the p wnlems with the indicator is that it is not a timely iq 1 indicator. LNRPDS is generally three to six months behind.on data
~ reporting and being placed in the system by INPO..The timeliness
.has toibe. improved, j
o s'
f
i 361st ACRS Meeting Minutes 20 i
Mr.' Michelson asked what would prevent a utility from reporting
- just what it wanted to' report, or reporting only those failures that would:make it look good.
Mr. Smith, NUMARC, replied that NUMARC oversees the input reporting from each of the utilities during its plant evaluation program.
The NRC staff.has some oversight on the level of reporting so it
- has an opportunity _to take a look at plants that would appear to
- be low reporters or high reporters.
Mr.
Williams noted some of the utility-concerns with the maintenance performance indicators.
- The NRC definition 'of maintenance differs from the-utility definition in many cases.
The utilities-are. concerned about plant resources.
They are concerned about the use-of-the maintenance performance indicators by financial institutions and public utility commissions.
Mr. Williams provided a brief summary of the results of the
' Maintenance ~ Performance Indicator Program:
.The staff benefited by meeting with the utility people and
- o-discussing the things they were looking.at.
~
U The staff had stimulated interest in NRPDS failure reports.
o communications with industry have been good.
. o VIII. _Decommissionina of Nuclear Power Plants - Shorgham (Open) i f(NOTE:
Mr.
H.
Alderman was the Designated Federal Official for
..I this-portion;of the meeting.)
Mr.
Carroll, ? Acting.
Chairman of the ACRS Subcommittee on Defueling/ Fuel Pool Storage, stated that - the discussion ' would y
concern.the situation at Shoreham and where they are going with.
=i decommissioning.
Introduction /Backcround - Mr. W. Butler /Mr. J. Partlow, NRR
(
' Mr.fButler, NRR, stated that the staff would discuss the status of
^
activities of the licensee and the staff regarding-the transfer of ownership ofLthe shoreham plant to an entity of the State of New York for :tiubsequent decommissioning.
c Mr. Partlow, NRR, said that there are regulations to cover _ normal
~
- decommissioning.
These regulations require preparation Lof a decommissioning plan up to five years before a plant is ready to bei. shut-down, followed by a possession only
- license, final decommissioning plans, relaxation of requirements, etc.
Three
- plants have entered unexpectedly into the decommissioning process.
\\
-_-.---m.--isi-ii=
a --
361st ACRS Meeting Minutes 21 Some of these plants have been defueled and some of them have very little heat load left in the fuel.
The staff is determining the
~true safety significance of these plants while maintaining an orderly path toward decommissioning.
Sf,atus of - shoreham Decommissionina Activities - Mr. S.
Brown, NRR Mr. Brown, Project Manager, Shoreham, presented a chronology of the events leading up to the current statas:
c In 1989 the.Long. Island Lighting Company (LILCO) agreed-to r
e transfer the plant to the State of New York.
o Because it was = not a final agreement, LILCO continued its request for licensing.
o In April 1989, -LILCO received a full power operating license.
o
~In June 1989, the shareholders ratified the agreement.
O' LILCO immediately made plans to defuel and de-staff the reactor in preparation for turning it over to the State of New York.:
O In'early July 1989, the reactor vessel head was removed.
L o
.By August' 1989,'the-defueling operations were complete.
All l
the fuel is. currently stored in the spent fuel pool.
l-EcuiDment Preservation Procram - Mr. S.
Brown, NRR L
Mr. Brown discussed:the equipment preservation program.
He stated L
- that all the~ plant ~ systems have been separated into three-
' categories based on operation or lack of operation in a~defueled condition.
The first category, operable systems (those systems l
that' are _ required by the plant technical specifications), are being L
. maintained according to the specifications.
. Functional systems constitute the second category. 'These systems are being maintained and maintainance procedures are being performed.
Protective. systems constitute the last category.
These are put.in a. lay-up condition..
Fluid systems are drained and dried and
. maintained'at a' relative humidity below 35 percent.
Electrical u
systems have their power removed.
Pneumatic systems are placed in
- a fail safe position with _ signal and pneumatics isolated..
The boundary valves of these systems are closed and tagged.
I-n.
l
(
~ ~ ^
-. c t
361st ACRS Meeting Minutes 22 i
Site Staffina Mr.
S.
Brown, NRR' Mr. Brown discussed site staffing.
He stated that when Shoreham was licensed,: LILCO had authorized a staff of up to 826 people.
They are currently staffed at 376 LILCO employees and 31 contractor employees.
The staff completed an inspection of the site looking i
at' staffing.
The_ staff determined that LILCO continues to meet its technical' specifications-. and the updated safety analysis report
,(USAR) staffing requirements based on its current defueled condition.
Status'of Licensina Actions on Relief Reauests - Mr. S. Brown, NRR
.Mr'.
Brown discussed licensing actions.
He noted the following:
o organizational charts were removed from technical specifications,
'A modification for set point for control room vent and alarm o
has been withdrawn.
. Technical specification modification has been withdrawn.
o.
Insurance exemption-has been issued.
This has been contested
-o-and is currently in a federal court. The regulations reg' aire
$1.06 billion in on-site.. insurance.
LILCO requested that it
'be allowed to carry $337 million-and this was. granted by the staff.
This issue is open-pending resolution by the court.
Emergency diesel generator testing changed to take advantage
~
o=
,of Generic Letter 84-15.
-The staff has completed action'on this.-
LILCO has, requested a-license amendment and an exemption on o
its emergency planning program.
The staff expects to resolve this by the~end of May 1990.
LILCO'has requested that they be allowed to reduce the vital o
area to that of the reactor building.or equipment supporting fuel in the fuel pool; The staff expects to resolve this by May.30, 1990.
i t
Appendix:J exemption.'related to testing of' isolation valves o
in the containment is expected to be resolved by May-'20, 1990,
~
.LILCO has requested'a-defueled operating license.
This is o
unusual terminology and the staf f is determining what is meant I
by-this.
l
,I
y _
a 361st ACRS Meeting Minutes 23 lt L
Decommissionina Issues.- Mr.
S.
Brown, NRR L
Mr. Brown' discussed the decommissioning issues.
He stated that the l
- terms of the agreement are that LILCO transfer the Shoreham plant to the Long ' Island power Authority (LIPA);
LIPA is to be responsible for the ultimate decommissioning of the plant. ' Actual decommissioning, of the plant will not take place based on the agreement until the license has been transferred to LIPA and the staff has-reviewed and approved the decommissioning plan.
Mr.-Brown discussed disposition of the irradiated fuel.
He noted four possibilities.
One is selling it to another utility.
There are problems'with this.
The low enrichment for the initial loading may not be_ easily.used in another plant.
The warranties on the fuel'would not be transferable.
Another possibility is to ship it to a reprocessing plant.
This would.have to be a foreign plant.
Other_possibelities are storage at another licensed f acility or storage'on. site either in the spent fuel pool or in a shipping cask.
- In conclusion, Mr. Brown noted that the staff has not found any I
- issues'that they consider to be safety significant at th'is time.
The. inspections and reviews are continuing and, if the staff finac that a safety. issue or. concern exists, it plans to inform the ACRS.
1-IX. - ProDosed'NRC Staff's Schedule for J yiemw of the Evolutionary Licht Water Reactors (ELWRs) and pas dve Advanced Licht Water Reactors (ALWRs) (Open)
'[ NOTE:
-Dr. M. El-%eftewy was the Designated Federal Official'for this portion of.the meeting.]
Mr..Wylie, Chairman of the Improved LWRs Subcommittee, stated that Lthe NRC ' staff 'would give a presentation regarding SECY-90-146, "Procoss, Schedule, and. Resources for the Review of Evolutionary and. Passive Advanced Light-Water Reactors."
Preser.tation by the Staff - Dr.
C. Miller, NRR Dr. Miller, NRR, stated that in two Staff Requirements Memoranda (SRMs),!datedJDecember 15,-1989, the Commission provided guidance to the staff, detailing the process'to beLfollowed in proceeding with the review of evolutionary and passive advanced LWRs.
To ensure. that-resource requirements and schedular impacts were appropriately. assessed and.that the Commission guidance would be implemented properly, the' staff _ issued SECY-90-065, " Evolutionary and-Passive Advanced Light Water-Reactors Resources and Schedules,"
dated March 7,-1990.
i:
s 361st ACRS. Meeting Minutes 24
- The. purpose of SECY-90-065 was to inform the Commission of the resource and schedular impacts associated with the review of i
evolutionary and passive plants, and to identify the consistency
- f the staff review' schedules for Westinghouse (AP-600) and General Electric (SBWR) designs with the Department of Energy program schedules.
Dr. Miller indicated that, because the processes have multiple interactions, large uncertainties make it extremely difficult to develop fixed schedules.
In SECY-90-065, the staff developed the following ~ approach that utilizes two different assumptions:
Case 1 Lower time estimates were developed assuming that the whole process proceeded smoothly and that there would be no iterations needed.to gain. commission. approval, t
Came 2 Recognizing tha': the. approach taken in case 1 above was extremely optimistic, the <Laff developed a second estimate by assuming that there is -- one iteration at each of the points in the process at which: Commission approval is needed.
It:shoulc beinoted that both case. l' and ' Case 2 above assume a y
L relat'ivelyjoptimistic. schedule for ACRS review.
For example, in f
" each case-one month is assumed to'be required for the conduct of-p ACRS. meetings and issuance:of subsequent ACRS reports.
t:
L Currently the staff has developed. additional changes to.SECY-90--
p 065 and. issued SECY-90-146, " Process,. Schedule-and Resources'for Ie the Review of. Evolutionary and Passive Advanced Light-Water:
Reactors."
In SECY-90-146, the staff presents. recommendations i
.regarding the promss for the review, and provides rev sed schedule and1 resource est.' mates for these projects.
.The staff indicates that SECY-90-146 - is. somewhat different from that di?.ected by the SRM of? December 15, 1989, but would achieve.
1 the overal.1 objectives of the commission.
The most important
.,l'
. feature of the. revised process in-SECY-90-146 is that the policy issues' n'eeding review. by-the Commission will be resolved
.simultaneouslys with the ongoing staff review. activities' Dr.
[.
-Miller said that to. resolve all policy issues either in the final
- Licensing Review: Basis (LRB) document or in the draft SER has the potential; of creating
" hold points"- in the review process.
. Resolving policy issues simultaneously with the technical review will enable the staff to continue. working with the applicant concerning the staff's
- findings, while recognizing that the l'
resolution of policy issues could affect final NRC positions.
I
]
p l'
1 s
s.
__8 361st ACRS Meeting Minutes 25 l
l The= staff ~ indicated that it will hold periodic briefings with the ACRS regarding the review status.
For the GE ABWR design, the revised schedule 'in SECY-90-146 shows an improvement of four months over the optimistic estimate (Case 1) described-in SECY-90-065.
The revised schedule assumes no new policy issues will arise and that GE will promptly provide the required information.
The staff '
indicated also-that it will not request an ACRS letter until near the end of the review.
The< proposed review priorities are:
o' Equal priority will be given for the review of.ABWR, System 80+,
and the evolutionary EPRI project.
o priority will be given to completing the staff's SER on the passive plant EPRI project prior to completing the SERs on LRB documents related to individual passive plants.
~
o Early~ interaction with the passive plant d sign vendors.
Mr.1Michelsonistated that.the schedule proposed 'nitially in SECY-90-065 for ACRS ' review of: ABWR was reasonab's.
The ' proposed
. schedule in SECY-90-146 is too compressed.
. M)
Wylie' expressed l
similar concern regarding the proposed schedule or the ACRS review-of;theTEPRI ALWR Requirements Document.
Dr. Miller indicated that, if ' the ACRS prefus to review the
'y
~
staff's SERs on each module of the ABWR and provide interim reports to : the. EDO, the - staf f. will try to accommodate such reviews.
He
- p r o p o s e d ' a s i m i l a r.
approach for the review of the EPRI ALWR Requirements Document.
The Committee _ agreed on such an approach.
-a Mr.;Michelson noted that the Committee would like to review,.when-
.itDis available, the Commission paper that will address the ALWR c
Tissues L such.as. the level of. design detail (or completeness of s
-design), inspection, test, analysis, acceptance criteria (ITAAC),
x
- and environmental review'of design alternatives, i
Mr.'Michelson asked the staff when they would be able to provide e
onecessary documents to the Committee to perform a -comparison
'between the LRBs for 'the GE ' ABWR and CE/ System 80+ designs, as irequested per the SRM dated December 15, 1989.
Dr. Miller'noted that he will inform'the Committee at a later date as to when the staff will be able to provide the required' documents on this matter.
4
v t,
p 7
L361st ACRS Meeting Minutes 26 X.
Additional ' Evolutionary Licht Water Reactor Certification Issues (Open)
(NOTE:
Dr. M. El-Zeftawy was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.)
The Committee members discussed additional issues, other.than the fifteen items. proposed by the NRC staff in. SECY-90-016,
" Evolutionary Light' Water Reactor Certification Issues and Their Relationship to Current Regulatory Requirements."
The Committee discussed additional evolutionary light water reactor issues that might require commission approval because they go beyond the existing regulations or. involve policy issues that should be decided by the Commission.
The-following were identified-as potential additional issues:
o-Extension of PRA for those Modes of clant operation other than Mode 1 operation.
The' Committee feels that recent operating
. experience indicates 'that non-power operation Modes'.may
= contribute to-the overall risk of the plant.
o Comouter-baJed control and erotection systems.
The Committee believes that-the verification and validation of computer software used in the ELWR is an extremely important and difficult issue and should be considered in the staff's
' review, L
o Adootion of the ceneral orinciole of (N+2) trains for active, safety-related functions.
N is the number.of trains required to perform a necessary safety-function and is equal to one if each~ train has 100% capacity to perform the. function; and is 1
equal 1toitwo_ifaeach train has 50% capacity.
The Committee-feels that the mer.its of the _(N+2). concept should be analyzed.
4 o
. Security and orotection acainst sabotaae. The Committee feels
-that' additional precautions and plant layout decisions should ber.made to improve the resistance'to the threat of sabotage tby; terrorists or insiders.
1 l
-Mr. Carroll agreed to prepare a draft report with input from Mr.
.Wylie on~N+2 trains.and Dr. Lewis, on' Sabotage,. and submit it'to the full Committee' f or consideration during.the< June 7-9,1990 ACRS meeting.
' other items' that were discussed for the ELWRs are Quality Assurance.
' Requirements and Systems Interactions.
The' Committee members indicated'that the recommendations on the above issues also-apply to'.the' advanced.LWRs for which certification will be sought under 10 CFR Part 52.
i
+
I i
4-
L M
4-361st ACRS Meeting Minutes 27 XI.
Executive Sessions'(Open)
A.
Reoort to the Commission (Open) o ProDosed Generic Letter =Sunolement on Individual Plant Examination for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities Due to External Events-(Report to Chairman Carr, dated May 15, 1990).
L The Committee agreed with the NRC staff's proposal to
. issue a Supplement to Generic Letter 88-20, Individual plant Examination for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities, and a
NUREG document to provide guidance and recommendations regarding the scope and acceptable methodologies for the IPEEE.- The Committee stated that it expects to review the simplified fire risk evaluation method related to internal fires that is being developed
'by NUMARC._ The Committee sta,.d also that it would like to have.the-opportunity to review and provide comments t
to the Commission, as appropriate, on-poesible changes that_may be made'to the NUREG guidance document as well as to-the Generic' Letter Supplement as a result-of the
, workshop planned to be held to discuss and describe the recommendations of the NUREG document.
B.
Subcommittee Reoorts (Open) 1.
ACRS Action on Review of Proposed Resolution of Generic Issue 84. "CE Plants Without'PORVs" (NOTE: -
Mr.-
P.
Boehnert was.the' Designated Federal
- Official for'this-portion of the meeting.)
Mr.~Uard, Chairnan' _of the: Decay Heat Removal-Systems (DHRS)
..l b c o m m i t t e e,. d i s c u s s e d the status of Generic Issue (GI) 84 and proposed a course of action for Committee review.
Mr. Ward noted that six CE plants (Palo -Verde Units 1-3, San 'Onofre Units 2-3, and Waterford)- are operating without PORVs 'or any manuall high-capacity RCS venting capability.
GI-84 was established ~ to. determine if such capability should be-
+
required for these plants.
1 Mr.' Ward stated that GI-84 was established as a result of the concerns initially raised by' the ACRS.in 1981' during its review of the CE System 80 design.
In 1983, the Staff decided to defer resolution of this.asue until USI A-45, " Shutdown Decay Heat Removal Requirements," had D
been resolved.
However, resolution'of USI A-45 in 1988 l
l' s,
y 4
, t' 1..
.l l
361st ACRS Meeting Minutes 28 (incorporated into the IPE process), did not specifically address resolution of GI-84.
The NRC staff now proposes to resolve this issue by not
. recommending installation of PORVs on the affected plants, due to the strictures of the Backfit Rule.
The staff is providing the ACRS an opportunity to review this issue, consistent with the MOU between the ACRS and the
- EDO, even though there are no new regulatory requirements proposed by the staff.
Mr.
Ward noted that he supports the Staff's
-l recommendation for resolution of GI-84.
He does not believe that this item needs to be discussed at a subcommittee meeting.
.He proposed that the Committee review this issue during its June 7-9, 1990 meeting.
The
. Committee endorsed Mr. Ward's review proposal.
2.
ACRS Meetina with the Jaoanese
~
[ NOTE:
Mr. G. Quittschreiber was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.]
Members-discussed potential dates that would be acceptable to them should'it be decided that they will meet with the Japanese-in 1990.
It was decided that the-best dates for the Japan trip would be December 3 through 7,
1990.
The Committee members.will not know whether they will be
(
meeting with the Japanese until after they return from g
the June meeting with the Germans and report the results
' of that meeting to the Commission. Assuming the Japanese meeting will occur, the Japanese'should be contacted to-determine if the propos'ed dates are acceptable.
The Committee agreed to change. the dates for the December ACRS meeting from December-6-b, 1990 to December 13-15,
'1990 'if the dates proposed (December.3-7,.1990) for the Japanese meeting become firm.'
'~
It was suggested that the ACRS office,obtain copies of the Japanese MITTI and the Japanese advisory committee reports for the ~ ABWR prior to the meeting with the.
Japanese. 'Some' additional suggestions for topics to be
-added to' the agenda included reliability goals and maintenance requirements.
i i
o s
361st ACRS Meeting Minutes 29 C.
Other Mattera (Open) 1.
HRC Safety Research Procram (Open)
(NOTE:
Mr.
S.
Dura 4 %amy was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.]
The Committee discussed briefly whether to revive its annual-comprehensive report to the Congress on the NRC Safety Research Program and Budget.
The Committee suggested that Dr.
- Catton, Chairman of the Safety Research Program Subcommittee, be prepared to discuss the need for reviving the detailed ACRS report to the Congress as well as the scope, format, and content of such'a report during the June 7-9, 1990 ACRS meeting.
D.. Summarv/ List of Follow-Up Matters (Open) o Mr. Michelson suggested that the Maintenance Practices and Procedures Subcommittee look at 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,-and recommend-a course of action to the 3,
f, full Committee during the June 7-9, 1990 ACRS meeting.
.1 Mr. Carroll, Chairman of the Maintenance Practices and Procedures Subcommittee, agreed to do so.
(Mr. Alderman 7'
has the follow-up action on this matter.)
i
.-t o
Mr. Michelson suggested that the Regulatory.Lolicies and Practices Subcommittee look at' tbs NRC
- proposal, delineated.in'SECY-90-022, to amend regu]. cions to make
(
t unlicensed individuals ' subject - to enfcreement.' actions, and recommend a course of-action to che full Committee during - the June.7-9, 1990 ACRS: meeting.
Dr.. Lewis, Chairman. of' -the. Regulatory _ Policies and Practices Subcommittee, agreed to do so.
(Mr. Quittschreiber has-the follow-up action:on this matter.)
o The Committee suggestod that.Dr. Catton, Chairman of the Safety Research Program Subcommittee, be prepared to j
discuss the need for reviving the detailed annual ACRS
- eport to the~ Congress on the NRC Safety Research Program and Budget as well as the scope, format, and content of such a report.
The committee agreed to' discuss the following elements o
of the Nuclear Plant Aging Research Program, that were
~
deferred owing to lack of time, during future j
n i ti
~
.m.-
~
~
+
4 ji 1
-361st ACRS Meeting Minutes 30 Subcommittee and/or full Committee
- meetings, as appropriate.
(Mr. Igne has the follow-up action on this matter):
Evaluation methodology for the risk effects of aging.
Structural Engineering aging research.
1 o
The Committee requested that the NRC staff keep the Committee-informed of the results of the investigations associated: with the reactor vessel head
- cracks, especially those related to the Fitzpatrick plant.
(Mr.
Igne has the follow-up action on this matter.)
o The Committee agreed with the proposal by Dr. Catton, Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena Subcommittee Chairman, that
-the Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena Subcommittee discuss further the BWR - core power stability issue prior to referring it to the full Committee for consideration.
-(Mr. Boehnert has the follow-up action on.this matter.)
o The Committee agreed to discuss the staff's proposed plan of action and schedule associated with decoupling nuclear plant siting from source term during the June 7-9, 1990 y
.ACRS meeting.
(Mr. Quittschreiber has - the follcw-up action on this matter.)
o The Committee agreed with the recommendation by Mr. Ward, Decay Heat Removal Systems Subcommittee Chairman, that l(
there is no need _ to hold a Subcomm4 tee meeting to L
discuss the staff's proposed resolution of-Generic Issue L
84, "CE plants without PORVs,"' and that the full H
Committee consider this matter during the June 7-9, 1990 R
ACRS meeting.
(Mr, Boehnert has the follow-up action on this matter.)
-o The Committee members' agreed to consider preparing a report to the Commission on " additional". issues other than those identified by the staff in SECY-90-016 that may be appropriate for consideration in the ELWR certif-ication process.
Mr. Carroll agreed to take the lead. responsibility in preparing a draft report :with input from Dr.
Lewis-4 (protection ~against sabotage) and Mr. Wylie (N+2 trains) and submit it~to the full Committee for consideration during the. June 7-9, 1990 ACRS meeting.. (Dr. El-Zeftawy has the follow-up action on this matter.)
(
n
{,r o.
l 1
- E
' 3 61st ACRS Meeting ' Minut.es 31 o
Mr. Carroll suggested that the ACRS staff send copies of l
the revised Interim Standard for Hot Particles to all ACRS members as soon as it is available.
(Mr. Igne has L
the follow-up action on this matter.)
o The Committee members r7 quested copies of the ABWR reports prepared by MITTI and the Japanese Safety j
Advisory Committee.
(Mr. Fraley and Mr. Quittschreiber have the follow-up action on this matter.)
j o
The Committee agreed that senior NRR management personnel be invited to discuss the following during the June 7-9, 1990 ACRS meeting.
(Mr. Boehnert has the follow-up action on-this matter):
NRC's opinion on the need. to develop additional emergency operating procedures to address incidents that occur during non-power modes _ (Modes 3-6) of operation.
,}
Potential use of PRA to analyze the risks associated with non-power operation.
The status of industry efforts in this area.
(NOTE
- This item has been subsequently deferred to the July 12-14, 1990 ACRS meeting).
_o-The Committee' expressed an interest in' reviewing the Commission paper, when-available, that will address ALWR issues such as the level of design details, inspection,
' test, analysis, acceptance-criteria, and environmental review of design alternatives.
(Dr. El-Zeftawy has the
- follow-up action cn this matter.)-
o ~
The Committee decided to perform separate reviews of staff's SERs associated with each module of the ' ABWR design. as they became available,- and provide-interim comments to the EDO.
After the staff has issued the final _(consolidated). SER, the Committee is expected to:
issue-a final ~ report to the Commission.
The Committee agreed to. follow a similar approach for reviewing the staf f 's ' SERs related to the EPRI ALWR Requirements Document.
Dr. Miller, NRR, agreed to provide appropriate support to accommodate such-reviews.
(Dr. El-Zef t'awy. hats the follow-up ration on this matter.)
i f
j
. w
'361st.ACRS Meeting Minutes 32 o
Stating that through a staff Req'airements Memorandum dated December 15, 1989 related to SECY-89-311, the Commission requested that the ACRS provide a comparison of the Licensing Review Basis (LRB)' document for GE ABWR
' with that for CE System 80+, Mr. Michelson asked when the staff would be able to provide necessary documents to the Committee to perform such a comparison.
He suggested that.the staff point out the differences between these two-LRB documents so as to facilitate the Committee's review.
Dr. Miller, NRR, stated that he will inform the Committee later as to when the staff will be able to provide the required documents.
(Dr. El Zeftawy has the follow-up b
action on this matter.)
I o
During the discussion o' the activities associated with l
the decommissioning of the Shoreham Nuclear Power
~
Station, Dr. Siess askes whether there is a list that.
i
[
identifies the plants tha'. hava been decommissioned as n
well as the nature of the deconmissioning process.
Mr..
Partlow, NRR, agreed to provId; such information.
(Mr.
Alderman'has the follow-up act, ion on this matter.)
E.
Future Activities (Open) 1.
Future Acenda The committee agreed to a tentative schedule for the June 7-9, 1990'ACRS meeting (Appendix II).
I 2.
Future Subcommittee Activities A list of future ACRS subcommittee meetings was distributed to Committee members (Appendix III).
L The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Friday, May 11, 1990.
l-E I
h 1
I 1
i-f
b APPENDICES MINUTES OF THE 361ST ACRS MEETING MAY 10-11, 1990 I.
Attendees II.
Future Agenda III.
Future Subcommittee Activities IV.
Other Documents Received e
0
r l.
APPENDIX I MINUTES OF THE 361ST ACRS MEETING MAY 10-11, 1990 ATTENDEES THURSDAY MAY 10, 1990 PUBLIC ATTENDEES NRC ATTENDEES Don Jarrell, PNL R.
Bosnak, RES Mark Jacobus, SNL G. Arndt, RES i
Eve Fotopoulos, SERCH Licensing, Bechtel M. Vagins, RES M. Barron, NUS-LIS G. Weidenhamer, RES L. McAvoy, Bishop Cook Purcell&Reynolds J. Burns, RES Alex Marion,-NUMARC W.
Farmer, RES C. Guild, Bishop Cook Purcell&Reynolds J. Vora, RES G.
Williams, Bethesda Licensing G.
Sege, RES J. D.
Stevenson, Stevenson & Assoc.
S. Aggarwal, RES G.
Dyckman, Boston Edison H. Pastis, NRR A. Johnson, PNL M. Taylor, OF.DO L. Deratan, SCIENTECH C.
Serpan, RES F. Cho, IDNS P. Norian, RES T. O'Hara,1 Yankee Atomic G. Mazetis, RES A. Cornell, Consultant to Yankee Atomic R. Woodruff, NRR
- W. Meteria,. Yankee Atomic V.
Leung, RES D. Modeen, NUMARC C.
Rossi, NRR D.
Fieno,HNRR L. Phillips, NRR W. LeFave, NRR
'G.
Hubbard, NRR B.
Elliott, NRR l
T. Greene, NRR A. Murphy, RES R. Kennelly, RES C. McCracken, NRR T. King, RES J. T. Chen, RES G.
Kelly, NRR-D. Jeng, NRR N. Chokshi, RES R.'Rothman, NRR L. Mitchell,-RES W.'Beckner, RES G. Bagchi, NRR-T. Cintula, AEOD
{... -
361st ACRS Meeting Minutes Appendix I-2 EBIDAY, MAY 11, 1990
.JJLLQ ATTENDEES NRC ATTENDEES i
L.
Connor, The NRC Calendar W.
Beckner, RES J. Trotter, EPRI T. King, RES R.
Sadanskas, SERCH Licensing /Bechtci L. Soffer, RES M.
Barron, NUS-LIS F.
Congel, NRR S.
Additon, TENERA B. Hardin, RES L.
Neal, USCEA/NUMARC R.
Baer, RES i
R. Ng, NUMAR L. Cunningham, NRR G.
Brown, Stone & Webster M. Colagrossi, RES W.
Smith, NUMARC H. Pastis, NRR W. Hall, NUMARC J.
Caron, RES L. McAvoy, Bishop Cook Revell&Reynolds F. Coffman, RES J. Maisler, NUMARC M. Lopez-Otin, OCM/TR B.
Steiger, LILCO E. McKenna, NRR J.
Irwin,'Houton & Williams J.
Caldwell, OEDO P. Revel, FRAMATOME K. Connaughton, OCM J.
Sharkey, NRR T. Novak, AEOD M. Williams, AEOD J. Shea, AEOD R. Denning, AEOD C. Johnson, RES V.
Benaroya, IP L. Doerflein, R I
'J.
Nakoski, R I R. Blough, R I M.
Franovich, NRR S. Brown, NRR F. Allenspach, NRR H. Larson, ACNW D. Scaletti, NRR C. Miller, NRR
.C. Reis, OGC L. Donatell, NRR
i a
. APPENDIX II 361ST ACRS MEETING MINUTES APRIL 5-7 AND APRIL 18-19, 1990 FUTURE AGEHD2 Tentative Schedule for the 362nd ACRS meetina June 7-9, 199_Q o
Reactor Operatina Exnerience (Open/ Closed)'- Briefing and discussion of recent operating experience and events it nuclear power plant g.
o certification of Evolutionary IRRs (Ocen) - Discussion of issues other than those identified in SECY-90-016 for consideration in evolutionary light-water reactor certification.
o Interim Standard for Hot Particles (Ocen)
Briefing regarding the status of proposed revisions to tthe standard for exposure of# the skin from radioactivo particles.
o-Accident Secuence Precursor Proaran (ODen)
Briefing regarding the Accident Sequence Precursor Program at the ORNL' Nuclear Operations Analysis Center.
o Status of Imolementation of the Safety Goal Poliev'(Open)'
- Discussion of the status of implementation of the NRC's Safety Goal Policy.
o systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (Ocen)
Briafing and discussion regarding proposed revisions to the NRC Manual Chapter on Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance.
o NRC Research Proaram (Open)
Discussion of proposed nature of the annual ACRS report to the U.S. Congress.
o ACRS Subcommittee' Activities (Ocen)
Hear and discuss reports of ACRS subcommittees regarding the status of assigned activities such as the low charpy upper shelf energy ' matters relating.to the integrity of reactor pressure vessels, results,of the HOV tests performed in FRG, and the reliability of dampers.
A report of the ACRS Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures will also be discussed.
o Emeraency Ooeratina Procedures (Open)
Briefing and discussion regarding the status of NRC. staff activities regarding emergency operating procedures und use of PRA for shutdown modes (Modos 3-6) of operation.
o Sitina of Nuclear Power Plants (Onen)
Briefing and discussion regarding NRC staff activities to decouplo nuclear plant siting from source term, o
Nuclear Power Plant Technical - Snecifications (Open) -
Briefing regarding the status of NRC staff activities regarding the. development of risk-based technical specifications.
o-Personnel Matters (closed) - Discussion of personnel matters related to the support of ACRS activities.
o Anticipated ACRS Activities (Onen).- Discussion of anticipated ACRS-subcommittee activitics and items proposed for consideration by the full'Committoo.
i o
Generic Issuo 84: CE Plants Without PORVs (Onon) -
Briefing and discue ion of proposed resolution of this generic issue.
o Emorooney Resnonse Data S_yntem (Onen)
Brjefing and discussion of the proposed NRC rule on an Emergency Response Data System.
w
-a
.(Y j
a
'361st ACRS Meeting Minutes APPENDIX III FUTURE SUBCOMMITTEE ACTIVITIES l
ACRS/ACNW COMMITTEE & SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING i
May 11, 1990 20th ACNW Meetina, May 24-25,1990, Room P-110, 7920 Norfolk Avenue Bethesda, MD.
Materials and Metallurov, May 24, 1990, Royce Hotel,1601 Belvedere Road, West Palm Beach, FL (Igne), 8:30 a.m.,
Atrium Room.
The Subcommittee will' review low Charpy upper shelf energy matters relating to the integrity of reactor pressure vessels,-discuss the status of the HSST program, and other related matters.
Attendance by the following is anticipated, and reservations have been made at the Royce Hotel (407/689-6400) for the night of May 23:
Dr. Shewmon Mr. Wylie Mr. Michelson Dr. Bush Mr. Ward-Mr. Etherington Imoroved Licht-Water Reactors, June 5,
1990, Bethesda. MD (El-Zeftawy).
The Subcommittee will review the draft SER for Chapter 5 of C.d EPRI ALWR. Requirements Document.
Attendance by the following is anticipated, tnd reservations have been made at the hotels indicated for the night of June 4:
i Mr. Wylie HOLIDAY INN Dr..Siess HOLIDAY INN Dr. Catton HOLIDAY INN.
Mr. Ward HYATT Mr.:Michelson DAYS INN (CONGR)
. Mechanical Comoonents, June 6, 1990, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda.
}iQ (Igne), 8:30 a.m., Roor P-110.
The Subcommittee will review (2) the results of MOV tests performed in FRG and the staff's con-clusions,-and (2) concerns about damper reliability. ' Attendance by the following is anticipated, and reservations have been made at the hotels indicated for the night of June 5:
(~
Mr.'Michelson DAYS INN (CONGR)
Dr. Siess HOLIDAY INN
.Mr. Carroll HOLIDAY INN Mr. Wylie HOLIDAY INN 1 '
l l
l 1
(l. '
!=
2 Plannina and Procedures, (Closed), June 6,
1990, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, MD (Fraley), 5:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m.
(tentative, specific time will be coordinated with other subcommittee meetings), Room P-110.
The Subcommittee will discuss procedures for appointment / reappointment of ACRS membes and for election of Committee Officers.
Attendance by the following is anticipated, and reservations have been made at the hotels indicated for the night of June 5:
Mr. Michelson.
DAYS. INN (CONGR)
Mr. Wylie HOLIDAY INN Mr. Carroll HOLIDAY INN 362nd ACRS Meetina, June 7-9, 1990, E_qthesda, MD, Room P-110.
Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena. June 14, 1990, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, MD (Boehnert), 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:
I Dr. Catton
-HOLIDAY INN Dr. Plesset NONE Dr. Kerr'(tent.)
NONE Mr. Schrock NONE Mr. Ward HYATT Dr. Sullivan NONE Mr. Wylie' HOLIDAY INN l
21st ACNW Meetina, June 28-29, 1990, Bethesda, MD, Room p-110.
Human
- Factors, July 11, 1990 (Tent.), -7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda. MD, (Alderman) 8:30 a.m. Room P-110.
The Subcommittee will discuss report on-procedural violations (Chernobyl Spinoff).
Lodging will be announced later.
Attendance by the.following is anticipated.
Mr. Ward Mr. Michelson Mr. Carroll Mr. Wylie
3 TVA Plant Licensino and Restart, July 24 (Site Tour) and 25, 1990, 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 22nd ACNW Meeting, July 30-31, 1990, Bethesda, MD, Room P-110.
Joint Advanced - Pressurized Water Reactors and Advanced Boilina Water Reactors, Date to be determined (May/ June), 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 Occuoational and Environmental Protection Systems, Date to be determined (June / July)
(tentative),
Bethesda.
MD.
(Igne).
The Subcommittee will review the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on hot particles.
Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Mr. Carroll Dr. Moeller Mr. Wylie Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena, Date to be determined (July), Idaho Falls. ID (Boehnert).
The Subcommittee will review 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:
Dr. Catton Dr. Plesset
~
Dr. Kerr Mr. Schrock Mr. Ward Dr. Sullivan Mr. Wylie
G.
...,o f
4 Decay-Heat Removal Systems, Date to be deter'.ained (July / August),
EJa_thesda. MD (Boehnert). The Subcommittee will continue its review l
of the proposed resolution of Generic Issue 23, "RCP Seal Failurec."
Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Mr. Ward Mr. Michelson (tent.)
Dr. Catton Mr. Wylie Dr. Kerr Mr. Davis Joint Severe Accidents and Probabilistic Risk Assessment, Date to be detcrained (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-ance by the following is anticipated:
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. Sicss Dr. Saunders Containment Systems / Structural Encineerina, Date to be determined (July / August),
Bethesda.
MD (Houston).
The Subcommittee 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 Materials and Metalluray, 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 i
Plants."
Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Dr. Shewmon Mr. Ward Dr. Lewis Mr. Bender Mr. Michelson Dr. Kassner
5 l
?
Ouality and Ouality Assurance in Desian and Construction, Date to be determined, Bethesda, MD (Igne).
The Subcommittee will discuss l
the performance-based concept of quality, what it means, its implementation, and -preliminary results.
Attendance by the l
following is anticipated:
Dr. Siess-Dr. Stevenson Mr. Ward Mr. Cerzosimo (tent.)
{
Mr. Wylie j
l Decay Heat Removal Systems, Det a to be determined, ILethesda. 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 Decay Heat Removal Systems, Date to be determined (tentative pending ACRS discussion during the May meeting), Bethesda. MD (Boehnert).
The Subcommittee will review the NRC staff's proposed resolution of Generic Issuc 84, "CE PORVs."
Attendance by the following is anticipated.
Mr. Ward Mr. Wylie Dr. Catton Mr. Davis Dr. Kerr-Auxiliary and Secondary Systems, Date to be determinad, Bethesda, liq (Duraiswamy).. The Subcommittee-will discuss 2 (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 NFC staff to review the Chilled Water Systems design.
Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Dr.-Catton Mr. Michelson Mr. Carrol1~
Mr. Wylie
\\
l 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 i
Part 50, " Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactors,"
anti an associated Regulatory Guide.
Attendance by the following #.s antic-ipated:
Dr. Siess Dr. Kerr Mr. Ward Mr. Michelson Mr. Carroll Mr.. Minnick Dr. Catton Mr. Wylie i
I
?
l l
l
\\
APPENDIX IV 361ST ACRS MEETING MINUTES MAY 10-11, 1990 J.
OTHER DOCUMENTS RECEIVED
~
liEETING. NOTEBOOK TAh 2
liBC RESEARCH PROGRAM REGARDING PLANT AGING e
Tentative Schedule Status Report with
Attachment:
e Memorandum for L.
Shao, RES from J.
Vora, NPAR Review Group,
Subject:
Nuclear Plant Aging Research Review Group Meeting Minutes, dated April 25, 1990 with enclosures:
List of NPAR Research Review Group
{}
Encl.
1 Representatives Encl. 2 - Agenda, March 20-21, 1990 Meeting of NPAR Research Review Group
=
Encl. 3 - Attendance List Encl. 4 - Meeting Summary Report of March 20-21, 1990 NPAR Research Review Group Moeting Encl. 5 - Questions Raised and Comments Made at the NPAR Research Review Group Meeting March 20-21, 1990 Encl. 6 - Memorandum for J. Vora,,Chan., NPAR Review Group from F. Rosa, Member, including his
=
comments on NPAR Review Group Meeting March 20-21, 1990.
' Presentation materials'provided during the meeting.
e
'3 REACTOR OPERATING EVENTS Status Report with Attachments:
e NRC INFORMATION NOTICE 90-26, Loss of Thermal Margin Caused by Channel Box Bow, dated April 24, 1990 Loss of Thermal Margin NRC BULLETIN NO. 90-02 Caused by Channel Box = Bow, dated March 20,'1990.
Presentation materials provided during the meeting.
e 1
s@ f.,
361st ACRS Meeting Minutes Appendix IV-2 TAD 4-INDIVIDUAL PLANT EXAMINATION OF EXTERNAL EVENTS (IPEEEL e
Tentative Schedule e
Status Report Memorandum (INTERNAL COMMITTEE USE OHLY) for R.
Fraley dated March 8,
1990, from W.
Minners, RES,
Subject:
Proposed Generic Letter on Individual Plant Examination for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities due to External Events (IPEEE) with enclosure:
Proposed Commission Paper with attachments on same subject as memo:
a) DRAFT Generic Letter b) DRAFT NUREG (ALL INTERNAL COMMITTEE USE ONLY).
DRAFT NUREG, Procedural and Submittal Guidance for Individual Plant 2xamination of External Events (IPEEE) for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities (INTERNAL COMMITTEE USE ONLY).
DRAFT Summary / Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittees-on Extreme External Phenomena and Severe Accidents Meeting on March 27, 1990 (INTERNAL COMMITTEE USE ONLY).
Letter to Dr.
C.
Siess, ACRS, dated April 1, 1990, from W.
Rasin, NUMARC, regarding some observations on their current understanding of NRC staff's plans regarding IPEEE.
Presentation materials provided during the meeting.
6 DECOUPLING SITING AND SOURCE TERM e
Presentation Schedule Status Report i
e e
Presentation materja19 provided during the meeting.
1 7.1 List of Future ACRS Subcommittee Meetinas l
1 8.
MAINTENANCE PERFORMANCE INDICATORS. DEMONSTRATION PROJECT e
Tentative Schedule L
e Status Report
. Presentation materials provided during the meeting.
L e
l 9
DECOMMISSIONING OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS - SHOREHAM e
Tentative Schedule Status Report-e SEC-90-084, 3/12/90, Shoreham Nuclear Power Station -
Status and Developments.
a
[I.
es ;
s 1
L 361st ACRS Meeting Minutes Appendix IV-3 Tab 10.1 _ PROPOSED NRC STAFF SCHEDULE FOR REVIEW OF EVOLUTIONARY AND PASSIVE ADVANCED LIGHT-WATER REACTORS l
e Tentative Schedule Status Report with Attachments:
e Attachment I - Memorandum from S.
Chilk, Secretary for J.
Taylor, EDO and C.
Michelson, ACRS, Re:
" Staff Requirements Resolution SECY-89-311 Process for Severe Accident Issues on Evolutionary Light Water Reactors," dated December 15, 1989 Attachment II - Memorandum'from S. Chilk, Secretary for J.
- Taylor, EDO and C.
Michelson, ACRS Re:
" Staff Requirements Recommended SECY-89-334 Priorities for Review of Standard Plant Designs,"
dated December 15, 1989 SECY-90-065,
" Evolutionary and Attachment III Passive Advanced Light Water Reactors Resources and Schedules," dated March 7, 1990 Attachment IV - SECY-90-146, " Process, Schedule, and Resources for the Review of Evolutionary and Passive Advanced Light Water Reactors" Presentation materials provided during the meeting.
10.2 EVOLUTIONARY LIGHT WATER REACTOR CERTIFICATION ISSUES e
Tentative Schedule Status Report with Attachments:
e Attachment-I SECY-90-016,
" Evolutionary Light Water Reactor (LWR) Certification Issues and Their Relationship to Current. Regulatory Requirements,"
dated January 12, 1990 Attachment II - ACRS-Report to Chairman Carr, Re:
" Evolutionary Light -Water Reactor Certification
' Issues and Their Relationship to current Regulatory Requirements," dated April 26, 1990 Attachment III - I:amorandum from J. Taylor, EDO, for the Commissioners, Re:
Staff Response to ACRS Conclusions Regarding D.rolutionary Light Water Reactor Certification Issues," dated April 30, 1990 Presentation materials provided during the meeting.
e
f.
~
... f,,,
361st ACR.c Meeting Minutes Appendix IV-4 MEETING HANDOUTS Tab' 5-1 e
Memorandum to ACRS Members from Paul Boehnert, ACRS,
Subject:
Subcommittee Chairma's Report:
Meeting of Combined Thermal / Hydraulic Phenomena / Core Performance Subcommittee on April 27, 1990 -BWR Core Power Stability (LaSalle Event), dated May 9, 1990 with attachment:
Memorandum for ACRS members from Ivan Catton, ACRS Member,
Subject:
T/H Phenomena subcommittee Meeting Resolution of BWR Stability Issue, Holiday Inn, Bethesda, Maryland, April 27, 1990, dated May 8,
1990.
(INTERNAL JOMMITTEE USE ONLY).
7.1 Memorandum to ACRS Members from R.
Savio, ACRS, Suoject:
Future ACRS Activities - 362nd ACRS Meeting - June 7-9, 1990 with attachments.
8.1 Letter to Thomas Tipton, NUMARC, from T. Novak, AEOD, dated May 7,
- 1990, enclosing Report AEOD/S804C,
" Maintenance Indicator Demonstration Project," dated May 1990 [ DRAFT (May 1, 1990)].
10.1 e Article " Commission Questions Staff Proposal on Safety Goal for Advanced LWRs," Inside NRC, Vol. 12, No. 10-May 7, 1990.
Transcript of NRC Commission Eeeting on April 27, 1990, e
" Briefing on Evolutionary Light Water Reactor Certification Issues and Related Regulatory Requirements." [ Briefing is by 11RC Staff]
10.2 Memorandum-for ACRS '4mbers from M. El-Zeftawy, ACRS,
Subject:
Commission Meetino on Evolutionary Light Water Reactor Certification Isrues and Their Relationship to Regulatory Requirements," da.ed May 9, 1990 with attachment:
Transcript tf NRC Commission Meeting on May 3,
- 1990,
- " Briefing on Evolutionary Light Water Reactor i
Certificatirsn Issues and Related Regulatory Mquirement s. "
ACRS i= L'cer (W.
- Kerr, Chairman) to Chairman
- Zech,
Subject:
ACRS Recommendations on Improved Safety for Future Light Water ReuctOr Pl?nt Design, dated January 15, 1987.
- 10. 3 Memorandum for ACRS Members from R.
Fraley, Revised May 7, 1990,
Subject:
ACRS Meeting with Japanese 10.3 Memorandum for ACRS Members from R.
Fraley,
Subject:
ACRS Meeting with RSK, dated May 8, 1990 with attachments (draft agenda)
e... g,,.
361st ACRS Masting Minuten Appandix IV-5 HANDOUTS (Continued) 10.2 SRM to J. Taylor, EDO, dated July 31, 1989,
Subject:
Staff Briefing on the Application of the Severe Requirements Accident Policy to the Lead Application for Advanced Light Water Reactors.
10.4 Memorandum to ACRS Members from P.
Boehnurt,
Subject:
ACRS Action on Generic Issue 84:
"CE Plants Without PORVs," with attachments Memorandum to R.
Fraley from W.
Minners, RES,
Subject:
Resolution of Generic Issue (GI)-84, "CE Plants Without PORVs," dated April 27, 1990, with enclosure Draft Memo (INTERNAL COMMITTEE USE ONLY)
OTHER HANDOUTS Article, Stello Asks Buch to Drop Nomination for DOE Job, e
Washington Post 4/25/90.
Memorandum to ACRS Members from R. Fraley, dated May 10, 1990 e
with attachment:
" Risk Within Reason," R. J.
2,eckhauser and W. K. Viscusi, Article, SCIENCE Vol. 248, pp. 559-564.
4
_m.m__
_ _ _ _ _ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _,. _ _. _. _ _. _, _ _, _ _ _ _ _, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _