ML20058G378
| ML20058G378 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/18/1993 |
| From: | Brian Hughes NRC |
| To: | Marsh L NRC |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9312090201 | |
| Download: ML20058G378 (8) | |
Text
.
t a
[-
4,4 UNITED STATES e
4 M
E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION kl wAsmNGTON, D. C. 20555 tbwrter 18, 1993 HEMORANDUM FOR:
Ledyard B. Marsh, CBLA Task Force Leader FROM:
Brian Hughes, Reactor Engineer
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF NOVEMBER 8, 1993, MEETING WITH NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES COUNCIL (NUMARC) ON APPENDIX J On Monday, November 8,1993, a meeting was held at the request of the Cost Beneficial Licensing Action (CBLA) Task Force to facilitate a dialog between industry and the staff concerning Appendix J rulemaking. The meeting was attended by NRC, NUMARC, and interested parties. Attachment 1 is a list of the attendees.
Rich Barrett, NRR/SCSB, emphasized that there is considerable interest within the NRC for an Appendix J rule change. This interest has been articulated through the Regulatory Information Conference, by Dr. Murley to the senior NRR staff at the Executive Management Retreat, by the RRG report and the September 7, 1993, Chairman's request to present a SECY paper to the Commission on an expedited basis. A proposed schedule for the Appendix J SECY paper and the rule was provided to the attendees by Dr. Monideep Dey, NRC/RES.
(Attachment 2)
Rich Barrett, NRR/SCSB, outlined the proposed Appendix J rule for discussion.
i The rule was described as an " Experienced Based Rule."
It would focus on frequency intervals based upon past performance and experience. The methods of testing would remain the same. The implementation of the new rule would be i
optional; that is, licensees could either use the existing Appendix J rule or utilize the proposed experienced based rule.
Revised allowable leak rates
)
will not be included in this rulemaking.
j Tom Tipton of NUMARC stated that NUMARC is forming a working group comprised of high level industry representatives to support this effort. This group is scheduled to meet November 30, 1993. The industry working group will include EPRI, INPO, NSSS vendors, and facilities representing all the NRC regions.
Tom Tipton, NUMARC, suggested that several bi-monthly meetings be set up to exchange information. These public bi-monthly meetings will allow for an open forum of dialog to foster communications between industry and the NRC. At these meetings both the NRC and NUMARC will provide highlights and discuss various issues.
i A process similar to the one used to develop the maintenance rule will be followed. This process would encourage NUMARC to develop guidelines for implementing tne new Appendix J rule which would be similar to the guidance developed for the maintenance rule. NUMARC suggested that the schedule be extended by 2 months to allow time for a field verification and validation of the proposed guidelines.
002067 n,
- m MMy ( /%/?g e)
C300.'>b C ru uu-L
<3na'm>
9312090201 931118 y; 05'/hl PDR ORO ERCNUt4RC PDR l
L. B. Marsh tW 18,1993 NUMARC stated that the testing methodology may need additional clarification, and suggested that the NRC endorse an ANSI standard as part of the rulemaking.
It became clear that there was a nexus between the maintenance rule and the proposed Appendix J experienced based rule.
Both rely on past experience to place emphasis on identified problem areas.and components.
Research (RES) will develop a document (Regulatory Guideline) in parallel with the industry effort to develop a guideline.
RES requested certain experience data from industry to analyze as a basis for i
the development of the Reg Guide and additional analysis to support the rule.
It was agreed by both NUMARC and RES that a representative sample would be required.
(Attachment 3)
NUMARC agreed to provide the NRC staff with Type ts/C i.ests experience by December 31, 1993, and provide the NRC with a final guidance document by December 31, 1994.
I BrianHughes,f sti~
Reactor Engineer Attachments:
- 1. List of Attendees
- 2. Proposed Schedule
- 3. Requested Testing Data
//7 OFFICE RE:CSLA:
BC:S/[
D:CBLA b I
B[ichhYs'iJkd RBkhetd LBMarsh
[
l
- E DATE//7/93
[1/((/93 11/I4793 I OFFICIAL RECORD COPY FILENAME: G:\\WPDOCS\\CBLA\\ MINUTES h a
) i ATTACHMENT 1 MEETING WITH NRC AND NUMARC REGARDING APPENDIX J NOVEMBER 8, 1993 HAME AFFLIATION T. Tipton NUMARC C. Rinhardt Wisconsin Public Ser. Corp. D. Rains NUMARC W. Smith NUMARC W. Hall NUMARC M. Meisner Entergy-Grand Gulf J. Raleigh STS INC. M. Schoppman FP&L T. Meisenheimer Bechtel R. Huston TVA F. Cherny NRC/RES/EIB M. Dey NRC/RES/EIB M. Virgilio NRC/NRR/DSSA L. Marsh NRC/NRR/CBLA l R. Barrett NRC/NRR/SCSB B. Hughes NRC/NRR/CBLA i J. Donohew NRC/NRR/CBLA J. Pulsipher NRC/NRR/SCSB P. O'Connor NRC/NRR/PDIV-1 W. Long NRC/NRR/SCSB W. Minners NRC/NRR/DSIR C. Petrone NRC/NRR/RPEB i t (
~ ATTac4,se 73t g GENERIC !$5UE MANAGEMENT CONTROL SYSTEM ISSUE NUMBER --- S-68 ISSUE IDENT. DATE --- N/A ISSUE TYPE ----- PRIORIZATION DATE --- N/A ACTION LEVEL --- Active OFFICE /DIV/ BRANCH --- RES/DSIR/EIB TASK PANAGER --- Moni Dey TAC NUMBER ---------- N/A TITLE ---------- ELIMINATION OF REQUIREMENTS MARGINAL TO SAFETY / MODIFICATIONS TO CONTAINMENT LEAKAGE TESTING REQUIREMENTS WORK AUTH. 8/26/92 SRM on SECY-92-263, " Elimination of Requirements Marginal to Safety.* CONTRACT TITLE: Technical Assistance for Resolving Generic Safety Issues FIN / CONTRACTOR: LIB 53/S. Cohen & Associates WORK SCOPE: This issue sheet identifies actions necessary for modifications to containment leakage requirements as described in SECY-92-263. AFF. DOCUMENTS: SECY-92-263, " Elimination of Requirements Marginal to Safety" and Rulemaking RM-339. STATUS: Actions are underway to place a Task Order with S. Cohen & 4 Associates to obtain contractor assistance for the task. MILESTONES ORIGINAL CURRENT ACTUAL RFP to ADM/DCPM 01/93 01/93 01/93 Task Awarded 04/93 04/93 03/93 Workshop 04/93 04/93 04/93 f Interim Contractor Report 07/93 07/93 09/93 Input to Proposed 10/93 10/93 Ruimaking Package from Contractor I Proposed Rule-To Director DSIR 12/93 12/93 To Director RES 12/93 12/93 Other Office Concurrence 01/94 01/94 Package to ACRS 02/94 02/94 ACRS Subcommittee Meeting 02/94 02/94 I CRGR Meeting 03/94 03/94 S-68, AS OF FY 1993, QUARTER 4 \\
...i 5 { MILESTONES ORIGINAL CURRENT ACTUAL ACRS Fullcommittee Meeting 03/94 03/94 ~' Proposed Rulemaking Package 03/94 03/94 to Commission (SECY-93-028) Publish Proposed Rule 05/94 05/94 ~ Close of Public Comment Period 08/94 08/94 Final Rule: To Director DSIR 02/95 02/95 To Director RES 03/95 03/95 To Other Offices 03/95 03/95 for Concurrence To ACRS 04/95 04/95 ACRS Subcommittee Meeting 05/95 05/95 CRGR Meeting 06/95 06/95 ACRS Full Committee Meeting 06/95 06/95 Final Rulemaking to Commission 06/95 06/95 Publish Final Rule 08/95 08/95 t i 5-68, A5 0F FY 1993, QUARTER 4 i \\
prr&nr s ( 3-25-95 l REQUESTED CONTAINMENT LEAKAGE TESTING DATA The following data are requested to support models to evaluate the risk impact of increasing test intervals. l I. Total number of containment leakage tests performed Frequency of tests if significantly greater than required by regulations Success or failure rate for initial attempt Breakdown by type of test (A, B, and C) Breakdown by type of containment (PWR large dry; subatmospheric; ice condenser; BWR Mark I, II, and III; steel vs reinforced or i prestressed concrete) 2. The nature and extent of failures, root cause, and relative frequency of noncompliance with leak testing requirements for each type of test and containment. If convenient, the sources of the information for I and 2 (i.e., Leak Rate Testing Reports) are requested. The following data are requested to assess t.- cost benefits of modifying requirements. 3. Duration of each type of test Routine successful tests Unsuccessful tests requiring repair and/or repetition of tests Estimate of what fraction of each type of test impacts the critical path for an outage and the number of days each extends the critical path Differences among containment types 4. personnel exposures associated with each type of testing i Routine successful tests Unsuccessful tests requiring repair and/or repetition of tests i Differences among containment types 5. Staffing requirements by containment type (numbers of individuals and skills) for each type of test and retest. i Finally, for assessing on-line monitoring systems:
I J ' 6. Experience with pressure monitoring systems in subatmospheric containments and at Surry Frequency of excessive leakage indications Fraction of false excessive leakage indications Nature and extent of actual, excessive leakage incidents To meet our schedule comitments to the Comission, we request this data by May 14, 1993. We will be glad to jointly develop or review survey forms before they are sent out to the utilities. Also, a point of contact at each utility would be useful in case we have some questions. We request that all utilities be surveyed and a spectrum plants be identified that could serve as examples in our supporting analyses. We may wish to visit these plants at a later point.
- Thanks,
/ Ovr l} < Moni Dey
1 Meetina Summary Central File NRC PDRs PD31 Reading T. Murley/F. Miraglia 12/G/18 L. J. Callan, Acting 12/G/18 B. Boger 10/H/15 W. Russell 12/G/18 M. Virgilio 8/E/2 L. Marsh R. Barrett 8/H/15 B. Hughes 10/D/22 J. Donohew 11/D/23 J. Pulsipher 8/H/7 P. O'Connor W. Long 8/H/7 W. Minners NLS-007 C. Petrone 10/A/19 F. Cherny NLS-302 M. Dey NLS-314 OGC E. Jordan MNBB-3701 ACRS (10) l I l l l l l l s}}