ML20058J667
| ML20058J667 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/31/1989 |
| From: | Ponomarevstepn, Taylor J NRC - U.S./U.S.S.R. JOINT COORDINATING COMMITTEE FOR CIVILI |
| To: | NRC - U.S./U.S.S.R. JOINT COORDINATING COMMITTEE FOR CIVILI |
| References | |
| JCCCNRS-WG-1, JCCCNRS-WG-10, JCCCNRS-WG-2, JCCCNRS-WG-3, JCCCNRS-WG-4, JCCCNRS-WG-5, JCCCNRS-WG-6, JCCCNRS-WG-7, JCCCNRS-WG-8, JCCCNRS-WG-9, NUDOCS 9012020146 | |
| Download: ML20058J667 (21) | |
Text
_
.l
.\\
,~
'i A
1 P-2 PROTOCOL OF THE SECOND MEETING OF THE US USSR JOINT C0ORDINATING COMMITTEE FOR.
.)
CIVILIAN NUCLEAR REACTOR SAFF.TY:
(Fall 1989, Washington,D.C.)-
The second meett'ng of the U.S. USSR Joint Coordinating Committee for Civilian Nuclear Reactor Safety (JCCCNRS),' established in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding in the Field of Civilian Nucleare H
Reactor Safety between the United States of America (U.S.) and the Union-of Soviet Socialists Republics (USSR) of April 26,_1988, was held in Rockville, Maryland on October 30 and 31,198g.
The U.S. delegation was headed by James M. Taylor, Acting Executive Director-for Operations of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The USSR delegation was headed by Nikolai N. Ponomarev-Stepnoy, First Deputy Director of the Kurchatov Institute of Atomic Energy. A list of the.
members of both delegations and advisors is appended hereto (Appendices 11 and 111).
l Mr. Taylor welcomed the Soviet delegation and outlined'the agenda.
The purpose of the meeting.. he said, was to reach agreement on the future direction of the exchange program promulgated by the 1988 Memorandum of Understanding. Mr. Ponomarev-Stepnoy responded that the Soviets share these goals and look forward to establishing mutual ~ areas of cooperation for the next year.
The following represente the program.for work by Working Groups.
1.
SAFETY APPROACHES AND REGULATORY PRACTICES In accordance with the program of work for 1989 the following two activities were implemented:
Working Group meetine; inspector team exchange, e
1.1.
At the Working Group meeting in the U.S., June 5-9,.1989, the following topics were dis.ussed:
operating events assessment; system of information exchange on safety related events';
reactor inspection programs; t
a.sessment of facility management, t
1 9012O20146 891031 PDR REV9P NRG UR A
1 i
The conclusions of Working Group 1 are::
i 3
the structure and philosophy of the USSR nuclear power plant inspection program, as constituted since-1984,.are very similar to i
L the NRC program; I-the USSR philosophy of nuclear power plant regulation includes a degree of direct responsibility for plant' safety.
JCCCNRS feels that the discussions were useful and informative'and considers it beneficial to continue the activities of the. Working Group.
In 1990 the Working Group will hold two meetings:
1.1.1.
The first meeting in April 1990 in the USSR to discuss:
9 i
results of the 1989 inspector exchange program; insp:.: tor evaluation of overall plant safety on day to day-basis, including the parameters.and indicators reviewed to determine the plant safety status; procedures for changes, additions and specific amendments to safety regulations and requirements as a result-of the accumulation of experience, research results,. etc.
function and-specific activities of the Scientific Technical Safety Center that is affiliated with the' USSR State Committee for the Supervision of Nuclear Power Safety (GAEN) and the U.S. NRC coordinating role in safety research and development program.
information about the organization and nuclear regulatory activities of GOSPROMATOMNADZOR.
,-l i
1.1.2.
The second meeting in autumn / winter 1990 in'the U.S. to discuss:
criteria for and indicators of sa'fe operation, including quantitative performance indicators as well as~ more qualitative indicators used in the systematic assessment of licensee performance (SALP);
procedures for license amendments-(approvals), chtnges to the regulations taking into account the incorporation of national standards and norms and changes to the reactor inspection manual; 7
emergency response function used during a major nuclear' facility incident; in particular the interactions with other government agencies and industry groups; future cooperation issues and activities.
1.2.
As a part of the inspector exchange program, from July 9 to August 26, 1989, the NRC inspector team witnessed USSR GAEN inspection 2
l q
&--e-g w
i
o activities at the Zaporozhie nuclear power plant, and from July 22 to-September 13, 1989 the GAEN inspector team witnessed the NRC inspections at the Catawba nuclear power plant. Both sides made useful conclusions to-improve the regulatory solicies and practices in their respective t
l countries and consider it >eneficial to further develop the nuclear power regulatory. experience exchange program at all levels and in all i
areas of regulation activities, including inspector team exchange.
By the end of 1989 the proposals on the organization and topics of:
t inspector team exchange in 1990 will be agreed upon.
2.
ANALYSIS OF THE SAFETY OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS IN THE USSR AND-THE LL.
In accordance with the Protocol (P-1) of the First JCCCNRS meeting in August 1988 in Moscow, the following activities were implemented on Topic #2:
exchange of completed analyses of the level of design of power units at Rovno nuclear power plant and the South Texas nuclear power.
plant (USSR, December 5 9, 1988)-- P-1, item 2.1; seminar on the results of the U.S. DOE's analysis of features of.
Soviet-designed VVERs (USSR, December 5 9,:1988) - P-1, item 2.1.1; discussion of. topics and directions for safety research -(USSR, December 5 9, 1988) - P 1, item 2.2; discussion of selected design. characteristics of the ROVNO and South Texas nuclear power plants (U.S., June-5-9,1989),P-1, item 2.1 The results of the Working Group meeting are presented'in l.
corresponding Memoranda M-1 and M 2.
2.1.
Having considered the results of.the Working Group: activities on Topic #2 the JCCCNRS recognizes that each Side has much to offer in terms of safety concepts, a continuing dialog'will.' contribute to the safety enhancement of reactors in both countries.
The time available to review the documentation supplied was brief,- and.further joint i
activities will be needed to better understand each other's design.
Primarily, the following issues require further exploration:-
(a) mutual understanding of the U.S.- and USSR regulations and guides; (b)- participation by regulatory authorities as well as design organizations from both countries in-the discussions; (c)' emergency guidance for operators / design features; (d) station blackout; (e) ATWS analysis. including the possibility of calculations; 3
i
w h
^
s (f)'seismicdesignconsiderations; E
(g) mid loop operation;
-(h) in depth containment study.-
Future activities shou'1d concentrate on identif ing and'discussingt safety significant differences.
Both sides agreed t at it would be desirable to include specialists who have done design work 'in future work group activities.
s 2.2.
The scheduled meeting of the Working Group. (P-1,. item 2.3) will be' held in December'1989, in Moscow, with the following agenda:
1.
Coordination'of the program of work on-in depth computer-analysis. of the-Rovno nuclear power plant and the South Texas nuclear-power plant using U.S. and USSR computer codes for the following conditions:
(a) loss-of-coolant accident; (b) sudden complete loss of feedwater with a total failure of control rods.
2.
Detailed discussion of operator manuals on human intervention during an accident (for the Rovno plant).
3.
Station blackout, i
During the meeting there will be a visit to the Rovno plant.
2.3.
In 1990 the following activities will be implemented within-the j
framework of the Working Group.
2.3.1. -WG-2 meeting.
Place:
U.S.
L Time:
May 1990 I
Preliminary agenda:
1 1
(a) emergency guidance for operators / design features; (b). station blackout studies,
' I (c) agreement of source data for loss-of-coolant and loss-of-feedwater accident analysis;
.2.3.2. -WG-2 meeting.
Place: USSR Time:
October - November 1990 Preliminary agenda:
l 4
l J
1 1
I
[
m
,.-.o s-r
...v
(a) ATWS analysis including = the possibility of calculations using agreed data-bases; (b) core cooling analysis during mid-loop operation;-
(c) seismic design considerations.
?. 3.3.
Soviet specialist training in the U;S. NRC Technical Training C er,t er.
Soviet delegates will approach-Bechtel and Westinghouse C5rporations to propose Soviet specialist training within those orgnizations.
Training topics:
l (a) Safety philosophy and general approaches, reactor physics for safety justification.
i (b) Modern methods of safety justification in transient and emergency conditions.
(c) Safety systems design philosophy.
(d) Design philosophy for control protective systems, operator l
support information systems and diagnostic systems for.VVER nuclear power plants.
2.4.
Directions of work in 1991:
2.4.1.
Continuation of activities on topics discussed in'1989 - 1990..
1 i
in depth understanding and further studying the exchanged documentation; i
continuation of ATWS efforts; i
seismic design; station blackout studies.
2.4.2.
In-depth containment study.
t 2.4.3.
Norms and regulations analysis, reconnendations implementation at the design stage, licensing problems.
2.4.4.
New designs of VVER and PWR nuclear power plants of large and' medium power level.
Safety.and economic parameters.
2.4.5.
Problems of the fuel cycle and. reactor physics for safety justification.
2.5.
Future Activity. Guides and standards application in the USSR and in the U.S. at VVER and PWR design stage.
5 e
,~>
ew -,
e w
e
q 1
3.
RA)l ATION MBR"TTLEMENT OF PRES $URE VESSEL AND SUPPORT STRUCTURE AN) ANNEAL. NG "HE VESSEL T
This year the Working Group held'one meeting on the given topic--June 5 9, 1989, in the U.S.
Besides, a number of issues related.
to the activities of this Working Group were treated at The meeting in the USSR,. December 5 9,.1988, within the framework of d'.scussions of safetystudiestopicsandapproaches(P-l. item 2.2)..
l.
A large number of scientific and information material were.
exchanged. The discussion ru ults are presented-in Memoranda M-1 and.
j
. M -2.
3.1.
JCCCNRS believes that the activities on this topic were very effective and fepls it necessary that the Working Group undertake.
v specific efforts to distribute its experience in order to form a comon basis for reactor vessel annealing understanding and implementation, i
The discussion of the available information will be the subject of the next Working Group 3 meeting in June 1990 in the USSR.
3.1.1, Working Group 3 will discuss scientific papers on the following'
-(
topics at its next meeting in June,1990 in the USSR:
i (1) Summing up of annealing experience for VVER 440 reactor vessel l
and the methodology for determining radiation'ambrittlement of vessel metal after annealing.
(2) Non-destructive includingsurveillance)methodsfor monitoring metal chara(cteristics of reactor vessels during operation and after annealing.
(3) Tendency toward radiation embrittler.ent of VVER-1000 materials (steel alloyed with nickel-chromium 15x7dMFAA and its welded seams).
l (4) Research on VVER-440. reactor ve',sel materials removed from operating units.
(5) On the nature of radiation camage to reactor vessel materials!
and related factors.
(6) Theoretical and experimental research of the thermodynamics applied to the problem of thermal shock in the reactor' vessel.
(7) Elastic-plastic analysis of fracture mechanic.s of the embrittled reactor vessel with the goal of ensuring its reliable operation.
Results of research of reactor vessel models.
I (8) Reactor vessel rupture probability, embrittlement effects and i
nuclear power plant operating and control procedures.
3.1.2.
Scientific and organizational matters of the conduct' of joint research on problems of radiation metallurgy.and increasing operational 6
L reliability of reactor vessels and supports will be discussed at the' L
Working Group 3 meeting in June 1990 in the USSR and l
meeting by the JCCCNRS Co. Chairmen by correspondence. prior to the.The top research may include:
3 l
(1). Summing up and analyzing the. scientific and technical results obtained in the U.S. and USSR on annealing irradiated materials and vessels; feming into practical reconnendations which could be used for reactor vessel annealing.
(2) Using U.S.; instruments, carrying out joint research programs i
in the U.S. on materials cut directly from the vessel of a VVER:
reactor removed from operation.
The programs would also examine-other irradiated materials.
(3) Participation in joint 'research of neutron flux density on.
radiation damage of vessel materials and supports, including research conducted within the framework of international and in accordance with the provisions of those programs. programs (4) Research on radiation embrittlement of cladding materials, including chemical composition characteristics and other possible factors.
Influence of post-irradiati6nt annealing _ on~ change in l
mechanical and corrosion characteristics of the materials.
i (5) Corrosive mechanical characteristics of base metal and the-metal of the welded seam in coolant environment under.the effect of ionizing radiation of varying intensity.
(6) Determination of vessel life time, especially as influenced.by more precise elastic-plastic fracture evaluations, research on i
thermal shock, and calculation of uncertainties in determining j
metal characteristics and the presence _ of defects..
4.
FIRE SAFETY r
L The Working Group held two meetings on the copic: December 5 9,.
l 1988 in the USSR and June 5-9, 1989 in the U.S.
The results of the discussions are presented-in Memoranda M-1 and i
M 2.
(a)
Items 4.1.1. (Effects of Hydrogen Concentration) and-4.1.2.
(Effects of the Hydrogen Combustion. Process will)becoveredinworkgroup6 as delineated in the JCCCNRS Protocol dated August 31, 1988 activities (severe accidents).
(b) To reinforce and emphasize the meaningful. technical information exchange (the August 31, 1988 Protocol. 4.1.3, 4.1.4, 4.1.5, 4.1.6, i
4.2.1, and 4.2.2) during the two working group meetings and to ensure-a thorough understanding of the regulatory practices, a joint' U.S./ Soviet technical expert inspection of a nuclear power plant 'n the USSR will take place in the April 1990 timeframe and a similar inspection of a 7
l
-i
e
,e
- i nuclear power plant in the U.S.-will take-place in the
- summer of'1990.-
-In general, these inspections willt follow the June:5,1989 Agreement -
entitled " Procedures to Implement an Inspector. Exchange," except that the inspections willLbe conducted by.two Soviet and two U.S. fire -
experts, and each inspection will last'approximately one week. The-plants will be selected by the host country.
L (c) The following additional; activities are planned for 1991.
(1) Discussion of the joint studyL program to evelop comp ^ uter.
programs for fire propagation. the effects of wate; 3 smoke, and energy transport during fire-fighting efforts,;where ad under what conditions fires start, and fire rist assessment methods.
It:is' planned that this worn would be'in the U.S.'at Sandia NationalE Lacoratory during April-May 1991.- Proposals for this program,will; be exchanged.
(2) Modeling of the start and propagation of fires at nuclear power plants.
It is planned that this work would be in the U.S. at Sandia National Laboratory during April-May:1991.
this program will be exchanged.
Proposals for 5.
MODERNIZATION /BACKFITTING!
JCCCNRS stresses the importance of obtaining. mutual understanding of the general approaches and. processes used.in evaluating additional safety improvements of existing nuclear power plants.
5.1.
As'it was scheduled earlier (Protocol P-1, item 5.a), a joint seminar on-the subject will'be held in December 1989 ir, the USSR to discugs:
(1) Comparative identificationLof the design bases and required improvements.
(2) The criteria used to determina the need for-modernization /backfitting.
(3) Methods used to improve equipment reliability.-
L 5.2.
The next seminar will-be held in May-of 1990 in the U.S.
to continue the discussions on' item S.1.
6.
SEVERE ACCIDENTS AND THEIR CONSE00ENCES' The cooperation on the topic was very intensive.
Both sides presented papers, information materials, exchanged and.
discussed the results of their respective studies on fission product releases at an early sta i
subsequent stages (U.S.)ge.of the accident and data on releases at U.S.- specialists presented the results of-research on chemical forms of iodine released from the fuel and discussed the importance of aqueous iodine chemistry.
The Soviet side P
8 m.
.w.
.-,v..-.-..
l L..
discussed their plans f)r experimental studies on generation and..
deposition of organic iodines and stressed the importance of this form of iodine from the'poini of view of severe accident radiation l
consequences.
Both sides exchanged viewpoints on the' concept of
_l containment filtered venting system to mitigate the radiation-consequences of severe accidents. The Soviet side presented a paper on i
a filtered venting system for improved safety of nuclear power plants _
i and the American side reviewed various designs of systems,' including those being tested within the framework of the international ACE l
program, in which Soviet specialists participate...Both sides also i
discussed the issue of corium concrete interactions and their respective programs and plans.to address.this issue.
Both sides now agree any work related to hydrogen burn previously addressed in Working Group 4 (fire protection) should now be handled in i
this Working Group. See 6.1.3. below..
-l 6.1.
JCCCNRS discussed possible directions and plans of further cooperation in the area of severe accidents at nuclear power plants.
Both sides agree that an important topic for future U.Si-USSR interactions involves the severe accident related phenomena-and
,i processes which determine the challenge and the_ loads to light water reactor containments and how this information gets implemented in PRA studies and Accident Management Strategies.
Initially the'U.S.-USSR
+
cooperative efforts will focus on the most important phenomena which are generic to both the U.S. and USSR containment types. Among these phenomena are hydrogen deflagration / detonation, corium concrete interactions and corium water interactions.
Both sides agreed on the following_ program of work for the remainder of 1989 as well as 1990 and beyond:-
6.1.1.
The U.S. side will make available to the USSR the second draft of NUREG-1150 in 1989_and the NRC contractor's reports developed' for its support.
Both sides will consider the feasibility-of exchanging information in the thermal-hydraulic area (initial conditions for severe accident assessments), including providing the computer code:RELAP5 to.
the Soviets and making available to the U.S. thermal-hydraulic data from the Soviet out-of-pile experimental facilities.
Both sides will evaluate the best way to implement this exchange, e.g., via the NRr':;
International Code Assessment Program (ICAP).
Based on the methodology described in.the above documents, the USSR' side will perform by spring 1990 qualitative / quantitative evaluktions.
i using Event Trees to develop accident management procedures for VVER:
nuclear power plants showing how knowledge of containment phenomena is utilized and hnw phenomena uncertainties are taken into account.
Both sides consMer this area very important and a technical meeting will. be 4
he'd in Juae 390 in the USSR to discuss and exchange views on this-topic, including interface issues'between Level-I and -II PRA, Containment Event Trees and their utilization in accident management-procedures.
1 9
1
l
' t
- )=
1 6.1.2.
Initial discussions and exchange of info 7mation on t' e issue of.
I h
corium concrete interactions (CCI) took place ir the fall' of 1989-(October 18,1989), in oarticular, how tiis pro ess ~ affects containment loads and how it augments the raci w tivity:in.the containment; other issues addressed included the capability of.present codes, especially CORCORN, to predict CCI-related
>henomena and issues.
In' addition the-i Soviet side discussed the code *.tASRAV' which they are developing to
- 1 evaluate the physics and chemistry of CCI. This activity will be properly coordinated and integrated with the MACE program and'the participation of the Soviet specialists in the calculation.and l
evaluation of the SURC-4 experiment.
Based on these discussions and exchange of views'and information a I
technical seminar.will: be held in the U.S. in May 1990 to discuss and evaluate all relevant information related to CCI as well as Corium Water Interaction (especially issues related to corium debris bed coolability) and at that-time make an assessment of whether additional joint cooperative efforts are warranted and define. specific programs related to this activity..
6.1.3.
Initiate in June of 1990 in the USSR, technical; discussion and-assassments of whether future joint cooperative efforts in the area = of-hydrogen generation and combustion under severe accident conditions-are warranted (including overall mixing behavior, processes in the containment leading to highly combustible concentrations.
deflagration / detonation limits and DDT).. The U.S; will propose _ a detailed agenda for this June meeting.
Subsequent discussions and decision on future efforts are proposed for. November 1990 in the U.'S.
6.1.4.
At the meeting in November of 1990 in the U.S., Soviet and Amerit,an specialists plan to develop a proposal oc the nature and ' extent of further cooperation in studying fission product releases during both
_L-
\\
desig, basis and severe accidents, in particular, the' behavior of-varioJs chamical forms of. iodine.
t 6.1.5.
At the meeting to be held in June 1990 in the USSR bet' ween-.
Soviet and American specialists,.a proposal will.be developed on the
~
-wature and extent of further cooperation in studying filtration and
\\
venting during severe accidents, information' exchange on proposed bases for such systems as well. as possible performance criteria. Subsequent discussion is proposed for November 1990 in the U.S.
7.
HEALTH EFFECTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION CONSTJERATIONS
-In accordance with the Protocol (P-1) of the first JCCCNRS meeting (August 1988), the following meetings were-held oa Topic 7:
seminar on Topic 7.1.(Environmental transport), September 18-22,.
1989, Moscow, USSR.
seminar on. Topic 7.2 (Health effects), September 25-29, 1989, Kiev, USSR.
10
..,-_e..
.m
,,,,q--,-
_w--._---
.,.e-~,
e.
Besides, September 23 24, 1989 U.S. participants to' Seminars 7.1-and 7.2 visited laboratories of the USSR Academy of-Sciences and of the-l-
State Committee on Hydremeteorology in the area of the Chernobyl nuclear-
~
power plant, as well as the plant site.;
The results of the Seminars 7.1 and 7.2 are presented in Memoranda 7.1 and 7.2.
7.1.
Having studied the re;;ults of the seminars and of the Chernobyl visit, JCCCNRS feels that mutual f. cop 6 ration on topics 7.1 and 7.2,is-beneficial:
3 l
modeling the atmospheric transport and radioecologic.1 t
measurements; l
i modeling the environmental transport and monitoring;
. methods and instruments to measure radioactivity; dosimetry of exposed persons; epidemiology:
examination of exposed population and-stochastic effects; acute radiation syndromes and other non stochastic radiation effects and clinical monitoring.
7.2.
Both sides recognize that Working Groups 7.1 and 7.2 only
.[
completed their meetings September 29, 1989.
Various areas of possible future cooperation are only now being developed as proposals.
Listed below are draft preliminary proposals and. areas that have been-identified to date by both sides. The Co-Chairmen of the JCCCNRS through correspondence and consultation-with their various working group o'
leaders will develop more concrete proposals including cost coverage or host country payment on a case-by case basis for 1990 meetings and activities by January 15, 1990. Specific selections of activities, dates for meetings, and other aspects-of cooperation'should be agreed i
1 upon-incrementally by the Co Chairmen with all aspects by March 30, 1
1990.
Collaborative research projects could be agreed upon separately.
along with appropriate cost sharing.
7.2.1.
Draft prelimina.ry proposals for Topic 7.1 i
Exchange of information, and visits by Working Group members in -
l spring and fall of 1990 to carry out joint studies and prepare l
cooperative activities for 1990-1991 on:
1 USSR Preliminary Proposals - Working Group 7.1:
(1) Modeling atmospheric transport of radioactive fallout as a I
result of the Chernob radioactive-releases.yl accident to improve calculated data on Il
i a
)
(2) Development of improved techniques t'o com'ine measurement u
results-'and model projections.
(3) Model. improvement.
t (4) Selection, comparison, adjustment and improvement of methods-L to measure and analyze the radioactive environment contamination.
(5) Analysis of environmental monitoring data.
(6) Joint experimental studies of the radioactive environment-I contamination.
U.S. Preliminary Proposals - Working Group 7.1: '
(1)
Research collaboration / joint studies atmospheric dispersion modeling improve and validate' methods for forecasting doses:and dose commitments from external exposure
. test models for predicting internal dose from direct:
contamination of terrestrial food sources
.y transfer coefficients of radiocesium in agricultural food chains-and the effects of remedia1' action long term dose from.the contamination of aquatic food chains-i
' hydrological modelling resuspension processes:and models cross calibration of measurement capabilities, including l
l airborne measurement-techniques, systems, procedures.and.'
i applications, and analysis of. environmental samples'and standards plus instrument and methods intercomparisons 7.2.2.
Draft preliminary proposals for Topic 7.2 USSR Preliminary Proposals - Working Group 7.2:
(1) Training visit of four USSR young specialists to U.S. ORNL on Topic 7.2.1. for three months (during the period of-February - May 1990).
(2) Visit of six USSR specialists to U.S.-ORNL to participate in the working meeting (seminar) on Topic 7.2.1. with the aim of information exchange and preparation of the cooperative ' program for 1990-1991; it is recommended to start'this visit simultaneously with the above training of USSR specialists.
(3) Visit of four U.S. sp'ecialists to the USSR to participate-in -
experiments on Topic 7.2.1.'in May-June 1990 (with instruments:and equipment that will be agreed upon prior to the visit during the working meeting in the U.S.).
(4) Visit of a group of USSR specialists beginning of 1990 to corresponding U.S. res(3 persons) in the i
earch organizations with the aim of infomation exchange and detailed study of the U.S.
12
+r g
.O i
experience'in analytical methodology development'for' stochastic effect risk assessment due to radioactive exposure (for 2-3 months).
(5)
Visit of'a group of USSR specialists (1012 persons) to'the U.S. to participate in the meetint and to visit U.S. laboratories on Topic 7.2.2. and 7.2.3. with tqe aim of information exchange:and preparation of the cooperative program for 1990-1991.(in the first-half of 1990).
s U.S. Prelimina'ry Proposals - Working' Group 7.2:
(1) Data management' methods for evaluating 'aealth. effects of large.
populations exposed to ionizing radiation (2) Developing research protocol on leukeuta following Chernobyl-accident and workshop on detecting. radiation induced leukemia (in.-
U,.S.)
(3) Workshop on detection of thyroid dysfunction (4) Methods for reconstructing dose. estimates for exposed populations (5) Non stochastic health effects (6) Biodosimetry, including cytogenetic and glycophorin assays (7) Advisory process for oversight of 7.0 collaborative research program 7.3.
Both sides recognize the JCCCNRS Protocol of August.31,1988, l
mentioned future Work Group 7 topics for 7.3 - Radiation Biology Research; 7.4 -' Ecological Effects.. In light of the fact that significant and meaningful areas of-cooperation have been identified and are being identified by Working Groups 7.1 and 7.2,:both' sides agree.to hold'these additional topics in abeyance pending the positive conclusion of some of the proposals for 7.1 and 7.2.
l 7.4.
Soviet side will present its' ideas for 7.5 - Criteria for Radiation Protection and for Nuclear Facility Siting - in the future..
8.
EXCHANGE OF OPERATIONAL EXPERIENCE In accordance with the Protocol of the First JCCCNRS meeting (P-1, item 8.1), Working Group 8 held'its meeting June 5-9 1989-in the U.S.
The main aim of the meeting - to develop an, understanding of national i
data bank structure - was attained.
The results of the discussion are presented-in Memorandum M 2.
8.1.
JCCCNRS feels it important to continue the efforts on this topic and approves the future cooperation program of Working Group 8:
13'
I
..=
8.1.1.. The Working Group will hold.its meeting in April-1990 in the' i
~
USSR'to discuss the following issues of mutual. interest t
(1) = Indicators of nuclear power plant safety with emphasis on j
measures =to monitor maintenance-
\\
(2). Implications of human factors on nuclear power plant safety.
(3)
In depth discussion of methods for identifying accident precursors.
of) operational experience. Assessment of the effectiveness of feedback a (4
(5) Technical discussion of selected safety significant events or-event classes.
8.2. ;Both sides agree to have 'a furthar meeting in the U.S. in October i
1990. The themes for that meeting will be determined as a result of the-April 1990 meeting in the' USSR.
9.
DIAGNOSTICS. ANALYSIS ~E0VIPMENT AND SYSTEMS'FOR SUPPORTING OPERATORS Working' Group 9 will hold.its meeting in December-1989 in the USSR where the Soviet side will make presenta+, ions on the analysis of systems of technical diagnostics and development of algorithms'for vibration,-
acoustic emission and other signals. The U.S. side will-' comment.on these presentations, i
During this meeting, the U.S. will make presentations (originally.
1 considered for a second meeting) on the s operator training and licensing process,: ystems-approach.to training, medical requirements for licensed operators,. operator information support systems, procedural I
support for operators, use of reactor simulators, ex full-scope' simulators, and simulator certification..perience in use of The USSR will comment on this presentation.
l The U.S. will also be prepared to make a minor presentation on independent evaluation of utility computed information.
j; i
9.1.
The Soviet agenda of the meeting is as follows:
(1) Diagnostic. system of the nuclear. power plant equipernt lifetime under cyclic loadings.-
(2) Monitoring and diagno'stic system of the nuclear power plant d
operating modes.
(3) Expert systems to monitor, simulate and ensure safe operation of the plant.
l (4)
Integrity monitoring system for primary piping.
14 i
l l
L 9.2.
The U.S. agenda of the meeting is as follows::
\\
(1)_ Systems approach to training.;
(2) Operator training and;1icensing process.
L (3) Medical requirements for licensed operators.
(4) Operator information support systems.
(5)
Procedural support for operators.
(6) Use of full-scope and part-task simulators.
(7)
U.S. experience.in the use.of full-scope' simulators.
(8) Simulator certification.
9.3.
Both sides propose a further meeting of these topics.in the U.S. -
in May 1990.
- 10. ' EROSION / CORROSION DESTR CTION OF PIPING AND COMPONENTS Working Group 10 held-two meetings: December 5 9( 1988 and June 5-9, 1989~in the U.S.
in the-USSR
.The Working Group made a conclusion on the necessity'of further.
l cooperation to improve quality assurance and materia 1' condition-monitoring methods at ' nuclear power plants' and to develop new instruments and automated monitoring systems for equipment corrosion at nuclear power plants of new designs.
10.1.
Approving' the' conclusions of Working Group 10, JCCCNRS feels it useful to:
10.1.1.
Hold Working Group 10 meeting in-June 1990Iin Moscow on the following topics:
l (1)
Improvement in the composition and' control of water chemistry in light water nuclear power plants.
t (2)
Corrosion product release and transport.
(3)- Non-destructive examination techniques for monitoring.
degradation of components-due to erosion and corrosion.
(4) Study of alternative or new materials to resist the effects of erosion and corrosion.
10.1.2.
Exchange of reciprocal-visits to institutions, experimental facilities. and two nuclear power plant sites in -1990 by. U.~S. ~ and USSR delegations. The visits could include up to five people for.
approximately two weeks.
Each side will submit proposed f aces to visit l
15 t
m g
-c,,.
.,-,,.s.
~y.,
l along with details of facilities, experiments and data to be-seen or.
1 obtained. The times and detailed arrangements-for these visits:should be agreed upon within the next six months. At the end of the 1990 program both sides agreed that the work of Working Group 10.could be more usefully conducted within the framework of Working Groups 8 and g.
1 10.1.3. There will continue to be a mutual exchange of:information, in the form of published papers, and reports in the areas of:-
i (1) Methods for determining degradation of' piping dueito corrosion'-
cracking.
4 (2) Effects of corrosion on zirconium alloys.
(3) Methods and systems of control-corrosion and erosion of nuclear powe(r plant components.--including au
]
ADDITIONAL ITEMS OF DISCUfji,L@
I On Tuesday morning, October 31, the delegates reconvened to discuss a series of topics that had been developed'from earlier discussions..
1.
Soviet Program on Chernobyl..
The discussion was.of a general nature and it was agreed that as-proposal 2 become more focused in the future, they will be provided to the U.S. side.
Some examplss of possible' future work. include corium concrete interaction (of interest to Workin health effects from the accident (which naturally g Group.6) and falls into the areaofWorkingGroup7).
2.
Thermal. hydraulic processes under.se' vere accident conditions.
(RELAP/Electrogorsk).-
Now covered in Working Group 6,- Section-6.6'.1.~ U.S. side explained that safety verification of-design and projects using' codes is acceptable inside the' USSR, but that use of codes' for commercial or marketing activities is not acceptable..
3.
Host Country Payment.
t The Soviet side presented a preliminary draft proposal which the U.S. side agreed to study. The U.S. side stated that it would quickly formulate a response. and that this would be transmitted by telex as soon as possible._
4.
Safety concepts.for new generation nuclear power plants and cooperation with U.S. DOE on the safety improvement of currently operating nuclear power plants.
Safety concepts for new generation is covered now 'in Working Group 2, Section 2.4.4.
Soviet side stated work on other advanced' i
L reactor types is also'of interest. DOE representatives stated that 16 R
1 m.
.--..m y
y_..,
.c,_
t the principle U.S. interest today'was focused on currently 1
operating plants and that-this would be further discussed at a DOEL meeting with the Sovie:s planned for November 1.
The results of i
that meeting will be topended to this Protocol'as Appondix 1.
-These discussions will lead to the. forming of; a new topic and a new-
{
working group for the JCCCNRS.
j b,
Cooperation'with private U.S. organizations and national laboratories including but not limited to the following:.
- Bechtel Corporation
- ANL/BNL-
- Sin er Company
- EPR
- INPO Both sides pointed to the Memorandum of Cooperation of April 26,.
1988 and our Protocol of August 31,:1988, where it was stated that--
the JCCCNRS would encourage and: assist -in these private '
initiatives. The U.S... side then went on to explain.the.' roles and relationships of these various organizations.. Basically, work-proposed at the national alboratories must betapproved and funded through the DOE and NRC budget-process-and' coordinated under the appropriate working-group leaders.
.)
6.
Nuclear power plant-aging!and life extension..
Both sides agreed that when a current working. group completes its program in 1990, then.this would be an appropriate next-topic.
Each side will develop draft proposals ofg cooperation in' these areas and exchange them by. correspondence before June'of 1990.
7.
Reactor vessel rupture probability, embrittlement effects,. and nuclear power plant operating and control procedures.
NowcoveredinWorkingGroup3,Section3.1.1.[8).-
8.
Cooperation with the U.S. DOE on waste management.
This will be a topic of discussion at the DOE meeting on November 1.
Lastly, Mr. Taylor mentioned the possibleLadverse effect that'the-Gramm-Rudman Act could have on our cooperative program.
If.there is-such an adverse effect, then Mr ' Taylor will communicate'this to the-Soviet side.
i l
17 j
L - -
- ' ~
~
I i
FUTURE JCCCNR$ PROTOC6L MEETINGS ~
~
i
. Both. sides agreed to hold the next Protocol meeting of the JCCCNRS' in Moscow, USSR,-in Autumn 1990.
i L
Appendices:
{
I.
DOE Safe Operations Initiative II.
U.S. Representatives-III.
U.S.S.R. Representatives-
/LT 3&).
Ja s.M. Taylop Ni@tDeputyDirectorlai,N. Ponomarev-Stepnoy l
ting Executrve. Director for Firs i.
Operations Kurchatov Institute of Atomic Energy-U.S. Co Chairman of JCCCNRS
. USSR Co-Chairman of JCCCNRS l-T/fv8,f.
i i
1 L
l-(
l 18 m.
~
e e
wf
"~*P
?
i
' APPENDIX 1-s SuggestedInsertfoJCCCNRSProtocol!oni 1
DOE Safe Operations Initiative On November 1.1989 the. Department of Energy hosted the Soviet i
delegation to elaborate upon a new initiat' ve proposed by Secretary.
T.
Janes D. Watkins which emphasizes improved operational safety and,
sanagement practices' supporting safer operation of existing civilian reactors.
M E explained that the initiative should be. based upon a autually agreeable' program of activities and associated set.of safet milestones to demonstrate progress'toward safer reactor operations, yand would directly' involve the U.S. Institute of Nuclear Power.0perations,.
with due consideration for the activities of the World Association of-Nuclear Operators.
The Soviet side welcomed the U.S.. initiative and is prepared to receive a high-level'American delegation'in the near future to begin development of a formal. collaborative framework.' 'The two sides agreed that associated joint activities.could be conducted'by a new=
working group under the auspices:of the existing Nemorandum of.
Cooperation and-the JCCCNRS.,The details, however..will be developed in the course of defining the new collaboration.
L j
e l
a
'98 B
e m-4 a
ei a
m_-,
u
e I
APPENDIX II Joiti. Coordinating Committee-
)
for i
Civilian Nuclear Reactor Safety' (JCCCNRS)-
i October 1989.
Rockville, Maryland 1
U.S. Renresentatives'-
JCCCNRS Co. Chairman I
James Taylor, Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Regulation,' Regional-Operations, and Research, NRC, and U.S.- Co-Chairman of the JCCCNRS Committee Memberj James Sniezek, Deputy Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,.
NRC Themis Speis, Deputy Director for Generic Issues Resolution, Office'of Nuclear Regulatory Research, NRC Edward Jordan, Director, Office of Analysis and Evaluation of i
Operational Data, NRC l
t Sol Rosen, Director, International Nuclear Program Division, Office of Nuclear Energy, Department of Energy. (DOE) i Murray Schulman, Executive Assistant for Health and Environment Research, Office of Energy Research, DOE JCCCNRS Advisors Harold Denton, Director, Office of Governmental'and Public Affairs (GPA),NRC,andSeniorAdvisortoJCCCNRS.
James Shea, Director, International Programs, GPA, NRC, and U.S.
s Executive Secretary of JCCCNRS I
EdwardShomaker,SeniorProjectManager(U.S.-SovietCooperation).
International Programs, GPA, NRC Andrew Reynolds, Peaceful Uses Agreement Executive Secretary, Office of International Research and Development Policy, DOE Interoreters Kevin Kelly Oleg Volkonsky
., - - -. ~
v
~-e--
-e e~~c w
,e-
.w-res-a w
e----e
-.,-e,w
T APPENDIX III' 0
Joint Coordinating Committee-for Civilian Nuclear Reactor Safety (JCCCNRS)-
3 October 198g Rockville, Maryland U.S.S.R. Renre.entatives JCCCNRS Co-Chairman Nikolai N. Ponomarev-Stepnoy, First Deputy Director, Kurchatov Atomic j
Energy Institute o
Committee Members l
Armen A. Abagian, Director, Nuclear Power Plant Research Institute-1 Vladimir G. Asmolov, Head of Division, Kurchatov Atomic' Energy Institute Alexander T. Gutsalov, Head of Main Scientific Department',. Nuclear
. I Safety Supervisory Committee Nikolay I. Ermakov, Head of Hain Scientific' Department, State Committee for Utilization of Atomic Energy (GKAE)
Committe'e Advisors-Leonid A. Iliyn, Director, Biophysics-Institute Yuri H. Nikitin, Head of Department, Power Energotechnology Institute Vladimir.K. Sukhoruchkin, Head of Laboratory, Kurchatov Atomic Energy i
Institute Viktor P. Tatarnikov, Chief Engineer, Atomenergoproekt Institute Valentin G. Fedorov, First Deputy General' Designer, Hydropress Design Bureau-Valeriy S. Seleznev, Expert, GKAE Sergei I. Avduyshin, Director, Applied Geophysics Institute' interoreter Alexander N. Gavrishin, Researcher, Kurchatov Atomic Energy Institute k