ML20059C718
| ML20059C718 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | FitzPatrick, 05200003  |
| Issue date: | 04/07/1993 |
| From: | Ward D Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-2847, NUDOCS 9311010278 | |
| Download: ML20059C718 (35) | |
Text
'
OMB-arq7 }
Certified Bv:
i CERTIED Date Issued: 11/16/92 D. Ward - 04/07/93 1 P D R / 0 /$ '7/ 9 3
-TABLE OF CONTENTS MINUTES OF THE 389TH ACRS MEETING :
SEPTEMBER 10-12, 1992 I. Chairman's Report ...................................... 1 II. Meeting with Thomas Murley, Director of the office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation .......................... 1 III. Policy Issues for Certification of Evolutionary and Passive Plant Designs .............................. 4 IV. Additional Policy Issues ............................... 7 V. Discussion of Implementation of the NRC Safety Goal .... 10 VI. Preparation for meeting with the Commissioners ......... 10 VII. Meeting with the Commissioners ......................... 11 VIII. Impact of the NRC Regulatory Process .................. 11 IX. Evaluation of Risk During Shutdown and Low Power Operations ............................................. 12 X. GE Generic Power Uprate Program / Fermi-2 ................ 14 XI. O th e r Ma tt e r s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 XII. ACRS Subcommittee Activities e Report of Planning and Procedures Subcommittee Meeting on September 9, 1992 ...................... 17 e Revised Subcommittee Assignments .................. 17 e NRC Staff Presentations at Committee Meetings ..... 17 e Conduct of Employees - Restriction on " Stock" Ownership ......................................... 18 e Addressees for ACRS Reports ....................... 18 e Editing ACRS Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 o Suspension of ACRS Bylaws ......................... 18 m- r r' rr rmIG; m 9311010278 PDR 930407 (O ACRS )
2847 ppg < , c u n od By . [', . --
i
\
ii :
1 XIII. Appointment of ACRS Members ........................... 18 1
XIV. Preparation of Other ACRS Reports and Memoranda ........ 19 !
XV. Reconciliation of ACRS Comments and Recommendations .... 19 XVT. Executive Session e Reports ........................................... 20 e Memorandum ........................................ 20 XVII. Summary / List of Follow-Up Matters.................... 20 XVIII. Future ACRS Activities A. Future Agenda....................................... 22 B. Futu re Subcommit t ee Ac tivit ies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Supplement - Official Use Only ISUPPLEMENT REMOVED - FOIA EI(b) (4)]
i l
111 l
APPENDICES MINUTES OF THE 389TH ACRS MEETING SEPTEMBER 10-12, 1992 I. Attendees II. Future Agenda III. Future Subcommittee Activities IV. List of Documents Provided to the Committee l
l
e -- ---
NY dCAS
. a esci p <
, Federal Register / Vol. 57 No.168 / Friday. August 28, 1992 / Notices 4ho6/Ss 39249 requestor's property, financial, or other FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
(i.e., health, safety) interest in the Cornelius Holden, M/S 10-A-19. Office Send re Istration form to: Cornelius proceeding; and the possible effect of of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Holden. M/S to A 19. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory any order that may be entered in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission . Commission. Washington. D.C. 20555.
proceeding upon the requestor's interest. Wa shington, D.C. 20555. Telephone (301) 504-1037,. [FR Doc. 92-20678 Filed 8-27-92: 8.45 ami Dated at Rockville. Maryland, this 20th day en useo cooe 7seo-et-as of August 1992. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: '
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The SALP Program is an integrated lohn W.N. Hid.ey, agency effort to collect and evaluate Advisory Committee on Reactor !
Chief fuel Cycle Safety Branch. Ds vision of available agency insights, data, and Safeguards; Meeting Agenda industriol and Medicol Nucleor Sofety. information in a structured manner to NMSS. assess and better understand licensee in accordance with the purposes of (FR Doc. 92-20677 Filed S-27-92; 8 45 am] performance, sections 29 and 182b. of the Atomic sumo cooe tem The NRC is considering making Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2039,2232b), the changes to its SALP Program.nese Advisory Committee on Reactor l changes are contained in the draft NRC Safeguards will hold a meeting on Systematic Assessment of Licensee Management Directive 8.8. " Systematic September 10-12.1992, in room P-110, Performance (SALP) Program Assessment of Licensee Perfonnance." 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Operators of commercial nuclear power Maryland. Notice of this meeting was plants, holders of construction permits, published in the Federal Register on +
Commission.
Interested State parties, and interested August 20.1992.
Action: Notice of meeting. members of the public are invited t Thursday. September to, senz sUMMARr.The Nuclear Regulatory participate in a pubhc meeting t s Jo o m.-d.35 a.m.: Opening Remoras by Commission (NRC)is announcing its discuss these and other possible ACRS Chairman IOpenkne ACRS plans to cunduct a public meeting to changes to the program. Chairman will raake opening remarks '
discuss proposed changes to its The NRC staffintends to make a brief regardmg conduct of the meeting and Systematic Assessment of Licensee presentation on the contents of the comment briefly regarding items of current '
Perfo nance (SALP) Program.The SALP Program at the meeting. However, interest.
the main focus of the meeting will be to a JS o.m.-e:Jo o.m. Meeting with Thomas purpose of the meeting is to provide a forum for obtaining input from solicit public and industry comments on E Murley. Director Office of Nuclear ;
the proposed changes.The NRC staff Reactor Regulation (OpenFThe Committee i interested members of the public on will consider comments received during will discuss items of mutual interest, :
these and other possible changes to the th a program. Proposed changes to the SALP this public meeting as well as written i"["d2"8,",sejfj p ,,, g ,
Program guidance are contair !in the comments on the proposed changes in Plant Examination for the James A.
draft of Management Direct: i 6. finalizing tts recommendations to the FitzPatrick Nuclear Plan. status of l
" Systematic Assessment of Lansee Commissicci on the SALP Program. implementation of the Regulatory impact Performance". Once approved. Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 24th day Survey, and the policy implications of the Management Directive 8.6 will replace of August.1992. NRC staff decision on the use of Bayesian the current program guidance contained for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. statistical methodology in the evaluation of in Manual Chapter 0516. " Systematic the Watts Bar nuclear plant quehty Anthooy J. Mendiola, '
Assessment of Licensee Pedormance" Section Chief, Quality Assumnce Section. * 'h"3o'",','n. 5 m.: Priorities for ACRS DATr.s:The meeting will be held on Performance and Quality Evoluotion Bmnch. Reports (OpenHne Committee will discuss '
September 29,1992, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Division of f.scensee Performance, and the pnonties for preparation of ACRS Persons planning to attend the meeting QualityEvoluotwn OfficeofNuclearReactor reports.
should submit a completed registration R'8"I*'i*"- 9 45 c.w-12 Noon: Policy issues for form (see below) by September 18,1992. Registration Form United States Nuclear Evolutionary and /bssive Plant Designs ,
Interested persons unable to attend the Regulatory Commission Systematic (OpenbThe Committee will meet with >
Asunmut of Ucenne Perfonnance representatives of the NRC staff to discuss 6 meeting may submit written comments Program Holiday Inn Crowne Plaza Hoiel pulicy issues identified by the NRC staff g by September 29.1992. September 29,1992 regardmg certification of evolutionary and e ADDAESSES:'Ihe meeting will be held at Name passive LWR nuclear plants. Representatives the Holiday Inn Crowne Plaza,1750 Title of the nuclear industry will participate, as Rockville Pike. Rockville, Md. Company / Organization appro riste.
2 P.2-2p.m: t/se of fmbobdisuc Ris A Send completed registration forms to: ##"#"" #^# # ### #" I (openHThe Committee will hear a bnefing !
Mr.
OfficeCornelius Holden,Regulatiors of Nuclear Reactor M/S 10-A-19'. by and hold discussions with representatives U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. A d d" of the NRC staff regardmg use of PRA m the Washington, DC 20555. regulatory process. Representatives of the Submit written comments to: Chief, nuclear industry will participate. as Rules and Directives Review Branch, appropriate.
Telephone Number 2 p.m-J p.n:Enrimamento/ Q.schhcotion U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Suggested Topics Related to the SAU) of Safety Crode Digital Computer Pmtectinn Washington. DC 20555* Program To De Considered for Discussior2 and Contm/ System (OpenHThe Committee A draft will hear a briefing by and hold discuss:ons 8.6 as ava, copy ilable of Marlagement for inspection and Directive with representatives of the NRC staff to copying for a fee in the NRC Public discuss the NRC research program regardmg Document Room. 21:0 L Street. NW. this matter. Representatives of the nuclear (Lower Level). Washington. DC. industry will participate. as appropnate.
4
. i
, i 39250 - Federai .egister / Vol. 57, No.168 / Friday, Au ,e st 28. 1992 / Notices 115pm-(15p m. Implementation ofNRC proposed ACRS reports regarding matters Safety Coo / Policy (Open)-The Committee considered during this meeting.
I have determined in accordance with will discuss proposed ACRS activities JJ om-JJ:45 a.m.: Appointment o/ACRS subsection 10(d) Public Law 92-463 that regarding use of the NRC Safety Goalin it is necessary to close portions of 'his umittee determinmg where unnecessary regulations Members will discuss (Open/ClosedHne the status of member C(s meeting noted above to discuss exist. appointments and qualifications of Np ry M h apph @ b 4.15 pm-6 pm Compofibility ofNRC candidates proposed for appointment to the the matters being considered m, ieoctorSofety Cools with Risk Analysis Committee, accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(c)(4) and Results Regardmg Core Melt (OpenHThe This session will be closed to discuss Committee mil discuss a report by an Ad information the release of which would information of a personal nature, the release represent a clearly unwarranted Hoc group of ACRS members. of which would represent a clearly invasion of personal privacy per 5 U.S.C.
S pm4 p m.:Prepomtion for Meetmg with unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
NRC Commissioners (Open)-The Committee 552(c)(B)'
11:45 om-12 x p.m-Subcommittee .
willdiscuss ACRS position / comments Activit/cs-(Opca/ Closed}-The Committee Further information re8ardin8 topics regardmg iteens of mutual interest. including will hear a report and recommendations of to be discussed, whether the meeting implementahon of NRC Safety Goals. Use of the ACRS planning and Procedum has been cancelled or rescheduled. the Design Acceptance Cntena, and inspections. Subcomrmttee regardmg conduct of Chairman's ruling on requests for the Tests. Analyses, and Acceptance Cnteria Committee actmties, including the opportunity to present oral statements I!TAAC)in the certdication process. status of Subcommittee's recornmendations as to the ACRS renews and recommendations and the time allotted can be obtained by qualifications of prospective candidates for a prepared telephone call to the ACRS regarding adsanced LWRs. and the impact of ACRS rnembership.
the regulatory process on reactor safety. portions of this session will be closed as Executive Director, Mr. Raymond F.
op.a4Nps: Pmposed ACRS Reports necessary to discuss information the release FraIey (telephone 301-492-8049),
(OpenHThe Committe* will discuss of which would repment a clearly between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. E.s.t.
proposed Comtnittee positions and unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Dated: August 24.1992.
recommendations regardmg matters 12:xpa-2 p.at Reconciliation of A CRS censidered dunng this session. Comments and Recommendations (OpenH khnC.W A The Comnuttee wdl discuas NRC Executave Advisory, Comnuttee Management Officer.
Fnday, September 11,1982 Director for Operations responses to ACRS [FR Doc. 92-20078 Filed 847-02: 8:45 am]
ttJo c.a-am om: Impact of the comments and recommendations. su.wo CooE Meo.aMS Regulatory Process (Open>--The Cornminee 1 p m -1:x ps: Miscellaneous (Open}-
will hold a bneling by and discussion with The Committee will complete discussion of representatives of NUMARC on the impact of matters considered during this meeting.
the regulatory process on reactor safety. administrat2ve matters regardmg Comnuttee (Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414) 10cm-JJ:x o.a: Meeting with NRC and agency activit2es and matters which Duke Power Co., et at.; Consideration Commissioners (OpenHThe Comnuttee will were not completed at previous meetings, as discuss items of mutualinterest regarding the time and avadability ofinformation permit. of issuance of Amendment to Facility NRC regulatory process and reactor safety. Operating Ucense, Proposed No 1 pm-f.xpm: Proposed ACRS Report, Procedures for the conduct of any Significant Hazards Consideration (OpenHThe Committee will discuss the participation in ACRS meetings were Determination, and Opportunity for scope and content of selected (high-pnority) ' published in the Federal Register on Hearing ACRS reports. October 1,1991 (56 FR 49800). In 1:xpm4pm:Evoluction ofRisk During accordance with these procedures, oral The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Shutdown endlow. Power Opemtion of or written statements may be presented Commission (the Commission)is Nuclear Powerplants (Open)-ne considuing issuance of an amendment Committee wul review and report on the NRC by members of the public, recordings will be permitted only during those open to Facility Operstmg License Nos. NPF-u do bo wero no t portions of the meeting when a 35 issued to the Duke Power Company, nuclear power plants. Representatives of the transcript is being kept, and questions et al. (the licensee), for operation of the nuclear industry wdl participate, as may be asked only by members of the Catawba Nuclear Station. Unit 1 located appropriate. Committee, its consultants, and staff. in York County, South Carolina.
115pm-4:15 pm CE Ceneric Power Persons desiring to make oral "Ihe proposed amendment would Upmte Pmgrom/ fermi Unite 3 Power change Technical Specification (TS)
Increase (Open/ Closed).--The Committee statements should notify the ACRS Executive Director. Mr. Raymond F. Sections 3/4.4.5 Steam Generators, and will review and report on the GE Nuclear Fraley, as far in advance as practicable 3/4.4.6 Reactor Coolant System Leakage po ed e ev as the rm so that appropriate arrangements can be along with their associated Bases to Unit 2 nuclear power plant. Representatives made to allow the necessary time during revise the repair criteria for Unit 1 of the NRC staff and the licensee wd! the meeting for such statements. Use of Steam Generators for Catawba Unit 1 participate, as appropnate. still, motion picture, and television Cycle 7 operation. The proposed change Portions of this session will be closed as cameras during this meeting may be would allow the use of an interim tube siecessary to dacuss Propnetary Information limited to selected portions of the plugging criteria, which will utilize a related to this station" (15 pm4 pme ruture Activities (OpenH meeting as determined by the Chairman. bobbin voltege-based plugging criteria.
Information regarding the time to be set The licensee is requestmg that this N'[h p[ 'E " I
- aside for this purpose may be obtained amendment be processed on an exigent Subcomrmitee regar6ng matters proposed for by a prepaid telephone call to the ACRS or,if necessary, emergency basis consideration by the fuu Comnuttee. Executive Director prior to the meeting. pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a) (5) or (6).
5 pm4 pm: Proposed ACRS Reports in view of the possibility that the The licensee states that dunng the Unit (Open)-ne Committee will discuss schedule for ACRS meetings may be 1 end of cycle 6 refuelmg outage, which proposed Cornmittee positions and is currently underway. Catawba began adjusted by the Chairman as necessary recommendations regardirg matters its inspection of Unit I steam generators.
to facilitate the conduct of the meeting, considered dunna this session.
persons planrung to attend should check The following was provided by the Saturday September 12.1992- with the ACRS Executive Directorif licensee in support of their request:
d.30 a.a-JJ om: P/eparction ofA CRS such rescheduling would result in major Bobbin coilinspections of the steam Reports (OpenHne Cot:umttee will discuss incouvenience. generator tubes were completed by August 8
, i J P "8
%'o UNITED STATES
./ ,~
y 1
n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ADVISORY COMMl1 TEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS
{ ,i g WASHIN;iTON, D. C. 20555 o,
'%* . * * $ 3 September 3, 1992 SCHEDULE AND OUTLINE FOR DISCUSSION 389TH ACRS MEETING SEPTEMBER 10-12, 1992 Thursday, Sectember 10, 1992. Room P-110, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda,
$1.r.
- 1) 8:30 -
8:35 A.M. Openina Remarks by ACRS Chairman (Open) 1.1) Opening Statement (DAW /SD)
- 2) 8:35 -
9:30 A.M. Meetina with' Thomas E. Murlev, Director, NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Reculation (Open)
TAB 2--------- (DAW /HA)-
2.1) Briefing and discussion regarding -
items of current interest, including: i e NRR action regarding the IPE for the FitzPatrick nuclear plant ;
e Status of implementation of the findings of the NRC Regulatory Impact Survey, particularly with respect to the frequency of team inspections e Planned use of PRA in the identification of systems important to safety e NRR position regarding use of Bayesian statistical method in TVA's evaluation of Watts Bar QA records -[
e others, as appropriate
- 3) 9:30 -
9:45 A.M. Preparation of ACRS ReDorts (Open) 3.1) Discuss priorities for ACRS reports to be prepared during this meeting.
(DAW /SD)
- 4) 9:45 -
12:00 Noon Poliev Issues for Certification of (10:00-10:15: Break) Evolutionary and Passive Plant Desions (Open/ Closed) 4.1) Comments by cognizant ACRS TAB 4---------- subcommittee chairman regarding the staff's position on the policy issue related to defense .
against common mode failures in >
I 1
i digital instrumentation and control systems (HWL/DC/HA) 4.2) Meeting with representatives of the NRC staff and representatives of nuclear industry, as appropriate (Note: Portions of this session may be closed as necessary to discuss Proprietary
- Information regarding this matter.)
12:00 - 1:00 P.M. LUNCH 1:00 -
2:00 P.M. Policy Issues for Certification of
- 5) Evolutionary and Passive Plant Desians (Open)
TAB 5--------- 5.1) Comments by cognizant ACRS subcommittee chairmen regarding additional items identified by the NRC staff (CJW, et al./EGI) 5.2) Meeting with representatives of the NRC staff and the nuclear industry, as appropriate 2:00 -
2:45 P.M. Comnatibility of NRC Ouantitative Safety
~) Goals with Risk Analysis Results Recardina Core Melt (Open)
TAB 6--------- 6.1) Report of ACRS Ad Hoc Group (HWL/ JEW /TSK/MDH) 2:45 -
3:00 P.M. BREAK 3:00 4:00 P.M. Imolementation of NRC' Safety Goal Policy
- 7) -
(Open) 7.1) Discuss proposed ACRS plan of action to use the NRC safety goal policy in TAB 7--------- determining where unnecessary regulations exist (DAW /MDH) 4:00 5:00 P.M. Prenaration of ACRS Reoorts (Open)
- 8) -
8.1) Discuss ACRS position, comments and recommendations regarding the policy issue on defense against common mode failures in digital instrumentation '
and control systems (HWL/DC/HA)
- 9) 5:00 -
6:00 P.M. Precaration for ACRS Meetina with NRC Commissioners (Open) 9.1) Discuss scope and nature of assignments regarding topics to be TAB 9---------
discussed with NRC Commissioners as appropriate regarding items of mutual
3 interest (DAW, et al./RFF/SD) 9.1-1) Status of Advanced Reactor Reviews e Summary report regarding advanced LWRs (GE Advanced BWR, GE Simplified BWR, Westinghouse SP-90, Westinghouse AP600, CE System 80+) (DAW) e Plans / schedule for ACRS review of the GE ABWR (CM) e ACRS comments / recommendations regarding use of DAC in the certification process (JCC) o ApRS comments / recommendations regarding use of ITAAC in the certification process (DAW /CM) 9.1-2) NRC Reculatory Process e Application of NRC Safety Goal Policy: Implementation plan and use to determine where unnecessary regulations exist (DAW) 9.1-3) Elimination of Recuirements Marcinal to Safety -
e Comments and recommendations in ACRS report dated 8/11/92 (HWL)
- 10) 6:00 -
6:30 P.M. Preparation of ACRS Reports (Open)
Proposed changes in ACRS Bylaws (DAW /RFF)
Friday. Sectember 11, 1992. Room P-110, 7920 Norfolk Avenue. Bethesda, Maryland
- 11) 8:30 -
9:30 A.M. Imoact of the NRC Reculatory Process (Open)
Briefing by and discussion with Mr. Joe F.
TAB 11---------- Colvin, NUMARC, regarding the impact of the regulatory process on reactor safety and operations (DAW /HA) 9:40 A.M. Depart for Meeting with NRC Commissioners, One White Flint North
- 12) 10:00 - 11:30 A.M. Meetine with NRC Commissioners (Open) 12.1) Discuss items noted above 11:40 A.M. Depart for Phillips Building
4 12:00 -
1:00 P.M. LUNCH
- 13) 1:00 -
30 P.M. Preparation of ACRS Reports (Open) 13.1) Discuss scope and content of ACRS reports to be completed during this meeting (DAW /SD)
- 14) 1:30 -
3:00 P.M. Evaluation of Risk Durina Shutdown and Low Power Ooerations of Nuclear Power Plants (Open) 14.1) Comments by ACRS subcommittee TAB 14--------- chairman regarding NRC staff evaluation of risks associated with shutdown and low-power operations at nuclear power plants (JCC/DC/PAB) 14.2) Meeting with representatives of the NRC staff and the nuclear industry, as appropriate 3:00 -
3:15 P.M. BREAK
- 15) 3:15 -
4:45 P.M. GE Generic Power Ucrate Procram/Enrico Fermi Nuclear Power Plant Unit 2 (Open/ Closed) 15.1) Conments by ACRS subcommittee TAB 15--------- chairman (IC/PAB) 15.2) Meeting with representatives of the NRC, GE, and the Detroit Edison Company, as appropriate (Note: Portions of this session may be closed as necessary to discuss Proprietary Information related to this matter.)
- 16) 4:45 -
5:30 P.M. Future ACRS Activities (Open) 16.1) Discuss recommendations of ACRS Planning and Procedures Subcommittee regarding items proposed for consideration by the full Committee (DAW /RPS)
- 17) 5:30 -
6:30 P.M. Preparation of ACRS Reports (Open) 17.1) Discuss proposed ACRS reports ,
regarding the policy issue on defense against common mode failures in digital instrumentation and control I systems (HWL/DC/HA) i
^
5 Saturday, September 12, 1992. Room P-110, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Mds
- 18) 8:30 - 10:30 A.M. Precaration of ACRS ReDorts (Open) 18.1) Discuss proposed ACRS reports regarding:
18.1-1) Risk during shutdown and
- low-power operations (JCC/DC/PAB) 18.1-2) Power uprate for GE BWRs/
Enrico Fermi Nuclear Plant Unit 2 (IC/PAB) 18.1-3) Defense against common mode failures in digital in-strumentation and control systems (HWL/DC) 18.1-4) Other policy issues, aus appropriate (CJW, et al./EGI) 10:30- - 10:45 A.M. BREAK
- 19) 10:45 - 11:15 A.M. ACRS Subcommittee Activity (Open/ Closed) 19.1) Report of ACRS Planning and Procedures Subcommittee meeting on 9/9/92 regarding conduct of Committee activities (DAW /RFF)
(Note: Portions of this session may be closed as necessary to discuss information the release of which would represent a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.)
- 20) 11:15 - 11:30 A.M. Appointment of ACRS Members (Open/ Closed) 20.1) Discuss status of appointment of members and qualifications of candidates proposed for consideration (DAW /MFL)
(Note: Portions of this session will be closed as necessary to discuss information the release of which would represent a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.)
- 21) 11:30 - 12:00 Noon Reconciliation of ACRS Comments and Recommendations (Open) 21.1) Discuss replies from the NRC EDO regarding NRC staff reaction to ACRS comments and recommendations (DAW, et al./SD)
t 6
r 12:15 P.M. Activities of Members (Open)
- 22) 12:00 Participation in meeting at the 22.1)
Institute for Defense Analysis regarding implications of the Chernobyl accident and related cleanup efforts (DAW) 1:30 P.M. Miscellaneous (Open)
- 23) 12:15 -
Complete discussion of items considered during this meeting and matters which were not completed at previous meetings as time and availability of information permit.
I l
l l
l l
1
l l
l M h 4 g ..
f h
~
fl 4
ca u'!.: f it MINUTES OF 389TH ACRS MEETING I b E
Qg SEPTEMBER 10-12, 1992 The 389th meeting of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards was held at Room P-110, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Md., on September 10-12, 1992. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss and take appropriate action on the items listed in the attached agenda. The entire meeting was open to public attendance, with the exception of a portion that dealt with the selection of new Committee members. There were no written statements nor requests for time to make oral statements from members of the public regarding the meeting.
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, DC 20006.)
ATTENDEES ACRS Members: D. Ward (Chairman), P. Shewmon (Vice Chairman), I.
Catton, J. Carroll, H. Lewis, W. Lindblad, C. Michelson, J. E.
Wilkins, T. Kress, and C. J. Wylie.
I. Chairman's Report (Open)
Note: Mr. R. F. Fraley was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.
Mr. D. Ward, ACRS Chairman, opened the meeting at 8:30 a.m. and mentioned the following matters:
e The agenda for this meeting, e No written statements or time to make oral requests from members of the public.
e Mr. Lindblad's appointment is considered final.
e Mr. Peter Davis is attending this meeting and is expected to be approved as a member shortly.
- Doug Coe was introduced as a new ACRS staff member.
- Mr. Leamon and Dr. Denning will be at this meeting for interviews as prorpective ACRS members.
II. Meetina with Thomas E. Murley, Director, NRC Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Reculation (Open)
Note: Mr. H. Alderman was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.
f 389th ACRS Meeting Minutes 2 Comments on the Staff's Review of the Westinchouse AP600 Desian ,
Dr. Murley, Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, noted that the Westinghouse AP600 passive plant design has been docketed and the staff has begun some limited review of it. He said the " clock" for the staff's review will not start until a complete design is submitted, including the ITAAC.
NRR Action Recardina the IPE foi the Fitzpatrick Nuclear Plant Dr. Murley discussed the NRR staff request for the NYPA to compare the IPE for Fitzpatrick Nuclear Plant with the staff's Diagnostic Evaluation. He said the IPE was a diagnostic tool for utilities.
He pointed out two significant findings from IPEs as follows:-
e The Surry IPE pointed out flooding vulnerabilities.
e The Palo Verde IPE demonstrated a potential for a fuse failure causing a loss of auxiliary feedwater.
Dr. Murley indicated that the Fitzpatrick IPE didn't adequately cover .the relationship between the human error rate and core damage .
frequency rate. The licensee's view is that the Diagnostic Evaluation Team Report results don't affect the IPE conclusions about plant risk.
Status of Imolementation of the Findinas of the NRC Reculatory Impact Survev i Dr. Murley discussed the Regulatory Impact Survey. The NRC staff interviewed representatives of 13 nuclear utilities to obtain the utility views on possible counterproductive NRC actions. Four areas were considered for improvement:
o Consideration of the cumulative effect of NRC generic requirements.
- Better scheduling and control of inspections, especially team inspecticns.
. Management expectations, training, and oversight of inspectors.
e Management control and involvement by NRC managers.
Implementarien of actions on each of these findings were discussed and actions are presently being taken to improve these areas.
Planned Use of PRA in the Identification of Systems Imoortant to Safety in the Imolementation of the Maintenance and License Renewal Rules
389th ACRS Meeting Minutes 3 Dr. Murley noted that an analysis of the use of PRA to identify systems important to safety and implications of the Maintenance and License Renewal Rules has been done. The Rules have different purposes and goals, with the Maintenance Rule being performance-based and the License Renewal Rule be Prescriptive. The Rules should be compatible but not congruent.
Mr. Cecil Thomas, Acting Director of the Division of Licensee '
Performance and Quality Evaluation in NRR, discussed the use of PRA in implementation of the Maintenance and License Renewal Rules.
He said that both Rules are silent on the use of PRA but that the Statement of Consideration (SOC) for each of the Rules indicates that PRA information should be used when available. He noted that neither the Rule nor the SOC provides for use of PRA for the inclusion or the exclusion of SSCs from the scope of the Rules.
Dr. Murley said that PRA will be used as one of the major insights in implementing both the Maintenance and the License Renewal Rules.
NRR Position Recardina the Use of the Bayesian Statistical Method in TVA's Evaluation of Watts Bar Ouality Assurance Records Dr. Murley discussed the staff's use of_ statistical methods. He assured the Committee that either Bayesian or classical statistics are acceptable.
Accident Secuence Precursor Proaram Dr. Murley discussed the results of the Accident Sequence Precursor Program (ASP). He said the staff uses probabilistic techniques to determine how close to conditional core damage the nations reactors are on an annual basis. He noted that the mean value for core damage for all operating U.S. reactors was about 0.2 per year for the years 1975 to 1978. There was a sharp drop in core melt probability after the TMI corrections were completed.
Dr. Murley indicated that the ASP has identified a significant problem at the Harris plant. Air in a minimum flow high head safety injection line has created a water hammer problem. A system failure at the plant that occurred in March 1989 may have existed for about a year in the failed mode, without correction.
Conclusions This was an information briefing. No Committee action was taken with regard to this matter.
m 389th ACRS Meeting Minutes 4 III. Policy Issues for Certification of Evolutionary and Passive Plant Desions (Open)
Note: Mr. S. Duraiswamy was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.
Defense Acainst Common Mode Failures in Dicital Instrumentation and Control Systems Dr. Lewis, Chairman of the Computers in Nuclear Plant Operations Subcommittee, introduced this topic noting that defense against common mode failures in digital I&C systems is but one subset of a class of issues which are raised by the use of these systems.
NRC Staf f Presentation, Mr. S. Newberry, Chief, I&C Systems Branch, NRR, and Mr. A. Thadani, Director, Division of Systems Technology, NRR Mr. Newberry noted that the staff views the application of digital technology to Advanced Light Water Reactors (ABWRs) as potentially having major benefits. He further noted this was the last open issue in the staff's review of the ABWR I&C design.
Several important points were made during the discussion as follows:
- The staff's greatest concern is that software logical design or programming errors could remain undetected during system developmental testing and subsequently result in a non-random common mode failure of all redundant channels simultaneously.
The staff believes it is difficult, and may be impossible, to accurately quantify the reliability (in expected failures per demand) of these systems.
- Dr. Kerr noted that no staff requirements for quantified reliability exist for current generation analog I&C systems.
Mr. Thadani agreed that previous staff considerations of reliability were mostly implicit. However, based on interaction with experts in the software field, the staff believes that software reliability cannot be measured to less than (greater reliability than) 10E-4, and the staff is not satisfied with that level of assurance.
e Dr. Lewis pointed out that failures-per-demand is not an appropriate measure of the reliability of the logic employed in a digital system which, once programmed, always responds per its design. Mr. Newberry agreed, noting that it was more appropriate to focus on the probability that a set of circumstances (input conditions) occur which are outside the
389th ACRS Meeting Minutes 5 scope of the software design, potentially causing a failure of the system to perform its safety function.
e Mr. Newberry stated that, based on discussions with international designers and regulators within aircraft and other industries, the staff is absolutely convinced that a conventional (non-software based) system is needed as a backup to the digital system.
e The staff is also looking at the sensitivity of digital systems to Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) and power supply spiking as part of an ongoing research effort.
e Responding to Mr. Carroll, Mr. Thadani agreed that implementation of the staff's proposed policy to require a non-software based backup may be considered a defacto regulation, imposing additional requirements beyond those that exist in the current NRC regulations.
e The staff noted that a 1979 methodology, still considered today to be the best available, was being employed by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory to analyze the ABWR I&C system for common mode vulnerabilities. Mr. Michelson pointed out that this methodology only considers loss of function failure modes and does not consider unwanted (spurious) function failure modes.
e The staff agreed that it's policy statement was very general and implementation of it required much discussion with the vendor applicants, principally GE. Even now, applicants do not necessarily know what design features the NRC staff will require before approving the design.
e An all-digital reactor protection and engineered safeguards system, the Eagle-21 system installed at the Zion plant, was found acceptable by the staf f because other systems and manual actions were credited for achieving safe shutdown. Mr.
Newberry indicated that this met the general intent of the proposed policy, but he noted that he stopped short of saying that it met the specifics.
Mr. Newberg pointed out the similarity between the EPRI requirements document and the staff position. He noted that ongoing dialogue with industry resulted in the staff's greater flexibility with some of the specifics of this position, such as credit for actions outside the control room, allowance for simple digital components in the backup system, and greater specificity of the functions that require backup.
389th ACRS Meeting Minutes 6 Industry Presentations Westinchouse, Ms. Andrea Sterdis, Advanced Plant Safety and Licensing, WEC Ms. Sterdis discussed the AP600 I&C system design diversity. This approach uses non-safety grade diverse actuation equipment utilizing different vendors, circuits, programming languages, programmers, operating systems, and V & V people to achieve diversity. Signal processing for instruments providing diverse reactor trip actuation and containment isolation will involve digital systems. Signal processing for instruments providing diverse operator displays have not yet been finalized pending resolution of how the display system will share input sensors with the protection system. Additionally, the design utilizes manual actuation controls hardwired directly to the component level for certain functions, such as RHR passive heat exchanger actuation.
Ms. Sterdis characterized Westinghouse's position on the NRC staff'.s proposed requirements as being in general agreement with the exception of a few minor differences, among them the degree to which~ analog equipment is required for backup displays.
ABB/CE, Mr. Ken Scarola, Manager, Advanced I & C, ABB/CE Mr. Scarola discussed ABB/CE's System 80+ I & C design diversity, which includes a backup protection system designed to provide an
" adequate" level of protection, versus an " equivalent" level to that of the primary system. In this usage, adequate means that the backup systems would be designed to meet 10 CFR 100 release limits (would limit fuel damage) generally using best estimate analysis, whereas the primary system design would be required to prevent fuel damage. Limiting fault events, such as large break LOCA, will be handled probabilistically as severe accidents and will not be incorporated into the design basis of the backup system.
Dr. Lewis questioned how many lines of code were in the protection systems, and Mr. Scarola responded by estimating roughly 16 trip functions each with approximately 20 lines of code. Dr. Lewis commented that the V & V for simple programs such as this could result in perfect software.
i Mr. Scarola offered that control systems, by nature, would be more complex. He indicated that regulations ought to limit the complexity of the protection systems, and not the control systems.
Further, he explained that the diagnostic and other features which add complexity to the protection system are segregated away from the " safety kernel" portions of the system which provide the direct logic path from sensor to reactor trip breakers.
- l e
389th ACRS Meeting Minutes 7 Westinghouse generally agrees with the NRC staff's position regarding the need for diversity, and is working to demonstrate that their design is adequate in this regard without the need for hardwired backup systems.
GE, Mr. John Chambers, ABWR Certification Program Office, GE Mr. Chambers discussed GE's ABWR I & C system design, indicating that protection functions use simple digital processing. He stressed that they view the staff's position as requiring hardwire analog backup systems, without any digitization allowed. He noted that GE views this as a new requirement beyond the current regulations and that it came up very late in the certification process.
Conclusions The Committee provided a report on this matter to Chairman Selin.
IV. Additional Policy Issues (Open)
Note: Mr. E. Igne was the Designated Federal Official for this ,
portion of the meeting.
Mr. Wylie, Chairman of the ACRS Subcommittee on Improved Light Water Reactors, noted that during a September 9, 1992 meeting of the Subcommittee, NRC staff and EPRI representative discussed the additional policy issues (grandson of SECY-90-016) applicable to passive and evolutionary LWR designs delineated in the draft Commission paper " Design Certification and Licensing Policy Issues Pertaining to Prssive and Evolutionary Advanced Light Water Reactor Designs," dated June 25, 1992. Issues B through H were discussed; Issue A was discussed during a previous session.
Issue B. Analysis of External Events Beyond the Desian Basis Mr. W. Beckner, NRR, briefly discussed this issue. He stated that the title of the issue is a misnomer. This issue addresses the evaluation of the risks of a severe accident due to external hazards, required under 10 CFR Part 52. He stated that the "beyond the design basis" is an artificial boundary for the PRA.
Mr. Beckner stated that for future plants external hazards will be treated similar to those for existing plants - use of the IPEEE program. For seismic loads the staff is requiring that a margins-type assessment based on PRA insights be performed. The main objective of this analysis is to determine if the plant systems and structures have an adequate margin beyond the design basis earthquake. The staff expects a factor of two on the margin, i.e.,
if the plant is designed for a 0.3g earthquake, the staff would expect the systems and structures to survive a 0.6g earthquake.
~ - -
- j
. l l
l 389th ACRS Meeting Minutes 8 l
Mr. Beckner stated that EPRI disagreed with the staff's position l and stated that EPRI wanted a lower factor, such as 1.5 instead of 2.0. Mr. Beckner stated that some misunderstanding occurred between the staff and EPRI on the staff's requirements.
Specifically, if the plant margin is not approximately two, a screening criteria is triggered and the plant systems / structures margin needs to be reviewed for vulnerabilities or weaknesses. Mr.
Beckner stated that a properly designed plant should easily meet this criterion.
In reply to a question by Mr. Ward, Mr. Beckner stated that if the criterion is not met a redesign would probably be needed.
Issue C. Elimination of the Operatina Basis Earthauake (OBE) from Seismic Desian Dr. Kress stated that the staff is recommending that the OBE be reduced from the current criteria of one-half the SSE to one-third the SSE. With this change the SSE - not the OBE - will govern in the design of systems and structures. The OBE level earthquake will still trigger plant inspections before plant restart. It was stated that adjustments will be made to current seismic analysis methodologies such that the use of the SSE will result in the same margins. Dr. Kress stated that this is an interim position and the staff is not asking the Commission to approve it at this time. He further stated that even though the staff is not asking for approval at this time, he recommends that the Committee agree with the staff's approach to its interim position. It was mentioned that Dr. Siess had stated that he is satisfied with what the staff has done and believes that no additional issues need to be raised.
Issue D. Multiple Steam Generator Tube Ruotures (MSGTRs)
Dr. Kress indicated that this issue is a passive plant issue that principally has to do with the AP600 design. The staff is concerned that MSGTRs could actuate the automatic depressurization system causing backflow that could flash and interfere with the actuation of the safety-check valves and the relief valves. Other concerns with MSGTRs are 1) the dilution of boron with the injected fresh water may cause reactivity excursions, and 2) MSGTRs ;
would provide a large bypass through the containment. '
l Dr. Kress stated that the staff made an estimate of the possible i frequency of multiple-tube ruptures using binomial statistics i applied to existing steam generator tube ruptures. The staff estimates the frequency of two-tube ruptures to be about 10E-4.
The staff contends that an event whose frequency of occurrence is 10E-4 must be considered as a design basis accident. The staff is considering making MSGTRs a design basis accident instead of the single tube rupture even though they have not yet been experienced in domestic plants. Dr. Kress stated that, at this time, the staff l
T 4
389th ACRS Meeting Minutes 9 is asking approval for the requirement that MSGTRs of up to five-tube ruptures be analyzed and the response, e.g., core melt frequency of the AP600 design be determined.
Issue E. PRA Beyond the Desian Basis Dr. Kress stated that, on the issue of PRA beyond the Design dasis, the staff is asking that the PRA be revised to consider significant plant modifications, operating experience and other developments affecting previous PRA insights. Dr. Kress suggested that the Committee endorse the staff's position.
Mr. Beckner noted that licensees are the major users of the PRAs ,
and should derive the most benefit. The staff uses PRAs to guide inspections. EPRI is concerned about this issue because the increased importance and usefulness of the PRAs may elevate them to regulatory stature.
Issue F. Role of Passive Plant Control Room Operator Mr. Carroll stated that no real differences exist between tha staff and EPRI on this issue except that the staff's words need to be clarified regarding the necessity of a fully functional integrated control room prototype. Mr. Carroll stated that another difference consists of the staff's concerns on the newness of the operating philosophy of passive plants as compared with existing plants. He did not feel that these philosophical differences are great and that the staff may be overreacting on this issue.
Issue G. Control Room Annunciator Reliability Mr. Carroll suggested that on the issue of Control Room Annunciator Reliability, the Committee should agree with the staff's position that the alarm system for ALWRs should meet the requirements of the EPRI Utility Requirements Document.
Issue H. Reaulatory Treatment of Nonsafety Systems Dr. Kress stated that the staff is still engaged in significant i ongoing discussions and review of the issue of Regulatory Treatment of Nonsafety Systems. This issue has to do with passive plants j that rely on active systems to reduce the challenges to the passive :
systems and to protect investments. Dr. Kress noted that this item !
will be revisited when the staff's review is completed.
ConclusioDE l l
The Committee provided a report on this matter to the Executive !
Director for Operations.
I l
389th ACRS Meeting Minutes 10 V. Implementation of NRC Safety Goal Discussions (Open)
Note: Mr. M. D. Houston was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting, ACRS Plan of Action to Provide Advice Recardina Use of the Safety Goal to Determine Where Unnecessary Reaulations Exist The consideration of unnecessary regulations was put on hold until after the Committee has discussed the revised Regulatory Analysis Guidelines.
Dealina with Uncertainty in Risk Analysis Results The Committee agreed that the safety goals should be expressed as a central value with uncertainty bounds to give a level of confidence. They further agreed that a meeting should be held involving some ACRS members and senior managers (Directors) of NRR/RES/EDO offices to develop an interpretation of the safety goals in terms of surrogates and confidence levels.
The Committee agreed with the approach that the staff was taking with this matter but expressed some concern that it might not be suitable for new plant designs.
VI. Preparation for ACRS Meetina with NRC Commissioners (Open)
Note: Mr. R. Fraley was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.
Members discussed their individual thoughts and the conclusions of l the Committee with regard to the following matters in preparation /
for the meeting with the Commission:
- Status of. ACRS review of advanced reactor designs and related matters, including:
- a. Summary report regarding advanced LWRs k
- c. Design Acceptance criteria (DAC)
- d. Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC) e Implementation of NRC Safety Goal Policy.
- Elimination of Requirements marginal to safety.
l i
4 389th ACRS Meeting Minutes 11 VII. Meetina with NRC Commissioners (Open)
The Committee met with the Commission and discussed the matters >
l_sted in Item 6 above. A Staff Requirements Memorandum from Samuel J. Chilk to the Commission was issued on September 21, 1992, noting the following:
"The Commission requested that the ACRS continue to review and comment on the development of design acceptance criteria (DAC) and inspections, tests, analysis and acceptance criteria (ITAAC) for the certified designs.
"The Commission also requested that the ACRS help establish ways of validating the orders of magnitude in PRA."
VIII. Incact of the NRC Reculatorv Process (Open)
Note: Mr. H. Alderman was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.
Mr. Colvin, President and Chief Executive Officer of NUMARC, discussed his impression of the followup on the following two major findings resulting from the Regulatory Impact Survey:
e Licensees acquiesce to NRC requests to avoid poor ratings on NRC SALP reports.
e The NRC so dominates licensee resources through its existing and changing formal and informal requirements that licensees believe that their plants, though not unsafe, would have better reliability, and may even achieve a higher degree of safety if licensees were freer to manage their own resources.
Mr. Colvin noted that the SALP ratings are subjective and that there are no clearly defined objectives or methodology to obtain a specific SALP rating. He discussed the problems associated with the lack of an appeal process for SALP rating and noted that SALP ratings provided an indicatior; of performance beyond regulatory requirements.
Mr. Colvin presented a graph of cumulative regulatory requirements, for the period from 1971 to 1991. The number of rules show a slight increase during this period. The number of reg. guides, generic letters, and bulletins, all of which are advisory, have increased tremendously. All of these have had an impact on the generation cost per Kilowatt hour. This has resulted in a number of plants becoming unecc.:r.omical to operate and being shut down.
i r
389th ACRS Meeting Minutes 12 Mr. Colvin discussed the following industry initiatives:
e An industry comprehensive analysis and evaluation of ways to reduce unnecessary expenditure of resources, e Efforts to identify those regulations'that are " marginal to safety" or present an " undue burden."
Mr. Colvin said that with regard to the feedback he has gotten most consistently that relates to ACRS is that the ACRS' views are not taken into account the way they shot ld be by the Commission and others. He noted that resident inspectors views may not be :
utill:ed since there is a feeling that their views are " tainted."
Conclusions .
This was a briefing only. No ACRS action was taken at this meeting as a result of this briefing.
IX. Evaluation of Risk Durina Shutdown and Low Power ODerations of '
Nuclear Power Plants (Open) .
Note: Mr. Paul Boehnert was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.
Ir.troduction Mr. J. Carroll, Chairman of the Plant Operations Subcommittee, introduced this topic to the Committee by noting that the Subcommittee heard staff and NUMARC presentations on September 9, 1992 and agreed that the staff is moving in the right direction with its current proposals for generic correspondence on addressing shutdown risk. He noted several questions regarding the staff's proposals which would be covered during this meeting. They included:
Proposed technical specifications for containment integrity Extent of the required fire-hazards analysis Weakness of the Regulatory Analysis Mr. Holahan noted that the draft Generic Letter being reviewed by the ACRS had not been published for public comment, nor had it received NRR Of fice concurrence, although it had been discussed j with the office Director and the EDO.
l l
r 389th ACRS Meeting Minutes 13 NRC Staff Presentation, Mr. G. Holahan, Deputy Director, Division .
of Gystems Technology, NRR Mr. Holahan outlined the staff's proposed requirements to be included in a Generic Letter being prepared for public comment. He noted that the qualitative portion of the Regulatory Analysis, ;
based on discussions with licensees, engineering analysis, and PRA's, was stronger than in many other cases, such that a good understanding was achieved of the fundamental safety issues involved. Mr. Carroll agreed that good insights were attained.
Mr. Holahan further indicated that the staff's conclusion of
" substantial additional protection" afforded by the proposed changes was based primarily on the deterministic and qualitative aspects of the Regulatory Analysis, and that the non-rigorous quantitative analysis supports that conclusion. Mr. Carroll stated that the Committee may disagree with that last point. Mr. Holahan acknowledged this comment.
Regarding the fire-hazards analysis, Mr. Holahan indicated that the existing fire-hazards analysis for power operation could be used to a great extent for the required shutdown analysis, thereby limiting the effort needed to meet the proposed requirement.
Regarding the proposed technical specification for containment integrity, Mr. Holahan noted that the staff is continuing to look at different ways to write the specification such that the desired ,
protection is achieved without unduly hindering licensee
- flexibility in conducting an outage. The ACRS comments would be incorporated into this process.
Industry Presentation, Mr. Tony Pietrangelo, NUMARC The industry is implementing a shutdown management initiative based on the guidelines provided by a NUMARC/ industry working group (NUMARC 91-06), with a target goal of implementation by the first "efueling outage after 1992. NUMARC comments on Draft NUREG 1449 are intended to recommend changes which make the NRC requirements complementary to the NUMARC and INPO guidelines which have already ;
been issued.
Specifically, NUMARC commented, that in the area of outage planning and control, Draf t NUREG 1449 duplicated 91-06. Furthermore, it is NUMARC's position that tecanical specification requirements are not needed, and instead this program should be treated as a licensee management tool. However, NUMARC believes that improvements in this area most significantly reduce shutdown risk.
l Although NUMARC agrees that a closed containment is necessary l during reduced inventory, they noted this proposed technical specification was absent from the Regulatory Analysis. In addition, the Regulatory Analysis does not justify other technical
389th ACRS Meeting Minutes 14 specification proposals such as the basis for 23 feet of water over the core, or whether requirements for increased electrical power availability would cause conflicts with requirements to overhaul emergency diesel generators during outages.
Finally, NUMARC believes that diverse mid-loop instrumentation for PWRs is not needed in view of the Generic Letter 88-17 requirements for redundant mid-loop instrumentation and all the other requirements and initiatives taken collectively.
Conclusions The Committee provided a report on this matter to the Executive Director for Operations.
X. GE Generic Power Ucrate Procram/ Fermi 2 Power Increase Recuest (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, introduced this topic to the Committee. He noted that the Subcommittee met on August Id, 1992 to review this matter.
GE has developed a generic program to support power uprates at operating BWRs. For this program, the staff has limited the power uprates to 5% of nominal. The licensee of the Fermi-2 plant (Detroit Edison Company - DECO) has submitted an application for a power increase as the lead plant in the GE uprate program. Dr.
Catton indicated that the Subcommittee had no major problems with either the GE generic uprate program or the Fermi-2 power increase request, as a 5% increase will have a negligible effect on safety.
NRC Staff Presentation Mr. B. Boger, NRR, noted that the power uprates for this program were limited to a 5% increase. Regarding review of the GE generic program, Mr. Boger characterized the review as extensive, and one that enjoyed strong NRC management support. He said that DECO's submittal in support of its power increase was thorough.
Dr. Catton, recognizing the fact that the staff has already approved the Fermi-2 power increase, asked what the staff would do if the Committee now had some problems with the increase. Mr.
Marsh said the staff would review any Committee concerns and modify their approval as necessary to satisfy these concerns.
Mr. Marsh noted receipt of a written report from ACRS Consultant N.
Zuber. He took note of Dr. Zuber's concern regarding the staff's apparent approval of a code (SHEX code), absent sufficient documentation.
389th ACRS Meeting Minutes 15 Mr. Marsh provided an overview of the power uprate process in general and the GE program in particular. In the past, uprates have been approved up to so-called " stretch power" limits. These '
reviews were of mixed depth and detail. A PWR vendor (not identified) attempted to secure NRC approval for a generic power uprate. This attempt was not successful, primarily due to problems that included a lack of adequate documentation by the vendor and a lack of NRC coordination.
GE has submitted two Licensing Topical Reports in support.of this Program: LTR-1, which contained the generic guidelines for uprate reviews, and LTR-2 which contained the generic analyses supporting the uprates. In addition to the two topicals, licensees are required to provide a plant-specific submittal for staff review.
The staff will require an extensive start-up test program, including inspection by NRR and the cognizant Regional Office.
Currently, 12 utilities comprising 20 BWR units have expressed serious interest in this Program.
In response to Dr. Catton, Mr. Marsh said he was not sure that this program could function as a template for review of power increases of > 5%.
GE and DECO PLgLelltAtigjlg Mr. G. Sozzi, GE, provided some background on the power uprate effort and addressed some technical issues regarding this program that were cited by Dr. J. Lee subsequent to the August 18th Subcommittee meeting on this matter. Key points noted by Mr. Sozzi included:
e A number of BWRs have been operated at uprated conditions both in the U.S. and abroad. In the U.S. , there are over 229 years of operating experience at uprated power. The GE generic uprate program began in 1990 with the goals of both minimizing licensing uncertainty and streamlining the approval process.
In response to questions from the Committee, Mr. Sozzi indicated that the GE NSSS is not limiting for power increases up to 120% of nominal. In response to Dr. Shewmon, Mr. Orser, DECO, indicated that uprate was not pursued until now due to l both potential warranty limits and concerns stemming from the :
ECCS hearings. !
e Regarding the impact of uprate on the core radial power distribution, GE indicated that the radial power distribution i is a little flatter, but such operation is bounded by !
experimental bases and no new phenomenon are seen. This flatter power distribution is not a constraint on any safety limits. In response to Dr. Shewmon, Mr. Sozzi said that the flattening is accomplished by driving the outer fuel bundles I a little harder. In response to Mr. Lindblad, Mr. Sozzi said l l
1
- \
~
\
l i
389th ACRS Mecting Minutes 16 that BWRs will be able to run a 24-month cycle at uprated power conditions.
e The concerns raised by Dr. Lee at the August 18th Subcommittee meeting were discussed. These concerns included the effect of uprate on thermal margin for the hot channel, the standby liquid control system and core power stability. For each of these, Mr. Sozzi j ndicated that there is no significant impact due to operation at uprated conditions.
M. Deora, DECO, provided details on the impact of the uprate on the Fermi-2 plant. He discussed the licensing approach, changes in key operating parameters, plant modifications made to accommodate operation at uprated power and the associated implementation plan.
Details on the expanded Fermi-2 start-up test program were given by Mr. P. Fessler, DECO. He said that DECO established a Dedicated Start-up Group to develop and oversee this program. A set of tests were developed that are specific to the uprate. Power increases above 95% power (the previous nominal power level) will proceed in 2% increments. In addition, review and approval by the On-Site Review Organization will be conducted prior to both exceeding 95%
power and for each subsequent 2% power increase. In response to questions from Mr. Carroll, it was noted that none of the tests associated with uprate require NRC's approval. The staff will inspect selected portions of the DECO start-up test program.
In closing remarks, Mr. Orser said that Mr. J. Zwolinski and his staff are to be commended for their review efforts; particularly noteworthy was the timely receipt of the staff's approval. Mr.
Orser indicated that DECO was able to secure 46 MWe additional generating capacity at a minimal cost which aids the industries served by the utility.
1 Conclusiong !
The Committee provided a report to Chairman Selin on this matter.
XI. Other Matters (Open) i Note: Mr. E. Igne was the Designated Federal Official for this l l
portion of the meeting.
l Dr. Shewmon reported that he had obtained additional information by l meeting with the staff and suggested that the following matters be !
dropped at this time with regard to staf f and industry briefings of the Committee:
- Reactor prensure vessel upper head cracks observed in some European nuclear power plans and whether such problems might occur in U.S. reactors.
l
l l
389th ACRS Meeting Minutes 17 l
e The NRC Augmented Inspection Team's investigation of the November 6, 1991 event that occurred at Millstone, Unit 2, involving failure of a moisture separator reheater drain line elbow. The Licensee does not agree with the AIT finding that the root cause was due to erosion / corrosion.
XII. ACRS Subcommittee Activities (Open)
Note: Mr. R. Fraley was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.
Report of ACRS Plannina and Procedures Subcommittee Meetina on September 9. 1992 The minutes of the September 9, 1992 Planning and Procedures Subcommittee meeting were discussed.-There was general agreement with the minutes of that meeting with the following comments:
Revised Subcommittee Assionments The Committee agreed to the immediate assignment of new chairman .
for the 6 Subcommittees that are needed as a result of D. Wards departure from the Committee in November 1992, as follows:
e Advanced Reactor Designs - Dr. Wilkins e Containment Systems - Dr. Catton e Decay Heat Removal Systems - Dr. Catton e Planning and Procedures - Dr. Shewmon e Plant License Renewal - Dr. Kress The Committee agreed that Mr. Lindblad would be the new Chairman for the Extreme External Phenomena and the Reliability and Quality Subcommittees.
NRC Staff Presentations at Committee Meetinos The members agreed to a guide for conduct of NRC staff presentations to the Committee that had been discussed at the Subcommittee meeting and agreed with the Subcommittees suggestion that the guide be transmitted to the staff.
Joint Subcommittee Meetino on Computers - Sectember 22, 1992 The Committee agreed that the ACRS office should make arrangements for dinner for the foreign guests after the meeting at an appropriate restaurant. It was suggested that the NRC Office of ;
International Programs would likely provide a government check for )
J
y v 389th ACRS Meeting Minutes 18 P
a sizable portion of the expense for treating the foreign guests to .
i a dinner. The members agreed to contribute to cover the remaining cost of the dinner among the entire ACRS membership.- ,
Conduct of Emolovees - Restriction on " Stock" Ownershio Dr. Lewis will draft a response to the August 31, 1992' OGC #
memorandum from T. Rothschild to R. Fraley, " Stock Ownership by' ;
ACRS/ACNW Members." This response will be. discussed by :the. ,
Committee at its October 1992 meeting, i Addressees for ACRS Reoorts !
Dr. Lewis was concerned that the' internal guide for addressees for' ACRS Reports / letters that was dated June 6, 1992, does not include provision for an ACRS report to the Commission on'those matters the Committee desires to do because of specific circumstances.
The Committee agreed to add to the guide " Items where the Committee !
decides to send a report to the commission."
Editina ACRS Reoorts The Committee amended the motion passed on August 7,1992, to111mit' staff editing of final draft reports and agreed to reinstate the past practice of staff and cognizant subcommittee chairman editing.
Susoension of ACRS Bvlaws Two alternate proposals (either unanimous or.two-thirds. vote) to i suspend the ACRS Bylaws were discussed. It was decided to vote on this matter during the October 1992 meeting.
XIII. Appointment of ACRS Members (Closed)
Note: Mr. R. Fraley was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting. '
This portion of the_ meeting is reported in a special supplement. f Election of ACRS Member-at-Larae The members agreed that an election for ACRS Member-at-Large should be scheduled during the October 1992 ACRS meeting.
389th ACRS Meeting Minutes 19 XIV. PreDaration of Other ACRS Reports and Memoranda (Open)
Note: Mr. R. Fraley was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.
In addition to those matters discussed with representatives of the staff and industry during this meeting, the members discussed and completed the following reports and memoranda:
o ProDosed Generic Letter on Analoa-To-Dioital Replacements Under 10 CFR 50.59 Rule The Committee directed Raymond F. Fraley to send a memorandum to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation as noted above.
XV, Reconciliation of ACRS Comments and Recommendations (Open)
Note: Mr. S. Duraiswamy was the Designated Federal Officia) for this portion of the meeting. -
Copies of the following Executive Director for Operations (EDO) responses to previous ACRS reports were distributed to the members at this meeting:
e EDO letter, dated August 28, 1992, responding to ACRS report dated August 14, 1992, concerning Generic Implications of the Salem ATWS Event.
o EDO letter, dat*
- September 1,1992, responding to ACRS report dated August ,, 1992, concerning the review of the EPRI Utility Requirements Document.
- EDO letter dated September 3, 1992, responding to ACRS report dated August 12, 1992, concerning the development of ITAAC for the GE ABWR design.
- EDO letter, dated September 8, 1992, responding to ACRS report dated August 12, 1992, concerning ACRS plan for reviewing the GE ABWR design.
Conclusions Due to shortage of time the responses were not discussed. The ,
members did agree to take the information, including the EDO's j responses to each of the ACRS letters mentioned above, and to call l Sam Duraiswamy, ACRS staff, with any comments that they may have concerning the responses.
l i
i'
= i
^
. l 1
l 389th ACRS Meeting Minutes 20 j XVI. Executive Session (Open)
During its 389th meeting, September 10-12, 1992, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards discussed several matters and completed the Reports and Memorandum noted.
REPORTS e Dicital Instrumentation and Control System Reliability -
(Report to Chairman Selin, dated September 16, 1992) e NRC Staf f's Proposed Resolution of Issues in its Evaluation of Shutdown and Low-Power Operations (Report to Mr. James M.
Taylor, Executive Director for Operations, dated September 15, 1992) e Draft Commission Paper. "Desian Certification and Licensina Policy Issues Pertainina to Passive and Evolutionary Advanced Licht Water Reactor Desians. " (Report to Mr. James M. Taylor, Executive Director for Operations, dated September 15, 1992) e General Electric Nuclear Enerav Power Ucrate Procram/ Fermi.
Unit 2 Power Increase Recuest (Report to Mr. James M. Taylor, Executive Director for Operations, dated September 17, 1992)
MEMORANDUM e Proposed Generic Letter on Analoc-To-Diaital Reclacements Under 10 CFR 50.59 Rule (Memorandum for Thomas E. Murley, Director of Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, from Raymond F. Fraley, Executive Director of the ACRS, dated September 17, 1992)
XVII. Summarv/ List of Follow-uo Matters e Dr. Murley will provide the Committee with a copy of the analysis the staff has performed . of the similarities and differences between the Maintenance and License Renesal Rules.
(Mr. Alderman /Igne have the follow-up on this matter.)
e Dr. Murley will provide a specific reply to the Committee's questions / concerns as to whether PRA can be used to either add or delete SSCs for consideration in the Maintenance and License Renewal Rules. (Mr. Alderman /Igne have the follow-up on this matter.)
e The Committee recommended that whenever the industry or staff plans to discuss the results of calculations performed by a computer code that the Committee has not reviewed, advance
389th ACRS Meeting Minutes 21 notice should be given and the code documentation should be made available to the Committee, if necessary, before the presentation. (Mr. Fraley has the follow-up on 'is matter.)
e The Subcommittee may wish to look into the Harris plants high head charging pump problem. (Mr. Boehnert has the follow-up on this matter.)
e Scott Newberry, NRR, will provide the Committee with the generic letter that was issued in the Federal Register, along with the comments received, concerning the review requirements for replacing analog safety systems with digital safety systems. (Mr. Alderman has the follow-up on this matter.)
e The Safety Goal Subcommittee should meet to develop suggestions to the Commission on how the Safety goal might be used to:
- a. Develop an agreement in principle on the interpretation of Safety Goals in terms of surrogates and level of confidence.
- b. Specific application of the Safety Goals to determine unnecessary regulations.
(Mr. Houston has the follow-up on this matter.)
e Mr. C. Wylie will prepare a draf t letter to the Commission /EDO for Committee consideration concerning the apparent attempt by the staff to design future plants with their line of questions regarding ITAACS. (Dr. El-Zeftawy has the follow-up on this matter.)
e Mr. Colvin, NUMARC, will provide the Committee with some utility memorandums concerning the need for simulators and the use of statistical methods for monitoring calibration of instruments in order to obtain high SALP ratings, after clearing this with industry. (Mr. Fraley has the follow-up on this matter.)
e The Planning and Procedures Subcommittee will review the present background material and look further into developing some recommendations to the staff with regard to sending draft / preliminary documents to the Public Document Room at the same time they are sent to the ACRS for review. (Mr.
Fraley has the follow-up on this matter.)
- The Committee wishes to review a draft ACRS memorandum, to be addressed to the Office of the General Counsel, during its October 1992 regarding ownership of stock by prospective ACRS ;
members. (Mr. Fraley has the follow-up on this matter.) l
)
i 389th ACRS Meeting Minutes 22 e The ACRS Office should transmit a copy of the guide for conduct of NRC staff presentations at Committee meetings to the NRC staf f. (Mr. Fraley has the follow-up on this matter.)
XVIII. Future ACRS Activities (Open)
A. Future Acenda The Committee agreed to a tantative schedule for the 390th, October 8-10, 1992 ACRS meeting as contained in Appendix II.
B. Future Subcommittee Activities A list of future ACRS Subcommittee meetings was distributed to '
the Committee members (Appendix III).
The meeting was adjourned at 1:30 p.m., Saturday, September 12, 1992.
l l
I l
4 4
APPENDIX II The Committee agreed to discuss the following during its 390th meeting, October 8-10, 1992:
A. Insichts from Common-Mode Failures -
Briefing by and discussion with representatives of the NRC staff on insights gained from an analysis of selected operating events involving common-mode f ailures. Representatives of the nuclear industry will participate, as appropriate.
B. Environmental Oualification of Safetv-Grade Dicital Comouter Protection and Control Systems - Review and comment on the NRC research effort on environmental qualification of safety grade digital computer protection and control systems. Representa-tives of the NRC staff and the nuclear industry will participate, as appropriate.
C. Use of Probabilistic Risk Assessment in the Reaulatory Procass
- Briefing by and discussion with representatives of the NRC staff regarding the use of PRA by the NRC staff in the regulatory process.
D. Yankee Rowe Nuclear Station-Reactor Pressure Vessel Embrittlement -
Briefing by and discussion with representatives of the NRC staff regarding lessons learned from the NRC staff's review of the reactor pressure vessel embrittlement issue at the Yankee Rowe Nuclear Power Station.
Representatives of the licensee will participate, as appropriate.
E. Format and Content of Desian Certification Anolications -
Review and comment on SECY-92-287, " Form and Content for a '
Design Certification Rule," for standardized nuclear power plant designs. Representatives of the NRC staff and the nuclear industry will participate, as appropriate.
F. Branch Technical Position on Eculement Oualification for License Renewal -
Review and comment on Branch Technical Position regarding qualification of electrical equipment for nuclear power plant license renewal. Representatives of the NRC staff and the nuclear industry will participate, as appropriate.
G. Human Factors Aspects of Oneratina Events - Briefing by and discussion with representatives of the NRC staff regarding the status of the NRC staff work on the use of onsite evaluation teams to analyze the human factors aspects of selected operating events.
H. Operator Trainina and Recualification -
Briefing and discussion regarding the results of the pilot simulator examination program, and proposed changes to 10 CFR Part 55 requirements for requalification examinations.
Representatives of the NRC staff and the nuclear industry will participate, as appropriate. "
1
l
/
I. Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants - Review and comment on the proposad NRC Regulatory Guide, " Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants," for implementation of the Maintenance Rule and an associated NUMARC document. Representatives of the NRC staff and the nuclear industry will participate, as appropriate.
J. Stability of Boilina Water Reactors - Review and comment on proposed resolution of core power stability issues in GE boiling water reactors. Representatives of the NRC staff and the nuclear industry will participate, as appropriate.
K. Desion Acceotance Criteria -
Review and report on Design Acceptance Criteria in the areas of man-machine interface and control and protection systems. Representatives of the NRC staff and the nuclear industry will participate, as appropriate.
L. NRC Staff Review of ITAAC for the GE ABWR - Discuss proposed ACRS report on the process for the NRC staff's review of the Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC) for the ABWR design. Representatives of the NRC staff and the nuclear industry will participate, as appropriate.
M. ACRS Activities - Discuss recommendations of the ACRS Planning and Procedures Subcommittee on matters proposed for
- consideration by the full Committee.
N. ACRS Subcommittee Activities - Discuss assigned activities of designated subcommittees including, the ACRS Planning and Procedures Subcommittee. Portions of this session will be closed as appropriate to discuss information the release of which would represent a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal property.
O. Activities of ACRS Members - Discuss related activities of ,
individual members of the Committee including, participation in meetings not sponsored by the ACRS. This session will be closed to discuss information the release of which would represent a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
P. Apoointment of Members - Discuss qualifications of candidates proposed for appointment as members of the Committee. This session will be closed to discuss information the release of which would represent a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Q. Resolution of ACRS Comments and Recommendations -
Discuss response from NRC Executive Director for Operations regarding NRC staff reaction to ACRS comments and recommendations.
R. Conduct of ACRS Business - Discuss qualifications of nominees and elect Member-at-Large to the ACRS Planning and Procedures Subcommittee. This session will be closed as appropriate to discuss information the release of which would represent a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
S. Miscellanep_qn - Discuss miscellaneous matters related to the conduct of Committee activities and complete discussion of topics that were not completed at previous sessions as time and availability of information permit.
2
.