ML20059C731
| ML20059C731 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris, LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 01/30/1993 |
| From: | Shewmon P Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-2859, NUDOCS 9311010282 | |
| Download: ML20059C731 (38) | |
Text
.,.,.
. s .-
~
. Ppe up1/es Certified Bv:
P. Shewmon - 1/30/93 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS MINUTES OF THE 391ST ACRS MEETING NOVEMBER 5-7, 1992 l I. Chairman's Report................................. 1 .
1 II. NRC Regulatory Analysis Guidelines................ 1 III. NRC Guidelines for Prioritization of Generic Issues.................................... 2 IV. Meeting with New York Power Authority............. 3 V. Risk-Based Regulation............................. 4 VI. Meeting with Director, NRC Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS).................. 7 VII. Reactor Operating Events and Occurrences e Shearon Harris Plant Loss of High Head Safety Injection............................. 10 e LaSalle Vessel Overfill Due to Failure ,
of Main Feedwater Pumps to Trip.............. 11 l e Fukushima Nuclear Plant in Japan Loss of All Main Feedwater........................ 11 VIII. Appointment of New Members e Appointment of ACRS Members.................. 12 e Proposed. Press Release....................... 12 ,
IX. Analysis of Human Factors Aspects of Operating Events.................................. 12 X. Insights from Common-Mode Failure Events.......... 16 XI. Future ACRS Activities............................ 17 >
XII. Activities of ACRS Subcommittees and Members o Planning and Procedures Subcommittee Meeting Report............................... 20' 020003 . upgrade of ACRS Conference Room.............. 20 DOICNAID caIc7 pit, 9311010282 930130 FT Nunea ny_[7sf $s$9 ACRS pg m.
g
$ i 391st ACRS Meeting Minutes 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS MINUTES OF THE 391ST ACRS MEETING NOVEMBER 5-7, 1992 e Privacy of ACRS Documents / Messages.......... 20 e Public Release of SECY Papers................ 21 e Proposed Revision of ACRS Bylaws............ 21 XIII. Reconciliation of ACRS Comments and Recommendations............................. 22 XIV. Miscellaneous e Digital Instrumentation and Control Systems...................................... 24 e Augmented Inservice Inspection Requirements................................. 24 e Amendment to 10 CFR 550.55A.................. 24 t
XV. Summary / List of Follow-up Matters................. 24 XVI. Executive Session e Reports to the Commission................... 25
- Letter...................................... 25
- Memoranda................................... 25 Supplement - Official Use Only
[ SUPPLEMENT REMOVED - FOIA EX(b) (4)]
l- . !
't 1
]
'h iii - ,
t APPENDICES MINUTES OF THE 391ST ACRS' MEETING '
NOVEMBER 5-7, 1992 I. Attendees II. Future Agenda III. Future Subcommittee Activities ,
I IV. List of Documents Provided to the Committee h
-i i
1
-i t
i h
)
.1 1
'j
4
. n l
)
l Certified Bv:
P. Shewmon - 1/30/93 l MINUTES OF 391ST ACRS MEETING NOVEMBER 5-7, 1992 The 391st meeting of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards ,
was held at Room P-110, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Md., on l November 5- 7, 1992. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss and l 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 I Committee members. There were no written statements nor requests l 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 i transcript are available for purchase from Ann Riley & Associates, '
Ltd., 1612 K Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20006.)
ATTENDEES ACRS Members: P. Shewmon (Chairman) , J. Carroll (Vice Chairman) , I.
Catton, P. Davis, H. Lewis, W. Lindblad, C. Michelson, J. E. !
Wilkins, T. Kress, and C. J. Wylle. J I. Chairman's Report (Open)
Note: Mr. S. Duraiswamy 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 I mentioned the following matters:
l e The agenda for this meeting.
- Alan Acosta is available for interviews e Dr. Vernon Hodge is finishing his rotational assignment to the ACRS staff ;
e No written statements or time to make oral requests from l members of the public. j l
II. NRC Reculatory Analysis Guidelines (Open) j j
Note: Mr. M.D. Houston was the Designated Federal Official for 'j this portion of the meeting.
I In his opening remarks, Dr. Kress indicated that the regulatory j guidelines' document (Revision 2, NUREG/BR-0058) is a policy-making - i document, and as such, is one 'of the more important issues that the l ACRS has had to consider for some time. He noted that the staff, in this document, addresses implementation of the safety goals, discount rates, averted on-site costs, and the cost value per l person-rem. All of these play an important part in the way that !
J
~
i l
v -
. J.
2 the agency carries out its function. He noted that the Safety Philosophy, Technology, and Criteria Subcommittee had held a meeting on October 28, 1992 to discuss this matter.
Staff Presentation Mr. Heltemes, RES, discussed the updated version of the Regulatory Analysis Guidelines. He indicated that the revisions were based on some nine years of experience using the existing guidance (Revision 1), changes to NRC policies and practices, input from outside reviews, and OMB guidance. He stated that the revisions were ;
necessary to ensure that the decision making process by the staff !
is systematic and disciplined and that the proposed regulatory burdens are needed and justified.
Mr. Heltemes noted in his discussion of the elements of the regulatory analysis that the assessment of risk against the safety goals is used as a screening criteria. He did not present any slides showing the relationships given in the draft report.
Mr. Heltemes summarized by noting the major differences _between this draft and the current guidance and discussed in some depth the i staff position with regard to the advantages and disadvantages of !
four principal issues, as follows: l
- 1. Voluntary actions
- 2. Discount rate
- 3. Averted on-site costs i
-l
- 4. Discounting of health effects l Note: The issue of monetary value per person-rem was also ;
discussed.
Conclusions i
. I The Committee expressed numerous concerns about the staff's I positions taken jn the document and provided a report to Mr. l Taylor, as noted in Section XVI below.
III. NRC Guidelines for Prioritization of Generic Issues (Open)
Note: Mr. M.D. Houston was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting. ,
i Dr. Kress indicated that the prioritization guidelines for generic safety issues (GSIs) fit into the regulatory analysis, as previously discussed. He noted that this matter was also discussed at the Safety' Philosophy, Technology, and Criteria Subcommittee Meeting on October 28, 1992.
'I l
t ,
. i 3
Staff Presentation
?
Mr. Minners, RES, discussed the past history and experience with regard to the prioritization of GSIs. Of the 810 issues identified since the inception of the program in 1981, 35 were characterized as HIGH-priority and 27 as MEDIUM-priority. Of these 62 issues, only 16 resulted in some regulatory action. Therefore, the staff proposes to change the prioritization formula by: (1) raising the-risk thresholds by an order of magnitude, and (2) by simplifying the way that costs are considered.
Mr. Minners presented plots of value/ impact verses change.in risk for the current and proposed priority ranking charts. Of these plots, he displayed the ranking for 6 of the resolved GSIs and showed how they would be ranked by the new criteria (two HIGHS became MEDIUMS and one MEDIUM dropped to LOW) . As such, the new scheme appeared to allow the staff to function on those issues of importance that might require regulatory action.
Conclusions The Committee expressed some concerns about the arbitrary nature of the changes to the prioritization scheme and requested the staff to consider all (16) of the resolved GSIs in their replotting- of priority boundaries. The Committee provided comments on this matter to Mr. Taylor, as noted in Section XVI'Below.
IV. Meetina with New York Power Authority (NYPA) Representatives Recardina Risk-Based Regulation (Open)
Note: Mr. M.D. Houston was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting. ,
Risked Based Regulatio_n - Mr. Herschel Specter, New York Power Authority-(NYPA)
The staff was briefed on March 10, 1992, by NUMARC and Mr. H.
Specter, NYPA, on a transition strategy to the use of risk-based regulations. On March 26, 1992, the Commission issued an SRM to the staff, requesting that by December 18, 1992, they " Provide their views on the practicality of risk-based regulations and the feasibility of developing a transition strategy from deterministic based regulations."
i The information provided by Mr. Specter was the result of his review of information provided by Dr. Vesely, Brookhaven National j Laboratory, which provides information of core melt frequency versus time that components are not available to perform their i intended function. Specter concluded that only a very small number ,
of components, 50 to 200 of the several thousand covered in the 1
maintenance program control most of the risk, e.g. at the Surry plant 99 percent of the core melt frequency.was controlled by 75
1 L : :
9 4
components, and 99.9 percent of the risk was controlled by 115 !
components. He has concluded that PRA rankings with regard to core '
melt frequency result in a very short list of components, about 1 percent. His inference is that there is presently surveillance tests on components that don't have much risk significance, but ma/
introduce problems because of human errors during surveillance '
tests that introduce spurious scrams and other problems.
The March 1992 presentation by NYPA to the Commission suggested a way to pay attention to the things that are risk significant and to redistribute resources away from things that are not risk-relevant. The NYPA has proposed a specific pilot program for the Fitzpatrick plant to transition from the present deterministic approach to one that would be a blend of deterministic and risk-based. Mr. Specter believes that risk significant components are likely to be site dependent. Mr. Specter believes that this risk-based regulation will provide plants that are safer and less expensive.
- Connection Between the Fitzpatrick IPE and the Diacnostic Evaluation - Mr. Herschel Soecter Mr. Specter noted that the NRC staff, after they conducted a-diagnostic evaluation of the Fitzpatrick plant, came to the conclusion that in a number of areas, particularly in the area of management, that the Fitzpatrick plant is deficient and should be put on a " watch list." This occurred even though the Fitzpatrick plant _IPE showed that the core melt risk was sufficiently low.
There is disagreement between the staff and NYPA concerning the management experience and the effect of human errors due to management during the period for which the data was obtained for-the IPE. The staff has indicated that the data was for a period with prior management; therefore, the human error rate with the present management is not accurate. NYPA indicated the' data came from as recent as 1986 and 1989, and later. Even so, NYPA does not feel the core melt frequency would change with later data, indicating that management had little effect on the IPEs calculated core m'elt probability.
Conclusion The committee would like to be briefed- on the startup of the Fitzpatrick plant at a future-meeting (This briefing is scheduled for the January 1993 ACRS Meeting).
V. Risk-Based Reculation (Open)
Note: Mr. M.D. Houston was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting. 4 Dr. Kress, Chairman of the Safety Philosophy and Technology
k 5
Subcommittee, said that the purpose of this briefing was .to present a draft Commission paper on risk-based regulation to the Committee for comment. This is in response to an SRM the staff got from the Commission.
Introductory Statement - Dr. T. Murley, NRR Dr. Murley in his opening statement provided some thoughts on the direction the staff should be heading with regard to risk-based '
regulation. Soon each plant in the country will have a plant-specific PRA to use as a basis for discussion of a wide variety of regulatory issues that arise on a daily basis. Primarily as a result of increasing operating and maintenance costs, the industry is searching for ways to control the regulatory-driven costs. One concept the industry seems to be favoring is the notion of using risk-based regulation to control regulatory costs. Dr. Murley stated that this could lead us into a swamp of regulation "by-the-numbers" from which we may never emerge, e.g., Yankee -Rowe experience concerning the pressure vessel risk calculations.
Having stated this caution, Dr. Murley noted that the staff supports a careful, thoughtful approach to risk-based regulation, defined as "an approach to regulation where quantitative insights derived from PRA are used to focus utility and regulatory attention on design and operational issues commensurate with their risk to the public. Examples were given in the areas of inspection and technical specifications.
Dr. Murley stated that work in this area has been undertaken by Mr.
F. Gillespie to provide guidance on where the most fruitful areas to achieve significant changes in regulatory burden can be found.
He noted that an expert consultant on Decision Theory (Dr. Rex Brown) will soon be on hand to provide guidance. Areas for early attention will focus on allowable outage time and surveillance intervals in technical specifications and reviewing the Q-list to determine what equipment may be removed or its requirements relaxed.
Processes in Risk-Based Recrulation - Mr. T. King, NRR Mr. King said that the purpose of his briefing is to inform the ACRS of the staff proposal to interact with . industry on the feasibility and practicality of further using risk information in regulation. He asked that ACRS comments be provided on the direction the staff is taking on risk-based regulation, even though ,
the draft Commission paper has not yet been approved by senior management. Mr. King said the staff was briefed on March 10, 1992, by NUMARC and Mr. H. Specter, NYPA, on a transition strategy to the use of risk-based regulations. On March 26, 1992, the Commission issued, to the staff, an SRM requesting that by December 18, 1992, they " Provide their views on the practicality of risk-based regulations and the feasibility of developing a transition strategy from deterministic based regulations."
g
', i I i
6 Mr. King then discussed what is risk-based regulation and provided ,
discussion on the staff's current consideration of risk in .I regulation. Mr. King said that risk insights are being integrated l into other regulatory actions, such as, inspections, Technical 1 Specification changes, IPE and internal staff actions !
(prioritization). Further, improvements in the development and use l of quantitative and qualitative risk information are underway in 1) regulatory analysis guidelines update, 2) low power and shutdown risk study and 3) development of tools to better incorporate risk into operational decision making, such as, optimizing outage times, maintenance programs, surveillance, etc.
Dr. Lewis expressed his concern about the tentativeness of including risk in the regulatory business. Dr. Murley, in reply to Dr. Lewis' concern, stated that there is a great deal of apprehension on the part of the staff of getting into a " numbers game;" where if a certain number is met, the issue or the regulation is satisfied. With respect to the draft of the staff's response to the Commissioner's charge, Dr. Murley stated that the draft Commission paper on risk-based regulation needs a lot more work and an improved version should be available by the end of the year. Further, Dr. Murley stated by that time it might be possible to have an open meeting with NUMARC.
Mr. King said that the industry ideas on risk-based regulation have some merit and that the staff is willing to work with the industry on these initiatives.
Dr. Lewis noted that PRA at the NRC is spreading everywhere. He asked where is the responsibility for making it all come together in a coherent way? Who has that job? Mr. King replied by saying, I think collectively we have that job. The Committee mentioned that the EDO is where it all comes together...this is where coherence should be addressed. Asked to recommend a possible solution to this concern, Dr. Lewis stated that he would 1) add statisticians to the staff and 2) have an Associate Director in charge or give the PRA working group power over all. Dr. Lewis added that consensus doesn't produce coherence.
Comments on Risk-Based Reculation - Mr. F. Gillespie Mr. Gillespie's comments focused on problem definition and the-staff's role in risk-based regulation. He discussed H. Spector's views on risk-based regulation that is based on W. Vesely's-study of core damage frequency '(CDF) vs. surveillance tests at a plant and its importance. Mr. Gillespie stated that he agrees with W.
Vesely's premise, that if surveillance tests are not performed on systems / components that contribute, say, less than 10E-9 to CDF, but perform more tests on systems / components that are of much higher risk, overall the utility will reduce costs and increase plant safety. Mr. Gillespie stated that the staff has in the past 1
. . i i T 7
provided relief by increasing the allowable outage times that may increase the risk slightly.
Mr. Gillespie stated that the staff will work with the industry on risk-based regulation, but that this work will have to compete with other safety related work the staff is performing.
Conclusion The Committee provided a report on this matter to Chairman Selin, as noted in Section XVI below. i VI. Meetina with Director. NRC Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeauards (NMSS) (Open)
Note: Mr. S. Duraiswamy was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting. ,
Mr. Robert Bernero, Director, NMSS, began his remarks with a discussion of current progress in licensing dry spent-fuel storage systems. He emphasized that dry storage of spent fuel at utility plant sites utilizes completely passive containment and cooling systems. Storage container systems are licensed by two different methods. The first is via a " direct" license, which allows a utility to directly apply for the license under 10 CFR Part 72. A storage cask vendor's topical report, which has been previously reviewed by the NRC staff, can be included in the application to expedite NRC review. The second method is " general" licensing, which can further expedite NRC review and approval, partly because no public hearing is required. The final rule authorizing the NRC '
to issue general licenses for spent fuel storage became effective in August 1990. Such a general license is issued only to power reactor licensee's for storage of spent fuel in NRC-approved casks.
~
NRC approval of these casks must be by rulemaking, and possession of the material itself is not part of the general license. Mr.
Bernero mentioned that several such general licenses already have '
been issued, including the CASTOR V-21 cask at Surry, and the NUHOMS system at H.B. Robinson. Dr. Shewmon asked if the CASTOR system would be licensed for transport purposes. Mr. Bernero stated that this was not likely.
Dr. Wilkins questioned how much wind would be required to topple a e free-standing cask. Mr. Bernero stated that this question is not-
~
part of the casks design basis,-but that it would be greater than Hurricane Andrew and that the casks are designed to provide containment and cooling of the contained spent fuel in any- ,
orientation, even if impacted by an_ airliner crash. The casks are lightly pressurized, with some being seal welded and others having double mechanical seals with a pressure monitor between seals.
Dr. Lewis asked if retrievability of disposed fuel over the next 100 years is a design consideration, taking into account the future
'. t 8
potential value of the spent fuel. Mr. Bernero replied that although final disposal regulations did not require it, it was not precluded.
Mr. Bernero noted that rulemaking packages are being prepared to amend 10 CFR Part 72 to include specific NRC approval of two different types of dry storage systems: 1) the TN-24, a conventional steel can design, and 2) the VSC-24, a concrete design. The technical details for these have been subjected to much public debate, owing to the intense competition between the two vendors. The Palisades plants next refueling will require dry storage availability due to insufficient spent fuel pool space.
Mr. Bernero noted that the Committee generally reviews rulemaking packages, and he requested that the committee expedite its decision on whether or not to review these packages. Dr. Shewmon responded that the Committee would act quickly on the staff's request for review.
Mr. Bernero stated that the transportation casks that have been certified by the NRC were the subject of a study that looked at all transportation accidents in the United States. Those accidents that resulted in extreme environments were used to postulate the '
potential impact on the transportation casks. It was found that the casks were very durable and resistant to those environments.
However, such a severe accident study has not been done for the storage casks.
Mr. Davis asked if there is any limit to how much fuel an applicant can place in dry storage on-site. Mr. Bernero answered that there was none. He went on to state that the plants being decommissioned now and in the future are not required by the NRC to include disposal of spent fuel as part of the planned decommissioning cost, i and therefore must treat it as an operational cost. However, licensees are including long term dry-storage costs in decommissioning plans being submitted to their . financial regulators, such that these costs can be included in their rate base.
Mr. Bernero noted that the Department of Energy ' (DOE) Monitored Retrievable Storage Facility (MRS) is not making good progress in finding an acceptable site; however, de facto monitored retrievable storage is taking place at a growing number of plant sites throughout the country.
Mr. Bernero next discussed the regulation of fuel cycle facilities.
The GE Wilmington potential criticality incident prompted the NRC to conduct an incident investigation that resulted in a number of lessons learned and action items. In addition, due to continuing incidents at fuel facilities, a task force was formed to reassess the entire body of NRC regulations and inspection activity concerned with fuel facilities. New methods are now being used to renew the licenses of fuel facilities, and this has upset industry ,
.s. -
_ - . ., w gp
9 B
leaders who think the NRC is acting prematurely. At the request of the Commission, the staff is conducting an impact survey similar to those done for reactor licensees. While taking these results into account, the staff is attempting to develop team inspection methods, performance indicators and periodic c /aluatiop methods for fuel facilities, and improved training for inspectors. Ultimately, the staff intends to impose some form of quality assurance requirements on fuel facilities, which currently do not fall under 10 CFR 50 Appendix B.
Mr. Lindblad asked what specific problems fuel facility licensees had with the impact of team inspections. Mr. Bernero stated that it was primarily the small size of the staff at these facilities that become so involved with supporting the team's information needs that the facility itself cannot be operated. The staff expects to decide soon on the best number and mix of inspectors for the most effective and least impacting inspection effort.
Mr. Bernero discussed the National Energy Policy Act of 1992.
Items of note included disposal of thorium waste, NRC regulation of uranium enrichment plants, use of a public dose limit instead of a release rate for the high level wa.Ste site, repeal of the NRC policy statements on "Below Regulatory Concern." He noted that the NRC regulation of uranium enrichment plants will involve NRC i certification of Paduka and Portsmouth gaseous diffusion plants, which are very different than licensing and not like any process currently performed by the NRC. The EPA will have continuing responsibility for waste disposal regulation.
Dr. Wilkins asked if the U.S. Enrichment Corporation, chartered by :
the Act, would be liable for any cost increases and decommissioning ,
associated with the enrichment plants. Mr. Bernero stated that he i believed it would, although there would be some cost sharing with DOE. Dr. Wilkins also asked if the enrichment activities were l going to be made profitable. Mr. Bernero replied that the costs )
such as for electrical power were clear, but that costs associated I with meeting EPA requirements were unclear. l Conclusion l i
This was a briefing only. No Committee action was taken at this I meeting as a result of this briefing. i VII. Reactor Operatina Events and Occurrences (Open) l Note: Mr. S. Duraiswamy was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting. ]
l Mr. Al Chaffee, Chief of the Events Assessment Branch, NRR, began j the presentation by introducing the principal speakers. for ' the i discussion on the Shearon Harris Loss of High Head Safety Injection j and the LaSalle overfill events. 1 I
J
'I
10 Shearon Harris Loss of Hich Head Safety Iniection - Mr. J. Jacobson and Mr. J. Ramsey, Special Inspections Branch, NRR Mr. Jacobson discussed the background for this event beginning with the design change made to the Chemical. Volume and Control System (CVCS) that added an alternate minimum flow recirculation path to the charging pumps to protect them from " dead heading" during certain postulated accidents when the normal minimum flowpath was isolated. The alternate system passed recirculation flow through relief valves set at 2300 psig and rated for 275 gpm. However, the normal minimum flow requirement was only about 60 gpm and this gave rise to potential valve chatter and water hammer problems. No problems were identified with the system during pre-operational testing, although the system was tested only as part of the integrated ECCS test and not tested independently. In 1991 the licensee discovered severe damage to the relief valves and cracked piping, and attributed it to water hammer due to trapped air in the piping. The damaged relief valves would have caused a significant portion of the required safety injection flow to bypass the reactor vessel, which is the safety significance of this damage. The NRC's concern heightened after the Accident Sequence Precursor (ASP) program studied this condition and gave it a 6.3E-3 core damage probability per year. The condition lasted approximately one year.
Dr. Shewmon asked why the maintenance program did not identify this condition sooner. Mr. T. Lee, Project Manager, NRR, answered that the relief valves are only tested once every 18 months, during refueling. However, the cracked weld was previously identified, but deferred until tha next refueling outage. Pre-operational testing resulted in some valve chattering problems, but this was ascribed to the abnormal position of certain test valves and apparently the problem was remedied when the test valves were restored to normal.
Mr. Michelson asked if there was a criteria for how much leakage is allowable from an engineered safety system before it is considered inoperable. Mr. Jacobsen stated that one would need to identify the cause of the leakage before operability could be assessed.
Mr. Ramsey discussed the testing that has taken place at Commanche .
Peak, Unit 2. A very similar designed alternate minimum flow l recirculation system was tested there, with no identifiable ,
problems. However, the relief valves are sized to pass only about l
60 to 90 gpm, closer to the normal minimum flow requirement.
Testing at Shearon Harris resulted in the licensee being unable to demonstrate' proper system operation even when cart was taken to vent all the air out of the system. Mr. Ramsey concluded by noting that the licensee is removing the damaged relief valves and is installing orifices sized to 60 gpm in their place. The NRC staff is continuing to follow these activities and to assess the potential generic implications.
l l
11 l LaSalle Vessel Overfill Due to Failure of Main Feedwater Pumos to Trip - Mr. R. Westberg, AIT team leader, Region II l
Mr. Westberg discussed the event and its safety significance. The LaSalle plant tripped from about 80 percent power due to a failed main turbine thrust bearing wear indicator, however following the trip the main feedwater pumps did not trip automatically as designed, and did not trip manually from the control room. The -
reactor vessel filled and began filling the main steam line before operators were able to shut main feedwater isolation valves. The safety significance of this event was primarily the potential for water hammer in the main steam lines.
k Mr. Michelson observed that the 90 second closure time for the main feedwater isolation valves did not appear to be fast enough to prevent an overfill, even though operators began closing these valves at the same time they were attempting to trip the main feedwater pumps. He stated he thought that it was part of the resolution to the (PWR) steam generator and (BWR) reactor vessel overfill Unresolved Safety Issue (USI A-47) several years ago that the response time of these isolation valves would preclude overfill with continuous feedwater flow. He asked the staff to provide a written response to this question.
Mr. Westberg noted that equipment problems occurred during the event, including inaccurate Safety Relief Valve (SRV) indications, I and two trips of the RCIC turbine due to water entrained'in the steam lines. One operator error occurred when an. operator misread control board indications and attempted to open a main steam isolation valve (MSIV), for lining up heat rejection to the main condenser, with excessive pressure differential across the valve.
The sudden steam flow caused an isolation and closure of the MSIV.
- The cause of the failure of the main feedwater pumps to trip was '
found to be contamination in the common hydraulic control oil-system. The contamination was found to be lapping compound and silk rag fibers from original construction. Routine oil samples were not abnormal and the licensee concluded that a pocket of this ,-
material had suddenly become free and had interfered with the operation of the dump valves used to trip the pumps.
Fukushima Dalichi Unit 2 Loss of All Main Feedwater - Mr. D. Coe, ACRS staff Mr. Coe gave a brief summary of the similarity between what was known about the Fukushima event and the safety - analysis of a similar BWR IV in the United States. The U.S. plant chosen for comparison was Hatch. He noted that the Fukushima event closely-
P
, .,. 1
.. =
l 12 followed the expected response shown in the Hatch safety analysis, ,
although the Hatch analysis showed earlier mitigation, which was a j less severe reactor vessel water level drop than Fukushima due to the earlier RCIC actuation setpoint at Hatch. In addition, he noted that a review of the Licensee Event Report database determined that since January 1990, two comparable events had occurred in this country. Finally, he noted that according to the Japanese, the Fukushima event stayed within the bounds of that plants safety analysis.
Mr. Davis asked if the RCIC.was considered part of the ECCS at Fukushime. Mr. Yasui of Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) answered that it was not. Mr. Michelson noted that it was considered as part of the ECCS in the Advanced BWR design.
Conclusion Discussions of the above items were for information only. No ACRS action was taken at this meeting as a result of this briefing.
VIII. Appointment of New Members (Open/ Closed)
Note: Mr. R. Fraley was the Designated Federal Official for this ;
portion of the meeting.
bopointment of ACRS Members (Closed)
This portion of the meeting is reported in a special closed meeting supplement, which is attached.
The Committee directed Mr. Fraley to send a Memorandum to Chairman Selin as noted above nominating 3 candidates for consideration.
Pronosed Press Release (Open)
The Committee directed Mr. Fraley to send a proposed press release for new members, as noted-in Section XVI below.
IX. Analysis of Human Factors Aspects of Operatina Events (Open)
Note: Mr. P. Boehnert was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.
Mr. Carroll, Chairman of the Human Factors Subcommittee, introduced this topic to - the Committee. He noted that AEOD had . been conducting a Special Study over the last 2-1/2 years that involved an examination of 16 ' events that occurred at operating nuclear power plants. The central aim of this Study was to systematically ,
analyze these events to determine if any generic conclusions can-be drawn regarding the impact of overall human performance. The
, . 1
~ '; : l l
13 Committee has twice before been updated on the progress of this I Special Study. 1 Presentation by AEOD Office Representatives In opening remarks, Mr. J. Rosenthal, AEOD, noted that the Study does not contain any conclusions, rather, a set of recommendations is provided. He said that AEOD wishes to enter into a dialogue with the Committee concerning the issues raised in the Study. Mr.
Rosenthal also noted that he understands that representatives of NUMARC will comment following the conclusion of the .AEOD presentation.
G. Lanik, AEOD, provided a presentation of the scope, content and conclusions of the Special Study. Discussing the background for the Study, it was noted that 16 events were analyzed; the events were chosen based on judgment regarding the degree of human involvement seen. Am attempt was made to synthesize potential generic findings.
In response to Mr. Davis, Mr. Lanik indicated that . AEOD, in choosing the events to analyze, did not evaluate their overall-risk-significance. In response to Mr. Carroll,. AEOD noted that' selection of events judged to warrant an AIT was minimized, so as to enhance their control of the investigation.
Important observations gleaned from the Special Study were cited under a set of headings as follows:
- Control Room Orcianization Evidence of poor task allocation was seen in some control rooms, resulting in overburdening of personnel. The
" dual-role" STA function tends to leave a crew short-handed, and can prevent the STA from functioning with
" fresh eyes". ,
,, Mr. Carroll opined that the " dual-role" STA is a= bad idea. Further, the NRC and the industry should get their
-heads together and develop guidelines as .to what <
constitutes a good organization for - the' control room personnel.
e Procedures Adherence to procedures is influenced by such factors as their accuracy, ease of use and management policy.
Policies should exist so that there is an unambiguous decision by the operating crew if they elect to deviate from EOPs. Operators are still bypassing ESFs at a rate that is of concern with regard to the impact on' plant -
risk.
,- 1 14 Mr. Carroll said that he believes an event where an operator bypasses ESF functions warrants the level of NRC staff concern evidenced by an AIT investigation. He believes this to be a serious safety culture problem and said that the staff needs to get to the root cause of such incidents. In further discussion of this item, AEOD .
noted that the B&W Owners Group has established guidance concerning the blocking / overriding of safety systems. InL response to Mr. Carroll, Mr. Trager, AEOD, indicated that he understands that such guidance is being developed by the other three vendor Owners Groups as well.
e Human-Machine Interface Control room alarms are helpful to rapidly focusing operator attention to off-normal conditions. There is a need for additional control room. instrumentation, in ,,
particular to address shutdown operations.
e Industry Initiatives Concerning industry initiatives, Mr. Lanik indicated that in response to comments received from INPO, that AEOD had been mistaken in stating that the industry does not have any programs in place to evaluate human performance.
AEOD will modify the Special Study report to _ reflect this error. Mr. Carroll said he would have found the report more useful if AEOD had provided a discussion of the usefulness of the LERs detailing the events analyzed.
Peer Review Comments During a discussion of the peer review comments received'on the report, Mr. Carroll said that AEOD should be as critical of the NRC staff Offices as it is of the industry. Mr. Rosenthal said that this issue will be the topic of an AEOD SECY paper due to be issued in December, 1992, and urged the ACRS to. pursue this matter with Mr. Jordan, the AEOD Office Director. .
AEOD sees four. topics as deserving follow-up attention: control of safety systems (defeating ESF function), shutdown instrumentation, ,
use of " dual-role" STA, and need for (comprehensive) analysis of
- human performance data.
NUMARC Presentation Messrs. R. Whitesel and R. Evans made some comments concerning the AEOD Report and ' industry initiatives in the field of human j performance / analysis. Mr. Whitesel indicated that NUMARC doesn't l see any generic lessons to be learned from'the small number of LI 1
15
. events analyzed by AEOD, except for the issue of ESP control.
Here, he noted that the B&W Owners Group has developed a set of guidelines to address blocking / overriding of ESFs, Mr. Evans discussed the particular industry initiatives that are on-going to address the evaluation of human performance in operating nuclear power plants. He cited the following items:
. Issuance of two INPO reports dealing with: analysis of significant events (for 1990), and, reduction of events through improved human performance (INPO 91-018, and 92-01, respectively).
e NSSS Owners Groups initiatives e Regional utility training organizations - meetings, workshops, information exchanges e INPO Human Performance Enhancement System o Nuclear Network Mr. Carroll asked Mr. Evans if he was aware of any industry activities to address the issue of enhancing control room organizations. Mr. Evans noted that NUMARC interacted with NRR concerning a set of questions that were posed to licensees regarding their control room staffing practices, particularly on back shifts.
NUMARC also noted the existence of a questionnaire that solicited licensee response regarding the use of the STA. Mr. Evans indicated that the results from this questionnaire show that ROs, SRos and STAS have essentially the same level of engineering expertise, thanks to the extensive training programs in place. Mr.
Carroll expressed some skepticism concerning this point.
As a result of further discussion, Mr. Carroll observed that licensees are (understandably) reluctant to admit to human error, given the adversarial regulatory climate.
Mr. Carroll indicated that the current safety challenge is to bring the performance of people up to the level of the~ plant hardware.
Mr. Lindblad suggested . that NUMARC or INPO work to ' ensure that plant management be trained to determine if, given an operating event, human performance issues were of relevance.
In closing, Mr. Ross, AEOD, noted that-the LER format does not ensure that human performance related information will-be provided.
Thus, AEOD is essentially forced to take the approach of conducting.
its own studies to obtain the information described in the above Special Study report.
16 Conclusion This was a briefing only. No Committee action was taken at this meeting as a result of this briefing.
X. Insichts from Common-Mode Failure Events (Open)
Note: Mr. E. Igne was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.
Staff Presentation Mr. S. Israel, AEOD, stated that this presentation is based on a report he completed last year on common-mode failure (AEOD Report E92-02). The study was undertaken by Mr. Israel when he noted that four of the top seven Accident Sequence Precursor (ASP) events in. -
1988 were common-mode. He defined common-mode failure events as, failure of like components in redundant trains that would essentially fail the system (failure of these components for the same cause reason). Common-mode failure is an important aspect.of uncertainty in the bottom line of PRA analyses. Recently, GI-145
" Actions to Reduce Common-Cause Failure," has been undertaken by RES.
The study was based on the 1990 LER database (46 events) and the ASP database for the years 1984-1990 (16 events). Mr. Israel stated that these total number of events (62) were reduced from the more than 200 events having actual or potential failures.
Recoverable, self-revealing, and miscalibration events were diluted. Also, no special search for external events.was made, e.g., fire, seismic, and flood.
Based on these common-mode events, Mr. Israel. discussed potential improvements covering - defenses of common-mode events. These include 1) comprehensive initial tests, 2) staggered tests performed at uni' form intervals on trains, 3) post maintenance tests, 4) diverse equipment or different manufactures, - 5) iderate the equipment to obtain additional design margin, 6) perform more frequent tests, 7) train separation and 8) split maintenance, i.e. ,_
different personnel to maintenance, on different' trains.
Matrices were then shown for improvements for EQ and train separation events, maintenance events, and design / installation events. . From these matrices, insights from common-mode failure events could be obtained and are as follows:
Staggered surveillance testing of individual trains is potentially helpful for about half of maintenance related -
LERs.
g .
17 Comprehensive initial test programs and extra' design margins are potentially helpful for most. of the design / fabrication / installation LERs.
Design / fabrication / installation topics account for about half'of the LERs.
Mr. Israel suggested the following items that may resolve common-mode failure events:
Disseminate information via Information Notices to the licensees on how to identify common-mode failures.
- Incorporate Information Notices in final resolution of GI-145.
Consider insights from this study in new plant designs.
Mr. Michelson stated that the study is not - complete, in that flooding, fires, systems interactions, etc., have not been taken into account in the study; the database is not yet complete.
Conclusion This was an information briefing only. No Committee action was' -)
taken at this meeting as a result of this briefing.
XI. Future ACRS Activities (Open) )
i Note: Mr. R. Savio was the Designated Federal Official for this ')
portion of the meeting. :l l
1 m -
,. . 3 APPENDICES MINUTES OF THE 391ST ACRS MEETING NOVEMBER 5-7, 1992 I. Attendees II. Future Agenda III. Future Subcommittee Activities IV. List of Documents Provided to the Committee i
e
.. .,s I
APPENDIX I MINUTES OF THE 391ST ACRS MEETING NOVEMBER 5-7 I November 5. 1992 Public Attendees NRC-Attendees Y. S. Kim, Halliburton NUS Enerjhi Hs, RES- '
- Eve Fotopoulos, SERCH Licensing, Bechtel J. Heltemes, RES Roger Huston, TVA Brian Richter, RES Herschel Specter, NYPA Sid Feld, RES i R. Converse, NYPA George Sege, RES j Clemant Yeh, NYPA Darrel Nash, OPP Tony Pietrangelo, NUMARC Tom King, RES Jeff Circle, EBASCO (NYPA) Gail Marcus, NRR Dennis Kelly, MITRE Corporation Brad Hardin, RES 1 Jim Raleigh, STS Helen Pastis, NRR '
N. P. Kadambi, RES M. Taylor, OEDO :
M. Malloy, NRR V. Benaroya, AE0D ,
Ron Lloyd, AE0D Nicola F. Conicella, NRR William Beckner, NRR l Lee Higgins, 0IG .)
William D. Pegg, NRR Linda Gundrum, AE0D ,
Robert J. Prato, AE00 Ron Hernan, NRR F. Young, NRR Z. Rosetoczy, RES J. F. Costello, RES q N. Tonious, RES M. Reinhart, NRR. !
-Stuart Rubin, NRC Frank Gillespie, NRC Tony Gody, NRR -j Marylee Slosson, NRR l Allen Yang, RI' '
Annette Vietti-Cook, OCM/IS i
o 1
1 l
I
~
e 'e' APPENDIX I MINUTES OF THE 391ST ACRS MEETING NOVEMBER 5-7 November 6. 1992 Public Attendees NRC Attendees Alan Beard, Halliburton NUS Maughaney, NMSS Charles Mallon, Newman & Holtzinger C. McCraken, NRR Ben A. Franklin, McGraw - Hill R. Bernero, NMSS Thomas Hicks, STS, Inc. Tom Heavey, OC D. C. McCarthy, CP&L H. Pastis, NRR ,
Talmage Clements, CP&L J. Jacobson, NRR Damien A. Lee, Newman & Holtzinger Robert Summers, Region I Hiroaki Yasui, Tokyo Electric Power Co. Tom Greene, NRR l Vince SanAngelo, Bechtel Power Co. Bob Dennig, NRR Roger Huston, TVA Mike Miller, NRC John Troltin, EPRI Rob Elliott, NRR ,
Robert C. Evans, NUMARC Rolf Westberg, Region III R. N. Whitesel, NUMARC G. Lainas, NRR Harold Blackman, INEL Tommy Le, NRR Jim Eaton, NUMARC A. Chaffee, NRR T. Koshy, NRR Arnold Lee, NRR Horace Shaw, NRR John Huang, NRR Jeff Shackelford, NRC Brian Grimes, NRR John E. Ramsey, NRR William Pegg, NRR Fred Manning, AE0D ,
Sheri Peterson,.NRR Meena Khanna, NRR Mat Taylor, OED0-Linda Gundrum, AE00 Marvin'Sykes, NRR William T. LeFave, NRR Victor Benaroya, AE0D .
Patricia.Eng, NRR Yun Chung, NRR George Lanik, AE00-Gene Trager, AE0D Samuel Lee, AE00 Jack Rosenthal, AEOD F. J.- Zarzuea, AE00 John Kauffman, AE0D Jan Stuller, AE0D Peter Babics AE00 Jose Ibarra, AE0D Frank Coffman,-RES Al Chaffee, NRR Dale. Rasmuson,- AE00 -
Brad Hardin, RES A. Szukiewicz, RES
{
I 1
, ,: ;i APPENDIX II MINUTES OF THE 391ST ACRS MEETING NOVEMBER 5-7, 1992
- The Committee agreed to discuss the following during its 392nd meeting, December 9-12, 1992:
A. Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) - Review and comment on changes proposed to the SALP program by the NRC staff in SECY-92-290 ac well as the issues and- concerns associated with the overall SALP process. Representatives of the nuclear industry aill perticipate, as appropriate.
B. Station Blackout Rule - Review and comment on the proposed final amendment to the station blackout rule (10 CFR 50.63) and the associated Regulatory Guide 1.9, Revision 3, regarding '
diesel-generator reliability. Representatives of the nuclear industry will participate, as appropriate.
C. Protection Aaainst Liahtnina and Electrical Transients for N_uclear Power Plants - Briefing by and discussion with representatives of the NRC staff regarding a petition to the NRC to amend its regulations to include lightning in the list of phenomena that a nuclear plant must safely accommodate.
Representatives of the nuclear industry will participate, as appropriate.
D. } liver Bend Nuclear Plant - Briefing by and discussion with
. representatives of the licensee regarding the reliability monitoring program implemented at the River Bend Nuclear Plant. Representatives of the NRC staff will participate, as appropriate.
E. Technical Specifications Improvement Program - Briefing by and discussion with representatives of the NRC staff on the status of the Technical Specifications Improvement Program.
F. Generic Issue 120. "Online Testability of Protection Systems," ,
- Review and comment on the NRC staff's proposed resolution of ,
this generic' issue. Representatives of the NRC staff and the' '
nuclear industry will participate, as appropriate G. Meetina with NRC Commissioners -
Discuss topics of mutual j interest, including use of digital control .and protection 'j systems, guidance.for implementation of the maintenance rule, ,
implementation.of the plant license renewal rule, and risk- .i based regulation. l H. Meetina- with the Director of the NRC -Of fice of Nuclear. l Reculatory Research (RES) - Briefing by and discussion with, the RES Director regarding the NRC safety research program and ,
budget. : Portions of this session will be closed as necessary !
.to discuss impact of the budget reduction on the continuing l and proposed research contracts. .l I. Future Aaenda - - Discuss . report of the ACRS Planning and '
Procedures Subcommittee regarding consideration of items proposed for review by the full Committee.
l 1
4'
. A.
J. Appointment of ACRS Members -
Discuss qualifications of candidates proposed for appointment as ACRS members. Portions of this session will be closed to discuss information the release of which would represent a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. _
K. Orcanizational Factors Research_ - Report by cognizant _
Subcommittee Chairman regarding the November 12, 1992 NRC Workshop on organizational factors research.
L. Election of ACRS Officers for CY 1993 - Elect Officers for thel Committee for CY 1993. Portions of this session .will be closed to discuss information the release of which -would represent a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
M. Miscellaneous - Discuss miscellaneous matters related to the conduct of Committee activities and complete discussion of topics that were not completed during previous meetings as time and availability of information permit.
APPENDIX II .
1 1
i
~j
'l i
.) ,
4 j
.I 1
APPENDIX 11I MINUTES OF THE 391ST ACRS MEETING NOVEMBER 5-6,'1992 FUTURE SUBCOMMITTEE ACTIVITIES b
48th ACNW Meetina, November 19-20, 1992, Bethesda, MD Advanced Boilina Water Reactors, November 19-20, 1992, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, MD (El-Zeftawy), 8:30 a.m., Room P-422.
The Subcommittee will continue its review.of the Final Safety Evaluation Report (FSER) for the ABWR design and any residual issues. Attendance by the following is anticipated, and reserva-tions have been made at the hotels as indicated for the nights of November 18 and 19:
Michelson HYATT Shewmon NONE Carroll HOLIDAY INN Wylie HYATT Catton HYATT Costner NONE Davis NONE :
Advanced Pressurized Water Reactors, December 8, 1992, Bethesda, MD - Postponed to February 10, 1993.
Joint Control and Electrical Power Systems /Probabilistic Risk Assessment, December 8, 1992,.7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, MD (Coe), 8:30 a.m., Room P-110. The Subcommittees will review the proposed final amendment to the Station Blackout Rule (10 CFR 50.63) and the associated Regulatory Guide 1.9, Revision.3,- =
regarding the reliability of emergency diesel generators.
Lodging will be announced later, Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Wylie Lindblad Lewis -
Michelson Carroll Wilkins ,
Davis Kerr Kress Singpurwalla 4
h i
i
. m 2
392nd ACRS Meetino, December 9-12, 1992, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, MD, Room P-110 - Agenda to be announced. ,
[ NOTE: The 392nd ACRS meeting will start on. Wednesday, December 9, 1992. Between 8:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. the Committee will review the proposed changes to the Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) program discussed in SECY-92-290 as well as issues and concerns associated with the overall SALP process.]
Plannino and Procedures, December 9, 1992, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, MD (Fraley), 3:00 p.m. - 5:30 p.m., Room P-422. The Subcommittee will discuss proposed ACRS activities and related matters. Qualifications of candidates nominated for appointment to the ACRS will also be discussed. Portions of this meeting will be closed to discuss information the release of which would represent a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Attendance by the following is anticipated, and reservations have been made at the hotels as indicated for the night of December 8:
Shewmon NONE Carroll HOLIDAY INN Wilkins HYATT ACNW Workinc Group on Performance Assessment, December 16, 1992, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, MD Room P-110.
49th ADNW Meetina, December 17-18, 1992, Bethesda, MD Control and Electrical Power Systems, January 6, 1993 CANCELED Advanced Reactor Desions, January 6, 1993, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, -
Bethesda, MD (El-Zeftawy), 8:30 a.m., Room P-110. The Subcommit-tee will discuss the key policy issues that the NRC staff has identified for the MHTGR, PIUS, PRISM, and CANDU 3 nuclear power plant designs. Lodging will be announced later. Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Wilkins Michelson Carroll Wylie Catton Kerr Kress Ward
4 i
3 Plannina and Procedures, January 6, 1993, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, MD (Fraley), 3:00 p.m. - 5:30 p.m., Room P-422. The :
Subcommittee will discuss proposed ACRS activities and related matters. Qualifications of candidates nominated for appointment to the ACRS will also be discussed. Portions of this meeting will be closed to discuss information the release of which would represent a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy..
Lodging will be announced later. Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Chairman .
Vice Chairman Member-at-Large 393rd ACRS Meetina, January 7-9, 1993, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, MD, Room P-110 - Agenda to be announced.
Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena, January 21-22, 1993, Idaho Falls, ID '
(Boehnert). The Subcommittee will discuss the programs and I activities associated with the development and use of the NRC RELAP5/ MOD 3 PWR code version. Location and lodging will be announced later. Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Catton Dhir.
Davis Schrock Kress Ward i Wilkins Wulff Zuber 4
50th ACNW Meetina, January 27-28, 1993, Bethesda, MD Advanced Pressurized Water Reactors, February 10, 1993, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, MD (Igne), 8:30 a.m., Room P-110. The Subcommittee will begin its review qf the NRC staff's Draft Safety Evaluation Report (DSER) for certification of the ABB CE Systems 80+ Design (NUREG-1462). Lodging will be announced later. Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Carroll Michelson j Catton Shewmon Davis Wylie Kress-394th ACRS Meetina, February 11-13, 1993, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, MD, Room P-110 - Agenda to be announced.
I, w* ,
, ... . y 4 l B
Sist ACNW Meetina, February 24-25, 1993, Bethesda, MD Computers in Nuclear Power Plant Operations, Date to be deter- '
mined (January / February 1993), 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, MD .
(Coe), 8:30 a.m., Room P-110. The Subcommittee will discuss current and proposed methods used to evaluate software for safety-critical applications, including the use of risk-based criteria. Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Lewis Wilkins carroll Wylie catton >
Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena, Date to be determined (2-day meet- ,
ing), (February 1993), Orecon State University, Corvallis. OR (Boehnert), 8:30 a.m., Room P-110. The Subcommittee will contin- ,
ue its review of the Westinghouse and NRC integral systems and separate effects test programs supporting the AP600 design i certification effort. Attendance by the following is anticipat-ed:
Catton Schrock Davis Ward Kress Wulff Wilkins Zuber Dhir Joint Meetina of the ACNW Working Group /ACRS Subcommittee on c
Qccupational and Environmental Protection Systems, Dated to be determined (February 1993), Dethesda, MD (Gnugnoli/Igne), 8:30 +
a.m., Room P-110. The Working Group / Subcommittee will review the following prcposed final regulatory guides implementing 10 CFR Part 20; DG-8006, " Control of Access to High and Very High Radiation Areas in Nuclear Power Plants," DG-8009 (8.9 Rev. 1),
" Interpretation of Bioassay Measurements," DG-8005, " Assessing External Radiation Doses.from Airborne Radioactive Materials."
Attendance by the following is anticipated: ,
Wilkins Moeller Carroll Steindler Kress Pomeroy Lewis Hinze 1 Wylie Shapiro Kathren 7 Foster ,
Carter t
. . t
.:V'. b 4
)
5 )
l Severe Accidents, Date to be determined (February / March 1993),
Bethesda, MD (Houston). The Subcommittee will review the techni- '
cal position on severe accident issues for future plant designs.
Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Kress Shewmon Catton Ward Davis Kerr Lindblad Lee Michelson P
Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena, Date to be determined (2-day meet-ing) (February / March 1993), San Jose, CA (Boehnert), 8:30 a.m. i The Subcommittee will continue its review of both the GE analyti- !
cal program (TRACG code) and the experimental programs supporting the certification effort for the Simplified Boiling Water Reactor design. Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Catton Dhir Davis Ward Kress Wulff Wilkins Zuber j Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena, Date to be determined Bethesda. MD (Boehnert). The Subcommittee will continue its review of the NRC staff program to address the issue of interfacing systems LOCAs.
Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Catton Dhir -
Davis Kerr !
Kress Schrock Wilkins Ward Zuber Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena, Date to be determined, Idaho Falls, -
~1D (Boehnert), 8:30 a.m. The Subcommittee'will review the status of the BWR version of the RELAPS/ MOD 3 code. Location and lodging will be announced later. Attendance:by the following is antici-pated:
Catton Schrock Davis Ward Kress Wulff -
r i
Wilkins Zuber Dhir {
06 e 4 n 1
2 6
I Decav Heat Removal Systems, Date to be determined, Bethesda. MD .l (Boehnert). The Subcommittee will review the proposed final ,
resolution of Generic Safety Issue 23, " Reactor Coolant Pump Seal Failures." Attendance by the following is anticipated: ,
Catton Michelson Davis Wylie i Lindblad Ward i Joint Core Performance / Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena, Date to be '
determined, Bethesda, MD (Boehnert). The joint Subcommittee will continue its review of the issues pertaining to BWR core power stability. Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Catton Dhir l Wilkins Kerr Davis Lee Kress Lipinski Shewmon Zuber ACNW Workina Group on Syneraistic Data Needs for Re- '
solvina Volcanic and Tectonic Concerns at Yucca Moun-tain (Date to be determined, late 1992 or early 1993), .{
Bethesda, MD l
1
-l J
i s
APPENDIX IV HINUTES OF THE 391ST ACRS MEETING NOVEMBER 5-7, 1992 LIST OF DOCUMENTS RECEIVED BY THE COMMITTEE INote: Some of the materials listed may have been nrovided for ACRS Internal Committee Use Only or may contain Proprietary Information1 ACRS MEETING NOTEBOOK NRC Regulatory Analysis Guidelines e Tentative Agenda >
e Status Report Letter to Raymond Fraley from C. J. Heltemes, dated September 11, 1992, re, The Enclosed Commission Paper, approval to publish a Federal Register Notice announcing the- availability of the draft Regulatory Analysis ,
Guidelines for public comment [ draft copy attached for Internal Use Only)
Draft NUREG/BR-0058, Revision 2, RAGS [ draft predecisional]
SECY 270, Interim Guidance on Staff Implementation of ,
the Commission's Safety Goal Policy, dated August 27, 1992 Letter for Chairman Selin from David Ward, dated December 18, 1991, re, SECY-91-270, " Interim Guidance. on Staff Implementation of the Commission's Safety Goal Policy" Letter for Chairman Selin from David Ward, dated June 12, 1992, re, Implementation of the Safety Goal Policy-FAQ Guidelines for Prioritization of Generic Issues e Tentative Agenda e Status Report Memorandum for Raymond Fraley from C. J. Heltemes, dated ,
August 5, 1992, re, Request for ACRS of Revised Guidelines for Prioritization of Generic Safety Issues Draft SECY Paper on Prioritization of GSIs [ draft predecisional]
Draft Mark-Up Copy of NUREG-0933, Revision 4 "A Prioritization of Generic Safety Issues" [ draft predecisional]
Meetina with New York Power Authority (NYPA) Representatives Recardjna Risk-Based Reaulation e Tentative Schedule e Project Status Report Letter for Raymond Fraley from Herschel Specter, dated July 31, 1992, re, Presentation during the October 8-9, 1992 Meeting [with attachments]
Slides on Risk-Based Regulation Transition Strategy used during Commission meeting on March 10, 1992 Paper on Risk-Based Regulation presented at ANS meeting, June 10, 1992 ,
'. ? *.
1 391st ACRS Meeting Minutes, Appendix IV 2 Letter for John Brons from Thomas Murley, dated February 6, 1992, re, recent Diagnostic Evaluation Team Report for the Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Individual Plant Examination Letter for Thomas Murley from Ralph Beedle, dated May 28, 1992, 're, Individual Plant Examination [with attachments]
Letter for Raymond Fraley from Herschel Specter, dated October 16, 1992, re, Upcoming November 5, 1992 ACRS meeting [with enclosed copies of draft ANS paper]
ANS Paper (January 1993), PSA, Calculus and Nuclear Regulation General Information " Shifting the Regulatory Paradigm" Risk-Based Regulatory Reauirements ;
e Tentative Schedule e Project Status Report Memorandum for Raymond Fraley from Warren Minners, dated October 16, 1992, re, Draft Commission Paper on Risk-Based Regulation [ draft copy attached for Internal use only, predecisional)
A paper on " Risk-Based Regulation and the Future of Nuclear Power," by Jack R. Newman, Esquire, dated October 20, 1992 Letter for Thomas King from Alex Marion, NUMARC dated October 22, 1992, re, Implementation of Risk-Based Regulatory Meetino with Director. NRC Office of NMSS e Agenda e Project Status Report SECY-92-337 (without enclosures) " Response to 1 Recommendations of the Materials Regulatory Review Task l Force" dated October 5, 1992 [ Internal use only] ,
DOE /OSTI 3406 (Suppl. 3) " Yucca Mountain Site )
Characterization Project Bibliography," 1990-1991, l Management Overview, June 1992 ACNW Status Report for October 20-23, 1992 - ACNW/ DOE meeting in Las Vegas regarding Yucca Mountain Site Characterization activities )
Excerpts from slide presentation to ACNW on October 21, 1992 by DOE Peactor Operatina Events and Occurrences
- Agenda e Project Status Report NRC Information Notice 92-61: Loss of High Head Safety Injection, August 20, 1992 (Shearon Harris)
Letter for R. A. Watson from Steven Varga, dated September 1, 1992, re, Special Team Inspection at Shearon !
Harris Unit 1 (Report Number 50-400/92-201) cover letter i and Executive Summary LaSalle AIT Report (Report 50-374/92-20DRS) Turbine and Reactor Trip, dated August 27, 1992 cover letter ~and Inspection Summary j
i
i.
391st ACRS Meeting Minutes, Appendix IV 3 Analysis of Human Factors Aspects of Operatina Events e Presentation Schedule e Project Status Report
- Memorandum for Jack Roe, Brian Sheron et.al, from Thomas Novak, dated August 27, 1992, re, Request for Review and Comments - Preliminary Special Study Report on Human Performance in Operating Events [AEOD/S92 Draft 2-A]
Insichts from Common-Mode Failure Events
- Tentative Schedule e Project Status Report AEOD/E92-02, Insights from Common-Mode Failure Events,"by Sanford Israel, dated June 1992 NRC Research Procram Recardina Environmental Oualification of Safety-Grade Dicital Computerized Protection and Control Systems t
- Project Status Report [ draft copy attached for internal use only)
Handout Slides from NRC Staf f presentation of October 9, 1992 ORNL Research Project Description on Qualification Methods for Advanced Digital I&C Systems ACRS MEETING HANDOUTS AGENDA DOCUMENTS ITEM NO.
2.3 NRC Reculatory Analysis Guidelines
- 1. Letter to Tom Kress from Dave Ward, dated October 31, 1992, re: Comments on 10/28/93 Meeting on the SPTC Subcommittee [ prepared for internal committee use]
5.0 Risk-Based Regulatory Reauirements
- 2. Memorandum for ACRS Members from Steve Mays, dated '
October 28, 1992, re: Risk-Based Regulation 5.1 Bjisk-Based Reaulatory Reauirements
- 3. Memorandum for ACRS Members from Dean Houston, dated November 3, 1992, re: Summary of NRC/NUMARC Meeting on Risk-Based Regulation, October 14, 1992
- 4. Note for Marylee Slosson from Michael Case, dated October 22, 1992, re: Summary of Meeting with NUMARC on Risk-Based Regulation
- 5. Letter for Thomas King from Alex Marion, NUMARC dated October 22, 1992, re: Risk-Based Regulation
- 6. Letter for Commissioner Rogers from William Rasin, NUMARC dated June 18, 1992, re: Risk-Based Regulatory Approach 7.1 Meetina with Director. NRC Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safecuards
- 7. Memorandum for Chairman and Commissioners from Dennis Rathbun, dated October 6,1992, re: Nuclear Titles of the i Conference Version of H.R. 776, National Energy Policy Act j 1
. . ?
.... : ?. ..
3'91st ACRS Meeting Minutes, Appendix IV 4 ,
8.3 Reactor Operatina Events and Occurances
- 8. Brief Comparison of the Fukushima Diichi 2 Loss of Feedwater Event with the Safety Analysis of a Similar U.S. Plant - Hatch 11.1 Analysis of Human Factors Aspects of Operatina Events
- 9. Memorandum for ACRS Members from Paul Boehnert, dated November 5, 1992, re: Comments on AEOD Report: " Human performance in Operating Events"
- 10. Letter for Edward Jordan from John Groth, INPO dated ,
October 26, 1992, re: Comments on the " Preliminary Special Study Report on Human Performance in Operating ,
Events" with Summary of INPO and. Industry Operating Experience Programs
- 11. Letter for Thomas Novak from Bindi Chexal, EPRI dated October 13, 1992, re: Preliminary Special Study Report' on t Human Performance in Operating Events, AEOD/S92-Draft 2A ,
- 12. Letter for Thomas Novak from Bruce Hallbert, IEEE dated October 20, 1992, re: Invited Peer Review of AEOD-S92 "Special Study Human Performance in Operating Events"
- Draft 2-A
- 13. Letter for Thomas Novak from T. J. Kovach, dated October-22, 1992, re: Dresden, Quad Cities, LaSalle, and Braidwood Nuclear Power Station Preliminary Special Study Report on Human Performance in Operating Events
- 14. Letter for Thomas Novak from P. M. Beard, dated October 2, 1992, re: Review and Comment on Draft " Human ,
Performance in Operating Events"
- 15. Letter for Thomas Novak from C. D. Terry, dated October 6, 1992, re: Review of Draft Report
- 16. Letter for Thomas Novak from W. G. Gates, dated October 16, 1992, re: Comments on Preliminary Special Study '
Report on Human Performance in Operating Events
- 17. Letter for Dr. Harold Blackman from Harold P. Van Cott, dated October 22, 1992, re: Draft 2-A of AEOD/S92 Report
- Special Study " Human Performance in Operating Events"
- 18. Letter for Thomas Novak from James Reason, dated October 11, 1992, re: "Special Study Human Performance in Operating Events"
- 19. Memorandum for Thomas Novak from Jack Roe, dated September 14, 1992, re: Review and Comment on a Preliminary Special Study Report on Human Performance in Operating Events
- 20. Memorandum for Thomas Novak from Stewart Ebneter, undated-. t re, Request for Review and Comments - Preliminary Special Study Report on Human Performance in Operating Events
- 21. Memorandum for Thomas Novak from A. Bert Davis, dated September 14, 1992, re: Region III Comments - Preliminary Special Study Report on Human Performance'in Operating Events-
- 22. Memorandum for Thomas Novak from Kenneth Perkins, dated September 15, 1992, re: Region V Review and Comments ,
~
e
.- , a.
1 3'91st ACRS Meeting Minutes, Appendix'IV 5
- 23. Memorandum for Thomas Novak from Brian Sheron, dated October 21, 1992, re: Review and Comments - Preliminary Special Study Report on Human Performance in Operating Events 13.1 Euture ACRS Activities
- 24. Memorandum for ACRS Members from R. P. Savio, dated i November 5, 1992, re: Future ACRS Activities - 392nd ACRS Meeting December 10-12, 1992
- 25. Memorandum for Raymond Fraley from James Blaha, dated November 2, 1992, re: Proposed Agenda Items for the ,
ACRS/ACNW
- 26. Memorandum for Raymond Fraley from Eric Beckjord, dated November 3, 1992, re: Proposed Amendment to 10CFR 50.55a that would Incorporate by Reference Subsection IWE and Subsection IWL,Section XI, Division 1,- of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code '
14.1 Activities of ACRS Subcommittee and Members
- 27. Viewgraphs regarding Information Management Systems 15.1 NRC Staff Replies to ACRS Accident Research Program
- 28. Letter for Chairman Selin from David Ward, dated August 18, 1992, re: Severe Accident Research Program Plan
- 29. Letter for David Ward from James Taylor, dated September 23, 1992,.re: Staff Response to ACRS Letter on the Severe
Accident Research Program Plan [with attachments]
- 30. Comments on Staff Response to ACRS Letter on Severe Accident Research Program
- 31. Memorandum for Dean Houston from Ivan Catton, dated November 1, 1992, re: Staff Response to ACRS Letter on Severe Accident Research 16.1 Tbermal Hydraulic Review Group - EDO Response to Commission
- 32. Memorandum for ACRS Members from P. Boehnert, dated November 4, 1992, re: Thermal Hydraulic Review Group -
EDO Response to Commission [ official.use only]
- 33. Letter for James Taylor from David Ward, dated October 14,1992, re: ACRS Recommendations Concerning NRC Thermal Hydraulic Review Group [ official use only]
- 34. Memorandum for Chairman and Commissioners, from James Taylor, dated October 26, 1992, re: Staff Requirements -
SECY-92-219 - NRC-Sponsored Confirmatory Testing of the Westinghouse AP600 Design (with attachments]
16.1 Reconciliation of ACRS Comments and Recommendations
- 35. Letter for David Ward from James Taylor, dated October.
15, 1992, re: NRC Staff's Proposed Resolution of Issues Found During Its - Evaluation of Shutdown and Low-Power Operations
- 36. Letter for James Taylor from David Ward, dated September 15, 1992, re: NRC Staff's Proposed Resolution of Issues Identified In Its Evaluation of Shutdown and Low-Power Operations :
-37. Letter for David Ward from James Taylor, dated, October 22, 1992, re: Draft Commission Paper, " Design '
Certification and Licensing Policy Issues Pertaining to
', ,'(
<o
[91st ACRS Meeting Minutes, Appendix IV 6 Passive and Evolutionary Advanced Light Water Reactor Designs"
- 38. Letter for James Taylor from David Ward, dated September 16, 1992, re: Draft Commission Paper, " Design Certification and Licensing Policy Issues Pertaining to Passive and Evolutionary Advanced Light Water Reactor Designs"
- 39. Letter for David Ward from James Taylor, dated October 29, 1992, re: Comments and Recommendations on Staff's Position for Passive Light Water Reactors Issues
- 40. Letter for James Taylor from David Ward, dated August 17, 1992, re: Issues Pertaining to Evolutionary and Passive Light Water Reactors and Their Relationship to Current Regulatory Requirements
- 41. Letter for David Ward from James Taylor, dated November 2, 1992, re: Response to October 16, 192 letter Design Acceptance Criteria for the U.S. ABWR Design
- 42. Letter for Chairman Selin from David Ward, dated October 16, 1992, re: Second Interim Report on the Use of the Design Acceptance Criteria Process in the Certification of the GE ABWR 17.1 Westinghouse Comments in Response to ACRS Letter on AP600 T/H Test Program
- 43. Memorandum for I. Catton from P. Boehnert, dated October 20, 1992, re: Comments from Westinghouse in Response to ACRF Letter on AP600 Thermal Hydraulic Test Program
- 44. Memorandum for Ivan Catton from Mark Stella, dted October 20, 1992, re: Westinghouse Responses to ACRS Comments on AP600 Certification Testing Program
- 45. Letter fer David Ward from N. J. Liparulo,WH dated October 5, 1992, re: AP600 Testing to Support Design Certification
- 46. Letter for Chairman Selin from Paul Shewmon, dated July 17, 1992, re: Integral System and Separate Effects Testing in Support of the Westinghouse AP600 Plant Design Certification L_IST OF HANDOUTS OTHER THAN ACRS .
- 47. Memorandum for Chairman and Commissioners from William Parler, dated October 26, 1992, re: Energy Policy Act of 1992
- 48. Excerpted from the Energy Daily News, dated November 5, 1992
- 49. RES Staff presentation Item #2 re: Regulatory Analysis Guidelines, dated November 5, 1992, by C. J. Heltemos
- 50. RES Staff presentation Item #3 re: Generic Issue Prioritization, dated November 5, 1992, by Warren Minners
- 51. Table 1 Item #4 re: Core Melt Frequency Risk Increase Importance, by H. Spector
- 52. Item #5 re: Risk-Based Regulation, dated November 5, 1992, by Dr. Murley
- v'i 391st ACRS Meeting Minutes, Appendix IV 7
- 53. RES Staff presentation Item #5 re: Risk-Based Regulation, i dated November 5, 1992, by Tom King
- 54. NRR Staf f presentation Item #5 re: Risk-Based Regulation, dated November 5, 1992, by Frank Gillespie
- 55. Item #7 slide re: Portsmouth Site Facts, by Bernero
- 56. Item #11 slide re: Human performance in Operating Events, dated November 6, 1992, by George Lanik, AEOD
- 57. Item #12 slide re: Connon-Mode Failure Study, dated November 6, 1992, by Sar4 ford Israel
- 58. Item #11 NUMARC handout, Industry Initiatives to Exchange Human Performance Analysis / Evaluation Results
- 59. Access to Energy, A Pro-Science, Pro-Technology, Pro-Free Enterprise Monthly Neweletter, dated November 1992, Vol.
20, #3.
L