ML20059C806
| ML20059C806 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/12/1993 |
| From: | Wilkins J Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-2880, NUDOCS 9311020022 | |
| Download: ML20059C806 (121) | |
Text
T
~
-4 aus-ugo (0c.
0,!$IR~
tw **3 t
9 Certified Bv:
U e Issued: 06/03/93 J.
Ernest Wilkins, Jr.
June 12, 1993 TABLE OF CONTENTS MINUTES OF THE 397TH ACRS MEETING May 13-15, 1993 I. Chairman's Report..................................
1 II. Evolutionary and Advanced Light Water Reactor Schedules...........................
2 III. Backfit Considerations............................
3 IV. Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA)
Working Group Activities..........................
5 V.
NRC Staff Plan for Compaiing Safety Goals with Regulations............................
5 VI. Meeting with the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation..............
6 VII. Form and Content of Combined Licenses.............
8 VIII. Meeting with the NRC Commissioners................
10 IX. Proposed Resolution of Generic Issue 105, Interfacing Systems LOCA in LWRs.............
10 X.
Subcommittee Activities 12 A.
Report on the Planning and Procedures Subcom-mittee Meeting B.
Advanced Boiling Water Reactors i
C.
Advanced Graphics in the Nuclear Power Plant Design and Review Process l
D.
Report on the Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena Subcommittee Meeting XI. Recorciliation of ACRS Comments and Recommendations.
15 XII. Election of Member-at-Large.
15 XIII. Miscellaneous.
15 A.
Quadripartite Meeting of the Advisory Commit-tees B.
ACRS Report on Implementation Guidance for the 020012 Maintenance Rule C.
Review of the Generic Issue 153 Report p
1d v u, e
9311020027 930612
{b
~
AN
$o PDR I
ad 1
e n
\\
XIV. Executive Session 17 A.
Reports and Letter e
Backfit Rule, (Report to the Honorable Ivan Selin, NRC Chairman, from Paul Shew-mon, ACRS Chairman, dated May 20, 1993)
Draft Report of the PRA Workina Group, (Report to Mr. James M. Taylor, Executive Director for Operations, from Paul Shew-men, ACRS Chairman, dated May 20, 1993) e Staff Approach for Assessina the Consis-tency of the Present Reaulations with Respect to the Commission's Safety Goals, (Report to the Honorable Ivan Selin, NRC Chairman, from Paul Shewmon, ACRS Chair-man, dated May 26, 1993)
Proposed Resolution of Generic Issue 105.
"Interfacina Systems LOCA in LWRs", (Re-port to the Mr. James M.
Taylor, Execu-tive Director for Operations, from Paul
- Shewmon, ACRS Chairman, dated May 20, 1993) e Letter to Chairman Adolph Birkhofer, German RSK, and Chairman Francois Cogn6, French GPR, dated May 25, 1993, proposing a list of five topics for the quadripar-tite meeting of the advisory committees in October 1993.
B.
Administrative Guidance for New Members C.
Future ACRS Activities APPENDICES I.
Federal Register Notice II. Meeting Schedule and Outline III. Attendees IV. Future Agenda and Subcommittee Activities V. List of Documents Provided to the Committee VI. Transcript of Meeting with NRC Commissioners
w t
t k
f e
]
l71 j'! "
j dU ij f'3 [
Certified Bv:
h I
U
~
J.
Ernest Wilkins, Jr.
June 12, 1993 MINUTES OF THE 397TH MEETING OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS MAY 13-15, 1993 BETHESDA, MARYLAND The 397th meeting of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards was held at Room P-110, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland, on May 13-15, 1993.
The purpose of this meeting was to discuss and take appropriate action on the items listed in the attached agenda.
The meeting was open to public attendance, except for a portion j
that dealt with the election of a new Committee Officer and'other matters of a personal nature. There were no written statements nor requests for time to make ora 1 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 at the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C.
[ Copies of the transcript are available for purchase from Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd., 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20006.]
ATTENDEES ACRS Members: Dr. Paul Shewmon (Chairman), Dr.
J.
Ernest Wilkins, Jr. (Vice Chairman), Mr. James Carroll (Member at Large), Dr. Ivan Catton, Mr. Peter Davis, Dr. Thomas Kress, Dr. Harold Lewis, Mr.
William Lindblad, Mr. Carlyle Michelson, Dr. Robert Seale, and Mr.
Charles Wylie.
[For a list of other attendees, see Appendix III.)
I.
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT (Open)
[ Note:
Mr. Sam Duraiswamy was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.]
Dr. Paul Shewmon, Committee Chairman, opened the meeting at 8:30 a.m.
and briefly - reviewed the schedule for the meeting.
Dr.
Shewmon identified a number of items that he believed to be of interest to the Committee, including:
e Mr. Howard Larson, ACNW staff, received a meritorious service award for his outstanding service to the Advisory i
Committee on Nuclear Waste.
Mr. Stuart Long, ACRS Fellow, will be leaving on May 21, i
1993.
Commissioner James R. Curtiss will not seek a reappoint-e ment.
His term of office ends in June 1993.
j
1 i
t
?
397th ACRS Meeting 2
May 13-15, 1993 II.
EVOLUTIONARY AND ADVANCED LIGHT WATER REACTOR SCHEDULES (Open)
[ Note:
Dr. Medhat El-Zeftawy was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.]
Mr. Thomas Kenyon, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR),
stated that the staff has issued SECY-93-097, " Integrated Review i
Schedules for the Evolutionary and Advanced Light Water Reactor Projects."
The purpose of this SECY is to provide the Comm:..ssion with the staff's revised estimates of the integrated schedules for completing its reviews of the Evolutionary and Advanced LWRs, including the Electric Power Research Institute's.(EPRI) Utility i
Requirements Document (URD) for the passive designs.
The subject SECY also outlines the process and assumptions that the staff used in establishing its schedules for completing its reviews.
In SECY-91-161, " Schedules for the Advanced Reactor Reviews and Regulatory Guidance Revisions," dated May 31, 1991, the staff submitted its estimated schedules.
Since then, the staff encoun-tered difficulties in resolving first-of-a-kind issues and identified a large number of open items that are not yet resolved.
In addition, the staf f has not received timely, high-quality design information from General Electric for the Advanced Boiling Water Reactor design.
Major topics such as the inspection, testing, analysis, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC) and the design acceptance criteria (DAC) still remain to be resolved.
On February 18, 1993, the staff issued SECY-93-041,
" Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) Review Schedule."
In this SECY, the staff submitted a proposed timeline for its review of the ABWR indicating the duration between significant milestones leading to the notice of design certification rulemaking for the ABWR.
The timeline was based on milestones unique to that review because the design certification application is the first to be reviewed under 10 CFR Part 52.
In the subject SECY-93-097, the staff is proposing the following aggressive schedules:
Proiect Comoletion date for FSER EPRI's Passive URD November 1993 GE/ABWR March 1994 CE/ System'80+
June 1994 W/AP-600 November 1995 GE/SBWR March 1996 Mr. Kenyon stated that the applicants must provide timely, high-quality information in the SSAR and the ITAAC document to achieve
i i
397th ACRS Meeting 3
May 13-15, 1993 the above schedules.
In addition, reviews of the FSER by ACRS and OGC will have to be completed in an expedited fashion.
The staff believes that this can be accomplished because of the extensive reviews and interactions resulting from the issuance of the ABWR draft FSER.
The Committee members commented that the proposed schedules are achievable if the submittals will be in final and appropriate form.
Mr. Carroll suggested that the NRC staff and representatives of Combustion Engineering (CE) and Westinghouse rethink the electrical system design for System 80+ and AP-600 designs in light of the lessons learned from the impact of hurricane Andrew on the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant.
The staff agreed to follow-up on this matter.
III. BACKFIT CONSIDERATIONS (Open)
[ Note:
Mr. Elpidio Igne was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.]
Dr. Harold Lewis stated that the issue is whether the backfit provisions of 10 CFR 50.109 should be revised to address the difficulties encountered in situations where a seemingly worthwhile change to the regulations cannot be adopted because of difficulties in demonstrating that the change represents a " substantial increase in the overall protection of the public health and the safety or i
the common efense and security" as required by 10 CFR 50.109.
Presentation by the Office of Nuclear Reculatorv Research (RES) i Staff Mr.
Clemens Heltemes, Deputy Director for Generic Issues and Rulemaking, RES, stated that the purpose of SECY-93-686, "Backfit Consideration," is to respond to the Commission's request and to present options that define a process by which the Commission j
decides whether new requirements should be imposed on existing nuclear power reactors.
The problems that these options. address are safety enhancement types of backfit or rulemakings where two criterion must be met in order for the backfit or rulemaking to be justified.
The two criterion are 1) to demonstrate substantial increase in overall protection of public health and safety, and 2) to justify the cost of implementation by the benefits that will accrue from the rulemaking.
SECY-93-086 addresses concerns with the first criterion.
Mr. Heltemes cited examples in Appendix J related to testing of containments and in the implementation of Part 20 related to radiation protection.
In the first example, rulemaking endorses a new industry code / standard for the testing of containments in order
t i
l 397th ACRS Meeting 4
May 13-15, 1993 I
to give the licensees increased flexibility to have clear require-ments to provide interpretations of previous problems -- that is, the rule itself was safety-neutral but the economic benefits could be substantial.
In the second example, Part 20 rulemaking was designed to codify the existing regulations by conforming with the presidential guidelines on radiation protection and to implement ICRP guidance as stated in ICRP Publication 26.
In this case, the rulemaking establishes new revised dose limits for the public at an implementation cost that exceeds the benefits.
Mr.
Heltemes i
discussed other non-design cases that provided difficulty in justifying rulemaking, for example, fitness-for-duty and access i
authorization.
Mr. Heltemes stated that the Commission returned the rulemaking i
packages for fitness-for-duty and Appendix J to the staff because' they did not meet the acceptance criteria of the Backfit Rule. The staff was directed to review NRC experience in implementing the Backfit Rule and develop recommendations to address any difficul-ties encountered.
In SECY-93-086, dated April 1, 1993, the staff presented four backfit options for implementation and recommended the use of Option 3 that clarifies, through a policy statement, that the Commission can and intends to use the current provisions of 10 CFR 50.12(a) to exempt a particular rulemaking action from the Backfit Rule af ter determining that the benefits are worthwhile and justified, although the Backfit Rules' safety enhancement criterion is not satisfied.
Mr. Heltemes discussed the advantages and disadvantages of the four options.
Mr. Heltemes stated that the OGC staff preferred other options that will amend the regula-tion to cover the objective.
Presentation by the Office of the General Council Staff
.i Mr. Martin Malsch, OGC, stated that this concern is more legal policy than law.
The OGC staff does not believe. that Option 3 will be workable.
Mr. Malsch observed that previous experience suggests that rules which are candidates for exemptions will be dif ficult to distinguish from other rules to which the Backfit Rule will still apply, and yet such distinctions will be necessary to avoid the exercise of exemption power from appearing arbitrary. Moreover, it 1
is the judgment of the OGC staff that an exemption-by-exemption i
approach is not a sound regulatory approach to achieve a regulatory policy objective that is inconsistent with an existing regulation.
The regulation should be changed to cover the objective.
In reply to a Member's question, Mr. Malsch stated that the Backfit Rule only applies to the imposition of additional requirements and not to the reduction of requirements.
Conclusion The Committee prepared and issued a report on this matter to Chairman Selin.
TM--
g---
7
,m,
-m.-
t-M*P-.M*F T
i 5
397th ACRS Meeting 5
May 13-15, 1993 IV.
PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT (PRA) WORKING GROUP ACTIVITIES (Open)
[ Note:
Mr. Dean Houston was the Designated Federal Official for
.this portion of the meeting.]
Dr. Lewis, Chairman of the Probabilistic Risk Assessment Subcommit-tee, noted that the NRC staff had provided a draft report that documented the activities of the PRA Working Group during the last year and provided recommendations to the staff on the use of PRA.
He further noted that the PRA Subcommittee had met on May 11, 1993, to discuss this matter, with seven ACRS members and three consul-tants present.
Mr.
Mark Cunningham, RES, presented an overview of the draft report.
He discussed the objectives and scope of the PRA Working Group and results of a study regarding the characteristics of current staff uses of PRA.
He noted the recommendations in general and specific areas regarding use guidance, PRA skills, training and methodology.
Under future plans, he listed the following:
Test and update generic issue guidance Workshops on terms and methods e
Job and task analyses for generic issue prioritization e
Guidance for adapting PRAs e
e Procedure for Level 1 to Level 3 transformations.
He concluded with a discussion of recommendations in the following areas:
(1) single summary
- document, (2) additional guidance development, (3) training and recruitment, and (4) methods.
Conclusions The Committee offered comments and expressed concerns about the activities of the PRA Working Group in a report to James M. Taylor, Executive Director for Operations.
V.
NRC STAFF PLAN FOR COMPARING SAFETY GOALS WITH REGULATIONS (Open)
(Note:
Mr. Dean Houston was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.]
Dr.
- Kress, Chairman of the Safety Philosophy, Technology and Criteria Subcommittee, introduced this topic and noted that the Committee had requested a comparison of the body of current m
i 6
397th ACRS Meeting 6
May 13-15, 1993 regulations against the safety goals in a number of reports regarding the implementation of the Safety Goal Policy.
He indicated that the staff had provided a draft SECY paper that presented background and recommendations on the staff's approach to this comparative study.
l Mr.. Brad Hardin, RES, discussed the staff's approach given in the draft SECY for assessing the consistency of the present regulations with respect to the safety goals.
As background, he identified two papers (SECY-89-102 and SECY-90-104) and two staff requirement memoranda (SRMs) regarding this issue.
He discussed the various approaches that had been considered. These approaches were as follows:
Use of upgraded IPE data e
Use of PPA models to do detailed sensitivity studies o
Evaluation as a part of existing programs:
e
- Elimination of requirements marginal to safety
- IPE/IPEEE data base insights
- Other ongoing staff activities, such as the Regulatory Review Group He discussed the particulars of these approaches and concluded with a recommendation that the NRC staff adopt the third approach. This would utilize the results from the major ongoing and complementary programs to develop insights into the effectiveness of the regulations with respect to the safety goals.
Conclusions The Committee issued a report to Chairman Selin agreeing that the present programs can provide input into the subject program but observing that of themselves, these inputs cannot carry out the assessment requested.
The Committee recommended that a directed effort be undertaken to make this assessment.
VI.
MEETING WITH THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION (Open)
(Note:
Mr. Herman Alderman was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.]
Dr. Thomas Murley, Director, NRR, discussed the following items with the committee:
4
~
i i
397th ACRS Meeting 7
May 13-15, 1993 NRC Research on Oroanizational Factoru Dr. Murley observed that, when he was in Region I, he saw the need.
for a better understanding of organizational factors in a nuclear-power plant. The concerns were, how well_a nuclear power plant is-managed and how does that affect overall safety.
At that-time,-a goal was to develop a model that would input human' error rates and the output would be core damage frequencies. He has concluded that there have not been many useful results in this area.
Dr. Murley noted that it is~unlikely that the NRC is on the threshold of any breakthroughs.
He said it was questionable whether to invest additional money into this program as opposed to other areas.that are also in need of resources.
In response to a Committee question regarding what he would do with I
such a model if it were available, Dr..Murley said it would 'be useful for insights.
If a relationship between organizational factors and safety could be developed, it could be. used to forecast deteriorating performance in a nuclear power plant.
Dr. Murley remarked that the NRC staff has gained insights about the safety culture at plants. He' noted that the utilities are getting better by themselves. He pointed out the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) has had good influence on nuclear power plant management.
INPO has developed a -plant managers development program.
He said that the NRC staff has'a good record 1
in identifying plants that are heading for trouble.
.Dr.
Murley observed that it is important that a utility learn how to best structure their organization and to learn where vulnerabilities are in management or organizational performance.
Mr. David Ward, ACRS Consultant, said that organizational factors are one of the very important areas. He observed that the NRC acknowledges that they do not know exactly how to systematically.
I review or to regulate in this area.
He expressed his view that the utilities have not given any evidence that they are designing their' organizations from any first principles of understanding. Mr. Ward -
noted that the existing research program was oriented toward trying j
to quantify things. He pointed out that there are some qualitative insights that could be gained from this research.
Diaital Instrumentation and Control Systems Dr. Shermon remarked that the Committee believes that there is a substantial benefit in_ reliability and additional functions that can be achieved by using digital instrumentation and control-(I &
C) systems.
He observed that the Committee believes that a different method is needed to verify the predictability and.
performance of I & C systems.
Dr. Shewmon said that the Committee has not been favorably impressed with the NRC's efforts in this area.
He asked Dr. Murley to comment on these concerns.
9
- {f5-?
w-y
'eper vu
-+
e rwi=-
w
-we*
i i
397th ACRS Meeting 8
May 13-15, 1993 Dr.
Murley pointed out that the NRC staff has lagged behind industry in the imaginative use of computers.
He agreed that the use of computers and digital control is probably long overdue.
Dr.
Murley discussed the special role of a regulatory agency.
The role of NRC is to ensure that utility use of digital I & C systems would not introduce new problems.
He emphasized that the NRC staff wants to ensure that the risks after introduction of this technology are lower or no worse than they were before.
Dr. Murley mentioned that software errors could lead to common mode failures in strange combinations that have not been seen before and in ways that we are not sure that the regular safety system could overcome.
Dr. Murley indicated that the NRC staff generally agree with the technical points reported in the ACRS letter, dated March 18, 1993.
He noted that the staff have done a great deal to educate them-selves, and to talk to the most knowledgeable people in this field.
He pointed out that the staff has had discussions with regulators in many countries to find out how they handle digital I & C systems.
He said that a workshop on Digital I & C systems has been planned for September 1993.
The staff is working on a Standard Review Plan on how to review digital I & C systems.
There was a brief discussion on the inciderMs of erosion / corrosion at various plants.
Dr. Murley said that the NRC does not regulate the control of erosion / corrosion.
This has been left up to the industry to deal with, NUMARC specifically.
Mr. Mat Taylor, EDO staff, mentioned that Mr. James M.
Taylor, EDO, sent a letter to NUMARC regarding this issue [ Copies of the letter were provided to the Members).
Dr. Murley said that the staff will work with NUMARC to keep the pressure on industry.
VII.
FORM AND CONTENT OF COMBINED LICENSES (Open)
[ Note:
Dr. Medhat El-Zeftawy was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.]
Mr. Stewart Magruder, NRR, stated that the staff has drafted a preliminary SECY paper that reflects the staff's positions regarding the contents of a combined operating license (COL) application; the COL form and content; COL /ITAAC, the bridge concept of transition from high-level certified design information to detailed design and construction drawings; the quality assurance (QA) program's role in ITAAC; and the PRA beyond design certifica-tion.
The staff expects to continue to interact with the industry en many of these issues.
The staff's positions in the subject draft SECY does not represent the staff's final position on COL topics, but it is intended to stimulate public discussion.
w w
i 6
397th ACRS Meeting 9
May 13-15, 1993 Mr. Richard " Bill" Borchardt, NRR, stated that subpart C of 10 CFR Part 52 delineates the requirements and procedures applicable to the issuance of a COL for nuclear power facilities.
An application for COL may, but is not required to, reference a standard design certification or an early site permit (ESP), or both.
The content of a COL application depends on whether a reference is made to a design certification or an ESP. The staff believes that because of the large financial burden imposed on a prospective nuclear power facility owner, the first COL applicants will reference a standard certified design and will avert the significant delay that will result from the staff's review of a nonstandard design.
The subject draft SECY paper discusses the process for evaluating COL applications and issuing COL's that reference a standard certified design and an ESP.
The staff prepared its outline of a COL.
The staff used recently issued operating licenses as a starting point for this outline and then modified the license based upon the requirements of Part 52.
The staff expects that the COL will incorporate the design certification rule (DCR),
including the certified ITAAC by reference.
In addition, the COL will impose requirements, such as site-specific technical specifications, the environmental protec-tion plan, pre-and post-fuel load license conditions and site-specific ITAAC.
The staff and industry have had extensive interaction on the subject of ITAAC as it relates to the design certification review, and the staf f expects similar interactions with the industry on COL ITAAC.
One important goal of the staff and industry efforts to develop ITAAC is to formulate requirements that can be verified objective-ly.
This will reduce uncertainty and possible litigation over the safety requirements that must be met before fuel loading.
Mr. Magruder stated that at the COL stage, the COL applicant will be able to provide site-specific information and detailed design information that was not available during the certification process.
The COL applicant will be required to update the design-specific PRA to reflect site-specific information before COL issuance.
The staff concludes that updated PRA
- insights, if properly evaluated and utilized, can strengthen programs and activities in areas such as training, emergency operating procedure development, reliability assurance, and maintenance.
The COL applicant or COL holder should update the PRA to ensure that new information or design changes do not introduce new vulnerabilities or diminish the overall capability of the design to prevent and mitigate severe accidents.
-r-e n
.-r,e.--.i, u
r L,-
t i
397th ACRS Meeting 10 May 13-15, 1993 The briefing was for information only.
The Committee will keep following this matter, as appropriate.
VIII.
MEETING WITH THE NRC COMMISSIONERS (Open)
(Note:
Mr. Sam Duraiswamy was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.)
On Thursday af ternoon, the Committee reviewed the areas of interest to be discussed in preparation for the meeting. On Friday morning, the Committee traveled to the One White Flint North building, Rockville, Maryland) for a meeting with the NRC Commissioners.
The NRC Commissioners were briefed by the Committee on the following topics:
e Status of ACRS review of evolutionary and advanced reactor designs Use of computers and digital instrumentation and control e
systems in nuclear power plants License renewal The Commission requested that the ACRS review and respond to the new Branch Technical Position dealing with metal fatigue.
[In accordance with Staff Requirements Memorandum to William Parler, OGC, from Samuel Chilk, SECY, dated June 9,
1989, the Office of the Secretary provides a transcript to the ACRS as the record for this portion of the meeting. The transcript is attached as Appendix V.]
IX.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION OF GENERIC ISSUE 105, " INTERFACING SYSTEMS LOCA IN LWRS" (Open)
[ Note:
Mr. Paul Boehnert was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.]
The Committee was briefed by Mr. Gary Burdick, RES, on the proposed NRC staff resolution position for Generic Issue 105, " Interfacing Systems LOCA in LWRs."
Mr. Burdick stated that the NRC proposes to resolve this issue by relying on the results of the licensees' ongoing integrated plant evaluation (IPE) program, pursuant to the Committee's recommendation of same, made in January 1990.
Mr. Burdick discussed the details of the staff's resolution ef fort.
He noted the following:
i s
a 397th ACRS Meeting 11 May 13-15, 1993 The interf acing systems loss of coolant accident (ISLOCA) e is defined as a breach of the reactor coolant system (RCS) boundary in any of the numerous low-pressure systems connected to the RCS by pressure isolation valves.
As such, the risk arises from the potential release of fission products to the environment via containment bypass.
ISLOCA is a significant-to-dominant PWR plant risk contributor.
e Dr.
Murley identified ISLOCA as an issue deserving accelerated attention in 1989, based on his concerns arising from a series of precursor events.
These events indicated an elevated risk mainly due to human error.
Since then, the Committee has been involved in review of the staff resolution effort, via a series of Subcommittee meetings and Committee presentations, o
The staff's resolution activities were noted.
A set of mean core damage frequencies (CDF), indicated that ISLOCA is a low risk contributor (10-' to 10~7 range).
- Further, these CDF estimates are considered conservative because the staf f did not credit plant operator recovery actions.
At the urging of the Committee, RES conducted detailed investigation of the impact on the event outcome of a harsh environment in the auxiliary building space (induced by a pipe rupture). The results were surprising in that flooding of equipment was the main risk contribu-tor.
However, the key finding was that the importance of the environmental qualification issue is highly design-(plant-) specific.
The above results support plant-specific analyses of the ISLOCA risk contributor.
1 e
Results of the cost-benefit analyses generally support the conclusion that no generic resolution approach is appropriate.
Dr. Lewis, via a series of questions, expressed concern with the staff's methodology used in the cost-benefit analyses.
He indicated that the staff was not, among other things, distinguishing between the i
concepts of precision and accuracy as shown in the results presented.
In resolving this issue via the IPE process, Mr. Burdick stated that the reporting criteria specified by NRC (i.e., that functional sequences need to be reported to the staff as potential significant risk contributors) will capture ISLOCA sequences of concern.
During the presentation, Mr. Michelson asked several questions that focused on the details of the staff's ISLOCA analysis program.
Mr.
l Michelson indicated that the staff's effort was adequate.
i i
i 397th ACRS Meeting 12 May 13-15, 1993 l
Conclusions The Committee prepared and issued a report on this' matter to Mr.
James M. Taylor.
X.
SUBCOMMITTEE ACTIVITIES. (Open)
A.
Report on the Plannina and Procedures Subcommittee Meetina As a result of the Planning and Procedures Subcommittee meeting on May 12, 1993, the following items were reported to the Committee:
e An ad hoc working group was established to provide recommendations on the future direction of the ACRS/ACNW Fellowship Program.
The Working Group will consist of the members of the Planning and Procedures Subcommittee and Dr. Catton.
The Working Group will meet on June 9, 1993, together with the Planning and Procedures Subcom-mittee meeting to consider and prepare recommendations.
The members were briefed by Dr. Larkins on a memorandum e
to the Office of the General Counsel, dated April 30, 1993, regarding draft ethics regulations and implementing management directives 7.7 and 7.8.
The memorandum requested that the ACRS/ACNW Chairmen be authorized to give exemptions to Committee members to retain any prohibitive securities held at the time of appointment.
No action was taken by the Committee.
Mr.
- Schofer, ACRS
- staff, distributed a ' memorandum requesting the members to relate what problems or questions they may have with the Bulletin Board System or -
the proposed use of E-mail on AUTOS-LAN as a replacement for the BBS.
Questions and issues raised will be collectively answered by the BBS sysops.
e The status of an ACRS retreat in 1993 was discussed,-
including possible dates and locations.
This subject will be discussed further during the next Planning and Procedures Subcommittee meeting on June 9, 1993.
The Atomic Safety Licensing Board Panel (ASLBP) invited members of the Committee to participate in the ASLBP annual meeting at the Berkeley Marriott Marina, Berkeley, California, on October 17-20, 1993, to discuss "first of a kind consideration for advanced plant reactors."
The
.+y
t i
397th ACRS Meeting 13 May 13-15, 1993 Committee approved Mr. Lindblad and Dr. Catton to attend and participate in this meeting.
Dr. Wilkins announced that he had been invited to make a e
presentation at the NRC Workshop on Digital Systems tentatively scheduled in September 1993.
The members addressed the tentative agenda for the_ workshop and a proposed draft standard review plan that may be a subject for discussion during the meeting.
The Committee agreed that Dr. Wilkins should participate in the meeting.
The Subcommittee recommended that Dr. Leamon be invited to give a tutorial during a future meeting on organiza-tional behavior and factors.
No action was taken by the Committee, The Subcommittee suggested that the Committee consider o
continuing erosion / corrosion problems that are occurring at nuclear power plants, such as Sequoyah and Millstone.
It was agreed that this issue would be assigned to a Subcommittee.
B.
Advanced Boilina Water Reactors Mr. Michelson observed that his term as member of the Commit-tee will end well before the conclusion of the simplified boiling water reactor (SBWR) review presently scheduled in 1996.
He recommended that another member be appointed to review the SBWR to bring a consistency over the entire review period.
Mr. Carroll expressed some interest.
No action was take:. by the Committee.
C.
Advanced Graphics in the Nuclear Power Plant Design and Review Process The Committee was briefed by Mr. Mark Stella,, ACRS Senior Fellow, on computerized information management systems for nuclear power plant design and review.
He discussed an integrated 2D/3D modeling and engineering database system that was demonstrated during a recent site visit to Construction Systems Associatec.
He also discussed the potential uses and benefits of computerized information management systems in ACRS applications.
The Committee expressed interest in pursuing this capability for ACRS use, particularly for the GE system.
1 J
i s
397th ACRS Meeting 14 May 13-15, 1993 i
D.
Report on the Thermal Hydraulic Phenemena Subcommittee Meetina Dr.
- Catton, Chairman of the Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena Subcommittee, reported on the results of the Subcommittee meeting held on May 12, 1993.
The meeting was held to discuss the resolution of ATWS accompanied by core power instabilities for a BWR, and reliability of BWR vessel water level instru-mentation.
On the subject of BWR vessel water level instrumentation, Dr.
Catton noted that there is a potential for the level instru-mentation to provide an erroneous high reading due to a phenomena associated with the presence of dissolved non-condensable gases in the instrument's reference leg fluid.
The NRR staff has taken the position that the BWR Owners Group needs to implement hardware fixes to address the. problem.
Dr. Catton indicated that the Subcommittee believes that NRR's resolution approach appears appropriate.
He said that the primary reason that the Subcommittee discussed this matter is that it relates to the issue of mitigation of ATWS accompanied by core power instabilities.
In regard to the issue of ATWS/ core power instabilities, Dr.
Catton noted that NRR hat, delayed its resolution of this issue and has recalled a draft Safety Evaluation on this matter.
The NRR staff has decided to link the resolution of core power instabilities for the case of an ATWS with development of emergency procedure guidelines for use by the operators for mitigation of such an event.
The principal items of contention are associated with the issue of the tradeoffs affiliated with certain proposed mitigating actions vis-a-vis minimizing the containment heat loading.
Two related questions are of issue: (1) what is the most efficacious vessel water level control scheme for mitigation of this event, (e.g., lower level and control same to a point about one meter below the spargers vs. lowering level to the top of the active fuel,- inject boron, and subsequently raise level to facilitate boron mixing), and (2) what is the impact of the vessel water level scheme ultimately chosen on shutdown of the core, vis-a-vis the mixing phenome-non associated with injection of liquid boron.
Dr. Catton recommended that Committee action may depend on the outcome of the NRC staff's further review of the above issues.
9 s
s 397th ACRS Meeting 15 May 13-15, 1993 XI.
Reconciliation of ACRS Comments and Recommendations (Open)
[ Note:
Mr. Sam Duraiswamy was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.]
The responses of the Executive Director for Operations (EDO) to previous ACRS reports were discussed as follows:
EDO letter, dated April 28, 1993, responding to the ACRS report dated November 11,
- 1992, concerning Revised Guidelines for Prioritization of Generic Safety Issues.
EDO letter, dated April 23, 1993, responding to the ACRS e
report dated Ma::ch 18, 1993, concerning Computers in Nuclear Power P] ant Operations.
EDO letter, dated April 19, 1993, responding to the ACRS report dated March 19, 1993, concerning Human Performance in Operating Events, EDO letter, dated April 9, 1993, responding to the ACRS o
report dated December 18, 1992, concerning Resolution of Generic Safety Issue B-56, Diesel Generator Reliability.
EDO letter, dated April 7, 1993, responding to the ACRS e
report dated March 18, 1993, concerning ABWR Review Schedule.
l The above EDO letters addressed the Committee's comments.
No
-{
Committee action was taken as a result of this reconciliation i
review.
XII. Election of Member-at-Larce (Closed)
[ Note:
Dr. John Larkins was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.]
The Committee elected Mr. William Lindblad to replace Mr. James Carroll as the Member-at-Large for the remaining period of this term.
The Committee requested that Dr.
Larkins inform the Commission of the new officers.
XIII.
Miscellaneous (Open)
[ Note:
Dr. John Larkins was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.]
u
p
~~~
t 1
397th ACRS Meeting 16 May 13-15, 1993 A.
Quadricartite Meetina of the Advisory Committees (Open)
The Committee discussed and approved a letter to Chairman Adolph Birkhofer, German RSK, and Chairman Francois Cogn6, French GPR proposing a list of five topics for the Quadripar-tite Meeting of the Advisory Committees on October 11-15, 1993. The members also discussed who would attend the meeting and tentative traveling arrangements.
[Following the meeting, a memorandum was sent to Chairman Selin from J.
Ernest Wilkins, ACRS Vice Chairman, dated May 26, 1993, regarding the participants in the Quadripartite Meeting of the Advisory Committees.]
Dr. Birkhofer, RSK Cha,'.rman, is expected to call on the ACRS members and staff on July 21, 1993, to discuss meeting plans in more detail.
Dr. Wilkins noted that he will make an effort to be in the office to meet with Dr. Birkhofer.
B.
ACRS Report on Imolementation Guidance for the Mainte-nance Rule (Open)
It was brought the Committee's attention that a phrase had been inadvertently omitted from a recent ACRS report on implementation guidance for the maintenance rule, dated April 26, 1993. The Committee agreed to reissue the letter with the i
l additional wording.
C.
Review of the Generic Issue 153 Report (Open)
Mr. Steven Mays, ACRS Senior Fellow, discussed the findings of his review of the Generic Issue 153 report requested by Mr.
Carroll.
He indicated general agreement with the conclusion of the report that Service Water System contributions to core damage frequency tended to be plant specific and that IPE analysis and existing SWSOPI would be likely. to identify problem areas.
He indicated that the analysis relied heavily on older (and NRC sponsored) risk analyses such as the Calvert Cliffs IREP and the TAP A-45 studies rather than the numerous and more recent IPE and other PRA submittals available to the Staff.
While noting that there is sufficient evidence to j
conclude that generic action is unwarranted for this topic, he indicated that the supporting analysis could have been more substantial.
The Committee decided not to review this issue further.
[A memorandum was sent to Warren Minners, NRR, from John Larkins, dated May 24, 1993, regarding this decision.]
e i
397th ACRS Meeting 17 May 13-15, 1993 XIV. Executive Session (Open)
(Note:
Dr. John Larkins was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.]
A.
Reports and Letter Backfit Rule, (Report to the Honorable Ivan Selin, NRC Chairman, from Paul Shewmon, ACRS Chairman, dated May 20, 1993) e Draft Report of the PRA Workina GrouJ, (Report to Mr.
James M. Taylor, Executive Director for Operations, from Paul Shewmon, ACRS Chairman, dated May 20, 1993) e Staff Accroach for Assessina the Consistency of the Present Reculations with Respect to the Commission's Safety Goals, (Report to the Honorable Ivan Selin, NRC Chairman, from Paul Shewmon, ACRS Chairman, dated May 26, 1993)
Procosed Resolution of Generic Issue 105, "Interfacina e
(Report to the Mr. James M.
- Taylor, Executive Director for Operations, from Paul Showmon, ACRS Chairman, dated May 20, 1993) e Imolementation Guidance for the Maintenance
- Rule, (Reissue of Report to Mr. James M.
Taylor, Executive Director for Operations, from Paul Shewmon, ACRS Chair-man, originally dated April 26, 1993, reissued June 3,
1993) e Letter to Chairman Adolph Birkhofer, German RSK, and Chairman Francois Cogn6, French GPR, dated May 25, 1993, proposing a list of five topics for the quadripartite i
meeting of the advisory committees in October 1993.
B.
Administrative Guidance for New Members (Open)
During the April 1993 ACRS meeting, the Committee agreed that the ACRS staff should develop a Guidance Book on administra-tive matters for new Committee members.
Ms. Lee noted that development of the Guidance Book will be given to a contractor with a planned delivery date of December 1993.
Dr. Larkins stated that the ACRS staff will continue to brief new Committee members as requested by the Committee on the procedural, legal, and administrative matters.
0
(
i 397th ACRS Meeting 18 May 13-15, 1993 Dr. Kress was asked to be a mentor to the new Committee member who will replace Dr. Shewmon.
He agreed.
C.
Future ACRS Activities (Open)
The Committee agreed not to review and comment on the proposed resolutions of Generic Issue HF 4.4,
" Procedures Other than EOP" and Generic Issue HF 5.2,
" Review Criteria for Human Factors Aspects of Advanced Controls and Instrumentation."
Dr. Larkins was requested to inform the EDO of the Committee's decision.
The Committee also agreed not to review and comment on the proposed resolution of Generic Issue 153, " Loss of Essential Service Water in LWRs."
Dr. Larkins was requested to inform the EDO of the Committee's decision.
The 397th ACRS meeting was adjourned at 10:15 a.m. on Saturday, May i
6 15, 1993.
i l
1
s-i l
i i
APPENDICES i
MINUTES OF THE 397TH ACRS MEETING MAY 13-15, 1993 i
I.
Federal Register Notico II.
Meeting Schedule and outline III.
Attendees IV.
Future Agenda and Subcommittee Activities V.
List of Documents Provided to the Committee VI.
Transcript of Meeting with NRC Commissioners
t e
APPENDIX I e/
federal Regis'
/ Vol. 58, No. 83 / Monday, May 3,1-
/ Notices 2G359 MC j VI OF FontiGN LABOR CERTifl. Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
Notice of this meeting was published in WW CATIOtJS-APPROVED ATT EST A.
chapter 35).
the federal Register on March 25,1993, y
TiONS-Continued
- 1. Type of submission, new, revision. Thursday, May 23,1993 or extension: Extension, lMarm 1,1993 to March 31,19931
- 2. The title of the information B.30 a.m.445 a.m.: Opening collectlon: 10 CFR part 81-Standard Remarks by ACRS Chairman (Open)--
Cto nan ac ty nan =/
3%
Spec fications for the Granting of Patent The ACKS Chairman will make opening A
val Licenses.
remarks regarding conduct of the us. re De la Catrada.
TX 03/18/93 3.The form number if applicable: Not meeting and comment briefly regarding QuaMy Health Serv.
applicable.
items of current interest. During this Ices,Inc. 9888
- 4. Ilow often the collection is session, the Committee will discuss Bissonnet Suite 475, required: Applications for licenses are priorities for preparadon of ACRS Houstm 77036,713-submitted once. Other reports are reports.
272-0077.
submitted annually or as other events 6:45 a.m.-9:45 a.m.: Advanced Mr. Wton R. Kelley, Villa TX 03/18/93 require.
Reactors Schedules (Open)--The
- 5. Who will be required or asked to Committee will hear a briefing by and.
"9 report: Applicants for and holders of hold discussions with representatives of Street, Mount Pleasant NRC licenses to NRCinventions.
the NRC staff on the schedules for the 75456, 903-572-5511.
Mr. Gary M. Moore, Mav-TX 03/18/93
- 6. An estimate of the number of NRC review of advanced reactor enck County Hoso.
responses: Zero.
designs.The Committee will also Distnc. 350 S. Mams
- 7. An estimate of the total number of discuss its plans and schedule for the Street. Eagle Pass hours needed to complete the review of the ABWR design.
78852,210-773-5321.
requirement or request: Zero.
9:45 a.m.-10;45 a.m.: SECY,93-086, Mr. J. M,chael Stevens, TX 03/25/93
- 8. An indication of whether section.
Backfit Considerutions (Open)-%e Medical Center Hosp.
3504(h), Public Law 96-511 applies:Not Committse will review and comment on of odessa. 601 West applicable.
SECY-93-08G,"Backfit d[7f'g'[$%gg,
- 9. Abstract: to CFR part 81 establishes Considerations." Representatives of the the standard specifications for the NRC staff and the industry will Mr. Don M. McBnde. Sun TX 03/29/93 issuance of licenses to rights in participate, as appropriate..
BMt Reg 1 Med. Ctr.,
13111 East Freeway, inventions covered by patents or patent 2 2.00 a.m.-12:2 5 p.m.:PRA Working Houston 77015, 713-applications vested in the United States. Group Activities ( en)-%e 454-0342.
as represented by or in the custody of Committee will re ow and comment on Mr. Wabur A. Smrth, St.
VI 03/29/93 the Commission and other patents in a draft report on the proposed Thomas Hospital,48 which the Commission has legal rights.
application of PRA prepared by the PRA Sugar Estates, St.
Copies of the submittal may be Working Group. Representatives of the T
802 80b inspected or obtained for a fee from the NRC staff and the industry will NRC Public Document Room,2120 L participate, as appropriate, Mr. Kenneth C. Owens, WA OT02/93 Street, Lower Level, NW., Washington, 2:25 p.m.-2:15 p.m.: Proposed NRC Harbor Haalth Care, Devetty Enterprises.
DC 20555.
Staff Plan for Comparing Sofety Goals Comments and questions should be with Regulations (Open}-ne Inc., Aberdeen 90520 i
206 4 96-3914.
directed to the OMB reviewer: Ronald Committee will review and comment on Mr. Bemard Westfati, WV 03/18/93 Minsk Office ofInformation and a proposed NRC Staff Plan for using the West Virginia University
. Regulatory Affairs (3150-0121), NEOB-Safety Coal Policy to judge the HOSP'tals, Morgantown 3019. Office of Management and Budget. effectiveness of the NRC regulations.
26506,304-596-4075.
Washington, DC 20503.
Re resentatives of NRC staff and the To Anestah Comments can also be submittod by in ustry will pardcipate, as appropriate.
telephone at (202) 395-3084. The NRC 2:25 p.m.-3:45 p.m.: Meeting mth the IFR Doc. 93-10349 Filed 4-30-93; 8 45 aml Clearance Officer is Brenda J. Shelton, Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor (301) 492-8132.
Regulation (Open)-The Committee will suseo coot osm Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 23rd day meet with the Director of the Office of -
of April.1993.
Nuclear Reactor Regulation to discuss -
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Items of mutualinterest.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY Gerald F. Cranford, 4P.m.-5p.m.:Preparationfor L meeting with the NBCCommissioners COMMISSSON Designated Senior Officialfor Information (Open)~The Committee will discuss Resourms Management Documents Conta!ning Reporting or Recordkeeping Requirements: Office IFR Doc. 93-10301 riled 4-ws3 835 aml the topics scheduled for discussion during the Friday, May 14,1993
- N C00N***8 of Management and Budget (OMB) -
meeting between the Committee and the Review NRC Cosimissioners.
ActNcY: Nuclear Regulatory Advisory Committee on Reactor 5:P.m.-6 p.m.: Preparution ofACNS' Commission (NRC).
Safeguards; Meeting Agenda R.ePorts (Open}--%e Committee will discuss proposed ACRS reports.
ACTION: Notice of the OMB review of in accordance with.the purposes of regarding items considered during this information collection.
Sections 29 and 182b. of the Atomic meeting.
Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2039,2232b),the
SUMMARY
- De NRC has recently Advisory Committee on Reactor Friday, May I4,1993
. submitted to OMB for review the Safeguanis will hold a meeting on May B:30 a.m.-9:25 a.m.: Form and '
following proposal for the collecdon of 13-15,1993, in room P-110,7920 '
Content of Combined Ucense (Open)-
informadon under the provisions of Norfolk' Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland.
The Committee will hear a briefing by'
a a
263G0' l'ederal Register / Vol. 58, Na, 83 / Monday, May 3. IP" / Noticos
{
.=
t i
and hold discussions with r egarding items considerud during this (Docket Nos. 50-424 and $0-425; 5042t i
representatives of the NRC staff meeting.
end SMG6) regarding the form and mntent of a Combmed License application.
2 :00 p.m.-2:00 p.m.t Afiscellaneous Georgia Power Co. et al.: Vogtle
(
Representatives of the industry will (Open)- no Committee will discuss Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and participate, as appropriate, mattars cansidered but not completed 2, Edwin 1. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unlia
{
during previous meodngs as time and 1 and 2 lasuance of Partiat Director's 10 a.m.-J 2 30 a.m.: Meeting with the NBC Commissioners (Open)-The availability of information permit.
Dectslon Under 10 CFR 2.206 participadon m,for the conduct of and Notice is hereby given that the Procedures Committee will meet with the NRC Commissioners to discuss items of ACRS meetingt. were Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor mutualinterest.
published in the Federal Register on I p.m.-J p.m.: Boiling Water Reactor October 16,1992 (57 FR 47494). In Regulation, has issued a Partial Core PowerStability(Open}-The accordance with these procedums, oral Director's Decision conceming a request dated September 11.1990 (Petition), as Committee will review and comment on or written statements may be presented supplemented September 21 and the NRC stafPs review of the approaches by members of the public, recordings October 1,1990, and July 8,1991, filed proposed by the BWR Owners Group for will be permitted only during those -
pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 by Michael D.
resolving the issue of BWR core power open portions of the toesthig when a Kohn, Esquire, on behalf of Messrs.
stability. Representadves of the NRC transcript is being kept, and questions Marvin Hobby and Allen Mosbeugh.
staff and the industry will participate, as may be asked only by members of the ne Petition and supplements contain i
. appropriate.
Committee,its consultants, and staff.
allegations regarding: %e management J:25 p.m.-4:15 p.m.: Proposed Persons desiring to make oral statements of the Georgia Power Company (GPC)
Resolution of GenericIssue 105, should nodfy the ACRS Execuuve nuclear facilides; illegal transfer of
'7nterfacing Systems LOCA in In71s" Director. Dr. John T. IArkins. as far in GPC's operating licensas to Southern (Open-ne Committee will review and advance as practicable so that Nuclear Operating Company comment on the NRC staff's proposed appropriate arrangements can be made (SONOPCO): intentional false resolution of Generic Issue 105.
to allow the necessary time during the statements to the NRC regarding GPC's Representativesof the NRC staff and meeting for such statements. Use of still, organizational chain of command and Industry will participate, as appropriate. motion picture, and television cameras the reliability of a diesel generator:
4:15 p.m.-5 p.m.: Future ACRS during this meeting may be limited to perjured testimony submitted by a GPC l
Activities (Open)- The Committeo will selected portions of the meeting as executive during a U.S. Department of discuss topics proposed for future determined by the Chairman. -.
Labor (DOL) proceeding under section i
consideration by the full Committee.
Infonnation regarding the time to be set 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act:
5 p.m.-6 p.m.: Preparation of ACRS aside for this purpose may be obtained repeated abuse at the Vogtle facility of Reports (Open)-The Committee will by a prepaid telephone call to the ACRS Technical Specification 3.0.3: repeated discuss proposed ACRS reports Executive Director prior to the meeting, willful technical specification violations regarding items considered during this In view of the possibility that the at the Vogtle facility; repeated meeting.
schedule for ACRS mootings may be concealment of safeguards problems Saturday, May 15.199J adjusted by the Chairman as necessary from the NRC; operation of radioactive
)
8:30 a.m.-015 a.m.: ACES to facilitate the conduct of the meeting, waste systems and facilities at Vogtle ut i
persons planning to attend should check gross violation of NRC requirements; Subcomnuttee Activities (Open)-The with the ACRS Executive Director if rouune use at GPC nuclear facilities of j
Committee will discuss the status of
- i ACRS Subcommittee assignments, such rescheduling would result in major nonconservative and questionable i 1 inconvenience.
management pracuces; and ~ retaliation including those related to the conduct of ACRS business, the use of advanced I have determined in accordance with by GPC against managers who make computer graphics in the nuclear power Subsecdon 10(d) Public Law 92-463 regulatory concerns known to GPC or plant design process, and the status of that it is necessary to close portions of SONOPCO management.
lasues assodated with BWR vessel water this m*dng noted above to discuss ne supplements to the Peudon also level instrumentation.
Information the release of which would alleged that GPC's Executive Vice 9:15 a.m.-9:45 a.m.: Appointment of represent a clearly unwarranted President made material false NewMembers (Open/ Closed)-ne lavasion of personal privacy per 5 statements in GPC's April 1.1991.
Cominittee will discuss matters related U.S.C. 552(c)(6).
submittal to the NRC responding to the issues raised in the Petition, and during to the qualincations of candidates Further Lafonnation regarding topics a transcnbed meeting on January 11, pmposed for appointment to the to be discussed, whether the meeting 1991, with the NRC staff, to discuss the Committee. Portions of this session will has been cancelled or rescheduled, the fonnation and operation of SONOFCO.
be closed to discuss Information the Chairman's ruling on requests for the ne Director of the Office of Nuclear release of which would represent a opportunity to present oral statements Reactor Regulation (NRR) has clearly unwarranted invasion of and the time allotted can be obtained by determined that certain issues raised in personal privacy.
a prepaid telephone call to the ACRS the Petition are capable of resolution 9:45 a.m.-10;I5 a.m.: Reconciliation Executive Dtrector, Dr. John T. Larkins now as the facts are sufSciently well ofACRS Comments and (telephone 301492--4516), between 8 understood as a result of NRC Recommendations (Open)-no a.m. and 4:30 p.m. EST.
inspections or other reviews. De Committee will discuss NRC staff responses to recommendations made in Dated Aprt127,1993.
Director of NRR has determined that ACRS reports.
John C. Iloyle' issuance of a Partial Director's Decision.
w th regard to these issues,is 10:15 a.m.-1 p.m.: Preparation of Advi'*'Y omminee Management Officer-C appropriate.%e remaining issues will ACRS Reports (Open)--%e Committee (FR Doc. 93-t0304 Filed 4-30-93. 8:45 aml be considered within a reasonable time will discuss proposed ACRS reports sa.uua coot nw.ew in the future. Based on his review of the
.u.uw m-
f 8
APPENDIX II
'o UNITED STATES
~,'n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS o
a WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
'+9 g
May 6, 1993 SCHEDULE AND OUTLINE FOR DISCUSSION 397TH ACRS MEETING MAY 13-15, 1993 T]UAKpdav, May 13, 1993, Room P-110, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesde, Md.
3 5-1) 8:30 - 8:45 A.M.
Ocenina Remarks by ACRS Chairman (Open) 1.1)
Opening statement (PGS/SD) 1.2)
Items of Current Interest (PGS/JTL) 5 1.3)
Priorities for preparation of ACRS reports (PGS/SD) 35 f :~
2) 8:45 9:45 A.M.
Evolutionary and Advanced LWR Reactor Schedules (Open) (CM/JCC/CJW/MME) 2.1)
Remarks by the Subcommittee Chairman 2.2)
Briefing by and-discussions with.
f representatives of the NRC staff a
regarding the NRC staff schedules for the review of evolutionary and advanced light water reactor designs 10:45 A.M.
3) 9:45 Dackfit Considerations (Open) (HWL/MDH/EGI) 3.1)
Remarks by the Subcommittee Chairman 3.2)
Briefing by and discussions with representatives of the NRC staff on SECY-93-086, "Backfit Considerations" 10:45 11:00 A.M.
BREAK 1
12:15 P.M.
[PRAWorkinaGrouD Activities (Open) 4)
11:00 t
(HWL/MDH) l 4.1)
Remarks by the Subcommittee Chairman 1
l 4.2)
Briefing by and discussion with rep-i resentatives of the NRC staff on a draft report prepared _by the PRA j
Working Group on the use of PRA in the regulatory process j
m i
12:15 1:15 P.M.
LUNCH I
i
$k4I 1
'kl $ (.f b
DO y
i i
2 05~
s 5) 1:15 2 :15 P.M.
Proposed NRC Staff Plan for Comparina Safety
' Goals with Regulations (Open) (TSK/MDH)
- 5.1)
Remarks by the Subcommittee Chairman j 5.2)
Briefing by and discussion with rep-resentatives of the NRC staff on a proposed NRC staff plan for using the Safety Goal Policy to judge the ef-s fectiveness of NRC regulations 3o fheetinawiththeDirectoroftheOfficeof 6) 2:15 3:45 P.M.
Nuclear Reactor Reaulation (Open)
(PGS/HA) 6.1)
Remarks by the ACRS Chairman 6.2)
Discussions with Dr. Murley, Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, on items of mutual interest, including the following:
i NRC and industry sponsored e
programs on Organizational Factors Research March 18, 1993 ACRS report on e
computer and digital instru-mentation and control system u,
issues 30
%:4#
3:44 4440 P.M.
BREAK
- 45 7) 4300 5:00 P.M.
Preparation for Meetina with the NRC Commis-sioners (Open)
, y ; g' q. _ - _ r.- )
7.1)
Discussion of the following topics scheduled for discussion with the Commissioners:
7.1-1)
Status of ACRS Review of Evolutionary and Advanced Light Water Reactor Designs (PGS/CM/JCC/CJW/MME) 7.1-2)
Digital Instrumentation and Control Systems (HWL/SL/HA) 7.1-3)
License Renewal (WL/EGI) 8)
5:00
- {dt$ P. M.
Preparation of ACRS Reports (Open)
(10
- IAI S E k) 8.1)
Discussion of proposed ACRS reports on matters considered during this meeting
4 a
3 Friday, May 14, 1993, Room P-110, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Md.
9) 8:30 8:35 A.M.
Openino Statement by ACRS Chairman (PGS/SD)
(Open) lo
_e 10) 8:35 9 : 15 A.M.
Form and Content of Combined License (Open)
(CJW/MME) 10.1)
Remarks by the Subcommittee Chairman 10.2)
Briefing by and discussions with representatives of the NRC staff regarding the form and content of a combined license application 11) 9:15 10:00 A.M.
Travel to One White Flint North for Meetina with the NRC Commissioners (A van will be provided for the ACRS members for transportation to and from One White Flint North and will leave respectively from the front of the Phillips Building and the One White Flint North parking garage)
- 12) 10:00
- 11:30 A.M.
Meetina with the NRC Commissioners (Open) 12.1)
Meeting with NRC Commissioners to discuss topics noted above (Tab 7).
m
- 13) 11:45 12:15 P.M.
Travel from One White Flint North to the Phillips Buildina 12:15 1:15 P.M.
LUNCH 14) 1:15 1:45 P.M.
ACRS Subcommittee Activities (Open)
(CM/MES) 14.1)
Discussion of the use of advanced graphics in the nuclear power plant design and review process 15) 1:45 3:15 P.M.
Preparation of ACRS Reoorts (Open) 15.1)
Discussion of proposed ACRS reports on matters considered during this meeting 3:15 3:30 P.M.
BREAK 16) 3:30 4:30 P.M.
Proposed Resolution of Generic Issue 105.
"Interfacina Systems LOCA in LWRs" (Open)
(IC/PAB) 16.1)
Remarks by the Subcommittee Chairman 16.2)
Briefing by and discussions with representatives of the NRC staff on the NRC staff's proposed resolution k
a i
9 4
of Generic Issue 105, " Interfacing Systems LOCA in LWRs" 17) 4:30 5:15 P.M.
Future ACRS Activities (Open) (PGS/RPS) 17.1)
Discussion of.the recommendations of the Planning and Procedures Subcom-mittee regarding items proposed for consideration by the full Committee during future meetings 18) 5:15 6:15 P.M.
Preparation of ACRS Reports (Open) 18.1)
Discussion of proposed ACRS reports on matters considered during this meeting Boturday, May 15, 1993, Room P-110, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Md.
19) 8:30
- 10:00 A.M.
ACRS Subcommittee Activities (Open) 19.1)
Discussion of the activities of the ACRS Subcommittees in the assigned areas, including:
.! D, w +
/J'*
"R" "J
19.1-1)
Planning and Procedures for conducting ACRS business (PGS/JTL) 19.1-2)
Issues associated with BWR vessel water level instru-mentation (IC/PAB)
- 20) IM 1+15-PrM.
Precaration of ACRS Reports (Open) 20.1)
Discussion of proposed ACRS reports regarding:
20.1-1)
Backfit considerations (HWL/MDH/EGI) 20.1-2)
PRA Working Group proposal for the use of PRA in the regulatory process (HWL/MDH) 20.1-3)
Proposed NRC staff plan using the Safety Goal Policy to judge the effectiveness of regulations (TSK/MDH) 20.1-4)
ACRS staffing and personnel practices (HWL/JTL/RPS/MFL) 20.1-5)
Proposed resolution of Generic Issue 105, " Inter-facing Systems LOCA in LWRs" (IC/PAB)
e s-5 21) 1:15 1:30 P.M.
Appointment of New Members (Open/ Closed)-
(PGS/JTL/MFL) 21.1)
Discussion of the' qualifications of candidates proposed ~for appointment to the ACRS (Note:
Portions of this session will be closed to discuss information the release of which would represent a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.)
22) 1:30 1:45-P.M.
Reconciliation of ACRS Comments and Recom-mendations (Open) (PGS,.et al./SD)
[ T) d : v.- M Pn da u 22.1)
Discussion'of the~ responses from the' a p te,,,on]J -
NRC Executive Director ~for Operations.
~
to comments and recommendations made in ACRS reports s
23) 1:45 2:00 P.M.
Miscellaneous (Open) 23.1)
Discussion of matters considered.
during this meeting and matters con-sidered but not completed at-previous i
meetings as time and availability of information permit 1
NOTE:
Presentation time should not exceed 50 percent of-the total time allocated for a specific item.
The remaining 50 percent of the time is reserved for questions by ACRS members / consul-j tants and answers by the presenters / consultants.
Number of copies of the presentation materials to'be provided to the ACRS - 35.
i i
APPENDIX III:
MEETING ATTENDEES I
397TH ACR3 MEETING MAY 13-15, 1993 NRC,_;TAFF Charles Ader RES Dennis Allison AEOD Gunter Arndt RES A. Auluck RES Bill Borchardt NRR Tom Boyce NRR Rex Brown NRR K.
M. Campe NRR Mark Cunningham RES A.
Dipalo RES A.
El-Bassioni NRR Robert Erickson NRR Thomas Essig NRR Michael Franovich NRR Robert Gramm NRR James Han RES Brad Hardin RES Jack Heltemes RES Ron Hernan NRR Vern Hodge NRR Carl Johnson RES Thomas Kenyon NRR Stephen'Koenick NRR Stu Magruder NRR G.
Bill Morris RES H.
Pastis NRR Roger Pedersen NRR Chris Rourk RES M. Taylor EDO Neil Thompson NRR Lillian VanSanten OP Jerry Wilson NRR l
Barry Zalcman NRR t
1
=
Appendi:' III 2
+
397th ACRS Meeting ATTFNDEES FROM OTHER AGENCIES AND GENERAL PUBLIC Mark Beaumont Westinghouse R.
Bell NUMARC Greg Brown Stone & Webster Lynn Connor STS Gene Genco Winston & Strawn Kevin Graney Serch Licensing /Bechtel Roger Huston TVA i
Y.
S.
Kim NUS Jan MacGreger Winston & Strawn Anthony Pfeffer Serch Licensing /Bechtel.
Tony Pietrangelo NUMARC i
Jim Raleigh STS, Inc.
J.
L.
Summers U.V.II John Trotter EPRI i
a i
i 1
j
4 i
i i-i APPENDIX IV MINUTES OF THE 397TH ACRS MEETING MAY 13-15, 1993 i
FUTURE AGENDA AND SUBCOMMITTEE ACTIVITIES j
Plannina and Procedures, June 9, 1993, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda.
MD (Larkins), 2:00 p.m.
- 4:30 p.m., Room P-422.
The Subcommittee will discuss proposed ACRS activities, organizational and personnel matters relating to ACRS, and related matters.
Portions of this meeting may be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b (c) (2) and (6) to discuss organizational and personnel matters that relate solely to the personnel rules and practices of ACRS and matters 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 June 8:
Wilkins HOLIDAY INN Carroll HOLIDAY INN Lindblad HYATT 398th ACRS Meetina, June 10-12, 1993, Bethesda, MD.
During this meeting, toe Committee plans to consider the following:
A.
SECY-93-067, " Final Policy Statement on Technical SDecifications Improvements" - Review and comment on the staff's proposed final policy statement on technical specifications improvements.
Representatives of the NRC staff and industry will participate, as appropriate.
B.
SECY-93-113. Additional Imnlementation Information for 10 CFR Part 54. "Recuirements for Renewal of ODeratina Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants"
- Review and comment on SECY-93-113 regarding additional implementation information for 10 CFR Part 54.
Representatives of the NRC staff and the industry will participate, as appropriate.
C.
Public Comments on ALWR Severe Accident Performance - Hear a briefing by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff on a draft Commission paper regarding public' comments on the 10 CFR Part 50 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Severe Accidents for future LWRs as well as the staff's recommen-dation regarding major policy issues resulting from the resolu-tion of public comments.t Representatives of the industry will participate, as appropriate.
D.
Unauthorized Forced Entry at Three Mile Island Unit 1 - Hear a briefing by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff regarding the unauthorized forced entry into the protected area at Three Mile Island Unit I that occurred on February 7, 1993.
Representatives of the licensee will participate, as appropriate.
s
(
2 E.
Reactor Operatina Experience - Hear a briefing by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff regarding recent operating events involving computer malfunctions.
Repre-sentatives of the industry will participate, as appropriate.
F.
Risk-Based Reaulation - Hear a briefing by and hold discussions with Dr. Vojin Joksimovich on risk-based regulation.
Representa-tives of the NRC staff will participate, as appropriate.
G.
BWR Vessel Wcter Level Instrumentation - Hear a briefing by and hold discussions with Mr.
P.
Blanch regarding his concerns associated with the BWR vessel water level instrumentation.
H.
Future ACRS Activities - Discuss topics proposed for consid-eration during future ACRS meetings.
I.
Resolution of ACRS Recommendations - Discuss responses from the NRC Executive Director for Operations to recent ACRS comments and recommendations.
J.
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.
Advanced Boilina Water Reactors, June 15-16, 1993, San Jose, CA (El-Zettawy).
The Subcommittee will visit the. General Electric Nuclear Energy (GE) facility and gather information associated with the review of the GE Standard Safety Analysis Report and related matters.
Attendance by the following is anticipated, and reservations have been made at the Holiday Inn Park Central Plaza (telephone:
408/998-0400), 282 Almaden Blvd, San Jose, CA for the nights of June 14 and 15:
Michelson Kress Carroll Lindblad Catton Seale Davis Wylie Advanced Boilina Water Reactors, June 17, 1993, Holiday Inn Park Central Plaza (telephone: 408/998-0400), 282 Almaden Blvd., San Jose, California (El-Zeftawy), 8:30 a.m.
The Subcommittee will review-matters related to the General Electric Nuclear Energy (GE) Standard Safety Analysis Report for the ABWR design.
Attendance by the follow-ing is anticipated, and reservations have been made at the Holiday Inn Park Central Plaza for the night of June 16:
Michelson Kress Carroll Lindblad Catton Seale Davis Wylie
i i
t 3
Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena June 22, and June 23 (as needed), 1993, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, MD (Boehnert), 8:30 a.m.,
Room P-110.
The Subcommittee will review selected aspects of the NRC-RES-sponsored ROSA-V confirmatory test program being conducted in support of the Westinghouse AP600 passive plant design certification effort.
Specif-ic review topics will include:
facility design modifications and additions, the test matrix, and instrumentation and controls.
Attendance by the following is anticipated, and reservations have been s
made at the hotels as indicated for the nights of June 21 and 22:
Catton HYATT Dhir NONE i
Davis NONE Schrock NONE Kress RESIDENCE INN Ward NONE Scale HYATT Wulff NONE Wilkins HOLIDAY INN Zuber NONE Materials and Metallurov, June 30, 1993, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda. MD (Igne), 8:30 a.m.,
Room P-110.
The Subcommittee will review draft Regulatory Guides, DG-1025, " Calculational and Dosimetry Methods for Determining Pressure Vessel Neutron Fluence", and DG-1023,
" Evaluation of Reactor Pressure Vessels with Charpy Upper-Shelf Energy Less Than 50 ft-lb."
Attendance by the following is anticipated, and reservations have been made at the hotels as indicated for the night of June 29:
i a
Seale HYATT Michelson HYATT Kress RESIDENCE INN Shewmon NONE Lewis RESIDENCE INN Reculatory Policies and Practices, July 7, 1993, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda MD (Houston), 1:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m., Room-110.
The Subcom-mittee will review the report of the NRC Regulatory Review Group.
Lodging will be announced later.
Attendance by the following is anticipated.
i Lewis Wylie Davis Kerr Michelson Ward 1
l
s a
r 4
Planning and Procedures, July 7, 1993, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, MD (Larkins), 2:00 p.m.
- 4:30 p.m., Room P-422. The Subcommittee will discuss proposed ACRS activities, organizational and personnel matters relating to ACRS, and related matters. Portions of this meeting may be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
552b(c) (2) and (6) to discuss organiza-tional and personnel matters that relate solely to the personnel rules and practices of ACRS and matters the release of which would represent-a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Lodging will be announced later.
Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Wilkins Carroll Lindblad 399th ACRS Meetina, July 8-10, 1993, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, MD, Room P-110.
Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena, July 22-23, 1993, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, MD (Boehnert), 8:30 a.m.,
Room P-422.
The Subcommittee will begin its review of both the Westinghouse analytical and separate effects test programs being conducted in support of the AP600 design certification effort.
Portions of this meeting may be closed to discuss proprietary information applicable to this matter.
Lodging will be announced later.
Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Catton Dhir Davis Schrock Kress Ward Seale Wulff l
Wilkins Zuber l
}
Auxiliary and Secondary Systems, July 27-28, 1993, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, MD (Alderman), 8:30 a.m.,
Room P-110.
The Subcom-mittee will review the LaSalle Fire PRA and the proposed resolution of Generic Issue 57, " Effects of Fire Protection System Actuation on Safety-Related Equipment."
Attendance by the following is anticipat-ed:
Catton Quintiere Carroll Karidas Michelson Wylie
5 i
Materials and Metallurov, August 4, 1993 (tentative), 7920 Norfolk l
Avenue, Bethesda, MD (Igne), 8:30 a.m., Room P-110..The Subcommittee will review proposed rulemaking on fracture toughness requirements for reactor pressure vessels - revisions to 10 CFR 50.61, Fracture Tough-ness Requirements for Protection Against Pressurized Thermal Shock Events, Appendix G, Fracture Toughness Requirements, Appendix H, Reactor Vessel Material Surveillance Program Requirements, and a new J
rule on thermal annealing (10 CFR 50.66).
Lodging will be announced later.
Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Seale Michelson Kress Shewmon Lewis Plannina and Procedures, August 4, 1993, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, MD (Larkins), 2:00 p.m.
- 4:30 p.m.,
Room P-422.
The Subcommittee will discuss proposed ACRS activities, organizational and personnel matters relating to ACRS, and related matters.
Portions of this meeting may be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
552b(c) (2) and (6) to discuss organizational and personnel matters that relate solely to the personnel rules and practices of ACRS and matters the release of which would represent a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Lodging will be announced later.
Attendance by the follow-ing is anticipated:
Wilkins carroll Lindblad 400th ACRS Meetina, August 5-7, 1993, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda.
HD, Room P-110.
401st ACRS Meetina, September 9-11, 1993, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda. MD, Room P-110.
402nd ACRS Meetina, October 7-9, 1993, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, MD, Room P-110.
f 4
i i
-l 6
Advanced Boilina Water Reactors, October 26 (Room P-110) _and 27-(Room P-422), 1993, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda. MD (El-Zeftawy), 8:30 The Subcommittee will continue its review of the GE ABWR Stan-a.m.
dard Safety Analysis Report and the associated NRC staff's Final Safety Evaluation Report.
Lodging will be announced later.
Atten-I dance by the following is anticipated:
j 4
Michelson Lindblad Carroll Seale Catton Wylie Kress 403rd ACRS Meetina, November 4-6, 1993, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, MD, Room P-110.
Advanced Boilina Water Reactors, November 16-17, 1993, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, MD (El-Zeftawy), 8:30 a.m.,
Room P-110.
The Subcom-mittee will continue its review of the GE ABWR Standard Safety Analy-sis Report and the associated NRC staff's Final Safety Evaluation Report.
Lodging will be announced later.
Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Michelson Lindblad Carroll Seale Catton Wylie Kress 404th ACRS Meetina, December 9-11, 1993, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda. MD. Room P-110.
Joint Severe Accidents / Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena, Date to be deter-mined (June / July), Bethesda. MD (Houston).
The Subcommittees will begin their review of the staff's proposed technical positions on severe accident issues for future plant designs.
The topics of fuel-coolant interactions and hydrogen will also be discussed.
Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Kress Dhir Catton Kerr Davis Lee i
Lindblad Ward Michelson i
Seale
7 Joint Individual Plant Examinations / Severe Accidents (tentative), Date I
to be determined (July / August), Bethesda, MD (Houston).
The Subcom-mittees will review the status and insights gained in regard to the Individual Plant Examination Program and Accident Management Guide-lines.
Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Davis Michelson Kress Seale Catton Kerr Lindblad Ward Improved Licht Water Reactors, Date to be determined (August),
Bethesda, MD (El-Zeftawy).
The Subcommittee will review the status of resolution of the open items in the draft safety evaluation report for the EPRI passive LWR Utility Requirements document.
Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Wylie Michelson Carroll Kress catton Lindblad Dav.t.s Seale Improved Licht Water Reactors, Date to be determined (October),
Bethesda, MD (El-Zeftawy).
The Subcommittee will continue its review of the safety evaluation report for the EPRI passive LWR Utility Re-quirements document.
Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Wylie Michelson Carroll Kress Catton Lindblad Davis Seale Decav Heat Removal Systems, Date to be determined, Betliesda, MD (Boehnert).
The Subcommittee will continue its review of the NRC staff's proposed final resolution of Generic Safety Issue 23, " Reactor Coolant Pump Seal Failures."
Attendance by the following is antici-pated:
Catton Michelson Davis Wylie Lindblad Ward 4
i l
I
M a
re
,pA y
,+l-i 4-r 8
Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena, Date to be determined, Orecon State University (OSU), Corvallis, OR (Boehnert).
The Subcommittee will continue its review of the Westinghouse and NRC integral systems and separate effects test programs supporting the AP600 design certifica-tion effort.
The meeting discussion will focus on the OSU integral systems test facility.
Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Catton Dhir Davis Kerr-Kress Schrock Lindblad Ward Seale Wulff Wilkins Zuber Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena, Date to be determined (2-day meeting),
San Jose, CA (Boehnert).
The Subcommittee will continue its review of both the GE analytical program (TRACG code) and the experimental program supporting the certification effort for the Simplified Boiling Water Reactor design.
Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Catton Dhir Davis Kerr Kress Ward Seale Wulff Wilkins Zuber Joint Severe Accidents / Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena, Date to be deter-mined (Fall), Bethesda, MD (Houston).
The Subcommittees will continue their review of the staff's proposed technical positions on severe accident issues for future plant designs.
The topics of basemat penetration and direct containment heating will also be discussed.
Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Kress Dhir i
Catton Kerr Davis Lee 3
Lindblad Ward Michelson Seale 1
)
i APPENDIX-V LIST OF DOCUMENTS PROVIDED TO THE COMMITTEE MEETING HANDOUTS AGENDA DOCUMENTS ITEM NO.
2.
Evolutionary and Advqpced LWR Reactor Schedules 1.
Letter to Ivan Selin from A. D. Hink, AECL, dated May 7, 1993, regarding Review of CANDU 3 Design 2.
Letter to Senator Lieberman from Ivan Selin, dated April 30, 1993, regarding Advanced Light Water Reactor Designs, with enclosure 3.
Viewgraphs on Revised Review Schedules for the Evolutionary and Passive LWRs, presented by Thomas Kenyon 3.
Backfit Considerations 4.
Viewgraphs on Backfit Considerations presented by Jack Heltemes 5.
Draft Paper on Statistics Primer prepared by Harold Lewis, dated May 13, 1993 4.
PRA Workina Group Activities 6.
Draft Paper on Classical Confidence Intervals prepare by Harold Lewis, dated May 12, 1993 7.
Me oranda to Harold Lewis from William Kerr, David Okrent, and David Ward, dated May 12, 1993, on the PRA Subcommittee Meeting Held on May 11, 1993 [ Official Use Only]
8.
Viewgraphs on Results and Recommendations of the PRA Working Group presented by Mark Cunningham 5.
Proposed NRC Staff Plan for Comparina Safety Goals with Reculations 9.
Memorandum to Dean Houston from David Ward, dated May 7, 1993, regarding Memorandum from Heltemes to Larkins, 4/19/93, Staff Approach for assessing the Consistency of the Present Regulations with Respect to the Commission's Safety Goals, with enclosure (Official Use only) 10.
Viewgraphs on the Staff Approach for Assessing the Consistency of the Present Regulations with Respect to the Commission's Safety Goal presented by Brad Hardin 7.
Preparation for Meetina with the NRC Commissioners 11.
Letter to Paul Shewmon from James Taylor, dated April 23,
- 1993, regarding Computers in Nuclear Power Plant Operations 12.
Additional
Background
Information prepared by Dean Houston Item X: Organizational Factors Research
l e
Appendix V 2
397th ACRS Meeting Item Y:
Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance Item Z: Backfit Considerations
[offical Use Only) 13.
Remarks by Commission James Curtiss at the NRC Regulatory Information Conference at Rockville, MD, May 4, 1993 10.
Form and Content of Combined License 14.
Viewgraphs on 10 CFR Part 52 Combined License (COL)' Form and Content presented by Stewart Magruder 12.
Meetina with the Commissioners 14a. Memorandum to Samuel Chilk from John Larkins, dated May 6,
- 1993, regarding ACRS Meeting with the NRC Commissioners on May 14, 1993 - Background Information, with enclosures 14.
ACRS Subcommittee Activities 15.
Viewgraphs on Computerized Information Management Systems for Nuclear Power Plant Design and Review presented by Mark Stella 16.
Memorandum to ACRS Members from Mark Stella, dated April 26,
- 1993, regarding Trip to Construction Systems Associates 17.
Portion of the Overall Requirements for ALWR, Volume III, Chapter 1 16.
Proposed Resolution of Generic Issue 105. "Interfacino Systems LOCA in LWRs" 18.
Viewgraphs on ISLOCA Research Program Results and Proposed Generic Issue 105 Resolution presented by Gary Burdick 23.
Miscellaneous 19.
Memorandum for Edward Jordan, CRGR, from Frank Miraglia, NRR, dated April 15, 1993, regarding CRGR review of generic letter 93-xx, " Resolution of Issues Identified in the NRC Staff's Evaluation of Shutdown and Low-Power Operations Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54 (f)", with enclosure 1
i Appendix V 3
397th ACRS Meeting MEETING NOTEBOOK CONTENTS TAD DOCUMENTS 2.
Evolutionary and Advanced LWR Reactor Schedules 1.
Status Report, dated May 13, 1993 2.
" Integrated Review Schedules for the Evolutionary and Advanced Light Water Reactor Projects,:
dated April 14, 1993 3.
SECY-91-191, " Schedules for the Advanced Reactor Reviews and Regulatory Guidance Revisions," dated May 31, 1991 4.
ACRS Report, dated' March 18, 1993, regarding Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) Review Schedule 5.
Letter from James Taylor, EDO, to Paul Shewmon, dated April 7, 1993, regarding Process and CuL Form and Content 3.
Backfit Considerations 6.
Status Report 7.
SECY-93-086, "Backfit Considerations," dated April 1,
1993, (Not Released to the PDR as of this date) 4.
PRA Workina Group Activities 8.
Status Report 9.
Memorandum from Eric Beckjord, RES, to James Taylor, EDO, dated April 22, 1993, regarding Draft Report of the PRA Working Group [ official Use only) s 10.
Introduction Chapter of the PRA Working Group Report (Draft Predecisional) 11.
- report, dated July 19,
- 1991, regarding the Consistent Use of PF/.
12.
Appendix A,
S u r v e~.
of Staff PRA Uses (Draft Pre-decisional) 5.
ProDQsed NRC Staff Plan for Comparina Safety Goals with Reculations 13.
Status Report 14.
ACRS report, dated April 12, 1988, regarding Comments on the Safety Goal Policy 15.
ACRS report, dated October 11, 1989, regarding Comments on the Safety Goal Policy 16.
Memorandum for John Larkins, ACRS, from C. Heltenes, RES, dated April 16,
- 1993, regarding Staff Approach for Assessing the Consistency of the Present Regulations With i
Respect to the Commission's Safety Goals (Draft Pre-
)
decisional) m-
1 B
Appendix V 4
397th ACRS Meeting
'l 6.
Meetina with the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Reaulation 17.
Status Report 18.
- Report, dated August 16,
- 1990, regarding NRC Research on Organizational Factors 19.
ACRS Report, dated April 27, 1993, regarding Review of Organizational Factors 20.
ACRS Report, dated March 18, 1993, regarding Computers in Nuclear Power Plant Operations 21.
SECY-93-020, " Review of Organizational Factors Research,"
dated February 1, 1993 10.
Form and Content of Combined License 22.
Status Report 23.
10 CFR Part 52 24.
SECY-92-287, " Form and Content for a Design Certification Rule," dated August 18, 1992 25.
ACRS Report, dated August 14, 1990, regarding Level of Detail Required for Design Certification Under Part 52-26.
ACRS Report, dated October 16, 1992, regarding SECY 287, " Form and Content for a Design Certification Rule" 27.
Draft SECY, undated, regarding 10 CFR Part 52 Combined License (COL) Review Process and COL Form and Content 16.
Proposed Resolution of Generic Issue 105. "Interf acina Systems LOCA in LWRs" 28.
Status Report, dated May 14, 1993 29.
ACRS Report, dated January 18, 1990, regarding Resolution of the Interfacing Systems LOCA Issue 30.
Excerpt from the Minutes of the 357th ACRS Meeting, January 1990, regarding NRR Presentation on Resolution of ISLOCA 31.
Excerpt from RES ISLOCA Resolution Package:
Summary Cover Letters and draft NRC Information Notice on Resolution of GI-105 32.
Comments on the Joint Thermal Hydraulics Phenomena / Core-Performance Subcommittee Meeting on May 12,
- 1993, Prepared by David Ward, ACRS Consultant [ Official Use Only]
e
=
4 8
APPENDIX.VI n
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS SION
)
I 3' PERIODIC BRIEFING BY THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS i
i t
LOC 3 tion:
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND b3I6*
MAY 14, 1993
?O933l 76 PACES n.g r.:
. > ~. ',
km,d.U;1itsn:~:
.c U
~
,;'~
- 0T I,CB LIIS U,
,,.,L U~ ~"'" ~ lN
,,e i
NEALR.GROSSANDC0.,INC.
COURT BEPORTEBs AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, Northwest Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
~
DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on May 14, 1993, in the Commission's office at One White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CPR 9.103, it is not part of the formal 'or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding 'as the result of, or addressed to, any statement or argument contained herein,
.except as the commission may authorite.
HEAL R. GROSS couar nooenas me runsenestas m manna a w w - -- -- -
- - - ^ - - - -
1 i
UNITED' STATES OF AMERICA-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION' PERIODIC BRIEFING BY THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE-ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS-4 PUBLIC MEETING Nuclear Regu' Commission
-L One Whit o / lint, North Rockville, Maryland Friday, May 14, 1993 t
The Commission met in open
- session, pursuant to
- notice, at 10:30 a.m.,
Ivan Selin, i
Chairman, presiding.
)
l
.l COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
IVAN SELIN, Chairman of the Commission KENNETH C. ROGERS, Commissioner JAMES R. CURTISS, Commissioner FORREST J. REMICK, Commissioner E. GAIL de PLANQUE, Commissioner NEAL R.- GROSS
2 STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT THE COMMISSION TABLE:
SAMUEL J.
CHILK, Secretary LAWRENCE CHANDLER, Assistant General Counsel for Hearings and Enforcement PAUL SHEWMON, Chairman, ACRS J.
ERNEST WILKINS, Vice Chairman, ACRS CARLYLE MICHELSON, ACRS JAMES CARROLL, ACRS HAROLD LEWIS, ACRS CHARLES WYLIE, ACRS WILLIAM LINDBLAD, ACRS IVAN CATTON, ACRS NEAL R. GROSS
e 3
1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2
10:30 a.m.
3 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Good morning, ladies and 4
gentlemen.
5 We're pleased to welcome members of the 6
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards for the 7
periodic meeting with the Commission.
But before we 8
begin, I would like to note, in fact I am very sad to 9
note that this is Doctor Shewmon's last meeting with 10 the Commission, as he will retire this month after 16 11 years of service on the ACRS.
12 Doctor Shewmon, if you would please come 13 forward, we'd like to present to you this plaque in 14 appreciation for all the work that you've done for us.
15 Thank you very much, Paul.
16 DOCTOR SHEWMON:
Thank you.
17 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
The Commission has 18 unanimously -- we'll miss you and by a vote of four to 19 one, we think your work was terrific.
20 Today we'll hear from the ACRS on three 21 issues.
First, the status of the Committee's review 22 of the evolutionary and passive light water reactor 23
- designs, including the EPRI utility requirement 24 documents and the po3 icy issues associated with these 25 designs.
NEAL R. GROSS
i e
4 1
Next we're to hear about the use of 2
computers and digital instrumentation and control 3
systems in nuclear power plants, and personally I just 4
think the Committee's contribution in this area has 5
been absolutely terrific.
I think you've really kept 6
the Commission on the right path in this area.
7 Finally, the ACRS will provide their views 8
on the current issues in license renewal.
9 We look forward to this meeting and to the 10 periodic meetings that we have with ACRS to solicit 11 their views on issues affecting the NRC.
12 Copies of the handouts are available.
13 Do any of my colleagues care to make any 14 remarks?
15 Doctor Shewmon?
16 DOCTOR SHEWMON:
The status of review, 17 we've seen the proposed schedules.
They're 18 aggressive. We understand them. We have sent letters 19 on the ABWR and raised questions that haven't yet been 20 answered, though there's a meeting in San Jose in June 21 in which hopefully we will get more answers.
We have 22 individuals here who are responsible for each of 23 these.
I don't really have any other presentation.
24 We would be pleased to respond to questions on the i
25 status of the review.
NEAL R. GROSS
_ _., ~ ~, - -, - _,, -,. _
5 1
COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Well, I just have a 2
few questions that maybe we could hear a little bit 3
more on.
First on the fire protection issue.
You've indicated that you still have some concerns about the 4
5 HVAC system.
- Really, do you have some specific 6
criteria in mind to deal with your concerns there that 7
there might not be suitable isolation in the event of 8
a fire?
9 MR. MICHELSON:
Yes, there are specific 10 criteria that must be met.
First of all, you have to 11 determine what the challenge is to the system.
The 12 challenge that is of greatest interest is actual 13 rupture of a pipe which creates far higher pressures 14 in its fire rate.
Having decided though what those 15 pressures are, then'you simply put in the equipment 16 that can withstand the effects or show the effects are 17 acceptable.
That's the criteria.
18 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Are you talking 19 about the HVAC system now?
20 HR. MICHELSON:
Yes.
Pipe breaks will 21 blow out ventilation damper if they aren't designed 22 for the peak pressures.
It may run from five to 11 23 pounds depending on which particular compartment 24 you're talking about.
25 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
So this is a
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRSERS
i 6
1 question of redundancy rather than isolation, is that 2
it?
3 MR. MICHELSON:
No.
Redundancy helps not 4
at all.
They're all exposed to the same peak 5
pressure, all of them in the compartment.
So, it's 6
the ability of the valves to isolate under those 7
conditions that is at issue.
8 MR. CARROLL:
I guess, Carl, my way of 9
looking at it is that the design has some' very 10 desirable features in it by having trains separated by 11 division and the weakness in the whole thing is that 12 Carl's pointing out a break in d vision one can impact 13 equipment at division two if not designed to withstand 14 the kind of pressure.
15 MR.
MICHELSON:
And this is because 16 there's one ventilation system and that's not separate 17 trains?
18 DOCTOR SHEWMON:
That's right.
It's the 19 common normal ventilation system which is not used 20 during the emergency situation but is already there 21 and is already connecting the divisions and it must be 22 isolated at the time of the event, and the event we're 23 talking about is a pressurization of several pounds 24 and it's a touch application for a heating and 25 ventilating system, so we're going to pursue with GE NEAL R. GROSS m a a m mau,mmm muo,
4 4
I 7
1 further.
They understand the problem.
2 The same problem exists on the doors and 3
electrical penetrations, the pipe penetrations, the 4
whole bit.
It's not designed for these kinds of 5
pressures necessarily.
6 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
So it's pretty 7
clear, though, exactly what your concern is there?
8 MR. MICHELSON:
Yes.
I think everyone 9
appreciates what the concern is.
10 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Can I follow-up on 11 that?
12 COMMISSIONER ROGERS':
Sure.
13 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Carl, one thing that 14 wasn't clear to me is the case that they're not 15 designed for that or you ' re not sure that they're 16 designed for it.
17 MR. MICHELSON:
The case right now is we 18 have no commitment to design for it and I assume that 19 in June I'll find that they now have a commitment.
20 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Okay.
21 MR. MICHELSON:
And then you have to deal with the adequacy of the commitment, the timing of the 22 23 closure, what kind of test requirements will there be 24 to verify that such a device can work under such 25 conditions, things of that sort.
It's all NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCREERS
8 1
straightforward.
It's not exotic.
2 Now you may show that it's
- 7. non-problem 3
because you can stand to have them go out.
It's a 4
little dif ficult, takes a lot of analysis and you have 5
to deal with things like projectiles created by doors 6
coming off and things of that sort.
It's easier to do 7
it by design for the conditions.
8 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Okay.
On the 9
hydrogen control --
l 10 DOCTOR CARROLL:
It is worth noting, 11 though, that this is a vulnerability that existing 12 plants have.
13 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Yes.
14 DOCTOR CARROLL:
We're simply saying, 15
" Hey, for this certified design we think you ought to 16 do better."
17 MR. MICHELSON:
Well, you ought to do it 18 right.
19 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Yes.
Right 20 All right.
- control, you 21 suggested or you said that the staff doesn't have a 22 sufficient basis to establish a final hydrogen control 23 position.
Do you have some ideas or comments about 24 specific data that you think have to be developed?
I 25 know there are research programs underway.
I was up NEAL R. GROSS
9 1
at Brookhaven a week or so ago and listened to a 2
presentation on their studies.
But how closely can 3
you pinpoint your concerns here as to what further 4
data need to be developed and any additional criteria 5
that have to be established regarding the location of 6
equipments?
7 DOCTOR SHEWMON:
That's Doctor Catton's 8
item.
9 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Yes.
10 Doctor Catton?
11 DOCTOR CATTON:
I'll just try to walk 12 through what some of these things are.
13 The hydrogen rule talks about uniform 14 distribution and, if you have uniform distribution, 15 placement of igniters is no problem.
But the results 16 from the Germany tests that the HCR containment shows 17 significant stratification, so one of the areas that 18 I think there's not a sufficient database deals with 19 how do you place these igniters so that you can be 20 sure they work, that they're going to be in the right 21 place and that somehow the hydrogen isn't going to get 22 by them and be somewhere else and then you condense 23 out the steam, wind up with near stoichiometric 24 mixtures and have a detonation.
This is really what 25 the concern is.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
i 10 1
Now we nlan to meet with some of the NRR people at noon today to work out more of the details 2
3 of this.
I think that's where the problems are.
4 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
So you think that 5
this is going to require an additional research 6
program of some sort or could one introduce some 7
requirements that would take care of it without having 8
to do model studies or something of that sort?
9 DOCTOR CATTON: I don't believe a research 10 program is needed, but I do believe somebody has to 11 sit down and do the kinds of calculations that tell 12 you where your problems are going to be.
Where is the 13 hydrogen going to move through an AP-600 containment 14 building.
I think many of the tools are available.
15 They just haven't been exercised.
16 DOCTOR SHEWMON:
And where could a large 17 enough volume of it accumulate so that a detonation is 18 of concern to you.
19 DOCTOR CATTON:
That's right.
20 DOCTOR SHEWMON:
The small ones really 21 don't matter.
22 DOCTOR CATTON:
That's right, and there l
23 have been several arguments against igniters both by 24 Tony Oppenheim in the Academy report that was some 25 time ago and also Karvot in Germany has argued against NEAL R. GROSS
'i 11 1
use of igniters.
And part of it has to do with not 2
knowing quite how to place them.
3 And the other thing is, I don't really 4
see--
5 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
What would they 6
substitute for igniters?
Pacombiners or nothing?
7 LOC."rOR CATTON:
I think that you -- well, 8
the Siemens-Framatome containment was much like AP-600 9
with the passive cooling and the thin steel shell.
10 What they did is they somehow incorporated concrete to 11 take a detonation, so the problem goes away.
It's the 12 thin shell that gets you into trouble.
13 There are other things you could do too.
14 You could design your containment so that you would l
15 direct where the hydrogen is going to go so you knov 16 where it is.
17 Now at the outset EPRI said that they had 18 in their requirements document some sort of statements 19 about this, but I've not been able to find them and i
20 the EPRI people said that they would get me the part 21 of their document that addresses this. But this means 22 sloped ceilings, high point vents and all of this sort 23 of thing so that the hydrogen gets to a place where 24 you put your igniter.
You don't just place igniters.
25 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: What's your opinion NEAL R. GROSS a-
" N""NN------
12 1
as to how this is being dealt with?
I guess that's 2
really going to take place today in your meeting with 3
the staff.
4 DOCTOR CATTON:
We're going to do that 5
today.
6 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
All right.
Very 7
good.
Good luck.
8 DOCTOR CATTON:
We'll get there.
9 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
The core debris 10 coolability concern that you mentioned, there's a 11 cavity floor area greater than 200th of a square meter 12 per megawatt thermal.
There's a SECY that f:=yr that l
13 the staff neither supports nor disputes that 14 criterion.
Do you have any suggestions as to how to 15 close out this matter?
16 DOCTOR CATTON:
Well, a long time ago we 17 did some simple calculations I guess to help us put 18 together the containment report that we wrote for you 19 and at that time we did calculations and came to the 20 conclusion that a number like.04 you could be sure 21 that you could quench it.
I just feel that backing 22 away from requiring that it be quenched is in the 23 wrong direction.
If it's not quenched, you've still 24 got to deal with it.
25 DOCTOR CARROLL:
Why don't you explain NEAL R. GROSS
13 1
what " backing away" means?
2 DOCTOR CATTON:
Oh.
In 90-016, the 3
statement in there is that it be quenched, and 4
quenched means I now have particulate not molten core.
5 Presently the position is that it just be 6
coolable or, I'm not quite sure of the wording, but 7
it's a significant step back from a requirement that 8
you deal with it.
Coolable, without stating time, 9
could be days, months, weeks.
Who knows?
I think it 10 should be a little bit more specific.
17 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Is it a question of 12 coolable or quenchable?
13 DOCTOR CATTON:
Well, quenching has a 14 particular meaning.
15 DOCTOR S'HEWMON: Well, tell us what it is.
16 To a metallurgist they sound very similar.
17 DOCTOR CATTON:
Well, to me quenching 18 means that it's solid.
19 DOCTOR SHEWMON: Yes. And coolable means?
20 DOCTOR CATTON:
Coolable means you't2 21 slowly taking the energy out of it.
It may be days 22 before it's solidified.
It's liquid.
23 DOCTOR WILKINS: It could even be boiling.
24 DOCTOR CATTON:
Well, I hope it won't be.
25 DOCTOR WILKINS:
- Well, in the general NEAL R. GROSS en =r nr nntre wn romm.yo.
14 1
sense of coolability.
2 DOCTOR CATTON:
Yes.
I just don't think 3
enough attention has been paid to it, at least not 4
what I've seen.
We ought to take a shot at trying to 5
do some calculations to figure out just what we do 6
need.
7 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
I'm not familiar 8
with the history of this.
I know it's got a long 9
history, but I'm sure some calculations have been done 10 of some sort.
Is it a major problem that needs to be 11 addressed?
12 DOCTOR CATTON:
Well, I'm not sure.
Sure 13 calculations have been done.
On the one side 14 assumptions of very high heat transfer coefficients 15 are made and you arrive at the
.02, but it turns out 16 the calculations that led to.02 don't stand a test of 17 scrutiny.
I think the approach that was taken to 18 arrive at the.02 was a sensible one, but they ought 19 to use more reasonable numbers in their calculaticns 20 and just see what you get'and at least I haven't seen 21 that that's been done.
22 Now there was the experimental program 23 that was at Argonne that was supposed to address these 24 questions, but they had a lot of difficulty with the 25 experimental program. My feeling is everybody kind of NEAL R. GROSS
15 1
stood back to wait and see what would happen, so now 2
we're at the same position we were when they started 3
the test program which was several years ago.
4 I think somewhere we have to engineer.
5 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
I had a question in 6
this area too.
I think what you're referring to on 7
087, the staff says " provide a means to flood the 8
reactor cavity to assist in the cooling process" and 9
that's what you think is not strong enough.
10 DOCTOR CANON:
That's right.
11 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
You think that's 12 backing down?
13 DOCTOR CATTON:
- Yes, from the word 14
" quench."
15 DOCTOR ' CARROLL:
I guess the perspective 16 on all of this, however, is that people have proceeded 17 with design of their plants on the basis --
18 DOCTOR CATTON:
Of the.02.
19 DOCTOR CARROLL:
It's late in the day to 20 make any changes.
21 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Yes. Well, for some 22 designs, yes, very difficult.
23 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
But you're not 24 necessarily hanging your hat on.04?
25 DOCTOR CATTON:
No.
No, it's just that NEAL R. GROSS m.- nr --......
~l 16 1
doing a sort of conservative analysis you can get to
~
2 a number of
.04, of that order rather than the
.02.
3 It's probably somewhere in between.
4 DOCTOR SHEWMON: One thing that bothers me 5
about any of those calculations is that they assume 6
the stuff is going to stay liquid when it drops out 7
and cools and runs out in a nice uniform distribution, 8
which I think is utterly baseless.
I'm Waiting to --
9 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: You want it to stack 10 up like that.
You think it will stack up?
11 DOCTOR SHEWMON:
It will stack up like 12 that.
13 DOCTOR CATTON: If you don't put in water, 14 it might.
But if there's no water there, it probably 4
15 won't.
16 DOCTOR SHEWMON: There's a big difference 17 in temperature and radiation and it's not even all 18 liquid to begin with.
19 DOCTOR CATTON:
But its thermal 20 diffusivity is low.
This is probably not an argument 21 that they want to hear.
22 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
I can see why this 23 matter has not been settled yet.
24 DOCTOR CATTON:
Not even among ourselves.
25 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
We could just come back NEAL R. GROSS
17 1
when you're finished.
2 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Well, it looks like 3
it's something that's going to require continuing 4
attention and whether it ever will get settled is a 5
question in my mind.
6 There is one issue in your letter of 7
August 12th, 1992, that is of concern to me.
You 8
stated that there appears to be no means by which the 9
ABWR ITAAC tier 1 requirements will ensure that the 10 ABWR components and systems can be expected to have 11 reliabilities which are consistent with those assumed 12 in the PRA. f or the ABWR and that in your opinion 13 appropriate reliability values for the PRA deserve 14 more study.
15 Is this still an open issue with you 16 folks, the reliabilities that are being assumed in the 17 PRAs?
18 MR.
MICHELSON:
Of course there were 19 several people involved in the response, in the 20 particular components.
21 A good case in point, though, are the isolation valves on the containment where they have to 22 23 isolate potential ruptures in piping outside of 24 containment.
The reliability numbers you use are not 25 those you experience on a day to day closure basis, NEAL R. GROSS s w a ne m ne m m- - ---
18 1
since under that closure there's no real high 2
velocities and large differential pressures and things 3
of that sort challenging t.he valve.
l 4
However, under the pipe break case. now l
5 when you want to know the reliability, you have to go 6
an entirely different data set. That data set doesn't 7
exist.
We haven't broken enough pipes yet and got 8
enough reliability data on valves closing under those 9
kinds of conditions to predict.
10 I think the staff is trying to work with 11 what tests we've done, and there's been a handful, to 12 see if we can come up with a guesstimate even of'how 13 does reliability change.
This is true of a lot of 14 components.
They see a different condition under the 15 accident than you do under normal operation. You know 16 that the reliability is, intuitively at least, going 17 to be reduced.
How much we don't know unless you do 18 more tests, so the PRA is put in question under those 19 circumstances.
20 That's why we missed the reactor water 21 coolant line breaks, because the way the PRA was done 22 they used normal closure reliabilities, 10'8, 10, and d
23 of course two of those in series becomes a non-problem 24 if that's the way they really do it.
25 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Well, is there any NEAL _R< GROSS
I 19 1
way of dealing with some of these questions short of
)
waiting for a lot of new data that may take forever to 2
3 get?
4 MR.
MICHELSON:
- Well, conservatism of 5
design will help, but there's no sure way short of 6
having reliability numbers. The main thing is be sure 7
you remember that this is the real world and that you 8
use some judgement in looking at the PRA for those 9
particular kinds of problems.
10 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Well, have you folks 11 been able to flag the classes of problems that you're 12 concerned about here?
13 MR. MICHELSON: I don't know if we've made 14 a -- well, we've made an attempt to identify all the 15 places where reliab'ility will change because of the 16 event.
17 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
But in your 18 judgement the most serious deficiencies in the data--
19 MR. MICHELSON:
Well, clearly the most 20 serious one is the case of the reactor water clean-21 out.
Closely associated is the HPCIS and RCICS and 22 other isolation arrangements from the standpoint that 23 they all represent a LOCA if you don't isolate, 24 because they are carrying reactor fluid under normal 25 operating circumstance and if they fail to isolate NEAL R. GROSS
l
)
20 1
1 then you've got a LOCA outside of containment.
The 2
PRA has to be analyzed for that case and you don't use 3
the reliability numbers under normal operation.
It's 4
a totally different situation.
5 DOCTOR CARROLL: If my memory is any good, 6
when we first broached this with the GE PRA people in 7
the issue of motor-operated isolation valves.
They 8
went to the standard tables and got lod.
We asked, 9
"Have you heard about the problems that are going on 10 trying to make motor-operated valves work under break 11 conditions?" The answer was, "No, it comes out of the 12 tables."
So, that was what this --
l l
13 MR. MICHELSON:
That's what their whole 14 valve testing program under 89-10 is about.
15 DOCTOR CATTON:
You should be fair to GE, 16 though.
I think this is a problem with all PRA 17 practitioners.
They use some sort of standard values la in spite of the fact that in that use the valve is 20 l
l 19 times less reliable.
20 MR. MICHELSON:
So when you start putting 21 in perhaps more realistic predictions of reliability 22 you begin to identify new accidents which have l
23 previously gone away and that's why we don't inspect, 24 for instance, stress corrosion cracking for reactor 25 water clean-out, because it doesn't show up in the i
l I
NEAL R1 GROSS
21 1
PRA.
So the inspectors tell us, "We don't have to 2
look at those systems because they don't pop out of 3
your PRA.
You go to your big contributors that you do get in the PRA," and this is a potential contributor 4
5 that gets overlooked because of the way the PRA is 6
done.
7 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Yes.
It seems that 8
this is a very serious kind of problem of over-9 reliance on a PRA, I mean, if we're simply my 10 impression is that the staf f is not all that convinced 11 of PRAs and that other experiential judgement has to 12 be introduced and not simply a bottom line number from 13 a PRA.
14 MR.
MICHELSON:
I believe the staff 15 understands this problem and I believe that they're 16 taking a look at it.
We haven't yet heard what 17 they've come up with, at least I haven't.
18 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
I think I'll let 19 somebody else --
20 CMAIRMAN SELIN:
Commissioner Curtiss?
21 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
I just have two 22 questions of a more general nature.
23 Since we last heard from you there's been 24 quite a bit of work or progress, depending on how you' 25 look at it, on the ITAAC, working in particular with NEAL R. GRbSS
t 22 1
It's not a subject that you've 2
addressed in any of your recent letters in terms of 3
the general question of ITAAC and how the process is 4
evolving, but, if you could speak to where you think 5
we are with respect to ITAAC at this point, that would 6
be a helpful update.
7 DOCTOR CARROLL: Okay.
I chair the ad hoc 8
I see very significant 9
progress being made.
I think it's coming to closure.
10 It's been sort of a painful process, but I tidnk we'll 11 have a decent set of DACs and ITAACs when the dust 12 finally settles here shortly.
13 MR. MICHELSON:
But we actually haven't 14 seen them.
15 DOCTOR CARROLL:
We haven't seen them.
16 MR. MICHELSON: So until we see them, it's 17 difficult to --
18 DOCTOR CARROLL: We do plan one more round
.i. 9 of looking at the final product.
20 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Are you familiar 21 with the discussions that have taken place between GE 22 and the staff and you're up to date, say, for having 23 seen the actual ITAAC themselves?
24 DOCTOR CARROLL: I keep getting big stacks 1
25 of paper which I --
i
. NEAL R. GROSS
23 1
COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Okay.
2 DOCTOR CARROLL:
look through and I 3
assume I'm pretty much up to date.
It looks like good 4
progress.
5 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
But at this point, 6
and based upon what you know, recognizing that you'll 7
need to see the ITAAC, you don't see any significant 8
potential hard spots on the horizon?
9 DOCTOR CARROLL:
I do not.
10 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Okay.
11 The second question is really a schedule 12 question.
Somebody mentioned t[lat the schedule is an 13 aggressive one.
In view of the technical issues that 14 you've identified and the posture of those issues and 15 having seen the staf'f's most recent schedules and the 16 time allowed for ACRS review and the approach, is that 17 a schedule, albeit aggressive, that the ACRS can 18 support?
19 MR. MICHELSON:
I'll address that for the 20 ABWR.
I had a meeting with Murley last full committee 21 to discuss this and they show us, of course, that 22 about six weeks between the receipt of the final 23 safety evaluation requirement that we issue a report.
t 24 This would be, I think, keeping in mind that in that 25 period of time we must have full committee discussions NEAL R. GROSS
a a
24 1
and perhaps subcommittee discussions very likely, 2
that's a nonrealistic schedule if you were to see the 3
report for the first time on the first day of that six 4
week period.
It simply is unrealistic.
5 The agreement is that we will see these as 6
soon as possible before that time.
I have already 7
scheduled meetings for October and November of this 8
year just to look at the preliminary material.
9 Hopefully it's most of it.
If it isn't, then it's 10 going to be difficult to meet the schedule.
If it is 11 most of it and it's in reasonably final form, I think 12 we can meet the schedule.
13 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Okay.
Are there 14 things that you believe the staf f ought to be doing in 15 addition to what th'ey ' re doing now, providing early 16 copies and so forth, that would facilitate your 17 meeting the schedule?
18 MR. MICHELSON:
There are a number of 19 areas we have not reviewed even for the first time.
20 We've pointed these out in our previous letters that 21 we haven't done that review yet. The staf f says we're 22 going to start getting to those this summer.
23 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Okay.
24 MR. MICHELSON:
And presumably we'll get 25 them out of the way.
NEAL R. GROSS l
25 1
COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Okay.
Thank you.
2 DOCTOR WILKINS: Let me say, commissioner, 3
that the Committee will do its damnedest.
But unless 4
we have the material, we can't review it.
And that's 5
a truism.
And what's more, the material has to be in 6
reasonably good shape and in reasonably final form.
7 Carl's subcommittee has had a number of 8
meetings in which he's addressed much earlier versions 9
of various drafts of things and in retrospect, but 10 only in retrospect, that has turned out to be a rather 11 inefficient way for the ACRS and its subcommittee to 12 operate.
13 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
If I might just add to 14 that point, the issue isn't a question of willingness 15 to work hard -- I mean, that's taken for granted and 16 in fact it's shown in your previous efforts -- or even 17 willingness to look at incomplete documents.
The 18 issue is to be able to schedule below the committee 19 level at the staff level between your supporting staff 20 and the Agency staff, what questions will be asked, 21 what kinds of things are needed, so that I mean 22 there's a lot of paper that has to flow.
Things have 23 to be distributed and it's a big project.
It's not just a question of a few smart people listening to a 24 25 few other people and saying yes and no.
NEAL R. GROSS
26 1
We've been talking to Doctor Larkins with 2
considerable positive feedback about this is as big a 3
project as many of the other projects.
There has to 4
be a project management system set up, documents in, 5
what kind of questions are needed, what kind of 6
supporting guys, what kind of test results you'll need 7
at different points so that you don't get hung-up 8
being pressed to give fast answers when in fact the 9
staffs haven't done the homework that you need to 10 support you.
11 Commissioner Curtiss?
12 COMMISSIONER CURTIS$:
No, I don't have 13 anything else.
14 MR. WYLIE:
I might point out, though, 15 that we've principal'ly been talking here about ABWR, 16 but the CE System 80 and passive plants, those 17 schedules -- you've seen the schedules -- they seem to 18 stack up on top of each other and all that material is 19 coming in about the same time, and so it's going to be 20 a lot of work.
Doctor Wilkins just mentioned that i
21 it's going to be important that we get that material 22 on time because many of us are on the same 23 subcommittees and need to look at all of these things.
24 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Of course.
25 Commissioner Remick?
N EAL R. G ROSS
j 27 1
COMMISSIONER REMICK: Commissioner Rogers 1
2 covered the areas that I had questions on.
3 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Thank you.
4 Commissioner de Planque?
5 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE: Nothing on this.
6 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
I had sort of just a 7
general question.
The Committee has been extremely 8
helpful over the last three years.
You've actually 9
sent six different reports on the various policy 10 issues that have been involved in these reviews and 11 they've been very good general reports, but they have 12 mentioned that there are some areas of concern.
13 We are to hear from our staff in the not 14 too distant future on the poli.:y issues for the 15 evolutionary and the passive plants and, if there's 16 anything that you care to add to your comments to 17 date, that would be helpful.
I don't know that there 18 are any gaps in these points, but we've gotten really 19 quite a long and thorough report from the staff on 20 these some 14 policy issues.
We're to be briefed on 21 them.
You've followed them individually and f
22 collectively very closely and so, if there are any 23 updates or any more specific points on the concerns 24 either now or after the meeting, I mean in the next 25 several weeks, that would be useful.
NEAL R. GROSS
28 1
DOCTOR SHEWMON:
Fine.
We'11 take it 2
under advisement.
I don't think of any, but we'll 3
check.
4 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Okay.
Thank you.
5 Doctor Shewmon?
6 DOCTOR SHEWMON: Okay. Well, we all agree 7
that the use of computers holds exceptional promise 8
for instrumentation control.
We also have found that 9
the review and certification involves exceptional 10 challenges and requires new approaches.
11 Doctor Lewis will handle this 12 presentation.
13 DOCTOR LEWIS:
Thanks, Paul.
14 I'll try to carry the ball a little bit on 15 this one.
Let me just remind you of the recent 16 history and bring us up to date and I'll try, to the 17 extent that I'm able, to represent the Committee's 18 views, but I will try to let you know when I'm 19 deviating from that track.
20 As you recall, we wrote you a letter back 21 last September, I believe, and we were somewhat 22 exercised about what appeared to be an inflexible 23 staff policy that required that whenever an analog 24 system was replaced by a digital system it be backed 25 up by a hard-wired system all the way front to end, NEAL R. GROSS
29 1
and we were told by staff that what they really meant 2
was an analog system.
That sort of annoyed a number 3
of us because in most respects digital systems can be 4
made much more reliable than analog systems.' They can 5
do self-testing, all those good things.
We've gone 6
through them.
7 And we wrote you a letter last September 8
in which we said that there was an over-emphasis on 9
the issue of common mode failures in connection with 10 digital systems, although the common mode failures can 11 occur with both digital and analog systems and indeed 12 with hardware, valves, you name 'it.
Wherever you have 13 anything that is common to several trains it can lead 14 to common mode
- failure, so we recommended last 15 September that this position of the staff be relaxed 16 but we had some additional recommendations which I 17 just looked up.
j 18 We recommended that the staff augment its 19 own capability to deal with this kind of question 20 because they were treating -- the term that was used 21 was they were treating the digital systems as a l
22 disease rather than a cure, and that they broaden 23 their interaction with the rest of the world that's 24 been involved with this business and not be confused 25 about the difference between the kind of relatively NEAL R. GROSS
1
'l 30 1
simple digital systems we're dealing with in nuclear 2
power plants and the scare stories we hear from SDI or 3
these other really far larger systems.
4 The staff did then relax its position on 5
the hard wiring connection with this, but only-in a 6
way that remains to be seen in. practice.
That is,.
7 they said, yes, they won't be doctrinaire about it.
8 They'll consider alternatives, even the possibility of i
9 digital systems which are backed up by other digital 10 systems.
How serious this was we simply have to see.
11 We have good will about it.
12 Then the next episode was not a Committee 13
- activity, but I
can mention it because it was 14 subsequently taken up by the committee.
We wrote a 15 letter.
A few of us' signed a letter to you saying, 16
" Gee, this is a big subject.
It's really quite. new to 17 the Agency and it would be good to get a broad outside
?
18 look at the general question of how one does regulate 1.9 and license digital systems,"
and three of.us 20 recommended that you hire the Academy, National 21 Academy of Sciences and Engineering, to do this for 22 you because some of us have had experience with such 1
23 things.
They tend to be broad-based.
They will not l
24 tell you how to do your job tomorrow, which is what 25 you really want to know, but they can give you some-i
-NEAL R. GROSS
.l
31 1
perspective about what experts -- who serve unpaid, incidentally -- from the outside world would tell you 2
3 about it.
We recommended that.
4 The staff countered by setting up a
5 workshop, which I'll get to in a moment, and, Chairman Selin, you wrote the three of us saying, "Well, thank 6
7 you for your suggestion and the staff is moving along 8
those lines through their workshop."
I can mention 9
that because in the later letter to which I'm now 10 coming the Committee, to my surprise I have to say, 11 picked up on the Academy proposal and made it a 12 Committee position.
13 In the later letter, then, we dealt with 14 a lot of the specific issues that have to do with 15 digital systems.
They are complicated.
They are 16 different.
But they don't wear out, they can self-17 test.
I won't go through all those things for you 18 because we've been through them before and they're all 19 in the letter, but we concluded that a fundamental 20 problem was that the staff was applying to the 21 regulation of these digital systems, which do have 22 different accident modes and different 23 vulnerabilities, applying methods that were developed 24 earlier in connection with the analog systems and, t
25 even worse, with the mechanical systems.
1 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRSERS
.~m-..-.._
32 1
The reactors we're dealing with in the 2
current group are reactors that were designed in the 3
'60s and
'70s.
They're really rather old designs.
4 That was a
long time
- ago, even by old folks' 5
standards, so it was improper the Committee said to 6
apply the old habits which have to do with redundancy, 7
diversity blindly with respect -- obviously they have 8
a role, but it was improper to apply them blindly to 9
the digital systems.
And again, the Committee picked 10 up on the proposal that the Academy be hired to take 11 a broad look at the subject and ask -- I hate the word 12
" paradigm," but I've used it the last couple of days try to think through what 13 a couple of times 14 paradigm should be used in the regulation of these 15 really different systems with which neither the 16 industry nor the staff is really familiar 17 Just as the reactor systems we're looking 18 at now were designed in the '60s and '70s, much of 19 your staff was designed in the '60s and '70s.
I ran 20 into a
distinguished physicist, really very 21 distinguished, who was an old friend of mine at an 22 airport the other day and he said, "You know, Hal, I'm 23 thinking maybe I ought to get a computer."
Such 24 people still exist even among my friends and there's 25 a certain amount of that in your staff.
NEAL R. GROSS I
33 1
In any case, we did write this letter.
It 2
was full of recommendations but it included this 3
observation that you can't use the old methods.
In 4
particular, you cannot use even the PRA ideas of a 5
failure rate per unit time or probability of failure 6
per application for the digital systems, especially 7
when you deal with software.
8 Software systems do have a tendency to 9
work the same each time if they're given the same 10 input and they may have there is a
certain 11 probability that they will have a defect in them to 12 begin with, no question about that, a bug probability, 13 but once they're in operation the probability is not 14 so much that they will suddenly malfunction like a 15 valve.
16 The probability you're really dealing with 17 is what was the chance that there is a bug in there i
18 and what is the chance that the bug will be discovered 19 by some unexpected input into the system that 20 exercises an element of the logic that has not 21 previously been exercised. Those are different things 22 and they're unfamiliar things, so the Committee wrote 23 a letter which really ended up saying, " Gee, you ought 24 to get some people, real computer scientists" I
25 wouldn't turn the regulation of nuclear power over to NEAL R. GROSS court REPORTERS AND TRANSQuBERS
34 1
computer scientists, of course, but -
"an infusion of 2
that kind of thinking which is fairly common out in 3
the world because it applies to all large process 4
control systems, large safety-related systems."
5 NRC is not at the bottom of the heap, you 6
know.
NASA doesn't do all that well either on these 7
things.
The regulators of aviation don't do all that 8
well either, because they have the same problem that 9
all regulatory agencies have that you build up a lore 10 based on earlier things and it's kind of hard to 11 change.
So, we made that recommendation and I have 12 lots of details I can give you.
13 In any case, two weeks ago we received an 14 answer from the EDO to that March letter and I have 15 the answer in front of me and I was pleased to hear 16 you, Doctor Selin, say that we've had a major impact 17 on the staff in this regard.
I don't find that in the 18 letter.
19 Let me read you what his letter says.
His I'll 20 letter
- says, "You raise the question" 21 paraphrase one paragraph -
"of whether the staf f has 22 developed a coherent and effective plan.
- Moreover, 23 you express concern the staff may not have sufficient 24 expertise to accomplish this task in view of tho' 25 nature of the issues involved."
l NEAL R. GROSS n.m. m MM & &ar% TTb k hapNEthf
35 1
Then I'll read you verbatim.
"In response 2
to these questions, I continue to believe that the 3
staf f has developed an appropriate regulatory approach 4
to digital systems as explained in numerous meetings 5
and correspondence with the ACRS.
Further, the staff 6
believes that its approach is based on expert input 7
from the staff itself, its consultants in both the 8
computer and nuclear power industry including international regulatory and utility experience."
9 10 So, you know, that's in a sense a rather 11 unambiguous rejection of the letter.
He has a right 12 to do it, of course, but we have a right to differ 13 with that judgement.
The Committee has not had a 14 chance to develop a collegial position with respect to 15 his response to our response, you know, the next step.
16 That has not happened among the Committee members so 17 I can't speak communally on that one, but I can say I 18 am impressed with it.
19 So why don't we turn to the next subject, l
20 which is the famous workshop, because in a certain 21 sense we have had an impact in the sense that the 22 staff probably would not have organized this workshop 23 without a certain amount of pressure from you and from 24 us.
But they have indeed crganized it and it's' 25 important to ask whether this workshop is in some NEAL R. GROSS
36 1
sense a surrogate for the Academy study that others 2
have recommended, whether it's going to do the kind of 3
same thing.
4 And now I'll give you my own views because 5
the Committee doesn't have a position on that subject.
6 My own view is that it's not going to for 7
a couple of reasons.
One is it's done the way, 8
forgive me, NRC often does things.
That is to say, 9
it's organized by NRC for NRC to help NRC do its job.
10 That's what matters to the NRC staff and rightly so.
11 They have a real job to do.
12 They tend to organize it, and this is 13 organized that way, in such a way as to say "What 14 we're doing is really what we need to do and we need 15 help in doing it better."
That is, it doesn't 16 contemplate another possible philosophical approach 17 and, in fact, it's a little bit worse than that in 18 this case because not only is the workshop organized 19 with a day and a half of shotgun briefings by a wide 20 variety of people, many of them quite good -- I can 21 provide an enormous list of people who are just as 22 good who were not invited, but you can't invite 23 everybody so that doesn't of fend me at all -- and then 24 a half day of a panel discussion devoted to "what else 25 should we be doing?"
NEAL R. GROSS
37 t
1 That isn't my definition of a workshop.
2 That is to say, it's peer input followed by panel 3
discussion, chaired by the NRC incidentally, which 4
will ask for input in doing the job.
I don't see any 5
room in there for introduction of other ways of 6
organizing the regulation of digital systems in 7
nuclear power plants.
8 Now there's been one recent change and 9
that is that we were asked, with a very short time 10 frame, to comment on the agenda.
And I blush to admit 11 that I typed a response into my computer at home, 12 suffered a computer failure while I was doing it and 13 so it was erased and I was so frustrated and angry 14 that I pounded my fist and sulked.
Now, it wasn't i
15 really computer failure.
It was that it was such a 16 long response that I ran out of my allocated time on 17 our internal bulletin board system and was not able to 18 do it.
19 In any case, we did send a response.
20 DOCTOR CARROLL:
There is a rule that i
21 says, "save often."
22 DOCTOR LEWIS:
Yes, and I know the rule.
23 I know it.
24 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
Human failure 25 again.
NEAL R. GROSS coum peomas no masenecas
38 1
DOCTOR LEWIS:
In fact, I keep thinking of 2
implementing that rule for my word processor but I 3
haven't gotten around to it yet.
I'm as bad as the 4
next guy.
5 In any case, we did make a number of 6
recommendations.
Mostly they had to do with getting 7
more outside input, if that's not a contradiction in 8
terms, and, " gee, at least invite somebody from our 9
crowd," so they have indeed invited Ernest to come and 10 give a talk at their workshop.
I have a conflict, but 11 I will try to come and just listen to what he says to 12 exercise some quality control on him.
13 But if I were to make a bet, that is if 14 you were to lay a buck on the table and say "Is this 15 going to do what you guys wanted in your letter?" I 16 would say "No, it's not organized to do that."
17 So the Committee has not -- let me put it 18 as precisely as I can the Committee has not 19 retracted its recommendation that you go for an 20 Academy workshop and I personally think it's probably 21 the best, way to go.
It's not Heaven, you know.
It 22 sometimes doesn't work, but I have known it to work 23 and you need a fresh infusion.
24 Now let me talk about fresh infusion and 25 then I'll shut up and let you attack me.
The staff NEAL R. GROSS
]
39 1
claims it has interacted with many people and indeed 2
it has interacted with many people, but in the format 3
that the workshop has.
That is to say, they've had 4
talks from many people.
I've spoken to some of the 5
people who've interacted with the staff.
It says it's 6
had a lot of international experience.
If you look at 7
what really happened, there is a staff member who has 8
attended most international meetings. What his impact 9
on the rest of the staff has been, I do not know.
10 He's not a bad guy, but that's still not extensive 11 international interaction.
12 Now the staff also is going to hedge the 13 workshop in another way.
They've just announced that 14 they're going to try to draft a standard review plan 15 for the regulation of digital systems and use that as 16 a focus for the workshop, and that's further down the 17 track of "Here's what we're going to do.
Tell us how 18 to sharpen it up."
And it's not, again, a format 19 which admits of new thinking.
20 I try to tell people that, you know, there 21 are some things you can't do.
You can't turn country 22 music into Bach one note at a time.
And my friends 23 tell me I don't know enough about country music to 24 make that kind of comment, but it is true.
There are 25 some things you can't pick at, and yet, for people who NEAL R. GROSS
4 40 1
are trying to do a job, they don't want in a sense to 2
change the way they're doing it.
They just want help 3
doing it.
They want people to pick at it, so there's 4
a diversity of wishes and expectations and that's why 5
I personally think you ought to go to the outside and 6
get a fresh view.
It may come to nothing.
It doesn't I
7 cost much anyway.
I 8
Now I'11 shut-up.
9 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Doctor Wilkins, would 10 you-- Doctor Lewis pointed out that after a certain 11 point he was speaking on his own and it's always been 12 useful for us to have --
13 DOCTOR LEWIS:
Yes, that's right.
14 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
-- a range of views and, 15 since you 've _ accepted the invitation, perhaps you 16 might contribute something.
17 DOCTOR WILKINS:
Yes.
I would again 18 repeat that this is not a collegial statement at all.
19 It's a statement of my own views.
20 I think the Academy workshop would be 21 better than what we've got.
I don't see it as a 22 panacea.
In the final analysis, you have to change 23 the hearts and minds of the staff and that is going to 24 be a very difficult, very difficult operation.
t 1
25 What we're doing here today and what we NEAL R. GROSS
41 I
have done in our letters is to start working on you 2
folks, trying to convince the Commission itself that l
3 there is an issue, that there is a problem which 4
requires attention either directly from you or through 5
the EDO or through the office directors.
6 I'm going to appear before this group.
It 7
isn't quite fair to say that I'm going to give them a 8
talk.
9 DOCTOR LEWIS:
Oh, I thought you were.
10 DOCTOR WILKINS:
It's more a ceremonial 11 kind of thing.
One of you is supposed to address --
12 I've forgotten.
Brian Sheron to'1d me which one, but 13 I've now forgotten.
One of you is supposed to -- I 14 guess it won't be you, Commissioner Curtiss.
15 COMMISSIDNER CURTISS:
That's for sure.
16 DOCTOR LEWIS:
You may seize the occasion 17 to give a talk.
18 DOCTOR WILKINS:
And then Eric Beckjord 19 will welcome the group and sort of give a keynote, and 20 then I'm supposed to have the opportunity to say what 21 I want to about the ACRS position and I intend to take 22 advantage of that opportunity to do precisely that.
23 But it's not a technical talk.
It will not be a talk 24 which says "this is what you ought to do" or "this is' 25 what I think you ought to do."
NEAL R. GROSS coum nenomas mo mmsenetns
42 1
CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Doctor Shewmon?
2 I'm sorry --
3 DOCTOR WILKINS:
- Yes, I think that's 4
really about all I have.
5 DOCTOR LEWIS:
I do want to add one thing 6
I should have said.
In the context of changing the 7
hearts and minds, we all know the slogans that went 8
with that in some other circumstances.
9 The staff says that we recommended that 10 they augment their capabilities.
The staff does say 11 that it's trying vigorously to hire people with the 12 kinds of skills involved.
13 I had to talk at some conference in 14 Florida a few months ago where there was an NRC 15 recruiting brochure lying on a table.
I picked it up 16 and looked through it.
There was no mention of the 17 subject in the very long list of requirements. Partly 18 that happens because these things are written up by 19 the office directors and, again, when the office 20 directors when they lose a mechanical engineer they 21 want a mechanical engineer to replace them.
They 22 don't want to change their work force balance.
23 So, even though they say they're trying 24 hard, I don't think they are.
25 DOCTOR SHEWMON: We had a meeting with Tom NEAL R. GROSS M" M h r Y M M f' t i f T a lff'"T)fC
- 9 P
43 1
Murley yesterday and this was one of the topics which 2
we discussed.
One of the things which he brought up 3
was that he had a problem he wanted some solutions to 4
now or as soon as he could get them and, if he gave it 5
to the Academy, his experience was this was a hiatus 6
of a year or two.
I think one could say in his 7
defense or as r comment that possibly both could be 8
done in parallel because there's what are you going to 9
do this year and then what are you going to do 10 different next year and --
11 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
I'm glad you said that 12 because I'd like to respond to a' couple of things that 13 you said, Doctor Lewis.
14 First of all, I have the unenviable task 15 of trying to convin'ce the Committee it's been a lot 16 more effective than it gives itself credit for.
When 17 we started on this it was analog versus digital, not 18 one mode of computation versus a second or whether it 19 was computing or instrumentation.
I mean, there 20 really has been a
considerable amount of 21 sophistication that's come to the reviews.
22 Second, substantively the staff positions 23 have changed enormously in what they --
24 DOCTOR LEWIS:
Oh, yes.
25 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
-- have required of the.
NEAL R. GROSS court REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
. -~ n m.e., i.,.., -
i 44 l
1 bidder and that's that they want to take a look at the 2
standard review plan and discuss this with some 3
experts.
I personally consider that a sign of 4
strength and ont weakness, because hearts and minds 5
are fine but it has to get down to how we're going to 6
do business and if --
7 DOCTOR LEWIS:
The devil is in the 8
details, they say.
9 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Yes, sir.
And when you 10 pick up a recruiting document that doesn't show what 11 we say we're doing, then that's a real sign that we're 12 not doing what we say.
Similarly, the actual things 13 that have been required of GE have changed enormously 14 since you've taken a strong interest in this point.
15 DOCTOR LEWIS:
I know that.
16 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
The third point is sort 17 of a general point, but that is we don't design the 18 safety systems. We don't design the computer systems.
l 19 We, the Agency, not the Commission, react to what 20 comes in.
Now we can'very much affect what will come 21 in by giving indications of what will be considered 22 welcome or not welcome, but we do have to basically be 23 following the designs and a lot of the GE design is 24 based on their experience overseas so there is a j
25 specific set of designs to react to.
I.
NEAL R. GROSS
-renc~m
H 45 1
But of the more important points, other 2
than the f act that I sort of -- what did Voltaire say?
3 He didn't exactly say this, but I agree with what i
4 you're saying but I disagree with your right to say 5
it.
Or more precisely, I agree with the bottom line 6
of what you're --
7 DOCTOR LEWIS: I like that. I'll use that 8
some day.
9 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Well, Voltaire can be 10 turned around also.
11 But the key thing is that I don't consider 12 the staff has an affliction for a'nalog systems or many 13 of the other things you said, but I do agree with the 14 conclusions even though I might have reached them 15 through a different' approach.
16 pd myself, I'm particularly sympathetic 17 to the idea that if we always ask short-term questions i
18 we'll always get short-term answers and we never will 19 get the chance to do the longer-term pieces.
It's 20 clear in retrospect we should have done something like 21 the Academy study a couple of years ago so that some 22 of the results would be in hand now to handle the 23 first set of applications, but it's not as if they're 24 going to come and go and then we're going to be gone.
25 I think Doctor Shewmon's remark is really NEAL R. GROSS court REPORTERS AND TRANSCRBERS
46 1
well taken.
We do need to look at the influence on i
2 the standard review plans, on the way we work with the l
3 applications in hand, but we need to be in a better 1
4 position than we were a couple years ago for that 5
which will follow.
6 So I really don't think you should be so 7
pessimistic either about the impact you've had on tne 8
staff or where they're going.
The changes have been, 9
by our glacial standards, pretty spectacular in the 10 last couple years in this particular area and I think 11 you should -- you might not like the results, but you 12 ought to take a lot of credit for the direction in 13 which they're moving.
14 Commissioner Rogers?
15 DOCTOR LEWIS:
I'm not sure I would use 16 the word " pessimistic."
I'm not sure I should have 17 any impact on the staff.
18 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Well, Doctor Lewis, I 19 assure you that you do.
You don't have to worry about 20 that.
21 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Well, I just think 22 that you have had a great impact on not only the staff 23 but our own thinking on things.
I think that some of 24 the points you just made, Hal, I think are extremely' 25 luportant with respect to a totally different view of NEAL R. GROSS 1
1 COURT Fii-im.r-s AND TRANSTRflFPM
47 1
how one sets standards for digital instrumentation and 2
control versus mechanical systems, and I haven't heard 3
that point of view expressed before in writing 4
anywhere and I think that that's very important.
5 I think that your suggestion that perhaps 6
one has to take a new look at the front end rather 7
than try to fix things up as you go along is probably 8
not so different from a point of view that I think the 9
Commission has been adopting in several ways in 10 totally different other contexts of looking before we 11 put our thoughts down on paper to what the problems 12 are as the rest of the world sees' them.
In some cases 13 this has nothing to do with technical matters, really, 14 public perceptions, but here's one that's a technical 15 matter that perhaps we really ought to be looking at 16 the front end before we start to try to fix things up 17 as we go along.
18 So I personally am very sympathetic to 19 your point of view, however the staff does have -- as 20 the Chairman has said, the staff really has to respond 21 to what comes to us from the vendors.
Those are the 22 products that we have to look at.
We don't design 23 things.
We don't suggest to them how they ought to 24 design.
We have to look at them from the standpoint 25 of their safety, but how we do that perhaps should be NEAL R. GROSS couar nearr.as c.e ramsmacas
48 1
very dif ferent from how we've done it before and 1 2
think that is an important, very important observation 3
that I personally am quite receptive to.
4 So I think that not only have you had an 5
impact, but I think the articulation of these ideas 6
has sharpened up as you have expressed your 7
frustrations with the lack of what you see to be 8
progress.
There's very good reason for that.
I think 9
things haven't been so clear as they might have been 10 as to how to proceed and I would say, had you made the 11 statement that you just made now with respect to 12 suggestions.say maybe four year's ago, it would have 13 been really very, very, very important.
It's still 14 important, but I think your perception of what has to 15 be said has probably. changed in the last four years 16 too.
17 DOCTOR LEWIS:
Of course.
18 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
So I think that 19 we're working on something here.
Our concern in many 20 ways I think is that we not be disheartened by a lack 21 of obvious progress.
I personally feel that the staff 22 has come a long way in its thinking about computers, 23 the use of computers in this Agency and how to deal 24 with digital systems.
They've come a very long way.
25 Now it may not be where we have to be, but I've seen NEAL R. GROSS amar noomtns ue ramsenans
49 1
enormous progress in the last four or five years here.
2 3
And it has been somewhat frustrating 4
sometimes because some of us feel that it should have 5
gone faster, but we have I think a very properly 6
controlled response to situations that maybe is a 7
little bit slow but in the long run may not be too 8
bad.
I hope that we can speed it up a little bit, so 9
I think what you've said today in my mind is very 10 important.
11 I do think that our staff has improved its 12 skills and knowledge and certainly commitment to 13 learning and doing more. They've been somewhat stung, 14 I think, by criticism.
They're proud people and they 15 should be proud and they want to do a better job.
16 I do know that there have been very 17 strenuous efforts to hire some top-notch people in 18 this area and we have struck out.
It is not -- it may 19 not have appeared in that recruiting brochure, but I 20 do know that we have tried very hard and it has not 21 been an easy task to complete successfully.
We would like very much to be able to bring in some top-notch 22 23 people maybe for a year or two to really help us and 24 that has been very difficult to achieve.
Any help 25 that ACRS can give us I think would be welcomed here.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND N
50 1
DOCTOR LEWIS:
Don't misunderstand me.
2 There are some very bright young people on the staff.
3 There are.
That isn't where the problem is.
4 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Yes.
5 Well, let me ask just one little nitty-6 gritty question rather than these rather broad-range 7
ones, and that has to do with this question of your 8
views on the necessity of safety grade displays and independent set of safety grade 9
controls in the 10 displays and controls in the control room.
You've 11 commented on this a number of times and you've 12 indicated that other arrangements than the independent 13 displays and controls in the control room might be 14 acceptable and I wonder if you could say a little bit 15 more about what you might have in mind there.
16 DOCTOR LEWIS: Well, you understand that's 17 a
Committee letter you're reading
- from, so I'm 18 forbidden to interpret Committee letters.
19 DOCTOR CARROLL: Which letter do you mean, 20 by the way?
21 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Let's see.
It's on 22 page 81 of the materials that I have here.
23 DOCTOR LEWIS:
You rnderstand that was a 24 response to a very hard and fast staff position which 25 has been relaxed or allegedly relaxed.
NEAL R. GROSS cm m ne w m mn m esm aas
t 51 1
DOCTOR SHEWMON:
Do you think your 81 has 2
any resemblance to our 81?
3 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
- Yes, I think it 4
does.
If it's written in hand, it probably -- at the 5
bottom.
It's a September 16th, 1992 letter.
6 DOCTOR WILKINS:
I see the language that 7
you were reading.
8 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Yes.
"The staff 9
proposed an independent set of safety grade displays 10 and controls in the main control room.
We believe 11 that other arrangements might be shown to be 12 accepta ble. !'
And I'm just curious as to what you
\\
13 think those other arrangements might be.
Anybody can 14 answer.
You don't have to interpret.
15 DOCTOR LEWIS:
I can tell you what I 16 think.
I don't remember that particular sentence.
17 It's a rather weak sentence and that's unusual for an 18 ACRS letter.
19 But the staff had a particular thing in 20 mind which was an analog system, hard-wired, no 21 multiplexing, no radial links, no nothing.
In many, 22 many cases radial links are more reliable than wires.
23 Infrared links are more reliable than radial links in 24 some cases.
Multiplex systems which contain error 25 correction can be more reliable than hard wires.
NEAL R. GROSS o m w m e,,,,
.,~,,...
52 1
People sometimes joke about computers backing up 2
computers, but sometimes it's the best way to go.
3 When Tom Murley was with us yesterday I 4
quoted an unnamed admiral I once knew who chaired a 5
committee I was on who was a very anti-technology 6
admiral, unlike of course most admirals, and he came 7
away saying about some particular system, he said, 8
"You know, it's amazing these things never sleep."
9 They don't and they don't suffer from human error once 10 they're working.
11 There are lots of ways to skin and cat and the staff was on a particular r'oute and I think all 12 13 that sentence really meant to say was that there are 14 other ways of doing it.
15 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
You think that the 16 thinking since 1992 has changed, the staff's thinking 17 on this?
18 DOCTOR LEWIS:
That the staff thinking 19 has?
Oh, yes.
20 DOCTOR CARROLL: This really was the hard-i 21 wired backup issue.
22 DOCTOR LEWIS:
That's right.
Their 23 thinking has changed.
24 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Fine.
That's fine.
25 DOCTOR LEWIS:
I don't care about their 1
NEAL R. GROSS m - iw m mr m e t w scs a m
r 53 1
thinking.
Their position has changed.
2 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
In your discussion how the workshop and possibility of a National Academy 3
4 study, no mention was made at the workshop that ACRS 5
itself held last fall, I believe, and to what extent 6
does that complement, supplement staff's workshop that 7
is proposed? You had a large number of people come in 8
from different countries and --
9 DOCTOR LEWIS:
I'm sorry, I'm missing the 10 question.
11 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Well, I want to know 12 to what extent the workshop that you folks conducted 13 complements what the staff would be doing.
14 DOCTOR LEWIS:
Oh, I think it would be 15 quite different.
The staff is asking for answers to 16 short-term questions.
They're important.
I'11 tell 17 you one anecdote.
One of our distinguished 18 consultants, a guy named Bill Kerr, whom you may 19 remember, went to a meeting in Florida a couple of 20 weeks ago, I wasn't able to go to it, and came back 21 with a story of somebody who wanted to install a 22 particular computerized system on his reactor that had 23 been installed on a
half dozen other reactors 24 successfully before this.
It was not an innovative' i
25 activity.
It was Eagle-21.
The NRC made him redo the NEAL R. GROSS
54 1
electromagnetic interference study he had previously 2
done because that happened to be the preoccupation of 3
the week, electromagnetic interference, without any 4
guidance or philosophy.
We've been complaining about 5
that for a long time.
They did.
It only cost them 6
$300,000.00, but it's down the drain and it was 7
unnecessary.
That's today's problems.
8 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
But the point I was 9
trying to get at, and I apparently didn't make it 10 clear, but your workshop was a broader based --
11 MR. CARROLL:
Well, it wasn't a workshop 12 specifically, it was just one of a
series of 13 subcommittee meetings that happened to call in a lot 14 of international expertise.
15 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Okay.
But that was 16 a much broader look, not just necessarily at today's 17 problems.
Is that correct?
Wouldn't the staff 18 benefit from that information that you accumulated at 19 that time?
20 DOCTOR LEWIS:
Are we talking about the
{
21 proposed Academy workshop?
22 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
I'm talking about a 23 workshop six months
- ago, the
- meetings, the i
24 subcommittee meeting that the ACRS held back last l
l 25 fall.
1 l
i i
NEAL R. GROSS
55 1
DOCTOR LEWIS:
Oh, we've had a dozen 2
subcommittee meetings on that --
3 COMMISSIONER REMICK: No, this is one that you invited in a lot of people from foreign countries.
4 5
DOCTOR LEWIS:
Oh, yes.
6 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
And that was a 7
broader look at some of these issues.
Would not the 8
staff have benefitted from that information to give 9
them a broader perspective?
10 DOCTOR LEWIS:
Oh, they were there.
They 11 were there.
12 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Yes.
So, I'm not 13 sure that their workshop should be of that type since 14 they've already participated in one that you know.
15 DOCTOR I.,EWIS:
No, it should not be the 16 type of our subcommittee meeting.
No, no, no.
The 17 thing that I would like, and I guess the Committee 18 since we approved it, would be a fairly open gauged 19 workshop.
You know how things are done with the 20 Academy.
I've spoken to the person who was current 21 chairman of the oh, God computers and 22 telecommunications board at the Academy.
He's a nice 23 guy, Professor of Computer Science at Virginia.
His wife has just been appointed to a high -- DDR&E at the 24 25 Pentagon, as a matter of fact.
He would love to run NEAL R. GROSS n,wmn
56 1
a workshop for NRC.
He knows all the good computer l
2 science.
He knows what the issues are.
He could 3
organize it with a viewpoint that is different from 4
the staff viewpoint.
5 I agree with Doctor Selin that you really 6
need answers to both short-term and long-term 7
questions and if you never address long-term questions 8
because it's too late, you never will.
9 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
No, I agree.
My 10 point is I thought that your subcommittee meeting was 11 about the longer term problems.
12
. DOCTOR LEWIS:
Well, the main things that 13 came out of our subcommittee meetings in brief were 14 that the difference between the smaller safety-related 15 systems in nuclear power plants and the large systems 16 on which people have scare stories, the fact that the 17 smaller systems or programs that one uses in nuclear 18 power plants are just on the verge of being amenable 19 to formal validation and verification, although that 20 hasn't been considered in the nuclear business.
If 21 you do that, you really can prove in a mathematical 22 sense that the software is bug-free in the sense that 23 it reflects what the requirements laid on it at the 24 beginning were.
But the problems are as often in the' 25 requirements as they are in anything else.
rM9/M a @acies
i 57 1
Nancy Levinson, who is one of the revered 2
consultants to the staff, has written an extremely 3
interesting report, which you might enjoy reading 4
about the Thorac 25 disasters.
These are radiation 5
machines made by Atomic Energy of Canada.
I have to 6
admit well, you know, Gail it killed a fair 7
number, a half dozen people or something like that.
8 I think it took three before they admitted that there 9
could be a problem with the software.
The problems 10 they had were partly the classical problems, partly 11 new ones.
The classical ones were a register that 12 recycled to zero and made probledts when it recycled to 13 zero. Another one, because there a timing loop in the 14 thing which never shows up as a problem when people 15 were learning to ruri the thing, but when they became 16 skillful and typed f aster, that it produced a problem.
17 Little things like that in the end are what make i
18 trouble.
But you can do V&V on those small systems if 1
19 you have to.
That came out of the things.
There were 20 a lot of things.
21 DOCTOR SHEWMON:
There was no report.
22 Shall we get on to the last topic?
23 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
- Well, I have a t
24 couple questions yet on this.
i 25 In your April
- 23rd,
'93
- letter, you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPOPTERS AND N o
58 1
addressed the control enunciator alarm reliability and 2
point out where you have alarms for manually activated 3
systems that are not backed up by automatic control 4
systems.
The staff is proposing Class 1E equipment 5
and your final bottom line is we believe that the 6
staff needs to provide clarification and additional 7
justification for this position.
It's not clear to me 8
that you're differing with the staff or you're just 9
arguing that they haven't made their case clearly.
10 It's a --
11 MR. CARROLL: Those were my words you were 12 reading.
13 DOCTOR LEWIS:
This is not my baby.
14 MR. CARROLL:
I guess I couldn't figure 15 out what they wanted people to do and what this system 16 was.
I don't know that there are any of them in a 17 power plant.
So, at a break in the meeting, I asked 18 the EPRI representative if they had any problems with 19 these words and he said, "Well, I don't think we ever 20 noticed them because we don't think we have any 21 systems that fall into that category, but I'm glad you 22 raised the issue because we want to find out more 23 about it."
24 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Okay.
So, it is a' 25 lack of --
NEAL R. GROSS
59 1
MR. CARROLL:
To me, I don't understand 2
what this issue is about or what they think -- what 3
problem they're trying to solve.
4 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Okay. Well, we have 5
a meeting with the staff this afternoon on this 6
subject.
We'll explore it with them at that time.
I 7
wasn't quite clear what your final comment meant.
8 Okay.
9 One other point that I'd like to make.
10 I'm not addressing this to the Committee, but to my 11 colleagues and the comment made that it would have 12 been nice to have that National' Academy study several 13 years ago, four years ago.
I certainly agree.
But we 14 have to be careful. Right now we are considering what 15 resources to put in'some of the advanced designs and 16 I'm afraid we tend to say when we got an application 17 we'll begin the review and that's always four years 18 too late.
I think we've learned that many, many times 19 already on reviewing the current set of reactors and 20 we have to be careful that we don't cut off our 21 resources for looking ahead to the fut' ire so that four 22 years from now we'll be saying the same things, I wish 23 four years ago we would have continued research or we 24 would have had this study and so forth.
25 That's not addressed to the Committee, NEAL R.' GROSS
,, n.nn,-
60 1
it's addressed to my colleagues.
2 DOCTOR WILKINS:
You have a letter from 3
AECL, for example, that urges you to continue. study.
4 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Yes.
5 DOCTOR LEWIS:
I'm fond - these days of' 6
quoting something I just recently learned'from Yogi-7 Berra, which is if you come to'a fork in the road,-
8 take it.
9 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
That's all I have.
10 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE: I just wanted to.
11 say I thought your March 18th letter was-a very good exposition of all the problems dn this area.
12 13 DOCTOR LEWIS:
Thank you.
14 DOCTOR WILLIAMS:
You have a little 15 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
I have one 16 specific question and then a general one.
17 On the electromagnetic interference 18 problem, we've been kicking that around for awhile.
19 DOCTOR LEWIS:
Yes.
20 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
And I realize 21 you don't consider this one of the central issues, but 22 again I.
see the comment that there's a lot of 23 expertise in here in the military area and still I
24 untapped by the staff.
Is that true?
25 DOCTOR LEWIS:
Not entirely untapped, but NEAL R. GROSS
61 1
the military experience where you know you 're planning 2
to put systems into an environment in which people 3
will deliberately expose it to electromagnetic 4
interference, they've learned a lot.
The keys are 5
shielding, protection of wires, limiting the signals 6
and, I think I said this to Tom Murley yesterday, 7
people have learned that the digital systems are more 8
immune to electromagnetic interference than the analog 9
systems.
So, if you're really worried about it, you 10 should push for moving to CMOS digital systems.
11 No, I think the staff has spoken to 12 people.
I think, in fact, this is a case in which 13 there has been an impact. They've been sort of pushed 4
14 to do it and they've done it.
15 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
Okay.
16 DOCTOR LEWIS:
But whether they've 17 learned, I don't know.
18 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
Okay.
But 19 they've done what you think should be done in this 20 area?
21 DOCTOR LEWIS:
Yes.
That's right, yes.
22 MR. CARROLL: Well, the issue started with 23 them coming in in response to our saying, "What 24 research are you doing?"
25 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
Right.
NEAL R. GROSS
O 4
62 1
MR. CARROLL:
And the only research they 2
were doing was on TMI.
3 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
Right.
4 MR. CARROLL:
So, I think that they have 5
now shifted gears and they have a pretty credible 6
broad-range research program going on.
7 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
Okay.
8 DOCTOR LEWIS: It was the wallet under the 9
lamp post.
10 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
Yes.
Okay.
11 Back to the workshop and the Academy 12 study.
A lot of the letters or$ this I see could be 13 characterized as a he said-she said, or he said-he 14 said problem and it's hard to figure out where the 15 truth is in between.
16 On the workshop situation, you talked 17 about a problem to some extent with the format because 18 it's not amenable to coming up with newer ideas, not 19 country music, not Bach, but something else.
And the 20 content to some extent.
Now, you said you haven't 21 come up with a Committee opinion on this yet. Are you 22 going to do this and are you going to come back with 23 this --
l 24 DOCTOR LEWIS:
The Committee has' 25 recommended at the workshop the Academy study.
We NEAL R. GROSS
~v,n - - -,,r m,m mer
..= - -.
[
a 63 1
haven't provided an agenda or a format for it.
That's.
2 usually done by talking to the people at the Academy.
3 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
What I have in 4
mind more is are you going to come back with 'some i
5 comments to us on the workshop as.you see 't now and i
6 any way in which you think the workshop that's 7
scheduled for the fall --
8 DOCTOR LEWIS:
Oh, you mean the September 9
one?
10 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
Yes.
Any way.
11 that should be changed?-
12
. DOCTOR WILKINS:
It's almost too early to 13 answer that question.
14 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
Okay.
15 DOCTOR WILKINS:
I'll give you an offhand 16 answer, which is that I would propose to make a trip 17 report, so to speak, of that meeting to the Committee 18 and then ask the Committee what it wants to do.
Among 19 i
other things, the Committee might decide to write you 20 another letter, or it might decide that things are 21 going pretty nicely and just let it slide.
It's too 22 early to predict how that will turn out, Commissioner.
3 23 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
Okay.
24 DOCTOR LEWIS:
I think if we're motivated 25 to say something, we will.
NEAL R. GROSS
1y 64 1
MR CARROLL: Just for the' record, I would 2
note that. two members signed additional comments i
3 opposing --
q 4
COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
Yes, we saw.
5 Yes.
t 6
MR. CARROLL:
At this-time.
f 7
COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
Yes.
l 8
MR. WYLIE:
Let me ask a question.
You j
i 9
were speaking about whether the Committee would 10 comment on the agenda, were you not?'
11 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
On the what?
i i
i 12 MR. WYLIE:
On the agenda.
1 13 DOCTOR LEWIS:
On the agenda or the 14 product?
15 DOCTOR WILKINS:
On;the agenda or what 16 happened?
17 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
The workshop 18 that's planned for the fall.
i 19 MR. WYLIE:
Yes.
20 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE: Are you going to j
21 comment on the agenda?
Are you going to make l
22 suggestions about changes in format or the agenda per 23 se?
5 24 DOCTOR WILKINS:
I thought we had already' 25 had an opportunity to comment on the agenda.
i i
NEAL R. GROSS
65 1
DOCTOR LEWIS: We were asked to comment on 2
the agenda.
There was a fairly short time given.
i We 3
did give them some comments.
We suggested only minor 4
changes, get more outside involvement.
We also said 5
that two days are really not enough to do this job and 6
two crowded days are certainly not enough, things like 7
that.
As a result, Ernest has been invited to be our 8
distinguished -- several of us will probably go to it.
9 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
Okay.
10 MR. LINDBLAD:
Mr. Chairman, could I --
11 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Yes, Mr. Lindblad.
12 MR. LINDBLAD:
As we discuss how we might 13 achieve a certain end, the regulation of digital 14 computers, I think at the end I really want to mention 15 that there's a numb'er of us on the Committee, and I 16 think all members of the Committee think that our 17 motivation is that the proper application of computers 18 and digital technology has a great potential for 19 making safe plants, and that it is not a matter of 20 efficiency or cost or not getting replacement parts 21 for analog.
It's the thought that digital technology 22 really opens up many opportunities for improving 23 safety in our nuclear plants.
24 DOCTOR LEWIS:
And on top of
- that, i
25 Chairman Selin, you mentioned that NRC doesn't design NEAL R. GROSS count nepomas ao ramsenecas
. - m a ~ ~
c 66 1
reactors and that's certainly right.
But the people 2
who do design them are very conscious of what it's 3
casy to get through you people.
4 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
I did give sort of an 5
offhand concession that that's true that we very much 6
affect -- we give signals, inadvertent or otherwise, 7
about what we will receive.
One thing I'd like to 8
receive now is Doctor Shewmon's introduction to the 9
third topic.
10 DOCTOR SHEWMON: License renewal, we think 11 there's been movement in the right direction. We look 12 forward perhaps to even more and Bill Lindblad will 13 handle the presentation here.
14 MR. LINDBLAD: Just last month we sent you 15 a letter with a Committee position on the recent SECY-16 93-049, which we reviewed in March and April.
I'll 17 quote from a
part of that to state what the 18 Committee's views are.
19 In a number of our letter reports, we 20 provide comments and recommendations on various 21 aspects of the license renewal rule, including our l
22 recommendation that this rule and the maintenance rule 23 be better integrated in the interest of long-term 24 coherence of the regulatory process.
25 Additionally, we've provided reports to NEAL R. GROSS i
67 1
Mr.
Taylor expressing our opposition to staff 2
proposals to use license renewal as a means of dealing 3
with problem
- issues, such as electrical cable 4
qualification and mechanical component fatigue life 5
- when, in
- fact, these issues potentially affect 6
presently operating plants that may or may not seek 7
Now, we continue to support these 8
views.
9 Since that
- time, the SECY-93-113 was 10 released on April 30th and the Committee has not had 11 an opportunity to review and discuss the staff 12 document.
But some of us individually have quickly 13 scanned through the document and we find great efforts 14 by the staff to link requirements in the license 15 renewal effort to existing programs that operating 16 plants have today such as recordkeeping and quality 17 assurance and even maintenance procedures and 18 adherence to a new maintenance rule. This seems to us 19 individually as being very desirable.
We encourage 20 that as we look at other opportunities to change, 21 whether it's in a
rulemaking or in further 22 implementation by the staff, that similar things be 23 done.
I really believe that the license renewal and 24 the 20 years beyond the 40 year licenses should be a~
25 continuation of the safety programs that we have today i
NEAL R. GROSS l
cavm aranartas.re voi"wnre-
68 1
rather than be a divergence of what we've done in the
~
2 past.
I have the greatest confidence in what we know 3
how to do and what we do regularly.
To the extent 4
that a license renewal would generate different 5
requirements or a divergence of requirements or 6
conflicts in requirements, I
think that's 7
personally I think that's not desirable.
8 I do recognize that in the issuance of a 9
renewal that there are things to be demonstrated 10 perhaps in hearings that assure the public that this 11 has been maintained, that safety is being maintained 12 in the extended plant.
I think'the best case can be 13 made that the extended life will be a continuation of 14 the safety programs that are currently running.
So, 15 to the extent that license renewal requirements 16 reflect the existing requirements, I think that's to 17 be encouraged.
18 It was stated earlier that in the digital 19 context that sometimes we wait until the license 20 application comes in before we understand how it's to 21 be implemented or find the faults and the like.
I 22 personally compliment the staff and you the Commission 23 for demonstrating in this most recent SECY 24 implementation examples so that applicants can see 25 whether it makes sense to plan for licence renewal or NEAL R. GROSS
69 1
not.
I think that in the recent history we've seen 2
some people who have been discouraged by license l
3 renewal requirements, along with other economic issues 4
that the utilities might have on their plate.
I 5
believe in the safety of the operating plants and I 6
thir.X that they will continue to operate safely with 7
license renewal and with the oversight that the NRC l
8 has on these plants.
l 9
Any questions?
10 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
I'd just like to point 11 out three things.
First of
- all, the general 12 principles that Mr. Lindblad mentioned are, in fact, 13 and have always been the Commission's principles.
14 They're in the statement of consideration and the 15 rule, namely that n'ot only is the current licensing 16 basis the basis for the extension of lifetime, but we 17 should not impose on people requirements in the first 18 40 years just because they're coming in for an 19 addition extension.
20 To follow-up on that, the staff has 21 followed your advice both on the questions of fatigue 22 and of environmental qualifications and therefore, 23 although there is a question I'd like to ask you, I'd 24 like not to do it now.
That is whether you believe 25 the staff has responded appropriately to whether the NEAL R. GROSS count reonTtns
70 1
questions on metal fatigue are overly done or not.
2 But they're not any longer in the context of license 3
renewal since they have taken the basic idea that says 4
if fatigue is a problem, it's a problem now and we 5
should take a look at it.
6 Now, perhaps you might revisit that in the 7
not too distant future since your advice was both very 8
general and ver, specific.
I know that the staff has 9
responded to the general advice and I'd be interested 10 in whether they've, in your opinion, responded to the 11 specific advice.
In other words., that the branch 12 technical position on metal f atigue was not justified i
[
l l
13 by any safety -- sufficiently justified by safety 14 consideration and safety --
15 DOCTOR SHEWMON:
I have not seen the new l
16 position, but we'd certainly be pleased to respond to 17 it.
18 CHAIRMAN SELIN: Okay. And then the third 1
19 point, just in passing, is that clearly in large part 20 because of Commissioner Curtiss' leadership, which for 21 the record I would like to say will be very, very l
l 22 sorely missed on this and many other topics.
Unlike l
l 23 Commissioner Remick, I don't always acknowledge when 24 I'm speaking to my colleagues instead of to the~
25 audience, but in this case I am.
The importance of l
t S 'r A ' D 00606
l
-71 wrapping the two together, the maintenance program and 1
2 the license plant life extension program have been 3
recognized, I hope on a timely basis, and there is a 4
lot of work going on in this area.
5 Commissioner Rogers?
6 I'm sorry, Doctor Shewmon.
7 DOCTOR SHEWHON: Before you finish, I have 8
one other item I'd like to bring up.
9 We've been seeing a variety of new faces 10 around the ACRS table and I'd like to introduce two 11 people who --
12 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Wed like to have the l
l 13 introductions, but that's not going to get you out of 14 listening to the questions from the other -- I'm going 15 to have to step out', so please introduce them now.
16 Would you?
17 DOCTOR SHEWMON:
Th'.s is Bob Seale i
18 CHAIRMAN SEi,IM:
Doctor Seale, how are 19 you?
I 20 DOCTOR SHEWMON:
And Pete Davis.
21 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Nice to see you.
22 Welcome.
23 DOCTOR SHEWMON:
Okay.
Pardon me.
Go 24 ahead.
1 25 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
I'm going to give you NEAL R. GROSS coum ateomtas mo mmsematas
72 1
both the floor.
2 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
That's fine.
I 3
don't have any questions.
4 CMAIRMAN SELIN:
I need to excuse myself.
5 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
All right.
Fine.
6 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Thank you.
7 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
I don't have any 8
specific questions.
l 9
Commissioner Curtiss?
10 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
I don't have any 11 questions, but I do want to make a couple of comments 12 and maybe a suggestion.
I read the Committee's 13 letters on this subject with great interest.
The 14 tenor of your comments, I think in a general way, is 15 very harmonious wit'h the views that I have come to 16 hold as to how we ought to approach license renewal 17 and in particular how we might best bring about a 18 coherent integration of the license renewal rule with l
l 19 what we now have in the maintenance rule.
20 Your most recent letter of April 23rd, as l
21 you've sought to frame what you understand are the 22 Commission's interests in this area, and here'I have 23 a suggestion to make, the question that I think we 24 have now before the Commission in SECY-93-049 and' 25 SECY-93-113 is a fairly simple one.
It has a lot of NEAL R. GROSS
r-73 1
complexities, but boiled down to its essence it is 2
what from a technical standpoint is a reasonable 3
approach to take to the renewal of licenses for up to 4
an additional 20 year period.
5 In view of the programs and processes that 6
were currently have in place for operating reactors, 7
including but not limited to the maintenance rule, I
think you probably constrain your focus unduly in the 8
9 way you frame the interest of the Commission there at 10 the bottom of that page when you ask the question 11 whether the present license renewal rule can be 12 legally construed to accommodate the staff's proposal 13 in SECY-93-049.
14 I'd offer you, I guess, a gratuitous 15 suggestion and tiiat is as you look at the 16 recommendations contained in the two recent SECY 17 y pers, and I think as you're particularly well 18 equipped to do, it would be useful to hear from you as 19 to whether you believe the technical approach set 20 forth therein to the many various issues that the 21 staff has focused on over the past several months is, 22 in fact, a reasonable one.
23 There are some complexities in that paper 24 that I don't fully appreciate at this point and since' 25 it is such a complex issue, I'm not going to ask you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR18ERS
\\
74 1
for your views at this point on that matter.
2 The question of whether that approach then 3
can be squared with the current license renewal' rule, secondary consideration and not a
4 in my view, is a 5
primary one.
If we believe a reasonable technical 6
approach in fact can be taken, needs to be taken that 7
is not consistent with what we're currently doing, we 8
ought to change that.
If it's not consistent with the 9
current license renewal rule, I think the course of 10 action suggests itself.
But I wouldn't want you to 11 limit your focus in this regard to whether you believe 12 the approach that's been suggested is, in fact, 13 something that one can square with the license renewal 4
14 rule.
15 MR. CARROLL:
That isn't what we were 16 really attempting to say.
I think the point we were 17 trying to make is on the next page.
When all is said 18 and done, we ought to leave good tracks because the 19 present Commission isn't going to be around when the 20 first application'is finally acted on.
21 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Yes.
22 MR. CARROLL: We need to leave a very good 23 history.
(
l 24 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Yes.
I think that 25 point is extremely well taken.
I look forward to your NEAL R. GROSS
F
{
75 1
views on this and thank you for your effort.
2 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
I have no question 3
on licensing renewal.
One question though on your 4
April 26th letter on SECY-93-087.
That's a very 5
weighty document. Can I assume that that is basically 6
your final letter on those issues that are up for 7
Commission decision?
8 DOCTOR SHEWHON:
What's the title of 93-9 087?
10 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
It's the policy 11 technical and licensing issues pertaining to 12 evolutionary and advanced light water reactors.
i 13 MR.
WYLIE:
- Well, I
understand that
{
14 there's a new set of these coming out shortly that 15 we'll be looking at.
16 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
A new set?
17 DOCTOR SHEWMON:
A remaining set.
18 MR. WYLIE:
Well, remaining set, yes.
19 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Oh, there will be 20 addition =J.
follow-up.
But I'm thinking about the 21 items where the staff has made specific 22 recommendations for Commission decision. This is your 23 final letter on those?
\\
24 MR. WYLIE:- That's correct.
l 25 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
All right.
NEAi. R. GROSS
1 f
76 1
COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
I have no 2
questions on this.
3 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Well, we thank you 4
all very much.
It's been, I think, as usual, a very 5
illuminating meeting. I think these meetings with the 6
ACRS, in my view, over the last few years have become 7
more and more enjoyable and more and more open ended, 8
less formalized, less constrained by time in some 9
ways.
Witness the Chairman's leaving before we're 10 finished.
And I personally feel that we have gained 11 a great deal through the work of the ACRS and we 12 appreciate your fine thoughts' and help for the 13 Commission in its activities.
14 Thank you very much.
15 DOCTOR S'HEWMON:
Thank you.
16 (Whereupon, at 12:04 p.m.,
above-17 entitled matter was concluded.)
18 19 20 i
21 22 23 24 l
25 NEAL R. GROSS m....i
CERTIFICATE Or TRANSCRIBER This is to certify that the attached events of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:
TITLE OF MEETING:
PERIODIC BRIEFING BY THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS PLACE OF MEETING:
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND DATE OF MEETING:
MAY 14, 1993 were transcribed by me. I further certify that said transcription is accurate and complete, to the best of my ability, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing events.
J
\\
Reporter's name:
Peter Lynch 1
HEAL R. GROSS Coutf ap0RTft$ AMD TRANSC#ftlRS 1323 IIM006 ISLAND AYtMut.
j
---