Text

Summary of ACRS 350th Meeting on 890608-10 in Bethesda,Md Re NRC Performance Indicator Program & USI A-47
	ML20059N633
Person / Time
Issue date:	10/11/1990
From:	; Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
To:	; Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
References
	REF-GTECI-A-47, REF-GTECI-SY, TASK-A-47, TASK-OR ACRS-2651, NUDOCS 9010170061
	Download: ML20059N633 (59)
	v • d • e

_

.~

X 086 -d66/

B If il S T Q M fi i brRIKICJ 4

f'Di2lo/H/@

TABLE OF CONTENTS MINUTES OF THE 350TH ACRS MEETING JUNE 8-10, 1989 I.

Chairman'sReport(0 pen)............................................

1 II.

NRC Performance Indicator Program (0 pen)........................... 1 III.

USI A-47, Safety Implications of Control Systems (0 pen)............

3 IV.

Thermal Hydraulic Research Program (0 pen )...........................

3 V.

Nuclear Power Plant Service Water Systems (0 pen)....................

6 VI.

General Electric Company Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (0 pen).....

12 VII.

LaSalle Station Unit 2 - BWR Core Power Stability (0 pen)...........

15 VIII. USI A-17. Systems Interacti ons (0 pen)..............................

18 IX.

Generic Issue-128 Electrical Power Systems Reliability (0 pen).....

20 X.

DegreeRequirementsforSeniorOperators&ShiftSupervisors(0 pen),23 XI.

Executive Sessions (0 pen / Closed)...................................

26 A. Subcomi ttee Reports ' (0 pen / Closed)..............................

26 1.

International Conference on Quality (0 pen).....................

26 2.

Nomi na ti ng Comi ttee ( Cl ose d)..................................

27 B. Reports Letters, and Memoranda (0 pen)..........................

27 1.

Proposed Commission Policy Statement on Education for Senior Operators and Shift Supervisors at Nuclear Power Plants (Report to Chairman Zech dated June 15, 1989)..............

27 2.

Division of Responsibility Between the ACRS and the ACNW (Report to Chairman Zech dated June 14,1989)...............-27 3.

Proposed Generic Letter Regarding Service Water System Problems Affecting Safety-Related Equipment (Report to Chainnan Zech dated June 14, 1989).........................

28 4.

Boiling Water Reactor Core Power Stability (Report to Chairman Zech dated June 14, 1989).........................

28 5.

NRC Thermal-Hydraulic Research Program (Report to Chairman Zech dated June 15, 1989)..................................

28 6.

Reliability and Diversity (Report to Chairman Zech dated June 14, 1989).............................................

28' 7.

Proposed Resolution of Generic Issue 128 " Electrical Power Reliability"(ReporttoChairmanZechdatedJune 14, 1989).

29p i7z yf s

a. :.

DESIGNATKD OBIo1NAL Oh 9010170061 901011

$$1 "

ce s ied By

-i PDC a

l i

{

350TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 11 8.

USI A-17. " Systems Interactions in Nuclear Power Plants" (Report to Chairman Zech dated June 13, 1989)..............

29 9.

USI A-47, " Safety. Implications of Control Systems" 15, 1989)yne Houston from Raymond F. Fraley, (Memorandum to R. Wa 29 dated June

10. ' Letter from Forrest J. Remick to M. R. Green, dated June 14, 1989..............................................

29 C.OtherConclusions(0 pen)........................................

29 1.

Consideration of Need for ACRS Review of Power-level Increase Requested by Licensee for Indian Point, Unit 2....

29 2.

GE Modifications to GE Version of TRAC (TRAC /G) Code.......

30 3.

Consideration of Need for Additional ACRS Action on Proposed Revision to 10 CFR Part 20........................

30 4.

Safety Systems Function Trends Performance Presentation....

30 5.

ACRS Member Possible Participation in Independent Safety Comittee for Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant..................

30 6.

Attendance of ACRS Members at ANS August 1989 Workshop.....

30 7.

NUMARC Activities Presentation Scheduled...................

31 l

D. Future Acti v i ti es (0 pen)........................................ 31 I

1.

Future Agenda..............................................

31.

2.

Future Subcomittee Activi ties............................. 31 Supplement - 0FFICIAL USE ONLY Section XI.A.2 - 06/E7'ED fo/g Eggdy Figure 1

p. 2a l

Figure 2

p. 2b Figure 3

p. 2c Figure 4

p. 2d Figure 5

p. Sa l

i u

]

)

iii

]

1 APPENDICES

. MINUTES OF THE i

350TH ACRS MEETING JUNE 8-10, 1989 l

I.

Attendees 6

II.

Future Agenda III.

Future Subcomittee Activities IV.

Title:

Espenslon Arts / Inter Arts determined by the ACNW Chairman.

i tr.it ' national efforts in microgtasily Orgerdsetional Development Pilot Informetion regarding the time to be set ecle see and applicalices

4:.c p.m--Mode of cperction of the Ap/hgue plication Cuidolfnes.

aside for this purpose may be obtained of CoMeerion: One. time, by a prepaid telephone eau to the subc tuun!stee and scheduling of fuire nas:Non.pront institutions.

Executive Director of the Ofhos of the meetuge.

Guideline instructions and mond F. Fraley ACRS, Mr. Ray /432-4514), prior to the j

8 p.as-Adjourn.

applications elicH relevant information (telephone 301 May igu eas, tros non pront organisations that apply ageung,dule for A la view of the ibility that I

p.he w, ces, for funding under spec 1Ac program the sche meetings may l

AMasry casianimie regoer.

categories. This information is be ediusted by the Chairman as m ne,,ef ae,,,,eue, e.,

necessary for the accurate, fair, and measonary to feoilitate the sendset of the Asen/a.esreuem thorough eeneideration of compettas meeting, pertene planning to attend pJ " Number of?::;:Past in the peer review process, should check with the ACRS1xecutive FR Dec. es.1asit File.5 & set etes en)

Director if such reacheduling would i

emens somme 30.

tesult in mejor laceeveniaans.

l Averste Aurelen Noweper?- ;----

Oness Msp 1& tem IIATIONAl.FOUle0AT10N ON THE 4"

ARTS AND HURIANITIES hi'"'

senest), tam.

Assue issey Cseve#ese "

-- -o - -

Under CMS Review EssisweseffarseeAres.

E" _ e.,,

emi "I

meesser.NeelonalEndowment for the g,gg, en&ese eens samee arriese Nonce' Advisory Committee en Roseter SafeguardetIsoeting Agende stamaame.h National Endowment for MEEA N

,.n to Arts (NEA) has sent to the Omos of g,,,,,4,,,,,gg g

,g och 30 and 18th. af b haic dnagement and Badget (OMB) the Advisory Committee en Nuoleer Energy Act les U.S.C anse, assab). the Wast *i 38eeting Advisory Committee on Reactor Refor a noe un prov r a of th Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C W Advi Committee on Nuclear Sefeguards welInold a meeHng on June Chapter 33).

Waste (A wiD bold a meeting on 6-10. We le Room P-11& 72 Norfon eavem Commente on this information June 13,less Room P-110,7930 Norfon Avenee Betheads.Md.

o A

the No co 61s sellection must be submitted by June as, ynne p

R*sloter on y 17.1 m

Thundey use 8.me. Reen P-12&

asensesta Send comunents to Mr. Jim g followlag top os WUI di 730s Norf Avenue. Betheads. Md.

Houser. Omco of Management and l

t. New Enocutive Omee Buuding.

Thescior,/une JA 1888 4# s.m-AW anoe.mdeo.m Cornmentsby Fan ockson pine NW, Roorn 3002, p.m (Cpen)

ACAS Cho/rrnon (Open) m ACits We hing4n DC 20503;(202-396-7316).

. NRC stafl's dran of the Site Chairman wGl report on items of current in addition copies of such comments may be oral to Mrs. Anne C Doyle.

Characterludon Analyels(SCA),

laterest,

Comunittee Activittee: Futere areo.m !J.m e.atNRC Nanonal Endowment for the Arts.

Administrative Services Division. Room meeting agenda, and orgenlaationel Arrformance Indicolor progrom (Open).

3E5.1100 penns Ivania Avenue NWa matters, u appropriate.

Briefing by representstives of NRC staff Procedures for the conduct of and regarding development and use of Eashington, 20$00:(202-682-6401),

participation in ACNW meetings were performance indicators to evaluate the l

see Punfisen neronuAvioN Cottf ACT:

published la the Federal Reglster on operetion oflicensed nOcl*ar Power Mr*. Anne C Doyle. National June 4, itse (53 m 30esel. In accordance plante.

Endowenent for the Arts. Administrative with these procedures, orel or written f fils e.m-Ja# Noon: Preparollon of Services Division. Room 203,1100 statements may be presented by ACASReporte(Open). Discuss ACRS s

~

~ ~ -

~

.y.g.

Federal Regleter Vol. 54. No.100 / 'rkreday. May SS.19ee / Netime y

g o

and the time allotted can be obtained by

(

toISC septsding the statue of Satwder.)eme10.1980 a papaid telephone call to the ACRS

en of eermetive action gge.g.;gggeen hepostlen of Executive Director. Mr. Reymond F.

A1WS and the scope of ACRS ACAS Aaporte se NAC(Open).De Coeunittee will discuse proposed ACR3 Fraley (telephone 301/492-4049).

4 between 0:18 a.ra. and Sm p.m.

sasepads

'laSo/JeCountf sports to NRC regardingiterne AsWen (Aelif

).N Committee considered during this sawting.

Dele: May 18. lees.

n6 ***I**

- - - - \\ ** >'*P***0 2.w p.n-1:# p.n: Nomination of i

esseleden of the SWR wm poww ACAS Members (Open/ Closed).De l'ha Wis.

essasses met which occurred at this Cosmalttee will discuse qualincations of Advisory Commitsee Managemeat Oficer.

)

jf,gfACR 1

209pm-tsip.n: Service Water 1

4ssenes(Opes).* Commluw wul Portions of this seeston will be c.losed mytow and comment en a popowd as required to discuss information the e

4 8ec gendcloner men w wice release of which would spresent a

,g,"g' 'F*'**

"hd"h*'F' clearty treated lavastos of (0 %.e m s s H ssi J;m dep.at M/scellaneous Consumere Power Co. Withdrawal of i

mettere.

i ON (Open N Ccamittee will complete AppRcatJon for Amendment to

}

discussion of items conaldered during Provisional Opereting Uconee A

,f g,

g'P,AComanwe win review and sport l

0"*I " "

uros for the conduct of and no United States Nuclear Regulatory g

participation la ACRS meetings wem Commiselon (the Commiselon)has Aestrib.m-Amp.mf l

SW ACRS (Opes). Discuse enticipated publishedla the Federal Regleter on granted the request of Consumers Power October 37. less(la FR 43447 la Comp'eny (the licenwe) to withdraw its t

ACRS subcomunittee activities and items accordance with tbwe p urw. oral February S.1985 application (se peeposed for consideration by the fuH er written statemente may be presented supplemented by letter dated November esenhha by membwe of the pubtle scontings 21.1988 and March 9,1987) for proposed phiday, June 9.1988. Reen F-tit. 7980 wiu be penaitted only during those amendment to Provisional Operating IIsefeat Avenue.Setheeds.Md.

pations of the meeting when a Ucense No. DPR-20 for the Pelleades transcript le b pt, and questione plant located in Von Bumn County.

may be askedgy map o.m-lam a.n: Cenerolflectric members of the Michi8sa.

Ceepony Advancedasillsig Weser amanen,(Opeo). A brienne and Comualttee. its cone ante, and Staff.

ne proposed change would heve essession wiu be bold regardlag dwige Persons dwiring to make oral mouthed the Appendix A Technical j

tentures of this advanced reactor to statemente abould motify the ACRS.

address NRC severe socident policy Rzecutive Dirooter as for la advance se Specifications (156) pertaining to Are esmeidersecas, practicable so that appropriate protection systems. Specifically, the seet e.a-22mNoon: USIA-sy, arrangemente osa be mooe to eBow the proposed changes would have modilled interoctione (Opea).De

-*y time during the meeting for Limiting Conditione for Operation for ttee wiu review and report on such statementa. Use of still, mot on Fire Protection Water Systems. Fire proposed naal resolution of this picture and television cameras during Sprinkler Systema. Hose Stations, and enresolved safety teses.

this meeting may be limited to selected Fire Rated Fire Protection Anemblies J.W 4Wp.a:Nrmel-portions of the meeting as determined and Surveillance Requimmente for Fire Open).

oy the Chairman. laformation regarding Sprinkler Systems and Fire-Rated Fire Ae88 arch Program (d report the time to be set aside for this purpou Protection Assemblies.

ttee wiu review an be obtained by a prepaid telephone en the proposed NRC thennel.hydraulle maflo the ACRS Executive Director. Mr.

The Commission has previously research program to resolve issues of cal Issued a Notice of Consideration of segulatory concera.

Raynood F. Fraley, prior to the meeting.

issuance of Amendment published in the RJ87.m428 p.a: Sducollon la view of the possibility that the Aeguisements ondErperiencefor schedule for ACRS meetinge may be Federal Register on May 21.1985 (50 F1L 20075). However, by letter deted March AbcAserPWwerMont Senior Operciore adjusted by the Chairman se necessary 23.1900, the licensee withdrew the l

andConoot Aoom Sqpervisorv (Open),

to faciutate the conduct of the meeting,kproposed changt 9

porosas planning to attend should chec Disases and sport en a proposed Consdeolos policy statement regarding with the ACRS r.xecutive Dimeter if For futther details with rnpect to this i

education and experience requiremente suva reacheduling would reault in mafor action, see the application for sertuclear power plant Senior inconvenience, amendment dated February 5.1985.

Operstore and Control Room I have determined in accordance with lettere deted November 21,1968 and subesction 10(d) Pub. I 92-483 that it is March 9.1987, and the licensee's letter

'J#p.m4J8 p m.t ACAS accessary to close portions of this deled March 23,1989, which withdrew Subcommittee Activities (Open).%e meeting as noted above to discuse the application for license amendment.

Comunittee wiu bear and discuss reports information the release of wh!ch would he above documents are available for of ACRS subcommittee chairmen represent a clearly unwarrected public inspection at the Commlesion's sugarding deelsnated subcommittee inveelon of personal privacy (5 U.S.C.

Public Document Room. 2120 L Street activities and related eventa including 552b(c)(6)).

NW., Washington, DC and the Van the laterna tional Confennce on Quality Further information regarding topice Zoeren Library' Hope College. Holland' Assurance, the results of the burnaa to be Mnf whether the meeting Michi en 49201*

8 Rector spla oS study from the Chernobyl has been cancelled or rescheduled, the 1

anclear plant accident, and AC/DC Chaltman's ruling on requate for the

, Do*d at Rodville. Maryland this teth day Power systems rollability, opportunity to present oral statements oN87 e-e, - - -

---,,-n,

--<--,--m.,,-.e

,n---

,,m,-

,--,e-

pg\\

umTs0 stats

/

/.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ADVla0RY 00h4WTTas ON RsACTOR saps 00AROs s

waswinston,o, c. seses

, Revised:

June 7, 1989 SCHEDULE AND OUTLINE FOR DISCUS $!0N 350TH ACR$ MEETING JUNE 8-10, 1989 BETHESDA, MARYLAND

.\\.

I Thursday. June 8. 1989. Room P-110, 7920 Norfolk Avenue. Bethesda Md.

Chairman'sRemarks(0 pen))

1) 8:30 8:45 A.M.

1.1) opening remarks (FJR l

1.2)

Itemsofcurrentinterest(FJR/RFF) 10:15 A.M.

NRCPerformanceIndicatorProgram(0 pen) 2)- 8:45 TAB 2................ Z.1) setering ny representatives of NRC staff regarding development and 1

use of performance indicators at nuclearpowerplants(FJR/pAB) 10:30 A.M.

BREAK 10:15 10:45 A.M.

U$1 A-47. Safety !mplications of Control

3) 10:30 TAB 3 --------------- systems (open J w

d W shh WM i

regarding(WK/ME) proposed final resolution this U5!

11:15 P.M.

Preparation of ACRS Reports (0 pen)

12) 10:45 II.1) Implementation of ATW$ resolution (WK/ME) 12.2)ScopeofACR$ Responsibilities l

(FJR/RFF) 3 12:00 Noon FutureActivities(0 pen)

-4) 11:15 sed ACRS subcossnittee TAs.................- 4.1)

Discusspropl6RQ/RFF) activities TAB-----------..-----4.2)

Discuss items proposed for con-sideration by the full Consnittee (FJR/RFF) 4.3) Discuss integrated regulatory process (HWL/GRQ) s 1:00 P.M.

LUNCH 12:00

s.

c 350th ACR$ Meeting Agenda 2-5) 1:00 3:00 P.M.

Thermel-HydraulicResearchProgres(0 pen)

TAB 5 --------------- 5.1 )

Report of A6nsi scacosmittee chairman on the NRC thermel-hydraulic research programplan(DAW /PAB) 5.2) Meeting with representatives of the NRC staff, as appropriate 3:15 P.M.

BREAK 3:00 6) 3:15 5:15 P.M.

Nuclear Power Plant Service Water systems Lopen)

TAB 6 --------------- c.IJ Report of ACR$ subcomittee chairman regarding proposed generic letter on service water system problems affect-ing safety-related equipment (CN/$0) 6.2) Meeting with representatives of the NRC staff and nuclear industry, as appro-priate j

7) 5:15 -

5:35 P.M.

ACR$Subcosmittee-Activities (0 pen).

7.1)

International conference i

onQuality(Cp5/EGI) l l

Friday June 9, 1989. Room P-110. 7920 Norfolk Avenue. Bethesda. Md.

t 8) 8:30 - 10:30 A.M.

General Electric Company Advanced Boiline l

TAB 8 --------------- uster Reactor topen J s.IJ comments by ACR$ subcosmittee chairman regarding design features of this standardized reactor to address severe accident policy considerations (CM/NA) 8.2)

Briefin b Staff, g y representatives of NRC as appropriate 1

10:30 - 10:45 A.M.

BREAK

9) 10:45 - 12:15 P.M.

LaSalle Station Unit 2 - 8WR Core Power stability (open)

TAB 9 -------------- 3.1) connents by ACRS subcommittee chairman regarding resolution status of the BWR core power stability issue (DAW /WK/PAB) 9.2) Meeting with representatives of the BWR Owners Group and the NRC Staff, as ap.

L propriate s

i s

,A~"

w

,-w

,e-,,-----en..

ee,-

.w.

w.,-,v e-yww

-rwe

,,,.w+--

.,-e-,-~.-mc.w,-~,e

t

?

350th ACRS Meeting Agenda l i

12:15 -

1:15 P.M.

LUNCH

10) 1:15 -

2:30 P.M.

U$IA-17.SystemsInteractions(0 pen) 10.1J Report of AGR5 subcosmittee chaimen TAB 10 ---------------

regarding pro ssed final resolution i

ofthisU5!(JAW /MDH) 10.2) Meeting with representatives of NRC staff, as appropriate L

I':30 -

2,:45 P.M. '

8REAK l

^

7.2)2:45-3:30 P.M.

Generic Issue-:28. Electrical Power systems Reliat'11ty Lopen) lectrical Power TAB ------------------ 7. za l seneric Issue 128. E Reliability - Report of AC/DC Power Systems Reliability subcosmittee meetingonJune7,1989(CJW/*E) 7.2b) Briefing by NRC staff representatives

11) 3:30 -

5:30 P.M.

Education and Experience Reevirements i

for nuclear Power Plant Senior Operators and control noon supervisors LopenJ tag 11.............. 11.1) Report of Acas suecosmittee chairman-reparding proposed NRC Commission y

L Po icy Statement (FJR/NA)

L 11.2) Meeting with representatives of NRC e

staff, as appropriate l

o I,

13) 5:30 -

6:15 P.M.

NominationofACR$ Members (0 pen / Closed) 13.1) Discuss qualifications of candidates l

proposed for consideration as ACRS members (CM/MFL) 13.2) Members' Activities (CM/ DAW /RFF) l (Note: This session will be closed as necessary to discuss information the release of which would represent a I

' clearly unwarranted invasion of r

personal privacy.)

Saturday. June 10. 1989 Room P-110, 7920 Norfolk Avenue. Bethesda Md.

14) 8:30 - 12:00 Noon PreparationofACR$ Reports (0 pen) 14.1) Discuss proposed AcR$ reports to NRC regarding:

14.11)

Implementation of ATWS resolution (WK/mE) 14.1-2) Scope of ACR$ responsi-bilities(FJR/RFF)

)

~...

350th ACR$ Meeting Agenda i 14.1-3) LaSalle Station Unit I 8WRCorePowerItability (OAW/WK/PA8) 14.1-4) Proposed Generic Letter on Service Water System Problems (CM/50) 14.1-5) US! A-47, Safety Isolications of Control Systems lWK/ M E)

(Tentative) drad11e Rese'erch' 14.1-6)

Theme 1%* Plan (OAW/PAB)

Program 14.17)

USI A-17 Syst Interactions (emstentative)

(DAW /MDH)

I 14.1 4) Education and Experience Requirements for Segior Reactor Operators and o

Control Room Supervisors l

(FJR/NA) 14.1-g)

Generic Issue 128.(CJW/ME)

Electrica) l Power Reliability

(

12:00 -

1:00 P.M.

LUNCH 15)1:00-3:00 P.M.

Miscellaneous (0 pen) 15.1) compTete discussion of items considered during this meeting i

w

... _ _,. _ _ _ _.... _,, -, -.. - - -, -. ~

... - - ~

f b

T.J 1 0!

s t ui a

emW i MINUTES OF THE 350TH ACRS MEETING JUNE 8-10, 1989 The 350th meeting of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, was held at 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Md., June 8-10, 1989. The purpose of this meeting was to conduct the discussions and to perform the actions described in the attached agenda. The meeting was chaired by Dr. Remick.

i l

All of the discussions were held in open session except for a short session during which the Comittee discussed the qualifications of candidates proposed i

for consideration as ACRS members. A transcript of selected portions of the meeting was kept and is available in the NRC Public Document Room.

[ Copies of the transcript are available for purchase from the Heritage Reporting Corpora-tion,1220LSt.,N.W., Washington,D.C.20005.]

I.

Chaiman's Report (0 pen)

[ Note: Mr. R. F. Fraley was the Designated Federal Official for this portion ofthemeeting.]

Dr. Remick began the meeting with a brief sumary of the planned agenda and the provisions under which the meeting discussions were to be conducted.

Dr.

Remick stated that Chaiman Zech's retirement party would be held on June 29, 1989 at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., and invited Committee members;to attend.

In addition, he noted that the NRC has issued i

its Policy Statement on the uses of leak-before-break technology, approved the Fitness-for-Duty Rule and the Control of Restricted Areas Rule, and issued a five-percent-power Operating License for Seabrook.

l

11. NRCPerformanceIndicatorProgram(0 pen)

[ Note: Mr. P. Boehnert was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.]

l l

Dr. Remick, Chairman of the Regional Programs Subcomittee, introduced this i

topic,: stating that this discussion is a continuation of a presentation begun at the April ACRS meeting on three new performance indicators (PIs) developed L

by the NRC staff. The allotted time had expired prior to completion of the AE00/RES presentations at that earlier meeting.

Mr. M. Williams,-AE00, introduced the topics for discussion which were the development and use of the cause code PI and the status of the development of the safety system function trends Pl. He noted that the Comission, in approving a six-month trial program for the cause code PI, had directed the staff to investigate the topics of cost / benefit and of the validity of the PI itself in evaluating the use of the cause code.

Dr. Kerr asked as to what use will be made of PI data. Mr. Williams stated that the PI results are used as a " screen" to determine if detailed investigation of a given plant's perfor-mance is warranted.

Mr. W. N. Thomasson, AEOD, outlined the development of the cause code Pl.

I Development work began in 1986 with the focus of this effort being to develop l

g(

o 350TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 2

a PI that could identify adverse trends in plant performance. The PI is based on synthesis of LER data of event causes and subsequent corrective action (s).

A six-month trial program, conoucted by a group at ORNL, was begun. The program involved coding of the event causes taken from about 1200 LERs.

Engineering judgment was used to assign causes and the corrective action was taken verbatim from the LER.

Figure 1 lists the seven cause categories that were used by ORNL.

Dr. Lewis inquired as to the underlying philosophy associated with the choice of the above seven cctegories. AE00 stated that the choices were based on the judgment of the NRC/0RNL Task Force.

Selection criteria used included, in s

part, the ability to highlioht safety concerns and resistance to data manipu-i lation. There was further 60mmittee discussion on the cause categories, i

Concern was expressed that some causes are not clearly or distinctly identi-fied. Mr. Williams indicated that they are continuing to evaluate the cause categories for improvement.

Dr. Siess and Dr. Kerr again questioned the bases for the use of PIs.

After some discussion, Mr. Ward observed that Pls can show which plants are q

" outliers" and deserve a closer lock. The NRC staff representatives agreed 1

with this observation.

The results of the cause code study were broken down into seven categories as shown in Figure 2.

It was noted that " maintenance-related" causes account for almost 40% of the total. Questions from the Committee highlighted the fact i

that the NRC staff focuses on a change in causes at a given plant as the factor that warrants the staff's attention.

The results of the corrective actions study are noted in Figure 3 where the most frequent corrective action was a " procedure change" (31%).

A comparison of causes with related corrective actions (Figure 4) is seen by AE0D as providing an effective tool for evaluation of plant performance.

Mr. Thomasson said that ORNL developed a methodology (sequence coding search system) to develop the cause code information for three years of LER data.

AE0D conducted tests to assure the validity of the data obtained by this method.

AE0D also performed studies to assure the validity of the LER cause code data.

This data was compared to results of AIT/ITT inspections, enforcement histor-1es SALPs, etc. Mr. Thomasson indicated that this comparison showed a significant correlation. Mr. Michelson questioned the usefulness of AIT information as a check on LER data validity due to the cross-dependence that results between the two.

Dr. Kerr asked how AE0D believes a QA program will eliminate the problem of subjectivity vis-a-vis synthesis of LER data. Mr. Williams indicated that NRC has established procedures and guidelines for ORNL to use as a check on

- i. -

L TRIAL PROGRAM CAUSE CODES i

i

ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL PROBLEMS i

LICENSED OPERATOR ERROR

OTHER PERSONNEL ERROR DESIGN, FABRICATION, CONSTRUCTION, j

AND INSTALLATION l

MAINTENANCE 1

l

MAINTENANCE 2

2

=

RANDOM EQUIPMENT FAILURES i

]

a

+ -.

=.4L--

e m

4 w

-d--4 a s_he am 4

A44Ja..

e

%-4 A

4-.4-44=

A a.Jm=4e.J4.44Aad.a--WJ.r-+ed-46.4+4 4m4 M -%

2b i

l M

7 cv O

~

9 o

5 N

c O

.O '

o O

~

C

.C to C

itI bad 0

To

~

., s c

R 3

8

)

l i

TD

.G W

i E

LU - Q D

1 T

O

/

O W

cc 2 H5 co

'")

g Q

~

(7 s

M 2

N e

~

B

~

8 D

=

c k'

W E

s e

.a oO 3

d h

3 v u

O LL.

m 0$

o i

88 o

ea S

FIGURE 2

\\.

l l

'l

.,..-._.-__...,,__.,,,..,...,,-_,.-.,,._-,,,,I

l I

INDUSTRY AVERAGES

~

l

~

Corrective Actions 1

i i

I i

l Proc. Chg. 31%

Training 21%-

W t

l

~~

l i

' w r"

-i s

/

Unknown 2.2%

l Other 2.9%

l l

N__

7 N,

Mgt./Org. Chg. 3%

i Equip. Bopl./ Repair 18.5%

Counsel.a Discip.10.8%

Design Chg.10.6%

I' 5

I E

m i

w l

l t

1 I

i

l I

i

, if fl !l

.I e!i!!ii!t!

.iIl!t w

E

~

e 0

5 2

~

7 r

2 ia ip c

e p%

is g

7 e

n r9 D

a 3

/

.r

/

h g

pe e

t l

C n

h n

e s

i Ro n

t n

c u

o ia

. l r

r ol o

n P

T EA C

~

s

/

r in o

s N

i Sr n

i n

r o

NE i

t c

Oo A

/

i r

n n

I t e

i Tra m

e

/

it Ce c

p e

AO r

r s

o 2

C Ed p~

s e

iu 6

N %

Vs q

E r s1

/

1 n

e m

I

)s 2

p e

o Tc d

J.

3 t

1 n

n CL 4

M1 i

9 I

l 2

e s

M r

Eh e

1 P

t t

n r

Ri e

R W ia M

iVO h

t i

ii Ots s

e n

s l

2 Ce u

v a

E C

6 1

ts 3

n 2

i

/

b ir e

tC F

/

n n

g i

i m

s d

e A

D O 8" l

lI

!1l Ill'l if:ll

!ii

!l

}

i l

\\

350TH ACRS MEETING MINVTES 3

possible data manipulation. AE00 acknowledged that the potential problems of

)

subjectivity and data manipulation will be ever present, l

AEOD concluded its cause code PI presentation by noting that they see this P1 as another screening tool to help focus NRC's restricted resources on poten-tial problem plants.

It was also stated that the cause code P1 is not seen as a predictive indicator of performance.

The discussion of the safety system function trend PI was again deferred due to lack of time. Dr. Remick suggested that the ACRS/NRC staff discuss whether i

a subcomittee meeting should be held to review this Pl and the other Pls, in more detail.

!!!. USI A-41, Safety Implications of Control Systems (0 pen)

[ Note: Dr. M. El-Zeftawy was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.]

The Comittee discussed the status of the NRC Staff's work on the resolution of USI A-47, Safety Implications of Control Systems, and decided not to conduct additional review of the proposed resolution of USI A-47 beyond those evaluations already completed and reported in its reports of April 12, 1988 and August 16. 1988. The Committee noted that it has not changed its views expressed in its earlier reports.

IV. Thermal-HydraulicResearchProgram(0 pen)

[ Note: Mr. P. Boehnert was the Designated Federal Official for this portion ofthemeeting.]

Mr. Ward, Chairman of the Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena Subcommittee, sumarized the issues to be discussed. He noted that RES briefed the Subcomittee on the topic of the future thermal-hydraulic (T/H) research program during its May 23, 1989 meeting.

Dr. Remick said RES has requested formal ACRS comment on their future research plans.

Dr. B. Sheron, RES, discussed the future plans for the RES T/H research program.

Key points included:

l l

It has been concluded that T/H codes have reau ra an acceptable level of accuracy and maturity for use with current generation LWRs.

RES's overall goals for the future T/H research program are to bring the T/H code development program to a successful conclusion, to maintain the capability for T/H analysis at a minimum level, and to apply the devel-oped codes to reactor issues.

The specific planning and direction objectives to achieve the above goals include:

L

350TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 4

1.

Maintaining a T/H analysis capability within the NRC.

2.

Maintaining a cadre of experts with T/H analysis capability within the NRC and at NRC contractors.

3.

Maintaining code development research at a minimum level necessary to assure the codes are acceptable for use and to maintain a cadre of experts.

4.

Establishing and maintaining low-cost experimental capability vis-a-vis construction and operation of small-scale test loops at c

universities.

5.

Retaining involvement in international T/H activities as agency resources peruit, i

In response to Dr. Catton, Dr. Sheron said RES does not plan to apply the CSAU methodology to the validation of the T/H codes TRAC-PF/M002 and RELAPS/M003.

Mr. Ward asked RES to address concerns regarding the T/H codes' conservation equations as expressed at the May 23, 1989 T/H Phenomena Subcommittee meeting.

Dr. Shotkin said he would address this point during his presentation.

Dr. Lewis expressed concern that the codes contain significant uncertainty and said that he has a lack of confidence in applying the code beyond its experi-mentally-validateddomain(LBLOCA). Dr. Zuber, RES, indicated that the codes can be extrapolated beyond their original capabilities provided one carefully evaluates the codes' capabilities against experimental data relevant to the problem at hand. Dr. Catton said that he believed that the limits of the codes' capabilities have not been well defined and asked if RES intends to investigate this problem.

Dr. Sheron said RES has no plans to do so.

In response to Mr. Ward, Dr. Sheron indicated that NRR does not routinely rely on the use of T/H codes to address licensing issues, and NRR instead audits the licensees' submittals.

L Dr. Sheron said it is his understanding that NRR is in agreement with the above RES goals and objectives for further T/H research.

Dr. L. Shotkin, RES, discussed the RES program plans for future T/H research.

Key points noted included:

All major T/H research programs will be completed in FY 1992; these l

programs include the TRAC and RELAPS T/H codes, the 2D/3D program, ROSA IV, and the joint NRC/B&W OTSG test program.

l

-In response to Mr. Ward's request noted above, Dr. Shotkin reviewed the proposed improvements made to the TRAC code models (to be designated PF1/ MOD 2).

Dr. Catton observed that the list shown did not cover all of the missing improvements as some deficient code models had not been corrected.

i L

.y>

350TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 5

The proposed T/H research budget projections for FY 89-94 were detailed (Figure 5).

RES expects the budget to decrease to a " base level" of $6-7 1

million per year after FY 1992.

]

i Future program plans include:

j Funding of the INEL Technical Support Center at $1.75-$2.0 million per year to maintain T/H expertise.

In addition, $1.5 million per

)

year is to be spent on maintenance and improvement of the T/H codes.

Cooperative programs with international organizations (e.g., post-ICAPcodeimprovements,useofUPTFforaccidentmanagementtests).

Spend $1.5 million per year for about 5 years to build and maintain small-scale university test loops.

Other ongoing activities include study of accident management issues and T/H safety issues for the advanced LWR plants.

Dr. Shotkin concluded by requesting formal ACRS coment on the RES Commission l

paper. Specifically, he requested that ACRS comment on whether RES has adequately anticipated future T/H research needs, and whether the above plan is adequate to meet these needs.

Mr. D. Bessette, RES,'sumarized the status of the current RES T/H research programs. The highlights of this discussion were:

1 The B&W experimental MIST program is nearly-complete. An OTSG test program is under development. This will be a joint BWOG, NRC, and EPRI Program.

In response to Dr. Catton, Mr. Bessette said he would check with the cognizant RES individual regarding the evaluation of data from ORNL tests that may be applicable to the OTSG concerns.

He said he will relay the information on this evaluation to Mr. Boehnert.

The2D/30(US/FRG/ Japan)BETHSY(US/ France)andROSA-IV(US/ Japan) joint programs will all conclude by 1992. These facilities have confirmed the I

margins available to prevent / mitigate LB-and SB-LOCAs. They have also been used to address various other transient scenarios.

Development of TRAC-PF1/M002 will be complete by June 1989; RELAP5/M003 development will conclude in October 1989.

Mr. Bessette has asked INEL to rate the competence of the T/H code users by assigning him or her a " qualification level" (Level III to I, with I as the most competent).

The Committee decic%d to report to the Commission on this RES program. This report is discussed in Section XI.

u.

L FUNDING OF ACTIVITl[ES

~

l FISCAL

' YEAR 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994-PLANT PERFORMANCE 7500 5200 4900 4100 3000 3000 B&W TESTING 28,70 1450 1150 900

.0 0

EXPT'S & ANALYSIS 1930 2100 1550 1500 1500 1500 MODELING 2700 1650 2200 1700 1500 1500 REACTOR APPLICATIONS 2330 5300 4300 3750 3750 3750 l

l OPERATING REACTORS 1025 2500 2000 1750 1750 1750 j

LWR SYSTEMS STUDIES 95 1500 1700 1750 1750

'1750.

j l

ANALYSIS FOR OPERATING i

l REACTOR EVENTS 1210 1300 600 250 250 250 l

I 1

m.

m 350TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 6

V.

NuclearPowerPlantServiceWaterSystems(0 pen) portion of the meeting.] y was the Designated Federal. Official for this

[ Note: Mr. Sam Duraiswam Mr. Michelson, Chairman, Auxiliary and Secondary Systems Subcommittee, stated that, as a result of continuing problems associated with service water systems at nuclear power plants, the NRC staff plans to issue a generic letter to all licensees and applicants requiring them,to perform certain specific actions in order to minimize the service water system problems. He stated that on May 24, 1989, the Auxiliary and Secondary Systems Subcommittee met with represen-tatives of the Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data (AEOD),

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research-(RES),NuclearManagementResourcesCouncil(NUMARC),andEPRI Service Water Working Group to discuss this matter. Based on the information 4

gathered _at that meeting, the Subcommittee has prepared a draft report, including comments and recomendations on the adequacy of the proposed generic letter, and it wi'l be submitted to the full Comittee for consideration and approval during this meeting.

Presentation by NRR - Mr. C. Berlinger Introduction Mr. Berlinger, NRR, provided a brief preamble, stating that for the past several years the NRC staff has been studying the problems associated with service water systems. On September 3, 1980 Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 was shut down because of the service water system problems caused by Asiatic Water to Safety System Components by Corbicula sp. (Asiatic Clam)ge of Cooling clams.

Consequently, the NRC issued Bulletin 81-03, " Flow Blocka and Mytilus

'sp.. (Mussel)," requiring licensees and applicants to assess macroscopic biolcgical fouling problems at their facilities.

Subsequent to the issuance of Bulletin 81-03, service water system problems were experienced at San Onofre Unit 1 and Brunswick as a result of debris from shellfish and other conditions not described in Bulletin 81-03. As a result, the:NRC staff issued Information Notice 81-21 to make the licensees and 4

applicants aware of the events occurred at San Onofre Unit 1 and Brunswick plants and the safety concerns associated with these events.

'By March 1982, several plants experienced serious fouling in open-cycle service water systems caused by mud, silt, corrosion products, or aquatic bivalve organisms. Consequently, the staff established Generic Issue 51,

" Improving the Reliability of Open-Cycle Service Water Systems." To resolve this issue, the NRC initiated a research program.

Initially, this program was

-restricted to a study of biofouling,- but in 1987 it was expanded to address also fouling by mud, silt, and corrosion products. This research has been completed recently and the results are documented in NUREG/Cb5210, Technical Findings Document for Generic Issue 51.

In 1987, the AE00 initiated a study to review and evaluate the service water system failures and degradations at light water reactors that occurred between

f 350TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 7

1980 and early 1987. -The results of this AEOD case study are documented in NUREG-1275 Volume 3, " Operating.Exp;rience Feedback Report - Service Water System Failures and Degradations."

Mr. Berlinger stated that operating experience and the results of the studies related to service water system problems have led the NRC staff to question the adequacy of these systems in complying with the requirements of the applicable General Design Criteria. Therefore, the NRC plans to issue a generic letter to all licensees and applicants, requesting that they perform the actions specified in the generic letter to ensure that their service water systems are in compliance and will'be maintained in compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criteria 44, 45, and 46, and other related criteria.

Recomendations Resulting from the AE00 Study Mr. Berlinger stated that, based on its study related to service water system failures and degradations, AE0D recomended the following:

Conduct, on a regular basis, perfonnance testing of all heat exchangers that are cooled by the service water system and perform a safety function to verify heat exchanger heat transfer capability.

Require licensees to verify that their service water systems are not vulnerable to a single failure of an active component.

Inspect, on a regular basis, important portions of the piping of the service water system for corrosion, erosion, and biofouling.

Reduce human errors-in the operation, repair, and maintenance of the service water system by improving training, procedures, and maintenance of the service water systems.

Proposed Resolution of Generic Issue 51, " Improving the Reliability of Open-Cycle Service Water Systems" Mr. Berlinger stated that Generic Issue 51 addresses failures and degradations of open-cycle service water systems due to biofouling agents, mud, silt, and' 1

corrosion products. The proposed resolution of this issue is based on the results of the research performed by the Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) that are documented in NUREG/CR-5210.

Mr. Berlinger stated that the proposed resolution of Generic Issue 51 requires that. licensees and applicants implement either a surveillance program (visual-ly inspect the intake structure, once per refueling cycle, for macroscopic biological organisms), or a controlled program (chlorinate continuously the service water system or treat it with equivalent biocide whenever the poten-tial for a macroscopic biological fouling species exists).

a 4-3 350TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 8

Proposed Generic letter Regarding Service Water System Problems Affecting Safety-Related Equipment Mr. Berlinger stated that the proposed generic letter requires that licensees and applicants perform the following actions to ensure that their service water systems are in compliance and will be maintained in compliance with 10 CFP Part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criteria 44, 45, and 46, and other related criteria:

For open-cycle service water systems, implement and maintain an ongoing program of surveillance and control techniques to significantly reduce the incidents of flow blockage problems due to biofouling.

Conduct a test program to verify the heat transfer capability of all safety-related heat exchangers cooled by service water. The program i.

should consist of an initial test )rogram and a periodic retest program.

L The initial program is to include leat exchangers cooled by both open-l-

cycle and closed-cycle systems. The periodic confirmatory retest program may be limited to heat exchangers cooled by open-cycle systems.

i Ensure by establishing a routine inspection and maintenance program for open-cycle service water system piping and components that corrosion, erosion, protective coating failure, silting, and binfouling cannot degrade the performance of the safety-related systems supplied by service water.

Confirm that the service water system will accomplish its intended function.in accordance with the current plant licensing basis, including confirmation that required safety functions can be accomplished in the event of failure of a single active component.

Confirm that maintenance practices, operating and emergency procedures, l

and training.that involve the service water system are adequate to ensure that safety-related' equipment cooled by the service water system will l

function-as intended and that operators of that equipment will perform effectively.

Mr. Berlinger stated that since the generic letter does not require. addressees to submit a detailed description of their proposed programs, including justi-l fications for any proposed equally effective alternative course of action, the l

Staff does not intend to conduct a detailed review of the requested informa-tion. _However, the staff will selectively review licensee and applicant

_ programs to assure that they comply with existing. regulatory requirements.

Mr. Berlinger stated that, based on the emnments received from the Auxiliary and Secondary Systems Subcommittee during-its May 24, 1989 meeting, and after further consideration of the need for including closed-cycle service water systems in the proposed generic letter,-the staff plans to make the following change:

e m-y

r if 350TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 9

lhe need.for testing of closed-cycle system heat exchangers has not been considered necessary because of the assumed high quality of existing chemistry control programs.

If-the adequacy of these chemistry control programs cannot be confirmed over the total operating history of the plant, or if during the conduct of the total testing program any unexplained downward trend in heat exchanger performance is. identified that cannot be remedied by maintenance of an open cycle system, it may be necessary to selectively extend the test program and the routine inspection and maintenance program to the attached closed-cycle systems.

Dr. Kerr inquired as to what was the staff's goal of availability of service water systems. Mr. Berlinger responded that the staff did not. perform a detailed failure modes and effects analysis.

Dr,'Kerr asked what the staff expects to achieve by implementing.the provi-sions of. the proposed generic letter. Mr. Berlinger responded that they expect to--improve the reliability of service water systems and reduce the core-melt frequency.

i Dr. Kerr commented that staff should have a goal of availability for service.

water systems in. order to tell whether the proposed fixes have helped to achieve that goal.

L In response to a question from Mr. Michelson, Mr. Berlinger stated that one of the difficulties in collecting data on closed-cycle systems.is that degrada-tions and malfunctions of such systems are not generally reportable.

Dr. Kerr asked what is an acceptable rate of failure for closed-cycle systems.

7 Mr. Berlinger stated that, since there is very limited data on the malfunc-tions and degradations of closed-cycle systems, he cannot quantify the accept-

.able rate of failure.

'l Dr. Kerr and Mr. Michelson wondered how the staff, without having an idea about the acceptable rate of failure for closed-cycle systems, decided to

. include these systems in the proposed generic letter.

-j l

a Mr. Michelson asked whether there were any risk-significant events related to-4 L

closed-cycle systems brought to the attention of the staff. Mr. Berlinger stated that, to his knowledge, there were no such events.

However, there is evidence that the water chemistry control programs at certain plants are l'

inadequate, and continued use of such programs may lead to corrosion problems.

which, in turn, may affect the heat transfer capability of the system.

' Comments by NUMARC - Mr. B. Bradley Mr. Bradley, NUMARC, reiterated the comments included in the February 27, 1989 letter from Mr. Rasin, NUMARC, to Mr. Jordan, CRGR:

t

I 350TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 10 NUMARC agrees that utility actions are appropriate to address the degra-dation of open-cycle service water systems.

Industry programs are under way to address the issues associated with service water systems under the auspices of EPRI and a Service Water Working Group of utility representa-tives.

Many utilities have already undertaken major programs to improve the performance of open-cycle service water systems, and many lessons have been learned.

NUMARC believes that the proposed requirements for open-cycle. systems would benefit ~ greatly from continued discussion with the

industry, i

The proposed generic letter requirements will have resource impacts on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars.

NUMARC is concerned about including closed-cycle systems within the scope of the proposed generic letter. There is no documented safety basis to justify generic requirements relative to closed-cycle systems.

The generic letter requirements should not apply to closed-cycle systems unless evidence of degradation similar to that documented for open-cycle q

systems can be shown, Actions to address closed-cycle systems will require major resource expenditures and will detract from efforts to address open-cycle systems where problems have been experienced.

Efforts to issue the proposed generic letter in haste are likely to prove H

' detrimental in the.long run.

In response to a question from Dr. Kerr, Mr. Bradley stated that the industry has been aware of the problems associated with open-cycle systems for several

~i years.

Dr. Kerr asked why the industry did not take any steps on its own to remedy the open-cycle system problems if it has been aware of such problems for

. several years.

"&. Bradley stated that a large number of utilities had already taken Steps to improve the reliability of open-cycle systems.

Dr. Kerr asked whether the industry has looked at or is aware of any problems associated with closed-cycle _ systems. Mr. Bradley stated that the industry is j

not aware of any closed-cycle systems problems similar to those experienced with open-cycle systems.

Dr. Kerr asked whether the industry has carefully looked at the closed-cycle systems to ensure that there are not problems with these systems and, if it hasn't, is there any plan to look at these systems. Mr. Bradley stated that t.

- there is no-evidence of problems associated with closed-cycle systems. The industry does not have any immediate plans to look at the closed-cycle sys-tems.

1-V l!

e

O '.y 350TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 11 L

Dr. Kerr stated that he would feel better if he knew that the industry was certain that there were no safety-significant prc51 ems associated with closed-cycle systems.

Comments by the EPRI Service Water Working Group - Mr. B. Fellers Comments provided by Mr. Fellers, EPRI, include the following:

There is no documented evidence of problems associated with closed-cycle systems similar to those related to open-cycle systems. Closed-cycle systems use treated demineralized _ water, corrosion resistant materisis, and are not exposed to biofouling organisms. They.are monitored several times a week to make sure that proper water chemistry is maintained.

In view of the above reasons, the closed-cycle systems should not be includ-ed in the scope of the proposed generic letter.

Although there may be some minor problems on the closed-cycle systems at certain plants, it is not justified to impose requirements on all plants.

Requirements should be imposed on a plant-specific basis.

The industry is already aware of the problems associated with the open-cycle service water systems. Many utilities have already implemented major programs to improve the performance of such systems. Additional actions to further improve the reliability of open-cycle service-water systems are under way.

Thero should be flexibility in the schedule for implementing the provi -

sions of the proposed generic letter. Trying to implement everything in one plant outage may not be feasible or advisable.

Performance monitoring requirements should be flexible. Prior to impos-ing stringent requirements in this area, consideration should be giv2n to the~ preventive and water treatment programs employed by several utili-ties.

Nomenclature used in the proposed generic letter is confusing.

Federal and state regulations may have some impact on the implementation of the best available technology for water treatment.

_'The Service Water Working Group has been involved in developing programs to improve.the performance and reliability of the service water systems.

The Service Water Assistance Program has been in operation for about a year. Through this program, assistance has been provided to various utilities in dealing with the service water system problems.

EPRI has been sponsoring activities to look as the corrosion problems at closed-cycle systems.

m.

350TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 12 j

The occupational radiation dose associated with system modifications to accomodate the testing required by the proposed generic letter is estimated to be about 3000 man-rem per plant.

The full Comittee considered a report containing comments and recomendations of the Subcomittee on the adequacy of the proposed generic letter on service

-water system problems, and approved it for transmittal to the Commission, i

li

.This report is discussed in Section XI.

,l VI. -Accident Policy Considerations for the General Electric Company Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (open)

[ Note: Mr. H. Alderman was the Designated Federal Official for this portion ofthemeeting.]

Y Mr. Michelson, Chairman of the Subcomittee on Advanced BWRs (GE), said that the material presented would be for information for the Comittee and had not been discussed in detail at a subcomittee meeting. He then introduced Dr.

.l Charles Miller.

i i

Dr. C. Miller, NRR, stated that his presentation would cover certain features of the. General Electric (GE) ABWR design that the staff believes will enhance safety and will satisfactorily address severe-accident concerns upon comple.

L tion of the staff's review.

l l

He presented some of the background on severe accident issues. He noted that a paper was presented to the Comission in 1988 proposing an approach for 3

generic rulemaking for advanced light-water reactor plants. After further j

l:

E reflection'and review, the staff has. decided that, rather than proceed with L

rulemaking, it would proceed through design-specific resolution and handle the J

resolution of severe accidents for evolutionary plants through the design certification rulemaking procedures that are outlined in 10 CFR 52.

i h

Dr. Miller noted some of the-requirements of 10 CFR 52 that need to be satis-fied by anyone seeking design certification. These are:

Compliance with 10 CFR 34F.

(These are the TMI concerns.)

Resolution of the applicable generic issues and unresolved safety issues

-and acceptance of these resolutions by the NRC staff on a design-specific basis.

I Submittal of a probabilistic risk assessment to support the design.

He said that GE has addressed each of these requirements in-their submittal and had made comitments to comply with these even prior to the rule being promulgated. These commitments were made by GE as part of the licensing review basis established in 1987.

(;

i;.

350TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 13 Dr.- Kerr asked if-the severe accident requirements would be decided during the rulemaking process rather than being established by some generic requirements.

1 Mr. L. Rubenstein. NRR, responded that the staff would codify the design in the rulemaking. He noted, however, that over the last three or four years the staff and the industry have generally defined the phenomena associated with severe accidents.

Dr. Kerr.noted he understood that the staff had concluded that GE had satis-factorily dealt with the severe accident issue. He said that must mean there is somewhere a set of criteria which the staff uses to determine if the-resolution proposed is adequate.

Mr. Rubenstein said that GE has proposed design criteria and that the Commis-sion has its own criteria for treating certain issues. As an example, he noted that hydrogen control and severe accident policy is addressed as part of 10 CFR 52. He said-that this plant-specific design to a large degree satis-fied these needs.

Mr.Michelsonaskedaboutthe.resolutionofUnresolvedSafetyIssues(USIs) and Generic Safety Issues (GSIs) for future plants. Mr. D. Scaletti, NRR, stated that all the USIs and GSIs will be resolved on the ABWR on a design-specific basis.

Dr. Miller discussed some of the specific topics for the ABWR, the first being station blackout. The design provides for three independent electrical divisions which include three 100-percent capacity emergency diesel genera-to rs '. An ac turbine generator is provided as an alternate source.

The design

-has a 10-hour blackout survivability period. The design includes the capabil-ity for ac independent addition of water through diesel-driven fire pumps.

There is a provision for water addition from a fire truck or similar external i

supply.

Dr. Miller' discussed the intersystem LOCA. He noted the concern was.to eliminate LOCAs outside containment. He noted the design had check valves in the ECCS inside the containment boundary that are testable and have position indication. He stated that the staff feels the ABWR low-pressure systems are adequately protected from reactor coolant system pressure. He said that the staff feels the:intersystem LOCA is resolved for the-ABWR. He noted that the staff's feelings will have to be confirmed.

Dr. Miller discussed ATWS.

He noted the design has both hydraulic and elec-trically centro 11ed rod control drives and a recirculation pump trip. The

. scram discharge volume has been eliminated from this design.

The design provides for a manual standby liquid control system (SLCS). He noted that the ATWS rule requires automatic SLCS. GE has agreed to do a reliability analysis on the manual SLCS to try to demonstrate to the staff that the manual SLCS will meet the requirements. The reliability analysis will be reviewed by the staff before any determination is made.

If an

o,;, $

,'l 4

y

-f.; -

350TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 14 3

acceptable determination is made by the staff, it would require an exemption from the ATWS rule.

+

Dr. Miller discussed some of the containment features. He noted the ABWR design goal is to provide a conditional containment of failure probability of 0.1 for credible core dama (Containment failure is defined as an uncontrollable release.)ge sequences.

The ABWR will have an inerted containment for hydrogen control. There is also the capability for connecting hydrogen nT recombiners. With the combination of these two features the staff feels the hydrogen control features of the ABWR are adequate.

Dr. Remick noted that the staff defined containment failure as an uncontrolled release and asked if that was a release of any magnitude.

Dr. Miller respond-ed that it was defined as a release that exceeded the EPRI safety goal guide-L lines. The Committee discussed the concept of containment failure with the L

staff without getting a clear definition of what the staff was willing. to L

define as a containment failure.

Dr. Remick asked about hydrogen recombiners' capability.

He asked if hydrogen f.

combiners would be required or would that be decided after rulemaking. Dr.

M Miller replied that hydrogen-recombiners would be required. The decision has not been made as to whether they would be pennanently installed or portable.

Mr. Carroll asked if an uninerted containment would be acceptable for 24-hour?

-l after startup. Mr. Rubenstein said yes.

m Dr. Miller discussed the vent design. He noted that the vent design not only L

contains a rupture disk but it also contains isolation valves so that the L

release can be' terminated at such a time that the pressure has dropped-to the.

extent that the containment integrity is no longer threatened. This feature allows the operator to take action to isolate and control the release.

Mr. Carroll asked as to what was the basis for the sizing of the vent.

Dr.

Miller said that GE.is still working on the details. Mr. Rubenstein said that it was currently sized for about three percent of full power capacity.

Dr. Miller discussed core debris coolability. He noted that the suppression

' pool is located circumferentially around the drywell. The design includes I.

fusible plugs between the suppression pool and the drywell. When a specified:

temperature is reached, the fusible plugs will then melt and water will flow in and cover the core' debris.

Mr.~Michelson asked if the staff is comfortable with the absence of guard pipes on the relief' valve vent pipes. Mr. ~Architzel replied that is an open issue that the staff is pursuing with GE.

l-Dr. Miller discussed source. term. He noted the licensing basis will be 10 CFR

-100 siting criteria, rather than the traditional TID source term.

GE is assuming credit for certain design features which are under discussion with

.the staff. He note that-the EPRI safety goal has been established as achiev-ingalessthan.10~g/reactoryearprobabilityofanoff-sitedoseof greater L

l I

t.-

'350TH-ACRS MEETING MINUTES 15 L

4 L

L than 25 Rem beyond a half-mile limit. He noted that GE is comitted to L

providing a Level !!! internal / external events PRA. He noted the internal events portion of the PRA is currently under review. The external events portion has not been received as yet.

Dr. Miller stated that GE is going to provide reliability and maintenance

-criteria to ensure that the as-built design described by the certified design is maintained. Dr. Miller discussed BWR thermal-hydraulic stability. The ABWR has design features to enhance stability. The plant will not be operated in the region of-least stability. Selected control rod run-in initiated upon trip of at least two reactor coolant pumps is included. He noted that the staff feels that.the ' design has features which reduce the need for operator action and reduce the potential for exceeding fuel damage limits.

Dr. Miller discussed the staff's conclusions. He noted that GE and the staff are in general-agreement with the approach being used to resolve severe accident concerns. The staff believes that its review will confirm the L.

effectiveness of these features in addressing severe accident goals as defined-L in 10 CFR 52 and in the Commission's policy papers.

If the effectiveness is confirmed, severe accident closure will be achieved for the ABWR design. The staff will-inform' the Commission and the Committee if additional requirements are found to be necessary during the course of the review.

VII. 'LaSalle Station Unit 2 BWR Core Power Stability (0 pen)

[ Note: Mr. P. Boehnert was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.]

Mr. Ward, Chairman of the Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena Subcomittee, reported y

to the Comittee on the Subcomittee's work on the BWR core power stability L

issue.. He briefly recounted the-details of the 1988 core power instability event which occurred at Unit 2 of the LaSalle County Station. This issue was reviewed by the Subcomittees on T/H Phenomena and on Core Performance during-a May 23, 1989 joint meeting. Mr. Ward said the Comission has requested ACRS comment on the status of our review of the instability issue by June 30, 1989.

He said that the BWR Owners Group (BWROG) and an NRR representative will make presentations at this meeting.

Mr. T. Rausch, Comonwealth Edison, discussed the BWROG stability program.

He said the initial BWROG. program consisted of a Phase I and Phase IA. The objective-of Phase-I was to investigate plant response to regional instabili-ties and identify appropriate remedial actions.

The Phase IA effort focused on study of large amplitude power oscillations and determination of. average x

core power response given an ATWS.

The more recant ir.'ROG actions have focused on identifying viable long-tenn solutions to this issue.

The results of the Phase I program showed a potential for violation of safety l

limits (DNB) given a regional oscillation event. The Phase IA investigations showed that average core power increased slightly (less than 7%) for the case of unrestricted core power. Mr. Rausch said the long-term solutions under

[

,,,m

.jg' k h '

lA[

W g,

4 03SOTH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 16 consideration will be defined vis-a-vis plant type.

The BWROG goal is to-4 yw' close out stability as a plant operational issue via the long-term fixes.

In response to Mr. Carroll. Mr. Rausch said the BWROG is not aware'of-any W

action taken by an overseas regulatory body since the LaSalle event occurred.

He said the European BWR licensees have performed more stability testing than.

has been done in U.S. plants and some European plants have installed on-line stability monitors.

In response to a question from Mr. Ward, the BWROG representative said that Swedish BWRs are inherently more stable than U.S.

designs but instability events have occurred at their plants, y

3' Mr. Rausch discussed the four long-term solution options under BWROG review.

These are:

o u

E,,

Prevention (of oscillations) by regional exclusion Prevention (of oscillations) with limited controlled bypass (through

'ay potential region of instability) ond '

Mitigation based on APRM response

'O Mitigation based.on LPRM response.

1 L

Provisions for automatic scram will be included regardless of the option

selected, o

Mr. Ward asked-for details of the LPRM-based mitigation option.

One appraach n

under review would use selected output signals from about 40 LPRMs based on their position in the core, combined with a Class 1E microprocessor to evalu-ate the selected signals for an out-of-bounds condition.

In response to Dr.

W Shewmon, Mr. Rausch said no-oscillation event seen to d te has caused fuel damage..- The BWROG is currently scheduled to select one of the above options and meet with the NRC staff during September 1989.

o Mr. Rausch reviewed the BWROG response to three issues which NRC has saggested

,l the.BWROG address. These issues and the 3WROG responses are:

Study phenomena associated with symmetric / asymmetric oscillation modes.

BWROG will evaluate oscillation characteristic:, via worldwide plant experience and factor results into long-term option considerations.

Study maximum possible oscillation amplitude and power shape variations.

i BWROG will cgein use' worldwide data base and factor-the study results into a long-term solutiva.

Evaluate impact of instability pi.anomena on t;erator response to ATWS, BWROG has contracted with EPRI for a study of an operator's use of ATWS E0Ps given the complication of core power oscillations.

? s;. e

cu s.

350TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 17 m

Mr. H. Pfefferlen, GE, discussed GE's plan to address NRC!s questions related -

i to suppression pool heat removal. during an ATWS combined with core power oscillations.. The GE approach is based on the following:

The ATWS probability is exceedingly low after implementation of the ATWS g

rule requirements.

Not all ~ATWS events will lead to core power instability, i

Not all RCP trips will lead to core power instability.

l Given the above, the probability of an ATWS event combined with core y

power instability is significantly less than the probability of an ATWS event alone.

k Mr. Pfefferlen said GE's analysis using their TRAC /G code showed that, for an E

ATWS combined with an instability event, overall core power increased slightly J

but the oscillations became-self limiting and the overall suppression pool i

heat-load was not significantly impacted.

L There was extensive discussion of the GE TRAC /G code and the assumptions used by GE in the above analyses.. Dr. Catton opined.that, based on discussions L

with a cognizant'GE representative, he. believes the GE. version of TRAC is superior. to the NRC version for BWR analyses.

GE~said, in response'to ques-L tions from Mr. Ward and Dr. Catton, that they-are ' attempting to map definitive p

operational instability boundaries in support of the BWROG long-term resolu-l tion effort. Further discussion resulted in all agreeing that GE needs to perform additional analyses to confirm the above assumptions for the ATWS j

scenario.

- Mr. L. Phillips, NRR, provided NRC's connents on the instability issue.

Key points were:

NRC issued Bulletin 88-07, Supplement 1, which provided interim require-ments to address instability concerns.

NRR was surprised to learn of regional. instability events at overseas BWRs.

NRR's review of the BWROG Phase I/ Phase IA~ work is. awaiting the BWROG report submittals.

Objectivesiof the RES stability research program include assisting in review and audit of industry submittals, developing the' capability to predict oscillation characteristics and perform related ATWS analyses, and performing code assessment calculations.

RES work includes analyses at BNL using the HIPA 'nd RAMONA-3B codes, INEL analyses using TRAC-BF1, and ORNL analyses in direct support of NRR.

2 L

1 4.i 0

m.

O 350TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 18 Kw ORNL analysis using the LAPOUR code shows a potential for a 1.5% increase-L b

in average core power for each 100% increase in peak oscillation amplitude. Also, the ORNL analysis shows the stability decay ratio is b,

subject to change when the core water level is lowered.

J NRR expects the BWROG long-term resolution to be submitted in late 1989.

i L'

They are planning a final report to the Commission on resolution of this issue in February 1990.

y,;

Dr. Catton said-he would review the modifications made to the GE TRAC /G code m-vis-a-vis the INEL TRAC code version and report to the Comittee on same.

The Committee decided to report to the Commission on this matter. This report is discussed in Section XI.

VIII. USIA-17,SystemsInteractions(0 pen)

[ Note: Mr. Dean Houston.was the Designated Federal Official for this portion 1

ofthemeeting.]

I Mr.: Ward, Chairman of the Safety Philosophy, Technology, and Criteria Subcom-mittee, discussed the previous ACRS activities related to systems interactions,

andiUSI'A-17. The Comittee had identified this issue in 1974, had held a number of meetings on the subject, and had issued two reports on the matter, the latest on August 16, 1988.

In that letter, the Committee had approved issuance of the proposed resolution of USI A-17 for public coment and stated that the ACRS.would continue its review of the matter after the public com--

ments had been resolved. Since the staff now intends to issue the proposed resolution without provision for public comment, Mr. Ward asked the staff to i

l comment on why they chose this procedure. He also asked the Cemittee members for their opinions and guidance on the proposed resolution of this issue.

,3 Mr. Baer, RES, introduced the subject matter with a brief sumary of the

)

events over the past year since last meeting with the ACRS. He indicated that in their proposed resolution the only licensee action was to perform an evaluation of water intrusion. Since internal flooding was to be treated in the individual plant examinations (IPEs). the staff decided to use the IPE process as the mechanism for resolution of USI A-17. As'such, the staff would provide guidance for internal flooding evaluation in the IPE guidance document and would not issue the proposed resolution for public comment. He noted that the guidance was to be found in an appendix to a recently published report -

NURE3-1174, " Evaluation of Systems Interactions in Nuclear Power Plants."

Mr. Michelson asked for clarification as to how NUREG-1174 would be used in the IPE process. He also asked about statements in the proposed resolution that indicated that the systems interactions associated with instrument and control power supply failures had been subsumed into GI-128. He also stated that a recent review of GI-128 by an ACRS subcomittee did not seem to support the: staff's belief that this issue was properly addressed in GI-128. Mr.

Wylie agreed that GI-128 did not address this issue as the staff has stated.

m

,c,

%, f<

-350TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 19 Mr. Baer agreed that the staff had not completely addressed the issue in GI-128 and that the proposed resolution of USI A-17 would require some revi-sion to eliminate this misconception.

'Mr. Thatcher, RES, presented an overview of the USI A-17 program.

He dis-cussed in more detail the following:

(1) definition of adverse systems =

interactions (ASI),~ (2) tasks performed based on the definitions, (3) techni-y-

cal findings, and (4) the proposed final resolution of USI A-17.

Dr. Lewis expressed strong disagreement with the staff's definition of systems interactions in which they used common cause failures events. He indicated that systems interactions has nothing to do with common cause failure.

Instead, systems interactions is where failure of one system, for whatever reason, would cause the failure.of a second system. Mr. Thatcher discussed

- how they addressed adverse systems interaction and common cause failure events. Dr. Lewis indicated that he understood what the staff is doing but he believes that their terminology is different from what is normally used.

Mr. Thatcher continued his discussion by describing the tasks performed, highlighting the review of systems interaction studies at three plants, and discussing PRA and FMEA methodologies.

w Dr. Kerr indicated that there is'no guarantee that a PRA will find all se-quences that produce risk. Mr. Ward and Mr. Michelson supported this opinion and indicated that.the analyst had to be smart enough to model the input to

~

the PRA correctly.

Even so, modeling of the the coupling between plant systems in PRAs may not be appropriate.

Mr. Thatcher indicated that seismic issues would be addressed through USI i

A-46. Mr. Michelson expressed concern that only physical interaction would be reviewed, and that other interactions would not be included. An example would be the case of a fallen water tank where the impact of the tank structure would be considered but the effect of the released water would be ignored.

Mr. Thatcher briefly mentioned that continuing concerns that have not been sufficiently resolved in USIs A-17, A-46, and A-47 will be addressed separate-ly in the multiple system responses program (MSRP), an NRC program at ORNL.

Mr. Ward asked what the staff's basis was for not obtaining public comment on the proposed resolution. Mr. Thatcher stated that by placing this resolution into the IPE there was no longer a need for public comment. He indicated that this was similar to the resolution of USI A-45, which has also been made an IPE item.

Mr. Ward asked if the staff thought it would be useful to obtain written comments from the ACRS. Mr. Baer indicated he felt it would be useful to have an ACRS report on the staff position.

L-The Committee decided to report to the Commission on this matter. This report is discussed in Section XI.

L t

I if.

g

{

-350TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 20 IX. Generic Issue (GI) 128, Electrical Power Systems Reliability (0 pen)

[ Note: Dr. M; El-Zeftawy was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of. the meeting.]

Mr. Wylie, Chairman of the AC/DC Power Systems Reliability Subcomittee, briefed the ACRS regarding GI-128. He indicated that GI-128 is a combination of three separate electrical power systems issues, namely:

GI-48,." Limiting Conditions for Operations (LCOs) for Class 1E Vital Instrument Buses," which deals with a safety concern that some operating nuclear power plants do not have administrative controls or technical specifications governing operational restrictions for their Class IE 120V ac vital instrument buses and associated inverters. Without such restrictions, the normal or alternate power sources could be out of service indefinitely. This could result in the failure of the plant's l

safety systems to perform their functions when required.

GI-49, " Interlocks and LCOs for Class 1E Tie Breakers," which deals with a safety concern that independent, redundant Class IE ac or de buses can be. interconnected via tie breakers which may be left closed by mistake.

When left closed, the tie breakers can compromise the independence of the redundant safety-related buses.and, in some cases,. may prevent the, diesel generators from supplying emergency power when needed.

G1 A-30, " Adequacy of Safety-Related de Power Supplies," which deals with a safety concern that some plants may not have adequate provisions such' as monitoring, maintenance, and testing to assure that the de power supplies are available and capable of performing their safety functions:

when needed.

Mr. Wylie' indicated that the staff.'s proposed' resolution-of GI-128 involves the issuance of two separate generic letters with related information requests pursuantto10CFR50.54(f). These two generic' letters will inform the I

licensees of related concerns and obtain information for the staff to assess whether necessary actions have been taken to resolve these concerns. One generic-letter would address GI-48 and GI-49, and the other would address GI A-30.

Mr. Wylie said that the AC/DC Power Systems Reliability Subcommittee met on June 7, 1989 and reviewed the proposed resolution.

Generally the Subcommittee L

felt.that the issuance of the generic letters would be beneficial. However, concerns-were expressed that this approach is a continuation of the fragmented i

approach to resolving safety issues rather than an integrated approach, such as including the issues into the IPE process that would result in a more efficient and effective process.

Mr. R. Baer, RES, indicated that the staff is considering the comments from the ACRS subcomittee and will propose to give the licensees an option to

x k

350TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 21 a

perform portions of this work under the IPE program. The staff will.also

- present this option to the CRGR to get-its concurrence on this approach.

Mr. D. Thatcher, RES, Task Manager, presented a brief background regarding GI-48 and GI-49. He indicated that the designation of " vital instrument bus" may be interpreted differently for different plants. The staff designation refers to the ac buses that provide power for the instrumentation and controls t'

of the engineered safety features and the reactor protection system and are designed to provide continuous power during postulated events. Tie breakers are devices.used to cross-connect either redundant Class 1E buses in one unit or Class 1E buses in different units at the same site. The staff is concerned that the vital instrument buses may be subject to power failure modes that may i

not have been considered during the safety analysis of the plant.

-The concerns of GI-49 were raised as a result of an incident that occurred at the Point Beach, Unit 2, plant. On June 9, 1980, it was discovered that a tie breaker between the safeguards buses at the plant was improperly left closed after a plant shutdown. The root cause of this event was attributed to personnel error.

If there had been a loss of off-site ac power with the tie breaker closed, interlocks would have presented automatic closure of the diesel generator output breakers. Mr. Thatcher indicated that, although interlocks can provide an additional degree of assurance for some infrequent situations, they can also have a potential of negative impact on safety.

PRA J

analyses have shown that cross-connecting can allow for options that can prove

- to be beneficial, q

L The NRC staff, after evaluating the concerns of GI-48 and GI-49, has concluded-that these concerns can be generally resolved by the verification or-implemen-tation of appropriate limiting condition of operations in the plant Technical Specifications-and by inclusion of associated administrative controls in the l

plant procedures for the Class 1E buses and tie breakers.

The staff is

/

proposing to issue a generic letter with a related information request pursu-l ant to 10 CFR 50.54(f) to verify that the plant's safety design basis is being L

satisfied. - If the licensee's response to these information requests is not satisfatory the staff is requesting an explanation.

l L

Mr. Thatcher indicated that the concerns of GI-48 and GI-49 have been resolved h

in the recently licensed plants by implementation of standard technical specifications and current licensing practice.

A study was also performed at

(.

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) which supported the staff pro-posed resolution.

t, l:

Mr. Michelson expressed concern regarding the fire and external events effects for the-proposed GI-128 resolution. He indicated that the staff, in its-

. review, did'not consider the effects of elevated temperatures on solid state components and the behavior of, for example, inverters under such adverse conditions.

L Mr. Thatcher briefed the ACRS regarding issues being addressed under GI A-30.

L He indicated that the specific area of concern is the adequacy of the safety-l

E"

.e N ' y.-.

-350TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 22 i

a related de power in operating nuclear power plants, particularly with regard.

V to multiple and connon cause fai. lures.

Risk analysis and past plant experi-ence. support conclusions that failure of the de power supplies could represent a significant contribution to the unreliability of shutdown cooling. Mr.

Thatcher pointed out that for a loss of off-site power event battery power is -

7" particularly important during the time period when the diesel generators are starting and immediately thereafter, because the circuit breaker control to sequence loads and the excitation of the generator field windings is entirely dependent on'de power. Under a postulated station blackout (USI A-44) the batteries.would be the only source of electrical power available.

Oc power ~

+

during this postulated event is needed for operability of the steam-driven 4

auxiliary feedwater system in PWRs and for the RCIC and HPCI systems in BWRs.

Mr. Thatcher cited three significant A-30. events:

Palisades (1981),

Millstone-2 (1981), and Zion-2 (1976). He indicated that the staff believes the most cost-effective approach to resolve this issue is for the staff to request certain information from all plants in order that the NRC can estab-lish if adequate measures have been or will be taken at all facilities. The responses may indicate that in some cases improvements in de systems surveil-lance, maintenance, and procedures are necessary. Mr. Thatcher stated that-GI-128 is closely related to other issues such as USI A-44 (station blackout).

USI A-17 (systems interactions), and USI A-47 (safety implications of control systems).

~

L The staff and its contractor (INEL) conducted a survey of the Technical Specifications of 113 plants in the area of battery surveillance.

It was found that 37 of these plants utilize the standard Technical-Specifications.

Mr. Michelson expressed concern-that the staff's proposed generic letter indicates that it was decided that GI-128 would address the issues related to potential-interactions associated with the electric power system, in particu-r.

lar instrumentation and control power supply failures.

Mr. Mic.helson comment-ed that the staff was unable to show how this is being done, and suggested l

that the resolution of GI-128 be revised to include this matter or the state-l ment be removed from the proposed generic letter for USI.A-17.

Mr. Wylie indicated that the staff does not have specific or well-defined acceptance criteria to-judge the licensee's performance in areas like mainte-nance, testing,.and surveillance.

Dr. Kerr commented that the staff should focus its efforts on developing and applying reliability theory to important plant systems instead of obsolete criteria, such as-the single-failure criterion.

'Most of the ACRS members agreed that the staff should consider an integrated

. approach resolution with interrelationships among other GIs and USIs, such as that-proposed for the IPE program, instead of the fragmented approach.

The full Committee decided to write a report to the Commission regarding GI-128 concurring in the staff's proposed resolution but with some comments.

This report is discussed in Section XI.

w

~

~*w-n m-

~

y

.a.,a a

-a

)

e 350TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES

- 23 X.

Degree Requirements for Senior Operators and Shift Supervisors (0 pen)

[ Note: Mr. H. Alderman was the besignated Federal Official for this portion-of the meeting.J Dr. Remick, Chairman of the Human Factors Subcomittee, noted that as a result

- r of ACRS comments the NRC staff provided the Comission with several options on.

how the staff might proceed with rulemaking on degree requirements for senior operators. The Comission chose to have the staff prepare a notice of pro-i posed rulemaking providing two alternatives and asking for public coment.

The two alternatives were the requirement of a degree for all senior opera-tors, or the requirement of a degree for all shift supervisors. There were about 250 public comments provided on the notice of proposed rulemaking of which about 95 percent were opposed to degree requirements in a rule.

The Comission decided that it would not proceed with rulemaking. The Comis-sion decided to issue a policy statement and indicated that it wanted the ACRS to coment on the policy statement.

l Dr. Remick discussed the Human Factors Subcomittee meeting o'n this topic.

He noted the Subcommittee did not come to any kind of consensus. -He said that L

one coment was that if this matter is so important perhaps a rule should be issued..Some of the opinions expressed were:

A policy statement should be issued but not this one.

The policy statement should endorse the INPO approach.

The policy statement should be shorter.

The policy statement should point out that not all senior operators-should be degreed but.only some.

Several subcomittee members _ indicated that the policy statement should be issued. Some of'the coments suggested editorial ::hanges in the policy statement.

Dr. 2. Rosztoczy, RES, said that the policy statement was at the Comission

- level for their consideration. He stated that.the Comission would not make a-final decision until they received the ACRS coments.

He said there will be two actions.in the future. One would be that the Comission will formally

_ withdraw the proposed rule. The second will be issuance of the policy state-p ment.

Dr. Rosztoczy noted some of the provisions of the proposed rule. The first option was that senior operators would have a bachelor's degree in engineer-ing, engineering technology, or physical science. This requirement would be

p

' j. [,[

y..

_y

['

350TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 24 effective four years after the rule is issued. Other types of bachelor's degrees would be accepted on a case-by-case basis.

The proposed rule stated that three years of experience would be needed to achieve a senior operator position. One year of the experience would have to be at greater than 20 percent power and six months of it has to be at the plant where the license is obtained.

Everyone who has a senior operator license up to four years after the effective date of the rule would be exempt f

from this requirement.

The second option set educational requirements for the shift supervisor instead of the senior operator. The shift supervisor is defined to be one individual in each control room.

If there are two units operated from one control room, it would require that there would be one designated shift supervisor to whom this rule would apply.

Three options were specified for the educaticr.::1 requirements for the shift supervisor. The first option was a bachelor's degree from an accredited

~

- program. The'second option was acceptance of a professional engineering-jy

-license issued by the State instead of the bachelor's degree. The third l

option was any bachelor's degree combined with an EIT certificate. The L

experience. requirements are similar to those in option 1 for senior operators.

~

p l>

In the 250 public comments received, most of the commenters opposed the rule.

Some of the specific coments were:

I It was. difficult for a worker on shift to attend college and complete a' bachelor's degree.

The requirement for AB&T-accredited degree was too specific.

Possible conflicts might exist with labor agreements and training pro-grams for degreed individuals in the' plants.

-Dr. Rosztoczy discussed the proposed policy statement. He noted that the L

Commission believes that the level of engineering and technical knowledge on shift has a direct bearing on the safety of the nuclear plant. He stated that

-the Commission believes that a power reactor should have on shift a team of l

professionals that combine technical and academic knowledge-with plant-specific training and experience. He said they are after.a balance between l

. technical training and operating experience on each shift.

The basic reason for this decision is that the Commission believes that there will always be a potential for situations which are not covered through the normal training and the operating procedures available to the~ operators. The operators will always be faced with unexpected situations and if they have this balance it will become very helpful when they face those situations.

350TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 25

'The Commission also feels there will be a long-term benefit in that individu-als having both the educational background and the operating experience will have an opportunity to move upward in the organization and in the future occupy important positions within the utility organization which will be beneficial overall for the utility.

3 The Commission also noted that they endorse INP0's principles in the policy statement.

The Commission also reaffirmed the need for the STA position in the policy statement, and reaffirmed the Comission's preference for a combined STA/ senior operator position in the plants.

~

In the proposed policy statement, the Comission encourages the utilities to take specific act ons:

The first is development _of programs for operating personnel who do not.

have degrees to obtain college degrees.

-The second is recomending hiring of college graduates for positions on the operating staff.

The third is to provide oppnrtunities for. operators to assume positions.

in higher management.

The fourth is to provide operating experience for existing management.

The fifth is to have a significant amount of people on shift who have hands-on operational experience.

.1 The Commission noted that shift supervisors and other individuals with similar

-l decision-making authority have a very important position to fill and they encourage these individuals to have both educational backgrounds and operating experience in the field.

l Dr. Lewis asked how attractive a job on the operating staff of a-nuclear power l

plant would be for a graduate engineer compared to other opportunities. Dr.

Rosztoczy replied that the reactor operating position compensation would be comparable to many positions that engineers graduating from college would get.

A position of this type could also provide experience useful to individuals seeking a career in utility management.

a Mr. Carroll recommended that when the term " shift supervisor" is used in the policy statement it should be defined. He noted that different utilities use 9

different names for management people on shift. Mr. Rosztoczy noted that the staff would address this.

Dr. Remick noted that Comissioner Roberts asked whether the policy statement on degree requirements should specify a degree from an accredited institution or simply a degree. Comissioner Roberts is concerned that utilities may have i

l

~1.

350TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 26 i

a: ranged degree programs with non-accredited institutions for their employees and this may create a problem.

The Committee decided to report to the Commission on this matter. This report is discussed in Section XI.

.XI.

Executive Session (0 pen / Closed)

A.

Subcomittee Reports (0 pen / Closed) 1.

InternationalConferenceonQuality(0 pen)

[ Note: Mr. E. Igne was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.]

Dr. Siess and Mr. Ward presented a report on the International Conference on Quality in the Nuclear Power Industry, held on May 14-18, 1989 in San Diego, Calif. The conference was organized by the American Society for Quality Control, Energy Division, at the l

request of the ACRS. The ACRS co-sponsored the conference with the IAEA. ACRS members C. Siess and D. Ward and ACRS consultant J.

Stevenson served on the technical program comittee.

Dr. Remick, Mr. Carroll, Mr. Wylie, Mr. Michelson, Mr. Ward and.Dr. Siess attended the conference.

L The conference was held for four full days and consisted of eight-half-day sessions. About forty speakers made presentations. The Hon. Dixie Lee Ray, former Governor of Washington and former head of Atomic Energy Comission, was the keynote speaker. Luncheon speak-ers were Dr. Margaret Maxey, (Director of Chair of Free Enterprise, University of Texas) and Cordell Reed (Senior Vice President, I

Commonwealth Edison).

About 150 people were in attendance from 14 countries (Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Canada Peoples Republic of China, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Morocco, Sweden, United Kingdom, and the U.S.A.).

Mr. R. Cerzosimo, L

Vice President of Utility and Industrial Operations, U.S. Testing L

Co., Inc., was the conference chainnan,

" Achievement of Quality in Nuclear Power, an International Review" was the theme of the conference.

Four questions proposed by Dr.

Siess were used as guidelines for the speaker presentations. These n

were:

"What is quality?" "How do we achieve quality?" "How do we know we have achieved quality?"

"When we achieve quality, how do we prove it to others?"

Dr. Siess and Mr. Ward, in the wrap-up session of the conference, sumarized the responses to the four theme questions. Mr. Igne will distribute the proceedings of the conference when they are avail-able.

YK 8

4 v.

s 4

y.

.+[

350TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES

'27 w$F s

2.

Nominating Comittee (Closed)

L

[ Note: Mrs. M. Lee was the Designated Federal Official for this f

portion of the meeting.]

Contained in Official Use Only Supplement.

i B.

Reports, Letters,andMemoranda(0 pen) 1.

Proposed Comission Policy Statement on Education for Senior Opera-tors and Shift Supervisors at Nuclear Power Plants (Report to b

Chairman Zech dated June 15, 1989)

The Committee recommended t; hat the Comission issue the proposed policy statement as an expression of its general views on education for senior operators and shift supervisors. The Committee suggested that the policy statement indicate explicitly that it is not the 1

l intent of the Comission that all senior operators and shift super-I visors have a degree but that it intends to encourage licensee 1

management to employ individuals with a mix of education, training, and experience in plant operations. The Committea commented on certain specific issues addressed in-the proposed' policy, statement.

[

In addition,.the Committee, responded to a question from Comissioner

. Roberts whether to encourage degrees from accredited institutions as i

stated in the proposed policy statement. The Committee endorsed such an encouragement. The report contained additional coments by Dr. Kerr, Dr.-Lewis, Dr. Siess, and Mr. Ward.

2.

Division of Responsibility Between the ACRS and the ACNW (Report to Chairman Zech dated June 14, 1989)

The Comittee proposed that the lead responsibilities for the ACRS and ACNW be divided primarily on the. basis of whether the activities l

under consideration were conducted onsite or-offsite of a nuclear L

reactor facility. Since the Committee believes that>the original l

intent of the Comission was that the primary responsibility of the i

ACNW begin when the radioactive materials leave the site on the way to storage or disposal, the ACRS would be responsible for safety matters on the site of a production or utilization facility, and the ACNW would be responsible for matters relating to the handling, storage, or disposal of nuclear wastes offsite.

For review of matters relating to activities under the primary responsibility of both comittees, the comittees would either jointly' decide which committee would take the lead responsibility or each comittee would review the matter and provide advice as appropriate.

The Committee recomended that the Comission confirm this division of responsi-bilities.

~

e s

350TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 28 i

1 3.

Proposed Generic Letter Regarding Service Water System Problems Affecting Safety-Related Equipment-(Report to Chairman Zech dated June.14, 1989)

The Committee stated that it was in general agreement with the need to issue a generic letter to deal with the problems related to open-cycle service water systems. However, owing.to lack of con-vincing technical evidence coupled with the high cost and increased.

occupational radiation exposure involved in implementing the provi-sions of the letter related to closed-cycle systems,-the Committee l

did not believe that the blanket inclusion of closed-cycle systems

.i in the generic letter is justified. The Committee made a r. umber of other comments concerning the scope and content of the proposed generic letter and recommended that the letter not be issued until these' comments were resolved.

4.

Boilinc Water Reactor Core Power Stability (Report to Chairman Zech dated lune 14, 1989)

The Committee discussed the issue of BWR core power stability and the general program outlined by the NRC staff and the BWR Owners Group for resolving this issue. The Committee concluded that the general program is. sound and represents an adequate response to the.

issue. In addition, the Canmittee suggested that considerable attention be given in the longer term to the development of an l

improved understanding of.the conditions that can lead to an ATWS 1

compouaded by core power oscillations, j

5.

NRC Thermal-Hydraulic Research Program (Report to Chairman Zech dated June 15, 1989)

The Committee agreed with the general objectives of a research program to maintain, within the NRC and its contractors, a capabil-ity for performing thermal-hydraulic analysis to deal with safety i

and regulatory concerns that might arise in the future. The Connit-tee made a number of comments as to content and organization of the program.

6.

Reliability and Diversity (Report to Chairman Zech dated June 14, 1989)

The Committee discussed the implementation status of the ATWS rule and concluded that reasonable progress is being made.

In addition, the Committee commented on issues associated with the use of diver-sity in achieving a high level of reliability.

+-

3 di -

~

q f f'

,p h,

w 350TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 29 A

7.

Proposed Resolution of Generic Issue 128, " Electrical Power Relia-bility" (Report to Chairman Zech dated June 14, 1989) 1 The Comittee comented on the NRC staff's proposed resolution of Generic Issue 128 anJ recommended that the resolution be implemented

w

~ through the IPE program along with assessments.of the associated risk reductions.

g 8.

USI A-17. " Systems Interactions in Nuclear Power Plants" (Report to Chairman Zech dated June 13, 1989)

The Comittee had no objection to the action proposed by the NRC staff, for the resolution of USI A-17.

The Comittee stated that it believed that its remaining systems-interactions-related concerns can be addressed in the Multiple System Responses Program. The report contained additional comments by Dr. Lewis.

9.

USIA-47,"SafetyImplicationsofControlSystems"(MemorandumtoR.

j Wayne Houston from Raymond F. Fraley, dated June 15,1989)

The Comittee decided not to conduct additional review of the proposed resolution of USI A-47 beyond those evaluations already.

completed and reported in its reports of-April 12, 1988 and August 16, 1988.- The Committee noted that it has not changed its-views expressed in its earlier reports.

10. Letter from Forrest J. Remick to M. R. Green, dated June 14, 1989 The Comittee wrote to Mr. Green, Associate Executive Director, Codes and Standards, ASME, regarding concerns that had been ex-pressed by him about the talk which Mr. R. F. Reedy had given at the.

May 14-18, 1989 International Conference on-Quality in the Nuclear Power Industry.

C.

OtherConclusions(0 pen) 1.

Consideration of Need for ACRS Review of Power Level Increase Requested by Licensee for Indian Point, Unit 2 The Comittee discussed the need for ACRS review of the power level increase that had been requested by the licensee for Indian Point, Unit 2.

Consideration of the need for ACRS review was assigned to the Systematic Assessment of Experience Subcomittee (H. Lewis /H.

Alderman). The ACRS staff will provide Dr. Lewis with additional infomation related to the need for ACRS review.

. ;y 4

-350TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 30 2.

GE Modifications to GE Version of TRAC (TRAC /G) Code The modifications that GE has made to the GE version of the TRAC j

'(TRAC /G) code were discussed during the Comittee's deliberations on BWR core power stability. The modifications are intended to improve the code models and provide for more mechanistic modeling of fluid flow and heat transfer phenomena. Dr. Catton will obtain more information on this work and report to the ACRS. Dr. Catton stated that it may be worthwhile for NRC to incorporate similar modifica-tions in the NRC version of the TRAC code. -(Mr. Boehnert has the follow-up action.)

3.

Consideration of Need for Additional ACRS Action on Proposed Revi-sion to 10 CFR Part 20 The Committee discussed the'need for additional ACRS action on the proposed revision to 10 CFR Part 20 which will take into account the-comments included in the ACRS report of June 8, 1988 and the ACNW

. report of December 30, 1988. Mr. Carroll will follow developments on this matter and make recomendations to the. ACRS as appropriate.

(Mr. Igne has the. follow-up action.)

4.

Safety Systems Function Trends Performance Indicator Owing to lack of time, the RES staff was not able to complete its l

presentation on the Safety Systems Function Trends Performance i

Indicator.

Dr. Remick will discuss this further with the NRC-staff and schedule additional time for discussion of this topic during a subcomittee meeting or a future full Comittee meeting as appropri-ate.

(Mr. Boehnert.has the follow-up action.).

5.-

Independent Safety Comittee for Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant Member-ship The State of California Public Vtilities Comission is seeking

. qualified candidates to become members _of an independent safety comittee for the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant. The Comittee decided that it did not object to one of the ACRS members working on this safety comittee.

(Mr. Fraley has the follow-up action.)

6.

Attendance of ACRS Members at ANS August 1989 Workshop The Committee decided that it would sponsor the attendance of Dr.

-Kerr, Dr. Lewis, Dr. Remick, and Mr. Ward at the August 1989 ANS' workshop in Idaho Falls, Idaho. The Committee decided also that it would sponsor the attendance of Dr. Catton at the October 1989 technical conference in Karlsruhe, FRG.

l

- 2::-- -

4

's 1

j, -_.

350TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES.

31 7.

NUMARC Activities Presentation The Committee decided to invite Mr. Joseph Colvin (NUMARC) to a Committee meeting to brief the members on NUMARC's activities, Mr.

Carroll will contact Mr. Colvin. A presentation by Mr. Colvin was subsequently scheduled for the July 13-15, 1989 ACRS meeting.

(Dr.

Savio has the-follow-up action.)

D.

Future Activities 1.

Future Agenda The Committee agreed to the tentative future agenda shown in Appen-dix II.

2.

. Future Subcommittee Activities A schedule of future subcommittee activities was distributed to member-(AppendixIII).

The 350th ACRS. Meeting was adjourned at 1:00 p.m., June 10, 1989.

i i

i

- = -

-.. _. ~. _

LINd?..f.969

.,. s.

9,3 9.,

n ri r;a r;.

-m. -

+

1 i

i p-t i

APPENDICES i

t i'.

MINUTES OF.THE' 350TH ACRS MEETING t

3_.

JUNE 8-10, 1989 l

l i

I.

Attendees i

I L

.II.

Future Agenda i

I III. Future Subcommittee Activities j

t

'!V.'

Subject:

Proposed Resolution of USI A-47, " Safety Implications of Control Systems" -- ACRS Comments, dated April 12, 1988.

ACRS Letter to Chairman

Zech,

Subject:

Proposed Resolution of USI A-47, " Safety Implications of Control Systems," dated August 16, 1988.

Generic Letter (Reference USI A-47) with encls 1 and 2

'4.1 LIST OF FUTURE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS 5

REVIEW OF NRC-RES T/H PERFORMANCE RESEARCH PROGRAM PLAN Slides used by the speaker during the presentation Table of Contents Proposed Agenda Project Status Report with attachments:

DRAFT SECY Paper to Commission:

" Status and Plans for Thermal Hydraulic Research Conducted by the y

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research" (TNTERNAL COMMITTEE USE ONLY).

Excerpt of Working Copy of Minutes of Combined T/H Phenomenon / Core Performance Subcommittees Meeting of May 23, 1989 (INTERNAL COMMITTEE USE ONLY).

350th ACRS IV-2

....., - o 350th ACRS IV-2 i

Memorandum to D. Ward from P. Boehnert, ACRS, dated January 11, 1989, transmitting:

NRC-RES response to ACRS letter on T/H research ACRS letter to Chairman Zech,

Subject:

NRC Research Related to Heat Transfer and Fluid Transport in Nuclear Power Plants, dated June 7,

1980 6

PROPOSED GENERIC LETTER ON SERCICE WATER SYSTEMS AND RELATED MATTERS Slides used by the speaker during the presentation Table of Contents Schedule Status Report - Memorandum to ACRS Members and Staff from S. Duraiswamy, dated May 25, 1989, with Figures 1 and 2.

Proposed Generic Letter on Service Water System Problems Affecting Safety-Related Equipment (INTERNAL COMMITTEE USE ONLY).

Executive Sumary and Conclusions of the AEOD Study -

NUREG-1275, Volume 3, Service Water System Failures and Degradations Letter from W. Rasin, NUMARC, to E. Jordan, CRGR, providing comments on the proposed Generic Letter, dated February 27, 1989 Priority Assessment for Generic Issue 51, dated November 30, 1983 Excerpt from NUREG/CR-5210, Technical Findings Document for Generic Issue 51 Excerpt from NUREG/CR-5234, Yalue/ Impact Analysis for Generic Issue 51 7.2 GI-128 - ELECTRICAL POWER RELIABILITY Slides used by the speaker during the presentation Table of Contents Agenda Status Report with Attachments:

I - Draft General Letter - Re:

GI-48, "LCOs for Class 1E Vital Instrument Buses," and GI-49,m " Interlocks and LOCs for Class 1E Tie' Breakers" II - Draft Generic Letter - Re: Resolution of GI A-30,

" Adequacy of Safety-Related DC Power Supplies"

.d g9 i

350th ACRS IV-3 Meeting-Notebook Tab (Con't.)

8 GE ADVANCED BOILING WATER REACTOR - SECY-89-153 RE SEVERE ACCIDENT DESIGN FEATURES OF THE ABWR Slides used by the speaker during the presentation Table of Contents Tentative Agenda Status Report SECY-89-153, Severe Accident Design Features of the Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR)

Policy Statement on Severe Reactor Accidents Regarding-Future Designs and Existing Plants 9

STATUS OF PROGRAM TO ADDRESS BWR CORE POWER STABILITY ISSUE Slides used by the speaker during the presentation.

Table of Contents Proposed Agenda i

Project Status Report NRC Bulletin No. 88-07, Supplement 1: Power Oscillations in Boiling Water Reactors.

Excerpt of Minutes of 344th ACRS Meeting (Dec. 1988) detailing discussion on status of LaSalle BWR core power oscillation issue.

Excerpt of Working Minutes of May 23, 1989 combined T/H Phenomena Subcommittee Meeting (INTERNAL COMMITTEE USE)

Letter to D. Grace, BWR Owners Group c/o GPU NUCLEAR, s

Subject:

Power Oscillations in Boiling Water Reactors, dated March 22, 1989 10 USI A-17 SYSTEMS INTERACTIONS Slides used by speaker during the presentation Tentative Agenda Status Report ACRS letters re Proposed Resolution of USI A-17 dated May 13, 1986 to V.

Stello, and dated August 16, 1988 to-Chairman Zech.

Memo to R.

Fraley from W.

Houston, RES,

Subject:

Resolution of USI A-17, " Systems Inte,ractions in Nuclear Power Plants," dated May 10, 1989, tINTERNAL COMMITTEE USE ONLY)

o.

...;.p i

y.,.

1 350th ACRS IV-4 11 EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE REQUIREMENTS FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SENIOR OPERATORS AND CONTROL ROOM SUPERVISORS Slides used by speaker during the presentation Table of contents Tentative Agenda Status Report COMLZ-89 Degree Requirements for Senior Operators t

and Shift Supervisors, dated May 17, 1989.

ACRS letter to Chairman Zech, ACRS Comments on the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:

Degree i

Requirements for Senior Operators, dated August 12, 1989.

MEETING HANDOUTS E9_t TJlLl2 4

4.2 Memo for ACRS Members from R. Fraley,

Subject:

Future ACRS Activities - 351st ACRS Meeting - July 13-15, 1989, dated June 7, 1989.

4 4.3 Memo for ACRS Members from G.

Quittschreiber,

Subject:

Commission Request for ACRS Views and Recommendations on Integrated Approach on Regulatory Matters, dated June 7, 1989.

5 5.1 Memo to ACRS Members from P.

Boehnert,

Subject:

ACRS Consultant V. Schrock's Comments on NRC-RES T/H Research Program, dated June 7, 1989

!CU-7 7.1 REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON QUALITY IN THE NUCLEAR POWER INDUSTRY Table of Contents, Schedule, Status Report, ACRS letter to Chairman

Zech,

Subject:

Proposed International Workshop on Quality in Design and Construction of Nuclear Power Plants, dated June 10, 1587.

" International Conference on Quality - Comments on the Four Questions," b y C. P. Siess.

Memorandum to ACRS Members from D. Ward,

Subject:

Report on ICQ Meeting, dated May 25, 1989 7

7.2 Revised Schedule for GI 128 ITEM 13-13.1 G.

Mitchell-Wilk, State of, California Public Utilities Commission, letter to ACRS, attn:

Mr. Fraley, re Diablo Canyon Independent Safety Committee, dated May 15, 1989.

Background

Information on ACRS Member serving as consultant to California Public Utilities Commission 14 14.1-2 OFFICIAL USE ONLY proposed ACRS letter on Split of Re-sponsibility between ACRS and ACNW

.

ML20059N633

Text

Title:

Subject:

Subject:

Subject:

Subject:

Subject:

Subject:

Subject:

Subject:

Subject:

Subject:

Background

Navigation menu

Search