ML20059N635
| ML20059N635 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/11/1990 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-2658, NUDOCS 9010170067 | |
| Download: ML20059N635 (101) | |
Text
_
OMS-a&df
[
h M;5 [-/
i W l' q P1 ),
c Ii :tS
/D/2 /o/h[f8-TABLE OF CONTENTS MINUTES OF THE 352ND ACRS MEETING AUGUST 10-11, 1989 1.
Ch a i ma n ' s Repo r t ( 0 pe n )...........................................
1 II.
NuclearPowerPlantTechnicalSpecifications(0 pen)................
1 III. Nuclear Power Plant Operating Experience (0 pen)....................
2 IV.
Premeeting Discussion for Meeting with NRC Commissioners (0 pen)....
4 V.
Meeting wi th NRC Comi ssioners (0 pen)..............................
4 VI.
Generic Issue 79, Unanalyzed Reactor Vessel Thermal Stress During Natural Convection Cooldown (0 pen).................................
5 VII. General Electric Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (0 pen).............
5 VIII. Meeting with the Director, Office of Nuclear Materials and Safeguards (0 pen)..................................................
10 IX.
NUMARCActivities(0 pen)...........................................
13 X.
ExecutiveSession(0 pen / Closed)....................................
13 A.
Su bcomittee Reports (0 pen / Closed).............................
13 1.
SubcommitteeonMechanicalComponents(0 pen)...............
13 2.
Appointment of ACRS Members (C1osed).......................
14 B.
Reports, Letters, and Memoranda (0 pen).........................
14 1.
Proposed Resolution of Generic Issue 79, Unanalyzed Peactor Vessel (PWR) Themal Stress During Natural Convection Coo 1dewn...................................................
14 C.
OtherConclusions(0 pen).......................................
14 1.
Decision for ACRS Review of Proposed Restart of Nine Mile Point Unit 1; Future ACRS Review of Proposed Restarts......
14 2.
ACRS Decision to Not Review Proposed Resolution of Generic Issue C-8, " Main Steam Line Isolation Valve Leakage and Leakage Control System Failure"............................
15 3.
ACRS Decision to Not Review the 2.7% Power Level Increase Requested for Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station............
15 4.
ACRS Decision to Review Proposed Resolution of Generic Issue A-29, " Nuclear Power Plant Design for Reduction of i a Vulnerability to Industrial Sabotage"......................
15 n
y e 1.t o q
9010170067
$5h
- 9010j1 camaw d g D
x ene
- .1 e
11 5.
ACRS Decision to Review Proposed Resolution of Generic Issue 87, " Failure of HPCI Steam Line Without Isolation"...
15 6.
ACRS to Meet with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Advisory Comi ttee on November 1 and 2, 1989........................
15 7.
ACRS Agreed to Hold Meeting of the Regulatory Policies and Fractices Subcommittee N December 1-2, 1989...............
16 8.
ACRS Agreed to Consider ALPS Bylaws Change Regarding Additional Remarks Proposed for an ACRS Report.............
16 9.
Briefing by NRC Staff on the Stet 9s of NRC Work on Nuclear Power Plant Techni cal Specificatiord........................
16
- 10. Discussion of September 27, 1989 Letter to Ms. Ellyn Weiss Regarding Technical Specifications for Nuclear Power Plants.
16 11.
Letter from Mr. Stater Regarding Reactor Operator Training..
16
- 12. Mr. Michelson's Request for NRC Staff Coments on the ACPS Proposed Schedule for Review of the ABWR...................
17
- 13. Mr. WyWs Request for General Electric Company to Provide Him with a Description of Lightning Protection Features Planned for the ABWRs to be Sited in Japan.................
17
- 14. Dr. Shewmon's Request that General Electric Provide Him a Description of the Inspection Comitments on the ABWR Control Rod Drive Nozzles and a Drawing of the Bottom Head on the ABWR Pressure Vesse1................................
17
- 15. Dr. Siess' Request that the ACRS Staff Provide Him with a Description of Accident Severity Scales Used by Foreign Countries..................................................
17
- 16. Decision to Invite Mr. James Taylor. Acting EDO, to Discuss at a Future ACRS Meeting the ACRS' Report of May 9, 1989 l
l Regarding NUREG-1150.......................................
17
- 17. Request for Coments on Mr. Ward's Proposed Schedule for October 3, 1989 Probabilistic Risk Assessment Tutorial.....
18
'18.
ACRS Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures Recommendations Resultiag from the August 9,1989 Subcomittee Meeting.....
18 D.FutureActivities(0 pen).........................................
19 1.
Future Agenda...............................................
19 i
2.
Future Subcomi ttee Activi ties..............................
19 Supplement:
Section VIII - 0FFICIAL USE ONLY 5 g g 4 g Tg g - f0/g E X M M Supplement:
Section X. A.2 - 0FFICIAL USE ONLY /
.z-
, ' rs e e
I iii APPENDICES MINUTES OF THE 352ND ACRS MEETING AVGVST 10-11, 1989 I.-
Attendees II.
Future Agenda j
III.
Future Subcommittee Activities 1
IV.
Other Documents Received 1
V.
Transcript of ACRS Meeting with NRC Commissioners on August 10, 1989 P
t L
L I
i l
1
_ _ _.. _ _ _. ~. _ _. _. _ _ _.. _ _
7
)
- g. g} e e
e n
jjQ" e
434fl0 Feder:1 Rd k / Vol. 54, No.150 / Mond:y. August 1989 / Notices
= l Alternofire Use of Assourc,e only during those portions of the.,. a members of the Subcommittee,its consultants, and Staff. Persons desin,ng meeting when a transcript is be and [uestions may be asked only. y 'pt, e
%1s action does not lavolve the use og to make oral statements should notify cy enources beyond the scope of
,,, ers of the Subcommittee.its the ACRS staff member named below as resourses used during normal plant consultants, and Sta!!. Persons desiring far in advance as is practicable so that to make oral statements abould notify appropriate arrangements can be made.
operation.
Agencice and Arrsone' Consult'eif the ACRS staff member named below as During the initial portion of the far in advance as is practicable so that meeting, the Subcommittee may
%e staff did not consult other appropriate arrangementa can be made, exchange preliminary views regarding caencies or persons in connection with f,'S 8
fa*la e of e
the proposed exemptim tte ma nedlag of No 7=" Impact exchange preliminary views regarding.
Subcommittee will hear Tbs Cosamission has determined not. matters to be conalde during the...
presentations by 'and hold discussions balance of the mee
.%e with representatives of the NRC Staff 13 prepare an environmentalimpact Subcot*.mittee will n hear-and other interested persons regarding statement of the proposed exemptions.
presentations by and hold discunions tMs review Based upon the foregoing anvironmental assessment, we conclude with representatives of the NRC Staff 3
top' cs Furtherinf]ti n rinterestgersons regarding that the p sed action will not have a o
gg,
erinfor'sNtdaMYohl'cj has been cancelled or rucheduled, the Chairman a ruling on requests for the b
t For further details with respect to this to be discussed, wholbpt,the opportunity to present oral statements.
cetion, see the' licensee's lettere dated has been canoelled or resche e'.
and the time eBotted therefor can be August 1061984, October 16,1965, Chaltman's ruling'on requisets'for the obtained by a prepaid telephone call to September 18,1985 and May 30,1986 opportunity to,present oral statements the cognizant ACRS staff member, Mr.
which contained the exemption and the time auotted therefor can be requesta, and lettere dated March 12 and obtained by a prepaid telephone caU to Elpidio Igne (telephone 301/492-4192) between 7:15 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Persons March 30,1986 which provided the cognizant ACRS staff member, Mr.
planning to attend this meeting are supplemental information. nese letters Paul Boehnert (telephone 301/492-4658) tre avellable for public inspection at the between 7:15 a.in. and 4:15 p.m. Persons urged to c6ntact the above named individual one or two days before the r%=missionere Public Document Room, planning to attend this meeting are.
scheduled meeting to be advised of any 3130 L. Street NW. Washington.DC and urged to contact tbnbove named changes in schedule, etc., which may -
at Moeslotheills Ubrary,004 IJberty inevidualone of pio days before the have occurred.
scheduled mee lobe edvised of any Street. Mosels, mammaganaan i
Desed at Ree'kedle, lergisInd, this asth day fe*n"8" I" **
'M.
.may Deted: July 2s, tese.
of julpene *g)$$p c,Spanhhh' ~Dhessosoie111-4.,
coced.
DeputyExecutive Direcear. ACRS Richeni P.Sevio, W l'1 3 U 99 Q ph'Elr.gh..
.a.
1
- Aussed ^ ^^
'c: '
Richant B,Sa'vle. gen ww
[FR Doc.es-tasor FiledH-at E46 am)
DeputyEsacus(D6 ester.ACR&yc :
ArgefLgtebseurabugiser5.1M % and.
wM suase caos rep.a
.i
[FR Doc:8D-teaet Filed 6-4 4R aseb as4. i g.r,g.,, %..."'I'.'.' A*8C80f.
l g
- ., m., e
,oa,, e,o.,s U
Advloory Committee on Reactor -
[FR,Desh.,
6+at st48 sm) l
(
suais ces.s.vess *H. e '."..
Safeguarda;Revtsedlieeting Agende Advloory Corrwnittee on Reestor v
.a.m in accordance with the purposes of Seabrootg te%* O^ 9.,
Safeguarde
.on,., s m,......
..a.
ooting sectfons 29 and 182b.of the Atomic Advloory CesasnIItoson Reactor Sofoguarde a on -
ne ACRS Subcommittee on Seabrook Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2039,2232b), the e
.o.~,
RegionalProgrunne; Alcoting Advisory Committee on Reactor a
e a mating on E%lTn" 'n,'Mie@'" "We'e@s;G@o;$u'sA"E"A'A'i'*">Ae"3"A"Mc' ne'ACR'S SuNoY7tteEriRegional Roo 11 7920 Norfolk n
d f this meeting was blished in the Office,475 Allendal4 Nd, King of ~
public attendance..
.%.n <..
FederaWste on une 20, N Ws Prussia,PA. *
?*<*
The agenda for the subject meeting revised notice reflects changes in the 4
%e entire meeting willlie'open to' shall be as follows: nursday. August
' 8'"d '
- public attendance. '.
17,1989-4.30 a.m. until the conclusion
.~.
Thursday. August la 1989, Room P-11a
%e agende for the subject meeting of business.
shall be as follows: Tuesday, August 29.
The Subcommittee will review 7900 Norfolk Arenue, Bethesda, Md.
1906-8:30 a.m. until the conclusion of emergency lans for full wer.
aJO am-dd5 om Comments h j
business W 7My, August 30,1984-operation o the See Nuclearw ACRS Chaltman--%e ACRS Chairman a:30 a.m.'until the conclusion of business Power Plant.
Ip no Subcoauntttee erillreview the Oralstatemi'nti"may E.rischild by - will report on items of current interest.
=
s Plant Techtdco/ Specifications (Open)l ly
' Bed 5 cm-!MOhatNnlehrPower activities under the purview of the NRC nie:6bersoYthe public Region 1 Office." ^ ". ' ' -
concurrence of the $ubco
'e" 'E
. Oral statements may be presented by ' Chairman: written statements will be The Committee will have a briefmg and 7y.
m' mbers pl the public with the..
accepted and made available to the.
discussion of NRC and industry efforts
. dM..
concurrence of the Subcommittee..'
Committee. Recordings will be permitted to improve technical specifications for
" "#,1 e
Chairman; writt9a statements will be only during those portions of the,.;,.
nuclear power plants.
- 4 -
accepted and made~available to the meeting when a transcript is being kept, 1a15 om-tf:30ameNuclearPower -
Committee. Recordings will be permitted and questions may be asked only by.
Plant Opetuting Experience (Open)
/
g.e s
- Sf
)
.'.e
.n i
7
.X Fedora sist:r / Vol. 54. No.150 / Monday A t 7.1989 / Notle:s 32401
?* f " --
d b no Committee 'will hear and discuss Portions of this session will be closed with the ACRS F.xecutive Director if i' } $
a report (NUREG-1275 Vol.5)regarding as appropriate to discuss information such rescheduling would roult in major progmes in scram reduction in the release of which would reprnent a inconvenience.
i d
T commercial power ructors.
clearly unwarranted Invaston of I have determined in s'ccortlance with F7
!!:# o.m-212p.m.t Preineeting personal privacy. ".: Preparation of Subsection 10(d) Pub.1.92-463 that it is 5
Discunion forMeeting with NRC Com.
s.M o.m4w p.m neceseaty to close portions of this t-7 missioners (Open) The Committee will ACRSReports (Open/ Closed)-%e meeting as noted above to discuss
,, b review topics to be discuned with NRC Committee wilidiscuss proposed ACRS Information the relene of which would -
e I
Comuniesionereincluding NRC buman reports regardlagitems considered rept,sent a clearly unwarranted.
j r,
' factore program and initiatives, during this meeting #
invasion of personal privacy (5 U.S.CJ ql "t
electrical power reliabuity at nuclear Portions of this session will be closed 552b(c)(61) ProprietaryInformation 5 plaats, occupational radiation exposure se necewary to discuse Proprie applicable to the matters being :: d.
j free hot particles, BWR core power Information applicable to matters 'Ing stability, and reliability and diversity, considered.
discuued (5 U.S.C. 562b(c)(4)), an s.rguards/Securi information -
)
amp A-3:Mp.n: Meeting with NRC Saturday, Auguet gg 2 gag Room p.gga applicable to e
' cnuclearfactlities v
Commissionete-One WhiteFlint 7ggogorfolk Apenue, pegheodo, Md
($ U.S.C 552b(c)(3)).
6 North, Rockville. Md (Open}--The p.arther information regarding topics
(
Committu will discun with the NRC 8 M o.m:-212Noont Preparation of W discusehehd muu q
Com=Imalonere the items noted above.
ACRS Reports (Open/ Closed)-%e has been cancelled or reacheduled, e g
4:2 4Wp.m.: Genericissue.7R Committee will discuss proposed ACRS Reactor yenel(PwA) reports res iteme conalderody Chp,,y*8 r,ul4,y,f "gforp,p i:
Strees Duruqg NatuirJ during this mee w.....
e g,
,p h e he d W h,,, 6y an Conrecilon Cooldown Open)-ReYlew Portions of this seeslon'willbe closed and report on pro NRC resolution as necewary to discuss Proprie ~
{ prep Id t
, W Ray.,'
~
g ecu no
'j information applienble to matters Praley (telephone 30t/493-4049),j, of this generic issue. ' Mire ACRS considered.Wr%M., i. '
3.m p.m asc45p.au 1
Act/r/ ties (Open};-Discuss anticipated Wp.m-230p5USub6acunlaise
. betwun 8:15 a.m.,and;W p.m, s,
subcommittee setivity and items -
Activides(Open) OeCohhittewill Deted: Assust1.tesh" " 5.~La h-
~
proposed for consideration by the discuss the status of assigned ACRS -
John C. Hoyle...
Couunittee. -
subcommittee activities la designated '
Advisory Coeun/use."---
iOffloor.
- "8 4
,os to em ks0 sm-&40 a.a& Meeurng svith LM
. ! _ _":_- Oh
--m-..~-
^
Dhector, Ofhoe ofNuclearMaierfole (Open "%d willausplete>! ~10EdetMh's j'
"..%*i So (NMSS/(Open/
discuselon of itene considered dartag*:
n.
brie and discuulon will this meeting. W. -
. m'.
Tease UdD6es Electria Co;et eL;.C Procedures for the conductof and' e Roosiptof PoetionforDirector's be regardios topia of mutual intereet W= the scope and nature participationin ACRS meetings weseJ,.
Desielen
- C. #*b'*M
' '. "evA'*W of NM88 activitiee, security provisione published in the Fodseal Registee on.
Notice la hereby given that by petition at nuclear planta, and anticipated October 27,1ses(s3 FR
. la r p.
review of uranium enrichment plant.
accordance with these
- oral dated May 12 '1989. Cap Rock Electric Portions of this swalon will be closed or written statements may be presented Cooperative, Inc. (Cap Rock) has -
as necessary to discuss information by members of the public, recordings requested, pursuant to to CFR 2.208, the related to security provisions at nucleat wulbe permitted only during those Director. Office of Nuclear Reactor facilitin.
portions of the meeting when a Regulation to issue an order enforcing Res o.m-21m Noon and 2.sp.m.-
transcript is being kept, and questions the Comanche Peak antitrust license AWp.m.r CKAdvancedBolling Wofer may be asked only by members of the conditiona. %e petition requesta that Reactor (Open/ Closed),
Committee, its consultants, and Staff.
Texas Utilities Electric Company
' De Comunittee yrill conduct an initial Persons desiring to make oral m + i.<
('lVEC) be required to make sirailable to seselon regardingits review of the statemente abound no4fy the ACRS r Cap Rock, unoer reasonable rates,a - e application for design certification of Executive Director as far in advance as terms, and conditions, the partial.
3 this standardised nuclear plant.
practicable so that appropriate
.0 '. requirements, coordination, and other Portions of this session will be closed arrangements can be made to allow the electric power services provided by as necessary to discun Proprietary necessary time during the meeting for these license conditions.b petition Information applicable to this facility, such statements. Use of still, motion also requests that an antitrust bearing 3:2s p.m.-4 Mp.ar NUMARC picture and television cameras during be initiated to modify the license Acuridae (Open)-.%e Committee will this meeting may be limited to selected conditions in order to prevent'!VEC ii hear a briefing by a NUMARC portions of the meeting as dotarmined e from further abusing its monopoly ds representative on thalt activities by the Chairman. Information regarding power.The petition asserts, as groun regarding the regulatory process, the the time to be set aside for this purpose for these requests, that '!VECis NRC. industry interface, and other items may be obtained by a prepaid telephone currently refusing to provide Cap Rock of mutualinterest.
call to the ACRS Executive Director. Mr.
with the " essential" services that would 4:Mp.m.-5.tVp.m.: Appointment of Raymond F. Fraley, prior to the meeting.
enable Cap Rock to purchase generating ACRS Members (Open/ Closed)--The in view of the possibility that the capacity and economy energy from Committee will discuss qualifications of schedule for ACRS meetings may be other bulk power supply sources. As '
candidates proposed for consideration adjusted by the Chairman as necessary provided for in to CFR 2.206,.
as nominees for appointment to the to facilitate the conduct of the meeting.
appropriate action will be taken on this -
ACRS.
persons planning.to attend should,cbeck request within a reasonable time. A 1
m,.
.m
_.,,.~.
m I
0_
$[kS m
Fedesel Regletar J Vol. 64. No.144 / Friday.'}uly.:a,1ses / Notices k/b/M 31184 Comunente may also be comununicated maximum interval of 22.8 months -
Finding of no Signincast hopect by telepheme at (an2) 306-3064.
currently allowed by thr, Technical ne Commission has determined not
. The NKC Clearance Officer is Brenda Specifications. Therefore, the staff has
)) Shelton,(301) 403-4132.
approved the psoposed 34 smooth to prepare an environmentalimpact surveWance latern) for thew proposed statement for the proposed amendments.
Deted at Bethsede, beerytend this so da y changes but has not allowed a 25%
Based upon the foregoing of jgy tees, antension of the interval as is normally environmental assessment. the Commission concludes that the Per the Nuclear Regulatory Commuseton.
permitted by Specification 4.e.2.
y,%
As a result, the proposed acticewould proposed action will not have a M " M " # #"
not involve a ang=6Ar==t change in the signdicant affect on the quahty of the
' *d* #
. human environmant.
probability or conseguences of any trR Doc. at-t?ss6 F5ed 7-27 es; t 45 em]
accident previously evaluated.nor does For further details with respect to this It involve a new or dihreat kind of action, see the applications for l
accident. Consequently, any radiological amendments dated October 24,1988.
(Deshet Nea.06 401 and 80-stal releases resulting from an accident November 7.1984 and January 16,19et, would not be significantly greater than which are available for public m,...
.c.
.r.
SouthernCettesniaEdsonCo etali previously determined.He proposed inspecties et the Comunismon's Puhuc Seu Onotre >=naar Generatine amendments do not otherwise affect Document Room. 2120 L Street NW.
l Stenen,13nha tand &Eavtroamental routine radiol cal plien effluents.
Washington, DC 3o668, and at the AeassementandFinstagof no Therefore, 6==n====h'as General!Jbrary, University of SignlSeasilmpact that there are no significant radiological California, P.O. Bon 19567. Irvloe, environmental impects eseociated wtth California 92713.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory e
oMeA M M May n
el thj pgy,}
n ring unnae
,ts to Proposed action wit! not result in.s FacDity Operenne Licenses No. NPP-10 significeist increastin todividual or For the Nuclear Regatetary Cammission.
and No.NPF-15 leased to Southern cumulettre occupationalradiation Dueld uh CalifornienteenCompey,Sen nego exposum.
f,,j,c, y,,,y,,,
Gas and Electric Company, dieOty of With resa to n adiolg Riverelde, California and the City of 80%*,n,^^ T"" :"f,, M hoipele-lll. IV, Yah(Specia/Paysets, Anahelan, California (the liconeses}. for offh of Nuclear / tractor /terulation.
+
,i;"'SonOnsheNuclear -
efflunts ancnenmeother
.eswisonemanal nevefore, the (m hr.asarest FW-ast 646 emi Genestegeteuene,thdas 3 and 3 looeted terasm9isseM-rcCoh'.iornia.
f.
Commeleelso
.that these are ne saaess eens nes m.e w.m aw Asesammeni,,.,..
sigr.:ficantmaarodideslaat a
Enniseammutal envira====hH=r="*= assasimed artth Advisory Committee on Reector Jdmes#ileas==sfheposedAssian m I
proposed====d===s= would wvise the proposed amendments.
Safeguarda; Meeting A0enda The Nodoes at r'anand-rution ay certalmenrhannan pecl8 cottons to leeuance td.Amendasent and s
rd " '
'P
- f Increase the laterval far the so,menth tF arHometagin acunsction dIa f
29 l1 surestBenas tests to at leset enos see Op r*=h=r 8=*==8 which todenneh.s 24 wi this action were published in the Energy Act (42 U.S C.2039,223214, the montha af'the meminal36 Fedesel RegisteresPobruary 21,1989 Adyts ry Conuninee a Reactor masti abange PCN. (54 FR 7403) for PCN-ast, on February Safeguad wNd a mukg a 282 uusd&sthiles"I=^ ' at SpenGleation 241988,(54 FR so3311er PCN,ast, and August 10-12,1980 in Room P-110,7920 4/aAS1*AC9emenes?hoposed on Feb 24.1909164 FR 0086)for Norfolk Avenue,Bethesda,Md. Notice atmege PCB6.ast around feelse Technical PCN-aae o sequest for. hearing or o
meeting was putdishedJn the t
tition forJeeve to1 intervene was filed Fedal Register m]une 20J980.
spannan=eseeng/43ft,-gesego,.
Protective lastsamentatlan? ands 3/
Ilowing this motice.
Tiwisday August sa 1980,llaam P-Alternatives to the Pruposed Action:
4.3.2. " Engineered Safety Featum Because the Cansmission has concluded 110,1920 Norfolk A nnue, Bethesda, Md.
Actuution 8yetsminstnanentation?
8:30a.m. a45a.m.: Comments by change PCN-381 would revise that there are no significant Te lealSpec Scotion 3/4.3.3J, environmental hapacts associated with ACRS Chairman--The ACRS Chairman
" Seismic Instrunnmtation?
the proposed acuen, there le no need to will report on items of current interest.
The Need)br the Propvoed Action:
anandne altarvatives to the proposed MS o.m.-10 a.m.:Nuclearhwer
. Plant Technica/ Spw.ificctione (Open}-
%e proposed===ad=sentaeseesquired _ action.
The Committee win have a briefing and -
to preeemt.unnenunary pimet shutdowns Altametime Use difJianosanese %is to perform surveElanes tests orbich action dese notJovolvethe use of gliscoselon of NRC and industryellotta cannot be performed during plant resousons not previously. considered in tojmprove technical specifications for connection with the Final Environmental nuclear power plents.
CperaLion.
Statement nletea to operation of 6en 1&15 a.m.-U:30 a.m.:Nuclearhwer Dwisonmentalinpacts of the PipposedActiomFar each of the Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Plant Operotmg Experience IOpen) proposed amendments, the. licensees Units 2 and 3, dated April 39a1 and its
%e Committee will hear and discuse provided analyses to demonstrate the Erreta deted Inne 1961, a report (NUREG-1275, Vol. 5) regarding reliability of the systems.%e stau Agencies andferseas Consulted The progress in scram reduction in reviewed the licensees' analyses and NRC staff has teviewed the licensees' commercial power reactore.
agrees that there would be httle ar no
. request that supports the proposed
.1730 a.m.-It30 p.m.:Prrmeeting chance of failure during an additional amendments.The NRC etaff did not Discussion forMeeting withMRC i
testing intervel of 3.5 months beyond the consult other agencies or persons.
Commissioners (Open)-The Committee 4 -
.p-
)
- c f
- Federal Regiet Vol.' H. No.144 / Friday. Idy ta 1eg@otlees
$1395 4
wul review topics to be discussed with SMo.m-12mNoent Preporetles al to be secuned, whether the meeting NRC Comunisoloners including NRC.
ACRS Aaporte (Open/ClosedHhe has been concelled or rescht'duled. fl*
- hurtan factore progresa and laatiauven, Cunedstes wul discans proposed Acts Cheleman's ruling on requests for the at:ctrical power reliabikty at nuclear reports regarding items canaldered opportwitty to present oral statemente j
pl:nts. occupational radiation exposure during this meetias.
and the time allotted can be obtelned by L
fron hot particles. BWR eore power Portions of thle seulen wiu be closed a prepaid telephone cell to the ACRS st:bility and whability and diversity.
as necesesry to diocese proprietary Executive Diroc'or, Mr. Reymond F.
2mp-3.Mp.m.r Meethts with NAC Information applicable to matters telng Fraley (telephone 301/493-4089).
Commessionese-One I&him Mint considwed.
between ads a.m. and sa p.m.
North, Aedwille, Md. (Opee>The Imp.m..tMp.m.r sabcommittee Da@ 34, mm.
Casemittee will disasse with the NRC ActMties(OpenF%e Comadttee wiD Comades6amers theitems noted abovm discuss the statue of assigned ACRS John C usyle, 4Jpp-430AswMaintenaam of subcommittee activities to deelsneted AdvisoryCo mwl-y Ogiest.
p!
3 I
Nuotearheet (OpenH%e th=ntsee areas locluding proposed latogration of (FR Dw as-mes Pged M-et se nel 1
h will reviser and comment on proposed the reguletory procese, and reliabuity of
'NRC policy statement and an aseodated check valves in nuclear power plants.
euem esse memr l
regulatory guide regardingsnaintensoos g y p g.g g g,,g,,,,,
cf nuclear power plants.
(OpenH%e Conmettee wiB complete (Doeket lese.80 477/278) i Friday. August i1.19s9, Acorn F-ffa discussion ofitems considered d i
ySMNorfou Arenue, asdhesda, Md.
this maatnne Procedures for the act PNLedelpNa glectrto Co.et el4 R30 a.m.-ms o.au Meetag with of and participation in ACRS mostlage Canalderselon of leeuence of Directar. Office of Nudeer Malersals were published la the Feassel Register a,,,,g
.p.essty opereseng i
Sof; dSefersonde(NMSS)(Open/
on October traces $4 FR eseg?).la w mig y teegegnennent Cl briefing and discussion wul accordamos with these proceduses, eral Hemorde Consideressen Determinasse be nenrding 6.pice of mutual or writies statements sney be psesented and Opportunity $sr 90 earing "
l interest lectediris the scope end netwo by ma=h== of the puldte, seensdags k'
cf NMg8 octMties, seesdty provisies willbe paradtted only dwingthose heU.S NoelearRegelaterF et nueleetplanta, and anticipated pordone of the moeung whena Commiwion (h Commissionlis review of uranism eerichment plaal-transcriptla being and questions considering l===an,= of en amendseest
}
Portions of this session walla cloud may be asked only membersof the to FedI1ty Opereting IJoense Nos. DpR-
[
as necessary to discuss talarmouon Comualues,its cons laats, and StaE.
44 and DPR-as, issued to PhAndolphie teleted to esaarity provleiene at nuclear Persons desirlag to makeanal MeetrieCompany,publioServlee
- faadities.
statemente abould notify the ACgS Electric and Gee thra=y.Delmarve '
L R43 a.m-facoNose andimp-y.n cutive Director as far la advanca as power and Compesy sad Allen 8e
.(theBeenseos f
C,,ity Electric,pe,en s of b peach Botwe 3mp.au CE AdrencedAellier Woder praotleable ao that a Aeeamrtopen/Cleeeds arrangements can be== to diew abe e'
i De Committee wiu conduct aninitial necesenry thne during the menung for Atossic power sletten, Unit Nos. t and 3 c
l seselos regardingits review of the such statemente. Use of stui,anties 1
l application for design certification of pictwo and telaviales cameras dwing located in York County.7 g^. '
Peoposed amangment o
4 l
this standardised nuclear plant.
this meethis may be lissated to selected revise the Technical Speci!!cellon (75)
,,i poeticas of this seasica wiu be closed rtions of the onecting as datasudaad se necessary to disases Proprietary by the t'h nnema.lafonasties aegasdingLIninnaCone w
une ada '
laformanon applicable to this faculty.
the time to be set aside for this purpose (LCO) and Sury ance L
Affp.m 4mp.arNINAAC me be obtained by a propend telephans (SRs) fw Co" in TS I B and woeld SY8t'"I ]requinmaabgg AetMaise(OpenHWe Committee w0l ca to the ACRS Executtee Direeter.Mr.
nvise rela i
lL htar a brie 8ng by a NUMARC Raymond F. Fraley. prior to the meeting.
generalw(DC) tasuas la 3 4.5 F and L
representative on their activitles in view of the possibility that the es associated BASESin ej n
regarding the regulatory procasa, the schedule for ACRS moeungs may be with the 11esasee's appi NRC ladustry interface, and other items adjusted by the Chaiseman as necessary Augue 28,1988 Th pjcjtlos i
cf motsellatesest.
to f=mthate the aandant of the meeties,k Pa i
"'geotion Re orta30,277/8M'30--
dispp.m.Asop.mtPhlers ACAS persons to attend should chec in Activilise (Open)--%e Committee wiu with the ACRS vsDheater if 27 Sw 30.a77 aMas discuse enticipated ACRS enbcommittee such reacheduling would reauk ja major U concerning(a) uon db.-
.'i activiues and tiems pro sed for inconvenience.
- o m:
speciac and S gg
..o consideration by the f Committee.
I have determined la ecoordamos with g
o visten c{mPon0 g',,at ',rnate e[ stem testin
&30 p.m.-acop.m. Appointment of subsection 10(d) Pub.1.93-403 that it is ACRS Members (Open/ Closed).- The necessary to close ossof thle
,,9,g g,,p Ctmmittee will discuss gushfications of meeting as noted a to dt===a diesal generator.
c:ndidates proposed for consideration information the relaan of which woald -
Inspa%m Report swidenuned 1, ;
as nominees for appointment to the mpresent a clearly amvarrested concerns whlah are beoed on apparent
}
ACRS.
invasion of personal prtvecy (5 U.S.C.
inconsistent definitions between 'I3 3/
g Portions of this session will be closed 552b(c)(61). Proprie tary information
. as approtriate to discuss information -
applicable to the matiere being 4.5.B and the BASES of what constitutes the release of whlch would represent a discussed (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4)), and the CCS. We residual heat removal cletrly unwarranted invasion of Safeguards / Security laformation system is designed for three modes or personal privacy, applicable to specafic nuclear faculties subsystems of operatioru ehutdown 4
Saturday. August 12.1m Room P-(5 U.S.C.552b(c)p)).
cooling. containment cooling and low 110. 7R30Norfon Areous. Bethesda Md.
Further information regarding topics pressure coolent injection to the reactor i
i-c
j UNITED STATES
/.
NUCLEAR REGULATORl( COMMISSION
{
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS WASHINGTON, D C. 20GGS
\\.....
I Revised: August 4, 1989 SCHEDULE AND OUTLINE FOR DISCUSSION 352ND ACRS MEETING AUGUST-10-12, 1989 BETHESDA, MARYLAND l
Thursday, August 10, 1989, Room P-110 '7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Md.
I 8:45 A.M.
Chairman'sRemarks(0 pen) 1)
8:30 1.1) Opening remarks 1.2) Items of current interest (FJR/RFF) 9,75-2) 8:45 - M r00 A.M.
Nuclear Power Plant Technical Specifications 2.1) )Comnents by ACRS Subcomittee chairman-topen 1.
I (JCC/EGI) l 2.2) Briefing by NRC staff representatives 1
t.
9g, 10:15 A.M.
BREAK 10:00 Ht40 A.M.
Nuclear Power Plant Operating Experience l
- 3) 10:15 l
p/o r (open (HWL/MA) 3.1) ) Comments by ACRS subcomittee chairman (HWL/HA) g,3 g..- f,'2 0 3.2) Briefing and discussion regarding 4
NUREG-1275. Vol. 5 on progress in i
[se gf,,g e7-4'" e 9 activities to reduce scrams in nuclear power plants 12:30 P.M.
Premeeting Discussion for Meeting with
- 4) 11:30 NRC Comissioners (0 pen) =
l_
4.1) Discuss proposed it ms for meeting e
with NRC Comissioners:
l 4.1-1) NRC's Human Factors Program and May 9 - 1989 (FJR/HA) port dated Initiatives - ACRS re 4.1-2) Occu ational Radiation Exposure-of S in from Hot Particles -
ACRS report dated May 9,1989 (JCC/EGI) 4.1-3) Reliability.and Diversity -
ACRS report' dated June 14, 1989 (WK/MME)
1
.>e' 352nd ACRS Meeting Agenda :
4.1-4) Proposed resolution of Generic Issue 128, Electrical Power Systems Reliability - ACR$
report dated June 14, 1989
)
(CJW/WIE)-
4.1-5) Boiling Water Reactor Core Power Stability - ACRS report i
dated June 14,1989(tentative)-
(WK/ DAW /PAB) 1:30 P.M.
LUNCH,
12:30 i
1:40 P.M.
Depart for One White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland 3/O l~
5) 2:00 9:$0 P.M.
Meeting with NRC Comissioners (0 pen) lz 5.1) Meeting with NRG Comissioners to i
discuss topics noted in (4) above 4:00 f % + --l + l
- Depart for Phillips Building yo ht-e.Mh 5:00 P.M.
Generic Issue 79. Unanalyzed Reactor Vessel 6) 4:30 L
Thermal stress During na1 ural convection cooldown (OpenJ 6.1) comments by ACRS subconnittee chairman i
(PGS/EGI) 6.2) Meeting with NRC staff representatives 7) 5:00 - 5:30 P.M.
Future ACRS Activities (0 pen) 7.1J Discuss ant 1c1piited subcosmittee activities (RPS/RFF) 7.2) Discuss proposed ACRS activities i
(FJR/RFF)-
. C'3 c - c o o
- c en,s:: w l
Fridav. August 11. 1989. Room P-110, 7920 Norfolk Avenue. Bethesda. Md.
l-8)-
8:30 - 12:00 Noon GE Advanced Boiling Water. Reactor (10:00-10:15 Break) 8.1)/ closed)Comnents by ACRS subcomittee chairman (open L
(CM/HA) 8.2) Meeting with representatives of the GE Company (Note: Portions of this session will be closed as necessary to discuss Proprietary Information applicable to this NSSS.)
12:00
- 1:00 P.M.
LUNCH
6
i 352nd ACR$ Meeting Agenda -,
L g) 1:00 - M P.M.
GE Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (open/ closed) g.1) Continue meeting with representatives i
of NRC staff and the GE Company
/
(Note:
Portions of this session will be r
closed as necessary to discuss Proprietary g(
i Information applicable to this N$$$.)
- 10) h00 3:H P.M.
Meeting with Director. Office of Nuclear Materials safety and safeguards (MMss)
(0 pen / closed) (NR/RKM) 10.!)'Meetingtodiscussitemsofmutual interest, including:
Scope and nature of NMS$ activities a
(e.g.,reviewofwastehandling/
i rocessing at nuclear power plants) p(0 pen)
Review of uranium enrichment plant j
(0 pen) i Security provisions at nuclear facilities (Closed)
(Note: Portions.of this session will be closed as necessary to discuss information related to security provisions at nuclear facilities.)
3:30 P.M.
BREAK 3:15 4:45 P.M.
NUMARCActivities(0 pen)
- 11) 3:30 11.1) Briefing regarding NUMARC activities by representatives of the Nuclear Management and Resources Council including items related to the nuclear regulatory process, the NRC-industry interface and other items of mutual interest.(JCC/EGI) 5:15 P.M.
AppointmentofACRSMembers(0 pen / Closed)
- 12) 4:45 12.1) Discuss qua1171 cations of candidates L
proposed for consideration as members D
oftheACRS(CM/MFL)
(Note:
Portions of this session will be closed as appropriate to discuss information I
the release of which would represent a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.)
l
-l 1.-
352nd'ACRS Meeting Agenda 6:00 P.M.
PreparationofACRSReports(0 pen) 1
- 13) 5:15 13.1) Discuss proposed ACRS reports i
i regarding:
13.1-1) Generic Issue 79, Unanalyzed Reactor Vessel Thennal
,,g, [ ;...
hg t [F Stress (PGS/EGI) l t
6 Saturday, August 12, 1989 Room P-110, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Md.
- 14) 8:30 - 10:30 P.M.
Preparation of ACRS Reports to f
TC1) p,en/ Closed) Discuss proposed reports regarding NRC (p items considered during this meet'ng.
15)10:30- 12:00 Moon ACRS$cbcommitteeActivities(0 pen) l 15.1) Report of subcommittee meeting on i
August 9, 1989 regarding Integration of the Regulatory Process (HWL/GRQ) 15.2) Report of subcomittee meeting on June 21 1989 regarding reliability ofcheckvalvesinnuclearpower plants (CM/EGI) 15.3) Report of Planning and Procedures subconnittee meeting on August 9, 1989(FJR/RFF) p L
l l
L f.
l
$p
.1 N
i 1
?
1 l% L }>
av J
MINUTES OF THE 352ND ACRS MEETING i
AUGUST 10-11, 1989 The 352nd meeting of the Advisorv Comittee on Reactor Safeguards was heldat7920NorfolkAvenue,Bethesda,Md., August 10-11, 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.
)
All of the discussiont were held in open session except for short i
sessions during which the Comittee discussed the qualifications of candidates proposed for consideration as ACRS members and safeguards and security measures.
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 Corporation,1220 L St., N.W., Washington, D.C.
20005.]
I.
Chairman'sReport(0 pen)
[ Note: Mr. R. F. Fraley was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.]
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 noted that Mr. David C. Williams had been nomi-nated by President Bush as the first NRC Inspector General. He also noted that the revised NUREG-1150 had been published for interim use and peer review by the NRC staff.
II. Nuclear Power Plant Technical Specifications (0 pen)
[ Note: Mr.
E. Igne was the Designated Federal Official for this portionofthemeeting.]
Mr. M. Reinhart. NRR, briefed the Committee on the Improved Technical i
Specification Program (TSIP).
In addition, he also addressed the concerns expressed in a letter to E. Weiss dated September 27, 1989.
This briefing is the result of the Comittee's request for periodic briefings on this program.
Mr. Reinhart noted that there are three elements of the TSIP. The first involves the devalopment of new Standard Technical Specifications (STS) for each NSSS vendor design and voluntary adoption of the STS by licens-ees. The second consists of a parallel program for developing improve-ments to existing Technical Specifications (TS) that are imediately made available to licensees regardless of whether or not they adopt the new STS. These improvements are normally implemented by issuing a generic letter notifying licensees that the improvement is available or by the staff approving a topical report submitted by the industry. The final element of the TSIP involves the completion of a number of support activities necessary to fully implement the Commission's Interim Policy Statement on TS improvements.
ol' o
i
?'
w 352ND ACRS MEETING MINUTES l 1
r The goal of the TSIP is to improve operation safety by:
o Reducing the size and complexity of TS in a way that focuses on safety significant requirements o
Making TS more understandable to operations personnel, n
o Improving specific technical requirements and providing a clearer link with the safety analysis Reducing (operational transients and challenges to safety o
systems such as those caused by scrams during testing).
Mr. Reinhart also discussed the September 27, 1989 letter to E. Weiss during his presentation. The NRC staff believes that the important comments of the letter are either satisfied in the existing TS or will be incorporated in the TSIP or planned TS improvement.
Mr. Carroll stated that he believed satisfactory progress on the TStr is L
being made by the. staff and the Committee will be briefed again when this project is completed by late 1989 or early in 1990. The Committee decided not to write a report on this subject at this time.
III.
NuclearPowerPlantOperatingExperience(0 pen)
[ Note: Mr. H. Alderman was the Designated Federal Official for this portionofthemeeting.)
Dr. Lewis noted that the AEOD staff was present and would brief the Committee on the work directed toward the trends and patterns on un-planned scrams at nuclear power plants. The work was described in NUREG-1275 Vol. 5.
Copies of this report have been provided to the Committee.
i Mr. Dennig, AEOD, noted that the origin of this work derived from a rule change in the LER reporting requirements in 10 CFR 50 Part 73. The rele i
change was intended to provide a more systematic and consistent report-ing of information on reactor scrams. The intent of NUREG-1275, Vol. 5 l-is to provide feedback on operational experience in this particular l
area.
Mr. Carroll inquired as to whether scram reduction is important from a risk reduction perspective or whether it is only an economic issue for the utilities. Mr. Dennig replied that he believed that it was more of an economic issue than a risk reduction issue. Dr. Kerr asked as to the level of scram reduction the NRC staff believed should be achieved. Mr.
Denny stated that he believed that an "as low as reasonably achievable" criterion should be used.
Mr. Bell discussed the conclusions of NUREG-1275.
He noted that infor-nation associated with approximately 2,300 scrams has been extracted
352ND ACRS MEETING MINUTES.
from LERs. A key objective was to look at the scram data and compare that data with the experience associated with owners groups scram reduction programs. The data includes manual and automated scrams, identifies whether the plant was starting up, shutting down, or was in a power reduction mode, and-identifies the initiating system for the scrams. The initiating event that caused the scram was evaluated to determine if it involved a component failure or and/or human error. The causes of human error were considered. Training, failure to follow procedures, and lack of attention were among the elements considered.
Mr. Bell noted that AEOD has an extensive data search list on coirponents that allows compilation of details when a particular trend develops.
AEOD in its analysis looked for the system that caused the sequence of events which led to the scram.
Mr. Dennig noted that the scrams generally occurred at two extremes of the power spectrum. Most of the scrams were at 90 percent power or above._ The next larger amount of scrams were at 20 percent power or below.
Mr. Bell noted main feedwater pump problems and steam generator level problems were the primary sources of reactor-coolant-system-initiated i
scrams. He noted that the number of manual scrams was staying fairly constant. Mr. Bell noted that there was a fairly significant scram j
reduction rate from 1984 to 1988.
Mr. Bell discussed Westinghouse improvements in scram reduction.
Westinghouse recognized that the feedwater systen was the cause of a large number of scrams and identified the problems with the feedwater i
system.
Solutions were developed and this information made known to all l
members of their owners groups.
Mr. Bell discussed the General Electric plants. He noted the scram rate at General Electric plants had increased from 1984 to 1905 and then r
l after 1985 began to decline.
1 The Combustion Engineering plant owners had small reductions in their scram rates until 1988.
Combustion Engineering then solved the feed-water problems associated with their plants and achieved a large scram reduction.
The Babcock and Wilcox plant owners were experiencing serims that were caused by feedwater problems and at one plant had scrams caused by turbine system problems. The owners addressed these problems and the l
scram rate declined.
Mr. Bell noted that additional attention still needs to be paid to the feedwater system because it continues to be the dominant initiator of all unplanned scrams at the plants. He said the NRC staff believed that
-- m
-e- - -
- e
352ND ACRS MEETING MINUTES it would be difficult ~ to reduce scrams any further without serious expenditures of resources.
IV. Premeeting Discussion for Meeting with NRC Commissioners (0 pen)
[ Note: Messrs. H. Aldernan, E. Igne, M. El-Zef tany, and P. Boehnert were the Designated Federal Officials for this portion of the meeting.]
The Committee met in open session and discussed its preparation for attendance at the August 10, 1989 Commission meeting. The following topics were scheduled for discussion:
1.
NRC's human factors program and initiatives as discussed in an ACRS report dated May 9, 1989 2.
Occupational radiation exposure of skin from hot particles as discussed in an ACRS report dated May 9, 1989 3.
Reliability and diversity as discussed in an ACRS report dated May 9, 1989 4.
Proposed resolution of Generic Issue 128, " Electrical Power Systems Reliability," as discussed in an ACRS report dated June 14, 1989.
The Committee reviewed its assignments of spokesmen for these topics and subsecuently met with the Commission to discuss these subjects (see Section X).
V.
MeetingwiththeCommissioners(0 pen)
-[ Note: Mr. R. Fraley was the Designeted Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.]
[ Note: These discussions were carried out dur'ing a public meeting with the Commission in the Commissioners Conference Room at One White Flint North,Rockville,Md.]
The Caumittee met with the Commission on August 10, 1989 between ?:00 p.m. and 3:10 p.m.
Chairman Carr, Conmissioner Roberts Commissioner Rogers, Commissioner Curtiss and all of the ACRS members were in atten-dance.
[InaccordancewithamemorandumforV.ParlerfromS.ChilkdatedJune 9, 1989 regarding Staff Requirements, a transcript was provided to the ACRS by the Office of the Secretary of the Commission as the record for this portion of the meeting. ThetrarscriptisattachedasAppendixV.]
i i
t 352ND ACRS MEETING MINUTES i VI. Generic Issue 79, Unanalyzed Reactor Yessel (PWR) Thermal Stress I
During hatural convection Cooloown (0 pen) of the meeting.)gne was the Designated Federal Official for this pertion
[ Note: Mr. E. I Mr. J. Page, RES, discussed the NRC staff's proposed resolution to i
Generic Issue 79. The concern was identified by B&W in 1983 as a result of its investigation into the 1980 St. Lucie natural cooldown event.
Based on stress analysis calculations, B&W identified a concern that the calculated thermal stresses wert beyond those considered in the criainal design, but below code allowables. These thermal stresses are deveioped in the reactor vessel flange / stud area due to temperature gradients.
l Results of the analysis indicated that the stresses in the flange / stud area were below code allowables if the cooldown rate was less than 100 degrees per hour. RES recommended that PWR owners should provide a onfinnatory stress analysis to ensure that no epp11 cable regulatory design or fracture toughness criteria have been exceeded if their plants experience a natural convection cooling transient of greater than 100 degrees per hour.
The Comittee decided to write a report on this matter. This report is discussed in Section X.
VII. General Electric Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (0 pen)
[ Note: Mr. L. Alderman was the Designated Federal Official for this portionofthemeeting.]
Mr. Carlyle Michelson, Chairman of the Advanced BVRs Subcommittee, introduced this topic stating that today's discussion would be an l-overview of the entire plant. He noted that the Comittee has been i
asked to write a letter on Module 1 of the General Electric (GE) submit-l tal. Module 1 consists of a description of and safety analysis for the reactor and internals, engineered safeguards, and accident analysis.
Mr. Michelson noted that after the Committee receives the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation Report on Podule 1, the Advanced BWRs Subcomittee will meet to review the SER and bring this topic to the full Comittee for review and comment.
Pr. Craig Sawer, GE, made the opening presentation. Mr. Sawer noted l
that although the progress of the GE ABWR is some months behind the proposed schedule, he believes the final SER should still be issued on schedule.
Dr. Kerr asked as to the relationship between the plant being described here and the one that will be built in Japan, and what influence the NPC review would have on the Japanese plant. Mr. Sawer replied that the plants are very similar in design. There are only some minor differ-ences and these are for the most part in the B0P portion of the plant.
Mr. Sawer expects that the Japanese would be influenced by the NRC L
review ano that their design would be very close to what was approved by l
1
y,
.1 a.
c 352ND ACRS MEETING MINUTES.
the NRC. Mr. Sawer noted that the Japanese QA requirements were not identical to those used in the U.S. but that they meet the same intent.
Dr. Remick asked if the Japanese plants have suppression pool venting.
Mr. Sawer replied that this has not yet been decided.
Dr. Siess asked if the two plants being built in Japan will have exactly the same design. Mr. Sawer replied that the plants will have the same design.
The equipment, however, may differ because Toshiba will supply equipment in one case and Hatachi will supply the equipment for the other.
Dr. Siess asked if the seismic pequirements for the Japanese plants were such that the same plant could be sited in California. Mr. Sawer noted that the site in Japan is a hard-rock site and that the plant could not be built in some sections of Japan.
It is likely that this same plant could not be operated on some California sites.
The Committee discussed the schedule for the ACRS review.. Mr. Dino Sca11etti, NRC, noted that.an integrated SER will be issued in July l
1990. This will include ACRS comments. Mr. Michelson noted that the l
ACRS' proposed schedule calls for a final ACRS letter in October 1990 I
and requested that Mr. Sca11etti review the ACPS'. proposed schedule and j
give any consnents to the ACRS. Mr. Michelson noted that the NRC staff would have to allow adequate time in their schedules for an ACRS review.
Mr. Sawer discussed the design objectives of the ABWR, These are to:
L 1.
Make improvements in all aspects of plant design 2.
Improve the operability and capacity factor of the plant l
3.
Improve safety and reliability 4.
Reduce occupational exposure 5.
Reduce costs, L
The performance characteristics of the plant are as follows:
p 1
1.
Electric power - 1350 megawatts 2.
Construction schedule - 48 months 3.
Capacity factor - 86 percent 4.
Load following capability - from 50 to 100 percent 5.
Fuel cycle - 12 months with the possibility of an 18-month fuel cycle 6.
Core damage probability - less than current operating plants 7.
Occupational exposure / radioactive waste - less than 100 man rem per year with design features which would result in a substantial reduction in radwaste as compared to currently operating plants.
Pr. Sawer discussed the design of the internal recirculation pumps.
He noted that pumps of this type have been used in Geman and Swedish BWRs.
i I
He stated that this design for the internal recirculation pumps elimi-
]
nates the need for the external recirculation piping which has been e i
problem in U.S. BWRs.
The use of this type of internal recirculating l
l
.J
~
+
.c
)
7
,a
+
i 352ND ACRS MEETING MINUTES J pumps eliminates large nozzles below the core elevation which are currently used in BWRs and thus reduces the risk from large break 1.0CA, and allows the elimination of large capacity reflood ECCS systems.
Mr. Sawer noted that these pumps have less inertia than the existing l'
recirculating pumps. To compensate for this the power supplied to these pumps is diversified so that the probability of simultaneous loss of all pumps would be low. Six of the ten pumps have motor-generator sets and will'have longer coastdown time if the AC power for the plant is lost.
Mr. Sawer noted that there currently is about 600 pump years of experi-ence with this kind of pump. There has been only one incident of a major forced outage due to a pump-related problem.
Mr. Sawer discussed the design of the fine motion control rod drive.
Hydraulic actuation is used for scram operation and electric actuatior, is used for normal operation. The hydraulic and electric modes of acetuation provide diversity. Reactivity control during normal opera-tion has been improved by providing an increased number of drive steps.
The maintenance requirements for these control rod drives have been reduced by design improvements and the need for a scram discharge volume has been eliminated. The water is now discharged into the reactor.
There is, in addition, continuous position indication for the control rods by syanchro motors.
Mr. Sawer discussed the digital solid-state control system. The digital S
solid-state control system is designed to be fault tolerant and triple redundant, with a built-in capability for self diagnostics. The multi-plexing systems utilize fiber-optics which provide a superior isolation capability. This will significantly reduci: the amount of cable in the plant and will help shorten plant construction time and reduce cost.
The neutron monitoring system design is'such that the start-up range and the intermediate range are combined into a single startup range neutron monitoring system. The NSSS and BOP are designed to accommodate a range of future fuel element designs.
I The containment is a cylindrical geometry for ease of construction and is a steel-lined reinforced concrete structure.
It has horizontal vents to the pressure suppression pool and the suppression pool is covered and the containment is inerted. The design pressure is 45 psig. The reactor building, which surrounds the containment, is integrated with the containment. The overall volume of the reactor building has been reduced as compared to current GE designs.
Mr. Sawer discussed the ECCS configuration. He noted the ABWR recuires less ECSS flow because large pipes are not located below the top of the core. Water for ECCS can be taken from either the condensate storage tank or the suppression pool. The high pressure system has two divi-sions which can provide about 800 gallons per minute flow at high pressure and over 3000 gallons per minute at low pressure.
~
,s i
i 352ND ACRS MEETING MiliUTES '
1 j
Mr. Sawer discussed the testing program for the ABWR, This will l
include-1 1.
TLTA Testing 2.
Effects of rapid flow coastdown on thermal performance 3.
Boron mixing testing t
4 Testing of the fine motion control drives 5.
Horizontal vent tests 6.
Testing of the internal pumps 7.
Flow vibration tests i
8.
hain steam isolation valve' tests.
t Mr. Michelson asked.if the materials research required for the ABWR.
design had been completed. Mr. Sawer said that he thought that GE has l
solved all of the important materials problems with the one possibl.e exception of irradiation induced stress corrosion cracking.
l Mr. Sawer discussed how the GE ABWR design confortted with the reconinen-dations developed in the EPRI ALWR program. The following design changes were made to comply with the EPRI program:
i 1.
The elimination of core spray 2.
An eight-hour station blackout capability 3.
A 60-year plant life 4.
The provision for drywell flooding 5.
A forged ring reactor pressure vessel 6.
The use of more realistic source terms for the design basis accident in the site analysis 7.
The use of variable speed motor feed pumps in the turbine island l
8.
A single stage condensate system u
9.
The elimination of the separate steam seal evaporator
- 10. The location of the control building between tne reactor and l
turbine buildings
- 11. The use of a combustion turbine as backup AC powar source
- 12. The addition of an AC independent makeup pump.
Mr. Sawer discussed the approach to severe accident design. He noted that the ABWR design provides for a high degree of protection against postulated severe accidents. There are, in addition, design features p
1
c I'
352ND ACRS MEETING MINUTES which can further reduce the possibility of having a severe accident and provide mitigation capability for such an accident. These features are:
use of a gas turbine as an independent AC power source, an AC indepen-dent water system, a lower drywell flooding, and a containment vent.
He noted that the fine motion control rod drive provides protection against ATWS by providing a different mode (electric instead of hydrau-lic) of inserting control rods. There are three 100-percent capacity divisions of P.HR.
The suppression pool is available as a fissien-product-scrubbing device and both drywell and wetwell sprays are provid-ed.
Mr. Sawer discussed the AC independent water addition system. The mode of pumping power will come from a diesel-driven fire pump. Water can be pumped either to the core or through the drywell spray header to the drywell. The capacity of this system is 1000 gallons per minute at a-head of 100 psi.
Mr. Sawer discussed the lower drywell flooding capability. This is provided as a means for cooling molten core debris in the drywell. A number of small diameter pipes are provided with feasible link valves that respond to high temperature. These valves will provide deluge flow from the suppression pool.
Mr.SawernotedgheABWRgoalforthecoredamagefrequencyisthatit be less than 10~ / reactor year. The goal for a conditional containment failure probability is that it be less than 0.1.
Mr. Carroll asked how GE defines core damage. Mr. Sawer replied that core damage is defined as the loss of core cooling c d ned with the start of core melting.
Dr. Catton asked what GE's conclusions were on the lossibility of a steam explosion in the lower drywell after core melt. Mr. Sawer noted that the steam generation rate could not be any faster than the rate of addition of water which was limited by the deluge valve design. GE's consultants have determined that a steam explosion was not feasible.
timated offsite dose at a half a mile from Mr. Sawer noted that the eg/ reactor year _ probability level would be less the reactor plant at a 10~
than 25 rem. He noted that this was based upon the EPRI requirements.
Mr. Sawyer discussed containment failure. He said that containment failure was defined as exceeding 25 rem at a half a mile in the ABWR PRA. The basis of this is that the function of the containment is to contain fission products to a level that adequately protects the public.
The NRC staff has asked EPRI to look at the utility of using other definitions of containment failure. EPRI has been looked at containment failure based upon the containment as a pressure boundary. Mr. Sawer 1
352ND ACRS MEETING MINUTES.
noted that EPRI and the staff have not yet arrived at mutually agreed definition of containment failure.
Mr. Sca11etti, NRC, said.the staff is leaning toward adopting a defini-tion of containment failure as the irreversible icss of the containment capability to act as a pressure boundary.
Mr. Sawer discussed the design features for containment overprotection.
He noted that a rupture disk would be used which would rupture at a pressure higher than the design pressure of the containment but well below the predicated failure pressure of the containment. This system will have two nomally opened isolation valves that could be reclosed when it is determined that the heat removal capability.is. restored and the containment integrity can be maintained. The pipe diameter for this system is 14 inches and will protect against overpressure transients which do not exceed the flow capacity of this system.
Mr. Sawer noted that the only failure of this system that GE can postu-late is that the operations staff, through an error of commission, would close the normally open vent valves, in summary, Mr. Sawer noted that:
o GE has tried to incorporate the best worldwide available BWR technology in this plant.
o The plant meets all the design goals, o
All the development tests have been completed, o
The design has been submitted for certification as a U.S. standard
- plant, o
The certification program and the EPRI Al.WR requirements programs are mutually supportive.
VIII. Meeting with the Director, Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and safeguards (0 pen)
(Note: Mr. R. K. Major was the Designated Federal Official for this portionofthemeeting.)
Mr. Bernero, Director, Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards (NMSS), discussed several topics with the ACRS. The first topic dealt with the licensing of enrichment facilities.
There is currently uranium enrichment legislation before Congress. The Senate session of this bill (5.83) would establish a government corpo-ration to run the DOE enrichment enterprise; it passed in July 1989.
House bills are under consideration. This legislation would amend the J
l 1
i
. ~
o 352ND ACRS fiEETING MINUTES Atomic Energy Act resulting in Uranium enrichment plants being licensed under 10 CFR Parts 40 and 70 rather than Part 50. The licensing sched-ule would allow two years for developing the necessary NRC regulatory changes and one year for submitting an application to license an exist-ing DOE enrichment plant.
About a year ago, ALChemIE applied for a license to operate an isotope enrichment facility. The ACRS wrote a report on this application dated October 13, 1989. Surplus DOE gas centrifuces were to be used to enrich non-fissile isotopes. However.since these machines could potentially be used to enrich uranium and had some slight contamination from a demonstration of their use for uranium enrichment, an NRC license was required. In the past year, due to financial difficulties. ALChemIE has filed for Chapter XI reorganization. The current status of the licens-ee's program remains uncertain.
It is possible that the NRC license might be revoked because of the new uncertain financial status of the company.
Currently a joint venture is being formed by Louisiana Energy Services (LES) comprised of Duke Power Co., Louisiana Power t. Light Co., North-ern States Power Co., Fluor Daniel, and URENCO to enrich uranium using URENCO gas centrifuge technology. URENCO plants are currently operating in Great Britain, the Netherlands, and the Federal. Republic of Germany.
A-license application is expected in 1990. Duke Power Co. will be the lead licensee applicant. The facility is expected to produce enough l
enriched fuel for 15 plants. The members of LES have 14 plants and plan to market enrichment services, i
The LES license application will be made under 10 CFR Part 50. There are draft general design criteria which will be used by the staff and applicant in the licensing process. There are also criteria for the natural phenomena design bases and for chemical releases. Currently, h
I the Comission foresees no major rulemaking activities associated with this license unless Congress shifts to licensing under 10 CFR Parts I
L 40/70.
Basically the rationale behind shifting the rules to 10 CFR Part l
40/70 would be to create one-stop licensing. The staff feels that for i
this application a one-stop licensing process is virtually in place.
l The staff needs to improve their guidance on safeguards issues for the applicant.
It is expected that this will be done by July 1991. The Applicant is required to prepare and submit a Fundamental Nuclear Materials Control (FNMC) Plan to NRC two years prior to operation. The staff will review and come to a decision on the FNMC plan one year prior 3
to operation. The staff will also conduct a preoperational inspection 30 days prior to operation.
l The facility will be located in Claiborne Parish, Louisiana. Three sites in this Parish are currently under consideration. The area is I
rural and the size of the potential sites is on the order of 500 acres.
4 1
j,,.-
352ND ACRS MEETING MINUTES About 100 acres of whatever site is chosen will have to be developed for the plant's operation.
Mr. Bernero next discussed tritium shipper-receiver discrepancies. He noted that with the current shutdown of production reactors, tritium supplied to comercial vendors is becoming scarce. Oak Ridge National Laboratory is the center for selling tritium to comercial vendors.
Recently, tritium prices rose by a factor of three, and shipper-receiver-discrepancies have been noted.
DOE has' met with NRC to request assis-tance in investigating tritium shipment discrepancies.
Some discrep-ancies range up to 40 percent.. DOE, with HRC assisting, conducted a 30-day investigation of these discrepancies. The investigation was considered inconclusive regarding the cause of the discrepancies, and another team investigation has begun. Meanwhile, DOE suspended tritium sales on July 25.
There has also been Congressional interest in possibly safeguarding tritium even though it is not special nuclear material.
NRC will reconsider safeguarding tritium if there is evidence of diversion.
One recomendation made to DOE by NRC is to do a more precise job of mass analysis verification and to more accurately fix the amount of tritium present in a particular lot. Such improved accounting of material should take place at both the shipper and receiver. There is little evidence of leakage. Currently, it is believed the problem is caused by the lack of precise measurement and accounting. DOE is continuing to investigate this matter and NRC is following it closely.
Mr. Bernero next discussed NMSS activities regarding regulations on low-level radioactive waste (LLW). This material is regulated under 10 CFR Part 61. The wastes are classified as Class A (the least hazardous, e.g. evaporator bottoms), Class B (intemediate low level waste, e.g.
ion exchange resins), and Class C (the highest levels of radioactivity forLLW,e.g.,activatedmetals).
The requirements in Part 61 are aimed at satisfying burial requirements at waste sites. They govern how wastes such as spent resins, evaporator bottoms, and dry wastes are solidified, dewatered or compacted respec-tively. Licensees are required to have process control programs which describe how they will meet the regulations. NRC is also treating waste handling generically by approving topical reports which can be refer-enced by a number of licensees.
The process control program describes and gives procedures for the waste form, systems interface, systems operations, occupational response and quality assurance. Licensees must have an NRC-approved process control program.
[The Comittee went into a closed session at this point. They were briefed by Robert Burnett en topics related to safeguards events. These
j..
l 352ND ACRS MEETING MINUTES '
i discussions are summarized in the Official Use Only Supplement to the 2
minutes.
No change in NRC requirements resulted from the incidents described.]
1 IX. NUMARCActivities(0 pen)
[ Note: Mr. E. I of the meeting.]gne was the Designated Federal Official for this portion The presentation by Mr. J. Colvin, NUMARC, addressed matters which were discussed at the International Conference on Quality in San Diego, Calif., on May 14-18, 1989, which the ACRS co-sponsored. Mr. J. Colvin discussed how the regulatory process impacts the utilities.
Polls taken by the U.S. Council for Energy Awareness, on energy supply and need for power, indicated that the public does not think that the country is running short on energy. This led Mr. Colvin to believe that unless there is a demonstrated public shortage of energy, there is not going to be any public support for new power plant construction.
In reply to a question, he stated that the poll was taken from the general public.
Polls of Congressional staff members who would be more aware of the country's energy needs indicate that Up to 92 percent indicate the need for more electric power.
Mr. Colvin stated that a significant concern of the industry is that maintenanceandoperating(0&M)costscontinuetoincrease.
For exam-ple, he stated that a utility executive had told him that a 22 percent increase on nuclear power production was needed to balance 0&M costs.
The cost advantage of nuclear production over coal had been decreasing in recent years and since about 1987 the cost of coal and nuclear i
generated electricity have become comparable (about 1.9 cents per kilowatt hour). The industry believes that the regulatory environment must be credible, professional, and stable if nuclear power is to be competitive. He then discussed some recent examples of NRC staff's actions which he felt were not cost effective.
X.
ExecutiveSessions(0 pen / Closed)
A.
Subcommittee Reports (0 pen / Closed) 1.
MechanicalComponents(0 pen)
[ Note:
E. Igne was the Designated Feden1 Official for this portionofthemeeting.]
Mr. Michelson, Chairman of the Mechanical Components Subcom-L mittee, briefed the Committee on its meeting on June 21, 1989 L
on work on MOV testing by the Bechtel/KWU Alliance, status of I
check valve reliability, and a workshop on in-service testing l
(IST) of pumps and valves held on August 1, 2 & 3, 1989, at the Capitol Hyatt Hotel in Washington, D.C.
C. Michelson l
i
d#
6 4
'M T
1 E
4
\\
3
{
352ND ACRS MEETINC MINUTES l p
stated that the ACRS Subcomittee on Mechanical Components would like to review the proposed resolution of Generic Issue l
87, " Failure of HPCI Steamline Without Isolation," specifical-ly the matter of implementing current versus original design y
requirements on MOVs as delineated in Generic Letter 89-10, 2.
AppointmentofACRSMembers(Closed)
(Note: Mrs. M. Lee was the Designated Federal Official for thisportionofthemeeting.]
.e Contained in Official Use Only Supplement.
B.
Reports. Letters,andMemoranda(0 pen) 1.
Proposed Resolution of Generic Issue 79. Unanalyzed Reactor Vessel (PWR) ThermL1 Stress during Natural Convection Cooldown (Letter to J. M. Taylor from F. J. Remick, datea August 15, 1989)
The Committee had only one recomendation as noted below l
regarding the actions proposed by the NRC staff for resolving Generic Issue 79. The evaluations performed within the l
framework of Generic Issue 79 have resolved the natural I
circulationcooldown(NCC)forBabcock&Wilcoxnuclearsteam supplysystems(NSSS). Since the NCC condition has not been specifically evaluated for Westinghouse and Combustion Engineering PWRs the staff plans-to require that if a i
I licensee with Westinghouse or Combustion Engineering NSSS experiences a significant NCC event, the licensee previde confinnation that no applicable regulatory design or fracture toughness criteria have been exceeded for the reactor vessel.
The Committee recomended that licensees with Westinghouse or l
Combustion Engineering NSSS be informed of this potential requirement.
l l
C.
Other Conclusions (0 pen) 1.
Decision for ACRS Review of Proposed Restart of Nine Mile Point Unit 1; Future ACR5 Review of Proposed Restarts The Ccmittee discussed whether to review the proposed restart of Nine Mile Point Unit I and decided that it would review-I this matter. Dr. Kerr, Chairman of the General Electric Reac-tor Plants Subcommittee, has the lead responsibility for this review.
(Mr. Alderman has the follow-up action.) The Commit-tee agreed also that the ACRS will normally review the restart of plants that have been shut down for more than a year as a result of substantive deficiencies in equipment, systems, man-agement, etc.
If a plant has been shut down for less than a 1, \\
, y t
352ND ACRS MEETING MINUTES.. l c.
year for substantive deficiencies, the Comittee will consid-'
er/ decide whether or not to review proposed restart of the plant on a case-by-case basis.
(Letter to J. M. Taylor from R. F. Fraley dated August 17,1989) 2.
ACRS Decision to Not Review Proposed Resolution of Generic Issue C-8, " Main Steam Line Isolation Valve Leakage and Leakage Control System Failure" The Comittee decided not to review the' proposed resolution of Generic Issue C-8, " Main Steam Line Isolation Valve teakage and Leakage Control System Failure" (Letter to E. S. Beckjord from R.-F. Fraley dated August 15,1989) 3.
ACRS Decision to Not Review the 2.7% Power Level Increase Teouested for Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station The Comittee decided not to review the 2.7% power level a
increase requested for the Maine Yanker M mic Po n t Station form 2630 MWe to 2700 MWe.
4.
ACRS Decision to-Review Pro posed Resolution of Generic Issue A-29, " Nuclear Power Plant 3esign for Reduction of Vulnerabil-ity to Industrial Sabotage"
-1 The Comittee decided to review the proposed resolution of Generic-Issue A-29, " Nuclear Power Plant Design for Reduction of Vulnerability to Industrial Sabotage." Dr. Lewis, Chairman of the Safeguards and Security Subcomittee, has the lead u
responsibility for this review.
5' ACRS Decision to Review Pro)osed Pesolution of Generic Issue 87, " Failure of HPCI Steam.ine Without Isolation" The Comittee decided' to review the proposed resolution-of 9
Generic Issue 87, " Failure of HPCI Steam Line Without Isola-p' tion." Mr. Michelson, Chairman of the Mechanical. Components Subcomittee, has the lead responsibility for. this review.
1
-(Mr. Igne has the follow-up action.) A subcomittee meeting has been scheduled for October 3, 1989 and' discussion before L
the Comittee is tentatively scheduled for the October 5-7, 1989 ACRS meeting.
5.
ACRS to Meet-with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Advisory Comit-tee on= November 1 and 2, 1989 L
Tiie Ccmmittee agreed to meet with the Canadian Nuclear Safety L
Advisory Comittee on November 1 and 2,1989. A detailed agenda will be worked out in the near future.
Dr. Moeller has tentatively agreed to participate in this meeting as the ACNW I
representative. Dr. Remick, Mr. Carroll, Dr. Kerr, Mr.
{
Michelson, Mr. Ward, and Mr. Fylie have agreed to attend.
Dr.
i t
- w..
.l '
u n
a m
m e
m3
~-
c' $
3~
352ND ACRS MEETING MINUTES-,
Lewis will probab1y' attend. The other members are requested to inform Mr. Fraley of their plans.~ Dr. Remick and Mr.
Fraley have the lead responsibility for this meeting.
7.
ACRS Agreed to Hold Meeting of the Regulatory Policies and Practices Subcommittee on December 1-2, 1989-The Comittee agreed to hold a meeting of the Regulatory) on Policies and Practices Subcomittee (Dr. Lewis, Chairman December 1-2, 1989 to discuss aspects of the regulatory process of interest and/or concern.
(Mr.Quittschreiberhas the follow-up action.)- It has been tentatively decided that the location for the meeting will be in Williamsburg, Va. All members are encouraged to attend and are requested to notify-l Mr. Quittschreiber of their intentions.
8.
ACRS Agreed to' Consider ACRS Bylaws Change Regarding Addition-al Remarks Proposed for an ACRS Report The Comittee agreed to consider a change to the ACRS Bylaws to provide a mechanism by which the Comittee could decide if q
edditional remarks that are proposed'for an ACRS report are appropriate and should be included with that report or should 1
be. issued as a separate letter.
(Mr. Fraley and Dr. Savio 1
have the follow-up action.)
j 9.
Briefing by NRC Staff on the: Status of NRC Work on Nuclear i
Power Plant Technical Specifications 1
The Committee-was briefed by the NRC staff on-the status of q
1 the NRC work on : nuclear power plant Technical: Specifications.
j The NRC staff. is. expected to request ACRS coments on this 1
matter in the latter part of 1989.
(Mr..Igne.has the follow-up action.)
10.
Discussion of September 27, 1989 Letter to Ms. Ellyn Weiss Regarding Technical Specifications for Nuclear Power Plants-1 The Committee discussed a September 27, 1988 letter to Ms.
l Ellyn Weiss, a copy of which;was sent to Dr. Kerr, on inade-quacies in the Technical Specifications for nuclear power i
plants. The Committee decided to take no further action at i
this time..(Mr. Igne has whatever follow-up action is re-quired in the future.)
i
- 11. Letter from Mr. Stater Regarding Reactor Operator Training Mr. Stater, a member of the public, has written to Mr. Fraley (seeletterdatedJune 12,1989) expressing his concerns regarding reactor operator training.
Dr. Remick noted his e
b-
.,~
q B.H o
_.,e' l
- c. _
352ND ACRS MEETING MINUTES '!
intention to address these concerns in a future meeting of the j
Human Factors Subcommittee.
(Mr. Alderman has the follow-up l
^
action.)
i
Proposed Schedule for Review of the ABWR Mr. Michelson asked that the NRC staff provide him with their comments on.the Committee's proposed schedule for the review-a of the ABWR since the HRC current milestones and the-ACRS schedules for ACRS and Subcommittee action are different.
(Mr. Alderman has the follow-up action.)
1 13.. Mr. Wylie's Request for General Electric Company to Provide Him with a Descri) tion of Lightning Protection Features Planned for the ASWRs to be Sited in Japan Mr. Wylie asked-that the General Electric Company provide him with a description of the lightning protection features planned for.the ABWPs which are to be sited in Japan.
(Mr.
Alderman has the follow-up action.)
- 14. Dr. Shewmon's Request that General Electric Provide Him a Description of the Inspection Commitments on the ABWR Control Rod Drive Nozzles-and a Drawing of the Bottom Head on the ABWR Pressure Vessel i
Dr. Shewmon asked that the General Electric Company provide him with a description of the inspection commitments on.the ABWR control rod drive nozzles and a drawing of the bottom
-head on the ABWR pressure vessel..(Mr. Alderman-has the follow-up action.)
15.
Dr. Siess' Request that the ACRS Staff Provide Him with a Description of Accident Severity Scales Used by Foreign Countries Dr. Siess requested that the ACRS staff provide him with a description of Accident Severity Scales that are used by foreign countries.
(Mr. Igne has the followup actions.)
- 16. Decision to Invite Mr. James Taylor, Acting EDO to Discuss at a Future ACRS Meeting the ACRS' Report of May 9, 1989 Regard-ing NUREG-1150 The Committee decided to invite Mr. James Taylor, Acting EDO, to an ACRS meeting to discuss the ACRS' report of May 9, 1989, regarding its interim use of HUREG-1150.
This matter is i
tentatively scheduled for discussion during the September 7-9, 1989 ACRS-Meeting.
~
v*
i1 352ND ACRS MEETING MINUTES :.
- 17. Request for Comments on Mr. Ward's Proposed-Schedule for October 3, 1989 Probabilistic Risk Assessment Tutorial Mr.- Ward solicited coments from the Comittee Members on his proposed schedule for the tutorial sessions to be held during the October 3, 1989 meeting of the Probabilistic Risk Assess-nent Subcomittee.
(Mr. Houston and Mr. Stella have the follow-upaction.)
- 18. ACRS Subcomittee on Planning and Procedures Recomendations-Resulting from the August 9, 1989 Subcommittee Meeting The Committee agreed to the following recomendations of the Planning and Procedures Subcomittee resulting from the August 9, Mao subcommit+se meeting. These recomendations were:
The ra;=ry/ minutes of the ACRS full Committee meeting and subcomittee meetings are more usefu1~ as information documents for support of Comittee activities than the transcripts and should be continued to be supplied as the official record of the ACRS meetings (except for meetings with the NRC Comissioners for which transcripts will be used as directed). However, as reouested by the Comis-sion - no sumary/ minutes-should be prepared for those meetings between the ACRS and the Comission.
- Instead, the transcript of these meetings will be used as the record of these meetings between the ACRS and the Comis-sion.
Certified minutes of the ACRS Subcomittee meetings should-be distributed to the NRC staff at the~ discretion of the ACRS staff engineer or in response to specific staff requests.
Mr. Fraley wi11' inform the'NRC staff of the availability of these minutes.
The proposed revision of the ACRS-NRC POV has not.
advanced to a point where ACRS review is required.
The ACRS will normally review the restart of plants that-have been shut down for more than-a year because of substantive deficiencies in equipment, systems, manage-ment, etc. If a plant has been down for less than_ a year for substantive deficiencies, the Comittee will con-sider / decide whether or not to review restart of the plant on a case-by-case basis.
The ACRS' Bylaws should be reviewed to provide a mechanism so that the Comittee could decide which added remarks should be the subject of a separate letter by the mem-ber(s). proposing the remarks.
...-s.
.. r
\\
~
I 352ND ACRS MEETING MINUTES These' recommendations are also discussed in Items 1 and 8 of i
this section (X.C).
D.
Future Activities (0 pen) 1.
Future Agenda 3
The Committee agreed to the tentative future agenda shown;in Appendix II, 2..
Future Subcommittee Activities A schedule of future subcommittee activities was distributed-to members (Appendix III).
The 352nd ACRS meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m., Friday, August'11, 1989.
k#
L t
L u
I h
l' t
1:
V; 1
l~
- --a a---
a
--m
c r;.
m i.
- g, i
=e<g i
t l
APPENDICES MINUTES OF THE 352ND ACRS MEETING AUGUST 10-11, 1989 I '.
Attendees I I '.
_ Future Agenda III.
Future Subcomittee Activities j
IV.
Other Documents Received V.
Transcript of-ACRS Meeting with NRC Comissioners on -
August 10,'1989
'E 5
'i
't
4 t
APPENDIX I 352ND ACRS MEETING MINUTES AUGUST-10-11,'1989.
ATTENDEES Public Attendees' NRC Attendees Thursday, August 10, 1989
. Mark Beaumont, Westinghouse Nanette Gilles, NRR Eric Hale, SERCH Licensing /Bechtel Mark Reinhart, NRR E. F.~ Rice, NUS C..E. Rossi..NRR Bill Pearce, Consultant Victor Benaroya, AE0D Steven Arndt, Consultant Millard Wohl, NRR Tony Eng, DOE Bob Dennig, AE00 Lynne Fairobent, NUMARC P. D. O'Reilly, AE00 L. Bell, AEOD A. Rocklein, RES -
D. Fischer NRR T. Riggs, RES Richard Johnson, RES Robert Baer, RES
.)
l l?
L o
l L '
~.f
- 3..
L l
- 3. :-
z..
1*
t352fl0 ACRS MEETING Hif{UTES-APPENDIX II FUTURE AGENDA'
-Schsdule for the 353rd ACRS Meeting, September 7-9, 1989 Generic issue-A-29,- " Nuclear Power Plant Design ~ for Reduction of Vil-nerability to Industrial Sabotage" - - Review and report on proposed resolution of this-generic issues.
EPRI Requirements for Advanced LWRs - B lefing and discussion regarding the status of the proposed EPRI Requirtments' for Advanced Light Water --
Reactors.-
1 Individual Plant Examination for External Events (IPEEE) - Briefing and -
~
_ discussion regarding the status of guidai ce regarding consideration of external events'in:the IPE.
ACRS Subcommittee: Activities - Reports and discussion of the status of
-assigned. subcommittee activities, including the August 29-30, 1989 meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Regional Programs.
Seabrook Nuclear Plant _ - Review and report on the off-site emergency preparedness for this facility.
Accident Severity Scales - Briefing regarding development,of accident severity scales for use in the NRC regulatory process.
Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal - Briefing by the NRC staff on the status of the nuclear power plant license renewal program.
- NUMARC Activities.- Briefing by a NUMARC representative on activities regarding the IPE and accident management programs.
Maintenance of Nuclear Plants
-Review and report on proposed NRC policy statement and an associated regulatory--guide -regarding-maintenance programs for nuclear power plants.
Advanced PWRs - Briefing on the-status of the NRC staff review of the Westinghoyse -(RESAR SP-90 and ' AP-600), and --Combustion Engineering (CE System-80 ) standard plant designs.
l
s.
d APPENDIX III 352i;D ACRS MEETING MINUTES ACRS/ACNW COMMITTEE &' SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS Seabrook, August 17, 1989, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, MD (Igne), 8:30-
)
a.m., Room.P-110. The Subcomittee will review emergency plans for full power operation.. Attendance by the following is anticipated, and reservations have been made at the hotels indicated for the night of August 16:
-(
Dr. Kerr NONE Mr. Wylie HOLIDAY INN-Mr. Carroll HOLIDAY INN Mr. Bender HOLIDAY INN Dr.~ Lewis (tent.)
EMBASSY SUITES Dr. Drum NONE Mr. Kevern NONE
' Regional Programs, August 29-30, 1989, NRC Region I Office, 475 Allendale l'
Road, Kint of Prussia, PA (Boehnert), 8:30 a.m.
The Subcommittee will review the activities under the purview of the NRC Region 1 Office.
Attendance by-
-the following(215/337-1200), 251is anticipated, and reservations have been made at th Forge Hilton West Dekalb Pike, King of Prussia, PA for the nights of August 28-29:
Dr. Remick Mr. Michelson l
Mr. Carroll Mr. Ward Dr. Catton Mr. Wylie Dr. Kerr Joint Extreme External Phenomena and Severe Accidents,. September 6, 1989, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, MD (Igne), 8:30 a.m., Room P-110. The Subcommittee will be briefed by the NRC and industry on the Individual Plant Examination for External Events (IPEEE) program.
Attendance by the following is anticipated, and reservations have been made at the hotels indicated for the night of September 5:
Dr..Siess HOLIDAY INN Mr. Michelson DAYSINN(CONGR)
Dr.<Catton HOLIDAY INN Mr. Wylie HOLIDAY INN Dr. Lewis EMBASSY-SUITES 353rd ACRS Meeting, September 7-9, 1989, Bethesda, MD, Room P-110.
13th ACNW Meeting, September 13-15, 1989, Bethesda, MD, Room P-110.
Joint Containment Systems-and Structural Engineering, September 12 or 13 1989, (to be determined in near future) San Francisco, CA area (Houston /Igne),
8:30 a.m.
The Subcomittees will discuss containment design-criteria for future plants with invited speakers from' industry.
Lodging will be announced later. Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Mr. Ward Dr. Kerr Dr. Siess Dr. Shewmon Mr. Carroll Mr. Wylie Dr. Catton Dr. Corradini
-. ~. - - -
s
. 1 Thermal Hydraulic-Phenomena, September 13. or 14,
- 1989, San Jose, CA (Boehnert).
The Subcommittee will discuss the capability of the thermal hydraulic codes to model BWR core power instability.
Attendance by the following is anticipated:
[
Dr. Catton Mr. Wylie l
Mr. Carroll Dr. Plesset Dr. Kerr Dr. Schrock Mr. Ward.
Dr. Tien Joint Severe Accidents and Probabilistic Risk Assessment, September 19, 1989, 7920 Morfolk Avenue, Bethesda, MD (Houston), 8:30 a.m., Room P-110.
The Subcomittees will discuss the second draf t of NUREG-1150; " Severe Accident -
o Risks: An Assessment for Five U.S. Nuclear Power Plants." Attendance by the following is anticipated, and reservations have been made at the hotels indicated for the night of September 18:
1:
Dr. Kerr NONE Dr. Siess HOLIDAY INN Dr.-Lewis-EMBASSY SUITES Mr. Ward HOLIDAY INN Dr. Catton HOLIDAY INN Mr. Wylie Mr. Michelson-DAYSINN(CONGR)
Mr. Davis NONE Dr. Shewmon NONE Dr. Lee NONE i
Dr. Okrent HOLIDAY INN i
Dr. Saunders NONE
\\;.
l Severe Accidents, September 20, 1989, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, MD (Houston), 8:30 a.m., Room P-110. The Subcommittee will discuss the proposed l
L.
Generic Letter by NRR, the NRC research program, and the NUMARC/EPRI activ-ities in the accident management area.
Attendance by the following is l.
anticipated, and reservations have been made at the hotels indicated for the-night os September 19:
Dr. Kerr NONE Mr. Ward HOLIDAY INN Dr.'Catton HOLIDAY INN Mr. Wylie i
Dr. Shewmon NONE Dr. Corradini NONE Dr. Siess HOLIDAY INN Mr. Davis NONE Dr. Lee-NONE Advanced Boiling Water Reactors (GE ABWR), September 26, 1989, Bethesda, MD-(Alderman), 8:30 a.m., Room P-110.
The Subcommittee will review the NRC staff's SER on Module One of GE-ABWR.
Lodging will be announced later.
Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Mr. Michelson Mr. Ward Dr..Catton Mr. Wylie Dr.'Kerr-Dr. Okrent Dr. Shewmon l
l P
w-'
e M
=
- .=
Human Factors, September 27,
- 1989, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Be' thesda, MD
. ( Alderman / Major /Igne), 8:30 a.m., Room P-110. - The Subconnittee will review i
. the. proposed : Access Authorization Rule.
Attendance by the following is anticipated, and reservations have been made at the hotels indicated for the night of September 26:
Dr. Remick HOLIDAY INN Mr. Michelson_
DAYSINN(CONGR.)
=Mr. Carroll HOLIDAY INN Mr. Ward HOLIDAY INN Dr. Kerr NONE Mr. Wylie HOLIDAY INN Mechanical Components, October 3, 1989, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, MD (Igne), 8:30 a.m. to 12 Noon, P-422.
The Subcommittee will review 61-87,
" Failure of HPCI Steamline Without-1 solation," -- specifically the matter of
' implementing current design requirements on MOVs', status of Task Action Plan on check valves, and other related matters.
Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Mr. Michelson Dr. Siess Mr. Carroll Mr. Wylie Probabilistic Risk Assessment Tutorial, October 3 (1:00 p.m.) and October 4[
(8:30.
a.m. )
- 1989, 7920 Norfolk
- Avenue, Bethesda, MD (Ward / Lewis (Houston / Stella), Room'P-110.
All ACRS members are invited to attend, l
L 354th ACRS Meeting, October 5-7, 1989, Bethesda MD, Room P-110.
14th ACNW Meeting, October 11-13,:1989, Bethesda, MD, Room P-110.
_ Joint Containment Systems and Structural Engineering, October 17, 1989, Chicago.
IL- (Houston /Igne), 8:30 a.m.
The Subconsittees will discuss contatnment design criteria for future plants with invited speakers from industry.
Lodging will be announced later.
Attendance by the following is anticipated:
l Mr. Ward-Dr. Kerr Dr. Siess Dr. Shewmon Mr.. Carroll Mr. Wylie Dr. Catton Dr. Corradini Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena,. October 27, 1989, San Jose, CA (Boehnert).
The L
Subconsnittee will review the key thermal hydraulic design aspects of the GE L
ABWR. Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Dr. Catton Mr. Ward i-Dr. Kerr Dr. Plesset
!~
Mr. Michelson Dr. Schrock Mr.-Wylie Dr. Sullivan Dr. Tien I
,5.
s.,
q
~
w j
l Meeting with' Canadian Advisory Committee or. Nuclear Safety, November 1 and 2, 1989, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, MD (MME/RFF), Room P-110. A meeting will i
be held in Bethesda to discuss several. items of mutual interest such as
- institutional safety. culture, severe accident
- analysis, decomissioning.
1 sof tware QA, etc. A detailed agenda is still being worked out.
We expect the folicwing members to attend:
F. Remick, J. Carroll, W. Kerr, C. Michelson, D. Ward, and 2. Wylie.. We are not.sure regarding the following members -- please let us knaw if you can arrange to attend:
- 1. Catton'and i
.P.
Shewmon.
We to not expect the following members to attend -- let us know
~
if you change yo9r mind:
- h. Lewis and C. Siess.
Regulatory Po11cies and Pi'actices, November 15, 1989, 7920 Norfolk Avenue.,
Be ;hesda, MD (QUITT5CHREIBER), 9:30 a.m., Room P-110.
The Subcommittee will discuss the ACRS comments on integration of the regulatory process.
Attendance by the following is anticipated:=
Dr. Lewis Dr. Siess i
Mr. Carroll Mr. Ward L
Dr. Kerr Mr. Wylie Planning and Procedures, November 15, 1989, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, MD (FRALEY), (Closed) After.RP&P Meeting Concludes, Room'P-110.
The Subcomittee wi11' discuss allocation of resources and related matters.
Attendance 'by the r
n l
following is anticipated:
Dr. Remick Mr.' Ward Mr. Michelson Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena, November 22, 1989, 7920 Norfolk Avenue,' Bethesda, MD, (BOEHNERT), Room P-110.
A Subcomittee meeting will be held to discuss selected. topics related. to the NRC-RES. thermal hydraulic research program, including future research needs.
Attendance by the following is anticipated:'
Dr.'Catton Mr. Ward Dr. Kerr Mr. Wylie 355th ACRS Meeting, November 16-18, 1989, Bethesda, MD, Room P-110.
i Regulatory-Policies and Practices (CLOSED),
December 1 and 2,
- 1989, p
Williamsburg, VA (tentative) (Quittschreiber). The Subcomittee will-discuss y
7 aspects of the regulatory process of interest and/or concern.
L L
All ACRS members are invited to attend.
L
-356 ACRS Meeting, December 14-16, 1989, Bethesda, MD, Room P-110.
i
a 4
--5 Advanced Pressurized Water Reactors, Date to be determined (September),
Bethesda, MD (El-Zeftawy).
The Subcommittee will discuss the comparison of WAPWR (RESAR SP/90) design with other modern plants (in U.S. and abroad).
t Xttendance by the following is anticipated:
4 Mr. Carroll Dr. Remick Dr. Kerr Dr. Shewmon
'Mr. Michelson Mr. Wylie L
Decay Heat Removal, Date to be determined (September),
- Bethesda, MD-H (Boehnert).
The Subcommittee will review the NRC staff's proposed resolution of Generic Issue 84, "CE PORVs." Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Mr. Ward Mr. Wylie
[
Dr. Catton Mr. Davis Dr. Kerr Joint Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena and Core Performance, Date to be determined (September), Bethesda, MD (Boehnert/ Houston). The Subcommittees will continue 7
their review of boiling water reactor core power stability' pursuant to the core power oscillation event at LaSalle County Station, Unit 2.
Attendance by l.
.the following is anticipated:-
Dr. Kerr Dr. Lee Mr. Michelson
. Dr. Lipinski Dr. Catton Dr. Plesset Dr. Shewmon Mr. Schrock L
Mr. Ward Dr. Sullivan L
Mr. Wylie Dr. Tien General Electric Reactors, Date to be determined (September), Bethesda, MD (Igne).
The Subconsnittee will review the, restart of Nine Mile ~ Point Unit 1.
Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Dr. Kerr Dr. Michelson Dr. Lewis Dr. Siess L
Advanced Pressurized Water Reactors, Date to be determined (September /
October), Bethesda, MD (El-Zef tawy).
The Subcommittee will review the licen-sing review bases document being developed by the Staff for Corbustion Engi-neering's Standard Safety Analysis Report-Design Certification (CESSAR-DC).
Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Mr. Carroll Dr. Remick Dr. Kerr Dr. Shewmon Mr. Michelson Mr. Wylie l
R.3
?
- y,
?
j
' m Severe Accidents, Date to be - determined (September / October), Bethesda, Mr -
(Houston).
The Subconsnittee will discuss the NRC Severe Accident Researrri Program (SARP) plan. Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Dr. Kerr Mr. Ward Dr. Catton Mr. Davis Dr. Shewmon Dr. Lee Dr. Siess 1
Decay Heat Removal Systems, Date to be determined (November), Bethesda, MD (Boehnert). The Subconsnittee will continue its review of the proposed resolu-tion of Generic Issue 23, "RCP Seal Failures."
Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Mr. Ward Mr. Michelson (tent.)
i Dr. Catton Nr. Wylie Dr. Kerr Mr. Davis Systematic Assessment of Experience, Date to be determined (November /
December), Bethesda, MD (Alderman). The Subconsnittee will review the proposed, power. increase for Indian Point Unit 2.
Attendance by the - following is '
anticipated:
Dr.-Lewis Dr. Remick Mr.' Carroll Mr. Ward Mr. Michelson Mr. Wylie Decay Heat Removal Systems, Date to be determined, Bethesda, MD (Boehnert). _
4
-The Subcommittee will explore the use of feed and bleed for decay heat removal.
in PWRs.- Attendance by the following'is anticipated:
Mr. Ward Mr. Michelson (tent.)
L Dr. Catton Mr. Wylie l
Dr. Kerr Mr. Davis Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena, Date to be determined, Bethesda, MD (Boehnert).
The Subcommittee will discuss the status of Industry best-estimate ECCS model submittals for use with the revised ECCS Rule. Attendance by the following is' anticipated:
Dr. Catton-Dr. Plesset Dr. Kerr Mr. Schrock Mr. Michelson Dr. Sullivan Mr. Ward Dr. Tien Mr. Wylie L
^
i 1
{
' Auxiliary and Secondary Systems, Date to be determined, Bethesda, MD (Durai-utilities to. design Chilled Water Systems, (2) (regulatory requirements for swainy).
The-Subcommittee will discuss the:
- 1) criteria being used by1 l
. Chilled Water Systems design, and (3) criteria being used by the NRC staff to review the Chilled Water Systems design.
Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Mr. Michelson.
Mr. Wylie 1
Mr. Carroll Reliability Assurance, Date to be determined, Bethesda, MD (Duraiswainy).
The Subcommittee will discuss the status of implementation of the resolution of USI A-46. " Seismic Qualification of Equipment in Operating Plants," and other
.related matters. Attendance by the following is anticipated:-
Mr. Wylie Mr. Michelson Mr.' Carroll Dr. Siess Joint Regulatory Activities and Containment Systems, Date to be~ determined, Bethesda, MD (Duraiswainy/ Houston).
The Subcommittees will review the proposed final revision to Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50, " Primary Reactor ~ Containment Leakage Testing for Water-cooled Power Reactors." Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Dr. Siess Dr. Kerr L
Mr. Ward Mr. Michelson Mr. Carroll Mr. Wylie-Dr. Catton Safeguards & Security, Date to be determined, Bethesda, MD (Alderman).
The Subcommittee will review NUREG-1267, " Technical Resolution of Generic Safety Issue A-29, Nuclear Power Plant Design for Reduction of Vulnerability to Industrial Sabotage." Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Dr. Lewis Dr. Remick Mr. Carroll Mr. Wylie l/
Mr. Michelson h
L L.
,6
=,
w-
.h g'
e__.
~
i
l./:
APPENDIX IV i'
MINUTES OF THE 352ND ACRS MEETING AUGUST 10-11, 1989 D
~ MEETING NOTROOK TAB 2-BRIEFING ON IMPROVED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS 1.
Table of Contents U
2.
Schedule 3.
Status Report 4.
Memorandum from V. Stello, ED0 to Commissioners,
Subject:
Technical Specificot. ion improvement Program, dated May 30, 1989 with enclosure 5.
Letter from S. Chilk to V. Stello and W. Parler,
Subject:
Staff Requiremi.nts - Briefing on Status of Technical Specifi-cations Improveoent Program, 9:30 A.M., Friday.. June 2, 1989, Commissioners' Conference Room, One-White Flint North.
Rockville, Marylaad (0 pen to Public Attendance, dated June-16, 1989 6.
CFR 10 Part 50.59, Revised as of January 1,1989 7.
Anonymous Letter to E. R. Weiss alleging inadequacies in the Technical Specifications of commercial nuclear power plants, dated September 27, 1989 3
N'UCLEAR PLANT OPERATING EXPERIENCE - Scram Reduction in Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors 1.
Schedule 2.
Status Report 4
PERIODIC BRIEFING BY ACRS at NRC COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING, 2:00 P.M., AUGUST 10, 1989 N
Memorandum to Chairman Carr from T. Roberts,
Subject:
ACRS Letter Concerning the Proposed Resolution of Generic Issue 128, dated-July 20,1989.
Memorandum to.R. Fraley from J. Taylor, EDO,
Subject:
350th ACRS Meeting (June 8-10 1989) Follow-Up Items, dated August 4, 1989.
Memorandum to R. Fraley, ACRS from V.~Stello, EDO,
Subject:
349th ACRS Meeting (May 1989) Follow-Up Items, dated July 6,1989.
Memorandum to R. Fraley from V. Stello,
Subject:
Response to 349th ACRS fieeting Follow-Up Items, dated July 6,1989.
-Memorandum to ACRS Members from P. Boehnert, ACRS,
Subject:
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Meeting - Workshop on Discrete Radioactive Particles (DRP) Research, July 26, 1989, Richland, Washington, dated July 31, 1989.
i m
352nd ACRS Meeting IV-2
' Tab-4(Con't.)
ACRS Letter to Chairman Zech (from F. Remick), Subject':
Generic Letter Related to Occupational Radiation Exposure of Skin from Hot Particles, dated May 9, 1969.
Memorandum to ACRS Members from G. Quittschreiber,
Subject:
Highlights of Commission Meeting on July 26, 1989 to Discuss Policy Statement Integration, SECY-89-178, dated July 31, 1989.
- Memorandum for V. Stello, ED0 from J. Hoyle Asst. Secretary,.
Subject:
Staff Requirements - Briefing on Status of Second Draft of-NUREG-1150, 10:00 A.M., Friday, May 5, 1989, Commissioners' Conference Room One White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland (0 pen to -
Public' Attendance, dated May 12, 1989.
r Memorandum to H. Lewis, J. Carroll, C. Michelson, C. Siess, D. Ward, C. Wylie, ACRS Members from G. Quittschreiber, ACRS,
Subject:
Additional Information for_the August 9, 1989 Regulatory Policies-andPractices(RP&P)SubcommitteeMeeting,. dated' August 4,1989'with 1
attachments:
Att. 1 - Bulletin Board Message from H. Lewis to selected ACRS-Mbrs., dated August 2 1989 (INTERNAL COMMITTEE USE ONLY).
Att.2-ACRSLetterlfromW.Kerr)toChairmanZech,
Subject:
. ACRS Comments on the Need for Greater Coherence Among.New Regulatory l
Policies, dated March 15, 1988.
Att. 3 - ACRS Letter (W. Kerr) to Chairman Zech,
Subject:
Proposed l
Resolution of Unresolved Safety Issue A-45, " Shutdown Decay Heat Removal Requirements." Corrected copy 2/28/89 of 9/14/88 letter Att. 4 - Portion of Transcript of NRC Coninission Briefing on Integration of Policy Statements for Severe Accidents, Advanced c
Reactors, Safety Goals, and Standaradization, July 26, 1989, pp. 2 L
through 7.
L
'Att. 5.-
INTERNAL ACRS USE ONLY - Memorandum to ACRS Members from R..
l Fraley,
Subject:
- ACRS Meeting with,NRC Commissioners, August 10, 1989.
'Att. 6 - INTERNAL ACRS USE ONLY - Memorandum to R. Fraley, ACRS, from C. Ader, TA to Comissioner Roberts,
Subject:
Regulatory Policies and Practices Subcommittee Meeting on August 9, 1989, dated August 2, 1989, with enclosures.
Memorandum to F. Congel, NRR from L. Cunningham, NRR,
Subject:
Summary of a Meeting Regarding Hot Particles at Nuclear Power-Plants, dated July 20, 1989.
l
- 352nd ACRS Meeting IV-3 6
BRIEFING ON GENERIC ISSUE-79, UNANALYZED REACTOR VESSEL (PWR)
THERMAL STRESS DURING-NATURAL CONVECTION COOLDOWN 1.
' Table of Contents 2.
Schedule 3.
Status Report 4.
INTERNAL ACRS USE ONLY - Memo from R. W. Houston, NRR to R.
Fraley, ACRS,
Subject:
Resolution of Generic Issue 79,_
"UnanalyzedReactorVessel(PWR)ThermalStressDuringNatural Convection Cooldown," with enclosures (DRAFT Resolution Package),datedJuly7,1989.
7.1 ACRS/ACNW COMMITTEE & SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS LIST 7.2 Memorandum from R. Fraley to ACRS Members,
Subject:
FUTURE ACRS ACTIVITIES - 353RD ACRS MEETING - SEPTEMBER 7-9, 1989 with enclosure Memorandum from S. Chilk to F. Remick,
Subject:
ACRS Recommendations Regarding NUREG-1150, dated' July 28, 1989 8
GENERAL ELECTRIC ADVANCED BOILING WATER REACTOR DESIGN 1.-
Schedule 2.
Status Report
-3.
Proposed _ Schedule for Review 11 NUMARC ACTIVITIES 1.
Table of Contents 2.
Schedule 3.
Status Report 4.
Abstract of paper on " Regulatory and Enforcement Practice in the U.S~.' - Owners' Perspective," by J. Colvin, NUMARC 15.2 SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT BASED ON ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON MECHANICAL COMP 0NENTS MEETING 0F JUNE 21, 1989 1.
Table of Contents 2.
Schedule 3.
Status Report 4.
Certified Minutes of June 21, 1989 Meeting of ACRS Subcommittee on Mechanical Components Meeting of June 21, 1989
~
e s
352nd ACRS' IV-4 HANDOUTS.
4 INTERNAL ACRS USE ONLY - Memorandum for ACRS Members from R. Fraley subject: ACR5 Meeting with NRC Comissioners, August 10, 1989 with attachments.
1
.__-----_--.---.----.-.---.---.--.-_------u---.-----.-_.-.----.---.--_-.--.-M
c,;;w
^ ' >
- UNITED STATES: OF AMERICA INUCLE.AR REGULATORYLCOMMIS SION
- I
't ffk6l PERIODIC GRIEFING BY ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS i
-LQC&
Q[; '
ROCKVILLE. MARYLAND I'
h&I6l' AUGUST 10, 1989 i
Pig 6S:
53 PAGES
.1 4
NEAliR.GROSSAND.C0.,INC.
i C o t' R T REroRTERS
'A N D TRANSCRISERS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, Northwest l
Washington, D.C.
20005 l
(302) 234-4433
.i i
.?
.,.i, e
V
[ t;,...
APPEllDIX V 352ilD ACRS 11EETIllG
(.,, filflVTES
', c..
j
,s.
u.
-,e,;~.
. 1 I,; v c,,
- f.
n : 1.'
D DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a.necting of-the United states Nuclear Regulatory Commission' held on n
August 10. 1989 in the Commission's office at. One White Flint
- North, Rockville, Maryland.
The ' meeting ' was 1
open to public attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected or edited, and - it may contain inaccuracies.
- [-.;
The transcript is intended-solely for general informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CyR 9.103, it is g
not part of the formal or informal record of decision'of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect-final determination or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with L
the Commission in any' proceeding as the result.of, or addressed to, any statement or argument contained.- herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
4 e
HEAL R. GROSS COURT Rt90RTERS AND TRANSCtl0ER$
1833 RMoet ilLAND Av5 Nut. N.W.
<m3 m wAsmusion. o.c. tooos (mi m4eco u.
i ?
z i'i
+
+
I t_ i UNITED STATES.0F AMERICA'
, C_J.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-PERIODIC BRIEFING BY ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS f
PUBLIC MEETING Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North Rockville, Maryland
"" ~'
Thursday, August 10, 1989 The Commission met in open session, pursuant to notice, at 2:00 p.m.,
Kenneth M.
Carr, Chairman, presiding.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
i KENNETH M.
CARR, Chairman of the Commission THOMAS M.
ROBERTS, Commissioner KENNETH C.
ROGERS, Commissioner JAMES R. CURTISS, Commissioner i
l.
i J NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, H.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
- 'ay-
,' e :-
4 2
STAFF'AND= PRESENTERS SEATED AT TRE COMMISSION TABLE:
WILLIAM C.
PARLER, General Counsel FORREST J.
REMICK, Chairman, ACRS LCARLYLE MICHELSON, Vice Chairman,-_ACRS CHARLES J. WYLIE, ACRS WILLIAM KERR, ACRS JAMES C.
CARROLL, ACRS DAVID A. WARD,'ACRS HAROLD LEWIS, ACRS IVAN CATTON, ACRS CHESTER SEISS, ACRS PAUL SHEWMON, ACRS NEAL R.
GROSS H
1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202)~234-4433
A
.i-
'a;
-3 I!
_ _J 1-P-R-0-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2
-2:00 p.m.-
3' CH AIRMAN ' C ARR:
Good af ternoon, ladies and 4:
gentlemen.
5 The purpose of today's meeting is - for the
~
6 -
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards to brief the 7
Commission concerning their review of five specific 8
matters:
9 NRC's Human Factors Program and initiatives;-
10 occupational radiation exposure of skin from--
11 hot particles; 12 Application of diversity in systems that use 13 redundancy to achieve high levels of reliability; W
14 Proposed resolution of Generic Issue 128, 15 electrical power reliability; 16 And the boiling water-reactor core power 17 stability.
18 Copies-of recent ACRS letters related-to 19' these topics are available at the entrance to-the 20 meeting room.
21 Do my fellow Commissioners have any opening 22 comments?
23 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
No.
24 CRAIRMAN CARR:
Doctor Remick, I want to 25 welcome you and the other members of the Committee on i
L NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
S'. ', :. '
4 1
behalf of mys el f1 and my fellow Commissioners.
-The 2
work performed by the ACRS is very important and your 3
views are highly regarded by this Consission.
4 I might'also add that this any be your last 5
time t'o giv'e us advice and you'll have to be on this i
6 side of the table and take it.
7 DOCTOR LEWIS:
I don't think he'll stop 8
giving you advice.
9 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
But I'm not sure of L
10 our record of taking their advice.
i 11 CHAIRMAN CARR:
We'll have to do something 12 with it then.
I 13 Please proceed with your presentation.
14 DOCTOR REMICE:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and 16 I would like to take this opportunity on behalf of the i
16 Committee to congratulate you on becoming Chairman off 17 the Commission.
This is our first opportunity express 18-those words of congratulations.
The Commit tee ' looks o
19 forward to working with you and the other 20' Commissioners in the years ahead.
21-CHAIRMAN CARR:
Thank you.
22 DOCTOR REMICK:
We do have five topics to.
23 discuss with you and the order that you just read is a
24 the order that we thought we would proceed, if that's i
25 acceptable.
NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
=
- f.,. ?
I
5 1
CHAIRMAN CARR:
That's fine.
2 DOCTOR REMICK:
And the first one of those 3
topics is our May 9th letter on' human factors programs 4
and initiatives.
I as Chairman of the Subcommittee, 6
Human Fa c t o r -Saboconi t t e e, so I'll take the lead and 6
introduce that and then entertain questions.
7 I think you're aware of the fact that the 8
ACHS for a long time has been a strong supporter of-9 increased human factors considerations.
So, we're 10-very pleased to see 'that the commission is back 11 supporting research in that area.
12 One of the things we noted in there.aren't 13 many topics that are proposed, and so that one gets 14 some useful-information, it's going to take some.
15 research annagement concentrated attention to make 16 sure one gets the most out of those programs.
17 In January, we held a subcommittee meeting 18 with the staff on a document at that time'which was 19 called Human Factors Regulatory Research Program Plan.
20 One of the observations of the subcommittee was that
'21
.to the outside world the fact that we talk about 22 research' -and technical assistance and what was 23 proposed at that time was just to cover the human 24 factors programs that were being under the 25 administration of Research, this was misleading to NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
i 6
-l 1
_ people, not realizing that there's a lot of technical 1
- +
2-assistance _ work going on in NRR and HMSSand so forth'~.
3 So, one of the recommendations-of
-the~
i 4
subcommittee, you really ought to put out something 5
that gives the total 1.:. c... i,v,e s within the Agency in
[
i 6
the area of human factors, because there are. things 7
that might be research that are done within the-8 offices and there might be some-things that really one 9
might define as_ technical assistance that are done by 10 the Office of Research.
What makes them different is 11 the length of time.
If they're to be expected to be a i
12 long period _of time to do it, it's done by Research.
13 If it's a short type of effort, usually within-the
-- t 14 other offices.
.l 15 While we're pleased to see that the staff IG apparently followed that advice
$n the documents ma 17 bews before us gives a
much better impression of the 18
'overall program within the Agency on human
_f ac t ors.
19 initiatives.
So, we applaud _the staff effort in that 20 area.
~
21 We're also very pleased to see tha't NMSS is
' 22 starting to consider human factors consideration in D
23 medical application of radioisotopes and in industrial 24-radiography and those types-of things.
That's going 25 to be a big job, and so-one of the things we pointed NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
r Washington, D.'C.
20005 (202) 234-4433 a
n p * ~--
S3.j hl 7
p L.J l
out thty have one human factors expert now.
it's-2 conceivable that they might need more in the future.-
l
-3 We were also pleased to see what I would 1
4 call, I think, an unprecedented emphe is in some areas 5
of human factors research where a dherse group of 6
research providers, we called it, are doiog the work.
7 It's not just being done within the national 8
laboratory, but expertise from around the country, 9-from universities, private organizations, and j
10 universities in other countries and so forth; are 11 involved.
We think this is good.
The point being we l
12 think the research should-be done wherever the 13 expertise is and not because it might be: contractually.
l-14 more readily accessible at the National Laboratory.
.l 1
15 Sc, we applauded that.
16 One specific recommendation that we made, I
17 and this comes about ~in part from our going around to 18 the regions and being told in the regions, at least 19 some of
- them, that one of the most important R
20 considerations is selecting resident inspectors.
This-21 is a tough job.
It's difficult sometimes to get.
22 highly qualified people who have experience and ao 23 forth.
24 So, one of our recommendations was that the 25 staff consider a human factors research program which I
NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
f.
l i
I wuld be intended to look at this question ena are i
2 there ways of performing aptitude '.esting or are there 3
ways of better defining the training these psople l
4 should.have, are there interpersonal skills that they I
l:
abould know about and so forth.
So, that was cur one 6
specific recommendation.
7 I had the pleasure just a couple days ago to i
3 follow Commissioner Roberts at a
meeting of the 9
resident inspectors in Region I.
I brought this up i
10 and 1 must admit it was not enthusiastically --
11 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
What's that, it was 12 not?
13 DOCTOR REMICK:
It was not enthusiastically 14 accepted.
\\
15 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
I was a good group.
16 DOCTOR REMICK:
It was a very, very good i
l 17 group and 1 aust admit you were a hard act to follow.
18 They thought very, very much of your talk.
Tom Murley I
I 19 was there during my presentation and so forth, so I 20 felt very good after a couple of hours of talking to 1
~
21 that group and I was impressed with them.
But as I 22 say, they weren't enthusiastic.
They weren't against 23 it, but they weren't quite sure what ACRS -was 24 proposing and wanted to know what's wrong.
I had some f
25 difficulty being specific in that area.
But it is a NEAL R; GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433 e -r
,,. - ~ -
- l, i
9 n
I L;
I recommendation.
2 So, with that, I would like to open up to 3
any questions you might have of the Committee.
)
4 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Commissioner Roberts?
5 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
I told them that they 6
sight be seeing you in a different light the next time 7
they saw you, i
8 No, I have no questions.
9 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Commissioner Rogers?
10 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
I wonder if you'd--
11 have you thought anything or talked about this whole 12 question of the research that's going on in shift 13 scheduling?
This troubles me a little bit because I'm 14 just not clear on what has to be done in the way of I
15 research in that area.
It's a business that's been 16 around for a long time and a lot of work has been
]
17 done, a great deal published in the literature.
Staff 18 has given us some assurances that what we are doing in
)
19 research really has to be done that is new.
I wonder 20 if ACRS has looked at that question at all.
21 DOCTOR REMICK:
Not extensively, but when 22 you say shift scheduling, are you talking about the 23 circadian rhythm --
24 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Yes.
and also the 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> 25 DOCTOR REMICK:
r--
t.
NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
.1
.4 M.,
10 1
versus eight hour?
We have discussed with the staff I'm thinking back some period of 2
from time to time 3
time.
It's certainly been in the last year.
Wa 4
detected what we thought was the staffe somewhat 5
reluctance on the 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> shift work.
But in our i
6 discussion at the meeting in January, or we had a 7
subsequent subcommittee meeting with them, I
think 8
they said that they were not against the concept of 12 3
hour shifts.
They did have some concerns about 10 fatigue and so forth and thought that should be looked 11 at.
12 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
- Well, this research 13 that's going on, human factors research --
14 DOCTOR REMICK:
Yes.
15 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
in support of some 16 kind of a position and it just isn't clear to me how 17 much research has to be done and what the unknowns are 18 that have to be explored here.
19 DOCTOR REMICK:
I can't answer that..
I 20 don't know if any of my colleagues can help or not.
21 MR. CARROLL:
I think I got the feeling from I'm also on the 22 our discussions with the staff that they were fairly 23 Human Factors Subcommittee 24 well along on this.
What remained to be done was to 25 publish this in a form that the utility industry could NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
~-
t l
11-1 take advantages of it.
I guess one of the staff 2
people made the comment that we've done an awful lot 3
of research that probably the utilities would have had 4
to individually pay for and we think we've done a good 5
Job for the industry in that respect.
6 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
- Well, I guess I
7 don't know, it may be a question of a problem of what B
you define as research.
It may be organizing 9
information that's out there in the literature and 10 rather than actually doing experiments.
But I don't 11 know, bu t --
L 12 DOCTOR REMICK:
Commissioner Rogers, I think 13 that's true.
Much of what within the Agency is called i
14 research, if you look at it from perhaps a university
(
15 standpoint, we might not call it research.
It's 16 things that need to be done.
Also, the question of 1
17 whether it's called research or technical assistance l
r 18 seems to be the question of how long is it going to 19 take?
If it's going to be a long period ~ of time.
20 we'll give it to research.
This is what basically the 21 staff has told us.
That's how they differentiate it.
22 But it might not be basic research e. hat we might view 23 from a university perspective.
24 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
- Well, sometimes the 25 problem is if you want an answer to something it's in i
V L -
NEAL R. GROSS l
1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
l Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
~
/ *'. '.
- j i
12 i
1 the literature someplace, but some people have felt 2
that it costs more to go and find it than it does to 3
go and actually reproduce the experiments or do as i
4 experiment.
i 1
5 That raises a question of whether you have 6
thought at all or have any opinions on whether it's 7
necessary or appropriate for NRC to establish 8
databases of research references or are there 9
satisfactory external sources that are reasonably-1 10 tapped?
In other words, should we take the initiative Il and some kind of organization of research references, 12 not research but research references, to make it 13 easier to tap into the existing body of knowledge't 14 MR. WARD:
Forrest, I'd like to comment on 15 that.
16 DOCTOR REMICK:
Please.
l-l 17 MR. WARD:
I'll comment from the standpoint, 18 at'least partially, of my participation a year or two 19 ago on the National Academy of Science panel which 20 developed some research ideas.
- There, very 21 specifically, the panel suggested to the NRC research i
22 people that there was a large body of information out 23 there that would be applicable, but that some effort 24 was going to be required on the part of the staff to 1
25 sort it out, put it in a form that was useful for NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
,W
.a 13
$_' -]
1 regulatory people and also for the industry.
2 So, I think the panel actually categorised 3
some areas where perhaps fresh research would be 4
required, but many other areas where it was just a 5
matter of making use of -- making sveilable what's 6
already out there.
7 DOCTOR REMICK:
The staff did also point out 8
a study being done at George Mason University, if I 9
- recall, which is specifically to look at the 10 inforantion that is available on hvaan factors in 11 other industries and see what of that could be 12 applicable to the nuclear industry.
I was 13 particularly impressed with that approach and it d
14 seemed like it was something worthwhile, though I 15 don't know the specifics of it.
So, it seems to se in 16 some areas the staff is trying to recoup some of that 17 information that might be available without redoing it 18 just for the nuclear industry.
19 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Have you got any 20 thoughts on what you think is appropriate for us to do 21 in the areas of research on organization and 22 management issues?
23 MR. WARD:
Yes.
I think that's one area 24 where some fresh research, as well as making use of 25 what's out there, might be available.
I think it's I
NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
.?
-l o,
14 1
been very sensitive and it's something difficult to 2
come to grips with.
I think there's been a lot of 3
reluctance to come to grips with it.
A But we keep telling ourselves and each other 6
that the residual risk from operating plants is very 6
importantly dependent on issues of management - and l
7 organization. But we somehow think that those can be 8
resolved by kind of " seat of the pants" approaches, 9
that we're not able to investigate these things 10 systematically and scientifically.
I think it is 11 possible to become systematic and advance the art.
I 12 think that's going to be required.
13 The staff does have some programs, some very 14 interesting
- programs, largely through Brookhaven 15 Netional Laboratory, going on in that area.
I don't 16 know that they're going to yield any regulations.
I 17 guess I
hope they don't yield directly the 18 regulations.
But I think they might turn over some l-19 rocks and make some information available to licensees 20 that will permit them to design organization and o
I 21 management structures from the standpoint of 22 minimizing risk rather than accepting traditional or 23 haphazardly put together organization management 24 structures.
25 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
I guess the key word NEAL R'.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
- L
d.,
\\
o I
15 I
I L J' 1
in my question was appropriate, what's appropriate for i
2 us to do.
3 DOCTOR REMICK:
That's right.
]
4 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Not what can be done i
5 so much as what's appropriate for us to do.
l 6
DOCTOR REMICK:
You'll find a spectrum, 1 7
- think, across the Committee.
I'm one who believed j
8 very much that the organization depends on the people 9
you have and therefore you tailor make the 10 organization to the capabilities of the people and 11 that you don't come up with an ideal organization 12 structure and make people fit into it.
That's my own l
13 personal view.
l I have no 14 So I have some concerns about
~
15 problem with us doing things to better understand what g
16 works best, but it worries me very much when we go to 17 Implement and we stort saying, Thou shalt do it this 18 way,' because I'm not sure you can force fit an ideal L
19 organization on people.
So, I have some reservations.
20 We've talked with staff about this, but they 21 assure us that it's not their intent to impose these 22 on individuals or utilities, but I personally have the 23 reservations.
I agree with Dave.
There are things 24 that perhaps we-could learn that we could pass on that 25 would be useful, but I don't know how much this Agency i
L.
NEAL R. GkC9S 1323 Rhode Island Avence, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
._____m.___.-___m.__._______,,_,____.___,__.,__,______,,_.,__,_,__,.,___,,._m__
s
--,4.,,m,,.
-ye-
--7---
r w-
2, 16 i
1 should regulate them.
2 Bill, please.
3 DOCTOR KERR:
I know as little about 4
management as almost anybody I can think of.
It seems t*-
]
5 to me tunt what we are interested in is not management 6
per se, but the results of annagement.
So, I don't 7
think we need to encourage the use of managerial i
8 research, how one develops managerial skills.
l 9
What I do not think we have gone very far in l
10 developing is criteria for determining whether things 11 are operating properly.
We want safe plants and we 12 are all wrestling with how one can recognize the l
13 possibility for unsafe plants before an accident l
14 happens.
It would seem to me that we need to continue 15 to concentrate on that effort.
16 In the construction and
- design, we've 17 learned to put a lot of emphasis on equipment and 18 construction and control of quality and the inspection I
19 of equipment, the operating phase.
That's still 20 important but there are other things that contribute.
j 21 I don't think we have a good way of recognizing when 22 an organization is operating in a way which is least i
23 likely to produce or has a
low probability of l
24 producing accidents.
That, it seems to me, requires 25 some concentration of effort, whether one calls it i
NEA1, R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433 m.
m m
+--
i
- - - - + =
i 17
.I
.1-LJ 1
research or investigation or whatever.
But that is 2
the area that I think we should continue to emphasise.
j 3
COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Do you think there are j
4 those messe--=
..u t one might find from some kind of b e ' ' i f f e r e n t for a management of a d
l 6
research would 6
nucl ear power plant from management of an automobile 7
factory or something of that sort?
8 DOCTOR KERR:
1 plead not the Fifth, but 9
ignorance.
I don't know.
I wish I knew.
10 MR.
WARD:
No, I think there's some very 11 real differences.
I mean I think the great difficulty 12 with nuclear power is that there is not direct, usable 13 feedback from experience to tell you how well you're 14 doing, as far as the safety of nuclear power plants is 15 concerned.
We Just don't have the major accidente 16 that must be avoided.
So, we're not getting daily, L.
17
- weekly, yearly experience that one does in an 18 automobile factory or something else.
So, to the l
1' 19 extent that we don't hnve
- that, there are some 20 differences that have to be taken into account.
21 CHAIRMAW CARR:
Well, we can't afford to 22 aske a mistake to learn from in this business.
23 DOCTOR KERR:
- Yes, I
think that's the 24 difference.
25 MR. WARD:
Yes, that's it.
rq l
NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
l 18 I
COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
The data that you get, 2
you don't like it when you have it.
I mean it's --
3 Fine, thank you.
4 CHAIRMAN CARR:
commissioner Curtiss?
5 COMMISSIONER $J"tSS:
I don't have any 6
questions.
7 CHAIRMAN CARR:
I don't have any questions, 8
but I have a comment ca your aptitude testing for 9
inspectors.
My experience is in the Medical Research 10 Laboratory New London and submarines
- has, to my.
Il knowledge, for 40 years been trying to sort out from 12 the input to the submarine school over the lifetime of 13 the career what makes good submariners and they're 14 still working on that problem.
So, I'm not sure we 15 can figure out what makes good inspectors either.
16 DOCTOR LEWIS:
Because they're all good.
17 CHAIRMAN CARR:
I think it's a function of 18 background and training and interest and that kind of 19 thing.
So, you get some surprises when you try to 20 make judgments along that line.
21.
It's the same problem with management 22 decisions.
As you say, good people can make most any 23 organization work and, conversely, the wrong people 24 can screw up most any organization.
So, it's a tough 25 Job.
NRAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433 4y
's
- e-l 19 l
rm LJ 1
All right, we can proceed then.
f I
2 DOCTOR REMICK:
All right.
The second topic 3
then is the occupational radiation exposure of skin 4
from hot particles.
This is an cres -- at the time of i
5 the letter I think we had strong olfferences with the 4
6 staff in some respects.
But I think we have some good 7
news and I'd like to turn that over to Jay Carroll, 8
who is subcommittee Chairman.
9 MR. CARROLL:
Thank you, Forrest.
10 By way of background, I guess for the last 11 several years there's been a general consensus in the f
12 nuclear industry that existing 10 CFR 20 limits for I
l 13 skin exposures which are designed for exposure of 34 large areas of the skin were overly conservative for L
15 hot particles, which we started to see as we got more l
i 16 sensitive radiation detection equipment into the 17 nuclear plants.
18 The staff's ultimate plan is to revise Part L
19 20 to have specific regulations dealing with hot 20 particles.
But the probably a two to tree year l
21 process.
In the interim, the staff has proposed an 22 interim standard to be used in taking enforcement l
23 action in those instances where hot particles cause I
24 exposure to individuals in the plants.
So, it's-this 25 interim standard that we're considering today.
I
.c
.J NEA1, R.
CROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
.r.
1 21 1
1
- 1. J 1
our full committee.
Out of that meeting there was l
2 agreement-that there's a
need for more direct 3
discussions between the two entities and this should 4
lead to an improved working relationship.
I think r
5 that's very good.
6 On July 27th, EPRI sponsored a' meeting in 7
Richland, Washington that brought together EPRI and 8
their consultants.
- NUMARC, industry representatives, j
s 9
one of the members of the NCRP Subcommittee on Hot 10 Particles.
Very significantly, EPRI paid to have John l
11 Hopewell, who is the permanent U.K.
researcher in this 12 area come over so everybody could talk to John i
13
.Hopewell in one place.
NRC Research and Research's
-i 14 consultant, John Baum of Brookhaven, were there.
I 15 thought it was a very useful meeting because it got a 16 lot of issues out on the table.
17 EPRI also presented the work of their pig 18 studies that are being done up at
- Hanford, which 19 tended to support the NCRP recommendations.
20 I
guess one of the most significant 21 statements that was made in my mind was Bill Roesh of L
l 22
- NCRP, who's been involved in-their activities for L
23 close to 40 years and is one of the old grey boards in 24 the red. protection field, stating that he believed 25 the recommendation that they put forth would ensure 1
1 L. _
NEAL R'.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
i
(;
]
22
{
l that a worker who had a hot particle exposure wouldn't i
2 know it happened to him unless he had a ai roscope.
3 But that was really basically what they were trying to 4
protect against.
]
5 But if you listen to all the experts and 6
scientists and so forth, you almost need a rosette 7-stone to interpret what they're telling you.
8 The staff met with Warren Sinclair of NCRP 9
recently and got a commitment from Warren, who is 10 President of NCRP, that their final report on this 11 subject would be published by the end of September and y
12 would presumably address the concerns the staff raised 13 in reviewing that draft report.
He also indicated 14 that their recommendations would continue to be as 15 they were a year plus ago.
16 In discussing this with staff people 17 yesterday, I'm told that they would expect to then i
18 have a new draft of the interim standard available for l
19 internal review within the staff by November of 1989.
l 20 Hopefully we can get this very troublesome issue 21 behind us.
22 DOCTOR REMICK:
I think, Mr. Chairman, this F
23 is an area that I might add to what Jay said.
Fros 24 time to time I know I've asked the question, is there 25 a role for ACRS any longer?
Does the Commission need NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
I o
l
'o.
1 l
l 23 j
i I
LJ l
it, does the nation need it?
I think this is an 2
example of the type of thing that this Committee does 3
serve when basically sound technical people are at 4
loggerheads and nothing is moving.
Sometimes the 5
Committee getting involved in speaking out and
.i 6
encouraging gets people back together and that's a 7
good example of that.
8 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Questions, Commissioner 9
Roberts?
10 Commissioner Rogers?
11 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
No.
12 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Commissioner Curtiss?
13 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
No.
14 CHAIRMAN CARR:
- Well, I
think you're 15 absolutely right.
This issue has been around too long 16 and personally I voiced my displeasure at not having 17 it behind us.
It seems it's taken too long to get it 18 there.
I've heard the same thing you've heard, that 19 the NCRP plans to have their final statement out in 20 September and the staff is going to have their draft 21 out for review in November and I would encourage my 22 staff to speed that review up so that the cosaission 23 can act on it this year and get it finalized and get 24 it behind us and take it off the books.
l 25 Fine.
The next iten.
J.
L.J NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
,n a
i
.a:
24 9
w.
1 DOCTOR REMICK The next item then relates 2
to our letter of June 14th to you on the subject of i
3 reliability and diversity of equipment.
Doctor Kerr 4
is the Subcommittee
- Chairman, so I'd ask him to l
5 summarize that, i
6 DOCTOR KERR:
I don't think it's news to 7
anyone here that in order to achieve the high t
8 reliability that is required in some of the systems i
9 that are a part of the safety protection of nuclear 10 power plants that one uses a number of subsystems, i
11 each of which is capable of performing a function that t
12 is needed in tendem in such a way that if one falls I
13 there are still one or more left to continue to 14 perform the function.
One gets this-increase in 15 reliability by the use of redundancy if the subsystems 16 are indeed independent one of the other.
17 In effect, that means that the likelihood of i
t 18 failure of more than one of the systems in a short 19 interval is much less than the failure of any one LL 20 system alone.
The independence to achieve this 21
. increased reliability is a very important-feature.
22 The designer and the operator must strive to achieve n
l-23 that independence in a variety of ways.
It will occur 24 if there is some external influence that produces 25 simultaneous failure or nearly simultaneous failure of NEA1, R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
g-i 25 t9 y
1 two subsystems, or if there is something about the l
2 subsystems or the equipments themselves that tends to t
3 produce simultaneous failure.
i i
4 For that reason, there are situations in 5
phich one uses diversity.'
That is the individual i
6 subsystems are deliberately chosen to be different one 7
from the other, even though the function performed may 8
be the same.
Because of this consideration there are 9
situations in which one insists on diverse subsystems 10 to make up the total system.
The ultimate
- goal, 11 bowever, is always reliability.
There are situations 12 in which this diversity may not contribute to total 13 system reliability.
14 The issue under discussion at this j
15 subcommittee meeting and subsequent meeting of the l
16 Committee was whether one should always insist on 17 diversity almost as if it were an end in itself, or 18 whether in an effort to achieve reliability there 19 might be situations, and indeed some of us felt that 20 there almost certainly would be situations, in which
\\
I 21 diversity might not be a good idea.
22 What we were seeing was that there should be l
l 23 an open mind on this issue and that in a particular
(
24 attuation such as the SCRAM system in reactors where l.
25 one is trying to achieve a very high reliability, one I
NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.*C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
\\
'r'.
26 1
should look carefully to ascertain that indeed the 2
introduction of diversity will increase reliability 3
rather than perhaps having the opposite effect.
4 I think that's as such as I need to say d
6 about that.
I would ask any of my colleagues'to add i
6 to it or we'll have to try to respond to questions.
7-DOCTOR LEWIS:
No, I think you've said it 8
very well, Bill.
The point is that this is really not 9
a unique problem within the regulatory system.
If one t
10 finds a philosophical solution to a problem, and in 11 many cases diversity is a philosophical solution to 12 the problem of protection against unforeseen, unknown, 13 common cause
- failures, you have different things.
14 Sometimes it takes on a life of its own and people 15 forget why they're doing that.
16 Bill was more polite than I would be.
He 17 didn't mention the particular case that incensed us, f
i 18 but it was one in which a circuit board required a two 19 diverse circuit boards which turned out to be L
20 identical but had different manufacturers stamps on 21 them.
But they were otherwise functionally and, at 22 component
- level, identical.
These were defined as 23 diverse because they were different in one respect.
24 the manufacturers stamp was different on the two of 25 them.
NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
-w
.---.-r.-
7 P,
27 r ~)
W l
- Now, it's certainly true that sometimes 2
there can be a failure specific to a plant and you 3
achieve a little bit of extra protection by getting 4
something from another manufacturer, but it's a small S
effect.
And yet at the regulatory level there tends 6
often to be not very much judgment exercised about 7
what you're buying for your diversity.
Once you've j
i 8
decided that you require diversity, then it's a
9 dichotomy, a bimodal decision.
Either you've done it 10 or you haven't done it.
If you haven't done it, you i
11 don't pass.
If you have done it, you do pass.
It was 12 that sort of thing that raised our hackles, or some of 13 our hockles a little bit, t
eJ 14 It's hard to know what the solution is other 15 than to say, do better, do good or be more thoughtful 16 about why you're requiring things.
But it's an 17 endemic problem.
i 18 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Commissioner Rr,ge r s,
any 19 comments?
20 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
- Well, just that the 21 point of your letter, it seemed to me, was the key and as Professor Kerr has 22
- one, that reliability 23 said, reliability is the objective, diversity is not 24 the objective, not unless you're in the business of 25 selling things it is. Then you might want to have a t
NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
,=
4
~
28 1
market for your product and argue for diversity.
But 2
otherwise, it's the reliability that's the key that 3
we're after.
This is just one way to get there and to 4
focus on that as en ultimate good in its own right i
5 certainly seems to be misplaced.
6 But certainly the notion of redundancy 7
without diversity is also a sensible view.
You could 8
have just backup systems that could be identical and P
9 we do that in some instances.
.(
10 DOCTOR LEWIS:
There are very few airplanes I
11 with a prop engine on one side and a jet engine on the 12 other side.
13 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
At least they're not 14 supposed to operate that way.
15 DOCTOR KERR:
The letter discussed what's 16 the effect of aging on the possibility of common mode 17 of failure.
The point that we were trying to make 18 here was
- that, at least for liability theory as 19 usually interpreted, there is s region of component of 20 light during which one expects the failures to be at l
l 21 random and then there is a region, a wear-out region l
l 22 in which one expects more clustering.
If one operates l
l 23 and if one has enough experience so that one can 24 define with confidence the randon region, then aging 25 shouldn't have any effect on common mode of failure.
NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
. ~
,4; l
t 29 l Li LJ l
One removes or replaces the component.
So, we felt 2
that there was e possibility of some misunderstanding 3
in this particular arena.
4 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
I guess you don't have 5
a soldtfon for us though, other than to just raise the 6
issue and think about it.
7 DOCTOR LEWIS:
I have a solution, but it's 8
not a practical one.
You didn't say it had to be 9
practien1.
t 10 CHAIRMAN CARR:
You mean common sense?
11 DOCTOR LEWIS:
Common sense is so common.
12 No, the subject of how to interpret rules with wisdom 13 in the support of reliability and safety is not a 14 simple one.
The question of diversity and redundancy t
15 and that sort of thing is really not the only place i
16 it's come up.
It's come up in the question of how 17 auch in service testing there should be, is a classic l:
18 place.
All through that, I at least have a sense that 19 there is a well developed, if you'll forgive me, 20 theory of reliability.
Books are written about it.
L 21 Professors teach courses in it.
In other words, it's 22 a legitimate human endeavor.
L l
23 I have a sense that there's not enough use l
24 of that body of knowledge within the NRC.
If you were 25 to ask me to quantify
- that, I
would surrender l
l l
u a l
NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
p i
30 j
1 instantly.
But it shows up in places of which this in 2
one.
3 CHAIRMAN CARR Commissioner Curtiss?
4 Well. I certainly agree and I'm glad, Doctor 5
Lewis, you c..
rad up the specific because when I read j
6 the comment I must admit it looked like motherhood to 7
se and I
- thought, "Well, there must be something 8
behind that that's not apparent on the face of it
[
9 because it's obviously good statement."
I see what i
10 you mean, 11 DOCTOR LEWIS:
But you're not coming out 12 against notherhood.
t 13 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Not today.
Not in this 14 forum.
And your point about I
think you're 15 supporting what we're trying to get everybody toward 16 reliability centered maintenance where if you know i
17 st's going to fail you fix it first or replace it i
18 first and then you don't have to consider that in your 19 dual mode of failure.
I certainly agree with that 20 too.
21 There are a few components which -- it seems 22 there are fewer everyday that we can't replace, but l
23 what you can't replace, obviously, you've got to take 1
24 into consideration.
25 Wext item.
NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
r Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
' 4.
31 I~~"
1 DOCTOR REMICK:
All right.
The next one is 1
)
2 the proposed resolution of Generic Issue 128, electric 3-power systems reliability and our subcommittee 4
chairman is Charles Wylie.
So, I'll turn it over to 5
Charles.
l 6
MR. WYLIE:
inenk you, Mr. Chairman.
7 Our letter of June 14 on this subject, the-8 Generic Issue
- 128, gives our comments and-9 recommendations on the subject.
As a
matter of 10 background, Generic Issue 128 is an integration of 11 three separate
- issues, namely Generic Issue 48 on 12 limiting conditions for operations for Class IE vital 13 instrumentation buses.
It deals with a safety concern U
14 that some operating nuclear plants do not have 15 administrative controls or technical specifications 16 governing operational restrictions for their vital 17 buses and associated inverters.
It may result in the 18 failure of the plant safety systems to perform their 19 function then they're required.
20 Generic Issue 49 pertains to the interlocks 21 and limiting conditions operations for class 1R tie 22 breakers.
Again, the concern is that administrative 23 controls and technical specifications governing the 24 operation or restrictions do not exist which any 25 result in the buses being interconnected through tie L
NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
~
)
t
'. ll 4
1 1
32 1
breakers which may be left closed by mistake.
If left 2
- closed, the tie breakers can compromise the 3
independence of the redundant safety-related buses and 4
in some cases may prevent the emergency diesel 5
generators from supplying emergency power when needed.
6 Generic Issue A-30 concerns the adequacy of 7
safety-related DC power supplies and it deals with a J
8 concern that some plants may not have adequate j
9 provisions for monitoring, maintaining, testing. to 10 assure that the DC power supplies are available and 11 capable of performing their safety functions when 12 they're needed.
13 The staff's proposed resolution to Generic 14 Issue 128 is to issue two separate generic letters 15 with related information requests to inform the 16 licensees of the concerns and to obtain information 17 for the staff in assess whether necessary actions have 18 been taken to reso'.ve these concerns.
t 19 The ACRS concluded that the staff's proposed 20 resolution would probably improve the reliability of 21 the electrical systems.
- However, we viewed the 22 staff's proposed resolution as a continuation of the 23
-fragmented approach to resolving safety issues rather 7
24 than an integrated approach.
25 The concerns raised by the particular NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
1 33 1
generic issues are highly plant
- specific, have 2
interrelationships among themselves as well as a
3 number of other generic issues and' unresolved safety t
4 issues.
It was our opinion that a pore efficient and l
5 effective approach to the resolution on the issues i
t 6
could be accomplished by including them in an 7
integrated approach such as the ISAP or the IPE 8
programs.
)
9 Therefore, we recommended that the i
10 resolution of Generic Issue 128 be implemented through 11 the Individual Plant Examination Program, along with 12 an assessment of the associated risk reductions.
13 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Any comment, Commissioner?
14 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
Well, if I remember
~~
15 what we've witnessed over a period of time, this isn't l.
l 16 the only generic issue you think ought to be done I
17 through the IPB, right?
18 MR. WYLIE:
That's correct.
19 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
I happen to agree 20 with that.
That's all I have.
21 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Commissioner Rogers?
22 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Well, just on that 23 issue though, what does that really mean?
The IPEs 24 are -- some of then haven't even begun yet, I think.
25 MR. WYLIE:
Yes, that concerns us.
I u'J NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
/
.o i
34 1
COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
And so, what-do you do 2
when you turn up something like this?
Do you stick it 3
in a pile and wait until an IPE turns up and then you j
4 say, "This should be part of your IPE.
Look at this"?
5 I mean in practical terms, how do you deal w a t., issues 6
once they've been flagged as an issue of some sort?
7 It's a question of priority, of course, but if there 8
is sufficient basis for being a bit concerned about 9
it, what do you do with it in integrating?
How do you 10 do that?
Do you wait until it's part of it and force 11.
it into the IPE program or what?
I'm just trying to 12 get a feeling about how you see this.
13 MR. CARROLL:
My answer to that would be 14 that you put out a generic letter describing this as 15 an issue that certain licensees may have --
16 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
A disconnect from the 17 "what did you do about it" question.
18 MR. CARROLL:
Yes, and that we expect you to 19 address this in your IPE and here are the concerns the 20 Commission has about this issue.
^
21 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
But you wouldn't 22 object to that, though.
You don't see any problem in 23 that, getting a letter out, sort of a notice.
24 DOCTOR REMICK:
Notify people, yes.
But no 25 imposing it ahead.
You're establishing a priority 2
NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
O' i
35 n
j L]
I when you impose upon them and, "It must be done by i
2 this and this date."
It might not be more important j
i 3
than the other things they have on their plate.
l J
4 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Yes.
5 DOCTOR REMICK:
I think Doctor Kerr wishes 6
to respond.
)
7 DOCTOR KERR:
I was simply going to say that 8
inevitably the power plant is the total system and 9
there are a lot of interactions among the various l
10 subsystems.
If you pick one out to concentrate on it, j
ll you any miss these interactions.
This is why a number 12 of us, I think, feel the IPE approach is important.
13 It should encourage people to look at the total f
14 system.
l 1
15 MR.
CARCOLL:
I think one of the other 16 things that troubled me in listening to the staff's part of it was the fact that it 17 presentation was i
j 18 isn't in somebody's tech,
- specs, therefore we can't 19 prove to ourselves whether they have a problem or not.
20 Therefore, we're going to ask them a
bunch of 21 questions.
That's a burden on the resources of a 22 utility.
I think the other way is a much cleaner way 23 to get the answer the staff wants, namely the IPE 24 process.
25 DOCTOR REMICK:
Doctor Seiss would like to C
.J NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
l Washington, D.C.
20005 l
(202) 234-4433
1
.)
36 l
1 provide a response.
2 DOCTOR SEISS:
Commissioner Rogers, I don't 3
remember the exact wording of the letter, but in Mr.
4 Wylie's oral remarks he offered you two alternatives 6
to integrate this.
One was the IPE, which only comes 6
along once in a lifetime, I hope.
But the other was t
7 ISAP.
ISAP is a perfectly good way of integrating 8
items that come up this month, next year, two or three 9
years later.
10 DOCTOR REMICK:
Along that
- line, I don't 11 know if you had an opportunity to read a letter that 12 came into the staff from Northeast Utilities about 13 their response to IPE and ISAP.
We thought that was a i
l 14 particular interesting response from one
- licensee, 15 particularly stressing the importance of the ISAP 16 program to them.
You were sent copies, and so it's 17 worthwhile
- reading, I
think.
It's an interesting 18 response.
19 Anything else on --
20 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
I guess really the 21 issue when all is said and done though is setting up a 22 whole set of new priorities piecemeal, one by one.
p l
23 It's not getting the information out or calling 24 people's attention to the issue, but then raising it 25 to a new level of priority without looking at all the NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
y s
,y
'c e.
37 j
l.
I JLjf 1
other things that have to be dealt with.
2 DOCTOR REMICK:- That's'it exactly.
-)
3-COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Yes.
f 4
MR. WYLIE:
In'the past, in regard to USI on S
the black and decay heat re'moval, we ran into the same 6
type of situation where independently these were 7
coming out without regard to the others.
8 DOCTOR REMICK:
One can understand it from 9-the staff's side.
They work on these things very 9
10 diligently over a period of. time and finally see some 11 resolution and so forth - and you want to see some l
12 action and their recommendation is action.
.But L
'13 somehow there needs t o' be some coherence and some o
l T : '--' -
14 perspective put to these things rather than just one 15 coming out a week on different issues and so forth.
l' 16 DOCTOR KERR:
And some of these generic 17 issues were probably identified by the ACRS.
18 DOCTOR REMICK:
Yes, I'm sure they were.
19 MR. WYLIE:
Well, I don't~think we disagreed 20 that they're.real concerns.
l 21 CHAIRMAN CARR:
No, the problem exists.
l 22' MR. WYLIE:
Yes, the problem exists.
J 23 CHAIRMAN CARR:
I guess my personal opinion o
24-is we're approaching them all rather piecemeal instead i
25 of going ahead and requiring a Level 3 PRA and getting
.i L
NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
l 4
Washington, D.'C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
'l f
,oe, m
1 r
38 1
it over with.
Inch up on them one at a time.
2 Any other comments?
1
?
3 Next item.
)
4 DOCTOR REMICK:
Okay.
The fifth item was 4
l 5
boiling water reactor core power stability and it is
[
L l
6 our letter dated June 14th also.
Doctor Kerr is t
7 subcommittee. chairman and also David Ward had a
8 related subcommittee.
I turn it over to those two.
4 9
DOCTOR KERR:
I don't think there's much to i
10 be said about that because I don't think there is any 1 -
11 significant disagreement between the staff and 'our 12 view on what should be done.
We have no concern about 13 a serious immediate problem.
Indeed, I think it'e a l
14 consensus that the problem is real only if one gets an L
15 ATWS because if you get the oscillation and can make 16 the reactor go suberitical, it eliminates it.-
There' i
17 doesn't seem to be any disagreement about that.
It's' I
l-18 only.when you may have a. critical reactor and continue L
-19 to oscillate that you may have problems.
L
'20 The difficulty arises because that i
E :.
L 21 p h e n t,= e n o n is not well described-yet.
I don't think i,
E 22 there is a computer code. or en analytical' approach 23 that permits one to predict the behavior that can l'
24 occur. in the-variety of situations from which the l
25 oscillation might start with confidence.
Even though NEAL h.
GROSS
[
1323 Rhode. Island Avenue, N.W.
Washingtor.,
D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
1r
)
~.;
l 39 7
1 it's a low-probability. event that you.' ll get that at
)
i 2
the same time you have an ATWS, it's sort of in the i
3 reals' of the unknown.
If one-did somehow get very-4 Inrge oscillations it could be serious.
5 We think it ought to be investigated, but at o
6 a reasonable pace and the staff seems to agree with 7
that approach.
So, I have nothing further to say.
8 DOCTOR REMICK:
Dave?
9 MR. WYLIE:
No, I have nothing to add.
i 10 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Any questions?
11 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Well, yes.
There's a 12 comment in your
- letter, "We'se disappointed, given 13
'many years that BWRs have been operating-in this M
14 country, with the present limited state of knowledge.
15 and inadequacy of existing analytical tools."
16' Just not being an ' expert in this~ field, I'm 17 disappointed too.
I wonder why that is-the case or if
~
18 it is the case.
Is it that nobody has-ever done this 19 or looked at situations that can lead. to things' of i
20 this sort or that somebody did it but somehow it got 21 lost long'ago in the archives?
.22 I've heard some comments from people when 23.
they - heard about the LaSalle incident that, "Well, 24 that's nothing new.
We knew about that years ago."
x 4
25 DOCTOR REMICK:
Correct.
( !
- L
.J NEAL R'.
CROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433 L
=1 a
- F j
40' 1
COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
And yet it seemed to 2
be.new to other people in the business-and it-3 certainly was new-to the operators in :that plant.
I 4
wonder ' whether there is an additional issue almost relating to what we were talking about in the human u
6 factors
- business, that somebody has looked at
.t h e.
7 thing but somehow it was a long time ago and they've 8
left.the business or retired or whatever and we 9
haven't-gotten that into contemporary thinking-or 10 actions.
11 DOCTOR KERR:
I think'I can add a little bit 12 to this, Commissioner Rogers.
Engineers, at least, 13 tend to like to treat linear systems.
The early work l
14 on this oscillation, which was observed I think almost.
15 when'the first one of-these things was constructed to l
jj 16 treat it as a linear system and one can at least 17 predict the oscillation - using a linear system.
One 18 does not necessarily, and indeed I think one cannot 1
L 19 get the amplitude of the oscillations very well.
20 It's a tough problem because in order to j
21' treat-it one has to. include special distribution.
You.
22' can't treat it as a point problem and it's also a very 23 non-linear problem.
Those'two things make it tough to
'escribe and tough to solve the problem.
d 24 c
25 As experience has developed, it is s
NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode' Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
i 7, e
'.s 41.
r-~1 1
1 1;
I recognized that while the linear approach will give 1
2 you a fairly good idea of when the oscillation -will 1
3 start --
4 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Onset conditions.
I
-it doesn't permit you to 5
DOCTOR KERR:
6 describe the amplitude of the oscillations, nor does-7 it give you a very good idea of-the effect of some of 8
the initial conditions on that amplitude.
One-has to 9
gc to the non-linear distributed system in order to 10 get that.
It's a difficult probles.
11 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
But are you saying 12 that a collection of items such e-this out there that 13 one could -detect the possibility of.using linear
.{
14 analyses.that nobody has bothered to pick up and 15 really do in a non linear way to see how serious they 16 are in terms of amplitude and so on.and so forth?'
'17 DOCTOR KE RR':
The re - - have been efforts ' to 18:
tr'est various parts of: the~ probles'.
I don't think r
19 there exists -- as far as I know, there does no', exist
't 20
.a satisfactory or complete solution of the things that 21 probably one should'know.
22 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Is this.in a too hard slot?
y 23 Is that what you're~ saying?
24 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
- Well, no incentive 25 maybe.
People are not afraid to tackle hard problems
.l
.: c a NEAL R. GROCS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Wachington,'D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
.o,
-. ~.
3 J
ly 42 1
1 if_somebody's really interested.
y.
2 DOCTOR REMICK -
I think the need was known.
3-Perhaps it was satisfactory until a problea develops.
4 It h:s stirred interest.
Certainly I know ' of some 5
universities that are working on the problem and 6
others.
So, I don't think it's an insolvable type of 7
situation.
8 DOCTOR LEWIS:
- Well, you know, there's a 9
level.at which it is insoluble because you're talking 10 about three dimensional,
- unsteady, hydrodynamics, 11 sulti-phased.
You know, that's insoluble for a long_
~
12 time to come.
The question is narrowing down the 13 universe to_the point at which you're willing to do 14 things and the normal way you do~ that is that _ you 15 discover things.
Empirically things happen, like this--
16 particulnr set of oscillations happened many, many 17 years ago..
Then you analyse those.
-That's what 18 graduate students are for, and'you develop them.
19 But unquestionably there are thousands of 20
-other oscillations out
- there, some of-which may 21 actually be--unstable, even in the linear domain, that i
22 people haven't looked at because they haven't shown 23 up.
It's a large world out there.
t 24 MR.
CARROLL:
I was kidding General 25 Electric's original expert on the matter of core l
NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433 i
,a
it
. '.?, y ' ',-,
43 I
i
' l..;
I s'tability, one Mr. Eric Beckjord, about this-- the other.
2 day.
When I first knew Eric. he was back trying to 3-make Dresden 1 be unstable.
I said, "You know,-Eric, 4
.you should have solved this problem in 1959."
He 5
said, "I'did.
I kept tell'ing people you need to keep 6
flow going through the core."
7 CHAIRMAN CARR:
- Well, from a
safety 8
standpoint it's handleable with administrative l=
9 procedures.
But as a
problem -for the curiosity.
10 solvers, I guess it could be worked on.
11 MR. WARD:
I think one of the reasons for 12 what we call our disappointment was our observation 13 that European developers of similar'BWR systems seen 14 to
- have, over the last 20
- years, developed more e
- and, in fact, ran tests 15 comprehensive tools for 16 that were pertinent to this particular thing.
l 17 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Were -you happy-with the L
18 staff's consent on that when they came back and said, 19 "Yes, b'ut that didn't take into account the ATWS-part H
20-of the problen"?
21 MR.
WARD:
I think that's correct and I 22 appreciate the staff's comment because we came to the 23 conclusion that although it.is a problem, the safety 24-significance seems to be, as Doctor Kerr said, tied up 25 with its coincidence with an ATWS.
The staff did make s
i, j c.; -
fiCAL R. GROSS 1323 hode Island Avenue, N.W.
2 beshington, D.*C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
r 3,. [: L
.1 s.
44
~
1-that point in responding to us, that the Europeans 2
haven't looked at that part of it either.
I' think -
3 that's correct.
4 We, I think, wer'e disappointed that there t
after 30 years in this nature system, 5
wasn't a 6
there wasn' t a tool there.
The initial attempts a t -'
7 analyzing
-this were really quite primitive-and 8
compared with some of the other sophisticated analyses 9
that are made it other areas, I think it surprised me.
10 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Well, do you think our 11 research program is adequately addressing possible 12 probleme out there that haven't-been looked at?' Again
~ 13 it's a question of adequate.
You could look at 14 everything under the sun, but --
15 MR.
WARD:
Yes.
You can't look at the 16 universe.
In our thermal-hydraulic research letter of 17 a couple months ago,- we suggested some other areas t
18 that should be~ given attention.
But it is.very.
19 difficult and'I --
20 CHAIRMAN CARR:
They are doing follow-up 21.
research on this.ites..
l 22 MR. WARD:. 0 h ', they are this item, right.
23-DOCTOR REMICK:
I think the Agency has-to be 24 alert and when it sees things that perhaps have not 25 been explored as thoroughly to see that it's done.
NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 7
(202) 234-4433-
.. ~..
4 45 r,
. L. J-1 But to anticipate every possible one, I don't think 2
anybody can'do it.
3-CHAIRMAN CARR:
Hopefully that's what we've-4 got operators for.
If they see oncething they don't 5
understand they take the right actidn.-
6 DOCTOR SEISS:
Excuse - me.
You might ask 7
Eric Beckjord to tally up for you how many dollars NRC 8
has spent on research to answer questions that haven't 9
been asked yet.
10 CHAIRMAN CARR:
All right, sir.
Unfocused 11 research, right?
i 12 DOCTOR LEWIS:
I have to interject that many 13 years ago, maybe ten, I remember all existing and past 14 NRC directors of research were lined up on one. side of.
15 the table and each of them-was asked to describe a way 10 in which the NRC research program had made reactors-l 17 safer than they would otherwise have been.
They all 18 gave the-same answer, "Oh, there must:be such cases."
19 CHAIRMAN CARR:
That's probably our fault.
20 That completes.your rundown?
21 DOCTOR REMICE:
Of items that you.
22 specifically suggested, yes.
CRAIRMAN CARR:
Commissioner Roberts?~
24 Commissioner Rogers?
25 Commissioner Curtiss?
. 7 __
. L _.
?
NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
w g
46' l-COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
.I-Just have a quick 2
question on a subject of future attention.
_On the 3
containment design criteria initiative, I -wonder if' 4
you could-say a word or two about what the status of 5
that is, what your view of the timing and su.odule - for 6
that alght be.
7 DOCTOR REMICK:
I'd like to ask Dave Ward to-8 respond to that.
e 9
MR. WARD Yes.
Our intent there is to pull 10 something together by early calendar 1990.
We're l
11 planning a series of -information gathering meetings.
l
-12 The first is scheduled for September 13th, another one 13 for October
- 17th, and a
third one probably in 14 November, at which we're going to solicit ideas from I
l I.
15 expert people who have done research and given thought ll' 16 in this area.
Then we'll try to gel. that to put--
17 together in 'some sort of a synthesis and we hope to 18 have that-completed or first cut-at it in l
19 January / February.
20 I should say I think that there might have 21-been a little bit of-confusion about what we're'trying 22 to do.
Our effort-is directed toward_ developing what l
23 I
might-call a
zero-based, clean slate set-of 24 containment design criteria.
Because of this, they:
25 would be for reactors that are not yet being designed, t
f NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
=
- {-
- .o < --
t
.rq.
47
~
1: - L l'
. that they won't b'e applicable to. existing reactors.
y 2
They won't be applicable to the evolutionary reactors, 3'
which are already designed.
Depending on what they j
4 turn out to be,-they might be useful as some sort of n 5
standard for evaluating these already existing
?
6 designs, but that's not our primary focus.
7 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
All right.
So the i
8 focus would be beyond the evolutionary class?
9 MR.. WARD:
Yes.
10 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Passive and advanced 11 non-LWRs?
l:
12 MR. WARD:
That's correct.
13 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
And.then ' will-you 14 review I take it from what you've got here that.
15 you're already reviewing the GE ABWR and may review 16-the. requirements document that EPRI is putting 17 together --
18 DOCTOR REMICK:
That's correct, yes.
[
to focus on the
'19 -
-COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
20 containment question.
.21 DOCTOR REMICK:
What we're working on that i
22 Dave's talking about is not related to those.
It's 23 for future.
24 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
All right.
That-25 addresses my questions.
Thank you.
- t. - _
NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (20L, 234-4433
' /;
. v. -
)
e.
48 4
1 CHAIRMAN CARR:
I've got a couple of.other t
2 comments.
One in I's.a little disappointed about the-3 request for comments on the integration.of the 4
regulatory process.
We're struggling along with a few-5~
of those items now and my understanding is you won't 6
be able to give us some comments on that until-3 l
7-November.
I guess we'll take it when we can get i t',
8 but it's a --
9 DOCTOR REMICK:
Our subcommittee set for the-L 10 first time on that yesterday.
I don't know if you 11 want to ask Doctor Lewis to quickly summarize where we-12
- stand, 13 CHAIRMAN CARR:
I'd be happy to -- sure.
'I m
.14 DOCTOR LEWIS:
Well, it just s0 happer.s that 15 I anticipated that this might come tv.
Sometimes ycu o
16 can predict the future.
17 We really don't have a-real report.
We're 18 on the hook to report to you'in November and we had
-j 19 our first subcommittee meeting yesterday to talk about 20 it.
Commissioner Rogers was nice enough to come and il help us in our confusion.
We don't have any! real.
22 conclusions, but we tried to put the-question together.
-23 in roughly.the following way, and this may change by 24 November.
We're going to meet again and try to do it.
25 You've issued four policy-statements in the I
NEAL R.
GROSS 1323'Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433 1
7 f
a. 4-49
{
l p..i 1
last few years that are significant.-
Of-course 2
everything you issue is significant, but there - are 3
four real-policy statements --
4 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Only to us sometimes.-
5 DOCTOR LEWIS:
Safety
- goals, severe i
6 accidents, standardization and advanced reactors.
Two 7-of those, the last two, have to do with the future and i
8 the first two have to do with the present.
So we i
9 decided we would stick to the present and let the 10 future take care of itself in the future.
11 We had a feeling that the word " integration" 22 means different things to different people.
The staff:
13 has produced a
report which is called 178 which 14 consists of a series of charts linking these policies
-~
15 together with lines and it was not easy for some of us 16 to understand how that constituted integration.
17 COMMISSIONER ' ROBERTS:
You're not-the only 18 one.
- l l-i 19 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Did you not have the colored
~
20 charte?
21-DOCTOR LEWIS:
- Darn, we had the blanket' 22 white version.
We had the monochrome version.
23 CHAIRMAN CARR:
You need the colored charts.-
l 24 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
The colored chart 25 would make it clear as mud.
I L
NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005
'(202) 234-4433 4 4--,
.~.
s
,y q.
,y 50
- l' DOCTOR LEWIS:
Undoubtedly that was it 2-because one thing that was in the first chart there, 3
the safety goal policy and the cafety goal 4-implementation were linked by a line and that complex 5
was not linked to anything-else by any other line.
6 But now I know that it was a line in a color that 7
doesn't reproduce on your Xerox machines.
So, it was 8
undoubtedly there, which relieves se a great deal.
9 But' in any case, we decided that as a sort 10 of first step, and as I say this may change, that the 11 safety goal policy really is the ultimate expression 12 of what -the Commission
'wants from i the nuclear 13 enterprise and that everything else really has to be 14 in 'some way -subservient to
- that, severe - accident 15-policy'being the only other one that is relevant to 16 the current generation of reactore.
Therefore, it has 17-to be consistent with the safety goal policy, not-the 18 other way around.-
Speaking of integration, in a sense 19 it tends to put them on a par and make people look for 20-blanks where there is really a structure, kind of 21 up/down structure.
22 The reason we're sensitized to this, and 23 we've writter, you a number of letters on the subject, f
24 is that we do eee things coming out of the staff that-25 are' incoherent.
Not incoherent each in itself, but NEAL R. GROSS 1
1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
r Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
--~. -
- s;
,?-
{,
.l
_ 61 1-when you look at the mass of them, they're incoherent 2
and ' incoherently applied in the sense'that they each 3
pose jobs on the industry and on the utilities with 4
really not much attention to how much each-one 5
contributes to the grand enterprise, which.is to 6
somehow meet the safety goal or to meet the standard 7
of adequate safety.
8-We thought we might be able to.do the 9
following for you by November, put together some kind 10 of integrating or coherence generating structure at l
11 the top, not recommend how to reorganize the Nuclear 12 Regulatory Commission.
Thought tempting, we will'try 13 not to do that.
But to, at the botton, put together a i
14 list' of things that we've all seen in which the lack 15 o'f integration or coherence is relatively clear and 16 try to set the philosophy or strategy..name the things-17 at the bottom which violated and invite you and the 18 staff to try to fix those on the theory -that those 19 fixes would work their way up into the guts of the q
-20 organization, point out the things that need to be 21 done.
22 We cannot make-this operation coherent, but 23 we can-try to help focus where some effort might be-24 and I think that's just a status report.
25 CHAIRMAN CARR:
All right, i
- i. _
NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
+
,s.
i, I
52
-t 1
Any-questions?
2 The next one is you - wrote us a letter on 3
clearing. up - the division responsibility between you 1
4 and our ACNW.
f 5
DOCTOR REMICK:
Yes.
6 CHAIRMAN CARR:
And we'll address that.
I 7
recommend to my fellow Commissioners that we ask for I
have some 8
'the ACNW comments so that we get 9
froblems sorting out the real problem, so-I want.t o i
10 make sure I' understand it before we come down with a 11 nice division of work.
But we ought to be able to 12 sort that 'out and we'll get you an answer back-on 13 that.
L 14 DOCTOR REMICK:
I just might add one point 15 there to know where we're coming from.
If you look at 16 i t-from future licensees perspective and what they 17 have to-go through, the question is in-coming in for a i-18 reactor facility license, must they-go to'the ACNW for-19 such mattera as handling low-level waste in-the plant, 20-things like
- that, or is there one-reactor safety 21 advisory committee on those items?
Is waste then.
22 something that's defined off-site and involves 4
t].
23 possibly Part 72 license or 60 or 61 license and not
'24 Part 50 license?
I think there's potentially some 25 confusion and unclear areas of responsibility in the NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Wsshington, D.C.-
20005 (202) 234-4433 w-T w
'r
- s ' ^-
.-t'-
8 e
a 63 I
way it's defined now.
2-CHAIRMAN CARR:
We do-not want to 3
prolif'erate the problems.
We'd like to solve a few of 4
them if we can.
5 DOCTOR REMICK:
That's basically where we're 6
coming from.
1 7
CHAIRMAN CARR:
I unlerstand.
So, we'll do j
8 that.
9 Are thers any other comments?
10
- Well, I would like to thank the ACRS for.
j 11 this briefing and encourage your continued highj l
I 12 quality support.
We appreciate your independent 13 reviews and we need them.
We'll be bringing to you j
14
- our problems that we want you to help us solve.
So.we 1
15 thank you for this briefing and we'll look forward to I
l' 16 the.next one.
17 DOCTOR REMICK:
Thank you.
We thank.you for l
l 18 the opportunity.
l 19 CHAIRMAN CARR:
We stand adjourned.
20 (Whereupon, at 3:08 p.m.,
the above-entitled 21 matter was adjourned.)
22 l'
23
[..
24 25 l
NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 J
(202) 234-4433.
.r.
/,o,.
. g..
si 6
j CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER This is to certify that the attached events of a meeting j
of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:
TITLE OF MEETING: PERIODIC GRIEFING BY ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUADS PLACE OI MEE'41NG: ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND DATE OF MEETING:
AUGUST 10, 1989 vere transcribed by me. I further certify that said transcription is accurate and complete, to the best of my ability, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing events.
[
O ist~J f)
- w. - -
g
- ? on tt
~N I.
Reporter's name:
Peter Lynch 1
D
(.
V NEAL R. GROSS COURT RieORTERS AND TRANSCRISER$
1323 RNOOf ISLAND AVINUf. N.W.
-(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 232 6600 s,
r
F ra: < x a;
8/10/89 k
1CgQpt1NG' NOTES.
Title:
P'c
, 3riefing by the Advisory Committee on Reactor'
$9.<vu6rds (ACRS)-
- Scheduled::
2:00 p.m., Thursday, August 10, 1989 (OPEN) i Duration:_
Approx 1-1/2 hrs t
Participants:
&CM 60 mins
(
- Dr. Forrest J. Remick
- James C. Carroll
- Dr. William Kerr i
- David A. Ward
- Charles J-Wylie Other Attendees o
L'
- Harold Lewis f
- Carlyle Michelson I
- Paul Shewmon 1
- Chester Seiss
- Ivan Catton 1o l Speaking
- NRC's Human Factors Program'and' Initiatives (ACRS g
pies:
Report' dated May 9, 1989)
- Generic letter Relating to Occupational Radiation 1
Exposure of Skin from Hot Particles (ACRS Report dated May 9, 1989) 1.
1^
l
- Apriication of Diversity in Systems that Use Redundancy
-to Achieve High Levels of Reliability (ACRS Report dated June 14, 1989) 18
- Proposed Resolution of Generic Issue 128, Electrical Power Reliability (ACRS Report dated June 14, 1989) j
. Boiling Water Reactor Core Power Stability (ACRS Report-dated June 14,1989) (if time permits) t o
. 7-li
',. i!
>