ML20059N639
| ML20059N639 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/11/1990 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| REF-GTECI-A-40, REF-GTECI-SC, TASK-A-40, TASK-OR ACRS-2657, NUDOCS 9010170073 | |
| Download: ML20059N639 (38) | |
Text
_
[
i I
o; y.
' CJp
[
,7
,r' y
G 1
1 1
i C
C2 Cu '
m.
f'OI2 Io/n/#
t TABLE OF CONTENTS j
MINUTES OF THE 351ST ACRS PEETING JULY 13-14, 1989 1
i 1.
C ha i ma n ' s Repo r t ( 0 pe n )...........................................
1 II.
Proposed Resolution of Unresolved Safety Issue (USI) A-40, " Seismic De s i g n C ri te ri a " ( 0 pe n )............................................
1
)
i III.
ContainmentPerformance.Impr9vementProgram(0 pen).................
2_
j t
IV.
Proposed Revision to 10 CFR 50.55a to Incorporate by Reference the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section IWE of.
SectionXI, Division 1(0 pen)......................................
3 l
V.-
Low Upper Shelf Energy Materials in Reactor Vessels (0 pen).........
3
[
l l
VI.
FireRiskScopingStudy(0 pen).....................'................-
5 VII.
Multiple System Responses Program (0 pen)...........................
8 l
VIII. Comanche Peak Nuclear Station, Units l'and 2 (0 pen)................
'10 f
IX.
HumanFactors-Chernobyl" Spin-Off" Study (0 pen)..........'........
10 i
X.
Execu tive Sessions (0 pen / Closed).................................... 18' i'!
A.
Subcomi ttee Reports (C1 osed).................................. - 18 j
i 1.
Ncmi nat i ng Comi ttee.......................................
18 B.
Reports, Letters, and Memoranda (0 pen).........................
18' i
1..
Propcsed Staff Actions Regarding the Fire Risk Scoping l
Study (NUREG/CR-5088)(ReporttoChairmanCarrdated 6
July 18, 1989)..............................................
18 2.
Proposed Resolution of Unresolved Safety Issue A-40, l
"SeismicDesignCriteria"(LettertoChairmanCarrdated.
July 18.
1989).............................................
18 3.
Proposed Power Level Increase for the Indian Point Nuclear 1
Generating Unit-No. 2 (Letter dated July 18, 1989 from l
L' R.F.FraleytoJJoan'Ho1t).................................
.19.
Li 4.
Proposed Amendments to 10 CFR 21 and Section 50.55(e) e (MemorandumdatedJuly'18,1989 to Thomas M. Novak'from R.:F.Fra1ey)..............................................
10.
5.
Proposed Revision to 10 CFR 50.55a to Incorporate by:
Reference the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section IWE of Section XI Division I (Letter to V.~ Stello-l from R. F. Fraley dated July 18,1989).....................
19 S' pa 9010170073 901011
~
DESIGNATED ORIGINAL-t i:
'h
~
2657 PDC
'O Certified'BT w-
?
.e r
- ~ -
-.,w.
..m,.
...4
n' 44 11 i
". Letter to V. Stello from F. J. Remick, dated July 19, 1989 6
l
- Regarding the Comittee's request to investigate concerns expressed by Mr. J. R. Sutton....................
19 l
C.
Other Concl usions RPS (0 pen)..................................
19 1.
Comittee Scheduling for Retreat and for Tutorial on Probabilistic Risk Assessment.............................
19 2.
Topics Scheduled for Discussion with NRC Comissioners-on August 10.
1989........................................
20 3.
ACRS Review Regarding Proposed Power Increases............
20' 4..
ACRS Bylaws Regarding Conflict of Interest................ 20 5.
Systems Interactions Studies - Request for ACRS Fellow to Sumarize Results of and Actions Subsequent to Indian Point Systems Interactions Studies..............................
21 6.
Briefing on NRC Staff Review of Comanche Peak Units 1 and 2 Operating License Application; Assignment to Mechanical Components Subcomittee Regarding Problems of Check-Yalve Malfunctions at Comanche Peak.............................
21 7.
Scheduling of NUMARC Briefing to ACRS.....................
21 8.
ACRS Sponsorship of Mr. D. Ward's Symposium Attendance.... 21 l.
D.
FutureActivities(0 pen)......................................
21 l
1.
Future Agenda.............................................
21 2.
Futu re Subcomi ttee Acti vi ti es.............~............... 21 Supplement 0FFICIAL USE ONLY IX. A.1,. Nominating Comittee seAhc/ Fe/M EX(bdf M
~
---,r-,-.,...,
o..
+.-e
- + - - -
-A
<. cy
_ (g i
j i
l 111
'i APPENDICES 351ST ACRS MEETING MINUTES i
JULY-13-14, 1989 l
i t
I.
Attendees II.
-Future Agenda I
III. Future Subcommittee '4ctivities l
IV.
Other Documents Received l
i
+
I t
t r
r
[.
i e
t i
i t
4
?
.s
/
287 Federal ewgister /,Vr.l. H. Na.1231 Friday. luly 7,1 o
f, z.
Adyteery Committee en Reacter -
1013 a.m-12 f$paa Comanche Peek
.,p In view of the possibility that the
- /yg Satogueres; Revised beseting Agende NuclearSsot/on. Un/ss J onds e.
n - ochedule for ACR$ meetings esey be ' -
i3 g
in accordance with the.... purposes of briefing by the NRC staff regarding to faciutale h conduct of the meeting, (Open)--N Committee wul bear e -
edjusted by the Chairman as necessary
.p g
6ections 30 and tub.of the Atomic
~.s Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2030. 2232b), the proposed luuance of an opweting persone planni to sitend should check license for thle facility.. :~-
with the ACRS ecutive Director if g
Adyteory Committu on Ructor 1:23 p.m.4:13 JHuman Pocton such reachedulin
. Inconwalence. g would result in mejor Safeguards wiu hold a enting on July (O aHA end disouplan. -
h.4 7 13-18,1980 in Room P-110. 7930 Norfolk beheld b Chernobyl 2 1 hain dakrailnad in'sIcc6td$cis'*wid
- *.'-- "' P "
Avenue.Bethesda, MD.)lotice of this g,,
m.,
topw
,w,mmd subesetion'10( Pub.I.skett t Jile "
unjia
!' ;18 % 1~(s M e$
apy
- Aa
^
mee I..MrWirett66tm. 4 ? pses^^
/R
" TdleenePAGRS's i
topletaseendered duk@ des.? nformeties4gtoiseseat whieltlevis D
' '!hersider.lul*yth,'1MHag pltE%
meenas..-Jr v.a 'e "..". "pec wpmeent a clearly unwarranted....". i i
h, yuasNorfolk Avenue.Botbeeds.MD e a t
laveolon of personal pr(vpey(5 U meng. CAf. as necesec.of tide seeston will be clowd ' 652b Portions y.
& # om.4 W o.m>Com..
A otion y to discwe Proprietary "
' applicable to the matters being ', t :
8
[
[p"g-g
.g 'n.: -. laformanon regarding thts matteri
- discussed (8 U.S.C. 352b(c)p( og
- top
.a. T.*.'
'f
,,,,,,, g,grug,.
. - 4:2pm.-82pn:Nominboodhf~ACA$-
Furth r,informatio e
t d
Adso.a-fat 15omJl/SIA.WSe/sm/c..
Afember(Open/ Closed)b status anc-1 to be discussed, wb N
g2ndet 1
Design Criterio(Open)- the
" -t Committu ytU discuss e1 hatWenceM or m ed M
,}.,
6 Committee willreview and con meat: J qualifications of' candidates TJ esta Chairman's ruling on mlunts fw the, f,,
ACRS.,,..,,ppointaunt k b
- a opportunity to'present oral siete nominakd for a if on proposed twolution of USI A-40J
[k,i Setemic Design Criterie (Short Term, '
Portione of this session wiki$e, c...icesed and the ' time allotted can be obtained by.
l
,a, Items). u.
q e prepaid telipbone calflo,thg ACRS l
- '. ^
Jdt# am.-f112 a.in.r Conio/nmenf -
Execudw Disctw.hymd release of which would.laformation the o as necoseary to discues Praley (telephone 901/498 4049). F.,,
h ArtformancelagprovementPrograni represent a 4
(Open)-A briefing willbe presented clearly unwarranted invaeload between 8:15 am. and 8:00 p.m.
l regarding the statue of this
' Personal v'., e v.
Dew.lume a tem 4
"O34O,"seMc"*olu.W privacy.1.. '.3.,;
i t...grg,,i=, '
=,2-g re2"ee'5:<;;l oyes,.
d.r m.. t -.-,
T.
will disease enticipated ACRE:t'18.. t
.J subcommittes activities saditame ". AJoe.m-12mM.,%.
1/oaj ef,,.3..
I" D.ee, e6.-tens..FBe.d.'F.4 de s.its areb' ". i g
- oon, propoCul for considerstick by the inu *i ACRS Aerorte(
/ ;. d e..a' **" '"' "!". *f[rb.w..N.. :t $
r...'
Committaa,
..a. 4 :.u.+.i ;... a Committee prII[
,.g 12p.a4Wpme Aeociar presswo.
ACRS eeports
. v
-...*e-...
m *. :...
Esseella Opsa/Cosed)-A considered 8 ting.' f~ i ' SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE?.A.w..
briefing will be held.
12p.a42Mm.,
' C0611418810,16 c.r.g,w r, ;...
m.
rogarding the stat e of acevities (Opea) *!be Comualttee will complete' IR*hf'I*..88 88'11f., ej. 4.i ru-including roleled afety research'le i
discussion ofitems -7%during ;
i 4,..
I oPerstlag nucleas power'plaat vtincear 1 thle meeting j' ?
Pmcoduru tw b co Nc't Me'd.
- FEngs Undw We Pubec UWty Holding l
pressure vesselow
..4
.. <.c
)
n Portione of thle r seelon will be closed i participation in ACRS meetings were Company Ast o.f 1933 ("Ast".).i.
l Information rega.' ding thle a atter..es necessary to d scuse Proprietary
. ' published in'the Federal Register os Junemsem.'.....og e
l October 27. tees (88 FR la..
Noticele bereby given that the :u 3.mpa.-d.#p nafire Alsk Socph'y
' accordance with these oral following fillag(s) hae/have been made Study (Operf.-The Committee wGl
- or written'etatemente Inay be presenterd ' with the Conuniasion purocant to e.
review ans' repoh regarding b staffe by members of the blic. recordings provisione of the Act and rules a '.
proposov plans to implement the.
. willbe permined during thoes g..J promulgated thereunder. All totesented :. :
tecomrendatione resulting from the '.4 portlene of thb mee when am r..a.e 4.o persone are referred to the t'. m rh.A a
Ptre rak Scoping Stegyn. Nu..
transcript to be andguestions h applicetion(s)and/ordeclareLion(s)for.,
d.WA44 ACA$8u6comm/tts," may be asked gnembers of thew, complate' statements of theproposed J.'.
AetMiles (
)-NCommittee W Committee.Its to, and Stab.4' willdiscuss status of assigned. 9 Persone desiring to make erelh.4.c i transaction (s) eununartsed be ACRS subcomunittee activities :. c.
statemente abould notify.the ACR$;,
' any amendmente thereto le/are # + '
Including nuclear power plant valve Execuuve Director as faria advance as. ' avallable for public inspection through performance and reliability, practicable so that a to. ~.
the Commission's Office of Public considereuen of a proposed newer.
arrangemente' dan be ma to allow the 7 reference. ' i
?
. n b w /-
levellacrease for the Inalan botat "
necessary timeduring Nuclear Power Station.tJnit 3land
.such statementa; Use othe moeune for. J Inieruted persons wishing to $ N.
f still, motion;9 comment or re picture'and televleion' cameras duet " application (s) quest a hearing on the review of ACRS Bylaws /.
r and/or dec!dretion(s)
. Friday July 14. tees, Room P-110,7920 this meeting may be limited to selectoi.'
should submit their views in writing by Norf Avenue,Bethesda MD i (ortione of the meeting as determined July 24.1989 to the Secretary. Securities y b Chairmanclaformation regarding ad Exchange Commloelon. Washir ton.,
&# o.m-1AW o.mr Muhiple Syefem t... the time to be set solde for thle purpose / DC 30640. and serie' atopy'ont th6 /g* u Reeponses Program (Open)-A be obtained by a prepard telephon~e mefto the ACRS Executive Director. Mr.
relennt applicant (s) and/or briefing and discusalon will be hel'd cal regarding the etetus of thle program J Raymond F. Prelry pHor to the ineeting. :' below. Proof of servloe (by(ef Q
n y..,- -. -,...
._.,,q.,
,,-,_p,,,ee,,
e,,,,-,..
,_,%,,,,,m..,,mg,,4
,,.y,,-w,.,-.,.g4-
-+y-,
-,g
,-pe--,i-,y----w.g,-
3-.-._
j;P"
'k
?.
Federal Regl*'er / W1. 34, No,12d /" thursday. June r 190s / Notices 3 /
m SM40
(
adferson Cxwulsed protective onsthing, eM eclume rindins of No Sigal Pe
'g Md"C#8" *I "D*8** *"'*-
N Commluton has determined not
'88 6 p NitC eteff welewed the lleenm's g, set end did not consult other Environmenfalla; pacts of the Proposed to prepare en environmental Lanpact er persons Action etstement for the proposed llernes
, g'
- $"g *p*I' nedlag of Ne "t""-' impact no Commiselon hee sempleted ite
'>j the fo gesed upon b environmental evehation of the g-H rettelons to l
envi nm t I ene e e we conclede F
'ase
- nt, b Commluton concludes the licenees.no proposed misions that the proposed action will not have a 6e pn. posed action wiu not have a would aDow the transfer of by 6ee' product elsnificent effect on the goality of the I
t e8ad on the qsahty of the meterials to FreirleIsland Nuc human environment.
esevauman;. As_"d,the Generating Plant frase other For fwbr deutle wie rupent k ek
)
bee deterstmed met se sites.%e proposed dange swuk action, see the estice ir v v.j.
i tp es enviremmentalemquest la e dose to the pobuc that mm aw de O mober as, M E u -
l t der the proposed a-T===
would be med Ibes W SJonen per further dete11e web scopost to thle tem relereneed in he Flemi * '" ~ * -
which is avaushb for pebbe temposeles d
M b Comehks's Pete Desument estion, ese the liessese's letter FarvtronmentalStatemente(FES)
Room,212 L Street, NW., Washlagoon, g* -
wd April as, tees, his letter le te the transportation of solid DC, eM the T% and Scienne westes. llective doses of thle Department Minnpdie Pubue 1.ibrary, g,
,qevellable for public inspection at the -
g.
Caesniselon's Public Document Room, magnitude are very snitkely to pose a 3ag gg,,gy,g g,g, g;,,,,,,g,,
W' its Celman Buuding. 2120 L Street NW. signiacent impact on the quality of the Minnesote 66401.
, weehington. DC, and at the Reesell human environment.
- y,
- ubrary,123 Broad Street, Middletown, With regard to potential non-yRalMne.Merytend ete ned day ead^ '
rediologioni hnpects, the proposed I
Connecticut 08047, hNU I
'. Deted et RochviBe. Maryland thle med day changeinvolves fecRitieslocated Jlameos A.Tendag, M g,4 of)mes, tees, entirely within the restricted ares es N For the Nuclear Regulatory Commiselos, denood in to CFR Port 2,10 CFR 8131, Act/tv Dlisclar. Mo/sef Directorale N-L F tests, and Regulatory Calde SA!!does not D/vielenofAseewhojeco-M.IV.Ya '
- h5 Obscese. Aupser Dboessme A 4 DrWeise of affect non redialogloelplant %onte W W @NMb*
l the ComE~leelen edclu Dor. D-1 Hor Flied 6 ob. ear. et48 eel h 8" M i
[FR Doc. 51 Hoe Filed Ms es; te6 em) that there are ao algalScent ace-r todiological environmental hapacts h' y loesketnee,es4saandseasei N Nodes of Canaldera6on of
- on,.es esas seen.ew wth heProP e d Advisory Commense en fleester V
88"*""l ""'"8 A8'"'"
,f Ek "3
Northern SIstee Peerer pretrie issuanos of Amendment and la socordance with the purposee of' legendItuateer Generating Unit Opportunity for is --'"
sections 30 edlash.af the Atemde Nee,1 and atEnytronsnentag wim this estionwas la the Energy Act(4e USC, aceA,ISB3bk the Asessement and PtnsAng of fle FederalRegleter on F.1988 (N FR Advisory Committee on Reester b
signelisentimpoet 96MkNo east for heerlag or petities Safeguards wiu hold e seestieg en July forleewe to one was med 18-18 tese la Room P-11a, Feep Modolk D'UA M 08'F fouowlag this notias.
Avenue, Betheeds, Md. Notice of this i
Al#rnot/w do the MepoemdAetlan FM ne dering of to l
h.
Peculty Operating Licanoes Nos. DPR 42 Since the Comumleolon has concluded 7hedayM13, fees AconiNM, t.
and DPR-40,leeued to Northern States there are no signiAcast environmental h
Power Com y(licenseek for effects that would result frees the PRIONorfolk Avenue. Aethesda, Afd p
operstlos the Prairk leland Nuclear proposed action, any alternative with a:30 a.mi. M5 a.mu Comissents by Generating Plant. Unite Nos.1 and 3.
, quel or sisater environmental impact ACASCholimon(Open)--De ACES r,
located in Goodbue County, Mineesota.
need not'be evaluated.
Chelrean wul report en items of corrent
+
Revireemestel A=ama====a De prtndpalalternative would be to interest.
deny to togeested====an==t. His
- 48 a.m.-J2.$0 Noon and bef em. -
y idnufinun of the heposed Action would not reduce enstresumental ADOp.m. AdvancedLight Water t
i 4
De proposed amendments would impoete of operation and would Aeoctors (Open)-he Coaunittee wtB revise the heense by adding the resultin operation Aexibility, hear a report regarding proposed EPR1 regulromonte for advanced LWRs.
provistans suowing the tremeler of A/###"###"'u"'IA"#"#
ADop.m.-3:30p.au USt A-en Selande product meterial to the Pretrie le Nuclear Genereting Plant troen other his action does not tavolve the use of Deeign Criterio (Open) -De Comunittee NSP job ettee, any resources not previountyconeidered will review and onsament on proposed t
he proposed actionis in ecoordanes in the PtnalEevisonnestalinstemente resolution of USI A 40, Setemic Design with the hornsee's application for related to the Pretrie loland Nuclear Criterte.SbartTennProgreta. '
amendment deled October 24, lease Genereting Plant Unit Nos.1 and 2 us-4:45peu Contoinment ment horrom
\\
MformeceImf'8j dated Mey WS, The Needfar the Proposed Action j
ne prope ml changu to the kanom Agencies andPersone Contacud 9
are required in order to make more
& Commisolan's staff reviewed the 4:45-478p.au AsoctorProsewe efficient une of special factities far -
Ucensee's coquest and sud not conosh Fesseltalgrity(Open)- A brienne and diecuwlon willbe held regarding the deconta-amating equipment, cleamies other egencies or perooms.
- 4 e
]
.,,,o m,, %gg%
J i
F.d.ral 59t.r / Vol. 84. Nort2d /, Thursday, June 29, toest/
N: tic.s 27443 -
er written stateinente may in pruented (APCo). Sw ad FR 13962, April s.1980, i
status of rediation damage to operating by members of the public, recordings On June 1. APCo mquwted a hearing on vessels, power plant reactor pressure willbe permitted only during those the Order pursuant to lo CFR 2.306, and nuclear l
MS-et48p.ar hture ACAS ActMiles portions of the meeting when a on June 14, the Chief Administretfve J
(Open)--no Committee will discuss trenscript is belig kept, and questions judge of the Commission's Atomic cnucipated subcommittee activides and may be asked oruy by members of the Safety and ucensing Board Panel Committes,its consultants, and Staff.
appointed this Board to conduct that It:me propowd for ocasideration by the Persons desiring ta make oral hearing.
fuu Committee.
statements should notify the ACRS Pluw take notice that, pursuant to 10 j
i l
Friday, fuly 24, Jasp, Room P.JfA FBIO Executive Director as far in advance as CFR 2.206(e), a hearing in this matter Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Md.
practicable so that appropriate willbe held et a time and place to be CJO a.m-102 a.ar Multiple System arrangements can be inade to allow the deslanated. A prehearing conference S.
l'
[
Assponses prosma(OpenFA briefing necessary time during the meeting for willbe held at 9:00 a.m. Friday, July 21, I
i and discuselon will t.e held regarding such statements. Use of still, motion 19e0, et the Hugo L Black U.S.
the status of this pogram.
picture and television cameras during Courthouse.1729 Sth Avenue North.
JMs a.m.-MSNoont fire Alek this muting may be limited to' selected Birmingham, Alabama,in a courtroom to Scop /ns Ssudy(OpenHDe Committu portions of the meeting as determined be dwignated.-
l '
willreview and report regarding the by the Chairmat. Information regarding itla so Odered 3
staff's proposed plans to im l the time to be set aside for this purpose,. For the Atomic Safety and taceneing Board.
recommendations resulting bement the be obtained by a paspaid telephone e the Fire mabo the ACRS ExecutN Pirector Mr.
John E FryeIR, Risk Scopi Study, ComanchePeak Raymond Y, Fraley, prior to the meeting.
(m Doc.as-tm Filed 6 abes; eel aml ca chairmanAda,inistratinjudge.
J.m p.m.:
r Siotion, Units 2 and2 (OpenH In view of the powibility that the no Committee willhear a briefing by schedde for ACRS meetings may be saAme ones rem e-a s
S the NRC staff regarding proposed adjusted by the Chairman as necessary 4
lesuance of an operating license for thle to facilitate the conduct of the meeting.
- facility, persons planning to attend should check (Dooket lee.I&SSS)
Msp.m-*JKp.au Human rectore -
with the ACRS Executive Directorif Phined.lphie El.etric Co, Umset (OpenHA briefing and discuselon will such reacheduling would result in major 0.norsung Ste#enWnit N t ae.
i be held regarding the Chernobyl" spin-inconvenienos.
is n.e oiF ibir oP.r.iing u i have deia, mined in a co,danoe aiih
. or etdy.
i' NuclearN>wer subsection 20(d) Pub,1. 93463 that it le Notice is bereby given that b U.S.
- JKg 45 Jn.:
he meet 1hs o ed a$ve tN s
Nuclear Regulato Commission (the y
, Yl ling a$ discussion w NI l
reg:rding rollability of check valves in.
information the release of which would I*'I'h
',"h**ggdg t-d l
nuclear power plants.
represent a clearly unwarranted Phndel a EWc hepany(b e
(45p.m-4:18 p.ar ACAS invasion of pereenal privacy (5 U.S.C.
lloonen,M suewism opmtion d Subcommittee Act/r/t/ee-A discussion
$52b(c)(6)).
he Umwick Genereung Stadon,Unn 7.,,n) willbe held regard ng & status of Further information regarding toples by Philadelphia
.s No. 2 (the facility),for fuel loading and essigned subcon,mittee settvitin to be discweed,whether the muti$e Electric Company including consideration o..he power has been cance!!ed or rescheduled.
' procrlucamy tuungin accmdance wie level lacrease required for the Indian Chairman's ruling on requests for the Tge rovisions of the Ucense, b 6
~ Point Nuclear Plant, Unit 1.
opportunity to present oral statements icalSpecifications and the Alsp.n-&J0p.ar Appointment of and the time allotted can be obtained by Environmental Pmtection Plen.
ACAS Members (Open/ Closed)--A a prepaid telephone callto the ACRS We Umstick Generating Station. Unit.-
y discuselon will be held regarding the Executive Director, Mr. Raymond F.
No. 2, is a boiling water nuclear reactor a
quellfications and status of candidates Fraley (telephone 301/492-4049),
located on the licenne's site in s.
proposed for appointment to the ACRS.
between 8:15 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Montgomery and Chester Counties, y
Portions of this session will be closed Detelune Is. tees.
Pennsylvanie on the banks of the y
Schuylkill River approximately 1.7 miles as required to discuss information the v
release of which would represent a Ahisory Coninu use Monogmani Officer.
southeast of the city limits of Pottstown. 3 clearly unwarranted invasion of Im Doc.m-t m N N tessm)
Pennsylvania and 21 miles northwest of i
the city limits of Philadelphia, Y
personal privscy.
anAme caos resse-a 4
Saturday, July 15.19ae. Room P-11a pennsylvania.
'(*
The application for the license 7820 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Md.
go.g.,n.,go.
, go.
complies with the standards and
&JO o.m-umNoontPreparot!on af.
Agg,gp w,go.ges.gg.gypj requirements of the AtomicEnergy Act.'
s "f
ACAS Aaports (Open)-Discuss
. Atomic Safety and Usensing Board; of 1954, as amended (the Act) and the 4 proposed ACRS reports regarding items; -
consided during this meeting.
.:.< Alabama Power Co.;JosephIL Farley Commission's regulations.The J.W p.m-&Jt'p.m Miscellaneous Nuoleer Plant (Urdte 1 and 3)
Commission has made appropriate findinga se required by the Act and the (Open)--%e Committee will complete Jsne ta.1me..
e:JohnRFrye, Chapter 1 which are set forth in the. yty Conunission's regulations in to CFR
'ftn discussion of items considered during Bdore Admtnistratin ju this meetlng.
Hl. Chelnnen. Dr. lem R rpenter. Dr.
Ucense. Prior public notice of the
' i.i 3
1 Procedures for the conduct of and issuance of an operatinglicense was overall action involving the proposed.
W'It R I"d'"'
participation in ACRS meetings were
.J published in the Federal Regleter on ~
On March 28.1980. NRC Staff issued an Orderimposing CivilMonetary published in the Federal Register on
...b Qctober27,1988 (63 FR 43487). In...
accordance with these procedures, oral Penalty on Alabama Power Company August 21,1981 (46 FR 42557-42558). 6 h
k.[i
^
n i
I l
/#..\\
' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
?
UNITED STATE 8 -
Aovisony COMMITTEE ON MEACToM SAFEGUARDS 1
f, e.,
wAsuneoTow. o. c. nosos July 5, 1989 l
l-i l
r SCHEDULE AND OUTLINE FOR DISCUSSION 351ST ACRS MEETING
}
i JULY 13-15, 1989~
BETHESDA, MARYLAND
' l i
Thursday. July 13;1989.RoomP-110l7920 Norfolk Avenue Bethesda, Md.-
[
8:45 A.M.
Chairman'sRemarks(0 pen)-
i 1) 8:30 1.1).Openingremarks.(FJR/GRQ),
1 1.2).Itemsofcurrentinterest(FJR/RFF) 2)
8:45 - 10:15 A.M.
USIA-40.SasmicDesignCriteria(0 pen) l' 2.1) Report of subcommittee chairman.
(CPS /EGI)
{
2.2) Meeting with NRC staff representatives,-
as appropriate j
10:30 A.M.
BREAK l
10:15
- 3) 10:30 11:30 A.M.
Containment Performance Improvement Pr00 ram (0 pen) 3.1; comments by ACRS subcomittee chair-man (DAW /MDH) l 3.2) Briefing by NRC Staff regarding the status of this program
12:00 Noon Future ACRS' Activities'(0 pen) 4).11:30 4.1) Discuss anticipated subcomittee activity (GRQ/RFF) 4.2)
Items proposed for consideration by the full comittee-(FJR/RFF) 1:00 P.M.
~ LUNCH 12:00 2:45 P.M.
Reactor Pressure Vessel Integrity-5) 1:00 0 pen / Closed)
?
(
5.1) Coments by ACRS subcomittee chairman (PGS/EGI)l 5.2) Report by representatives of NRC staff (Note:
Portions of this session will be.
closed as-necessary to discuss Proprietary.
Information regarding this matter.)'
2:45 3:00 P.M.
BREAK i
. s s.,,
.w...
....n..
,,a.,
n.,.,.,
..n s.
n.
...n-..
o=
351st ACRS Meeting Agenda 6)-
3:00 4:45 P.M.
Fire Risk Scoping Study (0 pen) 6.1) Report of ACR5 subconsnittee chairman (CM/SD) 6.2) Meeting with NRC staff representatives, as appropriate 7) 4:45 6:15 P.M.
ACRS Subcomittee Activities (0 pen) 7.1) 4:45-5:15: Mechanical components -
nuclear power plant valve performance /
reliability (subcomittee meeting-on
- June 21,1989) (CM/EGI) 7.27 '5:15-5:35:
Indian Point, Unit 2 Proposedpowerlevelincrease(HWL/HA).
7.3) 5:35-6:15: ACR$ Bylaws. Appendix K -
Information regarding conflict of-interest (CM/RPS)
Friday. July 14. 1989. Room 5-110.-7920 Norfolk Avenue. Bethesda. Md.
8) 8:30 10:00 A.M.
MultipleSystemResponsesProgram(0 pen) 8.1) coments by ACR5 subcomittee chair-man (CPS /SD) 8.2) Briefing by NRC staff representatives 10:00 10:15 A.M.
BREAK
- 9) 10:15' - 12:15 P.M.
Comanche Peak Nuclear Station. Units 1 and 2 (0 pen) 9.1) Coments by ACRS subconsnittee chairman-(JCC/HA)-
9.2) Briefing by NRC Staff representatives 12:15 1:15 P.M.
LUNCH
- 10) 1:15 2:15 P.M.
Human Factors - Chernobyl " spin-off" study (0 pen 10.1)) Consnents by ACRS subcomittee chairman (FJR/HA) 10.2) Briefing by NRC Staff representatives 2:15 2:30 P.M.
BREAK
- 11) 2:30 4:30 P.M.
PreparationofACRSReports(0 pen) 11.1) Discuss proposed ACRS reports to NRC regarding:
11.1-1)
USIA-40,(SeismicDesign Criteria CPS /EGI) 11.1-2) Multiple System Responses Program (CPS /SD)- (tentative.
- )
ifavailable) q j
s
o 351st'ACRS Meeting Agenda 12) 4:30 -
5:00 P.M NominationofACRSMembers(0 pen / Closed) 12.1) Discuss qualifications of candidates proposed for nomination for appointment to the Connittee (CM/MFL)
(Note:
Portions'of this session will be 4
closed, as required, to discuss information i !q,_,d *pp. %, J, ' d P i the release of which would represent a r '. i ge,. Jh '-
clearly unwarranted invasion of personal i
c privacy.)
I,. l - <
Saturday;~JU1F'15~1989RoomP-110,7926 Norfolk' Avenue, Bethesda, Md.--
~
- 13) 8:30 -
12:00 Noon Preparation of ACR$ Reports to IE1) pen / Closed) Discuss proposed reports to.NRC NRC (0 regarding:-
13.1-1)_ USI A-40,(Seismic Design Criteria' CPS /EGI) 13.1-2)_MultipleSystemResponses Program (CPS /SD) 13.1-3) Discuss additional reports, as appropriate (Note: Portions of this session will be-closed as necessary to discuss Proprietary.
i Information regarding this matter.)-
l
'l
-l l
i
.s.
=s.
h
[
y&
3 'l;%
MINUTES OF THE 351ST ACRS MEETING j
JULY 13-14, 1989 l
The 351st w.eeting of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safecuards was held at I
7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland, July 13-14, 1989. The purpose of-1 this meeting was to conduct the discussions and to perfom the actions de-l scribed in the attached agenda. The meeting was chaired by Dr. Remick.
t i
All of the discussions were held in open session except for.a short session
.j l?
during.which the Committee discussed the qualifications of candidates proposed l
for consideration.as ACRS members. A transcript of selected portions of.the i
i meeting was Tept and is available in the NRC Public Document Room.
[ Copies of j
l the transcript are available for purchase from.the Heritage Reporting Corpo-l ration, 1220 L St., N.W., Washington, D.C.
20006.]
l r
I.
Chairman'sReport(0 pen) l
[ Note: Mr. R. F. Fraley was'the Designated Federal Official for this portion I
ofthemeeting.]
i Dr. Remick began the meeting with.a.brief sumary of the planned agenda and
.i the provisions under which the meeting. discussions were to be conducted.
He noted that Chairman Zech had retired and that Commissioner Carr had been appointed as Chaiman.
In' addition, he noted that Mr. Rathbun and Mr. Arlotto had been selected for new positions on the NRC staff and,that Mr. Stello had been nominated for a DOE position.-
II. Proposed Resolution of Unresolved Safety Issue ~(USI)'A-40, " Seismic Design criteria" (open) l
[ Note: Mr. E. G. Igne was the Designated Federel Official for this-portion'of themeeting.]
j c
Mr. S. Shaukat, RES, briefly discussed the proposed' resolution _ of Unresolved Safety Issue (USI) A-40, " Seismic Design Criteria." The proposed resolution consists of changes to Sections 2.5.2, 3.7.1, 3.7.2 and 3.7.3~of the NRC's StandardReviewPlan(SRP). Some of these changes are clarifications of staff practices, and others are required to have the-SRP conform to current staff -
[
practices as they have evolved over the 12 years required to achieve formal
- resolution of this issue. All of the more substantive changes relate to,
methods of analysis and are usually to make them more realistic, more ratio-nal e or simpler.' The NRC staff regulatory analyses demonstrates that the i
proposed changes would have no significant effect on safety'and, thus.ino backfits are being required for these items except the method of analysis specified for above-grcund steel tanks. NRR staff reviews in connection with:
i the implementation of the resolution of USI A-46, " Seismic Qualification of
-Equipment in Operating Nuclear Power Plants," have identified four plants (six' units) for'which the tank design may be unconservative by a factor of,2 to 2.S.
The NRC staff proposes to deal:with these concerns in the implementation l
of the resolution of USI A-46.
l k
l
I l
l 1351ST ACRS MEETING MINUTES 2-l r
l A Comittee letter was written on this subject. This letter is discussed in Section X.
i III. Containment Performance Improvement Pronram (0 pen) l
[ Note: Mr. D. Houston was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of themeeting.]
Fr. Ward, Chairman of the Containment Systems Subcommittee, stated that one of-i the elements of the staff's integration plan for closure of severe accident issues (SECY-88-147) was containmerit perfomance improvements (CPI).
He briefly.sumari:ed the Comittee's activities during the review of NRC staff's proposed BWR Mark I-improvements and noted that a_ draft document on the NRC staff's proposed BWR Mark II improvements.had just been received. He stated j
that this meeting was to be a briefing by.the staff on the state of the l
overall CPI program, i
Mr. W. Beckner, RES, presented the background and overview of the CPI program.
He noted the ACRS review and comments in regard to the BWR Mark I. containments and' indicated that'the Comission had approved the Mark I improvements consis-tent with the Comittee's recomendations. The Comission instructed the.
staff to. approve hardened vents and associated operating. programs, to acceler-i ate their effort in reviewing station blackout: rule implementation, and to include the other recommendations as'part of the individual plant examinations t
(IPE). He-indicated that a staff paper was being prepared to address ~the improvements for other BWR and PWR. containment types and that the paper would l
be available in late July or August. This document.is intended to serve es i
the basis for discussion at a public. workshop which is tentatively scheduled for September 28-29, 1989 in Bethesda, Md.
Dr. Kerr asked if the Comission guidance on hardened vents for Mark I plants meant that the vents would be approved with or.without a review by the staff.
Mr. Beckner replied that the licensees could do this by a 10 CFR 50.59 review.
Mr. Ward questioned whether, under 10 CFR 50.59, a licensee could conclude that there were no unreviewed safety concerns.1 Mr ' Carroll indicated that they probably could-so conclude since they)already have venting procedures in their emergency operating procedures (EOPs. Mr. Beckner indicated that
[?
venting was for the most part a process for preventing core melt.- He also indicated that reassignment of staff resources to review and backfit hardened' vents on Mark I plants would detract from and delay the rest of the CPI
)
- program, t
Dr. Kerr asked if the staff had developed some goals or criteria to be applied
)
to determine.if an' improvement in containment performance was;needed.- Mr.
Beckner indicated that they were not developing containment performance:
i criteria and would-judge the need for a specific improvement on a cost-benefit J
~
basis.
Dr. Siess questioned the justification of modifications on strictly a cost-benefit basis. Mr.-Beckner indicated that the backfit rule also required that the modification must also be a significant safety. improvement.
H
[
i 351ST ACRS MEETING MINUTES l Dr. Siess asked if there was some value of core melt frequency below which the staff would not pursue improvements or even require a containment. Mr.
i Beckner indicated that this was being discussed, but that no staff decision has been made. He further stated that, in regard to a requirement for con-l tainment,- the agency had no written view or position on the matter.. Mr. Ward indicated that there was such a requirement in the general design criteria (GDC).' Further discussion indicated some confusion as to whether containment t
4 was required or not. Copies of GDC 16 were distributed in which it is stated
~j that a reactor containment and associated systems shall be provided for LWRs of a design similar to what is currently licensed by the NRC.
Mr. Beckner briefly discussed some of-the containment challenges identified for BWR Mark II and III and PWR ice condenser and large dry containments.
Fcr 1
PWRs, he indicated that direct containment heating (DCH) is becoming less of a.
concern since analyses show that depressurization of the primary system will occur due to surge line or steam generator tube failure prior to core melt and l
vessel failure.
For hydrogen control'in BWR Mark III and PWR ice condenser j
containments, the staff plans to recommend backup power supplies for the.
j igniters. Mr. Carroll asked if there was any current effort to develop passive catalytic igniters.- Mr. Beckner indicated that he did not know of any such effort.
Mr. Beckner briefly discussed the coordination of containment improvements j
with other associated RES activities. Most of the associated activities were' i
in the areas of accident management, generic issue resolution, or the IPE.
{
IV. Proposed Revision to 10 CFR 50.55a to Incorporate by Reference the ASME o
Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section-IWE of Section XI. Division 1 (0 pen).
l l
t l
[ Note: Mr. E. G. Igne was the. Designated Federal Official' for this portion of j
themeeting.]
The Committee decided it had no objection to the NRC staff's proposal to issue the proposed revision to 10 CFR 50.55a (which incorporates'the subject ASME Code) for public coment. The Comittee has not yet decided if it wishes.to review this matter.
If it decides to do so, the review will~ be made af ter the L
public coments have been received and evaluated. The Committee decided to l'
write a letter on this subject. The letter is discussed in Section X.
D; i
V.
LowUpperShelfEnergyMaterialsinReactorVessels(0 pen) u
[ Note: Mr. E. G. Igne was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.J Dr. Shewmon, Chairman of the Materials and Metallurgy Subcomittee, discussed' the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, which state that the RPV belt line l
materials must' have a Charpy upper shelf energy of. no less than 50 ft-lb' unless it is demonstrated, in a manner approved by the NRC, that lower values-of upper-shelf energy will provide margins of safety against fracture equiva--
i L
lent to those required by Appendix G of the ASME Code.
Further, the' j
l l
l
~
.s-l l
l 351ST ACRS MEETING MINUTES ;
i l
requirements state that 1) a 100% volumetric examination of the belt line materials be perfonned. 2) additional fracture toughness data will be acquired j
for belt line materials after exposure to neutron irradiation, and 3) j conservative analysis must show equivalent margins of safety.
There is a group of about 17 PWRs with vessels manufactured by B&W which have i
the potential for exceeding the 50 ft-lb limit. This stems from the fact that i
welding was performed using copper-coated weld wire and Linde 80 flux. The
'NRC staff stated that five reactor pressure vessels may have been below the 50 ft-lb limit since 1986. The potential for exceeding this limit was o
i discussed 15 to 20 years ago in GSI,A-11. This issue was declared resolved in:
1982, based on the the argument that a 1/4. thickness flaw (of the vessel) 1 would be stable at the design pressure and still have a margin of safety l
(NUREG-0744)..The resolution, however, did not adequately define what t
constituted an acceptable demonstration for NRR. The need for en acceptance l
criteria was referred to the Working Group on Flaw Evaluation of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI in 1983; Proposals for acceptance criteria have been developed and tentative acceptance criteria are under review by the NRC.
-t Mr. M. Mayfield, RES, discussed the low upper shelf vessel research program.
1 The program consists of 1) irradiation damage testing of materials in order to determine KIC, KIR, and J-R curves, 2) analysis to obtain J vs. pressure with-thermal gradient using elastic-plastic fracture mechanics methods for both-axial and circumferential cracks, 3) material properties testing to determine Cy vs. J-R correlation, and J-R curve analysis in order to validate limits
(
including extrapolation, and 4) performing large-scale validation experiments-using Pressurized Thermal Shock Experiment-2 and _4 and. wide plate tests.
This research program is aimed to fully validate procedures for low upper 1
shelf analysis.
Mr. N. Randall, RES/NRR, discussed the development of. the acceptance criteria.
I He stated that the tentative acceptance criteria established by Section XI were not satisfactory. He discussed an alternative criteria that assumes 1/4 thickness flaw, a thennal stress based on maximum cooldown rate limits estab-lished by the Technical Specifications -initiation criteria at a crack growth l
of a tenth of an inch and on internal pressure of 3125 psi (instead of the-5500 psi specified in the previous criteria). This 3125 psi internal pressure is based on 110% of the design pressure instead of the factor of 200% used to arrive at the 5500 psi value. He further stated that the 3125 psi value is the largest pressure expected for level A and B loading..This value is related to the setting of the relief valves which are normally set at 2500 psi. Using these assumptions in the alternative acceptance criteria, adequate margin was shown for currently operating vessels.
l Mr. B. Elliott, NRR, discussed the implementation of the regulatory require-
,i ments of Appendix G.
He stated that low Charpy upper shelf energy plants were identified in a letter from R. Starostecki to T. Murley, dated September 24, 115989.. These plants were Turkey Point 3 and 4 Point Beach 1 and 2, and i
Ginna. A method delineated in NUREG-0744 was provided to the industry for
-)
t o.
s.,___
m
-.,.~.m.
i,
, _~_
j
.o.
f 351ST ACRS MEETING MINUTES l l
l evaluating low Charpy upper shelf energy welds.
Supplementary volumetric i
examinationrequirements(RegulatoryGuide1.150)forbeltlineweldswere provided and the affected plants were subjected to 100% examinations.
Supplementary fracture toughness-data was initially obtained from the' HSST program. Additional test data will be obtained from the Midland vessel..The test method' review has been submitted to the NRC staff and the BWOG method was approved.
Flux reduction programs have been instituted for all affected plants. Licensee analyses indicate that affected plants can meet safety margins for 40 EFPY; NRC staff agrees with conclusions but reouests additional information.
{
i Dr. Shewmon: in closing, stated that the program is proceeding satisfactorily'
-l and at this time he would not recommend 4 that ACRS report on this matter.
VI.
Fire Risk Scoping Study (0 pen)
~
[ Note: Mr. S. Duraiswamy was the Designated Federal Official for this portion ofthemeeting.]
i Mr. Michelson. Chairman of the Auxiliary and Secondary Systems Subcomittee, stated that the ACRS Subcomittee.on Auxiliary and Secondary Systems held a meeting on July 12, 1989 to discuss the staff's proposed actions for dealing-with the recommendations resulting from the Fire Risk Scoping Study that was
- performed by the Sandia National Laboratories (SNL). The staff's actions are delineated in SECY-89-170, " Fire Risk Scoping Study: Sumary of Results and Proposed Staff Actions," dated June 7, 1989.-
Mr. Michelson stated that the staff has concluded that there is no fire protection research necessary at this time.
However, the need for additional research in the fire protection area will be reconsidered following the-definition of the fire-related parts of the Individual Plant Examination for-External Events (IPEEE), the peer review of the NUREG-1150 fire risk analyses, l
and future discussions with the ACRS.
Mr. Michelson said that the Subcomittle discussed this matter.with representatives of RES, NRR, and SNL. The Subcomittee suggested that NRR provide a briefing to the full. Committee regarding the bases for'its decision that there was no user office need for additional' fire protection research..
He mentioned that, subsequent to the NRR presentation, a draft ACRS report s
i that includes comments and recomendations of the Subcommittee.on the adequacy of the proposed staff actions will be submitted to the full Comittee for' l
consideration and approval.
Presentation by NRR - Mr. C. McCracken Mr. McCracken, Chairman of the Fire Subcomittee asscciated with the External Events Steering Group, discussed the activities of the Fire Subcomittee for dealing with fire-related issues. He stated that, based on the inspection.
performed to determine the adequacy of implementation of Appendix R require-
+
ments, they found that at some plants the implementation was inadequate.
l q.
...__.,..-.m
._, - -. - ~,
-..-m
~. -,.
i f
351ST ACRS MEETING MINUTES '!
1^
l Those plants will be required to make necessary modifications to comply with the Appendix R requirements.
Mr. McCracken stated that in accordance with the provisions of the Severe Accident Policy Statement, they plan to perform a limited scope analysis to discover particular fire vulnerabilities. Any plant-specific vulnerabilities identified through this process will S addressed through the backfit process.
Mr. McCracken stated that the resulta of the fire PRAs performed so far-j indicate that fire can be a significant contributor.to core melt. Also, the y
Fire Risk Scoping Study performed.by SNL indicated the potential for plant-specific fire vulnerabilitiss in several important areas. Consequently, the Fire Subcommittee decided that existing. regulations are not adequate to.
address the fire vulnerabilities. Therefore, it recomends that each operat-ing plant should be evaluated to determine plant-specific vulnerabilities to 1
internal fires. He. stated that a Level 1 PRA is an acceptable methodology for l
use in the evaluation of fire vulnerabilities. ~ Although other methodologies -
may be acceptable, they may need further development.
Dr. Shewmon requested a copy of one of the existing fire PRAs. Mr. John'Chen.
l RES, agreed to provide a copy.
Mr. Ward asked why the staff chose Level'1 PRA as an acceptable methodology.
Mr. McCracken stated that, based on the evaluation of several Level.1 PRAs. -
t the staff has concluded that it is an adequate methodology. to identify fire i
vulnerabilities.
Mr. Ward asked whether the staff has reviewed Level 2 and'3 PRAs to determine whether fire may be a threat to containment performance capabilities. Mr.
McCracken stated none of the PRAS that they have reviewed indicate that fire may affect the containment capabilities.
However, the PRAs indicate _that fire could be e significant contributor to core melt.
In res >onse to a question from Dr. Catton about penetration seals Mr.
McCrac(en stated that those containment penetration seals that serve as' fire barriers are designed to survive fire.
Dr. Siess stated that tests performed to determine the: integrity of BWR Mark I penetration seals under severe accident conditions showed that the inner seals of the penetrations experienced a temperature rise of several hundred degrees Fahrenheit, while the outer seals did not see a temperature above ambient. He:
is not sure whether the penetrations have been tested to determine their capability to withstand actual fire and for how long.
Mr. McCracken stated that Generic Letter 88-20 related to the. Individual-Plant i
Examination (IPE) program permits the use of a-fire PRA, enhanced IDCOR methodology, or other systematic methods acceptable to the staff to address-fire vulnerabilities.
I
^
.. ~ -.- - -. - -.. - - - -,
]
351ST ACRS MEETING MINUTES.
1 M. McCracken stated that, based on:the lessons: learned from the operating experience'and from the Appendix R reviews, they have eliminated the 20-ft.
i separation criterion for Advanced Light Water Reactors (ALWRs).
For ALWRs, they require that plants must be capable of safe shutdown assuming total loss of any one fire area and no cperator re-entry.
t r
Mr..McCracken discussed briefly the planned actions for identific& tion of fire
'f vulnerabilities Plants should be evaluated to,1dentify plant-specific fire vulnerabil-ities.
The staff is working with NUMARC/EPRI.to develop an acceptable methodolo-gy for use on two test plants by September 1990 to 1dentify fire vul-j nerabilities.
Significant issues raised by the Fire Risk Scoping Study..such as seis-mic/ fire interactions, manual fire = fighting effectiveness, control-systems interactions, and. fire barrier qualifications, will. be included in the methodology.
Hr. McCracken stated that, as a result of the ongoing and planned activities associated with fire, the staff has recommended to the Commission that no fire protection research is needed at this time; The need for additional research will be reconsidered following'the definition of the fire-related parts of the IPEEE program, peer review of NUREG-1150 fire analyses, and further discus-sions with the ACRS.
Mr. Michelson asked whether they plan to prepare new regulations for. dealing 3
with the fire issues at ALWRs. Mr. McCracken stated he does not know.
Dr. Catton asked how they plan to establish critical' temperatures for.partico-lar equipment. Mr. McCracken stated that they are going to use the available data base and engineering judgment to establish such temperatures.,
Mr. Michelson asked how they characterize the temperature distribution:in a
[
t room during fire suppression activities. Mr.-McCracken stated that he be-11 eves that it would be assumed that the temperature would remain constant at the start of fire suppression activities and.would not start decreasing until
[
the fire is suppressed completely.
With regard to a statement by Mr. McCracken that 'the effects of fire sup-i pression activities on equipment essential for safe shutdown would be ad--
dressed as part of. the resolution of Generic Issue 57, Mr. Michelson commented that since Generic Issue 57 is not going to be resolved for another two: years
(
he is not sure how it is going to help the industry at this' time. He would, feel more-comfortable if Generic Issue 57 is resolved sooner -
After further discussion, the Committee discussed the proposed-ACRS report on the adequacy of the actions proposed by the staff for dealing with_ the.
i L
I l
4
r-n u
351ST ACRS MEETING MINUTES. recomendations resulting from the Fire Risk Scoping Study. The Committee suggested that Mr. Michelson prepare another draft, incorporating the comments provided by various members, and submit it for reconsideration. The Committee reconsidered a revised draft during the Friday session and approved it for.
transmittal to the Comission. The Committee's report is discussed in Section-X.
VII. Multiple System Responses Program (0 pen)
[ Note: Mr. S. Duraiswamy was the Designated Federal Official for this portion ofthemeeting.)
Dr. Siess, Chairman of the Generic. Items' Subcomittee.. stated that the ACRS ~
Subcommittee on Generic Items held a meeting en July 12, 1989 to discuss the scope and tasks associated with. the Multiple Sptem Responses Program (MSRP).
The MSRP was developed by the Oak Ridge Nation; Noratory (ORNL)'under a contract with the Office of Nuclear Regulatory n ch.
Dr. Siess stated that the primary purpose of the
- P is'to gather information on the concerns expressed by individual organizations, most notably the-ACRS, regarding-the adequacy of the resolution of_several Unresolved Safety Issues (USIs) and some other NRC programs in addressing some potentially significant safety issues. These concerns. stemmed primarily from the limitations.in scope imposed by the staff during the resolution of these issues. 'The scope of.the MSRP includes the following USIs:
USI A-17, Systems Interactions in Nuclear Power Plants USI A-46 Seismic Qualification of Equipment in Operating Plants USI A-47, Safety Implications of Control-Systems in Nuclear Power Plants.
In addition, several other previously resolved NRC programs have been con-a sidered in the MSRP:
Environmental Qualification of Equipment Seismic Oualification Fire Protection.
l Dr. Siess stated that the main objective of the MSRP is to examine the issues-of interest, define and document the. issues-as specifically as possible, and to. gather other related information for use by the N.RC staff in prioritizing j
these issues. The MSRP does not include judgments regarding the validity of
.the concerns.
In the process of gathering the-concerns, ORNL had held discus-
'siens with the staff, reviewed ACRS reports, transcripts ~of the ACRS Subcom-mittee and full Comittee meeting minutes, and licensee event. reports., Also.,
they sought the opinion's of several fire protection experts. However, they.
j did not interview personnel with extensive operating experience to obtain information on potential (undocumented) safety issues for. inclusion in the MSRP.
s
)
]:
y..-
A.
a
L u
- e i
351ST ACRS MEETING MINUTES
-9 l
1
)
Dr. Siess stated that, based on the evaluation of 31 concerns, MSRP has.
I identified 21 potential generic issues for prioritization by the staff; ten of s
these 21 issues are expected to be subsumed by the existing programs. The staff expects to prioritize these issues in about a year.
i Dr. Siess stated that the MSRP is not going to be a cor.tinuing effort.~ Once the final' report on the MSRP is' issued, the program will be considered closed.
Then it is up to the staff to start prioritizing the issues identified in the 1
MSRP report..
~
Dr. Siess said that, based on the.ipformation gathered at the July 12, 1989 i
Subcomittee meeting, the Subcommittee felt that, although all of the concerns expressed by the ACRS may not have been considered in the MSRP. they have done a good job in gathering various concerns and putting them into a set of generic issues.
Also, the Subcomittee felt that systems interactions will continue to occur-and that the industry should continue to watch for such interactions and take
{
the proper course of action. The Subcommittee was concerned that there does not seem to be any strong-industry interest in dealing with,the systems 1
interactions problems.. - The-industry may be aware of.the significance of the systems interactions problems, but it is not clear whether it is placing adequate emphasis in dealing with this matter. Tha industry and the staff should understand the root cause and the generic significance'of: systems interactions occurring in one plant and pass that information to other plant licensees, i
Dr. Siess stated that he does not believe that the systems interactions problem can be resolved by regulations.
Recognizing a systems interaction event at a specific plant and communicating the generic significance of:that L
L event to other plants are important in dealing with the systems interactions =
problems.
L t
Dr. Kerr stated he is not sure whether the staff members, who are dealing with the systems interactions issue, are aware that awareness. and comunication are.
+
important things in dealing with this. problem.;
Dr. Siess stated that the ACRS may need to talk to the staff more about these issues and should try to motivate the industry to get involved more in dealing =
with this problem.
Stating that Mr. J. Colvin from NUMARC-is scheduled to brief the ACRS on i
NUMARC activities during the August meeting, Mr. Carroll suggested that the ACRS request Mr. Colvin to address also the-initiatives being taken by.the industry in dealing with the systems interactions problems. The Comittee agreed to this' suggestion.
Dr. Shewmon asked whether.all the. utilities perform a walkdown'on their plants to look for systems interactions.
Dr. Siess stated that, to his knowledge, they do not perform such walkdowns. He mentioned that, in response to a
+
-w.,o,-,,,
....,-n-m.,
,-.,-,--,d...
.-..,-~m
.,.,. ~,, -.,
~
-r-
- -.e o
m, j
i 351ST ACRS MEETING MINUTES i i
request from the ACRS, the Indian Point personnel performed I, systems inter-i actions study for that plant. Mr. Wylie stated that wornelly utilities look l
at all significant events and analyze their plants ~ to ensure that they are not
.j vulnerable to such events and do not make a conscientious effort to perform a plant walkdown to look for potential systems interactions.-
i After further discussion, Dr. Siess recommended the following to the full Comittee:
Since there is no action proposed by the staff at this time, there is no' l
need for the ACRS to write a. report to-the Commission on this matter.
I After the staff has assigned priority rankings to those issues identified in the MSRP report, the cognizant subcomittee chairmen should review the-appropriateness of the proposed priority rankings and provide comments to the full Committee for consideration.
l t
The Committee did not raise any objection to the recommendation made by Dr.
f
- Siess,
+
g VIII. ComanchePeakNuclearStationUnits-1and2(0 pen)
[ Note: Mr. H. Alderman was the Designated Federal Officia1L for this portion ofthemeeting.)
i Mr. Carroll, Chairman, Comanche Peak Nuclur. Station Units 1 and 2 Subcommit-tee, stated that the ACRS had reviewed the g erating license application for i
Comanche Peak and had written a letter on Noveder 12, 1981 stating that Units i
1 and 2 could be operated at power-levels up to. 304 MWt A number of quality assurance (QA) problems have been identified since the~ writing of the ACRS'
.t report. There has been an extensive regulatory review and a number of correc-i tive actions taken. The licensee is expecting an operating license.in October of 1989. The ACRS has requested a briefing on the status of this work-from the NRC staff and the applicant.
I Mr. C. Grimes, of the NRC staff Director of Comanche Peak Project Division, I
made the opening presentation. Mr. Grimes introduced the following members of his staff: Mr. P. McKee, Deputy Director of the Comanche Peak Project Divi-sion, Mr. T. Wilson, Assistant Director for. Projects, Mr.- A Lyons, Assistant Director for Technical-Programs, and Mr. R. Warnick, Assistant Director for-Inspection Programs.
Mr. Grimes noted that subsequent to the ACRS review,!in November 1981, a L
number of QA issues were raised in hearings and in the NRC's review and inspection concerning the plant design and construction. 'The effortsLto-resolve those-issues are nearing completion and the NRC staff felt that'it would be appropriate to brief the ACRS on the events that have transpired since its review.
L
-.u
.a...
4,=
.e-e
't i
3 i
i 351ST ACR$ MEETING MINUTES !
Mr. W. Counsil. Vice Chairman of TV Electric, introduced the following members of his staff: Mr. William Cahill, Executive Vice President Nuclear Engineer-t ing and Operations Mr. Austin Scott. Vice President of Nuclear' Operations, i
Mr. John Beck, Vice Pre sident of Nuclear Engineering, Mr. James Kelly, Plant i
Manager, and Mr. Roger Walker Manager of Licensing, j
Mr. Counsil discussrJ the plant, stating it is owned and operated by.TU.
-f i
Electric. It is a two-unit site about 65 miles southwest of Dallas,' Tex.
and uses RESAR41 Westinghouse pressurized water reactors. The original architect-engineer was Gibbs and Hill. Gibbs and Hill was subsequently replaced by Stone and Web',ter. A review of the design and construction was conducted by i
the Stone and Webster assisted by Ebasco Services and Inpe11. Corporation.
The constructor is Brown and Root. Mr. Counsil stated that the operating organization has practical experience at other plants.
j Mr. James Wilson discussed the issues raised in the ACRS letter of November i
12, 1981. These issues were:
N-16 Detectors in the Reactor Protection System l
The ACRS was concerned because this was to be the first commercial application-t of this system. -In late 1988 and early 1989, the. system was reevaluated by l
Westinghouse and TV Electric and they concluded that this system is still l
viable. The staff concurred.
Lack of Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Experience
(
In the past eight years -TU Electric has significantly strengthened their I
commercial nuclear background at all levels through an extensive.and aggres-l sive recruitment and hiring program. TU Electric has'been enhancing and-broadening the experience of their employees through rotational assignments of operators and managers to other power plants already in connercial operation.
The ACRS expressed a concern-that the'ap)11 cant should compile a list of I
technological matters which may have to de faced in future o>erations, and l
1dentify sources of skilled personnel and expertise that ougit to be available 1
to adoress these matters when needed.
TU Electric has drawn up a list of contractors and expertise th' at they expect to be needed to support operations. This list is maintained and updated'by their procurement department.
Industry groups such as'INPO, NUMARC, and EPRI have taken a role in assisting TV Electric with operational problems, q
The ACRS recommended that the various review groups include personnel from.
l-outside the operating organization who are experienced in the operation and management of large consnercial PWRs and related technology as well as other independent advisors with mature judoment about public safety matters.
l t
The Station Operations Review Committee is comprised of several members wh'r have significant previous experience at PWRs.
The Independent Safety
,_.m
- s l
1 351ST ACRS MEETING MINUTES 12-e 1
a minimum of three years nuclear power experfence.s and scientists, each with Engineering Group is comprised of degreed en ineer The Operations Review l
Comittee has an aggregate of nearly 100 years of operating experience. The Operations Review Committee has as a member a representative of the inter-
- venors.
The ACR$ recommended that TU Electric expand its studies of systems-1yteraction and probabilistic assessment, so that it would have a better 1
enderstanding of the comanche Peak nuclear system.-
i TU Electric has been engaged in the. development and implementation of-programs to evaluate the systems. interactions resulting from high and medium-energy i
pipe breaks, flooding, seismically-induced failures of nonseismic systems, i
structures and components, internally generated missiles and fires. These programs and activities were evaluated by the NRC' staff in SSER-17.
Mr. Grimes noted 'that-the systems interactions studies were done for the final design and that procedures exist to assure that systems. interactions' analysis 1
is done as part of the design modification process. There was a method built into their process for examining design changes that resulted during-construction.
l Dr. Siess asked how information about unanticipated interactions and adverse interactions is disseminated from this plant to other-plants, and from other l
plants to this plant. Mr. Counsil stated that TV Electric reviews safety I
evaluation and significant event reports from INPO. :They also evaluate I
l bulletins, circulars, and notices from the NRC -
t Mr. Wilson said that TU Electric h'as strengthened its capabilities to perform-l probabilistic risk assessments to investigate ano understand systems, their
- )
operations, relationship with other systems, and effects on-the plant.
In response to a Comittee question Mr. Counsil said that -TV Electric has not-t done a PRA at this' time. They do, however. intend to do a PPA in the future.
The 'ACRS expressed a concern that instrumentation for the detection of inade--
quate core cooling should not be installed until it is well established that the instruments will provide information of significant value beyond-that provided by the instrumentation already-installed.
TU Electric has' installed instrumentation for the detection of! inadequate core cooling utilizing heated. junction thermocouples. Heated junction thermo-1 couples are being used for the detection of inadequate core cooling at San a
Onofre, St. Lucie 2. Byron, Braidwood, Waterford, Catawba ; Millstone 3 South-j l
Texas 1 and 2, and Beaver Valley. TU Electric believes these systems have l
proved to be-accurate and reliable in use. There are provisions in the.
L Technical Specifications for operability and surveillance for this system.
The ACRS at its last Comanche Peak" meeting fl981)'was satisfied with the staff's progress in the design review and s",ated that they believed that the' l
oustanding items, confirmatory items. and license conditions could be satis-factorily resolved by the staff, s
-e e -w.
m c.
.h
-.r..
n.
a.-..
n,+
,,4.
-.,y
.,.r,,m..
w.,,
y
,c
-..._,_w
..,es._.,.
,,.+y
-,.-,y,
m h.
S $
i l
.31ST ACRS MEETING MINUTES a s
l
}
As of April 1989, there were eight outstanding licensing issues, six con-
)
l firmatory issues, and six potential license conditions.
L
~ Mr. Lyons discussed the chronology of the events that have occurred since the.
j
~
1ast ACRS meeting in 1981. At _that time, the licensing hearings were in
?
j.
progress on the one admitted contention that had to do with the quality I
assurance and cuality. control aspects of construction. During the hearings in 1982, the staff became aware of the piping and pipe support concerns. These i
. concerns started the chain of events that led to the implementation of the applicant's corrective action programs.- In response to these concerns, the
-l staff formed a special inspection team to review and evaluate the issues and conducted inspections between October 1982 to February 1983.. The special inspection team categorized the issues into 19 broad areas of concern.
Following the hearings in 1983, the Construction Permit Licensing Board issued-a memorandum and order in December 1983 which found.that the applicant had not demonstrated the existence of a system to promptly correct design deficiencies i
and concluded that the applicant was not in comp *1ance with 10 CFR 50 Appendix i
B.
The Board also noted.that the hearing record was devoid of.a satisfactory resolution for several piping and pipe support concerns raised by the intervenors. The Board urged that an independent third' party review be performed of these technical issues.
L
-i The NRC staff established a technical review team which performed inspections i
at the site for ten weeks. They addressed over 600 allegations and technical issues and their. findings are documented in SSERJ through SSER-11.
The applicant contracted with CYGNA Engineering Services to perform an in-dependent assessment program. A number of issues were identified that needed j
to be~ addressed. The applicant then formed the' Comanche Peak Response Team to respond to the growing number of issues that were. raised.
Following the completion of the design validation portion of the corrective action program, the applicant reached a settlement agreement with an inter-venor which provided a way for the intervenor to monitor the' implementation of the corrective action program and also provided.a way by which these technical.
issues could be resolved without resorting to further litigation.
In mid-July 1988 the ASLB dismissed the hearings.
The staff has continued to monitor, the implementation of the corrective -,
actions program including the review and has resumed normal plant inspection.
and licensing activities including the review of design changes resulting from a
the corrective actions program which are being incorporated into the FSAR.
j The SALP process.was reinitiated in 1987 and a SALP report was issued in October 1988. The SALP report indicated that the overall performance of the
]
1
.. -. -. - -.. ~ -. -.
s o
-l 351ST ACRS MEETING MINUTES 1 l
appl ant has improved markedly from their past performance.- Currently the j
stat is focusing on determining the operational readiness of the Comanche Peb project.
Dr. Kerr asked'what fraction Of the QA deficiencies that were identified involved inadequate recordkeeping and what fraction involved deficiencies that l
could have contributed adversely to risk. Mr. Grimes responded that 'the Technical Review Team, in their findings concerning 600 allegations, found that about 20 percent of the allegations were substantiated, and that of this t
20 percent about 80 percent were recordkeeping problems.
Mr. McKee discussed the activities associated with the Comanche-Peak Response 1
Team (CPRT) and the corrective action program. The CPRT was established in' October.1984 It was established to provide an independent third party.
organization comprised of consultants and contractors who were not originally associated with the design and construction of Comanche Peak..The CPRT,was-directed and monitored by the Senior Review Team which was comprised of third-party consultants with the exception of the chairman who was the TU Executive Vice President for Nuclear Engineering i
The CPRT was. committed to three primary objectives. The first was to investi-i gate each of the external source issues (issues raised outside the plant' staff), determine the nature of any safety-significant. deficiencies, and 6
identify the necessary corrective actions to be taken. The second objective
{
was to determine root.causes, adverse trends, and generic implications of any safety-significant deficiencies. The third objective was to conduct self-initiated evaluation of construction and, design activities.
The number and significance of the preliminary findings of the CPRT prompted i
TV Electric to initiate a comprehensive corrective action program which i
essentially included a complete' design validation of the; safety-related components systems.
The corrective action program proposed to accomplish'a comprehensive design '
and hardware validation of the safety-related end selected nonsafety-related' portions of the Comanche Peak plant, and to provide a planned integrated resolution of identified problem: rather than resolving each issue individual-ly. Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation, Ebasco and-Inpe11 were con-
'tracted to conduct the program..Each was-assigned a work scope.
The applicant prepared project status reports <for each of the' eleven design work scopes. The project status reports identify and describe the resolution-t of issues, describe in detail the corrective action approach for that design work scope, and provide the results of issue resolution at the time of the report.-
Mr. Robert Warnick discussed the inspection acthities:and cu~rrent plaht status. He noted that he has eight NRC inspectors and six consultant inspec-tors and they have been on the site full-time for the last two years.
Five of' the eight NRC inspectors are reviewing and inspecting the construction.and j
..-._.s...,
.u, _
4
- m m 7 cw 4
ro.
E l
l 351ST ACRS MEETING MINUTES :
l
.)
l i
corrective' action programs modifications.- Three of the_eight NRC_ inspectors are reviewing the preoperational testing program in the operations area.
In i
L addition, Region IV personnel conduct inspections;in the security, radiation i
protection, emergency planning, environmental monitoring, confirmatory measurements, operator licensing areas. and other special areas such as the l
l integrated leak rate test. Mr. Warnick noted that their findings to date.
L indicate that the utility has done a very good job of implementing the correc-l tive actions program.
j The preoperational testing program was completed in 1984 : Because of the l
elapsed time and many changes, the utility has been requested to either repeat the preoperational testing or prov%e:an acceptable justification as to why it need not be done. The utility intends to repeat about.90 percent of the
- j preoperational program.
Mr. Warnick noted that the applicant has:more staff,than the number required for operating one unit and they have more than enough people to meet their.
Technical Specifications minimum requirements for operating both units. Mr.
Kelly noted that all the shift technical advisors are degreed licensed senior-operators. Mr. Warnick noted that the.NRC believes that operations managerent is very strong and the operators, in general, have been doing a good job.-
Mr. Warnick noted that the applicant, because of the high failure rate of' operators on the operator licensing examination administered by the NRC, l
conducted an in-depth self-evaluation of their training program and has embarked on a program to improve it.
P,ecion IV was on site to administer the latest requalification examination whIch involved the testing of 12 licensed operators. All 12 individuals passed. For the requalification examinations using theLnew procedures, this was the first utility where all the candidates successfully passed the exami-nation.
Mr. Warnick discussed the problems with check valves at Comanche Peak. At J
1 east ten check valves were stuck open in the auxiliary feedwater. system during a hot functional test. Dr. Remick noted that an ACRS pubcommittee-might want to discuss this matter.
Mr. Grimes concluded the staff presentation by noting that the staff believes -
that subject to the final completion of the construction re-work activities' and preoperational tests Comanche Peak can be operated without undue risk to the public health and safety.
Dr. Remick asked subcommittee chairman Mr. Carroll if._he proposed a report.
Mr. Carroll responded that he did not and the Committee concurred that no i
further action by the ACRS is anticipated.
.1
..s.
u,
a gar-c.w w v.
. m.wm
. tc y
w
..m I
i 351ST ACRS MEETING MINUTES- [
IX. Human Factors - Chernobyl " Spin-Off"-Study (0 pen) l
.-Mr. H._ Alderman;was the Designated Federal. 0fficial for this portion
[ Note:
ofthemeeting.]-
Dr. Remick noted that the Committee was to be briefed on the results of a
- Chernobyl= " spin-off" study which was intended to address the seriousness of procedural violations at U.S. plants. He-noted the NRC staff has. requested-time to brief the Committee and that~ there has, not been a subcommittee meeting E
on this topic. 'He then introduced.Mr._ George Sege, NRC-RES, to make the first presentation..
i Mr. Sege stated that the presentation addressed a' procedure violations.stuby:
evaluation at U.S. nuclear plants.- lHe; stated that it was a status report and' the staff was soliciting' discussion, comment, and: advice from the Committee in the courseLof the discussion. He introduced Mr' Jerry Wachtel, NRC-RES.-
1 Program Manager for-this work.
Mr. Wachtel-noted.that the presentations would be made by Dr. Valerie Barnes.
and - Dr. John Olson of Batte11e's Human Affairs Research. Center..He said.that s
Battelle had been requested' to'11mit their evaluation to-events and incidents t
which occurred between 1984 and July 1988. 'The NRC has continued to follow incidents involving procedure-related errors 1and procedure violations that?
have occurred since' July 1988 including the ~most recent' incident which oc-4 curred during startup testing at the Seabrook plant.-
Dr. Barnes, Battelle, noted that the issue of-procedure violations-is of interest.because, in addition to the design flaws of. the Chernobyl plant, 4
l procedure violations by. the: plant engineering and ' operations staff were among I
the identified root causes of, the Chernobyl evente The procedure violations atLChernobyl were of_ two: types.- They included violations of the organization's administrative review procedures as well as-violations of. the plant standard operating procedures..
q Because of the major-role that' failure to follow procedures played in the;
(
Chernobyl accident, this, study was initiated to assess the extent of procedure m
l --
violations-in'the U.'s.. nuclear. power; industry and their potential. safety l
'l
- +
. signif,icance..
4
-Dr. Barnes 'noted there were three objectives for this study.; One was to.
distinguish procedure " violations" from proces re-related " errors" because-the 3
actions that the NRC might consider in response to " violations" versus _
" errors" would.1_ikely differ. The second;was to determine the>causes,. nature,-
extent, and consequences;of procedure' violations.in power plants. The third-l objective was to recommend'methodsifor correcting the: problems that were identified.
l-L Dr. Barnes noted the existence of two' previous studies-In 1985,.INp0 con :
ducted a root-cause analysis of 180 significant event reports-that had oc--
.f curred in 1985. This studyLidentified 387 root:causes and found that:16W of
' the events studies' were: attributable-to =a failure; to follow procedures..
Q:
lt
.g
pe.g s ;., n o : sgh.%
-~
- T=
m..ww T W.
T--- ~ --
cm myg g
7
]j s
.((
p ;q h i di" l
y q
17--
351ST ACRS MEETING MINUTES 1
I p
-t
=i W
m'
- AEOD conducted a study.in the 1987 time frame where they looked:at significant'
.eventsi nvolving procedures and found that failure to follow; procedures.
i Y
1
' occurred in about. 2% of the 101-LERs that theyflooked at. ' ' ~
1 s
Dr. Barnes noted that one of the findings of their studyfis. that few: licensees-
~
+
require verbatim compliance with procedures. The decision'of how,to use.a1 t
procedure is often left up to the: individual worker.. One"of the major w
_ findings was that the quality of procedures _ was often so poor that verbatim
/
i
- compliance could not be achieved.
i Dr. Barnes noted that failure to follow' procedures =can involva several types of behavior, ranging from intentional. departure from the procedure to mistakes'
't in the execution of some. action that is; required by a procedure.:
.Battelle defined three categories of behavior associated with-failing to.
follow procedures that= could be distinguished by worker intent
'The first category addresses sabotage with the intent to do ha m and was outside the scope of this study. The second category addressed action'where an operator l
intended to achieve the goal of a-3 articular procedure and knew that the procedure existed-but chose to ta(e some action that was not included in the 4
procedure, or chose not to use the procedure.'The third category covered-procedure-related errors.
i
?J The study defined deliberate violations as Level A violations, r A Le' vel A.
violation occurs when a worker ~ performs actions that deviate from theLproce-D dures intent and the worker is aware that his or her actions deviate from the-p; procedure.
W A Level B violation is defined as a worker performing actions that deviate!
from the procedures intent, and it is not.possible on the availabletodetermineiftheworkerwasawareof-hisor-h[basisofinformatio t
er actions..
i A Level C violation is a violation'or departure from procedure in which the.
l worker performs actions that deviate from procedures or in which the worker Y
. performs actions that ceviate from the procedures intent,: and the worker is -
either (1) unaware that the actions were incorrect, (2)(unaware of his.or her-actions, or (3) unaware that the actions deviated from thel procedure.,
L Dr.= Barnes noted that preliminary results.of.their study show that the ' number 9*
of Level A and B violations are fairly low and Leve1LC violations occur more frequently. Mr. Barnes; said that they_ studied the types lof'personne11that.
were involved in -Level AJand.B incidents and: found.that theElargestL number of' Q-incidents involved operations personnel. She-noted that this should-not lead i
bU to the assumption that operations personnel are prone to. violate procedures.-
It may be that they have more procedures to deal with.in their work.
p Dr. Barnes noted that preliminary conclusions are (1) that:very _few of the Q
violations, failures, or noncompliances: led directly to scrams or safety-g systems:actuations, and (2)- that the number of leve1L A or B violationsL g
b
$b i
s,
4 9
y
,..w#,1-,-
,.m-
~,
--v.-
..ke+vw..
-s..
=
w a-w+
w
-e---
- .s.mm.. ;
vm
.. n:.. -
~: y.
m
<f. n w
i
^
a 1.
6 E
L
.. l i
- 351ST.ACRS MEETING MINUTES l
\\-
1 L
reported are likely=to be underestimated as the level of detail available did.
1 not allow for accurate analysis for many of-'the incidents.
L Dr.-Remick suggested substituting the word. failures" for " violations" in the descriptions of the categories, as~" violations" had a-very specific meaning in i
- the regulatory jargon, j
1 Dr. Remick asked what.is planned between now and the completion of'the report.-
Mr. Wachtel replied.that there is more data to be analyzed:and conclusion::
will be developed as'to whether further work is necessary. Mr. Wachtel asked
. if the Committee would411ke:to see the report before it is published.- Dr..
~
t Remick said. he. would be' interested in:having the report sent to-the Connittee:
~,
after it-is published and that. after receipt of the report, the Committee i
will decide if it'should be reviewed by a subcomittee or-the full:Comittee.
J
~'
X.
Executive Session (0 pen / Closed)-
A.
Subcomittee Reports (Closed);
l The sumary of th'e report.of the Nominating Comittee is. contained in' the-Official _Use'Only Supplement.
l l
~B.
Reports. Letters.andMemoranda'(0 pen)'
.i 1.
Pro)osed Staff Actions Regarding:the Fire Risk Scoping Study-t (NU EG/CR-5088)-(Report.to Chairman Carr dated July 18,.1989)
The Committee.noted that one ofLthe significant findingslof this-d Fire RiskLScoping StudyLwas thattfire PRAs do.not address fire vulnerabilities in several important areas. The NRC staff is
)
considering including an effort:in the' Individual Plant Examination for External Events :(IPEEE) program to searchefor such.vulnerabili-ties and-the: staff's External Events Fire Subconnittee is ' developing, guidance for dealing,with theseLissues.- The'Comittee ' considered - '
' these staff actions reasonable. < The Comittee: plans to comment on the need for further research in the; fire-protection area after receipt of the IPEEE guidance-document for examination'ofifire--
7 related effects. 'The: report contained additional remarks by Dr -
g Kerr and.Mr. Wylie.
t o
2.
Proposed Resolution of' Unresolved / Safety Issue A-40 " Seismic Desion L'
. Criteria".(Report to Chairman Carr dated July 18,;1989) o 4
The, Committee found the:NRC staff's proposed.resolutionfof USI-A-40=
. acceptable. including the decisionEthat.noL backfits. be: required L except with respect to review of the design of above-ground steel-j tanks :as noted below.i The Comittee stated that it believed that the concerns about above-ground steel = tanks-can-appropriately be.
handled as part'o_f the' implementation:of the resolution of: USI A-46, t
'" Seismic Qualification.of Equipment in'Operatin'gLPlants."
1 4
k i
ya,. -7 7
.m
. =,
7, m.
, m
- ,,y ' g
,l g;
3 p pw
[
4, 351ST ACRS MEETING MINUTES g
~
3.
Proposed Power Level Increase for the Indian Point Nuclear Generat' ing Unit No. 2 (Letter dated July-IS, 1989.from R. F. Fraley to Joan_
Holt).
?
The Committee informed Ms.. Holt that it expects to review the proposed power level increase for this plant during the November a
16-18, 1989'or December 14-16~, 1989 ACRS meetingi a
'4.
Proposed Amendments to'10 CFR 21 and Section 50.55(e) (Memorandum a
dated July 18, 1959 to Thomas M. Novak from R.zF. Fraley)f TheCommitteediscussed.the-proposedamendmentsto-10'CFR21,),
j
" Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance','.' and Section 50.55(e
" Conditions of Construction Permits," and decided not to review them.
5.-
Pro >osed Revision to-10 CFR'50.55a to Incorporate by Reference ther i
ASME Boiler 'and Pressure Vessel Code Section IWE of SECTION XI, li Division I (Letter to V.-5tello from R. F. Fraley dated. July 16 -
1 1989)
The Committee decided that it has no objection;to the staff's t
proposal for issuing the subject revision for:publicl comment. The Comittee has not'yet decided whether it wishes to review this 3
matter.
If it decides -to do so the review will!be made~ after the 4
L public comments have been received and evaluatedt :(Dr. Shewmon and H
Dr. Siess are to-be briefed by the NRC: staff regarding ' aspects' of the ASME-code-section. Mr..Igne:has the; follow-up action.)'
a 6.
Letter to V. Stello from F. J. Remick. ' dated
- July 19, 1989 - Regard '
ing the Committee's request-to-investigate concernseexpressed by Mr.
J. R. Sutton 2
L The Committee commended the outstanding work done by.the NRC' staff, P
particularly R."Hernan..in addressing the concerns expressed by Mr.
J'. R. Sutton regarding the-inadvertent actuation.of sirens near the t
TMI nuclear plant.
5 C.
,0ther Conclusions (0 pen) 1.
Comittee' Scheduling for Retreat and for Tutorial"on'Probabilistic Risk Assessment g
I A;one-to two-day. Committee retreat will;be! scheduled during Novem 1 ber~1989. The members are asked to provide:suggestionsJfor' topics-to be discussed during this' retreat.. (Mr. Fraley and Dr. Savio have the follow-up action.)' In addition, the tutorial on probabilistic.
+
risk assessment has been scheduled for the Wednesday (October 4,-
1 1989).before the October 1989 ACRS meeting.
(Mr.-' Houston,.Dr.
l Savio, and Mr. Stella have the follow-up action.)]
t 4
h i.
' ~
m i
s m
,_ J,
4,.,
, 7.7 7, -
g a
q-
. ;x, g:
a
- 7.,
yO
- W i
1 351ST ACRS MEETING MINUTES -
o i
I 2.
~To)ics Scheduled for Discussion with NRC Commissioners on Auaust'10, i
L 1939 1
A meeting with the Commissioners has been scheduled for the after--
O noon _of August 10,,1989. The fol. lowing topics are scheduled -for:
J discussion-I e
NRC's Human Factors-Program and Initiatives (ACRS' report to l
ChairmanZechdatedMay;9,.1989).-
j u
~
t Generic Letter Related to Occupational Radiation Exposure of
-Skin from Hot Particles (ACRS report to Chairman-Zech dated May q
9,1989)
Reliability and Diversity (ACRS report to Chairman Zech dated-
"i June 14,1989)_
q Proposed Resolution of GenericLIssue'128, " Electrical Power Systems; Reliability~ (ACRS report to Chairman Zech dated June 14,1989) t 1
t BoilingWaterReactorCore'~PowerStability(ACRSreport_to j
p Chairman Zech dated June'14, 1989)'(Tentative;:if time permits) a';
+
If time allows the Committee's)activitiesLon the integration of.
various NRC programs and_ containment performance criteria will.: be 9
discussed. The ACRS staff will provide an:information package on y
the-topics" to be discussed.' l(Mr. Major. Mr. Quittschreiber,-and Dr.
Savio have the-follow-up; action.);;
,,9y a
.3.
ACRS Review Regarding Proposed Power Increases c
't i
p The Comittee decided toLreview the proposed power increase for. the; 1
Indian Point Nuclear Generating: Unit No. 2. >A'meetin d
Subcommittee on Systematic' Assessment of Experience (g of the' Dr. Lewis, j
. Chainnan) is. expected to? bei scheduled for November / December ~19891to d
review this matterTand totprovide; recommendations-on' guidelines:for.+
d determining if the Committee 1should review power increases for,other-d reactors.
Further consideration!will:also;be given'to'the.need>for-
~~ACRS review of'the proposed Mai.ne Yankee aower level increase J a
(2.7%).c ' Dr.' Lewis has:recomendedi hat t1e Maine Yankee:powerElevel 0
t increase not be reviewed.
(Mr.1 Alderman has'the follow-up'actioni) 4, 4._
ACRS Bylaws'Regarding Conflict of Interest'-
D Thel Committee: decided not to take action at this time to' revise the i
sections -of the ACRS Bylawsithat deal with conflict of^ interest.
This matter will be considered further when.the proposed Presiden =
[
tial revisions to' the current conflict-of-interest statutes have.
1 been approved.-
f
_ p-
y %p ;*n
',.?. g..
= y:; 2:2 7 3 w.;.
o w.e x g.y ~
.~;.
- - ~
. m. 3.y +
1 a
v 1
)
- 1 E-351ST'ACRS MEETING MINUTES
.-21 '
p-
- 5.. - Systems Interactions - Studies - Request for ACRS Fellow' to Summarire =
- l
-Results of and Actions Subseouent to Indian Point Systems:
~
j
' Interactions 5tudies
'The Committee requested that an: ACRS Fellow sumarize the results of; ll and actions.taken as a-result of,the Indian. Point 1,ystemsrinter.
actions studies. :(Dr. Savio/Mr. Stella: havel the: follow-up action.)
L a
6.
. Briefing on: NRC Staff Review of Comanche Peak Units 11 and' 2; j
Operating-License Application; Assignment to Mechanical-Components.
L Subcomittee'Regarding Problems of Check Valve Malfunctions'at-
.l Comanche Peak-4 The Committee was' briefed on the' status.of the'NRC: staff review of the Operating Licenseiapplication for the Comanche: Peak Steams Electric Station Units 1 and.2 'and decided;to take no"additionale 1
action on this matter. The problems associated:with check-valve
- c malfunctions at this. plant which resulted from improper assembly /
alignment will be examined by theLACRS Subcommittee!on' Mechanical.
1 Components.
(Mr..lgne has the follow-up, action.)-
t L
7i Scheduling-of NUMARC Briefing to ACRS Mr. Joseph, Colvin '(NUMARC) has.beent invited tofthef August.10-12,-
3
(:
L1989 ACRS~ meeting to brief the members.on.NUMARC.'st: activities.- In-i l
. addition, Mr. Colvin will be. asked toLbriefithe Committee on the status of industry activities-dealing with systems :interactio'ns and:
1 i..
L ways in' which industry might becomepinvolvedtinian effective wap.'
(Mr. Igne/Mr. Fraley have theifollow-up; action).
8.
'ACRS~ Sponsorship of Mr.'D.' Ward's. Symposium: Attendance-The Comittee decided that the ACRS would: sponsor Mr. Sward's atten-dance at the GPU Nuclear Corporation-sponsored symposium on risk-1 management on September 6-7, 1989.
D.
FutureActivities(0 pen) j u.
1.
Future' Agenda:
1 The Commititee. agreed to the tentative schedule for the' August 10-12,
-f 1989-ACRS-' meeting-shown-in AppendixiII..
2.
Future.Subcomittee Activities A schedule of future subcomittee activities was distributed to' i
members (Appendix:III).
~
The351stACRS' Meeting $asadjournedat6:30p.m., July 14, 1989, i
,"l: G
[
3
.i
.g t
s b
)%
i APPENDICES.
351ST ACRS MEETING MINUTES JULY 14 ', 1989 -.
4 I.-
Attendees' i 11. =
Future Agenda-III.
Future Subcomittee Activities:
}
IV.
Other Documents Received
. i
~
6 1
t l~
1 i.
.}
L f.
l 1
l~
s.
l l
' i
. i
.f
'h i
. f I
1 m
s
. ~..
ce - - y; t
- g, - ' : "..
, g., \\.4 :
-Q _
s
+
i APPENDIX I
-ATTENDEES-1 351ST-ACRS MEETINGCMINUTES -
l JULY 13-14,:1989-c L
THURSDAY JULY 12, 1989 e
i Public Attendees
-NRC Attendees; Ellen F. Rice, NUS S. Khal'id Shaukat, RES; i
Dale Thatcher.;RES Mar a' Conover, Bechtel _
Roger Kenneally, RES L.
James Whiteraft, NUMARC-David Pyatt.. DOE Niles L. Choleski, RES-.
1 R. Ng,~NUMARC
. Robert Baer, RES Frank X. Talbot, DOE: -
-L'. Reiter,;NRR:
R. E. Schaffstall,'KMC, Inc.
G. Bagchi, NRRi Lynne Neal. USCEA, NUMARC:
David C. Jeney. NRRc Bill:Pearce, Consultant =
W. Beckner, RES~
< Dave Trimble OCM/JC -.
J. A. Mitchell,.RES_
Brian Jordan,'McGraw-Hill, L.iSoffer,.RES.
Lynn Connor NRC Calendar _
J. N.t.Ridgely,: RES
~ ;" Chow.'O.ES' E
Thomas Hicks, STS, Inc.-
Brendan~Vrey, BCPR Joh G. Lane, RES:
~0onald T. Chung, SCIENTECH Donald;Brinkman, NRR 4
LC.LZ.LSerpan,RES l-M.'E. Mayfield,-RES
1 P. N. Randall, RES-Gv E. Edison, NRR-
'i C. McCracken, NRR l!'
D. L. Basdekas. RES J.cT. Chan 'RES-FRIDAY,' JULY 14, 1989 l,
Public Attendees
.NRC~AttendeesL 1-y E. F. Rice, NUS
'Jh H. - Wilson',1NRR 4 Maria Conover, Bechtel
'Melinda Malley, NRRi J
W. G. Counsil, TU Electric
- Chris VanDenburgh, NRR;
'l Johnt 41es, Dallas Morning News J. E..Lyons, NRRL _
H Thomas Hicks, STS Inc.
P. F.'McKee,-NRR'
' Roger D. Walker, TU Electric C. JI Grimes, NRR:
Wm...J. Cahill, Jr., TU Electric
~ M.- R. Snodderly, NRR,
- Austia B. Scott, Jr., TU Electric' S. L.'Magruder. NRR-James J. ~ Kelley, Jr., TU-Electric R. F. Warnick,.NRR
' Jack Redding, TV Electric David Terao,.NRR' John.W. Beck, TV Electric Bill;.LeFave, NRR Valerie.Barnes, Battelle
- Jerry Wachtel', RESi
-Jon'Olson, Battelle
<Howard Wong OE l
J. Persensky;:RES.
Frank Coffman,-.RES George'Sege, RES
- David Desantiers,-NRR Karl Kniel,.RES
\\
o
j-
...u.......-...
.. s
- . c
+
'.- i 651st ACRS f1EETING HINUTESc.
- APPENDIX.II
.: i4
' TENTATIVE SCHEDULE FOR THE AUGUST 10-12, 1989 ACR$_ MEETING >
I*:
LMeeting with the NRC Cosmissioners.- The following" topics are scheduled; for discussion:1 NRC's Human Factors Program and Initiatives (ACRS report to.Chaiman-ZechdatedMay9,1989)-
a f'
Generic Letter Related toL0ccupational Radiation Exposure of Skin.
from Hot Particles (ACR$' report to Chaiman.Zech dated May 9,:1989) j 1
Reliability and Diversity (ACRS-report to Chaiman Zech dated June 3
)
14.1989)
Proposed Resolution of Generic Issue.128, " Electrical Power Systems
]
u Reliability" (ACRS: report to Chaiman Zech datei June 14,1989)
^
j-y Boiling Water Reactor Core Power Stability (ACRS report-to Chairmani 1
Zech dated June 14,:1989)-(Tentative, if time pemits) 3:
g
- The status of the Committee's activities on the integration of.
y.
- j various NRC programs and containment perfomance criteria (Tenta-j tive. if time pemits).
l
[
NUMARC Activities;- Briefing by NUMARC representative regarding~ NUMARC d
and related industry activities' applicable'to the mgulatory process and -
the NRC-industry interface.
NMSS Activities - Meeting with the Director, NMSS,'to discuss itemsLof.
. mutual interest, including the nature / scope.of.191$$ activities.
J NRC Policy Statement Regarding Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants - ACRS-review and comment regarding the-proposed NRC pol. icy. statement.
}
~
i General Electric Advanced Boiling Water Reactor - Continue review of.the 5
design. certification requested;for this standardized nuclear plant.L j
w Nuclear Power Plant Access Authorization - Review and report on'thea j
proposed NRC rule regarding controi.of access.to. restricted areas in i
nuclear power plants.j
..y j
Generic. Issue 79,.Unanalyzed Reactor Vessel: Thermal Stress During Natural?
J p
Convection Cooldown - Review and report on the proposed istC staff resolu-: :,,*
y tion of this generic issue..
g
- h Technical Specifications - Briefing regarding the status of technica1h specifications' improvement 4 program by the NRC and the nuclear.industryg
]j D*
- Analysis of Operational Data - Briefing and discussion of the'NRC/kE0h:
O 4y review of the efforts:to-reduce:the number of!scrans;in nuclear l power ['
3 3
plants.
4
- Appointment cf ACRS Members Discuss qualifications.of candidates:
' l.
proposed for. consideration as'ACRS members. ~
4 Generic Issue.C-8, Main Steam' Isolation Valve Leakage and Leakage Contsol 4"
System Failures -: Review and report on the proposed NRC staff resolution L
w Loflthis generic issue.
>m i
q
,. > :If, m
= i'-
.. ~
m, A s f
REVISED:
7/14/89 p
APPENDIX'III,
- 351st ACRS Meeting,LJULY;13-14,1989 ACRS/ACNW' COMMITTEE & SUBCOMMITTEE-MEETINGS L
ACNW Meeting, July _.26-27,;1989, Bethesda,'MD,-Room P-110 CANCELLE'.D..
ACNW' Working Group' Meeting on Mixed = Wastes,_ August-4-5, 1989, Bethesda, MD, Room P-Il0.
Maintenance Practices and Procedures, August 8, )1989, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, BethesGL, MD ( Alderman), 8:30 a.m. (1 day meeting, Room P-110. - The Subcom.
mittee will review policy > statement and draft regulatory guide.
Lodging will-be announced later. Attendance by the following is anticipated Mr. Micheuon Mr. Wylie-Mr. Carroll Regulatory Policies and Practices. August)9. - 1989,- 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda. MD (Quittschreiber), -10:00 a.m., Room P-110. c The Subcomittee will~
discuss - integration of-the ' regulatory. process.
Lodging will be announced -
later. ' Attendance by the following is anticipated:'
Dr. Lewis Mr.Michelson-(tent.)-
Dr.;Kerr Dr. Siess Mr. Carroll-Mr. Wylie' i
Mr. Michelson-Planning and' Procedures, -- August 9,= :1989- (tentative),J 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, MD (Fraley), 4:00 p.m. -;5:30 p.m.-(time'to be adjusted depending'on ending of subcomittee meeting: on Regulatory Policies andi Practices).. Room P-422.
The: Subcomittee will-discuss-proposed changes in ACRS-NRC MOU1 to-clarify areas of ACRS interest. ! Lodging 4will.be announced :later;; ; Attendance by.the following is anticipated:
.Dr.Remick(tent.)
Mr. Michelson Mr. Ward-352nd ACRS Meeting, August 10-12; 1989, Bethesda, MD~, Room P-110.
Seabrook, August 17,-1989, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda. MD (Igne).
The-Subcomittee will review: emergencyf plans for full power operation. ' Lodging will be announced later. Attendance by the:following is anticipated:
1 Dr. Kerr
-.' Mr. Wylie:
i Mr. Carroll Mr. Bender-Dr. Lewis-
' Regional Programs, August 129-30, 1989', King of Prussia, PA (Region. I ' Office):
u l'
- (Boehnert), W
- 30 a.m.
Thei Subcomittee will. review the activities' under: the purview of-the - NRC ^ Region"!: Office.
Lodging'will be announcedolater.
Atten-
- dance.by the following is anticipated:
Dr. Remick Mr.1Michelson.
l Mr. Carroll Mr.' Ward l
Dr. Catton Mr. Wylie
,Dr. Kerr;
.a.-
g 3 y,
~
~
~'
~
~~
~'~
f
. s; y
_. -!n.. !
1 J
l 353rd ACRS Meeting, September 7-9, 1989,'Bethesda, MD,. Room-P-110._
13th'ACNW Meeting, September 13-15, 1989, Bethesda, MD, Room.P-110.
l PRA Tutorial, October _4,-'1989, Washington, DC.
354th ACRS-Meeting, October 5-7, 1989, Bethesda, MD,-Room P-110.
14th ACNW Meeting. 0ctober 11-13, 1989, Bethesda. MD, Room P-110.
Advanced Pressurized Water Reactors, Date to be determined (August), Bethesda,
~
MD (El-Zeftawy). The Subcomittee will discuss the comparison of WAPWR (RE5ARL 4
. '5P/90) design with other modern plants '(in U.S.- and. abroad).
Aftendance by; i
the following is anticipated:
Mr. Carroll
.Dr. Remick Dr. Kerr Dr. Shewmon Mr. Michelson
_Mr. Wylie-Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena, Date -to be determined- (August), Bethesda, MD (Boehnert).. The Subcommittee will review the proposed experimental-program '
. des _1gned to investigate-specific thermal; hydraulic phenomena of the B&W:0TSGP Attendance by the following'is anticipated:
?
Dr. Catton Dr. Plesset Dr. Kerr Mr. Schrock Mr. Ward Dr. Sullivan Mr. Wylie Dr. Tien-Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena Date to - be determine ~d ( August)', Bethesda, - MD _.
q (Boehnert)..The Subcommittee will review the NRC staff's proposed resolution-
)
of Generic Issues 84, _ "CE PORVs." Attendance by_- the following 'is' anticipated:.
Dr. Catton Dr. Plesset/
Dr. Kerr
'Mr.-Schrock Mr. Ward Dr. -- Sullivan :
Mr.'Wylie Dr. Tien j
Advanced Pressurized Water Reactors, Date to be determined (August / September),
Bethesda. MD-(El-Zeftawy).4 The Subcomittee 'will review the-licensing = rev.iew bases document being ' developed by-' the4 Staff? for Combustion Engineering'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-i h
v
1 lff.:j34A > h.
4
~O
, Severe Accidents, Date to be; determined (August / September),' Bethesda. MD (Houston).
The Subcommittee will discuss the: NRC - Severe, Accident Research-Program (SARP): plan.:Attendanceby.thefollowing~isanticipated:
Dr. Kerr-Mr. Ward Dr. Catton
-Mr. Davis Dr..Shewmon Dr. Lee Dr. Siess Severe Accidents, Date to' be-determined- (August / September), Bethesda, MD
}
(Houston).
The Subcommittee will discuss the proposed Generic Letter by NRR and the NRC research program in ;the accident management' area.
Attendance by.
the following.is anticipated:-
'.Mr. Ward.
Dr. Kerr-Dr. Corradini-Dr. Catton
.Dr. Shewmon Mr. Davis-Dr. Siess Dr. Lee
!1 Joint Severe Ascidents and Probabilistic-Risk; Assessment,- Date ' to be deter-mined (August / September), Location to be determined.(Houston). The Subcommit-tees.will discuss the second draft of::NUREG-1150, " Severe Accident Risks:
An Assessment for. Five U.S. Nuclear Power Plants." Attendance by the following-
- is anticipated:
Dr. Kerr
,Dr. Siess Dr. Lewis Mr. Ward Dr. Catton Mr.-Davis Mr. Michelson Dr.' Lee Dr..Remick Dr. Okrent:
Dr.1Shewmon
-Dr.:Saunders Joint Containment Systems and Structural Encineering, Date to* be~ determined
.(August / September), San Francisco. CA area (Fouston/Igne).. The: Subcommittees, will discuss ~ containment. design criteria-for future - plants with,' invited speakers from industry. Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Mr. Ward Dr. Kerr Dr. Siess Dr. Shewmon Mr. Carroll Mr.:Wylie'-
Dr. Catton Dr. Corradini 1
p 4.,.
.. rn
- 4:-
Joint Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena and Core Performance,? Date to be determined (September), Bethesda, MD (Boehnert/ Houston). - The Subcomittees Will continue" their review or boiling water reactor core power. stability' pursuant to the core power oscillation event at LaSalle County Station, Unit' 2. - Attendance by; the following is anticipated:
-i Dr..Kerr Dr. Lee Dr. Catton Dr. Lipinski Mr. Michelson Dr. Plesset-
~ Dr. Shewmon
.Mr. Schrocki
.Mr. Ward Dr.!Sullivan, s
Mr. Wylie-Dr. lTien Decay Heat Removal Systems, Da'te 'to be determined (November),. Bethesda. MD (Boehnert)., The Subcomittee will continue its review of the proposed resolu.-,
i tion of. Generic. Issue:23, "RCP Seal Failures._"
Attendance by the following is. anticipated:
Mr. Ward
.Mr.Michelson(tent.)
j Dr. Catton Mr. Wylie e i
Dr.: Kerr.
Mr. Davis Systematic Assessment of' Experience, Date to be-determined,(November),
Bethesda. MD - ( Alderman).. The Subcomittee will review the proposed power increase for Indian Point Unit 2. ' Attendance by the following is anticipated:
.l Dr. Lewis-Dr. Remick-Mr. Carroll Mr. Ward' 4
Mr.1 Michelson Mr.: Wylie i if L
Decay - Heat Removal Systems, Date.to be determined, - Bethesda. MD (Boehnert). -
The subcomittee will explore the.use of feed and-bleed for decay heat removal' in PWRs. Attendance by the following is anticipated:,
j Mr. Ward
_Mr.Michelson(tent.)
Dr. Catton Mr. Wylie -
Dr. Kerr-Mr.: Davis y
Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena, Date: to bei determined, Bethesda. MD.(Boehnert);
- The Subcomittee will discuss the status -of ~ Industry best-estimatec ECCS-model-
- i submittals for use with the. revised ECCS~ Rule. Attendance;by the following-y is anticipated:-
'1 Dr."Catton Dr; Plesse't
!l Dr. Kerr Mr. Schrock 1
Mr. Michelson Dr.'Sullivan Mr. Ward Dr. Tien Mr. Wylie~
y s
2...
r i
, j g)
Auxiliary and Secondary Systems, Date to-be determined, Bethesda', MD (Durai-:
- 5 swamy).
The subcomittee. will discuss the: -
1)-. criteria being : used by l
utilities to-design Chilled Water Systems, (2) (regulatory requirements for-Chilled Water Systems design, and-(3) criteria being used by the NRC staffito -
)
review the Chilled Water Systems design.
Attendance : by. the following. is.:
-anticipated:
i
.Mr. Michelson-Mr. Wylie i
Mr. Carroll.
s
= Extreme External: Phenomena,. Date to be determined, Bethesda, MD (Igne).: Wh'e' Subcommittee will review planning' documents on external events._ Attendance byL the following is anticipated:
]
i Dr. Siess Mr. Michelson i
Dr. Kerr
=Mr. Wy. lie-Dr.: Lewis Reliability Assurance, Date -to be determined, _Bethesda, MD (Duraiswe.qy).
The:
t Subcommittee will discuss ' the status of implementation of the resolution:- of.-
USI A-46; " Seismic-Qualification of. Equipment in Operating Plants," and other 3
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; determ' ned, i
Bethesda, MD (Duraiswatqy/ Houston). The Subcomittees 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 a
is anticipated:
Y Dr. Siess Dr. Kerr Mr. Ward Mr. Michelson i
Mr. Carroll-Mr. Wylie Dr. Catton q
~
[
l
)
a l
l l*
-.g i
m
-_L,m,,
,.f g,,, ( 1,,,,
-