ML20127G025
| ML20127G025 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/02/1984 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| REF-GTECI-A-46, REF-GTECI-RV, TASK-A-46, TASK-OR ACRS-2196, NUDOCS 8505200635 | |
| Download: ML20127G025 (14) | |
Text
't 1
- '5'] 3 (
Y b l b a e 4-sy PROPOSED MEETING
SUMMARY
/ MINUTES FOR THE QUALIFICATION PROGRA FOR SAFETY RELATED EQUIPMENT SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING IN W ON MARCH 29,1984 the status of The S'ubcommittee met in open session to discuss USI A-46, " Seismic Qualification of Equipment in Operating Plants,"
and the work perf ormed by the Seismic Qualifications Utilities and the Senior Seismic Review and Advisory Panel Group (SQUG)
(SSRAP) evaluation of the SQUG program to use seismic experience l
l ruggedness of certain classes data to demonstrate the seismic power plants. Also discussed were the of equipment in nuclear for the Qualification proposed changes to the research programThe Subcommittee heard presentations of Equipment and Plant Aging.
from representatives of the NRR and RES Staff, SQUG,and SSRAP.
no written statements of requests The Subcommittee recieved the public. The for time to make presentations fromand members of at 3: 45 pm. Copies concluded meeting convened at 8:30 am complete list of the agenda, the Federal Register Notice, and a of meeting attendees are enclosed as Attatchments A,B, and C. The meeting handouts are filed with the office copy of the minutes.
The Subcommittee members attending and the meeting were D.
C.Michelson, Ward. ACRS Consultants J. Ebersole, G. Reed, C.Siess in attendance were W. Lipinski and P.Pomeroy. G.Quitttschreiber for the meeting.
was the Designated Federal Official STATUS OF WORK ON USI A-46 TAP T.Y. Chang, NRR Task Manager for A-46, began the meeting's background presen-of USI A-46 and by briefly describing the tations performed the summarizing the outcome of the work that has been for each of the five tasks under the A-46 Task Action Plan. The l
i feasability as ways Tasks and the Staf f 's conclusions on their
- to resolve A-46 were summarized as follows:
OF SEISMICALLY RISK SENSITIVE SYSTEMS TASK 1. IDENTIFICATION .
AND COMPONENTS Brookhaven Nati onal Labs' The NRC Staff contracted which would identify seismically to conduct a study equipment in order that risk sensitive systems and a generic minimum equipment list could be developed.
BNL using WASH-1400 logic trees and Zion and Oyster Creek fragilities developed a seismic PRA methodology L DIG RIED ORIGIQ h 8505200635 840502 Cortified By -_
-- - .-. ..- - _ - _ , _ _ _ __ _ _ _ ^ -- *_,y
~
- J 2 .
to identify risk important systems. The results of BNL's study showed that equipment lists could be obtained equipment using the PRA methodology, however, the obtained, are highly plant specific. In view lists /
of this, the NRC Staf f has not decided to pursue The the Staff development of a generic equipment list.
however, suggests that for operating plants with existing PRAs, the utilities may eliminate certain components on from the seismic equipment qualification . program
-the basis of low risk importance.
' TASK 2. ASSESSMENT OF THE ADEQUACY DF EXISTING SEISMIC QUALIFI-CATION METHODS Institute was contracted by the Southwest Research qualification methods used the NRC Staff to survey with current in operating plants, compare the methods criteria, and try to recommend the acceptability of the qualification methods used in older plants. aBased method on this, SWRI developed and demonstrated that can be used to correlate operating qualification The Staff looks upon methods with current criteria.
the method as promising, however, of limited practical since the method needs value to the A-46 resolutionof the equipment fragility knowledge or estimation level and knowledge of the required response spectra.
TASK 3. DEVELOPMENT AND ASSESSMENT OF IN-SITU TESTING METHODS TO ASSIST IN QUALIFICATION OF EQUIPMENT.
a study to find out INEL was contracted to perform the extent to which in-situ tests can be used to qualif y equipment in operating plants and to develop criteria and guidelines f or such testing. Their study l
shows that it is a feasible approach to qualif y (such equipment as
(
when employed with an experi ence database l
the one developed under Task 4). The study also indicates used by itself as a be that in-situ testing cannot and guidelines Criteria way to qualify equipment.
for in-situ testing were completed in October 1983.
i The Staff proposes to use in-situ testing with generic response spectra (developed under Task 5) as a supporting approach to Task 4 in cases where the seismic to a certain item. Mr.experience Chang database does not apply pointed in response to the Subcommittee's notquestioning, be used to establish, out that the testing will equipment, but rather.
the fragility of the tested the natural frequency of the equipment.
TASK 4. SEISMIC QUALIFICATION OF EQUIPMENT USING SEISMIC I EXPERIENCE DATA i
l
1 3
4 ks %
Initially , the effort in this task was directed at l determining whether or not it is feasible to use i non-nuclear seismic experience data to qualify equipment in operating nuclear plants. Two efforts, one by Lawrence Livermore and one by SQUG, were initiateif and both database, to develop a s'eismic experience studies independently demonstrated that it is feasible ;
to use non-nuclear data to qualify equipment. Since concluding that it is feasible, the Staff and BOUG have directed their efforts at _ developing a seismic
'. experience database (i .e. enhancing the one provided program) and the guidelines by the SQUG/EQE pilot for using the database. The Staff has developed an resolution plan based on the work of Task 4.
TASK 5. GENERIC FLODR RESPONSE SPECTRA is needed when analysis A required response spectra in-situ testing, or seismic experience data is used to qualify a piece of equipment. In order to develop a required response spectra, the floor response spectra response spectra (from or the supporting structure the floor response spectra) is needed. In several spectra is either older plants the floor response current unavailable or was not developed according to consuming Normally, an expensive, time criteria. develop the finite element analysis is performed to DNL to develop floor spectra. The NRC contracted a set of generic floor response spectra that the rtilities conducting the lengthy finite could use instead BNL completed their work in October of element anal ysi s.
1983 by developing a simplified way to generate generic response spectra.
SOUG PROGRAM N. Smith, Chairman of the Seismic Qualification Utilities In March Group, and July next gave an overview of the SQUG program.
1983, SQUG presented to the Subcommittee and the ACRS the findings their pilot study conducted by EQE entitled, " Program for of the Development of an Alternate Approach to Seismic Equipment The pilot study investigated the performance Qualification".
of both electrical and mechanical equipment in several ranging non-nuclearfrom facilities during selected Californian earthquakes An experience data base was 5.1 to 6.6 on the Richter scale. Walkdowns of eight nuclear plants'-
formed as a part of the study. equipment in the data base were performed to determine what Seven classes plants were similar to equipment in nuclear base.
plants. The classes were of equipment were defined centers, in the(2) data low voltage switch gear, (3)
(1) motor control
Q metal clad switchgear, - (4) motor operated valves, (5) air For pumps.
operated the l,
valves, (6) vertical pumps, and (7) horizontal SQUG / EQE observed no failures of properly equipment examined, anchored equipment. They, also f ound that the seismic adequacy ,
- not affected by agings and as' of the equipment examined was several items I a result of their nuclear plant to visits theyof be typical found nuclear power plant in the data base plants equipment. They concluded in their study thats l
properly l-The pilot study verified the seismic resistance of anchored standard power plant equipment; I
Since the equipment found in the pilot study's data base l
is typical of nuclear power plant equipment, explicit seismic qualification of equipment in older nuclear power plants ,
is not justified;
! Seismic equipment qualification is not a significant safety concern.
revi ew A Senior Seismic Review and Advisory Panel was formed to J
I and guide the SQUG pilot study and any work perf ormed subsequent to the study. The panel was formed in response to the NRC Staff's SSRAP initiated concerns over the conclusions reached by SQUG.
their review in June 1983 and issued a report of their evaluation in January 1984. SQUG, at the request of SSRAP, extended their data base to include inf ormation f rom Alaskan and f oreign of equipment, earth-substation
- In addition an eighth class quakes.
transformers, was added to the original seven classes of equipment in the data base.
No problems or f ailures of properly anchored present At equipment were identified has with the additional data. experience inf ormation from detailed the SQUG data base 23 non-nuclear facilities on approximately 3000 pieces of equipment.
the eight SQUG currently maintains the position that because l classes of electrical and mechanical equipment are representative of the essential equipment in nuclear power plants, the results of the SQUG effort have demonstrated that the f unctional and equipment is not a structural adequacy of properly anchored SQUG is currently negotiating with the NRC safety concern. seismic qualifi cati on.
Staff their plans to close the issue of They have proposed the f ollowing plans a generic list of equipment necessary SQUG will define with the loss.
to safe: / achieve and maintain hot shutdown of offsite power.
list those pieces of SQUG will screen from the generic equipment covered by the SQUG database.
5 SQUG will verify the seismic adequacy of_ the remaining investigation, testing, and equipment through additional analysis.
- component C. Michelson asked whether during SQUG / EQE had considered aan earthquake, ev
- to be functional functional after the asked to operate during the event but waswords he asked whether they other strong shaking ceased. In of functionality during measure were using survivability as aN. Smith replied that they were using survivability the earthquake.
of functionality. P. Yanov, EQE, noted that they >
as a measure had investigated the performance ofshaking components of that had to contin-an earthquake and uously operate during the strongobserved in those components. He added that no failures were continuously operate that several of the components required toitems in the database which were not r are similar to otherduring the. strong shaking. Based on this SOUG nor did~ operate to function
/ EDE f eels that certain components are qual i fi ed actuality they were not earthquake even though in during an observed to f unction.
I- assumes that there are no risks D. Ward asked if SQUG / EQE equipment during the 15 to 30 related to the non-function of Smith replied that they did make l
seconds of strong shaking. N.
such an assumption.
SQUG having observed no failures of properly In reference to Michelson asked anchored equipment in their database plants, C.their findings with the results o how SQUG reconciled by the various laboratories.
In j
equipment testing he performedasked why the failures were observed in equipment particular tested on shake tables and none were observed in theisSQUG database.
N. Smith replied that in laboratory testing, i.e. shaking in equipment the labs subjected is at
! to ahigher broaderamplitude range of shaking, and power density than what is experienced a
in actual earthquakes.
i l- SSRAP REVIEW
\ Sei smic Review and R. Kennedy, SMA, next summarized the Senior work performed by SOUS.
evaluation of the Advisory Panel's their pilot the conclusions of In March 1953, SQUG presentedThe Staff had difficulties in' accepting study to the NRC Staff.
the conclusions reached by SOUG, so , a five member panel (SSRAP) was retained by SQUG with the approval of the NRC Staff to make an independent assessment of whether certain classes sufficient of equipment seismic operating nuclear plants demonstrated in o
l
- - - ~ - _ . _ -_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
6 explicit seionic ruggedness in past earthquakes so as to renderSSRAP reviewed the seismic perform qualification unnecessary.SQUG by / EQE's pilot prog' ram for the seven database developed In addition to reviewing _
classes of equipment (and,laterdata eight).
they also requested EGE and~
program the original pilot earthquakes for equipment SQUG to investigate certain foreignseveral walkthroughs of both SSRAP also performed the BOUG failure. facilities examined in the non-nuclear and nuclear
/ EQE program.
report in January 1984 to the NRC.
_SSRAP. submitted a draft assessment and provided In the report, they summarized their the f ollowing conclusions regarding the use of seismic experience equipment the eight classes of data to qualify equipment for examined by SSRAP:
i nstall ed asin nuclear power plants is generally Equipment least rugged as that installed in conventional similar and at power plants.
reser-This equipment, when properly anchored and with some vations, has an inherent seismic ruggedness and a demonstrated capability to withstand substantial seismic motions without structural damage.
ended has also Functionality been af ter the strong shaking hasdemonstrated, but th strong shaking has not been demonstrated.
With several importantscertaincaveats and exclusions, seismic it is SSRAP's motion bounds (as judgement that below report) it is unnecessary to perform given in the SSRAP equipment in on of existing explicit seismic qual s f icatioperating plants to demonstrate for these eight classes functionality after strong shaking has ended.
seismic ruggedness The existing database demonstrates the of this equipment up to these seismic motion bounds.
cautions in the report that there are several reservations regarding the use SSRAP conclusions and caveats associated with the experience database to qualify equipment.
of the SQUG / EDE utilities attempting to qualify Primarily SSRAP cautions that conduct a thorough walk through of equipment this way should equipment l's equipment that their plant to (1) determine that (2) identify any potential for impacting adequately anchored, (3) identif y any non-typical i
between equipment and structures, and invalidate the use of the SOUG support structures which mayThey also stress that several items of concern These included
/ EDE database.
were not thoroughly addressed in their assessment.
l
7 the problem of relay chatter during strongfuel, shaking and the consid-and coolant) to eration of utilities (e.g. air, power,
< the equipment. .
/
SSRAP also believes that the SQUG / EQE database can be extended to other classes of equipment with further study.. BSRAP f eels
{' that the seismic experience approach is amenable to the following classes of equipments heat exchangers, diesel generators, electrical trays,
' motors, air compressors, fans, HVAC ducts, piping, cable instrumentation, and control systems.
caveats and reservations brought up P. Pomeroy asked if the It was replied by SSRAP were of any significant concern to SQUG.
that they were not.
Alluding to C. Michelson's concern about SQUG / EDE's earthquake, f ailure i
functionality during an to demonstrate equipment R. Kennedy noted that SSRAP did not feel that SQUG / EQE had adequately demonstrated such functionality. However he mentioned i
that SSRAP did not have any real concerns with the issue problem of i
functionality during strong shaking other than with the i
j of relay chatter.
I W. Lipinski noted that SSRAP considered cable trays to be amenable He asked if they or SQUG to the sei smi c experience approach. R. Kennedy knew of any damage to cable trays in the plants tray examined.
problem and it replied that he did not know of any cable that cable trays are rugged is a general belief among SSRAP pieces of equipment.
l is primarily based P. Pomeroy noted that SQUG / EQE's database on the seismic performance of equipment in California earthquakes.
He mentioned that the sei smi c activity within California is and that the SQUG primarily associated with interplate motionprimarily be applied to plants located EDE database will the eastern and central U.S. were seismicity is associated with
/
intraplate activity. He noted that there is evidence that there are differences between the spectra of seismicwhether events SSRAP in intraplate had and interplate regions. He asked R. Kennedy R. Kennedy mentioned that considered this in their review. between'.
? he was aware of theplate differences activity and is the that the differences higher frequency content inter and intra He noted that he was not particularly of the intraplate earthquake. earthquakes worried that the high frequency content of eastern to equipment not already seen woul d cause structural damage in the California earthquakes.
1
--,..,.---.n.., . . - . , , , , , _ . _ . , _ , _ , _ _ _ , . , _ , , , _ . , , _ _ , , , _ _ - , . __, - _ _ _. _ ,- - _
8
?
USI A-46 NRC STAFF ~ POSITION AND PROPDSED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN T. Y. Chang next_summariEed the NRC Staff's position on UBI/
A-46. Basically,- the Staff has adopted SSRAP's position on have ',
qualification. And they the issue of seismic equipment for USI A-46 on the findings and based their resolution plan The Staff plans to issue conclusions of SSRAP's assessment.
a generic letter under the provisions of 10CFR50.54(F) instead I
of issuing an extended review plan. They proposed two approaches One way is that a utility under the scope of A-46 can take. Staff monitoring for a plant to join or be in SQUG with the NRC the SQUG activities and for the SSRAP to continue their role i
in reviewing SQUG*n work. SSRAP must endorse the SGUG resolution.
would involve The other way, plant specific implementation, a utility to qualify their equipment by an approach approved ,
by the NRC.
In the generic approach, a utility will qualify its equipment through comparison with the SQUG / EQE database. In addition 4 specific spectra for they will have isto establish that the siteof the spectra reported in within .the bounds their plant inspection would have Also a walkthrough SSRAP's assessment. verify anchorage and the other caveats and to be performed to SSRAP report. The utility will be exclusions stated in the exclusions and caveats and required to report any identified record any modifications made to the plant to meet the database.
For equipment not covered in the SQUG / EQE database one of the following methods can be used to qualiffy the equipment:
Extend experience _ data to include additional classes using logic and procedures parallel to those of SSRAPg Find test data which is applicable to equipments I
Develop other evidence of seismic ruggedness; Test prototypes; Perform analysis and / or in situ tests to show seismic ruggedness or similarity with database; Simple modification to provide similarity with databaseg .
Replacement by qualified equipments Qualify to current criteria.
4 operating plants will be under the scope Approximately sixty
_ _ _ , _ _ _ ._,.__..___l__.._______
of USI A-46. The plants under A-46 are primarily those plants licensed prior Into the implementation of current criteria in limit October 1972. their review ~of A-46 the Staf f plans to the scope of seismic reverification to those systems andwill They components assume ~
needed to perform and maintain safe shutdown. with a LOCA.
- or coincide ,
that a seismic event does not the Staff will causeassume that of fsite power is lost -
In addition
]
during and /,or after a seismic event.
ACRS comment on the It was requested by the NRC Staff that Athe draf t resolution plan will proposed resolution plan in May. meeting the plan be completed in April. At the time of the by NRR. The plan will be sent i
was being reviewed internally 1984, and issued for public to CRGR for review by April 15,
' comment in June. CRGR will again review the plan in October j-and the guidelines and requirements will be issued by December 1984.
C. Michelson requested a list of plants under the scope of A-46.
i The Subcommittee was disturbed with the Staff's decoupling of seismic events from LOCA. assumption The Subcommittee noted that plants that the SSE is concurrent are designed with the to explain their reasons l
with a LDCA. They asked The the Staf f Staff replied that they have no intentions for decoupling. resolution, rather their to redesign the plant with the A-46 intention is to re-verify the decoupled seismic adequacy of equipment in the older plants. They have the LOCA from the seismic event to restrict the scope of the systems and components subject to qualification.
)' W. Lipinski made a request that the Subcommittee be provided >
the documented database. He made the request so that they with the Staff plans
' could see what representive components that to use as standards to qualify other components.
RESEARCH PLAN FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF EQUIPMENT AND PLANT AGING i
W. Morris, RES, introduced the discussions of the proposed research of electrical-plans in the areas of environmental qualification aging. He mentioned that
{
and mechanical equipment and plant at this time to get they were meeting with the Subcommittee input from the Subcommittee prior to the research plans being few months they l
frozen. He also mentioned that in the next
' would be seeking comments from industry regarding the priorization
10 plan. He mentioned that the Electrical placement
. ,^
effort for- .the RES under the same heading g
of of V N of the two above areasreflects the NRC Staf f 's point of view testingthat Equipment Integrity
" electrical equipment integrity isequipment based on fqualification ollowed by periodic-of appropriately condi t,i oned surviellance ano' inspection.
3 s
J.Eoersoleaskhdwhereintheresearchprogramaretheirefforts wetting / condensation f ailures for to address the potential in steam and water spray of key electrical equipment locatedW. Farmer replied that they were environments. W. Morris and they noted unaware of such work in RES on the problem, however, currently addressing the prob that their are two efforts by IEEE to devel op a standard One effort is being conducted to protect electrical equipment from steam and water spray envir-a bulletin The other effort is IE's development of onments. l which addresses the problem of condensation failures for termina
' blocks and connectors located in the containment.
environmental W. Farmer next summarized the RES program plan f orHe mentioned that there ar qualification of equipment.in the RES program. These areas areas ares (1) of concern addressedhow the accident environment onis simulated electricalin the qual is done ication of equipment, (2) how pre-aging testing to assure a conservative basis equipment qualification and (3) development of an industrial
! for qualifying equipment, regulatory guides and general criteria to assist standard, IEEE l NRR in their equipment qualification program.
f plan. This program J. Vora summarized the plant aging programThe first is to determine plan addresses two areas of concern. with electrical both and mechanical aging and thermonuclear effects associatedcomponents whic The second area is to determine methods of inspection and surviel-detecting significant aging and lance would be effective in so that maintenance prior to failure, thermonuclear effects could be carried out. For FY 44 through second 37 and timely repair towards the the work under this program will be directed area of concern.
CONCLUSION At the conclusion of the meeting solicited the f ollowing comments
- from the Subcommittee on USI A-46:
data points in the SOUG D. Ward noted that all the 3000an indication of surviveability. He EDE database give of the points noted however that only a small fraction
' /
I
- l. __ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ - . , . . _ _ _
s.
11 f
' functionality during strong shaking. He mentioned indicate to infer functionality that ifsurvivabilitythe Staff and forSQUGtheplans equipment assessed, then they from or functionality ,
should also determine whether operabilityof an earthquake is not highly' during the strong. shaking '
risk related.
with the SSRAP and SQUG
., E. Reed was generally satisfiedHe mentioned that SQUG's approach approach to resolving A-46.is a good concept and that SQUG and SS for their work.
On the work performed for concerned the resolutionthat SQUG, SSRAP and the of A-46, C. Michelson mentioned that he was NRC Staf f had not fully considered all the systems implications associated with the failure of key equipment during a seismic event.
a first draft of C. Michelson mentioned that for he would providereview by the Subcommittee in order his thoughts on A-46 j
~ that a letter can be written at the May ACRS meeting.
I l
{
,s-- . . . . . _ _ _ _ _._.._ ___._ _ .._ _ _ .. . , _ . . . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - . . . . _ - - . _
4:Et-CrimenT v -
TIME __
300M. MEETING ROOM _ l O %
'DATE3O9-N ADVISORY COMMllTEE ON REACTOR SAFE 6UARDS '
MEETING Ou ct i 9iCo-Won 3rog rArn En( ~
8eeb lela+ec' ..
8eouio. men ATTENDEES PLEASE SIGN BELOW (PLEASE PRINT) AFFILIATION BADGE NO.
NAME '
Conricawaz rx Epise.a
/
_1 A!Ett P. % m n 8 I Bas \wc 2 %w-e 7 .%wev
\ L14 oreGes+Elec4 rec.Co .
3 ALEXAMtER M ARtoc asa,,u,e A < \ c4 arv. c 5 h #f M ,f (Arrk WI SvthS9h kWf 0 b>/
s m -., z. n . ., , ,
vuac.
7 k o ber b l $e M erl 't i SMA Sx440- stirH' 8 Pbddd20 _
9 jf%eer Po11 o t WweZar I" U; V '8 /
10 I , 3 -
WGSHMMwW 11 FM/h5 SGNE uMD ly: a.. f*Ac ,u Xnfi-< 19Xu ac.
12 l#m J rai!TFyln MatNE y/Nkfs 13 14 bid M. \/ChrRV ( h Mh 1s < n & \ en ,;
16 Qs. MSC A, \\ w hwth, 17 R . M. Rws.
k u vr e cu s~ ar e.
l 18 K .k. Sh a '
19 G.BA6 M I A/4/tc l
9Ri/.0sT 20 h k A d sn s.e." _.
1
TIME _?: 30 a .rh . EETING ROOM _ i 0 % .
I
.DATE 3 FY ADVISORY COMMllTEE ON REACTOR SAFE 6UARDS ~
MEETING Ou ct .i hiCd 'Non Drog hArr) En( ' ~
Suen h+ed Ee uiornen--
' ' U
' ATTENDEES PLEASE SIGN BELOW (PLEASE PRINT) AFFILIATION BADGE NO.
NAME l' T Y C h a ,, o / NPC 2 Ta-U3 Cke rt l NRC / SEPS 3 l AC o!D V04 I h k '/fG er6
\ ..i'r.,...
a N
e ~
, s s t -
,: . ./ ) n-e s l, -e i i
7 i a
/ -
/
i o c
10
- /
/ , .. ..
. 3 l 11 12 .
l 13 i
14 ~
f 15 ,
16 n \
12 k
19
\
20
I.
PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR THE QUALIFICATION PROGRAM FOR SAFETY RELATED EQUIPMENT .
MARCH 29, 1984 - WASHINGTON, D.C.
Presentation Approximate March 29, 1984 Speaker Time Tine
- I. Executive Session C. Michelson 15 Min. 8:30 - 8:45 am II. Overview of USI-A-46 T. Y. Chang 30 Min. 8:45 - 9:30 am
" Seismic Qualification of Equipment in Oper-ating Plants" III. Status Report-SQUG 1 Hour 9:30 - 10:45 am Seismic Qualification Program A. EQE/SQUG Eval- N. Smith /
untion of Seismic P. Yanev Experience Data B. Recommen'dations of the SSRAP ,
- LUNCH ********** 1 Hour 12:15 - 1:15 pm V. Detailed RES Program Plans B. Morris 1 Hour 1:15 - 2:30 pm
!- for Electrical Equipment .
Qualification and Plant Aging VI. Closing Remarks C. Michelson 15 Min. 2:30 - 2:45 pm Adjourn.
j
- Includes time for Subcommittee Questions and Comments.
l 1
- ~