ML20138H582
| ML20138H582 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/31/1996 |
| From: | Architzel R NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Matthews D NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| References | |
| PROJECT-691 NUDOCS 9701060127 | |
| Download: ML20138H582 (12) | |
Text
l
, 9 0C0 ye 4 UNITED STATES g j t
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20566 4 001 l
/ December 31, 1996 MEMORANDUM T0: David B. Matthews, Chief Generic Issues and Environmental Projects Branch Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM: Ralph E. Architzel, Section Chief Generic Issues and Environmental Projects Branch Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Division of Reactor Program Management
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF PUBLIC MEETING HELD TO DISCUSS THE BOILING WATER REACTOR OWNERS' GROUP (BWROG) PROPOSAL ON ELIMINATION OF RECOMBINERS FOR INERTED PLANTS On October 22, 1996, the staff attended a public meeting with representatives of General Electric and certain BWROG licensee representatives. The purpose was to discuss a BWROG proposed position that recombiners are unnecessary for their inerted plants and solicit staff comments and suggestions regarding a potential effort to prepare a topical report aimed at eliminating the racombiner requirement at those plants that have them. A list of attendees and their affiliations is provided as Attachment 1. A copy of the handouts used by the BWROG in its presentation is provided as Attachment 2.
During the meeting, the BWROG and staff discussed whether the staff would entertain the position, and if so, what technical and regulatory issues the topical report must encompass. The staff indicated that the considering that the recombiner requirements of 10 CFR 50.44 were found unnecessary for Generic Letter (GL) 84-09 facilities, there may be a basis for a similar finding that the other inerted plants similarly may not need them. The staff suggested that the Group thoroughly review GL 84-09 background documents and I determine applicability to their facilities. Issues to be considered included (1) Part 100 dose consequences, including the dose increment, with and without i
recombiners, and (2) the specific requirements of 10CFR50.44 relating to the prohibition against reliance on purge /repressurization as the primary means of combustible gas control. The staff noted that there appeared to be only two means available to pursue their position; either a rule change or for the individual licensee's to request exemptions. The staff noted that although there was reluctance to approve exemptions, versus changing the underlying regulation by revising the rule, this was still a possible approach. The staff recommended that this position and the potential paths to resolution be explored at a future BWROG Senior Management Meeting before significant
\
~ \
yVJ .
0G0030 yf B V M.
9701060127 961231 PDR PROJ 691 PDR
i e
~
D. Matthews December 31, 1996 l resources were expended on a particular approach. The staff also noted that the BWROG might consider joining with the owners of large dry PWRs to address the recombiner rule if they find their positions are similar and believe that a rule change is warranted.
Project No. 691 Attachments: As stated cc w/atts: See next page l
l l
l l
J l
1 1 4
i 1
N l
l i
i D. Matthews December 31, 1996 resources were expended on a particular approach. The staff also noted that the BWROG might consider joining with the owners of large dry PVP.; to address the recombiner rule if they find their positions are similar arid believe that a rule change is warranted.
Project No. 691 Attachments: As stated cc w/atts: See next page
, DISTRIBUTION: 1 tiAC4 C.991 Docket File
-PUBLIC PGEB r/f ACRS JHWilson 0GC E-Mail FMiraglia AThadani BSheron TMartin RZimmerman GHolahan DMatthews CBerlinger WLong I
Document Name: G:\REA\ RECOMB.MTG -s .1 0FC SC:PGEB C:h6Ehki BC:AD(kfD NAME RArchitzel:sw CBerlinger DMabews DATE 12//96 12/fc/96 12/3l/96 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY l l
l l
l l
LIST OF ATTENDEES AT NEETING WITH BWROG HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC ON OCTOBER 22, 1996 H&ME AFFILIATION W. Long NRC R. Architzel NRC R. Hill GE J. Trotter Polestar F. Quiner Scientech J. S,1yder BWROG-WNP2 J. La Force GE J. Steinmetz COMED
- 0. Vidal BWROG-Hatch J. McLeod BWROG-Southern Co.
l l
Attachement 1
i l
BWR OWNERS GROUP i HYDROGEN RECOMBINER COMMITTEE l .
PRESE: STATION TO THE:SRC STAFF l ROCKVILLE, MD OCTOBER 22,1996 I JIM S:NYDER SUPPLY SYSTEM
, COMMITTEECHAIRMAN I
.l I
1 i BWROG HYDROGEN RECOMBINER COMMITTEE 10/21/%
. . Attachment 2
'i
. ~ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ , - _ _ . . _ _ _ . - _ . _ _ . _ - . _ . _ . - . _ . . . - _ - . . . _ . _ _ _ . . _ . _ . _ _ - . _ . _ , _ . . , _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . , _ , .
COMMITTEE PURPOSE BWR Owners' Group l
L i
' Committee formed to eliminate the hydrogen l recombiners from Mk I and II BWR inerted
! containments l
j' i
2 BWROG HYDROGEN RECOMBINER COMMITTEE 10/21/96
MEETING. OBJECTIVE BWR Owners' Group l + Present BWROG plans for eliminating the i
containment hydrogen recombiners in Mk I and II containments
! + Obtain NRC guidance 1
I 3
BWROG HYDROGEN RECOMBINER COMMITTEE 10/21/% ,
-,------,.,-.-----,-.,,-----,.,,.,.,.,.,,.,,,,.,,-.,.--n.,-..---.w., ,, , , . , - , -a , . , . .,., , , - ,, . .,.r, , - - , - , , - . - - - - , , . , , , , , -n,-,-,,
PROBLEMS swa owners eroup l
l l + High Cost for Maintainability
- + Limited availability of spares and renewal parts
+ Long mean time to repair 4
4 BWROG HYDROGEN RECOMBINER COMMITTEE 10/21/%
i
SOLUTION BWR Owners' Group
+ Elimination of hydrogen recombiners 5
BWROG HYDROGEN RECOMBINER COMMITTEE 10/21/%
m-==w. m.+s. ,,, , .
J- -
I SCENARIOS TO BE INVESTIGATED
! ELIMINATION OF CONTAINMENT HYDROGEN RECOMBINERS BASIC ACCIDENTSCENARIOS I I I
I Severe accident during I Severe accident during DBA normal power operations DBA normal power operations l Containment not fullyinerted containment not fullyinerted
' LOCA containment fully inerted before shutdown realistic analyses realistic analyses Containmentineded after startup -
+
l PSA PSA PSA assessment GOTHIC (or similar code) assessment Appendix 5 QA assessment
' plant unique analysia
' bounding assumptions ,
I 6
BWROG HYDROGEN RECOMBINER COMMITTEE 10/21/%
- , , _ < , . , . - , _ _ . - - . , , ~ . - _ . , - _ _ _ . , , _ , . . , . . , . . , _ , , . . , - . , , . . . . - _ . _ . - _ _ , _ . . - _ , , , . , - , . . _ _ , _ ,__ 1, .....,._.._,.m_ . _ - _ . , , , . . .. . - . . , -.. _,-., -., m-- - - - , , , . - - - . .
MEETING RESULT BWR Owners' Group l
l l + NRC guidance on the elimination of r containment hydrogen recombiners in-Mk I and II BWR containments I
i 7
BWROG HYDROGEN RECOMBINER CON'MITTEE 10/21/96
t c
Boiling Water Reactor Owners' Group cc: C. D. Terry Vice President, Nuclesr Engineering Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Nine Mile Point-2 PO Box 63 Lycoming, NY 13093 D. B. Fetters PECO Energy Nuclear Group Headquarters MC 62C-3 965 Chesterbrook Blvd.
Wayne, PA 19087 R. A. Pinelli GPU Nuclear MCC Building E One Upper Pond Road Parsippany, NJ 07054 S. J. Stark GE Nuclear Energy
- 175 Curtner Ave, M/C 165 San Jose, CA 95125 T. J. Rausch Commonwealth Edison Company Nuclear Fuel Services 1400 Opus Place, 4th Floor ETWIII
, Downers Grove, IL 60515 l1