ML20148S665
| ML20148S665 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/24/1978 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-1561, NUDOCS 7812040022 | |
| Download: ML20148S665 (22) | |
Text
-
I T
-- 20:
8/24/78 ri" E ' #
NI k.:.*:G L d' B i[*
- Q
_! )L l
w.~
l 1
IL
%dyJrES OF TIIC ACRS SUDCOMMITTEE ON ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS, -CONfROL AND INSTRUMENTATION IJOS N1GELES, CA bkb'((b JULY 20, 1978 q' put ///r/ly7
'Jhe ACRS Subcommittee on Electrical Systems, Control and Instrumentatica met with the NRC Staff, and representatives of Washington Public Power Supply Systems, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, Nebraska Public Power District, Atomics International Company, and General Electric Company at the Quality Inn, Los Angeles, California on July 20, 1978, to continue its review of the capability of loose parts monitoring systems to detect loose parts in operating nuclear power plants.
Another purpose of the meeting was to discuss and deal with industry comments on the proposed Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide 1.133.
A notice of the meeting appeared in the Federal Register on July 5,1978 (Attachment A).
A copy of the detailed presentation schedule is attached (Attachment B).
A list of attendees at the Subcommittee Meeting is attached (Attachment C).
A list of documents provided to the Sub-committee for this meeting is attached (Attachment D).
There were no public statements either written or oral. 'Ihe entire meeting was open to members of the public.
.1. 0 MEETING WITH VpHORS, UTILITIES, AND THE NRC STAFP 'IO DISCUSS IODSE PARI'S F.ONT10luGG SYSTEMS AND THI' PROh0 SED REVISION 1 TO REGUINIORY GUIDE 1.133 (OPEN SESSION) 1.1 Subcommittee Chairman's Opening Remarks Dr. Kerr, Subcommittee Chairman, introduced the members of the Subcommittee and noted that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the use of loose parts monitoring systems in nuclear power plants and to develop information for-consideration by the ICRS in its review of the proposed Revision 1 to Regulatory Guido 1.133, " Loose Parts Datection Program for the Pri5ary System of Light-Water-Cooled Reactors." He pointed out that the meeting was being conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committeo Act and the Government in the Sunshine Act and and that Mr. Gary Quittschreiber was the designated Federal Duployee for the meeting.
He stated that no requests for oral statements nor uritten statements frcm members of the public had been received with regard to thid meeting.
I204() :y
.' ESC &I Meeting oury 20, 1978 1.2 NRC Staff Report Mr. Gilbert Millman, NRC Staff, provided the Subcomndttee with a summary of the comments r'eceived at the June 29, 1978, Subcommittee Meeting, noting the following:
1.
'Ihere was general agreement on the part of utility and vendor spokesmen that the proposed Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide 1.133, which incorporated public comments, was an improvement over the original issue.
2.
Inose parts detection system vendors generally agreed that the technical recommendations were achievable and within the present state of the art.
3.
Diagnosis after detection was highlighted as an area of particular utility concern.
4.
Utility spokesman were virtually unanimous in their opinion that loose parts were not a safety issue; therefore, the loose parts detection system should not be treated as a safety-related system.
5.
'Ihe utility spokesman concluded that many of the positions in the Regulatory Guide, although achievable, mre excessive.
Major items which, in the opinion of the utilities, were excessive are:
a.
Seismic qualifications to the OBE.
b.
Environmental qualification, even though the Guide no longer references IEEE 323.
Reporting procedures, particularly that for prompt notification c.
of a confirmed loose part.
d.
Recommended technical specifications.
Channel separation, although the proposed Guide refers to e.
physical, not electrical, separation.
l
- - * = - -
ESC &I Meeting July 20, 1978 6.
h ere were some individual concerns with the need for recali-bration every 18 months, and the potential imoact of backfitting.
7.
Were was general feeling on the part of ihdustry that the loose parts detection program will create a burden, without an equiva-lent improvement in the protection of the public health and safety.
Mr. Millman stated that in the Staff's view, the loose parts detection g
system will provide additional defense in depth beyond those safety systems for which credit is taken in the safety analysis.
Icose parts detection capability will provide an additional safety margin in that the operator will have additional information, and in some cases b2 capable of earlier or more direct action than that asstrned in the safety analysis.
Mr. Millman noted that one point not brought forth at the June 29th Subconnittee meeting but which, in his opinion, is perhaps the most important reason for a loose parts detection program, is the demon-strated ability of loose parts detection systems to minimize the exposure to station personnel resulting from structural repairs.
He stated that a loose part can cause or be an indicator or precursor of major structural damage that will ultimately require repair, whether the damage b2 safety relatc3 or not.
Such repairs on the primary system always result in occupational exposure to station personnel.
Early de-tection will reduce the extent of damage, and thereby the extent of needed repairs.
The smaller the magnitude of repair, the less radiation exposure to station personnel.
Millman added that the loose parts detec-tion program can be beneficial in maintaining occupational radiation exposure associated with corrective actions, "as low as is reasonably achievable."
0 4
- '*'h.'
-g%co on m '
g
" ESC &I" Meeting eu y 20, 1978 1.3 Washington Public Power Suoply Systems Report Mr.GeorgeBlock,WashingtonPublicPowerSupplySystems,noted that they do not presently have any operating reactors but do have five plants being built.
He directed his comments to the proposed Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide 1.133.
Block expressed the opinion that the major need for a loose parts detection system is to detect loose parts to prevent blocking con-trol rods. He indicated that any small loose part that would jam a control rod is likely to be too small to be detected.
Correct operation is presently being nonitored by regular surveillance checks on the oper-ability of control rods.
Block recommended the following changes to the proposed Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide 1.133:
(1) Components accessible for maintenance during operation need not be separated; (2) Immediate visual monitoring not be required; (3) Environmental qualifications of the loose parts detection system should ba deleted; and, (4) operability, during and following a seianic event, should be deleted.
.Mr. Millman noted that Regulatory Guide 1.133 does not require operability of the system during the seismic event but only after the event.
In response to a question from Dr. Kerr concerning the need for a loose parts detection system, Mr. Block stated that they believed that a loose parts monitoring system would provide a very beneficial diagnostic tool for the operation of the plant.
He added that they believed that the requirements being placed on the system were un-necessarily restrictive.
1.4 Sacramento Municipal Utility District ileport Mr. Stan Anderson, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, discussed the specific design and use of the loose parts monitoring system at the Rancho Seco Nuclear Power Plant.
11e noted that no loose parts
FSC&I Meeting
-d-July 20, 1978
~
4 have occurred at Rancho Seco but that noise had been detected during precritical testing caused by core barrel vibration. Anderson said this event was not safety significant since the event did not lead to a safety problem. Ile noted that this noise was first detected audibly in the reactor compartment and then monitored over the loose parts monitoring system.
Mr. Larry Phillips quoted from a letter from SMUD which specified that.the loose parts monitoring system provided the first indication.
Mr. Anderson was unable to resolve the discrepancy.
Mr. Anderson questioned the ability of a loose parts monitoring system to reliably detect loose parts and stated that it should not be the subject of a regulatory guide until such time that it can reliably detect loose parts.
Mr. ArrJerson made the following specific comments to proposed Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide 1.133:
(1)
A high number of spurious alarms will occur with the proposed alert level.
(2)
Seismic qualification and separation requirements are not necessary.
(3) The ability to use a com:ron neutron noise and loose parts monitor-ing channel using the same equipment may be lost with the proposed Guide.
(4)
Dealing with reduction of radiation exposure is repetitive of Regu-latory Guide 0.8.
Mr. Anderson noted that the state of the att is such that issuance of a reguletory guide is not prudent, and that many of the requirements of the proposed Guido are repetitive of other regulatory requirements.
In response to a question from Mr. Ditto concernirg how one could get additional information to deve]op a desirable workable loose parts moni-toring system without a regulatory guide, Anderson felt that this regula-tory guide opened the path for additional restric tions and <esearch but did not provide a mechanism to get this additional information.
=m.<.
p*e e
4 4
- =
=-e+-
e
=
m-mas 9
P.SC'&i Meeting Ay 20, 1978 In response to questioning from Dr. Plesset cc'cerning the large number of spurious false alarms occurring at the Duke Ibwer Company's Oconee Plants and the amount of faith the operator will place in the system, Mr. Vander Molen, NRC Staff, noted that most of those alarms were' caused by switching operations and observing such alarms may actually help improve ones faith in the way the system operates.
Mr.
Anderson, SMUD, noted that they do reeive a lot of spurious alarms.
Indeed they could employ a person full time +o investigate these alarms, Anderson did not classify those events which had a direct cause and effect relationship as spurious. Mr. Ibdriguez, SMUD, noted that the proposed Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide 1.133 was directed to-ward the operator specifying the occurrence of loose parts, when actually the detection of loose parts would require a thorough reactor vendor investigation and is not something that the operator can effectively
)
perform. He added that if the operator hears anything unusual, he will notify management.
Management will then call the vendor in to investigate.
In response to a question from Dr. Kerr concerning the effect the issuance of the proposed Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide 1.133 might i
have on operation of the loose parts monitoring systems, Anderson stated that it would lower the alarra level back to levels such that many spurious alarms vill occur. Mr. Pehrul, Atomics International, noted that design changes have been made to the newer plants which greatly reduce the occurrence of spurious alarms.
Pekrul added that Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1, was having about one electrical spurious
- alarm (unexplained) every three months. Mr. Phillips, NRC Staff, noted that the 1/2 foot pound alarm setpoint is flexible in Regulatory Guide 1.133 for those plants having an unusual amount of background electrical noise.
4 0
%W4 K-p
.~ ESC &I Meeting my 20,1978 1.5 Nebraska Public Power District Report Mr. J. Pilant, Nebraska Public Power District, noted that they have one operating reactor, Cooper Nuclear Plant, which does not have a loose parts monitoring system.
Pilant noted that the Cooper Plant has had numerous loose parts, the most significant of which was the LPRM caused by flow induced vibration.
A similar occurrence was observed at a foreign reactor.
He noted they did continue to operate with the vibration until the scheduled refueling and until a known fix could ba effected.
Pilant stated that it is his opinion that if they had a loose parts nonitoring system it would not have detected any of their loose parts, due to their small size, except possibly the LPRM vibration.
He stated that experience to date is that a loose parts monitoring system can be a useful tool during the initial stages of operation but that the occurrence of the Cooper loose parts.would not have been detected. Although their loose parts were safety related, they were not a safety concern to the health and safety of the public.
Mr. Pilant discussed the IEC Staff's value-impact statement noting that his prior experience with using the NRC Staff's numbers has not been good.
Ib added that a $15,000/ year operating cost would not include engineering evaluation costs which are likely be significant.
In summary, Pilant stated that loose parts monitoring systems may be an effective tool during preliminary operation but that the proposed Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide 1.133 is prematur'e at this point.
He added that although some loose parts are safety related, none have been of safety concern to the health and safety of the public.
Pilant said that if there was a loose parts monitoring system which they felt could be installed that would work effectively, they would install it.
~
ESCt/I Meeting
.aly 20, 1978 1.6 Atomic International Co:roany neoort Mr. Paul Pehrul, Atomic International Company, briefly discussed their presently available loose parts monitoring system, noting that it is designed to meet the proposed Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide 1.133 (as revised).
fie added that testing is currently being planned to verify that their system meets all aspects of the proposed Ibvision 1 to Regulatory Guide 1.133.
IIe noted that their loose parts monitoring system, on the mar ket for the last few years, has sub-stantially met the proposed Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide 1.133 requirements.
Mr. Pehrul discussed the projected capability of loose parts tronitoring systems noting the following:
' Additional quantities and types of channels; Micro-and mini-computer diagnostics; "Better analytical and diagnostic methods through experience.
In response to questioning from Dr. l' err concerning the ability of the plant operators to effectively handle alarms, Pehrul felt that 80 to 90% of the alarms could be handled by onsite utility people.
Ile added that many of the additional alarms could b2 handled over the phone with help 'from outside exparts.
Mr. Pekrul concluded that the dependability and quality of data from loose parts monitoring systems is directly proportional to the attention paid to the system.
Ile added that the propaced Ibvision 1 to Regulatory Guide 1.133 would provide consistent requirements for all suppliers and operators.
Pehrul stated that the proposed Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide 1.133 does provide some of the best guidance available; however, he suggested that some areas rhould remain open so as not to inhibit future improvements.
-.. ~.. ~......,
ouly 20, 1970
'.rE,C&I Meeting
-r I
1.7 General Electric Company Report Mr. David Robare, General Electric Company, discussed their participation in the loose parts monitoring system technology.
lie roted that thev began an investigation of this technology in 1970,' and in 1972 developed a system for installation in the Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant.
Ile noted that GE i.; providing 11artsville and Phippa Dend units due to a regulatory requirement and not because of a General Electric Company parceived need for these systems in GE reactors.
Mr. Robare noted that potentially safety significant loose parts in GE reactors have been found. 11e said it was not clear that any available loose parts monitoring system would have found any of these parts.
Mr. Robare discussed specific comments to the propased Revision 1 to hegulatory Guide 1.133 as follows:
(1) Premature due to state of the art (2) Not adequate ext >crience (3)
Environm ntal and seismic qualifications are overly stringent Mr. Robare concluded that GB does not operceive the need for a loose lurts monitoring system to protect BWRs at this time but that if a well designed system were available they would reevalute this position.
Mr. Phillup Maracco, Westinnhouse, stated that Ucatinghouse doco not oppose loose parts monitorinc) systems but does oppose the pressuring of customers by the issuance of the proposed Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide 1.133.
~
6 8
4 g,, m, _
..-..-,....,a,.
.m 2...-
V
~
July 20, 1978 ESCr,I Mocting w
1.8 Discussion on Resolution of Comments Received on the Proposed Revision 1 to Reaulatory Guide 1.133 During this Meeting Mr. Millman noted that the comments received in the two meetings were eccentially the same as those received during the public cornent period, but that he would review the Guide to determine that.the NRC Staff has not imposed any unjustified requirements on the system.
Ile added that the requirement for a loose parts monitoring system has been established and that the proposed 11evision 1 to Regulatory Guide 1.133 definen how that requirement can be implemented.
Mr. Phillips, NRC Staff, felt the need for seismic qualification of loose parts monitoring systems was to assure adequate monitor-ing of the plants status following a seismic event to help allow continuing operation of a plant following a seismic event should it be desirable to keep the plant operating.
1.9 Caucus and Closing Statements Dr.1:ctr suxnarized the major questions concerning the issuance of the proposed Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide 1.133 as follows-(1)
Should the Guide exist?
(2)
Should loose parts monitoring systems be seismic qualified?
(3)
Should loose parts monitoring systems be environmentally qualified in the conse of safety related systems?
(4)
Do loose parts monitoring systems need to be designed for the life of the plant?
(5) Are the reporting requirements of the proposed Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide 1.133 going to inhibit the future development of loose Inrts monitoring systems?
Dr. Lipinski stated that if loose parts monitoring systems are required, they should have some consistency.
He felt there rhould be rome alarm setpoint which would not be easily changed.
.y
- ' ESC &I Meeting July 20, 1978 Lipinski felt that the system should be qualified so as not to require maintenance in high radiation areas.
He stated that the information following a seismic event would be helpful if.the plant were to continue to operate following the seismic event.
Mr. Ditto stated that the seismic requirement is severe since the system it is not needed to be operable all of the time.
He noted that there was the potential for testing after a seismic event.
Mr.
Ditto stated that the "rubbar setpoints" bothered him since spurious trips do tend to upset operators.
Ditto noted that chasing false alarms may cause more radiation exposure than the exposure to repairing real events.
Dr. Plesset suggested that the system be seismic qualified.
He noted that the state of the art does not appear to be so advanced as not to be able to separate the real alarms from the spurious alarms.
He added that he did not see the state of the art advancing unless they have adequate guidance.
Millman stated that the utili-ties main concern is that the NRC will shut them down due to loose parts. He noted that the NRC has never shut down any utility for loose parts.
Mr. Etherington stated that loose parts are potentially safety matters.
He felt it would ba desirable to give the utilities a voluntary period to install and use the loose parts monitoring systems; however, due to the' utilities lax attitude he felt a guide should be issued at this time.
Dr.1(err noted that the development of loose parts monitoring systems is in a fairly primitive stage.
He stated that those utilities which do plan to use then should be given the most beneficial way and those I
t
?
~
e E
N'4i*+&gs4ge 4 a m ggq g
vuly 20, 1978 F.SCtI Meeting m
that do not wish to use them should be urged to do so.
Ile did not see the need for the seismic qualification and questioned the need for environmental qualification.
He added that a simple means to test the loose parts monitoring systems was needed such that if it is not operating properly it can be repaired.
4
'Ibe meeting was adjourned at 4:20 p.m.
l 6
L
(
(,
IUTE:
For additional details, a complete transcript of the meeting is availabic in the IRC Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. D555, or from Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.,
444 North Capitol Street, N,.W., Washington, D.C.
4 4
1
- 'At 4-
.k
.-.g
((_'
g
NOTICES to be installed. Other companies or in.
dividuals wishing to provide a presen.
tation on the use of loose. parts mont.
l(7590-01]
toring systems are asked to enti Mr.
ACRS Senior HUCLEAR REGU(.ATORY Quittschreiber.
to that Unry Stnff Eru:inver (202-G34-1374) g COMM!S5 ION they may be luchtded on the presenta.
AD'.'l!Criy cc:MM:t;gg c,N MAC10't 5Af r.d tion scheditte for this or subsequent meetings on this t;ubject.
GUARD 3 $Ur.cc;.'.Mn7a on tiren:cAg, It may be necessary for the subcom.
SYL1I/43, CCHiKOL AMO INSMiw1NTA.
mittec to hold one or more closed ses.
g
'l slons for the purpose of exploring TION "Id "U P# P'I# "## I"I * *'
IA*efing
"". I have determined.,in accordance The ACRS Subcommittee on I:lactrd, tion with subacetion 10(d) u Pub. L. 92-cal Syst ems. Contret and Inst t ument a) 9/...that, should such sessions be re.
tion. wf!] hold n inceting on. July 20d
.qturesi~ft1; necessary to closc the.se
~,
IFill, at the Qunlity Inn /LAE 501 lscalona to protect proprictnry hifor.
, West Century Poulevard. Los An,:elc3c f' Inntion (S U.S.C. 552b(c)t4)). regnrding i Calif., to revicW the capnbility I Putther infortnation
!!oose.parls monitorhyt systems in nu.
I topica to be dbenraed. whi'ther the clear powerpinnts. Notice of this mecc.
tuccling lia:s been canceled or resche.
hig was published in 11,0 Prmatat. Rro.
' duled, the chairman's ruling on re-
).vrEn on f tay I'l and June 10, 1978 (43
'quess for the oppurtunity to present, orn! statements and the time n!!otted!
l'R 21395 and 2t;162).
In accordince with the procedures therefor can be obtained by a prepnid Dor At. Rectr.1rn en
, tdephone call to the designated Fed -
outlined in the Ps:
Ociober 31.1977 (42 FR 5G072) oral or written statements may be prescrited; g cral cinployee for this meeting, Mr.
Quittschreiber (telephone by members of the public, recordings' Gary R.
between 8:15 a.nt. nnd 5 will be permitted only during those 3 202-631-137'1) a portions of the meetint; when n trankept. and questinm: may!
Dackground informition concernin't p.m., c.s.t.
, ficm3 to be considered at this meetinicc.n be foun c Ipt is beinJ be asked only by metabera of the sub.ilis conn,itan:8, and staf f.!
committe<f.
to make oral state.'
- nvc.ilable for pub!!c ins;;cetion at the!
ments should notify the desir.nated
. NRC Public Docun.cnt Room.1717 IU Persons destri.n:
Federal employee na f ar in ndv '.nce as
' Street NW., Washington, D.C. 20555.
pr. ctical so that appropriate arrance.
D ted: June 29,1073.
9 ments can he mmic to allow the neces Jonn C.11ovt.n, nary time during the meeting far such Advisory *Commiuce j The ncenda for subject meetinrt Management O// leer.
. tatements.
s I
iSh ill be n3 follows:1 Win.11:30 n.m. untll the conclusion of gyp. Doc.%1tL75 Filed 7-3-73; CMS am)
Thursday,.f uly 20.
i l hm.tncss.
The subcommittee wat hear presen.
Lationn by and hohl disemmions with repses< ntatives of the NitC Staff. Ato.
Inics international. Inc., General Elec.
I
- Washint: ton Public Power tric Co..
Nebraska Public Supply Sy:,t ems.
Power DMrict, and Sacramento I.lu.
nicipal Utilit y District, and thrir con.
r,nitants, concernim; the capability of systems to,
loone. parts monitoring detect loor.e parts in nuclear power.
plants and the need for such cystems itotuAL rtotsitu, vol. 43, No.12NWQutsuAY, JULY 5,1978 ATTACHENT A
TENTATIVE PRESENTATION SCHEDULE ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS, CONTBOL AND INSTPIMENTATION SUBCOMMITIEE MEETING ON IDOSE PARTS tONI'IORING SYSTEFS QUALITY INN AIRPORE, 5249 WEST CarfURY BOULEVARD IDS ANGELES, CA JULY 20,1978 PRESENTATION APPROXIMATE TIME TIME 1.0 MEETIIG WITH VENCORS, UTILITIES, AhD THE NRC STAFF (OPEN SESSION) 1.1 Subcommittee Chairman's Opening Remarks 11:30 a.m.
1.2 NRC Staff Report 15 mins.
11:35 a.m.
~
Update on changes made to Revision 1, Regulatory Guide 1.133 (if crrf)
Resolution of comments from June 29th meeting 1.3 Reports from Utilities with NRC Staff Response 1.3.1 Washington Public Power Supply System 10 mins.
12:00 noon 1.3.2 Sacramento Municipal Utility District 10 mins.
12:15 p.m.
1.3.3 Nebraska Public Power District 10 mins.
12:30 p.m.
1.3.4 Other utilities, as requested 10 mins.
12:45 p.m.
Discuss the Following:
Lcose part occurrences and means of detection Experience with LPos Dependability of existing LPBS Recognition of anomalies Need for LPb5 Cost-benefit of LP)G Comments on Draft 2, Revision 1, '
Regulatory Guide 1.133 (if any)
BREAK EDR LUNCH 1:00 p.m.
to 2:00 p.m.
[
"~~
PRESE7TATION APPPOXIMATE TIME TDIE 2.0 MEETING WITH VDiDORS AND NRC STAFF (Closed Sessions May be Held to Protect Proprietary Information, if required) 2.1 Reports from LPMS Vendors and/or designers with NRC Staff Response 2.1.1 Atomics International Company 30 mins.
2:00 p.m.
2.1.2 Science Applications, Inc.
10 mins.
2:45 p.m.
Discuss the Following:
Description of presently available LPFS Capability of presently available LPMS Projected capability of future LPh5 Comments on Draft 2, Revision 1, Regulatory Guide 1.133 (if any) 2.2 Report from General Electric Cog any with 20 mins.
3:00p.m.
NRC Staff Response Discuss the following:
Need for LPMS in GE reactors
- Experience with occurrence of loose parts in GE reactors, means of detec-tion, and their safety significance (if any)
- Comments on Draft 2, Revision 1, Regulatory Guide 1.133 (if any) 3.0 MEETING WITH VENTORS, UTILITIES, AND THE NRC STAFF (OPD4 SESSION) 3.1 Discuss resolution of comments received on Regulatory Guide 1.133 during this meeting, if any 3:30 p.m.
4.0 CAUCUS 4:30 p.m.
4
.,m.,
1
nv
-Q 5.0 MECTING FTITH VENDOPS, UTILITIES, AND THE NRC STAFF 4:35 p.m.
Conclusions / Remarks Discuss need for future meeting Recommendations for future approvals of Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide 1.133 6.0 AIUOUPH4Ettr 4:40 p.m.
NOI'ES :
(1)
A maximum of 30 minutes will be allowed for receiving oral state-ments from members of the public, if requested.
(2)
The speakers should limit their prepared presentations to the time allowed. An allowance amounting to approximately 50% of the pres-entation time has been made for questioning by the Subcommittee.
9 5
.mee
_ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ - - _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ -
~
- ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS, CONTROL AND INSTRUMENTATION ON LOOSE-PARTS MONITORING SYSTEMS JULY 20,1978 LOS ANGELES, CA ATTENDEES LIST ACRS NRC W. Kerr, Chairman G. Millman M. Plesset, Member L. Phillips H. Etherington, Member H. Vander Molen S. Ditto, Consultant W. C. Lipinski, Consultant G E, G. R. Quittschreiber, Staff
- J. Whalen
- Designated Federal Employee D. Robare BENTLY NEVADA CORP ROCKWELL B. Trimmer P. Pekrul W. Franklin SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER EDISON C0 SUPPLY SYSTEM C. Balog U. Shah G. Block SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT DETROIT EDISON S. Anderson M. Batch R. Rodriguez B&W WESTINGHOUSE - POWER NUCLEAR SAFETY H. Baker P. Marasco 0AK RIDGE NATIONAL LAB R. Kryter TECHNOLOGY FOR ENERGY CORP W. Hartman NEBR PUBLIC POWER SYSTEM J. Pflant ATTACHMENT C t
DOCUMENTS PROVIDED 'IO THE ELECT _RICAL SYSTEMS, CONTROL AND INSTRUMENTATION SUBCOMMITIEE MEMBERS FOR THE JULY 20, 1978 fd2ETING 1.
Presentation Schedule (Attachment B).
2.
Copies of viewgraphs (Attachments 1-4).
Draft 2, Revision 1, Regulatory Guide 1.133 "Icose-Part Detection 3.
Program for the Primary System of Light-Water-Cooled Reactors,"
along with public connents and resolution of public comments.
4.
Intter, dated February 28, 1978, from R. L. Baer to D. G. Ersenhut forwarding " Report on Operational Experience with Commercially Marketed Loose-Part Monitoring Systems".
5.
CSNI Report No. 22, 2nd Specialists Meeting on Reactor Noise, Gatlinburg, Tennessee, September 19-23, 1977, Paper 8:3 (pages 667-671).
ATIACHMENT D
THE ROCKWELL VIBRATION AND LOOSE PARTS MONITORING SYSTEM IS DESIGNED TO MEET _ REGULATORY GUIDE 1.133 (AS REVISED).
TESTING IS CURRENTLY BEING PLANNED T0 VERIFY THAT THE ROCKWELL VSLPM SYSTEM MEETS ALL ASPECTS OF THE REGULATORY GUIDE.
ROCKWELL V& LPM SYSTEMS HAVE SUBSTANTIALLY MET THE 11EGULATORY GUIDE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE LAST THREE O FOUR MODEL YEARS, d
blSTORY OF V8 LPM-AT ATOMICS INTERNATIONA NEUTRON NOISE ANALYSIS 1957 REACTIVITY COEFFICIENT MEASUREMENTS 1962 ACOUSTIC EMISSION DEVELOPMENT 1965
- O 1969 -1971 LO.0SE PARTS PROBLEMS i
COMPETITIVE FIELD WITH SEVERAL SUPPLIE 1972 STANDARDIZED PRODUCT LINE 1977 IX l
/
F I :
i PROJECTED CAPABILITY OF V8 LPM c
ADDITIONAL QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF CHANNELS-(CORE INTERNALS, o
MACHINERY, HEAT TRANSFER EQUIPMENT).
MORE CAND LESS EXPENSIVE) MICRO-AND. MIN 1-COMPUTER DIAG o
1 BETTER ANALYTICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC METHODS THROUGH EXPERIENC e
4 0
g w
^ * "; *8
'. T T
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS i
9
'f DEPENDABILITY AND QUALITY OF DATA FROM V& LPM SYSTE IS DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO THE ATTENTION PAID TO T SYSTEM.
REGULATORY GUIDE 1,133 WOULD PROVIDE CONSISTANT
~
REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL V& LPM-SUPPLIERS AND OPERATORS THE ROCKWELL V& LPM SYSTEM MEETS THE REGULAT l
e 9
-4
.