ML20148S719

Minutes of the 780906 Meeting of the Nrc/Acrs Subcomm on Regulatory Activities Re Proposed Reg Guides,Rev to Existing Reg Guide, & Other Matls Related to Current Lic Process or Reactor Oper,W/List of Attendees

ML20148S719
Person / Time
Issue date:	10/04/1978
From:	Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
To:	Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
References
ACRS-1578, NUDOCS 7812040025
Download: ML20148S719 (13)

Text

'

t O,

1. ' [3.!2 I

2 DATE ISSUED: 10/4/78

'* hist

& -l5 &

MINUTES OF THE g g

/fj/ mig ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON REGULATORY ACTIVITIES WASHINGTON, DC SEPTEMBER 6, 1978 The ACRS Regulatory Activities Subcomittee held a meeting on September 6, 1978, at 17.17 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

The purpose of this meet-ing was to review:

1.

proposed Regulatory Guides, 2.

revisions to the existing Regulatory Guides, and 3.

other materials pertinent to activities that affect the current licensing process or reactor operations.

Notice of this meeting was published on Tuesday, August 22, 1978, in the Federal Register, Volume 43, Number 163; a copy is included as Attachment A.

Mr. Gary Quittschreiber was the Designated Federal Employee for this meeting.

A list of the meeting attendees it included as Attachment B.

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN Cr. Siess, the Subcomittee Chainnan, convened th.e meeting at 8:45 a.m.,

reviewed briefly the schedule for the meeting, and noted that the Sub-comittee had received neither written statements nor requests for time to make oral statements from the members of the public.

Dr. Siess indicated that, in addition to the items scheduled for dis--

cussion, the Subcomittee would'like to hear from the NRC Staff the status of the resolution of the dissenting opinions among the NRC Staff on the draf t Regulatory Guide 1.XXX,

" Lightning Protection 78Ji3o 35

\\

?

c.

s Reg Act 9/6/78 for Nuclear Power Plants." The Subcommittee also would like to hear at a future date, the NRC Staff's response to Dr. Shewmon's comments (Attachment C), on Regulatory Guide 1.56, " Maintenance of Water Purity in Boiling Water Reactors."

PROPOSED REVISIONS TO APPENDICES G AND H TO 10 CFR PART 50 Prior to holding discussion on the scheduled items, the Subcommittee heard from the NRC Staff the nature of proposed changes to Appendix G, " Fracture Toughness Requirements," and A.opendix H, " Reactor Vessel Surveillance Requirements," to 10 CFR Part 50.

The NRC Staff indicated that the proposed changes to Appendix G will

, delete the specific fracture toughness requirements for bolting and will reference ASME Code requirements instead.

The proposed changes to Appendix H will lift restrictions on the location and method of attachment of surveillance specimen capsule holders in the reactor vessel.

The NRC Staff believes that the proposed changes are consistent with recent NRC. actions in granting exemptions in the review of operating license applications.

Since they believe that the changes are minor and are intended to provide relief fr m, rather than to imnose, re-strictions under existing regulations, they do not expect significant public comments. Therefore, they would like to implement these proposed changes as soon as possible (immediately after the expiration of the 30 day waiting period) without issuing them for public comments.

In view of the advantages in implement.'ng these proposed changes, the NRC Staff requested the Subcommittee to review these changes at the October 4, 1978 Regulatory Activities meeting.

The Subcommittee indicated that it would review these changes at the ensuing October 4,1978 meeting.

l

....-..-,,,.c

,l Reg Act 9/6/78 REGULATORY GUIDE 1.72, REVISION 2, " SPRAY POND PIPING MADE FROM FIBERGLASS-REINFORCED THERM 0 SETTING RESIN" Mr. Anderson, substituting for Mr. Porse the responsible engineer for Regulatory Guide 1.72, Revision 2, reviewed some background information and some of the changes incorporated in this Guide as a result of public comments.

Mr. Ander on noted that Revision 2 of this Guide endorses the ASME Code Case N-155.

He noted that the ASME Task Force has been developing a Code Case for the use of plastic piping and Revision 1 to Code Case N-155 will reflect this development.

Mr. Anderson indicated that previous versions of this Guide required only short-term cyclic testing to establish allowable stresses for the spray pond piping qualification. However, the ASME Task Force suggests that both the short term cyclic and long term static testing methods be used for establishing allowable stresses.. Revision 2 to this Guide accepts both testing methods suggested by the ASME Task Force.

Howeve r, because of some concern about a possible potential for reduced safety factor with the long term static test, the Guide requires that at least i

one short term cyclic test be per. formed for the pipe being qualified.

The Guide also recommends the performance of a preoperational test to assure absence of vibration due to weather conditions or water flow that may fatigue the piping beyond values assumed in the desi.gn of the system.

Mr. Anderson reviewed briefly the public comments and indicated that i

Revision 2 to this Guide reflects consideration of public comments, i

1 With reference to a statement in the discussion section of this Guide, "It is generally necessary to apply a translucent weather-resistant coating to the exterior of fiberglass-reinforced thermosetting resin 1

e

Reg Act 4-9/6/78 piping that will be exposed to weather conc itions," Dr. Siess commented that several terms in this statement are not explicitly defined The NRC Staff were unable either to provide clear definitions of these terms or to indicate whether these terms have been defined explicitly in the ASME Code Case.

The Subcommittee asked several questions to determine the technical adequacy of this Guide.

The NRC Staff were not able to respond to most of those questions.

The Subcommittee expressed concern about the inadequate representation of the NRC Staff on this Guide, and suggested that the NRC Staff do some additional review to provide clarification of the issues raised by the Subcommittee during the course of the meeting.

The Subcommittee suggested several editorial changes, provided suggestions for clarification, and indicated that it would recommend th.is Guide to the ACRS full Committee for concurrence in the Regulatory Position of this Guide subject to some additional review by the NRC Staff to clarify the points raised by the Subcommittee.

REGULATORY GUIDE 'l.134, REVISIOU 1, " MEDICAL EVALUATION OF PERSONNE REQUIRING OPERATOR LICENSES" Regulatory Guide 1.134, Revision 1, describes a method acceptable to the NRC Staff for complying with the Commission't regulations for evaluati.on t

of the medical qualifications of applicants for initial or renewal operator or senior operator licenses for. nuclear power plants.

This Guide endorses with certain exceptions the ANSI Standard N546.1976, " Medical Certification and Monitoring of Personnel Requiring Operator Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants."

y um pe-

,r Trm-Wv+ir-y-w w

y w-w vy-=yy-y-

ws-m--

--gr+y or we'W 3

r

,e-tw

-,wyt--

r7 w

• -r vy4rrew-w-

Reg Act 5-9/6/78 Indicating i.ut the language in the ANSI Standard N546-1976 gives the implication tFit a physician can either qualify or disqualify an applicant for operator license, Dr. Kerr sought some clarification regarding the role of the physicians in making decisions.

The NRC Staff responded that a physician evaluates the applicant's medical history or physical conditions, completes the Form NRC-396 and fomards it to the NRC Staff.

The final detemination of the applicant's medical qualification will be made by the NRC Staff.

However, during the evaluation i

of the applicant's medical history, if the physician comes across some potentially disqualifying physical conditions, he may make the decision that the applicant is not qualified and may not forward that application to the NRC Staff.

Dr. Moeller asked, what assurance does the NRC Staff have that the examining physicians are familiar with the ANSI Standard N546-1976?

lir. McKee responded that there is no way of assuring that a physician called upon to examine the applicants is thoroughly familiar with the ANSI Standard.

He believes that the ANSI Standard will provide guidance to the physicians in completing the Form NRC-396.

Dr. Moeller comented that he wouldn't like to see a physician, who is not thoroughly familiar with the ANSI Standard, examining an applicant for reactor operator license.

In response to severa questions from Dr. Siess, Mr. McKee noted that the NRC Staff provides 'he utilities with the Form NRC-396.

Since the utilities are fami; ar with the NRC Staff's procedure in evaluating the applicants, they provide the physicians with the NRC Fom and the ANSI Standard.

He added that the present NRC Form does not provide any reference either to the Regulatory Guide 1.134 or to the ANSI

,*%-w t

er-er-e-.---

-.i- =.

~--,s, - -,.we-

-we--yn

,,y 9ew4-yw -, + - m w w g.

,,v--.,.r.--4we--y==w+-p.-,-.

.w,--yw-,

v-y,,,,,v

,er,i--es,e

-w

+u-oi.--e.

. - - -...- - -,,-u-+m-2

Reg Act 9/6/78 c#wt, o

Standard N546-1976.

However,.they intend to revise the NRC Form providing references to this Guide and the ANSI-Standard.

In response to a question from Dr. Siess, Mr. McKee noted that there are no requirements to prevent an examining physician' from requesting additional information.

Mr. Etherington commented that this sort of flexibility might lead to I

an inconsistent medical examination because, one medical examiner may ask for all.the information in accordance with the ANSI Standard and another one may not ask for any information at all.

He suggested that using a panel of doctors to select the minimum required informa-tion for the medical examination would help in achieving a more con-sistent medical evaluations of the applicants.

Mr. McKee noted that there have been some attempts to isolate and identify the minimum required information for medical evaluations of the applicants.

However, they have not been successful in developing a uniform list accept-able to everyone.

L In response to a question from Dr. Moeller as to how many physicians contributed to the development of this Guide, the NRC Staff noted that no physicians were consulted during the development of this Guide.

Dr. Moeller remarked that developing a Guide that involves physicians and medical evaluations of personnel without consulting sone physicians does not seem to be a reasonable approach.

Dr. Kerr commented that a paragraph in the discussion section, "None of the provisions of ANSI N546-1976 or this Guide should be construed ta mean that the reading habits, political or religious beliefs or

~

attitudes on social, economic or political issues of an individual e

. ~..

9 w-,%.,-,.e,%.-. - -- -. - *

• • • we---*we

9/6/78 Reg Act should be investigated or judged," is se.e-

-iitleading; he feels that it is irrelevent to include;that. parag:wp;i in this Guide.

row The Subcommittee suggested several edfhor'ial changes, provided suggestions for clarification in several areas, and indicated that it would recommend this. Guide to the ACRS full Committee for concurrence in the Regulatory Position of this Guide provided the NRC Staff submit a revised copy incorporating the changes suggested by the Subcommittee during the course of the meeting.

STATUS OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE DISSENTING OPINIONS AMONG THE ON THE DRAFT REGULATORY GulDE 1.XXX, " LIGHTNING PROTECTION FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS" Dr. Siess provided a brief preamble, pointing out Mr. Bender's suggestion 4

to the NRC Staff to get some expert outside consulting help to resolve the dissenting opinions among the NRC Staff on the draft Regulatory Guide for lightning protection.

He noted that, since this Guide deals with high.ly technical issues, he also agrees with Mr. Bender's concern that the Regulatory Requirements Review Committee (RRRC) may not bc able to resolve all the internal technical problets among the NRC Staff.

Mr. Morrison provided a brief status report, indicating that appropriate personnel from the Office of Standards Development had met with Mr. Tedesco and Mr. Rosa to resolve the technical issues. Although they were not able to resolve all the issues, they made some substantial progress in resolving some of the issues. He believes that they can come to a general agreement to issue this, Guide for public comments.

Depending on the nature of the public comments, the NRC Staff will consider the possibility of getting an outside consultant to aid in resolving the comments.

D

Reg Act 8-

.V6/78 Mr. Morrison also indicated that Mr. Mattson '.iad a mee-n; with Mr. Grill I

other appropriate personnel from the Office of Stend.rre Development on lightning protection.

In that meeting, the disc c..'

n 2.s focused mainly on the draft Regulatory Guide on lightning protect.ior. d on the diss.enting views of Mr. Grill.

There was a general agreer that this draft Guide in its present form will take care of Mr.

1's concerns.

Mr. Grill's present opinion on this

. aft Guide will be transmitted to Commissioner Kennedy.

Mr. Morrison indicated that he will provide the Subcommittee with all the information pertinent to Mr. Grill's Concents.

Dr. Siess indicated tha', the Subcommittee needs additional information to concur with the technical contents of this draft Guide.

However, the NRC Staff has the privilege of is.s.uing titis. Guide for public comments without the endorsement of the Subcommittte.

After further discussion, the Subcommittee indicated that the following issues need additional data and clarification:

1.

Does this draft Guide in its present form provide adequate and proper technical information?

2.

What are the procedures and methodology which have been used or planned to use by the NRC Staff to resc1ve the controversial issues?

3.

Have Mr. Grill's concerns been resolved?

If so provide pertinent information.

1 Mr. Morrison indicated that he would provide another status report in writing at the October 4,1978 Regulatory Activities Subcommittee meeting.

Dr. Siess thanked all the participants and adjourned the meeting at 12:10 p.m.

I g

e w

y

=y

~,

.g.,

'R:g Act 9/6/78 NOTE: For additional details, a complete transcript of.the meeting is available in the NRC Public Document Room,1717 H St., N.W.,

Washington, DC 20555, or from Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.,

444 North Capital Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

k 0

9

~ -- -

NOMC15 ADviscaY ccMMITTYI CN REACTCA SAM.

Persons wishing to submit written GUAscss susCOMMfTTH CN UGULATQay statements regarding regulatory

.Acnymas guides 1.72, revision 2 and 1.134. revi.

sfon 1, may do so by providing 2.readi. -

h%.

17 reproducible copy to the Subcom.

The ACRS Subcommrttee on Regu.

2ntttee at the beginnbg of the meet, latory Acttrities will hold an open ing. However, to bsure that adequate meeting on September 6, 1978 in time is avaHable for full consideration Room 1048,1717 H Street NW., Wash.

of these comments at the meeting, it is ington, 'D.C.

20555, Notice of this desirable to send a readHy reproduc.

meetbgwas published in the FataAI.

Ible copy of the Comments as farin ad.

Rectsrza on July 17 and August 15, vance of the meeting as practical to 1978 (43 FR 30631 and 3g152, respec.

Mr. Gary R. Quittschreiber (ACES),

Lively).

the designated Federal employee for In accordance with the procedures the meeting in care of ACES Nuclear outuned la the FDERAI. RzcIsrza on Regulatory Com* ion Washington, October 3t,1977 (56972), cral or wMt.

D.C. 20555, or telecopy them to the ten statements may be presented by designated Federal e=ployee (200-634-members of the public, recordings wiu 3319) as far in advance of the meeting be permitted only during those por, as practical Such comments shan be tions pf the meeting when a transcript based upon documents on fue cnd is being kept, and questions may be avaHable for public inspection at the asked only by members of the Sub.

NRC Fublic Document Rocc2.1717 H comiMae, its consultants..and staft Street NW., Washington, D.C. 20555.

Femons desiring to make oral state.

Further information regarding ments should notify the designated topics to be discussed, whether the Fedesl employee as far in advance as meeting has been canceled or resche.

practic31y so that appropriate ar.

duled, the chairman's ruling on re.

rangements can be made to aHow the quests for the opportunity to present necessary time during the meeting for oral statements and the time allotted such statements.

therefor can be obtained by a prepaid The 2genda for subject meeting telephone call to the designated Fed.

sh&H be as foHows:

eral employee, Mr. Gac R. Quittsch.

reiber (telephone 202-634-3:57), be.

WZDNESDAY,SZFTZMant 6,1978 tween 8:15 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.d.t.

The meeting win commance at 8:45' Dated: August 1S,1978' a.m.

The' Subcommittee wiD hear presen.

NN C. Hom tations frem the NRC staff and wiu U

hold discussions with this group perti.

• 1. "~~

nent to the fonowing:

IFR Doc. 78.m:17 F2ed 3 21-73: 8:45nm]

(1) Regulatory Guide 1.72, Revision

2. " Spray Fond F! ping'Made From F1 berglass. Reinforced Thermosetting Resin."

T2) Regulatory Guide 1.134 Revision

1. " Medical Evaluation of personnel Requiring Operator Licenses."

Other matters which may be of a predecistortal nature relevant to reac.

. tor operden or licensing activities

-rnay be discussed..foHowins this.ses.

sfork ATTACHMENT A nosaAt ascasta, vot. 43, No.163.-TunnAy, Aucust 22, 1978

ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON REGULATORY ACITIVITIES SEPTEMBER 6, 1978 WASHINGTON, DC ATTENDEES LIST ACRS NRC C. P. Siess, Chairman E. L. Hill H. Etherington, Member J. L. Milhoan W..Kerr, Member T. G. Scarbrough D. W. Moeller, Member P. F.-Collins M. Plesset, Member P. F. McKee G. Quittscpreiber, Staff

• P. H. Randall S. Duraiswamy, Staff W. F. Andersen.

W. M. Morrison

• Designated Federal Employee A0 SMITH-INLAND E. R. France e

e ATTACHMENT B b

._,,,_,.,,--,,,#--,,7 m,.,_r,.

,,,,m,,.4

,,ry.,_

y p

- ~.

jd*?%;g UNITED STATES f

i g

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i

ij f.13VisORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS

• 5,,

g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 -

TO:

Chet Siess FROM:

Paul G. Shewmon

SUBJECT:

REG'ULATORY GUID'E 1.56, " MAINTENANCE OF WATER PURITY IN BWRs" The subject Reg. Guide "... describes a method acceptable to the NRC staff... for minimizing... corrosion-induced failure of the reactor coolant pressure boundary in BWRs by maintaining acceptable purity levels in the reactor coolant."

The worst two elements for inter-granular stress corrosion cracking (IGSCC) of sensitized stainless steel are chlorides and oxygen.

The Reg. Guide speaks.to chlorides but is silent on oxygen, presumably because there is littic one can/do to influence the oxygen concentra-tion after a BWR is operating at steady state.

However, it is well known that the highest oxygen levels in a reacter ccmes when the plant is opened up for refueling, or whatever. Many believe that if the oxygen content of a BWR is reduced by deaeration before significant pressure is developed on startup, one can great.ly reduce the poten-tial for IGSCC.

I'm led to believe the Japanese.are doing this now.

I believe EpRI is urging that U.S. BWR own'ers do it, and I've been told that at least one Federal Republic of Germany reactor is operated this way. There is how a firm scientific basis for this from work done at Ohio State University for EpRI at the GE Research Lab., and in Japan.

I feel it would be a bad mistake to put out this Reg. Guide without restricting the oxygen concentration on startup. There are instru-ments on the market for monitoring oxygen, e.g., Beckman puts one out, the technology for deaeration is known, and the benefits seem clear.

The staff should be urged to go back and reevaluate their position on oxygen controik E

e 6

- COPY -

4 e

ATTRcHMENT C

I mm..c

.,-,,m.--

.m

-