ML20148S842

Minutes of the 781004 Meeting of the Nrc/Acrs Subcomm on Improved Safety Sys Re Dev of Info Related to Res That Improves light-water Nuc Pwr Plant Safety

ML20148S842
Person / Time
Issue date:	11/02/1978
From:	Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
To:	Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
References
ACRS-1589, NUDOCS 7812040043
Download: ML20148S842 (55)

Text

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -

'p

-g

, ,f*3")mETTh9},H._Q]

o: .:'HP l

.; i j 'j DATE ISSUED: 11/2/78

}'

'3 3 ',

s n.

OD O d L! U tJ $ MINUT- "

11 } A /7 f ACRS SUBCOMN 4 ON IMPROVED L WASH 1H

,YSrEMS OC

[C/($- [F 9 f OCTOBEi 978 [bje

1. [2.#/77 The ACRS Improved Safety Systems Subcommittee held a meeting on October 4,1978, at 1717 H Street, N.W. , Washington, D.C. Notice of this meeting was published on Friday, September 15,1978, in the Federal Register, Volume 43, Number 180, and amended on Tuesday, September 19, 1978, Volume 43, Number 182 to change the starting time of the meeting from 8:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.; copies are included as Attachment A. Dr. Thomas G. McCreless was the Designated Federal Employee for the meeting. A list of the meeting attendees is- included as Attachment B. A tentative schedule for the meeting is included as Attachment C. A list of documents submitted to the Subcommittee is provided in Attachment D.

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN Dr. '0krent, the Subcommittee Chairman, convened the meeting at 9:00 a.m.,

reviewed briefly the schedule for the meeting, and noted that the purpose of the meeting was to develop information for consideration by the ACRS on the NRC plan for research to improve the safety of the light-water nuclear power plants. This information will be used by the ACRS in its preparation of the second annual Reactor Safety Research Report to the -

Congress. The Subcommittee had received neither written statements nor requests for time to make oral statements from the members of the public.

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF NUREG'-0438 - DR. S. LEVINE Mr. Levine provided a brief historical summary of the development of the report NUREG-0438, " Plan for Researcit To Improve The Safety Of Light-Water Nuclear!Power Plants". He indicated that the fiscal year 1978 Budget 7812 0 40 0 $ $

B ISS Mtg: 10/4//8 Authorization Act requires the NRC to develop a long-range plan for the development of new or improved safety systems for nuclear power plants.

NUREG-0438 report was developed as a response to the requirement of the fiscal year 1978 Authorization Act and was submitted to Congress on April 12, 1978. This report presents recommendations for research projects and studies directed toward improving the safety of light-water nuclear power plants.

fir. Levine noted that the long-range plan delineated in NUREG-0438 report was developed by soliciting suggestions for needed research from various sources, including the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, the NRC Regulatory Staff, and the consultants to the Research Review Group that was responsible for the development of the report HUREG-0438. The NRC Staff had received over 200 specific re-commendations which were screened by evaluating the risk-reduction potential of each concept, by deteraining the generic applicability  ;

of projected improvements, end by establishing the cost of implementing l the improvements. Among the topict selected for research, the following five were identified as the top priority items and reconmended to be carried out for the initial phase of the program:

1. Alternate containment concepts, especially vented containments

2. Alternate decay heat removal concepts, especially add-on bunkered systems

3. Alternate emergency core cooling concepts

4. Improved in-plant accident response

5. Advanced seismic design Other research projects recommended by the NRC Staff in-the NUREG-0438 report are as follows:

g * * *m-== 3 g

,Y

. $ I ISS Mtg 0/4 !6 6.'

Improved methodology for evaluating research topics 4

and alternate p' ant desings, and 7.

Scoping studies of the following research projects:

a. Offsite emergency response

b. Protection against sabetage c.

Non-Destructive examination and on-line monitoring

d. New siting concepts

e. Reduced occupational exposure f.

Improved reactor shutdown systems 9 Improved plant layout

h. Improved plant control

1. Core retention measures

j. Reduced radioactivity releases

k. Reactor vessel rupture control Mr. Levine reviewed briefly the risk reduction potential, generic applicability, and estimated cost of implementation of each of the highest priority topics (Attachment E). He noted that imp'emntation of the proposed plan would require about $15 million over a 3-year period from the time work is started. So far no funds have been budgeted for these research projects. However, they plan to reprogram some money in 1979 to initiate work on some of these projects. The NRC Staff believes that they may get some funds for these projects in

' the 1980 budget.

In response to a question from Dr. Okrent regarding reprograrc;ning, Mr. Levine noted that at least $800,000 may be required for reprogramming purpose and that has to be approved by the Comissioners.

.% ...%. . . . , + .~....

.. . _ _ q . e-

. s ISS Mtg 10/4/78 Mr, Levine indicated that the Department of Energy (DOE) has also proposed a program in their budget for improved safety systems. DOE program is somewhat identical to the NRC Staff's program. However, Mr. Levine told the Office of Management and Budget (OhB) that it would be appropriate for the NRC Staff to carry out these programs because, they believe that they have more competent people. Besides , Senator Hart also believes that the NRC Staff should do this research.

In response to a question from Dr. Lawroski as to whether both the NRC Staff and the DOE have con.e up with similar amount of money for these research pcojects, Mr. Levine noted that he did not know the amount of money in DOE's budget.

Dr. Okrent pointed out that the ACRS recommendation to the Congress (First ACRS Annual Report to Congress, NUREG-0392) was that both the NRC Staff and DDE should have predominant roles for the improvement of safety systems for nuclear power plants.

I Mr. Levine noted that the NRC Staff's thinking is concurrent with the ACRS thinking and recommendation. The NRC Staff would provide specifica- I tions to the DOE for a particular system and the DOE would contract them to perform a specific design so as to accomplish the main objectives.

Then tne NRC Staff would evaluate that design.

Dr. Okrent asked why there was no reprogramming done in the fiscal year 1978.

Ar. Levine responded that by the time tt 2 NRC Staff completed the NUREG-0438 report, the final version of the 1979 budget was about to be submitted to the Congress. Besides, they could not get the right people together to work en the reprogramming issue. However, they told the Congress that they would plan to do some reprogramming to initiate work on certain projects.

t

.., . , y . _..% = , *

• 7

ISS Mtg -

5- 10/4/78 Regarding the implementation of the research results, Mr. Levine noted that the results of a particular research project will be evaluated and a quantitative value impact assessmer.t will be prepared. It will be analysed and discussed further to determine whether to implement these results. If it is decided to be implemented , then it will be done through Regulatory Guides, Standard Review Plans or through ch;nges to Regula tions.

In response to a question from Mr. Levine as to whether the NRC Staff har any plans to carry out some of the research projects in collaboration with other countries, Mr. Levine noted that, in general, these projects are very small for international co-operation. However, they might consider making some of these as international programs.

In response to a question from Dr. Okrent, Mr. Levine noted that if they get some reprogramming money, they will invest that to initiate work on the following projects:

1. Alternate containment concepts, especially vented containments

2. Alternate decay heat removal systems especially add-on bunkered systems

3. Value-impact methodology In response to a question from Dr. Okrent, Mr. Levine noted that the value-impact analyses would help both to decide what research should be done and what should be implemented.

SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM - DR. R. DISALVO Program Structure And Plan For Implementation Dr. Disalvo stated that the proposed plan for research to improve the safety of light-water nuclear power plants satisfies the recomendations of the ACRS and the Congress. The NRC Staff has prepared work scopes for the following top priority items:

1. Vented containments.

2. Alternate decay heat removal syst' ems, L

~

4. ~

c

ISS Mtg 10/4/78-

.3. Value-impact methodology, and

'I 1

4. . Human perfomance (Improved in-plant accident response) i The. work scope on alternate emergency core cooling concept is being revised and will be made'available in the near future. The initiation

' of the research is pending Comission action and they hope' to get some fund to initiate work on some of these projects in the near future. I Dr.' Okrent suggested that the NRC Staff keeps the ACRS informed with the Comi*sion's action on a prompt basis.

In response .to a question from Dr. Okrent, Dr. Disalvo r.9ted that they have outlined work scopes-in the NUREG-0438 report for most of the research topics. However, they. are not detailed work scopes. The NRC '

Staff does not have any schedule for developing detailed work scopes for the topics other than the highest priority items because of some ~'

uncertainty in funding these programs, j

Dr. Disalvo discussed briefly the structure of the management setup to carry out these research programs (Attachment E).

APPLICABILITY OF CONFIRMATORY RESEARCH TO SAFETY ItiPROVEMEf4TS PROGRAM Dr. Disalvo reviewed the on-going user, requested confimatory research programs and their contribution to the safety improvements programs  ;

(AttachmentE).

• Dr. Okrent asked whether there are any reports available on the confimatory research program " Application of Risk Assessment Methodology to Four Representative Reactor / Containment Desi.gn Combinations". Mr.

Edison responded that a draft copy on this program came out about six months ago.- However, since it was not satisfactory to the NRC Staff, they returned it to the Laboratory for further revision.

Dr. Okrent expressed concern about'the NRC Staff'-s attitude in provi.di.ng information to the.ACRS on a delayed basis. He remarked that ACRS i

. r

' ^

.e

10/4/78~

i:Q fSS'Mt9-  : 6 should have the benefit of the research findings' as they occur. He . )1 q suggested that the NRC Staff should keep the ACRS informed with. the $[ c. ;

infonnation as they develop at a much accelerated rate. I!

The NRC Staff responded that they would provide information to the ACRS t as' quick as possible'on some expedited basis. -

U t

Dr. Disalvo indicated that the NRC Staff believes that the on-going confirmatory research programs will provide the necessary background information and it will be used as a tool to measure the risk reduction potential. He noted that-there is a confinnatory research program to .

investigate molten-core behavior in Light-Water Reactors (LWRs) and potential means of retaining molten cores in advanced reactors. He 2 believes that this program will' provide background on the feasibility b and risk reduction potential of core retention measures in LWRs. l H

In response to a question from Dr. Okrent regarding the contribution J of the molten-core research program to the' safety improvements program,  ;

Dr. Disalvo noted that the main objective of this program is to develop l

a.best-estimate model to determine how fast the molten-core might penetrate h

'the containment or how fast gases might be generated to overpressurize the containment. The information derived from the molten-core research program might also help to determine the functional requirements of  !

either a vented containment system or a core retention device.

In response to another question from Dr. Okrent regarding the contribution of the molten-core research program to the floating nuclear plants, Dr. Disalvo noted that the Fuel Behavior Research Branch of the NRC has been performing some work in this area using the model developed by Sandia Laboratories on core-concrete interaction. .However, he is not i familiar with all the details of that work. l 1

Dr. Okrent asked whether there are any research programs to look at various means to accomplish core retention in LWRs. Dr. Disalvo responded that there is a program to consider risk reduction potential of core retention devices.

'E ' ' ' "

4

• M3 -

. 0/4/78

'y Dr. Jishlbo stated that there is a research program to ir estigate steam explosion to determine.the probabilities and efficiencies of large j

scale fuel-water interactions. The NRC Staff believes that this pro-gram,will provide background on the feasibility and risk reduction potential of measures.to protect against steam explosion. He indicated that recent experimental results on this issue indicate that the probability of a steam explosion is much lower than previously thought i at elevated system pressures. The results that have been generated in the past two years are very significant; they contributed significantly to reduce uncertainties in predicting the probabilities and efficiences of fuel-water interaction.

In response to a question from Dr. Okrent as to whether the existing program on steam explosion coupled with the other programs in some foreign countries would provide a basis for judging the probabilities and efficiencies within some reasonable limits in the next two or three years, Dr. Disalvo noted that he believes that with these programs they will be able to understand the steam explosion and the fuel-water interaction phenomena better in the next two or three years.

OBJECTIVE, WORK SCOPE AtlD STATUS OF PROGPAM ELEMENTS Dr. Disalvo reviewed the main objectives, scopes, and status of some of the proposed research programs (Attachment E).

Alternate Containment Concepts The main objective of alternate containment concept program is to reduce the probability of containment failure and subsequent i release of airborne radioactivity during core-melt accidents. Among many of the' suggested concepts, the . vented containment concept

appears to be attractive because its cost would be moderate -

and also b'e cause it could be implemented in many existing plants.

t

, . . . . .. . . , . . ,- -- --~ ~ -- ~ ^'

, ** v :-

s iS M,y 10/4/78 l

1 Dr. Disalvo indicated that there have been many studies don; in thi, een by Battelle Columbus, UCLA, Sandia, and California urgy Comission. The main scope of this pro-gram is to:

1. review previous analyses, conceptual designs, and pertinent experimental information,

2. evaluate the potential value of different approaches to filtering and venting,

3. examine the effect of venting on the response of the plant for a variety of accident se-quences,

4. develop possibly a spectrum of performance '

and safety design requirements so as to generate a spectrum of risk reductions, and

5. assess the values and impacts.

In response to a question from Dr. Plesset, Dr. Disalvo noted that the vented containment study will be a generic one and

.will be applicable to both the PWRs and BWRs.

Dr. Disalvo noted that underground siting has also been suggested as a concept to reduce the risk associated with the operation of nuclear power plants. He added that California Energy Commission has performed a study on underground siting and he would provide the Subcommittee with the results of that study.

Another concept proposed was the passive containment system. The NRC Staff would consider including this concept in the alternate containment research program. Dr. Disalvo indicated that DOE has expressed some interest in the passive containment system  !

and they plan to study the thermal-hydraulic behavior of that particular system.

aus

5ISS Mtg , 10/4/78 l

mtar se n Regarding the status of this program, Dr. Disalvo noted  !

that-they have already selected the contractors and as soon as they get the necessary funds work on this program will be initiated.

Alternate Decay Heat Removal Concepts The m :n objective of this program is to assess the values and impact < ef designs to improve the reliability of the decay heat removal systems. The main scope of this program is to:

l

1. review current designs and design bases, I

2. survey and assess existing reliability I predictions, l

3. develop safety / functional performance requirements,

4. develop conceptual designs,

5. perfonn preliminary value-impact assess-ment on conceptual designs, and

6. perform detailed value-impact assessment on detailed designs.

In response to a question from Dr. Okrent, Dr. Diselvo noted that the NRC Staff would like to consider the existing designs in the foreign countries.

Regarding the status of this program, Dr. Disalvo noted that work will be initiated as soon as the necessary funds are available. -

Value-Impact Methodology The main objective of this program is to develop and apply methods' for assessing values and impacts of proposed concepts

.ao-

.., ISS Mtg ~i s-10/4/78 for improving'W ,, M y . ihe scope of this program is to y

. devel op ~ methodo).og., v

1. .delinegahjdries and measures of values and impact [.,

2.

definggspectrum of ateidents to be considered,

3. l develop system to assess risk reduction potential and other key values and impacts .

'4. develop. techniques to test sensitivity, and 5.

develop. formats for rroviding input and presenting

-results.

The value-impact methodology developed will be applied to specify data needs for assessments of individual concepts and to perfonn comparative assessments of concepts.

Regarding the status of this program, Dr. Disalvo noted that work will be initiated as soon as appropriate funds are available.

I l

l

, Dr. Okrent comented that risk acceptance criteria is important to predict the values and impacts of a particular concept. However, he was under the impression that develop-ment.of risk acceptance criteria is a time consuming process.

He asked how one can judge the values and impacts of a con-cept without judging the risk acceptance level of that con-cept.

i Dr. Buhl responded that he agrees with Dr. Okrent that risk i

acceptance criteria would be very important and would also be very useful in judging the values and impacts. Howeve r, he feels that in the absence of such criteria one should not let that delay the development of other' concepts which migh)t ' provide some ' addition'al infonnation for making decisions. .

• . , , <,-e-*e

ISS Mtg - ' '

r./ :6 10/4/78 Scoping Studies of Other r unt The main objective of th; ,,

., ,. is to identify the need for furthar research amor 1ternative concepts suggested to improve saf' .

The scot this program is to review and evaluate the following concepts:

1. Offsite emergency response

2. Protection against sabotage

3. Non-~ Destructive examination and on-line monitoring  !

4. New siting concepts l S. i. educed occupational exposure l

6. Improved Reactor Shutdown systems l

7. Improved plant layout

8. Improved plant control

9. Core retention measures l

10. Reduced radioactivity releases ,

11. Reactor vessel rupture control.

.In response to a question from Dr. Okrent, Dr. Disalvo noted that they do not have detailed work scopes available for these items, and they plan to make a comparative assessment of these programs using their values and impacts. They hope to look at these programs in 1980.

Dr. Okrent commented that one has to perform at least a preli-minary technical study prior to making a comparative assessment of their values and impacts. He wondered how one can compare the values and impacts of these items without understanding their technical aspects at least to a certain extent.

f

, ,

• 4...

~

P- -

1;; i:

4 i' s ISS Mtg- .E  ;

Dr.'.Disalvo responded that the NRC Staff's thinking is '

consistent with Dr. Okrent's thinking. They plan to understand the' technical aspects'of these concepts to <

a certain level so as to compare their values' and im-pacts.

^

Dr. Disalvo' also reviewed briefly the objectives and work scopes of alternate emergency core cooling concepts, human performance, and advanced seismic-design (Attachment-E).  :

i DOE PROGRAM TO IMPROVE LIGHT-WATER REACTOR SAFETY "

Dr. Disalvo reviewed briefly the DOE program on improved safety. He noted that the principal emphasis of DOE's work is to: '

1. prevent accident

2. increase the availability of safety systems

3. reduce cost of safety systems.

They have planned to carry out some research programs in the following areas:

1. Dedicated decay heat removal system

2. Containment functional requirements

3. Human error 4.- Occupational exposure

5. Probabilistic methods.

He indicated that DOE has chosen Sandia Laboratories as a technical management center for their program, and the program plan which is being developed will be made available in the near future.

Dr. Disalvo provided a brief sunnary indicating that: *

1. . NRC Staff's safety improvements program. satisfies the ACRS and the Congressional recommendations

, , .r.. , - , . w,, .

• 9' __

• 'O

• ISS M1!g- -m- , t / 4/ *.

4

2. Work scopes have be'en-completed for most of the r.ighusi-3' priority research topics and work scopes kre being. pmceo

- for some' other researe: pmgrams.

l 3. The initiation of the research is pending Comints: . . , setion.

l Work will be initiated on-the vented containment 'reinate decay heat removal and the value-impact methodolog programs as soon as sufficient funds are available.

4. NRC Staff is coordinating with the DOE as appmpriate.

Dr. Okrent mentioned that either the Subcomittee on Improved Safety Systems or the Full Comittee should request DOE to give a presentation on their improved Safety System programs at a near future date. I In' response to a question from Dr. Okrent regarding the adequacy of the proposed funding level for the overall Safety improvements programs, Dr. Buhl noted that the proposed funding levels are made on a judgmental .

basis. He feels that these figures might change at a future date.

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

NOTE: A transcript containing additional. details of this meeting is available in the NRC Public Document Room, at 1717 H Street, N.W..' Washington, D.C. A copy of the transcript can also be obtained from Ace-Federal Reporters 'Inc., 444 North Capital .

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C..

i l

1 S'

t -a

~

dot /NSF MuetfAR $CIEMCf ADVISORY C:M.: portions cf th? meeting when a tran- In acendance with the procedures

,i merite (NUSAC),1978 IN3TRUM4NTATION script is being kept, and questjons may outlined Ir the Frprnat. HrcisTrn on i

$UsCOMMITTag be asked cnly by members of the sub- October F1,1977 (42 HI 50972), oral or committee, its consultants, and staff, trritten statements mny be presented

' M**Has . Persons desiring to make oral state- by members of the pubite treordings

~

In accordance with the Federal Advi- ment.s should notify the de.dgnated will be permitted only during those sory Comtnittee Act, as amended. Pub. Federal employee as far in advance as portions of the rnecting when a tran.

1.92-463.- the National Science Foun. practicable so that appropriate ar- script is being kept, and questions may dation announces the following meet- rangements can be made to allow the be asked only by members of the Sub.

I ing: necessary time during the meeting for conunittee, its consultants, and staff.

}~ such statements. Persons desiring to make oral state.

NAME: DOE /NUSAC. Instrumenta* The agenda for subject meeting ments should notify the designated tion Subcommittee. shall be as follows: Federal employee as far in advance as DATE AND TIME: October 7,1978,9 WownsoAr, OcTosca 4,1978 practicable so that appropriate ar.

3 m. to G p.m.; October 8,1978, 9 a.m. rangements can be made to allow the to 12 noon. 4 F.M. UNTn.THE coNCLUSIoM or neceMary time during the meeting for PLACE: Conference Room 338, Na. sostnss such statements.

tional Science Foundation. Washing- The agenda for subject meeting l The subcommittee may meet in ex- shall be as follows:

ton, D.C., telephone 202-632-4318. ecutive session, with any of its consul.

TYPE OF MCETING: October 7,1978, tants who may be present, to explore Waxr.sDAY, Octosta 4,1978 open; October 8,1978, open. and exchange their preliminary opin-lons regarding matters which should un.rzNo wn1 CoEMDCs AT s:s0 A.M.

CONTACT PERSONS: Dr. Howel O, The subcommittee may meet in ex.

Pugh. Head. Nuclear Science Section, be considered during the meeting and Room 341 National Science Founda* to discuss the subcommittee's prepara. ecytive session, with any of its consul.

tion. Washington, D.C., telephone 202- tion of a report to the full committee tants and who may be present, to explore exchange their preliminary opin-632-4318. on reactor fuel research.

At the conclusion of the executive ions regarding matters which should

SUMMARY

MINUTES. May be ob- session, the subcommittee will hear be considered during the n.eeting and tained from the Committee Manage. presentntions by and hold discuesions to discuss the Subcommittee's prepa:

ment Coordination Staff. Division of with representatives of the NRC staff ration of a report to the full Commit.

- Financial and Administrative Manage. and their consultants, pertinent to the tee on improved safety systems.

m ent. Room 248, National Science above topics. The subcommittee may At the conclusion of the executive Foundation, Washington, D.C. 20550. then caucus to determine whether the sess!on, the Subcommittee will bear ident led the la! sess r entations and old ussio PURPOSE OF COMMITTEE: To pro. {atte y bo h O and S s port f wh her addi o meetings on this th ns tants pe nt to e g

le nuclear science in the United

• • Further information regarding then caucus to determine whether the topics to be discussed, whether the matters identified in the initial sesalon AGENDA: Formulation of Subcommit. meeting has been canceled or resche- have been adequately covered and tee activities for the next 6 months, duled, the Chairman's ruling on re, whether additional meetings on this Dated: September 12.1978. Quests for the opportunity to present topic are necessary, oral statements, and the time allotted Further information regarding M. RrerecA WIxma, Committee Management therefor can be obtained by a prepaid topics to be discussed, whether the telephone call to the dcsignated Fed- meeting has been canceled or resche.

Cbordinator. eral employee for this meeting, Dr. duled, the Chairme.n's ruling on re-(FR Doc. 78-26065 F11ed 9-14-78: 8:45 aml Thomas G. McCreless, telephone 202- quests for the opportunity to present 634-3207, between 8:15 a.m. and 5 p.m., oral statements, and the time allotted e.d.t. therefor can be obtained by a prepaid I

[7590 4 1] telephone call to the designated Fed-Dated: September 12.1978' eral employee for this meeting, Dr.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY Thomas G. McCreless, telephone 202-COMMl5510N John C. Royle, 634-3267, between 8:15 a.m. and 5 p.m.,

Adeisory Committee e.d.t.

ADVP50tY COMMITTTE ON SAAC708 SME. Management O//icer, CUARDS, $USCOMMITTEE ON REACTOR '

(FR Doc. 78 26072 Filed 9-14-78; 8:45 aml ' '

tutt Joint C. HorLr.,

"N Adt;isory Committee

[7590-01] Management O// feer.

The ACRS Subcommittee on Reac- (FR Doc. 78-26073 Faed 9-14-7s; a:45 arn1 tor Fuel will hold an open meeting on ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR $ME.

October 4,1978. In Room 1046,1717 H ouARDS, sueCOMM;TTEE ON IMPROVED Street NW., Washington D.C. 20555, 1METY SYSTEMS [y390.g))

to continue its review of NRC research cn reactor fuel for consideration by - MN ADyliORY COMMITTEE CH REACTOR $AFI-the ACRS in its preparation of a The ACRS Subcommittee on Im. CuaOS, SUMOMMITT(E ON REUAr,IttTY report to Congress. proved Satety Systems will hold an AND filotAt.luSTIC AS$315 MENT In accordance with the procedures open meeting on October 4,1978, in cuthned in the FDERAL REolsTn on Room 1167,1717 H Street NW., Wash. "* * 'N October 31,1977 (42 FR 56972), oral or ington. D.C. 20555. to discuss the NRC The ACRS Subcommittee on Rell.

written statements may be presented plan for research to improve the ability and Probabill.stic Assessment by members of the public, record'ngs safety of light-water nuclear power- will hold an open meeting on October tillt be pennitted only during those plants. 4,1978, in room 1167, 1717 H Street PEDERAt REOt$TER, VOL. 43, No. ISO-FRIDAY, $EPTEM&lt 15,1978 ATTACHMENT' 0

SD-7&M 12050 ,

NOTICES rd/ Draft Regulatory Ould) 1.35.1. Draft SPptember 15,1978, the meeting time Information in connection with th#

1,* Determination of Prntressing Forecs fur now reading "8:30 e..m.", should read, antitrust review of this appliention tnH Insection of Prestressed Concrete Contain- "D 00 a.m.". be obtained by writing to the U.R W:

57 raft Regulatory Oulde 1.XXX. Draft # D " " "

ington, D.C.Y.0555. Attention'; An(p

• I

j. " Nuclear Analais and Desten of Concrete j Radiation Shielding for Nuclear Power [7590-01] trust and Indemnity Group, Office H l Plants." Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 1

8) Draf t Regulatory Oulde t.XXX. Draft Any per:,on w ho wishes to have hi+ l

t. "Ultrm,onic Testing of Reactor Vessel (Docket Nos. 50-443-A and 50 444-Al views on the antitrust matters with re- l Welds During inservice Inspection." spect to the Massachusetta Municipe Other matters which may be of a rueuC 5tRVict CO. OF NEW HAMP5 HIRE, Ei Wholesale Electric Co., Vermont Elece predecisional nature relevant to reac- At, SEAbtOM STADON, UNif 51 AND 2 tric Cooperative, Inc., Maine Pubbe i tor operation of licensing activities Service Co., Taunton Municipal Light - '

may be discussed following this ses. Notice of Receipt of Additional Antitrust infer. ing Plant Commission. and Bangor' sion. monen: Time for submission of views on Hydro-Electric Co. presented to the Persons wishing to submit written A a 'i"* * ' M * " Attorney General for consideration statements regarding Regulatory should submit such views to the U.R Guides 1.134. Revision 1; 1.28. Resision alle Service Co. of New Hamp- Nuclear Regulatory Commission on or' 2; and 1.104, Revision 1, may do so by sa, pursuant to section 103 of the before November 6,1978.

providing a readily reproducible copy Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amend- Dated at Bethesda, Md., this 21st.

to the Subcommittee at the beginnmg ed, filed on May 15,1978, information of the meeting. However, to insure requested by the Attorney General for day of August 1978.

that adequate time is available for full Antitrust Review as required by 10 For the Nuclear Regulatory Corn <

consideration of these comments at CFR Part 50, Appendix L. This infor. mission.

the meeting, it is desirable to send a mation adds Massachusetts Municipal STtvtN A. VARc A, Wholesale Electric Co., Vermont Elec* Ch f ef. Light Wa fer Reactors readily reproducible copy of the com-tric Cooperative, Inc., Maine Public Branch No. 4, Dicision o/ Prop ments as f ar in advance of the meeting Service Co., Taunton Municipal Light-as practical to Mr. Gary R. Quittsch- ect Afanagement reiber ( ACRS), the Designated Federal (FR Doc. 78-24769 Filed 9-18-78; 8 45 aml Employee for the meeting, in care of dr E ct ic ib e co owners of the Scabrook Station, units I ACRS. Nuclear Regulatory Commis-  !

sion. Washington, D.C. 20555. or tele- 1 and 2.

copy them to the Designated Federal The information was filed by Public [7555-02]

Employee, 202-634-3319 as far in ad. Service Co. of New Hampshire, the OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND vance of the meeting as practical. United Illuminating Co., Central TECHNOLOGY POLICY Such comments shall be based upon " Maine Power Co.. Central Vermont documents on file and available for Public Service Corp., the Connecticut INTf P COVER N.V!NT At. SCIENCE, ENGINEts, public inspection at the NRC Public Light ,& Power Co.. Pitchburg Gas & ING, AND TECHNOLOGY ADVISORY PANEL Document Room,1717 H Street NW., Electric Light Co., Montaup Electric Washington, D.C. 20555. Co., New Bedford Gas & Edison Light Meetias ,l Further information regarding Co., New Er. gland Power Co., Vermont In accordance with the Federal Adrl- 'I toples to be discus.;ed, whether the Electric Power Co., Inc.. Massachu- sory Committee Act, Pub. L.92-463.

setts Municipal Wholesale Electric meeting has been canceled or resche- the Office of Science,and Technology duled, tne Chairman's ruling on re-

'["0 , [e quests for the opportunity to present ton Municipal Lightmg Plant C'ommis- Inf ice Co T un Policy announces the following meet-oral statements and the time allotted therefor can be obtained by a prepaid sion, Bangor Hydro. Electric Co., and 1xTr.ncovramtmL Sc rnet. Eucmrrarsc.

telephone call to the Designated Fed- town of Hudson Mass., Light & Power AND TI.CHNOLOcY ADVISORY PMI1.; McM3 j eral Employee, Mr. Gary R. Quittsch- Department in connection with their Risot mers TASK FORCE reiber, telephone 202-634-3267, be- application for construction permits Date: October 6,1978.

tween 8:15 a.m. and 5 p'm, e.d.t. and operating licenses for the Sea- Place: New Executive office Eu11 ding. 73 brook Station, units 1 and 2. The site Jackson Place NW., room 3104. Washir.g i Dated: September 14,1978. for this plant is located in Rocking- ton, D.C. )i J CH ham County, N.H. Type of meeting: open. 1l Adri ry Commi ec, The original antritrust portion of 3C %,*[,,Py["d@,fsp alr;0]e ey e

t,,j g, Alanagement O//tcer. the application was submitted on July office of the President, telephone: , N.

(ITt Doc. 78-26279 Filed 9-18-78; 8:45 aml 9,1973, and Notice of Receipt of Appli- 335-4596. Anyone sho plans to atterd  !

cation for Construction Permits and should contact Mr. Blair by Octobe.r 4 j Pacihty Licenses and Availability of 1978. ,

Applicant's Environmental Report: Purpose of the panel: The Intergovemmar

[1505-01] Time for Submission of Views on Anti. tal science. Engineertnr. and Technoi trust Matters. was published in the was tab hed den (.g, NUCLEAR REGULATORY hdQ, r ,

RAL Recism on August 9,1M3 problems which' research and technob COMMIS$10N (38 FR 21522). The notice of hearing may suist in resolung or ameliorat. -

ADVISORY COMMiffEE ON REACTOR SAff. was published in the FcDERAL RecIsTER and to help cewicp pohcies to transfer r" CUARDS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMPROVED on August 9,1973 (38 FR 21519). search and development findings.

5 AFETY SYSTEM 5 Copies of the above stated docu. Minutes of the rnectine Exceutive rr.tnuj,"

ments are available for public inspec- DI the meeting will be available frora a-MMas tion at the Commission's Public Docu. Tent ve agenda: (1) overview of selecid Correction ment Room. 1717 H Street N W., Department of I. abor R & D program <

Washington, D.C. 20555, and at the concern to State and local governrnet/- ,

In FR Doc. 78-20073, appearing on Exeter Public Library Front Street, (2) overview of selected information c-p?ge 41316 in the issue for Friday, Exeter, N.H. semmation programs in the DepartrDW ,

FEDERAt RfCt5ff t, VOL. 43, NO.182-TUE5 DAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1978 A TTA C H MGhl7 A h

ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON i IMPROVED SAFETY SYSTEMS OCTOBER 4, 1978 WASHINGTON, D.C.

ATTENDEES LIST ACRS NRC D. Okrent, Chairman S. Levine S. Lawroski, Member G. Bennett M. Plesset, Member H. Ornstein T. McCreless , Staff

• A. Buhl S. Duraiswamy, Staff G. E. Edison J. H. Austin

• Designated Federal Employee OPS GILBERT / COMMONWEALTH R. A. Touchton F. R. Hottenstein V. H. Willems BATTELLE T. W. Kleimola R. S. Denning 0BSERVER - SELF J. H. Carlson S. Buhl SAI ACE J. R. Penland W. R. Bloom BECHTEL H. Filacchione ATT^Cuuef!T B

PROPOSED AGENDA FOR ACRS IMPROVED SAFETY SYSTEMS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING OCTOBER 4, 1978 ROOM 1167 H STREET 9:00 - 9:10 Origin and Development of NUREG-0438 S. Levine (RES)

A. Buhl (PAS) 9:10 - 10:50 Safety Improvements Program R. DiSalvo (PAS)

1. Program structure and plans for imp 1ementation (10 minutes)

2. Procedure for implementing research (5 minutes) results

3. Applicability of confirmatory research to safety improvements program (25 minutes)

(Brief summary of steam explosion,

' core melt, and others which the NRC Staff believes applicable.)

4. Objective, work scope and status of program elements (1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />) a .' Alternate containment

b. Alternate dceay heat removal

c. Alternate ECCS

d. Human interaction )

e. Advanced seismic design l

f. Value-impact methods

g. Other concepts I

h. Risk Acceptance Criteria (QuestionsandAnswers)

• i 10:50 - 11:00 Break 11:00 - 12:00 Detailed Discussions on Items 4a, b, e, f, and g A 77A cH Mear C

.l LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE NRC Report to the Congress of the United States.of America, " Plan for Research to Improve the Safety of Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants",

NUREG-0438, Dated April 12, 1978.

l l

i l

i

\

ATTACHMENT D

~

DR. RAYMOND DISALVO '

PROBABILISTIC ANALYSIS STAFF OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH '

f CONCEPTS TO IMPROVE LWR SAFETY PRESENTED TO THE IMPROVED SAFETY SYSTEMS-SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS l

l L _ _ _ _

-- -- _ __ __ ;/] TTACHMEN T- f

. . m. -

CONCEPTS TO IMPROVE LWR SAFETY ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF PROGRAM PLAN

• PROGRAM AND SCHEDULE e RESEARCH TOPICS

SUMMARY

- OBJECTIVE

- WORK SCOPE

- CURRENT STATUS l

l: '

l- llai. .lo ,: . I

-#m .u .

4  ;-

1. ,

RES' SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS-PROGRAM SATISFIES ACRS AND CONGRESSIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS

• WORK SCOPES COMPLETE, CONTRACTORS AVAILABLE FOR HIGHEST PRIORITY TOPICS

- VENTED CONTAINMENT

- ALTERNATE DECAY HEAT REMOVAL

- VALUE-lMPACT

• WORK SCOPES FOR OTHER TOPICS BEING DEVELOPED e INITIATION OF RESEARCH PENDING COMMISSION ACTION e COORDINATION WITH DOE MAINTAINED d.

...---_?_._. -_..__u.____.______.__ - . _ .= _ . _ _ _ _ . - - - _ _ _ - _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ - _ . _ _ _ _ _ - _ . - _ _ _ . _ - -

~

L: THE LWR SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM  :

RESPONDS TO THE FOLLO. WING ACRS-l RECOMMENDATIONS IN NUREG-0392: -

• MORE NRC INVOLVEMENT IN IMPROVED SAFETY (PAGE iii)

• MORE SIGNIFICANT RESEARCH EFFORT IN SHUT-DOWN HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEMS (PAGES 2.5,8.4) '

e AUGMENTED PROGRAM OF RESEARCH ON ALTER-NATE ECCS (PAGE 2.6) e ADDITIONAL RESEARCH ON NEW SITING CONCEPTS (PAGE 5.8)

LL --

-_____- . _ . _ . = - - - - - - - - -

-- . . . _ -.- _ _-- _~ - - n.. -

e PROCESS FOR GENERATING SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM PLAN SOURCES CONSOLIDATION CRITERIA PROGRAM ACRS NRC STAFF CONSULTANTS

• BREADTH OF SUPPORT APS 1G RESEARCH TOPICS

• RISK REDUCTION 4 5 RESEARCH TOPICS FOR IMPROVED SAFETY

• APPLICABILITY FORD FOUNDATION 2 GENERAL STUDIES

• IMPLEMENTION COST i-,

ECCS HEARINGS EOL

SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM OBJECTIVELY ANALYZES POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR LWR SAFETY POTENTI AL FOR GENERIC COST OF TOPIC RISK REDUCTION APPLICABILITY IMPLEMENTATION H M L H M .L H M .L CONTAINMENT $ h &

DECAY HEAT REMOVAL $ < h h ECCS h h c h HUM AN INTE R ACTION h > h h SEISMIC DESIGN h 5 4 h c h d

j t

. . . . . . , ]

z 9 s 0 0 0 O O O O ,

O )

Ow -

d^ b wo&w J " f

. 3

$g$

" l 2 O O O O O O O {j j , j 5 583 '

!! l 5

-eE 2 i < 4 ) ,I j

s  !

=

13

• T 4 g 1 2 > s O O O O l s# -

=

3 w d j j ye  :

g es . . a w

h 2 O O O O b '

o k i i f E ss 1 ] E t

$ k = 0 O 1 O

$.da , {

- . a-

< t t z o

O EE

= .i I6

.J .a O O O O l Pd Fj u 'j o $C s 5 8  ;

, 85 2 o j c 0 0 <

o o . i! lej{

CH .

E ,

[.

N $* *'

5 e

E.  : o 0 0

[v i i nn.$. -

l O 'l d I$ I h  ;

o 8 * ~ I ce ]

5 .i l

• 10 B  !

c n -

l O' gesoavvoeri u nwno O u

, s {. (t) 2,r' '

5 6 ,.

i i

E w

iran smovi Awa [ s 8

jj I

I s

y.

. priv>2ius 0 -t v g g 3 ,e. gy 3i y ,

i o . -

h wouNuno! O O O O O O O caos ,

W W N

u 86080 e

e

• c 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *s * >

e o 180d"nis Ao s<v S g d O 3 s I

{

w sAwwaveuco O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O hj g o 3r . 2 2 Itt t O

88'28 3*N O O O O O O O O O O O O mg*o

{ s

21 A * *"',","y 0 0 0 x c 0 m o o O x 0 f; g 5 lb c

5 21 l~.4f

.g E

Y Ee .}

c= 3f-l'1 L

= 2 o E VT3 3 2 & T E E  %

o w E z ~

• 3* L #

• C y b e w 1I'.

uB $" i "6

.)(

o cE 8i[*$ { g u O g S[E l

!< U 2 i

1. d

• I ik Ef E3 Eo ",

bMb b

1 E

l r E *.s 1 $ i 's9 m k5 - X

• igsc5e $

E i j,

-j[ I I c

$ w 7 E.u 2 LE!*T: jg e .ci Sg }E *le 2p.

w . -

] g 3 y o& Cl

• a o Gw 00 C yi*e E "* t < O si~ e z cTgI > 2 2fl =h k ( j 1 J l D 4

" w 8

• EEE5$c  :

. vEo t

'= *

< a-[ }ojs T

'3

• o tts > ==*

> t r a<E t x =3 n

& z<E6 _z- ega > 4 -

zgjjg w<<

cvw z E 1' l 5' ddNNNNN dhNN hdN e *2*'l c

d W ri w' a

1

.%. , .l

r. . i u e. r e , = > - -

s., .

CONCEPTS TO IMPROVE LWR SAFETY  :

i

OBJECTIVES -

e GENERATES DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR SYSTEMS TO IMPROVE LWR SAFETY e ASSESSES THE VALUES AND IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ,

IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH SYSTEMS RESEARCH TOPICS e ALTERNATE CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS

• ALTERNATE DECAY HEAT REMOVAL CONCEPTS e ALTERNATE ECCS

• HUMAN INTERACTION

• ADVANCED SEISMIC DESIGN e VALUE/ IMPACT METHODOLOGY e SCOPING STUDIES OF OTHER CONCEPTS e

9 6

. _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ - _ . - _ . _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - - . - - = _ = . _- - - _ _,-_ _ _ _ _ -

, ~ , - . .

') ~, _

1.

D.:.

~

MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE REFLECTS ORGANIZED APPROACH TO SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS RESEARCH j

4 ieit., i .. i

) -

i I I' ,

'f'

' .. . s i a. l .

SAFETYIMPROVEMENTS LWR SAFETY lMPROVEMENTS I' . PROGRAM MANAGER I . R E V I E W G R O U P,,

11. n

• t : !ilii. ' '

1ii .. s ! .! . I i i 11 * . t . .

1

1. : i1

. ...it .  : i.,

i VALUE-lMPACT

+,

'.: . . I*t! ' METHODOLOGY- U*'s 8 *8.4 .i . >

$ 'l '. .

.. s .

HUMAN ALTERNATE ALTERNATE OTHER ALTERNATE SEISMIC INTER- CONTAIN- DECAY HEAT CONCEPTS ECCS DESIGN ACTION MENT REMOVAL d

3

' ,y

-SCHEDULE ADOPTED FOR REPORTING PROGRESS'ON-LWR ~*

SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM li h.

y PROGRAM PLAN TO CONGRESS ' fi Y REVIEW GROUP ESTABLISHED y 1st CONTRACTS ISSUED -

7 LETTER REPORT TO CONGRESS p ANNUAL REPORTTO CONGRESS FY78 l FY79 l FY80 l FY81

~

iii

. . _ _ . . 8_ .

LWR SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM i l

VENTED FILTERED CONTAINMENT ,

REVIEW CAllFORNIA STUDY , OTHER CONTAINMENT CONCEPTS ,

ADD-ON DECAY HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM OTHER DECAY HEAT REMOVAL CONCEPTS i l 1

. MODIFY ECCS CODES i

.=

. ~ , .

ALTERNATE ECC3 PERFORMANCE CALCULATIONS ,

~~

I l

- MODIFY .

SEMISCALE i ALTERNATE ECCS TESTING ,

g g SURVEY I

HUMAN ERROR i IMPROVED ACCIDENT RESPONSE i 6 1 i i REVIEW SPECIFY SEISMIC DESIGNSi DESIGN CRITERIA, 1 i STANDARDIZE DEVELOP AND APPLY VALUE-lMPACT METHODOLOGY METHODOLOGY l i l i REVIEW AND RECOMMEND RESEARCH ON OTHER IMPROVED SAF ETY CONCEFTS,

, REPORT TO CONGRESS 3

1 i -1 1 i SOM S4.3M $4.9M S3.9M FY 78 FY 79 FY80 FY81 FYB2 l

l 1

w it T

g 6  !'

~ !

IMPLEMENTATION OF RESULTS FROM SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM '

e RES Transmits' Research information Letter to Users and Public e Users Assess Value-Impact of Revising Regulations 5 e Revisions issued For Public Comment l'

e Rulemaking Hearings Possible p it-li; e Applicanis Supply Detailed Design Data e Licensing Review e Applicants Implement Change y a

l

• l.l n n i.

I a

____.___.___.+..__,_____________.___._.________._____._____m

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ __ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . - . _ _ - _ _ ;__ ~ s - - . ,_. ..

FLOW DIAGRAM FOR ACTIONS r.

TOWARD IMPLEMENTING IMPROVED SAFETY CONCEPTS REJ RESPONSIBILITY :  ; -

USER OFFICE RESPONSIBILITY l I ~i t

CONCEPT FOR I tMPROVED S%FETy  ; REVIEW Rf L 1 r PRE LIMIN ARY VALUEtMPACT i VALUE-tMPACT OF CHANGES .

IN REGULATIONS 1r r 1

FAVORABLE COMPARISON WI TH NO NO VALUElMPACT FUNDING CONSTR AINTS,

• CONCt USIVE AND OTHER RESEARCH. FAVORABLE?

USER NEED?

YES r 1 RYES 3 F ERFORM RESE ARCH INCLUDING DROP OR fYPLEMENT CHANGE NO CHANGF td DUANilTATIVE DELAY RESE ARCH YO INCORPORATE REGULATORY VALUEBMPACT NEW CONCEPT PROCEDUCE

- I k

RESULTS CONCa,uggygt 1 r YES TRANSMIT RiL

_ --_ - _ =_ -- _ _ _ _ _ - - - . - - - . . - . - - .

/C

USER-REQUESTED CONFIRMATOR.Y RESEARCH SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACTS SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM- .

CONFIRMATORY RESEARCH IMPACT ON SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS Analyze Alternate Containment Concepts

~

Provides Preliminary Value-impact To Support NRC Decision On Rulernaking Analysis And Background For Underground Reactors Material Evaluate Alternate Provisions For Proposed Program Satisfies Research 4 Assuring Safe Shutdown And Request And Safety improvements

!Cooldown Functions Objectives Investigate LOCA Phenomena On Provides Data On Alternate Large Scale in 2D/3D ECCS Concepts Confirm Adequacy Of UHI Provides Data On Alternate Models in Semiscale ECCS Concepts

_ _ . ._- --_. _ ---_____-_____ _--.- _- - --- - - -- ~ - - - ~ ~ * ~ ~ ~ ~ -* * ~ ~ ' ' ' '

" " ' ' ' ' * ~ ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '"

.n _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

. USER-REQUESTED CONFIRMATORY RESEARCH SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACTS SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (CONT.) .

CONFIRMATORY RESEARCH IMPACT ON SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS i >i : . i . . ...  : , , ,

, i i i . ,

,- Collect And ,A,nalyze Data,0,n , , . , , , . ,

Provides Evaluated Data From Which l-- H,u. man int,eraction, To Suppor,t yisk,,, g,,,,,

Interactions Significantly Contributing Analysis , , , ,

~

,, ,, To RispCan Be lderitified And Corrected Quantify Margins Of Conservat, ism Provides Baseline Analyses On The True -

In, Analyses Of Seis,mic Design Magnitude Of The Risk Reduction

i. i. : ., . . . . , , , .

Potential From Changes in Seismic Design Apply Risk Assessment Methodology Indicates Dominant Contributors To Risk i

To Four R,epresentative Reactor /

Therefore Suggesting Most Promising Containment Design Combinations Concepts For Risk Reduction And '

Provides Baseline From Which Values And impacts May Be Assessed

....t..... .. ,i i ii o c  ; . .. .

I' l . e lt.l a l#- 4e es; ali .lI at .* j e,i d

I USER-REQUESTED CONFIRMATORY RESEARCH SIGNIFICANTLY.

IMPACTS-SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (CONT.) .

CONFIRMATORY RESEARCH IMPACT ON SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS i!

improve And Apply Consequence Model Provides Baseline Analyses For Assessing To Evaluate The Effectiveness Of The Values Of Alternate Emergency Emergency Response Strategies Planning Concepts

[

lj Analyze The Vulnerability Of Reactors Fulfills Recommendations To Study To Sabotage Protection Against Sabotage But Risk Reduction Potential Has Large Uncertainty.

Improve Techniques For Recognizing Fulfills Recommendations To Study NDE incipient Failures Or Conditions And Online Monitoring Capable Of initiating An Accident Improve And Apply Consequence Model Provides improved Analytical Tool For To Evaluate Alternate Sites Assessments Of New Siting Concepts i o

e

c_

UUSER-REO.UESTED CONFIRMATORY RESEARCH SIGNIFICANTLY' ilMPACTS SAFETY..lMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (CONTi.) -

'CONFI RM ATORY' R ESEARCH ' IMPACT ON SAFETY IMPROVEMENT-In,. ..

. hei..,LI .1 3

Analyze Data On Occupagonal,, ;ldentifies The Significant Contributors To i Radiation Exposure From, ,, . Occupational Exposure And Therefore Representative Factors Indicates Risk Reduction Potential Investigate Molten C.oreeBehavi.or...n m. ,Provides Background On The Feasibility And il n LWR's And Potential Means Of , Risk Reduction Potential Of Core Retention-Retaining Molten Cores in 4 Measures.In LWR's . .

, .n. ,.i..i, Advanced Reactors dnvestigate Steam Explosions To ., ; ;Provides, Background On The Feasibility, And

~

. Determine Probabilities and Risk Reduction Potential Of Measures To

,'5fficiencies, of, Large Scale Fuel-Water P'ro'tect hgainst Stea'n i Explosion iritera'ctions Estimate The Risk Associated With Provides Technical Basis For Estimating

'dihss'3-8' A'ccidents ' ' Risk Reduction Potential Of Conce' pts i .. i . .n ...i. .o...;a.s.o."

To Redube Rad'ioactivity' Rele~ases*

Q

t VENTED CONTAINMENT .

O'8JECTIVE ASSESS THE VALUES AND IMPACTS OF VENTED, FILTERED CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS DESIGNED-TO CONTROL RADIOACTIVITY RELEASE DURING CORE MELT ACCIDENTS SCOPE DEVELOP CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS .

REVIEW RECENT STUDIES AUGMENT WHERE NECESSARY l ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT OF CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS 1

ACCIDENT ENVIRONMENT l VENT AND FILTER TECHNOLOGY ACTUATION AVAILABILITY AND FUNCTIONABILITY i SPURIOUS OPERATION AND ACCIDENTS NOT INVOLVING CORE MELT POTENTI AL FAILURE MODES l

DEVELOP PERFORMANCE AND SAFETY DESIGN REQUIREMENTS ASStiSS VALUE/ IMPACT

_ _ _ _ . . ..m.

n_. _m n._, _

-6 .

J w

- ALTERNATE CONTAINMENT CONCEPTS MAY SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE RISKS FROM NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS:

10-3 ,_,,,n,, ,,,,ny, , , , , , n ,l , , , , y ol , ,,,o  :

- ti 3'

[ _ LEGEND:

, a.

X 4 7-7 h j' [

BASELINE CASE' (WASH-1400 W/O CHECK VALVE) ~

-l!

g -

y -

FILTERED ATMOSPHERIC VENTING - 4

m. 5 ----W COMPARTMENT VENTING-o 17 g

5..

E DEEP UNDERGROUND SITING g

O  : t E. - '

~~~"~~~""j STRONGER CONTAINM ENT h m INCREASED CONTAINMENT VOLUME - l I 6 -

/

'il E -

, j

• THINNED BASE MAT.

>-- - f F ,,,,_ ,_,_ _,_ 4 DOUBLE CONTAINMENT y d EVACUATED CONTAINMENT

, p- -

w SHALLOW UNDERGROUND SITING

i

// ' / ]

""* % / 'Y' NOTE: MAGNITUDES OF RISK REDUCTION SHOWN N N FOR THE ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTS MAY 10-8 g- \ '. E NOT BE FULLY REAllZED IN AN ACTUAL

N  :

2 DESIGN: OTHER FACTORS M AY TEND TO

\ CONTROL RISK REDUCTION MAGNITUDE.

N. -

\ 4 -

10- 9 . . , , n ul ,,.....I .'.i

. Minil

.iinn

~100 10 1 10 2 103 104 10 5 EARLY FATALITIES, X 6

4 ALTERN ATE CONTAINMENT CONCEPTS

~

OBJECTIVE ASSESS THE VALUES AND IMPACTS OF ALTERNATE CONTAINMENT CONCEPTS SCOPE REVIEW PREVIOUS ANALYSES, CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS,'

AND PERTINENT EXPERIMENTAL INFORMATION LARGER CONTAINMENTS STRONGER CONTAINMENTS THINNED BASE MAT PASSIVE CONTAINMENT SYSTEM REDUCED OPERATING PRESSURE PROTECTION AGAINST STEAM EXPLOSION PROTECTION AGAINST HYDROGEN BURNING ASSESS VALUES AND IMPACTS

0.UALITATIVE VALUE-IMPACT M ATRIX RANKS ALTERNATE CONTAINMENT CONCEPTS .

EVACUATED -

CURRENT CONTAINMENT HA OW DOUBLE SURFACE DERGROUND CONTAINMENT PLANTS -THINNED SITING BASE MAT 5

5 STRONGER 2 .

CONTAINMENT Z

9 INCREASED D CONTAINMENT VOLUME

]

=

FILTERED . COMPARTMENT DEEP ATMOSPHERIC UNDERGROUND VENTING VENTING SITING u

> INCREASE IN COST  :

4

__ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . - - 4 . _ __ - , _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _"

~

l , .

f y l'

$ f. ;f% ' . ; F*,*. .

[!! i E i ji '

ly '

'%.((> .

$y ,j ,Sge. [;jjj d.]  %'j i i k h' i j

[ l' l i };

j 1,4 2 f .- ;s

\y.g:-Q jhg gj l 3 n g J.!;  !,i i i

( ,!

/

fj[f/lp. .i . m .hE$f' hMP 2

4

/

y:$. p g r ~R f:L f ' 1 [.;'h g f : Qk g ig;ia /

M h,

. g.

~L2 f

0 %

.: a s

.:c d:

. d, , ;i. 1 1 5, (< ,

p;h nt p y; L

i t-s" A1

- =' 7:::.- =w Eggbg ~=- .m M.r[P$. .pcw.. .

t m.- - , .

m < E ~  ;.w

,j _N.a L. ..:f91-4 N '

.n. . .

i

,p;-J _.__- .

in...._: .f<:t . nm l. .J@; +Y w- m l ( . di Q i..:9 . p..r aud ,,,, g.u.

g.cecu.pt

1. g .s ,7

. r.m_

a..re.,..g v my i.[.. .;-

.i .

n

~A..,

m s~

We Q.,;'s 1 1:s' e_=r'.W_g IN, p-mm. .R. : . gg=~"=aa

,. y ,, s '

p ..f 5 e ]'

t

.<a..

11111:1111

~

np r -ot g

. . .r 4

tec -

.n, : u

-_4 lw))e; g }- W~fs:.m ,

u-

=wp -

.=.~=

y

. ,.,~.g .-

s. 4 g gj . ty g gw

- - - 3 3 ' wof. ..

f n Y, N >h k..{. j

@td,'hh..m F.:. .:. , : . e ; m.>-,,;,;2 h .Lp.,1f[.

.. . z. x a a w ai 9 STATE 0F CALIFORNIA 4,@@ N yU--

Energy Resources Conservation e

and Development Commission Nuclear Undergrounding Study Berm-Contained Pressurized Water Reactor Plant

'l g :. )

f I..

l  :

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA UNDERGROUND .

SITIN G .STU DY l

FEASIBLE? YES, BUT COSTLY i

EFFECTIVE? YES, IF VENTED NECESSARY? NO, EASIER WAYS AVAILABLE

1.

- ALTERNATE DECAY HEAT REMOVAL a a .

OBJECTIVE .

~

ASSESS THE VALUES AND IMPACTS 0F DESIGNS T0 iMPROV$ ki1E' RELIABILITY OF DECAi IlEAT REMOVAL' S'Y'STE'MS" SCOPE REVIEW CURRENT DESIGNS AND DESIGN BASES SURVEY AND ASSESS EXISTING RELIABILITY PREDICTIONS IDENTIFY PlilNCIPAL DEMANDS AND VULNERABILITIES ' ' " ' ' #

DEVELOP SAFETY / FUNCTIONAL PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

~

DEVELOP CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS

<l. PHASE.I: . LIMITED TO HOT STANDBY ,

PHASE II: EXTENSION TO COLD SHUTDOWN PERFORM PRELIMINARY VALUE-IMPACT ASSESSMENT ON CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PERFORM DETAILED VALUE-IMPACT ASSESSMENT ON DETAILED DESIGN 4

- - - - E

ALTERNATE DECAY HEAT REMOVAL CONCEPTS .

MUST BE OPTIMIZED FROM A SYSTEMS VIEWPOINT FUNCTIONg VULNERABILLTlES.

NORMAL SHUTDOWN j HARDWARE FAILURE TRANSIENT SHUTDOWN 3 HUMAN ERROR POSTACCIDENT HEAT REMOVAL FIRE AUXILIARY FUNCTIONS SEISMIC EVENTS SAB0TAGE -

ENVIR0ilMENTAL EFFECTS SYSTEMS INTERACTIONS OTHER COMMON CAUSES

~

e

ALTERN ATE EM ERGENCY CORE

} COOLING CONCEPTS l -

OBJECTIVE ASSESS THE VALUES AND IMPACTS OF ALTERNATE ECCS HAVING EASILY ANALYZABLE AND CLEARLY DEMONSTRABLE CAPABILITY .

FOR CORE COOLING SCOPE IDENTIFY CONCEPTS PERFORM PRELIMINARY VALUE/ IMPACT REVIEW EXISTING AND PLANNED ANALYSES AND EXPERIMENTS RELAP AND ADVANCED CODES SEMISCALE LOFT 2D/3D TLTA ANALYZE PERFORMANCE OF ALTERNATE ECCS WITH ADVANCED CODES PROPOSE ADDITIONAL EXPERIMENTS AS NECESSARY TO VERIFY MOST PROMISING CONCEPT (S)

PERFORM DETAILED VALUE/ IMPACT d

~

il: e ALTERNATE EMERGENCY CORE COOLING INJECTION POINTS-SUGGEST IMPROVED COOLING i STEAM 6. .. 4 ii t  : . . . i :t - .

3 GENERATOR , . . i., ,, , i ,, ,,

g,:,,ai.,,, ,

PRESSURIZER .

..,i.

f Of is c  ;. 4 ci

, i 1. 4 . I. i ACCUMULATOR

.. 4 <  : . , , ...

.si* .

an

,..i?- CORE f

. BREAK

i. ... . . . b._b. 7 a-slfriv u w SbNb d $

PRESSURE VESSEL l

l f

/

6 HUM AN PERFORM ANCE .

l OBJECTIVE ASSESS THE VALUES AND IMPACTS OF CONCEPTS TO REDUCE THE HUMAN CONTRIBUTION TO RISK FROM REACTOR ACCIDENTS SCOPE REVIEW AND EVALUATE HUMAN PERFORMANCE DATA TYPES OF ERRORS ~

FREQUENCY OF ERRORS RISK SIGNIFICANCE OF ERRORS CAUSES OF ERRORS WAYS TO REDUCE ERRORS IMPROVE HUMAN PERFORMANCE REDUCE DEPENDENCE OF HUMAN ASSESS VALUES AND IMPACTS RECOMMEND IMPROVEMENTS POTENTI AL NEAR TERM IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRING FURTHER RESEARCH (E.G.,

AUTOMATED ACCIDENT MONITORING AND RESPONSE)

_._.__:..______-_-.__._________-___...----__ - , . .. ~-- +

EXAMPLES OF HUMAN ~ ERROR CATEGORIZATION -

PRE-ACCIDENT ERRORS

• UNDETECTED MISPOSITIONING OF VALVES DURING TESTING AND MAINTENANCE e- MISCAllBRATION OF EQUIPMENT DURING ROUTINE TESTING AND MAINTENANCE e INITIATION OF TRANSIENT EVENTS BY IMPROPER OPERATION OF EQUIPMENT POST-ACCIDENT ERRORS e FAILURE TO ACTUATE SYSTEMS MANUALLY WHEN NECESS-ARY DUE TO PRIOR FAILURE OF INITIATING CIRCUlTRY e FAILURE TO REALIGN SYSTEMS DURING THE ACCIDENT AS REQUIRED BY PROCEDURES

-__. ___u-._-____.

- __._________m______ *-___..__-2. _ _ _ _ __ .__ - -___ " . W*

d 'd ,

l:x 1, i 2"" '

. . ~ ADVANCED SEISMIC DESIGNS-  !

OBJECTIVE ii. . .

ASSESS THE VALUES AND IMPACTS OF DESIGNS TO REDUCE CONTRIBUTION TO RISK'FROM SEISMIC EVENTS ^ * " '

-THE  ;.,.-  ; . ..

SCOPE , ; . . . .. , ,, , a

~

REVIEW CANDIDATE CONCEPTS TO DETERMINE FEASIBILITY ni' STRENGTHEN CURRENT DESIGNS '" - '# '"'

INCREASED ENERGY ABSORPTION CAPABILIT.Y COMPONENT ISOLATION i '

FOUNDATION ISOLATION DEFINE PRELIMINARY SYSTEM DESIGN REQUIREMENTS IMPROVE ANALYTICAL MODELS I)ERFORM. PRELIMINARY.VALUE -IMPACT ASSESSMENT CONDUCT VERIFICATION EXPERIMENTS AS NEEDED 8

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ ~ r- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _

SCOPING STUDIES OF OTHER CONCEPTS OBJECTIVE TO IDENTIFY THE NEED FOR FURTHER RESEARCH AMONG ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTS SUGGESTED TO IMPROVE SAFETY -

SCOPE REVIEW AND EVALUATE ADDITIONAL CONCEPTS

' ' OFF-SITE EMERGENCY RESPONSE

• PROTECTION AGAINST SABOTAGE

• NDE AND ON-LINE MONITORING *- u.  ; 4.  ; ,t ,

NEW SITING CONCEPTS

• REDUCED OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE * . ti.

IMPROVED REACTOR SHUTDOWN SYSTEMS

• IMPROVED PLANT LAYOUT IMPROVED PLANT CONTROL CORE RETENTION; MEASURES ' -' i J m.'. .. -

i, , REDUCED, R ADIOACTIVITY RELEASES REACTOR VESSEL RUPTURE CONTROL

• WORK IN THESE AREAS IS PART OF NRC'S ONGOING PROGRAMS

1. i o u . e. . . .... i .;..e. . . . . .. . . , ,,;3 ,, , , ,

s

VALU E-lM PACT M ETHO DOLOGY .

h OBJECTIVE - l TO DEVELOP AND APPLY METHODS FOR ASSESSING THE VALUES j AND IMPACTS OF PROPOSED CONCEPTS FOR IMPROVING REACTOR SAFETY ' {

SCOPE DEVELOP METHODOLOGY DEFINE CATEGORIES AND MEASURES OF VALUE & IMPACT DEFINE SPECTRUM OF ACCIDENTS TO BE CONSIDERED j DEFINE BASELINE CONDITIONS i DEVELOP SYSTEM TO ASSESS RISK REDUCTION POTENTIAL .

AND OTHER KEY VALUES AND IMPACTS DEVELOP TECHNIQUES TO TEST SENSITIVITY 1 DEVELOP FORMATS FOR PROVIDING INPUT AND PRESENTING

! RESULTS t CODIFY METHOD OF CHOICE g 1

APPLY METHODOLOGY SPECIFY DATA NEEDS FOR ASSESSMENTS OF INDIVICUAL CON- d CEPTS ASSIST OTHERS IN ASSESSMENTS OF INDIVIDUAL CONCEPTS j PERFORM COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENTS OF CONCEPTS t

~

VALUES AND IMPACTS WHO BENEFITS? HOW?

PUBLIC- REDUCED RISK PLANT PERSONNEL e ACUTE -

NRC e CHRONIC LICENSEE e PROPERTY OTHERS REDUCED LICENSING TIME REDUCED COST '

WHO PAYS? FOR WHAT?

PUBLIC INCREASED RISK PLANT PERSONNEL INCREASED LICENSING TIME NRC INCREASED COST LICENSEE e R&D OTHERS

• LICENSING e CONSTRUCTION

• OPERATION e MAINTENANCE

_=_-_-_.___________--_--________--_-_------_:-- _- -

,- ~ ,_c- - - -- -_ .--i = -r-- - - , , . - ,

s tn uJ s . , ~ . LO W c W

G $ -

a 9 u;

d N O

>W .

cD D 1

.A }--

in 2

'r a n

N-a

'_2 b

EG $

o0 -r 5 G-i d S #g q e n o ~ $2

D 0 0

-3 6 6 N N --

o o W w v LL o<

b W h 5 $ -

r >J t4

% % w n u 6 ,

? c

- ~

o W b d O h 2 J $ h

> > .a

~ ~ a ~ g e - a f

p E m~ to tn W to F- e r i_ r z

_a LO W o r La O

o 2 c -

Z. p2 Lu u)

,> P $

2 W A O g J" <

__. M .$

ae (JJ

.i g a# O -

Ql O -'

W W N LO d _

Lu 3 - @

l.o c<

@O C5

~~

s l

hh b PV to 2 a a l W

x $

~4 o @

29 p o EO d 00 $gg

~

A< o m

ff)

-3 g-- if W y g u _. Lo W -

I ~

F )

% 4  % s -

b b

Mb '

%  % g g >

i i g I b

e a O l W I I i I 3 5 I bj l-) f--i _J 2 3 3 0 3 A O d -

W s a J F W < m m r }._. }- }- I- 1- 1--

cc

_.) o 12.) -

DC Lu O Y Q e to 2 2 u

-b 3 9 d 5

o

.c m u o ow T <-r- ,n

.;? .

x RES' SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM SATISFIES

. ACRS AND CONGRESSIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS

• WORK SCOPES COMPLETE, CONTRACTORS AVAILABLE FOR HIGHEST PRIORITY TOPICS

- VENTED CONTAINMENT -

- ALTERNATE DECAY HEAT REMOVAL

- VALUE-IMPACT

• WORK SCOPES FOR OTHER TOPICS BEING DEVELOPED

• INITIATION OF RESEARCH PENDING COMMISSION ACTION

• COORDINATION WITH DOE MAINTAINED O

s y<

A g,

. '? .

L M p

DOE PROGRAM TO ' IMPROVE

~

~

LWR SAFETY

~

l . . . 3. 2

- ' ' " ' - - - - '^

- PROERAM ElbPHASIS

~~

+ -

2 aJ ~

e A' CCIDENT PREVENTION-e INCREASED AVAILABILITY OF SAFETY- SYSTEMS

• REDUCED COST OF SAFETY SYSTEMS" : >l- .

PRINCIPAL AREAS OF INTEREST

• DEDICATED-DECAY HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM-

• CONTAINMENT FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS e HUMAN ERROR ' '

• OCCUPATION AL .EXPOSU RE;. . , ,..u ,, 3 g,,,,

• PROBABILISTIC

..~.2 .

METHODS

.i.,-;,. . ,1 ,, , , ,

. STATUS e PROGRAM PLAN BEING DEVELOPED

• INITI AL CONTRACTS AWARDED

-- . , . _ ~ . -

,..-,.v.1,4v. ~ ..r-, __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ , ,