Text

Summary of ACRS 333rd Meeting on 880107-08 in Washington,Dc
	ML20151D169
Person / Time
Issue date:	04/13/1988
From:	; Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
To:	; Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
References
	ACRS-2546, NUDOCS 8804130437
	Download: ML20151D169 (45)
	v • d • e

'

MRS-M94 CEMIFIB TABLE OF CONTENTS HINUTES OF THE 333RD ACRS HEETING JANUARY 7-8, 1988 1.

C h a i ma n ' s R e p o rt ( 0 p e n )..........................................

1

11. General Electric Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (0 pen)............

2 111. ReactorOperatingExperience(0 pen)...............................

5 IV.

In-Service Testing (0 pen).........................................

8 V.

Nuclear Industry Initiatives (0 pen)...............................

10 1

VI. Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Licenses (0 pen)....................

1?

VII. AralysisofOperatingData[ Postponed]............................

15 VIII.

Executive Sessions (0 pen / Closed)..................................

15 A.

Subconcittee Reports (0 pen /Ci csed)............................

15 1.

Joint Metal Components and Therrral Hydraulic Phenomena (0 pen)..........................................

15 2.

Reliability Assurance (0 pen)..............................

15 3.

New Members (Closed)......................................

16 B.

Reports, Letters and Memoranda (0 pen).........................

17 1

1.

Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards Herbership.......

17 C.

Other Comi ttee Concl u s i on s (0 pen)............................

17 1.

Important Safety Related Issues (0 pen)....................

22 2.

Safety Implications of Coittrol Systems (0 pen).............

23 3.

Quality and Quality Assurance (0 pen)......................

23 J

4 USI A-40, "Sci smic Desi gn Cri teri a" (0 pen)................ 23 5.

DOE Advanced Reactor Severe Accident Program (0 pen).......

23 D.

Future Activities (0 pen).......................................

23 1.

FutureAgenda(0 pen).......................................

23 2.

Future Subcomi ttee Activi ties (0 pen)...................... 24 8804130437 080413 PDR ACRS PDR 2546

i n

0 11 APPENDICES MINUTES OF THE 333RD ACRS MEETING JANUARY 7-8, 1988 1.

Attendees II.

Future Agenda III.

Subcomittee Activities IV.

Other Docunents Received

t i

y asog'o UNITED STATES s

4

!",,,^g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RE ACTOR SAFEGUARDS

{

s WASHINGTON, D. C. 20$55 o,

a g * *v /

Revised: December 29, 1987 SCHEDULE AND OUTLINE FOR DISCUSSION 333RD ACRS MEETIt:G JANUARY 7-8, 1988 WASHINGTON, D.C.

Thursday, January 7, 1988, Room 1046, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

1) 8:30 - 8:45 A.M.

Chairman's Coments (0 pen) 1.1) Openingremarks(FJR) 1.2)

Items of current interest (FJRf RFF)

/

2) 8:45 - 11:00 A.P.

AdvancedBoilingWaterReactor(0 pen) 2.1) Renarks by ACR5 Subcomittee Chaiman regarding design characteristics of the GE ABWR (CYM/RKM) 2.2) Briefing by representatives of the GE Company 11:00 - 11:15 P.P.

BREAK

(

3)11$f-12:$P.M.

Operatinn Experience (0 pen) 11)

Renarks by ACRS Subcomittee Chairr'an regarding operating events and incidents at nuclear facilities (JCE/HA) 3.2) Briefing by hRC Staff representatives 12:30 -

1:30 P.M.

LUNCH vfY

. 4) 1:30 - % Q F.M.

Inportant Safety-Related Issues (0 pen) 4.1) Coments/ discussion regarding hierarchal structure for important safety-related issues identified by ACRS members 1

(CPS /SD) j 3:00 - 3:15 P.M.

BREAK

5) 3:15 -

P.M.

Inservice Testing of huclear Power Plant Corronents and Systems (0 pen) 5.1) Report of ACR5 Peactor Operations Subcomittee meeting on Jan. 5,1988 (JCE/HA) regarding problems with in-service testing of nuclear power plant components and systems 5.2) Meeting witt. NRC Staff representatives, as appropriate i

f n

333rd ACRS Meeting Agenda s

f. ) 4:00 - 4:45 P.M.

ACRS Subcomittee Activities (0 pen) 6.1) Reports of ACR5 Subcomittee Chaiman regarding:

6.1-1) 4:00-4:30: Joint Subcomittee 36 N

Meeting on Metal Components and Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena -

~ bW Report of Subcomittee meeting on 12/15/87 on steam generator tube integrity (PGS/ DAW /EGI/PAB) 4 w._ pg )

6.1-2 4:00-4:45:

Reliability Assurance

- Report of 12/16/1987 meeting on Environmental Qualification -

RiskScopingStudy(CJW/RKN)

7) h 45 - 6.0C " % -

Safety Implications of Control Systems (0 pen) 7.1)

Discuss proposed ACR5 report to NRC

,h.J [

C g regarding proposed resolution of this generic issue (JCE/MME)

Friday, January 8,1988. Room 1046,1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

8) 8:30 - 10:00 A.M.

i Nuclear Industry Initiatives (0 pen)

(

Briefing by industry representatives regarding initiatives to improve the operation of nuclear reactors and the NRC-industry interface (FJR/GRC) 10:00 - 10:15 A.M.

BREAK

9) 10:15 - 12:15 P.M.

Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Licenses (0 pen) 9.1) Coments by ACR5 Subcomittee Chairrian regarding proposed NRC policy on renewal of nuclear power plant licenses (CJW/RKM) 9.2) Meeting with representatives of the NRC Staff 12:15 - 1:15 P.M.

LUNCH Analysis and Evaluation of Operational

10) 1:15 - 2:00 P.M.

r--

T0 T)(0 pen / Closed) Briefing by representatives of AE Data regarding recent reports on nuclear N.

g-activities and experience (HWL/RKM) sf(%p (Portions of this session will be closed as DN necessary to discuss Proprietary Information j

applicable to the matters being considered.)

11) 2:00 - 2:30 P.M.

Anticipated ACRS Activities (0 pen) 11.1)

Sumary of recent ACRS Subcomittee activities (MWL/SS) l

\\

333rd ACRS Meeting Agenda.

11.2) Discuss anticipated ACRS subcomittee activities (MWL/RFF) 11.3) Discuss matters proposed for con-sideration by the full Comittee (WK/RFF)

12) 2:30 - 3:30 P.fi.

Ouality and Quality Assurance (0 pen) 12.1) Discuss ACRS activities regarding proposed International Workshop and related matters (DAW /FJR/EGI)

13) 3:45 - 4:45 P.M.

New ACRS Members (0 pen / Closed) 13.1) Discuss status of appointment of new members and qualifications of candi-dates needed for the conduct of Com-mittee business (FJR/NSL)

(Portions of this session will be closed as necessary to discuss information the release of which would represent a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy and infomation that involves the internal personnel rules and practices of the agency.)

14) 4:45 - 6:30 P.M.

PreparationofACRSReportstotheNRC(0 pen) 14.1) Safety implications of control systems (JCE/MME) 14.2) Other proposed reports, as appropriate Ct 4 -

4'.0

-~

(

'm Fed:ral Register / Vol. 50, No. 246 / Wednesdry. December 2J,1987 / N

!/f 48588 hr the klear Regataicy Ccemission-1:15 p m -215 p m./ Anal) sis and meeting as noted above to discuss Eio/colzon of Operationo/ Data (Open/

information related to the internal a

kmuet l Chilk.

Closed)-Bnefing by representatn es of personnel rules and practices of the snrew @e co.wssen NRC Office for Analysis and Es aluation agency (5 U.S C. 55 b(c)(2)). Informstion trE Ux a 444:1 Fded 12-02-at 8 45 aml of Operational Data regardmg their the release of which would represent a clearly unwarranted invasion of recent reports A portion of this session will be personal privacy (5 U.S C. 55:b(c)(6)).

closed as required to dacuss Proprietary and Proprietary Information appbcable Advisory Committee on Reactor information apphcable to the matter to the matter being discussed (5 U.S C.

Safeguards, Meetmg Agenda being discussed.

55:b(c)(4))

In accordance with the purposes of 215 p m.-Jmp m c Anticipoted ACRS Further information regardmg topics sections 29 and 18:b of tne Atomic Actaities (Open}--Discuss recent and

' h' t e 8

Entrsy Act (4 U S C. 0039. :32b). the anticipated ACRS subcommittee ncac o tes ed e he Adusor) Committee on Reactor actiuties and items proposed for Chairman s ruling on requests for the Safeguards will hold a meetmg on consideration by the full Committee.

opportunity to present oral statements Januar) 7-8.1988 in Room IN6.1717 H J 15 p.m -415 p m.: Ne w A CRS and the time alletted can be obtained by Street. NW-. Washmgton. DC Notice of Alembers (Open/ Closed)-Discuss a prepaid telephone call to the ACRS this meet;ng was pubbshed m the quahfications of ACRS members to be becutive Director, Mr. Ra>mond F.

Fsderal Register on December 14.1987.

considered for appointment to the Fraley (telephone 202/634-3265),

Committee.

betw een 815 a m. and 5 00 p m.

Thursda), January 7.1988 Portions of this session willbe closed 8 Jo a m -a 45 a m. Com reets by as required to iscuss information the Date December ts. pe?.

ACRS Chairman (Opent-The ACRS release of which would represent a W C. %te.

Chairman will report brieC) regard.rg clearly unw arranted invasion of A ju,,0 g,,,,t,,, gy,,,,,,, ggc,,.

items of current mierest.

personal pnvacy and mformation that lFR Dx 6?-:94:0 Fded 1 42-87. e 45 am) 8 45 a m -11 m a ma Adicnced S0.!:aS ins ohes the internal personnel rules s e scooePs** M Water Recctar (Open)-Bneimg by and practices of the agency.

representatn es of the Cenetal Electnc 415 p m -6 30 p m.: Preporation of Company reg 4rdmg the proposed GE ACRS Reports (Open)--Discuss Adunted Bm!mg Water Reactor.

proposed reports to the NRC regardmg (Dock et No. 50-442) 1115 c m -12 J0 p m : Operot.rS items considered dunng this meetmg.

Eifererce (Open)-Bnef rg regard.ng Procedures for the conduct of and Receipt of Petition for Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206; Wott recent operatirg espenence mcLd ng participation in ACRS meetmgs were Creek Nuclear Operating Corp.,

incidents and transients at naclear pubbshed in the Federal Register on Kansas Gas and Electr6c Co and October 2.1987 (51 FR 37:41). In power phru accordance with these procedures. oral Kansas City Power and Ught Co, 1 J0; m -J m p m Impe t S/ety Re/cted/ssses (OpenHD scuss or wntten statenients ma) be presented Kansas Electric Power Cooperathe, proposed hierarchal structare for b) members of the pubhc. recordmgs Inc., Wott Creek Generating Station important safety related isues will be permitted only dunna those Notice is hereby ghen that Ms. Stevi identified by mernbers of the Committee. portions of the meetmg when a Stephens and Robert V. Eye on behalf of J 15 p m -5 m p m : ACRS transcnpt is bei tg kept and questions Sabcommetre Actmfies (Open)-

may be asked only by members of the Nuclear Awareness Network have Committee,its consultants, and Staff.

requested that the Nuclear Regulatory Report of ACRS Sabctmm.ttee Chairman regating the status of Persons desinns to make oral Commission institute an ing estigation desunated ctatties mcludmg statements should notify the ACRS pursuant to 10 CFR 2 006 to determme enurenmental quahfication of nuclear Executae Director as far in ads ance as whether secunty is being satisfactonly power plant equ pment. steam generator practicable so that appropnate mamtained at the Wolf Creek g

arrangements can be made to allow the Generating Station (WCCS) to protect tube integrity and inscruce inspect 2cn necessary time dunng the meetmg for the public from exposure to radiation of nuclear power plant systems and such statements,Use of stdl motion and to prevent tettonst activities. The components picture and telesision cameras daring alleged basis for this requested action is r

Sc ety this meetag may be limited to selected that members of the pubhc are presently 5 Wpm 4mpm:

/mp/tco!<c 9s of Con!rc/ Sj stems portions of the meetmg as determined trespassing into restncted WCCS areas (Open)-Discuss propesed ACRS report by the Chairman. Information regarding to fish at the WCCS cooling lake and regarding proposed resolution of this the time to be set aside for this purpose that there hase been past examples of generic matter may be obtained by a prepaid telephone inadequate security at WCCS.

Frida), jarruary 8,1988 call to the ACRS becutive Director. Mr.

This petition is being handled as a i

B Jo o m -10 m o m Nuclectlnd stry Ray mond F. Fraley. prior to the meeting request for action pursuant to 10 CFR

/nitiola es (OpenHBnefing by In view of the possibthty that the 2 006 of the Commission regulations end.

representatars of the nuclear industry schedule for ACRS meetings may be accordmgly, appropnate action will be adjusted by the Chairman as necessary taken on the request within a

, regardmg industry mitiatives to impros e to facilitate the conduct of the meetmg.

reasonable time. Copies of the petition the operation and regulation of nuclear persons planning to attend should check lable f he 1015 0 m -1215 p m./ Rerewal of with the ACRS hecutive Director if

{'m pb n reactors e 's p

Nuclear Pon er Plont Licenses (Open)-

such rescheduhng w ould result in major HS E Wa shington. DG Briefina by representatnes of the NRC inconv enience.

20 m j

I have determined in accordance with Staff regardmg proposed NRC policy subsection 10(d) Pub. L 92-463 that it is Dated at Bethesda. Maryland, this as'h day regarding renewal of nuclear power necessary to close portions of this of December.1967.

plant hcenses.

i aw

f CEHFH MINUTES OF THE 333RD ACRS PEETING JANUARY 7-8, 1988 WASHINGTON, D.C.

The 333rd neeting of the Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards, held at 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., was convened by Acting Chair-man F. Remick at 8:30 a.m., Thursday, January 7,1987.

[ Note:

For a list of attendees, see Appendix 1.]

Dr. Remick said that the agenda for the neeting had been published.

He identified the itens to be discussed on Thursday.

He stated that the r'ceting was being held in conformance with the Federal Advisory Comit-tee Act and the Governrent in the Subshine Act, Public Laws92-463 and 94-409, respectively.

He also noted that a transcript of some of the public portions of the meeting was being taken, and would be available in the NRC Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

[ Note:

Copies of the transcript taken at this meeting are also avail-able for purchase from the Heritage Reporting Corporation, 1220 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

20005.]

1.

Chairran's Report (0 pen) portien of the meeting.]y was the Designated Federal Official for this

[ Note:

Mr. R. F. Frale Dr. Remick reported that nine ACRS members have designated nuclear power plants that they wish to follow.

This covers 57 units at 38 sites.

Subcomittees on specific operating plants are abolished.

Members that have not done so should return the Selective Dissemination of Informa-tion Frofile to Mr. Stan Schofer as soon as possible. He also said that ACPd Staff Engineers will be assigned the responsibility for following each nuclear power plant.

Dr. Remiuk told the rembers that a copy of the Congressional report by the Subcomittee on General Oversight and Investigations, Comittee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, entitled "NRC Co:iness With Industry - Nuclear Regulatory comission Fails to Maintain Arms Length Pelationship with the Nuclear Industry," has been distributed to each center.

Dr. Remick noted that the continuing appropriation bill covering NRC includes a requirerent that inspection activities be consolidated.

It was not clear if these activities refer to those currently reporting to the EDO or to all NRC inspection activities.

Dr. Remick said that the Senate has approved legislation that would enable TVA nuclear managers to receive compensation that currently exceeds current limits.

(This has been recorrended by the ACRS.) [This provision subsequently was deleted by the Conference Comittee.)

o 333RD ACRS HEETING HINUTES 2

II. AdvancedBoilingWaterReactor(ABWR)(0 pen)

[ Note:

Mr. Richard Major was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.)

Mr. Michelson introduced this session.

He explained that this presenta-tion had several purposes including:

to provide an updated description of the ABWR, to compare the ABWR to items in the January 15, 1987 ACRS letter on Improved Safety for Future Light Water Reactor Plant Design, to ider.tify the review schedule, and to discuss. the licensing review basis decunent.

Mr. R. Artiges. GE, gave a brief introduction on the ABWR. He explained that the ABWR was designed by an international team, combining the best worldwide BWR technology.

This plant is targeted for world markets in the 1990's.

The lead ABWR project is in Japan.

Tokyo Electric Power Company is planning to build two ABWR units on its Kashiw3zaki-Karina site.

Construction will start in 1991.

Fuel load is expected by 1995 and the first unit should be producing power by 1996.

The plant has a 40-year design life.

Each unit is to produce approximately 1350 MWe, Dr.

C. Sawyer, GE, described the plant and commented on how those features discussed in the January 15, 1987 ACRS letter were incorpo-rated.

Dr. Sawyer explained scre of the design objectives behind the ABWR.

These design objectives include improved operability and an improved capacity factor. Other objectives include improved safety and reliabil-ity, reduced occupational exposures, and reduced costs associated with construction, maintenance and operation, i

Plant design differences were discussed between operating BWRs and the ABWR.

Among these differences are internal recirculation pumps in the ABWR which replace external recirculation loops and pumps.

Electric-hydraulic cor. trol rod drives will replace hydraulic-only rod drives.

The ABWR emergency core cooling will have three divisions; each division has high-and low-pressure capability. The pressure vessel for the ABWR will be made of forged rings rather than welded plate.

Dr. Sawyer noted that more design flexibility was added to the ABWR than to previous products.

With ten, rather than two, recirculation pugs, there is a reduced impact from a single pum trip.

There is an additional high-pressure makeup pump (3 from 2)pwhich will reduce the chance of a site emergency.

There are more ganged control rodst this reduces startup time. There is an additional residual heat removal loop (3 now) which allows more flexibility in responding to heat removal demands.

a 1

333RD ACRS MEETING MINUTES 3

It was noted that, with the increased reactor vessel size, a larger water inventory is possible.

This, in turn, allows an extended range for the set points on water level for normal operation.

This reduces scram probability given a feedwater trip or a recirculation pump trip.

Since the ABWR has ten internal recirculation pumps rather than two external recirculation

pumps, the loss of even two internal recirculation pumps should not prevent 100% power operation.

The fuel in the ABWR will have axial enrichment variation.

Burnable poison will be used.

(The axial fuel enrichment feature could be retrofitted to existing plants.)

In deciding on ECCS, GE used PRA techniques as part of the selectior process.

The selection of an optimized system was based on cost and associated benefits.

Benefits considered include transient perfomance resul ts, LOCA performance results, core damage frequency and system simplicity, in the discussion of ABWR Safety System improvements, it was explained that there are thrs.e completely separate mechanical and electrical divisions for most important functions (i.e., core cooling, suppression i

pool cooling, and shutdown cooling).

Dr. Sawyer explained that, in the ABWR design, the containment is inte-grated with the reactor building.

The floor elevations are made to match and the structure is made to work as a urit. The suppression pool uses a horizcntal wetwell venting system similar to the Mark Ill design.

However, the suppression pool is covered and the containment inerted.

Those responsible for the design of the ABWR containment took into account the need to provide easy access to equipment for maintenance.

The seismic capability of the integrated reactor building and containment structure will be greater than 0.3 g.

Concerning separation of equipment, the AEWR will have three power divisions and four instrurent divisions.

The instrunent divisions are divided into quadrants and the three power divisions are divided so two divisions cover individual quadrants and one division covers the two remaining quadrants.

This separation is maintained throughout the entire plant.

Access control is also limited to a single division.

Control room clearance is needed to proceed from one division to anoth-er.

In the ;rea of fire protection, the ARWR will meet Standard Review plan Section 9.5.1.

Three-hour fire barriers are used.

Given the design basis assurptions, GE believes that the ABWR can achieve shutdown within six hours.

GE believes the ABWR design has taken into account sabotage protection.

Sabotage inhibitors include the location of control room and equipment access control, self-test systems and status monitoring, and passive L

333RD ACRS MEETING MINUTES 4

core cooling capabilities.

Sabotage mitigators will include symptom-oriented energency procedure guidelines and fission product retention capability.

The ABWR severe accident objectives include the probability of core damage prevention being less than 10'S/ reactor year from both internal and external sources.

Core damage mitigation objectives are to accomodate 100% fuel clad (metal-water reaction) using highly reliable heat removal, and havirg an inerted containment to prevent hydrogen detonation. Severe accident objectives for offsite consequences include limiting the dose to less than 25 r at one-half mile for releases having a prcbability greater than 10"p/RY, and a weighted, containment conditional failure probebility of less than 10"g A preliminary review of the ABWR core damage probability by GE indicates that it is significantly below the safety goal.

GE is currently opposed to containment venting. They believe that their containment design will meet the safety goal without venting.

Mr. Scaletti, NRC Staff, covered the proposed NRC Staff review schedule for the ABWR.

He noted that the review would be diviced into four modules.

Each module would cover portions of the GE Safety Analysis Peport.

A separate SER will be published for each rodule, with associated subcomittee meetings and full Comittee review being held on a module-by-module basis.

Plans are for the Comittee to provide comments (a letter) as each module review is completed.

A final integrated SER will be issued and all ACRS concerns resolved prior to the issuance of an FDA and prior to the start of rulemaking for the design certification process.

Mr. Scaletti mentioned that the NRC Staff will be closely following the construction of the two ABWRs in Japan.

A discussion of mutual licens-ing problens and concerns between the NRC Staff and Japanese regulators is scheduled for the end of this month.

Mr. Scaletti noted that a licensing review bases document was issued to GE by the Staff on August 7, 1987 This document was intended to lend stability to the review process.

It involves no new requirements and is consistent with the Comission's standardization policy statement.

It covers selected topics that were perceived to be a problem in past reviews (e.g.,

scope and content of SSAR, incorporation of future issues, completeness of design, etc.).

The licensing review bases docurent contains commitments by GE and the NRC Staff to implement certain acceptance criteria which, if satisfied by the ABWR, would i

result in a licensable design.

333RD ACRS MEETING MINUTES 5

III.

Reactor Operating Experience (0 pen)

[ Note: Mr. Herman Alderman was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.]

Mr. Ebersole noted that three recent events, plus an additional topic on i

how the Events Assessment Branch operates, would be discussed.

Mr.

Ebersole remarked that the Committee should discuss whether the reactor operations sessions should be quarterly rather than bimonthly.

He noted that, if the Comittee decides in favor of quarterly sessions, the Comittee should have more frequent interfacing with AE00 to discuss the long-tem resolution of events and issues.

Events Assessment Branch Mr. Wayne Lanning, NRC Staff, discussed the process used for responding to operating events. He pointed out that he heads the Events Assessment Branch of the Division of Operations Events Assessment, which is directed by Ernie Possi.

He noted that there are two other branches in the Division:

the Generic Comunications Branch, headed by Carl Bur-linger, and the Technical Specifications Branch, headed by Edward

Butcher, i

Mr. Lanning remarked that the Events Assessment Branch was the focal point on short-term analysis and evaluation of operating reactor events.

Pr. Lanning noted that every morning Mr. Rossi holds a conference phone call with senior NRR managers during which significant operating events that occurred during the past 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months are discussed and analyzed.

Later, each morning, another conference phone call involves a collegial approach to the evaluation of operating events.

There is a broad and in-depth level of experience approach to the discussion of the operating

events, i

Following these calls, an event assessment is made.

Assignments are made for short-term follow-up based upon established criteria for follow-up.

This is primarily based upon the safety significance of the i

event which, in turn, is based upon the information that is available.

The follow-up is in conjunction with the project manager and the Regional offices. Other organizations may te asked to provide necessary follow-up.

Both Mr. Ebersole and Mr. Michelson asked ocut the ranking of events to determine the number of safety barriers during each event that would prevent core melt.

Mr. Baranowsky noted that they have an ongoing activity to determine the relative ranking of events.

Mr. Lanning ducussed the dissemination of infonnation on operating events.

He said that NRC senior managers are briefed each Tuesday on significant operating events. He said that the Events Assessment Branch i

333RD ACRS MEETING MINUTES 6

provides input to the perfomance indicators program and also to the perfomance evaluation of the licensee. He noted that this procedure is used to identify those events that are to be included in the abnormal occurrence reports to Congress.

He discussed event follow-up reports.

A follow-up report is a one-page sumary of the event and covers its safety significance and whether additional follow-up action is necessary.

Loss of Offsite Power at the Pilgrim Nuclear power Station. November 12, 1987 Mr. Pat Bararowsky, NRC Staff, noted that this event occurred when a winter snowstom arrived at the site at about 5:00 p.m. with gale-force winds and there were phase-to-phase ground faults on incoming power lines.

This resulted in a loss of all offsite power.

The loss of offsite power lasted for 21 hours2.430556e-4 days 0.00583 hours 3.472222e-5 weeks 7.9905e-6 months .

A riitigating cireurrstance for this event was the lack of decay heat.

The plant had been shut down for about 19 months and one-third of the j

core was new fuel.

Dr. Remick pointed out that offsite power loss is frequent for this plant and the operating personnel are experienced in handling this situation.

Mr. Baranowsky said that one of two erergency diesels was taken out of i

service many hours before offsite power was restored.

He also noted i

that the instrument air systems were unavailable as tine went on into the event.

Mr. Ebersole said that the Technical Specifications are no longer valid 4

when the nuclear plant is shut down.

This is based on the thesis that during shutdown the plant is out of trouble. He noted that this was not always true.

Mr. Baranowsky remarked that the main generator disconnect lines had been installed.

This could have provided an alternate route for bringing offsite power into the site if the startup transform had been j

unavailable.

With the links installed, a fault on the startup transforrer would, however, preclude this.

The startup transfomer was unavailable because of some engineering modifications that had been made on that system.

1 At the time of the event, three instrurent air compressors were out of service and in need of maintenance.

The RHR pumps were being used--not to remove decay heat, but to add heat to the reactor cooling system to do some hydro testing, The startup transformer went out.

The operators were reluctant to re-activate it for fear that faults might destroy the transfomer. The

.I

333RD ACRS MEETING MINUTES 7

operators were also reluctant to use of fsite power when it becare avail-able after about an hour for fear of damaging the startup transfonner.

The diesel generator started.

RHR was isolated on primary containment isolation signals due to interruption of the power to the buses.

Instrument air was lost.

Two compressors were out of service and the third had the control switch in the "off" position.

The volves were checked to make sure that the loss of air didn't cause some valves to change position.

PHR was restored in about 20 minutes and instrunent air was restored in about one hour.

At 10 a.m. it appeared that one of the phases on the running diesel cererator was out.

This caused an isolation of the RHR system due to loss of the 120-volt bus.

The bus was restored and RHR was restored.

Mr. Baranowsky concluded that if the plant had been shut down for only a week or so there would have been a lot more concern.

ft. Calhoun - Water in Instrument Air Systems, July 16, 1987 j

Mr. John Thompson, NRC Staff, noted that, during a surveillance test on the fire deluce systen, the air pressure to the fire deluge valve was t

I bled off.

This caused the valve to open and allowed water to go into the sprinkler header.

The intention was to allow water to flow up to the first check valve. However, the check valves failed, allowing water to gain access to the instrument air system.

Nomally a check valve in the air maintenance valve would have been closed, stopping the flow of l

water.

The air maintenance device was undergoing maintenance, and the check valve was open. This allowed a direct path for water to enter the air system.

All the affected components were blown down including the air accumula-tors.

4 On September 23, 1987 a diesel generator exhaust damper failed to open i

completely causing a shutdown of the diesel generator. The air accumu-lators for the diesel generators were omitted from the plant drawings and they f ailed to blow down the air for the diesel generator.

l J

Perry Nuclear Plant MSIV Failures Mr. Roger Lanksbury, NRC Staff, discussed a nunter of failures that have occurred in Perry MSIVs in the last eight or nine months.

The first event occurred on June 17, 1987 and involved a circuit card failure resulting in the outboard MSIVs closing and causing a reactor trip, d

33?RD ACRS MEETING MINUTES 8

The second event occurred on October 29, 1987.

The licensee was per-forming stroke time testing on the MS!Vs.

Three MSIVs failed to close within the technical specification time limits.

The third event occurred on November 3.1987.

Two of the three valves that had failed the stroke time test failed once more.

I The fourth event occurred on November 29, 1987 During testing of the i

MSIVs. they discovered that one of the MSIV fast closure solenoids was not functioning properly and would not have allowed the valve to have closed at ell.

The root cause for the June 17th event was the failure of the licensee to incorporate a change to the RPS and the wiring of the MSIVs.

a l

The rcet cause for both the October 29th and the November 3rd events was the deterioration of materials within the valve.

The deterioration appears tn have been caused by high temperatures resulting from nearby steer leakt.

The rect cause for the November 29th event was the accumulation of l

particulate matter on the 0-rings that fell into the internals and caused the valve to jam.

4 In the June 17th event, the significance of the event was that the j

operator was faced with an unexpectec plant response for the conditions i

that existed.

There was an unnecessary ESF actuation and a transient 1

causing the plant to scram.

In the other events, the significance was that there was a pntential fo-compromising the reactor isolation and the contairment integrity.

There have been a number of generic corrunications over a number of l

years involving MSIV failures.

As a result of the Perry failures, the AIT is recommending the issuance of an inforration notice to alert the 3

ir.dustry to the more recent events.

IV.

In-ServiceTesting(0 pen)

[ Note: Mr. Herman Aldervan was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the weting.)

Mr. Tad Marsh. NRL Staff. noted that the basic purpose of the in-service testing of pumps and valves is to assess the operational readiness of 1

the safety-related purps and valves.

He noted that in-service testirig pregrams are required by 10CFR50.55A and the technical specifications.

l They also have a basis in ASME Code Section XI.

Mr. Marsh discussed the problems with in-service testing.

One area i

concerned technical problems.

There are inadequate and deficient testing requirerents in the Code.

As an exantle, the Code requires that

i 333RD ACRS MEETING MINUTES 9

trotor-operated valves and other power-operated valves be stroke time i

tested.

Mr. Marsh related that the stroke tine testing only tells you f

that the valve went frcm one state to another within a given time.

He noted that there are other tests that provide much enore infomation.

Fe noted that pumps are tested by vibration amplitude and by testing some hydraulic parareters.

Again, this is not a full spectrum of testing.

Mr. Marsh noted that there was a lack of confidence in the frequency of testing.

He cited pumps as an example.

He remarked that there may be seme pumps that should be tested more frequently and some, less frequently.

He suggested t, hat operational expt"ence and failure rates should be studied to detemine the appropriate taiiure rate.

He pointed out that the lack of certified inspectors for in-service testing was also a problem. Ha noted that there wasn't a unifom way of ensuring that the people who are doing the testing are all, in fact, up j

to the same level of convetence or training.

Mr. Marsh remarked that there wasn't any Staff guidance on implementa-tion of the code requirements.

l

l Fe cited legal problers in in-service testing.

As an enmple, he said 10CFR50.55A is incensistent with the Technical SpectHcations.

He remerked that the Technical Specifications state that you should not

)

implement any relief requests at the plant until they have been explicitly erproved in writing by the NRC Staff.

The regulations don't state this.

He noted that the regulations are written to covf f in-service testing, yet in-service testing is barely mentioned.

Tue conflict between the Technical Specifications and regulations results in I

]

numerous relief requests being submitted by licensees, with a resultant vast backlog of reoutsts in the in-service testing program.

i Mr. Marsh discussed the Code.

He noted lethargy in the development of j

Codes and Standards.

He noted that trying to change the Code is a very l

slow process.

He remarked that they were questioning whether the NRC should continue to rely on the code-making bodies or should develop its i}

own code for pumps and valves. One thing that is being considered is to

)

change the regulations to endorse the latest code version which is given in OM-6 and OM-10. This could be supplemented by technical guidance in

)

the fom of a Regulatory Guide or some other regulatory document.

1

)

Mr. Marsh discussed some considerations:

Should we continue to rely on the codes?

Should updates be required?

Should the NRC in-service testing trethods be more inspection oriented?

5 i

e 333RD ACRS MEETING MINUTES 10 Mr. Marsh concluded that the obje:tive of today's presentation was to make the ACRS aware of the problem.

The NRC Staff plans to ask for coninents later in the process when it will request endorsement of the specific approaches.

V.

Nuclear Industry Initiatives (0 pen)

[ Note:

Mr. Gary Ouittschreiber was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.]

Dr. Forrest Remick noted that he had requested that Nuclear Utility Management and Resources Council (NUMARC) representatives come before the ACRS to discuss the reorganization that the nuclear related industry has undergone over the last six months.

He felt that such a discussion would be helpful due to the interaction the ACRS has with the various industry organizations.

Mr. Joe Colvin, Executive Vice President of NUMARC, discussed the his-tory of the industry initiatives which led to the present structure, starting with the fonnation of EPRI in 1973 and leading to the formation of NUMARC, as a Conunittee, in 1983.

NUMARC was formed in 1983 prin-cipally because industry leadership saw e shif t in the NRC direction from design and licensing of new plants to operation of existing plants.

Industry was concerned that NRC did not have the proper skills, talent and expertise to look into the operational areas.

Industry leadership felt that industry was most qualified and had the experience in management and in operations to best define the problems affecting the industry and to work with the NRC in developing solutions.

They felt that they could more effectively correct problems themselves, which led to the initiative for the formation of NUMARC.

1 Mr. Colvin said that a key to the effectiveness of the old NUMARC and also the new NUMARC is that, in a number of areas, they developed indus-try positions, approved by an 80% vote of the members, which were binding on the industry.

Mr. Colvin said the mission of the new NUMARC includes not or.ly coordi-nating and focusing the inoustry's activities and operational technical i

regulatory issues, but tlso init.f ating action on behalf of the industry on issues that are important either to the industry or to the NRC, in a proactive, versus a reactive, mode.

The Utility Nuclear Power Oversight Comittee, UNP0C, was established to look at industry organizations, and to ensure that they were working in a cooperative and effective manner.

It performed an investigation and issued a report kncwn as the Sillin Report.

That report suggested that a new unified industry organization be established, which is known today as the new NUMARC.

NUMARC as a Council was formed in April 1987 as a permanently staffed organization which is independently funded and

333RD ACRS MEETING MINUTES 11 governed.

One part of the Sillin Report dealt with improving the nuclear utility industry interface with the NRC.

The Sillin Report is really the basis for the new NUMARC, as it exists today.

One of the prirrary roles of the new NUMARC is to interface between the industry and the NRC and to improve the credibility of both the industry and the NRC as perceived by Congress and others.

The old NUMARC, from its beginning in 1984, had a steering committee of about 15 of the 55 executives that met on approximately a monthly basis in 1984 and bimonthly thereafter. NUMARC as a Comittee with 55 members met quarterly throughout 1984 and until the new NUMARC was formed in 1987.

The new NUMARC as a Council took the old NUMARC as a comittee, responsible for the generic operational and technical issues, and took tne regulatory, technical, and licensing programs performed by the Atomic Industrial Forum (AIF) and combined them functionally into the new NUMARC as a Council.

The industry restructuring was completed in July 1987 and the old NUMARC and AIF were dissolved and merged as NUMARC as well as some other organizations.

Mr. Colvin noted that NUMARC's purpose is to be the principal industry interface with the NRC on generic operational technical regulatory issues.

NUMADC will work with the industry to focus the industry activities ana to bring together all the work that is going on between the utilities, EPRI, INPO, vendors, supoliers, and other special issues groups to focus the resources.

He noted that when an organization speaks for the industry on an issue, that it should be NUMARC speaking.

Other organizations should not be speaking on the industry's behalf before the NRC.

NUMARC is also tasked to identify and take initiatives on issues that are necessary to be proactive from the utility point of view.

Mr. Colvin noted that all licensees are represented on the Board.

The change between the old NUMARC as a comittee and the new NUMARC as a Council is that they now have a Board of Directors instead of a comit-tee, and that Board has higher level representatives, including about orie-third CE0s, one-third Chief Operating Officers and about one-third senior nuclear line executives.

Every utility has volunteered to participate.

He noted that an 80% vote becornes a comitment on the industry and that if a utility does not live up to that comitment its trerrbership could be terminated. He noted that only the utilities have a vote on the Board for those issues that primarily affect the utilities and on formal nuclear industry positions or policies.

Twelve members are elected by the 54 licensees to serve on the Executive Comittee.

Six participants from the vendors, suppliers, international, partial owners, consultants, etc. are also elected as directors at large. These people serve on the NUMARC Board and also on the Executive Comittee.

The Executive Comittee provides governance to NUMARC and is included in the 80% vote process. A unique principle of NUMARC is that each utility, regardless of its total generating capacity or its nuclear comitment, gets only one vote.

333RD ACRS MEETING MINUTES 12

~

In response to questions from Mr. Ebersole, concerning what NUMARC was doing with regard to in-service testing, Mr. Colvin noted that they would be meeting with industry groups on the area of maintenance and agreed to report back to the ACRS at some future time on the issue of in-service testing.

In response to questions from members of the Comittee, Mr. Colvin agreed te participate in future ACRS subcomittee meetings to discuss the industry initiatives, including possibly the position reached with regard to the issue dealing with improving motor-operated valve performance.

This will inclede the operability of pumps and valves during runout and/or accident conditions. He also agreed to act as the facilitator with INFO and other industry groups when the ACRS needs to discuss matters with the industry.

Mr. Colvin noted that there is a current feeling in Congress, and amongst others, that the industry is cozy with the NRC Staff. He noted that they are working with the ED0's Office on trying to define a protocol as to how NUMARC and the industry can interact with the NRC in a manner that is in the best interest of public health and safety.

VI.

Rerewal of Nuclear Power Plant Licenses (0 pen) i

[ Note:

Mr. Richard Major was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.]

Mr. D. Cleary, NRC Staf f, introduced the topic of regulatory options for nuclear power plant license renewal.

The purpose of this presentation was to brief the ACRS on the current status of this work.

An overview was given of a report prepared by the MITRE Corporation, entitled "Regul atory Consideration of Technical Issues Pertaining to Nuclear Plant License Renewal." The Staff will want to solicit ACRS comments on this report, which will be submitted to the ACRS concurrently with submittal to the Comission.

Coments from the ACRS would be i

appreciated during the public comment period.

At this point the policy for license renewal is under development.

J The Staff has as a goal the delivery of a proposed policy on license renewal to tkt Comission by September 1988.

This proposed policy will be issued for public. coment. A final license renewal policy should be published in September 1989 after resolution of the public comments.

Proposed regulations on license renewal will be issued for public coment in September 1989.

Final regulations should be published by 1991-1992, and regulatory guides and standard review plans should be available in the early 1090's.

The MITRE report has three major sections.

The first covers technical issues and options.

The second section will provide a framework for technical information requirements.

Procedural issues pertaining to license renewal will form the third section.

333RD ACRS HEETING MINUTES 13 At this point the NRC Staff has taken no position and made no recomen-dations.

The intent is to provide a statement of the scope of the Staff's thinking, the scope of options as exercised by the Staff, and to obtain feedback from the public and industry.

Mr. Cleary covered procedural issues that are involved with license i

renewal. These items included:

the form of the license renewal, i

the length of the renewal tenn, J

the timing for renewal applic.tions, use of the backfit rule, whether additional environmental review is necessary, the form of public hearings related to license renewal, adequacy of emergency planning, decomissioning considerations, antitrust considerations, and Price-Anderson Act coverage.

Dr. Seth of the MITRE Corporation, which is under contract to the NRC Staff with regard to license renewal, discussed technical issues per-taining to nuclear power plant license renewal.

He noted that MITRE is providing technical support and assistance to the NRC, but policy decisions will be made by the NRC.

Dr. Seth explained that the NRC has already solicited public connent on the policy development.

The goal was to identify issues and options.

Questions asked of the public relating to technical concerns included:

Should the plants be required to demonstrate confonnance to current J

regulations on the date o, the renewal application?

How should NRC use prior operating history, performance-based i

information, and PRA?

i The remaining questions become very specific.

They express concerns related to the aging of plants, which equipment will require residual lifetime evaluations, and what additional monitoring and maintenance programs will be needed.

Some of these concerns will require plant-specific answers.

Responses to the questions posed above were discussed.

The industry believes that the licensing basis that exists at the time of the renewal application should continue into the extended plant life.

Industry believes that additional review should only be required on safety significant items subject to age-related degradation which are not part of normal maintenance and replacement activities.

It is believed ongoing efforM at plants already monitor aging and replace equipment as necessary.

i l

1 333RD ACRS PEETING MINUTES 14 1

i Non-industry coments were submitted by two public interest groups.

They emphasized that the entire plant be reviewed in a manner equivalent to a new operating license applicant.

Plants should be updated to i

current requirements.

Performance history should be evaluated compre-hensively and further research is needed to guide decisions.

There are generally two broad technical issues related to license renewal. The first relates to licensing basis issues. The concerns are how the plant conforms to current safety review criteria and the inter-pretation of regulations for older plants.

NRC is developing regulatory guidance and safety review procedures to address aging concerne includ-ing potential modifications to the licensing basis.

A second class of technical concerns relates to plant aging issues.

Concerns include assessment of aging effects such as estimating age-related degradation of critical components and management of risk due to continued aging--protecting against uncertainties.

Options for the assessnent of aging effects include emphasizing deter-ninistic methods or probabilistic methods. Using deterministic methods, generic studies can be used to identify safety-significant items.

A determination of the effects of aging on perfonnance can be made using mechanistic models.

Using probabilistic methods, plant-specific PRAs are used to identify risk-significant items.

Estimates of the effects of aging can be made in terms of changes in system availability and risk. A demonstration of minimal increase in risk due to aging would be sought.

Comittee members expressed surprise that industry was not more involved with the equipment aging research.

It would seem reasonable that those applying for license renewal be asked to demonstrate that aging is not a problem.

Two options for the management of risk due to continued aging were proposed.

One option is to empnasize the prevention of failures. This includes actions such as the selection of risk-significant components j

and structures throughout the plant for the aging management program, 4

monitoring the condition of risk-significant items to verify aging assumptions, and implementation of necessary modifications to plant hardware or operations.

A second option is to emphasize the mitigation of aging effects. This option would restrict the management of aging to safety-related components and structures, and would emphasize the assurance of safety margins.

At this stage of the license renewal effort, the Staff is attempting to develop a framework that integrates the various types of technical information that might be needed or included in a license renewal application.

This framework will attempt to promote discussion and further evaluation in the policy development process.

)

~

333RD ACRS MEETING MINUTES 15 VII. Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data (AE0D) - [ Postponed]

[ Note:

Mr. Richard Major was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.]

Due to a snowstom and the unavailability of the AE0D staff (the Federal Government was closed in the Washington, D.C.

area), a briefing by representatives of AEOD regarding recent reports on nuclear activities and experience was not held.

This session will be re-scheduled for a later meeting.

VIII. ExecutiveSessions(0 pen)

A.

Subcomittee Reports (0 pen / Closed) 1.

Joint Metal Components and Themal Hydraulic Phenomena (0 pen)

[Mr. E. G. Igne was the Cesignated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.]

The Committee was briefed on the December 15, 1987 joint treeting of the Subcomittees on Metal Components and on Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena.

It was agreed that the ACRS need not prepare a report on steam generator tube integrity at this time.

The ACRS Subcomittee on Themal Hydraulic Phenomena will follow the NRC Staff's effort to resolve Generic Issue 141, "Large Break LOCA Concurrent liith Steam Generator Tube Rupture."

2.

Reliability Assurance (0 pen)

[Mr. Richard Major was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.]

)

Mr. Wylie briefed the Comittee on the results of a December

)

16, 1987 Reliability Assurance Subcomittee meeting.

The purpose of the meeting was to introduce the Subcomitte to the Environmental Qualification (EO)-Risk Scoping Study which is under way.

No Comittee action was necessary at this time.

ACRS coments on the scoping study will be sought after a draft version is published in March 1988. ACRS coments could be provided during the April or May 1988 meetings.

The objectives of this effort are to (1) assess the impact of electrical equipment environmental qualification or lack thereof on nuclear power plant risk, and (2) to identify any analysis or testing that may be necessary to reduce the risk and/or uncertainties steming from the lack of qualification of equipment important to safety.

333RD ACRS MEETING MINUTES 16

~

This effort is attempting to combine the insights gained from the equipment qualification research program and the research to quantify risks associated with nuclear plant operation in which PRA techniques have been used to examine the importance of and implications of various postulated accident sequences.

The program is attempting to determine what impact each of these efforts has had on the other's conclusions.

This EQ-Risk Scoping Study is examining this question by using PRA techniques to assess the risk significance of various EQ issues.

There are two categories of EQ issues that are being addressed by the EQ-Risk Scoping Study. These are 1.

Those issues that basically ask whether the current EQ process adequately demonstrates equipment qualification for current design basis accidents.

2.

Those issues that basically ask whether the current EQ process demonstrates equipment operability consonant with current PRA assumptions.

3.

New Members (Closed)

[ Note:

Mr. Noff Leckard was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.]

Dr. Remick announced that Chainnan Zech, in a January 7,1988 conversation with Dr. Siess and Mr. Fraley, said that the Commissicn has decided to reappoint Dr. Seiss and Dr. Kerr at the conclusion of their terms as exceptions to the Comis-sion's rule on limitation of terms for ACRS members, and that they intend further consideration of the individuals who have already been nominated for appointment to the Committee.

Dr.

Remick reported that Chairman Zech also said that the Commis-sion intends that the future size of the ACRS be ten members.

Dr. Remick told the Comittee that both Dr. Seiss and Dr. Kerr had expressed concern that the Committee had not been consult-ed about their reappointments and indicated a desire that the Comittee be given an opportunity to determine whether it wished to endorse the proposed action.

Dr. Remick r.lso told the Comittee that it was time to act on a recomendation for the reappointment of a current member whose term was nearing completion.

Finally, Dr. Remick described a draf t response, prepared by the New Member Subcomittee, to Chairman Zech's December 15, 1987 request for guidance on the qualifications desired for

333RD ACRS MEETING MINUTES 17 future members.

He pointed out that he draf t contained a paragraph reiterating the Committee s

position, provided previously to Chairman Zech, that it is the opinion of ACRS members that the Committee requires a minimum of 13 members to fulfill its statutory responsibilities.

Upon excusing appropriate members at appropriate times, the Committee decided:

a.

to endorse the Commission decision to reappoint Dr. Seiss and Dr. Kerr as members at the conclusion of their current terms but to find an appropriate way to express the Committee's concern at not having been consulted on the issue, b.

to defer a decision on recommending a current member for reappointment pending receipt of a formal Commission statement on the future size of the Committee.

c.

to send the letter prepared by the New Menber Subcommit-tee, as modified by Committee input, answering Chairman Zech's request for advice en qualifications for future members and reiterating the Committee's position that it requires 13 members to function properly.

d.

to defer any public advertisement for new member candi-dates until the future size of the Coamittee is deter-mined.

B.

Reports, letters and Memoranda (0 pen) 1.

Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Membership The Committee responded to a memorandum of December 15, 1987 from Chairman Zech by providing guidance on the types of expertise needed on the ACRS to adequately address its statu-tory responsibilities.

C.

Other Committee Conclusions (0 pen) 1.

Important Safety-Related Issues

[ Note: Mr. Sam Duraiswamy was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.]

Dr. Siess stated that, as requested by the Planning Subcommit-tee during its meeting held in Reston, Va. on October 22-24,

1987, the following members have identified important safety-related issues for consideration by the ACRS:

)

333RD ACRS MEETING MINUTES 18 W. Kerr C. Mark D. W. Moeller G. A. Reed F. J. Remick C. P. Siess M. J. Steindler D. A. Ward C. J. Wylie Dr. Siess stated that during the November 1987 ACRS meeting he agreed to propose a hierarchical structure for the issues identified by various ACRS members.

Instead of proposing a hierarchical structure, he has organized these issues into the following five groups:

ACRS procedures and practices NRC regulatory practices i

Future plants Existing plants Operating experience Operator selection and training Component reliability Containment Decay Heat Removal PWR depressurization Thermal Hydraulics Other issues Dr. Siess proposed that the Committee discuss the issues listed in the above groups and decide which items should be j

dropped.

Also, the Committee should decide on the amount of time that should be devoted to those issues that the Committee thinks should be pursued.

j The Committee discussed the issues listed under the following groups:

ACRS procedures and practices Future plants ACRS Procedures and Practices The Committee's discussion associated with issues listed under this group is given below.

State of Nuclear Power Dr. Moeller stated that the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) issued a report recently on the state of nuclear

a 333RD ACRS MEETING MINUTES 19 power.

He believes that this is an important issue and that the ACRS should issue periodic reports on this natter, suggesting bold initiatives for resolution of problems.

Stating that the "state of nuclear power" issue is important as well as controversial, Dr. Sie.ss stated that the Comittee may need more time for discussion of this issue.

He suggested that further discussion of this issue be deferred until the next ACRS meeting.

The Cemittee nembers agreed.

Dr. Shewmcn suggested that the ACRS Staff obtain the UCS report on the state of nuclear power and distribute copies to the ACRS members. Mr. Fraley agreed to do so.

Follow-Up on Key Issues Dr. Moeller stated that cognizant ACRS Staff Engineers should review the adequacy of the ED0's responses to significant ACRS coments and recommendations contained in ACRS reports; if there are any disagreenents between the ACRS and the EDO, the ACRS should send another letter to the ED0 explaining the basis for its coments.

Dr. Siess stated that writing letters back and forth between the ACRS and the EDO is not going to resolve the disagreements. He believes that discussing the disagree-nunts in person with proper NRC Staff would help to resolve them effectively.

Dr. Lewis stated that prior to sending a letter on a specific subject to the EDO or to the Comission, the Comittee should discuss and decide whether there is really a need for sending such a letter.

Dr. Siess stated that the Comittee should probably try the approach suggested by Dr. Lewis at the next treeting.

The Committee should decide first whether there is a need for sending a specific letter and why.

If the Comittee is convinced that sending a letter on a specific subject would be helpful to the Comission, then it should send j

such a letter. None of the members raised any objection to this approach, Hold Educational Seminars for ACRS Members Dr. Moeller stated that holding educational seminars on certain subjects would be helpful to the ACRS members.

O 8

333PD ACRS MEETING MINUTES 20 He suggested that the ACRS try to set up a seminar on filtered vented containments.

Dr. Siess stated that seminars should be in those areas where ACRS needs to get educated.

About two years ago, we had a seismic workshop.

Another seminar is scheduled to be held on February 10, 1988 to discuss issues in the human factors area.

He believes that the ACRS has been holding seminars on important subjects, as necessary.

Hold Infomal Brainstoming Sessions Dr. Moeller stated that, based on his experience, he believes that having informal brainstoming sessions with the NRC Staff prior to holding subcomittee meetings has been very helpful in identifying important topics for discussion at the subcomittee meetings.

He suggested strongly that chairmen of the ACRS subcomittees follow this approach.

He believes also that having such ses-sions with the Comission's technical staff would be helpful in breaking down barriers and disagreements.

Dr. Steindler stated that he believes that the technical staff of the Commission are very influential people and it is better to have informal sessions with them to:

explain ACRS concerns and bases for ACRS consnents and recommendations on specific subjects, and i

obtain feedback on issues on which the Comission has major concerns.

Mr. Fraley suggested that subsequent to sending an ACRS letter on a substantive issue, the Committee may wish to meet with the Comission's technical staff to discuss ACRS concerns.

Congressional 1.ianon, Dr. Steindler comented that the ACRS is a technical advisory group and not a political advisory group.

He does not understand why we should establish interfaces with the Congress.

Mr. Ward stated he believes that the ACRS has the responsibility to make the Congress aware of major technical safety issues associated with nuclear power

plants, i

333RD ACRS MEETlHG MINUTES 21 Dr. Siess comented that we used to weita detailed reports to the Congress on the NRC Safety Reseudh Program and Budget.

Also, we had testified before several subcomittees of the Congress on this utter.

Although we made several major.recomandations to the Congress on the NRC Safety Research Program Budget, he does not believe that the Congress has adopted any of those recomendations

and, most particularly,

the Congress has not increased the NRC research funding.

Further, there are sever si oversight comittees in the Congress that oversee NRC activities.

He does not believe that we will be able to interface with all of these comittees because it will be a time-consuming process.

It may be poss!ble to interact with one or two of these comittees.

We have to decide which of these comittees we should interact with.

Mr. Fraley stated that the ACRS was established to provide advice to the Comission on the technical matters associated with nuclear safety.

The Comittee used to interact with the Congress through its annual report on the hRC Safety Research Program and Budget. However, the Comittee has decided not to write annual reports to the Congress on the overall NRC Safety Research Program and Budget.

He is not sure why the Comittee now wants to reestablish its interaction with the Congress.

Dr. Remick, Dr. Siess, and Dr. Mark commented that when the Congress introduces some bills that deal with major nuclear safety issues, and if we believe that our coments on these issues would be helpful to the Congress, then the ACRS should provide its opinion to the Congress. They do not believe that the ACRS should seek out a relationship with the Congress.

kasolution of Interagency Conflicts Dr. Moeller stated that occasionally the Comission has encountered problems due to the need for interinstitu-tional action in resolving a key issue.

The Commission was faced with such a situation in the cases of Shoreham and Seabrook nuclear plants. He is not sure whether ACRS should get involved more in helping the Comission to resolve this issue.

Mr. Ward stated that if the ACRS thinks that it would be able to provide useful advice to the Comission on certain key matters, then it should consider doing so,

333RD ACRS REETING MINUTES 22 i

Dr. Remick suggested that the ACRS may want to get involved in the activities of NUMARC.

Mr. Ward stated that when we meet with the NUMARC group we should make them aware of our willingness to act as a forum to resolve conflicts.

Dr. Siess mentioned that on several occasions the Regula-tory Activities Subcomittee acted as a forum to resolve differences between the industry and the NRC Staff on certain Regulatory Guides and Rules.

He believes that this matter could be handled better by subcommittees rather than by the full Committee.

The Comittee decided to change the title of this issue to "Resolution of Interinstitutional Conflicts."

Future plants The Comittee discussed briefly the issues listed under this category.

Dr. Siess stated that the ACRS has been involved in reviewing issues associated with future plants and he expects that the ACRS involvement on future plant issues will continue in the future.

Future Action Dr. Siess suggested that this subject matter be scheduled for further discussion during the February 1988 ACRS meeting. He suggested that the members provide coments, if any, on this matter prior to the February meeting.

?.

Safety implications of Control Systems

[ Note:

Mr.

M.

El-Zeftawy was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.]

The Comittee discussed safety implications of control systems and the NRC Staff proposed resolution of USI A-47, "Safety Implications of Control Systems." Action was deferred pending consideration by the ACRS Subcomittee on Generic Items (CPS /SD) of the manner by which the NRC Staff changes the scope of Generic Issues using A-47 as an example of an issue where substantive changes have been made from the Scope defined in NUREG-0606. There appeared to be general agreement that ACRS would not object if the NRC Staff were to proceed on 1

l its own initiative to publish this resolution for public coment without benefit of ACRS input at this stage of the proceedings.

It was agreed, however, to take no specific action at this meeting.

I

0 333RD ACRS MEETING MINUTES 23 3.

Quality and Ouality Assurance

[ Note: Mr. E. G. Igne was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.]

The Convittee discussed the ways in which the ACRS should participate in an International Workshop on Quality and Quality Assurance.

it was agreed that the ACRS should seek assistance of one of the national laboratories in organizing such a workshop.

4 USI A-40, "Seismic Design Criteria"

[ Note:

Dr. R. P. Savio was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.]

The Comittee acreed not to comment at this time on the proposed resolution for USI A-40, "Seismic Design Criteria,"

and had no objection to the NRC Staff issuing it for public convent.

The members expressed interest in seeing the pro-posed resolution after the NRC Staff's evaluation of public comments. The ACRS Subcorinittee on Extreme External Phenomena will continue to follow these efforts.

5.

DOE Advanced Reactor Severe Accident Program

[ Note:

Mr. M. D. Houston was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.]

Mr. Fraley asked the Comittee if it wanted to assign a subcomittee the responsibility for the review of the DOE l

Advanced Reactor Severe Accident Program (ARSAP).

Dr. Siess indicated that he didn't understand the function or scope of the Program.

He also expressed some concerns about this progran, based on the NRC/ DOE severe accident study for advanced reactor designs (non-LWRs).

The Committee agreed to have the NRC/ DOE staffs present an overview of the Program at a future Comittee meeting.

Following that presentation, the Comittee will decide which subcomittee or subcomittees should be assigned to handle the task.

D.

Future Activities (0 pen) 1.

Future Agenda The Comittee agreed to the tentative future agenda as shown in Appendix 11, i

333RD ACRS MEETING MINUTES 24 2.

Future Subcomittee Activities A schedule of future subcomittee activities was distributed to members (Appendix III).

The 333rd ACRS meeting was adjourned at 4:05 p.m. Friday, January 8, 1988.

l I

l

APPENDICES MINUTES OF THE 333RD ACRS MEETING JANUARY 7-8, 1988 I.

Attendees II.

Future Agenda i

III.

Subcomittee Activities 4

IV.

Other Documents Received I

i

329 330 331 332 333 3 34 335 336 337 338 ACRS MEETING i

7"

/f {

DATE ATTENDEE 5 Thursday Friday Saturday Dr. William Kerr, Chairman

/

Dr. Forrest J. Remick, Vice Chairman

/

Mr. Jesse C. Ebersole V

/

Dr. Harold W. Lewis V

/

Dr. Carson Mark

/

Mr. Carlyle Michelson

/

[

Dr. Dade W. Moeller

1. ^. ~ 0;.. m l

(

fr " :.. A. nceu Dr. Paul G. Shewmon V

/

j Dr. Chester P. Siess

/

V Dr. Martin J. Steindler V

/

j

/

Hr. David A. Ward Mr. Charles J. Wylie

/

V APPENDIX I

l APPENDIX I ATTENDEES 333RD ACRS MEETING JANUARY 7-8, 1988 JANUARY 7, 1988 JANUARY 8, 1988 NRC Attendees NRC Attendees A. Cappucci, NRR A. Cappucci, NRR D. Scaletti, NRP.

D. Cleary, RES R. Lanksbury, NRC K. Kniel, RES G. C. Wright, NPC W. Minners, RES W. Lanning, NRR John Thompson, NPC P. Baransky, NRC T. J. Carter, Jr., NRC Public Attendees G. R. Burdick, RES G. S. Mizuno, OGC Joe Colvin, NUMARC Peter Lam, AEOD To-Price, NUMARC L. B. Marsh, NRR

'vishwa M. Kapila, NUS Dennis Fridden, INPO E. J. Sullivan, NRR Patricia S. Abel MITRE Moni Dey, RES Shiv. Seth, MITRE R. Baer, RES Mark Phillips, Bishop, Cook Public Attendees Cheng Lewe, NUS Bill Bruss, Bechtel Philip Howell, Bechtel J. F. Quirk, GE C. D. Sawyer, GE R. Artigas, GE R. C. Mitchell, GE Brenda Pearson, Heritage Reporting D. L. Neal, GE Akiro Omoto, TEPC0 H. M. Fontecilla, Va. Power Brian Jordan, McGraw-Hill L. Connor, DSA Robert B. Leachman, Lockheed Irwin Coffenberry Heritage Reporting George Davis, Bishop. Cook Malcom Patterson, BG&E l-2

e APPENDIX II FUTURE AGENDA FEBRUARY 11-13, 1988 AdvancedReactors(DAW /MME)Estimatedtime: 5 hours5.787037e-5 days 0.00139 hours 8.267196e-6 weeks 1.9025e-6 months - Review and coment regarding key design features of advanced liquid metal cooled and gas I

cooled reactor plant designs.

Leak-Before-Break Requirements (PGS/EGI) Estimated time: I hour - Review and comment regarding proposed final revision of the NRC Standard Review Plan Section 3.6.3 regarding leak-before-break evaluation procedures.

EPRI Requirements for Advanced LWRs (CJW/HA) Estimated time:

2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months -

Briefing by EPRI represantatives regarding proposed requirements for 600 MWe nuclear power plants.

NRC Safety Research Program (CPS /SD) Estimated time:

11-2 hours -

Discuss proposed ACR5 report to the U.S. Congress on the NRC safety research program and proposed ACRS cortraents to the NRC regarding proposed methodology for prioritization of research activities.

NRC Ouantitative safety Goals (DAW /MDH) Estimated time: 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months -

Briefing and discussion regarding proposed implementation plan for the NRC Quantitative Safety Goals.

Maintenance Policy Statement (CYM/HA) Estimated time:

li hours - Dis-cussion and conTnent as appropriate of proposed NRC policy statement regarding nuclear power plants.

Diagnostic Evaluation Program (DEP) (HWL/RXM) Estimated time:

I hour -

Briefing and discussion of NRC DEP including initial evaluation of the Dresden and McGuire nuclear power plants.

SystematicAssessmentofOperatingExperience(HWL/RKM)Estimatedtime:

3/4 hour - Briefing and discussion of recently completed AE00 studies of nuclear power plant operational data and related activities.

New Members (FJR/NSL) Estimated time:

I hour - Discuss qualifications of candidates proposed for appointment to the Comittee.

Nuclear Waste Manaaement and Disposal (OSM/DWM) Estimated time : I hour -

Report and discussion of congressional redirection of the nuclear waste management and dispcsal program and related waste management issues.

TVA Huclear Organization and Operations (CJW/RPS) Estimated time: 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months

- Review and conTrent regarding proposed changes in TVA nuclear managerrent structure and proposed restart of TVA nuclear plants.

ACRS Subcomittee Activities (DAW /PAB) Estimated time: 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months -

Reports and discussion regarding the status of assigned subcomittee activities, including thennal-hydraulic ECCS rules and decay heat re-moval.

333RD ACRS MEETING 2

ACRS Procedures and Practices (WK/ CPS /RFF/SD) Estimated time: 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months

- Discuss proposed changes in ACR5 Bylaws regarding the activities of ACRS members and proposed hierarchial structure for important safety-related issues.

Safety Implications of Control Systems (Tentative) (CPS /JCE/SD/MME)

Estimated time: 3/4 hour - Discuss proposed ACRS connents regarding proposed NRC Staff resolution of Generic Issue A-47, Safety Implications of Control Systems.

Generic Issues (CPS /SD) Estimated time:

I hour - Discuss proposed ACRS connents and recommendations regarding the effectiveness of NRC Staff activities to resolve generic issues and USIs.

Future ACRS Activities (WK/RFF/MWL) Estimated time:

i hour - Discuss anticipated ACRS subcommittee activities and items proposed for consider-ation by the full Comittee.

IAEA General Princiales for Reactor Safety (Tentative) (DWM/TGM) Estimat-ed time:

1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months - 3riefing by U.S. Representative to IAEA Working Group.

MARCH 10-12, 1988 B&W Design Reassessment (CJW/RKM) - Review BAW-1919, B&W Owners Group Safety Assessment of B&W plants.

Regulatory Guide __1.106 Rev. 2, Thermal Overload Protection for Motor Operated Valves (CJW/RKM) - Review proposed revision to Regulatory Guide.

Research Activities (CPS /SD) - Review proposed methodology and trial use of RES prioritization scheme.

USI A-45 (DAW /PAB) - Review proposed resolution of USI A-45, Shutdown Decay Heat Removal Requirements.

Human Factors Research Program Plan (FJR/HA) - Review Research plan.

APRIL 7-9, 1988 ECCS Rule (DAW /PAB) - Review proposed revision of NRC rule (10 CFR 50.46, Acceptance Criteria for ECCS for LWRs) and demonstration of CSAU method-ology for use of best estimate ECCS Codes.

LATER Generic Issue 99, Loss of RHR Capability in PWRs (DAW /PAB)

TechnicalSpecifications(CYM/EGI)

APPENDlX TII ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE HEETINGS Auriliary Systens (Closed), January 14, 1988, Wake County, NC 10uittschreiber). The Subcommittee will visit the Shearon Harris plant to look at the Chilled Water System design for that plant. Attendance by the following is anticipated, and reservetions have been made at the Days Inn (i mile froin the Raleigh Airport) (919/469-8688),1000 Airport Blvd., Morris-ville, NC for the night o' January 13:

Mr. Michelson Dr. Moeller Mr. Ebersole Mr. Wylie Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena, January 20 and 21,1980, at the los Alemos Study Center Builcing SM 207, Room 216, Cesa Grande St.(off West Janez Rd.), Los Alamos, NM (Poehnert), 8:30 a.m. each day. The Subcomittee will review the documentation developed by LANL to support the TRAC PF1 Thermal-Hydraulic Codes pursu6nt to the NRC RES Code Scaling Assessment and Uncertainty (CSAU) requirements.

The status of the CSAU effort vis-a-vis the proposed ECCS Rule revision will also be discussed. Attendance by the following is anticipated, erd reservations have been made at the Los Alanos Inn (505/662-7211), 2201 Trinit,< Drive for the nights of January 19, 20 and 21:

Mr. Ward Dr. Catton Mr. Ebersole Dr. Plesset Dr. Kerr Dr. Schrock Dr. Mark NONE Dr. Sullivan NONE Mr. Michelsnn Weste Managecent, January 21 end 22, 1988, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC (Merrill), 8:30 a.m., Room 1046. The Subcomittee will review the following pertinent waste managenent topics: HLW: (1) Status report on the effects of recent legislative acticns on NRC'sTI program; and (2) NPC's Review Plan for the Yucca Mountain Consultation Draft Site Characterization Plans, including a status report on NRC's review.

LLW: (1) The DOE and NRC uranium mill tailings programs; (2) Revision 1 of the Standard Review Plan for shallow land burial (SLB), including engineered barriers and alternatives to SLB; and (3) Status rerort on recently reported rupture of THI-2 radioactive waste liners.

RES:

(1) New directions for HLW and LLW research in response to legislative and budgetary changes; and (2) Hydrologic transport and modeling of the near-surface nitrate dispesal area, Chalk River Nuclear Laboratory. Attendance by the following is anticipated, and reservations have been made at the hotels indicated for the nights of January 20 and 21:

Dr. Moeller LOMBARDY Dr. Krauskopf COSMOS CLUB Dr. Remick NONE Dr. Orth LOMBARDY Dr. Sheron NONE Dr. Parker NONE Dr. Steindler LOMBARDY Dr. Till LOMBARDY(21only)

.e Structural Engineering, January 22, 1988, AMFAC Hotel, 2910 Yale Blvd.,

5E, Albuquerque, NM (Igne), 8:30 a.m.

The Subcomittee will review the results of the concrete containment nodel test. Attendance by the following is anticipated, and reservations have been made at the AMFAC Hotel (505/843-7000) for the nights of January 21 and 22:

Dr. Siess Dr. Shewman Mr. Ebersole Mr. Ward Dr. Mark Mr. Bender Decay Heat Removal Systems, January 28, 1988, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC (Boehnert), 8:30 a.n., Roer 1046.

The Subcomittee will continue its Fe' view of the NPC Sta'f Resolution Pesition for USI A-45.

Attendance by the following is ar,ticipated, and reservations have been made at the hotels indicated for the night of January 27:

Mr. Ward ANTHONY Mr. Wylie (p.m.)

DAYSINN(VA)

Mr. Ebersole DAYS INN (DC)

Dr. Catton DUPONT PLAZA Dr. Kerr LOMBARDY Mr. Davis HOLIDAY INN Mr. Michelson DAYS INN (DC)

TVA Organizationel Issues, February 2-3, 1988, Chattanooga, TN (Savio). The Subcomittee will continue its review of the safety issues associated with the TVA categerent reorganizatien and the Sequoyah restart. Lodging will be announced later. Attendance by the following is anticipated:

Mr. Wylie Dr. Remick Mr. Ebersole Mr. Ward Mr. Michelson Reliability Assurance, February 9, 1908, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC (Major), 8:50 a.m., Roem 1046. The Subcomittee will discuss items regarding testing performed on Centainment Isolation velves and a test plan for the isolation of high energy line breaks. The final version of R.G. 1.100, Rev.

2, Seismic Qualification of Electrical and Mechanical Equipment for Nuclear Power Plants, will be reviewed. Attendance by the following is anticipated, and reservations have been riade at the hotels indicated for the night of February 8:

Mr. Wylie DAYS INN (VA Mr. Michelson DAYSINN(DC)

Mr. Et'ersole DAYSINN(DC Dr. Siess ANTHONY

. Safety Philosophy, Technoingy and Criteria, February 9, 1988, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC (Houston), 1:00 p.m., Room 1167. The Subcommittee will discuss the near-final draft of the Staff's proposed Implementation Plan for the Safety Goal Policy Statement. Attendance by the following is anticipated, and reservations have been made at the hotels indicated for the night of February 8:

Mr. Ward ANTH0NY Dr. Lewis HYATT Dr. Kerr LOMBARDY Hunan Factors Seminar, February 10, 1988, 1717 H Straet, NW, Washington, DC (Alderman), 8:30 a.m., Roon 1046.

The Subcommittee will be briefed on topics of interest regarding Human Factors.

Lodging will be announced later.

Attendance by the following is anticipated.

Mr. Ward, et al Mr. R. Pew 334th ACRS Meeting, February 11-13, 1988, Washington, DC, Room 1046.

Joint Scram Systems Reliability and Core Performance, February 19, 1988, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC (Boehnert/ Houston), 8:30 a.m., Room 1046.

The Subcommittees will review the current status of LWR plant operations (core reload designs, etc.) as they impact on core reactivity control operational limits (e.g., nederator temperature coefficients) in general, and ATWS analy-ses in particular. Attendance by the following is anticipated, and reserva-tions have been made at the hotel indicated for the night of February 18:

Dr. Kerr LOMBARDY Mr. Wylie DAYS INN (VA)

Mr. Ebersole DAfS INN (DC)

Mr. Davis (tent.)

HOLIDAY INN Dr. Lewis HYATT Dr. Lee NONE Dr. Shewmon NONE Dr. Lipinski NONE Mr. Werd ANTHONY Diablo Canyon, February P3-24, 1988 (Tentative), San Francisco, CA (Igne).

The Subtennittee will review the status of the Diablo Canyon Long-Tern Seismic Program.

Lodging will be announced later. Attendance by the following is anticipoted:

Dr. Siess Mr. Davis (tent)

Mr. Ebersole Dr. Page Dr. Kerr Dr. Maxwell Dr. Lewis Dr. G. Thompson Dr. Moeller Dr. Trifunac Dr. Scavuzzo i

)

... Reliability Assurance, March 8, 1988, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC (Major), 8:30 a.m., Room 1046.

The Subcomittee will discuss:

(1) valve reliability, includirg valve testing schemes by EPRI, M0 VATS, Liberty Techni-cal Center, and Oak Ridge National Laboratory; (2) RES plans for MOV and check valve related work; (3) valve testing insights from Peter Wohld; and (4) incidents related to valves (German hydrogen explosion in PORV and TVA MOV interchangeability problem).

Lodging will be announced later. Attendance by the fcilowing is anticipated:

Mr. Kylie Mr. Michelson Mr. Ebersole Dr. Siess Auxiliary Systems, March 9, 1988, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC (Duraiswamy) 8:30 a.m., Room 1046.

The Subcomittee will discuss the final report on the Fire Risk Scoping Study being performed by Sandia National Laboratories for the NRC. Lodging will be announced leter. Attendance by the following is anticipated:

Mr. Michelson Dr. Moeller Mr. Ebersole Mr. Wylie 335th ACRS Meeting, March 10-12, 1988, Washington, DC, Room 1046.

Metal Cenponents, Date to be determined (January), Charlotte, NC (Igne). The Subcomittee will review the status of the NDE of cast stainless steel piping 1

and other topics related to Subcomittee activities. Attendance by the following is anticipated:

Dr. Shewmon Mr. Ward Dr. Lewis Mr. Rodabaugh i

Mr. Michelson Dr. B. Thompson Improved Pressurized Water Reactnr Designs, Date to be determined (Febru-ary/ March), Washington, DC (El-Zeftawy). The Subcomittee will discuss and hear presentations from Westinghouse representatives and the NRC Staff regarding the PRA for WAPWR (RESAR SP/90) design. Attendance by the following is anticipated:

i l

Mr. Ward Mr. Michelson Mr. Ebersole Dr. Shewmon Dr. Kerr Mr. Wylie Babcock & Wilcox Reactor Plants (Tentative), Date to be determined l

(mid-March). Washington, DC (Major).

The Subcomittee will continue its review of theTong-term safety review of B&W reactors. This effort was begun during the sumer of 1986; initial Comittee coments offered on July 16, 1986 in a letter to V. Stello, EDO. Attendance by the following is anticipated:

Mr. Wylie Mr. Ward Mr. Ebersole Dr. Catton Dr. Kerr Mr. Davis Dr. Lewis Mr. Etherington Mr. Michelson Mr. Patterson

..o

. Improved Pressuri:ed Vater Reactor Designs, Date to be determined (March).

Washington, DC (El-Zeftawy). The Subcommittee will discuss the comparison of WAPWR (RESAR SP/90) design with other modern plants (in U.S. and abroad).

Attendance by the following is anticipated:

Mr. Ward Mr. Michelson Mr. Ebersole Dr. Shewmon Dr. Kerr Mr. Wylie Centainment Pequirements, Date to be determined (March / April), Washington, DC (Houston).

The Subcommittee will review the hydrogen control measures for BWRs and Ice Condenser PWRs (USl A-48). Attendance by the following is anticipated:

Mr. Ward Dr. Siess Dr. Mark Mr. Wylie Mr. Ebersole Dr. Catton Dr. Vcrr Severe Accidents, Date to be determined (March / April) (tentative), Washington, DC (Houston). The Subconnittee will review the final version of the NRC 5taff's proposed ger:eric letter on Individual Plant Examinations (IPEs).

Atterdance by the following is anticipated:

Dr. Kerr Dr. Siess Dr. Mark Mr. Ward Dr. Shewmon Thermal Hydraulic Phenomene. Date to be determined (March / April), Washington, DC (Boehrert). The Subcommittee will review the final version of the proposed EECS Rule. Attendance by the following is anticipated:

Mr. Ward Dr. Catton Mr. Ebersole Dr. Plesset Dr. Kerr Mr. Schrock Mr. Michelsen Dr. Sullivan Cortainment Requirements Date to be determined (April), Washington, DC (Houston). The Subcommittee will review the NRC Staff's document on contain-ment performance and improvements (all containrent types).

Attendance by the following is anticipated:

Mr. Ward Dr. Siess Dr. Mark (tent.)

Mr. Wylie Mr. Ebersole Dr. Catten Dr. Kerr

i

. Decay Heat Removal Systems, Date to be determined (April /May), Washington, DC (Boehnert). The Subconmittee will review the proposed resolution of Generic Issue 23, "RCP Seal Failures," and Generic Issue 99, "Loss of RHR Capability in PWRs." Attendance by the following is anticipated:

Mr. Ward Mr. Wylie Mr. Ebersole Dr. Catton Dr. Kerr Mr. Davis Mr. Michelson Improved Pressurized Water Reactor Designs, Date to be determined (April /May),

Washington, DC, (El-Zeftawy).

The Subcomittee will review the draft SER in regard to the reactor, reactor coolant system, and regulatory conformance for the WAPWR RESAR SP/90 design. Attendance by the following is anticipated:

Mr. Ward Mr. Michelson Mr. Ebersole Dr. Shewmen Dr. Kerr Mr. Wylie Occupatienal and Environmental Protection System Date to be determined.

Washington, DC (Igne).

The Subcommittee will review:

(1) the "hot particle" problem, (?) the new revision to the definition of an "extraordinary nuclear occurrence", (3) monitoring the quality and quantity of airborne radionuclides in/out of containment following an accident, (4) the emergency planning rule, (5) the contrcl room habitability report by ANL, and (6) other related mat-ters. Attendance by the following is anticipated:

Dr. Moeller Mr. Wylie Dr. Renick Mr. Kathren Dr. Steindler Dr. Shapiro Auxiliary Systems, Date to be determined, Washington, DC (Duraiswamy). The

'jIJbcomittee will discuss the:

(1) criteria being used by utilities to design design, and (3)ystems, (2) regulatory requirerents for Chilled Water System Chilled Water S criteria being used by the NRC Staff to review the Chilled Water System design.

To facilitate this discu:sion, some members of the Subcorrittee will tour the Shearon Harris plent to lock at the Chilled Water System design at that plant. Attendance by the followine is anticipated:

Mr. Michelson Dr. Moeller Mr. Ebersole Mr. Wylie Regional Programs, Date to be detemined, Atlanta, GA (Boehnert). The Subcom-mittee will review the activities under the control of the NRC Region II Office. Attendance by the following is anticipated:

Dr. Remick Dr. Moeller Mr. Mir.helson Mr. Ward l

. Decay Heat Removal Systens Date to be detemined Washincton, DC (Boehnert).

TEi Subcomittee will explore the issue of the use of feet and bleed for decay heat removal in PWRs. Attendarce by the following is anticipated:

Mr. Ward Mr. Wylie Mr. Ebersole Dr. Catton Dr. Kerr Mr. Davis Mr. Michelson i

APPENDIX IV 333RD ACRS MEETING JANUARY 7-8, 1988 OTHER DOCUMENTS RECEIVED 1.

Status Report on GE ABWR 2.

Letter to R. Bernero, NRC from R. Artigas, GE, dated 1/27/87 3.

Letter to R. Artigas, GE from T. Murley, NRC, dated 8/7/87 1

4.

Status Report - Recent Events at Operating Reactors i

5.

Status RJport - Hierarchial Structure for the Important Safety-Related Issues 6.

Complete List of Important Topics Identified by ACRS Members, 12/2/87 1

7.

Stetus Report - Reactor Operations Subcomittee Meeting, January 5, i

1988 8.

Status Report on Joint Peeting on December 15, 1987 concerning iteam generator tube integrity 9.

Status Report on Reliability Assurance Meeting on January 7,19C8 concerning Equipment Qualification-Risk Scoping Study. Working Copy of Meeting Minutes

10. License Renewal Policy Development:

Sumary of Current Activities, Decwber 18, 1987

11. Status Report - AE0D Activities

12. Memo for F. Miraglia, et al. from T. Novak,

Subject:

Trends and Patterns Program Report, September 14, 1987

13. ACRS Subcomittee Meeting Review

14. ACRS Subcomittee Meetings

15. Status Report - Discussion on Quality and Quality Assurance

IV-2 P;esentations GE Nuclear Energy - ABWR NRC Staff - ABWR (D. Scaletti)

NRC Staff - Operating Events + Perry 1 MSIV Maloperation NRC Staff - In-Service Testing NUMARC Presentation by Joe Colvin NRC Staff (RES) - Regulatory Options for Nuclear Plant License Renewal MITRE Corp. - Technical Issues Pertaining to NPP License Renewal Handouts 1.

Memo for ACRS Members from M. D. Houston,

Subject:

Assignment Considerations for Review of DOE's Advanced Reactor Severe Accident Program, dated 12/29/87 plus attachments 2.

Meno for ACRS Members from C. P. Siess,

Subject:

Hierarchical Structure for the Important Safety-Related Issues Identified by ACRS Members, dated 12/31/87 3.

Memo for T. G. McCreless from G. A. Brown,

Subject:

Basic Information for NP0C, NUMAC, ANEC, USCEA, INP0, EPRI and Other Licensee Organizations, dated 11/12/87 4.

Memo for ACRS Members from H. Aldernen,

Subject:

Reactor Operations Committee Briefing, January 7,1987 5.

Letter to W. Kerr from D. W. Moeller concerning important safety-related issues, dated 1/2/88 6.

Memo for ACRS Members from R. F. Fraley,

Subject:

Future ACRS Activities - 334th ACRS Meeting, February 11-15, 1988 i

IV-2 1

l

._.,

ML20151D169

Contents

Text

Subject:

Subject:

Subject:

Subject:

Subject:

Subject:

Navigation menu

ML20151D169

Text

Subject:

Subject:

Subject:

Subject:

Subject:

Subject:

Navigation menu

Search