ML20151D264
| ML20151D264 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/12/1988 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-2552, NUDOCS 8804140084 | |
| Download: ML20151D264 (21) | |
Text
_ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _
~
- CIRTIFE DATE ISSUED: M
SUMMARY
/ MINUTES OF THE
&f ~ 055cA ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE HEETING ON THE GENERIC ITEMS JANUARY 29, 1988 WASHINGTON, D.C.
INTRODUCTION The ACRS Subconr11ttee on the Generic Items held a meeting on Friday, January 29, 1988, at 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., to discuss the procedures being used by the Staff in defining / modifying the scope of Generic Issues and Unresolved Safety Issues (USIs). The entire meeting was open to public attendance. Mr. Sam Duraiswamy was the Cognizant ACRS Staff Engineer for this meeting. A list of documents submitted to the Subcomittee is included in Attachment A. A copy of the presentation schedule for the meeting is included in Attachment B.
ATTENDEES ACRS: C. P. Siess (Subcommittee Chairman), J. C. Ebersole, C. Michelson, D. W. Moeller, F. J. Remick, D. A. Ward, and C. J. Wylie Sam Duraiswamy (Cognizant ACRS Staff Engineer)
Principal hRC Speakers: T. Speis, W. Minners, N. Anderson, and R. Baer EXECUTIVE SESSION Dr. Siess, the Subcommittee Chairman, convened the meeting at 1:00 p.m.
and stated that the purpose of this meeting was to discuss the following l I
with the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Pesearch (RES) Staff
- I
- Procedures being used by the Staff in defining the scope of Generic Issues and USIs.
- Procedures being used by the Staff in modifying the originally defined scope of Generic Issues and US!s.
8804140084 000212 PDR ACRS PDR 2552
- o i
i t
Generic Items Meeting Minutes Janusuary 29, 1988 i Dr. Siess stated that after discussing the above matters with the Staff, he would like to obtain input from the Subcomittee members regarding the format and content of the ACRS report to the Comission on the effectiveness of the NRC Staff programs that deal with Generic Issues and USIs. He said that the Subcomittee had received neither written coments nor requests for time to make oral statements from members of the public.
Prior to holding discussions with the Staff, Dr. Siess provided a brief l preamble. He stated that during the discussion of the proposed'resolu-tion of USI A-47, "Safety Implications of Control Systems," at the December 1987 and January 1988 ACRS meetings, several membars expressed concern about the Staff's practice in making major changes to the originally defined scope of USIs. They were interested in finding out:
i
" On what basis does the Staff make modifications to the originally defined scope?
- Is there any established procedure that they use in making these !
modifications?
With regard to USI A-47, seme members felt that the scope of this issue has been reduced, and the proposed resolution does not deal with the whole problem defined originally. Since only part of the problem associated with USI A-47 has been resolved, it should not be declared as completely resolved. Further, they were concerned about the status of those tasks in the original scope that have been left out in the mod-ified scope. They want to make sure that those tasks dropped from the original scope are being addressed adequately under other issues or separately, i l l Dr. Siess mentioned that the scope of USI A-17, '5ystems Interactions in l Nuclear Power Plants " has also been modified. USI t-47 deals with the i
[
Generic Items Meeting Minutes Januauary 29, 1988 interaction of control systems on safety systems which he believes is a system interaction problem. Therefore, USI A-47 could be considered as a subset of USI A-17 Things are getting moved here and there to achieve possibly an easy and fast resolution. He wondered whether they could come up with an integrated resolution once all of these items are resolved.
Dr. Siess solicited coments from other Subcomittee members.
Mr. Ebersole provided the following coments:
- Implications of control systems is really a subset of systems interactions. Neglecting systems interaction problems will lead to severe consequences. (He cited an example associated with the neglect of systems interaction issue and the resulting conse-quences. Several years ago, all ten 125 MW units of the Shawnee Steam Power Plant were shut down due to the failure of a single domestic water tank level control float valve.)
- The proposed resolution of USI A-47 is narrow and does not deal l with the implications of all control systems on safety systems.
Things such as those listed below should have been considered in j the resolution of USI A-47, '
- Implicati.ons of the failure of instruments associated with the turbine generator. There are several instruments associated with the turbine generator and all did not have redundant circuitry. Spurious failure af any one of those instruments may result in the loss of the condenser which is the primary heat sink.
- Implications of the main turbine-generator carrying the house load under a runaway (overspeed) situation. The house load
Generic Items Meeting Minutes Janusuary 29, 1988 includes many safety systems connected in parallel that are supposed to be ready for later use under diesel power. To his knowledge, there are no provisions for over voltage / frequency protection. ,
Mr. Ward commented that the Staff should have a program for dealing with Generic Issues and USIs. They should make sure that the scope of each issue is defined narrowly and explicitly, recognizing that there may be 1 some gaps because of the narrow scope and also that there may not be good integration between the narrowly defined issues and other issues.
The Staff's program should allow an opportunity and necessary time for the licensees to integrate their responses to the requirements resulting from the resolution of Generic Issues and USIs. Also, the Staff should state explicitly that they will give credit to licensees' arguments that are based on probabilistic risk assessments.
Dr. Siess stated that the Staff may be able to deal with the things mentioned by Mr. Ward under the proposed ISAP-II. He realizes that there may be gaps if the scope is defined narrowly. However, it is important that there be some kind of structure to let people know where the gaps are so as to give them a chance to assess these gaps and determine their significance in the future.
4 Or. Speis ste. ' that he agrees that some of the related issues could be integrated. For the past few years, the Staff has been extremely conscious of this matter of integrating and coordinating related issues. !
- However, if several issues are integrated into one issue, it would be ;
very difficult to handle the resolution. The resolution process is a I
)i tedious and time-consuming process. There are several things that they i have to follow during the process. Sometimes certain things get dropped
- and other things get added, giving the impression to certain people that !
the scope of the issue has been modified significantly. As far as USI
)
f
Generic Items Meeting Minutes Januauary 29, 1988 A-47 scope is concerned, he does not believe it has been modified significantly.
Dr. Siess quoted the following statements included in Section 2.2 of NUREG-1217, "Evaluation of Safety Implications of Control Systems in LWR Nuclear Power Plants:"
"To perform a systematic review of controls system failures, it became quickly evident that the scope of the review had to be confined. The type of events and the type, number, and combina-tions of possible control system failures were therefore limited."
Dr. Siess comented that the above statements point out clearly that the scope of USI A-47 has been limited. The Staff responded that these i statements are somewhat misleading because they did perform a fairly extensive study on this issue. For this study, they listed all control systems whose failure could have adverse impact on safety systems.
Dr. Siess comented that if they have looked at the implications of all possible control system failures, they should have explained those l clea.ly in the NUREG document. They should have documented things that they have studied, and things that they have eliminated and the reasons therefor. Mr. Anderson responded that since NUREG-1217 includes the !
surrary of the work performed by the contractors, they did not include all of the infomation. There are 15 or 20 volumes of contractor reports that include detailed infornation on the things that have been considered in the study. j Dr. Siess stated that what he wants to know is why the ACRS should tell the Comission that it agrees with the Staff that USI A-47 has been resolved. Mr. Baer stated that the Staff's approach was to look at those control systems that they felt could have some impact on important primary systems. Mr. Ebersole and Mr. Michelson believe that the Staff
Generic Items Meeting Minutes Januauary 29, 1988 should have looked at the implications of all control systems on safety systems. He believes that they have looked at almost all of the con-cerns raised by Mr. Ebersole and Mr. Michelson. He suggested that the Subcomittee define some scenarios and the Staff will talk to their contractors who performed the study and infor- the Subcomittee whether those scenarios have been considered in the study.
Dr. Siess stated that during the October 29, 1987 meeting of the In-strumentation and Control Systems Subcomittee, Mr. Michelson had provided about half a dozen scenari.os. He suggested thet the Staff take a look at the transcript of that meeting to get that information.
Referring to a statement in Section 2.2 of NUREG-1217 that states that "External events such as earthquake events, flooding, fires, and sabo-tage have not been considered in this study," Dr. Siess asked what was the actual intention of this statement. Mr. Anderson responded that he does not believe that this statement is completely right. It should have said that these natters were considered in this study and it was decided not to pursue them further because they are being considered under other issues. He mentioned that they never intended to look at the sabotage issue under USI A-47.
Dr. Siess asked if someone wants to find out in the future the bases for not including external events under the USI A-47 study, where would that person find such infomation. Mr. Anderson responded that one has to go ;
through all the information included in the contractors reports to get such information.
Mr. Michelson comented that external events such as earthquakes, flood, fire, and sabotage were specifically excluded from the USI A-47 resolu- l tion. The Staff seems to believe that fire issues are handled under l Appendix R. However, Appendix R does not deal with the implications of i fire in non-safety areas. The interaction of control systems, that are I l
1
]
9 Generic Items Meeting Minutes Januauary 29, 1988 i
affected by fire in a non-safety area, on safety systems has not been
- looked at by the Staff. If the Staff believes that they have looked at this issue, he would like to see documents that provide inforratten on this matter. Mr. Anderson responded that he agrees with Mr. Michelson that Appendix R does not deal with the whole fire problem. He believes <
that the fire issue was considered by the contractors in the USI A-47 study. However, he is not sure of the details. !
Dr. Siess comented that it would have been helpful if the Staff had provided necessary information on some typical scenarios raised by the ,
Subcomittee trembers to convince them that those issues were actually ;
i considered in the study. Also, there seems to be a comunication
- problem between the Staff and the ACRS. Although the Staff now tells the Subcomittee that most of the concerns expressed by the ACRS have been considered in the USI A-47 study, they told the Comittee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) that the ACRS wants to increase the scope of J USI A-47. If the Staff is confident that the scope of USI A-47 has not j l
been reduced, they should provide necessary infonnation to convince the ;
) Subcommittee. Mr. Baer responded that he does not remember telling CRGR t that the ACRS wants to increase the scope of USI A-47.
]
4 Mr. Michelson asked whether external events are being considered under USI A-17. Mr. Anderson responded that sorte parts of the external events are being considered under USI A-17.
1 l In response to a question from Mr. Michelson, Dr. Speis discussed
- briefly the process associated with USIs and Generic Issues (Attachment C Pages 1-3). He discussed also the procedures involved in the devel- ;
I opment of a task action plan (Attachment C, Page 4). He stated that the f ACRS gets involved in all steps associated with USIs. In the case of j Generic Issues, the ACRS reviews the adequacy of the proposed priority
- ranking
- for all issues and the resolution of selected Generic Issues.
, i
I Generic Items Meeting Minutes Janusuary 29, 1988 1 !
1 i He said that the Task Action Plans for all USIs are nomally sent to the l l ACRS. However, they do not send such plans associated with Generic :
! Issues to the ACRS.
Stating that the ACRS has been receivirg copies of Generic Issue .
)
ManagerentControlSystem(GIMCS)documentthatcontainsonlylimited
[ infomation Dr. Siess suggested that the Staff provide the ACRS wito !
i copies of Task Action Plans associated with all Generic Issues. Dr. [
Speis said he would do so, i
l With reference to a memorandum from Dr. beckjord, RES Director, date:1 i December 3, 1987, related to "RES Office Letter No. 1 - Procedure for ;
Identification, Prioritization, and Tracking of the Resolution of '
Generic Issues," Dr. Siess asked why the ACRS is not listed in the review process. Dr. Speis responded that the ACRS should have been included.
I Dr. Siess reiterated the coment made at the May 27, 1987 Generic Items
~
Subcomittee meeting that the Staff provide the resolution package to
~
the ACRS associated with all Generic Issues, irrespective of the Staff's
- decision to pursue it or not. The ACRS would like to receive such -
information prior to or at the same time that it is sent to CRGR. Even ;
if the CRGR is not involved in the resolution of certain Generic Issues, the ACRS would like to get the information on those issues. After i receiving the inforr.ation, the ACRS will infom the Staff about its decision to review it or not. He said that he plans to propose a change l to the existing Memorandum of Understanding between the ACRS and the EDO
]
concerning the ACRS participation in the development of Rules, Policy i Matters, and Safety-Related Guidance to include Generic Issues and USIs.
l Dr. Siess comented th t there should be a betttir way of defining the scopes of Generic Issues and US!s. If USI A-47 had been divided up l
4
, , .___.,,-__-.....,r...c -
Generic items Meeting Minutes Janusuary 29, 1988 clearly into several items, it would have been easier to decide whicit of those items are important and which are unimportant; then, they could have documented infoi. nation on how the important items were resolved and ;
how the unimportant items were handled. l Dr. Siess asked whether there would be any problem if the Staff had stated in the NUREG-1217 document that USI A-47 had been only partially >
resolved and the other parts remain to be resolved. Mr. Minners re-sponded that they plan to follow such an approach in the case of USI A-44, "Station Blackout." When that plan was proposed, some people !
criticized such an approach. In his opinion, it is a good idea and they should try to adopt that approach.
Mr. Anderson commented that the Task Action Plan for a specific USI delineates clearly the scope and the necessary tasks to be performed to I fulfill that scope. They follow certain procedures to get that Task Action Plan approved. Once it is approved, they try to come up with a resolution. If all of the tasks specified in an approved Task Action Plan are resolved, then that specific issue should be considered j resolved. Sometimes, changes are made to an approved Task Action Plan.
, Under such circumstance, they normally go through the process to get that change approved. Although they try to inform people about such changes, they may not be rigorous enough in raking people, such as ACRS, aware of the revisions to Tasir Action Plans associated with certain USIs.
j Mr. Michelson asked how they plan to deal with the residual safety concerns such as external events and seismically-induced fire, etc.
Mr. Anderson responded that they have a program called Multiple .'ystem Response Program (Attachment C, Page 5) that is intended to deal with those safety concerns raised by the ACRS, AE0D, and the Staff that are not covered explicitly in the existing programs. Under this program, they collect all these safety concerns, define them as best as they can, l and send them through the prioritization process. He said that a draft l
Generic Items Meeting Minutes Janusuary 29, 1988 report containing the definitions of several issues is being reviewed by the Staff. He plans to request ACRS review and coninent on this matter in the future.
Dr. Siess comented that the Staff should make sure that this program is not conglomerated with too many issues.
Dr. Siess asked whether there are any Generic Issues with broad scopes that they think could be subdivided for resolution purpose. Dr. Speis responded that there may be some, but he couldn't think of any at this time. Mr. Anderson stated that most of the Generic Issues being re-solved have narrowly defiwd scopes.
Stating that a few months ago the Staff had briefed the Comission on the process involving Generic Issues and USIs, Dr. Siess asked whether the Comission had expressed concern about the rate at which new issues are being identified. He asked also what percentage of new issues receive High or Medium priority ranking. The Steff did not have at hand the necessary infonnation to respond to these questions.
Stating that the Comission expressed concern about the time involved in the prioritization of Generic Issues, Dr. Siess asked whether the prioritization process is really worthwhile, and whether they could accomplish the same objective by extending the pre-screening process a bit farther. Mr. Minners responded that the prioritization process is really important. He does not believe that they could achieve the same objective by extending the pre-screening process. In his opinion, the significant delay to prioritizing an issue is caused by the peer-review l process. ,
l Dr. Siess comented that all isst.es identified may not have a real safety significance. Once an issue is identified, the Staff Das to put it through the prioritization process. Only after the prioritization, l l
l l
l
. Gen::ric Items Meeting Minutes Januauary 29, 1988 can they tell how important that issue is. This process is time consum-ing and delaying the prioritization effort. He believes that the Staff should have some control over the identification process to preclude or minimize the possibility of receiving issues that are not really significant to safety. Dr. Speis responded that it is a good idea to have some control over the identification process, but not too much control. rit lieves that implement <. tion of the new procedures delint.ned in RES Office Letter No.1, dated December 3,1987, will provide some control on this issue. Under this new procedure, the person identifying a new issue is required to define the scope of the issue explicitly; that person should also provide sufficient technical bases to justify why he thinks that it is a generic safety concern.
With regard to USI A-47, Dr. Siess suggested that Mr. Ebersole hold a meeting of the Instrumentation and Control Systems Subcommittee to discuss further the adequacy of the proposed resolution related 'o this USI, and also try to resolve some of his concerns. The Subcomittee members agreed to this proposal.
Mr. Ebersole stated that he would try to hold a meeting within 4-6 weeks.
Mr. Anderson stated that the Staff will try to provide a summary of the various contractors reports associated with USI A-47 prior to the next Subcommittee meeting.
Mr. Baer suggested that, prior to the meeting, Mr. Ebersole identify ;
some scenarios that he thinks had not been considered in the USA A-47 l study so as to enable the Staff to discuss those concerns with their contractors and obtain necessary infonnation.
Generic Items Meeting Minutes Januauary 29, 1988 Mr. Michelson suggested that the Staff provide information at the next meeting as to how external events, such as flood, fire, etc., are handled. If they are handled, he would like to krow where they are handled, if not, what the agency plans to do about dealing with such events.
Dr. Remick and Mr. Michelson suggested that in the future the ACRS review the scopes of Generic Issues and USIs very carefully.
Mr. Ward suggested that the ACRS review the scopes at the time of reviewing the adequacy of the priority rankings proposed by the Staff.
Dr. Siess suggested that the Staff provide to the ACRS the Task Action '
Plans associated with all Generic Issues yet to be resolved. He reit- ;
erated the previous comment that the Staff should provide the ACRS with I copies of the resolution package for all Generic Issues.
DISCUSSION OF THE FORMAT AND CONTENT OF THE ACRS REPORT TO 1HE COMMIS-SION Oil THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE STAFF PROGRAMS THAT DEAL WITH GENERIC ISSUES AND USIs Dr. Siess stated that in a memorandum to Mr. Ward, dated September 18, 1986, NRC Chairman Zech requested, among other things, that: l l
"The ACRS advise the Commission on the effectiveness of programs which address generic and Unresolved Safety Issues."
Subsequent to receiving this memorandum, the ACRS met with the Commis-sion during December 1986. At that meeting he asked the Commission:
- Whether the ACRS shculd look at the effectiveness of the programs in terms of how fast Generic Issues are prioritized and resolved.
9.E
Generic Items Meeting Minutes Januauary 29, 1988
- Whether it should look at it in tenns of the increase in safety of operating plants resulting from the implementation of the resolu-tion of Generic Issues and USIs.
The Cemission suggested that the ACRS try to measure the effectiveness of the programs in terms of how fast Generic Issues and USIs are prioritized 6nd resolved and also with respect to the contribution to plant safety resulting from the implementation of the resolution of these issues.
Dr. Siess stated that the Generic Items Subcomittee had held several meetings to discuss this matter. He believes that it had gathered enough information for ute in preparing a draft report. He solicited the opinions of the Subcomittte trembers as to what should be included in this report.
Mr. Ward stated that we shoulu make the Comission aware of the impor-tance of the early industry participation in dealing with the resolution of Generic Issues and USIs. Also, we should say something about the contribution to plant safety resulting from the implementation of the resolution of these issues.
Dr. Siess stated that we may want to mention the Staff's process in defining scopes of Generic Issues and USIs, and also our future effort in reviewing the adequacy of the scopes of these issues. The Multiple System Response Program seems to be a good one and we may want to say i something about it.
Dr. Siess stated that he will prepare a draft report on this matter for review, coment, revision, etc., by the Subcomittee members. If possible, the resulting draft should be presented to the full Comittee
, t Generic Items Meeting Minutes Januauary 29, 1988 for consideration during the March 10-12, 1988 ACRS meeting. After seeing the draft report, if the full Committee wants to hear presenta-tions from the Staff on some of the items, arrangements could be made for such presentations during the April 1938 ACRS meeting. He suggested that the Subcommittee members provide comments in writing that they think should be included in ;he draft report prior to or during the February 11-13, 1988 ACRS meeting.
Dr. Siess thanked all participants and adjourned the meeting at 4:25 p.m.
NOTE: Additional meeting details can be obtained from a transcript of this meeting available in the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., or can be purchased frem ACE-Federal Reporters, 444 North Capitol Street Suite 402, Washington, D.C. 20001,(202)347-3700, t
- t LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE GENERIC ITEMS JANUARY 29, 1988
- 1. Presentation Schedule.
- 2. Draft NUREG-1217, "Evaluation of Safety Implications of Control Systems in LWR Nuclear Power Plants," April 1987.
- 3. Presentation Material submitted to the Subcomittee During the Meeting.
ATTACHMENT A l
I
'. t PRESENTATION SCHEDULE ACRS SUBC0KMITTEE MEETING ON THE
, GENERIC ITEMS JANUARY 29, 1988 ROCM 1046, 1717 H ST., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C.
ACRS CONTACT: Sam Duraiswamy 202-634-3267 NOTE: ' Presentation Time should not exceed 50% of the Total Time allocated for a specific item. The remaining 50% of the time is reserved for the Subcommittee questions and answers.
' Number of copies of the presentation m5terials to be submitted to the Subcommittee: 25 copies.
TOTAL PRESENTATION ITEM PRESENTER TIME ACTUAL TIME
- 1. EXECUTIVE SESSION -- 15 min 1:00 - 1:15 pm
- 2. RES PRESENTATION
- a. Explain the Procedures being T hem:3 spa.s/ 75 min 1:15 - 2:30 pm used by the Staff in Defin-ing/ Modifying the Scope of N A a * # "'
Generic Issues and USIs
- b. 'Who decides that the origi- 60 min 2:30 - 3:30 pm nal scope of an issue should be modified and on what basis
- Provide some Typical ,
Examples of Generic Issues and USIs (such as USI A-17, l USI A-47) the original i scopes of which have been i' Modified, and Explain the bases for such Modifica-tions
- BREAK *** 15 min 3:30 - 3:45 pm
- c. Explain how some of the 45 min 3:45 - 4:30 pm Tasks in the Original Scope that have been Left out in the Modified Scope are being Handled
- 3. SUBCOMMITTEE REMARKS -- 30 min 4:30 - 5:00 pm
- ADJOURN *** 5:00pm
)
Arraw enr B l 1
~
!!SI s ,
START TO FINISH o IDENTIFICATION OF PROPOSED l! Sir o SCPEENING OF PIGH PRIOPITY GIs e SCPEEPING OF OTHEP SAFETY CONCEPPS o PPEPARE COMMISSION PAPER PPOPOSII!G SFl.ECTED ISSUES AS USir.
o DISCUSS FITil ACPS .
o ACRS PECOMMENDATION TO COMMISSION o COMMISSION DESIGPATES ISSUE AS USI o TASK ACTIOM PLAN DEVELOPED o PEVIEW 0F TAP o STAFF o ACPS o TECHFICAL RESOLUTION OF ISSUE o TAP PEVISED ANNUALLY e PEVIEWERS 0 SCIIEDULES e RESOURCF_S
/ 776 cn M 6M C.
TECHNICAL CONTEPT o I -- l o DISCUSSIONS WITH ACPS PERIODICALLY 0 PP0GRESS PEFORTED TO C0FGPESS AND COMMISION ANFUALLY (NRC A
USIs ,
STEPT TO FINTSil (CPFT) o PEVIEW 0F PP0 POSED REFDLUTI0f' o STAFF e CRGR c ACPS o ISSUE FOR PUBLIC COMMEf'T o CCFt11SSION PAPEP o LETTERS TO CONGRESS o FEDERAL REGISTEP NOTICE o PREPARE FINAL RESOLUTION o PEVIEW FINAL RESOLUTION e STAFF o CRGR o ACPS o ISSl'E FINAL RESOLUTJ0t!
o COMMISSION PAPER o LETTERS TO C0FGRESS o FEDERAL PEGISTER NOTICE o IMPLEMENTATION o VERIFICATION C--2,
~
G.I,s ,
STAPT TO FIFISil o IDENTIFICATION OF SAFETY CONCEPF o DEFINITION BY INITIATOR o PRIOPITI7ATIDF BY RES o PEER REVIEW OF PRIOPITIZATIOP o ACPS REVIEF 0F PRIORITIZATION O DEVELOPMEf:T AND STAFF APPROVAL GF TAP o COMPLETE PPOPOSEP TECilNICAL PESOLUTION o REVIEW PROPOSED TECf!NICAI. PESOLUTION o STAFF o CPGP e ACPS e PUBLIC o DEVELOPPENT OF FIFAL RESOLUTICN o IMPLEMENTATION o VERIFICATION C-3
TAP PROCEDitPES t GJT US!
o Dl!PIPG PP0GPAM DEVELOPMENT X X O DEVELOP PPEllf11t'APY TAP X X o STAFF PEVIFK X
o ACRS REV!FW X X o ISSl!E APPROVFD TAP o DUR!t'G TECHNICAL PESOLUT10t' o AFPl!AL REVISION X
o TFCf!! ICAL REVIEb' X
o RESOURCE PEVIFF X
o SCHEDULE REVIEW X X o SPECTAL P.EVISTOM DUE TO PP0 GRAM CIIANGE X X o IN GIMCs REPORT X X o DUPING REVIEW AFP APPPOVAL PROCESS X X o TAP POT REVISED X X o SCHEDllLES REPORTED It' GIMCs c-4
MUI.TIPLE SYSTEM RESPONSE PP00PAM .
e PPOCPAM DEVELOPED TO C0FSIDEP SAFETY C0t' FERNS RAISED TilAT ARE FOT EXPLICITLY COVEPED IP EXISTIFG PPOGRAPS o ISSI'ES BEING CONSIDERED COPF FP0f1 o ACRS CONCEPNS c 1.E F.s o AEOD PEPORTS o STAFF C0FCERNS o SPECIFICALLY PEVIEPED SCOPE OF A h7, A-17, A-46, FIRE PROTECTION, ENV. QUAL.
n DRAFT CONTAINING PRELIMINAPY ISSilE DEFINITI0f:S 1lNDER STAFF PEVIEW o WILL REQUEST ACRS PFVIEW C-S
- _ _ - - - - - - - - -