ML20151D312
| ML20151D312 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/09/1988 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-2556, NUDOCS 8804140131 | |
| Download: ML20151D312 (55) | |
Text
. s. .
&f&$$
TABLE OF CONTENTS 4 TI I!
9 334TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES .
h FEBRUARY 11-13, 1988 EE L I. C ha i nta n 's Re po rt (0pe n ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. Maintenance of Nucl ea r Facili ties (0 pen) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 III. Advanced Li ght Water Reactors (0 pen) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 IV. DOE Advanced Reactors (0 pen)................................... 6 V. TVA Nuclear Power Plant Management and Operation (0 pen)........ 13 VI. Implementation Plan for NRC Safety Goal Policy (0 pen).......... 14 VII. Systematic Assessnent of Operating Experience (0 pen)........... 15 VIII. NuclearWasteManagement(0 pen)................................ 16 IX. ExecutiveSessions(0 pen / Closed)............................... 17 A. Subcomi ttee Reports (0 pen /Cl osed) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
- 1. Planning (Closed)......................,............... 17
- 2. GenericIssues(0 pen).................................. 17
- 3. S a f e ty Re s e a rc h ( 0 pe n ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4 New Menbers (Closed)................................... 21 B. Reports, Letters and Peroranda (0 pen)...................... 22
- 1. ACRS Report on the Tennessee Valley Authority's Management Reorganization.............................. 22
- 2. ACRS Coments on Development of a Method to Establish Priorities for Research Activities..................... 22
- 3. ACRS Corrents on SECY-87-314, Interim Policy Statement on Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants, Dated December 30, 1987...................................... 22 4 ACPS Coments on Selected FY 1988 NRC Radioactive Waste Management Research P rograms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
- 5. ACRS Report to Congress on the NRC Safety Research Program................................................ 23 l C. Other Comi ttee Concl usions (0 pen / Closed). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 l
- 1. ACRS Bylaws (0 pen)..................................... 23
- 2. Postponed Activities (0 pen)............................ 23
- 3. Computer Policy (C1osed)............................... 23 4 Starting Time for Saturday Sessions (0 pen)............. 24 l
- 5. Energency Planning (0 pen).............................. 24
- 6. Response to Harford County, Maryland Council (0 pen).... 24 D. Future Activities (0 pen)
- 1. Future Agenda.......................................... 24
- 2. Future Subcomittee Activi ties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Supplement - IX.A.1 Official Use Only G804140131 000209 PDR ACRS 2556 PDR
. - .. = - . . _ - - - . ~ _ - . -
- 9 .
]9 I 11 !
l !
! APPENDICES 3 l MINUTES OF THE 334TH ACRS MEETING ;
1 i FEBRUARY 11-13, 1988 i' i !
4
- 1. Attendees !
- II. Future Agenda i l III. Subcommittee Activities !
i -
IV. ACRS Bylaws - Approved Revision of VIII.B. and VIII.D.
V. Other Documents Received .
I i !
I i.
a :
! i 1 i l
A
'I '
I l
i i
j l
l l
}
- l ,
~
? !f f j).
.+ . ~ .
fede . ,! P ,, ter / Vol 53, N.i 19 f lni
. . ' . _ = . _ _ . _y.J.siier) 29,1988 / N ses'/ /3 2659 O n ,. ., s i , ' +6 , h as s 4f aries. 'ind the requirments of lu CFR y; 62(c){4) by Agencie s and retsons Consuhed p ,W e 'orm. tion r , er Orig using sodium pniaborate enriched to 60 The Comrnission'a staff reviewed the a %!" A wt Wed a th it.e atoniic percent in the Enron 10 isotope- bcensee's requoi and did not consult
, Io pes.) 1 ne matte +s an within in solntion with a enntentration rarrina other agencies or persons.
] esa PW ,41 end (6) of 5 U 5 C. 522(c) from 6 2 w /o to 13 w /o depending upon Coo rima nt ts the Sur, shine Act the solution 6olume, and with a finding of No Significant trapact M Pekua Mief, minimum injection now rate of 41.2 Based upon the foregoing C e mee M. nap ment Offer CPM For the Hatch. Unit 2 :eactor environmental assessment. we conclude lenuar) M t'*A8 s usel the, this injection now rate and that the action will not have a i
J 3i Ib 6' 1913 Fded 1- A-M a 4 5 e rr.} solution concentration, using a minimum significant effect on the quality of the 4 swas cove mm w of M atomic percent Boron.10 in the human environment. ne Commission f .-
__ sodium pentaborate, results in a has, therefore, determined not to negalis e reactivit) insertion rate prepare an environmentalimpact IDoc h et 4 50-346) 1 e quis alent to that specified in 10 CFR statement for the exemption.
Ednin i Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit 2'- 5n 0;(c)(4) for a 251. inch reactor vessel. For fu.rther d> tails with respect to this i
et at action, see the application for the Georgia Ensi'onmental Pcwer Ass Co'essme*nt and nmta p ds of e Tmposed exemption dated January 6.1988 which Fm1irig of No S'Dnificant Impact A dwn b avadab,k kr puWc Wch at b Commission's Pubhc Document Room, in the terr of Cecro Power Co and e xemp prodo a degm M 1717 H Stret NW., Washington, DC, and OM o r r -ercorp. m n m ie, sir,c protection for the Hatch Unit 2 reactor at the Appling County Public Library, Ah) 0' Leow U) of D&n. CA equhalent to that required by the 301 City Hall Dnve, Bax}cy, Georgia ne U S Nulear Regulatory "F'I*U
'""'"'"I' " I ' "* #8 "N D" ^ 31513.
Comrninic r, (the Commission) is hsuing E'U*EI N I pated at De thesda, Maryland. this 25th day l, an ese rn; tion from the requireraents of negatae reactivity into a boiling water i
10 CfTi sn r.:(t)(4) to Georia Power reactor pressure sesselin the esent of Cr mpan) (the brensee) for the Edain I an ATh S. Consequently, the probability For the Ndur Regulstion Commission.
if aith Na tur Phnt. Un,i 2. locatrd in of accdents has not been increased by /
AppbI Ct ar ty, GeoT ia the exemption and the post. accident Af h E'"'"^ INF'.Dantate #4 E"' " & ns mn o!R eacwr Pirn.ns !!!!. 0*fwe o?
Ensironmental Assnsment
" I "
- uld t be greater than preuously deiermined.The 3, 4 , g g,g, g g idcotila ation of Pwpos ed A ctwn enemption does not otherwise affect [FR Doc BA1Mo Filed 1-rtm e 45 am)
The esemption allows the use of a radiological plant efnuents. nerefore, _
rninimum now rate of 41.2 CPM and an the Commission concludes that there are - --- - - - - -
available sodium pentaborate no significant radiological environmentalimpacts associated wit N E AR REGULATORY
- conce ntration ranging from 6.2 welght M MIS $10N percent (w/o) to 13 w/o depending on this esemption.
the solume of the sodium pentaborate The esemption does not affret Advisory Committee on Reactor solution existing in the standb> hquid nonradiological plant effluents and has safeguards; Meethg Agenda control s) stem (SLCS) storage tank The no other environmental irnpact.
I I
Ouw rate and concentration of sodwm Therefore, the Commis sion concludes in acccedance with the purposes of pentaborale are different frcm the secti ns 29 and 18:b. of the Atom,c i that there are no si ificant requirements of 10 CFR 50 6:(c)(4) which nonradiolc.gical en ronmental impacts Ennsy Act N m m m2S h specify a Cow rate of 66 CPM and a Adsitory Committee on Reactor concentration of13 w/o of sod:cm an isted ith the eumpt. on. Safeguards wdl ho!d a meeting on penta bora te. Alternatives to de Proposed Action February 11-13.1968, in Room 1046,1717 ne esemption responds to the H Street NW., Washicgton, DC Notice licensee's apphcation for esernpt.on Since the Comm.ission has concluded of this meeting was pubbsbed in the date d January 6.1968 that there are no significant Federal Register on january 20.1968.
ensironmental effects that would result l The Nodfsr tac rmpa3rd Action from the action, any alternatis es with nursday, February 11,1988 The esernption is needed bei ause the equal or greater environmental impacts 8 30 a.m -d 45 a.m. Comments by ACAS licensee proposee to depart from to CFR need not be euluated. Chairmon (OpenFThe ACRS 50 6 (c)(4) requirements in siew of The principal alternative would be to Chairman will report brief)) regarding Hatch, Unit 2. having a reactor seuel deny the requested esemption. This itern.: of current interest.
diameter which is smaller than that wed w ould not ceduce the environmental a 45 o m.-20tU o.m. Nuclear Tom er to estabbsh the minimum now and impacts attributable to this facility and r! art Maintenance (OpenFReview j' boron content requirernents ut forth in w ould result in a larger expenditure of and comment regarding proposed the regulation The flow one* NRC interim Pohey Statement on licensee resources to comply with the conc entration requirements in 10 CFR Maintenance f Nuclear Power Plants Cornminion's regulations.
l 50 62 w ere based upon achieving a (SECY.47-314 dated December 30 j desired negatise reactatty insertion rate Afterective Use o/Ruources 1987).
into a 251. inch reactor vessel Howeser, 10.15 a.ros!L15 p vL:AdvancedQght a
" the regulation does not esphcit!) nier to * ' ' " " i"
- h " " " " It'ofer Reactor R*quirements the sessel sin. rnouren not presiously considered in (OpenFBriefing regarding proposed
( d The reactor sessel for Hatc.h. Unit 2 is the hnal EnWonmndal Statement EPRI requirements for adsanced hght i
! 218 inches in diameter. According!), the nisted to opnahon el the Hatch. Unu 2 w eter reactors with more passive j bcensee has proposed to meet the Plant. dated March 19'8- safety features.
l 1
! l
' h o
. .n%.._
.t , .
- y,r.0 Fed. ral Pql.t Vol. 53, No.19 / Friday, January 29, O / Notices
= . _ . - _ -
Saturday, February 43,1984 schedule for ACRS meetings niay be i 115p m -4.20p m : Adm<cd Af/f / GR and AfLh!CR Nuclear rom e r Plants adjusted by the Chairman as necessary 8 30 a m.-1000 c.m. A CRS Reports (Open)-19iefing and discusWon to facilitate the conduct of the meeting, (Open}-Discuss proposed ACRS regarding proposed design features of reports regarding items considered persons planning to attend should check DOE advanced MI(TGR and ML\iCR during this meeting, proposed NRC with the ACRS Executive Director if (PRISM and S AFR) nuclear pow er resolution of USl A-47, Safety such rescheduling would result in major P I '"I'- Implications of Control S) stems in inconvenience.
"# 8 08" Nuclear Power Plants, and the ACRS I have determined in accordance with
- hof7fjYe$,fjf,f,7[' armus rep tt to the U.S. Congress on subsection 10(d) Pub. L J:-463 that it is (Open)-Review and comment the NRC safety research program, necessary to close portions of this to sed NRC requirements IEI30# *IO480m'N'WACAS meeting as noted above to discuss vrding i a sey sa fely features of adsanced Afembers (Closed)-Discuss Lt. formation related to the intemal MifTGR and MLMCR designs. ' personnel rules and practices of the Friday, Februar) 12.1988 fo"r*fpp#'"
ot t ent o A S7nd sgency (5 U.S.C. $5 b(c)(2)l,infortnation B 30 o m.-10 30 o m.: TVA Nuc/cor intemal allocation of resources to _ the release of which would represent a Afanagement cadPlant Operations sup ort advisory functions related to clearly unwarranted invasion of (Open)-Resiew and comment nucfear reactor and nuclear radwaste personal pricacy (5 U.S.C. 55:b(c)(6)),
regarding propused changs in TVA regula tion.
an pMary MormaHon sp$ caw nuclear maugement orgarJration and nis session will be closed as to the matter being discussed (5 U.S.C.
proposed restart of TVA nuclear necessary to discuss inforrnation the plants- release of which would represent a 55McM Furthu information regarding toples 20.45 o m -12 45 p m NRC Qsontitative clearly unwarranted invasion of to be discussed, whether the meeting Safety Cools (Open}-Bric fing and personnel privacy and information that has been cancelled or rescheduled, the discussion rentding itatus of insohe: the internal personal rules and proposed NRC plan for Chairman's ruling on requests for the practices of the agency.
implementation of the NRC . opportunity to present oral statements Quantitatise Safety Coals. 20 45 a.m.-J J N o.m.:ACRS Practices and the time allotted can be obtained by cad Procedures (Open)-Discuss a prepaid telephone call to the ACRS
- 1. 45 p.m.- J0p m.: Sj s tematic Assessment of Opere!!r:s Eiferience proposed change in ACRS B> laws Mr. Raymond F.
regarding activities of ACRS Executis e Director $02/6M-3065),
(Open/, Closed}--Briefing regarding members, Fraley (telephone analysis and esaluation of uhe and between 8:15 a.m. and 5.00 p m.
vahe operator performance in nuclear JJ:00 c.m.-12M Noon on) J Wp.m.-0.M p.m.t /mportant Safety.Re/cted /ssues Dele:lanuary 22.19sa.
power plant feedwater systems and experience with use of radioisotopes. (Open)-Discuss preposed John c. linle, hierarchical structure for important Advisory Comminee Monogement C$cer.
Portions of this session will be closed safet related matters identified by as required to discuss Proprietary (m Doc. 66-1&59 Tded 1-2648,4 45 am]
Infortnation related to the matters being ACR members.
2 N p.m.-3.30 p.m.:AIiscellaneous cons 1dered.
(Open)-Complete discussion of 2:30 p.m.-3 00 p.m.:N ac/cor W aste issues considered during this meeting.
Afonosement (Open}-Report and Relocation of Office of Nuclear discussion of Congressional changes Procedures for the conduct of and R cw Rgulation in the NWPA and its impact on NRC participationin ACRS meetings were programs / activities as well as the published in the Federal Register on ecuve Februg 1,1988, the NRC's status of other miscellaneous matters October 2,1987 (51 FR 37:41). In Offic of Nuclear Reactor Regulation related to high level and low. level accordance with these procedures, oral nuclear radwaste, or written sta' aments may be presented (NRR) as been relocated at the agency new office building located at J 15 p m.-3 45 p.m. Puture ACRS by members of the gbtic, recording, One Wh e nint North,11555 Rockville Activities (Open)-Discuss will be permitted only durir,g those Pike, Roc ville. Maryland.The agency's anticipated ACRS subcommittee portions of the meeting when a mailing ad ress remains unchanged- ,
actisities and items proposed for transcript is being k ept, and questions U.S. Nuclea Regulatory Commisalon.
consideration by the full Committee. may be asked only by members of the Committee,its corsultants, and Staff. Washington, C 20555. Specific 3 45 p m.-4 45 p.m.: Resolution of Persons desiring to make oral telephone nu bers for the relocated Ceneric Issues (Open)-Discus procedures being used by the NRC statements should notify the ACRS NRR personnel ay be obtained from Staff to define and/or modify the Faecutive Director as far in advance as the NRC Operat on 301-.492-7000. A scope of Feneric issues and practicable so that appropriate new NRC telepho directory (NUREC/
unresch ed safety issues as well as arrangements can be made to allow the DR-(046)is especte to be issued in late l the effectiveness of staff activities necessary time during the meeting for February of early Ma th 1988. l that deal with generic issues and such statements.Use of still motion Dated at Bethesda, Ma land, this 26th day US!s. picture and television cameras during cyanuny 196a. 1 4.45 p m.-4 00 p m.:ACAS Subcommittee this meeting may be hmited to selected For the N iclear Regulatory emmis Ice. j Actiitties (Open)-Reports and portions of the meeting as determined discussion of ACRS subcommittee by the Chairman. Information regarding Dadd L Mer*r. l activities in designated areas the time to be set aside for this purpose Chief. Aules ondtrocedures Bron \ D!rision including thermal. hydraulic may be obtained by a prepaid telephone o/Aules ondRecords. CBee of i
phenomena, decay heat removal, and call to the ACRS Faecutis e Director, Mr, Administration andResources Manc menc nuclear oafety tesearch priontitation Rayrnond F, Fraley, prict to the rneeting. Im Doc. as-1s's Fded 1.tS4a. e 45 a methodology, in view of the possibility that the n u ma coo n a c.a li( i
+
/p*
- t o g'e, UNITE 0 sT ATEs l' ,.
/% NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- ADVISORY COMMITT!iE ON RE ACTOR SAFEGUARDS o
s,,
~.g . p/
W ASW N GTON, D. C. 20555
- Revised: February 9, 1988 r SCHFCULE AND OUTLINE FOR DISCUSSION 334TH ACRS MEETING FEBRUARY 11-13, 1988 WASHINGTON, D.C.
Thursday, February 11, 1988, Reem 1046, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
en)
- Chairman's 1.1) UpeningComents remarks (0p(WK)
- 1) 8:30 - 8:R A.P. 1.2) Items of current interest (WK/RFF) haintenanceofNuclearFacilities(0 pen) '
A- 5 2.1) Coments by ACR5 Subcomittee Chairman E) 8:4k - 9:4! A'H* regarding proposed ACRS toments and/or action regarding the proposed NRC policy statenent per SECY-07-314 Proposed Interim Policy Statement for Maintenance of Nuclear ?ower Plants dtd.
12/30/87 (CYM/HA) 2.2) Meeting with NRC Staff gg
- 3) W - 10:K A.M. Internal Allocation /Use of Resources (Closed) 3.1) Discuss proposed aHocation of resnurces end/or use of facilities and equipment to i support advisory functions on nuclear power plant safety and nuclear radwaste ranagement/ disposal (WK/HWL/RFF)
(Note: This sessien will be closed to discuss information that involves the internal personnel rules and practices of the NRC.)
uo 10:15 - 10:30 A.M. BKEAK
/ / e .
- 4) 10:30 - 12:30 P.M. Requirements for Advanced Light-Water Reactors T0 pen) 4.1) Coments by ACRS Subeceittee Chaiman j (CJk'/HA) 4.2) Briefing regarding proposed EPRI Require-eents for smeller (600 We) nuclear power plants with more passive safety features 12:30 - 1:30 P.M. LUNCH i 1: P. P.M. DOE Advanced Rear. tors (0 pen) 5)
- (3
- 303:45-BEAK) 5.1) Report of ACRTSubcomittee Chaiman j (DAW /MME)
334th ACRS Meeting /genda <
s 5.2) Briefing by DOE / DOE contractor repre-sentatives regt.edinD proposed design features of advanced liquid metal ated gas cooled reactor facilities 5.3) Meeting / discussion with NRC representa-tives regarding regulatory requirements for key design features of proposed DOE advanced reactor plants i
Friday,. February 12, 1988, Roem 1046, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
- 6) S 30 - 10:3 A.M. dvANuclearPowerPlantManagementand Operation (0 pen) 6.1) Report of ACRS subcomittee chairman (CJW/RPS) 6.2) Meeting with rapresentatives of the NRC Staff and the Tennessee Valley Authority 4o e e s~o 10: -
10:M A.M. BREAK g p; , Q (G d.) y qc g.a.,{ JL IRCQuantitativeSafetyGoals(0 pen)
- 7) 10: % - 12:9 P.M. Repert of ACR5 Subcom7ttee Chairman
< 7.1) g g __ l 2
- 4 C regarding status of reposed implemen-1 tation plan (DAW /MOH 7.2) Meeting with NRC representatives, as appropriate 12:4 - 1:45 P.M. LUhCH
\
% /
\
- 8) 1:45 - 2: M P.M. Systenatic Assessrent of Operating Experience !
l '
t 10 pen / Closed) '
8.1) Coments by ACRS Subcomittee Chaiman i
(HWL/RKM)
(Note: Portions of this session will bc closed as necessary to discuss Proprietary Infomation applicable to the matter being considered.)
8.2) Briefing by representatives of AE00 regarding reports on feedwater regulator valve perfomance and radia- l k tion overexposure events involving l industrial field radiography I 7 uclear N Waste Management (0 pen)
- 9) 2:K - 3:15 P.M. D) Report of ACR5 Subcomittee Chairman regarding subcomittee meeting on 1/21-22/88, including consideration of report to Chaiman Zech on Radioactive Waste Research Progre.m (DWM/OSM)
2 r i 334t, ACRS Meeting Agenda ,
t i 9.2) Eriefing by HLW Staff on impact of i j recent Congressional action on NRC's L HLW Program -
3:15 - 3:30 P.P. BREAK i
v
- 10) 3:30 - 4:00 P.M. FutureActivities(0 pen) 10.1) Report of recent subcomittee activi-ties (MWL/HSS) 10.2) Anticipated subcomittee activities (MWL/RFF) 10.3) Proposed items for consideration by the full Comittee (WK/RFF)
/ 4. e-
- 11) 4:00 - t%MJ .M. Generic Issues (0 pen)
T1.1) Repert of ACRS Subcomittee Chaiman rega~ ding status of the review of the effectiveness of the NRC Staff process for dealing with generic issues and l
USIs and the process for chan ng the p* *" scope of generic issues and U s 1
- M. . N(CPS Proposed/SD)prioritization methodology forresearchactivities(CPS /SD) 1 gg _ geo ACRSMerbers(Closed) 4 12)h1(-5
- 30P.M. 12.1) Report of ACRS Subcomittee Chairman regarding the status of new members'
' appointments and the qualifications of prospective candidates for nomination :
as rierrbers (FJR/NSL)
(Note: This session will be closed to '
discuss infomation the release of which ;
1 would represent a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.) :
y,g ACRS Practices and Procedures (0 pen)
- 13) E M - C.00 P.M. 13.1) Discuss proposed change in ACRS Bylaws l
regarding ACRS members' participation i
in meetings which are not sponsored
' by the ACRS (WK/HWL/TGM) l I Saturday, February 13, 1980, Reem 1046, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
Preparation of ACRS Reports (0 pen)
- 14) 8:30 - 11:00 A.M. 14.1) Discuss proposed ACKS reports /coments regarding:
l 14.1-1) TVA Nuclear Power Plant ;
Management and Operations l i'
(CJW/RPS) r
. i ,,"
334th ACRS heeting Agenda <
(
14.1-2) NRC Safety Research Prcqram -
ACRS Annual U.S. Congress Pep CPS (ort to t3e
/SD) 14.1-3) Research Prioritization Methodology (CPS /SD) 14.14) Proposed Regulatory Rcquire-rents for key design features of DOE advanced reactors '
(DAW /MME) 14.1-5) NRC Maintenance Polic ment (tent.)(CYM/HA)yState-14.1-6) Radioactive Waste Research Program (DWM/OSM)
Safety-RelatedIssues(Osen)
- 15) 11:00 - 12:00 Noon T5.1) Discuss proposed 11erarchical structure for 16portant safety-related issues identified by ACRS merbers(CPS /SD) 12:00 - 1:00 P.it. LUNCH 1:00 - 2:00 P.M. Safety-RelatedIssues(0 pen) 16)
TC1) continue discussion of proposed l hierarchical structure for important safety-related issues identified by ACRSrembers(CPS /SD) ,
ACRS Subcomittee Activities (0 pen) l
- 17) 2:00 - 3:15 P.M. Q Reports and discussion of assigned l subcomittee activities regarding: ;
17.1-1) 2:00-2:30: Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena (OAW/ PAC) 17.1-2) 2:30-3:00: Decay Heat Rerrovar Systems (DAW /PAB) 17.1-3) 3:00-3:15: Containment Perfomance - Model tests of -
' concrete containment failure modes / mechanisms (CPS /EGI) 1 l
l r
d4 l.
i 3[ %N <
l
334THACRSMEETINGHINUTE.
FEBRUARY 11-13, 1988 5
, a WASHINGTON, D.C.
The 334th meeting of the Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards, held at 1717 H Street, N.W. , Washington, D.C., was convened by Chairman William Kerr at 8:30 a.m., Thursday, February 11, 1988
[ Note: For a list of attendees, see Appendix 1. All ACRS members were present.]
The Chaiman said that the agenda for the meeting had been published.
He identified the items to be discussed on Thursday. He stated that the meeting was being held in confomance with the Federal Advisory Comit-tee Act and the Government 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 NPC Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
[ Note: Copies of the transcript taken at this meeting are also avail-abic for purchase from the Heritage Reporting Corporation, 1220 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005.)
I. Chairman's Reporl (0 pen)
[ Note: Mr. R. F. Frale portier of the meetirg.]y was the Designated Federal Official for this Dr. Kerr reported that a principal officer of Philadelphia Electric Company involved in the oversight of the Peach Bcttom Nuclear Station j has resigned. Dr. Kerr also said that the Atomic Safety and Licensing -
Board has found that the erergency plan for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station is seriously flawed.
Dr. Kerr reported that the Public Servico Company of New Hampshire (a i principal owner of the Seabrook Station) has filed for bankruptcy seeking protection under Chapter 11 of the Federal Bankruptcy Code.
II. MaintenanceofNuclearFacilities(0 pen)
[ Note: Mr. Herman Aldeman was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.)
Mr. Michelson, Chairman of the ACRS Subcomittee on Maintenance Prac-tices and Procedures, introduced Mr. Jack Roe, Director, NRC Division of Licensee Performance and Evaluation, and Dr. John Jankovich, NRC Staff, as the speakers for the presentation. Mr. Hi^elson requested that, after the presentation, the Comittee give him guidance regarding the Maintenance Policy Statement.
Mr. Roe noted the Maintenante Po'. icy Statement was developed fce t *,o purposes. The first was based on Commission guidance to have the Sb /f
$ 2 334TH ACRS MFETING MfNUTES active in this particular area. The second was to see that maintenance in the nuclear industry receives the right focus.
Dr. Jankovich discussed rome of the milestones in the maintenance program at NRC. The Nintenance and Surveillance Program Plan was developed in 1985. Following this, the Staff conducted a study of the maintenance program used in Japan. Phase 1 of the Maintenance and Surveillance Program Plan involved site visits to selected nuclear plants. This Phase was completed in 1986. In April 19G: the Consnission directed the Staff to start the development of a policy statement on maintenance.
Among the i,idustry maintenance initiatives, noted by Dr. Jankovich, were the INP0 guidelines for the conduct of maintenance at nuclear pcwer stations. He noted also that in 1987 the industry conducted assessments where they reviewed their maintenance programs and reported the results to INPO. He mentioned that INPO has established a Maintenance and Review Team that reviews and upgrades the utilities' maintenance pro-grams.
Chairman Kerr asked what percent of failures are due to improper mainte-nance. Dr. Jankovich said that, from 1975 to 1986, 30 percent of the abnormal occurrences reported to Congress were related to maintenance.
Dr. Jankovich pointed out that the approach in the United States is to perform maintenance while the plant is on-line. The Japanese approach is to do their maintenance while the plant is shut down for refueling.
Chairman Kerr asked if the Staff had a numerical goal to detennine what I number of maintenance challenges to safety systems would be excessive. 1 Dr. Jankovich replied that they didn't have a numerical goal at this 1 time.
Dr. Siess asked if there are some utilities or plants where the mainte-nance challenges to safety systems are not excessive. Mr. Roe respond-ed that some utilities are doing very well while others are not doing very well at all. As a follow-up question, Dr. Siess asked what crite-ria are used. Mr. Roe replied that at this point in time the Staff is judging from a qualitative standpoint rather than a quantitative stand-point.
Dr. Siess asked if the Staff had any idea of what the utilities think is an excessive amount of maintenance errors. Mr. Roe responded that there is obviously a significant amount of concern. He noted that it is a high-priority program with INPO.
Dr. Jankovich noted that the Maintenance Polic) 3tatement was developed with a number of objectives in mind, the first of which is the need to' define maintenance in a comprehensive manner.
In response to the question of why a definition of maintenance was necessary, Dr. Jankovich replied that "maintenance" has different interpretations. The traditional interpretation has been the daily activities to repair what has broken down. The definition has been
334TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 3 l
extended to include preventative maintenance, predictive maintenance, and diagnostic maintenance. He notea that management comitment to this function is needed as well as planning, evaluation of the perfomance of the maintenance function, resources comitted to this function, and corporate oversight.
Several of the Comittee members asked if the Staff believes that utility management was not committed to maintenance. Mr. Roe said that most of the management at nuclear utilities obviously believe that j maintenance is a very important aspect of the operation of their facility. He noted, however, that they are not giving it the )
appropriate focus.
Mr. Ebersole noted that the NRC doesn't have any qualification require-ments for maintenance people bs it does for operators. Mr. Roe pointed l out that there is a Comission policy statement on accreditation which allows the Nuclear Training Academy to review and accredit training programs for utility personnel. Included in that review are programs associated with the crafts. .
Dr. JankovicS remarked tl.at another objective of the Policy Statement is to state the Comission's position on component systems and structures which are to be included in a maintenance program. He noted an addi-tional objective of the Policy Statement was to recognize industry l initiatives. j Dr. Jankovich pointed out that enforcement actions will not be eased because of the Policy Statement. He noted that in other policy state-ments it was implied that enforcement might be eased because of industry improvements.
Dr. Siess asked: "Could a utility adopt the Japanese approach of performing maintenance under this Policy Statement?" Mr. Roe replied that for the utility to do that a Technical Specifications change would be required.
Dr. Remick asked about the use of NPRDS under the Policy Statement. Mr. l Roe responded that one of the specific things the Staff plans to carry out in the inspections is to see whether the licensees are making an effective use of the NPRDS system.
There was some discussion about the Policy Statement requiring the prompt return to function of systems and components.
D r. Lewis pointed out that some components whose failure does not provide a greater risk are better left for repair at a later time.
Dr. Jsnkovich pointed out that the intention was that the licensee would establish a set of priorities.
Dr. Jankovich noted that the Policy Statement refers to all components.
It does not distinguish between safety-related and balance-of-plant equipment. He noted that sometimes safety system actuation results from failure of equipment in the balance-of-plant systems.
334TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 4 Dr. Jankovich remarked that evaluations are needed to determine how well the maintenance programs are being carried out.
Dr. Shewmon asked if the SALP program covers maintenance backlogs or maintenance practices.
Mr. Cwalina replied that there is nothing in the SALP program that covers maintenance backlogs. One section of the SALP covers maintenance. He noted that SALP is a global management subjective opinion of how the licensee operates its maintenance program.
Dr. Jankovich discussed future NRC activities. He noted that the Staff intends to inspect about 75 percent of the plants during the next two years. Ha noted they will have seven teams doing the inspections. Each j team will have up to seven people, and be headed by an inspector from ,
the Regions.
Dr. Siess pointed out that more maintenance is not necessarily better.
He noted also that more surveillance is not necessarily better. Mr. Roe concurred.
I Dr. Siess noted that he didn't get the flavor of safety versus reliabil- l ity coming out of the policy statement.
Dr. Kerr noted that what he was concerned about was to assure that we !
are not doing something that will make things worse. 1 The Committee prepared a letter to Chairman Tech concerning the Mainte-nance Policy Statement. See IX.B.3.
III. Advanced Light Water Reactors
[Hr. Herman Alderman was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.)
Mr. Jack Devine, EPRI Senior Program Manager, discussed EPRI require-ments for small nuclear plants with passive safety features. He men-tiened that the concept of a passive plant applies specifically to safety systems. The passive plant would use primarily passive means, gravity, natural circulation, and stored energy systems for accident prevention and mitigation of accident consequences. The core would be protected in the basic case for about three days without operator action.
Mr. Devine stated that both the pressurized water and boiling water versions of the reactor would be 600 megawatts. Extensive modulariza-tion and prefabrication would permit construction time of about 36 months.
The technical approach being used is to base the plant on proven tech-nology. By using existing technology no prototype will be required.
334TH ACRS MEET!NG MINUTES 5 Mr. Devine pointed out the economics of scale don't seem to apply. The major costs associated with a plant relate to construction costs and construction time.
Mr. Sugnet, EPRI, discussed the SBWR, which is the boiling water version of the passive plant. He noted that the SBWR is an all-natural circula-tion plant and has no recirculating pumps. It has a lower power density core. The plant is designed with a larger reactor coolant system inventory, necessary to drive the thermal circulation. This results in lower reactor coolant pressure and better transient response. He explained that when the main steam isolation valves are shut, the increase in pressure is slower than in a typical boiling water reactor.
In response to a question on how to get better fuel economy from a lower power density core, Mr. Vizuk of Westinghouse explained that with lower power density you require less enrichment in the fuel--and fuel cycle costs are drivsn higher by higher enrichment.
Mr. Sugnet noted that the plant has an isolation condenser for removal of decay heat. The isolation condenser is located in an elevated suppression pool which serves as a heat sink. The plant is provided with a steam injector to provide backup injection to the rea" or coolant systen.
Mr. Sugnet remarked that the ECCS system is a gravity drain system. The depressurization system is larger than such systems on the current boiling water reactor. Once the reactor is depressurized, gravity flow from the elevated suppression pool floods the core and cools it. With the system depressurized, natural circulation takes place.
Mr. Sugnet discussed the passive containment cooling system. This is a water wall concept where water at atmospheric pressure is allowed to boil to remove the heat. The heat is transferred through a steel wall which forms part of the containment boundary.
Mr. Sugnet then discussed the AP600 concept. This is the pressurized i water version of the passive plants. It canned motor reactor coolant :
pumps directly coupled to the outlet of the steam generator.
He noted that this plant also has a natural circulation method of removing decay heat. A full pressure heat exchanger is connected to the reactor cooling system in such a way that circulation is achieved from the hot leg through the heat exchanger and back to the cold leg. The core thermal driving head provides the circulation flow. The heat is J
dumped into the containment refueling water storage tank that houses the heat exchanger. '
Mr. Sugnet noted that the motive power for any safety function is~
passive. Instrumentation signals will be DC-electric powered, and some valve operation at the beginning of transient and accident sequences i will be DC-powered.
Mr. Sugnet discussed the gravity-driven ECCS system. It has core makeup tanks which are large tanks that can handle full reactor ;oolant system I l
--yp
334TH ACRS MEETING MlNUTES 6 pressure. These tanks will drain to keep the core covered during the initial part of a LOCA while the primary system is being depressurized.
Mr. Sugnet concluded his presentation by pointing out that by simplifi- '
cation the building volume can be reduced, and the number of valves, l pumps, and associated equipment can be reduced. l Mr. Dan Geissing, DOE, said that the strategy is to produce a standard-ized ALWR by 1991. For the smaller passive plants, the aim is to have a ,
plant that can be certified in 1995. He noted that General Electric has I a test program dealing with the gravity-driven cooling system. Addi-tional test work by GE deals with the depressurization valve. The prototype depressurization valve is scheduled to be fabricated in FY 1988. The steam injector system is also being tested.
Mr. Geissing noted the hydroball in-core instrument system. The advan-tage of this system is that no bottom vessel penetrations are necessary.
The hydroball in-core instrument system would be used to replace the retractable in-core detector. They hydroball system involves the insertion and removal of strings of small-diameter balls that would be irradiated in the core. When the strings are removed from the core, the activation of manganese in the balls would be measured to produce a core ,
flux map.
IV. DOE Advanced Reactors (0 pen)
[ Note: Mr. M. M. El-Zef tawy was the Designated Federal Official for l thi.; portion of the meeting.]
Mr. Ward, Chairman, Subcomittee on Advanced Reactor Designs, briefed the Committee regarding Subcomittee activities on advanced reactors.
The Subcomittee held a meeting on January 6,1988 to review the early draft of a Comission paper regarding key design issues associated with the licensing of advanced reactors. l l
Mr. Ward comented that, due to the fact that it has been many months since the Comittee has heard about the three conceptual advanced designs sponsored by DOE, there is a need for the Comittee to be reminded about design descriptions and 'p-to-date changes; it would also be beneficial for the NRC Staff and the applicants to present their position on the key licensing issues in order to get the Comittee's coments.
Mr. F. Gavigan, DOE, presented an overview of three DOE-sponsored conceptual designs, namely:
Modular High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactor (MHTGR)
Sodium Advanced Fast Reactor (SAFR)
Power Reactor Inherently Safe Module (PRISM).
He sumarized by stating that the industry was challenged to produce designs to meet the needs of nuclear power for the future (i.e.,
passively safe and economically competitive plants). The designs are exciting and have large safety margins to meet the advanced reactor
334TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 7 licensing policy. Mr. Gavigan commented that the response by the licensing process should be consistent with technical safety progress to assure continued success.
Mr. Frank Tippets, GE, described the conceptual design of a 1245 MWe liquid metal reactor electric generating station ithat is being studied by the General Electric Company (GE). The' plant uses nine reactor modules. Each module produces 425MW thennal power. The reactor module and associated safety-related system is called the Power Reactor Inherently Safe Module (PRISM). The PRISM desigr. concept emphasizes inherent safety characteristics and modularity to improve licensability, reduce owner's risk, and reduce costs. The reactor modules are a standard design that would be built in a factory and shipped by rail.
Each module is a pool-type LMFBR design with its own intermediate heat transport system and steam generator system. Each module is housed within its own seismically isolated silo. Each reactor and silo is housed in a builoing with outer silo and equipment cells. Comon facilities are the control building, maintenance building, radwaste building and the fuel handling building. The PRISM reactor core is a homogeneous design which uses metallic fuel.
The core structural material was chosen for its low irradiation swelling characteristics. The core lattice is being selected to be capable of breeding.
The small size of each reactor module permits the use of passive inherent self-shutdown heat removal features. The PRISM is equipped with three methods of removing shutdown heat from the reactor:
condenser cooling, auxiliary cooling system (ACS), and l reactor vessel auxiliary cooling sys'em (RVACS). l The nonnal shutdown heat removal is by condenser cooling. Failing that, shutdown heat is removed from the steam generators by the ACS, augmented by some steam venting. The estimated use of the ACS is less than 10 times per redule lifetine. It is a non-safety-grade system. If sodium has been lost from the intennediate heat transport system (IHTS), RVACS will remove heat directly from the reactor vessel by natural air circulation flow. The RVACS is a safety-related system. Its estimated use is less than once per module lifetime. It is also self-regulating such that the higher the reactor vessel temperature, the higher the RVACS heat removal rate.
Mr. Tippets indicated that the small size and inherent safety character-istics of the PRISM make it possible to conduct a full-scale safety test to support obtaining a design certification from the NRC. The principal design criteria are presented in tenns of power generation design l criteria and safety design criteria. The NSSS will be designed to operate at least 60 years. The standard design will employ comon facilities and three power blocks with each power block consisting of three nuclear steam supply systems and one turbine generator. Other power block iesign arrangements are also feasible, including two or four I
334TH ACRS MEETfNG MINUTES 8 NSSSs per turbine. The capital and operating costs have levelized busbar costs competitive with projected busbar costs for a coal plant.
The inherent safety features would bring the reactor to a reduced power condition and maintain it in a safe state for:
Loss of normal heat sink Loss of all primary system cooling by the intermediate heat trans-port system, with and without forced primary flow Transient overpower due to seismic (SSE) compaction and oscillation Transient overpower due to single control rod withdrawal.
The reactor guard vessel will be considered a containment boundary. The balance of plant (B0P) is completely disconnected from the primary loop safety considerations. The design requirements call for strong negative reactivity feedbacks, small excess core reactivity, low dependence on engineered safety systems and on operator actions. The PRISM design meets the NRC safety gaals with substantial margin as follows:
NRC Safety Goal Probability Per Year PRISM Results For prompt fatality 5 x 10 2.5 x 10-10 For Latent Cancer 2 x 10-6 1.2 x 10-11 Mr. Tippets indicated that there is a proposition to build a nuclear island portion of the PRISM on an existing DOE site, and to run all the l safety tests to demonstrate the inherent safety characteristics. The PRISM project plan schedule is attached (page 8a).
Rockwell International Mr. Robert Lancet, Rockwell International (RI), described the conceptual design of the Sodium Advanced Fast Reactor (SAFR). The SAFR is a liquid-sodium cooled, pool-type fast reactor designed to produce 350 MWe per module. RI envisions four 350 MWe SAFR modules per site. Each SAFR module will use a building block approach with discrete increments of power generation units called power paks. Each power pak consists of a sodium-cooled reactor system that transfers heat to a steam. generator that drives the turbine generator. Two primary pumps and four interme-diate heat exchangers (IHXs) circulate primary sodium within the reactor vessel and transfer reactor thermal power to two independent intermedi-ate heat transport system (IHTS) loops. Superheated steam is generated by two steam generators. Heat is removed from the reactor by the primary heat transfer system (PHTS), transferred to the IHTS via the IHX, and then transferred to the turbine-generator system via the steam generators.
O 4
8a
~
N
- . 1 e .
- E
! M E
g =
p h-u N
a a
< G or -
- _ E HO E
g I . K5
- e . . w<
E E
- wCh
. .J
- E.-
<D
~ E ~
~
w r
= > .
=
c E E F g U 3 9 w -
, o E O r 4 w C D at M .
~
E e > H E h
- a u so a w
k
- e y a =
e 5 -
$ N E w =5 3 a
C
=
g r
a E t> s n st>
w r
w
= Q
= C < u wa e o
- -J s" D >
h a
w 6
, a w -
i l
~ m b E O 4 N w g U
$ H
- > 3
~ r E .
- d S E
- 5 ;
a a
O
<J E CL e E = I b ~
~ 3 O - E
- I L.u E
i 5)
<C -
l O ~
e $ -'
l t 8 t a e '
CL w " = -
3 E
=
b l e W w
~ g (Q 5 <
G E -
m
( 5
~
E CL __ _ N -
E
334TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 9 The shutdown heat removal system consists of three heat removal paths:
the nonnal path through the steam generator and condenser; the reactor air cooling system (RACS) which is a natural convection of air past the reactor guard vessel; and the direct reactor auxiliary cooling system (DRACS) which uses a single in-vessel heat exchanger and a natural convection flow path to a sodium-to-air heat exchanger. The RACS operates continuously and is considered the only safety-grade system.
It is designed to accomodate an SSE and a design basis tornado. It is considered inherently safe and reliable because it.has no active compo-nents and does not require operator actions, and is independent of electrical power. DRACS requires operation of dampers on the ex vessel natural draft heat exchanger (DHRX) and an internal automatic gas valve to redirect internal flow under decay heat-low flow conditions. The valve is passively operated by differential pressure. DRACS is a non-safety grade system. It is a backup for economic protection.
The SAFR reactor produces 900 MWt and simultaneously breeds enough plutonium fissile material to refuel itself without an outside source of fissile material.
The first SAFR plant will be located on a site accessible for barge shipment with a navigable watemay adjacent to the site. The reactor vessel and steam generators are above grade. There is one turbine generator per module. The reactor guard vessel will be used as containment boundary. All BOPS are non-safety grade. The design lifetime is 60 years per module.
Mr. Lancet indicated that, as a part of the first plant, a series of safety tests and denonstrations would be run first. The design certifi-cation will be obtained after the first plant has been operated and the safety tests performed. Rockwell's top-level safety goal is to minimize the potential for severe accidents; to assure inherent response to all credible accidents, including transients without scram, loss of normal decay heat removal, and structural failures; and to eliminate the need for offsite evacuation of the public, with sufficient time margins for corrective actions.
The SAFR design meets the NRC safety goals and dose guidelines with large margins. Occupational radiation exposures will be no higher than 20% of current LWRs. The design will be comercially competitive with coal and LWR plants by the year 2000 and beyond. The SAFR plant licens-ingscheduleisattached(page9a).
MHTGR - DOE and GA Technologies Mr. A. Neylan, GA Technologies, described the design status for the MHTGR. The prismatic fuel concept was selected with steel vessel reactors in the side-by-side configuration (four modules). Each module will be operated at a power level of 350 MWt, supplying steam to two turbine generators. The net plant electrical output is 558 MWe, The reactor is housed in an uninsulated steel vessel about the size of a BWR reactor vessel. The reactor vessel is contained in an underground concrete silo which is designed as a heat removal system. The nuclear
! SAFR LICENSING PLAN C,l l l - l.,l - l..l l..l.,l. l 1 = l = l.,1 - l l l..l CoesPLETE CONCEPT ST ART PREttestN ARY CONCEPTUAL SELECieON DESIGN j
DE SIGN ST ART DE T AaL E D DESIGN ORAFT PSID }
w 2. IsEETINGS E l SE R -
- LICE NSASILITY AND E r 1 P FOResAL TEST PLAN 52 88EETINGS REVIEW _
SAFETYISSUES
-RESOLUTION PLAN 5r { UPOATEO LeCENSABILITV LETTER BSSUE l 1 RESOLUTION l l STO SAFR
[
STD -PLANT STD PL ANT FSAR DESIGN PDA FDA CERTIFICATION PL AN T PSAR qp 1 r CERTIFICATION OF l STANDARD PLANT DESIGN I ([
+
CI N TEST RES TS l
<r 4 +
"* c ,',""ac:
..RSM",'R 07Uu I oESicN
/
f /, /rI 3 PROCUREftet NT PRE- SITE SPECIFIC APPROVED FSAR CONSTRUCTION TE STING SITE COL TESTtp00 LeCENS898G OF REPuCATE PtANT: loESiGN 7 / 3 /J']CoensERCiALOPERATiON4
PROCUREn=NT /
\ CONSTRUCTION l
1 i 4 Rockwellintomational eessnosties',_ rooomot on 87D-14-1598H 4 i*
~' ' 334TH ACRS HEETlNG MINUTES 10 island portion consists of four reactor enclosures and adjacent struc-tures that house fuel handling, helium processing, and other essential reactor service systems. A connon control room is used to operate all four reactors and the turbine plant. Nonnal decay heat renoval is accomplished by forced circulation of helium and removal of heat through the steam generator or through a small auxiliary system cooler. Passive means are provided as a backup. The design does not have a conventional containment. The general safety characteristics of an HTGR design tend to be dominat-ed by the inherent characteristics of the coolant, core materials, and fuel as follows: Helium coolant. The inert and single phase helium coolant has the advantage of no flashing or boiling. Further, there are no reac-tivity effects associated with the helium, and no chemical reaction between coolant and fuel or cladding is possible. Coated fuel particle. The multiple ceramic coatings surrounding the fuel kernels constitute tiny independent pressure vessels which contain fission products. These coatings are capable of maintain-ing their integrity to very high temperatures (about 3000*F). Graphite Core. The strength of the graphite core and the stability of the ceramic fuel coating at high temperatures result in a wide margin between operating temperatures and temperatures that would resul t in core damage. Further, the high heat capacity and low power density of the core result in very slow and predictable temperature transients. j DOE clains that radiation releases, including the release that could come from a core heatup during the passive decay heat rejection mode, result in public doses that are well below statutory limits. In addi-tion, doses will be below the EPA Protective Action Guidelines (PAG) doses of 1 rem whole body and 5 rem thyroid, indicating that a public evacuation plan is not required. Mr. A. Millunzi, DOE, sunnarized the MHTGR position on the NRC key issues as follows-1 HTGHR approach provides a rigorous method for a licensing basis event evaluation based on current regulations consistent with advanced reactor policy MHTGR approach provides a framework to specify mechanistic source term selection which more completely enaracterizes site MHTGR containment system provides margin over conventional secon-dary containment approach l
- MHTGR does not require public evacuation or sheltering as PAGs are met at site boundary.
I 1 l
334TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 11 Mr. Tom King, NRC Staff, briefed the Comittee in regard to the Comis-sion paper on key licensing issues. The overall goal of the NRC Staff is to ensure, consistent with the guidance of the policy statement, that advanced reactors achieve a level of safety at least equivalent to that of current generation LWRs. The proposed general criteria for advanced reactors is as follows:
- Meet all applicable regulations (10 CFR/SRP)
Comply with the Severe Accident Policy Statenent Comply with the Commission's safety goals (including the guidelines the of a large release should be less than thag/ 10' year) probability Provide two redundant, diverse and independent means of reactor shutdown and decay heat removal Verify plant performance via prototype or first plant testing Verify via cost / benefit analysis that alternative design approaches in key areas are not justified. The draft Comission paper presents a set of criteria which the NRC Staff preposes be used to assess the DOE-sponsored advanced reactor concepts in the areas of: Accident selection Selection of a site suitability source term Adecuacy of containment Adequacy of offsite emergency planning. There was consideration of uncertainties. The specific criteria for the above four key areas are as follows: Select a set of design basis and beyond-design-basis events for each plant, utilizing engineering judgment supplemented by PRA. to bound uncertainties. Look at Select accidentaccidents sequencesconservativelp/ down to 10- year. Select site suitability source term (SSST) as source from worst accidents. i Evaluate adequacy of containment based on SSST above and meet 10 CFR 100 dose guidelines. No preplanned offsite evacuation would be required if radioactive releases from the plant do not exceed the EPA PAGs during the first 24 hours of an accident. The NRC Staff recommends that the designers for the advanced reactor concepts be required to assess their designs for compliance with the above criteria at each stage. l
l , 1 l*' ' 334TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 12 Mr. King described the NRC Staff approach for defense-in-depth require-ments. The requirements address the different stages and aspects of plant safety which can be generally categorized as: Prevention Protection Mitigation Emergency planning Mr. King stated that the advanced reactor designers have approached plant designs and the means of maintaining defense-in-depth somewhat different than the approach taken by LWR designers. In general, the advanced reactor designers make a shift in emphasis from mitigation features to highly reliable protection features. As a result of the NRC Staff's and DOE's (including contractors') presentations, the ACRS members raised some concerns regarding the , following: 1 1 Mr. Michelson expressed some concern regarding the lack of knowl-edge and experience and data base that exist to support the PRA approach as the principal method for making decisions for the advanced designs. The NRC Staff agreed. Mr. Ward questioned the Staff's approach to apply the Commission's ! safety goals for early and latent fatalities, and large release l criteria on a per-site basis for advanced reactors and not to a i single reactor, es is the case for LWRs. Dr. Remick shared the same concern. ! 1 l Dr. Remick expressed some concern regarding the issue of no conven-tional containment for advanced conceptual designs and the public l acceptance of this criteria. Dr. Remick comented that this approach will require extensive testing and prototypes to provide enough confidence for the public to accept this major change in the traditional way of building nuclear reactors. Mr. Ward commented that in the draf t comission paper there is a requirement that designers will assess their designs for compliance at each stage. The purpose is to assure that new information and understanding of the design is accounted for. However, it is possible that actual criteria might need change for the same reasons, and it might be a good idea for there to be an explicit milestone to recognize this.
- Mr. Ebersole expressed some concern regarding the definition of severe accidents in the advanced designs. Other members shared the Concern.
Mr. Ebersole also expressed some concern regarding the lack of consideration of air intrusion and harsh environment into the core region in the Staff's evaluation of accidents.
334TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 13 Mr. Ward comented that the NRC Staff should have a specific plan to confirm the uncertainties in the advanced reactor designs. Other ACRS members agreed. Dr. Siess questioned if it is acceptable to select a siting source term based upon mechanistic analysis in lieu of an approach consis-tent with 10 CFR 100. The NRC Staff will reply to this question at a later date. Dr. Remick expressed some concern in regard to the NRC Staff's approach to address the defense-in-depth and the different aspects of plant safety without including the plans for staffing as equally important as other factors (e.g., emergency planning). Mr. Ward questioned the separation between Design Basis Accident (DBA) and Beyond Design Basis Events (BDBEs), and if the designers will really make that distinction. The Staff responded that the BDBEs will be used for the purpose of site suitability source tem selection and containment and emergency planning evaluation. - Hr. Michelson commented that the Staff's choice for the DBAs does not include sodium or graphite fires. The Comittee indicated that it will consider the writing of a letter on the Commission paper for the key licensing issues during its 335th ACRS meeting, March 10-12, 1988. V. TVA Nuclear Power Plant Management and Operation (0 pen) [ Note: Dr. Richard Savio was the Designated Federal Official for this portiun of the meeting.] Mr. Wylie, Chairman of the TVA Organizational Issues Subcomittee, i sumarized the activities of the Subcomittee since the Committee's last l discussion of the TVA issues (November 5-7,1987). The Subcomittee met in Chattanooga, Tenn. on February 2,1988 and visited the Sequoyah site on February 3,1988. The Integrated Design Inspection (IDI), design verification, control of the design and modification process, operation-al readiness, employee concerns, diesel generator issues, environmental qualification issues, TVA management organization, and TVA's internal safety review process were among the topics discussed. Mr. Steven Richardson, NRC Staff, sumarized the status of the NRC Staff's review of TVA. Sequoyah Unit 2 is currently on a nonnuclear heatup test cycle and TVA is working toward obtaining pemission for criticality in March 1988. Restart of Sequoyah Unit 1 is scheduled for six months after the restart of Unit 2. Restart of Browns Ferry Unit 2 (fall 1988), Browns Ferry Unit 1 (sumer 1989) and Browns Ferry Unit 3 (fall 1990) are scheduled to follow. The NRC Staff is maintaining close onsite surveillance of the Sequoyah Unit 2 operational readiness review , and heatup activities. The NPC Staff issued their Safety Evaluation ' Report (SER) on the Sequoyah restart on January 21, 1988. Supplements to the SER will be issued as appropriate in the future. The issues l
334TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 14 raised by the American Nuclear Insurers and Mr. Bartlich are among the matters which will be resolved before restart. Mr. Ebersole asked if the NRC Staff was evaluating the effectiveness of TVA's internal safety review process in terms of verifying compliance with NRC regulations or in tenns of identifying safety issues. Mr. Richardson stated that NRC's intent was both to assure compliance with regulations and to identify safety issues not covered by regulation. Ms. Eileen McKenna (NRC-0SP) sumarized the NRC Staff's Independent . Design Inspection (IDI). The program consists of a detailed inspection of a single system, the Essential Raw Water Coolant System (ERWCS), to provide assurance that TVA programs had been effective in finding deficiencies and implementing corrective actions. The NRC Staff be-lieves that the program has been successful and is currently in the process of resolving the remaining IDI Sequoyah restart issues. Mr. Douglas Wilson, TVA, stated that TVA believes that the majority of the IDI findings have been resolved by reanalysis and that adequate designs do exist. TVA believes that no major changes to TVA's programs are required. Mr. Angelos Moreno (NRC-0SP) stated that the NRC was reviewing the Sequoyah diesel generator sequencing tests. The issue has not yet resolved and the NRC is reviewing the methodology used to extrapolate the partial load diesel tests to full load conditions. The matter will be resolved before restart. Mr. Joseph Bynum, TVA, described TVA's operational readiness program. The program is directed toward assessing restart readiness and to observing the activities and personnel performance during the heatup of Sequoyah Unit 2. A report was issued in October 1987. The program thus far has resulted in changes being made to improve communications, increase management involvement, and strengthen administrative controls. l Mr. Joseph Kirkebo, TVA, described TVA's programs for verifying design calculations. Over 12,000 calculations have been reviewed. All of the pipe support calculations were regenerated and about 11% led to hardware modifications. Of the rest of the calculations, 4% were revised, and 26% were regenerated. Less than 1% resulted in hardware modifications. Mr. John Cox, TVA, briefly discussed the Design Baseline and Verifica-tion Program (DBVP). The objectives of this program were to validate the design baseline and to strengthen plan configuration control. TVA believes that the Program has accomplished its purpose. VI. Implementation Plan for NRC Safety Goal Policyl(0 pen) I Most of the time originally scheduled for discussion of this topic was relinquished for discussion of DOE Advanced Reactors. ! l
334TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 15 [ Note: Mr. Dean Houston was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.] Mr. Ward made brief remarks about the Safety Philosophy, Technology and Criteria Subcomnittee meeting of February 9,1988 which was held to discuss the status of the Staff's implementation plan for the Safety Goal Policy Statement. Mr. Ward indicated that the Staff was not as far along in the development of the plan as they should be, and that this has led to problems, especially a lack of coherence within the Staff on application of the Safety Goal Policy. He further indicated that the Staff's thinking appears to be converging on this issue. Mr. James Malaro, NRC Staff, stated that the implementation plan had been discussed throughout the Staff and that the Staff had decided not , to involve the Comissioners until later. l 1 Dr. Kerr questioned whether a Comittee letter should be written to ' express concerns on the slowness and lack of coordination within the , Staff on the development of the plan. There did not appear to be any ' encouragement for a letter. 1 Dr. Moeller referenced the IAEA Draft document "Fundamental Safety Principles for Nuclear Power Plants" and compared the IAEA tiered structure with the Staff's hierarchical structure. VII. SystematicAssessmentofOperatingExperience(0 pen) [ Note: Mr. Richard Major was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.] Mr. Mark Williams and Mr. G. L. Plumlee III, both of HRC's Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data, presented the results of a recent report entitled "Operating Experience Feedback on Main Feedwater Flow Control and Bypass Valves." It was noted that this is the first study that has used the Nuclear Plant Reliability Data System (NPRDS) to draw conclusions from operating experience. Mr. Williams stated that i 60% of all power plant scrams are due to problems in balance-of-plant equipment. It was also reported that since 1984, when INP0 assumed management of NPRDS, the system has grown to contain over 60,000 failure reports. j l Mr. Plumlee said the primary purpose of the Main Feedwater Flow Control i and Bypass Valves report was to produce a good practice document which would provide operational experience feedback. The report's scope centers on data collected from the NPRDS on PWR main feedwater (MFW) flow control valves and, specifically, their mechanical component failures. (The electronics in the control system were not a part of this study, altt 'gh they are a significant contributor to failures.) Mechanical failure, in these valves were selected for study, in part, to test the NPRDS data base. Findings from this report indicate that major causes of MFV Flow Control Valve failures include: vibration, degraded instrument air, inadequate maintenance procedures, improper valve or valve internals, and
334TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 16 inadequate weather tightness. The valve failure modes are attributed to poor maintenance practices, valve operator abilit to withstand environmental vibration (pumps and flow-through valves)y; valve operator 1 inability to function due to poor quality instrument air; valve operator adjustment sensitivity; valve packin lifetime / maintenance fregr3ncy; and valve trim (plug and cage or seat)glifetimes. Conclusions from the report indicate that problems that have been experienced can be avoided with proper maintenance and the use of appropriate subcomponents. It is believed that systems upgrades (such as improved instrument air quality) from larger air dryers will make the MFW systen more reliable. This study showed that, although useful information can be obtained from NPRDS, it takes quite a bit of effort--indicating the need for further improvements in NPRDS. A presentation on "Radiation Overexposure Events Involving Industrial Field Radiography" was postponed because of lack of time. VIII. Nuclear Waste Management (0 pen) [ Note: Mr. O. S. Merrill was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.] Dr. Moeller, Waste Management Subcomittee Chairman, reported on the Subcommittee meeting held January 21-22, 1988. He said that the Subcom-mittee was briefed on the following items.
- 1. The in. pacts on the NRC high-level waste (HLW) management program due to the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987. This also included the need for close-out documents on the two sites (Hanford and Texas) where all work was to be stopped within 90 days of the enactment of this amendment.
- 2. The HLW computerized licensing support system which is presently the subject of a negotiated rulemaking.
- 3. Alternatives te shallow land burial for low-level waste (LLW), with emphasis on below-ground vaults and earth-mounded concrete bunkers.
4 The rupture at TMI-2 of two carbon steel waste liners containing resins solidified in concrete.
- 5. The DOE /NRC uranium-mill tailings remedial action programs, i.e.,
the cleanup of roughly two dozen abandoned and active uranium mining and milling sites.
- 6. The NRC HLW research program includes studies being done in Australia on groundwater movement of radionuclides, and at the Sandia National Laboratories on environmental transport models.
The people currently working for the NRC on the latter project previously performed similar studies for the Environmental Protection Agency.
334TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 17
- 7. The field research on the tuff media at Yucca Mountain. At the present time, only DOE is doing work there. The U.S. is the only country in the world working with tuff.
- 8. The NRC LLW research program, including the environmental transport studies being done under NRC contract with Pacific Northwest Laboratory on LLW sites at Chalk River, Canada. He comented that the good agreement between actual site data and model predictions appears to be due to the empirical choice of values for key parameters used in the model.
Following Dr. Moeller's report, Dr. M. Bell of the HLW Staff discussed the impact of the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987 on the NRC , HLW program. He explained (1) the provisions of the Act that affect the NRC program, (2) the Division of High-Level Waste's plan to implement this legislation, and (3) the Division's allocation of resources (per-sonnel and dollars) for FY 1985 through FY 1988. He stated that HLW has met the challenge by reassigning or detailing some of their staff to other priority programs in nuclear material safety, safeguards and transportation, ar.d to low-level waste management. IX. Executive Sessions (0 pen / Closed) A. Subcomittee Reports (0 pen / Closed)
- 1. Planning (Closed)
Contained in Official Use Only Supplement to Minutes.
- 2. Generic Items (0 pen)
[ Note: Mr. Sam Duraiswamy was the Designated Federal Official forthisportionofthemeeting.] Dr. Siess, Chairman of the Generic Items Subcomittee, briefed the Comittee on the following items: )
- a. Adequacy of the Procedures Being Used by the NRC Staff in Defining / Modifying the Scope of Generic Issues and USIs Dr. Siess stated that during the discussion at the December 1987 and January 1988 ACRS meetings regarding the proposed resolution of USI A-47, included in NUREG-1217, "Evaluation of Safety Implications of Control Systems in LWR Nuclear Power Plants," several Comittee rembers expressed concern about the Staff's practice of making major changes to the originally defined scope of generic issues and USIs. The members were interested in finding out:
On what basis does the Staff make modifications to l the originally defined scope? l I
334TH ACRS MEETIf!G MINUTES 18 Is there any established procedure that the Staff uses in making such modifications? They believed that the scope of USI A-47 has been re-duced, and that the proposed resolution does not deal with the whole problem defined originally. Also, they were concerned about the status of those tasks in the original scope that have been left out in the modified scope. They wanted to make sure that those tasks dropped from the original scope are being addressed adequately under other issues, or separately. During the January 1988 ACRS meeting, the Comittee suggested that the Generic Items Subcommittee discuss this matter with the Staff and report its findings to the Comittee. Dr. Siess stated that the Generic Items Subcomittee discussed this issue during a meeting on January 29, 1988. At that meeting, the Staff stated that the scope of USI A-47 has not been reduced. They agreed with the Subcomittee's criticism that they failed to provide explicit infomation in NUREG-1217 as to what issues were covered in the USI A-47 study. However, they told the Subecmittee that the USI A-47 study was perfomed by two contractors and the results are documented in 15 or 20 volumes of contractor reports. Since NUREG-1217 is intended to provide only a sumary of the results of the USI A-47 study, they did not include all of the details. Dr. Siess stated that during the Subermmittee meeting he conTrented that there should be a better way of defining the scope of Generic Issues and USIs. If USI A-47 had been divided up clearly into several items, it would have l been easier to decide which of those items are important l and which are unimportant; then, the NRC Staff could have docunented information on how the important items were resolved and how the unimportant items were handled. Also, he asked whether there would be any legal problem if the Staff had stated in NUREG-1217 that USI A-47 had been only partially resolved and other parts remain to be resolved. Mr. Minncrs responded that they plan to follow such an approach in the case of USI A-44, "Station Blackout." When that plan was proposed, some of the Staff members criticized the use of such an approach. In his opinien, it is .a good idea and such an approach should be adopted. Dr. Siess mentioned that the Staff has what is called a "Multiple System Response Program" to deal with residual safety issues. This program is intended to deal with those safety concerns raised by the ACRS, AE00, and the Staff that are not covered explicitly in the existing programs. Under this program, they collect all the
334TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 19 safety concerns, define them is best as they can, and send them through the priori 61zation process. A draft report containing the definitions of several issues is being reviewed by the Staff. The Staff plans to request ACRS review and coment on this matter in the future. During the Subcommittee meeting the Staff said that they believe that most of the concerns expressed by Mr. Ebersole have been considered in the USI A-47 study. However, Mr. Ebersole did not believe so. Therefore the Subcomittee recommended that Mr. Ebersole hold a meeting of the Instrumentation and Control Systems Subcomittee to discuss further the adequacy of the proposed resolu-tion of USI A-47 and also to make sure that his concerns have been adequately dealt with. Mr. Ebersole agreed to hold a meeting within 4-6 weeks. The staff agreed to , provide a sumary of the contractors' reports associated i with the USI A-47 study prior to that meeting. The Staff requested that, prior to the meeting, Mr. l Ebersole identify some scenarios that he thinks had not l been considered in the USI A-47 study so as to enable the - Staff to discuss those scenarios with its contractors and obtain necessary information. Mr. Ebersole agreed to do so. The Comittee agreed that Mr. Ebersole should reconsider the proposed resolution for USI A-47 at a Subcomittee meeting and report the findings to the Comittee.
- b. Status of the Subcomittee Review of the Effectiveness of the NRC Staff Programs that Deal with Generic Issues and USIs 1
Dr. Siess stated that in a memorandum to Mr. Ward, dated l September 18, 1986, NRC Chairman Zech requested, among other things, that:
"The ACRS advise the Comission on the effectiveness of programs which address generic and unresolved safety !
issues." l The Comittee assigned this task to the Generic Items Subcom-mittee. That Subcomittee had held several meetings to discuss this matter. During the January 29, 1988 Subcomittee weeting, the Subcomittee decided that a report should be prepared on this matter. Dr. Siess said that he plans to prepare a draf t report for review, coment, revisions, etc., by the Subcomittee members. If possible, the resulting draft will be submitted to the Committee for consideration during the Parch 1988 meeting. After seeing the draft report, if the Comittee wants to hear presentations from the Staff on certain items, arrangement could be made for such presen-tations during the April 1988 ACRS meeting. _- __ - - ._. =. ._ _ ._.
l j 1
~* '
l 334TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 20 l
- 3. Safety Research Program Subconunittee Report (0 pen)
[Mr. Sam Duraiswamy was the Designated Federal Official for j this portion of the meeting.] l Dr. Siess, Chairman of the Safety Research Program Subccanit-tee, stated that during a meeting on January 29,1988, the - Safety Research Program Subcomittee met with the Office of i Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) Staff and its contractors to i discuss a proposed method that will be used by RES in assign-ing priorities to NRC research activities. He said that Scientech, Inc. has the primary responsibility in develooing this method. He mentioned that several previous attempts to I develop a method to prioritize research activities were l unsuccessful owing to several reasons. Dr. Siess stated that the proposed method places major empha- l sis on: translating the agency goals articulated in tt.e NRC Strategic Plan into safety questions that need to be and i can be answered through research, and evaluating each current or proposed research activity in tenns of its usefulness to answer one or more of these questions. The safety questions were developed by a three-member panel, consisting of Dr. Mattson and Dr. Ybarrondo from Scientech, Inc., and Dr. Blond from SAIC in consultation with the RES Staff. These questions are being reviewed by NRR and other user offices. Dr. Siess said that the NRC research program is subdivided into 5 program categories; these are divided into 19 programs. These 19 programs consist of 72 research activities and there are about 300 contracts supporting these 72 activities. Prioritization will be perfonned at the research activity level. The Director of RES has the pririary responsibility for ; assigning priorities based on the results of the prioritiza-tion rethod. Dr. Siess stated that the prioritization rethod was applied to 8 of the 72 NRC research activities. The results for each i activity were docurented in a single page. During the appli- l cation process, the panel menbers interviewed cognizant l research project managers to obtain information. Dr. Siess mentioned that, during the Subcomittee meeting, some members believed that assigning priority at research activity level may have some ramifications. Each activity involves several research projects, and some of those projects may be very important. If budget decisions are made at the activity level, there is a possibility that the activity with l
334TH ACRS MEETING MINtJTES 21 a low-priority ranking might get dropped to accomodate a possible budget reduction. If that happens, some imoortant projects under that activity might also get dropped. Dr. Mattson told the Subcomittee that the proposed process takes cognizance of such things happening in the past and tries to prevent similar things happening again. This process will help them identify important projects under a low-priority activity and not-so-important projects under a high-priority activity. Dr. Siess stated that it remains to be seen whether the proposed process will help to identify important projects under a low-priority activity and not-so-important projects under a high-priority activity. Dr. Steindler asked whether the Subcomittee had looked at the appropriateness of the safety questions. Dr. Siess responded that the Subcomittee plans to review these questions during a future meeting. Dr. Lewis comented that answering questions is not necessari-ly the primary objective of a research program. How the results of the research will be used in making regulatory decisions is very important. Dr. Kerr comented that it is a good idea to fonnulate ques-tions prior to performing research. Dr. Siess stated that, based on the infonration obtained during the Subcommittee meeting, members of the Subcomittee believed that the proposed prioritization process is logical and well-structured. It has a potential to provide useful information that could be understood easily and used in deciding priority rankings to varicus NRC research activities. RES Staff seeks ACRS support to complete this effort. The Subcomittee members unanimously support this effort. Dr. Siess recomended that the Comittee send a letter to the Comission supporting the conpletion of this effort. The Comittee decided to send such a letter to the Comission.
- 4. New Members (Closed)
[Hr. Noff S. Lockard was the Cognizant Staff Member for this session.] Dr. Remick reported on the February 11 neeting that he, Dr. Kerr, and Mr. Fraley had with Chainnan Zech. Dr. Remick said that Chairman Zech asked whether the Comittee needed to reconsider any of the nominees for new membership now before the Commission because of the Commission decision to limit the size of the Comittee to ten members for the present. Told that the Comittee did not, Chairman Zech said that the Comission was very close to being ready to move ahead with
- j
* .' 334TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 22 approving two of the nominees for appointments when vacancies occur with the departure of two current members to the Waste Management Advisory Comittee.
He also reported that Chairman Zech said that the Comission l wishes to meet twice yearly with the Committee to discuss l Comittee needs for new members and their qualifications, and that he wants to be kept infonned of any Comittee problems with the number of members. Dr. Kerr reported that Chairman Zech said that with a single exception, he had been very satisfied with the recent reports of the Comittee. The single exception, he believed, was too forceful in its tone. The Comittee then noted with regret Mr. Ebersole's letter of , resignation at the end of his current term. ' l B. Reports,LettersandMemoranda(0 pen)
- 1. ACRS Report on the Tennessee Valley Authority's Management i Reorganization (Letter to Chainran Zech, dated February 19, 1 1988) l The Comittee discussed the measures taken by TVA to deal with several management concerns previously identified by the ACRS.
The Comittee concluded that significant improvements have been made in TVA's organization and management capability and that most of the ACRS' previous concerns have been addressed.
- 2. ACRS Comments on Development of a Method to Establish Priori- i ties for Research Activities (Letter to Chairman Zech, dated February 16,1988) ,
The Comittee recomended that the NRC Staff's efforts to develop and apply a method for assignment of priorities to research activities should be com,nleted and impleinented.
- 3. ACRS Coments on SECY-87-314, Interim Policy Statement on Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants, Dated December 30, 1987 (Report to Chairman Zech, dated February 16,1988)
The Comittee said that, while it is now unable to provide definitive advice on the Policy Statement, it has serious I concerns about the Policy Statement being imediately effec- I tive without benefit of coments from the public and industry. 4 ACRS Comrrents on Selected FY 1988 NRC Radioactive Waste ! Management Research Programs '. Letter to Chairman Zech, dated l February 17,1988) The Comittee commented on the staffing and operations of the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses, the need for research on the effects of organic chelating compounds on the 1 I
334TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 23 behavior of radionuclides in low-level wastes, and on models for predicting the environmental movement of radionuclides.
- 5. ACRS Report to Congress on the NRC Safety Research Program (Letter to the Honorable George H. W. Bush, President of the Senate, dated February 17, 1988, and to the Honorable James C.
Wright, R., Speaker of the House of Representatives, dated February 17,1988) The Committee transmitted to the Congress copies of ACRS reports prepared during the past year on NRC research activi-ties. C. Other Comnittee _ Conclusions (0 pen / Closed)
- 1. g Bylaws (0 pen)
[ Note: Dr. T. McCreless was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.] The %mittee accepted two proposed amendments to its Bylaws and cM not approve another. Of the two revisions approved (in Appendix IV of minutes), one pertained to rescheduling the election of the member-at-large to the Planning Comittee; the other, to the unavailability of Chairman and/or Vice Chairman (in Appendix IV of :ainutes). The amendment not approved was a proposed replacement for Appendix B, Guide for Participation by ACRS Members in Meetings Which Are Not Sponsored by the ACRS.
- 2. Postponed Activities (0 pen)
The Comittee agreed to postpone the following until the March ACRS meeti,g: Piscussion of proposed hierarchical structure for impor-tant safety-related issues identified by ACRS members. Reports by the Subcomittee on Themal Hydraulic Phenome-na Report by the Subcommittee on Cacay Heat Removal Systems Report by the Subcomittee on Structural Engineering.
- 3. Computer Policy (Closed)
[ Note: Mr. N. Lockard was the Cognizant Staff Member for this portion of the meeting.] Dr. Lewis led a discussion regarding a recent computer policy issued by the NRC staff which would forbid members to use their personal hardware or sof tware in ACRS offices. The Comittee decided not to send a letter protesting the policy.
.. . 334TH ACRS HEETING MINUTES 24 Dr. Lewis stated that he would do so as an individual member. [In a subsequent call from Chairman Zech's office, Mr. Dennis Rathbun informed the ACRS office that (as requested by the ACRS Executive Director) this matter was reviewed and found too harsh and too rigid for application to the ACRS.]
- 4. Starting Time for Saturday Sessions (0 pen)
The Committee agreed to start its Saturday sessions at 8:00 a.m.
- 5. Emergency Planning (0 pen)
[Mr. E. G. Igne was the Designated Federal Official for this portionofthemeeting.) Dr. Moeller led a discussion on the need for research on emergency planning and response to explore the initiation of studies to develop information and data that could be used to provide assistance and guidance to state and local governments in coping with nuclear power plant accidents. The Comittee agreed not to recomend research on this matter at this time.
- 6. Response to Harford Coun,ty, Maryland Council (0 pen)
The Comittee agreed with a prop; sed response (with some , suggested chances) to a letter from the County Council of ' Harford County, Maryland, which declines a meeting to discuss Peach-Bottom-rel&ted issues. , 1 Future Activities (0 pen) D.
- 1. Future Agenda The Comittee agreed to the tentative future c;enda as shown
'n Appendix !!.
- 2. Future Subcomittee Activities A schedule of future subcomittee activities was distributed to members (Appendix III).
The 334th ACRS meeting was adjourned at 1:38 p.m., Saturday, February 13, 1988. l l l
e .' APPENDICES MINUTES OF THE 334Til ACRS MEETING FEBRUARY 11-13, 1988
- 1. Attendees II. Future Agenda III. Subcomittee Activities IV. ACRSBylaws-ApprovedRevisionofVIli.B.andVIII.D.
V. Other Documents Received
, .~.
329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 ACRS MEETING DATE 3'd ll /f[
\
ATTENDEES Thursday Fyidy Saturday Dr. William Kerr, Chairman Dr. Forrest J. Remick, Vice Chairman Mr. Jesse C. Ebersole / / l
/ V Dr. Harold W. Lewis
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - -
. -Dr;-Gemn-He rk - -
Mr. Carlyle Michelson / / / Dr. Dade W. Moeller / / / Dr. Devid-Okrent "r. f Cienn A. Reed ---- -- Dr. Paul G. Shewon y / / Dr. Chester P. Siess V [ / ; Dr. Martin J. Steindler / V / 4 Mr. David A. Ward / / Mr. Charles J. Wylie [ / i APPENDIX I (
i 0
- e, APPENDIX I ,
.- ATTENDEES I 334TH ACRS MEETING l FEBRUARY 11-13, 1988 l
~
FEBRUARY 11, 1988 l i Public Attendees NRC Attendees i i Kathy Boyd, Heritage A. J. Cappucci NRR l Chong K.1/we, NUS L. R. P11sco, NRR l Tom Tiptor , NU'MRC T. P. Gwynn, OCK R. E. Enk * 'e, NUMARC L. S. Rubenstein, NRR J. E. McEwen, Jr. T&I P. H. Leech, NRR E. Gray, U.S. Congress J. Flack, RES Dale Kardos, ERCI Tom King, RES l Claudia Guild, Bishop Cook Purcell & Reynolds Moni Dey, RES 1 Bill Bruss, Bechtel H. M. Fontecilla, Va Power A. B. Johnson, PNL C L. Allen, SAIC R. P. Vijuk, Westinghouse J. R. Sudol, Burns & Roe E. 01uzniewski, GRS J. Devine, EPRI W. R. Sugnet, EPRI Jo Berga, EPRI Bill Pearce, Self Charles Brinkman, CE David Strawson, MPR A. J. Neylan, GA Fred A. Silady, GA N. E. Carey, GA R. A. Dean, GA L. S. Bluen, GA S. Kondo, Univ. of Tokyo T. Kani, PNC, Japan M. Idesawa, Tokyo Electric Power Co. A. Omoto, Tokyo Electric Power L. Connor DSA J. Stevenson, S&A K. Hendrix, TVA F. Campbell, TVA L. Tinker, TVA J. Ziegler, TVA , Gene L. Rogers, TVA Nuclear ' J. M. Kendall, GCRA L. D. Mears, GCRA R. M. Ketchel, GE Geza Gyorey, GE Lynne Neal, GE F. E. Tippets, GE L. P. Walker, SWEC J. P. Sanders , ORNL R. Sweeney, EDAKO R. T. Lance, Rockwell International y 4, R. C. Amar, Rockwell International
FEBRUARY 12, 1988 Public Attendees - NRC Attendees Brenda Pearson, Heritage Steve Richardsen, OSP j M. Ellen, Reporter Jim Clifford, OSP l V. M. Kapila, NUS E. McKenna, OSP D. S. Humphries, ERCI Bob Fierson, OSP Philip Howell, Bechtel Angelo Marinos, OSP Randy Quarles, Newhouse B. D. Lit.s, OSP Russell E. Allen, VE&C T. L. King, RES H. M. Fontecilla, Va. Power 2. Rosztocsy, RES I. J. M. Kendall, GCRA S. Long, NRR L. P. Walker, SWEC T. Margu'ies, NRR E, 01uzniewski, GRS Moni Dey, REF Fred A. Silday, GA J. Heltemes, AE00 M. Phillis, BCP&R V. Benaroya, AE00 Kim Hendrix, TVA J. E. Rosenthal, AE00 Linda Tinker, TVA F. A. Costanzi, RES Fisher Campbell, TVA R. L. Baer, RES Carolyn Ayers, TVA Barry Kimsey, TVA John Hosmen, TVA Joe Ziegler, TVA D. W. Wilson, TVA l John F. Cox, TVA Karl S. Seidle, TVA A. V. Cobroski, TVA ' Donald L. Williams, Jr. , TVA ' Christopher E. Eckl, TVA W. J. Ray. TVA dim Hutson, TVA John Kirkebo, TVA C. Fox, TVA F. L. Moreadith, TVA W. S. Raughvey, TVA J. R. Beynum TVA S. Z. Haddad, S&L M. R. Sedlak, TVA R. O. Hernandez, TVA Richard McMahon, TVA Tony Neylan, GA R. Borsum, B&W Scott Humphries, ERCI Damon Chappie, BNA Paula Wade, SAID Brenda Strickland, EEI Shiv Seth, MITRE I-3
APPENDIX II FUTURE AGENDA March 10-12, 1988 (Items are tentatively scheduled) Ouantitative Safety Goals (0 pen) (DAW /MDH) Estimated time: li hours - Eriefing and discussion of proposed impicmentation plan for NRC quantitative safety goals. Operating incidents and Events (0 pen) (JCE/HA) Estimated time: 2 hours - Briefing and discussion regarding recent operating events and transients in nuclear power stations. ) Advanced Reactors (0 pen) (WK/ DAW /MME) Estimated time: I hour - Briefing by and discussion with DOE and NRC representatives regarding the DCE Advanced , Peactor Severe Accident Program, j ACR$ Subcommittee Activities (0 pen) Estimated time: 11 hours - Reports of. designated subcomittee activities regarding safety-related matters such as: i therttal hydraulic phenomena (DAW /PAB), decay heat removal systems (DAW /PAB), containment performance (CPS /EGI), nuclear power plant core reactivity : control (WK/PAB), and seismic desigr. of the Diablo Canyon nuclear station l (CPS /EGI). j Generic Issues (0 pen) (CPS /SD) Estimated time: 2 hours - Discuss l effectiveness of NRC process for identification and resolution of l safety-related generic issues. ! Safety Related issues (CPS /SD) Estimated time: 2 hours - Dist;uss proposed hierarchical structure for important safety-related issues. Radiation Embrittlement of Reactor Pressure Vessel Materials (0 pen) (PGS/EGI)
- Review and comment on proposed Regulatory Guide 1.99, Radiation Embrittlement of Reactor Pressure Vessel Materials.
Training 6.id Qualification of NP.C Technical Personnci (0 pen) (FJR/HA) Estimated time: li hours - Briefing and discussion regarding proposed changes in NRC program for training and qualification of NRC technical personnel. Human Factors (0 pen) (FJR/HA) Estimated tine: 3 hours - Briefing regarding National Academy of Sciences report by NAS Panel Chairman regarding research , needed. l Future Activities (0 pen) (WK/RFF) Estimated time: i hour - Discuss l anticipated subcomittee activities and items proposed for consideration by j tne full Committee. ' New ACRS Members (Closed) (FJR/NSL) Estimated time: i hour - Discuss information the release of which would represent a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, i
11-2 Radiation Damage to Structural Materials (0 pen) (PGS/EGI) Estimated time: I hour - Briefing and discussion of NRC's proposed resolution of potential radiation damage to nuclear power plants structural materials. TVA Nuclear Power Stations (0 pen) (CJW/RPS) Estimated time: I hour - Briefing and discussion regarding r6 solution of technical issues. (NOTE: This item has been added since the 334th meeting to discuss issues which are in doubt with respect to their resolution at the Sequoyah Station.) April 7-9, 1988 B&W Design Reassessment (CJW) RKM) - Review and report on BAW-1919, B&W Owners Group Safety Assessment of B&W Plants. ThedraftSER(NUREG-1231)was received on 11/23/87 and the final SER supplement is expected by mid-February. Subcomittee meeting is scheduled for March 30-31, 1988. Regulatory Guide 1.106, Rev. 2, Thermal Overload Protection for Motor Operated Valves for Nuclear Power Plants (CJW/RKM) - Briefing and discussion of proposed revision of R. G. 1.106. Revised Guide expected during March. Decay Heat Removal (DAW /PAB) - ACRS review and ct ' n requested regarding proposed resolution of USI A-45. Draft regulatory flysis expected by 3/1/88. Subcomittee meeting held on 1/28/88; another will be needed. Human Factors Research (FJR/HA) - ACRS coments requested regarding proposed Human Factors Research Program Plan. NAS coments expected in early February. Proposed NRC Plan expected by late February (tentative - could slip.) A subcomittee meeting is scheduled for March 28, 1988. Fitness for Duty (FJR/HA) - Briefing and discussion of proposed NRC fitness for duty rule directed by the Comissioners (see SRM dated 12/16/87). Proposed rule expected by mid-to-late February. Subcomittee meeting scheduled for March 28, 1988. Hydrogen Control (WK/HDH) - ACRS coments requested regarding proposed resolution of U51A-48 regarding Hydrogen Control in Mark III and Ice Condenser Containments. Related documentation expected by March 1988. A subcomittee meeting will be needed. Systems Interactions (DAW /MDH) - Briefing and discussion of proposed final resolution of U5I A-17. Systems Interactions. Proposed resolution package expected during March 1988. A subcomittee meeting may be needed. Modular High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactor (DAW /MME) - ACRS coments requested regarding proposed design of this type reactor plant. Staff SER expected during February 1988. Subcomittee meeting needs to be scheduled. Fire Protection (CYM/SD) - ACRS coments requested regarding Fire Risk Scoping Study. Draft SNL report received on 2/9/88. A subcomittee meeting is scheduled for March 9, 1988.
11-3 ECCS Rule (DAW /PAB) - Proposed revision of NRC Rule (10 CFR 50.46, Acceptance criteria for ECCE for LWRs). Briefing and discussion regarding proposed revision to Rule and demonstration of CSAV. Subcomittee meeting in April /May(tentative). Evaluation of Operating Experience (HWL/RKM) - Briefint /discussion of AE00 reports on evaluation and assessment of operating expe>ience. Policy Statement on Training and Qualification (FJR/HA) - ACRS comments requested on proposed policy statement for nuclear power plant operators. Proposed policy statement expected during March 1988. A subcomittee meeting may be needed. May 5-7, 198,8_, Diagnostic Evaluation Procram (HWL/RKM) - Briefing and discussion of DEP and initial evaluations of Dresden and McGuire Nuclear Plants - Dresden evaluation distribution on 12/6/87. McGuire evaluation expected by end of February 1988. May require a subcomittee meeting. I 1 Implications of Chernobyl Accident (DAW /MDH) - Review and discuss proposed coments regarding NUREG-12bl Implications of the Chernobyl Accident Regarding Nuclear Power Plants in the U.S. Proposed final version of NUREG-1251 expected by end of April 1988. Also, review and discuss research program at BNL to study reactivity insertion accidents; contract expected to be signed soon. Subcomittee meeting needs to be scheduled. Primary System Integrity (PGS/EGI) - Leak-Before-Break evaluation procedures. Review anc comment regarding proposed final SRP Section 3.6.3 expected during April /May 1988. Containment Integrity (CPS /EGI) - Briefing and discussion regarding proposed final resolution of Generic Issue B-5, Buckling of Steel Containments. Proposed resolution package estimated by April 1988 (could slip). EQ Scoping Study (Phase !!) (CJW/kKM) Phase I of the EO Risk Scoping Study is to provide an analytical approach for , determiningandprioritizingEQissuesandresearch(interimreport l distributedon1/21/88). Phase II of the EQ Risk Study will determine a prioritized list of EQ issues and research needs, and the risk importance of the research. ACRS coments requested regarding proposed study. SNL report expected by . mid-March 1988. Subcomittee meeting planned for April 21, 1988. j
~
l
' a ' ., l 11-4 i
Later l PRA (NUREG-1150) (WK/HWL/MOH) - Staff report regarding status of NUREG-1150 ! Reactor Risk Reference Document, expected by late April /May 1988. I Subcommittee meeting to review final version of NUREG to be scheduled. ! Revised NUREG-1150 expected by October 1988 or later. l Emergency Dianning (DWM/EGI) - Briefing by NRC Staff per E00 memo dated : T7/14/87 regarding results of research and related programs related to l emergency planning in response to ACRS report dated 9/16/87 regarding ; emergency planning measures (e.g., evacuation) taken to protect the public. l Subcommittee meeting may be necessary. ' International INPO-Type Organization (FJR/RKM) - Briefing on this ! organization. I I l l i J l j
< 1 l
l l
,o .. . ;
. nEysto FEB 131988 ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS l Metal Components, February 18, 1988, 1717 HStreet,NW, Washington,DC(Igne),
8:30 a.m., Room 1046. The Subcommittee will review Regulatory Guide 1.99 , Revision 2. "Radiation Embrittlement of Reactor Yessel Material," and be l briefed on the status of the low flux embrittlement issue. Attendance by the l following is anticipated, and reservations have been made at the hotels ' indicated for the night of February 17 i Dr. Shewmon NONE Mr. Ward ANTHONY l Dr. Lewis HYATT Prof. R. Odette NONE Mr. Michelson DAYS INN (DC) Joint Scram Systems Reliability and Core Perfomance, February 19, 1988, 1717 ~ H 5treet, NW, Washington, DC (Boehnert/ Houston), 8:30 a.m. , Room 1046. The Subcomittees will review the current status of LWR plant operations (core I reload designs, etc.) as they impact on core reactivity control operational limits (e.g., moderator temperature crefficierts) 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 DAYS INN (DC) Mr. Davis HOLIDAY INN Dr. Lewis HYATT Dr. Lee NONE Dr. Shewmon NONE Dr. Lipinski NONE Mr. Ward ANTHONY Diatlo Canyon, February 23-24, 1988 Sheraton Hotel (5 minutes frcm the San TFant:=co airport),1177 Airport Blvd. , Burlingame, CA (Igne), 8:30 a.rr.. The Subcomittee elll review the status of the Diablo Canyon Long-Tem Seismic Program. (A plant visit is scheduled for the afternoon of February 24, 1988, tointerestedattendees.) Attendance by the following is anticipated, and reservations have been made at the Sheraton (415/342-9200) for the nights of February 22, 23 and 24: : Dr. Siess Mr. Davis (tent) Mr. Ebersole Dr. Page , Dr. Kerr Dr. Maxwell 1 Dr. Lewis Dr. Scavuzzo Dr. Moeller Dr. G. Thompson < Dr. Trifunac !
~
l APPENDIX III 1 l i
)
r,. .. . Reliability Assurance, March 8, 1988, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC (Major), 8:30 a.m., Room 10a6. The Subcomittee will discuss: (1) valve reliability, including valve testing schemes by Limitorque, MOVATS, Liberty Technical 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 (Geman hydrogen explosion in PORV and TVAMOVinterchangeabilityproblem). Attendance by the following is antic-ipated, and reservations have been made at the hotels indicated for the night of March 7: Mr. Wylie DAYl., INN VA Mr. Michelson DAYSINN(DC) Mr. Ebersole DAYS INN DC Dr. Siess ANTHONY Auxiliary Systems, March 9, 1988, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC (Duraiswamy) 8:30 a.J., Room 1046. The Subcommittee will discuss the final report on the Fire Risk Scoping Study being performed by Sandia National Laboratories for the NRC. Attendance by the following is anticipated, and reservations have been made at the hotels indicated for the night of March 8: Mr. Michelson DAYS INN (DC) Dr. Siess ANTHONY Mr. Ebtrsole DAYS INN (DC) Mr. Wylie DAYSINN(VA) Dr. Moeller LOMBARDY E th ACRS Meeting, March 10-12, 1988, Washington, DC, Room 1046. Metal Compenents, March 15, 1?88 (Tentative), Charlotte, NC (Igne). The Subt omittee will review the status of the NDE of cast stainless steel piping and Other topics related to Subcomittee activities. Lodgirg will be annconced lv.er. Attendance by the following is anticipated: Dr. Shewmon Mr. Ward Dr. Lewis Mr. Rodabaugh Mr Michelson Dr. B. Thompson Waste Management, March 17-18, 1988, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC TFe7P11) 6:30 a.m. Room 1046. The Subcommittee will review the final draft of the 0-List GTP prior to its submission to the Comissioners by the end of March and other pertinent radioactive waste management topics to be detemined during at agenda planning session with the NRC Staff on February 22, 1988. Lodging will be annourced later. Attendance by the following is anticipated: Dr. Moeller Dr. Steindler Dr. Remick Dr. Orth Dr. Shewmon Dr. Parker Ir- L.
Occupational and Environmental Protection System, March 22-23,1988(Tenta-Eve), Washington, DC (Igne). The Subcomittee will review: (1) the "hot particle" problem, (2) monitoring the quality and quantity of airborne radio-nuclides in/out of centainment following an accident, (3) the emergency planning rule, (4) the control room habitability report by ANL, and (5) other related matters. Lodging will be announced later. Attendance by the following is anticipated: Dr. Moeller Mr. Wylie Dr. Remick Mr. Kathren Dr. Steindler Dr. Shapiro Instrumentation and Control Systems, March 24, 1988, Washington, DC (El-Zeftawy). The Subcommittee will review the NRC Staff's aralysis and study to limit the scope of USI A-47, "Safety Implications of Control Sys-
- tems." Lodging will be announced later. Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Mr. Ebersole Mr. Michelson Dr. Kerr Mr. Wylie Dr. Lewis Mr. Davis Human Factors, March 28, 1988, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC (Aldeman), 8:30 a.m., Room 1046. The Subcomittee will be briefed and review: (1)the Human Factors Research Program plan, (2) the Fitness for Duty Rule, and (3) Policy Statement on Training and Qualification. Lodging will be announced I later. Attendance by the following is anticipated: Dr. Remick Mr. Ward Dr. Kerr Mr. Wylie Mr. Michelson Structural Engineering, March 29-30, 1988, Los Angeles, CA area (Igne), 8:30 # a.m. The Subcomittee will review the Piping and Fitting Reliability Program. (Visits to test facilities are planned for March 29,1988.) Lodging will be announced later. Attendance by the following is anticipated: Dr. Siess Dr. Bush ' Dr. Shewen Mr. Rodabaugh Mr. Ward (tent.) Babcock & Wilcox Reactor Plants, March 30-31, 1988, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC (Major), 8:30 a.m., Roon 1046. The Subcomittee will continue I its review of the long-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. Lodging will be announced later. Attendance by the following is anticipated . i Mr. Wylie Mr. Ward Mr. Ebersole Dr. Catton N'3 , Dr. Kerr Mr. Davis Dr. Lewis Mr. Etherington Mr. Michelson Mr. Patterson Mr. Reed l
i, . i' Reliability Assurance, April 21, 1988, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC (Major), 8:30 a.m., Room 1046. The Subcommittee will be briefed on the final outcome of the Equipment Qualification-Risk Scoping Study. Lodging will be announced later. Attendance by the following is anticipateo: Mr. Wylie Mr. Michelson Mr. Ebersole Dr. Siess 336th ACRS Meeting, April 7.-9, 1988, Washington, DC, Rcom 1046, 337th ACRS Meeting, May 5-7, 1988, Washington, DC, Room 1046. Improved LWRs, May 17, 1988, 1717 HStreet,NW, Washington,DC(Alderman), 8:30 a.m., Rcom 46. The Subcomittee will discuss Chapters 3, 4, and 5 of the EPRI ALWR Requirements document. Lodging will be announced later. Attendance by the following is anticipated: Mr. Wylie Mr. Ward Mr. Michelson Dr. Siess Regional Programs, May 24, 1988, Atlanta, GA (Boehnert). The Subcomittee will review the activities under the control of the NRC Region II Office. Lodging will be announced later. Attendance by the following is anticipated: Dr. Remick Dr. Moeller Mr. Michelson Mr. Ward Advanced Pressurized Water Reactors Date to be determined (March / April), Washington, DC (El-Zeftawy). The Subcomittee will discuss and hear presen-tations from Westinghouse representatives and the NRC Staff regarding the PPA forWAPWR(RESARSP/90) design. Attendance by the following is anticipated: Mr. Ward Mr. Michelson Mr. Ebersole Dr. Remick ! Dr. Kerr Dr. Shewmon Mr. Wylie Severe Accidents Date to be detemined (March / April), Washington, DC (Houston). The Subcomittee will review the hydrogen control nessures for BWRsandIceCordenserPWRs(USIA-48). The Subcomittee may also review the final version of the NRC Staff's proposed generic letter on Individual Plant Examinations (IPEs)(tentative). Attendance by the following is anticipated: Dr. Kerr Dr. Catton Dr. Shewmon Dr. Corradini Dr. Siess Mr. Davis Mr. Ward Dr. Lee i
.2ZE-f 1
1
- s. , . .. .
l Decay Heat Removal Systems, Date to be detemined (March / April), Washington, DC (Boehnert). The Subcomittee will continue its review of the NRC 5taff's I resolution position for USI A-45. Attendance by the following is anticipated: Mr. Ward Mr. Wylie Mr. Ebersole Dr. Catton Dr. Kerr Mr. Davis Mr. Michelson _ Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena, Date to be determined (March / April), Washington, DC (Boebrert). The Subcommittee will review the final version of the proposed TCCS Rule. Attendance by the following is anticipated: Mr. Ward Dr. Catton Mr. Ebersole Dr. Plesset Dr. Kerr Mr. Schrock Mr. Michelson Dr. Sullivan Dr. Tien Containment Requirements Date to be detemined (April), Washington, DC (Houston). The Subcommittee will review the NRC Staff's document on contain-ment perfomance and improvements (all containment types). Attendance by the following is anticipated: Mr. Ward Mr. Wylie Dr. Kerr Dr. Catton Dr. Siess Advanced Pressurized Water Reactors, Date to be detemined (Apri11, Washington, DC, (El-Zeftawy). The Subcomittee will review tb '. icensing review bases document being developed for Combustion En Safety Analysis report-design certification (CESSAR-DC)gineering's
. Attendance by Standard the following is anticipated:
Mr. Ward Dr. Remick Dr. Kerr Dr. Shewnon Mr. Michelson Mr. Wylie i l Safety Philosophy, Technology and Criteria Date to be detemined (April /May), ' Washington, DC (Houston). The Subcomittee will review the status of NUREG-1251 (Implications of Chernobyl) and the NRC Staff's program (at BNL) to address the inplications of Chernobyl in regard to severe reactivity tran-sients. Attendance by the following is anticipated: Mr. Ward Mr. Michelson Dr. Kerr Dr. Remick Dr. Lewis Mr. Wylie 5b
, Decay Heat Removal Systems, Date to be determined (April /May), Washington, DC 7M*' (Boehnert). The Subcomittee 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 / Washington, l' 'y"/ Advanced Pressurized DC (El-Zeftawy). Water Reactors, The Subcomittee Date will discuss thetocomparison be detemined of (May), WX?WR (RE TP/90) design with other modern plants (in U.S. and abroad). Atteiidance by the following is anticipated: Mr. Ward Mr. Michelson Mr. Ebersole Dr. Shewmon Dr. Kerr Mr. Wylie , Advanced Pressurized Water Reactors, Date to be detemined (May/ June), Washington, DC, (El-Zeftawy). The Subcommittee will review the draft SER in regard to the reactor, reactor coolant system, and regulatory confomance for the WAPWR RESAR SP/90 design. Attendance by the following is anticipated: Mr. Ward Dr. Remick Dr. Kerr Dr. Shewmon Mr. Michelson Mr. Wylie Auxiliary Systens, Date to be detemined. Washington, DC (Duraiswamy). The Subcomittee will discuss the: (1) criteria being used by utilities to design Chilled Water Systems, (2) regulatory requirements for Chilled Water System - design, and (3) criteria being used by the NRC Staff to review the Chilled l Water System design. Attendance by the following is anticipated: Mr. Michelson Dr. Moeller l Mr. Ebersole Mr. Wylie ' Decay Heat Removal Systems, Date to be detemined, Washington, DC (Boehnert). The Subcommittee will explore the issue of the use of feed and bleed for decay 7W"I heat removal in PWRs. Attendance by the folicwing is anticipated: Mr. Ward Mr. Wylie ; Mr. Ebersole Dr. Catton
. Dr. Kerr Mr. Davis Mr. Michelson ,
4 I
.2r-4
Systematic Assessment of Experience, (To be determined) (Major). The Subcom-mittee will review the Diagnostic Evaluation Program and other related staff plant review and inspection efforts. Dr. Lewis Dr. Moeller Mr. Ebersole Mr. Ward Mr. Michelson Mr. Wylie Themal Hydraulic Phenomena, Date to be detemined, Washington, DC (Boehnert). The Subconunittee will discuss the status of Industry best-estimate ECCS Model submittals for use with the revised ECCS Rule. Attendance by the following is anticipated: Mr. Ward Dr. Catton Mr, Ebersole Dr. Plesset Dr. Kerr Dr. Schrock Mr. Michelson Dr. Sullivan Mr. Wylie Dr. Tien i 1 l l l J.U'-7
Vill. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
- 0. Regular Elections The Chairman shall appoint a nominating Comittee of three meebers during Septerier of each year. The names of the menters of the nominating comittee shall be announced at the September meeting or if no neeting is schedule for that month in writing to the ACRS.
The nominating corrittee will report its slate for Chairman and Vice Chairman at the beginning of the next-to-last regularly sch9duled reeting for the year. Nominations for officers will also be accepted from the floor..., ._ __-. .. .... ..._ ..___. The-modnet40sn [ delete 3 sod-detMtm- of-en ACAS-Membeo et-4erge-to-4444-the vecewy.en-the FJf- N eerr4og- GM < tee- *(44- e45o occer- et-(Ms- meet % hoH r e4Aorrs- wi44- be- me de- (no the- 44 con by- the. Comt tree- seebers- et . 4evpe.-- The- %+ 5e4e<ted foo AMs- 9c4444on. w444-4erve-(or-the-4o44ow4og- <e4 ender- te+rs The Corrittee Chairman and Vice Chaiman for the following year shall be elected during the last regularly scheduled meeting of the year. [acc) Following election of the Chaiman and Vice-Chaiman, the nomination and electicn of an ACRS Merber at large to fill the vacancy on the ACRS Planning Cerrittee will also occur at this meeting. Notinations will be made from the floor by the Comittee menters at large. The rember selected for this position will serve for the , followirs calendar year. l 4OL 2/1QE7 APPENDIX IV
,e V111. _ ELECTION OF OFFICERS l
B. In the event the Chaiman is unable or unavailable to carry out his j duties f or a limited period, the Vice Chairran shall act as Chair-man. In tre event the Vice Chairman is unable or unavailable to carry I out his dcties for a limited period, the Chairman may appoint arcther menttr to act as Vice Chairt.an, c k A 'l nited pericd" is generally considered to be two months or c less. Sheuld either or both the Chaiman and Vice Chairman be or are expectec to be unable or unavailable to serve for more than two renths, the ComitteE vlill Vote to determine if it Wants to hold a special election. (See Paragraph Vll! E Special Elections). A special electier. is considered a major decision. , O : .. w a L
,l j ., -
l IV-2 1 1
l APPENDIX Y 334TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 11-13, 1988 Other Documents Received l
- 1. Status Report on Maintenance Policy Statement
- 2. SECY-87-314, Interim Policy Statement on Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants
- 3. Memo for H. Alderman from D. W. Moeller,
Subject:
Policy Statement on Maintenance, dated 1/7/88 4 Memo for C. Michelson from D. W. Moeller,
Subject:
Interim Policy Statement on Maintenance, dated 1/18/88
- 5. Status Report for EPRI Presentation - Passive Plant
- 6. Status Report - Advanced Reactor Designs
- 7. Draft Memo for Comissioners from EDO,
Subject:
Key Licensing Issues , Associated with DOE Sponsored Advanced Reactor Designs, dated 12/9/87 '
- 8. Working Copy of Minutes of Meeting, January 6,1988 of Subcomittee on !
Advanced Reactor Designs, dated 1/14/88 i 9. Status Report on TVA i 10. Memo for ACRS Members from R. Savio,
Subject:
Transmittal of Documents , for February 11-13, 1988 ACRS Discussion on TVA, dated 1/28/88 l
- 11. Status Report on Quantitative Safety Goals j 12 Status Report - AE00 Recent Reports
- 13. Memo for F. Miraglia et al. from T. Novak
Subject:
Trends and Patterns Report..., dated 9/14/87 14 Status Report - Waste Management
- 15. Sumary of Meeting of January 21-22, 1988 of Subecenittee on Waste Managenent
- 16. ACRS Subcomittee Meeting Review
- 17. Status Report - Generic Items
- 18. Status Report - Safety Research Program
- 19. Memo for ACRS Members from T. McCreless,
Subject:
ACRS Bylaws, dated 1 2/5/88
,o V-2
- 20. Status Report - Hierarchical Structure for the Important Safety-Related Issues
- 21. Memo for ACRS Members from C. P. Siess,
Subject:
Hierarchical Structure for the Irrportant Safety-Related Issues, dated 12/31/87
- 22. Status Report on Meeting of January 20-21, 1988 Subcomittee on Thema1/ Hydraulic Phenorrena
- 23. Status Report on Meeting of January 28, 1988 of Subcomittee on Decay Heat Removal Systems 24 Working Copy of Minutes of January 28 Meeting of Subcomittee on Decay Heat Removal Systems i
- 25. Status Peport on January 22, 1988 Meeting of Subcomittee on Structural Engineering
- 26. Working Copy of Minutes of January 22, 1968 Meeting
_ Handouts i
- 1. Memo for W. G. Mcdonald from R. F. Fraley,
Subject:
"Policy Regarding Use of Personal Microcomputers," dated 2/5/88
- 2. Memo for ACRS from T. G. McCreless,
Subject:
ACRS Bylaws, dated 2/8/88 4 Memo for C. Wylie, from R. Savio,
Subject:
Summary / Minutes on TVA Organizational Issues, February 2-3, 1988, dated 2/9/88 i
- 6. Pemo for R. F. Fraley fron T. L. King,
Subject:
Draf t Comission Paper on Advanced Reactor Key Issues 7 - Letter to TVA from NRC,
Subject:
ANI/MAELU Nuclear Liability Insurance Inspection, dated 2/3/88 f
- Memo to C. J. Wylie, from Paul Barton,
Subject:
February 2-3, 1988 Meeting of ACRS Subcomittee on TVA, dated 2/8/88
- Memo to C. J. Wylie from Homer Hagedorn
Subject:
Report on February 2-3 Meeting on Sequoyah Restart, dated 2/7/88 j 8. - Letters to H. Freeman and B. Risacher from W. Kerr and R. Fraley, dated 2/11/88 and 2/5/88, respectively.
- Letter to W. Kerr from H. Freeman and B. Risacher, dated 1/14/88
] 9. - Future ACRS Activ* ties - 335th ACRS Meeting - March 10-12, 1988 Letter to NRC Comissioners from Andrew Bartlik dated 2/3/88
,O e, ,
.V-3 Presentations Thursday February 11, 1988 Subject Organization Presenter Maintenance Policy Statement NRC Staff John Jankovich Passive Plant Program EPRI Jack DeVine Bill Sugnet Mid-Sized Plant Concepts DOE Dan Geissing DOE Advanced Reactors DOE Francis Gavigan PRISM GE F. Tippets and G. L. Gyorey SAFR Rockwell R. T. Lancet Modular HTGR DOE A. Millunzi Jim Kendall GCRA Fred Silady, GA Tony Neylan, GA Friday February 12, 1988 Subject . Organization Presenter TVA NRC Staff Steve Richardson and Eileen McKenna TVA (Operational Readiness) TVA J. Bynum and John Kirkebo John Cox Doug Wilson Advanced Reactors NRC Staff Tom King Operating Experience NRC Staff Nuclear Waste NRC Staff Michael Bell}}