ML20196C724
| ML20196C724 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/01/1988 |
| From: | Solberg D NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | Shotkin L NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8812080074 | |
| Download: ML20196C724 (16) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _
[f UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
W ASHINGTON, D. C. 206$5
\\
/
DEC 0
- 1988 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Louis !!. Shotkin, Chief Reactor and Plant Systems Branch i
Division of Systems Research FROM:
Donald Solberg Reactor and Plant Systems Branch Division of Systems Research j
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF NOVEMEER 8, 1988 MEETING WITH NUMARC On November 8, 1988, members of the NRC staff met with representatives of the Nuclear flanagement and Resources Council (NUMARC) and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) to discuss accident management programs.
The purpose of this memorandum is to sumarize the most significant results from that meeting. A list of meeting attendees is presented in Enclosure 1.
The NUMARC and EPRI presentation materials are presrnted in Enclosures 2 end 3.
e Following introductory remarks by F. Cungel (NRR) and B. Sheron (RES), R.
[
Barrett (NRR) provided a discussion of t!.e history of the Accident Management effort at NRC and the status of the staff's draf t comission paper on Accident Management ( AM). He then described the main features of the propond NRC l
Procedures (EOPs) pe of AM would include extension of Emergency Operatingto Se approach. The sco staff and shift technical advisors, procedures and minor hardware modifications i
to facilitate AM strategy implementation, a management framework for accident response, enhanced train 4ng for severo accidents, and exercise and updating of AM capabilities. A development phase, in which NRC would work with NUMARC to define the scope and attributes of an 44 program, and an implementation phase, in which utilities would implement accident management capabilities, were described.
.losure of AM would be achieved when a utility certifies that they have implemented an AM program which meets the appropriate criteria.
NRC staff had posed four questions to NLNARC in a telecon on November 7,1988.
In his opening remarks at this reeting, Barrett, reiterated these questions, and indicated that answers are needed prior to the staff's flovember 23 meeting with the comission on Accident Management. The questions are sumarized below.
1.
What is the scope of the NUNARC Accident Management program? Does it include th:: major features of the AM Program envisioned by the NRC?
2.
How does industry view closure of Accident Management and the mechanism for achieving it, e.g., via a voluntary program or NRC rulemaking?
t
[
ljf est20soo74 881201 PDR REVGP ERON C
i
2 C 0 I 1398 3.
What is the process I:LMARC will use on this program, e.g., NUMARC's i
charter, resources, and schedule; the roles of EPRI, INPO, and owners groups; and the interfaces with NRC?
j 4.
What is the status uf the NUMARC program?
The remainder of the meeting was structured around these four questions.
I W. Rasin, NUMARC, opened by describing the formation of the NUMARC Severe i
Accident Working Group (SAWG), the SAWG mission statement / charter, and the objectives and approach of their AH program (see Enclosure 2). He indicated that the scope of the NUMARC program is similar to !!RC's, as described by R.
Carrett.
In his view, an Accident Management fraework, adt 'ssing such i
things as severe accident decisionmaking process and training, coulo be
)
developed and put in place by about the time that the Individual Plant
[
1 Examinations (IPEs) are completed.
The IPE insights would subsequently be further evaluated in the utility programs. He identified a NUMARC concern that the NRC containment performance improvement (CPI) program is focusing on generic fixes while the emph6 sis should be on performing the IPEs.
W. Rasin stated that issues such as CPI and source terms will be on the table while the d
IPEs are being performed and will be dealt with as part of the IPE and AM i
program.
1 W. Rasin stated that NUMARC/SAWG has not formulated a position on what l
4 constitutes closure but stated that the NRC approach appears reasonable.
He
)
indicated that industry would prefer that NRC not invoke rulemaking. NUMARC i
i can bind all member utilities (which currently includes all nuclear utilities) to an initiative if it receives an 80% vote of the board of directors; this i
i has been done in the past on fitness for duty and station blackout l
initiatives. The NUttARC/SAWG lias not yet decided whether this is the f
preferred approach to implement accident management initiatives.
If so, f
u implementation of accident management plans would be verified by industry through the INPO inspection program, j
i Regardi0g the status of NUMARC activities, W. Rat.in stated that the NUMARC/SAWG l
has been officially formed with the charter and mer.bership shown in Enclosure 1
2.
NUMARC will use EPRI, INPO and owners groups as resources and as l
t.dditional sources of expertise.
Each vendors owntrs group's chairman has been invited to the next HUMARC/SAWG meeting scheduled for the week of 1
November 14. The SAWG has cet three times since July. The group expects to 1
issue an accident management position paper and complete a draft accident i
i management program plan by the end of the year.
W. Rasin indicated that interactions with NRC on management and technicci levels can begin at any
- time, j
A presentation on EPRI's "Severe Accident Management Technology Program" was given by R. Oehlberg. His viewgraphs are presented in Enclosure 3.
EPRI is i
i currently evaluating proposals on this program and plans to comens a work in l
January 1989. There was much staff discussion of the program.
g B. Sheron stated that it is an NRC objective to have a cooperative technology j
program with industry. NRC and industry activities should compliment each other.
NUNARC agreed to initiate a series of n.etings with NRC staff and contetors to exchange program planning infortnation beginning in early 1989.
d l
[
i l
DEC 0 t Igge j
l In summary, the principal disagreement between NRC staff and NUMARC/SAWG l
involved implementation philosophy and schedule. i;RC staff generally believes j
that much can be done at plants to improve management of severe accidents j
before the IPEs are completed. This would utilize insights from PRAs, SARP etc.
W. Rasin indicated a strong preference for a systematic process in whi:h i
a significant group of candidate AM changes are evaluated together at an individual plant and then impicmented.
The reasons provided for this approach j
are that (a) fixes are of ten more difficult to make than NRC recognizes; (b) interim fixes are often superseded or modified by later fixes leading to unnecessary expense and effort; and (c) great caution should be exercised in assuming benefits obtained from using generic results on specific plants.
It i
is possible that when more specific examples are used, there may be less j
disagreement than appeared at this meeting.
t i
No specific date for another meeting was set. However, B. Sheron and F.
j Congel were identified as the NRC contacts fo accident maregement d R. Ng f
was identified as the NUMARC/SAWG contact.
y Dona d Solberg Reactor and Plant Systems nch Division of Systems Research i
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/ enclosures:
pen 3t
(
s cc w/o enclosure:
F. Congel B. Sheeon R. Barrett B. Palla A. El-Bassioni T. J. Walker T. Itargulies T. Lee F. Odar R. Friebe G. Zech M. Solberg J. Wachtel J. Kramer J. Han F. Coffman F. Guenther W. Hodges
- 0. Persinko R. Ng (NUMARC)
t P
ENCLOSURE 1
[
NRC/NUMARC MEETING ON ACCIDENT MAtlAGEMENT l
L NAME AFFILIATION PHONE #
F. Congel NRC/NRR 492-1088 B. Sheren NRC/RES 492-3500 R. Barrett NRC/NRR 492-1C89 L. Shotkin hRC/RES 492-3530 l
Bill Rasin NUMARC 872-1280 Ray Ng NUMARC 872-1280 j
Richard Oehlberg EPRI (415)855-2082 t
r CaviC Worled9e EPRI (415) 855-2342 l
Bob Palla NRC/NRR/PRAB 492-1076 Adel El-Bassioni NRC/NRR/PRAB 492-1094 l
T. J. Walker NRC/RES 492-3537 Tim Margulies NRC/NRR 492-1073 Mark T. Leonard SAIC (614)451-0515 i
Nom Lauben NRC/RES/DSR 492-3573 Tim M. Lee NRC/RES/D5R 492-3577 Frank Odar NRC/RES/DSR 492-3575 lan Wall EPRI (415)855-2935 Ray Priebe NRC/AE00/00A/lRB 492-4333 I
l Gary Zech NRC/AEOD/lRB 492-4193 l
Mitzte Solberg NRC/NRR/11PB 491-1295 l
Conald Solberg NRC/RES/DSR 492-3576 l
Jerry Wachtel NRC/RES/DSR/HFB 492-3543 I
Joel Kramer NRC/RES/DSR/HFB 492-3546 l
Albert Machiels EPRI 872-1280 David Modeen NLHARC (302) 870-1280 James T. Han NRC/RES/AEB 492-3568 Franklir.Coffman NRC/RES/HFC 492-3520 Fred Guenther NRC/DLB4/0LB 492-1043 Wayne Hodges NRC/ DEST /SRXB 492-0895 Drew Persinko NRC/NRR/FMAS 492-1278 l
L
Ef/diCLSURE 2 i
NUMARC PRESENTATION TO THE NRC STAFF l
ON I
I SEVERE ACCIDENT MANAGEMENT NOVEMBER 8, 1988
~
i l
I l
l I
f
4 m.
mip=wv-m u=-
9 9
NUMARC SEVERE ACCIDENT WORKING GROUP (SAWG) l CHARTER MISSION STATEMENT
NUMARC SAWG HISSICN STATEMENT THE PURPOSE OF THE NUMARC SEVERE A~CCIDENT WORKING GROUP IS TO COORDINATE INDUSTRY ACTIVITIES AND SERVE f:S THE FOCAL POINT FOR INDUSTRY /NRC INTERACTIONS IN ATTAINING RESOLUTION AND CLOSURE OF THE FE/ERE ACCIDENT ISSUE.
SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE ADDRESSED BY THIS WORKING GROUP ARE:
O INDUSTRY RESPONSE AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NRC'S GENERIC LETTER ON INDIVIDUAL PLANT EV/;'74TIONS.
O DEFINITION, DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ACCIDENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.
f O
CONSIDERATION OF THE NEED FOR INDIVIDUAL PLANT EVALUATIONS OF EXTERNAL EVENTS; AND THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF APPROPRIATE METHODOLOGIES, IF NECESSARY.
THE WORKING GROUP WILL ALSO FOCUS ON INDUSTRY /NRC DIALOGUE AND DEVELOP INDUSTRY POSITIONS AS NECESSARY FOR OTHER SIGNIFICANT SEVERE ACCIDENT ISSUES.
EXAMPLES OF SUCH ISSUE ARE:
CONTAINMENT PERFORMANCE, SAFETY GOAL IMPLEMENTATION, AND SOURCE TERM RESEARCH.
s
NUMARC SAWG MEMBERSHIP John C. Brons Executive Vice President -
Kenneth S. Caindy Nuclear Generation Principal Engineer New York Power Authority Duke Power Company James C. Deddens J. Edward Howard Senior Vice President Vice President River Bend Nuclear Group Nuclear Engineering Gulf States Utilities Boston Edison Company William J. Johnson Harold W. Keiser Manager, Nuclear Safety Department Senior Vice President Nuclear Westinghouse Electric Corporation Pennsylvania Power & Light Company S. Joseph Kowalski Frank J. Rahn Vice President Nuclear Engineering Nuclear Power Division Philadelphia Electric Company Electric Power Research Institute Cordell Reed A. Carter Rogers Senior Vice President Manager of Licensing Commonwealth Edison Company Arizona Public Service Company C. Frederick Sears Richard E. Skavdahl Vice President Servicing General Manager Nuclear & Environmental Engineering Engineering Manager Ncrtheast Utilities Service Company General Electric Company Bart D. Withers Alfred C. Tollison, Jr.
President &
Director, Plant Operations Division Chief Executive Officer Institute of Nuclear Power Operations Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation i
e e
t DRAFT - NOVEMBER 8, 1988 INDUSTRY _0RGANIZATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY O
NUMARC SEVERE ACCIDENT WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDS OVERALL INDUSTRY DIRECTION AND POLICY ON SEVERE ACCIDEN" MANAGEMENT O
EPRI, INPO AND VENDOR OWNERS' GROUPS TO ASSIST NUMARC AND UTILITIES WITH ACCIDENT MANAGEMENT DECISIONS BY PROVIDING INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY.
DRAFT - NOVEMBER 8, 1988 INDUSTRY ACCIDENT MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES O
PREPARE UTILITY STAFF TO ARREST A SEVERE ACCIDENT SEQUENCE DURING ANY PHASE TO BRING THE PLANT TO A SAFE, STABLE STATE.
O CREATE AN OVERALL FRAMEWORK FOR SEVERE ACCIDENT O
DEFINE DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY AND HIERARCHY
l 1
DRAFT - NOVEMBER 8, 1988 SEVERE ACCIDENT TERMIN0 LOGY i
I j
O SEVERE *
, LEf8TS ARE THOSE BEYOND THE DESIGN BASIS THAT RESULT IN l
CATASTROF
81EL ROD FAILURE, CORE DEGRADATION AND FISSION PRODUCT RELEASE e c
REACTOR VESSEL, CONTAINMENT OR THE ENVIRONMENT.
~
i l
)
O ACCIDENT MANAGEMENT ARE THOSE ACTIONS TAKEN TO PREPARE, MONITOR, EVALUATE, CONTROL (PREVENT OR MITIGATE), RECOVER OR OTHERWISE ACT j
TO MINIMIZE FISSION PRODUCT RELEASE TO THE REACTOR VESSEL, j
CONTAINMENT, OR ENVIRONMENT AND BRING THE PLANT AND SITE TO A SAFE,
)
STABLE STATE.
3 O
INTEGRATED ACCIDENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IS A STRUCTURED EVALUATION OF A UTILITY'S CAPABILITIES AND RESOURCES TO PREPARE, MONITOR, l
EVALUATE, CONTROL (PREVENT OR MITIGATE), RECOVER OR OTHERWISE MINIMIZE THE CONSEQUENCES OF SEVERE ACCIDENTS.
j
a DRAFT - NOVEMBER 8, 1988 SEVERE ACCIDENT PHASES PHASE 1 -
PREVENT CORE DAMAGE PHASE 2 -
MITIGATE EXTENT OF CORE DAMAGE AND MAINTAIN REACTOR VESSEL INTEGRITY PHASE 3 -
MAINTAIN CONTAINMENT INTEGRITY PHASE 4 -
MINIMIZE 9FFSITE RELEASE CONSEQUENCES l
1
DRAFT - NOVEMBER 8, 1988 INDUSTRY ACCIDENT MANAGEMENT APPROACH O
USE IPE METHODOLOGY AND CRITERIA TO GUIDE DEVELOPMENT OF PLANT SPECIFIC ACCIDENT MANAGEMENT PLANS O
UTILIZE EVERY RESOURCE AVAILABLE TO PLANT STAFF, E.G.:
l IMPROVED EMERGENCY OPERATING PROCEDURES IMPROVED TECHNICAL STAFF SUPPORT AND TRAINING i
UTILIZATION OF NON-SAFETY RELATED EQUIPMENT l
l RECOVERY OF EQUIPMENT i
l b.
EmoMRE e EPRLNPD SEVERE ACCIDENT MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY (RP3051)
NUMARC/NRC MEETING NOVEMBER 8,1988 RICHARD OEHLBERG ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE
~
Safety Technology Department EPRLNPD Perspectives l e EPRI Severe Accident Matrix o Enhance EPRI support of NUMARC e Accident Management Element Manager :
Richard Oehlberg o "Guidelines for a Utility Accident Management Program" o "Severo Accident Management Technology" Safety Technology Department
EPRl/NPD l
Coping Plans /Guldelinesl e Emergency Operating Procedures are intended to ensure that core cooling is maintained e Coping Plans / Guidelines have effect afteI LOSS of core cooling
- Sr.fety Technology Department EPRLNPD RP3051 Tasks l (1) Publish selective utility / industry efforts of reference or strategic value (2) Document"state of knowledge" (3) Produce method for coping guideline / plan development (4) Technology Transfer safety Technology Department
Task 3 - Method for Developing Coping Guidelines e
IPEIPRA Input e
Objectives and bounds for coping guidelines / plans e
Safe stable state Analyses e
Possible systems / resources e
Supporting analytical tools e
Interfacing with EOPs e
Styles and Format e
BWR & PWR examples Safety Technology Department Task 4 -
Technology Transfer Interactive Technology Transfer is e
important - both from Information sources and to EPRI member utilities o Workshops under EPRI auspices ?
o Explore professional meetings as a potential vehicle ?
Safety Technology Department 1
_