ML20205D287

Minutes of 321st ACRS 870108-10 Meeting in Washington,Dc. List of Attendees,Nrc Personnel Reassignments,Integrated Safety Matrix,Future Agenda,Future Subcommittee Activities & Related Documentation Encl

ML20205D287
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/25/1987
From:	Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
To:	Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
References
ACRS-2485, NUDOCS 8703300362
Download: ML20205D287 (73)

Text

-

rq d@b?"3 m P?"3 7 m% f t PITA H fid a

i

'p % b d 4

Id.s O Q

[ k $ - g g [ 8

//[

TABLE OF CONETNTS S

MINUTES OF THE 321ST ACR$-MEETING

(()/_' 8/48/ff' JANUARY 8-10, 1987n n

WASHINGTON, D.C.

i s

I.

Chairman'sReport(O' pen)...............................

1 II.

General Electric Advances BWR (0 pen).............. '....

2 III.

Meeting with:the Director, Office of Nuclear

/'

Reactor Regul a tion (0 pen ).............................. ",. 5

\\

IV.

Implementation of NRC Safety Goal Policy (0 pen)........

6~

f k,

')

V.

ImprovedLightWaterReactors(0 pen).................i.

9 1

VI.

Meeting with the Executive Director for

>'v O p e ra t i o n s ( 0 p e n )... '...................................

9 T

VII.

Sys tems Inte ra c tions (0 pen )............................

11' VIII.

Implications of the Chernobyl Accident (0 pen)..........

1E IX.

Executive Sessions.....................................

13 A.

Reports, Letters and Memoranda....................

13-1.

Irrproved Safety for Future LWR s

PlantsDesign(0 pen).................'........

17, 2.

Implicction of the Accident at

~

Chernobyl Nuclear Station, Unit 4 (0 pen)................................

13 3.

Report to Congress on the NRC Reactor Safety Research Program (0 pen)?.......

14 B.

ACRS Membership Vacancy (Closed)..................

14 C.

Su bcommi ttee Acti v i ti es........................... ' 14 -

1.

SeismicReevaluationofDiabloCanyon(0 pen)..

14 2.

Regional Activi ties (0 pen)...................

14 3.

TVAOrganizationalIssues(0 pen).............

15 s,

4 InstrumentationandControlSystems(0 pen)...

16 5.

NRC Safety Research Program (Oper)...........

17

/

DEdIC! FATED ORIGINAI.

G703300362 870325 h

PDR Certified By

[_b,

1

i

?,

y t.> r.

l, b 'b.f

\\

f J. )

e S

.., +

6.

Planning (0 pen)..............................

19 D. / Other Cemi ttee Conclusions.......................

20

q. !

i.

Elec.trical Surge Protection..................

20 g

2.

Dedicated Decay Heat Removal Systems.........

20 b+

3.

-Heeting with the NRC Comissioners...........

20

\\,

5:

i

/f J'

E.

Future Activities.................................

20 Q

i e[

\\

1.

Iuture Agenda................................

20 a.

2.

Future Subcomi ttee Activi ties...............

21 6

I I >

g' I

3 t-

~

n e

'*d

(

a

.- s

'\\

i

)

).

-s t

f I

\\

s 5

i ag T

ig l,

)

(

r

-r

(,

f.*

k 3

N (4

h +,

, c,;

e

\\'

e' F t

\\

's,

4 t,

APPENDICES TABLE OF CONTENTS 321ST ACRS MEETING JAfiUARY 8-10, 1987 s

\\

Appendix I list of Attendees Appendix 11 f RC Personnel Reassignments IJ Appendix III Integrated Safety Matrix k

.c.u Appendix IV Future Agenda Appendix V Future Subcommittee Activities Appendix VI Other Docurents Received l i.

e i

4 I.

/ /

435m Fedsred Register, det sr. No. ze / Mondey.'Dece Notices subsections (c)(4MB)and (9MBI of Further information regardfng topoeis Committee. Discuss topfes for future f&I7 I

section 342h a(Tide 5. United Samens to be discussed. whether she meeting '

meeting with NkC Commissionerr.

Code.

hee beeo canedled er wk L:. tW 2:50p.e4.2sp.rm:ACMS Chairman's ruling on regnests Ibr the Subcommittee Activity (OpenFHear

1. D:te:Janumer12.19er Time:8.00 a rm to 5:00 p.m.

Opportunity to present erst statements and d6ecuse ACRS A.v.m3wreport Room: 413 and the time allotted thovefer em be regarding seismic reevoleeties of ths.

Prograin:This moeing wCI rewfew obtmoed by a prepaid tdophone ed te>

Diable Canyan N=he Plame.-

appr,sstions submW sed for Meseems the cognizant ACRS staEmember. Mr.

J:xp.m.-6:30p.m.: Improved Light end Wtence4 Orpnisehene Richard Major (telephone: m2/s34-14141 Water Receterr(OpenFDisease

~

submitted to Generul Progrome for between 8:15 a.m. and 52 p.m. Persons proposed ACRS repert to the NRC propects beyseneg a Rer fuly 1.1987 planning to austJ this meeeng are regarding the characteristias of

2. D:te: January 15-16.1987 urged to contact the above ma=ad improved light water reactors.

nne: ese am, to sree p.sa.

Individual one or two days before the Roanc 43s scheduled meeting to be advised of any Nay,[anuary 9.1M Program: This meeting =ill review changen in schedahs etc.which may 3.30 a.m.-aJe a.m.r Mecoq wrth NAC applications submitted forWsenma have occusred.

Executive Directorfor Operations and Helencal Orgsnizationa.

Dated. December 19,1988.

(Open/ChmdFDiveuse preposed MC Staff Reorganizatimi and aestgnment of submitted to Ceneral Programm for Thomas C. McCrerase.

personnel and its in pact on ACRS Proysta H a ntot a fter luhr L tw.

Assistant Esective Directorfor Technical activitas.

3. Date: lanuary 22-23a%?

Actmose.

Podansom seta'on @e closed Time:8 00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m.

(TR Doc. as-:9er4 Mfed 13-24-88: 8.45 arn$

Room:415 as necessary to discuss mternal NRC c,,,

Program: Then reestme wit reweer j

personnet rules and practices as we!I as applications submitted for Museums infarmation the release of which would and Histenc:rt Organfratfoes.

Adytoory Cosnammtee on Roartes represent a clearly unwarranted submitted to General Programs, for Safeguards, Nuclear Regolaeoey invasion of personal privacy.

projects begemng eftee fdy 1. 79er.

Co _ - _ _,, Meetsng Agaman RNu-ICM em: Systems 4.Date: January 29-30.1987 Interactforts (OpenFBriafing and Time: 8'00 a m. to 5:00 p.m.

in accordance with the purpoema el discussion of NRC Staffresolution of Room: 41 5 sections 29 and 182b.of the Atomu:

ACRS comments in its report of May 13.

Program: This meeting wiff review Energy Act (c U.S.C. 2039, 2232h), the 1988 on Proposed Reschition of USl A-applications submitred for Museuras Advisory Committee on Reaction

17. Systems Interactions in Nachrer and Historical Organizations Safeguards win hold a meeting on Power Plan +s.

suhuntrad to Cer.eral Programs. for lanuary 8-70.196". in Room 1046.1717 M 70:45 e a-f1:15 a.m:Strppression projects begfrming after July 1.1987.

Street. NW., Washington. DC. Notice of PoolBypass (Open)-Discuss proposed Stephen f. McC?eary, this meeting was publishedin the priority for repohstion of Ceeeric !asse Fedwal Regist on Novembu 3.1986.

81. SRV Discharge Line Break in the A drisory Corwutee Mancgen*ect Oper.

Altspace oN W D Canthats.

(FR Doc. 86-20o11 fad 12-4-46.a M am4 Thursdey, jamuery 8.1983 12:!$a.m-lhot?bboa: Appointnrentof 8:Je a.m-#4tta.ur.: Report of.* CMS New ACRShfember(ClosedFDiscues' Chairmen (OpenFThe ACRS Chairmaa the qualificaturma eicandudatoe wrff report brieflyw = Jays items of..

proposed for appotatment to the ACBS.

a NUCt. EAR REGULATOR 1f cunent interest to the Committee.

nie sesamt willbe closed ae COMMISSIOR awa.m-fovSa.nr Cenere/ S/ectric necessary to discussinternal apasr Advisory Committee on Reactor N MO8%"

personel ponoes and preences as waif A

cuss sc M

e_m as mformataan the rhse of M Safeguards Subcommittee on Generat 8

c~ Mg nW pr nt wouya a My unwananted Electric Reactors (A8WM)/ Safety 88 M m'n' CN 8

invem of personal pervecy.

Philosophy Tochttology, a:sd Crfterta; P'* E '

I#P*~&'30P auImproved Ligat Revised Portrene of th+s seeeren wiH be elooed waterReas ecrs (OpenFDiscuss The Fedssel Regiseur published en as riecesery to dieeues %~..i proposed ACRS repart to the NRC Fridsy.m==n619.1ses($1 FR 45571)

Information applicable to this project regarding the charactensticar of conimmed nonce of a jerne meeting of 11.s am-JupNme Mee6*g s4A improved li@ water reacsers.

the ACRS ue==itrees on General NRCDisecAor. Off7ce c/NueteerKeerson Saturday. january 28, IM Elessne Reactors !ABWR)/Sefety Regulation (Opeo)--Discues iteme of philosepby. Technology, and Critene to mutualinteevet regardhg the NRC BcJO c.m-1230pm; ACAS Reperu Jan be beid om Wednesday. j amary 719st, regulatory process and safety.edeted NRC(Open/CheedFDiamas proposed I

92 a.as Rooms toes.1712 H Sowet, matters.

ACRS reports to the NRC regardeg NW Washington.DC.Te the exsset JWpm-2 Jap.m: Aspkmenterkir of items considered dunng this meeting practimmi the meetung will be open am.

NRCSofety CooHMer(Open)--

Portions of this session willbe closed.

public attendesse. finsever, portions e6 Subesmmenee report and bnuKng as necessary to discuss Proprietary th2 meetne rsey he cbsed to discame regarding the stetve of NRC activitice Information applicable to the matters inAsnaabes proonded the agency froen a - regarding implersensetien of the NRC being sEscussed.

f; reign searce 6POIA Exemption M1 Safety Cool Policy.

1 xpm-2 Jap.nu ACRS' tad safegmarsk intenenekoo(FDtA 2J0pm-Uppa:FunneAerivitier Subcommianum Actirinne (Openf Exemsprise(b)4. Altotheritsees (Open)-Discwee errheipered ACR9 C30sedFHeer and discuss reports ef st.6===ttee acernues and impose designated ACRS sabcormoutsees reyeding this ansetung reummh the sense-proposed for consideratiers by the fu&

regarding seiney.eeleesd activissesL as previously ammoansed. -

~

Federal Register / Vol. 51. Na. 248 / hdonday, Decamber 2& Sees /'Nodces-4ess2 including activities of NRC meienel offices, performance of solid state Fah inlannation respnedesnapses practical ameeod of essochi devices under adverse environmental to be discussed. minatiner h smeang Appendix R and hausul-- g sheimeewegt conditions. TVA maamgement problems has been smoceUnd or macheduled, the and the proposed NRC Safety Research Chairman's ruhng on sespuests for the would not significuady enheneethe are,

proteetfoo capabGev.

• Program. Allocation of ACRS resources opportumty to psevent oral statements will also be discussed.

and the time allotted can be obtained by A*qionmenta%WhM En Portions of this session wtll be closed a prepsed telephone call to the ACRS cs necesaary to discuss Prepnetary Executive Director. Mr. Raymond P.

Information applicable to the matter Fraley (telephone 202/634-s35),

De proposed Exemption wesM being discussed and to discus

• between als a.m. and 5 00 p.m.

provided a degree af fire protection equivalent to that re'tuired by Appendix information the release of which would Dated: December ts.19es.

R such that there would be no increese be likely to significantly frustrale the lohn c. % 1.*

In the risk of fires at thrs facility.

NRC in the perfornwace ofits statutory

• • 'Y Consequently, the probebrlity of fires function.

would not be inereesed end the post-free Procedures for the conduct of and radiological releases would not be participation in ACRS meetanets were greater than previously determased published in the Federal Register on Neither would the proposed Exemptma October 20.1986 (51 FR 372411. In Imt h us amt 50401]

otherwise affect radiological plant eccordance with these procedures, oral effluents. Therefore, the Cornanssion or wntten statements may be presented Wisconsin Electric Power Co.; Point concludes that there are no signdicant by members of the public, recordings Beach Nuclear Plant; Environmental radiological environmental impacts will be permitted only during those Assessment and Finding of No associated with the preposed portions of the ewet:ng when a Significant Impact Exemption.

transtnpt is bemg kept, and questions The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory With regard to potential non.

may be uked only by members of the Commission (the Commiesion) r,s radiologicalimpacts, the proposed Committee its consultants, and Staff.

Parsons desinns to make oral considenngissuence of an exemption Exemption involves features located from the technical requirements of entirely within the restricted area as statements should notdy the ACRS Appendix R to 10 CFR Part 50 to defined in to CFR Part 20. It does not Executive Director as far in advance as Wisconsin Electne Power Company (the affect non-radiological plant effluents practicable so that appropnate licensee). for the Point Beach Nuclear and has no other envirnnmata! Imper arrangements can be made to allow the Plant, Units 1 and 2. located in Darefore, the Commissaan concludes necessary time during the meeting for Manitowoc County Wrsconsin-that there are no sigmEcant nam-such statements. Use of still, motion radiologicalenvirocmentalimpacts picture and televtsion camersa dunng Envisemmental P m-t associotad.with the proposed thia meetings may be linuted to selested. Identification ofProposed Action

' Exemption.

portions ci the meetu.g as determined The Exemption would allow Alternatives to the ProposedAction by the Chairman. Information regarding alternatives to the following Since we have concluded that the the time to be set aside for this purpose may be obtained by a prepaid telephone requirements oilo CFR Part 50 environmental effeds of the proposed call to the ACRS Executive Director, R.

. Appendix R Section Ill.G:

action are naghgible, any alternatives F. Fraley. prior to the meeting. In view of

1. Service Watar Pump Roesi, with equal or greater environmental the possibility that the schedule for Elevation 7 feet 0 inch, to the extent that. impacts need not_be evaluated.

ACRS meeting may be adjusted by the 20 feet separation five ofintervening The principal a!6ernative wouki he to Chairman aa necessary to facAlitate the combustibles is not provided in this deny the requested Exemption. Dnia conduct of the meeting persons zone pursaant to 111.G.2.b.

would nos reda;ce the enviroasiental phnning to attend should check with the

2. Residual Heat Removal Pump Fire ACRS Executive Director if such Zone. Elevation 19 feet 3 inches, to the impacts or significantly enhance the Grs protection capability in meetag the rescheduling would result in mejor extent that an automatic fire intent of Appendix R.

inconvenience.

suppression system is not usetalled Ihave determaned in accordance with within this zone pursmaat to ut n 2 h.

gj w jy,gj,,,fjg,,,,7g,,

4 subsection 10(d) Pub. L 92-483 that it is

3. Auxiliary Beilding Fire Area.

nIcessary to close portions of this Etelvations -19 feet 3 inches: -5 feet 3 This action does not involve the see of I

meeting as noted above to discuss inches: 8 feet: 26 feet: and 46 feet. to the resources not previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement information that involves the internal extent that an autoenatic Sre related M 'he operation of the Point suppression system is not installed personnel rules and practices of the throughout the area pursuant te IlLG.2.b.

Beach Nuclealt Plant Unrta l and 2.

NRC [5 U.S.C. 552b(c1(2, infonna tion that involves Proprietary Information [5

4. Amhary Buildmg. Elevetion 46 Agencies andPersoas Conearlfed

~ U.S.C. 552b(c)(4)J applicable to the feet, to the extant that a 3-hear fire rated ficility being discussed. information the floor barneris not provided in the The NRC staff reviewed the i====% request and did not conenit other release of which would reprenant a central part of the zone pur===, to agencies. The ataff did retain Fr==&= IILG2.a. i l clertly unwarrested invasion of Research Center as a consultant dunas personal privacy [5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6)), The Needfor the PivposedAction ii and information the premature release ne proposed Fumption is manded Mnding of No Significant Impact ij cf which would be likely to significantly becauss the features descnbed in the frustrate the NRC in the perfornsance of licensee's request regarding the omstmg environmartal asaremment, we camstede . Based upon tlse fasugoing i its statutory function per 5 USC. level of fire protection and ; wi that the proposed action will not have a 552b(c)(9). moddications at the plant are the anoot signincaat effect on the quahty nd the a

4 [ o UNITED STATES ~,, l' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n { ,E ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS o g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 %[,,,,* Revised: January 7, 1987 SCHEDULE AND OUTLINE FOR DISCUSSION 321ST ACRS MEETING JANUARY 8-10, 1987 WASHINGTON, D. C. Thursday, January 8, 1987, Room 1046, 1717 H Street, NW, Washinoton, D.C. 1) 8:30 - 8:45 A.M. Report of ACPS Chairman (0 pen) 1.1) Opening Statement (FJR) 1.2) Items of current interest (FJR/RFF) 2) 8:45 - 10: 45 A.M. General Electric Advanced BWR (0 pen / Closed) 2.1) Discuss ACRS participation in the review of this project (D0/RKM) (Note: Portions of this session will be closed as necessary to discuss Proprietary Information.) 10:45 - 11:00 A.M. BREAK 5) 11:00 - 11:30 A.M. Future Activities (0 pen) TAB-------------- 5.1) Anticipated ACRS subcommittee activities (MWL) TAB-------------- 5.2) Proposed items for consideration by the full Committee (FJR/RFF) 5.3) Items for February meeting with NRC Comis-sioners 3) 11:30 - 12:30 P.M. Meetinc with Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Reculation (0 pen) TAB 3------------- 3.1) Discuss items of mutual interest. 12:30 - 1:30 P.M. LUNCH 4) 1:30 - 3:00 P.M. Imolementation of NRC Safety Goal Policy (0 pen) TAB 4------------- 4.1) Subcommittee report of dan. 7, 1987 meeting and briefing by NRC Staff (00/RPS) 3:30 P.M. ACRS Subcommittee Activities (0 pen) 6) 3:00 TAB 6------------- 6.1) ACRS subcommittee report regarding: Seismic reevaluation of Diablo Canyon (CPS /RPS) 3:30 - 3:45 P.M. BREAK 7) 3:45 - 6:30 P.M. Imoroved Licht Water Reactors (0 pen) TAB 7------------- 7.1) Discuss oroposed ACRS recort to NRC (D0/RKM)

i 321st ACRS Meeting Agenda Friday, January 9, 1987, Room 1046, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 8) 8:30 - 9:30 A.M. Meeting with. Executive Director for Operations (0 pen / Closed) TAB 8----------- Discuss NRC Staff reorganization and its impact on ACRS (Note: Portions of this session will be closed as necessary to discuss internal agency personnel practices.) 9) 9:30 - 10:30 A.M. Systems Interactions (0 pen) TAB 9 ---------- 9.1) Briefing by NRC Staff regarding resolu-tion of ACRS comments in its report of May 13, 1986 (00/RPS) 10:30 - 10:45 A.M. BREAK

10) 10:45 - 12:00 N00N Implications of Chernobyl Accident (0 pen)

TAB 10 --------- 10.1) Briefing by NRC Staff regarding update of proposed NRC report 10.2) Discuss proposed ACRS comments / recommendations (00/RPS) 12:00 - 1:00 P.M. LUNCH 11) 1:00 - 1:30 P.M. Appointment of New Member (Closed) 11.1) Discuss qualifications of candidates for appointment to the Committee (HWL/ALN) (Note: Portions of this session will be closed as necessary to discuss internal agency personnel policies and practices as well as information the release of which would represent a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.)

14) 1:30 - 2:00 P.M.

NRC Safety Research Program (0 pen) Status of ACRS report to the U.S. Congress (CPS /SD)

12) 2:00 -

6:30 P.M. Improved Light Water Reactors (0 pen) ( 3:00-3:15-BREAK) 12.1) Complete ACRS discussion of proposed report to NRC regarding the characteristics of improved LWRs (D0/RKM)

321st ACRS Meeting Agenda Saturday, January 10, 1987, Room 1046, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, D.C.

13) 8:30 - 12:30 P.M.

ACRS Reports to NRC (0 pen) Discuss proposed ACRS reports to NRC regarding: Improved LWRs (D0/RKM) Resolution of ACRS coments regarding Systems Interactions (tentative) (D0/RPS) Implications of the Chernobyl accident (00/RPS) ACRS comments on the seismic reevaluations of the Diablo Canyon plant (tentative).(CPS /RPS) 12:30 - 1:30 P.M. LUNCH 15) 1:30 - 3:00 P.M. ACRS' Subcommittee Activities '(Open) Reports of ACRS Subcomittees regarding: TAB -------------- 15.1) 1:30 - 1:45: Regional Activities - Report on Dec. 2, 1986 subcommittee meeting 15.2) 1:45 - 2:00: TVA Management - Briefing by NRC Staff on Nov. 21,1986(CJW/RPS) 15.3) 2:00 - 2:30: Instrumentation and Contrals - Report on Dec. 18, 1986 subcommittee meeting reoarding performance of solid state devices under adverse environmental conditions (JCE/MME) 15.4) 2:30 - 2:45: Severe Accidents - Report regarding Dec. 19, 1986 subcomittee meeting on implementation plans for the NRC Severe Accident Policy Statement (WK/MDH) 15.5) 2:45 - 3:00: Meeting of Planning Subcom-nittee on January 9, 1987 (WK/RFF)

u m u.a FOIA EXEMPTION b(6) PROPOSED MINUTES OF THE 321ST ACRS MEETING JANUARY 8-10, 1987 The 321st meeting of the Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards, held at 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., was convened by Acting Chairman F.J. Remick at 8:30 a.m., Thursday, January 8,1987. [ NOTE: For a list of attendees, see Appendix I. Mr. G. A. Reed did not attend the meeting; Dr. H.W. Lewis did not attend on January 8.] The Acting Chairman noted the existence of the published agenda for the meeting, and identified the items to be discussed. He noted that the meeting was being held in conformance with the Federal Advisory Cemittee Act and the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Laws 92-463 and 94 a09, respectively. He also noted that a transcript of some of the public portions of the meeting was being taken, and would be available in the NRC Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. [ Note: Copies of the transcript taken at this meeting are also available for purchase from ACE-Federal Reports, Inc., 444 North Capitol Street, Washington, D.C. 20C01.] I. Chairman's Report (0 pen) [ Note: R.F. Fraley was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meetirg.] The Acting Chairman noted that Mr. Stephen White has returned to duty at TVA. He then read an announcement of personnel reassignments as part of the planned NRC Staff reorganization (See Appendix II). He told the Comittee that Dr. C.P. Siess had received the NRC Distin-guished Service Award (the NRC's highest honor award) and that Mr. A.L. Newsom had received the NRC Meritorious Service Award (the NRC's second highest honor award). All ACRS Members were invited to attend the awards ceremony on January 14, 1987. Mr. G.A. Reed is continuing to recover from illness but he is not expected to return until the April ACRS meeting. He reported that the short version of the Wingspread meeting sumary had been modified to include the coments received and that copies had been sent to the foreign delegation for their views and comments. He remind-ed the Members that they should review the longer version and submit their coments to Dr. T.G. McCreless.

321ST ACRS MINUTES 2 II. General Electric Advanced BWR (0 pen) [ Note: R.K. Major was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.] Dr. Okrent, Chaiman of the ACRS General Electric Reactor Plants Subcom-mittee, introduced the start of the Comittee's review of the General Electric Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (GE ABWR). He noted that this was an information session, but as the Comittee becomes acquainted with this design a letter will be requested in several months. The first request being asked of the Comittee will be to offer an opinion relat-ing to a licensing basis agreement (LBA). The LBA will be a document that attempts to scope out areas of review. Dr. Okrent noted most of the day's discussion was introductory material with one specific topic (filtered vents) used to illustrate both technical and procedural problems which may be faced. Mr. David McGoff, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Reactor Develop-ment in the Department of Energy, gave the Ccamittee some DOE perspec-tives on the ABWR program. He explained that DOE is participating in and sponsoring the G.E. ABWR safety analysis and certification program. This is part of a DOE sponsored advanced light water reactor program aimed at rejuvenation of the U.S. nuclear option in the early nineties. DOE funding will be $8 million over a three-year period. Mr. Dan Wilkins, General Manager of the ABWR Program, G.E., gave an overview presentation of the ABWR program. He stated the program began in the late seventies. The objective of the program was to produce an ABWR with improved operability, capacity factors, safety performance, reduced occupational exposure and radioactive wastes, and a reduction in all elements of plant cost. The ABWR concept was created by an interna-tional engineering team that combined the best features of worldwide BWR experience. The program is now focused in Japan under the sponsorship of Tokyo Electric Power Company and a consortium of Japanese utilities. The technical development effort being carried cut in partnership between GE, Hitachi and Toshiba is essentially complete. Over $250 million have been invested and the concept is ready for lead plant application. Mr. Wilkins expects the lead plant to proceed in Japan, with an operating unit expected in the mid-nineties. Features new to U.S. BWRs in the ABWR design include: internal recircu-lation pumps, fine-motion control rod drives, digital / solid state control, multiplexing, advanced fuel, improved reactor and containment building, and three ECCS divisions. The plant is designed to produce 1,350 megawatts electric. The plant is engineered for a 48 month construction time. Mr. Wilkins also explained the safety optimization of the ABWR. Elim-inating recirculation piping has removed a large source of past ra-diation exposure, and has eliminated the existence of large pipes below the level of the core in the vessel. This results in a LOCA becoming a less severe event. The control red drives now have diversity. The rods are scramed hydraulically and inserted electrically. The scram dis-charge volume has been eliminated. There are now three full divisions

321ST ACRS MINUTES 3 of cecay heat removal and core cooling. They are powered both mechan-ically and electrically and are physically separated. The control system is fault tolerant, self-diagnostic, digital control. All the latest materials and water chemistry technology are used. The philosophy behind the ABWR is that every feature of this design had to be either proven by operating experience or proven by a test program. These are on the order of twenty major test programs. Mr. Wilkins explained that the ABWR design will be a part of the EPRI, ALWR Utility Requirements program. As various EPRI requirements modules are completed they will be applied to the ALWR. GE would like to have a LBA by the middle of this year, that will provide the framework for the follow-on preparation of the safety analyses report and review. The design review is targeted for completion in 1990. It is expected that design certification would be cornpleted in 1991. It was noted that the real purpose of the LBA is to identify, up front, those issues that must be addressed during the course of the review. If misunderstandings exist they should be resolved in the beginning. Following the design review and certification, the design would stand for 10-years with an option to renew, without further review. The ABWR design is a nuclear island concept similar to GESSAR II. The Turbine Island is not a part of this design. Mr. Wilkins stated that the ABWR represents a major investment. GE is not eager to make design changes at this point. However, if it is believed points have been overlooked, GE wants. to consider them. In answer to a question from Mr. Ebersole, the degree of detail in the licensing documents for the ABWR would be comparable to GESSAR. GE also fel t there was extensive backup documentation that gave additional detail. The FSAR could be used as an index to that additional design detail material. Just how much of the design and to what detail it is frozen in the certification process remained unclear. In response to other Committee questions, GE representatives thought that emergency operating procedure guidelines would be produced for the A8WR. These guidelines go beyond the design bases into the degraded core situation. In response to Dr. Okrent, Mr. Wilkins thought the two most difficult issues to be overcome in the licensing basis agreement were, on the technical front, severe accident issues and procedurally, laying out the process for arriving at a certified design. Dr. Okrent mentioned a problem with the LBA approach. He felt it would be hard to identify problem areas at this early stage since the ABWR design itself was not described in detail. Dr. Okrent thought it will be a challenge to create a document that provides as much licensing stability as practical - while still maintaining necessary flexibility and avoiding impediments created by backfitting procedures. l Mr. Wilkins said that GE would like to outline big fundamental issues in l the licensing basis agreement. The document itself would have the force of a memorandum of understanding. I l l

321ST ACRS MINUTES 4 Mr. Ralph Caruso, Senior Project Manager of the ABWR Project, discussed the Staff's review plan and the licensing basis agreement.- He noted that the ABWR project involved new concepts in licensing, including: a new standardized BWR design, the use of the licensing basis agreement, the design certification process, and the use of the EPRI light water reactors requirements document. Since a lead plant may first be built in Japan, coordination on the review effort between U.S. and Japanese regulatory agencies is anticipated. Mr. Caruso explained that the licensing basis agreement is an agreement concerning the groundrules and procedural arrangements for the ABWR review. The LBA should describe the expected scenario for the review. Where possible, and when they are available, the LBA will provide technical design bases for issues that have been troublesome in the past. Where technical bases are not available, the LBA will give procedures to evaluate new issues and criteria. The LBA itself has no basis in the regulations and is not legally binding; it is a reasoned expression of intent by the Staff and the Applicant. The Staff does not consider the backfit regulaticn applicable to the ABWR review until after the final design approval has been issued. New issues that arise during the review will be treated 'according to procedures outlined in the EPRI program and contained in section 8.2 of the draft LBA. Mr. Caruso said there were two significant open issues in the current version of the LBA. These were treatment of a probabilistic risk assessment and the severe accident policy statement. Until a final version of a severe accident policy stater 1ent regulation and containment performance criteria are finished, the Staff will use draft versions for guidance. Currently, the Staff expects final versions of these initia-tives to be ready by spring, and expects to be able to incorporate them into a final LBA. Dr. Okrent suggested the Staff use the EPRI screening criteria for new improvements and evaluate a large number of improvements already imple-mented. by other nations using LWRs (France, Germany, England, Japan, etc.). This would give the Staff and Commissioners some. feel for the criteria. Dr. Okrent was also concerned over how uncertainties would be factored into the screening process. Mr. Caruso indicated the LBA was not scheduled for completion until June of 1987. He wanted ACRS comments or the LBA proposal so they could be incorporated into the final document. Both General Electric and the Staff discussed the issue of a containment filtered vent system. GE felt such a system was not necessary. They believe a filtered vent is not necessary since features to prevent a melt accident have reduced core damage probability to less than corg/RY. Mitigation features prevent containment overpressure, exclude 10' hydrogen burning, and resist core debris attack on the containment ~ building. They believe the containment design ensures suppression pool scrubbing of fission products and makes pool bypass unlikely. Even so, a provision for a vent (containment penetration) is included in the design.

321ST ACRS MINUTES 5 9 Mr. Caruso stated the NRC Staff does not have a firm position on fil-tered vents. At this stage of the ABWR review it is hard to establish a position cre way or the other. Mr. Sawyer of General Electric told Dr. Okrent that the ABWR had 100% relief capacity to the suppression pool. Peak vessel pressures, given a delayed scram, are about the same as for the BWR-6, on the order of 1,375 psi. Power levels are acceptable for 15-20 minutes until liquid poison can shutdown the chain reaction. III. Meeting with the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (0 pen) [ Note: Thomas G. McCreless was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting] Mr. Harold Denton, NRR, discussed recent NRC Staff action concerning the accident at Chernobyl, Strategic Planning and the reliability of auxil-iary feedwater systems. Concerning the accident at Chernobyl, Mr. Denton said that the NRC Staff is nearing publication of two reports. The first is an interagency compilation of facts that pertains to causes and effects of the acci-dent. It is expected that this report will be issued within the next month. The second report is an assessment of the implications of that accident for NRC licensed reactor. It is planned that ACRS comments will be scught on report on the implications. Dr. Moeller requested that the NRC Staff forward any information it may receive concerning the health effects from the use of KI by the Soviets following the Chernobyl accident. Concerning Strategic Planning, Mr. H. Denton is the Chairman of the Strategic Planning Steering Committee. Membership includes Dr. Eric Beckjord, Dr. Tom Murley, some people from Resource Management, and senior managcrs. The plan is to cover five years and currently is not tied to the NRC budget. Mr. Denton said that he hopes the 1st phase will be completed by the end of February. He said that the NRC is at the end of an era regarding Licensing but that many new problems will mean more interaction with other Federal and state agencies such as high level waste, new reactor designs and increased involvement by states. Dr. Okrent suggested that another Federal agency had gathered informa-tion from the public for consideration in developing a strategic plan. He said that in his opinion the NRC is in a dilemma concerning the use of the cost / benefit approach to improving safety. He said if someone at NRC were to be responsible to the concerns of the public he might be reassigned. Mr. Denton said that some people have expressed the belief that he and Robert Bernero were reassigned because they had advocated a change in the Mark I reactors but that there was no connection.

321ST ACRS MINUTES 6 Mr. Denton noted the exchange of letters between the ACRS and NRR regarding resciution of Generic Issue 124, " Auxiliary Feedwater System Reliability" for seven older operating PWRs. He also noted NRRs issu-ance of a Safety Evaluation Report resolving this issue for the Prairie Island plant. (Note: ACRS has received copies of this report). This SER addresses the point that NRR has chosen to pursue a plant specific resolution approach instead of a more generic resolution based on an objective reliability criterion as suggested by the Comittee. Mr. Denton noted that NRR had been criticized for delay in resolving this concern vis-a-vis the plant specific approach now underway for this issue. The approach now being taken will assure expeditious and satis-factory resolution of this concern. Mr. Wa rd expressed disappointment with the NRR resolution approach. Noting that NRC is supposed to be making use of objective and quantita-tive reliability criteria to address safety concerns, he said the NRR approach is a step backward in this regard. Further discussion brought out the point that the backfit rule requirement that potential fixes be evaluated against tho $1000/ man rem cost limit means that very few fixes are cost effective at a core melt pgobability of 10-4 and that almost no fixes are cost effective at a 10 core melt probability. Citing the extensive delay associated with resolving the ATWS issue on a generic basis, Mr. Denton also noted that he did not believe the issue should be subjected to the lengthy delay associated with such an approach. Denton said that two or three more plant specific resolution reports will be available over the next few months. He urged the Comittee to reserve judgment on FRR's effort here until it has reviewed these reports. Mr. Ward indicated agreement with NRR's suggestion and he indicated the DHRS Subcomittee would track NRR's effort and may wish to meet with them pending review of the above reports. Mr. C. Michelson questioned the process of resolution of generic issues. He said that a case in point was USI A-17, Systems Interaction. At the point of resolution of A-17, the Staff acknowledged that the problem was not previously understood and that it established another generic issue that had to go through the process of prioritization. Mr. Denton said that he was unaware of this and would look into it. IV. Implementation of NRC Safety Goal Policy (0 pen) [ Note: Richard Savio was the Designated Federal Official for this portionofthemeeting] Dr. Okrent reported on the Safety Philosophy, Technology, and Criteria Subcomittee's review of the NRC Staff's proposal for implementation of the Comission's August, 1986 Safety Goal Policy. The Subcomittee discussed this matter with the NRC Staff during the Subcomittee meet-ings held on December 10, 1986 and January 7,1987. Dr. Okrent recom-l mended that the ACRS schedule time to discuss this topic at the February i

321ST ACRS MINUTES 7 and March,1987 ACRS meetings and to work on issuing a report to the Comission at the March meeting. Mr. M. Taylor discussed the NRC Staff's' progress in developing an implementation plan for the August 1986 Comission Safety Goal Policy. The August 1986 policy statement: (1) established two qualitative goals, (2) established two quantitative objectives, (3) stated a Comission intent to pursue a course of action "that has as its objective providing reasonable assurance, while giving appropriate consideration to the uncertainties involved, that a severe core damage accident will not occur at a U.S. nuclear power plant," and (4) prcposed the use of a general performance guidelp/ reactor year.e specifying that the frequency of release be less than 10 The policy statement also expresses a Comission intent to make a best effort to ensure that the quantitative techniques used in decision-making take uncertainty into account. The NRC Staff has developed a proposed implementation plan which they believe incorporates the Comission Policy Statement guidance. The main 4 feature of the Staff's implementation plan are displayed in the "Inte-grated Safety Goal Matrix" (See Appendix III). The matrix is similar to what was proposed by the NRC Staff in 1986 prior to the adoption of the current Safety Goal Policy. The NRC Staff is proposing that the Safety Goal Policy be used for about a year as one of the decision elements in the resolution of Generic Issues and plant specific requirements, the implementation of the NRC's Policy Statement on Severe Accidents, in Environtrental Staten.ents, and in allocating NRC resources. The experi-ence gained in the trial application would be used to access the adequa-i cy of the inplementation plan. (The NRC Staff made this proposal to the Comission en January 8 before the presentation to the ACRS. The Comission appeared to be reluctant to let them start the trial imple-mentation without additional Comission guidance. The Comission is currently developing additional guidance for the Staff and expects to complete this process in 1-2 months.) The proposed Safety Goal Policy implementation plan was discussed at some length. The highlights of this part of the discussion were: (a) A general performance guideline specifying limits on the frequency of a large release is used in the Safety Goal Policy Statement and in the proposed implementation plan. The definition of a large release is controversial. The NRC Staff proposal defines a large release as one that will cause one or more prompt fatalities at the site boundary. Comissioner Asselstine, in the additional views, j which were appended to the Safety Goal Policy Statement, defined a large release as one which would result in a whole body dose of 5 rem to an individual at the boundary. The guidelines of 10 CFR 100 have been proposed by others. (b) The NRC Staff believes that the core melt frequency / cost-benefit guideline relationship expressed in the " Integrated Safety Goal Matrix" (See Appendix III) implements the " reasonable assurance... that a severe core damage accident will not occur" statement in the Safety Goal Policy Statement. This was also controversial.

321ST ACRS MINUTES 8 Opinions were expressed that, if what PRA has told us about core melt frequency is true, another core melt in the U.S. would not be unlikely in the lifetime of the currently operating plants. It was noted that core. nelt as used in the Staff's matrix is defined as one that is not arrested prior to penetrating the reactor vessel were as the " reasonable assurance" statement is directed at the more likely core damage accident. (c) The NRC Staff proposal for implementing the Safety Goal Policy Statement will utilize the results of NUREG-1150 in making esti-mates of risk. Questions were raised as to the adequacy of this approach. The six plants analyzed in NUREG-1150 may.well not be very representative of U.S. operating plants. (d) It was suggested that the NRC Staff review their cost benefit guidelines and methodology in light of the Chernobyl experience. Loss of unique societal resources are not specifically considered in the NRC cost-benefit methodology. It was suggested that this issue be reconsidered. (e) The NRC Staff's " Integrated Safety Goal Matrix" includes averted on-site costs (A0SC) in the cost-benefit rule. The subject of including AOSC continues to be controversial. (f) The NRC Staff, in the proposed implementation guidance, suggests that a factor of 3 for a reduction in core melt frequency and a factor of 10 for a reduction in risk be considered as " substantial" and large enough to not be " lost" in the calculational uncertain-ties. These factors, by the NRC Staff's arguments, correspond to the difference 6etween the "best estimates" and "95% confidence" estimates in the calculations done for NUREG-1150. (It is not clear that statistic. laws be used correctly in NUREG-1150) These factors (3 and 10) would be used as general, but not ' absolute, i guidelines in judging whether a proposed reactor modification merited consideration under the cost-benefit guidelines. There was some feeling that these factors were too high and would in practice i end up being used as thresholds rather than guidelines. D r. Okrent asked that the ACRS give consideration to the following issues: (1) The plan proposed by the NRC Staff places a great deal of importance on the results of the NUREG-1150 work. The refer-i ence plants considered in NUREG-1150 may not be representative of the currently operating plants. (2) External events are not currently considered in NUREG-1150. The question would arise as to how far the NRC can go with the use of NUREG-1150 without considering the effects of external events. i l (3) The present Safety Goal Policy uses the concept of " reasonable assurance" in expressing an intent to prevent core melt. This concept needs to be defined if it is to be implemented. i l

321ST ACRS MINUTES 9 i (4) The scheme which the NRC Staff proposed _gives some incentive for reducing core melt frequency below 10 / reactor year. The ACRS need to decide if the incentive is appropriate or if it should be larger or smaller. Conversely, the NRC Staff's proposal gives a decreasing emphasis to defense-in-depth as core melt frequency decreases. The ACRS needs to review the adequacy of this concept. (5) A number of safety-related changes will be implemented in foreign reactors. The implementation decisions made by the NRC Staff need to be examined in light of the rationale for these changes. (6) Loss of societal resources is not addressed in 'the NRC Staff implementation plan except to the extent that they are includ-ed in the $1000/ person-rem rule. The ACRS needs to consider if this is appropriate. 'f (7) The NRC Staff proposes improvements of a factor of 3 for core melt frequency and a factor of 10 for risk as guidelines as to when the benefit of a proposed modification is significant as compared to the uncertainty associated with the risk esti-mates. The ACRS need to consider if this approach and the associated guidelines are appropriate. (8) The NRC Staff proposal defines the 10-6/ reactor year guideline for a large release as applying to releases which will result in cne or more prompt fatalities at a site boundary. This definition needs to be examined and, if judged not to be satisfactory, alternatives need to be proposed. V. Improved Light Water Reactors (0 pen) [ Richard K. Major was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting]. The Committee concluded its review of this topic this month and issued a report to Chairman Zech entitled, "ACRS Recommendations On Improved Safety For Future Light Water Power Reactor Designs." This report document the results of their review, which began at the August 1986 meeting and was considered at each succeeding meeting. Additional comments were made by Dr. Lewis who was joined in these remarks by Dr. Remick, Dr. Shewmon and Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward had a separate set of additional remarks. The letter is dated January 15, 1987. VI. Meeting with the Executive Director for Operations (0 pen) [ Thomas G. McCreless was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting] Victor Stello, EDO, discussed the NRC Staff rec rganization. He de-scribed the basic reasoning and philosophy behir.d the reorganization,

321ST ACRS MINUTES 10 the current status, the next steps to be taken and how long before the reorganization will be fully implemented. The ED0 said that recert events have demonstrated the need for increased NRC involvement at the policy level concerning state issues, for intense involvement on international affairs, and for the coordination of Congressional and Public Affairs offices. Rather than separate offices, a single office is to be formed and will be headed by Harold Denton. Mr. Stello said that the NRC workload is clearly changing to that required to regulate an operating industry. A single office, NRR, will now be responsible for every aspect of nuclear' power plant licensing. This Office will combine the licensing and inspection functions. NMSS similarly will be responsible for materials and the fuel cycle. A single office, RES, will be responsible for dealing with unresolved safety questions. A variety of administrative tasks will now be combined into a single effice. Responding to a question from Dr. Mark concerning how coordination and censistency is to be achieved among Regions., Mr. Stello said that presently three offices (NRR, IE, the Region) are involved in the flow of information. With the reorganization, this will be reduced to two. NRR will be the responsible office for making sure the problem is solved. In response to a question from Mr. Michelson asking who is responsible for the preparation of inspection standards, the EDO said that a sepa-rete unit within NRR will be established. Mr. Ebersole requested that the NRC Staff provide the Committee with a list of NRC project managers and the plants for which they are responsi-ble as soon as this is established after the reorganization. Mr. Stello said that.two separate project offices will be established, one for TVA and another for Commanche Peak, because of the very intense involvement. The Comissioners have agreed. Mr. Michelson asked where the CRGR will be located and who will be responsible for the Training Center. Mr. Stello said that the CRGR will be in AEOD because that office is at least neutral in terms of being an advocate of any rule, regulation er order. AE00 will also be responsi-ble for the Training Center. This is to assure that lessons learned are also included in training. Responding to a question from Mr. Ward concerning the disappearance of the Division of Human Factors Technology from the proposed reorga-nization, Mr. Stello said that human factors would not be a separate division but that people problems will be the responsibility of NRR; the details are still being worked out. He proposes alignment of NRR activities by regions instead of by nuclear power plant types. Dr. Okrent asked if in the new organization there was a conscious effort to build a group whose job would be to look for flaws in NRC Staff policies and if NRC Staff that took unpopular positions were. moved into l

321ST ACRS MINUTES 11 0 jobs where they would no longer cause worry. Mr. Stello chose to answer the second question first. He said that the article in Inside NRC that had suggested that Mr. H. Denton and Mr. R. Bernero were reassigned because of positions that they had taken, was " sheer nonsense". Both are gifted and talented individuals who are uniquely qualified for their new jobs and they will make significant contributions to the NRC in their new jobs. In response to Dr. Okrent's first question the EDO said AE00 has a completely independent diagnostic responsibility. Dr. Okrent mentioned the ED0's appearance on the McNeil-Lehrer TV program concerning the Chernobyl accident. He said that the EDO dis-played more confidence in containments and core melt frequencies than is justified. Mr. Stello said that he is more certain now than before that such an accident cannot occur in a US LWR. At Chernobyl there was a positive reactivity feedback that literally disintegrated the core, destroyed confinement containment systems and spread radioactive mate-rials. Ten tons of fuel were ejected from the reactor; half of that beyond 20 kilometers. Mr. Stello said that NUREG 1150 had detemined for two reactors with Mark I containments that 90% of the risk for core melt for one and 99% for the other came from station blackout. He said that he believes that consideration should be given to accident preven-tion instead of the Mark I containment. Dr. Okrent said that he was sorry that the EDO was putting so much reliance on NUREG 1150. Dr. Renick asked if Human Facters would be in the Division of Licensing Ferformance and Quality Evaluation and Mr. Stello said no. Dr. Remick also asked if anything was being done in the reorganization to assure more consistency in the wording of rulemakings. The EDO said that RES will now be responsible for such rulemakings. Mr. Ebersole asked if consideration was being given to the importance of venting to cope with the loss of power and suppression pool overheating. Mr. Stello said yes. VII. Systems Interactions (0 pen) [ Note: Richard Savio was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting] The ACRS Subcomittee on Safety Philosophy, Technology and Criteria (Dr. Okrent, Chairman) met on January 7,1987 to review the NRC Staff work on the development of a resolution to USI-A17, " Systems Interaction in Nuclear Power Plants." Dr. Okrent gave a brief Subcomittee report and Mr. D. Thacker (NRR Staff) sumarized the NRC Staff's recent work. The ACRS last comented on the NRC Staff's proposed resolution to USI-A17 in a May 13, 1986 report, recomending extensive changes l, The NRC Staff in general did not accomodate the ACRS recommendations.in their revised proposal, but intends to address the ACRS concerns under a new Generic Issue. ORNL is currently developing a scope and work plan for this new work and is expected to complete this work in September 1987. The resulting Generic Issue is expected to be prioritized about 6 months

321ST ACRS MINUTES 12 4 after this. The NRC Staff's revised proposal on the resolution of USI A17 is expected to go to the CRGR in 1-2 months, to the Comission, and then to be released for public coment. This would be the "second round" of the CRGR review and CRGR is expected to agree with the NRC Staff's proposal. The NRC Staff current schedule calls for issuance of the completed resolution in the Fall, 1987. The ACRS decided to evaluate the scope of the proposed new Generic Issues and to reevaluate the resolution of USI-A17 after the end of the i public coment period. The Comittee will report on this work as appropriate at that tin'e. The NRC Staff's proposed resolution to USI-A17 involves (1) issuing a Generic letter for information describing what the NRC Staff believes they have learned from the USI-A17 work; (2) issuing a second Generic Letter which will request that licensees submit information on the l internal flooding evaluations which they have performed; and (3) utiliz-ing the plant walkdowns to be perfonned as part of the resolution of USI-A46 to search for seismically induced systems interactions. f There were a _ number of coments by Members on specific aspects of the NRC Staff proposal. Mr. Ebersole believes that the Staff has, in general, defined systems interactions in too narrow a context. Mr. Ebersole noted that fire protection equipment is not seismically qual-ified and for that reason has the potential for causing seismically induced systems interactions. Mr. Michelson stated that he was disap-pointed with the progress made on the NRC systems interactions work. He also stated that this lack of prcgress was not the fault of the people working on USI-A17. Mr. Michelson noted that the NRC Staff was sending a Generic Letter to the licensees describing NRC's insights on systens interactions and expressed concern that this would be effective. He stated that reviews of water-induced systems interaction should include consideration of all types of moisture intrusion and not just simple spillage of water on the floor. Mr. Michelson recomended that the ACRS accept what the NRC Staff was proposing for the resolution of USI-A17, recognizing that this was only a partial solution, and depend on the promised future work to address the outstanding systems interaction i issues. Mr. Wylie stated that the requirements for the USI-A46 walkdown should be made as complete as possible to avoid having to do additional walkdowns in the future. Dr. Okrent stated that NRC should try to, possibly via INF0, to develop the post-USI A-17 approach to system interactions. Dr. Shewmon stated that experience alone may reveal important systems interactions through precursors. i VIII. Implications of the Chernobyl Accident (0 pen) [ Richard Savio was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting] - Dr. Okrent gave a brief report on Subcomittee activities. A draft ACRS report on the lessons-learned from the Chernobyl accident was distribut-ed and discussed at the December 11-12, 1986 ACRS meeting. Dr. Kerr and Dr. Shewmon developed alternative versions of this report during the j 1 i ,,-..-.c .. - - - - - - -. - - -.. -.. -, - + - -. - -. - - - - -., - - -,, -,

321ST ACRS MINUTES 13 period between the December, 1986 and January, 1987 ACRS meetings. These were distributed along with a slightly modified version (incor-porating cements by Drs. Okrent and Moeller) of the original December draft. Mr. Sheron (NRC Staff) gave a brief status report on the work being carried out on the NRC Staff's Chernobyl implications and factual reports. The report sumarizing the factual aspects of the a'ccident will be issued for coment on February 6,1987. This report and the Chernobyl inplications report are scheduled to be sent to the Comission during the week of January 20, 1987. (These reports were subsequently delivered to the Comission on February 4,1987) Mr. Sheron stated that no important changes had to be made in the NRC Staff's implications report since it was discussed with the ACRS at the December, 1986 meeting. The proposed drafts of the ACRS Chernobyl implications reports were read and discussed. The ACRS subsequently sent a letter to Mr. V. Stello expressing satisfaction with the NRC Staff progress on the Chernobyl implications report and a report to the Comission containing ACRS observations on the inplications of the Chernobyl accident. IX. Executive Sessions A. Repor'ts. Letters, anc Memoranda 1. Improved Safety for Future Light Water Reactor Plants Design The Committee prepared recomendations to the Comissioners regarding improved safety requirements and objectives for future light water reactor plants. A set of additional comments by Dr. Lewis, Dr. Remick, Dr. Shewmon and Mr. Ward, and another set by Mr. Ward were appended to the recomenda-tions. 2. Implications of the Accident at Chernobyl Nuclear Station, Unit 4 The Comittee prepared coments for the Comissioners on the implications of the accident at Chernobyl Nuclear Station Unit 4 relative te nuclear power plants in the United States. The Comittee prepared a memorandum to the ED0 comenting on the draft NRC Staff Report on the Implications of the Accident at Chernobyl Nuclear Station Unit 4.

321ST ACRS MINUTES 14 3. Report to Congress on the NRC Reactor Safety P,esearch Program The Comittee prepared letters to the Congressional Subcomit-tees on Energy and the Environment, the Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulations, and the Subcomittee on Energy Conserva-tion and Power. These letters clarify the proposed change of format of the ACRS report to Congress. B. ACRS Membership Vacancy See Supplement. C. Subcomittee Activities 1. Seismic Reevaluation of Diablo Canyon Dr. Siess briefly described the Pacific Gas and Electric Program for the seismic reevaluation of the Diablo Canyon Plant (Long Term Seismic Program). This work was reviewed at a meeting of the Extreme External Phenomena Subcomittee meeting held on November 20, 1986. The program was started in 1985 and is scheduled to be completed in 1988. Pacific Gas and Electric has employed a large number of technical experts to participate in the program and is working closely with the NRC Staff and its consultants. Dr. Siess noted that the ACRS has four consultants, (Drs. Page, Maxwell, Thompson, and Trifunac) reviewing this work. Dr. Page, Maxwell and Thempson have each submitted reports, all of which express general satisfaction with the.PG&E program and contain a number of general and specific coments. The Subcomittee is satisfied with the progress that is taking place. The next Subcomittee discussion will be scheduled in about a year from now, when the work is near completion, to review the program work product. The Subcomittee will continue to follow the work and the progress of the NRC Staff's review. The ACRS accepted the Subcomittee's con-clusions. The NRC Staff also briefed the Subcomittee on the status 'of the NRC's Seismic Margins Program and the application of this program's methedology to the Maine Yankee plant. The NRC Staff has suggested that the results of this work be discussed with the ACRS once the trial application on the Maine Yankee plant is completed. Dr. Siess recomended that this should be brought to the attention of the Comittee for discussion. The ACRS accepted this recommendation. Late Spring /early Sumer would be the n.ost likely time for the scheduling of this discussion. 2. Regional Activities Dr. Remick provided a Subcomittee Chairman's oral report of the meeting of Ge ACRS Subcomittee on Regional and I&E Programs which took place on December 2,1986 in Glen Ellyn,

C 321ST ACRS MINUTES 15 Illinois. Dr. Remick described the meeting as helpful and indicated that the Region III participants were very candid. Dr. Remick noted that one iten of interest discussed at the meeting was use of radios by operators in the control room. . Twenty five operators at the Prairie Island plant have asked for a hearing to discuss this matter after the NRC issued an order to take the radios out of control rooms. Dr. Lewis noted that this brings up a question of whether large numbers of insiders, instead of a single insider, should be considered for some circumstances. Dr. Lewis felt that it was not clear which side of this issue should be taken. Dr. Remick noted that the Systematic. Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) Program was discussed at the meeting and that Mr. Keppler believes that it is one of the most effective programs in the NRC. fir. Keppler believes that in general the SALP ratings were too high and conceded that differences do exist between regions, but this matter was being addressed. The members discussed the fact that Region III lived with the Zimer, Ma rble Hill, and Davis-Besse problems for a long period of time before they were resolved. Mr. Ebersole questioned whether Mr. Keppler has "the hamer" needed to take care of problems in a timely manner. Dr. Remick found the Decerber 2nd Subcomittee Meeting to be extremely candid, refreshing, and useful and noted that the Subcommittee plans to meet with Region IV personnel within the next few conths. Dr. Remick felt these meetings are useful as information gathering meetings and that the Subcomittee might have some recommendations to the Comittee at a later date. Mr. Michelson suggested that for future meetings the Subcom-mittee should select specific items for discussion for which the specific Region has a special area of expertise, e.g., Region III is most expert in motor-operated valve work. 3. TVA Organizational Issues Mr. Wylie reported on the activities of the Subcomittee on TVA Organizational Issues. The ACRS last reported on this subject on August 12, 1986. TVA and the NRC Staff have responded to the ACRS coments (Ref. Letter from V. Stello to R. Fraley, dated November 5, 1986). Mr. Wylie sumarized the TVA and NRC Staff responses. Mr. Michelson indicated that he would be reviewing the TVA responses to the ACRS concerns as to the organization structuring of safety responsibility within TVA and suggested that he be provided. with documents describing in detail the current structuring and staffing of the Nuclear Safety Review Board. The ACRS Staff will provide. Mr. Michelson with this material. The NRC Staff has also issued a SECY paper (SECY 86-334, TVA Preliminary Lessons Learned, November 12,1986) which identified the lessons which

_= i 321ST ACRS MINUTES 16 = the NRC Staff believes are to be learned from the TVA experi-ence. This paper has been distributed to the ACRS. Mr. White, TVA's Manager of Nuclear Power, has taken a leave-of-absence pending resolution of conflict of ' interest question and his Deputy, Mr. C. Mason, is responsible for TVA's nuclear organization during this time. A number of TVA contract managers have been reassigned to advisory positions and the number of managers reporting directly to the Manager of Nuclear Power has been reduced. (Mr. White resumed the duties of Manager of Nuclear Power on January 7,1987). The NRC Staff expects to complete their SER on TVA's manage-ment reorganization by early Februa ry, 1987. Mr. Wylie recommended that the ACRS schedule a 1-2 hour briefing for the Ma rch, 1987 ACRS. The ACRS concurred. (The date for the completion of the NRC Staff SER was subsequently delayed to March,1987 and the ACRS discussions rescheduled for the April ACRS meeting). TVA schedules for startup on Sequoyah, Browns Ferry, and Watts Bar have continued to be delayed. Sequoyah's scheduled restart dates is now Spring 1987. The earliest that Browns Ferry is expected to restart is Summer 1987. TVA has stated that the Watts Bar Unit will be ready for startup by the end of 1987. Mr. Wylie will review the draft NRC SER's on the startup of each of these plants and recomend action to the a ACRS. Dr. Kerr asked if the welding problems at Watts Bar were primarily QA documentation. While there are some documenta-tion problems, a significant number of welds do not confonn ~to the welding codes. About 60 percent of the QA controlled welds have been reexamined and, of these, approximately 10 percent are not acceptable under the welding codes now in use. 4. Instrumentation and Control Systems Mr. Ebersole briefed the Comittee regarding the Instrumenta-tion and Control Systems Subccmmittee activities. He indicat-ed that the Subcommittee met on December 18, 1986 in 4 i Washington, D.C. to discuss the effect of adverse conditions such as high temperature on solid-state components in nuclear power plants. In addition, the NRC Staff briefed the Subcom-mittee on the reliability of reactor vessel level indication system (RVLIS) in the presence of the upper head injection (UHI) internals after the UHI accumulators have been discon-nected. Regarding the RVLIS, the NRR Staff indicated that this system is completely independent of the UHI internals and could be accurately used with either a UHI plant or a non-UHI plant. f w -m w <~w -w---=vs-+- ~ - - ~~-w w w -~,m-= w= w w e w-- w- - -----m-

321ST ACRS MINUTES 17 On the perfonnance of solid state devices under adverse environmental conditions, the Subcomittee heard a presenta-tion from AE00 office regarding their report titled "The Effects of Ambient Temperature on Electronic Equipment in Safety-Related Instrumentation and Control Systems." Mr. Ebersole indicated that this is a serious issue and that elevated temperatures in safety-related instrument cabinets could cause decreases in the reliability of solid state devices. Inadequate cooling can also result in common cause failure of redundant instrumentation channels. Mr. Michelson expressed scrre concern that the generic aspects of this problem have not been fully recognized by personnel at operat-ing nuclear plants. Dr. Okrent and fir. Wylie reccmended that the Comittee prepare a letter on this matter to the EDO for consideration. However, Mr. Ron Hernan, NRR, stated that the f!RR Staff is in the process of prioritizing the issues and will start reviewing the AE00 report shortly. The Staff review is expected to be ccmpleted by the end of March or early in April 1967. Consequently, Mr. Ebersole has decided to defer action regarding this letter until the NRC Staff has completed its review. 5. NRC Safety Research Program Status of the ACRS Report to Congress Dr. Siess said that although the Office of Management and Budget (OMS) has proposed a significant reduction to the total NRC budget in its preliminary mark, it restored all of that money in its final mark subsequent to receiving the NRC reclama. As a result, the total NRC budget is the same as that included in the Comission's budget request submitted to the OMB on September 2, 1986. Dr. Siess said that at the time of the ACRS review in June 1986, the total budget for the FY 1988 NRC Safety Research Program was $99.6 million. Subsequently, it has been in-creased by $4 million; this increase is specifically earmarked for research in the thermal-hydraulics area. Since there are no other major changes in the proposed NRC Safety Research Program and Budget for FY 1988, he suggested that cognizant Subcommittee Chainren look at the coments and recomendations in the June 11, 1986 ACRS report to the Comission and revise them, as necessary, to provide input to the forthcoming ACRS report to the Congress. He said that input to Draft 1 should be sent to Sam Duraiswamy by January 23, 1987. Dr. Okrent suggested that in its report to the Congress the ACRS reference the. recommendations of the National Research Council (included in the report entitled " Revitalizing Nuclear Safety Research") in certain specific areas such as human factors. Mr. Ward endorsed the suggestion by Dr. Okrent.

321ST ACRS MINUTES 18 Dr. Siess said that although he was somewhat disappointed with the technical content of the National Research Council's report, he would prepare a transmittal letter, calling atten-tion to some of its major recomendations. Reaction to the December 19, 1986 ACRS Letters to the Congress Dr. Lewis said that subsequent to the December 18, 1986 ACRS letters to the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate which proposed an alternate approach to comply with the statutory requirement that the ACRS should submit an annual report to the Congress on the NRC Safety Research program, he had conversations with Mr. Myers of Congressman Udall's staff. Mr. Myers did not raise any strong objection to the ACRS proposal. However, he was somewhat concerned that the ACRS did not bring this matter to the direct attention of Congress-man Udall. Mr. Myers suggested that an ACRS letter to Con-gressman Udall clarifying the intent of the ACRS on this matter would be helpful. The Comittee decided to write such a letter. The Comittee also decided that the new procedure will be adopted starting from next year. For this year, the Comittee decided to send a report to the Congress on the FY 1988 NRC Safety Research Program and Budget. The Comittee discussed briefly the memorandum from Mr. Parler, General Counsel, which comented on the legal rami-fications of the December 16, 1966 ACRS letters to the Con-gress. Dr. Lewis said that in writing ~ those letters the Comittee neither intended to violate its statutory obligation I nor sought any legislative change. It merely proposed an alternate, and obviously more efficient, procedure to provide coments to the Congress on the NRC Safety Research Program. He expressed dissatisfaction of the approach followed by Mr. Pa rler in handling this matter. He felt that Mr. Parler should have discussed his concerns with the Comittee first prier to writing such a memorandum and making it public. The proposal by Dr. Lewis to send a response to Mr. Parler was not endorsed by the Comittee. Consideration of the Request by Mr. Beckjord Dr. Siess informed the Comittee that Mr. Eric Beckjord, Director of the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES), met with him on Thursday, January 8,1987 to discuss and seek advice on a specific recomendation made by the National Research Council which states that the NRC should impanel an independent advisory group, reporting to the Director of RES, to review the NRC research program and provide advice to the RES Director. Mr. Beckjord was not enthusiastic about the creation of another advisory group. Since the ACRS has been reviewing the NRC Safety Research Program for the past several years and providing valuable advice, he asked whether the ACRS

321ST ACRS MINUTES 19 would be willing to undertake such an effort as recomended by the National Research Council. Dr. Siess said that he told Mr. Beckjord that the Comittee may be willing to undertake such an effort if requested by the Comission. Even then, it may not provide comments directly to the Staff. ACRS coments would be sent-either to the Comission or to the Executive Director for Operations. Dr. Siess said that if such an effort is undertaken, it would require 3-4 meetings of the Safety Research Program Subcomit-tee to de the job. He sought the opinion of the full Comit-tee on this 1ssue. Dr. Lewis commented that the Comittee's function is to provide advice to the Comission. He is not in support of providing advice directly to the Staff. Dr.- Kerr said that since a majcr portion of the Agency budget is spent en the NRC Safety Research Program, coupled with the fact that the Committee has already been spending some effort in reviewing the NRC research, it would be worthwhile to undertake such an effort and provide advice to the Staff through the Comissien or the EDO. After further discussion, the Comittee decided to undertake the review of the overall structure and thrust of the NRC Safety Research Program, if requested by the Ccmission. E. Planning The Comittee did not object to the. Planning Subcomittee's recommendation that additional subcomittee meetings be authorized as follows: i meeting of the Subcomittee on Auxiliary Systems to discuss applicable research activities 1 meeting of the Subcomittee on Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena to discuss proposed activities regarding thermal hydraulic research, the MIST program, the B&W Improved Scaled Integral Facility, etc., in addition to the two-day meeting already scheduled to consider pro-posed changes in the ECCS rule and related matters. 1 meeting of the Subcomittee on Regulatory Policies and Practices to discuss the staff handling of AIT activities and the resolution of other serious transients and "near misses" in nuclea'r power plant operations.

321ST ACRS MINUTES 20 D. Other Comittee Conclusions 1. Electrical Surge Protection The Comittee agreed to continue its discussion of electrical surge protection at the February meeting. A draft report by Mr. Wylie (Draft #1, Electrical Surge Protection for Nuclear Power Plants dated 1/10/87) was carried over for discussion. 2. Dedicated Decay Heat Removal Systems The Committee was provided with the January 10, 1987 memoran-dum from Mr. J.C. Ebersole to the ACRS, titled " Argument For Dedicated Systems" as a background document. 3. Meeting with the NRC Comissioners The Comittee identified its report Recomendations on Im-proved Safety for Future Light-Water Reactors as a suitable topic for future discussion with the Comissioners. The Cormittee agreed that it would take at least two more meetings before it will have developed a Cemittee position on imple-mentation of NRC Safety Goal Policy and that a discussion with the Commissioners of this matter would best be scheduled after that. Dr. Okrent suggested that the treatment of people who take " unpopular" positions in the NRC Staff is an item which may warrant further discussien by the Comittee and with the Comissioners. Mr. Stello, EDO, comented regarding this matter and agreed to ask Mr. Denton and/or Mr. Bernero to meet with ACRS to discuss their reassignments. The Comittee's long-range activities and particularly its role in radwaste regulation was another item suggested for further discussion among the ACRS Members as a potential item for discussion with the Comissioners. A session with NMSS to discuss its proposal for ACRS activities in radwaste regu-lation is to be scheduled during the February ACRS meeting. E. Future Activities 1. Future Agenda The Comittee agreed on tentative agenda items for the 322nd ACRS Meeting, February 5-7, 1987 (see Appendix IV).

--_.-_g..._ J \\ \\ y 0-lt 'O 321ST ACRS MINUTES 21 1 s 1, 6 yL b ' S' 2. Future Subcomittee Activities t 93 A schedule of future subcomittee activifiis was distributed i i to 16mbers (see Appendix V). \\ The 321st ACRS Meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m., Saturday, January 10, 1987. ~ ' ~ e e ? m h S t k i f ') 3 1 4 ' 3 s \\ ~ d n ~..--,. -...... -,,. - - - -.

0 - e' 321STACRSMINqES 22 . o e 0FFICIAL USE ONLY FOIA Exemption b(6) Supplement x ACRS Membershih Yacancy 4 i + The Comittee Mecided to recomen'd to the Comissioners the names of Dr. Robert Avery, Dr. Martin J. Steindler and Mr. John M. West as candidates for the current vacancy on the ACRS. Dr. Bernard i Kahn's name,t previously proposed to the Comissioners en July 15, 1986, was withdrawn. I i \\ \\ I ,L,-- ~ - n .~ + -., -... -. - - -. - -, - -..,. - - - -. - - -. - - - - ----, -- -.,... -. - - - - - - - -, - - - - - - - - - - -,, - - -. - - - - - - - - - ~ -,.

~ ( l APPENDICES AN5R 8- 0, 987 OcMS-kVrs-O O

R APPENDICES TABLE OF CONTENTS 321ST ACRS MEETING JANUARY 8-10, 1987 Appendix I List of Attendees Appendix II NRC Personnel Reassignments Appendix III Integrated Safety Matrix Appendix IV Future Agenda l Appendix V Future Subcomittee Activities Appendix VI Other Documents Received i I l 4

o 0 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 ACRS MEETING h , 8-10,(9E7 DATE: h n ATTENDEES Dr. William Kerr, Chairman Dr. Forrest J. Remick, Vice Chairman Dr. Max W. Carbon Mr. Jesse C. Ebersole Dr. Harold W. Lewis ourt W g,y gq Dr. Carson Mark Mr. Carlyle Michelson Dr. Dade W. Moeller 7 Dr. David Okrent M Mr. Glenn A. Reed Dr. Paul G. Shewmon Dr. Chester P. Siess Mr. DavW A. Ward I Mr. Charles J. Wylie l l

o NRC ATTENDEES 321ST ACRS MEETING January 8, 1987 D. J. McGupp, DOE R. Caruso, DBL D. Giessing, DOE R. Hernan, NRR/PPAS M.B. Spangler, NRR l }.2

? \\ + PUBLIC ATTENDEES 321ST ACRS MEETING January 8, 1987 J. O. Berga, EPRI D. Juiozo, McGraw Hill S. Omoto, TEPCC Kateskbaugh, UCS/Hammon Weiss Altheia Wyche, SERCH Licensing /Bechtel R. Huston, AIF H. M. Fontecilla, VA Power G. A. Brown, Stone & Webster M. Lewis, E.C.N.P. P. Collins, KMC, Inc. D. Knuth, KMC N. Osborn s

1. 3

y I, :2 ?b; i j. NRC ATTENDEES l t i 321ST ACRS MEETING l January 9,'1987 i Ron Hernan, NRR/PPAS R. Bosnak, NRR, DSR0 D. Thatcher, NRR/DSR0 N. Anderson, NRR/DSR0 H. Reponem, NRR/DSR0 f S. Bryan, NRR/DHET i i-E t l l i i i } ) i i l l l t 9

p. p.

I' PUBLIC ATTENDEES 321ST ACRS MEETING January 9, 1987 J. Trotter, NUS E. Fotopoulos, Serch Licensing, Bechtel L. S. Clifford, CFE H. M. Fontecilla, VA Power K. Unnerstall, Newman & Holtzinger D.Airolo, McGraw-Hill M. Beaumont, Westinghouse R. E.Schaffstall, KMC, Inc. C. Guild,Doub and Muntzing C. Tully,AIF S. Murphy, NIRS B. Boher, Framatome P. A. Ward, IEAL e a

u ZECH ANNOUNCES KEY PERSONNEL CHANGES FOR REORGANIZED NRC [~' Following up his announcement in November cf a major agency reorganization (INRC,24 Nov. '86, 4), NRC Commission Chairman Lando Zech has named key personnel to A!! the top spots within NRC's new structure. He has also Beshed out other details of the reorganization, including the creason within the Of6ce of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) of two new project of6cese for shelhanessee Wl-ley Authority's nuclear plants and the other for Texas Utilities Electric Co.'s amanche Peak facihty. r Zech also named two new regional administrators. '!hpped to head Region I is Richard Wihner, car-rently the deputy director of NRR; to head Region III will be Bert Davis, who has been deputy ad-ministrator in Region III. Vollmer replaces Domas Murley, who is to become the new director of NRR; Davis replaces James Keppler, who will be the deputy esecutive director for operanons. In his latest announcement, Zech also said that James Sniczek will become the deputy dsrector of NRR rather than the director of the Of6ce of Analysis & Evaluauan of Operational Data (AEOD) as was previously announced. Edward Jordan will now become the director of AEOD. De effective date for the reorganization has yet to be determined, ahhough it is expected to be in late spring or early summer. Zech believes the key features of the reorganization include transferring the functions of the OGice of Inspection & Enforcement (l&E) to the executive director for operations,NRR, and the OGice of Nuclear Material Safety & Safeguards; the creation of a new Of6ce of Governmental & Public Affairs; (z, and the assignment of responsibility for resolving generic safety issues to the Of6ce of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES). De review of full-scope probabilistic risk assessments will also be given to RES. Noting that NRC's mission is different today than when the agency was created in 1975,2ech said, "We have shifted from evaluation of construction permit and operating license applications to the regulation of a maturing operatior,al industry. The new organization will focus NRC's major program of6ces on the day-to-day safety of operational facilities and make them more accountable for our safety programs. In addition, the new organization is designed to strengthen the role of our research program to further enhance safe operations at our 106 commercial nuclear power plants. It also will enable as to focus more attention on resolving safety issues in the materials licensing and waste areas." Following is a listing of some of the key personnel changes in the reorganization, along with a per-son's current position. In some cases, a person's title did not change substantially in the reorgaruzation. OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS Director - Harold Denton (currently director of the Office ofNuclear Reactor Regulation) I Director of congressional affairs -To be assigned Director of public affairs -Joseph Fouchard Director of international programs - James Shea l Director of state, local, and Indian tribes programs - Carlton Kammerer (currently director, Ofice ofCongressionalAfairs) OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS Executive director for operations ; Victor Stello ( Deputy executive director for operations - James Keppler (currently Region III admmistrator) Assistant for operations --Domas Rehm Deputy executive director for regional operations -James Taylor (currently director of the Ofice of laspection & Egorcement) Director, Of6ce of Enforcement - James Lieberman (currently assistant general counselfor enforce. ment) 9,

1. 4

a OFFICE OF ANALYSIS & EVALUATION OF OPERATIONAL DATA U-

• 5'-M 3

Director - Edward Jordan (currendy director of the division of emergenry preparedness and engineer-N ing responsein1&E) Director, division of operational assessment - Richard Spessard (currently deputy director ofshe ( \\ division ofinspection programs in I&E) y..w. a m,,.:, \\Q) Director of the division of safety programs - Clemens Heltemes (currently director ofAEOD) br a.; u.v:- OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH "W ' '

• a hDM Director-Eric Beckjord Deputy director for research - Deriwood Ross

.,..f Deputy director for generic issues - %cmis Spels (currently director of the division ofs<ety review and oversight in the Office ofNuclearReactor Regulation) u- , :..L Director of the division of engineering -Guy Arlotto

• • ?'

d Director of the division of reactor systems and plant systems -Brian Sheron (currently deputy,, director of the division ofsafety review and oversight in NRR) Director of reactor accident analysis -Robert Berneto (currently director of the division ofBWR licensing in NRR) .. ri Director of the division of regulatory applications-Billy Morris (currently deputy director of the' division of reactor systems safety in the Offsce ofResearch) OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 1 Director - nomas Murley (currently Region I administrator) Deputy director - James Sniczek (currently deputy executive directorfor reglonal operations and

• generic requirements)

Director, program management, policy development and analysis staff-to be assigned Associate director for projects - Frank M:raglia (currently director of the division ofPWR licensing-B) \\ Associate director for inspection and technical assessment - Richard Starostecki(currendy acting deputy director ofI&E) Director of the division of reactor projects,I/II-Steven Varga (currently ap'ofect director in NRR's r division ofPWR licensing-A) ~~ Director division of reactor projects,III/IV/V - Dennis Crutchfield (currently assistant directorfor technical support in the division ofPWR licensing B) Director of the division of operational events assessment-C.E. Rossi(currently assistant director in the division ofPWR licensing-A) .'.c t : L'Xt 40 Director of the division of engineering and system technology-Lawrence Shao (currentlydeputy l director of the division ofengineering technology in RES) Director of the division of reactor inspection and safeguards-James Partlow (currently director of the division ofinspection programs in I&E) Director of emergency preparedness and technology application -To be assigned. Director of licensee performance and quality evaluation -William Russell (currently director ofthe humanfactors technology division in NRR) Director of the TVA project office -To be assigned 7.~iin ~iO 'U130 ~ ?!? Director of the Commanche Peak project office-To be assigned . M wi:.. '4 , s. u w: ;; e,r ) OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS 3.a n., r Director-John Davis Deputy director - Hugh nompson (currently acting director TVA projects sta inNRR) i, w90 ,9 i Director, program management, policy development, and analysis staff-Jack Roe (currently ~ q deputy executive directorfor operations)

• k = ?

.e,,..,- Director division of high level waste management'- Robert Browmng ,,,],. k -Director of the division of safeguards and transportation -Robert Burnett

.li..'. s

--~ve,.aste m_.ement.nd d_m.

[ IFIT Wafts SA PATRII (mlettint 79R (BWF-PILT, Liwu usprnau svi ertta it, m ALTIl fFfftTS M SEMFlf.6si)* targe Radteactive Bene tt Cost targe-scale Cere. - e WeTeasefregugenc IIcelth Effects Spy _fil.non/p-r + averted i Melt Frequency (Per RT) (Per RT) . Frampt/tateat* enstte costs)**** < In-5 i 10. er Steet both eb.tectives No forther safety legwovement 4 > 10, health effects Don't meet one analyses may be cegelred lapswee(ll. ens /p-r) 4 < 10 5 110.er leeet both objectives Invesve (fl.enn/p-r

• I

--3> #1 A05C) > 1o*I. health effects Don't meet one analyses likely required fsprove (fl.000/p-r +1001 A85C) 10'3 -10 Presumed met to meet health Heetbothobjectives Improve fil.cne/p-r 4 effects setti detatied analyses reveal otherwise + 30- j>11 post) Don't meet one Improve (St.000/p-r +1001 A05C) > 10'3 Presumed met to meet health peeet both objectives Improve (it.plIR/p-r effects entti detalled analyses reveal otherwise 43001 A05C) Don't meet one tayeeve(costsoIlmit) AH walues are taken as mean values The overall guideline for the frequency'ef a large and life threateeleg telease less then 15-6 per DT may serve as an acceptable surrogate Ifor health effects analyses) that provides a higli degree of asseconce that the Casseissfee'$ safety Coals are achieved. defense-in-depth. Otherwise, taprovement to accident atttgatten er preventlen may be desirable for added Prompt effects Inteersted to 1 elle free site boundary; latent effects to le miles. (1 A05C = Averted en I 2)J p-r ='persen-reu.stte costs (See utiPTC/CR-3568, A_Itandbook for Talse-lapact Assessment] letegrated to 50 miles FilillitE 2 %u

} gm \\ ] s (,/ FUTURE AGENDA FEBRUARY ACRS MEETING Safety Goal Policy Implementation -- Briefing on the 4 hours status of Steff action regarding preparation of an implementation plan. Review of Advanced BWR -- Brainstroming on the Licensing li hours Basis Agreement. Standard Plant Improvements -- Discuss proposed recom-li hours mendations regarding improved standardized nuclear plants. Naval Reactors Training Facility -- ACRS coments requested 2 hours regarding the moored training ship demonstration project. NRC Safety Research Program -- Annual report to Congress on 5 hours NRC Safety Research Program. Advanced Reactor Design -- Briefing and discussion regarding I hour r% the use of proven technology and standardization of advanced ( ) non-LWR design. N / Future ACRS Activities -- Discuss anticipated subcomittee 1/2 hour activities and items proposed for consideration by the full Comittee. Bypassing of the Suppression Pool in Mark I Containments -- 1/2 hour Discuss NRC Staff's proposed resolution of Generic Issue 61, "SRV Line Break Inside the BWR Wetwell Airspace of Mark I and Mark II Containments." Meeting with the NRC Comissioners -- 2 hours Topics to include: ACRS report on Improved LWRs New Members -- Further action at the 322nd ACRS Meeting by the New Members 1/2 hour, Subcommittee, or the full Comittee, is dependent on the tentative response from the Comissioners conerning the Comittee's proposal of Dr. Avery, Dr. Steindler and Mr. West as candidates for the current vacancy. Recent Events at Operating Plants -- Subcomittee report and 21 hours Staff briefing regarding recent events at nuclear power ,o plants. t \\ bl Augmented Inspection Teams -- NRC Staff briefing on AIT 2 hours l reports on Surry and on Hatch. A-9

a Proposed ACRS Reports to NRC -- Discuss proposed ACRS reports y\\ to the NRC regarding: 1. Matters considered during this meeting 2. Electrical Surge Protection Subcomittee Reports -- Hear reports from Subcomittees on recent ACRS subcomittee meetings; including: 1. Severe Accidents 2. Regulatory Policies and Practices NRC Nuclear Radwaste Program -- Meeting with NMSS to discuss proposed ACRS participation in the NRC program for regulation of radioactive wastes. zv-/4

Y ~ 4 ( \\ t N Later ACRS Meetings \\ MARCH c. Radiation Damage -- Coments on Reg. Guide 1.99, Rev. 2, Deferred until " Radiation Damage to Reactor Pressure Vessels." revised guide is received MARCH BWR Pipe Crack Guidance -- Coments on incorporation of Deferred until public comments into NUREG-0313, Rev. 2, regarding revised NUREG is monitoring, repair of pipe cracking in BWR systens received MARCH General Design Criterion 4, Environmental and Missile Deferred until Design -- Coments on proposed changes in GDC 4 revised rule is regarding design of pipe whip restraints, received MARCH TVA Management Problems -- Coments regarding proposed Deferred until TVA corporate "get-well" plan. NRC Staff p evaluation is ( received N 4 MARCH Implementation of Severe Accident Polocy -- ACRS coments Deferred until requested regarding NRC Staff's proposed implementation NRC Staff's Plan for NRC Severe Accident Policy. generic letter and attachments are received. MARCH Safety Awareness of Management at Nuclear Facilities -- Deferred until 3CRS Subcommittee on Human Factors report regarding March following proposed ACRS report discussed during 319th ACRS Subcomittee Meeting (Nov. 1986). Meeting on February 18, 1987 MARCH / APRIL EPRI Reauirements for Standardized LWR -- Coments Deferred until l regarding SER for Chapter I of EPRI Requirements NRC Staff SER is. documents. received ( l l h~Y

vi APRIL /MAY Decay Heat Removal / Auxiliary Feedwater System Deferred until Reliability -- Discuss resolution of ACRS consnents NRC Staff review regarding proposed NRC plan for review of seven of several more nuclear power plants. plants is com-pleted APRIL /MAY Seabrook EPZ -- If the NRC Staff reviews the Public Deferred until Service Company of New Hampshire request for exemption NRC Staff review from a 10 mile EPZ, the ACRS will conenent on the is received Staff review. /%e

m ,) %ses abdn (k-) ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS Regulatory Policies and Practices, January 14, 1987, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC (Quittschreiber), 9:00 A.M., Room 1046. The Subcommittee will begin its current review of the nuclear plant regulatory process. Attendance by the following is anticipated, and reservations have been made at the hotels indicated for the night of January 13: Dr. Lewis HYATT Dr. Siess ANTHONY Dr. Kerr LOMBARDY Mr. Ward NONE Dr. Remick NONE Mr. Wylie DAYS INN Structural Engineering, January 21 and 22, 1987, at the AMFAC Hotel, 2910 Yale Blvd., SE, Albuquerque, NM (Igne), 8:00 A.M. The Subcommittee will review containment integrity and Category I structures, and other related programs. Attendance by the following is anticipated, and reservations have been made at the AMFAC Hotel (telephone # 505/843-7000) for the nichts of January 20 and 21: Dr. Siess Mr. Bender Dr. Mark (n\\ Naval Reactors (Closed), January 30, 1987, National Center #2 Building, (b d) Crystal City, VA (Boehnert). The Subcomittee will review the Naval Iteactor Moored Training Ship Project. Attendance by the following is anticipated, and reservations have been made at the hotels indicated for the night of January 29: Dr. Kerr LOMBARDY Dr. Remick NONE Dr. Lewis HYATT Mr. Ward NONE Advanced Reactor Designs, February 4, 1987, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC (El-Zeftawy), 8:30 A.M., Room 1046. The Subcommittee will review DOE advanced non-LWR designs regarding the use of proven technology and stan-dardization. Attendance by the following is anticipated, and reservations have been made at the hotels indicated for the night of February 3: Dr. Carbon STATE PLAZA Dr. Shewmon NONE Dr. Mark LOMBARDY Dr. Siess ANTHONY Mr. Michelson DAYS INN Dr. Wylie DAYS INN Dr. Remick NONE 322nd ACRS Meeting, February 5-7, 1987, Washington, DC, Room 1046. Standardization of Nuclear Facilities, February 11, 1987, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC ( Aldennan). The Subcommittee will discuss requirements of the EPRI Advanced Light Water Reactors program. Lodging will be announced later. Attendance by the following is anticipated: K") Mr. Wylie Mr. Michelson Dr. Kerr Dr. Siess A-A3

u ) LJ Waste Management, February 12-13, 1987, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC (Merrill), 8:30 A.M., Room 1046. The Subcommittee will review several pertinent nuclear waste management topics, which are to be determined during an agenda planning session with the NMSS and RES Staffs on January 21, 1987. Lodging will be announced later. Attendance by the following is anticipated: Dr. Moeller Dr. Mark Dr. Carbon Dr. Remick Dr. Kerr Dr. Shewmon Human Factors, February 18, 1987, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC (Alderman). The Subcomittee will review " Safety Conscience" concept at utilities. Lodging will be announced later. Attendance by the following is anticipated: Dr. Remick Mr. Ward Mr. Ebersole Mr. Wylie Dr. Kerr Mr. Kruesi Mr. Michelson (% ( h Regional and I&E Programs, March 12, 1987, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, )() D2 (Boehnert), 8:30 A.M., Room 1046. The Subcomittee will continue its review of the activities of the Office of Inspection and Enforcenent. Attendance by the following is anticipated: Dr. Remick Mr. Reed Mr. Michelson Mr. Ward Dr. Moeller Mr. Wylie Severe Accidents, Date to be determined (February / March), Washington, DC (Houston). The Subcommittee will continue the review of tee NRC Implementation Plan for Severe Accidents, specifically the generic letters for Individual Plant Examinations (IPE) for existing plants. Attendance by the following is anticipated: Dr. Kerr Dr. Okrent Dr. Carbon Dr. Shewman Dr. Mark Dr. Siess AC/DC Power Systems Reliability, Date to be detemined (March), Washington, DC (El-Zeftawy). The Subcommittee will review the proposed Station BTackout rule. Attendance by the following is anticipated: Dr. Kerr Dr. Lewis Mr. Ebersole Mr. Wylie l tY

v e k ,N Q Joint Occupational & Environmental Protection Systems / Severe Accidents /Seabrook, Date to be determined (March) Washington, DC (Igne/ Houston / Major). The Subcommittee will review Brookhaven National Laboratory's draft report of the Seabrook Emergency Planning Sensitivity Study. Attendance by the following is anticipated: Dr. Moeller Dr. Remick Dr. Kerr Dr. Siess Dr. Mark Dr. Catton (tent.) Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena, Date to be determined (2-day meeting, April / May), INEL, Idaho Falls, ID (Boehnert). The Subcommittee will review: (1) the Final ECCS Rule and associated documentation, (2) uncertainty method-ology to be applied to review of new BE ECCS code models, and (3) the TIC activities at INEL. Attendance by the following is anticipated: Mr. Michelson Dr. Catton Mr. Ebersole Dr. Schrock Dr. Kerr Dr. Sullivan Mr. Ward Dr. Tien G Mr. Ward Decay Heat Removal Systems (tentative), Date to be determined (April /May), Washington, DC (Boehnert). The Subcomittee will continue its review of the NRR Resolution Position for USI A-45. Attendance by the following is anticipated: Mr. Ward Mr. Wylie Mr. Ebersole Dr. Catton Mr. Michelson Mr. Davis Mr. Reed Seabrook Unit 1. Date to be determined, Washington, DC (Major). The Subcomittee will review the application for a full power operating license for Seabrook Unit 1. Attendance by the following is anticipated: Dr. Kerr Dr. Moeller Dr. Lewis Mr. Michelson Regional and I&E Programs, Date to be determined (May), Region IV, Arling-ton, TX (Boehnert). The Subcomittee will review the activities under the control of the Region IV Office. Attendance by the following is anti-cipated: Dr. Remick Mr. Reed Mr. Michelson Mr. Ward Dr. Moeller Mr. Wylie a 4W

u. . Metal Components, Date to be determined, Washington, DC (Igne). The Tubcommittee will: (1) review public coninents on GDC 4 broad scope rule (LBB) and criteria for component support design margins, (2) hear a status report of the Whipjet program (application of broad scope GDC-4 criteria) as applied to lead plant Beaver Valley Unit 2; (3) review public comments on NUREG-0313. Revision 2 (long rance fix for BWR-IGSCC problems), (4) discuss Reg. Guide 1.99, Rev. 2, and (5) review other related matters i.e., Surry feedwater suction piping failure. Attendance by the following is anticipated: Dr. Shewmon Dr. Bush Mr. Michelson Dr. Kassner Mr. Ward Mr. Rodabaugh Mr. Bender O 1 i 's l h

u_s-7..---. SCHEDULE OF ACRS SUBCOMITTEE MEETING (O\\ DATE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING STAFF ENGR. & MEMBERS V JANUARY 14, 1987 REGULATORY POLICIES AND (QUITTSCHREIBER) Lewis, PRACTICES Kerr, Remick Siess, Ward, Wylie PURPOSE: The Subcommittee will begin its current review of the nuclear plant regulatory process. LOCATION: WASHINGTON, DC BACKGROUND: What action is requested; by what date is it needed? During the August 1986 ACRS meeting the Comittee assigned the Reg. Policies and Practices Subcommittee to review the regulatory process. What will be done at this meeting? The Subcommittee will meet with representatives of INPO, NUMARC, and NP0C. What would be the conseauence of postponing this r:eeting? None PERTINENT PUBLICATIONS AND THEIR AVAILABILITY: 1. UNPOC Report on Leadership in Achieving Operational Excellence, issued August 1986. _ h7

v-l SCHEDULE OF ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING [] DATE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING STAFF ENGR. & MEMBERS U JANUARY 21 & 22, 1987 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING (IGNE) Siess, Mark Cons.: Bender PURPOSE: To visit and review containment integrity and Category I structures facilities and programs. LOCATION: ALBUQUERQUE, NM BACKGROUND: What action is requested; by what date is it needed? RES requested that we visit and review the above programs during late 1986/early 1987. What will be done at this meeting? See Purpose. What would be the consequence of postponing this meeting? [ None PERTINENT PUBLICATIONS AND THEIR AVAILABILITY: 1. NUREG-0900, Rev. 1, Nuclear Power Plant Severe Accident Research Plan; Section 3.3, Containment Behavior Research. (distributed) 2. Draft LANL report entitled, " Seismic Cateoory I Structures Program - Current Status and Program Plan for FY 1986 through FY 1989. (distributed) l l l I i l

1. -M

A SCHEDULE OF ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING S DATE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING STAFF ENGR. & MEMBERS JANUARY 30, 1987 NAVAL REACTORS (BOEHNERT) Kerr, Lewis, (CLOSED) Remick, Ward PURPOSE: To review the Naval Reactors Moored Training Ship Project. LOCATION: CRYSTAL CITY, VA BACKGROUND: What action is requested; by what date is it needed? Review of MTS Project to support NRC/NR review schedule. What will be done at this meeting? See Purpose. What would be the consequence of postponing this meeting? ( Impact NRC/NR review schedule. L PERTINENT PUBLICATIONS AND THEIR AVAILABILITY: SER and supporting documents (classified) will be provided on a timely basis. / \\ ) v

SCHEDULE OF ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING h, DATE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING STAFF ENGR. & MEMBERS \\ \\ EBRUARY 4, 1987 ADVANCED REACTOR DESIGNS (EL-ZEFTAWY) Carbon, Mark, Michelson, Remick, Shewnon, Siess, Wylie PURPOSE: To review DOE advanced non-LWR designs regarding the use of proven technology and standardization. LOCATION: WASHINGTON, DC BACKGROUND: What action is requested; by what date is it needed? Review draft Comission paper (that will be supplied by the NRC Staff) on Advanced Reactors standardization; February 1987. What will be done at this meeting?

1) Review DOE's advanced reactor program goals regarding standardization.

- 2) Review the level of operating experience, supporting R&D, and prototype ) testing. V 3) Make sure that the draft Comission paper is consistent with Comission goals / policy. What would be the consecuence of postponing this meeting? Deletion of CRGR review and final submittal to the Comission. PERTINENT PUBLICATIONS AND THEIR AVAILABILITY: To be provided with Status Report. 1 /\\w

a SCHEDULE OF ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ( 's DATE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING STAFF ENGR. & MEMBERS \\ i / FEBRUARY 11, 1987 STANDARDIZATION OF NUCLEAR (ALDERMAN) Wylie, FACILITIES Kerr, Michelson, Siess PURPOSE: The Subcommittee will discuss requirements of the EPRI Advanced Light Water Reactors Program. LOCATION: WASHINGTON, DC BACKGROUND: What action is reouested; by what date is it needed? Information gathering on EPRI requirements needed by March 1987. What will be done at this meeting? Discuss EPRI requirements with Staff, EPRI, AIR, and possibly vendors. ( )What would be the consequence of postponing this meeting? '1 ['t,/ Information needed by Standardization and Advanced BWR Subcomittees. ABWR Subcomittee to write letter in March. PERTINENT PUBLICATIONS AND THEIR AVAILABILITY: 1. EPRI ALWR Chapter 1. (Available in ACRS office) (ms,) /d

u SCHEDULE OF ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING [ DATE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING STAFF ENGR. & MEMBERS \\) /EBRUARY 12-13, 1987 WASTE MANAGEMENT (MERRILL) Moeller, Carbon, Kerr, Mark Remick, Shewmon Cons.: Not yet selected PURPOSE: The Subcommittee will review several NMSS and RES nuclear waste topics, which are to be detemined during an agenda planning session with the NMSS and RES Staffs on January 21, 1987. LOCATION: WASHINGTON, DC BACKGROUND: What action is requested; by what date is it needed? See Purpose. What will be done at this meeting? See Purpose. What would be the consequence of postponing this meeting? Untimely ACRS response to pertinent issues. PERTINENT PUBLICATIONS AND THEIR AVAILABILITY: Will be identified by January 21, 1987 and provided with Status Report.

um SCHEDULE OF ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING t-i ( DATE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING STAFF ENGR. & MEMBERS s '\\v) /EBRUARY 18, 1986 HUMAN FACTORS (ALDERMAN) Remick, Ebersole, Kerr, Michelson, Ward, Wylie Cons.: Kruesi PURPOSE: To review " Safety Conscience" concept at utilities. LOCATION: WASHINGTON, DC BACKGROUND: What action is requested; by what date is it needed? Develop information to establish Committee position on " Safety Conscience." Comittee letter needed for March 1987 meeting. What will be done at this meeting? Discuss with utilities, INPO, and NRC Staff concept of safety conscience. n I N \\ ) V What would be the consequence of postponing this meeting? Would be unable to meet the March ACRS meeting deadline. PERTINENT PUBLICATIONS AND THEIR AVAILABILITY: 1. Standard Review Plan 13.4, Operational Review (on-hand in ACRS office) 2. NUREG-0737, Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements, 1.B.1.2, Independent Safety Engineering Group (on-hand in ACRS office) Os fo22

a ] SCHEDULE OF ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING O( DATE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING STAFF ENGR. & MEMBERS b AARCH 12, 1987 REGIONAL AND I&E (BOEHNERT) Remick, PROGRAMS Michelson, Moeller, Reed, Ward, Wylie PURPOSE: To continue the review of the activities of the Office of Inspection ~ and Enforcement. LOCATION: WASHINGTON, DC BACKGROUND: What action is requested; by what date is it needed? No specific action requested. What will be done at this meeting? See Purpose. What would be the consecuence of postponing this meeting? None l PERTINENT PUBLICATIONS AND THEIR AVAILABILITY: To be provided on a timely basis to support meeting.

y v SCHEDULE OF ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING DATE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING STAFF ENGR. & MEMBERS s d(0BEDETERMINEDSEVERE ACCIDENTS (HOUSTON) Kerr, Carbon, (FEB./ MARCH) Mark, Okrent Shewson, Siess PURPOSE: The Subcommittee will continue its review of the NRC Implementation Plan for ~ Severe Accidents, specifically the generic: letters for Individual Plant Examinations (IPE)forexistingplants. LOCATION: WASHINGTON, DC BACKGROUND: What action is requested; by what date is it needed? Continue review of the proposed generic letter for Individual Plant Examinations (IPE), including a review of IDCOR-IPEH. What will be done at this meetino? Review as stated above. What would be the colisequence of postponing this meeting? May delay issuance of generic letter on a schedule drawn up by NRR. PERTINENT PUBLICATIONS ND THEIR AVAILABILITY: Intended documents by January 30, 1987. f e

v ) SCHEDULE OF ACRS SUBCOPHITTEE MEETING e(x\\ DATE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING STAFF ENGR. & MEMBERS \\v) IO BE DETERMINED AC/DC POWER SYSTEMS (EL-ZEFTAWY) Kerr, (MARCH) RELIABILITY Ebersole, Lewis, Wylie PURPOSE: To review the prop 3 sed Station Blackout rule (SECY-85-163). LOCATION: WASHINGTON, DC BACKGROUND: What action is requested; by what date is it needed? ACRS letter on the proposed rule; March 1987. What will be done at this meeting? Review the proposed' rule.and the resolution of public coments. What would be the con'sirquence of postponino this meeting? Would delay the issuanca of the final rule. 1RTINENT PUBLICATIONS AND THEIR AVAILABILITY: v 1. A Status Report and Schedule will be prepared prior to meeting. t \\

V SCHEDULE OF ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING [ \\ DATE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING STAFF ENGR. & MEMBERS \\ ) f0 BE DETERMINED OCCUPATIONAL & ENVIRONMENTAL (IGHE/ HOUSTON / MAJOR) (MARCH) PROTECTION SYSTEMS / SEVERE Moeller, Kerr, ACCIDENTS /SEABROOK Mark, Remick, Siess Cons.: Catton(tent.) PURPOSE: The Subcommittees will review Brookhaven National Laboratory's draft report of the Seabrook Emergency Planning Sensitivity Study. r LOCATION: WASHINGTON, DC BACKGROUND: What action is requested; by what date is it needed? ACRS corrnents requested by NRC before the final draf t BNL report; February / March. What will be done at this meeting? Review BNL report on Seabrook's attempt to modify the EPZ. n( What would be the consequence of postponing this meeting? Opportunity for ACRS comments on this important matter will be lost. PERTINENT PUBLICATIONS AND THEIR AVAILACILITY: 1. Technical Evaluation of the EPZ Sensitivity Study for Seabrook (draft), Technical Report A-3852 (BNL), transmitted by letter fm V. Nerses, NNR, to R. Harrison, PSC of New Hampshire. (received & distributed) /~h o N

E SCHEDULE OF ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING 3 [ DATE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING STAFF ENGR. & MEMBERS s ) V .0 BE DETERMINED STANDARDIZATION OF NUCLEAR (ALDERMAN) Wylie, (MARCH / APRIL) FACILITIES Ebersole, Michelson, Reed PURPOSE: The Subcommittee will review the NRC evaluation of Chapter I, "Overall Requirenents," of the EPRI Advanced Light Water Reactor Program. LOCATION: WASHINGTON, DC BACKGROUND: What action is requested; by what date is it needed? Committee comments on Staff reviev; January 1987. What will be done at this meeting? Discuss Staff review. Oy(jl What would be the consecuence of postponing this meeting? N, Delay proposed schedule for overall review. PERTINENT PUBLICATIONS AND THEIR AVAILABILITY: 1. Staff evaluation, December 15, 1986. ] m

J ) SCHEDULE OF ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING (\\ DATE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING STAFF ENGR. & MEMBERS IO BE DETERMINED THERMAL HYDRAULIC PHENOMENA (BOEHNERT)Michelson, (APRIL /MAY) Ebersole, Kerr, Reed. (2-day meeting) Ward Cons.: Catton, Schrock, Sullivan, Tien PURPOSE: To review: (1) Final ECCS Rule and associated documentation (2) uncertainty methodology to be applied to review of new BE ECCS code models, and (3) TIC activities at INEL. LOCATION: IDAHO FALLS, ID (INEL) BACKGROUND: What action is requested; by what date is it needed? Timely review of final ECCS Rule version in conjunction with review of ECCS Rule by the Commission in April-May timeframe. What will be done at this meeting? See Purpose. WSat would be the consequence of postponing this meeting? See " Action Required" above. PERTINENT PUBLICATIONS AND THEIR AVAILABILITY: To be provided in the near future. Mr

y SCHEDULE OF ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING DATE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING STAFF ENGR. & MEMBERS V [0 BE DETERMINED DECAY HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM (BOEHNERT) Ward, (APRIL /MAY) Ebersole, Michelson, Reed, Wylie Cons.: Catton, Davis PURPOSE: To continue review of NRR Resolution Position for USI A-45. LOCATION: WASHINGTON, DC BACKGROUND: What action is requested; by what date is it needed? See Purpose. Need meeting in December to support January ACRS review per NRR Project schedule. What will be done at this meeting? See Purpose, g What would be the consequence of postponing this meeting? Impact NRR milestene schedule. PERTINENT PUBLICATIONS AND THEIR AVAILABILITY: Regulatory Analysis Peport for A-45 Resolution (will be provided in November 1986).

a ~ SCHEDULE OF ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING / \\ ( ggE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING STAFF ENGR. & MEMBERS 'V (0 BE DETERMINED SEABROOK UNIT 1 (MAJOR)Kerr, Lewis, Moeller, Michelson PURPOSE: Full power approval for the Seabrook plant. Currently ACRS has written a 5k power letter (4/19/83). Outstanding issues include emergency planning and Staff review of a probabilistic safety assessment perfomed for the Seabrook plant. LOCATION: WASHINGTON, DC BACKGROUND: What action is requested; by what date is it needed? Conclusicn of ACRS OL review. Prior to operation above 5% power. What will be done at this meeting? Review outstanding issues and consider this plant for a full power ACRS letter. Conclude OL review. (' ] What would be the consequence of postponing this meeting? Postponing this meeting could inpact plant operations. PERTINENT PUBLICATIONS AND THEIR AVAILABILITY: 1. SER on Emergency Planning and review of the PRA expected by fall / winter. NOTE: The proposal to conduct this meeting does not agree with the Planning Subcommittee's determination that no review of the Seabrook energency planning provisions is necessary. If this is indeed the case, there is no impediment to issuing a 100% power letter. l i 1 m

?f 1 a SCHEDULE OF ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING /~~'s DATE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING STAFF ENGR. & MEMBERS ( j ~ 0 BE DETERMINED REGIONAL AND I&E (BOEHNERT) Remick, (MAY) PROGRAMS Michelson, Moeller, Reed, Ward, Wylie PURPOSE: To begin review of the activities under the control of the Region IV Office. LOCATION: ARLINGTON, TC (REGION IV) BACKGROUND: What action is reouested; by what date is it needed? No specific action needed. What will be done at this meeting? See Purpose above. (hv ;What would be the consequence of postponino this meeting? t None PERTINENT PUBLICATIONS AND THEIR AVAILABILITY: To be provided in near future. D(G

} SCHEDULE OF ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING O DATE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING STAFF ENGR. & MEMBERS g b f0 BE DETERMINED METAL COMPONENTS (IGNE)Shewmon, Michelson, Ward Cons.: Bender, Bush Kassner, Rodabaugh PURPOSE: To review: (1) public coments on GDC A broad scope rule (LBB) and criteria for component support design margins,(2) BVPS 2 Whipjet Program, first application of GDC 4 broad scope rule, (3) NUREG-0313, Rev. 2 with public coments, (4) Reg. Guide 1.99, Rev. 2, and (5) other related matters. LOCATION: WASHINGTON, DC BACKGROUND: What action is requested; by what date is it needed? Comittee requested that public coments and its resolution be reviewed for GDC-4, NUREG-0313, Rev. 2, and Reg. Guide 1.99, Rev. 2. Comittee has also requested that it be briefed on the Whipjet Program. Infomation needed by March / April. What will be done at this meetina? V See Purpose. What would be the consequence of postponing this meeting? ACRS coments not timely. PERTINENT PUBLICATIONS AND THEIR AVAILABILITY: Tc be provided with Status Report. l . m-

(m 0THER DOCUMENTS RECEIVED Meeting with H. Denton, hRR, to discuss topics of mutual interest, dated January 5,1987 (Tab 3). Memorandum from R. Fraley to ACRS Members, subject: NRC Long Range / Strategic Planning, dated November 14, 1986. Memorandum from Chairtaan Zech to V. Stello, subject: Strategic Planning Steering Group, dated November 10, 1986. Memorandum fron R. Major to M. Carbon, subject: Comission Comments and Initiative Regarding Strategic Planning, dated October 3,1986. Memorandum from Chairman Zech to V. Stello, subject: Strategic Planning, dated September 19, 1986, Letter from Dr. Evans, SDG, to D. Rathbun, OPE, listing the initial composite of strategic topics based on interviews with Comissioners and EDO, dated July 18, 1986. Memorandum from P. Boehnert to D. Ward, subject: GENERIC ISSUE 124, dated December 17, 1986. 'N Memorandum fron P. Boehnert to D. Ward, subject: NRC Staff Response to ACRS Comments on the Proposed Resolution of GI 124, dated November 10, 1986. Letter from H. Denton to D. Ward, subject: ACRS Coments on Proposed Resolu-3 tion of Generic Issue 124, dated October 21, 1986. Letter from D. Ward to V. Stello, subject: ACRS Comments on Proposed Resolu-tion of Generic Issue 124, dated September 17, 1986. Proposed Agenda for the January 8, 1987 ACRS Discussion on the Implementation of the Comission's Safety Goal. Memorandum from R. Savio to ACRS Members, subject: ACRS Discussion on the Implementation of the Commission's Safety Goal Policy, dated January 2,1987. NRC,10 CFR Part 50 - Safety Goals for the Operating Safety Goals Policy. Separate Views of Comissioner Bernthal on Safety Goals Policy. Letter from D. Ward to Stello, subject: Application of NRC Safety Goals in Licensing Issues, dated November 10, 1986. Letter from D. Ward to N. Palladino, subject: ACRS Coments on Quantification of Public Health Risks, dated April 16, 1986. Letter from D. Ward to N. Palladino, subject: Additional Coments on Proposed Safety Goal Policy Statement, dated April 15, 1986. Ad

_ ['} Letter from D. Ward to N. Palladino, subject: ACRS Coments on Proposed (j Safety Goal Policy, dated March 19, 1986. Letter from D. Ward to N. Palladino, subject: ACRS Coments on Proposed NRC Safety Goal Evaluation Report, dated July 17, 1985. Letter from J. Ebersole to W. Dircks, subject: ACRS Report on Draft Task Action Plan - Containment Performance Guidelines, dated March 20, 1984. Letter from J. Ebersole to W. Dircks, subject: ACRS Review of Draft NUREG-1050, "Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA): Status Report and Guidance for Regulatory Application", dated March 20, 1984. Letter from J. Ray to N. Palladino, subject: ACRS Coments on Proposed NRC Safety Goal Evaluation Plan, dated August 9, 1983. Letter from J. Ray to N. Palladino, subject: ACRS Coments on Proposed Safety Goal Policy Statement, dated January 10, 1983. Letter from P. Shewmon to N. Palladir.o, subject: ACRS Comments on the NRC Staff Questions to the Comission Concerning the Policy Statement on Safety Goals for Nuclear Power Plants, dated September 15, 1982. Letter from P. Shewmon to N. Palladino, subject: ACRS Report on the Draft Action Plan for Implementing the Comission's Proposed Safety Goals for p Nuclear Power Plants, dated September 15, 1982. \\ Letter from P. Shewmon to N. Palladino, subject: Coments on Proposed Policy Statement on Safety Goals for NPP (NUREG-0880, A Discussion Paper), dated June 9, 1982. Framework for Safety Goal Implementation, dated December 1986. ACRS Subcomittee Meetings, dated January 6,1987. Memo from R. Savic to ACRS Menbers, subject: Subcomittee Report on the November 20, 1986 Extreme External Phenomena Subcomittee Discussions on Diablo Canyon, dated January 2,1987. Meeting flinutes for the November 20, 1986 Subcomittee t'eeting, dated issued December 9, 1986. l Consultants' reports from J. Maxwell, B. Page, and G. Thompson. These reports were distributed at the December 11-13, 1986 ACRS Meeting. i Letter from D. Ward to N. Palladino, subject: ACP,S Coments on the Long Term Seismic Program Plan for the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, dated July 17, 1985. Letter from J. Ebersole to N. Palladino, subject: ACRS Report on Diablo Canyon Power Plant, dated June 20, 1984 O Letter from M. Plesset to J. Ahearne, subject: Diablo Canyon Nuclear Station, V dated November 12, 1980.

-,G Meno from R. Fraley to ACRS Members, subject: Reorganization of NRC Staff, dated November 14, 1986. Memo from L. Zech to V. Stello, subject: Reorganization, dated November 10, 1986. 1 Memo from V. Stello to Office Directors, subject: Reorganization, dated 1 October 21, 1986, i Proposed Agenda for the Friday, January 9, 1987 - Discussions on USI A-17 " Systems Interactions in Nuclear Power Plants. Memo fron R. Savio to ACRS Members, subject: January 9, 1987 ACRS Discussion on the NRC Staff's Proposed Resolution of USI A-17, dated January 2, 1987. Letter from D. Ward to V. Stello, subject: ACRS Coments on Proposed Resolu-tion of USI A-17, dated May 13, 1986. Memo fron V. Stello to Comissioner Asselstine, subject: Proposed Resolution of USI A-17, dated July 22, 1986. Memo from V. Stello to D. Ward, subject: P.esponse to ACRS Coments on Proposed Resolution of USI A-17, dated August 1, 1986, tiemo from R. Savio to ACRS Members, subject: ACRS Report on the Implications of the Chernobyl Accident, dated January 2, 1987. A Memo from R. Savio to F. Remick, subject: Meeting of the ACRS Subcomittee on Safety Philosophy, Technology and Criteria (12/10/86), dated December 18, 1986. Meeting Minutes on the December 10th -- ACRS Subcomittee on Safety Philoso-phy, Technology and Criteria (Working Copy) issued; 12/18/86. Certified Minutes of the November 5, 1986 Safety Philosophy, Technology and Criteria, issued November 25, 1986. Project Status Report - ACRS 321st Meeting - Regional and I&E Programs Subcomittee Meeting - Subcomittee's Chainnan's Report. Letter from D. Ward to Chairman Zech, subject: ACRS Subcomittee on Regional Operations, dated July 21, 1986. Memo from P. Boehnert to ACRS Members, subject: Certification of the ACRS Subcomittee Minutes of the Regional and I&E Programs Meeting, December 2, 1986, dated December 15, 1986. Minutes of Subcomittee on Instrumentation and Control Systems Meeting of December 18, 1986. Letter from W. Lipinski to J. Ebersole, subject: Instrumentation and Controls A Subcomittee Meeting, December 18, 1986, dated December 19, 1986. Topics Proposed for Future ACRS Meetings dated January 7,1987. Agenda for January 8,1987 on Safety Goal Policy. 'V Memo from R. Savio to ACRS Members, subject: NRC Staff's Paper on Safety Goal Policy Implementation, dated January 8,1987. Memo from V. Stello to Chairman Zech, subject: Safety Goal Implementation Status, dated January 2,1987. 10 CFR Fart 50 - NRC - Policy Statement. Sumary/ Minutes for Severe (Class 9) Accidents Subcom:nittee Meeting on December 19, 1985. Sumary of January 9,1987 Meeting of the Planning Subcomittee. Benefit-Cost Matrix for Integrated Safety Goal Guidelines, dated January 8, 1987. NRR Staff Presentation to the ACRS, subject: NRC Licensing Program - Advanced Boiling Mater Reactor (ABWR), January 7,1987. NRR Staff Presentation to the ACRS, subject: USI A-17 " Systems Interactions", dated January 9, 1987. Schedule for Full Comittee Presentation GE-ABWR, January 8,1987. Draft ABWR Licensing Basis Agreement. Presentation to the ACRS on ABWR Certification Prograri, Presented by GE, dated January 1987. D 4 27 ..}}