ML20206A408
| ML20206A408 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/07/1988 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-2577, NUDOCS 8811150107 | |
| Download: ML20206A408 (59) | |
Text
.. -. ---- - -- . . , _. . .--
,e-D t i p - %,
. TABLE OF CONTENTS r
? A hf -
j Oy: }
m -(il d -
l 337.TH ACP.S HEETING L j.
MINUTESuj} i . M'"AN
- . s. '. fq a L e;- l1h m 3
- t MAY 5-7, 1988 %- i I. Chairmanu Report (0 pen)............................... 0.. Y.....
..... S ~1 W W ,
II. F i re Ri s k Scopi ng S tudy (0 pen ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
.. III. Individual Pl ant Exami na tions (0 pen) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 IV. Co n ta i nnt n t Sys tems ( 0 pen ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1? ,
V. Babcock & Wilcox Owners Group Plant Reassessment Program (0 pen).... 13 f
VI. Emergency Core Cooling Systems (0 pen).............................. 17 7
VII. Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena (0 pen)................................. 21 f!
VIII. Executive Sessions (0 pen / Closed)................................... 23 :
i A. Subcomi ttee Reports (0 pen ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'. . . . . . . . . . 23 ;
1 ;
- 1. Regulatory Guide 1.100 (Instrumentation
! stems) (0 pen)...................... ?? ;
- 2. and Electr.ical Control Sy(0 pen).............................
GenericItems(ISAP11) 24
- 3. Waste Management (0 pen).................................... 26 l 4 Advanced PWRs (Closed)..................................... 27 4 5. Huma n Fa c to rs ( 0 pen ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 B. Reports, Letters, and Memoranda (0 pen)......................... 29 e i
- 1. Fi re Ri s k Scopi ng Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 4
- 2. Proposed Comission Policy Staterent on the Professional 1 Conduct of Nuclear Power Plant Operators (SECY-88-57)...... 29 :
- 3. Proposed Generic letter on Individual Plant Examinations i and the Proposed Integrated Safety Assessment Program II... 30 ;
4 Proposed Revision of the ECCS Rule Contained in :
i 10 CFR 50.46 and Appendix K................................ 30 l
! 5. NRC Staff Coments on the Consultative Draft Site !
Characterization Plan...................................... 30 !
- 6. "Below Regulatory Concern" and "de minimis" Concepts....... 30 ,
- 7. Revision 2 to Regulatory Guide 1.100, "Seismic Qualifica-i tion of Electric and Mechanical Equipment for Nuclear ;
P o we r P 1 a n t s " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 !
C. Other Comi ttee Conclusions (0 pen / Closed) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
- 2. Advanced Reactor Designs (0 pen)............................ 31
- 3. International Nuclear Power Plant Aging Symposium (0 pen).... 32 r
D. Future Activities (0 pen)....................................... 32 !
1 i 1. Fu tu re A ge n da . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
- 2. Future Subcomi ttee Acti vi ti es . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 .
l l Supplement - Official Use Only (VIII. A.4) ;
8911150107 MY% \
FDR ACRS 000507 ll PNU \((
f
~, ,
t
~
11 APPENDICES MINUTES OF THE 337TH ACRS HEETING MAY 5-7, 1988
- 1. Attendees
- 11. Future Agenda III. Future Subcomittee Activities IV. Ot.ner Docunients Rece'ived
F F
(
t Federal Register / Vcl. 53 No. 80 / Tuesday April 28. turn f No6 cts' N .
increased, the radiological risk would 50 g)(4)detalMeech 4,ttes,Mneh ,
IDocket No. 50-334) not be greater than previously evs.Jable for pebifc t- =
Virginia Electric and Power Co. et at; determined, and the requind exe1mpti Commlesion's Pubbch.D+ra .C ese Envir:nmental Assessinent and would not otherwise affect plant 1717 H Street NW, Washmaton.
Findina of No SJgnifw: ant impact ndiological efnuents.Wreson' and at & Board M W .
Commission conchlee that are no lauree County Comithouse. */
ne U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Virginia 23001, and the - # N
- algnificant radiological en amental Commissfon (the Commission) is e proposed Ubraty,Manuscrfpts t' .
considering issuance of an exemption impacts associated wi -1, f *%~~l -
exemption. Univentty of Virgmia.
from certam requirements of 10 CFR Virginia 22901.
With regard tential 50 55a to VirFinia Dectric and Power nonradiologi- impacts, the proposed this tank day C mpany and Old Dominion Ele:tric ,
Dated at Roc 1vtlie.
exempti nvolves features loceted of Apnl. toes.
Cooperative (the hcensee) for the North Anna Power Sta tion. Unit No.1 (NA-1), entire within the testricted area as For the Nuc!e egulatory tb Mee.
located in leuisa County. Virginia, de .ed in to CFR Part 20. It would not g% ,
feet plant nonradiological effluents Acung De N f Dmtuow D-4 Endenmental Aasessment and_has no other environmentalirn act. UU' W' I
/dentificauon ofProposed Action umfore, the Commission conclu es at m an n gn cant
$*". a_H120 Fhd 4-24-44 ta oc 10 CFR 50 55atg)(4) requires .at 'd g ca environm alimpacts ,
bcensees update tneir inse ce [s ci d inspection (ISI) and test' . (IST) exen ption.
programs to a newer ition of Section Altneratives to tAe Proposed Actio . Advisory Cortunities on Reactor XJ of the ASME C e every to years. Safeguards; Weeung Agende j Since the regula ns require these Since we have concluded that the updates base on the 10-year environmentalimpacts of the porposed in accordance with the purposes as anniv:rsa of facihty commercial action are not significant, any sections 29 and 182b. of the Aacanic cperstq . multi. unit sites often find that alternstaves with equal or greater Energy Act (42 U.S.C.2030,22.12b) the each nit has an ISI and IST program endronmentalimpacta need not be Advisory Committee on Reactor s .ctured to a sl gbtly different edition evaluated. Safeguards wiD hold a saeeting on Wey the Code.The exemption would allow He principal alternative wedd be to 5 7.1988 in Room 1046,1717 H Street, a common start date for ISI and IST for deny the requested exemption. Since the NW., Washington. DC. Notice of this NA-1&2. A common start Jate would be staff has detennined that grantin6 this meeting was pubhshed in the Federsj achieved by extending the present Unit exemption would not result in any Register on March 22.1968.
1 program expiration date from lune 6. environmentalimpacts, derdal of this nursday, May 5,1988 1988 to December 14.1990. request would onjy result in requiring Tha proposed exemption is in the licensee to perform for some penod 8.x o.m -M5 o ma Commemts by respense to the licensee e application of time the ISI ar.d IST program at NA- ACRS CAcirman (Open)-%e ACRS dated March 3,1908. 1&2 to two different ASME Codes. Chairman will report brie 0y engard ng which would create an additional items of current interest.
The NeedforlAe Preposed Action an administrouve workload for wh d# 2an.-12c00 Noox Pite /Usk be d: scribed as only nom l.nal hnical SecMng Study (Open)-DLacuss report be use 15 a fS t A-1&2 ou d diffmnces in the inspectie testina by Sandia National Laboratory be accomplished for some criod of time n9u nnM uding the fin risk scopkg study of tJ two d2fferent ASME Co es tf a ,
]o cent power plants.
common atart date were not established. Alternoure use of 100ftm.-dWp.m>B boocA & Wi/co;r Although administratively possible, this %e proposed tion does not involve I'# #" ents (OpenHRe*w altuation could contribute to increased the use of en onmentalresources not Ba Ownen.rGoup ufny administrative overhead in the previously maidered in the Final reassessment of BaW water cooled performance of mspection and testing Enviro ental Statement (as amended) nuclear Powet p acts.
requirements to two different versions for tF . ' orth Anna Power Stauon. Unit 4:15 Pan.-& f 5 p.ma la tegrated Safety of ti,e Code.This will create a y 1 and 2. Assessment (Opeu)--Review NRC StoT substantial and additional Agencies and renons Consulted proposed reootrements foe continuation administrouve workload for what can %e NRC staff redewed the bcensee's of the ISAP program, be desenbed as only nominal techn!c 1159 m -&xp.or; Thermo/-
difference in the inspection and te request and did not consult other Nydroulic Phenomeno (Open)-Discuse requirements. agencias or persons. proposed ACRS comments regarding Environmentol!mpoets of Wposed nading of No Significant Impact NRC thermal. hydraulic reeearth Action The Commission has determined not program. .
He proposed exem on will provide to prepare an environmentalimpact Friday, May 4. less a degree of IS! and tnet is statement for the pmposed exetnption, Based upon the longoing &x act -f&f 5 a.ma Ceneric leeuee equivalent to that tred by 10 CFR (Open)-Discus proposed priorittratten 50 55afg)(4) sur hat there is no environmental assestroent, we conclude that the proposed acation Mll not hava of new Feneric lasues, incnsee in the ruk of fadute for 1&x o.m.-flix o.m> World .
operationa endiness of pumps and a significant effect on the quality of the
- Association cfNuclear Operefore vehes w se funtion is required for . human environment.
Fe further details with respect to this (Open)-Briefing regardine the esfety , th se fedes Consenc-dy. action, see the appbcation for exempt 2cn objectnes, etc.of the World Assocastion the bability of failure for operational of NucJear Operstors.
te :ss of cornponents has not been from the requiremant ot to CFR
e a '
g 14874 Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 80 / ruesday, April _26. 1988 / N:tices J1:30 a.m.-12.Ja p.m.:IndividualPlanf Persona desiring to make oral associated with the Monitor Tank E.iomination (Open)-Review proposed statements should notify the ACRS Building (M1T) which la being NRC generic letter regarding ! pes for Executive Director as far in advance as constructed at Catawba Nuclear Station.
nuclear power plants, practicable so that appropriate Also.TS Figure 5.1-4 "Unrestricted Area 1: Jap m.-200p.m. Revised ECCS arrangements can be made to allow the and Site Boundary for Radioactive Ruh (Open)-Review proposed revision necessary time during the meeting for Gaseous Effluent" will be revised to ef to CFR 50.46. Acceptance Cnteria for such statements. Use cf still. motion show the MTB as a potential release Emergency Core Cooling Systems for picture and television camerse during point.
IJght. Water Nuclear Power Plants. this meeting may be limited to selected At the present time. Catawba does not ~
M5 p m.-4.45 p.m. Human Factors portions of the meeting as determined have the capability to process large (Open)-Review proposed NRC Policy by ll a Chairman. Information regarding volumes ofliquid redwaste due to Statement regardmg Professional the time to be set aside for this purpose restrictions on releases and release C:nduct of Nuclear power Plant , may be obtalt.W by a prepaid telephone ,,i,,. This is particularly trus for peak Operators. ,
call to the ACRS Executive Director. Mr. load condf tions associated with routine 4 45p.m.-J.JCp m. Containment of Raymond F. Freley, prior to the meeting. plant operations such as during refueling Nu/ceor Plants (Open)-Briefing in view of the possibility that the outages' regarding the status of the NRC program schedule for ACRS meetings may be The MTB and associated oomponents, to evaluate the integrity of Mark-1 adjusted by the Chairman as necessary ta age will centainment systems to withstand to facilitate the conduct of the meeting.
'dd ti severe accidents.
$C" p, persons planning to attend should check segregation for the various liquid waste 4 30p.m.-6 00p m.: Future A C R S with the ACRS Executive Director if Activities (Open)-Discuss ant.cipated streamfL Dy providing a pipmg such rescheduling would result in major arrangement and process area to ACRS subcommittee activities and items inconvenience. accommodate portable temporary proposed for consideration by the full I have determined in accordance with Committee.
equipment the facility will prodde Subsection 109(d) Pub. L 92-463 that it surge capacity and processing flexibility 600p.m.-6:30p.m.! Appointment of is necessary to close portions of this N;w Afembers (Closed)-Discuss to incorporate such future problems es meeting as noted above to discuss qualifications of candidates proposed I ad cycling. Ice condenser ice melt and information the release of which would potentia! solume reduction f r appointment to the Committee. represent a clearly unwarranted This session will be closed ae invasion of personal privacy (5 U.S C. " 9"I " * '"I8' required to discuss information the These revisions to the technical 552b(c)(6)).
release of which would represent a Further information regarding toples specifications would be made in-clearly unwarranted inva sion of to be discussed, whether the meeting nsponse to the licensee's application for personal privacy, has been cancellsd or rescheduled. the amendments dated March 23.1988.
Chairman's ruling on requests for the Addinonal submittals may be requested Saturday, May 7,1988 by the Commission during the course of opportunity to present aral statements
- 30 a m.-12-J0 p.m. Preparation of and the time allotted can be obtained by its review of this matter.
A CRS Reports (Open)-Discuss a prepaid telephone call to the ACRS The licensee in its March 23.1988.
proposed reports to NRC regarding Executive Director. Mr. Raymond F. submittal provided the following items considered during this meeting Fraley (telephone 202/634-3265), evaluations of the MTD and its related and a report on key design features between 8:15 a.m. and 5 00 p.m. accident analysis, related to advanced reactors considered The W includes many ALAAA design during the 336th ACRS meeting. Dated Apnl m 198s.
lohn C. Ilople, features that win reduce the maint* tance 1/J0p m.-2:JOp.m.! Afiscellaneous '
(Open)-Reports on and discusuon of Ahisory Committee Manciement Ofhcer. '",*[.y"[]
[ "ij, ,r o]r)de [ d t I topics related to ACRS subcommittee [rR Doc. 8&-91oc Filed 4-15-88. 8.45 am) processing capacity for high redweste assignments and ACRS activities a,c,o coot n.e+ u inventones dunns normal operation. primary including proposed revision of ACRS to secondary leak s. and contaminated subcommittee assignments and powdeu processing membership. participation by members IDocaeu+os. N13 and 50-4141 The NfTB and assocJated tnnches do not in meetinJrs wh'ch are not sponsored by house any equipment w hich is important to Duke Power Co., et al; consideration safety and being a remote facility.cannot ACRS. ACRS subcommittee review of ofissuance f mudmeta to FacMy adversely affect any equipment which is ths Westinghouse Advanced PWR. and th] proposed revision of er, NRC
- ""9 " " * * "" I ' T ^^ ' d "'
r a I*P "*^! ' e'in madunction w the f acihty em, hownn.
Regulatory Guide on Seismic "
Quailfication of Electrical and The United States Nuclear Regulatory 7n'v Onm'e'nIIost : Ire con [equences M:chanical Components. Commission (the Commission)is would be those fonowins a tank failure.
Procedures for the conduct of and consideringissuance of amendments to ne accident which is alread> analped in participation in ACRS meetings were facility Operating Licenses Nos. NPF-35 ihe FSAP is the failure of the refuehns water
- published in the Federal Register on and NpF-52 issued to Duke Power storage tank (RWSTI which results in the Company, et al. (the licensee). for release of 395 om gallons of contaminated October 2.1987 ($1 FR 37241). In water dinctly to Lake W)he. Since the total cccordance with these procedures, oral operation of the Catawba Nulear
' agei in oc written statements rney be presented Station. Units 1 and 2. located in York Coun'y South Carolina.
gojj',H n , ,
a by members of the ptblic, recordirigs g , , ,g , , ,g, g, g g; wtX be permitted only during those The amendments would revise be less than those assumed in the RWST portione of the meeting when a Technical Specifications (TS) Tables ,n,9 7,is. the consequences of the m tmsenpt it hHn l e;" and questions 3 31213114 M 4 3-0 411 1 and e n a,,, m M be - A '* * * *es ***
- in S o C y be asked only by members of the 4.11 2, to add TJ requtrements to cover RmT acudent. The re.e ses resuli;ns Irvra Committee. its consultanta, and StafL operation of systems and componenta the postulated RWST failun were
(
I
/*
^
'o, UNITED STATES
! n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
., WASHWOTON, D. C. 20666 o....
Revision 2: April 29, 1988 SCHEDULE AND OUTLINE FOR DISCUSSION 337TH ACRS MEETING MAY 5-7, 1988 WASHINGTON, D.C.
Thursday, May 5, 1988, Room 1046, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
- 1) 8:30 - 8:.f5' A.M. Chaiman's Coments (0 1.1) Opening remarks 1.2) Itemsofcurrentinterest(WK/RFF) to #
- 2) 8:45'- 11:45 A.M. FireRiskScopingStudy(0 pen)
(10:36-10:46-BREAX) 2.1) Report of ACR5 Subcomittee Chaiman 4:, 59 regarding fire risk scoping study by SNL(CPS /SD) 2.2) Meeting with representatives of NRC Staff and SNL s
- 3) 11:45 - 12:00 Noon RegulatoryGuides(0 pen) 3.1) Report of subccmittee chaiman regarding Regulatory Guide 1.100, Seismic Qualification of Electrical and Mechanical Components (CJW/RXM) 12:00 - 1:00 P.M. LUNCH
- 4) 1:00 - N P M. Integrated Safety Assessment Program II (ISAP II) (0 pen) 4.1) Report of ACRS tubcomittee chaiman on ISAP II (CPS /SD) 4.2) Meeting with NRC Staff representatives, as appropriate r SO 2:30 - 2:M P.M. BREAK I:35
- 5) DA5 - f':45 P.M. # ndividual I Plant Examinations (IPEs) (0 pen) 5.1) Report of ACRS subcomittee chaiman regarding proposed NRC generic letter regarding IPEs for nuclear power
- * f " 3 ",
?er plants (WK/HDH) 5.2) Meeting with NRC Staff representatives, as appropriate T
(a"T~raestfbG
4 - 337th ACRS Meeting Agenda ?:55 4:3 :-
- 6) 4:45 - M S P.M. / Containment Systems (0 pen) 6.1) Report of ACRS subcomittee chaiman regarding the status of the NRC program
- - 4. 4 ; r I- ere.< to evaluate the integrity of Mk-1 containments tn withstand severe accidents (DA'el/"Oll) 6.2) Meeting with NRC Staff representatives, g as appropriate
- 7) 5:15 - 6:M P.M. ACRS Subcommittee Activities (0 pen) '
7.1) Iw15-6:00: Report of ACRS Waste 4:e Management subcomittee meeting on 5: 6 4/28/88 regarding NRC coments on the DOE Consultation Draft Site Characteri-zation Plan for the Yucca Mountain Site (DWM/OSM) 7.2) &OO-6:15: Report of ACRS Waste
- r. . s - Management Subcomittee regarding 5/4/88 meeting on proposed NRC Rule on de minimis radiation levels and levels of radioactivity below regulatory concern (DWM/OSM) 7.3) 6:15-6:30: Report of ACRS subcomittee meeting on 4/6/88 regarding the WAPWR standardized plant (DAW /MME)
Friday, May 6, 1988, Room 1046, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.,
.s e
- 8) 8:30 - 11:30 P.M. # Babcock & Wilcox Nuclear Power Plants (0 pen)
(1096-10:M-BREAK) 8.1) Report of ACRS subcomittee chairman lo " regarding NRC Staff review of B&W Owners Group safety reassessment of B&W nuclear power plants (CJW/RKM) 8.2) Meeting with representatives of NRC St6ff and B&W Owners Group
- 9) 11:30 - 12:00' Noon FutureACRSActivities(0 pen) 9.1) Anticipated ACR5 subcomittee activities (MWL/RFF) 9.2) Items proposed for consideration by the ACRS(WK/RFF) a3 g 12:00 - 1:00 P.M. LUNCH so i
- 10) 1:00 - 3:30 P.M. EmergencyCoreCoolingSystems(0 pen) 10.1) Report of ACRS subcommittee chaiman regarding proposed revision of ECCS rule (10 CFR 50.46, Acceptance Criteria l for Emergency Core Cooling Systems for I light-Water Reactors) (DAW /PAB) 10.2) Meeting with representatives of NRC Staff s
337th ACRS Meeting Agenda i l
l 3:30 - 3:45 P.M. BREAK 1:4o / .
- 12) 3:45 - 41-30 P .M. Themal-Hydraulic Phenomena (0 pen) l T2.1) Discuss proposed ACRS coments on l thermal-hydraulic research (DAW /PAB)
[rg-g r' i
4:e r4 FM L12.2) Meeting with NRC Staff representatives ;
1 15 / \
Human Factors (0 pen)
- 11) 5:3d"- 6:30' P . M .
11.1) Report of ACRS subcomittee chaiman regarding proposed NRC Policy Statement 1 on Professional Conduct of Nuclear PowerPlantOperators(FJR/HA) 11.2) Meeting with representatives of NRC Staff, as appropriate Saturday, May 7, 1988, Room 1046, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
- 13) 8:30 - 12:NP.M. Preparation of ACRS Reports on: (0 pen) 13.1) Discuss proposed ACR5 reports regarding:
13.1-1) Regulatory Requirements for Key Design Features of Advanced Reactors (DAW /MME) 13.1-2 ISAP II (CPS /SD)/IPEs (WK/MDH) 13.1-3 ECCS Rule (DAW /PAB) 13.1-4 Human Factors (FJR/HA) 13.1-5 Regulatory Guide 1.100 (CJW/RKM) 13-1-6) Themal-Hydraulic Research (DAW /PAB) 13-1-7) B&W Reassessment Program (CJW/RKM) oc it:4o 12:30 - Jd0 P.M. LUNCH
- 14) 1:30 - 2:00 P.M. AppointmentofACA3 Members (Closed) 14.1) Discuss qualifications of candidates proposed for appointment to the ACRS (FJR/NSL)
(Note: This session will be closed to discuss infomation the release of which would represent a clearl personal privacy.)y unwarranted invasion of 12- @ / : s'd
- 15) Ja00 - .3t00 P.M. Remaining items as Time Pemits (0 pen) 15.1) Proposed cojoining of ACRS subcomittee (CM/MWL)
' , / f n' F M 15.2) ACPS Procedures - Proposed revision of g ACRS Bylaws regarding participation by
, members in meetings not sponsored by the ACRS(HWL/TGM)
f MINUTES OF THE 337TH ACRS MEETING M MI. 2 L L d SW.'
MAY 5-7,1988 The 337th meeting of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, held at 1717 H Street, N.W., Washingten, D.C. , was convened by Chairman William Kerr at 8:30 a.m., Thursday, May 5, 1988.
[ Note: For a list of attendees, see Appendix 1. All ACRS rremhers were present. Mr. C.-Michelson was not present on Saturday.]
The Chairman said that the agenda for the meeting had been published.
He identified the items to be discussed on Thursday. He stated that the meeting was being held in conformance viith the Federal Advisory Comit-tee Act and the Government in the Subshine Act, Public Laws92-463 and 94-409, respectively. He also note.d that a transcript of some of the public portions of the meeting was baing made, and would be available in the NRC Fublic Document Room at 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
[ Note: Copies of the transcript taken at this meeting are also avail-able for purchase frem the Heritage Reporting Corporation, 1220 L
, Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005.]
- 1. Chairman's Report (0 pen)
[ Note: Mr. R. F. Frale portion of the meeting.]y was the Designated Federal Official for this ,
Dr. Kerr announced that the ACRS office is scheduled to be relocated to the Phillips Building, 7920 Norfolk Averue, Bethesda, Md., on or about June 24, 1988.
The Comittee discussed the memorandum from S. Chilk, dated April 19, 1988, regarding ACRS participation in the development of HRC rules and policy statements.
On April 26, 1988, a Congressional hearing was conducted by the Subccm-mittee on Energy and the Environment, Comittee on Interior and Insular Affairs, to solicit views on NRC reorganization proposals. Dr. Kerr '
summarized scme of the views expressed by the witnesses, i
The first meeting of the Advisery Comittee on Nuclear Waste is sched- ,
uled to be held on or about June 79,1988(tentative).
Dr. Kerr announced that, at the 11th Annual NRC Awards Ceremony on April
- 29, 1988, the following awards were presented
Dr. Thomas G. McCreless - NRC Honcrary Meritorious Service Award Dr. William Kerr - NRC Honorary Meritorious Service Award for Special Achievement Dr. Dade W. Meeller - NRC Honorary Meritorious Service Award for ;
Special Achievement i
J k r 337TH ACPS l'EETING MihUTES 2 t
The Comittee was informed of proposed changes in the ACRS MCU to ,
provide for Comittee review of predecisional documents in open session "
even though they have not yet been released to the public. Dr. Siess suggested that this would be an opportune time to look at the scope of i
! the Committee activities reviewed under the MOV to try to reduce the '
number of topics considered. No action was taken by the Comittee.
II. Fire Risk Scoping Study (0 pen)
)
[ Note: Mr. S. Duraiswam !
portion of the meeting.] y was the Desigrated Federal Official for this [
Subcomittee Chaiman's Report
- Mr. Michelson, Chairman of the Auxiliary Systems Subcomittee, stated '
j that in its July 16, 1986 report to the Comission, the ACRS urged '
reconsideration of the budget and manpower allocations to the fire-related research. In response, NRC Chairman Zech, in a memorandum dated July 24,1986, directed that th? Staff work closely with the ACRS to ;
4 assess further research needs and to consider what priority shculd be ;
given to the fire protection research. Subsequently, in January 1987, !
the Staff initiated the Fire Risk Scoping Study at the Sandia National Laboratories (Stil). The ACRS comented on the scope and direction of i this Study in a report to the Comission dated August 10, 1987. The Scoping Study has been completed and the results and conclusions are documented in a draft report. The ACRS Subcommittee on Auxiliary Systems met with representatives from the Office of Nuclear Regulatory l Research (RES) and fren SNL during a meeting on March 9, 1988 tc discuss '
the results and conclusions of this Study.
Mr. Michelson stated that representatives from RES and SNL plan to brief .
the full Comittee on the results and conclusions of this Study. He does not plan to submit a report en this matter at this time. After receiving information on whtt course of action the Staff is goirg to r take to dispose of the recomencations resulting from the Study, he will l
, prepare a report and submit it. to the Comittee for consideratinn. ,
i Fire Risk Research Objectives - Mr. J. Flack, RES :
i l !!r. Flack stated that the purpose of the Fire Risk Scoping Study was to !
assess the r4k significance and dcminant sources of uncertainty asscci- f
- ated with fires. The information obtained from the Study will be used to determine need for additional fire protection research.
Dr. Kerr asked what criteria the Staff plans to use to determine whether l
- additional research is needed. Mr. Flack responded that the Study is i risk-based. It identifies major fire-risk certributors and sources of ;
i uncertainty. Af ter evaluating the results of the Study, the Staff will j detemine, by using engineering judgment, whether additional research is l
l needed. j i
i i f i
337TH ACRS MEETING hit lUTES 3 Di3cussion of Fire Risk Scoping Study, Overview and Recormendations - M.
Bohn, SNL Mr. Bohn stated that the main objectives of the Fire Risk Scoping Study are to:
Review and requantify certain past fire risk scenarios in light of an updated data base resulting from the NRC-sponscred Fire Protec-tion Research Program and using updated computer fire modeling capabilities.
Identify potentially significant fire risk issues that have not been addressed in the previous fire PRAs, and determine the risk significance of these issues.
Review current regulations associated with fire protection, ard plant implerrentation practices for relevance to the unaddressed fire risk issues.
He stated that the following five Tasks were performed urder the Fire Risk Scoping Study:
Task 1: Assess Uncertainties in Four Previous PRAs Task 2: Recuantify Fire Scenarios fron Past PRAs Task 3: Identify Potential Fire Risk Issues Task 4: Assess the Risk Significance of Potential Issues Task 5: Evaluate Completeness of Appendix R Requirements.
Dr. Moeller asked whether they have any information that shows that fires are more likely to occur in certain tyres of plants. Mr. Lan-bright, Sf!L, resperded that they do not have adequate infonnation on plant-specific fires to make a judgivent.
Dr. Moeller asked whether control rcom fires have been specifically considered in the previous PRAs. Mr. Bohn responded that in the previ-aus PRAs it was assurred that everything in the control renn was damaged dLe to fire.
Dr. Kerr asked whether there has ever been a fire tFat damaged every-
! thing in the control room. Mr. Lambright said no.
Results and Conclusions fre.re Tasks 1 and 2 - Mr. J. Lambright, SP:L Mr. Lanbright stated that, under Tasks 1 and 2, specific scenarios from four previous PPAs associated with Limerick, Indian Point 2, Oconee, and Seabrook pes were requantified using an updated data base and new modeling techniques. The objectives of these tasks are to:
identify the sources of uncertainty in the previous analyses.
337TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 4 Determine whether the perspective of fire risk had been altered
- significantly as a result of a better understanding of the fire problems.
Determine the effects of. the implementation of the Appendix R requirements on risk estimates.
Certain limitations were placed on the process. The fire areas were reevaluated based on the scope of issues ct 'idered in the original analyses. Reevaluation was performed using, a esely as possible, the same analysis techniques used in the original wort. Unaddressed issues identified urc'er Task 3 were not incorporated into the analyses of Tasks 1 and ;'. The COMPBRN 1 computer fire code was used in the past four PRAs to predict fire growth and fire damage. In the requantification 2 process an improved version of COMPBRN III was used.
Mr. Lambright stated that based on the evaluation of past PRAs, they have identified major uncertainties in the following areas:
Initiating event frequencies and partitioning factors Fire prcpagation modeling
~
Fiie suppression modeling Fire-induced transients vs LOCAs Mr. Lambright said that, in the Limerick PRA, it was assumed that 87 percent of the cere-melt frequency would be from self-ignited ptnel
- fires ard self-ignited cable fires. On the other hand, the other three li PRAs performed by Pickard, Lowe, and Garrick (PL&G) assumed that tran-sient oil fires would be the significant centributor to core-melt
, frequency. Those who did the PRA for Limerick did not consider LOCAs to
- be credible due to cable separation. PL&G assumed that at Indian Point-
! 2, 95 rercer.'. of the core-melt frequency would be from fire-induced
- small LOCAs, and at Oconee it would be 52 percent.
Mr. Lambright stated that initiating event frequencias for all four l previous PRAs were requantified using the data base developed by Ted i Yheelis (Sandia Fire Program). Based on the work done under Tasks 1 and 2 they reached the following conclusions:
]
1 Fire-induced core melt frequencies increesed for all four previens
! PRAs. This increase alone will result in an increase in fire risk even if all other factors remained ccnstant.
Even with the modifications resulting from the implementation of l Appendix R requirements, fire-induced core-melt fre';uency is a j significant contributor, i
337TH ACRS MEETING MIt:UTES 5 ,
The propagation times predicted by COMPBRN III are considerably less than those predicted by COMPBRN I in the original PRAs.
However, based on experience, they believe that there are a number of inadequacies in COMPBRN III, and therefore the results of COMPBP.N III should be viewed as tentative at this tirre.
There are large urcertainties that still exist. These could be reduced by applying a consistent methodology not constrained by the original assumptions to all four previou: PRAs.
, In response to a ovestion from Dr. Moeller, Mr. Bohn stated that fire contribution to core damage frequency is between 10 to 70 percent, and the contribution from seismic events is about 50 percent.
l Stating that there was a large control room fire at one of the foreigr nuclear plants Mr. Ward asked whether SNL has used the data from that fire in its requantification process, f4r. Nowden, SNL, responded that
. the data base used by SNL includes infot1 nation only from U.S. comercial reactors.
Mr. Ward asked why they did not include data from incidents at foreign nuclear plants. Mr. Nowlen responded that setetimes they have difficul-ty in obtaining such data from foreign countries. Mr. Bohn stated he believes that they should consider including data frem foreign luclear plants.
Stating that amored cables are used at Oconee, Dr. Kerr asked whether that was factored into their requaid ification process. Mr. Lambright
, responded that, since the original PRA did not take this into account, they also did not factor this into their requantification process.
, Overview and Conclusions of Unaddressed Fire R_i s k Issues - Mr. S.
howlen, SNL Mr. Newlen st1ted that based on the results of the rescarch performed in the fire protection area and on the sampling of expert opinien, they i
have identified the following issues that were not addressed in the i previous PRAs:
Manual Fire Fighting Effectiveness '
Control Systems Interact. ions Total Environment Effects (Smoke and Inadvertent actuation of Fire
) Suppression Systems)
! Adequacy of Fire Computer Codes Barrier Effectiveness Seismic / Fire Interactions t
l '.
l l
s 337TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 6 Based on the results of the assessment of the above issues, they believe that most of these issues will contribute significantly to core-melt frequency. Since the issues on smoke control and inadvertent actuation of fire supprossion systems are plant specific, it was difficult to determine the extent to which they would contribute to the core-melt frequency.
Mr. Nowlei discussed some of the conclusions resulting from the assess-ment of the issues that are not addressed in the previous PPAs.
Manual Fire Fighting Effectiveness Must suppress fires in 5-20 minutes to be effective.
Many areas exist where critical damage is likely prior tn the arrival of the fire brigade.
Knowledge of critical plant systen4s is very crucial.
Dense smoke will hamper fire fighting efforts.
- are likely to reignite.
Fires suppressed by Halon er CO2 Control Systems Intera:tions
- Even with electrical independence between the control room and remote shutdewn panel functions, subtle interactions involving control roem panel fires and randem failures can produce core damage scenarios that make a significant centributien to core melt probability.
- Many rerote shutdown panels have limited capability. Leck of good indicating instruments at a remote shutdown panel may increase the risk.
Total Environmental Survivability Test results show that total loss of visibility will occur in 5-8 minutes given a typical cabinet fire.
Normal control rocm vntilation rate is not effective in preventing inss of visibility.
i 5pead of smoke may cause inadvertent actuation cf fire suppression systems and hamper fire brigade access.
Experience shows that inadvertent actuations of fire suppres-sion systems cccur with a frequency of ebout 10'2/ year.
337TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 7
- Without an actual fire, inadvertent actuations do not seem to have significant generic safety impact. Even with an actual fire, the impact seems to be small; however, it is very plant-specific.
Adequacy of Fire Computer Codes Accurate information on time to component damage is critical to assess fire suppression response time.
Results of COMPBRN III code are semetimes censervative ard sometimes nonconservative.
No existing fire codes have been compared with actual test data.
Barrier Effectiveness Aging cracks or barrier test methods may have more inpact on the reliability of barriers than anticipated.
If peretration barrier reliability is less than 90 percent, it can increase the core-melt frequency s'gnificantly.
Seismic Fire Interactions No data are available on the frequency of fires during seismic events.
Risk from systems interactions due to earthquakes can be identified during plant walkdown.
With reference to the statement made by Mr. Nowlen that results of the COMPBRN III code are sometimes conservative and sometimes nonconserva-tive, Dr. Lewis courented that it is not appropriate ta use the words "conservative" and "nonconservative" when dealing with PRAs. The function of PRA code is to estimate something realistically, nc c conservatively.
Mr. Michelson asked whether they have lenked at the qualification of the fire protection system actuation devices, such as mercury switches that cre being used at some plants to actuate C0 systems. Mr. Nowlen responded that licensees should make sure that7fire protection systems are not vulnerable to the actuation of devices, such as mercury switch-es, during a seismic event. Mr. Bohn stated that, in general, fire protectinn systems are net required to be seismically qualified.
Althcugh certain manufacturers now seismically qualify the actuation dr: vices, this was not done in the past.
.1 .
v 337TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 8 Recomendations for Follow-On Efforts - Mr. M. Bohn, SNL Mr. Bohn provided some recomendations for improving fire risk perspec-tive:
Develop defensible estimates of fire occurrence frequency uncer-tainties reflecting plant-to-plant variations.
Develop defensible guidelines for partitioning and fire severity factors.
Validate COMPEPli and more advanced fire codes by using test date.
Some of the recomendation provided by Mr. Bohn for dealing with the previously unaddressed fire risk issues are as follows:
Manual Fire Fichting Effectiveness Develop guidelines for required response and extinguishment time for various equipment types.
Evaluate fire brigade effectiveness under actual fire conditions including dense and toxic smoke.
Provide plant-specific training to fight fires in areas where equipment susceptible to spray is located.
Control Systems,,lnteractions Develop a method and guidelines for detailed review of electrical independenca between control room panels and remote shutdown panel.
Perform review o' remote shutdown panel indications and capabili-ties and prepare recomendations for enhancement.
Total Environmental Survivtbjjj,ty Conduct plant-specific rrtiew of area combinations where spread of smoke could hamper fire Nghting or cause inadvertent actuation.
Investigate impact of ir-cabinet gaseous fire suppression systers on control circuitry.
Investigate impact of smoke on high-voltage equipment.
Adequacy of Fire Computer Codes Validate ccrrelations in COMPBRN !!! against test data.
Benchnark COMPCRN III and CHAM codes against Fire Enclosure Test data to detemine their applicability.
e 337TH ACRS MEETING MlhuTES 9 j l
Develop code capable of predicting component damage times accurate- !
ly. ~
BarrierEffectheness Evaluate reliability cf fire barriers based on. experience and test data. :
perform tests under fire conditions on aged penetration reals to ;
evaluate fire barrier reliability.
i Mr. Michelson asked whether they have looked at the probability and consequences of inadvertently actuating the fire protection system in 4
one area due to smoke and heat from a fire in an adjacent area. Mr.
Bohn responded that this issue is very plant specific. i Dr. Shewmon asked whether the person who was sent to investigate a fire alarm is authorized to put out a fire. Mr. Bohn responded that anyone who comes across a fire is not prevented from attempting to put out that l fire.
t
- Peer-Review Coments - Mr. J. Flack, RES l 1
, Mr. Flack discussed the peer-review comment on the results of the Fire .
1 Risk Scoping Study. Some of the corrents follow: ;
l ReserrC should find pitfalls so utilities know what te do to lower !
risk.
2: cause of very limited nuclear experience, it is difficult to draw realistic conclusions on certain fire risk issues. '
- It is questionable whether future research will be able to narrow l uncertainties much further.
- i ;
t The Scoping Study has a pessimistic view point which r,ay be misin- ;
) terpreted ard result in unnecessary backfits. '
Since the fire at Browns Ferry plant, significant improvement has been made in the area of reanual fire fighting.
Fire detection times asscciated with centrol roem fires do not seem ,
realistic. !
3 Only a few plants use poorly designed systems for fire suppression; j this should not be construed as an incustry-wide practice. !
i
- l Differential pressure across barriers is believed to have little l impact on barrier integrity. '
i
j 337TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 10 Performance of fire barriers in actual fire situations, tested in accordance with ASTM methods, provides a statistical basis for continued use of ASTM testing methods.
The statement by SNL that "Seismic / Fire interactions has been largely dismissed" is not accurate.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) it about to issue a request for proposal to study the effects of fire suppression systems on components and systems.
Anticipated Staff Action in Response to SNL Recomendations - Mr. J.
Wilson, RES Mr. Wilson stated that the recomendations resulting from the Scoping Study will be evaluated by the Staff and the Staff's responses will be documented by the end of FY 1988. He believes that the Staff will take the following actions to deal with the recomendations:
Those issues that are cuvered by current regulations will be referred to NRR for necessary action.
- Those issues that are not covered by current regulations will probably be made gereric issues, prioritized, and resolved.
Those issues that require research will be included in the research prioritization process.
Committee Decision Mr. Michelson stated that he recomended that ACRS coments on the Fire Risk Scoping Study be deferred until the Staff has identified the plans for dealing with the recomendations resulting from the Study, with the understanding that the Staff's plans would be ready for ACPS review during July. Since it seems that the Staff's plans will not be ready until the end of FY 1988, he believes that the ACRS should write a letter to the Comissicri recomending that the Staff speed up its process and identify its plans sooner.
After further discussion, Dr. Kerr sugoested that Pr. Michelson prepare a letter en this matter and submit it to the Comittee for considera-tien.
111. Individual Plant Examinatiens (IPEs) (0 pen)
[ Note: Mr. D. Houston was the Designated Federal Official fer this portionofthemeeting.)
Dr. Kerr, Chaiman of the Severe Accidents Subcomittee, introduced the subject of the proposed generic letter for Individual Plant Examinations (IPEs) by reviewing the basis for the letter through the Comission's
337TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 11 Severe Accident Policy Statement and past ACRS activities in recard to various drafts of the proposed generic letter. He comented on the Severe Accidents Subcommittee meeting on April 26, 1988 to discuss the current version of the IPE letter ard indicated that, for today's meet-ing, the Staff had been asked to emphasize tt,e guidance to be provided for the back-end analysis.
Mr. E. Beckjord, RES, commented on the Staff's programs for an integrat-ed plan for severe accident issues and the IPE generic letter. He indicated that both CRGR and Dr. Mqrley, NRR, had reviewed the proposed letter and approved with comments.
Dr. T. Spets, RES, discussed the severe accident integration plan. He presented information en the background (policy statements, memorandum and programs, 1985-1988), purpose and objectives of the plan, and a listing of the severe accident activities.
Dr. Siess asked for a definitier of an outlier and its relationship to various dironsions of risk. He comented that in past PRAs alrost all outliers were found in the front-end analysis anc questior.ed if the back-end analysis was really needed.
Dr. Remick expressed a ccreern that there doesn't appear to be enough effort toward integrating issues. The opportunity is there, but the activities do not indicate that it is getting done, i
Dr. Shewmon asked if someone was trying to improve the coherence of the program on dirtict containnent heating (DCH). Dr. Speis is aware of the elements of the program but not of an effort to integrate them.
Dr. Sheron, RES, discussed the proposed generic letter for IPFs. He described the examination process, guidance on centainment system performance, relationship to USI A-45, role of severe accident ranace-ment and the Staff review and use of the IPE results. He indicated that the first step in the process would be to hold a workshop with the licensees, and to discuss a draft standard review plan which will provide guida.nce for the Staff in reviewing IPEs. Consideration of exterral initiators is deferred pending development of an approach. i l Mr. Ward expressed a concern about doing ieternal ano external initia-tors in series. Dr. Remick also questioned the classification of some internal events as external. :
Mr. Ward questioned the need for a definition cf a large release. He also asked if the one preposed is consistent with the sa fety 9001 policy.
Dr. Kerr asked what was meant by the statement that the IPE should l develop event trees that cover the range of uncertainty.
{ .- __ - - - - --
i i 337TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 12 Mr. Colvin, representing Nt' MARC, expressed a point or view that the Staff and industry have been working on this matter for a long time.
The industry believes that the generic letter should be issued without i further delay so that the IPE process can begin.
4 IV. ContainmentSystems(0 pen)
(Note: Mr. D. Houston was the Designated Federal Official for this portionofthemeeting.] ,
Mr. Ward, Chairman of the Containment Requirements Subcomittee, provid-ed some historical oackground on the BWR Mark I centainment issues in his opening remarks and introduced Mr. L. Hulman (NRC/RES) as the j speaker on this subject.
Mr. Hulman indicated that he had planned to have prepared by this time a ;
- Comission Paper with interim recommendations for BWR Mark 1. However, the Paper is not ready, and the NRC Staff had not yet settled on any ;
specific recomendations. His presentation was a status report on the .
< Staff's efforts to resolve the issues, and a discussion of seme prelini-1 nary findings.
In his presentation, Mr. Hulman discussed: 1) the basis for Mark I '
containment concerns, 2) Mark I containment pm formance program and i program tasks, 3) estimates of core damage frequency from PRAs fo: BWR ,
Mark Is, 4) challenges and relative likelihood of failure modes, 5)
~
i summary of potential improvements, 6) sumary of the February Workshop, conclusions and 8) a schedule for resolution of con-some tair. ment preliminary issues (all types).
1 As potential improver.ents, he listed venting, bydrogen control, contain-ment sprays, core debris control, ADS enhancement, training, and proce- i dures. While closure appears likely for most of these, specific Staff positions have not been forrulated. The Staff is still reviewing the ,
material gathered at the Workshop, j Mr. Hulman intends to issue a Comission Paper (Status Report) in a few !
weeks, and another Paper (Final Mark I Peport with Recommendations) by '
the end of August 1988. It is intended that the Final Report will be ,
reviewed by the Comittee at a future meeting. !
I Dr. Remick asked ebout the negative aspects of containment venting. Mr.
Hulman indicated that under certain conditiens venting could lead to ;
loss of net positive suction head for some RHR pumps, leading to cavita- i tion damage of these p aps. ;
4 Mr. Ward asked about the status of containment venting in regard to i existirg Emergency Operating Procedures (EOPs). Mr. Hulnun indicated that the venting concept had been approved in Emergency Procedure
y-_-- - _ - - - - - - - - - . - - - -
337TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 13 Guidelines (EPGs) and that NRR was conducting a survey to determine the status of venting in E0Ps.
Mr. Ward discussed the need for balance between prevention and mitiga-tion as stated in the Comission's Policy Statement on the Safety Goal.
Dr. Kerr asked whether training for emergency operation would be given to all licensed operators or only to a special crew. Mr. Hulman indi-cated that the Staff had not given much thought to this, in closing, Mr. Ward indicated that he wculd not propose submitting formal coments on this program et this time.
V. B&W Owners Group Plant Reassessment Program (0 pen)
I
[ Note: Mr. R. Major was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.)
Mr. Wylie, Chairman, B&W Peactor Plants Subcomittee, reccunted that this effort was begun in January 1986 due to concerns on the part of the EDO regarding the continuirp frequency of complex transients in B&W plants. The 1985 Davis-Besse loss of fcedwater event and the Pancho Seco overcooling transient are examples. In February of 1986 the Cabcock and Wilcox Owners Group (BWOG) agreed to take the lead in the reassessment effort. Their Safety and Perfonnance Improvement Program (SPIP) was designed to reduce the frequency of reacter trips and tran-sients, and to reduce the complexity of the post-trip response of P&W Plants.
Mr. Wylie noted that the ACRS reviewed the SPIP in July of 1986 and made three conYnents. The Comittee recomended that the Staff consider plant operating crganizations, compare the relative response of B&W nuclear i steam supply systems to those of other vendors, and consider the adequa-cy of decay heat removal in B&W plants.
A two-day Subcomittee meeting was held on May 3 ard 4,1988 to consider
- the Owners Group SPIP and the evaluation of this program by the NRC Staff. ;
Mr. Wylie recomended a report to the Comission on the Comittee's e findings.
Mr. N. Rutherford introduced the EYOG p resen te tion . The SPIP was designed to adoress the concerns raised by the EDO in January of 1986.
- Mr. Dick Skillman, BkOG, described how SPIP was conducted, and listed e l the principa i findings of the progran. The overall objective of the program was to improve safety. The h0G wanted to reduce the number of trips and ccmplu transients en B&W Owners Group plants, and to ensure i acceptable plant response during those trips and transients which do
l i
337TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 14 j cccur. The program has two major goals: 1) by the end of 1990 the !
j average trip frequency per plant will be less than two per year, and 2) ,
, by the end of 1990 the number of complex transients, as identified by l measurable parameters, will be reduced to 0.1 per plant per year, based on a moving three-year average.
l Operating experience was reviewed for the period 1980 through 1985. Two
, hundred and twenty trips and ensuing transients were evaluated. Problem areas were sought in both the nuclear steam supply system and the
. balance of plant. Operations and maintenance personnel were interviewed as a part of the information gathering process.
I MPR was hired to assess the relative PLW plant sensitivity. The BWOG
j A performance and reliability review of several systems was undertaken i to identify recomendations for improvement. These systems included:
1 ICS/NNI, main feedwater, EFW/ auxiliary feedwater, secondary plant
- relief, and instrument air systems, t
l Operations and maintenance personnel were interviewed using an INPO-developed interview process. A principal objective of the interviews l was to look for transients which may not have resulted in reactor trips i but were considered to be significant. A goal was to find improvements which could reduce the need for post. ip operator actions. This process also identified concerns with prco .ures, tir. Skillman discussed the PFW system review process as an example of l
how syttem reviews were performed. At each plant infomation was
. gathered on operating procedures and characteristics, system design, and
! maintenance practices. A one-week site visit was arranged to interview personnel, conduct system "walkdowns," and review recent transient data j and problems. A compilation of findings and a listing of 42 recomenda-l tiens was then made. These 47 recomendations had both generic and
- plant-specific applicability.
l l The overall findings and conclusions from the SPIP were listed. These
! include: the risk of core damage is ccrparabic to other PWR designs, l areas of sensitivity are different than in other PWRs, the pressurizer j size is adequate, and the OTSG inventory is adequate. Operator burden l
is acceptable, the plant is more responsive to secondary side changes,
! and implementation of the recomendations will further improve safety, i
l Fr. Skillman reviewed findings and conclusiens regarding the complexity of transients. He noted ecrplex transients are usually the result of a mismatched heat balarce between the primary ard secondary systems.
1 Overcooling events may be precursors to overheating transients. Over-cooling events were frequently the result of the misbehavior of the secondary plant relief and emergency feedwater systems. 0"ercooling
337TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 15 events also followed misbehavior of the ICS/NNI and main fecdwater systems.
Ninety percent of the complex transients are overcooling events.
Overheating events account for abcut eight percent of the complex !
l The majority of trips are caused by balance-of-plant systems, by compo-nents, or by personnel. The dominant trip initiator is currently the main feedwater system, followed by the ICS/NNI, and plant electrical power malfunctions.
The SkOG executives established an independent advisory board. This advisory board was to evaluate the program comprehensiveness and safety emphasis and evaluate the ability of the program to achieve its objec-tives.
Areas which remain open in the SPIP include implementation plans and schedules, an emergency operating procedures review report, a transient assessrent program annual report, a valve task force report, and appli-cable portions of the recomendation tracking system report.
In the review of the ICS/NNI system, it was found that frequently power losses to this system have centributed to complex transients. It was also found that loss of ICS input signals was an initiator of trips ard complex transients. Key recernendations for improving the ICS/fiNI were reviewed including: ensure that the plant goes to a known safe state on loss of power to the ICS/NNI, and ensure that the plant status is displayed unambiguously to the operator.
A sensitivity study was performed by MPR to assess the relative thermal hydraulic sensitivity of B&W units compared with comparably sized Westinghouse units. Conclusions of this study indicate that, relative to other PWRs, BAW units:
are not more sensitive te reactivity upsets; are not more sensitive to reactor coolant flow upsets; are less likely, on average, to experience a leak leading to e ret loss of ccolant; are somewhat icss sensitive to stean drmand upsets such as lot.d rejections and turbine trips; a reacter trip on a turbine trip is not required to ensure plant safety; are not more likely to overcool followirg a reactor trip;
's '
- i
. 337TH ACRS MEETINC MINUTES 16 are more sensitive in their response to main feedwater upsets (thou PFRs)gh; the frequency of such upsets is not greater than in other are (in some but not all plants) subject to greater cooldown rates from overfeeding of emergency feedwater; are equivalent to many otner PWRs in terms of time available to use alternative means of deciy heat removal, given a complete loss of all feedwater; for most reactor trips, do not impose greater control burdens on plant operators; and impose greater burdens on plant operators in diagnosing and re-spending to failures of automatic control systems; such failures are more likely to lead to complex transients in B&W units.
Mr. Skillman explained that BWOG agrees witn the Staff that human factors considerations are important. The BWOG is now placing more emphasis on human factors than when SPIP began. However, the WOG believes that a re-review of previous program parts, with added human factors emphasis, would have little additional benefit. The Owners Group believes human factors considerations were a part of the SPIP.
As part of SPIP a risk assessment review was performed. This review used the Oconee Level 3 PRA and the Crystal River Level 1 PRA. Fault treet were produced which accounted for the various severe transients that have occurred at various E&W plants since the light bulb event.
Among the insights obtained were that Category C transients (ccmplex transients) at these units have little core damage risk. It was also found that feed-and-bleed cooling capability is an important accident mitigator for B&W units.
Phile the BWOG intends to reduce the frequency of or eliminate altogeth-er the Category C events, the risk assessment review indicates that B&W Category C events are receiving nora attention than their core damage risk importance indicates is waaronted.
The BWOG explained that they will use a very formal monitoring systcu to be sure the reectnendations from SPIP are implemented at the various plants. This system will also ensure thit implementatier is made en a timely basis.
Mr. Byron Siegel introduced the Staff's review of the SPIP. He noted that a major focus of the program was balance-of-plant systems, which the Staff does not normally review. He explained that the Staff had continuous interaction with the BWOG during development of the program and, in some areas, throughout the program. The Staff also performed independent work in some areas to audit the SPIP. These areas were risk
l 337TH ACRS HEETING MINUTES 17' P
evaluation, hurran factors review, a limited thermal-hydraulic analysis, and a limited operating experience review. The Staff intends to audit implementation of the program.
Mr. Robert Jones, Staff Technical Coordinator for the Reassessment l Program, emphasized that the program was begun as a result of concerns with B&W plant operating history. In the SPIP emphasis was placed on balance-of-plant systems. In general, the Staff believes SPIP was comprehensive and implementation of the recomendations developed will improve the safety of B&W plants.
As a result of this program, the Staff believes significant improvements will be made in the ICS/NNI, the reliability of the heat sink (MFW and EFW reliability improvements, and improved secondary side pressure control), and the instrument air system. Benefits that the Ste ff expects will result from these improvements are: redur.ed reactor trips, reduced challenges to safety systems, reduced operator burden, and reducrd pressurized thermal shock risk.
The Staff are still pursuing several significant issues with the BK00.
They are trackfrg the implementation of the program recomendations.
There is some concern that recomendations are not being implemented in a timely fashion. The Staff believes the BWOG should use human factors professionals to identify human factors concerns. The Staff also wants i the BWOG to ensure that IE Bulletin 79-27 "Loss of Non-Class IE Instru-mentation and Control Power System Bus During Operation," has been appropriately addressed by the member utilities. The Staff recernrends l verifying implementation of IEB 79-27 as part of plant-specific audits.
Mr. Siegel explained that the Staff will verify the implementation of
! BWOG recomendations by the utilities. They will track the progress of
) the implementation of recomendations by utilities through the BWOG recomendations tracking system and by NRC project maragers' interac-
! tions with utilities. They will also audit the implementation process to assure that recomenoetions are being properly implemented.
l Dr. Kerr noted that this program was carried out to some degree beyond j the present scope of the regulations. He thought that, as a result of this study, the regulatory process deserved review to see if the regula-i tions are adequately covering the NRC's concerns. It may be worthwhile
! to develop general guidance based on this experience for future regula-j tory activities.
VI. Emeroency Core Cooling Systems (0 pen)
[ Note: Mr. P. Boehnert was the Designated Federal Official fcr this j portion of the meeting.]
i l
4 1
. 1 337TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 18 Mr. Ward, Chairman of the Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena Subcommittee. ,
noted that the Sub:omittee, at its April 20, 1988 meeting, reviewed the i proposed final revision to the ECCS Rule: 10 CFR 50.46 and Appendix X.
The Subcomittee supported the rule revision. He recomended ACRS approval as well.
Dr. L. Shotkin, of HRC's Office cf Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES),
noted that a Rule, Regulatory Guide, and Compendium were issued by RES.
The rule was not changed by RES after the public comment period. ,
Changes were made to the Regulatory Guide. CRGR will review the rule package on May 19, 1988, and will concentrate its review on the public coments . <
RES noted that the following items are believed to be of interest to the ACRS, based on past Comittee comment ard/or actions:
The provision to allow for indefinite grandfathering of the rule has been maintained. ;
The potential generic issue of simultaneous LB LOCA and SGTR il (GI-141) has been dropped as a result of NRR prioritization.
The CSAU demonstration of the uncertainty associated with the LB ;
LOCA reflood peak is scheduled to be completed in August 19C8.
CSAU has been reviewed by a Peer Group of experts chaired by H.
Todreas (MIT). Completion of CSAU is not being tied to issuance of ,
the revised rule. l Mr. N. Lauben, RES, discussed the provisions of the ECCS rule revision beginning with the details of the current rule requirements. He noted that the lar'ge conservatisms in the current ECCS rule are due to 1)
Appendix K required features, 2) Staff requirements, and 3) vendor ;
conservatisms. Some plants are limited in operation due to the restric- ,
tive requirements of the rule. Over $700 million has been spent by NRC ,
on ECCS/LOCA research. The research has confinred the large margins in t the evaluation models (ems) now in use. !
GE requested relief from the LOCA restrictiers on BWRs. In response, ,
the Staf f issued SECY-03-472, which allowed use of best estimate (BE) '
trethodology except for the use of the required features of Appendix K.
An uncertainty evaluation was required to show that the conservatism of Aprendix K recuirements bounds the uncertainty cf the BE calculations.
The favorable experience with SECY-63-472 resulttd in the approach used for the rule revision. [
The proposed rule was issued for public coment on March 3,1967. Based t en the favorable public coments received, no changes are proposed to ,
the rule. Some modifications were made to the regulatory guide. Key features of the rule are- i l
337TH ACRS MEETING' MINUTES 19 ,
l I
- 1. Rule is general and requires "realistic" calculations of ECCS performance with consideration of uncertainty such that there is a "high level of probability" that criteria are met. Criteria (e.g.,
2200*F)areunchanged.
s 2. Alternatively, Appendix K recipes remain acceptable es a method not !
requiring an uncertainty evaluation grandfathering existing ems and allowing future use of Appendix K)(.
- 3. The only known nonconservative feature of Apper. dix K is the Cou-gall-Rohsenow correlation. This previously acceptable correlatier has been removed from Appendix K.
4 Reporting requirements are revised to clarify current interpreta-tions of Appendix K documentation requirements.
- 5. All error corrections and changes are to be reported annually. All errors and changes or cumulations of absolute values of errors and
! changes resulting in greater than 50*F PCT change rust be reported 4
within 30 days. The report should include a plan for reanalysis or ,
other action to show compliance. Errors corrected or changes made '
which result in inability to reet criteria (e.g., 2200*F) are reportable. Imediate steps to produce compliance must be pro-posed. !
Mr. Ward questioned the requirement for imediate reporting. Pr. Lauben 1
- r.oted that 10 CFR Part 21 is interpreted to mean ore does not have to report until he has determined the affect of the error ("reasonable ,
indication of failure to comply"). It was noted that a recent error was ;
found in the B&W ECCS EM. fir. Jones, NRR, discussed the error, ite said ;
each vendor has its own procedures for reporting errors that have been l previously audited by HRC. Scme previous error discoveries have result-
) ed in plant power derates, i
. In its key features, the regulatory guide: '
i 1. Defines "high level of probability" as used in the rule as 957, 1
probability. ,
! 2. Provides general fectures expected in best estimate calculation and
- the uncertainty evaluation, but does not prescribe any specific t
methcds.
! 3. Lists a limited number of acceptable features of a best estimate I model (e.g. ,1979 AFS/ ANSI decay beat, Cathcart-Pawel metal-water i reaction rate). ;
l l 4. In some cases, data appropriate to model assessment are provided.
l I
1 i- - _
337TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 20 4
A 1200-page Compendium of ECCS research was issued in April 1c87 in support of the proposed revision. The Compendium contains a description of the CSAU method developed by RES. Volume 2 will document the results of CSAU. -
The public coments on the rule were discussed. Thirty-three coments were received, 26 of which were from industry. Most(17)oftheindus-try coments supported indefinite grandfathering of the original rule.
In response to a question from Mr. Ward, Mr. R. Jones indicated that one BWR licensee has a proposal under NRR review to use the SECY-83-472 approach. Mr. Ward also noted that ACRS believes there is a safety benefit in the use of BE models, independent of the econcmics involved.
and that all plants should use the BE approach. Mr. Lauben indicated that there also is a potential for a decrease in safety, depending on how a licensee makes use of the margin gained.
Mr. Lauben noted the changes made to the regulatory guide. These charges included:
i 1. changes in format and some added clarification; i
- 2. changes to account for physical / chemical changes in in-core, ex-fuel materials;
- 3. modifications to explain that confidence levels are not necassarily required.
In response to a comment from Dr. Shewmon, Mr. Lauben explained that the second change was done to account for new data on physical and chemical changes for high-temperature (melt) situations.
Mr. Ward asked how plants with stainless steel clad are treated under the ECCS rule. NRR Staff said they adhere to the interim acceptance criterionPCTlimit(2300*F).
Mr. Ward asked if NRR's review will be more difficult under the new rule. Mr. Lauben indicated that, after the initial reviews, the effort should be less demanding than that required under the old rule. Mr.
Jones said most of the new reviews will probably be done by contractors.
NRR manpower is limited. Staff reviews may be delayed. CSAU will alic over.tually be applied to SB LOCA modeling. This should aio the Staff's review of the revised CE SB LOCA ECCS uccel, Mr. G. Wilson, INEL, proviccd a status report on the RES CSAU develop-ment effort. Highlights of the presentation were:
The CS/,0 method was described (Figure 1). The product is a quantitative uncertainty associated with a BE calculation of a specific scenario in a specific nuclear pcwer plant.
20a i Figure 1
~ , .e.s a.c seensas 4 ,
coes
. + i 6
ama.st a aaores Consurs eCw.nvare C - ,
g W888 8 emmrv ase ame
- .8 8 s .
. ~- a D N. ~A Aaet.a.e.a v ..av? _
l l
+
.r Coos g
(
a StaWage, a
= a nt s 7
i
. n 3 uu.e.
CALC fleeu$ I Ca.memn
-r -.c.ar.e suno.me Comema. Cuss.Ane.ne
-"~
~
uIl%. ,,,',,,p.
~ no~
-, >e I
i
... / \, ...
j M'".Y o
, . . on ,
. n..C.C., ,
aCCWeaCV l
1I etAs ame ] 0.,canne m ea ert , , - 6*'*CT 10 os ocas n
g PWups.een no I i
- Defe amG em paa anonig { an e a ne tan a a ames e I
of mG ACTW4 espy?
N A8fTT pmaangtges l Aas giatg l l
o ,-..3 acc.nem ca = ,aj'ai 12 i ,s.:::."' g",,! '
_,a.,,, . = ,an . .
Oe f a 94 l
- C 008, tvC. e o '.- __J mea n t e 4 70f,4. C4CuLars
)*. estCr=C eCenAJac 13 I M4 W.cset ese l SG r C006 6Catsee, AsouCAano ?Y Ase um.CsafAsety iCaiAW4 hs8Twoorw.,0CY
337TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 21 Results of the application of CSAU to the LB LOCA blowdown PCT calculation was shown. In response to Dr. Siess, Mr. Wilson said their investigation showed no dominant scale effect for the data analyzed. In response to Dr. Kerr, RES Staff indicated that for the LB LOCA the blowdown peak is dominated by stored energy.
Dr. Lewis raised a question abcut the statistical approach used by RES. He indicated that there seemed to be confusion on the part of the Staff. RES is confusing the use of probability density func-tions vis-a-vis a determination of uncertainty.
The procedure for determining the overall uncertainty was reviewed.
RES believes there is a bias of about -100*F in the TPAC calcu-lation of LB LOCA (i.e., the code censistently calculates PCT 100*F below the expected value).
The current schedule calls for RES to complete the draft report on CSAU by September 1988. In response to Dr. Moeller, Mr. Wilson said the CSAU program has cost about $900,000 and has taken abcut one year.
Mr. Ward said he would propose a letter endorsing the proposed new rule.
He aise said that, while CSAU is not a rigorous statistical approach, he believes it is a workable tool. In response to Dr. Shewmon, Mr. Ward said that use of BE nethods implies a believable method to determine uncertainties. Dr. Shewmon asked if we kncw what use licensees will rake of the new rule. Mr. Jones indicated that the W 2-loop plants will use the margin to increase peaking slightly, thereby lowering the flux on the vessel wall.
VII. Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena (0 pen)
[ Note: Mr. P. Bochnert was the Designated Federal Official fer this portion of the meeting.]
Mr. Ward, Chairman of the Themal-Hydraulic (T/H) Fhencrena Subcomit-tee, noted that the Subcomittee has, for some time, been reviewing the NRC RES T/H research progran. This review is in accord with the ACRS decision to review individual eierents of the NRC research program in lieu of writing an annual report to Congress on the total prcream.
Mr. Yard said that Dr. L. Shettin offered to provide a status report on the NRC Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) T/H research pre-gram. This briefino will provide the Comittee an update of their program.
It was noted that Drs. Kerr and Remick have a conflict of interest for this item.
Dr. Shotkin discussed the future plans for RES T/H research. He noted the following:
a 337TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 22 Experimental T/H research will be largely phasce cut in 1990 and 1991. The T/H code development will end in FY 1989. Research in applications will continue, but at a reduced funding level.
A Task Group on future T/H research has net to decide en long-term program directior. for T/H codes. The Group censidered both devel-opnent and maintenance plcns for the five main T/H ccdes (RELAP-5 TRAC-PWR, TRAC-BWR,COERA-NC,RAMONA-3B).
In response to Mr. Ward, Dr. Shotkin said RELAP-5 can model RWRs, but it has not been assessed to the point that BE modeling capability exists.
He also said the MOD-3 version of RELAP-5 will be able to model the LB LOCA. Dr. Moeller asked if RES anticipates that industry will upgrade their T/H codes after NRC development ends. Dr. Shotkin indicated that many vendors are making use of the RES codes.
The Task Group made the following recommendations:
- 1. The NRC needs independent expertise and analysis capability. Both PWR and BWR analytical capability are required.
- 2. The codes by themselves are not usable. They rust be accompanied by plant input decks, including balance-of-plent modeling.
- 3. Complete TRAC-PWR and RELAP-5 development through the ICAp Con-sortia in 1989: Assure completion cf 3-D 2-step algorithm in TRAC-FWR,
- 4. Maintain TPAC-BWR for active use; deemphasize TRAC-BWR only if RELAP-5 is upgraded to have comparable best-estimate BWR capabil-ity, and TRAC-BWR input decks are converted to PELAP-5.
- 5. Maintain COBRA-NC for analy:ing containment superheat (NRR).
- 6. RAMONA-3B should be maintained for continuing use.
- 7. Consolidate codes to one or two institutions, and provide resources (5-8 MY/Y) tn maintain codes, with periodic errphasis (ancrest codes) based on reaulatory needs. In this way, some cooes could terporarily be "on the shelf" until e need for their use arises from one of the user offices.
- 8. Critical review of nuclear plant analy:er practictbility for use by NRC headquarters staff.
In respers* to Mr. Ward, Dr. Shotkin noted that the NRC Technical Training Center wants to use the plant analy:er program.
Dr. Sheron noted, in response to Mr. Ward, that futura code develo pent will be predicated en need (error, discowry, deficiency, etc.) but no
O
- <. 4 337TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 23 ;
L l future code K00s will be automatically planned; user need will drive future development. -
The projected T/H research budget was discussed (Figure 2). In the future, the research will shift to applications needs. Future emphasis i will be on accident management.
The Comittee proceeded to a reading of a proposed letter on NRC/RES T/H research. [ Note: Due to lack of time, further consideration of the
- proposed letter was postponed to the June ACRS neeting.]
VIII. Executive Sessions (0 pen / Closed)
A. Subcomittee Peports (0 pen / Closed)
{
- 1. Regulatory Guide 1.100, "Seismic Qualification of Electric and l Mechanical Equipment for Nuclear Power Plar.ts" (0 pen) l
[ Note: fir. R. Major was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.] p i'
Mr. Wylie, Chairman, ACRS Reliability Assurance Subcomittee.
, reported that ACRS approval for the issucnce of Revision 2 to ['
Regulatory Guide 1.100 as an effective guide has been request-ed by the Staff. The guide endorses IEEE Std. 344-1987, l "Recomended Practices for Seismic Oualification of Class 1E Equipment for Nuclear Power Generating Stations." As a result
- of the public ccnstents received, the Staf f has modified the
- discussion section of the guide to note the ASME is developing ;
a standard for seismic qualification of mechanical equipeent. .
! After publication of the ASME Standard, the Staff will review l it for suitability for endorsement by a revision to this i regulatory guide. ;
As a result of CPGR review, a regulatory position was dropped that was tutorial in nature, and the discussion sectirn ;
expanded to include the esstnce of the dropped position. The
- new discussion section is intended to emphasize the fact that the use of seismic experience data to justify equipment .
qualification will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by the '
Staff. t l Mr. Wylie noted +he regulatcry puide is cer.sistent with :
! current NRC licensing practice. The guide does not impose any
- new requirements or costs on licensees or applicants.
p The Comittee concurred in the regulatory position proposed in l i Revision 2 to Regulatory Guide 1.100. [
I i
I
_-_-_,)
i
, 23a :
. Ngure 2 l l
3.- FY 90 EL0GET EXERCISE (M$) !
l PROICT E!M E E R E l
T/H RESEARCH !
ROSA-IV 0,4 0.5 0,5 0,5 0.5 2D/5D 2.0 1,3 1,2 -- --
B&WTESTifG 1.6 3.6 1.0 0.5 --
ICAP 0,7 0.7 0.8 0,5 0.5
- T/H COCES 1,8 1,7 2,0 2.0 2.0 CSAU 1.4 1.0 0.3 0.2 0.2 BASIC STt0!ES M M M M M T/H RESEARCH TOTAL M M 6,8 4,7 M PEACTCR APPLICAT10tG TECH SUFPORT CDiTEF. 0.8 1,5 2.0 2.0 2.0 C0tRAltfD4T/ETC, 0.1 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.2 NPA/DB/SitULATORS 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 ADVANCED LKR'S ---
M M 1.0 1,0 REACTOR AFFtlCATICt3 TOTAL M 3,3 M M 5,0 TOTAL T/H RES &
REACTOR APFt, 1qd JM lL1 9,7 M IN-W.SSEL ACC.
FW3GDOT M M M M M
337TH AL45 MEETING MINUTES 24 2, Generic Items - Integrated Safety Ascessment Program II (ISAP_
q) (0 pen)
(Note: Mr. Sam Duraiswamy was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.]
Dr. Siess, Generic Items Subcommittee Chaiman, stated that a meeting of the Generic Items Subconnittee was held on April 27, 1988 to discuss ISAP II. ACRS members Mr. Michelson, Dr. :
Remick, Mr. Ward, and Mr. Wylie attended that meeting. !
l' Dr. Sidss stated that the proposed ISAP 11 is a follow-on !
program to the pilot ISAP. The pilot ISAP, which is an outgrowth of the Systen,atic Evaluation Program (SEP), was i initiated in 1985. Millstone Unit 1 and Haddam Neck plants t participated in the pilot ISAP. The proposed ISAP II is a voluntary, systematic program to evaluate regulatory issues 7 and to establish an integrated schedule for the implementation .
of those issues. All utilities participating in ISAP 11 will !
be required to perform e t.evel 1 PRA and will be expected to ,
update their PRAs periodically so that plent configuration and plant changes are reflected in a timely manner. All issues l within the scope of ISAP II will be assessed and ranked on the basis of safety significance, risk reduction, and personnel exposure. Then, an integrated schedule will be established j for implementation.
l i Dr. Siess stated that some of the differences betweer the !
j pilot ISAP and ISAP 11 are- .
i i Unlike the pilot ISAP, ISAP 11 participants would not be t recuired to incorporate the resolution of lessons learned l from the SEP. i ISAP II will not require a license condition. I
\
ISAP !! participants would not be expected to address !
unresolved generic issues before the Staff reaches a l generic solution, t Dr. Siess stated that the Staff, as cirected by the Commis- t i
sien, issued Generic Letter 88-02, dated January T1, 1988, to !
all power reactor licensees, describing the ISAF II precess <
and requesting then to respend to several questions in order r to determine their interest in participtting in ISAP II. Of *
' the 56 ruclear utilities, 50 have responded to the ouestions I in Generic Letter P8-02. Results are as follows: 1
- Six utilities, representing 16 units, have indicated that i
! they are interested in ISAP II. .
1
! l i i
\
lr ,
O.
337TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 25
, Twenty-nine utilities, representing 52 units, have indicated that they are possibly interested.
Eighteen utilities indicated that they are not interest-ed. ,
Based on the results of the survey, the Staff, in a draft Comission paper, stated that the resources required to ;
support ISAP !! appear to be relatively high. Also, the number of utilities that ultimately would participate in end benefit frrr ISAP II do not represent a majority. Because cf the expenditures and the likely low number of ultimate partic-1 pants, ISAP II becomes a lower overall priority item crong NRR programs. Therefore, the Staff proposes not to implenent the program in the near future. The Staff will not conduct a seminar with the industry nor continue progree development at this time.
Dr. Siess comented that the statement in the draft Commission paper that "The number of utilities that ultimately would participate in and benafit from ISAP II do not represent a majority," does not seem appropriate since no one knows how many utilities would ultimately participate. Also, several i utilities expressed interest in attending an NRC/ industry
, seminar to obtain more informati:n en ISAP II; after such seminar, there is a possibility that several utilities night decide to participate in ISAP II. He believes that dropping i
ISAP II withcut conducting a seminar is a mistake. Further.
it seems th5t several utilities did not show interest in IS/P 11 because of the provision in Generic letter 88-02 that ISAP
!! will be implemented through license amendments. Since that provision has been eliminated by the Staff subsequent to completion of the survey, he believes that additional utili-ties might be interested in participating in ISAP II.
] Dr. $1ess proposed the folluwing options. The ACRS may want l
to:
)
- Agree with the. Staff's recorrendation that ISAP II not be implenented at this time.
Recerr end to the Conmissico that ISAP 11 is a good nrecess and that it be implet;ented at least at certain plants.
P,ecomend to the Comission that an FPC/ industry seminar be held and try to find out whether more utilities would be interested in participating in ISAP 11 prior to dropping it.
e g
~
337TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 26 Dr. Siess solicited the opinions of other ACRS members who attended the April 27, 1988 Generic Items Subccmmittee meet-ing.
Dr. Remick stated he believes that ISAP is a gcod program and it is unfortunate that a majority of the industry did not express interest in participating in that program. .ISAP 11 and the Individual Plant Examiration (IPE) program can be combined and irplement:!d as one program. He believes that this is a good opportunity for the NRC to integrv.e several of its activities. Further, he believes that the ACRS should recorrrend to the Comission that, over a period of time, all licensees should be required to have a full scope PRA. A good PRA done by the utilities will help them understand better the risk from their plants.
Mr. Ward stated that he believes ISAP II and IPE shculd be combined and implemented as a single program. Each licensee should be required to perform and maintain a full scope state-of-the-art PRA, giving consideration to internal and external events. Any new issues identified by the PRA shculd be cortined with the existing list of outstanding issues and then, using the ISAP II approach, they should be prioritized, resolved, and scheduled for implementation.
Dr.SiessstatedthatElectricPowerResearchInstitute(EPRI) has recently completed a study entitled "Practical Application of Probabilistic Risk Assessments." Utilities interviewed by EPRI stated that PRA has several advantages. Based on the results of the study, EPRI recommended that all utilities perform a PRA for their plants.
Mr. Michelson and Mr. Wylie stated that they agree with the remarks made by Mr. Ward and Dr. Remick. Mr. Michelfen stated also that risk contribution from human facters issues should be factored in.
After further discussion Dr. Siess stated that most of the members seem to believe that IPE ar.d ISAP Il should be cre-bined and implerented as one program. He suggested that the Comittee discuss the IPE progren and then decide whether IPE ard ISAP 11 she.cid be ccr.bined. None of the Comittee members raised any objection to the suggestion by 0". Siess.
- 3. Waste Nanacement Subcomittee (0 pen)
(Note: Mr. O. Merrill was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.].
4 ,
337TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 27 i
Dr. Moeller, Chainnan of the Waste Management Subcocinittee, reported on two Subcomittee meetings that were held within the previous week: i
- 1. April 28, 1988 - To review the NRC Staff's Draft Comments !
on the DOE Ccosultation Draft Site Characterization Plan (CDSCP) for the Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Site, f
- 2. May 4,1988 - To review the "below regulatory concern" i and "de minimis" concepts pertaining to low-level radia-tion. j In both cases Dr. Moeller used the report of each Subcomit- !
tee meeting as the basis for his discussion. Each report f i contained Subcomittee observations and suggestions on the j respective topics. Mr. V. Stello, Jr., EDO, had requested of ;
Drs. Moeller and Steindler, during their meeting with him en [
April 14, 1988 that the ACRS review ard provide coments to !
f the NRC Staff on these two issues. The Comittee directed Mr. j Fraley to forward the two Waste ManaCement Subcomittee
! reports to Mr. Stello for his infonration. l l 4. AdvancedPWRs(Closed) p
{
,4 [ Note: Mr. M. El-Zeftawy was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.] [
4 Contained in Official Use Only Supplement, j i 5. Human Factors (0 pen) {
i !
i
[ Note: Mr. H. Aldennan was the Designated Federal Official :
for this portion of the meeting.] lt i
Dr. Remick, Chairman of the Human Factors Subcomittee, i presented a report on the April 27, 1988 reeting of the l
! Subcomittee. Members present at the Subcomittse meeting !
were Mr. Michelson, Mr. Ward, Dr. Lewis, and Dr. Siess. The i i purpose of the meeting was to review SECY-80-57 Proposed !
! Comission Policy Statement on the Professional Ccnduct of (
Nuclear Power Plant Operators, dated February 29, 19EC. ;
l l Dr. Remick made the follrwing observations on SECY-88-57: l 1
The document points cut that the Comissicr censidered ,
and rejected the development of a rule te address this ;
j problem. '
I l
The second page of the document states that the policy !
statement applies to licensed anc non-licensed operators. l l !
l ,
t
. . - - - - - - - . , . . - - , - . - . - - - _ _ _ - . . - - . - - . . . - . - - - . - , _ _ _ - - _ - - - _ ~ , . , - - -
\
i 337TH ACPS P.EETING MINUTES 28 !
I but the remainder of the document refers to operators and gives the impression that it refers to licensed operaters only. j r
- The policy statement points out that the use of electron- l ic entertainment cevices, such as radios and tape play-ers, could distract an operator's attentiveness to required duties in the control room. l The licensee must assure that the electronic entertain- !
ment devices, if used, maintain or enhance performance, i I
Dr. Shewmon asked if there was any human factors research on '
the performance issue. Cr. Remick replied "No," Dr. Shewmon then noted that he thought there are two sides to this issue.
- Dr. Remick continued with the folicwing observations:
The SECY docunent does mention that the Institute of l Nuclear Power Operations is developi9g guidelines in this area, and the NRC Staff acknowledges that this approach I does have merit. ,
The policy statervent describes activities which the !!PC ,
views as appropriate conduct fnr operators. He noted i that these were not sufficient to be a ccde. He pointed .
out that the industry effort includes licensed and [
non-licensed operators and is more comprehensive then the l NRC policy staterrent. i l
The policy statement refers to activitics performed by j the operators outside the control roon as equally impor- ;
tant to ensuring the safe operation cf the plant. l Therefore, all of the operators required by 10 CFR Part [
50.54(ni) to be on site are expected to be ettentive to and perform their duties in a professional manner. He i renarked that Part 50.54(m) refers to licensed operators. !
He noted that this is ambigucus. i There is a statement in the policy statement about i allowing authorized individuals to manipulate controls. !
He noted that thir is covered in the regulations ard i there isn't any need to place it in the polic," ttatement, !
I Dr. Remick noted the use of all-inclusive statements in the i policy statement end pointed out that the:e all-inclusive l statements are extreme expectations cf humans.
{
Scr'e examples of the all-inclusive statements are: f I
)
t
t 337TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 29
- "All operators and operating supervisors must be aware of
- and be responsible for plant status at all times while they are on duty."
t
- "All on-duty operators at all tines must be alert."
- "The operator's att.ntion rust be given to the cordition of the plant at all times."
- All of the caerator's attention rust be focused on carrying out this respcnsibility."
Dr. Remick noted that the policy statement prohibits the eating of meals at work stations, but gives no definitions of "meals."
Dr. Remick then discussed several industry initiatives on professicnalism. IhF0 issued guidelines for developing a professional code for nuclear plant operators. During a recent reeting of Senior Reactor Operators in Atlanta, Ga.,
key elements of a professional code for operators were devel-cred using the INP0 guidelines. Seven elements were identi-fied that SR0s thought were the most important. They also developed a list of nine other eierents that they thcught were less important. Dr. Remick noted that INPO asked each utility to have a code for operators in place by July 1988.
Dr. Renick described a second initiative to issue a docurent of principles for enhancing professionalism of nucleer power plant personnel. The objective of this document would be to improve the environment for professicnalism in nuclear plants.
INPO has asked utilities to provide feedback on these princi-ples by August 1988.
D. Reports, letters, and Memoranda (0 pen)
- 1. Fire Risk Scoping Study (letter to Mr. V. Stello dated May 10, 1988)
The Conmittce recommended that the hPC Staff evaluate the results and conclusion of the Study and decide en a course of action on a schedule which permits 6r.y high priority research te te initiated in FY 1989.
- 2. Proposed Commission Policy Statement on the Prnfessicnal Corduct of Nuclear Power Plant Operators (SECV-88-57) (letter to Chairman Zech dated May 10. 1906)
The Cctuittee recorr. ended that the Comniission not issue the proposeo policy statement for public ccrrert. Further, the
i q7 ;
i l
l 337TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 30 i !
Cemittee recomended that the NRC monitor the broader and
- more comprehensive industry effort and defer the decision on }
the need for such a policy statement until a later time. [
- 3. Proposed Generic Letter on Individual Plant Examir.ations and !
the Proposed Intecrated Safety Assessment Program 11 (Letter j to Cheirman Zech dated May 10, 1988)
The Comittee disagreed with the current NP.C Staff positions I that the IPE generic letter should be issued in the present !
fom and that impitrentation of the ISAP 11 should not be pursued at this tine. Instead, the Comittee recomended that the IPE program be expanded to incorporate all outstanding [
safety issues and that the IMP II approach be applied for the i resolution and prioritization of these issues, including new [
issues discovered by the IPE, The Committee also indicated ;
i that this combination would improve the coherence among the i
. several principal regulatory pregrams of the Comission. ;
i Specific suggestions were made for modification and improve- '
l ment of the programs . (
- 4. Proposed Revision of the ECCS Rule Contained in 10 CFR 50.46 j and Appendix K (Letter to Chaiman Zech dated May 10, 1988) ;
) The Cemittee agreed that the proposed revision cf the ECCS t Rule is a major ste a forward and supports its adoption. The !
proposed revision w'11 elimitate the requirements to use the l j models specified in Appendix K and allow use of realistic j
- models combined with an uncertainty analysis of the overall ;
i calculation. Additieral coments were provided by ACRS member !
Harold W. Lewis. ,
J l
- 5. NRC Staff Comments on the Censultation Craft Site Characteri- j ration Plan (Mer.orandum to V. 5tello from R. Fraley, dated May }
{
ll, 15 7 (
The Waste Management Subcomittee reported to the Corwittee on the coments prepared by the NRC Staff based en their techni-
- cal review of the Consultation Draf t Site Characterization i i
Plan for the Yucca Mountain, Nevada Site as issued by the U.S. !
Oepartment cf Energy. The Comittee cencluded that this [
l report should be fonwarded to the ECO. j
! t i
C. "Below Reculatory Concern" and "de rinimis" Concepts (Memoran- )
] dum tn V. 5tello from R. Fraley dateo Vay ll,198P) j i
The Subcornittee on Waste Managerent ciscussed issues related I
, to BRC and de minimis cer.cepts at a meeting held on May 4 f j 1968, and reported to the ACRS during the May neeting. !
Additional coments were provided by ACRS member Martin
{
s I'
337TH ACRS MEET!!4G MINUTES 31 f
I Steindlere lhe ACRS concluded that this infonnation should t,e [
forwarded to the EDO. j
- 7. Pevision 2 to Regulatory Guide 1.100. "Seismic Oualification of Electric and Mechanical Equiperent for Nuclear Power Plants
- l-(Letter to V. 5tello dated May 10, IEEE) l The Comittee concurred in the regulatory position proposed in {
Revision 2 to Regulatory ide 1.100. ;
C. Other Comittee Conclusions (0 pen / Closed)
- l. ;
[ Note: Mr. N. Lockard was the Destgrated Federal Official fer ;
thisportionofthemeeting.]
The Comittee discussed the procedures for recomending !
selecticns to the Cermiission of new ACR$ ard Advisory Corxtit- l tee en Nuclear Waste (ACNW) members. The Comittee egreed on j recomendations for alternatives to the procedure proposed by i Chairman Zech's March 14, 1988 remorandum to Mr. Fraley ar.d !
directed
[the letterthat wasasent letter describing]
flay 12, 1988. them be sent to Mr. Zech. I i
- 2. AdvancedReactorDesigns(0 pen) l r
[Mr. M. El Zeftawy was the Designated Federal Official for !
this ' rtion of the meeting.] i Mr. ward presented a second draft letter addressed to Chairman i Zech regarding ACRS coments en key design issues related to s DOE-sponsored advanced reactor designs. Mr. War.i's draf t !
letter stated that the Comission, in a letter oi July 9 !
i 1787, in advance had instructed of projectedthe NPCevaluation safety Staff to oevelop a pelicy). paper reports (SERs The i Comittee believes this has been a wise procedure to resolve i the rost important safety and licensing issues in a general I and direct way.
The draft Comission paper identifies four key issues L
- 1. Accident selt;ction
- 2. Siting source tem relectico and use [
- 3. Adequacy of containment system i
- 4. Adequacy of offsite amergency planning. !
Mr. Ward cowented that the cbove four issues are important, !
but they do ret adequately frarne the full set of concerns, end f l
[
r .
t l ,
- 337TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 32 he proposed that the NRC Staf# ontinua its work with cors1d-eration cf ACRS comments.
The Connittee agreed to cont.. '
s discussion on tnis subject and to invite the NRC Staf meet with the Committee on this matter during the June 19' . eting.
- 3. International Nuclear Power Plant Aging Symposium (Cpen)
The Comn.ittee was briefed by Mr. Satish Accarwal, RES, on the International Nuclear Power Plant Aging Symposium. The Syn-posium is to be held at the Hyatt Regency, Bethesda, Md., on August 30-31, and September 1, 1988. Members were encouraged to attend.
D. Future Activities (0 pen)
- 1. Future Agende The Committae agreed to the tentative future agenda shown in Appendix 11,
- 2. Future Subcommittee Activities A schedule of future subcommittee activities was distributed to members (Appendix III).
The meeting was adjourned at 1:15 p.m., Saturday, May 7, 1988.
-m u- .----,t -,--..,.e,. -n-m--w-
. ,,, - - - - - - - - ,~--w---------~---w----- -
~
6-**
1 r
APPENDICES MINUTES OF THE 337TH ACRS MEETING MAY 5-7, 1988
, i.
f I. Attendees II. Future Agenda i III. Fuhre Subcomittee Activities ,
IV. Other Documents Received l
l
., p t
e b
f i
n i i b
- _n---,,._,,-. _ _ , - , - , , - - , - , . . . . - - - - . - - - . . - - - - _ _ . , , - - - , - - - - - - , - . . - - . . -
G 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 ACRS MEETING DATE Skh, 6-7.196 A G
ATTENDEES _T_hu rsday Friday Saturday Dr. William Kerr, Chainnan i/ 4/ /
Dr. Forrest J, Remick, Vice Chairman ./ / /
Dr. Harold W. Lewis / / /
Mr. Carlyle Michelson / /
Dr. Dade W. Moeller / / ,v Dr. Paul G. Shewmon / / /
Dr. Chester P. Siess / / /
Dr. Martin J. Steindler /_ / /
Mr. David A. Ward / / /
Mr. Charles J. Wylie i/ / v i APPENDIX I l
APPENDIX I ATTENDEES 337TH ACRS MEETING MAY S-7, 1988 THURSDAY, MAY 5, 1988 _ __ FRIDAY, MAY 6, 1988 NRC Attendees NRC Attendees A. Cappucci, NRR. A. Cappucci, NRR A. Busiik, RES R. W. Hernan, NRR S. Bilhorn, ARM ,
R. C. Jones, NRR D. West, SAIC (contractor) >
B. L. Siegel, NFR F. Coffman, RES D. M. Rasmussen, RES Public Attendees Public Attendees Kathy Boyd, Heritage Reporters I Kathy Boyd, Heritage Michael P. Bohn, Sandia National Labs. '
Angelo Mercado, B&W Martin W. Ebert, NUS Corp. { L. A. Haack TVA Walter W. Maybee, DOE G. R. Skillman, GPU Steve Nowlen, Sandia National Labs. i Nuclear John Lambright, Sandia National Labs. ! R. W. Ganthner, B&W Dirk Danigren, Sandia l N. Rutherford, Duke Power Alex Marion, NUMARC J. H. Taylor, B&W Eve Fotopoulos, SERCH Li u nsing, Bechtel M. W. Ebert, NUS Corp.
Elizabeth Len, Bishop, Cook Philip Howell, Bechtel L. Moran, Oak Ridge Dan Williams, Ark. P&L i
Jane M. Grant, Yankee Atomic Electric Co. L. G. Frederick, GE John A. Raulston, IT Corp. W.R. Pearce, Consultant James C. Carter, IT Corp. R. C. Evans, NUMARC Elaine Hirvo, McG.aw-Hill D. Knuch, KMC Lynn Connor, DSA Elaine Hirso, McGraw-Hill Joe Colvin, NUMARC E. Oluzniewski, GRS Earl Pate, Detroit Edison Gil Brown, NUMARC Barbara Risache, Harford Co. Council 3
Jeff Nesmitt, Cox Newspapers G. A. Brown, Stone & Webster F. Hubbard, PLG Gary E. Wilson, E-0958 Walt Schwarz, Westinghoute H. Fontecilla, Va. Power 1-2 l
f i
r i ._ -
APPENDIX II FUTURE AGENDA June 2-4. 1988 Thermal-Hydraulie.Research(0 pen)(DAW /PAB)Estimatedtime: I hr. - Discuss proposed ACfi5 coments on NU, research program regarding themal-hydraulic i phenomena, i
GenericIssues-Prioritization(0 pen)(CPS /SD) Estinted time: 2 hrs. -
Discuss proposed prioritization of important safety-related issues identified UGis.
International Organization of Reactor Operators (0 pen) (CPS /RFF) Estimated tirre: I hr. - Briefing by IhPO representative'regarding proposed world association of nuclear operators.
051A-17,SystemsInteractions(0 pen)(DAW /MDH)Estimatedtime: li hrs. -
Comittee briefing and discussion regarding the status of NRC action to consider systems interactiors in nuclear power plants. Subcomittee meeting will be scheduled when NRC Staff resolution package is rectived. .
Quality of Fasteners Used in Nuclear Plants (SECY-87-296) (0 pen) (PGS/EGI)
Estimated tir:e: 3/4 hr. - Briefing regarding status of staff evaluation of quality of bolts and cther fasteners used in nuclear power plants.
Subcommittee meeting will be held on May 26, 1988, 10 CER Part 20 Rulemaking (0 pen) (OWM/EGI) Estimated tirre: 1 hr. - ACRS cortrents requested regarding proposed rule change. Proposed rule package and related do&ments expected by 5/15/88. Subcommittee meetin (May be referred to ACNW if chartering has been completed.)g may be n '
3pointrrent of New Members (0 pen) (FJR/NSL) Estimated time: i hr. - Discuss nature of annual call for nominees to be considered for appointment to the ACRS per Chairnan Zech's memo to R. Fraley dated March 14, 1988.
ECCFEvaluationModels(Closed)(DAW /PAB)Estimatedtime: I hr. - Discuss Westinghouse UPI LOCAL Evaluation Model for upper plenum injection of erergency core cooling water. Subcomittee meeting May 27,1988(tentative).
Staff / Westinghouse will participate as considered appropriate.
Regional Programs (0 pen) (FJR/ FAB) Estimated Time: I hr. - Subcomittee report of 5/24/e8 visit to NRC Region 11 (Atlanta) Office.
ABWR (0 pen) (CM/RKM) - Subcomittee report of 6/1/88 meeting regarding first review module for this GE plant design.
ACRS Subcomittee Activities (0 pen) (MWL/HSS) Estimated time: I hr. -
Reports and discussion regarding ACRS subcomittee activities including pressure vessel inspection, EPRI requirements document, and Japan trip report.
Review of AEOD Studies (0 pen) (HWL/HA) Estimated time: I hr. - Briefing regarding AEOD studies of service water systems, etc., to be provided.
O 337th ACRS MEETING 2 Important Safety-Related 1ssues (0 pen) (CPS /SD) Estimated time: 2 hrs. -
' Discuss hierarchical structure for important safety-related issues applicable to nuclear power plants.
ACRS Practices and Procedures (0 pen) ( /RFF)Estimatedtime: ) hr. -
Discuss proposed changes in ACRS Bylaws regarding activities of members (e.g., participation in meetings not sponsored by the ACRS) and realignment of ACRS subcomittee assignments.
July 14-15, 1988 USIA-48,HydrogenControl(0 pen)(WK/MDH)-Briefinganddiscussion regarding proposed resolution of H Containmentsbasedonapprovedrul$.controlinMarkIIIandIceCondenser ACRS may offer coments if the members desire to do so.
Operating e Procedures for Severe Accidents (0 pen) (WX/MDH) - Briefing regarding policy paper on Emergency operating Procedures by NRR representatives per discussion during the 336th reeting. Could slip to August.
NRC Policy on Severe Accidents (0 pen) (WK/MDH) - ACRS coments requested regarding Comission paper on an integrated plan to implenent Comission policy on severe accidents. Policy paper is expected by 5/1B/88 (could be preliminary report only).
Equipent Qualification (0 pen) (CJW/RKM) - ACRS coments requested regarding the EQ Scoping Study (Phase II). Subcomittec meeting will be held on June 14, 1988.
Modular HTGR (0 pen) (DAW /MPE) - Coments requested. Subcomittee meeting to be scheduled for June 22,1988(tentative).
Diagnostic Evaluation Program (0 pen) (HWL/HA) - Briefing / discussion regarding NRC diagnostic evaluation of Dresden and McGuire nuclear stations. Reports of Dresden and McGuire evaluation have been received. A subcomittee meeting may be needed (tentative).
Mark 1 Containment Performance (0 pen) (DAW /HDH) - ACRS coments requested regarding proposed resolution of Mark I abilit Final report scheduled for 8/30/88 (tentative)y to contain severe accidents
! Liquid Metal Reactors (0 pen) (DAW /mi.) - Proposed SERs for DOE LMRs to be provided by July 1958. ACRS coments requested.
Policy Staterent on Working Hours (0 pen) (FJR/HA) - ACRS coments requested.
l No anticipated date for expected documents, 11-2 l
l
, 1
. . . . - . :. =
- e. ,
e 337th ACRS MEETING 3 Operating Events (0 pen) (RWL/HA) - Briefing / discussion regarding recent '# 8 operatingeventsandincidentsatnuclearfacilities(tentative-depending on significance of incidents that have occurred, need for subcommittee meeting,etc.).
Later Peach Bottom Nuclear Plant - We have been advised that the Harford County Council has asked the Governor of Maryland to ask the Maryland Congressional delegation to request that the ACRS perform an independent review of the management and hardware (cracks in access covers welded onto the reactor shell which surrounds the core) problems at Peach Bottom. This request has not yet been received.
ACRS Review of Shutdown Nuclear Plants - Review the proposed restarts of -
Pilgrim and Peach Bottom. (Decision to review proposed restarts of other
~
plants will be made at a later time.)
11-3
- _ _ - _ . _-- - = . . ~ _ - - , - _ .
l' APPENDIX III r
l'.M 0 71980 ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS Regional P:ograms, May 24, 1988, Atlanta, GA (Boehnert). The Subcomittee will review the activities under the control of the NRC Region II Office.
Attendance by the following is anticipated, and reservartions have been made at the Hotel Ibis (404/524-5555), 101 International Blvd., Atlanta, GA for the nights of May 23 and 24:
Dr. Remick Mr. Ward Dr. Moeller Mr. Wylie Improved LWRs, May 25, 1988, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC (Aldennan),
8:30 a.m., Room 1046. The Subcomittee will discuss Chapters 3, 4, and 5 of the EPRI ALWR Requirements document. Attendance by the following is anticipated, and reservations have been made at the hotels indicated for the night of May 24:
Mr. Wylie DAYS INN A Mr. Ward ANTHONY Mr. Michelson DAYS INN C Dr. Siess ANTHONY Metal Components. May 26, 1988, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC (Igne),
HI30 a.m., Room 1046. The Subcomittee will discuss the quality of fasteners in nuclear power plants, BWR reactor pressure vessel in-service inspections, status of the piping erosion-corrosion program, and other matters. Attendance by the following is anticipated, and reservations have been made at the hotels indicated for the night of May 2:'
Dr. Shewmon NONE Dr. Bush NONE Dr. Lewis HfATT Mr. Etherington NONE Mr. Michelson DAYS INN (DC) Dr. Kassner NONE Mr. Ward ANTHONY Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena - CLOSED, May 27, 1988, 1717 H Street, NW, l Eashington, DC (Boehnert), 8:30 a.m., Room 1046. The Subcomittee will review the W revised ECCS Model for 2-Loop Upper Plenum Injection (UPI) plants.
Atteiidance by the following is anticipated, and reservations have been made at the hotels indicated for the night of May 26:
Mr. Ward ANTHONY Dr. Catton DUPONT PLAZA Dr. Kerr LOMBARDY Dr. Plesset NONE Mr. Wylie DAYSINN(VA) Mr. Schrock NONE Dr. Sullivan NONE Occupational and Environmental Protection Systems, May 31, 1988, 1717 H 5treet, NW, Washington, DC (Igne), 8:30 a.m., Room 1046. The Subcomittee will review changes to Part 20, "Standards for Protection Against Radiation."
Attendance by the following it anticipated, and reservations have been made at the hotels indicated for the night of May 30: ,
Dr. Moeller LOMBARDY Dr. Steindler ANTHONY Dr. Remick NONE Mr. Wylie DAYSINN(VA)
Dr. Shapiro NONE
Advanced Boiling Water Reactors, June 1, 1988, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC (Major), 8:30 a.m., Room 1046. The Subcommittee will begin its review of
~
tee GE ABWR. This meeting will concentrate on the first review module con-sisting of SAR Chapters 4, 5, 6, and 15-1. Attendance by the following is anticipated, and reservations have been made at the hotels indicated for the night May 31:
Mr. Michelson DAYSINN(DC) Mr. Ward CANTERBURY Dr. Kerr LOMBARDY Mr. Wylie DAYSINN(VA)
Dr. Remick NONE Mr. Ebersole NONE Dr. Shewmon NONE Dr. Okrent NONE 338th ACRS Meeting, June 2-4, 1988, Washington, DC, Room 1046.
Reliability Assurance, June 14, 1988, 1717 H Street, NW, Washinc ton, DC IMajor), E:30 a.m., Room 1046. The Subcommi+ tee will be briefec; on the final outcome of the Equipment Qualification-Risk Scoping Study. An update on the implementation of the resolution of USI A-46, "Seismic Que.lification of Equipment in Operating Nuclear Power Plants," is also planned. Lodging will be announced later. Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Mr. Wylie Dr. Siess Mr. Michelson Maintenance Practices and Procedures, June 15, 1988, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC (Alderman), 9:30 a.m., Room 1046. The Subcommittee will be briefed by RES on the current status of the Maintenance Rule. Lodging will be announced later. Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Mr. Michelson Mr. Wylie Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena, June 21, 1988, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC (Boehnert), 8:30 a.m., Room 1046. The Subcommittee will review the status of the MIST Phase III and IV Programs and the proposed OTSG Follow-on Program.
Ledging will be announced later. Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Mr. Ward Dr. Plesset Dr. Kerr Mr. Schrock Mr. Wylie Dr. Suilivan Dr. Catton Dr. Tien III-2
l 1
Advanced Reactor Designs, June 22, 1988, 1717 Washington, DC j H Street, will (El-Zeftawy), 8:30 a.m., Room 1046. The Subcomittee NW,r Filew the draft l
SER of the Modular HTGR conceptual design. In addition, the Subcomittee may l review Comissioner Bernthal's concerns regarding SECY-88-42. Lodging will be j announced later. Attendance by the following is anticipated: '
Mr. Ward Dr. Siess Dr. Kerr Mr. Wylie Dr. Remick Dr. Avery Dr. Lee Decay Heat Removal Systems June 23, 1988, 1717 H Street, NW Washington, DC (Boehnert), 8:30 a.m., Room 1046. The Subcomittee will continue its review of the NRC Staff's resolution position for USI A-45. Lodging will be en-nounced later. Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Mr. Ward Dr. Catton Dr. Kerr Mr. Davis Mr. Wylie Waste Management, June 27-29, 1988, 7920 NorfolkAvenue,_Bethesda,MD(Parry),
8:30 a.m., Room P-110. The Subcomittee will review the following pertinent high-level nuclear waste management topics: (1) DOE's proposal to petition for rulemaking on the Design Basis Accident Dose Limit for a geologic repository, (2) a report on the meeting on Alternative Conceptual Models of the Yucca Mt.
Site held in Las Vegas, NV the week of April 11-15,1988,(3) a report on the Performance Assessment Workshop held at Sandia National Laboratories, and (4) a briefing on the licensing procedures used to authorize at reactor LLW processing and spent fuel compaction and dry storage operation. Lodging will be announced later. Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Dr. Moeller Dr. Steindler Dr. Kerr Dr. Parker Dr. Shewmon TVA Organizational Issues July 13, 1988, 1717 H Street, NW, Washingten,_DC (Houston), 8:30 a.m., Room 1046. The Subcomittee will review the lessonF 1 learned from the Staff's review in regard to the restart of Sequoyah 2.
Lodging will te announced later. Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Mr. Wylie Dr. Remick Mr. Michelson Mr. Ward Waste Management (ACNW), July 21-22, 1988, Bethesda, MD.
l l
l III-3
_u _ _ - .
- l
. 1 I
Maintenance Practices and Procedures, September 13, 1988, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, MD (Alderman), 8:30 a.m., Room P-110. The Subcomittee will discuss and review the maintenace rule and associated NUREG. Lodging will be announced later. Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Mr. Michelson Mr. Reed Mr. Wylie Wasta Management (ACNW), September 15-16, 1988, Bethesda, MD.
Advanced Pressurized Water Reactors, Date to be determined (June /Jely),
Washington, DC (El-Zeftawy). The Subcomittee will review the licensing review bases document being developed for Combustion En !
Safety Analysis Report-Design Certification (CESSAR-DC)gineering's
. Attendance by the Standard following is anticipated:
Mr. Ward Dr. Remick Dr. Kerr Dr. Shewmon Mr. Michelson Mr. Wylie SafetyPhilosophy,TechnologyandCriteria,Datetobedetermined(June / July),
kashington, DC (Hodstoa). The Subconmittee will review the status of NUREG-1251 (Implications of Chernobyl) and the NRC Staff's program (at BNL) to address the implications of Chernobyl in regard to severe reactivity tran-sients. Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Mr. Ward Dr. Remick Dr. Kerr Mr. Wylie Dr. Lewis Dr. Lee Mr. Michelson Dr. Lipinski Decay Heat Removal Systems, Date to be determined (June / July) Washington, DC i (Boehnert). The St.bcomittee will review the proposed resolutions of Generic Issue 23. "RCP Seal Failures," and Generic Issue 99, "Loss of RHR Capability in PWRs." Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Mr. Ward Mr. Wylie Dr. Kerr Dr. Catton Mr. Michelson Mr. Davis Occupational and Environmental Protection Systems Date to be detennined
! (June / July), Washington, DC (Igne). The Subcomittee will review: (1) the "hot particle" problem. (2) monitoring the quality and quantit radionuclides in/out of containment following an accident, (3)y of airborne the emer planning rule, (4) the control room habitability report by ANL, and (5)gency other related matters. Attendance by the tollowing is anticipated:
Dr. Moeller Mr. Wylie Dr. Remick Dr. W rk (tent.)
Dr. Steindler Dr. Shapiro 111-4
1 l
l Advanced Pressurized Water Reactors, Date to be detemined (July), Washington, UC TET-Zef tawy) . The Subcommittee will review the draft SER in regard to the Te' actor, reactor coolant system, and regulatory confomance for the WAFWR RESAR SP/90 design. Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Mr. Ward Dr. Remick Dr. Kerr Dr. Shewmon Mr. Michelson Mr. Wylie Advanced Pressurized Water Reactors, Date to be determined (July / August),
Washington, DC (El-Zeftawy). The Subcommittee will discuss the comparison of WAPWR (RESAR SP/90) design with other modern plants (in U.S. and abroad).
%ttendance by the following is anticipated:
Mr. Ward Dr. Remick Dr. Kerr Dr. Shewmon Mr. Michelson Mr. Wylie AdvancedReactorDesigns,Datetobedetermined(July / August), Washington,DC (El-Zeftawy). The Subcommittee will review the draft SERs for the liquid metal reactors (LMRs). Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Mr. Ward Dr. Siess Dr. Kerr Mr. Wvlie Mr. Michelson Dr. Avery Dr. Remick Dr. Lee General Electric Reactor Plants, Date to be detemined (August), P1pouth, MA (Boehnert). The Subcomittee will review the proposed restart of the Pilgrim plant. Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Dr. Kerr Mr. Michelson Dr. Lewis Dr. Siess Containment Requirements, Date to be detemined (August / September),
Washington, DC (Houston). The Subcommittee will review the NRC Ste.ff's document on recomendations for containment performance and improvements (BWRMarkIonly). Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Mr. Ward Mr. Wylie Dr. Kerr Dr. Catton Dr. Siess Dr. Corradini 4
Decay Heat Removal Systems, Date to be detemined, Washington, DC (Boehnert).
The Subcommittee will explore the issue of the use of feed and bleed for decay heat removal in PWRs. Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Mr. Ward Mr. Wylie Dr. Kerr Dr. Catton Mr. Michelson Mr. Davis Ill-5
Systematic Assessment of Experience, Date and location to be determined, (Alderman). The Subcommittee will review the Diagnostic Evaluation Program and other related licensee performance review efforts by the NRC Staff.
Attendtnce by the following is anticipated: ;
Dr. Lewis Mr. Ward Mr. Michelson Mr. Wylie Dr. Moeller Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena, Date to be detera.ined, Washington, DC (Boehnert).
The Subcommittee will discuss the status of Industry best-estimate ECCS mcdel submittals for use with the revised ECCS Rule. Attendan:e by the following is anticipated:
Mr. Ward Dr. Catton Dr. Kerr Dr. Plesset Mr. Michelson Mr. Schrock Mr. Wylie Dr. Sullivan Dr. Tien Auxiliary Systems, Date to be determined, Washington, DC (Duraiswamy). The Subcommittee 4:111 discuss the: (1) criteria being used by utilities to design Chilled Water S <
design, and (3)ystems, (2) regulatory criteria being used by therequirements for Chilled NRC Staff to review Water Systems the Chilled Water Systems design. Attendance by the following is anticipated:
Mr. Michelson Mr. Wylie Dr. Moeller
!!!-6
APPENDIX IV 337TH ACRS MEFTING MINUTES OTHER DOCUMENTS RECEIVED List of Documents in Meeting I;otebook Tab 2
- 1. F. ire Risk Scoping Study, Presentation Schedule
- 2. Memo for ACRS Members and Staff from S. Duraiswamy, dated April 22, 1988, re Status Report-Fire Risk Scoping Otudy - 337th ACRS Meeting
- 3. Letter to Chairman Zech from W. Kerr, dated August 10, 1987, re Preliminary ACRS Views en Fire Risk Research Scoping Study Tab 3
- 1. Memo for R. Fraley from E. Beckjord, dated March 21, 1988, re Revision ? to Regulatory Guide 1.100, "Seismic Qualification of Electric and Mechanical Equiptrent for Nuclear Pener Plants" (EffectiveGuide)
- 2. Revision 2 to Regulatory Guide 1.100, dated March 1988
- 3. Public Comrrent Letters 4 Resolution of Public Coments, dated December 4,1987 Tab 4
- 1. Memo for ACRS Members and Staff from S. Duraiswamy, dated April 28, 1988, re Status Report - Integrated Safety Assessment Program II -
1 337th ACRS Meeting
- 2. Letter to Chairman Zech from W. Kerr, dated July 15, 1987, re ACRS Coments on the Integrated Safety Assessment Program
- 3. Proposed Comission Paper on ISAP II, undated (Predecisional Document. Official Use Only) 4 Generic Letter 88-02 on ISAP II, dated January 20, 1988
- 5. Infortnation Provided to the Generic Items Subcomittee on April 27, 1988 Tab 5
- 1. Status Report - Individual Plant Examinations (IPE) dated May 5, 1988
- 2. Letter to Chairman Zech from W. Kerr, dated June 9,1987, re Proposed Generic Letter on Individual Plant Examinations for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities
- 3. Draft on Proposed Generic Letter on IPEs, dated April 15, 1988 4 Memo for ACRS Members and Staff from G. Quittschreiber, dated April
, 25, 1988, re Highlights of CRGR Meeting Discussion on Proposed Generic Letter Concerning IPEs for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities 5 Selected Slides ' rom Severe Accident Subcomittee Meeting on April 26, 1988
- 6. Memo for W. Kerr from D. Ward, dated April 26, 1988, re Coments on Proposed Generic Letter for IPE
337TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 2
- 7. Memo for W. Kerr from I. Catton, dated April 27, 1988, re Coments on Proposed Generic Letter for IPE
- 8. Memo for W. Ker- M. Corradini, dated April 27, 1988, re Coments on Prc Generic Letter for IFE Tab 6
- 1. Status Report - Containment Systems - BWR Mark I
- 2. Staff Mandouts for Containment Requirements Subcomittee meeting on April 26, 1988 Tab. 7.1 and 7.2
- 1. Status Report - Waste Management
- 2. Memo for D. Moeller et al. from 0. Merrill, dated April 20, 1988 re States Report for Meeting of the ACRS Subcomittee on Waste Management, April 28, 1988
- 3. Memo for D. Moeller from 0. Merrill, dated March 23, 1988, re NRC's Review of DOE's Consultation Draft Site Characterization Plan for the Yucca Mountain Site, and Report of the First Day of the NRC/ DOE Workshop on i.his Docurent 4 Memo for D. Moeller et al. from O. Merrill, dated April 22, 1988, re Status Report for Meeting of the ACRS Subcomittee on Waste Management on May 4, 1988
- 5. Memo for D. Moeller et al. from O. Merrill, dated April 27,1988, re Supplemental Information for the Meeting of the ACRS Subcomittee on Waste Management on May 4, 1988 Tab 8
- 1. Memo for C. Wylie from R. Major, dated April 20, 1988, re Status Report for the May 3-4, 1988 Meeting of the ACRS Subcomittee on Babcock & Wilcox Reactor Plants
- 2. Letter to V. Stello from D. Ward, dated July 16, 1986, re B&W Owners group Safety and Perfomance Improvement Program
- 3. I.etter to D. Ward from Denton, dated August 14, 1986, re B&W Owners Group Safety and Perfomance Improvement Program
- 4. Hemo for C. Wylie et al. from R. Major, dated September 18, 1987, re Basdekas' Concerns Relating to the B&W Plant Assessment and Unresolved Safety Issues A-47, A-17, and A-49
- 5. Memo for C. Wylie from R. Major, dated August 27,1987, re Final Version of "B&W Owners Group Safety and Performance improvement Program" - BAW-1919, Rev. 5 Tab 9.1
- 1. Future ACRS Subcomittee Meetings, dated April 28, 1988 Tab 9.2 (blank)
IV-2
. . ~.
.. 337TH ACRS HEETING MINUTES 3 ,
Tab 10
- 1. Project Status Report - Review of Final Version of Proposed Revision to the ECCS Rule, dated May 6, 1988
- 2. Letter to Chairman Zech from D. Ward, dated September 16, 1986, re Proposed Revision to the ECCS Rule in 10 CFR 50.46 and Appendix K
- 3. Memo for C. Wylie from P. Boehnert, dated April 25, 1988, re ACRS Meeting of the Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena Subcommittee, April 20-21, 1988, Idaho Falls, ID 4 Excerpts of Proposed Final Version of ECCS Rule Package
- 5. Letter to Chairman Zech from W. Kerr, dated September 16,198/, re ACRS Comments on Code Scaling, Applicability and Uncertainty Methodology for Determination of Uncertainty Associated with the Use of Realistic ECCS Evaluation Models
- 6. Letter to E. Beckjord from Todreas, dated February 24, 1988, re Summary Comments on Peer Review of CSAU Methodology Tab 11 1 Memo for F. Remick from H. Alderman, dated April 28, 1988, re Status Report on Proposed NRC Policy Statement on Professional Conduct of Power Plant Operators
- 2. Letter to Mcdonald from Pate, INPO, dated March 14, 1988 3 Letter to R. Fraley from Pate, INP0, dated March 30, 1988 4 SECY-88-57, Proposed Commission Policy Statement on the Professional Conduct of Nuclear Power Plant Operators (Predecisional Information, Official Use Only) 5 Memo for V. Stello from S. Chilk, dated March 22, 1988, re SECY-88-57 Tab 13.1-1
- 1. Project Status Report - Advanced Reactor Designs, dated May 7,1988
- 2. Draft Commission Paper, dated April 18, 1988, ro Key Licensing Issues Associated with DOE Sponsored Advanced Reactor Designs Tab 15.2
- 1. Memo for ACf 3 Men,bers from T. McCreless, dated March 4,1988, re ACRS Bylaws, with Attachrents IV-3 l I
.- 337TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 4 Meeting Handouts
- 1. a. Memo for ACRS Members from H. El-Zeftaway, dated April 26, 1988, re Certification of the Minutes of the Subcomittee Meeting on Advanced Pressurized Water Reactors, April 6, 1988 (Proprietary Information)
- b. Memo for D. Ward from P. Davis, dated April 22, 1988, re Coments on Westinghouse APWR PRA
- 2. a. Presentation Schedule - Revision to ECCS Pule 10 CFR 50.46 and Appendix K, dated May 6, 1988
- b. Memo for P. Boehnert from I. Cetton, dated May 3,1988 re Thennal Hydraulics Phenomena Subcomittee Meeting, April 19-21, 1988, Idaho Falls, Idaho
- c. Memo for P. Boehnert from I. Catton, dated May 4, 1988, re Technical Program Group Meeting on Code Scaling, Assessment, and Uncertainty (CSAU)
- 5. Memo for ACRS Mcebers from R. Fraley, dated May 5, 1988, re Proposed List of Topics for 338th Meeting.
- 4. Draft 2 letter for Chainnan Zech from Kerr on ACRS Coments on Key Issues Related to Advanced Reactors (Official Use Only)
- 3. a. Schedule of Discussion Items
- b. Project Status Report - Proposed Report on Thermal-Hydraulics Research Program
- c. Draft 4 Letter for Zech from Ward, re ACRS Comments on NRC Hesearch Related to Heat Transfer and Fluid Transport in Nuclear Power Plants (Official Use Only) i IV-4
.. n
,, 337TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES S l
Presentation Handouts Fire Risk Scoping Study
- 1. Fire Risk Research Briefing to the 337tn ACRS Full Comittee, dated May 5, 1988
- 2. Fire Risk Scoping Study Overview and Recomendations by Michael P.
Bohn, dated May 5, 1988
- 3. Fire Risk Scoping Study Results from Tasks 1 and 2 by John Lambright, dated May 5, 1988
- 4. Fire Risk Scoping Study Overview and Conclusions of the New Issues Investigations by Steven Nowlen, dated May 5, 1988
- 5. Fire Risk Scoping Study Peer Review Individual Plant Examinations
- 6. Severe Accident Integrated Planby Themis Speis, dated May 5, 1988
- 7. The Impicmentation Plan for the Severe Accident Policy Stat? ment, Individual Plant Examination, dated May 5, 1988 Containment Systems
- 8. Mark I Containment Integrity Under Severe Accident Conditions, Presentation by L. G. Hulman, d6ted May 5,1988 B&W Nuclear Power Plants
- 9. B&W Owners Group Safet* snd Performance Improverent Progran, Presentation to ACRS, cated May 6, 1988, Prepared by Arknasas Power
& Light et al.
- 10. B&W Plant Reassessment Program, dated May 6, 1988 11 B&W Plant Reassment - Staf f Overview and Implementation, i Presentation by B. L. Siegel, dated May 6, 1988
- 12. B&W Plant Reassessment, NUREG-1231 - Staff Surr: nary and Conclusions.
Presentation by R. C. Jones, dat?d May 6, 1988 Energency Core Cooling Systems
- 13. ECCS Rule: Update on Status, Prepared by Louis Shotkin, dated May 6, 1988
- 14. Revision of ECCS Rule Contained in Appendix K and Section 50.46 of 10 CFR Part 50, Prepared by Nonnan Lauben, dated May 6,1988
- 15. Status Report - Code Scaling, Applicability and Uncertainty (CSAU),
Presented by Gary Wilson, dated May 1988 Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena
- 16. Review of Future Plans for RES T/H Research, Prepared by Louis Shotkin, dated May 6, 1988 IV-5 1
_ _-- - - - - - - - - - -