ML20206B173
| ML20206B173 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/14/1988 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-2590, NUDOCS 8811150361 | |
| Download: ML20206B173 (40) | |
Text
-
~
CERRO TABLE OF CONTENTS MINUTES OF THE 339TH ACRS MEETING JULY 14-16, 1988
- fagp, I.
Chairman's Report (0 pen).......................................
1 II.
Integrated Plan for Closure of Severe Accident Issues (0 pen)...
1 III.
ECCS Evaluation Models (C1osed)................................
2 IV.
Equipment Qualification (EQ) - Risk Scoping Study (0 pen).......
2 V.
Modular High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactor (0 pen).............
5 VI.
AE00 Evaluation of Operating Experience (0 pen).................
7 VII.
ACRS Review of Pilgrim Plant Restart (0 pen)....................
11 VIII.
Proposed Policy Statement on Nuclear Power Plant Staff Working Hours (0 pen)...........................................
11 IX.
Meeting with NRC Commissioners (0 pen)..........................
13 X.
Executive Sessions (0 pen)......................................
14 A.
Reports, Letters and Memoranda (0 pen)......................
14 1.
ACRS Report on Key Licensing Issues A.sociated with DOE Sponsored Reactor Designs..........................
14 2.
Report on the Integration Plan for Closure of Severe Accident Issues.................'.......................
14 3.
Report on Proposed Revised Policy Statement of Nuclear Power Plant Staff Working Hours........................
14 4.
Comments on the NRC staff's Draft Safety Evaluation of the Westinghouse Topical Report, WCAP-10924, "Westinghouse Large-Break LOCA Best-Estimate Methodo1gy"............................................
15 B.
Other Ccemittee Conclusions.................................
15 1.
Conjoining of ACRS Subcommittees (0 pen).................
15 2.
ACRS Bylaws (0 pen)......................................
15 3.
ACRS-NRC Memorandum of Understanding (0 pen).............
15 4.
Member Nominations (Closed).............................
15 5.
Browns Ferry Fire (0 pen)................................
16 C.
Future Agenda...............................................
16 Supplement - Section !!!. Proprietary Information h%%
ffj ]@ygt 80071 4 i
2590 pm
\\ k
.g..
)
4 APPENDICES MINUTES OF THE 339TH ACRS MEETING JULY 14-16,1988 1.
Attendees II.
Future Agenda III.
Future Subcomittee ' Activities I
IV. Other Documents Received i
4 l
1 i
4 l
i 4
.[
{
~
h 7/Y-4 Fed'ral Register / Vol. 53, No.125 / WE(nesday, June 29, 1988 / Notices 1
pp e
E 0
each contention set forth with\\
Commonwealth Edison Company Ubrary, Louisiana Collectlen.4akefront..
reasonable specificity. Contentio'n,s shall Docket No. 50-456 and 50 457, New Odeana. louisine270122.
be limited to matters within the scbpe of Braidwood Station, Units I and 2. Will
. Dated at Rackvule. Marytsnd, sMa sesh' day the amendment under consideration:
Cconty, Illinois plioner who fails to file such a ofgeg g.j Date of amendn.wnt request: June 2.
Gary M Ilotahaa,
'N W'M' equirem nts th res e t at least one riefdescription of amendment;%la ff*'#".'ff contention will wat be permitted to mergency amendment to the Technical p,,
participate as a party.
cifications is a one. time only change o/N ;/corReactor/tegulation.
Ttose permitted to intervene become
'O echnical Specification 4.3.1.1 for the
] & c.801 M FUed N m )-
s
, 7, S.:.,
parties to the proceeding, subject to any Reactor Trip System Instrumenta don.
_ j y..-
limitations in the order granting leave to This cbnge extends the monthly i\\
intsrvena, and have the opportunity to surveillhoce Interval from 31 days Advliory Committee on fleector
\\ participate fully in the conduct of the I"
d,a 8*f # d"
"' A'*"d*
\\ hearing. including the opportunity to Range e i-]u nt f r an
'~
additional te 10) da"s for Unit 1 only.
In accordance with the pumoses of present esidearc and cross. examine minenet Date ofissu ce: June 10.1988 sections 29 and 182b. of the Atomic Effective date: ne 2.1988 Since the Commission has made a Amendment No-Energy act (42 U.S.C. 2039,72.12b), the Advisory Committee on Reactor final determination that the amendment facility O eroting ' cense No. NPT.72 Safeguards will hold a mieting on July P
insches no significant hazards cadNPP 77. Amendme revised the 14-16,1988. in Room 1046.1717 H Street considstration. If a hearing is re'}uested.
Technical Specifications. blic NW., Washington, DC. Notice of this 41 will n'or stay the effectiveness of the comments requested as to - posed no meeting was published in the Federal amendment. Any hearing held would significant hazards considera m No.
Register on June 14.1988.
take place hile the amendment is in eC
%ursday, July 14,1968 o7,, mend ent n ing of eme ny circumstances, final determination no
&Ja a.m.445 a.m. Comments by A requesi t a heanng o' a petition significant hazards consideration are for leas e to mh vene must be filed with contained in a Safety Evaluation dated ACRS Chairman (Open)-The ACRS -
the Secretary of he Commission. U.S.
(une 10.1988, Chairman will report bnefly regarding items of current interest.
Nuclear Regulato y Commission.
A ttorney for licensee: Micha el Miller, Wa shington. DC ;: 55. Attention.
Esq, Sidley and Austin One First S 45 a.m.-IV45 a.m.t Policy on Severe Docketing and Sersice Branch, or may National Plaza. Chicago. Illinois 00603.
Accidents (Open)-ACRS reMew and be de:lis ered to the Commission's Public Loca/Public Document Room comment regarding roposed NRC Document Room. 171711 Street. NW.,
location Wilmington Township Public '
integrated program or closure of severe Washington. DC. by the above date.
Ubrary '201 S. Kankakee Street.
accident issues.
Where petitions are filed during the Idst Wilmington. Illinois 0&t81,
!!to am.-11:45 a.m.: Wcrking Hours icn (10) days of the notice period. it is fotNuclear Plant Operators (Open)-
Loulslana Power and Ught Company, Review and comment on proposed NRC requested that the petitioner promptly so Docket No. 50-382. Waterford Steam policy regarding working hours for Infarm the Commission by a toll.freo Electric Station. Unit 3. St. Charles nuclear power plant operators.
telephone call to Western Union at 1 Parish. Loulslana lona) 325-sono fin Missouri 1.(eool 342' 11:45 a.m.-12:15 p.m.t Topics for 0700). The Westem lhion operator Date of amendment request: May 31, Afeeling with NRC Commissioners
[
should be given Datagram Identification 1988 as supplemented June 1.1988.
(Open)-Discuss comments and Number 3?]7 and the following me, sage Brief description of amendment / The recommendations in ACRS report of l<
cddressed to (Project Director):
amendment revised the T?r.hnical May 10,1968 mg.rding IndivWal Plant petitioner's name and telephono Specifications by reducing from twn to Examinations and the proposed I
number; date petition was mailed: plant one the number of Containment Cooling Integrated Safety Assessment Program Fans required to be operable In each 11 (ISAP U).
l' name; and publication date and pa8e train of the Containme..t Cooling M.m.430p.m.t Afecti/w wa,h NRC P
number of this Federal Register notice.
System.
Commissioners (Open) (Commis sioners g
A copy of the petition s uld also be Date ofissuonce: June 2.1988 Conference Room.1st Floor. One White sent to the OfGce of the eneral Effeelive date june 2,1983 Flint North Duilding.11555 Rockville Counsel. U.S. Nuclear Regula tory Amendment No. 39 Pike. Rockville. MD.)-Discuss Commission, Washington DC 20555.
-facility Operuting Limnse Na NPr.
comments and recornmendations in and to the attorney for the licensee.
Ja Amendmsat revised the Technical ACRS report of May 10,1988 regarding i Nontimely filings of petitions for leave Specifications. Public comments Individual Plant Examinations and the l
to interveno amended petitions.
requested as to proposed no signincant proposed ISAP il.
g e
supplemental petitions and/or requests harards conalderation: No.
4:30p.m.-dJ0p.m ' ECCS Evoluotion for hearing will not be entertained The Commission's related evaluation Aiodels (Open/ Closed)-ACRS redew absent a detarmination by the of the amendment. nnding of emergency anc' comment regarding proposed,
circumstances, consultation with State revision of Westinghouse ECCS l
Commission the presiding officer or the of Louisiana. and final determination of evaluation models for two loop plants
)
Atomic Safety and Ucensing ibard, that no significant hazards sensideration are with upper. plenum injection.
q ths petition and/or request should be contained in a Safety Evaluation dated Portions of this session will be closed granted based upon a balancies of the lune 2.1988.
as required to dis.uss Proprietary -
factors specified in to CW 2.714(a)(1)(ij-LocoIPublic Document Room information applicable to the models s
(v) and 2.714(dl.
locotton: University of New Orleans being proposed.
id '
,q 1
i
.O J
29, 1968 / Notices' - [
~ j Federal Registce / Vol. 53, No.125 / Wednesd'y, June 24S32 will be permhted only during those Harrisburg. PA.De meeting wn! be
/
Friday.)aly is,issa Portions of the meeeting when a open to the pubGc.
/
a.x o.m.-200 amt Equ/pmani transcript la being keep an4nesha At this rr.eeting, the Panel will receive Qualificat/on.Ris/: Scop /ng Study may be asked only b members of the a status report on the progren off-(Open)-ACRS review and comment Coramittee,its cons tanta. and Staff.
defueling froan the licensee. GPt) reg:rding equipment qualification tisk-Persons desiring to make ora!
Nuclear Corporation.
/
sr.cping study.
statementa abould notify the ACRS De Panel will aseo senduct a working m3 om-12tSNsa Modu /ar R/gh Executive Director as far in advanca as
,,,,to, go review the recently issued Temperotare Cos CooledReactor practicable so that appro riata draft supplement to the Programmatic (Open}--ACRS review and comment arrsagements can be to allow the EnvirpnmentalImpact state:nmt reg:rding proposed DOE standardized necesaary tima danng the meeting foi (NUREG-0683. Supplement 3) deallng o
l MifTCR.
such statements. Use of stdl. c otfon with the licensee's plans for post.
7:15p.tn.-N5p.m.7 Nuc/cor Power picture and television cameras during defalug monitored storage and Plant Open2dng Experience (Open) this meeting may be limited to selected subsequent cleanup of TMI-2. Members Wiefing by rep <asentatives of AEOD of the public wl be given ths {ortiona of the meetimg as determinedy the Chainnan.Infomauon ngarding opportunity toaddress the Panel. reg:rding systematic evaluation of e l nudear power plard operatfng the time to be set aside for this purpose Further inf6rmation on the meeting be obtained by a prepaid telephone may be obirsined from Dr. MichaelT. i experience, me(to the ACRS Executive Director, Mr. Masnik,II.S. Nuclear Regulatory 2(3 pa-113 p.at; p:/gr&n Nuclear cal Station (Open)-Unefing and discussion Rapnend F. Fraley, prior to the meeting. Commidion, Washing *on. DC 20555, regarding ACRS review of activitica in view of the possibility that the teleph.one (301) 492-1373. related to the restart of the Pilgrim schedule for ACRS meetings may be Nudear Station, adjusled by the Chairman as necessary D*)ed Juae 23,1988. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commisalon. 1xpan.-4;00p.m. flitury ACM to facilitate the conduct of the meettag. Activities (Open)-Discuss anticfpated persons planning to attend should check John C. itoy te. Subcommittee activities and t%.':: with the ACRS Executive Director if Adi /sory Commhtee Atenopment Off7cer. proposed for consideration by the full sudi reacheduling would result in major (FR Doc. 86-14638 Filed 6-28-88, a 45 smj Canmittee. inconnalenca ewuo'cooa nee aus 4 DO p.m.-8D0 pan: Advanced I have determined in accordance with Reactors (Open)-ACRS mmmenta subsection 10(d) Pub. L 92-463 that it is regarding proposed regulatory necessary to closa portions of this (Docket Noe. 50-440. tad 50-4411 requirements for key festures of meeting as noted above to discuss Cleveland Electric illumbating Co, et standardized DOE proposed advanced informadon the release of which would al., Perry Nuefear Power Plant Unit g:s cooled and liquid. metal cooled mpusent a clenly unwarranted Nos.1 and 2;lasuance of Dirpctor's reactors. invasion of personal privacy (5 U.S.C. Decision Saturday, July 16.1968 552b(c)(6)) and Proprietary Information &# a.m.-1230 paru Prepstol/on of applicable to the facility being discussed Notice is hereby gherpt at the ACRS Report.s (Open/ Closed)-. Discuss (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4)), Director, Office of Nugfear Reacter Further information regarding topics Regulation.has istyed a Director's ACRS reports to the NRC regarding to be discussed. whether the meeting Decision concerning a Petition dated inst.es considered during this meeung, ha s been cancelled or tercheduled, the January 22.1Mded by Susan 1. Matt Portfoos of this senion will be closed CF airman's ruling on requests for the n behalf of Ohio Ciumens for I as necessary to discuss Proprietary opportunity to present oral statements R e s pon s ibls'En e rgy, Inc. (Petitio ne r). Information applicable to the matter and the time allotted can be obtained by The Petitidner requested that the being discussed, a prepaid telephone call to the ACRS Nucles Regulatrey Commission (NRC) Idopa-J47p m/ A CRS Pmet/ces Executive Director, Mr. Rayrnond F. grant vanety of relief. including and Procedures (Open/ Closed)-- Fraley (telephone 202/634-32fi5k nsion of the operating license for Discuss propoecd changes in ACRS between 8:15 am and 5 00 pm "#I " ' " " *" ' "
- aus procedures and practices such as d suspension of the construction r: organization of ACRS generic Date: fune 2419en.
8 ermit f r the Perry Nuclear Power 1 subcommittees participation by Ig g,)4S Plant. Unit 2. The Pttitfor. alleged s en m Ices. m:mbers in meetings which are not various seismic h1 adequacies in the eponsored by the ACRS, and procedures (TR Doc. 88-WQ7 Filed 6-:Ma L45 unl Nuclear Power Plant design. Perry $cah for review of opersting events and em em nom m incidents. Qualifications of candidates spec i propored for appetntment to the 1.The earthquake of January 31.1900 Comm]ttee will also be discussed. IDocest No. So-32cl at Chardon. Ohio and the historic Fortions of this ression will be closed
- D "' "
"I I as necessary to discuss information the Meeting of the Aertsory Panel for the i'lant can be associated with a tectonic release of which would represent e Decontamination of Three Mlle taland cleeety serwarranted invasion of Unit 2 0PU ttuclear Corp. y magnetic data, j
- 2. This tectonic structure is capable of pecoonal petvaay.
Notice is hereby ainn ptrsuant to the nitude of 6.5 Procedures foe the con & ret of and Feders! Adv6sory Commitle( Act that an earthquaka with i mag / partictpethon in ACRS meeefngs were-the Advisory Panel forane or greater. published in the Fenierol Resistee en be Decontamination ihree MJe Islard
- 3. i'he peesent safe.shofdovm L
' of 5.3 0.5) for Oc4ober 2,1987 (51 FR 37241)dures, ors)Un't 2 (TM1-2) be meeting on Niy earthquake (magni e or written statesments may be presented 14.19ea. 40 pm to 1200 pm at the Perry facill oes not provide the g accordance with these proce the llolf Inn 2J S. Second Street, margin of suf ' required. 4 by members of the public, recordtess h 6
p' n at;uq'o [ .j, 'y' g UNIT F.D STATES NUCLEAR REGULATCRY COMMISSION o 3 I ADVI3ORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEZUARDS 1 / WASH WGTON, 0. C. 20666 %,.....f Revised: July 12, 1988 SCHEDULE AND OUTLINE FOR DISCUSSION 339TH ACRS MEETING JULY 14-16, 1988 WASHINGTON, D.C. Thursday, July 14, 1988, Room 1046, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. SK
- 1) 8:30 8:45 A.M.
Chairman's Coments (0 pen) 1.1) Opening remarks (WK) 1.2) Items of current interest (WK/RFF) b-10: 5 A.M. 'Intec rated Plan for Closure of Severe
- 2) 8:
Accicent Issues (0 pen) 2.1) Review and coment regarding proposed NRC integrated plan for closure of severe'accidentissues(WK/MDH) 2.2) Meeting with NRC Staff representatives, as appropriate s t-n.t: 10:45 - 11d C A.M. BREAK ( ,,u-to
- 3) 11-100 - 11:45 A.M.
FutureACRSActivities(Oper,) 3.1) Discuss anticipated ACRS Subcom-mittee activities (MWL/RFF) 3.2) Items proposed for consideration by the full Comittee (WK/RFF)
- 4) 11:45 - 12:1 'P.M.
Discuss Topic for Meeting with Commissioners (0 pen) 4.1) ACRS coments and recomendations in ACRS report of May 10, 1988 regarding Individual Plant Examinations and the proposed Integrated Safety Assessment ProgramII(ISAPII) 12:1 1:15 P.M. LUNCH 1;15 - 2:00 P.M. Trip to Rockville for meeting with Comissioners .. cr
- 5) 2 : 00 - -1r30 P.M.
Meeting with Comissi)ners (0 pen) (One White Flint North Bui'iding.ToHville, Md.) 5.1) Discuss topic noted above
- (
.0 J:30 - 3:45 P.M. BREAK
i s' 339th AC35 Meeting Agenda, 2o 5.5-
- 6) 3:A5 - 5:f5'P.M.
/ ECCS Evaluation Models (0 pen / Closed)
- (RM. 2F-21, One White Flint North Building, Rockville,Md.)
6.1) Review and coment regarding Westinghouse ECCS evaluation models for two-loop plants with UPI (DAW /PAB) 6.2) Meeting with representatives of NRC Staff and Westinghouse, as appropriate (Note: Portions of this session will be closed as required to discuss Proprietary Information applicable to the matter being discussed.) ~ 6:00 P.M. Return to 1717 H Street Friday, July 15, 1988 Room 1046, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
- quipment Qualification-Risk Scoping E
- 7) 8:30 -
10:00 A.M. Study (0 pen) 7.1) Report of ACC.S Subcomittee Chairinan on E-Q Risk Scoping Study (CJW/RKM) 7.2) Briefing by representatives of NRC Staff and SNL 3 g I L 10:00 - 10:15 A.M. BREAK IC
- 8) 10:15 - 12:15'P.M.
Modular High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactor (0 pen) 8.1) ACRS review and coment regarding proposed DOE standardized MHTGR(DAW /MME) 8.2) Meeting with representatives of NRC Staff, as appropriate s 12:15 - 1:J5'P.M. LUNCH <e e 9) 1:M - 3 tb0 P.M. AE00EvaluationofOperatig Experience (0 pen) 9.1) Briefing by representatives of NRC regarding systematic evaluation of nuclear power plant operating experience and LaSalle Nuclear Plant I powc oscillations (HWL/HA) IS f
- 10) 3 : 00' - 3 : 3,0' P.M.
PilgrimNuclearStation(0 pen) 10.1) Discussion of ACRS review of restart ofPilgrimPlant(WK/PAB) 10.2) Presentation by representatives of NRC Staff (' ( A 3:30 - 3:A5 P.M. BREAK
- Please note change of location
[ l' 339th ACRS Meeting Agenda ( .50 35 11) 3M-4:30 P.M. Policy Regarding Working Hours for Plant Operators (0 pen) 11.1) ACR5 coments requested on the proposed NRC policy on working hours for nuclear power plant operators 11.2) (Briefing by NRC Staff representatives FJR/HA) ?C c T
- 12) 4:30 - 6:30 P.M.
Advanced Reactors (0 pen) 12.1) Discuss proposed ACRS coments/recom-mendations regarding regulatory requirements for key design features of DOE proposed advanced reactors (DAW /MME) Saturday, July 16, 1988, Rocm 1046, 1717 H Street. *:.W., Washington, D. C. 13) 8:30 - 12:35P.M. Preparation rf ACRS Reports (0 pen / Closed 13.1) Discuss proposed ACRS reports to NRC regarding: 13.1-1) Equipment Qualification-Risk Scoping Study (CJW/RKM) 13.1-2) Working Hours for Nuclear ( Plant Operators (FJR/HA) 13.1-3) AdvancedReactors(DAW /MME) 13.1-4) Proposed Integrated Plan for Closure of Severe Acci-dentIssues(WK/MDH) 13.1-5) ECCS Evaluation Models (Closed)(DAW /PAB) (Note: Portions of this session will be closed as required to discuss Proprietary Information applicable to the matter being discussed.) l 00 li '? 12:30 - Ar30'P.M. LUNCH 14)
- 30 - 3:00 P.M.
ACRS Procedures and Practices (0 pen / Closed) 14.1) Proposed change in ACRS Bylaws (HWL/RFF) 14.2) Revision to MOV Appendix - Discuss distribution of responsi-bilities/ interests between ACRS andACNW(WK/MWL/SD) 14.3) NewArP,5g.,>bers(FJR/NSL) 14.4) Discuss pocedures for review of ~ ' ' operating events and incidents T', (CM/HWL'MA) l 'l 14.5) Conjoining of ACRS subcomittees (CM/MWL) 1 l
CERTHE TABLE OF CONTENTS MINUTES OF THE 339TH ACRS MEETING JULY 14-16, 1988 Eage I. Chairman's Report (0 pen)....................................... 1 II. Integrated Plan for Closure of Severe Accident Issues (0 pen)... 1 III. ECCS Evaluation Models (C1osed)................................ 2 IV. Equipment Qualification (EQ) - Risk Scoping Study (0 pen)....... 2 V. Modular High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactor (0 pen)............. 5 VI. AEOD Evaluation of Operating Experience (0 pen)................. 7 VII. ACRS Revie> of Pilgrim Plant Restart (0 pen).................... 11 VIII. Propost. <olicy Statement on Nuclear Power Plant Staff Wo r k i n g ti o u r s ( 0 p e n )........................................... 11 IX. Meeting with NRC Commissioners (0 pen).......................... 13 X. Executive Sessions (0 pen)...................................... 14 A. Reports, Letters and Memoranda (0 pen)...................... 14 1. ACRS Report on Key Licensing Issues Associated with DOE Sponsored Reactor Designs.......................... 14 2. Report on the Integration Plan for Closure of Severe Accident Issues........................................ 14 3. Report on Proposed Revised Policy Statement of Nuclear Power Plant Staff Working Hours........................ 14 4. Comments on the NRC staff's Draf t Safety Evaluation of the Westinghouse Topical Report, WCAP-10924, "Westinghouse Large-Break LOCA Best-Estimate Methodolgy"............................................ 15 B. Other Committee Conclusions................................. 15 1. Conjoining of ACRS Subcommittees (0 pen)................. 15 2. ACRS Bylaws (0 pen)...................................... 15 3. ACRS-NRC Memorandum of Understanding (0 pen)............. 15 4. Member Nominations (Closed)............................. 15 5. Browns Ferry Fire (0 pen)................................ 16 C. Future Agenda............................................... 16 Supplement - Official th Only. Section III. i
i i CERED MINUTES OF THE 339TH ACRS MEETING JULY 14-16, 1988 The 339th meeting of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, held at 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., was convened by Chairman William Kerr at 8:30 a.m., Thursday, July 14, 1988. [ Note: For a list of attendees, see Appendix I.] The Chairman s? d that the agenda for the meeting had been published. He i identified the items to be discussed on Thursday. He stated that the meeting was being held in conformance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Laws 92-463 and 94-409, respectively. He also noted that a transcript of some of the public portions of the meeting was being made, and would be available in the NRC Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. [ Note: Copies of the transcript taken at this meeting are also available for purchase from the Heritage Reporting Corporation, 1220 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005.] I. Chairman's Report (0 pen) (Note: Mr. R. F. Fraley was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.] Dr. Kerr informed the Committee of the announced reorganizations of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and the NRC Office of Research. Dr. Kerr also announced that the ACRS office move to Bethesda, Maryland has been rescheduled for August 26, 1988. II. Integrated Plan for Closure of Severe Accident Issues (0 pen) (Note: Mr. D. Houston was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.] Dr. Kerr, Chairman of the Severe Accidents Sub o + + ,de brief introduc-tory remarks about the Subcommittee meeting held
- n aus day (July 13, m
1988) at which SECY-88-147, "Integration Plan for C.o c - of Severe Accident Issues," was discussed. Dr. Themis Speis, RES, discussed three areas of the integration plan that were not presented during the previous Subcommittee meeting. Those areas were: (1) Con-tainment Pcrformance Improvement Program, (2) Advanced Reacto s, and (3) Closurs of Severe Accident Issues for Operating Plants. For contait nt performance, all LWR containment types are to be addressed starting with BWR Mark I's. The staff will issue tentative recommendations for improvements on Mark I's in the Fall of 1988 and for other containment types in August, 1989. He indicated that 1
l 1 a publ v + sci:,g had been held for advancsiti reactors in June, 1988 to consider the op treating the severe accident issues in advanced LWRs. A Com-mission pa. n this matter is scheduled for later in July, 1988. The resolu-tion procs3s for closure of severe accident issues on operating plants would include: (1) completion of the Individual Plant Examinations (IPEs) with the evaluation and implementation of improvements, as appropriate, (2) development and implementation of a framework for an accident management program, and (3) implementation of generic requirements resulting from the containment per-i formance improvements program. Dr. Kerr expressed concern regarding the staff's intent to ask for improvements of plants even though the plants met the safety goal and the improvements could not be justified by the Backfit Policy. tie also questioned the use of current design criteria, based on DBAs, for the design of containment structures for advanced LWRs. Mr. Ward and Mr. Michelson also expressed concerns about containment design I criteria for advanced LWRs and indicated that new criteria should be developed Designers of the current ALWPs in the licensing process should have that [ now. guidance for use today. Mr. Michelson asked how the staff classified a fire that burns beyono the time design limit for barriers. He also asked how other external even;s would be treated for future plants. Dr. Lewis expressed concern about the staff's development of insights from the NUREG-1150 effort. It appears that the staff's position could be changing t intermittently or constantly in response to the latest draft or revision of NUREG-1150. III. ECCS Evaluation Models (Closed) [ Note: Mr. P. A. Boehnert was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting. l Contcined in Proprietary Information Supplement. R. Equipment Qualification (EQ) - Risk Scoping Study (0 pen) l [ Note . b. Major was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of r / the set W. i j Mr. Wylie, Chairman of the ACRS Reliability Assurance Subcommittee, explained j that since 1975 NRC hat conducted equipment qualification research to verify i equipment qualification methods for safety-related research. This program was 4 terminated in 1M6. At that time the ACRS recommended continuing funding of equipment qualification research to assess the survivability of electrical equipment subjected to hostile environments, including severe accident condi-i tions. The EQ risk scoping study was initiated by the NRC staff to determine the need for additi 7a1 equipment qualification research. l I l l l 2 t i l
i .c f This research used probabilistic risk assessment to estimate the risk signifi-J cance and risk uncertainties associated with equipment qualification methodology. The scoping study was also used to assess the risk significance of the fact that some equipment is not currently qualified to conditions demonstrated to be important by PRA studies. The final draft of the EQ - Risk Scoping Study was completed in May of thit year. l The Reliability Assurance Subcommittee met on June 14, 1988 to review this pro-gram. Since the meeting, the std f has received comments from its peer review i team which includes experts from EPRI, Duke Power Company, EG&G, and the Franklin Research Center. The Subcommittee has not had an opportunity to review these comments. The NRC staff has requested ACRS comments on this study, and has asked for suggestions for follow"on work. Dr. Moni Dey, the NRC Project Manager for the EQ - Risk Scoping Study, said the objectives of the study were to determine the risk significance of electrical equipment that is essential to preventing core-melt accidents and to mitigating the consequences of severe acc: dents. Also to be determined were EQ assumptions 1 and issues related to the performance of this essential electrical equipment. t The results :,,f the study will be used to determine the need for identifying new i generic issues, to support implementation of the Commission's severe accident policy for existing and future plants, to determine if a need exists for further EQ research, and to prioritize any additional EQ research, j Dr. Dey mentioned that the peer reviewers commented that the study was long 4 overdue; it provided a new and useful approach to EQ. t The EQ - Risk Scopir.2 Study has provided the risk significance of EQ research issues. It concluded that several EQ research issues in NUREG/CR-4301 lack risk I significance. No new generic items were identified. The EQ - Risk Scoping i Study provideo~ a useful framework for analyzing EQ requirements and identifying equipment on which to focus during inspections. Thic work also provided a i framework for examining the need for equipment operations during events not ] included in the basis of the EQ rule. a Mr. Larry Bustard of Sandia National Laboratories said the study was limited to electrical safety-related equipment that must function in harsh environments, i Examples are cables, valve actuators, and pump motors. i r The study provided evidence which calls into questicn the appropriateness of ) current EQ practices. For example, is the sequential exposure of equioment to j radiation followed by steam an adegi. ate simulation of the accidents? There may be synergistic effects which this type of test would no..dentify. i An important perspective provided by tu study is that risk is most sensitive i to equipment operability during the first few hours, or in some cases days, of an acc.:ent. PRA practices that limit the scope of the study include the following: only the first few days of an accident sequence are modeled; only limited modeling of post-core-melt a:cident management strategies is performeo; f only limited modeling of plant status instrumentation is performed; spurious F 3 i
l r equipment operation is not modeled; loss of HVAC is not modeled as an initiation event. Significant nr.;pectives provided by the EQ - Risk Scoping Study include the following: Ey provides qualification for components that require a more detailed system description than that typically employed by PRA analyses; EQ 4 f does not demonstrate that equipment will maintain normal operation reliability during harsh environments; EQ is ba. sed on an "instantaneous release" radiation source term; and EQ is based on accident sequences that 12ck importance for some PRA plant analyses, i Mr. Bustard described the approach used. Several candidate eglipment operations i that n.ust t,e acenmplished in a harsh environment were used to scope the risk i significance of EQ issues. Candidate equipnnt was identified as those pieces of equipment whose operability is irUluenced by harsh environments. Components were identified for which accident reliabilities may be different from normal j operation reliabilities. Based on these two crit.eria, items of equipment were selected for further study. The risk importance arid applicable EQ issues were then assessed for the selected equipment. Conclusions were developed after evaluation of several equipment operations for both PWR and BWR plants. i i Conclusions from the study were presented. The first conclusion was that acci-dent timing is irr.portant for EQ practices. From studying PRAs it was concluded that risk depends on equipment operability during the first few hours, or in l some cases, days, of an accident sequence. The implications for EQ is that less emphasis needs to be placed on demonstrating long duration accident equip-i ment operability. It was also concluded that certain EQ issues are not risk i significant. Examples are post-accident acceleration techniques and the use of simultaneous versus sequential accident simulation. The second conclusion is that the importance of the accident radiation dose in EQ is overemphasized. PRAs indicate no substantial in-containment radiation until core melt occurs several hours after the accident sequence begins. The risk of significant containment failures will occur within a few hours to a { few days. This indicates that more emphasis should be placed on the use of a j realistic accident environment during equipment qualification, j A third conclusion was that when PRA perspectives are used to examine some existing EQ resaarch perspectives, certain historically open EQ issues are i found not to be significant. For example, the simultaneous versus sequential i application of accident radiation, steam, chemical spray, and pressure conditions j are not *isk significant, i l A fourth conclusion is that when PRA perspectives are used to examine some existing EQ perspectives, several historical, open EQ issues have risk signifi-i cance. An example is the need to seal safety-related circuits from moisture i intrusion effects. I A fifth conclusion is that there is a paucity of harsh environment reliability data for certain components. This may produce inaccurate PRA estimates of important accident sequences and core damage frequencies. l l 4 i
,1 General recommendatinns resulting from this stud'y included the following: 1. Additional definitions of equipment risk importance are needed. For exam-pie, equipment important to core-melt-arrest and post-core-melt accident management strategies should be identified. 2. The EQ regulatory basis should be reexamined. Is the instantaneous radia-tion release requirement appropriate? 3. It was suggested that an assessment of harsh environment reliability for selected equipment be made. For example, solenoid operat4d valve reliability during a PWR small break LOCA. Mr. Ward commented that he thought this was an excellent program. It takes [ advantage of current information that is available and takes an enlightened look at regulatory issues and requirements. This could be a model for looking 1 at other regulatory concerns. The Committee postponed writing a report on this study until the August meeting. The reason for the postponent was to take additional tine to study a set of peer ] review reports o-the EQ - Risk Scoping Stu(y. 4 l V. Modular High Tf.mperature Gas-tooled Reactor (0 pen) 1 [ Note: Mr. M. El-Zeftawy wa: the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting) The NRC staff briefed the Coraittee on their review of the modular high-1 temperature gas-cooled reactor (MHTGR) conceptual design. l j j It is planned that an MHTGR plant consist of four identical reactor modules, f each with a thermal output of 350 Mwt, coupled with two steam turbine generator sets. Total plant electrical output is 540 Mwe. The reactors are helium cooled, graphite moderated, and use a ceramica11y coated, particle type nuclear fuel. The MhTGR design utilizes passive reactor shutdown and decay heat l removal. There is a proposed overall program objective of obtaining a design j certification in the late 1990s. i 7 i The NRC staff reviewed a preliminary safety information document (PSID) which i es provided by DOE. The review is a prespplication review meant to proside guidance on the acceptability of the MHTGR design early in the design process, t The draft SER does not constitute an approval of the MHTGR design, but rather j documents the Commission's preliminary guidance regarding licensing require-l J ments. Guidarce is also provided on the acceptability of the DOE proposal i suoporting research and development programs. The MHTGR design features the following safety characteristics: passive methods for removal of reactor shutdown and decay heat l o ] 1ess need for operator action and less sensitivity of the design to operator error when compared to LWRs. i f 5 l =
\\ long time available for corrective action. e The main control roorr and ba'ance of plant (BOP) items are proposed as com-mercial grade. DOE also pro 9oses the use of siting source terms considerably smaller than the non-mechanistic siting source terms recommended in TID 14844. In addition, no conventional containment building, and no requirements for preplanned offsite emergency evacuation are proposed. DOE's interactions viith the staff were initiated in June 1984. DOE represen-tatives and the NRC staff briefed the Advanced Reactor Designs Subcommittee on the conceptual MHTGR concept on January 6, 1988 and on June 22, 1988. The last briefing to the full Committee on this subject was in February 1988. DOE proposes to submit a preliminary standard safety analysis report (PSSAR) in October 1989. Startup of a demonstration project in October 1993 is planned. The completion of Commission rulemeking on design certification is scheduled for September of 1997. The safety advantages of the MHTGR are said to be: its slow response to core heatup events; the ability of the fuel to withstand high temperature (about 1600 C) before fission product release. The MHTGR reference core configuration was selected to be: prismatic fuel blocks rather than a "pebble bed" configuration; a steel primary system vessel rather than a prestressed concrete reacter vessel (DCRV); the reactor is separated from the remainder of the primary system components. low enriched (LEU) fuel is proposed in compliance with the nuclear nonproliferation treaty of 1976. The NRC staff proposes to use the Commission policies on Advanced Reactors, Safety Goals, and Standardization in its review. The staff is also defining four event categories (ECs) with corresnondence to conventional LWR event categories, as: EC I Abnormal Operational Occurrences EC II Design Basis Accidents EC III Severe Accidents EC IV Emergency Planning Basis Events 6
t i F The proposed draft SER is not complete at this time, although the NRC staff proposes to complete it shortly. The Committee plans to complate its review after another Subcommittee meeting. Some ACRS members expressed concern in regard to the following: Dr. Kerr asked if it is consistent for the NRC staff to require the HTGR to be as safe as the current generation of LWRs, but also to express an expectation that the conceptual design will result in a i reactor safer than current LWRs. Dr. Kerr asked for the failure probability for the HTGR vessel and i how is it compared with LWRs. The staff responded that it is still l uncertain at this time. Currently an A5ME Committee is studying i appropriate standards. Mr. Ward asked for a definition of a severe accident for this con-I J ceptual design. Dr. Kerr expressed some concern regarding the use of LWR criteria i for this cnntainment. t Dr. Remick expressed concern regarding the status of human factors engineering planed for this design. l Dr. Remick commented that the sabotage issue needs to be addressed, j Dr. Kerr commented that it seems for this conceptual design, the source term is based on judgment and not cn research. The NRC staff agreed. l Dr. Siess expressed concern regarding the staff's review of the f 1 steam generator design. The steam generators used for this design ) are larger than Ft. St. Vrain, and experience does not extrapolate j from FSV as claimed by the staff, i i i Dr. Shewmon expressed concern regarding reactor vessel rupture [ i (pneumatic failure) and the fast flux effect on the vessel, J l Mr. Michelson expressed concern regarding the failure of the core [ e i support structure, which could lead to a core disruptive accident. ( i The staff did not consider such an accident. il Mr. Ward commented that there is no good available data base to demonstrate the reliability of the fuel for this design. He added ] that this design relies heavily on the high quality and pcrformance of the fuel. The staff agreed. l l VI. AE00 Evaluation of Operating Experience (0 pen) l i ] [ Note: M. H. Alderman was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of l the meeting.] 4 7
Dr. Lewis listed the topics for the presentation as: a long term service water stuay, and the power oscillations at La Salle. Long Term Service Water Study Mr. Jack Rosenthal, Division of Scfety Programs, discussed some recent studies conducted by the Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data (AE00). These included an electrical aisturbance that caused a PORV to go out of service, a loss of pumps, a loss of pressurizer spray and loss of an auxiliary spray. lhe dirturbance was caused by excessive loads on the buses. There was a loss of the transfortaers, and the diesels picked up the load. Mr. Rosenthal discussed an investigation of auxiliary pump trips cae.ad by low suction pressure, and problems with pressure switches. Other studies discussed were: inadequate NPSH in low pressure systems PWR steam generator overfill events resulting in steam line tilling control rcom design ventilation problems thimble tube wear in Westinghouse reactors scram reduction tech spec violations containment leak events risk during shutdown reactor trip breaker reliability safety valve reliability low temperature overpressurizat'on Dr. Peter Lam, Division of Safety Programs, discussed the results of a compre-hensive study on service water systems. AE00 reviewed almost all the operational data from 1980 to 1987 and conducted site visits at Turkey Point, Diablo Canyon, Calvert Cliffs, and Catawba Nuclear Power Plants. About 30,000 operational events were screened by computer to identify about one thousand events that involved service water failurcs. The one thousand events were manually screened to select 280 events that had safety significans generic implications. The study was an in-depth evalua-tion of about 30 e
- s.
8
I Dr. Lam pointed out that biofouling, corrosion, erosion, pipe coating failure, I and foreign materials caused about 50 percent of these events. l Single failures comprise about 7 percent of the failures. Flooding caused i about 4 percent of the events. About 4 percent were equipment failures, 17 percent pe sonnel and procedural errors, and 10 percent were seismic deficiencies. As a result of the service water study, four recommendations were made: 1. Regular performance testing of heat exchangers should be conducted to verify heat transfer capability. l 2. Single failure vulnerabilities should be eliminated. i 3. Thera should be periodic inspections for erosion, corrosion, and biofouling 4. Effort should be made to decrease failures due to human and procedural errors. l La Salle Nuclear Power Plart Power Oscillation j Mr. John Kaufman, Division of Safety Program, stated that the event at La Salle Nuclear Power Plant started at 85 percent power, 76 percent core flow, and normal feedwater temperature. During surveillance on the RCIC system, an i instrument maintenance technician valved in an instrument with the equalizing valves open. This caused an indicated high level to the feedwater control sys t e'n. ? Realizing te had mada a mistake, the instruerent maintenance technician valved out the instrument. This caused an indicated low level which tripped the restart pump and the recirculation pumps, and caused a large and rapid power decrease. This, coupled with the feedwater system perturbations, resulted in isolation of some of the feedwater heaters, l Mr. Kaufman said there were two personnel errors. One was the error that tne technician made. The other was a procedural error that allowed them to work on an instrument that was part of the feedwater centrol system. Initially, the plant was within operating limits. After the trip it entered an unstable region. The oscillations grew larger. The plant scrammed seven minutes into the event. The operators knew they were in an unstable area but their procedures did not i provide guidance on how to exit the area. The operators assumed that increas-( ing the flow would produce a more stable area, so they attempted to start the recirculation pumps. They were unable to do so. ( t They were preparing to manually scram the reactor when it tripped. The scram terminated the event. Reactor coolant system samples af ter the event indicated no fuel damage. 9
1 ? t Mr. Kaufman noted that, after reviewing operating experience, AE00 found a high exposure to this type of event during startups and shutdowns. On the other hand, very few of these events occur. The staff's review of foreign experience shows that these events have occurred at foreign plants. It appears that on the basis of that experience, foreign operators have developed procedures to tinimize exposure to this type of event. Mr. Kaufman pointed out that this event can violate two General Design criteria. GDC 10 forbids exceeding acceptable fuel design limits during normal operation or expected transients. GDC 12 requires that power oscillation either be pre-vented by design, or that methods be implemented to ensure that they are readily detected and suppressed. The decay ratio is the ratic of the second peak to the preceding peak. If it is greater than one, the oscillatior.t are growing. The calculated decay ratio for La Salle Nuclear Power Plant was 0.6, using a GE developed calculation. Mr. Kaufman discussed NRC concerns about this event. Although the event was benign in its consequences, it was a possible violation of GDC 12 in that power oscillations that could have caused fuel damage was not prevented by design. Although the oscillations were detected by operators, they were not suppressed by the operators. He added that this event raises questions about the stability analysis. The staff is concerned about the lack of procedures or training of La balle operators for dealing with this type of event. AE00 made two recommendations. The first is if a transient occurs that puts the reactor into a ritentially unstable region, control rods should be inserted to make the reactor suberitical. The second recommendation is to minimize operations near the unstable area. Mr. Hodges discussed what NRR is doing about the La Salle event. NRR has come to recognize that decay ratio analyses are not very reliable. The staff recommends that if a plant does experience instabilitie., as a conse-quence of a pump trip or for whatever reason, the initial reaction should be to insert control rods to suppress the oscillations. If that doesn't work, then the next action is to trip the reactor. NRR staff does not recommend restartir.g the recirculation pump. Starting the pump may increase the oscillation. Mr. Riching said that oscillations are expected to occur only in the flow region below minimum pump flow. An analysis performance is being conducted that will u:,e 3D kinetics. Mr. Hodges said that 35 long as the core oscillates in phase and trip occurs, it is a minor event. If there are out-of phase oscillations and if automatic trip is questionable, it may become a serious problem. Further analyses will be performed. 10
i 1 i VII. ACRS Review of Pilgrim Plant Restart (0 pen) i I (Note: Mr. P. Boehnert was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.] 2 Mr. S. Collins, Region I, discussed the status of the NRC review of the Pilgrim restart program. He began by reviewing the history of the staff's concerns with Pilgrim, which was shut down in early-1986. A Confirmatory Action Letter was ( issued in April 1986 requiring the Licensac (90ston Edison Company - BeCo) to ~ address staff concerns concerning readiness to restart and the deficiencies seen in their latest SALP Report at that time. An Independent Assessment Team Inspection (IATI) is scheduled to begin August 8, i 1988. The IATI is a key activity for assessing the plant's readiness for restart. Emergency planning is an issue because the plart does not have an j I approved plan. NRC criteria for acceptable restart readiness include: evidence of a stable management team; filling of vacancies in management and reactor operator positions; evidence that the maintenance backlog is under control; and improvement in the emergency planning program, and in other problem areas (e.g., radiation protection). j f i In response to questions from Mr. Carroll, Mr. Col ns said the latest SALP ) will be available to the ACRS prior to its review. In response to Mr. Remick, Mr. Collins said BeCo has decontaminated all but 10% of the plant area. This l problem was aggravated because of the Licensee's decision to operate with i ) failed fuel some years cgo. Dr. Remick asked NRC to investigate a past problem j of repeated lightning strikes. Dr. Remick also asked NRC to discuss the plant j operator staffing level at the Subcommittee meeting. VIII. Proposed Policy Statement on Nuclear Power Plant Staff Working Hours (Open) j [ Note: Mr. H. Alderman was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of ( the meeting.) i s Dr. Remick noted that the policy statement is a proposed revision to an [ 1 ] existing policy statement. He has concernt because the oposed policy state-J ment includes the words "shall," "must" and "requirement i i I I Or. Remick introduced Ms. Delores Morrisseau, NRR. I I l 1 Ms. Morrisseau introduced Mr. Julius Persensky for a presentation. i l Mr. Persensky confirmed that all the shalls and musts in the policy statement l will be removed. The revised policy statement has the benefit of a considerable amount of both literature search and expert positions. The important points I are direction of rotation and shift schedule. i l j The policy statement on working hours has become urgent because of reports of l plant staff sleeping on duty. The current policy does not aNress overtime ( limits beyond a 7-day period. Also, It does not address shift scheduling, [ l rotation, or provide guidance foc routine 12-hour shifts. [ i l 4 1 11 [
l s I Battelle Memorial Laboratories completed a literature search and assembled a panel of experts to discuss the effects of various: combinations of working l ) hours. The results of these studies were published as NUREG/CR-4E48. I Ms. Morrisseau said that the current Generic letter 82-12 looks at 24 hours, i 48 hours, and seven days and assumes that everyone works a routine 8-hour day l and 40-hour week. It indicates that there should be a break of at least 8 hours between work periods and that overtime should not be considered for an entire staff but only for individuals, except during extended shutdowns. P In response to a question, Ms. Morrisseau stated that about 80 percent of the l plants have incorporated these suggested limits in their tech specs. F 4 The purpose of the revised guidance is to provide a guide for overtime limits, j shift scheduling and rotation, and for 12-hour shifts. i The bases for 1-day limits are a number of reoorts out of non-nuclear industries i l that identify where fatigue starts to increase. Fatigue increases rapidly after j eight hours, and very rapidly after 12 hours. l r i Dr. Remick pointed cut that the policy statement should refer to one list of reference documents. 1 l Mr. Ward asked how scientific are the studies that show fatigue increases after eight hours? t i l Ms. Morrisseau responded that the studies range from rather loose studies to very rigorous studies. 1 ) Mr. Ward pointed out that most poeple work 8-hour days and they tend to show j fatigue after eight hours. He suggests that some people can become used to j working 12-and 16-hour days. 1 i Ms. Morrisseau said that Duke Power found that error rate increases in the } second 4 hours of an 8-hour shift and continues to increase for the next four l hours of a 12-hour shift. l 1 t l The basis of the limit of 20 hours in a 2-day period a report from a BNL study j panel. She noted that 24 hours is about the most anybody can work in two days j before they start making significant mistakes. i i The upper limit on seven days is 72 hours. The staff suggests a limit of 60 l l hours and recommends 84 hours as the ' Absolute limit. These limits are based ( upon fatigue indexes. i 1 The 14-day limits from the panel studies are 112 hours with 144 rours as an l l absolute maximum. The panel recommended 112 hours. i l Ms. Morrisseau said that fatigue is cumulative. She noted that people who work I i shif ts tend to get poc,r quality sleep, and fatigue tends to accumulate. A g i series of night shifts should be followed by at least two days of rest. This j is to compensate for the sleep deficit caused by poor quality sleep during the i
- day, i
l f l 12 l i
Shifts should be rotated torward. This is b'ec use of "Circadian Rhythms," which are natural rhythms in the body. The natural body rhythms tend to work forward. The policy statement includes a recommendation that the operatues be periodically reliaved of primary duties at the control board. Also, the policy statement recommends, for routine 12-hour work days, a maximum of four 12-hour v:ork days. This should be followed by no fewer than four days off. Ms. Morrisseau concluded the presentation with a discussion of fast and slow rotation of shifts. She noted that fast rotation means two days at work and then shift to a different schedule Slow rotation is no more frequent shift changes than three weeks because that is how long it takes for the body to adjust. Fast and slow rotation is still being debated. IX. Mutiag With NRC Commissioners (0 pen) (Note: Mr. R. Fraley was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.] [ Commissioners present: Chairman Zech, Commissioners Roberts, Carr, and Rogers.] In his opening comments, Dr. Kerr introduced the newest Committee member, Mr. James C. Carroll, to the Commissioners. Mr. Ward oegan the discussion by referring to the ACRS letter of March 15, 1988 in which the Comuittee expressed a need for greater coherence among new regula-tory policies. He stated that two suggestions had been offered in the letter: 1 (1) there is a need to integrate all technical regulatory issues, not just the severe accident issues and (2) the Safety Goal Policy might be used as an umbrella for integration. Next, he discussed the ACRS letter of May 10, 1988 on Individual Plant Examinations (IPEs) and the Integrated Safety Assessment Pro- .l gram (ISAP II). He indicated that a combination of IPEs and ISAP II would pro-vide en opportunity to achieve greater coherence in the staff's activities. l He discussed the benefits to licensees of performing a full scope PRA or at least a Level-2 PRA. j Commissioners Carr and Rogers expressed agreement that a Level-2 PRA is prefer-able to a simpler IPEH (IOCOR Methodology). ] Dr. Siess discussed the original intent of the IPEs to search for outliers and the change in scope to include some GSIt and USIs. He indicated that the Severe Accident Policy Statement included GSIs and USIs in the resolution of 1 the policy. He believes that a PRA could be applied for this resolution but questioned whether an IPEM could. Dr. Siess also discussed a recent EPRI report which was based un a survey of 10 utilities that had performed PRAs. The utilities had all thought the studies to be beneficial. Mr. Michelsen discussed the current status of the staff's position on treating externa' initiators in the IPEs, i.e., a postponemant for 1 to 2 years until the methodology is developed. He indicated that this effort should be expedited as it will apply to advanced LWRs now being considered in the licensing process. 13
l Dr. Siess commented on the issues in reactor safety. He stated that severe accident issues are just not "an" issue but are "the" issue. Dr. Kerr ducussed the role of NUREG-1150 and the need for peer review of the final report. He also discussed the need for changing the design criteria for advanced reactors in regard to containment design. Current criteria are breed on OBAs and future criteria should consider severe accidents. Mr. Michelson and Mr. Ward endorsed these comments. i Chairman Zech asked the ACRS to provide a paper on design criteria for containments if possible. The Committee response indicated that such a paper would be developed after a suitable period of study. Commissioner Roberts asked if the staff was briefing the ACRS on the proposed rulemaking on maintenance. Mr. Michelson indicated that the staff has kept him informe. A briefing for the Committee is planned in August, 1988. X. Executive Sessions (0 pen) A. Reports, Letters and Memoranda (0 pen) 1. ACRS Report on Key Licensing Issues Associated with 00E Sponsored Reactor Designs (Letter to Chairman Zech dated July 20, 1988) The Committee offered comments on improving the NRC approach to the i specifications of safety requirements for three conceptual designs being proposed by DOE and its contractors. The report discusses the key issues of accident selection, siting source term selection and u";; adequacy of containment system; and adequacy of off-site uriar-gency planning. Additional issues covered are: application of the NRC safety goal policy, consideration of public perception, decay heat removal and scram systems, prototypes, cost / benefit analysis, sabotage, operation and staffing, and regulatory criteria. 2. Reoort on the Integration Plan for Closure of Severe Accident Issues (SECY-88-147) (Letter to Chairman Zech dated July 20, 1988) The Committee provided comments on the integration plan. Among comments were: There is a lack of guidance regarding integration; there is a belief that external initiators should be addressed now rather than later, guidance concerning severe accident management is inadequate, containment performance criteria do not exist, containment criteria for advanced LWRs are inadequate, the use of NUREG-1150 is not well defined, and the role of the safety goal policy is not made clear. The Committee encouraged the staff to continue its efforts toward integration of the various programs for resolution of the severe accident issues. 3. Je ort on Proposed Revised Policy Statement on Nuclear Power Plant R Staff Working Hours (Letter to Chairman Zech dated July 20, 1988) The Ccmmittee recommer.ded that revised guidsnce on nuclear power plant staff working hours be issued for public comment. The 14
I l t I l Comittee recomended, however, that the version of the proposed revised policy statement which was reviewed by ACRS should be re-i written before issuance. Reasons for these recommendations are given in the report. 4. Coments on the NRC Staff's Draft Safety Evaluation of the Westinathouse Topical Report, WCAP-10924, "Westinghouse Larae-Break FOCA Best-Estimate Methodology" (Letter to the Executive Director for Operations, dated July 20,1988) + 4 i i The Committee finds no reason to disagree with the staff's view that the WCOBRA/ TRAC code provides adequate modeling to represent the upper plenum injection plant configuration for large-bret.k LOCA i analysis. The Committee noted that additional resources may be ] needed to develop best-estimate analyses. I t B. Other Committee Conclusions j j 1. Conjoining of ACRS Subcomraittees (0 pen) l l The Committee agreed to the consolidation of subcommittees as pro-posed by Mr. Michelson, and to the issuance of a proposed listir.g of t subccomittee assignments. Dr. Remick volunteered to be the Chairman a of the Non-Power Reactor Subcommittee, and stated his willingness to 1 give up Chairmanships of the Occupational and Environsental Protec-tion Systems, and Quality and Quality Assurance in Design and Con-7 struction Subcommittees. Dr. Siess volunteered to accept the Chairmanship of the QA in Design and Construction Subcommittee. The Committee agreed to refer the proposed subcommittee consolidation and l assignments to Mr. Libarkin. [ j 2. ACRS B31aws (0 pen) I i The Committee discussed proposed changes to the ACRS Bylaws regarding j participation of individual ACRS Members in meetings not sponsored by ACRS. The Committee approved changes that provide for increased mem-ber activity in this area. l j 3. ACRS-NRC Memorandum of Understandina (0 pen) f + The Committee discussed and agreed te t!e revision of the Memorandum of Understanding between ACRS and NRC regarding procedures for i ] dealing with NRC Rules and Policy Matters. l 4. Member Nominations (Closed) [ l i The Comittee agreed to recommend Mr. Wylie for reappointment to ACRS. 1 The Committee also approved the nomination of a candidate for appoint-ment by the Commiscion. f l i i e 15 l 1
i 5. Browns Ferry Fire (0 pen) Mr. Michelson requested the AE00 Staff to review the Browns Ferry fire regarding any generic lesson that might be learned. The AE00 i Staff agreed to this task. C. Future Agenda The Committee agreed to the tentative future agenda as shown in Appendix II. The meeting was concluded at 3.00 p.m. on July 16, 1988. 2 I 4 e i I l I 16
i APPENDICES MINUTES OF THE 339TH ACRS MEETING JULY 14-16, 1988 1. Attendens II. Future Agenda Future Subcomittee Activities IV. Other Docunents Received
f 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 ACRS MEETING DATE Qu k I4.it. IMP D i ATTENCEES Thursday Friday Saturday / / / ( Dr. Villiam Kerr, Chairman t Dr. Forrest J. Remick, Vice Cheiman / / i Mr. James C. Carroll / / / f t Dr. Harold W. Lewis / / / t Mr. Carlyle Michelson t/ / t/ Dr. Paul G. Shew-on / / v/ e Dr. Ches+.cr F. Siess t/ / t/ f t Mr. David A. Verd / f / / / [ Mr. Charles J. Wylie s/ / t i I i 4 1 'l 4 i f APPENDIX I i i' 1
1 APPENDIX I i ATTENDEES 33)TH ACRS MEETING 3 JULY 14-16, 1988 7 i Public Attendees NRC Attendees l i John Eads, Carolina Power I Light Co. Ceci.' Thomas, NRR John Raulston, ITWP Brad Hardin, RES t Gil Brown, NUMARC Drew Persinko, NRR .l V. M. Kapila, NUS Tom Cox, NRR P. M. Fontecilla, Va. Power N. Zuber, RES i Eve Fotopoulos, SERCH Licensing, Bechtel D. Dilanni. NRR l Greg Brown, Stone & Webster Robert Jones NKR Roger Boyd, KFC Y. Hsii, NRR l Frank Hubbard, PLG Ivan Catton, UCLA t J s I i j I 1 i f i i 1 i l i s I 3 I s j ? t i I-2 [ 1 t a J 4 _e__ _,._,_,m.. __,,,_,-_,,___,__.....c._ ,_m,
APPENDIX 11 ACRS FUTURE AGENDA MINUTES OF THE 339TH ACRS MEETING JULY 14-16, 1988 August 11-13, 1989 Hierarchical Structure for Safety-Related Items (0 pen) (CPS /SD) Estimated time: I hr. - Discuss propcsed hierarchical structure and related ACRS action 'egarding important safety-related issues identified by ACRS members. MeetingwithExecutiveDirectorforOperations(0 pen)Estimatedtime: 2 hrs. - Discuss status of anc plans for completion and pronulgation of NUREG 1150 (Final),PeactorFiskReferenceDocument. Future Activities (0 pen) (WK/RFF/MWL) Estimated time: ) hr. - Discuss anticipatec and proposed Committee activities, as appropriate. Aprointment tf New Pe-ters (Closed) (FJR/hSL) Estinated tine: I hr. - Discuss quei1fications of n minees for merbership. EWR Power Oscillations (0 pen) Estimated time:
- 1. hr. - Briefing by invited espert regarcir.g power ottillations in BWRs.
Decay Heat Removal Systems (0 pen / Closed) (DAW /PAB) Estimated time: 2 hr. - Review ar.d coment en proposec GRC resolution-of USl A-45 and GI-99, "Loss of Shutdewn Cooling in NRs." Starderdi:ation of Nuclear Power Plants (0 pen) (CJW/HA) Estimated time: 2 hrs. - Briefing recording chapters 2, 3, 4, and 5 of EPRI document on standardization of improved nuclear power plants. I USl A-17. "Systers Interactions" (0 pen) (CM/SD) Estimated time: 21 hrs. - (Sutcomittee t 10, 1988)g proposed resolution of US! A-17. Revitve and coment regaroin meeting on August L'S! A-47. Safety Irelicatiers of Control Systens (0 pen) (HWL/GAQ) Estimated time: 1 hr. - keview and cerr ent on proposed assumptions and instructions that the Staff intends to provide to ORNL for use in the Multiple Systen Response Program for evaluating outstanding issues associated with proposed resolution of US! A-47. TVAhuclearPcwerPlantOperations(Ope.n)(CJW/MDH)Estimatedtime: li hrs. - Discuss the staff's report on lessons learned from TVA management operations and construction problems. Prepare corrents to the NRC Commissioners per SRM request dated March 2, 1988 [SECY 87-211] (September 1, 1988 suspense date) NRC Rulemaking Activities on Nuclear Plant Paintenance (0 pen) (CM/HA) Estimated time: 3 hrs. - Discuss hRC activities for deseloping requirements for maintenance programs. Modular High Terperature Gas-Cooled Reactors (0 pen) (DAW /MME) Estimated time: 2 hrs. - lieview and corrent on standardized design for the DOE proposed Modular itTGR.
0 i REV:S!D 4 i ~ ACRS/ACNW COMMITTEE & SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS j Meeting on the International Workshe on QA/0C, July 20, 1988, 1717 H Street. Washington, DC (Arndt/Igne), 8i a.m., Room 1116. This meeting is a l j hW inuation of the Flanning Session. The Energy Division of the American cont j Socicty for Quality Control is assisting the NRC and the ACRS in presenting an international conference on nuclear power plant quality which will be held in a the spring of 1909 in the U.S. Attendance by the iMlowing is anticipated, ] and reservations have been rade at the hotels indicated for the right of July 19: 1 Mr. Ward CANTERBURY Dr. Stevenson ANTHONY j Dr. Siess ANTHONY I Therral Hydraulic Phenomena, July 21, 1988, 1717 H Street, NW, le status of Washington, DC l (Etehnert), 8:30 a.m., Room 1130, The Subcomittee will review ? the MIST Phase ill and IV Programs and the proposed OTSG Follow-on Program. l Attendance by the following is anticipated, and reservations have been made at the hotels indicated for the night of July 20: ) l Mr. Ward CANTERBURY Dr. Catton DUPONT PLAZA l Dr. Kerr LOMBARDY Dr. Sullivan NONE i Mr. Michelson DAYS INN (DC) Dr. Tien LOMBAADY Mr. Wylie DAYS INN (VA) Second Meeting cf the Advisory Co rittee on Nuclear Waste, July 21-22, 1988, 1 Washingten, DC, Recr. 1046. ] TVA Organizational Issues, July 22, 1988, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC (Houston). E:30 a.n., Reor 1130. The Subcomittee will review the generic j lessons learned from the Staff's review in regard to the restart of Sequoyah, t Unit 2. Attendance by the following is anticipated, and rerervations have been rade at the hotels indicated for the night of July 24. Mr. Kylie DAYS INN (VA) Dr. Renick NONE Mr. Michelson DAYS INN (DC) Mr. Ward CANTERBURY Mr. Carroll LOMBAPD) Mr. Barton DAYSINN(VA) I Decay Heat Removal Systers, July 27, 1988, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC (Boehnert), 8:30 a.m., Room 1046. The Subcomittee will continue its review of the NPC Staff's resolution position for USl A-45. Attendance by the following is anticipated, and reservations have been made at the hotels indicated for the night of July 26: l Mr. Ward CANTERBURY Mr. Wylie DAYSINN(VA) Dr. Kerr LOMBARDY Dr. Catton DUPONT PLAZA Mr. Michelson DAYS INN (DC) Mr. Davis HOLIDAY INN APPENDIX !!!
l Third Meetinc of the Advisory Comittee M Nuclear Waste, August 3-5, 1988, Columbia and barnwell, SC. Advanced Reactor Designs, August 3, 1988, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC (El-Zeftewy), 9:00 a.n., Roon 1046. The Subcomittee will continue its review of the draft SER of the Modular HTGR conceptual design. Attendanct by the following is anticipated, and reservations have been made at the hotels indicated for the night of August 2: Mr. Ward CANTERBURY Dr. Siess ANTHONY Mr. Carroll LOMBARDY Mr. Wylie DAYSINN(VA) Dr. Kerr LOMBARDY Dr. Avery NONE Dr. Renick NONE Dr. Lee NONE Dr. Shecen NONE Dr. Okrent ANTHONY Safety Philosophy, Technelegy and Criteria, August 4, 1988, 1717 H Street NY, Pashingten, DC (Houston), 8:30 a.m., Room 1046. The Subcomittee 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 transients. NUREG 1251 discussion will include: (1) Human Factors i and Operatienal Control and (2) Emergency Planri'ig and Centainment. Atterdance by the following is anticipated, and reservations have been made at the hotels indicated for the night of August 3: i Mr. Ward CANTERBURY Dr. Siess ANTHONY I Mr. Carroll LOMBARDY Mr. Wylie DAYSINN(VA) I Dr. Kerr LOMBARDY Dr. Lee NONE I Dr. Lewis EMBA$5Y SUITES Dr. LipinsH NONE Dr. Remick NONE Dr. Okrent ANTHONY l TVA Organi:ational Issues, August 5, 1988 (tentative), 1717 H St:eet, NW, Washington, DC (Houston), 8:30 a.m. Room 1046. The Subcomittee wil' contin-2 ue its review ef the generic lessons learned from the Staff's review I in regard to the restart of Sequoyah 2. Attendance by the following is anticipated, and reservations have been made at the hotels indicatt.d for the night of August 4: Mr. Wylie DAYS INN VA Mr. Ward CANTERBURY Mr. Michelsen DAYS lhN DC Mr, Barton NONE Mr. Carroll LOMBARDY t Improved Light Water Reactors, August 9, 1988, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington DC (Alderman), 8:30 a.m., Roon 1046. The Subcomittee will review CiiapterTf, E 4 and 5 of the EPRI LWR Requirenents Document. Attendance by the following is anticipated, and reservations have been made at the hotels indicated for the night of August 8: Mr. Wylie DAYS INN A Dr. Siess ANTHONY Mr. Michelson DAYS INN C Mr. Ward CANTERBURY III-2 s
i 3 Auxiliary Systems. August 10, 1980, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC (Duraiswany), 8:00 a.m. - 12:30 p.m., Room 1046. The Subcomnittee will discuss the proposed resolution of USI A-17. "Systems Interactions in Nuclear Power Plants," and other related matters. Attendance by the following is anticipated, and reservations have been made at the hotels indicated for the night of August 9: Mr. Michelson DAYS INN (DC) Mr. Waro CANTERBURY Mr. Carroll LOMEARDY Mr. Wylie DAYS INN (VA) Dr. Kerr LOMEARDY Mr.Ebersole(tent.)NONE Dr. Fenick (tent.) NONE Dr. Okrent ANTHONY Dr. Siess ANTHONY Regulatory Policies and Practices, August 10, 1988, 1717 H Street, NW, Wasnirgton, DC (Quittschreiber), 2:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m., Roon 1046. The Subconnittee will review the NRC Staff's response to the ACRS comments on US! A-47, "Safety Irplica*. ions of Control Systems" and other related ratters. Attendance by the fol.cwing is anticipated, and reservations have been made at the hotels indicated f or the night of August 9: Dr. Lewis EFEASSY SUITES Dr. Siess ANTHONY Mr. Carroll LOMBARDY Mr. Ward CANTERBURY Dr. Kerr L)MBARDY Mr. Wylie DAYSINN(VA) Mr. Michelson DAYS INN (DC) Mr. Ebersole (tent.)NONE Dr. Renick NONE Dr. Okrent ANTHONY 340th ACCS Meetina, August 11-13, 1968, Washington, DC, Roon 1046. kaintenance Pract e.es and Procedures. Septerber 7 1988, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, FD (Alde an), 8 30 a.m., Roon P-110. The Subcommittee will discuss and review the rad nance rule and associated NUREG. Lodging will be an-nounced later. A1.endance cy the follcwing is anticipated: Mr. Michelson Mr. Wylie Mr. Carroll Mr. Reed 341st ACRS Meetino, September 8-10, 1988, Bethesda, MD, Room P-110. Fourth Meeting of the Advisory Conmittee on Nuclear Waste. September 13-14, 1968, BetEesda, MD, Roon P-110. Pilgrim RJstart September 28, 1988 (Site Visit September 27, P.M.) (Tenta-tive) Plynouth, MA (Boehnert). The Subcommittee will review the proposed restart of the Pilgrim plant. Lodging will be announced later. Attendance by the following is anticipated: Dr. Kerr Mr. Michelson Mr. Carroll Mr. Ward (tent.) Dr. Lewis Dr. Siess III-3
342nd ACRS Meeting, October 6-8, 1988, Bethesda, MD, Room P-110. Fifth Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste November 3-4, 1988 Bethesda, MD, Room P-110. Advar.ced Boiling Water Reactors, Novenber 15-16, 1988. 7920 Norfolk Avenue, ) Bethesda, MD (Major), 8:30 a.m., Room P-110. The Subcommittee will continue its FDA review of this standard plant. Detailed ACRS questions will be covered on review module 1. An overview of the second review module is planned. Lodging will be enr.ounced later. Attendance by the following is anticipated: i Mr. Michelson Mr. '.trd l Dr. Kerr Mr. Wylie l Dr. Rerick Mr. Ebersole l Dr. Snearon Dr. Okrent 343rd ACRS Meeting, Nevenber 17-19, 1988, Bethesda, MD, Roon P-110, 34fthACESMeeting,Decerbtr15-17,Ivs6,Bethesda,MD,RoomP-110. AJvanced Pressurized Kater Reactors Date to be determined (August / September), bethes<i,t, PD (El-Zeitawy). The Subconr.ittee will review the licensing review Analysis Report-Design Certification (CESSAR-DC)gineering's Standard Safety bases uncument being developed for Combustion En Attendance by the following is anticipated: Mr. Ward Dr. Remick l Dr. Kerr Dr. Shew?.on l Mr. Michelson Mr. Wylie Safety Philosophy, Technology, and Criteria Date to be determined (August / 5eptember) Eethesda, MD, (hou: ton). The Subcomnittee will discuss the Staff's proposed implementatior plan for the Safety Goal Policy Statement. Attendance by the following is anticipated: Mr. Ward Dr. Remick Dr. Kerr Mr. Wylie Dr. Lewis Dr. Okrent Mr. Michelson Advanced Pressurized Water Reactors Date to be detarmined (August / September), Bethesda, MD (El-Zeftawy). The Subcomnittee will review the draft SER in regard to the reactor, reactor coolant system, and regulatory conformance for the WAPWR RESAR SP/90 design. Attendance by the following is anticipated: Mr. Ward Dr. Remick Dr. Kerr Dr. Shewnon Mr. Michelson Mr. Wylie III-4
i o i t 5-i 1 Advanced Reactor Designs. Date to be determined (August /Sestember), Bethesda. i NO (El-Zeftawy). The Subcomittee will review the draft SERs for the 11gu13 iTstal reactors (LMRs). Attendance by the following is anticipated: Mr. Ward Dr. Siess Dr. Kerr Mr. Wylie Mr. Michelson Dr. Avery Dr. Remick Dr. Lee Dr. Okrent 4 ? 0ccupational and Environmental Protection Systems. Date to be determined i (September), Bethesda, MD i Igne). The Subcomittee will review: (1) the l "hot particle" prctlen, (2) monitoting the quality and quant!! radionuclides in/out of containment following an accident,'(3)y of airborne l I the emer i planning rule, (4) the control room habitability report by ANL, and (5)gency other related matters. Attendance by the following is anticipated: l i Dr. Remick Dr. Mark (tent.) Mr. Carroll Dr. Shapiro j i Mr. Wylie Advanced Pressurized Water Reactors, Date to be determined (September), j Fethesda, MD (El-Zeftawy). The Subcomittee will discuss the comparison of j WAFWR (FESAR SP/90) design with other modern plants (in U.S. and abroad). Attendance by the following is anticipated: i { l Mr. Ward Dr. Remick 7 Dr. Kerr Dr. She ron t l Mr. Michelson Mr. Wylie [ f r l Containrer.t Requirerents Date to be determined (September / October), Bethesda, j k] (Houston). The Subcomittee will review the NRC Staff's document on j i Ticomendations for containment perforr:ance and irrprovements (BWR Mark I l only). Attendance by the follewing is anticipated: i Mr. Ward Mr. Wylie l Dr. Kerr Dr. Catton i Dr. Siess Dr. Corradini i i i l l l l III-5 l l l -.- ~
I '? 6-f Severe Accidents /Probabilistic Risk Assessment, Date and location to be detemined (September / October) (Houston). The Subcomittee will review the nethodology for the treatrerit of uncertainties in the final version of NUREG-i 1150. Also, the Subcomittee will review the results for the front-end reanalysis of the five plants studied. Attendance by '.he following is antic-l ipated: l D r. L t. Mr. Ward I 'j Dr. Kerr Dr. Catton l Mr. Michelson Dr. Corradini Dr. Ren4k Mr. Davis Dr. Sher.on Dr. Lee Dr. Siess Dr. Saunders f (anotherstatistician) l l Decey Heat Renoval Systems, Date t-. be determined, Bethesda, MD (Boehnert). The Subconnittee will explore the issue of the use of feed and bleed for decay l heat removal in PWRs. Attendance by the following is anticipated: i 5 Mr. Ward Mr. Wylie i Dr. Kerr Dr. Cattor, j Mr. Michelson Mr. Davis J Systematic Assessrent of Experience, Date and Ir" tion to be detemineo, i j ( Alde man). The Subcormittee wCTreview the Diagnostic Evaluation Program 1 and other related licensee performance review efforts by the NRC Staff. I j Attendance by the following is antiu:sted: Dr. Lewis Mr. Ward Mr, Carroll Mr. Wylie t l Mri Michelson i Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena Date to be determined, Bethesda, Mr) (Boehnert). I i The Subcorrittee will discuss tl e status of industryTst-estimate ECC$ model } submittals for use with the revised ECCS Rule. Attendance by the foll0 wing is i anticipated: l Mr. Ward Dr. Cattor. Dr. Kerr Dr. Plesset j Mr. Michelson Mr. Schrock i Mr. Wylie Dr. Sullivan Dr. Tien j Auxiliary Systems, Date to be detemined, Bethesda, MD (Duraiswamy). The Subcomittee will discuss the: (1)criteriabeingusedbyutilitiestodesign i desigr., and (3)ystems (2) regulatory requirements for Chilled Water Systems Chilled Water S j criteria being used by the NRC Staff to review the Chilled l j Water Systems design. Attendance by the follow'1g is anticipated: t Mr. Michelson Mr. Wylie !!!-6 i Nr. Carroll I I l i
g Decay Heat Removal Systems, Date to be detemined, Bethesda, MD (Boehnert). The Subcommittee will review the proposed resolutions of Generic Issue 23, "RCP Seal Failures." Attendance by the following is anticipated: j Mr. Ward Mr. Wylie f Dr. Kerr Dr. Catton Mr. Michelsen Mr. Davis i Auxiliary Systems, Date to be detemined, Bethesda, hJ (Duraiswamy). The i Subcomittee will review the adequacy of the Staff's plans to implement the recorcendations result *ng from the Fire Risk Scoping Study. Attendance by } the following is anticipated: i Mr. Michelson Mr. Wylie i Mr. Carroll l Plannino, Date to be deternitied, Bethesda, MD (Fraley). The Subcomittee will discuss proposed conjoining of ACR5 subcomittees. Attendance by the l following is anticipated. Dr. Kerr Dr. Renick l Mr. Michelsen i l i i r i f III-7 i t
't 'I APPENDIX IV l OTHER DOCUMENTS RECEIVED 339TH ACR5 MEETING MINUTES l JULY 14-16, 1988 j MEETING NOTEBOOK Jtem 2. Integrated Plan for Closure of Severe Accident Issues i 1. Table of Contents I 2. Tentatiave agenda i 3. Status Report i 4. SECY-88-177 Integration Plan for Closure of Severe Accident Issues. May 25, 1988 5. Memo *andum for V. Stello frem S. Chilk, dated June 24, 1988, re Staff Requirements - Briefing on Master Plan for Integrating All Severe Accident Issues 6. ACRS Report for Zech, dated March 15, 1988, re Need for Greater Coherence Among New Regulatory Policies 7. ACRS Report for L. Zech, dated May 10, 1988, re Proposed Generic J Letter on Individual Plant Examinations and the Proposed Integrated Safety Assessment Program II 4 8. Memorandum for V. Stello from R. Fraley, dated June 8, 1988, re l NUREG=1150, "Reactor Risk Reference Document" E 3.1 Anticipated ACRS Subcomittee Activities l' i ACRS/ACNW Subcomittee Meetings, dated July 8,1988 3.2 Proposed Iterns for Consideration by Full Comittee I 4 I (no contents) 4 Topic for Feeting with NRC Comission I 1. TaWof Contents i 2. Status Report 3. Staff's Proposed Generic Letter on IPEs, dated April 15, 1988 l 4 Gereric letter on ISAP II (88-02), dated January 20, 1988 i 5. ACRS Report for Zech dated May 10, 1EC8, re Proposed Generic letter } on Individual Plant Examinations and the Proposed Integrated Safety j i, Assessment Prograr II i 6. SECY-88-177(IPEandISAPIIsectionsonly) 6 7. Memorandum for ACRS Members from D. Houston, dated June 20, 1988, re ) Comission Meeting on Integration Plan for Closure of Severe l Accident Issues - Transcript Excerpts l l 8. Memorandum for V. Stello from S. Chilk, dated June 14, 1988, re Staff Requirements - Briefing on Master Plan for Integrating All Severe Accident Issues, June 2, 1988 l i 6. ECCS Evaluations Models (Proprietary Infomation ( 1. Table of Contents i 2. Project Status Report with attachments [ i 7. Equipment Qualification - Risk Scoping Study l 1. Table of contents 2. EQ-Risk Scoping Study Executive Sumary l 1 l I i L I
l.? : 3. Memorandum for C. Wylie from R. Major, dated June 22, 1988, re Summary / Minutes of the ACRS Subcomittee Meeting on Reliability Assurance (EQ-Risk Scoping Study and A-46 Update), June 14, 1988 Wasghington, D.C., with attachment 8. Modular High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactors 1. Table of Contents 2. Tentative Agt.nda 3. Status Report 4. Memorandum fo.' D. Ward from M. El-Zeftawy, dated June 28, 1988, re ACRS Meeting of the Advanced Reactor Designs Subcomittee, June 22, 1988 Washington, D.C. with attachment 9. AEOD Evaluation of Operating Experience I 1. Table of Contents 2. Tentative Schedule i 3. Status Report 4. Metrorandsm for H. Lewis fron H. Aldeman, dated May 23, 1988, re Transmittal of AE00 Preliminary Case Study Report - Service Water System Failures and Degradations in Light Water Reactors l 5. Menorandum for Comissioners from V. Stello, dated June 20, 1988, re AE00 Special Study "AE0D Concerns R6garding the March 9, 1988 Power Oscillation Event at LaSalle 2" with attachment l t 10. Pilgrim Nuclear Station - Restart 1. Table of Content. 2. Project Status Report 3. Memerandum for V. Stello frem R. Fraley, dated June 21, 1988, re l ACRS Review of Pilgrim Plant Restart with attachment l 4 Merorandum for W. Kerr from L. Zech, dated April 28, 1988, re ACRS l Letter Regarding Review of Shutdown Nuclear Power Plants. Dated i April 12, 1988 i S. Menorandun for W. Kerr from P. Boehnert, dated June 10, 1988, re Comissien Meeting - Briefing on Status of Pilgrim Restart, June 9, 1988, Rockville, Md. 6. Memorandun for ACRS Members from P. Ecehnert, dated March 23, 1988, re Pilgrin Plant Restart j 11. Policy Regarding Working Hours for Plant Operators 1. Table of Contents 2. Status Report 3. Memorandum for F. Remick from H. Alderman, dated June 23, 1988, re Transmittal of Comission Paper and Update Comission Policy Statement on Nuclear Power Plant Working Hours i 4 Memorandum for R. Fraley from Roe, dated June 17, 1988, re Review of Updated Policy Statement on Nuclear Power Plant Working 'dours with attachments
- 12. Advanced Reactor Designs 1.
Table of Contents 2. Project Status Report with attachments IV-2 l
14.4 Procedures for Review of Operatina Events & incidents 1. Status Report 2. Memorandum for ACRS Members from H. Aldeman, dated June 28, 1988, re Discussion of Recent Operating Events Briefing 3. Memorandum for H. Lewis from H. Aldeman, dated June 20, 1988, rc Possible Topics fcr ACRS Discussions of Operating Events MEETING HAhDOUTS 1.a. Memorandur for ACRS Merbers from C. Michelson, dated July 8, 1988, re Attendance at International Symposium on the feedback of Operational Safety Experience from Nuclear Plants
- b. Meeting Schedule (syrposium) 2.
Pemorandum for ACRS Merbers frcm R. Fraley, dated July 10, 1988, re i ACRS-NRC Memorandum of Uriderstanding with attached proposed changes 1 3. hotes Regarding Proposed Areas of Responsibility of ACRS and of ACNW, dated June 30, 19E8 4 Mercrandum for ACRS Merters from M. Libarkin, dated July 13, 1988, re Subecmittee Assignrents, with attachrents 5. Menorandum for C. Wylie from R. Major, daced July 13, 1988, re Corrents from tFc Peer Review Team for the EQ Risk Scoping Study with attachments 6. Merorandur for ACRS Merbers from R. Fraley, dated July 13, 1988, re Future ACRS Activities - 340th ACRS Meeting - August 11-13, 1988 a. Letter for R. Fraley fror C. Moeller, dated June 25, 1988, re NUMARC Report on Graded Response: The Preferred Strategy for Emergency Freparedness Involving Evacuations Around Nuclear Power Plants b. Letter.~or Tipton,.tUMAFC, from D. Moeller, dated July 5, 1988, re Review of NUMARC Repcrt on Graded Response with attachment c. Merorandum for R. Fraley from T. Rehm, dated July 11, 1988, re Proposed Agenda items for the ACRS 7. NewACRSMerbers[LimitedDistribution) a. Memorandum for W. Kerr from L. Zech, dated June 13, 1988, re Nomination of New Merbers for the ACRS b. List of Potential Nominees identified Since Decenber 4, 1987 c. Letter for L. Zech from Congressman Bilinkis, dated January 14, 1988, with attachment d. Letter for R. Fraley from Johnson, V, of Va., dated December 14, 1987 with attachment e. Memorandum for W. Kerr from H. Bernthal, dated May 23, 1988, re Nomination for Membership on ACRS IV-3
, ?.? ! 8. ECCSEvaluationMcdels[ProprietaryInformation] a. Presentation Schedule b. Memorandum for ACRS Members from P. Boehnert, dated July 13, 1988, re Additional Information - ACRS Review of the Westinghouse Upper PlenumInjection(UPI)ECCSEvaluationModel c. Memorandum for P. Boehnert from Hodges, dated July 12, 1988, re Transmittal of Draft SER on WCAP-10924-P d. Drafi. Technical Evaluation Report of WCAP-10924-P by Kelly and Byers, Sandia National Laboratories, July 8, 1988 9. Guidelines for Participation by ACRS Members in Meetings Which are Not Sponsored by the ACRS
- 10. Memorandum for H. Lewis from H. Alderinan, dated July 14, 1988, re INPO Report "Scram Caused by Neutron Flux Oscillation"
- 11. Memorandun for ACRS Menters from J. Carroll, dated July 15, 1988, re Diablo Canyon Article and Settlement Agreerents Among FG&E, ORA, CPUC and Attorney General
- 12. Ger.eric Letter No. 82-12 on Nuclear Power Plant Staff Working Hours, dated June 15, 1982 PRESENTATION HANDOUTS Agenda Iten 2.
Integrated Plan for Closure of Severe Accident Issues i 1. ACR5 5evere Accidents Subcomittee Briefing on Severe Accident Integration Plan, prepared by T. Speis, dated July 13, 1988 l 6. ECCS Evaluation Models i 2. Two Loop UPI Model Developrent (Westinghouse Proprietary Class 2) 3. Staff Review of the Westinghouse Two-Loop Plant ECCS Evaluation Podel, presented by R. Jones, dated July 14, 1988 4. Overviews used by Ivan Catt:n, dated July 14, 1988 l 7. Equipment Qualifiedtion Risk Scoping Study 2 5. Equip; rent Qualification Scoping 5tudy Final Report to the ACRS, by i M. Dey,.luly 15, 1988 i 6. EQ-Risk Scoping Study, by L. Bustard, SNL, dated July 15, 1988 8. Modular High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactor 7. Staff Safety Evaluation of the MHTGR, by T. King and P. Williams, July 15, 1988 i 8. RES Consultant Presentation to ACRS - Independent Accident Analysis l of the DOE Standard MHTGR by S. Ball, July 15, 1988 9. MHTGR Safety Analysis, by P. Kreeger, July 15, 1988 l 9. AE00 Evaluation of Operating Experience f
- 10. Recent Reports, by J. Rosenthal, July 15, 1988 j
- 11. Service Water System Failures and Degradations in Light Water i
j IV-4 i
?.*.* f Reactors, by P. Lam and E. Leeds. July 15, 1988
- 12. AEOD Concerns Regarding the Power Oscillations Event at LaSalle 2 (Bk'R-5) Special Report AE00-5805, by J. Kauffman and G. Lanik, July 15, 1988 10.
Pilgrim Nuclear Statien
- 13. Pilgrim Milestones, Revision 8. July 13, 1988
- 11. Policy Regarding Working Hours for Plant 0>erators 14 Proposed Policy 5tatement on Nuclear Power Plant Staff Working Hours, by D. Morisseau, July 15, 1988 i
l l l i { ly-5}}