ML20217A841
| ML20217A841 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/03/1997 |
| From: | Seale R Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-3071, NUDOCS 9803250271 | |
| Download: ML20217A841 (39) | |
Text
g g g. g,,
CERTIFIED R. L. Seale, Chairman August 29, 1997 I,,
September 3, 1997
SUMMARY
/ MINUTES OF THE ACRS PLANNING AND PROCEDURES SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING AUGUST 27, 1997 The ACRS Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures held a meeting on August 27, 1997, in Room 2B1, Two White Flint North Building, Rockville, Maryland.
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss-matters related to the conduct of ACRS business.
The meeting was convened at 10:30 A.M. and adjourned at 12:30 P.M.
ATTENDEES R. L. Seale, Chairman D. A.
Powers T. S. Kress ACRS Staff J. T. Larkins, ACRS Executive Director S. Duraiswamy C. Harris R. Summers J. Mitchell, NRC Staff R.
Sherry, ACRS Senior Fellow (part time)
A. Cronenberg, ACRS Senior Fellow (part time) 1)
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MEETING WITH NRC CHAIRMAN (Open)
The Executive Director briefed the Committee on his meeting with Chairman Jackson on August 21, 1997.
The recent budget cut and schedule for ACRS renponse to the Commission on uncertainty vs point values were some of the topics
/
discussed.
The Chairman has agreed to extend the due date for ACRS response associated with uncertainty vs point y//
values until January 1998.
2)
REPLY TO COMMISSION ON ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE STRUCTURE (Open)
Revision 5 of the reply to the Commission's Staff Requirements Memorandum concerning ACRS Subcommittee structure is attached (pp.1-7) for approval.
RECOMMENDATION The Subcommittee recommends that the draft letter be distributed at the 444th meeting, so that Members could review and comment on it before the end of the meeting.
9903250271 97o903 O
3)
NPP ASSIGNMENTS TO MEMBERS (Open)
A list of plants will be provided to each Member to identify i
the. plants he wishes to be assigned.
Plants not chosen will' be randomly assigned to Members by the ACRS Chairman.
RECOMMENDATION The Subcommittee recommends that a statement be drafted to explain to Members about what they need to do on those plants that were assigned to them.
The Subcommittee also recommended that Members identify the plants they wish to have assigned to them.
4)
ACRS RETREAT (Open) i The Subcommittee has agreed to recommend for Committee approval potential dates, location, and an agenda for a fall retreat.
A memorandum from Dr. Powers is attached (pp.
8-J 9).
RECOMMENDATION j
i The Subcommittee recommends that the Committee look at the f
significant issues facing the Agency and issues included in the NRR Director's bimonthly reports and develop an approach to review and comment on these issues in a timely manner.
l Also, the revised ACRS Bylaws should be discussed.
Dates i
for the retreat will be discussed at the 444th meeting.
5)
TOPICS OF JOINT INTERMT (Open)
A memorandum from Dr. Powers proposes that Dr. Seale appoint Dr. Apostolakis to work with Dr. John Garrick (ACNW) to identify topics of joint interest (p. 10).
A memorandum from Dr. Apostolakis proposes a slightly different method for identifying these topics (p. 11).
RECOMMENDATION The Subcommittee recommends that Dr. Seala meet with Dr.
Garrick to identify topics of joint interest and suggest how each topic should be addressed by the two committees.
6)
LICENSE RENEWAL AND OTHER TOPICS OF INTEREST (Open)
A memorandum from Dr. Fontana discusses license renewal activities (pp. 12-14 ) and a memorandum from Dr. Powers raises license renewal as one of several topics of interest to the ACRS (p. 15-16).
Both memoranda suggest ways for the ACRS to review activities associated with license renewal.
i RECOMMENDATIO1(
$e Subcommittee recommends that the ACRS staff provide the Committee with the current staff schedule for developing regulatory-guidance _ associated with license-renewal.
7)
LETTER ON RULEMAKING ACTIVITIES (Open)
During the June 1997 meeting, the Committee reviewed the staff proposal for.not developing a severe accident rulemaking for future plants.
Although the Committee agreed-with the staff' proposal, it did not issue a letter documenting its position.
When the staff submitted a SECY paper to the Commission on this matter, some of the Commissioners' Technical Assistants called the ACRS Office to find out the Committee position regarding this matter.
It is recommended that, in the future, the Committee document its position on a specific rulemaking activity in a letter to the EDO or in a report to the Commission.
RECOMMENDATION The Subcommittee recommends that the ACRS document all its
. decisions by letter to the Commission or the EDO.
8)
DRAFT PERFORMANCE REVIEW REPORT (Open)
Several ACRS members commented on the draft Performance Report distributed after the July 9-11, 1997 meeting.
The staff will continue to track the performance measures and will prepare an operating plan in anticipation of a requirement to produce a plan and a performance report in the next fiscal year.
9)
REVISIONS TO ACRS BYLAWS (Open)
The ACRS Bylaws are being revised to reflect changes in Committee practice and to incorporate new Commission procedures.
A draft of the revised Bylaws will be made available to the Committee subsequent to review by this Subcommitte'a.
RECOMMENDATION The Subcommittee recommends that a draft copy of the revised Bylaws be given to its members before the October 2-4, 1997 meeting so that it can be given to the Full Committee at that meeting and discussed at the Fall Retreat.
10)
ACRS REVIEW OF NRC PRMEARCH ACTIVITIES (Open)
New procedures are being developed'to implement an expanded review of the NRC research program.
This review will be performed in-two phases:
Phase'I will be a programmatic
i review, similar to past Reports to Congress, and will be.
prepared by the end of this calendar Year.
Phase II will be a detailed review of the appropriateness, timeliness, and quality, and management of the specific research programs to be carried out in FY 98.
A draft memorandum describing this process in more detail is attached (pp.17-20).
RECOMMENDATION The subcommittee recommends that comments on this draft memorandum be given to Senior Fellow Gus Cronenberg by September 5, 1997.
11)
SITE-SPECIFIC APPLICATION OF SAFETY GOALS (Open) i The paper on a simplified methodology using exposure index data to calculate a site-specific risk and population distribution has been forwarded to BNL, ORNL, and SNL for external review.
Comments from ORNL and SNL are attached (pp. 21-24) and we anticipate comments from BNL and SNL prior to the ACRS full Committee meeting in September 1997.
During that meeting, the Committee will review and factor these comments into its report to the commission on this i
subject.
RECOMMENDATION The subcommittee recommends that Senior Fellow Rick Sherry assess the comments and discuss with the Full Committee those comments that he feels would have an impact on the conclusions or the Committee approach discussed in the paper.
12)
FUTURE FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC TRAVEL (Open)
Dr. Powers notified the Subcommittee of a CSNI meeting on Nuclear Aerosols on June 16-18, 1998, in Cologne, Germany (pp. 25-26).
The Subcommittee also has deferred from'the July meeting a decision on attendance at a Halden meeting in Norway in March 1998.
Dr. Apostolakis requested approval to attend a Specialists' Meeting in Chattanooga, TN on Oct. 14-17, 1997 on Human Performance in Operational Events (pp. 27-33).
There is also a travel request from Dana Powers to attend the International Symposium on Upgrading the Fire Safety of Operating Nuclear Power plants, to be held November 15 to November 22, 1997 in Vienna Austria (p.
34).
a
RECOMMENDATION The Subcommittee recommends that the full Committee approve Dr. Kress to attend the CSNI meeting in Germany, Dr. Miller to attend the Halden meeting in Norway, and Dr. Powers to attend the Fire Safety meeting in Austria.
The Subcommittee recommends that travel also be approved for Dr. Apostolakis to attend the Specialists' Meeting in Tennessee.
13)
STATUS OF APPOINTMENT OF McMBERS (Open)
We expect to have the final' approval on the appointment of Bob Uhrig by the end of this week, and we are planning on sending a slate of candidates to the Commission for a replacement for Ivan Catton during September.
14)
MEMBER ISSUES (Open)
There were no Member issues.
g:
1 Revised Draft 6 G: Summers /ACRS:
S ubcofin. 825 MEMORANDUM TO:. Chairman Jackson Commissioner Dicus Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan
~
FROM:
R. L. Seale, ACRS Chairman
SUBJECT:
RESPONSE TO STAFF REQUIREMENTS - COMNJD-97-003-REEVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON~ REACTOR. SAFEGUARDS (ACRS)
This memorandum is in response to the June 30, 1997 Staff Requirements Memorandum _(SRM) associated with COMNJD-97-003, Reevaluation of the Role of the Advisory Committee on-Reactor Safeguards (ACRS).
In that SRM, the Commission requested that
- the ACRS reevaluate:
1)-
its subcommittee structure to determine the appropriate number of primary subcommittees, with the goal being to keep the number of subcommittees to as low a level as is consistent.with current programmatic Committee needs; and 2) how it interacts with other NRC advisory committees so that issues can be readily identified and communication enhanced between committees.
Item 1r Reevaluation of ACRS Subcommittee Structure The ACRS periodically reassesses the structure and activities of its subcommittees as part of its annual review of Committee policies,and practices.
The subcommittees are structured according to projected ACRS technical reviews, which are based on
.NRC staff activities, Commission requests,_ statutory requirements,1and Committee initiatives,-taking into consideration ACRS Member workloads.and.taking maximum possible advantage.of the expertise of its members.
Each subcommittee has a specific charter and care is taken'to avoid duplication.
Based on1the Committee's annual review and on the above-mentioned SRM, the'aubcommittee structure'has been revised and the number of
' subcommittees reduced from_34 to 15.
/
\\
d'
2' Subcommittees _are organized around the-technical ~and policy issues. associated with the'NRC regulatory' process, future. plant
< designs, research, etc..
- By remaining aware of emerging issues,.
the:ACRS-can take the initiative to review such issues and-provide advice to.the Commission in a timely manner,1rather than waiting until these issues are-brought to the Committee by the-NRC staff.
The ACRS subcommittee structure provides an efficient administrative system to allow a small number of staff engineers and ACRS Members to:
e
-monitor all-pertinent, ongoing activities and issues, allowing.the ACRS to take the initiative in reviewing such.
issues and to provide. advice in a timely manner, without waiting for issues to be brought to'the ACRS by the NRC
-staff, e
develop useful synopses and draft positions based on detailed examination of issues and ancillary data from diverse sources, for presentation to the full ACRS,
.e conduct focused studies of issues, especially issues not being actively pursued by the NRC staff, e
provide a single point of contact for the NRC staff to interface with the ACRS as the staff develops positions on particular issues, e
plan ACRS activities and develop acceptable procedures for j
the conduct of ACRS business.
Only a few of the technical subcommittees meet in any given fiscal year, with the exception of the Planning and Procedures subcommittee, which meets frequently to discuss organizational and administrative matters-and to plan agendas for future ACRS meetings.
So far in FY 1997, nine technical subcommittees have held a total of 23 meetings, some of which were joint meetings of two or more subcommittees.
These meetings are held to gather information and formulate positions on subject matters brought l
before the ACRS by the NRC staff, issues raised by the i
Commission, and other issues identified by the-Committee.
- Thus, the resources expended are not related to the total number of subcommittees but to the number of issues reviewed by the Committee each. year.
The list of active subcommittees for FY
-1997 is attached..
J Item 2r Interaction of'ACRS/ACNW with Other Committees The ACRS and ACNW have joint meetings when appropriate to cover
, areas of mutual-interest and preserve limited resources.
. Guidelines.have.also been established to ensure adequate
i 3
communication with, and facilitate participation in ACRS meetings by members of the Nuclear Safety Research Review Committee.
Once a year, the Chairman of the ACRS attends a meeting of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel to discuss ACRS activities and to provide an opportunity for discussion of issues of common interest.
Neither the ACRS nor the ACNW has any issues in common with the' Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes.
Lastly, the ACNW remains cognizant of the activities of the Licensing Support System Advisory Review Panel as part of the high-level waste program.
We hope that the above information is responsive to your request regarding subcommittee structure and interaction with other advisory committees.
J
l
- s 4
List of Active Technical Subcommittees for FY97 I
Instrumentation and Control Systems and Computers Electrical Power Systems Probabilistic Risk Assessment Materials and Metallurgy-Severe Accidents Human Factors Westinghouse Standard Plant Design Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena Plant Operations
-Regulatory Policies and Practices Fire Protection Reactor Fuels a
3 6
July 10, 1997 MEMORANDUM TO: ACRS MEMBERS FROM:
R. L. Seale, ACRS Chairman
SUBJECT:
REVISED SUBCOMMITTEE STRUCTURE A revised ACRS Subcommittee structure is attached for your review and comment.
Please focus your review cn assignments and tasks of each Subcommittee to ensure that they are complete and reflect the views of the ACRS and the cognizant Subcommittee Chairman and that they are not excessive.
Provide your comments to Sam Duraiswamy by
' August 8, 1997.
We plan to discuss and finalize this Subcommittee structure during the September ACRS meeting.
Also, I will work with the ACRS staff to develop a response to the SRM on this subject for Committee review and approval during the September meeting.
The proposed Subcommittee structure is discussed below.
Assignments of Subcommittee Chairman and staff engineers are being evaluated to ensure proper balance of workload:
1)
Advanced Reactor Desians The following existing Subcommittees have been combined with this Subcommittee:
Improved Light Water Reactors
- Westinghouse Standard Plant Design 2)
Auxiliary and Secondary Systemg 3)
Fire Protection 4)
Human Factors 5)
Instrumentation and control and Electrical Power Systems This Subcommittee includes the existing Subcommittee on Electrical Power Systems.
6)-
Materials and Metallurav 7)
.Plannine and Procedurest A new task with regard to coordinating the meetings with international organizations has been added to this Subcommittee.
3 )
j l
\\
- 8).
Plant License Renewal 9)*
P ant Ooerations - The following existing Subcommittees have been combined.with this Subcommittee:
e Generic Items
- Nuclear Power Plant Activities
- Maintenance Practices and Procedures It also includes some
- t. asks of the Occupational and Environmental Protection Systems Subcommittee.
- 10).
Subcommittees have been combined with this Subcommittee:
Probabilistic Risk Assessment The following existing
- Individual Plant Examinations
- Extreme External Phenomena 11)
Reactor Fuels, Onsite Fuel Storace and Decommissionina - This Subcommittee includes the following existing Subcommittees:
- Onsite Fuel Storage and Decommissioning
- Reactor Fuels 12)
Reculatory Policies and Practices - This Subcommittee includes the following existing Subcommittees:
- Safety Philosophy, Technology and Criteria
- Safeguards and Security It also includes some of the tasks of the existing subcommittee on Occupational and Environmental Protection Systems.
13)
Safety Research Prooram - This is a new Subcommittee created to perform a comprehensive review of the NRC Safety Research Program as well as to prepare a draft annual report to Congress.
14)
Technical Trainina-Procrams 15)
Thermal. Hydraulic and Severe Accident Phenomena This Subcommittee includes the following existing Subcommittees:
- Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena
- Severe J.ccidents
a 8
g The following Subcommittees have been abolished.
If issues arise in these areas, they will be assigned to existing Subcommittees or Ad Hoc Subcommittees will be created to review such issues:
- International Activities
- Fellows Program - The Vice Chairman plans to handle matters in this area as they arise.
- Naval Reactors
- Structural Engineering i
l l
)
4
I Dana A. Powers Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (5,05) 8.21-2735 voice 7964 Sartan Way, NE (505) 821-0245 fax Albuquerque, NM 87109-3128 FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL l
Please deliver the following message of 2 pages including the bover Page to:
l NAME:
R. Scale and Planning and Procedures Subcomm,iitee l
Fax #:
Voice #:
l
SUBJECT:
RETREAT l
At the close of our last ACRS meeting Professor Scale asked that the Committee give thought to the appropriate topic for an ACRS retreat in FY'98. I suggest that a retreat be focused on developing a four year plan for ACRS activities. We have indicated to the NRC staff that we would like to get more involved in the development of regulatdry products. Yet, l
l
- we are still scheduling ACRS activities on a 2-3 month he horizon and we are frequently caught unaware when new activines are submitted and planned reviews are not ready for presentation a;t the scheduled time, i
\\
- we are frequently placed in the position of reviewing topics and providing advice to the Commission after the staff has briefed ltbe Comnussion, i
1
- we very often have to use Subcommittee meetings to acc uire background information on a topic so that the presentations at ;the l
I
,I i
Subcommittee meetings are more at the level of full Committee; meetings rather than delving into details.and searching for unintended consequences.
l It seems to me, that a lot of these difficulties could be avoided i'fthe ACRS spent some time looking at the many activities that the NRC Staff has underway and deciding:
l 1
o which topics merit close attention by ACRS, o when it would be appropriate for ACRS to be involved pi topics, and j
l o the amount of ACRS member time and ACRS Staff tim'e to devote to a topic, i
I have found that the NRC Staff does prepare quite a lot of resokee material for scheduling and planning materials. The Quarterly Report of the Probabilistic Risk Assessment Plan and the NRR Directors I Bimonthly Status report seem to have wealths ofinformation about what is coming down the pipeline and should come to ACRS on aboh! a two-year time horizon.
i i
f I
I 7
i I
e Dana A. Powers Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (5,05) 821-2735 voice 7964 Sartan Way, NE (505) 821-0245 fax Albuquerque, NM 87109-3128 FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL Please deliver the following message of 3 pages including the cover page to:
NAME: PLANNING AND PROCEDURES SUBCOMMITTEE Fax #:
Voice #:
SUBJECT:
ACIVW/ACRS TOPICS OF JOINT INTEREST I have discussed the joint ACRS/ACNWjoint subcommittee issue some with George Apostolakis following his recent message on this subject. George and I agree that there are not enough topics of continuing joint interest to merit a continuing subcommittee. Instead, we suggest the Chainnan Scale appoint Apostolakis and that Chair' an m
Garrick appoint himself to conduct continuing scrutiny of the ace.ivities of the two committees for topics ofjoint issues. They should thh2 inform the committees of any topics that are identified early-enough thatjoint subcommittee or committee meetings can be scheduled. Other members of the two committees are encouraged to identify topics ofjoint interest.
Some other topics ofinterest to the Planning and Procedures Subcommittee for the purposes of scheduling are listed on the e'oclosed memorandum.
10
From:
George Apostolskis <apostola@mit.edu>
To:
TWD1 TWP2(sxdi)
Date: *.
7/31/97 2:44pm
Subject:
REVISED SUBCOMMITTEE STRUCTURE
> Sam:
>l have several suggestions:
>1. I think that it would be a good idea to have all the probabilistic stuff under one subcommittee. For example, the NPRDS is now under the Auxiliary and Secondary Systems Subcommittee. I suggest that it be moved to the PRA Subcommittee.
The latter already deals with rehability issues, e.g., the use of reliability data in the regulatory process; reliability studies of safety systems.
>2. The PRA Subcommittee should be renamed to " Reliability and PRA" Subcommittee or "Probabilistic Methods" Subcommittee.
>3. The fire risk assessment methodology is neither under the PRA Subcommittee nor under the Fire Protection > Subcommittee. It belongs to both.
>4. I would like to join the Materials and Metallurgy Subcommittee (I am very interested in plant aging issues) and retire from the Auxiliary &
Secondary Systems Suocommittee.
>5. Severalissues should be reviewed by more than one subcommittee. An example is fire risk assessment, as mentioned above. Another is the review of various AIT/ilT/ SIT reports, as well as the LERs, that would be of interest to the Plant Operations Subcommittee (where they are now), but also to the Human Factors and PRA Subcommittees. I wonder whether, in such cases, we should invite all the members to attend the subcommittee meetings.
This would be efficient and would save full committee meeting time.
>6. It would be a good idea to have a formal structure conceming our interactions with the ACNW. I suggest that. in lieu of a separate subcommittee, we appoint individual members whose responsibility would be to follow the developments in certain broad areas and would alert the committee to the need of joint activities with the ACNW, when such a need arises. For instance, I would be following the reactor PRA activities and John Garrick would do the same for the waste management activities. John and I would talk periodically to decide whether there were any issues that should be brought to the attention of both committees. In such cases, an ad hocjoint subcommittee would be formed.
>l hope that this is useful.
> George.
Prof. George Apostolakis Department of Nuclear Engineering, Rm 24-221 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139 4307, USA e-mail: apostola@mit.edu tel: +1-617 2521570 fax: +1-617-258-8863 II
p c.
licrena To:
Sam Duraiswamy Medhat El ZeRawy Planning and Procedures Committee From:
Mario Fontana Date:
August 4,1997
Subject:
Recommendation for Review of License Renewal Adivities A significant level of esort is taking place with respect to license renew 31. There are two parts to the following recommendations: 1) DraA Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews of Nuclear Power Plants (ESRP), and 2) Activities Associated with implementation of10 CFR Part 54 (the
= license renewal rule)
- 1) DraA Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews of Nuclear Power Plants (ESRP) in a statrequirements memorandum dated October 18,1996 the statwas instructed to develop a plan and schedule for the development of regulatory guidance for implementation of the environmental protection rule for license renewal. The staf rasponded that their plans would lead to a drsA and final RG in July 1997 and March 1998, respectively and a dmA and final ESRP in August 1997 and August 1998, respectively. It appears that the draA is ready for public comment in August 1997. The staf asked whether the ACRS wished to review this drah RG.
Since this ESRP is intended as an update of the original ESRP (NUREG-0555), which was issued in 1979, there are several areas that should be addressed by the ACRS to assure that changes in technology and policy that have occurred since that time are properly accounted for. There appear to be three areas wananting review (in order of priority)
Chapter 7: Environmental Aspects of Postulated Accidents involving Radioactive Materials 7.1 Plant Accidents 7.2 Severe Accident Mitigation Ahernatives 7.3 Transportation Accidents Chapter 5.4: Radiological Impacts of Normal Operation 5.4.1 Exposure Pathways 5.4.2 Radiation Doses to Members of the Public 5.4.3 Impacts to Man 5.4.41mpacts on Biota Other than Man Chape'er 3: Plant Description ACRS should receive an overview of these areas by the staf so that we can comment in time to le s
o.
[
l f}
influence the final report, which is scheduled to be issued in August,1998.
- 2) Activities Associated with implementation of 10 CFR Pan 54 (the license renewal rule)
A reading of SECY-97118 " Activities Associated with implementation of 10 CFR Pan 54 (June 5, 1997) indicates that a large eson is underway and has the potential for swamping the ACRS review capabilities within the next year. Some of the needed activities follow-Re review of Draft RG DG-1047," Standard Format and Content for Applications to Renew Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses" Review of" Industry Guideline for implementing the Requirements of 10 CFR Part 54 -
The License Renewal Rule", NET 95-10 Review of plant -specific and owners group technical reports that are submitted for sta#
approval as precedent setting test cases. The plant-specific cases are from Baltimore Gas and Electric (Calven Cli#s) and Duke Power (Oconee) and the referencable reports are from the Westinghouse, Babcock and Wilcox, and Boiling Water Reactor Owners Groups, respectively.
BG&E is preparing for a possible application in late 1997 or early 1998. BGE has submitted 5 reports and developed a format and content template for the 26 technical reports to follow. The results ofa senior management meeting that followed sta# review of the template should be presented to the ACRS.
Duke has established the Oconee License Renewal Project with the goal of completing an application for submittal in late 1998. Duke plans to submit the technical information needed to support the renewal application in a topical report consisting of five n ajor sections One section was submitted on March 1997, and the remaining sections are scheduled for submittal by September 1997.
The BWOG has submitted aging management generic topical reports (GTRs) on the RCS piping, the PZR and the RPV. The staffis currently developing the DSER on these.
j The WOG has submitted four GTRs: RCS supports, Class 1 piping, PZR, and containment.
A fifth GTR on RPV intemals was to be submitted in June 1997. Ten additional reports were planned, but WOG intends to submit only two or three for sta# review. The stasis developing a DSER on these. ACRS should obtain an overview of this work.
The BWROG has a generic license renewal program and was developing topical reports, based on a reference plant. After receiving a staff ROI on its initial topical repon on containments, the BWROG informed the staff that it was suspending action on this repon until the fundamental issues raised by the review of this repon and by public comments on the draft RG and NEI 95-10 are resolved. The BWROG indicated that it will inform the staffwhen it wants to reinitiate discussion on this initial report. The ACRS should obtain 2
13
e status report on this, particularly with respect to the key issues.
Comments received during a public workshop in October 1996 and public comments on the
, draft RG and on NET 95-10 raised significant issues, resulting in the stasdecision to not issue the final guide in September 1997. The sta#, instead, will fxus on p! ant specific and owners group reviews. A review of these issues should be presented to the ACRS.
The NET-sponsored industry License Renewal Demonstration Program (LRDP) was completed in 1996. The LRDP involved six volunteer licensees: BGE (Calvert Cli#s),
1 Duke (Oconee), Southem nuclear (Hatch), Wisconsin Electric (Point Beach), PECO (Peach Bottom) and VEPCO (North Anna and Surry) The staEreviewed this eKon and issued a lessons learned report " License Renewal Demonstration Program: NRC Observations and Lessons teamed" December 1996. The key points of this report need to be presented to the ACRS.
Inspection guidance is being delayed until review of several of the precedent setting cases is complete. ACRS can wait.
Ensironmental activities are discussed above regarding the NRC ESRP. Additionally, the industry has initiated several activities associated with implementing the environmental protection regulations for license renewal. Since November 19%, the stashas been meeting with BGE representatives and they have identified areas requiring further discussions, especially with respect to transportation operations in the vicinity of a high level waste repository site, considerations of alternatives to mitigate severe accidents, environmental justice, mitigative measures, alternatives to the propose actions and new and significant information. According to SECY 97-118, good progress has been made and the dialog continues. ACRS should receive a status report on this.
Duke is preparing a draft Oconee environmental report for license renewal and public meetings were held with NET on their plans to develop generic guidance. ACRS should receive resiews of these.
ACRS stasshould meet with NRC statto identify the schedule by which these esorts should be reviewed. After this, the License Renewal Subcommittee should meet with NRC stasto obtain an overview and identification of key issues, and to obtain general agreement on the sequence and pace ofsubsequent presentations.
I Med and l await your response regarding future action 3
/
4 9
To:
PLANNING AND PROCEDURES SUBCOMMiritE Fam: D.A. Powers subject:
SOME TOPICS THAT MAY BE OFINTEREST Some topics that may be ofinterest in the future are listed below:
o GAO STUDY The Government Accoundng Office has completed a repon for Congress that is, critical of the NRC. It might be ofinterest to the ACRS to hear from the authors of this report. I definitely need to get a copy of the repon in considering topic for out annual repon to Congres) an reactor safety research. There is, aho, a repon entitled "Who the Hell is Regulating Who?" (English is obviously not a fone of this second repon) by Danielle Brian of the Project on Govennent Oversight that will be ofinterest. Interest in these repons by the ACRS may spring fra'm two sources:
- the Commission has asked the ACRS to look forissues other in the agency are't.ot looking at and it appears that the GAO report identifies issues that NRC does not thmk t'o h its responsibility or do not exist, or
- the ACRS has had a continuing interest in wisdom ofincluding organizational, factors in the assessment oflicensees and the risks of the power plants they operate. While J am opposed to this,1 think, it does appear that the OAO repon attaches great sijmi&iace to l
management issues and may support the inclusion of organizational factors in th'e analysis of risk.
l Can someone obtain these reports for me and other interested members?
i o
LICENSE RENEWAL As 1 have noted earlier,it appears that license renewal becomes a hot topic in the W]and winter. NRC staff has recently confumed that they plan to issue a revised working dr'ait of the SRP for license renewal. I think this can occupy a lot of ACRS time and so we shouli! get as far ahead of the issue as possible. My impression is that there is a ton of background material to examine. It is my impression that NRC has a very good license renewal rule (10 CFR S4). The rule was promulgated before the risk-informed, performance-based era was in full s@y; and its many good features could be undone by poorly considered Reg. Guides and Standard Review 1
15 I
9' t
Plans.
o., CERTIFICATION OF THE GASEOUS DUTUSION PLANTS l
I am told that the NRC staffis currently preparing a standard review plan that wijibe the basis for the racerti5 cation of the gaseous diffusion plants. I believe these plants fally'ithin the responsibilities of ACRS. I believe that review of the Standard Review Plan will be time te=tas simply becausc the issues are all quite different and the experience backgrxad is not available. Perhaps ACRS should get involved in this activity now rather than waitig mail the staff has theirplan completed.
o SHUTDOWN RISK i
Insade NRC has a story to the effect that ACRS was rebuffed by the staff concerains benchmark shutdown risk studies. Though this was the sentiment in the first letter from the EDO's office, it did not appear to me that " rebuff'is the correct description of the second letter on the subject of shutdown risk from the EDO*s office. Was there a third letter that reasserted the position of the first letter? De wide-spread opinion seems to be that ACRS was " shot down". If, adeed, this is the case, we will have to look carefully at new rules on shutdown beQ developed by the staff to see that they are consistent with the ideas of risk informed regulation hd are not just a host ofimpositions on the licensees intended to correct deficiencies identified in the past in the hope that risk significant deGeiencies are also corrected.
2 l
l
[
9,,
UNITED STATES j
f NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS WASHINGTON, D. C. 20508
- eee*
DRAFT Aucust 26. 1997 MEMORANDUM TO: Duraiswamy, El-Zeftawy, Larkins, Major, Savio, Sherry, Sorensen MEMORANDUM #:
AWC-115.97 (DRAFT)
EEQt!:
August W. Cronenberg
SUBJECT:
ACRS Fellow Activities Related to ACRS Review of Agency Research Program overview:
It is anticipated that agency efforts at consolidation of overlapping activities will result in the elimination of the Nuclear Safety Research Review Committee (NSRRC), whose function was to review and assess the effectiveness of activities conducted within the agency's
{
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) and to report its findings to l
the director of RES.
Since the ACRS has always had responsibility to provide an independent assessment of agency research and to report their j
assessment to Congress (ACRS Annual Report To Congress), it is likely i
that the responsibilities of the NSRRC uill be assumed by the ACRS.
The j
expanded role of the ACRS in reviewing the agency's research program will require a more detailed assessment than previously provided in its j
congressional report.
l This memo is provided to assist the ACRS in developing a plan for its
{
review of agency research programs.
It is anticipated that the current ACRS Fellows (Cronenberg, Sherry, and Sorensen) will provide much of the supporting information needed to accomplish this review; hence the planning activities described herein primarily relate to Fellow efforts, i
However, the staf f engineers will assemble additional information outside the Office of
- Research, primarily other non-agency national and international reactor safety research programs, so that a more complete picture of research will be available for committee deliberations.
It is also noted that research efforts in regards to the agency's radioactive waste activities are not included in this memo or plan, since such efforts will be reviewed independently by the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW).
/7
m s
e I
Goal and ScoDe of ACRS Review Efforts The primary g2a1 of the ACRS research review is to provide the Commission with recommendations as to the effectiveness of agency programs and the future direction and 1evel-of-effort of such research.
It is anticipated that the ACRS Annual Report To Congress will reflect recommendations provided to the Commission, though in a much condensed format.
The expected ACRS deliverables are:
{
Phase I:
Report to Congress (Letter Report)
Phase II:
Report to the Commission (Detailed Report)
The scoDe of the ACRS review includes the agency programs and activities listed in Table 1 and encompasses not only research under the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES), but also projects sponsored / conducted by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) and tihe Office of Nuclear Material Safety & Safeguards (NMSS).
Examples of the types of questions to be addressed in this review are as listed in Table 2, with particular attention focused on questions related to the -quality, management, scope and balance of agency research in regards to reactor safety, as well as the ability of RES to anticipate agency research needs in a changing regulatory environment.
i Staff Assianments and Resconsibilities Prior to ACRS meetings (including subcommittees) to gather information and discus the agency research programs, the ACRS staff and Fellows will crecare internal office recorts on their observations / assessment of the acency research erocrams.
Staff and Fellow reports will include an assessment of the items listed in Tables 1, 2 and 3, so as to closely mirror the scope of ACRS review efforts.
Assignments and responsibilities in this regard are:
ACRS Fellows:
Generic Issues, Accident Evaluation, Structural Engineering Branch Programs Sherry:
PRA, Control / Instrumentation and Human Factors Branch Programs Sorerisen:
Reactor & Plant Systems, Electrical & Mechanical Branch Programs Staff Encineers:
NEI, NRR, AEOD, Owners Groups research programs related to reactor safety ACNW Staff:
NMSS and DOE research programs related to nuclear waste disposal The deliverables for the staff and' Fellows shall be 20-30'page reports due Sect. 30, 1997.
Direction and coordination of these ef forts shall be the responsibility of Dr. Richard Savio, where his duties shall include catablishing the points of contact within RES prior to ACRS Fellow interviews related to this review effort.
le
m Table 1.
Research Activities to be Included in ACRS Review NRC Related Research
- Research projects conducted by RES (excluding rule making)
- Research projects conducted by NRR, NMSS, AEOD
)
Other (Included in ACRS review efforts to assess overlap in NRC research, but not subject to ACRS recommendations or critique).
p
- Initiatives by EPRI, NEI, INPO, DOE h
j l
Table 2.
Questions to be Addressed in ACRS Review How/why were the various research projects initiated and are they still meeting agency critical needs?
Have critical research needs been identified?
How are deregulation issues being addressed in research?
How effective / productive is the current RES organization?
Has the RES office hit a critical size / budget below which a separate research office is no longer needed?
Should research projects in NRR and NMSS be transferred to RES, or the reverse?
l t
What is contribution of each research program to regulatory matters and safety oversight responsibilities of agency?
Is level of funding appropriate for the various research projects in view of overall level of funding?
Is the funding level appropriate to complete the research in a timely manner?
Would added input from industry groups improve the quality of research and acceptability?
Is there duplication of RES research within the agency or with other industry / international / DOE projects?
(
Are the various research projects prioritized appropriately?
l Is risk versus safety an appropriate consideration in prioritization of research programs?
l Is the right organization doing the work?
j Are the various programs being conducted in a timely manner to be of use to the agency and is closure of old issues proceeding in a timely manner?
Is the NRC staff managing the programs competently?
1
Table 3.
Information Resources Resources for NRC Research Procrams Research project descriptions provided by RES, NRR. NMSS Information provided in FINS and BRG reports (Rudget Eeview group)
Information provided in Buff Book (Status Report'on Water Reactor Safety Research)
Information provided in Green Book (Budget Estimates for each FY)
ACRS Fellow interview with program managers Proceeding of LWR Safety Meeting Resources for Industry. DOE, and International Research Procrams OECD, EPRI, and DOE program reports hd
i/ MLL~,g 8
From:
<TSKress@aol.com>
To:
TWD1.TWP2(rrsi)
Date:
8/16/9710:34am iar M
E A.,;
, -.b D D MN =
J #
Subject:
Fwd: Paper Review Forwarded message:
From: li2@orn!. gov (Mark A. Linn)
To:
tskress@aol.com (Tom Kress)
Date: 97-08-1316:33:45 EDT Tom I have reviewed the paper by R. Sherry titled " Considerations for Plant-Specific Site-Specific Application of Safety Goals and Definition of Subsidiary Criteria" as you requested.
For future reference, the work on the El mncept was detailed more completely in the following papers:
Mark A. Linn and Richard L. Schmoyer," Hand-Calculation Technique for the Evaluation of Public Risk From a Severe Accident at a Nuclear Power Plant" and Mark Yambert and Mark Linn, " Assessment of the Exposure Index as a Means of Predicting Potential Consequences Associated with Nuclear Power Plant Accidents." Both papers can be found in the proceedings for PSA Intemational Topical Meeting held in Clearwater Beach; Florida, January 26-29,1993.
In general, I have no buming issue with the procedure laid out in the paper. It seems to be a logical extension of the work we did for the GEIS.
However, I do have a few observations when our previous work is compared to the procedure outlined in the paper.
Population Distribution and Wind Direction frequency Variability - We found that care had to be taken for some rather specific situations such as bodiea of water (0 population) and where there were very low population density with the adjacent segment having very high population density.
Your interpolation step may skew the results, especially if you have a higher population on inside rings than on outer rings. This may not be a problem here, however, since Sherry is dealing with distances no more than about 2 miles from the plant. We went out to 10 rniles for early fatalities.
Variability Resulting from Differences in Site Boundary Radius - This seems to be a straightforward way to account for the decrease in risk as distance increases -if the 1.5 factor is correct. Because the procedure is dealing in small numbers for early fatalities, dI
l i
4 this factor may have a significant impact. Also need to assure this factor only includes S
decay effects and not other factors which have been accounted for elsewhere, such as evacuation.
Variability Resulting from Differences in Local Site Meteorology-Yamberts paper shows a similar studf of met. effects and his results showed e variability closer to a factor of 10 than of two. Granted the Yambert study was of hypothetical sites, but the difference raises the question enough that Sherry should assure himself the Sandia study actually addresses his issue completely.
The one potential issue I had with the process may have more to do with the restriction of risk to individuals within 1 mile (the QHO). There seemed to be some inconsistancies between the early fatalities calculated by this method and the actual early fatalities calculated for the FES's for several plants. For example, South Texas shows the highest El from Table 1, yet the actual early fatalities in the South Texas FES was 0.0000007, the next to the smallest value of the 28 FES plant used in the GEIS study. There were a few other with similar large discrepancies, both ways (ie, small El and large EF's calculated). I believe it to be appropriate to check such instances and make sure the frequencies for the target release categories for these plants do explain this inconsistancy. As i remember, the data does exist in the FES's for most of the plants to do this evaluation.
Again, the procedure seemed to be a logical extension of the GEIS work and should be explored further.
CC:
TWD 1.TWP2(mtm,mme,sxd i ),WN D 1.WN P 1 (nfd)
... J:
)
Sandia Natigncl Lah:ratsriac 4I me
==u==enn.om does: August 18,1997 tr D. A. Powers (6404), MS0744 tom-A. L. Camp (6412), MS0747 subject Considerations for Plant-Specific Site-Specific Applications of Safety Goals and Definition of Subsidiary Criteria, Rick Sherry, June 27,1997 I have taken a quick look at the subject memo and have the comments presented
- below, i
- 1. This memo is an interesting look at the issue of site-specific applications of safety goals and addresses some important issues.
- 2. I agree with the conclusion that site-specific LERF criteria are not warranted.
- 3. LERF criteria have been evolving as part of the risk-informed regulation initiative. Trevor Pratt of BNL has presented some of those ideas to the ACRS in the past. I believe that the BNL work represents a more complete look at these issues and an appropriate starting point for future discussion.
- 4. The variability addressed in this study is a small part of the overall variability.
Therefore, I would be hesitant to use this information to modify the LERF
- criteria.
- 5. It is not clear, although it is a reasonable viewpoint, that we wish to " bound
{
the variability," as opposed to using a mean or some other measure for i
decision-making.
- 6. Equation I assumes that LERF is based on a release sufficient to cause an early fatality. This is reasonable, but other options for defining LERF are on the table.
sanommer swee k un muneet
)
D. A.Pewers(6404),MS0744 2-7.' "Ihe statement on page 4 regarding NUREG-1150 is incorrect. The QHO was evaluated for the population within one mile of the plant boundary. The MACCS input starts at the plant, but there are no people located in the inner region.
- 8. The information in Step 2, including Equation 3, is contradictory to the assumption noted above for Equation 1. If LERF is dermed as a release sufficient to cause early fatalities, and only the wind direction matters, then the radius is unimportant. The radius only matters if LERF is defined so that the probability of a fatality is less than 1.0 for at least some plants. To put it another way, if"large" is large enough, it doesn't matter if you are at one mile or two miles.
- 9. Other issues relative to LERF may need to be considered. For example, will the definitions vary for low power / shutdown (different timing, open containment and vessel, different chemistry) and extemal events (different emergency response)? Clearly, the ultimate comparison to a goal should be based on total risk (or as much ofit as we can calculate)
- 10. Finally, there is a fundamental issue with LERF that you may wish to think about. By basing decisions on CDF and LERF, defense-in-depth is pretty much ignored. That is, plants with weak containments can pass if they have low CDFs (BWR4s in Mark I containments). CCFP is a much more appropriate figure of merit if defense-in-depth is the goal.
/
4
s 505 848 1643 FILE No. 882 07 31 '97 15:41 ID:Sandia Nat. L bs 505 844 1648 PAGE 1 Da'na A. Powers Sandia National Laboratories Nuclear Facilities Safety P.O. Box 5800 Mail Stop 0744 Albuquerque NM 87185
(
e-mail:
dapou r@sandia. gov FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL - AREA I/ BLDG 823 Please deliver the following message of k
pages (excluding cover sheet).
Date:
MESSAGE TO:
LWdi&
C E. W N Com/t.'
4 Ap d e
"'* ~
r i~w Phone:
FAX NO:
VERIFY NO:
MESSAGE FROM:
Dana A. Powers Org:
6404 Bldg /Rm 823/34518 Phone:
845 9838 FAX NO: (505) 844-1648 VERIFY NO: (505) 844-8182 Sent and Verified:
(Operator)
(Date & Time)
Jo supasm ay anopq in puss asiiid, slipo'w*isai isod'pur Ed yioq'aoj signsas pur j
insin nir, esines e semi.. In..n...m,.a n....a,
si. --.........
3 naui un. cin ni citindisneed sin onie
-- - - - - - -______ _ __ _ ________._____j
FILE No, 882 07 31 '97 15:42 ID:Sandia Nat. Laba 505 844 1648 PAGE 2-AEN AoEuce ce L'ocos roun L swencie wucterine NEA OECD NUCLEAn ENERGY AGENCY Ref: EN/S/5495 Pans,8th June 1997 CIRCtJLAR LETTER TO COMMITTEE ON THE SAFETY OF NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS TO THE COMMITTFF ON NtICI FAR RFGULATORY ACTIVITIES As agreed at the December 1996 mocting of CSNI, a Soccinf at Meeting nn Nuefear Aermots in Reactnr Safety will bc hc!d from 16th to 18th June 1998 at the GRS in Cologne. Germany.
As usual for Specialist Meetings sponsored by the CSNI, participation will be restricted, for efficiency, to experts nominated by delegates to the Committec in consultation with ofTicial authonties concemed. A few copics of the Announcement of the meetmg are attached Should your country (or international organisation) wish to be represented at the sueeting, we should be grateful if the names and addresses of the designated experts could be conununicated to us as soon as possible, and in anv case before 15th Antil 1998 The designated participants are requested to rerum the Registration Forms attached to Mcctmg Announcement by the same date.
With best regards.
Yours sinecrcly, l
Aq*
p i
Jacques Ro)en Nuclear Safety Division cc. Delegations to the OECD PWG4 PWG4 FPC 1
1.4 Seine St Grenain 12.Itoute.rd dc nn 021M1I**y les Maulinesua France Tel:(331) 45 24 82 00 Fan- (321) 45 24 l1 in Telca: 640048 Electronic mail: osemarnc>@os.ed svg
Janet / Patty Disk: Travel.Frm g. f tc M /
9/9/94 ACRS SPECIAL TRAVEL ENDORSEMENT FORM THIS FORN !$ TO BE USED TO REQUEST ACRS ENDORSEMENT OF SPECIAL TRAVEL REQUESTS BY HEMBERS WHEN NRC SUPPORT FOR PARTIAL OR FULL REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND/OR TIME IS DESIRED.
THIS PROCEDURE IN NO WAY LIMITS THE FREEDOM OF A MEMBER TO PARTICIPATE IN A MEETING AS AN INDIVIDUAL AT PERSONAL EXPENSE. PLEASE SUBMIT THIS FORM TO THE PLANNING AND PROCEDURES SUBCOMMITTEE AT LEAST 60 DAYS PRIOR TO THE MEETING, IF POSSIBLE. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION MAY BE ADDED AS DETAILS DEVELOP.
7/18/97 Member Name. G. APostolakis Date Submitted:
Dates of Planned Trip: oct. 14 to oct. 17, 1997 Destination: Chattanooga, TN Meeting or Facility to be Visited:
specialists' Meeting on Human Performance in Operational E'/ents, hosted by the NRC.
Purpose / Relevance to ACRS Business:
Human reliability and performance is of great interest to the Committee.
Participation (Invited Speaker, paper presented, etc.):
Attendance only.
Justification (Foreign Travel Only):
- 1 PRC SUPPORT REQUESTED 3
Air Fare: Yes x No Per Dios: Yesx No Days Registration: $110.00 Compensation: Yes x No Days 2 h0
OECD NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY OCDE AGENCE POUR L'ENERGIE NUCLEAIRE Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations Principal Working Group No.1 SPECIALISTS' MEETING ON HUMAN PERFORMANCE IN OPERATIONAL EVENTS Organised in Co Operation with the Intemational Atomic Energy Agency and Hosted by The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
' 13 - 17 October 1997 i
6 0
i a
- s. p Mineelnery Agenede Mandav.13 October 1997 13.00-17.00' Hotel Registration and check in 18.00- 20.00 Reception at Hotel Tuesday.14 October 1997 Opening Session (9.00 - 10.30)
Chairman: D. Ross 9.00- 9.30 D. Ross - Opening Remarks on behalf of US NRC L Carlsson - Opening Remarks on behalf of the NEA/OECD M. Dusic - Opening Remarks on behalf of the IAEA 9.30-10.00 invited Paper - NRC Chairman S Jackson 10.00-10.30 invited Paper - EDF Session 1 - Chainnan: M. Dusic (11.00 - 12.30)
Operational Events R. Lloyd, USNRC: The Role of Human Performance in Significant Operating Events Gerard Duboe, EDF CNPE Gravelines: Human Factor on Gravelines NPP Michael Maqua/Klaus Kotthoff/Wolfgang Preischl, GRS: GRS Operator Behaviour During Plant Transients in Gerrrany Session 2 - Chairman: L. Carlsson (14.00 - 15.30)
Operational Response Genevieve Baumont/F. Menage /F. Bigot, IPSN-CEN FAR: Event Recovery Study Sok Chul K!M/Durk Hun Las/Jong In Lee, KAERI and Hyun Jang Kim, Korea Electric Power Co. KNTC: Empirical Study of the Influence of Organizational and Procedura! Characteristics on Team Performance in the Emergency Situation Using Plant Simulatom I. Schoenfeld: Cognitive Skills and NPP Operational Decision Making Coffee Break l
3
-r is
---i4
-,r i---
a Wlimbeery Ageneds Session 3 Chairman: L Carlsson (16.00 - 18.00)
PSA Das Wook Chung, KINS: Treatment of Human Errors in Optimizing Surveillance Test Interval (STI) of Safety Components A. Bereith, Elod Hollo, Zoltan Karsa, VEIKI and S. Nagy, PAKS: Analysis of Paks NPP Personnel Activity During Safety Related Event Sequences Won Dea Jung, KAERI: Level of Decomposition of Human Task in HRA Based on Cognitive Task Analysis E. Desmares/P. Le Blot /C. Bieder/F. Cara/J.L. Bonnet, EDF: MERMOS: An EDF Project to Update the PHRA (Probabilistic Human Reliability Assessment Methodology)
'Weda =A=v.15 October 1997 8.00 - 12.30 Simulator Session 4 - Chairmam W. Preischt (14.00 - 15.30) (Parallel Session)
ATHEANA J. Wreathall, The Wreath Wood Group and A.R. Smith, USNRC: ATHEANA: A Technique for Human Error Analysis - An Overview of its Methodological Basis D.C. Bley, J. Wreathal, SAIC: Common Elements in Operational Events Across Technologies US NRC and Sandia National Laboratories: Combined Peper on ATHEANA Coffee Break Session 5 - Chairman: W. Preischt (16.00 - 18.00)
Regulatory Practice A. Ramey Smith, J. Persensky, J. Rosenthal, USNRC: US NRC Research and Analysis Activities Conceming Human Reliability Assessment and Human Performance Evaluation Daniel Gagne, AECB: AECB/ Canada Examination Methods for Operators J. Pascal Lesot, DSIN, Y. Balloffet, DRIRE Rhone-Alpes-Lyon, Regulatory Monitoring Human Performance in PWR Operation in France E. Trager, USNRC: Human Performance Event Database 4
I
% a heliminary Agends e,
Session 6 - Chairman: T. Meslin (14.00 - 15.30) (Parallel Session)
Simulation J. Walther, Bavarian State Ministry /Hubert Sacher, TOV Energy: Human Performance in Bavarian NPP as a preventiw element Yong H. Lee / Sang M. Sur and Jung W. Lee, KAERI: Dewtopment and Use of a Task Simulation Analyzer with a Cognitive Operator Model for Human Performance Studies in Nuclear Power Plants Sebok/Kaarstadt: Crew Situation Awareness, Diagnoses and Performance in Simulated Nuclear Power Plant Process Disturbances Coffee Break Session 7 Chairman: T. Meslin (16.00 - 18.00) (Parallel Session)
Operator Aids Felicity Harrison, AECB: Development of a model of control room operator cognition Tsumeo Nakagawa/Tomihiko Furuta/Ryuji Kubota and Kouji Ikeda, NUPEC:
Development of Plant Navigation System Juan Burillo, Tecnatom S.A.: Operation System Interfaces and Their Evolution in Time Hyun Chul Lee, KAERI: Operator Performance Comparison of Two VDT-Based Alarm Systems 5
3/
\\
S e
- A W limh'ry Agenk 9
Thursdau.16 October 1997 Session 8 - Chairman: F. Harrison (8.30 - 10.00)
Operational Events M. Kojima,1. Tanaka, O. Yamaguchi, Japan: Analysis of Human Errors in Japanese NPP Using J HPES/JAESS Dolganov: Human Performance in Operational Ewnts in Russia J. Kauffman, USNRC: Recent Human Performance issues at US NPP Coffee Break Session 9 - Chairman: F. Harrison (10.30 - 12.30)
Operational Events & Organisational Factors Prasad Operators' Response _ During Narora Atomic Power Station Unit 1 (NAPS 1) Fire incident of 31 March 1993 M. Gregoric: Human Performance in IRS Reports D..l. Gertman: Management and Organization In Operating Ewnts: A Modeling Perspectiw for PRA Desaulniers: Behaviors and Conditions that Challenge Teamwork: An Assessment of Operating Ewnts at US Commercial NPPs Arildsen: Human Performance issues Associated with the Use of Plant Procedures in Selected Operational Ewnts Session 10 Chairman: G. Baumont (14.00 - 15.30)
Organisational Factors T. Meslin, EDF: Human Performance in Operational Ewnts - How to improw it?
E. Strebeck, Swedish State Power Board, J. Olausson and P. Vam Gemst, ABB Atom AB: Operator Performance During a Refuelling Outage M. Blevins, TU Electric: Improving Human Performance at NPPs W. Krull. GKSS: Coping With Personal Aging Effects at Research Reactors Coffee Break 9
6 A
e
c.
.J Preliminary Agende Session 11 - Chairman: G. Baumont (16.00 - 18.00)
Operational Response j
P. Olvind, OECD: Complexity Rating of Abnormal Ewnts and Operator's Performance Durk Hun Lee, Sok Chul Kim, KINS, Jin Kyun Park, Sooln Heung Chang, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology: The Dewtopment of a Framework for Improving an Emergency Operating Procedure Using the PSA Approach Galetti: Human Factor issuet in Digital System Design and Implernentation Abramove, The Psychological Assessrnent in Operational Events Fridau.17 October 1997 Nuclear Fower Plant visit (to be arranged) 4 7
)
Janet / Patty Disk: Travel Frm t
9/9/94 ACRS SPECIAL TRAVEL ENDORSEMENT FORM THIS FORM IS TO BE USED TO REQUEST ACRS ENDORSEMENT OF SPECIAL TRAVEL REQ WHEN NRC SUPPORT FOR PARTIAL OR FULL REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND/OR TIME IS DES THIS PROCEDURE IN NO WAY' LIMITS THE FREEDOM OF A MEMBER TO PARTICIPATE IN A MEETING A INDIVIDUAL AT PERSONAL EXPENSE. PLEASE SUBMIT THIS FORM TO THE PLANNING AND PROCEDUR SUBCOMMITTEE AT LEAST 60 DAYS PRIOR TO THE MEETING. IF POSSIBLE. SUPPLEMENTAL INFOR MAY BE ADDED AS DETAILS DEVELOP.
h N*
cr*3 ELD Date Submitted: o% A 0 k N U Member Name N
Nov. M, Od Dates of Planned Trip:
to Destination: V S E M * ** NWA Meeting or Facility to be Visited: 1 4 6 W MOM 44 b M'?oS80 M OM VP48605% w,e Te.e Sam op opea.Arsag Nuu.batb-Purpose / Relevance to ACRS Businers:~~he wenhry da\\ nvsee %=,3 4 Acec\\es hs b % ae+bem.Waw e\\.
pe.v b m a.ws hsek 4 A Ek.-b.s A %R M.~ b, % D c s.J,.e.\\.3.\\
we.\\,
we
,,6 n -
AcR 5 c w.b.,.A..
w 4.* sb A t.
- e. b \\ % Oda kv. b*.*w h Aevchog as b\\ce d e.h teswks'w. @.
Participation (Invited Speaker, paper presented etc.):
3de p A -
Justification (Foreign Travel Only): W h pssw.w. A,wre=A A.s m.AAve ss ss,
- %.e. bis..(
vssk.- s kv avek
.yevhvw.awee. b eA Mei SMb
- .bE* **
4 wbe-9 *.d%.
A C. A S* o
- A d a 9
- a
'F A s.5 ( S A cow.
Jew i c 4,J
.e 4, sto. v.uses 4
%beb.
9 ac sk.>rt,. A,,,6,,,
,,nA,.
A.6,. 4. h ssw g 8 v. sen, w v=3 e e
- e.ne % e.y secra:. ira.
NRC SUPPORT REQUESTED V
No Days I Air Fare:
Yes V No Per Diem:
Yes Registration:
O Compensation: Yes V No Days 8
J