ML20217H958
| ML20217H958 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/28/1997 |
| From: | Apostolakis G Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-3039, NUDOCS 9708130358 | |
| Download: ML20217H958 (6) | |
Text
g-
- t... o 4,
...y v,.
G?orgo Apostolckic - 5/28/07
[.$ " 8dJ f rpe r/tt/f7 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS MEETING OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 21-22, 1996 ROCYNILLE, MARYLAND INTRODUCTION:
The ACRS Subcommittee on Probabilistic Risk Assessment held a meeting on November 21-22,
- 1997, at 11545 Rockville
- Pike, Hockville, MD, in Room T-2B3, The purpose of this meeting was to continue the Subcommittee's review of the NRC staff's approach to codify risk-informed, performance-based regulation through develop-ment of Standard Review Plan (SRP) sections and associated regulatory guides.
The Subcommittee previously met to consider this matter on October 31-November 1, 1996.
The entire meeting was open to public attendance.
Mr. M. Markley was the cognizant ACRS staff engineer for this meeting.
There was one written comment received from Mr.
R.
Christie, Performance Technology, who also made a presentation to the Subcommittee.
The meeting was convened by the Subcommittee Chairman at 8:30 a.m. each day and recessed at 4 :58 p.m. on November 21 and adjourned at 5,35 p.m. on November 22.
M"rENDEES :
ACRS Members:
G. Apostolakis, Chairman D. Miller, Member J.
Barton, Member D.
Powers, Member M.
Fontana, Member R.
Seale, Member T.
Kress, Member W. Shack, Member R. Sherry, ACRS Senior Fellow M. Markley, ACRS Staff M. Golay, NSRRC (Observer - part time)
Princloal NRC sneakers:
G. Holahan, NRR N. Gilles, NRR T. King, RES W. Hardin, RES M. Cunningham, RES R. Gramm, NRR R. Jones, NRR R. Wessman, NRR R. Woods, RES b) f, f
NRR - Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation RES - Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Princioal industry sneakers:
R. Christie, Performance Technology S. Gosselin, EPRI
{\\h T. Pietrangelo, FEI
'/ 0 5 ed - b '" "
LE"' Icy nED Oii!GI ML810970811
,g y 3039 PDR
l
'4 l
PRA Subcommittee Meeting: 11/21-22/96 Minutes EPRI - Electric Power Research Institute HEI - Nuclear Energy Institute There were approximately 15 members of the public in attendance at this meeting.
A listing of those attenteen who registered is available in the ACRS office files and will be provided upon request.
The presentation slides and handouts used during the meeting are attached to the of fice Copy of these Minutes.
The presentations to the Subcommittee are summarized below.
OPENING RENARKS Dr. George Apostolakis, Subcommittee Chairman, convened the meeting at 8:30 am, and stated that the purpose of this meeting was to continue the Subcommittee's discussion of the NRC staff's ap? roach to codify risk-informed, performance-based regulation through development of SRP sections and associated Regulatory Guides.
He noted that the Subcommittee previously met to discuss these matters on October 31 - November 1, 1996.
The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.
Industry Prtasntations Mr. Bob Christie, owner, Performance Technology, provided some comments relative to a Paper he presented at a recent conference.
His central points were that the nuclear industry will disappear in the U.S. unless a move is made to performance-based regulation.
He also said that at this time, there is no incentive for either the industry or the NRC to move in that direction.
He recommended that the goals specified in the NRC's 1986 PRA Policy Statement be adopted to establish the definition of what constitutes adequate protection of the public health and safety.
Mr. Steven Gosselin, Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) provided an overview of EPRI's risk-informed inservice inspection (ISI) evaluation Program.
Specifically, he provided an overview of the process, the findings of an independent third-party review of the ISI procedure, and the status of ongoing pilot plant studies at the Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2 and the Fitzpatrick nuclear plants.
He offered to provide more detailed information on this Program at a future Subcommittee meeting.
The third-party review (performed by ERIN Engineering and Research, Inc.) of the ISI Program resulted in the conclusion that EPRI's approach is sound and robust and is based on current state-of-the-art methodology.
Recommendations were made by ERIN Engineering 9
PRA Cubcommittee Meeting: 11/21-22/96 Minutes relative to fully documenting the technical basis of the Program, including the operating experience and application of the resulting insighta from same.
Mr. Gosselin offered to provide the Sub-committee with an EPRI Topical Report and an ERIN Engineering report on ISI.
NRC Staff Pr173Atations The following topics were discussed by the hRC staff repre-sentatives:
0 Overview of SRP and Regulatory Guide Development Process e
Overview of General SRP and Regulatory Guide Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1061 Draft SRP Chapter 19 Draft SRP/ Regulatory Guide for Technical Specifications e
Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1065 Draft SRP Chapter 16.X Draft SRP/ Regulatory Guide for Inservice Testing e
Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1062 Draft SRP Chapter 3.9.7 e
Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1064 for Graded Quality Assurance (no SRP Chapter) e Draft NUREG-1602: " Standards for Probabilistic Risk Analyses (PRAs) to Support Risk-Informed Decisionmaking" (not discussed in detail because of planned revisions by the staff)
SRP/ Regulatory Guide summary - Questions for Public Comment Subcommittee Ouest;1gna,_gnd Comm9nts The Subcommittee continued its discussion of proposed staff guidelines for the use of core damage frequency (CDP) and large, early release f requency (LERF) for evaluating licensee submittals for risk-informed changes to the current licensing basis (CLB).
Dr. Apostolakis expressed support for the staf f's action to remove the CDF and LERP decision charts from the guidance documents.
Dr. Apostolakis, Powers and Kress asked how the staff proposed to define CDF and LERF for changes without a full-scope PRA.
Dr.
Powers expressed the view that consideration of total risk must consider the full range of plant operations (i.e.,
shutdown, low-
+
11/21-22/96 PRA Subcommittee Meeting
-4 Minutes power operations, seismic, etc.).
Dr. Powers also asked about time dependencies for core damage frequency (CDP) and asked how risk will be managed for temporary conditions.
The staff stated that the CDP values will vary widely for temporary plant conditions and indicated that risk initiatives may r esent a challenge.
Dr.
Apostolakis asked whether conditions, w, ch are not modeled, could be handled qualitatively where only partial PRAs exist.
He also asked the staf f's approach for handling quantified and unquantified uncertainty.
The staff stated that moet licensees will not have full-scope Level 2 and 3 PRAs.
Dr. Fontana asked whether licensees could be required to perform Level 2 and 3 PRAs.
Dr. Kress stated that PRAs would become more complete as risk applications are li,plement ed.
The staff suggested that licensee expert panels and NRC peer review panels would assist in making decisions where incomplete information exists.
The subcommittee and staf f extensively discussed the integrated decisionmaking process.
Drs. Powers and Apostolakis asked how licensee expert and NRC peer review panels would work out.
The staff stated that its approach should verify that certain fundamental safety principles are met including:
regulatory requirements are
- met, defense-in-depth and sufficient safety margins are maintained, there are no significant increases in risk to public he11th and safety, and utilization of performance-based monitoring and feedback strategies will account, in part, for uncertaintie:s in modeling and data.
The Subcommittee Members expressed favorable views with regard to the stated principles.
- However, Dr.
Apostolakis asked whether defense-in-depth could constrain implementation of the risk-informed approach.
Dr. Powers expressed concern that the staff's approach may be viewed as additional regulatory burden.
In particular, he expressed concern about graded quality assurance (GQA) which appeared to him as beir.g more performance-based rather than risk-informed.
Mr. Barton stated that the Regulatory Guide appears to be overly complicated.
Dr. Fontana asked whether actual equipment costs would increase with GQA.
The staff stated that the NRC approves the licensee's QA process and not necessarily what is in it..The staff also stated that the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B,
" Quality Assurance Requirements for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants, are maintained under the risk-informed approach.
Dr. Miller asked what criteria will be used in determining that component risk is "high" or " low" for risk-based IST.
The staff indicated that the applicable guidelines developed by ASME will likely by used here.
Hu also asked how the staff will be trained to properly implement the programs associated with the regulation of PRA use by licensees.
The staff briefly mentioned the courses available through the NRC techniccl training center.
~
t PRA Subcommittee Meeting 11/21-22/96 Minutes Dr. Golay of the NRC Nuclear Safety Research and Review Committee (NSRF.C~
of RES asked whether implementing these programs would result in potential reductions in safety.
He suggested that the ACRS and NSRRC develop additional understanding of this and make recomtendations on this matter and the need for additional research.
Kukcoannittee Recossmandations Dr. Antolakio summarized the various subcommittee concerns and issues and requested that the staff address the following items during its December 5-7, 1996 meeting:
- i..
CDF cnd the use of qualitative assessments; 2,
.a possible delfnition for LERF; i.
the need for fall scope PRAF and whether a partial Level 1 PRA is nufficientt 4.
the une c0 es: pert
- panels, peer reviews and integrated docf stondd9g; and 5.
quantified verous unquantified uncertain *y.
The NRC staff offered to provide a list of questions designed to 4
solicit feedback during the public comment period.
Followun Actions The staff requested an ACRS letter commenting on the overall approhch and direction of the SRP and RGs in Much 1997.
Dr.
Apostolakis infornei the staff of the difficulty in developing an ACRS - consensus regarding these matters because of the limited opportunity that the Subcommittee has had to review the relevant documents.
He also noted that he had spoken to the NRC Chairman, Dr. Shirley A. Jackson regarding the ACRS review schedule and had asked for an extension.
The Subcommittee Members discussed this matter and decided that another Subcommittee meeting was needed to perform detailed review of the documents.
A Subcommittee meeting was tentativo3y set for February 28-29, 1997 to perform this review, pending feedback from the NRC Chairman.
This meeting was later changed to February 20-21, 1997.
At the-conclusion of the meeting, Dr.
Apostolakis requested volunteers from the Subcommittee Members to perform in-depth reviews of the individual SRP sections and associated Regulatory Guides.
Dr. Apostolakis requested all Members to perform detailed-reviews of the general guidance SRP section and Regulatory Guide and confirmed the following assignments for the -individual
- applications:
o Powers / Miller - Graded QA e
Kress/Seale - Inservice Testing e
Shack /Barton - Technical Specification i
l' i
i PRA Subcommittee Meeting: 11/21-22/96 l
Minutes Background Material Provided to the Subc = lttee Prior to this peetina 1.
Memorandum dated November 8, 1996, from W. Hodges, RES, to J.
Larkins, ACRS,
Subject:
" Transmittal of Draf t Regulatory Guide DG-1061: An Approach for Using Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) in Plant specific Risk-Informed Decisionmaking: General Guidance and-Its Companion Standard Review Plan Section" (not attached - provided to ACl'9 11/8/96) 2.
Memorandum dated October 11, 1996, from W. Hodges, RES, to J.
Larkins,
Subject:
" Transmittal of Pre-Decisional Draft NUREG-l 3
1602, 'Standarde for Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) to Support Risk-Informed Decisionmaking'"
(not attached provided for 10/31-11/1/96 meeting) 3.
Letter dated November 8,1996, f rom M. Markley, ACRS Staf f, to B.
- Christie, Performance Technology,
Subject:
" Request to l
Provide Written Materials and for Time to make Oral Statements to the ACRS Subcommittee on PRA, November 21-22, 1996" and attachments (Maine Yankee document not included) 4.
Note dated November 8,
- 1996, f rom E.
Jordan, AEOD, to B.
- Olmstead, OGC,
Subject:
"Mr.
Christie's Publication of Material Generated under NRC Contract" 5.
Letter dated January 3,1996, f rom J. Taylor, EDO, to Chairman Jackson, NRC,
Subject:
" Improvements Associated With Managing the Utilization of Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) and Digital Instrumentation-and Control Technology" 6.
Letter dated November 30, 1995, f rom Chairman Jackson, NRC, to J. Taylor, EDO,
Subject:
" Follow-up Requests in Probabilistic Risk Assessment and Digital Instrumentation and Control" NOTE:
Additional details of this meeting can be obtained from a transcript of r.his meer.ing available in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C.
4 20006, (202) 634-3274, or can be purchased from Neal R.
Gross & Co., Inc., Court Reporters and Transcribers,1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20005, (202) 234-4433.
t f
1
-,.,m,
,,,__.._..___.,__,_,--r m
,,,,.,, _ ~ _.
.