ML20236T316
| ML20236T316 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/09/1987 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-2528, NUDOCS 8712010133 | |
| Download: ML20236T316 (22) | |
Text
_ _ _ _
f & ck$k$'
A gg )ll}$/$
4 V.
CERTIFIED COPY DATE L
ISSUED:Nov. 9,1987
SUMMARY
/ MINUTES STANDARDIZATION OF-NUCLEAR FACILITIES i
SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING l
OCTOBER 6, 1987 l
WASHINGTON, D.C.
p I
The Standardization of Nuclear Facilities Subcommittee met on October 6, 1987 to discuss and review the Safety Evaluation Report prepared by the NRC Staff on the EPRI Advanced Light Water Reactor Utility Requirements Document, Chapter I.
Mr. Charles Wylie is the Chairman of the Subcom-mittee. Other members in attendance were:
Carlyle Michelson, Glen Reed, and Chester Siess.
Herman Alderman was the cognizant ACRS Staff 1
member for the meeting.
Notice of the meeting was published in the Federal Pegister on September 18, 1987. The appendices to this summary l
include a copy of the Federal Register Notice, a list of the attendees, I
and a list of the handouts. Mr. Paul Leech represented the NRC Staff, and Mr. Jack Devine represented EPRI.
Openino Statement:
i Mr. Wylie noted that today's meeting was the first meeting of the subcommittee for the purpose of reviewing and discussing the EPRI Advanced Light Water Reactor Utility Requirements Document and specif-ically the Staff Safety Evaluation Report on Chapter 1.
Mr. Wylie pointed out that there are 13 chapters of the EPRI Document. The staff stated that they plan to issue an SER on each chapter, and then a final I
SER on the overall requirements documents by December 1990. Mr. Wylie asked for comments by the other members at this time. There were none.
DESIGNATED OltIGINAI, A
8712010133 871109 L M.
Certified By L~_
B PDR
l Minutes / Standardization of Nuclear ?
Facilities Subcommittee Mtg.
g October 6,.1987 There were no requests for or written presentations by members of the public. Mr. Wylie then called upon Mr. Paul Leech for his presentation.
Mr. Paul Leech, NRC Staff Mr. Leech noted that the EPRI standardized designs are expected to be evnlutions of existing power LWR designs for which the respective NSSS suppliers intend to obtain design certification. Thcse certifications could then be referenced in applications for construction permits or operating licenses.
Mr. 'Michelson asked ' bout compliance with regulations.
He noted that a
the EPRI' document doesn't meet the regulations in many places. He noted i
that CE states that are in compliance with the regulations.
l l '
Mr. Leech remarked that he thought they were following the EPRI require-ments as far as they could.
He asked Mr. Devir-of EPRI to comment.
1 Jack Devine, EPRI j
Mr. Devine stated that EPRI was linked in some fashion with all three of l
the standardization efforts.
(Westinghouse, GE, and CE). He noted that the degree of linkage was not the same in each case. The CE program and I
the G.E. program are linked more directly with the EPRI program through
)
l DOE sponsorship.
CE's intent is to comply as much as they can with the requirements document, to identify to EPRI any points of departure with the requirements document. The Westinghouse program is not conducted l
I 1
i
Minutes / Standardization of Nuclear 3
~ * '
' Facilities Subcommittee Mtg.
October 6, 1987
/
within the scope of the EPRI ALWR work and therefore there is less linking with the final Westinghouse product.
Mr. Reed pointed out his concern that standardization seems to relate to computer planning and not around systems and components and layouts and arrangements.
He noted as an example that CE.in their system, 80 did 4
not have.what we considered a proper pressure. control. relief system. He asked'if EPRI will spell out what features constitute a proper pressure cor. trol and relief system such as it shall have PORV's?
.4 Mr. Devine responded that it would.
Paul Leech, NPC Staff
~
Fr. Leech noted that the review of the three standardized plants and the EPRI Requirements Document will all conclude about'1991. There was some discussion of.the certification of the EPRI document. Mr. Leech noted that the EPPI document will not be certified. He noted the function of 4
the review was to give a high degree of assurance that the document would offer a basis for licensing.
l Dr. Siess asked if there were things that deviated from the Standard j
Review Plan where EPRI was proposing a change?
i l
Mr. Leech responded that the Standard Review Plan allows alternatives to be considered. He noted that the reviewers are permitted to consider j
reasonable alternative solutions.
4
Minutes / Standardization of Nuclear': A 4
['
Facilities Subcommittee Mtg.
)
October 6, 1987 Dr. Siess asked has the NRC considered applying the Seismic Ovalification of Equipment experience basis for new plants in lieu of test or analysis?
l l
Mr. Leech replied that some attention has been given to this basis but no definite conclusions have been reached.
l Mr. Wylie asked about the schedule for review of the individual chap-ters?
Mr. Leech remarked that the review of each chapter will take six to i
eight months.
Mr. Leech ncted that Chepter 5 of the EPRI Requirements Document is I
l expected by the NRC about the first of December.
4 Jack Devine, EPRI Mr. Devine pointed out that the EPRI requirements document will not be a design.
It will be a fourdation for a design for advanced light water reactors for the next decade. The overall intent of the program is to esteblish in very clear unquestionable terms what the utilities want in i
the next nuclear plant that they are going to buy and that extends beyond the licensing area.
It encompasses planning, perfonnance, reliability, and maintainability of the plant.
It is largely experience based. He noted the reliance on existing licensing requirements. The ultimate aim is a starting point for standardization. Mr. Devine also i
l
1 Minutes / Standardization of Nuclear 5 l
Facilities Subcommittee Mtg.
I Detober 6, 1987
- pointed out the ALWR must be economically competitive, it will need sure licensibility, it will have to have a predictable construction schedule, it will have to have predictable operating cost and availability.
I Mr. Devine noted that the Chapter 6 arrangements will be a key chapter.
l l
He remarked that ir many respects is is probably the one which will have_
j the greatest influence en plant cost targets and the construction abi.lity objectives.
Mr. Devine stated that Chapter 10 is the other major chapter effort underway right now.
Chapter 10 covers instruments-tion, and ran/ machine interface.
It establishes philosophy for plant control, degree of automation and remote versus local operation.
It is an area where significant advancements over present practices in tech-nology woulo be expected.
Mr. Devine noted that EPRI is proposing to have 13 chapters through the steering committee end in the hands of the NPC by the end of next year.
Mr. Devine outlines some of the methods used to determine how will the top tier methods of the requirements document can be met. One method is a probabilistic risk assessment technique which can assess plant safety for a conceptual design in a way that could contribute to making design decisions.
Chapters 1 to 5 have been evaluated in terms of the top tier safety requirements, plant cost, plant reliability and maintainability.
Mr. Michelson asked about the term design certification, he asked if that was when the design was about 40 percent complete? He asked i' the
Minutes / Standardization'of Nuclear 6 Facilities Subcommittee Mtg.
October 6, 1987
+
1 NSSS vendors would get their design certification when they have reached about 40 percent design completion?
Mr. Devine concurred. Mr. Devine noted that tha design certification was not intended to be of an exact. percentage but rather a level of information necessary for construction of the plant.
There was some subcommittee discussion regarding the amo.unt of informa-tion necessary for completeness of design for design certification. Mr.
Leech noted that the staff will have to give it more attention.
l Mr. Michelson pointed out that the lack of definition of information necessary for completeness of design for certificetior as a shortcoming of the staff SER.
Paul Leech, NRC Staff Mr. Leech noted that there was more information to come in future chapters of the requirements document. He noted that the reviewers of I
Chapter 1 had considerable difficulty reviewing Chapter 1 because of the variable level of detail in Chapter 1.
i Mr. Michelson inquired about a certified design that didn't meet the regulations. He asked if the regulations would take precedence?
Mr. Leech agreed.
e-
0 Minutes / Standardization of Nuclear 7 Facilities Subcommittee Mtg.
October 6, 1987 Mr. Leech discussed regulatory stabilization.
He noted that about 69 generic safety issues had been identified as of July 1986, that had to be dealt with in the EPRI Documents.
R. Engel, S. Levy Co.
(
Mr. Engel discussed the generic issue selection., He noted that prior I
to 1986 727 issues were selected. Each of the issues was examined to deternine if it was applicable to the program.and about half of the issues were eliminated because they were not design issues. The reminder of the issues were examined for NRC resolution. The issues of low or dropped priority were eliminated. 69 issues remained after the review.
Mr. Michelson asked how fire protection was prescribed for future plants?
Mr. Engel replied that fire protection would be discussed in future topics, especially Chapter 6 of the EPRI ALWR Requirements Document.
Paul Leech, NRC Staff Mr. Leech noted that staff attempts to review Chapter I of the require-ments document at the levels of detail that were presented.
He characterized the review as a review by exemption, owing to the need for further information. He remarked that Chapter 1 will probably have 1
1
M'inutes/ Standardization of Nuclear 8 L
Facilities Subcommittee Mtg.
L October 6, 1987 t-changes made toward the end of the process when further information is available.
i Mr. Michelson asked about the cut off date of July 1986 for generic issues. Mc noted that many significant issues had not been resolved.
Mr. Leech responded that the issues of July 1986 were just identified not necessarily resolved. Pc pointed out that important issues that arise after July 1986 will be considered by EPRI.
Mr. Leech discussed the general design requirements of Section 2 of the EPR! report.
He noted that these included public safety, plant pro-tertion, plant characteristics and performance, plant cost, and regu-latory stabilizatier Mr. Leech noted that he had concluded that the
. public safety requirements met the severe accident policy.
Mr. Michelson asked about the basis of 20 to 30 minutes without operator action during certain events, i
1 Mr. Devine responded that 20 to 30 minutes reflected the philosophy of the steerine committee.
He noted that the plant is intended to be a very forgiving plant and would respond slowly to transient event.
Mr. Reed pointed out that he was a bit concerned on the 24 month ca-i pability on refueling.
l l
l l
l 1
n Minutos/ Standardization of Nuclear 9
.*~
Facilities Subcommittee Mtga
(-
October 6, 1987 l
L1 Mr. Chopin responded that the consensus of nuclear steam suppliers and the utility steering committee was that a 24 month cycle was achievable.
Mr. Leech pointed out that the EPRI document proposes a 60 year plant life which is not authorized by the Atomic Energy Act.
He noted that a 60 year life is feasible.
l Mr. Devine. commented on the proposed 60 year life.
He noted that EPRI has ccnducted some extensive life extension evaluation for existing plants and have concluded that plant lives can be extended considerably.
The main consideration is the reactor vessel.
He noted that with good design of the reactor vessel, new techniques, improved materials and elimination of welds in the beltline region, there.is a strong corviction within EPRI that a 60-year reactor vessel life is achievable.
Concurrent with the improved reactor vessels is the need for steam generator replacement within availability limitation requirements.
Mr. Michelson asked about the statement in the requirements document 1
that the plant designer shall develop plant models for use during design I
and construction. He asked if it was a requirement that the designer build a scale model of the plant in the process of his design for certification?
Mr. Devine responded that they didn't link that requirement to certi-fication.
i l
l
_-____--_______-__-______._a
Minutes / Standardization of Nuclear 10 Facilities Subcommittee Mtg.
October 6, 1987 Mr. Chapin added that the requirements document is interpreted internally as requiring the use of a model, and the combination of the physical model and the computer model is left to the choice of the designer. He noted that the requirements document is silent on when the model is available with regard to certification.
Paul Leech, NRC Mr. Leech noted that EPRI plans include a top level PRA which would be used in the design phase for making a choice among somewhat different design options.
In response to a question, Mr. Devine responded that a top level PRA is one that used fault tree techniques but at a lesser level of detail than the ones which are used to examine total safety.
1 Mr. Michelson asked if there was somewhere, a severe accident criterion
{
1 or something to be used in cases that would be beyond the single failure f
i criterion for purposes of protecting the building?
j J
Mr. Engel replied the beyond design basis accident considerations are I
being developed now.
Mr. Leech asked if there were any questions regarding Section 4 of the SER.
l I
Minutes / Standardization of Nuclear 11 Facilities Subcommittee Mtg.
October 6, 1987 I
Fr. Fichelson asked about the limited broad scope rule regarding leak before break.
He commented on the interpretation of the rule that states that any events that affect the safety of containment and/or. ECCS must still be included in the design bases. Mr. Michelson noted that he understood that the containment must be protected against any rupture that would ellow the pipe to leak into the containment, but this talks about more than the containment.
l fir. Chapin noted that they had just received an interpretation of the rule and they weren't quite sure of the interpretation.
Paul Leech, NRC Staff-Mr. Leech discussed section S, on materials.
He noted the emphasis on using new materials that would reduce the problems with existing old naterial that are curren',1y used. He noted that the staff has recom-mended that the use of stainless steel should be based upon industry experience.
He also noted that the staff has recommended avoiding the use of inconel 600, because of the potential of crevice corrosion.
There was some discussion about a preferred material for tubing in steam generators. There wasn't any one material for all applications. The ultimate choice would depend upon the operating condition which would vary from PWR's and BWR's.
1 i
Mr. Leech talked about section 6 reliability and availability. He noted that the review didn't conflict with the NRC requirements.
He said it b
l ;.
Minutes / Standardization of Nuclear 12 l
Facilities Subcommittee.Mtg.
l October 6, 1987 i I was a recitation of utility requirements which ensure that plant re-l-
. liability and availability are considered in all the design activities..
It requires that plant designers do availability analyses on the various design options to allow selection of those options.that will provide the greatest reliability and availability.
The next topic was Section 7, constructibility. This generally concerns utility requirements.that don't call for regulatory review. Mr. Leech pointed out that they were concerned that quality assurance and quality control requirements need to be incorporated early.
Mr. Wylie noted that the standardization policy statement talks about standardization of construction.
He asked if any thought had been given to this?,
Mr. Devine replied that he wasn't sure what that meant.
He noted that he would be at the Standardization Workshop on October 20th and that topic would probably come up.
Mr. Leech next' discussed Section 8 on operability and maintainability.
He noted that the section does an excellent job of recognizing human factors considerations. He remarked about the emphasis on making it easier to get to components that have to be tested, serviced, and maintained. Working conditions such as ventilation and illumination are emphasized. One of the objectives stressed keeping radiation exposures of workers to very low levels. Mr. Leech stated that they didn't find any problems with this chapter.
l:
i.
Minutes / Standardization of Nuclear '13 facilities' Subcommittee Mtg.
October 6, 1987 Mr. Reed pointed out that he thought one problem in operability and maintenance.was poor selection, application and design of valves. He noted that many times valves are not tested under the proper environmental ccnditions.
.Mr. Devine concurred.
He noted that there was a lot of valve require-ments that would be compiled in a separate document which may become an Appendix to Chapter 1.
Mr. Wylie asked about standardization of components to improve mainte-nance.
Mr. Chapin replied that they would standardize across the plant as best they could.
Mr. Michelson asked if they were specifying manufacturers or just compo-nents?
Mr. Chapin responded that in general they have not tried to specify the manufacturer.
He noted as an example they have tried to use the same pump for different applications. This would help as far as spares, fewer technical manuels and fewer procedures for maintenance.
Mr. Michelson pointed out the potential for common mode failure. As an example, if all the pumps were lubricated the same way and it turned out to be the wrong way, then all of the pumps might fail in a somewhat similar time during an accident scenario.
Minutes / Standardization of Nuclear 14 Facilities Subcommittee Mtg.
October 6, 1987 Mr. Devine noted that there was a lot to be said for having common components in a plant when it comes to maintainability and plant availability and reliability, not withstanding the arguments about diversity.
Mr. Reed pointed out the advantage of standardization of components. He noted that maintenance workers would perform better if they worked on components produced by the same manufacturer. They would become famil-iar by repetitive maintenance on components produced by the same man-I ufacturer and the reliability of maintenance would increase.
Mr. Devine, EPRI Mr. Devine noted that EPRI is establishing requirements that would give them premium components across the board. The temptatiun to go to the lowest bidders would be avoided.
Requirements would be established so that only top cuality components and materials could be selected.
]
1 Paul Leech, NRC Staff i
1 Mr. Leech discussed Section 9 on quality assurance.
He noted this section identified the major elements of the overall 0A program, spec-ifies the requirements for supporting 0A programs, requires compliance with all regulatory QA criteria, and specifies the special attention being given to certain lessons learned in operating plants such as design control errors and lack of appropriate record.
Minutes / Standardization of Nuclear' 15 Facilities. Subcommittee Mtg.
-j October 6, 1987 Dr. Siess asked if the NRC staff has established the relationship between the quality problems and the quality assurance programs on the basis of experience?
i Mr. Leech replied that they had not.
Dr. Siess noted that we have this great QA program that takes several pares in the rules and regulations just to outline, but that the quality we are getting out there doesn't.seem to be what we want.
j l
Mr. Chopin observed that they have assigned the designer the specific responsibility of making a specific review at the time that the plant design is developed, to go and look at what problems have been found, j
and to make sure that the programs that are in place really do address the problem problems.
Mr. Michelson asked to what extent, if any, does EPRI work under a quality assurance program?
l Mr. Devine replied that the position they have taken is that their work l
is contextual in nature and does not supersede or in any way abrogate the responsibility of the architect engineer to conduct a complete l
design with full documented support calculations and quality assurance
)
program. He noted in that sense they do not have a QA program. He noted they have a QA program in the sense that there is extensive review.
l l
i W_ _ - _
Minutes / Standardization'of Nuclear 16 l
Facilities Subconcittee Mtg.
October 6, 1987 I
Paul Leech, NRC Staff Mr. Leech discussed Section 10, Licensing. He noted that the ALWR requirements documer,t is not a licensing document for a specific ALWR plant.
It is a set of requirements that the utility industry has cererated to present specific requirements for the plant designer.
It is intended to be used with other specifications.
Mr._Devine noted that the general thrust would suggest that the NSSS vendor.s would take the requirements document and develop it into a certifiable desigr.
Mr. Leech pointed out that NRC approval of the requirements document will provide the utilities with substantial assurance that what they want to buy will be licenseable. Mr. Leeds pointed out that what EPRI has stated in the requirements document is that the ALWR design shall I
)
comply with NRC regulatory requirements. He also noted that the
]
requirements that must be complied with will be listed in Appendix B of the requirements document.
Mr. Leech discussed the conclusion of the Staff SER on Chapter 1.
He noted that the staff is in general agreement with the objectives and overall requirements of Chapter 1.
He noted that Appendix B in the requirements document needs substantial revision. He noted that they expected to make a favorable determination in the final SER.
l l
. Minutes / Standardization of Nuclear 17 Facilities Subcommittee Mtg.
October ~6, 1987 The meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
NOTE:
A transcript of the meeting is available in the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, D.C. or can be purchased.from Heritage Reporting Corporation,1220 L Street, NW.. Washington, D.C. 20005, Telephone: (202) 628-4888. All documents listed in Attachment D are available in the ACRS files.
l l
l
W / w m x sm y_
,n,
~
v=
=..)
,e I a
...%5337 Fed:ral Registar / Vol. 52, No.181 [ Friday, Se'pt2mber'18,1987 /Watless
~
Si ned at Wtshington. DC, this Hth day of L 92-463), cs Cmendid, notice la hereld Humanities het sificesdis asp 9nds'd.,"
8 l
September 1987.
given that a meeting of the Literature '
including discussion ofJnformation "" '
Advisory Panel (Creative Writing givenin confidenclhojhe Agency by 'he Men U Moss.
grant applicants. In ' ccordance with t W Mor, Diiision of Ware Determiootions.
Fellowships--Prose Section) to the a
determination ~tff the Chairman 'if
{FR Doc. 87-21502 bled S-947; M em)
National Council on the Arts will be publishedin theFaderalRegisterFebrua held on October 64.1987 from 9:00.
..]
cu ma coorasis. ara e
a.m.-5:30 p.m. and on October 10,1957 from 900-2 00 p.m. In room 714 of the closed to the public pursuant 1o
.\\
NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE Nancy Hanks Center,1100 Pennsylvania subsections (c) (4), (Bl and (9)(B) cli ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20506.
section 552b of Title 5. United States 'I A portion of this meeting wi!! be open Code.
Design Arts Advisory Penet to the to the public on October 10,1987 from Further information with reference to.
1 NatisnalCouncilon the Arts; 1290 noon-2:00 p.m. The topics for this meeting can be obtained from Ms.
l Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the discussion willinclude guidelines and Yvonne M. Sabine, Advisory Committee l
Management Officar. National
!{
Federal Advisory Committee Act(Pub.
policy issues.
The remaining sessions of this Endowment for the Arts. Washington, L G2-403), as amended. notice is hereby meeting on October 8-9,1987 from 990 DC 20506, or call (202) 882-5433.
ghen that a meeting of the Design Arts a.m.-5.50 p.m. and on October 10,1987 Yvonne M. Sebine.
Adviscry Panel (Challenge 111/
from 9.00 a.m.-12:00 noon are for the ActingDiscror Councilandranel Advancement Section) to the National Council on the Arts will be held on purpose of application review. In Opemtions. Notiono1E adowmentfor the Arts.
October 5-6,1987 from 9:00 a.m.-5:30
.accordance with the determination of seper H. sos 7.
the Chairman published in the Federal p.m. in room M-14 of the Nancy Hanks Register of February 13,1980, these (FR Doc. e7-21ae3 Filed e-17-47; 445 em]
Center.1100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
sessions will be closed to the public sumo coot wee i
Washington. DC 20506.
pursuant to subsections (c)(4) (6) and j
e i
A portion of this meeting will be open (9)(B) of section 552b of Title 5. United to the public on October 6.1987 from NUCLEAR REGULATORY States Code.
4:30 p.m.-5:30 p.m.The topics for if you need special accommodations, C_,OMMISSION discussion will include guidelines and due to a disability.please contact the F Advisory Committee on Reactor pobey issues!ing sessions of this Office for Special Constituencies.
Safeguards Sul committee on
(
The remair National Endowment for the Arts.1100 Standardization of Nuclear Facinties!
m:eting on October 5,1987 from 9:00 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington a.m.-5:30 p.m. and on October 6,1987 DC 20506. 202/682-5532, TTY 202/682-Meeting I
from 9.00 a.m.-4.30 p.m. are for the M96 at least seven (7) days prior to the The ACRS Subcommittee on purpose of application review. in accordance with the determination of meeting.
Standardization of Nuclear Facilities Further information with reference to this w 11 hold a meeting on October e,1987, the Chairman published in the Federal Rigister of February 13.1980, these meeting can be obtained from Ms.
Room 1046,1717 H Street NW.,
sessions will be closed to the public Yvonne M. Sabine, Advisory Committee Washington, DC.
pursuant to subsection (c)(4). (6) and Management Officer. National The entire meeting willbe open to Endowment for the Arts, Washington, public attendance.
(9)(B) of section 552b of Title 5. United DC 20506, or call 202/682-5433.
%e agends for subject meeting shall Steles Code.
If you need special accommodations Yvonne M. Sabine, be as follows: "
- due to a disabihty, please contact the Acting Director. CouncilandPonel yyy
- gggoggy A 1967-8:30 A.hi. smtil Oflice for Special Constituencies.
Operations. NotionoIEndosment for the Arts.
National Endowment for the Arts.1100 September H. le87.
. Staff SER and Chapter I of the EPRI The Subcommittee will review the Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington
[nt Doc. a7-21es2 nled e-17-s?; a 45 am)
DC 20506,202/682-5532. TTY 202/682-Requirements document.
5496 at least seven (7) days prior to the Oral statements may be presented by meeting.
members of the ublic with the Further information with reference to Male Ad% PMo N National concurrence of t e Subcommittee this meeting can be obtained from Ms.
Council on the Arta;. Meeting Chairman; written statements will be Yvonne M. Sabine, Advisory Committee Managerr.ent Officer. National Pursuant to section 10(s)(2) of the accepted and made available to the Endowment for the Arts. Washington.
Federal Advisory Committee Act(Pub.
Committee. Recordings will be permitted DC 20506, or call 202/682-5433 L 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby only during those portions of the given that a meeting of the Music meeting when a transcript is being kept, Yvonne R Sabine Advisory Panel (Opera-Musical Theater and questions may be asked only by 4
Acting Director, CouncilondFbnel Challenge III Section) to the National members of the Subcommittee,its Opemtions. Notiono/Endowmentfor the A rts.
Council on the Arts will be held on consultants, and Staff. Persons desiring I
October 7,1987, from 900 a.m.-5:30 p.m.
to make oral statements sl>ould notify -
(FR Doc. 87-21e81 Filed S.17-47: 8 45 err)
- in room 730 of the Nancy Hanks Center, the ACRS etaff member named below as 1100 Pennsylvents Avenue, NW.,
farin advance as is practicable ao that aumo ooot ***
Washington, DC 20506.
appropriate arrangements can be made.
This meeting is for the purpose of ' '
During theinitialportioriof the' I
Uterature Advisory fanelto the Panel review, discussion, evaluetion, meeting, the Subcommittee, along with N tionalCouncilonthe Arta; Meeting and recommendation on applications for any of its consultants who may be, ' '
Pursuant to section10(a)(2) of the financial assistance under the National present, maiy exchange ' reliminary p
Fzderal Advisory Committee Act(Pub.
Foundation on the Arts and the views regarding matters to be j
i J
l o
l
-~
J5338 Fsdstr.1 R:gister / Vol. 52, No.181/ Friday September 18,1987 / N tic:8 considered during the balance of the licensee. In the final version of this September 18 for clearance into the meeting report.
building.
.3 Subcommittee will then hear A free single copy'of draft NUREG-Bemes C. Miller.' tII.
presentations by and hold discussions 1185. to the extent of supply, may be Director. Office of Afonopement ondBuber.
with representatives of the NRC Staff, obtained by writing to the Distribution (FR Doc. 87-21775 Fued S-17-a7: mas and its consultants, and other interested Section. Document Control Branch.
- i
,ue,o coas,,,
s I
persons regarding this review.
Division of Information Support Service.
Further information regarding topics U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to be discussed. whether the meeting Washington. DC 20555. A copy is also SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE has been cancelled or rescheduled, the available for inspection and/or copying COMMISSION Chairman's ruling on requests for the for a fee in the NRC Public Document
. (Flie No.270 8) opportunity to present oral statements Room.1717 H Street NW., Washington, and the time allotted therefor can be DC 20555.
obtained by a prepaid telephone call to Forms Under Review By Office of the cognizant ACRS staff members.Mr.
Dated at Bethesda. Maryland, this leth day Management and Budget Extension of Elpidio Igne or Mr. Herman Alderman
- I ^"85'e' r R@o@dsin.
Rule 17f-2(d)
For (telephone 202/634-1413) between 8:15 Cecil O. nomas, Agency Clearance Officer: Kenneth A.
A.M. and 5:00 P.M. Persons planning to attend this rneering are urged to contact Director lateg roted Sofety Assessment Foga sh (202) 272-2142.
the above named indi$idual one or two Project Directorate. Division of PWR Upon Written Request Copy Available days before the scheduled meeting to be ucensins-BEice o/Nuc/wrReactor from: Securities and Exchange ReBulation-Commission. Office of Consumer advised of any changes in schedule, etc.,
which may have occurred.
(FR Doc. 87-21610 Filed S-17-8t 8 45 em)
Affairs. 450 Fifth Street NW.,
sumo coos tsma,.as Washington. DC 20549.
Da te: September 14.1967.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant Morton W. Libarkin.
to the Paperwork Reduction Act of1980 Assistant En ecutive Directorfor Project (44 U.S C 3501 et seq.). the Securities (FR Doc. 87-21613 F'iled 9 57-87. 8 45 amj PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON and Exchange Commission has submitted for extension of OMB PRIVATDTION l
sumso caos tsmei-as approval Rule 17f-2(d) (17 CFR 240.17f-2(d)) under the Securities Exchange Act "I
of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78 et seg ), which
[ Docket No. 50-213) suMMAny: Pursuant to section 10(a) of generally requires covered entities or Availability of the Draft Integrated the Federal Advisory Committee Act their designated examining authorities Safety Assessment Report; (Pub.1 92-.463), as amended, notice is to keep fingerprint cards (or microfilm Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co.
hereby given that a meeting of the copies) together with criminal histories Haddam Neck Plant President's Commission on Privatization (if any) returned by the FBI to the will be held
- entities. A total of 9.500 respondents The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's produce an annual total of 8.024 burden (NRC) Office of Nuclear Reactor o ATT; September 18,1987. from 11:00 hours in complying with Rule 17f-2(d).
Regulation has published its Draft a.m.-1:00 p.m.
Submit comments to OMB Desk Integrated Safety Assessment Report ADDRESS: Room 476 of the Old Officer: Mr. Robert Neal. (202) 395-7340.
(ISAR)(NUREG-1185) related to the Executive Office Building.17th and Office of Information and Regulatory Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Pennsylvania Avenue.NW.,
Affairs. Office of Management and Company's (licensee) Haddam Neck Wa shington. DC 20503.
Budget. Room 3228 NEOB. Wa shington.
- j Plant. located in Middlesex County, DC 20503.
FoR rwT Em mFonMAT: N coNTAm The te ated Safety Assessment Wiley Horsely. Commission Staff Imthso GJats.
Program (ISAP) was initiated by the Manager, temporary at the Department SeCrefory-of the Interior.18th and C Streets. NW..
september 15.1987 NRC to conduct integrated assessments for operating teaetors to establish Washington. DC 20240. 202/343-3347.
(FR Doc. 87-21574 Filed 9-17-8B 8 45 am) integrated implementation schedules.
SUPPt.EMENT ARY INFORM ATioN:The sun.o caos sowei-as This report documents the review of the purpose of this meeting is for the Haddam Neck Plant, which is one of two Commission members to be briefed by plants being reviewed under the pilot the Chairman and Administration
[ Release No. 34-24918; Fue No. SR-NYSE-87 201 program for ISAP. This report indicates officials on the purpose and charter of how 82 topics selected for review were the Commission and the scope ofits Self. Regulatory Organizations; Order addressed and presents the staff's required activities. The briefing will Granting Partial Accelerated Approval recommendations regarding the include a summary and overview of the to Proposed Rule Change by the New corrective actions to resolve the B2 general opportunities and obrtacles York Stock Exchange Relating to-topics and other actions to enhance confronting the Federal government in Amendments to Rule 124 To Modify plant safety.*Ge report is being issued extending the scope of privatization.
Pricing Procedures for Standard Odd-in draft form to obtain comments from The meeting will be open to the public t.ot Market Orders the licensee. nuclear safety experts, and up to the seating capacity of the room the Advisory Committee for Reactor (approximately 40 persons including The New York Stock Exchange Inc.
Safeguards. Once those comments have committee members). Places will be
("NYSE") submitted, on july 13.1987 been resolved, the staff will present its allocated on a first call, first served copies of a proposed rule change positions, along with a long.tcrm basis. All persons who wish to attend pursuant to section 19(b) of the implementation schedule from the the meeting must call 395-6116 by Securities Exchange Act of1934 m
W------_--_____-_-____-_-__
A PENDIX B jf.p7[2%B V
I i
TENTATIVE SCHEDULE ACRS STANDARDIZATION OF NUCLEAE. FACILITIES SUBCOMM ROOM 1046, 1717 H ST. NW, WASHINGTON, D.C.
M G, e f F-7 Introductory Remarks - Subcommittee Chairman 8:30 a.m.
C. Wylie NRC Staff 8:45 a.m.
I.
Introduction The ALWR Program 1.1 1.2 The ALWR Utility Requirements Document 1.3 The Staff Review 9:15 a.m.
II.
General Design Requirements
- BREAK 10:00 a.m.
10:35 a.m.
III.
Design Basis Events 11:00 a.m.
IV.
Structural Design Basis 11:45 a.m.
V.
Materials
- LUNCH 12:15-1:15 p.m.
Reliability and Availability 1:15 p.m.
VI.
2:00 p.m.
VII.
Constructability 2:45 p.m.
VIII.
Operability and Maintainability IX.
Quality Assurance 3:15 p.m.
- BREAK 3:45 p.m.
X.
Licensing 4:00 p.m.
Conclusions (NRCStaff) 4:30 p.m.
Subcommittee Discussion 4:45 p.m.
5:00 p.m.
Adfourn c
H. ALDERMAN
.s6 COMMITTEE MEETING ON STANDARDIZATION OF N1! CLEAR FACILITIES APPENDIX C
.vCAT,10:1: Room 1046,1717 H St. NW., Washington, D.C.
t October 6,1987
, DATE:
ATTENDANCE LIST PLEASE PRINT:
NAME BADGE NO.
AFFILIATION
- f ':( si l-.
- /..
o u A ' t. ~-
b :" -t =
f(fS Orf).
l
\\',
cma weatsso rr o qN L
- 5. L rrvy & c_
l?o u huo Cu4 ct.-
,kI}bYIL'C k r /*it %
-157m. hct2 hSba%I4 lLS~7 0 M CisAAP E - o96 I A1PR l
l
!' r FL Y.vr/
.2-6c)7
(,,,p p g,,,,
g,y (,,9 g,
i E f} kbec<ms l~~-012V h he
/% wer Co.
ff A Nk f/A/A LOI (3 -//2
/JAC-
- 3. c. usa c t s e-o n r u 9R l 15an13r/P hrffCf 2-6%l l1^ (mj2 0 b 0%NeMr L-6ibb Cli T
4L tA n - vi,"
i unne, Us I g-on r GB
\\
sons G r'et
% tY5c,o/5
' o ts 7 M f' R.
v I
~
l APPENDIX D l
1 HANDOUTS - STANDARDIZATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING OCTOBER 6,1987 1.
NRC Staff Presentation 2.
EPRI Presentation
{
- -_