ML20236T621
| ML20236T621 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/08/1987 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-2523, NUDOCS 8712010403 | |
| Download: ML20236T621 (3) | |
Text
_
CERTIFIED COPY-DATE ISSUED: Oct. 8.1987' lS E fhhb8$
'i[ Wh, d [h
' I ' d.
'g
SUMMARY
/ MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 9. 1987 MEETING
//
h",
i 7 J
l 0F THE ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON N//
hgy 1
t UUU"
""h FUTURE LWR DESIGNS WASHINGTON, DC A meeting was held by the ACRS Subcommittee on Future LWR Designs on Septem-ber 9, 1987.
The purpose of the meeting was to develop a proposed ACRS reply to the April 22, 1987 Staff Requirements Memorandum regarding the feasibil-ity, benefit, and cost effectiveness of selected and combined systems as recommended in the ACRS letter of January 15, 1987 en ACRS Recommendations on l
Improved Safety for Future Light Water Reactor Plant Design.
It was request-ed that such a review include plant reliability, challenges, complexity, and burden on plant and maintenance personnel.
Notices of this meeting were published in the Federal Register on Friday, August 14, 1987 and Monday, August 24, 1987. Mr. O. B. Falls, Jr. of the NucleDyne Engineering Corpo-ration requested time for an oral statement concerning the Passive Contain-ment System, however, it was felt such coments were not pertinent to the dey's agenda. The meeting was entirely open to the public. The meeting l
' began at 1:00 p.m. and ended at 5:00 p.m.
Richard Major was the cognizant ACRS Staff Engineering for this meeting.
8712010403 870909 1
Attendees:
ACRS OTHERS C. Wylie, Chairman C. Lewe, NUS G. Reed, Member P. Trayers, Westinghouse C. Siess, Member L. Neal, General Electric C. Michelson, Member J. Berge, Electric Power Research Inst.
J. Ebersole, Member
- f. Rowsome, IEA R. Major, ACRS Staff This meeting consisted of a round-table discussion among the Subcommittee members focussed on drafting a reply to the April 22, 1987 Staff Requirements Memorandum. There were no presentations made to the Subcommittee.
The Subcommittee considered five possible options in replying to the Chair-man's request that the ACRS " address the feasibility, benefit, and cost effectiveness of selected and combined systems recommended in the Kerr to P f' U as DESIGNATED ORIGINAL s
c.mm.o, i
a
et c
MINUTES OF THE MEETING ON September 9,'1987 FUTURE LWR DESIGNS Chairman Zech letter dated January 15, 1987. The review should include plant-reliability, challenges, complexity, and burden on plant and maintenance personnel." The options considered were:
1
'f 1)
Let the Chairman know that the ACRS doesn't think it has the resources to carry out such a study; l
1 1
2)
Ask for a given amount of money or man years and offer to supervise'a
~
contract at, for example, a national laboratory; j
3)
Ask that the NRC Staff carry the majority of this review and the ACRS l
will serve as consultants in this effort;
]
4)
Allow the NRC Staff to manage the research program, but with greater i
ACRS influence, i.e., ACRS set the ground rules and interface with the Staff closely along the way; 5)
Pick only one of the items discussed in ACRS's January 15, 1987 letter on which to focus, e.g., decay heat removal. The ACRS could then try to i
produce an in-house effort to study the recommendation or use one of'the mechanisms listed above to research the item. Variations of the rec-1 omendation could be explored, as well as, trade-offs with other rec-commendations.
These options in different combinations and variations were considered by the-i Subcommittee.
It was also noted that the Staff requirements memorandum requested the ACRS to pursue its review of the experience and design features of some of the European plants.
The Subcommittee decided to prnpose the following thoughts to the full Committee:
l MINUTES OF THE MEETING ON
.3-September 9,.1987 FUTURE LWR DESIGNS I
i 1)
The ACRS does not have the resources or capabilities to produce a study along the lines suggested by the Chairman. Such a study could be more readily handled by the NRC Staff or a contractor.
2)
The ACRS has been looking at foreign developments in reactor design.
i The Committee will continue to monitor and report.on developments overseas as appropriate.
3)
Both General Electric and Westinghouse claim their advanced reactor plant designs take into account features suggested in the Connittee's January 15, 1987 letter. The Canmittee will be looking at these designs in the course of the regulatory review and will pay special attention to those items included in the January 15, 1987 letter.
I Note:
This topic was considered further during the 329th ACRS meeting, September 10-12, 1987. A letter was prepared to be sent to the Chairman, NRC, which includes the points enumerated above.
It also offers to meet with the Commission to discuss this matter further.
NOTE:
Additional meeting details can be obtained from a transcript of this meeting available in the NRC Public Document Room 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC, or can be purchased from Heritage Reporting Corporation, 1220 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005,(202) 628-4888
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _