ML20237L033
| ML20237L033 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/09/1987 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| TASK-A-44, TASK-OR ACRS-2501, NUDOCS 8708270390 | |
| Download: ML20237L033 (47) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:Y^ .g. _ _ hb Akbl s
.QP yfPy:=W l TABL'E OF CONTENTS i MINUTES OF THE 325TH ACRS MEETING I MAY 7-9, 1987 M gN /i WASHINGTON, D.C.
Page I. Chairman's Report (0 pen)......-................................ 1
]
4 II. Implementation of NRC Quantitative Safety Goals Policy (0 pen). 1 III. NRC Severe Accident Research Program (0 pen) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 I 1 IV. Radwaste Management and Disposal (0 pen)....................... 5 i 6 V. AdvancedReactors(0 pen)...................................... 5 VI. . Safety Features in Foreign Power Plants (0 pen). . ... .... ... . . .. 8 1 I VII. Emergency Planning for the Seabrook Nuclear Station (0 pen).... 8 ) VIII. Improved Safety for Future LWRs (0 pen)........................ 11 l l IX. NuclearPowerPlantSafetyintheUSSR(Closed)............... 11 X. StationBlackout(0 pen)....................................... 12 i XI. Executive Sessions (0 pen / Closed).............................. 18 A. Reports , Letters and Memoranda (0 pen) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
- 1. Implementation Plan for the NRC Quantitative Safety Go al Pol i cy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
- 2. Proposed Research to Reduce Source Term Uncertainty... 18
- 3. High-Level Radioactive Waste Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
[ B. SubcommitteeReports(0 pen)............................... 18
- 1. Occupational and Environmental Protection Systems..... 18
- 2. Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena........................... 19
- 3. Planning Subcommittee................................. 20 t C. Other Comittee Conclusions (0 pen / Closed) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 l
- 1. Proposed New Rule on ECCS (0 pen)...................... 22
- 2. ProposedPolicyStatementonDeferredPlants(0 pen)... 22
- 3. NewMembers(Closed)...........-....................... 22 DESIGNATED ORIGINAL B708270390 870M6 PDR ACRS 2501 PDR Certified By -
, 4 4 6 A
325TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 11
- 4. Integrated Safety Assessment Program for Millstone 1 and Haddam Neck (0 pen)................................ 22 D. Future Activities (0 pen).................................. 23
- 1. Future Agenda.......................................... 23
- 2. Future Subcommittee Activities......................... 23 l
l u
l'ib o .:e c -:
* ,{
iii
, %i "
APPENDICES. .
. MINUTES OF 325TH ACRS MEETING 4, t
'- ,1 MAY 7-9, 1987, WASHINGTON, D.C. T, ,
. ,q .
.s .r L . Appendix I List of Attendees Appendix II Future Agenda i Appendix III Future Subcommittee Activities b
Appendix IV.' Other Documents Received! l o
"I b ( 1 O i 2 i o.
l
.\,
, i 1
I
.i 1
4 i o
-( '
S 325th ACRS May 7-9. 'l98 Faderal Redmier f FeL 52. 00s. 81 ( hendef,'Apet E Wy _ 1- .,_ , til p.m. --Adpouan. dedimed I. Seassim, to contact all requestors to asunra nuit appearances. BefA M. M M ' Aamry Commk8se.1 ...:OffYcer,
- 6. " ' ' *a '1
#adEsur 9 s h e E Z ^ ^ ~ T" regarding status of M _ '"y Post PUETHeR WesesIRA190sl OesrFRET: -
/usesmo f Aer==== andspece Vivian J. Artaubery, Eneou6ee Director, Adminsmensiaa.
eussymmergesamlagat ts a y Aprt it.1ser. U.S. National ComN====i en Lessustus Rinalmaritsensaw .". k.s **A ' and 1af"~' Science.4302pSMeda 121stAX -EndtP:AL'augneuW - IFR Doc. s7-96tf p5sd 4-U-#;te6 am] Deted: Apd 30.1ser. . SofetygerAdsre446t GFRAarM ? suAsse cons ismes.e Approved: Kenneth Y.Toadinson. t; j; N
- Chairman. 4LS. Wsammed Cassumadas em ArwerP/satIAaniya (Opse)Discues pospesed "W tn -,= and Animamamos Satunes. .;, ACBS sanommandancas Qs des asymet c. 'j ftA'r10stAL ConstflSSIOtt DN paned wrwm. y dated Janeary 24,1sAr. AM 5 . . _v U$RARIES ANDINFOPalATION S4e/TAasesinnt. Reonamesdationsan a sarMSafat t SOEleCE Apre so.1ssf. for Future 3@t Water]taanterpupus q gl leases Meteted to MM;..ii Access ""*" #'d
, asp 3dAEES to senantve eut Not cessmened taformseon;Pieme Hearing h*Actrutans@ss@N af p==anin AM25 . . .-ie .,.."
^ i su madttee mentagg as May 3,2317 Aemsev:U.S Netional Caramsesias em LEAR AEGULAFORY 14 banes ersHafomstian Science. regar@agsysimmsintarasnan
, opgesteedO88 isnpilcations of Ibe hadwater Bos Isasia . '
Atmost Notoce of public heartas. at the Surry Wudear Sta5an.
~ '.
AsMoory Commatesan Asenter
#4msmaasry: & pealic debete over Sedepuertes; temeting Agenda 2SPM-,pFM.rNedmarheper Plad WWy11:the I/ SIR P
- i mm on sectiaat ash ofthe -
t of monet vlaft i I.ifsanes and Idarmahan Science Iksergy Act (42 U.S.C. 2839. 2232b). the discuss nudearpowerJiast be&wes should be aired la a ubik Advisory Committee on Reactor This aesalon wE be dosed as I forum 2he Connu. salon's he ng will Safegeerds wrH ined a sm't6g on May %halM WM- , vde 4 k for tb idennlicstion 7-0.1987, iri Room itM8. TPI7 H Street. M PM -d15PRJ Saintr Aindsesse d Ah-$9f the faajorlasses and NW. Wasinngton.DC.Monce of this /nNuclearfismerpfaedr Chan/ r enm'ribute to the dewel meat of meeting was putdished in the Fedessi Closed}-Discuss salsty bares 10 Cmanission recanum Register on March 17,1967. Vol. 32. FR- foreign nudear pmsar plaats and ofber
. .thna. ' Ibis . 8390. safetylmprovements.
satice announces and invites perhp-ha in a alngle public bearing Niscloy. Adsy#, East % g g, g, ,g 3, y as necessary Jo discuasinftw==Han g
*wManentsand u AM 485 AMr Report ofACMS Provided in confidence by a famaan Chernmen(Opent--De ACRS Oiatraran source.
y tion [al"gg*'$tld on WEl f* Port brie 87 4L., items of A15PM--eJJPR. Actirillas# e:y contribute to elucidating the issmen. cuent to the Comnike. ACASSubcoatmher Mc@
& r'a d u ba's W ags are estAM--mesAM:Quarrriacerrre Hear and disassa reports of ACRS !
authansed under Puh'I. 91-445' Sa/Wy Goods (Open% pmped -- 2 agar &as status af paWmanose & hearig will be NRC plan for knplementation. s"M*tlyities assigned ac includa@ry Giannel-n.s AM-tm FMr Recfrooett,e lydraulicphonemana and me band May 2a.1987 in the Wut isawg wa,,,y,7,g; "andDieposof qua!!ficagons of martAa'= Ior l Room. James Ma& son Momanal Beinding. Ubrary of Congrees. (Open}-Diecues m J tetC plan for appointment is the r u n-obtaMing outside tecIsnical advice br Portions of this session wm he closed Washington. DC. u a.m-M pm NRC regulation d W. *.. . .,2 si,gtve Amyone desiring to testtfy shoidd se necessary to discuss information the w este, l subunit a wnuen mineet. which abould release of wtdd wouldialpensent4 ^
- l be received no later them April 30, teer. i:30PM-acePMr Msture ACitS clearly unwarranted inematon of .
l P.fteen copies of the wtitten statements Activities (Open)-Discuss anticipated personalprimac;y. must be seceived la the NCLIS omce by ACRS actiettee end kems proposed for fur Cesamletee ceasederetion. I* 4:00 p.m. en Mey 13,10s1 Supplemental ormply sta6 ==n8= wiB gm PM40p P.M:Smtjon apeakoget m AM-stsoPM: Preparation of beooaw part of the acord if received bF (og .ma proposed NRC rule io ACRSReports topen/Clased}- .The 4:00 p.m. oca jane M iss7. Fifteen copies CFR30.88. Loved All Alternating members wH1 escuss pp4 ACES cf such statements aL=L8 he subaitted, Curnet Power. Mports to the NRC +La items erg p,M.-epy PMr se, ore Acegent considered during this saastant.in AmoemmWrissen sequests to present Research Mayrani(Open}-.Olocuss addition, proposed reports ante 194s. testisiony sad fFtma copies of all supert d MRC r.rperte Penel regarang assectated wHh n A2. ====g====* st:tements sheide be sahadtted to: LIS. their assessment of the NRC saver, arddisposal and the Sarry feeaiser National Camr-h==== en ubrunes and accident vesearctiprogram and Plant feedweeerRae taeme est be ** Information Edenne. General Sersions resolution d ancer9 mint 6es in severe considered. "" Adminimeration Budding. Saite F122.?th eachlemt e'aaluaties. end D Strusta. SW.Washlagten. DC Ps16ans d tes seesten edt!be doesd 20036. as necessary to diseaseirdonnstion Mi8I'Fa MRYA J88I proi4dedla casessaan1by a foruten AN nogemsts to essm% should zduarly uAK- seerAMrQuentaseme source. "u # * ^ ' " "- - identify the tod6,khsal er peup demisens safetyGoals(CM Na.sproposed ti tunedy.h NQJ5asse erid steampt 2PM--est P.M Acts - - NRC ytes $mr imp 1=====* SubcomarHee AcivWheef0 pen)--- - I
t 1 ( q e e . 1 sed redes t mesiseur / vet sa,19 s / isenday. Aprit as, segr / wei6s.
. - n: .l j
Dates Aped as,1er, smau poww eyeduces how been bedt Discusa report of ACRS Subcomedttes , ' and am proviensinaussed rebebaty i regarding enntml room palatability in pate c.nayes, l y ogueryr w ann,w w to perdcipaung systanna.Transedesion nuclear pcww plaats. . . .. and transmission servlees are no leeger 2 30 PX-4cp P.M. Miscellaneesse (FR Dec.W.ess Faso tr-an mas cal . compl etely controued by thelarger (Open/ Closed)-Complete disensman d enamn esas me.a.e investor owned power systemsin the
- items considered during this meeting. -
"*
- and mese , ,
Portions will be closed as no'ad looshot sea. AD 413Al organizationally diverseed per.% ~ above, syskms han bwn smnted ecom se tJePF.M-4spp.M.: Anscellensene geoese av,tse gay en w E e spuut transadselon facdities, rambling tbme (Open)--Complete discession of items Changes and Term % fWng W systems to provide their custoasen ese considered durks eis mudag/ for m cost efficient service through the availabuity of cumerous power supply Pmcedurn fw ee conduct d and %s Director of the OfBos of Nuclear options. Partial requirements wholesals
^ Reactor K.egulation has made a Rnding hi hed F is aonardance wie ucdon10sc(2) d ee Power senimis now avadaW to many 1 October ao, toes ($1 FR 37241)*In Atomic Act of te64, as amended, of the smaller systems in the CCCL- '
Prior to the Beaver Valley CP review, acco&ce wie b W wal or wntlen statements may be presented that no t (antitrust) changes la - these systems were limited to takke all b um' achvities or proposec , t\ d bk Powe mquirements from C , < by members of the public recordings udvida han W w%d te (Primarily) CApCO members or asos d y wul be penniued only during ewe b construction rmit review of Unit 2 aH. 'lbs typ"e of control severely ha.s ' 4 portions of the meeting when a of the Beaver Va y Fower Station by any type of shopping" by purchaser. transcript la being kept. and questions the AttorneyGeneralandthe wholesake for reule power and eners, may be asked only by :nembers of the Commission.De finding is as follows: and eliminated any possible savings Committee- its consultants, and Staf. "Sectics W6ci2)of the Atomic Enegy from potentially lower coat power Perses datring 2 make wal Act of 1964, as amanded. provides for an statements should notify the ACRS andtrust revkw of u appucadon fw an sourew. Through no new suclear l Executive Director as far in advance as operating Ucense if the Commission have been added to anyCAPCO of tbaat ownei practicable so that appropriate determines that significant changes in I b Ucesee's activities or proposed plants since the Beaver Valley CP ' I arrangements can be made to allow the review ears have been a few changes . necessary time during the meeting fw activities have occurred subsequent to in shan allocations among existing a' f such statementa. Use of still, motion the previoua construction permit review. ownere--larsdy to accommodate picture and television cameras during %e Commission has deleasted the \ variadons:n power supply needs ed 'V this meeting may be heched to selected sube k makW *significant each of the CAPCO systems.%e portions of the meeting as determined change' determination to b Director, nuances of the business cycle play *J by the Chairman. Informadan regarding Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. havoc with estimates of utility company the time to be set aside for this purpose Based upon an r= amination of the load growth ir the past decade.%e ma be obtained by a prepaid telephone events since the Issaance of the Beaver CAPCO comparJes have not escaped " ca. to se ACRS Execudu Dimctw' ew Valley construct' ion permit to Duquesne R.F. Fraley. pdor a the meeting. In vi tis prom 4m. cancelling four nuclur Light Cornpany, et aL the staffs of the unite and postponing completion. dawe of the pusibuty that the schedule fo' Planning and Resource Analysis Branch, of others under construction. In addithoo ACRS meetings may be adfusted by tbs Of5cm of Nualear Reactor Regulation and the Office of the General Counsel, to be completion of a large coal-Ered Chairman at neansary to facilitate th' generating plant by the CAFCO . conduct of the awting, d check with the hereafter referred to as ' staff' have and the decommissiontne of companies planning to attend ab jointly concluded, after consultation a sinal! nuc%ar plant supp)p;eg one of
, ACRS Executive Director if such . with the Department of Justion. that b the CAKO syetans, stati ected several
'"cheduhng wuu result in major - changes that have occurred since the other urg. slated changes awociated with inconnalece.
construction permit review am not of the development o!!arge electric power Ihave determi:wdin accordance with the neture to require a second antitrust systems which have had no significat sabeection to(d) Pub.1. es-4as that it is review at b operating Heecn stage of anticompetitive effects in b CCCT bulk accessary to close portions of this the apphcados. ,
"In reaching this coedaden, the staff power services market.
meeting as noted above to discuss National Security laformation (5 U. LLC. considered the structure of %e elecwe 'As stated at the outset of this utility industry in northern med ostal operating license review, staff has mi 682b(c)(1)), information provided in identified any individual change or oonhdenas by a foreign soacs (5 U.S.C- Ohio and western Peorsylvania, b ~ events relevant to the Beaver Valley group of changes in applicants' actMthee 852b(c)(4)), and information the release since the Beaver Valley construdon of which would represent a clearty construction permit review and the permit review that meets all the unwarranted inveelos of personal evece that ';, ave occurred subsequent to necessary criteria established by the petvecy(5UAC 552b(c)(61)- tbs construcdon pait review. f l
* .. Imeener lasermation regarding tephs
. "%e conclusion of the staffs analysis Commission in Summer to warrant .De a "significant change" fin
. , to be ih=r=f whether the meetia is as fouows: changes that have have by and
; has been canoeued er rescheduled, the q has identi8ed numerous
' Star large tended to mitigate appuesnts' changse in the Central Area Power
. , , Oakson's relhace requesta for the Cmrdinadon Group (CAPCO) company market power within the confines of the appestetty to oret statements cord 1Lned CAPCO company testitory.
.'amuj W as oms @e obtained by, activities throughout the Combined Staff has notad througho st ta aview telepbses eeBto to ACRSr . CAPCO Company Territories (CCCT) a sinos the Beevar Valley censtractlas eat campetida options have opened up
,i Direcier,Mr. Rayunood F dramatically for small power systema Ptekg(telegbsms as e permit (CP) review. New .
throughout the CCCT since the Beaver betuenta( AJd. and tsglL :- .t.e law krvolving large and s e , I
~~ ~ ~ ~ ' _ - - - . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___
g-
S200Q UNITED ST ATES l'
8\ .g[,g 5 , . . NUCLEA@ REGULATORY COMMISSION ADVFAORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS li
$gs, . s .. ((, WASHIN oTON, 0. C. 20555 1 ).
Revised: April 30, 1987 x . N SCFEDULE AND OUTLINE'FOR DISCUSSION
-325TH ACRS MEETING May 7-9, 1987 WASHINGTON, D.C.
I 3ursday,May7,1987, Room 1046,1717 H Street, N.W., Washinoton, D.C.
.1) 8:30 - 8:45 A.M. ReportofACRSChairman(0 pen) 4< 3 T.1) Opening Statement (WK) 1.2) Items of current interest (WK/RFF) i 3 2) 8:45 - 10:45 A.M.
'NRC Quantitative Safety Goals (0 pen)
"i J.71) Discuss proposed ACRS comments /recom- l mendations regarding NRC Staff proposed implementation plan for NRC policy regardingquantitativesafetygoals(00/RPS) l 10:45 - 11:00 A.M. " BREAK J
- 3) 11:00 - 1:00 P.M.- NRC Severe Accident Research Program (0 pen) 7.1) Report _of subcommittee meeting on 4/22/87 4 regardisg report of Parel of Experts on
. the proposed NRC severe accident research
- i. '
program (WK/MDH)
, 3.2) Meeting with representatives of NRC Staff 1:00 - 2:00 P.M. LUNCH 4-1
- 4) 2:00 - 3:30 P.M. Radwaste Management and Disposal (0 pen) j 4.1) Remarks by ACRS Subcommittee Chairman l (DWM/OSM)
- 4.2) Briefing by/ discussion with NRC Staff q representatives regarding SECY-87-91, Advfee to the Comission on Waste Manage- i mer.t' Program 4
- 5) 3i30 .- 4:15 P.M. O Future ACRS Activities (0 pen) l
, 5,1) Anticipated Subcommittee activity (MWL/RFF) )
5.2) Proposed items for consideration by the i full Comittee (WK/RFF) i m.. 5.3) Report of ACRS Planning Subcommittee regard- {, ing ACRS assignments and resource allocation , g, (WK/RFF) ] l i m .
- b Lw \ $
f . .
- p. ,
ll 325th ACRS Meeting Agenda , 4: 15 '- 4:30 P.M. BREAK ,
- 6) 4:30 - 5:30 P.M. Advanced Reactors (0 pen) 6.1) Report of Subcommittee meeting on 4/24/87 regarding NUREG-1226, Development and Utilization of the NRC Policy Statement on the' Regulation of Advanced Nuclear Power Plants (DAW /MME) 6.2) Meeting with representatives of NRC Staff
- 7) 5:30 - 6:30 P.M. Safety Features in Nuclear Power Plants (0 pen / Closed) 7.1) Discuss proposed ACRS action regarding development of ACRS comments / recommendations regarding safety features in foreign nuclear power plants and other significant safety improvements (D0/RPS)
Portions of this session will be closed as ! , necessary to discuss information provided in confidence by a foreign source. * ( Friday, May 8, 1987, Room 1046, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
- 8) 8:30 - 10:30 A.M. Quantitative Safety Goals (0 pen) 8.1) Continue discussion of ACRS coments/recom-mende.tions regarding the NRC Staff proposed Implementation Plan (D0/RPS) l I
- 9) 10:30 - 11:30 A.M. Seabrook Nuclear Station (0 pen) ;
9.1) Briefing by NRC Staff regarding status of ! review of emergency planning for this facility. 11:30 - 11:45 A.M. BREAK
- 10) 11:45 - 12:00 Noon Improved Safety for Future LWRs (0 pen) !
10.1) Discuss proposed meeting with EDO regardino ! his response dated April 13, 1987 to the ACRS report on Inproved Safety for Future Light Water Reactor Power Plant Design (D0/RKM) 12:00 - 1:00 P.M. LUNCH
- 11) 1:00 - 2:00 P.M. ACRSSubcommitteeActivities(0 pen) 11.1) 1:00-1:30: Report of Subcocr11ttee Chair-man regarding Control Room Habitability (DWM/EGI)
J
._ . . _ - - _ . . _ _ . -. _.__.--Q
L.f .. s. a i 325th ACRS Meeting Agenda ' 11.2) 1:30-2:00: Thermal Hydraulic Phenothena subcommitteeactivities(CYM/PAB)
. Report of 4/28-29/87 Subcommittee mtc. ,
. GI-61, SRV Discharge Line Break Inside Mk I/Mk II Wetwell Airspace - Discussion of NRC Staff response to ACRS comments on GI-61 priority ranking i
- 12) 2:00 - 3:30 P.M. Nuclear Power Plant Safety in the USSR (Closed) ;
12.1) Briefing by Commissioner Bernthal regarding nuclear power plant safety in the USSR This session will be closed to discuss National i Security Information. ; 3:30 - 3:45 P.F. BREAK J
- 13) 3:45 - 5:45 P.M.- Station Blackout (0 pen) 13.1) Report of Subcommittee meeting on May 6, .
1087 regarding proposed NRC rule on Loss of 1 Alternating Current Power at Nuclear Power Plants (CJW/MME) , ( 13.2) Meeting with NUMARC representatives 13.3) Meeting with representatives of NRC Staff
- 14) 5:45 - 6:00 P.M. AppointmentofNewMembers(Closed)(Tentative) ;
14.1) Report of ACR5 Subcommittee regarding l status of new ACRS members and qualifications of proposed candidates (HWL/NSL) This .;ession will be closed to discuss infennation the release of which would represent a clearly ' unwarranted invasion of personal privacy-consistent with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6). Saturday, May 9, 1987, Room 1046, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washinoton, D.C.
- 15) 8:30 --12:30 P.M. Preparation of ACRS Reports (0 pen) 15.1) Discuss proposed ACRS reports to the NRC regarding:
15.1-1) Quantitative Safety Goals - i Implementation Plan (D0/RPS) l 15.1-2) Station Blackout - proposed NRC i Rule (CJW/MME) l 15.1-3) Radwaste Management and Disposal - l Outside technical advisory ' Comittee (DWM/OSM) 15.1-4) Advanced Reactors - proposed final policy statement (DAW /MME) __-_ A
p .. - , i 325th ACRS Meeting Agenda 1 1 i l l 15.1-5) Severe Accident Research Program - recommendations of NRC Expert i Panel (WK/MDH) 15.1-6) Radwaste Management and Disposal - risks of radweste handling and
)
disposal (DWM/OSM) i 15.1-7) Safety features in foreign nuclear power plants (tentative) - Discuss proposed ACRS coments/recomenda-tions (D0/RPS) l 12:30 - 2:00 P.M. 1.UNCH (A videotape [ Russian] regarding the Chernobyl accident and its aftermath is going to be available -- we expect
-- for showing during the lunch break. It runs for 1 hr. and 13 mins. We will arrange
" lunch-on-the-tab'le" for those members who are interested in seeing it.)
( 16)2:00- 2:30 P.M. Preparation of ACRS Reports (0 pen) 16.1) Continue discussion / preparation of reports noted above
- 17) 2:30 - 3:00 P.M. Miscellaneous (0 pen) 17.1) Complete discussion of items con-sidered during this meeting, as appropriate.
1 I
.. e Q
~ CERilFH MINUTES OF THE 325TH ACRS MEETING l MAY 7-9, 1987 ' The 325th meeting of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, held at 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., was convened by Chairman W. Kerr at 8:30 a.m., Thursday, May 7, 1987. [ Note: For a list of attendees, see Appendix I.] { The Chairman said that the agenda for the meeting had been published. He identified the items to be discussed on Thursday. He stated that the meeting was being held in conformance with the Federal Adv1sory Committee Act and the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Laws 92-463 and 94-409, respectively. He also noted that a transcript of some of the public portions of the meeting was being taken, and would be available in the NRC Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. [ Note: Copies of the transcript taken at this meeting are also available for purchase from ACE-Federal Reporters , Inc., 444 North Capitol Street, Washington,DC20001.]
- 1. Chairman's Report (0 pen)
[ Note: R. F. Fraley was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.] 1 The Chairman reported that: Senator John Glenn has introduced a bill, S.1085, to create, among other things, an independent oversight board to ensure the safety of U.S. ) Government nuclear facilities. The proposed bill would establish a l Department of Energy Nuclear Safety Board composed of three members. The ACRS would (as requested by tne Board) provide assistance. The ACRS would be authorized to expand its membership by up to five additional members and corresponding staff, j In keeping with the NRC regulations, the conference room is now designated as a no-smoking area. Designated smoking areas were identified. 1 i Two television tapes were available for viewing during lunch breaks during { the meeting; one was of the Chernobyl reactor and the other of the NBC l television program in which Dr. Lewis participated. j II. Implementation of NRC Quantitative Safety Goal Policy (0 pen) [ Note: R. P. Savio was the Designated Federal' Official for this portion of the l meeting.] l l I I 1 I 1 __________________w
1 . 325TH ACRS MINUTES 2 The ACRS continued its discussion of the Commission's Safety Goal Policy and proposals for an implementation plan. A report to the Commission containing ACRS comments was approved and subsequently issued on May 13, 1987. Mr. M. Taylor of the EDO staff reported on the status of the NRC Staff work on the development of a Safety Goal Policy definition of a large release. The NRC Staff has Mr. release. been examining Taylor the imp (lications of various definitions of a largea) no noted that been calculated for locations close to the site boundary (N1 mile) between the new and old source terms, and (b) definitions of a large release based on the EN0 (emergency notification) criteria (5 rem) and the 10CFR100 criteria (25 very restrictive and are not met by modern plants on good rem) appear sites at the 10~to y/ reactor-year frequency. The NRC Staff is currently consider-ing a Complementary Cumulative Distribution Function (CCDF) of one or more fatalities at the site boundary as a possible definition of a large release. The relationship of this definition to the Safety Goal Policy quantitative health goals, and to Appendix I to 10CFR50,10CFR20,10CFR100, and the EN0 criteria is displayed in Figure 1. There was disagreement among the ACRS members as to what should be built into the definition of a large release to assure that uncertainties were properly accounted for. The ACRS report of May 13, 1987 stated that the 5 rem and 25 rem (i.e., the EN0 and 10CFR100 criteria) were too restrictive to properly implement the Safety Goal Policy. performance objective on core melt There was discussion frequency. The membersof the ACRS agreed thatproposeg/ 10~ reactor year was appropriate for operating reactors and that an appropriate definition (at this frequency level) of core melt was the loss of assured core cooling. A number of the ACRS members, however, would have been willing to have stated that this performance objective should be considered as applicable to partial melting of the core. The ACRS discussed containment performance objectives. It was generally agreed that a containment performance objective should be incorporated into the Safety Goal Policy implementation plan to provide for defense-in-depth. The ACRS said that, as a minimum, the containment performance objective should be such that there is less than one chance in ten for a large release for the entire family of core melt scenarios. The ACRS recommended that the Safety Goal Policy not be used to test individual plants or to make decisions for backfits on these individual plants. The approach recommended by the ACRS was to use the insights gained from the evaluation of individual plants to evaluate the effectiveness of the regula-tions, to change the regulations as appropriate, and then to backfit under the backfit rule. The adequacy of the backfit rule would also be tested under this 1 procedure. Dr. Okrent stated that he believed that, if the current NRC Staff practices for obtaining assurances that the Safety Goal Policy goals and objectives were met, the NRC Staff's emphasis on cost-benefit analysis as a threshold test, and the NRC Staff's practices for testing for substantial improvement in overall protection would impede or prevent effective implementa-tion of the ACRS' recommendation.
. . 2a FIC 3 UPJr i
- 1 CONSTANT RISK OF DOSE CURVES COMPARED TO EXPERIENCE AND REGULATORY PRACTICE APP.I ;
I i i i l l So1 -
- CHERNOBYL 1gt -
9*n w:r m -
? s E ~TMI2
= i-D $ g.3
- \. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
h %: PART 20
!Od -
Syg - i
% i t e x 30 W
.s _
o42p = PART 100'
~
T 104 - f ~
)
E .F. 8.0.
# TIE POINTS Sg7 I j I l l I .
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10,000 WHOLE BODY DOSE EQU! VALENT (REM) E.F.S.G. = Early Fatality Safety Goal Objective
'Asswmes 10# /R.y C.M.F. and 5 percentile meteorology 2 hr dose at fencepost.
J
, ,. l . q 325TH ACRS. MINUTES 3 3 III. NRCLSevere Accident Research Program (0 pen)
[ Note: M. D. Houston was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.] ; Dr. Kerr, Severe Accidents Subcommittee Chairman, provided a report of the - subcommittee' meeting held on April 22, 1987. He noted the various documents . (NUREG-0956, NUREG-1150, SECY-86-369 and NUREG/CR-4883) that have- been issued on the subject under review. He commented on a few of- the expert - panels' conclusions given in NUREG/CR-4883. Specifically, these coments were .that: (1) the. panels shared concerns, common with those previously expressed by the j Committee, in regard to a lack of quantitative values for the uncertainty areas and of information on .how much uncertainty was acceptable and (2) the panels concluded that an experimental program for the resolution of the . direct , containment heating (DCH) phenomenon would not produce results that could i reduce the uncertainty'in this area before some four to five years, even if.the f program were accelerated. D r. Kerr noted that the panel recommended. the exploration of other means (plant changes and operating procedures) to eliminate this threat to containment. D r. Shewmon expressed the opinion that the Office of Research (RES) should explore other. options in the DCH programs, especially consideration of the effects of water in the lower vessel region. Mr. Reed expressed satisfaction that research programs were now looking into enhancing the likelihood of core cooling by depressurization and endorsed such an effort. Mr. M. Silberberg, RES, provided introductory remarks for the Staff's presenta-tion. He noted that the comments by the expert panels and the Committee would be considered in preparation of the report to the Comission that is tentative-ly scheduled for June 1987. This report will be important for Fiscal Year 1989 budget decisions. The Staff has started addressing the comments by the panels and the Subcommittee and is aware of the need to focus the research program properly on the areas of uncertainty and their quantification. l Dr. R. Meyer, RES, briefly discussed the conclusions and recommendations of the I four panels of experts. These panels reviewed the research in the following areas: Panel 1 - Natural Circulation,. Core Melt Progression and Hydrogen Generation Panel 2 - Energetic Events (Steam Explosions, Hydrogen Combustion, High l Pressure Melt Ejection) Panel 3 - Core-Concrete Interactions Panel 4 - Iodine Chemical Form and Fission Product Revaporization
4 325TH ACRS MINUTES 4 Dr. Meyer indicated that a position paper on the uncertainty aspects of these ' topics would be issued as NUREG-1265. He also noted that RES will attempt to quantify uncertainties and to gauge progress in the resolution of these uncer-tainties. Dr. Okrent asked about the principal objective; and likely significance of the source term research program. Mr. Silbe~e berg indicated that the objective, is to provide an understanding and data base to use in the implementation of the Severe Accident Policy Statement, and the significance is that the agency would be in a better position to make regulatory judgments and decisions. Dr. Okrent also asked if a systematic evaluation had been performed to deter-mine various ways in which one might get early containment failure, other than those currently considered in PRAs. He gave the example based on recent ' relaxation given to piping supports and the anticipated loss of structural ' capability in a severe earthquake. Ms. sl . Mitchell (RES) responded that external events had not been analyzed and that no documents were available on this topic. Dr. Kerr questioned the Staff about the development of two similar codes, SCDAP and MELPROG. Dr. Meyer indicated that NRC, while using SCDAP, was not support-ing any further development of the code. DOE, through INEL, was supporting future development for application in the analysis of the TMI-2 accident. Dr. Shewmon and Dr. Kerr expressed concern about the Staff's modeling and consideration of parameters associated with DCH, Dr. Meyer indicated that ! their concerns are being considered and that RES is now planning future DCH programs to focus on those concerns and the concerns expressed by the panel. Mr. Reed commented that depressurization considerations should be given a high pricrity. Dr. Okrent questioned the Staff as to its evaluation on the integrity of the j vessel pedestal in many BWR plants. Ms. Mitchell indicated that Oak Ridge was l currently performing an evaluation for Grand Gulf. l l Dr. Okrent, in regard to a recent article about OHU-1, questioned whether the Staff hed evaluated the corium-water reaction in lower cavities and its threat to containment. Ms. Mitchell indicated that this was an issue on BWR Mark II plants since the molten core could fall, in some cases, directly to the lower suppression pool. At Shoreham, four downcomer pipes are open to the pool and i directly under the vessel. RES is still reviewing this situation. Dr. Okrent asked about documentation for generic BWR conclusions in this area and Mr. Silberberg indicated they would see if they could address it. Mr. Silberberg informed the Committee that the NRC had issued a grant to the National Academy of Sciences to provide a review of severe accident chemistry and its relationship to fission product release. The first workshop on this j review will be held this sunner. l l
325TH ACRS MINUTES 5 IV. Radwaste Management and Disposal (0 pen) [ Note: 0. S. Merrill was the Designated Federal Official for.this portion of the meeting.] Dr. D. W. Mciller made some introductory remarks and provided historical background regarding the efforts of the Staff and the Commission to obtain guidance and oversight on NRC radioactive waste disposal matters. He pointed out how the ACRS has fulfilled this function through the years. He then made reference to SECY-87-91, which was recently sent from the ED0 to the Commission, wherein the EDO discusses three proposed approaches in response to a Staff Requirements Memorandum from the Commissioners. Dr. Moeller stated that the ACRS had received the document just prior to its April meeting, but did not have time to review it with the Staff at that meeting. The ACRS did send a brief memorandum to the Comission, asking them to defer any action regarding it until the Committee had had an opportunity to review it with the Staff, after which they would be better prepared to provide coments to the Commissioners. Dr. Moeller comented that representatives of the NMSS Staff were present for that purpose today. Following these comments, Mr. Hugh Thompson, Office Director of NMSS, and Mr. Robert Browning, Director of the Division of High-Level Waste Management, discussed the Staff's position and recommendations on this matter, as contained in SECY-97-91. Mr. Thompson said that NMSS would provide written response to the questions in the May 1,1987 memo from Mr. R. F. Fraley regarding items to be addressed during this meeting. Mr. Browning said that they would provide the ACRS with a copy of the Congressional testimony of the NRC Staff that was presented on April 28, 1987 before the Senate Comittee on Energy and Natural Resources. The Committee agreed to defer preparation of coments on SECY-87-91 until an anticipated request from Chairman Zech is received. V. Advanced Reactors (0 pen) [ Note: M. M. El-Zeftawy was the Designated Federal Official for this portion ofthemeeting.] Mr. Ward, Chairman of the ACRS Advanced Reactor Designs Subcommittee, stated that the Subcommittee met on April 24, 1987, specifically to review NUREG-1226 (draft), " Development and Utilization of the NRC Policy Statement on the Regulation of Advanced Nuclear Power plants." Mr. Ward indicated that the ACRS had reviewed the policy statement on advanced reactors and issued a letter, dated October 16, 1985 to the Commission generally endorsing it. The Commis- i sion directed the NRC Staff to prepare a document which would describe the changes in the policy statement through its evolution to the final version and also to include an implementation plan. This document is NUREG-1226 and the NRC Staff would like to obtain ACRS comments regarding this document. Mr. Ward also indicated that there is a draft Subcommittee letter.
325TH ACRS MINUTES- 6 Mr. T. King NRC/ Office of Research, briefly mentioned the effect of the recent NRC reorganization on the advanced reactors work. The advanced reactors review is now in.RES. Mr. King indicated that his presentation would be focused on the second part of the NUREG regarding implementation (Section 5). The policy statement is directed toward r.eviews conducted at the pre-application stage. ) The reviews are not mandatory, but rather courtesy-type reviews that the 1 Commission is encouraging early in the design. The Staff would document the i results of their review via an SER for each design. The Staff is planning to ' use the information submitted at the conceptual review stage and build on that in conducting an actual review. NUREG-1226 has received internal Staff reviews (NRR, RES, OGC). The Staff also intends to send the NUREG to CRGR for review. Mr. King defined " advanced reactors" as those that utilize simplified, inherent or other innovative means to accomplish safety functions, that have enhanced , margins of safety, and that incorporate at least some of the desired attributes i listed in the policy statement. The NUREG adds another item to clarify the definition of advanced reactors which is: if the licensing requirements of a plant are very close to what the Standard Review Plan (SRP) includes, then it is not considered an advanced reactor. For that reason, ABWR or WAPWR are not considered advanced reactors under this policy. Mr. Ward questioned the advantages to an applicant of having his design called
" advanced." The Staff replied that, in theory, there is an advantage due to the fact that the NRC would apply additional resources to review of the design at the conceptual stage at no charge and with some early feedback. l Dr. Moeller commented that there is some confusion regarding the use of the word " advanced" for all the new designs (e.g., GE, W, DOE, etc.) and suggested the use of another word.
Dr. Remick asked why NRR is not handling the reviews at the pre-application j stage ir. stead of RES. Mr. King replied that the situation is actually more of a development of guidance to the designers and it is consistent with rulemaking and Regulatory Guide activities. Mr. King described the Staff review approach as using and building upon LWR criteria where it is practical. The advanced reactors should comply with the Commission's policy on severe accidents and source terms, safety goals and l standardization. In general, the advanced reactors should have margin and ! defense-in-depth to account for uncertainties and the fact that they represent new plants with less or no operating experience. Mr. Reed commented on the Staff's review approach which focuses on meeting requirements rather than reviewing the designs. The Staff replicd that this is due to the fact that the new designs have different ways of accomplishing their safety " functions" and they do not need some of the traditional features of current LWRs. i
)
'b
- 325TH ACRS MINUTESL 7-The advanced reactors would have the ability to avoid core damage due to ATWS-L and station blackout events due to the enhanced characteristics.
l Dr. Okrent' asked -if there will be a containment requirement in the defense-L - in-depth' approach. . Mr. King stated that there will be no containment. require-ment. Mr. Ward wondered about the . application of the safety - goal policy to advanced: reactors. Dr. Okrent come9ted that, .for the liquid . metal reactors (LMRs), the' core melt i frequency '(wl0- ) was based on internal events only and no consideration was given .for external . events. Dr. Okrent. also suggested that the definition ~ for b defense-in-depth and the no-containment situation may need to be : clarified further.- 1-Mr. Ebersole commented that NUREG-1226 should -emphasize that the Staff's reviews are primarily those occurring prior to any formal applications .for ; l : authorization of construction and they apply to conceptual designs only. u The advanced reactor policy statement encourages early interaction between the designers and the NRC. It also encourages -early discussion of the use of proven technology. The Comission .and Staff expect the licensability of. , advanced reactor designs to be supported by a suitable combination-of operating experience, existing, technology base, probabilistic risk assessment, applicable information from foreign countries, and plant testing. R
- Dr.) Shewmon indicated that, from the information presented, it seems that ;
foreign data would- be studied and presented by the applicant only and not by ! the NRC.- The Staff - replied that .they look at such data as long as it is accessible. ! Mr. King continued his presentation by describing the use of less prescriptive criteria in the regulatory process. He stated that designers are encouraged to propose those criteria they believe applicable and to address how such criteria will enhance safety.. Dr. Siess commented that the less-prescriptive criteria will be extremely difficult to implement. Mr. Reed suggested, instead, the use of "less encompassing" criteria that include regulating the most important (four or so) items (e.g., core, contain-
. ment, maintenance of core geometry, decay heat removal). The Staff agreed and ,
replied that DOE has developed similar. concepts. ! Mr. Ward questioned the need to consider the standardization of ~ advanced
. reactors 'at the conceptual stage. Dr. Moeller and Mr. Reed shared the 'same concern. Mr. King replied that the intent is not to standardize the initial submittal by the. applicant at the conceptual stage.
Mr. King concluded his presentation by stating that this NUREG-1226 is not intended to set any new technical requirement on the design.
L f , 325TH ACRS MINUTES 8 I Mr.. Ward commended the Staff and indicated that the Committee 'might' write a
. letter with comments on the subject. ,
l VI. SafetyFeaturesinForeignPowerPlants(0 pen) i [ Note: R. P. Savio was'the Designated Federal Official. for this portion of the l
- meeting.] !
The ACRS continued its discussion of the;new safety. features being' planned.for some ' foreign- nuclear power plants. There was considerable discussion on the - basic philosophy to be used in improving the operator-machine interface.-. Mr. I Reed stated that in many cases poor design was being compensated for by placing. additional excessive requirements on the operators. He also_ stated that in the U.S. the design progess in recent years was not obtaining ' enough . input 'from people with operating perspective and was deficient because of this. There was some discussion of the NRC regulatory approach- to resolving safety issues. -There was concern that the NRC approach may be fragmented and slow. The current work on Unresolved Safety. Issues and Generic Issues was believed to i be an illustrative example of this' process. It was noted.that.the approach in foreign countries usually involved more coordination .between the reactor operators', designers, and regulators and that-judgment was a determining factor in making specific regulatory decisions. The ACRS agreed to continue its discussion of this matter during the June meeting. VII. EmergencyPlanningfortheSeabrookNuclearStation(0 pen) [ Note: R. K. Major was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.] Mr. F. Congel, Director of the Division of Radiation Protection and Emergency Preparedness, NRR, gave this presentation to the Comittee. He reviewed the legal and technical- issues faced by Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSNH) regarding the licensing of the Seabrook Station. He stated that the shortest distance between the Seabrook Station and the Massachusetts /New Hampshire border is about two miles.
.Mr. Congel noted that the onsite emergency plan, which is controlled by the utility, is complete. A fuel load and precriticality license was issued to the !
applicant in October 1986. In terms of offsite State and local emergency plans, there are two different situations. The- plans of the State of New Hampshire (in which Seabrook is located) have been submitted to FEMA for review. A practice exercise was conducted over a year ago. A hearing board meeting is scheduled for September 1987 to review this issue. In Massachusetts, the Governor has refused to submit plans for the portion of the State that lies within the 10-mile
l 325TH ACRS MINUTES 9 Emergency' Planning Zone (EPZ) for Seabrook. The Governor's refusal occurred during September 1986. PSNH petitioned .the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (ASLB) under 10CFR2.758 for a waiver of the 10-mile EPZ regulation in December of 1986. . PSNH asked that the EPZ be reduced from 10 miles to 1 mile. A result of this action would be to remove Massachusetts from the EPZ. In January 1987, the Commission stayed issutnce of a 5-percent license pending review of Massachu-setts' appeal regarding requirements for submission of a State plan under 10CFR50.33(G). As of March 25, 1987, the ASLB has issued a decision on all issues except offsite emergency planning, necessary for approving a 5-percent i license. On April 8,1987, PSNH filed an emergency plan that was drafted by Massachu-setts, prior to the Governor's decision not to file an emergency plan. PSNH has now made a motion that Massachusetts' appeal is moot. i I The Commission decided as a matter of policy to require submission of a State I or utility emergency plan for Massachusetts prior to issuing a 5-percent license to Seabrook. This was done on April 9,1987. The Commission has not decided whether the filing of the draft Massachusetts plan by PSNH is suffi- ! cient. j l The ASLB denied the PSNH petition for a waiver for the 10-mile EPZ on April 22, d 1987. Board hearings for contentions related to the New Hampshire plan are scheduled for September 1987. Dr. Okrent questioned the legality of an ASLB decision without the ACRS recom-mendations on emergency planning. The Staff explained that they expected to have ACRS recommendations on emergency planning prior to issuing a full power license for Seabrook. Since the Board denied the petition for reduction of the EPZ, the Staff is I waiting for another submittal by the utility on the emergency planning issue ) prior to taking any further action. j Mr. Congel presented what the Staff had been reviewing from PSNH in support of a one-mile EPZ. Some of the issues raised by the utility are potentially generic in nature. The Staff pursues such items in their normal review of i issues. l l Dr. Okrent asked the Staff if, at the start of the PSNH effort to reduce the i EPZ, a conscious effort was made by the Staff to define the issues that would be involved. Had a precise list of these issues been recorded? The Staff responded that initial planning was performed, but a single list was not produced. However, from time to time, the Staff attempted to document the type of issues that they thought were most important. Dr. Okrent repeated that he thought it was important to list the most important issues facing the review at the beginning. The Staff noted that the review has been evolving, and new
,o .
J 325TH ACRS MINUTES- 10 i l
. issues , are being identified along the way. Dr. Okrent requested -the set of important' issues the. Staff has' compiled.-
The technical f rationale given by PSNH to support the Seabrook petition was reviewed byf the. Staff. .The . utility presented the various aspects of the ; Seabrookiplant that demonstrated sufficient margin beyond the NRC requirements i to-justify reducing the EPZ from-10 miles to 1 mile. These included: . acute health risk for Seabrook with a 1-mile evacuation is comparable to WASH-1400 , ;results with a 25-mile evacuation; the individual risk of early fatalities at Seabrook meets the safety: goal with no evacuation; and the risk reduction gained by evacuation between 1 and 10 miles 'is negligible. PSNH argues that . the doses from the worst core melt sequences would not in general reach ininedi- { ate life-threatening doses outside the 1-mile zone.
)
The: PSNH' technical support for the Seabrook EPZ waiver petition is based on five documents which are: (1) the Probabilistic Safety; Assessment (PLG-0300,. 1983);. (2) Risk Management and Emergency Planning Study (PLG-0432,1985); (3) Emergency Planning Sensitivity Study (PLG-0465, 1986); (4) the Seabrook Emergency Planning Zone Study (YAEC-1502,1985);Responses and (5 Licensin to NRC Requests- for Additional Information. The Staff has contracted with Brookhaven National Laboratory to review selected issues that could have a significant effect on the PSNH conclusions. These topics are: ' interfacing systems LOCA, containment strength, containment loads, source terms, and consequence models. The outcome of the BNL review of these five issues is contained in a February 1987 report. .. The Staff said that these were important topics, but not necessarily all the~ topics that need to be considered to grant a waiver or set a new EPZ. The list of items being considered in connection with the one-mile EPZ question has grown into a substantial list and is being added to over time. Dr. Kerr asked if the Staff was going to attempt to specify those items that must be demonstrated before the Staff will consider or a) prove a waiver. The Staff noted that, if the underlying purpose of the 10-mi' e EPZ rule were met, there is' a basis for requesting a waiver from the rule. Currently, the Staff is attempting ' to establish the basis for the 10-mile EPZ and attempting to infer from the technical documentation the foundation for the 10-mile EPZ. The Staff was not certain how far this effort had progressed. Dr. Kerr mentioned that an applicant must have some idea of what the Staff concerns are so that useful and potentially acceptable proposals can be made. The Staff felt a . good place to begin was the four rationales presented in NUREG-0396. " Planning Basis for the Development of State and Local Government Radiological Emergency Response Plans in Support of Light Water Nuclear Power Plants," which has been accepted by-the Staff as being the technical basis for setting the 10-mile EPZ. .The four rationales are:
- a. projected doses from the traditional design basis accidents would not-exceed Protective Action Guide levels outside the zone;
-.w
.y , ., J
, .I 4
325TH ACRS MINUTES 11 1 j
- b. projected doses from most core : melt sequences would not exceed j Protective Action Guide levels outside the zone; ;
- c. ' for the worst core melt sequences, imediate life-threatening doses woulJ generally not occur outside the zone;
- d. detailed planning within 10 miles would provide: a substantial base I for_ expansion of response efforts in- the event that this proved necessary. 3 If the Seabrook plant meets those criteria, a case 'can 'be made for a waiver from the 10-mile EPZ. j The Staff - briefly -discussed their future technical- review efforts. One item being pursued by NRC Research .is an effort to evaluate effectiveness of primary i system depressurization for preventing direct containment heating. .This effort !
is scheduled for completion in the July 1987 time frame. VIII. Improved Safety for Future Light Water Reactors (0 pen) l [ Note: R. K. Major was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the ! meeting.] The Committee agreed to discuss with the EDO, during the' June ACRS meeting, his reply to the January 15, 1987 ACRS. letter on recommendations for improved safety _in future LWR power plant design. IX. Nuclear Power Plant Safety in the USSR (Closed) [ Note: T. McCreless was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting. Minutes were prepared by A. Tabatabai.] Commissioner Bernthal, accompanied by Harold Denton, met with the ACRS to brief , the members on the recent~ tHp to the Soviet Union by a U.S. Government nuclear safety delegation led by Commissioner Bernthal. Commissioner Bernthal mentioned that the U.S. delegation was not provided with ' any new information on the' Chernobyl accident beyond what was previously provided by the Soviets to the. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The Soviets, however, did describe the status of safety improvements being made to RBMKs in the light of the Chernobyl accident. The U.S. delegation was informed that all RBMK reactors (Chernobyl design) under construction would be complet-ed, although recently the Soviets announced that the two under construction at Chernobyl. had been cancelled. The Soviets apparently are still comitted to
- increase their nuclear-generated electric capacity by a factor of 4. This goal is hoped to be achieved by the year 2000. The Soviets, in general, seemed to be using Western safety approaches in their new LWR designs.
The U.S. delegation did obtain some technical information on the Soviet-designed nuclear plants being built in Cuba. _ _ _ _ _a
' '~
325TH ACRS MINUTES 12 The Cuban power plant will have two units, each 440 MWe. Each unit will have three independent safety trains. Each train has its own 100 percent dedicated diesel generators, high- and low-pressure injection capability, and its own panel in the . control room. The units also have horizontal steam generator tubes. The containment is a water-condenser type and will be made of reinforced concrete. The reactor vessel is forged steel (there are no welds in the core region). It is not evident if. a PRA has been performed for this type of plant. Commis-sioner Bernthal did mention that, while PRA did not seem to have been used much in the past by the Soviets, the Soviets are now very interested in PRA tech-niques and applications. One impressive Soviet development was their use of on-line instrumentation in ' the damaged unit to measure a variety of reactor attributes (i.e., neutron flux). Several questions regarding operator training and physical security were also raised. Commissioner Bernthal mentioned that there does not seem to be a central system for operator training. It is the responsibility of each plant to train its people. Except for the top management positions, which must be approved by Moscow, most positions are filled by plant management. Plant management is ultimately held ,esponsible for all problems. { In addition to Commissioner Ber: 3al's discussion, Mr. Denton also presented I slides of their trip showing several Soviet facilities, including the damaged Chernobyl unit (seen from a distance) and an operating unit, which they visit-ed. Several areas were identified for possible future U.S.-Soviet discussion. These include:
- 1. Increased use of risk-based techniques to identify potential weaknesses in the system and in its application in the regulatory process.
- 2. Fire protection. Apparently, the fire protection systems in the Soviet Union are not as sophisticated as those used in the U.S.
- 3. Health and environmental issues.
X. Station Blackout (0 pen) [ Note: M. M. El-Zeftawy was the Designated Federated Official for this portion i of the meeting.] ' Mr. Wylie, Chairman of the AC/DC Power Systems Reliability Subcommittee, presented a brief summary of the station blackout (SB0) issue. SB0 means the loss of all AC power to the essential and nonessential electrical buses as a i
325TH ACRS MINUTES 13 result of the loss of offsite AC power and of the redundant onsite emergency AC power sources..together with the trip of the respective turbine . generator. It does not include the loss of DC power.from the station batteries or AC power-from inverters. . Mr. Wylie indicated. that the NRC Staff is proposing to the Comis'sion to proceed with the final resolution of USI A-44, " Station Blackout," by amending its regulation -to require that all nuclear power plants be . capable of coping with SB0 for a specified duration. The NRC Staff has prepared a regulatory guide which presents 'a. method acceptable to the Staff for selecting the spec-ified duration on a plant-specific basis. The ACRS has previously reviewed >the-proposed- resolution of SB0 on two occasions and has written two letters, '
, generally supportive, to the EDO. In the first letter, dated. July 13, 1983, the ACRS recomended that the resolution' of USI A-44 be' coordinated with the resolution of USI A-45, " Shutdown Decay Heat Removal Requirements." The ACRS also urged that the resolution of USI A-44 be coordinated with B-56, " Diesel .
Reliability," and safety adequacy of DC related power supplies. In the second' letter, dated March 12, 1985, the ACRS recomended that efforts should be made to seek a method of implementing the Staff's requirements with a minimum of Staff and licensee resources. ! Mr. Wylie mentioned that on May 6,1987, the AC/DC Power Systems Reliability 1 Subcommittee held a meeting to discuss the SB0 issue. The sentiment of the i Subcommittee .is that the Staff's proposed rule and the regulatory guide, with some refinements, appear to be a viable resolution to USI A-44, but the Subcom-mittee still believes that this effort should be coordinated with the resolu-tion of USI A-45. Mr. Wylie solicited coments from the other ACRS members regarding this issue, and recommended that the Committee consider the follow-ing: In a letter on March 12, 1985, the ACRS recommended to the EDO that if a better alternative than rulemaking is advanced it should be given serious consideration. The ACRS needs to decide if the Nuclear Utilities Manage-ment and Resources Committee (NUMARC) proposed industry initiatives do, or can, satisfactorily serve as an alternative to rulemaking. , Does the ACRS consider rulemaking as the best approach at this time? .j If the ACRS favors the NUMARC initiatives approach, what additional requirements, if any, should the Commission pursue with NUMARC? If the ACRS favors supporting rulemaking, should the action be withheld ! pending the resolution of USI A-45? Mr. J. F. Opeka, Executive Vice President / Northeast Utilities, representing NUMARC, stated that the industry recognizes that the NRC Staff has concerns, I but disagrees that rulemaking is necessary. Mr. Opeka indicated that the new proposed rule (50.63) sends the wrong message and it emphasizes coping rather than prevention. The industry comments on the proposed rule are as follows: 1
^
a 325TH ACRS MINUTES 14
- a. SB0 is not an issue for generic rulemaking--the risks are concentrat-ed at a few plants.
- b. Technical support for the rule is insufficient--the overall risk of SB0 is overstated.
- c. The coping analysis is undefined--not limited in scope. Potential !
exists for costly analyses without commensurate risk reduction benefits.
- d. The backfit analysis for the rule both underestimated the costs and overestimated the benefits.
The NUMARC initiatives to reduce SB0 risk are as follows: Each utility will review its site (s) against the criteria specified in NUREG-1109 and, if the site (s) fall into the category of an eight-hour site after utilizing all power sources available, the utility will take actions to reduce the contribution of the site (s) to the overall risk of SBO. Non-hardware changes will be made within one year. Hardware changes will be made within a reasonable time thereafter. Each_ utility will implement procedures at each of its site (s) for:
- a. Coping with an SB0
- b. Restoration of AC power following an SB0 event
- c. Preparing the plant for severe weather conditions, such as hurricanes and tornados to reduce the likelihood and consequences of a loss of offsite power and to reduce the overall risk of an SB0 event.
Each utility will, if applicable, reduce or eliminate cold fast-starts of emergency diesel generators (EDG) for testing through changes to technical specifications or other appropriate means. Each utility will monitor emergency AC power unavailability utilizing data the utilities provide to INP0 on a regulatory basis. Mr. Michelson questioned the approach by NUMARC to assume that the probability of SB0 coincident with a seismic event is very low. Mr. Michelson stated that
' the probability of losing offsite power seems to be approaching unity for an SSE.
Dr. Okrent expressed so9 concern regarding the confidence level that was used by NUMARC to assume 10~ /RY core melt frequency without considering a seismic event as a major contributor to an SB0 event. Dr. Okrent also questioned the assumption of four-hour coping capability used by NUMARC. i
325TH ACRS MINUTES 15 Mr. Reed asked if NUMARC favors the integrated approach with other USIs (e.g., A-45) and if action on the proposed rule should be withheld pending the resolu-tion of USI A-45. Mr. Michelson questioned the use of nonseismically-qualified equipment to cope with onsite SB0. Mr. T. Speis, Deputy Directoi for Generic and Regulatory issues (RES), suma-rized the Staff's current approach to resolve the USI A-44 as follows: Determine current estimates of core damage frequency (CDF) due to SB0 for a spectrum of plant designs Identify dominant factors affecting CDF and cost-effective improvements, 2 and specifically the:
- a. likelihood of frequency and duration of loss of AC power
- b. ability to cope with extended loss of AC power Propose new or revised requirements consistent with level of risk, and cost effectiveness.
Mr. Speis indicated that the above-mentioned approach has been the same since the proposed recolution. Mr. Speis emphasized that the main aim is to reduce the frequency of occurrence of core damage from SB0. He also indicated that as operating experience has accumulated, the concern has arisen that the reliabil-ity of offsite and onsite AC power systems might be less than originally anticipated. There are potentially severe consequences from the loss of AC power, e.g. , limited decay heat removal (DHR) capability and no containment heat removal. Mr. P. Baranowsky, Events Assessment Branch, NRR, presented a brief sumary of j operating experience relevant to SB0. From 1968 to 1985 there were 64 total 1 loss of offsite power events of a few minutes duration; from 1976-1985 there j were over 600 EDG failures during testing and actual demands (with 22 instances involving multiple failures due to common cause); and from 1968-1985 there were several SB0 precursors involving total loss of offsite and unavailability or failure of one or more emergency AC power supplies. Several of these incidents j involved loss of all AC power (SB0). The loss of offsite power (LOOP) events were categorized as those resulting l from: (a) plant-centered faults, (b) utility grid blackouts, and (c) failures l of offsite power sources induced by severe weather. The industry average ] frequency of total losses of offsite power was determined to be about 0.1 per i site / year, and the median restoration time was about one-half hour. { The LOOP Staff's eventsoriginal (e.g. analyses (since
, added salt March spray 1985) weather was revised hazard to include for coastal sites up) and dated !
emergency AC power (EAC) reliability analyses. j I ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
1 325TH ACRS MINUTES 16 The NRC Staff developed a test of LOOP correlation. These correlations were compared with plant-specific results from PRAs. A reasonable agreement was achieved, for example, for Indian Point, Shoreham, and Limerick. Mr. P. Baranowsky stated that a typi 1 unavailability of a two-div emergency AC power systems is about 10_cf per demand, and it is 2 x 10~jsion per demand for EDG. The Staff integrated the LOOP analysis with the emergency AC power reliability models to determine the ability of a plant to cope with SB0. The technical findings of the NRC Staff are presented in NUREG-1032. Mr. Baranowsky summarized the main findings and indicated the following important characteristics of SB0 accidents: The likelihood of estimated SB0 ranges from 10-5 to 10-3 r reactor year (RY). A typical estimated frequency is on the order of 10 / RY . The redundancy of onsite AC power systems can have a large influence on the likelihood of SB0. Restoration of offsite power in a timely manner can reduce the accident consequences. The capability of the DHR system to cope with long duration blackouts (2 hours or more) can be a dominant factor influencing the likelihood of core damage. events that result in core damage ranges The estiglated 10~ frequency to greater than of 10~SE}p/RY.A typical estimate is on the order of frog 10~ /RY. , Containment failure as a result of overpressure may follow a SB0-induced core melt. Smaller, low design pressure containments are most susceptible J to early failure, possibly in less than 8 hours. As a result of design reviews, the NRC Staff concluded t t the estimated core melt frequency from SB0 could be maintained around 10~p/RY, provided that a plant can cope with SB0 on the order of 2 to 4 and perhaps 8 hours long and have EDG reliabilities of 0.95 per demand or better, with relatively low susceptibility to comon cause failures. Mr. Speis indicated that there is no single fix applied uniformly to all plants ) i that would resolve this issue in a cost-effective manner, The Staff expects the ACRS/CRGR review to be completed by the end of June 1987 and the final SB0 rule to be submitted to the Commission by August 1987. Mr. Ward questioned the Staff's technical approach of depending on equipment that is not seismically qualified (even under another USI, for example, USI-A-46) to cope with SB0. The Staff replied that they believe that seismic
325TH ACRS MINUTES 17 events (beyond design basis) can affect equipment other than AC power systems. In addition, the probability of the design basis approaching SSE combined with the probability that EDG will fail is very low, i Mr. Michelson cautioned the Staff to look at the physical intera.ction between the equipment and not just the earthquake effects. Dr. Okrent asked what degree of protection against core melt due to an earth quake beyond SSE the Staff thinks has been accomplished via the seismic desigt margins program at Maine Yankee. Mr. Anderson, NRC, replied that he wil: supply that information at a later date. Dr. Kerr questioned the grouping logic that the Staff used regarding the reliability of the diesels. He indicated that, according to the LER data, this is not true. Mr. Baranowsky indicated that the likelihood of a core damage from SB0 is dependent on the reliability of DHR systems that are independent of AC power. Mr. Ebersole questioned the design of PWRs and the reason for not having a steam driven primary makeup. The Staff replied that they do not know the exact logic that was used in the design. Mr. A. Rubin, NRC/RES, presented the new proposed SB0 rule (50.63). The rule will require that all nuchar power plants be capable of coping with a SB0 for some specified period of time. The period of time for a specific plant will be determined based on a comparison of the individual plant's design with the following factors: Redundancy of onsite emergency AC power sources, Reliability of onsite emergency AC power sources, Frequency of LOOP, and Probable time to restore offsite power. 1 All licensees and applicants are required (within 9 months after the rule is l issued) to assess and submit to the NRC the capability of their plants to cope l with a SB0 (for the duration determined above), l If the specific plant can cope with the SB0, then the next step will be the l i implementation procedures and training. On the other hand, if the specific plant can not cope with $80 (for the specified duration), a list of , modification to equipment and associated precedures to extend SB0 coping { capability will be required, j 1 Within six months of NRC review, the licensee should submit a schedule for completing modification (with a justification if the schedule is longer than two years). The licensee and the NRC Staff should mutually agree on the final schedule for implementing modifications. in:2 Staff has prepared a draft regulatory guide entitled " Station Blackout," which presents a method for selecting a plant-specific minimum duration for SB0
4 325TH ACRS MINUTES 18 1 capability to comply with the proposed amendment to GDC U. Application of the l method in this regulatory guide would result in selection of a 2 , 4 , 8 , or 16-hour SB0 duration capability depending on the plant's specific design and site-related characteristics. The estimated benefit from implementing the proposed rule is a reduction in the y, mean SB0 core damage J frequency frequency of of4.2 core damagg/RY x 10 beforedue ruletotoSB0 1.6 x(approximate 10 /RY after rule) and the associated risk of offsite radioactive releases. The risk reduction for 100 operating nuclear plants is estimated to be 145,000 person-rems. The estimated cost for 100 operating nuclear plants to comply with the rule is about $60 million. The average cost will be ranging from $350,000 to $600,000. The overall value-impact ratio is about 2,400 person-rems /$1 million. Dr. Okrent suggested that the Staff should clarify that events beyond the SSE are outside the scope of USI A-44 In addition, Dr. Okrent commented that NUMARC should advise every plant manager to have an approximate idea of how long h;s plant could cope with SB0 before serious problems develop. XI. Executive Sessions (0 pen / Closed) A. Reports,LettersandMemoranda(0 pen)
- 1. ACRS Comments on the Implementation Plan for the NRC Quantitative
' Safety Goal Policy - The Committee concluded that it does not consid-er the Staff's current proposal suitable as a plan for implementing the NRC Safety Goal Policy, identified three elements that an imple-mentation plan should have, and described the hierarchical structure of the multiple goals in the' policy statement.
- 2. ACRS Report on the Proposed Research to Reduce Source Term Uncertain-g - The Committee prepared recommendations on a proposed research program for the resolution of accident source term uncertainty.
- 3. ACRS Comments on the High-Level Radioactive Waste Program - The Committee prepared connents on the High-Level Radioactive Waste Program but agreed not to send the letter without further considera-tion during the 326th ACRS meeting.
B. SubcommitteeReports(0 pen)
- 1. Occupational and Environmental Protection Systems
[ Note: E. Igne was the Designated Federal Official for this portion ofthemeeting.] D. Moeller, Chairman of the ACRS Occupational and Environmental Protection Systems Subcommittee, presented a status report on control room habitability This report is based on a review of all Licensee Event Reports (y.LERs) pertaining to control room habitability that
r . 325TH ACRS MINUTES 19 ' were submitted by operators of commercial nuclear power plants in the i U.S. for the time period from January 1,1984 through December 31, 1986. During the period covered by this report, a total of 8,237 LERs were reported of which approximately 44% were issued by owners of BWRs and 56% by owners of PWRs. Of this total, 485 (or 6%) were ; related to control room habitability. When analyzed in further ! detail, it was found that, of these 485 reported events, 297 (61%) were due to problems with air monitors and fire detectors. Some specific individual events that occurred at specific nuclear power plants were presented. D. Moeller requested permission to publish the report in a technical journal. Copies of the draft report are to be made available to ACRS members.
- 2. Thermal Hydraulic (T/H) Phenomena Subcommittee
[ Note: P. Boehnert was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.] C. Michelson, T/H Phenomena Subcommittee Chairman, reported to the Committee on two recent activities. These activities were: (1) a report on the NRC Staff's response to the Committee's comments on the priority ranking for resolution of Generic Issue (GI) 61: "SRV Discharge Line Break Inside the Wetwell Airspace of BWR Mark I and II Containments," and (2) a report on the key results of the April 28-29, 1987 Subcommittee meeting held at Idaho Falls, Idaho. 4 Regarding item (1) above, Mr. Michelson noted the Staff's response to our memorandum that stated that, while the Committee agreed with the NRC's " DROP" assignment for GI 61, we recommended that NRC evaluate a related concern (stuck open vacuum breaker (VB) valve) as a potential candidate GI. The Staff response was that, given surveillance requirements imposed on BWR Mark I and II containment licensees, there was no need to establish a new GI. These surveillance require-ments flowed from the dictates of the NRC Standard Review Plan (SRP). Mr. Michelson noted that his discussions with the Staff indicated that some of the SRP suggestions were not being followed by all utilities, thus the Staff response was somewhat misleading. He did note though that the above surveillance requirements and VB position , indicators are being used to assure that the VBs are not stuck open during plant operation. Nevertheless, he is content to accept the ' Staff's response and recommended the Committee concur. The Committee raised no objection to Mr. Michelson's recommendation. J. Ebersole expressed concern over the survivability of the VBs given a LB LOCA. He suggested that the ACRS recommend that the BWR containments be required to install depressurization capability to assure their integrity for such an event (LB LOCA). Following
a 325TH ACRS MINUTES 20 discussion, the Committee declined to further pursue Mr. Ebersole's suggestion. ! M r. Michelson reported the results of the April 28-29, 1987 T/H Phenomena Subcommittee meeting. Key points noted were: The ECCS Rule is out for public comment. The Staff has request-ed ACRS comment on the three main documents (Rule, Regulatory Guide, Compendium). The Compendium has about 1300 pages. The status of the RES program was noted. T/H research takes 1/4 of the RES budget. RES is budgeting a substantial amount (about $20 million over the next four fiscal years) for construction of a new oitegral facility modeled on B&W plant design. He also said RES plans a large-scale facility to study the B&W OTSG AFW spray wetting heat transfer phenomenon. The facility is expected to cost about $12 million. 1hus, the T/H experimental program is now basically oriented to B&W plants. Foreign experimental prog rams , in which NRC is a program participant, are now being relied on for addressing research issues impacting W_, CE, and GE plants. Dr. Siess suggested that the T/H Subcommittee prepare a research letter for Committee consideration on the T/H program. The TIC was discussed. The Subcommittee was basically satisfied with the INEL TIC, but there was some question concerning the extent of integration vis-a-vis RES management of the TIC. Mr. Michelson requested Committee guidance as to the extent of review they tiesired vis-a-vis the proposed ECCS Rule and associated documents (Regulatory Guide and Compendium). After discussion, the Committee accepted Mr. Michelson's recommendation that its review be limited to the Rule, Regulatory Guide and only the portion of the smpendium addressing the issue of ECCS/LOCA code applicability, waling and uncertainty methodology development. This item should be ready for Committee review in September / October 1987. ;
- 3. Planning Subcommittee (0 pen)
[ Note: R. F. Fraley was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting; minutes prepared by T. McCreless..] Dr. Kerr discussed the Subcommittee's recommendations concerning the following. Systematic Evaluation of Operating Experience - The Planning Subcommittee recommended that more definitive guidance is needed regarding the interest of the Committee in the process for
s 325TH ACRS MINUTES 21 evaluating trends and patterns and the manner by which the results are implemented. The Subcommittee. proposed that less effort be given to the detailed discussion of specific events and incidents which occur at individual plants. The Committee agreed, however, to continue to hear briefings begarding the more interesting incidents and events that occur) at individual plants but to do so on a " regular basis," however, rather than ; every other month. Safety Features in Fortgn Power Plants - The Committee agreed to continue its discussion of this matter during the June meeting. Improved Safety Features in Future Light Water Reactors - The Committee agreed to consider during the June meeting a~ response to Chainnan Zech's request of April 22, 1987, for information on the feasibility, benefit, and cost effectiveness of selected and ' combined systems identified by the ACRS as improved safety features for future LWRs. Backfitting of the FRG-1 OHU Reactor - Members endorsed the recommendation of the Planning Subcommittee that the ACRS Staff should continue to gather information regarding the backfitting of the FRG OHU-1 reactor to address concerns regarding the potential mel for steam t in this plant.exp(losions which could M. D. Houston has been resultassigned from a core this responsibility.) NRC Strategic Plan - The Committee agreed to hear a presentation by the NRC Staff.(H. Denton) on the proposed NRC Strategic Plan 1-during the June meeting. The Comittee will then decide if it desires to prepare comments on the Plar. Subcommittee on Regulatory Policies and Practices - The Committee agreed that the ACRS review of the regulatory process should focus on aspects directly related to past incidents at operating plants. Members endorsed a reply by Dr. Kerr in response to Chairman Zech's letter dated April 24, 1987, regarding this matter. Review of DOE Facilities - The Comittee agreed it was unnecessary at this time to take any action on the bill introduced by Senator Glenn (S. 1085), Independent Nuclear Safety Board Oversight Over DOE Facilities). It was suggested, however, that some members might want to provide their individual views to Senator Glenn. International Workshop on Quality - The Comittee agreed to accept the recommendation of the Planning Subcommittee to consider action that the ACRS might take to propose an
v-o
+-
L 325TH ACRS MINUTES 22
;[
international workshop to learn more about how nuclear power plant designers, builders and operators achieve quality. Dr. Siess agreed to prepare a proposal to NRC for an international
- i. workshop as an item for discussion during the June meeting.
F f ' Role of the ACRS - No one objected to a recommendation of the Planning Subcommittee that the ACRS discuss its role and function in light of current programs and anticipated fliture NRC activities during a special meeting (retreat) to be held at an appropriate time. Dr.'. Kerr informed the members that the FTE usage was below the value that had been expected and that some additional subcommittee meetings can be authorized. He said that Subcommittee Chairmen desiring additional resources should inform Mort Libarkin. C. OtherCommitte' conclusions (0 pen / Closed)
.I
- 1. Proposed New Rule on ECCS (0 pen)
The Committee agreed with Mr. Michelson's recommendation that the ACRS limit its review of the proposed new ECCS rule, the related Regulatory Guide, and the uncertainty analysis in the Compendium.
- 2. Proposed Policy Statement on Deferred Plants (0 pen)
The Comittee agreed that it would not take any action regarding the proposed final Policy Statement on Reactivation of Deferred Diants (issued for public comment in the Federal Register on March 16,1987).
- 3. NewACRSMembers(Closed)
The Committee agreed with Dr. Lewis's recommendation that the ACRS take no further action to identify potential new members until the expected guidance from the Commission has been provided regarding future ACRS assignments.
- 4. Integrated Safety Assessment Program (ISAP) for Millstone I and for Haddam Neck (0 pen)
The Committee agreed to establish a subcommittee to review the ISAPs for Millstone 1 and for Haddam Neck. i
v
, uqt
/ .',;s ja , ,, , ,
s 1: ef +
'325TH ACRS MINUTES 23 I;, !
t
,a I i D. Future' Activitin (0 pen) i
- 1. Future Agenda , i
- (
The Comittee- agreed on tentative agenda items for the 326th ACRS meeting, June 4-6, 1927. (SeeAppendixII.) g
- 2. FutureSubcommitteeActivN,ies ""
1 . :. '. A schedule of future subcommittee activities was distrtWthd to merrbers (see Appendix III). ' w The 325th ACRS meeting was adjourned at 1:50 p.m., ' Saturday, May 9,1987. ,
/
"s '
i , h r, y'
} s%
9j t $ 4 ' ,f s 2 h ,
' k. ,
4 (
'k
-{ * '
i . y r t t \
' d
- N s.
$.4 )
- 1.:
i w ,
'h l ,
I s N
+, %
; i. (
- o. + r.
h' % r g. N. ' v h
! p I NI 3 N. 'j' r,.
~
.h f
D , ,
~
o .
. , . ,. + t
.e- j-4
'1 i .s.
- j q, '.
s >
'j .% ;
~ APPENDICES MINUTES OF 325TH ACRS MEETING {
a
.; , MAY 7-9, 1987, WASHINGTON, D.C. j N ', . !
1 g , s ; i) j
'i , 1
* ' Appendix 1 List of Attendees l l
j Appendix 11 Future Agenda j Appendix III Future Subcommittee Activities j t
)
, Appendix IV. Other Documents Received 1 1 j
'l s C
r. i g\ {\, t 1 i 1
\ ',
+
. i
.i
'i 4
k < t Ei ( t
\
t 1 y l
\
+ 4 i ,
( \ l t ' s; -
.. ) 's ,
/, ( , t f _t--~.-- - --
APPENDIX I - LIST OF ATTENDEES PUBLIC ATTENDEES 325TH ACRS MEETING MAY 7-9,1987 Thursday, May 7, 1987 M. W. Ebert, NUS Corp. A. Omoto, TEPC0 P. Contes. Doub & Muntzing K.R.Goller, Self G.O.Sauter, EPRI S. Setter, MITRE T. Muramoto, Chubo
- L. Peeters, SAIC C. Allison, INEL G.A. Berna, DOE-Idaho D. Meebenk, Univ. of Michigan F. J. Arsenault, Self Friday, fiay 8,1987 J. Trotter, NUS Corp.
E. Fotopoulos, SERCH Licensing, Bechtel G. Sauter, EPRI J. Moody, NHY G. Thoures, NHY T. Sullivan, MEC Inc. K. Unnerstall, Newman & Holtzinger L. Correia, Congressman Markey S. Maia, TEPC0 L. Sokolof f, Thonson Newspapers J. Gray, Tourtellotte, Ross & Gray B.A.Freublice, NY Times R. Sweeney, NHY W. Daley, NHY L. Connor, DSA A. Wyche, SERCH Licensing-Bechtel H. Wyckoff, EPRI R. Herzrich, DCP&$ J. Opeka, Northwest Utilities S. Maloney, DEV0NRUE l 1
l
. NRC ATTENDEES 325TH ACRS MEETING MAY 7-9,1987 l Thursday, May 7, 1987 0FFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION l R. W. Hernan 1 0FFICE OF NUCLEAR REG. RESEARCH J. T. Chen 0FFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY
& SAFEGUARDS 1
Friday, May 8, 1987 ' 0FFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION R. Hernan D. Matthews V. Nerses F. Congel R. Barrett S. Long F. Kantor D. Perrotti EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS M. Taylor I i
L. APPENDIX 11 FUTURE AGENDA June 4-6,.1987 NRC Severe Accident Policy - Discuss proposed NRC Staff generic letter to implement this policy Foreign Nuclear Power Plant Safety Features - Discuss proposed ACRS comments regarding safety features in foreign nuclear power plants I Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Licenses - Briefing and discussion regarding proposed NRC policy statement on renewal (extension) of operating licenses for nuclear power plants Seismic Qualification of Nuclear Power Plant Components - Report of seismic walkdown of the Zion Nuclear Station (May 11-22,1987) long Range Planning - Briefing and discussion of proposed NRC Strategic Plan for long-range planning of NRC activities Appointment of New ACRS Members - Discuss the qualifications of candidates proposed for appointment to the ACRS Future Activities - Discuss anticipated subcommittee activities and items proposed for consideration by the full Committee ; ACRS Subcommittee Activities - Hear and discuss reports of ACRS subcommittee activities in assigned areas, including performance of auxiliary systems in nuclear power plants, radwaste nanagement and disposal, reliability assurance of nuclear power plant components and systems, resolution of generic issues, regulatory policies and practices, and nuclear power plant chemistry Safety Information Managenent Systems - Briefing regarding the NRC Safety Information Management Systems (Note: This will be de-ferred pending a subcommittee meeting on May 27,1987) Improved Safety Regarding Future Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants - Briefing and discussion regarding proposed NRC resolution of ACRS ' recommendations regarding improved safety features in nuclear power plants and tht request by Chairman Zech for ACRS development of additional information regarding this topic Operating Experience - Briefing and discussion of operating events and incidents at nuclear facilities , s
- Quality Assurance in Nuclear Power Plants - Discuss proposed ACRS comments regarding consideration of quality assurance programs in '
foreign nuclear facilities l
7 325TH ACRS MEETING. 2 Complete ACRS reports on:
~High-Level Radwaste Program Station Blackout NRCAdvancedReactorPolicy(NUREG-1226)
- Allocation of ACRS Resources
- A requested subcommittee meeting to consider containment spray systems was endorsed
- It was noted that a reduced rate of expenditure of ACRS resources will permit a relaxation of limits on subcommittee meetings. Subcommittee chairmen . who desire additional re-sources should inform M. Libarkin.
l i
APPENDIX III FUTURE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS Waste Management, May 18 (8:30 A.M.) and 19 (8:00 A.M. - 12:00 Noon), 1987, 1717 H 5treet, NW, Washington, DC (Merrill), Room 1046. The Subcommittee will review the following topics: A. Hich-level Waste: (1) Impact of NMSS reorganization on waste management program, (2) OveBliew of QA program andactivities,(3)Westeacceptanceactivitiesregardingtheprocessing of radioactive wastes into glass, (4) Update on the National Bureau of Standards' waste package program, (5) Generic Technical Position (GTP) on Qualification of Existing Data for HLW Repositories, (6) GTP on Peer Review forHLWRepositories,and(7)ReportontheHanford, Washington (BWIP) Sydrology meeting. B. Waste Management Research: (1) Demonstration of Performance Modeling of a LLW Shallow Land Burial Site.-- the nitrate disposal pit site at Chalk River, Canada, and (2) Control of Water Filtration into Near Surface LLW Disposal Units. C. Low-Level Waste: (1) Update on status of mixed wastes issue, and (2) Greater than class C wastes. Attendance by the following is anticipated, and reservations have been made at the hotels indicated for the nights of May 17 and 18: Dr. Moeller LOMBARDY Dr. First (18th) ANTHONY Mr. Ebersole DAYS INN Dr. Orth ANTHONY Dr. Mark LOMBARDY Dr. Parker ANTHONY Dr. Remick NONE Dr. Pinder NONE Nuclear Plant Chemistry, May 19, 1987, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC j (Alderman), 1:00 P.M., Room 1046. The Subcommittee will review SP,P 5ection 6.5.2, " Containment Spray as a Fission Product Cleanup System," and SRP Section 6.5.5, " Suppression Pools as Fission Product Cleanup Systems." Attendance by the following is anticipated, and reservations have been made at the hotels indicated for the night of May 18: Dr. Moeller LOMBARDY Dr. First ANTHONY j Mr. Ebersole DAYS INN Dr. Parker ANTHONY q Regulatory Policies and Practices, May 26, 1987, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC (Quittschreiber), 8:30 A.M., Room 1046. The Subcommittee 1 will continue its review of the nuclear plant regulatory process as related j to specific operating reactor events which have occurred. Attendance by ! the following is anticipated, and reservations have been made at the hotels indicated for the night of May 25: Dr. Lewis HYATT Dr. Siess ANTHONY Dr. Kerr LOMBARDY Mr. Ward NONE Dr. Remick NONE Mr. Wylie DAYS INN { Decay Heat Removal Systems, May 27, 1987, Washingtnn, DC - POSTPONED. i
)
{
* 4 1
Generic Items, May 27, 1987, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC (Duraiswamy), 8:30 A.M., Room 1046. The Subcommittee will discuss the process involved generic issues, andinunresolved identifying, prioritizing(, safety issues resolving and implementingUSIs) so as to effectiveness of this process. Attendance by the following is anticipated, and reservations have been made at the hotels indicated for the night of May 26: Dr. Siess ANTHONY Dr. Moeller LOMBARDY Mr. Ebersole DAYS INN Dr. Remick NONE Dr. Kerr DAYS INN Mr. Ward NONE Mr. Michelson DAYS INN Mr. Wylie DAYS INN Severe Accidents, May 28, 1987, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC- { Houston /Quittschreiber), 8:30 A.M., Room 1046. The Subcommittee will continue the review of the proposed generic letter for Individual Plant Examinations (IPEs) as part of the NRR Implementation Plan for the Severe Accident Policy Statement. Attendance by the following is anticipated, and reservations have been made at the hotels indicated for the night of May 27: Dr. Kerr LOMBARDY Mr. Devis HOLIDAY INN Dr. Shewmon NONE Dr. Lee ANTHONY Dr. Siess ANTHONY Dr. Corradini ANTHONY Mr. Ward NONE Auxiliary Systems, May 29, 1987, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC (Duraiswamy), 8:30 A.M., Room 1046. The Subcommittee will discuss the following: (1) regulatory requirements for designing fire protection systems to prevent inadvertent actuation, (2) recent incidents associated with inadvertent actuation of fire protection systems and their interaction on safety systems, (3) systems interaction effects resulting from the December 9,1986 Surry incident, (4) manual fire mitigation and associated issues, and (S) propagation of heat and smoke and associated issues. Attendence by the following is anticipated, and reservations have been made 4 at the hotels indicated for the night of May 28: i Mr. Michelson DAYS INN Mr. Reed DAYS INN Mr. Ebersole DAYS INN Mr. Wylie DAYS INN Regional and I&E Prnerams, postponed from May 29, 1987 to August 28, 1987. >
.. ~ , . !
4 Joint Severe Accidents /Probabilistic Risk Assessment, June 3, 1987, 1717 H 5treet, NW, Washington, DC (Houston /Savio), 8:30 A.M., Room 1046. The Subcommittees will begin its review of the Research report NUREG-1150,
" Reactor Risk Reference Document", which was issued in February 1997 for public comment. Attendance by the following is anticipated, and nser-vations have been made at the hotels indicated for the night of J June 2. ,
i Dr. Kerr LOMBARDY Mr. Ward NONE Dr. Okrent ANTHONY Mr. Wylie DAYS INN Dr. Lewis HYATT Mr. Davis (6/2-3) HOLIDAY INN Dr. Mark LOMBARDY Dr. Lee ANTHONY Mr. Michelson DAYS INN Dr. Saunders NONE Dr. Remick NONE Dr. Shewmon (AP 6/3)LOMBAPDY Dr. Siess ANTf!ONY 326th ACRS Meeting, June 4-6, 1987, Washington, DC, Room 1046. Advanced Reactnr Designs, June 17, 1987, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC ! (El-Zeftawy), 8:30 A.M., Room 1046. The Subcommittee will discuss and ! review the three DOE-sponsored advanced reactor designs (one HTGR and two LMRs). Lodging will be anncunced later. Attendance by the following is anticipated: Mr. Ward Dr. Siess Mr. Ebersole Mr. Wylie Mr. Michelson Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena, June 18, 1987, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC (Boehnert), 8:30 A.M., Room 1046. The Subcommittee will review: MIST Nogram Status including results of MIST Phase III tests, IST Scaling Coordination, and plans for a follow-on test Program. Lodging will be announced later. Attendance by the following is anticipated: Mr. Michelson Dr. Catton Mr. Ebersole Dr. Schrock Dr. Kerr Mr. Sullivan Mr. Reed Dr. Tien l Mr. Ward l Mr. Wylic- , 1 lk l l _ -_---__--_-___-_-_--_-_-L
s. Occupational and Environmental Protection Systems. June 22 and 23, 1987, 1717 H 5treet, NW, Washington, DC (Igne), 8:30 A.M., Room 1046. The i Subcommittee will discuss issue concerning emergency plans and other matters. Lodging will be announced later. Attendance by the following is anticipated: Dr. Moeller Dr. Remick Mr. Reed Mr. Wylie Human Factors, June 24, 1987, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC (Aldeman). The Subcommittee will review SECY 87-101, " Issues and Proposed Options Concerning Degree Requirement for Senior Operators." Attendance by the followino is anticipated: Dr. Remick Mr. Reed : Mr. Ebersole Mr. Ward Dr. Kerr Mr. Wylie i Joint Severe Accidents /Probabilistic Risk Assessment, July 8, 1987, 1717 H ; Street, NW, Washington, DC (Houston /Savio), 8:W D ., Room 1046. The ; Subcommittees will conc 6de its review of the Research report NUREG-1150,
" Reactor Risk Reference Document", which was issued in February 1987 for public comment. Lodging will be announced later. Attendance by the followir.g is anticipated: !
Dr. Kerr Dr. Siess Dr. Okrent Mr. Ward Dr. Lewis Mr. Wylie Dr. Mark Dr. Catton Mr. Michelson Mr. Davis Dr. Remick Dr. Lee Dr. Shewmon Dr.Saunders(nolodging) 327th ACRS Meeting, July 9-11, 1987, Washington, DC, Room 1046. Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena, July 16, 1987, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, ! DC (Boehnert), 8:30 A.M., Renm 1046. The Subcommittee will review: (1) IIe'velopment of Uncertainty Methodology for BE ECCS Codes, (2) Status of the Generic Issue addressina Steam Generator / Steam Line Overfill Issues, and (3) Status of the Water Harrer Issue. Lodging will be announced later. Attendance by the following is anticipated: Mr. Michelson Dr. Catton Mr. Ebersole Dr. Schrock l Dr. Kerr Mr. Sullivan Mr. Reed Dr. Tien Mr. Ward 1 Mr. Wylis
e ,. f Babcock & Wilcox Reactor Plants, July 22, 1987, 1717 H Street, NW, l Washington, DC (Major), 8:30 A.M., Room 1046. The Subcommittee will i continue its review of the long-tem safety review of B&W reactors, d This effort was begun during the sumer of 1986; initial Comittee , comments offered on July 16, 1983 in a letter to V. Stello, EDO. I Lodging will be announced later. Attendance by the following is anticipated: 1 Mr. Wylie Mr. Michelson i Mr. Ebersole Dr. Okrent l Dr. Kerr Mr. Reed Dr. Lewis Mr. Ward Auxiliary Systems, July 23, 1987, 1717 H Street, NW, Washinc ton, DC (Duraiswamy), 8:30 A.M., Room 1046. The Subcommittee will ciscuss with the NRC research staff and the personnel from the Sandia National Laboratories the progress of the " Scoping Study" being perfomed by the Sandia National Laboratories for NRC on the need for future research in the fire protection area. Lodging will be announced later. Attendance by the following is anticipated: Mr. Michelson Dr. Shewmon Mr. Ebersole Mr. Wylie Mr. Reed Metal Components, July 24, 1987, 1717 HStreet,NW, Washington,DC(Igne), 8:30 A.M., Room 1046. The Subcommittee will review broad rule scope (GDC-4), SRP Section 3.6.2 (subcompartment pressurization), and other related matters. Lodging will be announced later. Attendance by the following is anticipated: 1 Dr. Shewmon Mr. Render Mr. Michelson Mr. Rodabaugh Mr. Ward 328th ACRS Meetina, August 6-8, 1987, Washington, DC, Room 1046. I Regional and I&E Programs, August 28, 1987, Region V, 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210, Walnut Creek, CA (Roehnert), 8:30 A.M. The Subcommittee will review the activities under the control of the Region V Office. Lodgine will be announced later. Attendance by the following is anticipated: Dr. Remick Mr. Ward Mr. Michelsor Mr. Wylie ! Mr. Reed i 1
= ,,
i l l t
/
Generic Items, Date to be determined (July / August), Washington, DC (Duraiswamy). The Subcommittee will continue the discussion on the effec-tiveness of the progranis that address generic issues and USIs. ~ Also, it will discuss with selected licensees the contribution to plant safety resulting from the implementation of the resolved generic issues and USIs. Attendance by the following is anticipated: Dr..Siess Dr. Moeller Mr. Ebersole Dr. Remick Mr..Michelson Mr. Wylie Decay Heat Removal Systems Date tn be determined (July /Auoust), Washington, DC (Boehnert). The Subcommittee will review: (1) the resolu-tion status for GI 23: "RCP Seal Failure", and (2) the resolution status for GI 124: "AFW System Reliability". Attendance by the following is anticipated: Mr. Ward Mr. Wylie Mr. Ebersole Dr. Catten Mr. Michelson Mr. Davis Mr. Reed Auxiliary Systems, Date to be determined (August), Washington, DC (Duraiswamy). The Subcommittee will discuss the heatino, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system malfunctions and their impact on safety. systems. -In addition, it will discuss problems associated with instrument air systems, AEOD findings concerning the instrument air system malfunc-tions and its recommendations to alleviate this problem. Lodging will be announced later. Attendance by the following is anticipated: Mr. Michelson Mr. Reed Mr. Ebersole Dr. Shewmon Dr. Moeller Mr. Wylie Decay Heat Removal Systems, Date to be determined ( August), Washington, DC (Boehnert). The Subcommittee will continue its review of the NRR Resolution Position for USI A-45. Attendance by the following is anticipated: Mr. Ward Mr. Wylie Mr. Ebersole Dr. Catton Mr. Michelson Mr. Davis Mr. Reed 1 i
.- e, .
i 9-i Auxiliary Systems, Date to be determined (September), Washington, DC (Duraiswamy). The Subcommittee will discuss the criteria used by the utilities to design Chilled Water Systems, associated regulatory requirements, and the criteria being used by the NRC Staff to review the Chilled Water System design. ' Attendance by the following is anticipated: Mr. Michelson Mr. Reed Mr. Ebersole Dr. Shewmon Dr. Moeller Mr. Wylie Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena, Date to be determined (September / October), Washington, DC (Boehnert). The Subcommittee will review: (1) final version of revised ECCS Rule, and (?) status of RES-proposed new integral test facility. Attendance by the following is anticipated: Mr. Michelson Dr. Catton Mr. Ebersole Dr. Schroc6 Dr. Kerr Mr. Sullivan Mr. Ward Dr. Tien Mr. Wylie Joint Seabrook/0 occupational & Environmental Protection Systems / Severe Acci-dents, Date to be determined, Washington, DC (Igne/ Houston / Major). The Subcommittees will review Brookhaven National Laboratory's report of the Seabrook Emergency Planning Sensitivity Study and other related matters. Attendance by the following is anticipated: Dr. Kerr Mr. Reed Dr. Lewis Dr. Remick Dr. Mark Dr. Shewmon Mr. Michelson Dr. Siess Dr. Poeller Mr. Wylie Dr. Ohrent Dr.Catton(tent.) Seabrook Unit 1, Date to be determined, Washington, DC (Major). The Subcommittee will review the application ~ Tor a full power operating license for Seabrook Unit 1. Attendance by the following is anticipated: Dr. Kerr Dr. Moeller Dr. Lewis Mr. Michelson Joint Standardization of Nuclear Facilities /GE Reactors, Date to be de-termined, Washington, DC ( Alderman / Major). The Subconnittees will review the Staff SER and Chapter of the EPRI Requirements Document, and the GE Licensine Basis Agreement. Attendance by the following is anticipated: Mr. Wylie Mr. Reed Dr. Okrent Dr. Renick Mr. Ebersole Dr. Shewmon Dr. Kerr Dr. Siess Mr. Michelson Mr. Ward
.; '.,S
.4-APPENDIX IV 325TH ACRS MEETING, MAY 7-9, 1987 OTHER DOCUMENTS RECEIVED
. Memo to ACRS Members from Richard Savio,
Subject:
Status Report for the May 7-9, 1987-Discussion of Safety Goal Policy Implementation Project' Status Report on Severe Accidents Source Term Uncertainty Review Working Copy of Minutes of the ACRS Subcommittee on Severe Accidents Meeting of April 22, 1987, issued April 29, 1987 Memo to Mel Silberberg from Paul Shewmon,
Subject:
Precursors to PV Integrity Loss in Direct Heating, dated April 25, 1987 Memo to Dean Houston from Ivan Catton,
Subject:
ACRS Severe Accidents Subcommittee Meeting "Research Plan For Resolution.of Source Term Uncertainty Areas," April 22, 1987
. Letter.to Dean Houston from John Lee concerning his conments on the ACRS Subcommittee Meeting of April 22, 1987, dated April 27,.1987 ProjectStatusReportonWasteManagementProgram(SECY-87-91)
Memo for W. Kerr and D. W. Moeller from R. F. Fraley,
Subject:
Advice to the Comission on the Waste Management Program (SECY-87-91) List of Planned Meetings of ACP.S Subcommittees, dated May 4,1987 Project. Status Report on the review of NUREG-1226, " Development and Utilization of the NRC Policy Statement on the Regulation of Advanced Nuclear Power Plants," with eight attachments i Memo for R. F. Fraley from John C. Hoyle,
Subject:
Staff Requirements - Periodic Meeting with ACRS dated April 22, 1987 Project Status Report on ACRS Discussion on Foreign Reactor Safety Features, dated April 29, 1987 l l Project Status Report on the review of emergency planning of the Seabrook Nuclear Station, April 29, 1987
- Letter to L. Zech from W. Kerr,
Subject:
ACRS Recommendations on Improved Safety for Future Light Water Reactor Plant Design, dated
. January 15, 1987 Memo for D. Okrent from R. Major,
Subject:
NRCStaffResponse[of April 13] to the above letter, dated April 17, 1987 i NUREG-1070, NRC Policy on Future Reactor Designs, published July 1985 i L
325TH'ACRS MEETING IV-2~ 'a Project Status Report on the review of the proposed station blackout rule Memo to the Commissioners from the Chairman, dated April 29, 1987, transmitting a draft memo to the EDO providing guidance on implementation of the NRC's safety goal Memo for C. Mark and W. Kerr from Dean Houston,
Subject:
Recent Containment Performance Articles, dated April 29, 1987 ; Memo for ACRS Members from Paul Boehnert,
Subject:
Meeting Handout
- Agenda Item 11.2, Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena Subcommittee Activities, dated May 6, 1987 Memo for ACRS Members from R. F. Fraley,
Subject:
Future Activi-ties-ItemsProposedforthe326thACRSMeeting(June 4-6,1987) Memo to Carlyle Michelson from Dave Ward,
Subject:
Comments from April 28-29 Meeting of the Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena Subcommittee Abbreviated Chronology of ACRS Reports on Control Room Habitability Draft Report " Review of Licensee Event Reports Pertaining to Control Room Habitability - 1984-1986," May 1987 by D. W. Moeller and L. S. C. Sun
- Coments and Recommendations, May 2,1987 by D. W. Moeller ,
NUREG-1226, " Development and Utilization of the NRC Policy , Statement on the Regulation of Advanced Nuclear Power Plants, Draft : dated May 5, 1987 4 NUREG-1184, " Integrated Safety Assessment Report Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1," dated April 1987 Sumary Report of ACRS Planning Subcommittee Meeting of May 6,1987 NUREG/CR-4883, Review of Research on Uncertainties in Estimates of Source Terms from Severe Accidents in Nuclear Power Plants, Herbert Kouts, BNL, April 1987 Overview of the Expert Review of Source Term Research, R. O. Meyer, NRC Staff Slides of Presentations by H. Thompson, NMSS Slides of Presentation by T. King Slides of Presentation by M. Taylor l Slides of Presentation (Seabrook Energency Plan) by Frank Congel Slides of Presentation by NUMARC regarding station blackout issue Slides of Presentation by MRC, USI A-44, Station Blackout
!}}