ML25168A008
| ML25168A008 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/11/1984 |
| From: | Ebersole J Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Dircks W NRC/EDO |
| References | |
| Download: ML25168A008 (1) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 September 11, 1984 Mr. William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
Dear Mr. Dircks:
SUBJECT:
EPRI CATEGORIZATION OF GENERIC SAFETY AND LICENSING ISSUES In a memorandum to Mr. R. F. Fraley dated April 20, 1984, Mr. Harold Denton, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, requested ACRS review and comment on the correctness of the proposed categorization of generic safety and licensing issues, identifying which issues impact future LWR standardized plant designs. This categorization results from a cooperathe effort between the NRC Staff and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and is part of the EPRI LWR Standardized Plant Design Evaluation Program.
In our review of this matter during the 293rd meeting, September 6-8, 1984, we had the benefit of discussions with representatives of the NRC, EPRI, and the Atomic Industrial Forum (AIF), and of the documents referenced.
We also had the benefit of a subconmittee meeting held on September 5, 1984.
We believe that the general approach of attempting to categorize safety and licensing issues into groups applicable or inapplicable to new LWR designs, as EPRI now envisages such designs, should be useful in several ways.
It helps to provide a mechanism for identifying those issues warranting attention for resolutior, and is leading to a useful exchange of information and ideas between the NRC Staff and industry.
We support continuation of this effort.
EPRI ana the AIF plan to attempt to develop proposed means for resolu-tion of the issues EPRI has identified as unresolved and applicable to new LWR designs.
The EPRI program is intended to lead to accepted means of resolving currently identified issues and minimizing the chance of backfit for future LWRs.
If the ambitious EPRI plan for the resolution of such issues for future LWRs is to receive adequately informed review and evaluation by the NRC Staff, a very considerable allocation of NRC resources wi 11 be required in addition to the current NRC effort on unresolved ~afety issues and high priority generic issues focused on plants in operation and un<fer construction.
We wish to note a few other caveats with regard to the program:
Many previous issues have been 11resolved 11 by modifications to plant designs which were required to compensate for fundamental 2489
Mr. Wi 1 liam September 11, 1984 weaknesses in the overall design approach; thus, reviewing future designs against only the outstanding issues without considering how previous issues were resolved would not disclose undesirable design compromises which should not be perpetuated.
It is to be expected that the new LWR designs contemplated by EPRI may introduce new safety issues.
Care is needed in tracking all portions of each issue as they are categorized, resolved, dropped, etc. to be sure that significant matters do not get misplaced or lost.
It will be important to ascertain that issues previously treated as resolved in terms of existing designs and existing Standard Review Plan requirements do not reemerge in term~ either of new design considerations or changed views of safety requirements when one goes beyond the old standard design basis accidents and the single failure criterion.
Some matters now categorized as licensing issues may remain subject to considerable uncertainty.
It is possible that research and future experience will lead to changes in requirements.
The NRC Staff noted that an archive of all hsues will be main-tained by the NRC, including those that have been dropped or resolved.
Such an archive should be useful, and proponents of new designs should review the archive to assure that a change in design does not restore a formerly resolved issue to or1e of significance.
We have not.reviewed in detail the categorizations developed up to this time.
The ACRS expects to examine this matter when this work is nearer to completion.
References:
- 1. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co1m1ission, "A Prioritization of Generic Safety Issues," USNRC Report NUREG-0933, dated December 1983
- 2. S. Levy -Incorporated, Draft Interim Report, SLl-8410, "LWR Standardized Plant Design Evaluation," dated April 1984 and Revised June 1984
- 3.
Memorandum from Harold R. Denton, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, to Raymond F. Fraley, Executive Director, ACRS,
Subject:
Generic Safety ana Licensing Issues - A Categorization to Identify Which Issues Impact LWR Standardized Future Plant Design dated April 20, 1984 2490