ML20237K757

Summary of ACRS 326th Meeting on 870604-06 in Washington,Dc. Supporting Documentation Encl

ML20237K757
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/06/1987
From:	Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
To:	Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
References
TASK-A-44, TASK-OR ACRS-2507, NUDOCS 8708270286
Download: ML20237K757 (54)

Text

, l '

• 2,

, hbfS *Yb j

a. r) d 1 ri -n-w i

k e  : e

)

E it a f h,a v. 50 c !

O p e e y

} g L; N b, U b b b b 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS flINUTES OF THE 326TH ACRS MEETING pg g /ggf JUNE 4-6, 1987 WASHINGTON, D.C.  !

Page I. C h a i rma n ' s R e p o rt ( 0 p e n ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. Nucl ea r Waste Management (0 pen) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 III. Foreign Nuclear Power Plant Safety Features (0 pen) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 IV. Improved Safety for ! ature Light Water Reactors (0 pen)........... 5 A. Meeting with the Executive Director for Operations........... 5 B. Discuss Response to Staff Requirements tiemorandum of April 22, 1987............................................... 7 V. Nuclear Power Plant Operati ng Experience (0 pen ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 VI. Renewal of Nuclear Power Pl ant Licenses (0 pen) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 VII. Long Range Planning (0 pen)....................................... 12 VIII . NRC Seve re Acci dent Policy (0 pen) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 IX. Executive Sessions (0 pen /Cl osed) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 A. Subcomi ttee Reports (0 pen) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

1. Reliability Assurance................................... 16

2. Nu cl ea r M a n t Ch emi s try . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

3. G e ne ri c I t em s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

4. Severe Accidents /Probabilistic Risk Assessment.......... 21

5. Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena............................. 21 B. Reports, Letters and Memoranda (0 pen)......................... 21

1. Comments on Disposal of Mixed Waste....................... 21

2. Comments on Proposed Revisions to Sections 6.5.2 and 6.5.5 of the Standard Review Plan..................... 21

3. Comments on Proposal for Resolution of USI A-44. . . . . . . . . . . 22

4. Comments on Draft MUREG-1226.............................. 22 DESIGNATED ORIGINAL PDR Certified By _ __ _ .

2507

e i g . .

. v -- .

326TH ACRS MEETING 11

5. Comments on Quality Assurance Programs for a Hi gh-lev el Was te Reposi tory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

6. Proposed International Workshop on Quality in Design and Construction of Nucl ea r Power Pl ants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

7. Report on Proposed Generic Letter on Individual Plant Examinations.............................................. 22

8. Comments on Proposed Revision to Section 3.6.2 of the Standard Review Plan.................................. 22

9. Action on Proposed Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 1.100... 23

10. Letter to Senator John Gl enn. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

11. Letter to Senator Joseph Biden. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 C. Other Commi ttee Conclusions (0 pen / Closed) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

1. High-level Radwaste Program (0 pen) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

2. Control Room Habitability (0 pen)........................ 23

3. New Members (Closed).................................... 24

4. EPRI Advanced LWR Requirements and GE ABWR (0 pen)....... 24

5. Meeting with the Mexican Safety Committee (0 pen)........ 24

6. Meeting with the Canadian Safety Committee (0 pen)....... 24

7. Meeting wi th Briti sh Regulators (0 pen) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

8. ACRS Retreat (0 pen)..................................... 24 D. Futu re Acti vi ti es (0 pen ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

1. Future Agenda........................................... 24

2. Future Subcommittee Activities.......................... 24

-., , 9 J. , ,

iii APPEttDICES MIflVTES OF THE 3251;' ACRS MEETIf4G JUNE 4-6, 1987, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Appendix I List of Attendees Appendix II Memorandum from Chairman Zech Appendix III Future Agenda Appendix IV Future Subcommittee Activities Appendix V Other Documents Rece'ved e

a

, , - - y -*

• 1 a L y

'y 9 8

, 3 '. }.

. ,...r n . - n

.- Federal Register / Vd. 52, No.1stJ. Ts@, May,2LMEk IM' :.MNdi 7

S -

that the proposed action will not have a Janosey15,les7 Suh6aet:ACRS . . "arnea, h k ampea nneenaeu. . mme'W . -

l significant effect on the quality of the Recommendations on,laaproved -g-e W -_.F.

~

human environment. Safety for Future Light Water ~- . . insoes, and reliabilitarinfausimusW

, For further details with respect to this Reactor Plant Design. .... ppwer y - - - ,

^

":.:w'J* ar r-

. l action, see the exemption requests dated flS p.m.-J:45 p.m. ImprovedSafetyfor january 17,1986 and March 12.1987 Future Light Water Reactors Setendsh'i'dst1, n- e WA*L.n ssF ****Mk ~, I which are available for public (Open)-Discuss proposed ACRS 8:Ma.m.-f2sNooa:Ptspernesessfra%, ~ .I ACRSRapods MP inspection at the Commission's Public response to NRC request for u-Document Room.1717 H Street NW.. additionalinformation regarding the Discuss pmposed Amwee n Washmgton. DC, and the Waterford feasibility, benefit, and cost NRC regarding items comandssada Public 1.ibrary. 49 Rope Ferry Road, effectiveness of systems during this saseting and,e peepened

-- w e Waterford, Connecticut 06385. NPh to ae , l

{ recommended in its report of ,

Dated at Bethesda. Maryland. this 19th day January 15.1987,

Subject:

ACRS thsh M n%

of May 1E Recommendations on Improved N " ' N 'A 3

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Safety for Future Light Water Port 6ees of this 'sessian wW'be c' leoed ,

Cecil O. Thomas. Reactor Plant Design. as necessary to discuss informeanin ' '-

Director. IntegratedSafety Asses.ument. 4'00 p.m.-6M p.m.:Pnpamtion ofACRS psmedad in confidences e Enss5  ;

Protect Directom'e. Dirtsion of Reactor santon. '

Reports to the NRC(0 pen / .

Protects-fil.IV, VondSpecia/ Projects. Closed}-Discuss proposed ACRS ' '

• 1.mp.m.--2:00p.ar.r ACRS^

l (FR Doc. 87-11918 Filed 5-22-47:8.45 amJ reports to the NRC regarding: Subcommitare Aci/rltfee (Opien/

awmo coes moms Foreign Nuclear Power Plant Safety Closed)--Hear and discuss aports

' Features: Development and of ACRS subcommittee activities in Utilization of NRC Pplicy Statement assigned areas, including nucleers

(, [ Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Meeting Agenda on the Regulation of AdvinEed - - power plant contenumt spray Nuclear Power Plants (NUREC- sy' stems flacom-penduct, removal /

T In accordance with the purposes of 1228), proposed NRC rule on loss of cleanup, the NRC SIMS p'rogrant - - .

1 sections 29 and 182b. of the Atomic Alternating Current Power at and seismic qualification of andest Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2039,2:32b) the Nuclear Power Plants, and the high. . power plant components. 'Ibe Advisory Committee on Reactor levei radioactive waste program. qualifications of proposed new d

Safeguards will hold a meeting on June Portions of this session will be closed ACRS memben wW also @ . . .

( 4-6.1987, in Room 1046,1717 H Street as required to discuss information $80"***d" C -

NW., Washington, DC. Notice of this provided in confidence by a foreign Portions of this session will be closed meeting was published in the Federal source, as necessary to discuss information that Register on April 20,1987. would represent a clearly unwarrmated Friday, June 3.1987 invasion of personal privacy.

Thursday, June 4.1987 8:30 a.m.-8:45 a.m.:Prport of ACRS 8:30 a.m.-11:30 a.m.:Openting 200p.m.-2Mp. ant Qeality Assuronx F.xperience at Nuclear Powerplants in Nuclear Facilities.(Open}--

Chairma'r (Can)--The ACRS (Open/ Closed)-Briefing and Discuss proposed ACRS Chairman will report briefly regarding items of current interest discussion of recent incidents and recoaunendations regarding a events at nuclear facilities. review of quelity aneurence -

to the Commttter:'

practices 6 foreign countries.

M5 a.m.-10"45 a.m. NRCSevem Portions of this session will be closed as appropriate to discuss applicable

.g ,

Accident Policy (Open)--Consider Proprietary Information and/or detailed (Open)--Complete discussion of proposed NRC generic letter secunty arrangements at the facility items considered during this regarding implementation of the NRC severe accident policy being considered. * **U"8' statement for existing nuclear JJ 30 a.m.-12:00 Noon: Future ACRS Procedures,for the conduct of and power plants. Activities (Open)--Discuss Participadon in ACRS meetings were 11:00 a.m.-12:00 Noon: Foreign Nuclear anticipated ACRS subcommittee published in the Federal Register on Power PlantSafety Features (Open/ activitiee and items proposed for October 20.1986 (51 IT 37241). In Closed)-Discuss proposed ACRS an th pro u consideration by the full Committee. ye ,n p report to NRC regarding sa ety features in foreign nuclear plants. 1:00 p.m.-2:15 p.m.:Long Range Planning by members of the public, recordmge (Open)--Briefing and discussion will be permitted only during those Portions of this session will be closed regarding proposed NRC Strategic portions of the meeting when a as required to discuss information Plan for agency activities, transcript is being kept, and questions provided in confidence by a foreign 2:30p.m.-J:30p.m.:Renewo/ a/ Nuclear may be asked only by members of the source. Power Plant Licenses (Opent-- Committee, its consultants, and StefL 1100 p.m.-2:25 p.m.:ImprovedSafetyfor Briefing and discussion regarding Persons desiring-to snake oral -

Futun Light Water Reactors proposed NRC policy for renewal of statements should neuly the AGh6 (Open)-Discussion with NRC nuclear power plant licenses. Executive Director as far in advance as

' , Executive Director for Operations 3:30p.m-a00p.m. ACRSSubcommittee practicable so that appropriate regarding proposed NRC Staff Activities (Open)--Hear and arrangements can be mede to aflew the resolution of recommendations of discuss reports of ACRS necessary time dunng the meeting for the ACRS in its report dated subcommittee activities in assgped such statements. Use of still, motion

)

d 6

, . 9 M4 Federal Registar / Vol. 52 No.100 / Tuesday May 25, 1987 / Notices Pucture and seievrsion cameras during IDennet lies. so-35HLA-2; All correspondence. documents and i this meetarer may be lunated to se6ected 50-ast-oLA-2: Astar mm. so-504-07 La other materral shall be filed with the i pornons of the meeting as deterinined (Spens Fumi 8%et E=p==='a-g Board in accordance with 10 CFR 2."01 by the Charrman, information regarding (19a0).The address of the new Board the time to be set aside for this purpose Atornic Safety and Licensing Board; me inber

• may be obtamed by a prepaid telephone Order Establishing Scheduie fo' Admmistrative Jadee Peter B. Bloch.

call to the ACRS Executive Director. Hearing; Flonda Power and Ught Co. Chairman. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory R.F. Fraley, poor to the meeting. In view (Turitey Poirft Ptant, Unita 3 & 4) Commission. Atomic Safety and af ibe pasarbility that the schedule for way15, m Ucensing Board. Washington. DC ACRS meetings may be adyusted by the Order EstebMehing Schedule fr r ifearing *0555.

as necessary to facihtate the (Expansion of Sg:ent Feel PeM Storage B. Paul cotter. ir.,

O"*"*#' ' l"# " 8A ' **"'F pfa n to tend s odi ek with the ord ucensmg BoardPenel

$ Gefore Adadnistrative ludgee Dr. Robert ACRS Executive Director if such M. t. azo. Chairman. Dr. Richard F. Cole, and Dated at Bethesda. Maryland. this 19th day i rescheduling would nsult in ma.I" Dr. Emmeth A. ImeMe. of Mey 1987.

[FR Doc. 87-11911 Filed 5-224*: 8 45 amj Based on agreement reached among S ve d ined in accordance enth e pa es. b Mosg deme is M N "*

subsection lo(d) Pub. L 92-463 that it is hereby estabbshed fc7 conduct for the necessary to c6ose portions of this ab oned Heense amendment

,, meeting as noted above to discuss information provided in confidence by a ** * # "~

Tueshy./une .*7. twr-Deadline for foreign sou ce (5 USC 552b(chHil. each party to identify the witnesses Yellowstone County Surveyor's Office; Proprietary Inforanation (5 U.S.C.

• 55 b(c)(4)l. safegsards informauon fy related to physical secarity of nuclear conte b .

Afondey. fu/y:U. IS8?-Last day for I fachties {5 USC. 552b(c)(3}l, and fil ng wrttten testimony. Yellowstone County Surveyor's Office .'

informanon the miease of whu;b would Tuesday, September 15. ntr7--4 fearing (licensee). Attn: Mr. Harf an M. Lund.

represent a clearty terrwarranted to commence at 9 30 a.m. In North County Surveyor. Room 312.

investon of persocal pervacy [5 U.S C. Court Room. Second Floor. United Courthouse. Billings. Montana 591(rl is

[. 55 b(cNell. States Distnct Courthousie. Old the holder of Materials License No. 5-Furtt.er information regarding topics Budding.300 NE First Avenue. 16883-01 issued by the Nuclear g

to be discussed, whether the meetmg hLami. Flonda 33101 and remain in Regulatory Commission on April 6.1981 o" continuous sessions day to day until and last amended on Aon!15,1983 The has bun cancelled or rescheduled. the ^

completed or until contmued by license authorizes the b'censee to

y. Chairman's ruhng on sequests for the opportunity to present arsi ssa tements further order of the Board- possess and use cesium 437 and g4 It is so ordered

• americium.241 in Troxler gauges to and tha tune allorned can be obtained by qp. Desed at Betbeeds. Maryland. tius 15th day of measure properties of matenals in a prepaul telephone call to the ACRS I Executive Director, Mr. Rayunood F. May toer, accordance with the conditions R For the Anonuc Safety and thng Board. specified therein.

p Fraley (telephone 302/104-3265),

Robert M. Lane, between aas a.as. and 5:00 p.sa. g Chairman Admwisuotivejake.

fg5 p,,,4. y ,, y ,,g7 John C fioyle, (FR Doc. 87-11912 Flied 5-::-87445 aml activities was conducted on October 21.

A routine mspection of the beensee,s i

1 a cons w w 1986. The results of this inspaction F h

A, AdWsory Cnnsshee Mbnggement Oficer.

[FR Doc. 87-11915 5-: -d?: 8.45 ama!

indicated that the licensee had not

( Docket No. SNL (A5L8P Iss. 82- conducted its activities m full 2.; suu sso coot reso es.m 47S-46 041 compliance with NRC requirements. A 3,

'n e \ n I

Washingon P25c Pwer Suppty o,e p0 tlc f ivi nalty System, et aL; WPPSS Mucteer Project was served upon the licensee by letter

k Advisory CommRree oss Reactor

% 1$m eMoerd dated February 9.1987. The Nouce Seteguards; Sesbcosamettee on h, Reguistory Poectes and Pracekes; Pursuant to the authenty matained in stated the nature of the violanocs.NRC regmrements that were violated. and the i Cancesselon of Beetin9 10 CFR 2.721(1980) the Atosuc Safety and Lcesssag Board for Washington amount of civd penalty proposed. The 1

• Ite AC3tsSubcomadttee en Public Power Supply System, et oL licensee responded to the Notice of l (WPPSS Nuclear Project No.1). Docket Violation and Proposed Irnposition of Regulatory Poncies and Pnectices scheduled for May 28.1987 here been No. 50-400 0L is hereby reconstituted Civil Penalty by letier dared March :.

caseelled. Nobee of IMs meeting was by appofrrting Administrative judge 1987.

parviously pebnM Wednesday. May Peter B. Bloch in place of Administrative ggg Judge Herbert Croesman who has <

, 13.1957 (52 FR 18056). After consideration of the Ucensee's resigned }

N *** I8# As d.Wed, the Board is response and the statements of fact. .

h M "" comprised e'( the leMowing explanation, and mitigenon antained Aas'remenacacime mca r er Mtw=ct Administrative todw,. therein, the Deputy Execu*ive Direcer Acew. Peter B. Nch. Chateman for Regional Operations has deter ned Clenn O. Bnaht as set forth m the appenda to tha 0 der (Pit Dou 87-ttn3 fwd 5.-::-87; a46 am]

. cam, m lerry Hardour that the violations ocarred as stA1 N ,

t 1 -

l, . .,

e

..e .

/ps atopSo- UNITED STATES j' , . . ' ,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s- ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS o f WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 -

\.'...+/

Revised: June 2, 1987  !

SCHEDULE AND 0UTLINE FOR DISCUSSION 326TH ACRS MEETING June 4-6, 1987 WASHINGTON, D.C.

Thursday, June 4, 1987, Room 1046, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

'1) 8:30 - 8:45 A.M. ReportofACRSChairman((0 1.1) Opening 5tatement WK) pen) 1.2) Items of current interest (WK/RFF)

11) .8:45 - 10:15 A.M. NuclearWasteManagement(0 pen) 11.1) Report of Suocomittee meeting nn '

May 18-19, 1987 (DWM/OSM) 11.2) Meeting with representatives of NRC Staff regarding NRC's quality assurance procran for.the high-level waste repository 11.3) Meeting with representatives of NRC Staff regarding disposal of low-level mixed wastes .

10:15 - 10:30 BREAK

3) 10:30 12:00 Noon Foreign Nuclear Power Plant Safety Features (0 pen / Closed) 3.1) Discuss proposed ACRS report to NRC regarding safety features in foreign nuclearplants(00/RPS)

(Note: Portions of this session will be closed as necessary to discuss infonnation pro-vided in confidence by a foreign source.)

12:00 - 1:00 P.M. LUNCH .

4) 1:00 - 3:45 P.M. Improved Safety for Future Light Water Reactors (0 pen) 4.1) 1:00-2:15 P.M.: Meeting with NRC Executive Director for Operations regarding proposed NRC Staff resolution of ACRS recommendations (Report of January 15,1987) on Improved Safety for Future Light Water Reactor Plant Design 4.2) 2:15-3:45 P.M.: Discuss proposed ACRS re-sponse to NRC request (Staff Requirements memo from J. Hoyle, SECY, to R. Fraley, ACRS dated April 22,1987) for additional infor-

.?

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __m

,- .. 9 326th,ACRS Meeting Agenda 1 mation regarding the feasibility, benefit, ,

and cost effectiveness of systems recommended in the ACRS report of January 15, 1987 (00/RKM) 3:45 - 4:00 P.M. BREAK

5) 4:00 - 4:45 P.M. Future Activities (0 pen) 5.1) Anticipated Subcommittee activities (MWL/RFF) 5.2) Proposed items for full Comittee considera-tion (WK/RFF) 5.3) ACPS review of the NRC Regulatory Process (WK/HVL/RFF) 5.4) ACRS activities regarding Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena (DAW /PAB)

6) 4:45 - 6:30 P.M. Preparation ACRS Reports (0 pen) 6.1) Discuss proposed ACRS reports regard-ing:

6.1-1) 4:45-5:15: Development and Utilization of NRC Policy State-ment on the Regulation of Advanced NuclearPowerPlants(NUREG-1226)

(DAW /MME) 6.1-2) 5:15-5:45: Reply to Sen. John Glenn regarding S.1085 regarding proposed independent board for review of DOE activities (HWL/RFF) .

6.1-3) 5:45-6:10: Senate Bill (S.14)  ;

by Senator Biden regarding pro-posed independent board to review NRC activities (HWL/RFF) 6.1 a) 6:10-6:30: Proposed review of QA/QC practices and procedures in foreign nuclear activities (CPS /EGI) i Friday, June 5, 1987, Room 1046, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

7) 8:30 - 11:15 A.M. Nuclear Power Plant Operating Experience (10:00-10:15 - Break) (0 pen) 3 i

7.1) Report of subcommittee chairman re-garding recent operating incidents and events at nuclear power plants (JCE/HA) 7.2) Meeting with NRC Staff i

I

.T

326th ACRS Meeting Agenda -,

IP) 11:15 - 12:15 P.M. Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Licenses (0 pen) 10.1) Briefing by Brian Sheron, RES, and discussion regarding proposed NRC policy for renewal of nuclear power plant licenses (CJW/RKM) l 12:15 - 1:00 P.M. LUNCH 1:00 - 2:00 P.M. Long Range Plann_i_ng (0 pen)

9) 9.1) Briefing by Harold Denton, GPA, and discussion regarding proposed NRC Strategic Plan for NRC activities (DWM/RKM) 2:00 - 2:15 P.M. BREAK NRC Severe Accident Policy (0 pen)

2) 2:15 - 4:15 P.M. 2.1) Report of ACRS Subcommittee regarding propesed NRC generic letter to implement the NRC severe accident policy statement for existing plants (WK/MDH) 2.2) Meeting with NRC Staff Promted ACRS Report - Loss of AC Power 13.1-3) 4: 15-4:40 P.M.

at iuclear Power Plants (CJW/MME)

ACRS Subcortnittee Activities (0 pen)

12) 4:40 - 6:30 P.M. 12.1) Reports / discussion of ACRS subcommittee activities regardino:

15.1-2)4:40-5:10: Seismic quali-fication of nuclear )ower I

plant components - Proposed Rev. 2 of Reg. Guide 1.100, Seismic Qualification of l

Electrical' Equipment in Nuclear Power Plants and report of Zion Nuclear Station seismic walk-throuch (CJW/RKM) f 12.1-1) 5:10-5:30: Nuclear Power i

Plant Water Chemistry -

Proposed SRP Sections 6.5.2, Containment Spray as a Fission Product Cleanup

(

I l

l

(

326th ACRS Veeting Agenda I.

System and 6.5.5, Suppres-sion Pools as Fission Product j Cleanup Systems (DWM/HA) 1 12.1-2) 5:30-5:50: Generic Issues -

Effectiveness of NRC Staff efforts to resolve USIs and q generic issues and the NRC l SIMS project (CPS /SD) i 12.1-3) 5:50-6:30: Severe Accidents / l PRA - Report regarding l June 3, 1987 Subcommittee meeting on NUREG-1150,

" Reactor Risk Reference Document" (KK/D0/RPS/MDH)

Saturday, June 6, 1987, Roon 1046, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washinoton, D.C.

Preparation of ACRS Reports (0 pen / Closed)

13) 8:30 - 32:00 Noon 13.1) Discuss proposed ACRS reports to NRC (11:00-11:15 - Break) regarding:

13.1-2) 8:30-9:30: NRC Severe Accident Policy (WK/MDH) 13.1-3) 9:30-11:00: Safety Features in Foreign Nuclear Power Plants (D0/RPS) 11:00-11:15: BREAK 13.1-1) 11:15-12:00: Loss of AC Power at Nuclear Power Plants (CJW/

MME)

(Note: Portions of this session will be closed as necessary to discuss infonnation provided in confidence by a foreign source.)

LUNCH 12:00 - 1:00 P.M.

Preparation of ACRS Reports (0 pen)

14) 1:00 - 2:30 P.M. 14.1) Discuss proposed ACRS reports regarding:

14.1-1) 1:00-1:30: High-Level Radwaste Program - Discuss proposed ACRS report on the risks / costs asso-ciated with the high-level rad-waste program (DWM/OSM) 14.1-2) 1:30-2:15: Nuclear Radwaste Management - Quality Assurance for the High-level Waste Repository and Disposal of Low-Level Mixed Wastes (DWM/OSM) 14.1-3) 2:15-2:30: NRC Standard Review Plan 6.5.2 and 6.5.5 (DWM/HA)

(

~

go a t

3?6th ACRS Meeting Agenda . 5-

15) 2:30 - 2:45 P.M. ACRS Subcommittee Activities (0 pen) 15.1) Hear and discuss reports of ACRS Subcom-mittee activities regarding:

15.1-1) 2:30-2:45: Reliability of Nuclear Power Plant Components

- Report of subcommittee meeting on April 8, 1987 (CJW/RKM)

16) 2:45 - 3:00 P.M.

~

Miscel1aneous (0 pen / Closed) 16.1) . Appointment of New Members - Status of' activities (HWL/NSL)

(Note: Portions of this session will be closed as appropriate to discuss information the release of which would represent an unwarranted invasion of. personal privacy.)

I

{

e A

.. , 1 s

. {

o

.< v f dh J pf@r M

MINUTES OF THE 326TH ACRS MEETING JUNE 4-6, 1987 The 326th 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, June 4, 1987.

[ Note: For a list of attendees, see Appendix I. Dr. Remick and Mr. Ward were notpresentonJune6,1987.] l 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 Advisory Committee Act and the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Laws92-463 and 94-409, respectively. .

I 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.]

I. Chairman's Report (0 pen)

[ Note: R. F. Fraley was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.]

The Chairman reported that:

Dr. Martin Steindler has accepted the NRC's invitation to become a member of the ACRS. He is expected to attend the July ACRS meeting.

Harold Etherington is now an ACRS consultant and is willing to serve in those areas where he is qualified.

The ACRS has received a memorandum dated June 1,1987 [ Appendix II] from Chairman Zech wherein Mr. Zech expressed his appreciation for the ACRS letter of May 13, 1987 conveying comments on the Implementation Plan for the Safety Goal Policy. Chairman Zech said the ACRS letter provides worthwhile suggestions on a complex and significant subject.

II. Nuclear Waste Management (0 pen)

[ Note: 0. S. Merrill was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.]

Dr. Moeller reported on the results of a meeting of the Waste Management Subcommittee that was held on May 18 and 19, 1987. He stated that a wide range of topics were covered in the meeting, as follows:

1. The reorganization of the NRC and its impact on waste management activi-ties, principally the separation of waste managerent activities into two

e a-326TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 2 divisions, the Division of High-level Waste Management (HLWM) and the Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning (LLWMD),

including shifting from a matrix organization to a line organization. He observed that although neither the Monitored Retrievable Storage (MRS) nor the transportation of spent fuel are in either of the two above-named waste management divisions, they are both in the same Office, NMSS, and that the -HLWM Division has a Systems Engineering and Evaluation Branch for coc-dination of the storage and transportation of spent fuel activi-ties with the HLWM activities.

2. Two closely-related generic technical positions (GTPs), (1) Qualification of Existing Data, and (2) Peer Review, both also closely related to a GTP on Quality Assurance (QA), the so-called Q-list, which was mentioned but not reviewed at this meeting. The purpose of the first GTP is to provide guidelines and procedures by which existing data, not developed in a program that had a proper QA component, can be qualified. The purpose of the second GTP is to provide guidance for peer review of existing data, and for the high-level waste repository program, in general.  !

Dr. Moeller reported that peer review members must be independent of the operation and therefore, for example, could not include NRC contractors, such as employees of the Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC). He said that the peer review group will not get into such things as ranking sites or deciding which site is better, etc. The Department of i Energy (D0E), involved States and Indian Tribes, and organizations such as i the National Academy of Sciences and the National Research Council will be asked to suggest members for the peer review groups. i

3. being conducted under NRC l An update contract by on thethe research National on Waste Bureau Packaging (NBS).

of Standards The effort includes i reviewing the waste package data base, identifying additional data that I are needed, performing experimental tests, and, upon request, providing

! technical assistance to NRC in the area of waste packaging. This effort includes work on the pitting corrosion of steel, corrosion effects on Zircalloy (as related to Zircalloy cladding of fuel elements), the propaga-tion of stress corrosion cracks in metals, and corrosion effects in a simulated repository environment (tuff, basalt and salt media). Dr.

Moeller noted an item of particular interest to him was hat the NBS is examining corrosion, leaching into solution, and trans) ort of radio-nuclides in both metal alloy waste packages and borcsilicate glass, whereas DOE has already coranitted to borosilicate glass ifor the Savannah River and West Valley wastes.

4. Review of a recent hydrology meeting at the BWIP site (basalt medium) at Hanford, Washington, Dr. Moeller reported that the new ACRS hydrology consultant is to be Dr. George Pinder, Princeton University. Dr. Pinder contributed greatly to the discussion of the BWIP hydrology during the Subcommittee meeting by observing that one can prove experimentally that vertical communication (in a geologic sense) exists, but ycu cannot prove 1

g ,

326TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 3 i that it does not. Dr. Moeller noted that Dr. Pinder has been asked to look into what DOE and NRC are doing _ regarding the BWIP hydrology, and to report on it in writing to the ACRS when his review is completed. He called to the attention of ACRS members that this effort parallels Dr. M.

D. Trifunac's review of the seismotectonic aspects of the Yucca Mountain, Nevada site.

5. Demonstration of performance modeling of a shallow land burial low-level waste disposal site, using the 20-year-old site at Chalk River, Canada, as the basis for data against which to compare the modeling of the movement of radionuclides through the environment. This is being done to demon-strate that the requirement in 10 CFR Part 61 can be met. Before a shallow land burial site for low-level waste can be approved, it must be proven that you can model the movement of radionuclides at that site. Dr. Remick commented that he understood that the person who is doing the modeling does not have access to the site data in order to maintain the independ-ence of his efforts. Dr. Moeller confirmed that is the case.  !

6. Dr. Moeller commented that the NRC Staff's current effort on wastes greater than Class C reflects an earlier ACRS comment. That is, before you set up regulations for greater-than-Class C wastes, you ought to determine how much volume and how much of a problem these wastes will be.

If these wastes are small in volume and not too difficult to handle, then it may not be worthwhile to set up a separate group (of Class C wastes) with regulations specifically directed to them. When NRC assessed the volume, they found it to be small. Dr. Moeller said that DOE is going to handle these wastes and will, he believes, treat them as high-level wastes to ensure safe handling and disposal.

7. Low-level waste demonstration program (Control of Water Infiltration into Near-Surface jointly by the LLW DisposalofUnits)

Universities is being Berkeley)

California (conductedandunder NRCatcontract Maryland a University of Maryland experimental site near Beltsville, Md. Dr. Moeller said that the program is addressing both the concern, and resolution of the problem of percolation of rainwater into a shallow land burial site that causes radionuclides to move out of the plastic-lined basin. Dr.

Moeller described the approach, which is to cover approximately 90% of the site with plastic, and to plant juniper on the remaining 10 percent. He reported that these plants, which potentially have long roots -that can extend 100 feet and more in their search for water in an arid area, take up the water that has infiltrated the site and release it to the atmos-phere by transpiration.

Dr. Moeller concluded his report by indicating that the two remaining topics to be reported on would be covered by two NRC Staff presentations, viz., (1) NRC's review of DOE's QA program for the high-level waste

4

• l I

326TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 4 l

repository, and (2) the definition of mixed waste, i.e., toxic chemical  !

wastes, which contain radioactive materials, or vice versa. (The presen-tations were the same as those given to the Waste Management Subcommittee during its meeting on May 18-19, 1987, which are reported in the Certified Minutes, issued May 28, 1987, of that meeting.) The ACRS heard and J discussed draft comments on these two topics, submitted by Dr. Moeller as 1 Chairman of the Waste Management Subcommittee, and prepared a report on each topic to Chairman Zech, which were approved to be issued subsequent to the meeting.

III. Foreign Nuclear Power Plant Safety Features (0 pen)

[ Note: P. P. Savio was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.)

Dr. Okrent briefly summarized the ACRS' previous discussions on this subject and asked the members to express their views on actions the ACRS gould take to evaluate the issue and on possible ACRS positions on the matter. Mr. Reed stated that it was his belief that the existing U.S. PWR decay heat removal systems did not incorporate sufficient diversity. He stated that this was a more severe problem in PWRs with only two or three steam generators and that there were significant differences between the PWRs of different U.S. vendors.

Dr. Siess stated that this review of foreign plant safety features should begin 1 with a systematic review of the safety features which were being added to the various foreign plants, the characteristics of these plants, and the design /

social reasons for these features. He noted that the safety features involve, in general, station blackout design features, dedicated decay heat removal systems, or some form of a containment filtered vent.

Dr. Okrent observed that the French had begun their reevaluation of station blackout in the late 1970s and, upon identifying a higher than acceptable risk, had begun to develop plant improvements. Mr. Wylie noted that FRG plants, in general, had four-train AC power systems with four independent diesel genera-tors as an emergency AC power source. The French, by contrast, have two-train systems and probably have less reliable emergency AC power systems for this reason.

Mr. Reed noted that the U.S. reactors were the most advanced and were leading i the world-wide nuclear industry through the mid-1960s. He believes that since j then the U.S. has lost this advantage. He stated that in considering next-generation LWR designs the best approach would be to improve on the newest FRG designs. He also stated that the ACRS in their review of the new foreign safety features should give the highest priority to features which deal with accident prevention.

Mr. Ward noted that most of the FRG reactors incorporate a bunkered decay heat removal system. The Swiss, Belgians, and Italians have, or will be using, similar systems. He stated that the ACRS, in their review of the rationale for the foreign safety features, srouid strive to icentify wnich parts of the e

3 ., . .

326TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 5 rationale are technical and what parts are political. He noted that he be-lieves that the ACRS should only make recommendations on technical questions.

Dr. Okrent stated that he believed that the addition of some kind of dedicated decay heat removal system (but not necessarily the same system for every reactor) was warranted for a large number of the existing reactors. He noted that he believed that even after risk outliers were found and fixed (as speci-fied in the Severe Accident Policy), most existing reactors would need to be made safer. He also noted that containment performance for existing reactors needs to be carefully examined and probably improved, and that doing this for the GE Mark I and Mark II containments was especially urgent. With regard to GE Mark I and II containments, he recommended the formation of a group of experts who would study the matter and be asked to issue conclusions and recommendations in about six months.

IV. Improved Safety for Future Light Water Reactors (0 pen)

[ Note: R. K. Major was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the ,

meeting.]

A. Meeting with NRC Executive Director for Operations on Improved Safety for Future Light Water Reactors Mr. V. Stello, Executive Director for Operations, was invited to this meeting to discuss the Staff's response to the Committee's January 15, ,

1987 report, "ACRS Recommendations on Improved Safety for Future Light Water Reactor Plant Design." He discussed the regulatory requirements and guidance for future nuclear power ple t designs. He divided future plants into various categories outlining t! *. relevant requirements and guidance for each as given below: '

CATEGORY RELEVANT REQUIREMENTS / GUIDANCE NT0Ls SRP ]

NEAR-TERM STD Plant Designs SRP, SAPS, Safety Goal Policy, CE-APWR Standardization Policy GE-ABWR W-RESAR SP 90 EPRI Advanced LWR Designs SRP, SAPS, Safety Goal Policy, Standardization Policy DOE-Sponsored Advanced Designs SAPS, Safety Goal Policy, Advanced Modular HTGR Reactor Policy and Resulting Staff SAFR Liquid Metal Guidance, Standardization Policy PRISM Liquid Metal PIUS Water Reactor s

a .-

l l

t 326TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 6 ,

l Mr. Stello noted that the Staff's policy is to encourage safer or better plant designs even if they conform or meet today's current requirements.

The Staff is taking a proactive look at future plant designs, Mr. Stello stated. Items such as the severe accident policy statement implementation and guidance are still evolving. Changes to new facilities will go beyond what has been required in the past. The Staff has encouraged designers to resolve in their new designs concerns found by the current generation of plants. Approaches being considered include using natural convection in decay heat removal, minimizing the need for operator action, arid reducing dependence on electric power supplies.

The Staff noted that the GE ABWR program is now decoupled from the EPRI Advanced LWR program. The Staff will not be making findings on the GE review with respect to adherence to the EPRI requirements.

Dr. Remick asked if the Staff was making philosophical decisions on a policy basis that would rule out certain designs or encourage certain designs? Mr. Stello said the Staff is not. Decisions are made as the Staff is faced with judgments to be made.

The Staff stated that decisions on advanced reactor concepts are pending. 3 Recommendations on the HTGR are scheduled to go to the Commission in the January-February 1988 time frame. For liquid metal reactors, the time frame is April-May 1988, i Mr. Reed emphasized his concern about redundancy of components in decay I heat removal and diversity in principle for PWRs.

Mr. Stello observed that the International Atomic Energy Agency is sponsoring a program to develop in very broad terms a philosophy of and l principles for design for future reactors. l The subject of trade-offs (simplifying requirements in one area given improvements in another) was discussed. Mr. Stello believes this concept has merit.

The design philosophy for the next generation of plants was discussed.

Should they be safer at comparable cost, or equally safe at lower cost? A related question might be, should we strive for simplicity in nuclear power generation? Is complexity necessarily bad? Mr. Stello thought newer plants can be safer and can be produced at lower cost. He noted judgment would be required to factor in competing issues such as ALARA and the safety goal. There comes a point where cost-benefit must be used. It is the Staff's intention to evaluate new concepts with all aveilable ,

tools.

Dr. Siess mentioned that the time reauired to construct a plant is one of  ;

the largest contributors to the cost of the plant. Plant components preassembled offsite wculc contribute greatly to reaucing plants costs.

n

a .

t 326TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 7 Mr. Stello thought there was no way to predict the threat to future piants from sabotage--especially to predict the threat many years into the future.

Mr. Stello was asked if there is anything the NRC thinks should be done to improve the safety of future plants as a rescit of the reported public view in the U.S., which is unfavorab*e to any additional nuclear plants.

He believes that as new plant designs are produced, which clearly have enhanced safety and are better understood by the public, the public perception will become more favorable. He also mentioned the public will be asking, "Is nuclear power really necessary?" Questions will be raised ,

over the relative safety of coal plants versus nuclear plants. Also ,

having an impact will be the need for additional power at some point. 1 Other influences include the regulatory climate and the financial market.

Dr. Siess asked what Mr. Stello thought the public's perception of the nuclear industry is, given the number of fines NRC imposes. Mr. Stello thought that fines are necessary to prompt the entire industry to correct its problems. Enforcement is the ultimate regulatory tool to assure compliance by an individual plant and by the industry. He did agree that fines create a certain amount of public apprehension. Mr. Ward noted that the public can become alarmed because they do not realize that the NRC is regulating the nuclear industry to much higher standards than those used to regulate other industries. There is a lack of balance in the public's perception.

B. Discussion of Proposed ACRS Response to Staff Requirements memorandum from J. Hoyle, SECY, to R. Fraley, ACRS, dated April 22, 1987 I

The Committee discussed several possible courses of action to take with respect to the April 22, 1987 Staff Requirements memo. This memo recom-mends that the ACRS extend its review of the experience and design features of some of the European plants. In addition, Chairman Zech recommended that the ACRS address the feasibility, benefit and cost effectiveness of selected and combined systems recommended in the Commit-tee's January 15, 1987 letter to Chairman Zech. The review should include plant reliability, challenges, complexity, and burden on plant and maintenance personnel. He also requested that the ACRS provide the name(s) of existing plant (s) that incorporate the desirable features recommended in the January 15, 1987 letter.

The Committee also decided that a subcommittee should be appointed to develop a response (or scope of work required to prepare such a response) to the Chairman's request that the ACRS address the feasibility, benefit, and cost effectiveness of selected and combined systems " recommenced" in the Committee's letter of January 15, 1987.

I e =

J

• e '

• q 326TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 8 V. Nuclear Power Plant Operating Experience

[ Note: H. Alderman was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of- the meeting.]

Mr. Ebersole noted that the events to be discussed today were selected out of a number that have been reported in the last 60 days. He discussed the problems that can occur during refueling. If the residual heat removal system (RHR) is lost, boiling can occur very rapidly. He remarked that for a number of years this has been largely ignored, but it may be a risk contributor that is not included in PRA studies.

Mr. Ebersole pointed out that the total loss of AC power in conjunction with loss of RHR could possiby lead to the core being uncovered.

Mr. Ebersole turned the meeting over to Wayne Lanning, Chief of the Events Assessment Branch in NRR. Mr. Lanning briefly discussed the procedures for selection of events for presentation to the ACRS. '

The first presenter was Richard Lobel, Events Assessment Branch. Mr. Lobel discussed three events grouped under the title of Management Control of Plant f Activities. The first event was loss of all AC power at Ft. Calhoun. This event occurred during maintenance on both the offsite and onsite power systems at the same time. One diesel generator was down for maintenance and the other was in manual mode. The offsite power was accidentally lost, and the diesels did not respond immediately. It took three minutes to start the diesel and five minutes to restore cooling to the core.

The second event in this group concerned Catawba 2. Catawba was to perform a load rejection test where they tripped the reactor, tripped the generator and verified the reactor response. At the time of the test the reactor had an unidentified leak. When the leak was approaching the Tech. Spec. limit that would require reactor shutdown, it was decided to perform the load rejection test.

The load rejection test increases the reactor pressure by~40 psi. The utility performed a careful evaluation before the load rejection test. The NRC Staff questions the prudence of performing this test with the known leak when it is known that the test increases reactor pressure.

The third event of this group was at Oyster Creek. The reactor was having a problem with a relief valve and was being shut down for repairs. The contain-ment was inerted, and was being deinerted. The plant staff had opened a vacuum breaker to speed up the deinerting. They opened another vacuum breaker, one from the drywell to the torus. This created a path such that, if a LOCA >

occurred, steam would have been able to flow into the torus without being condensed.

e

• 326TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 9 The next event was discussed by Helen Pastis, NRC Project Manager for Oconee.

This event concerned fouling of the heat exchangers in the low pressure injec-tion and reactor building cooling unit systems. Cooling water for the units is obtained from a lake and goes directly into the heat exchangers. The fouling was caused by silt from the lake. Analysis of this situation by a consultant, newly hired by the utility, indicated that during a LOCA the coolers would not F be able to perform at their design ratings. [

Mr. Ebersole pointed out that a sudden increase in silting caused by perhaps a seismic event would be a much more serious problem.

In response to a question from Dr. Shewmon, Mr. Willis, Duke Power, stated the .

silting was unifoni on all tubing rather than a sludge at the bottom of the -

heat exchangers.

The next event was discussed by Carl Schulten. This event introduced water _

into the steam lines at Washington Nuclear Power-2. The event involved a reactor scram on loss of feedwater and the resultant filling of the vessel above the steam lines. The primary contributors to this event were operator and procedural errors. The equipment operator incorrectly identified the RCIC system as being tripped on mechanical overspeed after the reactor was manually scrammed. The second contributor was improper line-up of the condensate feedwater system for single element level control. A contributing problem was administrative error resulting in the operators not having available any temporary deviation to the scram procedures. '

As a result, both the RCIC and HPSI systems were filling the reactor vessel.

The safety significance of this event is the potential for water in the steam lines flashing into steam and causing a water hammer.

The last event was discussed by Mr. Warren Lyon, and concerned the loss of Residual Heat Removal (RHR) at Diablo Canyon.

Mr. Lyon mentioned that the plant had been shut down for seven days. The containment equipment hatch was removed. The reactor vessel head had not been removed. The water level had been lowered to about midway between the hot and the cold leg elevation. Through an error one line was not isolated prior to i being drained and, as a result, the reactor coolant level was lowered. The RHR system was turned off because of erratic behavior of the RHR pumps and was off for 85 minutes. The plant primary coolant began boiling in about one-half hour. Boiling continued for about 55 minutes.

Mr. Lyon pointed out that the plant was never in any danger. He remarked that the plant could have stayed in this condition for over a day without any danger.

o sJ

. . l 6

• 326TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 10 Some of the significant aspects of this event were:  ;

lack of knowledge of the plant staff as to what head elevation would cause vortexing water level instrumentation that was not reliable Mr. Lyon stated that a 50-54(f) letter has been sent to all PWR licensees to assess how licensees plan to deal with problems that can occur during refueling.

The Committee discussed what actions should be taken to follow up on these events. Mr. Ebersole expressed satisfaction with the NRC Staff's actions. He mentioned that he doesn't have a paper trail to follow up on how the Staff will pursue these. Mr. Ebersole suggested that, at the next briefing, a limited amount of time should be devoted to follow up on the items discussed at the previous ACRS meeting.

VI. Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Licenses (0 pen)

[ Note: R. K. Major was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.]

The Committee was briefed by Brian Sheron and Don Cleary, RES, on license renewal policy developments. [During the March 1987 ACRS meeting it was decided to combine consideration of both the plant aging research and the related license extension effort under a single ACRS Subcommittee on Reliability Assurance. In March Dr. Sheron introduced the topic of license extension to the Committee. This month he returned with an update and status reportofcurrentactivity.] Dr. Sheron explained that this effort is still in the planning stage; specific action has yet to be decided. The Staff. is pre-paring a Commission paper; this presentation was a preview of that effort.

Mr. Cleary defined several terms for the ACRS. License renewal is defined as the issuance of a new license to operate b? yond the 40-year term of an existing license. License extension is extending the termination date of an operating license to allow 40 years of operation beginning with the initial date of operation (rather than the date the construction permit was issued). Life extension or plant life extension (PLEX) is an industry term involving exten-sion of the economic life of a plant as well as license renewal.

The major milestones in this effort were presented. Regulatory policy issues are to be identified by July 1987. Policy options will be issued for public comment in the fall of 1987. In the fall of 1988, a proposed license renewal policy will be issued for public comment. By the fall of 1989, efforts will begin to develop Regulatory Guides and other guidance documents to implement the license renewal policy. Final regulations are scheduled to be published in 1992. Issuance of Regulatory Guides and standard review plans is to be completed by 1995.

I 4 326TH ACRS MEETIrlG MINUTES 11 i

The Staff believes that utilities will need reasonable assurance of their ability to obtain a license renewal at least 10 years prior to the expiration of an original license in order to plan for future power needs. The Staff is anticipating license renewal applications starting in the early to mid-1990s.

The main responsibility for the license renewal effort is in the Office of Research, Division of Reactor Plants. It is anticipated that the Mitre Corpora-tion will be the principal contractor over the course of this program. The industry has formed the Nuclear Utilities Plant Life Extension Steering Commit-tee (NUPLEX) to coordinate efforts on life extension. The NRC has formed an agency-wide Technical Integration Review Group for Aging and Life Extension (TIRGALEX).

The Staff explained that reviews of applications for license renewals will be treated in a manner similar to that used in the systematic evaluation program.

Requirements at the time of renewal will differ from requirements used at the time the original operating license was granted. The Staff will exercise judgrrent tempered by the results of the ongoing research to assure adequate safety in license renewals.

Mr. Cleary explained two principles emerging from the industry's examination of the license renewal policy. The first theme is the continuity theme. Extend-ing plant life beyond 40 years is a reaffirmation of the ongoing and continuous process of hardware renewal that is an integral part of every nuclear power plant's operating program. The practice of focusing on specific degradation f mechanisms and establishing criteria to assure continued safety of the public is already an established policy at the NRC. The second theme is the extant licensing basis conclusion. If the overall safety record of nuclear power plants during their initial terms is acceptable, it does not seem appropriate for NRC to establish new criteria in the safety evaluation of individual compo-nents or structures for license renewal.

Dr. Okrent suggested that guidance on renewal philosophy be sought outside the nuclear industry. The aircraft industry was suggested as a candidate to be explored regarding aging. He noted new aging mechanisms arise that were not anticipated. He thought it would be prudent to include new modifications in safety that could make up for some inevitable deterioration from original quality or help cover new problems which might occur.

It was observed that there are a considerable number of fossil fueled plants that are over 40 years in age. j l

Mr. Cleary discussed policy issues facing license renewal. One issue is, i should renewals be treated as a new license or as an amendment? Another issue is the term of the renewal license. It must be decided if public hearings will become a part of this process, in all,15 policy issues have been identified.

l c

1 1

l l

)

326TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 12 Technical issues to be resolved were also discussed. These include the role of probabilistic risk assessment (PRA), defining the physical scope of the license renewal, and evaluating components and structures subject to age-related

. degradation. l Examples of policy options that exist include:

4 meeting licensing criteria that exist at the time of license application using PRA to show that the plant meets the safety goals requiring enhancements in maintenance, surveillance, and replacement programs to ensure that age-related degradation is minimized doing nothing different in regulating the plant not renewing licenses.

The Staff has begun a program which can be expected to result in publication of a policy statement in 1989 and final regulations for license renewal by 1992.

Dr. Okrent commented that since the aging research is focused on relicensing, he would expect the industry to assume a large part of the research responsi-bility. Mr. Cleary stated that the ED0 has already expressed this same opinion.

VII. Long Range Planning (0 pen)

[ Note: R. K. Major was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.]

Harold Denton, Director, Office of Governmental and Public Affairs, and Chair-man of the Strategic Planning Task Force, discussed developments regarding the proposed NRC Strategic Plan for NRC activities. Mr. Jesse Funches accompanied him.

It was explained that Chairman Zech believes the agency needs a strategic plan.

He formed a group of senior managers to begin the process of strategic planning. Several drafts have been produced. Advice from several consultants familiar with strategic planning, as well as input from senior NRC management, has gone into the latest draft of the Strategic Plan. This draft is under consideration by the Commission. The hope is that the Strategic Plan will become a living document that will be revised each year to better predict the coming five-year period.

I Mr. Denton explained that the strategic planning committee he chaired was asked to develop overall goals and strategies, but not to develop detailed programs or budgets. This group identified eight major goals. The group focused on potential changes to today's approaches to achieve major goals. Approaches that should not be changed were also listed. The Plan represents the collective judgment of senior NRC managers, rather than a detailed analysis of assumptions or alternative strategies. An effort was made to identify the research philosophy behind research goals and strategies.

e

• 326TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 13 Some of the major assumptions included in the Strategic Plan were reviewed.

These assumptions include:

This is an end of an era for licensing new reactors The major challenge confronting the agency will be issues relating to operating reactors and nonreactor facilities It was assumed that the safeguards environment will remain unchanged There will be more emphasis on waste management The agency should begin to position itself for future plant licensing activities and applications j

It is felt that there will be increased involvement of State and local governm6nts and agencies in NRC-regulated activities.

Changes in the agency's approaches for achieving the goals of the Strategic Plan were discussed. Emphasis should be placed on being proactive rather than

. reactive. The plan suggests more differentiation in the regulatory approach on the basis of performance and potential risk. It also suggests a change toward enhanced incentives for exemplary performance and improvements in licensee operations. The NRC should strive for enhanced public understanding of the agency and its .importance in protecting safety, the common defense and securi-ty, and the environment. The Plan also recommends improved allocation of agency resources relative to a risk determination. Finally, the Plan recom-mends improved . utilization and alignment of NRC human resources.

Major features of goals and strategies for reactor and nonreactor operations were discussed. These begin with the need to establish standards for, and measures of, performance. The agency should develop the ability to identify when the potential for events and accidents increases and take preventive actions.

Some of the major features of goals and strategies for current and future licensing were reviewed. For plants under construction, the emphasis will be on assuring the quality of construction, and 'the transition from construction to operation. The agency should start now to prepare for future reactor licensing associated with: license extension, decommissioning, standardize-tion, and advanced reactors. The agency must also put in place a regulatory program for high-level and low-level waste management.

Major features of internal and external operations, goals, and strategies were reviewed. These include promoting better coordination with State and local governments, informing the public of agency developments and improved prioriti-zation, and planning of agency programs and resot/ces.

The Commission is using the present version ci the Plan in developing a five-year budget. It is likely the Plan will be revised prior to the next budget cycle, s

e= , ,.

326TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 14 VIII. NRC Severe Accident Policy - Individual Plant Examinations (0 pen)

[ Note: M. D. Houston was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of themeeting.)

Dr. Kerr, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Severe Accidents, reported on the Subcommittee meeting held on May 28, 1987. He indicated that the Subcommittee members and consultants believed that the front-end analysis (the part from initiation of an accident to onset of core damage) for the individual plant examinations (IPEs) was in better shape than the back-end analysis (the part from core meltdown to containment failure). . He also stated that some members and consultants were concerned that the IPEs, in the existing forms, would not accomplish the goals found in the Severe Accident Policy Statement.

Dr. Okrent questioned the comments on the adequacy of the IPE back-end analysis and indicated that there are PRA methods available to' deal with that portion.

Dr. B. Sheron (RES) gave a brief introduction to the proposed generic letter for IPEs and indicated that the NRC Staff would like to issue the letter by the end of July. He expressed the opinion that the Staff thought that the IPEs were well enough defined for the utilities to implement the request. He indicated that regional meetings would be held with utilities and NRC personnel to explain the IPE methodology and answer questions. Dr. Okrent indicated that, if the Staff knows more about ir.dividual plant examinations, such information should be included in the letter.

Mr. Coffman (RES) discussed the details of the proposed generic letter. The Staff listed five options as methods for the examination:

(1) A PRA may be utilized provided it is at least at Level II or Level III and it incorporates current methods and data.

1 (2) The IDCOR IPEMs may be used provided the enhancements in the NRC Staff evaluation are applied. (The NRC Staff evaluation of the applicable IDCOR IPEM would be included in the attachments to their letter.)

(3) A Level-I PRA, supplemented by an appropriately evaluated source term, may be applied.

(4) A simplified PRA which uses reduced systems models for the core damage analysis and sequence grouping for the containment performance analysis may be applied with an appropriate NRC approval.

(S) Another systematic examination method may be applied with prior NRC approval.

I lndustrial Cegraded Core Rulemaking Program s

o * . .

326TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 15 Mr. Coffman also discussed the minimum reporting requirements for the IFEs and the guidance given in the attachments to the letter: (1) Guidelines and Criteria that included screening criteria, (2) Evaluations of the applicable IDCOR methodology, and (3) References.

Mr. Ebersole questioned the assumptions applied for the initiators of a severe accident and expressed concern that the Staff was arbitrarily assuming that core melt and vessel failure occurred. Mr. Coffman indicated that this was not an arbitrary assumption.

Mr. Michelson asked what scenarios were included in the definition of a severe accident and he discussed specific examples that might fall into this category.

He also questioned the lack of evaluation of external initiators.

Dr. Okrent expressed doubt that the average utility, using its own staff, would be able to complete the IPE study within the allotted two-ano-one-half-year period.

Dr. Shewmon expressed his concern about the open-ended aspect of equipment qualification. The Staff indicated that revised qualification standards would only apply for the instruments and equipment needed to mitigate a severe accident. He also questioned the thresholds for outliers or vulnerabilities and how the backfit rule applied to these anticipated plant modifications.

Dr. Kerr questioned the Staff's interpretation of outliers and indicated that it seemed to be inconsistent with the Policy Statement. He also indicated that, with the current interpretation, every plant would have outliers and all plants would require some modification. The Staff indicated that it was not a foregone conclusion that every plant would have to make some fix.

Dr. A. Buhl (ITC), representing the Industrial Degraded Core Rulemaking (IDCOR)

Program, summarized the activities and development of the IDCOR IPE Methodology (IPEM). Mr. Carter (!TC) followed with more details of the BWR and PWR IPEMs.

Mr. Ebersole asked whether the IDCOR-IPEM would have found the QA/QC problems at a plant like Sequoyah. Dr. Buhl indicated it would not.

Mr. Michelson questioned the assumptions made by IDCOR in specific areas in performing these analyses. Dr. Kerr indicated that the IDCOR-IPEM was not intended to be more extensive than a PRA. Mr. Carter indicated that the IPEM is not a PRA but could be expanded to qualify as one.

Dr. Okrent asked whether IDCOR would adopt the Staff's reconunendations given in the draft evaluation of the IPEMs. Dr. Buhl indicated that IDCOR had not seen the evaluations and, thus, could not comment. However, he indicated that IDCOR was mostly aware of the recommendations through meetings with the Staff and read a statement by Dr. Speis (RES) that the differences between the Staff and IDCOR are minor. Dr. Okrent also questioned the assumptions made for corium  ;

distribution in certain BWRs, mainly Mark IIs, and whether steam explosions cculd be expecteo when the r:elted corium fell inte tre suppression pool, e

o . ,

, 10 _ , ,_

326TH ACRS MEETING t11NUTES 16 IX. Executive Sessions A. Subcommittee Reports (0 pen).

1. Reliability Assurance

[ Note': R. K. Maj1r was thc Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.]

Mr. Wylie, Chainnan, ACRS Subcommittee on Reliability Assurance, reported that the NRC Staff has asked the ACRS to approve Regulatory Guide 1.100 for issuance for public coment. This Regulatory Guide endorses an industry standard (proposed IEEE Std. 344-1987. Recom-mended Practices for Seismic Qualification of Class 1E Equipment for Nuclear Power Generating Stations," draft 9, dated July 1986). The Standard itself outlines current practice.

As a result of this report, the ACRS concurred in the NRC Staff's proposal to issue this Guide for public coment. After the public comment period, the Comittee expects to review the proposed final version of this Guide together with the public comments and the NRC Staff's response to them. As noted below, a letter to Mr. Stello, EDO, was prepared advising him of this action.

Mr. Wylie also noted that Mr. Major had attended, as an observer, part of the USI A-46 trial plant walkdown'at Zion Nuclear Plant 2 on May 18 and 19, 1987. A trip report on the Zion walkdown was included in the 326th meeting folder. An NRC Staff report to the ACRS on the effectiveness of the Zion walkdown is expected at the August full Comittee meeting. A trial walkdown at Nine Mile Point 1, a BWR, is being planned for late summer 1987. Members interested in attending should contact Mr. Major.

Mr. Wiley also briefed the full ACRS on current industry and Staff efforts related to valve reliability. He reported that P. Wohld of NRC's Region III, made a presentation on motor-operated valve inspec-tion and test experience. Mr. Wohld mentioned that a problem identi-

fied during NRC audit inspections was the need to educate maintenance workers to follow valve maintenance procedures. A further root cause of problems encountered is inadequate management attention to valve

~

preventive maintenance programs. Mr. Wylie noted similar conclusions are contained in an AE0D case study entitled "A Review of Motor-Operated Valve Performance," issued in December 1986.

Mr. Reed commented that the valve industry was fragmented without a single unifying entity to guide valve design, manufacturing, applica-tion, installation and maintenance.

Mr. Wylie reported that the subcommittee heard presentations en several new testing devices. MOVATS, Inc. is marketing a new procuct called " Checkmate" which is a preventive and predictive test cevice

je . .

326TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 17

'for swing check valves. He also reported on efforts by Philadelphia Electric Co. to use a hand-held portable microprocessor to collect -

acoustic signatures from valves to compare against baseline data.

Mr. Michelson thinks there is a lot of work under way by the industry related to valve reliability; however, he is concerned over how fragmented these efforts are.

2.  : Nuclear Plant Chemistry

[ Note: H. Alderman was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.

Dr. Moeller reported on the May 19, 1987 meeting which reviewed Section 6.5.2 " Containment Spray as a Fission Product Cleanup System," Division 2, and 6.5.5, " Suppression Pools as Fission Product CleanupSystems," Revision 0,oftheStandardReviewPlan(SRP).

He noted that SRP 6.5.2 was changed to allow the utilities to delete the additives from the chemical spray if they desire. The action is voluntary. Research has indicated that the sprays are equally effective with or without the additives. The pH of the containment sump water must be controlled and this is usually done using trisodium phosphate (TSP) placed in baskets in the sump.

SRP 6.5.5 allows credit for fission product scrubbing in the suppres-sion pool.

As noted below, the Committee approved a letter to the Executive Director for Operations endorsing the general approach proposed by the NRC Staff.

3. Generic Items Subcommittee Report

[ Note: Sam Duraiswamy was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.]

Dr. Siess, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Generic Items, noted that in a memorandum dated September 18, 1986 to Mr. Ward, NRC Chairmen Zech requested, among other things, that the ACRS: _

" Advise the Comission on the effectiveness of programs which address j generic and unresolved safety issues."

Subsequently, the ACRS met with the Commission in December 1986, l During that meeting, Dr. Siess asked the Commission:

4 Whether the ACRS should look at the effectiveness of the Sta#f's programs in terms of how fast the generic issues are priorithed, resolved, and implemented

]

)

3

_ _ _ _ . . . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ m

E ..

AS * - .. -.,

326TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES- 18 or Whether it should look at it in terms of the increase in the safety of operating plants resulting from the implementation.of the . resolved generic issues and Unresolved- Safety Issues (USIs). .

The. Comission . suggested that the ACRS try to measure the effectiveness of the Staff programs in terms of . how fast generic issues. are prioritized,' resolved, and implemented and also in terms-of the contribution to plant safety resulting from the implementation of resolved generic issues and USIs.

Dr. Siess said that he is somewhat reluctant to undertake this review -

because he believes that the NRC Office of . Internal Audit should- l

- perform such a review to measure the effectiveness 'of the . Staff programs.

Dr. Siess said that, en February 4,1987, he had an informal meeting with representatives of the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) and the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) to gather some preliminary information on the overall process dealing with generic issues and USIs.

On May 27,1987, the Generic Items Subcommittee held a meeting to discuss . the process that involves generic issues and USIs and to gather information for use by the ACRS in responding to the request made by Chairman Zech. During this meeting, the Subcommittee heard presentations by, and held discussions with, representatives of the NRC Staff with respect to the following: l Process indolving identification of generic issues and USIs Prioritization process Resolution process Implementation process Safety Issues Management System (SIMS)

Identification of new generic issues is done by RES, NRR, ACRS, AE00, industry, etc. In fact, everybody is involved in the identification process. About 36 new issues are identified per year. In addition, four generic issues per year are identified for reprioritization based on new information.

RES has the primary responsibility in prioritizing generic issues.

Based on the Value/ Impact Methodology included in NUREG-0933, "Prioritization of Generic Safety Issues," generic issues are ranked in the following categories:

HIGH MEDIUM LOW DROP e

4

..g

_j & , ,.

i 326TH-ACRS MEETING MINUTES 19 In addition, some of the issues are classified as " Licensing Issues" and " Regulatory Impact' Issues." Issues falling into these categories are not considered to be of major safety significance.

About 30 generic issues are prioritized. per year by' four Staff members - and the average time to prioritize an issue is about six months. There _ are about 10 issues added to the backlog list every year that need to be prioritized.

RES also has the primary responsibility for the resolution of generic issues and USIs. -They get assistance from a Task Group that consists of RES staff, NRR staff, etc. For resolution of certain difficult issues, they seek assistance from certain National Laboratories.

So far, resources have been allocated primarily to the resolution of High-priority generic issues and 'USIs. However, they now expect to allocate some resources to the resolution of certain Medium-priority generic issues.

The minimum time for resolution 'of a USI is 45 months; maximum time, 83 months; and average time, 54 months.

For resolution of generic issues, the minimum time is 4 months; maximum time, 51 months; and average time, 28 months.

According to the Staff, 77 percent of the prioritized issues 'have been resolved.

Dr. Sinss mentioned that the ACRS has been involved in reviewing the adequacy of the technical resolution proposed by the Staff for most all USIs. However, he is not sure whether the ACRS has been receiving all the information associated with the resolution of generic issues. At the Subcommittee meeting, he suggested that the i Staff make sure that the ACRS receives the resolution package for all generic issues. After receiving such information, the ACRS will decide which~ones it wants to review in detail. j The implementation process is divided into the following three. steps: .

l Imposition  !

Implementation Verification ,

Imposition of the requirements resulting from the resolution of generic issues and USIs is the responsibility of NRR. All of the plants do not always have the same requirements. Which plant should implement which requirements is normally decided at the resolution stage. The cognizant project managers should make sure that all of j the requirements that are applicable to their plants get implemented j correctly by the licenses, e

l

+

326TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 20 Implementation of the requirements is the responsibility of the licensees.

Verification of the adequacy - of the implementation is the l responsibility of. NRR and the NRC Regional Offices, j There are 21,189 requirements resulting from the resolution of TMI Action Plan items, generic issues, USIs, and other items. Of these, 17,067 have been resolved,14,280 have been implemented, and 11,970 have been verified. {

Dr. Siess said that, based on the discussion at the Subcommittee meeting, the Subcommittee concluded that:

The overall process seems to be reasonable.

The process associated with the prioritization and the resolution could be speeded if additional Staff engineering support were provided.

There was some concern by members of the Subcommittee about the fragmentation, compartmentalization, and lack of integration of certair. issues. l The ACRS should get more involved in reviewing the adequacy of the proposed resolution of generic issues.

SIMS has been very helpful to the Staff in tracking the status of all plant-specific, as well as generic issues and USIs.

Dr. Siess said that the Subcommittee plans to hold at least one more meeting to explore this task further. At that meeting, the Subcommittee will concentrate on the following:

Select certain generic issues and USIs and follow them through the whole process with emphasis on the implementation process.

Talk to certain licensees to determine how effectively resolved items have been implemented in their plants and wnether it has contributed to plant safety.

Dr. Siess said that, subsequent to the next meeting, the Subcommittee will try to develop comments and recommendations and submit them to the full Committee for consideration. After reviewing the Subcommittee report, if the full Comittee believes that some sort of presentation by the NRC Staff would be helpful, arrangements could be made for such a presentation. The members of the Committee did not raise any objection to the approach proposed by Dr. Siess.

326TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 21

4. Severe Accidents /PRA Subcommittee Joint Meetina

[ Note: R. P. Savio was the Designated Federal Official for this ,

portion of the meeting.]

Dr. Kerr stated that the ACRS Subcommittees on Severe Accidents and PRA held a joint meeting on June 3,1987 on the NRC Staff's work on NUREG-1150._ These subcommittees will hold a second joint meeting on July 8,1987 and will bring the matter to the ACRS for their review during the July 9-11, 1987 ACRS meeting. Members were requested to inform Dr. Kerr of any topics which they believe should be discussed at the July 8, 1987 meeting of the subcommittees.

5. Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena

[ Note: P. A. Boehnert was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.]

D. Ward, speaking as Chairman of the Subcommittee, noted the recent transfer of its chairmanship from C. Michelson to himself. He went on to express concern that, absent a Committee member " expert" in thermal hydraulics, increased participation by Committee members vis-a-vis the Subcommittee's activities is desirable for a topic of this importance.

B. Reports, Letters, and Memoranda (0 pen)

1. ACRS Coments on Disposal of Mixed Waste (Repci t u Chairman Zech dated 6/9/87)

The Committee commended the NRC Staff for its efforts in resolving l relevant issues in the disposal of mixed waste but expressed concern with the interpretation of the definition of mixed waste.

l 2. ACRS Coments on Proposed Revisions to Standard Review Plan Sections 6.5.2, " Containment Spray as a Fission Product Cleanup System" and 6.5.5., Suppression Pools as Fiss.cn Proouct Cleanup Systems" l

The Committee endorsed, in a memorandum to the EDO (subsequently sent on 6/9/87), the general approach proposed by the NRC Staff in revi-sions to the the Standard Review Plan concerning decontamination factors applicable to containment spray and suppression pools.

l 1

l

I l , ,

l 326TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 22 l

3. ACRS Comments on the NRC Staff Proposal for the Resolution of USI A-44, " Station Blackout" (Report subsequently sent on 6/9/87 to Chainnan Zech)

The Committee considered the proposed resolution of USI A-44 to be i workable and commended the Staff for its efforts; however, it did not recomend issuance of the final rule at this time. The Comittee recommended that the Staff continue to work with NUMARC and if by St.ptember it is found that the NUMARC initiatives will not be effec-tive or timely, or will be unduly difficult to evaluate on a plant-to-plant basis, then the Staff should issue the final rule.

4 ACRS Comments on Draft NUREG-1226, " Development and Utilization of the NRC. Policy Statement on the Regulation of Advanced Nuclear Power Plants" (Report subsequently sent on 6/9/87 to Chairman Zech)

The Committee identified several terms and concepts in the Draft Policy Statement that should be clarified, and recommended that more definitive guidance for sabotage-protection considerations be includ-ed in the Policy Statement.

5. ACRS Comments on Quality Assurance Programs for a High-Level Waste Repository (Report subsequently sent on 6/10/87 to Cha'rman Zech)

The Committee urged NRC and DOE to define acceptance criteria and to establish a schedule for conducting Quality Assurance readiness reviews with discrete steps throughout the HLW repository development process.

6. Proposed International Wo4 shop on Quality in Design and Construction of Nuclear Power Plants (Letter to Chairman Zech dateo 6/10/87)

The Committee recommended that the NRC consider the ceganization and sponsorship of an International Workshop on Quality in Design and Construction and offered to participate in the planning of tha Workshop.

7. ACRS Report on Proposed Generic Letter on Individual Plant Examina-tions for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities (Report subsequently sent on 6/9/87 to Chairman Zech)

The Committee identified what it considered to be deficiencies in the NRC Staff's proposed generic letter on individual plant examinations for severe accident vulnerabilities and provided recommendations.

8. ACRS Comments on Proposed Revised Standard Review Plan Section 3.6.2,

" Determination of Ruoture Locations and Dynamic Effects Associated i with the Postulatea kuoture of Pioina," Datec Octooer 2, 1986 The Committee acvised the ECO, in a memorandum subsequently sent on June 9,1987, that it sees no prcolem with the issuance of the

'a** . .

326TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 23 revised Section 3.6.2 of the Standard Review Plan provided that the guidance in the Mechanical Engineering Branch Technical Positions 3-1,subpartB.1.c.(4)isimplemented.

9. 'ACRS Action on Proposed Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 1.100, "Seis-mic Qualification of Electric and fiechanical Equipment for Nuclear Power P1 ants"-

The Comittee, in a memorandum ~ subsequently sent on 6/9/87 to the-EDO, concurred with--the Staff in its proposal to issue for public coment Proposed Revision 2 to Regulatory Guide 1.100, Draft 4, dated December 4, 1986.

10.. ACRS Letter to Senator John Glenn The Comittee, in response to a reouest from Senator Glenn, provided its views (letter dated June 9, 1987) on the proposal to establish a Nuclear Safety Board with ACRS support for overview of DOE activities (S.1085).

11. ACRS Letter to Senator Joseph Biden The Comittee June'10,1987)provided Senator on his proposed bill,Biden S.14,with its comments to create a Nuclear(letter Safetydated Board for overview of NRC activities. The letter outlines previous ACRS comments on such a Board and explains that Committee opinion on this issue is still divided.

C. Other Comittee Conclusions (0 pen / Closed)

1. Comments on the High-level Radioactive Waste Program _ (0 pen)

[ Note: 0. S. Merrill was the Designated Federal Official for this portionofthemeeting.]

The Comittee discussed the letter on the High-level Radioactive Waste Program that it prepared during the 325th ACRS meeting and agreed not to send the letter.

I 2. C_ontrol Room Habitability (0 pen)-

[ Note: E. G. Igne was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.]

Dr. Moeller discussed fcilures of radiation and chlorine monitors that have led to actuation of the control room emergency ventilation system at certain nuclear plants. -It was agreed that this matter would be discussed with AEOD during the June 22-23, 1987 meeting of the Occupational and Environmental Protection Systems Subcommittee.

.f

326TH ACRS MEETIllG MINUTES 24

3. New Member Nominating Subcommittee. (Closeo)

Dr. Lewis requested Comittee guidance in identifying prospective candidates for the remaining opening on the Comittee. It was agreed that this topic should be discussed during the July ACRS meeting.

4. EPRI Advanced LWR Requirements and GE ABWR (0 pen)

The Committee agreed to consider the proposed GE ABWR review separately from the review of the EPRI Advanced LWR Requirements Document which is falling behind the ABWR review.

5. Meetina with the Mexican Advisory Comittee (0 pen)

Mr. Fraley told the Committee that Mexico does not have a committee or group such as the ACRS, that provides nuclear safety advice. He 3 proposed that the ACRS Staff continue to explore the Mexican regulatory process to determine an appropriate group with which the ACRS might meet. The Committee raised no objection to the proposal.

6. Meeting with the Canadian Safety Committee (0 pen)

Mr. Fraley requested suggestions from the members concerning a meeting with this group. Several members encouraged him to explore setting up such a meeting.

7. Meeting with British Regulators (0 pen)

A meeting with British regulators was proposed but was not endorsed

, by the Committee.

8. ACRS Retreat (0 pen)

The Committee agreed that a date should be determined for a meeting of the Planning Comittee (with all members invited to attend) to discuss the role and functions of the ACRS in the regulatory process.

D. Future Activities (0 pen)

1. Future Agenda The Comittee agreed on tentative agenda items for the 327th ACRS meeting, July 9-11, 1987 (see Appendix III).

2. Future Subcommittee Activities A schedule of future subcommittee activities was distributed to members (see Appendix IV).

The 326th ACRS meeting was adjcurned at 1:56 p.m., Saturcay, Jure 6.1987.

. 9x..

f$'$hdf

,4 ,

APPENDICES MINUTES OF THE 326TH ACRS MEETING JUNE 4-6, 1987, WASHINGTON, D.C.

.P_ age Appendix I-- List of Attendees A-l' Appendix 11 Memorandum from Chairman.Zech A-5 Appendix III Future Agenda A-6 Appendix'IV- Future Subcommittee Activities A-8

. Appendix V Other Documents Received A-14' i

. , - 7; . .

<- a l

325 327 328 329 330: 331 332' 321 322 323 324 ACRS MEETING DATE: h b b, ATTENDEES Dr. William Kerr, Chairman Dr. Forrest J. Remick, Vice Chairman / ~~ K j I

i Mr. Jesse C. Ebersole Dr. Harold W. Lewis

/ {

Dr. Carson Mark Mr. Carlyle Michelson /

Dr. Dade t' Moeller [

Dr. David Okrent Mr. Glenn A. Reed Dr. Paul G. Shewmon Dr. Chester P. Siess /

Mr. David A. Ward [ '-4 l Mr. Charles J. Wylie I

(

A-l 7

. e NRC STAFF ATTENDEES 326TH ACRS MEETING Thursday, June 4, 1987 Sher Bahadur, NMSS J. Yardumian NMSS H. Berkow, NkR F. Schroeder, NRR P. Leech, NRR R. Hernan, NRR S. Stern, NRR PUBLIC ATTENDEES l

Thursday, June 4, 1987 Lynn Connor, Doc-Search Associates K. Arn, SERCH Licensing Tom Ray, SERCH Licensing M. W. Ebert, NUS Corp.

R. Borsum, Babcock & Wilcox A. Giambusso, Stone & Webster D. Neville, Doub & Muntzing K. R.Goller, DBA B. R. Boher, Framatome G. N. Ward, Advanced Nuclead Fuel L. A. Nielsen, Advanced Nuclear Fuel E. Dluzniewski, GRS W. Adam, NRC, Region III

l l

l NRC STAFF ATTENDEES 326TH ACRS MEETING Friday, June 5, 1987 0FFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION C. E. Rossi K. N. Jabrour J. Clifford ,

W. Lyon H. N. Pastis W. Hodges C. Schulten R. Lobel J. Bradlake D. E. Hicknan A. Gilbert W. Lanning F. Orr C. H. Berlinger G. Kelly 0FFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH P. E. Norian B. Sheron D. Cleary i k:b5Shiewicz 0FFICE FOR ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF OPERATIONAL DATA P. Lam REGION II T. A. Peebles l

AS

- -- ------- _ a

PUBLIC ATTENDEES  !

326TH ACRS MEETING Friday, June 5, 1987 J. Trotter, NUS R.Borsum, Babcock & Wilcox L. Connor, DOC Search Associates A. Wyche, SERCH Licensing-Bechtel D. Bjorkham, SERCH Licensing - Bechtel P. Guill, Duke K. R. Goller, DBA T. Poindexter, Bishop Cook T. Buhl, ITC '

B. R. Botter, Framatome M. Rathje, Doc-Search M. O'Mealia, DSA B. Neville, Doub & Muntzing S. Seth, MITRE P. Abel, MITRE A. Hughes, MITRE K. Perkins, BNL D.Aireco, McGraw-Hill J. Carter, I. T. Corp.

T. Buhl, ITC k' $

m

. /p ** c 'o UNITED STATES f" , e NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g - - ; w AsmNcTON. D. C. 20555 f

'% , **' June 1, 1987 CHAtRMAN MEMORANDUM FCR: Williem Kerr, Chairman Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards FROM: Lando W. Zech, Jr. 8v . .

SUBJECT:

ACRS COMMENTS ON AN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR THE l SAFETY G0AL POLICY (LETTER FROM W. KERR TO L. ZECH DATED MAY 13,1987)

] would like to express my appreciation for your letter of May 13, 1987 conveying the ACRS' comments on an implementation plan for the safety goal '

policy. I found the letter to be interesting and I believe it provides sume very worthwhile suggestions on a complex and significant subject that tne Commission is currently considering.

Your comments on the staff's proposed implementation plan for the safety goal policy are consistent with mine. I found your proposal on the use of the safety goal criteria to judge the adequacy of regulations rather than

• to make regulatory judgements about spet.ific plants, also consistent with my thoughts on the use of the safety 9061 criteria. Your proposal for the recognition and formulation of an explicit hierarchical structure among the interrelated criteria in the overall goal is on interesting approach and ,

should be considered by the staff and Commission.

As you are aware, I have forwarded to my fellow Commissioners a proposal for staff guidance on the implementation of the safety goal policy. It is my intent to supplement this proposal with your recent letter. Again, I appreciate your comments on this important subject.

cc: Commissioner Asselstine  !

Commissioner Bernthal Commissioner Carr EDO OGC ACRS '

SECY

(

A-5

&yY.

. .h l

FUTURE AGENDA July.9-11, 1987 Improved Safety for Future Light Water Reactors (CJW/RKM) Estimated Time 2-3 hrs. - Discuss proposed ACRS action / comments regarding-systems proposed .for consideration to improve safety in future LWRs-

' Control Room Habitability .(DWM/EGI) Estimated Time 1 hr. .- Discuss proposed ACRS report regarding control room habitability in nuclear power plants-Safety Features in Foreign Nuclear Plants (00/RPS) Estimated Time -

2-3 hrs. - liscuss proposed ACRS report to the NRC regarding. the -

applicability of safety features in foreign nuclear plants to l reactors in the United States TVA Nuclear Performance Plan (CJW/RPS) Estimated Time 11 hrs. -

Discuss proposed revision of TVA Nuclear Perfonnance Plan NRC Severe Accident Policy (WK/D0/MDH/RPS) Estimated Time 11 hrs. -

Discuss proposed NRC Reactor Risk Reference Document (NUREG-1150)

Millstone Nuclear Power Station Unit 1 (DAW /RPS) Estimated Time 2 hrs. - Discuss the integrated safety assessment program report for this station Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 2 (DWM/FJR/RKM) Estimated Time 1 br. - Report and discussion of core remoni and examination activities by representatives of INEL Meeting with the Director, NRC Office of Nuclear Material Safeguards and Safety (WK/RFF) Estimated Time 1 br. - Discuss topics of muutual interest L

Activities of NRC Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational l

Data (HWL/RKM) Estimated Time li hrs. - Review of 1987 case studies and startup-plant studies ACRS Subcommittee Activities - Estimated Time 3/4 hrs. - Reports and discussion of ACRS subcommittee activities regarding the status of activities in designated areas of responsibility, including Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena (DAW /PAB).

Assessment of Operating Experience (JCE/HA) Estimated Time i hr. -

Briefing and discussion of the assessments of selected nuclear power operating incidents and events

, ACRS Future Activities (WK/RFF/MWL) Estimated Time } hr. - Discuss I anticipated ACRS subcommittee activities and matters proposed for full Committee consideration APPENDIX III

F 326th ACRS Meeting 2 Appointment of New ACRS Member (HLW/NSL)' Estimated Time 1. hr. -

Discuss qualification of candidates for appointment to the Committee i

Core Liquid Level Indication - Discuss implications of Diablo l Canyon incident (added item) (JCE/MME) li hrs. I i'

August 6-8, 1987 u

Technical Specifications - NRC Interim Policy Statement GDC-4 Environmental and Missile Damage -

GE Advanced BWR -

September 10-12, 1987 pecay Heat Removal - Resolution of USIA-45 Containment Performance -

October 8-10, 1987 EPRI Advanced LWR Requirements USI A-17 Systems Interaction 1

-]

A -7

!1 ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS Advanced Reactor 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). ' Attendance by the following is anticipated, and reservations have been made at the hotels indicated for the night of June 16:

Mr. Ward NONE Dr. Siess ANTHONY Mr. Ebersole DAYS INN Mr. Wylie DAYS INN Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena, June 18, 1987, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC (Boehnert), 8:30 A.M., Room 1046. The Subcommittee will review: MIST Wogram Status including results of MIST Phase III tests, IST Scaling Coordination, and plans for a follow-on test Program. Attendance by the following is anticipated, and reservations have been made at the hotels indicated for the night of June 17:

Mr. Ward NONE Mr. Etherington HOLIDAY INN Mr. Ebersole DAYS INN Dr. Schrock ANTHONY Dr. Kerr LOMBARDY Mr. Sullivan NONE Mr. Reed DAYS INN Mr. Wylie DAYS INN Occuestional and Environmental Protection Systems, June 22 and 23, 1987, 1717 H 5treet, NW, Washington, DC (Igne), 8:30 A.M., Room 1046. The Subcommittee will discuss issue concerning emergency plans, control room habitability update, INP0's briefing on nuclear power plant occupational exposure, and other matters. Attendance by the following is anticipated, .

and reservations have been made at the hotels indicated for the nights of Jur.e 21 and 22:

Dr. Moeller APMY NAVY Mr. Kathren NONE Mr. Reed DAYS INN Dr. Shapiro HOLIDAY INN Dr. Remick NONE Hunan Factors, June 24, 1987, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC (Alderman),

8:30 A.M., Room 1046. The Subcommittee will reviliw 3ECY 87-101, " Issues and Proposed Options Concerning Degree Requirement for Senior Operators."

Attendance by the following is anticipated, and reservations have been made at the hotels indicated for the night of June 23:

Dr. Remick NONE Mr. Reed DAYS INN Mr. Ebersole DAYS int: Mr. Ward NONE Dr. Kerr i

LOMBARDY APPENDIX IV A -8

t Integrated Safety Assessment Program (ISAP), July 7, 1987, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC (Savio), 9:00 A.M., Room 1046. The Subcommittee will review the Integrated Safety Assessment Program (ISAP) and the ISAPO for Millstone Nuclear Power Station Unit I and the Haddam Neck Plant.

Attendance by the following is anticipated, and reservations have been made at the hotels indicated for the night of July 6: q l

Mr. Ward NONE Dr. Siess ANTHONY l Mr. Ebersole DAYS INN Mr. Davis HOLIDAY INN Dr. Okrent ANTH0NY Joint Severe Accidents /Probabilistic Risk Assessment, July 8, 1987, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC (Houston /Savio), 8:30 A.M., Room 1046. The l Subcommittees will conclude their review of the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research's report NUREG-1150, " Reactor Risk Reference Document", which was issued in February 1987 for public coment. Attendance by the following is anticipated, and reservations have been made at the hotels indicated for the night of July 7:

Dr. Kerr LOMBARDY Dr. Siess ANTHONY Dr. Okrent ANTHONY Mr. Ward NONE Dr. Lewis HYATT Mr. Wylie DAYS INN Dr. tiark LOMBARDY Dr. Catton NONE Mr. Michelson DAYS INN Mr. Davis HOLIDAY INN Dr. Remick NONE Dr. Lee ANTHONY Dr. Shewmon (tent.) NONE Dr. Saunders NONE Mr. Bender ANTHONY 327th ACRS Meeting, July 9-11, 1987, Washington, DC, Room 1046.

Auxiliary Systems, July 23, 1987, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC (Duraiswamy), 8:30 A.M., Room 1046. The Subcommittee will discuss with the NRC research staff and the personnel from the Sandia National Laboratories

! the progress of the " Scoping Study" being performed by the Sandia National Laboratories for NRC on the need for future research in the fire protection area. . Attendance by the following is anticipated. and reservations have .

been made et the hotels indicated for the night of July 22:

l_ Mr. Michelson DAYS INil Dr. Shewmon'(tent.) NONE Mr. Ebersole DAYS INN Mr. Wylie DAYS INN Mr. Reed DAYS INN

'4 A-7 l

~

l I

(

Metal Components, July 24, In7,1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC (Igne),

5:30 A.M., Room 1046. The Subcommittee will review GDC-4 Amendment (leak-before break rule), research programs on dosimetry, irradiation effects and other onmatters pressure vessel (e.g., materials drywell (Regulatory) shell corrosion Guide 1.99,

. Attendance Revision 2),

by the following is anticipated, and reservations have been made at the hotels indicated for the night of July 23:

Dr. Shewmon NONE Mr. Ward NONE Mr. Michelson DAYS INN Mr. Rodabaugh NONE Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena, August 4, 1987, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC (Boehnert),'8:30 A. C~Reem 1046. The Subcommittee will review: (1)

E elopment of Uncertainty Methodology for BE ECCS Codes, (2) Status of the Generic Issue addressing Steam Generator / Steam Line Overfill Issues, and (3) Status of the Water Hamer Issue. Attendance by the following is anticipated, and reservations have been made at the hotels indicated for the night of August 3:

Mr. Ward NONE Mr. Wylie DAYS INN Mr. Eberscic DAYS inh Dr. Catton NONE Dr. Kerr (tent.) LOMBARDY Dr. Schrock NONE Dr. Mark LOMBARDY Dr. Sullivan NONE Mr. Michelson DAYS INN Dr. Tien NONE Mr. Reed DAYS INN Decay Heat Removal Syster:s, August 5, 1987, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC Boehnert). The Subcommittee will review the resolution status for:

TT)(GI 23: "RCP Seal Failure", (2) GI 93: " Steam Binding of AFW Pumps, and (3) GI 124: "AFW System Reliability." Attendance by the following is anticipated, and reservations have been made at the hotels indicated for the night of August 4:

Mr. Ward NONE Mr. Wylie DAYS INN Mr. Ebersole DAYS INN Dr. Catton NONE Mr. Michelson DAYS INN Mr. Davis NONE Mr. Reed DAYS INN 328th ACRS Meeting, August 6-8, 1987, Washington, DC, Room 1046.

Waste Management. August 17-19, 1987, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC, (Merrill), 8:30 A.M., Room 1046. The Subcommittee will review several pertinent HLW, LLW, and related research topics yet to be detemined.

Lodging will be announced later. Attendance by the following is anticipated:

Dr. Moeller Dr. Shewmon Dr. Mark Dr. Steindler Dr. Remick

(

A -/0

i Regional and I&E Programs, August 28,)1987, Suite 210, Walnut Creek, CA (Boehnert RegionThe

, 8:30 A.M. V, Subcommittee 1450 Maria Lane, will review the activities under the control of the Region V Office. Lodging will-be announced later. Attendance by the following is anticipated:

Dr. Remick Mr.' Ward Mr. Michelson Mr. Wylie Dr. Moeller Mr. Reed 329th ACRS Meeting, September 10-12, 1987, Washington, DC, Room 1046.

330th ACRS Hecting, October 8-10, 1987, Washington, DC, Room 1046.

Generic Items, Date to be detemined (July / August), Washington, DC TDuraisvamy). The Subcommittee will continue the discussion on the effectiveness of the programs 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 Auxiliary Systems, Date to be determined (August), Washington, DC TDuraiswamy). The Subcommittee will discuss the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system malfunctions and their impact on safety systens. In addition, it will discuss problems associated with instrument air systems, AE0D findings concerning the instrument air system malfunc- .

tions and its recommendations to alleviate this problem. 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 detemined (August), Washinc ton, DC Thoehnert). The Subcommittee will continue its review of the NRR F;esolu-  ;

tion Position for USI A-45. Attendance by the following is anticipated: l Mr. Ward Mr. Wylie Mr. Ebersole Dr. Catton Mr. Michelson Mr. Davis Mr. Reed f

Av/

r t-l l

l l(

l Babcock & Wilcox Reactor Plants, Date to be determined (late sumer/early i fall), Washington, DC (Major). The Subcommittee will continue its review of the long-term safety review of B&W reactors. This effort was begun during the sumrer of 1986; initial Comittee coments offered on July 16, 1986 in a letter to V. Stello, EDO. Attendance by the following is anticipated: l Mr. Wylie Mr. Michelson Mr. Ebersole Dr. Okrent Dr. Kerr Mr. Reed i

Dr. Lewis Mr. Ward Auxiliary Systems, Date to be detemined (September), Washington, DC (Duraiswamy). The Subcommittee will discuss the criteria used by the utilities to design Chilled Water Systems, associated regulatory requirements, and the criterie 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 (2) status of RES-proposed new integral test facility. Attendance by the following is anticipated:

Mr. Michelson Dr. Catton Mr. Ebersole Dr. Schrock Dr. Kerr Mr. Sullivan Mr. Ward Dr. Tien Mr. Wylie Standardization of Nuclear Facilities, Date to be detemined (September /

October), Washington, DC (Aldermar). The Subcommittees will review the Staff SER and Chapter I of the EPRI Requirements document. Chapter II may also be discussed. Atterdance by the following is anticipated:

Mr. Wylie Mr. Reed Mr. Michelson Dr. Siess i

L A-in

1 c ..

t 1

GE Reactors (ABWR), Date to be determined (September / October), Washington, ,

DC (Major). The Subcommittee will review the Licensing Basis Agreement l TEBA)between.GEand.theNRCStaff. Attendance by the following is antic- 1 ipeted:

Dr. Okrent Dr. Remick Mr. Ebersole Dr. Shewmon <

Dr. Kerr Mr. Ward Mr. Michelson Mr. Wylie Joirt Seabrook/ 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: l Dr. Kerr Mr. Reed Dr. Lewis Dr. Remick Dr. Mark Dr. Shewmon Mr. Michelson Dr. Siess Dr. Moeller Mr. Wylie Dr. Okrent Dr.Catton(tent.)

Seabrock Unit 1, Date to be determined, Washington, DC (Major). The Subcommittee will review the application for a full power operating license for Seabrook Unit 1. Attendance by the following is anticipated:

Dr. Kerr Dr. Moeller Dr. Lewis Mr. Michelson 1

APPENDIX V ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS PROVIDED FOR ACRS USE 326TH ACRS MEETING, JUNE 4-6, 1987

1. Memo to ACRS Members from R. Savio and R. Major, ACRS,

Subject:

Status Report for the June 4-6, 1987 Discussions on Improved US LWRs and Foreign Reactor Safety Features, dated May 27, 1987

2. Memo to V. Stello, ED0 from R. Fraley, ACRS,

Subject:

Improved Safety for Future Light Water Reactor Power Plant Dcsign, dated May 21, 1987

3. Memo to D. Okrent, Chairman, ACRS Subcommittee on Improved LWR Designs, from R. Major, ACRS,

Subject:

NRC Staff Response to "ACRS Recommendations on Improved Safety for Future Light Water Reactor Power Plant Design," dated April 17, 1987 4 Letter to W. Kerr, ACRS Chairman, from V. Stello, EDO,

Subject:

ACRS Recommendations on Improved Safety for Future Light Water Reactor Power Plant Design, dated April 13, 1987

5. Letter to R. Bernero, NRR, from R. Artigas, GE,

Subject:

Requested GE comments on ACRS letter to L. Zech dated January 15, 1987 l

(

Subject:

ACRS Recommendations on Improved Safety for Future Light .

Water Reactor Plant Design), dated February 27, 1987 with attached table " Comparison of ABWR Design with ACRS Recommendations"

6. Letter from E. E. Kintner, Chairman, EPRI ALWR Program to T. Speis, NRC, dated March 27, 1987 forwarding EPRI ALWR Program's comments to W. Kerr's Jan. 15, 1987 ltrtoL.Zech(Subj: improved safety forfutureLWRplantdesign)

7. Portion of NUREG-1070: Attachment III., Policy Statement on Severe Reactor Accidents Regarding Future Designs and Existing Plants, pp.

19, dated July 1985

8. Memo to R. Fraley, ACRS, from J. Hoyle, SECY,

Subject:

Staff Requirements - Periodic Meeting with ACRS, ... April 10, 1987, Washington, D.C. (open to public attendance), dated April 22, 1987

9. Committee Confidential Memo to ACRS members from D. Okrent, ACRS member,

Subject:

Safety Features in Foreign Reactors, dated April 13, 1987

10. Memo to W. Kerr, ACRS Chairman, from D. Okrent,

Subject:

Workshop on Achievement of Quality in Design, Education, and Construction of Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactors

11. Memo from R. Fraley to D. Okrent,

Subject:

Backfitting of FRG OHU-1 Reactor, dated April 17, 1987 with 3 enclosures, one Comittee Confidential i

APPENDIX V

. ,a 326th ACRS Appendix 2

12. Letter from Chairman Zech to Dr. Harold W. Lewis, Chairman, ACRS Subcommittee on Regulatory Policies and Practices,-regarding Chairman Zech's inability to accept invitation to participate in May 26, 1987 meeting of ACRS Subcommittee on Regulatory Policies and Practices, dated April 24, 1987

13. Letter from Harold W. Lewis, Chairman, ACRS Subcommittee on Regulatory Policies and Practices, to Chairman Zech inviting

' Chairman's participation in May 26, 1987 Subcommittee meeting

14. Memo for Chairman Zech from R. F. Fraley,

Subject:

ACRS Review of NRC Regulatory Process, dated March 19, 1987

15. Memo from Chairman Zech to R. Fraley,

Subject:

ACRS Review of NRC Reguistory Process, COMLZ-87-16, dated March 4, 1987

16. Memo from G. Quittschreiber, ACRS, to H. Lewis, Chainnan, ACRS .

Subcommittee on Regulatory Policies and Practices,

Subject:

1 Commission's Comments on ACRS Review of the Regulatory Process with two attachments l

17. Memo to Commissioners from Chairman Zech,

Subject:

ACRS Review of NRC Regulatory Process, COMLZ-87-16, dated February 9, 1987 16.att.

18. Memo to Chairman Zech from Commissioner Asselstine regarding COMLZ-18 16.att.

19. Memo for D. Ward, ACRS Chairman from Chairman Zech,

Subject:

Guidance to the ACRS, dated September 18, 1986 l

20. Final Draft of NUREG-1226, " Development and Utilization of the NRC l Policy Statement on the Regulation of Advanced Nuclear Power Plants, dated May 5, 1987

(

21. Copy of Certified Minutes of April 24, 1987 meeting of the ACRS j Subcommittee on Advanced Reactor Designs l

22. Memo to ACRS Members from R. Fraley,

Subject:

Independent Nuclear Oversight Boards - Status Report, dated May 29, 1987 with Attachments A through G A. Memo from R. Fraley to ACRS Members, Subject Senate Bill 1085, Nuclear Protection and Safety Act of 1987, with attached S.1085 B. Memo from R. Fraley to W. Kerr, Chairman, and F. Remick Vice-Chairman,ACRS,

Subject:

Bill Regarding Independent Nuclear Safety Board, dated May 13, 1987, with attached S.14, Independent Nuclear Safety Board Act of 1987 I

I A -/s-I

y. ,. ._ _ _-_ _ _

I.

p 326th ACRS. Appendix 3 C. . Memo to ACRS members from R. Fraley,

Subject:

. Independent l

Nuclear Oversight Boards, dated May 22, 1987 with attachments 1 through 3 att 1: Letter from H. W. Lewis, Univ. of California, Santa Barbara, to Senator John Glenn, regarding H. W. Lewis' personal comments on S.1085, dated May- 17, 1987

att 2: Letter from H. W. Lewis, UC Santa Barbara, to Senator Biden regarding H. W. Lewis' persor.a1 comments on S.14, dated

'May 17, 1987 att 3: Memo from D. Ward to R. Fraley,

Subject:

iour memorandum of May 15, 1987, asking for comments on S.1085,

. dated May 22, 1987 att 4: Bulletin Board message from P. Shewmon, to R. Fraley, regarding his coments on 5.14 and S.1085.

D. Memo to ACRS-members from R. Fraley..

Subject:

Comission Comments Regarding Independent Nuclear Oversight Comittees, dated May 15, 1987 with attachment att: Memo for Commissioners from J. C. Bradburne. Director, Congressional Affairs, GPA,

Subject:

Breaux Questions for the Record with attachment att: Copy of Questions and Answers submitted for record of May 6,1987 hearing before Senator Breaux's Subcommittee on NuclearRegulation[ Question 6: Please provfide the Commission's views and comments on the following bills: S.14, S.100, S.908 (those (those sections sections relevant relevant to the NRC), andtoS.1235 the NRC)(,

99th S.1085 Congress)] - pp. 1-14

23. Memorandum from R. Fraley to T. Rothschild, Deputy Assistant .;

General Counsel,

Subject:

S.1085, Nuclear Protection and Safety Act of 1987, dated April 30, 1987 l 24 Memorandum to T. Rothschild, Deputy Asst. General Counsel.from T. .

A. Rehm, Asst. for Operations, EDO,

Subject:

5.1085, Nuclear I Protection and Safety Act of 1987, dated May 14,1987(nopage2 here)

25. Testimony of Dr. Forrest J. Remick, Vice-Chairman, ACRS, NRC,  !

presented to Committee on Governmental Affairs, U. S. Senate, on March 12, 1987 regarding proposed ACRS oversight of DOE nuclear facilities

26. Memorandum to ACRS members from H. Alderman, ACRS,

Subject:

Status Report for the June 5, 1987 Discussion of Operating Experience with attached event descriptions and a list of operational modes taken .

from Beaver Valley 2 Tech. Specs. l

27. Handouts from ACRS Prebriefing with J. Ebersole on May 26, 1987 A-/4 l

s - , .,

I 1

326th ACRS Appendix 4

28. Memorandum Report to T. Murley, Dir., NRR and E. Beckjord, Dir.,

RES, from E. Jordan, Dir., AE00,

Subject:

Loss of Decay Heat I Removal Function at Pressurized Water Reactors with Partially.

Drained Reactor Coolant Systems with Tables 1, 2, and 3, and Enclosures 1 and 2

29. Memorandum from V. Stello, ED0 to Office Directors,

Subject:

Revised NRC Strategic Plan, dated May 22, 1987 enclosing Draft NRC Strategic Plan (dated May 19,1987)

30.Section IV, Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal, of 323rd ACRS Minutes

40. Federal Register Notice 51-40334-40335 on Development of Policy for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal

41. Certified Minutes of ACRS Subcommittee on Waste Management May 18-19, 1987 Meeting

42. NRC Staff Review of HLW Repository QA Programs, J. Kennedy, May 18, 1987 ,

i

43. NRC Staff Briefing on Status of Mixed Waste, S. Bahadur, NMSS/LLWM

44. Memorandum from Chairman Zech to David A. Ward,

Subject:

Guidance to the ACRS, dated September 18, 1986

45. Screening Criteria for Unresolved Safety Issues, taken from NUREG-0705

46. Presentations to Generic Items Subcommittee May 28, 1987 Meeting:

Overview of Generic Issues Program Prioritization Process Resolution Process Implementation Process SIMS (Safety Issues Management Systems)

47. Proposed Rule,10 CFR Part 50, Station Blackout .

l

48. Regulatory Guide, Station Blackout (Task SI 501-4)

49. Certified Minutes of the May 6, 1987 AC/DC Power Systems Reliability Subcommittee meeting

50. Certified Minutes of the April 8,1987 meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Reliability Assurance (Valves)

A -l 7

.6 =

326th ACRS Appendix. 5

51. Memorandum from C. Wylie, ACRS Reliability Assurance Subcommittee Chairman, to R. Major, ACRS,

Subject:

USI A-46 Trial Plant Walkdown at Zion Nuclear Power Plant 2 - Trip Report, May 18 and 19, 1987

52. Memorandum from G. Arlotto, RES to R. Fraley,

Subject:

Proposed Revision 2 [ Draft 4] to Regulatory Guide 1.100, " Seismic Qualification of Electric and Mechanical Equipment for Nuclear Power Plants," dated May 8,1987 with enclosure (Draft 4 of Revision 2 of subject Reg. Guide)

Meeting Handouts NRC Information Notice No. 87-23: Loss of Decay Heat Removal During' Low Reactor Coolant Level Operation LER 87005, " Interruption of RHR Flow during RCS Mid-Loop Operation" Memo for ACRS Members from R. F. Fraley, Subj.: Future Activities, dated 6/2/87

. Status Report on Comments on revised SRP 3.6.2, " Determination of Rupture Locations and Dynamic Effects Associated with the Postulated Rupture of Piping" Letter to W. Kerr from J. F. Opeka, Chairman, NUMARC SB0 Working Group dated 5/22/87

. Slides regarding the Station Blackout Rule Slides from presentations to ACRS:

. NRC Staff Review of HLW Repository QA Programs

. Briefing on Status of Mixed Waste

. Operating Reactor Events Briefing Lessons Learned Diablo Canyon Unit 2

. McGuire Nuclear Station low level intake structure

. Plan view of McGuire Station Future Nuclear Power Plant Designs Regulatory Requirements and Guidance

. Briefing on Draft NRC Strategic Plan

' Initiation of the Severe Accident Policy Individual Plant Exam Status of IDCOR IPE Methodology in response to the Severe Accident Policy Statement Overview of the IDCOR IPE Methodology A-It L

- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _