ML20005E575
| ML20005E575 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/14/1989 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 9001080186 | |
| Download: ML20005E575 (67) | |
Text
l.
i
[;4, T
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA y
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS SION
.ng t
ifI1&l BRIEFING ON STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SEVERE ACCIDENT MASTER INTEGRATION PLAN AND STATUS OF LICENSEE PROGRESS ON IPE gQC&(fQDl I
ROCD'ILLE, MARYLAND h&($l DECEMBER 14, 1989 f3063l 48 PAGES NEALR.GROSSANDC0.,INC.
C O L' R T REPORTERS AND 7RANSCRIBERS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, Northwest Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433 9001080186 8912)y 0[0}
Yb.7 PDC
/>h l
v i
DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on i
December 14. 1989, in the Commission's office at one White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determination i
or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of, or addressed to, any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
i i
NEAL R. GROSS COURT RipoRTER$ AND TRAN$CRIBER$
1323 RHOD ( l$ LAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234-4433 W ASHINGToH, D C.
20005 (202) 232-6600
[j' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1-i s
BRIEFING ON STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SEVERE ACCIDENT MASTER INTEGRATION PLAN AND STATUS OF LICENSEE PROGRESS ON IPE PUBLIC MEETING Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North Rockville, Maryland Thursday, December 14, 1989 The commission met in open session, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m.,
Kenneth M.
Carr, Chairman, presiding.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
l 1
KENNETH M.
CARR, Chairman of the Commission THOMAS M.
ROBERTS, Commissioner KENNETH C.
ROGERS, Commissioner JAMES R.
CURTISS, Commissioner FORREST J.
REMICK, Commissioner b
i A
NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
hashington, D.C.
20005 I
(202) 234-4433 i
i
iN., '
3 1
' :(-
.1 2'
l1 41 i
l' -
STAFF SEATED AT THE~ COMMISSION TABLE:
~
WILLIAM C..PARLER, GeneraliCounsel JACK GUTTM' ANN, Office of-the Sect et ary!
. l
- JAMES TAYLOR, Executive: Director for_ Operations
. j i~
' ERIC BECKJORD, Director, Office of Research
- j L
THOMAS MURLEY,
- Direttor, Office of Nuclear. Reactor Regulation THEMIS_SPEIS, Office of Research i'l BILL BECKNER, Office of Research L
p
' f I
I I
V i
e a'
I t
-i
. i
'i 4;
i h
I T
?
I~l
-l
..J-l t
NEAL R, GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washingt on, II. C.
20005 (202) 234-4433 3
v
+-,.y5y w
r
--w
,--r+--
w
p% ~
.g pg e
i, '..
t l
t 3
~
L. -
'1 P-R-0-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S i
2 10:00 a.m.
4 n
j 3
CHAIRMAN CARR:
Good morning, ladies and-
!~
4
. gentlemen.
5 This morning the Commission will be briefed' l
l--
6
'by the. NRC Office of Research i
'~
. and the. Office of
. 7 Nuclear Reactor Regulation on the status of
[
8 implementation ~
of the--
severe accident master U
9 integration plan and the' status of the
'icensee i
10 progress on -individual plant' examinations, an. element-11 of the plan.
.i 12.
The Commission was first briefed by the L
- x 13 staff on the r'an in June of 1988.-
Following that-14 meeting, the Commission requested to be kept informed k
15 of-the. status of implementation.
This is the purpose l
r 16 of today's meeting.
The Commission was last briefed i
17
'on this subject in April of 1989.
P 18 3n preparation for this meeting, the staff 19 has provided the Commission with SECY-89-308, Status i
C 21 of implementatlon of Integration - plan for Closure of 5
21 Severe Accident Issues.
The plan is a description of l
22 all severe accident programs currently being i
23 undertaken by the Commission.
It describes how the 24 Agency will reach closure on these programs and the 25 interrelationships among the various programs in order 1 i u..l 1
r NEAl, R.
GROSS
?
1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 i
(202) 234-4433 h
W I(
ug.
4 I
, ;I k%
1 to assure consistency between programs and consistency i
l
-2
-with Commission policy and strategic goals.
5 3'
This is an information briefing this morning L
4 and no Commission vote.is planned on this issue-today, k
[ --
5 It is my understanding that copies of the staff slide 6
presentation and staff's
- paper, SECY-89-308, are-7
~ available at the entrance to the meeting room.
'l 8
I might welcome our new EDO, Mr. Taylor, and 9
also our new Commissioner, Doctor Reinick.
10-Do any of my fellow-Commissioners have. any' 11 comments they wish to make before we begin?
[
12 If not. Mr. Taylor, you may proceed.
l
", ~
13, t
MR. TAYLOR:
Thank you,' sir.
With me at the-14 table to my left are Bill Beckner and Themis Speis 15 from the Office of Research, and the Director of the' i'
16 office, Eric Beckjord, immediately to my right, and 17; Tom Murley, Director of NHR.
18 The-staff, as you-indicated,
- sir, in its
'19
- briefing, will indicate the progress that has been 20 made and'quickly-l'Il mention that numbers of t h i n gt, i
21 have been happening in the staff's plan for severe g
22 at cident integration and the work associated with it.
23 for
- example, the Mark 1
containment performance I
24 improvement program recommendations are being 25 implemented.
The IpE process has started and you'll 7
~.
4 NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433 l
i
?
+
i f
5 D#
-1 hear more about that.
The staff has been working with" 2-Nt1 MARC on the accident management area and shortly we 3
hope the staff will be' ready to make recommendations 4'
for the individual plant examination
- process,
[
5 considering external events and for containment g-6' performance improvement for other containments and Mark p,
7 1.
i:
i L
8' Today's briefing is a status report and with p
9 rega rd -- you will be given the current schedule for
.10 submissions of the individual
' plant examination' h
11 information from licensees and you'll see that L
12 schedule.as part of today's briefing.
.It wi)) cause j
[.
13 us to look at the resources in that area, but the
.a 14-resources will be part of most of t he - work will 15 come in the fiscal year '92 budget.
So,'when you see i
16
.the schedule. we'll be looking ut that as we' plan-our q
17 next budget and working with the licensees on those 18 schedules.
f
.19 With that introduction, I'll now turn'.i t -
20 over to T.ric Beckjord~, who will proceed.
21 MR. BECKJORD:
Thank you.
22 Mr. Chairman, Mr. Taylor has referred to the 23 progress in the implementation plan and I just wanted 24 to emphasize that.
We've passed a
number of 25 milestones.
There are still a number yet to pass.
t.
I l
.., s NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234--4433 li
(
-l i
1 I
'r.
6
~
i i
1
- 1. wanted to comment briefly on-the severe i
.2
~ accident research element of_this closure plan.
We 3
had a
meeting last week.of the. Severe Accident 4
Research Subcommittee of ' the - Nuclear Safety Research 5-Review Committee.
We held that in Chicago last week 6
to go over the work that's-underway since the severe 7
accident research plan was published last Ap ril. We ^went 8
over ihe atatus, the work underway and'the plans'f'or i-9 future work with them.
I think it was evident' to I
10-everyone present at that meeting that we've meade a lot:
i 11 of progress in gett.ing that revised severe accident 12 research program plan underway.
l L
13 in the near term, severe accident research i
14 is focusing on the mechanisms.that could lead to ently
.i 15 containment
- failure, including direct containment i
1G heating in the case of the pWRs and liner melt-through
(!
17 in the case of the Mark I BWR.
18 I
want to say - also that next week we're 19 holding a
two day meeting on direct containment 1
20 heating at Annapolis, ca))ing together all of the 21-research contributors to this effort for the purpose 22 of evalunting recent i n f ormat i on and deciding on where
[
23 io focus ihe work and which set of experimenta to do 24 next.
26 We're continuing to make sure that the
.J NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.h.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433 e.
p_ y -
c'
-e l
i a
7-j ra
[
E J' I
severe accident research effort f6cuses on the key i
2 issues-that come out of this severe accident L
3 resolution plan.
I just wanted to make t hat-comment.
I 4
on th'e research.
Speis-will go through the j
5
- Now, Doctor.
1
[
'6 progress with you in detail.-
[
-7 DOCTOR SPE1S:
Thank you.
l-8 (Slide)
Mr.
- Chairman, Commissioners, 9
viewgraph number 2
lists the elements of the
- l i
10 integration plan which I will go into some detail.
l s
i 6
11 basically, I
will talk -about the status of the j
l, 12-individual plant examination program for both internal
[
13 and external
- events, the containment performance
~~~~'
14 improvement program for the Mark In as well as the l
15 work that we have concluded so far on the other 1G containments.
I will talk about the status of the
-17 accident management program.
Then I will bring you up l
-18 to date with what's going on 'with the peer review on
~
19 KUREG-1150, safety goal implementation and say a few 20 more thin.gs about the severe accident research
'21 program _.
i 22 (Slide)
Viewgraph number 3
begins the 23 status of the individual plant examination for 24 internal events.
Since the last briefing of April 25
- 1989, we have issued the final NUREG-1335, which t
NEAl, R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433 r
W l
iJ 8
i I
s E-'
I contains the submi t t al - guidance for the individual 2
plant examinations.
We have also issued supplement to t
[
3 the original generic letter, which started the IPE i
4 4:
clock and contained the Mark I improvements which the-5 Commission decided. should be incorporated with the i
6 IPE, all of them except the hardened vent issue, which' 7
l'11 shortly discuss the status with you.
)
L 8
(Slide)
If we go to page 4.
at present we o
9 have under preparation supplements 2 and 3 with the i
10 o r i g i n n.1 generic letter.
One of them will contain the 11 guidance on all the containments and the other one L --
12 will
' provide additional information on arcident b -
13' management strategies.
l 14' The licensee plans and schedules for the IPE l
if have been submitted
- and, as Mr.
Taylor
- said, at l
16 present we are going through the development of the e
17-review plan.
18 (Slide)
On page 5 I indicate graphically
.t 19 the submittals as a function of time.
Basically all
-20 licensees have responded t o the generic letter.
As is
=[
t 21 shown here, the solid line shows the total IPEs versus-r 22 time.
The bars indicate the submittals per quarter,
?
23 starting from
'90, all the way up to
'94.
You see 24 that the peak happens at the last day of the PY
'92.
L.
25 That's the date that we request ed those submi t t als be q
l
<. - ~
NEA1. R.
GROSS i
1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433 h
9 y
.1 1
provided to us.
In FY -- yes?
2 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Excuse me.
Did you 3
say that all the licensees have-responded?-
'l 4
DOCTOR SPE1S:
Yes.
5 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
They have?
6-DOCTOR SPEIS:
They all have responded._ You
~ 7 see, all of them will be able to~ meet the date~ except 3
8 18 of. t hem, which I_ have on 'the next viewgranh.
.i 9
So, if there are no questions on this 10 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Yes.
Do any-of
- 11 these will any of thene_contain' external events or 12 are-these all relat ive t o int ernal event s?
I 13
_ DOCTOR SPE1S:
One or two will contain i
" ~ ~
14 externn1 events.
.15 COMMISSION!:H ROGERS:
One or two will?
16 DOCTOR SPEIS:
'I should have said that all-17 of them have opted for a complete PHA.
[
18 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Oh.
'P 19 DOCTOR SPEIS:
,Some of ihem wi11 do the IPE 20 that was developed by ECOR, but the insides of the IPE 21 will default it into a complete PRA.
Itu t in : t he j
22
- letters, they all indicate that they will be i
23 submitting complete PRAs to us.
24 COMMISSIONER REMICE:
I'm pleased to hear 25 that.
i lnO i
NEAI. H.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue.
N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 l
(202) 234-4433
q:
g j l c
f h~
1 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
- Yes, 2
DOCTOR SPE15:
(Slide)
On page 6, as 1 said i
i 3
already, there are 18 late sobaittals.
I think for--
4 most of them there are very good reasons.
-Some of u
5 them, they gave no reason at all why they're late.
4 6
COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
Have you.got an 7
answer why that gives,us those 18?
8 CilAIRMAN CARR:
What's a good reason?
w j..
9 DOCTOR SPEIS:
'Yes.
A good reason is they-E 10 want to do. some wore
- work, expanding before the a
11 generic letter.
For example, to include level 2 and 3 12-PRA.
Another reason is they want t o do ihe work p
13 themselves, the ma,ior part of it. Even.though we told
~
14 them that it's very important that they participate, 3
15 some of them want to do 80~ percent or 90 percent, so 16 they would need some more time.
i
[
17 DOCTOR MURLEY:
Another reason, if I might h-c 18 add, is that some utilities have four, six, 12 plants
-19
-and it makes sense for them to do it in series and l
20 t hen -learn as they go and not have to do - it all at 1.-..-
21 once.
t 22 MR. TAYLOR:
That's probably one of the best 23 reasons for it.
24 DOCTOR MURLEY:
Yes.
25 CilAIRMAN CARR:
Could we get a list of t hose i
i
.J-NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433 t-
7.
a; pW q
11 i-L' J,
1-guys who are going t'o be extended?
2 DOCTOR SPEISt Yes.
I can even show it to j
3 you now, Mr. Chairman, if you want to.
i r
- 4 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Okay.
Let's look at it.
5
-DOCTOR SPEIS:
(Slide)
Back up slide number 6-3.
please.
Back up slide number-3, please.
There i t'
{
.U 7
is.
f t
[
8 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Is Millstone 2 related l
I
-10 DOCTOR SPEIS:
Yes, they're all going t o do i
11 PRAs.
'12 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
No, but is the delay P
13 due.to completion of the PRA?
(
"~~
14 DOCTOR SPEIS:
I will provide the 1
15 information on.
I don't know if --
l 16 MR.
BECKNER:
I think they' re doing four L
'17 plants is the reason they're doing them in order.
c
!1 18 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
What about Vermont' f
19 Yankee?
That's a
single unit plant.
But. is it
~
.30-because it's part of the Yankee system or ---
t 21 MR. BECKNER:
Yes, I think that's-the same 22 reason.
They're doing their own.
23 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Well, I don't know about my a
24-fellow Commissioners, but I'd like to see the
---how g
h 25 about sending us a little note on the reasons that 9
i w]
i NEAI. R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 234-4433
y e,
m' ;t ?
3 12 I.
.l.
they've all put-forwared --
l 1
2' MR.
TAYLOR:
We'll give that to you, each t1 3
one.
There are multiple commonwealth plants too,~as l
1 4
you can see.
5 DOCTOH SPEIS:
(Slide)
Back to slide. number-6' 6, please.
7 As you see, the second bullet down,.we're l
I 8
looking carefully the review process.
But when we
~
9 discussed the Ipt, we had estimated at thutitime that a
10
_i t ~ would take about' six person months per plant to f
Il review the Ipr submittal and that included any 12 proposed'modificalions.
We're taking a eloser look at.
13 that, especially in light that most of the insights 4
l 14l
_from the containment performance program will be:
i 15-folded into the lpE program itself.
So, we're taking L-10 a closer look at that estimate _that we provided to you
.i 17 n year or so ago.
[
l l
.18 -
CHATHMAN CARR:
Okay.
19 DOCTOH SpEIS:
It is our plan to complete i
L.
l 20-all the reviews by TY '95, which is one year after the 21 last arrival basically.
22 COMMISSIONER HOGERS:
Just on
- this, it 23 looks to me like you've got a great big load there et i
if 24 you're going to have to deal with.
To what extent are p
26 you kind of standardizing the format of the r
NEAL H.
GROSS 1323 khode island Avenue, N.W.
i
^
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
m gy 4g' b
13
>;l ' t-I d' 1
submissions - and things like this, or that might not be able to b
~2 help,,but anything that would help us to move through 3
.our reviews of these as quickly as possible, doing a g-t 4
thorough job, but just so we don't have to spin our 5
wheels while we're looking at totally different 6
formats of. the submissions or whatever.
I don't know.
7.
To what extent can we request-that these things come 8
to us in a way that we can deal with them?
9 DOCTOR SPEIS:
- Well, we provided the--
l 10 there are standard review guides for preparing PRAs 11 and they all have access to them.
-12 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Well. do you have things
+ -
-13
- like a format? I mean that's the basic content, but it
'~
14 could be scat t ered all over in different ways l'5 sometimes.
IG DOCTOR SPEIS:
Yes.
In fact, the NUREG that 17 I
mentioned
- earlier, NUREG-1335, provides
- that, 18 provides a detail 19 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Suggested format?
20 DOCTOR SPEIS:
Yes, sir.
Yes, sir.
So that
^
L 21 will make things in addition to
- that, we're i
22 preparing review guidance for the staff, to make sure 23 that they're focusing somewhere important areas.
We 24 have been reviewing PRAs for the last ten years and we 25 l
realize that there is no use to there are some
$m
'-,.es NEAl. R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 l
(202) 234-4433
.g.
y 14 p
1 areas that need more attention than others and'we're-c l-i; 2
trying to distill that knowledge that we.have~ gained 3
the' last ten years and put that' forward in the e
4 guidance of the staff..
i 5
The other thing that --
-6 CHAIRMAN CARR:
- Well, now, the review is 7
going to be completed in
'95.
That's including all
'8 the late submittals?
9-DOCTOR SPElS:
Yes.
f 10 CHAIRMAN CARR:
- But, as. I
- remember, any I'--
Il action that the plants-turn up that they th' ink ought 12 io be required, they're supposed to go ahead and do as 13_
soon as they-find it.
l 14 DOCTOR SPEIS:
Yes, sir, i
15 CHAIRMAN CARR:. Okay.
16 DOCTOR SPEIS:
If we go -- everything t hat 1-17 have said so far has been referring to internal 18 events.
Let's go to slide 7 now.
19 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Before you go on to 20 the external events 21 DOCTOR SPElS:
Yes.
22 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
one other quick 23 question on the relationship of the internal to plant 24 life extension.
Will the bulk of the IPE evaluations 25 and the fixes that might flow from that be completed I
NEAL R. GROSS l
1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
i Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433 L;
ff [
q
-l 9(
15
'I. I-YA 1
prior to when' we expect to get into plant life 2
extensions and separately?
3-DOCTOR SPEIS:
Yes, sir.
Yes.
That'would p
4
.b e made very clear in the rule itself or in the L
5 statement of considerations and would have been L
6 discussing with industry.
-Yes.
L
~7-MR. TAYLOR:
That's the plan, bb 8
DOCTOR SPEIS:
That's the plan, to make sure L
_9
_that U
10 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Thank you.
11 DOCTOR SPEIS:
(S1ide)
Back io a1ide' number 10 7 then on external events..
We have prepared a_ draf t 13 generic letter to provides puts together. the
- m
"~'
14 guidance for external even t s.-
We have put it in the 15 PDR.
We have given it to industry for their' comments.
10 We have discussed so far-with the ACHS only the 17-seismic part, preliminary discussions.
We have not 18 sent them the whole package yet.
10 We have had discussions with NUMARC.
In p
20 fact, the 1ast two or three weeks we had about tbree L
21 meetings'with them.
22 Basically, we'll be recommending examination
'23 in the areas of seismic and will have two options, 24 cither use the so-called deterministic margin approach 25 l
that both we and EPHI has been developing, or a PRA I
- q
,u J
NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
D.C.
20006 (202) 234-4433 n
4 F
16 1
method. -In'the fire area, we'll --
2 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Before you leave
[
r-3 that 4
DOCTOR SPEIS:
-Yes.
5 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
do you-have a
h 6
preference there?
If they are all doing. PRAs, 7:
wouldn't there-be some advantage to doing.the seismic i
8 PRA versus the margin?
[
9 DOCTOR SPEIS:
- Well, some of them might f
10 prefer to use margins.
It's easily understood.
A lot L
11 of work has been done and the methodology is very well I
i 12 developed.
So, it wi1i be up t o them.
It's an option-t 13 hasically.-
14 COMMISSIONER REMICE:
Do you have any
[
15 indication how many will opt for the margins?.
i:
L; IG' DOCTOR SPEIS:
We have no indication as yet.
i 17-In the-area of fires,
- again, the option,
~
18 it's either a PRA or some more simplified methodology.
19 NUMARC has volunteered. to develop methodology and 20 then, following interactions with them, hopefully we 21 can. agree on that.
But they're a little bit-late, I
i
-22 e v.e n though they told us they would provide the draft 23
'some time at the end of January, and we'll start the 24 dialogue with the ACRS.
But if, in parallel, the 25 work, we'll just have to see if we can come up with i
- J t
4 NEA1. R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
- s l
17 O
1 something soon because our intent is to get this 2
generic letter out as soon as possible because some r
c 3
utilities would like to integrate - the external events 4
with internal events.
So, we don't like to delay.
6' The only thing that could delay maybe for a--
6 few months is in the area of the s ei s mis c, there are 7.
some substantial differences between the industry snd B
us, especially in the selection of the har.ards.
This 9
is the curve that provides the probability versus the 10 intensity of the eurthquake.
Our cont rect or at the Il Lawrence Livermore Laboratory has-put-some hazard 12 curves and EPHI has done the same thing for industry.
13 in some areas there are some substantial differences.
~
14 So, we'll have to work very hard the next few months 15 to basically make a decision which way, which curve to I'
IG select or maybe both or whatever.
So t hat 's a very 17 di f ficul t area.
18 COMMISSIONER-REMICK:
In the fire
- area, i
19 NUMARC hasn't submi t t ed a draf t to you yet to see what 20 they have in mind?
2)
DOCTOR SPEIS:
No.
They wi11 at the end of 5
22
- January, they promised.
But meanwhile, we have put 23 this draft letter with some open holes basically.
So, 24 our intent has been to recommend to get the package to 25 the Comm i s s i or-in the spring.
In u t as I say, it's I'
l 4_
NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Is. land Avenue, N.k.
1 Washington, D.C.
2000n (202) 234-4433
g.
1 ~
f
'. i?-.
L 18 e
i y
1 possible that this date could be delayed for a few
~- -
l3-2 months.
But as I say, we'll try very hard to come to 3
grips with some of the difficult issues, especially 4
the seismic one.
5' CHAIRMAN CARR:
Is the intent to do the y
6 seismic and the fire and whatever other hazards come l'
7 up ci the same time or in the same package, or are you l-8.
looking for those as a series submittal?
l i;
9 D OC'TO R SPEIS:
No, in the same package.
We 10 want to get the whole seismic excuse me, external 11-events package, yes, sir.-
12 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Okay.
13 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Before leaving that, l
14 you talk about screening examination for other
)
15 hazards.
Could you elaborate a little bit?
I'm not 16 sre I understand what you mean.
9
)
17 DOCTOR SPEIS:
Bi)),
do you want to say I
18 something?
19 MR.
BECKNER:
Basically, the other hazards t
20 are high winds, including tornadoes, floods, external 21 floods, and military and industrial facilities nearby.
22 By and
- large, we feel the design
- basis, protects j
1 I
23 adequateJy in those areas and we're just proposing a 24 screening to confirm that on a plant specific basis.
4 l-25 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Screening by whom, by q
4.
m l
l NEAL R.
GROSS f
1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
^
Washington, D.C.
20005 (2024 234-4433
_j
l-19 i
1 the licensee or you mean screening --
2 MR. BECKNER:
By the licensee.
3 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
by the staff of j
R 4
submittels?
5-MR. BECKNER:
It's a progressive screening 6
approach.
If you confirm that you indeed meet the 7
current design basis, that would be it.
Then. it 8
becomen a progressive looking at different types of D
analyses to try to screen it out, either f r e q u etic y of 10 the event or a bounding type analysis.
But we believe
'I 11 that in general the plants are designed very i
12 conservatively in these areas and we're Just looking 13 for isolated things that may have. been missed, a
~
14 smokestack from a nearby facility that's not nuclear, 15 that type of thing.
1G CHAIRMAN CARR:
Or encroachment.
17 MR. DECKNER:
Correct.
That's another major 18 thing, is that the sites have changed over time.
19 DOCTOR SPEIS:
(Slide)
Leav.ing the IPE and 20 going to cont ainment-performance improvement program 21 on siide 8,
19 of the 24 Mark I plants have chosen to 22 install a hardened vent.
The remaining five Mark I i
23 plants have said that there is not good justification 24 in their minds, so will proceed to give a
plant 25 specific analysis.
Of those five, I should say that I
NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
l Washington.
D.C.
20005 l
1 (202) 234-4133 1
= ___
________ ______ _____-_ ___________=______ -_____ ______________ -_.
54-
^'
~~
20' g [i. -L.$
'l-
.onenof them feels very atrong.
The other f o u r. - t h e y.-
2 want' t o. t ake~ another look at it.
By the' way,- 'the L3'
.other f o u r- '. M a r k Is are ' the so-called _ Mark -I plants
- 4.-
'that have:
in addition to a - suppression pool, they 5
have ar isolation condenser.
6 So,-we agree-with.them that it's-least cost-7 beneficial for those plants in relation to the other 8-ones-because they have- _ the diverse or-the redundant-9 availability of water there.
So,_ it's-not going to be 10 as cost effective, but we still feel it's cost 11 effective, but not as cost effective as-for the other l
12 ones.
E"
.13 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
The plan-for - t hose 14-f _i v e plants is to conduct a cost' benefit analysis?
-15 DOCTOR-SPEIS:
- Yes, Yes,
- sir, a plant-
.i 16 speci fic one.
IT COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Okay.
18 DOCTOR SPEIS:
And the four i s,o l a t i o n 19 potential plants are the Oyster Creek, the two Dresden 20 plants and the Millstone 1.
-21 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
When you say hardened 22
- vent, I assume this is bypassing their standby gas 23 t reatment with a -- are any of them hardening the 24 standby gas treatment facility?
Nobody is talking 25 about using the standby gas treatment then as part of r~~1 J
NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005
'202) 234-4433
Ky.
~
(;; h
' 21:
[..:J' l
the venting?
-l G,
{-
.L2-DOCTOR SPEIS:
'I'm not-'so sure we have seen Q
a
? Ni '
3-
-the specifica.
.4-COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Yes,'okay.-
I.."
5:
DOCTOR MURLEY:
It wouldn' t-b'e : practical,.I 6
fdon't think, to-harden standby gas-treatment to 20-or.
.i 7
'30 psi.
L
. CHAIRMAN CARR:
So, once ' we' ve identified
~
};
-9 the four with the-isolation condensers, who is the guy j
10 that feels strongly?
i f
-11 DOCTOR SPEIS:
Pitzpatrick.
[
.12 DOCTOR MURLEY:
Fi tzpat rick.
[
4-13 DOCTOR SPEIS:
Of course,- for. Murk 1,.the
.14 -
other improvemenis were sent.to the 1.icensees via t he.
L' 15 IPE generic letter.
A u
16 Por the other containment
- types, we have 17 developed preliminary ' conclusions.
We have already i
.lR given them to you in a SECY paper and we're proceeding 19-to finalize our conclusions and our findings.
I can 20 report at this time that we don't t hi n k that 'there
-21.
wi)) be a need for any generic recommendations similar
-i 22 ta those made for Mark 1.
-I 23 lie re we're talking about nine Mark IIs and 24 four Mark ITTs.
The generic recommendations that we 25 have distilled from all the studies that have been l
J l
NEAL H.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washingt on, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
'I C-1 done will be given to them for their information, to 2
be considered in the IPE program.
For example, for 3
ice condensers,and for Mark IIIs, we'll tell them to 4
take another look at diverse power sources for the 5
ignitors.
At present, the ignitors are connected to 6
the diesels, so if you have a station blackout.
So 7
that's one example.
Okay?
8 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Incident ally, I was 9
pleased to read in the SECY document and what you say, 10 that you are integrating those containment performance 11' improvements with the IpE process. I sincerely believe 12 that's the way to do it, unless there's something that 13 really is outstanding that was identified, and since
"~"
14 you didn't do that, I think it would be a good idea to 15 integrate it.
16 DOCTOR SpEIS:
The other reason is ihat on 17 most of these improvemen,s, the risk reduction is not 18 as strong and as obvious as it was for Mark I plants 19 and there are many reasons, the volume of the plant.
20.
But I guess the other basic reason is that they're so 21 different.
For example, the Mark IIs, they all have a 22 d i'f f e r en t pedestal design.
I have to be careful how I 23 say that word.
But again, our initial thoughts are in 24 the SECY paper ihat we have provided to you and we're 25 packaging our final recommendations.
They will be I
i 1
I NEAl, H.
CHOSS l
1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Wash ingt on, D.C.
20005 l
l (202) 234-4433
L f
l---
23 b'd l-goihig to the ACRS and CRGR and ~ it is our intent to
~
2 provide it to you very early next year, p
,3 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Well, do I understand
.4 you correctly that you don't really intend to I
)
5 normalize these plants to one another with respect to I
G the question of venting the containment, is that it?-
7 In other words, that this would just be part of the 8
IPE evaluation for each individual plant?
In other 9
words, you won't deal with the venting question --
j.
10 DOCTOR SPEIS:
The venting will be in this 11 generic, the insights to be included as part of the 12 IPE.
For example, tell them that there are benefits 13 to hardened venting even for Mark IIs and Mark IIIs.
"~
14 But right now, we don't think we can justify, either 15 on the cost bene fi t or -- -there are so many plant 16 unique differences that we cannot be very explicit 17 about -- you know, "Oh, my God, you should accelerate 18 this ahead of the IPE," basically.
l 19 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
NO, no, t> u t I mean 20 cven within the IPE
- process, you won't focus 21 particularly on the venting question for Mark IIs.
22 DOCTOR SPEIS:
Yes.
We wi11 ask them io 23 explicitly -- that's one of the things that should be 24 considered.
25 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Well, it's part of the h
t i
l NEAI. R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
I Washington.
D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
~
k;k,
.. s
/dh w
96 4 '"
gg 4,-
7 _?d; -
6:
.)-
Fg
- process.
But what I'm saying is that the decision on 1
y L21 whether to vent or not willl not be-just solely <on some
.i y
3 basis.--in which, you, look at the Mark II cont ainment s:
i 4-forz those nine plants-and make a
decision or a
5 recommendation or-whatever based on that.
ItEwill be; 1
6
-folded into_the total IPE process.--
7 CHAIRMAN CARR:
~ I t.' s going to be plant.
[
8 speci fi c.,
9 DOCTOR SPEIS:
Yes.
They have to address 10 it---
-1]
COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
They have to address
. 12 it.
3
.13-DOCTOR SPEIS:
-- on a plant specific basis.
P 14.
COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
But you. won't pul1; it-15 out the same way we have i n the Mark Is.
s M
'16 DOCTOR SPEIS.
No.
No.
No.
No.
That's-9 basically what I was saying.
'18 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Yes.
Okay.
19 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Let me ask you, in the SECY-20 89-308 you say the recommendations from the CPI
^
y~
21 program, on other containment types it will be broader 22 than for those, for Mark I plants.
What do you mean 23 by broader?
24 DOCTOR SPEIS:
We're not going to have 25 detailed cost benefit analysis.
It will be a kind 7
i l
.J y
NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433 w
t
\\ ~
x 25
- lt I LJ l
of we have gone through all the PRAs, the NUREG-2
- 1150, the research and we see that there are some 3
things that make sense-to be considered.
But they're 4
going to be very specific, you know, details, valves j
- S and power sources.
For example, in venting for Mark I
i G
I, we went into great detail and discussed the power 7-sources associated with the -- it's all - going to be 8
that type of detailed analysis.
9 DOCTOR MURLEY:
Broader means, I think, less 10 specific.
i 11 DOCTOR SPE1S:
Less specific, yes.
12 (Slide)
On page 9, the accident management, 13 again it's one of the key elements for closure.
If
'~
14 you'll recall, the three key closure elements was the 15 1pE, the CPI and accident management.
We have put 16 together a -- based on discussions with the Commission l 'T before, we have put together u-number of strategies push,ing through the ACRS and the CRGR at 18 which we are 19 the present time, to be sent to utilities for their 20 consideration now or during the IPE.
A 21 We have gotten a letter from the ACRS in 22 essence agreeing with us.
They've told us
- that, 23 "Maybe you will be confusing the world by calling them 24 strategies versus emergency operating procedures as l
they have been called in the past."
I feel the 25 I
l l
NEAL R.
GROSS 13P3 Rhode is1and Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 i
t' 2 0 2 ) 234-4433
t-a 20
- i 1-industry understands what we mean but maybe we should 2
be more careful and come up with one definition.
In 3
- fact, industry will have a flexibility of : deciding 4
what to do with these so-called strategies or i
5 procedures-that go farther into the severe accident 6
area.
They 'can either extend the existing emergency 7
operating procedures or maybe put them some different 8
place.
But again, industry will have that flexibility-
-1 9
to do that.
-l 10 We're working with NUMARC to create the 11 framework.
So, as the information is Ele v eloped,
12 either from the IPE or from research in the future, 13 that-information is evaluated for its worth in either i
~~
14 preventing or mitigating accidents basically.
That's
.15 the big thing that we're working with NUMARC right 1
16 now.
i l
^
17 The detailed guidance, summarizing all this 18 work, will be ready in 1991 and we hope that really at 19 that time we'll be able to endorse the work that 20 NUMARC is doing with the utilities.
That's our 21 objective.
22 CHAIRMAN CARR:
For one, I'd like to see 23 that sometime before it's 1991.
Can you give us a 24 progress report halfway --
2G DOCTOR SPEIS:
Oh, yes.
NCAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 l
I (202) 234-4433
-r 1,.
1 a; 27
-.I
!L J-1 CHAIRMAN CARR:
or something to find out 2
where you're going?.
3 DOCTOR SPEIS:
Yes, sir.
In fact, we will
_4 be coming to you before we issue this letter on the 5
strategies.-
6 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Okay.
That'r, tullet 2?.
7 DOCTOR SPEIS:
Yes, sir.
itlbefore it goes 8
CHAIRMAN CARR:
We'll see 9
out to industry?
10 DOCTOR SPEIS:
Yes.
11 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Okay.
12 DOCTOR SPEIS:
You have given us guidance, 13 CHAIRMAN CARR:
I just want to make sure
"~~
14' you're carrying it out.
15 DOCTOR SPEIS:
Yes.
No question about it.
16 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
- Themis, I
would 17 appreciate getting a copy of that NUMARC guidance that l
18 you can prov.ide.
19 DOCTOR SPEIS:
Sure.
20 COMMISSIONER REMICE:
I have not seen that.
21 I'd appreciate getting a copy of that to look at.
22 DOCTOR SPEIS:
(Slide)
On page 10, the 23 status of the NUREG-ll50, the only thing I can say is 24 it is on course.
Our plan is to complete it in mid-25 1990.
l i
NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 l
(202) 234-4433
=
i'pg; i
28 L
U-1-
Mr. Beckjord, do you want to add anything to 2
it?
3-MR. -
BECKJORD:
- Well, the Peer Review 4
Committee will be meeting in March to draft their it's possible that 5
paper - on ' the 1150.
They may
-G
-they might issue it in April.
It's possible it might 7
be, I'm not sure about that.
But certainly by mid-1 p
8 year, we will have the report, r
9 CHAIRMAN CARR:
From what you know already, 10 has that been a worthwhile effort?
11 MR. BECKJORD:
Yes.
12 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Do you think that 13 there's any possibility that any significant new 14 guidance might come out of that relative-to external-15 events' 16 MR. BECKJORD:
Well, I don't want to try to 17 second guess.
I expect they're going to have some 18 things to say.
I don't know that it will be about 19 external events though.
I think it's more likely it 20 will be in the severe accident area.
21 DOCTOR SPEIS:
(Slide)
Page ll, Mr.
22-
- Chairman, safety goal implementation.
Our proposal 23 basically is in front of the Commission.
Meanwhile, 24 we are proceeding according to proposals contained in 25 SECY-89-102 in a
number of areas.
For
- example,
. a NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 l
(202) 234-4433
/
- s b.,
29 l-l-
CJ~
1 thete's a listing of generic issues.
You sent us back'
-2 to make sure that we have further discussions with the
~ 3 ACRS and make sure that we settle our differences, and 4
if there are any differences, make sure_ that-we 5
understand what those differences are.
6 One of the areas that we have been 7
. discussing lately is the concept of adequate 8
protection as it relates to the safety goal.
There is 9
a -- we put a draft paper together, we sent it to the 10 ACRS to make sure that they agree or disagree.
They 11 sent us back some comments.
That Commission paper now-12 has been revised and it's on the way to you.
It's at 13 the ED0's office at the present time.
~
14 Basically, the bottom line as far as safety 15 goals is that both we and the ACHS agree that they 16 shouldn't be used to make plant specific licensing 17 decisions.
There's no question about that.
But 18 that's the only thing 1 want to say at this time 19 regarding the safety
- goal, unless there are any 20 questions.
21 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
How do you t hink - we 22 will use them though in the aggregate, particularly 23 with respect to some of the qualitative goals?
24 DOCTOR SP~EIS:
- Well, let me go to the 25 quantitative.
For example, when we get the IPEs back, m
NEAl. R.
GROSS f
1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
hashington, D.C.
20005 l
'202) 234-4433
- c-
[p.
I l
30 I
I C E-1 all of them, evaluate them, the safety goal is there.
2 You know, the core melt frequency, the larger release 3
category.
If some of the IPEs indicate, or maybe a 1
4 number of them indicate that somehow the results are 5
substantially at odds with the - safety goal, we'll try
~
G-to address why,_ in terms of the regulations though.
7 Maybe there is something peculiar or something unique l
'8 or something in the regulations that allowed this 9
thing to happen or maybe it's something specific to i
10 the plant.
Then we will proceed to recommend to you 11 some changes to the regulations, via rulemaking or 12 some other way that you people might think it's 13 worthwhile.
~
14 But the basic thing that we will address 15 when we get the IPEs or
- PRAs, why there are 16 differences.
Okay?
But that why will be in relation 17 to the regulations.
We're not going to take that
-18 specific plant and say it meets or it does not meet 19 some number.
That's the bottom line.
20 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
I understand, but once 21 you have all the
- IPEs, you'll have the whole 22 constellation of the United States plants.
23 DOCTOR SPEIS:
Right.
24 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
And there they are.
25
- Now, this is now we can look at what the T
i J-NEAl. R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
i i
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
1
- z l
31
- \\k-1 qualitative aspects of the safety goals are, whether 2-we think they're being met or not.
3 DOCTOR SPEIS:
Qualitative --
4 COMMISSIGNER ROGERS:
- Well, we had two 5
quantitative and two qualitative. goals or at.least one i
6 can talk about them that way.
I'm just curious as to
-7 what we're going to do with these things.
We've got 8
all the plants there now.
You've got the IPEs, we've 1
9 got the whole collection.
10 DOCTOR SPEIS:
Well, we feel that even based j
11 on what we know right now that all plants meet the two 12 quantitative safety goals that are out already, the 13 health effects safety goals.
i
~'
14 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Including external.
_q i
15 events?
l{
16 DOCTOR SPEIS:
Well, maybe I should be more 17 careful.
Is Mr. Wayne Houston here?
18 DOCTOR MURLEY:
W e l.1, can I say something?
19 On the IPE, Mr. Commissioner, I'm not certain yet that 20 we're going to be reviewing these to the kind of 21 detail that we can validate the numbers that come into 22 us.
That 's not the -- in my mind, that wasn't the 23 original intent of doing the IPE.
It was mainly to 24 look for --
25 j
COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Yes.
- Wel1, I don't NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
h; i
Washington, D.C.
20005 l
n
<2023 2a4-4433
r--.
I
'~
32 F--'
1 think we-can redo the IPEs, no.
2' DOCTOR MURLEY:
to look for some areas s
3 that they need to improve their plant.
So, the 4
numbers that come in are going to have a wide range of-
'S quality to them.
My own judgment, there's big factors 6
of' uncertainty that come in with these numbers.
S o,- I 7
always. get nervous when we start down this path of.
8 trying to compare somebody's analysis with a
goal.
9 because I'm quite sure that by judicious use of human
'10 error rates, of common mode failure rates, of seismic 11 fragility, that I can change a PRA number by some 12 large factor --
13 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Yes, sure.
~
14 DOCTOR MURLEY:
-- judgmentally like that.
15 And so, I think that's what, for some number of years, 16 has given the staff a lot of trouble in how we do want 17 to use the safety goals.
I 18 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
- Well, I know, but---
19 that's right, it's giving us all trouble, but there 20 they are out there and we're talking about safety goal 21 implementation.
We keep using these words.
I think 22 we have to go back and look at the whole thing.
There I
23 it is.
It's called a safety goal.
We can't just take 24 a piece of it and say, "Well, we feel comfortable with 25 doing a measurement or something on that."
I think we 1
J NEAL H.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433 Lm
$$Q -,g,.'
id y
m
- n R,
t I/
ty 4
.33r i;
31:
p*
- l'
'have? t o.
look
'a t :the: whole thing a t'.
this-- time,-
m
-2.'
sometime.
If not now 1when?-
p p,
y i>'
.3 So, I'm--Just curious as to L how. we' re going b
..4'-
itontry to-deal with that.
p O^
{
51 MR. TAYLOR:
We're going.toLhave-to-do-a lot y
y 6
- of across look and see what is' the benefdt of. any, 7
. action that-we_would; propose.
O i"
8 COMMISSIONER-ROGERS:
We-a1li l agreed, I-s c
~
{
9 think, all along that you don't'use these to make a 10 decision on an. individual plant.
That's correct.
-But' 11-now you've got these analyses for every single plant:
p 12 in ihe. country with varying uncert ai n t ies. -i n-the
.4 13 numerical scores that come out and we. understand that.
-14[
But' now, there they are..
How do we'use these?--
Do.we-L
~
15 put the - qualitative goals up there on the wall and say-16 they look' nice and there they are and here we hnve'all 17 these plants, but there's no way of really., somehow or
'18
- other, making a
statement -about the plants ~ that' l!)
. assures us that when all is-said and -done we are 20 meeting to, within some degree, what those goals are.
I 21 These are the tough-questions.
They're not
.j 22 easy questions.
I'm not suggesting they are, but I'm 23 just asking you to what extent you're going to try to l
p 24 come to grips with that.
l 25
[
MR. HOUSTON:
If I may, Wayne Houston from I
a -.
NEAI, R.
GROSS 0
1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 J
(202) 234-4433
o.
y o
34 I;
'2 ~
l the staff.
To try to respond to your question, I
2-think an aspect of the real answer, perhaps the best 3
' answer to-your question is that from PRAs on existing 4
- plants, the kinds of things that we can learn are 5-places where improvements can be made in the future..
1 6
So, I think really'what we will see happen in the next 7
several years, vis-a-vis safety goals, will really be 8
more directed towards questions associated with 9
requirements for future plants that we've learned on 10 the basis - _of experience and PRA analysis, including i
i 11 IPE analysis on present operating plants.
12 The Ipr program itself will produce Level 1 13 PRAs for all these plants and although it's true that 14-the toin] of them may not be completed until 1993 or
.- 15 4,
in the-meantime we will have a very large sample in 4
1G n couple of years of those analyses.
They should 17 begin to give us the kinds of insights t h e. t should be 18 very helpful in answering some of the key questions as 19 we face them with respect to requirements for future 20 plants.
21 So, it's the applicability of the goals to 22 th'e future plants that I
think is perhaps most 23 relevant.
The questions of whether or not these PRAs, 24 the IPEs can have a significant effect on operating 25 plants then has to be subject to the provisions of the i
l
..J NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
l Washington, D.C.
20005 I
(2021 234-4433
r
~
,s '
l l, 1
V s
35 t-p.p I4
'1
- backfit rule-which is a very different kind of a cost j
2 benefit question than' it.is for
_a forward looking m
o 3'
rulemaking activity.
4' COMMISSIONER' ROGERS:
Wel1, I'm-not entirely--
5 comfortable with thatE approach, but I'm not sure we 6.;
- want to get into a debate on it.
But'it does seem to q
e'xamination 7'
me that once we've got an individual-plant p
8L for - every plant in ' this country, t hat - we should be
'asking'ourselves whether we feel comfortable that' when 9
10 all is said and-done, thet we. have satis fied : the
~11'
- safety gonis that we wrote down and.said are -- n o t :
~
1 21 for fut ure plants, for. t he. plant s that we have 'now.
13 Future plants is,another question in my mind.
1
- -p W :
to duck.the first questionL 14 So, I don't want
-)
' ~ " '
- 15' E by saying, "Well, it's really relevant to the future
,-j I
16 plants," because one could immediately interpret'that
'17 to say that we are not sure about the present-plants.
'18 I think muybe we're'not so sure that we -- I think we 19 feel relatively confident about the. present plants, 20!
and I don't.think we should duck the issue.
21 MR.
TAYLOR:
I agree and we do have the 22 results, for example, in NUREG-1150, which is a ver:
23 extensive --
24 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
But it's just that 25 number that's smaller.
t<.. s i
NEA1, R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202' 234-4433
9.4 o
k 36
- s
'-P i
1 MR. TAYLOR:
Just that number.
But there is 2
some assurance to be taken out of what is there.
We 3
will get s' big broad picture.
I think we haven't--
4 this is I
think where w e' see things that may 5
require further analysis, we may have to go to work 6
either ourselves, but-I don't know that we' re in a 7
position to say specifically what we're going to do in 8
all cases.
9 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Well, I just want to 10 keep pressing on it.
')1 MR. TAYLOR:
We're going io keep -- right.
12 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
It's not the first 13 time l've asked about that.
'~
14 MR. TAYLOR:
Right.
I think there's - a lot 15 of work to be done and we're going to ---
- 3
'l 16 Mll. BECKJORD:
It's going to depend a lot on
)
17 what comes out of t he IPE.
I 18 MR. TAYLOR:
Right.
19 MR. BECKJORD:
What the numbers are.
20 MR.
TAYLOR:
And we wi11 he tel1ing the i
a 21 Commission and we will be coming to the Commission if 22 there are any major concerns.
As Wayne says, we have 23 the backfit criteria to help us make our decisions.
24 If they're in a class of plants we learn something new 25 that we haven't recognized, we're going to have to i
NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
I Washington, D.C.
20005 I
(2021 234-4433
g:s;; y y
Ij
!b 371 E
- t. J :
= 1%
L1 address it.
+
2 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Certainly-2' think ~ a t'-
r
.3-I the end of.this process, the IPE process,;we're' going 1 an.p 4r to be in - a: much better position than_we've_ever been-5.-
in making some subjective: Judgment.
Does it-look --like i L$
6 these-plants-meet the safety goals or not?-
t
- 7 MR. TAYLOR:
Yes.
1
[
8
' COMMISSIONER REMICK:
They're noti 9
q ua n.t i t a t i v e exactly, but we ought to-be able:to make 10 s6me subjective judgment.
11 MR. TAYLOR:
We ought to.be able.: to > make--
'12 -
yes.
" b-13 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Better than we'vejever 14.
been.before.
15 MR. TAYLOR:
Right.
-We're going to have a 16 lot more knowledge,-yes, and information.
17.
COMMISSIONER REMICE:
Right.
1 18 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
And-then I t hink' we
'19 ought to.do it.
20 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Yes.
21 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Make the judgment.
^
-22 MR. TAYLOR:
Sure.
23 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Not that we can, do i
24 it.
I think we need to close a chapter here in i
i 25 history at some point Now, we're not ready to do it
~
s i
J-i.
o 1
NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
i Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433 L
cnWiiir "i
s p:
l bg,
. o ns e
-38 i
n a jy V -
f l.
.yet,--butf1-think we have to be prepared to do'that.
4.,
k 14 think we'd be' prepared to::do J>
'2'.
' MR. : T AYLOR':
~.
s
- t.,
., 1 h'
3
. t hat..
p fi, a-.
'4l MR.-
BECKJORD:.
It. needal a
little-a'o r e n(
5 e f for t'.-
e COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Following
=up on U
6-
.W
. Rogers' question, _you're going toi-be U
.7 Commissioner-f 8
getting-a Iot of-information, and I' realize some of--it p
9 in-going toib.e. good,.some of it maybe~not so> good, on 10 all 'of-t he plants.
Have you thought about.how-you're j
-111
- going = t'o capt ure relevant, good-information so ' it 's
- -readily-accessible to you _over a=
period of _ time?
33 You' re going to : get a flood o f. in fo rma't ion, perhaps 4-
~ ~ ~
~14-more complete than you've had in recent years o f. - a l l -
15' the plants.
.What are you going to do to make sure:
. 16.
.t hat it's not lost?-
_I t must be a tremendous pile
.17 of paper you're going to receive.
"18 ;
MR.
DECKJORD:
-Well, I'd expect t hat - we 19' would do -- there'll. be
- a. report that comes out-
- 202 afterward on the insights gained from the IPE, the.
n.
'21 same.way we've done that on the 1150, only this one 22-will be much more extensive.
I 23 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
But how about some of
{
24 the detailed information that might be in there that 25 may be more complete than you have on some of these
>7
.x a i
4 NEAT R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
\\
in GJ j:;
p<7 J,' :
'~
- ln \\
- -
39'
-g-3- :
pl an t s _;- b as ed on walkdowns and that that people are
. : going to_do?
e i3 MR. TAYLOR:
. We'll retain. that, :as' well as-o 4
the licensee I'm sure will retain it.
5?
COMMISSIONER REMICK:
But no attempt to b
6-capture that. some of it--on computer?
I realize that L
7-they_ can't all;of it, but any database system you have 8'
in mind?-
9 MR.
BECKNER:
- Yes, we definitely have an E
10.!
. effort planned to capture-and save_both for the-end, 11:
'but.also as the process goes through.
If we-learn-12 something:from one pRA, we want to be able~to make use.
1 13
. 'o f i t-as we review subsequent..
So, we're definitely
'I a
14:
- planning lan effort, which in an overview, to-summarize
- 15 :
what's happening and store it in an appropriate 16 manner.
9 17-CHAIRMAN CARR:
Let.'s proceed.
18-DOCTOR Sp0IS:
(Slide)
Page 12, Mr.
i 19 Chairman, I think.we have talked about already.
20-(Slide)
Go the last viewgraph, page 13.
c-23 This is,
- again, a summary.
It just shows the key 22 actions.
We feel that the program is on course.
As 23
.we said already, we want to mnke sure that the closure 24 of the severe accident issue takes place before the 25 license renewal applicants start coming in.
.r
... J NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433 o-
"; y ^lk;7 '
~
~
g_
- f, g c
r.n
~40 4 %-
1 MR.'
TAYLOR:
That's our' goal.
P
. 2.
DOCTOR SPEIS:
That's the bottom line.
3 MR. TAYLOR:
Anything else?
4.
DOCTOR SPEIS:=
No.
. Again,. what we - mean by-5=
closure is that all ma,jor-issues have been examined,_
6' cost effective changes made, if necessary,-so we can-
-7:
be able.to confirm the concluston of no undue risk to 8-public health and safety from severeL accidents.
9
=That's_ basically,-in essence,-what-we mean by closure.-
10
.That concludes my presentation, Mr.
'll Chairman.
12 CHAIRMAN-CARR:
All right.
Any questions?'
13 Commissioner Remick?
i 14 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
I have _ a question in l
'15 the accident management area, not surprising.
I'm 16 interested in the accident management. training area 17 that__ might develop out of. that.
Is the staff-1 18 following or giving any thought to some of.the work 19 that is being done?
And I had a' tirie fing wi t hin the
- 20 last year out in Idaho of some work that I thought j
4 21 they were exciting, where thev enn run something like 22 Relnp 5 and with the state-of-the-art - simulators--
23 they weren't able to do it at real time right now, but 24 thought they could do it eventually -- where you could 25 extend the capability of some of the state-of-art
~)-
'J 1
NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washingt on, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
f$
m G: y w
N 41
,p:
4
.-4J?
le s imul'at o rsJt o - b'e. ab1'e t o run out ' beyond design-basis!
Jt 32 conditions and perhaps out.- to-the initiat ion of core z
- 34
- damage, "q
4
- Is-the staff following this?= -Does anybody l
- 6 know wh'at the current status-is?
You need.now give me.
4' 6-thei status now, but I would. like Lto ' talk to them
,o
- 7 because 1 found that exciting possibility of extending-
/
8 the; capability of current simulators out-beyond~where
_ 9_
typically we'are now able to do it.
10-
'MR.-
SHERON:
Brian' Sheron ~ from the staff.
11-
. We' ve-been following it.
It's not - an easy thing to og
_ 12 do,__ going: out in an area with these codes - primarily-
. 13 because it's-hard to make them run in real t ime ' and 14 still-give -good = result s.
.One of the things t hat _ we 151 are doing.that's related right now is the simulators 1G down -at the training center.
We are benchmarking 17-those simulators against these advanced codes, like
[
L 4
18' relap and..
track, to make sure that they, in fact, are
~
j
- 19 accurate.
20" But we did have an effort looking into the i
21
' possibility of extending simulators into the severe 22 accident regime, how far and te what type of events
{
23 they could indeed handle.
24 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Okay.
So you are 25 definitely following the progress in that area?
j.
NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 q
(202) 234-4433 l
42 b -
1 MR. SHERON:
Yes, sir.
t 2
CHAIRMAN CARR:' Any other questions?
e 3
COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Nothing.
4 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Commissioner Roberts?
5.
Commissioner Rogers?
6 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Do you still plan to 7
rotate the staff reviewers on these IPE examinations, 8
of our reviews of IPE?~
9 DOCTOR HURLEY:
We're still going through--
10 thut's the. intention, but we're looking at our 11 resources across the board now.
We haven't firmly-12 decided on the scope and depth that we're going to do 13 these IPE reviews because there's a lot of other stuff t
~
14 on our plate right now, quite frankly.
That'r, why'I-15 get a little nervous.
I'm sorry if I sound 1.i k e. I ' m 16 backing away from things, but --
.17 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
No, no.
i
'I 18 DOCTOR MURLEY:
we've got tech specs,.
19 we've got advanced plants, we've got a lot of other 20 things on our plate.
c 21 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Let me ask a question.
My 22 impression of doing PRAs in tk first place was not 23 the advantage of our review, but was the advantage to l
24 the utility of doing it and learning about their own 25 plant and correcting what they found wrong.
Is that l
J NEAI H.
CROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
w-W p d,.;,,
'f 9
43 x-n, ; f y
[- LLfJ 1
Oy not st2ll ' the' case?
,2.
M R '.'-. TAYLOR:
That 's. the best features ' of.
(Ly g :..
3-this? program.
4' CHAIRMAN CARR:
And)-1 -would assume. by-b-
3;.
L
.5 getting PRAs on everybody, we'11;have some interesting-
~
e 6
things to compare with similar. plants - who turn 'up 7
problems that-other similar: plants-didn't turn up, p'
8 MR. TAYLOR:
Yes.
p 9
CHAIRMAN CARR:
So that will raise some U
10-questions.
But is that the kind of' revi ew ' you' re
-11 talking about, review them for consistency more than 12 for detail?
13 DOCTOR MURLEY:
- Consistency, how.
they g--
y 14 upproached it.
-Did they use standard methods ofLdoing J15 '
the analysis and once they found a probl em, how.did g
16 they actually. deal with it?
That sort of thing ' is 17 what I had in mind.
But not-necessarily a validation
-18 of each and every number.
~'
i 19 CllAIRMAN CARR:
We don't have that kind of.
20 manpower.
21 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
No.
I don't think 22 there's any possible way we could do that.
It would 23 be enormously -
i l
24 DOCTOR SPEIS:
That's why, Mr. Chairman, our l
l 25 initial estimate of six plants a
month is r- --
L _J NEAL H.
GROSS 1323 Rhode island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433 1
s f
i 44
'I l'
substantially much lower than earlier commitments in 2
reviewing. a PRA which took quite a few man. years 3
basically.-
Even these six men, because of resourcen, 4
we might have to cut it down a little bit.
5 MR. TAYLOR:
And we'll be looking at the new G
- thing, anything they decide has-to be 'done 'for 7
appropriate cross plant applicability, as we always 8
do.
9 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Yes.
Well, this big 10 pile-up of submittals expected in the last quarter of 11
'92, would it be helpful to have any of those come in 12 earlier, to start to sproud this out?
13 DOCTOR MURLEY:
In fact, we're meeting with 14 Yankee next week.
They intend to submit theirs now,
.15 -
but we're having a preliminary meeting with them to 4
1G see if what they've done is what we had in mind.
So, 17~
1 view that a t, a kind of an icebreaker on the kind of 18 review we're going to do and the kind of study that j
19-ihe industry does.
20 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Let me amplify that a little s
21 bit.
I understand you to say that everybody's opted 22 to do n PHA instead of really the IPE that we looked 23 for.
l I
24 DOCTOR MURLEY:
Some may do both.
25 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Yes.
Do we require anything R
'l
_a l
NEAI H.
GROSS 1323 R h o d r-Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
I.
45
- p41
^
.1 in the.IPE program that a Level I PRA doesn't do?
I 2
mean we've got 30'or 40 plants out there already with 3-Level I.PRAs, 4
DOCTOR SPEIS:
Well, some of them will'have 5
to -- we told them certain things that we want to make 6
sure that in the past, some of these PRAs were done 7
by contractors and those companies took them and put 8
them-in the~ shelves, We want to make sure that even 9
if a PRA has been
- done, that they take it, they 10 acrutinize it, understand it, they adopt it.
That 11 will take some time.
So, that will take some time, i
12 So, even though they have done a PRA, they still have l
13 to make sure 'that they know that the 'PRA really 14 represents the plant and the sequences.
i 15 Also, we told them that they have the option l
.30
-f resolving a number of USls and GSls as part of this i
17 examination.
We also told them that they should look j
'l
'18 at the shutdown heat removal issue because it was so 19 plant spectfic.
So, we put some additional things 20 that they'll have to make sure that they consider 21 before they finalize the submittal to us.
22 CHAIRMAN CARR:
And containment also was 23 included, right?
24 DOCTOR SPEIS:
Containment, yes.
25 CilAIRMAN CARR:
So that's beyond the Level I t
4
-4 NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Ts1and Avenue, N.W.
Washingi D.C.
20005 I
(2021 234-4433
59
- 1. :
~
46
- l'~~
i Y-1.
PRA for.most of them.
2 DOCTOR SPEIS:
Yes, sir.
- Yes, sir, yes..
we told them what t y p e
__o f l
3 Not a very detailed 4
truncation they could undertake.
l5 CH AIRMAN ' CARR But it's not' like we're 4-6 starting from scratch in a lot-of plants.
72 DOCTOR SPEIS:
No, no, that's right.-
In 8
fact, we feel that maybe there will bo 20 or 25 should l
9 be able.to come a year earlier, but maybe they're i
30 waiting io - see what the e.taff does -with the early.-
11 ones.
They don't want to be the first ones to face
.12 the music, i
+
_13 CHAIRMAN CARR:
The first guy that i
'~
14-successfully passes is going to set on example for all-15-those that are waiting to follow then, huh?
s 10 DOCTOR SpEIS:
That's possible.
17 DOCTOR MURLEY:
To some extent 1
think l
f 18 the 's true, yes, 19 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Yes.
'Well, any way i
20 you could smooth that out a little. spread it out, I'm i
i-.
21 surt would be very helpful to you.
22 DOCTOR SPEIS:
Yes, we agree wit h you.
l 23 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Is there anything new l
24 since our briefing last May by you folks with respect 25 to schedule and information relative to c l o s, u r e of l
_1
.L' NEAI. R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode 1sland Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
p
?if d;
47 1
=;
d':
1 severe accident issues?-
Anything since we met last 2
.May.that has significance?
3-DOCTOR SPEIS:
No.
+
a 4
' CHAIRMAN CARR:
Estimated closure of those v
6 is still June 1995?
6-
' DOCTOR SPEIS:
Yes.-
t 7-CHAIRMAN CARR:
Okay.
y 8
COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
That's al) I hbve, Mr.
9 Chairman.
10 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Commissioner Curtiss?
7 f:
11 Well, I would like to thank the staff for a 4
12 very informative briefing.
You've made
- v. i g n i fi c a n t.
i 13 progrer.s toward closure of severe accident issues and'
~
14 1 certninly commend the staff for' the progress you 15 have made.
1G 1 guess the best news I got here todu) is 17 everybody's opting for PRAs.
I hope they're opting 18 for PR'A ~ I evel IlI before they're ibrough and we get 19 all these issues behind us.
20 As you.know, we sti)) have work to be done.
21 The remaining work, we must be diligent in our effort 22 to control the schedules.
The bu))'s in the staff's
- 23 court to make recommendation regarding containment 24 performnnee improvement, external events and accident 25 management.
Since all these issues should be e -.,
w.a NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
ll R l$
48 f.s f
1
. considered in conjunction with the IPEs which the 5 'i 2,
utilities are curiently working' on, the staff should
.3 work expeditiously so the utilities can consider these 4
issues in a'tinely manner.
5' In particular.-I really-hope'we can maintain i
G a severe accident closure date for the existing-plants 7
of_ June-1995.
I think-it's-important that-the i
8 Commission -cont inue to be kept informed of-the' status 9
of the implementation 'of the plan and l' understand f
10
.i t ' s - going to be semi-annually in ' April -and in 11 October.
i 12 Are there nny other comments from my fellow.
13-commissioners?
"~
14 If not,.we at and-adjourned.
15 (Whereupon, at 11:01_
a.m..:
the above-10 entiiled matier was concluded.)
'i 17 i
18 I
19 i
. 20 1
21 22-1 23 24 25' i
). j J
1 NEA1, H.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Wa s h.i n g t o n, D C.
20006 (202) 234-4433
?
m j
CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER This is to certify that the attached events of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:
TITLE OF MEETING: ' BRIEFING ON STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SEVERE ACCIDENT MASTER INTEGRATION PLAN AND STATUS OF LICENSEE PROGRESS (N IP.
FLACE OF MEETING: ROCRVILLE, MARYLAND DATE OF MEETING:
DECEMBER 14, 1989 were transcribed by me. I further certify that said transcription is accurate and complete, to the best of my ability, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing events.
04 Au
-j-r s
Reporter's name:
Peter Ivneh NEAL R. GROSS COURT Rep 0RTIRS AND TRAN$CRIBIR$
1323 RHODI ISLAND AVINUI. N.W.
(P02) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C.
20005 (202) 232 6603
1 l
COMMISSION BRIEFING ON STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SEVERE ACCIDENT MASTER INTEGRATION PLAN i
AND STATUS OF LICENSEE PROGRESS ON IPE i
i I
THEMIS P. SPEIS (301) 492-3710 OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
.t DECEMBER 14, 1989 t
4
PURPOSE OF BRIEFING i
I TO DISCUSS THE STATUS OF THE STAFF'S PLAN FOR CLOSURE OF SEVERE ACCIDENT ISSUES ON OPERATING T
l PLANTS, AS DESCRIBED IN SECY-88-147, DATED 4
MAY 25,1988.
l i
1
~
ELEMENTS OF INTEGRATION PLAN - SECY-88-147 o
INDIVIDUAL PLANT EXAMINATIONS (IPEs):
- INTERNAL EVENTS
- EXTERNAL EVENTS l
o CONTAINMENT PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT (CPI)
PROGRAM:
i l
- MK Is l
4
- OTHER TYPES o
ACCIDENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM o
NUREG-1150 o SAltiY GOAL IMPLEMENTATION l
i o
SEVERE ACCIDENT RESEARCH PROGRAM l
l 2
INDIVIDUAL PLANT EXAMINATIONS GNIEKNAL EVENTS) o NUREG-1335, " INDIVIDUAL PLANT EXAMINATIONS:
SUBMITTAL GUIDANCE," AUGUST 1989 o
GENERIC LETIER 88-20, SUPPLEMENT 1, AUGUST ~29, 1989:
- STARTED IPE " CLOCK,"
i
- ISSUED MK I IMPROVEMENTS l
h 3
i i
INDIVIDUAL PLANT EXAMINATIONS ONTERNAL EVENTS) o GENERIC LETTER 88-20, SUPPLEMENTS 2 AND 3 UNDER PREPARATION:
- GUIDANCE ON NON-MK I CONTAINMENTS
- INFORMATION ON ACCIDENT MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES o
LICENSEE PLANS AND SCHEDULES SUBMrITED o
STAFF EVALUATION OF LICENSEE SUBMITTALS i
i
IPE SUBMITTAL SCHEDULE TOTAL IPEs SUBMITTED IPEs PER QUARTER 120 50
\\ \\f
_4g 100-i
\\
80-
-i I
-30 l
60-DUE DATE PER GL
[
/
-20 40 -
i
~1 i
20-EmE EI E m E, a
o _r_
i i
e io FY 90 FY 91 FY 92 FY 93 FY 94 l
l l
TIME PERIOD
- IPEs PER QUARTER TOTAL IPEs m-t 6
i o
.m.
1 IPE REVIEW PLAN o
STAFF CURRENTLY ASSESSING JUSTIFICATION FOR 18 LATE SUBMITTAL REQUESTS.
l o
SCOPE AND RESOURCES REQUIRED FOR STAFF REVIEW OF IPE SUBMITTALS UNDER DEVELOPMENT.
o STAFF REVIEW OF IPE SUBMITTALS TO BE COMPLETED IN FY 1995 e
I l
I 6
l
INDIVIDUAL PLANT EXAMINATIONS FOR EXTERNAL EVENTS OPEEE) o EXTERNAL' EVENT STEERING GROUP o
DRAFT GENERIC LEITER PREPARED i
i o
DISCUSSIONS HELD WITH NUMARC i
o WILL RECOMMEND EXAMINATION IN AREAS OF:
1
- SEISMIC,
- FIRES,
- SCREENING EXAMINATION FOR OTHER HAZARDS o RECOMMENDATIONS TO COMMISSION SPRING 1990 7
l p
i CONTAINMENT PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT (CPD PROGRAM I
o MK I RECOMMENDATIONS (SECY-89-017) BEING IMPLEMENTED PER COMMISSION DIRECTION
- PLANT-SPECIFIC BACKFIT OF HARDENED VENT FOR UTILITIES NOT IMPLEMENTING VOLUNTARILY
- OTHER IMPROVEMENTS CONSIDERED IN IPE l
o RECOMNIENDATIONS FOR OTHER CONTAINMENT TYPES l
BEING DEVELOPED.
PRELIMINARY STAFF CONCLUSIONS:
l
- NO GENERIC RECOMMENDATIONS
- EXAMINATION OF SEVERAL PLANT-SPECIFIC IMPROVEMENTS VIA IPE
- COLLECTION OF INSIGHTS FOR IPE 8
a i
+W
+
al-W4T'4 4
y-*w-w
~=g p-g=+-
e 4--
e e,--we.
.,y-.--e-pe
4 ACCIDENT MANAGEMENT o
REGULATORY AND RESEARCH ELEMENTS DESCRIBED IN.
CANDIDATE ACCIDENT MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES TO BE ISSUED TO INDUSTRY FOR INFORMATION l
o NUMARC DRAFT GUIDANCE TO UTILITIES FOR l
ACCIDENT MANAGEMENT
- NRC AND INDUSTRY COMMENTS i
- TRIAL APPLICATIONS PLANNED IN 1990 o
DETAILED GUIDANCE TO BE PROVIDED FOR COMMISSION l
l REVIEW IN 1991 - PRIOR TO ISSUING GENERIC LEITER o
NRC RESEARCH ON ACCIDENT MANAGEMENT ONGOING 9
.. ~...
F 1
NUREG-1150 COMMISSION BRIEFED SEPARATELY ON NUREG-1150 o
o CURRENTLY UNDERGOING PEER REVIEW.
EXPECTED TO BE COMPLETED IN MID-1990 o
ISSUE FINAL NUREG-1150 AFTER PEER REVIEW COMPLETE CURRENT ESTIMATE FOR FINAL IS 12/90
{
10
..--..... ~ -
SAFE 1Y GOAL IMPLEMENTATION i
f o
STAFF PROPOSAL FOR SAFEIY GOAL IMPLEMENTATION PROVIDED IN SECY-89-102 (MARCH 30,1989) o WE ARE PROCEEDING ACCORDING TO PROPOSALS CONTAINED IN SECY-89-102 l
i f
t 11
w SEVERE ACCIDENT RESEARCH PROGRAM o
IMPLEMENTING PLAN (SECY-89-123 AND NUREG-1365).
EMPHASIZING EARLY CONTAINMENT FAILURE ISSUES i
o PLAN TO MEET WITH COMMISSION AGAIN THIS SPRING 1
i 12
d
SUMMARY
KEY ACTIONS FOR CLOSURE OF SEVERE ACCIDENT ISSUES i
ON OPERATING PLANTS o
COMPLETION OF IPEs, INCLUDING EXTERNAL EVENTS, i
IDENTIFICATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF IMPROVEMENTS o
IMPLEMENTATION OF ANY GENERIC CONTAINMENT IMPROVEMENTS APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION o
DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF AN ACCIDENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 13
.~
w 2.
3 BACKUP SLIDE l
IPE SUBMITI'ALS BEYOND 9/92 1
l RIVER BEND 10/92 MILLSTONE 2 01/93 PRAIRIE ISLAND 1 & 2 02/93 QUAD CITIES 1 & 2 06/93 i
HOPE CREEK 07/93 NINE MILE POINT 1 07/93-SALEM 1 & 2 07/93 BRAIDWOOD 1 & 2 10/93 FT.CALHOUN 12/93 ST. LUCIE 1 & 2 12/93 VERMONT YANKEE 12/93 LA SALLE 1 & 2 06/94 3
- s. m-
....a.
. m A
c
-+
m
-r. -----
e--
. rww w- +
- eT w%p.-rws-*-
-ewer--
w+-e, emsww e
- tm
+=ws.
-e--e--e-wg us--
v-
. _ - _ ~
1 M MMMMMfdfAd%%%%ffffffffffff%gfffffggig gggrg,g TPM!SMITTAL TO:
Document Control Desk. 016 Phillips ADVANCED COPY T0:
The Public Document Room
[
l
/J/JP! b
$ !I DATE:
/
/
FROM:
SECY Correspondence & Records Branch l l l
Attached are copies of a Commission meeting transcript and aused meeting
!i
[l i
document (s). They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List and placement in the Public Document Room. No other distribution is requested or g
lL recuired.
l trf hj hm, /7b
] !
Meeting
Title:
/L (Le eJM - ut T
'T 4 W P' V
y:['
i *+X_ w rA &_p=e 4 i
seo aa w 3 t G
5 Meeting Date:
/,L// %/r '1 Open Closed r
/
l:l L
t r
g
[
S ',
t item Description *:
Copies Advanced DCS i,
'8 to POR C3 1
i 1
L
- 1. TRANSCRIPT 1
1
$ i o/ &
I t
a q
R jll
- z. A - If - So /
e
/
e l
/
ll t i !
l+
2 3*
E 2 t :
2 e c 1t 4.
j t' 1
g i
t1 ji 21 5*
II1 0FO c
1 I\\
01112
- POR is advanced one copy of each document, two of each SECY paper.
T C&R Branch files the original transcript, with attachments, without SECY y
papers.
x 23 alas
_A N
b b kkkb NbNb kNkNkfW
$$l W
-