GSI-189 chronology:
- 1998: First public mention that Sandia is having trouble “resolving” DCH issues for ice-condensers (CCFP > 0.1)
- April 2000: Publication of NUREG/CR-6427 after long delay
- Sept. 2000: Staff proposes establishing GSI to assess costs and benefits of additional hydrogen control
- May 2001: GSI-189 established
- Dec. 2001: Commission requests that staff resolve GSI-189 “expeditiously”
- Nov. 7, 2002: Jack Rosenthal (at ACRS meeting): “I personally believe that we have done enough number-crunching over 20 years, that it is time to make a decision.”
- Nov. 13, 2002: ACRS recommends that GSI-189 be resolved by voluntary industry initiative (SAMG) and not by order or rule
- Dec. 2002: RES recommends to NRR that further regulatory action is warranted
- Aug. 2003: Commissioner McGaffigan approves revision of 10 CFR 50.44 but “hope[s] that GSI-189 will soon be resolved with appropriate additional measures being required (emphasis added)…”
- Sept. 2003: “Risk-informed” 10 CFR 50.44 is published; only contains provisions that reduce regulatory burden
- Nov. 2003: ????? (Can it really take NRR over a year merely to request a voluntary industry initiative?)
- Continued acceptance of nuclear power in the United States post-Chernobyl is largely predicated on the belief that US reactors have pressure-resisting containments
- For SBO sequences, ice-condensers essentially have no containment at all
- A functioning containment is not a safety “enhancement” but a requirement for adequate protection
- Focus on prevention only does not fully address common-mode vulnerabilities that can be exploited by terrorists
- Even if calculated cost-benefit differentials are marginal, NRC should give considerable weight to defense-in-depth when determining whether regulatory action is needed
Conclusions:
Urgency of this issue requires mandatory regulatory action (not inconsistent with a performance-based approach)
- MOX program at Catawba and McGuire will soon increase public health risks
31 
544
Voltscommissar
November 14, 2011
You’re way ahead of me, I have no idea what this means, but it sounds pretty serious. Is it a way of trapping tritium releases from operating reactors? A little backgrorund or scene-setting might make the info more accessible, and allow Joe Public to appreciate what the real significance is.
Volts-”Joe_Public”-Commissar
Enformable
November 17, 2011
Volts – sorry I didn’t catch this sooner.
GENERIC SAFETY ISSUE (GSI) 189 – SUSCEPTIBILITY OF ICE CONDENSER AND MARK III CONTAINMENTS TO EARLY FAILURE FROM HYDROGEN COMBUSTION DURING A SEVERE ACCIDENT
Enformable
November 17, 2011
Can find more information here http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0904/ML090400795.pdf